JOWETT'S THITCYDIDES.* Tuts is in some respects one of the

most unequal books that we have ever met with. It is an open secret that the-Regius Pro- fessor of Greek at Oxford is no Porson, and the first edition of his translation of Plato was disfigured by many blunders. In his present venture, he has relied on the "admirable scholar- ship" of Mr. W. H. Forbes, Fellow of Balliol College, to. supply his own deficiencies ; and we are bound to say that, so far as " muckers," as they are called, are concerned, the result is, on the whole, satisfactory. It is whispered, however, that Professor Jowett is stiff in opinions once strongly formed, and indications are not wanting in the second of these stately volumes that there may be much truth in the whisper. It is not, however, to deficiencies in pure scholarship that we shall have to call the reader's attention. It is rather, in the first place, to that peculiar, and, if we may so call it, feminine logic which vitiates so many of the writer's arguments in the field of historical criticism. If we are not mistaken, his cast of mind renders him to a great extent incapable of understanding the force of arguments which be has to meet, or of appreciating the irrelevancy of his own counter-arguments. The commentary is a mine of examples of the fallacy called ignoratio elenchi, and we shall begin by discussing one of them.

Professor Jowett defends the authenticity of the eighty-ninth chapter of Book III. In doing so he sets himself in opposition to the opinion of antiquity, and, what is of more importance, to a practical consensus of the best modern scholars. Briefly, the case stands thus :—Two of the finest chapters in the history- * Thueydides. Translated into English, with Introduction, Marginal Analysis,, Notes, Indices. By B. Jewett, M.A.. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. 1881.

chapters which bear so unmistakably the ball-mark of the his- torian's genius, that if they had been found elsewhere as a frag- ment, one might say of them with confidence, Aut Thucydides aut Diabolus—are followed by one in which the strangeness of the language is matched by the forcible-feebleness of the thought. We quote two specimens of the latter, and we quote them in the translator's own words, premising, however, that the original is not quite so absurd as he makes it out to be :—" At such a time the life of the city was all in disorder, and human nature, which is always ready to transgress the laws, having now trampled them under feet, delighted to show that her passions were ungovernable, that she was stronger than justice, and the enemy of all above her. [This is indeed a dark saying n If malignity had not exercised a fatal power, how could any one have preferred revenge to piety, and gain to innocence ?" (And this is an exaggerated platitude.) Is it conceivable that Thucydides, having just described with inimitable force the fearful change which is wrought in human nature by the mad excesses of faction, would have committed himself to a generalisation so false as the first of these assertions ? And is it conceivable that with his knowledge of human nature, he could have assumed that it needed such a change to have occurred before "any one" would carry revenge beyond the limits of righteousness, or prefer dishonest gain to abstinence from wrong-doing ? But our business is not so much with the objections which have been made to this chapter, as with the way in which Professor -Jowett meets those objections. The scholiast says that this chapter was marked as spurious by all the "exegetes," on account both of its diction and sentiments. It surely was for a defender of the chapter to suggest some reason for this remark- able fact. But nothing of the kind is attempted. We are coolly told that if eighty-nine is an insertion, we may as well assume at once that the whole of eighty-two and eighty-three are also inserted by a later hand, and this, too, for the exquisite reason that the division into chapters was unknown to Thucyaides. Verily, if it had been, this bastard chapter might have

h ad something to say for its legitimacy. And, in answer to the -charge that the language seems to be a caricature of Thucy- -dides (we may remark that this is not exactly the charge which the " exegetes " brought against it), that "it is more probable that he should have been exaggerating his own style, -than that a later writer should have elaborated so curious a forgery." The probability, it seems to us, is all the other way. But Professor Jowett holds that "the thought, though obscure -and involved, is weighty and comprehensive ;" and we are bound to say that on this point he has the great authority of Arnold -on his side. Yet it would be easy, if we had room, to show why Arnold, with his own mistranslations ringing in his ears, came to retain his belief in the value of this chapter, while abandoning unreservedly his belief in its authenticity. It is no light thing for a commentator on Thucydides to oppose the united opinions of such men as Kruger, Goller, Classan, and the " almost- always-right " Poppo ; yet Professor Jowett does not hesitate to say that "chapter lxxxiv. is, without any doubt, the writing of Thneydides." We appeal from him to Mr. Forbes and Professor Campbell, and we more than doubt if he could get any of his -own classical scholars to share his opinion. In any case, he has not attempted to confute, or even to parry, the arguments with which the elite of modern scholars have supported the contrary view. Like the Chancellor in Tennyson's Day Dream, he, smiling, puts their questions by, and contents himself with a -simple reiteration of his own view ; and this, however unjustly, is the way in which the fair sex are popularly believed to argue, and is the reason why we have ventured to characterise Pro- fessor Jowett's logic as feminine. It is a curious fact, too, that the opening words of chapter lxxxv. are sufficient of them- -selves to arouse the gravest suspicion about the authen- ticity of chapter lxxxiv. ; but no notice is taken of this, and if the expression is not unparliamentary, we must say that the omission (with one exception) of all notice of the .enormons difficulties in the chapter is shabby. It is an omission,

• at all events, of a kind which deprives this commentary of all claim to be considered "thorough."

In the next place, though admirably qualified to deal with philosophical topics, as was shown by many a beautiful prefa- tory essay in his Plato, Professor Jowett appears to be often at sea in handling questions of historical criticism. He is ex- ceptionally weak where Arnold was exceptionally strong. As an illustration, we shall take a passage where he is fighting in very good company, fo In has Poppo and Goner on his side ;

but the arguments against their view seems to us so cogent, that even if these arguments had not the support of such men as Kruger and Arnold, they would win assent, we think, by their own intrinsic weight. In the well-known letter which Themis- tocles wrote to Artaxerxes, there occurs a clause which, so far as the language is concerned, might mean, (l)that he claimed pro- tection, on the ground that he had informed Xerxes of the in.. tended flight of the Grecian fleet from Salamis, and also that it was through his influence that the bridge of boats over the Hellespont had not been destroyed ; or, (2) that he had sent Xerxes early intimation of the line of retreat being open to him, as through his (Tbemistocles') influence the bridge of boats was not to be destroyed. Now, even if the message sent before Salamis had been a bond fide one, and dictated by genuine zeal for the king's interest, it seems almost incredible that Themis- tocles would have ventured to claim credit for sending it. At the most, he might have urged apologetically that he had acted for the best, that he was sorry for the result, &c. But in point of fact, Themistocles does not take that line at all. He emphati- cally declares that it was to himself more than to any other Hellene that Xerxes owed his discomfiture, and as this state- ment can only refer to Salamis, it must inferentially extend to the message which brought on that decisive engagement. If further argument were needed, it would be found in the fact that Themistocles distinctly states that the service for which he claims gratitude was rendered when victory had already de- clared for Hellas, and when the Persian King was himself in jeopardy. Professor Jowett sees this, and says that "if Thucy- dides has not confounded two occasions, there is a slip of lan- guage," a remark which may pass for what it is worth. But we have again to notice the feminine logic with which be supports his view. He says—and we can scarcely believe our eyes as we read his words--that because Thucydides elsewhere speaks of Themistocles as having done more than any one else to bring on the battle which ruined Xerxes (for lawaE rci wpoinceera comes to that), therefore Themistocles is referring here to the first message which proved so fatal to that monarch, rather than to the second, which, supposing it to have been true, un- doubtedly entitled him to the gratitude of that monarch's son. It is strange, indeed, that the identical fact which induced Arnold to think that reference to the first message was impos- sible, should lead Professor Jowett to the very opposite conclu- sion. We have discussed these passages somewhat in detail, in order to give the reader an opportunity.of judging for himself whether our criticism is fair. If he thinks that it is, he may take our word for it that there are not a few other interpreta- tions adopted in this commentary to which similar objections might be made. But we have said that Professor Jowett's work is most unequal, and it follows, therefore, that a great deal of his commentary is, in our opinion, very good. And such is, indeed, the case. The critic who carps is bound, we hold, to give reasons for his carping ; he may be permitted to praise en bloc. We venture to say, therefore, that no better English commentary on Thucydides has hitherto been published ; and that the Master of Balliol, although he has essayed a task for which he is not pre-eminently well qualified, has still done enough to deserve the grateful acknowledgments of all lovers of Greek literature. We cannot, however, leave his commentary without a parting shot. In the preface prefer- ence is given—not quite justly, we fancy—to Poppo, above all other editors of Thucydides, for" Poppo," we are told, "has the great merit of being almost always right." If this last propo- sition were true, it ought to follow, that as the day the night, Professor Jowett is something more than almost always right. But to ensure the correctness of such an inference, it is neces- sary that he should, at least, always follow Poppo, *hen .Poppo himself is right. He declined to do so, as we have seen, in a matter of such plain sailing as the authenticity of iii., 84, and we shall leave the reader to draw for himself the conclusion which so readily suggests itself.

The translation is much less open to the charge of being un- equal than the commentary. At times, we are disappointed by some bald or flat expression, and more often, we think, than was necessary the sentenees are marked by the same monotonous rhythm. But on the whole, we must pronounce it an excellent translation. It is beyond all question by far the best English version of Thucydides extant, and we do not think that it will be soon, if ever, superseded. If we made any general remark of a disparaging kind upon it, we should say that it does not sufficiently reflect the style and colouring of the original. But criticism of this soh is impertinent and futile, unless we were prepared—as we certainly are not—"hic et nunc"—to show how that desirable consummation could be effected. All that we can do—all, in fact, that we are justified in doing—is to hint that the translator is rather too fond of giving us a neat little para- phrase, instead of a rough and vigorous, but well-thought out and more literal rendering of many of the more than ordinarily

difficult phrases and sentences. But the translation, we repeat most emphatically, is a good one ; and we quote with pleasure -the following passage from the so-called" Mellen Controversy,"

as a very fair sample of the whole version :—

"As for the Gods, we expect to have quite as much of their favour as you ; for we are not claiming anything which goes beyond common opinion about divine, or men's desires about human things. For of -the Gods, we believe—and of men, we know—that, by a law of their Battu*, wherever they can rule, they will. This law was not made by us, as we are not the first who have acted upon it ; we did but in- herit it, and shall bequeath it to all time, and we know that you and all mankind, if you were as strong as we are, would do as we do. So mach for the Gods ; we have told you why we expect to stand as high in their good opinion as you do. And then, as to the Lacedwmonians. When you imagine that out of very shame they will assist you, we stdmire the simplicity of your idea, but we do not envy you the folly of it. The Lacedeemonians are exceedingly virtuous among them- selves, and according to their national standard of morality. But, in respect of their dealings with others, although many things might be said, a word is enough to describe them,—of all men whom we know, they are the most notorious for identifying what is pleasant with what is honourable, and what is expedient with what is just. But how inconsistent is such a character with your present blind hopes of deliverance !"

Brief as our notice has been of the first and incomparably the better of the volumes before us, we think it sufficient, on the ground that good wine needs no bush. We wish, too, before we conclude, to say a word or two about Thucydides himself, and a 'word or two about what we think we may fairly call the "Irony of Jowett." We do not propose for a moment to inflict upon our readers a panegyric on the literary merits of the world- renowned History To parody a sentence from Macaulay, Bos- well is not more certainly the prince of biographers than Thucy- dides is the prince of historians,—it is Eclipse first, and the rest nowhere. But we imagine that Professor Jowett goes a little

ftoo far, when he says that the son of Olorus "stands absolutely alone among the historians, not -only of Hellas, but of the -world, in his impartiality of love and truth." Inferior, immea- surably inferior as Thirlwall is to Thucydides in point of genius, as regards impartiality and love of truth, the Englishman is at 'least the equal of the Athenian. We reject Grote's notion that Thucydides is unfair to Cleon, and we think that Arnold's .sus-

picion that he was too partial to Antiphon is due to a misunder- standing of the historian's words. But there is one well-known incident in the History, where Thucydides has left himself open, -though not in the worst sense of the phrase, to the charge of -suppreesio ?Jeri. We refer, of course, to the events which led to his banishment. He failed, to put it very briefly, to do what was expected from him, just as Byng failed. The English shot their Admiral, most unjustly ; the Athenians banished their G-eneral,—and to the present hour it remains an impenetrable secret whether he deserved his fate or no. That this should be the case lies entirely at his own door. He refused to open his lips, and men have not unnaturally been found who regard his silence with suspicion. All this is as old as the hills, and as we have no hypothesis of our own to propound, we should not repeat it, were it not for the extraordinary ground on which Professor Jowett denies that this strange taciturnity is suspi- cious :—" It must be remembered," he says, "that Thucydides had the facts at his disposal, and could have given to posterity any version of them that he pleased." Could he ? We waive the inconsistency, we might almost say the immorality, of such an unmeriteci libel on the truthfulness of the great exemplar of historical fidelity ? But was it open to Thucydides

to put a false version of the facts, in a book that was to be zrijfas i; ? It is extremely probable that these famous words refer to a book that was to be kept and read and read again by its possessor, rather than to any anticipation of such a book's immortality ; and as the banishment of the author was a thing not done in a corner, the first possessors of the volume must have been pretty good judges of its justice. The utterly foolish and unjust way in which the Athenian democracy of those days treated Alcibiades gives us reasonable grounds for suspecting that Thucydides was as harshly treated as Byng was. On the other hand, the numerous and deplorable instances of the failure of literary men in active life make it very probable that

Thncydides may have shown enough incapacity to deserve as well as ensure his punishment. If Cleon had escaped alive from Amphipolis, who can doubt what his fate would have been? But as to Thucydides, we have not a particle of evidence to enable us to form an opinion, one way or the other. Only we scout Professor Jowett's suggestion, as we have already said, as a libel, and we think that on reconsideration he will feel that it is so himself.

We have left ourselves far less space than we had looked for to comment on the "Irony of Jowett." It would of itself form a subject for an essay, and cannot be dealt with satisfactorily in the few lines which are all that we can spare for it. It shows itself most charmingly and consciously, we believe (though this, of course, would be denied), in the last page of the essay, on "Inscriptions of the Age of Thucydides." It is easy to see that to the Professor, in his heart of hearts, a Greek inscription is what the "primrose by the river's brim" was to Peter Bell. Far

otherwise is the feeling of gentle enthusiasts towards these nearly always unimportant, and when conjecturally restored

always useless relics of the past. But Professor Jowett is, or we imagine that be is, yoked with a gentle enthusiast, and it is thus that he speaks of his yokefellow's hobby :—

" Thongh we cannot rewrite the history of Greece out of her stones is it a small thing to know that inscriptions of the fifth century before Christ confirm and illustrate the great works of the same age P They bring nearer home to us Greek political institutions, the great struggle for freedom, the writings of Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon. They realise to us the innumerable details of private life about which history is silent. They add to our previous- know- ledge a few facts. They make an important contribution to the history of the Greek alphabet. And the investigation of them, especially on the spot, is full of interest, independent of the result. To be busy on Greek soil, under the light of the blue heaven, amid the scenes of ancient glory, in reading inscriptions, or putting together fragments of stone and marble, has a charm of another kind than that which is to be found in the language of ancient authors. Yet even to appreciate truly the value of such remains, it is to the higher study of the mind of Hellas and her great men that we must return, finding some little pleasure by the way (like that of looking at an autograph) in deciphering the handwriting of her children amid the dust of her rains."

If the reader will carefully weigh each sentence in this really exquisite passage, he will see that the whole is instinct with fine and, as we believe, with conscious irony. Conscious cer- tainly is the irony which, in the dedication to Lord Sherbrooke, speaks of the ex-statesman's "genuine love of ancient classical literature" being " sometimes dissembled." But whether the irony which is manifest in the pages headed, "The Greatness of Thucydides," is conscious or unconscious, we cannot tell. A host of witnesses, and each of them a host in himself, might have been called, so to speak, from every age and every clime to testify to the greatness of Thucydides. The Master of Balliol calls one—Lord Macaulay. That he, of all writers in the world, should have been selected to crown the man who "stands abso- lutely alone among the historians of the world in his impar- tiality," is a proceeding so curious, that we must attribute it to the demon of irony. But whether the writer was conscious or unconscious that the imp was working in his brain when he made this strange selection, is a point which we must leave undecided.

The great faults of this book are, as we have already stated, the logical fallacies in which it abounds, rather than any parti- cular deficiencies in scholarship. But mutatie mutandie, we may say of Professor Jowett himself what he has truly and finely said of Arnold : "When a great man undertakes the office of an interpreter, he throws a light upon the page which the merely verbal critic is incapable of communicating, and it would be ungrateful to scan too closely his deficiencies in scholarship."