Few ancient historians have been discussed as much as Polybius. His work on the contemporary rise of Rome to world power and his troubled political and human experience ‘between Greece and Rome’ have always provided abundant material for quarrels between modern scholars. The new series Historiography of Rome and Its Empire, published by Brill and led by C.H. Lange and J.M. Madsen, with its focus on Greek and Latin traditions on the rise of the Roman Empire, could not avoid joining the debate.
The challenge is successfully taken by M., who presents an innovative and stimulating reading of the work of the Megalopolitan historian that will be of particular interest, for its premises as well for its conclusions, for both specialists and anyone interested in the teaching of history.
From the beginning of the book, M. eludes wisely becoming explicitly involved in the old-fashioned debate on Polybius’ personal opinion on Roman imperialism and conversely decides to focus on his considerations of concepts, such as ‘personal experience’ and ‘learning from history’, and on their role in the education of future statesmen. Although this choice seems to confine the research on a technical and limited aspect of Polybius’ work, M.'s conclusions are of critical importance for the overall interpretation of his historiographical aims.
In Chapter 1, ‘History and Experience in Polybius’, M. begins the analysis with a lengthy and illuminating discussion of Polybius’ statements on the key role that first-hand experience and/or historical knowledge play in the educational process. On this subject Polybius has been frequently accused of inconsistency, especially since he repeatedly affirmed that empeiria – usually, at least from Plato, considered as the knowledge acquired through first-hand experience – could be alternatively gained through the study of history, i.e. the experiences of others. M.'s belief, which emerges from the beginning of the book, is that this inconsistency is just apparent and that Polybius truly synthesised these concepts, where experience, the study of history and what he called ‘scientific study’ contribute to the formation of the ideal ‘man in action’ (pragmatikos anēr) and lay the foundations to explain Rome's ultimate success in her Mediterranean expansion.
As M. recognises, the statement is bold, and so he devotes the core of the book to a critical survey of the Histories, in order to show that this general assumption is confirmed by Polybius’ historical narrative. He starts by clarifying the true relationship between ‘personal experience’ and ‘historical learning’, and he intriguingly decides to do it through the analysis of Polybius’ portraits of Hannibal (Chapter 2: ‘Hannibal, Practical Experience, and the Model Historian’) and Scipio Africanus (Chapter 3: ‘Learning from History’). While Hannibal's epic adventure substantiates the importance that practical experience could play in guaranteeing extraordinary successes, Scipio witnesses the explosive combination generated when this experience is accompanied by the study of history. Indeed, even if Scipio cannot measure up to Hannibal's strategic or tactical qualities, his willingness to do historical research and to learn both from his own and from others’ past experiences (i.e. defeats) ultimately make him superior and allow him to defeat the Punic general. ‘Willingness’ is a central concept in Polybius’ construction, which M. aptly discusses through another comparison, this time between Scipio and Philip V of Macedon, where the latter represents the common youngster unwilling to appreciate the lessons of history and, because of this, destined to succumb. Here, M. also introduces the topic of the transfer of experience to future generations, a factor that will constitute the core of the second part of the book: Philip's early unwillingness to learn also affects his sons, who consequently will suffer the same fate as their father.
In Chapter 4, ‘Experience and History in the Roman Constitution’, M. broadens his analysis by wondering whether Scipio Africanus’ ability to learn both from his own experiences and the study of history is unique or, according to Polybius, is something deeply rooted in Roman society. The answer rests in Book 6, where Polybius analyses the Roman constitution. M. shows how, in Polybius’ eyes, the Romans’ ability to learn collectively from the past and the historical memory ingrained in their institutions perfectly explains Scipio Africanus’ remarkable accomplishments and Rome's ultimate success in her worldwide expansion. What makes the Roman constitution better than other mixed constitutions is the fact that the Romans developed it by learning and remembering from their own struggles and experiences. A critical example of this attitude is represented by aristocratic funerals, which provided a spectacle through which new generations learned history and were also inspired to accomplish great deeds.
This last concept is further developed in Chapter 5, ‘Roman Innovation in Polybius’ Narrative’, where Roman military innovations during the First and the Second Punic War are presented as an example of the community's ability to collectively learn from their defeats, and especially in Chapter 6, ‘Exemplary Roman History’, which deals with Rome's capacity to preserve the lessons of the past, even after the rise of Africanus shifted the focus from collective to individual leadership. In this chapter M. takes into account the examples of L. Aemilius Paullus and his biological son, Scipio Aemilianus, which illustrate the eagerness of Roman leaders to keep learning from others’ misfortunes and to pass their lessons on to future generations. The only danger here is represented by the fact that individual exempla are not always easy to find (a premonition of the future crisis of the Roman politeia?).
Finally, in the ‘Conclusions’ M. sums up the results and sets Polybius within contemporary Roman debates on the value of history and practical experiences. An interesting comparison is drawn with Cato and what we learn from Cicero's De re publica, even though, despite the lack of much of the second-century material, M. could have devoted more space to this section. Ultimately, M. sees in Polybius’ insistence on the combination of practical experience and the study of history nothing less than the answer to his most famous question: ‘How and by what kind of constitution nearly the whole world fell under the sole rule of the Romans’. The peculiarity (and superiority) of the Roman constitution stands in its ability to combine these two elements, and this is the lesson that Polybius wanted to teach to his readers.
Overall, M. conducts his research with great reliability and a constant attention to Polybius’ text. He deals with hotly debated topics (such as the portraits of the Scipios; the analysis of the Roman constitution; the praise of Hannibal, Rome's mortal enemy); guided as he is by his particular reading, he is always able to offer new and challenging views. In particular, by keeping himself focused on the text, he has avoided the danger that many scholars have encountered, namely to approach the Histories through a distorted lens given by preconceived ideas on Polybius’ political and ideological position on the rise of Rome. A critical and closer analysis of his work, on the other hand, shows how Polybius’ efforts were much more concerned with other questions, such as the importance of history and the lessons that his (as others’) experiences could teach to future generations. By revealing once more this crucial aspect, M. has provided us with a stimulating reading that certainly will be of practical use for anyone interested in the study of this great historian.
