(
1. The historian, was the son of Lycortas, and a native of Megalopolis, a city in Arcadia.
The year in which he was born is uncertain. Suidas (s. v.) places his
birth in the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes, who died in
Lycortas, the father of Polybius, was one of the most distinguished men of the Achaean
league ; and his son therefore received the advantages of his training in political knowledge
and the military art. He must also have reaped great benefit from his intercourse with
Philopoemen, who was a friend of his father's, and on whose death, in Philpoem. 21, An seni gerunda sit respubl. p. 790, &c.) In the
following year, as we have already seen, Polybius was appointed one of the ambassadors to
Egypt, but he did not leave Greece, as the intention of sending an embassy was abandoned. From
this time he probably began to take part in public affairs, and he appears to have soon
obtained great influence among his countrymen. When the war broke out between the Romans and
Perseus king of Macedonia, it became a grave question with the Achaeans what line of policy
they should adopt. The Roman party in the league was headed by Callicrates, an unprincipled
timeserving sycophant, who recognized no law but the will of Rome. He was opposed by Lycortas
and his friends : and the Roman ambassadors, Popillius and Octavius, who came into
Peloponnesus at the beginning of
After the fall of Perseus and the conquest of Macedonia, two Roman commissioners, C.
Claudius and Cn. Dolabella, visited Peloponnesus, for the purpose of advancing the Roman
interests in the south of Greece. At the instigation of Callicrates, they commanded that 1000
Achaeans should be carried to Rome, to answer the charge of not having assisted the Romans
against Perseus. This number included all the best and noblest part of the nation, and among
them was Polybius. They arrived in Italy in
The Achaean exiles remained in Italy seventeen years. The Achaeans had frequently sent
embassies to the senate supplicating the trial or release of their countrymen, but always
without success. Even their earnest entreaty, that Polybius and Stratius alone might be set at
liberty, had been refused. At length, in Exc.
Vatican. p. 447). But he soon left it again in order to join Scipio. His Roman
connections probably made him an object of suspicion with what was called the independent
party; and his residence in his native country may therefore have been not very pleasant to
him. In addition to which he was no doubt anxious to be a spectator of the final struggle
which was now going on between Rome and Carthage, and the history of which he intended to
write.
Polybius was present with Scipio at the destruction of Carthage, Hist. of Grecce, vol. viii. p. 455, note 3) has
remarked, that he would not have hastened to Peloponnesus till the struggle was over. He must,
however, have arrived there soon afterwards; and he exerted all his influence to alleviate the
misfortunes of his countrymen, and to procure favourable terms for them. As a friend of
Scipio, the conqueror of Carthage, he was received with marked distinction; and the want of
patriotism with which his enemies had charged him, enabled him now to render his country far
more effectual service than he could otherwise have done. The statues of Philopoemen and
Aratus, which the Roman commissioners had ordered to be conveyed to Italy, were allowed, at
his intercession, to remain in Peloponnesus. So much respect did the commissioners pay him,
that when they quitted the country in the spring of
Polybius seems now to have devoted himself to the composition of the great historical
work, for which he had long been collecting materials. At what period of his life he made
the journies into foreign countries for the purpose of visiting the places which he had to
describe in his history, it is H. N. v. l),
that Scipio, during the third Punic war, placed a fleet at the disposal of his friend, in
order that he might explore the African coast. At a later period of his life he visited
Egypt likewise; and this journey must have been taken after the fall of Corinth, since he
was in that country in the reign of Ptolemy Physeon, who did not ascend the throne till
ad Fam. 5.12) that Polybius wrote a history
of the Numantine war. The year of his death is uncertain. We have only the testimony of
Lucian (Macrob. 23), that he died at the age of 82, in consequence of a
fall from his horse, as he was returning from the country. If we are correct in placing his
birth in
The history of Polybms consisted of forty books. It began F.
H. ad ann. 146.)
The subjects contained in each of these parts are related circumstantially by Polybius in the following passage, which will give the reader the best idea of the contents of the work.
"Having first explained the causes of the war between the Carthaginians and the Romans,
which is most frequently called the war of Hannibal, we shall show in what manner this
general entered Italy, and gave so great a shock to the empire of the Romans, that they
began to fear that they should soon be dispossessed even of their proper country and seat of
government : while their enemies, elate with a success which had exceeded all their hopes,
were persuaded that Rome itself must fall, as soon as they should once appear before it. We
shall then speak of the alliance that was made by Philip with the Carthaginians as soon as
he had ended his war with the Aetolians, and settled the affairs of Greece. Next will follow
the disputes between Antiochus and Ptolemy Philopator, and the war that ensued between them
for the sovereignty of Coele-Syria ; together with the war which Prusias and the Rhodians
made upon the people of Byzantium ; with design to force them to desist front exacting
certain duties, which they were accustomed to demand from all vessels that sailed into the
Pontus. In this place we shall pause awhile, to take a view of the form and constitution of
the Roman government ; and, in the course of our inquiry, shall endeavour to demonstrate,
that the peculiar temperament and spirit of their republic supplied the chief and most
effectual means by which this people were enabled, not only to acquire the sovereignty of
Italy and Sicily, and to reduce the Gauls and Spaniards to their yoke, but to subdue the
Carthaginians also, and when they had completed this great conquest, to form the project of
obtaining universal empire. We shall add, likewise, a short digression concerning the fite
of Hiero's kingdom in Sicily; and afterwards go on to speak of those commotionis that were
raised in Egypt, after the death of Ptolemy, by Philip and Antiochus : the wicked arts by
which those princes attempted to share between themselves the dominions of the infant king;
and the manner in which the former of them invaded Egypt, Samos, and Caria; and the latter
Coele-Syria and Phoenicia. We then shall make a general recapitulation of all that was
transacted
He then proceeds to relate the subjects contained in the second part of his history. "The chief of these transactions were, the expeditions of the Romans against the Celtiberians and Vaccaeans ; the war which the Carthaginians made against Massinissa, a sovereign prince of Africa; and that between Attains and Prusias in Asia. We shall also see the manner in which Ariarathes, king of Cappadocia, was driven from his dominions by Orofernes, assisted by Demetrius, and again by his own address recovered his paternal rights. We shall see Demetrius, the son of Seleucus, after he had reigned twelve years in Syria, deprived of his kingdom aud his life, by the conspiracy of the other kings. About the same time, the Romans absolved those Greeks that were accused of having secretly excited the wars of Perseus, and permitted them to return to their own country. And not long afterwards the same Romans made war again upon the Carthaginians : at first intending to force them to remove the seat of their republic; but afterwards with design to exterminate both their name and government, for reasons which I shall there endeavour to explain. And lastly, when the Macedonians had, about this time, broken their alliance with the Romans, and the Lacedaemonians were also separated from the Peloponnesian league, the ill fate of Greece received at once both its beginning and full accomplishment, in the loss of the common liberty." (3.5.)
It has been already remarked that the main object of the work of Polybius was to show by
what means and in what manner the Romans subdued the other nations of the world. And
although he regards Fortune (
The history of Polybius is one of the most valuable works that has come down to us from
antiquity ; and few historical works, either in ancient or in modern times, will bear
comparison with it. Polybius had a clear apprehensoin of the knowledge which an historian
must possess; and his preparatory studies were carried on with the greatest energy and
perseverance. Thus he not only collected with accuracy and care an account of the events
that he intended to narrate, but he also studied the history of the Roman constitution, and
made distant journies to become acquainted with the geography of the countries that he had
to describe in his work. In addition to this, he had a strong judgment and a striking love
of truth, and, from having himself taken an active part in political life, he was able to
judge of the motives and actions of the great actors in history in a way that no mere
scholar or rhetorician could possibly do. But the characteristic feature of his work, and
the one which distinguishes it from all other histories which have come down to us from
antiquity, is its didactic nature. He did not, like other historians,
write to afford amusement to his readers, or to gratify an idle curiosity respecting the
migration of nations, the foundation of cities, or the settlement of colonies; his object
was to teach by the past a knowledge of the future, and to deduce from previous events
lessons of practical wisdom. Hence he calls his work a Pragmateia
(History
(
Still, after making these deductions, the great merits of Polybius remain unimpaired. His strict impartiality, to which he frequently lays claim, has been generally admitted both by ancient and modern writers. And it is surprising that he displays such great impartiality in his judgment of the Romans, especially when we consider his intimate friendship with Scipio, and the strong admiration which he evidently entertained of that extraordinary people. Thus we find him, for example, characterising the occupation of Sardinia by the Romans in the interval between the first and second Punc wars, as a violation of all justice (3.28.2), and denouncing the general corruption of the Roman generals from the time of their foreign conquests, with a few brilliant exceptions (18.18). But, at the sane time, he does not display an equal impartiality in the history of the Achaean league; and perhaps we could hardly expect from him that he should forget that he was an Achaean. He no doubt thought that the extension of the Achaean league was essential to the liberties of Greece; and he is thus unconsciously led to exaggerate equally the merits of its friends and the faults of its enemies. He describes in far too glowing colours the character of Aratus, the great hero of the Achaean league, and ascribes (2.40) to the historical work of this statesman a degree of impartiality, to which it certainly was not entitled. On the same principle, he gives quite a false impression of the political life of Cleomenes, one of the greatest men of the latter days of Greece, simply because this king was the great opponent of Aratus and the league. He was likewise guilty of injustice in the views which he gives of the Aetolians, of which Brandstäter has quoted some striking instances in the work referred to below, although it must be confessed that the modern writer is in some cases equally unjust to the ancient historian, from the partiality which he displays for the Aetolians. Not only does Polybius exhibit a partiality for the Achaeans, but he cannot forget that he was an Arcadian, and is equally zealous for the honour of his native land. Thus he considers it strange that the Achaean league derived its name from the Achaean people, and not rather from the Arcadians, whom he classes with the Lacedaemonians (2.38); and many other instances might be quoted in which he displays an equal partiality towards his own people.
The style of Polybius will not bear comparison with the great masters of Greek
literature; nor is it to be expected that it should. He lived at a time when the Greek
language had lost much of its purity by an intermixture of foreign elements, and he did not
attempt to imitate the language of the great Attic writers. He wrote as he spoke, and had
too great a contempt for rhetorical embellishments to avail himself of them in the
composition of his work. The style of such a man naturally bore the impress of his mind;
and, as instruction and not amusement was the great object for which he wrote, he did not
seek to please his readers by the choice of his phrases or the composition of his
sentences. Hence the later Greek critics were severe in their condemnations of his style,
and Dionysius classes his work with those of Phylarchus and Duris, which it was impossible
to read through to the end. (Dionys. De Compos. Verb. 100.4.) But the
most striking fault in the style of Polybius arises from his want of imagination. No
historian can present to his readers a striking picture of events, unless he has at first
vividly conceived them in his own mind; and Polybius, with his cool, calm, calculating
judgment, was not only destitute of all imaginative powers, but evidently despised it when
he saw it exercised by others. It is no doubt certain that an historian must keep his
imagination under a strong control; but it is equally certain that he will always fail in
producing any striking impression upon the mind of his readers, unless he has, to some
extent, called his imagination into exercise. It is for this reason that the geographical
descriptions of Polybius are so vague and indistinct; and the following remarks of Dr.
Arnold, upon the character of Polybius as a geographer, are quite in accordance with the
general views we have expressed : -- "Nothing shows more clearly the great rarity of
geographical talent, than the praise which has been commonly bestowed upon Polybius as a
good geographer. He seems indeed to have been aware of the importance of geography to
history, and to have taken considerable pains to gain information on the subject : but this
very circumstance Hist. of Rome, vol. iii. pp. 473, 474.) To this same cause,
the want of imagination on the part of Polybius, we are disposed to attribute the apparent
indifference with which he describes the fall of his native country, and the extinction of
the liberties of Greece. He only sought to relate facts, and to draw the proper reflections
from them : to relate them with vividness and to paint them in striking colours was not his
calling.
The greater part of the history of Polybius has perished. We possess the first five books entire, but of the rest we have only fragments and extracts, of which some, however, are of considerable length, such as the account of the Roman army, which belonged to the sixth book.
A few years afterwards a discovery was made of some extracts from the other books of
Polybius; but the author of the compilation, and the time at which it was drawn up, are
unknown; for we can hardly believe with Casaubon that it was the Epitome which was made by
M. Brutus, and of which both Plutarch (s. v.
From the time of Valesius no new additions were made to the fragments of Polybius, with the exception of a fragment describing the siege of Ambracia, originally published in the second volume of Gronovius's Livy, until Angelo Mai discovered in the Vatican library at Rome the third section of the Excerpta of Constanttinus Porphyrogenitus, entitled
Of the translations of Polybius into modern languages, those most worthy of notice are
Livy did not use Polybius till he came to the second Punic war, but from that time he followed him very closely, and his history of the events after the termination of that war appears to be little more than a translation of his Greek predecessor. Cicero likewise seems to have chiefly followed Polybius in the account which he gives of the Roman constitution in his
Besides the great historical work of which we have been speaking, Polybius wrote,
In three books, to which he himself refers (10.24).
A treatise on Tactics (Tactic. init.) and Aelian (Tactic. cc. 1, 3)
allude.
According to the statement of Cicero (
Quoted by Geminus (100.13, in Petavius, Uranologium, vol. iii. p.
31, &c.), but it is not improbable that this formed part of the 34th book of the
History, which was entirely devoted to geography.
The reader will find some valuable information respecting the character of Polybius as an
historian in the following works ;--Lucas, Ueber Polybius Darstellung des
Aetolischen Bundes, Königsberg, 1827 ; Merleker, Die Geschichte
des Aetolisch-Achueischen Bundesgenossen-Krieges, Königsberg, 1831; K. W. Nitzsch,
Polybius : zur Geschichte antiker Politik und Historiographie,, Kiel,
1842; Brandstäter, Die Geschichten des Aetolischen Landes, Volkes und
Bundes, nebst einer historiographischen Abhandlung ueber Polybius, Berlin, 1844.