essays and lectures-第17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！



At　the　very　time　when　the　whole　tide　of　Eastern　superstition　was

sweeping　into　the　heart　of　the　Capital　the　Senate　banished　the

Greek　philosophers　from　Rome。　　And　of　the　three　systems　which　did

at　length　take　some　root　in　the　city；　those　of　Zeno　and　Epicurus

were　used　merely　as　the　rule　for　the　ordering　of　life；　while　the

dogmatic　scepticism　of　Carneades；　by　its　very　principles；

annihilated　the　possibility　of　argument　and　encouraged　a　perfect

indifference　to　research。



Nor　were　the　Romans　ever　fortunate　enough　like　the　Greeks　to　have

to　face　the　incubus　of　any　dogmatic　system　of　legends　and　myths；

the　immoralities　and　absurdities　of　which　might　excite　a

revolutionary　outbreak　of　sceptical　criticism。　　For　the　Roman

religion　became　as　it　were　crystallised　and　isolated　from　progress

at　an　early　period　of　its　evolution。　　Their　gods　remained　mere

abstractions　of　commonplace　virtues　or　uninteresting

personifications　of　the　useful　things　of　life。　　The　old　primitive

creed　was　indeed　always　upheld　as　a　state　institution　on　account　of

the　enormous　facilities　it　offered　for　cheating　in　politics；　but　as

a　spiritual　system　of　belief　it　was　unanimously　rejected　at　a　very

early　period　both　by　the　common　people　and　the　educated　classes；

for　the　sensible　reason　that　it　was　so　extremely　dull。　　The　former

took　refuge　in　the　mystic　sensualities　of　the　worship　of　Isis；　the

latter　in　the　Stoical　rules　of　life。　　The　Romans　classified　their

gods　carefully　in　their　order　of　precedence；　analysed　their

genealogies　in　the　laborious　spirit　of　modern　heraldry；　fenced　them

round　with　a　ritual　as　intricate　as　their　law；　but　never　quite

cared　enough　about　them　to　believe　in　them。　　So　it　was　of　no

account　with　them　when　the　philosophers　announced　that　Minerva　was

merely　memory。　　She　had　never　been　much　else。　　Nor　did　they　protest

when　Lucretius　dared　to　say　of　Ceres　and　of　Liber　that　they　were

only　the　corn　of　the　field　and　the　fruit　of　the　vine。　　For　they　had

never　mourned　for　the　daughter　of　Demeter　in　the　asphodel　meadows

of　Sicily；　nor　traversed　the　glades　of　Cithaeron　with　fawn…skin　and

with　spear。



This　brief　sketch　of　the　condition　of　Roman　thought　will　serve　to

prepare　us　for　the　almost　total　want　of　scientific　historical

criticism　which　we　shall　discern　in　their　literature；　and　has；

besides；　afforded　fresh　corroboration　of　the　conditions　essential

to　the　rise　of　this　spirit；　and　of　the　modes　of　thought　which　it

reflects　and　in　which　it　is　always　to　be　found。　　Roman　historical

composition　had　its　origin　in　the　pontifical　college　of

ecclesiastical　lawyers；　and　preserved　to　its　close　the　uncritical

spirit　which　characterised　its　fountain…head。　　It　possessed　from

the　outset　a　most　voluminous　collection　of　the　materials　of

history；　which；　however；　produced　merely　antiquarians；　not

historians。　　It　is　so　hard　to　use　facts；　so　easy　to　accumulate

them。



Wearied　of　the　dull　monotony　of　the　pontifical　annals；　which　dwelt

on　little　else　but　the　rise　and　fall　in　provisions　and　the　eclipses

of　the　sun；　Cato　wrote　out　a　history　with　his　own　hand　for　the

instruction　of　his　child；　to　which　he　gave　the　name　of　Origines；

and　before　his　time　some　aristocratic　families　had　written

histories　in　Greek　much　in　the　same　spirit　in　which　the　Germans　of

the　eighteenth　century　used　French　as　the　literary　language。　　But

the　first　regular　Roman　historian　is　Sallust。　　Between　the

extravagant　eulogies　passed　on　this　author　by　the　French　（such　as

De　Closset）；　and　Dr。　Mommsen's　view　of　him　as　merely　a　political

pamphleteer；　it　is　perhaps　difficult　to　reach　the　VIA　MEDIA　of

unbiassed　appreciation。　　He　has；　at　any　rate；　the　credit　of　being　a

purely　rationalistic　historian；　perhaps　the　only　one　in　Roman

literature。　　Cicero　had　a　good　many　qualifications　for　a　scientific

historian；　and　（as　he　usually　did）　thought　very　highly　of　his　own

powers。　　On　passages　of　ancient　legend；　however；　he　is　rather

unsatisfactory；　for　while　he　is　too　sensible　to　believe　them　he　is

too　patriotic　to　reject　them。　　And　this　is　really　the　attitude　of

Livy；　who　claims　for　early　Roman　legend　a　certain　uncritical　homage

from　the　rest　of　the　subject　world。　　His　view　in　his　history　is

that　it　is　not　worth　while　to　examine　the　truth　of　these　stories。



In　his　hands　the　history　of　Rome　unrolls　before　our　eyes　like　some

gorgeous　tapestry；　where　victory　succeeds　victory；　where　triumph

treads　on　the　heels　of　triumph；　and　the　line　of　heroes　seems　never

to　end。　　It　is　not　till　we　pass　behind　the　canvas　and　see　the

slight　means　by　which　the　effect　is　produced　that　we　apprehend　the

fact　that　like　most　picturesque　writers　Livy　is　an　indifferent

critic。　　As　regards　his　attitude　towards　the　credibility　of　early

Roman　history　he　is　quite　as　conscious　as　we　are　of　its　mythical

and　unsound　nature。　　He　will　not；　for　instance；　decide　whether　the

Horatii　were　Albans　or　Romans；　who　was　the　first　dictator；　how　many

tribunes　there　were；　and　the　like。　　His　method；　as　a　rule；　is

merely　to　mention　all　the　accounts　and　sometimes　to　decide　in

favour　of　the　most　probable；　but　usually　not　to　decide　at　all。　　No

canons　of　historical　criticism　will　ever　discover　whether　the　Roman

women　interviewed　the　mother　of　Coriolanus　of　their　own　accord　or

at　the　suggestion　of　the　senate；　whether　Remus　was　killed　for

jumping　over　his　brother's　wall　or　because　they　quarrelled　about

birds；　whether　the　ambassadors　found　Cincinnatus　ploughing　or　only

mending　a　hedge。　　Livy　suspends　his　judgment　over　these　important

facts　and　history　when　questioned　on　their　truth　is　dumb。　　If　he

does　select　between　two　historians　he　chooses　the　one　who　is　nearer

to　the　facts　he　describes。　　But　he　is　no　critic；　only　a

conscientious　writer。　　It　is　mere　vain　waste　to　dwell　on　his

critical　powers；　for　they　do　not　exist。



In　the　case　of　Tacitus　imagination　has　taken　the　place　of　history。

The　past　lives　again　in　his　pages；　but　through　no　laborious

criticism；　rather　through　a　dramatic　and　psychological　faculty

which　he　specially　possessed。



In　the　philosophy　of　history　he　has　no　belief。　　He　can　never　make

up　his　mind　what　to　believe　as　regards　God's　government　of　the

world。　　There　is　no　method　in　him　and　none　elsewhere　in　Roman

literature。



Nations　may　not　have　missions　but　they　certainly　have　functions。

And　the　function　of　ancient　Italy　was　not　merely　to　give　us　what　is

statical　in　our　institutions　and　rational　in　our　law；　but　to　blend

into　one　elemental　creed　the　spiritual　aspirations　of　Aryan　and　of

Semite。　　Italy　was　not　a　pioneer　in　intellectual　progress；　nor　a

motive　power　in　the　evolution　of　thought。　　The　owl　of　the　goddess

of　Wisdom　traversed　over　the　whole　land　and　found　nowhere　a

resting…place。　　The　dove；　which　is　the　bird　of　Christ；　flew

straight　to　the　city　of　Rome　and　the　new　reign　began。　　It　was　the

fashion　of　early　Italian　painters　to　represent　in　mediaeval　costume

the　soldiers　who　watched　over　the　tomb　of　Christ；　and　this；　which

was　the　result　of　the　frank　anachronism　of　all　true　art；　may　serve

to　us　as　an　allegory。　　For　it　was　in　vain　that　the　Middle　Ages

strove　to　guard　the　buried　spirit　of　progress。　　When　the　dawn　of

the　Greek　spirit　arose；　the　sepulchre　was　empty；　the　grave…clothes

laid　aside。　　Humanity　had　risen　from　the　dead。



The　study　of　Greek；　it　has　been　well　said；　implies　the　birth　of

criticism；　comparison　and　research。　　At　the　opening　of　that

education　of　modern　by　ancient　thought　which　we　call　the

Renaissance；　it　was　the　words　of　Aristotle　which　sent　Columbus

sailing　to　the　New　World；　while　a　fragment　of　Pythagorean　astronomy

set　Copernicus　thinking　on　that　train　of　reasoning　which　has

revolutionised　the　whole　position　of　our　planet　in　the　universe。

Then　it　was　seen　that　the　only　meaning　of　progress　is　a　return　to

Greek　modes　of　thought。　　The　monkish　hymns　which　obscured　the　pages

of　Greek　manuscripts　were　blotted　out；　the　splendours　of　a　new

method　were　unfolded　to　the　w