essays and lectures-第3部分

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！



grounds　the　story　is　impossible　（ii。　134）。



In　another　passage　（ii。　63）；　after　giving　an　account　of　the

forcible　entry　of　the　priests　of　Ares　into　the　chapel　of　the　god's

mother；　which　seems　to　have　been　a　sort　of　religious　faction　fight

where　sticks　were　freely　used　（＇Greek　text　which　cannot　be

reproduced＇）；　'I　feel　sure；'　he　says；　'that　many　of　them　died　from

getting　their　heads　broken；　notwithstanding　the　assertions　of　the

Egyptian　priests　to　the　contrary。'　　There　is　also　something

charmingly　naive　in　the　account　he　gives　of　the　celebrated　Greek

swimmer　who　dived　a　distance　of　eighty　stadia　to　give　his

countrymen　warning　of　the　Persian　advance。　　'If；　however；'　he　says；

'I　may　offer　an　opinion　on　the　subject；　I　would　say　that　he　came　in

a　boat。'



There　is；　of　course；　something　a　little　trivial　in　some　of　the

instances　I　have　quoted；　but　in　a　writer　like　Herodotus；　who　stands

on　the　borderland　between　faith　and　rationalism；　one　likes　to　note

even　the　most　minute　instances　of　the　rise　of　the　critical　and

sceptical　spirit　of　inquiry。



How　really　strange；　at　base；　it　was　with　him　may；　I　think；　be　shown

by　a　reference　to　those　passages　where　he　applies　rationalistic

tests　to　matters　connected　with　religion。　　He　nowhere；　indeed；

grapples　with　the　moral　and　scientific　difficulties　of　the　Greek

Bible；　and　where　he　rejects　as　incredible　the　marvellous

achievements　of　Hercules　in　Egypt；　he　does　so　on　the　express

grounds　that　he　had　not　yet　been　received　among　the　gods；　and　so

was　still　subject　to　the　ordinary　conditions　of　mortal　life　（＇Greek

text　which　cannot　be　reproduced＇）。



Even　within　these　limits；　however；　his　religious　conscience　seems

to　have　been　troubled　at　such　daring　rationalism；　and　the　passage

（ii。　45）　concludes　with　a　pious　hope　that　God　will　pardon　him　for

having　gone　so　far；　the　great　rationalistic　passage　being；　of

course；　that　in　which　he　rejects　the　mythical　account　of　the

foundation　of　Dodona。　　'How　can　a　dove　speak　with　a　human　voice？'

he　asks；　and　rationalises　the　bird　into　a　foreign　princess。



Similarly　he　seems　more　inclined　to　believe　that　the　great　storm　at

the　beginning　of　the　Persian　War　ceased　from　ordinary　atmospheric

causes；　and　not　in　consequence　of　the　incantations　of　the　MAGIANS。

He　calls　Melampos；　whom　the　majority　of　the　Greeks　looked　on　as　an

inspired　prophet；　'a　clever　man　who　had　acquired　for　himself　the

art　of　prophecy'；　and　as　regards　the　miracle　told　of　the　AEginetan

statues　of　the　primeval　deities　of　Damia　and　Auxesia；　that　they

fell　on　their　knees　when　the　sacrilegious　Athenians　strove　to　carry

them　off；　'any　one　may　believe　it；'　he　says；　'who　likes；　but　as　for

myself；　I　place　no　credence　in　the　tale。'



So　much　then　for　the　rationalistic　spirit　of　historical　criticism；

as　far　as　it　appears　explicitly　in　the　works　of　this　great　and

philosophic　writer；　but　for　an　adequate　appreciation　of　his

position　we　must　also　note　how　conscious　he　was　of　the　value　of

documentary　evidence；　of　the　use　of　inscriptions；　of　the　importance

of　the　poets　as　throwing　light　on　manners　and　customs　as　well　as　on

historical　incidents。　　No　writer　of　any　age　has　more　vividly

recognised　the　fact　that　history　is　a　matter　of　evidence；　and　that

it　is　as　necessary　for　the　historian　to　state　his　authority　as　it

is　to　produce　one's　witnesses　in　a　court　of　law。



While；　however；　we　can　discern　in　Herodotus　the　rise　of　an　historic

sense；　we　must　not　blind　ourselves　to　the　large　amount　of　instances

where　he　receives　supernatural　influences　as　part　of　the　ordinary

forces　of　life。　　Compared　to　Thucydides；　who　succeeded　him　in　the

development　of　history；　he　appears　almost　like　a　mediaeval　writer

matched　with　a　modern　rationalist。　　For；　contemporary　though　they

were；　between　these　two　authors　there　is　an　infinite　chasm　of

thought。



The　essential　difference　of　their　methods　may　be　best　illustrated

from　those　passages　where　they　treat　of　the　same　subject。　　The

execution　of　the　Spartan　heralds；　Nicolaos　and　Aneristos；　during

the　Peloponnesian　War　is　regarded　by　Herodotus　as　one　of　the　most

supernatural　instances　of　the　workings　of　nemesis　and　the　wrath　of

an　outraged　hero；　while　the　lengthened　siege　and　ultimate　fall　of

Troy　was　brought　about　by　the　avenging　hand　of　God　desiring　to

manifest　unto　men　the　mighty　penalties　which　always　follow　upon

mighty　sins。　　But　Thucydides　either　sees　not；　or　desires　not　to

see；　in　either　of　these　events　the　finger　of　Providence；　or　the

punishment　of　wicked　doers。　　The　death　of　the　heralds　is　merely　an

Athenian　retaliation　for　similar　outrages　committed　by　the　opposite

side；　the　long　agony　of　the　ten　years'　siege　is　due　merely　to　the

want　of　a　good　commissariat　in　the　Greek　army；　while　the　fall　of

the　city　is　the　result　of　a　united　military　attack　consequent　on　a

good　supply　of　provisions。



Now；　it　is　to　be　observed　that　in　this　latter　passage；　as　well　as

elsewhere；　Thucydides　is　in　no　sense　of　the　word　a　sceptic　as

regards　his　attitude　towards　the　truth　of　these　ancient　legends。



Agamemnon　and　Atreus；　Theseus　and　Eurystheus；　even　Minos；　about

whom　Herodotus　has　some　doubts；　are　to　him　as　real　personages　as

Alcibiades　or　Gylippus。　　The　points　in　his　historical　criticism　of

the　past　are；　first；　his　rejection　of　all　extra…natural

interference；　and；　secondly；　the　attributing　to　these　ancient

heroes　the　motives　and　modes　of　thought　of　his　own　day。　　The

present　was　to　him　the　key　to　the　explanation　of　the　past；　as　it

was　to　the　prediction　of　the　future。



Now；　as　regards　his　attitude　towards　the　supernatural　he　is　at　one

with　modern　science。　　We　too　know　that；　just　as　the　primeval　coal…

beds　reveal　to　us　the　traces　of　rain…drops　and　other　atmospheric

phenomena　similar　to　those　of　our　own　day；　so；　in　estimating　the

history　of　the　past；　the　introduction　of　no　force　must　be　allowed

whose　workings　we　cannot　observe　among　the　phenomena　around　us。　　To

lay　down　canons　of　ultra…historical　credibility　for　the　explanation

of　events　which　happen　to　have　preceded　us　by　a　few　thousand　years；

is　as　thoroughly　unscientific　as　it　is　to　intermingle　preternatural

in　geological　theories。



Whatever　the　canons　of　art　may　be；　no　difficulty　in　history　is　so

great　as　to　warrant　the　introduction　of　a　spirit　of　spirit　＇Greek

text　which　cannot　be　reproduced＇；　in　the　sense　of　a　violation　of

the　laws　of　nature。



Upon　the　other　point；　however；　Thucydides　falls　into　an

anachronism。　　To　refuse　to　allow　the　workings　of　chivalrous　and

self…denying　motives　among　the　knights　of　the　Trojan　crusade；

because　he　saw　none　in　the　faction…loving　Athenian　of　his　own　day；

is　to　show　an　entire　ignorance　of　the　various　characteristics　of

human　nature　developing　under　different　circumstances；　and　to　deny

to　a　primitive　chieftain　like　Agamemnon　that　authority　founded　on

opinion；　to　which　we　give　the　name　of　divine　right；　is　to　fall　into

an　historical　error　quite　as　gross　as　attributing　to　Atreus　the

courting　of　the　populace　（＇Greek　text　which　cannot　be　reproduced＇）

with　a　view　to　the　Mycenean　throne。



The　general　method　of　historical　criticism　pursued　by　Thucydides

having　been　thus　indicated；　it　remains　to　proceed　more　into　detail

as　regards　those　particular　points　where　he　claims　for　himself　a

more　rational　method　of　estimating　evidence　than　either　the　public

or　his　predecessors　possessed。



'So　little　pains；'　he　remarks；　'do　the　vulgar　take　in　the

investigation　of　truth；　satisfied　with　their　preconceived

opinions；'　that　the　majority　of　the　Greeks　believe　in　a　Pitanate

cohort　of　the　Spartan　army　and　in　a　double　vote　being　the

prerogative　of　the　Spartan　kings；　neither　of　which　opinions　has　any

foundation　in　fact。　　But　the　chief　point　on　which　he　lays　stress　as

evincing　the　'uncritical　way　with　which　men　receive　legends；　even

the　legends　of　their　own　country；'　is　the　entire　baselessness　of

the　common　Athenian　tradition　in　which　Harmodios　and　Aristogeiton

were　represented　as　the　patriotic　liberators　of　Athens　from　the

Peisistratid　tyranny。　　So　far；　he　points　out；　from　the　love　of

freedom　being　their　motive；　both　of　them　were　influenced　by　merely

personal　considerations；　Aristogeiton　being　jealous　of　Hipparchos'

attention　to　Harmodios；　then　a　beautiful　boy　in　the　flower　of　Greek

loveliness；　while　the　latter's　indignation　was　aroused　by　an　insult

offered　to　his　sister　by　the　prince。



Their　motives；　then；　were　personal　revenge；　while　the　result　of

their　conspiracy　served　only　to　rivet　more　tightly　the　chains　of

servitude　which　bound　Athens　to　the　Peisistratid　house；　for

Hipparchos；　whom　they　killed；　was　only　the　tyrant's　younger

brother；　and　not　the　tyrant　himself。



To　prove　his　theory　that　Hippias　was　the　elder；　he　appeals　to　the

evidence　afforded　by　a　public　inscription　in　which　his　name　occurs

immediately　after　that　of　his　father；　a　point　which　he　thinks　shows

that　he　was　the　eldest；　and　so　the　heir。　　This　view　he　further

corroborates　by　another　inscription；　on　the　altar　of　Apollo；　which

mentions　the　children　of　Hippias　and　not　those　of　his　brothers；

'for　it　was　natural　for　the　eldest　to　be　married　first'；　and

besides　this；　on　the　score　of　general　probability　he　points　out

that；　had　Hippias　been　the　younger；　he　would　not　have　so　easily

obtained　the　tyranny　on　the　death　of　Hipparchos。



Now；　what　is　important　in　Thucydides；　as　evinced　in　the　treatment

of　legend　generally；　is　not　the　results　he　arrived　at；　but　the

method　by　which　he　works。　　The　first　great　rationalistic　historian；

he　may　be　said　to　have　paved　the　way　for　all　those　who　followed

after　him；　though　it　must　always　be　remembered　that；　while　the

total　absence　in　his　pages　of　all　the　mystical　paraphernalia　of　the

supernatural　theory　of　life　is　an　advance　in　the　progress　of

rationalism；　and　an　era　in　scientific　history；　whose　importance

could　never　be　over…estimated；　yet　we　find　along　with　it　a　total