Part 8

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.

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].