• DOI:10.1086/671786
• Corpus ID: 164052948

Polybius, Phylarchus, and Historiographical Criticism

@article{Eckstein2013PolybiusPA,
  title={Polybius, Phylarchus, and Historiographical Criticism},
  author={Arthur M. Eckstein},
  journal={Classical Philology},
  year={2013},
  volume={108},
  pages={314 - 338}
}

• A. Eckstein
• Published 1 October 2013
• History
• Classical Philology

I n the MiD-220S B.C.e. a profound political crisis wracked the Peloponnese. The Achaean League, led by Aratus of Sicyon, had succeeded over a period of thirty years in driving out the power of Antigonid Macedon, a process that included substituting democracies in poleis once ruled by proMacedonian tyrants. But after 227 B.C.e. the Achaean League was unable to deal with the growing military power of King Cleomenes III of Sparta and his propaganda of social revolution. Thus Aratus invited Macedon under Antigonus III Doson back into the Peloponnese as the only alternative to revolutionary rule over Achaea by Sparta. King Antigonus and his Macedonians, with the Achaeans and other allies, destroyed Cleomenes’ army at the battle of Sellasia in 222. But the price for Antigonus’ help was high: Corinth, the largest city in the League, was given up to Macedon, and Achaea itself became a subordinate member of Antigonus’ “Hellenic Symmachy.” Aratus’ extraordinary decision to cancel a generation of anti-Macedonian effort in order to save Achaea from Sparta was controversial in his own time, and after. 1 One prominent contemporary critic of Aratus’ decision was the historian Phylarchus—a supporter of Cleomenes and his social reforms. Part of Phylarchus’ work contained a bitter attack on the character and policies of Aratus and Achaea. 2 Polybius’ attack on Phylarchus’ work in Book 2 of the Histories has in turn long puzzled scholars. In discussing his sources for the crisis in the Peloponnese, Polybius says that he is depending on the Memoirs of Aratus the Achaean leader, declares them “very truthful and lucid” (λίαν ἀληθινοὺς καὶ σαφεῖς, 2.40.4), and says he will justify his use of Aratus by comparing him to Phylarchus, the other major source for the period (2.56.1–2). Yet what follows is not a comparison, only an assault on the historical methods and literary style of Phylarchus (2.56–63). Scholarly disquiet is increased by Polybius’ indication in another context (2.47.10–11) that Aratus in his Memoirs hid from readers crucial aspects of his conduct. 3 Moreover, since