may be consulted, and Bovet's Pandaemonium (1684) is very rich in cases. The literature of the famous drummer of Tedworth (March 1662-April 1663) begins with an abstract of the sworn deposition of Mr Mompesson, whose house was the scene of the dis. turbances. The abstract is in the Mercurius publicus of April 1663, the evidence was given in a court of justice on the 15th of April. There is also a ballad, a rhymed news-sheet of 1662 (Anthony Wood's Collection 401 (193), Bodleian Library). Pepys mentions "books" about the affair in his Diary for June 1663. Glanvil's first known version is in his Sadducismus triumphatus of 1666. The sworn evidence of Mompesson proves at least that he was disturbed in an intolerable manner, certainly beyond any means at the disposal of his two daughters, aged nine and eleven or thereabouts. The agent may have been the tàradh of the drummer whom Mompesson offended. Glanvil in 1666 confused the dates, and, save for his own experiences, merely repeats the statements current in 1662-1663. The ballad and Mompesson's deposition are given in Proc. S.P.R. xvii. 304-336, in a discussion between the writer and Mr Podmore. The dated and contemporary narrative of Procter in the Willington Mill case (18351847), is printed in the Journ. S.P.R. (Dec. 1892), with some contemporary letters on the subject. Mr Procter endured the disturbances for sixteen years before he retreated from the place. There was no naughty little girl in the affair; no nervous or hysterical patient. The Celtic hypothesis of tàradh, exercised by "the spirit of the living," includes visual apparitions, and many a so-called ghost" of the dead may be merely the tàradh of a living person. (A. L.) POLTROON, a coward, a worthless rogue without courage or spirit. The word comes through Fr. poltron from Ital. poltrone, an idle fellow, one who lolls in a bed or couch (Milanese poller, Venetian poltrona, adapted from Ger. Polster, a pillow; cf. English "bolster"). The old guess that it was from Lat. pollice truncus, maimed in the thumb, and was first applied to those who avoided military service by self-mutilation, gave rise probably to the French application of poltron to a falcon whose talons were cut to prevent its attacking game.

POLTROT, JEAN DE (c. 1537-1563), sieur de Méré or Mérey, a nobleman of Angoumois, who murdered Francis, duke of Guise. He had lived some time in Spain, and his knowledge of Spanish, together with his swarthy complexion, which earned him the nickname of the "Espagnolet," procured him employment as a spy in the wars against Spain. Becoming a fanatical Huguenot, he determined to kill the duke of Guise, and gained admission as a deserter to the camp of the Catholics who were besieging Orleans. In the evening of the 18th of February 1563 he hid by the side of a road along which he knew the duke would pass, fired a pistol at him, and fled. But he was captured the next day, and was tried, tortured several times, and sentenced to be drawn and quartered. On the 18th of March 1563 he underwent a frightful punishment. The horses not being able to drag off his limbs, he was hacked to pieces with cutlasses. He had made several contradictory declarations regarding the complicity of Coligny. The admiral protested emphatically against the accusation, which appears to have had no foundation.

See Mémoires du prince de Condé (London, 1743); T. A. D'Aubigné, Histoire universelle (ed. by de Ruble, Soc. de l'histoire de France, 1886); A. de Ruble, L'Assassinat du duc François de Lorraine (Paris, 1897).

POLYAENUS, a Macedonian, who lived at Rome as a rhetorician and pleader in the 2nd century A.D. When the Parthian War (162-5) broke out, Polyaenus, too old to share in the campaign, dedicated to the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus a work, still extant, called Strategica or Strategemata, a historical collection of stratagems and maxims of strategy written in Greek and strung together in the form of anecdotes. It is not strictly confined to warlike stratagems, but includes also examples of wisdom, courage and cunning drawn from civil and political life. The work is uncritically written, but is nevertheless important on account of the extracts it has preserved from histories now lost. It is divided into eight books (parts of the sixth and seventh are lost), and originally contained nine hundred anecdotes, of which eight hundred and thirty-three are extant. Polyaenus intended to write a history of the Parthian War, but there is no evidence that he did so. His works on Macedonia, on Thebes, and on tactics (perhaps identical with the Strategica) are lost. His Strategica seems to have been highly esteemed by the Roman emperors, and to have been handed down by them as a sort of XXII I⭑

heirloom. From Rome it passed to Constantinople; at the end of the 9th century it was diligently studied by Leo VI., who himself wrote a work on tactics; and in the middle of the 10th century Constantine Porphyrogenitus mentioned it as one of the most valuable books in the imperial library. It was used by Stobaeus, Suidas, and the anonymous author of the work Пepi áriørur (sce PALAEPHATUS). It is arranged as follows: bks. 1., ii., iii., stratagems occurring in Greek history; bk. iv., stratagems of the Macedonian kings and successors of Alexander the Great; bk. v., stratagems occurring in the history of Sicily and the Greek islands and colonies; bk. vi., stratagems of a whole people (Carthaginians, Lacedaemonians, Argives), together with some individuals (Philopoemen, Pyrrhus, Hannibal); bk. vii., stratagems of the barbarians (Medes, Persians, Egyptians, Thracians, Scythians, Celts); bk. viii., stratagems of Romans and women. This distribution is not, however, observed very strictly. Of the negligence or haste with which the work was written there are many instances: e.g. he confounds Dionysius the elder and Dionysius the younger, Mithradates satrap of Artaxerxes and Mithradates the Great, Scipio the elder and Scipio the younger, Perseus, king of Macedonia and Perseus the companion of Alexander; he mixes up the stratagems of Caesar and Pompey; he brings into immediate connexion events which were totally distinct; he narrates some events twice over, with variations according to the different authors from whom he draws. Though he usually abridges, he occasionally amplifies arbitrarily the narratives of his authorities. He never mentions his authorities, but amongst authors still extant he used Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Polybius, Diodorus, Plutarch, Frontinus remain he drew upon Ctesias, Ephorus, Timaeus, Phylarchus and and Suetonius; amongst authors of whom only fragments now Nicolaus Damascenus. His style is clear, but monotonous and inelegant. In the forms of his words he generally follows Attic

usage.

Series, 1887, with bibliography and editio princeps of the Strategemata of the emperor Leo); annotated editions by Isaac Casaubon (1589) and A. Coraes (1809); I. Melber, Ueber die Quellen und Werth der Strategemensammlung Polyans (1885); Knott, De fide et fontibus Polyaeni (1883), who largely reduces the number of the authorities consulted by Polyaenus. Eng. trans. by R. Shepherd (1793).

The best edition of the text is Wölfflin and Melber (Teubner

POLYANDRY (Gr. Toλs, many, and άvýp, man), the system of marriage between one woman and several men, who are her husbands exclusively (see FAMILY). The custom locally legalizing the marriage of one woman to more than one husband at a time has been variously accounted for as the result of poverty and of life in unfertile lands, where it was essential to check population as the consequence of female infanticide, or, in the opinion of J. F. McLennan and L. H. Morgan, as a natural phase through which human progress has necessarily passed. Polyandry is to be carefully differentiated from communal marriage, where the woman is the property of any and every member of the tribe. Two distinct kinds of polyandry are practised: one, often called Nair, in which, as among the Nairs of India, the husbands are not related to each other; and the second, the Tibetan or fraternal polyandry, in which the woman is married to all the brothers of one family. Polyandry is practised by the tribes of Tibet, Kashmir and the Himalayan regions, by the Todas, Koorgs, Nairs and other peoples of India, in Ceylon, New Zealand, by some of the Australian aborigines, in parts of Africa, in the Aleutian archipelago, among the Koryaks and on the Orinoco.

See McLennan's Primitive Marriage (London, 1885); Studies in Ancient History (London, 1886); "The Levirate and Polyandry," in The Fortnightly Review, new series, vol. xxi. (London, 1877): L. H. Morgan, System of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family (Washington, 1869); Lord Avebury, Origin of Civilization; E. Westermarck, History of Human Marriage.

POLYANTHUS, one of the oldest of the florists' flowers, is probably derived from P. variabilis, itself a cross between the common primrose and the cowslip; it differs from the primrose in having the umbels of flowers carried up on a stalk. The florists' polyanthus has a golden margin, and is known as the gold-laced polyanthus, the properties being very distinctly laid down and rigidly adhered to. The chief of these are a clear, unshaded, blackish or reddish ground colour, an even margin or lacing of yellow extending round each segment and cutting through its centre down to the ground colour, and a yellow band surrounding the tube of exactly the same hue as the yellow of the lacing. The plants are quite hardy, and grow best in strong, loamy soil tolerably well enriched with well-decayed dung and leaf-mould;

they should be planted about the end of September or not later than October. Plants for exhibition present a much better and cleaner appearance if kept during winter in a cold well-aired frame.

For the flower borders what are called fancy polyanthuses are adopted. These are best raised annually from seed, the young crop each year blooming in succession. The seed should be sown as soon as ripe, the young plants being allowed to stand through the winter in the seed bed. In April or May they are planted out in a bed of rich garden soil, and they will bloom abundantly the following spring. A few of the better "thrumeyed "sorts (those having the anthers in the eye, and the pistil sunk in the tube) should be allowed to ripen seed; the rest may be thrown away. In some remarkable forms which have been cultivated for centuries the ordinarily green calyx has become petaloid; when this is complete it forms the hose-in-hose primrose of gardeners. There are also a few well-known doubleflowered varieties.

POLYBIUS (c. 204-122 B.C.), Greek historian, was a native of Megalopolis in Arcadia, the youngest of Greek cities (Paus. viii. | 9), which, however, played an honourable part in the last days of Greek freedom as a stanch member of the Achaean League (q.v.). | His father, Lycortas, was the intimate friend of Philopoemen, and on the death of the latter, in 182, succeeded him as leader of the league. The date of Polybius's birth is doubtful. He tells us himself that in 181 he had not yet reached the age (? thirty years, Polyb. xxix. 9) at which an Achaean was legally capable of holding office (xxiv. 6). We learn from Cicero (Ad Fam. v. 12) that he outlived the Numantine War, which ended in 132, and from Lucian (Macrob. 22) that he died at the age of eighty-two. The majority of authorities therefore place his birth between 214 and 204 B.C. Little is known of his early life. As the son of Lycortas he was naturally brought into close contact with the leading men of the Achaean League. With Philopoemen he seems to have been on intimate terms. After Philopoemen's tragic death in Messenia (182) he was entrusted with the honourable duty of conveying home the urn in which his ashes had been deposited (Plut. Phil. 21). In 181, together with his father, Lycortas and the younger Aratus, he was appointed, in spite of his youth, a member of the embassy which was to visit Ptolemy Epiphanes, king of Egypt, a mission, however, which the sudden death of Ptolemy brought to a premature end (xxv. 7). The next twelve years of his life are a blank, but in 169 he reappears as a trusted adviser of the Achaeans at a difficult crisis in the history of the League. In 171 war had broken out between Rome and the Macedonian king Perseus, and the Achaean statesmen were divided as to the policy to be pursued; there were good reasons for fearing that the Roman senate would regard neutrality as indicating a secret leaning towards Macedon. Polybius therefore declared for an open alliance with Rome, and his views were adopted. It was decided to send an Achaean force to cooperate with the Roman general, and Polybius was selected to command the cavalry. The Roman consul declined the proffered assistance, but Polybius accompanied him throughout the campaign, and thus gained his first insight into the military system of Rome. In the next year (168) both Lycortas and Polybius were on the point of starting at the head of 1200 Achaeans to take service in Egypt against the Syrians, when an intimation from the Roman commander that armed interference was undesirable put a stop to the expedition (xxix. 23). The success of Rome in the war with Perseus was now assured. The final victory was rapidly followed by the arrival in Achaea of Roman commissioners charged with the duty of establishing Roman interests there. Polybius was arrested with 1000 of the principal Achaeans, but, while his companions were condemned to a tedious incarceration in the country towns of Italy, he obtained permission to reside in Rome. This privilege he owed to the influence of L. Aemilius Paullus and his two sons, Scipio and Fabius (xxxii. 9). Polybius was received into Aemilius's house, and became the instructor of his sons. Scipio (P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus the younger), the future conqueror of Carthage, and himself a friendship soon sprang up,

Between

which ripened into a lifelong intimacy, and was of inestimable service to him throughout his career. It protected him from interference, opened to him the highest circles of Roman society, and enabled him to acquire a personal influence with the leading men, which stood him in good stead when he afterwards came forward to mediate between his countrymen and Rome. It placed within his reach opportunities for a close study of Rome and the Romans such as had fallen to no historian before him, and secured him the requisite leisure for using them, while Scipio's liberality more than once supplied him with the means of conducting difficult and costly historical investigations (Pliny, N.H. v. 9). In 151 the few surviving exiles were allowed to return to Greece. But the stay of Polybius in Achaea was brief. The estimation in which he was held at Rome is clearly shown by the anxiety of the consul Marcus (or Manlius) Manilius (149) to take him as his adviser on his expedition against Carthage. Polybius started to join him, but broke off his journey at Corcyra on learning that the Carthaginians were inclined to yield (xxxvi. 3). But when, in 147, Scipio himself took the command in Africa, Polybius hastened to join him, and was an eye-witness of the siege and destruction of Carthage. During his absence in Africa the Achacans had made a last desperate attempt to assert their independence of Rome. He returned in 146 to find Corinth in ruins, the fairest cities of Achaea at the mercy of the Roman soldiery, and the famous Achaean League shattered to pieces (see ACHAEAN LEAGUE). All the influence he possessed was freely spent in endeavouring to shield his countrymen from the worst consequences of their rashness. The excesses of the soldiery were checked, and at his special intercession the statues of Aratus and Philopoemen were preserved (xxxix. 14). An even more difficult task was that entrusted to him by the Roman authorities themselves, of persuading the Achaeans to acquiesce in the new régime imposed upon them by their conquerors, and of setting the new machinery in working order. With this work, which he accomplished so as to earn the heartfelt gratitude of his countrymen (xxxix. 16), his public career seems to have closed. The rest of his life was, so far as we know, devoted to the great history which is the lasting monument of his fame. He died, at the age of eighty-two, of a fall from his horse (Lucian, Macrob. 22). The base of a statue erected to him by Elis was found at Olympia in 1877. It bears the inscription ή πόλις ή Ηλείων Πολύβιον Λυκόρτα Μεγαλοπολίτην.

of Rome

Of the forty books which made up the history of Polybius, the first five alone have come down to us in a complete form; of the rest we have only more or less copious fragments. But the general plan and scope of the work are explained by Polybius himself, His intention was to make plain how and why it was that "all the known regions of the civilized world had fallen under the sway (iii. 1). This empire of Rome, unprecedented in its extent and still more so in the rapidity with which it had been ac quired, was the standing wonder of the age, and "who," he exclaims (i. 1), "is so poor-spirited or indolent as not to wish to know by what means, and thanks to what sort of constitution, the Romans subdued the world in something less than fifty-three years?" These fifty-three years are those between 220 (the point at which the work of Aratus ended) and 168 B.C., and extend therefore from the outbreak of the Hannibalic War to the defeat of Perseus at Pydna. To this period then the main portion of his history is devoted from the third to the thirtieth book inclusive. But for clearness' sake he prefixes in bks. i. and ii. such a preliminary sketch of the earlier history of Rome, of the First Punic War, and of the contemporary events in Greece and Asia, as will enable his readers more fully to understand what follows. This seems to have been his original plan, but at the opening of bk. iii., written apparently after 146, he explains that he thought it desirable to add some account of the manner in which the Romans exercised the power they had won, of their temperament and policy and of the final catastrophe which destroyed Carthage and for ever broke np the Achaean League (iii. 4, 5). To this appendix, giving the history from 168-146, the last ten books are devoted. Whatever fault may be found with Polybius, there can be no question that he had formed a high conception of the task before him. He lays repeated stress on two qualities as distinguishing his history from the ordinary run of historical compositions. The first of these, its synoptic character, was partly necessitated by the nature of the period. The various states fringing the basin of the Mediterranean had become so inextricably interwoven that it was no longer possible to deal with them in isolation. Polybius therefore claims for his history that it will take a comprehensive

view of the whole course of events in the civilized world, within the limits of the period (i. 4). He thus aims at placing before his readers at each stage a complete survey of the field of action from Spain to Syria and Egypt. This synoptic method proceeds from a true appreciation of what is now called the unity of history, and to Polybius must be given the credit of having first firmly grasped and clearly enforced a lesson which the events of his own time were especially well calculated to teach. It is the great merit of his work that it gives such a picture of the 2nd and 3rd centuries B.C. as no series of special narratives could have supplied. The second quality upon which Polybius insists as distinguishing his history from all others is its "pragmatic" character. It deals, that is, with events and with their causes, and aims at an accurate record and expianation of ascertained facts. This "pragmatic method" (ix. 2) makes history intelligible by explaining the how and the why; and, secondly, it is only when so written that history can perform its true function of instructing and guiding those who study it. For the great use of history, according to Polybius, is to contribute to the right conduct of human life (i. 35). But this it can do only if the historian bears in mind the true nature of his task. He must remember that the historian should not write as the dramatist does to charm or excite his audience for the moment (ii. 56). He will aim simply at exhibiting events in their true light, setting forth the why and the how in each case, not confusing causes and occasions, or dragging in old wives' fables, prodigies and marvels (ii. 16, iii. 48). He will omit nothing which can help to explain the events he is dealing with: the genius and temperament of particular peoples, their political and military systems, the characters of the leading men, the geographical features of the country, must all be taken into account. To this conception of history Polybius is on the whole consistently faithful. It is true that his anxiety to instruct leads often to a rather wearisome iteration of his favourite maxims, and that his digressions, such as that on the military art, are occasionally provokingly long and didactic. But his comments and reflections are for the most part sound and instructive (e.g, those on the lessons to be learnt from the revolt of the mercenaries in Africa, i. 65; from the Celtic raids in Italy, ii. 35; and on the Roman character), while among his digressions are included such invaluable chapters as those on the Roman constitution (bk. vi), the graphic description of Cisalpine Gaul (bk. ii.) and the account of the rise and constitution of the Achaean League (ii. 38 seq.). To his anxiety again to trace back events to their first causes we owe, not only the careful inquiry (bk. iii.) into the origin of the Second Punic War, but the sketch of early Roman history in bk. i., and of the early treaties between Rome and Carthage in iii. 22 seq. Among the many defects which he censures in previous historians, not the least serious in his eyes are their inattention to the political and geographical surroundings of the history (ii. 16, iii. 36), and their neglect duly to set forth the causes of events (iii. 6).

Polybius is equally explicit as regards the personal qualifications necessary for a good historian, and in this respect too his practice is in close agreement with his theory. Without a personal knowledge of affairs a writer will inevitably distort the true relations and importance of events (xii. 28). Such experience would have saved accomplished and fluent Greek writers like Timaeus from many of their blunders (xii. 25a), but the shortcomings of Roman soldiers and senators like Q. Fabius Pictor show that it is not enough by itself. Equally indispensable is careful painstaking research. All available evidence must be collected, thoroughly sifted, soberly weighed, and, lastly, the historian must be animated by a sincere love of truth and a calm impartiality.

It is important to consider how far Polybius himself comes up to his standard. In his personal acquaintance with affairs, in the variety of his experience, and in his opportunities for forming a correct judgment on events he is without a rival among ancient historians. A great part of the period of which he treats fell within his own lifetime (iv. 2). He may just have remembered the battle of Cynoscephalae (197), and, as we have seen, he was actively engaged in the military and political affairs of the Achaean League. During his exile in Rome he was able to study the Roman constitution, and the peculiarities of the Roman temperament; he made the acquaintance of Roman senators, and became the intimate friend of the greatest Roman of the day. Lastly, he was able to survey with his own eyes the field on which the great struggle between Rome and Hannibal was fought out. He left Rome only to witness the crowning triumph of Roman arms in Africa, and to gain a practical acquaintance with Roman methods of government by assisting in the settlement of Achaea. When, in 146, his public life closed, he completed his preparation of himself for his great work by laborious investigations of archives and monuments, and by a careful personal examination of historical sites and To all this we must add that he was deeply read in the learning of his day, above all in the writings of earlier historians. Of Polybius's anxiety to get at the truth no better proof can be given than his conscientious investigation of original documents and monuments, and his careful study of geography and topography -both of them points in which his predecessors, as well as his successor Livy, conspicuously failed. Polybius is careful constantly to remind us that he writes for those who are diλopaleis

scenes.

lovers of knowledge, with whom truth is the first consideration. He closely studied the bronze tablets in Rome on which were in scribed the early treaties concluded between Romans and Cartha ginians. He quotes the actual language of the treaty which ended the First Punic War (i. 62), and of that between Hannibal and Philip of Macedon (vii. 9). In xvi. 15 he refers to a document which he had personally inspected in the archives at Rhodes, and in iii. 33 to the monument on the Lacinian promontory, recording the number of Hannibal's forces. According to Dionysius, i. 17, he got his date for the foundation of Rome from a tablet in the pontifical archives. As instances of his careful attention to geography and topography we have not only the fact of his widely extended travels, from the African coast and the Pillars of Hercules in the west, to the Euxine and the coasts of Asia Minor in the cast, but also the geographical and topographical studies scattered throughout his history.

Next to the duty of original research, Polybius ranks that of impartiality. Some amount of bias in favour of one's own country may, he thinks, be pardoned as natural (xvi. 14); but it is unpardonable, he says, for the historian to set anything whatever above the truth. And on the whole, Polybius must be allowed here again to have practised what he preached. It is true that his affection for and pride in Arcadia appear in more than one passage (iv. 20, 21), as also does his dislike of the Aetolians (ii. 45, iv. 3, 16). His treatment of Aratus and Philopoemen, the heroes of the Achaean League, and of Cleomenes of Sparta, its most constant enemy, is perhaps open to severer criticism. Certainly Cleomenes does not receive full justice at his hands. Similarly his views of Rome and the Romans may have been influenced by his firm belief in the necessity of accepting the Roman supremacy as inevitable, and by his intimacy with Scipio. He had a deep admiration for the great republic, for her well-balanced constitution, for her military system, and for the character of her citizens. But just as his patriotism does not blind him to the faults and follies of his countrymen (xxxviii. 4, 5, 6), so he does not scruple to criticize Rome. He notices the incipient degeneracy of Rome after 146 (xviii. 35). He endeavours to hold the balance evenly between Rome and Carthage; he strongly condemns the Roman occupation of Sardinia as a breach of faith (iii. 28, 31); and he does full justice to Hannibal. Moreover, there can be no doubt that he sketched the Roman character in a masterly fashion.

His interest in the study of character and his skill in its delineation are everywhere noticeable. He believes, indeed, in an overruling fortune, which guides the course of events. It is fortune which has fashioned anew the face of the world in his own time (iv. 2), which has brought the whole civilized world into subjection to Rome (i. 4); and the Roman Empire itself is the most marvellous of her works (viii. 4). But under fortune not only political and geographical conditions but the characters and temperaments of nations and individuals play their part. The Romans had been fitted by their previous struggles for the conquest of the world (i. 63); they were chosen to punish the treachery of Philip of Macedon (xv. 4); and the greatest of them, Scipio himself, Polybius regards as the especial favourite of fortune (xxxii. 15; x. 5).

In respect of form, Polybius is far the inferior of Livy, partly owing to his very virtues. His laudable desire to present a picture of the whole political situation at each important moment is fatal to the continuity of his narrative. Thus the thrilling story of the Second Punic War is broken in upon by digressions on the contemporary affairs in Greece and Asia. More serious, however, than this excessive love of synchronism is his almost pedantic anxiety to edify. For grace and elegance of composition, and for the artistic presentation of events, he has a hardly concealed contempt. Hence a general and almost studied carelessness of effect, which mars his whole work. On the other hand he is never weary of preaching. His favourite theories of the nature and aims of history, of the distinction between the universal and special histories, of the duties of an historian, sound as most of them are in themselves, are enforced with wearisome iteration; more than once the effect of a graphic picture is spoilt by obtrusive moralizing. Nor, lastly, is Polybius's style itself such as to compensate for these defects. It is, indeed, often impressive from the evident earnest ness of the writer, and from his sense of the gravity of his subject, and is unspoilt by rhetoric or conceit. It has about it the ring of reality; the language is sometimes pithy and vigorous; and now and then we meet with apt metaphors, such as those borrowed from boxing (i. 57), from cock-fighting (i. 58), from draughts (i. 84). But, in spite of these redeeming features, the prevailing baldness of Polybius's style excludes him from the first rank among classical writers; and it is impossible to quarrel with the verdict pronounced by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who places him among those authors of later times who neglected the graces of style, and who paid for their neglect by leaving behind them works "which no one was patient enough to read through to the end."

It is to the value and variety of his matter, to his critical insight, breadth of view and wide research, and not least to the surpassing importance and interest of the period with which he deals, that Polybius owes his place among the writers of history. What is known as to the fortunes of his histories, and the reputation they enjoyed, fully bears out this conclusion. The silence respecting