Part 8

XL. Mr. Bayle says, that history is dressed and prepared, nearly the same as victuals is dressed and prepared in the kitchen; every nation cooks it in their own way; in consequence of which, the same thing comes to be dressed in as many different modes as there are countries in the world; and nearly all men, find those most grateful to their palates which they are most accustomed to. Such, with little variation, is the lot of all history. Every nation, every sect, taking the same facts, let us say crude, prepare and season them to their own taste; and afterwards, they appear to every reader, either true or false, just as they agree with or are repugnant to his prejudices. We may even carry the comparison still further, for there are certain eatables, absolutely unknown in some countries, the inhabitants of which countries would probably loath the sight of, let them be dressed and seasoned in what manner they would; so there are some facts that would not gain credit but with this or that particular nation, or this or that particular sect; and all the others would be inclined to treat them as calumnies and impositions.

XLI. Many historians, from various motives, transmit to posterity some facts which they themselves did not assent to. Eneas Sylvius, in his history of Bohemia, says, _Plura scribo, quam credo_.

_Relations of Battles which seem incredible._

XLII. The accounts of many battles contain circumstances which appear incredible. Plutarch tells us, that Marcus Valerius won a battle against the Sabines, in which he slew thirteen thousand of the enemy without losing one of his own men. And Diodorus Siculus, attributes the same happy success to the Lacedemonians, in an engagement they had with the Arcadians, of whom they killed ten thousand without the loss of a man on their own side, which so fell out, that the prediction of an oracle might be verified, who had pronounced, that war should not cause a single tear to be shed in Sparta.

XLIII. In the battle which the Consul Fabius Maximus gained over the Allobroges and Auvernagans, Appian says, there were but fifteen men slain on the part of the Romans, and that there remained a hundred and twenty thousand Gauls dead on the field of battle; and adds, that the Romans in the pursuit, took and destroyed eighty thousand more, who were either drowned in the Rhone or carried prisoners to Rome.

XLIV. Sylla, in his memoirs, writes, that at the battle of Cheronea, in which he routed Archelaus, the lieutenant of Mithridates, there perished a hundred and ten thousand of the enemy, and only twelve Romans. And in the same memoirs he tells us, that in the battle he fought with young Marius, with the loss of no more than twenty three of his own men, he killed twenty thousand of his antagonist’s, and took eight thousand prisoners.

XLV. In the life of Lucullus, written by Plutarch, we read, that in the battle he had with Tigranes, in Tigranocerta, the whole of the cavalry of the king, and more than a hundred thousand infantry, were put to the sword, and that there remained only five of Lucullus’s soldiers dead on the field, and that his wounded did not exceed a hundred.

XLVI. Alexander of Alexandria writes, that Pompey, in one of his battles with Mithridates, did not lose more than twenty soldiers, and that there fell on the side of the king forty thousand.

XLVII. In the battle of Chalons, between the Count Aëtius and Theodoric, king of the Visigoths, on one side, and Attila, king of the Huns, on the other; in which Theodoric was killed. Some authors make the number of the slain in both armies to amount to three hundred thousand men. The historians in general agree, that they at least amounted to a hundred and seventy thousand, without reckoning among the number fifteen thousand French and Gepides, who fell in with each other accidentally in the night, and fought in the dark with such fury, that not one of the whole number was left alive.

XLVIII. There are authors, who, upon the credit of Paul the Deacon and Anastasius Bibliothecarius, compute the number of men the Saracens lost in the battle of Poitiers, at three hundred and seventy five thousand; which account, say the judicious authors of the History of Languedoc, seems fabulous. Some, in order to give an air of probability to this circumstance, have pretended that there were included in this computation a great number of women, children, slaves, and other followers of the camp. But Valois has shewn, that in this irruption none but soldiers passed the Perines: and Mezeray says, that the army of the Saracens did not exceed eighty, or at most a hundred thousand men.

XLIX. In the year 891, the emperor Arnuflus, gained so compleat a victory over the Normans, that out of a hundred thousand men, which their army consisted of, not one escaped; and that on the side of the Imperialists they did not lose a single man. The authority quoted for this relation, is the History of the World, by Chevreau, lib. 5.

L. Mariana, after all the chronicles, says, that in the battle which the three kings of Aragon, Navarre, and Castile, fought with the Moors, the Christians lost only twenty-five men, and that the number which perished of the infidels amounted to two hundred thousand. In that of Tarifa also, the Moors lost two hundred thousand, and the Christians only twenty.

LI. What historians relate of the victories of the Norman princes in Sicily, is likewise void of all probability: for instance, that out of three hundred thousand men defeated by Roger, not one escaped; that the sons of Tancred, with seven hundred horse and five hundred infantry, beat the army of the emperor of Constantinople, consisting of seventy thousand men. But all we have hitherto mentioned, is nothing compared with what is told by Nicetas in his history of the emperor Alexis; which is, that at the siege of Constantinople, one Frenchman only, put to flight the whole Grecian army.

LII. Lucian treats as fabulous and ridiculous all the accounts of such disproportionate numbers slain. The remark of Titus Livius, when he was told of an alarming apparition that had been seen in the tomb of Veis, may be applied to many relations in history. He says, these incidents are more proper for the theatre than history; and I don’t chuse either to affirm or refute them, it being sufficient to know they were once published by the voice of fame.

_Diversity of Opinions upon many famous historical Facts._

LIII. Metrodorus Lampsacenus without the least scruple affirms, that the heroes of whom Homer makes mention in the Iliad, such as Agamemnon, Achilles, Hector, Paris, and Eneas, are all fictitious persons, who never existed.

LIV. Some authors assert, that the number of women stolen by the Romans from the Sabines, did not exceed thirty. Valerius Antias and Dionysius Halicarnasseus, make them amount to five hundred and twenty seven; and Juba computes them at six hundred and eighty three.

LV. Titus Livius, Florus, Plutarch, and Aurelius Victor, say, that the dictator Camillus defeated and drove away the Gauls who had taken Rome; Polybius, Justin, and Suetonius, tell us, that the Venetians having made an irruption into the territories of the Gauls; these, that they might be at leisure to attend to the defence of their own country, accommodated matters with the Romans, who agreed to pay them a certain sum of money, upon condition of their leaving Rome, with which money and the plunder they had made, they returned home.

LVI. Plutarch begins his life of Lycurgus thus: “We can say nothing positively of the law-giver Lycurgus, because historians speak very variously concerning him, and _because_, respecting his origin, his voyages, his death, and even his laws, and the form of government he established, there are divers traditions; but there is more disagreement still in the accounts we have of him, with respect to the time he lived in.”

LVII. Herodotus, Diodorus, Trogus Pompeius, Justin, Pausanias, Plutarch, Quintus Curtius, and many other authors, have spoke of the nation of the Amazons. Strabo denies, that such a nation ever existed. Arrian considers as very suspicious, all that has been written of the Amazons. Others have understood the Amazons to have been armies of men, who were governed and commanded by warlike women; and they shew, that these examples were not unfrequent among the antients; for the Medes and the Sabeans obey’d queens; and Semiramis commanded the Assyrians; Thomiris, the Scythians; Cleopatra, the Egyptians; Boadicea, the Britains; and Zenobia, the Palmyrenes.

LVIII. Appian believes, that the Amazons were not any particular nation, but that they gave this name to all women who went to war, be they of what nation they would. Some think, the pretended Amazons were a barbarous people, who wore long robes, shaved their beards, and dressed and ornamented their heads after the manner of the women in Thrace. According to Diodorus Siculus, Hercules, the son of Alcmena, whom Eurystheus charged with bringing to him the shoulder-belt of Hyppolita, went to the coasts of the Thermodontes, to engage, and there destroyed this warlike nation.

LIX. But notwithstanding this, the most celebrated traces of history, respecting the Amazons, are of a later date, than either the Grecian Hercules, or the son of Alcmena; because the stealing of Antiope by Theseus, excited the Amazons to undertake the war, in which they conquered all Attica, and pitched their camp upon the parade of the Areopagus itself. Pensithelea, queen of the Amazons, went to the succour of Troy, and was killed by Achilles, and Thalestris. Another of their queens, accompanied by three hundred of her warriors, went in search of Alexander, with a view of having a posterity by him.

LX. Dion Chrysostom says, that Herodotus solicited from the Corinthians, some recompence for writing his Greek Histories, but they having returned for answer, that they did not chuse to purchase honour with money, he quite altered the relation of the naval battle of Salamois, and charged Adimanthus, a Corinthian General, with flying with his whole squadron at the beginning of the battle.

LXI. Timoleon freed Corinth his own country, from the tyranny of Timophanes, his brother. Plutarch relates the transaction in this manner. Timoleon, and two of his friends who were zealous assertors of liberty, having taken a solemn oath to depose the tyrant if he refused to relinquish his usurpation, went to his house, and finding they could not move him by intreaties, Timoleon retired a little and burst into tears, and at that instant, his two friends flew upon Timophanes, and tore him to pieces. Diodorus Siculus says, Timoleon killed his brother on the public parade. The first historian considers the love of liberty as a principle implanted in the nature of man, and therefore endeavours all he can to soften and excuse the atrociousness of the act. The second blazons and exaggerates it, with a view of exalting the zeal of Timoleon for his country. In the midst of so many dangers, produced by the characters, motives, and passions of authors, truth, in navigating the sea of history, is shipwrecked, and hinder’d from being handed down to posterity.

LXII. Cyrus, according to Xenophon, died composed, and in his bed. Onesicritus, Arrian, Herodotus, Justin, and Valerius Maximus, affirm, that Thomyris, queen of the Massagetes, having overcome, and made him a prisoner, caused him to be put to death, and his head to be immerged in a vessel filled with human blood, in order, as the irritated queen declared, that the thirst he had ever had for that fluid might be satiated. Ctesias writes, that he was killed by an arrow shot at him by an Indian. Diodorus, that he was made a prisoner, and crucified by a queen of the Scythians; and according to Lucian, he died of grief, on account of Cambyses his son, having under the false pretence of an order from him, put to death the major part of those he most esteemed.

LXIII. One of the most remarkable transactions of the Roman History, is the defeat of the Fabians, in the engagement of Cremera. This body, composed of one family only, and which Florus calls a Patrician Army, were cut to pieces, and out of three hundred and six Fabians, there remained only one youth of fourteen years old alive, who was spared on account of his tender age. There are few facts which have been more unanimously attested than this, nor by a greater number of authors. Titus Livius, Ovid, Aurelius Victor, Silius, and Festus, relate it exactly in the same manner; but notwithstanding this, Dionysius Halicarnassus rejects it as intirely fabulous. Titus Livius places the death and fanatic consecration of the two Decii, in the wars against the Latins and the Samnites; but Cicero places it in those with the Etruscans, and against Pyrrhus.

LXIV. The silence of Polybius, respecting the fate of Regulus after his captivity, has occasioned many learned men to doubt of all that has been said on that subject.

LXV. Aurelius Victor relates, the emperor Claudius the second, knowing that the books of the Sibyls promised great victories and prosperity to the empire, if the first man in the senate would voluntarily surrender himself to be sacrificed for the good of his country, which coming to be talked of, the eldest senator offered himself to become the victim; but the emperor would not accept the tender, chusing rather to reserve to himself the glory of that sacrifice, alledging, that the prediction applied to him, as prince and chief of the senate. The same author adds, that for this magnanimous action, a statue of gold was erected to his memory in the Temple of Jupiter, and a bust of gold in the senate. He says further, the name of the senior senator, who offered his life to obtain the completion of the Sibyl prediction, was Pompeius Bassus. Neither Trebelius Pollio, nor Eutropius, make the least mention of all this; but on the contrary, have both affirmed, this Emperor died of a natural disease.

LXVI. That manifestation of heroic fortitude, in the action of biting the tongue off with the teeth in the torture, is attributed by Jamblicus, to Timyca Pythagorica; by Tertullian, to the Courtesan Leæna; by Valerius Maximus, Pliny, Diogenes Laertius, and Philo Judæus, to the Philosopher Anaxarchus; and by St. Jerome, in his Life of Saint Paul the first Hermit, to a holy Martyr[5].

LXVII. Some say that Placidia caused her brother, the emperor Honorius, to sign an instrument, by which he granted this princess in marriage to one of his meanest officers, and that she afterwards complaining to the emperor of this indignity, he denied that he had ever done any such thing; upon which she shewed him his sign manual, and by this instance, illustrated and corrected the facility with which he had been used to sign papers he never read; for she herself had prevailed on him to set his hand to the instrument, upon suggesting to him, that it contained his assent to a matter of a very different nature. Others put this stratagem in the head of Pulcheria, who betrayed her brother the emperor Theodosius into signing a deed, by which he consented to sell his wife the empress Eudoxia for a slave.

LXVIII. Upon no other principle than that of the violent preoccupation of historians, can we account for the diversity with which the death of Julian the Apostate is related. Some say, that being mortally wounded in a battle with the Persians, and finding his dissolution approach, he catch’d his blood in his hands, and in a rage threw it up towards heaven, exclaiming with great earnestness to our Saviour, Thou hast conquered, Nazarene, thou hast conquered. Others tell us, that he tried in vain to extract the arrow from his wound, and in the attempt cut his hand with it, and finding himself in a desperate state, ordered, that they should carry him into the heat of the battle, to encourage his soldiers; and when he was dying, he with his last breath, gave thanks to the Gods for having blessed him with so glorious a death, in the flower of his age, and in the full career of his victories, and before he had experienced any reverse of fortune to tarnish his laurels; to which he added, that long before that era, the Gods had announced this death to him[6].

LXIX. The punishment of queen Bruneguilda, who, it is said, Clodovicus the second condemned to be torn to pieces by wild horses, for having taken away the lives of ten Kings, is very doubtful and suspicious. Mariana, who treats this relation as a mere fable, says, the French historians had a great propensity to credit and write marvellous occurrences, which he is at a loss whether to impute to their simplicity or their assurance; and Pasquier refutes separately and distinctly, every accusation that has been charged on that queen.

LXX. Historians are much divided in their opinions, with respect to how the popes came to change their names upon their exaltation to the papal chair. Fr. Paul Sarpi attributes the origin of it to the Germans, whose names sounding harsh and dissonant in the ears of the Italians, they upon being elected popes changed them; which came afterwards to be a custom, says this author, that was followed by the other popes, and by which they meant to express, that they had changed their private and human affections for public and divine cares. Platina pretends, that Sergius the second was the first that changed his name, because that he before went by, had a harsh sound. Baronius treats this reason with contempt, and attributes the origin of the practice to Sergius the third, whose name happening to be Peter, he, from a motive of humility, divested himself of the name of the Prince of the Apostles. Onuphrius believes, that John the twenty-second first set this example, because he would not preserve as pope, the name of Octavianus, which had a heathenish sound. Many are of opinion, that this changing the name was done to imitate St. Peter, whose name of Simon was by our Redeemer changed to that of Cephas.

LXXI. Although the fable of Pope Joan has been refuted by even the Protestants themselves, among whom we may reckon David Blondel, who wrote with an express intention of doing it; there have not been wanting some, who had the reputation of men of learning, who have endeavoured to establish as true so fabulous a fact[7].

LXXII. The original institution of the Electors of Germany is a matter much contested. Some attribute it to Charles the great. Others, such as Blondo, Nauclerus, and Platina, to Gregory the fifth. Maimburgus, and Pasquier, to a celebrated council that was held in the time of this pope. Many again pretend, that Gregory the fifth, the emperor Otho the third, and the princes of Germany, concurred together in making this regulation. According to Machiavel, Gregory the fifth having been driven from Rome by the populace, and reinstated by the emperor Otho the third; he, to chastise the Romans, transferred their rights of chusing the Emperor, to the archbishops of Mentz, Treves, and Cologn, and to the three secular princes, the Count Palatine, the Duke of Saxony, and the Marquis of Brandenburgh.

LXXIII. The Germans themselves, and they only, enjoyed the right of electing an emperor. Albertus, Abbot of Stade, who was an author contemporary with the emperor Frederick the second, says in formal terms, that Gregory the ninth, who had excommunicated Frederick the second, wrote to the German princes, requiring them to elect another emperor; to which they answered, that it did not belong to the pope to concern himself with the election of an emperor, for that was a right appertaining solely to themselves; The same author immediately adds, that by virtue of an ordinance, which had been before made by these princes by common consent, the right of electing an emperor, was declared to be vested in the archbishops of Mentz, Treves, and Cologn, the Count Palatin, the Duke of Saxony, the Marquis of Brandenburgh, and the King of Bohemia. Paulus Vindelecius, in his treatise upon the electors, says, that long before this, it was the custom, to present to the seven great officers of the empire, him who had the most suffrages in the diet; and according to Aventinus in his Annals, and Onuphrius in his Treatise on the Imperial Diets, the right of electing an emperor was restrained by Pope Gregory the tenth to the seven electors.

LXXIV. All that can with certainty be deduced from this variety of opinions, is, that the institution of the electors was not antecedent to the thirteenth century, and that it did not take place till after the reign of Frederick the second; for before that time, all the contemporary authors testify, the princes, prelates, and German nobles, elected the emperor. Lampadius, a great German lawyer, places the institution of the electoral college in the reign of Frederick the second; and Otho Frisingensis says, that Frederick the first, called Red Beard, was elected by all the Princes of the empire. Trithemius, in his Chronicle, determines the beginning of the suffrages of the electors, to have commenced at the election of William Count of Holland, in the year 1247. According to Frederick Brockelman, the mode of electing by seven, began at the election of Adolphus Count of Nassau, who, he says, was chosen by the three archbishops, the three secular Princes, and a proxy on the part of the King of Bohemia. At another election, the Archbishops of Treves and Mentz, the King of Bohemia, and the Marquis of Brandenburgh by proxy, gave their votes for Louis of Bavaria; and the Archbishop of Cologn, the Count Palatin, and the Duke of Saxony, voted for Frederick of Austria. This division of the suffrages of the Electors, proves clearly, that they then consisted of no more than seven. The electoral order was not formally and permanently settled, till it was established by the Golden Bull of the emperor Charles the fourth.

LXXV. William du Bellai de Langey, and Monsieur Haillan, say, that the famous Maid of Orleans, Joan d’Arc, was not burnt; and Father Vignier adds, that after her imprisonment by the English, or rather after being released from that imprisonment, she married with Gil de Armuesa, and left children by him. The author of the Latin poem, which contains her history, says, that after she had suffered the punishment of being burnt alive, to which the English had condemned her, her memory was restored to credit by a decree.

LXXVI. The historians of the times in which the event happened, are not agreed upon the circumstances of the assassination of the Duke of Burgundy, at Montereau Faut-Yonne, in 1419; some say, that the Duke, upon approaching the Dauphin, fell on his knees to salute him, and that then, Tranquildo du Chatel gave him a blow with a hatchet, which he instantly repeated, and the duke fell dead. Others tell us, that the duke attempting to make the dauphin a prisoner, the attendants of the dauphin who were with him, fell upon the duke and killed him. Others again say, that three gentlemen of the defunct duke of Orleans, attended this interview, with an intention of revenging the death of their late master; which design they executed, by killing the duke so suddenly and unexpectedly, that it was impossible to prevent it.