{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_67778/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_67778","id":"gutenberg_67778","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/67778","summary":null,"tags":["Bible -- Evidences, authority, etc.","Category: History - Ancient","Category: History - Other","Category: History - Religious","Historiography","Transmission of texts"],"text":"HISTORY\n\n  OF\n\n  THE TRANSMISSION OF ANCIENT BOOKS\n  TO MODERN TIMES;\n\n  TOGETHER WITH\n\n  THE PROCESS OF HISTORICAL PROOF;\n\n  OR,\n\n  A CONCISE ACCOUNT OF THE MEANS\n  BY WHICH THE GENUINENESS OF ANCIENT LITERATURE GENERALLY,\n  AND THE AUTHENTICITY OF HISTORICAL WORKS ESPECIALLY,\n  ARE ASCERTAINED;\n  INCLUDING INCIDENTAL REMARKS\n  UPON THE RELATIVE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE USUALLY ADDUCED\n  IN BEHALF OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.\n\n  BY ISAAC TAYLOR.\n\n  VERI SCIENTIA VINDEX.\n\n  A New Edition, Revised and Enlarged.\n\n  LONDON:\n  JACKSON AND WALFORD,\n  18, ST. PAUL\u2019S CHURCHYARD.\n  1859.\n\n\n\n\n  LONDON:\n  PRINTED BY RICHARD CLAY, BREAD STREET HILL.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nTwo books which appeared more than thirty years ago, and which have\nbeen long out of print, are brought into one in this volume. The second\nof them--the \u201cProcess of Historical Proof,\u201d was, in fact, a sequel to\nthe first--the \u201cHistory of the Transmission of Ancient Books to Modern\nTimes.\u201d In now reprinting the two, as one, it has not been difficult\nto give continuity to the whole: this has been effected, partly by\nremoving from each volume portions which seemed to be of secondary\nimportance, and to be not closely related to the principal intention\nof the work; and partly by introducing several entire chapters of new\nmaterial; and by the insertion of additional paragraphs throughout.\nWhat is new in this volume occurs chiefly in the mid portions of it,\nand at the end.\n\nIn the course of this thirty years, the labours of critics, combined\nwith the researches of learned travellers, have thrown much light upon\nall parts of the subject which is compendiously treated in this volume.\nNo reader who is fully informed in this department will need to be told\nthat, within the limits of a volume such as this, nothing more than the\nmost concise mention of these recent labours and researches could be\nattempted: they are referred to only in the way of suggestion and of\nsample. At the first, the two books above mentioned were intended to\nfind a place in a course of general educational reading; and it is only\nas coming within the range of a purpose such as this, that the Reprint\nis now offered to the public.\n\nIn excluding from the Reprint some chapters of the two volumes which\nrelated expressly to the Biblical argument, or \u201cChristian Evidences,\u201d\nI have been influenced by several reasons--such as these: The first\nof them is this, that what may be regarded as the _religious_ aspect\nof the general subject has no direct claim to be included in the\ntreatment of it. In the next place, I have believed--and think so\ndecisively--that, for the very purpose of bringing the Biblical\nargument home, with the greatest force, to the convictions of\nintelligent young persons, the subject should be fully understood\nin its broadest aspect. When it is thus presented, and when it is\nthus understood, well-informed and ingenuous persons will see and\nfeel, irresistibly, that, as compared with any other mass of facts\nbelonging to literary antiquarianism, and to historic evidence, the\nBiblical evidence is many times more ample, and various, and is more\nunquestionably certain, than even the best and the surest of those\nmasses of facts.\n\nThere is yet another reason that has induced me to retrench, in\nthis Reprint, much that, thirty years ago, might seem proper to the\ntreatment of the subject. In this course of time a great change has\nhad place upon the field of argument touching Christianity and its\norigin. Although disbelief may have spread widely of late, the argument\nconcerning Christianity has been narrowed on every side of it. Much\nthat, a while ago, was thought to need the production of proof, has,\nwithin a few years, quite ceased to be spoken of as questionable.\nSeveral elaborate and ingenious endeavours to bring, first, the\n_documents_ of Christianity, and then, the _historic import_ of\nthose documents, into doubt, have signally failed, and in fact they\nare abandoned as nugatory and hopeless. It would, therefore, be a\nsuperfluous labour at this time to defend positions which have ceased\nto be assailed.\n\nThe course of adverse thought, at this time, in relation to the\nreligion of Christ--the only religion concerning which any question can\nbe raised--has this tendency, namely, to divert attention by all means,\nand as much as possible, from _the past_; and to engage all attention,\nand to concentrate it, upon the _present moment_, and upon its tangible\nand secular interests. This is now the aim of those writers, in the\ndepartments of Philosophy--physical and abstract, who would subvert\nChristianity, and who labour to do so by drawing the thoughts of the\neducated classes away from it--away from its neighbourhood. If it be\nso, then it must be well for those who take the other side, to do what\nthey may for calling back the same classes, and for challenging them to\nacquaint themselves anew with History, and to assure themselves of its\nincontestible certainty.\n\n  STANFORD RIVERS,\n  _February, 1859_.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n  CHAPTER I.\n\n                                                                    PAGE\n\n  INTENTION OF THE PRESENT ARGUMENT                                    1\n\n\n  CHAPTER II.\n\n  STATEMENT OF THE CASE, AS TO THE AUTHENTICITY OF ANCIENT BOOKS       9\n\n\n  CHAPTER III.\n\n  THE DATE OF ANCIENT WORKS, INFERRED FROM THE QUOTATIONS\n  AND REFERENCES OF CONTEMPORARY AND SUCCEEDING WRITERS               28\n\n\n  CHAPTER IV.\n\n  THE ANTIQUITY AND GENUINENESS OF ANCIENT BOOKS MAY BE INFERRED FROM\n  THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGES IN WHICH THEY ARE EXTANT               36\n\n\n  CHAPTER V.\n\n  ANCIENT METHODS OF WRITING, AND THE MATERIALS OF BOOKS              41\n\n\n  CHAPTER VI.\n\n  CHANGES INTRODUCED IN THE COURSE OF TIME IN THE FORMS OF LETTERS,\n  AND IN THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF WRITING                             52\n\n\n  CHAPTER VII.\n\n  THE COPYISTS; AND THE PRINCIPAL CENTRES OF THE COPYING BUSINESS     61\n\n\n  CHAPTER VIII.\n\n  INDICATIONS OF THE SURVIVANCE OF ANCIENT LITERATURE, THROUGH A PERIOD\n  EXTENDING FROM THE DECLINE OF LEARNING IN THE SEVENTH CENTURY, TO ITS\n  RESTORATION IN THE FIFTEENTH                                        77\n\n\n  CHAPTER IX.\n\n  THE REVIVAL OF LEARNING IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY                   97\n\n\n  CHAPTER X.\n\n  SEVERAL METHODS AVAILABLE FOR ASCERTAINING THE CREDIBILITY\n  OF ANCIENT HISTORICAL WORKS                                        102\n\n\n  CHAPTER XI.\n\n  EXCEPTIONS TO WHICH THE TESTIMONY OF HISTORIANS, ON PARTICULAR\n  POINTS, MAY BE LIABLE                                              119\n\n\n  CHAPTER XII.\n\n  CONFIRMATIONS OF THE EVIDENCE OF ANCIENT HISTORIANS, DERIVABLE\n  FROM INDEPENDENT SOURCES                                           132\n\n\n  CHAPTER XIII.\n\n  GENERAL PRINCIPLES, APPLICABLE TO QUESTIONS OF THE GENUINENESS\n  AND AUTHENTICITY OF ANCIENT RECORDS                                160\n\n\n  CHAPTER XIV.\n\n  RELATIVE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE WHICH SUPPORTS THE GENUINENESS\n  AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES                            177\n\n\n  CHAPTER XV.\n\n  ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE PRECEDING STATEMENTS:--A MORNING AT\n  THE BRITISH MUSEUM                                                 204\n\n\n  CHAPTER XVI.\n\n  FACTS RELATING TO THE CONSERVATION, AND LATE RECOVERY, OF\n  SOME ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS                                           226\n\n\n  CHAPTER XVII.\n\n  THE PROCESS OF HISTORIC EVIDENCE EXEMPLIFIED IN THE INSTANCE\n  OF HERODOTUS                                                       267\n\n\n  CHAPTER XVIII.\n\n  METHOD OF ARGUING FROM THE GENUINENESS, TO THE AUTHENTICITY\n  OF THE HISTORY OF HERODOTUS                                        306\n\n\n  CHAPTER XIX.\n\n  EXAMPLES OF IMPERFECT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE:--HERODOTUS              336\n\n\n  CHAPTER XX.\n\n  RECENT EXPLORATIONS, CONFIRMATORY OF THE TRUTH OF ANCIENT\n  HISTORY: HERODOTUS AND BEROSUS                                     358\n\n\n  CHAPTER XXI.\n\n  INFERENTIAL HISTORIC MATERIALS                                     371\n\n\n  CHAPTER XXII.\n\n  THE MODERN JERUSALEM--A VOUCHER FOR THE LITERATURE OF ITS\n  ANCIENT OCCUPANTS                                                  399\n\n\n\n\nHISTORY\n\nOF THE\n\nTRANSMISSION OF ANCIENT BOOKS.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nINTENTION OF THE PRESENT ARGUMENT.\n\n\nThe credit of ancient literature, the certainty of history, and the\ntruth of religion, are all involved in the secure transmission of\nancient books to modern times. Many of the facts connected with the\nhistory of this transmission are to be found, more or less distinctly\nmentioned, in every work in which the claims of the Holy Scriptures are\nadvocated. But these facts are open to much misapprehension when they\nare brought together to subserve the purposes of a single argument. It\nis the intention of this volume therefore to lay them before general\nreaders, as they stand apart from controversy, and as if no interests\nmore important than those of literature were implicated in the result\nof the statements we have to make.\n\nNothing can be more equitable than that the genuineness and\nauthenticity of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures should be judged\nof by the rules that are applied to all other ancient books; nor is\nanything more likely to produce a firm and intelligent conviction\nof the validity of the claims advanced for the Holy Scriptures,\nthan a clear understanding of the relative value of the evidence\nwhich supports them. To furnish the means therefore of instituting a\ncomparison, so just in itself, and so necessary to a fair examination\nof the most important of all questions, is the design of these pages.\n\nAs this volume makes no pretension to communicate information to those\nwho are already conversant with matters of antiquity, literary or\nhistorical, whatever might seem recondite, or what is still involved\nin controversy, has been avoided. Nor will these pages be encumbered\nwith numerous references, which, though easily amassed, would increase\nthe size of the volume without being serviceable to the class of\nreaders for whom the author now writes. No facts are adduced which\nmay not readily be substantiated by any one who has access to a\nlibrary of moderate extent. But a few works, not often met with in\nprivate collections, are named at the foot of the page where special\ninformation has been derived from them.\n\nThe principal facts of ancient history, and the authenticity of the\nworks from which chiefly our knowledge of antiquity is derived, are now\nfreely admitted, after a few exceptive instances have been set off,\nwhich are unproved, or doubtful.\n\nYet on this subject, as well as upon some others, there often exists,\nat the same time, too much faith, and too little; for, from a want\nof acquaintance with the details on which-a rational conviction of\nthe genuineness and validity of ancient records may be founded, many\npersons, even though otherwise well informed, feel that they have\nhardly an alternative between a simple acceptance of the entire mass of\nancient history, or an equally indiscriminate suspicion of the whole.\nAnd when it happens that a particular fact comes to be questioned, or\nwhen the genuineness of some ancient book is argued, such persons,\nconscious that they are little familiar with the nature of the evidence\non the strength of which the question turns, and perceiving that the\ncontroversy involves many recondite and uninteresting researches, or\nthat it rests upon the validity of minute criticisms, either recoil\naltogether from the argument, or they accept an opinion, without\ninquiry, from that party on whose judgment they think they may most\nsafely rely.\n\nAnd it is true that such controversies may, for the most part, very\nproperly be left in the hands of critics and antiquarians, whose tastes\nand acquirements qualify them for investigations that can scarcely be\nmade intelligible to the mass of readers. Nor are the facts involved\nin these controversies often of any importance to the general student\nof history; for they do not extensively affect the integrity of that\ndepartment of literature to which they belong. Yet it must be allowed\nthat the _principles_ on which such questions are argued, and the\nfacts connected with the transmission of ancient literature to modern\ntimes, are in themselves highly important; and that they well deserve\nmore attention than they often receive. Nor are these facts, when\nseparated from particular controversies, at all abstruse, or difficult\nof apprehension. Indeed much of the information that bears upon the\nsubject is in itself curious and highly interesting, as well as\nimportant.\n\nEven in relation to those works of genius, the value of which consists\nin their intrinsic merits, and which would not be robbed of their\nbeauties, though they were discovered to be spurious, an assurance\nof their genuineness is felt by every reader to conduce greatly to\nthe pleasure they impart. But a much stronger feeling naturally leads\nus to demand this assurance in the perusal of works which profess\nto have reality only for their matter:--Truth is the very subject\nof History:--the adducing of satisfactory evidence, therefore, of\nthe integrity of its records may well be deemed an indispensable\npreliminary to a course of study in that department of knowledge.\n\nBesides its peculiar propriety in connexion with the study of history,\nthe argument in support of the genuineness and authenticity of the\nexisting remains of ancient literature is singularly fitted to afford\na useful exercise to the reasoning faculties; and perhaps, better\nthan any other subject, it calls into combined action those powers of\nthe mind that are separately employed in mathematical, physical, or\nlegal pursuits, and which, in the actual occasions of common life, can\nsubserve our welfare only so far as they move in unison.\n\nBut reasons of still greater moment recommend the subject of the\nfollowing pages to the attention of the reader; for it is certain that\nevery one, whether or not he is contented to admit, without inquiry,\nthe authenticity of _profane_ history, has the highest personal concern\nin the truth of that particular portion of ancient history with which\nthe Christian religion is connected; and, therefore, every one should\nthink himself bound to convince himself of the genuineness of the books\nin which its principles are contained. And as the facts on which this\nproof depends are precisely of the same kind in profane, as in sacred\nliterature, and as the same principles of evidence are applicable\nto all questions relating to the genuineness of ancient books, it\nis highly desirable that the proof of the genuineness of the Sacred\nWritings should be viewed--in _its place_, as forming a part only of a\ngeneral argument, which bears equally upon the entire literary remains\nof antiquity. For it is only when so viewed, that the comparative\nstrength and completeness of the proof which belongs to this particular\ncase, can be duly estimated. When exhibited in this light it will\nbe seen that the integrity of the records of the Christian faith\nis substantiated by evidence in a tenfold proportion more various,\ncopious, and conclusive, than that which can be adduced in support of\nany other ancient writings. If, therefore, the question had no other\nimportance belonging to it than what may attach to a purely literary\ninquiry, or if only the strict justice of the case were regarded, the\nauthenticity of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures could never come to\nbe controverted, till the entire body of classical literature had been\nproved to be spurious.\n\nMany--perhaps most persons, in perusing works on the evidences of\nrevealed religion, are apt to suppose that the sacred books only, or\nthat these books, more than any others, stand in need of laboured\nargumentation in support of their authenticity; while, in truth,\nthese books, less than any other ancient writings, need a careful\ninvestigation of their claims; for the proof that establishes them\nis on all points obvious and redundant. Indeed this very redundancy\nand variety of evidence--especially if it be unskilfully adduced, may\nactually produce confusion and hesitancy, rather than an affirmed\nconviction, in unpractised minds; and this perplexity is likely to be\nincreased by the very idea of the serious importance of the subject.\nThus it may happen that those very facts which, if compared with others\nof a similar kind, are susceptible of the most complete proof, are\nactually regarded with the most distrust.\n\nIn presenting to the reader, what might be called--the History of the\nrecords of History, we shall put him in position for tracing the extant\nworks of ancient authors _retrogressively_, from modern times, up to\nthe age to which they are usually attributed; and then it will be seen\non what grounds--under certain limitations--the contents of these works\nare admitted to be authentic, and worthy of credit. In attending to the\nfacts which we have to adduce it will appear that we are well warranted\nin accepting certain works as having been written in the age to which\nthey are usually assigned, and by the authors to whom they are commonly\nattributed; and also in believing that they have not suffered material\ncorruption in the course of transcription.\n\nFurther than this we may advance, and go on to show the grounds of\nour belief that such or such an author wrote what he believed to be\ntrue, and that he possessed authentic information on the subject of\nwhich he treats. The proof in this case must be drawn from the style\nand character of the work itself; from the circumstances that attended\nits first publication; from the corroborative evidence of contemporary\nwriters; and from the agreement of the narrative in particular\ninstances with existing relics of antiquity.\n\nEvidence in support of the first part of this assumption will prove\nthat the works in question are not _forgeries_:--evidence establishing\nthe _second_, will show that they are not _fictions_.\n\nIt is obvious that these assumptions are not only distinct, but\nthat they are independent of each other:--for one of them may be\nconclusively established, while the other is either disproved, or may\nremain questionable. A book may contain a true narrative of events,\nthough not written by the author, or in the age, that has commonly been\nsupposed. Or, on the other hand, it may undoubtedly be the production\nof the alleged author, but may deserve little credit as a professed\nrecord of facts. Thus, for example, the Cyrop\u00e6dia is, on good evidence,\nattributed to Xenophon; but there is little reason to suppose that it\ndeserves to be considered as better than an historical romance:--the\n_genuineness_ of the work is certain; but its authenticity as a history\nis, at the best, questionable. Yet the first of these propositions is\nmore independent of the second, than the second can be of the first.\nFor when the antiquity and genuineness of an historical work has\nbeen clearly demonstrated, it is seldom difficult to fix the degree\nof credit that is due to the author; or to discover those particular\npoints on which there may be reason to suspect his veracity, or to\nquestion the soundness of his judgment, or to doubt the accuracy of his\ninformation.\n\nIt is then for the purpose of rendering these arguments and inferences\nintelligible, and more satisfactory also, than otherwise they would be,\nthat, after giving a brief statement of this argument, we shall proceed\nto bring forward what relates to the manipulative and mechanical\nmethods of multiplying copies of books, and to the diffusion, and\npreservation of these copies, in ancient times;--that is to say, in all\ntimes anterior to the invention of Printing, in the fifteenth century.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE, AS TO THE AUTHENTICITY OF ANCIENT BOOKS.\n\n\nThe antiquity and genuineness of the extant remains of ancient\nliterature may be established by three lines of proof that are\naltogether independent of each other; and though, in any particular\ninstance, one, or even two out of the three should be wanting, the\nremaining one may alone be perfectly conclusive:--When the three\nconcur, they present a redundant demonstration of the facts in question.\n\nThe _first_ line of proof relates to the history of certain copies of a\nwork, which are now in existence.\n\nThe _second_--traces the history of a work as it may be collected from\nthe series of references made to it by succeeding writers.\n\nThe _third_--is drawn from the known history of the _language_ in which\nthe work is extant.\n\nFor understanding what belongs to the first of these three lines of\nevidence we ought to be acquainted with various particulars relating\nto the modes of writing practised among ancient nations, and to the\nmaterials employed, and to what may be called the business-system by\nmeans of which an ancient writer placed himself in communication with\nhis readers.\n\nIn many, or in most of these particulars ancient and modern usages are\nvery dissimilar. But something more should first be said indicative of\nthe purpose with a view to which these facts are brought forward.\n\nIt need scarcely be said that the antiquity and integrity of a book\ncan be open to no question, if in any case the existence of any one\ncopy of it can be traced back, with certainty, to the time of its\nfirst publication. If, for example, a manuscript of a work in the\nauthor\u2019s handwriting were still extant, and if the fact of its being\nsuch could by any means be proved, our argument would be concluded, and\nany other evidence must be deemed superfluous. There are however few\nsuch unquestionable _autographs_ to be found, even of modern works,\nand none, of any ancient one. Yet the circumstances attending the\npreservation and transmission of manuscripts are, in some instances, as\nwe shall see, such as to prove the antiquity and genuineness of a work\nwith little less certainty than as if the very first copy of it were in\nexistence.\n\nBut before we enter into the particulars of this proof it should\nbe mentioned--especially as we intend to follow the order of time\n_retrogressively_, that the history of _manuscripts_ need not be traced\nthrough any later period than that of the early part of the fifteenth\ncentury, when most of the classic authors passed through the press.\nFor the invention of printing has served, as well to ascertain,\nbeyond doubt, the existence of books at certain dates, as to secure\nthe text from extensive interpolation and corruption. A printed book\nis not susceptible of subsequent interpolation or alteration by the\n_pen_: it bears also a date, and the issuing of different editions\nof the same work from distant places, would render any falsification\nof date in one of them, or any material corruption of the text by an\neditor, a nugatory attempt. For example, there are now extant, printed\ncopies of the history of the Peloponnesian war, dated \u201cVenice, 1502;\u201d\nother copies of an edition of the same work are dated \u201cFlorence,\n1506;\u201d others are dated \u201cBasil, 1540;\u201d and others, printed within a\nfew years of the same time at Paris and Vienna. On being compared\nwith each other, these editions are found to agree _in the main_; and\nyet to disagree in many small variations of orthography, syntax, or\nexpression; so as to prove that they were derived independently from\ndifferent manuscripts; and not successively from each other. These\nprinted editions, therefore, sufficiently prove the existence of the\nwork in the fifteenth century; and also that the text of the modern\neditions has not been materially impaired or corrupted during the last\nfour hundred years.\n\nBut let it now be imagined, that there are no other means of\nascertaining the antiquity and genuineness of the classic authors than\nsuch as may be collected from the history of existing manuscripts. Our\nobject then will be to discover to what age they may clearly be traced;\nand to deduce from the facts some sure inference relative to the length\nof time during which those works have been passing through the hands\nof copyists.\n\nThe date of an ancient manuscript may be ascertained by such means as\nthe following:--\n\n1. Some manuscripts are known to have been carefully preserved in the\nlibraries where they are now found, for several centuries:--for not\nonly have they been mentioned in the catalogues of the depositories\nto which they belong, but they have been so accurately described by\neminent scholars of succeeding ages, that no doubt can remain of their\nidentity. Or even if they have changed hands, the particulars of the\nsuccessive transfers have been authentically recorded.\n\n2. A large proportion of existing manuscripts are found to be dated by\nthe hand of the copyists, and in such a manner as to leave no question\nas to the time when the copy was executed.\n\n3. Many manuscripts have marginal notes, added evidently by later\nhands, which through some incidental allusion to persons, events, or\nparticular customs, or by the use of peculiar forms of expression,\nindicate clearly the age of the notes, and therefore carry that of the\noriginal manuscript somewhat higher.\n\n4. The remote antiquity of a manuscript is often established by the\npeculiar circumstance of its existing _beneath_ another writing.\nThese re-written manuscripts--palimpsests, or rescripts, as they are\ntermed, afford the most satisfactory proof of antiquity that can be\nimagined. Parchment, which has always been a costly material, came to\nbe greatly enhanced in price at the time when paper, manufactured from\nthe papyrus of the Nile, began to be scarce, and just before the time\nwhen that formed from cotton--called charta bombycina, was brought\ninto general use. At the same period, owing to the general decline\nof learning, the works of the classic authors fell into very general\nneglect. Those, therefore, who were copyists by profession, and the\nmonks especially, whose libraries often contained large collections of\nparchment books, availed themselves of the valuable material which they\npossessed, by erasing, or washing out, the original writing, and then\nsubstituting lives of the saints, religious romances, meditations, or\nsuch other inanities as suited the taste of the times. Nevertheless,\noften, the faithful skin, tenacious of its pristine honours, retained\nthe traces of the original writing with sufficient distinctness to\nrender it still legible. These rescripts, therefore, offer to us a\ndouble proof of the antiquity of the work which first occupied the\nparchment; for in most cases the date of the monkish writing is\neasily ascertained to be of the twelfth, or even the ninth century.\nThe writing which _first_ occupied such parchments must, of course,\nbe dated considerably higher; for it is much more probable that old,\nthan that recent books should have been selected for the purpose of\nerasure. Some invaluable manuscripts of the Holy Scriptures, and not a\nfew precious fragments of classic literature, have been thus brought to\nlight.\n\n5. The age of a manuscript may often be ascertained, with little chance\nof error, by some such indications as the following:--the quality or\nappearance of the ink; the nature of the material; that is to say,\nwhether it be soft leather, or parchment, or the papyrus of Egypt,\nor the bombycine paper; for these materials succeeded each other, in\ncommon use, at periods that are well known;--the peculiar form, size,\nand character of the writing; for a regular progression in the modes of\nwriting may be traced by abundant evidence through every age from the\nremotest times;--the style of the ornaments or _illuminations_, as they\nare termed, often serves to indicate the age of the book which they\ndecorate.\n\nFrom such indications as these, more or less definite and certain,\nancient manuscripts, now extant, are assigned to various periods,\nextending from the sixteenth, to the fourth century of the Christian\nera; or perhaps, in one or two instances, to the third, or second. Very\nfew can claim an antiquity so high as the fourth century: but not a few\nare safely attributed to the seventh; and a great proportion of those\nextant were unquestionably executed in the tenth; while many belong to\nthe following four hundred years. It is, however, to be observed, that\nsome manuscripts, executed at so late a time as the thirteenth, or even\nthe fifteenth century, afford clear internal evidence that, by a single\nremove only, the text they contain claims a _real_ antiquity, higher\nthan that even of the oldest existing copy of the same work. For these\nolder copies sometimes prove, by the peculiar nature of the corruptions\nwhich have crept into the text, that they have been derived through\na long series of copies; while perhaps the text of the more modern\nmanuscript possesses such a degree of purity and freedom from all the\nusual consequences of frequent transcription, as to make it manifest\nthat the copy from which it was taken, was so ancient as not to be far\ndistant from the time of the first publication of the work.\n\nMost, if not all, the Royal and Ecclesiastical and University libraries\nin Europe, as well as many private collections, contain great numbers\nof these literary relics of antiquity: and some of them could furnish\nmanuscripts of nearly the entire body of ancient literature. There\nare few of the classic authors that are not still extant in _several_\nmanuscript copies; and of some, the existing copies are almost\nnumberless.\n\nAlthough all the larger ancient libraries, such, for example, as\nthose of Alexandria, of Constantinople, of Athens, and of Rome, were\ndestroyed by the fanaticism of barbarian conquerors; yet so extensive\na diffusion of the most celebrated works had previously taken place,\nthroughout the Roman empire, and beyond its limits, that all parts of\nEurope and Western Asia abounded with smaller collections, or with\nsingle works in the hands of private persons. When learning had almost\ndisappeared among the people, monasteries and religious houses became\nthe chief receptacles of books; for almost every such establishment\nincluded individuals who still cultivated literature and the sciences\nwith ardour; and who found no difficulty in amassing almost any\nquantity of this generally neglected property.\n\nHappily for literature, religious houses were places of greater\nsecurity than even the strongholds of the nobles, or the palaces\nof kings, which by conquest or revolution were, from time to time,\nviolently rent from their possessors. Meantime, these sacred seclusions\nwere usually respected, even by the fiercest invaders. Through a\nlong course of ages, monasteries were occupied by an order of men\nwho succeeded each other in a far more tranquil course of transition\nthan has taken place in any other instance, that might be named. The\nproperty of each establishment (and its literary property was always\nhighly prized) passed down, from age to age, as if under the hand\nof a permanent proprietor, and it was therefore subjected to fewer\ndispersions or destructions than the mutability of human affairs\nordinarily permits.\n\nEvery church, and every convent and monastery had its library, its\nlibrarian, and its other officers, employed in the conservation of the\nbooks. Connected with the library was the _Scriptorium_--the hall or\nchamber where the elder or the educated monks employed themselves in\nmaking copies of such books as were falling into decay; or of such as\nthere was still some demand for, in the open world.\n\nBy means such as these it was that the literature of more enlightened\nages has been preserved from extinction; and when at length learning\nrevived in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, a large portion\nof those long-hoarded volumes flowed into the collections of the\nmunificent founders of libraries, and there, having become known to the\nlearned, they were speedily consigned to the immortal custody of the\npress.\n\nThe places in which these remains of ancient literature had been\npreserved, during the middle ages, were too many, and they were too\ndistant from each other, and they were too little connected by any kind\nof intercourse, to admit of a combination or conspiracy having for its\nobject any supposed purposes of interpolation or corruption. Possessing\ntherefore as we do, in most cases, copies of the same author, some of\nwhich were drawn from the monasteries of England, others from those of\nSpain, and others collected in Egypt, Palestine, or Asia Minor, if, on\ncomparing them, we find that they agree, except in variations of little\nmoment, we have an incontestable proof of the care and integrity with\nwhich the business of transcription had generally been conducted. For\nit is evident that if the practice of mutilation, interpolation, and\ncorruption, had to any considerable extent been admitted, the existing\nremains of ancient authors, after so long a time, would have retained\nscarcely a trace of integrity or uniformity. A licentious practice of\ntranscription, operating through the course of a thousand or fifteen\nhundred years, must have resulted, not in giving us the connected and\nconsistent works we actually possess, but only a heterogeneous mass of\nmangled fragments.\n\nBut now, if the general accordance of existing manuscripts attests the\nprevailing care, and even the scrupulousness of those through whose\nhands they passed, the peculiar nature of the diversities that do exist\namong the several copies of the same author, serves to establish a fact\nwhich, if we did not know it by other means, it would be of the highest\nimportance to prove: namely, that these works _had already descended\nthrough a long course of time, when the existing copies were executed_.\nThis fact is especially apparent in the case of the earlier Greek\nauthors; for while some copies retain uniformly the peculiarities of\nthe dialect in which the author wrote; in others, these peculiarities\nare merged in those more common forms of the language which prevailed\nafter the time of the decline of the Greek literature. These deviations\nin orthography, or in construction, from the author\u2019s text, were\nevidently made by successive copyists in compliance with the tastes\nof purchasers of books in different countries; nor were they likely\nto have been effected by transcribers of _the middle ages_, when\nthese books were no longer in use by readers to whom the language was\nvernacular, and to whom, alone, an accordance with the colloquial forms\nof the language could be a matter of any importance.\n\nBooks in a dead language, and which can be intended for the use of the\nlearned only, will never be accommodated to the colloquial fashions of\nan intermediate period. Let us consider how it would be in an instance\nfamiliar to us. If, for example, in examining two editions of the\npoems of Chaucer, one of them should be found to retain the original\npeculiarities of orthography, proper to the author\u2019s time, while, in\nthe other, those peculiarities are all softened down into the forms\nadopted in the reign of Elizabeth, we should certainly attribute the\nedition to _that_ period rather than suppose the corrections to have\nbeen made by a modern editor.\n\nAgain:--some copies of ancient authors present instances in which,\nwhen a passage is compared with the same in another copy, it is easy\nto perceive that an early transcriber, having fallen into an error,\nmore than one succeeding transcriber has attempted a restoration of the\ngenuine reading; for the _last_ conjectural emendation has plainly been\nframed out of two or three prior corrections.\n\nThus it is, then, that the existing manuscripts of the classic authors\nmay be traced up, either by direct evidence, or by unquestionable\ninferences, very near to the age--and, in many instances--quite\nup to the age when these works were universally diffused, were\nfamiliarly known, and were incessantly quoted by other writers; and\nwhen, therefore, the history of each work may easily and abundantly\nbe collected from the testimony of contemporary and succeeding\nauthors. The various facts, above alluded to, serve to connect the\nliterary remains of antiquity--now in our hands, with the period\nof their pristine existence:--we traverse the long era of general\nignorance--that wide gulf which separates the intelligence and\ncivilization of antiquity from the intelligence and civilization of\nmodern times, and we land, as it were, upon the native soil of these\nmonuments of Mind, and we once more find ourselves surrounded by that\nabundance of evidence which belongs to an advanced state of knowledge.\nWe need not wish to trace the history of _manuscripts_ further, than to\nthe confines of that former world of learning and refinement.\n\nIndeed we need not be solicitous to trace the history of these literary\nrelics a step further than fairly into the midst of the dark ages.\nFor even if all external and correlative evidence were wanting, and if\nnothing were known concerning the classic authors except this--that,\nsuch as they now are, they were extant in the tenth century, more than\nenough would be known to make it abundantly certain that these works\nwere the product of a very different, and of a distant age. The men of\nthose times might indeed have been the transcribers and conservators,\nand perhaps even the admirers, of Thucydides, of Xenophon, of\nAristophanes, of Plato, of Virgil, of Cicero, of Horace, and of\nTacitus; but assuredly they were not the _authors_ of books, such as\nthose which bear these names. The living pictures of energy, and of\nwisdom, and of liberty, which these monuments of taste and genius\ncontain, could never have been imagined in the cells of a monastery,\nnor composed in an age when little was to be seen abroad but ignorance,\nviolence, and slavery; and little found within but a dreaming\nphilosophy, and a degrading superstition. It is not the prerogative of\nthe human mind, however great may be its native powers, to trespass far\nbeyond the bounds of the scene by which it is immediately surrounded,\nor to frame images of things which, in their elements, as well as in\ntheir adjuncts, belong to a system and an economy altogether unknown to\nthe men of that time. To the genius of man it is given to imitate, to\nselect, to refine, and to exalt; but not to create.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe general import of the facts that have thus been briefly stated,\nis this, namely, that the books now extant, and which are usually\nattributed to the Greek and Roman writers, have, such as we find\nthem, descended from a very remote age. But this general affirmation\nmust always be understood to include an exception of those smaller\nomissions, additions, and alterations in the text, which have taken\nplace, either by design, or inadvertency, in the course of often\nrepeated transcriptions.\n\nThe actual amount and the importance of these corruptions of the text\nof ancient authors is likely to be overrated by general readers,\nwho seeing that the subject is continually alluded to in critical\nworks, and knowing that criticisms upon \u201cvarious readings\u201d often\noccupy a space five times exceeding that which is filled by the text,\nand that not seldom they become the subject of voluminous and angry\ncontroversies, are led to suppose that questions upon which the learned\nare so long and so seriously employed, cannot be otherwise than weighty\nand substantial. With a view of correcting this impression, so far as\nit may be erroneous, we shall now briefly explain the general nature,\nthe causes, and the extent of these variations and corruptions.\n\nBy far the greater proportion of all \u201cvarious readings\u201d--perhaps\nnineteen out of twenty, are purely of a _verbal_ kind, and they\nare such as can claim the attention of none but philologists and\ngrammarians: a few may deserve the notice of every reader of ancient\nliterature; and a few demand the consideration of the student of\nhistory. But, taken in a mass, the light in which they should be\nregarded is that of their furnishing a significant and conclusive\nproof of the care, fidelity, and exactness with which the business\nof copying was ordinarily conducted. For it is certain that nothing\nless than a high degree, as well of technical correctness, as of\nprofessional integrity, on the part of those who practised this craft,\ncould have conveyed the text of ancient authors through a period--in\nsome instances--of two thousand years, with alterations so trivial as\nare those which, for the most part, are found actually to have taken\nplace.\n\nWhen the discrepancies of manuscripts of an author are such as\nmaterially to affect the sense of a passage in itself important, so as\nto demand the exercise of discrimination on the part of the student\nof history, it becomes necessary to understand, and to bear in mind,\nwhat were probably the most common sources of such diversities. The\nfollowing may be named as the most common causes of the various\nreadings which are met with in comparing several copies of the same\nancient author.\n\n1. Nothing can be more probable than that authors who long survived\nthe first publication of their works, should, from time to time,\nissue revised copies of them; and each of these altered copies would,\nif the work were in continual request, and were widely diffused,\nbecome the parent, as we may say, of _a family_ of copies. Thus it\nwould be that, without any fault on the part of the transcribers,\na considerable amount of such diversities would be originated, and\nperpetuated. A large proportion, perhaps, of those variations which\noccupy the diligence and acumen of editors and critics, and for the\nrectification of which so many learned conjectures are often hazarded,\nhave, in fact, arisen from the author\u2019s own hand in revising the copies\nwhich, at intervals, he delivered to his amanuenses. The perpetual\nopportunity afforded for introducing corrections, when a book was\ncontinually in request, would not fail to encourage, in fastidious\nauthors, the habit of frequent revision: meantime transcribers, in\ndistant countries, might have no opportunity to collate the earlier\nwith the later exemplars. This source of various readings seems to have\nbeen too little adverted to by critics; though it might serve to solve\nsome perplexing questions relative to the genuineness of particular\nexpressions or sentences, which have fallen under suspicion from their\nnon-existence in certain manuscripts.\n\n2. Some errors would, of course, arise from the mere inattention,\ncarelessness, or the ignorance of transcribers; and yet fewer,\nprobably, than may at first be imagined; for besides that those\nwho spent their lives in this occupation would generally acquire a\nhigh degree of technical accuracy of eye, ear, and hand, and that\ncorrectness and legibility must have been the qualities upon which,\nprincipally, the marketable value of books depended; it is known that\nin the monasteries, from whence the greater part of all existing\nmanuscripts proceeded, there were persons, qualified by their superior\nlearning for the task, whose office it was to revise every book that\nissued from the Scriptorium. Errors of inadvertency must, nevertheless,\nhave occurred. If the author to be transcribed was read by one person,\nwhile several wrote from his voice, the process would be open, not\nonly to the mistakes of the reader\u2019s eye, and to those of the writer\u2019s\nhand; but especially to those of the writer\u2019s ear; for words, similar\nin sound, might often be substituted, one for the other. Instances of\nthis sort are of frequent occurrence, and the knowledge of the probable\ncause often serves to suggest the proper correction. If the writer read\nfor himself, he would be liable to mistake letters of similar shape--to\nmistake the _sense_ by a wrong division of words in his manner of\nreading, in consequence of which he might involuntarily accommodate the\northography or the syntax to the supposed sense. The frequent use of\ncontractions in writing was a very common source of errors; for many of\nthese abbreviations were extremely complicated, obscure, and ambiguous,\nso that an unskilful copyist was very likely to mistake one word for\nanother. No parts of ancient books have suffered so much from errors\nof inadvertency as those which relate to _numbers_; for as one numeral\nletter was easily mistaken for another, and as neither the sense of\nthe passage, nor the rules of orthography, nor of syntax, suggested\nthe genuine reading, when once an error had arisen, it would most\noften be perpetuated, without remedy. It is, therefore, almost always\nunsafe to rest the stress of an argument upon any statement of numbers\nin ancient writers, unless some correlative computation confirms the\nreading of the text. Hence nothing can be more frivolous or unfair than\nto raise an objection against the veracity or accuracy of an historian,\nupon some apparent incompatibility in his statement of numbers.\nDifficulties of this sort it is much better to attribute, at once, to a\ncorruption of the text, than to discuss them with ill-spent assiduity.\n\n3. The assumption of short marginal notes into the text, appears to\nhave been a frequent source of various readings. When such notes\nsupplied ellipses in the author\u2019s language, or when they conduced much\nto the perspicuity of an obscure passage, the copyist would be very\nlikely to incorporate the exegetical phrase, rather than that it should\neither be lost to the reader, or should deform the margin.\n\n4. Transcribers frequently thought themselves free to substitute modern\nfor obsolete words or phrases; and sometimes they consulted the wishes\nof their customers, by exchanging the forms of one dialect (of the\nGreek) for those of another; or, more often, for the common forms of\nthe language. Alterations of this kind have often been the occasion of\nbringing authentic works under needless suspicion; for when the text\nhas contained words or phrases which are known to belong to a later age\nthan that of the supposed author, such incongruities have seemed to\nafford proofs of spuriousness.\n\n5. Intentional omissions, interpolations, or alterations, were\nunquestionably sometimes ventured on by transcribers. But so many are\nthe means we possess for detecting any such wilful corruptions--drawn\nfrom a comparison of different manuscripts, or from the incongruity\nof the interpolated passage, that there is perhaps, altogether, more\nprobability that, from some accidental peculiarity of style, genuine\npassages of ancient authors should fall under suspicion, than that\nany actually spurious portions should entirely escape suspicion and\ndetection.\n\nOf the above-mentioned sources of the various readings found in the\ntext of ancient authors, it should be remembered that the operation of\nthe _first_ was confined to the short term of the author\u2019s life; nor\nindeed, whatever may be the amount or importance of variations arising\nfrom _this_ source, must they go to swell the number of _corruptions_\nof the text. The _second_ source of variations was indeed open during\nthe lapse of many centuries; yet it has always been held in check by\nthe diligent collation of copies, on the part of industrious critics,\nfrom age to age: and a large proportion of errors, arising from mere\ninadvertency, are either so palpable as to suggest the means of their\nown correction; or they are so trivial as to merit no attention,\nexcept from those who charge themselves with the responsibilities\nof an editor. There is, besides, reason to believe that not a few\nexisting copies of the most celebrated authors, present a text that has\npassed through the process of transcription not oftener than once or\ntwice; and that each time the copy has been executed with scrupulous\nexactness. Variations arising from the _third_ and _fourth_ sources,\nhave perhaps occasioned to critics and editors more perplexity than\nthose springing from any other cause; and yet these differences are\nrarely of any moment, so far as the sense of the author is concerned:\nthey can be deemed important only when they tend to perplex the\nquestion of the date or the genuineness of a book. Corruptions of the\n_fifth_ class must be acknowledged materially to affect the credit\nand value of ancient literature, so far as there can be any reason to\nsuspect their existence; and every diligent student of history will\nthink the investigation of cases of this kind deserving of his utmost\nattention.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n THE DATE OF ANCIENT WORKS, INFERRED FROM THE QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES\n OF CONTEMPORARY AND SUCCEEDING WRITERS.\n\n\nLet us now suppose, that the Greek and Latin authors are extant only\nin the printed editions--that is to say, that every one of the ancient\nmanuscripts has long since perished, and that the facts that have been\nreferred to in the preceding pages are out of our view, or unknown. Our\nbusiness then would be, to collect from these works such a series of\nmutual references, as should both prove the identity of the works now\nextant with those so referred to; and also fix the relative places of\nthe several writers in point of time.\n\nA single reference, found in one author, to the works of another,\nwho, in his turn, needs the same kind of authentication, may seem\nto be a fallacious, or insufficient, and obscure kind of proof; for\nthis reference or this quotation may possibly be an interpolation; or\nthe reference may be of too slight or indefinite a kind to make it\ncertain, that the work now extant is the same as that so referred to.\nIn truth, the validity of this kind of proof arises from its _amount_,\nfrom its _multifariousness_, and from its _incidental character_. For\nalthough a single and solitary testimony may be inconclusive, many\nhundred independent testimonies, all bearing upon the same point, are\nmuch more than sufficient to remove every shadow of doubt; some of\nthese references may be slight and indefinite, but others are full,\nparticular, and complete. If some are formal and direct, and such\ntherefore as might be supposed to have been inserted with a fraudulent\ndesign, others are altogether circuitous and purely incidental. If some\nhave descended to us through the same channels, others are derived\nfrom sources as far removed as can be imagined from the possibility of\ncollusion.\n\nBut a work may happen to want this kind of evidence, and yet, on\nother grounds, it may possess a valid claim to genuineness. In fact,\nalmost all the existing remains of ancient literature are abundantly\nauthenticated by the numerous and explicit quotations from them, or\ndescriptions of them, that occur in other works. And there are very few\nbooks that do not contain some direct or some indirect allusions to\nother works: so it is that the remains of ancient literature, taken as\na mass, contains within itself the proof of the authenticity of each\npart.\n\nThe nature of the case gives to this body of references a pyramidal\nform. In the most remote age it is, of course, small in amount; in\nthe next age it becomes much more ample and substantial; and in later\nperiods, it spreads itself over the entire surface of literature.\n\nThe literature of the Greeks was national and original; they borrowed\nfrom their neighbours less in poetry, philosophy, and history, than\nin religion, or the arts: their _early_ writers were not, in the\nmodern sense of the term, men of learning; their works were composed\nat the impulse of genius, and of the moving spirit of the times. The\nhabit of literary allusion and quotation had not then been formed, nor\nindeed was it congruous with this order of intellectual production; and\nyet the early Greek writers contain mutual references, which, if not\nnumerous, are sufficient to establish and ascertain, in most instances,\nthe genuineness of each.\n\nThe second period of Greek literature, dating from the times of\nAlexander, and reaching down to the overthrow of the Greek national\nindependence by the Romans, was, in the natural order of things,\nan era of learning, of criticism, and of imitation. The writers of\nthis period, therefore, abound with references of all kinds to their\npredecessors and contemporaries. A second age of literature holds up\na mirror of the first. Erudition, amplitude, comprehension, method,\nlabour, take the place of spontaneous effort, and of intuitive taste.\nCommentators, compilers, and collectors abound; and the writers of such\nan age seem to perform the functions of _caryatides_ in the temple of\nlearning; as if their only business was to sustain the pediment which\nchiefly attracts the admiration of spectators. Among writers of this\nclass, therefore, we are to look for a copious harvest of quotations;\nand in their pages we shall rarely fail to meet with evidence bearing\nupon any question of the genuineness of an ancient writer.\n\nThe Romans borrowed everything but energy of character and practical\ngood sense, from the Greeks. Their literature, from the first, was\nof a derived character; their writers added learning to what might\nbe their native genius; and their works reflect the literature of\ntheir masters. Sufficiently ample allusions, therefore, to the\nmost celebrated of the Greek authors, as well as to those of their\ncountrymen, are found scattered throughout the Latin classics.\n\nBoth the Greek and Latin writers of later ages were well acquainted\nwith the literature of brighter times; and they have left in their\nworks ample means for bringing down the chain of references to the\ntime of the decline of learning in Europe--to that time up to which\nwe have already traced the history of existing manuscripts; so that\nthe two lines of evidence unite about midway between the fifth and the\nfifteenth centuries.\n\nThe nature, extent, and validity of the evidence that may be derived\nfrom the mutual references of authors, will be best exhibited by a\nclassification of its several kinds under the following heads:--\n\n1. Literal quotations, whether the author cited is named or not.\nSuch quotations serve the double purpose of proving the existence of\nthe work quoted in the time of the writer who makes the reference,\nand of identifying, and sometimes even of correcting, the extant\ntext. If, for example, in subsequent writers, we find only a dozen\nor twenty sentences, taken from different parts of an earlier work,\nthe verbal coincidence is sufficient to prove that the work, such as\nwe now find it, is the same as that quoted. When such quotations are\nnumerous and exact, they afford the best means, either of restoring\nthe genuine reading of authors, or of judging of the comparative\npurity of different manuscripts. For frequently these quotations seem\nto have suffered less in the course of transcription than either the\nother parts of the work in which they are found, or than that from\nwhich they are taken. The reason of this difference may readily be\nimagined:--either the author himself quoted from a copy purer than\nany that are now extant; or the transcriber, meeting with a passage\nwhich he remembered to belong to a well-known work, consulted the\noriginal, of which he had a good copy, and the very circumstance of\ndoing so would naturally induce somewhat more of care than in ordinary\ntranscription.\n\n2. Incidental allusions are often met with, either to the words or to\nthe sense of an author, sufficiently obvious to prove that the one\nwriter was known to the other; and yet they are too incidental and\nremote to be regarded as an interpolation. In questions of apparent\ndifficulty, such accidental references may be conclusive in proof\nof the existence of a work at a certain time. Among the ancient\nhistorians, there are instances in which two writers, who do not\nmention each other, narrate the same facts with so many coincidences of\nmethod, or of details, embellishments, or reflections, as to make it\ncertain either that both narratives were derived from the same source;\nor that the one was copied from the other. And if the one narrative\nhas altogether the air of originality, and is in accordance with the\nwriter\u2019s style and spirit, the other writer must be held to be the\nquoting party, and therefore he establishes the prior existence of the\nwork from which he has borrowed.\n\n3. Nearly every one of the principal authors of antiquity has been\nexplicitly mentioned, or criticised, or described, by later writers.\nLists of their works have been given, with summaries of their contents;\nor they have been made the subjects of connected commentaries, by means\nof which the mass of the original work may be identified, and collated,\nwith existing copies. Books of this secondary class are usually fraught\nwith references to the entire circle of literature that was extant in\nthe writer\u2019s time. There are also extant several works containing the\nlives of ancient authors, with accurate lists of their works. These\nbiographical pieces, while they have on one hand afforded a security\nagainst the production of spurious works, on the other hand have given\noccasion to such attempts; for if some treatise, known to have been\nwritten by a celebrated author, was believed to have perished, an\nopportunity was presented for composing one which should correspond\nwith the description given of it. But such spurious works must always\nbe deficient in positive evidence, nor will they fail to betray the\nimposition by some glaring inconsistencies in style, or in matter.\nThe lives of statesmen and warriors often contain such allusions to\nthe writers of the same age, as suffice to prove the time when they\nflourished. All the information we possess on this head is, in many\ninstances, derived from allusions of this sort.\n\n4. A copious fund of quotations is contained in some ancient treatises\non particular subjects, in which all the authors who have handled the\nsame topic are mentioned in the order of time.\n\n5. Controversies, whether literary, political, or religious, have\nusually occasioned extensive quotations to be made from works of all\nclasses; and, on the spur of an acrimonious disputation, many obscure\nfacts have been adduced, which, by some circuitous connexion with other\nfacts, have served to determine questions of literary history.\n\n6. Among all the means for ascertaining the antiquity and genuineness\nof ancient books, none are more satisfactory or more complete than\nthose afforded by the existence of early translations. Indeed, if\nsuch translations can be proved to have been made near to the time at\nwhich the author of the original work is believed to have lived, and\nif they correspond, in the main, with the existing text--and if they\nhave descended to modern times through channels altogether independent\nof those which have conveyed the original work--and if, moreover,\nancient translations of the same work, in _several languages_, are in\nexistence, no kind of proof can be more perfect, or more trustworthy.\nIn such cases every other evidence might safely be dispensed with.\nAncient translations serve also the important purpose of furnishing a\ncriterion by which to judge of the comparative merits of manuscripts,\nand by which also to determine questions of suspected interpolation.\n\nAlthough the genuineness of by far the greater part of ancient\nliterature is established by a redundancy of testimonies, such as those\nhere described, there will of course be some few instances of works\nwhich, though probably genuine, are so destitute of external proof that\nthey must remain under doubt; and there are also some few which, though\nprobably spurious, possess just so much plausible proof of genuineness\nas serves to maintain a place for them on the ground of controversy.\nThe two together, therefore, will yield some number of disputable\ncases. The controversies that have actually been carried on relative\nto such doubtful works have served to show the exceedingly small\nchance which any actually spurious work can have of escaping suspicion\nand detection. And thus these discussions furnish, implicitly, the\nstrongest grounds for relying upon the genuineness of those works\nagainst which even a captious and whimsical scepticism can maintain no\nplausible objection.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n THE ANTIQUITY AND GENUINENESS OF ANCIENT BOOKS MAY BE INFERRED FROM\n THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGES IN WHICH THEY ARE EXTANT.\n\n\nA language is at once the most complete, and it is the least fallible\nof all historical records. A poem or a history may have been forged;\nbut a language is an unquestionable reality. The bare circumstance\nof its existence, though it may long have ceased to be colloquially\nextant, proves, in substance, what it is which history has to\ncommunicate. If we did but possess a complete vocabulary of an ancient\nlanguage, and if we were to digest the mass in accordance with an exact\nprinciple of synthesis, we should frame a model of the people that once\nused it--a model more perfect than any other monuments can furnish:\nand on this ground we need fear no falsifications, no concealments, no\nflatteries, no exaggerations. The precise extent of knowledge and of\ncivilisation to which a people attained--nothing more and nothing less,\nis marked out in the mass of words of which they were accustomed to\nmake use.\n\nA language, if the comparison may be admitted, might be called a\n_cast_ of the people who spoke it--a cast, taken from the very life;\nand it is one which represents the world of mind, as well as the\nworld of matter. The common objects of nature--the peculiarities of\nclimate--the works of art--the details of domestic life--political\ninstitutions--religious opinions and observances--philosophy,\npoetry, and art--every form and hue of the external world, and every\nmodification of thought, find their representatives in the language of\nthe people.\n\nIn any case, therefore, if we have a complete knowledge of a\nlanguage--that is to say, of the words of which it consists--we possess\na mass of facts by aid of which to judge of the claims to authenticity\nof every work in which that language is embodied. And if, in addition\nto a knowledge of its vocabulary, the laws of its construction also,\nand the nicest proprieties of its syntax and style are known; and if,\nmoreover, the changes that have taken place from age to age in the\nsense of words, and in modes of expression, are understood, we then\npossess ample and exact _data_ with which to compare any book that\npretends to antiquity. A writer who employs his native language must\nbe expected to conform himself to its usages; and we should find him\nadhering, more or less strictly, to the peculiarities of the age in\nwhich he writes: his vocabulary, moreover, will include that compass of\nwords which his subject demands, and which the language affords.\n\nIt is true that such a degree of skill in a dead language may be\nacquired as may enable a writer to use it with so exact a propriety\nas shall deceive, or at least perplex, even the most accomplished\nscholars. But the difficulty of avoiding every phrase of later origin,\nand all modern senses of those words which are continually passing\nfrom a literal to a metaphorical meaning, is so great, as to leave the\nchances of escaping detection extremely small. Yet, as such a chance\nstill remains within the range of possibility, this line of evidence\ncannot be reckoned absolutely conclusive, but must only be employed\nas subsidiary to those other evidences that bear upon questions of\nauthenticity.\n\nThe minute changes which are continually taking place in most\nlanguages, and the history of which, when known, serves often to\nascertain the date of ancient books, are of two kinds; namely, those\nwhich result necessarily from actual changes in the objects represented\nby words, and those which are mere changes in the use and proprieties\nof language itself.\n\nLanguage being a mirror, reflecting all the communicable notions of\nthe people who use it, every mutation in the condition of the people\nmust bring with it, either new terms, or new combinations of words;\nand as the particular circumstances which introduce such additions or\nalterations are often known, their occurrence in an author may serve to\nfix the date of the book, almost with certainty.\n\nMoreover, there is a progression in language itself, independent of any\nalterations in the objects represented by words. Whenever a vocabulary\naffords a choice of appellatives, even for immutable objects or\nnotions, the caprices of conversation or of literature--affectation\nperhaps, or excessive refinement, will, from time to time, occasion a\nnew selection to be made. In all those terms, especially, which either\nbring with them ideas too familiar to accord with the proprieties of an\nelevated style, or which are in any degree offensive to delicacy, there\nwill take place a continual, and, sometimes, even a rapid, substitution\nof new for old phrases--not because the new are in themselves more\ndignified, or more pure than the old; but because, when first\nintroduced, they are untainted by gross associations or vulgar use.\n\nEvery language, therefore, copious specimens of which are extant, and\nof which the progress is known, contains a latent history of the people\nthrough whose lips it has passed, and furnishes to the scholar a series\nof recondite dates, by means of which literary remains may almost with\ncertainty be assigned to their proper age. This sort of evidence bears\nthe same relation to the history of _books_, which that derived from\nthe successive changes known to have taken place in the mode of writing\nbears to the history of _manuscripts_. It is of a subsidiary kind, and\nfrom its very indirectness it often deserves peculiar attention.\n\nWe have now seen on what grounds it is, generally, that with reasonable\nconfidence the extant works of ancient authors may be accepted as\nbeing such in truth. In presenting this statement of the case, nothing\nmore has been attempted than to offer an outline or brief summary of\nthe argument before us. Certain parts of this argument, as the reader\nwill at once perceive, would admit of much amplification; and in any\ninstance in which the genuineness of a particular manuscript, or the\nauthenticity of an ancient work were alleged to be questionable, every\npart of the evidence would require to be brought forward in all its\ndetails, and to be narrowly scrutinized.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nANCIENT METHODS OF WRITING, AND THE MATERIALS OF BOOKS.\n\n\nAs our present inquiry relates to _Books_, it will not be expected to\ninclude anything concerning ancient methods of engraving inscriptions\nupon marbles, metals, or precious stones. Yet it should be remembered\nthat a knowledge of inscriptions is often highly important, as\nfurnishing subsidiary and independent means of determining the age\nof manuscripts, as indicated by the character of the writing. For as\nthere are extant almost innumerable specimens of writing upon the more\ndurable materials, and as these specimens belong to every age from the\nvery earliest times, and as such inscriptions usually contain, either\nan explicit date, or some allusion to public persons or events, they\nserve to determine, beyond doubt, the successive changes that have\ntaken place in the form of letters, and in the modes of writing.\n\n\nMATERIALS OF ANCIENT BOOKS.\n\nNo material for books has, perhaps, a higher claim to antiquity than\nthe skin of the calf or goat, tanned soft, and which usually was\ndyed red or yellow: the skins, when thus prepared, were most often\nconnected in lengths, sometimes of a hundred feet, sufficient to\ncontain an entire work; or one _book_ of a history or treatise, which\nthen formed a roll, or _volume_. These soft skins seem to have been\nmore in use among the Jews and other Asiatics than among the people of\nEurope. The copies of the Hebrew Scriptures, found in the synagogues of\nthe Jews, are often of this kind: the most ancient manuscripts extant\nare some copies of the Pentateuch, on rolls of crimson leather.\n\nParchment--Pergamena, so called long after the time of its first use,\nfrom Pergamus, a city of Mysia, where the manufacture was improved and\ncarried on to a great extent, is mentioned by Herodotus and Ctesias,\nas a material which had been from time immemorial used for books. It\nhas proved itself to be, of all others, except that above mentioned,\nthe most durable. The greater part of all those manuscripts, now in\nour hands, that are of higher antiquity than the sixth century, are on\nparchment; as well as, generally, all carefully written, and curiously\ndecorated manuscripts, of later times. The palimpsests, mentioned in a\npreceding chapter, are usually parchments.\n\nThe practice, which is still followed in the East, of writing upon the\nleaves of trees, is of great antiquity. The leaves of the mallow, or\nof the palm, were those the most used for this purpose; sometimes they\nwere wrought together so as to form larger surfaces; but it is probable\nthat so fragile and inconvenient a material was employed rather for\nordinary purposes of business, letter-writing, and the instruction of\nchildren, than for books, intended for preservation.\n\nThe inner bark of the linden or teil tree, and perhaps of some others,\ncalled by the Romans _Liber_, by the Greeks _Biblos_, was so generally\nused as a material for writing, as to have given its name to _a book_,\nin both languages. Tables of solid wood called _codices_--whence the\nterm _codex_, for a manuscript, on any material, has passed into common\nuse--were also employed; but this was chiefly for legal documents,\non which account a system of laws came to be called--a Code. Leaves\nor tablets of lead, or of ivory, are frequently mentioned by ancient\nauthors as in common use for writing. But no material or preparation\nseems to have been so frequently employed, on ordinary occasions,\nas tablets covered with a thin coat of coloured wax, which might be\nreadily removed by an iron needle, called a _style_; and from which the\nwriting was as easily effaced, by applying the blunt end of the same\ninstrument.\n\nBut during many ages the article most in use, and of which the\nconsumption was so great as to form a principal branch of the commerce\nof the Mediterranean, was that which was manufactured from the papyrus\nof Egypt. Many manuscripts written upon this kind of paper in the\nsixth, and some even so early as the fourth century, are still extant.\nIt formed the material of by far the larger proportion of all books\nfrom very early times till about the seventh or eighth century, when it\ngradually gave place to a still more convenient manufacture--our modern\npaper.\n\nThe papyrus, or reed of Egypt, grew in vast quantities in the stagnant\npools that were formed by the annual inundations of the Nile. The\nplant consists of a single stem, rising sometimes to the height of\nten cubits: this stem, gradually tapering from the root, supports a\nspreading tuft at its summit. The substance of the stem is fibrous,\nand the pith contains a sweet juice. Every part of this plant was\nput to some use by the Egyptians--so ingenious and so industrious as\nthey were. The harder and lower part they formed into cups and other\nutensils; the upper part into staves, or the ribs of boats: the sweet\npith was a common article of food; while the fibrous part of the stem\nwas manufactured into cloth, sails for ships, ropes, strings, shoes,\nbaskets, wicks for lamps, and, especially, into paper. For this purpose\nthe fibrous coats of the plant were peeled off, throughout the whole\nlength of the stem. One layer of fibres was then laid across another\nupon a block, and being moistened, the glutinous juice of the plant\nformed a cement, sufficiently strong to give coherence to the fibres;\nwhen greater solidity was required, a size made from bread or glue was\nemployed. The two films being thus connected, were pressed, dried in\nthe sun, beaten with a broad mallet, and then polished with a shell.\nThis texture was cut into various sizes, according to the use for which\nit was intended, varying from thirteen, to four fingers\u2019 breadth, and\nof proportionate length.\n\nBy progressive improvements, which were made especially when the\nmanufacture came into the hands of the Roman artists, this Egyptian\npaper was at length brought to a high degree of perfection. In later\nages it was made of considerable thickness--perfect whiteness, and\nan entire continuity and smoothness of surface. Nevertheless, it\nwas, at the best, so friable, that when durability was required, the\ncopyists inserted a page of parchment between every five or six pages\nof the papyrus. Thus the firmness of the one substance defended the\nbrittleness of the other; and great numbers of books, constituted in\nthis manner, have resisted the accidents and decays of twelve centuries.\n\nThree hundred years before the Christian era, the commerce in the\npaper of Egypt had extended over most parts of the civilised world;\nand long afterwards it continued to be a principal source of wealth to\nthe Egyptians. But at length the invention of another material, and\nalso that interruption of commerce which ensued in consequence of the\nconquest of Egypt by the Saracens, banished the Egyptian paper from\ncommon use. Comparatively few manuscripts on this material are found of\nlater date than the eighth or ninth century; although it continued to\nbe occasionally used long afterwards.\n\nThe charta bombycina, or cotton paper, which has often improperly been\ncalled _silk_ paper, had unquestionably been manufactured in the East\nas early as the ninth century, and probably much earlier; and in the\ntenth century it came into general use throughout Europe. Not long\nafterwards, this invention was made still more available for general\npurposes by the substitution of old linen, or cotton rags, for the raw\nmaterial; for by this means both the price of the article was reduced,\nand its quality greatly improved. The cotton paper manufactured in the\nancient mode is still used in the East, and is a beautiful fabric; it\nis also extensively used in the United States.\n\nFrom this account of the materials successively employed for books, it\nwill be obvious, that a knowledge of the changes which these several\nmanufactures underwent from age to age, will often make it easy, and\nespecially when employed in subservience to other evidence, to fix\nwith certainty the date of manuscripts; or at the least, to furnish\ninfallible means for detecting fabricated documents.\n\nThe preservation of books, framed as they are of materials so\ndestructible, through a period of twelve, or even fifteen hundred\nyears, is a fact which might seem almost incredible; especially so\nas the decay of far more durable substances, within a much shorter\nperiod, is continually presented to our notice. Yet so it is, that\nwhile the massive walls of the monasteries of the middle ages are often\nseen prostrate, and their materials fast mingling with the soil, the\nmanuscripts, penned within them, or perhaps at a time when these stones\nwere yet in the quarry, are still fair and perfect, and glitter with\ntheir gold and silver, their cerulean and their cinnabar.\n\nIt must be remembered, however, that the materials of books, although\ndestructible, are so far from being in themselves perishable, that\nso long as they are defended from positive injuries, they appear to\nsuffer scarcely at all from any intrinsic principle of decay, or to\nbe liable to any perceptible process of chemical decomposition. No\none, says Mabillon, unless totally unacquainted with what relates to\nantiquity, can call in question the great durability of parchments;\nsince there are extant innumerable books, written on that material,\nin the seventh and sixth centuries; and some of a still more remote\nantiquity, by which all doubt on that subject might be removed. It\nmay suffice here to mention the Virgil of the Vatican Library, which\nappears to be of more ancient date than the fourth century; and another\nin the King\u2019s Library little less ancient: also the Prudentius, in\nthe same library, of equal age; to which you may add several, already\nmentioned, as the Psalter of S. Germanus, the Book of the Councils, and\nothers, which are all of parchment.\n\nThe paper of Egypt, being more frail and brittle, might be open to\ngreater doubt; and yet there are books of great antiquity, by which its\ndurability may be established.\n\nBooks have owed their conservation, not merely to the durability of the\nmaterial of which they were formed; but to the peculiarity of their\nbeing, at once precious, and yet (in periods of general ignorance) not\nmarketable articles; they were of inestimable value to a few, while\nabsolutely worthless in the opinion of the multitude. They were also\noften indebted for their preservation, in periods of disorder and\nviolence, to the sacredness of the roofs under which they were lodged.\n\n\nTHE INSTRUMENTS OF WRITING, AND INKS.\n\nThe instruments used for writing would, of course, be such as were\nadapted to the material on which they were to be employed. For writing\nupon the brazen, leaden, or waxed tablets, above mentioned, a needle,\ncalled a style, was used, the upper end of which, being smooth and\nflat, served to obliterate the marks on the tablet, as occasion might\nrequire. These styles were at first most often formed of iron or brass;\nbut afterwards of ivory, bone, or wood. Indeed a fatal use having been,\non several occasions, made of these pointed weapons by angry partisans\nin the public courts, the use of iron styles was prohibited; C\u00e6sar,\nwhen attacked by the conspirators, is said to have used his iron style\nas a dagger, and with it to have pierced the arm of one of them: and\nthe story of the Christian schoolmaster, Cassianus, is well known, who\nis said to have been killed by his scholars, armed with their styles:\nother similar instances are recorded.\n\nFor the purpose of writing with fluid ink, a calamus, formed generally\nfrom a reed of the Nile, was used. Persons of distinction often wrote\nwith a calamus of silver. The use of quills seems to have been of\nancient date; but long after the time when the fitness of the quill for\nthe purpose of writing had become known, the calamus of reed continued\nto be preferred. The scalpel, or knife employed for trimming the pen,\nthe compasses, for measuring the distances of the lines, and the\nscissars, for cutting the paper, are always seen on the desk of the\nwriters in the decorations attached to many ancient manuscripts.\n\nThe ink most used by the ancients has been said, but on rather\nuncertain authority, to have consisted of the black liquor found in\nthe cuttle fish. But it has been proved by chemical analysis that an\nopaque ink, very different from the mere dye or stain used at present,\nwas commonly employed by the transcribers of books. This opaque ink\nseems, like the China ink, to have been formed from the finest soot of\nlamps, in which the purest combustibles were burnt. The coal of ivory,\nor of the finer woods, powdered, was also in use; these or similar\nsubstances, mixed with gums, and diluted with acids, formed a pigment\nthat was much more durable than our modern ink; but it was also far\nless fluent, and therefore less adapted to a rapid and continuous\nmovement of the pen.\n\nThe ink, says Montfaucon, which we see in the most ancient Greek\nmanuscripts, has evidently lost much of its pristine blackness; yet\nneither has it become altogether yellow or faint, but is rather tawny\nor deep red, and often is not far from a vermilion. This appears in\nmany manuscripts of the fourth and following centuries. Yet there are\nsome written with an ink more skilfully composed, which have preserved\ntheir first blackness. It has happened also, when the surface of the\nparchment, instead of being polished, was spongy, that the ink has\nbecome yellow. In all the bombycine manuscripts, owing to the nature\nof the material, a separation of the parts of the ink has taken\nplace; the grosser part standing on the surface, while the finer has\npenetrated the substance of the paper.\n\nInks of various colours, especially red, purple, and blue, and also\ngold and silver inks, were much used by the ancients: few manuscripts\nare destitute of some such ornamental diversities of colour; and many\nare splendidly recommended to the eye by these means. There was a\npurple ink, which was appropriated to the use of the emperors, and\nwas called the sacred encaustic; but a dye, not easily distinguished\nfrom that which appears upon some imperial charters, is very commonly\nfound in ancient books. And it is said that they must have had a nice\nsight who could so distinguish between the two as to have detected a\nviolation of the law on this subject. The subscription commonly seen at\nthe end of Greek manuscripts, containing the name of the transcriber,\nwith the year, month, day, indiction, and sometimes the hour when the\ncopy was finished, are most often written in the imperial colour,\nespecially in the times of the lower empire; or if not in that ink, in\none that cannot now be distinguished from it.\n\nThe titles of chapters were frequently written alternately in red and\ncerulean: marginal notes, most often in the latter colour. Books of a\nlater date often have all the capitals of a bright green. The Greeks,\nmore frequently than the Romans, used golden ink; and many Greek\nmanuscripts are extant in which, not the titles and capitals only,\nbut whole pages, are elegantly written in a pigment of the precious\nmetals: but it was rather upon ecclesiastical than profane literature\nthat this honour was bestowed. The works of the Fathers, chiefly, were\nso adorned, and sometimes the Gospels: there is extant a copy of the\nfour Evangelists, written upon purple parchment, in letters of gold\nthroughout. The practice of using gold and silver inks was so common,\nthat the manufacture of them became a distinct business; and those\nwho were skilled in this sort of writing seldom followed any other\nemployment than that of inserting the titles, capitals, or emphatic\nwords, in copies that had been executed by inferior hands. Several\ncurious recipes for the preparation of the precious pigments are given\nby the later Greek waiters.\n\nThose who have been long accustomed to inspect and examine ancient\nmanuscripts acquire a certain tact in judging of the age of a book from\nthe condition of the ink, its colour and composition, which cannot be\nexplained to others, and for the exercise of which no rules can be\nlaid down. But in cases where a fraud is suspected, this nice habit\nof the eye often detects at once the imposition. It is perhaps more\npracticable to give to a picture, than to a manuscript, the hue of\nantiquity by artificial means.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n CHANGES INTRODUCED IN THE COURSE OF TIME IN THE FORMS OF LETTERS, AND\n IN THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF WRITING.\n\n\nAn exact uniformity in the shapes of letters, and in the general\nappearance of writing, is hardly maintained for so long a period as\nfifty years in any language, especially if it be widely diffused.\nWithin that space of time, the fashion of our own typography has\nundergone several changes, so perceptible as to afford a tolerably\ncertain criterion of the date of books. No person, for example, who is\nfamiliar with books, would find it difficult, merely from the character\nof the type, to discriminate the age of works published at the several\nperiods of 1775, 1800, 1825, and 1855. On similar grounds a knowledge\nof the successive changes introduced by caprice, accident, or a regard\nto convenience, in the ancient modes of writing, affords an almost\ncertain means of determining the age of manuscripts.\n\nThe knowledge requisite for the exercise of this discrimination is\nderived, in part, from incidental allusions to modes of writing which\noccur in some ancient authors; but principally from an extensive\ncomparison of manuscripts themselves, and from a comparison of\nmanuscripts with inscriptions upon marbles, brazen tablets, or coins.\nFrom these sources may be collected a sufficiently precise idea of the\ncharacter or fashion of writing prevailing in each century, from the\nsecond, to the fifteenth, of the Christian era.\n\nThe oldest Greek manuscripts that are extant differ little in the\nform of the letters, or the general appearance of the writing, from\ninscriptions belonging to the corresponding periods. They are written\nin capitals, called uncials, without division of words, and without\nmarks of accentuation or punctuation. About the seventh century, the\ncustom of affixing the accents and aspirates appears to have been\nintroduced; at the same time a greater degree of precision was observed\nin the formation of the letters, and also in the directness and the\nparallelism of the lines. To these improvements was added a change in\nthe form of those letters which most impeded the rapid movement of the\npen.\n\nIn the eighth and ninth centuries a mode of writing, which had been\nlong before practised by notaries and by the secretaries of public\npersons, was adopted by the transcribers of books. This was a kind of\nrunning-hand, those who invented, or who most used it, being called\ntachygraphoi--swift writers. To adapt the Greek letters to the purpose\nof public business and common life, the square forms had been changed\nfor curves, and uprights for slopes: and while a radical resemblance\nto the primitive character was preserved, facility and freedom were\nobtained.\n\nThe uncial character was not, however, altogether abandoned by the\ncopyists; but modifications of it were introduced with a view to obtain\ngreater facility: for the unconnected and upright squares formerly\nused, seemed still more operose in execution after the running-hand\nhad been adopted. The copyists of the eighth century introduced the\npractice of commencing books or chapters with a letter of large size,\nwhich they usually distinguished by grotesque decorations, somewhat in\nthe manner seen in the printed books of the sixteenth century.\n\nThose who gained their living by copying books found so great an\nadvantage in the adoption of the swift, or tachygraphic character,\nthat they presently sought to improve it by every device that might\nfavour the uninterrupted movement of the pen; not content with joining\nthe letters of each word, they combined them in forms that often bore\nlittle or no resemblance to the component characters. The books of\nthe tenth and following centuries abound with these contractions,\nabbreviations, and symbols. Many entire words of common occurrence\nwere indicated by single turns of the pen. A great part of these\ncontractions were adopted by the first printers, and many of them\ncontinued in use until a very recent date.\n\nThe manuscripts of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries are\ndistinguished by a degeneracy in the mode of writing, and by a growing\nabuse of the principle of celerity and facility. To these symptoms\nof the influence of a mercantile motive, put into activity by an\nincreasing demand for books, may be added the practice of discharging\nthe writing of old parchments, which prevailed at the same period more\nextensively than heretofore. A vast number of books of this sort,\nwritten upon erased parchments, are to be met with, executed in the\ntwelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries. In most instances, the\nfirst writing is utterly obliterated; yet the marks of the erasure\nare still evident. Thus in a MS. above described, not a letter, not a\npoint, of the ancient writing remains; but on many of the leaves may be\ndiscerned ruled lines, either transverse or perpendicular, which having\nbeen deeply impressed upon the parchment could not be effaced; so that\nthose old lines often crossed the new writing. Other pages of the same\nMS. present no such indications; the leaves having probably been taken\nfrom different books. In another MS., executed in the year 1186, though\nthe ancient writing is generally obliterated, yet in a few places,\nif closely inspected, the ends of the letters may be perceived. In a\nword, if all the books of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries are\nexamined, there will appear to be almost as many written upon erased,\nas upon new parchments.[1] I am of opinion, that many authors extant in\nthe time of Photius, and even in that of Porphyrogenitus, were utterly\ndestroyed by the prevalence of this pernicious practice. This plague,\nas it may be termed, spread its devastation among ancient books first\nin the twelfth century, and continued its ravages during the thirteenth\nand fourteenth. The same thing is rarely to be observed in bombycine\nmanuscripts: I have met with one book only of this material in which\nthe first writing had been erased, and a second induced. The Greek\nwriters of these times ordinarily erased a better work for the sake\nof substituting a worse; either one of their own inane productions,\nor those works of which there is no scarcity among MSS. The extremest\nignorance must certainly have pervaded Greece in those times, when\nwhat related to ancient history, or to polite learning, was not valued\na straw by the writers, who rather than purchase new parchment,\ndestroyed, without scruple, ancient books.\n\nA progression similar to that which took place in Greek writing,\ndistinguishes manuscripts in the Latin language, and affords a like\ncriterion of antiquity. Several manuscripts believed, on good evidence,\nto belong to the third and fourth centuries, are extant, which\npresent a style of writing nearly allied to that which appears in the\ninscriptions of the same period. But the uncial character gave place\nto the small letter at an earlier date among the Roman, than among the\nGreek copyists; yet they seem to have availed themselves of the change\nin a much less degree for the purposes of celerity. Indeed, there is\nlittle more of continuity, or of abbreviation in the small, than in the\nlarge character. Towards the tenth century the Latin scribes adopted\na square and heavy character, similar to that which is seen in legal\ndocuments. This wide and full-faced letter was so much exaggerated by\nthe writers of the fourteenth century, as almost to blacken the page\nwith its massiveness. Still, a handsome regularity and a fair degree\nof legibility were maintained. There are, indeed, some manuscripts of\nthis period extant which, for mathematical exactness and beauty, might\nalmost challenge comparison with printed books.\n\nNothing less, it is obvious, than a long-continued and extensive\nexamination of ancient manuscripts, can confer upon any one such a\ndegree of skill in discriminations of this kind, as might warrant his\ngiving an opinion in a case of difficulty. Yet the mere inspection of a\nsmall number of these relics of antiquity may convince any one of the\nreality and distinctness of those progressive changes in the modes of\nwriting upon which such discriminations are founded. The architecture\nof different periods is not more characteristic of the age to which\nit belongs, than is the style of writing in manuscripts; nor is there\nless certainty in determining questions of antiquity in the one case,\nthan in the other. Particular instances may perplex or deceive the\nbest-informed and the most acute observers; but the greater number of\ncases admit of no question.\n\n\nFORM OF ANCIENT BOOKS, AND THEIR ILLUMINATIONS.\n\nThe mode of compacting the sheets of their books remained the same\namong the Greeks during a long course of time: little, therefore,\npertinent to our argument, is to be gathered on this head. The sheets\nwere folded three or four together, and separately stitched: these\nparcels were then connected nearly in the same mode as is at present\npractised. Books were covered with linen, silk, or leather.\n\nSometimes the page was undivided; sometimes it contained two, and in a\nfew instances of very ancient manuscripts, three columns. A peculiarity\nwhich attracts the eye in many Greek manuscripts, consists in the\noccurrence of capitals on the margin, some way in advance of the line\nto which they belong; and this capital sometimes happens to be the\nmiddle letter of a word. For when a sentence finishes in the middle of\na line, the initial of the next is not distinguished, that honour being\nconferred upon the incipient letter of the next line; as thus--\n\n      THEGREEKSENTERING\n      THEREGIONOFTHEMA\n      CRONESFORMEDANAL\n  T   LIANCEWITHTHEM.AS\n      HEPLEDGEOFTHEIR\n      FAITHTHEBARBARIANS\n      GAVEASPEAR.\n\nThe Greeks, especially in the earliest times, divided their\ncompositions into verses; or into such short portions of sentences as\nwe mark by a comma, each verse occupying a line; and the number of\nthese verses is often set down at the beginning or end of a book. The\nnumbers of the verses were sometimes placed in the margin.\n\nMuch intricacy and difficulty attends the subject of ancient\npunctuation; nor could any satisfactory account of the rules and\nexceptions that have been gathered from existing manuscripts be\ngiven, which should subserve the intention of this work. Generally\nspeaking, and yet with frequent exceptions, the most ancient books\nhave no separation of words, or punctuation, of any kind; others have\na separation of words, but no punctuation; in some, every word is\nseparated from the following one by a point. In manuscripts of later\ndate a regular punctuation is found, as well as accentuation. These\ncircumstances enter into the estimate when the antiquity of a book is\nunder inquiry; but the rules to be observed in considering them cannot\nbe otherwise than recondite and intricate.\n\nFew ancient books are altogether destitute of decorations; and many\nare splendidly adorned with pictorial ornaments. These consist either\nof flowery initials, grotesque cyphers, portraits, or even historical\ncompositions. Sometimes diagrams, explanatory of the subjects mentioned\nby the author, are placed on the margin. Books written for the use\nof royal persons, or of dignified ecclesiastics, usually contain the\neffigies of the proprietor, often attended by his family, and by some\nallegorical or celestial minister; while the humble scribe, in monkish\nattire, kneels and presents the book to his patron.\n\nThese illuminations, as they are called, almost always exhibit some\ncostume of the times, or some peculiarity which serves to mark the age\nof the manuscript. Indeed a fund of antiquarian information, relative\nto the middle ages, has been collected from this source. Many of these\npictured books exhibit a high degree of executive talent in the artist,\nalthough labouring under the restraints of a barbarous taste.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Montfaucon.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTHE COPYISTS; AND THE PRINCIPAL CENTRES OF THE COPYING BUSINESS.\n\n\nIt is a matter of some importance to know by what class of persons,\nchiefly, the business of copying books was practised; and it gives\nno little support to our confidence in the genuineness of existing\nmanuscripts, to find that individuals of all ranks, influenced by\nvery different motives, were accustomed to devote themselves to this\nemployment. From the earliest times in which literature flourished,\nthere were, in all the principal cities of Greece and its colonies,\ngreat numbers of professional scribes; that is to say, persons who\ngained their subsistence by copying books. Labourers of this class,\nit may well be supposed, aimed, in general, at nothing but to gain\ncustom by the fairness and the fidelity of their copies. But it appears\nto have been not uncommon for persons of rank and leisure to occupy\nthemselves in this employment. Thus it is that in the list of copyists\nwe find the names of the nobles of the Constantinopolitan empire.\nSome created their libraries for themselves by transcribing every\nbook that came in their way. To persons of a sedate temper, or who by\nindisposition were confined to their homes, this occupation may be\nimagined to have been highly agreeable. Nor was it a wasted labour to\nthose who had leisure at command; since the high price of books made\nthe collection of a library, by purchase, scarcely practicable, except\nto the most opulent.\n\nThe influence of Christianity very greatly extended the practice\nof private copying; for motives of piety operated to stimulate the\nindustry of very many in the good work of multiplying the sacred\nbooks, and the works of Christian writers. The highest dignitaries\nof the Church, and princes even, thought themselves well employed in\ntranscribing the Gospels and Epistles, the Psalter, or the homilies or\nmeditations of the Fathers; nor were the classic authors, as we shall\nsee, entirely neglected by these gratuitous copyists.\n\nBut from the third or fourth century downwards, the religious houses\nwere the chief sources of books, and the monks were almost the only\ncopyists. The employment was better suited than any other that can\nbe imagined, to the rules, and usages, and to the modes of feeling\npeculiar to the monastic life. The mental and bodily inertness which\nthe spirit and rules of the conventual orders tended to produce, when\nconjoined, in individuals, with some measure of native industry,\nwould find precisely a field for that lethargic assiduity which it\nneeded, in the business of copying books. In many monasteries this\nemployment formed the chief occupation of the inmates; and by few was\nit altogether neglected.\n\nVarious appellations occur in the Greek authors, by which the several\norders of writers were designated. Among the scribes or notaries\nattached to the service of public persons, there were always some who\nwere eminent for the rapidity with which they wrote, and who therefore\nbore the title of _tachygraphoi_, or \u201cswift writers.\u201d But those who\nfollowed the business of copying books, in which legibility was the\nchief excellence, generally called themselves _kalligraphoi_, or \u201cfair\nwriters.\u201d Yet these appellations are often used interchangeably.\n\nThe copyists usually subscribed their names at the end of every book,\nwith the year in which it was executed: to which they often added the\nname of the reigning emperor; sometimes, though rarely, the name of\nthe patriarch of Constantinople, for the time being, is added to the\nsubscription of the copyist. Manuscripts written in Sicily, bear the\nname of its kings; those executed in the East, mention the Arabian or\nTurkish princes. The Greeks of the early ages commonly dated from the\ncreation of the world, which they placed 5508 years before Christ.\nSometimes they reckoned time from the death of Alexander the Great;\nsometimes from the accession of Philip Arid\u00e6us; sometimes from the\naccession of Diocletian; and, occasionally, they give some notice of\nthe signal events of their times. From these incidental references\nmuch important historical information has often been collected. These\nsignatures are usually written by the hand of the transcriber of the\nbook.\n\nBesides the signature of the copyist, the margins of many manuscripts\ncontain notes--often very trivial or absurd, from the hands of\nsuccessive proprietors of the book; each accompanied with some date\nor reference to persons or events, serving to fix the time of the\nannotator, and, by inference, proving the antiquity of the manuscript.\nIn a few instances the transcribers copied the subscription of the\ntranscribers of the book from which they wrote; and if that former\nsubscription bears a date, we have a double indication of antiquity.\n\nThe fidelity of the copyists, and the genuineness and integrity of\nancient manuscripts, have been warmly and learnedly defended by the\nlaborious Father Mabillon, on every occasion throughout his great\nwork, _De Re Diplomatica_.[2] The leading motive which impelled the\nindefatigable author to the prosecution of the researches of which\nthis work gives the result, seems to have been the desire to establish\nthe genuineness and integrity of ecclesiastical, and especially of\nmonastic charters. In the course of his inquiries, he brings forward a\nvast variety and amount of information relating to the modes of writing\npractised in the monasteries, and in the courts of the French kings,\nduring the middle ages. These facts are of course most available in\narguments that relate to the genuineness and antiquity of existing\nmanuscripts in the _Latin_ language; but there is so much of the\nsubstance of the argument touching the genuineness of all ancient\nwritings in the following passages, that they may well be placed\nbefore the reader. The work itself is little likely to come under the\neye of those for whom this volume is intended.\n\nThis learned writer says:--\u201cBefore I conclude this supplement, I\nthink it may be proper to say something concerning the integrity and\nauthority of ancient books, which some persons dispute. For assuredly,\nif the genuineness of charters and public deeds is doubted, the\nauthority of ancient manuscripts in general is also called in question;\nand, if these doubts can be substantiated, it will appear that those\nwho employ themselves in collating the printed editions of the Fathers,\nor other sacred books, with ancient manuscripts, spend their labour in\nvain. And hence, too, we must believe, contrary to the opinion of all\nlearned persons, who think the world greatly indebted to the labours of\nthe monks in transcribing books, that they toiled to no good purpose.\nSuch persons, to give colour to their opinion, affirm that the existing\nancient manuscripts were executed by ignorant men, whose blunders\nare easily perceived by the learned; and on this prejudice they have\nfounded the decision, that manuscripts having been written, for the\nmost part, by unskilful hands, and derived many from one, are of little\navail in understanding or restoring an author.\n\n\u201cBut if this principle were admitted, our confidence in the printed\neditions, as well as in the ancient manuscripts, must fall to the\nground. Neither the acts of councils, the works of the Fathers, nor\nthe Holy Scriptures, would retain any authority. For whence, I ask,\nproceeded the printed editions, both of profane and sacred writers?\nwere they not derived from ancient manuscripts? If, therefore, these\nare of no authority, those can have none; and thus, by this paradoxical\nopinion, the foundations, both of literature and of religion, are torn\nup. And, on this principle, there would be no force in the argument\nused by St. Augustine against the Manich\u00e6ans, who calumniously affirmed\nevery place of Holy Scripture, by which their errors might be confuted,\nto be falsified and corrupted. But Augustine, in reply to Faustus,\nreminds him that whoever had first attempted such a corruption of the\nScriptures, would have immediately been confuted by a multitude of\nancient manuscripts, which were in the hands of all Christians.\n\n\u201cOn this principle the labours of the Fathers, Jerome, Augustine, and\nothers, in collating ancient books with modern copies, would have been\nfruitless. In vain the appeals of councils to such authorities for the\ndetermination of controversies; in vain the costs and cares of princes\nand kings in collecting manuscripts from the remotest countries. And\nif the case be thus, the Vatican, the Florentine, the Ambrosian, and\nthe royal (French) libraries are nothing better than useless heaps of\nparchment. And it was to no purpose that the Roman pontiffs and the\nkings of France, as well as other prelates and princes, sent learned\nmen to the farthest parts of the East to obtain ancient books in\nthe Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and other languages. And then the ancient\ntranscribers must lose their credit, and especially the monks, who\ndevoted themselves entirely to the copying of books; such were the\ndisciples of St. Martin, among whom, according to Sulpicius, no art\nbut that of writing was practised. For they thought they could not be\nbetter employed than while at once edifying themselves in the continual\nperusal of the Holy Scriptures, and spreading the precepts of the Lord\nfar and wide by their pens. Of this opinion was the pious Guigo: \u2018As\nwe cannot preach the word with our lips,\u2019 says he, \u2018let us do it with\nour hands; for as many books as we transcribe, so many heralds of the\ntruth do we send forth.\u2019 And thus also Peter the venerable, writing to\nGislebert, a recluse, exhorts him to diligence in this exercise: \u2018For\nso you may become a silent preacher of the Divine Word; and though your\ntongue be mute, your hand will speak aloud in the ears of many people.\nAnd in future times, after your death, the fruit of your toils will\nremain, even as long as these books shall endure.\u2019\n\n\u201cIf it is affirmed that the manuscripts we possess were, for the most\npart, written by unlearned persons; are they therefore undeserving of\nregard? In the first place, I deny that they were generally written by\nthe unlearned. Certainly the blessed martyr Pamphilus, who wrote out\nthe greater part of the works of Origen, was not unlearned; nor was\nJerome unlearned, nor Hilarius. Of Fulgentius, the celebrated bishop\n(of Ruspa), it is reported that he was famed for his skill in the\nwriter\u2019s art. The same praise was earned by those holy men Lucianus,\nPhiloromus, and Marcellus; also by the blessed Plato and Theophanus.\nThe blessed Marcella the younger, as says Jerome, wrote quickly and\nwithout fault. The venerable Bede, Radbert, Raban and others among our\nlearned men, discharged the function of copyists, not of their own\nworks only, but of those of others.\n\n\u201cAnd even if the greater part of manuscripts were written by unlearned\nmen, they are not therefore to be accounted unskilful copyists,\nprovided they read and copied accurately. Experience proves every day\nthat those compositors are not the most correct who understand Latin,\nbut that such are commonly the most faulty; especially in attempting to\ncorrect that which they do not properly understand, and which those who\nknow nothing of the language set up accurately. But let it be granted\nthat the copyists were unlearned: we know that the printed editions are\nnot derived from a single copy, but from a comparison of many: the most\ncareless scribe does not always err, and where he does, his mistakes\nare amended by the collation of the copies of others.\n\n\u201cIn a word, there were in all well-ordered churches and monasteries,\nnot only learned writers who transcribed books themselves, but learned\ncorrectors, who compared the copies made by others with the originals,\nand amended whatever was erroneous. A devoted scribe, says Trithemius,\nwhen he has carefully written a book, compares it anew with the\noriginal, and subjects it to a diligent revision. Many instances might\nbe adduced in proof of this revision and correction of manuscripts.\nOne or two may suffice. In the library of the Vatican there is a\nmanuscript written towards the close of the fifth, or in the beginning\nof the sixth century, containing the books of St. Hilary on the\nTrinity, which has been collated with an older copy by some studious\nperson, as appears by a note at the end. Again, Paul Warnefrid, deacon\nand monk of Casina, having copied the epistles of Gregory the Great,\nsent the book to Adalhard, abbot of Corbeia, requesting him to revise\nthe copy; but the abbot, fearing lest he might alter the genuine text\nof so learned a doctor, contented himself with placing a mark in the\nmargin at every place where there appeared to him to be an error.\n\n\u201cBut it is affirmed that there are many faulty, and many falsified\nmanuscripts. That there are not a few faulty books I grant; but that\nthere are many falsified manuscripts I stoutly deny. The difference\nbetween a _faulty_ and a _falsified_ book is essential: of the former\nsort are those which, from the mistakes or negligence of the writer,\ncontain some blemishes: of the latter kind are those which have been\nwilfully corrupted. Many, indeed, may appear to be falsified which are\nnot so really, nor are even faulty. Which I may thus explain.--It could\nnot but happen that the copyists, in transcribing large works, should\nsometimes wander from the true reading--putting perhaps one word for\nanother. When they observed their error, they might rectify it in two\nways, either by erasing the word and inserting the genuine reading; or\nby inserting the true word beneath the other, which they marked with\npoints. Now some persons, not understanding this, or purposely putting\nupon it an unfavourable construction, found upon the first case a\ncharge of _erasure_, and in the second, place both words in the text of\nthe author, though the pointed word ought to be omitted. Sometimes also\nit happened that words or initials written in vermilion, having grown\npale, were renewed by a later hand, which alterations have occasioned\nan unfounded suspicion of falsification.\u201d\n\nThe pens of the monastic scribes were chiefly occupied in transcribing\nreligious books, the Holy Scriptures, the works of the Fathers, the\nlives of saints, books of meditations and prayers; yet the classic\nauthors were not neglected. \u201cThe Monastery of Pomposia has been much\nimproved since the time of its founder Guido [about 1025], renowned for\nsanctity. Incited by the fame of his piety great numbers assumed the\nsacred habit in his church; marquesses, counts, and sons of noblemen\nhave laid aside the pomps and pleasures of the world to follow there\nthe duties of religion. Among these my master Jerome, afterwards\nabbot, was trained up from his earliest years to follow the monastic\nlife, and made great proficiency in grammar and logic. He, for the\nedification of the brotherhood, set himself to collect the works of\nlearned men; in order that amidst the variety, all might meet with the\ninformation they sought for. Bonus--good--both in name and life, who\nwas first a hermit and afterwards a monk, was his librarian, a man\nesteemed by all as a perfect scholar, and so eager in the acquisition\nof books that he purchased all he met with, however indistinctly they\nwere written; for the abbot determined to have them all transcribed\nfor his library: and by his care almost all are now copied. He is ever\ninquisitive for religious books of all kinds, so that the church of\nPomposia is become the most renowned in Italy. Thus by the goodness of\nGod our thirst of knowledge is increased by knowing. Indeed the abbot\u2019s\ndesire of enriching his church with these treasures is unbounded. But\nenvious persons may ask, Why does this reverend abbot place the heathen\nauthors, the histories of tyrants, and such books, among theological\nworks? To this we answer in the words of the apostle, that there are\nvessels of clay as well as of gold. By these means the tastes of all\nmen are excited to study--the intention of the gentile writings is the\nsame as that of the Scriptures, to give us a contempt for the world and\nsecular greatness.\u201d[3]\n\nBy these or similar apologies those of the monks, and there were some\nsuch in most houses, who possessed taste and learning, excused, to the\nmore devout, the attention they bestowed upon the works of the profane\nauthors. That the Greek and Latin classics were known and studied\nduring what are called the dark ages, is capable of abundant proof, as\nwe shall presently see. And those whose taste led them to be conversant\nwith these writings took care, by the labours of their hands, to\nperpetuate the works they most admired.\n\nDuring the flourishing period of the Grecian republics, that is, from\nthe defeat of Xerxes to the time of Alexander the Great, many of the\nGreek colonies almost equalled, or even surpassed, the mother country\nin wealth, refinement, and intelligence. In the neighbouring islands of\nthe \u00c6gean Sea--in Asia Minor--in Italy and in Sicily, literature and\nphilosophy were as eagerly cultivated as at Athens. Many of the most\ndistinguished writers and philosophers were natives of the colonies;\nand if Greece itself was the principal seat of learning, and the\nfountain head of books, whatever was there produced quickly found its\nway to distant settlements; for to every city along the shores of the\nMediterranean, and of the Euxine, there was a constant exportation of\nbooks: in many of these remote cities libraries were collected, and the\nbusiness of copying was extensively carried on.\n\nAfter the time of Alexander, Grecian literature flourished nowhere so\nconspicuously as at Alexandria in Egypt, under the auspices of the\nPtolemies. Here all the sects of philosophy had established themselves;\nnumerous schools were opened; and, for the advancement of learning,\na library was collected, which was supposed, at one time, to have\ncontained 700,000 volumes, in all languages. Connected with the library\nthere were extensive offices, in which the business of transcribing\nbooks was carried on very largely, and with every possible advantage\nwhich royal munificence on the one hand, and learned assiduity on the\nother, could insure. Nor did the literary fame of Alexandria decline\nunder the Roman emperors. Domitian, as Suetonius reports, sent scribes\nto Alexandria to copy books for the restoration of those libraries\nthat had been destroyed by fire. And it seems to have been for some\ncenturies afterwards a common practice for those who wished to form a\nlibrary, to maintain copyists at Alexandria. The conquest of Egypt by\nthe Saracens, A.D. 640, who burned the Alexandrian Library, banished\nlearning for a time from that, as from other countries, which they\noccupied.\n\nAttalus, and his successors, the kings of Pergamus, were great\nencouragers of learning; and the copying of books was carried on to so\ngreat an extent in their capital as to occasion the establishment of\na vast manufacture of prepared skins (as mentioned above) which long\ncontinued to be a considerable article of commerce. The library of the\nkings of Pergamus is said to have contained 200,000 books.\n\nDuring upwards of a thousand years, from the reign of Constantine until\nthe fall of Constantinople, in the fifteenth century, that city was\nthe principal seat of learning, and the chief source of books. The\nByzantine historians are frequent in their praises of the munificence\nof the emperors in purchasing books, and in providing for their\nreproduction. The manuscripts executed at Constantinople are often\nremarkable for the great beauty of the writing, and the splendour\nof the decorations. Besides the imperial libraries, the churches\nand monasteries of the city were enriched with collections, more or\nless extensive, and in all of them the business of transcription was\nconstantly and actively pursued.\n\nA large number of existing manuscripts are dated from the monasteries\nof the country immediately surrounding the metropolis of the eastern\nempire; and many also, from those of Asia Minor, from the islands of\nthe \u00c6gean Sea, and especially from Cyprus.\n\nBut no spot was more famed for the production of books than Mount\nAthos--the lofty promontory which stretches from the Macedonian coast\nfar into the \u00c6gean Sea. The heights and the sides of this mountain\nwere almost covered with religious houses, rendered by art and nature,\nand by the universal opinion of the sanctity of the monks of the \u201choly\nmountain,\u201d so secure that neither the meditations nor employments of\nthe recluses were disturbed by the approach of violence. The chief\noccupation of the inmates of these establishments is affirmed to have\nbeen the transcription of books, of which each monastery boasted a\nlarge collection.\n\nMany extant manuscripts prove that the copying of books was practised\nextensively during the middle ages in the monasteries of the Morea, in\nthose of the islands of Eub\u0153a and of Crete. This latter island seems\nindeed to have been a place of refuge for men of learning during the\nlatter periods of the eastern empire, who found in its monasteries,\nboth shelter, and the means of subsistence.\n\nFifty religious establishments in Calabria, and the kingdom of Naples,\nare mentioned, from which proceeded a large number of books afterwards\ncollected in the libraries of Rome, Florence, Venice, and Milan.\n\nIn the monasteries of western Europe also, and especially in those of\nthe British Islands, this system of copying was carried on. Though\nthere were considerable diversities in the rules and practices of the\nmonks of different orders, the elements of the monastic life were in\nall orders and in every country the same; and generally speaking,\nwherever there were monasteries, there was a manufacture of books.\nYet, in some houses, these labours of the pen were much more worthily\ndirected than in others. For while the monks of one monastery employed\nthemselves in transcribing missals, legends, or romances, others\nenriched their libraries with splendid copies of the fathers of the\nchurch, and of the Holy Scriptures; and some, though a smaller number,\ntook care to reproduce such of the classic authors as they might be\nacquainted with.\n\nThe monastic institution seemed as if it were framed for the special\npurpose of transmitting the remains of ancient literature--sacred\nand profane, through a period in which, except for so extraordinary\na provision, they must inevitably have perished. In every country a\nlarge class of the community--freed from the necessity of labour, and\nexcluded from active employments, was constrained to seek the means\nof allaying the pains of listlessness; and nothing could answer this\npurpose so well as the transcription of books. And to this employment,\ncongruous as it was with the physical habits that are induced by an\ninert mode of life, and compatible, too, with the observance of a round\nof unvarying formalities, was attached an opinion of meritoriousness,\nwhich served to animate the diligence of the labourer. \u201cThis book,\ncopied by M. N. for the benefit of his soul, was finished in the year\n----, may the Lord think upon him.\u201d Such are the subscriptions of many\nof the manuscripts of the middle ages.\n\n  Meanwhile along the cloister\u2019s painted side,\n  The monks--each bending low upon his book\n  With head on hand reclined--their studies plied;\n  Forbid to parley, or in front to look,\n  Lengthways their regulated seats they took:\n  The strutting prior gazed with pompous mien,\n  And wakeful tongue, prepared with prompt rebuke,\n  If monk asleep in sheltering hood was seen;\n  He wary often peeped beneath that russet screen.\n\n    Hard by, against the window\u2019s adverse light,\n  Where desks were wont in length of row to stand,\n  The gowned artificers inclined to write;\n  The pen of silver glistened in the hand;\n  Some on their fingers rhyming Latin scanned;\n  Some textile gold from balls unwinding drew,\n  And on strained velvet stately portraits planned;\n  Here arms, there faces shone in embryo view,\n  At last to glittering life the total figures grew.\n\n  FOSBROOKE.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[2] DE RE DIPLOMATICA, Libri vi. in quibus quidquid ad veterum\ninstrumentorum antiquitatem, materiam, scripturam et stilum; quidquid\nad sigilla, monogrammata, subscriptiones ac notas chronologicas;\nquidquid inde ad antiquariam, historicam, forensemque disciplinam\npertinet, explicatur et illustratur. Op. et Stud. JOH. MABILLON.--Fol.\nParis, 1709.\n\n[3] Italian Diary.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\n INDICATIONS OF THE SURVIVANCE OF ANCIENT LITERATURE, THROUGH A PERIOD\n EXTENDING FROM THE DECLINE OF LEARNING IN THE SEVENTH CENTURY, TO ITS\n RESTORATION IN THE FIFTEENTH.\n\n\nGeneral epithets usually carry with them a meaning that oversteps\nthe bounds of truth: we hear of \u201cthe dark ages\u201d--\u201cthe period of\nintellectual night\u201d--\u201cthe season of winter in the history of man\u201d--and\nwe are apt to imagine that during the times thus designated the human\nmind had become utterly palsied, and that all learning was extinct.\nBut in fact throughout that period, reason, though often misdirected,\nwas not sleeping: philosophy was rather bewildered than inert; and\nlearning, although immured, was not lost.\n\nIn no part of the period that extends from the reign of Justinian,\nwhen Greek and Roman literature everywhere lay open to the light of\nday, till the fall of the Constantinopolitan empire, and the revival\nof western learning in the fifteenth century, do we lose the traces\neven of the classic authors, much less of those that belong to sacred\nliterature; for in each of the intervening ages, and in every quarter\nof Europe, there were writers whose works, being still extant, give\nevidence of their acquaintance with most of the principal authors of\nmore remote times.\n\nUnder the vague impression that has been created by certain loose modes\nof speaking, relative to the deep and universal ignorance said to have\nprevailed throughout Europe during a space of seven hundred years, the\nexistence of a large number of manuscripts of the classic authors,\nundoubtedly executed during those very ages of ignorance, presents a\ngreat apparent difficulty: for, from what motive, it may be asked, or\nfor whose use, were these works transcribed, so frequently as that they\nwere found in all parts of Europe, on the revival of earning in the\nfifteenth century? The facts that are now to be mentioned, will furnish\na sufficient solution of this question, by proving that, in the West\nand in the East, during those times of general intellectual lethargy,\nthere were more than a few individuals who cultivated polite literature\nwith ardour, and to whom the possession and preservation of books was a\nmatter of the liveliest interest. The names about to be mentioned--as\nthe well-informed reader will recollect--bear but a small proportion\nto the whole number that might be adduced: it is sufficient for our\npurpose to refer to one or two writers in each century.\n\nBut before naming individual men, whose extant writings give evidence\nof the continuity of literature, and therefore assure us of the safe\ntransmission of ancient books to modern times, it will be serviceable\nto bring clearly into view what it is which is needed for constituting\nthe LIVING MEDIUM of this transmission. Now, for bringing this matter\nhome to the convictions and the consciousness of the reader, let\nhim take up his own family history, and pursue it, retrogressively,\ninquiring how many individuals are needed--or let us rather say how\n_few_--to make up a chain of historical and literary conveyance,\nthrough any given track of time past; for instance, from this present\ntime, 1858, into the mid-time of the Elizabethan era, as thus:--\n\nI will now assume the fact--whether it be true or not does not signify\nto the argument--that my progenitors in a direct line were educated\npersons--or if not so--that each father in the line secured for his\nson an ordinary grammar-school education--instruction just sufficient\nfor making him cognisant of the most noted persons and authors of\npreceding times; so that, in each case, if the father himself did not\nteach the son, the father\u2019s friend and townsman, the schoolmaster,\ndid it, as for instance:--From my father\u2019s own lips I received the\nrudiments of general history, and of literary history, so that in my\nboyhood I came to be familiar with all the principal names of public\nmen and authors, up from that time to times indefinitely remote. This\nprocess of paternal instruction carries me up to the last decade of\nthe eighteenth century: say, to the time of the breaking out of the\nFrench Revolution. But then, my father had received, either from his\nfather, or from his father\u2019s proxy, the schoolmaster, a like kind and\namount of general information, by means of which we are carried up,\nwithout a break, to the times of Samuel Johnson, Oliver Goldsmith, Sir\nJoshua Reynolds; and in fact my father distinctly remembers, when a\nboy, seeing, and being in company with, some of these illustrious men,\nthe friends of my grandfather. Then he had received--we will suppose--a\nsimilar initiation in literary and political history, and if so, then\nwe are furnished with stepping-stones up to the times of Bentley, Pope,\nSwift, Addison, Watts, and although this last name would seem to stand\nbeyond the limit of any immediate recollections, yet it is a fact that\nthe \u201cDivine Songs\u201d have come to me by means of a single intervening\nperson--from one who, as a favoured little girl, learned them, standing\nat the amiable doctor\u2019s knee. Thus it is that we travel safely, and\nwith a distinct cognisance of the way, through more than a century\nof literary conveyance. At this rate, and if we may take this last\npreceding period of time as our gauge of centuries past, then we shall\nrequire the aid of only eight or nine persons, in series, to bring\nus into correspondence with Shakespeare and Ben Jonson. Fewer than\nthis--we might take six long-lived men to put us into this position of\nproximity with the worthies of the Elizabethan era.\n\nIn making good our supposition, it is not necessary to assume the fact\n(which we can seldom certainly know) that there has been, in any one\nfamily, a continuous succession of fathers and sons--the father living\nlong enough to instruct the son. We should rather take the case of\nthe intellectual filiation of college life: we imagine the learned\nprofessor, during the last ten years of his official life, imparting\nhis mental substance to a hundred or two of scholars, some two or three\nof whom, at least, will live to do the like, from the same chair, in\nbehalf of their successors. On this ground the individual teachers need\nnot be more than twelve, upon whose oral testimony, in succession, we\nrely in passing from an age of generally diffused intelligence, to the\ntimes of the revival of learning, and of printed books.\n\nIt will be remembered that--if indeed there were grounds of doubt\nconcerning the safe transmission of ancient books to modern times,\nany such suspicions can attach only to the period that is usually\ndesignated as the \u201cDark Ages,\u201d and _these_ need not be reckoned as more\nthan seven, reaching back from the times of Dante, Petrarch, Chaucer,\nWickliffe, to the pontificate of Gregory the Great, in whose times, as\nappears from his writings, the learning of the preceding ages was still\nfamiliarly known to more than a few.\n\nThe Sixth Century of the Christian era abounds with the names of\nwriters in all departments of literature, many of whose works, having\ndescended to modern times, present ample evidence of the scarcely\ndiminished diffusion of general learning. Among many others, such\nwere--Procopius, the historian of the reign of Justinian--and Agathias,\nwho continued that history, and was a learned man;--Boethius, author of\nwhat is regarded as the last specimen of pure Latinity--a poem on \u201cthe\nConsolations of Philosophy;\u201d--Hesychius, the lexicographer--Proclus,\na platonic philosopher;--Fulgentius, and Cassiodorus, ecclesiastical\nwriters;--Priscianus, a grammarian;--Gildas the wise, an\nAnglo-Saxon historian;--Evagrius Scholasticus, an ecclesiastical\nhistorian;--Simplicius, the commentator upon Aristotle and\nEpictetus;--Marcellinus Ammianus, an historian and critic, whose works\ncontain copious references to ancient literature; and Stephen, of\nByzantium, a grammarian and geographer. We might take in hand the work\nof this last-named writer--\u03a0\u0395\u03a1\u0399 \u03a0\u039f\u039b\u0395\u03a9\u039d, as furnishing, by itself, a\nsufficient mass of evidence in proof of the extensive book-learning of\nthose times which immediately overlook the gulf--the dark ages. This\nStephen, the geographer, in the course of his account of the cities\nand towns of the ancient world, cites, or makes some reference to, the\nworks of more than three hundred authors, to which he had access at any\nmoment, while compiling his own.\n\nThe Seventh Century produced fewer writers than perhaps any other\nperiod that can be named within the compass of literary history.\nYet there are more than enough to serve our present purpose: such\nare--Theophylact of Simocatta, who has left a history of the reign of\nthe emperor Maurice, not very highly esteemed indeed, but abounding in\nallusions to the literature of the times.\n\nIsidore, bishop of Seville, a complete collection of whose works fills\nseven quarto volumes, is a writer very proper to be mentioned in\nrelation to our present purpose. Confessedly the age of Mahomet was a\ndull time: few indeed are the writers whose mere names have come down\nto us;--and yet, even in such a time, a voluminous writer, who treats\nof all kinds of subjects--religion, Church history, grammar, poetry,\nastronomy, physical science, and treats some of these systematically,\nmight not only employ himself in labours of this kind, but also find\namong his contemporaries, and the men of the next age, numerous\nreaders, and admirers, and copyists too, who found their account in\ntranscribing so vast a product of literary industry. The times of\nthis bishop, therefore, dark as they might be, were nevertheless\ntimes of book-knowledge: throughout the dim period there was a class\nof the learned, numerous and intelligent enough, to keep watch upon\nthe intellectual treasures of brighter times, to conserve the rich\ninheritance of mind, and to do their office in transmitting it down,\nunimpaired, to after ages. This fact is all which just now we need\nthink of.\n\nWhat we have thus said of the seventh century--of its darkness and\nits light, might be affirmed with little difference, as to the next.\nOur countryman, the \u201cVenerable Bede,\u201d flourished in the seventh, but\nlived far on into the eighth century. The writings of Bede--and we\nshould remember that he passed his life in the seclusion of a remote\nmonastery--St. Peter and St. Paul, on the Tyne, in the diocese of\nDurham--afford ample proof of a wide diffusion of books, in that\nage. Bede displays extensive, if not profound learning, the whole of\nwhich he had acquired from sources that were ordinarily within the\nreach of monastic students. Bede \u201cwas a man of universal learning,\nnot less skilled in the Greek than in the Latin tongue: a poet, a\nrhetorician, an historian, an astronomer, an arithmetician, a master\nof chronology and geography, a philosopher, and theologian. So much\nwas he admired in his own times that it became a proverbial saying\namong the learned--\u201cA man born in the farthest corner of the earth has\ncompassed the earth with the line of his genius.\u201d \u201cHe was,\u201d says Bale,\n\u201cversed in the profane authors beyond any man of that age. Physics and\ngeneral learning he derived, not from turbid streams, but from the pure\nfountains; that is, from the chief Greek and Latin authors. Indeed,\nthere is hardly anything of value in the compass of ancient literature,\nthat is not to be met with in Bede, although he never travelled beyond\nthe limits of his native land.\u201d\n\nThe conservative function was taken up by several of Bede\u2019s disciples;\namong them we may name Alcuin, who did much, by his learning and his\ninfluence at the court of Charlemagne, to aid the endeavours of that\nenlightened prince for the restoration of literature. He was skilled\nin the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages; gave lectures in all the\nsciences, and founded many public schools. His works, historical and\ntheological, are in part extant, and they justify the reputation he\nenjoyed. In his letters he familiarly quotes the classic writers.\n\nCharlemagne, himself tolerably well acquainted with Latin and Greek\nauthors, zealously laboured to restore learning in the Church, and out\nof it. He invited learned men to his court, employed them in making\nLatin translations of the Greek classics and of the fathers, founded\npublic schools, and introduced regulations tending to make some degree\nof education indispensable to all who held office in the Church. Of\nthe professors invited by Charlemagne to his court, as many came from\nthe British Isles as from Italy. We must not forget, says Muratori, the\npraise of Britain, Scotland, and Ireland, which, in the study of the\nliberal arts, surpassed all other nations of the West in those times;\nnor omit to record the diligence of the monks of those countries, who\nroused and maintained the glory of letters which everywhere else was\nlanguishing or fallen.\n\nRaban Maurus, a disciple of Alcuin, created archbishop of Mentz,\nin 847, had, before his elevation, taught theology, philosophy,\npoetry, and rhetoric at Paris, in the school established there by the\nAnglo-Saxon monks. \u201cA man well versed in the Holy Scriptures, and\nthoroughly learned in profane literature, as his writings abundantly\ntestify.\u201d He enriched the monastery of Fulda, on the Rhine, where he\nreceived his early education, with a large collection of books; and\nthere he founded a school. Two hundred and seventy monks belonged to\nthe establishment, who were trained by him in every branch of learning.\nDisciples flocked to him from all countries, and he reared for the\nChurch a great number of ministers well furnished for its service. He\ndied, 856.\n\nOne of the first professors in the University of Oxford founded (or\nrestored) by King Alfred, was John Scot; he afterwards went into\nFrance, where he was honourably entertained at the court of Charles the\nBald, at whose request he translated some Greek authors into Latin:\nbut these versions, in which a literal adherence to the original was\nobserved, were scarcely intelligible to those for whose use they were\nintended. His writings display, however, much various learning; they\nwere condemned as heretical by the Church on account of his opinions\nrelative to the Eucharist. Being driven from France by the order of\nthe pope, he took refuge in an English monastery; but there, at the\ninstigation of the monks, he, it is said, like Cassianus, was killed by\nhis scholars, with their iron styles.\n\nBefore the Danish incursions, the English monasteries and churches\nabounded with men of learning; but these establishments being\nbroken up and the monks dispersed by the rude invaders, literature\nand the arts became almost extinct in the country. Alfred, himself\na man of learning, and a various writer, effected, as is known,\nmuch towards their restoration, by the re-establishment of the\nruined monasteries--the erection of many new ones--the endowment of\nschools--the foundation of lectureships at Oxford, and by the diffusion\nof his own writings, which, even if he had not been a king, would have\nperpetuated his name.\n\nContemporary with the last-named writer was Photius, with whom no\nauthor of that, or of several succeeding ages, can be compared: his\nworks hold up a mirror of the literature that was extant in his times.\nPhotius, educated for secular employments, and for some time engaged\nin the service of Michael III., was by that emperor forcibly invested\nwith the dignity of patriarch of Constantinople (858) in the room\nof Ignatius. That he might pass regularly to this elevation, he was\nmade monk, reader, sub-deacon, deacon, priest, and patriarch, in the\ncourse of six days. From the office thus violently assumed, he was,\nwith little ceremony, expelled by Basilius, the successor of Michael.\nOnce again, at the head of a band of soldiers, he possessed himself of\nthe patriarchate, of which, by similar means, he was at length finally\ndeprived; after which he retired to a monastery, where he ended his\ndays. Before his elevation, he had composed the most useful and the\nmost celebrated of his works, the _Myriobiblon_, which contains, in the\nform of criticisms, analyses, and extracts, an account of upwards of\n270 works. This treasury of learning preserves many valuable fragments\nfrom authors whose works have perished, and affords important aid\nin ascertaining the genuineness of many of the remains of ancient\nliterature.\n\nEutychius, an Egyptian physician, and afterwards (933) patriarch\nof Alexandria, wrote a universal history, which is still extant,\nand which, though it contains numerous fables, exhibits the various\nlearning of the author, and of his times. Though so large a number\nof existing manuscripts as appear to have been executed in the tenth\ncentury, prove that a great degree of activity in the reproduction of\nbooks prevailed in that age, it presents the names of few authors whose\nworks have descended to modern times.\n\nThe Eleventh Century is much richer in distinguished names, of which it\nmay suffice to mention these:--\n\nAvicenna, an Arabian physician and Mahometan doctor, reduced the\nscience of medicine to a systematic form, including almost everything\nthat had been written on the subject by his predecessors: he was\nversed in Greek literature, and is said to have committed Aristotle\u2019s\nMetaphysics to memory. The first conquests of the Saracens in Asia,\nAfrica, and Spain, during the seventh and eighth centuries, were\nalmost fatal to the interests of learning. But no sooner had they\nwell established their power in the conquered countries, than the\nCaliphs sought to rekindle the light of knowledge. During two or three\ncenturies, Bagdat in the East, and Cordova in the West, were the seats,\nnot only of splendid monarchies, but of science, general learning,\nand great refinement. It was, however, chiefly the mathematical and\nphysical sciences that were cultivated by the Arabians. They possessed\nimperfect and corrupted translations of several of the Greek authors,\nespecially of Aristotle, Theophrastus, Euclid, and Dioscorides; and\nthey had some general, though imperfect, acquaintance with the Greek\nhistorians. Some of the Latin translations, made by the order of\nCharlemagne, were derived from these Arabian versions.\n\nMichael Psellus, a Greek physician, and a monk, wrote upon subjects of\nall kinds: \u201cThere was no science which he did not either illustrate\nby his comments, or abridge, or reduce to a better method.--A man\ncelebrated for the extent of his acquirements in divine and human\nlearning, as his many works, both printed and in manuscript, evince.\u201d\n\nLanfranc, by birth an Italian, was created archbishop of Canterbury by\nWilliam of Normandy; he promoted learning among the clergy, and was\nhimself reputed to be universally accomplished in the literature extant\nin that age.\n\nAnselm, the disciple and successor of Lanfranc, in the see of\nCanterbury, was also in repute for general learning.\n\nThe works of Suidas, a Byzantine monk, like those of Photius, contain\na vast store of various learning, singularly useful on points of\ncriticism and literary history. The lexicon of this writer, besides\nthe definition of words, contains accounts of ancient authors of all\nclasses, and many quotations from works that have since perished.\n\nSigebert, a monk of Brabant, has left a chronicle of events from A.\nD. 381 to his own times, 1112, and a work containing the lives of\nillustrious men.\n\nThe name of Anna Comnena, daughter of the emperor Alexius Comnenus,\nand wife of Nicephorus Bryennius, distinguishes the early part of the\ntwelfth century. She wrote an elegant and eloquent history of her\nfather\u2019s reign. This work displays not only a masculine understanding,\nbut an extensive acquaintance with literature and the sciences.\n\nEngland produced during this century several eminent writers, who\nwere accomplished in the learning of the age. Such were William of\nMalmesbury, Henry of Huntington, Geoffrey of Monmouth, and Joseph of\nExeter--author of two Latin poems, on the Trojan war, and the war\nof Antioch, or the Crusade--and, somewhat later, Stephen Langton,\narchbishop of Canterbury, reckoned the most learned man of western\nEurope in those times.\n\nEustathius, archbishop of Thessalonica, flourished towards the close\nof the twelfth century. His commentaries on Homer, besides serving to\nelucidate the Greek language by many important criticisms, drawn from\nsources that have since been lost, contain, like the works of Photius\nand Suidas, innumerable references to the Greek classics, and thus\nfurnish the means of ascertaining the integrity and the genuineness of\nthe text of those authors, as they are now extant.\n\nThe brothers John and Isaac Tzetzes, critics and grammarians of\nConstantinople, are still consulted as commentators upon some of the\nGreek authors. John Tzetzes is a voluminous writer: his extant works\ngive evidence at once of his vast acquaintance with literature, and\nof the literary facilities of that age, at least in cities such as\nConstantinople.\n\nRobert Grostest (Greathead), bishop of Lincoln, was famed for his\nskill in the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages, as well as for the\nbold resistance he made to the exactions of the popes upon the English\nchurch. Camden says of him that \u201che was a man versed in the languages\nand in general literature in a degree scarcely credible, when the age\nin which he lived is considered; a terrible reprover of the pope, the\nadviser of his king (Henry III.), and a lover of truth.\u201d\n\nMatthew Paris, one of the earliest of the English historians, displays\nin his works an acquaintance with ancient literature, as well as a\nfamiliar knowledge of the antiquities of his native country. Like the\nbishop last named, Paris vigorously opposed the papal usurpations in\nEngland; nor did he less courageously reprove vice in every rank at\nhome. His reputation as a man of learning and virtue enabled him to\neffect a considerable reformation in many of the English monasteries.\nHe died 1259. The \u201cHistoria Major\u201d of this writer begins with the\nNorman Conquest, and is continued to the year of the author\u2019s death,\n1259.\n\nThe works of Albert, called the Great, a Dominican friar, and\nafterwards, in 1260, bishop of Ratisbon, fill one-and-twenty volumes.\nThey are chiefly on the physical sciences, but include a sort of\nencyclop\u00e6dia of the learning of the age. \u201cA man of wonderful erudition,\nto whom few things in theological science, and hardly any in secular\nlearning, were unknown. On account of the extent and variety of his\nacquirements surnamed \u2018the Great\u2019--an honour conferred upon no other\nlearned man during life.\u201d Albert, like Roger Bacon, incurred among\nhis contemporaries the suspicion of being a magician. Learning, in\nthe restricted sense of the term, or the knowledge of books, though\npossessed by a comparatively small class of persons, was too frequent\nto excite wonder or envy; but Science, or a knowledge of nature, and\nthis acquired, not from Aristotle, but from experiment, was so rare,\nthat it seldom failed to engender both, and to occasion a dangerous\naccusation of correspondence with infernal spirits.\n\nThe revival of learning is usually reckoned to have commenced in the\nfifteenth century: but in the fourteenth a very decided advancement\nin almost every department of literature had taken place. That the\nignorance which had prevailed in the preceding century was wearing away\nfrom the bulk of the community in several parts of Europe, and that the\neducated classes were acquiring a better taste and more expanded views,\nneeds no other evidence than that which is so abundantly presented in\nthe works of Dante, of Petrarch, of Boccatio, of Chaucer, and of Gower,\nwhich were not merely produced in that period, but were extensively\nread and admired.\n\nFewer instances than those given above might suffice to prove, that\nat no part of that tract of time, which extends from the decline of\nlearning in the sixth century, to its revival in the fifteenth, was\nthere anything which can be called an extinction of the knowledge\nof ancient literature. This proof, it must be acknowledged, is much\nmore complete in reference to the Greek, than to the Latin authors;\nit is also more ample in relation to ecclesiastical and sacred, than\nto profane literature. Of all the extant manuscripts, executed in the\nmiddle ages, perhaps nineteen in twenty belong to the former class.\nThe continuance of the eastern empire till the middle of the fifteenth\ncentury, afforded an uninterrupted protection to Greek learning during\nthose periods in which western Europe was laid waste by the Gothic\nnations. Yet even those devastations were never universal either in\ntheir extent, or in their kind. At times when Italy was in ashes, the\nBritish Islands were secure. And if cities were sacked and burned, and\nif castles, palaces, and cathedrals were pillaged and overthrown,\nhundreds of religious houses, in strong or secluded situations,\nremained untouched; or if occasionally they were subjected to the\nviolence of armies, or to the exactions of conquerors, they more often\nlost their chests, their cups and their salvers, than their books.\n\nLearning and the sciences can _flourish_ and advance only where\nthere are the means of a wide and quick diffusion of the fruits of\nintellectual labour: but they may _exist_ even under the almost total\nabsence of such means. This was the case in Europe during the middle\nages. Knowledge rested with the few whom the inward fire of native\ngenius constrained to pursue it: and these few were often insulated\nfrom each other, and unknown beyond the walls within which they spent\ntheir lives; and often secluded also by their tastes, even from their\nfellows of the same society.\n\nIn every myriad of the human race, take the number where or when we\nmay, there will be found a few individuals--born for thought; and if\nthe vocation of nature is not always stronger than every obstacle,\nit is, for the most part, strong enough to overcome such as are of\nordinary magnitude. Those who are thus endowed with the appetite for\nknowledge, will certainly follow the impulse, if the means of its\nacquirement are presented to them in early life. Now these means were\neverywhere interspersed among the nations of Europe during the middle\nages, by the monastic system; and it may be questioned whether there\nwere not then greater chances for drawing within the pale of learning\nthe native mind of every district, than are afforded even by the\npresent constitutions of society. The religious houses were so thickly\nscattered through every country, and the continual draught from the\npopulation for the maintenance of the numbers of their inmates (a\nstanding rule of the monastic establishments enjoined that the original\nnumber of each congregation should be maintained) was so great, that\nthey must have taken up many more than the gifted individuals of\nevery neighbourhood; and yet such individuals would almost certainly\nbe included within that enlistment; for whenever a youth displayed a\nfondness for learning, nothing better could be done for him, whether he\nwas the son of a peasant or a noble, than to devote him to the service\nof the Church. The monasteries usually contained schools for the youth\nof their vicinities. From these schools the superiors of the house had\nthe opportunity of selecting any who gave promise of intelligence.\n\nIn the very darkest times, learning insured to its possessor a degree\nof reputation; and the heads of religious houses, in most instances,\nsought to decorate their establishments with some particles of the\nhonours of erudition, as well as to recommend them by the possession\nof relics; and many were eagerly ambitious to enhance the literary\ncelebrity of their communities. With this view it would be their policy\nto afford the necessary means and encouragement to those who seemed\nmost likely to support the credit of the society. \u201cThe education of a\nmonk, at least in the fourteenth century, consisted of church music and\nthe primary sciences, grammar, logic, and philosophy--obviously that\nof Aristotle. Some French and Latin must also have been included; for\nthese were the languages the monks were enjoined to speak on public\noccasions. They were afterwards sent to Oxford or Paris to learn\ntheology. Such indeed was the encouragement held out to literature,\nthat in a provincial chapter of abbots and priors of the Benedictine\norder, held at Northampton A.D. 1343, men of letters and masters of art\nwere invited to become monks, by a promise of exemption from all daily\nservices.\u201d--_Fosbrooke._\n\nIndependently therefore of any more direct evidence, there would\nbe reason to believe that many if not most of the monasteries and\nconventual churches, at all times, included an individual or two whose\ntastes led him to devote his life to study, and who would become\nthe sedulous guardian and conservator of the books of the house,\ndirecting the labours of his less intelligent brethren in the work of\ntranscribing such as might be falling into decay.\n\nIn the estimation of minds ruled by the love of books, even if\nincapable of discriminating the precious from the worthless--the\nworthless, by a principle of association, partakes, to a large degree,\nof the respect that belongs in reason only to what is intrinsically\nvaluable. A BOOK, whatever be its subject or its merits, is viewed with\na fond covetousness by those whose passion it is to love books. This\nfeeling must have been strong indeed in times when books were hardly\nto be purchased, and when their ideal value included a recollection\nof the toil of transcription. The spirit of the ruling superstition,\nwhich taught the attachment of an incalculable importance to objects\nintrinsically worthless, must also have favoured an undistinguishing\nreverence for books. We need not then be surprised to find that works\nof all classes, though altogether unsuited to the taste of the times,\nwere reproduced, from age to age, by the monkish copyists.\n\nWhile, therefore, all taste for instruction had disappeared from the\nface of society--while kings and nobles were often as ignorant as\nartisans and peasants, while even many of the clergy retained only some\nshreds of learning, the productions of brighter ages were still hoarded\nand perpetuated, and were made accessible to the few whose intellectual\nardour carried them beyond the standard of their times.\n\nThe reader who would extend his acquaintance with the subjects so\nbriefly referred to in this chapter will find the means of doing so\namply supplied in the work of Mr. Maitland which so conclusively\nestablishes the fact of the uninterrupted _continuance_ of the\nintellectual life of Europe through those ages which too hastily have\nbeen spoken of by modern writers as times of universal ignorance.[4]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[4] The Dark Ages; a series of Essays, intended to illustrate the state\nof Religion and Literature in the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth\nCenturies. By the Rev. S. R. Maitland, &c.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nTHE REVIVAL OF LEARNING IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY.\n\n\nMore than half a century before the taking of Constantinople by the\nTurks, the learned men of that city, apprehensive of the approaching\nfall of the empire, had begun to emigrate into Italy, where they opened\nschools, and became the preceptors of princes and the guides of the\npublic taste, which they directed towards the study of the classic\nwriters of Greece especially, and even of Rome. But it was the fall\nof Constantinople in 1453 which filled the Italian cities with these\nlearned strangers.\n\nThe Italians of that age needed only to receive this kind of direction,\nand to be aided by these means of study; for they had for some time\nbeen placed under those peculiar circumstances which have ever proved\nthe most favourable to the advancement of the human mind. Throughout\na number of independent states--crowded upon a narrow space, the same\nlanguage, yet diversified by dialects, was spoken. The energy, the\nrivalry, the munificence that accompany an active commerce kept the\nwhole mass of society in movement; while the influence of a gorgeous\nsuperstition, which sought to recommend itself by every embellishment\nthat the genius of man could devise or execute, overruled the tendency\nof successful trade, and directed the ambition of princely merchants\ntowards objects more noble and intellectual than are those which wealth\nusually selects as the means of distinction.\n\nThe formation of libraries, suggested or favoured by the abundant\nimportation of manuscripts from Constantinople, was the means not only\nof making more widely known the works of those Greek authors which had\nnever fallen into oblivion, but of prompting researches which issued\nin the recovery of the Latin writers also, many of whom had long been\nforgotten. The appetite for books having thus been quickened, neither\ncost nor labour was thenceforward spared in their accumulation; and\nlearned men were despatched, in all directions, throughout Europe,\nwestern Asia, and Africa, expressly to collect manuscripts. In the\ncourse of a few years, most of the authors that are now known to\nus, were brought together in the libraries of Rome, Naples, Venice,\nFlorence, Milan, Vienna, and Paris, where they were laid open to those\nwho were best qualified to give them forth anew to the world.\n\nThus aided by the munificence and zeal of princes and popes, the\nscholars of the fifteenth century sedulously applied themselves to\nthe discovery, the restoration, and the publication of the remains of\nGreek and Roman literature; and so it was that in the course of sixty\nor eighty years, most of the works now known had been committed to the\npress. Since that time some few discoveries have been made; but the\nprincipal improvements in classic literature, of later date, have\nconsisted in the emendation of the text of ancient authors by means\nof a more extensive collation of manuscripts than the first editors\nhad any opportunity to institute. This restoration of the remains of\nancient works to their pristine integrity has not been effected, like\nthat of a dilapidated building, or a mutilated statue, by the addition\nof new materials in an imagined conformity with the plan and taste of\nthe original work; but by the industrious collection and replacement of\nthe very particles of which it at first consisted.\n\nThe invention of printing, which virtually exempts books from the\noperation of the law that subjects all things mundane to the decays of\ntime, has greatly promoted also the process of their renovation; for,\nby giving to the issue of an edition of a standard work a degree of\nimportance, several hundred times greater than what belonged to the\ntranscription of a single copy, it has called for the employment of a\nproportionably larger amount of learning, diligence, and caution in the\nwork of revision; and then, by enabling each successive editor to avail\nhimself of the labours of his predecessors, the advantages belonging to\nthe concentration of many minds upon the same subject have been secured.\n\nIt is a fact therefore, the significance of which should be clearly\nunderstood, that, since the fifteenth century, the lapse of time,\ninstead of gradually impairing and corrupting the literary remains\nof antiquity, has incessantly contributed to their renovation and\npurification. Indeed it may be affirmed that, in relation to the\namount, the exactitude, and the certainty of our knowledge, we are\nnot receding from remote ages, but are constantly approaching towards\nthem. In a thousand instances what was unknown, or was doubtful, or\nimperfect, or corrupted, at the commencement of the fifteenth century,\nhas been ascertained, restored, and completed in the nineteenth.\nThe history and the literature of Greece and Rome--long inhumed in\nmonasteries, were, at the period of their re-appearance, liable to\nuncertainties and to suspicions which not all the learning and industry\nof that vigorous age were able to dispel. But the learning and the\nindustry of the four centuries that have since elapsed, constantly\ndirected towards the same objects, and constantly accumulating a\nvarious mass of evidence, have left exceedingly few questions of\nliterary antiquity open to controversy.\n\nThus then, by the mention of some leading facts, we have traced the\nremains of ancient literature up to the time when they passed to the\npress, and when their history can no longer be regarded as obscure or\nquestionable. Nor can it be thought that this body of literature is now\nliable to the hazards of extinction from political changes, or from the\ndecline of learning in this or that country; for unless a universal\ndevastation should take its course, at once, over every region of the\ncivilized world, the literature now extant in books can neither perish,\nnor suffer corruption. A temple, a statue, a picture, or a gem is but\n_one_; and however durable may be the material of which it consists, it\ncontinually decays, and it is always destructible. The touch of the\nsculptor moulders from the chiselled surface; and the time will come\nwhen every monument of his genius shall have crumbled into dust, and\nwhen his fame--lost from the marble, shall live only in the works of\nthe poets and historians who were his contemporaries.\n\nThus it is that the _written_ records of distant ages, with the\nknowledge of which the intellectual, moral, and political well-being of\nmankind is inseparably connected, are secured from extinction by a mode\nof conservation that is less liable to extensive hazards than any other\nthat can be imagined. If Man be cut off from the knowledge of the past,\nhe becomes indifferent to the future, and thenceforward sinks into the\nrudeness and ferocity of the sensual life. The redundant amplitude,\ntherefore, of the means by which this knowledge is preserved, only\nbears a due proportion to the importance of the consequences that\ndepend upon its perpetuation.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nSEVERAL METHODS AVAILABLE FOR ASCERTAINING THE CREDIBILITY OF ANCIENT\nHISTORICAL WORKS.\n\n\nThe facts referred to in the preceding chapters belong in common to\nancient books of all classes, and they tend to prove that the works of\nthe Greek and Roman writers--poets, dramatists, philosophers, critics,\nand historians--which issued from the press in the fifteenth and\nsixteenth centuries, may, by means of various and independent evidence,\nbe infallibly traced up to the age in which they are commonly supposed\nto have been written.\n\nThe reader\u2019s attention is now to be directed to one class of those\nancient works, namely, those which are professedly historical; and our\nobject will be to ascertain on what grounds, and with what limitations,\nsuch works deserve our confidence as truthful narratives of facts.\n\nThe very same mode of inquiry which common sense suggests, on the most\nordinary occasions, when we are called upon to estimate the value of\ntestimony, is applicable to all cases of the like nature. Nor can the\nimportance of the consequences that may be involved in the issue\nof the investigation, in a peculiar instance, render it invalid, or\nwarrant our rejection of it as unsatisfactory.\n\nIn some lesser particulars the modes of estimating oral and written\ntestimony must differ; but in substance the heads of inquiry will\nbe the same. In the case with which we have now to do--namely, the\ncredibility of the testimony of ancient historians, it is natural to\nconsider the following points:--\n\n1. The moral and intellectual character of the writer,--if this can be\nknown;\n\n2. The means of information he possessed;\n\n3. The time and circumstances of the first publication of the work;\n\n4. The exceptions it may be necessary to make to his testimony on\nparticular points; arising either from the peculiar nature of the facts\naffirmed, or from the apparent influence of prejudice--personal, or\nnational; and--\n\n5. The agreement of the narrative in question with evidence derived\nfrom other, and independent sources.\n\nIn judging then of the authenticity of an historical work we have,\nin the first place, to form an estimate of the writer\u2019s moral and\nintellectual character and qualifications; supposing that the means of\nforming an opinion on these points are within our reach.\n\nIf the personal integrity of an historian has happened to be put to\nthe proof by any well known and remarkable events, in which he was\nconcerned, the reader whose own character may qualify him to feel the\nforce of such proof, will seldom ask for better grounds of confidence;\nfor such errors in matters of fact as a thoroughly honest historian\nmay be liable to, will seldom be of vital importance. Even if no such\nproof of a writer\u2019s personal integrity exists, and if the circumstances\nof his life are altogether unknown, yet almost every writer leaves\nin his works sufficient indications of his moral dispositions. The\ncharacteristics of honesty are distinct enough to secure the confidence\nof candid minds; nor can an instance be adduced in which they have\nbeen so successfully counterfeited as to have stood the test of time.\nA perverse intention as certainly betrays itself in writing, as it\ndoes in personal behaviour. Nevertheless this sort of evidence, though\nit will be more satisfactory than any other to one reader, may be\nunperceived by another; for cold, feeble, and suspicious minds are\ndestitute of the sympathies to which it appeals.\n\nIf the proofs of integrity and veracity in an historian are wanting,\nor are thought to be insufficient, we must descend to that sort\nof evidence which his works afford relative to his intellectual\nqualifications; and these may be such as fully to warrant a general\nconfidence in his preference of truth to falsehood. As to the strongest\nminds, such minds attach themselves to truth by an instinctive\nmovement: to acquire the knowledge of facts is their characteristic\npassion;--to promulgate this knowledge is the function they feel\nthemselves born to fulfill. Nor can it happen that the falsification\nof facts--in which neither personal interests nor prejudices are\ninvolved--should present an adequate inducement to writers whose powers\nof narration enable them to command more attention in the direct paths\nof truth and reality, than they could hope to gain in the regions of\nfiction. Every gifted mind has its sphere; and there is a native talent\nfor history, as well as a genius for poetry; and he who possesses\neminently the former, will as certainly make himself conversant with\nrealities, as he who may boast the possession of the latter will choose\nto live among the creations of fancy.\n\nIf therefore an historical work displays a healthy vigour of\nintellect--good sense--elevation of sentiment, and the specific\ntalent for narration, these qualities may safely be held to afford a\nstrong presumptive proof of the author\u2019s veracity, even though there\nshould be no direct means of ascertaining his moral dispositions, or\nhis integrity. Those writers who occupy a first rank among ancient\nhistorians may therefore safely be held to possess this presumptive\nproof of their veracity; for the reputation they have so long enjoyed\nis attributable, quite as much to their talent for narration, as to the\ninterest or importance of the story that forms the subject of their\nworks. These intrinsic merits contain, then, a tacit guarantee for the\nauthenticity of the works that are thus adorned.\n\nOn this ground, the good sense, the simplicity, the ease, and the\naccuracy of Herodotus--the stern vigour, the elevation, and the dignity\nof Thucydides, the graceful simplicity of Xenophon, and the philosophic\nterseness of Tacitus, not only win the admiration of the reader, but,\nin different degrees, these qualities invite, or demand, his confidence.\n\nThere are moreover qualities of style which, though they may not\nentitle an author to a place in the first rank of writers, must secure\nfor him a high regard as an authentic historian. Indeed, in this\ndepartment of literature, those less brilliant and less attractive\nqualities which give security as to an historian\u2019s diligence, accuracy,\nand impartiality, may well be accepted in place of the brighter\nrecommendations of genius, or eloquence, or powers of description.\nThere is a specific taste for details, there is a passion for laborious\nresearches, there is a superstitious regard to exactness, and an\nindefatigable industry, which, though they may tire the reader who\nseeks only for amusement, will secure the confidence and attention of\nthe intelligent student of history. Thus, for example, the assiduity\nof Diodorus the Sicilian, the accuracy and good sense of Polybius, and\nthe minuteness and amplification of Dionysius the Halicarnassian, give\nto their works a substantial value which goes far to compensate for the\nwant of more shining excellences.\n\nIn those historical works which have necessarily been compiled from\nvarious documents, a sound judgment in the selection of materials must\nbe considered as the principal merit of an author. In this quality\nsome of the ancient historians were certainly deficient; and yet it\nmust be added that to this very want of judgment we are indebted for\nthe knowledge of innumerable particulars, in themselves curious, or\nperhaps important, which our modern notions of method, consistency, and\npropriety, would greatly have retrenched, or entirely have excluded.\n\nAlthough, to a certain extent, the genius or talent of an historian\nmay be held to vouch for his veracity; yet it is also true that a\nwriter may possess a sort of genius which tends to bring his fidelity\ninto suspicion. If, for example, he continually indulges his taste for\nscenes of splendour, or terror, or extraordinary action, or if he loves\nto exhibit images of magnanimity or wisdom, surpassing the ordinary\nreach of human nature; if his principal personages are heroes, or if he\nseems pleased to find occasions on which to display his command of the\nnervous eloquence of vituperation, we may well conclude that his genius\nwill have tempted him to relinquish the merit of being simply exact, or\ncalmly just.\n\nA consideration of personal and national prejudices enters, of\ncourse, into the estimate that is formed of an historian\u2019s moral and\nintellectual character. But these will be best adverted to when we come\nto mention the exceptions which it is necessary to make against the\nevidence of historians, on particular points.\n\nWe have next to make inquiry concerning the means of information which\nmay have been possessed by an ancient historian.\n\nThe same kind of confidence that is due to an historian who narrates\nevents in which he was personally concerned, cannot be claimed by one\nwho compiles the history of remote times from such materials as he can\ncollect: for in the former case, if we are assured of the writer\u2019s\nveracity and competency, there remains no room for reasonable doubt; at\nleast in reference to those principal facts of the story for the truth\nof which his character is pledged. But in the other case, though we may\nthink well both of the writer\u2019s veracity and judgment, the confidence\nwe afford him must still be conditional, and will be measured by the\nopinion we form of the validity of his authorities.\n\nThe entire mass of ancient history may therefore be considered as\nconsisting of two kinds, namely, the _original_ and the _compiled_. In\nthe first class may be comprehended, not merely those narratives that\nare strictly personal, such for instance as the history of the retreat\nof the ten thousand Greeks, by Xenophon; or again the Commentaries\nof C\u00e6sar, which describe actions wherein the author was immediately\nconcerned, and was, in fact, the principal actor; but those also\nwhich relate to the events of the author\u2019s own times and country, and\nconcerning which he had the most direct and unquestionable means of\nbecoming accurately informed. Such are the history of the Peloponnesian\nwar by Thucydides; and the history of the Catiline conspiracy by\nSallust, and much of the histories and annals of Tacitus, and the\nhistory of the reign of Justinian by Procopius; and that of her\nfather\u2019s reign by Anna Comnena.\n\nThe credibility of historical works of this class must, obviously, be\ndetermined chiefly upon the grounds mentioned in the preceding section;\nthat is to say, from those indications of integrity, impartiality,\nand good sense, which the work exhibits. Every reader of Thucydides,\nfor example, feels that he may rely with confidence upon the general\nauthenticity of the narrative:--the caution and the unwearied assiduity\nof the author in ascertaining the truth of whatever he affirms, his\nexactness in minute circumstances, his eminent good sense and fairness,\nand the dignity of his manner, all concur to stamp upon the work, for\nthe most part, the seal of truth. In _original_ histories the truth\nof the story and the veracity of the writer are inseparably linked\ntogether:--both must be admitted, or both should be denied.\n\nBut by far the greater part of all extant history belongs to the second\nclass; and yet, among works that must rank as _compilations_, some wide\ndistinctions are to be observed; for there are some of this kind of\nwhich the authenticity is little, if at all, inferior to that of the\nbest original histories; while many are, in the ordinary sense of the\nterm, compilations, and as such deserve only a qualified confidence. In\nregard to the nature and probable value of the authorities they have\nrelied upon, each historian--and indeed almost every separate portion\nof the works of each writer--must be estimated apart. An example or\ntwo will be sufficient to show, as well the necessity, as the mode of\nexercising this discrimination.\n\nThe nine books of Herodotus afford instances of every degree of\nvalidity in regard to the probable value of the materials that were\nemployed by the author. A reader who, in his simplicity, peruses that\nwork, throughout, with an equal faith, will be in danger of having his\nindiscriminate confidence suddenly converted into undistinguishing\nscepticism, by discovering the slenderness of the authority upon which\nsome portions of it are made to rest.\n\nDiodorus, the Sicilian, is reported to have employed thirty years\nin collecting materials for his universal history. Like Herodotus,\nhe visited the countries of which he speaks--consulting public\nrecords--inspecting monuments--conversing with the learned, and\ncollecting books. In fact his work exhibits many proofs of this\nassiduity; but yet when some of his statements are compared with those\nof other writers, who were better informed on particular subjects, it\nbecomes apparent that he exercised too little caution in the selection\nof his authorities; and that therefore the discrimination of the\nreader, or of the learned annotator, must supply the want of judgment\nin the writer.\n\nThe universal history of Trogus Pompeius, which is extant only in the\nabridgement made by Justin, seems to have been compiled on a plan\nsomewhat similar to that of the work last mentioned. It is evident\nthat the author, in collecting his materials, employed considerable\ndiligence and judgment; nevertheless, in what relates to remote\nnations, he shows himself often to have been egregiously misinformed.\nA striking instance of this kind is furnished in the account he gives\nof the history and religion of the Jews (Book xxxvi. cap. 2); for it\nis evident that the author--whether it be Trogus, or Justin, must have\nreceived his information--not from the source from which he ought\nto have derived it--the Jewish records;--nor even from individuals\nof that nation; but from prejudiced and ill-informed men of the\nneighbouring countries of Asia or of Africa. The account given by\nTacitus (Hist. Book v.) of the same people, is little more just than is\nthat of Trogus. If these instances were to be taken as specimens of the\naccuracy of ancient historians in all similar cases, their descriptions\nof remote nations must be held to be of very little value. But there\nseems reason to believe that the history and institutions of the Jews\nwere much less known, and were more misrepresented, than those of any\nother people bordering upon the Mediterranean.\n\nAbundant evidence proves that, from the very earliest ages, and in\nalmost all countries, there were persons employed and authorized by\ngovernments to digest the current history of the state. These annals\ncontained, of course, the names of kings, and the records of their\nacts and exploits, their decrees and wars. Each city, as well as the\ncapitals of empires, had its archives; and these public documents\nappear to have suggested the idea of a more comprehensive form of\nhistory. They were certainly consulted by those who, in later times,\nundertook the composition of historical works: by these means there\nwas imparted to such works more of authenticity and exactness than may\nbe generally supposed. Herodotus, Thucydides, Diodorus, Pausanias,\nStrabo, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Plutarch, Arrian, Dion Cassius, the\nElder Pliny, and others, evidently availed themselves with all possible\ndiligence of such public records.\n\nAncient historians conversed extensively with official persons,\nwherever they travelled; and it must be granted they were often\ntoo ready to accept these oral communications as authentic. This is\nespecially to be observed in reference to those accounts that were\nconfessedly, or that seem to have been received from priests; for that\nclass of persons, too much accustomed to think truth their enemy, and\ndeception their business, would have thought themselves betraying the\ninterests of their order in furnishing simple facts to an inquirer.\n\nEvery city of the ancient world, where civilization had made any\nprogress, was crowded with columns, statues, busts, monuments,\ninscriptions, by which every memorable event, and every illustrious\npersonage, was perpetually presented to the regards of the people, and\nwas retained in their recollection. It is certain that this monumental\nand sculptural mode of embodying a people\u2019s history obtained to a far\ngreater extent in ancient cities than it does in those of our times.\nAnd so it was that to visit a city--to pace its public ways--to enter\nits temples and its halls, was to peruse its history. The meanest\ncitizen--even a child, would be able to conduct an inquisitive stranger\nthrough the streets, and to explain to him these memorials of the\npast. It is difficult for us in these times, and in these inclement\nlatitudes, to form an adequate notion of the extent to which the\nhistory of each people was familiarized to them by these means; or how\nmuch the living conversed with the dead, and identified themselves with\nwhatever was heroic or wise in preceding times. These public monuments,\nwhen collated with the public records, and explained by the public\nvoice, furnished historians with abundant materials; and so great was\nthe importance attached to them, that there are instances in which\nhistorians made long journeys for the express purpose of examining\nthe sculptures of a city, the history of which they had occasion\nincidentally to mention.\n\nWhat was most wanting to give a higher value, in point of authenticity,\nto the materials so diligently collected by the ancient historians\nwas--that general diffusion of information among neighbouring nations\nwhich would have subjected the fables and the boastful pretensions of\neach people to the animadversion of others, and thus have given room\nfor a more ready and complete collation of discordant evidence on the\nsame points. The Greeks were very little acquainted with the languages\nof the surrounding nations; and they were egregiously ignorant of facts\nin which they were not immediately concerned. If the literature of\nthe Asiatic nations had been familiarly current in Greece, and that\nof Greece in Asia, both would have been purged of many errors and\nfrivolities; and something more of that consistency, expansion, and\ngood sense imparted on both sides, which were acquired by the Roman\nwriters in consequence of their acquaintance with the literature of\nGreece. In the department of history, especially, such an interchange\nof light would have enhanced immensely the value, as well as augmented\nthe amount of knowledge. Knowledge, like the vital fluid, corrupts\nwhenever it ceases freely to circulate.\n\nOn this ground, the moderns possess, incomparably, an advantage over\nthe ancients; and even if party interests and political prejudices\nact more forcibly in modern times, the means of correction are also\nvastly more efficient. European nations have, in relation to important\nsubjects, a common literature:--all things are known by all: national\nmisrepresentations are quickly noticed and chastised. The same\ncorrective process is actively carried on within each community; and\nif particular falsifications abound, the ultimate probabilities of the\nprevalence of truth are still more abundant.\n\nIn estimating the credibility of ancient writers--historians\nespecially, we have to consider the time and circumstances of the first\npublication of such works.\n\nTo ascertain the _antiquity_ of historical works is peculiarly\nimportant, because when that point has been placed out of doubt, we\nobtain, in most instances, a conclusive proof of the general truth\nof the narrative. For if a history is known to have been published,\nand widely circulated, and generally admitted to be authentic, in the\nvery age when the principal facts to which it relates were matters\nof universal notoriety, and when most of the lesser circumstances\nwere perfectly known to many of the author\u2019s contemporaries, and when\nsome of them stood personally related to the events, we have the best\nreasons for confiding in the substantial truth and accuracy of the\nhistory.\n\nNo pretended narrative, published under circumstances such as these,\nwhich was altogether untrue in its main elements, or which was grossly\nincorrect in its details, could, by any accident, or by any endeavours,\nhave gained general and lasting reputation as an authentic work. No\nsuch book could endure, and survive, the scrutiny of contemporary\nantagonists; no such book could maintain its reputation through the\nnext age, while the means of ascertaining the truth of the narrative\nwere still extant, and after the interests and prejudices of the moment\nhad subsided.\n\nAs in relation to the sources of information that were possessed by\nhistorians, it has been seen that historical works should be divided\ninto two classes--the _original_, and the _derived_; so a similar,\nbut not exactly an identical division must be made in relation to the\ncircumstances under which such books were at first published. In the\n_first_ class are to be included those histories of the truth of which\nthe author\u2019s contemporaries, in general, were competent judges; and in\nthe _second_, such, as having been drawn from rare, or recondite, or\nscattered materials--relating to events remote in time or place, could\nnot be open to the test of public opinion, and could be estimated only\nby a few of the learned class.\n\nHistories of the _first_ kind may be termed--_popular_; those of the\n_second_--_learned_. It is evident that _learned_ histories, although\non different grounds, may deserve a high degree of confidence as to\ntheir authenticity and their accuracy; and, indeed, on the score of\nimpartiality and comprehensive information, and exactness in details,\nthey may greatly surpass any of the original narratives from which they\nmay have been compiled. For it is manifest that a later historian, if\nhe be industrious, judicious, and unprejudiced, has the opportunity\nso to collect and collate the various mass of subsidiary testimonies\nbearing upon particular facts, as shall impart much more of consistency\nto his narrative than can belong to any earlier work on the same\nsubject.\n\nBut the direct proof of authenticity must belong _exclusively_\nto _popular_ histories. A work of this class is, essentially, a\ncondensation of the common knowledge of a nation or community; it is\nthe universal testimony, arranged and compacted by one whose aim it\nis to found his personal reputation as a writer upon the consent and\napproval of his contemporaries. Let it be supposed that in passing\nthrough the crowded ways of a metropolis, we hear, in substance, the\nsame account of some recent and public transaction, from a thousand\nlips, and from opposing parties; or we read a narrative of this event\ndrawn up by a contemporary writer, whose veracity has been tacitly\nor explicitly assented to by the same parties. The validity of the\nevidence rests upon the same grounds in both cases; only that for\naccuracy and consistency, the accepted _written_ narrative will be\nfound to surpass the _oral_ testimony.\n\nWe may take as an example the latter books of Herodotus, which, viewed\nwith reference to the distinction above mentioned, may be reckoned\nas belonging to the class of popular histories, and may therefore\ndeserve the confidence that is due to a narrative that has generally\nbeen accepted as true by those who were well acquainted with the\nfacts it describes, and many of whom were personally concerned in the\ntransactions it narrates. The history of the Peloponnesian war, by\nThucydides, has a still higher claim to unimpeachable authenticity,\ninasmuch as the facts were more recent at the time of the publication\nof the work; and because, also, the strongest motives of national\nrivalry and civil discord were then in activity, and were in readiness\nto crush, on the instant, any attempted misrepresentation. The author\u2019s\nhope that his work should descend to posterity, rested directly\nupon such an adherence to truth, on his part, as should exclude the\nopportunity of giving any plausibility to a charge of extensive or\nwilful falsification.\n\nXenophon\u2019s history of Greece possesses, in part, a claim to credibility\non the same ground. But the Cyrop\u00e6dia, on the contrary, is altogether\ndestitute of authentication from this source; for the Greeks, at\nthe time when the work was published, were far from being generally\ncompetent to judge of the truth of the story. The same author\u2019s account\nof the expedition of Cyrus, may, in this respect, take a middle place\nbetween the two above-named works. It was not composed, as there is\nreason to believe, till many years after the writer\u2019s return from Asia;\nand though the general facts were still matters of notoriety, the\nparticulars could not then be universally recollected; especially as\nthe scene of these transactions was so remote from Greece.\n\nThe works of Sallust, the Commentaries of C\u00e6sar, the works of Tacitus,\nof Suetonius, of Polybius, claim, in whole or in part, the authority\nof popular histories, having been generally accredited as authentic by\nthose who were well acquainted with the facts they contain.\n\nBut, excepting some small portions, or particular facts, the works\nof Diodorus, of Dionysius the Halicarnassian, of Nepos, of \u00c6lian,\nof Paterculus, of Curtius, of Plutarch, of Arrian, of Appian, of\nPausanias, and many others, are to be regarded only as learned\ncompilations, the claim to authenticity of which is of an indirect\nkind.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nEXCEPTIONS TO WHICH THE TESTIMONY OF HISTORIANS, ON PARTICULAR POINTS,\nMAY BE LIABLE.\n\n\nFrom the very nature of the case the authenticity of an historical work\ncan be affirmed only in a restricted sense, and must be understood to\nbe open to exceptions in particular instances. Such exceptions may be\ntaken without impeaching the character of the writer for veracity,\nor even for general accuracy. It is easy to suppose that he may have\nbeen imposed upon in certain cases, by his informants; or he may have\nreported things that were currently believed in his time, without\nthinking himself personally pledged for their truth: he may not have\nthought himself called upon, as an historian, to discuss questions\nwhich might more properly be taken up by philosophers; or he may merely\nhave been negligent--here and there, in the course of a voluminous\nwork. Yet allowances of this sort must, as it is evident, be confined\nto cases of an accidental kind, and should only then be brought forward\nin the way of apology for a writer\u2019s mistakes, when he is giving an\naccount of facts that were not immediately known to himself. For in a\nnarrative of events, of which the writer professes himself to have had\na personal knowledge, we must either admit his veracity, and with it\nthe truth of the facts; or we must deny both.\n\nThe first point to be considered, when the affirmation of an historian\nin a particular instance is doubted, is--_The nature of the fact in\nquestion_.\n\n1. If, for example, it be a question of numbers, measures, or dates,\nit is always to be remembered--as already remarked--that a peculiar\nuncertainty attaches to these matters, in ancient authors, owing to the\nmethod of notation _by letters_, which were easily mistaken, one for\nanother. The numbers of which armies were composed--the numbers of the\nslain in battle--the population of cities--the revenues of states--the\ndistances of places--the weight or measure of bodies, and computations\nof time, must, therefore, always be held open to question, as to what\nwas actually intended and written by the author: this doubt may be\nentertained without in the least derogating from the credit of the work\nin which they occur. Besides the probable corruption of copies in such\ninstances, it is to be remembered as to many of the particulars above\nnamed, that they are far more liable to uncertainty, or mistake, than\nother facts, so that scarcely any degree of diligence and care on the\npart of an historian, will entirely secure him from errors on such\npoints.\n\n2. Geographical details, descriptions of the objects of natural\nhistory, or accounts of natural phenomena, must also, generally, be\nconsidered as open to a degree of uncertainty, on account of the\nimperfect information upon such subjects, which was possessed by the\nancients. And yet the names and relative distances of places in all\nthe countries bordering upon the Mediterranean sea, as reported by\nancient geographers and historians, have been to so great an extent\nauthenticated by the researches of modern scholars, that any apparent\ninconsistencies should not hastily be assumed as proofs of ignorance.\nBut as to whatever relates to countries remote from Greece and Italy,\nor lying beyond the bounds of the Persian, Macedonian, Carthaginian,\nand Roman empires, it must of course be received with hesitation.\nMany of these descriptions of remote countries, when they come to be\ncompared with the accounts of modern travellers, afford, at once,\namusing instances of exaggeration, and striking attestations of the\nsubstantial authenticity of the works in which they occur. For the\ncoincidence of these accounts, in many respects, with the facts, as\nthey are now fully known, puts it beyond doubt that the historian had\nactually conversed with natives of those countries, or with travellers;\nwhile at the same time the distortion of the picture is precisely such\nas might be expected from the channels through which the information\nwas derived.\n\n3. The descriptions so frequently met with in ancient writers, of\nmonstrous men or animals--griffins--dragons--hydras--pygmies--giants;\nor of trees bearing golden fruit, of fountains flowing with perfumed\nliquids, or even with the precious metals, may, in most cases, be now\ntraced to their origin in actual facts, which, passing to the writer\nthrough the medium of ignorant, fanciful, or interested reporters,\nassumed the characteristic extravagance of fables. On occasions\nof this kind it is much more becoming to an intelligent student of\nhistory to make search, among the stores of modern science, for the\nprobable source of such accounts, than to pass them by with the sneer\nof indolent scepticism. Some writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth\ncenturies took so much offence at certain passages of this sort in the\nhistory of Herodotus, as to treat the entire work of that industrious\nand generally accurate writer with contempt, as if it were little\nbetter than a repository of fables. But these rash censures now fall\nback upon themselves; for modern travellers, in visiting the countries\ndescribed by the father of history, find frequent occasion for noticing\nthe correctness of his statements, or their substantial truth, even\nin those descriptions or relations which may seem the most open to\nsuspicion.\n\n4. In narrating or describing natural phenomena, such as meteors,\ntempests, eruptions of volcanoes, earthquakes, eclipses, all that\nis needed is to remove from the narrative of the historian those\nexplanations, or those decorative phrases, by which he endeavoured to\naccommodate such occurrences to the political events of the moment, at\nthe suggestion of popular superstitions.\n\nAnd here we may take occasion to point out a remarkable difference,\nwhich forms a characteristic distinction in comparing the Jewish\nwriters with those of other nations, as to the nature of those\nmarvellous or supernatural facts which they describe. The marvellous\nevents reported by the Greek and Roman authors may, with few\nexceptions, be classed under two heads; namely--allegorical and\npoetical combinations, which were so obviously fabulous as to ask\nfor no credence, and to demand no scrutiny; or they were mere\nexaggerations, distortions, or misapplications of natural objects\nor phenomena. But the Jewish historians and poets do not describe,\n_as actually existing_, any such allegorical prodigies; and their\ndescriptions of real animals, are either simply exact, or they are\nevidently _poetical_ (like those in the book of Job), but they are not\n_fabulous_. They do not throw a supernatural colouring over ordinary\nphenomena, or convert plain facts into prodigies. The supernatural\nevents they record--as matters of history, are such deviations from the\nstanding order of natural causes, as leave us no alternative between a\nperemptory denial of the veracity of the writers, or a submission to\ntheir affirmation of divine agency.\n\nThe freedom of the Jewish historians, poets, and prophets, from those\nadmixtures of the marvellous and the natural, with which other ancient\nwriters abound, is one of the most remarkable of their characteristics.\nTheir descriptions of human nature are neither heroical, nor fantastic;\ntheir narratives of human affairs are of the simplest complexion, and\nthey are strictly consistent with the known modes of the time and\ncountry. Nor is our assent taxed, on any occasion, except when an event\nis recorded which, unless it had actually taken place, could not have\nbeen affirmed by any but reckless impostors.\n\nBesides those prodigies which are met with in profane historians, and\nthat only require to be freed from exaggerations appended to natural\nevents by ignorance, poetry, or superstition, there are other accounts\nwhich are not to be satisfactorily explained so readily, and which\ncall for the exercise of some discrimination. They are of a kind that\nmust be accounted either altogether false, or else must imply, in some\nsense, a supernatural agency. Of the former kind may well be reckoned\nall, or nearly all, those alleged supernatural occurrences which no\ndoubt were contrived to give credit to an established superstition, or\nto subserve the designs of statesmen or commanders, and which, in most\ncases, rested exclusively upon the testimony of priests. On the other\nhand, there are recorded, in the pages of profane historians, some few\nfacts, apparently beyond the range of natural causes, which cannot be\nrejected as untrue, unless we do violence to the soundest principles of\nevidence, and which will not be treated with uninquisitive contempt,\nexcept by a purblind scepticism, that is more nearly allied to\ncredulity than to true philosophy. These peculiar cases demand a far\nmore full and particular consideration than it is compatible with the\ndesign of this volume to bestow upon them.\n\n5. The political habits and tastes of the Greeks and Romans, induced\ntheir historians to supply the personages of their story with\nformal speeches, on all remarkable occasions; for oratory was the\nspring and life of every political movement; and as the machine of\ngovernment could not in fact be made to go without the impelling\nforce of harangues, history must not seem to omit them. Yet there is\nlittle reason to believe that authentic reports of public speeches\nwere often, if ever, in the possession of historians. Indeed, these\nbrilliant portions of the history are often so much in the manner of\nthe author, as to leave the reader in no doubt to whom to attribute\nthem. Nevertheless it may be imagined that, on some memorable\noccasions, the very words of a short speech, or the general purport of\nan oration, was remembered and recorded, and so was worked into the\nspeech, as framed by the historian.\n\nA compliance with the taste of the times seems also to have led some\nwriters to use means for diverting the attention of their readers,\nand for relieving the burden of the narrative, by introducing\ndigressions, often of a trivial kind, which, though not announced as\nmere embellishments, and which perhaps were not purely fictitious, are\nevidently not entitled to an equal degree of confidence with the main\ncircumstances of the story.\n\n6. The secret motives of public men, or the hidden causes of great\nevents, are not the proper subjects of history, which is concerned only\nwith such facts as may be truly and fairly known. The disquisitions\nof an historian on such topics are therefore to be excepted against;\nfor when he so forsakes his function, he must expect to be forsaken by\nhis reader; his errors, on such points, do not impeach his veracity;\nalthough they lower our opinion of his judgment.\n\n7. Very few facts of importance, such as form the proper subjects of\nhistory, rest entirely upon the testimony of a single historian, or are\nincapable of being directly, or remotely confirmed, by some kind of\ncoincident evidence. Whenever therefore a question arises relative to\nthe truth of a particular statement, recourse must be had, either to\nthe testimony of contemporary writers, or to the evidence of existing\nmonuments. But even if all such means of corroboration should fail,\nand if we meet with a perplexing silence where we might expect to find\nconfirmation, we are by no means justified in rejecting the unsupported\ntestimony, merely on the ground of this want of correlative support.\nMany instances may be adduced of the most extraordinary silence of\nhistorians relative to facts with which they must have been acquainted,\nand which seemed to lie directly in the course of their narrative.\nImportant facts are mentioned by no ancient writer, though they are\nunquestionably established by the evidence of existing inscriptions,\ncoins, statues, or buildings. There are also facts mentioned only\nby some one historian, which happen to be attested by an incidental\ncoincidence with some relic of antiquity lately brought to light; if\nthis relic had remained in its long obscurity, such facts might (we see\nwith how little reason) have been disputed.\n\nNothing can be more fallacious than an inference drawn from the\nsilence of historians relative to particular facts. For a full,\ncomprehensive, and, if the phrase may be used, a _business-like_\nmethod of writing history, in which nothing important--nothing which a\nwell-informed reader will look for, must be omitted, is the produce of\nmodern improvements in thinking and writing. The general diffusion of\nknowledge, and the activity of criticism, occasion a much higher demand\nin matters of information to be made upon writers than was thought\nof in ancient times. A full and exact communication of facts has come\nto be valued more highly than any mere beauties of style; at least,\nno beauties of style are allowed to atone for palpable deficiencies\nin matters of fact. The moderns must be taught--and pleased; but\nthe ancients would be pleased, and taught. Ancient writers, and\nhistorians not less than others, seem to have formed their notions\nof prose composition very much upon the model of poetry, which, in\nmost languages, was the earliest kind of literature. As their epics\nwere histories, so, in some sense, their histories were epics. Such\nparticulars, therefore, were taken up in the course of the narrative,\nas seemed best to accord with the abstract idea of the work--not always\nthose which a rigid adherence to a comprehensive plan would have made\nit necessary to bring forward.\n\n8. The influence of personal or party prejudices is indefinite; and as\nit may distort the representations of an historian almost unconsciously\nto himself, and without impugning his general integrity, so will it, in\nmost instances, be difficult, especially after the lapse of ages, to\ndiscover the extent to which the operation of such prejudices should be\nallowed for. But if it cannot be ascertained how much of the colouring\nof the picture is to be attributed to the medium through which an\nhistorian exhibits his characters, yet the general hues of that medium\nwill hardly escape the observation of an intelligent reader; and when\nonce observed, the illusion is destroyed.\n\nBut in relation to the influence of prejudices of this sort, ancient\nhistorians unquestionably appear to advantage when compared with those\nof modern times. Instances of equanimity might be cited from the Greek\nhistorians to which few parallels could be adduced, drawn from the\npages of modern writers. Like the sculptures of the same people, the\nworks of the Greek historians, though not wanting in the distinctive\ncharacters, or the moving energy of life, present an aspect from which\nthe sublimity of repose is never lost. These writers seem to have been\nconscious that they were holding up the picture of their times to the\neyes of mankind in all ages: they forgot, therefore, the passions and\ninterests of the moment.\n\nWith ourselves, the instantaneous diffusion of books through all ranks\nof the community, places a modern author too nearly in the presence\nof his contemporaries to allow him to think much of posterity. The\nclamour of public opinion rings around his seclusion: his situation, in\nits essential circumstances, is almost the same as that of the public\nspeaker--the din of the crowd fills his thoughts, and he almost forgets\nthe distant fame which his genius might command. This nearness of his\naudience offers therefore to a modern writer every excitement and every\ninducement to the indulgence of party misrepresentations. If it were\nnot for the correcting influences of a free press, nothing worthy of\nthe name of history would be produced in modern times.\n\n9. That the Greeks were not in fact much inferior to the\nrepresentations given of them by their historians, the existing\nmonuments of their philosophy, of their poetry, and of their arts,\nsufficiently attest. Indeed if we pass from an examination of these\nmonuments and remains to the perusal of Herodotus, Thucydides, and\nXenophon, we shall be far from thinking that a tone of exaggerated\nencomium is to be charged upon those writers. From the pages of the\nhistorians alone, we should fail to form an adequate idea of the\nperfection that was attained in all departments of literature and art\nby the people whose political affairs they narrate. Scarcely half of\nthe history of Greece, in a full and philosophical sense of the term,\nis to be gathered from its historians:--we must seek for it rather in\nthe remains of its literature at large,--in museums, and cabinets, and\namong the ruins that still bespread its soil.\n\nIt is not therefore this sort of general misrepresentation that is to\nbe suspected in the Greek historians; for more is made certain by other\nmeans than is explicitly affirmed by them. Yet it has been supposed\nthat, in their accounts of military affairs, the Greek historians,\nin order to enhance the glory of their countrymen in repelling the\nPersian invasions, have exaggerated the power and extent of the Asiatic\nmonarchy, and the numbers of the armies with which those of Greece had\nto contend. Some amount of misrepresentation, of this kind, may have\nbeen admitted. But yet the pictures given by the Greek writers of the\nwealth and resources of the Persian power--of the puerile ambition of\nits monarchs--of the countless hosts which they drove before them, by\nthe lash, into Scythia, Egypt, and Europe--conquering nations rather\nby devastation than by military conduct--by the mouths, more than by\nthe swords of their armies, are so strikingly similar to unquestionable\nfacts in the later history of the Asiatic empires, that, as the one\ncannot be doubted, the other need not be deemed incredible.\n\n10. The arrogance with which, under the term _barbarians_, the Greek\nwriters speak of all nations that were not of Greek extraction,\nnaturally suggests the belief that we must not expect to derive from\nthem a just idea of the civilization of the surrounding nations. In\ntruth, not a few indications may be gathered from other sources, which\nauthorize the belief that, in communities not very distant from Greece\nitself, or its colonies, a degree of intelligence and of refinement\nexisted of which it was their shame to be ignorant, or their greater\nshame to have taken so little notice.\n\n11. With the Romans it was perhaps less from mere national vanity, than\nfrom a dictate of that deep-plotted policy by which they supported\ntheir unbounded pretensions, that they were induced to misrepresent\nthe resources and the conduct of the nations on whose necks they\ntrampled. This policy would often produce misrepresentations of a\ncontrary kind to those suggested by national vanity. That universal\nempire was the right of the Roman arms was the principle of the state:\na reverse of fortune therefore was not simply a calamity--it was a\nseeming impeachment of the high claims of the republic. The nations\nmust not think that their masters could anywhere find equals or rivals\nin courage or military skill. A defeat hurt the political faith of the\nRoman citizen more than it alarmed his fears; and he would rather waive\nthe glory of having broken an arm of equal strength with his own, than\nconfess that there was anywhere an arm of equal strength, to resist his\nwill. He would choose to sustain the aggravated shame of having been\nbeaten by an inferior, rather than redeem a part of his dishonour by\nacknowledging that he had encountered a superior. A writer therefore\ncould not do full justice to the courage, conduct and successes of\nthe enemies of Rome, without offering such an outrage to the common\nfeeling as would have amounted almost to treason against the state.\nModern historical criticism--exercised by such a writer as Niebuhr, has\nsufficed to remove from early Roman history a very large amount of the\nmisstatements and the exaggerations which Livy and his predecessors had\naccumulated around it.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nCONFIRMATIONS OF THE EVIDENCE OF ANCIENT HISTORIANS, DERIVABLE FROM\nINDEPENDENT SOURCES.\n\n\nMost of the principal facts mentioned by ancient historians, as well\nas many particulars of less importance, are confirmed by evidence that\nis altogether independent, both in its nature, and in the channels\nthrough which it has reached us. In truth, although the narratives of\nhistorians serve to connect and explain the entire mass of information\nthat has descended to modern times, relative to the nations of\nremote antiquity, they are far from being the sole sources of that\ninformation:--perhaps they hardly furnish so much as a half of the\nmaterials of history. These independent sources of information may be\nclassed under the following heads:--\n\n1. The remains of the _general_ literature of the nations of\nantiquity:--their poetry, and their oratory especially, and their\nphilosophical treatises.\n\n2. Chronological documents or calculations.\n\n3. Facts--geographical and physical, which are unchanged in the lapse\nof time.\n\n4. Those institutions, usages, or physical peculiarities of nations,\nwhich have been subjected to little change.\n\n5. The existing monuments of ancient art--paintings, sculptures, gems,\ncoins, and buildings.\n\nThe information derivable from these sources answers two distinct\npurposes, namely--in the first place, that of contributing to the\namount of our knowledge of the state of civilization among ancient\nnations; and then that of furnishing the means of corroborating or\nof correcting the assertions of historians on particular points. It\nis obvious that to go through the particulars that are comprehended\nunder the general heads above-named, or to do so with any degree of\nprecision, would greatly exceed the limits of this book; indeed, the\nobject aimed at in it will be sufficiently attained by merely pointing\nout, in a few instances, what is the nature, and what is the value of\nthis sort of corroborative evidence.\n\n1. Corroboratory evidence, derived from books--coming as it does\nthrough similar, if not the very same channels with those through which\nwe receive the works of historians, and being of the same external\nform--is likely to produce less impression on the mind than its real\nvalidity ought to command. And yet, when it comes to be examined in\ndetail, nothing can be more conclusive than the proof which thus arises\nfrom coincidences of names and allusions, such as are found scattered\nthrough the works of dramatists, orators, poets, and philosophers, with\nthe more formal statements of contemporary historians. If, for example,\nthe Greek dramatic writings--those of \u00c6schylus, Sophocles, Euripides,\nAristophanes, and the Orations of Demosthenes, are collated with the\nnarrations of Thucydides, Xenophon, Diodorus, and Plutarch;--or if\nthe Epistles and the Orations of Cicero, and the Satires of Horace,\nand of Juvenal, are compared with the historical works of Livy, of\nSallust, of Tacitus, and of Dion Cassius, so many points of agreement\npresent themselves, as must convince every one that these historical\nassertions, and these allusions, must have had a common origin in\nactual facts.\n\nYet it is not merely by presenting special coincidences, on particular\npoints, that the remains of ancient literature confirm the evidence of\nhistorians; but it is also by furnishing such pictures of the people\namong whom they were current, as to all points of their political,\nreligious, and social condition, as consist with the representations\nof historians. To exhibit the full force of this sort of evidence, let\nit be imagined that the names of men, and of cities, and countries,\nhaving been withdrawn from the works of the classical poets, orators,\nand philosophers, it were attempted to associate, as countrymen and\ncontemporaries, Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon, with Cicero, Horace\nand Seneca; or Tacitus, C\u00e6sar and Suetonius, with Isocrates, Plato and\n\u00c6schylus: every page in the one class of writers, would present some\nincongruity with the accounts given of the people by the others. On\nthe contrary, in perusing the contemporary writers of the same nation,\nwhatever may be the diversities of their style or subject, we feel\nthat they were all surrounded by the same objects, and that they were\nsubjected to the same influences.\n\n2. Those corroborative evidences that are derived from chronological\ninscriptions, or from astronomical calculations, have served in some\nnotable instances to confirm, or to correct, the testimony of ancient\nwriters, in a very conclusive manner. It should be remembered that\nancient historians, being destitute for the most part of sufficiently\nprecise chronological information, and being themselves also less\nobservant of dates than the modern style of historical composition\ndemands, leave the subject open to many difficulties; and to these\ndifficulties is added that uncertainty which belongs peculiarly, as\nwe have before remarked, to whatever relates to numbers, in the text\nof ancient authors. It must not however be supposed that ancient\nchronology is altogether unfixed; for though it may be impossible now\nto determine the precise time of many events, the results of different\nlines of calculation are seldom so widely discordant as to be of much\nimportance in the general outline of history.\n\n3. Those inequalities of the earth\u2019s surface which have undergone\nno great change within the historic period, and also the course of\nrivers, and the peculiarities of climate, and the vegetable and animal\nproductions of each country, though they are not absolutely immutable,\nhave not, even in the lapse of many ages, undergone any such changes\nas to perplex us in fixing the identity of ancient and modern names.\nThere are now open to our observation, the same scenes, and the\nsame physical appearances which were described, or alluded to, by\nhistorians, twenty centuries ago; and finding, as we do, their accounts\nof these permanent objects to accord with present and well-known facts,\nwe accept such coincidences as a pledge of the general accuracy and\nauthenticity of the writings in question: for if an historian is proved\nto have been careful to obtain correct information on points that were\nindirectly connected with his subject, it is but just to believe that\nhe was at least equally exact in regard to events, and to what belongs\nmore immediately to his narrative.\n\nWe have already adverted to the geographical accuracy of Herodotus,\nand have remarked that the descriptions he gives of countries, and of\ntheir productions, are such, for the most part, as to put it beyond\ndoubt that he had himself seen most of the objects which he describes.\nThat the Greek historians should be exact in what relates to the\ngeography and productions of their own narrow soil, is nothing more\nthan what must be expected. But when we find them accurate also in\ntheir descriptions of regions remote from Greece, and which were very\nimperfectly known to their countrymen in general, they furnish a proof\nof authenticity that may be extended to cases in which we are obliged\nto accept their testimony unsupported by other evidence.\n\nA pertinent instance of this kind is furnished in the case of\nArrian\u2019s history of Alexander\u2019s expedition--his Indian history, and\nhis description of the shores of the Indian Ocean. The geographical\ndetails which occur in these works are, in general, so exact that\nmodern travellers find little difficulty in identifying almost every\nspot he mentions. This proof of accuracy well supports the claim to the\npossession of authentic information which is advanced by the author at\nthe commencement of his work, where he declares that his history has\nbeen compiled from the memoirs of Ptolemy and of Aristobulus--two of\nAlexander\u2019s generals; and that he had collated their assertions on all\npoints, and had added, from other sources, only such particulars as\nseemed to be the most worthy of credit.\n\nNow when Arrian\u2019s history of Alexander\u2019s expedition is compared with\nthat of Quintus Curtius, on points of geography, it will be found that\nthe latter writer was either utterly ignorant on the subject, or that\nhe was quite indifferent as to the correctness of his statements. This\nproof therefore of want of diligence, or want of information, detracts\nvery greatly from the historian\u2019s authority on all points which rest on\nhis sole testimony. We might say that it is fatal to his credit, in all\nsuch instances. Although an able and attractive writer, Curtius awakens\nthe reader\u2019s suspicion by the very character of his style, which\nbetrays his fondness for decoration and enlargement:--this suspicion\nis then not a little enhanced when we meet with direct evidence of his\ninaccuracy, in matters of fact.\n\nThe permanence of the names of places, under many modifications\nin the value of vowels or consonants, affords a very curious, as\nwell as important means of authenticating the assertions of ancient\nhistorians. Innumerable instances might be adduced in which the names\nof obscure villages in Asia Minor, Armenia, Persia, Arabia, Palestine,\nEgypt, and Nubia, recall to every reader\u2019s recollection the names\noccurring in the ancient histories of the same countries. Those remote\nnames could never have found their way into the pages of the Greek and\nRoman historians if they had not sought, or had not carefully employed,\ngenuine documents in the composition of their works.\n\nIn many particulars the statements of the ancient geographers--Strabo,\nPtolemy, Pliny, Stephen of Byzantium, and Pausanias, are at variance\nwith each other, and with the narratives of contemporary historians;\nbut in by far the greater number of instances there is nearly as much\naccordance as is usually found among modern travellers. And when the\nancient geography, whether collected from geographers or historians,\ncomes to be collated with the modern--whatever difficulties may here\nand there present themselves in the way of a perfect conciliation, no\none can doubt that the former--taken as a whole--is a genuine account\nof facts, collected with industry, by actual observation.\n\n4. A similar species of confirmation arises from a comparison of the\ndescriptions given by ancient historians of the physical peculiarities,\nthe manners, and the usages of nations, with facts known to attach to\nthe modern occupants of the same countries. If national manners and\nusages are less permanent than the features of the country, or than the\nproductions of the soil, they are much more so than might be supposed,\nwhen we recollect how many revolutions have swept across the surface\nof society in the course of ages. Though man is not absolutely the\ncreature of the soil that supports him, and though he does not retain\nevery peculiarity which descends to him from his progenitors, yet\nneither is he ever free from some permanent mark of tribe, of climate,\nor of locality. Or if, by the development of mind, and the advance of\ncivilization, his circumstances and his manners undergo, apparently,\na thorough change, yet even then will there remain many lesser\nindications of his obsolete condition; and many habits and usages, that\nare too minute and trivial to have attracted attention--if they did not\nawaken historical recollections, will continue to identify the modern\nwith the ancient race. Four conquests, and eighteen centuries, have not\nwholly obliterated from the English people all traces of their British\nancestors; and in some races, for example--the Egyptian, the Arabian,\nthe Jewish, and the Scythian, a much more perceptible sameness has been\nmaintained throughout even a longer course of ages.\n\nSuch living monuments of antiquity are not only highly curious in\nthemselves, but they are very significant in illustration of ancient\nhistory. Yet it must be acknowledged that the materials for this kind\nof confirmatory comment are the most abundant where they are of the\nleast value; and often the scantiest, where they would be the most\nprized. For it is among half civilized nations, that manners and\nmodes of life are permanent; while the advance of intelligence and\nrefinement produces changes so great as to leave only the faintest\ntraces of aboriginal characteristics. Thus, in the plains of Asia, and\nin the deserts of Africa, we find nations which, as to their physical\npeculiarities, their manners and their usages, differ little, if at\nall, from the descriptions given of their predecessors on the same soil\nby Herodotus, or Strabo. Meanwhile the successive occupants of the\nEuropean continent--active, intelligent and free, have passed under all\nforms of human life, and therefore have retained few resemblances to\ntheir remote ancestors.\n\nOne climate, indeed, necessitates a much greater degree of permanency\nin the habits of the people than another. The fervours of the\nequatorial regions, and the rigours of the north, subdue man to a\npassive conformity with certain modes of life. These extremes of\ntemperature avail much to vanquish his individual will, to forbid the\ncaprices of his tastes, and to restrain his invention. But in temperate\nclimates, almost every mode of life is found to be practicable, and\nalmost all modes will therefore in turns be practised.\n\nThe permanency of manners, even where the most extensive revolutions\nhave taken place, is strikingly displayed among the modern people of\nGreece. The successive generations of six-and-twenty centuries have\npassed away since the Iliad and Odyssey were composed; and yet, when\nthe ancient race, as it is described by Homer, comes to be compared\nwith the modern people, the points of sameness are very many. Not\nonly is the language essentially the same; but the modes of thinking\nand feeling--the superstitions--the costumes--the habits of the\ninhabitants of particular spots have, in a large number of instances,\nbeen very little affected by the lapse of time. If the peculiarities\nof the race, as described by Homer, may still be recognised, it is\nno wonder if we find, in the present manners of the people, numerous\nillustrations of the pictures drawn by the historians of a later\nage. The descriptions given by C\u00e6sar and Tacitus of the manners of\nthe Gauls, Britons, and Germans, are capable of receiving a like\nauthentication, though not in an equal degree, from usages still\nexisting among the northern nations of Europe.\n\n5. The existing remains of ancient art would very nearly supply the\nmaterials for a body of history, even if all books had perished. These\nrelics sometimes serve to establish particular facts, and sometimes\nthey afford ground from which to deduce general inferences, relative\nto the wealth, the power, and the intelligence of the nations to whom\nthey belonged. In either case the evidence they yield is of the most\nconclusive kind; for the solid material is actually in our hands,\nand it is before our eyes, and in most cases it can be liable to no\nmisinterpretation.\n\nSo extensive are the inferences that may fairly be derived from these\nexisting remains, that, as to some ancient nations, we know far more\nfrom _this_ source, than is to be gathered from the entire evidence of\nwritten history: this, at least, is certain, that what is thus learned,\nif it be in some respects vague, possesses more of the substantial\nquality of knowledge, and much better deserves to be called _history_\nthan do those bare catalogues of the names of kings, which are often\ndignified with the term. A name, or twenty names, unconnected with\ngeneral facts--or a date, serving only to bring a mere name into its\nproper place in a chronological chart, may indeed impart the semblance\nof history, but it affords almost nothing of the substance. What we\ngather, for example, from written history, relative to the Assyrian\nempire, or to the early kingdoms of Greece, is much less significant\nthan are the historical inferences relative to the people of Egypt,\nwhich are fairly deducible from the remains of their architecture.\n\nThe existing monuments of art, which are available as sources of\nhistorical information, are, 1. buildings and public works; 2.\nsculptures and gems; 3. inscriptions and coins; 4. paintings, mosaics,\nand vases; and 5. implements and arms.\n\nFor the purpose of confirming, or correcting, or illustrating, the\nassertions of historians on particular points, recourse must most\noften be had to the evidence of inscriptions and coins; and every\none knows that from these sources all the leading facts of Greek\nand Roman history may be authenticated. The latter are especially\nimportant, both on account of the information they convey, and of\nthe mode of its transmission to modern times. No one could call in\nquestion the utility of inscriptions for the illustration of history:\nbut the student who cannot devote his undivided attention to the\nsubject, or who has not access to the fullest and best sources of\ninformation, may very probably waste his time upon documents that he\nwill afterwards discover to be extremely fallacious. In no department\nof antiquarian learning have misrepresentations, deceptions, and\nerrors of inadvertency more abounded. Authors who were long regarded\nas unexceptionable authorities are found to deserve little confidence,\nand on such points a writer who is not worthy of great confidence, is\nworthy of none.\n\nCoins are concise public records. The device they bear is seldom\ndevoid of some significant allusion to the peculiar pretensions of\nthe realm or city; the image, corresponding in form and expression\nwith sculptures or descriptions, fixes the identity of the personage;\nand the legend furnishes names, and other specific notices. Coins,\ntherefore, concentrate several kinds of evidence; and, like books, by\ntheir multitude, by their wide diffusion, and by the mode of their\nconservation to modern times, they are, with very few and unimportant\nexceptions, placed far beyond the reach of fraud or deception. The\ncabinets of the opulent, in all countries, are filled with series\nof these historical records; and the spade is every day turning up\ncounterparts to those already known. Statues and buildings have been\ndiscovered here and there; but coins are the produce of every soil\nwhich civilization has at any time visited.\n\nSculptures are either historical or poetical; those of the first kind\nyield a confirmation to history which, though indefinite, is worthy of\nattention. That the principal personages whose names occur in history\nwere represented by the artists of their times, is not only probable,\nbut is a well-known fact. Statues or busts of the most distinguished\npublic persons were given to the world by several artists, and they\nwere placed in all the principal cities of the republic or the\nempire, that claimed any reflection of their glory. The principle of\ncompetition among artists would secure some tolerable uniformity--the\nuniformity of resemblance to the originals, among these statues and\nbusts; nor do we at all pass the bounds of probability in supposing\nthem to be, in general, real and good portraits. There is, besides,\nin most of them, an air of individuality, which at once convinces the\npractised eye of their authenticity.\n\nSo much as this being assumed, the congruity of these forms with the\ncharacter of the men, as it is presented on the page of history,\ncarries with it a proof of the truth of those records which few\nobservers of the human physiognomy will feel disposed to question.\nIn order to perceive the force of this kind of evidence it is not\nnecessary to call for the aid of any system of physiognomical science\n(so called); every one\u2019s intuitive discernment will suffice for the\npurpose. Let the simplest observer of faces and forms, who has read the\nhistory of Greece and Rome, look round a gallery of antique statues\nand busts; and he will be in little danger of misnaming the heads of\nThemistocles and of Alexander, of Plato and of Cicero, of Phocion and\nof Alcibiades, of Demosthenes and of Euclid, of Julius C\u00e6sar and of\nNero. To those whose eye is exercised in the discrimination of forms,\nthe best executed of these antique heads speak their own biography\nwith a distinctness that gives irresistible attestation to the\naccounts of historians.\n\nMythological or poetical sculptures afford inferences of a more general\nkind; most of which are suggested also by an examination of the\ntemples of which they were the furniture. The exquisite forms of the\nGrecian chisel declare that the superstition they embodied, although\nit was frivolous and licentious, was framed more for pleasure than for\nfear;--that it was rather poetical than metaphysical. They do indicate\ncertainly that the religious system of the people was not sanguinary\nor ferocious; and that it was not fitted to be the engine of priestly\ndespotism. One would imagine that the ministers of these deities were\nmore the servants of the people\u2019s amusements, than the tyrants of their\nconsciences, their property, and their persons.\n\nThe Grecian sculptures give proof that the superstition to which they\nbelonged, however false or absurd it might be, was open to all the\nameliorations and embellishments of a highly refined literature. In\ncontrast with these are the sacred sculptures of India, which disgust\nus as undisguised and significant representatives of the horrid vices\nenjoined and practised by the priests. But the lettered taste of the\nGreeks taught their artists to invest each attribute of evil with some\nform of beauty. The hideousness of the vindictive passions must be hid\nbeneath the character of tranquil power; and the loathsomeness of the\nsensual passions must be veiled by the perfect ideal of loveliness.\nArt, left to itself, does not adopt these corrections; nor do the\nauthors of superstitious systems ask for them. There must be poetry,\nthere must be philosophy at hand, to whisper cautions to the wantonness\nof art, and to confine its exuberances within the limits of propriety.\n\nWhen the remains of ancient structures are examined for the purpose of\ncollecting thence historical information, they must be viewed under\nthree distinct aspects; namely--the resources that were required for\ntheir construction--the purposes to which they were devoted, and the\ntaste which they display. A few instances will show the nature, and\nthe extent of the inferences that may fairly be drawn from such an\nexamination.\n\nThe remains of Egyptian architecture have long outlasted the fame of\nthe men whose names they were charged to transmit to distant times. Or\nif some few names have been handed down by historians, or have been\ndrawn from their hieroglyphical concealments by the genius of modern\nresearch, the whole amount of such discoveries may be comprised in a\nfew lines, and it falls very far short of conveying anything like a\nhistory of the people. But some general facts relative to the wealth,\nthe commerce, the industry, the institutions, the manners, and the\nsuperstitions of the Egyptians, have been reported by historians; and\nthe descriptions of that country and of its people, given by Herodotus,\nStrabo, Diodorus, and Plutarch, confirmed as they are by incidental\nallusions in other writers, and especially by a few significant\nexpressions occurring in the Jewish Scriptures, afford a tolerably\ncomplete idea of this, the most extraordinary of all nations--ancient\nor modern. Now this testimony of the historians is corroborated, with\na peculiar distinctness, by those ruins which still lead hosts of\ntravellers to the banks of the Nile.\n\nThese stupendous remains attest, in the first place, the unbounded\nwealth that is affirmed by historians to have been at the command of\nthe Egyptian monarchs;--a wealth derived chiefly from the extraordinary\nfertility of the country, which, like the plains of Babylon, yielded\na three hundred-fold return of grain. And as the revenues of a vast\nempire were added to the home resources of the Babylonian monarchs,\nso the products of a widely extended commerce came in to augment the\ntreasures of the Egyptian kings. The mouths of the Nile were the\ncentres of trade between the eastern and the western worlds; and that\nriver, after depositing a teeming mud in one year, bore upon its bosom\nin the next, the harvest it had given, for the feeding of distant and\nless fertile regions. Nor was the industry of the people--numerous\nbeyond example, wanting to improve every advantage of nature. But\nfor whom was this unbounded wealth amassed, or under whose control\nwas it expended? The testimony of historians coincides with that\nof the existing ruins in declaring that a despotism--political and\nreligious--of unexampled perfection, and very unlike anything that has\nsince been seen, disposed of the vast surplus products of agriculture\nand of commerce for the purposes of a gigantic egotism.\n\nBy what forms of exaction or of monopoly the Egyptian kings held\nat their command the property and the services of the people,\ncannot be certainly determined; but it seems as if one only centre\nof real possession was acknowledged, and that habits of thinking\nand acting--bound down to unalterable modes, by a thousand threads\nof superstitious observance, favoured the tranquil transfer of all\nrights to the head of the state. With such resources therefore at his\ndisposal, and with a people much better fitted by their temperament and\nhabits for labour than for war--the inhabitants of fertile plains have\never been less warlike than those of mountainous regions--the master\nof Egypt might find it easy to expend his means in realizing monstrous\narchitectural conceptions.\n\nThat degree of scientific skill in masonry which belongs to a middle\nstage of civilization, in which the human faculties are but partially\ndeveloped, is what the accounts of historians would lead us to\nexpect; and it is just what these remains actually display. There is\nscience--but there is much more of cost and of labour than of science.\nThe works undertaken by the Egyptian builders were such as a calculable\nwaste of human life would be certain to complete; but they were not\nsuch as involve a mastery of practical difficulties by means which\nmathematical genius must devise.\n\nThe Egyptian builders could rear pyramids, or excavate catacombs, or\nhew temples from out of solid rocks of granite; but they attempted no\nworks like those that were executed by the artists of the middle ages.\nFor to poise so high in air the fretted roof and slender spire of a\nGothic Minster required a cost of mind greater far than appears to have\nbeen at the command of the Egyptian kings.\n\nThe purposes to which the structures of Egypt apparently were devoted,\nagree also with the accounts of historians. The established despotism\nwas indeed such as to permit capricious sovereigns to indulge their\npersonal vanity without restraint; nevertheless, better and more wise\nmaxims of government were acknowledged, and often followed; and so\nit is that the traces of public works of vast extent, and of great\nutility, everywhere attest the intelligence and the good dispositions\nof some of the Egyptian kings. Canals, piers, reservoirs, aqueducts,\nare not less abundant than temples and pyramids. Indeed, the temples\nof Egypt must not be placed altogether to the account either of the\nvanity of kings, or of the pride of priests; for as the Roman emperors\nexpended a portion of the tribute of the world in the erection of\ntheatres for the gratification of favoured provinces, so the Egyptian\nkings, for the pleasure of their subjects, reared, in all parts of\nthe land, those sacred menageries of worshipful bulls, crocodiles,\ncows, apes, cats, dogs, onions, and other--the like august symbols of\nthe common religion. It is recorded that the two kings whose names\nwere held in execration by posterity on account of the cruel labours\nthey exacted from their people, were not builders of temples--but of\npyramids.\n\nA mound of earth, one foot in height, satisfies that feeling of our\nnature which impels us to preserve from disturbance the recent remains\nof the dead; but a pyramid five hundred feet in height was not too tall\na tomb for an Egyptian king! The varnished doll, hideous to look at,\ninto which the art of the apothecary had converted the carcase of the\ndeceased monarch, must needs rest in the deep bowels of a mountain of\nhewn stone! More complete proof of the utter subjugation of the popular\nwill in ancient Egypt cannot be imagined than what is afforded by the\nfact, that so much masonry should have been piled, for such a purpose,\nalmost to the clouds. The pyramids could never touch the general\nenthusiasm of the people, they could only gratify the crazy vanity of\nthe man at whose command they were reared. These tapering quadrangles,\nas they were the product, so they may be viewed as the proper images\nof a pure despotism; vast in the surface it covers, and the materials\nit combines, the prodigious mass serves only to give towering altitude\nto--a point.\n\nA literature like that of Greece would have protected the Egyptians\nfrom the toils of building pyramids:--for, had they possessed poets\nlike Homer, historians like Thucydides, and philosophers like\nAristotle, their kings would neither have dared, nor indeed have\nwished, to attach their fame to bulks of stone, displaying no trace\nof genius, either in the design, or the execution. The Egyptian kings\nconsigned their names to the custody of pyramids, which have long since\nbetrayed the trust.--The Greeks committed the renown of their chiefs to\nthe frail papyrus of the Nile, and the record has shown itself to be\nimperishable.\n\nThe accordance of the taste displayed in the forms and embellishments\nof the Egyptian temples, with the temperament and the institutions\nof the people, as described by historians, deserves to be noticed;\nthough, of course, no very positive conclusions ought to be drawn\nfrom facts of this class. It is the province of art, whatever may be\nthe material upon which it works, to combine, in various proportions,\nthe two elements of effect--sameness and difference--uniformity\nand variety--harmony and opposition. A work of art in which these\nprinciples should be wholly disjoined, or which should exhibit only\none of them--if that were possible--might amaze the spectator, but\ncould never produce pleasure. To combine them in exact accordance\nwith the intended effect of the work, is the perfection of art. If\nthe impression to be produced inclines to the side of grandeur and\nsublimity, the principle of sameness or uniformity must predominate;\nand every variety that is admitted in the embellishments must be\nquelled by constant repetitions in the same form. But if the sentiment\nto be awakened is that of pleasure--gaiety, and voluptuousness, the\nsecond principle, or that of difference, variety, and opposition, must\ntriumph over the first. Now a uniform preference of one of these styles\nin works of art, must be held to characterise the prevailing temper of\nthe people whom they are intended to please.\n\nBut now the Egyptian architecture is distinguished, perhaps beyond that\nof any other people, by its subjection to the law of uniformity, and\nby the apparent aim of the artist to vanquish the imagination of the\nspectator by an aspect of sublimity; to kindle the sentiment of awe\nwas the intention; and bulk and sameness were the means.\n\nThis character of Egyptian art, which prevails almost without exception\namong the existing remains of the more ancient structures, comports\nwell with the idea of the subjugation of the people beneath a system\nof stern religious and civil despotism. And yet further, it has a\nremarkable significance when considered in its relation to the nature\nof the worship to which these temples were devoted. While we gaze with\namazement and awe at the massy buttresses of these structures--at their\ntowering obelisks--at their long ranges of columns, formed as if to\nsupport the weight of mountains, and at the colossal guards of the\nportico, we have to recollect that these temples were the consecrated\npalaces of crocodiles, of cows, of ichneumons, of dogs, cats, or apes.\nIt seems as if, for the very purpose of effecting the most complete\ndegradation of the popular mind, the national superstition had been\nframed from the vilest materials it was possible to find; while,\nto enhance and secure its influence, a nobly-imagined art combined\nevery element of awful grandeur. The imagination was first seduced by\na show of sublimity, in order that the moral sense might, the more\neffectually, be, in the end, trodden in the dust.\n\nThe mathematical ornaments, and the vegetable imitations of the\nEgyptian architecture might be noticed, which, besides being admirably\nimagined and executed, are in perfect harmony with the general taste of\nthe buildings, and thus consist with what we suppose to have been its\nmain intention. But the character of the human figures attached to many\nof the temples, demands attention.\n\nNot a few of these figures exhibit the highest degree of\nexcellence--within certain bounds; these bounds are--a strict adherence\nto the national contour and costume (neither of which could have been\npreferred by artists who had seen the people of Europe and Asia) and a\nrigid observance of architectural directness of position. In a very few\nexamples the artists so far transgressed the rules thus imposed upon\nthem, as to prove that they had the command of attitudes more varied\nthan those which ordinarily they exhibited; indeed, it is contrary to\nall analogy to suppose, that so much executive talent should exist\nalong with an incapacity to give more life and variety to the figure.\nThe Chinese, who as artists are vastly inferior to the ancient Egyptian\nsculptors, ordinarily pass far beyond them as to the range of action\nand position which they give to their human figures. Even if a taste\nso rigid had belonged to the first stage of art, it must--unless\notherwise restricted, have admitted amelioration in the course of time.\nThe artists of a second age would no doubt have sought reputation by\nventuring beyond the limits within which their predecessors had been\nconfined.\n\nIt seems then hardly possible to find a reason for that frozen\nuniformity which is exhibited in the Egyptian sculptures, unless we\nsuppose that art--like everything else, was the slave of an omnipresent\ndespotism. The human forms which support the porticos or roofs, stand\nand look as if they knew themselves to be in the presence of Superior\nPower, Freedom of position, or an attitude of force, or of agility, or\neven of inattentive repose, or any indication of individual will, would\nhave broken in upon the idea of universal subjection. The master of\nEgypt must look upon no forms that do not speak submission.\n\nAnd yet there is an air of serenity (though it be not such as springs\nfrom the consciousness of personal dignity) tending towards gaiety, in\nmost of these sculptures: the look indeed is altogether servile; yet\nit is unrepining, and it seems to express entire acquiescence in that\nimmutable order of things which transferred the rights of all to one.\n\nThat such a condition of the social system as this actually existed in\nthe times when the Egyptian temples were reared, must not be positively\naffirmed, merely on the grounds above mentioned; but if, amidst the\nill-founded encomiums bestowed upon the Egyptian institutions by\nancient historians, there may clearly be traced the indications of a\nstate of unexampled subjection to fixed modes of action in the social,\nthe religious, and the political systems of the people, the existing\nmonuments of their architecture and sculpture are to be acknowledged\nas according well with these indications. Yet if this accordance were\nthought to be fanciful, let it be attempted to associate our notions\nof the Grecian people, and their institutions, with the Egyptian\narchitecture and sculpture.--It would be impossible to combine ideas so\nincongruous.\n\nThe Grecian architecture, although its elements were evidently derived\nfrom that of Egypt, is contrasted with it in almost every point. The\npeople to whom these comparatively diminutive, and yet faultless\nstructures belonged, manifestly, were not masters of boundless national\nwealth; but their intelligence so much exceeded their resources that\nthey at once reached the highest point of art, which is to induce upon\nits materials a new value--a value so great, that the mere cost of the\nwork is forgotten. In surveying the Egyptian temples we wonder at the\nwealth that could suffice to pay for them; in viewing those of Greece\nwe only admire the genius of the architect who imagined them, and the\ntaste of the people who admired them.\n\nThe plains of Greece are burdened by no huge monuments, the only\nintention of which is to crush the common feelings of a nation beneath\nthe weight of one man\u2019s vanity; but its surface was thick set with\ntemples which were the property of all--temples, free from gloom, and\nunstained with cruel rites.\n\nA more striking point of contrast cannot be selected than that\npresented by a comparison of the human figures (above-mentioned) that\nare attached to the Egyptian temples, with those that decorate the\nGrecian architecture. The Grecian caryatides assume the attitude of as\nmuch liberty, ease, and variety of position as may comport with the\nburdensome duty of supporting the pediment: they give their heads to\nthe mass of masonry above them--not with the passiveness of slaves,\nbut as if with the alacrity of free persons. The Egyptian figures\nstand like the personifications of unchanging duration; but as to the\nGrecian caryatides, one might think that they had but just stepped up\nfrom the merry crowd, and were themselves the pleased spectators of the\nfestivities that are passing before them.\n\nThe Roman architecture, as compared with that of India or of China,\nis only so far less barbarous, as it is more Grecian. In the arts the\nRomans were imitators, and they are hardly ever to be admired when they\nwandered from their pattern. Those structures in which they might best\nclaim the praise of originality--namely--their vast amphitheatres, are\nrather monuments of wealth, luxury, and native ferocity of character,\nthan of taste or intelligence.\n\nThe structures which shed the greatest lustre upon the Roman name, are\nthose public works--roads, bridges, and aqueducts, which, in almost\nevery country of Europe, mark the presence of their legions; and these\nattest that vigour of character--that unconquerable perseverance--that\nregard to utility, and especially, that steady pursuit of universal\nempire, which history declares to have characterised the Roman people\nand government.\n\nThe student of history, although he may not have access to museums,\nand although costly antiquarian publications should never come into\nhis possession, may find, even in his seclusion, some visible and\npalpable proofs of the authenticity of the Roman historians; for the\ncircuit of a few miles in many districts of the British Islands, will\noffer illustrations of the narratives of C\u00e6sar, of Tacitus, and of\nSuetonius. Though the occupation of Britain by the Romans was of\nshorter continuance than that of almost any other country--included\nwithin the empire, and though their possession of the island was\nalways partial and disturbed, they yet made themselves so much at\nhome with our ancestors as that our soil teems with the relics of\ntheir sojourn of three hundred years. Roman camps, roads, walls, and\nbaths;--mosaics, vases, weapons, utensils, and coins, are as abundant,\nalmost, in England as in Italy; and they are quite abundant enough to\nsubstantiate the proud glories that are claimed for the Roman arms by\ntheir historians.\n\nIf then there were room to entertain a doubt of the authenticity of the\nbody of ancient history--taken in the mass; or if the credibility of a\nsingle author comes to be questioned; or if a particular fact be opened\nto controversy, it is far from being the case that we are left to rely,\nalone, upon the validity of general arguments in proof of the apparent\ncompetency, veracity, and impartiality of the ancient historians; on\nthe contrary, we may, in almost all cases, appeal to unquestioned\nfacts, supporting the affirmative side of such questions. For instance,\nwe may compare the testimony of the historians themselves--one with\nanother; or with that of contemporary writers in other departments\nof literature, whose allusions to public events or persons are of an\nincidental kind; or we may compare the descriptions that are given by\nhistorians of natural objects, or of national peculiarities, with the\nsame objects or peculiarities--still existing; or, to take a method\nstill more precise, and still more palpably certain, we may read\nupon the face of marble, or brass, or gold, or silver, or precious\nstones--long buried in the earth, explicit records of the very events,\nor memorials of the very persons, mentioned by historians. Or we\nmay examine the remains of public works and buildings, described by\nhistorians, and find them accordant with their accounts of the power,\ntastes, and habits of the people that reared them.\n\nNotwithstanding all these means of proof, various as they are, there\nmay yet remain some points of history that are not satisfactorily\nattested, or that are liable to reasonable suspicion; yet as to the\ngreat mass of facts, these will be found to be so fully established as\nto render scepticism regarding them altogether absurd.\n\nBut now the proof which establishes the general authenticity of ancient\nhistorians, and which demonstrates that their writings are, in the\nmain, what they profess to be--that is--genuine narratives of events,\ncomposed and published in the age to which they are usually assigned,\ncarries with it, by implication, a proof of the genuineness of other\nremains of ancient literature. If, for example, we have under our\ntouch, palpable evidence that the works of Tacitus are genuine and\nauthentic, we can no longer deny that the raft on which ancient books\nfloated down through so many ages was substantially secure; and we may\nsafely conclude that whatever mists may seem to hang over some parts\nof the channel of transmission, the vessel and its cargo did actually\npass, undamaged, through the gloom of ages.\n\nThough this inference may be applicable to the remains of ancient\nliterature more in the mass, than in detail; it nevertheless possesses\na conclusive force when brought to bear upon vague and sweeping attacks\nupon the genuineness and integrity of ancient writings, as if they\nwere incapable of any certain proof. Those who profess to entertain\ndoubts of this sort, do not ordinarily apply themselves with care to\nthe examination of any one instance, nor attempt patiently to refute\nparticular proofs; but rather they fling about broad assertions,\ntending to destroy all confidence in the process and medium through\nwhich the records of antiquity have been conveyed to modern times.\nNow to such vague insinuations, a full and sufficient reply is given,\nwhen we adduce demonstrative proof of the authenticity of historical\nworks which could not have contained consistent and circumstantial\ntruth unless they had actually been written in the age to which they\nare attributed. If then _some_ books have descended--entire, through\neighteen or twenty centuries, others may have done so; and if so, then\nno objection can be maintained against ancient books, _\u00e0 priori_; nor\ncan any suspicion rest upon particular works--except such as may be\njustified by specific proofs of spuriousness.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\n GENERAL PRINCIPLES, APPLICABLE TO QUESTIONS OF THE GENUINENESS AND\n AUTHENTICITY OF ANCIENT RECORDS.\n\n\nCivilization has not ordinarily, if indeed it has ever done so, sprung\nup spontaneously in any land. A germ of the arts, and of literature,\ntransmitted from people to people, and passed down from age to age, has\ntaken root and become prolific, in a degree, proportioned generally to\nthe amount and variety of those elements of social and intellectual\nimprovement that may have been received from distant sources.\n\nThese germs of civilization may have been transported, and scattered\nby colonization, by trade, or by conquest; but they are never so fully\nexpanded as when they are cherished by an imported literature. It is\nnot by comparing themselves with themselves, that individuals, or that\nnations, become wise; and though there are fruits of genius which seem\nto owe nothing to extraneous sources, the general perfectionment of\nreason and of taste can be attained only by an extended knowledge of\nwhat has been thought and performed by men of other nations, and of\nother times.\n\nAmong all the inestimable advantages which have raised the inhabitants\nof England and of France and of Germany, above those of Turkey\nor of China, very few can be named that have not--directly or\nindirectly--sprung from a knowledge of the civilisation, the arts,\nand the literature of ancient nations. What is it that would be left\nto the people of Europe, if all this knowledge, and all its remote\nconsequences, could at once be subtracted from their religious, their\npolitical, and their intellectual condition? But it must be remembered\nthat it has chiefly been by _the transmission of books_, from age to\nage, that this yeast of civilisation is now possessed and enjoyed.\nIf those works which we believe to be genuine are not so in fact,\nwe may be said to hold all the blessings of social and intellectual\nadvancement by a forged title. For on such a supposition the first\nstock, or the rudiment of our advantages has sprung from a mass of\nfabrications. No one entertains such a supposition; and yet it must be\nadmitted if any _general_ objections are to be allowed to disparage the\nmode in which ancient literature has been transmitted to modern times.\n\nIf we except the almost forgotten enterprise of the Jesuit, Harduin,\nno such general objections are ever formally made, or insinuated,\nin relation to the remains of classic literature, and this for two\nreasons;--first, because an attempt to support a sceptical doctrine\nof this sort would be treated by the _learned_ with contempt, as\nproceeding from a whimsical love of paradox, or from an inane ambition\nto attract attention; and secondly, because the _unlearned_ could\nnever be induced to take so much interest in a controversy of this\nkind, as might reward the pains of those who attempted to delude them.\n\nBut it is otherwise in relation to the Holy Scriptures; for while\nsome few of the learned are, from sinister motives, willing to aid an\nattempt to bring the authority of these books into suspicion, there\nare always thousands of the community who may easily be engaged to\nlisten to objectors, and who, from their want of information, and\ntheir incapacity to reason correctly, are easily made the dupes of any\nplausible sophistry.\n\nNor is it merely the uneducated classes that are exposed to the\nartifices of sophists; for persons whose acquirements in general\nliterature are respectable, seem sometimes to be perplexed by\nobjections of a kind which, if levelled at the remains of classic\nauthors, they would deem undeserving of any serious regard.\n\nThis strange, and often fatal inconsistency, may sometimes arise from\nthe influence of moral causes, which it does not fall within the design\nof this volume to notice; but it is often attributable to a want of\nattention to some common principles of evidence which, though they are\nso obvious that it may seem almost frivolous to insist upon them, are\nnever respected by objectors, and are seldom remembered by the victims\nof sophistry. The most prominent of these principles may be classed\nunder the five following heads.\n\nI. Facts remote from our personal observation may be as certainly\nproved by evidence that is fallible _in its kind_, as by that which is\nnot open to the possibility of error.\n\nBy _certain_ proof is here meant, not merely such as may be presented\nto the senses, or such as cannot be rendered obscure, even for a\nmoment, by a perverse disputant;--but such as when once understood,\n_leaves no room for doubt in a sound mind_. And this degree of\ncertainty is every day obtained, in the common occasions of life, by\nmeans of evidence that is fallible in its nature, and which may be\nquestionable in all its parts, _separately_ considered. Let us take\nsuch an instance as this.--A person receives letters from several of\nhis friends in a neighbouring town, informing him that an extensive\nfire has happened the night before, in that place, in consequence\nof which many of the inhabitants have been driven from their\nhomes:--presently afterwards, a crowd of the sufferers, bringing with\nthem the few remains of their furniture, passes his door:--his friends\narrive among them, and ask shelter for their families;--the next day\nthe papers contain a full description of the calamity. Does this person\nentertain any doubt as to the alleged fact? He cannot do so; and yet\nhe admits that human testimony is fallacious:--he knows that men lie\nmuch oftener, than that towns are burned down:--perhaps there is not\none of all those who have reported the fact whose veracity ought to\nbe considered as absolutely unimpeachable;--some of them deserve\nno confidence:--and as for the public prints, they every day admit\nnarratives that are altogether unfounded.\n\nScepticism of this sort, on such an occasion, if it be supposable,\ncould only arise from a degree of mental perversity, not much differing\nfrom insanity. In other words, this amount of evidence is such as\nleaves absolutely no room for doubt in a sound mind; nevertheless, the\nmaterial of which it is composed--if we may so speak--is in itself\nfallible, and as to all the parts of it, if _separately taken_, they\nmight be rejected.\n\nOr we may take an example or two of another kind.--It has been long\naffirmed by voyagers, and on their authority it has been assumed as\ncertain by the compilers of geographical works, and by the framers of\ncharts, that, midway in the Pacific Ocean, there are several groups of\ninhabited islands. And the people of England, generally, think these\naffirmations as certain, as that two and two are four. And yet who does\nnot know that voyagers are too fond of bringing home tales, invented to\namuse the weariness of a long voyage, and published to win the wonder\nof the vulgar, or to turn a penny? Now it may be imagined that some\nquestion of national importance--some argument for the remission of\ntaxes--depended upon proving that such islands do not exist; and then\nlet it be supposed that certain interested disputants are permitted to\nwin the ear of the common people, and to keep it to themselves: in such\na case the proof of this fact--certain as it is, might easily be made\nto appear very questionable, or to be altogether unworthy of belief--in\na word, a trick of the Government, contrived to wring money from the\npeople!\n\nOr again:--It has been affirmed by historians that some two hundred\nyears ago the Parliament of England quarrelled with their king--levied\nwar against him--vanquished, and beheaded him, and set up a republican\nform of government, in the place of the monarchy. But in proof of\nfacts so improbable as these we have no better evidence than the\ntestimony of prejudiced political writers: the whole story rests on the\ncredit of old books or manuscripts; nor is there one of the writers\nwho have repeated the narrative that may not be convicted of some\nmisrepresentation; and some of them are plainly chargeable with many\ndirect and wilful untruths. Notwithstanding this array of objections,\nyet the principal events of the civil war are, in the estimation of all\npersons of sound mind, as certainly established as any mathematical\nproposition. The same may be said of innumerable facts--much more\nremote, or apparently obscure, than those above mentioned; and yet they\nare so proved, that they cannot be questioned without doing violence to\ncommon sense.\n\nThe difference between the proof obtained by mathematical\ndemonstration, and that which results from an accumulation of oral or\nwritten testimony, is not--that the latter must always, and _from its\nnature_, be less certain than the former; but that the certainty of\nthe former may be _exhibited_ more readily, and by a simpler and more\ncompact process, than that of the other. If it were denied that the\nthree angles of every triangle are equal to two right angles, an actual\nmeasurement of lines, or the placing of two pieces of card one over\nthe other, would end the dispute in a moment: or even if the problem\nwere of a more complicated kind, belonging to the higher branches of\nmathematical science, and therefore if it were such as could not be\nmade plain to an uninstructed person, by any means, or to any one by a\nvery brief process, yet whoever will choose to bestow time enough and\nis capable of giving attention enough to the demonstration, will not\nfail, at length, to be convinced of its truth; for all the parts of\nwhich it consists are certain, and their connexion, one with another,\nis also certain. But the certainty that is obtained from a mass of\ntestimony, oral or written, does not result from the solidity of the\nseparate parts, or the firmness of the cement which connects them; but\nfrom the irresistible pressure of the multifarious mass. The strength\nof mathematical demonstration is like that of a pier;--the strength of\naccumulated testimony is like that of the swelling ocean when its tides\nare mantling upon the shore.\n\nII. Facts, remote from our personal knowledge, are not necessarily more\nor less certain in proportion to the length of time that has elapsed\nsince they took place.\n\nAn illusion of the imagination, taking its rise, naturally, from the\nindistinctness of our individual recollections of infancy, and from\nthe entire obliteration of many of the records of memory, leads us,\ninvoluntarily, to attach an idea of obscurity, and of uncertainty, to\nwhatever is remote in time. And besides; if the knowledge of remote\nfacts has been imperfectly, or suspiciously, transmitted, and if there\nbe a want of direct evidence on any point of ancient history, then the\ndistance of time does really decrease the chances of collecting any\n_new_ evidence; and therefore such facts must always be shrouded in\nuncertainty.\n\nBut whatever has been well and sufficiently proved in one age, remains\nnot less certainly proved in the next, so long as all the evidences\ncontinue in the same state. Indeed--as we have before remarked,\nhistorical evidence often greatly increases in clearness and certainty\nby the lapse of time. If in the time of Leo X. it was certain that\nAugustus ruled the Roman world sixteen hundred years before that\nperiod, we have no need to deduct anything from our persuasion of the\ntruth of the fact, on account of the four centuries which have since\nelapsed. On the contrary, the proof of it has become much greater, both\nin its amount, and in its clearness, now, than it was then.\n\nThe proof of the genuineness of books, even if it should not gather\nparticles of evidence, yet remains, from age to age, unimpaired. Nor\nis the proof of the genuineness of modern works more satisfactory,\nalthough it may be more abundant, than that of ancient books. We could\nnot be persuaded that the Paradise Lost was written in the last century\nby some obscure scribbler; nor would it be a whit less absurd to\nsuppose that the \u00c6neid was composed in the tenth century, or the Iliad\nat any time subsequent to the invasion of Greece by Xerxes.\n\nThe degree of certainty that is attainable on any point of ancient\nhistory, or literature, is regulated--not by distance of time, but by\nthe state of the world at the period in question; especially by the\ncontraction, or the diffusion of general knowledge at that time. This\ncertainty therefore rises and falls--it becomes bright or obscure,\nalternately, from age to age, and it does so quite irrespectively of\ndistance of years. In sailing up the stream of time, mists and darkness\nrest upon the landscape at a comparatively early stage of our progress;\nbut as we ascend, light breaks upon the scene in the full splendour of\na noonday sun; scarcely an object rests in obscurity, and whatever is\nmost prominent and important, may be discerned in its minutest parts.\n\nIII. The validity of evidence in proof of remote facts is not affected,\neither for the better or the worse, by the weight of the consequences\nthat may happen to depend upon them.\n\nNo principle can be much more obviously true than this; and if the\nreader chooses to call it a truism, he is welcome to do so: and yet\nnone is more often disregarded. With the same sort of inconsistency\nwhich impels us to measure the punishment of an offence--not by its\nturpitude, but by the amount of injury it may have occasioned, we are\ninstinctively inclined to think the most slender evidence _good enough_\nin proof of a point which is of no importance; while we distrust the\nbest evidence as if it were feeble, on any occasion when the fact in\nquestion involves great and pressing interests. We are apt to think of\nevidence as if it were a cord or a wire, which, though it may sustain a\ncertain weight, must needs snap with a greater. And yet the slightest\nreflection will dissipate a prejudice that is so groundless and absurd.\n\nIt is very true that the degree of care, of diligence, and of\nattention, with which we examine evidence, may well be proportioned to\nthe importance of the consequences that are involved in the decision. A\njuryman ought indeed to give his utmost attention to testimony that may\nsentence a prisoner to a month\u2019s confinement; but if he be open to the\ncommon feelings of humanity, he will exercise a tenfold caution when\nlife or death is to be the issue of his verdict. This is very proper;\nbut no one who is capable of reasoning justly would think that, if the\nproof of guilt in the former case has been thoroughly examined, and is\nquite conclusive, it can become a jot less convincing, if it should be\nfound that some new interpretation of the law makes the offence capital.\n\nThe genuineness of the satires and epistles of Horace is allowed by\nall scholars to be unquestionable; and any one who has examined the\nevidence in this instance, must call him a mere sophist who should\nattempt to raise a controversy on the subject. Would the case be\notherwise than it is, even though the proof of the genuineness of these\nwritings should overthrow the British constitution; or should make it\nthe duty of every man to resign his property to his servant?\n\nThe evidence of the genuineness and authenticity of the Jewish and\nChristian Scriptures has, for no other reason than a thought of the\nconsequences that are involved in an admission of their truth, been\ntreated with an unwarrantable disregard of logical equity--and even of\nthe dictates of common sense. The poems of Anacreon, the tragedies of\nSophocles, the plays of Terence, the epistles of Pliny, are adjudged to\nbe safe from the imputation of spuriousness, or of material corruption;\nand yet evidence ten times greater as to its quantity, variety, and\nforce, supports the genuineness of the poems of Isaiah, and the\nepistles of Paul.\n\nThis violation of argumentative equity, in relation to the Scriptures,\nhas been favoured by the mere circumstance of their having to be\nso continually defended. It matters little how impudently false an\nimputation may be; the reply, though, in the most absolute sense,\nconclusive, is apt to beget almost as much suspicion as it dissipates.\nHerein consists the strength of infidel writings;--they call for a\ndefence of that which is attacked, and this defence seems to imply\nthat there is a question which may fairly be argued, and that it is in\nsome degree doubtful. Let the genuineness of the most indubitable of\nthe classics be boldly questioned in a popular style, and let it be\ndefended in a form level to the mode of attack--and level also to the\nignorance of the middle and lower orders, and the result would produce\nquite as many cases of doubt, as of conviction.\n\nWhat course ought to be pursued, or which alternative should be\nadopted, if a case should arise wherein evidence, intrinsically\ngood, seems to support a narrative that is palpably incredible,\nand contradictory to common sense, is a question that may well be\nleft undecided until such a case actually presents itself. No such\nincongruity weighs against our acceptance of the Jewish and Christian\nScriptures; for the miracles they report, wrought for purposes so wise\nand benign, accord with every notion we can antecedently form of the\nDivine character and government.\n\nIV. A calculation of actual instances, taken from almost any class of\nfacts, will prove that a mass of evidence which carries the convictions\nof sound minds, is incomparably more often true than false.\n\nEvidence may be spoken of as _good_ if it be such that, after an\nordinary amount of examination, it does not appear to be liable to\nsuspicion. However much of falsification and of error there may be in\nthe world, there is yet so great a predominance of truth, that any one\nwho believes indiscriminately will be in the right a thousand times\nto one, oftener, than any one who doubts indiscriminately. Habitual\nscepticism will render a man the victim of almost perpetual error.\nIndeed, either to believe by habit, or to doubt by habit, must be\nregarded as the symptom of a feeble or diseased mind. And yet the\nformer is vastly more congruous to the actual condition of mankind, and\nto the ordinary course of human affairs, and is more safe, and is more\nreasonable, than the latter.\n\nNo man, unless his mind is verging towards insanity, acts in the daily\noccasions of common life on the principles of scepticism; for with such\na rule of action in his head, he must retreat from human society, and\ntake up his abode in a cavern. Not only is the sceptic an anomalous\nbeing among his fellows, but his scepticism itself is an anomaly in his\nown ordinary conduct; it is an insanity on single points, which of all\nkinds is the least hopeful of cure.\n\nAdherence to truth is an element of human nature, just as is the love\nof kindred: and although the operation of both principles is liable\nto interruption, such deviations from the impulses of nature must\nalways be held to arise from the influence of some specific inducement.\nWilful, difficult, and hazardous falsifications, prompted by no\nassignable motive of interest or ambition, if indeed such are ever\nattempted, need not be included in a calculation of probabilities.\nIf, therefore, in listening to a professed narrative of facts, we\nhave reason to feel secure against the ordinary motives of deliberate\nfalsehood; and if, on the contrary, the veracity of the narrator is\nguaranteed by the circumstances in which he is placed; if, moreover,\nhis testimony is confirmed by a measure of independent evidence; and if\nit is uncontradicted by testimony of equal value; and if the whole case\nhas been again and again scrupulously examined by persons of every cast\nof mind--then, and in such a case, if indeed a remaining possibility of\ndelusion exists, it is so incalculably small, that to take it up _in\npreference_ to the positive evidence, must be accounted an infatuation\narising from folly or perversity.\n\nLet then the rule above mentioned be applied to the existing remains\nof ancient literature. Among the works that were brought to light and\nprinted in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, there were not a\nfew--though few in comparison with the whole--which were very soon\ndiscovered to be spurious productions--imitations of the style of\nancient authors. Although at first sight they seemed to possess a claim\nto genuineness, they were soon found to be destitute of that external\nevidence which may be collected from the quotations of subsequent\nwriters; or there was a manifest failure in the attempted imitation\nof style; or there were oversights, in phrases or allusions, such as\nserved fully to expose the deception. All these cases stand excluded,\ntherefore, from the intention of our proposition; for they do not\npossess evidence of authenticity that could be spoken of as _seemingly\ngood_.\n\nBesides works obviously spurious, there were a few of which the claim\nto genuineness was good enough to justify controversy, and which\nyet find a few advocates among scholars; although the majority of\ncritics has returned a verdict against them. Now these doubtful works,\ninasmuch as their genuineness is not generally acknowledged, may also\nbe excluded from our proposition; for the evidence in their favour can\nbarely be called--seemingly good.\n\nNow after exclusions of this kind have been made, no one acquainted\nwith the evidence that supports the genuineness of the unquestioned\nportion of ancient literature, and who has given attention to the\ncontroversies which have been carried on relative to doubtful works,\nand who is aware of the assiduity, the acuteness, the learning, the\neager pertinacity of research, that have been brought to bear upon\nsuch questions, will affirm that there are ancient works, generally\nsupposed by scholars to be genuine, which are in fact spurious. Every\none who is competent to form an opinion on the subject grants, that\neven if there be a chance that a few of the classic authors, the\ngenuineness of which has never been doubted, are after all spurious,\nsuch a chance is incalculably small--it is so small, as to leave\nnothing but paradoxes and absurdities in the hands of those who, on\nsuch ground, should attempt to bring them under suspicion.\n\nV. The strength of evidence is not proportioned to its simplicity, or\nto the ease with which it may be apprehended by all persons; on the\ncontrary, the most conclusive kind of proof is often that which is the\nmost intricate and complicated.\n\nIn the mathematical sciences there are many propositions, so simple and\nso readily demonstrated, that all to whom they are explained may be\nsupposed to carry away an equally clear apprehension of their truth;\nbut the higher departments of these sciences abound with theorems\nwhich, though not in any degree less certain than the simplest axioms,\nare shown to be true by means of a process which may require hours,\nor even days to work it out. Among those who actually attend to all\nthe parts of such a process, there will be wide differences in the\nkind and degree of conviction that is obtained of the truth of such\npropositions. Some, though they may firmly believe the demonstration\nto be perfect, as well because they have examined--one by one--the\nlinks of which it consists, as because they know it is assented to\nby calculators more competent than themselves, are yet unable, either\nfrom the want of habit, or of capacity, to _comprehend_ the method of\nproof; or to perceive distinctly the connexion of the parts, and the\nreal _oneness_ of the whole. They have walked in the dark over the\nground--groping their way from step to step;--they are satisfied that\nthey have arrived, by a right path, at a certain point, though they\ncannot survey the route.\n\nBut another calculator, long practised in the refined modes of abstract\nreasoning--expert in leaping with certainty over intervals which others\nmust slowly pace, and capable, by the vigour and comprehension of his\nmind, of retaining his hold of a multitude of particulars, sees the\ncertainty of such operose demonstrations with as much ease as another\nfinds in comprehending an elementary proposition. Yet the conclusion\nwhich perhaps not fifty men in Europe can, with full intelligence,\nknow to be true, is actually as true as the axiom which the schoolboy\ncomprehends at a glance.\n\nNow all evidence on questions of antiquity, whether the facts be\nhistorical or literary, thus far resembles an operose demonstration\nin mathematical science, that it is remote from the intellectual\nhabits, and extraneous to the usual acquirements, even of well-educated\npersons: very far remote, therefore, must it be from the mental range\nof the uninstructed classes. The strength of our convictions, as to\nmatters of fact, remote in time or place, must bear proportion to\nthe extent and the exactness of our knowledge, and to the consequent\nfulness and vividness of our conceptions of that class of objects\nto which the question relates. By long and intimate familiarity with\nancient authors, and by an extensive acquaintance with the relics of\nantiquity, of all kinds, the imagination of the scholar bears him back\nto distant ages, with a full and distinct consciousness of the reality\nof those scenes and persons. Nor is this ideal converse with remote\nobjects like that which is produced by fictitious narratives; for such\nexcursions of the fancy through unreal regions, are disconnected with\nthe rest of our ideas and convictions: on the contrary, the ideal\npresence of an accomplished mind in the scenes of ancient history is\nfirmly, and by innumerable ties, combined with the knowledge of present\nrealities. The imagination does not flit, on the wing of a fantasy,\nfrom the real, to an unreal world; but it tracks its way, with a steady\nstep, on solid ground, from times present, to times past; and the\nintelligent conviction of truth travels up to the farthest point of its\nprogress.\n\nTo those who are thus conversant with history, all facts or\nevents--literary or historical--if they be satisfactorily attested,\nare held in the mind with a firmness of persuasion which cannot, by\nany statements, or any reasonings, however conclusive or perspicuous,\nbe imparted to other minds; because, neither its own powers of\ncomprehension, nor its variety of knowledge, can be so imparted.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\n RELATIVE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE WHICH SUPPORTS THE GENUINENESS AND\n AUTHENTICITY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.\n\n\nSome copies of Quintilian\u2019s Institutions of Oratory, very much\ncorrupted and mutilated by the ignorance or presumption of copyists,\nwere known in Italy before the fifteenth century. But in 1414, while\nthe Council of Constance was sitting, Poggio, a learned Italian, was\ncommissioned by the promoters of learning to proceed to that place,\nin search of ancient manuscripts, which were believed to be preserved\nin the monasteries of the city and its vicinity. His researches were\nrewarded by discovering, in the monastery of St. Gall, beneath a heap\nof long-neglected lumber, a perfect copy of the Institutions.\n\nThe manuscript, thus discovered, was soon subjected to the examination\nof critics; it was collated with existing copies, it was compared with\nthe references of ancient authors, and thus was ascertained to be\ngenuine, and, in the main, uncorrupted. And yet the substance of the\nevidence on which this decision rests might be comprised in a page.\n\nThe abridged history of Rome, by Paterculus, has come down to our\ntimes only in a single manuscript, and that one is so much corrupted,\nthat critics have despaired of restoring the text to its purity. It\nhappens, also, that this history is quoted by one ancient author\nonly--Priscian, a grammarian of the sixth century. Yet, notwithstanding\nthis scantiness of the evidence, and this corruption of the single\nexisting copy, the genuineness of the work is fully admitted by\nscholars. The style, the allusions, the coincidences, are such as to\nsatisfy those who are competent to estimate the value of this sort of\nproof. But now if this proof were formally set before us, and even if\nit were as much expanded as it would bear, it must look exceedingly\nmeagre; and, to uninformed readers, it must appear slender as a thread,\nand insufficient to sustain any weighty consequence. But scholars,\nin reading the book, feel that sort of conviction of its genuineness\nwhich is experienced by a traveller, who has spent his life in passing\nfrom country to country, conversing with men of all nations: when this\ntravelled person meets foreigners in the streets of London, he does not\nneed to look at passports before he can know whether these strangers,\nwhom individually he has never before seen, are Swedes, or Hungarians,\nor Armenians, or Hindoos, or West Indians; the commonest observer\nscarcely hesitates on such occasions; but the old traveller feels a\nconviction which mocks at the demand for formal proof.\n\nAfter we have excepted a few doubtful cases, the genuineness of\nclassic authors is perceived by scholars, with a vividness and\ndistinctness that is not dependent upon the quantity of assignable\nevidence which must be adduced in reply to objectors. On this ground\nit may be affirmed, that, if only a single manuscript, containing\ncertain of St. Paul\u2019s Epistles, had been preserved, and even if no\nquotations from these writings were to be found, competent scholars\n(no practical consequences being implied in the question) would doubt\nthat these writings are in fact what they profess to be. Those minute\nand indescribable characters of genuineness which meet the instructed\neye in every line of these Epistles would be enough, apart from that\nargument which has been derived from the internal accordances of the\nhistory and the letters, as exhibited by Paley in the Hor\u00e6 Paulin\u00e6.\n\nBut although the external proof of the genuineness of ancient books\nmight, in a large proportion of instances, be dispensed with as\nsuperfluous, it ought not to be disregarded; especially as it is\nthe kind of evidence which may best be made intelligible to general\nreaders. Yet even this, when adduced in its particulars, is not often\nduly appreciated; nor is it likely to produce its due impression,\nunless it be viewed in its place among facts of the same class. We\npropose, therefore, without troubling the reader with details which are\nto be found, at large, in many well-known works, and which he may be\nsupposed to have in recollection--or within his reach--to direct him\nto a few principal points of the comparison which may be instituted\nbetween the classical and the sacred writings, in relation to the\nproof of the genuineness and authenticity of each kind.\n\nThe Jewish and Christian Scriptures may then be brought into comparison\nwith the works of the Greek and Roman authors, in the following\nparticulars:--\n\n1. The number of manuscripts which passed down through the middle ages,\nin the modes which have been described in the preceding chapters.\n\nAbout fifteen manuscripts of the history of Herodotus are known to\ncritics: and of these, several are not of higher antiquity than the\nmiddle of the fifteenth century. One copy, in the French king\u2019s\nlibrary (there are in that collection five or six), appears to belong\nto the twelfth century; there is one in the Vatican, and one in the\nFlorentine library, attributed to the tenth century: one in the library\nof Emmanuel College, Cambridge, formerly the property of Archbishop\nSancroft, which is believed to be very ancient: the libraries of Oxford\nand of Vienna contain also manuscripts of this author. This amount\nof copies may be taken as more than the average number of _ancient_\nmanuscripts of the classic authors; for although a few have many more,\nmany have fewer.\n\nTo mention any number as that of the existing _ancient_ manuscripts,\neither of the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures, would be difficult. It\nmay suffice to say that, on the revival of learning, copies of the\nScriptures, in whole or in part, were found wherever any books had been\npreserved. In examining the catalogues of conventual libraries--such\nas they were in the fifteenth century, the larger proportion is\nusually found to consist of the works of the fathers, or of the\necclesiastical writers of the middle ages; next in amount are the\nScriptures--sometimes entire; more often the Gospels, the Acts, the\nEpistles, or the Psalms, separately; and last and fewest are the\nclassics, of which, seldom more than three or four, are found in a list\nof one or two hundred volumes. The number of _ancient_ manuscripts\nof the Greek New Testament, or parts of it, which hitherto have been\nexamined by editors, is nearly five hundred.\n\nIf in the case of a classic author, twenty manuscripts, or even five,\nare deemed amply sufficient (and sometimes one, as we have seen, is\nrelied upon), it is evident that many hundreds are redundant for the\npurposes of argument. The importance of so great a number of copies\nconsists in the amplitude of the means which are thereby afforded of\nrestoring the text to its pristine purity; for the various readings\ncollected from so many sources, if they do not always place the true\nreading beyond doubt, afford an absolute security against extensive\ncorruptions.\n\n2. The high antiquity of some existing manuscripts.\n\nA Virgil (already mentioned) in the Vatican, claims an antiquity\nas high as the fourth century: there are a few similar instances;\nbut generally the existing copies of the classics are attributed to\nperiods between the tenth and fifteenth centuries. In this respect the\nScriptures are by no means inferior to the classics. There are extant\ncopies of the Pentateuch, which, on no slight grounds, are supposed\nto have been written in the second, or the third century: and there\nare copies of the Gospels belonging to the third, or the fourth, and\nseveral of the entire New Testament, which unquestionably were made\nbefore the eighth. But the actual age of existing manuscripts is a\nmatter of more curiosity than importance; since proof of another kind\ncarries us with certainty some way beyond the date of any existing\nparchments.\n\n3. The extent of surface over which copies were diffused, at an early\ndate.\n\nThe works of the most celebrated of the Greek authors always found a\nplace in the libraries of opulent persons, in all parts of Greece, and\nin many of the colonies, soon after their first publication; and a\ncentury or two later they were read, wherever the language was spoken.\nBut a contraction of this sphere of diffusion took place at the time\nwhen the eastern empire was being driven in upon its centre; and during\na long period these works were found only in the countries and islands\nwithin a short distance of Constantinople. As for the Latin classics,\nhow widely soever they might have been diffused during three or four\ncenturies, the incursions of the northern nations, and the consequent\ndecline of learning in the West, went near to produce their utter\nannihilation. Many of these authors were actually lost sight of during\nseveral centuries.\n\nIt is a matter of unquestioned history that the Jews, always carrying\nwith them their books, had spread themselves throughout most countries\nof Asia, of southern Europe, and of northern Africa, before the\ncommencement of the Christian era; nor is it less certain that,\nwherever Judaism existed, Christianity rapidly followed it. Carried\nforward by their own zeal, or driven on by persecutions, the Christian\nteachers of the first and second centuries passed beyond the limits of\nthe Roman empire, and founded churches among nations that were scarcely\nknown to the masters of the world. Nor were the Christian Scriptures\nmerely carried to great distances in different directions;--they were\nscattered through the mass of society, in every nation, to an extent\ngreatly exceeding the ordinary circulation of books in those ages:\nthese books were not in the hands of the opulent, and of the studious\nmerely; for they were possessed by innumerable individuals, who, with\nan ardour beyond the range of secular motives, valued, preserved,\nand reproduced them. And while many copies were hoarded and hidden\nby private persons, others were the property of societies, and, by\ncontinual repetition in public, the contents of them were imprinted on\nthe memories of their members.\n\nThe wide, and--if the expression may be used--the _deep_ circulation\nof the Scriptures, preserved them, not merely from extinction, but,\nto a great extent, from corruption also. These books were at no time\nincluded within the sphere of any one centre of power--civil or\necclesiastical. They were secreted, and they were expanded far beyond\nthe utmost reach of tyranny or of fraud.\n\n4. The importance attached to the books by their possessors.\n\nIn a certain sense, the religion of the Greeks and Romans was embodied\nin the works of their poets; but the religious fervour of the people\nhad never linked itself with those works, as if they were the\ndepositories of their faith: books were the possession of the opulent\nand the educated classes;--they were prized by the few as the means of\nintellectual enjoyment. But Judaism first, and Christianity not less,\nwere religions of historical fact: the doctrines and the laws of these\nreligions were inferences, arising naturally from the belief of certain\nmemorable events, and from the expectation of other events, that were\nyet to take place; the record of the past had become at once the rule\nof duty, and the charter of hope. To the dispersed and hated Jew his\nbooks were the solace of his wounded national pride: to the persecuted\nChristian his books were his title to \u201ca better country,\u201d and his\nsupport under present privations and sufferings. If the canonical\nbooks are valued by the Christian of modern times who believes them\nto be divine, they were valued with a far deeper sense by the early\nChristians, who, on the ground of undoubted miracles, received them as\nthe word of Him who is omnipotent.\n\nThe veneration felt by the Jews for their sacred books was of a kind\nthat is altogether without parallel: the reverence of the Christians\nfor theirs, if it was not more profound, was much more impassioned, and\nthis feeling gave intensity to a sentiment wholly unlike any with which\none might seek to compare it: the fondness of a learned Greek or Roman\nfor his books, was but in comparison as the delight of a child with his\ntoys.\n\nTo this deep feeling towards the sacred writings, in the minds of\nChristians, was owing, not only the concealment and the preservation of\ncopies in times of active persecution; but the assiduous reproduction\nof them by persons of all ranks who found leisure to occupy themselves\nin a work which they deemed to be so meritorious, and which they found\nto be so consoling.\n\n5. The respect paid to them by copyists of later ages.\n\nWe have seen that, throughout the middle ages, though nothing like\na widely diffused taste for the classic authors existed, yet at all\ntimes, there were, here and there, individuals by whom they were read\nand valued, and by whose agency and influence so much care was bestowed\nupon their preservation as served to insure a safe transmission of them\nto modern times. But that the Latin authors, at any time after the\ndecline of the western empire, received the benefit of a careful and\ncompetent collation of copies there is little reason to believe. Of\nthe Greek authors there were issued new _recensions_ from Alexandria,\nwhile that city continued to be the seat of learning; and some measure\nof the same care was exercised by the scholars of Constantinople; yet\neven there the celebrated works of antiquity suffered a great degree of\nneglect during the last four centuries of the eastern empire.\n\nBut in this respect, as well as in those already mentioned, the text\nof the Scriptures--Jewish and Christian--possesses an incomparable\nadvantage over that of the classic authors. The scrupulosity and the\nservile minuteness of the Jewish copyists in transcribing the Hebrew\nScriptures are well known; in a literal sense of the phrase, \u201cnot a\ntittle of the law\u201d was slighted: not only--as with the Greeks--was the\nnumber of _verses_ in each book noted, but the number of words and of\nletters; and the central letter of each book being distinguished, it\nbecame, as a point of calculation, the key-stone of that portion of\nthe volume. This unexampled exactness affords security enough for the\nsafe transmission of the text; and if there were any grounds for the\nsuspicion that the Rabbis, to weaken the evidence adduced against them\nby the Christians, wilfully corrupted some particular passages, we have\nother security, as we shall see, against the consequences of such an\nattempt.\n\nThe flame of true piety was, at no time, extinguished in the Christian\ncommunity; nor can any century or half century of the middle ages\nbe named, in relation to which it may not be proved that there\nwere individuals by whom the books of the New Testament were known\nand regarded with a heartfelt reverence and affection. There were,\nbesides, multitudes in the religious houses who, influenced perhaps\nby superstitious notions, thought it a work of superlative merit to\nexecute a fair copy of the Scriptures, or any part of them; and all\nthe adornments which the arts of the times afforded, were lavished to\nexpress the veneration of the scribe for the subject of his labours.\n\nAnd more than this;--the Scriptures, especially in the first eight\ncenturies, underwent several careful and skilful revisions in the hands\nof learned and able men, who, collating all the copies they could\nprocure, restored the text wherever, as they thought, errors had been\nadmitted. The prodigious labours of Origen in restoring the text of\nthe Septuagint version have been often spoken of. The fathers of the\nWestern, the African, and the Asiatic Churches--especially Jerome,\nEusebius, and Augustine, with such means as they severally possessed,\ndid what they could to stop the progress of accidental corruption in\nthe sacred text, by instituting new comparisons of existing copies.\n\n6. The wide local separation, or the open hostility of those in whose\ncustody these books were preserved.\n\nThis is a circumstance of the utmost significance, and if it be not\n_peculiar_ to the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, yet it belongs to\nthem in a degree which places their uncorrupted preservation on a basis\nimmeasurably more extended and substantial than that of any other\nancient writings. The Latin authors were scantily dispersed over the\nRoman world, and never were they in the keeping of distant nations, or\nhostile parties. The Greek classics had indeed, to some extent, come\ninto the hands of the western nations, as well as of the Greeks, in\nearlier times, and during the middle ages. And, if any weight can be\nattached to the fact, some of these works were also in the keeping of\nthe Arabians: but they were never the subject of mutual appeal by rival\ncommunities.\n\nThe Hebrew nation has, almost throughout the entire period of its\nhistory, been divided, both by local separation, and by schisms.\nProbably the Israelites of India, and certainly the Samaritans,\nhave been the keepers of the books of Moses--_apart from the Jews_,\nduring a period that reaches beyond the date of authentic profane\nhistory. Throughout times somewhat less remote the Jews have not only\nbeen separated by distance, but divided by at least one complete\nschism--that on the subject of the Rabbinical traditions, which has\ndistinguished the sect of the Karaites from the mass of the nation.\n\nThe reproach of the Christian Church--its sects and divisions--has\nbeen, in part at least, redeemed by the security thence arising, for\nthe uncorrupted transmission of its records. Almost the earliest of the\nChristian apologists avail themselves of this argument in proof of the\nintegrity of the sacred text. Augustine especially urged it against\nthose who endeavoured to impeach its authority: nor was there ever a\ntime when an attempt, on any extensive scale--even if otherwise it\nmight have been practicable--to alter the text would not have raised\nan outcry in some quarter. From the earliest times the common Rule\nof Faith was held up for the purposes of defence or of aggression by\nthe Church, and by some dissentient party. Afterwards the partition\nof the Christian community into two hostile bodies, of which Rome and\nConstantinople were the heads, afforded security against any general\nconsent to effect alterations of the text. And in still later ages a\nfew uncorrupted communities, existing within the bounds of the Romish\nChurch, became the guardians of the sacred volume.\n\n7. The visible effects of these books from age to age.\n\nOn this point also the history of the Greek and Latin classics affords\nonly the faintest semblance of that evidence by means of which the\nexistence and influence of the Scriptures may be traced from the\nearliest times after their publication, through all successive ages.\nThe Greek and Latin authors indicated their continued existence\nscarcely at all beyond the walls of schools and halls of learning.\nDuring a full thousand years the world saw them not--governments\ndid not embody them in their laws or institutions;--the people had\nno consciousness of them. They were less known, and less thought of\nabroad, than were the ashes of the dead--than the bones, teeth, blood,\ntears, and tatters of the Greek and Romish martyrs.\n\nHow different are the facts that present themselves on the side of\nthe Jewish and Christian Scriptures! The Jews--in the sight of all\nnations--have, through a well-known and uncontested period of two\nthousand five hundred years, exhibited a living model of the venerable\nvolume which was so long ago delivered to them, and which still they\nfondly cherish. And though long since debarred from the enjoyment of\nall that was splendid or cheering in their institutions, and though\nrent away from their land as well as their worship, and though too\noften blind to the moral grandeur of their law, and mistaken in\nthe meaning of their prophets, they hold unbroken the shell of the\nreligious system which is described in their books. Whatever in\ntheir religion was of less value--whatever served only to cover and\nprotect the vital parts--whatever was the most peculiar, and the\nleast important, whatever might have been laid aside without damage\nor essential change, has been retained by these wanderers; while that\nwhich was precious--the sacred books excepted--has been lost.\n\nThe Christian Scriptures have marked their path through the field\nof time, not in the regions of religion only, or of learning, or\nof politics; but in the entire condition--moral, intellectual, and\npolitical--of the European nations. The history of no period since the\nfirst publication of these writings can be intelligible apart from the\nsupposition of their existence and diffusion. If we look back along\nthe eighteen centuries past, we watch the progress of an influence,\nsometimes indeed marking its presence in streams of blood--sometimes in\nfires, sometimes by the fall of idol temples, sometimes by the rearing\nof edifices decked with new symbols; nor can the distant and mighty\nmovement be explained otherwise than by knowing that the books we now\nhold and venerate were then achieving the overthrow of the old and\nobstinate evils of idolatry. It is needless to say that the history\nof Europe in all subsequent periods has implied, by a thousand forms\nof false profession, and by the constancy of the few, the continued\nexistence of the Christian Scriptures.\n\n8. The body of references and quotations.\n\nThe successive references of the Greek authors, one to another,\nthough they are amply sufficient, in most instances, to establish\nthe antiquity of the works quoted, furnish a very imperfect aid in\nascertaining the purity of the existing text, or in amending it where\napparently it is faulty. A large number of these references are merely\nallusive, consisting only of the mention of an author\u2019s name, with\nsome vague citation of his meaning. And even in those authors who make\ncopious and verbal quotations, such as Strabo, Plutarch, Hesychius,\nAulus Gellius, Stob\u00e6us, Marcellinus, Photius, Suidas, and Eustathius,\na lax method of quotation, in many instances, robs such quotations of\nmuch of their value for purposes of criticism. And yet, after every\ndeduction of this kind has been made, the reader of the classics feels\nan irresistible conviction that this network of mutual or successive\nreferences could not have resulted from machination, contrivance, or\nfrom anything but reality; it affords a proof, never to be refuted, of\nthe genuineness of the great mass of ancient literature.\n\nBut as to the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, this kind of evidence,\nreaching far beyond the mere proof of antiquity and genuineness, is\nample and precise enough to establish the integrity of nearly the\n_entire text_ of the books in question. These writings were not simply\nsucceeded by a literature of a similar cast; but they actually created\na vast body of literature altogether devoted to their elucidation; and\nthis elucidation took every imaginable form of occasional comment upon\nsingle passages--of argument upon certain topics, requiring numerous\nscattered quotations, and of complete annotation, in which nearly\nthe whole of the original author is repeated. From the Rabbinical\nparaphrases, and from the works of the Christian writers of the first\nseven centuries (to come later is unnecessary) the whole text of\nthe Scriptures might have been recovered if the originals had since\nperished.\n\nIf any one is so uninformed as to suppose that this kind of evidence\nis open to uncertainty, or that it admits of refutation, let him, if\nhe has access to an ordinary English library, open the volumes of\nwriters of all classes since the days of Elizabeth, and see how many\nallusions to Shakespeare, and how many verbal quotations from his\nplays, and how many commentaries upon portions, or upon the whole of\nthem he can find; and then let him ask himself if there remains the\npossibility of doubting that these dramas--such in the main as they now\nare, were in existence at the accession of James I. If these quotations\nand allusions were not more than a fifth or a tenth part of what they\nactually are, the proof would not, in fact, be less conclusive than it\nis.\n\n9. Early versions.\n\nFor the purpose of establishing the antiquity, genuineness, and\nintegrity of the Scriptures, no other proof need be adduced than that\nwhich is afforded by the ancient versions now extant. When accordant\ntranslations of the same writings, in several unconnected languages,\nand in languages which have long ceased to be vernacular, are in\nexistence, every other kind of evidence may be regarded as superfluous.\n\nIn this respect a comparison between the classic authors and the\nScriptures can barely be instituted; for scarcely anything that\ndeserves to be called a translation of those writers--executed at a\nvery early period after their first publication, is extant. But, on\nthe other side, the high importance attached by the Jews to the Old\nTestament, and by the early Christians to the New, and the earnest\ndesire of the poor and unlearned to possess, in their own tongue, the\nwords of eternal life, suggested the idea, and introduced the practice,\nof making complete and faithful translations of both.\n\nThus it is that, independently of the original text, the Old Testament\nexists in the Chaldee paraphrases or Targums; in the Septuagint, or\nGreek version; in the translations of Aquila, of Symmachus, and of\nTheodosian; in the Syriac and the Latin, or Vulgate versions; in the\nArabic, and in the Ethiopic; not to mention others of later date.\n\nThe New Testament has been conveyed to modern times, in whole or in\npart, in the Peshito, or Syriac translation, in the Coptic, in several\nArabic versions, in the \u00c6thiopic, the Armenian, the Persian, the\nGothic, and in the old Latin versions.\n\n10. The vernacular extinction of the languages, or of the idioms, in\nwhich these books were written.\n\nTo write Attic Greek was the ambition and the affectation of the\nConstantinopolitan writers of the third and fourth centuries; and thus\nalso, to acquire a pure Latinity, was assiduously aimed at by writers\nof the middle ages; and, in fact, a few of them so far succeeded in\nthis sort of imitation that they executed some forgeries, on a small\nscale, which would hardly have been detected, if they had not wanted\nexternal proof.\n\nBut now the pure Hebrew--such as it had been spoken and written before\nthe Babylonish captivity, had so entirely ceased to be vernacular\nduring the removal of the Jews from their land, that immediately after\ntheir return the original Scriptures needed to be interpreted to the\npeople by their Rabbis; nor is there any evidence that the power of\nwriting the primitive language was affected by these Rabbis, whose\ncommentaries are composed in the dialect that was vernacular in their\ntimes.\n\nAs to the Hellenistic Greek of the New Testament, differing as it\ndoes, from the style of the classic authors, and even from that of the\nSeptuagint, to which it is the most nearly allied, it very soon passed\nout of use; for the later Christian writers, in the Greek language,\nhad, in most instances, formed their style before the time of their\nconversion; or at least they aimed at a style, widely differing from\nthat of the apostles and evangelists. The idiom of the New Testament,\nin which phrases or forms of speech borrowed from the surrounding\nlanguages occur, resulted from the very peculiar education and\ncircumstances of the writers, which were such as to make their dialect,\nin many particulars, unlike any other style; and such as could not fail\nsoon to become extinct.\n\n11. The means of comparison with spurious works; or with works intended\nto share the reputation that had been acquired by others.\n\nImitations--whether good or bad--are useful in serving to set originals\nin a more advantageous light. Good imitations, calling into activity,\nas they do, all the acumen and the utmost diligence of critics,\nenable them to place genuine writings out of the reach of suspicion.\nBad imitations, by serving as a foil or contrast, exhibit more\nsatisfactorily, the dignity, the consistency, and the simplicity of\nwhat is genuine.\n\nSeveral good imitations of the style of Cicero have appeared in\ndifferent ages, and they have called for so much acuteness on the\npart of critics as have materially strengthened the evidence of the\ngenuineness of his acknowledged works. In like manner the celebrated\nepistles of Phalaris excited a learned and active controversy, the\nbeneficial result of which was not so much the settling of the\nparticular question in debate, as the concentration of powerful\nand accomplished minds upon the general subject of the genuineness\nof ancient books, by means of which other questionable remains of\nantiquity received the implicit sanction of retaining their claims,\nafter they had been brought within the reach of so fiery an ordeal.\n\nMany bad imitations of classic authors have been offered to the world,\nand some such are still extant; and sometimes these are appended to\nthe author\u2019s genuine works. No one can read these spurious pieces\nimmediately after he has made himself familiar with such as are\ngenuine, without receiving, from the contrast, a forcible impression of\nthe truth and reality of the latter. The life of Homer, for example,\nwhich is usually appended to the history of Herodotus, and which\nclaims his name, and which has something of his manner, yet presents a\ncontrast which few readers can fail to observe.\n\nNo _good_ imitations, either of the Jewish or Christian Scriptures,\nhave ever appeared; but in the place of that elaborate investigation\nwhich the existence of such productions would have called forth, other\nmotives of the strongest kind have prompted a fuller and more laborious\nexamination of the Scriptures than any other writings have endured.\n\nBad imitations of the style of the Scriptures--some of the Old\nTestament, and many of the New--have been attempted, and are still\nin existence; and they are such as to afford the most striking\nillustration that can be imagined of the difference in simplicity,\ndignity, and consistency, which one should expect to find, severally,\nin the genuine and the spurious. The apocryphal books (which however\nare not, most of them, properly termed _spurious_) afford an\nadvantageous contrast in this way, to the genuine or canonical writings\nof the Old Testament; and as to the spurious gospels--passing under\nthe names of Peter, Judas, Nicodemus, Thomas, Barnabas--a very cursory\nexamination of them is enough to enhance, immeasurably, the confidence\nwe feel in the genuineness of the true Gospels and Epistles.\n\nThe preservation of these latter worthless productions to modern\ntimes, is an extraordinary fact, and it affords proof of a state of\nthings, the knowledge of which is important in questions of literary\nantiquity--namely, that there were many copyists in the middle\nages who wrote, and went on writing, mechanically, whatever came in\ntheir way, without exercising any discrimination. Now there is more\nsatisfaction in knowing that ancient books have come down through\na blind and unthinking medium of this sort, than there would be in\nbelieving that we possess only such things as the copyists, in the\nexercise of an assumed censorship, deemed worthy to be handed down to\nposterity. It is far better that we should--by accident and ignorance,\nhave lost some valuable works, and that, by the same means, some\nworthless ones have been preserved, than that the results of accident\nand ignorance should have been excluded by the constant exercise of a\npower of selection governed by, we know not what rule or influence.\nNothing more pernicious can be imagined than the existence, from age\nto age, of a synod of copyists sagely determining what works should be\nperpetuated, and what should be suffered to fall into oblivion. Happily\nfor literature and religion, there were, in the monasteries, numbers of\nunthinking labourers, who, in selecting the subject of their mindless\ntoils, seemed to have followed the easy rule of taking--the next book\non the shelf!\n\n12. The strength of the inference that may be drawn from the\ngenuineness of the books to the credibility of their contents.\n\nNothing can be more simple or certain than the inference derived from\nthe acknowledged antiquity and genuineness of an historical work, in\nproof of the general credibility of the narrative it contains. If it\nbe proved that Cicero\u2019s Orations against Catiline, and that Sallust\u2019s\nHistory of the Catiline War, were written by the persons whose names\nthey bear; or if it were only proved that these compositions were\nextant and well known as early as the age of Augustus; that they were\nthen universally attributed to those authors, and were universally\nadmitted to be authentic records of matters of fact; and if the same\nfacts are, with more or less explicitness, alluded to by the writers\nof the same, and of the following age, there remains no reasonable\nsupposition, except that of the truth of the story--in its principal\ncircumstances, by aid of which the existence and the acceptance of\nthese narratives, these orations, and these allusions, so near to the\ntime of the conspiracy, can be accounted for.\n\nIn Sallust\u2019s History some facts may be erroneously stated; or the\nprincipal facts may be represented under the colouring of prejudice.\nIn the Orations of Cicero there may be (or we might for argument sake\nsuppose there to be) exaggeration, and an undue severity of censure;\nbut after any such deductions have been made, or any others which\nreason will allow, it remains incontestably certain that, _if these\nwritings be genuine, the story, in the main, is true_. The sophisms of\na college of sceptics, in labouring to show the improbability of the\nfacts, or the suspiciousness of the evidence, would not avail to shake\nour belief if we are convinced that the books are not spurious.\n\nNor is this inference less direct, or less valid in the case above\nmentioned, than in any similar instance of more recent occurrence. It\nis as inevitable to believe that Catiline conspired against the Roman\nstate, and failed in the attempt, as that the descendants of James II.\nexcited rebellions in Scotland, or that a French General was for a\nshort time king of Naples. In the one case, as in the others, unless\nthe documents--all of them, have been forged, the facts must be true.\n\nThe principle upon which such an inference is founded, scarcely admits\nof an exception. Narratives of alleged, but unreal facts, may have been\nsuddenly promulgated, and for a moment credited; or false narratives of\nevents--concealed by place or circumstances from the public eye, may\nhave gained temporary credit. Or narratives, true in their outline, may\nhave been falsified in all those points concerning which the public\ncould not fairly judge; and thus the false, having been slipped in\nalong with the true, has passed, by oversight, upon the general faith.\nBut no such suppositions meet the case of various public transactions,\ntaking place through some length of time, and in different localities,\nand which were witnessed by persons of all classes, interests, and\ndispositions, and which were uncontradicted by any parties at the time,\nand which were particularly recorded, and incidentally alluded to, by\nseveral writers whose works were widely circulated--generally accepted,\nand unanswered, in the age when thousands of persons were competent to\njudge of their truth.\n\nNo one--to recur to the example mentioned above, is at liberty merely\nto say that he withholds his faith from Sallust, and from Cicero, as he\nmight, on many points, withhold it from Herodotus, from Diodorus, or\nfrom Plutarch. Yet even in that case, he ought to show cause of doubt,\nif he would not be charged with the frivolous affectation of possessing\nmore sagacity than his neighbours pretend to. But in the other case,\nwhile in professing to doubt the facts, he is not able to impugn the\nantiquity of the records, he only gives evidence of some want of\ncoherence in his modes of thinking. He who professes not to believe the\nnarrative, should be required to give an intelligible account of the\nexistence of the writings, on the supposition that the events never\ntook place.\n\nWhen historical facts which, in their nature, are fairly open to direct\nproof, are called in question, it is an irksome species of trifling\nto make a halt upon twenty indirect arguments, while the _centre\nproof_--that which a clear mind fastens upon intuitively, remains\nundisposed of. In an investigation that is purely historical, and which\nis as simple as any that the page of history presents, it boots nothing\nto say that the books of the New Testament contain doctrines which do\nnot accord with our notions of the great system of things; or that\nthey enjoin duties which are grievous and impracticable; or that they\nfavour despotism, or engender strifes. It avails nothing to say that\nsome professors of Christianity are hypocrites, and that therefore the\nreligion is not true. No objections of this sort weaken in any way that\nevidence upon which we believe that our island was once possessed by\nthe Romans. But yet they have as much weight in counterpoising _that_\nevidence, as they have in balancing the proof of the facts that are\naffirmed in the New Testament. If such objections were ten-fold more\nvalid than sophistry can make them, they would not remove, or alter,\nor impair, one grain of the proper proof, belonging to the historical\nproposition under inquiry.\n\nThe question is not whether we admire and approve of Christianity, or\nnot; or whether we wish to submit our conduct to its precepts, and to\nabide by the hope it offers; or intend to risk the hazards of it being\ntrue. The question is not whether, in our opinion, these books have\nbeen a blessing to the world, or the contrary; but simply this--whether\nthe religion was promulgated and its documents were extant, and were\nwell known throughout the Roman empire, in the reign of Nero.\n\nThere are evasions enough, by means of which we may remove from our\nview the inference which follows from an admission of the antiquity\nand genuineness of the Christian Scriptures. But contradiction may be\nchallenged when it is affirmed that, if the Gospels, the Acts of the\nApostles, the Epistles of Paul, of Peter, of John, and of James, were\nwritten in the age claimed for them, and were immediately diffused\nthroughout Palestine, Asia Minor, Africa, Greece, and Italy, then this\nfact carries with it inevitably the truth of the Christian system.\n\nRemote historical facts, though incapable of that kind of palpable\nproof which overrules contradiction, are yet open to a kind of proof\nwhich no one who really understands it can doubt. Just on this ground\nstand all the main facts of ancient history;--they are inevitably\nadmitted as true by all into whose minds the whole of the evidence\nenters; and they are believed or doubted, in every degree between blind\nfaith and blind scepticism, by those whose apprehension of the facts is\ndefective, or obscure, or perverted.\n\nWhen it is said that the events recorded in the four Gospels are\npresented to us in a form that has been purposely adapted to exercise\nour faith, it should be added, by way of illustrating the exact meaning\nof the words--that the events recorded by Thucydides and Tacitus are\nalso presented to us in a form that is adapted to exercise our faith.\nYet it would be more exactly proper to say--that this sort of evidence\nis adapted to give exercise to _reason_; for _faith_ has no part in\nthings which come within the known boundaries of the system in the\nmidst of which we are called to act our parts. And here it should\nbe understood that facts (intelligible in themselves) may, in the\nfullest sense, be supernatural, and yet when they are duly attested,\nin conformity with the ordinary principles of evidence, they as much\nbelong to the system with which we are every day concerned, as do the\nmost familiar transactions of common life.\n\nThe Scriptures do indeed make a demand upon our faith; but this is\nexclusively in relation to facts which belong to a world above and\nbeyond that with which we are conversant, and of which facts we could\nknow nothing by any ordinary means of information. Our assent to\nmiraculous events, when properly attested, is demanded on the ground of\ncommon sense: the facts themselves are as comprehensible as the most\nordinary occurrences; and the evidence upon which they are attested\nimplies nothing beyond the well-known principles of human nature. If\nthen we reject this evidence, we exhibit, not a want of faith, for\nthat is not called for; but a want of reason. To one who affected to\nquestion the received account of the death of Julius C\u00e6sar, we should\nnot say \u201cyou want faith,\u201d but \u201cyou want sense.\u201d It is the very nature\nof a miracle to appeal to the evidence of universal experience, in\norder that, _afterwards_, a demand may be made upon faith, in relation\nto extra-mundane facts.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nILLUSTRATIONS OF THE PRECEDING STATEMENTS:--A MORNING AT THE BRITISH\nMUSEUM.\n\n\nAnd now, at this stage of our progress, let the reader indulge the\nauthor to the extent of a page of metaphor or allegory.--Imagine then\nthat we are standing on the margin of a mighty river, the opposite\nshore of which is scarcely visible; and as to the origin of this world\nof waters, it is far remote and is unknown:--as to the ocean into which\nit shall at length empty itself and its treasures--this is distant\nalso, nor do we find it anywhere laid down in our maps. The flow of\nthis river is tranquil--its surface is glassy; but upon this surface\nthere float samples and fragments, innumerable, of the products of\neach of the countries which it has watered in its course:--here come\nrafts, laden with well-packed bales, and there, confusedly mingled, are\nthings more than can be counted--torn away--rent--shattered--coated\nwith rust--wrapped around with weeds. Moving onward, we see the symbols\nand the devices of nations long ago extinct, and the utensils of a\nforgotten civilisation, and the products of lands--thousands of miles\nup the stream; and these entangled with the symbols, the devices,\nthe rare and curious products, of some country next above us. On the\nbosom of this mighty river there float samples of all things, and these\ncommingled in all imaginable modes.\n\nThis is our day-dream:--now for the interpretation of it. We have\nimagined ourselves to be stationed in any one of the saloons of\nthe British Museum; or that we are passing up and down, from one\nof these halls to another: and at length are coming to a rest in\nthe centre of the New Reading-room. The countless collections of\nantiquities--marbles--coins--gems--utensils--weapons--costumes--the\nmanuscripts--the illuminations, and the printed books--what are all\nthese things, but so many relics of remote ages which, favoured by\nvarious chances, have floated down to this, our own era, upon the broad\nsurface of the River of Time?\n\nBut are these tens of thousands--these hundreds of thousands of\nindividual objects, are they so many disjointed and disconnected\nparticles?--this is far from being the fact. It is a very small number\nof things, in this vast collection, concerning which an instructed\nCurator would acknowledge his ignorance, as to what it is, and to what\nage it belongs, and of what country or people it is a relic. As to\na thousand to one of all the single contents of the British Museum,\neach of them links itself, either nearly, or remotely, with the nine\nhundred, ninety and nine, of its neighbours--right and left; or perhaps\nwith some articles that are exhibited in the opposite wing of the\nbuilding: as for instance--here is a coin, the legend upon which we\nshould have failed to read, or to understand, had it not been that\na Greek writer, of whose works a sole manuscript has come down to\nmodern times, incidentally mentions a fact concerning some obscure town\nof Asia Minor, and its history, under the Roman emperors, of which\notherwise we should have been ignorant.\n\nLet us avail ourselves of another supposition, remote as it may be\nfrom the fact; and it is this--That the author, and the reader, of\nthis book, whom we imagine to be now pacing together the saloons of\nthe Museum, are possessed of that universality of learning, and that\nvastness of antiquarian accomplishment, which enables the gentleman at\nthe centre table of the Reading-room to answer all inquirers, and to\naid and guide them all in carrying forward their various researches.\nIf, then, the author and the reader were gifted in any such manner\nas this, we might then, with a sort of second sight, or a veritable\n_clairvoyance_, look upon the countless stores around us as if they\nwere all falling into an appointed order, or were obeying some natural\nlaw of mutual attraction and cohesion: as thus--there goes an almost\nillegible manuscript, attaching itself to a colossal sculpture--much\nas feathers stick themselves on to an electric conductor:--there are\ncoins, arranging themselves spontaneously, like a crown of laurel\nleaves, around the brows of busts:--there are weapons and fragments of\narmour, edging themselves on to a copy of Polybius:--there are bits of\na pediment, or the chippings of a column, claiming a standing-place\nupon the Greek text of Procopius--and why? it is because these\nfragments belong to an edifice of the times of Justinian, which he\nhas described. And now, as to the printed books, and the manuscripts,\nwhence many of the printed books drew their existence, if we will give\nway to the ideal for a few moments, we shall see them floating out from\ntheir shelves, in this vast circus, and knowingly arranging themselves,\nin a sort of pyramidal form, as if to exhibit their real relationship\nof quotation, and of reference, in the order of time--the more recent\nto the more ancient--the many to the few;--until the pile--made up of\na million of books, is surmounted by the two or three that quote none\nolder than themselves, and that are quoted by all.\n\nWhat then is our inference? It is this: that as to the persons\nand the events--the doings and the notions--the thoughts and the\nways--the customs and the manners--the philosophy--the literature--the\nreligion--the politics--the civilisation, of the nations of all those\nages which are comprehended within the limits of what is called the\nhistoric period--these innumerable matters are assuredly, known to us,\nat this time;--and they have become known to us with this degree of\ncertainty (in the main) not by the precarious and insulated testimony\nof a few writers, whose works have reached modern times--we know not\nhow; but very much otherwise than thus; for it is by means of the\ninter-related, and the mutually attestative evidence of thousands of\nwitnesses--witnesses in stone and marble, in metallic substances, coins\nand brass plates, in membranous records, and in writings upon every\nother material, and in every imaginable fashion; and all these things\nare so netted together and so welded, and dove-tailed, and linked,\nand glued, and sealed, into a vast conglomerate, as that the combined\ntestimony thence accruing in support of our voluminous historic beliefs\nis not less solid than are the granitic ribs of a continent; and is as\nvarious, and as rich, as all the products of its surface--its faunas\nand its floras.\n\nSo much for a momentary glance at the treasures, the vast accumulations\nof the British Museum;--but now we might usefully take the SYNOPSIS in\nhand, and give attention to some few of the articles that are named\nin it. What we are in search of are those attestations of ancient\n_written_ evidences, touching the persons, the events, the manners, the\nreligions, of ancient nations, which come upon us--we might say, by\nsurprise, and which are derived from sources altogether and in every\nsense independent, and unconnected, one with another.\n\nTake with you, in one hand, your Tacitus, Sallust, Dion Cassius;--and\nin the other hand, your Virgil, Horace, Juvenal, and Ovid. These\nwriters--the one set as historians, the other set as poets, build up to\nour view the throne, and its personages, of the Imperial Times--say,\nof two centuries, reckoned back from the life-time of the last of\nthem. But through what channels have _the books_ come into our hands?\nThe editors of the printed copies assure us that there had come into\ntheir possession, in each instance, one, two, three manuscripts, that\nhad been raked out of the forgotten heaps of this or that monastery,\nor other conservatory of curious articles. As to the greater number\nof these manuscripts, they could not be assigned to an age much\nbeyond the ninth century; therefore, on the supposition that they are\ngenuine works--the products of a time seven hundred, or a thousand\nyears earlier, what the editor had under his eye must have been\nnothing better than a copy--from a copy--or perhaps, from several in\nsuccession! Is not this line of proof somewhat precarious? Ought we to\ntrust ourselves to it?\n\nAdvance toward the left hand, from the entrance hall, and by the time\nyou have moved on a dozen steps, the volumes in your hands, if they\nwere gifted with consciousness, would begin to twitch and to jerk\nthemselves about, as if uneasy in being held away from their old\nfriends, right and left, whom they recognise, perched on the pedestals,\nand fixed to the walls. Whence is it that these solid antiquities\nhave been brought hither? Not from those same lumber-vaults in the\nmonasteries, or the royal libraries of Europe, whence we have received\nthe aforesaid manuscripts;--not so, but from deep under-ground--from\ncavities--from underneath pavements, sixty feet or more lower than the\npresent surface: they have been picked up in cornfields; they have been\nsifted from out of heaps of rubbish; they have been taken from the\nrecesses of the houses of a city, buried by a volcanic eruption, many\ncenturies ago. These manifold samples of an ancient civilisation have\nbeen fished up from the beds of rivers and the bottoms of lakes; and\nthese recoveries have been effected in all these and many other modes\nover the extent of Europe, and of Southern and Western Asia, and of\nNorth Africa. There is no possibility therefore of calling in question\nthis million-tongued testimony; we must not gainsay what is affirmed by\nthese tongues of stone and of brass, of silver and of gold.\n\nAnd the more, in any instance, the coincidence is slender and remote,\nor, as one might say, frivolous or unimportant, so much the surer, and\nthe more to be relied upon is it, in what it does affirm: as thus--Look\nto your Synopsis, page 87, Compartment III.:--\u201cA pig of lead, inscribed\nwith the name of the Emperor Domitian, when he was consul for the\neighth year, A.D. 82, weighing 154 lbs. It was discovered in 1731\nunderground, on Hayshaw Moor, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, half-way\nbetween an ancient lead-mine, north of Pately Bridge, and the Roman\nroad from Ilkley (_Olicana_) to Aldborough (_Isurium_).\u201d This pig had\nslept where he was dropped about 1,650 years.\n\n\u201cA pig of lead, inscribed with the name of the Emperor Hadrian,\nweighing 191 lbs.; found in 1796 or \u201997, at Snailbeach Farm, parish of\nWestbury, 10 miles south-west of Shrewsbury.\u201d Then follow some other\npigs, whose slumbers underground have been more or less prolonged and\nprofound.\n\n\u201cA pig of lead, inscribed with the name of L. Aruconius Verecundus, and\nthe letters METAL. LVTVD., probably the mine of _Lutud\u00e6_. Found near\nMatlock Bank, in Derbyshire.\u201d\n\n\u201cA pig of lead, inscribed CL. TR. LVT. BR. EX. ARG.; found with three\nother pigs and some broken Roman pottery, at Broomer\u2019s Hill, in the\nparish of Pulborough, Sussex, January 31, 1824, close to the Roman\nRoad, Stone Street, from London to Chichester.\u201d\n\n\u201cA pig of lead, inscribed with the name of Britannicus, the son of the\nEmperor Claudius; found on the Mendip Hills, Somersetshire.\u201d\n\nSo much for these pigs. What is it which they might say, if we were\nto bring them into court? Something of this sort: At this time, in\nthe streets of the stannary towns in Cornwall, there are to be seen\nblocks--pigs of tin, stamped in a manner similar to the lettering of\nthese pigs of lead in the British Museum. This stamping is effected\nfor the purpose of securing the dues of the Duchy of Cornwall, and the\nsymbols and the letters indicate the political fact that the Prince\nof Wales, as Duke of Cornwall, lays a hand upon every pound of tin\nthat is smelted in the county; and thus, too, the stamping of the\nproduce of the lead-mines of Britain gives evidence of the fact that\nthe Romans were not merely resident in Britain at the time, but were\nmasters also of the island, and the lords of its mineral products. Then\nthe lettering itself finds its interpretation in the Roman imperial\nhistory, and this history comes into our hands, partly as it has\nbeen narrated by the Roman historians above mentioned; partly in the\nform of sculptures, statues, busts, and bas-reliefs; and partly, and\nvery copiously, in the unquestionable form of the coins of the same\nemperors, which alone would suffice for putting us in possession of\nthe series of events, greater and smaller, through a course of many\ncenturies. But what the reader should here keep in view is this: that\nas our present thesis is--the safe and sure transmission of ancient\nbooks, by the means of often-repeated copyings, through the lapse of\nages, an evidence to this effect--and it is the most conclusive that\ncan be imagined or desired, is afforded us when, in passing through\ncollections, such as those treasured in the British Museum, THE BOOKS\nin question are found to furnish a coherent, and a continuous, and an\nexact interpretation of these palpable and ponderous antiquities. Yet,\nit is manifest that, unless the books were in the main genuine, they\ncould not have supplied any interpretations, such as are those which we\nfind in them.\n\nGo on now to the historical sculptures--the statues, and the busts\nof the imperial times. These, for the most part, are susceptible of\nauthentication by means of the coins of the same emperors, which may be\nseen--by \u201corder\u201d--in another department of the Museum; the likenesses\nare indisputable, and the historic reality of the two samples of Roman\nart is thus far made good. But beyond this we may safely go. From the\nRoman writers--specially Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dion Cassius--we\nacquire what we need not doubt to be a true idea of the individual\ncharacter, the temperament, the education, the public and private\nbehaviour, and the style of the series of imperial persons, from Julius\nC\u00e6sar, onward, to the times of each of these writers. What then is the\nverdict of our physiognomical instincts, when we compare the busts\nor statues, for instance, of Augustus and of Tiberius, of Nero and\nof Trajan? We could no more take these, one for the other, than we\ncould misname the portraits of Philip of Spain, or the Duke of Alva,\nput by the side of George Washington, or John Howard; or misjudge\nthose of Oliver Cromwell, and John Milton; or of Admiral Blake, and\nAlexander Pope. We need not wait until a science of physiognomy has\nbeen concocted before we may risk a guess in writing the names under\nportraits of Lord Chatham, Dr. Johnson, and Oliver Goldsmith. Mistakes,\nin single instances, may be made, but not in the long run; and when,\non the one hand, we take the entire series of royal portraits, eastern\nand western, from the first of the Ptolemies to Charlemagne, and, on\nthe other hand, the _books_ of the series of contemporary historians,\nwe shall receive, from this large collation of independent evidences,\nan irresistible conviction of the general authenticity of the latter;\nand therefore we must cease to entertain doubts on this question of the\nsecure transmission of ancient books to modern times.\n\nIt would be of little avail here to cite a few single instances of the\nagreement of Roman coins with written history, for such instances are\ncountless. The reader who would wish to inform himself, in whole, or in\npart, on this extensive subject, should take in hand a Medallic History\nof Imperial Rome, which, as compared with the medallic treasures of\nthe British Museum, will give him aid in following the train of public\nevents through five or six centuries, exhibited and verified by the\ndouble line of testimonies--the metallic and the literary. Or he may be\ncontent to take, as a sufficient sample of this species of proof, the\nfacts he will find brought together in a small volume, \u201cAkerman on the\nCoins of the Romans relating to Britain.\u201d\n\nThere is another field upon which a gleaning, and more than a\ngleaning, may easily be made by help of the Roman poets as our\nguides. These writers--and we need name only Ovid, Horace, Virgil,\nand Propertius--are undoubtedly believed to have lived and flourished\nas the contemporaries of Julius C\u00e6sar, Augustus, Tiberius. Their\nwritings, as we have them now in our hands, are accepted as genuine;\nfor the criticism which demonstrates the general integrity of the\ntext (exceptions allowed for) is too erudite and careful to be called\nin question. Consequently, these writings have safely traversed a\nperiod of fifteen hundred years, ending with the date of the earliest\nprinted editions: but this transit has been made by no other means\nthan that of the copyists; and therefore, if, as we shall see, a\nsuper-abundance of various and independent evidences removes the\npossibility of our doubting the fact, then this mode of transmission,\nprecarious as it may seem, is found to be trustworthy, and our main\npoint is established--namely, That ancient books have indeed come down\nto modern times--whole and entire. Let us look, for a moment, to this\ncorroborative evidence--such as we find it offered to the eye, in\npassing through the saloons of the British Museum.\n\nThe Roman poets were not, perhaps, themselves very firm believers\nin the Grecian mythology--considered religiously or historically:\nnevertheless, they took it up--such as it had come into their\nhands--and it was a splendid inheritance--a boundless treasury of\nbright conceptions of superhuman power, beauty, grace; a scheme of\nelegant sensuousness, with a touch of sublimity. Its fables, far\nmore available for poetic purposes than any system of serious truths\ncould have been, opened before the Roman poets a broad meadow land,\nin roaming through which the imitative, more than originative turn of\nthe Roman mind, might gather fruits and flowers, ripe and gay, and\nwhich asked only to be taken and enjoyed. So it is, therefore, that in\nevery imaginable mode of lengthened poetic narrative, and of transient\nallusion, and of direct and of allusive reference, the gods and the\ngoddesses, and the demi-gods, and the heroes of Greece come up upon\nthe stage of the Roman poetry. These repetitions--these borrowings or\nplagiarisms, and these flashing glances, are countless:--sometimes\nthey are formal; sometimes they are informal:--they are broad daylight\nviews in some places, and in places innumerable they are as sparks\nonly--visible for an instant.\n\nNow with what objects is it that these mythologic passages are in\nharmony?--with what is it that they correspond? Our answer is--With\ntens of thousands of relics of ancient art which, through channels\naltogether independent of those through which the books have reached\nus, have come, at this time, to fill, and to over-fill the cabinets and\nmuseums of Europe--and thus, also, our British Museum.\n\nBut then this mass of ponderable and visible evidences is inter-related\nin a very peculiar manner, which should be borne in mind. We have\njust now referred to the correspondence which connects the historic\nsculptures--the statues and the busts of Roman personages, male and\nfemale, and the likenesses of the same men and women which are so\ncopiously supplied in collections of the Roman imperial mintage. But\nnow we pass on to the Gr\u00e6co-Roman saloons--the first, the second,\nand the third, as well as the basement-room. These are filled\nwith mythologic sculptures--recovered from the soil of Italy and\nGreece:--they show us, in inimitable marbles, those same divinities,\nthe principal and the subordinate, which the mind of Greece had\nimagined, and which the Roman artists adopted: these beautiful\ncreations we at once recognise as the celestial _person\u00e6_ with whom we\nhave made acquaintance in the pages of the Roman poets: the conception\nof superhuman grace and power is the very same; and the attendant\nsymbols are the same. And now furnish yourself with the requisite order\nfor inspecting the collection of antique gems--precious (often) as\nto their material--precious, incalculably more so, by means of that\nexquisite taste and that inimitable executive skill which have made\nthem what they are.\n\nThese microscopic sculptures, in consequence of the value of the\nmaterial, and the costliness of the work, and from their smallness,\nand the facility of preservation, were eagerly sought after by the\nopulent at the very time of their production; and they have been most\ncarefully hoarded in every age, by the same class of persons; and they\nhave suffered far less injury in the lapse of time than antiquities of\nany other kind. Especially the _intaglios_--the indented sculptures,\nare, for the most part, as perfect and sharp now as they were eighteen\nhundred years ago. What is it, then, that these gems of art bring under\nour modern eyes?--it is the very same ideal personages of the same\nmythology;--and the symbols are the same, and the air, and the grace,\nand the attributes of beauty and power are the same;--there is the same\nsensuousness--there are the same ambiguous adventures;--there is the\nsame poetry and the same art--poetry and art, admirable, indeed, how\nmuch soever it may be open to censure as to its moral quality.\n\nHere then we have in view three independent, but perfectly concurrent\nand _mutually interpretative_ evidences--namely, _first_, the\nsculptures, _secondly_, the gems, and then the books--the poetry. If,\nin examining one of these classes of antiquities, we find ourselves\nat a loss in attempting to decipher its symbols or its allusions, any\nsuch difficulty vanishes--in most instances--when we betake ourselves\nto another class:--as thus--the gem expounds the statue; or the poet,\nin a single verse, sheds his beam of light upon both. Thus it is\nthat--with the _three_ at our command--ANTIQUITY, throughout the rich\nand splendid region of its mythologies, stands unveiled before us! Must\nwe not grant that so many coherences, and so many correspondences, and\nso many interpretative agreements--countless as they are--can have had\ntheir source in nothing but the realities of the age whence we believe\nthem to have descended to modern times? But if it be so, then it is\ntrue that ancient books--to wit, the Roman poets--have been securely\nsent forward--thanks to the copyists!--from age to age, through all the\nintervening years of so many centuries.\n\nIf it were a volume that was now to be filled, instead of the few pages\nof this chapter, and if, instead of a morning at the British Museum, an\nentire season were to be diligently spent there, we should still want\nspace and leisure for specifying a sample only of those articles which\nmight properly be referred to in illustration of our present argument.\nInstead of doing so, we must move forward through the Elgin Saloon,\nonly stopping to make this one observation--that these sculptures,\nand these bas-reliefs, and these inscriptions, would be to us, at\nthis time, nothing better than a vast confusion--a mass of insoluble\nenigmas, if we did not carry with us the written remains of the Greek\nand Roman literature--the works of the historians, and the poets, and\nthe dramatists, and the orators, which were the creations of that same\nage of refined intelligence, and exquisite taste, and artistic skill:\nbut so it is, that the written memorials of that brief period are found\nto be available for interpreting the solid memorials of the same times,\nand these again for illustrating those. It was indeed a brief period:\n--it was a blossoming and a fruit-bearing summer month of the world\u2019s\ndull millennial year; and during the long period that followed it--the\nautumn months, and the winter--there were none among the living who\ncould either have written these books, or who could have chiselled\nthese marbles; but the books in one manner, and the marbles in another,\nhave separately floated down upon the billows of time; and here we\nhave them, confronted under one roof--ten thousand witnesses, attesting\nthe reality of ancient history.\n\nFrom the classic antiquities we now advance, and enter the ASSYRIAN\nGALLERIES. Everybody knows, or may easily know, in what way the\nsculptures, buried so many centuries, have now come to fill these\nlong apartments, and how they thus find a resting-place under the\nroof of the British Museum. The places whence they have come, and the\ncircumstances of their disinterment, are (as we must suppose) known\nand familiar to the visitor in whose company we are spending this\nmorning in its saloons. This being so, and if, moreover, we may believe\nthat he has become, in some degree, conversant with the literature of\nancient Greece--especially with its historians--Herodotus, Thucydides,\nXenophon, Diodorus, and also Strabo--he will be qualified to understand\nwhat we mean in speaking of that _broad confirmation_ of the\nauthenticity of ancient history which it receives from a glance at the\ncontents of the \u201cAssyrian Galleries.\u201d\n\nThe above-named Greek writers, and these illustrated as they are by the\ncontemporary literature, give us a distinct image of Greece, and of\nits people, with their intellectuality, and their religion, and their\ntaste; and this portraiture is quite homogeneous in itself, and, as we\nhave already said, it is corroborated and exhibited, in ten thousand\ninstances, by the sculptures, and other objects found in the saloons\nwe have just now visited. But now these same writers open up to us\nalso--sometimes formally, and sometimes incidentally--a prospect,\neastward, far over the regions outstretched beyond the limits of the\nGreek civilisation. In those illimitable expanses there existed a\ncivilisation; but it was quite of another aspect; there was government,\nand social order; but these were wholly unlike the institutions of\nGreece. There were religions; but they breathed another spirit: they\nuttered other voices; they spoke of a different national economy.\nThere was the same human nature; but it had been developed as if under\nconditions proper to another world.\n\nNow I will ask my companion to tell me with what sort of feeling it is,\nthat, in passing from the monuments of Grecian life, and the remains of\nits arts, he enters these Assyrian galleries. Does there not take place\nan involuntary impression to this effect--as if we were here setting\nfoot upon the soil of another world? We have crossed the threshold\nthat divides one phase or mode of human existence from another mode of\nit; there are here displayed before us the indications of a different\nclimate, a different terrestrial surface; and the vegetation that\ncovers it is of another class, nor are the animals that roam over it\nthe same; and the human forms, and the visages, and the costumes, and\nthe attitudes, and the occupations, and the rites, are of another\nmould. In these galleries we are surrounded with the symbols and the\nappendages of a sombre and remorseless despotism. Greece had its\nwarriors and its heroes, and its many orders of mind, and each freely\ndeveloped; but _here_ the one master of prostrate millions of men is\nthe solitary being: all things follow, or precede, or revolve around\nhim: there is one will, and it carried its purposes unchecked, alike by\nreason or humanity.\n\nHere then are the monuments of a world, such as that outlying and\ndistant eastern world whereof we find scattered notices in the\nextant remains of the Greek literature. These notices serve as the\ninterpretation, so far as they go, of these ponderous remains. The\nhistorians, the orators, the poets, flourishing under a refined\ncivilisation, look over their enclosures, and they sketch, at points,\nthe far-off barbaric civilisation of Asia, and we recognise, in the\n_written_ memorials of that ruder social life, the features and\ncharacteristics of its sculptured memorials--as they are now in view.\n\nThese coincidences are, we say, _an evidence at large_ of the\nauthenticity of that portion of ancient history which might seem to\nstand most in need of corroboration. It is a broad witnessing to the\ntruth. We might, however, descend to the particulars, and then might\nverify this proof in very many of its details; but we must go on,\nand only fix attention, for a moment, upon a single line of these\nconfirmatory coincidences; and it is one which carries with it a\nmomentous inference.\n\nThere is one body of extant writings which is not only of much earlier\ndate than the Greek literature--earlier even than its traditions,\nbut which sprung up within the circle of the Asiatic world; it is\nnot Grecian--it possesses not the same merits, the same graces, or\nmerits of a kindred order; it has its own. Asiatic it is; and yet\nit was so much insulated, and it was so decisively national, that\nthe report it makes of the surrounding social economies, is, in a\ngreat degree, an independent report; it looks on, as from a distance.\nWe may expect, therefore, to find in the Hebrew literature--in its\nhistorians, poets, and prophets--a _reflection_ of Asiatic life,\nrather than a native or home-made exhibition of it; and such is the\nfact. The monster despotisms that had their seats by the side of the\nTigris and the Euphrates, appear like phantoms of destructive power,\nas seen from the heights of Palestine. Now, what we affirm is this;\nthat the idea we obtain, in perusing the Hebrew literature, of the\nAsiatic military despotisms, and of their horrific superstitions, is\nconspicuously realized--it is held out to our view with a vivid force\nand distinctness, as we walk up and down, gazing in awe upon these\nmonstrous sculptures. The Hebrew writers denounce these destroyers of\nthe nations; and now let us confess that they have pictured them truly;\nthey have not calumniated those remorseless tyrants--even the men of\nthese colossal busts and these bas-reliefs, when they recount their\ndeeds of blood, their spoliations, and their oppressions.\n\nBesides and beyond this--which we have called a broad confirmation of\nancient history, and which arises spontaneously from the aspect of\nthese Assyrian antiquities--it is well known, and we are supposing our\ncompanion to be aware of the fact, that, since the disinterment of\nthese Assyrian sculptures, great progress has been made in the work\nof deciphering the inscriptions which appear upon many of them. At\nthis time it may safely be affirmed that these records, inscrutable\nas they were thought to be, have spoken out their meaning. It is true\nalso that these utterances from a long unknown world have fallen in\nwith the testimony of written history--Grecian and Biblical, and\nthat in relation, especially, to the latter, many highly significant\ncoincidences have presented themselves, rewarding the patient\nintelligence of those who have laboured on this field. But to this\nsubject we shall have occasion to return in a following chapter.\n\nThe marvels of the Egyptian galleries might lead us away even into yet\nanother world; but we have already touched upon the subject (pp. 146,\n_and following_), and therefore hasten forward, making a momentary\nstop at one object only, namely, the celebrated \u201cRosetta stone,\u201d thus\ndescribed in the Synopsis:--\n\n\u201cThe Rosetta stone, containing three inscriptions of the same import,\nnamely, one in hieroglyphics, another in a written character, called\ndemotic or enchorial, and a third in the Greek language. These\ninscriptions record the services which Ptolemy the Fifth had rendered\nhis country, and were engraved by order of the Synod of Priests,\nwhen they were assembled at Memphis for the purpose of investing him\nwith the royal prerogative. It is the key to the decipherment of the\nhieroglyphical and demotic characters of Egypt. This stone was found\nnear Rosetta, and it appears to have been placed in a temple dedicated\nto Atum by the monarch Nechao, of the twenty-sixth dynasty: it is of\nbasalt.\u201d\n\nThe industry and the sagacity of a succession of learned men have\nso far availed (greatly by aid of the threefold inscriptions of the\nRosetta stone) as that the history of Egypt, up to a very remote\nage, has been recovered, and has been carried to its place, so as to\nsynchronize with that of the surrounding nations. Every such conquest,\nor, as we may call it, inroad upon the dark regions of bygone ages,\ngives a further confidence to our belief in the general trustworthiness\nof ancient written history. The ancient historians were indeed\nsometimes misinformed, or perhaps negligent in putting together their\nmaterials; nevertheless, on the whole, they have acquitted themselves\nas honest and intelligent witnesses.\n\nIn ascending the north-west staircase, we must not fail to notice\nseveral framed and glazed specimens of Egyptian writing, which enliven\nthe walls. These manuscripts are on the Egyptian papyrus, the texture\nof the material in several instances being quite discernible. These\nshould be looked at as furnishing the best possible illustration of the\nstatements already made in general terms (Chapter V.). What we have\nthere spoken of may here be (not handled indeed, but) seen.\n\nIt will now be time to bring our visit to the Museum to a close, lest\nwe should be allured by its multifarious treasures--the memorials of\nall ages, to wander too far from our proper subject. Yet a glance must\nbe had at the manuscripts that are exposed to view in cases in the\nsaloons on the eastern side of the Museum. These manuscripts, to some\nof which we must hereafter make a reference, bring under the eye all\nthose varieties of material, of decoration, and of character as to\nthe writing, which already have been briefly mentioned. Among them we\nmay find samples of the writer\u2019s art, and of the art of the writer\u2019s\nbrother--the decorator, as seen in the illuminations; some of them\nare in the highest degree sumptuous and magnificent; others are more\nbusiness-like:--a few that have held their integrity as books through\nsixteen hundred years, and many, during a thousand years. The summers\nand the winters--times of war and devastation--times of peace:--years\nof narrow risks from spoliation, conflagration, barbarian recklessness;\nand centuries, perhaps, when, throughout noiseless days and nights\nnot a breath, not a hand, moved the dust that was always coming to\nits long rest upon the cover! So it has been that a safe transmission\nof the inestimable records of mind has had place, notwithstanding the\nmischances, the storms, the violences, the ignorance, and the neglects,\nof so many years.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nFACTS RELATING TO THE CONSERVATION, AND LATE RECOVERY, OF SOME ANCIENT\nMANUSCRIPTS.\n\n\nSome of the most ancient, and the most valuable of the manuscripts\nwhich at present enrich the British Museum, have been very lately\nacquired, being the product of the researches of learned travellers\nin Egypt, and in the islands of the \u00c6g\u00e6an Sea, and the countries\nbordering upon it. These researches and these journeys have been\nundertaken expressly for the purpose, and with the hope of discovering,\nand of bringing away, some of those literary treasures which were\nknown, or believed, to lie neglected, and almost forgotten, in the\nnow dilapidated monasteries of Egypt and Greece. This hope has, to\nsome extent, been realized, and these labours rewarded; as we may now\nbriefly mention.\n\nThe desolate region which stretches away far to the west on the\nparallel of the Delta of the Nile, bears the marks of having been, at\nsome remote period, and to a great extent, covered with water. The\nremains of this dried-up sea still appear, as small lakes, filling the\ncavities among the rugged hills that skirt the desert toward the valley\nof the Nile. Upon the margins of these lakes is found the Natron, which\nmay be called natural salt-soap, and whence, also, large quantities of\npure nitre are obtained. These lakes have received their designation\nfrom this natural product.\n\nThe district, NITRIA, is frequently mentioned by ancient authors; as\nby Strabo (Book xvii.) and by Pliny (Book xxxi. 46), and again by\nthe Church writers of the fourth and following centuries; especially\nby those of them who speak of the monastic institutions of their own\ntimes. Around these dreary waters the monks of that time established\nthemselves in great numbers;--so many, indeed, that the emperor Valens,\nthinking that he could find a more useful employment for them than\nthat of reciting the Psalter, enlisted as many as five thousand of\nthem in his legions. But here, notwithstanding disturbances of this\nkind, these recluses continued to find a refuge from the world, and its\ntemptations--or so they thought; and here, by the aid of grants from\nsome of the better-minded of the emperors, or of opulent and religious\npersons, many religious houses were constructed; some of them being\nof ample dimensions, and so built as to be capable of resisting the\nattacks of the marauders of the desert; and as their precincts included\nspacious gardens, they might, for lengths of time, support the frugal\nlife of their inmates, even if besieged.\n\nAs to these establishments,[5] we find incidental notices of them\nsufficient to assure us that, in some, if not in all of them, the\ncopying of books afforded occupation to a class of their inmates;\nand that this was the fact, we now have evidence in the results of\nthe researches above referred to. In some instances there has been\nenough of continuous life in a decaying monastery, even though the\nbuilding may seem to be little better than a huge ruin, to maintain the\n\u201cCopying-room\u201d in some activity. In others, where a score of monks,\nor even fewer, have slumbered away their term of years, they have yet\nretained a vague traditionary belief in the value of the manuscripts\nwhich they knew to lie, in heaps, in some cell or vault, never visited,\nby themselves. In some cases the books, which had been huddled away\nfrom the library in a moment of danger, when an enemy was under the\nwalls, have remained--safe and forgotten, in their concealment--perhaps\nfor centuries. Thus it has been that--by the intellectual activity of\none age, by the slumbering or the inert industry of the next period,\nand at length, by the utter mindlessness of centuries--the precious\nproducts of the ancient world have been conserved for our use in this\nage. May we not well notice and admire that providential interposition\nwhich, in these varying and precarious modes, has made us the\ninheritors of the wealth of the remotest times!\n\nAmong those modern travellers who have prosecuted these researches, one\nof the most eminent is the learned Tischendorff, whose labours in the\nfield of Biblical criticism have become known to all readers in that\nline. This accomplished traveller directed his attention especially to\nthe monasteries of the Natron Lakes. He visited them by joining himself\nto a caravan proceeding from Cairo to the Italian settlement, Castello\nCibara.--\u201cShortly after daybreak,\u201d he says, \u201cwe saw in the distance\nupon the left, in the middle of the Desert, a lofty stone wall, and\nstill further on, a second. These were two of the Coptic monasteries.\nPresently afterwards one of the salt lakes glittered in the distance,\nwith its obscure reddish blue waters, and a flock of flamingoes sprung\nout of its reeds. Upon the right was the Castello Cibara; in the\nbackground the low Libyan hills formed a dark-red border to the whole\nscene. About nine in the morning we reached our destination, and I\nfound in the midst of the Desert a hospitable hearth.\u201d What follows,\nalthough not closely related to our immediate subject, is not very\nremotely connected with it; and a few sentences further may be cited.\n\n\u201cIn the afternoon we made an excursion to the fields and lakes of\nnitre. What a singular scene! In the midst of this sandy waste,\nwhere uniformity is rarely interrupted by grass or shrubs, there\nare extensive districts where nitre springs from the earth like\ncrystallized fruits. One thinks he sees a wild, overgrown with moss,\nweeds, and shrubs, thickly covered with hoar frost. And to imagine this\nwinter scene beneath the fervid heat of an Egyptian sun, will give some\nidea of the strangeness of its aspect.\n\n\u201cThe existence of this nitre upon the sandy surface is caused by the\nevaporation of the lakes.... The nitre lakes themselves, six in number,\nsituated in a spacious valley, between two rows of low sandhills,\npresented a pleasing contrast, in their dark blue and red colours, to\nthe dull hues of the sand.... There are four Coptic monasteries at the\ndistance of a few leagues apart. Ruins and monasteries, and heaps of\nrubbish, I observed scattered in great numbers throughout the district.\nI was told that there were formerly about three hundred Coptic\nmonasteries in this desert.... Both externally and internally, these\nmonasteries closely resemble one another. Sometimes square, at others\nin the form of a parallelogram, they are enclosed by walls tolerably\nhigh, and usually about one hundred feet long. From their centre a\nfew palms frequently peer forth, for every monastery has a small\ngarden within its circuit, and is also furnished with a tower slightly\nelevated above the walls, and containing a small bell.... Within the\nwalls are seen nothing but old and dilapidated ruins, amongst which the\nmonks find a habitation. The tower I have just described is insulated\nfrom the body of the monastery, and approachable only by means of\na drawbridge supported on chains, offering thus an asylum against\nenemies, who may have mastered the monastery. This tower commands the\nentrance. The interior consists of a chapel, a well, a mill, an oven,\nand a store-room, all required in the event of a long siege, and the\napartment assigned to the library.... Here and there, in the mural\nstructure of the entrances to the cells and chapelries, we obtain a\nglimpse of the fragment of a marble pillar, or of a frieze, or some\nsimilar decoration. Thus has the sordid present been built out of the\nsplendour and grandeur of the past.\u201d\n\nThe scattered fragmentary remains of the architectural magnificence\nof a remote age may properly be regarded as so many attestations of\nthose incidental notices of these same establishments which occur in\nthe writers of that age; and thus it is that the literary evidence,\ntouching the decaying and almost forgotten ancient manuscripts that\nhave lately been dragged forth from their concealments, is found to\nconsist well with the visible history of the structure wherein they\nhave been so long conserved.\n\nThe learned traveller from whose journal the above citations have\nbeen made, had been anticipated in his search for manuscripts by\nseveral European scholars; and therefore it was little that he found\navailable for his immediate purpose--the collation of manuscripts\nof the New Testament. What we are just now concerned with are those\ncharacteristics of Oriental stagnation and motionless decay, and of\nmonastic persistence, which have been the very means of ensuring an\nundisturbed custody of literary treasures through the stormy passage\nof many centuries. The decrepit inmates of these ruins cherish the\ntraditions of a more stirring time, and they are aided in doing so\nby the pictures of the saints and founders of those times. Some of\nthese pictures are manifestly of great antiquity, and they have been\nconserved, with reverential regard, by each successive series of abbots\nand monks. Thus says Tischendorff:--\n\n\u201cThe chief pictorial representations, in all the four monasteries\n(those visited by him), were those of St. Macarius and St. George.\nIn the third, which bears the name of the Syrian, or the Virgin of\nthe Syrians, St. Ephraim (Ephrem Syrus, whose voluminous writings are\nextant) is held in high honour. A tamarind-tree was there shown me,\nwhich had miraculously sprouted forth from the staff of St. Ephraim,\nwho, upon entering the chapel, had stuck it into the ground outside. In\nthe second, St. Ambeschun was represented as the patron. In the fourth,\nbesides St. George, St. Theodore was represented on horseback, with the\nvanquished dragon beneath his feet.\u201d\n\nIn speaking of the main object of his journey, the author says:--\n\n\u201cThe special locality set apart for the library (in these buildings)\nis the tower chamber, which is accessible only by means of the\ndrawbridge. No spot in the monastery could be safer from the visits\nof the fraternity than this. Here are seen (I speak of the first\nmonastery) the manuscripts heaped indiscriminately together. Lying on\nthe ground, or thrown into large baskets, beneath masses of dust, are\nfound innumerable fragments of old, torn, and destroyed manuscripts.\nI saw nothing Greek; all was either Coptic, or Arabic; and in the\nthird monastery I found some Syriac, together with a couple of leaves\nof Ethiopic. The majority of the MSS. are liturgical, though many\nare Biblical. From the fourth monastery (presently to be mentioned)\nthe English have recently acquired an important collection of\nseveral hundred manuscripts for the British Museum, and that at a\nvery small cost. The other monasteries contain certainly nothing of\nmuch consequence; yet much might be found to reward the labour of\nthe search. The monks themselves understand extremely little about\nthe matter. Not one among them, probably, is acquainted with Coptic,\nand they merely read mechanically the lessons of their ritual. The\nArabic of the olden MSS. but few can read. Indeed, it is not easy\nto say what these monks know beyond the routine of their ordinary\nchurch service. Still their excessive suspicion renders it extremely\ndifficult to induce them to produce their manuscripts, in spite of\nthe extreme penury which surrounds them. Possibly they are controlled\nby the mandate of their patriarch. For my own part, I made a most\nlucky discovery of a multitude of Coptic parchment sheets of the sixth\nand seventh centuries, already half destroyed, and completely buried\nbeneath a mass of dust. These were given to me without hesitation; but\nI paid for the discovery by severe pains in the throat, produced by the\ndust I had raised in the excessive heat.... The monks (taught at length\nto think much of the value of their literary treasures) are too much\naccustomed to the visits and to the gold of the English.\u201d\n\nAmong these \u201cEnglish\u201d whose visits and whose gold have spoiled the good\nmonks of the Egyptian desert, one of the most noted is the Hon. Robert\nCurzon, jun., whose entertaining volume, published about ten years ago,\nhas brought his amusing adventures to the knowledge of most people\nwho read at all. Notwithstanding the notoriety of this distinguished\ntraveller\u2019s discoveries and his successes in the desert, it would be\nan omission of what is very pertinent to our argument, not to cite a\nfew paragraphs from his account of his \u201cVisits to Monasteries in the\nLevant.\u201d\n\nPreserved--a contradiction, as it may seem--by the very means of the\nneglect and ignorance, the stupidity and the recklessness, of those in\nwhose custody they have been--the most valuable manuscripts have often\nbeen converted to the meanest purposes. A learned traveller, mentioned\nby Mr. Curzon, in inquiring for manuscripts, was told that there were\nnone in the monastery; but when he entered the choir to be present at\nthe service, he saw a double row of long-bearded holy fathers, shouting\nthe Kyrie eleison, and each of them standing, to save his bare legs\nfrom the damp of the marble floor, upon a great folio volume, which\nhad been removed from the conventual library, and applied to purposes\nof practical utility in the way here mentioned. These volumes, some of\nthem highly valuable, this traveller was allowed to carry away with\nhim, in exchange for some footstools or hassocks, which he presented to\nthe monks.\n\nMr. Curzon visited the Levant in 1833, and the following years: his\ndescription of the monasteries near the Natron Lakes differs little\nfrom that of the traveller already cited; but he was fortunate in his\nresearches, not merely as a first comer, but as more amply provided\nwith the means of purchase, and also perhaps better skilled in the\nsort of diplomacy which the business in hand required. The Coptic\nmanuscripts which he found in one of these monasteries were most\nof them lying on the floor, but some were in niches in the stone\nwall; all except three were on paper. One on parchment was a superb\nmanuscript of the Gospels, with commentaries by the early fathers of\nthe Church: two others were doing duty as coverings to a couple of\nlarge open pots or jars, which had contained preserves, long since\nevaporated. \u201cI was allowed to purchase these vellum manuscripts,\nas they were considered to be useless by the monks; principally, I\nbelieve, because there were no more preserves in the jars.\u201d On the\nfloor was a fine Coptic and Arabic dictionary, which the monks would\nnot then sell; but some years afterwards their reluctance was overcome\nby a more liberal offer. He prevailed, by aid of a tempting bottle,\nto get access to a long-forgotten cellar or vault, crammed with\nmanuscripts in all stages of decay, but from which some were rescued,\nand brought away.\n\nThe description given by this traveller, first of the desert, and then\nof the contrast presented by the interior of one of these monasteries,\nwill enable us to understand the attractions of this secluded mode\nof life to many who had retired to it from the troubles of the open\nworld. To men of sedentary and literary habits, especially, it would\nbe peculiarly attractive; and these would find their happiness through\nthe round of long years, in the occupation of copying books. Mr. Curzon\nthus presents to us the contrast above mentioned. He says:--\n\n \u201cTo those who are not familiar with the aspect of such a region as\n this, it may be well to explain that a desert, such as that which now\n surrounded me, resembles more than anything else, a dusty turnpike\n road in England, on a hot summer\u2019s day, extended interminably, both\n as to length and breadth. A country of low rounded hills, the surface\n of which is composed entirely of gravel, dust, and stones, will give\n a good idea of the general aspect of a desert. Yet, although parched\n and dreary in the extreme from their vastness and openness, there is\n something grand and sublime in the silence and loneliness of these\n burning plains; and the wandering tribes of Bedouins who inhabit them\n are seldom content to remain long in the narrow enclosed confines\n of cultivated land. There is always a fresh breeze in the desert,\n except when the terrible hot wind blows; and the air is more elastic\n and pure than where vegetation produces exhalations, which, in all\n hot climates, are more or less heavy and deleterious. The air of the\n desert is always healthy, and no race of men enjoy a greater exemption\n from weakness, sickness, and disease, than the children of the desert,\n who pass their lives in wandering to and fro, in search of the scanty\n herbage on which their flocks are fed, far from the cares and troubles\n of busy cities, and free from the oppression which grinds down the\n half-starved cultivators of the fertile soil of Egypt.\n\n \u201cWhilst from my elevated position, I looked out on my left, upon\n the mighty desert, on my right how different was the scene! There,\n below my feet, lay the convent garden, in all the fresh luxuriance of\n tropical vegetation. Tufts upon tufts of waving palms overshadowed the\n immense succulent leaves of the banana, which in their turn rose out\n of thickets of the pomegranate, rich with its bright green leaves and\n its blossoms of that beautiful and vivid red which is excelled by few\n even of the most brilliant flowers of the East. These were contrasted\n with the deep dark green of the caroub or locust-tree; and the yellow\n apples of the lotus vied with the clusters of green limes with their\n sweet white flowers which luxuriated in a climate too hot and sultry\n for the golden fruit of the orange, which is not to be met with in the\n valley of the Nile. Flowers and fair branches exhaling rich perfume,\n and bearing freshness in their very aspect, became more beautiful from\n their contrast to the dreary arid plains outside the convent walls,\n and this great difference was owing solely to there being a well of\n water in this spot, from which a horse or mule was constantly employed\n to draw the fertilizing streams which nourished the teeming vegetation\n of this monastic garden.\u201d\n\nIf we carry this picture back to those times when these Nitrian\nmonasteries were entire in their structure, and were complete in\nall things proper to a well-appointed religious establishment--when\nimperial favour, and the patronage of the wealthy were at the command\nof the community--we may be inclined to think that the conventual life\nmight seem enviable to many in those times, who were beating about in\nthe storms of the open world. No doubt this tranquil existence had its\ncharms, even for such as relinquished much when they buried themselves\nin a monastery. How attractive must it have been to those who lost\nnothing in making the exchange, and to whom the vow of poverty brought\nwith it, in fact, an exemption from want, turmoil, labour, misery! It\nwas thus that these establishments kept their cells ever full, and\ntheir refectory halls always furnished with guests.\n\nThe lively writer from whom we have cited the passages just above,\nappears to have received his idea of the founders of these religious\nhouses from the absurd legendary literature of a later time. If he\nhad only taken the pains to acquaint himself with the extant writings\nof some of these good men, he might perhaps have come to think of them\nmore worthily, and then he would have abridged a little the ridicule\nhe heaps upon them. As for instance,--the Great Saint of the Egyptian\nmonks--St. Macarius, concerning whom, and his austerities, there is\nabundance of childish absurdity in the \u201cLausiac Memoirs,\u201d and in\nother books of that class, is, on sufficient evidence, believed to be\nthe author of Homilies and Treatises which indicate a sincere and a\nsober-minded piety, far remote from the extravagance and the foolish\nostentation with which his later biographers have encumbered his better\nfame.\n\nIt is pertinent to our present argument to say, that the existence, in\nthe fourth and following centuries, of works so substantially good as\nare those of this Macarius, and others, is indicative of a far higher\ncondition of the Christian community, in those times, than we should\nimagine in looking into the monkish literature of later ages. In truth,\nit was the substantial merits of many of the early Christian writers\nthat gave an impulse to the zeal and assiduity of the copyists. We\nhave evidence of this in the frequent occurrence of the works of the\nprincipal writers of the fourth century, among the now neglected heaps\nof the Egyptian, and other monasteries.\n\nFrom the same writer--Mr. Curzon, we may cite a description of an\nAbyssinian copying apparatus, and library, and the writers there\nemployed--illustrative, as it is, of what has been affirmed in the\npreceding chapters.\n\nThe library, or consistory, of some Abyssinian monks was their\nrefectory also:--\n\n \u201cOn my remarking the number of books which I saw around me, the monks\n seemed proud of their collection, and told me that there were not many\n such libraries as this in their country. There were perhaps nearly\n fifty volumes; and as the entire literature of Abyssinia does not\n include more than double that number of works, I could easily imagine\n that what I saw around me formed a very considerable accumulation of\n manuscripts, considering the barbarous state of the country from which\n they came. The disposition of the manuscripts in this library was very\n original.... The room was about twenty-six feet long, twenty wide, and\n twelve high; the roof was formed of the trunks of palm-trees, across\n which reeds were laid, which supported the mass of earth and plaster,\n of which the terrace-roof was composed. The interior of the walls was\n plastered white with lime; the windows, at a good height from the\n ground, were unglazed, but were defended with bars of iron-wood, or\n some other hard wood; the door opened into the garden, and its lock,\n which was of wood also, was of that peculiar construction which has\n been used in Egypt from time immemorial. A wooden shelf was carried in\n the Egyptian style round the walls, at the height of the top of the\n door; and on this shelf stood sundry platters, bottles, and dishes for\n the use of the community. Underneath the shelf various long wooden\n pegs projected from the wall; they were each about a foot and a half\n long, and on them hung the Abyssinian manuscripts, of which this\n curious library was entirely composed.\n\n \u201cThe books of Abyssinia are bound in the usual way, sometimes in\n red leather, and sometimes in wooden boards, which are occasionally\n elaborately carved in rude and coarse devices: they are then enclosed\n in a case, tied up with leather thongs; to this case is attached a\n strap for the convenience of carrying the volume over the shoulders,\n and by these straps the books were hung to the wooden pegs, three or\n four on a peg, or more if the books were small: their usual size was\n that of a small, very thick quarto.\u201d\n\nThe labour required to write an Abyssinian book, it is said, is\n\n \u201cimmense, and sometimes many years are consumed in the preparation of\n a single volume. They are almost all written upon skins; the only one\n not written upon vellum that I have met with is in my possession; it\n is on charta bombycina. The ink which they use is composed of gum,\n lamp-black, and water. It is jet black, and keeps its colour for ever.\n Indeed, in this respect, all oriental inks are infinitely superior to\n ours, and they have the additional advantage of not being corrosive or\n injurious either to the pen or paper. Their pen is the reed commonly\n used in the East, only the nib is made sharper than that which is\n required to write the Arabic character. The ink-horn is usually the\n small end of a cow\u2019s horn, which is stuck into the ground at the feet\n of the scribe ... seated upon the ground, the square piece of thick\n greasy vellum is held upon the knee, or on the palm of the left hand.\n The Abyssinian alphabet consists of eight times twenty-six letters,\n two hundred and eight characters in all; and these are each written\n distinctly and separately, like the letters of an European printed\n book. They have no cursive writing; each letter is therefore painted,\n as it were, with the reed-pen, and as the scribe finishes each, he\n usually makes a horrible face, and gives a triumphant flourish with\n his pen. Thus he goes on letter by letter, and before he gets to the\n end of the first line he is probably in a perspiration, from his\n nervous apprehension of the importance of his undertaking. One page is\n a good day\u2019s work; and when he has done it, he generally, if he is\n not too stiff, follows the custom of all little Arab boys, and swings\n his head or his body from side to side, keeping time in a sort of\n nasal recitative, without the help of which it would seem that few can\n read even a chapter of the Koran, although they may know it by heart.\u201d\n\nThe habitudes of Eastern nations undergo so little change in the\nlapse of ages that, probably, these descriptions of things as they\nare now, would differ little from a similarly graphic account of the\nsame operations, dated a thousand years back. Where the arts of life\nremain in their rude state, all those operations which depend upon\nthem continue nearly the same. We may infer this from the identity\nof many implements and tools, such as are now seen in Museums, with\nthose at present in use in the same countries; and the same inference\nis warranted by what we meet with in the illuminations of ancient\nmanuscripts, which often exhibit the usages and methods of common life;\njust as we see those of China displayed in the decorations of its\npotteries, and its screens.\n\n \u201cThe paint-brush used by the illuminators of Egypt is made by chewing\n the end of a reed till it is reduced to filaments, and then nibbling\n it into a proper form: the paint-brushes of the ancient Egyptians\n were made in the same way; and excellent brooms for common purposes\n are made at Cairo by beating the thick end of a palm-branch till\n the fibres are separated from the pith; the part above, which is\n not beaten, becoming the handle of the broom. The Abyssinian having\n nibbled and chewed his reed till he thinks it will do, proceeds to\n fill up the spaces between the inked outlines with his colours; ...\n the colours are mixed up with the yolk of an egg, and the numerous\n mistakes and slips of the brush are corrected by a wipe from a wet\n finger or thumb, which is generally kept ready in the artist\u2019s mouth\n during the operation; and it is lucky if he does not give it a bite in\n the agony of composition, when, with an unsteady hand, the eye of some\n famous saint is smeared all over the nose by an unfortunate swerve of\n the nibbled reed.\u201d\n\nThese descriptions of the oriental literary craft, may perhaps fail\nto bring before us what might have been witnessed in the copying-room\nof a _Greek_ monastery a thousand years ago; but as to the technical\npart of the operation it was not even then in a much higher state\nof efficiency. For it appears that copies executed in what, to\nEuropeans, seems the rudest manner--as to apparatus, and implements,\nand accommodation--are often of great beauty--the patient skill and\nadroitness of the scribe and artist, who is never hurried in his work,\nmaking up for the deficiencies of his appointments.\n\nMr. Curzon\u2019s explorations in these Nitrian monasteries, although not\nthe first that had been made by European travellers and scholars, had\nthe effect of drawing the attention of learned persons afresh towards\nthem; and the result has been to bring to light very many literary\ntreasures which otherwise must soon have fallen into a state of\nirrecoverable decay. Of these restored treasures, a very remarkable\nexample has just now come before the world; and the reader may inspect\nit, if he has the opportunity to take in hand a sumptuous quarto,\nentitled, \u201cRemains of a very ancient Recension of the Four Gospels in\nSyriac, hitherto unknown in Europe; discovered, edited, and translated\nby William Cureton, D.D., &c., 1858.\u201d\n\nThe account which the learned editor gives of this volume agrees well\nwith that idea of the course of things in the Nitrian monasteries which\nhas been brought before us in Mr. Curzon\u2019s descriptions of what he\nfound there. From his Preface we learn that--\n\n \u201cThe manuscript from which the text of the Fragments of the Gospels\n contained in this volume has been printed, was one of those obtained\n in the year 1842, by Archdeacon Tattam, from the Syrian monastery,\n dedicated to St. Mary Deipara, Mother of God, in the valley of the\n Natron lakes. It consisted of portions of three ancient copies, bound\n together to form a volume of the Four Gospels, with a few leaves in a\n more recent hand, added to make up the deficiencies.\u201d\n\nA note added to the last leaf of the volume is such as is commonly\nfound at the end of similar manuscripts. In it the copyist dedicates\nhis labour to the glory of the Holy Trinity, and commends himself\nto the prayers of those who may read it--these rendered efficacious\nthrough the prayers of \u201cthe Mother of God, and of all the saints\ncontinually.\u201d This note bears date in the year 1533 of the Greek\nreckoning, which corresponds with the year 1221 A.D. The leaf upon\nwhich this note occurs, and which contains some verses of St. Luke\u2019s\nGospel, is a palimpsest vellum, \u201cwhich was formerly a part of a\nmanuscript of the sixth or seventh century, and originally contained a\nportion of the first chapter of St. Luke, in Syriac.\u201d\n\nOn the first leaf of the same volume, there is a note in a more ancient\nhand; to this effect:--\n\n \u201cThis book belonged to the monk Habibai, who presented it to the holy\n convent of the Church of Deipara, belonging to the Syrians in the\n Desert of Scete. May God, abounding in mercies and compassion, for\n the sake of whose glorious name he set apart and gave this spiritual\n treasure, forgive his sins, and pardon his deficiencies, and number\n him among His own elect in the day of the resurrection of his friends,\n through the prayers of all the circle of the saints! Amen, Amen.--Son\n of the living God, at the hour of Thy judgment, spare the sinner who\n wrote this!\u201d\n\nThe way in which this volume was put together is characteristic of the\ntimes in which it was done, and of that union of religious feeling and\nof literary (not heedlessness but) inobservance, which attach to the\nmonastic mode of life after it has subsided into its inert and mindless\ncondition. Dr. Cureton says that\n\n \u201cthe volume containing the Fragments that are now published, were\n taken, as it would appear, almost by hazard, without any other\n consideration than that of their being of the same size, and then\n arranged, so as to form a complete copy of the Four Gospels. There\n were several other volumes in the Nitrian Library made up in this\n manner. The person who arranged them seems to have had no idea of\n selecting the scattered parts of the same original volume, which had\n fallen to pieces, but merely to have taken the first leaves which came\n to his hand, which would serve to complete a copy of the Gospels, and\n then to have bound them together. In this way it came to pass, that\n parts of three or four manuscripts were found mixed up with three or\n four others, written at different times, and by different scribes;\n and sometimes, indeed, not even of the same exact size, apparently\n without regard to any other circumstance than merely to render the\n context perfect.\u201d\n\nSo far as could be done, this intermixture of leaves has been remedied,\nby bringing the corresponding portions of the same copy again into\ntheir original juxtaposition, so as to constitute continuous copies\nof several different manuscripts. Within the one volume, such as it\nhad been obtained from the Nitrian monastery, there were included some\nleaves of thick vellum, apparently transcribed in the sixth or seventh\ncentury, and written in a very large, bold hand, with divisions of\nsections--some of very thin and white vellum, in a large hand, in two\ncolumns, similar to the former; but apparently rather older; and some\nin a different style and of other dates.\n\nDr. Cureton expresses his belief (as to portions at least) of what has\nthus been recovered, that they were transcribed in or about the middle\nof the fifth century; and that they represent a text--especially so far\nas concerns the recovered portions of the Gospel of St. Matthew--which\nhas been unknown to European scholars; and is, therefore, \u201cof the\nhighest importance for the critical arrangement of the text of the\nGospels.\u201d\n\nThe use to be made of this ancient copy is not a subject properly\nbelonging to this volume; but it will be well that the reader should\nbring into his own view the highly significant facts that are, as we\nmay say, linked together in an instance of this sort. Let us then\nrecount them: and we may do so with the more satisfaction, inasmuch as\nthey are now so recently made public; and because, also, the instance,\ntaken in all its circumstances, may stand as fairly representative of\nvery many of those which constitute the evidence adducible in proof of\nthe safe transmission of ancient books to modern times.\n\nThe Church writers of the fourth and fifth centuries make frequent\nreferences to the monastic establishments of the Scetic desert.[6]\nIn these religious houses, well-ordered and amply furnished as they\nwere in those times, the business of copying books was a principal\noccupation of such of the recluses as were inclined by their habits\nand tastes to pursue it. There are notices of these establishments\nfrom time to time, down to the Mahometan era; when, although some\nof the monasteries were dismantled or plundered, more of them were\ntreated indulgently, or even reverentially, by the Arabian conquerors.\nSeveral Saracenic writers mention the Nitrian monasteries in a style of\noriental encomium. With varying fortunes, the principal of them--that\nespecially of St. Mary Deipara--maintained their existence, and were,\nat times, even in a flourishing condition, during what are called the\nDark Ages. Great additions were made to the libraries, and particularly\nin the class of Syriac and Aramaic books, which had been brought from\nsimilar establishments in Mesopotamia and the remoter East. Incidental\nnotices in evidence of the continuance, and, to some extent, of what\nwe may call the vitality, of four or five of these Nitrian religious\nhouses, may be collected from the writers, in succession, who refer\nto Egypt, and to its ecclesiastical affairs--down to modern times--or,\nas we should say, to the revival of learning in Europe. An Arabian\nauthor of the fifteenth century affirms that the monasteries, formerly\na hundred in number, were, in his time, seven only; but he specifies\nthat of St. Macarius, and speaks of it as a fine building, though its\noccupants were few.\n\nFrom about this time, therefore--namely, from the fifteenth\ncentury, and until our own times--these ancient structures, with\ntheir dosing inhabitants, the mindless guardians of whatever they\nmight contain--have remained as sepulchres, subjected to no other\ninvasions or spoliations than those of Time. The dust of one year has\nsettled down upon the dust of preceding years, in these oven-like\nvaults, through the tranquil lapse of four centuries. Some peculiar\ncircumstances have contributed to ensure the preservation of the\nmanuscripts hoarded in these tombs, and these ought to be kept in\nview. Among these are, _first_, the slumbering ignorance of the monks,\ntogether with the unknowing superstition with which they guard their\nlibraries: along with this is the jealousy of the monks toward their\nabbots; the brethren always suspecting their superiors of an intention\nto purloin, and to make a commerce with, the books which were held\nto be the property of the community. Again, there is to be noticed a\nusage of the copyists, and of the owners of costly manuscripts--namely,\nthat of subjoining a note to the last page of a book, imprecating\ncurses upon any one who should dare, at any distant time, to dispose\nof, or to alienate the book for his private advantage. Not the least\neffective of these conservative circumstances has been this--that, in\nsome instances, the entire contents of a monastic library have--in\nsome moment of danger, while an enemy was thundering at the gate--been\nhuddled into a cellar or a vault, and there covered with rubbish--safe\nfor a hundred years or more. It was just in this condition that a large\nportion of the manuscripts which are now carefully preserved in the\nBritish Museum, was discovered by those who have lately succeeded in\nbringing them off.\n\nIn the lapse of these last four centuries, the monasteries of the\nEgyptian desert have frequently been visited by European travellers and\nmen of learning. Among these was Robert Huntington, afterwards bishop\nof Raphoe, whose collection of Oriental manuscripts has found its home\nin the Bodleian Library: this visit was in the year 1678 or 1679.\nThe celebrated Joseph Simon Asseman, in the year 1715, who had been\npreceded by his cousin Elias, examined these collections and brought\naway, to enrich the Vatican, a small number of books--Arabic, Coptic,\nand Syriac. About the same time the Jesuit Claude Sicard visited those\nof the monasteries that were still inhabited, and found the books\npacked in chests, covered with dust, and in a neglected condition; they\nwere stowed away in the tower or keep (above mentioned).\n\nIn illustration of what we have said concerning the persistence of the\nmonks in refusing to part with their books, we may cite the evidence of\na traveller--the Sieur Granger, who visited the Natron monasteries in\nthe year 1730. He says, that the buildings at that time were falling\ninto decay, and the dust destroying the books and manuscripts, of which\nthe monks made no use whatever. Their own patriarch had represented to\nthem that the sum which the books would produce would be sufficient to\nenable them to restore their churches and to rebuild their cells: but\nthey declared they would rather be buried in the ruins. Lord Prudhoe\nvisited the monasteries in 1828. After much difficulty he got access\nto a chamber in which was a trap-door, through which he \u201cdescended,\ncandle in hand, to examine the manuscripts, where books and parts of\nbooks, and scattered leaves, in Coptic, Ethiopic, Syriac, and Arabic,\nwere lying in a mass, on which,\u201d he says, \u201cI stood.... To appearance\nit seemed as if, on some sudden emergency, the whole library had been\nthrown for security down this trap-door, and that they had remained\nundisturbed in their dust and neglect for some centuries.\u201d[7]\n\nIn this manner it is that we feel our way from century to century,\nkeeping an eye all the way upon those remains of a distant time, the\nsafe transmission of which is our immediate theme. In this transit we\nare now reaching the shore of the times we live in. Those fragments\nof the Gospels which already we have mentioned, and many other highly\nimportant manuscripts, which are now in the British Museum, were\nobtained at different times by Dr. Tattam (Archdeacon of Bedford),\nwho twice visited Egypt expressly for this purpose. In one of these\nmonasteries, in a vault, the manuscripts and fragments of books covered\nthe floor, eight inches deep, where they had laid, apparently, many\nyears. As many as 317 books, entire or in part, were then purchased,\nand they safely reached their destination: most of them are on vellum;\nsome on paper--all in Syriac, Aramaic, or Coptic; and these, with those\nbefore obtained, made 360 volumes of manuscripts. Some of these volumes\ncontain two, three, or four distinct works, written at different\nperiods, but bound up together:--altogether perhaps containing not\nfewer than a thousand manuscripts--derived from Mesopotamia, Syria,\nand Egypt, and belonging to different times, from the fifth to the\nthirteenth century. In fact, it now appears that a few of them are of a\nmuch higher antiquity than the fifth century.\n\nIn the course of time, as the Mahometan influence extended itself\nthroughout the East, and became more and more exclusive and intolerant,\nthe Christian recluses of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Arabia gradually\nretired, or were driven westward, bringing with them, when they could\ndo so, their books. Thus it was that the monasteries of the Egyptian\ndesert became stored with these manuscripts in the languages of the\nEast, and especially of Syria and Arabia.\n\nThe separate books of the Old and New Testament, or fragments of them,\nabound in these recovered stores. Liturgies, and Lives of the Saints,\nthe spurious Gospels also, and the works of the early Christian\nwriters, together with the canons of Councils, are also largely present\namong them; and altogether, many additions to religious literature,\nand some few to classic literature, have hence accrued. Among these\nrecoveries, in the department of Christian literature, we should name\nthe three Epistles of St. Ignatius--believed to be the only genuine\nepistles of this father. Fragments also of what are termed the Festal\nEpistles of St. Athanasius, in Syriac, have been found in the same\nmanner; and the circumstances attaching to this one instance, as\nnarrated by the learned editor, are so characteristic of the times and\nplaces which we have now in view, that they may properly be reported\nin this place; the more so because the publications in which these\naccounts first appeared, are of a kind rarely coming under the eye of\ngeneral readers.\n\nIt was the custom of the patriarchs--and thus of Athanasius, during\nthe forty years of his official life--to address a circular-letter\neach year to his clergy, informing them of the day in which the Easter\nsolemnities were to be observed. Nothing more than some fragments of\nthese Epistles, in the Greek original, had reached modern times. But it\nis now a Syriac version of many of them that has come to light.\n\nThe treasures of Syriac literature obtained by Dr. Tattam, in Egypt, as\nwe have already mentioned, were deposited in the British Museum: it was\na vast mass--a chaos of manuscripts and fragments; there were volumes,\nand parts of volumes, and single sheets, and torn fragments of sheets,\nlarge and small. This mass of commingled materials was consigned to\nthe care of Dr. Cureton, as belonging to his department; and it became\nhis duty to examine, and to report concerning the whole--a task which\nseemed to defy human skill and industry. This labour, which at first\nappeared to need no addition, was, however, afterwards doubled by the\narrival of another mass, almost equal to the first; for the fact had\ntranspired that the monks, who received payment as for their entire\nlibrary, had contrived to hold back a large portion of the whole;\nwhich, however, was afterwards obtained by means of a further payment.\n\nA laborious adjustment of these materials--part to part--resulted in\nbringing to light several Syriac versions of treatises of which the\ntitles were known, but of which the Greek originals have been lost.\nAmong these, and claiming to be noticed, are some of the writings of\nEusebius, the ecclesiastical historian; and with them the Theophania,\nor \u201cManifestation of Christ,\u201d of which an English translation has been\npublished, by the late Dr. Lee. The manuscript of this Syriac work\nappears, by dates attached to it, to be not less than fifteen hundred\nyears old, and in fact to have been written a few years only later than\nthe time of the publication of the original treatise.\n\nA curious circumstance connected with one of these ancient\nmanuscripts is mentioned by Dr. Cureton. To one of the leaves of\nthis manuscript--midway in the volume, there is attached a note to\nthis effect: \u201cBehold, my brethren, if it should happen that the end\nof this ancient book should be torn off and lost, together with the\nwriter\u2019s subscription and termination, it was written at the end of it\nthus: viz. that this book was written at Orrhoa, a city of Mesopotamia\n(Edessa), by the hands of a man named Jacob, in the year seven hundred\nand twenty-three, in the month Tishrin the latter it was completed; and\nagreeably to what was written there, I have written also here, without\naddition, and which I wrote in the year one thousand and three hundred\nand ninety-eight of the era of the Greeks.\u201d\n\nThese dates, according to our era, correspond with the years A.D.\n411, for the time of the transcription of the volume, and A.D. 1086\nfor that of the note. What this writer anticipated as probable did\nactually take place; for the end of the sheet containing the original\nnote of the copyist had been torn off and lost; how small then appeared\nthe probability that the actual fragment should have escaped so many\nrisks of utter destruction, and that it should be recovered. Yet so\nit was! In the mass of fragments which were afterwards obtained, and\nbrought to England, there were several bundles, promiscuously made up,\nand consisting of separate leaves or parts of leaves, which were in\nfact the gatherings and sweepings from the floor, after the principal\nvolumes had been taken up.\n\n \u201cOne by one,\u201d says Dr. Cureton, \u201cI untied the bundles (there were\n about twenty) and diligently and eagerly examined their contents. As I\n opened the fourth I was delighted at recognising two pieces belonging\n to one of the leaves of this precious book; in the next I found a\n third: and now, reader, if thou hast any love for the records of\n antiquity; if thou feelest any kindred enthusiasm in such pursuits\n as these; if thou hast ever known the satisfaction of having a dim\n expectation gradually brightened into reality, and an anxious research\n rewarded with success,--things that but rarely happen to us in this\n world of disappointment--I leave it to thine own imagination to paint\n the sensations which I experienced at that moment, when the loosing of\n the cord of the seventh bundle disclosed to my sight a small fragment\n of beautiful vellum, in a well-known hand, upon which I read the\n following words.\u201d...\n\nThese words were those of the original copyist, which had been copied\nas above mentioned, and attached to another part of the volume, and\nwhich fixed its date to the time above stated. This note had itself\nbeen torn, yet enough of it remained entire to verify the facts that\nhave been reported. The first sentence of this note is written in\nred, the second in yellow, and the third in black. Dr. Cureton thus\npresents to view the series of facts connected with this manuscript;\nand the statement of them, which we abridge, is quite pertinent to\nour present purpose. It was written in the country which was the\nbirth-place of Abraham, the Father of the Faithful, and the city whose\nking was the first sovereign who embraced Christianity; it was written\nin the year of our Lord 411. It was subsequently transported to the\nvalley of the Ascetics, in Egypt, probably in A.D. 931, and presented\nto the monastery of St. Mary Deipara. In A.D. 1086, some person with\ncareful foresight, fearing lest the memorial of the transcription of so\nvaluable a book should be lost, took the precaution to copy it into\nthe body of the volume. At what time in the lapse of centuries this\nfear was realized is not known; but when the volume came to light in\n1839, this had taken place; and in that year it was transferred from\nthe solitude of the African desert to London. Three years later two\nfragments of it followed it to England; and in 1847, other portions\nwere found and restored to their places in it; and then also the\ntranscriber\u2019s own notification of the date of his labours was found\nin a heap of fragments, and was attached to the leaf whence it had\nbeen torn. Through so many chances, and in traversing countries of\nAsia, Africa, and Europe, it has held its way through a period of one\nthousand four hundred and thirty-six years. Here then is an instance in\npoint, establishing the fact of the safe transmission of ancient books\nto modern times.\n\nOther instances, not less striking than this, are reported in the\npamphlet whence we have derived the one here brought forward. One of\nthese is that of a palimpsest, upon which was discovered the traces of\na very ancient copy of the Iliad--legible beneath a Syriac version of\nan obscure author.\n\nThe subscriptions of the monastic copyists are characteristic of\nthe times, and of the feelings of the men to whose assiduity we are\nindebted for whatever we possess of acquaintance with antiquity. The\nfollowing may be cited as an instance, and it is one among many of a\nsimilar kind:--\n\n \u201cThis book belongs to Daniel, a secular presbyter and visitor of the\n province of Amida, who gave diligence and procured it for the benefit\n of himself and of those who, possessed with the same object of love\n of divine instruction, may approach it, and desire to profit their\n lives by the truth that is in it. But the poor Simeon, presbyter and\n a recluse, who is in the holy convent of my Lord Simeon of Cartamin,\n transcribed it. May every one, therefore, who asks for it, that he may\n read in it, or write from it, for the sake of the love of God, pray\n for him who gave diligence and obtained it, and for the scribe, that\n he may find mercy in the day of judgment, like the thief who was on\n the right hand (of the cross), through the prayers of all the saints,\n and more particularly of the holy and glorious and perpetual Virgin,\n the Mother of God, Mary. Amen, and Amen, and Amen.\u201d\n\nAnother of these subscriptions ends thus:--\n\n \u201cWhosoever removeth this volume from this same mentioned convent, may\n the anger of the Lord overtake him, in this world, and in the next, to\n all eternity. Amen.\u201d\n\nThese imprecations were not impotent forms; for they took great hold\nof the minds and consciences of those who had the custody of the\nliterary treasures of each monastery; and the instances are frequent\nin which a religious (we should not call it a superstitious) fear,\navailed to counterbalance the sordid motive to which collectors of\nMSS. made their appeal. Shall we either blame or contemn the needy\nbrethren who professed their readiness to be buried under the ruins of\ntheir monasteries rather than violate their consciences by accepting\ngold for their books? These scruples--if such a word should be used in\nthis instance--have at length given way, and Europe--or the learned\nthroughout it--will turn to good account the spoils that have been thus\nobtained.\n\nJust above (p. 253), we have brought forward an instance in which we\nare able, with certainty, to track our path from the Printing Press\nof this very year, in following upward the history of a Manuscript\nto the remote age of the copyist by whom it was executed. Another\ninstance, varying from this in its circumstances, has just now made\nits long-desired appearance. What we refer to is Cardinal Mai\u2019s\nedition--in five quarto volumes--of the celebrated Vatican Manuscript\nof the Old and New Testament (the former is, of course, the Greek\nof the Septuagint). It has long been known that the Vatican Library\ncontained a manuscript of high antiquity, and great value; but which\nwas guarded with so much jealousy that a glimpse of it--or, at most,\na brief examination of a few places in it, was the utmost favour that\ncould be obtained from the papal authorities. Several Biblical scholars\nhad visited Rome for the express purpose of inspecting, or examining,\nthese precious remains; but with little success. One of the last of\nthese--Dr. Tregelles--thus describes it:--\n\n \u201cThis MS. is on very thin vellum; the letters are small regularly\n formed, uncials; three columns are on each page (with some\n exceptions): the original writer placed neither accents nor\n breathings, but these have been added by a later hand; they are,\n however, so delicately written, and with ink which has so much\n faded in colour (if indeed it ever were thoroughly black), that some\n who have carefully examined the MS. have thought that the accents\n and breathings were not additions to what was originally written.\n It is, however, an established fact, that they did proceed from a\n later corrector: this is proved by microscopic examination, and also\n from their omission in places in which the later hand introduced a\n correction; and also it may be remarked, that if the original copyist\n had written these fine strokes with the same ink as the letters, they\n would, of course, have faded in the same proportion, and thus would\n now be discernible only with difficulty.\n\n \u201cThe appearance of this MS. now is peculiar; for after the older\n ink had considerably faded, some one took the trouble of retouching\n the letters throughout; this was probably done to make them more\n legible for actual use. When, however, this _restorer_ differed from\n the original copyist in orthography, he left letters untouched; and\n sometimes, he appears to have corrected the readings, or, at least,\n they are corrected in ink of a similar colour; and in cursive letters.\n\n \u201cThis MS. is void of interpunction; and the only resemblance to it\n is found in a small space being left between the letters where a new\n section begins. The initial letters, as left by the first copyist,\n are not larger than the rest; but a later hand has added a large\n initial letter in the margin, and has erased (wholly or partially) the\n original initial.\u201d\n\nIt is affirmed of this Vatican Manuscript, that \u201cits antiquity is\nshown by its pal\u00e6ographic peculiarities, the letters even resembling,\nin many respects, those found in the Herculanean Rolls; the form of\nthe book, the six columns at each opening resembling, in appearance,\nnot a little a portion of a _rolled_ book; the uniformity of the\nletters, and the absence of all punctuation:\u201d all these points are\nregarded as indicative of a high antiquity. Dr. Tregelles adds that\nhe had just received a single skin of an Hebrew roll; and the general\neffect of that portion of a book of the rolled form, when looked at by\nitself, singularly resembles one page of the Codex Vaticanus ... the\nhistory of this Hebrew fragment is peculiar, for it was found in a dry\nshaft beneath the Mosque of Omar, at Jerusalem--the ancient site of\nthe Temple. The three columns contain Genesis xxii. 1--xxiv. 26. The\nmaterial is a red skin, prepared for writing on one side only.\n\nA faithful edition of this noted manuscript had long been looked for\nby those engaged in the criticism of the Scriptures; and this has at\nlength been given to the world. During many years, the late Cardinal\nMai had been engaged in accomplishing this task; and though he did\nnot live to see it actually published, he had made provisions for its\nappearance. With what relates to the exactness of this edition we\nhave nothing to do in this place:--it is said to be not altogether\nfaultless; but perhaps it is as little chargeable with errors as ought\nto be expected, the immensity of the labour in carrying it through the\npress being duly considered.\n\nThe faultiness of the _manuscript_--the mischances, and the oversights\nof the original scribe, are matters immediately connected with our\nsubject; and it may be proper briefly to refer to them:[8] in truth, a\nknowledge of the usual extent of such errors, and of the sources of\nthem, tends decisively to strengthen a reasonable confidence in the\ngeneral trustworthiness of the literary remains of remote times. So\nmuch of human frailty attaches to these, as to all other labours of the\nhuman head and hand, as should exclude a fond or superstitious regard\nto them;--yet the amount of error is far from being enough to shake our\nconfidence in the genuineness and integrity of these precious relics of\nantiquity--taken as a whole.\n\nSome considerable portions of the original copy have, in the lapse\nof ages, been torn away, or lost from it;--or in some way they have\nperished:--as to the deficiency at the end, the wanting books may\nperhaps never have been added:--these are the concluding portions\nof the Epistle to the Hebrews, the three Pastoral epistles, and the\nApocalypse. These chasms have, however, been supplied by copyists of a\nlater age. The errors of the original copyist are such as must attach\nto labours of this kind, in which the writer either trusts to his eye,\nin looking to his exemplar; or to his ear, in listening to a reader.\nEach mode has its disadvantages; in the one case, words of similar\nappearance are easily taken, the one for the other, even when the\nsubstitution may have been productive of an absurd reading;--for the\nmind of the writer may have gone for a moment--like the fool\u2019s eyes--to\nthe ends of the earth. In this mode also a clause may easily have been\nomitted, or even an entire line dropped out of its place. In the latter\nmode--when a reader dictates, word by word--to the writer, the same\nmischances may have had place; and in addition to these, there will be\nthe _mishearings_ of the scribe, and the faulty enunciations of the\nreader. On the whole, the errors are such as indicate, what man at\nthe best is liable to--momentary lapses of attention, notwithstanding\neven a high rate of habitual accuracy, and of conscientious care; they\nare not more than may thus be accounted for; and as to the damage\nthence arising, it is quite inconsiderable; for while one copyist\nnods, another is awake; and as to the Scriptures, the abundance of\nmanuscripts, and of quotations, and of ancient versions, is such as\nto reduce the instances of really ambiguous and important readings to\na very small number; and of these--few as they are--very few affect\nat all any article of our belief, or any moral precept. The general\ninference is this--that, while the aids of erudite criticism are\nindispensable, for securing to us the possession of a text--the best\nthat may now be possible--no text which it is possible at this time\nto obtain, can deserve that sort of superstitious regard with which\nsome religious persons would fain look at the Bible in their hand. The\nmost faulty text in existence may safely be regarded as a true and\ntrustworthy conveyance of the message of eternal life; and also as\na true and a trustworthy expression of that moral code according to\nwhich all actions will be judged. Souls will not perish, nor even be\nendangered, through erroneous readings; nor in any single instance will\nit appear that the conduct and temper that are becoming to a Christian\nwill have been tarnished, or in any manner made less ornamental,\nbecause an ancient transcriber of the Gospels or Epistles has written\n\u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, where he ought to have written \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\nThe history and description of several noted ancient manuscripts of\nthe Scriptures, similar to that of this Vatican Manuscript, might here\nbe brought forward, if it were useful to do so; but, in regard to\nour present purpose, it may be more serviceable to fix the reader\u2019s\nattention upon this one instance, and to insist, for a moment, upon the\nvalue of the facts, of which it is a sample.\n\nWe have then before us--let us suppose it--now on our table--five bulky\nquarto volumes, printed at Rome about fourteen years ago, but just now\nbrought forward. These volumes contain the Greek version of the Old\nTestament--the Septuagint--and the Greek of the New Testament--and the\neditor informs us that they are printed from a manuscript which has\nlong been stored in the Vatican library. This manuscript has in fact\nbeen seen, and in part examined, by a succession of European scholars,\nduring the course of three centuries past; and a portion of it was long\nago given to the world in a printed edition. At what time, or in what\nmanner, this manuscript came to be where now it is found, is not known,\nnor are these facts of much consequence; for when it is examined by\nthose whose studies and habits have made them familiar with literary\nantiquarian relics--those who \u201cby reason of use have their senses\nexercised\u201d to judge of things that differ, such persons, in narrowly\ninspecting the material--the vellum--the ink--the form and disposition\nof the colours--the character of the letters--the juxta-position\nof words--the _species_ of sectional division, as compared with the\nsectional divisions prevalent at different times:--these and other\nminute characteristics being considered--these skilled persons differ\nlittle in their judgment as to the date of the manuscript, and agree in\nfixing a time about the middle of the fourth century, when it passed\nfrom under the hand of an assiduous, and, on the whole, a careful\ncopyist. We are landed, therefore, let us say--in the mid years of that\ncentury when Christianity had everywhere got the ascendancy; or some\ntime during the reigns of Constans and Constantius.\n\nNow the possession of so large a quantity of very costly material--the\nfinest vellum, and the command of so much time as must have been\nemployed in executing a careful and uniform copy, in uncial letters, of\nthe Old and New Testament, are evidence of the fact that the copyist\nwas in a position favourable for accomplishing his task in an efficient\nmanner; nor can it be doubted that he would take proportionate care to\nselect a manuscript--as his exemplar--the best he could find. Probably\nhe would provide himself with _several_ such manuscripts for purposes\nof collation, in doubtful instances; he would seek for the oldest\nmanuscripts that might be then obtainable. In supposing so much as\nthis, we assume only what it is reasonable to assume. But a manuscript\nwhich, in the middle of the fourth century, would be accounted\nancient--we are now thinking of the New Testament--must have been, at\nthe least--a hundred and fifty, or two hundred years old. We have now\nin our hands a great number of MSS. that are undoubtedly more than a\nthousand years old--two hundred years therefore comes far within the\nrange of the ordinary longevity of books on vellum.\n\nTake it as probable that the copyist whose labours are before us in the\nVatican Manuscript, had on his table manuscripts that were two hundred\nyears old, and then these will have been executed during the reign of\nAntoninus Pius, and in Egypt probably. But now I have on _my_ table\nwhat may enable me to form an opinion of the value of the manuscripts\nwhich the transcriber of the Vatican Manuscript had then _his_ table;\nfor I have before me the voluminous works of the Christian writers of\nthat very time--such as Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Iren\u00e6us,\nClement of Alexandria, Hermias, Origen, and others:--not to come down\nto a later time. These works have reached modern times through various\nand independent channels; they have come abroad, drawn forth from\nhiding-places, widely apart. But now these various writings abound with\nquotations from the canonical books; and although these quotations\nare not always exact in the wording, they are mainly identical with\nthe text of the Vatican Manuscript. I turn to one of the above-named\nwriters--Clemens Alexandrinus. The passages in the Old Testament which\nhe either refers to explicitly, or quotes _verbatim_, are so many,\nthat they make a list which fills not fewer than twelve folio pages,\ndouble columns. Now, in turning to the places where these citations\noccur, and in comparing them with the Vatican Septuagint, I find them\nto correspond, word for word, in a large proportion of instances.\nClement, it is evident, had before him a Greek version of the Old\nTestament, which was mainly the same as the manuscript from which the\nVatican MS. was derived. But now, if it might be imagined that a modern\neditor of Clement had made alterations in the text, with the view of\nbringing these quotations into conformity with the Vatican Septuagint,\nany such supposition as this is excluded by the fact that, in frequent\ninstances, there are variations in the wording of quotations; it hence\nappears that the editor has _not_ done what I might conjecture that he\nwould do. Besides, it is not one ancient writer, but very many that\nquote the Old Testament freely, and frequently; sometimes they do so\nwith perfect accuracy, sometimes with less care; but yet they do it so\nas to furnish over-abundant evidence of the fact that the Greek version\nof the Old Testament, such as we now find it in the Vatican Manuscript,\nwas familiarly known to, and was in the hands of, the Christian\ncommunity at that early time;--as it had been for centuries before that\ntime.\n\nWe have thus adduced a few instances in which the history of particular\nmanuscripts may be traced up from the present time to a remote\nage--some a thousand--some fourteen hundred years. Many similar\ninstances might be brought forward, if it were thought necessary,\nor even useful, so to do; but the reader, if indeed he wishes to\nacquaint himself more fully with facts of this class, may easily do\nso by looking into the catalogues that have been published of the\nmanuscripts contained in the principal libraries of Europe; or, not to\ntravel far--the Bodleian, Oxford; or that of the British Museum. The\nmanuscripts in the Museum are the Cottonian, the Harleian, those of the\nKing\u2019s Library, Ayscough\u2019s, Hargrave\u2019s, and the Lansdowne MSS., of all\nwhich collections separate catalogues have been published. There are,\nbesides, in the Museum, several collections of Oriental manuscripts,\nand many recent additions, such, for instance, as those that have\nlately been obtained from the Nitrian monasteries, and which have been\nmentioned above.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[5] I have lately brought forward some facts of this kind, relating to\nan abbot of a Nitrian monastery. ESSAYS, &c.; NILUS.\n\n[6] These are, Palladius, Eusebius, Socrates, Jerome, Rufinus,\nEvagrius, Cassian; and others incidentally.\n\n[7] An account in full of these researches appeared in No. CLIII. of\nthe Quarterly Review (1845), and afterwards in the Edinburgh Review.\n\n[8] The reader who is a _student_ in Biblical criticism will know where\nto look for precise information on this ground.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nTHE PROCESS OF HISTORIC EVIDENCE EXEMPLIFIED IN THE INSTANCE OF\nHERODOTUS.\n\n\nWe have now seen in what way, and liable to what conditions, the mass\nof ancient literature, including the Holy Scriptures, has been sent\nforward through the long track of centuries intervening between the\ntimes of its production and the revival of learning, and the employment\nof the printing-press, in these modern times.\n\nWhat I now propose to do is to place before the reader--in a single and\na very signal instance, the entire historic process; or that method\nof proceeding by means of which we, at this time, may find our way\nretrogressively upwards, along the high road of history from this, our\nnineteenth century, to the times--four and five hundred years before\nthe Christian era. This journey is not of less extent than two thousand\nfive hundred years, and it brings us to the time of the last of the\nHebrew prophets.\n\nA very frequent phrase in historical writings of any sort relating to\nantiquity is this, \u201cHerodotus informs us, so and so.\u201d Now my questions,\nin hearing this, are these: \u201cThis Herodotus, who was he? When did he\nlive? What did he write? and how do I know that the books which bear\nhis name on the title-page, were written by any such person, or at the\ntime to which they are usually assigned?\u201d And then, supposing these\nquestions to be answered to my satisfaction, \u201cWhat reason have I for\nbelieving that the narratives which I find in these books are, in the\nmain, true? How does it appear that what I read is _history_, and is\nnot _fiction_?\u201d\n\nWe select Herodotus as a sample of this process, or this method of\nhistoric proof, for several reasons:--such as these. This Greek writer\nstands forward as the \u201cFather of history;\u201d he is the earliest of all\nextant writers of this class, excepting those of the Old Testament;\nhis writings embrace a great compass of subjects--in fact, they give\nus, in outline or in detail, almost all we know of the nations of a\nremote antiquity. Then there is this peculiar circumstance attaching to\nthe writings of this author, that, after having been much disparaged\nin modern times, and his credit greatly lowered, he has, within a\nfew years, been restored to his place of authority by the greater\nintelligence of recent writers; and by an extension of our knowledge of\nthe countries spoken of by him, as to their natural productions, their\narts, their works, and their history. Of late--and almost every year\nhas done something to bring about this result--Herodotus has returned\nto his position; and his assailants and critics have, in consequence,\nfallen out of repute. These writings, therefore, are samples at once\nof the authenticity of ancient history, and of what may be called the\nimmortality of historic truth--its resurrection to a new life, after a\nperiod of entombment.\n\nTo begin at the beginning;--I will now suppose that I have before me\nseveral works in English, French, German, Italian, Latin, each of\nthem purporting to be--\u201cThe History of Herodotus, translated from the\nGreek.\u201d In collating these books it becomes evident that they are all\nderived from some one source. But it may be well to give attention to\nsome facts at this stage of our progress.\n\nWe affirm that the Greek text of Herodotus, such as it now appears,\nwas extant some time before the publication of the earliest printed\neditions. Ostensible and tangible proof of what we here allege, is\nafforded by the existence, at the present time, as we shall presently\nstate, in several public libraries, of many manuscript copies of the\nGreek text, which, by the date affixed to them, by the character of\nthe writing, by the appearance of the ink, and material, and by the\ntraditionary history of some of them, are clearly attributable to\ndifferent ages, from the tenth century to the fifteenth. But now if\nit were possible to suppose that all these copies were derived from\none MS. and that one a forgery of a late date, an examination and\ncomparison of them, and a comparison of the manuscripts with the\nprinted editions, will furnish several special demonstrations of the\npoint affirmed. In 1474, twenty-eight years _before_ the appearance\nof the first printed edition of the Greek text, Laurentius Valla, an\nItalian scholar, published at Venice a Latin translation of Herodotus,\npurporting to have been made from the Greek. Now if, in comparing\nthis translation with the Greek manuscripts that are still extant, it\nwere asked which is the _original_, the Latin or the Greek? no one\nacquainted with the structure of language could hesitate in declaring\nfor the latter; for in the Latin (as in every translation) ellipses\nare supplied, exegetical and connective phrases are introduced; and\nwhat is still more decisive, there are many passages in the Greek\nwhere an obvious and consistent sense is evidently misunderstood in\nthe Latin; for Valla seems, from all his translations, to have been\nbut imperfectly acquainted with the Greek language. In such instances\nthe occasion of the translator\u2019s error may often be detected; by which\nmeans incontestable proof is afforded of the fact now supposed to be\nquestioned, namely--that the Greek is the _original_, and the Latin\nthe translation. Again:--The Latin, as compared with the Greek, is\ndeficient in many entire paragraphs, and in many single sentences.\nIn the Greek these passages are one with the context; but in the\nLatin, the hiatus is either abrupt and apparent, or it is concealed\nby a connective sentence, evidently inserted as a link between the\ndisjoined portions of the text. Now, when evidence like this is\npresented, we need not lay stress upon the traditionary history of\nparticular manuscripts, nor upon their apparent antiquity, nor upon\nthe genuineness of the dates affixed to them; for from the facts\nactually before us, we can draw only one inference. Without going\nfurther, therefore, we may conclude with certainty, that several\nGreek manuscripts of Herodotus were in existence some time before the\npublication of the printed editions; and by consequence, the averments\nof the first editors are confirmed, who declare that they derived\n_their text_ from manuscripts--already known to the learned.\n\nThe Greek text of Herodotus was, for the first time, printed by\nMinutius Aldus, at Venice, September, 1502. Copies of this beautiful\nand correct edition, \u201ccorrected by a collation of many manuscripts,\u201d\nare still extant:--it is distinguished by its retention of the forms of\nthe Ionic dialect--a proof that the editor followed a pure and ancient\nmanuscript, for the Ionic forms are generally lost in those copies, the\ntext of which has passed through many transcriptions. This edition,\nwith corrections and notes, was reprinted at Basil, in 1541, and again\nin 1557, by Joachim Camerarius. In 1570 the Aldine text of Herodotus\nwas printed at Paris, by Henry Stephens, who does not profess himself\nto have collated manuscripts. The title-page declares that the books\nwere \u201cex vetustis exemplaribus recogniti:\u201d but in his second edition,\nStephens confesses that up to that time he had not been able to procure\nan ancient copy by which to correct the text; he must, therefore, in\nthe phrase just quoted, be understood to refer to the manuscripts\nthat were consulted by Aldus. G. Jungerman, assuming the edition just\nmentioned as the basis of his own, in which however he made, without\nspecification, many conjectural emendations, printed the Greek text, at\nFrankfort, in 1608. This was the first edition in which the text was\ndivided into sections, as it now appears. The London edition, dated\n1679, and published under favour of the name of the learned Thomas\nGale, was derived, without acknowledgment, from that of Jungerman.\nHitherto the editions were only successive reprints of the Aldine text;\nand came, therefore, all from a single source; but in 1715, an edition\nof Herodotus was published at Leyden, under the care of J. Gronovius,\nwho collated the former editions with some manuscripts before unknown,\nor not examined. A Glasgow edition appeared in 1761; and two years\nlater that of Wesseling, printed at Amsterdam. Some quotations from\nthis editor\u2019s preface will give the general reader a good idea of\nthe method of conducting these literary labours, and of the security\nafforded for the purity of the text of ancient authors. Several German\nand Dutch editions have appeared since that of Wesseling; the most\nesteemed are those of Borheck, Reiz, Schaefer, and Schweigh\u00e6user. Of\nthe laborious care bestowed by the learned editors upon these editions,\nthe following citations from their Prefaces will give evidence.\nWesseling says:--\n\n\u201cThe forms and proprieties of the Ionic dialect I have restored,\nwherever they could be gathered clearly _from the ancient codices_, and\nhave replaced some readings which, without cause, had been rejected.\nInnumerable passages I have relieved from errors, yet _very rarely\non mere conjecture_, and only in those words which the genius of the\nlanguage would not admit; and in many instances have thought it enough\njust to point out the means of amending the text, where it is evidently\ncorrupted.\u201d In quoting this passage from Wesseling, Schweigh\u00e6user says,\n\u201cNeither have we, except in a very few places, admitted conjectural\nemendations into the text; and these only where it was evident that\nall the readings of all the existing copies were corrupted; and where\nan emendation presented itself which not merely seemed probable, but\nwhich was so clear and certain as to need no argument in its favour.\u201d\nVery judiciously, this editor refuses to impute to the temerity or\nignorance of copyists _all_ the variations from the Ionic forms; since\nit is evident that Greek writers who adopted _one_ of the dialects,\nallowed themselves the liberty of occasionally using the common forms\nof the language: he therefore restores the ionicisms only when he has\nthe authority of MSS. for so doing. Of Wesseling\u2019s extreme caution,\nSchweigh\u00e6user thus expresses his opinion:--In this edition, excepting\na few errors, easily corrected, or some cases which may be open to\ndisputation, the learned have nothing to complain of; unless it be,\nthat, in adopting better readings, warranted by MSS., as well as in\ncorrecting, on probable conjecture, some places manifestly faulty in\nall copies, the Editor was too timid--so much so, indeed, that many\napproved readings which he might well have admitted into the text, he\nventured not to adopt. And often he preferred to leave, untouched,\nmanifest and gross corruptions, rather than to put in their place his\nown emendations, or those of others, though decidedly approved by\nhimself. As to conjectural emendations, even in those places where\nall the MSS. are plainly in fault, we have seen him, in his preface,\ningenuously confess that he had rather be thought too cautious, than\ntoo bold: and who would not esteem, yes and admire, rather than\ncondemn, this illustrious man, blaming his own timidity in this\nsort:--\u201cIn attempting to restore the language of Herodotus, I have\nbeen restrained often by more than a due timidity; but such is my\nnature.\u201d This editor, in his preface, states that, having been applied\nto, to superintend a reprint of Wesseling\u2019s Herodotus, he had declined\ndoing so, unless he should be able to obtain, from the French king\u2019s\nlibrary, the loan of the MSS. of Herodotus, there preserved:--the\ntroubles of the times preventing this, he sought for some one, residing\nat Paris, who would freely undertake the irksome and painful toil of\ncollating Wesseling\u2019s text with all those codices; and at length, by\nmeans of a learned friend, he met with a young man, a native of Greece,\nwho executed the task of comparing the text--word by word--with the\nfive principal manuscripts in the library, and making a _separate_ list\nof the various readings in each.\n\nFrom the mass of variations brought before him, the office of the\neditor is to select that one which most recommends itself, either by\nthe superior authority of the codex in which it appears, or by its\nparticular probability, or seeming accordance with the author\u2019s style\nor meaning, or with the proprieties of the language. And not seldom\nit happens that the most inferior copies have chanced to preserve an\nevidently genuine reading, where the best have, as plainly, erred.--\u201cNo\nMS.,\u201d an eminent critic has said, \u201cought to be thought unworthy of\nbeing consulted.\u201d Yet in cases of importance, where there may be\nroom for doubt among the existing variations, the canon must be\nobeyed which enjoins that, \u201cCodices should rather be _weighed_ than\nnumbered.\u201d Although discussions on subjects of this kind cannot but\nseem uninteresting, and even trivial to general readers--and perhaps\nabsurd, when the gravity and strenuousness with which, sometimes, the\nmost minute points are argued, is observed; yet it ought never to be\nforgotten that _the credit_, _the purity_, and _the consistency_ of\nancient literature, are very greatly promoted by the indefatigable\nzeal of those who devote their lives to these learned and unattractive\nlabours.\n\nBut I now look into some of the printed editions. For instance, here\nis a small folio volume, in excellent style, as to type, and paper,\nand execution, printed in Paris, MDLXX, and edited by Henry Stephens.\nI have also in hand the edition edited by J. Schweigh\u00e6user, in four\nvolumes octavo, reprinted in London, 1822; and also a more recent\nedition, namely--that of Professor Gaisford, in two volumes octavo.\nBesides these there are ten other editions of the Greek text--German,\nDutch, and English. I open these several editions, at hazard--say at\nthe beginning of the third book--THALIA: I find that they correspond,\nword for word, for some way on; but in the fifth line I find an\nunimportant variation--one form of a word is used instead of another;\nand further on the order of the words is a little different, but the\nsense is the same. Sometimes one particle or expletive is used instead\nof another; sometimes those expletives that barely affect the sense\nin any way, are omitted. Frequently the orthography of proper names\nis differently given in the different editions. Very rarely are these\nvariations of so much importance as would affect the sense in a\ntranslation. But now, from the fact of the verbal identity of these\neditions throughout by far the larger part of them, and also from the\noccurrence of not infrequent, and yet inconsiderable differences,\nI infer, first--that they have all had a common source in some one\noriginal exemplar; and, secondly--that there have been many copyings\nfrom that first copy; and that it has been in the course of these\nrepetitions, in which the ear, the eye, and the hand of many writers\nhave done their part, that these departures from the author\u2019s first\ncopy have taken place. In a word, the _printed_ editions have followed\n_manuscripts_; and these have undergone those chances, and those\nmischances which, in the ordinary course of things, must attach to a\nprocess like this, notwithstanding the care and the fidelity of those\nwho practise it.\n\nThe next step, then, is to make search for those ancient manuscripts,\nor for some of them, whence these printed editions have been derived.\nAbout fifteen such manuscripts are now known, and may be inspected\nin public or private libraries. One of the purest of these is\npreserved in the French King\u2019s library (now the Imperial) and it\nis thus described.--It is a parchment in folio, purchased in 1688,\ncontaining the nine books of Herodotus. This codex is by far the best\nof all, and appears to have been executed in the 12th century. It\nis distinguished by its uniform retention of the forms of the Ionic\ndialect--an indication of the antiquity and purity of the copy from\nwhich it was derived. The same library contains also several other\nMSS. of this author, which are thus described--A codex on paper,\nformerly belonging to the Colbertine library, containing the nine\nbooks of Herodotus: in the margin are notes of some value. This MS.\nwas executed in 1372. A copy on paper, written in the year 1447. The\nnegligence of the copyist is, in this instance, much to be complained\nof, for sometimes entire phrases are wanting. Yet it contains some\nreadings that deserve attention. A MS. on paper, dated 1474. Besides\nthe nine books of Herodotus, this codex contains parts of the works\nof Isocrates, and Plutarch, together with a lexicon of words peculiar\nto Herodotus. A MS., which along with extracts from several Greek\nauthors, contains part of the first book of Herodotus, as far as c.\n87. Although this codex is of late date, the extract from Clio appears\nto have been made from a very ancient copy. Some other codices in\nthe same library afford also parts of our author\u2019s work. There is a\ncodex formerly in the Florentine library, which from the condition of\nthe parchment, and the antique style of the writing, is manifestly\nof great antiquity. Montfaucon assigns it to the tenth century. This\ncodex belongs to the same family as that of Askew, and the Medicean.\nYet neither was it copied from the latter, with which, indeed, it\nmight dispute the palm of excellence; but being derived from a more\nancient source, it offers many approved readings, differing from the\nMedicean, where that is in fault, or where it offers no emendation of\nthe common text. This Medicean codex is thus described in the Catalogue\nof the Florentine library: \u201cHerodotus:--a very ancient codex, valuable\nbeyond all praise. It is on paper, in quarto, well preserved: executed\nin the tenth century. The titles of the books are in uncial letters\nof gold; it contains 374 pages.\u201d This copy was followed with a too\nsuperstitious reverence by Gronovius; yet being compelled to consult\nit in the public library, and under the eye of the librarian, he has\nnot seldom mistaken its readings. A MS. of Herodotus, formerly in the\nlibrary of Archbishop Sancroft, and afterwards in that of Emmanuel\nCollege, Cambridge, has been deemed of high antiquity, and great value.\nThe libraries of Oxford contain also some codices of our author, and\nseveral are known to be in the possession of private persons. \u201cThese\nmanuscript copies,\u201d says Wesseling, \u201cbrought to light from various\nplaces, have not, it is manifest, originated all from one source (in\nmodern times). Where the copy followed by Valla is torn or defective,\nthere also the Vienna, the Vatican, and the Oxford MSS. are wanting.\nAnd in what these are remarkable, so is the Florentine. But the\nMedicean MS., that of Cardinal Passio, and of Askew, for the most part\nagree. The three first mentioned, seem to have been derived all from\nsome one more ancient parchment, the writer of which, offended perhaps\nat the frequent digressions of the first book, very daringly cut them\nall off; and lest the hiatus should seem harsh, he skilfully fitted the\nparts, so as to preserve the continuity of the style. The three last,\non the contrary, were derived from the copy of a transcriber better\ninformed, who scrupled to make any needless alterations. A great number\nof the various readings which distinguish these MSS. are attributable\nto the copyists who have substituted the common forms of the language,\nand words better known, in the place of the Ionic forms and of obsolete\nwords.\u201d\n\nAll that is of any importance in proof of the genuineness and\nintegrity of ancient books, is to know that there are _now_ in\nexistence _several_ copies, evidently of older date than the first\nprinted edition of the author; and that these copies, by their general\nagreement, and, not less so, by their smaller diversities, prove, at\nonce, their derivation from the same original, and their long distance\nfrom that original; since many of these diversities are such as could\nhave arisen only from many successive transcriptions. Beyond these\nsimple facts, the knowledge of codices, and of various readings, is\ninteresting to none but editors and critics.\n\nWe may now fairly assume as certain, so much as this--that the work\nbefore us--mainly such as we now have it in our hands, is _an ancient\nwork_, and that it has come down to modern times in that mode of\nwhich, in the preceding chapters, we have given some account, and\nhave adduced several instances. Our next question is this--To what\nage this work ought to be attributed? Or this--When did the author\nlive and write? In obtaining an answer to this question, or to these\ntwo questions--considered as one, we must look to that succession of\nwriters, retrogressively examined, who mention Herodotus, and his\nHistory, who describe it, and make quotations from it, or who give\nsummaries of its contents. The proper and the most complete proof\nof the antiquity and genuineness of ancient books, is that which is\nthus derived from their mutual references and quotations. There is\nan independence in this kind of evidence which renders it, when it\nis precise and copious, quite conclusive. It is not the evidence of\nwitnesses, who first have been schooled and cautioned, and then brought\ninto court to do their best for the party by whom they are summoned;\nbut it is the purely incidental testimony of unconnected persons, who,\nin the pursuit of their particular objects, gather up, and present to\nus, the facts which we were in search of. Besides--these facts have a\npeculiarity, which renders them eminently capable of furnishing precise\nand conclusive proof. A book is an aggregate of many thousand separable\nparts, each of which, both by the thought it contains, and by the\nchoice and arrangement of the words, possesses a perfect individuality,\nsuch as fits it for the purpose of defining or identifying the whole\nto which it belongs; and if several of these definite parts are\nadduced, the identification is rendered the more complete. This kind of\ndefinition is moreover capable of being multiplied, almost without end;\nfor each writer who quotes a book, having probably a different object\nin view, selects a different set of quotations, yet all of them meeting\nin the same work. We are thus furnished with a complicated system of\nconcentric lines, which intersect nowhere--but in the book in question.\n\nThen it is to be remembered that each of these quoting writers stands\nhimself as the centre of a similar system of references, so that the\ncomplication of proof becomes infinitely intricate, and therefore\nit is so much the more conclusive. It is again involved, and so is\nrendered secure, by the occurrence of double or triple quotations;\nfor example--Photius quotes Ctesias--quoting Herodotus. The proof of\ngenuineness in the instance of a standard author, is by such means as\nthese extended, attenuated, and involved in a degree to which no other\nspecies of evidence makes any approach.\n\nIt hardly needs to be said, that this high degree of certainty,\nresulting from the complication, as well as the number of testimonies,\nbelongs only to works that are explicitly and frequently quoted by\nsucceeding writers. And yet this sort of proof is deemed to be in its\nnature so valid and satisfactory, that a very small portion of it is\nordinarily admitted as quite sufficient. If, for instance, a book is\nexplicitly mentioned only by one or two writers of the next age, the\nevidence is allowed to decide the question of genuineness; unless when\nthere appears some positive reasons to justify suspicion. But with\n_questionable_ matters we have not now to do.\n\nIt cannot be thought necessary to adduce separately, any proof of the\ngenuineness of the works that are about to be cited; since they all\npossess an established character, resting upon evidence of the same\nkind as that which is here displayed in the case of Herodotus. To bring\nforward all this proof, in each instance, would fill volumes.\n\nWe have seen that many manuscript copies of Herodotus, of which several\nare still preserved, were extant before the first printed editions\nappeared; and from a comparison of these manuscripts, as well as from\nthe date which some of them bear, and from their seeming antiquity,\nit is evident that the work had then been in existence much longer\nthan three hundred years; for these several manuscripts exhibit, as we\nhave said, in their various readings, those minute diversities which\nare found to arise from repeated transcriptions, made by copyists\nin different ages and countries--some of these copyists being exact\nand skilful, while others were careless and ignorant. This proof\nof antiquity is more conclusive than that which arises from a mere\ntraditionary history of a single manuscript, or from a date affixed\nto a copy; for the date may be spurious, or the tradition may be\nunauthentic; but in the various readings we have before our eyes a\nspecies of decay, which time alone could produce.\n\nIt is thus that we have assumed it as certain, that the text of this\nauthor was extant at least as early as the twelfth century. And if it\nwere supposed that we could not trace the history of these manuscripts\nhigher than that time, then we should turn to this other species of\nevidence, namely--that arising from the quotations of a series of\nwriters, extending upwards from the age in which the history of the\nmanuscripts merges in obscurity, to the very age of the author.\n\nThe evidence which we adduce for this purpose we divide into two\nportions;--in the first portion proving--that the history of Herodotus\nwas known to the learned during a period of a thousand years, from A.D.\n1150 to A.D. 150.\n\nEustathius, archbishop of Thessalonica, flourished in the latter part\nof the twelfth century. His Commentaries upon the Iliad and Odyssey\nof Homer, contain many references to Herodotus, that are more or less\nfull and precise. Among these, the following afford sufficient proof\nof the point we have to establish; for they leave no room to doubt\nthat the History of Herodotus, as now extant, was in the hands of this\nlearned prelate. In the course of these commentaries he says, \u201cBut\nHerodotus seems to resemble Pherecydes and Hecat\u00e6us, who (in writing\nhistory) threw aside the adornments of the poetic style.\u201d Again,\n\u201cHerodotus (Erato 74) says that Nonacris is a city of Arcadia where\nthe waters of Styx arise.\u201d Again, \u201cHerodotus, that sweet writer of the\nIonic.\u201d Eustathius cites our author to illustrate the meaning of the\nword _mitra_--girdle or turban. On the word _phalanx_ he quotes from\nthe fourth book a sentence in which Herodotus calls Pythagoras \u201ca man\neminent among the Greeks for his intelligence.\u201d He quotes a passage\nrelative to the Egyptian bread from the second book. Again, \u201cMenelaus\ncertainly visited those other Ethiopians whom Herodotus describes as\nbordering upon the Egyptians:\u201d he alludes to the account given by our\nauthor of the sheep sacred to the sun in Apollonia. Eustathius quotes\nHerodotus, in proof that the Athenians were of Pelasgian origin.\n\nSuidas, a learned Byzantine monk, is believed to have flourished at the\nclose of the eleventh century. His Lexicon contains a brief Life of\nHerodotus; besides which, there occur under other words, not fewer than\ntwo hundred incidental references to different parts of the history.\nThey are for the most part verbal citations of a very exact kind,\nadduced in illustration of the meaning, or the orthography of words.\n\nPhotius, the learned and ambitious patriarch of Constantinople, belongs\nto the ninth century. This writer has preserved the only portions\nthat remain of the Persian and Indian history of Ctesias, who, as we\nshall see, gives a nearly contemporaneous testimony to Herodotus.\nThe Myriobiblon of Photius consists of notices and abridgments of\ntwo hundred and eighty works which he had read, and it affords\ntherefore much information available in determining questions of\nliterary antiquity. Many works were extant in the ninth century--at\nConstantinople especially, which disappeared in the following age; and\nPhotius, who had free access to the extensive libraries of that city,\nwanted no advantage which might fit him for the task of reviewing\nthe literature of the preceding ages. When therefore he quotes and\ndescribes a work, and speaks of it confidently as having been long\nknown in the world, and generally received as a genuine production of\nthe author whose name it bears, his evidence carries up the proof to\na still more remote age; for no _spurious_ work, recently produced,\ncould have been so mentioned by a critic of great learning and sound\njudgment. In the Myriobiblon, besides some incidental references to\nHerodotus, we find the following account (Art. 60) of him:--\u201cWe have\nperused the nine historical books of Herodotus, bearing the names of\nthe Nine Muses. This writer uses the Ionic dialect, as Thucydides\nemploys the Attic. He admits fabulous accounts, and frequent\ndigressions, which give a pleasing flow to the narrative; though\nindeed this manner of writing violates the strict proprieties of the\nhistorical style, in which the accuracy of truth ought not to be\nobscured by any mixtures of fable, nor the end proposed by the author\nto be long lost sight of. He begins the history with the reign of\nCyrus--the first of the Persian kings--narrating his birth, education,\nelevation, and rule; and he brings it down as far as the reign of\nXerxes--his expedition against the Athenians, and his flight. Xerxes\nwas indeed the fourth king from Cyrus--Cambyses being the second, and\nDarius the third; for Smerdes the Mage is not to be reckoned in the\nline of kings, inasmuch as he was an usurper who possessed himself of\nthe throne by fraud. With Xerxes, the son and successor of Darius,\nthe history closes (the close of the war with Greece), nor indeed is\nit carried to the end of his reign; for Herodotus himself flourished\nin those very times, as Diodorus the Sicilian, and others relate, who\nmention the story that Thucydides, while yet a youth, was present with\nhis father when Herodotus read his History in public, on which occasion\nhe burst into tears; which being observed by Herodotus, the historian\nturned to the father and said, \u2018O! Olorus, what a son have you, who\nthus burns with a passion for learning!\u2019\u201d\n\nThis description of the work, although concise, is abundantly\nsufficient to prove the existence of the text (as now extant) in the\nage of Photius, whose testimony establishes also the fact that it had\nthen been long known and reputed as a genuine production of Herodotus,\nwhile the exceptions made against certain fabulous digressions contain\nan explicit acknowledgment that the history was generally received as\nauthentic.\n\nStephen of Byzantium, author of a geographical and historical lexicon,\nflourished in the middle of the sixth century. He very frequently\nrefers to Herodotus. Art. _Thurium_, he quotes an epigram relating to\nhim; and under the following words references to him occur:--_Abarnus_,\na city, region, and promontory of Pariana, which Herodotus in his\nfourth book, says, is called _Abaris_. _Arisbe_--Herodotus and Jason\ncall it _Arisba_. _Archandroupolis_, a city of Egypt, according\nto Herodotus, in his second book. _Assa_, a city near Mount Atho,\nmentioned by Herodotus, in his seventh book. _Thalaman\u00e6i_, a nation\nsubject to the Persians. _Inycum_, a city of Sicily, called by\nHerodotus, _Inychos_. Herodotus appears to have been one of the\nprincipal authorities of this writer, and his citations are usually\ncorrect.\n\nMarcellinus, a critic of the sixth century, in his \u201cLife of\nThucydides,\u201d mentions Herodotus descriptively, and compares him on\nmany points with his rival. Omitting many less direct allusions, the\nfollowing may be mentioned. He commends the impartiality of Thucydides,\nwho did not allow his personal wrongs to give any colouring to his\nnarrative of facts--a degree of magnanimity uncommon, he says,\namong historians--\u201cFor even Herodotus, having been slighted by the\nCorinthians, affirms that they fled from the engagement at Salamis.\u201d\nDescribing the lofty style of Thucydides, he compares it with that\nof Herodotus, which, he says, \u201cis neither lofty like that of the\nAttic historian, nor elegant like that of Xenophon.\u201d On the ground\nof authenticity also, he compares the two historians, giving the\nadvantage in this respect to the younger; while he charges the former\nwith admitting marvellous tales, citing, as an example, the story of\nArion and the dolphin: and, towards the close, he repeats the incident\nalready mentioned, said to have taken place when Herodotus read his\nHistory in public.\n\nProcopius, the historian of the reign of Justinian, wrote about the\nmiddle of the sixth century. He cites Herodotus in precise terms:--\u201cNow\nHerodotus, the Halicarnassian, in the fourth book of his History, says,\nthat the earth, though distributed into three portions--Africa, Asia,\nand Europe, is one; and that the Egyptian Nile flows between Africa and\nAsia.\u201d (Gothic Wars, b. IV.)\n\nStob\u00e6us lived a century earlier than the last-named writer. In\nillustration of various ethical topics, he collects the sentiments of\na multitude of authors, and amongst the number, of Herodotus. Short\nsentences from the historian are adduced in four or five places, and\nthere is one of some length.\n\nThe Emperor Julian makes several allusions to our author:--thus, in\nhis first oration in praise of Constantine, he says, \u201cCyrus was called\nthe father, Cambyses the lord of his people.\u201d In the exordium of his\nEpistle to the Athenian people, several distinct allusions to the\nhistory of the Persian invasion occur; and in the Misopogon the story\nof Solon and Cr\u0153sus, as related by Herodotus, is distinctly mentioned.\nIn mentioning the principal Greek authors (Epist. XLII.), Herodotus is\nincluded. And in an epistle not now extant, but quoted by Suidas (Art.\n_Herodotus_), the apostate, as he is there called, cites the historian\nas \u201cthe Thurian writer of history.\u201d\n\nHesychius, the Lexicographer, lived in the third century. He makes\nseveral quotations from our author--as thus:--\u201c_Agathoergoi_--persons\ndischarged from the cavalry of Sparta--five every year, as Herodotus\nrelates.\u201d \u201c_Basilees_--judges; according to Herodotus, the avengers\nof wrong.\u201d \u201c_Zeira_--a zone, according to Herodotus.\u201d \u201c_Canamis_,\n_Tiara_--the bonnet of the Persians, according to Herodotus.\u201d\n_Zalmoxis_--the account given of the Get\u00e6, is quoted at length.\n\nAthen\u00e6us, a critic of the second century, quotes our author in the\nfollowing, among other instances: \u201cHerodotus, in his first book, writes\nthat the Persian kings drink no water except that which is brought\nfrom the Choaspian spring at Susa, which is carried for their use\nwherever they travel.\u201d \u201cHerodotus, comparing the Grecian entertainments\nwith those of the Persians, relates that the latter pay a peculiar\nregard to their natal day.\u201d \u201cHerodotus, in his seventh book, says that\nthose Greeks who entertained Xerxes on his way, were reduced to such\ndistress, that many of them left their homes.\u201d \u201cHerodotus relates that\nAmasis, king of Egypt, was accustomed to jest very freely with his\nguests.\u201d\n\nLonginus, the celebrated secretary of Queen Zenobia, quotes our author\nseveral times in his treatise on the Sublime. \u201cWas Herodotus alone\nan imitator of Homer?\u201d--the address of Dionysius to the Phoc\u00e6ans is\nquoted, \u201cOur affairs, Ionians! have reached a crisis--we must be free\nor slaves;\u201d he quotes with high commendation a passage, in which our\nauthor describes the course of the Nile between Elephantine and Meroe.\nThere is a quotation from the first book, also the story of Cleomenes\nin the fifth book is quoted:--\u201cCleomenes devoured his own flesh.\u201d\n\nDiogenes Laertius, author of the \u201cLives of the Philosophers,\u201d brings\nthe line of testimonies up to the time above mentioned: he makes the\nfollowing references to our author. In his Preface, he refers to the\nassertions of Herodotus relative to the Mages, and to Xerxes, whom he\naffirms to have lanced darts at the sun, and to have thrown fetters\ninto the sea. In the _Life of Pythagoras_, a passage is quoted relative\nto Zamolxis, who was worshipped by the Get\u00e6.\n\nIt is obvious that if the testimonies which are next to be adduced\nare full and conclusive, they will, in point of argument, supersede\nthose which have been already brought forward; for if it can be\nsatisfactorily proved that the now-existing text of Herodotus was known\nmore than two thousand years ago, it cannot be necessary to prove that\nit was extant at any intermediate period. Nevertheless the above-cited\nauthorities do not merely serve the purpose of completing our chain of\nevidence, but they are important in proving that the work, far from\nhaving been lost sight of in any age, was always familiarly known to\nscholars. We may therefore feel assured that copies were to be found\nin most libraries--that the work was frequently transcribed; and that,\nas the existing manuscripts indicate, we are not dependent upon the\naccuracy of one or two copyists only, for the integrity of the text.\n\nWe have now to show that the history of Herodotus was in existence, and\nwas known to a succession of writers from the age of the writer last\nmentioned, up to his own times--or about B.C. 440.\n\nA period of six or seven hundred years, ending in the second century of\nthe Christian era, includes the brightest times, both of Grecian and\nof the Roman literature. Evidence of the most conclusive kind on all\nquestions of literary history may therefore be collected in abundance\nfrom the writers of those ages. Innumerable quotations from all the\nprincipal authors are found on the pages of almost every prose writer\nwhose works have descended to modern times. The critics and historians,\nespecially, furnish abundantly the evidence we are in search of. We\nbegin this second series with--\n\nPausanias, who, in his historical description of Greece, has frequent\noccasion to cite the authority of Herodotus. Of these citations\nthe following may be mentioned:--In a digression relating to the\nEthiopians, he quotes from the second, and from the fourth book;\n\u201cFor the Nasamones, whom Herodotus considers as the same with the\nAtlantics, and who are said to know the measure of the earth, are\ncalled by the Libyans, dwelling in the extreme parts of Libya, near\nMount Atlas--Loxi.\u201d \u201cAgreeably to this Herodotus tells us that in\nScythia shipwrecked persons sacrificed bulls to a virgin, called by\nthem Iphigenia, the daughter of Agamemnon.\u201d The story of Io is referred\nto: he quotes from Herodotus a prediction of the Delphic oracle; he\nauthenticates a story told by our author; \u201cthese particulars as they\nare accurately related by Herodotus, it would be superfluous for me\nto repeat.\u201d He refers to the orthography of a name: \u201cand Herodotus\nin his History of Cr\u0153sus informs us that this Labotas was under the\nguardianship of Lycurgus, who gave laws to the Laced\u00e6monians; but he\ncalls him _Leobotas_.\u201d In this form, in fact, the name now stands in\nthe Greek text:--minute correspondences of this kind vouch for the\ncorrect transmission of ancient books. He affirms that at T\u00e6narus was\nto be seen \u201cArion the harper, sitting on a dolphin. And the particulars\nrespecting Arion and the dolphin Herodotus relates, as what he himself\nheard, in his account of the Lydian affairs.\u201d Book X. 32, \u201cAs to the\nname of the city, I know that Herodotus, in that part of his History in\nwhich he gives an account of the irruption of the Persians into Greece,\ndiffers from what is asserted in the oracles of Bacis.\u201d\n\nLucian of Samosata devotes some pages to Herodotus, whose style he\ncharacterises and commends; and he relates particularly the mode\nadopted by the historian for making his work known to the Greeks, so\nthat wherever he appeared all might say--That is Herodotus who wrote\nthe history of the Persian war in the Ionian dialect, and who so\ngloriously chanted our victories.\n\nHermogenes, a rhetorician and the contemporary of Lucian, gives the\nfollowing description of the historian\u2019s style: \u201cThe diction of\nHerodotus is pure, easy, and perspicuous. Whenever he introduces fables\nhe employs a poetic style. His thoughts are just, his language graceful\nand noble. No one excels him in the art of describing, after the manner\nof the poets, the manners and characters of his different personages.\nIn many places he attains greatness of style, of which the conversation\nbetwixt Xerxes and Artabanus is an example.\u201d\n\nAulus Gellius, a miscellaneous writer, abounds with references to\nauthors of every class. In his Attic Nights, Herodotus is frequently\nmentioned, as for example--he quotes at length the story of Arion.\nAgain: \u201cYet Herodotus, the historian, affirms, contrary to the opinion\nof almost all, that the Bosphorus or Cimmerian Sea is liable to be\nfrozen.\u201d There is a verbal quotation from the third book, relative to\nthe lioness, and another, of the fable of the Psyllians.\n\nThe evidence of Plutarch is sufficiently ample and conclusive to bear\nalone the whole burden of our argument. The writings of Plutarch,\nhaving in every age enjoyed the highest reputation, have descended to\nmodern times, abundantly authenticated:--among them there is a small\ntreatise (if it be genuine, which is very questionable) entitled \u201cOf\nthe Malignity of Herodotus.\u201d The historian, in his account of the\nPersian invasion, affirms the conduct of the B\u0153otians on various\noccasions to have been traitorous and pusillanimous. Now Plutarch was\na B\u0153otian, and he felt so keenly the infamy attached by Herodotus\nto his countrymen, that, with the hope of wiping out the stain, he\nendeavoured if possible, to destroy the reputation of our author, by\nadvancing against him the heavy charge of a malignant falsification\nof facts throughout his history. To effect his object, he reviews\nthe entire work, bringing to bear upon every assailable point the\nutmost efforts of his critical acuteness, and all the stores of his\nlearning. The specific charges advanced against Herodotus in this\ntreatise must, to a modern reader, appear for the most part, extremely\nfrivolous. So far as they may seem to be more serious, they have been\nfully refuted by several critics. But our business, at present, with\nPlutarch\u2019s treatise, is to derive from it a proof of the genuineness\nand general authenticity of the work which is the subject of our\nargument. In the first place, then, this treatise, by its many and\nexact references to all parts of the History, proves beyond a doubt\nthat the Greek text, as now extant, is substantially the same as that\nread by Plutarch--or rather by this writer who assumes his name, at the\ntime now in view. In the second place, Plutarch\u2019s tacit acknowledgment\nof the work as the genuine production of Herodotus, may be taken as\naffording alone a sufficient proof of that fact;--for if it had been\nat all questionable--if any obscurity had rested upon its traditionary\nhistory, this writer, whose learning was extensive, could not have been\nignorant of such grounds of doubt; nor would he have failed to take the\nshort course of denying at once the authenticity of the book. The five\nhundred years which intervened between the times of Herodotus and of\nPlutarch, were ages of uninterrupted and widely-diffused intelligence\nand erudition;--much more so than the last five hundred years of\nEuropean history: and Plutarch had more ample means of ascertaining the\ngenuineness of the History attributed to Herodotus, than a critic of\nthe present day possesses in judging of the genuineness of Froissart,\nor of Abulfeda. In the third place, this small treatise yields an\nimplicit testimony in support of the general truth of the history\nitself; for in leaving untouched all the main parts of the story, and\nin fixing his criticisms upon minor facts, and upon the mere colouring\ngiven to the narrative, this critic virtually acknowledges that the\nprincipal facts are unquestionable. It may be affirmed that he has\nin fact, on the whole, rather established the authenticity of the\nHistory against which he levels his critical weapons, than succeeded in\ndestroying its credit.\n\nJosephus quotes and corrects Herodotus--in the Jewish Antiquities; and\nin his reply to Apion he mentions him descriptively more than once,\nas where he enumerates the Greek historians; a few pages further, he\nnotices the remarkable fact that \u201cneither Herodotus nor Thucydides nor\nany of their contemporaries make the slightest mention of the Romans.\u201d\nPresently afterwards he quotes Manetho in opposition to Herodotus, in\nhis account of Egyptian history: and some pages further, he makes an\nexact quotation from the second book.\n\nQuintilian compares Herodotus with Thucydides: \u201cHerodotus, sweet,\nbland, and copious.\u201d \u201cIn Herodotus, as I think, there is always a\ngentle flow of language.\u201d \u201cNor need Herodotus scorn to be conjoined\nwith Livy.\u201d\n\nStrabo, the most learned, exact, and intelligent of the ancient\ngeographers, very frequently cites our author, upon whose statements\nhe makes some severe criticisms; yet without impugning the general\nauthenticity of the History. Art. _Halicarnassus_. \u201cAmong the\nillustrious men born at this place is Herodotus, the historian, who\nis called the Thurian, because he joined himself to a colony at that\nplace.\u201d \u201cIt was not improperly said by Herodotus, that the whole of\nEgypt, at least the Delta, was a gift of the river.\u201d Strabo refers to\nthe account given of the voyage round Africa, attempted by the order\nof Darius. He refers to, and quotes the authority of Herodotus, who\naffirms that at Memphis in Egypt there was a temple of Neptune.\n\nThe last-named writer brings our series of testimonies up to the\ncommencement of the Christian era. In passing up the stream of time, we\nmeet next with--\n\nDionysius, the countryman of Herodotus, and author of the \u201cRoman\nantiquities,\u201d and of several critical treatises. In one of these,\nentitled \u201cThe Judgment of Ancient Writers,\u201d and in another, addressed\nto Cn. Pompey, Dionysius gives a minute account of the style, method,\nand comparative merits of our author. In the book on composition, he\nmakes a long and literal quotation from the first book. In giving the\ncharacter of Thucydides, he thus speaks of Herodotus:--\u201cHerodotus\nthe Halicarnassian, who survived to the time of the Peloponnesian\nWar, though born a little before the Persian War, raised the style of\nwriting history: nor was it the history of one city or nation only\nthat he composed; but included in his work the many and various affairs\nboth of Europe and Asia. For beginning with the Lydian kingdom, he\ncontinues to the Persian War--relates whatever was performed by the\nGreeks and Barbarians during a period of 240 years--selecting whatever\nwas most worthy of record, and connecting them in a single history;\nat the same time gracing his work with excellencies that had been\nneglected by his predecessors.\u201d Several descriptive commendations of a\nsimilar kind might be adduced from the critical writings of this author.\n\nContemporary with Dionysius, though a few years his senior, was\nDiodorus the Sicilian. This learned and laborious historian passes\nover much of the same ground with Herodotus, to whom he makes several\nallusions. In discussing the question relative to the inundations of\nthe Nile, he states and controverts the opinion advanced by Herodotus\non that subject. Further on, he rejects as fabulous the accounts given\nby Herodotus and others of the remote history of Egypt, and professes\nto follow the public records of the Egyptian priests; yet he had before\neulogised our author as a writer \u201cwithout a rival, indefatigable in his\nresearches, and extensively learned in history.\u201d Diodorus states the\nvarious opinions of writers relative to the Median empire, and among\nthese, Herodotus: \u201cNow Herodotus, who lived in the time of Xerxes,\naffirms that the Assyrians had governed Asia during a period of 500\nyears before it was subjugated by the Medes.\u201d\n\nOur author was known to the Roman writers. Cornelius Nepos evidently\nfollows him in some passages, though he professes to adhere chiefly to\nthe authority of Theopompus, Thucydides, and Xenophon. Cicero bestows\nupon him high commendation in several places, declaring that \u201cso far\nas his knowledge of the Greek language permitted him to enjoy it, the\neloquence of the historian (whom he terms \u2018the Father of History\u2019)\ngave him the greatest delight:\u201d--that his language \u201cflows like an\nunobstructed river:\u201d--and that \u201cnothing can be more sweet than his\nstyle.\u201d\n\nPliny the Elder refers to Herodotus frequently; as thus--\u201cIf we\ncredit Herodotus, the sea once extended beyond Memphis, as far as\nthe mountains of Ethiopia:\u201d speaking of the inundation of the Nile,\nhe quotes our author--\u201cthe river, as Herodotus relates, subsides\nwithin its banks on the hundredth day after its first rise.\u201d Passing\nreferences occur in many places:--\u201cHerodotus, more ancient and a better\nauthority than Juba;\u201d \u201cHerodotus says that ebony formed part of the\ntribute rendered by the Ethiopians to the kings of Persia;\u201d \u201cthis\nauthor composed (corrected) his History at Thurium in Italy, in the\n310th year of Rome.\u201d\n\nScymnus of Chios, of whose writings some fragments only remain,\nprofesses, in his Description of the Earth, to report what \u201cHerodotus\nhas recorded in his History.\u201d This writer is believed to have\nflourished in the second century before the Christian era.\n\nAristotle cites Herodotus as an example of the antiquated, continuous\nstyle. \u201cIf the works of Herodotus were turned into verse, they would\nnot by that means become a poem, but would remain a history.\u201d In his\nHistory of Animals he charges our author with an error, in affirming\nthat \u201cat the siege of Ninus, an eagle was seen to drink;\u201d but no such\nassertion is to be found in the works of the historian: probably a\npassage of some other writer was quoted by Aristotle from memory, and\nerroneously attributed to Herodotus; or possibly he quoted some work\nof this historian which has since perished. The ambiguous reply of the\nPythian to Cr\u0153sus is quoted, though not explicitly from Herodotus.\n\nCtesias, an abstract of whose works is preserved by Photius, is very\nfrequently quoted by ancient authors. He was a Greek physician, who\naccompanied the expedition led against Artaxerxes by his brother, the\nyounger Cyrus. Though a few years younger, he was contemporary with\nHerodotus: his testimony therefore brings the series of evidences up\nto the very time of our author. Ctesias, having fallen into the hands\nof the Persians at the battle of Cunaxa, was detained at the court of\nArtaxerxes as physician, during seventeen years; and it seems that,\nwith the hope of recommending himself to the favour of \u201cthe great\nking,\u201d and of obtaining his own freedom, he undertook to compose a\nhistory of Persia, with the express and avowed design of impeaching the\nauthority of Herodotus, whom, in no very courteous terms, he accuses\nof many falsifications. The jealousy and malice of a little mind are\napparent in these accusations. Nothing can be much more inane than the\nfragments that are preserved of this author\u2019s two works--his History of\nPersia, and his Indian History; yet, though possessing little intrinsic\nvalue, they serve an important purpose, in furnishing a very explicit\nevidence of the genuineness and general authenticity of the work which\nCtesias laboured to depreciate. If the account given by Herodotus of\nPersian affairs had been altogether untrue, his rival wanted neither\nthe will nor the means to expose the imposition. But while, like\nPlutarch, he cavils at minor points, he leaves the substance of the\nnarrative uncontradicted.\n\nThucydides, the contemporary and rival of Herodotus, whose writings\nare said to have kindled in his young mind the passion for literary\ndistinction, makes only an indistinct allusion to the History; yet\nthis allusion is such as can hardly be misunderstood. Book I. 22, in\nexplaining the principles by which he proposed to be guided in writing\nhis History, he glances sarcastically at certain writers, who, in\nnarrating events that had taken place in remote times, mix fables with\ntruth, and who seem to have aimed rather to amuse than to instruct\ntheir readers. He then immediately mentions the Median war, which forms\nthe principal subject of his rival\u2019s work, and of which that work was\nthe well-known record. But if this allusion may not be admitted in\nevidence, our chain of proof is complete without it.\n\nCitations or allusions similar to these might be brought forward\nalmost without number; but every purpose, both of illustration and\nof argument--if argument were needed, is accomplished as well by a\nfew as by many. From the entire mass of testimonies, if we were to\nselect, for example, those of Photius, of Dionysius, and of Diodorus,\nwe have proof enough of the genuineness and integrity of the work; for\nthe existence of these testimonies could not be accounted for on a\ncontrary supposition, in any reasonable manner. And when we find the\nwork reflected, as it were, more or less distinctly, from almost the\nentire surface of ancient literature, no room is left for doubt. The\nwriters of every age, from the time of the author, speak of the work\nas being well known in their times:--none of them quote it in any such\nterms as these, \u201can ancient history, said to have been written by\nHerodotus:\u201d--or, \u201ca history which most persons believe to be genuine;\u201d\nfor they all refer to it as a book that was in every one\u2019s hands. If,\ntherefore, the History had been produced in any age subsequent to\nthat of Herodotus, the author of any such spurious work must have had\nunder his control, for the purpose of interpolation, not only a copy\nof every considerable work that was extant in his time, but every copy\nof every such work:--he must in fact have new created the entire mass\nof books existing in the eastern and western world at the time; and he\nmust have destroyed all but his own interpolated copies; otherwise,\nsome copies of some of these works would have reached us in which these\ninterpolated quotations from Herodotus were wanting. Although such\nsuppositions are extravagant, yet let us attempt to realise one or two\nof them.\n\nWe may imagine then that this History, pretending to be an ancient\nwork, was actually produced in the ninth century, by some learned\nmonk of Constantinople. On this supposition, we must believe that\nthe copyists of that time, in all parts of the Greek empire, having\nbeen gained over by the forger to favour the fraud, issued new and\ningeniously interpolated copies of the following authors:--namely,\nProcopius, Stephen, Stob\u00e6us, Marcellinus, Julian, Hesychius, Athen\u00e6us,\nLonginus, Laertius, Lucian, Hermogenes, Pausanias, Aulus Gellius,\nPlutarch, Josephus, Strabo, Dionysius, Diodorus, Aristotle, Ctesias,\nand many others that are not cited above. Then to this list must be\nadded many works that were extant in the ninth century, but since lost.\nAll the previously existing copies of these authors must have been\ngathered in, and destroyed; but even this would not be enough; for the\nByzantine writers must have had the concurrence of the Latin copyists,\nthroughout the monasteries of western Europe; otherwise, the works of\nCicero, and of Quintilian, and of Pliny, would not have contained those\nreferences to the History which we actually find in them. Now to effect\nall this, or a twentieth part of it, was as impracticable in the middle\nages, as it would be for us to alter the spots in the moon--for the\nthings to be altered were absolutely out of the reach of those whom we\nsuppose to have made the attempt.\n\nBut as to these supposed interpolations, it was not formal sentences,\nor distinct paragraphs--wedged in where they seem to have little\nfitness, but citations or allusions of an incidental kind, proper to\nthe connexion in which they occur, and perfectly congruous with the\ntext.\n\nLet it next be supposed that the genuine History of Herodotus--referred\nto as we have seen by earlier writers, had perished, or was supposed to\nhave perished, about the seventh century; and that some writer of the\nninth century composed a work which should pass in the world for the\ngenuine History. Now, to effect this, he must have had in his memory,\nas he went along, the entire body of ancient literature, both Greek and\nRoman; or otherwise he could not have worked up all the references and\nquotations of earlier authors, so as to make them tally, as we find\nthey do, with his spurious production: and if any of these authors were\nunknown to him, or forgotten, then we should find discrepant quotations\nthat could not be verified. Moreover, as the genuine work was certainly\nin existence and widely diffused in the _sixth_ century, no writer\nwishing to make such an attempt could think himself secure against the\nexistence of some copies of the genuine work, which, if brought to\nlight, would at once expose his own to contempt.\n\nOr if a forgery had been attempted at a time nearer to that of the\nalleged author, then, in proportion as we recede from difficulties\nof one kind, we run upon those of another kind. For if, to avoid the\nabsurdity of supposing that a huge mass of books, scattered through\nmany and distant countries, were at once called in, and re-issued with\nthe requisite interpolations, we imagine that the work was forged at\nan earlier time, when fewer testimonies needed to have been foisted\ninto existing books; then we come to a period when learning was at its\nheight--at Alexandria--throughout Greece, and its colonies--when every\nfact connected with the history of books was familiarly known; when\nmany large libraries existed--when, therefore, no standard work could\ndisappear, or could be supplanted by a spurious one; much less could a\nwork which had never before been heard of, create to itself the credit\nof a book long and familiarly known: how could the learned in the\neast and the west be persuaded that a work, newly produced, had been\nin their libraries for a hundred years? Though the knowledge of books\nis more widely diffused in modern, than it was in ancient times, yet\namong those who addict themselves to literature, there is not now more\nof erudition, of intelligence, of discrimination, than were displayed\nin the three or four centuries of which the Augustan age formed the\ncentre. To issue a voluminous history, and to persuade the world that\nit had been known during the last two hundred years, is an attempt not\nmore impracticable in the present day, than it would have been in the\ntimes of Dionysius, of Cicero, of Quintilian, or of Plutarch.\n\nIf we carry our supposition still higher, that is to say, till we get\nfree from all the difficulties above-mentioned, then we gain nothing.\nThe fact principally important as an historical question is granted,\nnamely, that the History was actually extant at, or very near the time,\ncommonly supposed; and then the only point in dispute is the bare name\nof the author, which, so far as the truth of the history is involved,\nis a question of inferior consequence. Yet let us pursue this doubt a\nstep further;--If Herodotus, the Halicarnassian, were a real person,\nknown in his time as a writer, then some self-denying forger made over\nto this Herodotus all the glory of being the author of so admirable a\nwork; and this Herodotus accepted the generous fraud, and acted his\npart to give it credit. But if the name and designation be altogether\nfictitious--the real author concealing himself; then how happened it\nthat the Greeks of that age should speak of Herodotus as of a real\nperson whom they had known, honoured and rewarded? In preference to any\nsuch impracticable hypothesis, who would not rather accept as true the\naffirmation which the work bears upon its front?\n\nBut now we take up another supposition. After tracing as we have done,\nthe history of the work in question, up through a continued series of\nquotations, in the Greek and Latin writers, and obtaining by that means\na conclusive proof of its antiquity, we may imagine that there is in\nexistence a Persian translation of the History of Herodotus, which, by\nthe peculiarities of its style, as well as by external evidence, is\nascertained to have been executed in the time of Artaxerxes. Another\ntranslation of the same work is then brought forward in the language\nof ancient Carthage, which, except in this (supposed) translation,\nhas been long extinct. And there is another in the Coptic, or ancient\nlanguage of Egypt; and another in the Latin, of the time of Plautus\nand Terence. If these several translations had each descended to\nmodern times, through some independent channel, and if each possessed\na separate mass of evidence in proof of its antiquity; and if, when\ncollated among themselves, and with the Greek original, they were found\nto harmonize, except in those variations which must always belong to a\ntranslation; then, and in such a case, we should possess an instance\nof that sort of redundant demonstration which in fact does belong in\nfull to the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; but to no other writings\nwhatever.\n\nLet it now be granted as _possible_ that a writer of a later age, who\nwas a perfect master of the Greek language, who possessed an endless\nfund of various learning, and who was gifted in a high degree with the\nimitative faculty, might produce nine books like those of Herodotus,\nwhich, supposing there were no external evidence to contradict the\nfraud, might pass as genuine. To affirm that a forgery such as this is\n_possible_, is to allow the utmost that our knowledge of the powers\nof the human mind will permit to be granted; and much more than the\nhistory of literary forgeries will warrant us to suppose: for all the\nattempts of that sort that have been detected, either abound with\nmanifest incongruities; or if executed by men of learning and ability,\nthey have been formed upon a small scale, and have excluded, as far as\npossible, all exact references to particular facts.\n\nBut the work before us is of great extent; its allusions to particular\nfacts are innumerable, precise, and incautious; its style and dialect\nare proper to the age to which it pretends:--in a word, it is in\nevery respect what a genuine production of that age ought to be. If\nthen it were to be judged of, on the ground of internal evidence\nalone, no scholar could for a moment hesitate to decide in favour of\nits genuineness. The reader will recollect that the supposition of a\nforgery in a later age is excluded by the evidence already adduced in\nthis chapter.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nMETHOD OF ARGUING FROM THE GENUINENESS, TO THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE\nHISTORY OF HERODOTUS.\n\n\nThat the Greek text of Herodotus, such as it now appears--small verbal\nvariations only excepted, was extant and well known in Greece, at least\nas early as the commencement of the Peloponnesian war (B.C. 431), is\nthe conclusion that is warranted by the evidence already adduced.\nIt now remains to inquire how far this proof of the antiquity and\ngenuineness of the work carries with it a proof of the general truth of\nthe History.\n\nIn a civilized community, where a free expression of opinion is\nallowed, and where opposing interests actually exist, a writer,\nwho professes to compile an authentic account of transactions\nthat are still fresh in the recollection of the people, can move\nonly within certain limits, even if he might wish to misrepresent\nfacts.--Circumstances, known only to a few, may be falsified--motives\nmay be maligned--actions may be exaggerated--wrongs and sufferings\nmay be coloured by rhetorical declamation--fair characters may be\ndefamed, and foul ones eulogised:--these are nearly the boundaries of\nfalsification. But if personages altogether fictitious are made the\nheroes of the story--if invasions, battles, sieges, conspiracies, are\ndescribed which never happened--if, in a word, the entire narrative\nis a fiction, then it ranks in a different class of productions, nor\ncould it ever gain credit as an authentic account of real and recent\nevents. The same evidence, therefore, which establishes the existence\nof an historical work at a time near to that of the events it records,\nestablishes also the _general authenticity_ of the narrative;--for the\nwork is not only mentioned by contemporary writers, but it is mentioned\n_as a history_. This character granted to the book by the author\u2019s\ncontemporaries contains, by condensation, the suffrages of the whole\ncommunity. In substance, we hear the people of Greece assenting to the\nhistorian in relation to those principal portions of his narrative, at\nleast, of which they were qualified to form an opinion, and relative to\nwhich no writer would attempt to deceive them.\n\nEquity demands that we treat an historian conformably with his\nown professions. When he narrates events as well known to his\ncontemporaries as to himself, he is not to be considered as sustaining\nany other responsibility than that of telling his story well:--in such\ninstances we may ask for proof of his impartiality, or of the soundness\nof his judgment, but not of his veracity, which is not taxed. But when\nhe relates incidents of a private or remote kind;--when he makes a\ndemand upon the confidence of his contemporaries by affirming things in\nrelation to which _they_ could not generally detect his misstatements\nif he erred;--then, and in such cases, we may fairly search for\nevidence bearing upon the historian\u2019s character, and circumstances,\nand his means of information. This is an important distinction, never\nto be lost sight of in reading history;--and the inference it contains\nis this--that a history of _public_ transactions, published while many\nof the actors were still living, and while the events were familiarly\nremembered by a large number of persons, and which was commonly\nreceived as authentic, must be accepted, as to its principal facts, as\ntrue, even though there should be reason to suspect the impartiality,\nthe veracity, or the judgment of the writer; but if in these respects,\nhe is entitled to a common degree of confidence, then nothing more than\na few errors of inadvertency can, with any fairness, be deducted from\nthe narrative.\n\nEvery historical work, therefore, needs to be analyzed, and to have\nits several portions separately estimated.--Whatever is remote or\nparticular will claim our credence according to the opinion we may\nform of the historian\u2019s veracity, accuracy, judgment, and his means of\ninformation; but the truth of narratives relating to events that were\nmatters of notoriety in the writer\u2019s time, rests altogether upon a\ndifferent ground; being necessarily involved in the fact that the work\nwas published and accepted as authentic at such or such a date. The\nstrength of this inference will best appear by examining a particular\ninstance.\n\nIn adherence to the distinction above mentioned, we must detach from\nthe History of Herodotus the following portions (not as if they\nwere proved to be false, or even improbable; but simply because\nthe truth of them cannot be _directly inferred from the fact of\nthe genuineness of the work_). First--Geographical and antiquarian\ndescriptions of countries remote from Greece: Secondly--The early\nhistory of such countries, and indeed the early history of Greece\nitself: Thirdly--Events or conferences said to have taken place at\nthe Persian court during the war with Greece; and lastly, many single\nincidents, reported to have happened among the Greeks, but which rest\nupon suspicious or insufficient evidence. After making deductions\nof this sort, there will remain--all those principal events of the\nPersian invasion which were as well known to thousands of the author\u2019s\ncountrymen and contemporaries as to himself; and in describing which\nhis responsibility is that of an _author_ only, who is required\nto digest his materials in the best manner he can--not that of a\n_witness_, called to give evidence upon a matter of doubt.\n\nThe leading events which we may accept as vouched for by the antiquity\nand genuineness of the work are these--The invasion of Greece by a\nlarge Asiatic army, about five-and-forty years before the publication\nof the History:--the defeat of that army by the Athenians and Plat\u00e6ans\non the plains of Marathon:--a second invasion of Greece ten years\nafterwards, by an immense host, gathered from many nations:--the\ndesertion of their city by the Athenians:--an ineffectual contest with\nthe invaders at the pass of Thermopyl\u00e6:--the occupation of Athens by\nthe Persians:--the defeat of the invading fleet at Salamis:--the\nretreat of the Persians, and their second advance in the following\nyear, when the destruction of Athens was completed; and--the final\noverthrow of the Asiatic army at Plat\u00e6a and Mycale. That these events\nactually took place--assuming the History to be genuine--will appear if\nthe circumstances of the case are examined.\n\nAt the time when, as it has been proved, the History of Herodotus was\ngenerally known and received as authentic, the several states of Greece\nwere marshalled under the rival interests of Athens and Sparta; and an\nintestine war, carried on with the utmost animosity, raged by turns\nin all parts of this narrow territory. Such a period, therefore, was\nnot the time when flagrant misrepresentations of recent facts, tending\nto flatter the vanity of one of these rival states, at the expense\nof the honour of others, could be endured, or could gain any credit.\nThe Athenians gloried, beyond all bounds of modesty, in having, with\nthe assistance of the Plat\u00e6ans only, repelled the Median invasion on\nthe plains of Marathon. But would this boast have been allowed--would\nthe account of the battle given by Herodotus have been suffered to\npass without contradiction by the other states, if no such invasion\nhad actually taken place, or if it had been much less formidable than\nis represented by the historian; or if the other states had in fact\nbeen present on the field? Our author affirms that the Laced\u00e6monians,\nthough fully informed of the danger which threatened the independence\nof Greece, persisted in a scrupulous adherence to their custom of\nnot setting out upon a military expedition till after the full moon.\nIn the meantime the battle took place, and a body of two thousand\nLaced\u00e6monians, afterwards despatched from Sparta, reached the field of\nbattle only time enough to gratify their curiosity by a sight of the\nslaughtered Medes. This absence of their allies was ever afterwards\nmade matter of arrogant exultation by the Athenians; and the historian,\nin giving his support to their boast, dared the contradiction of one\nhalf of the people of Greece.\n\nThe second invasion of Greece, conducted by the Persian monarch\nin person, took place ten years after the defeat of the first at\nMarathon; or about five and thirty years before the publication of the\nHistory: many individuals, therefore, were then living who took part\nin the several battles and engagements; and every remarkable event of\nthe war was then as well known and remembered in Greece as are the\ncircumstances of the French Revolution by the people of Europe at the\npresent time (1828).\n\nOur immediate purpose does not demand that we should examine the\ncredibility of the description given by Herodotus of the Asiatic\narmy; for even if it were proved that the numbers stated by him are\nexaggerated, the principal facts would not be brought into doubt; nor\nwould even the credit due to the historian be much impeached; for in\nall these particulars he is careful, again and again, to remind the\nreader that he brings forward the best accounts he could collect--not\nvouching for their absolute accuracy. That he did avail himself of\nauthentic documents in compiling this description is rendered evident\nby the graphic truth and propriety of all the particulars. Indeed the\npicture of the Persian army, and of its discipline and movements, is\nstrikingly accordant with the known modes of Asiatic warfare. The army\nof Xerxes consisted of a small body of brave and well-disciplined\ntroops--Medes, Persians, and Saces, which, if it had been ably\ncommanded, and unencumbered, might very probably have succeeded in\ntheir enterprise; but being impeded and embarrassed by the presence of\na vast and disorderly mob of half-savage or dissolute attendants, they\nwere, at every step, surrounded by a wide-spreading desolation--more\nfatal than the enemy, which rendered the advance of the army in the\nhighest degree difficult, and its retreat desperate. To all this,\nparallel instances may be adduced from almost every page of Asiatic\nhistory.\n\nWhen speaking of the twenty Satrapies of Darius, Major Rennell, in his\nEssay on the Geography of Herodotus, avails himself of the information\ncontained in our author\u2019s description of the army of Xerxes, to which\nhe attributes a high degree of authority. Now it is evident that,\nunless Herodotus had possessed authentic and accurate documents, it\nwould have been impossible for him to have given the consistency of\ntruth to two distinct accounts of nations and of people, so various\nand so remote from Greece. \u201cAlthough,\u201d says this writer, \u201cthere are\nsome errors in the description, as there must necessarily be where the\nsubject is so very extensive, yet it is on the whole so remarkably\nconsistent, that one is surprised how the Greeks found means to acquire\nso much knowledge respecting so distant a part. It is possible that\nwe have been in the habit of doing them an injustice, by allowing\nthem a less degree of knowledge of the geography of Asia, down to\nthe expedition of Alexander, than they really possessed; that is, we\nhave, in some instances, ascribed to Alexander, certain geographical\ndiscoveries which perhaps were made long anterior to his expedition....\nWe shall close the account of the Satrapies, and our remarks on the\narmament of Xerxes, with some additional ones on the general truth of\nthe statement of the latter, and on the final object of the expedition.\nBrief as the descriptions in the text are, they contain a great variety\nof information, and furnish a number of proofs of the general truth of\nour author\u2019s history; for the descriptions of the dress and weapons of\nseveral of the remote nations, engaged in the expedition of Xerxes,\nagree with what appears amongst them at this day; which is a strong\nconfirmation of it; notwithstanding that some attempts have been made\nto ridicule it by different writers. Herodotus had conversed with those\nwho had seen the dress and weapons of these tribes during the invasion;\nand therefore we cannot doubt that the Indians clothed in cotton, and\nwith bows made of reeds (i. e. bamboos), were amongst them: of course,\nthat the great king had summoned his vassals and allies, generally,\nto this European war; a war intended, not merely against Greece, but\nagainst Europe in general, as appears by the speeches of Xerxes, and\nother circumstances.... The evident cause of the assemblage of so many\nnations was that the Europeans (as at the present day) were deemed so\nfar superior to Asiatics as to require a vastly greater number of the\nlatter to oppose them. This is no less apparent in the history of the\nwars of Alexander, and of the wars made by Europeans in the East in\nmodern times. However, we do not by any means believe in the numbers\ndescribed by the Greek historians; because we cannot comprehend,\nfrom what is seen and known, how such a multitude could be provided\nwith food, and their beasts with forage. But that the army of Xerxes\nwas great beyond all example, may be readily believed, because it\nwas collected from a vastly extended empire, every part of which, as\nwell as its allies, furnished a proportion; and if the aggregate had\namounted to a moderate number only, it would have been nugatory to levy\nthat number throughout the whole empire; and to collect troops from\nIndia and Ethiopia to attack Greece, when the whole number required\nmight be collected in Lower Asia.\u201d\n\nIt seems impracticable, from the existing evidence, to ascertain how\ngreat a deduction ought to be made from the calculations of Herodotus,\nas to the numbers of the invading army; but it is easy to believe that\nhis authorities, which unquestionably were authentic in what relates\nto the description of the forces, might lead him astray, without any\nfault on his part. Or probably, as the numbers exceeded the facilities\nof common computation, some conjectural mode of calculation was adopted\nby the contemporary Greeks, which might easily exceed the truth.--For\nexample, the length of time occupied by the barbarian train in passing\ncertain defiles:--or the very fallacious mode of reckoning employed\nby the Persians was perhaps followed:--this, as Herodotus describes\nit, consisted in counting ten thousand men, who were packed in a\ncircle as closely as possible, and a fence formed round them: they\nwere then removed, and the entire army, in turns, was made to pass\nwithin the inclosure: the whole was thus counted into ten thousands.\nBut how probable is it, that, by the inattention of the persons who\nconducted this process, the successive packages were less and less\ndense.--Seven thousand men might easily seem to fill the space in\nwhich ten had been at first crammed. Nor is it at all safe to argue _\u00e0\npriori_ on the supposition that so many could not have been supported\non the march. The power which drew a large levy of men from twenty-nine\nnations, might also drain those nations of their grain. A vast fleet of\nflat-bottomed barges attended the army along the coast; and as soon as\nthis fleet was separated from it, all the extremities of famine were\nsuffered by the retreating host. This armament is not fairly compared\nwith those which, in later times, have traversed the continent of Asia;\nfor in these instances the aid of an attendant fleet was not available.\nWithout this aid the distant movement of five hundred thousand men is\nscarcely practicable; with it, three or four times that number might\nwith little difficulty be led a distance of three or six months\u2019 march.\nThis important difference has not been duly regarded by those who\nhave discussed the question. If then such a deduction from the army\nof Xerxes is made as may readily be accounted for from the inaccurate\nmode of computation employed by the Persians or the Greeks; and if\nthe attendance of so large a fleet of store ships is considered, we\nmay well hold Herodotus excused from the charge, either of deliberate\nfalsification, or of intended exaggeration.\n\nIf it were alleged that Herodotus discovers an inclination on every\noccasion to place the conduct of the Athenians in the most advantageous\nlight, it may be replied that, if such a disposition is charged upon\nhim, then his substantial impartiality, and the authenticity of the\nnarrative are convincingly proved, by his allowing to the Spartans the\nundivided and enviable glory of having first encountered the invaders\nat the pass of Thermopyl\u00e6. In relating this memorable action he affirms\nthat all the allies under the command of Leonidas, excepting only\na small body of Thebans and of Thespians, retired from the pass as\nsoon as it was known that they were circumvented by the Barbarians;\nand he plainly attributes this desertion to the prevalence of\nunsoldier-like fears. This statement therefore--like many others in the\nHistory--challenged contradiction from the parties implicated in the\ndishonour.\n\nIn recounting the naval engagements which took place in the Eub\u0153an\nstraits, the historian contents himself with affirming that, after a\ndoubtful contest, each fleet retired to its station; and he attributes\nthe final success of the Greeks, not so much to their valour and\nskill, as to a divine interposition, which, by a violent storm, so far\ndiminished the Persian fleet that the two armaments were reduced to an\nequality.\n\nThe ill success of the Greeks in attempting to oppose the advance of\nthe Barbarians at Thermopyl\u00e6, and the losses they had sustained in\nseveral naval engagements, having reduced them almost to despair, the\nAthenians, thinking it impracticable to defend Attica, abandoned their\ncity, and took refuge on board their ships, and in the neighbouring\nislands. The invader therefore was allowed, without opposition, to\nexecute his threat--that he would retaliate upon the Athenians the\nburning of Sardis. Here then we arrive at a definite fact, which may be\nconsidered as forming the central point of the History. If this fact be\nestablished, most of the subordinate incidents must be admitted to have\ntaken place, as they were nothing more than either the proper causes,\nor the effects, of this main event.\n\nWithin so short a period as five and thirty, or forty years, it could\nnot be a matter of doubt or controversy among the Athenians, or indeed\nwith any of the people of Greece, whether Athens had been occupied by\na foreign army--its halls and temples overthrown or burned--its sacred\ngroves cut down, and its surrounding gardens and fields devastated. But\nwhile several thousand citizens were still living, who had attained an\nadult age at the time of the alleged invasion, and while the structures\nof the new city were in their first freshness, or were scarcely\ncompleted; and while, if it had actually taken place, the marks of\nthis destruction must have been everywhere apparent, a history is\npublished, and is universally applauded, in which this invasion of\nAttica, and this destruction of Athens are particularly described. Can\nthen this fact be reconciled with the supposition that no such events\nhad really taken place--that these arrogant citizens had never been\ndriven from their homes? Can we believe that, for the sake of assuming\nto themselves the glory of having repelled such an invasion, the\nentire people of Athens would have given their assent to a fictitious\nnarrative, which every one of them must have known had no foundation\nin truth? or, if such an infatuation had prevailed at Athens, would\ntheir neighbours--the Corinthians, and the B\u0153otians, have left such a\nfalsehood uncontradicted?\n\nIt is evident that, unless a powerful invasion of Greece had taken\nplace, Athens--the principal city of Greece, could not have been\noccupied and destroyed; and unless that invasion had been speedily\nrepulsed, Athens could not have regained that wealth, and power, and\nliberty which, on other evidence, it is known to have possessed in\nthe first years of the Peloponnesian war. Here then, if the truth of\nthe History of Herodotus were to be argued, the question must come to\nits issue. If it were denied that such an invasion of Greece happened\nat the time affirmed by our author, then the fact of the general\ndiffusion, and the high credit, of the History of Herodotus, throughout\nGreece, must be shown to consist with that denial. On the other hand,\nan apologist for Herodotus, having established the antiquity and\ngenuineness of the work, must not be required, either to defend the\nveracity of the historian, or to adduce corroborative evidence in\nproof of the fact, until the difficulty which rests upon the contrary\nhypothesis has been disposed of.\n\nThe account given by Herodotus of the subsequent events of the Persian\nwar--that is to say--the defeat of the Asiatic fleet at Salamis--the\nretreat of Xerxes--the second occupation of Athens in the following\nspring by the Persians under the command of Mardonius; and the final\ndiscomfiture and destruction of the Barbarian army at Plat\u00e6a and at\nMycale, follow of course, as substantially true, if the preceding\nfacts are established. It must however be observed that a peculiar\ncharacter of authenticity belongs to this latter portion of the\nHistory: for though the issue of the war was indeed highly gratifying\nto the vanity of the Greeks, one would almost think that the historian\nwished, as far as possible, to check their exultation, or to balance\nthe vaunts of each of the states by some circumstances of dishonour.\nFor instance--no veil is drawn over those almost fatal contentions for\nprecedency by which the counsels of the confederates were distracted;\nnor are the treasons and the interested conduct of the chiefs concealed\nor excused. The pusillanimity of some, and the fears of all are\nconfessed: indeed so much of infamy or of discredit is thrown by\nHerodotus upon individuals, and upon the whole community, that his\nboldness in publishing such statements, and the candour of the Greeks\nin admitting them, are alike worthy of admiration. Nor can we believe\notherwise than that a full conviction of the substantial truth of these\nstatements at once inspired the writer with this courage, and compelled\nhis hearers to exercise this forbearance. It cannot seem surprising\nthat, in later times, some writers, jealous for the honour of Greece\nat large, or of some particular state, should attempt to remove these\nblots, by impugning the credit of the historian. Yet even in making\nthis attempt, they venture no further than to call in question his\naccount of a few particular transactions, or to dispute those portions\nof the work which relate to remote times, and distant nations.\n\nWe have seen that the history of the Persian invasion, as given by\nHerodotus, is, in its main circumstances, established by the mere fact\nthat the work was known, and had been accepted as authentic, within\nforty years of the events it records, This then is not an instance in\nwhich the veracity of the historian needs to be vindicated, or in which\nour faith in his veracity must be dependent upon other evidence. Yet it\nis natural to look around for such other evidence as may be found to\nbear upon the history. We have a good right to suppose that events of\nsuch magnitude as those which Herodotus relates, would be mentioned,\nmore or less explicitly, by other writers of the same age--whether\nphilosophers, poets, orators, or historians. And this in fact is the\ncase in the instance before us; for almost every writer--contemporary\nwith Herodotus--whose works are extant, makes allusions of a direct or\nindirect kind to the Persian invasion. Some of the authors already\nadduced in proof of the antiquity and genuineness of the history, must\nnow be recalled to give evidence as to the matter of fact.\n\nPindar, the prince of lyric poets, is reported to have died at the\nage of eighty, and was born about B. C. 521, and was in mid-life at\nthe time of the Persian invasion. The odes now extant were recited\nin Greece before the history of Herodotus was composed. The subject\nof these compositions are the praises of the victors at the Olympic,\nthe Isthmian, the Pythian, and the Nemean games; and in extolling his\nheroes, the poet finds occasion to refer to the glories of the cities\nto which they belonged: they contain therefore many allusions to the\nevents of Grecian history; and as these odes were recited at all the\ngreat festivals, the allusions were such as the mass of the people\ncould not fail to understand. This sort of incidental and brief notice\nof public events, intended to kindle the enthusiasm of the audience,\nmust of course rest upon the knowledge, or the convictions of those to\nwhom they were addressed. In the first of the Pythian odes, a rapid\nsketch is given of the principal events of the Persian war.--Such\ndefeat as they suffered by the Syracusan prince, who, manning the swift\nships, with the youth, delivered Greece from heavy servitude.--I would\nchoose the praise won by the Athenians at Salamis:--or I would tell at\nSparta the fight near Mount Cith\u00e6ron, in which the Medes with their\ncurved bows (\u1f00\u03b3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03be\u03bf\u03b9) were oppressed.--The Median bow as seen in\nthe bas-reliefs of Persepolis, is very properly described by this\nepithet--it is very long, and much curved, even in its extended state.\n\nThese allusions may be explained by referring to those places in\nHerodotus, where it is related, that, while Xerxes was advancing\ntowards Greece, the Athenians and Laced\u00e6monians sent an embassy to\nGelon, tyrant of Syracuse, to ask his aid against the Barbarian: this\nhe refused to grant, except upon conditions with which the Greeks\ncould not comply. Yet he fitted out a fleet, and engaged and defeated\nthe Carthagenians, commanded by Amilcar, who had been incited by the\nPersians to join in the war upon the Greeks: by this victory Greece was\ndelivered from the danger of an attack which must have proved fatal\nto its liberties; for if the Carthagenian fleet had arrived in the\nArchipelago, and had joined the Persians, the Greeks could hardly have\nwithstood so vast a combination. The next allusion is to the engagement\nat Salamis, in which the Athenians, as Herodotus affirms, took the\nprincipal part: and the last, is to the final defeat of the Barbarians\nnear Plat\u00e6a, at the foot of Mount Cith\u00e6ron. In this battle the Spartans\nwere the most distinguished. In the fifth Isthmian ode, another\nallusion to Salamis occurs--where men innumerable met their death, as\nby a hail-storm of destruction.\n\n\u00c6schylus, the father of tragedy among the Greeks, had reached manhood\nat the time of the first invasion of Greece, and took part in the\nbattle of Marathon: he was present also in the engagement at Salamis,\nand again at the battle of Plat\u00e6a. Seven only of his seventy tragedies\nhave descended to modern times:--one of these is entitled \u201cThe\nPersians.\u201d The scene is laid at Susa in Persia, and the time supposed\nis during the absence of Xerxes in Greece. The play is opened by a\nchorus of elders, who discourse anxiously concerning the fate of the\nexpedition;--All Asia is exhausted of men:--wives count the days, and\nmourn the long absence of their warrior-consorts--Atossa the queen\nenters dejected, and recounts a portentous dream:--a messenger then\narrives from Greece: he reports the defeat of the Persian fleet, and\nthe retreat of Xerxes:--in relating the particulars, he glances at the\ncircumstances which preceded the engagement at Salamis, as mentioned\nby Herodotus--That a messenger (sent by Themistocles) informed Xerxes\nthat the Greeks were about to disperse; to prevent which he imprudently\nsurrounded them:--an engagement ensued, of which Xerxes was a spectator\nfrom a neighbouring hill:--the Persians are defeated;--those who\noccupied the island (of Psyttalea) were all slain. The army, in its\nretreat, suffers the extremity of cold, hunger, and thirst. On hearing\nthis, the queen invokes the shade of Darius, which appears.--Atossa\nrepeats the story of his son\u2019s defeat:--The shade predicts the fatal\nbattle of Plat\u00e6a, and the destruction of the army. In the closing\nscene, Xerxes himself arrives, bewailing his misfortunes, and bringing\nback nothing but an empty quiver. The only material point in which\n\u00c6schylus differs from Herodotus, is in reckoning the Greek fleet at\nthree hundred, instead of seven hundred sail:--this is evidently\na poetic deviation from fact, intended to enhance the glory of the\nvictory.\n\nOf all the Greek historians, none bears so high a character for\nauthenticity and for exactness in matters of fact as Thucydides: his\nimpartiality, his laborious collection, and his judicious selection of\nmaterials, and his rejection of whatever seemed to rest on suspicious\nevidence, are apparent on almost every page of the history of the\nPeloponnesian war. This history was published about sixty years after\nthe expedition of Xerxes. Thucydides had conversed with many of\nthose who had taken part in the battles described by Herodotus. Many\nallusions to the events of the Persian invasion occur in the course\nof the work, and they are all of that kind which is natural, when\nan historian refers to facts which he supposes to be fresh in the\nrecollection of his readers. The introductory sections of the history\ncontain an outline of Grecian affairs, from the earliest times to the\ncommencement of the war between Athens and Sparta. In this preliminary\nsketch, the leading circumstances of the invasion, as related by\nHerodotus, are mentioned; such as--the war and conquests of Cyrus\nand Cambyses--the subjugation of the Greeks of Asia Minor--the naval\npower of Polycrates, tyrant of Samos--the Median war, the reigns of\nDarius and of Xerxes, and the conduct of Themistocles.--The expulsion\nof the Pisistratid\u00e6 from Greece, the battle between the Medes and the\nGreeks at Marathon, and, ten years afterwards, the second invasion\nof Greece by the Barbarians--the desertion of their city by the\nAthenians, and their taking refuge on board their ships.--Not many\nyears after the expulsion of the tyrants from Greece, happened the\nbattle between the Medes and the Athenians at Marathon; and ten years\nafter that battle, the Barbarians arrived with a great armament,\nintended to reduce the Greeks to bondage. In this imminent danger,\nthe Laced\u00e6monians, who were more powerful than the other states, took\nthe command in the war. The Athenians, as the Medes advanced, having\nresolved to abandon their city, collected all their goods, and went\non board their ships, and from that time became a maritime people.\nAfter, by their united efforts, the Greeks had repulsed the Barbarians,\nthe several states, as well those which fell away from the king, as\nthose which had fought with the Greeks, took part, some with the\nAthenians, and some with the Laced\u00e6monians.--Again, Thucydides refers\nto--the late Median war--which, he says, was quickly terminated in\ntwo battles and two naval engagements. The battle of Marathon, and\nthe burial of the slain upon the field, are afterwards mentioned; and\nin a funeral oration pronounced by Pericles (whether really so or not\nis of no consequence to the argument) the exploits of the Athenians\nin repelling the Barbarians are spoken of as being too well known to\nneed to be particularized; and again, the conflict at Thermopyl\u00e6 is\nmentioned;--the battle of Plat\u00e6a, and the engagement at Artemisium. The\ndefeat of the Medes, the devastation of Athens, and its restoration\nare narrated. The distance of time, namely, fifty years, between the\ndefeat of Xerxes, and the commencement of the Peloponnesian war, is\nmentioned.--All these actions which took place either among the Greeks,\nor between them and the Barbarians, were included within a period\nof nearly fifty years, reckoning from the retreat of Xerxes, to the\ncommencement of the present war.\n\nThese, and some other allusions to the events of the Persian invasion,\ncoinciding as they do with the more ample narrative given by Herodotus,\nand coming from an historian who made it his boast that he admitted\nnothing into his work which was not supported by satisfactory\nevidence, and who, moreover, was disposed rather to detract from the\ncredit of his rival, than to confirm it, must be held to furnish the\nmost conclusive kind of independent testimony. Indeed, the express\naffirmation of Thucydides that Athens was destroyed by the Persians,\naffords alone a sufficient proof of the fact; for no such affirmation\nas this could either have been made, or tolerated, within sixty years\nafter the event, unless it were universally known to be true.\n\nLysias the orator, at the early age of fifteen years, it is said,\naccompanied Herodotus and other Athenians to Thurium: after a long\nresidence in Italy, he returned to Athens, where he distinguished\nhimself by his eloquence. In a funeral oration, pronounced in honour of\nthe Athenians who fell in the Corinthian war, he speaks of the Persian\nwar.--The king of Asia, unsatisfied with his present greatness, and\nactuated by a boundless ambition, prepared an army of 500,000 men,\nhoping by this mighty force to reduce Europe under his subjection....\nWith such rapidity was the victory (at Marathon) accomplished, that\nthe other states of Greece learned by the same messenger the invasion\nof the Persians, and their defeat; and without the terror of danger,\nfelt the pleasure of deliverance. It is not surprising, then, that such\nactions, though ancient (about eighty years) should still retain the\nfull verdure of glory, and remain to succeeding ages the examples and\nthe envy of mankind.... Many causes conspired to engage Xerxes, king\nof Asia, to undertake a second expedition against Europe.... After ten\nyears preparation, he landed in Europe, with a fleet of 1200 sail, and\nsuch a number of land forces, that it would be tedious to recount even\nthe names of those various nations by whom he was attended.... He made\na journey over land, by joining the Hellespont, and a voyage by sea, by\ndividing Mount Athos. The orator then briefly mentions the engagements\nat Artemisium and Thermopyl\u00e6, the abandonment of Athens, and the\nremoval of the citizens to Salamis:--their city was deserted, their\ntemples burnt or demolished, their country laid waste.\n\nIsocrates flourished a few years later than Lysias, yet he was\ncontemporary with Herodotus. One of his orations, pronounced in praise\nof the Athenians, contains passages to the same effect. They first\n(the Athenians) signalized their courage against the troops of Darius\n(at Marathon).... The Persians, a short time after renewed their\nattempts, and Xerxes himself, forsaking his palace and his pleasures,\nventured to become a general. At the head of all Asia he formed the\nmost towering designs. For who, though inclined to exaggeration, can\ncome up to the reality? The conquest of Greece appeared to him an\nobject below his ambition.--Designing to effect something beyond human\npower, he projected that enterprise, so celebrated, of making his army\nsail through the land, and march over the sea; and he carried this\nidea into execution by piercing Mount Athos, and by throwing a bridge\nover the Hellespont. Against a monarch so proud and enterprising, who\nhad executed such vast designs, and who commanded so many armies, the\nLaced\u00e6monians, dividing the danger with Athens, drew themselves up\nat Thermopyl\u00e6. With a thousand of their own troops, and a small body\nof their allies, they determined in that narrow pass to resist the\nprogress of all his land forces. While our ancestors (the Athenians\nof the _last_ generation) sailed with sixty galleys to Artemisium,\nand expected the whole fleet of the Barbarians.... The Laced\u00e6monians\nperished to a man; but the Athenians conquered the fleet they had\nundertaken to oppose. Their allies were dispirited. The Peloponnesians,\noccupied for their own safety, had begun to fortify the Isthmus.... The\nenemy approached Attica with a fleet of twelve hundred sail, and with\nland forces innumerable.... The Athenians assembled all the inhabitants\nof their city, and transported them into the neighbouring island.--And\nwhere shall we find more generous lovers of Greece than those who in\nits defence abandoned their abodes, suffered their city to be ravaged,\ntheir altars to be violated, their temples to be burned to the ground,\nand all the terrors of war to rage in their native country?... Athens,\neven in her misfortunes, furnished more ships for the sea-fight off\nSalamis, which was to decide the fate of Greece, than all the other\nstates together; and there is no one, I believe, so unjust as to deny,\nthat by our victory in that engagement the war was terminated, and the\ndanger removed.\n\nCtesias, as we have seen, affords a testimony conclusive in favour of\nthe antiquity of the history attributed to Herodotus. We have now to\nadduce his evidence on the subject of the Persian invasion--reminding\nthe reader that his history of Persia was composed with the avowed\ndesign of invalidating the account given by Herodotus of Persian\naffairs: he thus speaks of the expedition of Xerxes:--Xerxes, having\ncollected a Persian army, consisting, besides the chariots of war,\nof eight hundred thousand men, and a thousand galleys, led them into\nGreece by a bridge which he had caused to be constructed at Abydos. It\nwas then that he was accosted by Demaratus the Laced\u00e6monian, who passed\nwith him into Europe, and who endeavoured to dissuade the king from\nattacking the Laced\u00e6monians. Xerxes arriving at the pass of Thermopyl\u00e6,\nplaced ten thousand men under the command of Artapanus, who there\nengaged Leonidas--chief of the Laced\u00e6monians. In this conflict a great\nslaughter of the Persians took place, while not more than three or\nfour of the Laced\u00e6monians were slain. After this Xerxes sent twenty\nthousand men to the field; these also were overcome, and though driven\nto fight by blows, were still vanquished. The next day he sent forward\nfifty thousand men; but as these also failed in their attack, he no\nlonger attempted to fight. Thorax the Thessalian, and Calliades and\nTimaphernes, princes of the Trachinians, were then present (in the\nPersian camp) with their troops. These, with Demaratus, and Hegias of\nEphesus, Xerxes called into his presence, and from them he learned that\nthe Laced\u00e6monians could by no means be vanquished unless they were\nsurrounded and attacked on all sides. Forty thousand Persians were\ntherefore despatched under the command of these two Trachinian leaders,\nwho traversing a difficult path, came behind the Laced\u00e6monians. Thus\nsurrounded, they fought valiantly, and perished to a man. Again\nXerxes sent an army of one hundred and twenty thousand men, commanded\nby Mardonius, against the Plat\u00e6ans: it was the Thebans who incited\nthe king against the Plat\u00e6ans. Mardonius was met by Pausanias the\nLaced\u00e6monian, at the head of not more than three hundred Spartans--one\nthousand of the people of the country--and about six thousand from the\nother cities. The Persian army being vanquished, Mardonius fled from\nthe field wounded. This same Mardonius was sent by Xerxes to pillage\nthe temple of Apollo; but to the great grief of the king, perished in\nthe attempt by a hail-storm.\n\nXerxes next advanced with his army to Athens; but the Athenians having\nfitted out one hundred and ten galleys, fled to the island of Salamis:\nhe therefore entered the deserted city, and burned it, except only the\ncitadel, which was defended by a few who remained; but they retiring by\nnight, he burned that also. The king then advancing to the narrowest\npart of Attica, called Heracleum, began to construct a mole towards\nSalamis, with the intention of marching his army on to the island. But\nby the advice of Themistocles the Athenian, and of Aristides, a body of\nCretan archers was brought up to obstruct the work. A naval engagement\nthen took place between the Persians and the Greeks, the former having\nmore than a thousand ships, commanded by Onophas--the latter seven\nhundred. Yet the Greeks conquered, and the Persians lost five hundred\nships. Xerxes himself, by the counsel and contrivance of Themistocles\nand Aristides, fled:--not fewer than one hundred and twenty thousand\nmen having perished on the side of the Persians in the several actions.\nPassages to this effect occur in the Myriobiblon of Photius.\n\nIn those particulars in which this account of the Persian invasion\ndiffers from that of our author, no one who carefully compares the\ntwo, can hesitate to give his confidence to Herodotus rather than to\nCtesias, not only because he lived some years nearer to the events; but\nbecause his narrative displays more judgment, more consistency, and\nmore probability, and is also better supported by other evidence. It is\nenough for our present purpose that this writer affirms the same great\nevents to have taken place--that the Persian king led an immense army\ninto Greece, where he met a total defeat.\n\nOf the authors whom we have cited, the first two--Pindar and \u00c6schylus,\nhad reached maturity at the time of the Persian invasion, and were\npersonally concerned in its events, and composed the works to which\nwe have referred while Herodotus was yet a youth. Though poets, they\nrepresent the victories of the Greeks as recent facts, well known\nto their hearers, and the slightest allusion to which was enough to\nkindle the national enthusiasm. The other writers--Thucydides, Lysias,\nIsocrates, and Ctesias, were also contemporary with Herodotus; and\ntwo of them were his professed rivals. From their evidence it is\napparent that the events of the Persian invasion were matters of common\nknowledge and conversation, and were the themes of writers in every\nclass among the Greeks, in the very age in which they are said to have\ntaken place.\n\nIt follows therefore that the historian of these transactions is not to\nbe regarded as if he were the author of a narrative for the truth of\nwhich he is individually responsible, and in which we cannot confide\nuntil we have proof of his veracity. He is rather the collector of\nfacts that were universally acknowledged by his contemporaries:--and\nthe truth of the history rests upon the fact that it was published, and\nwas accepted, while the individuals to whom the events were known were\nstill living.\n\nIf we look to the Greek writers of the next and of the following age,\nwe find the same general facts affirmed or alluded to--orators, poets,\nand historians, hold the same language, and assume it as certain that\ntheir ancestors gloriously repulsed an innumerable Asiatic army. But\nhistorical proof of a _traditionary_ kind differs essentially from that\nwhich it is just now our intention to display; we therefore do not\nbring it forward in the present instance.\n\nIn a preceding chapter (XV.) we have referred to the mass of evidence,\nconfirmatory of the _written_ testimony of ancient Historians, which\nmight be brought forward from the treasures of the British Museum.\nIn many instances the _general_ truthfulness of Herodotus, and his\nexactness also, are vouched for in the most substantial and convincing\nmanner, by objects of various kinds, to which the reader may have\naccess any day in that vast collection. Yet in relation to such\ninstances there may be room for a cautionary remark; and it is of this\nkind.--\n\nThere is a tendency in the mind to relieve itself from the labour of\n_thinking_, by accepting, without inquiry, any sort of proof that\noffers itself to the senses--to the eye and to the touch. In this\nmanner we may fall into the habit of forgetting, or of neglecting,\nthe direct and proper evidence of _written_ and authentic testimony,\nwhile we are occupied with that which _seems_, although it may not be\nso in reality, to be more convincing, or to be less precarious; as for\nexample: after giving attention to the evidence that has been adduced\nin the preceding chapters, we may feel assured of the fact--that the\nGreeks and Persians did fight on the plains of Marathon. There is then\nshown to us a seal, which, on good evidence, we know to have been\npicked up upon the very spot that still bears that name in Greece:\nthe device upon this gem is manifestly Persian;--the winged lions are\nalmost a copy of the bas-reliefs still existing on several ruins in\nPersia: we conclude therefore that this relic of antiquity belonged to\na chief of the Persian army, and we accept it as a palpable proof of\nthe truth of the historian\u2019s narrative: and though that narrative thus\ngains, in our view, a confirmation, it does so by losing something of\nits proper weight; and we are afterwards inclined to think, that if the\n_tangible_ proof were withdrawn, the _written_ proof would stand less\nfirmly than it did before.\n\nThen again, in relying upon the evidence of gems, inscriptions, or\nsculptures, not merely as illustrations of history, but as proofs of\nits truth, we may sometimes substitute the worse kind of evidence\nfor the better.--The relics of ancient art, in very many instances,\nderive their meaning, and draw their historic value from the\nconcurrent testimony of _written_ history: the entire _proof_ is a\nproduct of the _two_ taken together. Then it must not be forgotten\nthat the _traditionary_ history of the relic is often of doubtful\nauthenticity--resting perhaps upon the word of those who had a\ncommodity of indefinite value to sell;--or the workmanship may be of a\nlater age than the antiquary is willing to admit;--or the inscription\nmay have been placed by authority out of the reach of that opinion\nto which an historian is always amenable. An arrogant republic, or a\nvain-glorious tyrant, might, without fear, stamp bold lies upon coins,\nor engrave impudent untruths upon the entablatures of temples; and\nthe brazen or the marble record may receive from the modern antiquary\na degree of respect which it never won from contemporaries. Herodotus\nmentions some instances of this kind. An intelligent inquirer into the\ntruth of remote facts will usually give more confidence to the explicit\nassertions of one with whose character and qualifications he is in some\nmeasure acquainted, than he does to positive averments that come from a\nparty altogether unknown. Now an historian is a person concerning whose\nveracity, discretion, and intentions we have the means of forming our\nown opinion; but in admitting the evidence of inscriptions and coins,\nwe receive a testimony--knowing perhaps nothing of the witness.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nEXAMPLES OF IMPERFECT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE:--HERODOTUS.\n\n\nThe object of the preceding pages has been to display, in its several\nparts, that chain of evidence, by means of which a high degree of\ncertainty in matters of antiquity is attainable. And it appears that\nthere are cases in which the proof of remote facts rests, as it were,\nin our own hands, so that, irrespectively of the veracity, or accuracy,\nor impartiality of the witnesses, our assent is demanded on the ground\nof the constancy of the laws of the social system. In such cases, a\nconsideration of distance of time does not enter into the argument; for\nthe proof remains from age to age unimpaired; or rather, we are carried\nby this proof up to the times of the events in question, and are now\nas competent to judge of the validity of the evidence as we could have\nbeen if we had lived in that age.\n\nThe real difference between this absolute proof and every other sort\nof historical evidence, will be best exhibited by adducing some\ninstances of a different kind; and in taking our examples from the same\nauthor--Herodotus, we place both kinds of evidence upon the same level,\nso far as the personal qualities and the merits of the historian are\nconcerned in the argument.\n\nThe distinctive character of all such historical evidence as ought\nto be called _imperfect_, is this--that it comes to us through some\n_medium_, upon the trustworthiness of which we must more or less\nimplicitly rely. Ordinarily, this medium is the veracity, or the\naccuracy--the learning, or the impartiality, of the historian. In such\ninstances the _immediate proof_ stands beyond our reach; and instead\nof being able to handle and inspect it for ourselves, we can only\ninspect it at a distance, and, by the best means in our power, estimate\nits probable value. This secondary evidence may indeed sometimes rise\nalmost to absolute certainty; in other cases it may possess scarcely an\natom of real weight. The first book of Herodotus will furnish examples\nof both sorts, and some in every degree between the two extremes.\n\nIn the introductory sections of his history, Herodotus refers to those\nmutual aggressions which were ordinarily assigned by the authors of his\ntimes as the origin of the animosity which had so long raged between\nthe Greeks and the people of Asia: thus he mentions the abduction of\nIo from Argos by the Ph\u0153nicians--of Europa from Tyre--of Medea from\nColchis, and of Helen from Sparta; which last act of violence produced,\nhe says, the Trojan war, and which the Persians, as he affirms, were\nwont to allege as a perpetual justification of every enterprise they\nmight attempt against the Greeks.\n\nThese events took place--if at all--from thirteen to eight hundred\nyears before the time of Herodotus: the last of them, the Trojan war,\nmay well be regarded as substantially true on the authority of the\npoems of Homer, which bear the character of history too strongly to\nbe treated as mere fiction. As to the abductions above-mentioned,\nthey are to be regarded as samples of the manners of the times:--such\ncircumstances, and many others to which neither poets nor historians\nhave given celebrity, no doubt took place on the shores of the \u00c6g\u00e6an\nsea--favourable as these have ever been to piratical enterprises. Yet\nif we can believe that Herodotus actually examined for himself the\nwritings of the \u201cPersian historians\u201d whom he quotes, and if he there\nfound coincident narratives of the above-mentioned outrages, these\nvague traditions would then acquire something like the authority of\nhistory.\n\nThere is a fact affirmed by the historian in the outset of his history\nwhich deserves a passing notice:--he says, that \u201cthe Ph\u0153nicians, coming\nfrom the shores of the Red Sea (the Persian Gulf, or the Indian Ocean)\nsettled upon the borders of _this_ sea (the Mediterranean) in the\ncountry they now inhabit; whence they made distant voyages, carrying\non the commerce of Egypt and Assyria, with the surrounding countries.\u201d\nThis emigration of the Ph\u0153nicians--which in itself is by no means\nimprobable--the distance between the two seas being not great, and such\nemigrations being frequent in ancient times--is mentioned by several\nancient authors, though denied by Strabo; nevertheless it provoked\nthe ridicule of Voltaire, who asks, \u201cWhat does the father of history\nmean in the commencement of his work, when he says that, \u2018the Persian\nhistorians relate that the Ph\u0153nicians were the authors of all the wars;\nand that they came from the Red Sea to ours\u2019? It seems then that they\nembarked on the Gulf of Suez--passed through the straits of Babel\nMandel--coasted along the shores of Ethiopia--crossed the Line--doubled\nthe Cape of Tempests, since called the Cape of Good Hope--ascended the\nsea between Africa and America, which is the only way in which they\ncould come--re-crossed the Line, and entered the Mediterranean by the\nPillars of Hercules, which would have been a voyage of more than four\nthousand marine leagues, at a time when navigation was in its infancy!\u201d\n\nThis passage is a sample of this writer\u2019s ignorance and audacity in\ndealing with history; and it is an instance of the ease with which\na charge of absurdity or falsification may be made out against an\nhistorian by a writer who is at once destitute of learning and of\ncandour. \u201cM. Voltaire,\u201d says Larches \u201cwould have spared himself this\ncriticism, had he possessed even a moderate knowledge of the Greek\nlanguage. If Herodotus had intended to intimate that the Ph\u0153nicians\ncame by sea, he would have employed another Greek idiom. Besides,\nhe would not have added, that \u2018they _then_ undertook long voyages;\u2019\nas, on the supposition of their having come by sea, they had already\nmade a voyage much longer and more perilous than any they afterwards\nundertook. But if there remained any doubt as to the meaning of the\npassage, the author removes it in another place (Polymnia, 89): \u2018These\nPh\u0153nicians, as they themselves say, formerly inhabited the shores of\nthe Red Sea, whence _passing over_, they now occupy the maritime part\nof Syria.\u2019\u201d\n\nThe History--properly speaking--commences with the story of Cr\u0153sus,\nking of Lydia, who reigned at Sardis about a century before the time\nof Herodotus. The Greeks, especially those of Asia Minor, maintained a\nfrequent intercourse with the Lydians, and must therefore have had some\ngeneral knowledge of their history; and it is evident that our author\nmade himself acquainted, by personal researches, with such records\nand traditions as he could find at Sardis. But between his time and\nthe reign of Cr\u0153sus, that city had once and again been pillaged, its\ngovernment overthrown, the manners of its inhabitants changed, and\nprobably, most of the ancient families had been banished, exterminated,\nor reduced to poverty; their places being supplied by Persians and\nGreeks. It must therefore be believed, that the authentic records of\nthe state had to a great extent been dissipated, and that little better\nthan vague reports remained to be collected when Herodotus visited\nSardis. We are not therefore to be surprised if we find an air of the\nfabulous in the story of Cr\u0153sus and of his predecessors, the kings\nof Lydia. Nevertheless, some of the leading facts were authenticated\nby those gifts, of various kinds, that had been consecrated by the\nLydian kings at Delphi, and many of which were preserved in the temple\nof Apollo, at that place, in the time of Herodotus: these gifts, by\nthe inscriptions they bore, served to verify the accounts elsewhere\nreceived. At Delphi, Herodotus not only inspected vessels of gold and\nsilver, preserved in the temple where the oracles were given, but he\nreceived from the priests _their own copies_ of the many responses\nwhich he quotes in the course of his work. In these vaticinative verses\nthe craft of the priests who composed them is often sufficiently\napparent: and whatever they may be, their _genuineness_ rests entirely\nupon the honesty of the Delphian priests, from whom our author\nreceived them. Yet the subject of the ancient oracles should not be\npassed by without acknowledging that, amidst all the glaring frauds,\nand the frivolous evasions, and the interested compliances with the\nwishes of the applicants, which characterise these responses, there\nis apparent also in some of them a knowledge of contemporary--though\nremote events, and of a sagacity in relation to the future, which is\nnot satisfactorily explained without admitting the interposition of a\nsuper-human agency. An absolute denial of any such intervention, while\nit is unsupported by a true philosophy, does violence to the principles\nof historical evidence; nor is it demanded by any argumentative\nnecessity.\n\nThe interlocution between Cr\u0153sus and Solon--the Athenian legislator,\nas related by Herodotus, may fairly be numbered among those dramatic\nembellishments with which ancient writers--and our author not less than\nothers--thought themselves at liberty to relieve the attention of their\nreaders. It need not be questioned that Solon visited Sardis; and it\nis not improbable that some rebuke of the Lydian king\u2019s preposterous\nvanity--really uttered by the Grecian sage, may have formed the text of\nthis long conversation.\n\nThe story of Adrastus, the Phrygian refugee, and of Atys, the son\nof Cr\u0153sus, if founded in fact, are evidently much indebted to the\ningenuity of the narrator. Though these incidents may seem puerile to a\nmodern reader, we ought to carry ourselves back to the author\u2019s times,\nbefore we pronounce them to be altogether improper in the place where\nthey appear. A student of history who reads only modern compilations\nwill fail to obtain that just and exact idea of antiquity which these\nexcrescent parts of the works of ancient historians convey.\n\nThe history of Cr\u0153sus is interrupted by a long digression, in which\nour author gives a sketch of the early history of the Athenians and\nLaced\u00e6monians. On these points he could be at no loss for traditions,\nor other sources of information; and here also he was open to\ncorrection from his contemporaries, who were as well informed as\nhimself in matters of Grecian history. Yet the reader should not lose\nsight of the _dates_ of the events severally mentioned, in forming his\nopinion of the value of the evidence. It is the manner of Herodotus\nto relate unimportant circumstances which took place--if at all--five\nhundred, or a thousand years before his time, with as much minuteness\nof detail, and as much confidence, as when he is describing recent\nevents. Frequently, it may be supposed, he followed what he deemed\nauthentic documents; but as we have no sufficient means of forming an\nopinion on the subject, such recitals are not to be admitted among\nthe established points of history, unless they are confirmed by a\ncoincidence of authorities.\n\nThe narrative of the war between Cr\u0153sus and Cyrus, which ended in the\nfinal dissolution of the Lydian kingdom, is resumed, sect. 69. The\nleading events of this war could not fail to be well known at the time\nin Greece; for besides that the intercourse between Greece and Asia was\nfrequent, Cr\u0153sus was on terms of friendship with the Laced\u00e6monians,\nand was everywhere celebrated for the magnificence of his offerings\nto the Delphic god: moreover, the fall of Sardis, and the consequent\nconquests of the Persians in Asia Minor, brought a formidable enemy\nto the very door of Greece, and obliged the several states to inform\nthemselves much more exactly than heretofore, of the affairs of their\nAsiatic neighbours. We may therefore place the conquests of Cyrus in\nAsia Minor among the authenticated facts of history. Yet from the\ndetails, as given by Herodotus, some considerable deductions must be\nmade; for there is an air of dramatic embellishment apparent throughout\nthe narrative. Sardis was taken by Cyrus about one hundred years before\nHerodotus wrote his history: it is not therefore probable that he had\nthe opportunity of verifying his authorities by consulting any living\nwitnesses of the event: it is more likely that he worked up, in his own\nmanner, some floating traditions received from the Asiatic Greeks.\n\nCr\u0153sus, confounded by misfortunes which seemed to give the lie to\nthe Delphic god, whose favour and advice he had courted by gifts\nof unexampled richness, requested permission of Cyrus to send the\nfetters he had worn, to Delphi, to be laid on the threshold of the\ntemple;--directing the messenger to ask the Grecian god--If it was his\ncustom to delude those who had merited the best at his hands. This\nrequest was granted; and the Lydian messenger brought back a reply\nwhich, whether or not it may be considered as genuine, is curious, if\ntaken as a specimen of the policy and style of the Pythian:--\n\n--When the Lydians arrived and delivered their message, the Pythian\nis said to have replied--That even the god could not avert the decree\nof fate. That Cr\u0153sus, the fifth in descent, suffered for the sin of\nhis progenitor, who being a servant of the Heraclid\u00e6, consented to the\nguile of the woman, and slew his master; taking possession without\nright, of his place and honour. That yet Apollo _had endeavoured_ to\ndefer the fall of Sardis till the next generation; but that _he had\nnot been able to move the Fates_, who would no further yield to his\nsolicitation than, as a special favour to Cr\u0153sus, to place the taking\nof Sardis three years later than otherwise it would have happened. Let\nCr\u0153sus therefore know that he is a captive three years later than the\nFates had decreed; and then remember that Apollo rescued him when about\nto be burned. As to the response, Cr\u0153sus had no right to complain;\nfor the god had foretold that if he invaded the Persians, he would\noverthrow a great empire; and if upon this he had wished to be better\ninformed, he should have inquired again, whether his own empire, or\nthat of Cyrus was intended. Wherefore, as he had neither understood the\noracle, nor asked for its meaning, he might take the blame to himself.\n\nHaving dismissed the Lydian affairs, Herodotus proceeds to give a\nsketch of the history of the Assyrians, Medes, and Persians, and to\nrelate the story of the elevation of Cyrus to supreme power in Upper\nAsia. That he had visited Persia cannot reasonably be questioned;\nnor need it be doubted that he diligently availed himself of every\nmeans in his power to acquire information. Whether he was master of\nany of the eastern languages does not certainly appear; for though he\nfrequently refers to the Persian historians, and though, in one place\n(139), he makes a philological remark on a peculiarity of the Persian\nlanguage, we must ask more direct proof than this of his possessing\nan accomplishment so rare among the Greeks. We must however believe,\nthat, at least by means of an interpreter, he had consulted the\nPersian writers. In commencing the history of Cyrus, he says--I shall\nfollow those Persian writers who, without endeavouring to exaggerate\nthe exploits of Cyrus, seem to adhere to the simple truth;--yet not\nignorant that three different accounts of him are abroad.--Whether\nthese three accounts are in fact those given by himself, by\nCtesias, and by \u00c6schylus, cannot be ascertained. It is evident that\nexaggerations and errors abounded among the oriental historians: the\nGreeks therefore, having at best a very imperfect access to these\ndiscordant authorities, must be perused with caution: it would be\nunsafe to rely with confidence upon any of these narratives; or to\nfound upon them objections to statements which we derive from sources\nthat are much more credible.\n\nA general conformity with facts is all that we ought to expect from\nthe Greek historians when they speak of the remote history of Asia.\nHerodotus at Babylon, or at Susa, must have been almost entirely\ndependent upon the good faith of the learned men with whom he\nhappened to form acquaintance; and even if we give them credit for\nas much honesty as is usually practised on similar occasions towards\nforeigners--and him for a great measure of diligence and discretion,\nwe shall scarcely find reason for considering these portions of the\nwork to be true, otherwise than as to the general outline of events.\nHerodotus must however be allowed to rank above Xenophon, on the\nground of authenticity; for the Cyrop\u00e6dia is only a political romance.\nDiodorus Siculus had access to sources of information that were not\nopen to Herodotus; and the statements of the later may be admitted in\ncorrection of those of the earlier historian. Justin, or rather Trogus,\nseems to follow our author in his incidents, varying from him only in\nthe order of some events. Josephus, in his reply to Apion, treats the\nGreek historians with contempt when they presumed to speak of Asiatic\naffairs; urging against them their many contradictions, and their want\nof really ancient and authentic documents, and quoting, as of higher\nauthority, several works of which these citations are almost the only\nremaining fragments. Without impeaching the character of Herodotus,\nwe may peruse the earlier portions of his history as an entertaining\nnarrative, held together by a connected thread of truth, and supporting\na series of incidents which, though characteristic of the times, are\nof very questionable historical authority. Of this kind is the story\nof the birth and early adventures of Cyrus, in which the art of the\nnarrator in working up his materials, is apparent.--Probably some\npopular tales communicated to our author in Persia, were adapted by\nhim to the taste of the Greeks. In his account of the manners, usages,\nhabits, and buildings of the nations he visited, and of the features\nand productions of the countries through which he travelled, our\nauthor is deserving of a high degree of confidence; and though a few\nparticulars,--plainly fabulous, are mingled with these descriptions,\nthey must be admitted to take a place among the most valuable of the\nremains of ancient literature.\n\nThe narrative of the subjugation of the Ionians and \u00c6olians of Asia\nMinor, by the Persians, stands, for the most part, upon a higher ground\nof authority than those which precede, and those which immediately\nfollow it; not only because the transactions were comparatively recent;\nbut because the affairs of these Asiatic Greeks were, at all times,\nwell known to those of Europe.\n\nThe capture of Babylon by Cyrus was an event too remarkable in itself,\nand in the extraordinary circumstances attending it, to leave room\nfor much diversity among the accounts of it which were transmitted\nto the next age. The Greek historians differ but little in relating\nthis memorable event, and their testimony, independent as it is, when\ncollated with the circumstantial predictions of the Hebrew prophet,\ndeserves peculiar regard. If the history of Herodotus had no other\nclaims to attention, it would have claim enough by affording, as it\ndoes, in several signal instances, an unexceptionable testimony in\nillustration of the fulfilment of prophecy.\n\nThe expedition of Cyrus against the Massagetes, a Scythian nation, in\nwhich he perished, closes the first book of the history. Here again\nthere may be reason to suspect a want of authentic information. The\nscene of action was remote, not merely from Greece, but from Persia,\nand the survivors of the Persian army told, when they returned, each\nhis own tale of wonder: nor is it probable that any other account of\nthe war was extant in the time of Herodotus than what had been received\nfrom these persons.\n\nThe instances that have now been mentioned, occurring in the first\nbook of Herodotus, may serve as examples of the different degrees of\nauthority which may belong to different portions of an historical\nwork--dependent both upon the means of information possessed by the\nwriter, and upon his liability to contradiction and correction from his\ncontemporaries. It is enough if we keep in view the general principles\nstated above (chap. XIII.), in adhering to which, we have a sufficient\nguidance in perusing a work like that of Herodotus, combining as it\ndoes, materials of all kinds, more or less valuable and authentic.\nAs to some of the facts he relates, we may regard them as absolutely\ncertain, others as doubtful, improbable, or unreal. With the worst\nintentions, and the meanest qualifications, an historian of recent\nevents, whose writings are received in his own times as authentic,\ncan seldom be charged with glaring falsifications of facts; on the\nother hand, the most cautious, industrious, and scrupulous writer,\nwho compiles the history of remote times, and of foreign nations, may\ninnocently wander very far from the path of truth. It would subserve no\nuseful purpose to adduce a larger sample of instances in illustration\nof these obvious principles. We may now give some account of those who\nhave signalised themselves as the assailants of this great writer.\n\nHerodotus, as we have already said, was severely reprehended by several\nancient writers, especially by Ctesias, Manetho, Diodorus Siculus,\nStrabo, Josephus, and, above all, by Plutarch, or by the angry writer\nwho assumes his name. The grounds of exception taken by these writers\nare, in a few instances just; in most cases, the influence of prejudice\nor petty jealousy is apparent; yet none of these criticisms affect\nthat part of the history which alone we allege to be unquestionably\nauthentic. But modern authors also have attacked the reputation of\nthe historian, and we may briefly notice some of these more recent\ncriticisms; for if it is affirmed of a portion of this history, that\nits truth is absolutely certain, it ought to be shown that the facts in\nbehalf of which so high a claim is advanced have never been called in\nquestion--or never, with any degree of plausibility.\n\nCertain critics, of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, taking\noffence at some of the less authentic portions of this work, and\nespecially at some ill-understood descriptions of animals and plants,\nspeak of the historian as a compiler of fables: thus Ludovicus Vives,\na learned Spaniard, well known in England during the reign of Henry\nVIII., speaks of the books of Herodotus as abounding in things untrue.\nAnother says, \u201cHerodotus, that he might not seem to have omitted\nanything, brought together, without selection, matters of all kinds;\nof which the greater part were derived, not from ancient records, but\nfrom the fables of the vulgar. And although his style is agreeable, and\neven elegant, he forfeits the confidence of those who exercise a sound\nand impartial judgment; for such readers cannot give credence to a work\nso crammed with various narrations.--By some indeed he is called the\n\u2018father of history;\u2019 but by others he is justly named the \u2018father of\nfables.\u2019\u201d\n\nBodin, in his \u201cMethod of History,\u201d says, \u201cI wonder that Cicero should\nhave designated Herodotus alone as the father of history, whom all\nantiquity accuses of falsehood; for there cannot be a greater proof\nthat an historian is unworthy of credit, than that he should be\nmanifestly convicted of error by all writers. Nevertheless I do not\nthink that he ought to be wholly rejected; for besides the merit of\neloquence, and the charm of the Ionic sweetness, there is in him much\nthat holds forth antiquity, and many things in the latter books of his\nhistory, are narrated with an exact adherence to truth.\u201d\n\nWheare, in his \u201cMethod of reading History,\u201d thus speaks of our author:\n\u201cAlthough Herodotus gives some relations that are not much better than\nfables, yet the body of his history is composed with eminent fidelity,\nand a diligent pursuit of truth. Many of those less authentic\nnarratives he himself introduces by saying that he reports not what he\nthinks true, but what he had received from others.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt would be absurd,\u201d says Isaac Vossius, \u201cto confide in Herodotus\nalone, in what relates to Persian and Babylonian affairs; seeing that\nhe was unacquainted with the Persian language, and unfurnished with the\nrecords of any of the nations of the east.\u201d Bishop Stillingfleet speaks\nof the historian very much in the same strain as the authors above\nquoted. He has also been uncourteously treated by some later writers;\nof these Voltaire is the most distinguished. Whenever occasion presents\nitself he labours to cast contempt upon the father of history. Of this\nwriter\u2019s ignorance and flippancy in commenting upon Herodotus, we have\nalready adduced an example: others of a similar kind might easily be\ncited. Thus, he represents the historian as _affirming_, in a number\nof instances, what he professes only to report; as the story of Arion,\nand that of the Lydians who are said to have invented various games to\nallay the pains of hunger. He denies as utterly incredible the account\ngiven by Herodotus of the dissolute manners of the Babylonians: \u201cthat\nwhich does not accord with human nature, can never be true.\u201d Yet the\ncustoms alluded to are expressly affirmed to have prevailed there by\nStrabo, and are distinctly mentioned by a writer whose evidence in\nsuch a case need not be suspected--Baruch, VI. 43; and usages not less\nrevolting are known to have been established in many ancient cities.\n\nIn several instances, either from ignorance or malice, Voltaire\nmistranslates Herodotus, in such a manner as to create an absurdity\nor impropriety which does not exist in the original; and sometimes he\ncites passages that are nowhere to be found in our author. Herodotus,\n(Thalia, 72) affirms that it was the custom of the Scythians to impale\na number of persons, having first strangled them, as a part of the\nfuneral rites with which their kings were honoured. But Voltaire makes\nthe historian affirm that the victims of this barbarous custom were\nimpaled alive; and he then finds occasion to deny the truth of the\nstory. If there are any, who, at this time, think Voltaire\u2019s criticisms\nupon the Scriptures worthy of any regard, they would do well to\nexamine, with some care, the grounds of his remarks upon Herodotus.\nIf in the case of a Greek historian, towards whom we may suppose him\nto have entertained no peculiar ill feeling, we find him displaying\nignorance, indifference to truth, and a senseless flippancy--what may\nwe expect when he attacks those writings towards which he avows the\nutmost hostility of intention?\n\nUnder all these attacks Herodotus has not wanted apologists; and\nwhile the writers above mentioned, taking an unfair advantage of some\ndoubtful, or evidently fabulous passages, for the truth of which the\nhistorian does not pledge himself, have accused him of a want of\nveracity; others, more candid, have entered into the details of these\naccusations, and have shown, either that the author\u2019s credit is not\nreally implicated in the narratives he brings together; or that these\naccounts are much better founded than, at first sight, they may appear.\nThe editors and translators of Herodotus--such as Aldus, Camerarius,\nStephens, Wesseling, Gronovius--have undertaken his defence; in some\ninstances establishing the disputed facts; in others excusing the\nauthor from the charge of falsification. These discussions relate, for\nthe most part, to those portions of the history which we have excluded\nfrom our present argument; and with which therefore we have here no\nimmediate concern.\n\n \u201cFew writers,\u201d says Larcher, \u201chave united in so eminent a degree as\n Herodotus the various excellences proper to an historian. Let us in\n the first place speak of his love of truth. Whoever reads his history\n with attention, easily perceives that he has proposed to himself\n no other object but truth; and that when he entertains a doubt he\n adduces both opinions, leaving it to his readers to choose which they\n please of the two. If any particular seems to himself unauthentic\n or incredible, he never fails to add that he only reports what has\n been told him. Among a thousand examples I shall cite but two.--When\n Neco ceased to dig the canal which was to have led the waters of the\n Nile into the Arabian Gulf, he despatched from this gulf certain\n Ph\u0153nicians, with orders to make the circuit of Africa, and to return\n to Egypt by the Pillars of Hercules, now known as the Straits of\n Gibraltar. These Ph\u0153nicians returned to Egypt the third year after\n their departure, and related, among other things, that in sailing\n round Africa, they had had the sun (rising) on their right hand.\n Herodotus did not doubt that the Ph\u0153nicians actually made the circuit\n of Africa; but as astronomy was then in its infancy, he could not\n believe that in this voyage they had really seen the sun on the right\n hand:--\u2018this fact,\u2019 says he, \u2018appeared to me by no means credible; yet\n perhaps there are those to whom it may seem so.\u2019\n\n \u201cAnother point which has not been duly attended to is, that very often\n he commences his narrative thus--The Persians--The Ph\u0153nicians--The\n Egyptian Priests, have told me this or that. These narrations, which\n sometimes extend to a considerable length, are, in the original,\n throughout, made to depend upon this word \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03af--_they say_, either\n expressed or understood. The genius of our modern languages obliging\n us to retrench these phrases, it often happens that Herodotus is made\n to say in his own person what in fact he reports in the third person.\n Thus things have been attributed to him, for the authenticity of which\n he is very far from vouching.\n\n \u201cHe travelled in all the countries of which he has occasion to speak,\n he examined with scrupulous attention the rivers and streams by which\n they are watered--the animals which belong to them--the productions\n of the earth--the manners of the inhabitants--their usages, as well\n religious as civil;--he consulted their archives, their inscriptions,\n their monuments; and when these means of information failed him, or\n appeared to him insufficient, he had recourse to those among the\n people who were reputed to be the most skilled in history. He even\n carried his scrupulosity so far, that though he had no just reason\n for distrusting the priests of Memphis, he repaired to Heliopolis\n (Euterpe, 3), and then to Thebes, in order to discover if the priests\n of the latter city agreed with those of Memphis.\n\n \u201cOne cannot refuse confidence to an historian who takes such pains to\n assure himself of the truth. If, however, notwithstanding all these\n precautions, it has sometimes happened to him to be deceived, I think\n he deserves in such instances rather indulgence than blame. Herodotus\n is not less exact in all matters of Natural History than in historical\n facts. Some ancient writers have dismissed, as fabulous, some\n particulars which have since been verified by modern naturalists--much\n more learned than the ancients. The celebrated Boerhaave did not\n hesitate to say, in speaking of Herodotus--\u2018modern observations\n establish almost all that great man\u2019s assertions.\u2019\u201d\n\nSome English writers also, wishing, as it seems, like Voltaire, to\nbring all history under suspicion, by endeavouring to prove that the\nbest authenticated facts may, with some show of reason be questioned,\nhave impugned the testimony, not of Herodotus alone, but of all the\nGreek historians.\n\nIn recent times all this ground has been so well and thoroughly\nexplored by writers eminently qualified for the task, that it would be\nquite a superfluous labour to refute those whose criticisms have passed\ninto oblivion.[9]\n\nWriters who, on general grounds, have laboured to show that Herodotus\nvastly exaggerates the power, valour, energy, of the Greeks, as\ncompared with the Asiatic nations, have forgotten that, in estimating\nhis testimony in this case, we are abundantly furnished with\nindependent evidences--touching, as well the Asiatic, as the European\ncivilisation, at the times in question. These existing monuments on\nthe one side, leave no room to doubt that the soil of Greece, during a\nlong course of time, supported a numerous people, eminently endowed\nat once with the physical qualities of strength, beauty, alacrity, and\ncourage, and with a mental conformation, combining the ratiocinative\nand imaginative faculties in the happiest proportions. There is proof\nbefore us that these advantages, inherent in the race, were improved;\nthat a very high degree of civilisation in almost all its branches,\nand of refinement, was attained; that the resources of an extensive\ncommerce were possessed, and a large amount of political power\nacquired, by the Greeks; or to express all at once--that the Greeks\nwere then, what the nations of western Europe are now, as compared with\nthe nations of Asia.\n\nEven if it could be made to appear probable that, in the first ages of\nthe world, Asia--and in Asia, Persia, was the centre of civilisation,\nyet it must be granted, that, so far as authentic history reaches,\nthe picture of the Asiatic nations is uniform in its character and\ncolouring. Asia has indeed produced some races distinguished by a\nfierce energy, by romantic courage, by loftiness and richness of\nimagination. But in no people of Asiatic origin that has displayed at\nonce, and in combination, the effective energy, the high intelligence,\nthe taste, the well-directed and sustained industry, which belong to\nthe more advanced of the European nations:--never have its hordes risen\nto that level on the scale of intelligence at which men become at once\ndesirous of political liberty, and capable of enjoying so great a good.\n\nThe relation which modern European armies--those of the Portuguese, the\nDutch, the French, and the English, have always borne to the native\nforces of India, is very much the same as that which history affirms\nto have existed in all ages between the people of the East and of the\nWest. Though the latter have not driven the former before them like\nsheep, they have at length prevailed over them, as courage conquers\nrage, as mind subdues mere force, and as skill is more than numbers.\nIt is, in substance, the same story that we read, whether the page of\nhistory presents us with the exploits of Clive in India, or of Pompey\nin Parthia and Syria, or of Miltiades at Marathon, or of Alexander in\nPersia.\n\nThe narrative of Herodotus is therefore substantially the first chapter\nof the history of the enduring conflict between Asia and Europe; and\nthis commencement of the story is in harmony with all its subsequent\nevents. On the one side is seen a reckless despotism, seated on the\nshoulders of a boundless population, and which, at the instigation of\na puerile or a ferocious ambition, lets forth a deluge of war, the\ncourse of which was as little directed by skill, as it was checked\nby humanity. On the other side are seen much smaller means, employed\nwith incomparably greater intelligence; and excepting only the partial\nevents of war, the general issue has ever been the same.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[9] Some of these were named in the first edition of this book; but it\nwould be a waste of space to bring them forward anew.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\nRECENT EXPLORATIONS, CONFIRMATORY OF THE TRUTH OF ANCIENT HISTORY:\nHERODOTUS AND BEROSUS.\n\n\nWhat we are now doing is to adduce a few samples of the means that\nare available for establishing the truth of the more remote facts of\nancient history, according to those general principles which have\nalready been explained--taking Herodotus as our first, and Berosus as\nour second instance. In the tenth chapter (p. 112) a brief reference\nhas been made to those statues, busts, monuments, inscriptions, whence\nancient historians drew a portion of their materials. But more than\na few of these solid vouchers for the truth of written history have\ncome down to modern times, and are accessible, either on the sites of\nancient cities, or in museums. In the twelfth chapter (pp. 141-157),\nthese now-extant evidences are again, and more particularly referred\nto. In the fifteenth chapter a glance at the contents of the British\nMuseum brings this species of evidence yet further into notice, and we\nthere (p. 219) make a passing reference to Herodotus, as one amongst\nthose writers--indeed, the foremost of them, whose testimony finds\nconfirmation in the sculptures of the Grecian, the Assyrian, and the\nEgyptian saloons.\n\nTo this particular subject, therefore, we now return; but shall think\nit sufficient to name, at hazard, a few among the very many instances\nwhich might be adduced, of a similar kind, and which possess, in\ndifferent degrees, the same historic value. The reader will understand\nthat nothing more can be attempted within the limits of a volume like\nthis, than to state the general principles of historic evidence, and\nto illustrate such statements by a few examples. This has been done\nat large, in the instance of Herodotus (as we have just now said) by\nseveral eminent writers of modern times, namely, the editors of the\nGreek Text; and still more effectively by some of later date--French\nand German. Among English writers we should mention Sir John Ker\nPorter, in his Travels in Persia; Major Rennell, in his Essay on the\nGeography of Herodotus; Mr. Layard, in his \u201cNineveh and its Remains,\u201d\nand his later work, \u201cDiscoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon.\u201d\nTo the same purpose much of illustrative and incidental discussion\nfinds a place in Grote\u2019s \u201cHistory of Greece,\u201d and in Mure\u2019s \u201cCritical\nHistory of the Language and Literature of Greece.\u201d More specifically\nthese subjects come forward in the Papers and Essays of Dr. Hincks,\nand of Sir H. Rawlinson, and in many of the elaborate notes, and\nthe subjoined essays of the now forthcoming work, \u201cThe History of\nHerodotus: a New English Version,\u201d by Mr. Rawlinson, Sir H. Rawlinson,\nand Sir J. G. Wilkinson. In these works--accessible to the English\nreader, and which are found in most libraries--ample and precise\ninformation may easily be obtained, of the same kind as that of which\na few instances only are here adduced. Major Rennell\u2019s Essay on the\nGeography of Herodotus, has already been referred to (p. 312), and it\nmight here again be brought forward, for furnishing instances attesting\nthe fact that the Greek historian, not content with collecting\nmaterials at second hand, and at home, had actually visited most of\nthe countries of which he gives any particular account, and certainly\nMesopotamia and Egypt, and to some extent Scythia, and Northern Africa\nalso, beside the southern parts of Italy; and it may be affirmed,\nas to this great extent of lands, that, in their now actual natural\nfeatures, their products--animal and vegetable, the customs and usages\nof the people, and especially in those enduring architectural monuments\nwhich attract the attention of modern travellers, these countries\nfurnish visible and tangible vouchers in support of the reputation of\nHerodotus--giving evidence, as they do, of his industry, intelligence,\nand, generally, of the exactness of his reports and descriptions.\n\nSir Robert Ker Porter[10] finds frequent occasion to name this same\nauthority in illustration of existing antiquities. \u201cHow faithfully,\u201d\nhe says, \u201cdo these vestiges agree with the method of building in\nBabylon, as described by Herodotus!... the bricks intended for the\nwalls were formed of the clay dug from the great ditch that backed\nthem; they were baked in large furnaces, and in order to join them\ntogether in building, warm bitumen was used; and between each course\nof thirty bricks, beds of reeds were laid interwoven together. The\nbitumen was drawn from pits near the Euphrates, which pits exist at\nthis day.\u201d Since the time (1821) of Sir R. Ker Porter\u2019s explorations\nin Babylonia, so much has been done in these regions that we turn of\ncourse to more recent authorities: these, although they do not deprive\nhis writings of all value, supersede them to a great extent. Chiefly\nwithin the last ten years, and entirely within these thirty years,\nunexpected progress has been made in deciphering the inscriptions that\nabound among the remains of this region; and it may now be affirmed\nthat the dark unknown of remote Asiatic history stands revealed before\nus. This recent revelation--this solving of what had been regarded\nas inscrutable mysteries--has taken effect in various degrees,\nupon the existing written histories of Assyria, Babylonia, Persia,\nScythia--confirming much--correcting much; and utterly demolishing\nthe credit of some portions of this hitherto-accepted history. It is\nthus that the tangible and the visible remains of remote ages, as now\n_interpreted_, have effected an extensive reform in this department of\nhuman knowledge. If, in a few words, we were to state what has been\nthe general result of these discoveries, it would be in this way--The\nrecent interpretation of the inscriptions heretofore, or recently\nknown, and which are found upon bricks, upon slabs and sculptured\nsurfaces, and upon the face of rocks, has, in several remarkable\ninstances, furnished evidence confirmatory of Hebrew Scripture history;\nit has given a _general_ support to the statements of Herodotus, as\nwell as to those of Diodorus the Sicilian; at the same time correcting\nthose statements in various particulars; it has irrecoverably\nannihilated the testimony of Ctesias--the rival and the bitter enemy\nof Herodotus; and on the other hand it has, to a great extent, given\nauthentication to what is extant of the Chald\u00e6an writer--Berosus. To\nthis last instance we must presently revert.\n\nIn mentioning (Chapter XI.) the exceptions to which the testimony of\nancient historians may be open--without impugning their veracity,\nwe have of course claimed indulgence for them in relation to events\nremote, both in time and place from themselves, and for a knowledge\nof which they must have been dependent upon precarious sources of\ninformation. Nevertheless there are many instances of this very sort\nwhich have received from the industry of modern travellers very\nremarkable confirmation. One such instance comes before us in an\nearly, or, as we may call it, the preliminary portion of the history\nof Herodotus. In speaking of Lydia and of its people, he says that it\ncontains little worthy of note--less, indeed, than other countries--yet\nit has one structure of enormous size, to which nothing is comparable,\nafter we have excepted the buildings of Egypt and of Babylon:--this is\nthe tomb of Halyattes, the father of Cr\u0153sus, the foundation of which\nconsists of immense blocks of stone, and otherwise of a mound of earth.\nThis structure has now outlasted the revolutions of two thousand four\nhundred years, or more, and lately it has, with sufficient certainty,\nbeen identified by modern travellers. It is found upon the northern\nbank of the river Hermus, in the plain between Mounts Temnus and\nSiphylus. Mr. Hamilton thus describes the principal tumulus, generally\ndesignated as the tomb of Halyattes:--\u201cIt took us about ten minutes\nto ride round its base, which would give it a circumference of nearly\nhalf a mile. Toward the north it consists of the natural rock, a white,\nhorizontally stratified, earthy limestone, cut away so as to appear as\npart of the structure. The upper portion is sand and gravel, apparently\nbrought from the bed of the Hermus. Several deep ravines have been worn\nby time and weather in its sides, particularly on that to the south;\nwe followed one of these as affording a better footing than the smooth\ngrass, as we ascended to the summit. Here we found the remains of a\nfoundation nearly eighteen feet square, on the north of which was a\nhuge circular stone, ten feet in diameter, with a flat bottom, and a\nraised lip or edge, evidently placed there as an ornament on the apex\nof the tumulus.\u201d\n\nThe Prussian consul at Smyrna, M. Spiegenthal, has examined this\nmonument with more care, and has explored the interior. He gives\nthe average diameter of the mound as 281 yards, which would require\na circumference of about half a mile, as roughly estimated by Mr.\nHamilton. \u201cCarrying a tunnel into the interior of the mound, he\ndiscovered a sepulchral chamber composed of large blocks of white\nmarble, highly polished, situated almost in the centre of the tumulus.\nThe chamber measured about 11 feet by 8, and was 7 feet in height. It\nwas empty, and contained no inscription or sarcophagus. This chamber,\nno doubt, had been entered and ransacked in remote times, and its\ntreasures, whatever they may have been, carried off. There can be\nlittle doubt that this marble chamber was the actual resting-place of\nthe Lydian king, who died according to our chronologies, B.C. 568.\u201d\nThis structure, when seen by Herodotus, was a recent work--say about\n130 years had passed over it: it is now a mound, crumbling into a\nformless mass:--meantime the description of it--even this page of\nGreek--in my view--is, as to its historic and its literary integrity,\nas fresh and as perfect as it was two thousand years ago--yes, and\nit is as imperishable as anything mundane can be. This Greek text\nwill cease to exist--never--unless a deluge of water, of fire, or of\nuniversal barbarism shall come to wrap this planet in its pall.\n\nAs nothing is attempted in this volume beyond the illustration of the\nmethod or process of historical evidence, we take only a glance at\nthose visible confirmations of our author\u2019s testimony, which are now\ndirecting the curiosity of the learned men of Europe, toward the levels\nof Mesopotamia--the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates. The mounds, the\nbasement works, the gigantic sculptures, the inscriptions, combine to\ngive evidence concerning Nineveh, and Babylon, and Persepolis, and in\ndoing so shed a light upon remote antiquity, which, while it extends\nthe limits of what is called \u201cthe historic period,\u201d avails also at\nonce to correct and to corroborate the extant written materials of\nhistory. Heretofore the existence of very many contradictions in these\nliterary materials, and the suspicious aspect of portions of it, had\nthrown a vague uncertainty over the whole. But the course of inquiry,\nat this time, has a discriminative tendency, and it will, in its\nresults, undoubtedly enable those who shall be competent to the task,\nto set off the true and certain, from the false and the doubtful,\nthroughout the entire range of ancient history. Far more important\nthan the determination of any particular problems in the Assyrian, or\nBabylonish, or Persian history, such as the disputed date of wars, or\nthe succession of monarchs, is the exclusion of those loose modes of\nthinking and of writing, the aim and _intention_ of which has been to\nbring all history under suspicion, and thus to divert attention from\nthe _past_ universally, and to fix the thoughts of men upon the things\nof the day, and the objects of sense.\n\nBetween the written history which has reached modern times, in the\nmodes that have been mentioned in the preceding chapters, and the\nnow extant substantial monuments of the same times, there is a\ncorrespondence which can in no way be accounted for, otherwise than by\nassuming the genuineness and the authenticity of the former.\n\n \u201cThe great temple of Babylon, regarding which the Greeks have left so\n many notices, is beyond all doubt to be identified with the enormous\n mound which is named _Mujellib\u00eah_ by Rich, but to which the Arabs\n universally apply the title of _B\u00e1bil_. In the description, however,\n which Herodotus gives of this famous building, he would seem to\n have blended architectural details which applied in reality to two\n different sites; his measurement of a stade square, answering pretty\n well to the circumference of Babil, and his notices, also, of the\n chapels and altars of the god, being in close agreement with the\n accounts preserved in the inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar, of the high\n place of Merodach at Babylon; while, on the other hand, the elevation\n of seven stages, one above the other, and the construction of a\n shrine for the divinity at the summit of the pile, must necessarily\n refer to the temple of the Planets of the Seven Spheres at Borsippa,\n now represented by the ruins of Birs-Nimrud.\u201d--SIR H. RAWLINSON:\n _Herodotus_, vol. i. p. 321.\n\n \u201cOn the whole, we may conclude with tolerable confidence, that in the\n great northern mound of Babylon, we have the remains of that famous\n temple which Herodotus describes so graphically, and which ancient\n writers so generally declare to have been one of the chief marvels of\n the eastern world. Its bricks bear the name of Nebuchadnezzar, who\n relates that he thoroughly repaired the building; and it is the only\n ruin which seems to be that of a temple, among all the remains of\n ancient Babylon.\u201d--_Idem._\n\nIn the course of these recent explorations, an instance has presented\nitself which, in a very peculiar manner, illustrates our proper\nsubject in this volume, namely--the trustworthiness of that mode of\ntransmission which has brought ancient books into our hands.\n\nBerosus, or Ber Oseas, a Chaldean priest and historian, flourished and\nwrote at Babylon in the times of Alexander\u2019s immediate successors.\nHis work--the History of Babylonia, has failed to come down to modern\ntimes; but it was extant in the early centuries of the Christian era;\nand it was very frequently mentioned, and cited at length, by writers\nof those times. This history is confidently appealed to, and is quoted\nby Josephus; and passages drawn from it are found in Tatian, Eusebius,\nClemens Alexandrinus, Athen\u00e6us, Agathias, and others. Altogether, when\nthese variously derived quotations are brought together, they form a\nmass--broken indeed into fragments, but yet sufficient for subserving\nhighly important purposes in clearing up the ancient history of the\nEast. In converting this remarkable instance to our purpose in this\nargument, we have _first_ to point out the illustration it affords\nof the reality, and the truthfulness of that system of quotation to\nwhich, again and again, we have directed the reader\u2019s attention. Here\nwe have before us a case in which fragmentary citations, and incidental\nreferences--made by a number of writers, are found so to consist, and\nto agree one with another, as to authenticate at once the writer who\nis quoted, and the writers who quote: it is a mutually corroborative\ntestimony. But in the next place, these fragments have lately received\na kind of authentication that was little looked for, and which indeed\ndeserves peculiar regard. What we here refer to is the trilingual\nRock-Inscription which recently has received its interpretation.\nIn referring to this instance, and in converting it to our present\npurpose, we must be understood to assume, what we believe ought not\nto be doubted, namely, the validity of that system of interpretation\nwhich has at length given us the English of these inscriptions. A few\npassages we now quote are from Rawlinson\u2019s Herodotus. The following\n(vol. ii. p. 590) describes the Rock-Inscriptions of Behistun.\n\n\u201cBehistun is situated on the western frontier of the ancient Media,\nupon the road from Babylon to the southern Ecbatana, the great\nthoroughfare between the eastern and the western provinces of the\nancient Persia. The precipitous rock, 1,700 feet high, on which the\nwriting is inscribed, forms a portion of the great chain of Zagros,\nwhich separates the high plateau of Iran from the vast plain watered\nby the two streams of the Tigris and Euphrates. The inscription is\nengraved at the height of 300 feet from the base of the rock, and can\nonly be reached with much exertion and difficulty. It is trilingual:\none transcript is in the ancient Persian, one in Babylonian, the other\nin a Scythic or Tatar dialect. Col. Rawlinson gathers from the monument\nitself that it was executed in the fifth year of the reign of Darius,\nB. C. 516.\u201d\n\nIn these inscriptions, covering a large surface of the native rock,\nDarius, the great king, tells the world who he is, what he has done,\nwhat wars he has waged, what countries he has conquered, and what\nstructures he has raised:--\n\n\u201cI (am) Darius, the great king, the king of kings, the king of Persia,\nthe king of the (dependent) provinces, the son of Hystaspes, the\ngrandson of Arsames the Ach\u00e6menian.\u201d\n\nWe have mentioned (p. 256) what was the usage of the copyists in\ncommending their labours to the care of the men of after times, and\nin attaching tremendous anathemas to the crime of destroying, or of\nalienating the book. Here, now, a curious coincidence presents itself;\nfor this great king, in bringing this sculptured record of his reign to\na close, thus utters his will:--\n\n\u201cDarius the king says,--If seeing this tablet, and these images, thou\ninjurest them, and preservest them not as long as my seed endures,\n(then) may Ormazd be thy enemy, and mayest thou have no offspring; and\nwhatever thou doest, may Ormazd curse it for thee.\u201d\n\nAs to the available value of these inscriptions, Mr. Rawlinson thus\nwrites (vol. i. p. 432):--\n\n \u201cUntil quite recently the most obscure chapter in the world\u2019s history\n was that which related to ancient Babylonia. With the exception of the\n Biblical notices regarding the kingdom of Nimrod, and the confederates\n of Chedor-laomer, there was nothing authentic to satisfy, or even\n to guide research.... The materials accumulated during the last few\n years, in consequence of the excavations which have been made upon\n the sites of the ruined cities of Babylonia and Chald\u00e6a, have gone\n far to clear up doubts upon the general question. Each succeeding\n discovery has tended to authenticate the chronology of Berosus, and\n to throw discredit upon the tales of Ctesias and his followers....\n The chronology which we obtain from the cuneiform inscriptions in\n this early empire, harmonises perfectly with the numbers given in\n the scheme of Berosus.... It is evident that the chronological\n scheme of Berosus ... is, in a general way, remarkably supported and\n confirmed.... As to the chronology of Ctesias, it is irreconcileable\n with Scripture, at variance with the monuments, and contradictory to\n the native historian, Berosus, whose chronological statements have\n recently received such abundant confirmation from the course of\n cuneiform discovery.... It may therefore be discarded as a pure and\n absolute fiction; and the shorter chronology of Herodotus and Berosus\n may be followed. The scheme of these writers is in tolerable harmony\n with the Jewish records, and agrees also sufficiently well with the\n results at present derivable from the inscriptions.\u201d\n\nOur object here is not to determine disputable points in ancient\nhistory, but merely to exhibit, in its several parts, the method, or\nprocess, of historic proof. With this view, only, before us, we need\nnot do more than bring forward these _samples_ of this method, in its\nseveral kinds. It would be easy, if useful, to go on--from book to\nbook of the History of Herodotus--finding confirmations or corrections\nof his narratives and descriptions, and much that would be pertinent,\nderived from the pages of modern travellers, or from the contents of\nmuseums. But to do so would lead us far, and indeed would fill bulky\nvolumes. The facts, thus far briefly adduced, furnish the intelligent\nand studious reader with _suggestions_ for prosecuting inquiries, on\nthis ground, to any extent to which his taste or his purposes may lead\nhim onward.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[10] Travels in Georgia, Persia, Armenia, Ancient Babylonia, &c. Two\nvols. quarto, 1821.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\nINFERENTIAL HISTORIC MATERIALS.\n\n\nA book may come into my hand which contains no narrative of events--no\nallusion to the persons or transactions of the author\u2019s times--in a\nword, nothing, from the first page to the last, which in a direct\nmanner should enable me to assign a date to it. Nevertheless, such a\nbook may actually possess much historic significance, and it may take\nits place among those materials of which a writer of history will\neagerly avail himself. This assertion may need some explanation; as\nthus:--\n\nEach nation, as distinguished from other nations, its contemporaries,\nand each period in the world\u2019s history, as compared with periods\nanterior to it and subsequent, has its characteristics, its moral\ntone, its intellectual range, and its tastes; it has its principles,\nits modes of reasoning, and especially its condition as a season,\neither of progress and expansion, or of decay and decline. Now these\ncharacteristics are important in themselves, and they are often highly\nso, in clearing up historic problems.\n\nNevertheless historians seldom afford _direct_ information illustrative\neither of the moral or the intellectual condition of ancient nations;\nnor indeed is this deficiency much to be regretted, for such subjects\nare too indefinite to be treated in the style proper to history; and\nwhen historians philosophise, they bring the simplicity of their\ntestimony into just suspicion. Besides, the mental condition of a\npeople can be fairly estimated only by being placed in comparison with\nthat of others; and few writers, how extensive soever may be their\nacquaintance with facts, are qualified to arbitrate between their\ncontemporaries, and their predecessors, or between their own countrymen\nand their neighbours.\n\nYet although information of this sort may not present itself on the\npages of historians, it may be derivable from other sources; for when\nthe literary monuments of an ancient people are in existence, the\nknowledge we are in search of may be collected with a high degree\nof certainty therefrom. Yet the process may be nice and difficult,\ninasmuch as the indications from which it is to be gathered are more\nor less recondite. For this very reason the conclusions we obtain by\na course of inferences and comparisons, may be the more exempt from\nsuspicion. The pages of historians may be swelled with descriptions of\nthe resources, the foreign influence, the population, and the polity of\nempires; meantime an intelligent inquirer may obtain--from the casual\nhints and allusions of writers of a less pretentious class, a true\nknowledge of the taste and the morals of a people.\n\nIt is obvious that we are not to attach much value, in this sense,\nto the embittered sarcasms of misanthropes, or to the epigrams of\nsatirists, who hold up to view the two corrupted extremes of a social\nsystem--namely, the pampered favourites, and the desperate outcasts of\nfortune. Nor should we listen, without caution, either to the dreams of\npoets, from whose pictures the ills of reality have been discharged,\nor to the averments of philosophers, who are often less true to nature\nthan even the poets.\n\nInferences, in an inquiry of this kind, may be drawn from what is\nrecorded of--the modes of life, and the domestic usages, and the\namusements of a people; or from the characteristics of their worship;\nor from the popular feeling, whether of approbation, surprise, or\nabhorrence, that is excited by the actions of public persons.\n\nValid information also is to be gathered from the enactments of a\npeople whose moral condition is under inquiry. This sort of material is\neither that which is fixed, and has been consigned to the executive, by\nlegislative authority; or that which floats at large in those ethical\nwritings which have taken a permanent place in the literature of the\ncountry. In deriving inferences from the first--namely, the sanctioned\nlaws of a people, several distinctions must be observed; for we must\nnot bring forward antiquated laws; and in examining recent enactments,\nthe political circumstances of the time must not be forgotten, for\nthe momentary interests of parties, or of individuals, not seldom\nproduce legislative decisions that are altogether anomalous, as to the\ncondition of the people. Often mere chance has had sway in senates, and\nmay have exercised more influence in the grave business of law-making\nthan the sage and solemn forms of the place would seem to bespeak.\n\nBut it must be with the last-named source of information only that we\nshall now have to do. What we say is this--That, with due caution,\nsubstantial information relative to the moral and intellectual\ncondition of a people, may be collected from the ethical writings that\nhave been accepted and approved among them. This proposition carries\nseveral important consequences, and it may be well to illustrate it by\nsome examples.\n\nEvery hortatory composition contains, explicitly or by implication, two\nfixed points, which it is the business of the inquirer to ascertain.\nOne of these is much more readily found than the other; yet there\nexists a means of measuring the distance between the two; so that the\none being determined, the other also may be discovered:--for example,\nThe first point ascertainable in an ethical composition is--the system\nof morals, or the standard of excellence which the author has imagined,\nand which he recommends and enforces. This point may be termed _the\nideal level of the writer\u2019s mind_ in morals, and it is in most cases\nquite easy to be fixed. The second, and less obvious point, and that\nwhich is the very object of our inquiries, is--the actual state of\nmorals among those whom the writer addresses, and which may be called\n_the real level of popular morals_. Our business then is to find this\nlast or unknown point, by measuring the distance between the two. Now\nthis distance is more or less distinctly indicated by the tone of\nevery ethical composition. We have then in our problem three terms:\none known, one demanded, and a middle term, connecting the two, which\nremains to be worked out of the materials before us.\n\nThe distinctness of the indications from which our middle, or\n_measuring term_, is to be formed, will vary greatly in different\ncases. In works of a philosophical cast they will be extremely faint,\nand perhaps not available for our purpose; while in treatises that\nare of a simple and popular character, and which consist of precise\nexhortations--reproofs and advices--there will be little difficulty in\ndrawing the inferences we are in search of. It will be found, also,\nthat serious writers are more safe guides than those that indulge in\nsatire; for the satirist seeks for extremes.\n\nWe say that writings of a philosophic or moral cast, and in which there\noccurs no allusion to events or to individual persons, may nevertheless\nbe made available as the materials of history.--Two or three instances\nwill show what we mean. We take our first example from a book which\nis as abstract in its form and style as any that could be found; and\ngive, in brief, the purport of a section on Magnanimity, in Aristotle\u2019s\nEthics.\n\nMagnanimity, says Aristotle, is a quality conversant with what is\ngreat. But what things are these? He then may properly be termed\nmagnanimous who deems himself worthy of great things, and who is so,\nin truth. For he who thus deems of himself without cause is a fool. He\nwhose merits are equal only to a humble station, and who thus thinks\nof himself, is called wise, not magnanimous; for magnanimity belongs to\nwhat is actually great. In like manner, as handsomeness belongs only to\nheight of stature; those who are small, may be comely, or symmetrical,\nbut not handsome. On the other hand, one who falsely deems himself to\npossess great merit, is called vain--a term which can never properly\nbelong to those who are truly great. Again; one who under-rates his\nmerits is mean-spirited, whether his real deserts be great, moderate,\nor slender; since he still thinks that less than he possesses is his\ndue: especially is he pusillanimous who thus disparages great qualities\nin himself; for what would such a man do if destitute of that merit?\nHe, therefore, who is truly magnanimous, is of necessity a good man;\nand whatever there is great in any virtue belongs to him. It befits\nnot him to flee, wringing his hands, nor to do wrong to any one; for\nwhy should he commit unworthy actions to whom nothing great can be\nadded?--Wherefore this greatness of soul seems to be a sort of ornament\nto all the virtues--enhancing all of them, and not, by any means,\nconsisting without them. True greatness of soul is therefore rare,\nsince it demands the perfection of probity and goodness. Magnanimity is\npeculiarly displayed both in honour and in disgrace; for the great man,\nwhen surrounded by opulence and by assiduous attendants, experiences\nonly a moderate happiness; since what he enjoys is not more than what\nbefits him; or perhaps, not so much; for virtue can hardly ever be said\nto possess its due reward. The honours bestowed upon him he therefore\ncalmly admits as being, though not equal to his merits, the utmost\nthat those around him have to bestow; while ordinary or mean praises\nhe utterly contemns; for of such he deems himself undeserving. In like\nmanner he despises disgrace; for he knows that it is unjustly cast upon\nhim. Thus, in prosperity he is not elated; in adversity not dejected.\n\nWithout attempting to draw inferences too far from a passage like this,\nit may fairly be said to indicate the existence of popular notions of\nmoral greatness, more refined than those of nations merely warlike;\nand far exalted above those of a people--merely commercial. The\nwriter must, in his own country, have seen examples of heroic virtue\nwhich approached the perfect image he exhibits. One is not surprised\nto learn that he belonged to the race which produced Aristides,\nCimon, Epaminondas, and Phocion. It is observable that Aristotle\u2019s\nmagnanimous man is decked only with the honours that befit a _citizen_,\nor a distinguished leader in a republic--not with the gaudy shows of\noriental despotism: it is not deemed a becoming part of his hero\u2019s\nglory that millions of his species should lay in the dust at his feet.\nWe may also fairly remark, that this acute thinker had evidently no\nidea of that peculiar sentiment which is engendered, in great minds,\nby an habitual reference to the moral attributes of the Deity: his\nhero is a purely _mundane_ person; or, if we might so accommodate the\nterm--he is _atheistical_. Neither did his notion of moral greatness\ninclude that humility which springs from a sense of delinquency, or\nimperfection, in the sight of the Supreme Lawgiver and Judge. If\nideas of this class had at all been known to the Greeks of that age,\nor if they had come within the writer\u2019s view, he would assuredly have\nincluded them among his definitions, whether he thought them worthy of\ncommendation, or not so. For his manner is to omit no abstract idea\nthat bears any relation to his topic.\n\nTo what extent sentiments like those mentioned by Aristotle were\nprevalent in his times, it is not easy to ascertain from the passage\njust quoted; since the treatise in which it appears is of an abstract,\nnot of a hortatory character; yet it contains one expression which,\non the principle of our present argument, we should call _a term of\nmeasurement_; he says, that true magnanimity is exceedingly rare, or\nhard to be attained; in other words, that it was much easier to find,\namong the writer\u2019s countrymen, an Alcibiades than an Epaminondas. But\nthe historical significance of a passage like this will best appear by\nbringing it into comparison with a quotation, on a similar topic, from\nthe most eminent of the Roman moralists.\n\nCicero\u2019s Treatise, De Officiis, is abstract rather than hortatory; and\nyet, compared with the Ethics of Aristotle, it is less metaphysical,\nand it approaches nearer to the modern idea of a practical work.\nWithout designedly painting the manners, or formally estimating the\nmorals of his times, this great writer furnishes, in his various\ncompositions, many indications from which the state of both may be\ninferred. Of all social bonds, none, he says, can be found more weighty\nor more dear, than that which binds each one of us to our country.\nDear are our parents, dear our children, relatives, friends; but in our\ncountry are centred the endearments of all--for which, what good man\nwould hesitate to die, if his death might promote its interests? Whence\nthe more detestable is the ferocity of those who, by every crime,\nrend their country; and who have ever been busied in accomplishing\nits ruin. Actions performed magnanimously and courageously we are\nwont to applaud, as it were, with a fuller mouth. Hence the themes\nof orators on Marathon, Salamis, Plat\u00e6a, Thermopyl\u00e6, Leuctra; hence\nour Cocles, hence the Decii, hence Cn\u00e6us and Publius Scipio, hence\nMarcellus, and others without number; for the Roman people especially\nexcels in greatness of soul. Indeed, our love of military glory is\ndeclared by the fact, that our statues are adorned with the garb of the\nwarrior. But that elevation of soul which displays itself in dangers\nand labours, if it wants probity--if it contends not for public, but\nprivate advantages, becomes a vice. Not merely is it not a virtue, but\nis rather to be deemed a ferocity--repulsive to human nature. Well\ntherefore is fortitude defined by the Stoics, when they say, it is\n\u2018virtue defending right.\u2019 Wherefore no man who has attained the praise\nof fortitude has been renowned for treachery or mischief; for nothing\ncan be laudable which is unjust. Those, therefore, are to be esteemed\nvaliant and magnanimous, not who commit, but who repress wrongs. That\ntrue and wise greatness of soul, which is indeed laudable and consonant\nto nature, regards deeds more than fame; and would rather be, than\nseem illustrious. And he is not to be reckoned among great men who is\ndependent upon the erring opinion of the thoughtless multitude. For\nlofty spirits, always thirsting for glory, are easily driven on to what\nis unjust. And it is indeed hard to find one who, while he undergoes\nlabours and dangers, does not seek glory as the wages of his exploits.\n\nIn these expressions there is conspicuous that paramount passion--the\nlove of country, which belonged so peculiarly to the Roman\npeople--which was a principal cause of the growth of their power,\nand which, though then on the wane, was not extinct in the age when\nthe state ceased to be free:--no good man would hesitate to die for\nhis country\u2019s good--this was a sentiment more characteristic of the\nRomans than of the Greeks. The Grecian chiefs not seldom betrayed\ntheir country for gold; those of Rome, scarcely ever. Then the\nmilitary spirit is much more prominent in the one instance than in the\nother. Cicero\u2019s great man is, of course, a warrior; Aristotle\u2019s is a\nstatesman: the Roman obtains _glory_; the Greek, _honour_, _dignity_.\nThe one, if destitute of probity, becomes the factious destroyer of\nhis country, and is regardless of dangers and toils: the other--merely\nvain. The Greeks addicted themselves to war to defend their liberties,\nand to determine their intestine quarrels; but the Romans did so from\nthe innate love of combat, and the insatiable desire of conquest. Both\nmoralists make true virtue essential to true magnanimity; but the Greek\nproves this necessary connexion on abstract principles; the Roman\ninsists that _utility_ must be made the ultimate rule of conduct;\nand this principle is expressive of that practical feeling in which\nthe Romans so much excelled the Greeks. If then, by some error, the\npassages above quoted were attributed--each to the other writer, a\nreader well acquainted with the history of the two people, would not\nfail to detect the incongruity of the sentiments and the phraseology.\nThe two authors hold essentially the same opinions; but the one thinks\nlike the companion of sophists, the other like the friend of soldiers.\nThis perceptible difference between the two is an index to the\n_historical significance_ of both.\n\nWe shall now cite a passage on a subject not very dissimilar, from a\nmodern writer; and the reader will perceive that a great change and\nimprovement has taken place in the sentiments of mankind, between the\ntimes of the ancient writers and the modern.\n\nThe duty (of respecting the natural equality of men) says Puffendorf,\nis violated by pride or arrogance, which leads a man, without cause,\nor without sufficient cause, to prefer himself to others, and to\ncontemn them as not on a level with himself. We say _without cause_;\nfor when a man rightfully demands that which gives him pre-eminence\nover others, he may properly exercise and maintain that advantage--yet\navoiding absurd ostentation or contempt of others. As, on the other\nhand, any one properly renders honour or preference to whom it is due.\nBut a true generosity or greatness of soul is always accompanied by\na certain seemly humility, which springs from the reflection we make\nupon the infirmity of our nature, and the faults which heretofore we\nmay have committed, or which yet we may commit, and are not less than\nthose of other men.... It is a still greater offence for a man to make\nknown his contempt for others by external signs, as by actions, words,\ngestures, a laugh, or any other contumelious behaviour. This offence is\nto be deemed so much the greater, inasmuch as it so excites the minds\nof others to wrath and the desire of revenge. Thus it is that many may\nbe found who would rather put their life in immediate peril, and much\nrather break amity with their neighbours, than sustain an unrevenged\naffront. Since, by this means, honour and reputation are injured, the\nunblemished integrity of which is essential to peace of mind.\n\nThe latter sentences of this passage preclude the idea that the writer\nlived in times when a sordid, or servile insensibility to reputation\nhad extinguished those sentiments to which so much importance, and so\nmuch merit, was attributed by ancient warlike nations. At the same\ntime, the first part of it contains a corrective sentiment, of which\nscarcely a trace is to be found in any of the Greek or Roman writers--a\nsentiment plainly arising from an enhancement of the notion of _moral\nresponsibility_, and from a far higher estimate of the nature of\nvirtue. In other words, the two first quoted writers were polytheists;\nthe last was a Christian.\n\nOur next instance is taken from the Enchiridion of Epictetus. The icy\nsophism of the Stoics had found some admirers at Rome before the times\nwhen the ancient republican severity of manners had disappeared. But\n_theoretical_ stoicism does not reach its perfection till some time\nafter _practical_ stoicism has become obsolete. It is a reaction in the\n_moral_ world, produced by the rank exuberance of luxury, sensuality,\neffeminacy, and the arrogance of preposterous wealth. If, therefore,\nthe date of the Enchiridion were unknown, it would be more safely\nattributed to the times of Domitian, than to the age of Cincinnatus,\nor of Cato. In reading the following passage one may readily imagine\nthe lame sage,[11] wrapping himself in his spare blanket, and his ample\nself-complacency, as he makes his way--unnoticed, through the insolence\nand voluptuousness of imperial Rome.\n\n--If it ever happens to thee to turn from thy path with the intent\nto gratify any one, know that thou hast lost thy institute (_i.e._\nforsaken thy _rule_). Let it be enough for thee, on all occasions, to\nbe--a philosopher. But if, indeed, thou desirest to seem a philosopher,\nlook to thyself, and be content with that. Let not such thoughts as\nthese trouble thee--I live without honours, and am no where accounted\nof.... Is some one preferred to thee at table, or saluted before thee,\nor consulted before thee? If these things are goods, thou oughtest\nto congratulate him to whose lot they fall; if they are ills, do not\ngrieve because they have not befallen thee. But remember, that as thou\ndost not pay attention to those things by which exterior advantages are\nobtained, it cannot be that they should be given thee. For how can\nhe who stays at home fare the same as he who goes abroad?--or can the\nsame things happen to him who is obsequious, and to him who is not?--to\nhim who praises, and to him who praises not? Thou wilt be unjust and\ngreedy if, without having paid the price at which these things are\nsold, thou dost expect to receive them freely. Now, what is the price\nof a lettuce?--say a farthing: one therefore pays his farthing, and\ntakes his lettuce; but thou dost not pay, and dost not take. Think\nnot thyself in worse condition than he. For as he has his lettuce, so\nthou hast the farthing thou didst not pay. And thus it is in other\nthings.--Thou hast not paid the price at which an invitation to a feast\nis sold: for he who makes a feast sells invitations for flattery--for\nobsequiousness. Give then the price, if thou thinkest the bargain to\nthy advantage. But if thou likest not to afford the cost, and yet\nwouldst receive the things, thou art at once greedy and foolish. And\nhast thou then nothing instead of the feast? Yes, truly; thou hast\nthis, that thou didst not commend one whom thou didst not approve; nor\nhast thou had to bear his insolence on entering his halls.\n\nMany admirable sentiments are to be found in the writings of\nEpictetus; though, for a portion of them, there may be reason to\nbelieve he was indebted to Christianity, of which obligation he makes\nno acknowledgment. The treatise from which this passage is derived\nfurnishes an example of that laborious and unsuccessful conflicting of\npride with pride, which is natural to men of superior intelligence,\nwho occupy an inferior condition, and are surrounded by vulgar\ninsolence, servility, and profligacy. There was evidently a _class_\nof persons in the author\u2019s time in circumstances like his own--that\nis to say--intellectualists, who, as a defence against the scorn of\nworldlings, put on a mail of steely logic.\n\nThe Enchiridion, if regarded as _a material of history_, may fairly\nsupport the inference that, in the writer\u2019s time, wealth and luxury\nhad triumphed over stern principles and severe manners;--that the\nphilosophical character had ceased to command general respect, as it\ndid at Athens in the age of Plato;--and that philosophy itself, having\npassed its prime, was fast becoming palsied and querulous.\n\nA comparison, at once curious and instructive, might be drawn between\ntwo writers who, at first sight, may seem too unlike to be named\ntogether--Epictetus and Thomas \u00e0 Kempis. Yet quotations from the\nEnchiridion and the De Imitatione, might be adduced in proof of a\nreal affinity. There is even a similarity in the form of the two\nworks; for both writers, in a style of severe and laconic simplicity,\naddress their pointed aphorisms--now to themselves, now to their\nhalf-refractory disciple, much in the manner of a nurse, upbraiding\na pettish child. A _monotony_, both of _principle_ and of _topics_,\npervades both books. Both authors compel Wisdom to ascend the summit of\na snow-girt peak, where she can be neither approached, nor even heard,\nby the mass of mankind. Both writers were in fact, though on widely\ndifferent principles, not only recluses from the ordinary walks of\nhuman life, but recusants of the common emotions of our nature. And\nboth, by an implicit contrast, exhibit the falling condition of the\nsocial system of their times. Yet there is this difference between the\ntwo, that while the Stoic presents to view the darkness of paganism,\nenlivened by a glimmer from Christianity, the Monk holds forth the\nbrightness of Christian truth, dimmed by the errors of superstition.\n\nThe moral treatises of Plutarch are of a practical, more than of a\nphilosophical kind, and they yield therefore abundant indications,\nas well of the opinions, as of the manners of his age. In truth, the\nstudent of history would hardly need other aid in ascertaining the\nreligious and moral sentiments of the times of Trajan, than he may\nfind in the pages of this writer. Among this author\u2019s moral pieces\nthere is one that is curious, and valuable too, as a material of\nhistory--namely, the tract on Superstition--_the dread of d\u00e6mons_.\nWith great force of language and aptness of illustration, he depicts\nthe mental torments of the man who believes the gods to be malignant,\ninexorable, and capricious; and he contrasts this unhappy temper with\nthe comparatively harmless error of those bolder spirits who cast\naway altogether the belief and fear of supernal beings; and while\nhe recommends \u201cthe mean of piety,\u201d he decidedly prefers atheism to\nsuperstition.\n\nWhat say you?--The man who thinks there are no gods is impious? But is\nnot he who thinks them to be cruel and malignant, chargeable with an\nopinion that is much more impious? For my own part, I would rather that\nmen should say, \u2018There is no such person as Plutarch,\u2019 than that they\nshould affirm that Plutarch is a man capricious, instable, prone to\nwrath, revengeful of accidental affronts, pettish; one who, if you have\nneglected to invite him with others to a feast, or if, being otherwise\nengaged, you have failed to salute him at your gate, will devour you,\nor seize and torture your son; or will send a beast, which he keeps for\nthe purpose, to ravage your fields.\n\nPlutarch speaks of four states of mind, as known and existing in\nhis times--namely, 1. The wise piety, which he recommends, and\nwhich forms the medium between superstition and atheism.--2. The\njoyous or _festive_ worship of the gods, in which he sees nothing to\nreprehend.--3. A bold rejection of all religion, which he thinks _an\nerror_, though an innocent error:--and 4. Superstition, which is not\nmerely an error, but a practical evil of the worst kind. Of the first\nhe says almost nothing; nor does he offer a single hint explanatory\nof the mode in which the gods and goddesses of the Greek mythology\nmight be made the objects of a devout and reasonable piety:--and yet\npiety without a god, must be an unmeaning term. Plutarch\u2019s piety is\na vague sentiment, which he feels to be proper to human nature, and\nhighly beneficial; but which was absolutely destitute of solid ground,\nor certainty; for no invisible being or beings were known to him whom\nhe could both love and fear. Even if the philosopher, by a course of\ndoubtful reasonings, might work out for himself an idea of the Deity,\nsuch as might keep alive the sentiment of piety, no such abstruse\nnotion could be brought within the apprehension of the vulgar. What is\nthere then left to the vulgar?--not atheism--for that is an error:--not\nsuperstition; for that is a tormenting mischief:--nothing remains but\nthe festive worship of the gods; and this, with all its impurities, and\nall its follies, was the only portion that could be assigned to the\nmillions of mankind:--Plutarch knew of no alternative on which to found\nthe religious sentiments of men. Yet on another occasion he expresses\nhis opinion strongly as to the necessity of religion for the support of\nthe social system.--It seems to me that it were easier to build a city\nwithout a foundation, than to construct or to preserve a polity, from\nwhich all belief of the gods should be removed. Yet how great soever\nwere the evils of atheism, he deemed those arising from superstition\nto be greater. According to his testimony, when the only theology\nknown to the Greeks took possession of timid minds, it rendered life\nintolerably burdensome.--Of all kinds of fear, none produces such\nincurable despondency and perplexity as superstition. He who never goes\non board a ship, does not fear the sea; nor he the combat, who is not a\nsoldier; nor he the robbers, who stays at home; nor does the poor man\nfear informers, nor he who is low, the eye of envy; nor he who inhabits\nGaul, earthquakes; nor the Ethiopian, the thunderbolt. But the man who\ndreads the gods, dreads all things;--the earth, the sea, the air, the\nheavens, darkness, light, noise, silence, dreams. The slave in slumber\nforgets his master, the captive his chain, the wounded and the diseased\ntheir anguish:--kind sleep, friend of the sufferer, how sweet are thy\nvisits! But superstition admits not even this solace; it accepts no\ntruce, it gives no breathing time to the mind, nor permits the spirits\nto rally or to dispel its harsh and grievous surmises. But like the\nvery region of the wicked, so the dreams of the superstitious man\nabound with terrific apparitions, and fatal portents: and this passion,\nalways inflicting punishments upon the distracted spirit, scares the\nman from sleep by visions. And he--self-tortured, believes himself\nobliged to comply with fearful and monstrous behests. Such a man, when\nhe awakes, instead of contemning his dreams, or smiling with pleasure\nin finding that what had disturbed him has no reality, still flies\nbefore an innoxious shadow, while at the same time he is substantially\ndeluded by falling into the hands of conjurers and impostors, who strip\nhim of his money, and impose upon him various penances.\n\nThe tortures inflicted upon timid spirits by the Grecian\npolytheism are depicted with not less force by the observant\nTheophrastus.--Superstition is a desponding dread of divinities\n(d\u00e6mons). The superstitious man, having washed his hands in the sacred\nfont, and being well sprinkled with holy water from the temple, takes\na leaf of laurel in his mouth, and walks about with it all the day. If\na weasel cross his path, he will not proceed until some one has gone\nbefore him, or until he has thrown three stones across the way. If he\nsees a serpent in the house, he builds a chapel on the spot. When he\npasses the consecrated stones, placed where three ways meet, he is\ncareful to pour oil from his cruet upon them: then falling upon his\nknees, he worships, and retires. A mouse, perchance, has gnawed a hole\nin a flour-sack: away he goes to the seer, to know what it behoves\nhim to do; and if he is simply answered, \u2018Send it to the cobbler\nto be patched,\u2019 he views the business in a more serious light, and\nrunning home, he devotes the sack as an article no more to be used.\nHe is occupied in frequent purifications of his house; saying that\nit has been invaded by Hecate. If in his walks an owl flies past, he\nis horror-struck, and exclaims--Thus comes the divine Minerva. He is\ncareful not to tread upon a tomb, or to approach a corpse; saying that\nit is profitable to him to avoid every pollution. On the fourth and\nseventh days of the month, he directs mulled wine to be prepared for\nhis family; and going himself to purchase myrtles and frankincense,\nhe returns, and spends the day in crowning the statues of Mercury and\nVenus. As often as he has a dream, he runs to the interpreter, the\nsoothsayer, or the augur, to inquire what god or goddess he ought to\npropitiate. Before he is initiated in the mysteries, he attends to\nreceive instruction every month, accompanied by his wife, or by the\nnurse and his children. Whenever he passes a cross-way, he bathes\nhis head. For the benefit of a special purification, he invites the\npriestesses to his house, who, while he stands reverently in the midst\nof them, bear about him an onion, or a little dog. If he encounters a\nlunatic, or a man in a fit, he shudders horrifically, and spits in his\nbosom.\n\nThe four centuries that had intervened between Theophrastus and\nPlutarch, during which a philosophical atheism had spread widely among\nthe educated classes, had not, it appears, lessened the terrific\ninfluence of the Grecian polytheism over melancholy minds. On the\ncontrary, it seems to have been enhanced rather than diminished; for\nthe language of Plutarch is stronger than that of Theophrastus. The\nverisimilitude of both descriptions, and their accordance, leave no\nroom to doubt that this effect of the religious belief of the Greeks\nwas of frequent or ordinary occurrence among them. Indeed there is\nreason to think that few persons of serious temper, even though imbued\nwith the spirit of the sceptical philosophy, could free themselves\nfrom the burdensome scrupulosities and the horrific fears which attend\nevery form of polytheism, and from which neither the refinement, nor\nthe scepticism, nor the voluptuousness, nor the frivolity, nor the good\ntaste, nor the subtile reasonings of the Greeks, could emancipate the\ndevotees of their religion. The philosophic Julian might be named in\nillustration of this assertion. Beside his hatred of Christianity, his\nconduct was evidently influenced on many occasions by a very honest\ndread of the capricious d\u00e6mons whose falling interests he so zealously\nupheld: witness his magical practices.\n\nIt will be seen that passages such as those above quoted, possess a\nsubstantial value, when brought to their place among the materials of\nhistory. Ethical writers reflect the image of the principles and the\nmanners of their times. In some instances we may infer too much; in\nothers may mistake a partial for a general representation; but if,\nwith due caution, we review a wide field of ethical literature, the\n_general result_ of such an induction cannot differ much from truth.\n\nIf, for example, from the entire series of Greek writers, all passages\nof a purely ethical kind were to be extracted, and were arranged\nin chronological order, the collection would afford the means of\nascertaining, not only the system of morals and religion that was known\nto that people, but also the actual state of morals and manners, as\nit varied from age to age. With such materials before us, there would\nbe less room for conjecture, and less danger of error, in determining\nthe moral condition of the people, than is found in ascertaining the\nextent of their political power, or the amount of their national\nwealth. Upon ethical passages, such as those we have adduced above,\none fact presents itself--namely, that in the profane authors there\nis little of direct admonition or reproof, and rarely an appeal to a\nrecognised standard of right. The reason is obvious. The Greek and\nRoman ethical writers discuss questions of morality in the tone proper\nto a learned disquisition, each saying the best things in the best\nmanner he could:--no man was authorized to do more than propose his\nopinion: no feeling of official responsibility, no high solicitude,\ngave seriousness or force to his manner. Morals were not founded\nupon religion: on the contrary, an ethical treatise, containing the\nexpression of reason and conscience, was at once a virtual refutation\nof the national theology, and a sarcasm upon the gods. Especially\nit is to be observed, that the instruction and reformation of the\nmass of mankind entered not into the contemplation of moralists\nand philosophers, who, while they amused one another with eloquent\ndisquisitions, were not troubled by the thought that the millions of\ntheir fellow-men remained, from age to age, untaught in wisdom and\nvirtue.\n\nNot so was it with the people of Palestine. Not philosophy, but\nmorality, was paramount; and morality was taught in its dependence upon\nreligion. And it was not to a small class in the community, but to the\npeople at large, that ethical writings were addressed:--and it was\nnot for amusement, but for reproof, that they were so addressed:--and\nthese writers, instead of propounding their individual opinions, and\nsupporting those opinions by abstract reasonings, took the short course\nof appealing to a known standard of right and wrong. They speak to\ntheir fellow-men as from on high, and in the tone of authority; and\neach acquits himself, with gravity, of a weighty responsibility. From\nthe writers of Palestine the modern Western nations have learned the\nstyle of instruction, admonition, and reproof, and this can have its\norigin, and derive its force, and maintain its influence, only from a\nDivine Revelation, entrusted to the administration of human agents.\n\nBut our present object leads us to remark that, whether or not this\npeculiarity of the Jewish and Christian writings be attributed to their\nDivine origination, it renders them far more available as historical\ndocuments, than are the writings of other ancient nations. For\ninasmuch as these compositions unite the several qualities of being\n_authoritative_, _hortative_, and _popular_, they leave nothing to be\nwished for in ascertaining, either the moral level of the writer\u2019s\nmind, or the actual level of manners in his times. It is evident\nthat an appeal to a fixed standard, and an admonitory application of\nits known rules to the existing practices of the people, completes\nthe requisite _data_ of the historical problem above-mentioned. In\nthe standard we have a known quantity; and in the hortatory forms of\naddress, we have a mean of measurement, by which the actual state of\nmorals may be ascertained.\n\nAn inquiry of this kind, if pursued in its details, would prove the\nexistence and operation of an ethical system, so pure and perfect,\nthat all after nations to whom it has been made known, have found\nnothing left to them but to admire and adopt its principles. What\ncan the modern moralist do but work up the materials which he finds\nready to his hand in the New Testament? To devise a new theology, or\nto invent a new morality--which should recommend itself to the common\nsense of mankind, would be as impracticable as to propose a new set\nof mathematical axioms. Truth is single and simple; and when once\ndiscovered, it must be adopted and followed. As a matter of history, it\nappears that the writers of ancient Palestine have taken possession of\nthe regions of religion and morality.\n\nBut it would be practicable to ascertain, not only the system of morals\ntaught by the Jewish and Christian writers; but the actual state\nof morals among those whom they immediately addressed. The Hebrew\nprophets furnish ample means for pursuing such an inquiry; but the\nunstudied earnestness of the Apostles, and especially the epistolary\nform of their compositions, would render the task of the inquirer easy,\nand conclusive in its results. In an argument of this kind we should\nnot be entitled to conclude that the persons addressed were blameless\nin their lives--because their teachers address them as \u201cSaints\u201d--a\nconventional term. Our inferences must be of a less ambiguous kind. We\nmust assume nothing but what is necessary to give consistency to the\nwriter\u2019s assertions:--in other words, we are to assume just as much as\nis found to be safe and reasonable in the interpretation of any ancient\nauthor.\n\nIn the Epistles to the Galatians and the Corinthians, we find proof\nthat Paul was not the man to spare the faults or errors of those to\nwhom he wrote; and each of his letters affords some evidence as well of\nhis quick-sightedness, as of his sincerity. Men will more easily bear\nto be charged with vices, or with evil tempers, than to be reproached\nfor dulness of apprehension: but in an Epistle addressed, as it seems,\nto the better-informed class of his own nation, he does not hesitate to\nblame their inaptitude and non-proficiency. (Heb. v. 11, 14.) Instances\nof a similar kind are the characteristics of the writer\u2019s manner.\n\nIf a father in writing to a son addresses him in the language of\napproving affection; and if his admonitions relate only to the graces\nof an amiable deportment and temper, it is fair to conclude that the\ncharacter of the son is unstained by grievous vices; for such a letter\nwould not be addressed by a wise parent to a son who was \u201cwasting his\nsubstance in riotous living.\u201d This inference would be confirmed, if\nwe found the same father writing to another son in terms of mingled\naffection, remonstrance, and severe reproof; and that he urged upon\nhim, with pungent persuasions, the virtues of justice and temperance.\nNow it is an inference of this kind that we are entitled to draw\nfrom Paul\u2019s Epistles. In some of them he discharges the painful duty\nof administering stern reproof on points of common morality; and in\nthese instances he carries the requirements of virtue as far as can\nbe imagined possible; and he enforces his injunctions by the most\nawful sanctions. Such is the writer, and such is his system of morals.\nBut the same moralist, in addressing other societies, writes in the\nstyle of a happy father to an exemplary son. The Epistles to the\nPhilippians, the Thessalonians, and the Ephesians are of this kind; and\nthe inference is this--that these societies were in a state not far\nbelow the writer\u2019s own standard of morals. In every society there will\nbe a diversity of character, and in every numerous society there will\nbe those to whom a wise teacher will address strongly-worded cautions,\non the prime articles of morality. So it is in these Epistles; and the\npassages are vouchers for the writer\u2019s consistency and faithfulness.\nThese more serious admonitions are, however, manifestly addressed to _a\nminority_, or to an individual; or they are directed to persons who are\nnot within the pale of the society.\n\nA passage so often quoted (Phil. iv. 8) might be compared to the last\nsedulous touches of an accomplished artist, who having completed an\nexcellent piece of work, reluctantly withdraws his hand while it seems\nyet possible to add a higher lustre to its polish. Passages like these,\nfrom such a writer, whose discrimination and whose sincerity are\nproved, afford the best kind of evidence in attestation of purity of\nmanners among the Christians of Philippi.\n\nOther of the Epistles of Paul, as well as those of James, Peter, and\nJohn, furnish instances to the same effect. The result of bringing\nthem forward would be proof irrefragable, that the teaching of the\napostles had produced a high degree of conformity to that new and\nrefined standard of morals which they promulgated:--it would show that,\nin many cities of the Roman world, where, formerly, nothing had been\nseen but shameless dissoluteness, and abominable idolatries; or, at\nthe best, Jewish sanctimoniousness, or philosophical pride, societies\nwere formed, which had been collected chiefly from the humbler classes,\nand in which the full loveliness of virtue was suddenly generated and\nexpanded, and produced its fruits. Not only were the gods expelled by\nthe new doctrine, but the vices also.\n\nFacts and inferences of this kind have often been brought forward by\nwriters who have taken up the Christian argument: we in this place are\nnot taking up that argument as if it were our subject and purpose in\nthis volume. The facts above briefly referred to, and the inferences\nthat are thence derivable, fairly challenge for themselves a place\nas belonging to a summary of the method or process of historical\nproof. For if we affirm that various passages occurring in the\nethical writings of Aristotle, and of Cicero, and of Epictetus,\nand of Theophrastus, and of Plutarch, are highly significant, as\nmaterials of history, it must be proper also to show that the apostolic\nEpistles--ethical as they are--come within the same range, and should\nbe duly regarded as authentic evidences, touching the moral condition\nof the community within which they were circulated, and involving\ntherefore the truth and the excellence of the religion which then\nspread itself throughout the Roman world.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[11]\n\n  Servus Epictetus sum natus; _corpore claudus_.\n    Irus pauperie, delici\u00e6 Superum.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\nTHE MODERN JERUSALEM--A VOUCHER FOR THE LITERATURE OF ITS ANCIENT\nOCCUPANTS.\n\n\nIn the twelfth chapter of this volume, and particularly at p. 141\nand to the end, we have referred to those monuments of ancient\nart--buildings, sculptures, coins, which, as materials of history,\nare available in confirming or correcting the statements of ancient\nwriters; and again in the twentieth chapter, we have brought forward\n(as samples only) some instances in which the existing remains of\nantiquity may be appealed to, as vouchers for the truthfulness of one\nof these writers--Herodotus.\n\nThen in the fourteenth chapter we have seen what is the relative\nstrength of that evidence which vouches for the genuineness and for\nthe authenticity of the Holy Scriptures, as compared with that on\nthe ground of which classical literature is accepted as real, and\ntrustworthy. The superiority which we have claimed for the canonical\nwritings results from:--1. The number of copies that have come down\nto modern times. 2. The high antiquity of some of these extant\nmanuscripts. 3. The extent of geographical surface over which copies\nwere diffused at an early date. 4. The importance attached to them\nby their possessors. 5. The reverential care with which manuscripts\nwere executed. 6. The separation, and the mutual hostility of those in\nwhose custody the books were conserved. 7. The visible influence of the\nwritings upon the conduct and opinions of nations, from age to age. 8.\nThe mass, and the intricacy of quotations from them. 9. The existence\nof ancient versions. 10. The vernacular extinction of the languages in\nwhich the books were written. 11. The means of comparison with spurious\nand imitative books. 12. The strength of the inference derivable from\nthe genuineness of the books, to the credibility of their contents. The\nfacts referred to under these twelve heads well deserve the reader\u2019s\ncareful attention, and with this view they are here recapitulated.\n\nBut now there is one ground of comparison, quite proper to an argument\nof this sort, to omit all allusion to which might seem to indicate a\nconsciousness of weakness; for, on the ground which is now in view,\nthere is an apparent advantage largely on the side of classical\nliterature, and profane history. Let us then look into this defective\nportion, as it may seem, of the Biblical evidence, and measure its\nactual importance.\n\nWith this purpose in view, we return, for an hour, to the British\nMuseum. In passing through these saloons we find ourselves visibly\nconfronted with the memorials of each of the principal developments\nof ancient civilization; and with some also of those that were very\nlimited, and obscure, and temporary. Ample and multifarious, and\nadmirable are the monuments--in marble and in metal, of what the men\nof other countries have been, and of what they have done, in ages\nso long gone by. Here, for instance, is the Egypt of three or four\nthousand years ago--its people, and their employments; and here its\ndespotisms, its dynasties--so many--are set forth in their gigantic\nsemblances; and we may actually touch surfaces that were chiselled and\npolished at the time when--or before that time, Abraham was journeying\nfrom Mesopotamia towards Canaan. Here also is the Assyrian despot,\nand here the Babylonian and the mighty builder, and the lord of fifty\nnations--here they now hold their court, and show us before what\nglories, and what terrors it was that millions of men bent the knee,\nand kissed the dust, in the times of Samuel, and of Solomon, and of\nHezekiah. Here are substantial displays of the earliest developments\nof the human mind, under wholly different conditions--physical,\nsocial, political. Here are the earliest conceptions of Greek taste,\nintelligence, and free ideality; all these are vouched for; and\nmementos are before us of the Lycian people also, and of the Lydian,\nand of the Etruscan; and as we come down to later times, Greek art,\nand Roman art, bring us into familiar correspondence, not only with\nnational characteristics, but with the individual persons of those\nages. Now, during those times, the people of Palestine were passing\nfrom the lower to the upper culminating point of their national\nexistence. Where, then, in this great assemblage of the nations of\nantiquity--where is Palestine? Are there none here to represent her,\nand to challenge a place for a people whose literature has pervaded\nthe civilised world? The books of the people of Palestine are in\nevery home--in every sacred edifice--they are found in palaces, and in\ncottages, and they are treasured near to the hearts of the good--high\nand low, and are extant in the memories of all. Why then should not\nthe men of Palestine, and why should not its religious rites, be\nrepresented in the marbles, and in the metals, of our museums?\n\nIt may indeed be said that the ancient Palestine is not altogether\nabsent from the museums of Europe; for among tens of thousands of\nsamples of the mintages of antiquity, there are found a few coins of\nthe Maccabean times, with their innocent and homely symbols; and in\nthe series of the Imperial coins there are some vouchers for the fact\nof the overthrow of the Jewish state; there is the woman seated by the\npalm--the representative of the Jud\u00e6a Devicta. Need we ask the reason\nof this absence of sculptured memorials of this one among the nations\nof antiquity?--The want of sculpture is, in truth, this people\u2019s glory;\nthe absence of the vouchers we might look for is indeed a voucher,\nattesting the noblest of all distinctions--that of having so long\npossessed and maintained, a free social polity, and a true theology.\n\nIf at this time an order were given to remove from the British Museum\nall memorials of the cruel tyrannies, and of the sensual idolatries of\nEgypt, and of Assyria, and of Greece, and of Rome--if every article\nwere expelled that gives evidence of the oppressive despotisms, or of\nthe vicious religions of ancient nations, how meagre an exhibition\nwould remain after such a clearance had been effected! It is therefore\nthis people\u2019s glory--a glory unrivalled--that no sculptures are extant\nto represent it in the museums of Europe! Nevertheless, there are\nmonuments of its history to be found, if we look for them where it is\nreasonable to make the search; namely, in Palestine itself, and at\nJerusalem especially.\n\nA few--say five or six--of the principal cities of antiquity, have\ncontinued to be inhabited from the very earliest times to this\ntime;--such are--Damascus, Constantinople, Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem.\nThe consequences of this uninterrupted occupation of the same sites,\nhave been--more or less so in each instance--such as these--the\npreservation of some of the most ancient basement structures; the\nsuperposition of the structures of each age, in layers or deposits,\nresembling the strata of the earth\u2019s crust; the commingling of older\nmaterials with the more recent buildings in the mason\u2019s work; and,\ngenerally, the creation of a modern town, lifted up, as one might\nsay, upon the head and shoulders of the ancient city. Such cities,\nin exploring which we find evidence of their having undergone these\nseveral conditions, may fitly be called--HISTORICAL CITIES; and from\nthese sources alone--or if there were none else available--we might\ngather abundant materials, adapted to the purpose of illustrating the\n_written history_ of nations, and of giving to it the most conclusive\nconfirmations.\n\nThe briefest exemplification of what we here affirm, taking up two or\nthree instances only, would occupy a great space. The educated reader\ndoes not need to be told what has actually been done, in this way,\nin regard to Athens and Rome. Something of the same kind has, also,\nwithin a few years, been effected in relation to Jerusalem; but in\nthis instance very much remains to be done; and much will undoubtedly\nbe effected, at no distant time, when the Turkish guardianship of\nPalestine shall have ceased; or when Mahometan jealousy shall have\ngiven way to European intelligence. We advert to this instance, in\nconcluding this volume, because it properly brings into view--at once,\nthe several kinds of facts and statements which belong to our argument.\n\nIt is thus, then, that we bring the modern Jerusalem into our prospect.\nTwo short periods excepted--after the capture and overthrow of the\ncity--Jerusalem has been inhabited, _continuously_, throughout a\nperiod of three thousand years; and during all that length of time a\nwritten history has attended its fortunes, even from the earliest age,\nto this present time. If in this place indulgence might be given to a\nmetaphor--and to such a metaphor--we should say that, looking at the\nentire mass of authentic history as an organic body, Jerusalem--the\nsame hard material from age to age--is the vertebral stay of all\nhistory; or, in homely phrase, that this one city is the very back-bone\nof chronology. This is certain, and it has become more and more evident\nfrom year to year of late, that in every instance in which the leading\nevents of the Hebrew and Jewish history may be ascertained with\nprecision, such fixed points send forth ribs which give support to the\nloose matters of Egyptian, and Assyrian, and Persian and Macedonian\nhistory.\n\nIt is peculiar to this one ancient city to have passed under the\nhand, and to have been for a length of time in the occupation of each\nof the great empires that have had a place and a name in the world,\nduring the course of three thousand years. Each of these powers has\nsolidly monumented itself within, and about its walls. A narrow space\nindeed is this to contain the architectures of ten empires; or, to be\nmore precise, of seven empires, and of three royal holdings. Yet so\nit is; and in attestation of the fact, and as a consequence of it,\nif at this moment we were fitting ourselves out for a six or twelve\nmonths\u2019 explorative sojourn in the Holy City, we should think it\nindispensable to pack our portmanteaus with books, ancient and modern,\nwhich, retrogressively catalogued, would include--I. The principal\nmodern works or guide-books, which show what the Franks have done in\nrecent times in the way of church-building, monasteries, hospitals,\nhospices, and private residencies. II. Such records as there may be\n(if any) of Turkish doings in the same or similar modes; and much has\nbeen done by the pashas in the repairs of the walls, and in alterations\nand repairs within and around the Haram. III. The Arabic writers (they\nare more than a few), the post-Islamic, and the ante-Islamic--such as\nAbulfeda, and others, in whose writings incidental notices, at least,\noccur of the Saracenic structures of their \u201cAl Kuds.\u201d There is much\nrelating to the mosque of Omar, and of Al Aksa. IV. The entire mass\nof the crusading histories--the writers who are brought together in\nthat bulky folio, the \u201cGesta Dei per Frankos.\u201d With these there must\ncome very many writers of the fifteenth and following centuries, who\ntreat of the topography of Palestine, such as Adrichomius, in the\n\u201cTheatrum Terr\u00e6 Sanct\u00e6.\u201d V. The Byzantine writers who touch upon the\nchurches and monasteries of the Holy Land; with Procopius, and his\naccount of the buildings of Justinian: the early Itineraries, Greek\nand Latin; and among these Jerome must find his place. VI. Some of the\nGreek Fathers--Cyril of Jerusalem and Eusebius. VII. The Greek and\nRoman profane historians, in series; from whom we learn all that can\nbe known of the fate and fortunes of the city after its overthrow,\nand during the years of its desecration, as the \u00c6lia Capitolina, by\nheathen temples and their impure rites. VIII. Josephus, and the Book of\nMaccabees, are our authority as to Herod\u2019s structures, of which many\nunquestionable remains are discernible among the ruins of the city. The\nsame writer, and perhaps some of the rabbis, give the evidence that is\nrequired for interpreting the existing remains of the Asmonean period;\nthenceforward, or, we should say, higher up, it is--IX. To the Hebrew\nprophets and historians that we must look for the light we need, so far\nas the _written_ memorials of the times of Ezra, Nehemiah, Hezekiah,\nSolomon, David, may afford it.\n\nThus it appears that, in carrying forward those explorations which\nalready have in part been made, and which are now in progress, and\nwhich may be effected hereafter at Jerusalem, what we are doing, and\nwhat we shall yet be doing, is this--we are taking up the ancient\nwritten records of this city, page after page, and we are verifying\neach of our authorities by aid of the architectural remains of the same\ntimes--even from the remotest periods, down to this age. It is this\nJerusalem which, beyond any other ancient site, furnishes the means,\nand the material, for thus collating and verifying the literary records\nof a people, by means of its extant monuments.\n\nArchitectural remains, such as those are which invite the labours of\nthe antiquary at Athens, and at Rome, and at Jerusalem, require to be\nexamined in relation to four distinguishable subjects;--as first--the\n_materials_ (in a geological sense) that have been employed; and the\nquestion to be answered is--Whence have these been drawn--whether from\nquarries near at hand, or from a remote region? The _second_ of these\ninquiries relates to the style and quality of the _mason\u2019s work_--that\nis to say, we have to note any peculiarity that may belong to the mode\nof squaring blocks of stone, and of fitting them one to another, and\nof placing them in layers; or to the manufacture of bricks, if these\nare in question. The _third_ inquiry is properly _architectural_,\nand it has respect to the decorative style of the structure, and its\naspect, and its beauty, considered as a work of taste. There then\nfollows the _fourth_, and it is a most important question--Are these\ncourses of masonry where we now find them--in their original, their\nprimeval position; or have these blocks been dislodged, and overthrown,\nand scattered, and in some after-time reassembled and made use of by\nthe builders of a later period? This last is often the determinative\ninquiry, in relation to doubtful points of history; and in the instance\njust now before us, it has a peculiar significance, inasmuch as\nthere is reason to conjecture that some, at least, of the ponderous\nmasses--the prodigious blocks, whereupon the heterogeneous structures\nof the modern Jerusalem take their rest--have been dislodged, upheaved,\nturned about, and again replaced, as at first, more than once or twice\nin the lapse of ages.\n\nTo the first of the above-named questions our answer is easy;--the\nmaterial of the ancient Jerusalem was drawn from quarries quite near\nat hand: it is the lime-stone rock of the very site of the city.\nThis has always been supposed; and the fact has lately been more\nfully ascertained by the explorations of Dr. Barclay,[12] an American\nphysician, and long a resident at Jerusalem. Within the vast caverns\nthat undermine Bezetha, and at a great depth below the surface of the\npresent city, the mother-rock shows, beyond a doubt, what masses have\nbeen hewn from it, namely, those large blocks, sixty feet in length,\nwhich underlie the Haram wall, and the city wall, in many places, and\nmuch of the interior of the city. In those caverns, such as we now\nfind them, these blocks were squared, and their edges bevelled, and\ntheir surfaces--the upper and the under, were nicely prepared for their\nadjustments, according to the methods of a highly refined masonic\nart. As to this art of the _builder_, it is such as could have been\npractised by none but a people well advanced in practical intelligence,\nand that were in the enjoyment of the opulence and the tranquillity\nproper to a secure political condition. The mason\u2019s work which is\npeculiar to, and characteristic of, the cyclopean substructures of the\nHaram, and the ancient city wall, is of a kind that fixes attention\nwhen once it has been seen, and it is such as speaks its remote origin\nalmost as intelligibly as an inscription could do.\n\nThe _architectural_ characteristics of Jerusalem, as well of the\nancient, as the modern city, cannot but be intelligible to those who\nare conversant with this branch of antiquarian lore. We easily read the\nvarious fortunes of the city, indicated right and left, in-doors and\nout of doors, scattered upon the surface, and deep in wells, tanks,\nand caverns, built into walls, and confusedly mixed with the chiselled\nlabours of the workmen of other ages. The one source of ambiguity is\nthat which arises from these disorderly commixtures, when a fragment,\na capital, an entablature, which is manifestly Roman, or Byzantine, or\nNorman, stands so transfixed upon a structure whereupon it is embedded,\nas to conceal what might indicate the chronology of the earlier work.\nNevertheless, amid many such indeterminable questions, there can be no\nquestion on the general ground, that, in and among the architectural\nremains of Jerusalem, we are looking at specimens of the builder\u2019s\nart, in all the stages, and in all the styles and fashions that have\nbelonged to it, from the most remote times to the latest.\n\nAs to the fourth of the above-named heads of inquiry, fall of historic\nsignificance as it is, a solution of the problems belonging to it must\nawait a time when this site shall yield itself up, without reserve or\nrestraint, to the industry and intelligence of European antiquarians.\n\nWe have need to be reminded of the fact, that, as we become familiar\nwith the books of the Old Testament in childhood, it is not until years\nlater that we learn to correct the wrong chronological conceptions\nwhich have arisen from the misadjustment of them as to their order of\ntime. These early erroneous notions continue to haunt the imagination,\nperhaps through life, and we lose sight of, or quite forget the\nfact that a period of four or five hundred years intervenes between\nprophets that take their turn to be read, in the mornings and evenings\nof a week. Under the misguidance of these chronological errors, we\nare likely to carry forward, into the era of a people\u2019s maturity,\nconceptions which belong only to the age of their patriarchal and\nnomadic simplicity. Some few instructed readers of the Bible may be\nquite exempt from any such misconceptions; but probably it is many\nthat are subject to them. Moreover, the grave tones of the inspired\nwriters, and their singleness of purpose, so unlike the conventional\nand sophisticated manner of other writers, favours the idea that the\nHebrew nation continued, from age to age, to live on in a condition of\npastoral simplicity.\n\nSuch was far from being their condition; and a more attentive perusal\nof the historical books of the Old Testament, and of the prophets,\nwill suggest, and more than merely suggest the belief, that this\nancient people had reached a stage of advancement in the arts of\nlife--substantial and decorative--which places them, at the least, on a\nlevel with any people that were their neighbours and contemporaries, or\nof any that are known to us by their records and by their monuments. It\nis true that we are used to think of Solomon\u2019s temple as a magnificent\nstructure; and yet the descriptions given of it in the Books of Kings\nand Chronicles, convey an impression rather of its metallic splendour\nand its richness of decoration, than of the cyclopean style of the\nmasonry that sustained it. Was it, in truth, a great work in an\narchitectural sense? This question admits of a probable answer. The\nseries of prophets, in discharge of their function as the reprovers of\nnational sins, mention and rebuke the sumptuous style and the luxurious\nmanners of those who then were the princes of the people; yet they make\nno boast, as if they were proud of the wealth, and the arts, and the\ninstructed skill of their countrymen. Nevertheless there occur, in many\nparts of the prophetic writings, incidental allusions to the splendour\nof the private structures of the city--houses of hewn stone, houses\nceiled with costly woods, decorated with ivory and gold, and fitted\nup with every device which elaborate luxury might ask for, are spoken\nof even by some of the earlier prophets. We must believe, therefore,\nthat the Jerusalem of the ancient monarchy was a city of palaces and of\nprincely mansions, in constructing which no cost had been spared.\n\nHere, then, the two portions of an inferential argument come into\ncontact; and it is just at the basement line of the palaces and the\nmansions of the ancient Jerusalem that they do so. The juncture is of\nthis sort;--we hold in our hand the various literature of an ancient\npeople; this literature has traversed the fields of time in those\nseveral modes of conveyance to which, in the preceding pages, we have\ngiven attention; it has thus come into our hands _safely_; it stands\nattested in modes so many and so sure, that now to speak of it as\nif it were questionable would be a mere prudery and an affectation.\nUp and down throughout these writings we find incidental notices of\nthe sumptuous style of the upper classes of the people, in their\nmodes of living, and in the decoration of their public and private\nbuildings; at least it is so as to what were the visible parts of such\nstructures. The kings and the nobles of the Hebrew monarchy were men\nof great wealth; ample revenues were at their command, and they spent\ntheir incomes magnificently. Looking to the documents--the parchment\nrolls--the volumes of the prophets of those ages, such are the\ninferences we must derive from them.\n\nBut what objects are those that present themselves when, with the\npick in hand, we go down to the levels of the ancient Jerusalem? What\nwe there find are courses of highly-wrought masonry, with which, as\nto the dimensions of the single blocks, and the labour that has been\nbestowed upon them, nothing can be compared unless it be in Egypt\nand at Palmyra. The inference is valid, namely, that the people of\nthis city--even those whose structures, sacred and domestic, underlie\nthe monuments of eight or nine successive empires or kingdoms--the\nprimeval people--must have been wealthy, and far advanced in the arts,\nand large also in their conceptions, and bold in their enterprises.\nThey were a people great and well civilised, and they were so at a time\nwhen, as the Greek historian tells us, the ancestors of his nation were\npetty marauders by sea and land, and were feeding upon acorns!\n\nSuch are the conclusions which we arrive at after a careful perusal\nof the literature of the Hebrew people, if now, at this day--and yet\nit is in a sense which he did not intend--we listen to the invitation\nof one of its poets, who challenges us to \u201cWalk about Zion, and to go\nround about her,\u201d and to \u201ctell the towers thereof, and to mark well her\nbulwarks, and to consider her palaces;\u201d for in doing so we shall find\nthe means for confirming ourselves in those convictions, the strength\nof which concerns each of us in the most intimate manner.\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n\nB. CLAY, PRINTER, BREAD STREET HILL.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[12] \u201cCity of the Great King.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber\u2019s Notes\n\nObvious errors in punctuation have been fixed.\n\nPage 7: \u201con good evidncee\u201d changed to \u201con good evidence\u201d\n\nPage 87: \u201cthe _Myriobiblion_\u201d changed to \u201cthe _Myriobiblon_\u201d\n\nPage 99: \u201csubjects al things mundane\u201d changed to \u201csubjects all things\nmundane\u201d\n\nPage 129: \u201cthan is explicitl affirmed\u201d changed to \u201cthan is explicitly\naffirmed\u201d\n\nPage 167: \u201cis rgulated\u201d changed to \u201cis regulated\u201d\n\nPage 241: \u201cilluminations o ancient manuscripts\u201d changed to\n\u201cilluminations of ancient manuscripts\u201d\n\nPage 259: \u201cprepare for writing\u201d changed to \u201cprepared for writing\u201d\n\nPage 385: \u201crom the ordinary walks\u201d changed to \u201cfrom the ordinary walks\u201d\n\nPage 399: \u201cover which copie\u201d changed to \u201cover which copies\u201d","title":"History of the transmission of ancient books to modern times: together with the process of historical proof; or, a concise account of the means by which genuineness of ancient literature generally, and the authenticity of historical works especially are ascertained including incidental remarks upon the relative strength of the evidence usually adduced in behalf of the Holy Scriptures","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":106668}