Experience and teleology

Grethlein 2013

CH. 7 POLYBIUS

P. 224 Concerning the ‘futures past’, however, Polybius deviates from the model of Thucydides.
In his attempt to make the past present, Thucydides is at pains to downplay hindsight and is very
reticent with narratorial interventions. (…) but what we have sufficiently illustrates a strong
teleological design (I), together with an awareness of its intricacies (II). Besides an emphasis on
retrospect, per- haps the most conspicuous narratorial persona in ancient historiography impedes
the experiential quality of Polybius’ account (III). At first glance, even his numerous
methodological reflections seem to oppose mimetic

narratives, but a closer look reveals that mimesis has its place in Polybius’ theorizing (IV).

P.225 Herodotus, as we have seen in the preceding chapter, highlights the significance of retrospect
– history can only be written when events have come to an end. (…) Polybius shares with
Herodotus the tendency to favour retrospect.

P.226 But the argument also reveals the prominence that the end has for his historical thinking:
the assumption that the beginning reaches to the end implies that the end is contained in the
beginning. While Herodotus has his characters muse about the significance of the ending, Polybius
proclaims himself that the beginning can only be viewed from the vantage point of the end.
Polybius’ reflection highlights the importance of teleology for historical explanation: whoever
wants to explain a course of events, needs to know where these events are heading. Without having
the telos before his eyes, the historian cannot explain why history followed the path it took. LIKE
HELEN OF EURIPIDES

In accordance with the thesis that the beginning encapsulates the ending, Polybius flags the telos
of his history, that is, Rome’s dominion over the world, prominently in his proem (1.1.5–6):

P.227 The rhetorical questions spell out the link between retrospect and histor- ical explanation on
which Polybius muses in abstract terms in the passage quoted above: it is his goal to explain
Rome’s dominion which forms the telos of his account. The forceful teleological design is
remarkable given that Polybius claims to be the first universal historian since Ephorus.

P.229 Polybius is fond of the image of tych ̄e as a stage director. (...) The image is drawn out further
in a speech of a character:10 at an Aetolian congress in 207 bce, an orator, identified as
Thrasycrates by a note on the margin of the manuscript, appeals to his audience (11.5.8–9)
P.232 The use of histori ̄e for both res gestae and historia rerum gestarum is part of Polybius’
rhetoric of blurring the borderline between events and their account.

P.234 Polybius, on the other hand, presents it to his readers as a fact to be realized. The shift is
crucial: what was still future, open and undecided has become the vantage point from which the
historian presents the past. The gap which Polybius creates between his readers and the historical
agents is well illustrated by a passage from his account of the Second Punic War. When in 216 bce
the Romans are devastatingly defeated at Cannae, they lose control of Italy and fear that Hannibal
will capture Rome. A striking prolepsis to the telos of Polybius’ account creates a strong
discrepancy between the perception of this situation by the historical agents and the readers
(3.118.8–9)

P.235 While it is easy to label this an analepsis, both the length of the prokataskeue and Polybius’
signposting make it hard to define what to consider the actual beginning of his account. In some
passages, he mentions 220 as the starting point, in others 264 BCE.

P.252 Walbank 1955; 1960. The debate about a tragic/Peripatetic school of historiography was
initiated by Schwartz 1897, who argued that Duris applied the ideas of Aristotle’s Poetics to
historiography. This thesis was taken up, modified and developed further by, among others,
Scheller 1911; von Fritz 1972: 331–49. Ullman 1942, on the other hand, tried to show that Duris’
plea for mimesis and hedon ̄e in historiography cannot have derived from Aristotle, who limits
these concepts to poetry. Instead he argues for an Isocratean origin of the notion of mimesis in
historiography. For a survey of the debate, see Meister 1975: 109–26; Sacks 1981: 144–70. 


P.255 The exhortatory speeches also reinforce the mimetic appeal of the narrative. Scipio
emphasizes the significance of the situation: nothing less than the dominion over the world is at
stake. Moreover, his musings about the aftermath of a defeat evoke an alternative course – how
would the Roman soldiers in case of a Carthaginian victory fare on foreign soil – and drive home
the openness of the past when it was still present. The readers are forcefully reminded that the
outcome with which they are familiar, a Roman victory, was still future and unknown to the
historical agents.

P.256 is safe to claim that the extensive report on the battle preparations in Polybius also serves a
narrative function. It retards the action, creates suspense and thereby helps the readers to put
themselves into the shoes of the historical agents.