THE PROCESS OF HISTORIC EVIDENCE EXEMPLIFIED IN THE INSTANCE OF
HERODOTUS.
We have now seen in what way, and liable to what conditions, the mass
of ancient literature, including the Holy Scriptures, has been sent
forward through the long track of centuries intervening between the
times of its production and the revival of learning, and the employment
of the printing-press, in these modern times.
What I now propose to do is to place before the reader--in a single and
a very signal instance, the entire historic process; or that method
of proceeding by means of which we, at this time, may find our way
retrogressively upwards, along the high road of history from this, our
nineteenth century, to the times--four and five hundred years before
the Christian era. This journey is not of less extent than two thousand
five hundred years, and it brings us to the time of the last of the
Hebrew prophets.
A very frequent phrase in historical writings of any sort relating to
antiquity is this, “Herodotus informs us, so and so.” Now my questions,
in hearing this, are these: “This Herodotus, who was he? When did he
live? What did he write? and how do I know that the books which bear
his name on the title-page, were written by any such person, or at the
time to which they are usually assigned?” And then, supposing these
questions to be answered to my satisfaction, “What reason have I for
believing that the narratives which I find in these books are, in the
main, true? How does it appear that what I read is _history_, and is
not _fiction_?”
We select Herodotus as a sample of this process, or this method of
historic proof, for several reasons:--such as these. This Greek writer
stands forward as the “Father of history;” he is the earliest of all
extant writers of this class, excepting those of the Old Testament;
his writings embrace a great compass of subjects--in fact, they give
us, in outline or in detail, almost all we know of the nations of a
remote antiquity. Then there is this peculiar circumstance attaching to
the writings of this author, that, after having been much disparaged
in modern times, and his credit greatly lowered, he has, within a
few years, been restored to his place of authority by the greater
intelligence of recent writers; and by an extension of our knowledge of
the countries spoken of by him, as to their natural productions, their
arts, their works, and their history. Of late--and almost every year
has done something to bring about this result--Herodotus has returned
to his position; and his assailants and critics have, in consequence,
fallen out of repute. These writings, therefore, are samples at once
of the authenticity of ancient history, and of what may be called the
immortality of historic truth--its resurrection to a new life, after a
period of entombment.
To begin at the beginning;--I will now suppose that I have before me
several works in English, French, German, Italian, Latin, each of
them purporting to be--“The History of Herodotus, translated from the
Greek.” In collating these books it becomes evident that they are all
derived from some one source. But it may be well to give attention to
some facts at this stage of our progress.
We affirm that the Greek text of Herodotus, such as it now appears,
was extant some time before the publication of the earliest printed
editions. Ostensible and tangible proof of what we here allege, is
afforded by the existence, at the present time, as we shall presently
state, in several public libraries, of many manuscript copies of the
Greek text, which, by the date affixed to them, by the character of
the writing, by the appearance of the ink, and material, and by the
traditionary history of some of them, are clearly attributable to
different ages, from the tenth century to the fifteenth. But now if
it were possible to suppose that all these copies were derived from
one MS. and that one a forgery of a late date, an examination and
comparison of them, and a comparison of the manuscripts with the
printed editions, will furnish several special demonstrations of the
point affirmed. In 1474, twenty-eight years _before_ the appearance
of the first printed edition of the Greek text, Laurentius Valla, an
Italian scholar, published at Venice a Latin translation of Herodotus,
purporting to have been made from the Greek. Now if, in comparing
this translation with the Greek manuscripts that are still extant, it
were asked which is the _original_, the Latin or the Greek? no one
acquainted with the structure of language could hesitate in declaring
for the latter; for in the Latin (as in every translation) ellipses
are supplied, exegetical and connective phrases are introduced; and
what is still more decisive, there are many passages in the Greek
where an obvious and consistent sense is evidently misunderstood in
the Latin; for Valla seems, from all his translations, to have been
but imperfectly acquainted with the Greek language. In such instances
the occasion of the translator’s error may often be detected; by which
means incontestable proof is afforded of the fact now supposed to be
questioned, namely--that the Greek is the _original_, and the Latin
the translation. Again:--The Latin, as compared with the Greek, is
deficient in many entire paragraphs, and in many single sentences.
In the Greek these passages are one with the context; but in the
Latin, the hiatus is either abrupt and apparent, or it is concealed
by a connective sentence, evidently inserted as a link between the
disjoined portions of the text. Now, when evidence like this is
presented, we need not lay stress upon the traditionary history of
particular manuscripts, nor upon their apparent antiquity, nor upon
the genuineness of the dates affixed to them; for from the facts
actually before us, we can draw only one inference. Without going
further, therefore, we may conclude with certainty, that several
Greek manuscripts of Herodotus were in existence some time before the
publication of the printed editions; and by consequence, the averments
of the first editors are confirmed, who declare that they derived
_their text_ from manuscripts--already known to the learned.
The Greek text of Herodotus was, for the first time, printed by
Minutius Aldus, at Venice, September, 1502. Copies of this beautiful
and correct edition, “corrected by a collation of many manuscripts,”
are still extant:--it is distinguished by its retention of the forms of
the Ionic dialect--a proof that the editor followed a pure and ancient
manuscript, for the Ionic forms are generally lost in those copies, the
text of which has passed through many transcriptions. This edition,
with corrections and notes, was reprinted at Basil, in 1541, and again
in 1557, by Joachim Camerarius. In 1570 the Aldine text of Herodotus
was printed at Paris, by Henry Stephens, who does not profess himself
to have collated manuscripts. The title-page declares that the books
were “ex vetustis exemplaribus recogniti:” but in his second edition,
Stephens confesses that up to that time he had not been able to procure
an ancient copy by which to correct the text; he must, therefore, in
the phrase just quoted, be understood to refer to the manuscripts
that were consulted by Aldus. G. Jungerman, assuming the edition just
mentioned as the basis of his own, in which however he made, without
specification, many conjectural emendations, printed the Greek text, at
Frankfort, in 1608. This was the first edition in which the text was
divided into sections, as it now appears. The London edition, dated
1679, and published under favour of the name of the learned Thomas
Gale, was derived, without acknowledgment, from that of Jungerman.
Hitherto the editions were only successive reprints of the Aldine text;
and came, therefore, all from a single source; but in 1715, an edition
of Herodotus was published at Leyden, under the care of J. Gronovius,
who collated the former editions with some manuscripts before unknown,
or not examined. A Glasgow edition appeared in 1761; and two years
later that of Wesseling, printed at Amsterdam. Some quotations from
this editor’s preface will give the general reader a good idea of
the method of conducting these literary labours, and of the security
afforded for the purity of the text of ancient authors. Several German
and Dutch editions have appeared since that of Wesseling; the most
esteemed are those of Borheck, Reiz, Schaefer, and Schweighæuser. Of
the laborious care bestowed by the learned editors upon these editions,
the following citations from their Prefaces will give evidence.
Wesseling says:--
“The forms and proprieties of the Ionic dialect I have restored,
wherever they could be gathered clearly _from the ancient codices_, and
have replaced some readings which, without cause, had been rejected.
Innumerable passages I have relieved from errors, yet _very rarely
on mere conjecture_, and only in those words which the genius of the
language would not admit; and in many instances have thought it enough
just to point out the means of amending the text, where it is evidently
corrupted.” In quoting this passage from Wesseling, Schweighæuser says,
“Neither have we, except in a very few places, admitted conjectural
emendations into the text; and these only where it was evident that
all the readings of all the existing copies were corrupted; and where
an emendation presented itself which not merely seemed probable, but
which was so clear and certain as to need no argument in its favour.”
Very judiciously, this editor refuses to impute to the temerity or
ignorance of copyists _all_ the variations from the Ionic forms; since
it is evident that Greek writers who adopted _one_ of the dialects,
allowed themselves the liberty of occasionally using the common forms
of the language: he therefore restores the ionicisms only when he has
the authority of MSS. for so doing. Of Wesseling’s extreme caution,
Schweighæuser thus expresses his opinion:--In this edition, excepting
a few errors, easily corrected, or some cases which may be open to
disputation, the learned have nothing to complain of; unless it be,
that, in adopting better readings, warranted by MSS., as well as in
correcting, on probable conjecture, some places manifestly faulty in
all copies, the Editor was too timid--so much so, indeed, that many
approved readings which he might well have admitted into the text, he
ventured not to adopt. And often he preferred to leave, untouched,
manifest and gross corruptions, rather than to put in their place his
own emendations, or those of others, though decidedly approved by
himself. As to conjectural emendations, even in those places where
all the MSS. are plainly in fault, we have seen him, in his preface,
ingenuously confess that he had rather be thought too cautious, than
too bold: and who would not esteem, yes and admire, rather than
condemn, this illustrious man, blaming his own timidity in this
sort:--“In attempting to restore the language of Herodotus, I have
been restrained often by more than a due timidity; but such is my
nature.” This editor, in his preface, states that, having been applied
to, to superintend a reprint of Wesseling’s Herodotus, he had declined
doing so, unless he should be able to obtain, from the French king’s
library, the loan of the MSS. of Herodotus, there preserved:--the
troubles of the times preventing this, he sought for some one, residing
at Paris, who would freely undertake the irksome and painful toil of
collating Wesseling’s text with all those codices; and at length, by
means of a learned friend, he met with a young man, a native of Greece,
who executed the task of comparing the text--word by word--with the
five principal manuscripts in the library, and making a _separate_ list
of the various readings in each.
From the mass of variations brought before him, the office of the
editor is to select that one which most recommends itself, either by
the superior authority of the codex in which it appears, or by its
particular probability, or seeming accordance with the author’s style
or meaning, or with the proprieties of the language. And not seldom
it happens that the most inferior copies have chanced to preserve an
evidently genuine reading, where the best have, as plainly, erred.--“No
MS.,” an eminent critic has said, “ought to be thought unworthy of
being consulted.” Yet in cases of importance, where there may be
room for doubt among the existing variations, the canon must be
obeyed which enjoins that, “Codices should rather be _weighed_ than
numbered.” Although discussions on subjects of this kind cannot but
seem uninteresting, and even trivial to general readers--and perhaps
absurd, when the gravity and strenuousness with which, sometimes, the
most minute points are argued, is observed; yet it ought never to be
forgotten that _the credit_, _the purity_, and _the consistency_ of
ancient literature, are very greatly promoted by the indefatigable
zeal of those who devote their lives to these learned and unattractive
labours.
But I now look into some of the printed editions. For instance, here
is a small folio volume, in excellent style, as to type, and paper,
and execution, printed in Paris, MDLXX, and edited by Henry Stephens.
I have also in hand the edition edited by J. Schweighæuser, in four
volumes octavo, reprinted in London, 1822; and also a more recent
edition, namely--that of Professor Gaisford, in two volumes octavo.
Besides these there are ten other editions of the Greek text--German,
Dutch, and English. I open these several editions, at hazard--say at
the beginning of the third book--THALIA: I find that they correspond,
word for word, for some way on; but in the fifth line I find an
unimportant variation--one form of a word is used instead of another;
and further on the order of the words is a little different, but the
sense is the same. Sometimes one particle or expletive is used instead
of another; sometimes those expletives that barely affect the sense
in any way, are omitted. Frequently the orthography of proper names
is differently given in the different editions. Very rarely are these
variations of so much importance as would affect the sense in a
translation. But now, from the fact of the verbal identity of these
editions throughout by far the larger part of them, and also from the
occurrence of not infrequent, and yet inconsiderable differences,
I infer, first--that they have all had a common source in some one
original exemplar; and, secondly--that there have been many copyings
from that first copy; and that it has been in the course of these
repetitions, in which the ear, the eye, and the hand of many writers
have done their part, that these departures from the author’s first
copy have taken place. In a word, the _printed_ editions have followed
_manuscripts_; and these have undergone those chances, and those
mischances which, in the ordinary course of things, must attach to a
process like this, notwithstanding the care and the fidelity of those
who practise it.
The next step, then, is to make search for those ancient manuscripts,
or for some of them, whence these printed editions have been derived.
About fifteen such manuscripts are now known, and may be inspected
in public or private libraries. One of the purest of these is
preserved in the French King’s library (now the Imperial) and it
is thus described.--It is a parchment in folio, purchased in 1688,
containing the nine books of Herodotus. This codex is by far the best
of all, and appears to have been executed in the 12th century. It
is distinguished by its uniform retention of the forms of the Ionic
dialect--an indication of the antiquity and purity of the copy from
which it was derived. The same library contains also several other
MSS. of this author, which are thus described--A codex on paper,
formerly belonging to the Colbertine library, containing the nine
books of Herodotus: in the margin are notes of some value. This MS.
was executed in 1372. A copy on paper, written in the year 1447. The
negligence of the copyist is, in this instance, much to be complained
of, for sometimes entire phrases are wanting. Yet it contains some
readings that deserve attention. A MS. on paper, dated 1474. Besides
the nine books of Herodotus, this codex contains parts of the works
of Isocrates, and Plutarch, together with a lexicon of words peculiar
to Herodotus. A MS., which along with extracts from several Greek
authors, contains part of the first book of Herodotus, as far as c.
87. Although this codex is of late date, the extract from Clio appears
to have been made from a very ancient copy. Some other codices in
the same library afford also parts of our author’s work. There is a
codex formerly in the Florentine library, which from the condition of
the parchment, and the antique style of the writing, is manifestly
of great antiquity. Montfaucon assigns it to the tenth century. This
codex belongs to the same family as that of Askew, and the Medicean.
Yet neither was it copied from the latter, with which, indeed, it
might dispute the palm of excellence; but being derived from a more
ancient source, it offers many approved readings, differing from the
Medicean, where that is in fault, or where it offers no emendation of
the common text. This Medicean codex is thus described in the Catalogue
of the Florentine library: “Herodotus:--a very ancient codex, valuable
beyond all praise. It is on paper, in quarto, well preserved: executed
in the tenth century. The titles of the books are in uncial letters
of gold; it contains 374 pages.” This copy was followed with a too
superstitious reverence by Gronovius; yet being compelled to consult
it in the public library, and under the eye of the librarian, he has
not seldom mistaken its readings. A MS. of Herodotus, formerly in the
library of Archbishop Sancroft, and afterwards in that of Emmanuel
College, Cambridge, has been deemed of high antiquity, and great value.
The libraries of Oxford contain also some codices of our author, and
several are known to be in the possession of private persons. “These
manuscript copies,” says Wesseling, “brought to light from various
places, have not, it is manifest, originated all from one source (in
modern times). Where the copy followed by Valla is torn or defective,
there also the Vienna, the Vatican, and the Oxford MSS. are wanting.
And in what these are remarkable, so is the Florentine. But the
Medicean MS., that of Cardinal Passio, and of Askew, for the most part
agree. The three first mentioned, seem to have been derived all from
some one more ancient parchment, the writer of which, offended perhaps
at the frequent digressions of the first book, very daringly cut them
all off; and lest the hiatus should seem harsh, he skilfully fitted the
parts, so as to preserve the continuity of the style. The three last,
on the contrary, were derived from the copy of a transcriber better
informed, who scrupled to make any needless alterations. A great number
of the various readings which distinguish these MSS. are attributable
to the copyists who have substituted the common forms of the language,
and words better known, in the place of the Ionic forms and of obsolete
words.”
All that is of any importance in proof of the genuineness and
integrity of ancient books, is to know that there are _now_ in
existence _several_ copies, evidently of older date than the first
printed edition of the author; and that these copies, by their general
agreement, and, not less so, by their smaller diversities, prove, at
once, their derivation from the same original, and their long distance
from that original; since many of these diversities are such as could
have arisen only from many successive transcriptions. Beyond these
simple facts, the knowledge of codices, and of various readings, is
interesting to none but editors and critics.
We may now fairly assume as certain, so much as this--that the work
before us--mainly such as we now have it in our hands, is _an ancient
work_, and that it has come down to modern times in that mode of
which, in the preceding chapters, we have given some account, and
have adduced several instances. Our next question is this--To what
age this work ought to be attributed? Or this--When did the author
live and write? In obtaining an answer to this question, or to these
two questions--considered as one, we must look to that succession of
writers, retrogressively examined, who mention Herodotus, and his
History, who describe it, and make quotations from it, or who give
summaries of its contents. The proper and the most complete proof
of the antiquity and genuineness of ancient books, is that which is
thus derived from their mutual references and quotations. There is
an independence in this kind of evidence which renders it, when it
is precise and copious, quite conclusive. It is not the evidence of
witnesses, who first have been schooled and cautioned, and then brought
into court to do their best for the party by whom they are summoned;
but it is the purely incidental testimony of unconnected persons, who,
in the pursuit of their particular objects, gather up, and present to
us, the facts which we were in search of. Besides--these facts have a
peculiarity, which renders them eminently capable of furnishing precise
and conclusive proof. A book is an aggregate of many thousand separable
parts, each of which, both by the thought it contains, and by the
choice and arrangement of the words, possesses a perfect individuality,
such as fits it for the purpose of defining or identifying the whole
to which it belongs; and if several of these definite parts are
adduced, the identification is rendered the more complete. This kind of
definition is moreover capable of being multiplied, almost without end;
for each writer who quotes a book, having probably a different object
in view, selects a different set of quotations, yet all of them meeting
in the same work. We are thus furnished with a complicated system of
concentric lines, which intersect nowhere--but in the book in question.
Then it is to be remembered that each of these quoting writers stands
himself as the centre of a similar system of references, so that the
complication of proof becomes infinitely intricate, and therefore
it is so much the more conclusive. It is again involved, and so is
rendered secure, by the occurrence of double or triple quotations;
for example--Photius quotes Ctesias--quoting Herodotus. The proof of
genuineness in the instance of a standard author, is by such means as
these extended, attenuated, and involved in a degree to which no other
species of evidence makes any approach.
It hardly needs to be said, that this high degree of certainty,
resulting from the complication, as well as the number of testimonies,
belongs only to works that are explicitly and frequently quoted by
succeeding writers. And yet this sort of proof is deemed to be in its
nature so valid and satisfactory, that a very small portion of it is
ordinarily admitted as quite sufficient. If, for instance, a book is
explicitly mentioned only by one or two writers of the next age, the
evidence is allowed to decide the question of genuineness; unless when
there appears some positive reasons to justify suspicion. But with
_questionable_ matters we have not now to do.
It cannot be thought necessary to adduce separately, any proof of the
genuineness of the works that are about to be cited; since they all
possess an established character, resting upon evidence of the same
kind as that which is here displayed in the case of Herodotus. To bring
forward all this proof, in each instance, would fill volumes.
We have seen that many manuscript copies of Herodotus, of which several
are still preserved, were extant before the first printed editions
appeared; and from a comparison of these manuscripts, as well as from
the date which some of them bear, and from their seeming antiquity,
it is evident that the work had then been in existence much longer
than three hundred years; for these several manuscripts exhibit, as we
have said, in their various readings, those minute diversities which
are found to arise from repeated transcriptions, made by copyists
in different ages and countries--some of these copyists being exact
and skilful, while others were careless and ignorant. This proof
of antiquity is more conclusive than that which arises from a mere
traditionary history of a single manuscript, or from a date affixed
to a copy; for the date may be spurious, or the tradition may be
unauthentic; but in the various readings we have before our eyes a
species of decay, which time alone could produce.
It is thus that we have assumed it as certain, that the text of this
author was extant at least as early as the twelfth century. And if it
were supposed that we could not trace the history of these manuscripts
higher than that time, then we should turn to this other species of
evidence, namely--that arising from the quotations of a series of
writers, extending upwards from the age in which the history of the
manuscripts merges in obscurity, to the very age of the author.
The evidence which we adduce for this purpose we divide into two
portions;--in the first portion proving--that the history of Herodotus
was known to the learned during a period of a thousand years, from A.D.
1150 to A.D. 150.
Eustathius, archbishop of Thessalonica, flourished in the latter part
of the twelfth century. His Commentaries upon the Iliad and Odyssey
of Homer, contain many references to Herodotus, that are more or less
full and precise. Among these, the following afford sufficient proof
of the point we have to establish; for they leave no room to doubt
that the History of Herodotus, as now extant, was in the hands of this
learned prelate. In the course of these commentaries he says, “But
Herodotus seems to resemble Pherecydes and Hecatæus, who (in writing
history) threw aside the adornments of the poetic style.” Again,
“Herodotus (Erato 74) says that Nonacris is a city of Arcadia where
the waters of Styx arise.” Again, “Herodotus, that sweet writer of the
Ionic.” Eustathius cites our author to illustrate the meaning of the
word _mitra_--girdle or turban. On the word _phalanx_ he quotes from
the fourth book a sentence in which Herodotus calls Pythagoras “a man
eminent among the Greeks for his intelligence.” He quotes a passage
relative to the Egyptian bread from the second book. Again, “Menelaus
certainly visited those other Ethiopians whom Herodotus describes as
bordering upon the Egyptians:” he alludes to the account given by our
author of the sheep sacred to the sun in Apollonia. Eustathius quotes
Herodotus, in proof that the Athenians were of Pelasgian origin.
Suidas, a learned Byzantine monk, is believed to have flourished at the
close of the eleventh century. His Lexicon contains a brief Life of
Herodotus; besides which, there occur under other words, not fewer than
two hundred incidental references to different parts of the history.
They are for the most part verbal citations of a very exact kind,
adduced in illustration of the meaning, or the orthography of words.
Photius, the learned and ambitious patriarch of Constantinople, belongs
to the ninth century. This writer has preserved the only portions
that remain of the Persian and Indian history of Ctesias, who, as we
shall see, gives a nearly contemporaneous testimony to Herodotus.
The Myriobiblon of Photius consists of notices and abridgments of
two hundred and eighty works which he had read, and it affords
therefore much information available in determining questions of
literary antiquity. Many works were extant in the ninth century--at
Constantinople especially, which disappeared in the following age; and
Photius, who had free access to the extensive libraries of that city,
wanted no advantage which might fit him for the task of reviewing
the literature of the preceding ages. When therefore he quotes and
describes a work, and speaks of it confidently as having been long
known in the world, and generally received as a genuine production of
the author whose name it bears, his evidence carries up the proof to
a still more remote age; for no _spurious_ work, recently produced,
could have been so mentioned by a critic of great learning and sound
judgment. In the Myriobiblon, besides some incidental references to
Herodotus, we find the following account (Art. 60) of him:--“We have
perused the nine historical books of Herodotus, bearing the names of
the Nine Muses. This writer uses the Ionic dialect, as Thucydides
employs the Attic. He admits fabulous accounts, and frequent
digressions, which give a pleasing flow to the narrative; though
indeed this manner of writing violates the strict proprieties of the
historical style, in which the accuracy of truth ought not to be
obscured by any mixtures of fable, nor the end proposed by the author
to be long lost sight of. He begins the history with the reign of
Cyrus--the first of the Persian kings--narrating his birth, education,
elevation, and rule; and he brings it down as far as the reign of
Xerxes--his expedition against the Athenians, and his flight. Xerxes
was indeed the fourth king from Cyrus--Cambyses being the second, and
Darius the third; for Smerdes the Mage is not to be reckoned in the
line of kings, inasmuch as he was an usurper who possessed himself of
the throne by fraud. With Xerxes, the son and successor of Darius,
the history closes (the close of the war with Greece), nor indeed is
it carried to the end of his reign; for Herodotus himself flourished
in those very times, as Diodorus the Sicilian, and others relate, who
mention the story that Thucydides, while yet a youth, was present with
his father when Herodotus read his History in public, on which occasion
he burst into tears; which being observed by Herodotus, the historian
turned to the father and said, ‘O! Olorus, what a son have you, who
thus burns with a passion for learning!’”
This description of the work, although concise, is abundantly
sufficient to prove the existence of the text (as now extant) in the
age of Photius, whose testimony establishes also the fact that it had
then been long known and reputed as a genuine production of Herodotus,
while the exceptions made against certain fabulous digressions contain
an explicit acknowledgment that the history was generally received as
authentic.
Stephen of Byzantium, author of a geographical and historical lexicon,
flourished in the middle of the sixth century. He very frequently
refers to Herodotus. Art. _Thurium_, he quotes an epigram relating to
him; and under the following words references to him occur:--_Abarnus_,
a city, region, and promontory of Pariana, which Herodotus in his
fourth book, says, is called _Abaris_. _Arisbe_--Herodotus and Jason
call it _Arisba_. _Archandroupolis_, a city of Egypt, according
to Herodotus, in his second book. _Assa_, a city near Mount Atho,
mentioned by Herodotus, in his seventh book. _Thalamanæi_, a nation
subject to the Persians. _Inycum_, a city of Sicily, called by
Herodotus, _Inychos_. Herodotus appears to have been one of the
principal authorities of this writer, and his citations are usually
correct.
Marcellinus, a critic of the sixth century, in his “Life of
Thucydides,” mentions Herodotus descriptively, and compares him on
many points with his rival. Omitting many less direct allusions, the
following may be mentioned. He commends the impartiality of Thucydides,
who did not allow his personal wrongs to give any colouring to his
narrative of facts--a degree of magnanimity uncommon, he says,
among historians--“For even Herodotus, having been slighted by the
Corinthians, affirms that they fled from the engagement at Salamis.”
Describing the lofty style of Thucydides, he compares it with that
of Herodotus, which, he says, “is neither lofty like that of the
Attic historian, nor elegant like that of Xenophon.” On the ground
of authenticity also, he compares the two historians, giving the
advantage in this respect to the younger; while he charges the former
with admitting marvellous tales, citing, as an example, the story of
Arion and the dolphin: and, towards the close, he repeats the incident
already mentioned, said to have taken place when Herodotus read his
History in public.
Procopius, the historian of the reign of Justinian, wrote about the
middle of the sixth century. He cites Herodotus in precise terms:--“Now
Herodotus, the Halicarnassian, in the fourth book of his History, says,
that the earth, though distributed into three portions--Africa, Asia,
and Europe, is one; and that the Egyptian Nile flows between Africa and
Asia.” (Gothic Wars, b. IV.)
Stobæus lived a century earlier than the last-named writer. In
illustration of various ethical topics, he collects the sentiments of
a multitude of authors, and amongst the number, of Herodotus. Short
sentences from the historian are adduced in four or five places, and
there is one of some length.
The Emperor Julian makes several allusions to our author:--thus, in
his first oration in praise of Constantine, he says, “Cyrus was called
the father, Cambyses the lord of his people.” In the exordium of his
Epistle to the Athenian people, several distinct allusions to the
history of the Persian invasion occur; and in the Misopogon the story
of Solon and Crœsus, as related by Herodotus, is distinctly mentioned.
In mentioning the principal Greek authors (Epist. XLII.), Herodotus is
included. And in an epistle not now extant, but quoted by Suidas (Art.
_Herodotus_), the apostate, as he is there called, cites the historian
as “the Thurian writer of history.”
Hesychius, the Lexicographer, lived in the third century. He makes
several quotations from our author--as thus:--“_Agathoergoi_--persons
discharged from the cavalry of Sparta--five every year, as Herodotus
relates.” “_Basilees_--judges; according to Herodotus, the avengers
of wrong.” “_Zeira_--a zone, according to Herodotus.” “_Canamis_,
_Tiara_--the bonnet of the Persians, according to Herodotus.”
_Zalmoxis_--the account given of the Getæ, is quoted at length.
Athenæus, a critic of the second century, quotes our author in the
following, among other instances: “Herodotus, in his first book, writes
that the Persian kings drink no water except that which is brought
from the Choaspian spring at Susa, which is carried for their use
wherever they travel.” “Herodotus, comparing the Grecian entertainments
with those of the Persians, relates that the latter pay a peculiar
regard to their natal day.” “Herodotus, in his seventh book, says that
those Greeks who entertained Xerxes on his way, were reduced to such
distress, that many of them left their homes.” “Herodotus relates that
Amasis, king of Egypt, was accustomed to jest very freely with his
guests.”
Longinus, the celebrated secretary of Queen Zenobia, quotes our author
several times in his treatise on the Sublime. “Was Herodotus alone
an imitator of Homer?”--the address of Dionysius to the Phocæans is
quoted, “Our affairs, Ionians! have reached a crisis--we must be free
or slaves;” he quotes with high commendation a passage, in which our
author describes the course of the Nile between Elephantine and Meroe.
There is a quotation from the first book, also the story of Cleomenes
in the fifth book is quoted:--“Cleomenes devoured his own flesh.”
Diogenes Laertius, author of the “Lives of the Philosophers,” brings
the line of testimonies up to the time above mentioned: he makes the
following references to our author. In his Preface, he refers to the
assertions of Herodotus relative to the Mages, and to Xerxes, whom he
affirms to have lanced darts at the sun, and to have thrown fetters
into the sea. In the _Life of Pythagoras_, a passage is quoted relative
to Zamolxis, who was worshipped by the Getæ.
It is obvious that if the testimonies which are next to be adduced
are full and conclusive, they will, in point of argument, supersede
those which have been already brought forward; for if it can be
satisfactorily proved that the now-existing text of Herodotus was known
more than two thousand years ago, it cannot be necessary to prove that
it was extant at any intermediate period. Nevertheless the above-cited
authorities do not merely serve the purpose of completing our chain of
evidence, but they are important in proving that the work, far from
having been lost sight of in any age, was always familiarly known to
scholars. We may therefore feel assured that copies were to be found
in most libraries--that the work was frequently transcribed; and that,
as the existing manuscripts indicate, we are not dependent upon the
accuracy of one or two copyists only, for the integrity of the text.
We have now to show that the history of Herodotus was in existence, and
was known to a succession of writers from the age of the writer last
mentioned, up to his own times--or about B.C. 440.
A period of six or seven hundred years, ending in the second century of
the Christian era, includes the brightest times, both of Grecian and
of the Roman literature. Evidence of the most conclusive kind on all
questions of literary history may therefore be collected in abundance
from the writers of those ages. Innumerable quotations from all the
principal authors are found on the pages of almost every prose writer
whose works have descended to modern times. The critics and historians,
especially, furnish abundantly the evidence we are in search of. We
begin this second series with--
Pausanias, who, in his historical description of Greece, has frequent
occasion to cite the authority of Herodotus. Of these citations
the following may be mentioned:--In a digression relating to the
Ethiopians, he quotes from the second, and from the fourth book;
“For the Nasamones, whom Herodotus considers as the same with the
Atlantics, and who are said to know the measure of the earth, are
called by the Libyans, dwelling in the extreme parts of Libya, near
Mount Atlas--Loxi.” “Agreeably to this Herodotus tells us that in
Scythia shipwrecked persons sacrificed bulls to a virgin, called by
them Iphigenia, the daughter of Agamemnon.” The story of Io is referred
to: he quotes from Herodotus a prediction of the Delphic oracle; he
authenticates a story told by our author; “these particulars as they
are accurately related by Herodotus, it would be superfluous for me
to repeat.” He refers to the orthography of a name: “and Herodotus
in his History of Crœsus informs us that this Labotas was under the
guardianship of Lycurgus, who gave laws to the Lacedæmonians; but he
calls him _Leobotas_.” In this form, in fact, the name now stands in
the Greek text:--minute correspondences of this kind vouch for the
correct transmission of ancient books. He affirms that at Tænarus was
to be seen “Arion the harper, sitting on a dolphin. And the particulars
respecting Arion and the dolphin Herodotus relates, as what he himself
heard, in his account of the Lydian affairs.” Book X. 32, “As to the
name of the city, I know that Herodotus, in that part of his History in
which he gives an account of the irruption of the Persians into Greece,
differs from what is asserted in the oracles of Bacis.”
Lucian of Samosata devotes some pages to Herodotus, whose style he
characterises and commends; and he relates particularly the mode
adopted by the historian for making his work known to the Greeks, so
that wherever he appeared all might say--That is Herodotus who wrote
the history of the Persian war in the Ionian dialect, and who so
gloriously chanted our victories.
Hermogenes, a rhetorician and the contemporary of Lucian, gives the
following description of the historian’s style: “The diction of
Herodotus is pure, easy, and perspicuous. Whenever he introduces fables
he employs a poetic style. His thoughts are just, his language graceful
and noble. No one excels him in the art of describing, after the manner
of the poets, the manners and characters of his different personages.
In many places he attains greatness of style, of which the conversation
betwixt Xerxes and Artabanus is an example.”
Aulus Gellius, a miscellaneous writer, abounds with references to
authors of every class. In his Attic Nights, Herodotus is frequently
mentioned, as for example--he quotes at length the story of Arion.
Again: “Yet Herodotus, the historian, affirms, contrary to the opinion
of almost all, that the Bosphorus or Cimmerian Sea is liable to be
frozen.” There is a verbal quotation from the third book, relative to
the lioness, and another, of the fable of the Psyllians.
The evidence of Plutarch is sufficiently ample and conclusive to bear
alone the whole burden of our argument. The writings of Plutarch,
having in every age enjoyed the highest reputation, have descended to
modern times, abundantly authenticated:--among them there is a small
treatise (if it be genuine, which is very questionable) entitled “Of
the Malignity of Herodotus.” The historian, in his account of the
Persian invasion, affirms the conduct of the Bœotians on various
occasions to have been traitorous and pusillanimous. Now Plutarch was
a Bœotian, and he felt so keenly the infamy attached by Herodotus
to his countrymen, that, with the hope of wiping out the stain, he
endeavoured if possible, to destroy the reputation of our author, by
advancing against him the heavy charge of a malignant falsification
of facts throughout his history. To effect his object, he reviews
the entire work, bringing to bear upon every assailable point the
utmost efforts of his critical acuteness, and all the stores of his
learning. The specific charges advanced against Herodotus in this
treatise must, to a modern reader, appear for the most part, extremely
frivolous. So far as they may seem to be more serious, they have been
fully refuted by several critics. But our business, at present, with
Plutarch’s treatise, is to derive from it a proof of the genuineness
and general authenticity of the work which is the subject of our
argument. In the first place, then, this treatise, by its many and
exact references to all parts of the History, proves beyond a doubt
that the Greek text, as now extant, is substantially the same as that
read by Plutarch--or rather by this writer who assumes his name, at the
time now in view. In the second place, Plutarch’s tacit acknowledgment
of the work as the genuine production of Herodotus, may be taken as
affording alone a sufficient proof of that fact;--for if it had been
at all questionable--if any obscurity had rested upon its traditionary
history, this writer, whose learning was extensive, could not have been
ignorant of such grounds of doubt; nor would he have failed to take the
short course of denying at once the authenticity of the book. The five
hundred years which intervened between the times of Herodotus and of
Plutarch, were ages of uninterrupted and widely-diffused intelligence
and erudition;--much more so than the last five hundred years of
European history: and Plutarch had more ample means of ascertaining the
genuineness of the History attributed to Herodotus, than a critic of
the present day possesses in judging of the genuineness of Froissart,
or of Abulfeda. In the third place, this small treatise yields an
implicit testimony in support of the general truth of the history
itself; for in leaving untouched all the main parts of the story, and
in fixing his criticisms upon minor facts, and upon the mere colouring
given to the narrative, this critic virtually acknowledges that the
principal facts are unquestionable. It may be affirmed that he has
in fact, on the whole, rather established the authenticity of the
History against which he levels his critical weapons, than succeeded in
destroying its credit.
Josephus quotes and corrects Herodotus--in the Jewish Antiquities; and
in his reply to Apion he mentions him descriptively more than once,
as where he enumerates the Greek historians; a few pages further, he
notices the remarkable fact that “neither Herodotus nor Thucydides nor
any of their contemporaries make the slightest mention of the Romans.”
Presently afterwards he quotes Manetho in opposition to Herodotus, in
his account of Egyptian history: and some pages further, he makes an
exact quotation from the second book.
Quintilian compares Herodotus with Thucydides: “Herodotus, sweet,
bland, and copious.” “In Herodotus, as I think, there is always a
gentle flow of language.” “Nor need Herodotus scorn to be conjoined
with Livy.”
Strabo, the most learned, exact, and intelligent of the ancient
geographers, very frequently cites our author, upon whose statements
he makes some severe criticisms; yet without impugning the general
authenticity of the History. Art. _Halicarnassus_. “Among the
illustrious men born at this place is Herodotus, the historian, who
is called the Thurian, because he joined himself to a colony at that
place.” “It was not improperly said by Herodotus, that the whole of
Egypt, at least the Delta, was a gift of the river.” Strabo refers to
the account given of the voyage round Africa, attempted by the order
of Darius. He refers to, and quotes the authority of Herodotus, who
affirms that at Memphis in Egypt there was a temple of Neptune.
The last-named writer brings our series of testimonies up to the
commencement of the Christian era. In passing up the stream of time, we
meet next with--
Dionysius, the countryman of Herodotus, and author of the “Roman
antiquities,” and of several critical treatises. In one of these,
entitled “The Judgment of Ancient Writers,” and in another, addressed
to Cn. Pompey, Dionysius gives a minute account of the style, method,
and comparative merits of our author. In the book on composition, he
makes a long and literal quotation from the first book. In giving the
character of Thucydides, he thus speaks of Herodotus:--“Herodotus
the Halicarnassian, who survived to the time of the Peloponnesian
War, though born a little before the Persian War, raised the style of
writing history: nor was it the history of one city or nation only
that he composed; but included in his work the many and various affairs
both of Europe and Asia. For beginning with the Lydian kingdom, he
continues to the Persian War--relates whatever was performed by the
Greeks and Barbarians during a period of 240 years--selecting whatever
was most worthy of record, and connecting them in a single history;
at the same time gracing his work with excellencies that had been
neglected by his predecessors.” Several descriptive commendations of a
similar kind might be adduced from the critical writings of this author.
Contemporary with Dionysius, though a few years his senior, was
Diodorus the Sicilian. This learned and laborious historian passes
over much of the same ground with Herodotus, to whom he makes several
allusions. In discussing the question relative to the inundations of
the Nile, he states and controverts the opinion advanced by Herodotus
on that subject. Further on, he rejects as fabulous the accounts given
by Herodotus and others of the remote history of Egypt, and professes
to follow the public records of the Egyptian priests; yet he had before
eulogised our author as a writer “without a rival, indefatigable in his
researches, and extensively learned in history.” Diodorus states the
various opinions of writers relative to the Median empire, and among
these, Herodotus: “Now Herodotus, who lived in the time of Xerxes,
affirms that the Assyrians had governed Asia during a period of 500
years before it was subjugated by the Medes.”
Our author was known to the Roman writers. Cornelius Nepos evidently
follows him in some passages, though he professes to adhere chiefly to
the authority of Theopompus, Thucydides, and Xenophon. Cicero bestows
upon him high commendation in several places, declaring that “so far
as his knowledge of the Greek language permitted him to enjoy it, the
eloquence of the historian (whom he terms ‘the Father of History’)
gave him the greatest delight:”--that his language “flows like an
unobstructed river:”--and that “nothing can be more sweet than his
style.”
Pliny the Elder refers to Herodotus frequently; as thus--“If we
credit Herodotus, the sea once extended beyond Memphis, as far as
the mountains of Ethiopia:” speaking of the inundation of the Nile,
he quotes our author--“the river, as Herodotus relates, subsides
within its banks on the hundredth day after its first rise.” Passing
references occur in many places:--“Herodotus, more ancient and a better
authority than Juba;” “Herodotus says that ebony formed part of the
tribute rendered by the Ethiopians to the kings of Persia;” “this
author composed (corrected) his History at Thurium in Italy, in the
310th year of Rome.”
Scymnus of Chios, of whose writings some fragments only remain,
professes, in his Description of the Earth, to report what “Herodotus
has recorded in his History.” This writer is believed to have
flourished in the second century before the Christian era.
Aristotle cites Herodotus as an example of the antiquated, continuous
style. “If the works of Herodotus were turned into verse, they would
not by that means become a poem, but would remain a history.” In his
History of Animals he charges our author with an error, in affirming
that “at the siege of Ninus, an eagle was seen to drink;” but no such
assertion is to be found in the works of the historian: probably a
passage of some other writer was quoted by Aristotle from memory, and
erroneously attributed to Herodotus; or possibly he quoted some work
of this historian which has since perished. The ambiguous reply of the
Pythian to Crœsus is quoted, though not explicitly from Herodotus.
Ctesias, an abstract of whose works is preserved by Photius, is very
frequently quoted by ancient authors. He was a Greek physician, who
accompanied the expedition led against Artaxerxes by his brother, the
younger Cyrus. Though a few years younger, he was contemporary with
Herodotus: his testimony therefore brings the series of evidences up
to the very time of our author. Ctesias, having fallen into the hands
of the Persians at the battle of Cunaxa, was detained at the court of
Artaxerxes as physician, during seventeen years; and it seems that,
with the hope of recommending himself to the favour of “the great
king,” and of obtaining his own freedom, he undertook to compose a
history of Persia, with the express and avowed design of impeaching the
authority of Herodotus, whom, in no very courteous terms, he accuses
of many falsifications. The jealousy and malice of a little mind are
apparent in these accusations. Nothing can be much more inane than the
fragments that are preserved of this author’s two works--his History of
Persia, and his Indian History; yet, though possessing little intrinsic
value, they serve an important purpose, in furnishing a very explicit
evidence of the genuineness and general authenticity of the work which
Ctesias laboured to depreciate. If the account given by Herodotus of
Persian affairs had been altogether untrue, his rival wanted neither
the will nor the means to expose the imposition. But while, like
Plutarch, he cavils at minor points, he leaves the substance of the
narrative uncontradicted.
Thucydides, the contemporary and rival of Herodotus, whose writings
are said to have kindled in his young mind the passion for literary
distinction, makes only an indistinct allusion to the History; yet
this allusion is such as can hardly be misunderstood. Book I. 22, in
explaining the principles by which he proposed to be guided in writing
his History, he glances sarcastically at certain writers, who, in
narrating events that had taken place in remote times, mix fables with
truth, and who seem to have aimed rather to amuse than to instruct
their readers. He then immediately mentions the Median war, which forms
the principal subject of his rival’s work, and of which that work was
the well-known record. But if this allusion may not be admitted in
evidence, our chain of proof is complete without it.
Citations or allusions similar to these might be brought forward
almost without number; but every purpose, both of illustration and
of argument--if argument were needed, is accomplished as well by a
few as by many. From the entire mass of testimonies, if we were to
select, for example, those of Photius, of Dionysius, and of Diodorus,
we have proof enough of the genuineness and integrity of the work; for
the existence of these testimonies could not be accounted for on a
contrary supposition, in any reasonable manner. And when we find the
work reflected, as it were, more or less distinctly, from almost the
entire surface of ancient literature, no room is left for doubt. The
writers of every age, from the time of the author, speak of the work
as being well known in their times:--none of them quote it in any such
terms as these, “an ancient history, said to have been written by
Herodotus:”--or, “a history which most persons believe to be genuine;”
for they all refer to it as a book that was in every one’s hands. If,
therefore, the History had been produced in any age subsequent to
that of Herodotus, the author of any such spurious work must have had
under his control, for the purpose of interpolation, not only a copy
of every considerable work that was extant in his time, but every copy
of every such work:--he must in fact have new created the entire mass
of books existing in the eastern and western world at the time; and he
must have destroyed all but his own interpolated copies; otherwise,
some copies of some of these works would have reached us in which these
interpolated quotations from Herodotus were wanting. Although such
suppositions are extravagant, yet let us attempt to realise one or two
of them.
We may imagine then that this History, pretending to be an ancient
work, was actually produced in the ninth century, by some learned
monk of Constantinople. On this supposition, we must believe that
the copyists of that time, in all parts of the Greek empire, having
been gained over by the forger to favour the fraud, issued new and
ingeniously interpolated copies of the following authors:--namely,
Procopius, Stephen, Stobæus, Marcellinus, Julian, Hesychius, Athenæus,
Longinus, Laertius, Lucian, Hermogenes, Pausanias, Aulus Gellius,
Plutarch, Josephus, Strabo, Dionysius, Diodorus, Aristotle, Ctesias,
and many others that are not cited above. Then to this list must be
added many works that were extant in the ninth century, but since lost.
All the previously existing copies of these authors must have been
gathered in, and destroyed; but even this would not be enough; for the
Byzantine writers must have had the concurrence of the Latin copyists,
throughout the monasteries of western Europe; otherwise, the works of
Cicero, and of Quintilian, and of Pliny, would not have contained those
references to the History which we actually find in them. Now to effect
all this, or a twentieth part of it, was as impracticable in the middle
ages, as it would be for us to alter the spots in the moon--for the
things to be altered were absolutely out of the reach of those whom we
suppose to have made the attempt.
But as to these supposed interpolations, it was not formal sentences,
or distinct paragraphs--wedged in where they seem to have little
fitness, but citations or allusions of an incidental kind, proper to
the connexion in which they occur, and perfectly congruous with the
text.
Let it next be supposed that the genuine History of Herodotus--referred
to as we have seen by earlier writers, had perished, or was supposed to
have perished, about the seventh century; and that some writer of the
ninth century composed a work which should pass in the world for the
genuine History. Now, to effect this, he must have had in his memory,
as he went along, the entire body of ancient literature, both Greek and
Roman; or otherwise he could not have worked up all the references and
quotations of earlier authors, so as to make them tally, as we find
they do, with his spurious production: and if any of these authors were
unknown to him, or forgotten, then we should find discrepant quotations
that could not be verified. Moreover, as the genuine work was certainly
in existence and widely diffused in the _sixth_ century, no writer
wishing to make such an attempt could think himself secure against the
existence of some copies of the genuine work, which, if brought to
light, would at once expose his own to contempt.
Or if a forgery had been attempted at a time nearer to that of the
alleged author, then, in proportion as we recede from difficulties
of one kind, we run upon those of another kind. For if, to avoid the
absurdity of supposing that a huge mass of books, scattered through
many and distant countries, were at once called in, and re-issued with
the requisite interpolations, we imagine that the work was forged at
an earlier time, when fewer testimonies needed to have been foisted
into existing books; then we come to a period when learning was at its
height--at Alexandria--throughout Greece, and its colonies--when every
fact connected with the history of books was familiarly known; when
many large libraries existed--when, therefore, no standard work could
disappear, or could be supplanted by a spurious one; much less could a
work which had never before been heard of, create to itself the credit
of a book long and familiarly known: how could the learned in the
east and the west be persuaded that a work, newly produced, had been
in their libraries for a hundred years? Though the knowledge of books
is more widely diffused in modern, than it was in ancient times, yet
among those who addict themselves to literature, there is not now more
of erudition, of intelligence, of discrimination, than were displayed
in the three or four centuries of which the Augustan age formed the
centre. To issue a voluminous history, and to persuade the world that
it had been known during the last two hundred years, is an attempt not
more impracticable in the present day, than it would have been in the
times of Dionysius, of Cicero, of Quintilian, or of Plutarch.
If we carry our supposition still higher, that is to say, till we get
free from all the difficulties above-mentioned, then we gain nothing.
The fact principally important as an historical question is granted,
namely, that the History was actually extant at, or very near the time,
commonly supposed; and then the only point in dispute is the bare name
of the author, which, so far as the truth of the history is involved,
is a question of inferior consequence. Yet let us pursue this doubt a
step further;--If Herodotus, the Halicarnassian, were a real person,
known in his time as a writer, then some self-denying forger made over
to this Herodotus all the glory of being the author of so admirable a
work; and this Herodotus accepted the generous fraud, and acted his
part to give it credit. But if the name and designation be altogether
fictitious--the real author concealing himself; then how happened it
that the Greeks of that age should speak of Herodotus as of a real
person whom they had known, honoured and rewarded? In preference to any
such impracticable hypothesis, who would not rather accept as true the
affirmation which the work bears upon its front?
But now we take up another supposition. After tracing as we have done,
the history of the work in question, up through a continued series of
quotations, in the Greek and Latin writers, and obtaining by that means
a conclusive proof of its antiquity, we may imagine that there is in
existence a Persian translation of the History of Herodotus, which, by
the peculiarities of its style, as well as by external evidence, is
ascertained to have been executed in the time of Artaxerxes. Another
translation of the same work is then brought forward in the language
of ancient Carthage, which, except in this (supposed) translation,
has been long extinct. And there is another in the Coptic, or ancient
language of Egypt; and another in the Latin, of the time of Plautus
and Terence. If these several translations had each descended to
modern times, through some independent channel, and if each possessed
a separate mass of evidence in proof of its antiquity; and if, when
collated among themselves, and with the Greek original, they were found
to harmonize, except in those variations which must always belong to a
translation; then, and in such a case, we should possess an instance
of that sort of redundant demonstration which in fact does belong in
full to the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; but to no other writings
whatever.
Let it now be granted as _possible_ that a writer of a later age, who
was a perfect master of the Greek language, who possessed an endless
fund of various learning, and who was gifted in a high degree with the
imitative faculty, might produce nine books like those of Herodotus,
which, supposing there were no external evidence to contradict the
fraud, might pass as genuine. To affirm that a forgery such as this is
_possible_, is to allow the utmost that our knowledge of the powers
of the human mind will permit to be granted; and much more than the
history of literary forgeries will warrant us to suppose: for all the
attempts of that sort that have been detected, either abound with
manifest incongruities; or if executed by men of learning and ability,
they have been formed upon a small scale, and have excluded, as far as
possible, all exact references to particular facts.
But the work before us is of great extent; its allusions to particular
facts are innumerable, precise, and incautious; its style and dialect
are proper to the age to which it pretends:--in a word, it is in
every respect what a genuine production of that age ought to be. If
then it were to be judged of, on the ground of internal evidence
alone, no scholar could for a moment hesitate to decide in favour of
its genuineness. The reader will recollect that the supposition of a
forgery in a later age is excluded by the evidence already adduced in
this chapter.