| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 1 | 245 | 490 | 735 | 980 |
|
of the writer form as important an ingredient in the analysis of his
history, as the facts he records. Probability is a powerful and
troublesome test; and it is by this troublesome standard that a large
portion of historical evidence is sifted. Consistency is no less
pertinacious and exacting in its demands. In brief, to write a history, we
must know more than mere facts. Human nature, viewed under an induction of
extended experience, is the best help to the criticism of human history.
Historical characters can only be estimated by the standard which human
experience, whether actual or traditionary, has furnished. To form correct
views of individuals we must regard them as forming parts of a great
whole--we must measure them by their relation to the mass of beings by whom
they are surrounded, and, in contemplating the incidents in their lives or
condition which tradition has handed down to us, we must rather consider
the general bearing of the whole narrative, than the respective
probability of its details.
It is unfortunate for us, that, of some of the greatest men, we know
least, and talk most. Homer, Socrates, and Shakespere(1) have, perhaps,
contributed more to the intellectual enlightenment of mankind than any
other three writers who could be named, and yet the history of all three
has given rise to a boundless ocean of discussion, which has left us
little save the option of choosing which theory or theories we will
follow. The personality of Shakespere is, perhaps, the only thing in which
critics will allow us to believe without controversy; but upon everything
else, even down to the authorship of plays, there is more or less of doubt
and uncertainty. Of Socrates we know as little as the contradictions of
5
Page
Quick Jump
|