Mere Inquiry Is Insufficient
It is such a man that the dignity of history appears to
Historians must be practical men. |
me to require. Plato says that "human affairs will not go well
until either philosophers become kings or kings
become philosophers."
1 So I should say that
history will never be properly written, until either
men of action undertake to write it (not as they do now, as a
matter of secondary importance; but, with the conviction that
it is their most necessary and honourable employment, shall
devote themselves through life exclusively to it), or historians
become convinced that practical experience is of the first importance for historical composition. Until that time arrives there
will always be abundance of blunders in the writings of historians.
Timaeus, however, quite disregarded all this. He spent his
life in one place, of which he was not even a citizen; and thus
deliberately renounced all active career either in war or politics,
and all personal exertion in travel and inspection of localities:
and yet, somehow or another, he has managed to obtain the
reputation of a master in the art of history.
To prove that
I have not misrepresented him, it is easy to bring the
evidence of Timaeus himself. In the preface
to his sixth book he says that "some people
suppose that more genius, industry, and
preparation are required for rhetorical than for historical
composition." And that "this opinion had been formerly
advanced against Ephorus." Then because this writer had
been unable to refute those who held it, he undertakes himself
to draw a comparison between history and rhetorical compositions: a most unnecessary proceeding altogether. In the first
place he misrepresents Ephorus. For in truth, admirable as
Ephorus is throughout his whole work, in style, treatment, and
argumentative acuteness, he is never more brilliant than in his
digressions and statements of his personal views: in fact, whenever he is adding anything in the shape of a commentary or a
note. And it so happens that his most elegant and convincing
digression is on this very subject of a comparison between
historians and speech-writers. But Timaeus is anxious not
to be thought to follow Ephorus. Therefore, in addition to
misrepresenting him and condemning the rest, he enters upon
a long, confused, and in every way inferior, discussion of what
had been already sufficiently handled by others; and expected
that no one living would detect him.
However, he wished to exalt history; and, in order to
do so, he says that "history differs from rhetorical composition as much as real buildings differ from those represented
in scene-paintings." And again, that "to collect the necessary materials for writing history is by itself more laborious
than the whole process of producing rhetorical compositions."
He mentions, for instance, the expense and labour which he
underwent in collecting records from Assyria, and in studying
the customs of the Ligures, Celts, and Iberians. But he exaggerates these so much, that he could not have himself
expected to be believed. One would be glad to ask the
historian which of the two he thinks is the more expensive
and laborious,—to remain quietly at home and collect records
and study the customs of Ligures and Celts, or to obtain
personal experience of all the tribes possible, and see them
with his own eyes? To ask questions about manœuvres on
the field of battle and the sieges of cities and fights at sea
from those who were present, or to take personal part in the
dangers and vicissitudes of these operations as they occur?
For my part I do not think that real buildings differ so much
from those in stage - scenery, nor history from rhetorical
compositions, as a narrative drawn from actual and personal
experience differs from one derived from hearsay and the
report of others. But Timaeus had no such experience: and
he therefore naturally supposed that the part of an historian's
labour which is the least important and lightest, that namely
of collecting records and making inquiries from those who had
knowledge of the several events, was in reality the most
important and most difficult. And, indeed, in this particular
department of research, men who have had no personal experience must necessarily fall into grave errors. For how is a
man, who has no knowledge of such things, to put the right
questions as to manœuvering of troops, sieges of cities, and
fights at sea? And how can he understand the details of
what is told him? Indeed, the questioner is as important as
the narrator for getting a clear story. For in the case of men
who have had experience of real action, memory is a sufficient
guide from point to point of a narrative: but a man who has
had no such experience can neither put the right questions,
nor understand what is happening before his eyes. Though he
is on the spot, in fact, he is as good as absent.
