SLC Thesis Template - ResearchSpace@Auckland - The University ...

Romans. 27 Nepos‟ placement of the Hannibal biography under a heading of „kings‟ is in
accord with Polybius‟ presentation of Hannibal‟s epitaph.
Polybius presents an epitaph for each of Philopoemen, Hannibal and Scipio as an
example to illustrate appropriate conduct for leaders in what Polybius believes are the
three main types of constitution: Philopoemen sought glory in the democratic or mixed
constitution, Scipio in an aristocratic constitution and Hannibal as a virtual monarch in
the sense of his life in Spain and Italy (Hist. 23.12; 23.13; 23.14). 28
Marincola 29 argues that Polybius‟ didactic purpose, to advise Greek-reading aspiring
statesmen, was neither relevant nor of interest to the Romans of Livy‟s audience. This
may be so, but comments by Cicero and Livy indicate that later Romans had great
respect for the Greek historian while acknowledging that he had shortcomings,
especially a bias in favour of Scipio Africanus. 30 Livy‟s praise of Polybius at the end of
the Hannibalic decad (Livy, 30.45) is noted as a unique accolade 31 but it does not mean
that Livy prioritises the Polybian tradition over others in the Hannibalic decad. Indeed
Livy more frequently acknowledges a preference for the Polybian tradition in the fourth
decad, 32 yet also places his strongest criticism of Polybius in that decad over Polybius‟
preferred date for the death of Hannibal (Livy, 39.52.1). The particular comparisons
made in this thesis show that Livy frequently prioritises an alternative tradition, or
applies a nuanced difference to the one preferred by Polybius. 33
The stated respect for Polybius by ancient authors, coupled with, among other things,
Polybius‟ deceptively credible style of presentation, has resulted in a tendency among
twentieth century historical scholarship 34 to prefer the tradition espoused in the
Histories over other texts, including Livy, while glossing over the underlying
presentational style of the Histories.
27 See Sage, 1978, 217-241 for general discussion of structure and chronology in Cornelius Nepos‟ text.
Also McGushin, 1985 for transmission of the Punica; Dionisotti, 1988, 35-49. Mellor, 1999, 137-143 for
a summary of Nepos and biographical writing. Geiger, 1985, argues (from silence on earlier sources) that
Nepos invented biography as a genre; also review of Geiger by Wiseman, 1987, 250.
28 Pomeroy, 1991, 96, n40.
29 Marincola, 1997, 29.
30 Cicero, De Off. 3.113.7; ad Fam. 5.12.2.8; ad Att. 13.30.2.2; Livy, 30.45.7; 33.10.10.
31 Mellor, 1999, 67.
32 Livy on Polybius: 33.10.10 an authority worthy of credence; 34.50.6 Polybius writes that; 36.19.11 on
authority of Polybius; 39.52.1 as both Polybius and Rutilius write; 45.44.20 Polybius reports that... For
discussions on Livy‟s sources: Walsh, 1963, Ch. 5; Mellor, 1999, 67-8.
33 See Marincola, 1997, esp. appendices for discussion on how historians chose between variant versions.
34 CAH 8, both editions prioritize Polybius over Livy as a source. For comparisons between the two texts,
generally discussed in terms of Livy‟s use of sources: see Walbank, Comm.; Tränkle, 1977; Moore, 1989;
Hoyos, 2001, 68-92; 2006; 2008, 5: (Livy‟s) „historical and analytical skills were limited.‟ Briscoe, 1980,
190; Bosworth, 2003, 168. Cf. Luce, 1977, 139-229.
13