I. The best method of beginning these additions, appears to me, to
be by introducing some curious observations made by Plutarch, on the
uncertainty of antient History, which we find inserted in his works, with
the title of Parallels. The object of this treatise, is to shew, that
many of the most illustrious and singular events which we find in the
Greek history, are to be met with in the Roman one; all of them attended
with exactly the same circumstances, and differ only with respect to the
persons who were engaged in them, and the places where they happened;
which affords a very probable conjecture, that the Roman authors, with
a view of blazoning their country with this false and borrowed lustre,
copied these events from the Greeks. Plutarch quotes the Greek authors
who relate these things, and from whom, in all probability, the Romans
copied them.
II. The Roman history says, that the vestal virgin Rhea Silva, having
gone into a neighbouring wood to sacrifice, the god Mars took that
opportunity of coming upon her by surprize, and ravishing her: the result
of which rape was, the twin brothers, Romulus and Remus; who, soon after
they were born, were left deserted on the banks of the Tiber, where
a she wolf suckled and preserved them; but being afterwards found by
the shepherd Faustulas; he took them up and delivered them to his wife
Laurentia, to be nursed and reared. The same story, without the least
variation in a single particular, is related by Zopirus Byzantinus,
of the Grecian Philonomia, the daughter of Nictimus, who having gone
into a wood, and been surprized and ravished there by the god Mars,
was afterwards, in consequence of the rape, delivered of two sons, who
were exposed on the banks of the river Erimanthus, and carried by the
current into a plain, where they received their first nourishment from a
wolf; and being taken up and preserved by the shepherd Telephus, came
afterwards to be kings of Arcadia.
III. We are told that the senators, tired of the dominion of Romulus,
killed him in the senate-house; and, in order to conceal his death,
carried out each a piece of the defunct king, hid under their garments;
in consequence of this contrivance, the body not appearing, they were
able to impose upon the people, and persuade them that he had ascended to
Heaven. The same story, tittle for tittle, is related by Theophilus of
Pisistratus, the ancient king of Orchomena, in his Peloponnesian history.
He says, the senators, fired with indignation against him, for favouring
the populace more than the nobility, demolished and cut him into pieces
in the senate-house, from whence each of them carried out a small portion
of his body hid under their cloaths, which they deposited in their
houses, and by that means concealed the assassination from the public;
and, just afterwards Tlesymachus, one of the faction, pretended that he
had seen Pisistratus upon the top of Mount Piseus in the shape of a deity.
IV. Macrobius and Plutarch tell us, that in a short time after the
Romans had driven the Gauls from Rome, by whose invasion they were
much weakened, the Latins entered into a league against them, and
threatened their total ruin if they did not deliver up to them all the
women of quality that were in the city. The senate were perplexed about
what resolution to take in so critical a case: but while they were
deliberating, all the slaves came, and offered to deceive the enemy, by
going out to them dressed in the habits of their mistresses. The senate
accepted the offer, and the slaves went forth, making a great parade,
and dressed out like gay ladies. The Latins, who devoted the night to
revel and debauchery, were surprized, and entirely routed by the Romans.
The same story is told by Dasilus, in his history of Lydia; who says,
the same demand was made by the Sardinians upon the Smyrnans, which was
eluded by the same stratagem, and with the same success.
V. One of the most heroic actions for the service of his country,
performed by any man, and which is recognized as such by all the Roman
writers, is that of Curtius, a Roman knight. A horrid chasm having opened
itself, which threatened to swallow up the city of Rome; and the oracle
being consulted about what remedy they should take in this alarming
urgency, answered, that tremendous chasm could only be brought to close
by throwing into it whatever was most precious in Rome. Curtius,
reflecting that the most precious thing was the life of a man; having
dressed himself in compleat armour, mounted his horse, and plunged into
the abyss; upon which the mouth instantly shut. The same story, without
the alteration of a circumstance, is told by Calisthenis of Anchurus, the
son of the king of Phrygia.
VI. Persenas, king of the Etruscans, having reduced the Romans to great
hunger and distress by a close siege, Mucius Scevola undertook to kill
him; but directed the blow designed for the king, against one of the
generals whom he mistook for him. Being taken a prisoner, he was carried
before Porsena; when, finding the blunder he had made, he thrust his hand
into the fire, and while it was burning, told the king, that he and four
hundred more as resolute as himself, had sallied out of Rome together
with a determination of demolishing him; and that Persenas, terrified
with the threat, raised the siege. Agatharcides tells exactly the same
story of an Athenian, named Agesilaus; who, when he was endeavouring to
demolish Xerxes, by mistake, killed one of his generals: he afterwards
put his hand in the fire, and spoke to Xerxes just in the same manner
Mucius had spoke to Porsena.
VII. The battle of the three Horatios with the three Curios, in which two
of the first being slain, he who remained alive, by a keen stratagem,
slew the three Curios; and, returning home a conqueror, upbraided his
sister for lamenting the death of one of the Curios, to whom she was
betrothed: I say, this story with all its circumstances, may be found
related by Demeratus, of three brothers of the city of Tregea, and three
of that of Phenea, both in Arcadia. Plutarch, in his book of Parallels,
instances many other relations, greatly resembling one another, and which
are reciprocally applied by both the Greek and Roman historians, to their
own countries; but I shall omit them, because they are not so uniform
in their circumstances, as not to admit of the repetition of them being
imputable to accident: but the perfect similitude of all those we have
instanced, demonstrate, that they were copied from one another.
VIII. The Abbé Salliere, in a dissertation which was printed in the
sixth volume of the History of the Academy Royal and Belles Lettres at
Paris, pretends, that in this opposite application of uniform events,
those who copied were the Greeks; but as the great authority of Plutarch
is in favour of a contrary opinion, he endeavours to shew that it was
not Plutarch, but some other Greek author who was deserving of little
credit, that wrote the Parallels; and that the intent of the writer, be
he who he would, was nothing more, than to make it appear that Greece had
not been inferior to Rome in numbers of great men.
IX. I, having read with attention the book of Parallels, find most reason
to suppose that the Romans, and not the Greeks, were the copyists. The
design which the Abbé Salliere attributes to the Greeks of being desirous
to honour their country, does not seem to have much force; because many
of the events related in the Parallels, tend rather to dishonour it. But
it has little effect on the object of our intention, which is that of
shewing the uncertainty of history, whether the original relation of, or
the copying of those famous facts, ought to be attributed to the Greeks
or the Romans; but the truth is, that nobody at present, in deciding the
question, can go beyond feeble conjectures, and therefore the imputation
must be left at the doors of both parties.
X. The Abbé Lenglet du Fresno says, that the descent of the holy oil and
fleurs de lis from Heaven, are marvellous events, unknown to the original
French writers of eminence, altho’ they are much celebrated by middling
authors of these later times. (_Mem. Trevoux, anno 1735, art. 66._)
XI. Father Menochio, tom. 3. cent. 11. cap. 4. proves, by many
authorities, the antiquity of saluting and praying a blessing on those
who sneeze, to have been ages prior to the days of St. Gregory; and we
have already observed, that in the New World, and among many of the
barbarous nations who inhabit it, we have found this custom to have been
established. We shall add at present, a pleasant tale upon this occasion,
which some authors tell us of the king of Monomotapa. Whenever this king
sneezes, all those who are in his presence salute him; but they do it in
so high a voice, that they are heard by those in the antichamber and the
adjacent apartments, upon which they do the same; and the salutation is
repeated in this manner till it gets into the street, and runs all over
the city; so that every sneeze of the king, is attended by horrid outcry
of many thousands of his subjects.
XII. Dr. Prideaux, who wrote the life of the false prophet Mahomet, quoted
in the Critical Dictionary of Bayle, says, that his ancestors, for four
generations prior to him, who were named Cæsar, held the government of
the city of Mecca, and the custody of the idolatrous temple that was
in it; which was not less venerated by the Arabs, than that at Delphos
was by the Greeks; but what certainty have we that this illustrious
geneaology, is not one of the many fictions, with which the Arabs
endeavour to honour that famous impostor?
XIII. The essay or discourse of the Marquis of St. Aubin, on the
Uncertainty of History, in the first book, chap. 6. of his Treatise on
Opinions, is so pleasing and curious, on account of the variety of the
informations, and the opportuneness of the remarks contained in it,
that I thought I should make a very acceptable present to many of my
readers by translating it; and especially to those who don’t understand
French, or who have not the book: but I must premise before I give the
translation, that I shall divest it of the quotations, and omit such
passages, as are nearly the same with those we have given in the original
discourse, or the additions we have already made to it; and also, that I
shall give here and there a critical note upon such passages as seem to
require it.
A Translation of the Sixth Chapter of the First Book of the TREATISE ON
OPINION.
_The little Faith that is to be placed in History._
XIV. It is a very judicious reflexion made by Plutarch in his life of
Pericles, that it was very difficult, or nearly impossible, to discern
the true from the false by the help of history; because, if it is
written many ages after the events it treats of, the antiquity of the
transactions is an obstacle to coming at the knowledge of them; and if
it is written during the lives of the persons of whom it speaks, hatred,
envy, or motives of adulation, excite the author to corrupt and disfigure
the truth.
XV. Is it not probable that historians have been partial to their own
nation? that they have been silent upon, or have spoke slightingly of
the merit of those whose families have fallen to decay, or been nearly
extinguished? and that on the contrary, they have endeavoured to elevate
the names and extol the fame of those families from whom they expected to
be rewarded? The motives for disguising the truth are many; and Tacitus,
notwithstanding his protestations that he is perfectly uninfluenced by
hatred or the hopes of reward; I say, notwithstanding this, a suspicious
reader would give most credit to Estrady; who says, that in order to be
a good historian, a man should divest himself of country and religion,
should be of no profession, nor a follower of any party; which comes
pretty near to saying he should not be a man.
XVI. It would be loss of time, says S. Real, to study history in hopes
of knowing with certainty what has passed in the world; as the principal
information that can be derived from it, is a knowledge of what such and
such authors believed; and that we should not so much seek in history
for facts, as for the opinions of men. Clio, the muse who presides over
history, becomes a prostitute, who, for any price, surrenders herself to
the embraces of the first who solicits her favours.
XVII. Velleius Paterculus, the unworthy flatterer of Tiberius and his
favourite Sejanus, may be more properly said to have composed a panegyric
than a history. Zozimus let himself be carried away by passion, and his
resentment against Constantine; and Eusebius flattered him in every
thing. Titus Livius was an avowed favourer of the party of Pompey; and
Dion Cassius was very partial to Cæsar.
XVIII. History is a present, which should only be made to posterity.
Bocalini recommends, that an historian should write nothing but what has
come within the compass of his own observation; and that his book should
not be published till after he is dead. But even supposing that he has
been quite impartial, which, by the way, is a thing rather to be wished
for than expected, still, the work of every writer partakes of his own
character or disposition. Sallust is a moralist; Tacitus, a politician;
and Titus Livius, superstitious and an orator. They all endeavour to
point out to us the causes of events which were unknown, not only to the
people who lived when they happened, but even to those who had some hand
in negociating public business.
XIX. Greece was so fertile in historians, that the account of one battle
was related by more than three hundred authors. Lucian compares the
passion of the Greeks for writing history, to the epidemical disease of
the Abderitans, in which there was much madness mixed.
XX. All ancient history was almost totally disfigured by the poets, who
were continually interweaving fictions with truth; as may be seen by the
history of Jupiter and all the family of the Titans, by those of Isis,
Dido, Hercules, and the Argonautic Expedition; by that of the siege of
Troy, and many other examples.
_History partakes of the Genius of the People to whom it relates._
XXI. It is easy to discern, that history has more affinity to the genius
of the people to whom it appertains, than to truth or the importance of
events. All this science of history, such as it has been handed down to
us, is the fruit of the passion the Greeks had for writing and relating
stories. The history of antiquity, has communicated to us nought but
such things, as had relation to the Greeks and the Romans. For, not to
mention the continent of America, discovered in these latter ages, which
is so extensive and important, that of other countries was not drawn
out of oblivion, but only in proportion as their affairs were connected
with the Greek and Roman histories. Profane history has scarce taken any
notice of the Jews; and in the little it has said of them, there have
been gross errors. It would likewise have made very little mention of
the ancient Gauls, who extended their conquests and colonies almost over
the whole world, if they had not given occasion to be taken notice of
by their pillaging some of the Greek temples; and by the wars, offensive
and defensive, which they had with the Romans. The four celebrated
empires of the Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans, were not equal,
either in their duration, or the extent of their conquests, to four other
powers, of whom we have only a partial or trifling information; these
are the Chinese, Scythians, Arabs, and Turks[2]. But, notwithstanding
the obscurity of history with regard to these empires, we may venture to
affirm, that of China exceeded that of Assyria, both in its duration, the
number of its inhabitants, the policy of its government, and the extent
of its limits. The Conquests of Almanzor, which comprehended Africa, to
the Western Ocean, and almost all Spain, were more extensive than those
of Cyrus. The conquests of Alexander can’t be compared with those of
Tamerlane[3]. This conqueror subdued a portion of China, and opened a
passage through Tartary and Muscovy, for the sake of serving the emperor
of Constantinople, and triumphing over Bajazet; and, on his return home,
aggregated to his dominions, the countries of Syria, Persia, and a part
of India.
XXII. Our want of historical information, respecting those numerous
swarms of courageous and powerful people, who came out of Northern
Scythia, and, under different names, dismembered the whole Western Roman
Empire, is very extraordinary; which they did many centuries before
the original Turks of Eastern Scythia, who came from the coasts of
the Caspian Sea, and were called in, as some say, by the emperors of
Constantinople, and, as others say, by the kings of Persia; and who, upon
the ruins of the Eastern, Roman, and Arabian empires, established a power
more formidable than ever that of Rome had been[4]; the history of all
which warlike and formidable people, is very little known.
_Of the Passion for the wonderful._
XXIII. The love of the marvellous is one of the stumbling-blocks of
history. There are some historians, who take a pleasure in relating
incredible things, and seem as if they sympathized in the admiration
which they produce in credulous readers.
XXIV. The passion for the prodigious, has been the cause of inventing
many extraordinary stories. Justin tells us, that after the defeat of the
Persians at the battle of Marathon, Cynegyrus, an Athenian, pursued the
enemy in their flight; and when they in great disorder threw themselves
into their ships, he, to prevent their escape, laid hold of one of the
ships with his hands, but they being successively cut off, he seized and
detained her with his teeth.
XXV. Plutarch relates, that Pyrrhus being wounded in the head in a combat
with the Mamertines, was obliged to retire, to get his wound dressed,
and to refresh himself; but, after a little while, in spite of all the
opposition his own people could make against it, he returned to the
field, and, irritated by the bravados of one of the enemy of gigantic
stature, he, fired with indignation, advanced up to him, and with his
sword discharged a blow on his head with such fury, that he split him in
two, and that one half of his carcase fell down on one side of him, and
the other on the other.
XXVI. Procopius writes, that two women, who kept a house of lodging and
entertainment for travellers, in the time of a famine, killed and ate up
seventeen men: and we read in Maffeus, that a Portuguese soldier, having
in an engagement expended all his ball, drew his own teeth, with which he
charged his musquet, and fired them on the enemy.
_Obligations of an Historian._
XXVII. History should not resemble a picture, which aims at representing
nature in a beautiful light; for, as Father Orleans observes, a fine
touch passes easily from the imagination to the pen; and, although it
may illustrate a hero, is very apt to wound the truth, which is the most
essential character of history.
XXVIII. Who is ignorant, says Cicero, that the first law of history
enjoins the historian not to have the audacity to write any kind of lie,
or to want courage to speak the truth in all things, be the danger of
doing it what it may; and that, as far as he is able, he should avoid the
suspicion of being influenced, either by love or hatred? And Polybius,
long before Cicero’s time, had said, that the historian who suppresses
truths, is not less a liar than him who writes fables.
_The great Sincerity of some Historians._
XXIX. Polybius conforms very exactly to his own maxim, which we have just
repeated. This author’s mode of proceeding in his history, is so distant
from all dissimulation, that he comments upon the errors committed by his
own father Lycortas. Thucydides omits nothing that could reflect honour
on Cleon and Barcidas, by whose management he had been banished from
Athens.
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].
LXIX. The punishment of queen Bruneguilda, who, it is said, Clodovicus
the second condemned to be torn to pieces by wild horses, for having
taken away the lives of ten Kings, is very doubtful and suspicious.
Mariana, who treats this relation as a mere fable, says, the French
historians had a great propensity to credit and write marvellous
occurrences, which he is at a loss whether to impute to their simplicity
or their assurance; and Pasquier refutes separately and distinctly, every
accusation that has been charged on that queen.
LXX. Historians are much divided in their opinions, with respect to how
the popes came to change their names upon their exaltation to the papal
chair. Fr. Paul Sarpi attributes the origin of it to the Germans, whose
names sounding harsh and dissonant in the ears of the Italians, they upon
being elected popes changed them; which came afterwards to be a custom,
says this author, that was followed by the other popes, and by which
they meant to express, that they had changed their private and human
affections for public and divine cares. Platina pretends, that Sergius
the second was the first that changed his name, because that he before
went by, had a harsh sound. Baronius treats this reason with contempt,
and attributes the origin of the practice to Sergius the third, whose
name happening to be Peter, he, from a motive of humility, divested
himself of the name of the Prince of the Apostles. Onuphrius believes,
that John the twenty-second first set this example, because he would not
preserve as pope, the name of Octavianus, which had a heathenish sound.
Many are of opinion, that this changing the name was done to imitate St.
Peter, whose name of Simon was by our Redeemer changed to that of Cephas.
LXXI. Although the fable of Pope Joan has been refuted by even the
Protestants themselves, among whom we may reckon David Blondel, who
wrote with an express intention of doing it; there have not been wanting
some, who had the reputation of men of learning, who have endeavoured to
establish as true so fabulous a fact[7].
LXXII. The original institution of the Electors of Germany is a matter
much contested. Some attribute it to Charles the great. Others, such as
Blondo, Nauclerus, and Platina, to Gregory the fifth. Maimburgus, and
Pasquier, to a celebrated council that was held in the time of this pope.
Many again pretend, that Gregory the fifth, the emperor Otho the third,
and the princes of Germany, concurred together in making this regulation.
According to Machiavel, Gregory the fifth having been driven from Rome
by the populace, and reinstated by the emperor Otho the third; he, to
chastise the Romans, transferred their rights of chusing the Emperor, to
the archbishops of Mentz, Treves, and Cologn, and to the three secular
princes, the Count Palatine, the Duke of Saxony, and the Marquis of
Brandenburgh.
LXXIII. The Germans themselves, and they only, enjoyed the right of
electing an emperor. Albertus, Abbot of Stade, who was an author
contemporary with the emperor Frederick the second, says in formal
terms, that Gregory the ninth, who had excommunicated Frederick the
second, wrote to the German princes, requiring them to elect another
emperor; to which they answered, that it did not belong to the pope to
concern himself with the election of an emperor, for that was a right
appertaining solely to themselves; The same author immediately adds,
that by virtue of an ordinance, which had been before made by these
princes by common consent, the right of electing an emperor, was declared
to be vested in the archbishops of Mentz, Treves, and Cologn, the Count
Palatin, the Duke of Saxony, the Marquis of Brandenburgh, and the King
of Bohemia. Paulus Vindelecius, in his treatise upon the electors, says,
that long before this, it was the custom, to present to the seven great
officers of the empire, him who had the most suffrages in the diet; and
according to Aventinus in his Annals, and Onuphrius in his Treatise on
the Imperial Diets, the right of electing an emperor was restrained by
Pope Gregory the tenth to the seven electors.
LXXIV. All that can with certainty be deduced from this variety of
opinions, is, that the institution of the electors was not antecedent to
the thirteenth century, and that it did not take place till after the
reign of Frederick the second; for before that time, all the contemporary
authors testify, the princes, prelates, and German nobles, elected the
emperor. Lampadius, a great German lawyer, places the institution of
the electoral college in the reign of Frederick the second; and Otho
Frisingensis says, that Frederick the first, called Red Beard, was
elected by all the Princes of the empire. Trithemius, in his Chronicle,
determines the beginning of the suffrages of the electors, to have
commenced at the election of William Count of Holland, in the year 1247.
According to Frederick Brockelman, the mode of electing by seven, began
at the election of Adolphus Count of Nassau, who, he says, was chosen by
the three archbishops, the three secular Princes, and a proxy on the part
of the King of Bohemia. At another election, the Archbishops of Treves
and Mentz, the King of Bohemia, and the Marquis of Brandenburgh by proxy,
gave their votes for Louis of Bavaria; and the Archbishop of Cologn, the
Count Palatin, and the Duke of Saxony, voted for Frederick of Austria.
This division of the suffrages of the Electors, proves clearly, that
they then consisted of no more than seven. The electoral order was not
formally and permanently settled, till it was established by the Golden
Bull of the emperor Charles the fourth.
LXXV. William du Bellai de Langey, and Monsieur Haillan, say, that the
famous Maid of Orleans, Joan d’Arc, was not burnt; and Father Vignier
adds, that after her imprisonment by the English, or rather after being
released from that imprisonment, she married with Gil de Armuesa, and
left children by him. The author of the Latin poem, which contains her
history, says, that after she had suffered the punishment of being burnt
alive, to which the English had condemned her, her memory was restored to
credit by a decree.
LXXVI. The historians of the times in which the event happened, are
not agreed upon the circumstances of the assassination of the Duke of
Burgundy, at Montereau Faut-Yonne, in 1419; some say, that the Duke,
upon approaching the Dauphin, fell on his knees to salute him, and that
then, Tranquildo du Chatel gave him a blow with a hatchet, which he
instantly repeated, and the duke fell dead. Others tell us, that the
duke attempting to make the dauphin a prisoner, the attendants of the
dauphin who were with him, fell upon the duke and killed him. Others
again say, that three gentlemen of the defunct duke of Orleans, attended
this interview, with an intention of revenging the death of their late
master; which design they executed, by killing the duke so suddenly and
unexpectedly, that it was impossible to prevent it.
LXXVII. Alexus Piamontes, speaking of an elixir calculated to restore
blind people to their sight, says, that this remedy was contrived at a
consultation of the most learned physicians of Italy, in 1438, for the
purpose of recovering the sight of the emperor of Constantinople, who
was then attending the council of Ferrara with the pope Eugenius the
Fourth, and that in fact, it did restore his eye-sight perfectly. Father
Le Brun, in his history of superstitious practices, gives us this passage
of Alexus Piamontes, and says, that in order to find out the truth of
the fact, he had examined all the contemporary authors who had spoke
of the emperor John Palcologus, and what happened to him at Ferrara in
1438; and that upon this enquiry, he found that neither Blondo, Ducas,
nor Calcondylas, had wrote a word concerning the loss or recovery of this
emperor’s sight at Ferrara; and that Sylvester Scyropulus, so far from
giving us to understand that this emperor had been blind at Ferrara, or
had suffered the least disorder in his eyes during his abode there, says,
that instead of attending the business of the council, he amused himself
continually with hunting and shooting, which is a diversion, not well
calculated for a man who has lost his eyes, or has even an impediment in
his sight[8].
LXXVIII. Varillas, in his anecdotes of Florence, writes, that Peter de
Medicis finding his father dead, after Leoni his physician had given
assurances that he could cure him; in a fit of rage, fell upon Leoni
and tumbled him headlong into a well, where he was suffocated. Angelo
Politianus, who was present at his decease, and who, in one of his
letters on the subject, writes all the circumstances of the death of
Lorenzo the father of Peter de Medicis, says, that Leoni, in a fit of
despair at not having been able to cure Lorenzo according to his promise,
threw himself into a well, and was drowned there. Who shall we believe in
this case, Angelo Politianus, or Varillas? It may be that the enemies of
Peter de Medicis, with a view of tarnishing his fame, have attributed to
him this brutal act of drowning the physician: and it might also happen,
that Angelo Politianus, who was a partizan of the Medicis family, gave
the relation he did, in order to defend the character of Peter from so
black an imputation. We are often placed in this state of doubt and
perplexity by history, and don’t know who or what to rely on; and are
equally in danger of being deceived by authors, whether they mislead us
from motives of flattery or of hatred.
LXXIX. Some historians have said that Philip the Second, caused his
son Don Carlos to be strangled. Paul Piasechi, a bishop and senator of
Poland, gives us to understand, that King Philip procured his son Don
Carlos to be dispatched; but he speaks ambiguously, and does not explain
whether this prince died of poison, or of grief at finding himself
imprisoned. Saint Evremont writes, that the Spaniard who strangled Don
Carlos, said to him at the time he was about it, _Have patience Sir, this
is done for your good_. Nothing surely can have more the appearance of
an invented falsehood than this cruel and barbarous irony. The Venetian
senator, Andrew Morosini, says in his History of Venice, that Charles not
having any instrument wherewith to kill himself, determined to starve
himself to death; but not being suffered to do this by those who looked
after him, he tried the expedient of swallowing the diamond of one of his
rings; but this not having the desired effect, he was resolved to put an
end to his life by one means or other; and betook himself to eating and
drinking with excess, which brought on a dysentery that carried him off
in a few days. Cabrera agrees with the Venetian senator; but the greatest
part of historians insist, that his death was not voluntary, but directed
by his father; to whom they attribute his saying, by way of justifying
the act, that if he found he had any bad blood belonging to him, he had
an undoubted right to let it out. It is much to be wondered at, that
a circumstance of history which is of no greater antiquity, should be
enveloped in such clouds and darkness. Charles ended his life on the 24th
of July, 1568, at four in the morning, aged twenty-five years and fifteen
days.
LXXX. Isabella of France, called the Princess of Peace, on account of
that which accompanied her marriage with Philip the Second, died the
third of October in the same year, and two months and ten days after Don
Carlos. The Spanish historians attribute her death to a mistake of the
physicians, who bled her when she was pregnant: ours, on the other hand,
accuse her husband of being the author of it: and Mezeray speaks of the
event in the following words: We are about to relate one of the most
monstrous adventures imaginable; which is, that Philip the Second having
come to understand that his only son Charles had held a correspondence
with the confederated lords of the Low Countries, who were endeavouring
to prevail upon him to come to Flanders, caused him to be imprisoned, and
deprived of life, either by slow poison or strangling him; and that a
little while afterwards, on account of some jealousy he entertained, he
poisoned his wife, together with the infant in her womb; as was attested
afterwards by her mother queen Catherine, upon the authority of secret
informations given to her by her daughter, and by the depositions of the
domestics of that princess, after their arrival in France[9].
LXXXI. Nothing can be blacker than the colours in which Buchanan paints
the unfortunate Mary Queen of Scots, although other historians give her
the character of a very perfect princess.
LXXXII. I shall insert here the judgment Montaigne makes, of a history
written by William de Bellai, and of the memoirs of Martin de Bellai
his brother. He says, “It can’t be denied that we perceive evidently
in those authors, a great neglect for that frankness and sincerity of
writing which is resplendent in our ancient historians; such as Monsieur
Joinville, a domestic of Saint Louis; Eginard the chancellor to Charles
the Great; and Philip of Comines, who is more modern. Their works are
more properly a declamation in favour of king Francis, and against
Charles the Fifth, than a history. I would not willingly believe they
have altered any thing with respect to the material facts; but it looks
as if they took pains to warp the judgment of the reader in favour of
their own country, and as if they studiously omitted, to mention any
thing that made against the reputation of their own monarch: and it is
remarked by Montmorenci and Brion, that they never once mention Madame
d’Estampes[10]. They might omit to speak of private transactions, but
their being silent upon things that became of consequence on account of
the effect they had on public concerns, was an inexcusable fault; and,
believe me, he who would attain a thorough knowledge of the character of
Francis, and the things which happened in his reign, should read other
historians.”
_Of good Criticism on History._
LXXXIII. We think it is now time, to have done treating of so inscrutable
a matter as the contradictions of historians. In order to form something
like a consistent judgment of suspicious histories, criticism should
ascend to the first fountains, and perhaps the only ones from whence
they were derived; for instance, to Marianus Scotus, for the story of
Pope Joan; and to Gaguin, for the pretended erection of the kingdom of
Yvetot. It is next necessary, to attend carefully to the time, in which
the first bringer to light of an uncertain fact wrote, what profession he
was of, what party he followed, and, above all, what was his character
with regard to his adherence to or indifference for the truth; and also,
whether in all his works he has preserved exactness and uniformity;
and we should likewise attend to the consistency of the testimonies
in support of a relation, which ought always to be mentioned. These
precautions, might tend to lead us on to a knowledge of the truth of
historical facts.
_The Benefit to be derived from the Study of History._
LXXXIV. The principal object in the reading of history, ought to be that
of studying men, their characters, and geniuses. He who reads, says
Montaigne, should not attend so much to the era of time in which Carthage
was destroyed, as to the customs and manners of Hannibal and Scipio; nor
so much to the knowing where Marcellus died, as why he acted unworthy of
his duty and obligations, by exposing and losing his life for a trifling
object. To study history, is to study the opinions, the motives, and
passions of men; and the fruit of that study, should be learning to know
yourself by the knowledge you acquire of others; to correct your failings
by their examples; and to learn experience at their expence.
LXXXV. The obligations of an historian are, to instruct men by making
them acquainted with the exact truth of events; because, if nothing
more was necessary than to display sentiments, geniuses, and customs,
novels and theatrical pieces would be equally opportune to answer that
purpose as historical volumes. The author of the novel of Sethos says
justly in his preface, that feigned situations and circumstances are the
best suited for exhibiting great examples; but observes likewise, that
the display of characters and example, makes an incomparably greater
impression, when it is blended, if not with an intire persuasion, with a
probable opinion of the truth of the facts.
THE DIVORCE OF HISTORY from FABLE.