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