“Polybius on Speeches in Timaeus: Syntax and Structure in Plb. 12.25a.” Classical Quarterly 64.1, 2014, pp. 121-135

The Classical QuarterlyhttpjournalscambridgeorgCAQ

Additional services for The Classical Quarterly

Email alerts Click hereSubscriptions Click hereCommercial reprints Click hereTerms of use Click here

POLYBIUS ON SPEECHES IN TIMAEUS SYNTAXAND STRUCTURE IN HISTORIES 1225A

N Wiater

The Classical Quarterly Volume 64 Issue 01 May 2014 pp 121 - 135DOI 101017S000983881300058X Published online 16 April 2014

Link to this article httpjournalscambridgeorgabstract_S000983881300058X

How to cite this articleN Wiater (2014) POLYBIUS ON SPEECHES IN TIMAEUS SYNTAX ANDSTRUCTURE IN HISTORIES 1225A The Classical Quarterly 64 pp 121-135doi101017S000983881300058X

Request Permissions Click here

Downloaded from httpjournalscambridgeorgCAQ IP address 1382511457 on 17 Apr 2014

POLYBIUS ON SPEECHES IN TIMAEUS SYNTAX ANDSTRUCTURE IN HISTORIES 1225A

The most famous ndash and most discussed ndash ancient statement on speeches in historio-graphy is probably Thucydides 1221 but Polybiusrsquo discussion of speeches inTimaeus in Book 12 of his Histories follows closely1 Although Polybiusrsquo criticismof Timaeus has been fruitfully studied from very different angles the meaning andimplications of many of his statements are still debated2

This paper is part of an ongoing project that systematically (re-)examines the role ofspeeches in both the methodological and the narrative passages of Polybiusrsquo HistoriesThis project was prompted by a chapter on the speeches in the third book of Polybiusrsquo

I should like to thank my friends and colleagues Dr Thomas Riesenweber and Professor OttoZwierlein for their criticism thanks are also due to the anonymous reader for drawing attention topoints that needed clarification and to my partner Pam Hutcheson for diligent proof-reading ofthe manuscript and indispensable linguistic advice

1 The standard treatment of speeches in Polybius is still P Peacutedech La Meacutethode historique dePolybe (Paris 1964) 254ndash302 F Walbank Speeches in Greek Historians The Third JL MyersMemorial Lecture (Oxford 1965) for more recent treatments see S Usher lsquoOratio recta and oratioobliqua in Polybiusrsquo GRBS 49 (2009) 487ndash514 J Marincola lsquoSpeeches in classical historiographyrsquoin id (ed) A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography (Malden MA Oxford and Victoria2007) 1118ndash32 esp 123ndash6 see further C Wooten lsquoThe speeches in Polybius An insight into thenature of Hellenistic oratoryrsquo AJPh 95 (1974) 235ndash51 On the polemical and methodological pas-sages in Polybius with special emphasis on book twelve and the polemic against Timaeus seemost recently C Baron lsquoThe use and abuse of historians Polybios Book 12 and our evidence forTimaiosrsquo AncSoc 39 (2009) 1ndash34 an interesting attempt to go beyond Polybiusrsquo polemical criticismand use it as a basis for a more balanced assessment of Timaeusrsquo historical work further K SacksPolybius on the Writing of History (Berkeley Los Angeles and London 1981) R Nicolai lsquoPolibiointerprete di Tucididersquo Seminari romani di cultura greca 2 (1999) 281ndash301 M Vercruysse lsquoA larecherche du mensonge et de la veacuteriteacute La fonction des passages meacutethodologiques chez Polybersquo inH Verdin G Schepens and E de Keyser (edd) The Purposes of History Studies in GreekHistoriography from the 4th to the 2nd Centuries BC Studia Hellenistica 30 (Leuven 1990) 17ndash38 K Meister Historische Kritik bei Polybios Palingenesia 9 (Wiesbaden 1975) 3ndash55 esp 35ndash9(on the speeches) J Bocquet lsquoPolybius on the critical evaluation of historiansrsquo AncSoc 13ndash14(1982ndash3) 277ndash91 FW Walbank lsquoPolemic in Polybiusrsquo JRS 52 (1962) 1ndash12 cf alsoT Wiedemann lsquoRhetoric in Polybiusrsquo in Verdin Schepens and de Keyser (above) 289ndash300 onthe speeches in Timaeus see L Pearson lsquoThe speeches in Timaeusrsquo AJPh 107 (1986) 320ndash68and C Baronrsquos forthcoming study Timaios of Tauromenion and Hellenistic HistoriographyScholarly interest in speeches in ancient historians has increased considerably in the last few yearsas is documented by such works as eg C Scardino Gestaltung und Funktion der Reden beiHerodot und Thukydides BzA 250 (Berlin 2007) and D Pausch (ed) Stimmen der GeschichteFunktionen von Reden in der antiken Historiographie BzA 284 (Berlin 2010)

2 See the discussions of the relevant passages in the commentaries of FW Walbank A HistoricalCommentary on Polybius vol 2 (Oxford 1967) and P Peacutedech Polybe Histoires XII Texte eacutetablitraduit et commenteacute (Paris 1961) further S Mohm Untersuchungen zu den historiographischenAnschauungen des Polybios (Diss Saarbruumlcken 19772) 51ndash67 (a detailed discussion of previousinterpretations especially Peacutedechrsquos commentary) Sacks (n 1) 79ndash95 Marincola (n 1) 123ndash6

Classical Quarterly 641 121ndash135 copy The Classical Association (2014) 121doi101017S000983881300058X

work published in a volume on speeches in ancient historiography in 20103 Originallythe present paper was to become the second major step of this undertaking a compre-hensive discussion of Polybiusrsquo criticism of the speeches in Timaeus in Book 12 whichrepresents the core of his theoretical discussion of speeches in historical narrative Thislarge-scale investigation came to an early halt at the programmatic passage 1225a4ndash5which opens Polybiusrsquo criticism and is key to understanding his approach to speeches inhistorical narrative but is also one of the most controversial statements of the entireHistories Since none of the available interpretations of this passage seemed satisfactory(on the contrary many including Walbankrsquos turned out to be at odds with Greek gram-mar as I will demonstrate below) it seemed necessary critically to re-examine the syn-tax semantics and grammar of this crucial passage on its own and if possible to clarifyits meaning before any comprehensive review of Polybiusrsquo discussion of speeches inBook 12 could be carried out What follows is therefore a philological analysis witha deliberately narrow focus on 1225a4ndash5 its purpose is to provide more reliable foun-dations for a comprehensive discussion which will be undertaken in a separate study

1225a4ndash5 is part of Polybiusrsquo general criticism of Timaeus for deliberately misre-presenting the historical events a flaw he notes strikingly at odds with Timaeusrsquo con-stant castigations of the alleged unreliability of other historical accounts Polybius sayshe will now provide the ultimate evidence for Timaeusrsquo deliberate falsification of thepast (ταῦτα παρrsquo ἀλήθειαν ἐν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασι κατατέταχε Τίμαιος καὶ τοῦτοπεποίηκε κατὰ πρόθεσιν 1225a4) which will convince even the most stubbornadmirers of Timaeusrsquo work4 This evidence Polybius says is the speeches in hiswork and 1225a5 gives the reason (γάρ) for this statement (a translation of the passageis provided at the end of this article)

οὐ γὰρ τὰ ῥηθέντα γέγραφεν οὐδrsquo ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν ἀλλὰ προθέμενος ὡς δεῖῥηθῆναι πάντας ἐξαριθμεῖται τοὺς ῥηθέντας λόγους καὶ τὰ παρεπόμενα τοῖς πράγμασινοὕτως ὡς ἂν εἴ τις ἐν διατριβῇ πρὸς ὑπόθεσιν ἐπιχειροίη lthellipgt ὥσπερ ἀπόδειξιν τῆςἑαυτοῦ δυνάμεως ποιούμενος ἀλλrsquo οὐκ ἐξήγησιν τῶν κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν εἰρημένων

It is the beginning of the passage (οὐ γὰρ τὰ ῥηθέντα γέγραφεν οὐδrsquo ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquoἀλήθειαν ἀλλὰ προθέμενος ὡς δεῖ ῥηθῆναι) which has attracted most critical atten-tion In particular scholars have found difficulty with the apparent tautology of οὐhellip τὰ ῥηθέντα γέγραφεν and οὐδrsquo ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν and tried to eliminatethis problem by arguing that Polybius is distinguishing three different methods of ren-dering speeches in historiography namely a verbatim reproduction an accurate sum-mary and free invention by the historian

Reviewing the arguments on which this assumption of such a tripartite structure ofPolybiusrsquo thought is based I will demonstrate that the interpretation of τὰ ῥηθέντα asmeaning a reproduction of the actual speech and of ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν as refer-ring to an lsquoaccurate reacutesumeacute of the actual speechrsquo (Walbank) encounters serious

3 lsquoSpeeches and historical narrative in Polybiusrsquos Historiesrsquo in D Pausch (n 1) 69ndash1074 25a2ndash3 ἐπειδὰν γὰρ ἓν ἢ δεύτερον εὑρεθῇ ψεῦδος ἐν τοῖς συγγράμμασι καὶ τοῦτο γεγονὸς ᾖ

κατὰ προαίρεσιν δῆλον ὡς οὐδὲν ἂν ἔτι βέβαιον οὐδrsquo ἀσφαλὲς γένοιτο τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ τοιούτουσυγγραφέως λεγομένων ἵνα δὲ καὶ τοὺς φιλοτιμότερον διακειμένους μεταπείσωμεν ῥητέον ἂνεἴη περὶ τῆς αἱρέσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ μελέτης τῆς κατὰ τὰς δημηγορίας καὶ τὰς παρακλήσεις ἔτι δὲτοὺς πρεσβευτικοὺς λόγουςhellip The fragmentary state of Book 12 often makes it difficult to establishhow the individual passages were originally connected but the structure of the argument in 1225a isnot debated on the structure of Book 12 in general see eg Sacks (n 1) 66ndash79 Peacutedech (n 2) ixndashxxxv

N WIATER122

difficulties On the one hand these difficulties arise from fundamental issues of Greeksemantics which will be discussed in the first part of my argument on the other dis-cussions have often focussed too narrowly on the beginning of the passage without giv-ing due attention to its relation to the points Polybius makes in the remaining part of thesentence However as I will argue this is essential to an adequate understanding ofPolybiusrsquo criticism Therefore the findings of the first part of my argument will be com-plemented by the first in-depth analysis of the structure and semantics of Histories1225a4ndash5 as a whole Combined with a comprehensive analysis of Polybiusrsquo use ofτὰ ῥηθέντα throughout his work these considerations will provide a strong argumentin favour of abandoning the idea that Histories 1225a4ndash5 represents a general state-ment on historical method and on different ways of rendering speeches in historicalworks5 Rather as I will argue Polybius is concerned here exclusively with the directspeeches in Timaeusrsquo work and their lack of historical reliability

The most influential interpretation of 1225a4ndash5 is no doubt the one proposed byWalbank in his Historical Commentary Walbank translates the passage as lsquowhat wassaid nor the real sense of what was saidrsquo which he paraphrases as lsquoie neither a tran-script nor an accurate reacutesumeacute of the actual speechrsquo At the same time he rejects the alter-native reading lsquowhat was said nor the form in which it was actually saidrsquo which wasproposed by Welzhofer in 18806 Similarly Peacutedech takes τὰ ῥηθέντα γράφειν torefer to a reproduction of the historical speeches in direct speech while explaining(like Walbank) ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν as referring to an accurate reacutesumeacute in reportedspeech of what was said7

An alternative explanation of τὰ ῥηθέντα is suggested by Mohm who paraphrases itas lsquoa reproduction of the argument of the speech and its structure the words being thoseof the historiographerrsquo (lsquoein Nachzeichnen des Gedankengangs and desArgumentationsablaufs der Rede wobei die sprachlichen Formulierungen auf denGeschichtsschreiber zuruumlckgehenrsquo)8 Finally Nicolai objects to Peacutedechrsquos interpretationReferring to 1225a5 (quoted above) 25b1 25b4 and 36179 he claims that Polybius

5 My conclusions partly concur with those of an important article of Nicolai (n 1) on the relation-ship between Polybiusrsquo and Thucydidesrsquo statements on speeches in historiography He does not how-ever provide any detailed discussion of the passage (mentioned rather briefly as one among manyothers ibid 284ndash5) Rather he confines himself to stating (ibid 285) lsquoNon arrivo a pensare chetra τὰ ῥηθέντα e ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν non ci sia alcuna distinzione e che si tratti di una sempliceridondanza retoricahellip ma credo che Polibio abbia introdotto la distinzione solo per enfatizzare i difettidi Timeo la riproduzione letterale delle parole dette hellip non rientrava neanche tra gli obiettivi dellostorico che si proponeva al piugrave la fedeltagrave ai concetti espressirsquo

6 H Welzhofer lsquoDie Reden bei Polybiosrsquo Jahrbuumlcher fuumlr Classische Philologie 26 (1880) 539ndash44 at 540ndash1 translates τὰ ῥηθέντα as lsquodas wirklich gesprochenersquo (lsquowhat was actually saidrsquo) and ὡςἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν as lsquoin der form hellip wie es in wahrheit gesprochen wordenrsquo (lsquoin the style inwhich it was actually saidrsquo)

7 Peacutedech (n 2) 124 this explanation is accepted also by Mohm (n 2) 568 Mohm (n 2) 569 25b1 Ὅτι τῆς ἱστορίας ἰδίωμα τοῦτrsquo ἐστὶ τὸ πρῶτον μὲν αὐτοὺς τοὺς κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν

εἰρημένους οἷοί ποτrsquo ἂν ὦσι γνῶναι λόγους δεύτερον τὴν αἰτίαν πυνθάνεσθαι παρrsquo ἣν ἢδιέπεσεν ἢ κατωρθώθη τὸ πραχθὲν ἢ ῥηθέν 25b4 ὁ δὲ καὶ τοὺς ῥηθέντας λόγους καὶ τὴναἰτίαν παρασιωπῶν ψευδῆ δrsquo ἀντὶ τούτων ἐπιχειρήματα καὶ διεξοδικοὺς λέγων λόγους ἀναιρεῖτὸ τῆς ἱστορίας ἴδιον 3617 ἀλλrsquo οὔτε τοῖς πολιτικοῖς ἀνδράσιν οἶμαι πρέπειν πρὸς πᾶν τὸπροτεθὲν διαβούλιον εὑρησιλογεῖν καὶ διεξοδικοῖς χρῆσθαι λόγοις ἀλλrsquo ἀεὶ τοῖς ἁρμόζουσιπρὸς τὸν ὑποκείμενον καιρόν οὔτε τοῖς ἱστοριογράφοις ἐμμελετᾶν τοῖς ἀκούουσιν οὐδrsquoἐναποδείκνυσθαι τὴν αὑτῶν δύναμιν ἀλλὰ lt τὰgt κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν ῥηθέντα ltκαθrsquogt ὅσον οἷόντε πολυπραγμονήσαντας διασαφεῖν καὶ τούτων τὰ καιριώτατα καὶ πραγματικώτατα I willreturn to these passages below

POLYBIUS ON SPEECHES IN TIMAEUS 123

never distinguishes between a verbatim reproduction and a summary of a speech10

Instead he suggests that ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν is merely an explication of τὰῥηθέντα and that Polybius employed this slightly tautological expression to emphasiseeven more effectively that Timaeus did not even intend to provide verbatim reproduc-tions of speeches11

All interpreters of this passage focus on one problem namely the perceived tautol-ogy of οὐ hellip τὰ ῥηθένταhellip οὐδrsquo ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν and all interpreters exceptfor Mohm and probably Welzhofer unanimously take τὰ ῥηθέντα to mean lsquothespeeches as they were givenrsquo that is as an expression synonymous with οἱ ῥηθέντεςλόγοι12 If τὰ ῥηθέντα refers to the speeches as they were actually pronounced bythe historical actors then ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν becomes a problem because itseems superfluous

Only Nicolai as pointed out above accepts the idea that this tautology might bedeliberate and that ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν does not introduce a new point but isadded to reinforce Polybiusrsquo previous statement οὐ hellip τὰ ῥηθέντα γέγραφεν Theother commentators cited above by contrast sought to solve the tautology by assigninga new meaning to ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν They regarded the phrase as the middleelement of an enumeration of three different methods of representing speeches in histor-ical narratives13 first Timaeus could have given the verbatim reproduction of thespeeches τὰ ῥηθέντα which he did not do alternatively he could have given an

10 As I will argue below this is true for Polybiusrsquo use of τὰ ῥηθέντα but not for the similar expres-sions τοὺς κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν εἰρημένους hellip λόγους τοὺς ῥηθέντας λόγους and ltτὰgt κατrsquo ἀλήθειανῥηθέντα in the passages he quotes to support his statement In all of these passages it is evident fromthe context that Polybius is referring to the actual speeches as they were given by the historical actorsNicolai fails to make this distinction and to take the context of the expressions into account

11 Nicolai (n 1) 285 Usher (n 1) 488 seems to understand the passage in a similar way as issuggested by his translation lsquoHe has not written what was said nor the actual words usedrsquo and sub-sequent comment lsquoThe first part of this charge would have been admitted by Thucydides who likeTimaeus did not hear what was actually said by speakersrsquo yet then he adds lsquoBut Polybius does noteven allow Timaeus the credit of being a responsible reporterrsquo which by contrast seems to indicatethat he does in fact differentiate between lsquowhat was saidrsquo (ie a reliable report of the speech) and lsquotheactual words usedrsquo (ie a verbatim reproduction of the speech) Unfortunately Usher does not discussthe passage

12 This is apparent from Walbankrsquos paraphrase of the expression as lsquoa transcriptrsquo see Walbank(n 2) 386 This also forces him to resort to the unconvincing explanation of πάντας τοὺςῥηθέντας λόγους shortly afterwards as referring not to the speeches given by the historical actorsbut to the speeches as presented by Timaeus (for a detailed refutation of this view see below)Peacutedech on the other hand directly translates τὰ ῥηθέντα as lsquola lettrersquo ie a verbatim rendering more-over in his lsquocommentairersquo he paraphrases τὰ ῥηθέντα γράφειν as lsquoreproduire purement et simplementles paroles prononceacutees hellip ce qui suppose une transcription fidegravele au style directrsquo see Peacutedech (n 2)124 Nicolairsquos suggestion that the slightly tautological expression merely highlights the fact that thespeeches in Timaeusrsquo work are not even meant to be transcripts of the actual speeches shows that hetoo takes τὰ ῥηθέντα hellip ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν to be an alternative expression for lsquothe speechesthat were given by the historical actorsrsquo Finally Welzhoferrsquos (n 6) position is not entirely clear Hetranslates τὰ ῥηθέντα as lsquowhat was really saidrsquo (lsquodas wirklich gesprochenersquo) while rendering ὡςἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν as lsquoin the formstyle in which it was actually saidrsquo (lsquoin der form hellip wie esin wahrheit gesprochen wordenrsquo) Whereas his translation of τὰ ῥηθέντα leads us to believe that hetakes the phrase to refer to the speeches given in general the contrast with ὡς ἐρρήθη lsquothe formrsquoseems to suggest that he takes τὰ ῥηθέντα in a more specific sense as referring to the content ofthe speeches The latter assumption is supported by his subsequent paraphrasis of τὰ ῥηθέντα aslsquothe contentrsquo (lsquoihrem ganzen inhalt nachrsquo) A similar interpretation of the phrase is suggested byMohm (n 2) cf n 7 above

13 Mohm (n 2) 56 summarizing Walbankrsquos (n 2) and Peacutedechrsquos (n 2) interpretations of the pas-sage appropriately speaks of lsquothree degrees of authenticityrsquo (lsquodrei Stufen der Wahrheitstreuersquo)

N WIATER124

accurate reacutesumeacute of what was said ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν ndash a reading which is obvi-ously influenced (and in this case led astray) by Thucydidesrsquo famous ἐχομένῳ ὅτιἐγγύτατα τῆς ξυμπάσης γνώμης τῶν ἀληθῶς λεχθέντων (1221)14 finally the thirdoption ndash and the one which Timaeus chose ndash the historian could simply compose thespeeches himself according to the rules of rhetorical compositions προθέμενος ὡςδεῖ ῥηθῆναι15

As I will now demonstrate the interpretation of ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν as lsquoareacutesumeacute of the actual speechrsquo (Walbank) is ruled out by Greek language use Themain problem is that ὡς ἐρρήθη cannot refer to the content of a speech to the exclusionof its form or style but this is what a lsquoreacutesumeacute of a speechrsquo must mean summarizingonly the arguments (possibly in the same order as they were proffered by the speaker)but not the exact words of the speaker as explicitly stated by Peacutedech (lsquoau style indir-ectrsquo)16 But for ὡς ἐρρήθη to refer exclusively to the content of a speech one wouldhave to substitute ὡς with οἷα οr ἅ17 Such a distinction is to be expected especiallyin a rhetorical context such as the present one at least since Aristotle authors of rhet-orical handbooks clearly distinguished what was said from how it was said the firstreferring to the content of the speech the πράγματα the second to its form theλέξις Aristotle makes a point of differentiating between ἃ δεῖ λέγειν and ὡς δεῖεἰπεῖν (Rhetorica 31403b16) and shortly afterwards contrasts the lsquoconvincingrsquo(πιθανόν) that is based on the facts (πράγματα) with the lsquoconvincingrsquo that is basedon the form or style of the speech (τῇ λέξει)18

A close look at the structure of Polybiusrsquo argument supports this interpretation firstthe poignant parallel of ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν and the following ὡς δεῖ ῥηθῆναιrenders it highly improbable that ὡς in ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν should be taken aslimited to either the style or the content of the speeches since ὡς in ὡς δεῖ ῥηθῆναιclearly refers to both style and content of the speeches in Timaeusrsquo narrative indiscrim-inately the same must be assumed for ὡς in ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν lest the parallelbecome meaningless

Second there is a clear parallelism between the beginning of 1225a4ndash5 and its endthe bipartite expression which concludes the passage ἀπόδειξιν τῆς ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμεωςποιούμενος ἀλλrsquo οὐκ ἐξήγησιν τῶν κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν εἰρημένων not only summarizesPolybiusrsquo main point that the speeches in Timaeus are the historianrsquos own compositionand not an accurate representation of what was really said19 The two parts of this phrasealso resume chiastically Polybiusrsquo opening statement with ἀπόδειξιν τῆς ἑαυτοῦ

14 See Peacutedechrsquos (n 2) translation lsquoni mecircme lrsquoespritrsquo which would be an appropriate paraphrasis ofThucydidesrsquo τῆς ξυμπάσης γνώμης but is an impossible translation of ὡς ἐρρήθη similarly Walbank(n 2) 386 lsquothe real sense of what was saidrsquo

15 Cf Nicolai (n 1) 286 who rightly points out that there is a substantial difference (lsquouna differ-enza sostanzialersquo) between Polybiusrsquo δεῖ and Thucydidesrsquo τὰ δέοντα while Thucydides is referring tospeeches composed with due regard to the circumstances and the character of the speaker Polybiusrsquopoint is that Timaeus is following the purely theoretical rules of rhetorical composition taught in theschools of declamation which have lost all contact with political reality and are a far cry from the veri-similitude which Thucydides sought to achieve

16 Peacutedech (n 2) 12417 KuumlhnerndashGerth 22 sect5818 at 495 discuss a few cases in which ὡς seems to be used instead of

the relative pronoun but conclude that in each of these cases the subordinate clause actually describesthe way and method by which something was done or achieved (lsquodie Art und Weise hellip wie sich dasim Hauptsatz Ausgesagte verhaltersquo emphasis mine)

18 Rh 31403b19ndash20 cf Eth Nic 41128a1 οἷα δεῖ λέγειν καὶ ὥς19 I will return to this point below

POLYBIUS ON SPEECHES IN TIMAEUS 125

δυνάμεως ποιούμενος referring back to προθέμενος ὡς δεῖ ῥηθῆναι and οὐκ ἐξήγησιντῶν κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν εἰρημένων to οὐ hellip τὰ ῥηθέντα γέγραφεν οὐδrsquo ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquoἀλήθειαν Since Polybius does not make any distinction between the form and the con-tent of the speeches here it seems safe to assume the same for τὰ ῥηθέντα and ὡςἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν at the beginning of the passage

These considerations lead us to the first conclusion of this argument that ὡς ἐρρήθηκατrsquo ἀλήθειαν cannot mean an lsquoaccurate reacutesumeacutersquo (in indirect speech) of a historicalspeech and therefore cannot refer to the content of a speech to the exclusion of itsform ὡς in ὡς ἐρρήθη and ὡς δεῖ ῥηθῆναι can refer either to the style (λέξις) of aspeech only (which does not make much sense in the present context)20 or to bothstyle and content of a speech together (the speech lsquoas it was utteredrsquo) but never tothe content of a speech alone

Τὰ ῥηθέντα by contrast can denote a verbatim reproduction of an original speechbut it can equally be used to refer to the opposite notion a mere summary of the contentof a speech regardless of the speakerrsquos actual words21 This is how Mohm understoodthe term22 and this also explains why Welzhofer took ὡς ἐρρήθη to mean lsquothe form inwhich it was saidrsquo without further discussion23 Hence τὰ ῥηθέντα can be used both inthe sense of lsquothe exact speech that was given in style and contentrsquo and in the sense oflsquothe content main points of what was saidrsquo

Therefore and this is the second conclusion if we wanted to uphold the assumptionthat Polybius is in fact distinguishing three different ways of rendering speeches in his-torical works ndash accurate reproduction summary of the content and the historiographerrsquosown compositions ndash it is ὡς ἐρρήθη and not τὰ ῥηθέντα as Walbank and Peacutedechclaimed which would have to be taken to designate the first alternative τὰ ῥηθένταby contrast which Walbank and Peacutedech had taken to refer to a verbatim reproduction

20 For an interesting parallel expression which provides further support to this conclusion see XenAp 1 There the narrator explains that the authors of previous Apologies resemble each other in thelsquoloftinessrsquo (transl Todd) of Socratesrsquo tone (μεγαληγορία) but that all of them failed in providingtheir speeches with a content (διανοίᾳ in the next quotation) sophisticated enough to match the lsquolofti-nessrsquo of the words a failure he intends to correct (ὥστε πρέπουσαν φαίνεσθαι τὴν μεγαληγορίαναὐτοῦ τῇ διανοίᾳ ibid 2 emphasis added) He remarks however that the fact that all the previousworks concur in this lsquoloftinessrsquo of Socratesrsquo tone proved that lsquoit was really thus spoken by Socratesrsquo(transl mine) The phrasing of this statement which it is clear from the context refers exclusively tothe style of the previous works is remarkably similar to Polybiusrsquos ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν δῆλονὅτι τῷ ὄντι οὕτως ἐρρήθη ὑπὸ Σωκράτους

21 See eg Thuc 2272 ὁ μὲν Ἀρχίδαμος τοσαῦτα εἶπεν οἱ δὲ Πλαταιῶν πρέσβεις ἀκούσαντεςταῦτα ἐσῆλθον ἐς τὴν πόλιν καὶ τῷ πλήθει τὰ ῥηθέντα κοινώσαντες ἀπεκρίναντο hellip Obviouslythe messengers do not repeat Archidamusrsquo whole speech to their people but give them a summary ofthe content τὰ ῥηθέντα similarly ibid 5601 ὁ Ἆγις δεξάμενος τοὺς λόγους αὐτός καὶ οὐ μετὰτῶν πλεόνων οὐδὲ αὐτὸς βουλευσάμενος ἀλλrsquo ἢ ἑνὶ ἀνδρὶ κοινώσας τῶν ἐν τέλειξυστρατευομένων σπένδεται τέσσαρας μῆνας ἐν οἷς ἔδει ἐπιτελέσαι αὐτοὺς τὰ ῥηθέντα ielsquothe things he had ordered them to do in his speechrsquo in Isoc 3123 (Ἡγοῦμαι δrsquo οὕτως ἂνμάλιστα παρακαλέσαι καὶ προτρέψαι πρὸς τὸ μνημονεύειν ὑμᾶς τὰ ῥηθέντα καὶ πειθαρχεῖναὐτοῖς) τὰ ῥηθέντα is followed by a summary of the main points Isocrates might make XenHell 4113 (προσιόντων δrsquo εὐθὺς εἶπεν ὁ Ἡριππίδας Τὰ μὲν ἄλλα ὦ Ἀγησίλαε τὰ ῥηθέντα τίἄν τις μακρολογοίη τέλος δὲ λέγει Σπιθριδάτης πᾶν ποιεῖν ἂν ἡδέως ὅ τι σοι δοκοίη) with τὰῥηθέντα meaning lsquothe several other points he madersquo Pl Phlb 39b1 (ἀποδέχομαι τὰ ῥηθένταοὕτως lsquoI understand what was said ie the arguments proffered in the speech as followsrsquo)

22 Mohm (n 2) 56 (see above)23 To him this interpretation was so obvious that he even stated that lsquothe meaning of this passage is

so clear that a misunderstanding is impossiblersquo (lsquodie stelle ist so klar dasz kein misverstaumlndnismoumlglich istrsquo 541)

N WIATER126

of a speech would then have to be taken to denote an (accurate) summary or reacutesumeacute ofthe content of a speech alone On this basis Polybiusrsquo sentence would translate thus

For Timaeus does not record what was said [τὰ ῥηθέντα that is give a summary of the contentof a speech] nor does he record a speech the way it was actually given [ὡς ἐρρήθη κατ᾽ἀλήθειαν that is provide a verbatim reproduction of the original speech] but presenting uswith speeches as they should have been uttered he recounts all the speeches that were givenand the circumstances of the events just as if someone was setting about to compose a rhetoricalexercise on a given topic lthellipgt and in so doing is showing off his own rhetorical abilities butdoes not provide an account of what was actually said

At first sight this might seem a satisfactory explanation but a closer look reveals somedifficulties with this too which are worth exploring further First the use of οὐδέ isproblematic If the above interpretation were correct Polybiusrsquo arrangement of thethree methods of rendering speeches in a historical narrative would be somewhat oddWe expect a climax starting with the best possible and from the point of view of his-torical accuracy most desirable option a verbatim reproduction of the speeches thenproceeding to the less desirable but still acceptable option of an accurate summary ofthe content and culminating in the absolutely unacceptable method adopted byTimaeus free composition of speeches by the historian As it stands however theorder of the alleged first and second elements of the list is reversed

We would then have to assume that οὐδέ implies a sense of climax along the lines oflsquoTimaeus does not provide a summary of the actual speeches let alone a verbatim repro-ductionhelliprsquo The difficulty with this assumption is that οὐδέ does not have this meaningTo be sure it can be used lsquowith a sense of climax ldquonor evenrdquorsquo24 as in the example citedby Denniston Plato Respublica 347d1ndash2 οὐκ ἔχοντες ἑαυτῶν βελτίοσιν ἐπιτρέψαιοὐδὲ ὁμοίοις The difference between this and our passage is that in Respublica347d1ndash2 οὐδέ introduces an element of inferior degree to the element introduced byοὐ lsquothey cannot socialize with people who are better than themselves nor even withthose who are their equalsrsquo This makes sense because οὐδέ connecting two negativeterms with a climax would naturally be expected to introduce a term that is evenlsquomore negativersquo than or inferior to the first one as in βελτίοσιν and ὁμοίοις the climaxis a negative one Οὐδέ in Polybius 1225a4 by contrast requires a lsquopositive climaxrsquobecause the verbatim reproduction of the original speech (ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν)would be even more authentic and hence desirable than a (faithful) summary (τὰῥηθέντα) The sense required for οὐδέ is therefore lsquolet alonersquo rather than lsquonorevenrsquo25 for which Denniston not surprisingly does not cite any passages because inGreek such a lsquopositiversquo climax after a negative expression is regularly introducedwith μὴ ὅτι26

We are thus left with the alternative either to accept that Polybius might have phrasedhis statement differently than we would expect (which is certainly an option) or to lookfor a different explanation If we opt for the second option (which I do) the above con-siderations make it seem doubtful that we are dealing with three different elements of an

24 GP sv 2 at 19325 The passages cited by Denniston under II2 at 196 do not apply because here οὐδέ modifies one

word only rather than being part of an enumeration of negative elements as in Polybius26 See KuumlhnerndashGerth 22 sect5254 at 260 The examples listed there include Xen Hell 2335 (διὰ

τὸν χειμῶνα οὐδὲ πλεῖν μὴ ὅτι ἀναιρεῖσθαι τοὺς ἄνδρας δυνατὸν ἦν) Pl Phdr 240d7ndashe1 (καὶλόγῳ ἐστὶν ἀκούειν οὐκ εὐπρεπές μὴ ὅτι δὴ ἔργῳ hellip μεταχειρίζεσθαι)

POLYBIUS ON SPEECHES IN TIMAEUS 127

enumeration This suggests that we should explore different possible meanings of thepassage

This interpretation receives further support from a close examination of the specificuses Polybius makes of τὰ ῥηθέντα when referring to speeches of historical actors tomy knowledge such a systematic study has never been undertaken A TLG search forτὰ ῥηθέντα in the Histories shows that Polybius applies the term to refer to (1) a sum-mary mention of a speech without any further specifications regarding content and formas in 426827 and 2816928 (2) speeches rendered in indirect speech as in 329129

119830 1524331 188832 2318133 and (3) speeches rendered in direct speechas in 5371234 This indeterminacy of the term shows that Polybius uses τὰ ῥηθένταto refer to speeches neutrally and in a general sense as a historical event (lsquothe thingssaidrsquo lsquothe speechrsquo) without any inherent specification as to whether a speech is actuallyrepresented in a historical work at all and if it is in what way the historiographer pro-cessed the event Particularly significant here is 21221 where Polybius uses τὰῥηθέντα to refer to a speech of Eumenes which he had reported previously partly inindirect (21191ndash5) and partly in direct speech (21196ndash2111) Whether the histori-ographer rendered lsquothe things saidrsquo in direct or indirect speech mentioned them onlyin passing as a statement of fact namely that a historical actor gave a speech or pro-vided a mere summary of the contents becomes clear only through the context inwhich the expression is used

In other words τὰ ῥηθέντα is not a (quasi-)technical term describing any specificway of representing speeches in historiography and there is no reason to supposethat 1225a4 is the only passage in which Polybius expected his readers to understandit as such If τὰ ῥηθέντα does not designate any specific way of rendering speeches butrequires specification from the context it cannot stand alone representing the first elem-ent of an enumeration which in turn leads to the conclusion that the idea of a tripartitestructure of Polybiusrsquo argument should be abandoned

This suggests that οὐ τὰ ῥηθέντα γέγραφεν means that Timaeus lsquohas not writtendown what was saidrsquo in as general and as neutral a sense as possible Polybius beginshis argument with a statement of the general problem namely that there is a discrepancybetween the historical event in this case the documented speeches given by the histor-ical actors τὰ ῥηθέντα and the way in which this event is represented in Timaeusrsquo

27 Προσελθόντος δὲ καὶ τοῦ βασιλέως πρὸς τὴν βουλὴν ἐν Αἰγίῳ καὶ διαλεχθέντος διὰπλειόνων τὰ ῥηθέντα μετrsquo εὐνοίας ἀπεδέξαντο

28 Τὰ μὲν οὖν ὑπὸ τούτων ῥηθέντα πρὸς τὴν σύγκλητον καὶ τὰς δοθείσας αὐτοῖς ἀποκρίσεις ὑπὸτῆς συγκλήτου καὶ διότι πάντων τῶν φιλανθρώπων τυχόντες ἐπανῆλθον ἐν τοῖς Ἰταλικοῖς εἴπομενreferring to Histories 2821ndash6 where the speeches are only summarily mentioned (ἐξ ὧν πλεονάκιςἐν τοῖς ἐκείνων πράγμασιν ἀντιρρήσεως γινομένης καὶ διελκομένων τῶν διαβουλίων ἐλάμβανονἀφορμὰς οἱ βουλόμενοι λογοποιεῖν κατὰ τῆς πόλεως οὐ μὴν ἥ γε σύγκλητος τότε προσεποιήθητούτων οὐδέν hellip 2824ndash5)

29 Τὰ ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων λεγόμενα with a slight variation in vocabulary30 Πάντες δrsquo οἱ παρόντες οὕτως ἀπεδέξαντο τὰ ῥηθέντα καὶ τὸν νοῦν τῆς παρακλήσεως

ἐθαύμασαν (about a speech of Philopoemen) the same speech is referred to at 11101 as εἷςλόγος εὐκαίρως ῥηθείς and at 11107 in πάντες ἐπανῆγον ἐπὶ τὰς πόλεις τά τε ῥηθέντα καὶτὸν ἄνδρα διαφερόντως ἀποδεδεγμένοι

31 Συγχωρεῖν τὸν βασιλέα Θασίους ἀφρουρήτους ἀφορολογήτους ἀνεπισταθμεύτους νόμοιςχρῆσθαι τοῖς ἰδίοις ἐπισημηναμένων δὲ μετὰ κραυγῆς πάντων τὰ ῥηθέντα παρήγαγον τὸνΦίλιππον εἰς τὴν πόλιν

32 Τίνα μὲν οὖν ἦν τὰ τότε ῥηθέντα παρrsquo ἑκατέρου δυσχερὲς εἰπεῖν33 Τοιαῦτα μὲν ἦν τὰ ῥηθέντα παρrsquo ἑκατέρων34 Εἶπε κατὰ τοῦ Κλεομένους τὸν ἄρτι ῥηθέντα λόγον

N WIATER128

account (γέγραφεν) The concrete form in which Timaeus (mis-)represents these facts isnot yet an issue it is in the following part of the sentence starting with οὐδέ that itbecomes apparent through ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν (an expression as arguedabove referring to both style and content) that Polybius is here referring to the directspeeches in Timaeus (and these only) all direct speeches in Timaeus are compositionsof the historian rather than as-faithful-as-possible reproductions of the original speechesAgain examination of the overall structure of the passage provides additional supportfor these conclusions as pointed out above there is a noticeable parallelism betweenἀπόδειξιν τῆς ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμεως ποιούμενος and προθέμενος ὡς δεῖ ῥηθῆναι on theone hand and οὐκ ἐξήγησιν τῶν κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν εἰρημένων and οὐ hellip τὰ ῥηθένταγέγραφεν οὐδrsquo ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν on the other Summing up his main pointsPolybiusrsquo statement at the end of his argument also distinguishes between two differentways of rendering direct speeches only they are either an accurate reproduction of theoriginal speeches which is what serious historiographers should aspire to or composi-tions of the historiographer which is the method adopted by Timaeus and severely cri-ticized by Polybius

Hence Nicolai was right in surmising τὰ ῥηθέντα and ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειανreferred to the same notion and as such could be seen as tautological but that therewas some sort of difference between them We are now able to explain that this differ-ence consists in the fact that Polybius specifies the implication of the general expressionοὐ τὰ ῥηθέντα γέγραφεν by adding the explicatory οὐδrsquo ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν

Such a specific use of οὐδέ after a more general element introduced by οὐ which issometimes as in the present case followed by ἀλλά and sometimes not occurs alsoelsewhere throughout the Histories it can be seen as yet another instance ofPolybiusrsquo tendency to combine expressions which seem to be almost synonymous inorder to create as precise an expression as possible35 The following examples demon-strate that as at 1225a the terms thus linked are usually not strictly speaking synonym-ous and the resulting phrase tautological but that the second term generally specifies oradds some additional nuance to the (often more general) first term often the secondterm also describes the result or consequence of the first In all those cases in whichthis construction is followed by ἀλλά the stylistic effect is a particular emphasison the element which ἀλλά introduces As such the expression is a climactic one butthe emphasis does not increase steadily from the first to the last element rather theexplication of the first two elements prepares the introduction of and lays stress on thethird one

Examples of this usage include 1653 (Καρχηδονίους δὲ [sc ἐξεδέξατο] κατὰ τὸναὐτὸν καιρὸν οὐ μικρὸς οὐδrsquo εὐκαταφρόνητος ὁ πρὸς τοὺς ξένους καὶ τοὺςΝομάδας καὶ τοὺς ἅμα τούτοις ἀποστάντας Λίβυας [sc πόλεμος])36 3574ndash5(ἡμεῖς hellip τοῦτο τὸ μέρος hellip παρελείπομεν hellip πρῶτον μὲν οὐ βουλόμενοι παρrsquoἕκαστα διασπᾶν τὴν διήγησιν οὐδrsquo ἀποπλανᾶν ἀπὸ τῆς πραγματικῆς ὑποθέσεωςτοὺς φιληκοοῦντας δεύτερον δὲ κρίνοντες οὐ διερριμμένην οὐδrsquo ἐν παρέργῳποιήσασθαι τὴν περὶ αὐτῶν μνήμην ἀλλὰ κατrsquo ἰδίαν καὶ τόπον καὶ καιρὸνἀπονείμαντες τῷ μέρει τούτῳ hellip the reader being led astray [ἀποπλανᾶν] would infact be the effect of lsquobreaking uprsquo [διασπᾶν] the narrative just as a lsquoscatteredrsquo

35 On this characteristic of Polybiusrsquo style see F Kaelker Quaestiones de elocutione Polybianacum epimetro de hiatu in libris Diodori Siculi (Diss Leipzig 1880) 272ndash3 (with examples)

36 Cf 266ndash7 (οἱ δὲ περὶ τὸν Σκερδιλαΐδαν πεζῇ πάλιν ἀνεχώρησαν hellip οὐ μικρὰν οὐδὲ τὴντυχοῦσαν κατάπληξιν καὶ φόβον ἐνεργασάμενοι τοῖς τὰς παραλίας οἰκοῦσι τῶν Ἑλλήνων)

POLYBIUS ON SPEECHES IN TIMAEUS 129

[διερριμμένην] mention of such things would result in them appearing lsquosubordinatersquo [ἐνπαρέργῳ] in different narrative contexts)37 1072 (οὐ κατεπέπληκτο τοὺςΚαρχηδονίους οὐδrsquo ἥττητο τῇ ψυχῇ)38 15133ndash4 (τοῖς δὲ μισθοφόροις τῶνΚαρχηδονίων οὐ συνεγγιζόντων οὐδὲ παραβοηθούντων ἀλλrsquo ἀποδειλιώντωνταῖς ψυχαῖς πέρας ἐνέκλιναν οἱ βάρβαροι)39 2795 (ποτὲ δὲ καὶ χλευάζεινἐγχειροῦσι τὸν ἕτερον οὐ μισοῦντες οὐδὲ καταγινώσκοντες ἀλλὰ παραδόξωςτε συμπαθεῖς γινόμενοι hellip) 1142 (οὐ γὰρ νῦν πρῶτον οὐδὲ δεύτερονποιούμεθα πρὸς ὑμᾶς τοὺς ὑπὲρ τῆς εἰρήνης λόγους ἀλλrsquo ἐξ ὅτου τὸν πόλεμονἐνεστήσασθε)

Comparison with these passages shows that the same syntactic structure and stylisticeffect underlie Polybiusrsquo οὐ hellip τὰ ῥηθέντα γέγραφεν οὐδrsquo ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquoἀλήθειαν ἀλλὰ προθέμενος ὡς δεῖ ῥηθῆναι hellip40 Accordingly not too muchemphasis should be placed on the explicatory οὐδrsquo ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν As men-tioned above this element is more than just a tautological apposition because it specifiesPolybiusrsquo general criticism that lsquoTimaeus has not recorded the things saidrsquo by explicat-ing the consequences of this methodological failure the style and content of the directspeeches in Timaeusrsquo work are inauthentic But in order to appreciate the stylistic effectof the phrasing it is necessary to regard the first and the second elements as being close-ly interrelated grammatically both are objects dependent on γέγραφεν41 which arecombined as a pair by οὐδέ42 This prepares the introduction of Polybiusrsquo actualpoint Timaeusrsquo historical work is condemnable not simply because the speeches areinauthentic Timaeus deliberately falsified history by substituting for the true speecheshis own rhetorical showpieces designed solely to exhibit his rhetorical ability in sodoing he made it impossible for the reader to achieve any clear and reliable understand-ing of what happened and why which Polybius regards as the essence of any respect-able historical writing43

So far this discussion has demonstrated the difficulties inherent in two generallyaccepted and interrelated assumptions about Polybiusrsquo criticism of speeches inTimaeus namely (1) that the passage constitutes a general statement on historicalmethod regarding different ways of representing speeches in historical works and (2)that Polybius distinguishes three different ways of rendering speeches in historiographyordered as a climax descending from the most desirable to the least acceptable

By contrast the in-depth discussion of the semantics and syntactic structure of thepassage has revealed two things Firstly unlike Thucydides 1221 Histories

37 Similarly 3859 (τῆς ὁμολογουμένης ἥττης οὐ μετρίως οὐδὲ κατὰ σχῆμα τὴν περιπέτειανἔφερον)

38 Cf 11152 (οὐ πτοηθεὶς ἔφευγεν οὐδrsquo ἀθυμήσας ἀπέστη lthellipgt ἀλλrsquo ὑποστείλας αὑτὸνὑπὸ τὸ τῆς φάλαγγος κέρας)

39 Cf 31125 (τὴν δὲ σύγκλητον οὐ τολμήσειν ἔτι βοηθεῖν οὐδὲ συνεπισχύειν τοῖς περὶ τὸνΛυσίαν hellip)

40 In order to clarify the structure I have removed the comma after γέγραφεν which obfuscates theeffect of the phrasing by making οὐδrsquo ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν seem like a rather gratuitousapposition

41 On indirect questions belonging to the category of lsquosubstantive clausesrsquo as objects in a sentencesee KuumlhnerndashGerth 22 sect5477 at 349

42 It is therefore the copulative force of οὐδέ which prevails (cf KuumlhnerndashGerth 22 sect5354b at293) I attempt to bring out the close interrelation of οὐ τὰ ῥηθέντα and οὐδrsquo ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquoἀλήθειαν and the connective function of οὐδέ in the translation below by rendering the phrase aslsquonot hellip andrsquo rather than as lsquonot hellip and notrsquo

43 Cf Meister (n 1) 36

N WIATER130

1225a4ndash5 is not a general theoretical statement on different methods of renderingspeeches in historiography44 the most reproachable of which is illustrated in the caseof Timaeus and we should not read Polybiusrsquo argument in the light of the statementof his predecessor On the contrary 1225a4ndash5 is concerned only with the directspeeches in Timaeusrsquo work specifically Polybius is not giving a lesson in historiograph-ical method in general but is criticizing one particular aspect of Timaeusrsquo work which inhis opinion best illustrates the unreliability of the work as a whole And the directspeeches are particularly suitable for that purpose because every reader can comparethe original speech (as far as it was accessible but that does not concern us here)with what Timaeus has written And Timaeusrsquo procedure is so very problematic becauseif accurately reproduced direct speeches can offer the readers an immediate and authenticaccess to the past and the minds of the historical actors themselves In stark contrast thespeeches in Timaeusrsquo work grant the readers access to Timaeusrsquo mind only and thus pro-vide no valuable insight into the reasons and factors that determined the course of the pastThis explains why Polybius thought that the (direct) speeches in Timaeus were particular-ly suitable to prove the general unreliability of his work as a whole (1225a1ndash4)

Secondly instead of a tripartite structure we are in fact dealing with a bipartitestructure which also occurs elsewhere in the Histories This overall structure is designedto lay stress on the second element (introduced by ἀλλά) by creating a strong contrastwith the first one This contrast owes its effectiveness to an emphasis on the first elementwhich is created by its subdivision into two closely interrelated yet not simply tauto-logical components by means of οὐ hellip οὐδέ

The following is a translation that makes no attempt to smooth over Polybiusrsquo some-what cumbersome diction but instead adheres as faithfully as possible to the originalgrammar and syntax (the impersonal aorist passive verbs are particularly difficult to ren-der) lsquoNot the things that were spoken has he recorded and how it was really spoken butpresenting us with how it should have been spoken helliprsquo

As mentioned above scholarly interest in 1225a4ndash5 has focussed almost exclusive-ly on the first part of the sentence while the rest of Polybiusrsquo statement has beenneglected This has obfuscated the fact that Polybiusrsquo remarks about the (lack of) reli-ability of Timaeusrsquo speeches is in fact not an independent point made for its own sakeThey are part of a more general criticism of characteristics of Timaeusrsquo narrative that arecentred on but not limited to the way in which Timaeus handles direct speeches In theremainder of this article I will demonstrate how Polybiusrsquo criticism of the directspeeches in Timaeus relates to the remaining part of the sentence and Polybiusrsquo state-ments made there

Concentrating on defining how οὐδrsquo ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν relates to what pre-cedes it scholars have disregarded the fact that Polybius is in fact making two pointsabout the way in which Timaeus handles speeches in his work each point being repre-sented by one of the two main verbs namely γέγραφεν in οὐ hellip τὰ ῥηθέντα γέγραφενand ἐξαριθμεῖται in πάντας ἐξαριθμεῖται τοὺς ῥηθέντας λόγους καὶ τὰ παρεπόμενατοῖς πράγμασιν These two main points are connected by οὐδrsquo ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquoἀλήθειαν ἀλλὰ προθέμενος ὡς δεῖ ῥηθῆναι In what follows particular attentionwill be paid to the function of this juncture

44 Cf Baron (n 1) 8 lsquoit is misleading to refer to the book as a digression on historical method orto state that its purpose is to lay out a theory of historiography since this obscures its highly polemicalnaturersquo

POLYBIUS ON SPEECHES IN TIMAEUS 131

Before doing so however we need to consider one preliminary issue concerning themeaning of πάντας hellip τοὺς ῥηθέντας λόγους that was raised by Walbank In his com-ment on the phrase Walbank explains it as lsquoldquoall these speechesrdquo that is all thespeeches according to the historianrsquos version not the real speeches which P insistswere not recorded hellip P does not express the distinction very clearlyrsquo45 I will arguenow that this explanation is unconvincing for several reasons and that we should takeῥηθέντας to refer to the actual historical speeches and not as Walbank suggests tothe speeches as invented by Timaeus

To begin with the aorist participle ῥηθέντας makes sense only if Polybius is refer-ring here to speeches that were actually uttered in the past and it is in this sense thatPolybius uses combinations of passive participles of verbs of speaking with or withoutκατrsquo ἀλήθειαν ἀληθῶς or similar adverbial expressions both throughout his work andin our passage itself Nicolai in fact quotes three such instances erroneously referringto them as evidence that Polybius did not distinguish between knowledge of the originalspeeches and the way these are rendered in the historical account46 Yet in 1225b1 τῆςἱστορίας ἰδίωμα τοῦτrsquo ἐστὶ τὸ πρῶτον μὲν αὐτοὺς τοὺς κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν εἰρημένουςοἷοί ποτrsquo ἂν ὦσι γνῶναι λόγους the added οἷοί ποτrsquo ἂν ὦσι makes it unmistakeablethat Polybius is here referring to the original speeches as given by the historical actorsand the contrast of τοὺς ῥηθέντας λόγους and ψευδῆ δrsquo ἀντὶ τούτων ἐπιχειρήματα καὶδιεξοδικοὺς hellip λόγους in 1225b4 as well as that of ltτὰgt κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν ῥηθένταltκαθrsquogt ὅσον οἷόν τε πολυπραγμονήσαντας διασαφεῖν and οὔτε (sc πρέπει) τοῖςἱστοριογράφοις ἐμμελετᾶν τοῖς ἀκούουσιν οὐδrsquo ἐναποδείκνυσθαι τὴν αὑτῶνδύναμιν in 3617 have the same effect To this list we can add the final part ofour passage which was discussed above where again the contrast with ἀπόδειξιντῆς ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμεως makes it clear that τῶν κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν εἰρημένων refers tothe original speeches as they were actually uttered by the historical actors andnot to the speeches as they were composed by the historiographer For the represen-tation of speeches in historical works by contrast Polybius uses γράφειν as at thebeginning of our passage where both terms are combined in οὐ [] τὰ ῥηθένταγέγραφεν

Secondly the verb ἐξαριθμεῖται itself precludes that Polybius is referring withῥηθέντας to the speeches composed by Timaeus Ἐξαριθμέω means to lsquorecountrsquothat is give a full enumeration of a given set of objects without any exceptions andin this sense it often (as in the present passage) connotes a tiresome unnecessary pro-cess47 By definition the process of lsquore-countingrsquo requires a pre-existing number ofitems which someone chooses to enumerate completely instead of selecting only themost significant elements These considerations lead us to the conclusion that πάνταςἐξαριθμεῖται τοὺς ῥηθέντας λόγους refers to the speeches that were actually utteredby the historical actors48

45 Walbank (n 2) 385ndash646 Nicolai (n 1) 285 cf my remarks above47 Cf Isoc 4 66 Ἅπαντας μὲν οὖν ἐξαριθμῶν τοὺς κινδύνους λίαν ἂν μακρολογοίην ἐπὶ δὲ

τῶν μεγίστων τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ὅνπερ ὀλίγῳ πρότερον πειράσομαι καὶ περὶ τούτων διελθεῖν DionHal Ant Rom 5722 κατέτριψαν ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν ἐκείνην τὰς ἀλλήλων ἀρετὰςἐξαριθμούμενοι καὶ λιπαροῦντες μὴ λαβεῖν αὐτοὶ τὴν ἀρχήν (these examples cited in LSJp 587 sv III) in Polybius cf τὰ παρεπόμενα τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις ἐξαριθμεῖσθαι in 25610which will be discussed below

48 Both Peacutedech and Nicolai take πάντας ἐξαριθμεῖται τοὺς ῥηθέντας λόγους as referring to theoriginal historical speeches cf Peacutedechrsquos (n 2) translation of the phrase lsquotous les discours

N WIATER132

In order to understand the function of this expression it is important to note that weare already in the second part of Polybiusrsquo argument in which he is concerned with yetanother flaw of Timaeusrsquo historical work In the first part of the sentence οὐ γὰρ τὰῥηθέντα γέγραφεν οὐδrsquo ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν ἀλλὰ προθέμενος ὡς δεῖῥηθῆναι Polybius criticizes the general lack of authenticity of the direct speeches inTimaeusrsquo work Now he moves on to his second point of criticism namely the numberof speeches included by Timaeus Timaeusrsquo fault is not only to have composed thespeeches in his work himself He also did not distinguish between relevant and irrele-vant speeches that were given in a certain historical situation but included each andevery speech of any historical actor because this provided him with even more oppor-tunities to substitute his own compositions for original speeches and thus to show off hisrhetorical skills49

This is in keeping with Polybiusrsquo criticism of the negative influence of rhetoricaleducation on the reliability of historiography elsewhere in the Histories rhetorical dec-lamation induces authors such as Timaeus to show off their rhetorical skills by compos-ing declamatory show pieces ndash instead of including the original speeches even thoughthey might have been of mediocre quality ndash as well as showing off their historicalknowledge by adding as many circumstantial details as possible relevant or not Bycontrast Polybius repeatedly stresses that it is a core competence of the true histori-ographer to identify and report only those speeches that had a decisive impact onthe course of events for example at 1225i5 (τὸ μὲν ματαίως καὶ ἀκαίρως [καὶ]πρὸς πάντα πάντας διεξιέναι τοὺς ἐνόντας λόγους contrasted with τοὺς ἁρμόζονταςκαὶ καιρίους ἀεὶ λαμβάνειν) 3617 (the historianrsquos duty is ltτὰgt κατrsquo ἀλήθειανῥηθέντα ltκαθrsquogt ὅσον οἷόν τε πολυπραγμονήσαντας διασαφεῖν καὶ τούτων τὰκαιριώτατα καὶ πραγματικώτατα) and 2561050

In the latter passage Polybius objects to historiographers who make use of these rhet-orical practices (τοὺς ἐνδεχομένους λόγους ζητεῖν καὶ τὰ παρεπόμενα τοῖςὑποκειμένοις ἐξαριθμεῖσθαι) in order to evoke pity and horror effects normally asso-ciated with tragedy (καθάπερ οἱ τραγῳδιογράφοι) instead of doing what they are sup-posed to do namely lsquoto report what was actually done and said even if it happens to be

prononceacutesrsquo The anonymous reviewer raises the question whether ἐξαριθμεῖται might simply meanthat Timaeus lsquoenumeratedrsquo all the speeches without giving his own version of each of them Thisis possible but in my view unlikely since Polybius specifies ἐξαριθμεῖται by adding lsquoin the sameway as someone might embark on a rhetorical exercise lthellipgt giving a demonstration as it were ofhis own skills but not an account of the things that were really spokenrsquo This specification makessense only if Timaeus actually included his own version of each of the speeches given in a particularsituation

49 I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer for raising the question of how this passage relates toPolybiusrsquo statement at 25b4 that Timaeus lsquodestroys the very essence of historiography by passingover in silence [παρασιωπῶν] both the speeches that were given [τοὺς ῥηθέντας λόγους] and the rea-son [sc why they were successful or failed] and producing [λέγων] historically inaccurate [ψευδῆ]rhetorical exercises [ἐπιχειρήματα] and long-winded discourses [διεξοδικοὺς λόγους] insteadrsquoThere is no contradiction between the passages rather both statements express the same idea butwith a different emphasis In both cases οἱ ῥηθέντες λόγοι refers to the speeches that were actuallypronounced by historical actors Like 25b 25a mentions that Timaeus has replaced these speecheswith his own but the emphasis here is on the fact that he includes all of them (πάνταςἐξαριθμεῖται τοὺς ῥηθέντας λόγους) (in his own versions) indiscriminately the main focus is onTimaeusrsquo failure to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant speeches 25b by contrast is con-cerned exclusively with the fact that Timaeus replaced the original speeches (τοὺς ῥηθένταςλόγους) with his own rhetorical creations thus making the originals inaccessible to the reader(παρασιωπῶν) and in so doing preventing an adequate understanding of the course of events

50 This aspect of Polybiusrsquo use of speeches has been examined in detail by Usher (n 1)

POLYBIUS ON SPEECHES IN TIMAEUS 133

entirely mediocrersquo (τῶν δὲ πραχθέντων καὶ ῥηθέντων κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν αὐτῶνμνημονεύειν πάμπαν ltκgt ἂν πάνυ μέτρια τυγχάνωσιν ὄντα) Comparison ofPolybiusrsquo objections to the practice of these lsquotragicrsquo historiographers in this passagewith his criticism of Timaeus at 1225a5 is helpful further to elucidate the latter pas-sage The methods of Timaeus and the lsquotragicrsquo historiographers have in common thatboth deflect from the actual events and apply rhetorical methods of amplificationinstead they invent speeches and include as much circumstantial description aspossible

Yet two important differences need to be stressed first both Timaeus and the lsquotragicrsquohistoriographers composed the speeches in their works themselves But Timaeusincluded all speeches that were given in a specific situation indiscriminately that isall the speeches in Timaeus were actually given at some point it is only their styleand content that are inauthentic and many of them are irrelevant The lsquotragicrsquo historio-graphers by contrast also include speeches that were never actually given but couldhave been given in a certain situation (τοὺς ἐνδεχομένους λόγους)51 that is notonly content and style of their speeches are inauthentic but also the occurrence of thespeeches itself Second the lsquotragicrsquo historiographers apply the rhetorical techniquesfor the specific aim of inducing a particular emotional response in their recipientswhile Timaeus applied them simply to show off his rhetorical education (ὥσπερἀπόδειξιν τῆς ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμεως ποιούμενος 1225a5)

Returning to 1225a5 we can now identify two interrelated elements that constitutePolybiusrsquos criticism of Timaeus Firstly the direct speeches in Timaeus are inauthenticTimaeus wants to show off his rhetorical abilities and therefore composes the speecheshimself And secondly owing to the same flaw Timaeus replaces each and every his-torical speech indiscriminately with one of his own which he supplements with anunnecessary wealth of details about their circumstances But many of these speechesalong with the circumstances in which they occurred are historically irrelevant andshould therefore never have been included In contrast to the lsquotragic historiansrsquo how-ever Timaeus does not seem to have invented speeches which have never been givenat all Whether this is accurate or not we have no means to determine at any ratePolybius does not criticize Timaeus for inventing speeches that were never given52

In the two ὡς-sentences Polybius has created a sophisticated transition between thesetwo points From the point of view of grammar each of these ὡς-sentences belongs toone of the main verbs that form the core of Polybiusrsquo statement as the above discussionhas shown (οὐδrsquo) ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν and (οὐ) τὰ ῥηθέντα both represent directobjects dependent on γέγραφεν while ὡς δεῖ ῥηθῆναι depends on προθέμενος whichin turn is governed by ἐξαριθμεῖται

By way of contents and phrasing by contrast this seemingly clear-cut attribution isdeliberately undercut several stylistic properties invite the reader to perceive them asforming a pair despite the fact that they depend on different finite verbs and therefore

51 Thus correctly Nicolai (n 1) 287 (lsquola ricerca di tutti i discorsi possibilirsquo) Nicolai is mistakenhowever when claiming that this along with the enumeration of the circumstances of an event ischaracteristic of the tragic genre (lsquoappartengono alla prassi del genere tragicorsquo) Rather Timaeusand the lsquotragicrsquo historiographers apply the same rhetorical techniques what distinguishes them as Iargue above is the effect they want to achieve with them

52 Most recently C Baron (n 1) has demonstrated how selective and distorted an image ofTimaeusrsquo work Polybius presents He convincingly suggests that this is deliberate because Polybiuswished to lsquosupplant Timaios as the Greek historian of Romersquo (5) ibid 8ndash9 26 33ndash4 see alreadyWalbank (n 1 [1962]) 9ndash10

N WIATER134

grammatically belong to different parts of the sentence both are introduced with ὡς con-tain a passive aorist form of λέγειν and consist of the same number of words (if weinclude προθέμενος) moreover the chiasmus of κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν and δεῖ poignantly high-lights the key notions of historical accuracy as opposed to composition by the rules of dec-lamation Finally the adversative ἀλλά which connects the two parts of the sentencedoes not connect the two main verbs directly but sets up an opposition between the objectsof the first main verb οὐ τὰ ῥηθέντα and οὐδrsquo ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν and the objectof the participle the second indirect question ὡς δεῖ ῥηθῆναι all this contributes to thetwo indirect questions acquiring the weight of almost a third point besides the main verbsthe principal carriers of meaning of the two parts of the sentence

The result is a third centre of meaning between the two verbs which has more weightthan a mere apposition but does not constitute a fully independent additional point ofits own Rather it bridges the main points by simultaneously explicating the first oneand facilitating the transition to the second Apart from the aforementioned stylistic fea-tures the participle plays a crucial role in this process after the first part of the sentencethe reader might have expected the main point of the passage to be the oppositionbetween recording speeches as they were actually given and composing speechesaccording to the rules of school rhetoric Instead of ὡς δεῖ ῥηθῆναι depending on a par-ticiple we would have expected the indirect question to depend on a finite verb in orderto complete the opposition lsquonot the things that were spoken has Timaeus recorded andhow it was really spoken but he presents us with how it should have been spoken helliprsquo

Instead by making ὡς δεῖ ῥηθῆναι depend on a participle Polybius lays moreemphasis on it than on the preceding οὐδrsquo ὡς ἐρρήθη κατrsquo ἀλήθειαν which beingthe explication of οὐ τὰ ῥηθέντα has no verbal form of its own to support it at thesame time however ὡς δεῖ ῥηθῆναι is not on the same syntactic level as οὐ τὰῥηθέντα which directly depends on the first finite verb (γέγραφεν) and togetherwith it constitutes the first main and independent point Rather it is subordinate toand so prepares the reader for the introduction of Polybiusrsquo second main pointwhich is represented by the second finite verb (ἐξαριθμεῖται) Consequently there isa certain tension between grammar and style in Polybiusrsquo sentence the style mitigatesthe grammatical association of each of the two elements of the middle part of the sen-tence with Polybiusrsquo first and second main point respectively Polybius thus preventsthe two finite verbs from being the only carriers of meaning and the sentence from fall-ing into two clearly distinguished parts Instead this construction allows him to tie thetwo main verbs closely together by way of an elaboration of his first point which at thesame time introduces his second point by illustrating it (προθέμενος ὡς δεῖ ῥηθῆναι)thus forcefully expressing the close interrelation of what he regards as Timaeusrsquo keyfaults the lack of authenticity of the direct speeches combined with his inability(refusal) to limit the direct speeches in his work to the historically relevant ones only

I bring this article to a conclusion by proposing a full translation of Histories1225a4ndash5 which takes into account the results of the preceding discussion

For not the things that were spoken has Timaeus recorded and how it was really spoken butpresenting us with how it should have been spoken he recounts all the speeches that wereuttered and the circumstances of the events in the same way as someone might embark on arhetorical exercise lthellipgt giving a demonstration as it were of his own skills but not an accountof the things that were really spoken

University of St Andrews N WIATER

nw23st-andrewsacuk

POLYBIUS ON SPEECHES IN TIMAEUS 135