THE THIRD J. L. MYRES MEMORIAL LECTURE eee ae | ORIGINAL OA PASTA APOS 0 | Srensnoky lisa von peer Eo ‘SPEECHES IN GREEK HISTORIANS by BW. WALBANKLy Libris wow Vicente Dobroruta SPEECHES IN GREEK HISTORIANS ‘To have been invited to deliver the Myses Memorial Lecture is an honour of ‘which am decply sensible but one which Iam bounc to regard invended oy some lage measure for the Univesity of Liverpool From i907 to 1oro Sir John Myres oceapied our Gladstone Chair of Geedk, selngishing only to atime his duis a5 he fist Wykeham Profesor, Ye ony rember of the Liverpool Senate the afecionate remarks about cur City and University prnted iz the prefie co his inaugural lecture at Oxford sll ook pend reine rong! tough pees oc alo woul hace what be describes as is chief anxiety on Mereyside—thathis students might ovesnors, ‘he sbjee Ihave chen for my lense tik sfternoon is nt dealy elo ‘Maret central interes; but his mind and gen tanged widely over most fells of Greek activity and is if-long devotion so Herodotus would wany tite leeture to hope, have mad: him charitably disposed towards a theme relevant to the ans and parpotes of Greek histariography 1 would pt ft a mars bit to nr in i work veion of szeeches dilivered, oz reputedy delivered. by hisoricl Crameatc. Boe dn Practices mos nivel among ancien hitorans ohn tqetch ae impore fant pat of their work # and i persed throughoue sntiuy and the moe age: and indeed right down t te time of Claedont ‘iter to writer; br behind the convention, as is logical justification, s te cook cept that man isa rational being, whose action are the testo! consciots deviscnn, ad chat thee decisions are the outcome of dicoure ether in the form of spentnc, ‘oF in thar of dilogee. As Pelybiss remarks, the pecuiarfanction of history sto LLL Mes oe yi cd Od 9 Basen Cate tee ope Eh te PY a, xn, ecrig Tope cote Eye al ED a aco tno, 3. THCY Eso Dadra ea i wpetore ee PE Ch 1960 {Hate pena DiS Si 5: ae.< whet wae cealy sd, hhewever commonplace's# and this sentiment is repeated elsewhere. In book sox, for instance, in reference to speeches delivered before the Thitd Punic ‘Wars he remarks that in his opinien “it is wot the proper part ofa policcian to be ready with argumert and exposition on. every subject of debate without dlstinetion, but simply to say what the paticalar situation demands, and Hkewise iis mo: the busines of a hisorian to practise bis skill and show off his ability to is readers, but rather to devote his whole encrgy to dixovering and recording what was really and truly sid, and evea of this only the most vital and effective par—erd> cer’ dhjPaar jrera Sow ofoy re relexpayuonjarras Burnet, wal rovran 7d kapuirara wit mpayuarir37 SENN . 68: MEE a Seapra ede gs Tb titi ete Fe, it. Ko 936 6 Poly ao. 17Selection is 10 be exercised —a subjective opzration: not everything ssid is to be recorded, but only what was most effective. Moreover itis clearly petmisible for such selest material to be worked over and east into what may be ealled 2 olybian form; foc in book xxix. in « long ctcism of waiter of monographs, ‘who elaborate thar descriptions of sieges ffom lack of genuine source material he remarks: ‘The same applies to deseaptions of bates, the report of specchet and the ocher parts of history. In ll these... I may be justly excused if 1am faund to be asing the same style or the same dspostion and teatment, or even actully the same words 25 on 2 previow occasion... . For in allsuch matter the large ale of ry works suficent excur Though the exact words are ancerain, the sense is lear: in reporting speech a historian raust restrict himself to what vwas actually said, and indeed the most importane pat of that, but he may cast it in his own ‘words, which may in fect be identical fr different oceaions. In short rd ear” daar gyférra does not mean the actus, words spoken’; ie means “the sense of what was said’, indeed something very close vo Thucydides’ fyndou ‘pig, xn Dns Neer. v ‘The relation between Polybias and Thucydiles is nce an obvious one. In the whole of the surviving parts of Polybius—periaps a third of what he wrote— Fame ol mod nea hcl iil wins whee copomzus story Throughout the many pelemecal pasages Seer ea pees teas oeey pm em theless there is some evidence chat he affected Polybiut thought more deeply than « superficial reading ofthe laters work might sega. When Tobybis remarks that, whereas tragedy chatms its audience wart 19 xdpor, history biings then prot dvr doa yen one eal Thuy! famous dam thee is work is destined to becomes crfua és ale na Mor4 dyniqadsr3 copaypia;®> and asif to demonstrate tht the parallel is noe coincidental, 4 book later Polybius ‘observes that without a proper soudy of catses wha remains dycinoua, nly, 4B yx 8 ob yocra, When he wants t0 speak of hntorians who hav> introduced 4 marvellous cement and tragic colouring into theie accouns of the fall of Hicronyrms of Syracuse *7he employs an unusual word, loyiypagos, which, while (SUSAN echt rte ve rates trate ‘hy Age vam which bear this meaing, and tat they Ho mean a ard ot “he words tat were sally BARRA Sem eesae an ee 2 erwhetlimec'E Bo, the una, 9), oF31K. Zale, RE, Pubic Tyas PAE HE AE Tame page may beh inex 4 rly et Zile,RE Fishes colourless in itself, here asiumes a critical overtone presisly because Thucydides had used it of his predscesiors, whose chranicks were desgned to provide exciting readiag rather than the cruh, Tike Thucydides Yolybis fel the nce to distinguish clay the sever inks inthe chain 0” catsation which leads to any imporant action such asthe outbreak fof a war.” His ue of épyat,atriac and zpofdous cannot fal to recall Thucydides wn distinction beeween aria. wot Bujeped and the @yPeordry pions of the Peloponnesian War, the grievances and points cf, difference which constitute oximate cass bli and the “truest explaration’. But Polybius tacily inserts 1third term, dpyet, and uses ardacand xpogdaes ina different sease from Thucy- dides To him dpyod ace the fist actions ofthe waritsl, aio: ae not grievances bur tose cyeats which ed the individ 0 conceive» wil to wat, 4 th pe text then alleged for going to wit-—whether genuine or not—is the rpééacis. aegis he ietncs ae dh fom Sr wl te dep sagen whic is the real catse, finds expresion. Thus Polybius—not unexpectedly —ie ‘more mechanical and superficial, and he subsites a_ailateral sequence for ‘nttal antagonism. Jue there can be irde doubt that he is here eiticisng and, ashe believes, correcting Thucyéides, thougk he doe: not name him, Sinslaly ‘when, ashis reason for venturing an explanation of the incigues between Perse and Eumenes® he gives the fact that he himself ‘lived at the time and had been more impresed by all thie happened thm anyene ese’, Ziegler msy be right™—I would noe say more—in detecting an echo of thee famous ofening scone in hich They, an Ain, ote the Bion of he was bbecween the Pelapotiiesans and the Athenians, beginring at the moment it broke our, sad believing it ould be » great war, and more worthy of relation ‘han any tha: had preceded it Tideed if one looks beyond individual passages, which are perhaps not of grest significance in themselves, it clear thie Hetween the twe kstoians there existed tmatked simiariies of theme, eemperament and experience. Eich had grown tp to play an active police role in his native sate and then, suddenly, had been foceed into an unvretcome exile which, however, by broadening his herizon, contibuted :o hs cevelepment as a historian; and each alike eventually saw his Country overwhelmed with disste-. Each wrote contemporary or near cot~ temporary listory.® each prefaced his main marrative with, an introductory pestd of roughly fifi yeart*—and each wasa Historian who had fit acquired Ptraning in public affai.° Both were men of polticsshrough and through, both were convinced of the importance of canstiutions far the welfare of states spat se emmy rBhavotsresemmy sat fo Ragnetaie 3 EMRE EER emt ating ope iret ee ERE sapere nnmatiee Ses sand both wrote to inform and instuct statsmen who might choose to seck profit from che perual of their works. ‘he paraleling though part Soritows, i sricng: and nce Polybas betrays his knowkdye of Thucydides in several places, his filure to raeation him by name demands some explanation, Ore possibility would be that a fifth. century historian was too remote to exercise his attention; that it was only with the fourth century and the protlems axocated with the Thetan hegemony and the rise of Macedonia that History began to sccm ‘modem’ to a second. centary Achacan historian. But this can hasdly be the fall story, for though Polybiusis certirly interested in the century that saw the Soundation of Megal polit, he is quite ready to dicuss Gelon’s behaviour in the Persian Wars” ad he Single ou for deed crc a pech atu by Tensou to Homose of Syracuse atthe Congress of Gela, which falls right into the very peried covered by Thucydides’ history. Nor was Thucydides 2 dead leter at ths time, Agatr arches of Cnidus, Polybius' younger contemporary, it su by Photins to have cmaubte¢ Thucydides in the abundance and daboration of his speeches, to have been notinferio: in the splendour cfhis style and to have excelled him in clary®* Jn such circumstances Polybius' silence is cerainly odd; and it is especially odd Bde cure of hi ie of Tina weson of Hemost speech, jut mentioned, since « Thucydidean version of thisspecch existod™ andan cemesiary srgument aguinst Timacts would have been that his speech bore no rexemblance to that in Thucydides, and hence ene (or both) mst be fuse" Te has recently been suggested?® that in his emulation of Thucydides Agath- ‘chides may have been typical of others who at that time copied the Athenizn sod hatin is tacks on Hae aly ely ing hen ane oy implication at Thucydides himself, However, Timaeus is eritcised by Polybice because od « «vd fnltire yéypaber, 08" is pity rar’ ahfduar—whick tue seat ‘because he hts reproduced nether what was sid nor the real sense of what ‘was sui’ ie, he bas given us neither a transcription (erich eannct of course be reasonably required) not yet an aecerate réstmé of tae original speech" For Polybius this sa fac critcisra, for he hirwelf never wavers in his frm require: ment that a speech must give the esental part of wiat was cctually aid and, 2s we have seen, itis for neglecting this that he condemned Phylarchus, Chaereas and sent gw Assos igeeshe HT 5 6k Syren fers Bours i eo re: ar Barelp ve naa pian ee etree 2 amg eee niieur pour ia magnibcrce de la ens i dépune pr la poecion bet afer np peyele StS ENport Sin oy herbal Sy oatoecs shee eee SA Bons oy pane rH Wate Re ERS i, oe me ee bot rpm wee seers EE Git tn rma tate ote ee Igurea hon rpodae er defor of eons arin oe es werd wht wa dere nee ‘eat 10 Sonylus. Iti true that one chapte: in book xi has been taken ¢o concede the bistoran’s right to improvise by chocsing arguments suitable t the spesker anc the oceasion,tegaedlest of what was actually aid; but this view rests on a une understanding of Polybis’ meaning, It sin fact the statesman, not the sistetian, Whose task i t0 select appropriate arguments; hee at elewhere, the historian is restictad to remiling what was reilly sid and indicating why the speskers filed or ceeded in thir abe Poy positon then car and we comp-omising. Thucydides, on the other hand, was les certain. At we savy, he 426 an unresolved antithesis between ‘the general purport of what was actally said! and ‘whae the situation seemed to me to require exch party to ay" Nevertheles Ido not believe that in attacking Timaess Polybias was utackirg contemporary emalators of Thucydides, stil les Thucydides himself is sence conceming his great peedicesior seems to me to bear a dient explanation, viz. that on the general matter at issue between Polybius and those historians he attcki, Polybius aad Thucydides stood in the same camp. Polybius did not wish to puthimsefin the false postion of seeming to sitcse Thucydides. He preferred to corcenteate on the main enemy, and in this contest thar meant the weites hose speeches were pare, hetorcal compositons quite unsled by any tace of verity, VL So muuch for theory: but how fac does Polybius maintain those tenets in actual asic? To atswe tis qustio it wil be neeaaryo examine ever eatpls fogsther with some ofthe objections waich have been raid agains regatding them as authentic. leis not, think, necessary to make a dstincton between the different categories of speech. In book xi, it is true. Polybins distinguishes beeween public spesches (Syurpop.), harangues, usally to troops (aapackous) and spreches made by ambassador (xpeoBeorwal Ny), snd’ ih the’ maith ‘own specches fll into these thre groups en the other band the division is not intended to be an exhaustive one, for he adds the words ‘and in shor all peeches of this sort’; and unless napardfous ate to be interpreted in the very resticted sense of speeches in the field to soldiers, there are several orations that quay eqully as napachjous and as Burp, oF even 28 nperferrat Nya.” How, ever there seems no seaton to suppose that Polybits employed different crtenz 2 BEB ct forthe vew aed we Gompe, Common, 23; C. Wanders, Payor Fes ‘i Qe 06 gin, Rayer a Hr rein Ge wT Sy Ina ah npr Madan 9 Se enn Ooo SS a5 es cere PGE: e325 56 Em WC SETS Lu ram to eet ce scat tay aon ae a arein composirg she diferent types of spesch—theugh he almost certainly drew in ent Lind of somce vsti In book for intance, Ye records evo Parangues to troops precedirg the Ticints battle, on: by Hannibal che other by Picebin® I hovedekberaely ken thse two species ict sine they ae among the greacst stumbling blocks to the thecry that Polis is an henest man. The paising of speech inf coune an old rhetorical device and so perhaps calculated f arouse our sixpicions; ard these are not Tulled when we observe that beth faringues ac based on commonplaces about the reative strength of forces and the chances of batle Ie is trac that commonslaces are apt to be utered on such focetions ard their inclusion dces not dimn a speech as Settious. But not only Gre these above all ccasions when no-ore is likely to be taking notes but, as De Santis has pointed out?” Scipio did not expect a major battle a ths juncture. Hence it follows that his speech is unhistorical nd cvidenty serves t9 balaree Hannibal's and to build up Seipio ieto a worthy oppanent of the great Cactha= ian, inthis contert is pethaps worth noting tha of Polybias’ Roman speeches Ketch form sory of dine Ie loc) by fr the eer be a delvered by rca connected i some way with the orginal or adopted family fof his frend Scipio Acmilianss a fct which clearly refets his personal interest fn Scipio tahee than the intrinsic importance of this particular group of noble. ‘Before Zama there isa similar pat of speeches, fst Africana then Hhanrital's3™ fonce again a unde of commians lei, sncleding one very worrying phrase in Which Seip tells his men that they ate fighting to win undispuied soversignty ‘over the reat of the world, which corressonds exactly to Polybins’ own estimate of the importance ofthis battle {eepressed over thirty years late) but is somewat evry (donot tik that ve stuld resto condemn Polis’ hanexy con the bass ofthese pasages. He may, s Adcock suggess in the case of Thuey~ ides! have taken for granted the contnts Of a radon on the batik 2 way which he would on his own showing, have roared sepia a speech concerned vith policy. But the simpler and, to me, the more likely «x= lnation is that he found versions of these speecves ir the general written source {erone of the sources) from waich he drew Hs account of these bates, and Seveloped chem because of his interest in the family of Scipio. This seras at any fate more likely than that he deliberately viclated his awa strongly fle principles by composing Fasiges of rhetoreal fiction siesensy amet EREDAR a cre Tac gerenemes ert mirasrs titer ange cued a eae eee Efe gelcsapncigal eapue oaplc acme a ‘soviet Walbask,JRS 1953 15, Thespeeins of Aerie uo Hannibal before Cate 0b:3) ‘go te une ae 2 vit Te has sometimes been urged that repetitions of metaphors, phases and senti= mens between one speech and another or between 2 sth and 2 nacaive passige, are an argumient against the authentcity of the speeches. There are for instance examples of this kind in ‘he Tieinus and Cannae spoceacs which we have Jjust seen reson to regard as deriving ulimately, pechaps via Tabits or scive ‘ther source, from artifeial compestions. In the former Fortune, Tycho, is seid by Hanribal to offer to the Punic troops certain prizes (Aa rporeetrévs); the sime metaphor is used by Scipio in his addeess 0 his men before Zama™"—and only a page before Polysius has used it hinvelf® There i another example in ‘Aemilius’ speech before Camae.® After listing all the advantages which made the Roman 0 much stronger than it was before Trebia and Trasimene, hs conic: ‘sce then all the cordon ae now the revere of thos in the ls T spoke of, we may anticipate tint the resul of the aeesent battle will Hevise be the oppose! This hezardows concusion—t0 be etd 3 toncly ceventi—is very tysical of Polybiss’ own way of thinking. In his description oF the bate ofthe Angas lands in Bonk i he remain the condion of cach force was jst the revere of what it had been at the battle of Drspata, the result also was naturl'y eer) che reverse for each. If Acmiliu’ speech was an attic prozuct deriving from Polykits’ source, was this tim of phraseborrowed from the same source? or was it pethaps a commonglace too and incorporated by Bayi in the crganation of his ati? tere are similar repetitions elsewhere. For example, in his speech at Sparta in the Ine sting of sto Lyiscor of Acanaia tec the Acton raids he Peloponnese when the general Tiraets plundered tempks at Tacmrum and asi bat the same point had already been raised by some Spartans in answer to an Actolian envoy at Sparta in 220! Does this mean, asa recent work argues” that Lyciscus speech is therefore a rketorzal composition? Surely not. If a paint is vad, it may be made twice, ard if all fourth-century speeches which mention the services of Athens agaast che Persians were o be branded x rhetorical forgeries, wwe should have few pro-Athenian apodeistic specches left. The debate at Sparta, at which Cheneas and Lycizu spake, pedap the mot ting exapleof Pelybius’ use of sperches and coald well stand as a touchstone for his honesty. [shall return to it shortly. Meanwhile I should like te diteas one or two othe passages in which repetition oceus. Seah es SRE. SRN ee CREE a sorter autre tate speek 2 i et arr a a ae cy‘Ata meeting ofthe Senate Fethe Actoian War Leon of Achens delivered «speech which Polybiut says particular pression through his we oF a Se wel ste othe oceto erated that the Actoian peopl should not be considered gui, since lace is like the sea, calm when left alone bat made rmbe by winds Bepn thee winds corespond of cove to the guilty agitator who siethe Actolians, making them, contiary t0 their nature, reckess in word d. Uniortamately this comparison which Polybius so much admires, ind: been used in very similar circumstances by Scipio when quelling a'mupain;% and I see no reason to think that on cther ocean i presreees tet the speech conning it not futhentic, Leon's speech is eerensine, for Polybius would never have invented the statement that than people were not by pature reckless in word and deed; this mustbe whssid. As regres Scipio, he was tffiienly ‘alread Gree tater f gat wa no mote thin mancent commer lace going back to Solon?*— ree Ff dann 88 iphone He Bl po) xe, wiv bunavorér, beillfounced; 4 nevertheless, for rasces which I need wot go nto here, the Greets, or some of them, held that belief, and the metaphoe ofthe cloud in the ‘west made a deep impresion and was echoed by LycSaus in 210! in his speect against the Actolins, who had called inthe Romans. ‘Secondly, in kis account ofthe embassics received by the Senate after the wae vith Antiochus Polybius gives full version of Eumenes' specch and of that cf the Rhodians on the question of libecating th cites of Asia. But between the toro speeches he observes that, beczuse one of the Rhodiar envoys wat delayec, the Senate meanwhile gave an audience ¢) reaeesentetives of Smymna. ‘As they had the undispured approbation of the House, Polybius rematks,".. 1 do nct think it ncestiry to report this speech in detail’ and in fete omits complitly but fora barestatemeat that they referred to their goodwill and tervces to Rome. In short the Rhodian and Pergamsne spesches are recorded breawse they bring cut a clic it policy and illuminate two contemporary points of view about & matter of vital imporunce to any Greek, namely waat was 40 happen concerning the freedom of the Greek cities in Asia. ‘Both thse examples are of speeches by Grecks, It is a sting feture of Pely- ius’ Hisory that, as | have aready mentioned,!i" if we excepe a few ‘pairs cf battle speechies by Hannibal anda series of Roman commanders, 2a few haranguet ‘of Hannibal sore 2 speech of Mago to the Carhaginian senate" ard several dresses by Scipio Afrianws (conceming whom Polybius had toth a specisl interest and special source of information)"® by far the greater number of the speeches he includes are by Grocks; and thisis increasingly tue in ee later books. Tandeod ofthe five longest speeches singled out in Zieg e's Pauly-Wissowa article four ae ky Greeks and only one, that of Aficans to tie matinces, by a Roman. The two most claborate speeches in the whole Hisory ate pethaps those delivered at Sparta by the Aetoliaa Chlarneas and the Acamanian Lycisus.1# ‘These, I Fave already argued, are to be regarded as authentia” Adnitesdly they sxe ‘worked over in the way Ihave already dicussod andthe fict that the Acat- nanian speech is twice as long as the Aemlian certanyy tefleets the kstorian’s ‘own sympathies. But with this qualification, the two spaces give a rematkable picture of the cleavage of feeling that ore Gresce apart during the carly years of Se dfs, ay os5 eR IE ao, Pepi 4 (Hs, 108 44 (Cnc) ts am) 2 Pb tia seam 1 Papi ahs, ix 6 (icon with pat i 25.48 aly 3 ely te Antec” ie Rests, 4 Hani, ee fei eyo sqwoy Mercian 12rd Ge Hips spell nee a enya ‘Sor ‘Sopa ac the ents Pal se sbone ta. Bier ae. 1 Abaee 9, 16 Roman intervention. The isme is quie shorly: which constnats the greater danger to Greece, Rorie or Macedonsa? Its llaminated, no. with the genta mis one would fnd in Thucydides, but with awide range of expla ken from 3c pst history of Grese and going back, always, tothe foutth century, when the isu of Macedonian domination was fought out both on the iceclegical rel in pamghles end on the butefcld. A citizen of Meyelopolis, Pol bias aatunlly approved what was done by Pali Il, who redaced Sparta andewtended che bounds of Acadia aad dsewhero! he has a long atzek on Demosthenes and a defence ofthe Peloyonnesian patriots whom Demosthene had condemned a8 trators Its therefore tobe expected tha his sympathies willbe with Lycacus, ito praiss Philip I and the other kings of Macedonia dows to Philip Veer than with Chlaensas, who defends che Roman alice and cancenuns Macedonia as the perennal eremy of Greece. Novertheles by the second century the rae had changed. Even easier Aratus,ehe great Achaean hero, had built the Com federation in opposition to Macedon, thug he had tc call upon. Antigon is Deve on For Choma f Spr att he sco Macon Wat we Achacans had gone over to Rome and fought agains Philp. Throughout Pelytis"clldhood the Roma sllan~ hod comaatel Actos police hen Lyciscus cals the Romans barbarians, he wes words of which we have no reason. to think Polybius would hve approved: he had come ty know them too oll to ‘cquiesce in so cary and conrentonal + inap jucgement. Looking tack, the isk raed om ths ecaion a Spura and" acs Cees ee Achacans as well as Spartans had to make their choice cannot have seemed expt cle kel, Polis was orposing ns pt ofliswe Ren ‘while sil held in detention, he must Fave been aking seca quctons vs Thad Achacan policy bsen tight throughout” Wa alliance itn Macedonia right in the firs war with Rome and wrong inthe second? Ifs, what were the citer ‘of wise policy and of golical morality? Its, believe, because ofthe far ceaching natre of thse issues, raised now in a suckirg form at Spatt, tt Polybius develops the speeches cf Chlaeneas ad Lycscus at such length, But there is pechaps amother reasot. The fst book of ‘Thacydides is largely buile around the two farnous corgresss at Spats. At the fre we ae confonted withthe va asic of the Contig and the Aticnians, urging and deprecating war, fllowed >y those of Archidamus and the egbor Sthendtas 9x the scone the Corners aga prc fe pee speech whick hasto wait fr an answer untl that ofPeriles which ends the book, ‘These speeches discuss the issues for which the forthcoming was is to be foughs, 1 it, 1 wonder, pure fantay to suggest that Pelybias may a30 have had the ia Id when he chose orecrd in sth data-entry othe creo in the whole surviving par: of his work—these two speeches delivered at another Spartan meeting, where representatives of the twe sides tasked out some of the problems that were to dominate the period of Roman intrvention in the {Gresk easeand now foe theft tine found open and ible expcnons 8 Poh. cts. IT an tots "7 iIK If may now pstrings together, theconclusion to which an examination fof olybiur sperag and short, leads is tat he cannot be fasly seemed of inventing. Hog 2 long-established coaveation, and like Thucydides befare him ke shaephrases his material so that the suit rakes ona decided ly perscnal coloiomstimes t0, especially in addkesies to troops before Battle, he seems fawing on sources which have not serupled to invent swords aoprepriataccasion; therein he shows pethaps les eritcal judgement than we are entexpect. Bu: Lean find no passage where one ean say confide ths his flowed the frmula to whic even Thuyddes in part subscribe he spoke of recorcing ‘what he thougist the speakers ‘would have said: provenance of most of Polybins’ speeches, a majority of them delvereeeks, and most of them on occasions eonceraing whe hhe will have hantic sources of information, refect the predominantly Greek characte: aory Te rcemunts the rise of Rome to world power, but it is a sory toldreel writing from the Greek point of view and always cconicions tht i Greck world that was being subjected to Roman domina~ ‘dor. Polybias’ nf Roman policy, it must be conceded, is schematic, ‘monolithic and fean be corrected from his own nerative. Theideclogial ‘confictand the oat he records ae all Greek itis sgrifcant that he sheers 4 Chaereas and for suggestng that Roman policy was spit on the eve of She Hannibal an he himself eter oxtetaiouly else 9 record similar speeches eve of the Third Punic War, remarking that ‘they had Jong made up tds to act chen, but they were looking for a suitable copportnity and that woulé appeal ta foreign nations’ Butin speecies aiade at gatherincecs or before th> Senate at Rome Polybius allows us to hear the genuinof Inading Greek statesmen of the time and to share in thei dilemmas ass of policy. Only inthis wey could the History become thathardbook ofl and moralinstrvetion far a Greek publie which Polybius intended it co be x ‘There is 20 etha: Pelybias’ protest had much effec in changing the crurtent attitude; writing history. As befor, the crerion by which the litesary critics jwehes in histories continues to be, ct the:r accuracy, but ther appropriatot Dla but wilerérgs and 73 npéwer. Thucydides, Dionysts els uitains a cerain sameness of zyle throughaust his speeches and s0is les sacha. Herodotus in achieving 73 rpéromhich is racce Sas ra 4 Nos per ropa, the mos soeccgn vituein speeches. Ten sone Flac he more atecent! dha in otters Some pestis oa be denned 5 ‘sited to the chiracers and in conrmity to Ge evens’ oe, seecrns “ptr rl rie mpi onc bet eters lke Pericles oe Melon dialogue, ail on both comnts Cicer i may be now, found Thasps Aide’ syeecis obscure oralmot nconprthensdleandeersinh ap cere hag {or cratos"® Xenophon std Piss Diy omar ceewhere ae ale ope to the same eit, The citron healed f somas the soe ye LEve alice soo expounded by Callsthenes I appeas apanas Ligne who fy Ct pec nay ne mathe tance a een tpoodie nal no spear Nataly the deczine crop ap in de Rena ‘Chools. Quin, who react the weing of serch & wet a hoshnans and woali-be hitorans!™ prsies Liy i lighy succes he speach contonsbas spn quam entrar pote elonuetnn aque carat oma cum rebus, tn perionssceommddaa sant Indeed th cmponton of adh spores was a regule ptt ofthe caning i he theoriel sheol aod Whee, is weet elena of Qua ore anor Gace wing’ neamnoraa ln hs Progam nudge aces eect Bora dace made rd eee thai are “appiopriat to Hl sd tothe undrfying siaoy tins aonb we eles Sheep sodas Granted what kerry men like Thon snd Quanilan ay dyes tot sect sfc the horas paroses psa not all specs in terhinonae eae, Skil compton Bu the en evapo whichcnerha proceed te tga “Candis speceh granting ckzensip to the Galle orncjes doc noe cere partcully wel rom the compas I's sipuficane fo he peal that Dionysia eed of who sory const of speeches, shold te 6 Shed © the question of th, snd tsa Lacan, whose concen ince nah chow hey Gan slp the erator, but spiel wit ‘how to wate stery" ould los Bnd ccon ar rtm “wha bt Te ww ths dre at orerlled: and dat why one should give fll et Pelyoas who, he fted ‘Dearryiscceuors wits him at eat in his ove practic snd coproned pence sade asain for tuth athe chit caterion in comporngspeckes o feron en 3 SOE ange oo sentie SP hs men a eee ee ss amiided x Ava go ns 9 Tae, Asm a: HIS, 3a; ek Syme, Tas (Onioed os TE" " se Syme, Sale 2.1 aoe, 19