Although aspects of his thorough analysis of Polybius’ treatment of Philip V have been challenged and refined, Walbank’s treatment of Philip V remains fundamental; equally fundamental, now, is Nicholson’s new and insightful investigation of Polybius’ “one-sided and contrived” portrait of Philip. Nicholson offers a thorough re-assessment of Philip to better “understand the way that Polybius wrote, conceived, and constructed the Histories, and to appreciate the political, historiographical, literary, and ideological influences and agenda that informed” the Greek historian (1). Nicholson employs literary and historiographical analyses to show the effects of Polybius’ political and educational purposes on his construction and distortion of Philip’s character. The extensive introduction reflects a detailed and thorough engagement with older and emerging scholarship on both Philip V’s reign and Polybius’ literary, historical, and methodological approaches; here, and throughout the volume, footnotes are rich and detailed.
Chapter 1 analyzes relations between the Achaean League and Macedon, and particularly the role of Aratus of Sicyon as represented by Polybius. Nicholson shows how Polybius’ Achaean patriotism has shaped his portrait of Aratus, the Achaean League, and Antigonus Doson. This “Achaean perspective” permeates Polybius’ interpretation of Philip: Polybius downplays the criticism that Aratus received for establishing the alliance with Macedon and Antigonus Doson, emphasizing instead the Achaean statesman’s foresight. This creates a high-water mark in Greek-Macedonian relations and facilitates a positive initial characterization of Philip V, creating a stronger contrast for the subsequent downturn in Philip’s portrayal. Nicholson stresses that, by focusing on Macedon’s relations with the Achaean League and Doson’s relationship with Aratus, Polybius inevitably introduces an unbalanced account, skewing his account towards the Achaean perspective, ultimately to Philip’s detriment.
Chapter 2 examines in detail Polybius’ account of Philip’s attack on Aetolian Thermum in 218 and his attempted seizure of Messene in 215. Nicholson argues that Polybius’ Achaean perspective led him to disregard Philip’s legitimate financial, political, and strategic reasons for treating Thermum as he did and that the historian emphasizes instead the violence of Philip V’s actions. This requires Polybius to cover up Aratus’ likely support for both the campaign of 217 and the final treatment of Thermum, and to disregard contemporary debates over the effectiveness of retaliation as a justification for the sacking of sanctuaries. At the same time, though, it allows Polybius to cast Philip as impious and to foreshadow the king’s later descent into tyranny. Nicholson argues that Polybius does not give actual examples of that decline but instead offers carefully curated and selective instances of Philip’s ‘villainy’. In allowing his patriotic perspective to influence his narrative, Polybius inevitably imposes a more negative interpretation and understanding of Philip’s actions, all while insisting that his is the trustworthy and unbiased interpretation.
Chapter 3 examines Philip’s relations with his Greek allies, particularly between 215 and 197, arguing that Philip remained a supportive and reliable ally throughout this period. Polybius praises Philip in this period for his goodwill towards the Greeks, but, in doing so, Nicholson suggests, the historian again neglects the king’s own strategic and political reasons for supporting the interests and concerns of his allies. Where Polybius would have us believe that Philip was acting for the sake of the Greeks (and especially the Achaeans), Nicholson shows that Philip instead sought to create a positive reputation for himself and advance Macedonian interests. By explaining Philip’s actions in terms of general goodwill towards the Greeks, though, Polybius enhances the image of Philip as a noble and kingly benefactor at first, preparing the literary ground for a reversal in character. Nicholson stresses that after 215, Polybius’ own narrative continues to show Philip’s support for his allies within and beyond the Peloponnese, but Polybius’ perception of slights to the Achaean League are magnified into ‘proofs’ of Philip’s arrogance and maltreatment of the Greeks in general. Throughout, Nicholson challenges Polybius’ “Achaean” perspective, offering instead a Macedonian perspective from which Philip’s actions fall into a pattern not of treachery and betrayal but of securing Macedonian strategic and political interests.
Chapter 4 turns to Philip and Rome, pursuing the argument that Polybius’ depiction of Philip was influenced by his desire to justify the Achaean defection in 198 and to explain Roman interventions in the Greek world within the context of later Roman supremacy. Polybius uses Philip as a bookend of sorts for the progression of his theme of symploke, as the historian saw the beginning of the process in the conference at Naupactus in 217 and the end in Perseus’ defeat in 168 in a war which had, in Polybius’ conception, been of Philip’s making. Nicholson argues, too, that Polybius shapes his evolving picture of Philip in terms of the Hellenic-barbaric dichotomy: When Macedonian and Achaean interests diverge, Polybius’ Philip exhibits more “barbaric” behavior by acting in Macedonian interests, while the Romans become more “Hellenic”.
Chapter 5 re-examines Philip’s last years and specifically the effects of Polybius’ earlier characterization on our understanding of what survives of his account of the end of Philip’s reign. Nicholson responds to Walbank’s contention that the historian’s account of Philip’s last years is unsatisfying by arguing that Philip’s character in the last years of his reign is consistent with that which Polybius has drawn earlier, and is the culmination of that earlier depiction. The tragic style of this portion of Polybius’ narrative is intentional and consistent with his literary, narratological, and historiographical goals. It should not be dismissed as hypocritical despite his criticism of the tragic style of other historians.
Nicholson turns in Chapter 6 to the overall accuracy of Polybius’ account of Philip, noting that Polybius has employed “biographical means of presentation in a larger historical work which aims to produce a complex ‘universal’ treatise” (267). Polybius employs biographic elements in his portrayal of Philip but insists that a “great man” approach to history must be understood “in the context of the whole world” (270). The biographic treatment of Philip V is permissible and even justified because he is fully integrated into the universalizing theme of the Histories: Polybius depicts him in such a way as to advance his explanation of Rome’s dominance of the Mediterranean. Nicholson suggests that Polybius has woven together several political “biographies” into a cohesive whole, such that the historian suggests that events and regions became increasingly intertwined with Rome’s rise to dominance, but so too did the lives and actions of individuals. Chapter 6 concludes with an extensive comparison of Philip with other kings and Hannibal, suggesting that Polybius’ treatment of Philip (and the other kings), along with his teleological view of history, becomes part of an extended discourse on the decline of kingship in this period.
There are a few minor typos (e.g., p. 5 n. 6 has Walbank 1985c for Walbank 1985; p. 64 has “brutally” for “brutality”; and p. 302 has Causasus for Caucasus) and errata (p. 121 suggests that Perseus commanded a garrison at Tempe in 213), but these are rare and do not in any way detract from a thorough (and convincing) interpretation of Philip in Polybius: the historian enhances and supports his educational and moral program through careful and consistent shifting of emphasis and deployment of rhetorical, tragic, and biographical techniques. These are evident in the treatment of Philip, but equally, as far as the fragmentary state of Polybius’ text allows us to determine, in the treatment of other “great men”.