本论文在前人研究的基础上，结合波利比乌斯《历史》文本与时代背景，借鉴古希腊哲学思想以及现代史学理论，对波利比乌斯史学的求真与致用思想进行了研究，阐述了他对历史中真实与普遍内容的思考。通过对该书史学特点的分析，展现了波利比乌斯对希罗多德、修昔底德以及希腊化时代诸多史家史学思想的扬弃。全文除绪言和结语外，共有4章。 绪论部分提出本文的选题意义，通过探讨希腊古典史学的求真与致用传统，反思后现代史学对历史客观性的认识。同时，重点评述了国内外对波利比乌斯的研究成果，阐明论文的研究思路与方法。 第一章回溯了波利比乌斯的个人生平，探讨了《历史》的版本和流传情况。所谓“知人论世”，了解波利比乌斯的人生经历对于我们理解其史学思想具有重要作用。另外，讨论《历史》的流传、编辑、翻译和校订，有助于理清波利比乌斯使用的诸多概念和术语，明确其史学思想的重要载体。 第二章回顾了波利比乌斯求真和致用的学术渊源。主要以希罗多德和修昔底德为主要讨论对象，以两位史家对“真实”（aletheia）一词的使用为线索，总结了古希腊史学的求真和致用传统。两位史家均以aletheia表述史事经过史家真假判断而达到的真实。希罗多德受到城邦口授传统的影响，而修昔底德则摆脱了这种影响，强调史家在史事真假判断上的自主性。修昔底德还意识到这种真假判断有其限度，史家难以再现历史的真实。两位史家均强调历史的“记忆”作用，古希腊史家常以说服与指导的方式表述真实的内容，目的是为读者提供愉悦和实用的史学价值，而修昔底德意识到只有找到历史中不变的实质，才能帮助史学实现最普遍的致用效果。 第三章探讨了波利比乌斯对史学真实性的认识，分为三个层面。首先是他对具体史事真实性的把握，除了强调文献史料的严格考证外，波利比乌斯更加注重实地考察，以及建立在实践上的丰富经验。他认为史家的个人经验不仅有助于辨别具体史事的真伪，还能够帮助读者认识史事背后的原因等更为抽象的内容。其次，波利比乌斯分析了可能性写作对史学求真的危害，但并未全盘否定它的作用，因为在无法获得直接证据的情况下，史家不得不引入可能性解释。最后，结合波利比乌斯对修辞学和演说词的使用，得出波利比乌斯意识到历史研究可能并存历史的客观性与史家的主观性的结论。 第四章讨论了波利比乌斯对史学致用的认识，也分为三个层面。他意识到在历史中，无论是实用经验，还是道德教训都具有各自的局限。在叙述罗马崛起和统治的历史时，他意识到命运的普遍作用，在不同主题下分析了命运女神“有常”和“无常”的不同方面。因此，波利比乌斯认为他的历史一方面可以为读者提供政治军事经验，另一方面能够教导人们勇敢地面对命运的无常。 结语部分总结了波利比乌斯《历史》的求真与致用思想的特点，点明希腊古典史学中求真和致用关系的特征，为进一步研究“普世史”的性质以及思考史学求真与致用的关系提供起点。

Based on previous studies and combining Polybius’ Histories with the background of its time, this paper studies the thought of devotion to truth and applicability in his historiography and demonstrates his thinking about what is truth and universality in historical facts. Meanwhile, ancient Greek philosophy and modern historiography theory are taken as the theme’s reference. By analyzing the characteristics of The Histories, this paper shows Polybius’s sublation of numerous historical thoughts of different historians in the time of ancient Greek, such as Herodotus and Thucydides. Apart from the two parts of introduction and conclusion, this paper consists of four chapters. For the part of introduction, it discusses about the traditions of seeking truth and applicability in ancient Greek historiography, in order to rethink the challenge of postmodernism. Meanwhile, it puts an emphasis on introducing and commenting of Polybius from home and abroad. It also demonstrates the research route and method of this paper. The first chapter traces back to Polybius’s personal life and discusses the different editions and spreading of The Histories. Being familiar with the life of Polybius is of great significance for us to understand his historical thoughts, which can be conclude as “studying a man's life in order to understand his mind”. In addition, it helps us to sort out the concepts and terms Polybius used and comprehend his historical thoughts via discussing the spreading, edition, translation and revision of The Histories. The second chapter reviews the academic origin and development of Polybius, which focuses on Herodotus and Thucydides, also takes their use of the word “aletheia” as the clue, so as to summarizes the tradition of “devotion to truth and applicability” in ancient Greek historiography. The two historians both used the word “aletheia” to denote the real historical events after being judged by historians. Although Herodotus was influenced by oral tradition of city states, Thucydides got rid of it and emphasized the autonomy of historians in judging historical events. Besides, he realized that there was a limit to this kind of judgments, which meant that historians was incapable of reproducing the truth of history. Both of them argued that memories play an important role in history. The ancient Greek historians always brought pleasure and practical historical value to readers by convincing and guiding them. But Thucydides realized that the applicability of historiography could only be achieved by discovering the substance in history. The third chapter discusses Polybius’s understanding about the truth of historiography, which can be divided into three parts. The first part is his comprehension of the truth of specific historical events. Besides laying stress on verifying materials and documents of history strictly, Polybius paid more attention to field trips and rich experience based on his practice. In his opinion, the personal experience of historians would be a great help to readers not only in judging the authenticity of specific historical events, but also in understanding the abstract part of the truth such as the reasons behind historical events. Secondly, Polybius analyzed the harm of writing uncertain content to the truth in historiography, but he never completely denied its positive sides for the reason that without direct evidence historians would not be allowed to introduce any possible explanation. Lastly, based on his use of rhetoric and speech, it could be concluded that Polybius had realized the coexistence of the objectivity of history and the subjectivity of historians in history research. The fourth chapter refers to Polybius’ understanding of the applicability of history. Polybius inherited Thucydides’ idea of historical pragmatism. His understanding of the value of historical pragmatism also had a sense of hierarchy. He realized that both practical experience and moral lesson had their own limitation in history. When narrating the history of the rise and reign of the Roman Empire, he realized the universal role of the fate and analyzed different aspects of “constant” and “impermanence” of the fate. Therefore, Polybius thought that his historiography would provide political and military experience for his readers on the one hand, and teach them to be brave when faced with the impermanence of fate on the other. The conclusion summarizes the characteristics of the thought of devotion to truth and applicability in Polybius’s Histories, and refers to the special characters of the relationship between truth and applicability in ancient Greek historiography, which marks the beginning of further research about the nature of universal history and the relationship between truth and applicability.