Geography of Libya
BYZACIA is near the Syrtes; it has a circumference of two
thousand stades, and is circular in shape. . . .
Hippo, Singa, Tabraca, are cities in Libya. Chalkeia,
however, is not, as Demosthenes ignorantly states, the name
of a city, but means only a "bronze-factory.". . .
The Lotus
The lotus is not a large tree; but it is rough and thorny,
and has a green leaf, like the rhamnus (black or
white thorn), a little longer and broader. The
fruit is like white myrtle-berries when they are
come to perfection; but, as it grows, it becomes purple in colour,
and in size about equal to round olives, and has a very small
stone. When it is ripe they gather it: and some of it they
pound up with groats of spelt, and store in vessels for their
slaves; and the rest they also preserve for the free inhabitants,
after taking out the stones, and use it for food. It tastes like
a fig or a date, but is superior to them in aroma. A wine is
made of it also by steeping it in water and crushing it, sweet
and pleasant to the taste, like good mead; and they drink it
without mixing it with water. It will not keep, however, more
than ten days, and they therefore only make it in small
quantities as they want it. Vinegar also is made out of it. . . .
Timaeus Wrong about Libya
The excellence of the soil of Libya must excite our
admiration.
Misstatements of Timaeus about Libya, |
But one would feel inclined to say of Timaeus,
not merely that he had never studied the
country, but that he was childish and entirely
unintelligent in his notions; completely enslaved to those old traditional stories of Libya being wholly
sandy, parched, and barren. The same too holds good about
its animals. The supply of horses, oxen, sheep, and goats
in it is beyond anything to be found in any other part of the
world; because many of the tribes in Libya do not use cultivated crops, but live on and with their flocks and herds.
Again what writer has failed to mention the vast number and
strength of its elephants, lions, and panthers, or the beauty of
its buffalos, or the size of its ostriches? Of these not one is
to be found in Europe, while Libya is full of them. But
Timaeus, by passing them over without a word, gives, as though
purposely, an impression exactly the reverse of the truth.
And just in the same random way in which he has spoken
about Libya, he has also done about the island
called Cyrnus. For, when mentioning it in
his second book, he says that wild goats, sheep, wild oxen,
stags, hares, wolves, and some other animals are plentiful
in it; and that the inhabitants employ themselves in hunting
them, and in fact spend most of their time in that pursuit.
Whereas in this island there are not only no wild goats or wild
oxen, but not even hare, wolf, or stag, or any animal of the
sort, except some foxes, rabbits, and wild sheep. The rabbit
indeed at a distance looks like a small hare; but when taken
in the hand, it is found to be widely different both in appearance and in the taste of its flesh; and it also lives generally
underground.
The Errors of Timaeus
The idea, however, of all the animals in the island
the reason of his mistake. |
being wild, has arisen in the following way:
The caretakers cannot keep up with their
animals, owing to the thick woods and rocky
broken nature of the country; but, whenever they wish to collect
them, they stand on some convenient spots and call the beasts
together by the sound of a trumpet; and all of them flock
without fail to their own trumpets. Now, when ships arrive at
the coast. and the sailors see goats or cattle grazing without
any one with them, and thereupon try to catch them, the
animals will not let them come near them, because they are not
used to them, but will scamper off. But as soon as the keeper
sees the men disembarking and sounds his trumpet, they all
set off running at full speed and collect round the trumpet.
This gives the appearance of wildness; and Timaeus, who
made only careless and perfunctory inquiries, committed himself to a random statement.
Now this obedience to the sound of a trumpet is
nothing astonishing. For in Italy the swineherds manage the feeding of their pigs in the
same way. They do not follow close behind
the beasts, as in Greece, but keep some distance in front of
them, sounding their horn every now and then; and the animals follow behind and run together at the sound. Indeed,
the complete familiarity which the animals show with the
particular horn to which they belong seems at first astonishing
and almost incredible. For owing to the populousness and
wealth of the country, the droves of swine in Italy are exceedingly large, especially along the sea coast of the Tuscans
and Gauls: for one sow will bring up a thousand pigs, or sometimes even more. They therefore drive them out from their
night styes to feed, according to their litters and ages. Whence,
if several droves are taken to the same place, they cannot
preserve these distinction of litters; but they of course get
mixed up with each other, both as they are being driven out,
and as they feed, and as they are being brought home.
Accordingly the device of the horn-blowing has been invented
to separate them, when they have got mixed up together, without labour or trouble. For as they feed, one swineherd goes
in one direction sounding his horn, and another in another:
and thus the animals sort themselves of their own accord, and
follow their own horns with such eagerness that it is impossible
by any means to stop or hinder them. But in Greece, when
the swine get mixed up in the oak forests in their search for
the mast, the swineherd who has most assistants and the best
help at his disposal, when collecting his own animals, drives off
his neighbour's also. Sometimes too a thief lies in wait, and
drives them off without the swineherd knowing how he lost
them; because the beasts straggle a long way from their drivers,
in their eagerness to find acorns, when they are just beginning
to fall. . . .
It is difficult to pardon such errors in Timaeus,
False criticisms of Timaeus on Theopompus and Ephorus. |
considering how severe he is in criticising the
slips of others. For instance he finds fault with
Theopompus for stating that Dionysius sailed
from Sicily to Corinth in a merchant vessel,
whereas he really arrived in a ship of war. And again he falsely
charges Ephorus with contradicting himself, on the ground
that he asserts that Dionysius the Elder ascended the throne
at the age of twenty-three, reigned forty-two years, and died at
sixty-three. Now no one would say, I think, that this was a
blunder of the historian, but clearly one of the transcriber.
For either Ephorus must be more foolish than Coroebus and
Margites, if he were unable to calculate that forty-two added
to twenty-three make sixty-five; or, if that is incredible in the
case of a man like Ephorus, it must be a mere mistake of the
transcriber, and the carping and malevolent criticism of
Timaeus must be rejected.
Again, in his history of Pyrrhus, he says that the Romans
His false account of the October horse. |
still keep up the memory of the fall of Troy by
shooting to death with javelins a war-horse on
a certain fixed day, because the capture of Troy
was accomplished by means of the "Wooden Horse." This
is quite childish. On this principle, all non-Hellenic nations
must be put down as descendants of the Trojans; for nearly
all of them, or at any rate the majority, when about to
commence a war or a serious battle with an enemy, first kill
and sacrifice a horse. In making this sort of ill-founded
deduction, Timaeus seems to me to show not only want of
knowledge, but, what is worse, a trick of misapplying knowledge.
For, because the Romans sacrifice a horse, he immediately
concludes that they do it because Troy was taken by means of
a horse.
These instances clearly show how worthless his account
of Libya, Sardinia, and, above all, of Italy is; and that, speaking
generally, he has entirely neglected the most important
element in historical investigation, namely, the
making personal inquiries.
The reason of his mistakes a want of care in making inquiries. |
For as historical
events take place in many different localities, and
as it is impossible for the same man to be in
several places at the same time, and also impossible for him
to see with his own eyes all places in the world and observe
their peculiarities, the only resource left is to ask questions
of as many people as possible; and to believe those who are
worthy of credit; and to show critical sagacity in judging of
their reports.
And though Timaeus makes great professions on this
Nor is he to be trusted even in matters that fell under his own observation. |
head, he appears to me to be very far from arriving
at the truth. Indeed, so far from making accurate
investigations of the truth through other people,
he does not tell us anything trustworthy even of
events of which he has been an eye-witness, or
of places he has personally visited. This will be made evident,
if we can convict him of being ignorant, even in his account
of Sicily, of the facts which he brings forward. For it will
require very little further proof of his inaccuracy, if he can be
shown to be ill-informed and misled about the localities in
which he was born and bred, and that too the most famous
of them. Now he asserts that the fountain Arethusa at
Syracuse has its source in the Peloponnese, from
the river Alpheus, which flows through Arcadia
and Olympia.
For that this river sinks into the earth, and,
after being carried for four thousand stades under the Sicilian
Sea, comes to the surface again in Syracuse; and that this was
proved from the fact that on a certain occasion a storm of
rain having come on during the Olympic festival, and the
river having flooded the sacred enclosure, a quantity of dung
from the animals used for sacrifice at the festival was thrown
up by the fountain Arethusa; as well as a certain gold cup,
which was picked up and recognised as being one of the
ornaments used at the festival. . . .
Aristotle's Account of Locri is Correct
I happened to have visited the city of the Locrians on
several occasions, and to have been the means of doing them
important services.
The traditions of the colonisation of Locri Epizephyrii agree with
the account in Aristotle, rather than with that of Timaeus. |
For it was I that secured
their exemption from the service in Iberia and
Dalmatia, which, in accordance with the treaty,
they were bound to supply to the Romans,
And being released thereby from considerable
hardship, danger, and expense, they rewarded
me with every mark of honour and kindness. I have therefore reason to speak well of the Locrians
rather than the reverse. Still I do not shrink from saying
and writing that the account of their colonisation given by
Aristotle is truer than that of Timaeus. For I know for
certain that the inhabitants themselves acknowledge that the
report of Aristotle, and not of Timaeus, is the one which they
have received from their ancestors. And they give the following proofs of this. In the first place, they stated that every
ancestral distinction existing among them is traced by the female
not the male side.
1 For instance, those are reckoned noble
among them who belong to "the hundred families"; and these
"hundred families" are those which were marked out by the
Locrians, before embarking upon their colonisation, as those
from which they were in accordance with the oracle to select the
virgins to be sent to Ilium. Further, that some of these women
joined the colony: and that it is their descendants who are
now reckoned noble, and called "the men of the hundred
families." Again, the following account of the "cup-bearing"
priestess had been received traditionally by them. When they
ejected the Sicels who occupied this part of Italy, finding that
it was a custom among them for the processions at their sacrifices to be led by a boy of the most illustrious and high-born
family obtainable, and not having any ancestral custom of their
own on the subject, they adopted this one, with no other improvement than that of substituting a girl
for one of their boys as cupbearer, because nobility with them went by the female line.
The Epizephyrian Locrians
And as to a treaty, none ever existed, or was said
The trick of the Locrians. |
to have existed, between them and the Locrians in Greece; but they all knew by
tradition of one with the Sicels: of which they give the following
account. When they first appeared, and found the Sicels
occupying the district in which they are themselves now
dwelling, these natives were in terror of them, and admitted
them through fear into the country; and the newcomers made
a sworn agreement with them that "they would be friendly
and share the country with them, as long as they stood upon
the ground they then stood upon, and kept heads upon their
shoulders." But, while the oaths were being taken, they say
that the Locrians put earth inside the soles of their shoes,
and heads of garlic concealed on their shoulders, before they
swore; and that then they shook the earth out of their shoes,
and threw the heads of garlic off their shoulders, and soon
afterwards expelled the Sicels from the country. This is the
story current at Locri. . . .
By an extraordinary oversight Timaeus of Tauromenium
commits himself to the statement that it was not customary
with the Greeks to possess slaves.
2 . . .
These considerations would lead us to trust Aristotle rather
Locri Epizephyrii colonised
by certain slaves who had obtained their freedom, and by some free born women. |
than Timaeus. His next statement is still more
strange. For to suppose, with Timaeus, that it
was unlikely that men, who had been the slaves
of the allies of the Lacedaemonians, would continue the kindly feelings and adopt the friendships
of their late masters is foolish. For when they
have had the good fortune to recover their freedom, and a
certain time has elapsed, men, who have been slaves, not only
endeavour to adopt the friendships of their late masters, but
also their ties of hospitality and blood: in fact, their aim is to
keep them up even more than the ties of nature, for the express
purpose of thereby wiping out the remembrance of their former
degradation and humble position; because they wish to pose as
the descendants of their masters rather than as their freedmen.
And this is what in all probability happened in the case of the
Locrians. They had removed to a great distance from all who
knew their secret; the lapse of time favoured their pretensions;
and they were not therefore so foolish as to maintain any
customs likely to revive the memory of their own degradation,
rather than such as would contribute to conceal it. Therefore they very naturally called their city by the name of that
from which the women came; and claimed a relationship with
those women: and, moreover, renewed the friendships which
were ancestral to the families of the women.
And this also indicates that there is no sign of Aristotle
The Locrians then were naturally friends of Sparta and enemies of Athens. |
being wrong in saying that the Athenians
ravaged their territory. For it being quite
natural, as I have shown, that the men who
started from Locri and landed in Italy, if they
were slaves ten times over, should adopt friendly
relations with Sparta, it becomes also natural that the
Athenians should be rendered hostile to them, not so much
from regard to their origin as to their policy.
It is not, again, likely that the Lacedaemonians should themselves send their young men
home from the
The reason of the women of Locris (in Greece) leaving their homes with the slaves. |
camp for the sake of begetting children, and
should refuse to allow the Locrians to do the
same. Two things in such a statement are not
only improbable but untrue. In the first place,
they were not likely to have prevented the
Locrians doing so, when they did the same themselves, for
that would be wholly inconsistent: nor were the Locrians, in
obedience to orders from them, likely to have adopted a
custom like theirs. (For in Sparta it is a traditional law, and a
matter of common custom, for three or four men to have one
wife, and even more if they are brothers; and when a man
has begotten enough children, it is quite proper and usual for
him to sell his wife to one of his friends.) The fact is, that
though the Locrians, not being bound by the same oath as
the Lacedaemonians, that they would not return home till they
had taken Messene, had a fair pretext for not taking part in
the common expedition;
3 yet, by returning home only one by
one, and at rare intervals, they gave their wives an opportunity
of becoming familiar with the slaves instead of their original
husbands, and still more so the unmarried women. And this
was the reason of the migration. . . .
Timaeus and the Character of a Historian
Timaeus makes many untrue statements; and he appears
to have done so, not from ignorance, but because his view was
distorted by party spirit. When once he has made
up his mind to blame or praise, he forgets everything else and outsteps all bounds of propriety.
So much for the nature of Aristotle's account of Locri, and the
grounds on which it rested. But this naturally leads me to
speak of Timaeus and his work as a whole, and generally of
what is the duty of a man who undertakes to write history.
Now I think that I have made it clear from what I have said,
first, that both of them were writing conjecturally; and,
secondly, that the balance of probability was on the side of
Aristotle. It is in fact impossible in such matters to be
positive and definite. But let us even admit that Timaeus gives
the more probable account. Are the maintainers of the less
probable theory, therefore, to be called by every possible term
of abuse and obloquy, and all but be put on trial for their lives?
Certainly not. Those who make untrue statements in their
books from ignorance ought, I maintain, to be forgiven and
corrected in a kindly spirit: it is only those who do so from
deliberate intention that ought to be attacked without mercy.
Timaeus Criticises Aristotle
It must then either be shown that Aristotle's account
of Locri was prompted by partiality, corruption, or personal
enmity; or, if no one ventures to say that, then it must be
acknowledged that those who display such personal animosity
and bitterness to others, as Timaeus does to Aristotle, are wrong
and ill advised.
The epithets which he applies to him are "audacious,"
The vulgar abuse of Timaeus. |
"unprincipled," "rash"; and besides, he says
that he "has audaciously slandered Locri by
affirming that the colony was formed by runaway
slaves, adulterers, and man-catchers." Further, he asserts that
Aristotle made this statement, "in order that men might believe
him to have been one of Alexander's generals, and to have lately
conquered the Persians at the Cilician Gates in
a pitched battle by his own ability; and not to
be a mere pedantic sophist, universally unpopular, who had a
short time before shut up that admirable doctor's shop."
Again,
he says that he "pushed his way into every palace and tent:"
and that he was "a glutton and a gourmand, who thought
only of gratifying his appetite." Now it seems to me that such
language as this would be intolerable in an impudent vagabond
bandying abuse in a law court; but an impartial recorder of
public affairs, and a genuine historian, would not think such
things to himself, much less venture to put them in writing.
Timaeus's Statement of Method
Let us now, then, examine the method of Timaeus, and
Timaeus's account of his investigations in the history of the colony of Locri. |
compare his account of this colony, that we may
learn which of the two better deserves such
vituperation. He says in the same book: "I
am not now proceeding on conjecture, but have
investigated the truth in the course of a personal
visit to the Locrians in Greece. The Locrians first of all showed
me a written treaty which began with the words, 'as parents
to children.' There are also existing decrees securing mutual
rights of citizenship to both. In fine, when they were told of
Aristotle's account of the colony, they were astonished at the
audacity of that writer. I then crossed to the Italian Locri
and found that the laws and customs there accorded with the
theory of a colony of free men, not with the licentiousness of
slaves. For among them there are penalties assigned to man-catchers, adulterers, and run-away slaves. And this would not
have been the case if they were conscious of having been such
themselves."
The Investigations of Timaeus
Now the first point one would be inclined to raise is, as
Criticism of the above statement of Timaeus. |
to what Locrians he visited and questioned on
these subjects. If it had been the case that the
Locrians in Greece all lived in one city, as
those in Italy do, this question would perhaps have been
unnecessary, and everything would have been plain. But as
there are two clans of Locrians, we may ask, Which of the two
did he visit? What cities of the one or the other? In whose
hands did he find the treaty? Yet we all know, I suppose,
that this is a speciality of Timaeus's, and that it is in this that
he has surpassed all other historians, and rests his chief claim
to credit,—I mean his parade of accuracy in studying chronology
and ancient monuments, and his care in that department of
research. Therefore we may well wonder how he came to
omit telling us the name of the city in which he found the
treaty, the place in which it was inscribed, or the magistrates
who showed him the inscription, and with whom he conversed:
to prevent all cavil, and, by defining the place and city, to
enable those who doubted to ascertain the truth. By omitting
these details he shows that he was conscious of having told a
deliberate falsehood. For that Timaeus, if he really had
obtained such proofs, would not have let them slip, but would
have fastened upon them with both hands, as the saying is, is
proved by the following considerations. Would a writer who
tried to establish his credit on that of Echecrates,—he mentioning him by name as the person with whom he had conversed,
and from whom he had obtained his facts about the Italian
Locri,—taking the trouble to add, by way of showing that he
had been told them by no ordinary person, that this man's
father had formerly been entrusted with an embassy by
Dionysius,—would such a writer have remained silent about it
if he had really got hold of a public record or an ancient
tablet?
Timaeus's Use of Chronological Records
This is the man forsooth who drew out a comparative
Timaeus and the Olympic registers. |
list of the Ephors and the kings of Sparta from
the earliest times; as well as one comparing the
Archons at Athens and priestesses in Argos with
the list of Olympic victors, and thereby convicted those cities
of being in error about those records, because there was a
discrepancy of three months between them! This again is
the man who discovered the engraved tablets in the inner
shrines, and the records of the guest-friendships on the doorposts of the temples. And we cannot believe that such a man
could have been ignorant of anything of this sort that existed,
or would have omitted to mention it if he had found it. Nor
can he on any ground expect pardon, if he has told an untruth
about it: for, as he has shown himself a bitter and uncompromising critic of others, he must naturally look for equally
uncompromising attacks from them.
Being then clearly convicted of falsehood in these points, he
goes to the Italian Locri: and, first of all, says that the two
Locrian peoples had a similar constitution and the same
ties of amity, and that Aristotle and Theophrastus have
maligned the city. Now I am fully aware that in going into
minute particulars and proofs on this point I shall be forced
to digress from the course of my history. It was for that reason
however that I postponed my criticism of Timaeus to a
single section of my work, that I might not be forced again
and again to omit other necessary matter. . . .
Timaeus On Divination
Timaeus says that the greatest fault in history is want
Timaeus condemned out of his own mouth. |
of truth; and he accordingly advises all, whom
he may have convicted of making false statements in their writings, to find some other
name for their books, and to call them anything they like
except history. . . .
For example, in the case of a carpenter's rule, though it
may be too short or too narrow for your purpose, yet if it have
the essential feature of a rule, that of straightness, you may
still call it a rule; but if it has not this quality, and deviates
from the straight line, you may call it anything you like except
a rule. "On the same principle," says he, "historical writings
may fail in style or treatment or other details; yet if they hold
fast to truth, such books may claim the title of history, but if
they swerve from that, they ought no longer to be called
history." Well, I quite agree that in such writings truth
should be the first consideration: and, in fact, somewhere
in the course of my work I have said "that as in a living
body, when the eyes are out, the whole is rendered useless, so
if you take truth from history what is left is
but an idle tale."
I said again, however,
that "there were two sorts of falsehoods, the ignorant and
the intentional; and the former deserved indulgence, the
latter uncompromising severity." . . . These points being
agreed upon—the wide difference between the ignorant and
intentional lie, and the kindly correction due to the one and
the unbending denunciation to the other—it will be found
that it is to the latter charge that Timaeus more than any one
lays himself open. And the proof of his character in this
respect is clear. . . .
There is a proverbial expression for the breakers of an agreement,
"Locrians and a treaty."
An explanation given of this, equally accepted by historians and the rest of
the world, is that, at the time of the invasion of
the Heracleidae, the Locrians agreed with the
Peloponnesians that, if the Heracleidae did not enter by way of
the isthmus, but crossed at Rhium, they would raise a war
beacon, that they might have early intelligence and make
provisions to oppose their entrance. The Locrians, however,
did not do this, but, on the contrary, raised a beacon of peace;
and therefore, when the Heracleidae arrived opposite Rhium,
they crossed without resistance; while the Peloponnesians,
having taken no precautions, found that they had allowed
their enemies to enter their country, because they had been
betrayed by the Locrians. . . .
Many remarks depreciatory of divination and dream interpretation may be found
in his writings.
4 But
Timaeus's attitude towards the art of divination. |
writers who have introduced into their books a
good deal of such foolish talk, so far from running
down others, should think themselves fortunate
if they escape attack themselves. And this is just the position
in which Timaeus stands.
He remarks that
"Callisthenes was a mere sycophant for writing
stuff of this sort; and acted in a manner utterly unworthy of
his philosophy in giving heed to ravens and inspired women;
and that he richly deserved the punishment which he met with
at the hands of Alexander, for having corrupted the mind of
that monarch as far as he could." On the other hand, he
commends Demosthenes, and the other orators who flourished
at that time, and says that "they were worthy of Greece for
speaking against the divine honours given to Alexander; while
this philosopher, for investing a mere mortal with the aegis and
thunderbolt, justly met the fate which befell him from the hands
of providence. . . ."
Timaeus On Demochares and Agathocles
Timaeus asserts that Demochares was guilty of
unnatural lust, and that his lips therefore were
unfit to blow the sacred fire; and that in morals
he went beyond any stories told by Botrys and Philaenis
and all other writers of indecent tales. Foul abuse and
shameless accusations of this sort are not only what no man of
cultivation would have uttered, they go beyond what you
might expect from the lowest brothels. It is, however, to get
credit for the foul and shameless accusations, which he is
always bringing, that he has maligned this man: supporting his
charge by dragging in an obscure comic poet. Now on what
grounds do I conjecture the falsity of the accusation? Well,
first, from the fact of the good birth and education of
Demochares; for he was a nephew of Demosthenes. And in
the second place, from the fact that he was thought worthy at
Athens, not only of being a general, but of the other offices
also; which he certainly would not have obtained, if he had
got into such troubles as these. Therefore it seems to me
that Timaeus is accusing the people of Athens more than
Demochares, if it is the fact that they committed the interests
of the country and their own lives to such a man. For if it
had been true, the comic poet Archedicus would not have
been the only one to have made this statement concerning
Demochares, as Timaeus alleges: it would have been repeated
by many of the partisans of Antipater, against whom he has
spoken with great freedom, and said many things calculated to
annoy, not only Antipater himself, but also his successors and
friends. It would have been repeated also by many of his political opponents: and among them, by Demetrius of Phalerum,
against whom Demochares has inveighed with extraordinary
bitterness in his History, alleging that "his conduct as a
prince, and the political measures on which he prided himself,
were such as a petty tax-gatherer might be proud of; for he
boasted that in his city things were abundant and cheap, and
every one had plenty to live upon." And he tells another
story of Demetrius, that "He was not ashamed to have a
procession in the theatre led by an artificial snail, worked by
some internal contrivance, and emitting slime as it crawled,
and behind it a string of asses; meaning by this to indicate
the slowness and stupidity of the Athenians, who had yielded
to others the honour of defending Greece, and were tamely
submissive to Cassander." Still, in spite of these taunts,
neither Demetrius nor any one else has ever brought such a
charge against Demochares.
No Place in History for Abusive Language
Relying therefore on the testimony of his own countrymen, as safer ground than the virulence of Timaeus, I feel no
hesitation in declaring that the life of Demochares is not
chargeable with such enormities. But even supposing that
Demochares had ever so disgraced himself, what need was
there for Timaeus to insert this passage in his History? Men
of sense, when resolved to retaliate upon a personal enemy,
think first, not of what he deserves, but of what it is becoming
in them to do. So in the case of abusive language: the first
consideration should be, not what our enemies deserve to be
called, but what our self respect will allow us to call them.
But if men measure everything by their own ill temper and
jealousy, we are forced to be always suspicious of them, and
to be ever on our guard against their exaggeration. Wherefore, in the present instance, we may fairly reject the stories to
the discredit of Philochares told by Timaeus; for he has put
himself out of the pale of indulgence or belief, by so obviously
allowing his native virulence to carry him beyond all bounds
of propriety in his invectives.
Timaeus Blinded by Personal Malignity
For my part I cannot feel satisfied with his abuse of
Agathocles defended against the aspersions of Timaeus. |
Agathocles either, even admitting him to have
been the worst of men. I refer to the passage
at the end of his History in which he asserts
that in his youth Agathocles was "a common
stale, extravagantly addicted to every unnatural vice," and
that "when he died, his wife in the course of her lamentations
exclaimed Ah, what have I not done for you I what have you
not done to me?" To such language one can only repeat
what has been already said in the case of Demochares, and
express one's astonishment at such extravagant virulence.
For that Agathocles must have had fine natural qualities is
evident from the narrative of Timaeus itself. That a man who
came as a runaway slave to Syracuse, from the potter's wheel
and smoke and clay, at the early age of eighteen, should have
within a short time advanced from that humble beginning to
be master of all Sicily, and after being a terror to the Carthaginians, should have grown old in office and died in enjoyment of
the royal title,—does not this prove that Agathocles had some
great and admirable qualities, and many endowments and talents
for administration? In view of these the historian ought not
to have recounted to posterity only what served to discredit
and defame this man, but those facts also which were to his
honour. For that is the proper function of history. Blinded,
however, by personal malignity, he has recorded for us with
bitterness and exaggeration all his defects; while his eminent
achievements he has passed over in entire silence: seeming
not to be aware that in history such silence is as mendacious
as misstatement. The part of his history, therefore, which was
added by him for the gratification of his personal spite I have
passed over, but not what was really germane to his
subject. . . .
The Laws of Zaleucus
Two young men had a dispute about the ownership of
The laws of Zaleucus, and an incident in their working
at Locri (for which he legislated, see Arist. Pol. 2, 12). |
a slave. This slave had been in the possession
of one of them for a long time; but two days
before, as he was going to the farm without his
master, the other laid violent hands upon him
and dragged him to his house. When the first
young man heard of this, he came to the house,
seized the slave, and taking him before the magistrate asserted
his ownership and offered sureties. For the law of Zaleucus
ordained that the party from whom the abduction was made
should have possession of the property in dispute, pending the
decision of the suit. But the other man in accordance with
the same law, alleged that he was the party from whom the
abduction had been made, for the slave had been brought
before the magistrate from his house. The magistrates who
were trying the case were in doubt, and calling in the Cosmopolis
5 referred the point to him. He interpreted the law as
meaning that "the abduction was always from that party in whose
possession the property in dispute had last been for a certain
period unquestioned; but that if another abducted this
property from a holder, and then the original holder repossessed
himself of it from the abductor, this was not abduction in the
sense of the law." The young man, who thus lost his case,
was not satisfied, and alleged that such was not the intention
of the legislator. Thereupon the Cosmopolis summoned him
to discuss the interpretation in accordance with the law of
Zaleucus; that is, to argue on the interpretation of the law
with him before the court of the one thousand, and with a
halter round the neck of each: whichever should be shown
to be wrong in his interpretation was to lose his life in the sight
of the thousand. But the young man asserted that the
compact was not a fair one, for the Cosmopolis, who happened
to be nearly ninety, had only two or three years of life left,
while in all reasonable probability he had not yet lived half
his life. By this adroit rejoinder the young man turned off the
affair as a jest: but the magistrates adjudged the question
of abduction in accordance with the interpretation of the
Cosmopolis.
A Criticism on Ephorus and Callisthenes
That I may not be thought to detract wantonly from
Callisthenes and the battle of Issus, B.C. 333. |
the credit of such great writers, I will mention
one battle, which is at once one of the most
famous ever fought, and not too remote in
point of time; and at which, above everything
else, Callisthenes was himself present. I mean the battle
between Alexander and Darius in Cilicia. He says that
"Alexander had already got through the pass called the
Cilician Gates: and that Darius, availing himself of that by the
Amanid Gates, made his way with his army into Cilicia; but on
learning from the natives that Alexander was on his way into
Syria, he followed him; and having arrived at the pass leading
to the south, pitched his camp on the bank of the river
Pinarus. The width of the ground from the foot of the
mountain to the sea was not more than fourteen stades,
through which this river ran diagonally. On first issuing from
the mountains its banks were broken, but in its course through
the level down to the sea it ran between precipitous and steep
hills." Starting with this description of the ground, he goes
on to say that "When Alexander's army faced about, and,
retracing its steps, was approaching to attack them, Darius
and his officers determined to draw up their whole phalanx on
the ground occupied by his encampment, as it then was, and to
defend his front by the river, which flowed right along his
camp." But he afterwards says that Darius "stationed his
cavalry close to the sea, his mercenaries next along the river,
and his peltasts next resting on the mountains."
The Battle of Issus
Now it is difficult to understand how he could have
drawn up these troops in front of his phalanx, considering that
the river ran immediately under the camp:
6 especially as their
numbers were so great, amounting, on Callisthenes's own
showing, to thirty thousand cavalry and thirty thousand
mercenaries. Now it is easy to calculate how much ground
such a force would require. At the most cavalry in a regular
engagement is drawn up eight deep, and between each
squadron a clear space must be left in the line to enable
them to turn or face about. Therefore eight hundred will
cover a stade of front; eight thousand, ten stades;
7 three
thousand two hundred, four stades; and so eleven thousand
two hundred would cover the whole of fourteen stades. If
therefore he were to put his whole thirty thousand on the
ground, he would have to mass his cavalry alone nearly three
times the usual depth; and then what room is left for his
large force of mercenaries? None, indeed, unless on the
rear of the cavalry. But Callisthenes says this was not the
case, but that these latter engaged the Macedonians first.
We must therefore understand half the front, that nearest
the sea, to have been occupied by the cavalry; the other
half, that nearest the mountains, by the mercenaries. We
may by these data easily calculate the depth of the cavalry,
and the distance the river must have been from the camp to
allow of it.
Again, he says that "on the approach of the enemy Darius
himself, who was on the centre, ordered up the mercenaries
from the wing." It is difficult to see what he means by this:
for the point of junction of the mercenaries and the cavalry
must have been at the centre. Where and how then, and to
what point could Darius, who was himself actually among the
mercenaries, be said to "order them up"?
Lastly, he says that "the cavalry on the right wing charged
Alexander; and that his men stood the charge gallantly, and,
making a counter charge, kept up an obstinate fight." But he
quite forgets that there was a river between them, a river, too,
of the nature that he had just himself described.
8
Callisthenes Vague on Alexander's Movements
His account of the movements of Alexander are
equally vague. He says that "he crossed into Asia with
forty thousand infantry and four thousand five hundred
cavalry; but that when he was about to enter Cilicia he was
joined by a reinforcement of five thousand infantry and eight
hundred cavalry." From these numbers, if one were to make
the liberal allowance of three thousand absentees from the
infantry and three hundred from the cavalry on various
services, there would still remain forty-two thousand infantry
and five thousand cavalry. Starting with these numbers, he
goes on to say "that Alexander heard of the entrance of
Darius into Cilicia when he was a hundred stades away from
him, having already marched through the pass:
9 that he therefore retraced his steps through the pass, his phalanx on
the van, his cavalry next, and his baggage on the rear. But
that as soon as he had debouched upon the open country, he
gave general orders to form up into a phalanx, at first thirty-two
deep; then sixteen; and lastly, when they were nearing the
enemy, eight deep." Now this is a worse blunder than the
last. A stade, allowing for the distances which must be
kept on a march, and reckoning the depth at sixteen, admits
of one thousand six hundred men, each man covering six feet.
It is plain, therefore, that ten stades will admit of only sixteen
thousand men, and twenty twice that number. Hence, when
Alexander caused his men to form sixteen deep, he would
have wanted a width of ground of twenty stades; and even
then, the whole of the cavalry and ten thousand infantry
would have been unaccounted for.
Inaccuracies about Tactics
Again, he says that Alexander was marching in line
when he was about forty stades from the enemy. A greater
blunder it is difficult to conceive. For where could one find
a ground, and especially in Cilicia, twenty stades broad by
forty deep, for a phalanx armed with sarissae to march in line?
It would not be easy to count all the impossibilities in the
way of such an arrangement and such a movement. One
that is mentioned by Callisthenes himself is sufficient to
establish the point. For he remarks that the winter torrents
which descend from the hills make so many gullies in the
plain, that, in the course of the flight, the chief part of the
Persians are said to have lost their lives in deep places of
that kind. But, it may be urged, Alexander wished to be ready
for battle as soon as the enemy were in sight. But what could
be less ready than a phalanx in a disordered and straggling
line? Is it not much easier to form up a phalanx from a
proper column of route, than to bring a disordered and
straggling line back into the same alignment, and get it into
order of battle on a broken and woody ground? It was,
therefore much better to march twice or four times the
ordinary depth of a phalanx
10 in good order, for which sufficient
ground could possibly be found. And it was easy to deploy his
men quickly into the line of the phalanx, because he was able
by means of scouts to ascertain the presence of the enemy
in plenty of time. But in this case, beside other absurdities,
while bringing his men in line across the level, he did not
even (we are told) put the cavalry in front, but marched with
them in the same alignment.
Worst Misstatement of Callisthenes
But the greatest blunder is still to come. "As soon
as Alexander," he says, "was within distance of the enemy
he caused his men to take up order eight deep," which would
have necessitated ground forty stades wide for the length of
the line; and even had they, to use the poet's expression,
"laid shield to shield and on each other leaned," still ground
twenty stades wide would have been wanted, while he himself
says that it was less than fourteen. [We have also to deduct
from these fourteen stades the space occupied by the two
divisions of the cavalry, one on the left next the sea, the other
on the right];
11 and to allow for the fact that the whole force
was kept a considerable distance from the hills, to avoid being
exposed to the enemy occupying the skirts of the mountains;
for we know that Callisthenes represents the wing to have
been facing these, at an angle with the centre. We are also
leaving out of account the ten thousand foot, whom we showed
to be too many according to his own calculation.
The upshot is that eleven stades at most is left for the whole
length of the phalanx, even taking Callisthenes's own account,
in which thirty-two thousand men standing shield to shield must
necessarily be drawn up thirty deep; while he asserts that they
fought eight deep. Such blunders admit of no defence: for
the facts at once demonstrate the impossibility of the assertion.
We have only to compare the space occupied by each man,
the width of the whole ground, and the number of the men,
to prove its falsity.
Further Absurdities
It would be tedious to mention all his other absurdities
in connexion with this battle. I must be content with a very few.
He says, for instance, that "Alexander took care in arranging
his order of battle to be himself personally opposed to Darius;
and that at first Darius was equally anxious to be opposite
Alexander, but afterwards altered his mind." But he does not
vouchsafe to tell us how these kings learnt at what part of their
respective forces they were each posted, or to what point in his
own line Darius re-transferred himself. Again, how could a
phalanx mount to the edge of the river bank, when it was precipitous and covered with brushwood? Such a piece of bad
generalship must not be attributed to Alexander, because he is
acknowledged by all to have been a skilful strategist and to
have studied the subject from childhood: we must rather
attribute it to the historian's want of ability to descern between
what is or is not practicable in such movements. So much
for Ephorus and Callisthenes. . . .
Timaeus Exalts Timoleon To Excess
Timaeus attacks Ephorus with great severity, though he
Timaeus's over-estimate of Timoleon. |
is himself liable to two grave charges—bitterness
in attacking others for faults of which he is himself guilty, and complete demoralisation, shown
by the opinions which he expresses in his memoirs, and which
he endeavours to implant in the minds of his readers. If we
are to lay it down that Callisthenes deserved his death, what
ought to happen to Timaeus? Surely there is much more
reason for Providence to be wroth with him than with Callisthenes. The latter wished to deify Alexander; but Timaeus
exalts Timoleon above the most venerable gods. The hero
of Callisthenes, again, was a man by universal consent of a
superhuman elevation of spirit; while Timoleon, far from
having accomplished any action of first-rate importance, never
even undertook one. The one expedition which he achieved
in the course of his life took him no farther than from Corinth
to Syracuse; and how paltry is such a distance when compared
with the extent of the world! I presume that Timaeus
believed that if Timoleon, by gaining glory in such a mere
saucer of a place as Sicily, should be thought comparable to
the most illustrious heroes, he too himself, as the historian of
only Italy and Sicily, might properly be considered on a par
with the writers of universal history. This will be sufficient
defence of Aristotle, Theophrastus, Callisthenes, Ephorus, and
Demochares against the attacks of Timaeus: and it is addressed
to those who believe that this historian is impartial and
truthful. . . .
Timoleon. Phalaris
We may fairly judge Timaeus on the principles which
The incapacity of Timaeus for forming a judgment. |
he has himself laid down. According to him,
"poets and historians betray their own tastes by
the incidents which they repeatedly record in
their writings. Thus the poet
12
by his fondness for banqueting scenes shows that he is a glutton; and in the
same way Aristotle, by frequently describing rich food in his
writings, betrays his love of dainty living and his greediness."
On the same principle he judges Dionysius the tyrant because
he "was always very particular in the ornamentation of his
dining-couches, and had hangings of exquisite make and
variegated colours." If we apply this principle to Timaeus,
we shall have abundant reason to think badly of him. In
attacking others he shows great acuteness and boldness; when
he comes to independent narrative he is full of dreams,
miracles, incredible myths,—in a word, of miserable superstition and old wives' tales. The truth is that Timaeus is a proof
of the fact, that at times, and in the case of many men, want
of skill and want of judgment so completely destroy the value
of their evidence, that though present at and eye-witnesses of
the facts which they record, they might just as well have
been absent or had no eyes. . . .
General Remarks on Timaeus as an Historian
The story of the brazen bull is this. It was made by
The brazen bull of phalaris. |
Phalaris at Agrigentum; and he used to force
men to get into it, and then by way of punishment light a fire underneath. The metal becoming thus red hot, the man inside was roasted and scorched to
death; and when he screamed in his agony, the sound from
the machine was very like the bellowing of a bull. When the
Carthaginians conquered Sicily this bull was removed from
Agrigentum to Carthage. The trap door between the shoulders,
through which the victims used to be let down, still remains;
and no other reason for the construction of such a bull in Carthage can be discovered at all: yet Timaeus has undertaken to
upset the common story, and to refute the declarations of poets
and historians, by alleging that the bull at Carthage did not come
from Agrigentum, and that no such figure ever existed there;
and he has composed a lengthy treatise to prove this. . . .
What epithet ought one to apply to Timaeus, and what word
will properly characterise him? A man of his kind appears to me
to deserve the very bitterest of the terms which he has applied
to others. It has already been sufficiently proved that he is a
carping, false and impudent writer; and from what remains to
be said he will be shown to be unphilosophical, and, in short,
utterly uninstructed. For towards the end of his twenty-first
book, in the course of his "harangue of Timoleon," he remarks
that "the whole sublunary world being divided into three parts
—Asia, Libya, and Europe. . . ."
13 One could scarcely believe such a remark to have come, I don't say from Timaeus,
but even from the proverbial Margites. . . .
The proverb tells us that one drop from the largest
vessel is sufficient to show the whole contents. This is
applicable to the present case. When one or two false statements have been discovered in a history, and they have been
shown to be wilful, it is clear that nothing which such an
historian may say can be regarded as certain or trustworthy.
But in order to convince the more careful student, I must
speak on his method and practice in regard to public speeches,
military harangues, ambassador's orations, and all compositions
of that class; which are, as it were, a compendium of events and
an epitome of all history. Now that he has given these in his
writings with entire disregard of truth, and that of set purpose,
can any reader of Timaeus fail to be aware? He has not
written down the words actually used, nor the real drift of
these speeches; but imagining how they ought to have been
expressed, he enumerates all the arguments used, and makes the
words tally with the circumstances, like a school-boy declaiming on a set theme: as though his object were to display his own
ability, not to give a report of what was in reality said. . . .
The special province of history is, first, to ascertain what
the actual words used were; and secondly, to learn why it was
that a particular policy or argument failed or succeeded. For
a bare statement of an occurrence is interesting indeed, but not
instructive: but when this is supplemented by a statement of
cause, the study of history becomes fruitful. For it is by
applying analogies to our own circumstances that we get the
means and basis for calculating the future; and for learning
from the past when to act with caution, and when with greater
boldness, in the present. The historian therefore who omits
the words actually used, as well as all statement of the
determining circumstances, and gives us instead conjectures and
mere fancy compositions, destroys the special use of history.
In this respect Timaeus is an eminent offender, for we all
know that his books are full of such writing.
But perhaps some one may raise the question as to how
it comes about that, being the sort of writer that I am showing
him to be, he has obtained acceptance and credit among
certain people. The reason is that his work abounds with
hostile criticism and invective against others: and he has been
judged, not by the positive merits of his own composition and
his independent narrative, but by his skill in refuting his
fellow historians; to which department he appears to me to
have brought great diligence and an extraordinary natural
aptitude. The case of the physicist Strato is almost precisely
similar. As long as this man is endeavouring to discredit
and refute the opinions of others, he is admirable: directly he
brings forward anything of his own, or expounds any of his
own doctrines, he at once seems to men of science to lose his
faculties and become stupid and unintelligent. And for my
part, I look upon this difference in writers as strictly analogous
to the facts of everyday life. In this too it is easy to criticise
our neighbours, but to be faultless ourselves is hard. One
might almost say that those who are most ready at finding
fault with others are most prone to errors in their own life.
Besides these I may mention another error of Timaeus.
Having stayed quietly at Athens for about fifty years, during
which he devoted himself to the study of written history, he
imagined that he was in possession of the most important
means of writing it. To my mind this was a great mistake.
History and the science of medicine are alike in this respect,
that both may be divided broadly into three departments; and
therefore those who study either must approach them in three
ways. For instance the three departments of medicine are the
rhetorical, the dietetic, and the surgical and pharmaceutical.
[The second of these though important is discredited by some.]
14
The first, which takes its rise from the school of Herophilus
and Callimachus of Alexandria, does indeed rightly claim a
certain position in medical science; but by its speciousness
and liberal promises acquires so much reputation that those
who are occupied with other branches of the art are supposed to
be completely ignorant. But just bring one of these professors to
an actual invalid: you will find that they are as completely
wanting in the necessary skill as men who have never read a
medical treatise. Nay, it has happened before now that certain
persons, who had really nothing serious the matter with them,
have been persuaded by their powerful arguments to commit
themselves to their treatment, and have thereby endangered
their lives: for they are like men trying to steer a ship out of
a book. Still such men go from city to city with great éclât,
and get the common people together to listen to them. But
if, when this is done, they induce certain people to submit as a
specimen to their practical treatment; they only succeed in
reducing them to a state of extreme discomfort, and making
them a laughing stock to the audience.
15 So completely does
a persuasive address frequently get the advantage over practical
experience. The third branch of the medical science, though
it involves genuine skill in the treatment of the several cases, is
not only rare in itself, but is also frequently cast into the shade,
thanks to the folly of popular judgment, by volubility and
impudence.
In the same way the science of genuine history is
threefold: first, the dealing with written documents and the
arrangement of the material thus obtained; second, topography,
the appearance of cities and localities, the description of rivers
and harbours, and, speaking generally, the peculiar features of
seas and countries and their relative distances; thirdly, political
affairs. Now, as in the case of medicine, it is the last branch
that many attach themselves to, owing to their preconceived
opinions on the subject. And the majority of writers bring
to the undertaking no spirit of fairness at all: nothing but
dishonesty, impudence and unscrupulousness. Like vendors
of drugs, their aim is to catch popular credit and favour, and
to seize every opportunity of enriching themselves. About such
writers it is not worth while to say more.
But some of those who have the reputation of
approaching history in a reasonable spirit are like the theoretical
physicians. They spend all their time in libraries, and acquire
generally all the learning which can be got from books, and
then persuade themselves that they are adequately equipped
for their task. . . . Yet in my opinion they are only partially
qualified for the production of genuine history. To inspect
ancient records indeed, with the view of ascertaining the notions
entertained by the ancients of certain places, nations, polities
and events, and of understanding the several circumstances and
contingencies experienced in former times, is useful; for the
history of the past directs our attention in a proper spirit to
the future, if a writer can be found to give a statement of facts
as they really occurred. But to persuade one's self, as Timaeus
does, that such ability in research is sufficient to enable a man
to describe subsequent transactions with success is quite
foolish. It is as though a man were to imagine that an
inspection of the works of the old masters would enable him
to become a painter and a master of the art himself.
This will be rendered still more evident from what
I have
Ephorus was fairly acquainted with naval, but not with military tactics. |
now to say, particularly from certain passages
in the history of Ephorus. This writer in his
history of war seems to me to have had some
idea of naval tactics, but to be quite unacquainted with fighting on shore. Accordingly, if one
turns one's attention to the naval battles at Cyprus and Cnidus,
in which the generals of the king were engaged against Evagoras
of Salamis
16 and then
against the Lacedaemonians, one will be struck with admiration of the historian, and will learn many
useful lessons as to what to do in similar circumstances.
But
when he tells the story of the battle of
Leuctra between the Thebans and Lacedaemonians, or again that of Mantinea between the same combatants, in which Epaminondas lost his
life, if in these one examines attentively and in detail the
arrangements and evolutions in the line of battle, the historian
will appear quite ridiculous, and betray his entire ignorance
and want of personal experience of such matters. The battle
of Leuctra indeed was simple, and confined to one division of
the forces engaged, and therefore does not make the writer's
lack of knowledge so very glaring: but that of Mantinea was
complicated and technical, and is accordingly unintelligible,
and indeed completely inconceivable, to the historian. This
will be rendered clear by first laying down a correct plan of
the ground, and then measuring the extent of the movements
as described by him. The same is the case with Theopompus,
and above all with Timaeus, the subject of this book. These
latter writers also can conceal their ignorance, so long as they
deal with generalities; but directly they attempt minute and
detailed description, they show that they are no better than
Ephorus. . . .
It is in fact as impossible to write well on the operations in a war, if a man has had no experience of actual service,
as it is to write well on politics without having been engaged
in political transactions and vicissitudes. And when history is
written by the book-learned, without technical knowledge, and
without clearness of detail, the work loses all its value. For
if you take from history its element of practical instruction,
what is left of it has nothing to attract and nothing to teach.
Again, in the topography of cities and localities, when such
men attempt to go into details, being entirely without personal
knowledge, they must in a similar manner necessarily pass
over many points of importance; while they waste words on
many that are not worth the trouble. And this is what his
failure to make personal inspection brings upon Timaeus. . . .
In his thirty-fourth book Timaeus says that "he
Timaeus's want of practical knowledge. |
spent fifty continuous years at Athens as
an alien, and never took part in any military service, or went to inspect the localities."
Accordingly, when he comes upon any such matters in the
course of his history, he shows much ignorance and makes
many misstatements; and if he ever does come near the
truth, he is like one of those animal-painters who draw from
models of stuffed skins. Such artists sometimes preserve the
correct outline, but the vivid look and life-like portraiture of
the real animal, the chief charm of the painter's art, are quite
wanting. This is just the case with Timaeus, and in fact with
all who start with mere book-learning; there is nothing vivid
in their presentment of events, for that can only come from
the personal experience of the writers. And hence it is, that
those who have gone through no such course of actual experience produce no genuine enthusiasm in the minds of their
readers. Former historians showed their sense of the necessity
of making professions to this effect in their writings. For when
their subject was political, they were careful to state that the
writer had of course been engaged in politics, and had had
experience in matters of the sort; or if the subject was
military, that he had served a campaign and been actually
engaged; and again, when the matter was one of everyday life,
that he had brought up children and had been married; and
so on in every department of life, which we may expect to find
adequately treated by those writers alone who have had personal experience, and have accordingly made that branch of
history their own. It is difficult perhaps for a man to have
been actually and literally engaged in everything: but in the
most important actions and most frequently occurring he must
have been so.
And that this is no impossibility, Homer is a convincing
instance; for in him you may see this quality of personal
knowledge frequently and conspicuously displayed. The
upshot of all this is that the study of documents is only one of
three elements in the preparation of an historian, and is only
third in importance. And no clearer proof of this could be
given than that furnished by the deliberative speeches, harangues of commanders, and orations of ambassadors as recorded
by Timaeus. For the truth is, that the occasions are rare
which admit of all possible arguments being set forth; as a
rule, the circumstances of the case confine them to narrow
limits. And of such speeches one sort are regarded with
favour by men of our time, another by those of an earlier age;
different styles again are popular with Aetolians, Peloponnesians, and Athenians. But to make digressions, in season and
out of season, for the purpose of setting forth every possible
speech that could be made, as Timaeus does by his trick of inventing words to suit every sort of occasion, is utterly
misleading, pedantic, and worthy of a schoolboy essayist. And this
practice has brought failure and discredit on many writers.
Of course to select from time to time the proper and appropriate language is a necessary part of our art: but as there is
no fixed rule to decide the quantity and quality of the words
to be used on a particular occasion, great care and training is
required if we are to instruct and not mislead our readers.
The exact nature of the situation is difficult to communicate
always; still it may be brought home to the mind by means of
systematic demonstration, founded on personal and habitual
experience. The best way of securing that this should be
realised is for historians, first, to state clearly the position, the
aims, and the circumstances of those deliberating; and then,
recording the real speeches made, to explain to us the causes
which contributed to the success or failure of the several
speakers. Thus we should obtain a true conception of the
situation. and by exercising our judgment upon it, and drawing
analogies from it, should be able to form a thoroughly sound
opinion upon the circumstances of the hour. But I suppose
that tracing causes is difficult, while stringing words together in
books is easy. Few again have the faculty of speaking briefly
to the point, and getting the necessary training for doing so;
while to produce a long and futile composition is within most
people's capacity and is common enough.
To confirm the judgment I have expressed of Timaeus,
Timaeus on Sicilian history. |
on his wilful misstatements as well as his ignorance, I shall now quote certain short passages
from his acknowledged works as specimens. . . .
Of all the men who have exercised sovereignty in Sicily, since
the elder Gelo, tradition tells us that the most able have been
Hermocrates, Timoleon, and Pyrrhus of Epirus, who are the
last persons in the world on whom to father pedantic and
scholastic speeches.
Now Timaeus tells us in
his twenty-first book that on his arrival in Sicily
Eurymedon urged the cities there to undertake the war against
Syracuse; that subsequently the people of Gela becoming
tired of the war, sent an embassy to Camarina to make a
truce; that upon the latter gladly welcoming the proposal,
each state sent ambassadors to their respective allies begging
them to despatch men of credit to Gela to deliberate on a
pacification, and to secure the common interests. Upon the
arrival of these deputies in Gela and the opening of the
conference, he represents Hermocrates as speaking to the
following effect: "He praised the people of Gela and Camarina
first, for having made the truce; secondly, because they were
the cause of the assembling of this peace congress; and thirdly
because they had taken precautions to prevent the mass of the
citizens from taking part in the discussion, and had secured
that it should be confined to the leading men in the states, who
knew the difference between peace and war." Then after making
two or three practical suggestions, Hermocrates is represented
as expressing an opinion that "if they seriously consider the
matter they will learn the profound difference between peace
and war,"—although just before he had said that it was precisely this which moved his gratitude to the men of Gela, that
"the discussion did not take place in the mass assembly, but in
a congress of men who knew the difference between peace and
war." This is an instance in which Timaeus not only fails to
show the ability of an historian, but sinks below the level of a
school theme. For, I presume, it will be universally admitted
that what an audience requires is a demonstration of that
about which they are in ignorance or uncertainty; but to
exhaust one's ingenuity in finding arguments to prove what is
known already is the most futile waste of time. But besides
his cardinal mistake of directing the greater part of the speech
to points which stood in need of no arguments at all, Timaeus
also puts into the mouth of Hermocrates certain
sentences of which one could scarcely believe
that any commonplace youth would have been
capable, much less the colleague of the Lacedaemonians in the battle of Aegospotami, and the sole conqueror
of the Athenian armies and generals in Sicily.
Sophistical Commonplaces
For first he "thinks that he should remind the congress
that in war sleepers are woke at dawn by bugles, in peace by
cocks."
17 Then he says that "Hercules established the Olympic
games and the sacred truce during them, as an exemplification
of his own principles;" and that "he had injured all those
persons against whom he waged war, under compulsion and in
obedience to the order of another, but was never voluntarily
the author of harm to any man."
18 Next he quotes the instance
of Zeus in Homer as being displeased with Ares, and saying
19—
“"Of all the gods that on Olympus dwell
I hold thee most detested; for thy joy
Is ever strife and war and battle."
”
And again the wisest of the heroes says
20—
“"He is a wretch, insensible and dead
To all the charities of social life,
Whose pleasure is in civil broil and war."
”
Then he goes on to allege that Euripides agrees with Homer
in the lines
21—
“"O well of infinite riches!
O fairest of beings divine!
O Peace, how alas! thou delayest;
My heart for thy coming is fain.
I tremble lest age overtake me,
Ere thy beauty and grace I behold;
Ere the maidens shall sing in their dancing,
And revels be gladsome with flowers."
”
Next he remarks that "war is like disease, peace like
health; for that the latter restores those that are sick, while
in the former even the healthy perish. Moreover, in time of
peace, the old are buried by the young as nature directs, while
in war the case is reversed; and above all in war there is no
security even as far as the city walls, while in peace it extends
to the frontier of the territory"—and so on. I wonder what
other arguments would have been employed by a youth who
had just devoted himself to scholastic exercises and studies in
history; and who wished, according to the rules of the art, to
adapt his words to the supposed speakers? Just these I
think which Timaeus represents Hermocrates as using.
Again, in the same book, Timoleon is exhorting the
Timoleon's victory over the Carthaginians, B.C. 344. |
Greeks to engage the Carthaginians;
22 and
when they are on the very point of coming
to close quarters with the enemy, who are
many times superior to them in number,
Timaeus represents him as saying, "Do not look to the
numbers of the foe, but to their cowardice. For though
Libya is fully settled and abounds in inhabitants, yet
when we wish to express complete desolation we say 'more
desolate than Libya,' not meaning to refer to its emptiness, but
to the poor spirit of its inhabitants. And after all, who would
be afraid of men who, when nature gives hands as the
distinctive feature of man among all living creatures, carry
them about all their life inside their tunics idle?
23 And more
than all, who wear shirts under their inner tunics, that they
may not even when they fall in battle show their nakedness to
their enemies? . . ."
When Gelo promised to help the Greeks with twenty
thousand land forces and two hundred decked
ships, if they would concede to him the chief
command either by land or sea, they say that
the congress of Greeks, sitting at Corinth, gave
Gelo's envoys a most spirited answer. They urged Gelo to come
to their aid with his forces, and observed that the logic of facts
would give the command to the bravest. This is not the language
of men depending for succour on the Syracusans, as a last
resource; but of men who felt confidence in themselves, and
challenged all comers to a rivalry of courage and for the crown
of valour. In spite of this, Timaeus spends such a wealth of
rhetoric and earnestness on these points, in his desire to exalt
the importance of Sicily above all the rest of Greece, to
represent its history as the most splendid and glorious of all
the world, its men as the wisest of all who have been great in
philosophy, and the Syracusans as the most consummate and
divine of statesmen, that he could scarcely be surpassed by
the cleverest schoolboy declaimers when undertaking to prove
such paradoxes as that "Thersites was an excellent man," or
"Penelope a bad wife," or other thesis of that description.
However, the only effect of such extravagant exaggeration is to bring ridicule upon the men and the transactions
which it is his intention to champion; while he himself incurs
the same discredit as ill-trained disputants in the Academy;
some of whom, in their desire to embarrass their opponents on
all subjects, possible or impossible alike, carry their paradoxical
and sophistical arguments to such a length as to dispute
whether it is possible for people at Athens to smell eggs
cooking at Ephesus: and to offer to maintain that, while they
are discussing these points, they are lying on their couches at
home and carrying on a second discussion on other subjects.
This extravagance of paradox has brought the whole school
into such disrepute, that even reasonable discussions have lost
credit with the world. And apart from their own futility, these
persons have inspired our young men with so depraved a taste,
that they pay no attention whatever to questions of ethics and
politics, which bring benefit to those who study them; but
spend their lives in pursuit of an empty reputation for useless
and paradoxical verbiage.
This is just the case with Timaeus and his imitators in
history. Paradoxical and tenacious, he has dazzled the
multitude by skill in words; and has forced attention to himself by a show of veracity, or has conciliated confidence by a
pretence of producing proof of his assertions. The most conspicuous instances of his success in inspiring this confidence are
those parts of his work which treat of colonies, founding of
cities, and the relationships of nations. In these points he
makes such a parade of minute accuracy, and inveighs so
bitterly when refuting others, that people came to imagine that
all other historians have been mere dreamers, and have spoken
at random in describing the world; and that he is the only
man who has made accurate investigations, and unravelled every
history with intelligence.
As a matter of fact, his books contain much that is sound,
but also much that is false. Those, however, who have spent
much time on his earlier books, in which the passages I have
alluded to occur, when the confidence which they have fully
given to his exaggerated professions is disturbed by some one
pointing out that Timaeus is obnoxious to the same reproaches
which he has brought with such bitterness against others (as,
for instance, in the misstatements as to the Locrians, and other
instances lately mentioned by me), become angry and obstinate
in controversy, and difficult to convince. And that, I might
almost say, is all the benefit which the most diligent students
of his history get from their reading. While those who devote
their attention to his speeches, and generally to the didactic
part of his work, become pedantic, sophistical, and wholly insensible to truth, for reasons which I have already stated.
An Historian Needs Practical Experience
Moreover, when he comes to deal with facts in his
history, we find a combination of all the faults which I have
mentioned. The reason I will now proceed to state. It will
not, perhaps, to most people seem to his credit, and it is in
truth the real source of his errors. For whereas he is thought
to have possessed great and wide knowledge, a faculty for historical inquiry, and extraordinary industry in the execution of his
work, in certain cases he appears to have been the most ignorant
and indolent person that ever called himself an historian. And
the following considerations will prove it.
Nature
has bestowed on us two instruments of inquiry and research, hearing and sight.
Of these sight is, according to Heracleitus, by far
the truer; for eyes are surer witnesses than ears.
And of these channels of learning Timaeus has
chosen the pleasanter and the worse; for he entirely retrained
from looking at things with his own eyes, and devoted himself
to learning by hearsay. But even the ear may be instructed in
two ways, reading and answers to personal inquiries: and in
the latter of these he was very indolent, as I have already
shown. The reason of his preference for the other it is easy
to divine. Study of documents involves no danger or fatigue,
if one only takes care to lodge in a city rich in such records,
or to have a library in one's neighbourhood. You may then
investigate any question while reclining on your couch, and
compare the mistakes of former historians without any fatigue
to yourself. But personal investigation demands great exertion
and expense; though it is exceedingly advantageous, and in
fact is the very corner-stone of history. This is evident from
the writers of history themselves. Ephorus says, "if writers
could only be present at the actual transactions, it would be far
the best of all modes of learning." Theopompus says, "the best
military historian is he who has been present at the greatest
number of battles; the best speech maker is he who has been
engaged in most political contests." The same might be said
of the art of healing and of steering. Homer has spoken even
more emphatically than these writers on this point. For when
he wishes to describe what the man of light and leading should
be, he introduces Odysseus in these words—
“"Tell me, oh Muse, the man of many shifts
Who wandered far and wide."
”
and then goes on—
“"And towns of many saw, and learnt their mind,
And suffered much in heart by land and sea."
”
and again
24—
“"Passing through wars of men and grievous waves."
”
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."
25 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.