Part 2

XVIII. _For the purpose of preserving nice order in a history_ (says the before-quoted Archbishop of Cambray), _it would be necessary that the writer, before he takes pen in hand, should have the whole scope of the undertaking collected together in his imagination; that he should be able to discern the whole extension of it at a glance; and that he should turn it over and over in his mind, till he can fix on the just point of view in which to exhibit it. All this, to the end that he may preserve its unity, and derive, as from one source only, all the principal events of which it is composed._ And a little lower he says: _A historian of genius, out of twenty stations, will chuse the most opportune wherein to introduce a fact, so that by being placed in that situation, it will throw a light upon many others. Sometimes, by anticipating the relation of an event, you will facilitate the understanding of others, which preceded it in point of date; and at other times, another will appear to better advantage, by the account of it being postponed._ This is all very well observed, and all tends to shew the great difficulties there are in writing a history with propriety.

SECT. VIII.

XIX. But the most arduous part lies in ascertaining what is of the most importance of all, which is the truth. A great modern critic said, very justly, that it is very frequent for historical truth to be as impenetrable as philosophical. The last lies hid in the well of Democritus; the first is either buried in the sepulchre of oblivion, is obscured by the clouds of doubt, or has retired behind the shoulders of fable. I believe we may apply to history the remark of Virgil upon fame, for they are nearly allied, and the first, very frequently, the child of the latter.

_Tam facti, pravique tenax, quam nuntia veri._

XX. From hence, some have taken occasion to distrust the best attested histories, and others have had the audacity to doubt the most certain informations. That famous philosopher Campanela said, he doubted whether there ever was such an emperor in the world as Charles the fifth; and Charles Sorrel not only denied that Pharamond conquered the kingdom of France, but also doubted his existence. In the republic of letters, they give an account of a man who had assured Vossius, that he had wrote a treatise, in which he had proved with invincible arguments, that all Cæsar said in his Commentaries, relating to his wars in Gaul, was false; for that he had incontestably demonstrated, that Cæsar never passed the Alps. An anonymous writer, before a hundred years had elapsed after the death of Henry the third of France, had the rashness to affirm, in a book, intitled “la Fatilité de Saint Cloud,” that Jacob Clement did not put that prince to death. Such monstrous instances of distrust, and audacity, does the uncertainty of history produce.

SECT. IX.

XXI. Seneca reduces the want of truth in history, to three principles or causes, which are credulity, negligence, and a propensity to lying in historians: _Quidam creduli, quidam negligentes sunt: quibusdam mendacium obrepit, quibusdam placet: illi non evitant, hi appetunt._ (lib. 7. Natur. Quæst. cap. 16.) He omitted to point out two other principles, which are sometimes the impossibility of coming at the truth, and at others the want of critical judgment to discern it.

XXII. Lying historians occasion others who are not lyars to relate many fables. It seems as if the greatest diligence of an historian, who relates the event of remote ages, can enable him to do no more than examine carefully the authors who lived at that time, or immediately after it, and to give the sum of their relations faithfully. But how often has flattery or resentment been known to warp the pens of those very authors? The first of these faults was remarked by Tacitus, in those writers, who related the affairs of Tiberius, Cayus, Claudius, and Nero, in the life-time of those Cæsars; and the second, in those who gave an account of them a short time after their deaths: _Tiberii, Caiique, Claudii, ac Neronis, res florentibus ipsis, ob metum falsæ, postquam occiderant, recentibus odiis compositæ sunt._ By so much the nearer historians are to the circumstances they relate, in so much a nearer point of view do they see the truth, and are so much the better enabled to distinguish it; but in proportion to these opportunities of their knowing it, are the suspicions that various affections induce them to conceal it. Fear, hope, love, and hatred, are four strong winds which violently agitate the pen, and will not permit the nib of it to rest or dwell on the point of truth. We shall select two examples, out of a great number of others, that might be produced to prove this assertion, which are Procopius a Greek historian, and Velleius Paterculus a Roman one. The last of these, after having given an excellent account of the things appertaining to Rome, in the anterior ages, when he came to relate those of his own times, fouled the page of his history with gross adulations of Tiberius, and his favourite Sejanus; and heaped the highest eulogiums, on the heads, of two of the most perfidious and flagitious men that were known in that corrupt age. Procopius, in his _Secret History_, describes the Emperor Justinian, and the Empress Theodosia, as the most abominable prince and princess upon earth. Paterculus lived under Tiberius, and Procopius under Justinian; and, as they were both men of rank, and filled considerable employments, could not be ignorant of the reality of things. But envy in one, and dependence in the other, caused them both, equally to deviate from the truth.

XXIII. This was the reason why Mons. du Haillan, a noble French historian, terminated his general history of France with the reign of Charles the seventh; nor have we a trace of his pen, respecting the monarchs who succeeded immediately after that time. But let us hear what Mons. du Haillan says in the prologue to his history, because it is admirably suited to the subject we are upon. He says, _although we must admit Francis the first was a great and an excellent king, nevertheless, because all the histories which speak of him were written in his own time, or in that of his son Henry, the authors of them were more lavish of their eulogiums of him than his merit deserved, or than were consistent with the obligations they owed to truth as historians; and that this is a vice which all those are apt to fall into who write histories of their own times, or of the princes of whom they are the immediate subjects_. Thus we see, those _who write the history of their own times, are agitated by many passions which seduce them to lie openly, either to favour or blazon their own prince and nation, or to misrepresent and blacken their enemies_.

XXIV. The saying of Pescenius Niger, to a man who wanted to repeat to him a panegyric which he had written in his praise, is very applicable to this matter: “Compose,” says he, “panegyrics upon Marius, Hannibal, and other great captains who are dead; for blazoning living emperors, from whom you entertain hopes and expectations, or of whom you stand in fear, favours more of banter than encomium.”

SECT. X.

XXV. What we have said of those who write the history of their own times, may be applied equally to them who relate the affairs of their own country. These are generally believed to be the best informed, but at the same time their impartiality is the most suspected. So that truth navigates the sea of history, always surrounded by the dangerous rocks of ignorance and prejudice. With respect to many things which are of great importance, and incumbent on an historian to relate, he may want information; with regard to those which he takes an interest in, and looks upon as his own, his prejudices induce him to speak against his conviction. Polybius remarks, that Fabius, a Roman historian, and Philenus a Carthaginian one, are so opposite in their accounts of the Punic war, that, according to the first, all is glorious for the Romans, and ignominious to the Carthaginians; and according to the other directly the contrary.

XXVI. From hence arises the embarrassment, which is ever occurring in the comparison of different histories, with respect to one and the same fact. Who, for example, could know better what passed in the wars between France and Spain, than the French and Spaniards themselves? But if we set ourselves to examine the authors of the different nations, we shall find them as opposite in their accounts of the motives which led to the facts, as in their relation of the facts themselves. Whom should we give credit to? Why that is not so easy to determine; but we know for certain, who believes who. The Spaniards believe the Spanish authors, and the French the French ones. The same passion, which causes writers to describe things favourably to their own country, induces readers to believe what they write.

XXVII. It is not one enemy only which militates against the truth in national authors. I mean that it is not only love, but fear also, which makes them depart from the line of right; for, when they are not blinded by their own passions, they are warped and impeded by those of other people. They well know, that a history of their own nation, written with frankness and candour, will be but ill received by their fellow citizens; and who has so stout a heart as to resolve upon exposing himself to the hatred of his countrymen? Even where the attainment of eternal happiness is the object of a man’s contemplation, we find very few martyrs to the truth.

XXVIII. The example of our great historian Father John Mariana, will afford but little encouragement for others to imitate him; or to speak more properly, it will rather deter them from doing it. That Jesuit was a great lover of the truth, and adopted it as the sole or ultimate object of his history; but his not being partial, which is the greatest glory of a historian, was imputed to him by many national people for ignominy; and because he disdained to lie or flatter, they calumniate him for being disaffected to his country. They go still further, and by accusing him of having an affection or partiality for France, impute the motive of their own conduct to the author; this they do with such confidence, that I should be apt to believe them, if I did not see that he was equally ill treated by both Frenchmen and Spaniards. It is an established fact, that his book, intitled, de Rege & Regis institutione, was condemned by authority, to be burnt by the hands of the common hangman, at Paris; and for what? why because he arraigned in it the conduct of Henry the third, king of France. Thus, in both the nations, they did injury and injustice to Father Mariana, for having been sincere and candid. In Spain they would have him write nothing but what was glorious to their own nation; in France, they would not permit him to touch the hem of the garment of king Henry. In this manner is the world continually laying stumbling blocks, to obstruct truth in history; and those few who have been disposed to write it, from pure motives of integrity, have always found themselves trammelled and embarrassed by the prejudices of others.

XXIX. Not only the natural dispositions of historians to favour their own country, but sometimes the hope of reward, or the fear of resentment, have occasioned their being partial to foreign ones. No man was more lavish in his applauses of the Venetians than Marcus Sabellicus, who was not a Venetian himself. He wrote the history of Venice, more in the stile and character of a panegyrist than a historian. This might seem strange; but Julius Cæsar Scaliger informs us, that the gold of the republic made him consider that country as his own. By way of contrast to this, these same Venetians were much offended with John de Capriara, a noble Genoese historian, for some relations he had given, which were unfavourable to their arms; but the answer this author made to the expressions of their resentment is worthy the imitation of all other authors in the like cases. He replied, _the Venetians should be angry with Fortune and not with me; for as the events of the war were unhappy for them, I could not represent them fortunate, for the sake of making them grateful and pleasing to their palates_.

SECT. XI.

XXX. The bias of religion is not less forcible, but has rather more power than the national to warp truth from the line of right in history. The impositions which some protestant historians have palmed on the world, in order to calumniate the characters of many popes, are shocking; their fictions of adulteries, simonies, and homicides, have been insufficient to satisfy their envy, or satiate their resentment against the supreme head of the church; for they have extended their rage to charging popes, who were extremely venerable for their virtue, with committing crimes of the blackest die. What wickedness did they not impute to that most venerable pope, Gregory the seventh? They not only accused him of intruding himself into the papal chair, of simony, and of a criminal correspondence with the virtuous Countess Matilda, but also of heresy and magic; inventing many ridiculous tales, to prove him guilty of this last crime. It was not against the popes alone, that they forged these monstrous extravagancies, but extended them to many of those, who by their learning and ardent zeal had signalized themselves in defence of the catholic religion. Father Theophilus Rainauld tells us, there appeared a libel against the most pious and learned Cardinal Belarmino, accusing him of having murdered many new-born infants, in order to conceal his lewd practices from the world; adding, that, touched afterwards with remorse, and a disposition to repent of his sins, he made a pilgrimage to Loretto, in order to expiate them; where the priest, to whom he confessed, struck with horror at so much wickedness, refused to give him absolution, which occasioned him in a little while after to die with despair. The best is, that Belarmino was alive when the libel was published, which he read and despised. What infamous things did Buchanan write, which even the protestants of this day believe, against the admirable Mary Queen of Scots? I am not surprized, that the unanimous testimony of all the catholic authors in her favour does not convince them, because they look upon them as partial; but I am amazed that the relation of Camden, an excellent English historian, and whom nothing but his love of the truth could induce to vindicate her, does not persuade them; and one would suppose, the great difference of character and manners between Buchanan and Camden would have weight in deciding the question. The first, a drunken, spiteful, debauched, man; the second, continent, modest, and a lover of historical truth; and one in whose morals you could not find the least fault; but when we see party prejudice prevail over all the persuasions of reason, it is a strong proof of its force.

XXXI. But, as the true religion does not exempt the professors of it from manifesting an indiscreet zeal against its enemies, there are not a few catholic historians who have fallen into this very vice. From hence arose the suppositions, that Luther was born of a devil incubate; that the false prophet Mahomed was of mean extraction; that Anna Bolene was the daughter of Harry the eighth; that this unhappy woman, hurried away by an unbridled lust in her tender years, and long before she became the object of that prince’s love, committed a thousand turpitudes; with other fables of the same kind. The worst is, that as every infamous libel against those of an opposite religion is easily believed; it soon, from the most improbable and scandalous satyr, comes to be translated into history. In consequence of this, five hundred authors are afterwards cited in support of a fable, the whole of whose authority, when the thing comes to be examined, originates in the libel from whence the tale was derived.

SECT. XII.

XXXII. If only the interest of the prince of the state, or of religion, attracted the pen of the historian, and caused it to deviate from the truth; we should at least have the satisfaction to suppose, that with respect to those facts which have no relation to the party he follows, or the power he obeys, an historian would not wish to deceive us. But the private or particular motives which may excite him to deception are so numerous, that even with respect to these facts, we can seldom say we are secure. Who can form an idea of the affections which possess the heart of an author, whom he does not know, nor has had any intercourse with? Who can determine to how many objects his love or hatred extend? Even with regard to those facts which seem the most remote, either from his affections or his interest, he may be swayed by his prejudices or his convenience; and sometimes historians lie, when their motives for doing it are incomprehensible, of which we will proceed to give an example.

XXXIII. Peter Mathé, a famous French historian, tells us, that one la Brosse, a physician and mathematician at Paris, had foretold the death of Henry the fourth, and had communicated his prediction in confidence to the Duke de Vendome. Peter Petit, another historian, who was much celebrated for his knowledge of human nature, assures us, that such a prediction never existed. These two men were both contemporaries, both resided at Paris, were both there at the death of Henry the fourth, and both knew the physician la Brosse; but with all this, as they give diametrically opposite testimonies, it is very clear that one or other of them must lie. If it should be urged, that one of them might be deceived by some sinister information, I answer, that could not be the case, for they both quote the Duke de Vendome as their author. Peter Mathé says, he had the thing just as he relates it from the duke himself: Peter Petit says, he asked the Duke de Vendome if what Peter Mathé had related was true; and that the duke replied, it was false.

XXXIV. This is a contradiction, capable of exciting many reflexions on the uncertainty of history. If it had not happened, that an author in the situation and circumstances of Peter Petit had contradicted Peter Mathé, who would have ventured to question the prediction of la Brosse? In what author could concur superior requisites to establish a fact? A historian of reputation, who was contemporary with the event, lived in the same city with the astrologer where the tragical death of Henry happened, and who heard the prediction from the only witness who could possibly give testimony to the truth of it; and this was a man of the rank and quality of the Duke de Vendome. What further evidence could the most rigid critic demand, to engage his assent to an historical fact? With all this, unless we transfer the deception to Peter Petit, we are under a necessity of declaring, that Peter Mathé advanced a falshood; for the same circumstances equally concurred, to induce giving credit to the first as the last of them. Thus are we reduced to a necessity of acknowledging, in spite of all the critical aid we can call in to our assistance, that we are unable to ascertain the truth of this relation. Nor will transferring the deception to the Duke de Vendome, and saying, that he told one person one thing, and another another, remove the historical difficulty; for, as historians seldom relate events of which they were eye witnesses, and as the most they can do, is to make use of the testimony of credible evidences, your calling in question whether they were so or not, would, by extending to them the danger of propagating falshoods, be adding a new difficulty to the certainty of history; for at this rate, it would not suffice that an historian himself is a man of veracity; but it would be also requisite, that those from whom he had his information should be men of veracity likewise; and sometimes the intelligence passes through so many different channels, from the æra of the fact to its arrival at the pen of the historian, that it seems exceedingly improbable to suppose, that in its passage through one or other of these channels, there shall not be something added or diminished; nor can it be insured, that it shall not come to him totally changed and disfigured; for the same thing happens in this case as in morality, _malum ex quocumque defectu_. If, from one to another, a relation goes through the mouths of ten different individuals, by its passage through the mouth of one of them, who is not a scrupulous observer of the truth, it will be vitiated, and occasion its appearing corrupted in the page of history. Who, upon contemplation of this, will not be astonished at those, who believe every thing to be true as the Gospel, which they read in an author who writes the history of his own times?

XXXV. We may with great probability, and without any violent or strained supposition, conclude, that the facility with which the verification of astrological predictions has been imposed on the world, was owing solely to their not having in their origin met with the contradiction which that of Peter Mathé did. If the refutation of a fable does not immediately follow its invention, there is afterwards no remedy.

XXXVI. But leaving it for the present undetermined at whose door the deception lay, what can we suppose could be the motive of either of these historians, to quote the Duke de Vendome falsely as his author? It might, in Peter Mathé, be his friendship for the astrologer, whose fame he wanted to raise as a foreteller of events: it might proceed also, from a desire of adorning his history with a curious and pleasing anecdote. On the part of Peter Petit, might intervene his dislike to astrologers; or he might also deny the truth of the prediction, because it clashed with the system of his dissertation upon comets, which is the book in which he denies it. According to this mode of reasoning, it is easy to assign other motives of inducement; but it is not quite so easy to hit upon the true one.

SECT. XIII.

XXXVII. Thus, you see, we on all sides are beset with hazards. The authors who are remote from the time when, and the places where events happened, are very much exposed to be deceived in one or other of the various ways, by which informations descend to them; and those who were contemporaries with the events, and lived in the places where they fell out, are frequently interested by a variety of circumstances and combinations to disfigure them.