SEVERAL METHODS AVAILABLE FOR ASCERTAINING THE CREDIBILITY OF ANCIENT
HISTORICAL WORKS.
The facts referred to in the preceding chapters belong in common to
ancient books of all classes, and they tend to prove that the works of
the Greek and Roman writers--poets, dramatists, philosophers, critics,
and historians--which issued from the press in the fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries, may, by means of various and independent evidence,
be infallibly traced up to the age in which they are commonly supposed
to have been written.
The reader’s attention is now to be directed to one class of those
ancient works, namely, those which are professedly historical; and our
object will be to ascertain on what grounds, and with what limitations,
such works deserve our confidence as truthful narratives of facts.
The very same mode of inquiry which common sense suggests, on the most
ordinary occasions, when we are called upon to estimate the value of
testimony, is applicable to all cases of the like nature. Nor can the
importance of the consequences that may be involved in the issue
of the investigation, in a peculiar instance, render it invalid, or
warrant our rejection of it as unsatisfactory.
In some lesser particulars the modes of estimating oral and written
testimony must differ; but in substance the heads of inquiry will
be the same. In the case with which we have now to do--namely, the
credibility of the testimony of ancient historians, it is natural to
consider the following points:--
1. The moral and intellectual character of the writer,--if this can be
known;
2. The means of information he possessed;
3. The time and circumstances of the first publication of the work;
4. The exceptions it may be necessary to make to his testimony on
particular points; arising either from the peculiar nature of the facts
affirmed, or from the apparent influence of prejudice--personal, or
national; and--
5. The agreement of the narrative in question with evidence derived
from other, and independent sources.
In judging then of the authenticity of an historical work we have,
in the first place, to form an estimate of the writer’s moral and
intellectual character and qualifications; supposing that the means of
forming an opinion on these points are within our reach.
If the personal integrity of an historian has happened to be put to
the proof by any well known and remarkable events, in which he was
concerned, the reader whose own character may qualify him to feel the
force of such proof, will seldom ask for better grounds of confidence;
for such errors in matters of fact as a thoroughly honest historian
may be liable to, will seldom be of vital importance. Even if no such
proof of a writer’s personal integrity exists, and if the circumstances
of his life are altogether unknown, yet almost every writer leaves
in his works sufficient indications of his moral dispositions. The
characteristics of honesty are distinct enough to secure the confidence
of candid minds; nor can an instance be adduced in which they have
been so successfully counterfeited as to have stood the test of time.
A perverse intention as certainly betrays itself in writing, as it
does in personal behaviour. Nevertheless this sort of evidence, though
it will be more satisfactory than any other to one reader, may be
unperceived by another; for cold, feeble, and suspicious minds are
destitute of the sympathies to which it appeals.
If the proofs of integrity and veracity in an historian are wanting,
or are thought to be insufficient, we must descend to that sort
of evidence which his works afford relative to his intellectual
qualifications; and these may be such as fully to warrant a general
confidence in his preference of truth to falsehood. As to the strongest
minds, such minds attach themselves to truth by an instinctive
movement: to acquire the knowledge of facts is their characteristic
passion;--to promulgate this knowledge is the function they feel
themselves born to fulfill. Nor can it happen that the falsification
of facts--in which neither personal interests nor prejudices are
involved--should present an adequate inducement to writers whose powers
of narration enable them to command more attention in the direct paths
of truth and reality, than they could hope to gain in the regions of
fiction. Every gifted mind has its sphere; and there is a native talent
for history, as well as a genius for poetry; and he who possesses
eminently the former, will as certainly make himself conversant with
realities, as he who may boast the possession of the latter will choose
to live among the creations of fancy.
If therefore an historical work displays a healthy vigour of
intellect--good sense--elevation of sentiment, and the specific
talent for narration, these qualities may safely be held to afford a
strong presumptive proof of the author’s veracity, even though there
should be no direct means of ascertaining his moral dispositions, or
his integrity. Those writers who occupy a first rank among ancient
historians may therefore safely be held to possess this presumptive
proof of their veracity; for the reputation they have so long enjoyed
is attributable, quite as much to their talent for narration, as to the
interest or importance of the story that forms the subject of their
works. These intrinsic merits contain, then, a tacit guarantee for the
authenticity of the works that are thus adorned.
On this ground, the good sense, the simplicity, the ease, and the
accuracy of Herodotus--the stern vigour, the elevation, and the dignity
of Thucydides, the graceful simplicity of Xenophon, and the philosophic
terseness of Tacitus, not only win the admiration of the reader, but,
in different degrees, these qualities invite, or demand, his confidence.
There are moreover qualities of style which, though they may not
entitle an author to a place in the first rank of writers, must secure
for him a high regard as an authentic historian. Indeed, in this
department of literature, those less brilliant and less attractive
qualities which give security as to an historian’s diligence, accuracy,
and impartiality, may well be accepted in place of the brighter
recommendations of genius, or eloquence, or powers of description.
There is a specific taste for details, there is a passion for laborious
researches, there is a superstitious regard to exactness, and an
indefatigable industry, which, though they may tire the reader who
seeks only for amusement, will secure the confidence and attention of
the intelligent student of history. Thus, for example, the assiduity
of Diodorus the Sicilian, the accuracy and good sense of Polybius, and
the minuteness and amplification of Dionysius the Halicarnassian, give
to their works a substantial value which goes far to compensate for the
want of more shining excellences.
In those historical works which have necessarily been compiled from
various documents, a sound judgment in the selection of materials must
be considered as the principal merit of an author. In this quality
some of the ancient historians were certainly deficient; and yet it
must be added that to this very want of judgment we are indebted for
the knowledge of innumerable particulars, in themselves curious, or
perhaps important, which our modern notions of method, consistency, and
propriety, would greatly have retrenched, or entirely have excluded.
Although, to a certain extent, the genius or talent of an historian
may be held to vouch for his veracity; yet it is also true that a
writer may possess a sort of genius which tends to bring his fidelity
into suspicion. If, for example, he continually indulges his taste for
scenes of splendour, or terror, or extraordinary action, or if he loves
to exhibit images of magnanimity or wisdom, surpassing the ordinary
reach of human nature; if his principal personages are heroes, or if he
seems pleased to find occasions on which to display his command of the
nervous eloquence of vituperation, we may well conclude that his genius
will have tempted him to relinquish the merit of being simply exact, or
calmly just.
A consideration of personal and national prejudices enters, of
course, into the estimate that is formed of an historian’s moral and
intellectual character. But these will be best adverted to when we come
to mention the exceptions which it is necessary to make against the
evidence of historians, on particular points.
We have next to make inquiry concerning the means of information which
may have been possessed by an ancient historian.
The same kind of confidence that is due to an historian who narrates
events in which he was personally concerned, cannot be claimed by one
who compiles the history of remote times from such materials as he can
collect: for in the former case, if we are assured of the writer’s
veracity and competency, there remains no room for reasonable doubt; at
least in reference to those principal facts of the story for the truth
of which his character is pledged. But in the other case, though we may
think well both of the writer’s veracity and judgment, the confidence
we afford him must still be conditional, and will be measured by the
opinion we form of the validity of his authorities.
The entire mass of ancient history may therefore be considered as
consisting of two kinds, namely, the _original_ and the _compiled_. In
the first class may be comprehended, not merely those narratives that
are strictly personal, such for instance as the history of the retreat
of the ten thousand Greeks, by Xenophon; or again the Commentaries
of Cæsar, which describe actions wherein the author was immediately
concerned, and was, in fact, the principal actor; but those also
which relate to the events of the author’s own times and country, and
concerning which he had the most direct and unquestionable means of
becoming accurately informed. Such are the history of the Peloponnesian
war by Thucydides; and the history of the Catiline conspiracy by
Sallust, and much of the histories and annals of Tacitus, and the
history of the reign of Justinian by Procopius; and that of her
father’s reign by Anna Comnena.
The credibility of historical works of this class must, obviously, be
determined chiefly upon the grounds mentioned in the preceding section;
that is to say, from those indications of integrity, impartiality,
and good sense, which the work exhibits. Every reader of Thucydides,
for example, feels that he may rely with confidence upon the general
authenticity of the narrative:--the caution and the unwearied assiduity
of the author in ascertaining the truth of whatever he affirms, his
exactness in minute circumstances, his eminent good sense and fairness,
and the dignity of his manner, all concur to stamp upon the work, for
the most part, the seal of truth. In _original_ histories the truth
of the story and the veracity of the writer are inseparably linked
together:--both must be admitted, or both should be denied.
But by far the greater part of all extant history belongs to the second
class; and yet, among works that must rank as _compilations_, some wide
distinctions are to be observed; for there are some of this kind of
which the authenticity is little, if at all, inferior to that of the
best original histories; while many are, in the ordinary sense of the
term, compilations, and as such deserve only a qualified confidence. In
regard to the nature and probable value of the authorities they have
relied upon, each historian--and indeed almost every separate portion
of the works of each writer--must be estimated apart. An example or
two will be sufficient to show, as well the necessity, as the mode of
exercising this discrimination.
The nine books of Herodotus afford instances of every degree of
validity in regard to the probable value of the materials that were
employed by the author. A reader who, in his simplicity, peruses that
work, throughout, with an equal faith, will be in danger of having his
indiscriminate confidence suddenly converted into undistinguishing
scepticism, by discovering the slenderness of the authority upon which
some portions of it are made to rest.
Diodorus, the Sicilian, is reported to have employed thirty years
in collecting materials for his universal history. Like Herodotus,
he visited the countries of which he speaks--consulting public
records--inspecting monuments--conversing with the learned, and
collecting books. In fact his work exhibits many proofs of this
assiduity; but yet when some of his statements are compared with those
of other writers, who were better informed on particular subjects, it
becomes apparent that he exercised too little caution in the selection
of his authorities; and that therefore the discrimination of the
reader, or of the learned annotator, must supply the want of judgment
in the writer.
The universal history of Trogus Pompeius, which is extant only in the
abridgement made by Justin, seems to have been compiled on a plan
somewhat similar to that of the work last mentioned. It is evident
that the author, in collecting his materials, employed considerable
diligence and judgment; nevertheless, in what relates to remote
nations, he shows himself often to have been egregiously misinformed.
A striking instance of this kind is furnished in the account he gives
of the history and religion of the Jews (Book xxxvi. cap. 2); for it
is evident that the author--whether it be Trogus, or Justin, must have
received his information--not from the source from which he ought
to have derived it--the Jewish records;--nor even from individuals
of that nation; but from prejudiced and ill-informed men of the
neighbouring countries of Asia or of Africa. The account given by
Tacitus (Hist. Book v.) of the same people, is little more just than is
that of Trogus. If these instances were to be taken as specimens of the
accuracy of ancient historians in all similar cases, their descriptions
of remote nations must be held to be of very little value. But there
seems reason to believe that the history and institutions of the Jews
were much less known, and were more misrepresented, than those of any
other people bordering upon the Mediterranean.
Abundant evidence proves that, from the very earliest ages, and in
almost all countries, there were persons employed and authorized by
governments to digest the current history of the state. These annals
contained, of course, the names of kings, and the records of their
acts and exploits, their decrees and wars. Each city, as well as the
capitals of empires, had its archives; and these public documents
appear to have suggested the idea of a more comprehensive form of
history. They were certainly consulted by those who, in later times,
undertook the composition of historical works: by these means there
was imparted to such works more of authenticity and exactness than may
be generally supposed. Herodotus, Thucydides, Diodorus, Pausanias,
Strabo, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Plutarch, Arrian, Dion Cassius, the
Elder Pliny, and others, evidently availed themselves with all possible
diligence of such public records.
Ancient historians conversed extensively with official persons,
wherever they travelled; and it must be granted they were often
too ready to accept these oral communications as authentic. This is
especially to be observed in reference to those accounts that were
confessedly, or that seem to have been received from priests; for that
class of persons, too much accustomed to think truth their enemy, and
deception their business, would have thought themselves betraying the
interests of their order in furnishing simple facts to an inquirer.
Every city of the ancient world, where civilization had made any
progress, was crowded with columns, statues, busts, monuments,
inscriptions, by which every memorable event, and every illustrious
personage, was perpetually presented to the regards of the people, and
was retained in their recollection. It is certain that this monumental
and sculptural mode of embodying a people’s history obtained to a far
greater extent in ancient cities than it does in those of our times.
And so it was that to visit a city--to pace its public ways--to enter
its temples and its halls, was to peruse its history. The meanest
citizen--even a child, would be able to conduct an inquisitive stranger
through the streets, and to explain to him these memorials of the
past. It is difficult for us in these times, and in these inclement
latitudes, to form an adequate notion of the extent to which the
history of each people was familiarized to them by these means; or how
much the living conversed with the dead, and identified themselves with
whatever was heroic or wise in preceding times. These public monuments,
when collated with the public records, and explained by the public
voice, furnished historians with abundant materials; and so great was
the importance attached to them, that there are instances in which
historians made long journeys for the express purpose of examining
the sculptures of a city, the history of which they had occasion
incidentally to mention.
What was most wanting to give a higher value, in point of authenticity,
to the materials so diligently collected by the ancient historians
was--that general diffusion of information among neighbouring nations
which would have subjected the fables and the boastful pretensions of
each people to the animadversion of others, and thus have given room
for a more ready and complete collation of discordant evidence on the
same points. The Greeks were very little acquainted with the languages
of the surrounding nations; and they were egregiously ignorant of facts
in which they were not immediately concerned. If the literature of
the Asiatic nations had been familiarly current in Greece, and that
of Greece in Asia, both would have been purged of many errors and
frivolities; and something more of that consistency, expansion, and
good sense imparted on both sides, which were acquired by the Roman
writers in consequence of their acquaintance with the literature of
Greece. In the department of history, especially, such an interchange
of light would have enhanced immensely the value, as well as augmented
the amount of knowledge. Knowledge, like the vital fluid, corrupts
whenever it ceases freely to circulate.
On this ground, the moderns possess, incomparably, an advantage over
the ancients; and even if party interests and political prejudices
act more forcibly in modern times, the means of correction are also
vastly more efficient. European nations have, in relation to important
subjects, a common literature:--all things are known by all: national
misrepresentations are quickly noticed and chastised. The same
corrective process is actively carried on within each community; and
if particular falsifications abound, the ultimate probabilities of the
prevalence of truth are still more abundant.
In estimating the credibility of ancient writers--historians
especially, we have to consider the time and circumstances of the first
publication of such works.
To ascertain the _antiquity_ of historical works is peculiarly
important, because when that point has been placed out of doubt, we
obtain, in most instances, a conclusive proof of the general truth
of the narrative. For if a history is known to have been published,
and widely circulated, and generally admitted to be authentic, in the
very age when the principal facts to which it relates were matters
of universal notoriety, and when most of the lesser circumstances
were perfectly known to many of the author’s contemporaries, and when
some of them stood personally related to the events, we have the best
reasons for confiding in the substantial truth and accuracy of the
history.
No pretended narrative, published under circumstances such as these,
which was altogether untrue in its main elements, or which was grossly
incorrect in its details, could, by any accident, or by any endeavours,
have gained general and lasting reputation as an authentic work. No
such book could endure, and survive, the scrutiny of contemporary
antagonists; no such book could maintain its reputation through the
next age, while the means of ascertaining the truth of the narrative
were still extant, and after the interests and prejudices of the moment
had subsided.
As in relation to the sources of information that were possessed by
historians, it has been seen that historical works should be divided
into two classes--the _original_, and the _derived_; so a similar,
but not exactly an identical division must be made in relation to the
circumstances under which such books were at first published. In the
_first_ class are to be included those histories of the truth of which
the author’s contemporaries, in general, were competent judges; and in
the _second_, such, as having been drawn from rare, or recondite, or
scattered materials--relating to events remote in time or place, could
not be open to the test of public opinion, and could be estimated only
by a few of the learned class.
Histories of the _first_ kind may be termed--_popular_; those of the
_second_--_learned_. It is evident that _learned_ histories, although
on different grounds, may deserve a high degree of confidence as to
their authenticity and their accuracy; and, indeed, on the score of
impartiality and comprehensive information, and exactness in details,
they may greatly surpass any of the original narratives from which they
may have been compiled. For it is manifest that a later historian, if
he be industrious, judicious, and unprejudiced, has the opportunity
so to collect and collate the various mass of subsidiary testimonies
bearing upon particular facts, as shall impart much more of consistency
to his narrative than can belong to any earlier work on the same
subject.
But the direct proof of authenticity must belong _exclusively_
to _popular_ histories. A work of this class is, essentially, a
condensation of the common knowledge of a nation or community; it is
the universal testimony, arranged and compacted by one whose aim it
is to found his personal reputation as a writer upon the consent and
approval of his contemporaries. Let it be supposed that in passing
through the crowded ways of a metropolis, we hear, in substance, the
same account of some recent and public transaction, from a thousand
lips, and from opposing parties; or we read a narrative of this event
drawn up by a contemporary writer, whose veracity has been tacitly
or explicitly assented to by the same parties. The validity of the
evidence rests upon the same grounds in both cases; only that for
accuracy and consistency, the accepted _written_ narrative will be
found to surpass the _oral_ testimony.
We may take as an example the latter books of Herodotus, which, viewed
with reference to the distinction above mentioned, may be reckoned
as belonging to the class of popular histories, and may therefore
deserve the confidence that is due to a narrative that has generally
been accepted as true by those who were well acquainted with the
facts it describes, and many of whom were personally concerned in the
transactions it narrates. The history of the Peloponnesian war, by
Thucydides, has a still higher claim to unimpeachable authenticity,
inasmuch as the facts were more recent at the time of the publication
of the work; and because, also, the strongest motives of national
rivalry and civil discord were then in activity, and were in readiness
to crush, on the instant, any attempted misrepresentation. The author’s
hope that his work should descend to posterity, rested directly
upon such an adherence to truth, on his part, as should exclude the
opportunity of giving any plausibility to a charge of extensive or
wilful falsification.
Xenophon’s history of Greece possesses, in part, a claim to credibility
on the same ground. But the Cyropædia, on the contrary, is altogether
destitute of authentication from this source; for the Greeks, at
the time when the work was published, were far from being generally
competent to judge of the truth of the story. The same author’s account
of the expedition of Cyrus, may, in this respect, take a middle place
between the two above-named works. It was not composed, as there is
reason to believe, till many years after the writer’s return from Asia;
and though the general facts were still matters of notoriety, the
particulars could not then be universally recollected; especially as
the scene of these transactions was so remote from Greece.
The works of Sallust, the Commentaries of Cæsar, the works of Tacitus,
of Suetonius, of Polybius, claim, in whole or in part, the authority
of popular histories, having been generally accredited as authentic by
those who were well acquainted with the facts they contain.
But, excepting some small portions, or particular facts, the works
of Diodorus, of Dionysius the Halicarnassian, of Nepos, of Ælian,
of Paterculus, of Curtius, of Plutarch, of Arrian, of Appian, of
Pausanias, and many others, are to be regarded only as learned
compilations, the claim to authenticity of which is of an indirect
kind.