these reasons I refrained from enlarging on the story of this man,
and no less because all sensational occurrences are worthy of attention only when first presented to our view, but afterwards it is not only unprofitable to read about them and keep our eyes on them but such an exercise of our faculties produces a certain disgust.
For since there are two objects, improvement and pleasure, which those who wish to study any subject either by the use of their ears or of their eyes, should keep before them, and since this is especially true of the study of history, a too generous treatment of sensational events contributes to neither.
For not only do abnormal reversals of fortune arouse no emulation, but no one has any permanent pleasure in seeing or reading of things which are contrary to nature and contrary to the general sentiment of mankind.
It is true we are interested in seeing or hearing of them once for all and at first, just for the sake of observing that what seemed to be impossible is possible,
but once we are convinced of this no one takes any pleasure in dwelling on the unnatural, and there is none who would have the least wish to meet with frequent references to the same event of this class.
Therefore what is told us should either excite admiration or cause pleasure, and the elaborate treatment of an event which does neither is suitable rather to tragedy than to history.
Possibly we must excuse writers who do not draw their readers' attention to such matters as are natural or generally happen in the world.
For they think that among past events the greatest and most wonderful are those which they have met in their personal experience or which particularly arrested their attention when they heard of them from witnesses.
So that unconsciously they devote too much space to matters which neither are novel, others having spoken of them before, nor are able to benefit or to please us. I have now said enough on this subject.
Walbank Commentary