Polybius’ Histories, written in the mid—second century BC, offers an authoritative account of Rome’s rise to uncontested imperial supremacy. The work has been highly influential among political thinkers because of its theory of the “mixed constitution.” This essay proposes to return Polybius’ mixed constitution to its proper location within the narrative of the Histories. This interpretative approach enables us to appreciate Polybius’ frequently neglected emphasis on the connections between republican politics and Roman imperial power. These connections shed (...) light on recent developments in republican political theory. They also lead to an investigation of the didactic purposes of the author, who intended to educate the Roman aristocracy in the virtues necessary for exercising hegemonic power successfully in the ancient Mediterranean world. (shrink)

This paper deals with Polybius' theory of anacyclosis. In the sixth book of his Histories1 Polybius discusses the various constitutions of the various political systems, because he considers the constitution to be the main determinant of whatever happens in the socio-political field, and hence the main determinant of Rome's rise to world power. In this connection Polybius develops a special theory of constitutional change. The summary representation given in 6.4.7--10 paints the following picture: on the one hand, (...) there are three positively valued constitutional types (kingship, aristocracy and democracy) and, on the other, their degenerate forms (tyranny, oligarchy and ochlocracy). The starting point of the constitutional cycle of any political system is seen as being a state of nature that is already hierarchically structured. After kingship has evolved out of this state of nature, the three �good�, the three �bad� constitutions and the one pre-state type of constitution succeed each other in a continuous, law-abiding cycle. Thus the order is monarchy, kingship, tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, ochlocracy, monarchy, and so on . . (shrink)

In his account of the great naval battle in 201 B.C. off Chios between the fleet of Philip II and the combined fleets of Pergamum and Rhodes, Polybius notes a curious exchange of ram blows that took place at one point: Δεινοκρτης μν πρς κτρη συμπεσν ατς μν ζαλον λαβε τν, πληγν, ναστερου τσ νεσ οσησ, δ τν πολεμων τρσας ναν π τ *βαα τ μν πρτον οκ δνατο ωρισθναι, καπερ πολλκς πιβαλμενος πρμναν κροειν κτλ. Dinocrates, who was one (...) of the commanders on the Pergamene side, attacked a Macedonian οκtêrês and, it would appear, struck it with his ram below the waterline; τβαα is unattested elsewhere and its precise meaning is obscure, but the phase π τβαα in this context clearly refers to a part of the oktêrêŝ hull that was immersed in water. In the process his own ship was hit; the blow that it took landed above the waterline because the oktêrês that delivered it was a ‘vessel that was anasteiros’ a word also unattested elsewhere. For well over a century there has been universal agreement that it means ‘with a high prow’. (shrink)

The earliest extant manuscript of Polybius, Books 1–5 is A . It was copied by a monk called Ephraim in the tenth century in a fine early minuscule hand; quite probably A should be dated to A.D. 947, though this cannot be certain, since Ephraim gave the day of the month and the indic-tion in the subscription, but not the year. A is written in two columns to the page, the average line length is 19–21 letters, and the almost (...) invariable extreme lengths are 18 and 22 letters. There are two lacunae in A on successive pages, the first affecting the bottom six lines of the second column of f. 1v and the top line of the first column of f. 2r, and the second affecting 11. 3–9 of the second column of f. 2r. These lacunae also appear in all other manuscripts covering the same section of text, with no significant variation of the content; however, the scribe of A has clearly taken a good deal of trouble to reproduce as accurately as possible the text in front of him, while all other manuscripts reproduce the text across the page with gaps of varying length. In addition to this, it can be shown that the line length of A is the same as that of the hyparchetype of all the extant manuscripts of Books 1–5. (shrink)

The earliest extant manuscript of Polybius, Books 1–5 is A. It was copied by a monk called Ephraim in the tenth century in a fine early minuscule hand; quite probably A should be dated to A.D. 947, though this cannot be certain, since Ephraim gave the day of the month and the indic-tion in the subscription, but not the year. A is written in two columns to the page, the average line length is 19–21 letters, and the almost invariable (...) extreme lengths are 18 and 22 letters. There are two lacunae in A on successive pages, the first affecting the bottom six lines of the second column of f. 1v and the top line of the first column of f. 2r, and the second affecting 11. 3–9 of the second column of f. 2r. These lacunae also appear in all other manuscripts covering the same section of text, with no significant variation of the content; however, the scribe of A has clearly taken a good deal of trouble to reproduce as accurately as possible the text in front of him, while all other manuscripts reproduce the text across the page with gaps of varying length. In addition to this, it can be shown that the line length of A is the same as that of the hyparchetype of all the extant manuscripts of Books 1–5. (shrink)

The battle of Panormus, in which L. Caecilius Metellus decisively defeated the Carthaginian general Hasdrubal, was one of the major victories of the First Punic War. The year in which it took place, however, has long been matter for dispute, reasons being found for placing it in 251 or 250. There is now, it is true, a general preference for 250, so that there may seem to be little need to traverse this ground yet again. But there is also (...) class='Hi'>Polybius' reputation to consider. Whichever dating scholars prefer, they invariably maintain that Polybius' account of the years 253–250 is more or less disfigured by confusion, contradiction, and inaccuracy; on either view he is accused, expressly or by implication, of making remarks which point to the wrong year. (shrink)

The battle of Panormus, in which L. Caecilius Metellus decisively defeated the Carthaginian general Hasdrubal, was one of the major victories of the First Punic War. The year in which it took place, however, has long been matter for dispute, reasons being found for placing it in 251 or 250. There is now, it is true, a general preference for 250, so that there may seem to be little need to traverse this ground yet again. But there is also (...) class='Hi'>Polybius' reputation to consider. Whichever dating scholars prefer, they invariably maintain that Polybius' account of the years 253–250 is more or less disfigured by confusion, contradiction, and inaccuracy; on either view he is accused, expressly or by implication, of making remarks which point to the wrong year. (shrink)

Polybius' sources for his account of the First Punic War are not in question. It is agreed that Fabius Pictor and Philinus of Agrigentum, whom he criticizes didactically in i. 14–15, were his sole authorities. But, as Gelzer has most recently pointed out,1 difficulties soon appear when one begins to assign the various sections of the narrative to one or other of Polybius' predecessors. This task has frequently been attempted, and a good deal of common ground has been (...) won. It is not my purpose in this paper to go over that ground again. What I propose to do is, first, to discuss the most recent article on Philinus of Agrigentum, which is in my opinion based on false principles and comes to novel, but wrong, conclusions; this done I shall try to relate what can be discovered with certainty about the character of Philinus' work to the general body of Hellenistic historical writing and historical theory. I hope that such a study may help to throw light on one part of Polybius' direct literary inheritance. (shrink)

For many years it has been recognized that serious contradictions exist in PolybiusThe only point of controversycan be whether these contradictory elements were innate in Polybius De Sanctis Staatstheorie, it has exercised a dominating influence over all work on the subject.

In 180 B.C., in response to a treaty-breaking incursion into Galatia and a threat to Cappadocia, Eumenes of Pergamum marched against Pharnaces of Pontus. The route he took is described thus by Polybius :παραγενμενοι δ' κ Καλπτου πεμπταῖοι πρς τν Ἅλυν ποταμν κταῖοι πλιν νζευξαν εἰς Παρνασσν. ἔνθα κα Ἀριαρθης τν Καππαδοκν βασιλεὺς συνμιξεν αὐτος μετ τς οἰκεας δυνμεως, κα λθον εἰς τν Μωκισσων χώραν.

Resumen: Diversos académicos han analizado la influencia de Toynbee y Spengler en la conocida saga Foundation, escrita por Isaac Asimov y considerada una de las más importantes de la ciencia ficción. Sin embargo, nuestra hipótesis es que, si bien existe un cierto diálogo transtextual con los trabajos de ambos autores, es en la obra del historiador griego Polibio, Historias, donde se halla la principal relación de tipo hipertextual. Comparando la anaciclosis descrita por Polibio con la evolución política que Asimov narra (...) en sus novelas, comprobamos que las semejanzas no solo alcanzan a los diferentes sistemas de gobierno, sino incluso a la misma secuencia en que estos se suceden. El resultado es una obra que permite una interesante lectura palimpséstica, enriqueciendo sensiblemente la experiencia del lector con formación humanística.: Several scholars have analyzed the influence of Toynbee and Spengler, in the well-known saga of the Foundation, written by Isaac Asimov and considered one of the most important of science fiction. However, although there exists a transtextual dialogue with Spengler's and Toynbee’s works, our hypothesis is that the main hypertextual relationship must be searched in the work of the Greek historian Polybius, Histories. Comparing the anacyclosis described by Polybius with the political evolution that Asimov narrates in his novels, we can see that similarities not only reach different systems of government, but even the very same sequence in which they happen. The result is a work that allows an interesting palimpsestic reading, significantly enriching the experience of those readers possessing humanistic knowledge. (shrink)

Perhaps the most striking aspect of Polybius’ work is the frequency with which the historian pauses his historical narrative and embarks upon digressions, including entire books devoted to the topics of geography, historiography and, most famously, the discussion of the Roman constitution in Book 6. Such digressions have naturally drawn the attention of modern scholars, but in the past the tendency in Polybian scholarship had been to read such digressions in isolation, and even to deny their relevance outside of (...) their immediate context. While it is true that these digressions cannot be regarded as strict blue-prints upon which Polybius’ historical narrative is to be precisely mapped, more recent scholarship has suggested that such passages are not as irrelevant to this narrative as they had for a long time appeared. Moreover, a parallel trend in Polybian scholarship is currently calling for a renewed focus into the composition of his historical narrative in order to apply the level of scrutiny to the text of Polybius previously reserved, for example, for his more famous predecessors, Herodotus and Thucydides. An appropriate recognition of the relationship between the more famous passages of Polybius’ work found in his digressions and the broader narrative of historical events will help to alleviate this deficiency. Careful study of the text of Polybius in this manner will reveal that his historical narrative does not simply represent a bare record of historical facts but is rather composed by the historian in a way that demonstrates and reinforces the principles presented in the more abstract digressions, which have attracted more attention. (shrink)

Beginning with an examination of the Homeric world and continuing with a discussion of the political ideas of the lyric poets from Hesiod to Pindar, the author moves on to a political analysis of the pre-Socratic philosophers, the tragedians, Herdotus, Thucydides, the Sophists, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, and the Epicureans. Finally, the writings of Polybius are examined as a key to understanding the assimilation of Greek political thought into the mainstream of Roman thought.

In this article, we re-examine the oft-assumed link between theories of modernity and the “death of fortune”. It is often argued that recourse to “fortune” as a legitimate cause of events had declined substantially by the end of the seventeenth century, replaced by aetiologies based on the calculation of probabilities inspired by the techniques of the new science. Focusing on the reception of the Greek historian of the Hellenistic period, Polybius, in whose Histories tyche appears in a notorious variety (...) of roles, we argue that fortune was subtly replaced, but not as drastically as assumed, as a cause of events by a number of influential figures in the development of modern historiography, in particular, Bossuet (1627–1704) and Hegel (1770–1831). We argue that, far from seeing a “death of fortune” in the works of these authors, the reader is met with a radical transformation of this ancient rhetorical and ethical trope, albeit subordinated to particular theological and philosophical preoccupations. (shrink)