essays and lectures-第13节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



scholastic　life。　　There　is；　indeed；　no　point　on　which　he　is　so

vehement　as　this。　　'A　history；'　he　says；　'written　in　a　library

gives　as　lifeless　and　as　inaccurate　a　picture　of　history　as　a

painting　which　is　copied　not　from　a　living　animal　but　from　a

stuffed　one。'



There　is　more　difference；　he　says　in　another　place；　between　the

history　of　an　eye…witness　and　that　of　one　whose　knowledge　comes

from　books；　than　there　is　between　the　scenes　of　real　life　and　the

fictitious　landscapes　of　theatrical　scenery。　　Besides　this；　he

enters　into　somewhat　elaborate　detailed　criticism　of　passages　where

he　thought　Timaeus　was　following　a　wrong　method　and　perverting

truth；　passages　which　it　will　be　worth　while　to　examine　in　detail。



Timaeus；　from　the　fact　of　there　being　a　Roman　custom　to　shoot　a

war…horse　on　a　stated　day；　argued　back　to　the　Trojan　origin　of　that

people。　　Polybius；　on　the　other　hand；　points　out　that　the　inference

is　quite　unwarrantable；　because　horse…sacrifices　are　ordinary

institutions　common　to　all　barbarous　tribes。　　Timaeus　here；　as　was

common　with　Greek　writers；　is　arguing　back　from　some　custom　of　the

present　to　an　historical　event　in　the　past。　　Polybius　really　is

employing　the　comparative　method；　showing　how　the　custom　was　an

ordinary　step　in　the　civilisation　of　every　early　people。



In　another　place；　（21）　he　shows　how　illogical　is　the　scepticism　of

Timaeus　as　regards　the　existence　of　the　Bull　of　Phalaris　simply　by

appealing　to　the　statue　of　the　Bull；　which　was　still　to　be　seen　in

Carthage；　pointing　out　how　impossible　it　was；　on　any　other　theory

except　that　it　belonged　to　Phalaris；　to　account　for　the　presence　in

Carthage　of　a　bull　of　this　peculiar　character　with　a　door　between

his　shoulders。　　But　one　of　the　great　points　which　he　uses　against

this　Sicilian　historian　is　in　reference　to　the　question　of　the

origin　of　the　Locrian　colony。　　In　accordance　with　the　received

tradition　on　the　subject；　Aristotle　had　represented　the　Locrian

colony　as　founded　by　some　Parthenidae　or　slaves'　children；　as　they

were　called；　a　statement　which　seems　to　have　roused　the　indignation

of　Timaeus；　who　went　to　a　good　deal　of　trouble　to　confute　this

theory。　　He　does　so　on　the　following　grounds：…



First　of　all；　he　points　out　that　in　the　ancient　days　the　Greeks　had

no　slaves　at　all；　so　the　mention　of　them　in　the　matter　is　an

anachronism；　and　next　he　declares　that　he　was　shown　in　the　Greek

city　of　Locris　certain　ancient　inscriptions　in　which　their　relation

to　the　Italian　city　was　expressed　in　terms　of　the　position　between

parent　and　child；　which　showed　also　that　mutual　rights　of

citizenship　were　accorded　to　each　city。　　Besides　this；　he　appeals

to　various　questions　of　improbability　as　regards　their

international　relationship；　on　which　Polybius　takes　diametrically

opposite　grounds　which　hardly　call　for　discussion。　　And　in　favour

of　his　own　view　he　urges　two　points　more：　　first；　that　the

Lacedaemonians　being　allowed　furlough　for　the　purpose　of　seeing

their　wives　at　home；　it　was　unlikely　that　the　Locrians　should　not

have　had　the　same　privilege；　and　next；　that　the　Italian　Locrians

knew　nothing　of　the　Aristotelian　version　and　had；　on　the　contrary；

very　severe　laws　against　adulterers；　runaway　slaves　and　the　like。

Now；　most　of　these　questions　rest　on　mere　probability；　which　is

always　such　a　subjective　canon　that　an　appeal　to　it　is　rarely

conclusive。　　I　would　note；　however；　as　regards　the　inscriptions

which；　if　genuine；　would　of　course　have　settled　the　matter；　that

Polybius　looks　on　them　as　a　mere　invention　on　the　part　of　Timaeus；

who；　he　remarks；　gives　no　details　about　them；　though；　as　a　rule；　he

is　over…anxious　to　give　chapter　and　verse　for　everything。　　A

somewhat　more　interesting　point　is　that　where　he　attacks　Timaeus

for　the　introduction　of　fictitious　speeches　into　his　narrative；　for

on　this　point　Polybius　seems　to　be　far　in　advance　of　the　opinions

held　by　literary　men　on　the　subject　not　merely　in　his　own　day；　but

for　centuries　after。



Herodotus　had　introduced　speeches　avowedly　dramatic　and　fictitious。

Thucydides　states　clearly　that；　where　he　was　unable　to　find　out

what　people　really　said；　he　put　down　what　they　ought　to　have　said。

Sallust　alludes；　it　is　true；　to　the　fact　of　the　speech　he　puts　into

the　mouth　of　the　tribune　Memmius　being　essentially　genuine；　but　the

speeches　given　in　the　senate　on　the　occasion　of　the　Catilinarian

conspiracy　are　very　different　from　the　same　orations　as　they　appear

in　Cicero。　　Livy　makes　his　ancient　Romans　wrangle　and　chop　logic

with　all　the　subtlety　of　a　Hortensius　or　a　Scaevola。　　And　even　in

later　days；　when　shorthand　reporters　attended　the　debates　of　the

senate　and　a　DAILY　NEWS　was　published　in　Rome；　we　find　that　one　of

the　most　celebrated　speeches　in　Tacitus　（that　in　which　the　Emperor

Claudius　gives　the　Gauls　their　freedom）　is　shown；　by　an　inscription

discovered　recently　at　Lugdunum；　to　be　entirely　fabulous。



Upon　the　other　hand；　it　must　be　borne　in　mind　that　these　speeches

were　not　intended　to　deceive；　they　were　regarded　merely　as　a

certain　dramatic　element　which　it　was　allowable　to　introduce　into

history　for　the　purpose　of　giving　more　life　and　reality　to　the

narration；　and　were　to　be　criticised；　not　as　we　should；　by　arguing

how　in　an　age　before　shorthand　was　known　such　a　report　was　possible

or　how；　in　the　failure　of　written　documents；　tradition　could　bring

down　such　an　accurate　verbal　account；　but　by　the　higher　test　of

their　psychological　probability　as　regards　the　persons　in　whose

mouths　they　are　placed。　　An　ancient　historian　in　answer　to　modern

criticism　would　say；　probably；　that　these　fictitious　speeches　were

in　reality　more　truthful　than　the　actual　ones；　just　as　Aristotle

claimed　for　poetry　a　higher　degree　of　truth　in　comparison　to

history。　　The　whole　point　is　interesting　as　showing　how　far　in

advance　of　his　age　Polybius　may　be　said　to　have　been。



The　last　scientific　historian；　it　is　possible　to　gather　from　his

writings　what　he　considered　were　the　characteristics　of　the　ideal

writer　of　history；　and　no　small　light　will　be　thrown　on　the

progress　of　historical　criticism　if　we　strive　to　collect　and

analyse　what　in　Polybius　are　more　or　less　scattered　expressions。

The　ideal　historian　must　be　contemporary　with　the　events　he

describes；　or　removed　from　them　by　one　generation　only。　　Where　it

is　possible；　he　is　to　be　an　eye…witness　of　what　he　writes　of；　where

that　is　out　of　his　power　he　is　to　test　all　traditions　and　stories

carefully　and　not　to　be　ready　to　accept　what　is　plausible　in　place

of　what　is　true。　　He　is　to　be　no　bookworm　living　aloof　from　the

experiences　of　the　world　in　the　artificial　isolation　of　a

university　town；　but　a　politician；　a　soldier；　and　a　traveller；　a

man　not　merely　of　thought　but　of　action；　one　who　can　do　great

things　as　well　as　write　of　them；　who　in　the　sphere　of　history　could

be　what　Byron　and　AEschylus　were　in　the　sphere　of　poetry；　at　once

LE　CHANTRE　ET　LE　HEROS。



He　is　to　keep　before　his　eyes　the　fact　that　chance　is　merely　a

synonym　for　our　ignorance；　that　the　reign　of　law　pervades　the

domain　of　history　as　much　as　it　does　that　of　political　science。　　He

is　to　accustom　himself　to　look　on　all　occasions　for　rational　and

natural　causes。　　And　while　he　is　to　recognise　the　practical　utility

of　the　supernatural；　in　an　educational　point　of　view；　he　is　not

himself　to　indulge　in　such　intellectual　beating　of　the　air　as　to

admit　the　possibility　of　the　violation　of　inviolable　laws；　or　to

argue　in　a　sphere　wherein　argument　is　A　PRIORI　annihilated。　　He　is

to　be　free　from　all　bias　towards　friend　and　country；　he　is　to　be

courteous　and　gentle　in　criticism；　he　is　not　to　regard　history　as　a

mere　opportunity　for　splendid　and　tragic　writing；　nor　is　he　to

falsify　truth　for　the　sake　of　a　paradox　or　an　epigram。



While　acknowledging　the　importance　of　particular　facts　as　samples

of　higher　truths；　he　is　to　take　a　broad　and　general　view　of

humanity。　　He　is　to　deal　with　the　whole　race　and　with　the　world；

not　with　particular　tribes　or　separate　countries。　　He　is　to　bear　in

mind　that　the　world　is　really　an　organism　wherein　no　one　part　can

be　moved　without　the　others　being　affected　also。　　He　is　to

distinguish　between　cause　and　occasion；　between　the　influence　of

general　laws　and　particular　fancies；　and　he　is　to　remember　that　the

greatest　lessons　of　the　world　are　contained　in　history　and　that　it

is　the　historian's　duty　to　manifest　them　so　as　to　save　nations　from

following　those　unwise　policies　which　always　lead　to　dishonour　and

ruin；　and　to　teach　individuals　to　apprehend　by　the　intellectual

culture　of　history　those　truths　which　else　they　would　have　to　learn

in　the　bitter　school　of　experience；



Now；　as　regards　his　theory　of　the　necessity　of　the　historian's

being　contemporary　with　the　events　he　describes；　so　far　as　the

historian　is　a　mere　narrator　the　remark　is　undoubtedly　true。　　But

to　appreciate　the　harmony　and　rationa