Page:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 09.djvu/440

LEFT THUCYDIDES 378 THUCYDIDES had been a little more communicative on collateral topics, and that some of his sentences had been expanded into para- graphs, and some of his paragraphs into chapters. But this want cannot have been felt by the contemporaries of Thu- cydides, vi^hile the fate of other ancient historians warns us that had his work, like theirs, been looser in texture, or less severely perfect, it would not have sur- vived, as it has done, the wearing in- fluence of time, or remained, in its own language, the ktenia es aei — the "posses- sion for ever" — it has proved to the world. THUCYDIDES It has been reserved for the 19th cen- tury to impeach the credibility, depre- ciate the matter, and to condemn the style of Thucydides. As these indictments, however, usually conclude with the state- ment that Thucydides remains neverthe- less the greatest of historians, they might here be passed over in silence were it not in the first place that they serve to show that Thucydides' fame is proof against the solvents of modern criticism, and next that they help us to a more complete understanding of the qualities which have given to Thucydides' work such a wonderful hold over the intellects and imaginations of all his readers and critics. The attacks on Thucydides' credi- bility have proceeded from Germany, but have met with little acceptance there, and have found only one English-speak- ing follower, Professor Mahaffy. The most serious outcome of the aiscussion seems to be that Thucydides' knowledge of the topography of the Plataea was de- fective, and that his account of the siege is consequently in accordance with the situation rather as he conceived it than as it actually was. But, even if we ac- cept this application of the methods of modern criticism, it must not be imagined that those methods have all the same ten- dency. On the contrary, the actual treaty which Thucydides quotes in v. 47 has been discovered of late years, and con- firms the accuracy and truth of the his- torian in a most unexpected and startling manner. The exact amount of accuracy or inaccuracy in Thucydides' account of the siege of Plataea is matter of opinion; his accuracy in the matter of the treaty is not — it is beyond dispute. But, after all, it is not by tests such as these, wel- come as they are, that we can form an adequate opinion on the credibility of Thucydides. As an Athenian comedian remarks, we do not believe a man because he takes an oath — we trust the oath because we be- lieve in the man. And so we believe in Thucydides, not because we have external tests to apply (for we have not enough), but because the universal experience of all who read him is a feeling of convic- tion that his intention was to speak the truth, so far as he could ascertain it. This conviction is ultimately due to the fact that in the man's work we are brought directly into touch with the man, and we judge his character as we judge that of any acquaintance whom we know in the flesh. No man can devote himself for 27 years to composing a work without put- ting a good deal of himself into the work, or without writing his character down in it — unconsciously, but none the less legibly. What, then, are the qualities of character which impress the reader of Thucydides? In the first place, his im- partiality. This is a quality unknown to Latin historians for instance. Tacitus will not admit that the Romans were ever defeated — the result was, at most, indecisive — even though the subsequent movements of the troops, as described by himself, clearly show that the Romans lost. Thucydides, on the other hand, though an Athenian, never extenuates wen the mistakes of the Athenians; and •;hough himself banished by them, sets down naught in malice against them. Next, the reader feels that Thucydides strove — and that always — to ascertain facts, and to put down as facts nothing but facts. This conviction is forced on one in many ways, some of which are palpable enough to admit of being clearly indicated. To begin with, there is the fact that, when in search of a subject, Thucydides did not, like all other historians before him, choose a period of ancient history, which, being ancient, must be based on vague hearsay or dim tradition. He pre- ferred contemporary history and events