I. There is the same common error prevalent among the vulgar, with
respect to History, that there is with regard to Jurisprudence. I mean,
that they suppose the attainment of those two faculties depends solely
upon application and memory. It is commonly thought, that a man is made
a great lawyer, by treasuring up in his remembrance great numbers of law
texts and maxims; and a great historian, by reading and retaining many
historical relations. I won’t dispute, if we speak only of men learned
in conversation, and historians for table talk, that any thing more is
necessary. But to become a historian of the pen, good Lord! nothing
less than the pens of the Phœnix are equal to the undertaking. The most
prudent and learned bishop of Cambray, in his letter on this subject to
the French Academy, said very justly, _that an excellent historian is
perhaps more rare than a great poet_.
II. In fact, the critics have not been so difficult to please on the
part of poetry as on the part of history; for, with the exception of one
or two exquisitely nice ones, they all agree, that Homer, Virgil, and
Horace, were most excellent poets, and in whom there could be found no
striking defect; and they would not have scrupled to concede the same
honour to Ovid, Catullus, and Propertius, if the lascivious impurity of
their expressions had not tarnished the lustre of their verses. But how
difficult and severe have they shewn themselves with the historians,
even when they have criticised the works of the most eminent of them!
The same prelate we have just quoted, observes a want of unity and order
in Herodotus, and thinks Xenophon more of a novelist than a historian;
and it is a general received opinion, that in his history of Cyrus he
did not so much attend to relating the true actions of that prince, as
to painting his own idea of a perfect king. He admits, that Polybius
reasons admirably on political and military matters; but observes, that
he reasons too much. He celebrates the fine harangues of Thucydides and
Titus Livius, but objects to their being too numerous, and seeming more
like the works of their own invention, than the speeches of those, in
whose mouths they put them. He blames Sallust, for having in two very
short histories entered into too large a description of persons and
customs. He censures Tacitus for an affected brevity, and for having had
the audacity to pretend to discern and point out the political springs
and causes of all kinds of events; which is also a defect he reprehends
in Henricus Catherinus.
III. In these same great historians, other critics find out other faults.
Plutarch observes, that Herodotus is inviduous and spiteful against
Greece. It is a general opinion, that he mixed many fables with his
history, which he carried to such a length, that there have been some,
who, instead of bestowing on him the magnificent epithet of the Father of
History, have called him the inventor of fable. Dionysius Halicarnassus
denies the language of Xenophon to be splendid or majestic, adding, that
whenever he attempts to elevate his stile, he instantly falls off, and
shews himself unable to support it. Vossius remarks, that the stile of
Polybius is inaccurate; and Father Rapin, that he frequently interrupts
the thread of his narration with moral reflections. The same Vossius
arraigns the stile of Thucydides, as harsh and full of hyperboles.
Erasmus points out some contradictions in Titus Livius; and Asinius
Pollio remarks some Patavinian or provincial expressions in his Latin.
Many, and with great reason, blame him as a multiplier of prodigies.
Aulus Gellius called Sallust _a coiner of words_[1]; and the illustrious
Cæno blames him for suffering himself to be warped by his prejudices
and dislikes, and for having concealed many of the glorious actions of
Cicero, because he was upon ill terms with him. Charles Sigonius thinks
the language of Tacitus was trite; and father Causinus says the same
thing in other words; father Bayle also detects Henricus Catherinus, in
giving certain relations that were contrary to truth.
IV. Who, upon the sight of all this, would, without a trembling hand,
take up the pen to write a history? Who, upon seeing all these celebrated
historians so arraigned, could think himself qualified to escape censure?