Page:American Historical Review vol. 6.djvu/357

Abbott: A History of Greece 347 The author tells us that his history " is intended for readers who are acquainted with the outlines of the subject, and have some knowledge of the Greek language. It has been written in the belief that an intelligible sketch of Greek civilization may be given within a brief compass — not in the hope of throwing new light on old obscurities, or quoting fresh evi- dence where all the evidence has been long ago collected. ' ' In ac- cordance with this plan of preparing a work for the general student of Greek civilization, the author rarely cites authorities or discusses the rela- tive value of the ancient sources. On the other hand, the compass of his history, which is much wider than he at first designed, enables him to consider all the important events, yet with far greater brevity than Grote and Curtius have employed. The most marked characteristic of the author is his sober, colorless statement of facts, or of what he believes to be facts. Avoiding pre- mature hypotheses, he studiously reproduces the view of those ancient writers who are usually set down as most conservative and reliable. At the same time the arrangement ot the material is admirable throughout ; and the language, though without ornament or feeling, is uniformly clear. These qualities, with the good index at the end of each volume, make his history an excellent work of reference for all who are interested in ancient Greece. Most readers, however, will find more to attract them in Grote, or Curtius, or even in Holm, for these writers have put their souls into their work. We miss in Abbott not only the partisan fervor of Grote but also the delicate emotion for landscape, art, and character which distinguishes Curtius. While Holm is fresh and sug- gestive, in Abbott we rarely find a new idea ; he has sacrificed bril- liancy of every kind to scholarly reserve. It is a question whether this reserve should be considered an unqual- ified virtue. In the present volume, for instance, Mr. Abbott invariably accepts Thucydides's estimate of men and of events. There can be no reasonable doubt, however, that the great Greek historian was prejudiced against the democratic leaders of Athens after Pericles. Certainly Cleon and Hyperbolus were not so thoroughly bad as Thucydides represents them to be. It is the duty of the impartial historian, accordingly, to attempt to place these men in their true light ; and the task is extremely difficult, for Thucydides has a subtle way of concealing his partisanship. Again, it hardly seems reasonable to assume that Thucydides is in all points infallible, that the scholar is bound to follow him blindly, when- ever he disagrees with other authorities. But Mr. Abbott in his treat- ment of the Four Hundred refuses to learn anything from Aristotle's Constitution of Athens^ because ( i ) Thucydides was contemporary, and (2) his narrative is vivid and impressive whereas that of Aristotle is con- fused. These reasons are not in themselves convincing ; for every one knows that the later historian, with his opportunity for the study of doc- uments, has an advantage over a contemporary whose knowledge is per- haps mere hearsay. It is well known, too, that Greek and Roman history