---
title: "The Histories · Ἱστορίαι"
author: "Polybius"
translator: "Evelyn S. Shuckburgh"
languages: [grc, en]
shelf: "Classical Greek"
section: 61 of 103
url: https://scriptura.si/works/polybius-histories/61/
cite: "Polybius, tr. Evelyn S. Shuckburgh, The Histories · Ἱστορίαι, section 61. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/polybius-histories/61/"
---

# The Histories · Ἱστορίαι

*Polybius, tr. Evelyn S. Shuckburgh*

How did Rome conquer the known world in under fifty-three years? A Greek hostage who became Scipio’s friend explains, with the Punic Wars, Hannibal, the Roman constitution and the fall of Carthage.

> Greek: ed. Theodor Büttner-Wobst, from the Perseus Digital Library (canonical-greekLit, tlg0543.tlg001, CC BY-SA 4.0).

> English: Evelyn S. Shuckburgh, from the Perseus Digital Library (tlg0543.tlg001.perseus-eng2). Notes are not included.

> Rows follow the references the two texts share (books, chapters and sections), cut where both reach the end of a sentence.

## 61. Book XII · chapters 25e–28

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/polybius-histories/61/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/polybius-histories/61/#p-N

[¶0] 25e. In the same way the science of genuine history is threefold: first, the dealing with written documents and the arrangement of the material thus obtained; second, topography, the appearance of cities and localities, the description of rivers and harbours, and, speaking generally, the peculiar features of seas and countries and their relative distances; thirdly, political affairs. Now, as in the case of medicine, it is the last branch that many attach themselves to, owing to their preconceived opinions on the subject. And the majority of writers bring to the undertaking no spirit of fairness at all: nothing but dishonesty, impudence and unscrupulousness. Like vendors of drugs, their aim is to catch popular credit and favour, and to seize every opportunity of enriching themselves. About such writers it is not worth while to say more. But some of those who have the reputation of approaching history in a reasonable spirit are like the theoretical physicians. They spend all their time in libraries, and acquire generally all the learning which can be got from books, and then persuade themselves that they are adequately equipped for their task.... Yet in my opinion they are only partially qualified for the production of genuine history. To inspect ancient records indeed, with the view of ascertaining the notions entertained by the ancients of certain places, nations, polities and events, and of understanding the several circumstances and contingencies experienced in former times, is useful; for the history of the past directs our attention in a proper spirit to the future, if a writer can be found to give a statement of facts as they really occurred. But to persuade one’s self, as Timaeus does, that such ability in research is sufficient to enable a man to describe subsequent transactions with success is quite foolish. It is as though a man were to imagine that an inspection of the works of the old masters would enable him to become a painter and a master of the art himself. This will be rendered still more evident from what I have now to say, particularly from certain passages in the history of Ephorus. This writer in his history of war seems to me to have had some idea of naval tactics, but to be quite unacquainted with fighting on shore. Accordingly, if one turns one’s attention to the naval battles at Cyprus and Cnidus, in which the generals of the king were engaged against Evagoras of Salamis and then against the Lacedaemonians, one will be struck with admiration of the historian, and will learn many useful lessons as to what to do in similar circumstances. But when he tells the story of the battle of Leuctra between the Thebans and Lacedaemonians, or again that of Mantinea between the same combatants, in which Epaminondas lost his life, if in these one examines attentively and in detail the arrangements and evolutions in the line of battle, the historian will appear quite ridiculous, and betray his entire ignorance and want of personal experience of such matters. The battle of Leuctra indeed was simple, and confined to one division of the forces engaged, and therefore does not make the writer’s lack of knowledge so very glaring: but that of Mantinea was complicated and technical, and is accordingly unintelligible, and indeed completely inconceivable, to the historian. This will be rendered clear by first laying down a correct plan of the ground, and then measuring the extent of the movements as described by him. The same is the case with Theopompus, and above all with Timaeus, the subject of this book. These latter writers also can conceal their ignorance, so long as they deal with generalities; but directly they attempt minute and detailed description, they show that they are no better than Ephorus....

> Greek: 25e. τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον καὶ τῆς πραγματικῆς ἱστορίας ὑπαρχούσης τριμεροῦς, τῶν δὲ μερῶν αὐτῆς ἑνὸς μὲν ὄντος τοῦ περὶ τὴν ἐν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασι πολυπραγμοσύνην καὶ τὴν παράθεσιν τῆς ἐκ τούτων ὕλης, ἑτέρου δὲ τοῦ περὶ τὴν θέαν τῶν πόλεων καὶ τῶν τόπων περί τε ποταμῶν καὶ λιμένων καὶ καθόλου τῶν κατὰ γῆν καὶ κατὰ θάλατταν ἰδιωμάτων καὶ διαστημάτων, τρίτου δὲ τοῦ περὶ τὰς πράξεις τὰς πολιτικάς, παραπλησίως ἐφίενται μὲν ταύτης πολλοὶ διὰ τὴν προγεγενημένην περὶ αὐτῆς δόξαν, προσφέρονται δὲ πρὸς τὴν ἐπιβολὴν οἱ μὲν πλεῖστοι τῶν γραφόντων ἁπλῶς δίκαιον οὐδὲν πλὴν εὐχέρειαν καὶ τόλμαν καὶ ῥᾳδιουργίαν, παραπλήσιον τοῖς φαρμακοπώλαις δοξοκοποῦντες καὶ πρὸς χάριν λέγοντες ἀεὶ τὰ πρὸς τοὺς καιροὺς ἕνεκα τοῦ πορίζειν τὸν βίον διὰ τούτων· περὶ ὧν οὐκ ἄξιον πλείω ποιεῖσθαι λόγον. ἔνιοι δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εὐλόγως προσάγειν πρὸς τὴν ἱστορίαν, καθάπερ οἱ λογικοὶ τῶν ἰατρῶν ἐνδιατρίψαντες ταῖς βυβλιοθήκαις καὶ καθόλου τὴν ἐκ τῶν ὑπομνημάτων περιποιησάμενοι πολυπειρίαν πείθουσιν αὑτοὺς ὡς ὄντες ἱκανοὶ πρὸς τὴν ἐπιβολήν, καὶ τοῖς ἐκτὸς ἀρκούντως δοκοῦσι προσφέρεσθαι, μέρος, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, πρὸς τὴν πραγματικὴν ἱστορίαν· τὸ γὰρ ἐποπτεῦσαι τὰ πρότερον ὑπομνήματα πρὸς μὲν τὸ γνῶναι τὰς τῶν ἀρχαίων διαλήψεις καὶ τὰς ἐννοίας ἃς πρὶν εἶχον ὑπὲρ διαθέσεων, τόπων, ἐθνῶν, πολιτειῶν, πράξεων, ἔτι δὲ πρὸς τὸ συνεῖναι τὰς ἑκάστων περιστάσεις καὶ τύχας, αἷς κέχρηνται κατὰ τοὺς ἀνωτέρω χρόνους, εὔχρηστόν ἐστι· συνεφίστησι γὰρ τὰ προγεγονότα πρὸς τὸ μέλλον ἡμᾶς οἰκείως, ἐάν τις ὑπὲρ ἑκάστων ἀληθινῶς ἱστορῇ τὰ παρεληλυθότα· τό γε μὴν ἀπʼ αὐτῆς ταύτης τῆς δυνάμεως ὁρμηθέντα πεπεῖσθαι γράφειν τὰς ἐπιγινομένας πράξεις καλῶς, ὃ πέπεισται Τίμαιος, τελέως εὔηθες καὶ παραπλήσιον ὡς ἂν εἴ τις τὰ τῶν ἀρχαίων ζωγράφων ἔργα θεασάμενος ἱκανὸς οἴοιτο ζωγράφος εἶναι καὶ προστάτης τῆς τέχνης. δῆλον δʼ ἔσται τὸ λεγόμενον ἔτι μᾶλλον ἐκ τῶν ἐπιφερομένων, οἷον εὐθέως ἐκ τῶν συμβεβηκότων Ἐφόρῳ κατὰ τόπους τινὰς τῆς ἱστορίας. ἐκεῖνος γὰρ ἐν τοῖς πολεμικοῖς τῶν μὲν κατὰ θάλατταν ἔργων ἐπὶ ποσὸν ὑπόνοιαν ἐσχηκέναι μοι δοκεῖ, τῶν δὲ κατὰ γῆν ἀγώνων ἄπειρος εἶναι τελέως. τοιγαροῦν ὅταν μὲν πρὸς τὰς περὶ Κύπρον ναυμαχίας καὶ τὰς περὶ Κνίδον ἀτενίσῃ τις, αἷς ἐχρήσανθʼ οἱ βασιλέως στρατηγοὶ πρὸς Εὐαγόραν τὸν Σαλαμίνιον καὶ πάλιν πρὸς Λακεδαιμονίους θαυμάζειν τὸν συγγραφέα καὶ κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἐμπειρίαν εἰκὸς καὶ πολλὰ τῶν χρησίμων ἀπενέγκασθαι πρὸς τὰς ὁμοίας περιστάσεις· ὅταν δὲ τὴν περὶ Λεῦκτρα μάχην ἐξηγῆται Θηβαίων καὶ Λακεδαιμονίων ἢ τὴν ἐν Μαντινείᾳ πάλιν τῶν αὐτῶν τούτων, ἐν ᾗ καὶ μετήλλαξε τὸν βίον Ἐπαμινώνδας, ἐν τούτοις ἐὰν ἐπὶ τὰ κατὰ μέρος ἐπιστήσας τις θεωρῇ τὰς ἐκτάξεις καὶ μετατάξεις τὰς κατʼ αὐτοὺς τοὺς κινδύνους, γελοῖος φαίνεται καὶ παντελῶς ἄπειρος καὶ ἀόρατος τῶν τοιούτων ὤν. ὁ μὲν οὖν ἐν τοῖς Λεύκτροις κίνδυνος ἁπλοῦς γεγονὼς καὶ καθʼ ἕν τι μέρος τῆς δυνάμεως οὐ λίαν ἐκφανῆ ποιεῖ τὴν τοῦ συγγραφέως ἀπειρίαν· ὁ δὲ περὶ τὴν Μαντίνειαν τὴν μὲν ἔμφασιν ἔχει ποικίλην καὶ στρατηγικήν, ἔστι δʼ ἀνυπόστατος καὶ τελέως ἀδιανόητος τῷ συγγραφεῖ. τοῦτο δʼ ἔσται δῆλον, ἐάν τις τοὺς τόπους ὑποθέμενος ἀληθινῶς ἐπιμετρῇ τὰς κινήσεις τὰς ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ δηλουμένας. τὸ δʼ αὐτὸ συμβαίνει καὶ Θεοπόμπῳ καὶ μάλιστα Τιμαίῳ, περὶ οὗ νῦν ὁ λόγος· οὗ μὲν γὰρ ἂν ὑπὲρ τῶν τοιούτων κεφαλαιώδη ποιήσωνται τὴν ὑπόθεσιν, διαλανθάνουσιν, οὗ δʼ ἂν βουληθῶσι διαθέσθαι καὶ συνυποδεῖξαί τι τῶν κατὰ μέρος, τοιοῦτοι φαίνονται καὶ πάντως οἷος Ἔφορος. — ὅτι οὔτε περὶ τῶν κατὰ πόλεμον συμβαινόντων δυνατόν ἐστι γράψαι καλῶς τὸν μηδεμίαν ἐμπειρίαν ἔχοντα τῶν πολεμικῶν ἔργων οὔτε περὶ τῶν ἐν ταῖς πολιτείαις τὸν μὴ πεπειραμένον τῶν τοιούτων πράξεων καὶ περιστάσεων.

[¶1] 25g. It is in fact as impossible to write well on the operations in a war, if a man has had no experience of actual service, as it is to write well on politics without having been engaged in political transactions and vicissitudes. And when history is written by the book-learned, without technical knowledge, and without clearness of detail, the work loses all its value. For if you take from history its element of practical instruction, what is left of it has nothing to attract and nothing to teach. Again, in the topography of cities and localities, when such men attempt to go into details, being entirely without personal knowledge, they must in a similar manner necessarily pass over many points of importance; while they waste words on many that are not worth the trouble. And this is what his failure to make personal inspection brings upon Timaeus....

> Greek: 25g. λοιπὸν οὔτʼ ἐμπείρως ὑπὸ τῶν βυβλιακῶν οὔτʼ ἐμφαντικῶς οὐδενὸς γραφομένου συμβαίνει τὴν πραγματείαν ἄπρακτον γίνεσθαι τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσιν· εἰ γὰρ ἐκ τῆς ἱστορίας ἐξέλοι τις τὸ δυνάμενον ὠφελεῖν ἡμᾶς, τὸ λοιπὸν αὐτῆς ἄζηλον καὶ ἀνωφελὲς γίνεται παντελῶς. ἔτι δὲ περὶ τῶν πόλεων καὶ τόπων ὅταν ἐπιβάλωνται γράφειν τὰ κατὰ μέρος, ὄντες ἀτριβεῖς τῆς τοιαύτης ἐμπειρίας, δῆλον ὡς ἀνάγκη συμβαίνειν τὸ παραπλήσιον, καὶ πολλὰ μὲν ἀξιόλογα παραλείπειν, περὶ πολλῶν δὲ ποιεῖσθαι πολὺν λόγον οὐκ ἀξίων ὄντων· ὃ δὴ συμβαίνει μάλιστα Τιμαίῳ διὰ τὴν ἀορασίαν. — ὅτι Τίμαιός φησιν ἐν τῇ τριακοστῇ καὶ τετάρτῃ βύβλῳ "3πεντήκοντα συνεχῶς ἔτη διατρίψας Ἀθήνησι ξενιτεύων καὶ πάσης ὁμολογουμένως ἄπειρος [ἐγένετο] πολεμικῆς χρείας, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῆς τῶν τόπων θέασ" 3.

[¶2] 25h. In his thirty-fourth book Timaeus says that “he spent fifty continuous years at Athens as an alien, and never took part in any military service, or went to inspect the localities.” Accordingly, when he comes upon any such matters in the course of his history, he shows much ignorance and makes many misstatements; and if he ever does come near the truth, he is like one of those animal-painters who draw from models of stuffed skins. Such artists sometimes preserve the correct outline, but the vivid look and life-like portraiture of the real animal, the chief charm of the painter’s art, are quite wanting. This is just the case with Timaeus, and in fact with all who start with mere book-learning; there is nothing vivid in their presentment of events, for that can only come from the personal experience of the writers. And hence it is, that those who have gone through no such course of actual experience produce no genuine enthusiasm in the minds of their readers. Former historians showed their sense of the necessity of making professions to this effect in their writings. For when their subject was political, they were careful to state that the writer had of course been engaged in politics, and had had experience in matters of the sort; or if the subject was military, that he had served a campaign and been actually engaged; and again, when the matter was one of everyday life, that he had brought up children and had been married; and so on in every department of life, which we may expect to find adequately treated by those writers alone who have had personal experience, and have accordingly made that branch of history their own. It is difficult perhaps for a man to have been actually and literally engaged in everything: but in the most important actions and most frequently occurring he must have been so.

> Greek: 25h. λοιπὸν ὅταν εἴς τι τῶν μερῶν τούτων ἐμπέσῃ κατὰ τὴν ἱστορίαν, πολλὰ μὲν ἀγνοεῖ καὶ ψεύδεται· κἄν ποτε δὲ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐπιψαύσῃ, παραπλήσιός ἐστι τοῖς ζωγράφοις τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνασεσαγμένων θυλάκων ποιουμένοις τὰς ὑπογραφάς· καὶ γὰρ ἐπʼ ἐκείνων ἡ μὲν ἐκτὸς ἐνίοτε γραμμὴ σῴζεται, τὸ δὲ τῆς ἐμφάσεως καὶ τῆς ἐνεργείας τῶν ἀληθινῶν ζῴων ἄπεστιν, ὅπερ ἴδιον ὑπάρχει τῆς ζωγραφικῆς τέχνης. τὸ δʼ αὐτὸ συμβαίνει καὶ περὶ Τίμαιον καὶ καθόλου τοὺς ἀπὸ ταύτης τῆς βυβλιακῆς ἕξεως ὁρμωμένους· ἡ γὰρ ἔμφασις τῶν πραγμάτων αὐτοῖς ἄπεστι διὰ τὸ μόνον ἐκ τῆς αὐτοπαθείας τοῦτο γίνεσθαι τῆς τῶν συγγραφέων· ὅθεν οὐκ ἐντίκτουσιν ἀληθινοὺς ζήλους τοῖς ἀκούουσιν οἱ μὴ διʼ αὐτῶν πεπορευμένοι τῶν πραγμάτων. ᾗ καὶ τοιαύτας ᾤοντο δεῖν ἐν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασιν ὑπάρχειν ἐμφάσεις οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν ὥσθʼ, ὅτε μὲν ὑπὲρ πολιτικῶν ὁ λόγος εἴη πραγμάτων, ἐπιφθέγγεσθαι διότι κατʼ ἀνάγκην ὁ γράφων πεπολίτευται καὶ πεῖραν ἔσχηκε τῶν ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέρει συμβαινόντων, ὅτε δὲ περὶ πολεμικῶν, ὅτι πάλιν ἐστράτευκε καὶ κεκινδύνευκε, καὶ μὴν ὅτε περὶ βιωτικῶν, ὅτι τέτραφε τέκνα καὶ μετὰ γυναικὸς ἔζηκε. τὸ δὲ παραπλήσιον καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων τοῦ βίου μερῶν· ὃ παρὰ μόνοις εἰκὸς εὑρίσκεσθαι τῶν συγγραφέων τοῖς διʼ αὐτῶν πεπορευμένοις τῶν πραγμάτων καὶ τοῦτο τὸ μέρος περιπεποιημένοις τῆς ἱστορίας. πάντων μὲν οὖν οἷον αὐτουργὸν γενέσθαι καὶ δράστην δυσχερὲς ἴσως, τῶν μέντοι μεγίστων καὶ κοινοτάτων ἀναγκαῖον.

[¶3] 25i. And that this is no impossibility, Homer is a convincing instance; for in him you may see this quality of personal knowledge frequently and conspicuously displayed. The upshot of all this is that the study of documents is only one of three elements in the preparation of an historian, and is only third in importance. And no clearer proof of this could be given than that furnished by the deliberative speeches, harangues of commanders, and orations of ambassadors as recorded by Timaeus. For the truth is, that the occasions are rare which admit of all possible arguments being set forth; as a rule, the circumstances of the case confine them to narrow limits. And of such speeches one sort are regarded with favour by men of our time, another by those of an earlier age; different styles again are popular with Aetolians, Peloponnesians, and Athenians. But to make digressions, in season and out of season, for the purpose of setting forth every possible speech that could be made, as Timaeus does by his trick of inventing words to suit every sort of occasion, is utterly misleading, pedantic, and worthy of a schoolboy essayist. And this practice has brought failure and discredit on many writers. Of course to select from time to time the proper and appropriate language is a necessary part of our art: but as there is no fixed rule to decide the quantity and quality of the words to be used on a particular occasion, great care and training is required if we are to instruct and not mislead our readers. The exact nature of the situation is difficult to communicate always; still it may be brought home to the mind by means of systematic demonstration, founded on personal and habitual experience. The best way of securing that this should be realised is for historians, first, to state clearly the position, the aims, and the circumstances of those deliberating; and then, recording the real speeches made, to explain to us the causes which contributed to the success or failure of the several speakers. Thus we should obtain a true conception of the situation. and by exercising our judgment upon it, and drawing analogies from it, should be able to form a thoroughly sound opinion upon the circumstances of the hour. But I suppose that tracing causes is difficult, while stringing words together in books is easy. Few again have the faculty of speaking briefly to the point, and getting the necessary training for doing so; while to produce a long and futile composition is within most people’s capacity and is common enough.

> Greek: 25i. ὅτι δὲ τὸ λεγόμενον οὐκ ἀδύνατον, ἱκανὸν ὑπόδειγμα πρὸς πίστιν ὁ ποιητής, παρʼ ᾧ πολὺ τὸ τῆς τοιαύτης ἐμφάσεως ἴδοι τις ἂν ὑπάρχον. ἐξ ὧν πᾶς ἂν εἰκότως συγκατάθοιτο τρίτον εἶναι μέρος τῆς ἱστορίας καὶ τρίτην ἔχειν τάξιν τὴν ἐκ τῶν ὑπομνημάτων πολυπραγμοσύνην. ὡς δʼ ἀληθές ἐστι τὸ νυνὶ λεγόμενον καὶ ἐκφανέστατον γένοιτʼ ἂν ἐπί τε τῶν συμβουλευτικῶν καὶ παρακλητικῶν, ἔτι δὲ πρεσβευτικῶν λόγων, οἷς κέχρηται Τίμαιος. ὀλίγοι μὲν γὰρ καιροὶ πάντας ἐπιδέχονται διαθέσθαι τοὺς ἐνόντας λόγους, οἱ δὲ πλεῖστοι βραχεῖς [καί] τινας τῶν ὑπόντων, καὶ τούτων τινὰς μὲν οἱ νῦν, ἄλλους δʼ οἱ προγεγονότες, καὶ τινὰς μὲν Αἰτωλοὶ προσίενται, τινὰς δὲ Πελοποννήσιοι, τινὰς δʼ Ἀθηναῖοι. καὶ τὸ μὲν ματαίως καὶ ἀκαίρως [καὶ] πρὸς πάντα πάντας διεξιέναι τοὺς ἐνόντας λόγους, ὃ ποιεῖ Τίμαιος πρὸς πᾶσαν ὑπόθεσιν εὑρεσιλογῶν, τελέως ἀνάληθες καὶ μειρακιῶδες καὶ διατριβικόν — ἅμα καὶ πολλοῖς ἀποτυχίας αἴτιον ἤδη τοῦτο γέγονε καὶ καταφρονήσεως — τὸ δὲ τοὺς ἁρμόζοντας καὶ καιρίους ἀεὶ λαμβάνειν, τοῦτʼ ἀναγκαῖον. ἀστάτου δὲ τῆς χρείας οὔσης καὶ πόσοις καὶ ποίοις τῶν ἐνόντων χρηστέον, ἀλλοιοτέρου τινὸς δεῖ ζήλου καὶ παραγγέλματος, εἰ μέλλομεν μὴ βλάπτειν, ἀλλʼ ὠφελεῖν τοὺς ἀναγινώσκοντας. ἔστι μὲν οὖν ὁ καιρὸς ἐν πᾶσι δυσπαράγγελτος, οὐ μὴν ἀδύνατος εἰς ὑπόνοιαν ἀχθῆναι διὰ τῶν ἐκ τῆς αὐτοπαθείας καὶ τριβῆς θεωρημάτων· ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ παρόντος μάλιστʼ ἂν ὑπονοηθείη τὸ λεγόμενον ἐκ τούτων. εἰ γὰρ οἱ συγγραφεῖς ὑποδείξαντες τοὺς καιροὺς καὶ τὰς ὁρμὰς καὶ διαθέσεις τῶν βουλευομένων, κἄπειτα τοὺς κατʼ ἀλήθειαν ῥηθέντας λόγους ἐκθέντες διασαφήσαιεν ἡμῖν τὰς αἰτίας, διʼ ἃς ἢ κατευστοχῆσαι συνέβη τοὺς εἰπόντας ἢ διαπεσεῖν, γένοιτʼ ἄν τις ἔννοια τοῦ πράγματος ἀληθινή, καὶ δυναίμεθʼ ἂν ἅμα μὲν διακρίνοντες, ἅμα δὲ μεταφέροντες ἐπὶ τὰ παραπλήσια κατευστοχεῖν ἀεὶ τῶν προκειμένων. ἀλλʼ ἔστιν, οἶμαι, τὸ μὲν αἰτιολογεῖν δυσχερές, τὸ δὲ ῥησικοπεῖν ἐν τοῖς βυβλίοις ῥᾴδιον, καὶ τὸ μὲν ὀλίγα καιρίως εἰπεῖν καὶ τούτου παραγγελίαν εὑρεῖν ὀλίγοις ἐφικτόν, τὸ δὲ πολλὰ διαθέσθαι καὶ ματαίως τῶν ἐν μέσῳ κειμένων καὶ κοινόν.

[¶4] 25k. To confirm the judgment I have expressed of Timaeus, on his wilful misstatements as well as his ignorance, I shall now quote certain short passages from his acknowledged works as specimens.... Of all the men who have exercised sovereignty in Sicily, since the elder Gelo, tradition tells us that the most able have been Hermocrates, Timoleon, and Pyrrhus of Epirus, who are the last persons in the world on whom to father pedantic and scholastic speeches. Now Timaeus tells us in his twenty-first book that on his arrival in Sicily Eurymedon urged the cities there to undertake the war against Syracuse; that subsequently the people of Gela becoming tired of the war, sent an embassy to Camarina to make a truce; that upon the latter gladly welcoming the proposal, each state sent ambassadors to their respective allies begging them to despatch men of credit to Gela to deliberate on a pacification, and to secure the common interests. Upon the arrival of these deputies in Gela and the opening of the conference, he represents Hermocrates as speaking to the following effect: “He praised the people of Gela and Camarina first, for having made the truce; secondly, because they were the cause of the assembling of this peace congress; and thirdly because they had taken precautions to prevent the mass of the citizens from taking part in the discussion, and had secured that it should be confined to the leading men in the states, who knew the difference between peace and war.” Then after making two or three practical suggestions, Hermocrates is represented as expressing an opinion that “if they seriously consider the matter they will learn the profound difference between peace and war,”—although just before he had said that it was precisely this which moved his gratitude to the men of Gela, that “the discussion did not take place in the mass assembly, but in a congress of men who knew the difference between peace and war.” This is an instance in which Timaeus not only fails to show the ability of an historian, but sinks below the level of a school theme. For, I presume, it will be universally admitted that what an audience requires is a demonstration of that about which they are in ignorance or uncertainty; but to exhaust one’s ingenuity in finding arguments to prove what is known already is the most futile waste of time. But besides his cardinal mistake of directing the greater part of the speech to points which stood in need of no arguments at all, Timaeus also puts into the mouth of Hermocrates certain sentences of which one could scarcely believe that any commonplace youth would have been capable, much less the colleague of the Lacedaemonians in the battle of Aegospotami, and the sole conqueror of the Athenian armies and generals in Sicily.

> Greek: 25k. ἵνα δὲ καὶ περὶ ταῦτα βεβαιωσώμεθα τὴν ἀπόφασιν τὴν ὑπὲρ Τιμαίου, καθάπερ καὶ τὴν ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀγνοίας, ἔτι δὲ τῆς ἑκουσίου ψευδογραφίας, βραχέα προοισόμεθα τῶν ὁμολογουμένων αὐτοῦ λόγων ἐπʼ ὀνόματος. — ὅτι τῶν δεδυναστευκότων ἐν Σικελίᾳ μετὰ Γέλωνα τὸν ἀρχαῖον πραγματικωτάτους ἄνδρας παρειλήφαμεν Ἑρμοκράτην, Τιμολέοντα, Πύρρον τὸν Ἠπειρώτην, οἷς ἥκιστʼ ἂν δέοι περιάπτειν μειρακιώδεις καὶ διατριβικοὺς λόγους. ὁ δέ φησιν ἐν τῇ μιᾷ καὶ εἰκοστῇ βύβλῳ, καθʼ ὃν καιρὸν Εὐρυμέδων παραγενόμενος εἰς Σικελίαν παρεκάλει τὰς πόλεις εἰς τὸν κατὰ τῶν Συρακοσίων πόλεμον, τότε τοὺς Γελῴους κάμνοντας τῷ πολέμῳ διαπέμψασθαι πρὸς τοὺς Καμαριναίους ὑπὲρ ἀνοχῶν· τῶν δὲ προθύμως δεξαμένων, μετὰ ταῦτα πρεσβεύειν ἑκατέρους πρὸς τοὺς ἑαυτῶν συμμάχους καὶ παρακαλεῖν ἄνδρας ἐκπέμψαι πιστούς, οἵτινες εἰσελθόντες εἰς Γέλαν βουλεύσονται περὶ διαλύσεως καὶ τῶν κοινῇ συμφερόντων. παραγενομένων δὲ τῶν συνέδρων, καὶ διαβουλίου προτεθέντος τοιούτοις τισὶ χρώμενον εἰσάγει λόγοις τὸν Ἑρμοκράτην. ἐπαινέσας γὰρ ὁ προειρημένος ἀνὴρ τοὺς Γελῴους καὶ τοὺς Καμαριναίους, πρῶτον μὲν ὡς αὐτῶν ποιησάντων τὰς ἀνοχάς, δεύτερον ὅτι τοῦ περὶ διαλύσεως γενέσθαι λόγους αἴτιοι καθεστήκασι, τρίτον ὅτι προνοηθεῖεν τοῦ μὴ βουλεύεσθαι τὰ πλήθη περὶ τῶν διαλύσεων, ἀλλὰ τοὺς προεστῶτας τῶν πολιτῶν τοὺς σαφῶς εἰδότας τίνα διαφορὰν ὁ πόλεμος ἔχει τῆς εἰρήνης, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα δύʼ ἢ τρία λαβὼν ἐπιχειρήματα πραγματικά, λοιπόν φησιν αὐτοὺς ἐπιστήσαντας μαθεῖν ἡλίκην ὁ πόλεμος διαφορὰν ἔχει τῆς εἰρήνης, μικρῷ πρότερον εἰρηκὼς ὅτι κατʼ αὐτὸ τοῦτο χάριν ἔχει τοῖς Γελῴοις τὸ μὴ γίνεσθαι τοὺς λόγους ἐν τοῖς πολλοῖς ἀλλʼ ἐν συνεδρίῳ καλῶς γινώσκοντι τὰς τοιαύτας περιπετείας. ἐξ ὧν ὁ Τίμαιος οὐ μόνον τῆς πραγματικῆς ἂν δόξειεν ἀπολείπεσθαι δυνάμεως, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἐν ταῖς διατριβαῖς ἐπιχειρήσεων οὐκ ὀλίγον ἐλαττοῦσθαι. πάντες γὰρ δήπουθεν οἴονται δεῖν τὰς ἀποδείξεις φέρειν τῶν ἀγνοουμένων καὶ τῶν ἀπιστουμένων παρὰ τοῖς ἀκροαταῖς, περὶ δὲ τῶν ἤδη γινωσκομένων ματαιότατον εἶναι πάντων καὶ παιδαριωδέστατον τὸ καθευρεσιλογεῖν … μενον ἢ τὸ γινωσκόμενον. ὁ δὲ χωρὶς τῆς ὅλης παραπτώσεως τοῦ διατεθεῖσθαι τὸ πλεῖστον μέρος τοῦ λόγου πρὸς τὰ καθάπαξ μὴ προσδεόμενα λόγου καὶ λήμμασι κέχρηται τοιούτοις, οἷς τὸν μὲν Ἑρμοκράτην τίς ἂν κεχρῆσθαι πιστεύσειε, τὸν συναγωνισάμενον μὲν Λακεδαιμονίοις τὴν ἐν Αἰγὸς ποταμοῖς ναυμαχίαν, αὐτανδρὶ δὲ χειρωσάμενον τὰς Ἀθηναίων δυνάμεις καὶ τοὺς στρατηγοὺς κατὰ Σικελίαν, ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ μει ράκιον τὸ τυχόν;

[¶5] 26. For first he “thinks that he should remind the congress that in war sleepers are woke at dawn by bugles, in peace by cocks.” Then he says that “Hercules established the Olympic games and the sacred truce during them, as an exemplification of his own principles;” and that “he had injured all those persons against whom he waged war, under compulsion and in obedience to the order of another, but was never voluntarily the author of harm to any man.” Next he quotes the instance of Zeus in Homer as being displeased with Ares, and saying —
“Of all the gods that on Olympus dwell”
“I hold thee most detested; for thy joy”
“Is ever strife and war and battle.”
And again the wisest of the heroes says —
“He is a wretch, insensible and dead”
“To all the charities of social life,”
“Whose pleasure is in civil broil and war.”
Then he goes on to allege that Euripides agrees with Homer in the lines —
“O well of infinite riches!”
“O fairest of beings divine!”
“O Peace, how alas! thou delayest;”
“My heart for thy coming is fain.”
“I tremble lest age overtake me,”
“Ere thy beauty and grace I behold;”
“Ere the maidens shall sing in their dancing,”
“And revels be gladsome with flowers.”
Next he remarks that “war is like disease, peace like health; for that the latter restores those that are sick, while in the former even the healthy perish. Moreover, in time of peace, the old are buried by the young as nature directs, while in war the case is reversed; and above all in war there is no security even as far as the city walls, while in peace it extends to the frontier of the territory”—and so on. I wonder what other arguments would have been employed by a youth who had just devoted himself to scholastic exercises and studies in history; and who wished, according to the rules of the art, to adapt his words to the supposed speakers? Just these I think which Timaeus represents Hermocrates as using.

> Greek: 26. ὅς γε πρῶτον μὲν οἴεται δεῖν ἀναμνησθῆναι τοὺς συνέδρους διότι τοὺς κοιμωμένους τὸν ὄρθρον ἐν μὲν τῷ πολέμῳ διεγείρουσιν αἱ σάλπιγγες, κατὰ δὲ τὴν εἰρήνην οἱ ὄρνιθες. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τὸν Ἡρακλέα φησὶ τὸν μὲν Ὀλυμπίων ἀγῶνα θεῖναι καὶ τὴν ἐκεχειρίαν δεῖγμα ποιούμενον τῆς αὑτοῦ προαιρέσεως, ὅσοις δʼ ἐπολέμησε, τούτους πάντας βεβλαφέναι κατὰ τὴν ἀνάγκην καὶ κατʼ ἐπιταγήν, ἑκουσίως δὲ παραίτιον οὐδενὶ γεγονέναι κακοῦ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. ἑξῆς δὲ τούτοις παρὰ μὲν τῷ ποιητῇ τὸν Δία παρεισάγεσθαι δυσαρεστούμενον τῷ Ἄρει καὶ λέγοντα ἔχθιστος δέ μοί ἐσσι θεῶν, οἳ Ὄλυμπον ἔχουσιν· αἰεὶ γάρ τοι ἔρις τε φίλη πόλεμοί τε μάχαι τε. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸν φρονιμώτατον τῶν ἡρώων λέγειν ἀφρήτωρ, ἀθέμιστος, ἀνέστιός ἐστιν ἐκεῖνος ὃς πολέμου ἔραται ἐπιδημίου ὀκρυόεντος. ὁμογνωμονεῖν δὲ τῷ ποιητῇ καὶ τὸν Εὐριπίδην, ἐν οἷς φησιν, εἰρήνα βαθύπλουτε, καλλίστα μακάρων θεῶν, ζῆλός μοι σέθεν, ὡς χρονίζεις. δέδοικα δὲ μὴ πρὶν ὑπερβάλῃ με γῆρας, πρὶν σὰν χαρίεσσαν προσιδεῖν ὥραν καὶ καλλιχόρους ἀοιδὰς φιλοστεφάνους τε κώμους. ἔτι δὲ πρὸς τούτοις ὁμοιότατον εἶναί φησι τὸν μὲν πόλεμον τῇ νόσῳ, τὴν δʼ εἰρήνην τῇ ὑγιείᾳ· τὴν μὲν γὰρ καὶ τοὺς κάμνοντας ἀναλαμβάνειν, ἐν ᾧ δὲ καὶ τοὺς ὑγιαίνοντας ἀπόλλυσθαι. καὶ κατὰ μὲν τὴν εἰρήνην τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους ὑπὸ τῶν νέων θάπτεσθαι κατὰ φύσιν, ἐν δὲ τῷ πολέμῳ τἀναντία, τὸ δὲ μέγιστον ἐν μὲν τῷ πολέμῳ μηδʼ ἄχρι τῶν τειχῶν εἶναι τὴν ἀσφάλειαν, κατὰ δὲ τὴν εἰρήνην μέχρι τῶν τῆς χώρας ὅρων, καὶ τούτοις ἕτερα παραπλήσια. θαυμάζω δὴ τίσι ποτʼ ἂν ἄλλοις ἐχρήσατο λόγοις ἢ προφοραῖς μειράκιον ἄρτι γενόμενον περὶ διατριβὰς καὶ τὰς ἐκ τῶν ὑπομνημάτων πολυπραγμοσύνας καὶ βουλόμενον παραγγελματικῶς ἐκ τῶν παρεπομένων τοῖς προσώποις ποιεῖσθαι τὴν ἐπιχείρησιν· δοκεῖ γὰρ οὐχ ἑτέροις, ἀλλὰ τούτοις οἷς Τίμαιος Ἑρμοκράτην κεχρῆσθαί φησι.

[¶6] 26a. Again, in the same book, Timoleon is exhorting the Greeks to engage the Carthaginians; and when they are on the very point of coming to close quarters with the enemy, who are many times superior to them in number, Timaeus represents him as saying, “Do not look to the numbers of the foe, but to their cowardice. For though Libya is fully settled and abounds in inhabitants, yet when we wish to express complete desolation we say ‘more desolate than Libya,’ not meaning to refer to its emptiness, but to the poor spirit of its inhabitants. And after all, who would be afraid of men who, when nature gives hands as the distinctive feature of man among all living creatures, carry them about all their life inside their tunics idle? And more than all, who wear shirts under their inner tunics, that they may not even when they fall in battle show their nakedness to their enemies?...”

> Greek: 26a. τί δὲ πάλιν ὅταν ὁ Τιμολέων ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ βύβλῳ παρακαλῶν τοὺς Ἕλληνας πρὸς τὸν ἐπὶ τοὺς Καρχηδονίους κίνδυνον, καὶ μόνον οὐκ ἤδη μελλόντων συνάγειν εἰς τὰς χεῖρας τοῖς ἐχθροῖς πολλαπλασίοις οὖσι, πρῶτον μὲν ἀξιοῖ μὴ βλέπειν αὐτοὺς πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ὑπεναντίων, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὴν ἀνανδρίαν; καὶ γὰρ τῆς Λιβύης ἁπάσης συνεχῶς οἰκουμένης καὶ πληθυούσης ἀνθρώπων, ὅμως ἐν ταῖς παροιμίαις, ὅταν περὶ ἐρημίας ἔμφασιν βουλώμεθα ποιῆσαι, λέγειν ἡμᾶς "3ἐρημότερα τῆς Λιβύησ"3, οὐκ ἐπὶ τὴν ἐρημίαν φέροντας τὸν λόγον, ἀλλʼ ἐπὶ τὴν ἀνανδρίαν τῶν κατοικούντων. καθόλου δέ, φησί, τίς ἂν φοβηθείη τοὺς ἄνδρας, οἵτινες τῆς φύσεως τοῦτο τοῖς ἀνθρώποις δεδωκυίας ἴδιον παρὰ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν ζῴων, λέγω δὲ τὰς χεῖρας, ταύτας παρʼ ὅλον τὸν βίον ἐντὸς τῶν χιτώνων ἔχοντες ἀπράκτους περιφέρουσι; τὸ δὲ μέγιστον ὅτι καὶ ὑπὸ τοῖς χιτωνίσκοις, φησί, περιζώματα φοροῦσιν, ἵνα μηδʼ ὅταν ἀποθάνωσιν ἐν ταῖς μάχαις φανεροὶ γένωνται τοῖς ὑπεναντίοις … ὅτι Γέλωνος ἐπαγγελλομένου τοῖς Ἕλλησι δισμυρίοις πεζοῖς, διακοσίαις δὲ ναυσὶ καταφράκτοις βοηθήσειν, ἐὰν αὐτῷ τῆς ἡγεμονίας ἢ τῆς κατὰ γῆν ἢ τῆς κατὰ θάλατταν παραχωρήσωσι, φασὶ τοὺς προκαθημένους ἐν Κορίνθῳ τῶν Ἑλλήνων πραγματικώτατον ἀπόκριμα δοῦναι τοῖς παρὰ τοῦ Γέλωνος πρεσβευταῖς·

[¶7] 26b. When Gelo promised to help the Greeks with twenty thousand land forces and two hundred decked ships, if they would concede to him the chief command either by land or sea, they say that the congress of Greeks, sitting at Corinth, gave Gelo’s envoys a most spirited answer. They urged Gelo to come to their aid with his forces, and observed that the logic of facts would give the command to the bravest. This is not the language of men depending for succour on the Syracusans, as a last resource; but of men who felt confidence in themselves, and challenged all comers to a rivalry of courage and for the crown of valour. In spite of this, Timaeus spends such a wealth of rhetoric and earnestness on these points, in his desire to exalt the importance of Sicily above all the rest of Greece, to represent its history as the most splendid and glorious of all the world, its men as the wisest of all who have been great in philosophy, and the Syracusans as the most consummate and divine of statesmen, that he could scarcely be surpassed by the cleverest schoolboy declaimers when undertaking to prove such paradoxes as that “Thersites was an excellent man,” or “Penelope a bad wife,” or other thesis of that description.

> Greek: 26b. ἐκέλευον γὰρ ὡς ἐπίκουρον ἔρχεσθαι τὸν Γέλωνα μετὰ τῶν δυνάμεων, τὴν δʼ ἡγεμονίαν ἀνάγκῃ τὰ πράγματα περιθήσειν τοῖς ἀρίστοις τῶν ἀνδρῶν· τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶν οὐ καταφευγόντων ἐπὶ τὰς Συρακοσίων ἐλπίδας, ἀλλὰ πιστευόντων αὑτοῖς καὶ προκαλουμένων τὸν βουλόμενον ἐπὶ τὸν τῆς ἀνδρείας ἀγῶνα καὶ τὸν περὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς στέφανον. ἀλλʼ ὅμως Τίμαιος εἰς ἕκαστα τῶν προειρημένων τοσούτους ἐκτείνει λόγους καὶ τοιαύτην ποιεῖται σπουδὴν περὶ τοῦ τὴν μὲν Σικελίαν μεγαλομερεστέραν ποιῆσαι τῆς συμπάσης Ἑλλάδος, τὰς δʼ ἐν αὐτῇ πράξεις ἐπιφανεστέρας καὶ καλλίους τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἄλλην οἰκουμένην, τῶν δʼ ἀνδρῶν τῶν μὲν σοφίᾳ διενηνοχότων σοφωτάτους τοὺς ἐν Σικελίᾳ, τῶν δὲ πραγματικῶν ἡγεμονικωτάτους καὶ θειοτάτους τοὺς ἐκ Συρακουσῶν, ὥστε μὴ καταλιπεῖν ὑπερβολὴν τοῖς μειρακίοις τοῖς ἐν ταῖς διατριβαῖς καὶ τοῖς περιπάτοις πρὸς τὰς παραδόξους ἐπιχειρήσεις, ὅταν ἢ Θερσίτου λέγειν ἐγκώμιον ἢ Πηνελόπης πρόθωνται ψόγον ἤ τινος ἑτέρου τῶν τοιούτων.

[¶8] 26c. However, the only effect of such extravagant exaggeration is to bring ridicule upon the men and the transactions which it is his intention to champion; while he himself incurs the same discredit as ill-trained disputants in the Academy; some of whom, in their desire to embarrass their opponents on all subjects, possible or impossible alike, carry their paradoxical and sophistical arguments to such a length as to dispute whether it is possible for people at Athens to smell eggs cooking at Ephesus: and to offer to maintain that, while they are discussing these points, they are lying on their couches at home and carrying on a second discussion on other subjects. This extravagance of paradox has brought the whole school into such disrepute, that even reasonable discussions have lost credit with the world. And apart from their own futility, these persons have inspired our young men with so depraved a taste, that they pay no attention whatever to questions of ethics and politics, which bring benefit to those who study them; but spend their lives in pursuit of an empty reputation for useless and paradoxical verbiage.

> Greek: 26c. λοιπὸν ἐκ τούτων διὰ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς παραδοξολογίας οὐκ εἰς σύγκρισιν, ἀλλʼ εἰς καταμώκησιν ἄγει καὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας καὶ τὰς πράξεις ὧν βούλεται προΐστασθαι, καὶ σχεδὸν εἰς τὸ παραπλήσιον ἐμπίπτει τοῖς περὶ τοὺς ἐν Ἀκαδημείᾳ λόγους πρὸς τὸν προχειρότατον λόγον ἠσκηκόσι. καὶ γὰρ ἐκείνων τινὲς βουλόμενοι περί τε τῶν προφανῶς καταληπτῶν εἶναι δοκούντων καὶ περὶ τῶν ἀκαταλήπτων εἰς ἀπορίαν ἄγειν τοὺς προσδιαλεγομένους τοιαύταις χρῶνται παραδοξολογίαις καὶ τοιαύτας εὐποροῦσι πιθανότητας ὥστε διαπορεῖν εἰ δυνατόν ἐστι τοὺς ἐν Ἀθήναις ὄντας ὀσφραίνεσθαι τῶν ἑψομένων ᾠῶν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ καὶ διστάζειν μή πως, καθʼ ὃν καιρὸν ἐν Ἀκαδημείᾳ διαλέγονται περὶ τούτων, οὐχ ὕπαρ, ἀλλʼ ὄναρ ἐν οἴκῳ κατακείμενοι τούτους διατίθενται τοὺς λόγους. ἐξ ὧν διὰ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς παραδοξολογίας εἰς διαβολὴν ἤχασι τὴν ὅλην αἵρεσιν, ὥστε καὶ τὰ καλῶς ἀπορούμενα παρὰ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις εἰς ἀπιστίαν ἦχθαι. καὶ χωρὶς τῆς ἰδίας ἀστοχίας καὶ τοῖς νέοις τοιοῦτον ἐντετόκασι ζῆλον, ὥστε τῶν μὲν ἠθικῶν καὶ πραγματικῶν λόγων μηδὲ τὴν τυχοῦσαν ἐπίνοιαν ποιεῖσθαι συμβαίνει, διʼ ὧν ὄνησις τοῖς φιλοσοφοῦσι, περὶ δὲ τὰς ἀνωφελεῖς καὶ παραδόξους εὑρεσιλογίας κενοδοξοῦντες κατατρίβουσι τοὺς βίους.

[¶9] 26d. This is just the case with Timaeus and his imitators in history. Paradoxical and tenacious, he has dazzled the multitude by skill in words; and has forced attention to himself by a show of veracity, or has conciliated confidence by a pretence of producing proof of his assertions. The most conspicuous instances of his success in inspiring this confidence are those parts of his work which treat of colonies, founding of cities, and the relationships of nations. In these points he makes such a parade of minute accuracy, and inveighs so bitterly when refuting others, that people came to imagine that all other historians have been mere dreamers, and have spoken at random in describing the world; and that he is the only man who has made accurate investigations, and unravelled every history with intelligence. As a matter of fact, his books contain much that is sound, but also much that is false. Those, however, who have spent much time on his earlier books, in which the passages I have alluded to occur, when the confidence which they have fully given to his exaggerated professions is disturbed by some one pointing out that Timaeus is obnoxious to the same reproaches which he has brought with such bitterness against others (as, for instance, in the misstatements as to the Locrians, and other instances lately mentioned by me), become angry and obstinate in controversy, and difficult to convince. And that, I might almost say, is all the benefit which the most diligent students of his history get from their reading. While those who devote their attention to his speeches, and generally to the didactic part of his work, become pedantic, sophistical, and wholly insensible to truth, for reasons which I have already stated.

> Greek: 26d. τὸ δʼ αὐτὸ καὶ Τιμαίῳ συμβέβηκε περὶ τὴν ἱστορίαν καὶ τοῖς τούτου ζηλωταῖς· παραδοξολόγος γὰρ ὢν καὶ φιλόνεικος περὶ τὸ προτεθὲν τοὺς μὲν πολλοὺς καταπέπληκται τοῖς λόγοις, ἠνάγκακε δʼ αὑτῷ προσέχειν διὰ τὴν ἐπίφασιν τῆς ἀληθινολογίας, τινὰς δὲ καὶ προσκέκληται καὶ μετʼ ἀποδείξεως δοκεῖ πείσειν. καὶ μάλιστα ταύτην γʼ ἐνείργασται τὴν δόξαν ἐκ τῶν περὶ τὰς ἀποικίας καὶ κτίσεις καὶ συγγενείας ἀποφάσεων· ἐν γὰρ τούτοις τηλικαύτην ἐπίφασιν ποιεῖ διὰ τῆς ἀκριβολογίας καὶ τῆς πικρίας τῆς ἐπὶ τῶν ἐλέγχων, οἷς χρῆται κατὰ τῶν πέλας, ὥστε δοκεῖν τοὺς ἄλλους συγγραφέας ἅπαντας συγκεκοιμῆσθαι τοῖς πράγμασι καὶ κατεσχεδιακέναι τῆς οἰκουμένης, αὐτὸν δὲ μόνον ἐξητακέναι τὴν ἀκρίβειαν καὶ διευκρινηκέναι τὰς ἐν ἑκάστοις ἱστορίας, ἐν οἷς πολλὰ μὲν ὑγιῶς λέγεται, πολλὰ δὲ καὶ ψευδῶς. οὐ μὴν ἀλλʼ οἱ πλείω χρόνον συντραφέντες αὐτοῦ τοῖς πρώτοις ὑπομνήμασιν, ἐν οἷς αἱ περὶ τῶν προειρημένων εἰσὶ συντάξεις, ὅταν ἅπασαν συνταξαμένῳ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ἀποπιστεύσωσι, κἄπειτά τις αὐτοῖς ἀποδεικνύῃ τὸν Τίμαιον, ἐν οἷς πικρότατός ἐστι κατὰ τῶν πέλας, αὐτὸν ἔνοχον ὄντα, καθάπερ ἡμεῖς ἀρτίως ἐπὶ τῶν Λοκρῶν καὶ τῶν ἑξῆς παραπαίοντα συνεστήσαμεν, δυσέριδες γίνονται καὶ φιλόνεικοι καὶ δυσμετάθετοι, καὶ σχεδὸν ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν οἱ φιλοπονώτατα προσεδρεύσαντες τοῖς ὑπομνήμασιν αὐτοῦ τοῦτʼ ἀποφέρονται τὸ λυσιτελὲς ἐκ τῆς ἀναγνώσεως. οἵ γε μὴν ταῖς δημηγορίαις προσσχόντες αὐτοῦ καὶ καθόλου τοῖς διεξοδικοῖς λόγοις μειρακιώδεις καὶ διατριβικοὶ καὶ τελέως ἀναλήθεις γίνονται διὰ τὰς ἄρτι ῥηθείσας αἰτίας. λοιπὸν δὲ τὸ πραγματικὸν αὐτῷ μέρος τῆς ἱστορίας ἐκ πάντων σύγκειται τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων, ὧν τὰ πλεῖστα διεληλύθαμεν· τὴν δʼ αἰτίαν τῆς ἁμαρτίας νῦν ἐροῦμεν, ἥτις οὐκ ἔνδοξος μὲν φανεῖται τοῖς πλείστοις, ἀληθινωτάτη δʼ εὑρεθήσεται τῶν Τιμαίου κατηγορημάτων. δοκεῖ μὲν γὰρ καὶ τὴν ἐμπειρικὴν περὶ ἕκαστα δύναμιν καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ τῆς πολυπραγμοσύνης ἕξιν παρεσκευάσθαι καὶ συλλήβδην φιλοπόνως προσεληλυθέναι πρὸς τὸ γράφειν τὴν ἱστορίαν, ἐν ἐνίοις δʼ οὐδεὶς οὔτʼ ἀπειρότερος οὔτʼ ἀφιλοπονώτερος φαίνεται γεγονέναι τῶν ἐπʼ ὀνόματος συγγραφέων. δῆλον δʼ ἔσται τὸ λεγόμενον ἐκ τούτων.

[¶10] 27. Moreover, when he comes to deal with facts in his history, we find a combination of all the faults which I have mentioned. The reason I will now proceed to state. It will not, perhaps, to most people seem to his credit, and it is in truth the real source of his errors. For whereas he is thought to have possessed great and wide knowledge, a faculty for historical inquiry, and extraordinary industry in the execution of his work, in certain cases he appears to have been the most ignorant and indolent person that ever called himself an historian. And the following considerations will prove it. Nature has bestowed on us two instruments of inquiry and research, hearing and sight. Of these sight is, according to Heracleitus, by far the truer; for eyes are surer witnesses than ears. And of these channels of learning Timaeus has chosen the pleasanter and the worse; for he entirely retrained from looking at things with his own eyes, and devoted himself to learning by hearsay. But even the ear may be instructed in two ways, reading and answers to personal inquiries: and in the latter of these he was very indolent, as I have already shown. The reason of his preference for the other it is easy to divine. Study of documents involves no danger or fatigue, if one only takes care to lodge in a city rich in such records, or to have a library in one’s neighbourhood. You may then investigate any question while reclining on your couch, and compare the mistakes of former historians without any fatigue to yourself. But personal investigation demands great exertion and expense; though it is exceedingly advantageous, and in fact is the very corner-stone of history. This is evident from the writers of history themselves. Ephorus says, “if writers could only be present at the actual transactions, it would be far the best of all modes of learning.” Theopompus says, “the best military historian is he who has been present at the greatest number of battles; the best speech maker is he who has been engaged in most political contests.” The same might be said of the art of healing and of steering. Homer has spoken even more emphatically than these writers on this point. For when he wishes to describe what the man of light and leading should be, he introduces Odysseus in these words—
“Tell me, oh Muse, the man of many shifts”
“Who wandered far and wide.”
and then goes on—
“And towns of many saw, and learnt their mind,”
“And suffered much in heart by land and sea.”
and again —
“Passing through wars of men and grievous waves.”

> Greek: 27. δυεῖν γὰρ ὄντων κατὰ φύσιν ὡς ἂν εἴ τινων ὀργάνων ἡμῖν, οἷς πάντα πυνθανόμεθα καὶ πολυπραγμονοῦμεν [ἀκοῆς καὶ ὁράσεως], ἀληθινωτέρας δʼ οὔσης οὐ μικρῷ τῆς ὁράσεως κατὰ τὸν Ἡράκλειτον — ὀφθαλμοὶ γὰρ τῶν ὤτων ἀκριβέστεροι μάρτυρες — τούτων Τίμαιος τὴν ἡδίω μέν, ἥττω δὲ τῶν ὁδῶν ὥρμησε πρὸς τὸ πολυπραγμονεῖν. τῶν μὲν γὰρ διὰ τῆς ὁράσεως εἰς τέλος ἀπέστη, τῶν δὲ διὰ τῆς ἀκοῆς ἀντεποιήσατο. καὶ ταύτης διμεροῦς οὔσης τινός, τοῦ μὲν διὰ τῶν ὑπομνημάτων τὸ δὲ περὶ τὰς ἀνακρίσεις ῥᾳθύμως ἀνεστράφη, καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς ἀνώτερον ἡμῖν δεδήλωται. διʼ ἣν δʼ αἰτίαν ταύτην ἔσχε τὴν αἵρεσιν εὐχερὲς καταμαθεῖν· ὅτι τὰ μὲν ἐκ τῶν βυβλίων δύναται πολυπραγμονεῖσθαι χωρὶς κινδύνου καὶ κακοπαθείας, ἐάν τις αὐτὸ τοῦτο προνοηθῇ μόνον ὥστε λαβεῖν ἢ πόλιν ἔχουσαν ὑπομνημάτων πλῆθος ἢ βυβλιοθήκην που γειτνιῶσαν. λοιπὸν κατακείμενον ἐρευνᾶν δεῖ τὸ ζητούμενον καὶ συγκρίνειν τὰς τῶν προγεγονότων συγγραφέων ἀγνοίας ἄνευ πάσης κακοπαθείας. ἡ δὲ πολυπραγμοσύνη πολλῆς μὲν προσδεῖται ταλαιπωρίας καὶ δαπάνης, μέγα δέ τι συμβάλλεται καὶ μέγιστόν ἐστι μέρος τῆς ἱστορίας. δῆλον δὲ τοῦτʼ ἐστὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν τὰς συντάξεις πραγματευομένων. ὁ μὲν γὰρ Ἔφορός φησιν, εἰ δυνατὸν ἦν αὐτοὺς παρεῖναι πᾶσι τοῖς πράγμασι, ταύτην ἂν διαφέρειν πολὺ τῶν ἐμπειριῶν· ὁ δὲ Θεόπομπος τοῦτον μὲν ἄριστον ἐν τοῖς πολεμικοῖς τὸν πλείστοις κινδύνοις παρατετευχότα, τοῦτον δὲ δυνατώτατον ἐν λόγῳ τὸν πλείστων μετεσχηκότα πολιτικῶν ἀγώνων. τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον συμβαίνειν ἐπʼ ἰατρικῆς καὶ κυβερνητικῆς. ἔτι δὲ τούτων ἐμφαντικώτερον ὁ ποιητὴς εἴρηκε περὶ τούτου τοῦ μέρους. ἐκεῖνος γὰρ βουλόμενος ὑποδεικνύειν ἡμῖν οἷον δεῖ τὸν ἄνδρα τὸν πραγματικὸν εἶναι, προθέμενος τὸ τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως πρόσωπον λέγει πως οὕτως· ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, Μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ πλάγχθη, καὶ προβάς, πολλῶν δʼ ἀνθρώπων ἴδεν ἄστεα καὶ νόον ἔγνω, πολλὰ δʼ ὅγʼ ἐν πόντῳ πάθεν ἄλγεα ὃν κατὰ θυμόν, καὶ ἔτι ἀνδρῶν τε πτολέμους ἀλεγεινά τε κύματα πείρων.

[¶11] 28. It is such a man that the dignity of history appears to me to require. Plato says that “human affairs will not go well until either philosophers become kings or kings become philosophers.” So I should say that history will never be properly written, until either men of action undertake to write it (not as they do now, as a matter of secondary importance; but, with the conviction that it is their most necessary and honourable employment, shall devote themselves through life exclusively to it), or historians become convinced that practical experience is of the first importance for historical composition. Until that time arrives there will always be abundance of blunders in the writings of historians. Timaeus, however, quite disregarded all this. He spent his life in one place, of which he was not even a citizen; and thus deliberately renounced all active career either in war or politics, and all personal exertion in travel and inspection of localities: and yet, somehow or another, he has managed to obtain the reputation of a master in the art of history. To prove that I have not misrepresented him, it is easy to bring the evidence of Timaeus himself. In the preface to his sixth book he says that “some people suppose that more genius, industry, and preparation are required for rhetorical than for historical composition.” And that “this opinion had been formerly advanced against Ephorus.” Then because this writer had been unable to refute those who held it, he undertakes himself to draw a comparison between history and rhetorical compositions: a most unnecessary proceeding altogether. In the first place he misrepresents Ephorus. For in truth, admirable as Ephorus is throughout his whole work, in style, treatment, and argumentative acuteness, he is never more brilliant than in his digressions and statements of his personal views: in fact, whenever he is adding anything in the shape of a commentary or a note. And it so happens that his most elegant and convincing digression is on this very subject of a comparison between historians and speech-writers. But Timaeus is anxious not to be thought to follow Ephorus. Therefore, in addition to misrepresenting him and condemning the rest, he enters upon a long, confused, and in every way inferior, discussion of what had been already sufficiently handled by others; and expected that no one living would detect him. However, he wished to exalt history; and, in order to do so, he says that “history differs from rhetorical composition as much as real buildings differ from those represented in scene-paintings.” And again, that “to collect the necessary materials for writing history is by itself more laborious than the whole process of producing rhetorical compositions.” He mentions, for instance, the expense and labour which he underwent in collecting records from Assyria, and in studying the customs of the Ligures, Celts, and Iberians. But he exaggerates these so much, that he could not have himself expected to be believed. One would be glad to ask the historian which of the two he thinks is the more expensive and laborious,—to remain quietly at home and collect records and study the customs of Ligures and Celts, or to obtain personal experience of all the tribes possible, and see them with his own eyes? To ask questions about manœuvres on the field of battle and the sieges of cities and fights at sea from those who were present, or to take personal part in the dangers and vicissitudes of these operations as they occur? For my part I do not think that real buildings differ so much from those in stage - scenery, nor history from rhetorical compositions, as a narrative drawn from actual and personal experience differs from one derived from hearsay and the report of others. But Timaeus had no such experience: and he therefore naturally supposed that the part of an historian’s labour which is the least important and lightest, that namely of collecting records and making inquiries from those who had knowledge of the several events, was in reality the most important and most difficult. And, indeed, in this particular department of research, men who have had no personal experience must necessarily fall into grave errors. For how is a man, who has no knowledge of such things, to put the right questions as to manœuvering of troops, sieges of cities, and fights at sea? And how can he understand the details of what is told him? Indeed, the questioner is as important as the narrator for getting a clear story. For in the case of men who have had experience of real action, memory is a sufficient guide from point to point of a narrative: but a man who has had no such experience can neither put the right questions, nor understand what is happening before his eyes. Though he is on the spot, in fact, he is as good as absent.

> Greek: 28. δοκεῖ δέ μοι καὶ τὸ τῆς ἱστορίας πρόσχημα τοιοῦτον ἄνδρα ζητεῖν. ὁ μὲν οὖν Πλάτων φησὶ τότε τἀνθρώπεια καλῶς ἕξειν, ὅταν ἢ οἱ φιλόσοφοι βασιλεύσωσιν ἢ οἱ βασιλεῖς φιλοσοφήσωσι· κἀγὼ δʼ ἂν εἴποιμι διότι τὰ τῆς ἱστορίας ἕξει τότε καλῶς, ὅταν ἢ οἱ πραγματικοὶ τῶν ἀνδρῶν γράφειν ἐπιχειρήσωσι τὰς ἱστορίας, μὴ καθάπερ νῦν παρέργως, νομίσαντες δὲ καὶ τοῦτʼ εἶναι σφίσι τῶν ἀναγκαιοτάτων καὶ καλλίστων, ἀπερίσπαστοι παράσχωνται πρὸς τοῦτο τὸ μέρος κατὰ τὸν βίον, ἢ οἱ γράφειν ἐπιβαλλόμενοι τὴν ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν πραγμάτων ἕξιν ἀναγκαίαν ἡγήσωνται πρὸς τὴν ἱστορίαν. πρότερον δʼ οὐκ ἔσται παῦλα τῆς τῶν ἱστοριογράφων ἀγνοίας. ὧν Τίμαιος οὐδὲ τὴν ἐλαχίστην πρόνοιαν θέμενος, ἀλλὰ καταβιώσας ἐν ἑνὶ τόπῳ ξενιτεύων, καὶ σχεδὸν ὡς εἰ κατὰ πρόθεσιν ἀπειπάμενος καὶ τὴν ἐνεργητικὴν τὴν περὶ τὰς πολεμικὰς καὶ πολιτικὰς πράξεις καὶ τὴν ἐκ τῆς πλάνης καὶ θέας αὐτοπάθειαν, οὐκ οἶδʼ ὅπως ἐκφέρεται δόξαν ὡς ἕλκων τὴν τοῦ συγγραφέως προστασίαν. καὶ διότι τοιοῦτός ἐστιν αὐτὸν ἀνθομολογούμενον εὐχερὲς παραστῆσαι τὸν Τίμαιον. κατὰ γὰρ τὸ προοίμιον τῆς ἕκτης βύβλου φησί τινας ὑπολαμβάνειν διότι τινὸς μείζονος δεῖται φύσεως καὶ φιλοπονίας καὶ παρασκευῆς τὸ τῶν ἐπιδεικτικῶν λόγων γένος ἢ τὸ τῆς ἱστορίας· ταύτας δὲ τὰς δόξας πρότερον μὲν Ἐφόρῳ φησὶ προσπεσεῖν, οὐ δυνηθέντος δʼ ἱκανῶς ἐκείνου πρὸς τοὺς ταῦτα λέγοντας ἀπαντῆσαι, πειρᾶται συγκρίνειν αὐτὸς ἐκ παραβολῆς τὴν ἱστορίαν τοῖς ἐπιδεικτικοῖς λόγοις, πρᾶγμα ποιῶν πάντων ἀτοπώτατον, πρῶτον μὲν τὸ καταψεύσασθαι τοῦ συγγραφέως. ὁ γὰρ Ἔφορος παρʼ ὅλην τὴν πραγματείαν θαυμάσιος ὢν καὶ κατὰ τὴν φράσιν καὶ κατὰ τὸν χειρισμὸν καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἐπίνοιαν τῶν λημμάτων, δεινότατός ἐστιν ἐν ταῖς παρεκβάσεσι καὶ ταῖς ἀφʼ αὑτοῦ γνωμολογίαις, καὶ συλλήβδην ὅταν που τὸν ἐπιμετροῦντα λόγον διατίθηται· κατὰ δέ τινα συντυχίαν εὐχαριστότατα καὶ πιθανώτατα περὶ τῆς συγκρίσεως εἴρηκε τῆς τῶν ἱστοριογράφων καὶ λογογράφων. ὁ δʼ ἵνα μὴ δόξῃ κατακολουθεῖν Ἐφόρῳ, πρὸς τῷ κατεψεῦσθαι ʼκείνου καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἅμα κατέγνωκε· τὰ γὰρ παρʼ ἄλλων δεόντως κεχειρισμένα μακρῶς καὶ ἀσαφῶς καὶ τρόπῳ παντὶ χεῖρον ἐξηγούμενος οὐδένα τῶν ζώντων ὑπέλαβε τοῦτο παρατηρήσειν. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ βουλόμενος αὔξειν τὴν ἱστορίαν πρῶτον μὲν τηλικαύτην εἶναί φησι διαφορὰν τῆς ἱστορίας πρὸς τοὺς ἐπιδεικτικοὺς λόγους, ἡλίκην ἔχει τὰ κατʼ ἀλήθειαν ᾠκοδομημένα καὶ κατεσκευασμένα τῶν ἐν ταῖς σκηνογραφίαις φαινομένων τόπων καὶ διαθέσεων· δεύτερον αὐτὸ τὸ συναθροῖσαί φησι τὴν παρασκευὴν τὴν πρὸς τὴν ἱστορίαν μεῖζον ἔργον εἶναι τῆς ὅλης πραγματείας τῆς περὶ τοὺς ἐπιδεικτικοὺς λόγους· αὐτὸς γοῦν τηλικαύτην ὑπομεμενηκέναι δαπάνην καὶ κακοπάθειαν τοῦ συναγαγεῖν τὰ παρὰ Κυρνίων ὑπομνήματα καὶ πολυπραγμονῆσαι τὰ Λιγύων ἔθη καὶ Κελτῶν, ἅμα δὲ τούτοις Ἰβήρων, ὥστε μήτʼ ἂν αὐτὸς ἐλπίσαι μήτʼ ἂν ἑτέρους ἐξηγουμένους πιστευθῆναι περὶ τούτων. ἡδέως δέ τις ἂν ἔροιτο τὸν συγγραφέα πότερον ὑπολαμβάνει μείζονος δεῖσθαι δαπάνης καὶ κακοπαθείας τὸ καθήμενον ἐν ἄστει συνάγειν ὑπομνήματα καὶ πολυπραγμονεῖν τὰ Λιγύων ἔθη καὶ Κελτῶν ἢ τὸ πειραθῆναι τῶν πλείστων ἐθνῶν καὶ τόπων αὐτόπτην γενέσθαι. τί δʼ αὖ τὸ πυνθάνεσθαι τὰς παρατάξεις καὶ πολιορκίας, ἔτι δὲ ναυμαχίας, τῶν παρατετυχηκότων τοῖς κινδύνοις, ἢ τὸ πεῖραν λαβεῖν τῶν δεινῶν καὶ τῶν ἅμα τούτοις συμβαινόντων ἐπʼ αὐτῶν τῶν ἔργων; ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ οἴομαι τηλικαύτην διαφορὰν ἔχειν τὰ κατʼ ἀλήθειαν οἰκοδομήματα τῶν ἐν ταῖς σκηνογραφίαις τόπων, οὐδὲ τὴν ἱστορίαν τῶν ἐπιδεικτικῶν λόγων, ἡλίκην ἐπὶ πασῶν τῶν συντάξεων τὴν ἐξ αὐτουργίας καὶ τὴν ἐξ αὐτοπαθείας ἀπόφασιν τῶν ἐξ ἀκοῆς καὶ διηγήματος γραφομένων· ἧς εἰς τέλος ἄπειρος ὢν εἰκότως ὑπέλαβε τὸ πάντων ἐλάχιστον καὶ ῥᾷστον εἶναι μέγιστον καὶ χαλεπώτατον τοῖς πραγματευομένοις τὴν ἱστορίαν, λέγω δὲ τὸ συνάγειν ὑπομνήματα καὶ πυνθάνεσθαι παρὰ τῶν εἰδότων ἕκαστα τῶν πραγμάτων. καίτοι γε περὶ τοῦτο τὸ μέρος ἀνάγκη μεγάλα διαψεύδεσθαι τοὺς ἀπείρους· πῶς γὰρ οἷόν τε καλῶς ἀνακρῖναι περὶ παρατάξεως ἢ πολιορκίας ἢ ναυμαχίας; πῶς δὲ συνεῖναι τῶν ἐξηγουμένων τὰ κατὰ μέρος ἀνεννόητον ὄντα τῶν προειρημένων; οὐ γὰρ ἔλαττον ὁ πυνθανόμενος τῶν ἀπαγγελλόντων συμβάλλεται πρὸς τὴν ἐξήγησιν· ἡ γὰρ τῶν παρεπομένων τοῖς πράγμασιν ὑπόμνησις αὐτὴ χειραγωγεῖ τὸν ἐξηγούμενον ἐφʼ ἕκαστα τῶν συμβεβηκότων· ὑπὲρ ὧν ὁ μὲν ἄπειρος οὔτʼ ἀνακρῖναι τοὺς παραγεγονότας ἱκανός ἐστιν οὔτε συμπαρὼν γνῶναι τὸ γινόμενον, ἀλλὰ κἂν παρῇ, τρόπον τινὰ παρὼν οὐ πάρεστιν.