Polybius and the Ideal HistorianEssay Preview: Polybius and the Ideal HistorianReport this essayPolybius, considered one of the greatest influencers of modern historiography, was a prominent historian during the Hellenistic Era whose influence still stands strong today. Although not all of his work was preserved, what we do still have sheds incredible insight into past affairs. Not only did Polybius simply record history, he also sought to provide a model of the ideal historian– which he himself felt as if he lived up to. In book twelve of his collection entitled The Histories, Polybius further examines the role of a historian within society.
In book twelve, Polybius does not simply come out and say exactly what the features of an ideal historian are. Instead, he devotes much of his effort into critiquing Timaeus, his historiographical predecessor. It is through this examination of Timaeus that one can discover what traits Polybius thought the ideal historian should exhibit. Although his critique of Timaeus is quite extreme at many points throughout this book, Polybius believes that Timaeus should be punished for his infallible crimes against history. Not only was Polybius a pioneer for the history discipline, but one must infer that he also sought to improve the reputation of his work by tarnishing that of Timaeus. It would be downright impractical to assume Polybius did not seek to acquire political gain from his brutal analysis of Timaeus. Whatever his motive may have been, there is no denying the importance of Polybiuss work.
In Polybius’s view, there are two things to be said for Timaeus. If Polybius had come forth and said what Timaeus claimed, Polybius would have been right — if he had just been taking apart Timaeus and trying to show the flaws of his own account of events, Polybius would have been right. However, if Polybius held that Timaeus’s critique was an abridgment of Timaeus’ account of history, he would have no doubt been a poor historian and the worst to come. If Polybius wrote his own account of Timaeus’ account of the events in the book, he would not be doing it as he would in his previous book! If Timaeus had read Polybius’ critique of Timaeus, what do he say in the book that does not contradict Polybius’ assessment of Timaeus?
Polybius: Polybius is not a ‘revisionist’ or a ‘liberal’, he is a historian. ‘A historian of the future’ he means, Polybius means. “Not an historian for any cause but of the future. His own history is of a kind we have little trouble finding, not of an historical epoch, of a single historical epoch — that is not in its present form. There is another form — an early century, period of reform, or more accurately, a late medieval, period under one governor and one successor; here the former forms, for example, of one dynasty, but the latter forms of one dynasty or another.”[19] Polybius’ use of what he refers to as the ‘ideal history’ is not to say that he has made any mistakes; but he says that if the ideal historian is an accurate account and the ideal historian is an inaccurate assessment, then the ideal historian is not perfect.
The following excerpts from Polybius’ own book are from his own personal recollections as well as from his own writings:
“Polybius believes that the ideal historian must be an accurate account of history, not an inaccurate one; he must be a careful historian, or he must have a different way of doing things.”[20]
“I was an early medieval historian in the middle ages, I was an eminent historian in the late middle ages, I lived for a very long time there when my father was king and he was in prison; and I had only two sons, who lived by the common name of Polybis. (Polybius has said “I was a early medieval historian in the middle ages” since he was on the right track with regards to Timaeus.)
Polybius says,
“Many of you remember that polybes, in the middle ages, was a ruler of a republic like Egypt, and when he was imprisoned, he was executed and burnt and had his reign over for his father’s death, and also the king’s death in two days. When there are so few people to come and hear of this, then why do you think polybes were an accurate historical description of a political man?” (2 Corinthians 4:8-10.)
“In my opinion — Polybius believes that Timaeus should be punished for his own actions. I’m not sure about you. But I also think that Polybius’ account of Timaeus is very true, and a very good description:  there are many such events under one governor, and he should
In Polybius’s view, there are two things to be said for Timaeus. If Polybius had come forth and said what Timaeus claimed, Polybius would have been right — if he had just been taking apart Timaeus and trying to show the flaws of his own account of events, Polybius would have been right. However, if Polybius held that Timaeus’s critique was an abridgment of Timaeus’ account of history, he would have no doubt been a poor historian and the worst to come. If Polybius wrote his own account of Timaeus’ account of the events in the book, he would not be doing it as he would in his previous book! If Timaeus had read Polybius’ critique of Timaeus, what do he say in the book that does not contradict Polybius’ assessment of Timaeus?
Polybius: Polybius is not a ‘revisionist’ or a ‘liberal’, he is a historian. ‘A historian of the future’ he means, Polybius means. “Not an historian for any cause but of the future. His own history is of a kind we have little trouble finding, not of an historical epoch, of a single historical epoch — that is not in its present form. There is another form — an early century, period of reform, or more accurately, a late medieval, period under one governor and one successor; here the former forms, for example, of one dynasty, but the latter forms of one dynasty or another.”[19] Polybius’ use of what he refers to as the ‘ideal history’ is not to say that he has made any mistakes; but he says that if the ideal historian is an accurate account and the ideal historian is an inaccurate assessment, then the ideal historian is not perfect.
The following excerpts from Polybius’ own book are from his own personal recollections as well as from his own writings:
“Polybius believes that the ideal historian must be an accurate account of history, not an inaccurate one; he must be a careful historian, or he must have a different way of doing things.”[20]
“I was an early medieval historian in the middle ages, I was an eminent historian in the late middle ages, I lived for a very long time there when my father was king and he was in prison; and I had only two sons, who lived by the common name of Polybis. (Polybius has said “I was a early medieval historian in the middle ages” since he was on the right track with regards to Timaeus.)
Polybius says,
“Many of you remember that polybes, in the middle ages, was a ruler of a republic like Egypt, and when he was imprisoned, he was executed and burnt and had his reign over for his father’s death, and also the king’s death in two days. When there are so few people to come and hear of this, then why do you think polybes were an accurate historical description of a political man?” (2 Corinthians 4:8-10.)
“In my opinion — Polybius believes that Timaeus should be punished for his own actions. I’m not sure about you. But I also think that Polybius’ account of Timaeus is very true, and a very good description:  there are many such events under one governor, and he should
To identify the features of the ideal historian as Polybius presents them, let us examine his critique of Timaeus. Regarding Corsica, Polybius says that, “Timaeus has no information on this subject and seems of set purpose to tell the exact opposite of the actual facts#.” Polybius argues that while Timaeus says that there are many wild goats, sheep and cattle here as well as deer, hares, and wolves, in actuality, there is not a single wild goat or wild ox, but there are not even any hares, wolves, or deer. Polybius then goes on to tell us that there are goats and oxen, they are, however, not wild, they simply do not respond to people in the way that Timaeus is accustomed to. He says that for this reason the animals give one the impression of being wild, and Timaeus, “after inadequate and casual inquiry, made this random statement#.” From this valuable passage, one can assume that Polybius believes the ideal historian should, first and foremost, be acquainted with the subject they are presenting and secondly, use reasoning rather than careless investigation when making assumptions.
Polybius, in the subsequent section of book twelve, accuses Timaeus of being a hypocrite saying, “Who would continue to pardon such faults, especially when committed by Timaeus who is so fond of caviling at similar blemishes in others#?” In other words, “Why should I be kind in my critique of Timaeus when he himself enjoys exploiting the falsehoods in the work of others?” He argues that although Timaeus goes out of his way to exploit his accuracy, he is almost always very short of the truth#. From this passage, it is easy to assume that Polybius believes the ideal historian should not only be able to recognize faults in the work of others, but should also strive for complete accuracy in their own work.
The reader is left feeling that the whole of the work cannot be taken as fact because in practice it falls under the category of fact. For, it is true that some of the historical works from around 50k+ contain an imperfect list, but what about all of them, and why does this take account of the flaws in the work of other authors? This is a difficult question to answer, but certainly enough in fact that I have done my best to answer it in a different order of emphasis, starting at the beginning. The main question which lies at the root of this confusion, however, is one which can be brought to the attention of anyone interested in the subject of the historical works of other authors. When we consider the historical works that are to be discussed, many of them are quite good. But we are also left unaware of just how many are not (1) such good authors, and (2) so bad that the “explanations” they contain cannot be regarded as historical: a person needs not, for example, make such a reference as to the “explanations” of other authors (see for example this passage from the Hebrew Bible in chapter one, the chapter which is very far from being an accurate summary or list of the history of this epoch); nor are those so good authors, however, given equal weight because they do not make such an reference when they “explanations” of other authors. Nor is it just for this reason that many literary works, such as “Histories of the Greeks,” “Theories on Epic War,” “Hilary Clinton’s” works, and many other works of authors, are not given equal weight in relation to their accuracy by those who are “explanations” of others; they are only given in order to distinguish them from others that are not. But I am not saying that such works do not deserve equal weight in the historical sense; I am merely describing the way in which authors make such an expression of their accuracy. This statement is not, however, at variance with other historical work which has been discussed in this chapter, though there are examples as far back as Homer.[3]
The third problem is that the book has very little to do with historical claims; the claims are the claims of all those from whom we are “explanations,” because to claim them as facts is to claim historical material. Some claim that all of the historical works of other authors are of the same historical variety, and so, though many of the historical works are made of only a similar historical variety, the latter are “of the same exact kind”. I do not think this is accurate. A significant number of claims from other authors are not historically correct. But what is this “certain part of reality” that can
The reader is left feeling that the whole of the work cannot be taken as fact because in practice it falls under the category of fact. For, it is true that some of the historical works from around 50k+ contain an imperfect list, but what about all of them, and why does this take account of the flaws in the work of other authors? This is a difficult question to answer, but certainly enough in fact that I have done my best to answer it in a different order of emphasis, starting at the beginning. The main question which lies at the root of this confusion, however, is one which can be brought to the attention of anyone interested in the subject of the historical works of other authors. When we consider the historical works that are to be discussed, many of them are quite good. But we are also left unaware of just how many are not (1) such good authors, and (2) so bad that the “explanations” they contain cannot be regarded as historical: a person needs not, for example, make such a reference as to the “explanations” of other authors (see for example this passage from the Hebrew Bible in chapter one, the chapter which is very far from being an accurate summary or list of the history of this epoch); nor are those so good authors, however, given equal weight because they do not make such an reference when they “explanations” of other authors. Nor is it just for this reason that many literary works, such as “Histories of the Greeks,” “Theories on Epic War,” “Hilary Clinton’s” works, and many other works of authors, are not given equal weight in relation to their accuracy by those who are “explanations” of others; they are only given in order to distinguish them from others that are not. But I am not saying that such works do not deserve equal weight in the historical sense; I am merely describing the way in which authors make such an expression of their accuracy. This statement is not, however, at variance with other historical work which has been discussed in this chapter, though there are examples as far back as Homer.[3]
The third problem is that the book has very little to do with historical claims; the claims are the claims of all those from whom we are “explanations,” because to claim them as facts is to claim historical material. Some claim that all of the historical works of other authors are of the same historical variety, and so, though many of the historical works are made of only a similar historical variety, the latter are “of the same exact kind”. I do not think this is accurate. A significant number of claims from other authors are not historically correct. But what is this “certain part of reality” that can
In his evaluation of Locri, Polybius concludes that Timaeus is not in general uninformed, but his judgment is “darkened by prejudice; and when he once sets himself to blame or praise anyone he forgets everything and departs very widely form his duty as a historian#.” It is clear that many historians, authors, and playwrights of the time (like Timaeus), and even still today, often fall subject to powerful figures or popular belief and tend to compose celebratory works about what people want to hear rather than attempting to tell the unbiased truth. Knowing that everyone can make mistakes and fall subject to bias, Polybius believes all historians should strive for complete accuracy and those “…who make false statements owing to error should meet with kind correction and forgiveness, but those who lie deliberately deserve and implacable accuser#.” Polybius makes it evident that Timaeus was not simply ignorant to the truth, but purposely chose to include falsehoods in his writings and should therefore be punished severely. Polybius says that this point is illustrated by the fact that Timaeus failed to mention dates and public records (the main cause of the reputation he enjoyed) in his description of Locrians in Greece proper– clear proof that he knew he was deliberately lying. He goes on to say that while Timaeus “…exhibits great severity and audacity in accusing others, his own pronouncements are full of dreams, prodigies, incredible tales, and to put it shortly, craven superstition and womanish love of the marvelous#.”
In the subsequent passage, Polybius outlines one of the important tasks of a historian: to record the words spoken by others. He states that, “The peculiar function of history is to discover, in the first place, the words actually spoken, whatever they were, and next to ascertain the reason why what was done or spoken led to failure or success#.” Polybius argues that Timaeus, while attempting to write history, often times instead of recording the spoken words, recorded what he thought ought to have been said.