Excuse my intervention, in that this is not my current field of research. 

You will have checked through the wonderful work of Frank Walbank. I notice, however, that footnote 29 on p. 206 in D. W. Baronowski, Polybius and Roman imperialism [Bristol, 2013, accessed online] argues, quoting other sources somewhat briefly, for Polybius's acquaintance with Aristotle's Politics, whether at first-hand or through a Peripatetic treatise.

Sadly, Prof Walbank is no longer with us to be consulted.

Margaret Ward... thanks.. I just bought a used copy from amazon.co.uk... I will need to check the note... and what the evidence.

I suspect that the evidence is slight - ?

The problem is there is so little evidence of knowledge of Aristotle's politics among the Romans, such as Cicero and others.... They know the Ethics and the Rhetoric.. that is clear by their repeating of Aristotle's statements... but its not at all so regarding the Politics.  This is also the case of the Arabs.

Mainz, Germany

Dear Bates,

There is a review available on line which may interest you from the Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2012.04.12:

Donald Walter Baronowski, Polybius and Roman Imperialism. London: Bristol Classical Press, 2011. Pp. xiv, 242. ISBN 9780715639429. $80.00.

You can find it at the following address:

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2012/2012-04-12.html

Here is a passage from the review which may be of relevance:

But Polybius is at the same time a much more complex thinker, as Baronowski elegantly demonstrates. Like his Greek contemporaries, Polybius admired imperial power and Roman domination, regarded Roman rule as largely moderate and beneficial to others, and yet maintained critical distance from Rome. On the other hand, uniquely among the Greeks, Polybius “eschewed the vain conceit that Roman power would prevail indefinitely,” typical of the poets pseudo-Lycophron, Melinno and Limenius (62), but rather believed that Roman power was destined to decline and fall through self-indulgence, greed and ambition brought on by imperial success (succinctly: 61-63, 164-75).

---End quotation

What I'm wondering about, specifically, is what you think may have been especially missed from Aristotle's Politics. Is there a specific point from Aristotle which you have in mind? 

H.G. Callaway

Prof Callaway, 

The problem with Polybius's understanding of revolution is its cyclical nature, very similar to what is suggested in Plato's Politeia. Aristotle makes an explicit and powerful criticism and shows that revolutions will have a much more complex pattern and will not follow the cycle of Plato.. and hence when Polybius argues for a similar cycle it seems to have ignored Aristotle's critique complete as if he did not know of it.

Mainz, Germany

Dear Bates,

Many thanks for your kind reply. I had hoped, though, that you might go into some greater detail. Might one maintain, for instance, that though the account of revolution in Aristotle is more complex and differentiated, still there are various "cycles" among the different sorts of cases, or that Polybius was focused on a special sort of case?

Its very interesting, of course, if Aristotle's Politics, and points of particular interest from it, generally go missing in the Roman period. But what are the points of particular interest? Might there be something more definite which motivates your question?

H.G. Callaway 

Dear all:

I have read Polybius' "universal" history of Rome, but have not fixed my eye on this issue.

But I ask, if Aristotle was probably already a "tradition" or an "authority" in Greece  and closer in time to Polybius when he wrote his lavish history of Rome, and no vestige of his Politics is evident in Book Eight of Polybius, but Plato does seem to be present there, we could surmise that Polybius preferred Plato's viewpoint on the matter, and not Aristotle's. The way it is written, the question seems to presuppose that if Polybius had read Aristotle he should have quoted him instead of Plato, and therefore, he omitted Aristotle out of ignorance, and not willfully because of a conceptual preference for Plato's account of the politeia. If he did not read Aristotle, that is evident in his history. If he read Aristotle but preferred Plato, it is also evident in his history. At any rate, Aristotle is absent, which is the point

As H.G. Callaway said earlier in this thread, Polybius was much more complex than he has seemed to too many experts in ancient Greek culture, and Plutarch too. Both innovated on the concept of history as a genere of writing and were willing to take a sort of interdisciplinary approach to history, which I think is more evident in Plutarch than in Polybius. I think Plutarch's Parallel Lives would bear witness to this thrust of innovation, especially vis à vis his precursor, Livy, with his too mythological Ad urbe condita, written less that a century before Plutarch was born to maybe become an important precursor or a contemporary conversant to Cornellius Tacitus as historian.

In sum, Polybius was intelligent and informed enough to chose Plato over Aristotle, although all this is mere speculation, as it is also speculative to say that Polybius did not know Aristotle's Politics at all.

Best regards to all, Lilliana

Mainz, Germany

Dear all,

Here is a further on-line review of the Baronowski book:

Donald Walter Baronowski: Polybius and Roman Imperialism

By Álvaro Moreno Leoni

I thought the following passage from the review of possible interest:

The second part is the most important and is entitled "Polybius' Attitude to Roman Domination" (61-163). Baronowski attempts to explain that Polybian attitude towards Roman imperial rule was similar to that of other Greek intellectuals, but unlike Posidonius, Polybius never attempted to legitimize this historical phenomenon. We can see that Polybius believed in the defensible nature of Roman imperialism, but in fact it did not mean to adopt the Roman perspective. By contrast, Baronowski strongly argues for the maintenance of certain mental reserve by Polybius, and he also thinks that Polybius was trying to preserve Roman domination in a tolerable manner to subject peoples. [6] This part has six chapters. Ch.4: "Polybius on Legitimate Expansion" (65-86); Ch.5: "Polybius on the Acquisition, Expansion and Preservation of Imperial Rule" (87-113); Ch.6: "Polybius on the enemies of Rome" (114-131); Ch.7: "Polybius in the Service of Rome" (132-148); Ch.8: "Polybius, Rome, Barbarism and Fate" (149-152); and finally Ch.9: "Polybius on the Future of Roman Empire" (153-163).

---End quotation

See:

http://www.sehepunkte.de/2012/01/20661.html

If Polybius' interest was chiefly in revolution in the context of empire, and against imperial rule, as it seems to me, then it would make some sense that his account of revolution would be focused on that sort of case. In particular, if he thought that Roman rule would have its limits, then it seems he had a theory or approach to the topic of revolution and empire. Does Aristotle focus on that sort of question specifically? I'd have to re-read the text. Can anyone provide a quotation? 

H.G. Callaway

Is the question perhaps discussed in  Bruce Gibson and Thomas Harrison, eds,

Polybius and his world. Essays in memory of F. W. Walbank [2013]?

Mainz, Germany

Dear Ward & readers,

The readings you suggest might certainly be helpful to the present question and thread, but if it were a matter of explicit references to Aristotle in Polybius, then I suspect they would have already turned up.

Lacking explicit references, it remains to look for similarities of content. Does Polybius make use of recognizable Aristotelian arguments in relation to his doubts on the persistence of Roman rule? What grounds does he give for this view? Looking again at the summary Bates initially supplied, what strikes me as interesting are the Aristotelian arguments concerning revolution and neglect of "small matters" and arguments concerned with lack of cultural homogeneity in the polity.

Generally, I'm inclined to suppose that a major defect of empires generally, is that the central, cosmopolitan authority becomes incapable to keeping track of relevant detail in the expanded provinces. The sheer extent of the empire becomes problematic along with the variation of constitutive political and social detail in the provinces.  Imposed uniformity of policy may facilitate central administration, but at the danger or cost of disrupting local life and relations. The provinces may thus become more like subservient dependencies, ever in need of support from centralized administration, instead of offering support to the empire.

H.G. Callaway

I am returning to the differences between Polybius's cyclical revolutions of regimes vs Aristotle account of revolution in Politics 5. I also started to see the other differences regarding politeia between Histories 8, versus what Aristotle presents about the makeup of the politeia and it's sub-variation within types of politeia that is presented in Politics 4 and 6.

One sees very much how Nicomachean Ethics 8.10 and it's treatment of politeia is rather echoes what Plato presents in his Politikos (The Statesman) and how both Plutarch and Polybius accounts of politeia fit well with, as well as Plato's cycles of politeia in his Politeia (Republic).

My finding so far wholly reinforces my initial thought regarding the absence of the arguments of Politics book 4 through 6 in the Roman authors, even those of Greek origins such as Plutarch or Polyibus.

I would also add, the original point of this question was an attempt to falsify the claim that Aristotle's Politics was little know or read, or that was either forgotten or lost immediately with the passing of the Hellenistic age and the rise of Rome. That the Politics and the specific lessons it offered in contrdistinction to Plato or Xenophon was rather unknown, epecially the teaching about politeia that were found in books 4 through 6. Those lessons only somewhat came to light when arround the 13th century AD that the Politics was rediscovered by some monks rummaging arround old Greek and Latin texts they got their hands on.