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.