the miscellaneous writings and speeches-1-第26章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


land。　　The　King　of　France　re…enters　Paris；　and　the　poem　concludes。

。。。


ON　MITFORD'S　HISTORY　OF　GREECE。

（November　1824。）

This　is　a　book　which　enjoys　a　great　and　increasing　popularity：　but；　while　it　has　attracted　a　considerable　share　of　the　public　attention；　it　has　been　little　noticed　by　the　critics。　　Mr　Mitford　has　almost　succeeded　in　mounting；　unperceived　by　those　whose　office　it　is　to　watch　such　aspirants；　to　a　high　place　among　historians。　　He　has　taken　a　seat　on　the　dais　without　being　challenged　by　a　single　seneschal。　　To　oppose　the　progress　of　his　fame　is　now　almost　a　hopeless　enterprise。　　Had　he　been　reviewed　with　candid　severity；　when　he　had　published　only　his　first　volume；　his　work　would　either　have　deserved　its　reputation；　or　would　never　have　obtained　it。　　〃Then；〃　as　Indra　says　of　Kehama；　〃then　was　the　time　to　strike。〃　　The　time　was　neglected；　and　the　consequence　is　that　Mr　Mitford　like　Kehama；　has　laid　his　victorious　hand　on　the　literary　Amreeta；　and　seems　about　to　taste　the　precious　elixir　of　immortality。　　I　shall　venture　to　emulate　the　courage　of　the　honest　Glendoveer　〃When　now　He　saw　the　Amreeta　in　Kehama's　hand；　An　impulse　that　defied　all　self…command；　In　that　extremity；　Stung　him；　and　he　resolved　to　seize　the　cup；　And　dare　the　Rajah's　force　in　Seeva's　sight；　Forward　he　sprung　to　tempt　the　unequal　fray。〃

In　plain　words；　I　shall　offer　a　few　considerations；　which　may　tend　to　reduce　an　overpraised　writer　to　his　proper　level。

The　principal　characteristic　of　this　historian；　the　origin　of　his　excellencies　and　his　defects；　is　a　love　of　singularity。　　He　has　no　notion　of　going　with　a　multitude　to　do　either　good　or　evil。　An　exploded　opinion；　or　an　unpopular　person；　has　an　irresistible　charm　for　him。　　The　same　perverseness　may　be　traced　in　his　diction。　　His　style　would　never　have　been　elegant；　but　it　might　at　least　have　been　manly　and　perspicuous；　and　nothing　but　the　most　elaborate　care　could　possibly　have　made　it　so　bad　as　it　is。　It　is　distinguished　by　harsh　phrases；　strange　collocations；　occasional　solecisms；　frequent　obscurity；　and；　above　all；　by　a　peculiar　oddity；　which　can　no　more　be　described　than　it　can　be　overlooked。　　Nor　is　this　all。　　Mr　Mitford　piques　himself　on　spelling　better　than　any　of　his　neighbours；　and　this　not　only　in　ancient　names；　which　he　mangles　in　defiance　both　of　custom　and　of　reason；　but　in　the　most　ordinary　words　of　the　English　language。　It　is；　in　itself；　a　matter　perfectly　indifferent　whether　we　call　a　foreigner　by　the　name　which　he　bears　in　his　own　language；　or　by　that　which　corresponds　to　it　in　ours；　whether　we　say　Lorenzo　de　Medici；　or　Lawrence　de　Medici；　Jean　Chauvin；　or　John　Calvin。　　In　such　cases　established　usage　is　considered　as　law　by　all　writers　except　Mr　Mitford。　　If　he　were　always　consistent　with　himself；　he　might　be　excused　for　sometimes　disagreeing　with　his　neighbours；　but　he　proceeds　on　no　principle　but　that　of　being　unlike　the　rest　of　the　world。　　Every　child　has　heard　of　Linnaeus；　therefore　Mr　Mitford　calls　him　Linne：　　Rousseau　is　known　all　over　Europe　as　Jean　Jacques；　therefore　Mr　Mitford　bestows　on　him　the　strange　appellation　of　John　James。

Had　Mr　Mitford　undertaken　a　History　of　any　other　country　than　Greece；　this　propensity　would　have　rendered　his　work　useless　and　absurd。　　His　occasional　remarks　on　the　affairs　of　ancient　Rome　and　of　modern　Europe　are　full　of　errors：　　but　he　writes　of　times　with　respect　to　which　almost　every　other　writer　has　been　in　the　wrong；　and；　therefore；　by　resolutely　deviating　from　his　predecessors；　he　is　often　in　the　right。

Almost　all　the　modern　historians　of　Greece　have　shown　the　grossest　ignorance　of　the　most　obvious　phenomena　of　human　nature。　In　their　representations　the　generals　and　statesmen　of　antiquity　are　absolutely　divested　of　all　individuality。　　They　are　personifications；　they　are　passions；　talents；　opinions；　virtues；　vices；　but　not　men。　　Inconsistency　is　a　thing　of　which　these　writers　have　no　notion。　　That　a　man　may　have　been　liberal　in　his　youth　and　avaricious　in　his　age；　cruel　to　one　enemy　and　merciful　to　another；　is　to　them　utterly　inconceivable。　　If　the　facts　be　undeniable；　they　suppose　some　strange　and　deep　design；　in　order　to　explain　what；　as　every　one　who　has　observed　his　own　mind　knows；　needs　no　explanation　at　all。　　This　is　a　mode　of　writing　very　acceptable　to　the　multitude　who　have　always　been　accustomed　to　make　gods　and　daemons　out　of　men　very　little　better　or　worse　than　themselves；　but　it　appears　contemptible　to　all　who　have　watched　the　changes　of　human　characterto　all　who　have　observed　the　influence　of　time；　of　circumstances；　and　of　associates；　on　mankindto　all　who　have　seen　a　hero　in　the　gout；　a　democrat　in　the　church；　a　pedant　in　love；　or　a　philosopher　in　liquor。　　This　practice　of　painting　in　nothing　but　black　and　white　is　unpardonable　even　in　the　drama。　　It　is　the　great　fault　of　Alfieri；　and　how　much　it　injures　the　effect　of　his　compositions　will　be　obvious　to　every　one　who　will　compare　his　Rosmunda　with　the　Lady　Macbeth　of　Shakspeare。　　The　one　is　a　wicked　woman；　the　other　is　a　fiend。　　Her　only　feeling　is　hatred；　all　her　words　are　curses。　　We　are　at　once　shocked　and　fatigued　by　the　spectacle　of　such　raving　cruelty；　excited　by　no　provocation；　repeatedly　changing　its　object；　and　constant　in　nothing　but　in　its　in…　extinguishable　thirst　for　blood。

In　history　this　error　is　far　more　disgraceful。　　Indeed；　there　is　no　fault　which　so　completely　ruins　a　narrative　in　the　opinion　of　a　judicious　reader。　　We　know　that　the　line　of　demarcation　between　good　and　bad　men　is　so　faintly　marked　as　often　to　elude　the　most　careful　investigation　of　those　who　have　the　best　opportunities　for　judging。　　Public　men；　above　all；　are　surrounded　with　so　many　temptations　and　difficulties　that　some　doubt　must　almost　always　hang　over　their　real　dispositions　and　intentions。　　The　lives　of　Pym；　Cromwell；　Monk；　Clarendon；　Marlborough；　Burnet；　Walpole；　are　well　known　to　us。　　We　are　acquainted　with　their　actions；　their　speeches；　their　writings；　we　have　abundance　of　letters　and　well…　authenticated　anecdotes　relating　to　them：　yet　what　candid　man　will　venture　very　positively　to　say　which　of　them　were　honest　and　which　of　them　were　dishonest　men？　　It　appears　easier　to　pronounce　decidedly　upon　the　great　characters　of　antiquity；　not　because　we　have　greater　means　of　discovering　truth；　but　simply　because　we　have　less　means　of　detecting　error。　　The　modern　historians　of　Greece　have　forgotten　this。　　Their　heroes　and　villains　are　as　consistent　in　all　their　sayings　and　doings　as　the　cardinal　virtues　and　the　deadly　sins　in　an　allegory。　　We　should　as　soon　expect　a　good　action　from　giant　Slay…good　in　Bunyan　as　from　Dionysius；　and　a　crime　of　Epaminondas　would　seem　as　incongruous　as　a　faux…pas　of　the　grave　and　comely　damsel　called　Discretion；　who　answered　the　bell　at　the　door　of　the　house　Beautiful。

This　error　was　partly　the　cause　and　partly　the　effect　of　the　high　estimation　in　which　the　later　ancient　writers　have　been　held　by　modern　scholars。　　Those　French　and　English　authors　who　have　treated　of　the　affairs　of　Greece　have　generally　turned　with　contempt　from　the　simple　and　natural　narrations　of　Thucydides　and　Xenophon　to　the　extravagant　representations　of　Plutarch；　Diodorus；　Curtius；　and　other　romancers　of　the　same　class；men　who　described　military　operations　without　ever　having　handled　a　sword；　and　applied　to　the　seditions　of　little　republics　speculations　formed　by　observation　on　an　empire　which　covered　half　the　known　world。　　Of　liberty　they　knew　nothing。　　It　was　to　them　a　great　mysterya　superhuman　enjoyment。　　They　ranted　about　liberty　and　patriotism；　from　the　same　cause　which　leads　monks　to　talk　more　ardently　than　other　men　about　love　and　women。　　A　wise　man　values　political　liberty；　because　it　secures　the　persons　and　the　possessions　of　citizens；　because　it　tends　to　prevent　the　extravagance　of　rulers；　and　the　corruption　of　judges；　because　it　gives　birth　to　useful　sciences　and　elegant　arts；　because　it　excites　the　industry　and　increases　the　comforts　of　all　classes　of　society。　　These　theorists　imagined　that　it　possessed　something　eternally　and　intrinsically　good；　distinct　from　the　blessings　which　it　generally　produced。　　They　considered　it　not　as　a　means　but　as　an　end；　an　end　to　be　attained　at　any　cost。　　Their　favourite　heroes　are　those　who　have　sacrificed；　for　the　mere　name　of　freedom；　the　prosperitythe　securitythe　justicefrom　which　freedom　derives　its　value。

There　is　another　remarkable　characteristic　of　these　writers；　in　which　their　modern　worshippers　have　carefully　imitated　thema　great　fondness　for　good　stories。　　The　most　established　facts；　dates；　and　characters　are　never　suffered　to　come　into　competition　with　a　splendid　saying；　or　a　romantic　exploit。　　The　early　historians　have　left　us　natural　and　simple　descriptions　of　the　great　events　which　they　witnessed；　and　the　great　men　with　whom　they　associated。　　When　we　read　the　account　which　Plutarch　and　Rollin　have　given　of　the　same　period；　we　scarcely　know　our　old　acquaintance　again；　we　are　utterly　confounded　by　the　melo…　dramatic　effect　of　the　narration；　and　the　sublime　coxcombry　of　the　characters。

These　are　the　principal　errors　into　which　the　predecessors　of　Mr　Mitford　have　fallen；　and　from　most　of　these　he　is　free。　　His　faults　are　of　a　completely　different　description。　　It　is　to　be　hoped　that　the　students　of　history　may　now　be　saved；　like　Dorax　in　Dryden's　play；　by　swallowing　two　conflicting　poisons；　each　of　which　may　serve　as　an　antidote　to　the　other。

The　first　and　most　important　difference　between　Mr　Mitford　and　those　who　have　preceded　him　is　in　his　narration。　　Here　the　advantage　lies；　for　the　most　part；　on　his　side。　　His　principle　is　to　follow　the　contemporary　historians；　to　look　with　doubt　on　all　statements　which　are　not　in　some　degree　confirmed　by　them；　and　absolutely　to　reject　all　which　are　contradicted　by　them。　　While　he　retains　the　guidance　of　some　writer　in　whom　he　can　place　confidence；　he　goes　on　excellently。　　When　he　loses　it；　he　falls　to　the　level；　or　perhaps　below　the　level；　of　the　writers　whom　he　so　much　despises：　he　is　as　absurd　as　they；　and　very　much　duller。　It　is　really　amusing　to　observe　how　he　proceeds　with　his　narration　when　he　has　no　better　authority　than　poor　Diodorus。　　He　is　compelled　to　relate　something；　yet　he　believes　nothing。　　He　accompanies　every　fact　with　a　long　statement　of　objections。　　His　account　of　the　administration　of　Dionysius　is　in　no　sense　a　history。　　It　ought　to　be　entitled〃Historic　doubts　as　to　certain　events；　alleged　to　have　taken　place　in　Sicily。〃

This　scepticism；　however；　like　that　of　some　great　legal　characters　almost　as　sceptical　as　himself；　vanishes　whenever　his　political　partialities　interfere。　　He　is　a　vehement　admirer　of　tyranny　and　oligarchy；　and　considers　no　evidence　as　feeble　which　can　be　brought　forward　in　favour　of　those　forms　of　government。　Democracy　he　hates　with　a　perfect　hatred；　a　hatred　which；　in　the　first　volume　of　his　history；　appears　only　in　his　episodes　and　reflections；　but　which；　in　those　parts　where　he　has　less　reverence　for　his　guides；　and　can　venture　to　take　his　own　way；　completely　distorts　even　his　narration。

In　taking　up　these　opinions；　I　have　no　doubt　that　Mr　Mitford　was　influenced　by　the　same　love　of　singularity　which　led　him　to　spell　〃island〃　without