POLYBIUS. clary importance ; they formed only the text of the political and moml discourses which it was the province of the historian to deliver. The reflec- tions of Polybius are, it is true, characterised by deep wisdom ; and no one can read them without admiring the solidity of the historian's judgment, and deriving from them at the same time both instruction and improvement. Still, it must be admitted, that, excellent as they are, they mate- rially detract from the merits of the history as a work of art ; their frequent occurrence interrupts the continuity of the narrative, and destroys, to a great extent, the interest of the reader in the scenes which are described. Instead of narrating the events in such a manner that they should convey their own moral, and throwing in, as it were by the way, the reflections to which the narrative should give rise, he pauses in the midst of the most interesting scenes to impress upon the reader the lessons which these events ought to teach, and he thus imparts to his work a kind of moralising tone, which frequently mars the enjoyment of the reader, and, in some cases, becomes absolutely repulsive. There can be no doubt that some of the most striking faults in the history of Polybius arise from his pushing too far the principle, which is doubtless a sound one to a certain extent, that history is written for instruction and not for amusement. Hence he omits, or relates in a very brief manner, certain important events, because they did not con- vey, in his opinion, lessons of practical wisdom ; and, on the other hand, he frequently inserts long episodes, which have little connection with the main subject of his work, because they have a didactic tendency. Thus Ave find that one whole book (the sixth) was devoted to a history of the Roman constitution ; and in the same manner episodes were introduced even on subjects which did not teach any political or moral truths, but simply because his countrymen entertained erro- neous opinions on those subjects. The thirty- fourth book, for example, seems to have been exclu- sively a treatise on geography. Although Poly- bius was thus enabled to impart much important information, of which we, in modern times, espe- cially reap the benefits, still it cannot be denied that such episodes are no improvements to the history considered as a work of art. 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 mo- dem writers. And it is surprising that he dis- plays such great impartiality in his judgment of the Romans, especially when we consider his inti- mate friendship with Scipio, and the strong admi- ration which he evidently entertained of that extraordinary people. Thus we find him, for ex- ample, characterising the occupation of Sardinia by the Romans in the interval between the first and second Punic wars, as a violation of all justice (iii. 28. § 2), and denouncing the general corruption of the Roman generals from the time of their foreign conquests, with a few brilliant exceptions (xviii. 18). But, at the same 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 j and iie is thus unconsciously led to ex- POLYBIUS. 447 aggerate equally the merits cf 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 (ii. 40) to the historical work of this statesman a de- gree 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 op- ponent of Aratus and the league. He was like- wise guilty of injustice in the views which he gives of the Aetolians, of which Brandstater has quoted some striking instances in the work referred to below, although it must be confessed that the mo- dern writer is in some cases equally unjust to the ancient historian, from the partiality which he dis- plays for the Aetolians. Not only does Polybius exhibit a partiality for the Achaeans, but he can- not 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 de- rived its name from the Achaean people, and not rather from the Arcadians, whom he classes with the Lacedaemonians (ii. 38) ; and many other in- stances might be quoted in which he displays au 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 embellish- ments 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 vvork with those of Phylar- chus and Duris, which it was impossible to read through to the end. (Dionys. De Compos. Verb. c. 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 pic- ture of events, unless he has at first vividly con- ceived them in his own mind ; and Polylnus, 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 pro- ducing 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 cir-
