Along with McGing's introduction to Polybius in the Oxford Approaches to Classical Literature series (2010), D.’s German introduction signals a rise in interest in Polybius well beyond the narrow community of specialists. Overall, D. has succeeded in presenting a reliable and accessible introduction to the life and works of Polybius; there are some significant problems, however, which will need to be addressed.
The book is divided into eight parts. Parts 1 and 2 summarise what is known about Polybius’ life and his smaller works. Parts 3 to 6 are devoted to the Histories.
Part 3 begins with a clear overview of the history of the transmission of the text (pp. 29–36), which contains a well-balanced assessment of the role of Livy as a ‘source’ for the lost parts of Polybius’ work (pp. 34–6). There follows a commented summary of the contents of the entire Histories (pp. 36–53). D. manages this difficult task admirably well; his detailed explanation of Polybius’ theory of constitutions in Book 6 (pp. 40–50) deserves special praise for its clarity. D. then explains the chronological structure of the Histories and the purpose of the sometimes substantial digressions so characteristic of Polybius’ narrative (pp. 53–8), and offers a careful discussion of the thorny issue of the creation of the Histories (pp. 58–68). D.’s overview of the many, often widely diverging, theories that have been proposed is clear and helpful; he himself argues for two major periods: the first part of the Histories, Books 1–30, were completed before 146 b.c.e. but also contain later additions; the second part, Books 31–40, were added after 146 b.c.e. The available material will never allow for a definitive solution, but a (comparatively) simple reconstruction such as this one seems inherently more plausible than extreme positions which identify a plethora of different ‘layers’ and editions.
A major problem in this section is the apparent confusion about the beginning of the period of tarache kai kinesis (3.4.12–13) with which Polybius concludes his narrative. Because this period was so different from the preceding years, Polybius refers to it as constituting a ‘new beginning’ within his narrative. When did this ‘new beginning’ begin? At first, D. seems to adopt (silently) Walbank's position, namely 151 b.c.e. (p. 57; but note that D. gives 153/2, without explanation). This is problematic in itself, as the earliest events of the tarache kai kinesis enumerated by Polybius at 3.5.1 date to 158, which would more naturally be taken as the beginning of the tarache kai kinesis. Moreover, a little later D. states that the ‘new beginning’ refers to the beginning of the second part of the Histories, i.e. Books 31–40 (167 to 146 b.c.e.) (p. 63). But this is excluded not only by 3.4.13, which explicitly identifies the ‘new beginning’ with the period of tarache kai kinesis (see above), but also by 3.4.12, where Polybius distinguishes the latter period from a preceding phase of stability following the establishment of Roman power in 168.
I do agree with D., however, that this final part of Polybius’ narrative, whenever it begins, at the very least prompts readers to ponder the possibility of the downfall of Roman power (pp. 63–4). D. is also certainly right that Polybius added the last ten books because he realised the historical significance of the events after 168 and not, as Walbank once claimed, because he indulged in the desire to immortalise his own deeds.
The bulk of D.’s book, the fourth part, is dedicated to Polybius’ historical method. This is both a strength and a weakness: a strength, because Polybius’ methodology is of paramount importance to understanding his work and its position in the tradition of ancient historical writing, and D. is, apart from one significant exception (see below), a reliable guide to this complex subject. It is a weakness, however, because since P. Pédech's La méthode historique de Polybe (1964) scholarship on the Histories has displayed an almost exclusive interest in either historical questions (emblematised by Walbank's Historical Commentary) or Polybius’ methodology. Polybius’ style and his narrative technique as well as the constituents of his interpretation of the past, by contrast, have played at best a minor role. The focus of D.’s book continues this one-sidedness of Polybian studies, despite the progress towards a better understanding of the Histories as a sophisticated narrative made by A. Eckstein's Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius (1995) and C. Champion's Cultural Politics in Polybius's Histories (2004). D. mentions both these studies, but he does not seem to appreciate the significant change of direction in Polybian studies which they constituted and which is borne out by the recent works of, for example, N. Miltsios, The Shaping of Narrative in Polybius (2013) and F. Maier, ‘Überall mit dem Unerwarteten rechnen.’ Die Kontingenz historischer Prozesse bei Polybios (2012).
D. begins this central part with a detailed summary and discussion of Polybius’ methodology (pp. 69–74), including a well-balanced assessment of the speeches; he rightly emphasises that Polybius made an honest attempt throughout to report what he believed were authentic speeches (p. 73). There follows a discussion of ‘causation and teleology’ (pp. 74–89) which is subdivided into an introductory section on causation in the Histories (pp. 74–7), the role of individuals (slightly misleadingly called ‘Biographische[s] Element’, pp. 77–83), Tyche (pp. 83–6) and religion (pp. 86–9).
These individual sections all contain valuable and reliable information. It is their combination under ‘causation and teleology’ that is problematic, because this suggests that Polybius regarded Tyche and religion as historical causes, which he did not. D. here misrepresents Polybius’ concept of causation. The reason for this is that he fails to give due attention to the key passage 3.6.7, where Polybius defines his concept of historical cause. It is clear from this passage that Polybius limits causes to the psychological and intellectual factors motivating human action. By Polybius’ own definition, therefore, Tyche is not a cause at all (see now Maier [2012], pp. 228–45), and religion only in so far as belief in the gods might influence the emotions, thoughts and generally the mental disposition of human beings.
In the next section D. addresses different aspects of Polybius’ concept of ‘pragmatic history’: the usefulness of history (pp. 89–91), the distinction between ‘universal history’ and specialised monographs (pp. 91–2), the distinction between Polybius’ Histories and other historical genres such as genealogy, mythography, ktiseis (pp. 92–3), and the qualities necessary for writing ‘pragmatic history’ (pp. 93–5). The contents of these sections is clearly presented and informative; structure is again a problem, however, as D. artificially splits up aspects that form a close unity in Polybius’ thought. It would have been more profitable to integrate these individual aspects into one longer chapter.
The main part of D.’s work is brought to a close by a comprehensive and instructive overview of Polybius’ Greek predecessors, which gives due emphasis to the importance of Thucydides (p. 95), and a thorough discussion of Polybius’ sources (pp. 100–20). While D. seems to me too optimistic about our ability to identify Polybius’ sources (does the conversation among courtiers at 22.14.7 really justify the assumption that Polybius here is drawing on a source from inside the court [p. 107]?), he makes an impressive case for Polybius’ extensive research in archives and his general reliability when citing and referring to documents (pp. 109–20). This I found one of the most rewarding parts of the book.
In the subsequent balanced discussion of the relationship between theory and practice (pp. 121–33), D. justly emphasises the sincerity of Polybius’ attempt to provide an accurate and truthful account of the past. Part 6 presents a very brief treatment of Polybius’ style (pp. 134–7), followed by a useful overview of his Nachleben which makes an important contribution to a better appreciation of Polybius as a political thinker (pp. 138–50).
The usefulness of the extensive bibliography is reduced by the pointless separation of works published before 1970 from those published after. Note the omission of Walbank 1994 (referred to at p. 63 n. 180); the correct title of Lehmann 1989/1990 is ‘History in the Histories of Polybius’. An index of passages discussed and a general index conclude the book.
