Hellenistic Historiography and the Sciences Practices and Concepts in Polybius' "Histories."

This dissertation examines the relationship between Polybius' Histories and the culture of the sciences in Hellenistic Greece. The period often is identified with noteworthy advances in scientific thought, not only in the extension of rational culture to broader and more diverse areas of inquiry, but also in the formalization of practices within and among fields of research. Historical writing may also be situated in this context, especially in light of comparable efforts to define and formalize study of the past as a more serious intellectual pursuit. With the great proliferation of historical texts at this time and especially the growth of concern for standards of historical method, the Hellenistic era is characterized by an increasingly stronger sense of history's status as a formal discipline. Polybius' role in this set of developments is substantial; his writing is distinguished throughout by special concerns for methodology. In particular, it is the framework constituted by other forms of science, understood as a set of concrete models of description and analysis, which forms the basis for his approach. In this dissertation, I explain the practical and conceptual framework of contemporary science as a source of structure for this attempt to innovate in the historical field.My approach is based on three considerations, of which the first concerns factors internal to the historical field itself. Given the basic problems with knowledge of the past and especially the lack of clear standards for historical method, the historical field is typically characterized by dispute and rivalry among writers. As Polybius' own interest in methodology is based on this largely routine set of concerns, his relationship with the sciences is to be understood primarily from the perspective of competition with existing sources of historical authority. Consideration of the Histories in relation to contemporary historical production thus reveals an effort to specialize study of the past on the basis of more stringent principles of historical reconstruction. Polybius' approach is not arbitrary, but is based on formal approaches to inquiry employed elsewhere in the sciences, which, I argue, provide the basis for innovation in the historical field mainly due to the special cultural authority of such practices. Given the progress of Hellenistic science, technical adjustments in Polybius' writing are to be understood in relation to current trends in the development of rational culture---the second main concern here. This detail not only clarifies the basis of Polybius' critical engagement with the historical tradition, but also qualifies the relationship between history and the sciences in ancient Greece, a subject of controversy at least since Aristotle. The final part of my argument examines the consequences of this relationship for the production and organization of historical knowledge. Even as affiliations with the sciences provide the basis for a more serious approach to history (e.g., as opposed to accounts of the past appearing in myth or in aristocratic genealogies), the same affiliations introduce constraints for historical representation as well. Thus the practices and concepts relating history to the sciences are not merely formal, but constitute a productive influence on constructions of historical perception. Overall, this project aims to provide a framework, formed on the model of Polybius' Histories, for clarifying the relationship between the pragmatics of disciplinary development in the historical field and the organization of historical understanding more generally.The dissertation is divided into four chapters. In the first chapter, I provide an overview of ancient science by considering specific conditions governing the development of Classical and Hellenistic