PREFACE

ΤΟ

THE THIRD VOLUME OF THE EDITION OF

THUCYDIDES.

IN presenting to the readers of Thucydides the three last books of his History, I may observe that I have received no further assistance from any new manuscripts in addition to those already noticed in the Preface to the second volume of this edition. But I have enjoyed for this last part of my work the benefit of Bekker's third revision of the text of Thucydides, as given in his small Leipzig edition of 1832. My respect for Bekker's judgment has increased continually; and I feel so great a reliance on his experience and tact, that in many instances where the reading seemed doubtful, I have yielded implicitly to his authority; and probably were I to go over my work again, I should follow him still more generally.

It may be asked why I have abandoned my original intention of subjoining appendices to the several volumes of this edition, partly philological, and partly historical. My answer is, that I have not time enough at my command to execute my design, even to my own satisfaction. I neither have sufficient knowledge already, nor is it in my power to gain it. At the same time I am aware that the present state of scholarship, as well as of historical inquiry, makes it especially unbecoming to write on any philological or historical subject without being completely master of it.

I shall confine myself, therefore, to the mere statement of two or three points which offer, I think, a tempting

field for investigation. They are not certainly exclusively connected with Thucydides, but as bearing generally upon Greek philology and history, I have thought that the mention of them in this place would not be impertinent.

I. Even after all the labours of the Prussian scholars, much remains to be done towards obtaining a complete knowledge of the number, and still more of the value, of the Greek MSS. now existing in Europe. It is not easy to know how many MSS. of any given writer are extant, where they are to be found, and, above all, whether from their age and character they are worth the trouble of an exact collation. A labour of this kind cannot be accomplished by individuals; but the present spirit of liberal co-operation which seems to influence literary as well as scientific men throughout Europe, renders its accomplishment by the combined exertions of the scholars of different countries by no means impracticable. It would be exceedingly convenient to possess an alphabetical list of all the extant Greek and Latin writers, with a catalogue raisonnée of the MSS. of each: and if such a work were attempted, there is little doubt, I imagine, that in point of number a very large addition would be made to the stock of MSS. already known. What the result might be in point of value is another question; still it is desirable to know what we have to trust to; and when we have obtained a right estimate of our existing resources in manuscripts, we shall then be better able to judge what modern criticism will have to do from its own means towards bringing the text of the ancient writers to the greatest possible state of perfection.

II. We seem now to have reached that point in our knowledge of the Greek language, at which other languages of the same family must be more largely studied before we can make a fresh step in advance. The practice of Greek, if I may be allowed the expression, seems tolerably well understood; the usage of the best writers, not only in points of construction, but even of or

thography, has been carefully examined. We are now
anxious to explain some few words or expressions of less
frequent occurrence, or to understand the principle of
others whose meaning we have sufficiently learned from
experience. I had intended, for instance, to inquire into
the difference between the two conjunctions si and ; and
there is much in the use of the particle av, which has
not yet been explained satisfactorily. I went far enough
to ascertain the different uses of ei and in Thucydides,
as a matter of fact; but my ignorance of the etymology
of the two words made me unable to ascend higher, and
to explain the principle of this difference.
It is easy
enough to guess at etymologies, but this has been done.
more than enough in times past: and an etymology built
on guesses is as worthless as one found on real know-
ledge is instructive. It is possible that a more enlarged
study of the different languages and dialects of the great
Indo-Germanic family, both in their ancient and actual
forms, may enable us to acquire such a knowledge; and
we shall thus obtain perhaps a more clear understanding
of some of those particles which even now are involved
in much uncertainty. So far, I think, we may hope to
advance not unreasonably; but further progress seems
scarcely possible. The origin of language in itself par-
takes of the same obscurity which surrounds the origin of
society there is a point with both beyond which we
cannot penetrate. Attempts to explain the phenomena of
language à priori seem to me unwise. We cannot con-
ceive the inventing of a language, because we cannot con-
ceive the human mind acting without language. From a
certain point we can readily trace the nature of the pro-
cess we can understand how simple terms expressive of
outward objects were transferred to express by metaphor
the operations of the mind; but how these simple terms
were themselves arrived at, it seems impossible to dis-
cover, or even reasonably to imagine. Wherever the re-

C C

n

sult is obtained by combination of existing elements, the method is intelligible; but invention, strictly speaking, appears to belong to a higher power than ours. As it has been well observed, that, supposing the first men to have been savages, we cannot understand how, without some divine interference, the human race could ever have arrived at civilization, so, if we suppose men to have been in such a state as to have had to invent or contrive a language, we cannot conceive how mankind, any more than other animals, should ever have been able to speak at all.

III. Passing from the language in Thucydides to the matter contained in his History, the introduction in the first book naturally leads us to consider the question, how far the pretended early history of Greece is really historical or mythical. And here I confess that further consideration has induced me to accede to many of those notions of Niebuhr and Müller which I formerly regarded as unreasonably sceptical. I had not deferred sufficiently to the tact which is gained in these matters by great natural ability aided by long experience. Niebuhr's comparison is most true, that "if any one, on going into Benvenuto's prison when his eyes had for months been accustomed to see the objects around him, had asserted that Benvenuto, like himself, could not distinguish any thing in the darkness, surely he would have been somewhat presumptuous." Yet still the character of the early Grecian history does not seem to have been completely analysed. Niebuhr has shewn that in the Roman history passages wholly legendary occur in the midst of a narration substantially historical; thus the account of the taking of Veii is legendary, while the earlier events of the siege are as clearly historical. This is important, because it prepares us for the same intermixture in the early history of Greece also; and shews us that portions of real history may exist before the beginning of the merely historical period: towards the frontiers of fable

and history patches or fragments of each are often to be found completely insulated within the territories of the other. And to distinguish one from the other, we must be guided by internal evidence; the ancient writers may have offered both indiscriminately as history, and may have erred in doing so; but is it not to imitate their error, if we represent both indiscriminately to be mythical, because we cannot rely on their discernment, and because they have in some instances related as history what has no pretensions to the name?

But with respect to Thucydides himself, it is a question how far he is to be taxed with such want of discernment, and whether he has himself regarded any thing as historical in the traditions of ancient Greece, which was in fact no better than mythical. This question is one which his editor seems naturally called upon to examine : and it may incidentally perhaps throw some light on the question of mythical narratives in general, on which as a whole I do not feel myself competent to enter fully.

There is no doubt that the ablest men may entertain erroneous opinions on points which nothing has led them particularly to examine. If therefore Thucydides had never been led to question the real existence of the chiefs or patriarchs who were said to have given their name to their respective people, his mention of Hellen and Minos as historical persons would afford no proof that they were so. And it is well observed by a most able writer, that the power of distinguishing between history and mythical stories "depends upon a survey of a vast field, of which but a small part was open to the view" of the early Greek historians. We suspect the real existence of Hellen and his sons, because we observe a practice widely spread amongst different nations, of deriving the name of a people from a supposed king or leader of it; and not only do we find the lives and actions of these pretended heroes to be for the most part of an unhistorical character, but our more extended knowledge of languages enables us in