part i. pp. 266, 289, part ii. p. 298.

[474] Even the descriptions of natural objects which historians attempted in the Middle Ages, were marked by the same carelessness. See some good observations by Dr. Arnold, on Bede's account of the Solent Sea. _Arnold's Lectures on Modern History_, pp. 102, 103.

If, therefore, we recur to the facts just cited, we may say that, omitting several circumstances altogether subordinate, there were three leading causes of the corruption of the history of Europe in the Middle Ages. The first cause was, the sudden introduction of the art of writing, and the consequent fusion of different local traditions, which, when separate, were accurate, but when united were false. The second cause was, the change of religion; which acted in two ways, producing not merely an interruption of the old traditions, but also an interpolation of them. And the third cause, probably the most powerful of all, was, that history became monopolized by a class of men whose professional habits made them quick to believe, and who, moreover, had a direct interest in increasing the general credulity, since it was the basis upon which their own authority was built.

By the operation of these causes, the history of Europe became corrupted to an extent for which we can find no parallel in any other period. That there was, properly speaking, no history, was the smallest part of the inconvenience; but, unhappily, men, not satisfied with the absence of truth, supplied its place by the invention of falsehood. Among innumerable instances of this, there is one species of inventions worth noticing, because they evince that love of antiquity, which is a marked characteristic of those classes by whom history was then written. I allude to fictions regarding the origin of different nations, in all of which the spirit of the Middle Ages is very discernible. During many centuries, it was believed by every people that they were directly descended from ancestors who had been present at the siege of Troy. That was a proposition which no one thought of doubting.[475] The only question was, as to the details of so illustrious a lineage. On this, however, there was a certain unanimity of opinion; since, not to mention inferior countries, it was admitted that the French were descended from Francus, whom everybody knew to be the son of Hector; and it was also known that the Britons came from Brutus, whose father was no other than Æneas himself.[476]

[475] In _Le Long's Bibliothèque Historique de la France_, vol. ii. p. 3, it is said, that the descent of the kings of France from the Trojans was universally believed before the sixteenth century: 'Cette descendance a été crue véritable près de huit cents ans, et soutenue par tous les écrivains de notre histoire; la fausseté n'en a été reconnue qu'au commencement du seizième siècle.' Polydore Vergil, who died in the middle of the sixteenth century, attacked this opinion in regard to England, and thereby made his history unpopular. See _Ellis's Preface to Polydore Vergil_, p. xx. 4to, 1844, published by the Camden Society. 'He discarded Brute, as an unreal personage.' In 1128, Henry I., king of England, inquired from a learned man respecting the early history of France. The answer is preserved by an historian of the thirteenth century: 'Regum potentissime, inquiens, sicut pleræque gentes Europæ, ita Franci a Trojanis originem duxerunt.' _Matthæi Paris Hist. Major_, p. 59. See also _Rog. de Hov. in Scriptores post Bedam_, p. 274. On the descent of the Britons from Priam and Æneas, see _Matthæi Westmonast. Flores Historiarum_, part i. p. 66. Indeed, at the beginning of the fourteenth century, their Trojan origin was stated as a notorious fact, in a letter written to Pope Boniface by Edward I., and signed by the English nobility. See _Warton's Hist. of English Poetry_, vol. i. pp. 131, 132; and _Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors_, vol. i. p. 185.

[476] The general opinion was, that Brutus, or Brute, was the son of Æneas; but some historians affirmed that he was the great-grandson. See _Turner's Hist. of England_, vol. i. p. 63, vol. vii. p. 220.

Touching the origin of particular places, the great historians of the Middle Ages are equally communicative. In the accounts they give of them, as well as in the lives they write of eminent men, the history usually begins at a very remote period; and the events relating to their subject are often traced back, in an unbroken series, from the moment when Noah left the ark, or even when Adam passed the gates of Paradise.[477] On other occasions, the antiquity they assign is somewhat less; but the range of their information is always extraordinary. They say, that the capital of France is called after Paris, the son of Priam, because he fled there when Troy was overthrown.[478] They also mention that Tours owed its name to being the burial-place of Turonus, one of the Trojans;[479] while the city of Troyes was actually built by the Trojans, as its etymology clearly proves.[480] It was well ascertained that Nuremberg was called after the Emperor Nero;[481] and Jerusalem after King Jebus,[482] a man of vast celebrity in the Middle Ages, but whose existence later historians have not been able to verify. The river Humber received its name because, in ancient times, a king of the Huns had been drowned in it.[483] The Gauls derived their origin, according to some, from Galathia, a female descendant of Japhet; according to others, from Gomer, the son of Japhet.[484] Prussia was called after Prussus, a brother of Augustus.[485] This was remarkably modern; but Silesia had its name from the prophet Elisha--from whom, indeed, the Silesians descended;[486] while as to the city of Zurich, its exact date was a matter of dispute, but it was unquestionably built in the time of Abraham.[487] It was likewise from Abraham and Sarah that the gipsies immediately sprung.[488] The blood of the Saracens was less pure, since they were only descended from Sarah--in what way it is not mentioned; but she probably had them by another marriage, or, may be, as the fruit of an Egyptian intrigue.[489] At all events, the Scotch certainly came from Egypt; for they were originally the issue of Scota, who was a daughter of Pharaoh, and who bequeathed to them her name.[490] On sundry similar matters, the Middle Ages possessed information equally valuable. It was well known that the city of Naples was founded on eggs;[491] and it was also known, that the order of St. Michael was instituted in person by the archangel, who was himself the first knight, and to whom, in fact, chivalry owes its origin.[492] In regard to the Tartars, that people, of course, proceeded from Tartarus; which some theologians said was an inferior kind of hell, but others declared to be hell itself.[493] However this might be, the fact of their birth-place being from below was indisputable, and was proved by many circumstances which showed the fatal and mysterious influence they were able to exercise. For the Turks were identical with the Tartars; and it was notorious, that since the Cross had fallen into Turkish hands, all Christian children had ten teeth less than formerly; a universal calamity, which there seemed to be no means of repairing.[494]

[477] In the _Notes to a Chronicle of London from 1089 to 1483_, pp. 183-187, edit. 4to, 1827, there is a pedigree, in which the history of the bishops of London is traced back, not only to the migration of Brutus from Troy, but also to Noah and Adam. Thus, too, Goropius, in his history of Antwerp, written in the sixteenth century: 'Vond zoowell de Nederlandsche taal als de Wysbegeerte van Orpheus in de ark van Noach.' _Van Kampen_, _Geschiedenis der Letteren_, 8vo, 1821, vol. i. p. 91; see also p. 86. In the thirteenth century, Mathew Paris (_Historia Major_, p. 352) says of Alfred, 'Hujus genealogia in Anglorum historiis perducitur usque ad Adam primum parentem.' See, to the same effect, _Matthæi Westmonast. Flores Historiarum_, part i. pp. 323, 324, 415. In William of Malmesbury's Chronicle (_Scriptores post Bedam_, p. 22 rev.) the genealogy of the Saxon kings is traced back to Adam. For other, and similar, instances, see a note in _Lingard's History of England_, vol. i. p. 403. And Mr. Ticknor (_History of Spanish Literature_, vol. i. p. 509) mentions that the Spanish chroniclers present 'an uninterrupted succession of Spanish kings from Tubal, a grandson of Noah.'

[478] Monteil, in his curious book, _Histoire des divers Etats_, vol. v. p. 70, mentions the old belief 'que les Parisiens sont du sang des rois des anciens Troyens, par Paris, fils de Priam.' Even in the seventeenth century this idea was not extinct; and Coryat, who travelled in France in 1608, gives another version of it. He says, 'As for her name of Paris, she hath it (as some write) from Paris, the eighteenth king of Gallia Celtica, whom some write to have been lineally descended from Japhet, one of the three sons of Noah, and to have founded this city.' _Coryat's Crudities_, 1611, reprinted 1776, vol. i. pp. 27, 28.

[479] 'Erat ibi quidam Tros nomine Turonus Bruti nepos.... De nomine ipsius prædicta civitas Turonis vocabulum nacta est; quia ibidem sepultus fuit.' _Galfredi Monumet. Hist. Briton._ lib. i. cap. xv. p. 19. And Mathew of Westminster, who wrote in the fourteenth century, says (_Flores Historiarum_, part i. p. 17): 'Tros nomine Turnus.... De nomine verò ipsius Turonorum civitas vocabulum traxit, quia ibidem, ut testatur Homerus, sepultus fuit.'

[480] 'On convient bien que les Troyens de notre Troyes sont du sang des anciens Troyens.' _Monteil_, _Divers Etats_, vol. v. p. 69.

[481] Monconys, who was in Nuremberg in 1663, found this opinion still held there; and he seems himself half inclined to believe it; for, in visiting a castle, he observes, 'Mais je ne sçai si c'est un ouvrage de Néron, comme l'on le dit, et que même le nom de Nuremberg en vient.' _Voyages de Monconys_, vol. iv. p. 141, edit. Paris, 1695.

[482] 'Deinceps regnante in ea Jebusæo, dicta Jebus, et sic ex Jebus et Salem dicta est Jebussalem. Unde post dempta _b_ littera et addita _r_, dicta est Hierusalem.' _Matthæi Paris Historia Major_, p. 43. This reminds me of another great writer, who was one of the fathers, and was moreover a saint, and who, says M. Matter, 'dérive les Samaritains du roi Samarius, fils de Canaan.' _Matter_, _Hist. du Gnosticisme_, vol. i. p. 41.

[483] 'Humber rex Hunnorum ... ad flumen diffugiens, submersus est intra ipsum, et nomen suum flumini reliquit.' _Matthæi Westmonast. Flores Historiarum_, part i. p. 19.

[484] These two opinions, which long divided the learned world, are stated in _Le Long_, _Bibliothèque Historique de la France_, vol. ii. pp. 5, 49.

[485] See a curious allusion to this in _De Thou_, _Hist. Univ._ vol. viii. p. 160; where, however, it is erroneously supposed to be a Russian invention.

[486] 'The Silesians are not without voluminous writers upon their antiquities; and one of them gravely derives the name and descent of his country from the prophet Elisha.' _Adams's Letters on Silesia_, p. 267, Lond. 8vo, 1804.

[487] In 1608, Coryat, when in Zurich, was 'told by the learned Hospinian that their city was founded in the time of Abraham.' _Coryat's Crudities_, vol. i. Epistle to the Reader, sig. D. I always give the most recent instance I have met with, because, in the history of the European intellect, it is important to know how long the spirit of the Middle Ages survived in different countries.

[488] They were 'seuls enfants légitimes' of Abraham and Sarah. _Monteil_, _Divers Etats_, vol. v. p. 19.

[489] Mathew Paris, who is apprehensive lest the reputation of Sarah should suffer, says, 'Saraceni perversé se putant ex Sara dici; sed veriùs Agareni dicuntur ab Agar; et Ismaelitæ, ab Ismaele filio Abrahæ.' _Hist. Major_, p. 357. Compare a similar passage in _Mezeray_, _Histoire de France_, vol. i. p. 127: 'Sarrasins, ou de la ville de Sarai, ou de Sara femme d'Abraham, duquel ils se disent faussement légitimes héritiers.' After this, the idea, or the fear of the idea, soon died away; and Beausobre (_Histoire Critique de Manichée_, vol. i. p. 24) says: 'On dérive vulgairement le nom de Sarrasins du mot arabe Sarah, ou Sarak, qui signifie effectivement voleur.' A good example of a secular turn given to a theological etymology. For a similar case in northern history, see _Whitelocke's Journal of the Swedish Embassy_, vol. i. pp. 190, 191.

[490] Early in the fourteenth century, this was stated, in a letter to the Pope, as a well-known historical fact. See _Lingard's Hist. of England_, vol. ii. p. 187: 'They are sprung from Scota the daughter of Pharaoh, who landed in Ireland, and whose descendants wrested, by force of arms, the northern half of Britain from the progeny of Brute.'

[491] Mr. Wright (_Narratives of Sorcery_, 8vo, 1851, vol. i. p. 115) says, 'The foundation of the city of Naples upon eggs, and the egg on which its fate depended, seem to have been legends generally current in the Middle Ages;' and he refers to _Montfaucon_, _Monumens de la Mon. Fr._ vol. ii. p. 329, for proof, that by the statutes of the order of the Saint Esprit, 'a chapter of the knights was appointed to be held annually in castello ovi incantati in mirabili periculo.'

[492] 'The order of Saint Michael, in France, pretends to the possession of a regular descent from Michael the Archangel, who, according to the enlightened judgment of French antiquarians, was the premier chevalier in the world; and it was he, they say, who established the earliest chivalric order in Paradise itself.' _Mills's Hist. of Chivalry_, vol. i. pp. 363, 364.

[493] The etymology of Tartars from Tartarus is ascribed to the piety of Saint Louis in _Prichard's Physical History_, vol. iv. p. 278; but I think that I have met with it before his time, though I cannot now recover the passage. The earliest instance I remember is in 1241, when the saint was twenty-six years old. See a letter from the emperor Frederick, in _Matthæi Paris Historia Major_, p. 497: 'Pervenissent dicti Tartari (imo Tartarei),' &c; and on the expression of Louis, see p. 496: 'Quos vocamus Tartaros ad suas Tartareas sedes.' Since the thirteenth century, the subject has attracted the attention of English divines; and the celebrated theologian Whiston mentions 'my last famous discovery, or rather my revival of Dr. Giles Fletcher's famous discovery, that the Tartars are no other than the ten tribes of Israel, which have been so long sought for in vain.' _Memoirs of the Life and Writings of William Whiston_, p. 575. Compare, on the opinions held respecting the Tartars, _Journal Asiatique_, I^e série, vol. vi. p. 374, Paris, 1825.

[494] Peignot (_Dict. des Livres_, vol. ii. p. 69, Paris, 1806) says, that Rigord, in his history of Philip Augustus, assures his readers 'que depuis que la vraie croix a été prise par les Turcs, les enfans n'ont plus que 20 ou 23 dents, au lieu qu'ils en avaient 30 ou 32 auparavant.' Even in the fifteenth century, it was believed that the number of teeth had diminished from 32 to 22, or at most 24. See _Sprengel_, _Hist. de la Médecine_, vol. ii. pp. 481, 482, Paris, 1815. Compare _Hecker on the Black Death_, pp. 31, 32, in his learned work, _Epidemics of the Middle Ages_, published by the Sydenham Society.

Other points relating to the history of past events were cleared up with equal facility. In Europe during many centuries, the only animal food in general use was pork; beef, veal, and mutton, being comparatively unknown.[495] It was, therefore, with no small astonishment that the crusaders, on returning from the East, told their countrymen that they had been among a people who, like the Jews, thought pork unclean, and refused to eat it. But the feelings of lively wonder which this intelligence excited, were destroyed as soon as the cause of the fact was explained. The subject was taken up by Mathew Paris, the most eminent historian during the thirteenth century, and one of the most eminent during the Middle Ages.[496] This celebrated writer informs us, that the Mohammedans refuse to eat pork on account of a singular circumstance which happened to their prophet. It appears that Mohammed, having, on one occasion, gorged himself with food and drink till he was in a state of insensibility, fell asleep on a dunghill, and, in this disgraceful condition, was seen by a litter of pigs. The pigs attacked the fallen prophet, and suffocated him to death; for which reason his followers abominate pigs, and refuse to partake of their flesh.[497] This striking fact explains one great peculiarity of the Mohammedans;[498] and another fact, equally striking, explains how it was that their sect came into existence. For it was well known, that Mohammed was originally a cardinal, and only became a heretic because he failed in his design of being elected pope.[499]

[495] In the sacred books of the Scandinavians, pork is represented as the principal food, even in heaven. See _Mallet's Northern Antiquities_, p. 105. It was the chief food of the Irish in the twelfth century: _Ledwich_, _Antiquities of Ireland_, Dublin, 1804, p. 370; and also of the Anglo-Saxons at an earlier period: _Turner's Hist. of England_, vol. iii. p. 22. In France it was equally common, and Charlemagne kept in his forests immense droves of pigs. _Note in Esprit des Lois_, in _[OE]uvres de Montesquieu_, p. 513. In Spain those who did not like pork were tried by the Inquisition as suspected Jews: _Llorente_, _Hist. de l'Inquisition_, vol. i. pp. 269, 442, 445. Late in the sixteenth century, there was a particular disease, said to be caused by the quantity of it eaten in Hungary. _Sprengel_, _Hist. de la Médecine_, vol. iii. p. 93; and even at present, the barbarous Lettes are passionately fond of it. _Kohl's Russia_, pp. 386, 387. In the middle of the sixteenth century, I find that Philip II., when in England, generally dined on bacon; of which he ate so much, as frequently to make himself very ill. See _Ambassades de Messieurs de Noailles en Angleterre_, vol. v. pp. 240, 241, edit. 1763. The ambassador writes, that Philip was 'grand mangeur oultre mesure,' and used to consume large quantities 'de lard, dont il faict le plus souvent son principal repas.' In the Middle Ages, 'les Thuringiens payaient leur tribut en porcs, la denrée la plus précieuse de leur pays.' _[OE]uvres de Michelet_, vol. ii. p. 389.

[496] Sismondi (_Hist. des Français_, vol. vii. pp. 325, 326) passes a high eulogy upon him; and Mosheim (_Ecclesiast. History_, vol. i. p. 313) says: 'Among the historians (of the thirteenth century), the first place is due to Mathew Paris; a writer of the highest merit, both in point of knowledge and prudence.'

[497] _Matthæi Paris Historia Major_, p. 362. He concludes his account by saying, 'Unde adhuc Saraceni sues præ cæteris animalibus exosas habent et abominabiles.' Mathew Paris obtained his information from a clergyman, 'quendam magni nominis celebrem prædicatorem,' p. 360. According to Mathew of Westminster, the pigs not only suffocated Mohammed, but actually ate the greater part of him: 'In maxima parte a porcis corrosum invenerunt.' _Matthæi Westmonast. Flores Historiarum_, part i. p. 215.

[498] By a singular contradiction, the African Mohammedans now 'believe that a great enmity subsists between hogs and Christians.' _Mungo Park's Travels_, vol. i. p. 185. Many medical authors have supposed that pork is peculiarly unwholesome in hot countries; but this requires confirmation: and it is certain, that it is recommended by Arabian physicians, and is more generally eaten both in Asia and in Africa than is usually believed. Comp. _Sprengel_, _Hist. de la Médecine_, vol. ii. p. 323; _Volney_, _Voyage en Syrie_, vol. i. p. 449; _Buchanan's Journey through the Mysore_, vol. ii. p. 88, vol. iii. p. 57; _Raffles' Hist. of Java_, vol. ii. p. 5; _Ellis's Hist. of Madagascar_, vol. i. pp. 201, 403, 416; _Cook's Voyages_, vol. ii. p. 265; _Burnes's Travels into Bokhara_, vol. iii. p. 141. As facts of this sort are important physiologically and socially, it is advisable that they should be collected; and I therefore add, that the North-American Indians are said to have 'a disgust for pork.' _Journal of the Geog. Society_, vol. xv. p. 30; and that Dobell (_Travels_, vol. ii. p. 260, 8vo, 1830) says, 'I believe there is more pork eaten in China than in all the rest of the world put together.'

[499] This idea, which was a favourite one in the Middle Ages, is said to have been a Rabbinical invention. See _Lettres de Gui Patin_, vol. iii. p. 127: 'que Mahomet, le faux prophète, avait été cardinal; et que, par dépit de n'avoir été pape, il s'étoit fait hérésiarque.'

In regard to the early history of Christianity, the great writers of the Middle Ages were particularly inquisitive; and they preserved the memory of events, of which otherwise we should have been entirely ignorant. After Froissart, the most celebrated historian of the fourteenth century, was certainly Mathew of Westminster, with whose name, at least, most readers are familiar. This eminent man directed his attention, among other matters, to the history of Judas, in order to discover the circumstances under which the character of that arch-apostate was formed. His researches seem to have been very extensive; but their principal results were, that Judas, when an infant, was deserted by his parents, and exposed on an island called Scarioth, from whence he received the name of Judas Iscariot. To this the historian adds, that after Judas grew up, he, among other enormities, slew his own father, and then married his own mother.[500] The same writer, in another part of his history, mentions a fact interesting to those who study the antiquities of the Holy See. Some questions had been raised as to the propriety of kissing the pope's toe, and even theologians had their doubts touching so singular a ceremony. But this difficulty also was set at rest by Mathew of Westminster, who explains the true origin of the custom. He says, that formerly it was usual to kiss the hand of his holiness; but that towards the end of the eighth century, a certain lewd woman, in making an offering to the pope, not only kissed his hand, but also pressed it. The pope--his name was Leo--seeing the danger, cut off his hand, and thus escaped the contamination to which he had been exposed. Since that time, the precaution has been taken of kissing the pope's toe instead of his hand; and lest any one should doubt the accuracy of this account, the historian assures us that the hand, which had been cut off five or six hundred years before, still existed in Rome, and was indeed a standing miracle, since it was preserved in the Lateran in its original state, free from corruption.[501] And as some readers might wish to be informed respecting the Lateran itself, where the hand was kept, this also is considered by the historian, in another part of his great work, where he traces it back to the emperor Nero. For it is said that this wicked persecutor of the faith, on one occasion, vomited a frog covered with blood, which he believed to be his own progeny, and therefore caused to be shut up in a vault, where it remained hidden for some time. Now, in the Latin language, _latente_ means hidden, and _rana_ means a frog; so that, by putting these two words together, we have the origin of the Lateran, which, in fact, was built where the frog was found.[502]

[500] See the ample details in _Matthæi Westmonast. Flores Historiarum_,