I. The best method of beginning these additions, appears to me, to be by introducing some curious observations made by Plutarch, on the uncertainty of antient History, which we find inserted in his works, with the title of Parallels. The object of this treatise, is to shew, that many of the most illustrious and singular events which we find in the Greek history, are to be met with in the Roman one; all of them attended with exactly the same circumstances, and differ only with respect to the persons who were engaged in them, and the places where they happened; which affords a very probable conjecture, that the Roman authors, with a view of blazoning their country with this false and borrowed lustre, copied these events from the Greeks. Plutarch quotes the Greek authors who relate these things, and from whom, in all probability, the Romans copied them.
II. The Roman history says, that the vestal virgin Rhea Silva, having gone into a neighbouring wood to sacrifice, the god Mars took that opportunity of coming upon her by surprize, and ravishing her: the result of which rape was, the twin brothers, Romulus and Remus; who, soon after they were born, were left deserted on the banks of the Tiber, where a she wolf suckled and preserved them; but being afterwards found by the shepherd Faustulas; he took them up and delivered them to his wife Laurentia, to be nursed and reared. The same story, without the least variation in a single particular, is related by Zopirus Byzantinus, of the Grecian Philonomia, the daughter of Nictimus, who having gone into a wood, and been surprized and ravished there by the god Mars, was afterwards, in consequence of the rape, delivered of two sons, who were exposed on the banks of the river Erimanthus, and carried by the current into a plain, where they received their first nourishment from a wolf; and being taken up and preserved by the shepherd Telephus, came afterwards to be kings of Arcadia.
III. We are told that the senators, tired of the dominion of Romulus, killed him in the senate-house; and, in order to conceal his death, carried out each a piece of the defunct king, hid under their garments; in consequence of this contrivance, the body not appearing, they were able to impose upon the people, and persuade them that he had ascended to Heaven. The same story, tittle for tittle, is related by Theophilus of Pisistratus, the ancient king of Orchomena, in his Peloponnesian history. He says, the senators, fired with indignation against him, for favouring the populace more than the nobility, demolished and cut him into pieces in the senate-house, from whence each of them carried out a small portion of his body hid under their cloaths, which they deposited in their houses, and by that means concealed the assassination from the public; and, just afterwards Tlesymachus, one of the faction, pretended that he had seen Pisistratus upon the top of Mount Piseus in the shape of a deity.
IV. Macrobius and Plutarch tell us, that in a short time after the Romans had driven the Gauls from Rome, by whose invasion they were much weakened, the Latins entered into a league against them, and threatened their total ruin if they did not deliver up to them all the women of quality that were in the city. The senate were perplexed about what resolution to take in so critical a case: but while they were deliberating, all the slaves came, and offered to deceive the enemy, by going out to them dressed in the habits of their mistresses. The senate accepted the offer, and the slaves went forth, making a great parade, and dressed out like gay ladies. The Latins, who devoted the night to revel and debauchery, were surprized, and entirely routed by the Romans. The same story is told by Dasilus, in his history of Lydia; who says, the same demand was made by the Sardinians upon the Smyrnans, which was eluded by the same stratagem, and with the same success.
V. One of the most heroic actions for the service of his country, performed by any man, and which is recognized as such by all the Roman writers, is that of Curtius, a Roman knight. A horrid chasm having opened itself, which threatened to swallow up the city of Rome; and the oracle being consulted about what remedy they should take in this alarming urgency, answered, that tremendous chasm could only be brought to close by throwing into it whatever was most precious in Rome. Curtius, reflecting that the most precious thing was the life of a man; having dressed himself in compleat armour, mounted his horse, and plunged into the abyss; upon which the mouth instantly shut. The same story, without the alteration of a circumstance, is told by Calisthenis of Anchurus, the son of the king of Phrygia.
VI. Persenas, king of the Etruscans, having reduced the Romans to great hunger and distress by a close siege, Mucius Scevola undertook to kill him; but directed the blow designed for the king, against one of the generals whom he mistook for him. Being taken a prisoner, he was carried before Porsena; when, finding the blunder he had made, he thrust his hand into the fire, and while it was burning, told the king, that he and four hundred more as resolute as himself, had sallied out of Rome together with a determination of demolishing him; and that Persenas, terrified with the threat, raised the siege. Agatharcides tells exactly the same story of an Athenian, named Agesilaus; who, when he was endeavouring to demolish Xerxes, by mistake, killed one of his generals: he afterwards put his hand in the fire, and spoke to Xerxes just in the same manner Mucius had spoke to Porsena.
VII. The battle of the three Horatios with the three Curios, in which two of the first being slain, he who remained alive, by a keen stratagem, slew the three Curios; and, returning home a conqueror, upbraided his sister for lamenting the death of one of the Curios, to whom she was betrothed: I say, this story with all its circumstances, may be found related by Demeratus, of three brothers of the city of Tregea, and three of that of Phenea, both in Arcadia. Plutarch, in his book of Parallels, instances many other relations, greatly resembling one another, and which are reciprocally applied by both the Greek and Roman historians, to their own countries; but I shall omit them, because they are not so uniform in their circumstances, as not to admit of the repetition of them being imputable to accident: but the perfect similitude of all those we have instanced, demonstrate, that they were copied from one another.
VIII. The Abbé Salliere, in a dissertation which was printed in the sixth volume of the History of the Academy Royal and Belles Lettres at Paris, pretends, that in this opposite application of uniform events, those who copied were the Greeks; but as the great authority of Plutarch is in favour of a contrary opinion, he endeavours to shew that it was not Plutarch, but some other Greek author who was deserving of little credit, that wrote the Parallels; and that the intent of the writer, be he who he would, was nothing more, than to make it appear that Greece had not been inferior to Rome in numbers of great men.
IX. I, having read with attention the book of Parallels, find most reason to suppose that the Romans, and not the Greeks, were the copyists. The design which the Abbé Salliere attributes to the Greeks of being desirous to honour their country, does not seem to have much force; because many of the events related in the Parallels, tend rather to dishonour it. But it has little effect on the object of our intention, which is that of shewing the uncertainty of history, whether the original relation of, or the copying of those famous facts, ought to be attributed to the Greeks or the Romans; but the truth is, that nobody at present, in deciding the question, can go beyond feeble conjectures, and therefore the imputation must be left at the doors of both parties.
X. The Abbé Lenglet du Fresno says, that the descent of the holy oil and fleurs de lis from Heaven, are marvellous events, unknown to the original French writers of eminence, altho’ they are much celebrated by middling authors of these later times. (Mem. Trevoux, anno 1735, art. 66.)
XI. Father Menochio, tom. 3. cent. 11. cap. 4. proves, by many authorities, the antiquity of saluting and praying a blessing on those who sneeze, to have been ages prior to the days of St. Gregory; and we have already observed, that in the New World, and among many of the barbarous nations who inhabit it, we have found this custom to have been established. We shall add at present, a pleasant tale upon this occasion, which some authors tell us of the king of Monomotapa. Whenever this king sneezes, all those who are in his presence salute him; but they do it in so high a voice, that they are heard by those in the antichamber and the adjacent apartments, upon which they do the same; and the salutation is repeated in this manner till it gets into the street, and runs all over the city; so that every sneeze of the king, is attended by horrid outcry of many thousands of his subjects.
XII. Dr. Prideaux, who wrote the life of the false prophet Mahomet, quoted in the Critical Dictionary of Bayle, says, that his ancestors, for four generations prior to him, who were named Cæsar, held the government of the city of Mecca, and the custody of the idolatrous temple that was in it; which was not less venerated by the Arabs, than that at Delphos was by the Greeks; but what certainty have we that this illustrious geneaology, is not one of the many fictions, with which the Arabs endeavour to honour that famous impostor?
XIII. The essay or discourse of the Marquis of St. Aubin, on the Uncertainty of History, in the first book, chap. 6. of his Treatise on Opinions, is so pleasing and curious, on account of the variety of the informations, and the opportuneness of the remarks contained in it, that I thought I should make a very acceptable present to many of my readers by translating it; and especially to those who don’t understand French, or who have not the book: but I must premise before I give the translation, that I shall divest it of the quotations, and omit such passages, as are nearly the same with those we have given in the original discourse, or the additions we have already made to it; and also, that I shall give here and there a critical note upon such passages as seem to require it.
XIV. It is a very judicious reflexion made by Plutarch in his life of Pericles, that it was very difficult, or nearly impossible, to discern the true from the false by the help of history; because, if it is written many ages after the events it treats of, the antiquity of the transactions is an obstacle to coming at the knowledge of them; and if it is written during the lives of the persons of whom it speaks, hatred, envy, or motives of adulation, excite the author to corrupt and disfigure the truth.
XV. Is it not probable that historians have been partial to their own nation? that they have been silent upon, or have spoke slightingly of the merit of those whose families have fallen to decay, or been nearly extinguished? and that on the contrary, they have endeavoured to elevate the names and extol the fame of those families from whom they expected to be rewarded? The motives for disguising the truth are many; and Tacitus, notwithstanding his protestations that he is perfectly uninfluenced by hatred or the hopes of reward; I say, notwithstanding this, a suspicious reader would give most credit to Estrady; who says, that in order to be a good historian, a man should divest himself of country and religion, should be of no profession, nor a follower of any party; which comes pretty near to saying he should not be a man.
XVI. It would be loss of time, says S. Real, to study history in hopes of knowing with certainty what has passed in the world; as the principal information that can be derived from it, is a knowledge of what such and such authors believed; and that we should not so much seek in history for facts, as for the opinions of men. Clio, the muse who presides over history, becomes a prostitute, who, for any price, surrenders herself to the embraces of the first who solicits her favours.
XVII. Velleius Paterculus, the unworthy flatterer of Tiberius and his favourite Sejanus, may be more properly said to have composed a panegyric than a history. Zozimus let himself be carried away by passion, and his resentment against Constantine; and Eusebius flattered him in every thing. Titus Livius was an avowed favourer of the party of Pompey; and Dion Cassius was very partial to Cæsar.
XVIII. History is a present, which should only be made to posterity. Bocalini recommends, that an historian should write nothing but what has come within the compass of his own observation; and that his book should not be published till after he is dead. But even supposing that he has been quite impartial, which, by the way, is a thing rather to be wished for than expected, still, the work of every writer partakes of his own character or disposition. Sallust is a moralist; Tacitus, a politician; and Titus Livius, superstitious and an orator. They all endeavour to point out to us the causes of events which were unknown, not only to the people who lived when they happened, but even to those who had some hand in negociating public business.
XIX. Greece was so fertile in historians, that the account of one battle was related by more than three hundred authors. Lucian compares the passion of the Greeks for writing history, to the epidemical disease of the Abderitans, in which there was much madness mixed.
XX. All ancient history was almost totally disfigured by the poets, who were continually interweaving fictions with truth; as may be seen by the history of Jupiter and all the family of the Titans, by those of Isis, Dido, Hercules, and the Argonautic Expedition; by that of the siege of Troy, and many other examples.
XXI. It is easy to discern, that history has more affinity to the genius of the people to whom it appertains, than to truth or the importance of events. All this science of history, such as it has been handed down to us, is the fruit of the passion the Greeks had for writing and relating stories. The history of antiquity, has communicated to us nought but such things, as had relation to the Greeks and the Romans. For, not to mention the continent of America, discovered in these latter ages, which is so extensive and important, that of other countries was not drawn out of oblivion, but only in proportion as their affairs were connected with the Greek and Roman histories. Profane history has scarce taken any notice of the Jews; and in the little it has said of them, there have been gross errors. It would likewise have made very little mention of the ancient Gauls, who extended their conquests and colonies almost over the whole world, if they had not given occasion to be taken notice of by their pillaging some of the Greek temples; and by the wars, offensive and defensive, which they had with the Romans. The four celebrated empires of the Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans, were not equal, either in their duration, or the extent of their conquests, to four other powers, of whom we have only a partial or trifling information; these are the Chinese, Scythians, Arabs, and Turks[2]. But, notwithstanding the obscurity of history with regard to these empires, we may venture to affirm, that of China exceeded that of Assyria, both in its duration, the number of its inhabitants, the policy of its government, and the extent of its limits. The Conquests of Almanzor, which comprehended Africa, to the Western Ocean, and almost all Spain, were more extensive than those of Cyrus. The conquests of Alexander can’t be compared with those of Tamerlane[3]. This conqueror subdued a portion of China, and opened a passage through Tartary and Muscovy, for the sake of serving the emperor of Constantinople, and triumphing over Bajazet; and, on his return home, aggregated to his dominions, the countries of Syria, Persia, and a part of India.
XXII. Our want of historical information, respecting those numerous swarms of courageous and powerful people, who came out of Northern Scythia, and, under different names, dismembered the whole Western Roman Empire, is very extraordinary; which they did many centuries before the original Turks of Eastern Scythia, who came from the coasts of the Caspian Sea, and were called in, as some say, by the emperors of Constantinople, and, as others say, by the kings of Persia; and who, upon the ruins of the Eastern, Roman, and Arabian empires, established a power more formidable than ever that of Rome had been[4]; the history of all which warlike and formidable people, is very little known.
XXIII. The love of the marvellous is one of the stumbling-blocks of history. There are some historians, who take a pleasure in relating incredible things, and seem as if they sympathized in the admiration which they produce in credulous readers.
XXIV. The passion for the prodigious, has been the cause of inventing many extraordinary stories. Justin tells us, that after the defeat of the Persians at the battle of Marathon, Cynegyrus, an Athenian, pursued the enemy in their flight; and when they in great disorder threw themselves into their ships, he, to prevent their escape, laid hold of one of the ships with his hands, but they being successively cut off, he seized and detained her with his teeth.
XXV. Plutarch relates, that Pyrrhus being wounded in the head in a combat with the Mamertines, was obliged to retire, to get his wound dressed, and to refresh himself; but, after a little while, in spite of all the opposition his own people could make against it, he returned to the field, and, irritated by the bravados of one of the enemy of gigantic stature, he, fired with indignation, advanced up to him, and with his sword discharged a blow on his head with such fury, that he split him in two, and that one half of his carcase fell down on one side of him, and the other on the other.
XXVI. Procopius writes, that two women, who kept a house of lodging and entertainment for travellers, in the time of a famine, killed and ate up seventeen men: and we read in Maffeus, that a Portuguese soldier, having in an engagement expended all his ball, drew his own teeth, with which he charged his musquet, and fired them on the enemy.
XXVII. History should not resemble a picture, which aims at representing nature in a beautiful light; for, as Father Orleans observes, a fine touch passes easily from the imagination to the pen; and, although it may illustrate a hero, is very apt to wound the truth, which is the most essential character of history.
XXVIII. Who is ignorant, says Cicero, that the first law of history enjoins the historian not to have the audacity to write any kind of lie, or to want courage to speak the truth in all things, be the danger of doing it what it may; and that, as far as he is able, he should avoid the suspicion of being influenced, either by love or hatred? And Polybius, long before Cicero’s time, had said, that the historian who suppresses truths, is not less a liar than him who writes fables.
XXIX. Polybius conforms very exactly to his own maxim, which we have just repeated. This author’s mode of proceeding in his history, is so distant from all dissimulation, that he comments upon the errors committed by his own father Lycortas. Thucydides omits nothing that could reflect honour on Cleon and Barcidas, by whose management he had been banished from Athens.
XXX. Titus Livius makes honourable mention of Brutus and Cassius, although they were the enemies of Augustus, in whose reign, and under whose auspices, he wrote his history, and delivered down to posterity the murderers of Cæsar, with the characters of virtuous citizens. Grotius gave a striking instance of his sincerity in his history of the Low Countries, by always speaking of prince Maurice of Nassau, with as much moderation and indifference as if he had never been persecuted by him.
XXXI. We are given to understand by a passage in Plutarch, that in old times, authors did not think themselves sufficiently qualified to write a history, till they had travelled through the countries which were the theatres of the events they were to treat of. Polybius prepared himself for writing his history, by travelling through all the world which was known in his time. Sallust passed the sea, in order to see with his own eyes the theatre of the Jugurthan war. John Chartier assures us, that by order of Charles the Seventh, he attended the most important expeditions of that prince, to the end that he might be a witness of the facts he was to relate.
XXXII. In Ethiopia, in Egypt, in Chaldea, in Persia, and in Syria, the writing of history, and the custody of annals, was confided to none but the priests. Numa recommended it to the pontiffs of Rome, to write the history of the country in the public registers; but when the Gauls took the city, these registers were for the most part burnt. In China, the superintendance of history is given to the magistrates; notwithstanding which, all their public registers are full of impostures, calculated either to establish the worship of false deities, to flatter their princes, or to indulge the taste and vanity of the nation.
XXXIII. Herodotus, who is called the Father of History, was looked upon by the antients as a very fabulous writer. Strabo, Quintilian, and Causabon, don’t give more credit to Herodotus, than to Homer, Hesiod, and the tragic poets. Lucian, in his Journey to Hell, tells us, he saw Herodotus there, who was tormented among others, for having deceived posterity.
XXXIV. Pliny gives Diodorus Siculus the honour of having been the first historian among the Greeks, who wrote seriously, and abstained from fables. Louis Vives, on the contrary, thinks Diodorus was a fabulous writer, and one of no solidity; and the same Diodorus, treats as fabulous, all the writers who went before him.
XXXV. The learned are divided in their opinions upon the Cyropedia of Xenophon. Many adopt the sentiment of Cicero, who looked upon it as a drawing of invention, designed to represent a perfect prince. Notwithstanding this, a contrary opinion seems to prevail at this day, and the Cyropedia is considered as a true history.
XXXVI. Asinius Pollio, thinks the Commentaries of Cæsar are not written with much care, nor with much sincerity: and Vossius makes mention of the strange caprice of a man, who told him, that after having meditated deliberately, and with much application on the subject, he had wrote a book, in which he had proved with invincible arguments, that Cæsar had never passed the Alps, and that all he had wrote in his Commentaries about his wars with the Gauls was false. Procopius, in his General History, loads the emperor Justinian and his wife the empress Theodosia with eulogiums; and likewise Belisarius and his wife Antonina; but in his Anecdotes, or Secret History, he is outrageous in his abuse of them, and calls them by the most opprobrious names. Aretinus boasted that he was the arbiter and disposer of the reputation of princes, dispensing among them eulogiums or reflections, just as they were generous or parsimonious towards him. He tells us, that Charles the Fifth upon his return from the expedition against Tunis, presented him with a gold chain, and that he said to the emperor upon receiving it, “This is but a very scanty reward to excite me to speak well of an enterprize that was so badly concerted.”
XXXVII. The monuments themselves are not always faithful vouchers for the truth of facts; for even the brass and the marble will sometimes lie. The inscription on the triumphal arch of Titus, erected to celebrate the conquest of Jerusalem, declares, that no emperor before him had ever taken or dared to besiege that city. Notwithstanding this, besides the assertion being contradicted by the authority of holy writ, Cicero in one of his letters to Atticus, calls Pompey, our Jerusalemite; and no one at Rome was ignorant that Jerusalem was one of the conquests of Pompey.
XXXVIII. If the historians of the first rate, and the monuments are suspicious, what shall we say of our ancient chronicles? Why, I fear, we can call them nothing but miserable attested novels filled with fables; and this is the opinion which a celebrated academician expresses of them. After the fierce barbarous nations of the North, spread themselves and their ignorance over all the parts of Europe, the historians degenerated into novelists: then, the relation of incredible and wonderful adventures began to be looked upon as the sublime part of history. Thelesinus, who is said to have lived about the middle of the sixth century, in the reign of king Arthur, and Melchinus, who is not quite so ancient, wrote the history of Great Britain, their own country; and of king Arthur, and his knights of the round table; which, they disfigured with a thousand fables. The same may be said of Hannibald the Frank; who, although he is much more modern, some believe to have been contemporary with Clodovicus, whose history is a rhapsody of lies, coarsly imagined. Such also was the history, of which Gildas, a religious of Wales, was said to be the author; and which relates an infinity of marvellous things; of king Arthur, Perceval, Lancelot, and many others. The judicious criticism which prevails at present, will be careful to transmit to posterity a system of ancient history, amended and illustrated with a great number of useful observations; and also, a more chaste and correct one of our own times. But, notwithstanding all the care and precaution a historian can take, and all the industry he can exert, it is certain, we can’t know the characters of men, and the motives which led to events, but from the memoirs of those who had a principal hand in conducting public business.
XXXIX. Carlovicus, who had a share in the most material transactions of his time, upon reading the history of Sleidan, and finding the truth of things so disfigured in it, declared, that history inclined him to withhold his assent to all that was related in any other, either ancient or modern. Sir Thomas Brown, an Englishman, the author of a tract, intitled The Religion of a Physician, in which he speaks of history, says, ‘I don’t give more credit to relations of things past, than to predictions of those to come.’ Thus we see men are disposed to run into extremes both of credulity and pyrrhonism.
XL. Mr. Bayle says, that history is dressed and prepared, nearly the same as victuals is dressed and prepared in the kitchen; every nation cooks it in their own way; in consequence of which, the same thing comes to be dressed in as many different modes as there are countries in the world; and nearly all men, find those most grateful to their palates which they are most accustomed to. Such, with little variation, is the lot of all history. Every nation, every sect, taking the same facts, let us say crude, prepare and season them to their own taste; and afterwards, they appear to every reader, either true or false, just as they agree with or are repugnant to his prejudices. We may even carry the comparison still further, for there are certain eatables, absolutely unknown in some countries, the inhabitants of which countries would probably loath the sight of, let them be dressed and seasoned in what manner they would; so there are some facts that would not gain credit but with this or that particular nation, or this or that particular sect; and all the others would be inclined to treat them as calumnies and impositions.
XLI. Many historians, from various motives, transmit to posterity some facts which they themselves did not assent to. Eneas Sylvius, in his history of Bohemia, says, Plura scribo, quam credo.
XLII. The accounts of many battles contain circumstances which appear incredible. Plutarch tells us, that Marcus Valerius won a battle against the Sabines, in which he slew thirteen thousand of the enemy without losing one of his own men. And Diodorus Siculus, attributes the same happy success to the Lacedemonians, in an engagement they had with the Arcadians, of whom they killed ten thousand without the loss of a man on their own side, which so fell out, that the prediction of an oracle might be verified, who had pronounced, that war should not cause a single tear to be shed in Sparta.
XLIII. In the battle which the Consul Fabius Maximus gained over the Allobroges and Auvernagans, Appian says, there were but fifteen men slain on the part of the Romans, and that there remained a hundred and twenty thousand Gauls dead on the field of battle; and adds, that the Romans in the pursuit, took and destroyed eighty thousand more, who were either drowned in the Rhone or carried prisoners to Rome.
XLIV. Sylla, in his memoirs, writes, that at the battle of Cheronea, in which he routed Archelaus, the lieutenant of Mithridates, there perished a hundred and ten thousand of the enemy, and only twelve Romans. And in the same memoirs he tells us, that in the battle he fought with young Marius, with the loss of no more than twenty three of his own men, he killed twenty thousand of his antagonist’s, and took eight thousand prisoners.
XLV. In the life of Lucullus, written by Plutarch, we read, that in the battle he had with Tigranes, in Tigranocerta, the whole of the cavalry of the king, and more than a hundred thousand infantry, were put to the sword, and that there remained only five of Lucullus’s soldiers dead on the field, and that his wounded did not exceed a hundred.
XLVI. Alexander of Alexandria writes, that Pompey, in one of his battles with Mithridates, did not lose more than twenty soldiers, and that there fell on the side of the king forty thousand.
XLVII. In the battle of Chalons, between the Count Aëtius and Theodoric, king of the Visigoths, on one side, and Attila, king of the Huns, on the other; in which Theodoric was killed. Some authors make the number of the slain in both armies to amount to three hundred thousand men. The historians in general agree, that they at least amounted to a hundred and seventy thousand, without reckoning among the number fifteen thousand French and Gepides, who fell in with each other accidentally in the night, and fought in the dark with such fury, that not one of the whole number was left alive.
XLVIII. There are authors, who, upon the credit of Paul the Deacon and Anastasius Bibliothecarius, compute the number of men the Saracens lost in the battle of Poitiers, at three hundred and seventy five thousand; which account, say the judicious authors of the History of Languedoc, seems fabulous. Some, in order to give an air of probability to this circumstance, have pretended that there were included in this computation a great number of women, children, slaves, and other followers of the camp. But Valois has shewn, that in this irruption none but soldiers passed the Perines: and Mezeray says, that the army of the Saracens did not exceed eighty, or at most a hundred thousand men.
XLIX. In the year 891, the emperor Arnuflus, gained so compleat a victory over the Normans, that out of a hundred thousand men, which their army consisted of, not one escaped; and that on the side of the Imperialists they did not lose a single man. The authority quoted for this relation, is the History of the World, by Chevreau, lib. 5.
L. Mariana, after all the chronicles, says, that in the battle which the three kings of Aragon, Navarre, and Castile, fought with the Moors, the Christians lost only twenty-five men, and that the number which perished of the infidels amounted to two hundred thousand. In that of Tarifa also, the Moors lost two hundred thousand, and the Christians only twenty.
LI. What historians relate of the victories of the Norman princes in Sicily, is likewise void of all probability: for instance, that out of three hundred thousand men defeated by Roger, not one escaped; that the sons of Tancred, with seven hundred horse and five hundred infantry, beat the army of the emperor of Constantinople, consisting of seventy thousand men. But all we have hitherto mentioned, is nothing compared with what is told by Nicetas in his history of the emperor Alexis; which is, that at the siege of Constantinople, one Frenchman only, put to flight the whole Grecian army.
LII. Lucian treats as fabulous and ridiculous all the accounts of such disproportionate numbers slain. The remark of Titus Livius, when he was told of an alarming apparition that had been seen in the tomb of Veis, may be applied to many relations in history. He says, these incidents are more proper for the theatre than history; and I don’t chuse either to affirm or refute them, it being sufficient to know they were once published by the voice of fame.
LIII. Metrodorus Lampsacenus without the least scruple affirms, that the heroes of whom Homer makes mention in the Iliad, such as Agamemnon, Achilles, Hector, Paris, and Eneas, are all fictitious persons, who never existed.
LIV. Some authors assert, that the number of women stolen by the Romans from the Sabines, did not exceed thirty. Valerius Antias and Dionysius Halicarnasseus, make them amount to five hundred and twenty seven; and Juba computes them at six hundred and eighty three.
LV. Titus Livius, Florus, Plutarch, and Aurelius Victor, say, that the dictator Camillus defeated and drove away the Gauls who had taken Rome; Polybius, Justin, and Suetonius, tell us, that the Venetians having made an irruption into the territories of the Gauls; these, that they might be at leisure to attend to the defence of their own country, accommodated matters with the Romans, who agreed to pay them a certain sum of money, upon condition of their leaving Rome, with which money and the plunder they had made, they returned home.
LVI. Plutarch begins his life of Lycurgus thus: “We can say nothing positively of the law-giver Lycurgus, because historians speak very variously concerning him, and because, respecting his origin, his voyages, his death, and even his laws, and the form of government he established, there are divers traditions; but there is more disagreement still in the accounts we have of him, with respect to the time he lived in.”
LVII. Herodotus, Diodorus, Trogus Pompeius, Justin, Pausanias, Plutarch, Quintus Curtius, and many other authors, have spoke of the nation of the Amazons. Strabo denies, that such a nation ever existed. Arrian considers as very suspicious, all that has been written of the Amazons. Others have understood the Amazons to have been armies of men, who were governed and commanded by warlike women; and they shew, that these examples were not unfrequent among the antients; for the Medes and the Sabeans obey’d queens; and Semiramis commanded the Assyrians; Thomiris, the Scythians; Cleopatra, the Egyptians; Boadicea, the Britains; and Zenobia, the Palmyrenes.
LVIII. Appian believes, that the Amazons were not any particular nation, but that they gave this name to all women who went to war, be they of what nation they would. Some think, the pretended Amazons were a barbarous people, who wore long robes, shaved their beards, and dressed and ornamented their heads after the manner of the women in Thrace. According to Diodorus Siculus, Hercules, the son of Alcmena, whom Eurystheus charged with bringing to him the shoulder-belt of Hyppolita, went to the coasts of the Thermodontes, to engage, and there destroyed this warlike nation.
LIX. But notwithstanding this, the most celebrated traces of history, respecting the Amazons, are of a later date, than either the Grecian Hercules, or the son of Alcmena; because the stealing of Antiope by Theseus, excited the Amazons to undertake the war, in which they conquered all Attica, and pitched their camp upon the parade of the Areopagus itself. Pensithelea, queen of the Amazons, went to the succour of Troy, and was killed by Achilles, and Thalestris. Another of their queens, accompanied by three hundred of her warriors, went in search of Alexander, with a view of having a posterity by him.
LX. Dion Chrysostom says, that Herodotus solicited from the Corinthians, some recompence for writing his Greek Histories, but they having returned for answer, that they did not chuse to purchase honour with money, he quite altered the relation of the naval battle of Salamois, and charged Adimanthus, a Corinthian General, with flying with his whole squadron at the beginning of the battle.
LXI. Timoleon freed Corinth his own country, from the tyranny of Timophanes, his brother. Plutarch relates the transaction in this manner. Timoleon, and two of his friends who were zealous assertors of liberty, having taken a solemn oath to depose the tyrant if he refused to relinquish his usurpation, went to his house, and finding they could not move him by intreaties, Timoleon retired a little and burst into tears, and at that instant, his two friends flew upon Timophanes, and tore him to pieces. Diodorus Siculus says, Timoleon killed his brother on the public parade. The first historian considers the love of liberty as a principle implanted in the nature of man, and therefore endeavours all he can to soften and excuse the atrociousness of the act. The second blazons and exaggerates it, with a view of exalting the zeal of Timoleon for his country. In the midst of so many dangers, produced by the characters, motives, and passions of authors, truth, in navigating the sea of history, is shipwrecked, and hinder’d from being handed down to posterity.
LXII. Cyrus, according to Xenophon, died composed, and in his bed. Onesicritus, Arrian, Herodotus, Justin, and Valerius Maximus, affirm, that Thomyris, queen of the Massagetes, having overcome, and made him a prisoner, caused him to be put to death, and his head to be immerged in a vessel filled with human blood, in order, as the irritated queen declared, that the thirst he had ever had for that fluid might be satiated. Ctesias writes, that he was killed by an arrow shot at him by an Indian. Diodorus, that he was made a prisoner, and crucified by a queen of the Scythians; and according to Lucian, he died of grief, on account of Cambyses his son, having under the false pretence of an order from him, put to death the major part of those he most esteemed.
LXIII. One of the most remarkable transactions of the Roman History, is the defeat of the Fabians, in the engagement of Cremera. This body, composed of one family only, and which Florus calls a Patrician Army, were cut to pieces, and out of three hundred and six Fabians, there remained only one youth of fourteen years old alive, who was spared on account of his tender age. There are few facts which have been more unanimously attested than this, nor by a greater number of authors. Titus Livius, Ovid, Aurelius Victor, Silius, and Festus, relate it exactly in the same manner; but notwithstanding this, Dionysius Halicarnassus rejects it as intirely fabulous. Titus Livius places the death and fanatic consecration of the two Decii, in the wars against the Latins and the Samnites; but Cicero places it in those with the Etruscans, and against Pyrrhus.
LXIV. The silence of Polybius, respecting the fate of Regulus after his captivity, has occasioned many learned men to doubt of all that has been said on that subject.
LXV. Aurelius Victor relates, the emperor Claudius the second, knowing that the books of the Sibyls promised great victories and prosperity to the empire, if the first man in the senate would voluntarily surrender himself to be sacrificed for the good of his country, which coming to be talked of, the eldest senator offered himself to become the victim; but the emperor would not accept the tender, chusing rather to reserve to himself the glory of that sacrifice, alledging, that the prediction applied to him, as prince and chief of the senate. The same author adds, that for this magnanimous action, a statue of gold was erected to his memory in the Temple of Jupiter, and a bust of gold in the senate. He says further, the name of the senior senator, who offered his life to obtain the completion of the Sibyl prediction, was Pompeius Bassus. Neither Trebelius Pollio, nor Eutropius, make the least mention of all this; but on the contrary, have both affirmed, this Emperor died of a natural disease.
LXVI. That manifestation of heroic fortitude, in the action of biting the tongue off with the teeth in the torture, is attributed by Jamblicus, to Timyca Pythagorica; by Tertullian, to the Courtesan Leæna; by Valerius Maximus, Pliny, Diogenes Laertius, and Philo Judæus, to the Philosopher Anaxarchus; and by St. Jerome, in his Life of Saint Paul the first Hermit, to a holy Martyr[5].
LXVII. Some say that Placidia caused her brother, the emperor Honorius, to sign an instrument, by which he granted this princess in marriage to one of his meanest officers, and that she afterwards complaining to the emperor of this indignity, he denied that he had ever done any such thing; upon which she shewed him his sign manual, and by this instance, illustrated and corrected the facility with which he had been used to sign papers he never read; for she herself had prevailed on him to set his hand to the instrument, upon suggesting to him, that it contained his assent to a matter of a very different nature. Others put this stratagem in the head of Pulcheria, who betrayed her brother the emperor Theodosius into signing a deed, by which he consented to sell his wife the empress Eudoxia for a slave.
LXVIII. Upon no other principle than that of the violent preoccupation of historians, can we account for the diversity with which the death of Julian the Apostate is related. Some say, that being mortally wounded in a battle with the Persians, and finding his dissolution approach, he catch’d his blood in his hands, and in a rage threw it up towards heaven, exclaiming with great earnestness to our Saviour, Thou hast conquered, Nazarene, thou hast conquered. Others tell us, that he tried in vain to extract the arrow from his wound, and in the attempt cut his hand with it, and finding himself in a desperate state, ordered, that they should carry him into the heat of the battle, to encourage his soldiers; and when he was dying, he with his last breath, gave thanks to the Gods for having blessed him with so glorious a death, in the flower of his age, and in the full career of his victories, and before he had experienced any reverse of fortune to tarnish his laurels; to which he added, that long before that era, the Gods had announced this death to him[6].
LXIX. The punishment of queen Bruneguilda, who, it is said, Clodovicus the second condemned to be torn to pieces by wild horses, for having taken away the lives of ten Kings, is very doubtful and suspicious. Mariana, who treats this relation as a mere fable, says, the French historians had a great propensity to credit and write marvellous occurrences, which he is at a loss whether to impute to their simplicity or their assurance; and Pasquier refutes separately and distinctly, every accusation that has been charged on that queen.
LXX. Historians are much divided in their opinions, with respect to how the popes came to change their names upon their exaltation to the papal chair. Fr. Paul Sarpi attributes the origin of it to the Germans, whose names sounding harsh and dissonant in the ears of the Italians, they upon being elected popes changed them; which came afterwards to be a custom, says this author, that was followed by the other popes, and by which they meant to express, that they had changed their private and human affections for public and divine cares. Platina pretends, that Sergius the second was the first that changed his name, because that he before went by, had a harsh sound. Baronius treats this reason with contempt, and attributes the origin of the practice to Sergius the third, whose name happening to be Peter, he, from a motive of humility, divested himself of the name of the Prince of the Apostles. Onuphrius believes, that John the twenty-second first set this example, because he would not preserve as pope, the name of Octavianus, which had a heathenish sound. Many are of opinion, that this changing the name was done to imitate St. Peter, whose name of Simon was by our Redeemer changed to that of Cephas.
LXXI. Although the fable of Pope Joan has been refuted by even the Protestants themselves, among whom we may reckon David Blondel, who wrote with an express intention of doing it; there have not been wanting some, who had the reputation of men of learning, who have endeavoured to establish as true so fabulous a fact[7].
LXXII. The original institution of the Electors of Germany is a matter much contested. Some attribute it to Charles the great. Others, such as Blondo, Nauclerus, and Platina, to Gregory the fifth. Maimburgus, and Pasquier, to a celebrated council that was held in the time of this pope. Many again pretend, that Gregory the fifth, the emperor Otho the third, and the princes of Germany, concurred together in making this regulation. According to Machiavel, Gregory the fifth having been driven from Rome by the populace, and reinstated by the emperor Otho the third; he, to chastise the Romans, transferred their rights of chusing the Emperor, to the archbishops of Mentz, Treves, and Cologn, and to the three secular princes, the Count Palatine, the Duke of Saxony, and the Marquis of Brandenburgh.
LXXIII. The Germans themselves, and they only, enjoyed the right of electing an emperor. Albertus, Abbot of Stade, who was an author contemporary with the emperor Frederick the second, says in formal terms, that Gregory the ninth, who had excommunicated Frederick the second, wrote to the German princes, requiring them to elect another emperor; to which they answered, that it did not belong to the pope to concern himself with the election of an emperor, for that was a right appertaining solely to themselves; The same author immediately adds, that by virtue of an ordinance, which had been before made by these princes by common consent, the right of electing an emperor, was declared to be vested in the archbishops of Mentz, Treves, and Cologn, the Count Palatin, the Duke of Saxony, the Marquis of Brandenburgh, and the King of Bohemia. Paulus Vindelecius, in his treatise upon the electors, says, that long before this, it was the custom, to present to the seven great officers of the empire, him who had the most suffrages in the diet; and according to Aventinus in his Annals, and Onuphrius in his Treatise on the Imperial Diets, the right of electing an emperor was restrained by Pope Gregory the tenth to the seven electors.
LXXIV. All that can with certainty be deduced from this variety of opinions, is, that the institution of the electors was not antecedent to the thirteenth century, and that it did not take place till after the reign of Frederick the second; for before that time, all the contemporary authors testify, the princes, prelates, and German nobles, elected the emperor. Lampadius, a great German lawyer, places the institution of the electoral college in the reign of Frederick the second; and Otho Frisingensis says, that Frederick the first, called Red Beard, was elected by all the Princes of the empire. Trithemius, in his Chronicle, determines the beginning of the suffrages of the electors, to have commenced at the election of William Count of Holland, in the year 1247. According to Frederick Brockelman, the mode of electing by seven, began at the election of Adolphus Count of Nassau, who, he says, was chosen by the three archbishops, the three secular Princes, and a proxy on the part of the King of Bohemia. At another election, the Archbishops of Treves and Mentz, the King of Bohemia, and the Marquis of Brandenburgh by proxy, gave their votes for Louis of Bavaria; and the Archbishop of Cologn, the Count Palatin, and the Duke of Saxony, voted for Frederick of Austria. This division of the suffrages of the Electors, proves clearly, that they then consisted of no more than seven. The electoral order was not formally and permanently settled, till it was established by the Golden Bull of the emperor Charles the fourth.
LXXV. William du Bellai de Langey, and Monsieur Haillan, say, that the famous Maid of Orleans, Joan d’Arc, was not burnt; and Father Vignier adds, that after her imprisonment by the English, or rather after being released from that imprisonment, she married with Gil de Armuesa, and left children by him. The author of the Latin poem, which contains her history, says, that after she had suffered the punishment of being burnt alive, to which the English had condemned her, her memory was restored to credit by a decree.
LXXVI. The historians of the times in which the event happened, are not agreed upon the circumstances of the assassination of the Duke of Burgundy, at Montereau Faut-Yonne, in 1419; some say, that the Duke, upon approaching the Dauphin, fell on his knees to salute him, and that then, Tranquildo du Chatel gave him a blow with a hatchet, which he instantly repeated, and the duke fell dead. Others tell us, that the duke attempting to make the dauphin a prisoner, the attendants of the dauphin who were with him, fell upon the duke and killed him. Others again say, that three gentlemen of the defunct duke of Orleans, attended this interview, with an intention of revenging the death of their late master; which design they executed, by killing the duke so suddenly and unexpectedly, that it was impossible to prevent it.
LXXVII. Alexus Piamontes, speaking of an elixir calculated to restore blind people to their sight, says, that this remedy was contrived at a consultation of the most learned physicians of Italy, in 1438, for the purpose of recovering the sight of the emperor of Constantinople, who was then attending the council of Ferrara with the pope Eugenius the Fourth, and that in fact, it did restore his eye-sight perfectly. Father Le Brun, in his history of superstitious practices, gives us this passage of Alexus Piamontes, and says, that in order to find out the truth of the fact, he had examined all the contemporary authors who had spoke of the emperor John Palcologus, and what happened to him at Ferrara in 1438; and that upon this enquiry, he found that neither Blondo, Ducas, nor Calcondylas, had wrote a word concerning the loss or recovery of this emperor’s sight at Ferrara; and that Sylvester Scyropulus, so far from giving us to understand that this emperor had been blind at Ferrara, or had suffered the least disorder in his eyes during his abode there, says, that instead of attending the business of the council, he amused himself continually with hunting and shooting, which is a diversion, not well calculated for a man who has lost his eyes, or has even an impediment in his sight[8].
LXXVIII. Varillas, in his anecdotes of Florence, writes, that Peter de Medicis finding his father dead, after Leoni his physician had given assurances that he could cure him; in a fit of rage, fell upon Leoni and tumbled him headlong into a well, where he was suffocated. Angelo Politianus, who was present at his decease, and who, in one of his letters on the subject, writes all the circumstances of the death of Lorenzo the father of Peter de Medicis, says, that Leoni, in a fit of despair at not having been able to cure Lorenzo according to his promise, threw himself into a well, and was drowned there. Who shall we believe in this case, Angelo Politianus, or Varillas? It may be that the enemies of Peter de Medicis, with a view of tarnishing his fame, have attributed to him this brutal act of drowning the physician: and it might also happen, that Angelo Politianus, who was a partizan of the Medicis family, gave the relation he did, in order to defend the character of Peter from so black an imputation. We are often placed in this state of doubt and perplexity by history, and don’t know who or what to rely on; and are equally in danger of being deceived by authors, whether they mislead us from motives of flattery or of hatred.
LXXIX. Some historians have said that Philip the Second, caused his son Don Carlos to be strangled. Paul Piasechi, a bishop and senator of Poland, gives us to understand, that King Philip procured his son Don Carlos to be dispatched; but he speaks ambiguously, and does not explain whether this prince died of poison, or of grief at finding himself imprisoned. Saint Evremont writes, that the Spaniard who strangled Don Carlos, said to him at the time he was about it, Have patience Sir, this is done for your good. Nothing surely can have more the appearance of an invented falsehood than this cruel and barbarous irony. The Venetian senator, Andrew Morosini, says in his History of Venice, that Charles not having any instrument wherewith to kill himself, determined to starve himself to death; but not being suffered to do this by those who looked after him, he tried the expedient of swallowing the diamond of one of his rings; but this not having the desired effect, he was resolved to put an end to his life by one means or other; and betook himself to eating and drinking with excess, which brought on a dysentery that carried him off in a few days. Cabrera agrees with the Venetian senator; but the greatest part of historians insist, that his death was not voluntary, but directed by his father; to whom they attribute his saying, by way of justifying the act, that if he found he had any bad blood belonging to him, he had an undoubted right to let it out. It is much to be wondered at, that a circumstance of history which is of no greater antiquity, should be enveloped in such clouds and darkness. Charles ended his life on the 24th of July, 1568, at four in the morning, aged twenty-five years and fifteen days.
LXXX. Isabella of France, called the Princess of Peace, on account of that which accompanied her marriage with Philip the Second, died the third of October in the same year, and two months and ten days after Don Carlos. The Spanish historians attribute her death to a mistake of the physicians, who bled her when she was pregnant: ours, on the other hand, accuse her husband of being the author of it: and Mezeray speaks of the event in the following words: We are about to relate one of the most monstrous adventures imaginable; which is, that Philip the Second having come to understand that his only son Charles had held a correspondence with the confederated lords of the Low Countries, who were endeavouring to prevail upon him to come to Flanders, caused him to be imprisoned, and deprived of life, either by slow poison or strangling him; and that a little while afterwards, on account of some jealousy he entertained, he poisoned his wife, together with the infant in her womb; as was attested afterwards by her mother queen Catherine, upon the authority of secret informations given to her by her daughter, and by the depositions of the domestics of that princess, after their arrival in France[9].
LXXXI. Nothing can be blacker than the colours in which Buchanan paints the unfortunate Mary Queen of Scots, although other historians give her the character of a very perfect princess.
LXXXII. I shall insert here the judgment Montaigne makes, of a history written by William de Bellai, and of the memoirs of Martin de Bellai his brother. He says, “It can’t be denied that we perceive evidently in those authors, a great neglect for that frankness and sincerity of writing which is resplendent in our ancient historians; such as Monsieur Joinville, a domestic of Saint Louis; Eginard the chancellor to Charles the Great; and Philip of Comines, who is more modern. Their works are more properly a declamation in favour of king Francis, and against Charles the Fifth, than a history. I would not willingly believe they have altered any thing with respect to the material facts; but it looks as if they took pains to warp the judgment of the reader in favour of their own country, and as if they studiously omitted, to mention any thing that made against the reputation of their own monarch: and it is remarked by Montmorenci and Brion, that they never once mention Madame d’Estampes[10]. They might omit to speak of private transactions, but their being silent upon things that became of consequence on account of the effect they had on public concerns, was an inexcusable fault; and, believe me, he who would attain a thorough knowledge of the character of Francis, and the things which happened in his reign, should read other historians.”
LXXXIII. We think it is now time, to have done treating of so inscrutable a matter as the contradictions of historians. In order to form something like a consistent judgment of suspicious histories, criticism should ascend to the first fountains, and perhaps the only ones from whence they were derived; for instance, to Marianus Scotus, for the story of Pope Joan; and to Gaguin, for the pretended erection of the kingdom of Yvetot. It is next necessary, to attend carefully to the time, in which the first bringer to light of an uncertain fact wrote, what profession he was of, what party he followed, and, above all, what was his character with regard to his adherence to or indifference for the truth; and also, whether in all his works he has preserved exactness and uniformity; and we should likewise attend to the consistency of the testimonies in support of a relation, which ought always to be mentioned. These precautions, might tend to lead us on to a knowledge of the truth of historical facts.
LXXXIV. The principal object in the reading of history, ought to be that of studying men, their characters, and geniuses. He who reads, says Montaigne, should not attend so much to the era of time in which Carthage was destroyed, as to the customs and manners of Hannibal and Scipio; nor so much to the knowing where Marcellus died, as why he acted unworthy of his duty and obligations, by exposing and losing his life for a trifling object. To study history, is to study the opinions, the motives, and passions of men; and the fruit of that study, should be learning to know yourself by the knowledge you acquire of others; to correct your failings by their examples; and to learn experience at their expence.
LXXXV. The obligations of an historian are, to instruct men by making them acquainted with the exact truth of events; because, if nothing more was necessary than to display sentiments, geniuses, and customs, novels and theatrical pieces would be equally opportune to answer that purpose as historical volumes. The author of the novel of Sethos says justly in his preface, that feigned situations and circumstances are the best suited for exhibiting great examples; but observes likewise, that the display of characters and example, makes an incomparably greater impression, when it is blended, if not with an intire persuasion, with a probable opinion of the truth of the facts.