Part 7

V. One of the most heroic actions for the service of his country, performed by any man, and which is recognized as such by all the Roman writers, is that of Curtius, a Roman knight. A horrid chasm having opened itself, which threatened to swallow up the city of Rome; and the oracle being consulted about what remedy they should take in this alarming urgency, answered, that tremendous chasm could only be brought to close by throwing into it whatever was most precious in Rome. Curtius, reflecting that the most precious thing was the life of a man; having dressed himself in compleat armour, mounted his horse, and plunged into the abyss; upon which the mouth instantly shut. The same story, without the alteration of a circumstance, is told by Calisthenis of Anchurus, the son of the king of Phrygia.

VI. Persenas, king of the Etruscans, having reduced the Romans to great hunger and distress by a close siege, Mucius Scevola undertook to kill him; but directed the blow designed for the king, against one of the generals whom he mistook for him. Being taken a prisoner, he was carried before Porsena; when, finding the blunder he had made, he thrust his hand into the fire, and while it was burning, told the king, that he and four hundred more as resolute as himself, had sallied out of Rome together with a determination of demolishing him; and that Persenas, terrified with the threat, raised the siege. Agatharcides tells exactly the same story of an Athenian, named Agesilaus; who, when he was endeavouring to demolish Xerxes, by mistake, killed one of his generals: he afterwards put his hand in the fire, and spoke to Xerxes just in the same manner Mucius had spoke to Porsena.

VII. The battle of the three Horatios with the three Curios, in which two of the first being slain, he who remained alive, by a keen stratagem, slew the three Curios; and, returning home a conqueror, upbraided his sister for lamenting the death of one of the Curios, to whom she was betrothed: I say, this story with all its circumstances, may be found related by Demeratus, of three brothers of the city of Tregea, and three of that of Phenea, both in Arcadia. Plutarch, in his book of Parallels, instances many other relations, greatly resembling one another, and which are reciprocally applied by both the Greek and Roman historians, to their own countries; but I shall omit them, because they are not so uniform in their circumstances, as not to admit of the repetition of them being imputable to accident: but the perfect similitude of all those we have instanced, demonstrate, that they were copied from one another.

VIII. The Abbé Salliere, in a dissertation which was printed in the sixth volume of the History of the Academy Royal and Belles Lettres at Paris, pretends, that in this opposite application of uniform events, those who copied were the Greeks; but as the great authority of Plutarch is in favour of a contrary opinion, he endeavours to shew that it was not Plutarch, but some other Greek author who was deserving of little credit, that wrote the Parallels; and that the intent of the writer, be he who he would, was nothing more, than to make it appear that Greece had not been inferior to Rome in numbers of great men.

IX. I, having read with attention the book of Parallels, find most reason to suppose that the Romans, and not the Greeks, were the copyists. The design which the Abbé Salliere attributes to the Greeks of being desirous to honour their country, does not seem to have much force; because many of the events related in the Parallels, tend rather to dishonour it. But it has little effect on the object of our intention, which is that of shewing the uncertainty of history, whether the original relation of, or the copying of those famous facts, ought to be attributed to the Greeks or the Romans; but the truth is, that nobody at present, in deciding the question, can go beyond feeble conjectures, and therefore the imputation must be left at the doors of both parties.

X. The Abbé Lenglet du Fresno says, that the descent of the holy oil and fleurs de lis from Heaven, are marvellous events, unknown to the original French writers of eminence, altho’ they are much celebrated by middling authors of these later times. (_Mem. Trevoux, anno 1735, art. 66._)

XI. Father Menochio, tom. 3. cent. 11. cap. 4. proves, by many authorities, the antiquity of saluting and praying a blessing on those who sneeze, to have been ages prior to the days of St. Gregory; and we have already observed, that in the New World, and among many of the barbarous nations who inhabit it, we have found this custom to have been established. We shall add at present, a pleasant tale upon this occasion, which some authors tell us of the king of Monomotapa. Whenever this king sneezes, all those who are in his presence salute him; but they do it in so high a voice, that they are heard by those in the antichamber and the adjacent apartments, upon which they do the same; and the salutation is repeated in this manner till it gets into the street, and runs all over the city; so that every sneeze of the king, is attended by horrid outcry of many thousands of his subjects.

XII. Dr. Prideaux, who wrote the life of the false prophet Mahomet, quoted in the Critical Dictionary of Bayle, says, that his ancestors, for four generations prior to him, who were named Cæsar, held the government of the city of Mecca, and the custody of the idolatrous temple that was in it; which was not less venerated by the Arabs, than that at Delphos was by the Greeks; but what certainty have we that this illustrious geneaology, is not one of the many fictions, with which the Arabs endeavour to honour that famous impostor?

XIII. The essay or discourse of the Marquis of St. Aubin, on the Uncertainty of History, in the first book, chap. 6. of his Treatise on Opinions, is so pleasing and curious, on account of the variety of the informations, and the opportuneness of the remarks contained in it, that I thought I should make a very acceptable present to many of my readers by translating it; and especially to those who don’t understand French, or who have not the book: but I must premise before I give the translation, that I shall divest it of the quotations, and omit such passages, as are nearly the same with those we have given in the original discourse, or the additions we have already made to it; and also, that I shall give here and there a critical note upon such passages as seem to require it.

A Translation of the Sixth Chapter of the First Book of the TREATISE ON OPINION.

_The little Faith that is to be placed in History._

XIV. It is a very judicious reflexion made by Plutarch in his life of Pericles, that it was very difficult, or nearly impossible, to discern the true from the false by the help of history; because, if it is written many ages after the events it treats of, the antiquity of the transactions is an obstacle to coming at the knowledge of them; and if it is written during the lives of the persons of whom it speaks, hatred, envy, or motives of adulation, excite the author to corrupt and disfigure the truth.

XV. Is it not probable that historians have been partial to their own nation? that they have been silent upon, or have spoke slightingly of the merit of those whose families have fallen to decay, or been nearly extinguished? and that on the contrary, they have endeavoured to elevate the names and extol the fame of those families from whom they expected to be rewarded? The motives for disguising the truth are many; and Tacitus, notwithstanding his protestations that he is perfectly uninfluenced by hatred or the hopes of reward; I say, notwithstanding this, a suspicious reader would give most credit to Estrady; who says, that in order to be a good historian, a man should divest himself of country and religion, should be of no profession, nor a follower of any party; which comes pretty near to saying he should not be a man.

XVI. It would be loss of time, says S. Real, to study history in hopes of knowing with certainty what has passed in the world; as the principal information that can be derived from it, is a knowledge of what such and such authors believed; and that we should not so much seek in history for facts, as for the opinions of men. Clio, the muse who presides over history, becomes a prostitute, who, for any price, surrenders herself to the embraces of the first who solicits her favours.

XVII. Velleius Paterculus, the unworthy flatterer of Tiberius and his favourite Sejanus, may be more properly said to have composed a panegyric than a history. Zozimus let himself be carried away by passion, and his resentment against Constantine; and Eusebius flattered him in every thing. Titus Livius was an avowed favourer of the party of Pompey; and Dion Cassius was very partial to Cæsar.

XVIII. History is a present, which should only be made to posterity. Bocalini recommends, that an historian should write nothing but what has come within the compass of his own observation; and that his book should not be published till after he is dead. But even supposing that he has been quite impartial, which, by the way, is a thing rather to be wished for than expected, still, the work of every writer partakes of his own character or disposition. Sallust is a moralist; Tacitus, a politician; and Titus Livius, superstitious and an orator. They all endeavour to point out to us the causes of events which were unknown, not only to the people who lived when they happened, but even to those who had some hand in negociating public business.

XIX. Greece was so fertile in historians, that the account of one battle was related by more than three hundred authors. Lucian compares the passion of the Greeks for writing history, to the epidemical disease of the Abderitans, in which there was much madness mixed.

XX. All ancient history was almost totally disfigured by the poets, who were continually interweaving fictions with truth; as may be seen by the history of Jupiter and all the family of the Titans, by those of Isis, Dido, Hercules, and the Argonautic Expedition; by that of the siege of Troy, and many other examples.

_History partakes of the Genius of the People to whom it relates._

XXI. It is easy to discern, that history has more affinity to the genius of the people to whom it appertains, than to truth or the importance of events. All this science of history, such as it has been handed down to us, is the fruit of the passion the Greeks had for writing and relating stories. The history of antiquity, has communicated to us nought but such things, as had relation to the Greeks and the Romans. For, not to mention the continent of America, discovered in these latter ages, which is so extensive and important, that of other countries was not drawn out of oblivion, but only in proportion as their affairs were connected with the Greek and Roman histories. Profane history has scarce taken any notice of the Jews; and in the little it has said of them, there have been gross errors. It would likewise have made very little mention of the ancient Gauls, who extended their conquests and colonies almost over the whole world, if they had not given occasion to be taken notice of by their pillaging some of the Greek temples; and by the wars, offensive and defensive, which they had with the Romans. The four celebrated empires of the Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans, were not equal, either in their duration, or the extent of their conquests, to four other powers, of whom we have only a partial or trifling information; these are the Chinese, Scythians, Arabs, and Turks[2]. But, notwithstanding the obscurity of history with regard to these empires, we may venture to affirm, that of China exceeded that of Assyria, both in its duration, the number of its inhabitants, the policy of its government, and the extent of its limits. The Conquests of Almanzor, which comprehended Africa, to the Western Ocean, and almost all Spain, were more extensive than those of Cyrus. The conquests of Alexander can’t be compared with those of Tamerlane[3]. This conqueror subdued a portion of China, and opened a passage through Tartary and Muscovy, for the sake of serving the emperor of Constantinople, and triumphing over Bajazet; and, on his return home, aggregated to his dominions, the countries of Syria, Persia, and a part of India.

XXII. Our want of historical information, respecting those numerous swarms of courageous and powerful people, who came out of Northern Scythia, and, under different names, dismembered the whole Western Roman Empire, is very extraordinary; which they did many centuries before the original Turks of Eastern Scythia, who came from the coasts of the Caspian Sea, and were called in, as some say, by the emperors of Constantinople, and, as others say, by the kings of Persia; and who, upon the ruins of the Eastern, Roman, and Arabian empires, established a power more formidable than ever that of Rome had been[4]; the history of all which warlike and formidable people, is very little known.

_Of the Passion for the wonderful._

XXIII. The love of the marvellous is one of the stumbling-blocks of history. There are some historians, who take a pleasure in relating incredible things, and seem as if they sympathized in the admiration which they produce in credulous readers.

XXIV. The passion for the prodigious, has been the cause of inventing many extraordinary stories. Justin tells us, that after the defeat of the Persians at the battle of Marathon, Cynegyrus, an Athenian, pursued the enemy in their flight; and when they in great disorder threw themselves into their ships, he, to prevent their escape, laid hold of one of the ships with his hands, but they being successively cut off, he seized and detained her with his teeth.

XXV. Plutarch relates, that Pyrrhus being wounded in the head in a combat with the Mamertines, was obliged to retire, to get his wound dressed, and to refresh himself; but, after a little while, in spite of all the opposition his own people could make against it, he returned to the field, and, irritated by the bravados of one of the enemy of gigantic stature, he, fired with indignation, advanced up to him, and with his sword discharged a blow on his head with such fury, that he split him in two, and that one half of his carcase fell down on one side of him, and the other on the other.

XXVI. Procopius writes, that two women, who kept a house of lodging and entertainment for travellers, in the time of a famine, killed and ate up seventeen men: and we read in Maffeus, that a Portuguese soldier, having in an engagement expended all his ball, drew his own teeth, with which he charged his musquet, and fired them on the enemy.

_Obligations of an Historian._

XXVII. History should not resemble a picture, which aims at representing nature in a beautiful light; for, as Father Orleans observes, a fine touch passes easily from the imagination to the pen; and, although it may illustrate a hero, is very apt to wound the truth, which is the most essential character of history.

XXVIII. Who is ignorant, says Cicero, that the first law of history enjoins the historian not to have the audacity to write any kind of lie, or to want courage to speak the truth in all things, be the danger of doing it what it may; and that, as far as he is able, he should avoid the suspicion of being influenced, either by love or hatred? And Polybius, long before Cicero’s time, had said, that the historian who suppresses truths, is not less a liar than him who writes fables.

_The great Sincerity of some Historians._

XXIX. Polybius conforms very exactly to his own maxim, which we have just repeated. This author’s mode of proceeding in his history, is so distant from all dissimulation, that he comments upon the errors committed by his own father Lycortas. Thucydides omits nothing that could reflect honour on Cleon and Barcidas, by whose management he had been banished from Athens.

XXX. Titus Livius makes honourable mention of Brutus and Cassius, although they were the enemies of Augustus, in whose reign, and under whose auspices, he wrote his history, and delivered down to posterity the murderers of Cæsar, with the characters of virtuous citizens. Grotius gave a striking instance of his sincerity in his history of the Low Countries, by always speaking of prince Maurice of Nassau, with as much moderation and indifference as if he had never been persecuted by him.

XXXI. We are given to understand by a passage in Plutarch, that in old times, authors did not think themselves sufficiently qualified to write a history, till they had travelled through the countries which were the theatres of the events they were to treat of. Polybius prepared himself for writing his history, by travelling through all the world which was known in his time. Sallust passed the sea, in order to see with his own eyes the theatre of the Jugurthan war. John Chartier assures us, that by order of Charles the Seventh, he attended the most important expeditions of that prince, to the end that he might be a witness of the facts he was to relate.

XXXII. In Ethiopia, in Egypt, in Chaldea, in Persia, and in Syria, the writing of history, and the custody of annals, was confided to none but the priests. Numa recommended it to the pontiffs of Rome, to write the history of the country in the public registers; but when the Gauls took the city, these registers were for the most part burnt. In China, the superintendance of history is given to the magistrates; notwithstanding which, all their public registers are full of impostures, calculated either to establish the worship of false deities, to flatter their princes, or to indulge the taste and vanity of the nation.

_Histories filled with Fables._

XXXIII. Herodotus, who is called the Father of History, was looked upon by the antients as a very fabulous writer. Strabo, Quintilian, and Causabon, don’t give more credit to Herodotus, than to Homer, Hesiod, and the tragic poets. Lucian, in his Journey to Hell, tells us, he saw Herodotus there, who was tormented among others, for having deceived posterity.

XXXIV. Pliny gives Diodorus Siculus the honour of having been the first historian among the Greeks, who wrote seriously, and abstained from fables. Louis Vives, on the contrary, thinks Diodorus was a fabulous writer, and one of no solidity; and the same Diodorus, treats as fabulous, all the writers who went before him.

XXXV. The learned are divided in their opinions upon the _Cyropedia_ of Xenophon. Many adopt the sentiment of Cicero, who looked upon it as a drawing of invention, designed to represent a perfect prince. Notwithstanding this, a contrary opinion seems to prevail at this day, and the _Cyropedia_ is considered as a true history.

XXXVI. Asinius Pollio, thinks the Commentaries of Cæsar are not written with much care, nor with much sincerity: and Vossius makes mention of the strange caprice of a man, who told him, that after having meditated deliberately, and with much application on the subject, he had wrote a book, in which he had proved with invincible arguments, that Cæsar had never passed the Alps, and that all he had wrote in his Commentaries about his wars with the Gauls was false. Procopius, in his General History, loads the emperor Justinian and his wife the empress Theodosia with eulogiums; and likewise Belisarius and his wife Antonina; but in his Anecdotes, or Secret History, he is outrageous in his abuse of them, and calls them by the most opprobrious names. Aretinus boasted that he was the arbiter and disposer of the reputation of princes, dispensing among them eulogiums or reflections, just as they were generous or parsimonious towards him. He tells us, that Charles the Fifth upon his return from the expedition against Tunis, presented him with a gold chain, and that he said to the emperor upon receiving it, “This is but a very scanty reward to excite me to speak well of an enterprize that was so badly concerted.”

XXXVII. The monuments themselves are not always faithful vouchers for the truth of facts; for even the brass and the marble will sometimes lie. The inscription on the triumphal arch of Titus, erected to celebrate the conquest of Jerusalem, declares, that no emperor before him had ever taken or dared to besiege that city. Notwithstanding this, besides the assertion being contradicted by the authority of holy writ, Cicero in one of his letters to Atticus, calls Pompey, _our Jerusalemite_; and no one at Rome was ignorant that Jerusalem was one of the conquests of Pompey.

_Of the ancient Chronicles._

XXXVIII. If the historians of the first rate, and the monuments are suspicious, what shall we say of our ancient chronicles? Why, I fear, we can call them nothing but miserable attested novels filled with fables; and this is the opinion which a celebrated academician expresses of them. After the fierce barbarous nations of the North, spread themselves and their ignorance over all the parts of Europe, the historians degenerated into novelists: then, the relation of incredible and wonderful adventures began to be looked upon as the sublime part of history. Thelesinus, who is said to have lived about the middle of the sixth century, in the reign of king Arthur, and Melchinus, who is not quite so ancient, wrote the history of Great Britain, their own country; and of king Arthur, and his knights of the round table; which, they disfigured with a thousand fables. The same may be said of Hannibald the Frank; who, although he is much more modern, some believe to have been contemporary with Clodovicus, whose history is a rhapsody of lies, coarsly imagined. Such also was the history, of which Gildas, a religious of Wales, was said to be the author; and which relates an infinity of marvellous things; of king Arthur, Perceval, Lancelot, and many others. The judicious criticism which prevails at present, will be careful to transmit to posterity a system of ancient history, amended and illustrated with a great number of useful observations; and also, a more chaste and correct one of our own times. But, notwithstanding all the care and precaution a historian can take, and all the industry he can exert, it is certain, we can’t know the characters of men, and the motives which led to events, but from the memoirs of those who had a principal hand in conducting public business.

_Excessive Pyrrhonism in History._

XXXIX. Carlovicus, who had a share in the most material transactions of his time, upon reading the history of Sleidan, and finding the truth of things so disfigured in it, declared, that history inclined him to withhold his assent to all that was related in any other, either ancient or modern. Sir Thomas Brown, an Englishman, the author of a tract, intitled The Religion of a Physician, in which he speaks of history, says, ‘I don’t give more credit to relations of things past, than to predictions of those to come.’ Thus we see men are disposed to run into extremes both of credulity and pyrrhonism.