As an Athenian comedian remarks, we do not believe a man because he takes an oath—we trust the oath because we be lieve in the man. And so we believe in Thucydides, not because we have external tests to apply (for we have not enough), but because the universal experience of all who read him is a feeling of convic tion that his intention was to speak the truth, so far as he could ascertain it. This conviction is ultimately due to the fact that in the man's work we are brought directly into touch with the man, and we judge his character as we judge that of any acquaintance whom we know in the flesh.
No man can devote himself for 27 years to composing a work without put ting a good deal of himself into the work, or without writing his character down in it—unconsciously, but none the less legibly. What, then, are the qualities of character which impress the reader of Thucydides? In the first place, his im partiality. This is a quality unknown to Latin historians for instance. Tacitus will not admit that the Romans were ever defeated—the result was, at most, indecisive—even though the subsequent movements of the troops, as described by himself, clearly show that the Romans lost. Thucydides, on the other hand, though an Athenian, never extenuates wen the mistakes of the Athenians; and .hough himself banished by them, sets down naught in malice against them. Next, the reader feels that Thucydides strove—and that always—to ascertain facts, and to put down as facts nothing but facts. This conviction is forced on one in many ways, some of which are palpable enough to admit of being clearly indicated.
To begin with, there is the fact that, when in search of a subject, Thucydides did not, like all other historians before him, choose a period of ancient history, which, being ancient, must be based on vague hearsay or dim tradition. He pre ferred contemporary history and events which he himself witnessed in part, while he could obtain the evidence of eye wit nesses for the remainder. Nor did he wait till the conclusion of the war before setting about his task; from the very beginning he began collecting his facts. Next, his history is not designed to prove or illustrate any theory. He himself, in the passage quoted above, disclaims all attempt to adapt facts "to any notion of his own"; and it is evident that begin ning to write, as he began, at the com mencement of the war, when its course and its issue were yet in the future, he could not have designed to bring its his tory into conformity with any precon ceived or a priori theory.
Herodotus, writing the history of the past, was in a position to trace the finger of destiny in what had happened, and to explain history by means of final causes. But Thucydides, when he under took to record the present, thereby delib erately elected to confine himself to ef ficient causes. This preference for ef ficient causes and for "scientific" history, in the best sense of the term, is intimate ly connected with the "positive" nature of his history—that is to say, with his perpetual endeavor to record facts and to distinguish them from inferences drawn from facts. A clear consciousness of this difference is involved in one of the most characteristic features of his history—that is, the marked difference between his narrative and the speeches which he introduced into it. The former contains facts, and facts only, facts stated with a precision and objectivity which— e. g., in his description of the symptoms
of fever in sufferers from the great plague—have been the marvel of all sub sequent generations, and the greatest marvel to those who by special profes sional knowledge are competent to judge. The speeches, on the other hand, are not what the speakers actually said—but of this Thucydides warns the reader at the beginning, showing clearly at once the distinction he drew between facts and inference, and his anxiety that the reader should realize the distinction. In fine, most of the untruth in this world is due not to deliberate perversion, but to the simple fact that so many people are quite unconscious what truth is. When, then, we find that Thucydides had a conception of historic truth and fact such as 2,000 subsequent years have been unable to im prove, and that he strove strenuously all his life to live up to that conception and write up to it, we can well understand that even 19th-century criticism acknowl edges itself incapable of shaking his credibility.
As for the subject of Thucydides' his tory, if the Peloponnesian War was not a matter of importance in universal his tory, it was at least not Thucydides' fault that he was not a contemporary with some more important war. But we may beg leave to doubt whether the Pelopon nesian War was of inferior interest for the fortunes of mankind. Had it not been for the exhaustion it induced, Greece would not have succumbed to the Mace donian, and consequently Alexander's conquests would never have spread Greek culture over the ancient world. But, apart from this, Thucydides' history is the history of the effects of empire on an imperial state; and, as such, will al ways be of enthralling interest to citizens of sovereign communities. Finally, Thu cydides' style, criticized by Dionysius and condemned by Mure, is (in the speeches) difficult beyond all possibir.y of dispute.
To throw the blame of this obscurity on the unformed condition i if Attic Greek at the time when Thucydides wrote is warrantable indeed, but is no adequate defense. To point, on the other hand, to the tract "On the Athenian Polity" as proof that Attic prose could be translu cent in Thucydides' timi is beside the point, for Attic, as is well known, could only be written well by those who lived continuously in Athens, and Thucydides was exiled for many a year. But, in truth, the question whether it is Thucyd ides or the literary age in which he lived that is to be blamed for his obscurity is a wholly irrelevant question. Obscurity, whatever be its cause, is a crime in a writer. But it is a crime which carries its own punishment, for it diminishes the number of an author's readers. The exact amount of criminality is not to be determined on any abstract principles or by the exercise of any mysterious "taste"; it admits of one simple practical test—viz., has the obscurity of his style (in so far as it exists), as a matter of fact, prevented him from attaining fame? In the case of Thucydides it has had no such effect, as all testify. People will not read a difficult author if there is an easier one out of whom they can get as much. That Thucydides has, in spite of his difficulty, always been read is in itself sufficient testimony that there is no other historian to rank with him.