Nor were the Romans ever fortunate enough like the Greeks to have

to face the incubus of any dogmatic system of legends and myths,
the immoralities and absurdities of which might excite a

revolutionary outbreak of sceptical criticism" target="_blank" title="n.批评；评论(文)">criticism. For the Roman
religion became as it were crystallised and isolated from progress

at an early period of its evolution. Their gods remained mere
abstractions of commonplacevirtues or uninteresting

personifications of the useful things of life. The old primitive
creed was indeed always upheld as a state institution on account of

the enormous facilities it offered for cheating in politics, but as
a ritual" target="_blank" title="a.精神(上)的；神圣的">spiritualsystem of belief it was unanimouslyrejected at a very

early period both by the common people and the educated classes,
for the sensible reason that it was so extremely dull. The former

took refuge in the mystic sensualities of the worship of Isis, the
latter in the Stoical rules of life. The Romans classified their

gods carefully in their order of precedence, analysed their
genealogies in the laborious spirit of modern heraldry, fenced them

round with a ritual as intricate as their law, but never quite
cared enough about them to believe in them. So it was of no

account with them when the philosophers announced that Minerva was
merely memory. She had never been much else. Nor did they protest

when Lucretius dared to say of Ceres and of Liber that they were
only the corn of the field and the fruit of the vine. For they had

never mourned for the daughter of Demeter in the asphodel meadows
of Sicily, nor traversed the glades of Cithaeron with fawn-skin and

with spear.
This brief sketch of the condition of Roman thought will serve to

prepare us for the almost total want of scientifichistorical
criticism" target="_blank" title="n.批评；评论(文)">criticism which we shall discern in their literature, and has,

besides, afforded fresh corroboration of the conditions essential
to the rise of this spirit, and of the modes of thought which it

reflects and in which it is always to be found. Roman historical
composition had its origin in the pontifical college of

ecclesiastical lawyers, and preserved to its close the uncritical
spirit which characterised its fountain-head. It possessed from

the outset a most voluminous collection of the materials of
history, which, however, produced merely antiquarians, not

historians. It is so hard to use facts, so easy to accumulate
them.

Wearied of the dull monotony of the pontifical annals, which dwelt
on little else but the rise and fall in provisions and the eclipses

of the sun, Cato wrote out a history with his own hand for the
instruction of his child, to which he gave the name of Origines,

and before his time some aristocratic families had written
histories in Greek much in the same spirit in which the Germans of

the eighteenth century used French as the literary language. But
the first regular Roman historian is Sallust. Between the

extravagant eulogies passed on this author by the French (such as
De Closset), and Dr. Mommsen's view of him as merely a political

pamphleteer, it is perhaps difficult to reach the VIA MEDIA of
unbiassed appreciation. He has, at any rate, the credit of being a

purely rationalistic historian, perhaps the only one in Roman
literature. Cicero had a good many qualifications for a scientific

historian, and (as he usually did) thought very highly of his own
powers. On passages of ancient legend, however, he is rather

unsatisfactory, for while he is too sensible to believe them he is
too patriotic to reject them. And this is really the attitude of

Livy, who claims for early Roman legend a certain uncritical homage
from the rest of the subject world. His view in his history is

that it is not worth while to examine the truth of these stories.
In his hands the history of Rome unrolls before our eyes like some

gorgeous tapestry, where victory succeeds victory, where triumph
treads on the heels of triumph, and the line of heroes seems never

to end. It is not till we pass behind the canvas and see the
slight means by which the effect is produced that we apprehend the

fact that like most picturesquewriters Livy is an indifferent
critic. As regards his attitude towards the credibility of early

Roman history he is quite as conscious as we are of its mythical
and unsound nature. He will not, for instance, decide whether the

Horatii were Albans or Romans; who was the first dictator; how many
tribunes there were, and the like. His method, as a rule, is

merely to mention all the accounts and sometimes to decide in
favour of the most probable, but usually not to decide at all. No

canons of historicalcriticism" target="_blank" title="n.批评；评论(文)">criticism will ever discover whether the Roman
women interviewed the mother of Coriolanus of their own accord or

at the suggestion of the senate; whether Remus was killed for
jumping over his brother's wall or because they quarrelled about

birds; whether the ambassadors found Cincinnatus ploughing or only
mending a hedge. Livy suspends his judgment over these important

facts and history when questioned on their truth is dumb. If he
does select between two historians he chooses the one who is nearer

to the facts he describes. But he is no critic, only a
conscientious writer. It is mere vain waste to dwell on his

critical powers, for they do not exist.
In the case of Tacitus imagination has taken the place of history.

The past lives again in his pages, but through no laborious
criticism" target="_blank" title="n.批评；评论(文)">criticism; rather through a dramatic and psychological faculty

which he specially possessed.
In the philosophy of history he has no belief. He can never make

up his mind what to believe as regards God's government of the
world. There is no method in him and none elsewhere in Roman

literature.
Nations may not have missions but they certainly have functions.

And the function of ancient Italy was not merely to give us what is
statical in our institutions and rational in our law, but to blend

into one elemental creed the ritual" target="_blank" title="a.精神(上)的；神圣的">spiritual aspirations of Aryan and of
Semite. Italy was not a pioneer in intellectual progress, nor a

motive power in the evolution of thought. The owl of the goddess
of Wisdom traversed over the whole land and found nowhere a

resting-place. The dove, which is the bird of Christ, flew
straight to the city of Rome and the new reign began. It was the

fashion of early Italian painters to represent in mediaeval costume
the soldiers who watched over the tomb of Christ, and this, which

was the result of the frank anachronism of all true art, may serve
to us as an allegory. For it was in vain that the Middle Ages

strove to guard the buried spirit of progress. When the dawn of
the Greek spirit arose, the sepulchre was empty, the grave-clothes

laid aside. Humanity had risen from the dead.
The study of Greek, it has been well said, implies the birth of

criticism" target="_blank" title="n.批评；评论(文)">criticism, comparison and research. At the opening of that
education of modern by ancient thought which we call the

Renaissance, it was the words of Aristotle which sent Columbus
sailing to the New World, while a fragment of Pythagorean astronomy

set Copernicus thinking on that train of reasoning which has
revolutionised the whole position of our planet in the universe.

Then it was seen that the only meaning of progress is a return to
Greek modes of thought. The monkish hymns which obscured the pages

of Greek manuscripts were blotted out, the splendours of a new
method were unfolded to the world, and out of the melancholy sea of

mediaevalism rose the free spirit of man in all that splendour of
glad adolescence, when the bodily powers seem quickened by a new

vitality, when the eye sees more clearly than its wont and the mind
apprehends what was beforetime hidden from it. To herald the

opening of the sixteenth century, from the little Venetian printing
press came forth all the great authors of antiquity, each bearing

on the title-page the words [Greek text which cannot be
reproduced]; words which may serve to remind us with what wondrous

prescience Polybius saw the world's fate when he foretold the
material sovereignty of Roman institutions and exemplified in

himself the intellectual empire of Greece.
The course of the study of the spirit of historicalcriticism" target="_blank" title="n.批评；评论(文)">criticism has

not been a profitless investigation into modes and forms of thought
now antiquated and of no account. The only spirit which is

entirely removed from us is the mediaeval; the Greek spirit is
essentially modern. The introduction of the comparative method of

research which has forced history to disclose its secrets belongs
in a measure to us. Ours, too, is a more scientific knowledge of

philology and the method of survival. Nor did the ancients know
anything of the doctrine of averages or of crucial instances, both

of which methods have proved of such importance in modern
criticism" target="_blank" title="n.批评；评论(文)">criticism, the one adding a most important proof of the statical

elements of history, and exemplifying the influences of all
physical surroundings on the life of man; the other, as in the

single instance of the Moulin Quignon skull, serving to create a