Emma Nicholson

Paper given at North East History Lab, Newcastle University

Nov 2013

The Nature of Ancient Greek Historiography and Bias within Polybius’ Histories
The purpose of this paper is to briefly highlight some of the distinctive features of ancient
historiography, before narrowing down to the ancient source most important for my
research – Polybius – illustrating one of the issues that must be recognised when dealing
with his work as a historical source.

One of the most important things to remember when dealing with ancient historical sources
is that ancient historiography was very different to our modern, chronologically-obsessed
and scientifically orientated, notions of the correct and proper way to write history. In fact,
historiography did not enjoy a particularly privileged position within ancient Greek culture,
taking a marginal position next to the more valued and more ancient literary genre of epic
poetry – a category which includes, most famously, Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, and Hesiod’s
Theogony. These poems were not considered history by the ancients, but, as their oldest
records, they were the most reliable sources, containing a mass of collected memories from
their past culture jumbled together irrespectively of chronological integrity, and formed the
basis of their identity. The past held a very important place within the mind-set of the
ancient Greeks, yet the narration of that past, especially in terms of recording it with any
degree of accuracy, occupied a much more modest position. 1

The criteria accepted for writing historiography well was very different from our modern
methodologies; it too underwent change over time, but even then the range of
methodologies and styles accepted was vast and the boundaries between the genres being
very much more blurred than we now like to define them. Epic poetry, history, tragedy,
ethnography, biography, genealogy etc. (as we moderns call them) were all acceptable
forms for writing about the past and could be mixed.

Before Herodotus, the so-called ‘father of history’, in the 5th century BC, there was also no
interest in chronology and even after his introduction of it in a genealogical and
unnumbered-date form, it took centuries before chronological systems were established for
general use.2

The authority of the historian was also not determined by objectivity nor by scientific or
philosophical method, but by a claim on their own intellectual talents. A variety of
statements and proofs could be asserted, yet the earliest and most common assured the
reader that the work rested on personal inquiry and investigation – sometimes this was
explicit and frequent, for example in Herodotus and Polybius, at other times not, as seen
with Thucydides and Xenophon. The belief in the reliability of a historical account very much
depended on the belief in the historian himself; in his competence as an organiser,
researcher and interpreter of sources and events. This bid for authority often included
polemics on predecessors or contemporaries, criticising other authors for their
1
 Emma Nicholson
Paper given at North East History Lab, Newcastle University
Nov 2013

methodological or stylistic failings to define and promote oneself as a trustworthy recorder

of historical events.3

Sources also tended to be absorbed in varying degrees within the narrative without
reference, making it difficult to discover where the information was found; a practice which
was accepted and expected. Nor was the goal of an ancient account ever purely scientific or
intellectual, but almost always linked to creating educational models, especially political,
militaristic or ethical. These educational models were usually intended to school a governing
class, providing analytical tools and behavioural examples, supplying moral lessons through
the evaluation of great figures, and constructing memory and collective identity.

There was, however, the recognition by the ancients of a difference between the use of
history for utility and history for pleasure; the use of the latter, as today, was often
disparaged by those writers of the former for the sensational and fantastical versions of
accounts intended to draw in the reader. Yet, these sensational features were not
infrequently used in accounts intended for utilitarian purpose either. Patriotism and other
forms of bias appeared not uncommonly within the accounts of the more serious writers;
even they needed to keep the reader interested and would use it to highlight certain events
and emphasise their own interpretation of them. As objects of self-promotion for the
author, the perspectives and biases of each are frequently felt within the narrative. Even the
self-proclaimed utilitarian historian Polybius, writing primarily for the education of the
leading class and who took great care in his investigative work attempting to show all sides
of characters and events, could not – or perhaps did not entirely want – to escape from his
own political biases in his rendition, for example, of the history of the Achaean League,
Macedonia and his polemics against other authors (these were numerous and proliferated
his work).

My current research is almost solely based on the work of the ancient historian Polybius,
who wrote in the mid-second century BC, and having an awareness of his bias and patriotic
feelings is particularly important for any real engagement with his work. The historian came
from a wealthy family who had seen political prominence in the Achaean League, a
confederation of Greek cities located in the Peloponnese, from roughly 200. Yet although
Polybius had started a political career, reaching the prestigious post of hipparch – that is
commander of the Achaean League’s cavalry – in 170/69, he was forced in 168/7 BC to
reside as a hostage in Rome after the defeat of the Macedonian king Perseus by Roman
forces and the subsequent end to the Macedonian dynasty. It was in Rome, having gained
particular favour with the preeminent Scipio family that he wrote his Histories, comprising
of 40 books and spanning the whole Mediterranean from 264-146 BC. Unfortunately, after
books 1-5 we have only fragments of varying size for the other 35; a difficulty unfortunately
not uncommon to many of our ancient sources. Yet from what survives we can see that

2
 Emma Nicholson
Paper given at North East History Lab, Newcastle University
Nov 2013

Polybius generally held high-standards in regards to the writing of history and was perhaps
more reliable than other historians for his more frequent citation of sources, the importance
he assigned to first-hand research and knowledge, his extensive and diligent investigative
skills, and his own wide travels.

Yet, although Polybius preaches on numerous occasions about the importance of telling the
truth of a matter and of looking at both sides of an event, particularly for the education of
the reader, we can still see bias within his own narrative, especially towards the Achaean
League and Aratus, the most influential Achaean leader a generation before. He even
concedes at one point : ‘I would admit that authors should show partiality towards their
own country, but they should not make statements about it which are contrary to the facts’
(see passage 1).4 This concession is carefully hedged, so as not to arouse suspicion about the
validity of his own version of events, but it is clear that Polybius has allowed his patriotism
to filter through. In fact, patriotism and other biases affect many areas of his Histories and
we must be very conscious of this effect when assessing his account and explanation of
events.

I can only mention a few instances here, however, where such bias influences the running of
his narrative. I will therefore concentrate on Polybius’ treatment of the politician Aratus,
although even this will have to focus primarily on only one episode. As a past leader of the
Achaean League, and a very influential and important one, Aratus was held in high regard by
the historian. Yet, as many who are so closely involved in politics, he had a rather
controversial and varied career, and his reputation in Greece, which also affected the
League’s, was not perhaps as sparkling as Polybius would have liked it to be; a fact
suggested by the historian’s rather unsuccessful defence of him and the League in book 2
against the hostile account of Phylarchus which recorded the cruelty of the League towards
the city of Mantinea and the ex-tyrant , Aristomachus.5 Yet at the end of Polybius’ defence
against it, he has to reluctantly concede that Phylarchus was not actually wrong in his facts,
but then places the fault on Phylarchus’ use of sensational and dramatic language,
distracting the reader from the real reason for the polemic – that Polybius was actually
attacking Phylarchus for his differing political views and because his account was not at all
complementary to the Achaean League or Aratus.

The defence and praise of Aratus within Polybius’ account continues until the politician’s
death, and although Polybius refers to his faults on occasion, for example his lack of military
skill and cowardice, his treatment of him is not as balanced as other historical figures,6 and
we get the feeling that Polybius is hiding and manipulating more than he says he is. One
particular example that I would like to point out is Polybius’s polarisation of Aratus and
Demetrius of Pharos in their counselling of Philip V of Macedon. This is spread over the
course of two narrated events – the king’s plundering of Thermon in Aetolia in 218 BC,

3
 Emma Nicholson
Paper given at North East History Lab, Newcastle University
Nov 2013

where Polybius claims the king committed sacrilege against the gods, and the king’s
incitement of two rival factions in Messene in the Peloponnese in 215 BC, bringing favour to
himself but also causing a massacre, and his attempt afterwards to seize the Messenian
citadel with a Macedonian garrison.7 Using these two episodes, Polybius draws out a lesson
or warning regarding the importance for kings in choosing advisers and courtiers carefully,
referring to the influences they have on the decisions and character of the king. The lesson
is expounded using the polarisation of two courtiers, a simplified case-study therefore, to
bring out with clarity the consequences of good and bad advisers. You may find it easy
already to infer which position Aratus took.

Polybius, in his digression on the king’s sacrilegious behaviour at Thermon (see passage 2),
writes:

Equally, we should not put all of the blame for what happened at this time [in
Thermon] onto Philip himself considering his youth, but onto those of his friends
who associated and acted with him, among whom were Aratus and Demetrius of
Pharos. It is not hard to assert, even when not present at the time, which of them
was likely to give such advice. For apart from the principles of their whole lives, for
which nothing could be found failing or lacking in judgement in Aratus, but for
Demetrius it was the opposite, we have an undisputed example of each of their
principles when they counselled Philip under similar circumstances. (5.12.5-8)

These ‘similar circumstances’ were in fact what happened after the massacre at Messene.
Aratus and Demetrius gave advice to Philip in response to his questioning them on whether
or not to take possession of Messene: Demetrius suggests Philip should take the city, and so
by holding Messene’s citadel, along with other important strategical locations, he would
control the whole of the Peloponnese; Aratus contrastingly suggests that unless Philip can
take Messene and still retain the goodwill of his allies he should relinquish the town and
save the Achaean-Macedonian relationship. Philip is eventually persuaded by Aratus,
following the veiled threat that he would find his relationship with the Achaean League very
difficult otherwise.

Demetrius of Pharos, who is non-Greek and hoping to turn Philip’s attention away from the
Peloponnese to the north and west, to Illyria and Rome, is therefore blamed by Polybius for
inspiring the sacrilege at Thermon and the massacre at Messene – that is, the bad behaviour
in Philip; while Aratus, the leader of the Achaean League, is placed in the good position of
protecting Messene from Macedonian control, and, in passage 3,8 we also find that Aratus is
responsible for building good relations between King Philip and the island of Crete. He is
therefore described as being good for the king.

4
 Emma Nicholson
Paper given at North East History Lab, Newcastle University
Nov 2013

Yet, what is interesting is that Polybius makes no mention of Demetrius in the events
leading up to the attack on Thermon itself;9 it is only in Polybius’ digression after the
narrative, when he is criticising the episode, that Demetrius makes an appearance. His
sudden involvement seems rather unexpected and is perhaps also rather suspect. Aratus
was very much more involved in the events at Thermon, he is even mentioned in the
narrative itself, and would have been far more interested in the outcome of the attack,
being so vested in the Achaean League’s war with the Aetolians.

Unfortunately, we cannot say whether Polybius recorded any advice given to Philip before
the massacre at Messene within his narrative; Polybius’ account of this event is mostly lost
and the fragments remaining to us contain no mention of Demetrius. 10 We can however
supply further information about the revolution and Philip’s part in it from Plutarch’s
account in his Life of Aratus, yet even in this account we find no reference to the adviser.11
Plutarch’s account of the guidance given at Messene by Aratus and Demetrius is sufficiently
close to Polybius’ account that we may perhaps infer that Plutarch used Polybius’ Histories
for this incident; the fact that Demetrius of Pharos is not mentioned before the scene at the
citadel by Plutarch may also suggest that there was also no mention of the adviser within
Polybius’ own narrative before it too. Could Polybius therefore be imposing more
responsibility for both of these actions – the sacrilege at Thermon and the massacre at
Messene – on Demetrius than there actually was?

It certainly seems so, and the imposition of responsibilities onto Demetrius raises some
serious questions about the historian and his method here. Perspective is very important in
assigning the role of positive or negative adviser. Aratus is the representative and advocate
of the Greek and Achaean cause within Philip’s court; from a Peloponnesian and Achaean
perspective therefore he was of utmost importance in relations with Macedonia. His
successes in diverting plans to take further control of the Peloponnese would have been
viewed with approval by Polybius and the League. Thus it is hard to deny that the Achaean
perspective, as well as Polybius’ wish to defend the Achaean leader, probably guaranteed
Aratus his good position within the construction of the two advisers. Demetrius, however, a
non-Greek hoping to turn the king’s interests away from Greece, to the north and west, to
Illyria and Rome, would have been considered a convenient opponent to Aratus’ position as
good adviser and champion of the Achaean cause. By blaming Demetrius for the devastation
at Messene, Polybius was able to deflect attention from Aratus’ failure to prevent the
massacre of an allied state and, more generally, to halt the increasing Macedonian control
of the Peloponnese – Messene was in fact taken by Philip in the next year. The incident at
Messene was therefore turned into a convenient moment to further the defence and
glorification of Aratus, hiding the helplessness of the politician and the Achaean League at
this time.

5
 Emma Nicholson
Paper given at North East History Lab, Newcastle University
Nov 2013

In conclusion, this paper, I hope, has briefly laid out some of the features of ancient
historiography, as well as the difficulties apparent when using ancient sources as historical
evidence. Other than the physical state of the surviving text, the conventions of writing
history, including for example the use of chronology, authority, focus and bias, must be
taken into account before we, as historians in a later time, can place them in context and
assess their contribution to history. Polybius’ patriotism and bias towards Aratus is only a
single example of an ancient historian structuring and focusing his work around a particular
political perspective.

1
See Roberto Nicolai “The Place of History in the Ancient World” in John Marincola (ed.) A Companion to
Greek and Roman Historiography, Vol 1. (Blackwell Publishing, 2007) pp. 13-26
2
See Nicolai again. Polybius himself used a chronological system based on the 4-yearly timeframe of the
Olympic Games – but even he was inconsistent and deviated when it suited his purpose.
3
John Marincola, Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography
4
Polybius 16.14.6. See Frank Walbank, Commentary on Polybius, Vol 1. (Oxford, 1957) pp. 11-12
5
For this, see particularly Haegemans & Kosmetatou “Aratus and the Achaean Background of Polybius” in
Schepens & Bollansee (eds.) The Shadow of Polybius: Intertextuality as a Research Tool in Greek Historiography
(Leuven, Paris; Dudley: Peeters, 2005) pp. 123-39, and Guido Schepens “Polybius’ Criticism of Phylarchus” in
the same volume.
6
Polyb. 1.14.5-9; 2.61; 12.9-12 (Balanced other figures)
7
Polyb. 5.6-12, esp. 5.12.5-8 (Thermon) and Polyb. 7.10-14, esp. 7.12-14 (Messene)
8
“For just as Philip, being persuaded by Aratos, on this occasion preserved the faith of the Messenians in
regards to the citadel, and thus, as the saying goes, put a little balm on the wound inflicted by his attacks [the
massacre]; so in the treatment of the Aetolians [at Thermon], while following the advice of Demetrius he
offended the gods, destroying the things set up and dedicated to them, and sinned against men, transgressing
the laws of war and abandoning his own principles, and showing himself as an inexorable and bitter enemy to
his adversaries. And it is the same story in regards to the treatment of Crete: when he [Philip] used Aratus as
his chief guide, not only did he do no harm, but also causing no one on the island grief, he had all the Cretans
under his control and held the goodwill of all the Greeks because of his dignity of principle. So following
Demetrius again, he became the cause of the recently discussed misfortunes of the Messenians, at the same
time losing the goodwill of his allies and the faith of the other Greeks.” (Polybius 7.14.1-4)
9
Polyb. 5.5.1-12 (Debate before Thermon)
10
Polyb. 7.10 (Fragment on revolution and massacre at Messene)
11
Plut. Arat. 49-50