BOOKS.
CURTIUS'S HISTORY OF GREECE.*
CTROTE'S History and the various manuals compiled out of it may seem to many persons to make any new narrative of Grecian his- tory unnecessary. But most competent judges will be ready to admit that Mr. Ward has done the public good service by intro- -clueing to them in an English form the work of the German pro- fessor. Dr Curtius is one of a most meritorious class of writers which are greatly needed in England. He is a man who, with the 'knowledge and power to write an original work, has used his know- ledge and power in the composition of a book which bears the *tamp of original research, and which at the same time is a manual for students. English literature is rich in original historical works, And English publishers find it profitable to pour upon the world a mass of so-called manuals, which are for the most part composed by the use, or rather the misuse, of the scissors ; for it frequently lappens that the hack compiler shows an inimitable genius for abstracting just those pieces of original works which are not worth the theft by which they are obtained. There exists, for instance, .-a history of some pretension, of course meant for the use of schools, which fills up the few pages which it can bestow on Venetian history mainly with an inaccurate account of -the symbolical marriage between the city and the Adriatic. The truth is, that public publishers and writers have suffered -under the delusion which it is one of Mr. Macmillan's great merits to have withstood, that any man is fit to write a manual. Whereas, the truth is that while a student may sometimes com- pose with advantage an exhaustive treatise on a small topic, because by industry and care he can collect all that there is to be said on the subject, no one but a person who has studied his sub- ject in all its bearings for years can write an elementary treatise upon it. Let any one, for example, think whether it would be possible for a clever young medical student to compose a work like Hurley's Elementary Physiology, and he will admit the truth of the principle that whilst beginners may write great works on small subjects, it is only professors who can with advantage write small works on great topics.
In a country of professors this principle is practically admitted, .and the works of Dr. Mommsen and of Dr. Curtius are examples of the benefits which are conferred on the public when professors 'compress the result of their study into a form in which it can be placed in the hands of schoolboys. We have purposely linked together the names of Mommsen and Curtius. They are emphati- -cally writers of the same school, and they share some typical -defects and merits which are worth notice. There is unfortunately -this wide difference between them,—that while Mommsen is a man -of consummate historical genius, and endowed with an excess, if such a thing be possible, of wit, humour, and life ; Cur- tius is, to judge at any rate from Mr. Ward's translation, a painstaking, learned, and sometimes even an ingenious writer, whom nature intended for an excellent professor, but made what Dr. Johnson would have called a somewhat "dull dog." If this criticism be thought severe, let any one read the delightful tale of Agaristes' marriage as told by Herodotus, and then read it as rnistold by Dr. Curtius. It is true, that Professor Rawlinson has done more than could have been conceived possible to make the * History of Greece. By Dr. E. Curtius. Translated by A. W. Ward. Beatley..
London:
liveliest of historians appear to the English public a dull narrator of curious facts. But even the English professor can scarcely have succeeded as Dr. Curtius has in stripping the tale of Hippoeleidis and his dancing of all its life and humour. But in truth, Dr. Curtius' defects no less than his merits, which are considerable, make him a fairer specimen of his school than is Monumen. A man of genius will produce a work of genius, whatever be the particular method according to which he writes history. A writer simply of ability and industry exhibits more clearly the weak and the strong points of his view and conception of history.
One feature which marks Mommsen and all his school is, that they write history without the least attempt to cite authorities. This is an entire opposition to the habits of the modern school of English historians. Mr. Grote, for example, and Mr. Freeman, to take two writers otherwise of a very diverse character, each have this point in common, that their histories are an elaborate com- ment upon authorities which are cited at length. A reader who carefully peruses all Mr. Grote's or Mr. Freeman's notes and references knows all the facts on which the inferences of these his- torians rest. Even when the facts are known the student will still have, to a certain extent, to trust the mature judgment of his author. Still, when an author cites all his authorities, and cites them fairly, students cannot, if they exercise their own sense, be misled beyond a certain point. Any intelligent reader can, for example, within certain limits make up his mind as to the truth or incorrectuesss of Mr. Grote's defence of Cleon or attacks on Spartan policy. Such a reader may very probably think that the writer is one-sided or biassed, but can scarcely be led into serious error as to the facts on which the character, say, of Cleon, depends.
Readers of Dr. Curtius or of Mommsen are placed in a different position. They must, to a great extent, take everything on trust. Dr. Curtius, for example, takes a very favourable view of the cha- racter of Solon, and a very unfavourable view of one of the most remarkable Athenian statesmen, Cleisthenes. The latter's cha- racter is elaborately discussed by Grote, and, to our minds, placed in its right position. It, at any rate, appears probable, until the contrary is shown, that a man who saves his country from the rule of foreigners, and who practically founded the first free state of the ancient world, was something more than an adventurer who meant to be a tyrant, but as it were blundered into being a patriot. What, however, may have been the true character of Cleisthenes, and to decide on this point is certainly no easy matter, is not a topic we have any intention of discussing. What needs to be pointed out is, that while the reader of Grote is certain to learn, if nothing else, how very slight is the evidence on which our infer- ence, either for or against, Cleisthenes must rest, a reader of Curtius can know nothing more than that his teacher has, after weighing the evidence, formed an unfavourable opinion of the Athenian democrat. In the one case you know (if a legal meta- phor may be allowed) the pleadings, the evidence, the summing- up, and the verdict ; in the other, you know nothing but the ver- dict, which in the particular case is a verdict of guilty.
It would nevertheless be unfair to look at the absence of authorities in works such as Mominsen's as altogether a defect. Extensive citations are impossible in books where much informa- tion must be crammed into a small space, and authorities may sometimes delude rather than guide. Mr. Buckle, for "example, did very little for the instruction of his readers by throwing at their beads the contents of his common-place book, and occasion- ally led them to overlook the obvious fact, which is too often for- gotten, that even when an author cites authorities readers must depend upon his fairness, and still more his judgment, in selecting authorities worth citation, and not overlooking evidence which tells against his theories. It is in some respects, therefore, fairest that students should be warned by the very absence of citations of their dependence on the judgment of their teacher.
A defect which is closely connected with the habit of writing without quoting authorities is painfully discernible in the writ- ings of Dr. Curtius, as of many other German historians. This is a trick of asserting with dogmatic certainty conclusions which, if often ingenious and, provided they are correct, of great import- ance, are necessarily based on very slender evidence. In other words, mere probable instances are treated as though they were demonstrated truths. Thus, Dr. Curtius entertains a view which, to us, at lewd', is novel and we confess startling as to the relation between the Ionian Greeks and the Greeks of Greece proper. He conceived apparently, though he does not state his theory very clearly, that races from Ionia colonized Greece, and that it is an error to conceive of the Ionian States as colonies from Greece. On the whole, as far as it is possible to judge on such a matter with- out special study, we are inclined to think that Dr. Curtius is correct in his theory. It is an hypothesis which enables him to explain many points in Greek history which are otherwise scarcely intelligible. But, on the other hand, it is nothing but an hypo- thesis. It is one beset with many difficulties, and one, moreover, which would tend to throw doubt on the correctness of the information possessed by the Greeks themselves as to their early history. Yet a reader of Dr. Curtius might well think this very doubtful hypothesis to be a well established historical fact. If space permitted, it would be possible to pro- since other specimens of the professor's dogmatism, which becomes almost amusing when applied to the character of individuals. It is only given to a German and a professor to enter into not only the acts, but also the most intimate feelings of men known to us as vaguely as Lycurgus and Solon. Most historians, for example, find it difficult enough to understand the constitutional arrange- ments of the Athenian lawgiver. Dr. Curtius knows not only what his constitution was, but also what were his views of the future of Athens, and can point to the very moment when Solon 4' had come to the conviction that his work of peace had been nothing more than a truce, that his labours had exercised no other -effect than does the oil which the fisherman pours out to calm the waters," &c., &c.
It would be most unfair to dwell only on Dr. Curtins's weak points without pointing out how closely they are connected with some immense merits. It is possible to pardon even his dogma- tism, when it is seen to be connected with a certain grasp of the main bearing of facts. English historians especially are a little apt to spend their strength on isolated points, and to lose sight of the general inferences which can fairly be drawn from looking at a large number of separate points in connection with each other. The great idea, for example, which is made more prominent in the pages of Dr. Curtius than in any ordinary history, that there is a tendency greatly to exaggerate the original opposition between Greeks and Asiatics, is one which well repays thought. It is impossible to give shortly the proof scattered throughout Dr. Curtius's history that the opposition was at one time far less marked than it became at a later period, and never, perhaps, was quite what it appears to modern students.
Some of the facts, however, which suggest this conclusion may be briefly alluded to. There is, in the first place, no such geo- graphical division between Greece and Asia Minor as the expres- sions Europe and Asia seem to suggest. The sea in early times, and this is especially true of the Mediterranean Sea, joined rather than divided nations. Moreover, there was nothing in the phy- sical condition of things to make life essentially different in Greece -and in Asia. As a Greek lived at Athens so he could live at Miletus. The earliest Greek records, therefore, tell not of the opposition so much as of the connection between Greece and Asia. It may sound a paradox, but it is strictly true, that in early times war may be a link of conuection between nations. Whatever be the origin of the Trojan myth, even if, according to one of our correspondents, it has originally a relation to the sun, it is pretty clear that the story as we have it implies the existence of a time when Greek and Asiatic did not stand towards one another in the relation of civilized man towards barbarian. The history of Greek religion, the history, especially of Crcesus, the sentiment of Herodotus towards the Greek King, and many other facts all point in the same direction. At an early period of Greek history Greeks were much more like Asiatics and Asiatics much -more like Greeks than in the ages of which we know most. There is no essential difference between the rule of Priam and the rule of Agamemnon. At the time when Greeks had scarcely formed free polities, the Asiatics had perhaps not wholly fallen under absolutely despotic rule. The tale of Herodotus that the Persian conspirators -debated whether they should establish a despotic or a constitutional government is doubtless a mere tale. But it bears witness to the -fact that those who told it did not consider the Asiatics incapable of civil freedom. What needs explanation is rather the ultimate -separation of Greeks from Asiatics than their original connection. The most patent though hardly the ultimate cause is to be found in the Persian war. The Greek horror of the Persians who swept whole islands literally bare of inhabitants is something utterly different from the sentiment of friendly pity for Crcesus. It has some resemblance to the Christian sentiment against the Turks. It is, however, worth consideration whether, even after the Persian invasion, Greeks ever had quite that feeling of hostility to Asia for which we give them credit. Greek and Asiatic religion had no such ground of opposition as exists between Christianity and the various forms of Asiatic belief. No doubt the wars of Alexander were in a sense the expression of the permanent opposition between Greek and Asiatic civilization, but if his wars showed this opposi-
tion, his policy gave expression to what way be called the natural impulse towards reconciliation.
Previous page
