CHAPTERIV
　　ITisevidentthathereThucydidesisreadytoadmitthevarietyofmanifestationswhichexternalcausesbringaboutintheirworkingsontheuniformcharacterofthenatureofman.Yet，afterallissaid，theseareperhapsbutverygeneralstatements：theordinaryeffectsofpeaceandwararedwelton，butthereisnorealanalysisoftheimmediatecausesandgenerallawsofthephenomenaoflife，nordoesThucydidesseemtorecognisethetruththatifhumanityproceedsincircles，thecirclesarealwayswidening.
　　Perhapswemaysaythatwithhimthephilosophyofhistoryispartlyinthemetaphysicalstage，andsee，intheprogressofthisideafromHerodotustoPolybius，theexemplificationoftheComtianLawofthethreestagesofthought，thetheological，themetaphysical，andthescientific：fortrulyoutofthevaguenessoftheologicalmysticismthisconceptionwhichwecallthePhilosophyofHistorywasraisedtoascientificprinciple，accordingtowhichthepastwasexplainedandthefuturepredictedbyreferencetogenerallaws.
　　Now，justastheearliestaccountofthenatureoftheprogressofhumanityistobefoundinPlato，soinhimwefindthefirstexplicitattempttofoundauniversalphilosophyofhistoryuponwiderationalgrounds.Havingcreatedanideallyperfectstate，thephilosopherproceedstogiveanelaboratetheoryofthecomplexcauseswhichproducerevolutions，ofthemoraleffectsofvariousformsofgovernmentandeducation，oftheriseofthecriminalclassesandtheirconnectionwithpauperism，and，inaword，tocreatehistorybythedeductivemethodandtoproceedfromAPRIORI
　　psychologicalprinciplestodiscoverthegoverninglawsoftheapparentchaosofpoliticallife.
　　TherehavebeenmanyattemptssincePlatotodeducefromasinglephilosophicalprincipleallthephenomenawhichexperiencesubsequentlyverifiesforus.Fichtethoughthecouldpredicttheworld—planfromtheideaofuniversaltime.Hegeldreamedhehadfoundthekeytothemysteriesoflifeinthedevelopmentoffreedom，andKrauseinthecategoriesofbeing.Buttheonescientificbasisonwhichthetruephilosophyofhistorymustrestisthecompleteknowledgeofthelawsofhumannatureinallitswants，itsaspirations，itspowersanditstendencies：andthisgreattruth，whichThucydidesmaybesaidinsomemeasuretohaveapprehended，wasgiventousfirstbyPlato.
　　Now，itcannotbeaccuratelysaidofthisphilosopherthateitherhisphilosophyorhishistoryisentirelyandsimplyAPRIORI.ON
　　ESTDESONSIECLEMEMEQUANDONYPROTESTE，andsowefindinhimcontinualreferencestotheSpartanmodeoflife，thePythagoreansystem，thegeneralcharacteristicsofGreektyranniesandGreekdemocracies.Forwhile，inhisaccountofthemethodofforminganidealstate，hesaysthatthepoliticalartistisindeedtofixhisgazeonthesunofabstracttruthintheheavensofthepurereason，butissometimestoturntotherealisationoftheidealsonearth：yet，afterall，thegeneralcharacterofthePlatonicmethod，whichiswhatwearespeciallyconcernedwith，isessentiallydeductiveandAPRIORI.Andhehimself，inthebuildingupofhisNephelococcygia，certainlystartswitha[Greektextwhichcannotbereproduced]，makingacleansweepofallhistoryandallexperience;anditwasessentiallyasanAPRIORI
　　theoristthatheiscriticisedbyAristotle，asweshallseelater.
　　ToproceedtocloserdetailsregardingtheactualschemeofthelawsofpoliticalrevolutionsasdrawnoutbyPlato，wemustfirstnotethattheprimarycauseofthedecayoftheidealstateisthegeneralprinciple，commontothevegetableandanimalworldsaswellastotheworldofhistory，thatallcreatedthingsarefatedtodecay—aprinciplewhich，thoughexpressedinthetermsofameremetaphysicalabstraction，isyetperhapsinitsessencescientific.ForwetoomustholdthatacontinuousredistributionofmatterandmotionistheinevitableresultofthenominalpersistenceofForce，andthatperfectequilibriumisasimpossibleinpoliticsasitcertainlyisinphysics.
　　ThesecondarycauseswhichmartheperfectionofthePlatonic’cityofthesun’aretobefoundintheintellectualdecayoftheraceconsequentoninjudiciousmarriagesandinthePhilistineelevationofphysicalachievementsovermentalculture;whilethehierarchicalsuccessionofTimocracyandOligarchy，DemocracyandTyranny，isdweltonatgreatlengthanditscausesanalysedinaverydramaticandpsychologicalmanner，ifnotinthatsanctionedbytheactualorderofhistory.
　　AndindeeditisapparentatfirstsightthatthePlatonicsuccessionofstatesrepresentsratherthesuccessionofideasinthephilosophicmindthananyhistoricalsuccessionoftime.
　　Aristotlemeetsthewholesimplybyanappealtofacts.Ifthetheoryoftheperiodicdecayofallcreatedthings，heurges，bescientific，itmustbeuniversal，andsotrueofalltheotherstatesaswellasoftheideal.Besides，astateusuallychangesintoitscontraryandnottotheformnexttoit;sotheidealstatewouldnotchangeintoTimocracy;whileOligarchy，moreoftenthanTyranny，succeedsDemocracy.Plato，besides，saysnothingofwhataTyrannywouldchangeto.Accordingtothecycletheoryitoughttopassintotheidealstateagain，butasafactoneTyrannyischangedintoanotherasatSicyon，orintoaDemocracyasatSyracuse，orintoanAristocracyasatCarthage.TheexampleofSicily，too，showsthatanOligarchyisoftenfollowedbyaTyranny，asatLeontiniandGela.Besides，itisabsurdtorepresentgreedasthechiefmotiveofdecay，ortotalkofavariceastherootofOligarchy，wheninnearlyalltrueoligarchiesmoney—makingisforbiddenbylaw.AndfinallythePlatonictheoryneglectsthedifferentkindsofdemocraciesandoftyrannies.
　　NownothingcanbemoreimportantthanthispassageinAristotle’sPOLITICS（v.12.），whichmayhesaidtomarkaneraintheevolutionofhistoricalcriticism.ForthereisnothingonwhichAristotleinsistssostronglyasthatthegeneralisationsfromfactsoughttobeaddedtothedataoftheAPRIORImethod—aprinciplewhichweknowtobetruenotmerelyofdeductivespeculativepoliticsbutofphysicsalso：forarenottheresidualphenomenaofchemistsavaluablesourceofimprovementintheory？
　　Hisownmethodisessentiallyhistoricalthoughbynomeansempirical.Onthecontrary，thisfar—seeingthinker，rightlystyledILMAESTRODICOLORCHESANNO，maybesaidtohaveapprehendedclearlythatthetruemethodisneitherexclusivelyempiricalnorexclusivelyspeculative，butratheraunionofbothintheprocesscalledAnalysisortheInterpretationofFacts，whichhasbeendefinedastheapplicationtofactsofsuchgeneralconceptionsasmayfixtheimportantcharacteristicsofthephenomena，andpresentthempermanentlyintheirtruerelations.
　　Hetoowasthefirsttopointout，whateveninourowndayisincompletelyappreciated，thatnature，includingthedevelopmentofman，isnotfullofincoherentepisodeslikeabadtragedy，thatinconsistencyandanomalyareasimpossibleinthemoralastheyareinthephysicalworld，andthatwherethesuperficialobserverthinksheseesarevolutionthephilosophicalcriticdiscernsmerelythegradualandrationalevolutionoftheinevitableresultsofcertainantecedents.
　　Andwhileadmittingthenecessityofapsychologicalbasisforthephilosophyofhistory，headdedtoittheimportanttruththatman，tobeapprehendedinhisproperpositionintheuniverseaswellasinhisnaturalpowers，mustbestudiedfrombelowinthehierarchicalprogressionofhigherfunctionfromthelowerformsoflife.Theimportantmaxim，thattoobtainaclearconceptionofanythingwemust’studyitinitsgrowthfromtheverybeginning，’
　　isformallysetdownintheopeningofthePOLITICS，where，indeed，weshallfindtheothercharacteristicfeaturesofthemodernEvolutionarytheory，suchasthe’DifferentiationofFunction’andthe’SurvivaloftheFittest’explicitlysetforth.
　　Whatavaluablestepthiswasintheimprovementofthemethodofhistoricalcriticismitisneedlesstopointout.Byit，onemaysay，thetruethreadwasgiventoguideone’sstepsthroughthebewilderinglabyrinthoffacts.Forhistory（tousetermswithwhichAristotlehasmadeusfamiliar）maybelookedatfromtwoessentiallydifferentstandpoints;eitherasaworkofartwhose[Greektextwhichcannotbereproduced]orfinalcauseisexternaltoitandimposedonitfromwithout;orasanorganismcontainingthelawofitsowndevelopmentinitself，andworkingoutitsperfectionmerelybythefactofbeingwhatitis.Now，ifweadopttheformer，whichwemaystylethetheologicalview，weshallbeincontinualdangeroftrippingintothepitfallofsomeA
　　PRIORIconclusion—thatbournefromwhich，ithasbeentrulysaid，notravellereverreturns.
　　ThelatteristheonlyscientifictheoryandwasapprehendedinitsfulnessbyAristotle，whoseapplicationoftheinductivemethodtohistory，andwhoseemploymentoftheevolutionarytheoryofhumanity，showthathewasconsciousthatthephilosophyofhistoryisnothingseparatefromthefactsofhistorybutiscontainedinthem，andthattherationallawofthecomplexphenomenaoflife，liketheidealintheworldofthought，istobereachedthroughthefacts，notsuperimposedonthem—[Greektextwhichcannotbereproduced].
　　Andfinally，inestimatingtheenormousdebtwhichthescienceofhistoricalcriticismowestoAristotle，wemustnotpassoverhisattitudetowardsthosetwogreatdifficultiesintheformationofaphilosophyofhistoryonwhichIhavetouchedabove.Imeantheassertionofextra—naturalinterferencewiththenormaldevelopmentoftheworldandoftheincalculableinfluenceexercisedbythepoweroffreewill.
　　Now，asregardstheformer，hemaybesaidtohaveneglecteditentirely.ThespecialactsofprovidenceproceedingfromGod’simmediategovernmentoftheworld，whichHerodotussawasmightylandmarksinhistory，wouldhavebeentohimessentiallydisturbingelementsinthatuniversalreignoflaw，theextentofwhoselimitlessempireheofallthegreatthinkersofantiquitywasthefirstexplicitlytorecognise.
　　StandingalooffromthepopularreligionaswellasfromthedeeperconceptionsofHerodotusandtheTragicSchool，henolongerthoughtofGodasofonewithfairlimbsandtreacherousfacehauntingwoodandglade，norwouldheseeinhimajealousjudgecontinuallyinterferingintheworld’shistorytobringthewickedtopunishmentandtheproudtoafall.GodtohimwastheincarnationofthepureIntellect，abeingwhoseactivitywasthecontemplationofhisownperfection，onewhomPhilosophymightimitatebutwhomprayerscouldnevermove，tothesublimeindifferenceofwhosepassionlesswisdomwhatwerethesonsofmen，theirdesiresortheirsins？While，asregardstheotherdifficultyandtheformationofaphilosophyofhistory，theconflictoffreewillwithgenerallawsappearsfirstinGreekthoughtintheusualtheologicalforminwhichallgreatideasseemtobecradledattheirbirth.
　　ItwassuchlegendsasthoseofOEdipusandAdrastus，exemplifyingthestrugglesofindividualhumanityagainsttheoverpoweringforceofcircumstancesandnecessity，whichgavetotheearlyGreeksthosesamelessonswhichweofmoderndaysdraw，insomewhatlessartisticfashion，fromthestudyofstatisticsandthelawsofphysiology.
　　InAristotle，ofcourse，thereisnotraceofsupernaturalinfluence.TheFuries，whichdrivetheirvictimintosinfirstandthenpunishment，arenolonger’viper—tressedgoddesseswitheyesandmouthaflame，’butthoseevilthoughtswhichharbourwithintheimpuresoul.Inthis，asinallotherpoints，toarriveatAristotleistoreachthepureatmosphereofscientificandmodernthought.
　　ButwhileherejectedpurenecessitarianisminitscrudeformasessentiallyaREDUCTIOADABSURDUMoflife，hewasfullyconsciousofthefactthatthewillisnotamysteriousandultimateunitofforcebeyondwhichwecannotgoandwhosespecialcharacteristicisinconsistency，butacertaincreativeattitudeofthemindwhichis，fromthefirst，continuallyinfluencedbyhabits，educationandcircumstance;soabsolutelymodifiable，inaword，thatthegoodandthebadmanalikeseemtolosethepoweroffreewill;fortheoneismorallyunabletosin，theotherphysicallyincapacitatedforreformation.
　　Andoftheinfluenceofclimateandtemperatureinformingthenatureofman（aconceptionperhapspressedtoofarinmoderndayswhenthe’racetheory’issupposedtobeasufficientexplanationoftheHindoo，andthelatitudeandlongitudeofacountrythebestguidetoitsmorals（6））Aristotleiscompletelyunaware.Idonotalludetosuchsmallerpointsastheoligarchicaltendenciesofahorse—breedingcountryandthedemocraticinfluenceoftheproximityofthesea（importantthoughtheyarefortheconsiderationofGreekhistory），butrathertothosewiderviewsintheseventhbookofhisPOLITICS，whereheattributesthehappyunionintheGreekcharacterofintellectualattainmentswiththespiritofprogresstothetemperateclimatetheyenjoyed，andpointsouthowtheextremecoldofthenorthdullsthementalfacultiesofitsinhabitantsandrendersthemincapableofsocialorganisationorextendedempire;whiletotheenervatingheatofeasterncountrieswasduethatwantofspiritandbraverywhichthen，asnow，wasthecharacteristicofthepopulationinthatquarteroftheglobe.
　　Thucydideshasshownthecausalconnectionbetweenpoliticalrevolutionsandthefertilityofthesoil，butgoesastepfartherandpointsoutthepsychologicalinfluencesonapeople’scharacterexercisedbythevariousextremesofclimate—inbothcasesthefirstappearanceofamostvaluableformofhistoricalcriticism.
　　TothedevelopmentofDialectic，astoGod，intervalsoftimeareofnoaccount.FromPlatoandAristotlewepassdirecttoPolybius.
　　TheprogressofthoughtfromthephilosopheroftheAcademetotheArcadianhistorianmaybebestillustratedbyacomparisonofthemethodbywhicheachofthethreewriters，whomIhaveselectedasthehighestexpressionoftherationalismofhisrespectiveage，attainedtohisidealstate：forthelatterconceptionmaybeinameasureregardedasrepresentingthemostspiritualprinciplewhichtheycoulddiscerninhistory.
　　Now，PlatocreatedhisonAPRIORIprinciples;Aristotleformedhisbyananalysisofexistingconstitutions;Polybiusfoundhisrealisedforhimintheactualworldoffact.AristotlecriticisedthedeductivespeculationsofPlatobymeansofinductivenegativeinstances，butPolybiuswillnottakethe’CloudCity’oftheREPUBLICintoaccountatall.Hecomparesittoanathletewhohasneverrunon’ConstitutionHill，’toastatuesobeautifulthatitisentirelyremovedfromtheordinaryconditionsofhumanity，andconsequentlyfromthecanonsofcriticism.
　　TheRomanstatehadattainedinhiseyes，bymeansofthemutualcounteractionofthreeopposingforces，（7）thatstableequilibriuminpoliticswhichwastheidealofallthetheoreticalwritersofantiquity.AndinconnectionwiththispointitwillbeconvenienttonoticeherehowmuchtruththereiscontainedintheaccusationoftenbroughtagainsttheancientsthattheyknewnothingoftheideaofProgress，forthemeaningofmanyoftheirspeculationswillbehiddenfromusifwedonottryandcomprehendfirstwhattheiraimwas，andsecondlywhyitwasso.
　　Now，likeallwidegeneralities，thisstatementisatleastinaccurate.TheprayerofPlato’sidealCity—[Greektextwhichcannotbereproduced]，mightbewrittenasatextoverthedoorofthelastTempletoHumanityraisedbythedisciplesofFourierandSaint—Simon，butitiscertainlytruethattheiridealprinciplewasorderandpermanence，notindefiniteprogress.For，settingasidetheartisticprejudiceswhichwouldhaveledtheGreekstorejectthisideaofunlimitedimprovement，wemaynotethatthemodernconceptionofprogressrestspartlyonthenewenthusiasmandworshipofhumanity，partlyonthesplendidhopesofmaterialimprovementsincivilisationwhichappliedsciencehasheldouttous，twoinfluencesfromwhichancientGreekthoughtseemstohavebeenstrangelyfree.FortheGreeksmarredtheperfecthumanismofthegreatmenwhomtheyworshipped，byimputingtothemdivinityanditssupernaturalpowers;whiletheirsciencewaseminentlyspeculativeandoftenalmostmysticinitscharacter，aimingatcultureandnotutility，athigherspiritualityandmoreintensereverenceforlaw，ratherthanattheincreasedfacilitiesoflocomotionandthecheapproductionofcommonthingsaboutwhichourmodernscientificschoolceasesnottoboast.Andlastly，andperhapschiefly，wemustrememberthatthe’plaguespotofallGreekstates，’asoneoftheirownwritershascalledit，wastheterribleinsecuritytolifeandpropertywhichresultedfromthefactionsandrevolutionswhichceasednottotroubleGreeceatalltimes，raisingaspiritoffanaticismsuchasreligionraisedinthemiddleagesofEurope.
　　Theseconsiderations，then，willenableustounderstandfirsthowitwasthat，radicalandunscrupulousreformersastheGreekpoliticaltheoristswere，yet，theirendonceattained，nomodernconservativesraisedsuchoutcryagainsttheslightestinnovation.
　　EvenacknowledgedimprovementsinsuchthingsasthegamesofchildrenorthemodesofmusicwereregardedbythemwithfeelingsofextremeapprehensionastheheraldoftheDRAPEAUROUGEofreform.Andsecondly，itwillshowushowitwasthatPolybiusfoundhisidealinthecommonwealthofRome，andAristotle，likeMr.Bright，inthemiddleclasses.Polybius，however，isnotcontentmerelywithpointingouthisidealstate，butentersatconsiderablelengthintothequestionofthosegenerallawswhoseconsiderationformsthechiefessentialofthephilosophyofhistory.
　　Hestartsbyacceptingthegeneralprinciplethatallthingsarefatedtodecay（whichInoticedinthecaseofPlato），andthat’asironproducesrustandaswoodbreedstheanimalsthatdestroyit，soeverystatehasinittheseedsofitsowncorruption.’Heisnot，however，contenttorestthere，butproceedstodealwiththemoreimmediatecausesofrevolutions，whichhesaysaretwofoldinnature，eitherexternalorinternal.Now，theformer，dependingastheydoonthesynchronousconjunctionofothereventsoutsidethesphereofscientificestimation，arefromtheirverycharacterincalculable;butthelatter，thoughassumingmanyforms，alwaysresultfromtheover—greatpreponderanceofanysingleelementtothedetrimentoftheothers，therationallawlyingatthebaseofallvarietiesofpoliticalchangesbeingthatstabilitycanresultonlyfromthestaticalequilibriumproducedbythecounteractionofopposingparts，sincethemoresimpleaconstitutionisthemoreitisinsecure.Platohadpointedoutbeforehowtheextremelibertyofademocracyalwaysresultedindespotism，butPolybiusanalysesthelawandshowsthescientificprinciplesonwhichitrests.
　　Thedoctrineoftheinstabilityofpureconstitutionsformsanimportanterainthephilosophyofhistory.ItsspecialapplicabilitytothepoliticsofourowndayhasbeenillustratedintheriseofthegreatNapoleon，whentheFrenchstatehadlostthosedivisionsofcasteandprejudice，oflandedaristocracyandmoneyedinterest，institutionsinwhichthevulgarseeonlybarrierstoLibertybutwhichareindeedtheonlypossibledefencesagainstthecomingofthatperiodicSiriusofpolitics，the[Greektextwhichcannotbereproduced].
　　ThereisaprinciplewhichTocquevilleneverweariesofexplaining，andwhichhasbeensubsumedbyMr.HerbertSpencerunderthatgenerallawcommontoallorganicbodieswhichwecalltheInstabilityoftheHomogeneous.Thevariousmanifestationsofthislaw，asshowninthenormal，regularrevolutionsandevolutionsofthedifferentformsofgovernment，（8）areexpoundedwithgreatclearnessbyPolybius，whoclaimedforhistheory，intheThucydideanspirit，thatitisa[Greektextwhichcannotbereproduced]，notamere[Greektextwhichcannotbereproduced]，andthataknowledgeofitwillenabletheimpartialobserver（9）
　　todiscoveratanytimewhatperiodofitsconstitutionalevolutionanyparticularstatehasalreadyreachedandintowhatformitwillbenextdifferentiated，thoughpossiblytheexacttimeofthechangesmaybemoreorlessuncertain.（10）
　　NowinthisnecessarilyincompleteaccountofthelawsofpoliticalrevolutionsasexpoundedbyPolybiusenoughperhapshasbeensaidtoshowwhatishistruepositionintherationaldevelopmentofthe’Idea’whichIhavecalledthePhilosophyofHistory，becauseitistheunifyingofhistory.SeendarklyasitisthroughtheglassofreligioninthepagesofHerodotus，moremetaphysicalthanscientificwithThucydides，Platostrovetoseizeitbytheeagle—
　　flightofspeculation，toreachitwiththeeagergraspofasoulimpatientofthoseslowerandsurerinductivemethodswhichAristotle，inhistrenchantcriticismofhisgreatermaster，showedweremorebrilliantthananyvaguetheory，ifthetestofbrilliancyistruth.
　　WhatthenisthepositionofPolybius？Doesanynewmethodremainforhim？Polybiuswasoneofthosemanymenwhoareborntoolatetobeoriginal.ToThucydidesbelongsthehonourofbeingthefirstinthehistoryofGreekthoughttodiscernthesupremecalmoflawandorderunderlyingthefitfulstormsoflife，andPlatoandAristotleeachrepresentsagreatnewprinciple.ToPolybiusbelongstheoffice—hownobleanofficehemadeithiswritingsshow—ofmakingmoreexplicittheideaswhichwereimplicitinhispredecessors，ofshowingthattheywereofwiderapplicabilityandperhapsofdeepermeaningthantheyhadseemedbefore，ofexaminingwithmoreminutenessthelawswhichtheyhaddiscovered，andfinallyofpointingoutmoreclearlythananyonehaddonetherangeofscienceandthemeansitofferedforanalysingthepresentandpredictingwhatwastocome.Hisofficethuswastogatherupwhattheyhadleft，togivetheirprinciplesnewlifebyawiderapplication.
　　PolybiusendsthisgreatdiapasonofGreekthought.WhenthePhilosophyofhistoryappearsnext，asinPlutarch’stracton’WhyGod’sangerisdelayed，’thependulumofthoughthadswungbacktowhereitbegan.HistheorywasintroducedtotheRomansundertheculturedstyleofCicero，andwaswelcomedbythemasthephilosophicalpanegyricoftheirstate.ThelastnoticeofitinLatinliteratureisinthepagesofTacitus，whoalludestothestablepolityformedoutoftheseelementsasaconstitutioneasiertocommendthantoproduceandinnocaselasting.YetPolybiushadseenthefuturewithnouncertaineye，andhadprophesiedtheriseoftheEmpirefromtheunbalancedpoweroftheochlocracyfiftyyearsandmorebeforetherewasjoyintheJulianhouseholdoverthebirthofthatboywho，borntopowerasthechampionofthepeople，diedwearingthepurpleofaking.
　　Noattitudeofhistoricalcriticismismoreimportantthanthemeansbywhichtheancientsattainedtothephilosophyofhistory.
　　Theprincipleofhereditycanbeexemplifiedinliteratureaswellasinorganiclife：Aristotle，PlatoandPolybiusarethelinealancestorsofFichteandHegel，ofVicoandCousin，ofMontesquieuandTocqueville.
　　Asmyaimisnottogiveanaccountofhistoriansbuttopointoutthosegreatthinkerswhosemethodshavefurtheredtheadvanceofthisspiritofhistoricalcriticism，IshallpassoverthoseannalistsandchroniclerswhointervenedbetweenThucydidesandPolybius.YetperhapsitmayservetothrownewlightontherealnatureofthisspiritanditsintimateconnectionwithallotherformsofadvancedthoughtifIgivesomeestimateofthecharacterandriseofthosemanyinfluencesprejudicialtothescientificstudyofhistorywhichcausesuchawidegapbetweenthesetwohistorians.
　　ForemostamongtheseisthegrowinginfluenceofrhetoricandtheIsocrateanschool，whichseemstohaveregardedhistoryasanarenaforthedisplayeitherofpathosorparadoxes，notascientificinvestigationintolaws.
　　Thenewageistheageofstyle.ThesamespiritofexclusiveattentiontoformwhichmadeEuripidesoften，likeSwinburne，prefermusictomeaningandmelodytomorality，whichgavetothelaterGreekstatuesthatrefinedeffeminacy，thatoverstrainedgracefulnessofattitude，wasfeltinthesphereofhistory.Theruleslaiddownforhistoricalcompositionarethoserelatingtotheaestheticvalueofdigressions，thelegalityofemployingmorethanonemetaphorinthesamesentence，andthelike;andhistoriansarerankednotbytheirpowerofestimatingevidencebutbythegoodnessoftheGreektheywrite.
　　ImustnotealsotheimportantinfluenceonliteratureexercisedbyAlexandertheGreat;forwhilehistravelsencouragedthemoreaccurateresearchofgeography，theverysplendourofhisachievementsseemstohavebroughthistoryagainintothesphereofromance.Theappearanceofallgreatmenintheworldisfollowedinvariablybytheriseofthatmythopoeicspiritandthattendencytolookforthemarvellous，whichissofataltotruehistoricalcriticism.AnAlexander，aNapoleon，aFrancisofAssisiandaMahometarethoughttobeoutsidethelimitingconditionsofrationallaw，justascometsweresupposedtobenotverylongago.
　　WhilethefoundingofthatcityofAlexandria，inwhichWesternandEasternthoughtmetwithsuchstrangeresulttoboth，divertedthecriticaltendenciesoftheGreekspiritintoquestionsofgrammar，philologyandthelike，thenarrow，artificialatmosphereofthatUniversitytown（aswemaycallit）wasfataltothedevelopmentofthatindependentandspeculativespiritofresearchwhichstrikesoutnewmethodsofinquiry，ofwhichhistoricalcriticismisone.
　　TheAlexandrinescombinedagreatloveoflearningwithanignoranceofthetrueprinciplesofresearch，anenthusiasticspiritforaccumulatingmaterialswithawonderfulincapacitytousethem.NotamongthehotsandsofEgypt，ortheSophistsofAthens，butfromtheveryheartofGreecerisesthemanofgeniusonwhoseinfluenceintheevolutionofthephilosophyofhistoryI
　　haveashorttimeagodwelt.BorninthesereneandpureairoftheclearuplandsofArcadia，Polybiusmaybesaidtoreproduceinhisworkthecharacteroftheplacewhichgavehimbirth.For，ofallthehistorians—Idonotsayofantiquitybutofalltime—
　　noneismorerationalisticthanhe，nonemorefreefromanybeliefinthe’visionsandomens，themonstrouslegends，thegrovellingsuperstitionsandunmanlycravingforthesupernatural’（[Greektextthatcannotbereproduced]（11））whichhehimselfiscompelledtonoticeasthecharacteristicsofsomeofthehistorianswhoprecededhim.Fortunateinthelandwhichborehim，hewasnolessblessedinthewondroustimeofhisbirth.For，representinginhimselfthespiritualsupremacyoftheGreekintellectandalliedinbondsofchivalrousfriendshiptotheworld—conquerorofhisday，heseemsledasitwerebythehandofFate’tocomprehend，’
　　ashasbeensaid，’moreclearlythantheRomansthemselvesthehistoricalpositionofRome，’andtodiscernwithgreaterinsightthanallothermencouldthosetwogreatresultantsofancientcivilisation，thematerialempireofthecityofthesevenhills，andtheintellectualsovereigntyofHellas.
　　Beforehisownday，hesays，（12）theeventsoftheworldwereunconnectedandseparateandthehistoriesconfinedtoparticularcountries.Now，forthefirsttimetheuniversalempireoftheRomansrenderedauniversalhistorypossible.（13）This，then，istheaugustmotiveofhiswork：totracethegradualriseofthisItaliancityfromthedaywhenthefirstlegioncrossedthenarrowstraitofMessinaandlandedonthefertilefieldsofSicilytothetimewhenCorinthintheEastandCarthageintheWestfellbeforetheresistlesswaveofempireandtheeaglesofRomepassedonthewingsofuniversalvictoryfromCalpeandthePillarsofHerculestoSyriaandtheNile.AtthesametimeherecognisedthattheschemeofRome’sempirewasworkedoutundertheaegisofGod’swill.（14）For，asoneoftheMiddleAgescribesmosttrulysays，the[Greektextwhichcannotbereproduced]ofPolybiusisthatpowerwhichweChristianscallGod;thesecondaim，asonemaycallit，ofhishistoryistopointouttherationalandhumanandnaturalcauseswhichbroughtthisresult，distinguishing，asweshouldsay，betweenGod’smediateandimmediategovernmentoftheworld.
　　WithanydirectinterventionofGodinthenormaldevelopmentofMan，hewillhavenothingtodo：stilllesswithanyideaofchanceasafactorinthephenomenaoflife.Chanceandmiracles，hesays，aremereexpressionsforourignoranceofrationalcauses.
　　ThespiritofrationalismwhichwerecognisedinHerodotusasavagueuncertainattitudeandwhichappearsinThucydidesasaconsistentattitudeofmindneverarguedaboutorevenexplained，isbyPolybiusanalysedandformulatedasthegreatinstrumentofhistoricalresearch.
　　Herodotus，whilebelievingonprincipleinthesupernatural，yetwasscepticalattimes.Thucydidessimplyignoredthesupernatural.Hedidnotdiscussit，butheannihilateditbyexplaininghistorywithoutit.Polybiusentersatlengthintothewholequestionandexplainsitsoriginandthemethodoftreatingit.HerodotuswouldhavebelievedinScipio’sdream.Thucydideswouldhaveignoreditentirely.Polybiusexplainsit.HeistheculminationoftherationalprogressionofDialectic.’Nothing，’
　　hesays，’showsafoolishmindmorethantheattempttoaccountforanyphenomenaontheprincipleofchanceorsupernaturalintervention.Historyisasearchforrationalcauses，andthereisnothingintheworld—eventhosephenomenawhichseemtousthemostremotefromlawandimprobable—whichisnotthelogicalandinevitableresultofcertainrationalantecedents.’
　　Somethings，ofcourse，aretoberejectedAPRIORIwithoutenteringintothesubject：’Asregardssuchmiracles，’hesays，（15）’asthatonacertainstatueofArtemisrainorsnowneverfallsthoughthestatuestandsintheopenair，orthatthosewhoenterGod’sshrineinArcadialosetheirnaturalshadows，Icannotreallybeexpectedtoargueuponthesubject.Forthesethingsarenotonlyutterlyimprobablebutabsolutelyimpossible.’
　　’Forustoarguereasonablyonanacknowledgedabsurdityisasvainataskastryingtocatchwaterinasieve;itisreallytoadmitthepossibilityofthesupernatural，whichistheverypointatissue.’
　　WhatPolybiusfeltwasthattoadmitthepossibilityofamiracleistoannihilatethepossibilityofhistory：forjustasscientificandchemicalexperimentswouldbeeitherimpossibleoruselessifexposedtothechanceofcontinuedinterferenceonthepartofsomeforeignbody，sothelawsandprincipleswhichgovernhistory，thecausesofphenomena，theevolutionofprogress，thewholescience，inaword，ofman’sdealingswithhisownraceandwithnature，willremainasealedbooktohimwhoadmitsthepossibilityofextra—naturalinterference.
　　Thestoriesofmiracles，then，aretoberejectedonAPRIORI
　　rationalgrounds，butinthecaseofeventswhichweknowtohavehappenedthescientifichistorianwillnotresttillhehasdiscoveredtheirnaturalcauseswhich，forinstance，inthecaseofthewonderfulriseoftheRomanEmpire—themostmarvellousthing，Polybiussays，whichGodeverbroughtabout（16）—aretobefoundintheexcellenceoftheirconstitution（[Greektextwhichcannotbereproduced]），thewisdomoftheiradvisers，theirsplendidmilitaryarrangements，andtheirsuperstition（[Greektextwhichcannotbereproduced]）.ForwhilePolybiusregardedtherevealedreligionas，ofcourse，objectiverealityoftruth，（17）helaidgreatstressonitsmoralsubjectiveinfluence，going，inonepassageonthesubject，evensofarasalmosttoexcusetheintroductionofthesupernaturalinverysmallquantitiesintohistoryonaccountoftheextremelygoodeffectitwouldhaveonpiouspeople.
　　ButperhapsthereisnopassageinthewholeofancientandmodernhistorywhichbreathessuchamanlyandsplendidspiritofrationalismasonepreservedtousintheVatican—strangeresting—placeforit！—inwhichhetreatsoftheterribledecayofpopulationwhichhadfallenonhisnativelandinhisownday，andwhichbythegeneralorthodoxpublicwasregardedasaspecialjudgmentofGodsendingchildlessnessonwomenasapunishmentforthesinsofthepeople.Foritwasadisasterquitewithoutparallelinthehistoryoftheland，andentirelyunforeseenbyanyofitspolitical—economywriterswho，onthecontrary，werealwaysanticipatingthatdangerwouldarisefromanexcessofpopulationoverrunningitsmeansofsubsistence，andbecomingunmanageablethroughitssize.Polybius，however，willhavenothingtodowitheitherpriestorworkerofmiraclesinthismatter.Hewillnotevenseekthat’sacredHeartofGreece，’Delphi，Apollo’sshrine，whoseinspirationevenThucydidesadmittedandbeforewhosewisdomSocratesbowed.Howfoolish，hesays，werethemanwhoonthismatterwouldpraytoGod.Wemustsearchfortherationalcauses，andthecausesareseentobeclear，andthemethodofpreventionalso.Hethenproceedstonoticehowallthisarosefromthegeneralreluctancetomarriageandtobearingtheexpenseofeducatingalargefamilywhichresultedfromthecarelessnessandavariceofthemenofhisday，andheexplainsonentirelyrationalprinciplesthewholeofthisapparentlysupernaturaljudgment.
　　Now，itistobeborneinmindthatwhilehisrejectionofmiraclesasviolationofinviolablelawsisentirelyAPRIORI—fordiscussionofsuchamatteris，ofcourse，impossibleforarationalthinker—yethisrejectionofsupernaturalinterventionrestsentirelyonthescientificgroundsofthenecessityoflookingfornaturalcauses.Andheisquitelogicalinmaintaininghispositionontheseprinciples.For，whereitiseitherdifficultorimpossibletoassignanyrationalcauseforphenomena，ortodiscovertheirlaws，heacquiescesreluctantlyinthealternativeofadmittingsomeextra—naturalinterferencewhichhisessentiallyscientificmethodoftreatingthematterhaslogicallyforcedonhim，approving，forinstance，ofprayersforrain，ontheexpressgroundthatthelawsofmeteorologyhadnotyetbeenascertained.Hewould，ofcourse，havebeenthefirsttowelcomeourmoderndiscoveriesinthematter.Thepassageinquestionisineverywayoneofthemostinterestinginhiswholework，not，ofcourse，assignifyinganyinclinationonhisparttoacquiesceinthesupernatural，butbecauseitshowshowessentiallylogicalandrationalhismethodofargumentwas，andhowcandidandfairhismind.
　　HavingnowexaminedPolybius’sattitudetowardsthesupernaturalandthegeneralideaswhichguidedhisresearch，Iwillproceedtoexaminethemethodhepursuedinhisscientificinvestigationofthecomplexphenomenaoflife.For，asIhavesaidbeforeinthecourseofthisessay，whatisimportantinallgreatwritersisnotsomuchtheresultstheyarriveatasthemethodstheypursue.Theincreasedknowledgeoffactsmayalteranyconclusioninhistoryasinphysicalscience，andthecanonsofspeculativehistoricalcredibilitymustbeacknowledgedtoappealrathertothatsubjectiveattitudeofmindwhichwecallthehistoricsensethantoanyformulatedobjectiverules.Butascientificmethodisagainforalltime，andthetrueifnottheonlyprogressofhistoricalcriticismconsistsintheimprovementoftheinstrumentsofresearch.
　　Nowfirst，asregardshisconceptionofhistory，Ihavealreadypointedoutthatitwastohimessentiallyasearchforcauses，aproblemtobesolved，notapicturetobepainted，ascientificinvestigationintolawsandtendencies，notamereromanticaccountofstartlingincidentandwondrousadventure.Thucydides，intheopeningofhisgreatwork，hadsoundedthefirstnoteofthescientificconceptionofhistory.’Theabsenceofromanceinmypages，’hesays，’will，Ifear，detractsomewhatfromitsvalue，butIhavewrittenmyworknottobetheexploitofapassinghourbutasthepossessionofalltime.’（18）Polybiusfollowswithwordsalmostentirelysimilar.If，hesays，webanishfromhistorytheconsiderationofcauses，methodsandmotives（[Greektextwhichcannotbereproduced]），andrefusetoconsiderhowfartheresultofanythingisitsrationalconsequent，whatisleftisamere[Greektextwhichcannotbereproduced]，nota[Greektextwhichcannotbereproduced]，anoratoricalessaywhichmaygivepleasureforthemoment，butwhichisentirelywithoutanyscientificvaluefortheexplanationofthefuture.Elsewherehesaysthat’historyrobbedoftheexpositionofitscausesandlawsisaprofitlessthing，thoughitmayallureafool.’Andallthroughhishistorythesamepointisputforwardandexemplifiedineveryfashion.
　　Sofarfortheconceptionofhistory.Nowforthegroundwork.Asregardsthecharacterofthephenomenatobeselectedbythescientificinvestigator，Aristotlehadlaiddownthegeneralformulathatnatureshouldbestudiedinhernormalmanifestations.
　　Polybius，truetohischaracterofapplyingexplicitlytheprinciplesimplicitintheworkofothers，followsoutthedoctrineofAristotle，andlaysparticularstressontherationalandundisturbedcharacterofthedevelopmentoftheRomanconstitutionasaffordingspecialfacilitiesforthediscoveryofthelawsofitsprogress.Politicalrevolutionsresultfromcauseseitherexternalorinternal.Theformeraremeredisturbingforceswhichlieoutsidethesphereofscientificcalculation.Itisthelatterwhichareimportantfortheestablishingofprinciplesandtheelucidationofthesequencesofrationalevolution.
　　Hethusmaybesaidtohaveanticipatedoneofthemostimportanttruthsofthemodernmethodsofinvestigation：Imeanthatprinciplewhichlaysdownthatjustasthestudyofphysiologyshouldprecedethestudyofpathology，justasthelawsofdiseasearebestdiscoveredbythephenomenapresentedinhealth，sothemethodofarrivingatallgreatsocialandpoliticaltruthsisbytheinvestigationofthosecaseswheredevelopmenthasbeennormal，rationalandundisturbed.
　　Thecriticalcanonthatthemoreapeoplehasbeeninterferedwith，themoredifficultitbecomestogeneralisethelawsofitsprogressandtoanalysetheseparateforcesofitscivilisation，isonethevalidityofwhichisnowgenerallyrecognisedbythosewhopretendtoascientifictreatmentofallhistory：andwhilewehaveseenthatAristotleanticipateditinageneralformula，toPolybiusbelongsthehonourofbeingthefirsttoapplyitexplicitlyinthesphereofhistory.
　　Ihaveshownhowtothisgreatscientifichistorianthemotiveofhisworkwasessentiallythesearchforcauses;andtruetohisanalyticalspiritheiscarefultoexaminewhatacausereallyisandinwhatpartoftheantecedentsofanyconsequentitistobelookedfor.Togiveanillustration：AsregardstheoriginofthewarwithPerseus，someassignedascausestheexpulsionofAbrupolisbyPerseus，theexpeditionofthelattertoDelphi，theplotagainstEumenesandtheseizureoftheambassadorsinBoeotia;
　　oftheseincidentsthetwoformer，Polybiuspointsout，weremerelythepretexts，thetwolattermerelytheoccasionsofthewar.ThewarwasreallyalegacylefttoPerseusbyhisfather，whowasdeterminedtofightitoutwithRome.（19）
　　Hereaselsewhereheisnotoriginatinganynewidea.Thucydideshadpointedoutthedifferencebetweentherealandtheallegedcause，andtheAristoteliandictumaboutrevolutions，[Greektextwhichcannotbereproduced]，drawsthedistinctionbetweencauseandoccasionwiththebrilliancyofanepigram.Buttheexplicitandrationalinvestigationofthedifferencebetween[Greektextwhichcannotbereproduced]，and[Greektextwhichcannotbereproduced]wasreservedforPolybius.Nocanonofhistoricalcriticismcanbesaidtobeofmorerealvaluethanthatinvolvedinthisdistinction，andtheoverlookingofithasfilledourhistorieswiththecontemptibleaccountsoftheintriguesofcourtiersandofkingsandthepettyplottingsofbackstairsinfluence—particularsinteresting，nodoubt，tothosewhowouldascribetheReformationtoAnneBoleyn’sprettyface，thePersianwartotheinfluenceofadoctororacurtain—lecturefromAtossa，ortheFrenchRevolutiontoMadamedeMaintenon，butwithoutanyvalueforthosewhoaimatanyscientifictreatmentofhistory.
　　Butthequestionofmethod，towhichIamcompelledalwaystoreturn，isnotyetexhausted.Thereisanotheraspectinwhichitmayberegarded，andIshallnowproceedtotreatofit.
　　Oneofthegreatestdifficultieswithwhichthemodernhistorianhastocontendistheenormouscomplexityofthefactswhichcomeunderhisnotice：D’Alembert’ssuggestionthatattheendofeverycenturyaselectionoffactsshouldbemadeandtherestburned（ifitwasreallyintendedseriously）couldnot，ofcourse，beentertainedforamoment.Aproblemlosesallitsvaluewhenitbecomessimplified，andtheworldwouldbeallthepooreriftheSibylofHistoryburnedhervolumes.Besides，asGibbonpointedout，’aMontesquieuwilldetectinthemostinsignificantfactrelationswhichthevulgaroverlook.’
　　Norcanthescientificinvestigatorofhistoryisolatetheparticularelements，whichhedesirestoexamine，fromdisturbingandextraneouscauses，astheexperimentalchemistcando（thoughsometimes，asinthecaseoflunaticasylumsandprisons，heisenabledtoobservephenomenainacertaindegreeofisolation）.Soheiscompelledeithertousethedeductivemodeofarguingfromgenerallawsortoemploythemethodofabstraction，whichgivesafictitiousisolationtophenomenaneversoisolatedinactualexistence.AndthisisexactlywhatPolybiushasdoneaswellasThucydides.For，ashasbeenwellremarked，thereisintheworksofthesetwowritersacertainplasticunityoftypeandmotive;
　　whatevertheywriteispenetratedthroughandthroughwithaspecificquality，asinglenessandconcentrationofpurpose，whichwemaycontrastwiththemorecomprehensivewidthasmanifestednotmerelyinthemodernmind，butalsoinHerodotus.Thucydides，regardingsocietyasinfluencedentirelybypoliticalmotives，tooknoaccountofforcesofadifferentnature，andconsequentlyhisresults，likethoseofmostmodernpoliticaleconomists，havetobemodifiedlargely（20）beforetheycometocorrespondwithwhatweknowwastheactualstateoffact.Similarly，PolybiuswilldealonlywiththoseforceswhichtendedtobringthecivilisedworldunderthedominionofRome（ix.1），andintheThucydideanspiritpointsoutthewantofpicturesquenessandromanceinhispageswhichistheresultoftheabstractmethod（[Greektextwhichcannotbereproduced]）beingcarefulalsototellusthathisrejectionofallotherforcesisessentiallydeliberateandtheresultofapreconceivedtheoryandbynomeansduetocarelessnessofanykind.
　　Now，ofthegeneralvalueoftheabstractmethodandthelegalityofitsemploymentinthesphereofhistory，thisisperhapsnotthesuitableoccasionforanydiscussion.Itis，however，inallwaysworthyofnotethatPolybiusisnotmerelyconsciousof，butdwellswithparticularweighton，thefactwhichisusuallyurgedasthestrongestobjectiontotheemploymentoftheabstractmethod—I
　　meantheconceptionofasocietyasasortofhumanorganismwhosepartsareindissolublyconnectedwithoneanotherandallaffectedwhenonememberisinanywayagitated.ThisconceptionoftheorganicnatureofsocietyappearsfirstinPlatoandAristotle，whoapplyittocities.Polybius，ashiswontis，expandsittobeageneralcharacteristicofallhistory.Itisanideaoftheveryhighestimportance，especiallytoamanlikePolybiuswhosethoughtsarecontinuallyturnedtowardstheessentialunityofhistoryandtheimpossibilityofisolation.
　　Farther，asregardstheparticularmethodofinvestigatingthatgroupofphenomenaobtainedforhimbytheabstractmethod，hewilladopt，hetellsus，neitherthepurelydeductivenorthepurelyinductivemodebuttheunionofboth.Inotherwords，heformallyadoptsthatmethodofanalysisupontheimportanceofwhichIhavedweltbefore.
　　Andlastly，while，withoutdoubt，enormoussimplicityintheelementsunderconsiderationistheresultoftheemploymentoftheabstractmethod，evenwithinthelimitthusobtainedacertainselectionmustbemade，andaselectioninvolvesatheory.Forthefactsoflifecannotbetabulatedwithasgreataneaseasthecoloursofbirdsandinsectscanbetabulated.Now，Polybiuspointsoutthatthosephenomenaparticularlyaretobedweltonwhichmayserveasa[Greektextwhichcannotbereproduced]orsample，andshowthecharacterofthetendenciesoftheageasclearlyas’asingledropfromafullcaskwillbeenoughtodisclosethenatureofthewholecontents.’Thisrecognitionoftheimportanceofsinglefacts，notinthemselvesbutbecauseofthespirittheyrepresent，isextremelyscientific;forweknowthatfromthesinglebone，ortootheven，theanatomistcanrecreateentirelytheskeletonoftheprimevalhorse，andthebotanisttellthecharacterofthefloraandfaunaofadistrictfromasinglespecimen.
　　Regardingtruthas’themostdivinethinginNature，’thevery’eyeandlightofhistorywithoutwhichitmovesablindthing，’
　　Polybiussparednopainsintheacquisitionofhistoricalmaterialsorinthestudyofthesciencesofpoliticsandwar，whichheconsideredweresoessentialtothetrainingofthescientifichistorian，andthelabourhetookismirroredinthemanywaysinwhichhecriticisesotherauthorities.
　　Thereissomething，asarule，slightlycontemptibleaboutancientcriticism.Themodernideaofthecriticastheinterpreter，theexpounderofthebeautyandexcellenceoftheworkheselects，seemsquiteunknown.Nothingcanbemorecaptiousorunfair，forinstance，thanthemethodbywhichAristotlecriticisedtheidealstateofPlatoinhisethicalworks，andthepassagesquotedbyPolybiusfromTimaeusshowthatthelatterhistorianfullydeservedthepunningnamegiventohim.ButinPolybiusthereis，Ithink，littleofthatbitternessandpettinessofspiritwhichcharacterisesmostotherwriters，andanincidentalstoryhetellsofhisrelationswithoneofthehistorianswhomhecriticisedshowsthathewasamanofgreatcourtesyandrefinementoftaste—
　　as，indeed，befittedonewhohadlivedalwaysinthesocietyofthosewhowereofgreatandnoblebirth.
　　Now，asregardsthecharacterofthecanonsbywhichhecriticisestheworksofotherauthors，inthemajorityofcasesheemployssimplyhisowngeographicalandmilitaryknowledge，showing，forinstance，theimpossibilityintheaccountsgivenofNabis’smarchfromSpartasimplybyhisacquaintancewiththespotsinquestion;
　　ortheinconsistencyofthoseofthebattleofIssus;oroftheaccountsgivenbyEphorusofthebattlesofLeuctraandMantinea.
　　Inthelattercasehesays，ifanyonewilltakethetroubletomeasureoutthegroundofthesiteofthebattleandthentestthemanoeuvresgiven，hewillfindhowinaccuratetheaccountsare.
　　Inothercasesheappealstopublicdocuments，theimportanceofwhichhewasalwaysforemostinrecognising;showing，forinstance，byadocumentinthepublicarchivesofRhodeshowinaccurateweretheaccountsgivenofthebattleofLadebyZenoandAntisthenes.
　　Orheappealstopsychologicalprobability，rejecting，forinstance，thescandalousstoriestoldofPhilipofMacedon，simplyfromtheking’sgeneralgreatnessofcharacter，andarguingthataboysowelleducatedandsorespectablyconnectedasDemochares（xii.14）couldneverhavebeenguiltyofthatofwhichevilrumouraccusedhim.
　　ButthechiefobjectofhisliterarycensureisTimaeus，whohadbeenunsparingofhisstricturesonothers.Thegeneralpointwhichhemakesagainsthim，impugninghisaccuracyasahistorian，isthathederivedhisknowledgeofhistorynotfromthedangerousperilsofalifeofactionbutinthesecureindolenceofanarrowscholasticlife.Thereis，indeed，nopointonwhichheissovehementasthis.’Ahistory，’hesays，’writteninalibrarygivesaslifelessandasinaccurateapictureofhistoryasapaintingwhichiscopiednotfromalivinganimalbutfromastuffedone.’
　　Thereismoredifference，hesaysinanotherplace，betweenthehistoryofaneye—witnessandthatofonewhoseknowledgecomesfrombooks，thanthereisbetweenthescenesofreallifeandthefictitiouslandscapesoftheatricalscenery.Besidesthis，heentersintosomewhatelaboratedetailedcriticismofpassageswherehethoughtTimaeuswasfollowingawrongmethodandpervertingtruth，passageswhichitwillbeworthwhiletoexamineindetail.
　　Timaeus，fromthefactoftherebeingaRomancustomtoshootawar—horseonastatedday，arguedbacktotheTrojanoriginofthatpeople.Polybius，ontheotherhand，pointsoutthattheinferenceisquiteunwarrantable，becausehorse—sacrificesareordinaryinstitutionscommontoallbarbaroustribes.Timaeushere，aswascommonwithGreekwriters，isarguingbackfromsomecustomofthepresenttoanhistoricaleventinthepast.Polybiusreallyisemployingthecomparativemethod，showinghowthecustomwasanordinarystepinthecivilisationofeveryearlypeople.
　　Inanotherplace，（21）heshowshowillogicalisthescepticismofTimaeusasregardstheexistenceoftheBullofPhalarissimplybyappealingtothestatueoftheBull，whichwasstilltobeseeninCarthage;pointingouthowimpossibleitwas，onanyothertheoryexceptthatitbelongedtoPhalaris，toaccountforthepresenceinCarthageofabullofthispeculiarcharacterwithadoorbetweenhisshoulders.ButoneofthegreatpointswhichheusesagainstthisSicilianhistorianisinreferencetothequestionoftheoriginoftheLocriancolony.Inaccordancewiththereceivedtraditiononthesubject，AristotlehadrepresentedtheLocriancolonyasfoundedbysomeParthenidaeorslaves’children，astheywerecalled，astatementwhichseemstohaverousedtheindignationofTimaeus，whowenttoagooddealoftroubletoconfutethistheory.Hedoessoonthefollowinggrounds：—
　　Firstofall，hepointsoutthatintheancientdaystheGreekshadnoslavesatall，sothementionoftheminthematterisananachronism;andnexthedeclaresthathewasshownintheGreekcityofLocriscertainancientinscriptionsinwhichtheirrelationtotheItaliancitywasexpressedintermsofthepositionbetweenparentandchild，whichshowedalsothatmutualrightsofcitizenshipwereaccordedtoeachcity.Besidesthis，heappealstovariousquestionsofimprobabilityasregardstheirinternationalrelationship，onwhichPolybiustakesdiametricallyoppositegroundswhichhardlycallfordiscussion.Andinfavourofhisownviewheurgestwopointsmore：first，thattheLacedaemoniansbeingallowedfurloughforthepurposeofseeingtheirwivesathome，itwasunlikelythattheLocriansshouldnothavehadthesameprivilege;andnext，thattheItalianLocriansknewnothingoftheAristotelianversionandhad，onthecontrary，veryseverelawsagainstadulterers，runawayslavesandthelike.
　　Now，mostofthesequestionsrestonmereprobability，whichisalwayssuchasubjectivecanonthatanappealtoitisrarelyconclusive.Iwouldnote，however，asregardstheinscriptionswhich，ifgenuine，wouldofcoursehavesettledthematter，thatPolybiuslooksonthemasamereinventiononthepartofTimaeus，who，heremarks，givesnodetailsaboutthem，though，asarule，heisover—anxioustogivechapterandverseforeverything.A
　　somewhatmoreinterestingpointisthatwhereheattacksTimaeusfortheintroductionoffictitiousspeechesintohisnarrative;foronthispointPolybiusseemstobefarinadvanceoftheopinionsheldbyliterarymenonthesubjectnotmerelyinhisownday，butforcenturiesafter.
　　Herodotushadintroducedspeechesavowedlydramaticandfictitious.
　　Thucydidesstatesclearlythat，wherehewasunabletofindoutwhatpeoplereallysaid，heputdownwhattheyoughttohavesaid.
　　Sallustalludes，itistrue，tothefactofthespeechheputsintothemouthofthetribuneMemmiusbeingessentiallygenuine，butthespeechesgiveninthesenateontheoccasionoftheCatilinarianconspiracyareverydifferentfromthesameorationsastheyappearinCicero.LivymakeshisancientRomanswrangleandchoplogicwithallthesubtletyofaHortensiusoraScaevola.Andeveninlaterdays，whenshorthandreportersattendedthedebatesofthesenateandaDAILYNEWSwaspublishedinRome，wefindthatoneofthemostcelebratedspeechesinTacitus（thatinwhichtheEmperorClaudiusgivestheGaulstheirfreedom）isshown，byaninscriptiondiscoveredrecentlyatLugdunum，tobeentirelyfabulous.
　　Upontheotherhand，itmustbeborneinmindthatthesespeecheswerenotintendedtodeceive;theywereregardedmerelyasacertaindramaticelementwhichitwasallowabletointroduceintohistoryforthepurposeofgivingmorelifeandrealitytothenarration，andweretobecriticised，notasweshould，byarguinghowinanagebeforeshorthandwasknownsuchareportwaspossibleorhow，inthefailureofwrittendocuments，traditioncouldbringdownsuchanaccurateverbalaccount，butbythehighertestoftheirpsychologicalprobabilityasregardsthepersonsinwhosemouthstheyareplaced.Anancienthistorianinanswertomoderncriticismwouldsay，probably，thatthesefictitiousspeecheswereinrealitymoretruthfulthantheactualones，justasAristotleclaimedforpoetryahigherdegreeoftruthincomparisontohistory.ThewholepointisinterestingasshowinghowfarinadvanceofhisagePolybiusmaybesaidtohavebeen.
　　Thelastscientifichistorian，itispossibletogatherfromhiswritingswhatheconsideredwerethecharacteristicsoftheidealwriterofhistory;andnosmalllightwillbethrownontheprogressofhistoricalcriticismifwestrivetocollectandanalysewhatinPolybiusaremoreorlessscatteredexpressions.
　　Theidealhistorianmustbecontemporarywiththeeventshedescribes，orremovedfromthembyonegenerationonly.Whereitispossible，heistobeaneye—witnessofwhathewritesof;wherethatisoutofhispowerheistotestalltraditionsandstoriescarefullyandnottobereadytoacceptwhatisplausibleinplaceofwhatistrue.Heistobenobookwormlivingalooffromtheexperiencesoftheworldintheartificialisolationofauniversitytown，butapolitician，asoldier，andatraveller，amannotmerelyofthoughtbutofaction，onewhocandogreatthingsaswellaswriteofthem，whointhesphereofhistorycouldbewhatByronandAEschyluswereinthesphereofpoetry，atonceLECHANTREETLEHEROS.
　　Heistokeepbeforehiseyesthefactthatchanceismerelyasynonymforourignorance;thatthereignoflawpervadesthedomainofhistoryasmuchasitdoesthatofpoliticalscience.Heistoaccustomhimselftolookonalloccasionsforrationalandnaturalcauses.Andwhileheistorecognisethepracticalutilityofthesupernatural，inaneducationalpointofview，heisnothimselftoindulgeinsuchintellectualbeatingoftheairastoadmitthepossibilityoftheviolationofinviolablelaws，ortoargueinaspherewhereinargumentisAPRIORIannihilated.Heistobefreefromallbiastowardsfriendandcountry;heistobecourteousandgentleincriticism;heisnottoregardhistoryasamereopportunityforsplendidandtragicwriting;norishetofalsifytruthforthesakeofaparadoxoranepigram.