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！
which cannot be reproduced＇； draws the distinction between cause
and occasion with the brilliancy of an epigram。 But the explicit
and rational investigation of the difference between ＇Greek text
which cannot be reproduced＇； and ＇Greek text which cannot be
reproduced＇ was reserved for Polybius。 No canon of historical
criticism can be said to be of more real value than that involved
in this distinction； and the overlooking of it has filled our
histories with the contemptible accounts of the intrigues of
courtiers and of kings and the petty plottings of backstairs
influence … particulars interesting； no doubt； to those who would
ascribe the Reformation to Anne Boleyn's pretty face； the Persian
war to the influence of a doctor or a curtain…lecture from Atossa；
or the French Revolution to Madame de Maintenon； but without any
value for those who aim at any scientific treatment of history。
But the question of method； to which I am compelled always to
return； is not yet exhausted。 There is another aspect in which it
may be regarded； and I shall now proceed to treat of it。
One of the greatest difficulties with which the modern historian
has to contend is the enormous complexity of the facts which come
under his notice： D'Alembert's suggestion that at the end of every
century a selection of facts should be made and the rest burned （if
it was really intended seriously） could not； of course； be
entertained for a moment。 A problem loses all its value when it
becomes simplified； and the world would be all the poorer if the
Sibyl of History burned her volumes。 Besides； as Gibbon pointed
out； 'a Montesquieu will detect in the most insignificant fact
relations which the vulgar overlook。'
Nor can the scientific investigator of history isolate the
particular elements； which he desires to examine； from disturbing
and extraneous causes； as the experimental chemist can do （though
sometimes； as in the case of lunatic asylums and prisons； he is
enabled to observe phenomena in a certain degree of isolation）。 So
he is compelled either to use the deductive mode of arguing from
general laws or to employ the method of abstraction； which gives a
fictitious isolation to phenomena never so isolated in actual
existence。 And this is exactly what Polybius has done as well as
Thucydides。 For； as has been well remarked； there is in the works
of these two writers a certain plastic unity of type and motive；
whatever they write is penetrated through and through with a
specific quality； a singleness and concentration of purpose； which
we may contrast with the more comprehensive width as manifested not
merely in the modern mind； but also in Herodotus。 Thucydides；
regarding society as influenced entirely by political motives； took
no account of forces of a different nature； and consequently his
results； like those of most modern political economists； have to be
modified largely （20） before they come to correspond with what we
know was the actual state of fact。 Similarly； Polybius will deal
only with those forces which tended to bring the civilised world
under the dominion of Rome （ix。 1）； and in the Thucydidean spirit
points out the want of picturesqueness and romance in his pages
which is the result of the abstract method （＇Greek text which
cannot be reproduced＇） being careful also to tell us that his
rejection of all other forces is essentially deliberate and the
result of a preconceived theory and by no means due to carelessness
of any kind。
Now； of the general value of the abstract method and the legality
of its employment in the sphere of history； this is perhaps not the
suitable occasion for any discussion。 It is； however； in all ways
worthy of note that Polybius is not merely conscious of； but dwells
with particular weight on； the fact which is usually urged as the
strongest objection to the employment of the abstract method … I
mean the conception of a society as a sort of human organism whose
parts are indissolubly connected with one another and all affected
when one member is in any way agitated。 This conception of the
organic nature of society appears first in Plato and Aristotle； who
apply it to cities。 Polybius； as his wont is； expands it to be a
general characteristic of all history。 It is an idea of the very
highest importance； especially to a man like Polybius whose
thoughts are continually turned towards the essential unity of
history and the impossibility of isolation。
Farther； as regards the particular method of investigating that
group of phenomena obtained for him by the abstract method； he will
adopt； he tells us； neither the purely deductive nor the purely
inductive mode but the union of both。 In other words； he formally
adopts that method of analysis upon the importance of which I have
dwelt before。
And lastly； while； without doubt； enormous simplicity in the
elements under consideration is the result of the employment of the
abstract method； even within the limit thus obtained a certain
selection must be made； and a selection involves a theory。 For the
facts of life cannot be tabulated with as great an ease as the
colours of birds and insects can be tabulated。 Now； Polybius
points out that those phenomena particularly are to be dwelt on
which may serve as a ＇Greek text which cannot be reproduced＇ or
sample； and show the character of the tendencies of the age as
clearly as 'a single drop from a full cask will be enough to
disclose the nature of the whole contents。' This recognition of
the importance of single facts； not in themselves but because of
the spirit they represent； is extremely scientific； for we know
that from the single bone； or tooth even； the anatomist can
recreate entirely the skeleton of the primeval horse； and the
botanist tell the character of the flora and fauna of a district
from a single specimen。
Regarding truth as 'the most divine thing in Nature；' the very 'eye
and light of history without which it moves a blind thing；'
Polybius spared no pains in the acquisition of historical materials
or in the study of the sciences of politics and war； which he
considered were so essential to the training of the scientific
historian； and the labour he took is mirrored in the many ways in
which he criticises other authorities。
There is something； as a rule； slightly contemptible about ancient
criticism。 The modern idea of the critic as the interpreter； the
expounder of the beauty and excellence of the work he selects；
seems quite unknown。 Nothing can be more captious or unfair； for
instance； than the method by which Aristotle criticised the ideal
state of Plato in his ethical works； and the passages quoted by
Polybius from Timaeus show that the latter historian fully deserved
the punning name given to him。 But in Polybius there is； I think；
little of that bitterness and pettiness of spirit which
characterises most other writers； and an incidental story he tells
of his relations with one of the historians whom he criticised
shows that he was a man of great courtesy and refinement of taste …
as； indeed； befitted one who had lived always in the society of
those who were of great and noble birth。
Now； as regards the character of the canons by which he criticises
the works of other authors； in the majority of cases he employs
simply his own geographical and military knowledge； showing； for
instance； the impossibility in the accounts given of Nabis's march
from Sparta simply by his acquaintance with the spots in question；
or the inconsistency of those of the battle of Issus； or of the
accounts given by Ephorus of the battles of Leuctra and Mantinea。
In the latter case he says； if any one will take the trouble to
measure out the ground of the site of the battle and then test the
manoeuvres given； he will find how inaccurate the accounts are。
In other cases he appeals to public documents； the importance of
which he was always foremost in recognising； showing； for instance；
by a document in the public archives of Rhodes how inaccurate were
the accounts given of the battle of Lade by Zeno and Antisthenes。
Or he appeals to psychological probability； rejecting； for
instance； the scandalous stories told of Philip of Macedon； simply
from the king's general greatness of character； and arguing that a
boy so well educated and so respectably connected as Demochares
（xii。 14） could never have been guilty of that of which evil rumour
accused him。
But the chief object of his literary censure is Timaeus； who had
been unsparing of his strictures on others。 The general point
which he makes against him； impugning his accuracy as a historian；
is that he derived his knowledge of history not from the dangerous
perils of a life of action but in the secure indolence of a narrow
scholastic life。 There is； indeed； no point on which he is so
vehement as this。 'A history；' he says； 'written in a libr