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