essays and lectures-第14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！



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　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　spe