From the wreckage of Hellenistic historiography only Polybius survives in large part, and even he did not get through the storm unscathed. His fragmentary text has hampered efforts to trace consistent lines of interpretation and thematic reinforcement. This is no doubt one of the reasons that the shift from historical to literary and historiographical criticism so characteristic of recent treatments of Herodotus and Thucydides has only recently begun to touch Polybius. But of course there are others. Although Walbank’s great commentary consistently treats historiographical and (somewhat less often) literary matters, the brusque and pragmatic manner of Polybius seems to have guided most scholars in the direction where Polybius himself felt that he was most competent. The historian’s apparent disdain for literary artifice, and his insistent concern with the business of history may have distracted attention from his careful structuring of events, and his consistent invocation of principles of common culture. Yet his achievement is visible even in the patchwork of quotations that make up the standard texts of his work. Indeed, it is perhaps the finest testimony to Polybius’ achievement that despite the loss of most and the most important part of his history, he is ranked by moderns as one of antiquity’s great historians. Nevertheless, the treatment of him and his work in this chapter must reflect both the nature of the evidence presented by his text, as well as the slow movement by scholars towards new interpretations of Polybius.