94 



POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



in applying the principle of growth, of 

 evolution," in all of which 'we certainly 

 surpass the ancients.' This with char- 

 acteristic fairness Mr. Rhodes admits, 

 but it is still his conviction that we 

 have not risen to the classical standard 

 of historiography. 



Where, then, is the advantage in 

 favor of Thucydides and Tacitus? The 

 answer of their advocate is that they 

 "are superior to the historians who have 

 written in our century, because, by long 

 reflection and studious method, they 

 have better digested their materials and 

 compressed their narrative. Unity in 

 narration has been adhered to more rig- 

 idly. They stick closer to their subject. 

 They are not allured into the fascinat- 

 ing by-paths of narration, which are so 

 tempting to men who have accumulated 

 a mass of facts, incidents and opinions." 



Lest this discussion should resolve it- 

 self into an unprofitable difference about 

 words, it may be worth while to con- 

 sider just at this point the meaning of 

 'better history,' as Mr. Rhodes uses the 

 term. He can hardly mean better from 

 the scientific standpoint; for he admits 

 that our historical science is superior 

 to the ancient. If, therefore, we put 

 that into the history we write, we shall 

 make it better in so far at least. No 

 doubt he means better from the stand- 

 point of historiographic art. 



Here lies, I take it, the crux of the 

 controversy. Here begins the diver- 

 gence between the scientific and the lit- 

 erary historians. They differ as to the 

 relative values of the elements they 

 represent, and this difference rests upon 

 another still more fundamental as to 

 the relative values of ancient and mod- 

 ern thought. This will serve to explain 

 the objections I have already made to 

 the attitude of Mr. Rhodes. I would 

 not deny the justice nor the propriety 

 of judging any historical work from the 

 artistic standpoint. It would not be 

 going too far to say that no history 

 which fails when brought to such a test 

 can be called good. But there is no 

 art that can neglect its fundamental sci- 

 ence. Other things being equal, that is 



the best history — even from the artistic 

 point of view — which gives the clearest 

 explanation of the unfolding of national 

 life; and in this respect modern his- 

 toriography is beyond all comparison 

 superior to ancient. It is, therefore, not 

 conclusive of the preeminent excellence 

 of Thucydides and Tacitus to show the 

 admirable proportion and conciseness of 

 their narratives. If the historians of the 

 present century show some loss in this 

 respect, they do more than make it up 

 by gain in others. It is not enough that 

 the ancient writers of history told so 

 well what they saw and understood; 

 there was so much that they did not see 

 and understand. If historical literature 

 is to be distinguished from other forms 

 and have canons peculiar to itself at all, 

 its expository completeness must be con- 

 sidered in estimating it as good or bad. 



It must be confessed, however, that 

 the indictment of Mr. Rhodes against 

 modern historians for prolixity is well- 

 deserved. It could be sustained not only 

 against the historians, but against 

 nearly all book-makers of our time, and 

 is far graver than his degree of empha- 

 sis would indicate. Life is short, and 

 there is continually more to be crowded 

 into it. The literature of almost every 

 field of progressive thought is outgrow- 

 ing the capacity of its workers, who are 

 striving in truly reckless fashion to add 

 thereto each what he can. Conciseness 

 and proportion are, if not the most 

 priceless jewels of all literature, at least 

 their most useful and attractive setting. 

 Blessed is he, and a benefactor of his 

 race, who can deliver his message in few 

 words, and for the rest keep silent. 



One other point made by Mr. Rhodes 

 deserves attention, namely, the advan- 

 tage of writing contemporaneous his- 

 tory. Three difficulties lie in the way of 

 it: First, that of getting the perspec- 

 tive; second, that of so far removing 

 one's prejudices as to see the truth; 

 third, that of telling the truth as seen, 

 in spite of popular prejudice. If they 

 can be overcome, the history of any 

 epoch can be written best by those be- 

 longing to it. Mr. Rhodes has himself 



