DYIONISIUS OF HALICARNASSUS His approach to History
Dyonisius makes "decency a principal virtue of an historian;" which he explains
by saying, that "he ought to preserve the characters of the persons and dignity
of the actions of which he treats." And to do this it seems necessary that an
historical style should be animated with a good degree of life and vigour;
without which neither the characters of eminent persons, nor their remarkable
actions, which make up the main business of history, can be duly represented:
for even things in themselves great and excellent, if related in a cold a
lifeless manner, often do not affect us in a degree suitable to their dignity
and importance. And this seems particularly necessary in speeches, in order to
represent what every one says, according to his different country, age, temper,
and station of life, in the same manner we may suppose he either really did, or
would have spoken himself on that occasion. Besides there some scenes of action
which require very pathetic and moving language to represent them agreeably to
their nature. And in descriptions, the most beautiful tropes and lively figures
are often necessary to set the ideas of things in a proper light. From whence it
appears, that painting and imagery makes up no small part of the historian
province, though his colours are not so strong and glittering as those either of
the poet or orator. He ought therefore to be well acquainted with the manners of
men and the nature of the passions, since he is often obliged to describe both:
in the former of which Herodotus excels, and Thucydides in the latter, as
Dyonisius has observed.
Now from these several properties laid down by ancient writers, as requisite for
an historical style, it seems upon the whole to agree best with the middle
character. And this will further appear, by what they say relating to the
ornamental parts of style; namely, composition and dignity. As to the former of
these, which respects the structure of sentences, and the several parts of them,
Demetrius remarks, that "An historical period ought neither to rise very high,
nor sink very low, but to preserve a medium." This simplicity (he says) "becomes
the gravity and credit of history; and distinguishes it form oratory on the one
hand, and dialogue on the other." His meaning is, that historical periods should
neither be so full and sonorous as is frequent in oratory; nor yet so short and
flat as in dialogue: the former of which, as he says, require a strong voice to
pronounce them; and the latter have scarce the appearance of periods. So that,
according to this judicious writer, the periods best suited for history are
those which, being of a moderate length, will admit of a just rise and cadency,
and may be pronounced with ease. And Dyonisius tells us, that "History should
flow smooth and even, every where consistent with itself, without roughness or
chasms in the sound." This relates to the harmony of periods, which arises from
such a position of the words as renders the sound pleasant and agreeable, and as
he thinks ought to be attended to in history. And as to dignity, which respects
the use of tropes and figures, the same author says, that "History should be
embellished with such figures as are neither vehement nor carry in them the
appearance of art." This is agreeable to what Cicero observes, in comparing
Xenophon and Calisthenes, two Greek historians. "Xenophon the Socratic (says he)
was the first philosopher, and after him Calisthenes, the scholar of Aristotle,
who wrote an history: the latter almost like a rhetorician: but the style of the
former is more moderate, and has not the force of an orator, less vehement
perhaps, but in my opinion more sweet, [600] and pleasant." The difference
between these two writers, with regard to their style, consisted chiefly in the
choice of their figures: which in Xenophon were more gentle and moderate, and
therefore in the judgement of Cicero more agreeable to history. Now these
several properties relating to the ornaments of language, as well as those
before mentioned, which by ancient writers have been thought requisite for
history, are all suited to the middle style, as we have elsewhere shown at
large. See Oratory, n° 99-121.
De Orat. Lib. II. c. 14.
But notwithstanding this general account of the several properties which
constitute an historical style, it admits of considerable varieties from the
different nature and dignity of the subject. "The lives of particular persons do
not require that strength and majesty of expression, nor all those ornaments of
language, as an history of the Roman empire. And accordingly we find the style
of Nepos and Suetonius very different from that of Livy. The former is smooth
and easy, scarce rising above the low character; but the latter often approaches
near to the sublime. And other historians again have kept a medium between
these. Upon the whole, therefore, we may conclude, that the middle style is the
proper character for history; though historians may sometimes sink into the low
character, and at other times rise to the grandeur and magnificence of the
sublime, from the different nature of their subject, or some particular parts of
it. For that is to be esteemed the proper character of any writing which in the
general best suits it. And this distinction may help us in some measure to
reconcile the sentiments of writers upon this head who seem to attribute
different characters to an historical style, or at least to judge where the
truth lies; since a variety of style is not only requisite in different
subjects, but likewise in different parts of the same work