EXAMPLES OF IMPERFECT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE:--HERODOTUS.
The object of the preceding pages has been to display, in its several
parts, that chain of evidence, by means of which a high degree of
certainty in matters of antiquity is attainable. And it appears that
there are cases in which the proof of remote facts rests, as it were,
in our own hands, so that, irrespectively of the veracity, or accuracy,
or impartiality of the witnesses, our assent is demanded on the ground
of the constancy of the laws of the social system. In such cases, a
consideration of distance of time does not enter into the argument; for
the proof remains from age to age unimpaired; or rather, we are carried
by this proof up to the times of the events in question, and are now
as competent to judge of the validity of the evidence as we could have
been if we had lived in that age.
The real difference between this absolute proof and every other sort
of historical evidence, will be best exhibited by adducing some
instances of a different kind; and in taking our examples from the same
author--Herodotus, we place both kinds of evidence upon the same level,
so far as the personal qualities and the merits of the historian are
concerned in the argument.
The distinctive character of all such historical evidence as ought
to be called _imperfect_, is this--that it comes to us through some
_medium_, upon the trustworthiness of which we must more or less
implicitly rely. Ordinarily, this medium is the veracity, or the
accuracy--the learning, or the impartiality, of the historian. In such
instances the _immediate proof_ stands beyond our reach; and instead
of being able to handle and inspect it for ourselves, we can only
inspect it at a distance, and, by the best means in our power, estimate
its probable value. This secondary evidence may indeed sometimes rise
almost to absolute certainty; in other cases it may possess scarcely an
atom of real weight. The first book of Herodotus will furnish examples
of both sorts, and some in every degree between the two extremes.
In the introductory sections of his history, Herodotus refers to those
mutual aggressions which were ordinarily assigned by the authors of his
times as the origin of the animosity which had so long raged between
the Greeks and the people of Asia: thus he mentions the abduction of
Io from Argos by the Phœnicians--of Europa from Tyre--of Medea from
Colchis, and of Helen from Sparta; which last act of violence produced,
he says, the Trojan war, and which the Persians, as he affirms, were
wont to allege as a perpetual justification of every enterprise they
might attempt against the Greeks.
These events took place--if at all--from thirteen to eight hundred
years before the time of Herodotus: the last of them, the Trojan war,
may well be regarded as substantially true on the authority of the
poems of Homer, which bear the character of history too strongly to
be treated as mere fiction. As to the abductions above-mentioned,
they are to be regarded as samples of the manners of the times:--such
circumstances, and many others to which neither poets nor historians
have given celebrity, no doubt took place on the shores of the Ægæan
sea--favourable as these have ever been to piratical enterprises. Yet
if we can believe that Herodotus actually examined for himself the
writings of the “Persian historians” whom he quotes, and if he there
found coincident narratives of the above-mentioned outrages, these
vague traditions would then acquire something like the authority of
history.
There is a fact affirmed by the historian in the outset of his history
which deserves a passing notice:--he says, that “the Phœnicians, coming
from the shores of the Red Sea (the Persian Gulf, or the Indian Ocean)
settled upon the borders of _this_ sea (the Mediterranean) in the
country they now inhabit; whence they made distant voyages, carrying
on the commerce of Egypt and Assyria, with the surrounding countries.”
This emigration of the Phœnicians--which in itself is by no means
improbable--the distance between the two seas being not great, and such
emigrations being frequent in ancient times--is mentioned by several
ancient authors, though denied by Strabo; nevertheless it provoked
the ridicule of Voltaire, who asks, “What does the father of history
mean in the commencement of his work, when he says that, ‘the Persian
historians relate that the Phœnicians were the authors of all the wars;
and that they came from the Red Sea to ours’? It seems then that they
embarked on the Gulf of Suez--passed through the straits of Babel
Mandel--coasted along the shores of Ethiopia--crossed the Line--doubled
the Cape of Tempests, since called the Cape of Good Hope--ascended the
sea between Africa and America, which is the only way in which they
could come--re-crossed the Line, and entered the Mediterranean by the
Pillars of Hercules, which would have been a voyage of more than four
thousand marine leagues, at a time when navigation was in its infancy!”
This passage is a sample of this writer’s ignorance and audacity in
dealing with history; and it is an instance of the ease with which
a charge of absurdity or falsification may be made out against an
historian by a writer who is at once destitute of learning and of
candour. “M. Voltaire,” says Larches “would have spared himself this
criticism, had he possessed even a moderate knowledge of the Greek
language. If Herodotus had intended to intimate that the Phœnicians
came by sea, he would have employed another Greek idiom. Besides,
he would not have added, that ‘they _then_ undertook long voyages;’
as, on the supposition of their having come by sea, they had already
made a voyage much longer and more perilous than any they afterwards
undertook. But if there remained any doubt as to the meaning of the
passage, the author removes it in another place (Polymnia, 89): ‘These
Phœnicians, as they themselves say, formerly inhabited the shores of
the Red Sea, whence _passing over_, they now occupy the maritime part
of Syria.’”
The History--properly speaking--commences with the story of Crœsus,
king of Lydia, who reigned at Sardis about a century before the time
of Herodotus. The Greeks, especially those of Asia Minor, maintained a
frequent intercourse with the Lydians, and must therefore have had some
general knowledge of their history; and it is evident that our author
made himself acquainted, by personal researches, with such records
and traditions as he could find at Sardis. But between his time and
the reign of Crœsus, that city had once and again been pillaged, its
government overthrown, the manners of its inhabitants changed, and
probably, most of the ancient families had been banished, exterminated,
or reduced to poverty; their places being supplied by Persians and
Greeks. It must therefore be believed, that the authentic records of
the state had to a great extent been dissipated, and that little better
than vague reports remained to be collected when Herodotus visited
Sardis. We are not therefore to be surprised if we find an air of the
fabulous in the story of Crœsus and of his predecessors, the kings
of Lydia. Nevertheless, some of the leading facts were authenticated
by those gifts, of various kinds, that had been consecrated by the
Lydian kings at Delphi, and many of which were preserved in the temple
of Apollo, at that place, in the time of Herodotus: these gifts, by
the inscriptions they bore, served to verify the accounts elsewhere
received. At Delphi, Herodotus not only inspected vessels of gold and
silver, preserved in the temple where the oracles were given, but he
received from the priests _their own copies_ of the many responses
which he quotes in the course of his work. In these vaticinative verses
the craft of the priests who composed them is often sufficiently
apparent: and whatever they may be, their _genuineness_ rests entirely
upon the honesty of the Delphian priests, from whom our author
received them. Yet the subject of the ancient oracles should not be
passed by without acknowledging that, amidst all the glaring frauds,
and the frivolous evasions, and the interested compliances with the
wishes of the applicants, which characterise these responses, there
is apparent also in some of them a knowledge of contemporary--though
remote events, and of a sagacity in relation to the future, which is
not satisfactorily explained without admitting the interposition of a
super-human agency. An absolute denial of any such intervention, while
it is unsupported by a true philosophy, does violence to the principles
of historical evidence; nor is it demanded by any argumentative
necessity.
The interlocution between Crœsus and Solon--the Athenian legislator,
as related by Herodotus, may fairly be numbered among those dramatic
embellishments with which ancient writers--and our author not less than
others--thought themselves at liberty to relieve the attention of their
readers. It need not be questioned that Solon visited Sardis; and it
is not improbable that some rebuke of the Lydian king’s preposterous
vanity--really uttered by the Grecian sage, may have formed the text of
this long conversation.
The story of Adrastus, the Phrygian refugee, and of Atys, the son
of Crœsus, if founded in fact, are evidently much indebted to the
ingenuity of the narrator. Though these incidents may seem puerile to a
modern reader, we ought to carry ourselves back to the author’s times,
before we pronounce them to be altogether improper in the place where
they appear. A student of history who reads only modern compilations
will fail to obtain that just and exact idea of antiquity which these
excrescent parts of the works of ancient historians convey.
The history of Crœsus is interrupted by a long digression, in which
our author gives a sketch of the early history of the Athenians and
Lacedæmonians. On these points he could be at no loss for traditions,
or other sources of information; and here also he was open to
correction from his contemporaries, who were as well informed as
himself in matters of Grecian history. Yet the reader should not lose
sight of the _dates_ of the events severally mentioned, in forming his
opinion of the value of the evidence. It is the manner of Herodotus
to relate unimportant circumstances which took place--if at all--five
hundred, or a thousand years before his time, with as much minuteness
of detail, and as much confidence, as when he is describing recent
events. Frequently, it may be supposed, he followed what he deemed
authentic documents; but as we have no sufficient means of forming an
opinion on the subject, such recitals are not to be admitted among
the established points of history, unless they are confirmed by a
coincidence of authorities.
The narrative of the war between Crœsus and Cyrus, which ended in the
final dissolution of the Lydian kingdom, is resumed, sect. 69. The
leading events of this war could not fail to be well known at the time
in Greece; for besides that the intercourse between Greece and Asia was
frequent, Crœsus was on terms of friendship with the Lacedæmonians,
and was everywhere celebrated for the magnificence of his offerings
to the Delphic god: moreover, the fall of Sardis, and the consequent
conquests of the Persians in Asia Minor, brought a formidable enemy
to the very door of Greece, and obliged the several states to inform
themselves much more exactly than heretofore, of the affairs of their
Asiatic neighbours. We may therefore place the conquests of Cyrus in
Asia Minor among the authenticated facts of history. Yet from the
details, as given by Herodotus, some considerable deductions must be
made; for there is an air of dramatic embellishment apparent throughout
the narrative. Sardis was taken by Cyrus about one hundred years before
Herodotus wrote his history: it is not therefore probable that he had
the opportunity of verifying his authorities by consulting any living
witnesses of the event: it is more likely that he worked up, in his own
manner, some floating traditions received from the Asiatic Greeks.
Crœsus, confounded by misfortunes which seemed to give the lie to
the Delphic god, whose favour and advice he had courted by gifts
of unexampled richness, requested permission of Cyrus to send the
fetters he had worn, to Delphi, to be laid on the threshold of the
temple;--directing the messenger to ask the Grecian god--If it was his
custom to delude those who had merited the best at his hands. This
request was granted; and the Lydian messenger brought back a reply
which, whether or not it may be considered as genuine, is curious, if
taken as a specimen of the policy and style of the Pythian:--
--When the Lydians arrived and delivered their message, the Pythian
is said to have replied--That even the god could not avert the decree
of fate. That Crœsus, the fifth in descent, suffered for the sin of
his progenitor, who being a servant of the Heraclidæ, consented to the
guile of the woman, and slew his master; taking possession without
right, of his place and honour. That yet Apollo _had endeavoured_ to
defer the fall of Sardis till the next generation; but that _he had
not been able to move the Fates_, who would no further yield to his
solicitation than, as a special favour to Crœsus, to place the taking
of Sardis three years later than otherwise it would have happened. Let
Crœsus therefore know that he is a captive three years later than the
Fates had decreed; and then remember that Apollo rescued him when about
to be burned. As to the response, Crœsus had no right to complain;
for the god had foretold that if he invaded the Persians, he would
overthrow a great empire; and if upon this he had wished to be better
informed, he should have inquired again, whether his own empire, or
that of Cyrus was intended. Wherefore, as he had neither understood the
oracle, nor asked for its meaning, he might take the blame to himself.
Having dismissed the Lydian affairs, Herodotus proceeds to give a
sketch of the history of the Assyrians, Medes, and Persians, and to
relate the story of the elevation of Cyrus to supreme power in Upper
Asia. That he had visited Persia cannot reasonably be questioned;
nor need it be doubted that he diligently availed himself of every
means in his power to acquire information. Whether he was master of
any of the eastern languages does not certainly appear; for though he
frequently refers to the Persian historians, and though, in one place
(139), he makes a philological remark on a peculiarity of the Persian
language, we must ask more direct proof than this of his possessing
an accomplishment so rare among the Greeks. We must however believe,
that, at least by means of an interpreter, he had consulted the
Persian writers. In commencing the history of Cyrus, he says--I shall
follow those Persian writers who, without endeavouring to exaggerate
the exploits of Cyrus, seem to adhere to the simple truth;--yet not
ignorant that three different accounts of him are abroad.--Whether
these three accounts are in fact those given by himself, by
Ctesias, and by Æschylus, cannot be ascertained. It is evident that
exaggerations and errors abounded among the oriental historians: the
Greeks therefore, having at best a very imperfect access to these
discordant authorities, must be perused with caution: it would be
unsafe to rely with confidence upon any of these narratives; or to
found upon them objections to statements which we derive from sources
that are much more credible.
A general conformity with facts is all that we ought to expect from
the Greek historians when they speak of the remote history of Asia.
Herodotus at Babylon, or at Susa, must have been almost entirely
dependent upon the good faith of the learned men with whom he
happened to form acquaintance; and even if we give them credit for
as much honesty as is usually practised on similar occasions towards
foreigners--and him for a great measure of diligence and discretion,
we shall scarcely find reason for considering these portions of the
work to be true, otherwise than as to the general outline of events.
Herodotus must however be allowed to rank above Xenophon, on the
ground of authenticity; for the Cyropædia is only a political romance.
Diodorus Siculus had access to sources of information that were not
open to Herodotus; and the statements of the later may be admitted in
correction of those of the earlier historian. Justin, or rather Trogus,
seems to follow our author in his incidents, varying from him only in
the order of some events. Josephus, in his reply to Apion, treats the
Greek historians with contempt when they presumed to speak of Asiatic
affairs; urging against them their many contradictions, and their want
of really ancient and authentic documents, and quoting, as of higher
authority, several works of which these citations are almost the only
remaining fragments. Without impeaching the character of Herodotus,
we may peruse the earlier portions of his history as an entertaining
narrative, held together by a connected thread of truth, and supporting
a series of incidents which, though characteristic of the times, are
of very questionable historical authority. Of this kind is the story
of the birth and early adventures of Cyrus, in which the art of the
narrator in working up his materials, is apparent.--Probably some
popular tales communicated to our author in Persia, were adapted by
him to the taste of the Greeks. In his account of the manners, usages,
habits, and buildings of the nations he visited, and of the features
and productions of the countries through which he travelled, our
author is deserving of a high degree of confidence; and though a few
particulars,--plainly fabulous, are mingled with these descriptions,
they must be admitted to take a place among the most valuable of the
remains of ancient literature.
The narrative of the subjugation of the Ionians and Æolians of Asia
Minor, by the Persians, stands, for the most part, upon a higher ground
of authority than those which precede, and those which immediately
follow it; not only because the transactions were comparatively recent;
but because the affairs of these Asiatic Greeks were, at all times,
well known to those of Europe.
The capture of Babylon by Cyrus was an event too remarkable in itself,
and in the extraordinary circumstances attending it, to leave room
for much diversity among the accounts of it which were transmitted
to the next age. The Greek historians differ but little in relating
this memorable event, and their testimony, independent as it is, when
collated with the circumstantial predictions of the Hebrew prophet,
deserves peculiar regard. If the history of Herodotus had no other
claims to attention, it would have claim enough by affording, as it
does, in several signal instances, an unexceptionable testimony in
illustration of the fulfilment of prophecy.
The expedition of Cyrus against the Massagetes, a Scythian nation, in
which he perished, closes the first book of the history. Here again
there may be reason to suspect a want of authentic information. The
scene of action was remote, not merely from Greece, but from Persia,
and the survivors of the Persian army told, when they returned, each
his own tale of wonder: nor is it probable that any other account of
the war was extant in the time of Herodotus than what had been received
from these persons.
The instances that have now been mentioned, occurring in the first
book of Herodotus, may serve as examples of the different degrees of
authority which may belong to different portions of an historical
work--dependent both upon the means of information possessed by the
writer, and upon his liability to contradiction and correction from his
contemporaries. It is enough if we keep in view the general principles
stated above (chap. XIII.), in adhering to which, we have a sufficient
guidance in perusing a work like that of Herodotus, combining as it
does, materials of all kinds, more or less valuable and authentic.
As to some of the facts he relates, we may regard them as absolutely
certain, others as doubtful, improbable, or unreal. With the worst
intentions, and the meanest qualifications, an historian of recent
events, whose writings are received in his own times as authentic,
can seldom be charged with glaring falsifications of facts; on the
other hand, the most cautious, industrious, and scrupulous writer,
who compiles the history of remote times, and of foreign nations, may
innocently wander very far from the path of truth. It would subserve no
useful purpose to adduce a larger sample of instances in illustration
of these obvious principles. We may now give some account of those who
have signalised themselves as the assailants of this great writer.
Herodotus, as we have already said, was severely reprehended by several
ancient writers, especially by Ctesias, Manetho, Diodorus Siculus,
Strabo, Josephus, and, above all, by Plutarch, or by the angry writer
who assumes his name. The grounds of exception taken by these writers
are, in a few instances just; in most cases, the influence of prejudice
or petty jealousy is apparent; yet none of these criticisms affect
that part of the history which alone we allege to be unquestionably
authentic. But modern authors also have attacked the reputation of
the historian, and we may briefly notice some of these more recent
criticisms; for if it is affirmed of a portion of this history, that
its truth is absolutely certain, it ought to be shown that the facts in
behalf of which so high a claim is advanced have never been called in
question--or never, with any degree of plausibility.
Certain critics, of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, taking
offence at some of the less authentic portions of this work, and
especially at some ill-understood descriptions of animals and plants,
speak of the historian as a compiler of fables: thus Ludovicus Vives,
a learned Spaniard, well known in England during the reign of Henry
VIII., speaks of the books of Herodotus as abounding in things untrue.
Another says, “Herodotus, that he might not seem to have omitted
anything, brought together, without selection, matters of all kinds;
of which the greater part were derived, not from ancient records, but
from the fables of the vulgar. And although his style is agreeable, and
even elegant, he forfeits the confidence of those who exercise a sound
and impartial judgment; for such readers cannot give credence to a work
so crammed with various narrations.--By some indeed he is called the
‘father of history;’ but by others he is justly named the ‘father of
fables.’”
Bodin, in his “Method of History,” says, “I wonder that Cicero should
have designated Herodotus alone as the father of history, whom all
antiquity accuses of falsehood; for there cannot be a greater proof
that an historian is unworthy of credit, than that he should be
manifestly convicted of error by all writers. Nevertheless I do not
think that he ought to be wholly rejected; for besides the merit of
eloquence, and the charm of the Ionic sweetness, there is in him much
that holds forth antiquity, and many things in the latter books of his
history, are narrated with an exact adherence to truth.”
Wheare, in his “Method of reading History,” thus speaks of our author:
“Although Herodotus gives some relations that are not much better than
fables, yet the body of his history is composed with eminent fidelity,
and a diligent pursuit of truth. Many of those less authentic
narratives he himself introduces by saying that he reports not what he
thinks true, but what he had received from others.”
“It would be absurd,” says Isaac Vossius, “to confide in Herodotus
alone, in what relates to Persian and Babylonian affairs; seeing that
he was unacquainted with the Persian language, and unfurnished with the
records of any of the nations of the east.” Bishop Stillingfleet speaks
of the historian very much in the same strain as the authors above
quoted. He has also been uncourteously treated by some later writers;
of these Voltaire is the most distinguished. Whenever occasion presents
itself he labours to cast contempt upon the father of history. Of this
writer’s ignorance and flippancy in commenting upon Herodotus, we have
already adduced an example: others of a similar kind might easily be
cited. Thus, he represents the historian as _affirming_, in a number
of instances, what he professes only to report; as the story of Arion,
and that of the Lydians who are said to have invented various games to
allay the pains of hunger. He denies as utterly incredible the account
given by Herodotus of the dissolute manners of the Babylonians: “that
which does not accord with human nature, can never be true.” Yet the
customs alluded to are expressly affirmed to have prevailed there by
Strabo, and are distinctly mentioned by a writer whose evidence in
such a case need not be suspected--Baruch, VI. 43; and usages not less
revolting are known to have been established in many ancient cities.
In several instances, either from ignorance or malice, Voltaire
mistranslates Herodotus, in such a manner as to create an absurdity
or impropriety which does not exist in the original; and sometimes he
cites passages that are nowhere to be found in our author. Herodotus,
(Thalia, 72) affirms that it was the custom of the Scythians to impale
a number of persons, having first strangled them, as a part of the
funeral rites with which their kings were honoured. But Voltaire makes
the historian affirm that the victims of this barbarous custom were
impaled alive; and he then finds occasion to deny the truth of the
story. If there are any, who, at this time, think Voltaire’s criticisms
upon the Scriptures worthy of any regard, they would do well to
examine, with some care, the grounds of his remarks upon Herodotus.
If in the case of a Greek historian, towards whom we may suppose him
to have entertained no peculiar ill feeling, we find him displaying
ignorance, indifference to truth, and a senseless flippancy--what may
we expect when he attacks those writings towards which he avows the
utmost hostility of intention?
Under all these attacks Herodotus has not wanted apologists; and
while the writers above mentioned, taking an unfair advantage of some
doubtful, or evidently fabulous passages, for the truth of which the
historian does not pledge himself, have accused him of a want of
veracity; others, more candid, have entered into the details of these
accusations, and have shown, either that the author’s credit is not
really implicated in the narratives he brings together; or that these
accounts are much better founded than, at first sight, they may appear.
The editors and translators of Herodotus--such as Aldus, Camerarius,
Stephens, Wesseling, Gronovius--have undertaken his defence; in some
instances establishing the disputed facts; in others excusing the
author from the charge of falsification. These discussions relate, for
the most part, to those portions of the history which we have excluded
from our present argument; and with which therefore we have here no
immediate concern.
“Few writers,” says Larcher, “have united in so eminent a degree as
Herodotus the various excellences proper to an historian. Let us in
the first place speak of his love of truth. Whoever reads his history
with attention, easily perceives that he has proposed to himself
no other object but truth; and that when he entertains a doubt he
adduces both opinions, leaving it to his readers to choose which they
please of the two. If any particular seems to himself unauthentic
or incredible, he never fails to add that he only reports what has
been told him. Among a thousand examples I shall cite but two.--When
Neco ceased to dig the canal which was to have led the waters of the
Nile into the Arabian Gulf, he despatched from this gulf certain
Phœnicians, with orders to make the circuit of Africa, and to return
to Egypt by the Pillars of Hercules, now known as the Straits of
Gibraltar. These Phœnicians returned to Egypt the third year after
their departure, and related, among other things, that in sailing
round Africa, they had had the sun (rising) on their right hand.
Herodotus did not doubt that the Phœnicians actually made the circuit
of Africa; but as astronomy was then in its infancy, he could not
believe that in this voyage they had really seen the sun on the right
hand:--‘this fact,’ says he, ‘appeared to me by no means credible; yet
perhaps there are those to whom it may seem so.’
“Another point which has not been duly attended to is, that very often
he commences his narrative thus--The Persians--The Phœnicians--The
Egyptian Priests, have told me this or that. These narrations, which
sometimes extend to a considerable length, are, in the original,
throughout, made to depend upon this word φασί--_they say_, either
expressed or understood. The genius of our modern languages obliging
us to retrench these phrases, it often happens that Herodotus is made
to say in his own person what in fact he reports in the third person.
Thus things have been attributed to him, for the authenticity of which
he is very far from vouching.
“He travelled in all the countries of which he has occasion to speak,
he examined with scrupulous attention the rivers and streams by which
they are watered--the animals which belong to them--the productions
of the earth--the manners of the inhabitants--their usages, as well
religious as civil;--he consulted their archives, their inscriptions,
their monuments; and when these means of information failed him, or
appeared to him insufficient, he had recourse to those among the
people who were reputed to be the most skilled in history. He even
carried his scrupulosity so far, that though he had no just reason
for distrusting the priests of Memphis, he repaired to Heliopolis
(Euterpe, 3), and then to Thebes, in order to discover if the priests
of the latter city agreed with those of Memphis.
“One cannot refuse confidence to an historian who takes such pains to
assure himself of the truth. If, however, notwithstanding all these
precautions, it has sometimes happened to him to be deceived, I think
he deserves in such instances rather indulgence than blame. Herodotus
is not less exact in all matters of Natural History than in historical
facts. Some ancient writers have dismissed, as fabulous, some
particulars which have since been verified by modern naturalists--much
more learned than the ancients. The celebrated Boerhaave did not
hesitate to say, in speaking of Herodotus--‘modern observations
establish almost all that great man’s assertions.’”
Some English writers also, wishing, as it seems, like Voltaire, to
bring all history under suspicion, by endeavouring to prove that the
best authenticated facts may, with some show of reason be questioned,
have impugned the testimony, not of Herodotus alone, but of all the
Greek historians.
In recent times all this ground has been so well and thoroughly
explored by writers eminently qualified for the task, that it would be
quite a superfluous labour to refute those whose criticisms have passed
into oblivion.[9]
Writers who, on general grounds, have laboured to show that Herodotus
vastly exaggerates the power, valour, energy, of the Greeks, as
compared with the Asiatic nations, have forgotten that, in estimating
his testimony in this case, we are abundantly furnished with
independent evidences--touching, as well the Asiatic, as the European
civilisation, at the times in question. These existing monuments on
the one side, leave no room to doubt that the soil of Greece, during a
long course of time, supported a numerous people, eminently endowed
at once with the physical qualities of strength, beauty, alacrity, and
courage, and with a mental conformation, combining the ratiocinative
and imaginative faculties in the happiest proportions. There is proof
before us that these advantages, inherent in the race, were improved;
that a very high degree of civilisation in almost all its branches,
and of refinement, was attained; that the resources of an extensive
commerce were possessed, and a large amount of political power
acquired, by the Greeks; or to express all at once--that the Greeks
were then, what the nations of western Europe are now, as compared with
the nations of Asia.
Even if it could be made to appear probable that, in the first ages of
the world, Asia--and in Asia, Persia, was the centre of civilisation,
yet it must be granted, that, so far as authentic history reaches,
the picture of the Asiatic nations is uniform in its character and
colouring. Asia has indeed produced some races distinguished by a
fierce energy, by romantic courage, by loftiness and richness of
imagination. But in no people of Asiatic origin that has displayed at
once, and in combination, the effective energy, the high intelligence,
the taste, the well-directed and sustained industry, which belong to
the more advanced of the European nations:--never have its hordes risen
to that level on the scale of intelligence at which men become at once
desirous of political liberty, and capable of enjoying so great a good.
The relation which modern European armies--those of the Portuguese, the
Dutch, the French, and the English, have always borne to the native
forces of India, is very much the same as that which history affirms
to have existed in all ages between the people of the East and of the
West. Though the latter have not driven the former before them like
sheep, they have at length prevailed over them, as courage conquers
rage, as mind subdues mere force, and as skill is more than numbers.
It is, in substance, the same story that we read, whether the page of
history presents us with the exploits of Clive in India, or of Pompey
in Parthia and Syria, or of Miltiades at Marathon, or of Alexander in
Persia.
The narrative of Herodotus is therefore substantially the first chapter
of the history of the enduring conflict between Asia and Europe; and
this commencement of the story is in harmony with all its subsequent
events. On the one side is seen a reckless despotism, seated on the
shoulders of a boundless population, and which, at the instigation of
a puerile or a ferocious ambition, lets forth a deluge of war, the
course of which was as little directed by skill, as it was checked
by humanity. On the other side are seen much smaller means, employed
with incomparably greater intelligence; and excepting only the partial
events of war, the general issue has ever been the same.
FOOTNOTES:
[9] Some of these were named in the first edition of this book; but it
would be a waste of space to bring them forward anew.