essays and lectures-第15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！



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　rational　position　of　the　facts　of　a

great　epoch；　to　discover　its　laws；　the　causes　which　produced　it　and

the　effects　which　it　generates；　the　scene　must　be　viewed　from　a

certain　height　and　distance　to　be　completely　apprehended。　　A

thoroughly　contemporary　historian　such　as　Lord　Clarendon　or

Thucydides　is　in　reality　part　of　the　history　he　criticises；　and；　in

the　case　of　such　contemporary　historians　as　Fabius　and　Philistus；

Polybius　in　compelled　to　acknowledge　that　they　are　misled　by

patriotic　and　other　considerations。　　Against　Polybius　himself　no

such　accusation　can　be　made。　　He　indeed　of　all　men　is　able；　as　from

some　lofty　tower；　to　discern　the　whole　tendency　of　the　ancient

world；　the　triumph　of　Roman　institutions　and　of　Greek　thought　which

is　the　last　message　of　the　old　world　and；　in　a　more　spiritual

sense；　has　become　the　Gospel　of　the　new。



One　thing　indeed　he　did　not　see；　or　if　he　saw　it；　he　thought　but

little　of　it　…　how　from　the　East　there　was　spreading　over　the

world；　as　a　wave　spreads；　a　spiritual　inroad　of　new　religions　from

the　time　when　the　Pessinuntine　mother　of　the　gods；　a　shapeless　mass

of　stone；　was　brought　to　the　eternal　city　by　her　holiest　citizen；

to　the　day　when　the　ship　CASTOR　AND　POLLUX　stood　in　at　Puteoli；　and

St。　Paul　turned　his　face　towards　martyrdom　and　victory　at　Rome。

Polybius　was　able　to　predict；　from　his　knowledge　of　the　causes　of

revolutions　and　the　tendencies　of　the　various　forms　of　governments；

the　uprising　of　that　democratic　tone　of　thought　which；　as　soon　as　a

seed　is　sown　in　the　murder　of　the　Gracchi　and　the　exile　of　Marius；

culminated　as　all　democratic　movements　do　culminate；　in　the　supreme

authority　of　one　man；　the　lordship　of　the　world　under　the　world's

rightful　lord；　Caius　Julius　Caesar。　　This；　indeed；　he　saw　in　no

uncertain　way。　　But　the　turning　of　all　men's　hearts　to　the　East；

the　first　glimmering　of　that　splendid　dawn　which　broke　over　the

hills　of　Galilee　and　flooded　the　earth　like　wine；　was　hidden　from

his　eyes。



There　are　many　points　in　the　description　of　the　ideal　historian

which　one　may　compare　to　the　picture　which　Plato　has　given　us　of

the　ideal　philosopher。　　They　are　both　'spectators　of　all　time　and

all　existence。'　　Nothing　is　contemptible　in　their　eyes；　for　all

things　have　a　meaning；　and　they　both　walk　in　august　reasonableness

before　all　men；　conscious　of　the　workings　of　God　yet　free　from　all

terror　of　mendicant　priest　or　vagrant　miracle…worker。　　But　the

parallel　ends　here。　　For　the　one　stands　aloof　from　the　world…storm

of　sleet　and　hail；　his　eyes　fixed　on　distant　and　sunlit　heights；

loving　knowledge　for　the　sake　of　knowledge　and　wisdom　for　the　joy

of　wisdom；　while　the　other　is　an　eager　actor　in　the　world　ever

seeking　to　apply　his　knowledge　to　useful　things。　　Both　equally

desire　truth；　but　the　one　because　of　its　utility；　the　other　for　its

beauty。　　The　historian　regards　it　as　the　rational　principle　of　all

true　history；　an