Romans as ΒΑΡΒΑΡΟΙ: Three Polybian Speeches and the Politics of Cultural Indeterminacy
T HE SPEECHES IN POLYBIUs' HISTORIES provide important insights into what is perhaps the most controversial topic in Polybian studies: the Greek historian's attitudes towards Rome. A great deal of modern scholarly debate has revolved around mutually exclusive interpretations that Polybius was essentially either pro-Roman or anti-Roman.' A close reading of the Histories suggests a more nuanced approach to the question of Polybius' views on Rome. Viewing Polybius' barbarian category in relation to his representations of the Romans provides a key to the historian's stance(s) on Rome, and here his speeches are of the utmost importance. The objectives of the present study are to analyze Polybius' "barbarology" vis-'a-vis Rome, with a special focus on the medium of the reported speech, and to explore its implications regarding the political predicament of Greek statesmen of the second century in the face of Roman power. In only one passage in the Histories (12.4b.2-3, discussed in Section II below), does the Achaean historian say in his own voice that the Romans were a barbarian people. Yet in three reported speeches, Polybius allows his historical agents Agelaus, Lyciscus, and a Greek ambassador, probably the Rhodian statesman Thrasycrates, to call the Romans "barbarians."2 Without discounting the historicity of these ambassadors' charges against the Romans, I shall argue that Polybius employs these speeches as a vehicle for indirect expression of hostility towards Rome, a hostility conforming to widespread Greek public opinion at the time of composition of the Histories.3 I refer to this Greek view of the Romans as fdpfa3pot, according to
The little grey horse: Henry V's speech at Agincourt and the battle exhortation in ancient historiography
This article is a continuation of M. H. Hansen, ‘The Battle Exhortation in Ancient Historiography,’ Historia  () -, hereafter referred to as Hansen, and at the same time a reply to W.K. Pritchett, ‘The General’s Exhortation in Greek Warfare,’ in Essays in Greek History (Amsterdam ) -, hereafter referred to as Pritchett. In my reply I argue (a) that Pritchett’s (repeated) view of how King Henry V addressed his army at Agincourt is (still) unconvincing, and (b) that Pritchett misrepresents my view of battle exhortations while, in his own treatment of the genre, he endorses what is one of the main points of my article, viz., that apophthegms and short addresses to individual men and small contingents shouted to the soldiers as the general passed along the lines were later written up in rhetorical form as if the general had been standing in front of his army and addressed his men with a genuine speech. The article is concluded with a typology of battle exhortations to be developed in future studies.
Complications of motility peg placement for porous hydroxyapatite orbital implants
Aim: To evaluate the complications associated with pegging of porous hydroxyapatite orbital implants. Methods: Complications associated with pegging were retrospectively reviewed from the charts of 100 of 133 patients with hydroxyapatite implantation from 1993 to 2000. Results: 48 (48%) of the 100 hydroxyapatite implanted patients who had undergone pegging were found to have problems with their pegs, including discharge (45.8%), peg falling out (20.8%), pyogenic granulomas (16.7%), popping peg (14.6%), hydroxyapatite visible around peg hole (8.3%), part of peg shaft visible (6.2%), peg drilled off centre (6.2%), peg drilled at an angle (4.2%), and excess movement of peg (4.2%). The standard peg fell out statistically more often than the peg and sleeve system (Yates's corrected χ2, p=0.038). There was a trend towards complications of the peg with use of a standard peg (versus sleeved peg) (p=0.226). Conclusions: There are several potential complications of pegging. Most complications are minor and can be managed successfully.