Polybius: A Study in Historiography
The importance of Polybius’ Histories as an historical source cannot
be over-emphasised. In terms of the
middle to late Roman Republic, it is virtually the only contemporary source,
making the extant books and fragments an invaluable resource for the students
of history. However, there is another element to the Histories that adds to its importance—it’s place in, and what it
teaches us about, historiography. Polybius was an educated Greek born into a
tradition of historical writing that affected his Histories in terms of methodology, subject matter and form. The
ways in which Polybius’ Histories
both correlate with and deviate from those of the historians before him, mean
that the Histories is as important as
a study in historiography as it is in history itself. It can be said that a historiographical
understanding of the Histories also adds
to an understanding of Roman History, by helping to elucidate some of Polybius’
concerns and choices as a writer.
This essay, then, will look at key
elements of Polybius’ Histories’ methods,
subject matter and form, and attempt to identify some of the influences that led
to their use in the Histories. Firstly,
Polybius’ methodology will be looked at. Broadly, this can be said to be the process
of the accumulation of facts, based on a hierarchy of approaches of
accumulation. Secondly, Polybius’ subject matter will be noted. The fact that
he wrote, for the most part, a political and military history will be the main
theme here, as well as his choice of the Romans as the subject of his Histories. Finally, the reason for
Polybius’ choice of ‘universal history’
as the basic form of the text will be looked at. This is, perhaps, the point at
which Polybius most sharply diverges from his ancestors in the historical
tradition, and is critical to an understanding of Polybius.
Polybius spoke to his audience more
than any other historian from antiquity. This is what Sacks calls,
outward-directional[1]
history, and is very useful to the modern reader. One of the most common
reasons that Polybius halts his narrative in order to speak to his audience is
to explain his methods[2].
He often does this by either explaining why his approach is correct, or by
explaining why the methods of other writers are wrong. The most obvious example
of this is Book XII, where Polybius uses polemic to attack one of his most
immediate predecessors Timaeus for, amongst other thing, his methods. Polybius
believed that truth was the “leading quality of such books [Histories]”[3]
and that there were three ways in which the truth, or facts, of history could
be accumulated: 1) by witnessing the events oneself 2) by talking directly to
those who witnessed the events 3) by reading.
This was also the order in which Polybius valued these methods. For
Polybius, Timaeus was a bad historian because he had spent fifty years in a
library in Athens[4] reading,
instead of travelling, observing and questioning[5].
Polybius’ emphasis on the empirical
observation and collection of facts goes back to the tradition of itinerate
historians like Herodotus. Herodotus constructed his history by travelling and
questioning people, combining geographical and ethnographical elements with
history[6].
These methods are evident in Polybius. Conceding that no historian could
possibly witness all that he describes, Polybius states that a historian must
travel and interview those who did witness the events in question. Polybius realised
that caution must be exercised in this process, and that the likelihood of the
description must be weighed up by the historian[7].
This was an important methodological development that he probably inherited
from Thucydides, who states the importance of this process explicitly[8].
It should also be noted that as a Greek exile living in Rome, Polybius would
have had access to many useful sources of information. His relationship with
Scipio would also likely have facilitated this[9].
Additionally, this relationship allowed Polybius to travel, which not only gave
him the opportunity to talk to sources, but also to survey the lands and
peoples that were the subject of his Histories[10].
He also attempted to reconstruct Hannibal’s crossing of the Alps by making the
journey himself[11].
These travels and the interviewing
of witnesses were central to Polybius’ methodology. It is no coincidence that
he chose to start his history proper at a time that would have allowed him to
interview people who directly witnessed the events[12].
In this way, Polybius again aligns himself with the second great figure of
Greek historiography, Thucydides. For Polybius, the method of the interviewing
of witnesses only yielded a worthwhile result if the witness actually saw the
events he described. This is why he writes a predominantly contemporary history,
and is where both Thucydides and Polybius sharply diverge from Herodotus. The
introductory chapters of Polybius’
Histories are differentiated for this reason, as he was forced to rely on
written sources for them; written sources that he criticises. For Polybius, then,
the only worthwhile history is a contemporary one; however, this is not simply
because a contemporary history is the only one that allows for proper
methodology. It also speaks to broader questions that pertain directly to the
purpose of history. But before asking
why, it is necessary to ask what, which takes us on to subject matter.
For Polybius, history was a record
of the affairs of men. This belief was inherited from the historical tradition,
starting with Herodotus and moving on to Thucydides. However, it is the latter
that becomes the model for Polybius when the more specific subject of history
is to be considered. For, like Thucydides, Polybius believed that the military
and political affairs of men were the proper subject for history; he tells us
this in the very first chapter of book one[13].
This passage shows that the two major concerns for Polybius, in investigating
the success of the Romans, were their political and military arrangements[14].
It is no coincidence that the Histories’
first, and possibly most famous, digression[15]
describes an idealized version of the political and military arrangements of
the Romans. Like Thucydides, Polybius was a statesman—he was even directly
involved in some of the public affairs that he described— and, as such, viewed
political and military intrigues as the proper subject of history. It is not surprising that Polybius saw in the
Romans a subject that was worthy of his life’s work. The Romans were a truly
great military and political force that had subjugated the known world,
including his own state, in only 53 years. These issues of subject matter tell
us much about Polybius and his interests; however, they also help to indicate
one of the key reasons that Polybius wrote history; for him, history was
instructive.
It is clear that Polybius had a
utilitarian conception of history[16].
The example of Regulus in the First Punic War is an explicit declaration of
this. Polybius believed in learning from the mistakes of the past, which may
have been one of the reasons why he so admired the Romans[17].
One can probably assume that Polybius himself used the histories of his
predecessors as instructive texts, which is somewhat paradoxical when his
attack of Timaeus for being a library historian is considered. However, putting
this aside, it is plain to see that by writing primarily about the political
and military affairs of the Romans and the Hellenistic world, Polybius was trying
to instruct his readers on how best to live the life of the statesman. This
point has important ramifications for the nature of History. If a history is to
be instructive it requires explication on the part of the author, in order for
the reader to receive the lesson that is intended. Thucydides is an antecedent for
this, but it is Polybius who takes it to its logical end—the historian can no
longer simply state the facts as they occurred, but must also analyse these
events in search of root causes and, as such, instructive value[18].
Broadly speaking then, for Polybius,
history was to be based on facts, observed empirically, or accrued from the
first-hand accounts of events by others, relying on written evidence as a last
resort; the historian was to analyse political and military events and search
for root causes, in order to show his readers the way to best conduct their own
affairs. In short, history was to be instructive. However, this summary deals
only with method and subject matter. For Polybius, there was still the vital
question of form. Polybius believed that it was only through a ‘universal history’, a synthesis of
events on an ecumenical scale, that true instructive value could be discerned
by the reader[19];
and it was through the Romans that Polybius found a unifying historical force
that allowed such a history to be written.
It is generally accepted that
Polybius’ historiographical tendencies are most closely aligned with Thucydides[20]. However, as Derow has shown, there is one
critical difference between the two; for Polybius, the discovery of root causes
was the primary reason for writing history[21],
and this meant that the monograph, the study of a single event in isolation,
was not enough. For the root cause of history to be discovered, the scope of
the study must encompass the full range of causes. Polybius was not the first
to try to create such a unified history. He himself acknowledges Ephorus as his
predecessor in the genre of ‘general’
or ‘universal history’[22]. However, he is able to dismiss Ephorus’
attempt because he was writing about events that occurred so long ago that the
possibility of accuracy was simply not there. In this sense Polybius’
methodological beliefs restricted him chronologically. This is why Polybius used
the ascent of the Romans instead, to tell a geographically ecumenical history:
“the Romans … succeeded in subjecting nearly the whole of the inhabited world
to their sole government—a thing unique to history. “[23]
This statement becomes telling when viewed within this context. It confirms the
thesis that for Polybius the Romans were a subject worthy of a universal
history. It can also be argued that the words “a thing unique to history”,
betray the fact that Polybius was acutely aware of the historiographical
context in which he was writing[24]—he
was describing events that were unheard of in history, and, in so doing was
writing something unheard of in historiography.
There is no doubt that Polybius
greatly admired the Romans. He was also an historian who was acutely aware of
the tradition from which he emerged, a major part of which was the telling of
epic tales for the sake of entertainment, of which the Roman story of ascent
surely qualifies. However, Polybius was also aware that history had another,
and in his view, more important function— to instruct— and so embarked on an
ambitious work that was to cover the events of the entire known world, covering
a time period of over a century. Polybius drew on the methods, subjects and
forms of the past in order to, in a sense, transcend them and create something
that had not been done before; and, in so doing, left us, the students of
history, an invaluable text in both the historical and historiographical
contexts.
[1]
Sacks, 1981, 07
[2]
For example: Polybius (P. from here), Histories
Book I, 13 and Book II, 42.
[3] P.
Histories, Book XII, 12, he goes on to use a classically Greek analogy: “as in
the case of the living body if the eyes are put out the whole becomes useless,
so if you take away truth from history what remains is but an unprofitable
fable.”
[4] P.
Histories, Book XII, 25d
[5] P.
Histories, Book XII, 27
[6]
Duff, 2003, 16
[7] P.
Histories, Book XII, 28a
[8]
Duff, 2003, 28
[9]
Walbank, 1972, 10
[10]
Pliny, Nat. History, Vol 9: “When Scipio Aemilianus was in command in Africa
Polybius the historian went round in a squadron furnished by the general for
the purpose of exploring that continent …”
[11]
P. Histories, Book III, 48
[12]
Walbank, 1972,
[13]
P. Histories Book I, Chapter 01: “For who is so worthless or indolent as not to
wish to know by what means and under what system of polity the Romans in less
than fifty-three years have succeeded in subjecting nearly the whole inhabited
world to their sole government—a thing unique to history.”
[14]
The term “by what means” refers to the Roman military.
[15] P.
Histories Book VI
[16]
P. Histories Book I, 35: Of Regulus, “This I mention for the sake of the
improvement of the readers of history. For there are two ways by which all men
can reform themselves, the one through their own mischances, the other through
those of others, and although the former is more impressive, the latter the
less hurtful.”
[17]
P. Histories, Book VI, 10: The Romans have achieved an ideal system of
governance “by the discipline of many struggles and troubles, and always
choosing the best light of experienced gained in disaster … “
[18] P.
Histories, Book XII, 25b: “for the mere statement of a fact may interest us but
is of no benefit to us: but when we add the cause of it, a study of history becomes
fruitful.” For Polybius on causes see Histories Book III, 06-09
[19]
Sacks, 1981, 109, P. Histories Book I, 04
[20]
Walbank, 1972, 40, Duff, 2003, 59, Derow
[21]
Derow, 1994, 86
[22]
P. Histories, Book V, 33
[23]
P. Histories, Book I, 01
[24]
His continual criticisms of his predecessors also help to confirm this.
No comments:
Post a Comment