alexandria and her schools-第10章
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！
Greek rhythm； that we shall never； to the end of time； be able to guess what any Greek verse； saving the old Homeric Hexameter； sounded like。 After a while； too； the pedants； according to their wont； began quarrelling about their accents and their recessions。 Moreover； there was a rival school at Pergamus where the fame of Crates all but equalled the Egyptian fame of Aristarchus。 Insolent！ What right had an Asiatic to know anything？ So Aristarchus flew furiously on Crates； being a man of plain common sense； who felt a correct reading a far more important thing than any of Crates's illustrations； aesthetic； historical； or mythological； a preference not yet quite extinct； in one； at least； of our Universities。 〃Sir；〃 said a clever Cambridge Tutor to a philosophically inclined freshman； 〃remember； that our business is to translate Plato correctly； not to discover his meaning。〃 And； paradoxical as it may seem； he was right。 Let us first have accuracy； the merest mechanical accuracy； in every branch of knowledge。 Let us know what the thing is which we are looking at。 Let us know the exact words an author uses。 Let us get at the exact value of each word by that severe induction of which Buttmann and the great Germans have set such noble examples； and then； and not till then； we may begin to talk about philosophy； and aesthetics； and the rest。 Very Probably Aristarchus was right in his dislike of Crates's preference of what he called criticism； to grammar。 Very probably he connected it with the other object of his especial hatred； that fashion of interpreting Homer allegorically； which was springing up in his time； and which afterwards under the Neoplatonists rose to a frantic height； and helped to destroy in them； not only their power of sound judgment； and of asking each thing patiently what it was； but also any real reverence for； or understanding of； the very authors over whom they declaimed and sentimentalised。
Yesthe Cambridge Tutor was right。 Before you can tell what a man means； you must have patience to find out what he says。 So far from wishing our grammatical and philological education to be less severe than it is； I think it is not severe enough。 In an age like thisan age of lectures； and of popular literature； and of self…culture； too often random and capricious； however earnest； we cannot be too careful in asking ourselves； in compelling others to ask themselves； the meaning of every word which they use； of every word which they read； in assuring them； whether they will believe us or not； that the moral； as well as the intellectual culture； acquired by translating accurately one dialogue of Plato； by making out thoroughly the sense of one chapter of a standard author； is greater than they will get from skimming whole folios of Schlegelian aesthetics； resumes； histories of philosophy； and the like second…hand information； or attending seven lectures a…week till their lives' end。 It is better to know one thing； than to know about ten thousand things。 I cannot help feeling painfully； after reading those most interesting Memoirs of Margaret Fuller Ossoli； that the especial danger of this time is intellectual sciolism； vagueness； sentimental eclecticismand feeling； too； as Socrates of old believed； that intellectual vagueness and shallowness； however glib； and grand； and eloquent it may seem； is inevitably the parent of a moral vagueness and shallowness； which may leave our age as it left the later Greeks； without an absolute standard of right or of truth； till it tries to escape from its own scepticism； as the later Neoplatonists did； by plunging desperately into any fetish…worshipping superstition which holds out to its wearied and yet impatient intellect； the bait of decisions already made for it； of objects of admiration already formed and systematised。
Therefore let us honour the grammarian in his place； and； among others； these old grammarians of Alexandria； only being sure that as soon as any man begins； as they did； displaying himself peacock…fashion； boasting of his science as the great pursuit of humanity； and insulting his fellow… craftsmen； he becomes； ipso facto； unable to discover any more truth for us； having put on a habit of mind to which induction is impossible； and is thenceforth to be passed by with a kindly but a pitying smile。 And so； indeed； it happened with these quarrelsome Alexandrian grammarians； as it did with the Casaubons and Scaligers and Daciers of the last two centuries。 As soon as they began quarrelling they lost the power of discovering。 The want of the inductive faculty in their attempts at philology is utterly ludicrous。 Most of their derivations of words are about on a par with Jacob Bohmen's etymology of sulphur； wherein he makes sul； if I recollect right； signify some active principle of combustion； and phur the passive one。 It was left for more patient and less noisy men； like Grimm； Bopp； and Buttmann； to found a science of philology； to discover for us those great laws which connect modern philology with history； ethnology； physiology； and with the very deepest questions of theology itself。 And in the meanwhile； these Alexandrians' worthless criticism has been utterly swept away； while their real work； their accurate editions of the classics； remain to us as a precious heritage。 So it is throughout history： nothing dies which is worthy to live。 The wheat is surely gathered into the garner； the chaff is burnt up by that eternal fire which； happily for this universe； cannot be quenched by any art of man； but goes on forever； devouring without indulgence all the folly and the falsehood of the world。
As yet you have heard nothing of the metaphysical schools of Alexandria； for as yet none have existed； in the modern acceptation of that word。 Indeed； I am not sure that I must not tell you frankly； that none ever existed at all in Alexandria； in that same modern acceptation。 Ritter； I think； it is who complains naively enough； that the Alexandrian Neoplatonists had a bad habit； which grew on them more and more as the years rolled on； of mixing up philosophy with theology； and so defiling； or at all events colouring； its pure transparency。 There is no denying the imputation； as I shall show at greater length in my next Lecture。 But one would have thought； looking back through history； that the Alexandrians were not the only philosophers guilty of this shameful act of syncretism。 Plato； one would have thought； was as great a sinner as they。 So were the Hindoos。 In spite of all their logical and metaphysical acuteness； they were； you will find； unable to get rid of the notion that theological inquiries concerning Brahma； Atma； Creeshna； were indissolubly mixed up with that same logic and metaphysic。 The Parsees could not separate questions about Ahriman and Ormuzd from Kant's three great philosophic problems： What is Man？What may be known？What should be done？ Neither； indeed； could the earlier Greek sages。 Not one of them； of any school whatsoeverfrom the semi…mythic Seven Sages to Plato and Aristotlebut finds it necessary to consider not in passing； but as the great object of research； questions concerning the gods：… whether they are real or not； one or many； personal or impersonal； cosmic； and parts of the universe； or organisers and rulers of it； in relation to man； or without relation to him。 Even in those who flatly deny the existence of the gods； even in Lucretius himself； these questions have to be considered； before the question； What is man？ can get any solution at all。 On the answer given to them is found to depend intimately the answer to the question； What is the immaterial part of man？ Is it a part of nature； or of something above nature？ Has he an immaterial part at all？in one word； Is a human metaphysic possible at all？ So it was with the Greek philosophers of old； even； as Asclepius and Ammonius say； with Aristotle himself。 〃The object of Aristotle's metaphysic；〃 one of them says； 〃is theological。 Herein Aristotle theologises。〃 And there is no denying the assertion。 We must not then be hard on the Neoplatonists； as if they were the first to mix things separate from the foundation of the world。 I do not say that theology and metaphys
