N.'s book originates from her doctoral thesis. The central theme is the analysis of the important figure of Philip V as seen through the eyes of Polybius. However, as N. clarifies in the introduction, one of the volume's focuses is insight into Polybius’ historical and historiographical work, namely ‘to understand the way that Polybius wrote, conceived, and constructed his Histories’ (p. 1). Hence, N.'s book would purportedly seem to reverse J. Davidson's thesis (JRS 81 [1991], 10), according to which Polybius presents his work through the eyes of the protagonists and consumers of history. On the contrary, the volume completes and gives new life to Davidson's assessments.
Aside from a statement on the key aims of the volume and its structure, the introduction is formed by several sections that serve as introductory pieces on the main issues raised by the study of the topic. The first section gives an overview of the life of Philip, while the second one deals with Polybius’ life and work. The third section, ‘Further Historiographical, Literary, and Documentary Evidence for Philip V’, is a good overview of the sources on Philip. The fourth and fifth sections discuss the status quaestionis on Philip and Polybius respectively. Two further sections are devoted to Polybius’ historiographical aims and methodology, where N. highlights the Polybian work's didactic purpose and the important role played by Tyche in Polybius’ arrangement and organisation of the material at his disposal.
Chapter 1, ‘Constructing Macedon and the World through an Achaean Perspective’, is divided into two parts and acts as a further introduction, which mainly deals with the relationship between Polybius and the Achaean League. The first part (‘Polybius’ Achaean Perspective’), useful but perhaps a bit long (22 pages), addresses the topic in general terms by recalling the well-known Polybian critiques regarding accuracy and patriotism, the use of Aratus’ account and Polybius’ bias towards Aratus. However, the section entitled ‘Aratus of Sicyon: the Best of the Achaeans’ is well worth reading. N. highlights the overwhelming presence of Aratus in Polybius, who only rarely mentions the Achaean League's other leaders. Moreover, she discusses the importance of Plutarch as a source, and her remarks seem to rehabilitate Plutarch's role in historical reconstructions. The second part (‘The Relationship Between Aratus, Achaea, and Antigonus Doson’) examines the prequel, so to speak, of the relationship between the Achaeans and Philip, and it is an important discussion in relation to the core themes of the volume because it helps to understand some of the Polybian remarks on Philip.
Chapter 2, ‘The Darling of the Greeks Turns into a Tyrant’, finally starts off examining the topic of the volume. The chapter focuses on two core events of Philip's early years as king of Macedon, namely the attack on Thermum in 218 bce and the attempted seizure of Messene in 215 bce. N. justifies her choice with the connection between the two events in Polybius’ work, a link that has not been fully examined. The chapter plays a key role in highlighting Polybius’ narrative techniques, and the chosen case studies are useful to set the scene for the following chapters. However, the examination of the language used by Polybius would have proved to be beneficial especially to the discussion of the dichotomy between kingly and tyrannical behaviour (pp. 69–72) or to the part examining the connotation of Aratus of Sicyon as hero and of Demetrius of Pharus as villain (pp. 93–9).
Chapter 3, ‘Philip V and His Greek Allies’, analyses the relationship between Philip and the Greeks in order to show that Polybius’ harsh depiction of the monarch was unsubstantiated and that Philip did not behave as tyrannically as Polybius tries to demonstrate. The chapter starts with a reflection on the sources at the disposal of the historian working on the topic and on the difficulties in interpreting them due to their fragmentary nature, which might lead to misunderstanding them. Among the examples are the pact to help the inhabitants of Crete against the Rhodians (205/4 bce) and the conquest of Lysimacheia, Chalcedon, Cius and Thasos, which, according to N., are wrongly interpreted as treachery. The chapter goes on to examine Philip's behaviour towards his allies before (220–215 bce) and after the events at Messene (215–196 bce). The analysis of the sources is very detailed, and N. is successful in bringing out some of the issues encountered while dealing with a source like Polybius. However, the discussion would have benefited from an examination of the language used by Polybius, for example at p. 119, where N. focuses on the Polybian description of Philip's behaviour who ‘conferred benefits (ἀγαθά) … and had such a magnanimous and faithful policy (προαίρεσις καλοκἀγαθικὴ καὶ πίστις)’ without explaining why προαίρεσις has been translated as ‘policy’ and showing the importance of the term in Polybius, or without exploring the reason why Polybius defines Philip as κοινός τις ἐρώμενος τῶν Ἑλλήνων, i.e. whether the use of the adjective κοινός carries a peculiar meaning. The chapter's last part deals with the behaviour of Philip's Greek allies. This is a welcome discussion, and N. rightly examines it after analysing Philip's relationship with the Greeks. Perhaps a thorough investigation of the Aetolian affair – relegated to note 168 and partially discussed in the following chapter – would have proved fruitful.
Chapter 4, ‘Philip and the Romans’, is a great follow-up, and it is interesting to read how Polybius explores the prickly subject of the Roman success over Macedon, especially with regards to the Polybian justification of the defection of some Greeks from Philip to Rome. The chapter is excellent, and N. does really well in examining a tricky topic. Here she discusses the language, and attention is directed at the opposition Greekness/barbarity especially in relation to Philip. In this chapter the linguistic focus appears to be separated from the events, and it seems limited to the king/tyrant dichotomy.
Chapter 5, ‘A Tragic King’, looks at Philip's final years (183–179 bce) as narrated by Polybius. N. identifies historical inaccuracies in Polybius’ description of Philip's reaction to Rome's defeat at Lake Trasimene, and she focuses on the tragic way in which Polybius approaches the account of the last part of Philip's life.
Chapter 6, ‘Woven History, Woven Lives’, acts as a conclusion, where N. summarises Polybius’ historiographical approaches and analyses them from a general perspective: the awareness of the difference between history and biography; the possibility of reading the account on Philip as a ‘political biography’; the peculiarity of Philip's portrait in comparison with other kings and with Hannibal.
The bibliography is divided into ‘Primary Literature’ and ‘Secondary Literature’. However, the function of the section on primary literature – a list of Loeb translations – is not immediately obvious. Moreover, it is not clear whether N. provides her own translations of Polybius’ passages quoted or cites another translation.
I would like to end with a note on the index locorum, especially for accessibility purposes. N. lists all fragmentary historians under FGrHist and FRH. However, students and scholars who are not familiar with fragmentary historians might encounter difficulties as they will not be able to trace back the name of the historian corresponding to Jacoby's or FRH's numbers, and, more importantly, to identify the testimonium or the fragment, since N. does not provide any testimonium and/or fragment numbers.
The volume is an important addition to the scholarly discussion on Polybius as well as on Philip. Both students and scholars working on the topic will benefit from reading the book provided that they pay attention to the caveats noted.
