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_.