So I’m still reading Polybius, the historian that I quoted yesterday. Today’s quote from Polybius is from one of his fragmentary books. In fact, only the first five books of Polybius’ Histories survive in full. Our knowledge of the other 35 books is limited to summaries compiled by Byzantine scribes or to whatever happened to survived in various manuscripts.
Given that Polybius’ history was an incredibly detailed examination of the beginning of the Roman Republic, and remains a vital source for much knowledge of the Hellenistic Kingdoms, you may wonder why Medieval scholars decided not to preserve him. The reasons very much reflect the different concerns of their times.
Medieval scholars were Christians and were interested in any Greek and Roman text that could help them understand the Bible. This made some historians essential, such as Herodotus, who, although he has nothing to say about the Jews, had a great deal to say about the Egyptians and more importantly the Persians, two Empires that are frequently mentioned in the Hebrew scriptures.
Medieval scholars also valued Ancient Greek writers who had great style. Indeed, it is for this reason that we have so many speeches of Apollodorus, Lysias and Demosthenes, not because Medieval scribes and scholars were interested in Greek law.
Polybius was not a great stylist. Indeed, the ancient commentator Dionysius of Halicarnassus said that he was a writer whom nobody ever finished reading because of laborious and irritating writing style.
All of this explanation for why the following anecdote that Polybius provides about slave law in Locri is incomplete. Some Medieval scribe apparently had more pressing concerns than finishing this copy of Polybius.
“At Locri, two young men were once in dispute over ownership of a slave. The slave had been with his present master for quite a while, but the other young man went to the farm while the master was away, abducted the slave, and took him home. Two days later, when the first man heard what had happened, he went to his rival’s house, seized the slave, and led him before the authorities, claiming that the slave should by rights remain in his possession and providing guarantors. He supported the claim by citing a law of Zaleucus to the effect that, in the case of such disputes, the person from whom the theft took place should retain the property until the dispute came to court. The other man, however, cited the same law in support of his claim that the theft had been from him, since it was from his house that the slave had been taken and brought before the authorities.” (12.16 trans. Waterfield)
Given that Polybius’ history was an incredibly detailed examination of the beginning of the Roman Republic, and remains a vital source for much knowledge of the Hellenistic Kingdoms, you may wonder why Medieval scholars decided not to preserve him. The reasons very much reflect the different concerns of their times.
Medieval scholars were Christians and were interested in any Greek and Roman text that could help them understand the Bible. This made some historians essential, such as Herodotus, who, although he has nothing to say about the Jews, had a great deal to say about the Egyptians and more importantly the Persians, two Empires that are frequently mentioned in the Hebrew scriptures.
Medieval scholars also valued Ancient Greek writers who had great style. Indeed, it is for this reason that we have so many speeches of Apollodorus, Lysias and Demosthenes, not because Medieval scribes and scholars were interested in Greek law.
Polybius was not a great stylist. Indeed, the ancient commentator Dionysius of Halicarnassus said that he was a writer whom nobody ever finished reading because of laborious and irritating writing style.
All of this explanation for why the following anecdote that Polybius provides about slave law in Locri is incomplete. Some Medieval scribe apparently had more pressing concerns than finishing this copy of Polybius.
“At Locri, two young men were once in dispute over ownership of a slave. The slave had been with his present master for quite a while, but the other young man went to the farm while the master was away, abducted the slave, and took him home. Two days later, when the first man heard what had happened, he went to his rival’s house, seized the slave, and led him before the authorities, claiming that the slave should by rights remain in his possession and providing guarantors. He supported the claim by citing a law of Zaleucus to the effect that, in the case of such disputes, the person from whom the theft took place should retain the property until the dispute came to court. The other man, however, cited the same law in support of his claim that the theft had been from him, since it was from his house that the slave had been taken and brought before the authorities.” (12.16 trans. Waterfield)