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