The credit of Phylarchus as an historian is vehemently attacked by Polybius[3], who charges him with falsifying history through his partiality to Cleomenes III, king of Sparta, and his hatred against Aratus and the Achaeans.
The accusation of Polybius is repeated by Plutarch[4], but it comes with rather a bad grace from the latter writer, since there can be little doubt that his lives of Agis and Cleomenes are taken almost entirely from Phylarchus, to whom he is likewise indebted for the latter part of his life of Pyrrhus.
[5] The style of Phylarchus is strongly censured by Polybius[3], who blames him for writing history for the purpose of effect, and for seeking to harrow up the feelings of his readers by the narrative of deeds of violence and horror.
This charge is to some extent supported by the fragments of his work; but whether he deserves all the reprehension which Polybius has bestowed upon him may well be questioned, since the unpoetical character of this great historian's mind would not enable him to feel much sympathy with a writer like Phylarchus, who seems to have possessed no small share of imagination and fancy.
It would appear that the style of Phylarchus was too ambitious; it was oratorical, and perhaps declamatory; but at the same time it was lively and attractive, and brought the events of the history vividly before the reader's mind.