result of a preconceived theory and by no means due to carelessness

of any kind.
Now, of the general value of the abstract method and the legality

of its employment in the sphere of history, this is perhaps not the
suitable occasion for any discussion. It is, however, in all ways

worthy of note that Polybius is not merely conscious of, but dwells
with particular weight on, the fact which is usually urged as the

strongest objection to the employment of the abstract method - I
mean the conception of a society as a sort of human organism whose

parts are indissolubly connected with one another and all affected
when one member is in any way agitated. This conception of the

organic nature of society appears first in Plato and Aristotle, who
apply it to cities. Polybius, as his wont is, expands it to be a

general characteristic" target="_blank" title="a.特有的 n.特性">characteristic of all history. It is an idea of the very
highest importance, especially to a man like Polybius whose

thoughts are continually turned towards the essential unity of
history and the impossibility of isolation.

Farther, as regards the particular method of investigating that
group of phenomena obtained for him by the abstract method, he will

adopt, he tells us, neither the purely deductive nor the purely
inductive mode but the union of both. In other words, he formally

adopts that method of analysis upon the importance of which I have
dwelt before.

And lastly, while, without doubt, enormoussimplicity in the
elements under consideration is the result of the employment of the

abstract method, even within the limit thus obtained a certain
selection must be made, and a selection involves a theory. For the

facts of life cannot be tabulated with as great an ease as the
colours of birds and insects can be tabulated. Now, Polybius

points out that those phenomena particularly are to be dwelt on
which may serve as a [Greek text which cannot be reproduced] or

sample, and show the character of the tendencies of the age as
clearly as 'a single drop from a full cask will be enough to

disclose the nature of the whole contents.' This recognition of
the importance of single facts, not in themselves but because of

the spirit they represent, is extremelyscientific; for we know
that from the single bone, or tooth even, the anatomist can

recreate entirely the skeleton of the primeval horse, and the
botanist tell the character of the flora and fauna of a district

from a single specimen.
Regarding truth as 'the most divine thing in Nature,' the very 'eye

and light of history without which it moves a blind thing,'
Polybius spared no pains in the acquisition of historical materials

or in the study of the sciences of politics and war, which he
considered were so essential to the training of the scientific

historian, and the labour he took is mirrored in the many ways in
which he criticises other authorities.

There is something, as a rule, slightlycontemptible about ancient
criticism. The modern idea of the critic as the interpreter, the

expounder of the beauty and excellence of the work he selects,
seems quite unknown. Nothing can be more captious or unfair, for

instance, than the method by which Aristotle criticised the ideal
state of Plato in his ethical works, and the passages quoted by

Polybius from Timaeus show that the latter historian fully deserved
the punning name given to him. But in Polybius there is, I think,

little of that bitterness and pettiness of spirit which
characterises most other writers, and an incidental story he tells

of his relations with one of the historians whom he criticised
shows that he was a man of great courtesy and refinement of taste -

as, indeed, befitted one who had lived always in the society of
those who were of great and noble birth.

Now, as regards the character of the canons by which he criticises
the works of other authors, in the majority of cases he employs

simply his own geographical and military knowledge, showing, for
instance, the impossibility in the accounts given of Nabis's march

from Sparta simply by his acquaintance with the spots in question;
or the inconsistency of those of the battle of Issus; or of the

accounts given by Ephorus of the battles of Leuctra and Mantinea.
In the latter case he says, if any one will take the trouble to

measure out the ground of the site of the battle and then test the
manoeuvres given, he will find how inaccurate the accounts are.

In other cases he appeals to public documents, the importance of
which he was always foremost in recognising; showing, for instance,

by a document in the public archives of Rhodes how inaccurate were
the accounts given of the battle of Lade by Zeno and Antisthenes.

Or he appeals to psychologicalprobability, rejecting, for
instance, the scandalous stories told of Philip of Macedon, simply

from the king's general greatness of character, and arguing that a
boy so well educated and so respectably connected as Demochares

(xii. 14) could never have been guilty of that of which evil rumour
accused him.

But the chief object of his literarycensure is Timaeus, who had
been unsparing of his strictures on others. The general point

which he makes against him, impugning his accuracy as a historian,
is that he derived his knowledge of history not from the dangerous

perils of a life of action but in the secure indolence of a narrow
scholastic life. There is, indeed, no point on which he is so

vehement as this. 'A history,' he says, 'written in a library
gives as lifeless and as inaccurate a picture of history as a

painting which is copied not from a living animal but from a
stuffed one.'

There is more difference, he says in another place, between the
history of an eye-witness and that of one whose knowledge comes

from books, than there is between the scenes of real life and the
fictitious landscapes of theatricalscenery. Besides this, he

enters into somewhat elaborate detailed criticism of passages where
he thought Timaeus was following a wrong method and perverting

truth, passages which it will be worth while to examine in detail.
Timaeus, from the fact of there being a Roman custom to shoot a

war-horse on a stated day, argued back to the Trojan origin of that
people. Polybius, on the other hand, points out that the inference

is quite unwarrantable, because horse-sacrifices are ordinary
institutions common to all barbarous tribes. Timaeus here, as was

common with Greek writers, is arguing back from some custom of the
present to an historical event in the past. Polybius really is

employing the comparative method, showing how the custom was an
ordinary step in the civilisation of every early people.

In another place, (21) he shows how illogical is the scepticism of
Timaeus as regards the existence of the Bull of Phalaris simply by

appealing to the statue of the Bull, which was still to be seen in
Carthage; pointing out how impossible it was, on any other theory

except that it belonged to Phalaris, to account for the presence in
Carthage of a bull of this peculiarcharacter with a door between

his shoulders. But one of the great points which he uses against
this Sicilian historian is in reference to the question of the

origin of the Locrian colony. In accordance with the received
tradition on the subject, Aristotle had represented the Locrian

colony as founded by some Parthenidae or slaves' children, as they
were called, a statement which seems to have roused the indignation

of Timaeus, who went to a good deal of trouble to confute this
theory. He does so on the following grounds:-

First of all, he points out that in the ancient days the Greeks had
no slaves at all, so the mention of them in the matter is an

anachronism; and next he declares that he was shown in the Greek
city of Locris certain ancient inscriptions in which their relation

to the Italian city was expressed in terms of the position between
parent and child, which showed also that mutual rights of

citizenship were accorded to each city. Besides this, he appeals
to various questions of improbability as regards their

international relationship, on which Polybius takes diametrically
opposite grounds which hardly call for discussion. And in favour

of his own view he urges two points more: first, that the
Lacedaemonians being allowed furlough for the purpose of seeing

their wives at home, it was unlikely that the Locrians should not
have had the same privilege; and next, that the Italian Locrians

knew nothing of the Aristotelian version and had, on the contrary,
very severe laws against adulterers, runaway slaves and the like.