This paper analyzes Polybius’ criticism of Theopompus’ judgment on Philip II and his Companions in VIII 9,1-11,2 (Theopomp. FGrHist 115 T 19, FF 27, 225a), a key-text in the tradition which makes ‘malevolence’ the distinctive feature of Theopompan historiography. Polybius’ criticism appears to have been propelled by his predecessor’s solid reputation as an unbiased historian, against which he polemicizes. Also his view is deeply affected by a preconceived and schematic distinction between ‘praise’ and ‘blame’, which prevents him from understanding Theopompus’ original practice. By subtly polemicizing against the contemporary doxa on both Philip and his Companions with the aim to provide a comprehensive and trustworthy representation of their personalities, deeds and respective motives, the historian from Chios de facto broke the encomiastic/epideictic norm according to which the greatness of a deed is the natural consequence and, at the same time, the obvious evidence of the ethical greatness of the man who did it.
