MASTER NEGATIVE NO. 93-81355- MICROFILMED 1993 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK as part of the ^ "Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project Funded by the NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES Reproductions may not be made without permission from Columbia University Library COPYRIGHT STATEMENT The copyright law of the United States - Title 17, United States Code - concerns the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or other reproduction is not to be "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of the copyright law. A UTHOR: TAYLOR, ISAAC TITLE: THE PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF PLACE: LONDON DA TE: 1828 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET Master Negative # Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record 239 T3 I Taylor, Isaac, 1787-1865. The process of historical proof; exemplified and explained: with observations on the peculiar points of the Christian evi- dence. By Isaac Taylor ... London, Printed for B. J. Holds- worth. 1828. 338 p. vil!,«8-^ 22-. Restrictions on Use: JL^Hlstory. J^ Apologetics— 19th cent i. Title. 2—29618 Library of Clongress K^ D16.I24 ( a41el ] TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA REDUCTION RATIO: /^A^ FILM SIZE: B ^ i^ "^' IMAGE PLACEMENT: I A II A IB IIB DATE FILMED: '^^/5 0/y2.- INITIALS HLMEDBY: RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS. INC WOODBRIEK3E. CT J n Association for information and image iManagement 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1100 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 301/587-8202 Centimeter 12 3 4 5 iiiiIiiiiIiiiiIhiiIiiiiIiiiiIiiiiIiiiiIhiiIiiiiIiiii TTT^ Inches TTT 1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 iiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiili 1.0 I.I 1.25 T TTT 4.5 5B 2.8 5i 3.2 3.6 U£ ii;i-u 4.0 1.4 2.5 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 13 14 15 mm iiliiiilniiliiiiliiii \ MRNUFflCTURED TO flllM SinNDRRDS BY RPPLIED IMPGE. INC. J. ^-) ^ / K »v CLoss %Z^ Book T5 Columbia College Library Madison Av. and 49th St. New York. BeftiJe the main topic this book also trrats of Subject No. (hi f'age \ Subject No. On pag'c > i f 7? ix^ J ( A.; J<^i^^/^^y V ,\ I V \ \ X \\ X' : \ •» •. ^ S s \ \, x* \ ( N > THE PROCESS 1 •> V V OF HISTORICAL PROOF; EXEMPLIFIED AND EXPLAINED: F 4 t WITH OnSFRVATIOXS ox THE PECULIAU POINTS OF THE CHRISTIAN EVIDENCF, B Y ISAAC TAYLOR. ri%l-j%(35 VERI 3CIENTIA VIVDEX. LONDON: PRINTED FOR B. J. HOLDSWORTH, 18, ST. PAUr/s CHURCH YARD, 1B28. ^1 PREFACE. :.if i \ 4 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. But SO great a number of ancient books has reached modern times, their intrinsic characters are so much diversified, and the particular circum- stances attending their transmission are so various, that a wide field is opened whence to collect general principles, under the guidance of which a satisfactory opinion may be formed in every instance that demands examination. No case of forgery, or of interpolation, or of fabrication, or of prejudice, or of delusion, can present itself that may not be compared with many kindred ex- amples ; and from such comparisons, made without fear or favour, the true nature of the case wdl almost certainly be made apparent ; for though we might be perplexed in forming an opinion in the solitary instance, the multitude of instances sheds upon each a focus of light. Every one knows how differently he feels when called to form an opinion, and give a decision upon a subject that falls within the range of his common knowledge ; or upon one relative to which he has no previous experience. In the latter case, though the facts may be intelligible, and the evidence ample and conclusive, and such as he knows not how to resist, yet, feehng himself on strange ground, and his convictions wanting the corrobo- ration of experience, he can hardly dismiss a lurking distrust even of his senses and clearest per- ceptions. —Ignorance is ever the mother of fear. But to one who has large experience among facts PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. of the same class, who has had repeated oppor- tunities of verifying or of correcting his past de- cisions in similar cases, and of ascertaining the soundness of the principles by which his judgment has been guided ; and who is familiarly acquainted with the various exceptions, or seeming exceptions to which those principles are liable, gives with a prompt confidence, its due weight to every sepa- rate portion of the evidence before him. The facts though new m circumstance and form, are old in substance :— he recognizes at first sight each by its proper designation— is not imposed upon by specious colours ; nor does he, from a false caution, extend suspicions from things doubtful to things certain. Now altliough those general principles that are deduced from an extensive acquaintance with ancient literature and history, will not avail to set every question at rest, or to make all facts equally certain; they serve invariably and infallibly to distinguish the certain from the doubtful ; or to draw a broad line of separation, on the one side of which will be ranged such facts as cannot with any reasonable pretext, or without absurd suppo- sitions be called in question ;— and on the other, such as may fairly and in good faith be made matter of controversy. Nothing is more important to the good management of common affairs, or to the successful prosecution of philosophical mqui- ries, or to the safe determination of theological D 3 I 6 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF, questions, than the establishment of this distinc- tion ;— a distinction to which strong minds resort and are safe, and in the neglect of which the feeble fall into endless perplexities. No very laborious examination of ancient books is required in order to perceive that they may, on satisfactory grounds, be distributed into three classes ;— the first including those works— and it is by far the greater number— the genuineness of which is in the most absolute sense indisputable. The second class, such as have a doubtful claim to authenticity, and which, unless some new evidence should be adduced, must always remain liable to controversy. The third class will comprehend those works which are manifestly spurious. A similar distribution may be made of the various narrations that fill 'the pages of historians ; for of these some are incontrovertibly certain; others doubtful ; and others certainly false. The obvious advantage of making this distinction, and of keep- ing it ever in view, is that it redeems writings and facts belonging to the first class, from that sus- picion which may attach to them merely from their intermixture with those of the second class, and of the third. It has in fact often been attempted to mingle and confound these three classes of writings and of facts ; and the attempt has been made by per- sons of very opposite intentions ; for example ; — men of weak judgments and of a dogmatical and f PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 7 over-weaning temper, have not seldom prided themselves upon taking under their protection certain works, or certain points of history, ge- nerally rejected as spurious or false by men of sound sense ; and if they could not assert for such books or facts, an incontestable claim to respect, have, at least, endeavoured to foist them within the pale of probability ; thus confounding the third class with the second ; or sometimes they have laboured to claim a place in the first class, for what belongs only to the second. Such persons seem to be influenced by the feeling of the pleader, whose zeal as an advocate increases in proportion to the demerit of his client. On the other hand, intellectual timidity, or a sinister intention, has induced some critics to act the part of the calumniator, whose practice it is to propac^ate the infection of slander by flingmg the skirt of the guilty over the shoulders of the mno- cent Because a work unquestionably genuine has by some accidental connexion become asso- ciated with others, palpably spurious, therefore it is to be loaded with groundless imputations ; and without even a pretext for suspicion to fix upon, is to be amerced in its just claims upon our con- fidence. On this system of detraction, ancient books which stand by full right in the first class, are thrust down to the second, while such as may fairly pretend to a place in the second, are made to herd with the last. In all these pro- B 4 A "••" 8 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. PROCESS OF IIIStORICAL PROOF. 9 '1 ceedings the principles of criticism are disregarded, and common sense is abused. Absolute certainty in matters of antiquity may result, either from an accumulation of various evidence, to such an amount that numerous deduc- tions may be made from it without affecting the con- clusion ; or from some particular coincidence of proof, of that kind which admits of no opposite supposition. In most instances, where there is a great accumulation of evidence, there will be found among it some such special proofs. A degree of doubt on points of antiquity may arise, either from a mere paucity of direct evidence, or from its indistinctness or ambiguity ; or from some internal incongruity in the evidence; or, lastly, from a direct opposition of existing testi- monies. In the two words defect and contra- riety, all the sources of doubt are summed up. The absence of all direct and admissible evi- dence, together with manifest incongruities, are the circumstances which affix to a book the brand of spuriousness, or to a narrative of alledged facts, the stigma of falsehood. These cases of unques- tionable spuriousness or falsification, as well as those to which some uncertainty attaches, serve by the comparisons they afford, an important purpose in arguments of this kind. Inasmuch, however, as a full exhibition of such instances involves state- ments somewhat recondite, or intricate, and there- fore apt to create confusion of thought, and mis- apprehensions, we purpose to keep them apart for the present, in order that a series of proofs, of a much simpler kind, may be left clear of all em- barrassments. Instead of taxing the attention of the reader, by placing before him a set of abstract principles of evidence, or of distracting his attention by adducing a multiplicity of instances, we propose to select a single instance, and to exhibit, link by link, the entire chain of proofs by means of which the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY of cvcuts allcdged to have taken place nearly five hundred years before the birth of Christ, may be satisfactorily established. We select the history of Herodotus, and the prin- cipal events of the Persian war, as affording fair samples of this species of reasoning, in the two departments of literary and historical proof. A brief account of the historian, and of his celebrated work, will properly introduce the series of facts presently to be brought forward. The reader will of course perceive, that this introductory account forms no part of the proposed argument. \ ^aa^iai^— 10 ROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF, PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF 11 CHAPTER II. BRIEF ACCOUNT OF HERODOTUS, AND OF HIS HISTORY. Excepting the sacred books of the Jews, and excepting also some doubtful and unimportant fragments of early historians, preserved in the works of later writers, the history ascribed to Herodotus is the most ancient of all the historical works that have descended to modern times And as it is the most ancient, so also it is one of the most comprehensive, various, entertaining and on the whole, authentic and important of all the records of antiquity. If the nine books of Hero- dotus had perished, and with them all those pas- sages in ancient authors which are direct y quoted, or substantially derived from his work, our knowledge of the earlier portion of history would beelmely imperfect. We should also have wanted many graphic and accurate ^escr^tion^o countries, and of the character and usages of ^cnen nations, which serve to diffuse a general light over the pages of other writers. This work may there- fore be considered as forming the foundation of all profane) history ;-the author has indeed been generally allowed to possess a just claim to the title of the Father of History. Herodotus,* as the first sentence of his history declares, was born at Halicarnassus,t a maritime city, and the capital of Caria, in Asia Minor. He is said to have attained the fifty-third year of his age at the breaking out of the Peloponnesian war, which brings the time of his birth to the first year of the seventy-fourth* Olympiad; or four years before the invasion of Greece by Xerxes, and B. C. 444. His father's name was Lyxes, his mother's Dryo. The forms of government which prevailed in the Grecian colonies of Asia Minor, were less free than those of Greece itself; the Asiatic cities being for the most part ruled by governors who bore the title of tyrants, and whose power was scarcely at all subjected to the restraints of law. This kind of despotism was borne impatiently by many of these Greeks ; especially by those among them to whom a liberal education had opened the, lite- rature of the mother country, inspiring them with that love of liberty, which so much distinguished the race. Such seems to have been the case with Herodotus, who, indignant at the insolence of Lygdamis, at that time tyrant of Halicarnassus, abandoned his country, and took refuge in the * Suidas is the principal authority for the following par- ticulars. t Now Boodroom. I t V ■■4 12 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. Isle of Samos, which, during a long period, was a place of resort for learned men, from the neighbour- ing continents. Here he studied the Ionic dialect, which he preferred to his native Doric ; and here, probably, he formed the design of devotmg him- self to the composition of a great historical work. The writings of Hellanicus of Mitylene,* and of Charon, of Lampsacus. then lately pubhshed, per- haps served at once tb awaken and to direct his ambition. Having formed this design, it appears- and his writings abundantly attest the fact, that he resolved to spare no labours that might tend to qualify him for the better execution of his task. He set out therefore on a course of extensive travels,! visiting Greece, and Epirus, Macedonia, Thrace, and the borders of Scythia ;-probably making some excursions among the Nomadic tribes of central Asia. From the shores of the Euxine and the Caspian, he passed into Media and I'ersia, and visited Babylon. Thence he proceeded to Phcenicia; and having traversed Palestine ex- plored with the most assiduous attention. Upper and Lower Egypt : from Egypt he passed along the northern coast of Africa, as far, at least, as Cyrene and probably further,for his description of the line of CO J reaching from the mouths o the Nile to the Pillars of Hercules, is as particular and exact as that of those regions which he unquestionably • See Note. + See Note. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 13 visited. The labours of Herodotus in collecting information, seem to have been comprehensive and indefatigable; and perhaps we may add, cautious. He examined all natural objects, com- puted the distances of places -conversed with persons of all classes — searched municipal re- cords—inspected public monuments, and, finally, collated the accounts given him in one city, with those he received in another. Having completed his course of travels, Hero- dotus returned to Samos, where he applied himself to the labour of combining the materials he had collected. But from these studies, he was pre- sently diverted by the hope of delivering his native city from the oppressive rule of Lygdamis. Re- pairing therefore to Halicarnassus, he roused his countrymen, and actually succeeded in expelling the tyrant, and in establishing a popular form of government ; but soon becoming obnoxious to a factious party of the citizens, he once more, and for ever, quitted his native country, and passed into Greece. The Greeks being at that time assembled for the celebration of the Olympic games, Herodotus availed himself of the occasion, to recite in public some portions of his history. These passages excited the admiration, and gained the lively applauses of the people, who are reported to have designated the nine books of the history by the names of the Nine Muses. This fact has, however, been disputed. On some subsequent >V ^1 t\ ;)/ 14 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. occasion Herodotus read his history before the Athenians, who, by a public decree, bestowed ten talents upon the author, as an expression of their approbation of the work. Not long afterwards, Herodotus associated him- self with a company of Athenians, who went ou to form a colony at Thurium, in Italy ; where, it is believed, he passed the remainder of his days ; and where he seems to have employed himself m revising his history, and in making such additions to it i subsequent information might suggest From the circumstance of his long residence at this place, the historian is often designated by ancient authors, as 'the Thurian.' Stephen of Byzantium reports that an inscripUon had been found at Thurium, declaring that " Herodotus son of Lyxes, a Dorian by birth, but the most illus- trious of the Ionian historians, was there interred. Marcellinus,* indeed affirms, that the tonxb of Herodotus was to be seen at Athens ; but the monument he mentions was probab y a cenotaph, erected by the Athenians in honour of the historian, whose genius had consigned their glory to immor- *' Afthe time when Herodotus formed the de^gn of compiling his history, the Greeks retained a vivid recollection of that great struggle which had issued in freeing them from the long impending • In his Life of Thucydides. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 15 fear of subjugation by the Persian power. This ^ struggle, therefore, so arduous and so glorious, was chosen by him as the principal subject of his work. But to render the narrative of the Persian invasion at once more intelligible and more im- pressive than it could otherwise be, much pre- liminary matter is introduced. This introductory part of the work contains a condensed history of most of the nations of Asia and of Africa, so far as those continents were known to the ancients, together with descriptions, sometimes succinct, and some- times very copious, of the geographical features and the natural productions of the countries he mentions ; with accounts of the manners, govern- ments, laws, arts, and public works of the people ; interspersed with antiquarian dissertations on the origin of nations, and on the derivation of their languages, and their religions. Though eminent for the artless simplicity of his style, this writer displays not a little skill in the combination of his materials. The opposition and contrast of topics, the mode of his transitions, and the graceful progression of the main story, attended by frequent digressions, all bearing some real relation to the principal subject, exhibit a kind of management not altogether unlike that which is perceptible in the Epics of Homer. To display to the best advantage the magnitude of the danger which the Greeks had averted on the fields of Marathon, of Platea, and of Mycale ; at Arte- iM^^MlB^aM 16 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 17 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. misium, and at Salamis, it was necessary to give an ample account of the rise, conquests, and mag- nitude of the kingdom of Persia. But this required to be preceded by the history of the Lydian king- dom, the overthrow of which brought the Persians in contact with the Greeks, and so gave occasion to the war. The history commences, therefore, with an account of the kings of Sardis, and espe- cially of Croesus, the last of the Lydian monarchs. This point of time being attained, when the Persian power was first directly opposed to that of the Greeks, the history proceeds to narrate the successive conquests of the Persians in Asia and Africa, till at length Greece became the scene of action : — and it closes with the final expulsion of the Barbarians from the land of liberty. CHAPTER III. THE GREEK TEXT OF HERODOTUS EXTANT BE- FORE THE INVENTION OF PRINTING. A WORK consisting of materials so dissimilar, and those drawn from sources so various, must of course be expected to furnish instances of the I the probable, the improbable, the certain, and the doubtful, in every degree between mere fable, and genuine history. Our present purpose does not require us to discuss any of those points which may fairly be thought doubtful. Leaving such matters untouched, our business will be to exhibit the grounds on which the latter and principal por- tions of the history may be deemed unquestionably authentic. The first step, manifestly in this line of proof, must be to establish the antiquity and genuineness of the work. Now the mention of a very few facts might suffice to carry this proof, in the most satisfactory manner, up to an age not remote from that of the supposed author ; but in order that the argument may be displayed in all its details, we shall divide the msLss of facts to be adduced into several por- tions, and in the first place prove — what it is in fact superfluous to prove ; namely — That the Greek text of Herodotus, such as it now appears, was extant some time before the publication of the earliest printed editions. Ostensible and tangible proof of what we here affirm, is afforded by the existence, at the present time, in several public libraries, of many manu- script copies of the Greek text, which by the date affixed to them, by the character of the writing, the appearance of the ink, and material, and by the traditionary history of some of them, are clearly attributable to different ages, from the tenth c i 18 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. century to the fifteenth.* But if it were possible to suppose that all these copies were derived from one, and that one a forgery of a late date, an examination and comparison of them, and a comparison of the manuscripts with the printed editions, will furnish several special demonstra- tions of the point affirmed. In 1474, twenty-eight years before the appear- ance of the first edition of the Greek text, Lauren- tius Valla published at Venice a Latin translation of Herodotus, purporting to have been made from the Greek.f Now if, in comparing this transla- tion with the Greek manuscripts still extant, it were asked, which is the original, the Latin or the Greek ? no one acquainted with the structure of language could hesitate in declaring for the latter ; for in the Latin (as in every translation) ellipse! are supplied, exegetical and connective phrases are introduced ; and what is still more decisive there are many passages in the Greek, where an obvious and consistent sense is evidently mis- understood or perverted in the Latin ; for Valla seems, from all his translations, to have been but imperfectly acquainted with the Greek language. In such instances the occasion and the progress°of the translator's error may often be detected ; by which means proof of the most incontestable kind IS afforded of the fact supposed to be questioned, * See Note, t See Note. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 19 1 1 namely, that the Greek is the original, and the Latin the translation. Again: — The Latin com- pared with the Greek is deficient in many entire paragraphs, and many single sentences. In the Greek these passages are one and entire with the context; but in the Latin, the hiatus is either abrupt and apparent, or is concealed by a connec- tive sentence, evidently inserted as a link between the disjoined portions of the text. Now, when special evidence like this is presented, we need not lay stress upon the traditionary history of certain manuscripts, nor upon their apparent antiquity, nor upon the genuineness of the dates affixed to them ; for, from the facts actually before us, we can draw only one inference. Without going further, therefore, we may conclude with absolute cer- tainty, that several Greek manuscripts of Herodotus were in existence some time before the publication of the printed editions ; and by consequence, the averments of the first editors are confirmed, who declare that they derived their text from manu- scripts already known to the learned. The Greek text of Herodotus was first printed by Minutius Aldus, at Venice, September, 1502. Copies of this beautiful and correct edition, '' cor- rected by a collation of many manuscripts,"* are still extant : — it is distinguished by its reten- tion of the forms of the Ionic dialect, a proof * Preface quoted by Reiiouard. c 2 , I ii 20 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. that the editor followed a pure and ancient manuscript, for the Ionic forms are generally lost in those copies, the text of which has passed through many transcriptions. This edition, with corrections and notes, was reprinted at Basil, in 1541, and again in 1557, by Joachim Came- rarius. In 1570 the Aldine text of Herodotus was printed at Paris, by Henry Stephens, who does not profess himself to have collated manuscripts. The title page declares that the books were " ex vetustis exemplaribus recogniti :" but in his second edition, Stephens confesses that up to that time he had not been able to procure an ancient copy by which to correct the text; he must, therefore, in the phrase just quoted, be understood to refer to the manuscripts consulted by Aldus. G. Jungerman, assuming the edition just mentioned as the basis of his own, in which how- ever he made, without specification, many conjec- tural emendations, printed the Greek text at Frankfort, in 1608. This was the first edition in which the text was divided into sections, as it now appears. The London edition, dated 1679, and published under favour of the name of the learned Thomas Gale, was derived without acknowledg- ment from that of Jungerman. Hitherto the editions were only successive reprints of the Aldine text ; and came, therefore, all from a single source; but in 1715, an edition of Herodotus was published at Leyden, under the care of J. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 21 Gronovius, who collated the former editions with some manuscripts before unknown, or not examined. The Glasgow edition appeared in 1761 ; and two years later, that of Wesseling, printed at Amsterdam. Some quotations from this editor's preface* will give the general reader a good idea of the method of conducting these literary labours, and of the security afforded for the purity of the text of ancient authors. Several German and Dutch editions have appeared since that of Wesseling ; the most esteemed are those of Borheck, Reiz, Schaefer, and Schweighaeuser.f CHAPTER IV. HERODOTUS QUOTED AND MENTIONED DURING A THOUSAND YEARS, FROM A.D. 1150, TO A. D. 150. The proper and the most conclusive proof of the antiquity and genuineness of ancient books is that which is derived from themselves by a collation of their mutual references and quotations. There is an independence in this kind of evidence, which renders it, when precise and copious, absolutely * See Note, t See Note. c 3 •i^ -M tmrn - T 1 22 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF, infallible. It is not the evidence of witnesses, first schooled and cautioned, and then brought into court to do their best for the party by whom they are summoned. But it is the purely incidental testimony of unconnected persons, who, in the pursuit of their particular objects, gather up and present to us the facts we are in search of. Be- sides, these facts have a peculiarity which renders them eminently capable of furnishing precise and conclusive proof. A book is an aggregate of many thousand separable parts, each of which, both by the thought it contains, and by the choice and arrangement of the words possesses a perfect indi- viduality, such as fits it for the purpose of defining or identifying the whole to which it belongs ; — and if several of these definite parts are adduced, the identification is rendered more than complete. This kind of definition is moreover capable of being multiplied almost without end, for each writer who quotes a book, having probably a different object in view, selects a diff*erent set of quotations ; yet all of them meeting in the same work. We are thus furnished with a complicated system of con- centric lines, which intersect no where but in the book in question. Then it is to be remembered, that each of these quoting writers stands himself as the centre of a similar system of references, so that the complica- tion of proof becomes infinitely intricate, and there- fore so much the more conclusive. It is again > PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 23 involved, and so rendered secure, by the occur- rence of double or treple quotations ; for example, Photius quotes Ctesias, quoting Herodotus. The proof of genuineness in the instance of a standard author, is by these means extended, attenuated, and involved in a degree to which no other species of evidence makes any approach. It hardly needs to be said, that this high and absolute certainty, resulting from the complication as well as the number of testimonies, belongs only to works that are explicitly, and frequently quoted by succeeding writers. And yet this sort of proof is deemed, in its nature, so valid and satisfactory, that a very small portion of it is ordinarily admitted to be quite sufficient. If, for instance, a book is mentioned explicitly only by one or two writers of the next age, the evidence is allowed to decide the question of genuineness, unless there appear some positive reasons to justify suspicion. But with questionable matters we have not now to do. It cannot be thought necessary to our argument to adduce separately, proof of the genuineness of the works about to be cited ; since they all possess an established character, resting upon evidence of the same kind as that which is here displayed in the case of Herodotus. To bring forward all this proof in each instance, would fill volumes. c 4 ^S I il 24 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF* PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 25 We have seen that various manuscript copies of Herodotus, of which several are still preserved, were extant before the first printed editions ap- peared ; and from a comparison of these manu- scripts, as well as from the date which some of them bare, and from their seeming antiquity, it is evident that the work had then been in existence at least three hundred years : for these several manuscripts exhibit in their various readings those minute diversities which are always found to arise from repeated transcriptions made by copyists in different ages and countries ; — some of these copyists being exact and skilful, others careless and ignorant. This proof of antiquity is more conclusive than that which arises from a mere traditionary history of a single manuscript or from a date affixed to a copy ; for the date maybe spurious, or the tradition may be unauthentic. But in the various readings we have before our eyes a species of decay, which time alone could produce. We therefore assume it as certain, that the text of this author was extant at least as early as the 12th century. And if it is supposed that we cannot trace the history of these manuscripts higher than that time,then we turn to another species of evi- dence, namely — that arising from the quotations of a series of writers, extending upwards from the age in which the history of the manuscripts merges in obscurity, to the very age of the author. The evidence to be adduced we divide into two portions, in the first place proving that the history of Herodotus was known to the learned during a period of a thousand years, from A. D. 1150, to A. D. 150. We proceed retrogressively, com- mencing with EusTATHius,* archbishop of Thessalonica, who flourished in the latter part of the 12th century. His commentaries upon the Iliad and Odyssey of Homer, contain many references to Herodotus, more or less full and precise. Among these the following afford sufficient proof of the point we have to establish ; for they leave no room to doubt that the history of Herodotus, as now extant, was in the hands of this learned prelate. — Comment. Iliad, Book I. Section 4. 'But Herodotus seems to resemble Pherecydes and Hecataeus, who (in writing history) threw aside the adornments of the poetic style.' — II. II. Sect. 79. * Herodotus (Erato 74) says that Nonacris is a city of Arcadia where the waters of Styx arise, &c.' — II. IV. Sect. 71. ' Herodotus, that sweet writer of the Ionic' Sect. 42. Eustathius cites our author (Clio 195) * In a few instances I have been obliged to rely upon the accuracy of the editors and translators of Herodotus. — The last three quotations from Eustathius are borrowed from the notes to Clarke's Homer, and from Larcher. The ex- tracts from Marcellinus are taken from the Life of Thucy- dides by that writer, usually prefixed to the editions of the historian. The quotation from Ilermogenes is translated from Larcher, as well as that from Scyranus of Chios. 26 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. to illustrate the meaning of the word mitra — girdle or turban. Sect. 73, on the word 'phalanx. Sect. 95, he quotes (Melpomene 95) a sentence in which Herodotus calls Pythagoras ' a man eminent among the Greeks for his intelligence.' — Sect. 96, he quotes a passage (Euterpe 77) relative to the Egyptian bread. — Comment. Odyssey IV. line 84. 'Menelaus certainly visited those other Ethiopians whom Herodotus (Euterpe 39) describes as bor- dering upon the Egyptians.' — Odyss. XII. 1. 127, he alludes to the account given by our author (Calliope 93) of the sheep sacred to the sun in ApoUonia. — Comment. Dionysius Periegetes, verse 423, Eustathius quotes Herodotus, (Clio 56) in proof that the Athenians were of Pelasgian origin. SuiDAs, a learned Byzantine monk is believed to have flourished at the close of the 11 th century. His Lexicon, as we have already mentioned (page 11) contains a brief Life of Herodotus; besides which there occur under other words, many (not fewer than 200) incidental references to diff'erent parts of the history. They are for the most part citations of a very exact kind, adduced in illustra- tion of the meaning or orthography of words. Photius, the learned but ambitious patriarch of Constantinople, belongs to the 9th century. This writer has preserved the only portions that remain of the Persian and Indian history of Ctesias, who, as we shall presently see, gives a nearly 1 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 27 contemporary testimony to Herodotus, The Myriobiblon of Photius consists of notices and abridgements of 280 works which he had read, and affords therefore much information available in determining questions of literary antiquity. Many works were extant in the 9th century — at Constantinople especially — which disappeared in the following age ; and Photius, with free access to the extensive libraries of that city, wanted no advantage which might fit him for the task of reviewing the literature of the preceding ages. When, therefore, he quotes and describes a work, and speaks of it confidently as having been long known in the world, and generally received as a genuine production of the author whose name it bears, his evidence carries up the proof to a still more remote age ; for no spurious work, recently produced, could have been so mentioned by a critic of great learning and sound judgment. In the Myriobiblon, besides some incidental references, as in Art. 72 and 90, we find the following account (Art. 60) of Herodotus. ' We have perused the nine historical books of Hero- dotus, bearing the names of the Nine Muses. This writer uses the Ionic dialect, as Thucydides employs the Attic. He admits fabulous accounts, and frequent digressions, which give a pleasing flow to the narrative ; though indeed this manner of writing violates the strict proprieties of the historical style, in which the accuracy of truth 28 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 29 ought not to be obscured by any mixtures of fable, nor the end proposed by the author to be long lost sight of. He begins the history with the reign of Cyrus— the first of the Persian kings- narrating his birth, education, elevation, and rule ; and he brings it down as far as the reign of Xerxes —his expedition against the Athenians, and his flio-ht. Xerxes was indeed the fourth king from Cyrus— Cambyses being the second, and Darius the third ; for Smerdes the Magus is not to be reckoned in the line of*kings, inasmuch as he was an usurper who possessed himself of the throne by fraud. With Xerxes, the son and successor of Darius, the history closes, nor indeed is it carried to the end of his reign ; for Herodotus himself flourished in those very times, as Diodorus the Sicilian, and others relate, who mention the story that Thucydides, while yet a youth, was present with his father when Herodotus read his history in public, on which occasion he burst into tears ; which being observed by Herodotus, the historian, turned to the father and said, ' O Olorus, what a son have you, who thus burns with a passion for learning !' This concise description of the work is abun- dantly sufficient to prove the existence of the text now extant in the age of Photius, whose testimony establishes also the fact that it had then been long known and reputed as a genuine production of Herodotus, while the exceptions made against certain fabulous digressions contain an explicit acknowledgment that the history was generally - received as authentic. Stephen of Byzantium, author of a geogra- phical and historical Lexicon, flourished in the middle of the 6th century. He frequently refers to Herodotus. Art. Thiirium, he quotes an in- scription above-mentioned (page 14) and under the following words references to our author occur. 'Abarnum, a city, region, and promon- tory of Pariana, which Herodotus, in his 4th book (Melpom. 36.) says is called Abaris: ' Arisbe. Herodotus and Jason, call it Arisba: (Clio 151.) ' ArchandropoUs—B. city of Egypt, according to Herodotus in his 2d book' (Euterpe 97.) ' Assa a city near Mount Athb, mentioned by Herodotus, in his 7th book.' (Polymnia 122.) ' Thalamancei, a nation subject to the Persians; Herodotus.' (Thalia 93, 117.) ' Inyctum, a city of Sicily, called by Herodotus (Errato 23.) Inyctus: Herodotus appears to have been one of the principal authori- ties of Stephanus. Marcellinus* a critic of the sixth century, in his Life of Thucydides, mentions Herodotus de- scriptively, and compares him on many points with his rival. Omitting many less direct allu- sions, the following may be mentioned. He com- * Not the same as Ammianus Marcellinus the Roman historian. ■Jiu_^g «i 30 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 31 mends the impartiality of Thucydides, who did not allow his personal wrongs to give any colour- ing to his narrative of facts — a degree of magna- nimity, uncommon, he says, among historians— * For even Herodotus, having been slighted by the Corinthians, affirms that they fled from the en- gagement at Salamis.' Describing the lofty style of Thucydides, he compares it with that of Hero- dotus, which he says, is ' neither lofty like that of the Attic historian, nor elegant like that of Xeno- phon.' On the ground of authenticity also, he compares the two historians, giving the advantage in this respect to the younger, while he charges the former with admitting marvellous tales, citing as an example the story of Arion and the dolphin, (Clio 23, 24) and towards* the close he repeats the incident already-mentioned, said to have taken place when Herodotus read his history in public. Procopius the historian of the reign of Jus- tinian wrote about the middle of the sixth cen- tury : he cites Herodotus in precise terms — * Now Herodotus the Halicarnassian, in the fourth book of his history (Melpomene 42—45) says that the earth, though distributed into three portions — Africa, Asia, and Europe, is one; and that the Egyptian Nile flows between Africa and Asia, &c.' Gothic Wars, B. IV. STOB.EUS lived a century earlier than the last- named writer. In illustration of various ethical < I ■. topics, he collects the sentiments of a multitude of authors, and among the number of Herodotus. Short sentences from the historian are adduced in the following places : — Serm. X. of Injustice and Avarice. Serm. XX. of Anger. Serm. XXIII. of Self-Love. Serm. XLI. of the State. Serm. LXXII. Precepts of Married Life. As a fair spe- cimen of the exactness of these quotations, the reader may compare the long extract from (Clio 30) containing the speech of Solon to Croesus. — Serm. CIII. on the Instability of Human Affairs. The Emperor Julian makes several allusions to our author ; — as in his first oration in praise of Constantine, ' Cyrus was called the father, Cam- byses the lord of his people.' (Thalia 89.) In the exordium of his Epistle to the Athenian people, several distinct allusions to the history of the Persian invasion occur ; and in the Misopogon the story of Solon and Croesus, related by Herodotus (Clio 30) is distinctly mentioned. In a list of the Greek authors (Epist. XLII.) Herodotus is included. And in an Epistle not now extant, but quoted by Suidas ; (Art. Herodotus) the apos- tate, as he is there called, cites the historian as * the Thurian writer of history.' Hesychius the Lexicographer, lived in the third century : he makes several quotations from our author. — ' Agathoergoi — persons discharged from the cavalry of Sparta — five every year, as wmmA 32 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PUOOF. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 33 s Herodotus relates.' (Clio 67.) ' Basikes — Judges ; according to Herodotus, the avengers of wrong.' ' Zeh^a, a zone, according to Herodotus. (Polym. 69.) ' Canamis," (Melpom. 74.) ' Tiara, the bon- net of the Persians, according to Herodotus.' (Polym. 61.) ' Zalmoxis — the account given of the Getae, (Melpom. 93, 94) quoted at length. AxHEXiEUs, a critic of the second century, quotes our author in the following among other instances. B. II. c. 6. * Herodotus in his first book (Clio 188) writes that the Persian kings drink no water except that which is brought from the Choas- pian spring at Susa, which is carried for their use wherever they travel,' ^c. B. IV. c. 10. 'Hero- dotus (Clio 133) comparing the Grecian enter- tainments with those of the Persians, relates that the latter pay a peculiar regard to their natal day.' — In the same chapter — ' Herodotus in his seventh book, says that those Greeks who entertained Xerxes on his way, were reduced to such dis- tress, that many of them left their homes.' — See also c. 12. of the same book. B. V. c. 13— B. VI. c. 6— 17. 'Herodotus relates (Euterpe 173, 174) that Amasis, king of Egypt, was accustomed to jest very freely with his guests.' Long IN us, the celebrated secretary of queen Zenobia, quotes our author several times in his treatise on the sublime. Sect. 6—13. ' Was He- rodotus alone an imitator of Homer?' — 22, the address of Dyonisius to the Phocseans is quoted. 'Our affairs lonians! have reached a crisis — we must be free or slaves,' &c. — 26, he quotes with high commendation a passage, in which our author describes the course between Elephantine and Meroe. (Euterpe 29) — 28, a quotation from Clio, 105. — 31. The story of Cleomenes (Terpsicore41, et seq,) is quoted . ' Cleomenes devoured his own flesh.' &c. • Diogenes Laertius, author of the Lives of the Philosophers, brings the line of testimonies up to the time mentioned at the head of this chapter : he makes the following references to our au- thor. Life of Thaks he refers to the assertions of Herodotus relative to the Magi (Clio 101) and to Xerxes, whom he affirms to have lanced darts at the sun, and to have thrown fetters into the sea. Life of Pythagoras, A passage is quoted relative to Zamolxis, who was worshipped by the Getae. (Melpomene 94.) It is obvious that if the testimonies to be ad- duced in the next chapter are full and conclu- sive, they will, in point of argument, supercede those which have been already brought forward ; for if it can be satisfactorily proved that the now existing text of Herodotus was known more than two thousand years ago, it cannot be necessary to prove that it was extant at any intermediate period. Nevertheless the above-cited authorities do not merely serve the purpose of completing our chain of evidence, but they prove that the D 34 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 35 I 5; I work, far from having been in any age lost sight of, was always familiarly known to scholars. We may therefore feel assured that copies were to be found in most libraries — that the work was fre- quently transcribed, and that (as the existing manuscripts indicate) we are not dependent upon the accuracy of one or two copyists only, for the integrity of the text. CHAPTER V. HERODOTUS MENTIONED AND QUOTED, FROM A.D. 150, TO HIS OWN TIMES. A period of six or seven hundred years, ending in the second century of the Christian era, includes the brightest times both of Grecian and of Roman literature. Evidence of the most conclusive kind on questions of literary history may therefore be collected in abundance from the writers of those ages. Innumerable quotations from all the prin- cipal authors are found on the pages of almost every prose writer whose works have descended to modern times. The critics and historians especially, furnish abundantly the evidence we are in search of. We begin this second series with Pausanias, who in his historical description of Greece, has frequent occasion to cite the au- thority of Herodotus. Of these citations the following may be mentioned : Book I. 33. In a digression relating to the Ethiopians, he quotes from Euterpe 32, and Melpomene 172 : ' For the Nasimones, whom Herodotus considers as the same as the Atlantics, and who are said to know the measure of the earth, are called by the Libyans, dwelling in the extreme parts of Libya, near Mount Atlas— Loxi,' &c. Book I. 43. ' Agree- ably to this Herodotus (Melpomene 103) tells us that in Scythia shipwrecked persons sacrifice bulls to a virgin, called by them Iphigenia, the daughter of Agamemnon.'* Book II. 16. the story of lo is referred to from Clio, 1, 5. Chap. 20 he quotes from Herodotus a prediction of the Delphic oracle ; and Chap. 30, he authenticates a story told by our author (Terpsicore 82) ' these particulars as they are accurately related by Herodotus it would * This is a careless quotation : — the passage evidently alluded to is as follows—" Among these (Scythian tribes) tke Taurians observe the following customs— They sacrifice to a virgin shipwrecked persons, and such Greeks as fall into their hands The divinity to whom these sacrifices are made IS said by the Taurians to be Iphigenia, daughter of Aga- memnon." The word Tavpoi, catching the eye of Pausanias in making a hasty reference, occasioned his mistake. D 2 ^w. 36 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF, * I if be superfluous for me to repeat.' Book III. 2. he refers to the orthography of a name (Clio 65) ' and Herodotus in his history of Croesus informs us that this Labotas was under the guardianship of Ly- curgus, who gave laws to the Lacedaemonians; but he calls him Leobotas,' &c. Thus in fact the name now stands in the Greek text: — minute correspondencies of this kind vouch for the correct transmission of ancient books. Chap. 25, he affirms that at Taenarus was to be seen * Arion the harper, sitting on a dolphin. And the par- ticulars respecting Arion and the dolphin Hero- dotus relates (Clio 24) as what he himself heard in his account of the Lydian affairs.' Book X. 32, * As to the name of the city, I know that Herodotus (Urania 32) in that part of his history in which he gives an account of the irruption of the Persians into Greece, differs from what is asserted in the oracles of Bacis,' &c. The next chapter contains references of a similar kind. LuciAN of Samosata devotes some pages to Herodotus, whose style he characterises and com- mends ; and he relates particularly the mode adopted by the historian for making his work known to the Greeks, * so that wherever he ap- peared all might say, that is Herodotus who wrote the history of the Persian war in the Ionian dialect, and who so gloriously chanted our vic- tories.' — Tooke's Lucian, vol. i. p. 765. Hermogenes, a rhetorician and the contem- PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 37 porary of Lucian, gives the following description of the historian's style : ' The diction of Herodotus is pure, easy, and perspicuous. Whenever he intro- duces fables he employs a poetic style. His thoughts are just, his language graceful and noble. — No one excels him in the art of describing after the manner of the poets, the manners and charac- ters of his different personages. In many places he attains greatness of style, of which the conver- sation between Xerxes and Artabanus is an ex- ample.' (Hermog. de Formis Orationum, lib. 11. p. 147. ed. Aldi.) quoted by Larcher. AulusGellius, a miscellaneous writer, abounds with references to authors of every class. In his Attic Nights, Herodotus is frequently mentioned, as for example :— Book XVI. c. 19, he quotes at length the story of Arion, (Clio 23.) Book XVIL 8. 'Yet Herodotus the historian affirms (Melpom. 28) contrary to the opinion of almost all, that the Bosphorus or Cimmerian Sea is liable to be frozen.' Book XIII. c. 7. contains a verbal quotation from Thalia. 108, relative to the lioness, and Book XVI. 11. another on the fable of the Psyllians, (Melpom. 173.) The evidence of Plutarch is sufficiently ample and conclusive to bear alone the whole burden of our argument. The writings of Plutarch having in every age enjoyed the highest reputation, have descended to modern times abundantly authenti- cated:— among them there is a small treatise D 3 I 38 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. T" f entitled ' Of the Malignity of Herodotus,' the history of which is as follows : — The historian in his account of the Persian invasion affirms the conduct of the Boeotians on various occasions to have been in the last degree traitorous and pusil- lanimous. Now Plutarch was a Boeotian, and he felt so keenly the perpetual infamy attached by Herodotus to his countrymen, that, with the hope of wiping out the stain, he endeavoured if possible, to destroy the reputation of our author, by advancing against him a heavy charge of a malignant falsification of facts throughout his history. To effect his object he reviews the entire work, bringing to bear upon every assailable point the utmost efforts of his critical acuteness, and all the stores of his universal learning. The specific charges advanced against Herodotus in this treatise, must, to a modern reader, appear for the most part, extremely frivolous. So far as they may seem to be more serious, they have been fully refuted by several critics : — See the prefaces of Camerarius and of H. Stephens, and especially the Memoir of the Abb6 Geinoz, reprinted by Larcher, from the IMemoirs of the Academy of Belles Letters. — Larcher's Herodotus, vol. vi.* But our business at present with Plutarch's trea- tise is to derive from it a complete proof of the genuineness and general authenticity of the work which is the subject of our argument. In the * See Note. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 39 first place then this treatise, by its many and exact references to all parts of the history, proves beyond a doubt that the Greek text now extant, is substantially the same as that read by Plutarch in the time of Trajan.* In the second place, Plutarch's tacit acknowledgment of the work as the genuine production of Herodotus, may be taken as affording alone a sufficient proof of that fact ; — for if it had been at all questionable — if any obscurity had rested upon its traditionary history, Plutarch, whose learning was profound and extensive, could not have been ignorant of such grounds of doubt ; nor would he have failed to take the short course of denying at once the authenticity of the book. The five hundred years which intervened between the times of Herodotus and of Plutarch, were ages of uninterrupted and widely diff*used intelligence and erudition ;— in- comparably more so than the last five hundred years of European history : and Plutarch had vastly more ample means of ascertaining the genuineness of the history attributed to Herodotus, than a critic of the present day possesses in judg- ing of the genuineness of Froissart or Abulfeda. In the third place this small treatise yields an im- plicit testimony in support of the general truth of the history itself ; for in leaving untouched all the main parts of the story, and in fixing his 'II ^ • See Note. D 4 '^^T'Vfa. 40 PROCESS OF niSTOaiCAL PROOF. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 41 ^ If I # m i. ^ .1 criticisms upon minor fects, and upon the mere colouring given to the narrative, Plutarch virtually acknowledges that the principal facts are unques- tionable. Any one who peruses the refutation above-mentioned, of this treatise on the malignity of Herodotus will grant that Plutarch has in fact, on the whole, rather established the authenticity of the history against which he levels his critical weapons, than succeeded in destroying its credit. JosEPHus quotes and corrects Herodotus : — Jewish Antiquities Book VIII. 4; and in his reply to Apion mentions him descriptively more than once — Book I. where he enumerates the Greek historians : a few pages further he notices the remarkable fact that ' neither Herodotus nor Thucydides nor any of their contemporaries make the slightest mention of the Romans.' Presently afterwards he quotes Manetho in opposition to Herodotus, in his account of Egyptian history: and some pages further, he makes an exact quotation from Euterpe 104, on the subject of circumcision. QuiNTiLiAN, Book I. Sect. 1, compares He- rodotus with Thucydides : ' Herodotus, sweet, bland, and copious.' IX. 4, ' In Herodotus, as I think, there is always a gentle flow of language.' X. 1, ' Nor need Herodotus scorn to be conjoined with Livy.' Strabo, the most learned, exact, and intelli- gent of the ancient geographers, very frequently t cites our author, upon whose statements he makes some severe criticisms; yet without impugning the general authenticity of the history. Book XIV. Art. Halicarnassus. ' Among the illustrious men born at this place is Herodotus, the historian, who is also called the Thurian, because he joined himself to a colony at that place.' Book I. ' It was not improperly said by Herodotus (Euterpe 5) that the whole of Egypt, at least the Delta, was a gift of the river.' Book II. Strabo refers to the account given (Melpom. 43) of the voyage round Africa, attempted by the order of Darius. Book VII. he refers to Melpomene 76. 120. and Book X. he quotes the authority of Herodotus, who affirms that at Memphis in Egypt there was a temple of Neptune (Thalia 37.) The last named writer brings our series of tes- timonies to the commencement of the Christian era. In passing up the stream of time we meet next with DioNYsius, the countryman of Herodotus, and author of the ' Roman Antiquities,' and of several critical treatises. In one of these, entitled ' The Judgment of Ancient Writers,' and in another, addressed to Cn. Pompey, Dionysius gives a minute account of the style, method, and comparative merits of our author. In the book on Composition, he makes a long and literal quotation from Clio 8—12. In the character of Thucydides, he thus speaks of Herodotus : :i" 42 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. » I — ^Herodotus the Halicarnassian, who sur- vived to the time of the Peloponnesian war, though born a little before the Persian war, raised the style of writing history: nor was it the history of one city or nation only that he com- posed, but included in his work the many and various affairs both of Europe and Asia. For beginning with the Lydian kingdom, he continues to the Persian war— relates whatever was per- formed by the Greeks and Barbarians during a period of 240 years— selecting whatever was most worthy of record, and connecting them in a single history ; at the same time gracing his work with excellencies that had been neglected by his pre- decessors.' Several descriptive commendations of a similar kind might be adduced from the critical writings of this author. Contemporary with Dionysius, though a few years his senior, was Diodorus the Sicilian. This learned and laborious historian passes over much of the same ground with Herodotus, to whom he makes several allusions. Book I. p. 25,* in discussing the question relative to the inunda- tions of the Nile, he states and controverts the opinion advanced by Herodotus on that subject (Euterpe 24.) Further on, p. 44, he rejects as fabulous the accounts given by Herodotus and others of the remote history of Egypt, and pro- * Rhodoman's Diod. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 43 fesses to follow the public records of the Egyptian priests ; yet he had before, p. 23, eulogised our author as a writer ' without a rival, indefatigable in his researches, and extensively learned in history.' Book II. p. 83, Diodorus states the various opinions of writers relative to the Median empire, and among these, of Herodotus : ' Now Herodotus, who lived in the time of Xerxes, affirms (Clio 95) that the Assyrians had governed Asia during a period of 500 years before it was subjugated by the Medes.' Our author was known to the Roman writers. Cornelius Nepos evidently follows him in some passages, though he professes to adhere chiefly to the authority of Theopompus, Thucydides, and Xenophon. Cicero bestows upon him high commendation in several places, declaring that ' so far as his knowledge of the Greek language permitted him to enjoy it, the eloquence of the historian (whom he terms ' the father of history ') gave him the greatest delight :' — that his language * flows like an unobstructed river:' — and that * nothing can be more sweet than his style/ -De Oratore Lib. II. De Leg. I. 53. ' Of the same kind is the instance mentioned by Herodotus (Clio 85) of the son of Croesus, who though dumb, spoke,' &c. De divinatione. Pliny refers to Herodotus frequently ; as Nat. Hist. (Hardouin's) vol. i. p. ] 14, * If we credit Herodotus (Euterpe 5) the sea once extended be- ^ 44 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF, i yond Memphis, as far ajs the mountains of Ethiopia.' p. 256, speaking of the inundation of the Nile, he quotes our author (Euterpe 19) ' the river as Herodotus relates, subsides within its banks on the hundredth day after its first rise:' passing refe- rences occur, pp. 260. 370. 436, ' Herodotus, a more ancient and a better authority than Juba, 656. ' Herodotus (Thalia 114) says that ebony formed part of the tribute rendered by the Ethi- opians to the kings of Persia;' 'this author composed (corrected) his history at Thurium in Italy, in the 310th year of Rome;' see also pp. 667. 668. ScYMNus of Chios, of whose writings some fragments only remain, professes, in his Descrip- tion of the Earth, to report what ' Herodotus has recorded in his history,' (quoted by Larcher.) This writer is believed to have flourished in the second century before the Christian era. Aristotle, Rhetoric III. 9, cites Herodotus as an example of the antiquated continuous style. Poetics, Sect. 18, * If the work of Herodotus were turned into verse, it would not by that means become a poem ; but would remain a his- tory.' In his History of Animals VIII. 18, he charges our author with an error, in affirming that ' at the siege of Ninus, an eagle was seen to drink;' but no such assertion is to be found in the works of the historian : probably a passage of some other writer was quoted by Aristotle from fl • PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 45 memory, and erroneously attributed to Herodotus ; or possibly he quoted some work of this his- torian which has since perished. Rhet. III. 5. The ambiguous reply of the Pythian to Croesus (Clio 53) is quoted, though not explicitly from Herodotus. Ctesias, an abstract of whose works is pre- served by Photius, is very frequently quoted by ancient authors. See Diod. Sic. Book II. 64^ 84. Xenophon Exped. of Cyrus, Book I. and Pausanias, Book IX. 21. He was a Greek phy- sician, who accompanied the expedition led against Artaxerxes by his brother, the younger Cyrus. Though a few years younger, he was contemporary with Herodotus: his testimony therefore brings the series of evidences up to the very time of our author. Ctesias, having fallen into the hands of the Persians at the battle of Cunaxa, was detained at the court of Artaxerxes as physician, during seventeen years; and it seems that, with the hope of recommending him- self to the favour of 'the great king,' and of obtain- ing his freedom, he undertook to compose a history of Persia, with the express and avowed design of impeaching the authority of Herodotus, whom, in no very courteous terms, he accuses of many falsifications. The jealousy and malice of a little mind are apparent in these accusations. Nothing can be much more inane than the fragments that are preserved of this author's two works— his 1 ir 46 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF, PROCES(S OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 47 history of Persia, and his Indian history ; yet, though possessing little intrinsic value, they serve an important purpose, in furnishing a very explicit evidence of the genuineness and general authen- ticity of the work which Ctesias laboured to de- preciate. If the account given by Herodotus of Persian affairs had been altogether untrue, his rival wanted neither the will nor the means to expose the imposition. But while, like Plutarch, he cavils at minor points, he leaves the substance of the narrative uncontradicted.* Thucydides, the contemporary and rival of Herodotus, whose writings are said to have kin- dled in his young mind the passion for literary distinction, makes only an indistinct allusion to the history ; yet this allusion is such as can hardly be misunderstood. Book I. 22, in explain- ing the principles by which he proposed to be guided in writing his history, he glances sarcas- tically at certain writers, who, in narrating events that had taken place in remote times, mix fables with truth, and who seem to have aimed rather to amuse than to instruct their readers. He then immediately mentions the Median war, which forms the principal subject of his rival's work, and of which that work was the well known record. But if this allusion may not be admitted in evidence, our chain of proof is complete without it. Citations or allusions similar to these might * See Note. be brought forward almost without number ; but every purpose, both of illustration and of argu- ment—if argument were needed, is accomplished as well by a few as by many. From the entire mass of testimonies, if we select, for example, that of Photius, of Plutarch, and of Ctesias, we have proof of the genuineness and integrity of the work which cannot be fairly controverted ; for the existence of these testimonies in the pages of the above-named writers, could never be ac- counted for if we took the negative side of the question, except by admitting a string of extra- vagant and incredible suppositions. And when we find the work reflected, as it were, more or less distinctly, from almost the entire surface of ancient literature, no room is left for doubt or controversy. The writers of every age from the time of the author, speak of the work familiarly as being well known in their times: — none of them quote it in such terms as these, ' an ancient history, said to have been written by Herodotus :' —or, ' a history which most persons believe to be genuine;' but all refer to it as a book in every one's hands. If therefore the history had been forged in any age subsequent to that of Hero- dotus, the forger must have had under his con- troul, for the purpose of interpolation, not only a copy of every considerable work extant in his time, but every copy of every such work :— he must in fact have new created the entire mass of / 48 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. books existing in the eastern and western world at the time ; and must have destroyed all but his own interpolated copies ; otherwise, some chance copies of some of these works would have reached us in which these interpolated quotations from Herodotus were wanting. Such suppositions are manifestly extravagant. Yet let us for a moment attempt to realize one or two of them. We will imagine then that this history was forged in the ninth century, by some learned monk of Constantinople for example. On this supposition we must believe that the copyists of that time, in all parts of the Greek empire, being gained over by the forger to favour the fraud, issued new and ingeniously interpolated copies of the following authors;— namely, Procopius, Ste- phen, Stobseus, Marcellinus, Julian, Hesychius, Athen«us, Longinus, Laertius, Lucian, Hermo- genes, Pausanias, Aulus Gellius, Plutarch, Jo- sephus, Strabo, Dionysius, Diodorus, Aristotle, Ctesias, and many others, not cited above. And to this list must be added also many works extant in the ninth century, but since lost. All the pre- viously existing copies of these authors must then have been' gathered in and destroyed. But even this is not enough ; for the Byzantine forgers must have gained the concurrence of the Latin copyists, in all the monasteries of western Europe ; other- wise the works of Cicero, and of Quintilian, and of Pliny, would not have contained those refer- PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 49 ences to the history which we actually find in them. Now to effect all this, or a twentieth part of it, was just as practicable to any individual of the middle ages, as it would be to alter the spots in the moon: and the impracticabihty IS of the same kind in both cases ; for the things to be altered were absolutely out of the reach of those whom we suppose to have made the attempt. And what do we mean by these interpolations ? Not, for the most part, formal sentences, or dis- tinct paragraphs, wedged in where they seem to have little fitness, and loaded with incongruities of style ; but citations or allusions of the most inci- dental kind, perfectly proper to the connection in which they occur, and perfectly congruous with the text. But let us imagine that the genuine history of Herodotus, referred to as we have seen by earlier writers, had perished, or was supposed to have perished, about the seventh century ; and that some forger of the ninth composed a work which should pass in the world for the genuine history. Now besides a capital difficulty, pre- sently to be mentioned, the forger must have had in his memory, as he went along, the entire body of ancient literature, both Greek and Roman, or he could not have worked up all the references and quotations of earlier authors, so as to make them tally, as we find they do, with his spurious I E ^■Nvai wm W— li . 50 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. production: and if any of these authors were unknown to him, or forgotten, then we should find discrepant quotations and references, that could not be verified. Moreover, as the genuine work was certainly in existence and widely diffused in the sij'th century, no writer wishing to make such an attempt, could think himself secure against the existence of some hidden copies of the genuine work, which, if brought to light, would at once expose his own to contempt. Nor in fact was it possible that every copy of a work so universally diffused could have perished from all the libraries of Europe in so short a time as one or two hundred years. Or we may imagine a forgery to have been attempted nearer to the time of the alleged author. Now just in proportion as we recede from difficulties of one kind, we run upon those of another. For if, to avoid the palpable ab- surdity of supposing that a huge mass of books, scattered through many and distant countries, were at once called in, and re-issued with the i-equisite interpolations — ^we imagine that the work was forged at an earlier time, when fewer testi- monies needed to have been foisted into existing books, then we find ourselves in a period when learning was at its height— at Alexandria — through- out Greece, and its colonies; — ^when every fact connected with the history of books was fami- liarly known ; when many large libraries existed ; PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 51 when therefore no standard work could disappear or be supplanted by a spurious one ; much less could a work which had never before been heard of, at once create to itself the credit of a book long and familiarly known : how could the learned in the east and the west be persuaded that a work newly produced had been in their libraries for a hundred years ? Though the knowledge of books is more widely diffused in modern than it was in ancient times, yet among those who peculiarly addict themselves to literature, there is not now more of erudition, of intelligence, of discrimina- tion, than were displayed in the three or four centuries of which the Augustan age formed the centre. To issue a voluminous history, and to persuade the world that it had been known during the last two hundred years, is an attempt not more impracticable in the present day, than it would have been in the times of Dionysius, of Cicero, of Quintilian, or of Plutarch. If we carry our supposition of forgery still higher— that is to say till we get free from all the difficulties above-mentioned, then what do we gain ? The fact principally important as an histo- rical question is granted— namely, that the history was actually extant at, or very near the time com- monly supposed : the only point then disputed is the bare name of the author, which, so far as the truth of the history is involved, is a question of infe- rior consequence. Yet let us pursue this nugatory E 2 ■ Ill Hi I J 52 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. doubt :— If Herodotus the Halicarnassian were a real person, known in his time as a writer, then some self-denying forger made over to this Herodotus all the glory of being the author of so admirable a work ; and this Herodotus accepted the gene- rous fraud, and acted his part to give it credit. But if the name and designation be altogether fictitious — the real author concealing himself; then how happened it that the Greeks of that age speak of Herodotus as of a real person whom they had known, honoured, and rewarded ? In preference to any of these frivolous and impracticable hypo- theses, who would not rather accept as true the affirmation which the work bears upon its front ? Our argument has been drawn from one species of evidence— the testimony of contemporary and succeeding writers. Before we pass on, we may take the occasion to point out a possible augmen- tation of it. Suppose then that after tracing, as we have done, the history of the work in question, through a continued series of quotations, in the Greek and Latin writers, and obtaining by that means alone a conclusive proof of its antiquity, it were discovered that there is in existence a Persian translation of the history of Herodotus, ascertained by the peculiarities of its style, as well as by external evidence, to have been exe- cuted in the time of Artaxerxes. Another trans- lation of the same work is then brought forward in the language of ancient Carthage, which^ PROCESS OF HISTbRICAL TRUTH. 53 except in this (supposed) translation, has been long extinct. And another in the Coptic, or ancient language of Egypt ; another in the Latin, of the time of Plautus and Terence. If these translations had each descended to modern times, through an independent channel; if each pos- sessed a separate mass of evidence in proof of its . antiquity; and if, when collated among them- selves, and with the Greek original, they were found to harmonize, except in those lesser varia- tions which must always belong to translations ; then, and in such a case, we should possess so many distinct demonstrations — each of them per- fect by itself— of the antiquity and integrity of the text now in our hands. This sort of redundant demonstation does not belong to the Greek historian : but it is possessed in full by the Jewish and Christian Scrip- tures. Our plan being to pursue, step by step, a series of definite proofs, we must not insist upon that kind of evidence which is in itself vague, or which cannot be fully appreciated except by scholars. Yet, in passing, this kind of evidence may properly be adverted to ; and indeed, though indefinite, it is often in a high degree conclusive. If the case were merely stated without explana- tions, it must certainly be granted to be possible that a writer of a later age, who was a perfect master of the Greek language, who possessed an E 3 54 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 55 endless fund of various learning, and who was gifted in a high degree with the imitative faculty, might produce nine books like those of Hero- dotus, which, supposing there were no external evidence to contradict the fraud, might pass as genuine. To affirm that such a forgery as this is possible, is to allow the very utmost that our knowledge of the powers of the human mind will permit to be granted ; and much more than the history of literary forgeries will warrant us to suppose. For all the attempts of that sort that have been detected, either abound with mani- fest incongruities, or if executed by men of learning and ability, have been formed upon a small scale, and have excluded, as far as possible, all exact references to particular facts. But the work before us is of considerable extent ; its allusions to particular facts are innu- merable, precise, and incautious; its style and dialect are, without an oversight, proper to the age to which it pretends : — in a word, it is in every respect what a genuine production of that age ought to be. If then it were to be judged of on the ground of internal evidence alone, no scholar would for a moment hesitate to decide in favour of its genuineness. Yet as the reasons of such a decision are not equally clear to every one, and as they fall a hair's breadth below abso- lute certainty, we merely notice them incidentally, and pass on. I CHAPTER VI. ARGUMENT FROM THE GENUINENESS TO THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE HISTORY. That the Greek text of Herodotus, such as it now appears-excepting only small verbal varia- tions, was extant and well known in Greece at least as early as the commencement of the Peio- ponnesian war (B. C. 431) is the conclusion that is established by the evidence already adduced It now remains to inquire how far this proof ot the antiquity and genuineness of the work carries with it a proof of the truth of the history. In a civilized and lettered community, where a free expression of opiuion is allowed, and where opposing interests actually exist, a writer who professes to compile an authentic account of transactions that are still fresh in the recollection of the people, can move only within certain limits, even if he wishes to misrepresent facts. -Circum- stances known only to a few may be falsified- motives may be maligned-actions may be exag- gerated-wrongs and sufferings may be coloured by rhetorical declamations-fair characters may be defamed, and foul ones eulogised :-these are the boundaries of falsification. But if personages £ 4 i V 4 \ I I 56 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. altogether fictitious are made the heroes of the story — if invasions, battles, sieges, conspiracies, are described which never happened — if, in a word, the narrative is a fiction, then it ranks in a different class of productions, and could never gain credit as an authentic account of real and recent events. The same evidence therefore which establishes the existence of an historical work at a time near to that of the events it records, estab- lishes also the general authenticity of the narrative ; —for the work is not only mentioned by contem- porary writers, but mentioned as a professed and acknowledged history. This character, granted to the book by the author's contemporaries, con- tains by condensation the suffrages of the whole community. In substance, we hear the people of Greece assenting to the historian on those prin- cipal portions of his narrative, at least, of which they were qualified to form an opinion, and rela- tive to which no writer would attempt to deceive them. Equity demands that we treat an historian con- formably with his own professions. When he narrates events known as well, in substance, to all his contemporaries, as to himself, he is not to be considered as loaded with any other responsi- bility than that of telling his story well :— in such matters we may ask for proof of his impartiality, or of the soundness of his judgment, but not of his veracity, for his veracity is not taxed. But i PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 57 when he relates incidents of a private or remote Ymdi ;— when he makes a demand upon the confi- dence of his contemporaries by affirming things in which they could not generally detect his mistate- ments if he erred ;-then, and in all such cases, we may fairly search for every kind of evidence that bears upon the historian's character, circum- stances, and means of information. This is an important distinction, never to be lost sight of in reading history ;-and the inference it contains is this— that a history of public transactions, pub- lished while many of the actors were still living, and while the events were familiarly remembered by a large number of persons, and which was commonly received as authentic, is, in its principal facts, unquestionably true, even though there should be reason to suspect the impartiality, veracity, or judgment of the writer ; but if in these respects, he is entitled to a common degree of confidence, then nothing more than a few errors of inadvertency can with any fairness be deducted from the narrative. Every historical work, therefore, needs to be analyzed, and to have its several portions sepa- rately estimated.— Whatever is remote or parti- cular will claim our credence according to the opinion we may form of the historian-s veracity, accuracy, judgment, and means of information ; but the truth of narratives relating to events that were matters of notoriety in the writer's time, rests r f 58 PROCESS OF HISTOUICAL PUOOF. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 59 \ I f altogether upon a different ground ; being neces- sarily involved in the fact that the work was pub- lished and accepted as authentic at such or such a date. The strength of this inference will best appear by closely examining a particular instance. In adherence to the distinction above mentioned, we must detach from the history of Herodotus the following portions (not as if they were proved to be false, or even improbable ; but simply because the truth of them cannot be directly inferred from the genuineness of the z(;(??-A.)— -Geographical and antiquarian descriptions of countries remote from Greece:— The early history of such countries, and indeed the early history of Greece itself : — Events or conferences said to have taken place at the Persian court during the war with Greece; and lastly, many particular incidents, reported to have happened among the Greeks, but which rest upon single or suspicious evidence. After making these deductions, there will remain all those prin- cipal events of the Persian invasion which were as well known to thousands of the author's country- men and contemporaries as to himself, and in de- scribing which his responsibility is that of an author only, who is required to digest his materials in the best manner he can — not that of a witness, called to give evidence upon a matter of doubt. The leading events thus vouched for by the antiquity and genuineness of the work are these — The invasion of Greece by a large Asiatic army. V. about five-and-forty years before the publication of the history : — the defeat of that army by the Athenians and Plateeans on the plains of Marathon : — a second invasion of Greece ten years afterwards, by an immense host, gathered from many nations: — the desertion of their city by the Athenians :— an ineffectual contest with the invaders at the pass of Thermopylae : — the occupation of Athens by the Persians : -the defeat of the invading fleet at Salamis:— the retreat of the Persians, and their second advance in the following year, when the destruction of Athens was completed ; and the final overthrow of the Asiatic army at Plataea and Mycale. That these events actually took place — the history being genuine— will appear if the circum- stances of the case are examined. At the time when, as it has been proved, the history of Herodotus was generally known and received as authentic, the several states of Greece were marshalled under the rival interests of Athens and of Sparta, and an intestine war, carried on with the utmost animosity, raged by turns in all parts of this narrow territory. Such a period therefore was not the time when flagrant mis- representations of recent facts, tending to flatter the vanity of one of these rival states, at the ex- pence of the honour of others, could be endured, ' or could gain credit. The Athenians gloried, be- yond all bounds of modesty, in having, with the u I , ^.i 60 PROCKSS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 61 \¥ i assistance of the Plataeans only, repelled the Median invasion on the plains of Marathon. But would this boast have been allowed— would the account of the battle given by Herodotus have been suffered to pass without contradiction by the other states, if no such invasion had actually taken place, or if it had been much less formidable than represented by the historian ; — or if the other states had in fact been present on the field ? Our author affirms that the Lacedsemonians, though fully informed of the danger which threatened the independence of Greece, persisted in a scrupulous adherence to their custom of not setting out upon a military expedition till after the full moon. In the mean time the battle took place, and a body of two thousand Lacedsemonians, afterwards des- patched from Sparta, reached the field of battle only time enough to gratify their curiosity by a sight of the slaughtered Medes. This absence of their allies was ever afterwards made matter of arrogant exultation by the Athenians; and the historian in giving his support to their boast, dared the contradiction of one half of the Greeks. The second invasion of Greece, conducted by the Persian monarch in person, took place ten years after the defeat of the first at Marathon ; or about five and thirty years before the publication of the history : many individuals, therefore, were then living who took part in the several battles and engagements ; and every remarkable event of 1 the war was then as well known and remembered in Greece as are the circumstances of the French - Revolution by the people of Europe at the present time. Our immediate object does not demand that we should examine the credibility of the description given by Herodotus of the Asiatic army ; for even if it were proved that the numbers are exaggerated, the principal facts would not be brought into doubt, nor even would the credit due to the historian be much impeached, for in all these par- ticulars he is careful, again and again, to remind the reader that he brings forward the best ac- counts he could collect— not vouching for their absolute accuracy. That he availed himself of authentic documents in compiUng this description is rendered evident by the graphic truth and pro- priety of all the particulars.* Indeed the picture of the Persian army, and of its discipline and movements is strikingly accordant with the known modes of Asiatic warfare. The army of Xerxes consisted of a small body of brave and well disciplined troops, Medes, Persians, and Saces, which, if ably commanded, and unen- cumbered, might very probably have succeeded in their enterprize; but being impeded and embarrassed by the presence of a vast and dis- orderly mob of half-savage or dissolute attend- * See Note. ^ 3 s > I V 62 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. ants, they were, at every step, surrounded by a wide-spreading desolation — more fatal than the enemy, which rendered the advance of the army in the highest degree difficult, and its re- treat desperate. To all this, parallel instances may be adduced from almost every page of Asiatic history. If it were alleged that Herodotus discovers an inclination on every occasion to place the conduct of the Athenians in the most advantageous light, it might be replied that if such a disposition is charged upon him, then his substantial impartiality and the authenticity of the narrative are proved by his allowing to the Spartans the undivided and enviable glory of having first encountered the invaders at the pass of Thermopylae. In relating this memorable action he affirms that all the allies under the command of Leonidas, excepting only a small body of Thebans and of Thespians, re- tired from the pass as soon as it was known that they were circumvented by the Barbarians ; and he plainly attributes this desertion to the prevalence of unsoldier-like fears. This statement therefore —like many others in the history — challenges contradiction from the parties implicated in the dishonour. In recounting the naval engagements which took place in the Eubcean straits, the historian contents himself with affirming that after a doubt- ful contest, each fleet retired to its station ; and PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 63 he attributes the final success of the Greeks, not so much to their valour and skill, as to a di- vine interposition, which, by a violent storm, so far diminished the Persian fleet that the two armaments were reduced to an equality. (See Urania passim.) The ill success of the Greeks in attempting to oppose the advance of the Barbarians at Thermo- pylae, and the losses they had sustained in several naval engagements, having reduced them almost to despair, the Athenians, thinking it impracticable to defend Attica, abandoned their city, and took refuge on board their ships, and in the neighbour- ing islands. The invader therefore was allowed, without opposition, to execute his threat that he would retaliate upon the Athenians the burning of Sardis. Here then we arrive at a definite fact, which may be considered as forming the central point of the history. If this fact be established most of the subordinate incidents must be ad- mitted to have taken place, being nothing more than the proper causes or effects of this main event. Within so short a period as five-and-thirty, or forty years, it could not be a matter of doubt or controversy to the Athenians, or indeed to any of the people of Greece, whether Athens had been occupied by a foreign army— its halls and temples overthrown or burned — its sacred groves cut down, and its surrounding gardens and fields %l ;i t^ I I l( i; #' 64 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. devastated. But while several thousand citizens were still living, who were adults at the time of the alleged invasion, and while the structures of the new city were in their first freshness, or scarcely completed ; and while, if it had actually taken place, the marks of this destruction must have been every where apparent, a history is published, and universally applauded, in which this invasion of Attica, and this destruction of Athens are particularly described. Now can we reconcile this fact with the supposition that no such events had really taken place — that these arrogant citizens had never been driven from their homes? Can we believe that, for the sake of assuming to themselves the glory of having re- pelled such an invasion, the entire people of Athens would have given their assent to a fic- titious narrative, which every one of them must have known had no foundation in truth? or, if such an infatuation had prevailed at Athens, would their neighbours — the Corinthians, and the Boeotians, have left the preposterous falsehood uncontradicted ? It is evident that unless a powerful invasion of Greece had taken place, Athens — the principal city of Greece, could not have been occupied and destroyed ; and unless that invasion had been speedily repulsed, Athens could not have re- gained that wealth, and power, and liberty which, on other evidence, it is known to have possessed % I \ I PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 65 in the first years of the Peloponnesian war. Here then, if the truth of the history of Herodotus were to be argued, the question must come to its issue. If an opponent denies that such an invasion of Greece happened at the time affirmed by our author, he must reconcile the general diffusion and high credit of the history of Herodotus throughout Greece, with his denial of the fact. On the other hand, the apologist for Herodotus, having established the antiquity and genuineness of the work, cannot be required either to defend the veracity of the historian, or to adduce corro- borative evidence in proof of the fact ; for until the difficulty which rests upon his opponent's hypothesis is disposed of, he remains in full pos- session of his position. The account given by Herodotus of the sub- sequent events of the Persian war — that is to say— the defeat of the Asiatic fleet at Salamis— the retreat of Xerxes — the second occupation of Athens in the following spring by the Persians under the command of Mardonius, and the final discomfiture and destruction of the Barbarian army at Plataea and at Mycale, will follow of course, as substantially true, if the preceding facts are established. It must however be observed that a peculiar character of authenticity belongs to this latter portion of the history : for though the issue of the war was indeed highly gratifying to the vanity of the Greeks, one would almost think that '. >i \ G6 ll PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. the historian wished, as far as possible, to check their exultation, or to balance the vaunts of each of the states by some circumstances of dishonour. No veil is drawn over the absurd and almost fatal contentions for precedency by which the counsels of the confederates were distracted ; nor are the treasons and the interested conduct of the chiefs concealed or excused. The pusillanimity of some, and the fears of all are confessed : indeed so much of infamy or of discredit is thrown by Herodotus upon individuals, and upon the whole community, that the boldness of the author in publishing such statements, and the candour of the Greeks in admitting them, are both worthy of admiration. Nor can we believe otherwise than that a full conviction of the substantial truth of these statements at once inspired the writer with this courage, and compelled his hearers to exercise this forbearance. It cannot seem sur- prising that in later times some writers, jealous for the honour of Greece at large, or of some parti- cular state, should attempt to remove these blots by impugning the credit of the historian. Yet even in making this attempt, tliey venture no further than to call in question his account of particular transactions, or to dispute those por- tions of the work which relate to remote times. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 67 CHAPTER VII. CONTEMPORARY TESTIMONIES IN PROOF OF THE FACTS RELATED BY HERODOTUS. We have seen that the history of the Persian invasion as given by Herodotus is, in its main circumstances, established by the mere fact that the work was known and accepted as authentic within forty years of the events it records. This then is not an instance in which the veracity of the historian needs to be vindicated, or in which our faith must be dependent upon other evidence. Yet it is natural, after tracing this single line of proof, to look around for such other evidence as may be found to bear upon the history. "We have indeed a good right to suppose that events of such magnitude as those which Herodotus relates will be mentioned, iriore or less explicitly, by other writers of the same age — whether philo- sophers, poets, orators, or historians. And this in fact is the case in the instance before us ; for al- most every writer contemporary with Herodotus, whose works are extant, makes allusions of a direct or indirect kind to the Persian invasion. — Some of the authors already adduced in proof • F 2 y i.V' 68 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 69 of the antiquity and genuineness of the history, must now be recalled to give evidence on the matter of fact. Pindar, the prince of lyric poets, is reported to have died at the age of eighty-six, B.C. 435 : he was therefore born B. C. 521, and was in his forty-first year at the time of the Persian invasion. The odes now extant were recited in Greece be- fore the history of Herodotus was composed. The subjects of these compositions are the praises of the victors at the Olympic, the Isthmian, the Pythian, and the Nemean games; and in ex- tolling his heroes, the poet finds occasion to refer to the glories of the cities to which they belonged : they contain therefore many historical allusions to the events of Grecian history ; and as these odes were recited at all the great festivals, the allusions were such 2is the mass of the people could not fail to understand. This sort of inci- dental and brief notice of public events, intended to kindle the enthusiasm of the audience, must of course rest upon the knowledge or convictions of those to whom they were addressed. In the first of the Pythian odes, a rapid sketch is given of the principal events of the Persian war. — * Such defeat as they sufi*ered by the Syracusan prince, who manning the swift ships, with the youth, delivered Greece from heavy servitude. — I would choose the praise won by the Athe- nians at Salamis: — or I would tell at Sparta the fight near Mount Cithaeron, (at Plata^a) in which the Medes with their curved bows* were oppressed.' These allusions may be explained by referring to Herodotus : — Polymnia 156, 166, where it is related, that while Xerxes was advancing to- wards Greece, the Athenians and Lacedaemonians sent an embassy to Gelon, tyrant of Syracuse, to ask his aid against the Barbarian : this he refused to grant, except upon conditions with which the Greeks could not comply. Yet he fitted out a fleet, and engaged and defeated the Cartha- genians, commanded by Aihilcar, who had been incited by the Persians to join in the war upon the Greeks : by this victory, Greece was delivered from the danger of an attack which must have proved fatal to its liberties ; for if the Cartha- genian fleet had arrived in the Archipelago, and joined the Persians, the Greeks could hardly have withstood so vast a combination. The next allusion is to the engagement at Salamis, in which the Athenians, as Herodotus (Urania 84) affirms, took the principal part : and the last, to the final defeat of the Barbarians near Plataea, at the foot of Mount Cithseron. (Calliope 53, et seq.) In this battle, the Spartans were the most distin- * ayKvXoroloL. The Median bow as seen in the bas- reliefs of Persepolis, is very properly described by this epi- thet — it is very long and much curved, even in its extended state. F 3 ^ 70 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. guished. In the fifth Isthmian ode, another allu- sion to Salamis occurs - ' where men innume- rable met their death, as by a hail storm of destruction.' ^scHYLus,* the father of tragedy among the Greeks, had reached manhood at the time of the first invasion of Greece, and took part in the battle of Marathon : he was present also in the engagement at Salamis, and again at the battle of Plataea. Seven only of his tragedies have descended to modern times:— one of these is entitled "The Persians." The scene is laid at Susa in Persia, and the time supposed is during the absence of Xerxes in Greece. The play is opened by a chorus of elders, who discourse anxiously concerning the fate of the expedition ; - 'AH Asia is exhausted of men: — fathers and wives count the days, and mourn the long ab- sence of their relatives.'- Atossa the queen enters dejected, and recounts a portentous dream :— a messenger then arrives from Greece • he reports the defeat of the Persian fleet, and the retreat of Xerxes :— in relating the particulars, he glances at the circumstances which preceded the engagement at Salamis, as mentioned by Herodotus (Uriana 76, et seq.)— That a mes- senger (sent by Themistocles) informed Xerxes that the Greeks were about to disperse ; to pre- * ^schylus is quoted by Herodotus ;-Euterpe 156. ^i PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 71 vent which he imprudently surrounded them : — an engagement ensued, of which Xerxes was a spectator from a promontory on the coast of Attica : — the Persians are defeated ; —those who occupied the island of Psyttalea were all slain. Xerxes retires precipitately, and the army fol- lowing him, suffers the extremity of hunger and thirst. On hearing this, the queen invokes the shade of Darius, which appears. — Atossa repeats the story of his son's defeat : — The shade pre- dicts the fatal battle of Plataea, and the destruc- tion of the army. In the closing scene, Xerxes himself arrives, bewailing his misfortunes, and bringing back nothing but an empty quiver. The only material point in which ^schylus differs from Herodotus, is in reckoning the Greek fleet at 300, instead of 700 sail: — this is evidently a poetic deviation from fact, intended to enhance the glory of the victory. Of all the Greek historians, none bears so high a character for general authenticity and for ex- actness in matters of fact as Thucydides : his impartiality, his laborious collection and judicious selection of materials, and his rejection of what- ever seemed to rest on suspicious evidence, are apparent on almost every page of the history of the Peloponnesian war. This history was pub- lished about sixty years after the expedition of Xerxes. Thucydides had conversed with many of those who had taken part in the battles de- F 4 72 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 73 scribed by Herodotus. Many allusions to the events of the Persian invasion occur in the course of the work, and they are all of that kind which is natural, when an historian refers to facts which he supposes to be fresh in the recollection of his readers. The introductory sections of the his- tory (1 — 23) contain an outline of Grecian affairs, from the earliest times to the commencement of the war between Athens and Sparta. In this prehminary sketch, the leading circumstances of the invasion, as related by Herodotus, are men- tioned — as, the war between the Persian kings — Cyrus and Cambyses, and the Greeks of Asia Minor: — the naval power of Polycrates, tyrant of Samos; Sect. 13— 16.— The Median war, the reigns of Darius and of Xerxes, and the conduct of Themistocles :— 14. — The expulsion of the Pisistratidae from Greece, the battle between the Medes and the Greeks at Marathon, and, ten years afterwards, the second invasion of Greece by the Barbarians ; the desertion of their city by the Athenians, and their taking refuge on board their ships— 18 :—' Not many years after the expulsion of the tyrants from Greece, happened the battle between the Medes and the Athenians at Marathon; and ten years after that battle, the Barbarians arrived with a great armament, intended to reduce the Greeks to bondage. In this imminent danger, the Lacedaemonians who were more powerful than the other states, took the command in the war. The Athenians, as the Medes advanced, having resolved to abandon their city, collected all their goods, and went on board their ships ; and from that time became a maritime people. After, by their united efforts, the Greeks had repulsed the Barbarian, the se- veral states, as well those which fell away from the king, as those which had fought with the Greeks, took part, some with the Athenians, and some with the Lacedaemonians,' &c. Again, Sect. 23, Thucy- dides refers to the * late Median war,' which he says 'was quickly terminated in two battles and two naval engagements.' The battle of Marathon, and the burial of the slain upon the field are men- tioned Book II. 34 : and in a funeral oration pro- nounced by Pericles (whether really so or not is of no consequence to the argument) the ex- ploits of the Athenians in repelling the Barbarians are mentioned, as being too well known to need to be particularized; — and Book IV. 59. The conflict at Thermopylae is mentioned Book IV, 36 — the battle of Plataea and the engagement at Artemisium, Book III. 54. The defeat of the Medes — the devastation of Athens, and its restora- tion are narrated. Book I. 89 — 93. The distance of time — namely fifty years, between the defeat of Xerxes and the commencement of the Pelo- ponnesian war, is mentioned. Book I. 118. 'All these actions which took place either among the Greeks, or between them and the Barbarians were ■i^ if [ 74 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. included within a period of nearly fifty years, reckoning from the retreat of Xerxes to the com- mencement of the present war.' These and some other allusions to the events of the Persian invasion — coinciding as they do with the more ample narrative given by Hero- dotus, and coming from an historian who made it his boast that he admitted nothing into his work which was not supported by satisfactory evidence, and who moreover was disposed rather to detract from the credit of his rival, than to confirm it, must be held to furnish the most con- clusive kind of independent testimony. Indeed the express affirmation of Thucydides that Athens was destroyed by the Persians, affords alone a sufficient proof of the fact: for this affirmation could neither have been made nor tolerated within sixty years after the event, unless it were known to be true. Lysias the orator, at the early age of fifteen years, accompanied Herodotus and other Athe- nians to Thurium : after a long residence in Italy he returned to Athens, where he distinguished himself by his eloquence. In a funeral oration, pronounced in honour of the Athenians who fell in the Corinthian war, the following passage occurs : ' The king of Asia, unsatisfied with his present greatness, and actuated by a boundless ambition, prepared an army of 500,000 men, hoping by this mighty force to reduce Europe process of historical proof. 75 under his subjection .... With such rapidity was the victory (at Marathon) accomplished, that the other states of Greece learned by the same messenger the invasion of the Persians, and their defeat ; and without the terror of danger, felt the pleasure of deliverance. It is not surprising then that such actions, though ancient (about 80 years,) should still retain the full verdure of glory, and remain to succeeding ages the examples and the envy of mankind Many causes conspired to engage Xerxes, king of Asia, to undertake a second expedition against Europe After ten years' preparation he landed in Europe, with a fleet of 1200 sail, and such a number of land forces that it would be tedious to recount even the names of those various nations by whom he was attended He made a journey over land, by joining the Hellespont, and a voyage by sea, by dividing Mount Athos.' The orator then briefly mentions the engagements at Artemisium and Thermopylae — the abandonment of Athens, and the removal of the citizens to Salamis : — * their city was deserted, their temples burnt or demo- lished, their country laid waste.' — See Gillies' Lysias. IsocRATEs flourished a few years later than Lysias, yet he was contemporary with Herodotus. One of his orations, pronounced in praise of the Athenians, contains the following passage : * They first (the Athenians) signalized their courage T^ 76 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. against the troops of Darius (at Marathon). . . . The Persians, a short time after renewed their attempts, and Xerxes himself, forsaking his palace and his pleasures, ventured to become a general. At the head of all Asia he formed the most towering designs. For who, though inclined to exaggeration, can come up to the reality. The conquest of Greece appeared to him an object below his ambition. — Designing to effect some- thing beyond human power, he projected that enterprise, so celebrated, of making his army sail through the land, and march over the sea ; and he carried this idea into execution by piercing Mount Athos, and throwing a bridge over the Hellespont. Against a monarch so proud and en- terprising, who had executed such vast designs, and who commanded so many% armies, the Lace- daemonians, dividing the danger with Athens, drew themselves up at Thermopylae. With a thousand of their own troops, and a small body of their allies, they determined in that narrow pass to resist the progress of all his land forces. While our ancestors (the Athenians of the last genera- tion) sailed with sixty gallies to Artemisium, and expectedthe whole fleet of the Barbarians. . . The Lacedaemonians perished to a man ; but the Athe- nians conquered the fleet they had undertaken to oppose. Their allies were dispirited. The Pelo- ponnesians, occupied for their own safety, had begun to fortify the Isthmus. . . . The enemy PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 77 approached Attica with a fleet of 1200 sail, and with land forces innumerable. . . . The Athenians assembled all the inhabitants of their city, and transported them into the neighbouring island.— And where shall we find more generous lovers of Greece than those who in its defence abandoned their abodes, suff'ered their city to be ravaged, their altars to be violated, their temples to be burned to the ground, and all the terrors of war to rage in their native country ? . . . Athens, even in her misfortunes, furnished more ships for the sea fi^ht off" Salamis, which was to decide the fate of Greece, than all the other states together ; and there is no one, I believe, so unjust as to deny, that by our victory in that engagement the war was terminated, and the danger removed.' Gillies' Isocrates. Ctesias, as we have seen, aff*ords a testimony conclusive in favour of the antiquity of the history attributed to Herodotus. We have now to adduce his evidence on the subject of the Persian inva- sion ;— reminding the reader that his history of Persia was composed with the avowed design of of invalidating the account given by Herodotus of Persian aff*airs. Passing over the previous por- tions of the history, we find the following narra- tive of the expedition of Xerxes: — ' Xerxes, having collected a Persian army, consisting, be- sides the chariots of war, of 800,000 men, and a thousand galleys, led them into Greece, by a bridge > . 78 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 79 which he had caused to be constructed at Abydos. It was then that he was accosted by Demaratus the Lacedaemonian (see Herodotus VII. 101) who passed with him into Europe, and who endeavoured to dissuade the king from attacking the Lacedse- monians. Xerxes arriving at the pass of Ther- mopylse, placed 10,000 men under the command of Artapanus, who there engaged Leonidas— chief of the Lacedaemonians. In this conflict a great slaughter of the Persians took place, while not more than three or four of the Lacedaemonians were slain. After this Xerxes sent 20,000 men to the field ; these also were overcome, and though driven to fight by blows, were still vanquished. The next day he sent forward 50,000 men ; but as these also failed in their attack, he no longer attempted to fight. * Thorax the Thessalian, and Calliades and Timaphernes, princes of the Trachinians, were then present (in the Persian camp) with their troops. These, with Demaratus and Hegias of Ephesus, Xerxes called into his presence, and from them he learned that the Lacedaemonians could by no means be vanquished unless they were surrounded and attacked on all sides. Forty thousand Persians were therefore despatched under the command of these two Trachinian leaders, who traversing a difficult path, came behind the Lacedaemonians. Thus surrounded, they fought valiantly, and perished to a man. Again Xerxes sent an army of 120,000 men, commanded by Mardonius, against the Plataeans : —it was the Thebans who incited the king against the Plataeans. Mardonius was met by Pausanias the Lacedaemonian, at the head of not more than 300 Spartans— 1000 of the people of the country —and about 6000 from the other cities. The Persian army being vanquished, Mardonius fled from the field wounded. This same Mardonius was sent by Xerxes to pillage the temple of Apollo ; but, to the great grief of the king, perished in the attempt by a hail storm. * Xerxes next advanced with his army to Athens ; but the Athenians having fitted out 110 galleys, fled to the island of Salamis :— he there- fore entered the deserted city, and burned it, except only the citadel, which was defended by a few who remained ; but they, retiring by night, he burned that also. The king then advancing to the narrowest part of Attica, called Heracleum, began to construct a mole towards Salamis, with the intention of marching his army on to the island. But by the advice of Themistocles the Athenian, and of Aristides, a body of Cretan archers was brought up to obstruct the work. A naval engagement then took place between the Persians and the Greeks, the former having more than a thousand ships, commanded by Onophas— the latter seven hundred. Yet the Greeks con- quered, and the Persians lost five hundred ships. mmi f 8A PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. I. I\ Xerxes himself, by the counsel and contrivance of Themistocles and Aristides, fled : — not fewer than 120,000 men having perished on the side of the Persians in these several actions.' Photius, Myriobiblon, Art. Ctesias, In those particulars in w^hich this account of the Persian invasion diffiers from that of our author, no one who carefully compares the two, can hesitate to give his confidence to Herodotus rather than to Ctesias, not only because he lived some years nearer to the events ; but because his narrative displays more judgment, more consis- tency, and more probability, and is also better supported by other evidence. It is enough for our present purpose that this writer affirms the same great events to have taken place: — That the Persian king led an immense army into Greece, where he met a total defeat. Of the authors whom we have cited, tlie first two — Pindar and ^schylus, had reached maturity at the time of the Persian invasion — were per- sonally concerned in its events, and composed the works to which we have referred while Herodotus was yet a youth. Though poets, they represent the victories of the Greeks as recent facts, well known to their hearers, and the slightest allusion to which was enough to kindle the national enthu- siasm. The other writers — Thucydides, Lysias, Isocrates, and Ctesias, were all contemporary with Herodotus ; and two of them were his pro- PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 81 i fessed rivals. From their evidence it is apparent that the events of the Persian invasion were mat- ters of common knowledge and conversation, and were the themes of writers in every class among the Greeks, in the very age' in which they are said to have taken place. It follows therefore that the professed historian of these transactions i$ not to be regarded as if he were the author of a narrative, for the truth of which he is responsible, and in which we cannot confide until we have proof of his veracity. He is rather the collector of facts, universally acknowledged by his contemporaries: — and the truth of the history rests upon the fact that it was published and accepted while the individuals to whom the events were known were still living. If we look among the Greek writers of the next and of the following age, we find the same general facts affirmed or alluded to — orators, poets, and historians, hold the same language, and as- sume it as certain that their ancestors gloriously repulsed an innumerable Asiatic army. But his- torical proof of a traditio7iary kind differs essen- tially from that which it is the object of these pages to display ; we therefore do not bring it forward in the present instance. For the same reason those confirmations or illustrations of history which may be derived from existing remains of art — from gems, inscrip- tions, or sculptures, should be excluded from a G * 82 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. r strictly historical argument : such proofs, at least, must never be adduced as if essential or highly important to its establishment. — A double mis- chief may result from laying stress upon palpable evidences of this kind : in the first place, as there is a strong tendency in the mind to escape from the labour of reasoning, by accepting, without^ inquiry, any proof that offers itself to the senses, the most conclusive reasoning may lose its hold of our convictions, simply by being conjoined with evidence which seems to be more direct and demonstrative :— for example ; after giving atten- tion to the evidence that has been adduced in the preceding chapters, we may feel assured of the fact that the Greeks and Persians fought on the plains of Marathon. There is then shown to us a seal, which, on good evidence, we know to have been picked up upon the very spot that still bears that name in Greece : the device upon this gem is manifestly Persian ; — the winged lions are al- most a copy of the bas-reliefs still existing on several ruins in Persia: we conclude therefore that this relic of antiquity belonged to a chief of the Persian army, and accept it as a palpable proof of the truth of the historian's narrative : and though that narrative gains in our view a confirmation, it does so by losing something of its proper weight ; and we are afterwards inclined to think, that if the tangible proof were withdrawn, the written proof would stand less firmly than before. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 83 In the second place, the adducing of gems, in- scriptions, or sculptures, not merely as illustra- tions of history, but as substantial proofs, tends to substitute the worse kind of evidence for the better. — The relics of ancient art may be allowed to deserve all the research which the fondness of the antiquary impels him to bestow upon them ; but the instances are rare in which they merit to be placed on the same footing of authority with the express evidence of respectable contem- porary historians. Fallacies and errors of every kind belong to these articles, so reverently che- rished in cabinets and museums For example : the traditionary history of the relic is often of very doubtful authenticity, resting altogether upon the word of those who had a commodity of indefinite value to sell ; — or the workmanship may be of a much later age than the antiquary is willing to admit ; — or the inscription may have been placed by authority, where public opinion (to which an historian is always amenable) could not give con- tradiction to error. An arrogant republic, or a vain-glorious tyrant, might, without fear, stamp bold lies upon coins, or engrave impudent un- truths upon the entablatures of temples ; and the brazen or the marble record may receive from the moderns a degree of respect which it never won from the ancients.* — An intelligent inquirer after * Herodotus mentions some instances of this kind, see Clio 51. g2 84 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF, PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 85 / the truth of remote facts will ever give more confidence to the explicit assertions of one with whose character and qualifications he is in some measure acquainted, than to the most positive averments that come from a party altogether un- known. Now an historian is a person concerning whose veracity, discretion, and intentions we have the means of forming our own opinion ; but in admitting the evidence of inscriptions and coins, we receive a testimony — knowing nothing of the witness. CHAPTER VIII. EXAMPLES OF IMPERFECT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. The object of the preceding pages has been to display, in its several parts, that chain of evi- dence, by means of which absolute 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 de- manded on the ground of common sense, and on the authority of universal experience. 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 essential difference between this absolute proof and every other sort of historical evidence, will be best exhibited by adducing some instances of a different kind. In taking our examples from the same author, we place both kinds of evidence upon the same level, so far as the personal qualities and merits of the historian are concerned in the argument. The common and distinctive character of all such historical evidence as ought to be called imperfect, is this — that it comes to us through some medium, upon which we must more or less implicitly rely. — This medium is ordinarily the veracity, or accuracy—the learning, or impartiality, of the historian. In such instances the immediate proof is beyond our reach ; and instead of being able to handle and inspect it for ourselves, we can only stand at a distance, and, by the best means in our power, estimate its probable value. This secondary evidence may sometimes rise almost to absolute cer- tainty ; or it may possess scarcely an atom of real weight. The first book of Herodotus will furnish G 3 1 86 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 87 I examples in every degree between the two extremes. — In the introductory sections of his history, our author relates those mutual aggressions which were ordinarily assigned by the authors of his times as the origin of the animosity which so long raged between the Greeks and the people of Asia:— he mentions the abduction of lo from Argos by the Phoenicians — of Europa from Tyre —of Medea from Colchis, and of Helen from Sparta, which last act of violence produced the Trojan war, which the Persians, as our author affirms, were wont to allege as a perpetual justi- fication of every enterprise they might attempt against the Greeks. These events took place— if at all — from thir- teen to eight hundred years before the time of Herodotus:— the last of them— the Trojan war, may well be admitted as substantially true on the authority of the poems of Homer, which too strongly bear the character of history to be treated as pure fiction. As to the abductions above-mentioned, they are to be regarded merely 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 Mediterranean, favourable as they have ever been to piratical enterprises. Yet if we can believe that Herodotus actually examined for himself the writings of the »i * Persian historians' whom he quotes, and if he there found coincident narratives of the above- mentioned outrages, these seemingly vague tra- ditions would acquire something like the authority of history. One fact affirmed by the historian in the outset of his history, deserves a passing notice: — he says, that ' the Phoenicians, coming from the shores of the Red Sea (the Persian Gulph, or 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 Phoenicians — in itself by no means impro- bable — the distance between the two seas being not great, and such emigrations being frequent in ancient times, is mentioned or explicitly affirmed by several ancient authors, though denied by Strabo; nevertheless it provoked the ridicule of Voltaire,* who makes the following remarks on the passage: ''What does the father of history mean in the commencement of his work, when he says that, ' the Persian historians relate that the Phoenicians were the authors of all the wars ; and that they came from the Red Sea to our's.' It seems then that they embarked on the Gulph of Suez — passed through the straits of Babel * Quest, sur TEncyclopMie, part iv. p. 310. quoted by Larcher. G 4 I f i I w / i I .il 88 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF, 89 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 4000 marine leagues, at a time when navigation was in its infancy !" This passage affords a fair sample of the futility of this writer's scepticism in matters of history ; and it may be taken as 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 ignorant of facts, and destitute of learning, candour, and modesty. ' M. Voltaire,' says Larcher, * would have spared himself this criticism, had he possessed even a moderate know- ledge of the Greek language. If Herodotus had intended to intimate that the Phoenicians came by sea, he would have said amKOfitvovg ek rrjvEe rrjv 0aXa(r«Tav;— instead of em* Bcsidcs, 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 intention of the historian, * They airived in this sea, instead of ujwn (the shores of.) ,*f he himself, in another passage more precise than this, removes it. (Polymnia 89) ' These Phoeni- cians, as they themselves say, formerly inhabited the shores of the Red Sea, whence passing over ey^eurev Be vTrep/Bavrce, they HOW occupy the mari- time part of Syria.' This expression is under- stood of traversing a country, or of passing over mountains; but never of making a voyage by sea ; at least, I have met with no example, either in Herodotus or elsewhere, of such a sense being attached to the phrase ; (he then cites examples from Strabo and Dion Cassius in proof of the proper meaning of the word.) It is clear then from this passage— VIL 89, that Herodotus meant to say that the Phoenicians passed by land aiid not by sea. ' This journey is in fact not at all incredible ; since the distance between the Phoe- nician town on the Red Sea, and the borders of Phoenicia, is not more than two or three hundred leagues.' Larcher's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 176. The history, ' properly speaking, commences with the story of Croesus, 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 all the records and traditions he could find at Sardis. But between 90 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. i his time and the reign of Croesus, that city had been once and again pillaged, its ancient govern- ment 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 both the authentic records of the state, and the traditions of the people, had to a great extent been dissipated, and that little better than vague reports remained to be col- lected when Herodotus visited Sardis. We are not therefore to be surprised if we find something of the fabulous in the story of Croesus and of his predecessors, the kings of Lydia. Yet some of the leading facts were authenticated, not only by histories then extant, but by the gifts of va- rious kinds consecrated by the Lydian kings at Delphi, 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 the 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 * See Clio 155. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 91 1 •1' work. In these vaticinative verses the craft of the priests who composed them is, for the most part, sufficiently apparent : — and whatever they may be, their geiiuineness rests entirely upon the honesty of the Delphians, from whom our author received them. Yet the subject of the ancient oracles should not be passed by without acknow- ledging that, amidst all the glaring frauds, and frivolous evasions, and interested compliances with the wishes of the applicants, which charac- terise these responses, there is apparent also in some few of them a knowledge of contemporary, though remote events, or a sagacity in relation to the future, which cannot be satisfactorily ex- plained without admitting the interposition of a superhuman agency. An absolute denial of any such intervention, while it is unsupported by a true philosophy, does violence to sufficient his- torical evidence ; and certainly it is not demanded from the advocate of Christianity by any argumen- tative necessity.* The interlocution between Croesus and Solon, the Athenian legislator, as related by Herodotus, * A full and satisfactory discussion of the question relative to the ancient oracles and prodigies could not be reduced within narrow limits. If urged to solve some diificultiei» which the subject presents, I would at once profess my belief, that a system of time-serving fraud, carried on by the priests at the oracular temples, was not unfrequently aided and maintained in credit by the co-operation of infernal beings. rWHni 92 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 93 'I V m 1 I, f may fairly be numbered among those dramatic embellishments with which many ancient writers — and our author not less than others, thought themselves obliged to relieve the attention of their readers. It need not perhaps be questioned that Solon visited Sardis; and it is not impro' bable that some rebuke of the Lydian king's preposterous vanity, really uttered by the Grecian sage, may have formed the text of this long con- versation. The copious paraphrase was probably the work of a Lydian writer. Of all the con- versations and speeches reported by Herodotus, very few, if any, can claim the credit of authentic history. The story of Adrastus, the Phrygian refugee, and of Atys, the son of Croesus, if founded in fact, are evidently very greatly indebted to the ingenuity of the narrator. Though these inci- dents cannot seem otherwise than puerile to a modern reader, we ought to carry ourselves back in imagination to the author's times, before we pronounce them to be trivial or altogether im* proper 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 Croesus is interrupted by a long digression in which our author gives a sketch of the early history of the Athenians and Lacedae- monians. On these points he could not be at a loss for traditions, and other sources of informa- tion ; and here also he was open to correction from many of his contemporaries, who were as well informed as himself in matters of Grecian history. Yet the reader should never 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 unimpor- tant 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 means of forming an opinion on the subject, such recitals are scarcely to be admitted among the established points of history, unless confirmed by a coincidence of authorities. The narrative of the war between Croesus 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, Croesus was on terms of friendship with the Lacedaemonians, and was every where cele- brated for the magnificence of his offerings to the Delphic god: and besides, the fall of Sardis, and the consequent conquests of tlie Persians in ^' ) ll n U 94 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF, 95 Asia Minor, brought a formidable enemy to the door of Greece, and obliged the several states to inform themselves much more exactly than here- tofore, of the affairs of their Asiatic neighbours. "We may therefore, with confidence, place the conquests of Cyrus in Asia Minor among the well authenticated facts of history. Yet from the de- tails, as given by Herodotus, some considerable deductions must be made ; for an air of dramatic embellishment is apparent throughout the nar- rative. 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.* The first circumstance in this narrative which suggests caution to the reader is a prodigy, affirmed to have appeared at the time when Croesus returned to Sardis, after a doubtful con- * In a digression which interrupts this part of the history, Herodotus mentions a sudden * turning of day into night,' which had been predicted by Thales the Milesian. We must therefore suppose him to mean an eclipse of the sun. On this supposition we have a datum from which to calculate the chronology of the events with which it is connected ; but com- mentators are not perfectly agreed in fixing upon the eclipse here mentioned. See Note. flict with Cyrus in Cappadocia. ' At this time all the suburbs of Sardis were filled with ser- pents, and the horses, leaving the pastures, (or ceasing to eat grass) followed and devoured them. Croesus seeing this, deemed it — and justly — a prodigy ; he therefore immediately despatched messengers to inquire the intention of it from the Telmessians (diviners of Telmessus.) The reply to this inquiry did not reach Croesus ; for before the return of the messengers he was a prisoner. The reply was, that Croesus had to expect a foreign army, which should vanquish the inha- bitants of the country : — ■' for the serpent,' said they, * is a son of the earth ; but the horse belongs to war and to migration;' (or is a foreigner.) * Croesus was already a captive when this reply was given ; but of this fact the Telmessians were ignorant when they gave their answer.' Those from whom our author received the dramatic inci- dents which he presently afterwards relates, found no difficulty in adding to them this prodigy, with- out which so remarkable an event as the fall of the Lydian kingdom would not, in their opinion, have been properly told. We are in the next place informed that when the Lydian and Persian armies were opposed to each other under the walls of Sardis, Cyrus, fear- ing the Lydian cavalry, to which his own was very inferior, practised a stratagem to secure him- self against a charge : — he mounted his men upon ti ii 9G ' I PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. the camels that followed the army, and placed them in front of his line :— ' this he did because the horse fears the camel, and cannot endure either the sight or smell of that animal/ The plan, we are told, succeeded, for ' the Lydians in vain endea- voured to make their horses advance towards the camels.' This aversion of the horse to the camel was believed by the ancients to exist.* Common experience in modern times gives no support to the notion ; yet we are not authorised to affirm absolutely that no such circumstance could take place : — The Lydian horses had perhaps never seen camels, and some confusion might arise from their presence on the field. Nevertheless, the manner in which the fact is affirmed, suggests the supposition that our author's informants were not scrupulously regardful of truth. The Lydians were beaten, driven within their walls, and besieged by Cyrus, and after fourteen days, the fortress was scaled, the city pillaged, and Croesus led a captive before the Persian conqueror. The circumstances of the assault are variously related by ancient authors. Herodotus, Xenophon, Ctesias, and Polyaenus, though agree- ing in the general result of the events they record, evidently drew their information from sources so discordant as to prove the absence of authentic memorials. The account given by our * See Xenophon's Cyropsedia, VII. 7. ^ PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 97 author of the treatment of the royal captive by the conqueror, and of the conversation affirmed to have taken place between the two kings, besides that it is at variance with other narratives of the same transactions,* does not recommend itself to our credence by an air of plain historical simplicity. Justice to Herodotus demands that we should re- member in this, and many other similar instances, that he professes only to report the accounts he had been able to collect, without pledging him- self for their accuracy ; and not seldom he intimates his own doubts of the truth of such relations. Croesus, confounded by misfortunes which seemed to give the lie to the Delphic god, whose favour and advice he had courted by gifts of un- exampled 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 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. f Even though we should think with Croesus, that the god cleared himself pretty well of the taunts thrown at him by his disappointed votary, he did so by descend- * See Cyropaed. VII. 12. t See Note. H 1^ ' I 98 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. \ I I ing to paltry explanations, very little befitting his oracular dignity. Having dismissed the Lydian affairs, our author 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 fairly 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, I. 139, he makes a philological remark on a peculi- arity of the Persian language, we must ask more direct proof of his possessing an accomplishment so rare among the Greeks. We must however believe, that, at least by means of an inter- preter, 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 X!enophon, Ctesias, and ^schylus, cannot be ascertained. It is evi- dent that exaggerations and errors abounded among the oriental historians : the Greeks there- fore, having at best a very imperfect access to ' / y PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 99 these discordant authorities, must be perused at once with diffidence and caution .-—nothing would be more unsafe than to rely with any degree of confidence upon any of these narratives ;— nothing more absurd than to found upon them any objec- tions to statements which we derive from a source much more credible. Independently of the au- thority of the Jewish Scriptures, it is manifest that the Jews, by the affinity of language— by proximity of situation— by long continued inter- course, and by subjugation and transmigration, must have been much better informed on points of Assyrian, Median, and Persian history, than the Greeks. With the greatest reason therefore, we may take the historical notices of Asiatic affairs which are scattered through the Scriptures as our guide— not careful whether Herodotus, Ctesias, and Xenophon, accord with these notices, or differ wholly from them.* * It will not seem impertinent to quote in this place, a paragraph from Larcher's preface to his translation of Hero- dotus i—the reader may remember that this learned, intelligent, and candid writer was surrounded by the infidelity of revolu- tionary France. * Enfin, intimement convaincu de toutes les verites qu'en- seigne la Religion Chrfetienne, j'ai retranche, ou reform^ toutes les notes qui pouvoient la blesser. On avoit tire des unes des consequences que j'emprouve, et qui sont loin de ma pensee. D'autres renfermoient des choses, je dois I'avouer avec fran- chise et pour Tacquit de ma conscience, qu^in plus mur cxamen et des recherches plus approfondies m'ont demontre H 2 100 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 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. Hero- dotus 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 as more than probably true in the general outline of events. Herodotus must however be allowed to rank far above Xenophon, on the ground of authenticity ; for it would evince an extreme credulity to speak of the Cyropaedia otherwise than as a political romance.* Diodorus evidently had access to sources of information not open to Herodotus, and the statements of the later may well be admitted in correction of those of the earlier historian. Justin, or rather Trogus, seems to follow our author in his incidents, varying reposer sur de trop legers fonderaens, on ^tre absolument fausses. La verite no peut que gagiicr k cet aveu. C'est ^ elle scule que j'ai consacre toutes nies veilles. Je me suis empresse de revenir a elle des que j'aicru I'avoir mieux saisie. Puisse cet hommage, que je lui rends dans toute la sincerite de mon cceur, me faire absoudre de toutes les erreurs que je puis avoir hasardees, et que j'ai cherche k propager!' — Preface, p. 31). * See Note. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 101 from him only in the order of some events. Josephus in his reply to Apion treats the Greek historians with great contempt when they presume 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 then impeaching the character of Hero- dotus, we may peruse the earlier portions of his history as a highly entertaining narrative, held together by a connected thread of truth, and sup- porting a series of incidents which though charac- teristic of the times, are nearly destitute of his- torical authority. Of this kind, evidently, is the story of the birth and early adventures of Cyrus, in which, not to mention some palpable bungling, the art of the narrator in working up his materials, is apparent. — Probably some popular tales com- municated to our author in Persia, were adapted by him to the taste of the Greeks. In his accounts 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 unquestionably deserving of a high degree of confidence ; and though some few particulars, plainly fabulous , are mingled with these descriptions, they must be admitted to take place among the most interesting and valuable of II 3 ij I 1. : i I .r 102 PROCKSS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. all the remains of ancient literature. The account of the manners of the Persians, Sect. 131 — 140, and of those of the Babylonians, with the descrip- tion of Babylon, Sect. 178—187, and 192—200 are at once highly entertaining, as well as au- thentic. The narrative of the subjugation of the lonians and iEolians of Asia Minor, by the Persians — commencing Sect. 141, stands, for the most part, upon a higher ground of authority than those which precede and 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. In the course of this narrative an incident is related — Sect. 158, which is peculiarly charac- teristic of the ancient oracles,* demonstrating that the divinity was more sagacious in anticipating the propable course of political events, than happy or honest in deciding questions of common mo- rality. The capture of Babylon by Cyrus, was an event too remarkable in itself, and in the extraordinary circumstances attending it, to leave room for any considerable diversity among the accounts of it which were transmitted to the next age. The Greek historians differ but little in relating this memo- rable event, and their testimony, absolutely inde- * See Note. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 103 i I pendent as it is, when collated with the circum- stantial predictions of the Jewish prophet, furnishes a proof of the divine authority of the Hebrew Scriptures never to be overthrown. 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 pro- phecy. — The same importance attaches perhaps in an equal degree to the work of Diodorus. The expedition of Cyrus against the Massagetes, a Scythian nation, in which he perished, closes the first book of the history. Here again there seems 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 been mentioned, drawn from the first book of Herodotus, may serve as examples of the different degrees of authority which may belong to different portions of an his- torical work — dependent both upon the means of information probably possessed by the writer, and upon his liability to contradiction and correction from his contemporaries. On this principle, if the instances above mentioned are duly considered, H 4 I ! V w «> !^ 1 1 f 'ft I 1 I I 104 PROCESS OF HISTOUICAL PROOF. no one can fail to perceive that there is so essential a difference between one kind of historical evi- dence and another, that, in perusing the pages of an historian, we may deem some of the facts he relates absolutely certain, and others doubtful, improbable, or unreal; while, in the former instances, perhaps we think him inaccurate and prejudiced ; and in the latter give him credit for good intentions and diligence. For with the worst intentions, and the meanest qualifications, an historian of recent events, whose writings are received in his own times as authentic, cannot be charged with an entire and glaring falsification 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 wander very far from the path of truth. CHAPTER IX. THE OPPUGXERS OF HERODOTUS. Herodotus, as we have already had occasion to mention, was severely reprehended by several ancient writers, especially by Ctesias, Manetho, Diodorus, Strabo, Josephus, and, above all, by I PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 105 Plutarch. The grounds of exception taken by.^ these writers are, in some instances just; in many, 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 it seems necessary to take a brief notice of 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. Several of the critics of the 1 5th and 16th 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 J. Ludovicus Vives, the learned Spaniard, so well known in England during the reign of Henry VIII. in a treatise on education, speaks of the books of Herodotus as abounding in things untrue. Parker says, * Herodotus, that he might not seem to have omitted any thing, 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 ele- gant,he forfeits the confidence of those who exercise \ ' M i 4 t •I f I Ij 1 1 106 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 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 by the title he seemed to affect — that of 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 Hero- dotus 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 con- victed 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 ffives 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 i PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 107 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 uncourte- ously 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 igno- rance and flippancy in commenting upon Hero- dotus, we have already adduced an example: others of a similar kind might easily be cited. Thus— Quest, sur I'Encyclop. — he represents the historian ais 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. Philos. de I'Hist. p. 63.— he denies as utterly incredible the account given by Herodotus — Clio 199, of the dissolute manners of the Baby- lonians :—' that which does not accord with human nature, can never be true.' Yet the cus- toms alluded to are expressly affirmed to have prevailed there by Strabo, and distinctly men tioned 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 * The above (iuotations are derived from Blount. »t r hf 108 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 109 \i I established in many ancient cities. So indifferent to common justice was Voltaire, when an oppor- tunity offered itself of exaggerating a seeming im- probability, that when Herodotus narrates the conduct of Cyrus, who, to avenge himself of the river Gyndes, drained it by cutting three hundred and sixty trenches from it ; he quotes him as say- ing that the Indus was so drained, and made to flow into the Caspian Sea !— * What should we say to Mezeray, if he had told us that Charlemagne cut the Rhine into three hundred and sixty canals, emptying themselves into the Mediterranean V 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 : — See Quest. surrEncyclop.VII. Art. Initiation, ^ndi sometimes he cites passages no where to be found in our author, as— Philos. de I'Hist. p. 197. Herodotus — Thalia 72, affirms that it was the custom of the Scythians to empale 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 vic- tims of this barbarous custom were empaled alive ; and then finds occasion to deny the truth of the story. He thinks the numbers affirmed to have composed the army of Xerxes altogether incre- dible : — Oil this point Larcher makes the following remarks : — ' M. Voltaire need not therefore have f ' r 4 ! regarded this history as a fable, or have supposed that Xerxes must have had a hundred millions of subjects to furnish an army of two millions. Our usages must not serve as a rule by which to judge of those of the ancients. If M. Voltaire had lived only twenty years later he would have seen rea- lized in France what he could not believe of Persia. The only reasonable objection which might be advanced against the account given by Herodotus is precisely that which M. Voltaire has not made :- — How could so immense an army be supplied with provisions ? Herodotus has met this objection, — " We have with us," he makes Xerxes say, " a great quantity of provisions ; and all the nations against whom we are about to make war are agriculturalists — not feeders of cattle: — we shall therefore find corn which we may appropri- ate." Authors vary much as to the number of this army — Ctesias making it amount to 800,000, without reckoning the charioteers : Diodorus following Ctesias, give^ the same number ; Elian reckons it at 700,000 ; Pliny at 788,000 ; Justin at 1,000,000. Herodotus, who was nearly a con- temporary, and who read his history to the Greeks assembled at the Olympic games, where were many who had taken part in the battles of Salamis and Plata^a, is more to be believed than later historians.' — Larcher's Herod, v. V. p. 310. — If persons are still to be found who pay any respect H i f^ 110 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. > to Voltaire's criticisms upon points of Scripture history, 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 pecu- liar ill feeling, we find him displaying ignorance, indiflerence 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 suspicions or evidently fabulous passages, for the truth of which the historian does not pledge him- self, have hastily accused him of a want of veracity ; — others, more candid and more exact, 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 to- gether; or that these accounts are much better founded than, at first sight, they may appear. The editors and translators of Herodotus — Aldus, Camerarius, Stephens, Wesseling, Gronovius, &c. have, in their prefaces and notes, undertaken his defence ; in some instances establishing the dis- puted facts; in others excusing the author from the charge of falsification. These discussions relate, for the most part, to those parts of the PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. Ill history which we exclude from our present argu- ment ; and with which therefore we have here no immediate concern. The general veracity of the historian is asserted in the following terms by Larcher : — ' Few writers can pretend to have united in so eminent a degree as Herodotus the various excellencies 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 Gulph, he despatched from this gulph certain Phoenicians, 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 Phoenicians 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 Phoeni- cians actually made the circuit of Africa ; but as astronomy was then in its infancy, he could not ; ? ! ,1 \i ii 112 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 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 per- haps there are those to whom it may seem so." 'Take another example. —The Psyllians were an inconsiderable people of Libya, occupying an inland district near the Syrtian Gulph : as their country was entirely destitute of water, they pre- served the rain water in cisterns. The south wind having dried up these reservoirs, they resolved with one consent to make war upon this wind : — it is scarcely conceivable that a project so absurd should enter the minds of men ; — Herodotus felt this, and fearing lest some of his readers might suspect him of believing such tales, he adds, — " I relate what the Libyans affirm." (Melpomene 173.) * Another point which has not been duly at- tended to is, that very often he commences his narrative thus, — The Persians— The Phoenicians — The Egyptian priests, have told me this or that. These narrations, which sometimes extend to a considerable length, are, in the original, through- out, made to depend upon this word (paai — thei/ 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. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF 113 * He travelled in all the countries of which he has occasion to speak, he examined with scru- pulous 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 in- scriptions, 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 scru- pulosity so far, that though he had no just reason for distrusting the priests of Memphis, he re- paired to Heliopolis (Euterpe 3.) and then to Thebes, in order to discover if the priests of these latter cities 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 in- stances rather indulgence than blame. Hero- dotus is not less exact in all matters of Natural History than in historical facts. Some ancient writers have dismissed, as fabulous, some par- ticulars which have since been verified by modern naturalists— much more learned than the ancients. The celebrated Boerhaave did not hesitate to say, I t . r^r HISTORICAL PROOF. 114 PROCESS OF lllSluui c TT Ar.u^<*^'' modern observations i„ speaking ot Herod^s » ^^.^^, estabfeh almost aU that grea jistinguished The testimony ot a Pf^-f «^ J ^1 persons. -""■ M '*e°CLs tlaUons of those outweigh the tuvoiou sciences is sciolists whose acquaintance with the but superficial.' ^^''^'''^^-^J.^ ^ it seems. Some English wntersalso^^^^^^^ Uke Voltaire, to ^^^^^^.^^ best autheu- '^ "f fcTm y Xsome show of reason be tieated '^^^ ^^J'^ ^^^^ the testimony, not of questioned, have imp ^^^^^ historians. Herodotus alone, but ot au ^^^^^ Of these wrUers none 1^^^^^^^^^^ ^^,^^, Richardson,t the f ersian » ^^^.^^ - '""jatr'LfrrrHetoaotnsand invasion ot trreece , amount •*^^c nf exao'O'erations, to suun a.x other writers ot exa^^ ^^ ^^^ as must, it«e were to -1- > f .f ^^Z ,„^,y, „„erty destroy - ^^ Xilcommon sense, but remove all respect Richardson -'""'lft*:G':r weL"tp«litiealim- supposes that tne v^^ u««* fpr*^ omnia magni viri . Hodiern. observationes probant toe om ^.U.-ElementaChymi..^2;: tnd English-, with a Dis- + Dictionary, Pers.an, A-^''^' J M,„„e« of Eas- sertation on the languages L.teratu p.^^^^^^i„„ ,,^ tevn Nations. First pubhshed IW. afterwards printed in a separate form. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 115 V portance, vastly inferior to the Persians, to whom he imagines them to have been tributary; and that the invasion of Greece was nothing more than the march of a Persian viceroy into Europe, to enforce the due payment of the tribute from these vain and insignificant republicans. On what foundation then do these bold surmises rest ? Not on the defectiveness or inconsistency of the evidence furnished by the Greek historians ; — nor yet on contradictory evidence, derived from other sources : but on the mere absence of evidence where this learned linguist thought it must have been found, if the narratives of the Greeks were true. In examining the remains of ancient Persian literature, and the records of Persian history, Richardson professes that he could discover no traces of accordance between the Asiatic and European writers ; — no personages whose adven- tures or exploits could be identified with those attributed by the latter to Cyrus, to Cambyses, or to Darius ; and then, assuming that the Per- sian literature is the more authentic of the two, he rejects the Grecian, as being little better than a mass of puerile extravagances. Now even if the question were to rest on this balance of merit between the Oriental and Gre- cian literature, it is evidently an unsubstantial as well as inequitable mode of reasoning which gives to a mere want of evidence on one side, a weight i2 n ■^^-a^. ^tm 4 I I 11 116 PKOCESS OF HISTORTCAI. PKOOF. than eaual to a mass of positive evidence more than equai w negative proof on the other. But, m fact, th s neg j ^^ documents among the Persians. But to discuss the ^^ - f ^ ^ ^ ^^, .hsoiutely depend upon ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ,,. r: rS^^rattl a coWly aWonment -l;. «er .cum^^^^^^^^^^ relinqmshrnent o^t^^V->V^l ^^ ^^^„,, ^nTl:a:e%n undi^inrsh^^ force, one body of ''"r ' wWe on hypothetical grounds, we draw "tTusl;n^^hwhfch that evidence can by no frmels be reconciled.-A writer, for example. Tt Xase to affirm that nothing is more im- ""'t iTitself than the invasion of Afnca by probable m itsel h ^.^^^^.^^^ ^^ ^^^,^ Charles V. especially ^ ^^ make no mention ot tne laci. % +i,„ 1 for such surmises, if the testimony of the room for sucn ^articular were scanty T7nronean h stonans m this pariicuidi « j !rTEly suspicious ; but while i. is abundan 11 "impeacbable, such affected scepUcsm .s ^";CbT:;a-d..haUf.he,as..b,eeb^k, * See Note. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF, 117 of Herodotus were examined apart from all other Greek writings and monuments, some conside- rable deductions might, with an appearance of reason, be made from the account he gives of the Persian invasion. But the history is not, in fact, thus insolated, and its claims to our confidence cannot be fairly estimated, unless it be viewed as a part only of those various materials li^om which we collect our idea of the power, spirit, and in- telligence of the Greeks. If from the stores of the Grecian literature we were to select only the poems of Homer, the orations of Demosthenes, and the philosophical treatises of Aristotle, we should possess ample and conclusive proof of the reality of the Grecian history in its principal cir- cumstances. And if this written evidence is compared with that which still speaks from the existing sculptures and temples of the same peo- ple — the frigid surmises of the writer above-men- tioned fall into contempt. From such documents it is most safely inferred 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 ratioci- native and imaginative faculties in the happiest proportions. We may conclude also, that these advantages, inherent in the race, were improved ; that a very high degree of civilization in almost I 3 I II \ i > .1 118 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. all its branches, and of refinement was attained, that the resources of an extensive commerce were possessed, and a large amount of political power ^icquired by the Greeks; or to express all at once -that the Greeks were then, what the English, the French, and the Germans are now, compared with the rest of mankmd. Even if it could be made to appear probable, that in the first ages of the world Asia-^"/ "J Asia, Persia, was the centre of cmlization yet U m;st be granted that so far as authentic his ory reaches, the picture of the Asiatic nations is un- form in its character and colouring. -- Amidst its millions-infirm both in body and mind Asia has indeed produced some races ^-tinguished by a fierce energy-by romantic courage- by loft^^ness and richness of imagination. But where is there a people of Asiatic origin, that has displayed the ell L effective energy, the high and consistent intelligence, the exquisite taste, the well-direc ed and sustained industry, which belong to the European nations ?-No such products of the east can be named. Never have its hordes r^en 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 trench, * Sec ]Note. ] 1 V PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 119 and the English, have always borne to the native forces of India, is very much the same as that v^hich 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 pre- vailed as men prevail over wolves; — ^^they have conquered, 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 pre- sents us with the exploits of Clive in India, or of Pompey in Parthia and Syria, or of Alexander in Persia, or of Miltiades at Marathon. The narrative of Herodotus is therefore nothing more than the first chapter of the history of the perennial conflict between Asia and Europe : and this commencement of the story is in perfect har- mony with all its subsequent events. On the one side is seen a brutal and extravagant des- potism, seated on the floods of a boundless population, and at the instigation of puerile or ferocious ambition, letting 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 incomparably smaller means employed with incomparably greater intelligence : — and excepting only the partial events of war, the general issue has ever been the same.* ^* * See Genesis ix. 27. I 4 i 41' « H n 120 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. That idea therefore of the relative power, im- portance, and intelligence of the Greeks and Persians, which some modern writers would sub- stitute for the notion imparted by the Greek his- torians, is not only destitute of positive support ; but it is substantially at variance with the con- tinued history of the two great divisions of man- kind from the earliest to the latest times. CHAPTER X. VALUE AND USE OF SPONTANEOUS TESTIMONY BOUNDARIES OF AUTHENTIC HISTORY. Whoever has frequently been called to give his voice in determining controversies between man and man, or between a man and his country, upon the evidence adduced in a court of justice, must not seldom have felt that all his doubts on an obscure question would vanish, if it were possible for him, instead of listening to the formal and solemn contradictions of witnesses, to hear the spontaneous conversations which have taken place among uninterested persons in the neigh- bourhood which was the scene of the disputed transactions. Although in the mass of such local colloquies, there would doubtless be much im- pertinent gossip, and much exaggeration, and I PROCESS Of HISTORICAL PROOF. 121 perhaps not a little wilful falsehood, yet an in-^ telhgent and impartial hearer of this common talk 2"ld seldom find it impracticable, by discri- always, ,f he must choose the one or the other he would prefer to give his verdict upon a hearing of the casual evidence to be collected on the spot rather than upon the formal evidence ad- duced m court. the^l? '^' P''"^''' ^''•^"'"^tances of the case, teLT ."■ '" '^"'''*''^' '' '^' «^th, adminis- eied to witnesses, cannot be dispensed with --for he witness ought in equity to be placed on equal terms with the party against whom his evidence IS to weigh .-that is to say-he must be made to stand beneath a penal consequence while he speaks to the hurt of another. This then is the real significance and use of an oath in a court of justice : - every witness is the antago,>ist o oTthf ^'^ P;^^"^'^' ^^ ^' *^« defen^clant; must be "7 '. " '' ''' ''"--^"* - -n must be suff-ered to attack another without hazard to himself-without a nearly equal hazard To prevent so great a wrong, the witness is re- quired, before he speaks, to put the sword of the aw into the hand of the man whose life, honour hberty, or property he is about to bring in peril' Tins he does by taking an oath which makes' him liable to punishment in case of wilful falsification. 122 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL I'KOOF. The same important and necessary balancing of interests might, perhaps, be obtained as well without the formality of swearing as with it. For all that justice demands is that every wit- ness should give his evidence beneath the penal arm of the law ; and if an unsworn he, uttered in court, were punishable as perjury is punishable the result to the interests of accused persons, and of contending parties, would be the same. The forensic oath is not then to be considered as a means peculiarly adapted to the purpose of securing the truth of evidence ; but merely as an extension of the conditions of the controversy to all the parties who are called to touch the ques- tion ; the modern oath being, in the eye oi the law the substitute for the weapon granted to the accused party in the feudal trial by wager of battle Few persons accustomed to attend courts of justice will profess to think that evidence given upon oath is ordinarily the best and the least fallacious of all kinds of evidence. That com- mon experience does not warrant a peculiar deference to it, is often made manifest m the course of legal proceedings : for when it hap- pens that a clown, or a youth, in giving evidence, becomes, for a moment, unconscious of the forms by which he is shackled, and forgetful of the lesson in which he has been schooled by attorneys, and bursts forth with some spontaneous expression of his honest convictions— these few words,forraing. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 123 I as it were, a parenthesis of nature in the formal evidence, will often outweigh, in the minds of the j ury, a whole day's swearing on the part of wit- nesses, who have too much wit ever to forget the interests of the party for whom they appear. A similar effect is produced by the adducement of letters in evidence: these, if known to be genuine, and if they are manifestly spontaneous — that is to say, not written under an anticipation of their serving the purpose for which now they are produced, are felt to have a value which en- titles them to a preference above all other evi- dence ; the jury, without at all depending upon the veracity of the letter- writer, draw, with ease and confidence, their own inferences from the language he uses, when he is impelled only by the feelings or interests of the moment, and is thoughtless of the distant consequences that may result from his admissions or incidental allusions to matters of fact. Truth is a commodity which we do well rather to gather up than to demand :— on this principle the preference, above-mentioned, is involuntarily given to spontaneous, over formal evidence. And, guided by this same principle, the intelligent student of history pursues his investigations in remote paths. While he scorns the frigid scep- ticism of those who, without cause, reject the formal assertions of respectable writers, he re- serves his fullest confidence for those statements ! K ^ ' ■><■ II f 1 ♦ f 124 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF, in which no one's integrity is taxed, and for those inferences which he draws for himself from docu- ments of a spontaneous kind, unquestionably be- longing to the times and persons they pretend to. The primary materials of history are all those writings, of whatever class, which can, with cer- tainty be proved to belong to the age and country to which our inquiries relate. Among these va- rious contemporary writings, we grant, by cour- tesy, the first place of honour to professed his- tories. In estimating the value of such works, an extreme solicitude relative to the author's cha- racter and intentions is both unnecessary and fri- volous ; — for an ordinary measure of good sense and intelligence, and a fair character among his countrymen for authenticity, afford all the security that is needed for the truth of the principal events. Next to these professedly historical works,we natu- rally examine the general literature of the times, not doubting that we shall find scattered through it many notices of passing events, serving the double purpose of elucidating and of confirming the statements of historians. And as in judicial proceedings, so also in historical inquiries, the letters of the parties concerned in the transactions under examination will be deemed to claim pecu- liar regard. If the public and private correspondence of a public man is extant, we may defy the skill of the most consummate intriguer effectually to conceal PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 125 ^ truth in matters of fact; for as the brand of duplicity is unfailingly affixed by history to those who have merited the stigma, this very mark becomes an index— making known upon the sur- face the movements so artfully concealed. But if, notwithstanding his prejudices, and errors, and private interests, a public person deserves, in the common sense of the term, to be called an honest man, then his letters may be assumed as furnishing by far the most significant and infallible of all historical documents. Such documents being alleged to exist, we have, in the first place, to assure ourselves of their genuineness: and being satisfied on this point, they must be used as piers of support, from which to arch over the continuous structure of history. —Amid the generalities, and the negligencies, and the anachronisms, so often met with in formal narratives, this or that hypothesis in explanation of difficulties may fairly be formed : but all such suppositions must be brought to the test of the existing letters ; for a scheme of interpretation which can by no means be reconciled with in- evitable inferences from genuine letters, written at the time, cannot for a moment be admitted. This high importance attached to letters, as histo- rical documents, is not assumed on the supposition that a man in writing a letter, is of course, more ve- racious than he would be if he were writing a his- tory; for the very reverse may often be the fact; but » ^ ! 1 1 12C PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. it results from the peculiarity of this kind of com- position. — A letter is an interlocution between individuals ; — for though we hear only one of the speakers explicitly, yet the sentiments, convic- tions, and common knowledge of the party ad- dressed, are contained, by implication, in the writer's language and allusions. Wherein the writer and the person he addresses differ in opinion — wherein they agree, and what facts are known and acknowledged by both— -are, in most cases, sufficiently manifest in the terms of a letter : — the paper contains therefore in fact the testimony of two or of more persons ; and on a variety of points (not directly interesting to either party, or 7iot at that time in debate between them) this evidence is of that purely spontaneous and incidental kind which carries with it irresisti- ble conviction. The value of modern European history has been incalculably enhanced by the numberless collections of the letters of statesmen and literary persons that have been at different times brought to light. Ancient history, though not wholly des- titute of documents of this sort, possesses only a few examples of the kind. Such are the epistles of Cicero, and those of Pliny ; both of inesti- mable value in ascertaining the public transactions of the times. Had similar memorials been trans- mitted from the pens of the Grecian statesmen, the historians of their times would stand relieved PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 127 almost of the entire responsibility of transmitting to posterity a true picture of the glories of their country. This deficiency is in part supplied by the orations addressed to the people by Lysias, Isocrates, iEschines, and Demosthenes; for in these also, though we may distrust many direct affirmations, we cannot but admit the certainty of a thousand allusions, implying that the events mentioned were matters of notoriety among those whom the orator addressed. Of all such documents it may be affirmed, that when certainly proved to be genuine, they anni- hilate the distance of time, and place the men of each succeeding age in immediate connection with their precursors on the theatre of life* It is by these means that the inestimable benefits to be derived from a knowledge of the wisdom and the folly, the virtues and the vices of other men — a knowledge not advantageously to be gathered from our own times merely, are possessed on grounds which leave no room to distrust their practical value. Carrying in the mind the ascertainable distinc- tion between contemporary and traditionary his- tory — between that which may be demonstrated to be true, and that which may fairly be deemed questionable, it will not be difficult to trace upon the chart of past ages, almost defi- nitely, a line marking out the terra firma of history, within which nothing very important remains ..^i:. I > ■ >■ I r j j; '* '*> & i. 128 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. undetermined : and beyond which, very little can be fixed with confidence and precision. If we ex- elude the narrow track marked from age to age by the few definite points of sacred history, and the truth of which in its earlier portions rests on the proof of the divine authority of the books in which it is contained — this solid ground will appear to be not very widely extended in either of its dimensions. Of the nations of Asia it can hardly be affirmed that there exists any strictly authentic history, except so far as by war or commerce, the people of the East, coming in contact with Europeans, have mingled the affairs of the two continents. In like manner, African history is substantiated only so far as it is closely interwoven with that of Greece or Rome. Authentic Grecian history hardly dates its com- mencement earlier than the beginning of the sixth century before the Christian era ; nor does it, till long afterwards, spread itself beyond the narrow boundaries of Greece. The Roman his- tory, though it assumes the sonorous tones of arrogant pretension— fitting the policy and in- solence of the people, is manifestly liable to more than suspicion. Not only must we retrench, as destitute of sufficient proof, the earlier portions of Roman history; but many splendid pages of the foreign history of the republic, even in much later periods, ought, in point of authenticity, to be placed upon a level only with the official PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 129 publications of governments, which suffer no statements but their own to be circulated. Yet after all these retrenchments have been made from the apparent dimensions of ancient history, there remains a space and a period within which no signal transactions — extending by their consequences through many years, and affecting the condition of more nations than one— can be imagined to rest under much obscurity. For example : — If we take the map of the Roman empire, we may draw a border, extending to the width of three hundred miles — in some parts less, in others more — around the shores of the Mediterranean Sea ; — the space so marked might safely be termed the domain of authentic history, during a period of a thousand years : — the commencement of this period must, of course, be dated a century or two earlier in the east, than in the west ; but during the mid-years of the term, that is to say, from the age of Alexander till that of Constantine, a noon-day light shines upon the public affairs and social condition of every nation comprehended within the above-mentioned limits. Compared with the entire mass of human interests and of human affairs, the fragments of in- formation preserved by history are indeed incon- siderable : yet that large volume of facts which is for ever lost from the knowledge of posterity, must be supposed to consist, almost entirely, of K H ^ a I) f li i i M i 130 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL TUOOF. what was private, local, ordinary, and unattended by signal and abiding consequences. Nor can it be imagined that, within the range of authentic history, public events of such a nature as must attract general attention, and such as involved the interests of multitudes, and occupied a course of years, and extended in their effects over several countries, may have taken place, of which events history has given no indication ; and of which no trace, no monument, no record remains. If a supposition like this be inadmissible, nei- ther can we allow the least probability to one which is nearly its converse-namely, that withm the above-named space and period, events such as we have just described, might occur, and that these events should be distinctly and formally re- corded by more than one contemporary historian, and alluded to by several uninfluenced writers of the same and the following age— and that they should give occasion to a mass of writings, of which the greater portion are unquestionably genuine, and that yet, notwithstanding this abun- dance and this variety of materials, it is imprac- ticable to ascertain confidently, either the reahty of these events, or the true characters of the prime agents, or the honesty of the writers by whose means we receive the narrative. With records of all kinds in our hands— with an exact and com- prehensive knowledge of the times, and the people to which these writings belong— with an Irwi, % I i PROCESS OF^ HISTORICAL PROOF. 131 accumulated knowledge of human nature— with - all the aids of a perfected science of criticism :— with every means that can be imagined or de- sired, is it still impossible to determine whether such and such events actually happened, or whe- ther the actors in them were men of common sense and integrity, or knaves and fools? Yet those who profess to think that the truth of Chris- tianity may be fairly questioned, or who attempt to explain admitted facts, on any principle which excludes the belief of the divine origin of the system, must suppose just such a case of inex- plicable uncertainty. The reader has already been reminded that, of all historical documents, no class affords evi- dence more conclusive and exact than the letters of public persons, or of individuals nearly con- nected with the events that are the subjects of inquiry. On this principle it might be strongly recommended to those whose convictions have been embarrassed, or who, from inattention to the subject, entertain doubts of the truth of Chris- tianity, to peruse the apostolic epistles with the single intention of carrying in their minds, as they read, the opposite suppositions that may be formed relative to the character of the writers, and the true nature of the events so often alluded to by them. From verse to verse, let the reader bring these suppositions separately to the test of common sense— following out the consequences K 2 * wii < «Mat— —»»<»■ 132 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 133 of each; — picturing, in detail, the circumstances of the case, and realizing (as far as the materials permit) the very characters, both of the writers and of the parties they address. Can such a process as this be called improper or impertinent, or not adapted to the discovery of truth, or not conformed to the established usages of historical investigation ? We may further ask, can any other line of argument deserve a moment's atten- tion until this has been pursued ? Can any vague reasonings, of an abstract kind, claim a hearing while this remains neglected? Or can any one decline to abide by the issue of such an investi- gation, and at the same time be allowed to profess that he honestly doubts the truth of Christianity ? Some specimens of this mode of reading the epistles, examined without favour, simply as his- torical documents, will be offered to the reader in the following pages. In the inferences de- duced from certain passages, two things only will be taken for granted — 1st. That human nature has in all ages been essentially the same ; and 2d. That the epistles quoted are genuine.* One observation should be premised to our pro- posed investigation — namely, That as the books of the New Testament plainly profess to affirm the occurrence of miraculous events, a denial of the possibility of any such events, or an asser- * See Note. tion that no evidence, however good it may seem, can be of force enough to prove their reality, is manifestly a begging of the very question in de-^ bate, and therefore deserves no reply.* CHAPTER XI. SPECIMEN OF HISTORICAL INFERENCES, GA- THERED FROM THE APOSTOLICAL EPISTLES. Every imaginable dissimilarity distinguishes the epistles of Pliny— the Roman Proconsul from those of Peter— the Christian teacher. So utterly unlike are these compositions, that it seems hard to discover a single element, possessed by both, which might serve as a point of comparison, or become the bond even of a momentary association. If we name the one, we do not feel disposed to name the other, till some interval of time has allowed the current of thought to take a new direction. Yet between these writings, incongruous as they are, there happens to exist a single con- nectino" link, of a purely accidental kind, which, viewing them simply as historical documents, brings them into contact. The reader anticipates * See Note. K 3 Hi" li£ ."fl^fr -„JAh^..>.. r [ i " : 134 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. that, among the epistles of Pliny, the one now referred to, is that— so often quoted— which he addressed to Trajan relative to the Christians.* This distinguished scholar and amiable man having been promoted to the consulate by his friend the emperor, soon afterwards (A. D. 102) as propraetor, assumed the government of Bithynia —a province of Asia Minor. Thence it was that he wrote the letter in question to Trajan, requiring advice under circumstances as strange in them- selves as they must have been perplexing to a humane magistrate.— No probable reason presents itself which should lead us to make material deductions from the statement of facts contained in this letter. For it is not to be supposed that in an official communication of this class, relating to matters of notoriety, the writer should wish to exaggerate the difficulties that beset him. Yet- to forestal objections— let the language of the letter be interpreted in the lowest sense it will well admit. And then it will appear that when Pliny arrived in Bithynia, a large number— if not a large majority of the people, had long re- nounced the worship of the gods— were no lon- ger the purchasers of victims, nor the frequenters of the temples. It appears further, that after instituting many inquiries— inquiries edged with the rigour of torture-this intelligent magistrate * See Note. » i PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 135 could not discover that these atheists— or Chris- tians as they were called, could fairly be charged with any crime known to the Roman law. On the contrary, he affirms his belief— and though reluctant to punish the innocent, he seems by no means prejudiced in favour of the accused;— that they were inoffensive people, more pure and upright than their neighbours, and blame-worlhy only on account of their obstinate adherence to their peculiar superstition. It appears, moreover, from this letter, that though guiltless of crimes, the Christians of this province were then, and had long been exposed to the ill-will of their neighbours, and to many severe inflictions on the part of the magistrates. These then are the external facts of the case, which, viewed apart from other evidence, are far from being such as the ordinary principles of human nature, and the common course of human affairs enable us satisfactorily to explain. In looking round among contemporary writers for some further notices of this new sect, it is natural, in the first instance, to adduce the evi- dence of the friend of Pliny— Tacitus, who, in- cidentally mentions the Christians* in terms which, though they indicate a less exact know- ledge of facts, and less candour, accord very well with the description given of the sect by Pliny.— * Annal. XV. 44. See Note. K 4 ■IIM|llhl»«..ii,M|HBill(i- .., 'f'L... . i 148 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF* with expectations of an animating kind ; for he only alludes, in passing, to topics of this class. We find then, in this letter, a motive which, if it did indeed take possession of the mind, was adequate to produce the effects that actually followed, tor here is the hope of another and an endless life, a life of purity, springing from the presence and favour of the one living, true, and holy God. But is this hope the characteristic element of enthusi- asm » or if it be. is it wrought up and urged in the style proper to an enthusiast, addressing en- thusiasts? where in this epistle is there the touch of extravagance ? Or where do we discover that dash of malignity-that envenomed fang of misan- thropy, which is the proper indication of fanati- cism » With the serenity of one who feels no animosity, whose language is pointed by no acri- mony whose words burn with no sense of injuries, Peter' refers, when his subject leads him to do so, to the rejection of the Gospel by them " who were disobedient." The injurious conduct of persecu- tors he veils under a mild phrase, containing in it a tacit apology ;-" the ignorance of foolish men," Upon the former companions of the Christians when they pursued, like others, a course of licen- tiousness he passes no judgment in his own per- son " They shall," he says. " give an account to him who is read> to judge the living and the dead." In alluding to the punishment of the wicked it is remarkable that Peter employs none of those PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF, 149 designations which, on such occasions so readily occur to the mind of one whose spirit is embittered with a sense of wrongs : he does not say — our enemies — our persecutors — your barbarous judges — your ferocious neighbours," shall presently suffer the punishment their crimes call for. It is the "ungodly," " the disobedient," " the sinner," who have to look for judgment. General phrases like these never content the murky fanatic when he denounces vengeance on his enemies. " Oppression makes a wise man mad ;" and the instances are rare in which the endurance of un- merited wrongs, inflicted in contempt of every principle of law and humanity, has not provoked from the sufferers some murmurs that might be interpreted to contain a menace of sedition. The feeling may be cloaked ; but it will be seen to lurk in some phrase of gloomy import. Not such is the language of Peter. — " Submit yourselves to every human appointment for the Lord's sake ; — ^whether to the king as supreme, or to governors who are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers. Honour all, love the brethren ; fear God ; honour the king : servants be obedient to your masters, with all fear ; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward : for this is praiseworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully." Instead of that sullenness which soothes the pride of those who are loaded with undeserved reproach, the writer of this letter L 3 y I ( 150 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. exhorts the Christians to be " always ready to give an answer, with meekness and fear, to every man who might ask a reason of the hope they enter- tained." Besides these explicit instructions, applicable to particular occasions, Peter recommends, by every persuasion, the mild virtues ;— love, meek, ness, brotherly kindness, hospitality, pity, courte- ousness; — and dissuades from revilings and malice. And is this the tone of a fanatic ? But fanaticism sometimes assumes (though not so often in times of persecution) a milder form. Sometimes it shows itself only in personal austerity, in volun- tary mortifications and inflictions, in a contemp- tuous disregard of the common enjoyments of life ;— and this peculiar form of the vice is not sel- dom indicated by a tendency to revile acrimoni- ously those who are less austere. Was then Peter a fanatic of this milder class ? Let us hear him :— " Ye are called to inherit a blessing :— for he that will love life, and see good days, let him restrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile : let him avoid evil, and do good, let him seek peace, and pursue it." Pliny says that he had examined two women, deaconnesses, by torture. This might suggest the idea that the Christian women were encou- raged to act an obtrusive part, or to display more zell than modesty i—a fanatical spirit is not un- likely to produce effects of this sort. But no such PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 151 « conduct or temper is recommended by Peter — " Wives be in subjection to your own husbands, that if any obey not the word they may, without the word, be won by the behaviour of the wives ; while they observe your pure manners, ruled by diffidence'' One should also expect to find in a sect infected with fanaticism, that its leaders would not fail to improve the advantage (always put into the hands of those who govern in times of trouble) to enhance their own influence, and to indemnify themselves for the hazards they incur by claiming extraordinary aids. But such was not the course of conduct encouraged by Peter when he addresses the rulers of the society : — " Feed the flock of God as much as is in your power ; exercising the ofiice of bishops not by compulsion, but willingly ; not for the sake of gains ; but of a ready mind : — Neither as exert- ing a lordly power over the heritage: but be patterns to the flock." To affirm then that the extraordinary excite- ment which sustained the Christians of Bithynia under the persecutions to which they were ex- posed was enthusiastical or fanatical would be not only an assertion without foundation, but a calumny, directly contradicted by every word of evidence we possess. Yet there still remains a difficulty to be solved, which neither the letter of Pliny, nor even that of Peter, enables us to dis- sipate. If the Christian sufferers, far from being L 4 ■..r J i I f I t 152 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. half mad enthusiasts, or inflamed fanatics, were distinguished by the meekness, mildness, and sobriety of their temper and conduct, whence came this mighty persuasion of the truth of their religion which gave to many of them a fortitude so supernatural ? For the solution of this question we must look beyond the documents now before us. Meanwhile, and supposing that an explana- tion entirely satisfactory, of the facts hitherto mentioned could not be obtained, a bold and urgent challenge may be off*ered to all candid persons, to read the First Epistle of Peter, and to abide by the dictate of conscience when it is asked if this letter does not exhibit a wisdom and a good- ness which place it at an infinite distance above all reasonable suspicion of fraud or imposture I CHAPTER XII. THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. The Christians of the adjoining province of Galatia, were addressed in common with those of Bithynia by Peter. About twelve years before the date of the first of his epistles, these same Galatian Christians had been written to by Paul, in a tone and style strikingly different.— Both letters are peculiarly characteristic of the temper. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 153 education, and habits of the writers. — The one fervent; the other ardent: the one exhibiting that inartificial progression of thought, which is natural to a mind — copious in ideas, and unem- barrassed in language ; but not skilled by literary habits in the arts of composition : — the other, dis- playing all the variety, and all the aptness, and the address of an accomplished and richly fur- nished understanding— of an understanding excited by an intensity of feeling. If, in the epistles of Peter, there is the lofty simplicity of a lowly and devout mind, carrying the writer above the sphere of passing events, and leading him to be brief in his references to persons, places, and lesser incidents ;— in those of Paul every thing is con- crete — personal — local — exact : — there is all that precise collocation of phrases and allusions to the particular proprieties of the occasion on which he was writing, which is characteristic of an ac- tive, energetic, and cultivated mind: — nothing is vague — nothing unfixed: each arrow has its aim :— if Paul contended in the Christian warfare, ''not as one who beateth the air;"-— so he writes not as one who brandishes a pen without a spe- cific object. He ever labours to produce a de- finite and premeditated effect upon the minds of such and such individuals, with whose circum- stances, feelings, prejudices, faults, and virtues, he is accurately acquainted, and which, amid all the heat of his feelings, and the rapidity of i atVfcjiatj i 154 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. his eloquence, he never for a moment forgets : — again and again inserting some allusion— some abrupt, but significant phrase, which at once grapples his argument upon the personal feelings of those to whom he writes, and proves that he is himself never unmindful of their particular welfare. Compositions like these then, in which every sentence contains a fresh and bright reflection from the surrounding scene, every form a sharp and full impression from reality, are fraught with the very soul of history : facts speak in every line. Better, incomparably better, than any abstract narrative, or formal statement, are these living and spontaneous products of a mind which, by its own exact form, and luminous polish, throws off a moving image of every object around it. There can therefore be no place left, no indul- gence given to vague hypotheses relative to the true nature of Christianity, or the circumstances which attended its first promulgation, while the letters of Paul are in existence. Away with specious surmises— with bungling theories— with suppositions no man can realize or adjust to facts. ^We have documents, replete with infor- mation of the most exact kind in our hands. Let those who have neither common sense to interpret common phrases, nor patience to pursue the simplest chain of reasoning, nor honesty to yield to inevitable inferences,abstain from the argu- i PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROQF. 155 ment, and please themselves in their own world— the world of dreams and error.* The epistle to the Galatian churches is mani- festly addressed chiefly, if not solely, to those converts who had been reclaimed from the hea- then worship :—" Then," says Paul, '* when ye knew not God, ye did service to them— ye were the slaves of them, which by nature are no gods:" and subsequently, his argument estab- lishes the rights and privileges of those who once had no part in the covenant made with the father of the faithful. Yet, as is equally evident, there were, in these Galatian churches, not a few Jews, professing Christianity; and apparently, these Jews, or some of them, assumed and exercised the office of teachers. These persons, though too fully convinced of the truth of the religion they professed, to renounce it, wished, so far to accommodate the system to the intolerant pre- judices of their nation, as might soothe and allay that hot animosity which was every where the exciting cause of persecutions. It is evident, both from the narrative of Luke, and from many passages in the epistles of Paul, that it was in almost every instance the opposing Jews who raised tumults— instigated the heathen populace, and brought the Christian teachers before the Roman governors. If then the Jews could by * See Note. I '' ■MJUMT ' 156 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. compliances have been flattered into silence, there seemed reason to believe that the fire of persecution would soon die away. The Jewish teachers had succeeded in bringing over the Galatian Christians to adopt many of these compromising practices, which "took away the offence of the cross." Paul, then at Ephesus or Corinth, being informed of this de- reliction of what he deemed to be essential to Christianity, on the part of his late converts, and of this cowardly shrinking from those suf- ferings which all Christians were called to sustain, wrote to them in terms of warm expos- tulation and rebuke. The facts then are these :— Within twenty, or five-and-twenty years after the death of Christ, and while multitudes of persons were still living in Galilee and Judaea, who had listened to his preaching, and were acquainted with the extra- ordinary circumstances which attended his mi- nistry, there were Jews, at no great distance from Palestine, and holding— according to the habits of that people— frequent intercourse with their mother-country, who, though they shrunk from persecution, yet could not renounce Chris- tianity :— chilled by their fears, and destitute of a genuine feeling, and closely wrapped in the repulsive prejudices of their nation, they yet consorted with loathed Gentiles, and called themselves by the scorned name of Christians. i tKOCESS OF HISTORICAL PKOOF. 157 f ' It is these Jewish malignants— his personal adversaries— (for they sought to supplant his in- fluence, and to destroy his authority) whom Paul, from a distance, where he could not reply to their insinuations— defies. And between them and himself he calls in the Gentile converts to be judges— judges of the validity of his authority^ and of their own folly. Nor does he summon them to be umpires in the controversy by any courting phrases. Instead of winning them back to his interests by blandishments, he accosts them in the tones of an angry parent who, returning to his home, finds his family in disorder. Indeed if we were not to attribute a parental feeling of this kind to the writer, we must admit that he uses language approaching to contumely and scorn — '' O foolish Galatians— devoid of understanding— who has bewitched you into this departure from the truth?"— '* I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain." An appeal like this, addressed to the multitude, composing societies in several cities of a pro- vince—to persons who were already won by the writer's adversaries, was surely bold enough, if he had known that inquiry, urged by animo- sity, might bring to light any tricks practised upon the credulity of the people. But perhaps in Galatia, Paul had made no pretensions which could make him liable to exposure. To what then does he appeal, when, after almost tauntingly 158 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOf. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 159 he had reminded the Galatians of the persecutions they had already endured, which now seemed to have been in vain, he goes on to ask — " He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh iniracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith ?" — Are the miracles now wrought among you> performed in confirmation of this new doctrine of legal observances, or in support of the preaching of justification by faith ? With what appearance of reason could this pointed challenge have been made if no miracles were then wrought among the Galatians ? — Or with what safety^ if these miracles were liable to suspicion or to exposure ? One cannot but remark at once the boldness and the brevity of this allusion to the miraculous interpositions which, as Paul affirms, still took place in support of the Gospel. There are two courses, either of which might seem natural on the supposition that these miracles were not real. — The one is, that this absent teacher, on an occasion when he was urging a controversy with those over whose minds he had lost almost all his first influence, would carefully avoid every allusion to the pretended miracles ; lest he should provoke some fatal disclosures. The other course, probable on this supposition, is that he would, on such an occasion, expatiate at length, and in magnific terms, upon the miracles wrought hy himself, when he first preached the Gospel in Galatia. But instead of adopting either of these modes — instead of mentioning his own miracles, he inserts in the midst of the most pungent pas- sage of the whole epistle, this hasty, but explicit reference to the miracles still wrought among the Galatians themselves. Far from retreating from the position of au- thority he had assumed, the writer expresses his will that those who troubled the Galatian churches should be "cut off" — expelled from the societies. Having thus boldly rebuked, and warmly upbraided the Galatians : and reasoned with them on the futility of the opinions which they had been beguiled to adopt, Paul returns to the tone of calm exhortation on the great and invariable points of morality : and giving a com- prehensive catalogue of vices and of graces, he subjoins the most solemn sanctions. — This letter, in which his apostolical authority was in question, he had — contrary to his ordinary custom — ■ "written with his own hand;" and in concluding, he pathetically appeals from the annoyance of his personal adversaries, to the scars he had received in the discharge of his ministry; — " Henceforth let no man trouble me ; for I sustain in my body the stigmas of the Lord Jesus." In comparing this epistle of Paul with that of Peter, addressed to the same parties, we find 1 i r 160 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROO^; in the one, what was wanting in the other, foi* the purpose of rendering intelligible that conduct on the part of the Christians which Pliny de- scribes.— It appears that in Galatia— and if there, elsewhere — miraculous interpositions in confir- mation of Christianity were continually taking place. It is not then surprising that, without the heat and excitement of fanaticism, many— the young, the old, the feeble, and the timid, should choos'e rather to die than to abandon a bright hope which they knew by infallible tokens to be from God. These three letters— that of the learned CiU- cian Jew— that of the Galilean fisherman, and that of the Roman magistrate may be taken as furnishing together-better than a history of Christianity in Asia Minor- a series of docu- ments from which we are to draw our own m- ferences— and these inferences include an imme- diate proof of the truth of the religion. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 161 CHAPTER XIII. THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED* It would be hard to find among all the remains of ancient literature any compositions, of equal length, more richly fraught with incidental and informal allusions to passing events, and to perso- nal interests, than the two epistles of Paul to the Corinthians. Almost every sentence in these letters, whether it contains a general sentiment, or some particular affirmation, has a specific cha- racter, proper at once to the writer and to the persons addressed. And every paragraph depicts the usages, dispositions, and actual condition of the new sect. These epistles to the Corinthians, if compared with that to the Romans, or with that to the Hebrews, claim a decided preference when considered as historical documents ; for though the latter are by no means destitute of many points of contact with surrounding facts, the former are replete in every part with iiidividualities of this kind. There is no difficulty, while perusing these two letters, in realizing the characters and the circum- stances that are mentioned ; and though some of these circumstances are extraordinary, yet they are so intimately woven with the common material of human nature, and the writer's style is so rife with genuine feeling, that even the marvellous seems natural; — the facts indeed are unusual; but in the narration of them there is nothing strange. At Corinth, as well as in Galatia, disorders had quickly arisen among the Christian converts : and a party, headed by Jewish teachers, had been 31 / i^ 1 ^ 162 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. formed in avowed opposition to the authority of Paul. And besides the evils naturally attendant upon the prevalence of a sectarian spirit, some flagrant violations of that purity of manners which peculiarly belonged to the Christian profession, had taken place and been connived at in the society. A teacher so zealous as Paul, could not support these dishonours of the cause to which his life was devoted : — his first letter therefore to the Corinthians, is one of remonstrance, rebuke, and strenuous argumentation. One improper practice or false opinion after another, is reprehended and refuted, with the utmost freedom, and in a high tone of personal independence and official autho- rity. There is no flattery of his partizans, no fear of his adversaries, no mincing of his opinions. These urgent admonitions seem to have produced the intended effect; and the second letter, in which there is little of argument, breathes a spirit of restored confidence and affection. This is not the place in which to affirm that Paul was indeed a good and sincere, as well as an in- telligent man ; but there is no petition of the guest ion in saying that, judging only from these letters, he seems to be such. For the natural, proper, and invariable indications of a fervent, honest, affectionate, and virtuously intrepid mind, are as distinctly prominent in these letters, as are the proofs of the writer's intellectual endowments, and educational peculiarities. For as it is impossible PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 163 to doubt, especially in reading the Greek original, that the writer was a Jew — a man of good educa- tion, and acquainted with secular affairs ; — or that he possessed acuteness of judgment, and fluency and vigour of style ; so likewise, his moral qualities force themselves upon the confidence of every reader who is at all susceptible of the sympathies of virtue. If therefore no principles are admitted on this occasion except those which guide our feelings and judgment in ordinary instances, then we shall as certainly, as spontaneously, conclude that Paul was a good man, as we do that Pliny was such. But whatever opinion may be formed of this writer's character, our present business is to inquire what inferences are unavoidably deduced from some of the many allusions he makes to passing events. Neither of these epistles furnishes the means of ascertaining what number of persons professed Christianity at Corinth, at the time when the society was written to by Paul. It may however be inferred (1 Cor. xiv. 23.) that they were not so numerous as to prevent their assembling " in one place." And yet, as they were divided into several parties, it is not probable that they were very few. Indeed it seems, throughout the epistles, to be intimated that there was a rather numerous congregation. The Corinthian Christians appear also to have been less exposed to persecu- tion than their brethren in other cities ; — an im- M 2 II I 164 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. \\ munity for which, probably, they were indebted to the good sense of the pro-consul of Achaia. (Acts xviii. 14.) They therefore found it practicable to assemble in a building open to the public, and where the presence of casual hearers was not unfrequent. We are not left to conjecture what was the quality and external condition of the majority of the Corinthian Christians ; for on this subject the evidence of Paul is sufficiently explicit ; and on such a point, surely, if on any, it may be admitted without suspicion. Almost in the first sentences of the epistle occurs the following not very flatter- ing appeal. We may picture the public reading of this passage, against which no one could look round and make exception.— *' You perceive, my '' friends, to what sort of society you are called : " You see that there are not (among you) many of '' the worldly wise— not many of the powerful— '' not many of the well-born. But that God has "chosen those who, in the world's esteem, are " fools, to put to shame the wise ; and the feeble, '' to confound the strong. Yes, and the ignoble' " and the contemned, has God chosen, and things "of nought, to abolish things that are : in order " that no place may be left for human boasting in " His presence." Upon this significant appeal it is natural to remark, in the first place, that a fair inference from the manner of it justifies the presumption that PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 165 there were in the society a few individuals, wise and noble in the world's esteem, who, from what- ever motives, reconciled themselves to an incon- gruous association with slaves and artizans. In the second place it may be remarked, that if the mass of these Christians were persons of mean and servile condition — uneducated, and uninfluenced by that regard to decorum which so strongly restrains the wealthy and the learned, then, if the excitement under which they were brought to- gether, were supposed to have been of a fanatical kind, it is incredible that they could be at all accessible to such reasonings, and to that style of persuasion which the epistle contains ; or indeed that such persons should actually have been re- claimed by any means to good order and right feeling. Paul, as it seems, had his zealous partizans at Corinth ; yet, renouncing whatever advantage he might derive from their partiality, he strenuously condemns any such prejudice in favour of one teacher, as implied ill-will towards another. (1 Cor. iv. 6.) And he checks the disposition to exaggerate the merit or talents of teachers, by referring all distinguishing endowments to the will of Him to whom alone praise should be rendered. This surely is not the language of the leader of a sect — anxious to exalt the influence of those who governed, and solicitous especially to maintain and extend his personal authority. If M 3 ( 166 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF, the writer felt any such selfish motives, certainly he does not betray the fears of an intriguer when he puts all to the hazard by administering a sharp rebuke of the laxity of the Corinthians in permit- ting an immoral member to remain in their com- munion. In a tone of absolute authority, yet mingled with tenderness, and devoid of arrogance he commands them to expel the offender ; and at the same time admonishes them to mourn their own fault in having so long been forgetful of the known principles of their profession. But an act of excommunication is, in its nature, tickling both to pride and malignity ; and likely to engender a feding which may greatly mar the social sentiments. Lest therefore this exclusion of an oflFending member should call up a spirit of sour and self-righteous seclusion from those who were not of their communion, Paul expressly cautions these Christians against drawing such a consequence from his injunctions.-" If any one ohour society;' says he, "be an immoral person, keep no company with him ; but as to others you must go out of the world if you would with- draw from all such. And what have I to do to " condemn those who are without .--those who are without, God judges." Thus, while he sustains the great sanctions of universal morality, he cuts off occasion from acrimonious or censorious spirits Under the next head of reproof, Paul condemns, m a style of sarcastic severity, the litigious temper PROrESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF, 167 and practices in the indulgence of which the Corinthian Christians had forgotten the most ob- vious precepts of their religion, and had become indifferent to its credit before the world. After pointing out the course which common sense as well as Christian principles suggested for the avoidance of pecuniary contestations, he endea- vours to awaken the slumbering conscience by a peculiarly emphatic and solemn denunciation, conjoined with an appeal to their personal feel- ings. _ " Know ye not that the unrighteous " shall not possess a part in the kingdom of God : «« and such were some of you;— but ye are " washed." Paul then neither feared to remind some of this society that they had once followed the most flagitious courses ; nor did he hesitate to affirm that, though many disorders and grave abuses had arisen among them, a real and osten- sible reformation had attended their conversion to Christianity. No reader of these epistles can fail to observe that, whenever the writer discusses a seemingly doubtful question of manners or morals, his de- cision inclines to the side which plain good sense approves, even though in opposition to the strongest of his national prejudices. Is it a Jew— aPharisee, whom we hear saying,—" Circumcision is no- thing?" Yet this renunciation of his eariiest and firmest opinions did not result from a mere transition of his zeal from one system of forms to M 4 f I f ' I I I 4 I 168 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. another ; for he adds,—- and uncircumcision is nothing:" — neither was it the expression of general indifference in matters of religion ; for his conclusion is, that nothing should be deemed essentially important, but -the keeping of the commandments of God." Any great change of sentiments and of manners, especially if accompanied by an accession of new and stimulating hopes is not unlikely to be fol- lowed, among the uneducated and the poor, by restlessness of temper, and impatience under the restraints of a low condition. Paul guards against the disorders that might spring from this source. '' Let every one remain in the vocation in which " he was found when he became a Christian :~ ''Wert thou a slave ?— be not concerned on that '' account ; yet if thou mayest be made free, avail ''thyself of the privilege." Does he not herein Avisely draw the line between a fanatical im- patience on the one side, and a morose or abject indifference to the greatest of earthly blessings, on the other ? A like conspicuous good sense is displayed when he proceeds to give instructions on the per- plexing subject of intercourse with idolatrous neighbours. The opposite evils which it seemed so difficult to shun, and at the same time to main- tain a good conscience, are distinctly pointed out ; and then a general principle of benevolence and of religious consistency is explained and enforced. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF 169 which would serve as a universal guide on each particular occasion.—" We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is is no other God but the One."— Why had none of the sages of Greece, with equal perspicuity, and with the same boldness, advanced and defended a conclu- sion so simple, so salutary, and so consonant to right reason? Without thinking a parade of reasoning necessary to support his affirmation, he proceeds to illustrate his particular position :— ** Yet all have not this knowledge." He argues therefore that Christians, aware of the ignorance of others, should be careful lest, by a seeming in- difference, they should embolden the compliances of weak and undecided persons. " Food does ** not indeed recommend us to God; for neither '* if we eat are we the better ; nor if we eat not "are we, in his sight, the worse:— yet must '' Christians take care lest this power (which " knowledge confers) should become a stumbling " block in the path of the weak." Paul therefore instructs Christians, while they were to avoid compliances which might be mis- taken by others for concessions in favour of idolatry, to avoid all kinds of scrupulosity and punctiliousness. Nor does he sanction their secluding themselves from the society of their neighbours on pretence of religion. " Whatever *' is sold in the shambles eat, asking no question " for conscience sake ; -for the earth is the Lord's '' and the fulness thereof. If any of the unbe- 170 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 171 J *' lie vers invite you (to a feast) and you wish to " go, eat whatever is placed before you, making '' no distinction on account of conscience. But if '* any one say to you, * This is part of the victim,' " eat it not, both for your host's sake, and for *' conscience; — for the earth is the Lord's, and "the fulness thereof." A more admirable in- stance than this will not easily be found of accu- racy of judgment without casuistical refinements ; or of firmness without rigidity ; or of a devout regard to the honour of God, conjoined with a bland and unaffected good- will towards man. In these several articles of advice there appears nothing of the zealot, nothing of the formalist. If we ask the source of so much healthy good sense — of this piety without stiffness, without hypocrisy, without laxity, without extravagance, shall we be told that it was acquired in the school of the Pharisees, or that it was learned from the Sad- ducees, or borrowed from the Herodians ? Or does it betray the style of the porch, or of the academy ? No ! This practical and liberal wisdom, which we are now able to appreciate, was then new to man- kind ; — nor are there any writings of older date than the Gospels and Epistles, in which it may be found.* The middle portion of this Epistle (chapters 12, 13, 14,) challenges peculiar attention. And if the common principles of reasoning, and the * See Note. standing rules of criticism cannot so be ^rougbt to bear upon it as shall extort from the words their true import, and from the record its real value, then indeed the serious study of any ancient writ- ings must seem an idle labour:-and it were as :dlto employ our waking ^^^^.^^^^ the dreams of the night, as in *« &-« ^^^^^^^ exploring the monuments of antiquity. It was ur'ely some other feeling than a commendable Tdlsty which prompted the reply of the Phan- sees to'that inquiry -"The bap ism of Johi^, whence was it-from heaven or of "^^n? J^e cannot tell .hence it .as." Nor can it readily be granted that a pure diffidence-an am^ e ^MeU lectual lowliness, actuates those who ^'U turn from the passa<^e now before us and say,-" We cannot ler^and it-we cannot decide whether this is the language oftruth, or of knavery. Passage? which, by reiterated perusal, have become too familiar to be understood in th^r native sense, and which are too thickly set wi h associated ideas to be fairly seen m their naked meaning, may very advantageously be rendered (for a moment) into the dialect of coHoquia inter- course Not as if such a translation were the true and the best rendering of the words ; but merely that it conveys to the mind the substance of the bought, apart from those habitual notions of a eligL; kL which obscure the simply historical significance of the words. With the view of ob- f =1 \ 1 172 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 173 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. taining a transient liberty from such associated ideas, the following paraphrastic version is offered to the reader. Those parts of the apostle's argu- ment that are irrelevant to our present purpose, are omitted or condensed. 1 Cor. xii. " I am unwilling, my friends, that '' you should be in error on the subject of intellec- "tual (endowments.) You remember that you ''(I speak not now to Jews) when you were wor- " shippers of speechless images, followed (your ''teachers) which way soever you were led. I " must therefore remind you that (now you are to *'judge for yourselves on the principle that) no " (instructor) can be under the guidance of the '' Divine Spirit, who calumniates Jesus : and on *' the other hand, that no man can make a (con- " sistent) profession that Jesus is Lord, without ** the aid of the same Spirit. ''(This being premised, lest you should be '' seduced by any who may exhibit extraordinary " powers, I go on to say that) though there is a ''diversity of endowments, they all proceed from "the same Spirit; and though a diversity of "functions, the same Lord presides over all ; and " though there be a diversity of operations, it is "the same God who performs all in all. But "upon each individual is bestowed a special "exhibition of that same Spirit, for some purpose "of utility. Thus, for example, the same Spirit " confers upon one, wisdom of discourse ; upon (i (< a a another, knowledge ; upon another confidence .. upon another, the endowment of heaUng di- '' seases -To one, the same Spirit gives energies . ^ languages ; and to another, the interpretation of '' laneua^es. «. i. j ;„ ^< low all these endowments are effected m .nhose who receive them by the very same " Spirit, apportioning each to each, at his plea- .. sure. And in like manner, as the human body, " thouo-h consisting of many members, is still one ; inouoii .. n rhrktians For whether «' so is it in a society ot Christians. . we be Jews or Greeks-slaves or free persons, .we all become by baptism-as it were-one body ; and all imbibe the same spirit. And as in tl; human body, each member has need of ..he others-the eye of the ear, and the hand - of the foot ;-so in our societies there is a real ^Cendanc; of each upon all, and of all upon «. each -.-there ought therefore to be a sympathy "and union throughout the c^-J^^^-^J^ ■ you are, if I may so speak, the body of Christ . each one being but a member or organ of the Tat'this divine constitution of the christian "community, there are various degrees; for "example -In the first place stand those who " weT ommissioned (by Christ to establish his (( 61 << (C iC ii n mfmmBamiKm •'T 174 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. PROCESS OF lIISTdRICAI. PKOOF. 175 I 8f' "religion.) In the second place, preachers (or " the bearers of immediate communications from ''Heaven.) In the third (ordinary) teachers. "Then those who exercise mighty energies; " then endowments for healing diseases ; then " those who aid (in managing the affairs of the " society) or who direct (the movements of others.) " Now could all be (specially) commissioned ? *' Could all receive peculiar communications ? " Ought all to be teachers ? Should all possess " mighty powers ; or all be able to heal diseases, " or all speak various languages, or all interpret "languages? — You affect the most eminent en- " dowments. But I have to display to you a "path (to honour) still more worthy." The principal intention of the writer in this passage is very obvious : — it is not to enhance or magnify the endowments which were exercised in the Christian church that he thus enumerates them; but rather, by pointing to the source of every gift, and by insisting upon the end for which such gifts were bestowed, he aims to pro- mote among the Christians a feeling of devout humility, and to convince them of the absurdity of that vain-glorious ambition which would render these endowments the sources of disorder and division, rather than of edification. He then pro- ceeds (chapter xiii) in language eminently distin- guished by beauty, propriety, and force, to re- commend that "more excellent" quality which forms the substance of all true virtue, and without ':hich the most splendid g^^ts will not ren^r a profession of religion any thmg better than ^vr^retradmire the justness of thought displayed in the 12th chapter, and the moral Sty of the next; which indeed, for the prac- Z value of the sentiments it contains, might Srly be balanced against all that has been wr^- ten on ethical subjects by the sages of Greece and Rome. But in the midst of so much plain good sense, and shining wisdom, there axe allu- Jions and implicit assertions which demnd special attention. In this catalogue of endow- In ! and of functions, several of the terms are Tdeed perfectly intelligible ; but others are not o be explained from the materials of common experience, or ordinary history. For example ;- derstood simply as meaning ' skill n medicme is not only a strange phrase m itself, but seems stranc^ely introduced among endowments speci- tali; adapted to promote tl- -ligio-mp-^^^ „ent of a rff^^^^'J f ^^ the phrase loads the passage wii incongruity. Again : the ...pw"™ ^-o^-" - Ta phrase which, if we adhere to the ordi- nary meaning of the words, hardly adniits o ^Intelligible rendering. - If the term be no vacue and almost destitute of meanmg-wh.ch 176 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF 177 the terseness of the writer's style forbids us to suppose — it must convey a conventional sense, pe- culiar to these christians ; a sense not to be fully ascertained without a further knowledge of their history than this epistle conveys. The word irooiprrrtia, though in its primitive sense it conveys the idea of a divine communication, may mean nothing more than preaching or exhor- tation : and indeed the writer afterwards employs it evidently in this ordinary acceptation. But of all the terms here used, the most remarkable- considering the connexion in which it is found, is the yivri y\u,a(Twy— kinds of languages. Are we then to understand that, among the members of this new sect, there were persons who possessed, by natural means, an accomplishment extremely rare among even the best educated of the Greeks a knowledge of several languages ? This would be hard to suppose; and the writer almost ex- pressly affirms the contrary in the exordium of the letter. But even if it were so, can it be imagined that a writer who displays so much good sense should enumerate, among those endowments which had been bestowed by the Spirit for pur- poses of religious utility— such an exhibition of his learning as a linguist might make in an assembly of unlearned persons? What end of edification could be attained even by the most discreet use of such a talent ? We must then of necessity look further for the vl / \ means of affixing an intelligible sense to the terms above-mentioned, especially to the last. Now it happens that this last phrase is the one which the writer singles out as the text of an elaborate argument in the 14th chapter. In this argument the writer's object is not to prove the existence of the gift, so designated, or to defend it against scepticism, or to enhance its importance ;— for its existence is assumed as a matter of fact, well known to those to whom he wrote: — ^but to define and illustrate the right use of it, and to caution those who possessed it against an ostenta- tious abuse of a faculty so extraordinary. The incidental allusions which occur in the course of this argument will, in the most satisfactory man- ner, explain the real nature of the gift to which it relates. '' Cultivate love, aspire to intellectual endow- " ments ; but especially to the faculty of preach- *< ing.— He who speaks a language (unknown to '' the assembly) speaks to God, not to man ; for ^' no one attends :— but in his (own) spirit he *' utters things profound. On the contrary, he " who preaches, speaks that which tends to pro- '' mote the edification, or encouragement, or com- '' fort of the hearers. He who speaks a (foreign) ** language ed^es himself; but he who preaches, " edifies the congregation. '' I wish you all spoke (foreign) languages ; but '' I had rather that you should preach. For the N tr • T T I « 4€ 178 PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. " preacher discharges a more important function ** than the speaker of languages ; unless, indeed, '' he interprets what he utters for the benefit of " the congregation. Wherefore, my friends, if I '' come among you speaking various languages, " what will you be the better unless I actually *« communicate to you some sacred discovery, or *' some information, or prediction, or instruction? Thus (to use a comparison) if inanimate mstru- ments— the lute or the harp, make not a dis- *' tinction in the sounds they produce, how shall " the music be recognized? Or if the clarion *' give an unmeaning blast, who will arm himself " for the tight. Apply this simile to yourselves " —unless what you utter be intelligible, how " shall your discourses be understood : you may ** as well talk to the winds ! "There are— what shall we say— so many " kinds of languages spoken by mankind ; and " not one of them is destitute of meaning. But *' unless I perceive the power of the words used " by a speaker, we shall each deem the other a " barbarian— (a foreigner). But you would not "wish to be like foreigners one to another; " wherefore, since you desire endowments, seek " such as may promote the edification of the con- " gregation. Let then him who speaks a (foreign) " language, make it his prayer that he may be " able also to interpret what he utters. For if I " pray in a foreign language, I do indeed inwardly PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF. 179 i (i ' >l 1 €€