Notitia historicorum selectorum, or, Animadversions upon the antient and famous Greek and Latin historians written in French by ... Francis La Mothe le Vayer ... ; translated into English, with some additions by W.D. ... — Des anciens et principaux historiens grecs et latins dont il nous reste quelques ouvrages. English

Notitia historicorum selectorum, or, Animadversions upon the antient and famous Greek and Latin historians written in French by ... Francis La Mothe le Vayer ... ; translated into English, with some additions by W.D. ... — Des anciens et principaux historiens grecs et latins dont il nous reste quelques ouvrages. English

Table of contents

Title page

To the Right Honourable JAMES EARL OF DONCASTER Eldeſt Son to the moſt noble Prince JAMES DUKE OF MONMOUTH And Beaucleugh.

THE PREFACE OF THE AUTHOR.

§

§

1

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF HERODOTUS.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF THUCYDIDES.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF XENOPHON.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF POLYBIUS.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF DIODORUS SICULUS.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF DIONYSIUS HALICARNASSEUS.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF JOSEPHUS.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF ARRIAN.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF APPIAN.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF DIO OR DION CASSIUS.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF HERODIAN.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF ZOSIMUS.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF PROCOPIUS.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF AGATHIAS.

THE SECOND PART▪ BEING REFLECTIONS upon the Writings OF THE LATIN HISTORIANS.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF CRISPUS SALUSTIUS.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF JULIUS CAESAR

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF TITUS LIVIUS.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF VELLEIUS PATERCULUS.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF QUINTUS CURTIUS RUFUS.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF CORNELIUS TACITUS.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF LUCIUS ANNAEUS. FLORUS.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF SUETONIUS.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF JUSTIN.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS.

§

[Page]

[Page]

NOTITIA HISTORICORUM SELECTORUM, OR Animadverſions upon the Antient AND Famous GREEK and LATIN HISTORIANS.

Written in French by the Learned FRANCIS LA MOTHE LE VAYER, Councellor of State to the preſent French King.

Tranſlated into Engliſh, with ſome Additions By W.D. B. A. Of Magd. Hall, Oxon.

OXFORD, Printed by LEON. LICHFIELD, Printer to the Univerſity, For RIC. DAVIS, Anno Dom. 1678.

To the Right Honourable JAMES EARL OF DONCASTER Eldeſt Son to the moſt noble Prince JAMES DUKE OF MONMOUTH And Beaucleugh.

[Page]

[Page]

My Lord,

YOVR Lordſhip whoſe Greatneſs is to be in Arms, will know how uſeful a virtue Ambition is, and forgive my pride who deſire to be the firſt who ſhall lay ſomething at Your feet. This Treatiſe was written to inſtruct the preſent French King when Dauphin in the choice of Hiſtory, and to recommend to him the Ancient Writers, who muſt needs be the beſt, becauſe they treat of the Ancient virtue. [Page] Your Lordſhip is the hopes of our Age, and 'tis the interest of all that Your tender years ſhould be ſeaſoned with the Love of that Noble ſtudy, in the Greek and Roman Historians. Your Lordſhip will ſee what you have to do to be a Hero, but Your Lordſhip cannot have a better example of Greatneſs than Your Princely Father, who is bold in War, calm in Councel, temperate in Peace, and who like Scipio, is a perfect Commander in the very Spring of his Youth, but this is too great a Subject for me though none more admires his Virtues, and more firmly beleives Your Lordſhip will ſucceed to all his Glory, than

My Lord

Your Lordſhips moſt devoted humble and moſt obedient Servant W. D.

THE PREFACE OF THE AUTHOR.

[Page]

I Find my ſelf obliged write a Preface, to give a reaſon for the order I obſerve in the choice of thoſe Hiſtorians, whereof I treat. For many perſons till they ſhall have conſidered of it, may well wonder, that I make no mention of ſome very famous Authors, who are often ranked amongſt the Hiſtorians. As Plutarch, Diogenes Laertius, Philoſt [...]atus, and Eunapius, of the Greeks, and Cornelius Nepos, or Aemilius Probus of the Latins, with ſome Writers of particular lives, ſuch as Spartian, Lampridius, and others, who compiled the Volume uſually called Hiſtoria Auguſta. It is certain that moſt of them did write very well of the times which they deſcribe, and that the reading [Page] of their books, where we can have no better recourſe than to them, ought not to be neglected. But becauſe none of them compiled a perfect body of Hiſtory, that came to our hands, (if it be true that the Chronicles of Cornelius Nepos are intirely loſt;) my deſign would not allow me to compriſe them in this book, wherein I onely pretend to examine thoſe Writers, who have left us more Univerſal Hiſtories, and from whom the Laws of Hiſtory may be beſt collected. A true and regular Hiſtory comprehends much more than the ſingle narration of any life whatſoever; And I thought I had reaſon to reject the writers of the Hiſtoria Auguſta, for if I had put them in the place where they were to be inſerted, they would not have contributed to my purpoſe; All that Large Volume being rather a cold and lifeleſs Carkaſs, than a body of animated Hiſtory, as it ought to be: The judgment of many of the Learned in that behalf, is ſutable to his opinion who calls them in his Preface, Hiſtoriae Dehoneſtamenta. For there is nothing to be gained by reading of them in relation to the rules of Hiſtory, [Page] unleſs it be in a contrary ſenſe, as by the ſound of thoſe bad Players upon the Flute, which Iſmenias made his Schollars to hear, that they might avoid the faults they obſerved in his playing. If it be objected that by omitting theſe, I might as well have refrained from Suetonius, and Quintus Curtius, who wrot only Lives; it is eaſy to ſhew by the inequality of their labours, to thoſe I decline, that they merited the place they have in this work. For as to the laſt, I have not ſo much conſidered him as a Writer of the Life of Alexander the Great, as an Hiſtoriographer of that great change and Tranſlation of the Empire of the Perſians, to the Macedonians. And as for Suetonius, the ſucceſſion he has left us of twelve Emperors in the ſpace of an Age and more, puts ſuch a difference between him, and thoſe who only publiſhed ſeparate Lives without any coherence, that the Learned unanimouſly confer on him, the Title of an Excellent Hiſtorian.

We ought not moreover to eſteem all as Hiſtorians, who have given the Title of Hiſtory to their works, Pliny that wrot [Page] the Natural Hiſtory, cannot properly be taken for one; And the ſame may be ſaid of Ariſtotle and Aelian, though they compiled Hiſtories of Animals. And if the word Hiſtorian were extended as far is it would reach, Lucan, Silius Italicus, and many other Poets might aſſume it in regard of the ſubject matter of their Poems; upon which nevertheleſs we have not thought it convenient to make the leaſt reflection, For we find ſo little relation between Hiſtory and Poetry, that as the one cannot be without Fable, the other is inconſiderable without truth; and it would be unreaſonable not to make a diſtinction between things of ſo different a nature, which have ſcarce any thing in common except the double ſenſe of words.

Neither let it be thought ſtrange to ſee the number of Greek Hiſtorians which I examine, exceed that of the Latins. Which is to be imputed, either to the injury of time that prevailed more over the latter than the former; or to the different Genius of the Nations, which gave that advantage to the Greeks, that although the Roman Empire was after the Graecian, yet the Latins [Page] were not ſo accurate in writing Hiſtory, as the Greeks. For we have found ſome of their Hiſtorians worthy of great conſideration even in the time of the Emperor Juſtinian, whereas thoſe who wrot in Latin with reputation, do not go beyond the age of the [...]ntonines, where all the Criticks with a common conſent place the Old age of Latin Hiſtory. Yet I have made it deſcend a little lower, to place after Juſtin, Ammianus Marcellinus, who though a Graecian wrot his Hiſtory in Latin, in the time of Julian, Jovian, Valentinian, and Valens, where it ended. If I had not confined my ſelf to the Hiſtorians of the firſt Claſſe only, I might have made the number of the Latins equal to that of the Greeks, and deduced Hiſtory writ in the Roman Language, to Juſtinian's time, by the addition of Jorn [...]naes and Caſſiodorus; as I have done the Greeks by my Reflections on Proco [...]ius and Agathias. But in the deſign I had to gather the neceſſary precepts to write Hiſtory well, from the Reflections we might make upon ſuch of the Ancients as cultivated it with moſt skill and reputation, I was content [Page] to examin the principal of them, imitating in ſome manner thoſe Pirates, who often let Veſſels that are light and of ſmall burthen paſs, to fall upon the moſt loaden, as on thoſe where there is more to be gained.

Having in ſome manner juſtified my proceedings, it is reaſonable that I ſhould acknowledg the great aſſiſtance I received from divers perſons who favoured my enterpriſe. The Two Du Puys were the firſt who perſwaded me to it, and according to their natural goodneſs, (which ſo many Schollars find by daily experience) aſſiſted me with Books out of three Great Libraries, to wit, the Kings, that of Monſieur de Thou, and their own. It is certain that the firſt could never fall into better hands, and though as all men know it is very conſiderable, yet it receives at this day its greateſt ornament from their judicious conduct, whoſe preſence does even animate the books contained in it. Neither were they content to give me all the help that way I could deſire; but as it is ſaid of Socrates, that he performed the Office of Midwife to the ſpiritual deliveries [Page] of the moſt worthy men of Greece, I ſhould be very ungrateful not to confeſs, that I am indebted to their Learned conferences, for all that is good in this Treatiſe. This compariſon, and their backwardneſs hitherto in ſetting out any thing under their own names (although their works, when expoſed to the eye of the world, will meet with an Univerſal approbation) puts me in mind of a thought of Pliny the Younger,Ep. 25. l. 7. on the ſubject of one of his friends. He ſaies, that they who, though full of Learning and merit, are nevertheleſs ſilent, demonſtrate a greater ſtrength of wit, than many others who cannot forbear to proſtitute what they know; Illi qui tacent hoc amplius praestant, quod maximum opus ſilentio rever [...]ntur. In the next place I muſt acknowledg the great aſſiſtance, I have received from the Library of the moſt Eminent Cardinal Mazarin by the means of his Learned Library-keeper Monſieur Naudé, who was pleaſed to add to the effects of his ordinary humanity, thoſe of an Ancient and moſt perfect friendſhip. As for ſome Authors who have anticipated me, in printing of works upon the ſame [Page] ſubject I hope I ſhall not be accuſed of ingratitude towards them. I have cited Sigon [...]s, [...]oſſi [...]s, and Balthaſar Bonifac [...]us, who wrot and cenſured before me the Greek and Latin Hiſtorians▪ and if I have taken ſomething from them, as it could not be avoid [...]d, I did it not like a Theif or Plag [...]ary, nor without adding ſomething of my own, which a candid Reader might well expect from a Treatiſe ſucceeding ſo many others, but with this advantage at leaſt, (as far as I know to be the firſt of this nature, that has been ſeen in French.

I am not ignorant that my work is not of the number of thoſe which pleaſe many people. They that prefer Fabulous Stories before true Narratives, and Romances before Roman Hiſtory, will not find content here. I conſider herein the excellent waies uſed by the Ancients, to inſtruct us faithfully and ſatisfactorily, in thoſe paſſages of the world which were worthy to be Recorded to poſterity. And thoughts are herein diſplayed in ſuch a manner, that without giving a preciſe judgment, as coming abſolutely from me, I leave, without partiality, free liberty to [Page] all men, to contradict my opinions. But though many perhaps who are ſhort-ſighted, will yeild freely to thoſe who have better eyes than themſelves, yet very few refer themſelves to others in what concerns the Operations of the mind, wherein every one thinks he is clear ſighted, and no body will acknowledg a Superior. Let not therefore what I expoſe here but as doubts grounded upon ſome appearances of truth, be taken for reſolutions. My freinds know why I wrot them. And my comfort is whatever happens, the Labour was as an honeſt diverſion to me. And if it be true, as Clemens Alexandrinus aſſerts,Lib. 1. Strom. that our Souls are of the nature of Wells, from whence we muſt alwaies draw ſomething, to make their waters more wholeſome and pure; I do not repent of a trouble which has been ſo profitable to me, and which at leaſt has kept my better part from corruption for want of exerciſe. To conclude, I ſhould willingly uſe in favour of this writing, the ſame prayer to God, which Apollonius made to the Sun, when he undertook thoſe long voyages, which Philoſtratus deſcribes upon the credit of Damis. Addreſſing himſelf [Page] to that great Star, which he held to be the Viſible God of Nature, he asked him the favour to find through the world, the moſt honeſt men. If my book were ſo happy to have no others to deal with, it would be no ſmall advantage to it. But if its deſtiny is otherwiſe ordained, I muſt ſuffer patiently what cannot be avoided by thoſe who expoſe any thing to the publick.

§

[Page]

The Greek Hiſtorians.

HErodotus. Pag 1.

Thucydides. p. 15.

Xenophon. p. 26.

Polybius. p. 33.

Diodorus Siculus. p. 46.

Dionyſius Halicarnaſseus. p. 58.

Joſephus. p. 69.

Arrian. p. 83.

Appian, p. 93.

Dio or Dion Caſſius. p. 104.

Herodian. p. 116.

Zoſimus. p. 126.

Procopius. p. 135.

Agathias. p. 156.

The Latin Hiſtorians.

CRiſpus Salustius. p. 165.

Julius Caeſar. p. 180.

Titus Livius. p. 188.

[Page] Velleius Paterculus. p. 201.

Quintus Curtius Rufus. p. 206.

Cornelius T [...]citus p. 216.

Lucius Annaeus Florus. p. 228.

Suetonius. p. 234.

Justin. p. 240.

Ammianus Marcellinus. p. 248.

§

IMPRIMATUR,

March. 29 1678.

JOH. NICHOLAS Vic. Can. Oxon.

1

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF HERODOTUS.

[Page]

ALTHOUGH there have been many Greek Hiſtorians, who preceeded Herodotus; he is allowed to be the moſt Ancient of thoſe whoſe Works have been preſerved to our time. Pherecydes, Dionyſius, Mileſius, Hecateas, Xanthus Lydius, Charon of Lampſacum, Hellanicus, and ſome others are indeed mentioned to have written Hiſtories before him: but their writings have been ſo long loſt,L. 1. de leg. & 2. de Orat. that Cicero, in his Book de Legibus, acknowledged Herodotus to be the Father of Hiſtory: and in another place, for his excellency, he ſtiled him the Prince of Hiſtorians.

They reckon no leſs than one and twenty Ages from his to ours, for he lived about four Hundred and Fifty years before the Nativity of Chriſt: Hellanicus, and Thucydides were his contemporaries; [Page] and they differed ſo little in Age, that,L. 15. c. 25. Noct. Act. as Aulus Gellius reports, Hellantus was but twelve years elder than Herodotus; and Thucydides but Thirteen years younger. Suidas, Photius, and Marcellinus, relate a circumſtance, which-juſtifies this, in reſpect of the two latter: they write that Herodotus reading his Hiſtory, in a great Olympick Aſſembly of all Greece, Thucydides, (who was then but very young) could not forbear weeping to hear him: which obliged Herodotus to tell his Father, that he eſteem'd him very happy in having a Son, who ſhewed, ſo early, ſuch a great affection to the Muſes.

I do not affirm by this expreſſion of Herodotus, that he then called the nine Books, he compoſed, by the names of the Daughters of Parnaſſus. L. de ſcr. hist. The moſt probable opinion, and which Lucian ſeems to uphold, is, that thoſe Books received their names from the learned, rather than the Author: and we find many other writings to have been dignified with the like Title, which did not deſerve it ſo well as theſe. Dion the Rhetorician compoſed nine Books, which were called the Nine Muſes, as we learn from Diogenes Laertius. And the ſame Author aſſures us, that the obſcure productions of Heraclitus his brain,In Bion. & Herac. of which Socrates made no difficulty to confeſs, that he hardly underſtood any thing, were honored nevertheleſs with the name of the Muſes. We read moreover in the Library of [Page]Photius, A Book ſo called. that one Cephaleon had compiled an Epitome of Hiſtory, from Ninus to Alexander the Great, in nine Sections, divided alſo between the Nine learned Siſters; though in a different order from that of Herodotus. Noct. Act. l. 1. c. 25. And that Aurelius Opilius, quoted ſome where by Aulus Gellius, who from a Philoſopher, became a Rhetorician,Suet. de ill. Gram. c. 6. and from a Rhetorician, a Grammarian (ſo degenerate he was) did not forbear to do the like, in a Treatiſe of his, conſiſting of Nine Books: And few that converſe in [...]ooks are ignorant,Photius Sect. 61. de Aeſch. that as the three Orations of Demoſ [...]henes his Competitor, had the names of the Graces, his Nine Epiſtles received thoſe of the Muſes, being the moſt illuſtrious, which could be given them.

But from this inſcription of the Muſes, ſome have not forborn to accuſe Herodotus, of being too great a Lover of Fables, and of having made a Hiſtory, ſo Poetical, in favour of the Companions of Apollo, that there is ſeldome any truth ſound in it. This Faction reproaches him of all the ſtrange things he has writ, and which have been moſt doubred of: and inſinuates that thoſe words of the Latin Satyriſt, which tax Greek Hiſtory:

—& quicquid Graecia mendax

Audet in Hiſtoria,

Juven. Sat. 10.

&c.

Were meant of him, and even Caſaubon thought, that Herodotus his relations, had made his detractors invert, the word delirare, taking for an Etymologie, that which is perhaps, but a ſimple alluſion.

[Page] But as he has had accuſers, ſo he has not wanted perſons to undertake his defence: Aldus Manucius, Joachim Camerarius, and Henricus Stephanus have writ Apologies for him: and the long voyages, as well to the North, as the South, and the Eaſt-Indies, which have been made in our daies, have very much juſtified his writings, to ſhew us that an infinite number of things, that he writ by the relation of others, and whereof he likewiſe doubted very much, are now found to be true. He declares in his Melpomene, on the Subject of thoſe Phenicians, whom King Necus imbarked in the red Sea, and who returned to Aegypt, more than two years after, by the Pillars of Hercules; affirming, that they had in ſome of the Coaſts of Africk, the Sun on the right hand, that he could not in any wiſe believe them; though it is now evident by common experience, that they could not return from the Erythrean Sea into the Mediterranean, (as they did,) without doubling the Cape, now called the Cape of Good Hope, and without having, in that place, the Sun on their right hand, and their ſhadow on their left (they being beyond the Tropick of Capricorn.) In the following book of Terpſichore, he makes thoſe Thracians Lyers, who ſaid, that the Country beyond the River Iſter, was full of Bees, for this weak reaſon, that Bees cannot live in places ſo cold as thoſe muſt needs be. Yet few are ignorant in our daies that Muſcovy is full of them, that they often people [Page] whole Forreſts, where theſe little Animals, ſometimes by their labour, nouriſh Beares of an exceſſive magnitude, which inhabit therein. With the like fear of being miſtaken, he doubted whether he ſhould believe,In Euterp. that the Iſle of Chemnis floated upon a Lake of Aegypt, becauſe he faw it not move, and that it was improbable that an Iſle ſhould ſwim upon water. But not to ſpeak of the fabulous Symplegades, or Cyaneans, we read that both the Plinies, Dionyſius Halicarnaſſeus, Theophraſtus, and Seneca have witneſſed, that ſuch are found in many places, and that they have ſeen ſome in their agitation. There are ſome near St Omers; in one of which the Arch Duke Albertus, and the Infanta of Spain his Dutches, were entertained at a dinner. And it is no ſtrange thing to the Scotch, to ſee one of this nature, in their Lake of Loumond, affording very good paſture ground.L. pen. parag. 2 dig. de acq. rer. dom. In fine, their exiſtence is ſo certain, that the Lawyers Paulus, and Labeo diſputed of the right of their Soil, the firſt being of opinion, that none had property in them. Who would not have taken for a Fable, that which the ſame Herodotus mentions, in another place, of certain Thracian Women, who contended among themſelves, after the death of their Huſband,Iaitio Terpſic. who ſhould have the Honour to be kill'd upon his Grave, and buried with him? If the Portugueſe, and other relations had not diſcovered, that it is a cuſtome practiſed in all the Coaſt of the Malabares, and almoſt through all [Page] the Eaſt, for Women to caſt themſelves, of their own accord, and in emulation one of the other, into the flaming funeral Piles of their deceaſed husbands.

But as we may perceive by theſe examples, that Herodotus did hardly ever expoſe for certain thoſe things, which he did not perfectly know; though they were found true, long after the age in which he lived: ſo we muſt obſerve, that he has been very careful to condemn that which he judged to be manifeſtly falſe, when it appear'd to be againſt the ordinary courſe of Nature: even ſo in his Thalia he laughed at the pretended Arimaſpes, who had but one [...]ie, and ſtole the Gryphons gold in the North. In Melpomene, the following Section, he does not more favourably deliver the Tale of the Aigipodes, or Goat-footed men: not what he had read of the Hyperboreans, who ſleep ſix Months of the Year: though this may probably have reſpect to the long Nights of thoſe people, who live under the Arctick Circle, and who paſs almoſt half the year, without ſeeing the Sun, whilſt they are very near the Pole. When he writes a little after of one Abaris, who run over all the Earth, without eating, and with an Arrow, which ſerved him inſtead of a Pegaſus, he relates it as a Fable which was very famous in his time: but in the ſame Book, he proteſts againſt the common belief, that there were men, Neighbors to the Scythians, who made themſelves Wolves once a [Page] year, and reſum'd after ſome daies, their human form: one cannot then ſay, that he has indifferently mingled truth with Fables, without diſtinguiſhing them; nor that he was a Lyer, though he often rehearſed the Fables of others, which the moſt exact Laws of Hiſtory do not forbid: nay thoſe very Laws oblige us to report the rumours which have been current, and the different opinions of men, (as he well obſerved in his Polyhimnia on the Subject of the Argians) by an Advertiſement which may ferve for all his whole Hiſtory. Add to this, that Herodotus having been a moſt Religious obſerver of the Divine Worſhip, of which he made profeſſion (if one may ſay ſo of a Pagan) there is little appearance, that he would charge his conſcience with ſo foul a crime in an Hiſtorian, as falſe relation: for it appears that he reſpected ſo much the things he thought Divine, though he was an Idolater; that he would never reveal thoſe Miſteries, which the religion of his time forbad to be publiſhed; although an occaſion preſented it ſelf in many places of his works. And one may obſerve in his Urania, how he makes all the ſucceſſes of the Naval fight, wherein Themiſtocles overcame the Army of Xerxes, to agree with the Oracles which preceeded, whereof, he affirms, each prediction to have been punctually accompliſhed: therefore one, that was ſo great a friend to Altars, ought not to be ſuſpected, of having betrayed truth in favour of impoſtures, which were no leſs infamous, [Page] or deteſted in his time than in ours.

Nevertheleſs though much may be ſaid in his defence; and though he may have been often ſlandered, by thoſe whom ignorance, or envy have animated againſt him, we find two Authors of ſo great authority, who have cenſured him (without ſpeaking of Harpocration, who made a Book, purpoſely to defame him) that one can ſcarcely pronounce him innocent.

Plutarch is the firſt, who teſtified a marvellous reſentment, to ſee Boeotia his Country ſo ill uſed (as he thought) by Herodotus; and the Thebans charged with an infamy, altogether inſupportable, on the ſubject of the Perſian War. This, he ſaid, was the motive, which induced him, to compoſe that little Treatiſe of the malignity of Herodotus, where he accuſes him, of having maliciouſly taxed the honour, not only of the Thebans, and Corinthians: but almoſt of all the Greeks, to oblige the Medes; and raiſe the glory of his Country higher, in the perſon of Artemiſia Queen of Halicarnaſſus, whoſe Heroick actions, in the battel of Salamin, he ſo exaggerates, that this Lady alone makes the greateſt part of his Narration. Plutarch confeſſes that, it is one of the beſt writ, and moſt charming peices that can be read: but adds that in that agreeable ſweetneſs, Herodotus makes men ſwallow the poyſon of his detraction: and he compares the malignity, which he imputes to him, to Cantharides covered with Roſes. Some write [Page] that Plutarch's invective is accompanied with ſo much heat, and appears ſo full of animoſity, that he ſeems to have all that ill nature himſelf, with which he endeavours to aſperſe his Adverſary. But I have too much veneration for that worthy Maſter of Trajan, Plutarch was Trajan's Preceptor. to be fully ſatisfied with ſuch an anſwer: and, to ſay the truth, it is hard to conſider, how Herodotus ſpeaks of Themiſtocles, eſpecially in his Vrania (where he accuſes him of Rapines, and Intelligence with the Perſians) without having at leaſt ſome ſuſpi [...]ion of that, which Plutarch delivers for moſt certain.

The Second Authour of very great importance produced agaiſt Herodotus, is Dion Chryſoſtomus, who though he was not in particular the Inſtructor of an Emperour, does not perhaps deſerve leſs reſpect than Plutarch, ſince beſides that he was probably as deep in the affection of Trajan, as the other; by whoſe ſide Suidas witneſſes, that he hās been often ſeen in his Chariot: He paſs'd his life in the inſtruction of mankind, Travelling through the world, where he pronounced, in the midſt of the greateſt Aſſemblies, thoſe excellent Orations, which we have of his, to draw men from vices, and to imprint even in their hearts (if he could) a violent love of Vertue.

We ſee in his Seaven and Thirtieth Oration, that he brings Herodotus to the Corinthians, to receive from them a recompence for the Greek Hiſtories he had compoſed, and wherein they were extreamly concerned: He had not yet (ſaies [Page] Dion) falfified them: and becauſe the Corinthians declared that they would not purchaſe honour with money, he changed (as was evident) the relation, of what paſſed in the Naval Fight of Salamin, accuſing Adimantus General of the Corinthians, of flying in the beginning of the battel, and betraying by that means the common cauſe of all Greece. Dion adds a little after, that he could not allow of what Herodotus has left in writing upon that ſubject; the publick Epitaphs, and Inſcriptions of Sepulchers, erected by the conſent of all Greece, in the Iſle of Salamin bearing teſtimony againſt him; and he recites part of the ſame Epigrams of Symonides the Poet, with which Plutarch uſed to convince Herodotus of prevarication, ſo that the Authority of his Philoſophical profeſſion, joyned with ſo many Monuments, which ſeem unreproachable, may reasonably at this day divide our minds in a difference, which thoſe of the Ancients could never decide.

However after the loſs of ſo many other Hiſtories, is is certain that Antiquity has left us nothing more inſtructive, or ingenious, than the Nine Muſes of Herodotus: they contain, as Dionyſius Halicarnaſſeus has well expreſſed, the moſt memorable paſſages in the world, during Two Handred and Forty years, beginning from the Empire of Cyrus, firſt King of Perſia, and continuing till Xerxes his Reign, in whoſe time he lived, as Photius and Diodorus Siculus inform us: but the laſt was miſtaken, when he writ that Herodotus [Page] his Hiſtory extended from the taking of Troy by the Grecians, to the Reign of Xerxes; which would involve more than Seaven Hundred Years. Diodorus his error proceeded, from our Hiſtorians ſpeaking a little in his Preface, of that Fabulous time; and what was uncertainly reported in his life time of the Reliques of Troy: But there is no reaſon to make Reflections on ſo ſmall a matter, and which does not properly belong to his Hiſtory. But it may not be improper to inſert a brief account of the Subject, of each of the Nine Books of our Hiſtoriographer, for the clearer illuſtration of the order of this Hiſtory.

His Firſt relateth the paſſages in the Kingdom of Lydia, from Gyges to Croeſus, and the minority of Cyrus, with the Common-wealth of Athens, and Lacedemon.

The Second deſcribeth Egypt, and the ſucceſſions of their Kings.

The Third, the Hiſtory of Cambyſes, and the Election of Darius Hyſtaſpes.

The Fourth, the unfortunate expeditions of Darius into Scythia.

The Fifth, the ſtate of Athens, Lacedemon, and Corinth, in the time of Darius Hyſtaſpes.

The Sixth, the Original of the Lacedemonian Kings; the Wars of Darius with the Greeks, and the battel of Marathro.

The Seaventh, the expedition of Xerxes into Greece, with the battel of Thermopile.

The Eighth, the battel at Salamis.

[Page] The Ninth, the Battel at Plataea, by which the Perſians were expelled Greece.

His Stile is rather ſweet, large, cleare and eaſie, than high, conciſe, and preſſing; as that of Thucydides. Dionyſius Halicarnaſseus who compared theſe two Hiſtorians together, does almoſt alwaies allow the advantage to Herodotus: His Dialect (which was a faſhion of ſpeaking, peculiar to each Country where the Greek tongue was uſed) is altogether Ionick. And there is found ſo much reſemblance between him and Homer, that the Sophiſter Longinus aſſures us in his Treatiſe of the Height of Eloquence, that none, but Herodotus perfectly imitated that Prince of Poets. and that he alone is (to uſe his term) [...], ſo that it is usual to adviſe thoſe, who will profit in the underſtanding of Homer, firſt to read Herodotus, to the end that the Proſe of the latter, may prepare an eaſie acceſs to the Poeſie of the former, by the affinity of ſtile between them. Samos, was the place where Herodotus form'd himſelf to the Ionick Dialect, and compiled his Hiſtory (before he retired with a Colony of Athenians into Thurium, a Citty of that part of Italy, which was then called Great Greece) for Suidas his opinion, conformable to this, is more followed, than that of Pliny who holds that Herodo [...]us choſe the time,Nat. Hiſt. l. 12. c. 4. and place of his voluntaty exile, to enterpriſe ſo great a Work: in which he is very erronious; for he had compiled his Hiſtory long before this retirement, as is recorded in the Chronicles [Page] of Euſebius. It is true he was born in Halicarnaſſus, a Citty of that part of Greece, called Doris, a Region confining on the Meleans, and becauſe his illuſtrious birth had engaged him in the expulſion of the Tyrant of his Citty, he retired into Thurium, where he died, according to the opinion of many; there being even ſome, as Plutarch writes, that make this place, where he was buried, to be the place of his Nativity. It is not aſſerted by all, that the book of Homer's Life, which follows the Ninth Muſe, was compoſed by Herodotus; but whoever is the Authour of it, it is very ancient, and makes the labour of thoſe men ridiculous, who even at this day, take great pains to pretend to ſomthing more certain, and conſiderable than is there writ, touching the Country of Homer. But this matter concerns not his Hiſtory, which was happily preſerved, notwithſtanding the Epitomy of one Theopompus, whom Suidas mentions: for Juſtin is accuſed (though ſo great an Authour) of having been the cauſe of the loſs of Trogus Pompeius his Hiſtory: and the loſs of part of the works of Livy, is imputed alſo to Lucius Florus, by the Epitomys which both have made, of theſe great works, which probably had been preſerved, but for their abbreviations.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF THUCYDIDES.

[Page]

[Page]

AS thoſe that ſearch for Springs, or conveyers of Water, whom the Latins call Aquileges, take it for a good Augury, if they ſee ſmoak ariſe out of certain grounds in the Morning; becauſe it is one of the ſignes, which makes them hope to find therein ſome good, and abounding Springs: ſo they who underſtand beſt the nature of our Souls: rejoice when they obſerve, in our tendereſt years, earneſt deſires of learning; and certain tranſports of ardour in the purſuit of Science, from whence they draw almoſt aſſured conjectures of the merit of our minds, and of their future excellence: upon ſuch a conception was founded the predictions of Herodotus, mentioned in the foregoing Chapter, when he obſerv'd Thucydides moved even to tears, by hearing him recite his rare Treatiſe [Page] of the Muſes, in one of the moſt celebrated Aſſemblies of Greece. He took that for a ſign of the growing greatneſs of his Genius: and as a Thorn pricks, as it grows, he judged that ſo extraordinary an emotion, in his tender Age, proceeding from ſo rare a Subject, would produce one day ſomething memorable, and be follow'd by thoſe ag [...]reable watchings, and diſquiets, which give Immortality to the learned of Mankind. Thucydides lived about Four hundred and Thirty years before the Incarnation of Chriſt Anno Mundi 3520. and as he was a perſon of illuſtrious Birth, and a great Fortune, added to the excellency of his Indowments, he had no temptation to betray truth, in what he was to deliver to poſterity; and though ſome have cenſured the manner of his writeing few ever queſtioned the truth of it.

He was rich, and of Royal extraction, but his opulency was augmented by his Marriage to a very rich Wife, a Daughter of a King of Thrace: and being very curious to have perfect intelligence of affairs; in order to the compiling of his Hiſtory, he emploied great ſumms of money to procure memorials comperent to his deſign, not only from the Athenians, but the Lacedemonians alſo; that out of his collections from both, the great Tranſactions of that might be the better, and more impartially diſcovered; as a Monument to inſtruct the Ages to come, for he intituleth his Hiſtory [...]. Which ſignifies [Page] a poſſeſſion for Everlaſting. It comprehends the Peloponneſian War, which laſted one and Twenty years: for though ſome Writers make it to continue ſix years longer, yet others, and perhaps the more judicious obſervers do make, what follows in the ſucceeding ſix years after our Hiſtoriographer had ended his work, to be rather the conſequences of that War, than truly a part of it: but what was deficient in the affairs of thoſe years, was ſince ſupplied by Theopompus, and treated on by Xenophon, who begins his Hiſtory, where Thucydides ended. There are ſome Criticks, that do not believe his Eighth Book (according to the ordinary diviſion) to have been written by him: ſome aſcribe it to his Daughter: others to Xenophon, or Theopompus: but the more diſcerning part beleeve the contrary.

When the Peloponneſian War began to break, out,Hobbs in the life of Thueydides. Thucydides conjectured truly that it would prove an argument worthy of his labour; and it no ſooner began, than he began his Hiſtory; purſuing the ſame not in that perfect manner, in which we now ſee it; but by way of Commentary, or plain Regiſter of the actions and paſſages thereof, as from time to time they fell out, and came to his knowledg: but ſuch a Commentary it was, as might (perhaps) deſerve to be preferred before a Hiſtory written by another: hence it is very probable, that the Eighth Book is left the ſame it was, when he firſt writ it, neither beautified with Orations, nor ſo well cemented [Page] at the tranſitions, as the former ſeaven Books are. And though he began to write as ſoon as ever the War was on foot; yet he began not to perfect and poliſh the Hiſtory, till after he was baniſhed, and why he did not refine his laſt Book equal to the reſt, is not known; for he ourlived the whole War as appears by what he relates in his fifth Book, where he ſaies, he lived in baniſhment Twenty years, after his charge at Amphipolis, which was in the Eighth year of that Wat, which in the whole, by the largeſt computation laſted but ſeven and twenty years.

It is hard to judge, whether the method and diſpoſition of the Hiſtory, or the Stile of it, be moſt to be praiſed; ſince he hath in both ſhewed himſelf ſo great a Maſter, that none that have writ ſince, have exceeded him in either. As to the diſpoſition, we ſhall in this place only obſerve, that in his firſt Book, he hath firſt, by way of propoſition, derived the State of Greece from its Infancy, to the vigorous ſtature it then was at, when he began to write: and next declareth the cauſes both real, and pretended, of the War whereof he was to write: In the reſt, in which he handleth the War it ſelf, he followeth diſtinctly and purely the order of time throughout, relating what came to paſs from year to year, and ſubdividing each year into a Summer, and a Winter. The grounds and motives of every action he ſets down before the action it ſelf, either narratively, or in the form of deliberative [Page] Orations, in the perſons of ſuch, as from time to time bare ſway in the Common Wealth. After the actions, when there is juſt occaſion, he giveth his judgment of them, ſhewing by what means the ſucceſs came, either to be furthered, or hindered.

His ſtyle is better diſcovered, by what the moſt excellent of the ancient Writers have expreſſed of it, than by my Pen. Cicero, in his ſecond Book de Oratore, writes thus; Thucydides, (in my opinion) in the art of expreſſion, exceeded all that went before; for he ſo abounds in matter, that the number of his ſentences, doth almoſt equal the number of his words: and in them he is ſo apt, and ſo conciſe, that one cannot diſcern, whether his words do more illuſtrate his ſentences, or his ſentences, his words. As for his Dialect, it is purely Attick, and Photius judges, that as Herodotus ſhould be a rule to ſuch as would be perfect in the Ionick ſtyle: ſo Thucydides is the moſt excellent example, one can propoſe to himſelf, of a language purely Attick. He is reproached nevertheleſs, of having too much affected the reviving of ancient words, which were, even in his time, obſolete, and of having likewiſe taken a liberty to compoſe new ones; which has contributed much to render him ſometimes ſo obſcure, that even his contemporaries complained, that he was in ſome places ſcarce intelligible to his readers. But Marcellinus, who deſcribed his life, hath writ in his defence, that [Page] he affected obſcurity, and rendered himſelf purpoſely not intelligible, that he might be onely underſtood by the learned: yet this obſcurity is not found in the narratives of things done, or in the deſcription of places, or of battels, in all which he is moſt perſpicuous, as Plutarch teſtifieth of him. In the Characters of mens humours, and manners, and applying them to affairs of conſequence, it is almoſt impoſſible, not to be obſcure, to ordinary capacities, in what words ſoever one deliver his mind. It therefore Thucydides in his Orations, or in the deſcription of a [...], or other thing of that kind, be not eaſily underſtood; it is of thoſe onely that cannot penetrate into the nature of ſuch things, and not from his intricacy of expreſſion.

Dionyſius Halicarnaſſeus obſerves, that Herodotus has great advantages over Thucydides, in the choice of the Subjects whereof they both treated; for the extent of the matter treated of by the firſt, is more diffuſed; and therefore ſeems more agreeable then that of the latter. His aim is to relare all the moſt memorable things, done by the Greeks, and Barbarians, during the ſpace of two or three hundred years, which comprehends ſo many great actions, ſo various, and worthy to be known, that the relation of them cannot but be grateful to the reader. Whereas Thucydides hath ſhut himſelf up, almoſt to the ſpace of ſeven and twenty years, which is not only a very narrow compaſs; but alſo the moſt unfortunate, [Page] he could chuſe in all the Greek Hiſtory: which contains few memorable actions, and thoſe grievous to have been recorded to poſterity. The ſame Dionyſius finds much fault with the order, Thucydides uſes in the diſtribution of his matter, repreſenting, by half years, all that happened in divers places; without mingling the ſucceſſes of the Winter, with thoſe of the Summer, ſo that he is found to leave things imperfect, to paſs to others, which make the memory of the former loſt, when he proceeds to continue the Hiſtory to the following half year. And Monſieur de la Mothe le Vayer, our Author, improves this reflection of Dionyſius; certainly (ſaies he) there is nothing troubles the mind more than this interruption; and he never reaps any profit from an Hiſtorical narration, who doth not end the things he treats of, till he has jumbled together an infinite number of actions. This is good (continues he) in nothing but Romances, where this artifice is purpoſely uſed to render their faults leſs apparent; but truth loves to ſhew it ſelf altogether and intire, which Herodotus knew how to practiſe incomparably better than any one. He never leaves an event, till he has repreſented it as far as it extends, and when he has fully contended the curioſity of his Reader, he paſſes ſo well to other ſucceſſes; or as the Rhetoricians ſay, uſes ſuch due and fit tranſitions, that the mind is carried on, not only without reſiſtance, but even with pleaſure and tranſport. But Mr. [Page] Hobbs, who has more curiouſly than any, conſidered the Hiſtory of Thucydides, very fully anſwers theſe objections: To the firſt he ſaies, that the principal and moſt neceſſary office of him that will write a Hiſtory, is to take ſuch an argument, as is both within his power well to handle, and profitable to poſterity that ſhall read it: which he ſaies Thucydides hath done better then Herodotus. For Herodotus undertook to write of thoſe things, of which it was impoſſible for him to know the truth: but Thucydides writeth of one War, the beginning and concluſion whereof he was certainly able to inform himſelf: and by propounding in his proem the miſeries of it, he ſhews it was a great War, and worthy not to be conceal'd from poſterity; for men profit more by looking at adverſe events, than on thoſe that are proſperous.

To the ſecond, namely the order of diſtribution, he ſaies, whoever ſhall read the Hiſtory of Thucydides attentively, ſhall more diſtinctly conceive of every action this way, than the other: and the method is more natural; for as much as his purpoſe being to write of one Peloponneſian War, he hath this way incorporated all the parts thereof into one body, ſo that there is unity in the whole; and the ſeveral narations are conceived only as parts of that. Whereas the [...] way he had but ſowed together many little Hiſtories, and left the Peloponnſian War (which he took for his Subject) in a manner unwritten; for neither any part, nor [Page] the whole, could juſtly have carried ſuch a Title.

The ſame Mr. Hobbs, who mentions many other objections of Dionyſius againſt Thucydides, and fully and learnedly anſwers them; does arraign him for his cenſures, as done rather to purchaſe glory to himſelf in the action, than to inſtruct Mankind. For having firſt preferred Herodotus: his Country-man a Halycarnaſſean, before Thucydides, who was accounted, even by himſelf, the beſt of all Hiſtorians that ever writ: and then, conceiving that his own Hiſtory might be thought, not inferior to that of Herodotus, by this computation, he ſaw the honour of the beſt Hiſtoriographer falling on himſelf; wherein he hath manifeſtly miſreckoned in the opinion of all the learned.

Thucydides has the advantage, of having firſt thought upon the animation of Hiſtory, that was before a body languiſhing; which appears in his exact Orations, compoſed in all the three ſorts of Oratory; the demonstrative, the deliberative, and the Judicial: Herodotus had attempted the ſame thing; but he was content to uſe ſome oblique ſpeeches, and thoſe almoſt ever imperfect, never proceeding ſo far as Thucydides, who, in this way of writing, left nothing to be objected againſt by the ſevereſt Orators. And it is ſaid that Demosthenes was ſo well pleaſed with his Hiſtory, that he took the pains to tranſcribe it Eight times.

[Page] By the conſent of all he has the glory of not mingling Fables, with his true Narrations. If he is conſtrained to ſay a word of Tereus King of Thrace; and Progne in his Second Book: or if in deſcribing Sicily, in the beginning of the Sixth, he finds himſelf obliged to ſpeak of the Cyclops, and Laestrigones, as Ancient Inhabitants of a part thereof, it is ſo lightly: that the Dogs of Egypt touch not ſo haſtily the water of Nilus, whoſe Crocodiles they fear, as he paſſes nimbly over a fabulous circumſtance, to avoid the leaſt entrance of a lye into his writings. And yet he has not been ſo happy, to be without the reproach, of not having alwaies ſpoken truth: for Joſephus affirms that he was taxed of having falſified his Hiſtory in many places: but at the ſame time he accuſes all the Grecians of impoſture; and if one obſerves the commendation, he gives him afterwards, of having been the moſt exact, and cautious of all his Country-men, in compiling a Hiſtory; it will appear, rather to proceed from the capricious humour of his Sect, than the demerit of an Hiſtoriographer: for as he was a Jew, who made it his buſineſs to diſcredit all Pagan Hiſtory, he thought he ought to ſay ſomething, to the prejudice of Thucydides, when he had ſpared none of the reſt. I ſhall add here, that Thucydides did not onely lay down in his Hiſtory all ſorts of Orations, as we before obſerved; but took the liberty to inſert Dialogues, as that betwixt the Athenian Generals, [Page] and the Inhabitants of the Iſle of Melos, which comprehends a great part of the fifth Book to the end. But thoſe, that have an averſion to digreſſions, have no reaſon to hare them in this Authour, who touches them with great Art; as amongſt others the conſpiracy of Harmodius, and Ariſtogiton, in the ſixth Book, which may juſtifie many other excurſions, or like Sallies, that are often cenſured with two little reaſon: and notwithſtanding all his defects, the moſt judicious of the learned yeild him the prize of Eloquence: and not one of the Ancients deny him the glory, of having ſeconded Pindar, in the Grandeur and Majeſty of expreſſion.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF XENOPHON.

[Page]

XENOPHON does not owe the fame, he has had ſo many Ages, to Hiſtory alone; for Philoſophy and Arms have contributed to it: and I believe that, for theſe three Qualifications, he may be as well termedTer Maximus: For Hermes was ſo called, becauſe he was a King, a Prieſt, and a Philoſopher. Triſmegiſtus, as Hermes the Aegyptian; ſince he is univerſally acknowledged, to be a very great Captain, Philoſopher, and Hiſtoriographer. He has, common with Caeſar, the firſt and laſt Qualities; and they are not deceived, who find a third reſemblance in their ſtile; Purity, Eloquence, and ſweetneſs being equally natural to them both. They have each an agreeable manner of expreſſion, without art, or affectation; though no art or affectation can come near it. The Surname of Apes Attica, and Athenian Muſe, with which all the Ancients have dignified Xenophon, [Page] is not only a witneſs,Xenophon. tis ſermo eſt quidem me [...] le dulcior. Tullius lib. de Clar. oratoribus ad Brutum. Et eodem libro p [...] lò inferius ſcribit, Xenophontis vote muſas quaſi locutas fer [...]t. of the beauty of his language, and of that hony-like ſweetneſs, which the Graces ſeem to have poured on it, with their own hands, (to ſpeak like Quintilian) but it is a particular mark of his Attick Dialect, wherein he excelled ſo much, that Diogenos Laertius, writing his life, gives no other reaſon for the bad intelligence, that was between him, and Plato, than the jealouſie they conceived, one againſt the other, upon that account. Yet Marcellinus, who attributes to Thucydides, in his Elogy, the height of Eloquence, gives the loweſt rank to Xenophon, placing Herodotus between both: and Dionyſius Halicarnaſſeus, when he obſerves that Xenophon has often imitated Herodotus, adds, that the former was alwaies much inferiour to the latter.

But notwithſtanding this, it is very conſiderable, that Xenophon was the firſt Philoſopher, who applied himſelf to the compiling of a Hiſtory, which, in what relates to the Graecian affairs, treats of the Tranſactions of eight and forty years; and begins where Thucydides ended: ſhewing Aleibiades his return to his Country, whom Thucydides, in his laſt Book, left meditating upon that retreat. Nor is it a ſmall glory to Xenophon; but a proof of extraordinary Honeſty, to have freely expoſed, to the publick, the writings of Thucydides, which he might have ſuppreſt, or delivered as his own, if he would have been a Plagiary, and have aſcribed, to himſelf, the works [Page] of another, which many others have done, and do daily practiſe. Beſides the continuation of the Hiſtory begun by Thucydides, Xenophon has left us, that of the enterpriſe of young Cyrus, againſt his brother Artaxerxes, and the memorable retreat, of ten thouſand Graecians, from the extremities of Perſia, to their own Country; in which he had almoſt the whole honour, as well for his councel, and diſcipline, as the excellency of his conduct.

What he writ, of the inſtitution of the Elder Cyrus ille à Xenophonte, non ad Hiſtoriae fidem ſcriptus eſt, ſed ad effigiem [...] Juſti Imperii Tullius ad Quintum Fratrem. Cyrus, is not an hiſtorical Treatiſe, but purely Moral, where he drew the figure of a great Prince, without confining himſelf to the truth, except of two or three events (viz.) the taking of Babylon; and the captivity of Craeſus. All the reſt is feigned, and has nothing in it commendable, but the agreeableneſs of the Fable: as Hermogenes has well obſerved, on the ſubject of Panthea's death, who ſlew her ſelf, with three Eunuchs, upon the body of her Husband Abradatus, in the ſeventh Book of that inſtitution.

Theſe compoſitions of Xenophon, of which we have ſpoken, are ſuch, that as they may ſerve for a rule, to the firſt Miniſters of State, in all the extent of Politicks (according to the excellent judgment, which Dion Chryſoſtomus makes of them) ſo likewiſe they are capable, to form great Captains, and give the world Generals; and we have two notable examples of this, among the Romans: for they acknowledg, that their [Page] Scipio, Cicer. 2. Tuſc. quae. ſurnamed Africanus, had, almoſt alwaies, Xenophons works, in his hands, and that nothing▪ made Lucullus capable to oppoſe ſuch a formidable enemy, as King Mithridatos; but the reading the writings of Xenophon. Whereof Lueullus made ſo good uſe by Sea, (he who before had a very ſmall inſight, into the affairs of War) that he knew enough afterwards, to gain thoſe famous Victories, which few of the learned are ignorant of, and whereby the moſt conſiderable Provinces of Aſia, became tributary to the Romans.

Xenophon has writ upon divers Subjects; and it ſeems that, in many of them, there has been Emulation, between him and Plato, for they both compoſed, a defence of Socrates; and many other moral, and politick Treatiſes, according to the obſervation of Diogenes, in Plato's life, without any mentioning, one another, with reciprocal praiſe, whatſoever occaſion preſented it ſelf, among ſo many Dialogues by them expoſed, in the name of Socrates with his Diſciples. Some will have it, that Xenophon repreſented, in very lively colours, the defects of one Menon a Theſſalian, in the end of the Second Book of Cyrus his expedition; for no other reaſon, than that he was a friend to Plato. But as for that other Book, de Libellus de Aequivocis Voſs. de hiſt. graet. lib. 1. cap. 5. Aequivocis, printed an Age ago, under the name of Xenophon, it is to be held, one of the impoſtures of Annius Viterbius. In like manner, ſome would have a certain ſuppoſitious Hiſtory, of the [Page] Siege of Troy, to paſs for current, under the name of one Dictys Cretenſis, a Companion of Idomeneus, and of one Dares a Phrygian: and that it was tranſlated, out of Greek, into Latin, by Cornelius Nepos; when the Stile bewraies, that he never thought upon the work; for it has nothing of that inimitable purity, and eloquence, which appears, in his lives of the Greek Captains, and in that of Atticus, writ by the ſame Author: ſuch impoſtures are offenſive, and cannot be too much dereſted, by the Lovers of truth. And yet ſome there are, ſo led away by their affection for Fables, that they feed themſelves with ſuch trifles, and ſo build upon thoſe idle foundations; as thereby to encourage others, to impoſe the like chears upon Mankind. We have lately ſeen, the Itinerary of Alexander Geraldin, Biſhop of St. Dominick, who pretends, to have found, over all Aethiopia, on this, and the other ſide of the Line, Roman Inſcriptions, and Antiquities of ſuch value; that all others, which the reſt of the Earth affords, would be deſpicable, if the worſt of his were true: But it is obſervable, that none before, or after him, ever ſaw them: nor is there any Schollar, ſo unexperienced in this ſort of reading, that cannot eaſily diſcover, the falſehood of his obſervations, ſo unlikely they are. Is it not a great impertinence to raiſe pillars, to teſtifie the Conqueſt, and abſolute dominion of the Romans, in places, where apparently, [Page] none of them ever ſet foot: and in direct oppoſition, to all we have from their own Hiſtories? The ſame judgment is to be made, of thoſe Hetruſcian or Tuſcan Antiquities, which we have of a freſher date, from one Inghiramius; whoſe impudence is unpardonable, for deceiving the world at ſuch a rate. And perhaps it were not unfit to have puniſhments eſtabliſhed, to ſignaliſe the infamy, of thoſe that dare expoſe, to the publick, ſpiritual Aliments, ſo corrupted and Mortal as thoſe are; for no poiſon operates with more violence, and bad effects upon the body, then errors and impoſtures, upon our minds,Speron. Speroni dial. di Xenoph. when we are infected with them.

An Author, of the laſt Age, accuſes Xenophon, of having loved Ageſilaus, ſo paſſionately,Unus Xenophontis libellus, in eo rege laudando, facilè omneis imagines omnium, flatuaſque ſuperavit. Tullii Epiſtol. lib. 5. ad Q. filium. that not only, in his Book which he writ of his praiſe, but likewiſe, in his Hiſtory, he makes raſh judgments in his favour, and extols his Victories, much more than the Laws of Hiſtory will permit. But this Capricio of an Italian, will be approved of by very few, becauſe it arraigns the judgment of all Antiquity, which never ſpoke ſo much to the diſadvantage of Xenophon. And Tully, who mentions his praiſe of that Prince, does not accuſe him of any indecency in it.

As for his Stile, one may ſee, what Hermogenes writes of it, who commends it, eſpecially for its ſweetneſs, and ſimplicity, which he [Page] makes, one of the principal Ornaments of Language; and in this reſpect; he, by much, prefers Xenophon, to Plato.

He was, by Birth, an Athenian, and the Son, of one Grillus, and lived, about four hundred years, before the Nativity of Christ.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF POLYBIUS.

[Page]

AS Xenophon was the firſt Philoſopher, that applied himſelf to write Hiſtories, ſo Polybius has the advantage to have given us the moſt conſiderable one extant: and made it appear, more clearly, than any other Hiſtoriographer, that Hiſtory is, as it were, the Metropolitan of Philoſophy;Diod. Sic. initio lib. 1. to uſe the tearms of the Hiſtorian, of whom we ſhall write, in the Chapter following. But what is ſaid of Polybius, might be more reaſonably admitted, if the whole body of his works, were now extant, of which only the leaſt part remains; ſince of fourty Books, which he compoſed, there are, but the five firſt, entire; with the Epitomy of the following twelve, which is continued, to the beginning of the Eighteenth. Many are of opinion, that this Epitomy was writ, by the great aſſertour [Page] of Roman Liberty, Marcus Brutus, becauſe it is known, that he delighted, in nothing, ſo much as in reading Hiſtory, being a man, ſo difficult to pleaſe, that Cicero's works did not affect him, and therefore he imployed his leaſure, in Epitomiſing the Hiſtory of Polybius, finding therein, beſides that inſtruction wherewith it abounded, the conſolation, he needed, in the laſt, and moſt unfortunate daies of his life. The Subject of this Hiſtory, were all the moſt conſiderable actions in the world, from the beginning of the ſecond Punick War, to the end of that, which terminated the differences, of the Romans, with the Macedonian Kings, by the utter ruine of their Monarchy. This includes the ſpace of Three and Fifty years, the events of which, Polybius ſhewed, in the laſt Eight and Thirty Books: for the Two firſt, are not ſo much of the body of his Hiſtory, as they ſerve for a preparative, in a ſummary narration, of the taking of Rome, by the Gaules, under the conduct of Brannus, and of that which followed, until the firſt year, of the ſecond War, againſt the Carthaginians. But though the affairs, of the Roman Empire, were much more exactly deſcribed by him; than the reſt of thoſe, that writ of that Subject; becauſe his chief aim was to omit nothing, that might give a perfect information of them: yet he neglected not alſo to repreſent the concerns, of all the other powers of the Univerſe, unſolding the intereſts, of the Kings of [Page] Syria, Egypt, Macedon, Pontus, Cappadocia, and Perſia, with thoſe of all the different Dynaſties, which were then in Greece. And therefore he gave, the name of Catholick or Univerſal, to his Hiſtory, as informing us of the deſtinies of all the Nations of the Earth: there being ſcarce any at that time which had not ſome difference with, or dependance on the Romans. He received, at his Birth, great gifts from Nature, which favoured his enterpriſe: and that chance of fortune, which made him come to Rome, was no ſmall advantage to him; ſince he is indebted to it, not only for the beſt part of his learning, but the important friendſhip, he contracted with Scipio, and Lelius, which contributed much to the celebration of his Hiſtory, to poſterity. But the pains, he took in the acquiſition of all, that could put him in a capacity of writing it well, and labouring for eternity, ſeems worthy to be conſidered. He thought it was required of a good Hiſtoriographer, to have ſeen the beſt part of thoſe things he related,A. Gellius Noct. according to the Erymologie of the name, given by the Grecians, to that profeſſion. He knew the errors,Att. l. 5. c. 18. which the ignorance of places, made Timeas commit: for he reproached him, in his Twelfth Book, that having truſted, to the reports of others, and not travelled himſelf, he might be proved guilty of many errors. And poſſibly having learned the Latin Tongue, with great care, he remembred the expreſſions, [Page] which Plautus (who lived an Age before him) makes Meſſenio ſay to Menechmus, that unleſs they had a deſign to write a hiſtory, he thought, they had ſeen enough of the World.

—Quin nos hinc domum

Redimus, niſi ſi Hiſtoriam ſcripturi ſumus.

So much they, at that time, thought travel neceſſary to an Hiſtoriographer, who could make no exact deſcription, nor be confident of the authority of his memorials, from whatſoever place he ſhould have them, if he had not rectified them, by his own ſight, viewing himſelf the Countries, he intended to treat of. Polybius reſolved therefore, to know exactly many places, as well of Europe, as Aſia, and Africa; whether he went purpoſely, to be aſſured of what he might write of them. And he uſed Scipio's Authority, to procure Veſſels, fit to Sail on the Atlantick Ocean, judging that, what he ſhould there obſerve might prove uſeful to his intentions. It is certain, that he paſſed the Alps, and one part of the Gaules, to repreſent truly Hannibals paſſage into Italy, and fearing to omit the leaſt circumſtance, of the ſame Scipio's actions, he travelled all over Spain, and ſtopt particularly at new Carthage, that he might carefully ſtudy the ſcituation of it. But now we are mentioning, the famous Subverter of Carthage, Scipio Aemilianus Grand Son, by adoption, of Scipio Africanus (who vanquiſhed Hannibal, after he had compelled him to leave Italy) it may not be [Page] improper to inſert, what Polybius himſelf left in writing, concerning the ſtrict friendſhip, which was between them two▪ ſhall borrow the diſcourſe of it, from a fragment of his one and thirtieth Book, taken from the Collections, of Conſtantinus Porphyrogennetus, under the Title, of Vice, and Vertue; he tells in that place, that this reciprocal affection had its riſe, from the pleaſure they took together, to talk of books, and communicate them one to another. This was the reaſon why Scipio emploied all his own, and his Brother Fabius his credit, to obtain leave for Polybius, to live at Rome, when the other Grecians (which were ſent for, as well as he, to remain as Hoſtages) were diſtributed through all the reſt of the Cities in Italy. One day, when they had Dined all. Three together, Scipio, being alone with Polybius, after dinner (bluſhing a little) complained to him, that he alwaies addreſſed his ſpeech at Table to his Brother. Perhaps, ſaid he, you do it, becauſe you ſee me leſs active than he; and that I am careleſs to ſeek fame by publick pleading,A cuſtome in uſe amongst the greateſt of the Roman Nobility. in which the Youth of this City employ their time, and by this meaſure, you, and many others of my friends, may conceive amiſs of me, which will be no ſmall trouble to me. Polybius ſoon perceived the commendable jealouſie of Scipio, who was not full Eighteen years old, and aſſuring him, of the eſteem he had of his perſon, as one moſt worthy to bear the many illuſtrious names, which his [Page] Predeceſſors had left him, he excuſed himſelf, in reſpect of Fabius, to whom, he ſaid, being the eldeſt, civility often required him to direct his diſcourſe, which he praied him not to apprehend amiſs in him: and after this little expoſtulation, which was followed by a mutual proteſtation of good will, Scipio never received any one, into ſucſt a ſtrict of Cordial familiarity, Lelius excepted, as he did Polybius.

I thought the circumſtances of this conference, between Two ſuch great men, ſo much the more conſiderable, beſides that thereby we make ſome diſcovery of their Genius, which alwaies appears, more in a private diſcourſe, than in any the moſt ſerious actions, that I may, by this inſtance, refute the impertinence of a modern Writer, who had the impudence, to make many injurious reflections on Polybius. It is one Sebaſtian Maccius, that treating of Hiſtory, and declaming againſt digreſſions, took occaſion, to condemn thoſe of Saluſt and Polybius, indecently calling them, baſe conditioned Fellows, and men, ſprung out of the dregs of the People. And the more to defame the latter, he particularly adds, that he was a meer pedant, given to Scipio, to ſerve him, in the Quality of a Preceptor. But this is too malicious, to paſs without an anſwer, on Polybius his account, deferring, what may be ſaid in behalf of Saluſt, till we treat of the Latin Hiſtorians. None that converſe with Books can be ignorant, that Polybius was of Megalopolis, a [Page] City in Arcadia: and that he was Son, of Lycortas, General of the Achaians, which was the moſt puiſſant Republick then in Greece. That great State ſent them, both Father and Son, in Quality of Ambaſſadors, to King Ptolomaeus ſurnamed Epiphanes; and the Son had afterwards the ſame Honour, when he was deputed, to go to the Roman Conſul, which made War upon King Perſeus in Theſſaly. His Birth then was very illuſtrious, contrary to what was ſaid, by Maccius, and it is not probable, that a perſon, ſo exerciſed in the affairs of State, and accuſtomed to great emploiments, as Polybius was, ſhould be known to Scipio, for no other purpoſe, than to inſtruct him in the Rudiments of Grammar. Nor has any, but this detractor, had ſo lewd an imagination of him. All the Ancients, who writ of Polybius, have done it, with great commendations, and many of them eſteemed Scipio, for nothing more, than his choice of ſo faithful a Counſellor, and his carrying him with him, in all his military expeditions.Cicer. l. 1. Cato reproached a Roman Conſul,Tuſc. quae. for having had a Poet, amongſt thoſe of his train, when he went to viſit a Province, out of Italy. I will not ſay, he ſhewed in that too much of the Philoſophical ſeverity, of which he made profeſſion; though it is ſaid, that he would himſelf, ſometimes, quit that humour, when he feaſted with his friends: but it is certain, that no man ever found fault, with the choice, Scipio made, of the perſon of Polybius, to accompany [Page] him, for he was neither conſidered as a Poet: nor meer Grammarian, if to be ſuch may be accounted faults, the fragment we quoted is expreſs enough, to aſſure us of the contrary, in purſuance indeed of the diſcourſe he uſed, to pleaſe Scipio, he added, that neither his Brother Fabius; nor he, ſhould ever want inſtructors, in what related to letters, which he might decently enough ſay, conſidering the great number of learned men, which came daily to Rome, from all parts of Greece: and in further compliance with him, that no man ſhould be more zealous, or induſtrious, than he, to improve his thoughts to things worthy of his Birth, and what might be expected from a ſucceſſor of the Scipio's and Aemylii. Conſtantinus Porphyrogennetus ut ſupra. After this conference, ſaies my Author, Polybius was hardly ever out of Scipio's company, who communicated to him his moſt important affairs, and made uſe of his Counſel, in all the occurrences of the great emploiments he had. But who can be ſafe from the inſolence of detractors, when there will be found, ſome that vilifie this great Hiſtorian, though he was honored, in Inſcriptions, and Statues, by his Country-men, who beſt knew his Quality (as may be ſeen in Pauſanias) to acknowledge thereby,In Arcad. the eſteem they had of his benefits and rare merit.

There might perhaps be more reaſon, to lay to his charge, as ſome have done, his not having been religious enough, in his devotion to [Page] the Deity; for though he ſpeaks, in many places, very advantagiouſly of the worſhip of the Gods; as when he attributes all the glory of Arcadia his Country, to the great care they had, to ſerve the Altars: and elſe here profeſſes, that he abhors the outragiouſneſs of War, that cauſes the deſtruction of Temples, which he makes to be a moſt capital crime. Yet he declares ſo formally, in another place, againſt the Divinity, and all thoſe, which in his time, held the opinion, of the pains of Hell, that it appears evidently, he believed nothing thereof. And about the end of his Sixth Book, he obſerves, that ſuperſtition, which was accounted a vice by all other Nations, paſt for a Vertue, among the Romans. If one could, ſaies he, compoſe a Republick, only of wiſe and vertuous men; all thoſe fabulous opinions, of Gods, and Hell, would be altogether ſuperfluous: But ſince there is no State, where the people are not (as we ſee them) ſubject, to all ſorts of irregularities, and evil actions, one muſt, to bridle them, make uſe of thoſe imaginary fears, that our Religion imprints, and the panick terrors of the other world, which the Ancients have ſo prudently introduced to this end that they cannot be contradicted now by any but raſh perſons, or thoſe who are not well in their Wits. Let them who defend Polybius in every thing (as Caſaubon has done) ſay what they pleaſe, on his behalf, they can never make him paſs (after ſo formal a Declaration) [Page] for a man, very zealous in the Religion of his time. They would, perhaps, do him better ſervice, to ſpeak of him, as of a Soul, illuminated by Heaven, in the darkneſs of Paganiſm: and who believing, but in one Principle, or only Deity, laughed at all thoſe, which the Idolatry then reigning, made to be adored, as well as at the Elyſian Fields, Gerberus, and Rhadamantus, which were repreſented to thoſe Proſelites. Thus, in my opinion, he may be beſt acquitted (if it be poſſible) of the crime of impiety, putting him, in the rank of Heraclitus, and Socrates, whom, St. Juſtin more charitably, than perhaps truly, maintains to be Chriſtians, long before Chriſtianity.

Beſides the Forty Books of his Univerſal Hiſtory,Lib. 5. Ep. it is credible, by one of the Letters, which Cicero writ to Lucceius, that he made a particular Treatiſe of the War of Numantia. In Macr. His great Age furniſhed him with the convenience to write much, ſince we underſtand, from Lucian, that he paſſed the great Climacterical year, and died not, till he was Eighty two years old, about Two Hundred and Thirty years, before Chriſt. He confeſſes himſelf, that the advice of Lelius, which he often required in their ordinary conferences, and the memorials, which that great perſon furniſhed him withal; were very advantagious to him. But, as to his manner of writing, the Ancients agree not, that he ought to be accounted, eloquent. Dionyſius Halicarnaſſeus, the moſt ſtrict [Page] and auſtere critick among them, names him impolite, and reproaches him with negligence, both in the choice of words, and ſtructure or compoſition of his periods. His excellency is nevertheleſs ſuch, in all other things, that one ought to think, that he neglected words, as of little importance, to tie himſelf entirely, to things more ſerious. Titus Livius is not thought very ingenious,Voſſius de hiſt. graetis c. 19. to give him only the commendation, of a Writer not to be deſpiſed, ſince whole books of his, are ſeen tranſcribed, word for word, in his Decades. It is ſure, we have no Hiſtorian, of whom one may learn more, in matter of government, and civil prudence, than of Polybius. He does not think a ſimple narration ſufficient, but moves pathetically; and inſtructs no leſs like a Philoſopher, than an Hiſtorian. Patritius is miſtaken, to reprehend him for that method of writing, without conſidering the affinity, which has alwaies been, between Hiſtory, and Philoſophy, which is ſuch, that the former, has been often defined to be, a Philoſophy filled with examples. Perhaps, a meer Commentator is condemnable, when he acts the Philoſopher too much, and ſtretches ſo far that way; which cannot be ſaid of one, that undertakes to write a juſt Hiſtory. We learn from Suidas, that one Scylax (whom he confounds, with a certain Mathematician of that name) made an invective againſt Polybius, which was not, poſſibly, more reaſonable, than the cenſure of the forementioned Patritius. [Page] I cannot alſo be reconciled to thoſe, who are ſcandaliſed, that he called, one of the Capes or Promontories of Sicily, Pelorus, long before that name was impoſed on it. For, treating of the firſt Punick War, he calls the place, Pelorus, where that innocent Pilot was interred, whom Hannibal ſlew, long after, ſo unjuſtly, and which gave, it's name of Pelorus, to the Promontory now called Capo di Faro (if this Etymologie, which is combated by the learned Cluverius, may be received.) However it is a way of ſpeaking, which the Compilers of the holy Scriptures practiſed when it was neceſſary to make a thing better underſtood. He is, it may be, not excuſable, for having, contrary to the truth of Hiſtory, flatter'd his Scipio, to that degree, as to make him exerciſe a memorable example of continency, towards the fair Spaniſh Captive, with whom nevertheleſs he was ſo taken, that he could never reſolve to reſtore her. Valerius Antias is he, who charges him with this crime,L. 6. Noct. in Aulus Gellius; which ſeems to me ſo much the more ſtrange;Act. c. 8. becauſe Polybius compared Hiſtory (which has not truth for a Guide) to an Animal,Lib. 1. hiſt. whoſe Eies are put out, and he pretended, after Timaeus, to render truth,Tr. of Hiſt. upon Sand. as eſſential to an Hiſtory, as rectitude to a Rule; in which reſemblance, he may be reaſonably contradicted, as I remember, I have done in another work. The great affection, he had for Scipio, puts me in mind of the excellent counſel he gave him, that whenſoever he went abroad, [Page] he ſhould never return to his Houſe, till he had firſt endeavoured, to gain the friendſhip of ſome particular perſon, by obliging him all the waies, that lay in his power. And although this was a very uſeful advice, to him that received it, I mention it, in this place, to ſhew the great humanity, which appeared, in him that gave it. We are indebted, to Pope Nicolus the Fifth, that great friend of the Muſes, and reſtorer of letters, for the firſt publication of the Works of Polybius, at that time, when the Turks invaded Conſtantinople, though they are much augmented ſince in the latter Editions.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF DIODORUS SICULUS.

[Page]

CLUVERIUS, one of the moſt exact of our modern Geographers, teaches us that Agyrium (of which Diodorus Siculus ſpeaks, as of the place of his birth) is now called San Filippo d' Agyrone. It is a great honor to this little place, to have given to its Iſle ſuch a perſon, without whom no body would know its Antiquity; nor many things which render it very conſiderable. He ſaies in the beginning of his Hiſtory (which ſtands inſtead of a preface to it) that he was no leſs than Thirty years in writing it,Rome. in the Capital City of the World, where he gathered Notions, which he could not have elſewhere; confeſſing that the [Page] vaſtneſs of the Roman Empire had extreamly favoured his deſign. But nevertheleſs he did not omit to go himſelf, through the greateſt part, of the Provinces of Europe, and Aſia: where he was in many dangers, and endured extream labour, that he might not commit the faults, which he had remarked (as he ſaies) in thoſe, who had medled to ſpeak of places, where they had never been. It does not appear in that place, that he ſaw Affrick, and yet we read in the ſecond Section of his firſt Book, that he travelled to Aegypt, in the raign of that Ptolomy, who is diſtinguiſhed from the reſt, by the Surname of new Bacchus, or Dionyſius, and who was the firſt Husband of his Siſter Cleopatra: whereby one may note, that the beſt part of Aegypt was formerly, of Aſia, when the Geographers divided it, from Affrica, rather by the Nile, than the Red Sea.

It is not without reaſon, that Diodorus gave his work, the name of an Hiſtorical Library, ſince, when it was intire, it had united in one, according to the order of times, all that which other Hiſtorians have writ ſeparately: for he had compriſed in Forty Books, whereof we have but Fifteen remaining, the moſt remarkable paſſages in the World, during the ſpace of Eleven Hundred and Eight and Thirty years, without reckoning, what was comprehended, in his ſix firſt books of the more fabulous times, that is to ſay, of all which had preceded the War of Troy. His [Page] Hiſtory is then truly, Oecumenical or Univerſal, and we ought, ſo much the more, to bewail what is wanting, ſince, after the loſs of Beroſus, Theopompus, Ephorus, Philiſtius, Calliſthenes, Timaeus, and ſuch other great Authors, the reading of Diodorus alone, repaired in ſome manner our dammage, having compiled, and digeſted all their works, in his Library. Of the Six firſt Books before mentioned, the laſt is no where to be found, although Raphael Volaterranus, and ſome others, quote it ſometimes, as if we had it yet. But if one obſerves exactly, it will be found, that they miſreckon in their account; and that what they report to be in the Sixth, is in the precedent Book, which Diodorus names, the Inſular, and which is only the Fifth. The error proceeds from the firſt impreſſion, which was all Latin, and wherein Poggius Florentinus, Author of the tranſlation, which Pope Nicolaus Quintus deſired of him, made Two Books of the firſt, becauſe Diodorus divided it into Two different Sections: By this means the ſecond became the Third; and conſequently that which was but the fifth, was taken for the ſixth, as if we had loſt no more, of the fabulous Antiquities of Greece, The Greeks called all Nations, but themſelves, by that name. contained in the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth book, than of thoſe of the Barbarians, which we have intire, in the firſt, ſecond, and third.

The remainder of Diodorus his Library conſiſts in Two parts; which are ſquared by Two Epochies [Page] of note. The firſt reaches from the deſtruction of Troy, to the death of Alexander the Great: for the underſtanding whereof, and all which happend in the world during that time, he emploied Eleven whole Books, which are from the Sixth to the beginning of the Eighteenth; of this number the four firſt are loſt, but we have the other Seaven remaining. The Second Epoche ſtretches from the time in which the firſt ended, to that of the Conqueſts of Julius Caeſar in Gallia; when he made England, and the Brittiſh Ocean, the limits of the Roman Empire, on the North ſide. The marvellous ſucceſſes of all this interval, were deſcribed in Three and Twenty Books; but there remains no more, than the Eighteenth, the Nineteenth, and the Twentieth, to our time: the others unto the Fortieth being all loſt, except ſome ſmall fragments, taken from Euſebius, Photius, and ſome others, who uſed Diodorus his Text, in their works. Henricus Stephanus affirms, out of a Letter communicated to him by Mr Lazaro Baif, that all the works of Diodorus are found entire, in ſome corner of Sicily. I confeſs I would willingly go, almoſt to the end of the World, if I thought to find there ſo great a Treaſure. And I ſhall envy thoſe, that will come after us, this important diſcovery, if it ſhall be made, when we ſhall be no more, and that inſtead of Fifteen Books only, which we now enjoy, they ſhall poſſeſs the whole Forty.

[Page] Since Diodorus ſpeaks of Julius Caeſar, which he does in more than one place, and alwaies with an attribute of ſome Divinity, as it is the cuſtome of the Pagans, he cannot be more Ancient than he; which is about Forty Eight years, before the Nativity of Chriſt. But when Euſebius writes in his Chronicles, that Diodorus Sieulus lived under this Emperour, it ſeems that he limits the life of the former, with the reign of the latter. Yet Suidas prolongs his daies even to Auguſtus. And Scaliger very well obſerves, in his animadverſions upon Euſebius, that Diodorus muſt needs have lived to a very great Age, and that he was alive at leaſt half the Reign of Auguſtus, ſince he mentions, on the ſubject of the Olympiads, Ad annum Num. 1567. the Romans Biſſextil year, which name was not uſed, before the Faſts, and Calendar were corrected, which was done by Octavius Auguſtus, to māke the work of his Predeceſſor more perfect. We have at this time, in the laſt impreſſion of Diodorus, a Fragment of his Seven and Thirtieth Book, which would remove all this difficulty, if it were true: for in it is ſeen the death of Caeſar, revenged by the Triumvirat, on Brutus, and Caſſius, with the fall of Anthony, and the eſtabliſhing of Auguſtus in the Empire, for all his life. This would infer that Diodorus lived longer, than Auguſtus. But that collection, which is ſomewhat larger in Photius, ſhews by thoſe whom he calls Illuſtrious, by a Title unknown in the Age of Diodorus, that [Page] another was the Author of it, or that his Text has received additions from ſome one, who lived long after his time, whence conſequently we cannot make any certain concluſion.

The time of theſe Two Emperors Caeſar and Auguſtus, is indeed the Age of the beſt Latin, as all, who underſtand it, agree: but not ſo of Greek; becauſe, even in their time, the Athenian Eloquence was already transferred to Rome, and that faculty, which delights in command, had quitted the vanquiſhed, to follow the fortune of the victorious, taking their habit, and Language. It is no wonder then, that Diodorus is not equal, in this reſpect, to Herodotus, Thucydides, or Xenophon, bing a Sicilian onely, and having, added to that, the diſadvantage to write in ſuch a ſeaſon. Photins nevertheleſs does not forbear to praiſe his Stile, as being very clear, unaffected, and very proper for his Subject, which is Hiſtory. It is (ſaies he) neither too Attick, nor too full of Ancient words. His manner of writing has a juſt mediocrity, between the moſt high Stile, and the other, which the School calls humble and creeping, for its lowneſs, which is alwaies avoided by Diodorus. There is certainly more reaſon to credit,Photius Meth. hiſt. c. 5. that learned Patriarch of Conſtantinople, who was a moſt exact critick in his Tongue, than John Bodin, who though he underſtood Greek much leſs, ventures to give a quite contrary judgment, and reprehend the words, as well as the Stile of Diodorus; as if a ſtranger, [Page] at this day, could ſay any thing worthy conſideration, in that matter, after what has been ſaid by the Ancients, and contrary to the opinion of thoſe, to whom Greek was a maternal language.

Nor is there more heed to be taken,5. diſc. de trad. to the invective of Lodovicus Vives, the Spaniard, againſt Diodorus, than to that of Bodin, the French man. The laſt blames even the expreſſions, and words: the firſt arraigns the body of his Hiſtory, and the things whereof his narration is compoſed. If we believe Vives, there is nothing more vain, than the Hiſtorical Library, of our Sicilian; and Pliny was much to blame, in his opinion, to ſay in his Preface, that Diodorus, was the firſt of the Greeks, who ſpoke ſeriouſly, and abſtained from writing trifles, I know, the Authority of this accuſer, is not ſmall, he being very learned, in reſpect of his Age, and one of the ornaments of his Country: neither am I ignorant that others beſides him, as Pighius, and Sigonius, complained of the faults, which Diodorus committed in Chronologie, for having followed bad computations. And I conſider that Vives, having commented, on the Books of St Auguſtin, Lib. 18. de Civitate Dei, remarked in them,Cap. 40. how that great Doctor of the Church, laughed at the Egyptians, who ſaid, that they had Records, in their Books, a hundred thouſand years old, to which Diodorus his Text is not repugnant: nay he goes farther than this, when he makes mention,Lib. 2. of the great knowledg of Heavenly things, which the Chaldeans had [Page] acquired, who bragged that they had made obſervations upon them, for the ſpace of four hundred ſeventy and two thouſand years, before the conqueſts, of Alexander the Great in Aſia. He had already ſaid,Lib. 1. that the Egyptians reckoned, ſome Ten, and others of them, Three and twenty thouſand years, from Iſis, and Oſiris, to the ſame Alexander: and that their firſt Kings, who were Gods, did each of them Reign, no leſs than Twelve Hundred years. This is doubtleſs that account, which Vives could not ſuffer, and which provoked him, to declare ſo highly, againſt Diodorus, who will not allow him, to have been praiſed by Pliny, for any other thing, than the Title of his Hiſtory, which is indeed, neither improper, nor ridiculous, as many of thoſe were, which the other Grecians ordinarily gave to their Books.

But if that may be ſaid to be the onely occaſion, which moved Pliny, to pronounce this fair Elogy, of our Hiſtorian (viz.) Primus apud Graecos deſciit nugari Diodorus, yet it was alwaies favourably interpreted, to extend to his whole compoſition, and it is a kind of injuſtice to affirm, as Vives did, that there is nothing more vain, not leſs ſolid, than his Hiſtory. As for the Egyptian Ephemerides, and the Aſtronomical calculations, of the Chaldeans, they are inferted, onely to ſhew what was the common belief of thoſe people, not arguing, that he gave any credit to them. He is ſo far from it, that he ſaies expreſsly, in his [Page] Second Book, that he cannot poſſibly acquieſe, to what the Colledge of Chaldeans had determined, of the long ſpace of time, which preceded the Victories of Alexander. I am ſo far from condemning the Fables, and excellent Mythology, in the Five firſt Books of Diodorus, that in my opinion, we have nothing more precious, in all that remains of Antiquity: for beſides that Fables may be told ſeriouſly, and that Plato's Timaeus, with ſeveral other works of very great conſideration, ſhould be rejected, if they were abſolutely unneceſſary, it is to be ſaid of theſe, that they teach us, the whole Theology of the Idolaters. And if it were lawful, to give a Holy name, to a profane thing, I might call the Five forementioned Books, the Bible of Paganiſm, ſince they teach us at the firſt ſight, what the Gentiles believed of Eternity, and the Creation of the World: and the birth of the firſt men, is therein afterwards deſcribed, according to the pure Light of Nature; So that they repreſent to us ſo well, all the Theogony of the Egyptians, whence that of the Greeks drew its Original, that without Diodorus, we ſhould be ignorant, of what is moſt curious, in that ſort of knowledge. Nevertheleſs he is not the firſt Infidel, that began his Hiſtory, with the Original of all things, as well as Moſes, with the Creation of the World.The name, or inſcription of his Hiſtory. For he himſelf teaches us, in the fifth Book, of his Bibliotheca, that, Anaximenes of Lampſacum, had not writ the firſt of any (as ſome [Page] have ill tranſlated it) but the firſt Hiſtory of Greece; becauſe he took it from the birth of the Gods, and the infamy of Mankind (to ſpeak like him) continuing it to the famous battel of Mantinea, and the glorious death of Epaminondas: however ſince our evil deſtiny would not permit the others labours to come to us; I believe we cannot, at this day, have too great an eſteem for thoſe of Diodorus, which it hath not envied us, nor too much retort the injurious cenſure of Vives, and ſuch like.

But in this we do no more, than follow, the opinion of moſt men of letters, not onely Ethnicks, Paraen. ad Gr. but even Chriſtians alſo. Jnſtin Martyr calls Diodorus, in ſeveral places, the moſt renowned, and eſteemed, of all the Greek Hiſtorians: and proves by his writings, the excellence and Antiqnity, of the Great Law giver of the Hebrews, and when he would inſinuate, that Homer had learned, in Egypt, the moſt refined things, he put into his Poeſy, he uſes for it the Authority of Diodorus, whom he does not name without praiſe. And Euſebius goes beyond Juſtin Martyr, both in Titles of Honour, and in citations of paſſages, drawn from our Hiſtorian, with which he fills, all the books of his Evangelical preparation. And when he treats, of the beginning of the world, and of what the Ancients believed, of the Sun, and Moon, and of the cuſtome, which the Carthaginians had, to Sacrifice men, and of infinite other Subjects, which fall [Page] into his principal deſign, he alwaies alledges Diodorus, but he does it chiefly, when he examins the Theology of the Aegyptians, in his Second Book, where he very much extols the fame of him: he calls him a moſt illuſtrious Writer, moſt exact in his Narrations, and one eſteem'd by all learned men for his profound doctrine, and he adds, that there is no Grecian, who is not deſirous to read him, by a common approbation, and preference to the reſt of their Authors. But when he inſiſts in his Tenth Book of the ſame work, that Greece had received, from the hands of thoſe it eſteemed barbarous, and particularly from the Jews, all the Sciences and learning, for which it had ſo great a value; it is in that he attributes the greateſt Honour to him. For after having uſed the Teſtimonies of St Clement, Porphyrius, Plato, Democritus, Heraclitus, Joſephus, and ſuch like Authors, of the firſt Claſſe, he finiſhes his proof with a Quotation, out of the firſt Book of that incomparable Hiſtory: to the end (ſaies he) that the Authority of Diodorus, may be as a Seal, to all my demonſtration. To ſay the truth, he has a marvellous advantage given him by Euſebius, to be cited, and put expreſsly after the reſt, to ſhew how much he is eſteemed by him: in the ſame manner, as Archirects place that Stone laſt, which is called the Key of the Arch, and which conduces no leſs to the ſolidity, than the ornament of the whole Edifice.

[Page] This is that, which I purpoſed to add to the ſuffrages of Pliny, and Photius, in favour of our Historian, for fear that the ill terms, which Bodin, and Vives, uſed againſt him, ſhould be prejudicial to his fame. If I had reaſon to blame him, it ſhould be much rather, for the great ſuperſtition, in which he abounds, in all his writings, as well as Titus Livius, amongſt the Latins, than for his bad Greek, or for having handled his ſubject ill, whereof thoſe indecent Criticks accuſe him, there being no reaſon to diminiſh his reputation, in that regard.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF DIONYSIUS HALICARNASSEUS.

[Page]

IF Dionyſius Halicarnaſſeus had not ſaid himſelf, in the beginning of his Hiſtory, that he lived in the Emperor Auguſtus his time (in whoſe Regin our Saviour was born) Strabo would teach it us, in the Fourteenth Book of his Georgraphy, where ſpeaking of the City of Halicarnaſſus, he obſerves that it beſtowed on the world, Two great perſons, Herodotus, and in our time (ſaies he) Dionyſius the Hiſtoriographer. So that ſince Strabo witneſſes, in that ſame work, that he had it in hand, under Augustus, and Tiberius, we are certain, that Dionyſius Halicarnaſſeus was alſo of the ſame Age, which is, as all know, one of thoſe, which moſt favored learning, and learned men.

[Page] Suidas names among many Writers, who bore the name of Dionyſius, another beſides him, we ſpeak of, who was of Halicarnaſſus alſo, and of his Poſterity; and appeared, under the Emperor Adrian, with the Surname of Muſicus, becauſe though he was an Orator, his principal Talent lay in Muſick, of which he compoſed many Books; and among others, one wherein he interpreted all the places, of Plato's Republick, which could not be well underſtood, without a particular underſtanding of that Art. That which makes me ſay, that this other Dionyſius was deſcended from the firſt, is, that the ſame Suidas ſaies, that from Dionyſius, the Hiſtorian, came one Dionyſius (whom he calls) Atticiſta, who lived under Adrian, and had writ a Lexicon of the Attick words, as may be ſeen in the Hundred and Two and Fiftieth Section of Photius. For my part, I am eaſily perſwaded, that this Atticiſt, and Muſitian, are but one, ſince they are both mentioned to be under one Emperor. As for our Hiſtorian, he came to Rome, a little after Auguſtus had happily finiſhed the Civil Wars, and ſojourned there Two and Twenty whole years, learning the Latine Tongue, and making his proviſion of neceſſaries to the deſign, he had of writing his Hiſtory.

He read to this end all Books, which are called Commentaries and Annals, made by thoſe Romans, who had writ with ſome reputation, about the concerns of their State, as old Cato, [Page]Pabius Maximus, Valerius Antias, Licinius Macer, and ſome others. But acknowledges, that the converſation he had with the worthy men, of that Capital City of the world, and his conferences with an infinite number of learned men there, were not leſs ſervicable to him, than all the other diligence he could uſe. His Hiſtory was of the Roman Antiquities, which he compriſed in Twenty Books, whereof there remains no more, than the firſt Eleven, to this Age, which conclude with the time, when the Conſuls reſumed the chief Authority in the Republick, after the government of the Decemviri, which happened, Three Hundred and Twelve years after the foundation of Rome. The whole work comprehended much more; for it paſſed from the taking of Troy, over the fabulous, and Hiſtorical time, to the beginning of the firſt Punick War; ending where Polybius beings his Hiſtory, near Two Hundred years later, than what we even now mentioned.

Whereupon, it behoves us to obſerve the error of Sigiſmond Gelenius, who imagined that Dionyſius Halicarnaſſeus, whom he has tranſlated very well, never ended his work, and that death hindered him from compoſing above Eleven Books, of the Twenty, he promiſed to give to the Publick. When Stephanus, a Greek Author, who writ of Cities, quotes the Sixteenth and Twentieth Book, of the Roman Antiquities, of our Dionyſius: and Photius ſaies, in his Bibliotheca, that [Page] he read all the Twenty Books, giving the laſt the ſame ending, which we aſſigned unto it.

This learned Patriarch aſſures us alſo,Photius. that he ſaw the compendium, or ſynopſis, which Dionyſius made of his own Hiſtory, which he reduced into Five Books, with much Eloquence, but it was not agreeable to a Reader, becauſe of the ſtrict Retrenchment of all he thought not abſolutely neceſſary. The loſs of that Epitomy would be leſs ſenſible, if we had the firſt compoſition entire; which has received ſo much approbation, eſpecially in reſpect of the calculation of times, and what relates to Chronology, that all Criticks prefer, in this point, Dionyſius Halicarnaſſeus, before Titus Livius. And Scaliger confeſſes, in his Animadverſions upon Euſebius, that we have no Author remaining, who has ſo well kept the order of years.

As for his Stile, Photius conſiders it, as extraordinary and new, but accompanied with a ſimplicity, which renders it delightful: and he adds, that the Elegancy of his diſcourſe or phraſe corrects and ſoftens all the roughneſs which is ſometimes found in his ſpeech. He commends him alſo very much, for having underſtood how to uſe many digreſſions, which retain, and recreate the mind of the Reader, when the evenneſs of an Hiſtorical narration, begins to be redious and weariſom to him.

And certainly it is not to be imagined, that a man of that reputation, which Dionyſius Halicarnaſſeus [Page] had acquired in learning, could produce any thing, which was not very polite, and worthy of his name. We have his compoſitions of Rhetorick; and the moſt ſubtle Criticks place him, in the firſt rank of thoſe who delighted in that ſort of ſtudy: and though there were no more to be ſaid of him, than the requeſt that was made him, by Pompey the Great, to give him his judgment, on the firſt Greek Hiſtorians, and eſpecially on Herodotus, and Xenophon; it ſhews ſufficiently the eſteem, wherein he lived in his time, and of what Authority he was in Rome, among the learned; when Pompey choſe him, out of ſo many others, to inform him therein.

If there be any thing which may be found fault with, either in that letter, which he addreſſes to Ammaea, and Tubero, or in others upon the ſame matter, it is that he was too exact, and rigorous therein, giving Laws to Eloqueuce, ſo full of ſeverity, that they take from it, one of the beſt parts, which is the generous liberty, whereof it has alwaies made profeſſion. In effect he often ſtraightens that noble Art ſo much, that he deprives it, almoſt of all its reality, and reduces it to a ſimple Idea, without hopes that it can be practiſed by any one, for the future: ſo that one may ſay, according to the ſtrictneſs of his Maxims, there was never any perfect Hiſtorian, nor true Orator. If one ſtudies his precepts of Rhetorick, upon all the ſorts of Oration, his characters [Page] of the Ancients, wherein he ſhews what one ought to imitate in them, and what to avoid; with his other Treatiſe, made to inſtruct us how to examin their Writings; the truth of what I have ſaid will appear, and the Spleen of this Critick will be diſcovered, who found fault with the Stile of Plato. This was one of the occaſions of a letter, which Pompey taking Plato's parr, writ to him. And we ſee by Dionyſius his anſwer, that although to content Pompey, he profeſſes himſelf, an admirer of Plato, he forbears not to prefer Demoſthenes to him, proteſting, that it was onely to give the whole advantage to the latter, that he exerciſed his cenſure, againſt the former. Nevertheleſs it appears, that at another ſeaſon he ſpared his Demoſthenes, no more than the reſt, ſo prone was his inclination to carping: becauſe after he had conceived things in the higheſt perfection, he pretended to find nothing, which was not far beneath them, and which did not conſequently diſpleaſe him.

But ſince it is not our intention to conſider him here, ſo much an Orator, as an Hiſtorian, Let us be content to make ſome obſervations, on his Roman Antiquities, to be acquainted with his judgment, concerning the principal matters of Hiſtory.

We have already ſeen, that he was no Enemy to digreſſions, when we ſaid, that Photius drew one of the greateſt cauſes to praiſe him, from his making ſuch good uſe of them. And [Page] that which he makes, in his Seventh Book, to deſcribe the whole courſe of the Tyranny; of Ariſtodemus, ſurnamed Mollis, ſhews that he thought them, one of the Ornaments of Hiſtory. The long Orations of Tullus Hoſtilius, and Metius Suffetius in the Third Book, with others of Servius Tullius which are in the Fourth, make it alſo appear ſufficiently, that he did not condemn, as ſome have done, all ſort of direct Orations; though he has elſewhere blamed the bad ones. He is not content, in his Fifth Book, to praiſe P. Valerius Publicola, but takes occaſion thereupon, to preſcribe it to Hiſtorians, not to repreſent, the brave and glorious actions of illuſtrious men, in their Hiſtories, without making their particular and Domeſtick virtues appear, accompanied with their merited praiſes: which is directly contrary to the opinion of thoſe, who would have them refrain, from all things that may excite the paſſions, leaſt they thereby invade the Province of an Orator. In the ſame Book, on the Subject, of the Conſpiracy of the Tarquins, detected, and ſeverely puniſhed, by the Conſul Sulpitius, he delivers another important precept, to thoſe who write Hiſtory, not to ſet down barely, in their narratives, the iſſue of things, but to repreſent them alwaies, jointly with their cauſes, and the means which were uſed to make them ſucceed, not forgetting the leaſt circumſtances; nay to penetrate, if it be poſſible, into the Counſels of the firſt Authors, [Page] and thoſe who had the greateſt ſhare in the execution. But though Dionyſius Halicarnaſſeus reproved Theopompus, for having emploied ſome compariſons to no purpoſe, he does not judge them to be all faulty, for he makes uſe of them ſometimes, and of thoſe Parallels, or affinities of actions, which many cannot endure. Thus, on the Subject of Tarquin, who to anſwer the Servant of his Son,Lib. 4. beat down in his preſence, the heads of thoſe Poppies, which were higher than the reſt: he remarks, that Thraſybulus had practiſed the ſame thing, towards Periander, pulling up, before his Meſſenger, thoſe Ears of Corn, which over [...]opped the reſt.Lib. 5. And treating of the creation, and abſolute power of the Roman Dictators, he obſerves, that this Magiſtracy was probably inſtituted, in imitation of the Greeks: becauſe the Inhabitants of Mitylene, Urbs maxima Lesbi, juxta Methymnum. now called Metelin, had formerly raiſed P [...]ttacus, one of the Seven Sages, to a like dignity (which they limited to a certain time onely) in an expedition, againſt ſome perſons, baniſhed from their State, who were companions to the Poet Alcaeus.

As theſe opinions, which we have examined elſewhere, more amply than here, ſeem to me very receivable; ſo we muſt, on the contrary, take heed of many improbable Tales, which he relates ſometimes with too much aſſurance. He makes a Raſor cut a Wherſtone in two of them,Lib. 3 [...] by the command of the Augur, Navius Actius, and repreſents Caſtor, and Pollux, fighting for [Page] the Romans, Lib. 6. againſt the Latins; and the Rivers, Vulturnus, Lib. 7. and Glanis, to remount to their Source, in favour of the Inhabitants of C [...]m [...]. Lib. 8. And relates, that a Statue, of the Goddeſs Fortune, pronounces twice theſe words, ritè me Matronae dedicaſtis, according to the words of the Annals, which he thought himſelf obliged to rehearſe: and he would have had reaſon for it,Lib. 5. if he had left us ſome hint, not to believe it; as he might have done perhaps, if it would have been permitted. But there is not a worſe Relation, in the Roman Hiſtory, than the action of Cloelia, as he repreſents it. He reports, that this Roman Virgin, who was given in hoſtage, with many others, to Porſen [...], King of the Hetruſcians, returned with all her companions, from the Tuſcan Camp, into the City of Rome, ſwimming over the River Tiber, wherein they had ask'd leave to bath themſelves; as if it were poſſible, that fearful Women, and who had not learned to Swim, durſt but look upon ſuch a River, with deſign to paſs it, and caſt themſelves deſperately into it, without any neceſſity, the peace being almoſt then concluded. For though Plutarch deſcribes the place, in the life of Publicola, ſo very agreeable, and convenient to bath in, yet he acknowledges, that the River was very Rapid, and deep. I confeſs Livy writes with no more likelyhood,Dec. 1. l. 2. when he tells the ſame ſtory; and that Plutarch does no more than doubt, of that of Cloelia, who, as many reported, paſſed the Tiber, by her ſelf, on Horſeback, [Page] thereby encouraging the reſt of her Companions, to Swim over it. Nevertheleſs I dare ſay, that the report of Valerius Maximus, has much more appearance of truth in it, than what the others related, though he was leſs obliged than they, to follow it ſtrictly, ſince he was not an Hiſtorian, and his Subject ingaged him onely, to enrich (and if we may ſay ſo) to illuſtrate, with fine colours, ſuch memorable actions. He writes that Cloelia, under the favour of a dark Night, eſcaped from the Enemies Camp, mounted on a Horſe, which bare her, to the other ſide of the Tiber, amongſt her friends: and the Statue Equeſtris which was raiſed to her, and which they all mention, would even force them to be of this opinion, if they had not rather choſe to follow the moſt popular rumour, and that which rendered their narration more agreeable, becauſe it ſeemed extraordinary, and marvellous; wherein, it is almoſt incredible, how much the greater part of Hiſtorians tranſgreſs.

I will not forget, for a Corollary, to what is above expreſſed, that by the conſent of all learned men, Dionyſius Halicarneſſeus unfolds the Roman Antiquities, not onely in reſpect of time, as before mentioned, but alſo in what relates to matter, much better, than any of the Latin Hiſtorians have done. For his being a ſtranger, was ſo far from being prejudicial to him, that upon that account, he made it his buſineſs, to obſerve an infinite number, of the moſt curious particulars, of [Page] the Roman State, that are found in his Books, and which we do not learn, in their own Authors; either becauſe they neglected to write, that which was familiar to them, which they thought, all the World knew; as well as themſelves; or becauſe this Grecian was more careful, and diligent, than they, to ſeek after that, which might beſt conduce, to make all the circumſtances of their affairs, known to Poſterity. And it is a great glory to him, to have ſurpaſſed them all in things, wherein they ought to have had ſuch great advantage over him.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF JOSEPHUS.

[Page]

A Certain Roman Conſul was derided heretofore,Aulus Albinus. for writing a Hiſtory in Greek; who, to excuſe the impurity of his language, alledged in his Preface, that he was born in Italy, where nothing but Latin was ſpoken. Which Cato reading, ſcoffingly ſaid, ‘That Author was very ridiculous,Maluiſti culpam deprecari, quam culpâ vacare. A. Gell. l. 11. c. 8. in Ca [...]. who choſe rather to ask pardon for a fault, than to avoid it, when nothing obliged him to do it; and the offence was not committed when he asked forgiveneſs.’ Plutarch relates this after another manner, and will have Cato pronounce, the Conſul moſt worthy of excuſe; if he could make it appear, that he was forced to write in Greek, by a Decree of the Amphictyones. This ingenious reflection which imports, that an excuſe is alwaies unreaſonable, when it is not neceſſary, cannot be applied [Page] to Joſephus: becauſe, though as a Jew, he was as great a ſtranger to the Greek Tongue, as the perſon before mentioned, he was compelled to make uſe of it, or the Latin, to be underſtood by the Grecians and Romans, for whom principally, in his Prologue to the Judaick War, he declares that he ſet Pen to Paper. Few are ignorant, that thoſe Nations had no eſteem, for the Hebrew Language, and it is evident, that when the Great Captain Hannibal, Aemil. Prob. in. Hann. to recreate himſelf, had a mind to ſet down in writing, the actions of Cn. Manlius Volſo, in Aſia, he did it not, in the Punick or Carthaginian Tongue, which was a Dialect of the Hebrew, but in Greek (that he had learned of the Hiſtorian, Sofilius of Lacedaemon, his Maſter) that his work might be underſtood in the world. Joſephus, who had the ſame deſign, found himſelf obliged to write in Greek, which was familiar enough to him, becauſe he had been converſant in the greateſt part of Syria. Moreover, had he been equally skill'd in theſe Two Tongues, he ought to have preferred, as he did, the Greek, which was then Miſtriſs of all Science, and ſo much valued at Rome, for that reaſon, that ſome Roman Citizens choſe rather in their writings,Urbs Latii, una exceleberri [...]is, in Finibus Aequo [...]um. to expreſs themſelves in Greek, than Latin. Such a one was Aelianus, who ſoon after Joſephus, under the Emperors▪ Nerva, Trajanus, and Adrianus, writ de Animalibus, de varia Historia, de Re Militari and ſome other Treatiſes. He was born in Praeneſte, and therefore [Page] reputed a Roman, having compoſed his works in Greek, in ſuch rare expreſſions, that Philoſtratus affirmed (after he had placed him among his Sophiſters) that his Phraſe was no leſs Attick, than that which was ſpoken, by the moſt Mediterranean, in the Attick Territory (to uſe his own terms.) As for Joſophus, his Stile is very clear, if we may believe Photius; and with a great purity he joins, to the weight of his reaſons, the force and elegancy of Expreſſion: ſo that he is, as this Father relates, very dexrerous, as well in moving paſſions, as in allaying them, when he judges it requiſite. Nor is it a ſmall honour to him, to be ſo ſuccesful in a forraign Tongue, as to have purchaſed ſuch high praiſe, as is attributed by the learned to him. But we muſt not forget that beſides his merit this way,Hiſt. Eccles. lib. 3. cap. 9. Euſebius reports, that he expoſed his Books of the Jewiſh Wars, and Antiquities, in Hebrew, as well as in Greek, that they might be uſeful to more People.

His Extraction was very illuſtrious, as well on his Fathers ſide, who came from the High Prieſts of Hieruſalem, as on his Mothers, who was of the Royal Blood, of the Aſamoneans or Machabees. He came into the World, in the time of Caligula, about the Thirty Ninth year, of the Incarnation of Chriſt; and was in it, under Domitian, ſo that he lived, during the Reign of Nine Emperors at leaſt. When he was Six and Twenty years old, he made a voiage into Italy, [Page] in favour of ſome Eccleſiaſticks of his Nation, whom Felix, Nomine Aliturus. Voſſius de Hiſtor. Graecis l. [...]. c. 8. Governor of Judaea, had ſent Priſoners to Rome. A Jewiſh Comedian, beloved by Nero, ſupported him at Court, and brought him acquainted likewiſe, with the Empreſs Poppaea Augusta, from whom he received ſome benefit: ſo that having brought his buſineſs to a happy iſſue, he returned with content, into Palaeſtine. The Factions, which were then in the Holy Land, made him be choſen Captain of the Galileans, a charge which he executed moſt worthily, until Jotapata was taken, where he was reduced to caſt himſelf into a Wel, which had already ſerved for a retreat, to Forty of his Souldiers, wherein he ſuffered marvellous extremities, but at laſt he became Priſoner to the Romans. In that time of his Captivity, he foretold to Veſpaſian, his exaltation to the Empire, and that he would ſoon deliver him from his bonds, as Suetonius reports, in the life of this Emperor,Cap. 5. and as Joſephus writes himſelf, in the Third Book, and Fourteenth Chapter, of the Jewiſh War. He ſhews alſo his deliverance, in the Fifth Book, and Twelfth Chapter, after that Veſpaſian had found the truth of his Predictions.Lib. 5. hist. I▪ Veſp. c. 4. What the profane Hiſtorians, ſuch as Tacitus, and Suetonius, relate conformable to this, deſerves our obſervation for they affirm, that all the Provinces of the Eaſt, were then firmly poſſeſt with a belief, that they, to whom the Deſtinies, and Sacred Writs had promiſed the Empire of the World, ſhould [Page] at that time come from Judaea. The Jews, and Joſephus amongſt the reſt, interpreted what regarded the true Meſſias, of Veſpaſian and his Son Titus, becauſe of the victories they had newly gained over them, and the unmeaſurable extent, of the Roman Empire. And it happened that after his deliverance from his impriſonment, he was Spectator of the taking of Hieruſalem, by the ſame Titus, and compoſed ſince as an Eiewitneſs, the Seven Books, of the Judaick War of which he made to him, and Veſpaſian who was then living, ſuch an agreeable preſent, that Titus cauſed them to be put into the Publick Library,Ah [...]o acceperit Epiſtolas ſeptuaginta [...]duas &c. Voſ. loco citato. ſubſcribed and approved of, by his own hand. Joſephus adds in his own Life, which he himſelf has given us in writing, that King Agrippa had teſtified unto him by many latters, that he held him for the trueſt Author; of all thoſe who enterpriſed to treat of the affairs of their country.He was an Egyptian born in Oaſis a City of Aegypt, & Alexandrinus vocari gaudebat, Voſſius de ſcript graecis l. 2. c. 7. Being return'd to Rome with Veſpaſian, he lived there under his protection and that of his Two Sons, gratified with their Penſions, and with the condition of a free Citizen of Rome, and many other benefits, which gave him means to finiſh peaceably under D [...] mitian his Twenty Books of the Jewiſh Antiquities, from the Creation of the World, to the Twelfth year of the Empire of Nero.

His Two Books againſt Apion Pliſtonices are made in favour of the Jews, whom this ſame Apion Surnamed alſo Grammaticus, had defamed as [Page] much as he could, in a work he publiſhed, being ſent Deputy to Rome, to the diſadvantage of Philo and his Country-men. But the diſcourſe of the Empire of Reaſon, or the Martydom of the Machabees, is the moſt eloquent of all the pieces writ by Joſephus. As for the Treatiſe of his life, he compoſed it in imitation of many great Men, who had done the like thing before him, and have been imitated by many others. For paſſing by Moſes, who alone, filled with the Spirit of God, writ not onely his Life, but Death; it is known, that a little before Joſephus, the Emperors Auguſtus, Tiberius, and Claudius, were pleaſed to leave the platform of their lives to Poſterity, traced with their own Pens: Agrippina Mother of Nero, did no leſs, as Tacitus reports. And private perſons ſuch as Sylla, Varro, Rutilius Rufus, Aemilius Scaurus, and Nicolaus Damaſcenus, had already practiſed that ſort of writing. If we muſt mention others who exerciſed themſelves therein, ſince Joſephus, we ſhall name in the firſt place the Emperors Adriaanus, Marcus Antoninus, and Severus; ſecondly, to draw nearer to theſe Times,Aegyptii op. inter Peluſium & Memphin. James King of Arragon, Maximilian the firſt, the Abbot Trithemius, Cardanus, and Auguſtus de Thou, who have all written Books of their own Lives.

But there is no ſmall difference at this day, between learned Men, touching the credit Joſephus his Hiſtory ought to have amongſt us. For if we refer our ſelves to Maldonat, Melchior [Page]Canus, Pererius, Salmeron, Baronius, Salian and ſome others, we ſhould have no value for all his labour, which they defame as full of Anachroniſms in the Calculation of times, and Fables in the Narration of things. Baronius amongſt the reſt, rebukes him very ſeverely in his Preface which he calls Apparatus, Ad. Ann. Chr. 58. Cap. 158. &c. and in many other places of his Annals, nay he proceeds ſo far as to impute to him that he knew not juſtly his own Age, and that he was miſtaken in it by ſix whole years. But if on the other ſide we yeild to the judgment of his Partiſans, ſuch as Scaliger and Calviſius, of whoſe Party are Justin Martyr, Euſebius, St. Hierome, Suidas, and ſeveral other Ancients, we ſhall be obliged to place him in the rank of the beſt Hiſtorians which remain. And truly when I conſider with what recommendation Juſtin ſpoke of him, I am not eaſily induced to condemn him ſo abſolutely as many doe. He ſtiles him many times an exceeding wiſe Hiſtoriographer, and joyning him with Philo, he ſaies they are Two Perſons worthy of great reſpect.Lib. 3. cap. [...]9. As for Euſebius, he remarks in his Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory, that Joſephus was honoured with a Statue at Rome, which we have already obſerved, giving him the Title of a moſt true Author, and one that deſerves that credit ſhould be given to what he write [...]. The Books Stiled an Evangelical preparation of Euſebius, are full of paſſages of Joſephus; and in the Third of his Evangelical Demonſtration, he [Page] rehearſes that place of the Jewiſh Antiquities, which makes ſuch expreſs mention of Jeſus Chriſt. As for St Hierome, after he had placed Jeſophus amongſt the Eccleſiaſtical Writers, he confirms the favours he received from Veſpaſian and Titus, and the honour that was done him by putring his Books into the Publick Library, and raiſing a Statue to him in Rome. He quotes alſo his forementioned Teſtimony of Jeſus Chriſt. And in one of his Epiſtles, he did not forbear to name him the Graecian Livy, which ſhews the great valew he had for his Hiſtory. Suidas recites almoſt all the ſame things which he could ſee in Juſtin, Euſebius, and St Hierome, and he gives him particularly the Quality of a Lover of truth, which is much to be conſidered in his caſe. I wonder not therefore after theſe Teſtimonies, if many will take Joſephus his part, againſt thoſe who endeavoured utterly to diſcredit him. Nevertheleſs Scaliger was a little too forward, when he named him in a Preface to a Book intituled the correction of Times, in one place the moſt diligent, and greateſt friend to truth of all Writers, Diligentiſſimum, [...] omnium Scriptorum, out-doing in this manner Suidas by a Superlative Encomium, and in another place the moſt true and religious of all Authors, Omnium Scriptorum veraciſſimum & religioſiſſimum. He adds further that the integrity and learning of Joſephus ſhowing it ſelf in every thing, he ſhall not be backward to aſſert boldly, that not onely [Page] in what relates to the Jewiſh affairs, but in all others alſo, it is more fit and ſure for one to refer himſelf unto this Hebrew, than to all the reſt of the Greek and Latin Authors. I would not proceed to ſo determinate a judgment; yet I think one may ſafely ſay that abating what may be contrary to the Sacred Texts of the Old and New Teſtament, Joſephus is for the reſt, an Hiſtorian of great Authority, and one that merits a great deference, eſpecially in the things of his own time; wherof he writes as an Eie-witneſs: for we ought I think in charity to make that interpretation, of what ſo many Chriſtians have often uttered in his Commendation.

Although that paſſage of Joſephus concerning Jeſus Chriſt, and the primitive times of Chriſtianity was quoted, as we have already ſhown, in Euſebius his time, and ſince by Great men, it is ſuſpected by many others, who think it foiſted or thruſt into the Text of Joſephus, by one of thoſe pious frauds, which they pretend to have been ſometimes uſed in favour of Religion.Ad [...]. 34. C. 2 [...]6. Baronius who is not of their mind, ſaies, that place was found ſtrook out in an Hebrew Manuſcript of the Jews in Rome, which he delivers not for the proper language of Joſephus, (as it might have been according to Euſebius) but onely for a tranſlation from Greek into Hebrew. This juſtifies the Antiquity of the paſſage, and the animoſity of the Jews againſt our belief, rather than it fully decides the Queſtion, And though [Page] the ſame Cardinal endeavours to ſhew in another place,Ad ann. 96. cap. [...] that which could humanly induce Joſephus to give ſuch a glorious Teſtimony of our Saviour, without a Divine impulſion, which poſſibly might force him to it: nevertheleſs he allows this paſſage as we have it now, to be incorrect, and that other to be more like truth as it was received in St Hieromes time, where Joſephus does not affirm that Jeſus was the expected Chriſt, Chriſtus hic erat, but onely that he was believed to be ſo, & credebatur eſſe Chriſtus. There is cauſe to wonder how it happened,Sect. 47. 76. et 238. that Photius never remembred ſo notable a paſſage in Three different Sections wherein he examins this Author. The chief thing is, that thoſe Ages are paſt, in which the Authority of Joſephus was ſo important to the eſtabliſhment of the Church: yet they that will make uſe of it in this, either againſt the Jews, or otherwiſe, may well do it after ſo many Fathers, whoſe opinions it is alwaies allowed to follow.

But we ought to take heed of the omiſſions of Joſephus, which tend to the ſuppreſſion of many Evangelical truths. For though he made no mention of the coming of the Wiſe men into Judaea, no more than the Maſſacre of the young Innocents, ſpoke of by St Mathew, Cap. 2. it does not follow that we ſhould doubt ever ſo little of that which we read of it in the Hiſtory of the Goſpel. Truly it is very ſtrange that Joſephus, Lib. 1. de bello Jud. cap. 21. who pardoned Herod nothing, who remembred well [Page] how that Tyrant had burned or cut the Throats of a great number of young men, with their teachers, for having beat down the Roman Eagle from the Gate of the Temple of Hieruſalem, and who has ſo expreſsly ſhown us all the other crimes of the ſame man,Ib. lib. 2. cap. 4. namely in that Oration of the Jews, ſpoke at Rome, againſt his memory in the preſence of the Emperor; that this Joſephus, I ſay, ſhould not have ſaid the leaſt word of ſo cruel an action, ſo odious, and ſo noiſed abroad, as the murder of ſo many poor Infants, put to death by the command of Herod, muſt needs have been. But his forgetfulneſs, or Jewiſh malice, if he concealed it wittingly, cannot prejudice truth, nor be alledged againſt the Authority of our Sacred Texts, and that, of a Pagan alſo ſuch as Maerobius, which is expreſs for that, in the Second Book of his Saturnals, where he rehearſes Auguſtus his words, to this effect; That it was better to be one of Herods Swine than his Child. Joſephus moreover has writ many things in his Antiquities quite contrary to what Moſes has done, in which he cannot be followed without impiety. As for the reſt, it cannot be denied that he taught as many fine curioſities of the Hiſtory of his Country, which we ſhould be ignorant of without him, who has delivered them very well to us, though it has been obſerved that he did not alwaies agree with his Country-man Philo in his relations.

That which ought to recommend his Hiſtory [Page] very much unto us, is, that beſides the advantage he had by his extraction, ſince knowledg and the Prieſthood were in a ſtrict union amongſt the Jews, he was ſo well inſtructed in learning from his moſt tender years, that at the Age of Fourteen, as he writes, the chief Prelates and Principal men of Hieruſalem, asked his Counſel in the greateſt difficulties of the Law. At Sixteen years old he applied himſelf to the ſtudy of what was particular to each of the Three Sects, which were current in his Country, the Phariſean, the Saducean, and the other which was called the Eſſenian; whoſe profeſſors were very Auſtere and ſolitary in their way of life. One of them called Banus, lived in the Deſert; as the ſtricteſt Hermits of this time, his food was of Fruit and Herbs, covering himſelf with nothing but leaves, or barks of Trees, and waſhing his Body Night and Day in cold Water againſt the temptation of the fleſh. Joſephus paſſed Three years with this Anchorite, which ended, he betook himſelf again to a civil life, and made publick profeſſion of following the Phariſean Sect, which he maintains to be very like unto the Stoick, that has been ſo much valued by the Greeks and Latins. It is certain that none but the Phariſees, made publick profeſſion of Politicks, and partaked in the government of the State; ſo that if a Saducee was compelled to be a Magiſtrate, which he alwaies undertook very unwillingly, the People obliged him to yeild to [Page] the opinion of the Phariſees,Lib. 18. Antiq. and to be guided by their Maxims, as may be ſeen in Joſephus, where he treats of theſe Three forementioned Sects,Jud. c. 2. and of a Fourth which was a refinement of the Phariſean. Thus according to the Principals of his Sect, he accepted the chief emploiments amongſt the Jews either in Peace or War, which gives a marvellous Authority to his Hiſtory; as being ordinarily compoſed of things which he ſaw himſelf, and actions wherein he had often the greateſt ſhare.

We muſt take heed of confounding as Munſter has done the falſe Joſephus, commonly called Joſippus Gorionides (who alſo made, or rather falſified, a Hiſtory of the Jewiſh War) with our Hiſtorian. When this Pſeudo-Joſephus, in his Third Book placed Goths in Spain, and in his Fifth made Gallia to be poſſeſſed by the French; he ſufficiently declared his impertinence, to have aſpired thereby to paſs for the true Joſephus, in whoſe time there were neither Goths in Spain, nor French in Gallia. It is filled throughout with the like repugnancies, which are ſo plain that nothing but the credulity of the Jews of theſe laſt Ages can endure it, whoſe ingenuity alone conſiſts in cheating themſelves. Scaliger takes this man for a Circumciſed French man, who is not a very ancient Author, or at leaſt has writ ſince the Sixth Age of our Salvation. But the [Page] Invective, which I have already uſed in the Chapter of Xenophon, againſt ſuch Impoſtours, deters me from declaming any more againſt them.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF ARRIAN.

[Page]

IN the time of Adrian the Emperor, and his two ſucceſſors, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, Arrian the Macedonian, began to write his Hiſtory: he lived in the Hundred and Thirtieth year of Chriſt: he was a Diſciple of Epictetus. It is not eaſie to know, whether his Hiſtory was writ, before his Enchiridion, and thoſe other diſcourſes of his Maſter, which Simplicius, in his Commentaries, aſſures us to be compoſed by him, for though it might not be thought, according to the ordinary, and natural courſe of mens diſpoſitions, he ſhould apply himſelf to Philoſophical contemplations, in the Youthful part of his life, yet it appears, in the Preface of thoſe diſcourſes, that he writ them, as they were ſpoken by Epictetus, collected from his mouth, whilſt he was yet the Schollar, [Page] of that great Philoſopher, and he complains, that they were publiſhed without his privitie, which is a certain evidence, of their being writ in his younger Age. Photius ſaith, they were formerly in Twelve Books, beſides certain Philoſophical diſſertations, by him mentioned, which are loſt to this Age.

As for his Hiſtorical Compoſitions, though we have not them all intire; by what remains of them, we may diſcern enough, to oblige us to value his merit. And his Seven Books, of the Conqueſt of Alexander the Great, and Eight, which treat particularly of India, may ſuffice to give him a Rank, amongſt the chiefeſt Hiſtorians.

I ſhall not inſiſt on the deſcription, which he hath made of the Euxin Sea, and the Countries which border on it, nor on that of the Erythrean Sea, which comprehends part of the Indian Coaſts, the Perſian Gulf, and the Red Sea, becauſe they are rather peices, of Geography, than Hiſtory. Rhamuſius obſerves, that many would diſtinguiſh this Arrian, who, in his Eighth Book, deſcribes the Voyage of Nearchus, Admiral to Alexander, from the River Indus, to the Perſian Gulf; from him, who is the Author, of Periplus, or the deſcription of the Erythrean Ocean. The difference of Stile (whereon, thoſe that deba [...]e this matter, eſtabliſh their opinion) is but a ſlender foundation, for all agree (if it muſt be) that there were Two Arrians, that they both lived, [Page] in the time of the Antonines, and that Prince of Geographers, Claudins Ptolemaeus Alexandrinus. But that, which the ſame Rhamuſius notes on this occaſion, is very conſiderable. That though Arrian hath often followed, the opinion of Marinus Tyrius, whom Ptolemy does alwaies reject, yet it appears, that his is a better, and more juſt ſituation, of many parts of the Eaſt-Indies, than that, which Ptolemy has left us; as is manifeſt by many Modern Relations, exhibited thereof, by the Portugueſe. It is certain, that Arrian's merit recommended him ſo much, to the Emperors of his time, that they advanced him, to the Conſular dignity.

He was a Native of Nicomedia, a City of Bithynia, where he made his Studies, and became a Prieſt, of Ceres, and Proſerpine, as he himſelf reports, in thoſe Eight Books, of his Bithynicks, mentioned by Photius, which began the Hiſtory of his Country, at the fabulous times, and continued it, to the death of the laſt Monarch of Nicomedia, who left the Romans, to be the Heirs of his Crown. He pretends to have writ this Hiſtory of Alexander the Great, by Divine inſpiration; and that he did it, under the Title of [...]; and with the like number of Seven Books, as Xenophon choſe, to deſcribe the Conqueſts of Cyrus: and ſome obſerve, that he ſo affected to follow that Author, that he hath perfectly imitated him in his Stile, and many other reſpects, and is therefore called, the Young, or [Page] the Second Xenophon. He declares in his Preface, that his Relations are by him delivered, on the faith of Ariſtobulus, the Son of Ariſtobulus, and Ptolemaeus Lagus, who accompanied Alexander in all his Enterpriſes, which were the more credible for that, beſides the Royal Quality of the latter, they did neither of them publiſh their writings, till after the death of Alexander, without any other obligation, than a real deſire of diſcovering the truth of his Actions. And yet our Author profeſſes, in his deſcription of the death of Calliſthenes the Philoſopher, that it was diverſly reported by them, though they were both near the perſon of Alexander, when the proceſs was made againſt that unfortunate perſon. Ariſtobulus ſaies, he was led in Chains after the Army, till he died of a Sickneſs, and the other affirms, that, after having been expoſed to Torture, he was Stangled, for having been unhappily involved in the conſpiracy of Hermolaus; ſo difficult it is, to know the truth of actions performed: and there is nothing more certain, than that one and the ſame action is many times variouſly related by thoſe that ſaw it, becauſe of the divers reſpects, and intereſts, wherewith moſt men are preoccupied. But notwithſtanding theſe particular defects, which Arrian could not redreſs; his Hiſtory is the more eſteemable, becauſe thoſe of Ariſtobulus, and Ptolomy, are not to be found, moreover there are many places, in the Hiſtory of Quintus Curtius, which have need [Page] to be reformed, by the Text of Arrian; for when he writes, in his Sixth Book, that Alexander parted from the Batavians, Bataues in the French Original. Chief City in Media now called Yerack. Moreri dictionar. doubtleſs it ought to be, from the City of Ecbatana, as it is expreſſed in Arrian. And the voiages to the Eaſt-Indies, made theſe laſt Hundred and Fifty years, ſhew, that he has better repreſented, the Houſes or Cabbins, of certain Ichthyophages, built of the bones of Whales, and other Fiſhes, than Quintus Curtius, who ſaies, they are made of Shells, and the excrements of the Sea, conchas, & purgamenta Maris. But there are ſome places alſo in Arrians Hiſtory, which the other doth very well explain, and I ſhall not determine, which of them has been moſt lucky, in expreſſing the name of Alexanders Phiſitian, whom Arrian calls, Critodemus: and Quintus Curtius, Critobulus (for Plutarch makes no mention of either) and Pliny, when he commends the excellency of that Phiſitian, who drew the Arrow out of Alexanders Fathers eie, without disfiguring his Face, nameing him Critobulus, makes it to be reaſonably ſuppoſed, that his Son made uſe of the ſame Phiſitian, and conſequently that Curtius did not miſtake in the name.

Photius commends Arrian, as equal to the beſt Hiſtorians, his narration is alwaies agreeable, becauſe it is both ſhort, and intelligible: and he never diſcompoſes his Readers, with tedious digreſſions, and ſuch Parentheſes, as may obſcure the ſenſe of his ſentences. And one cannot eaſily [Page] find, in all his Hiſtory, any one ſuch Miraculous event, as might render it ſuſpected, if you will except ſome predictions of Ariſtander, and the ſtory of Two new Springs, which appeared near the River of Oxus, as ſoon as Alexander was there Encamped.

The pattern, which Arrian propoſed to imimitate, permits him not to elevate his Stile, to a Sublime degree of Oratory; becauſe the Eloquence of Xenophon is not of that order, but his Phraſe is mingled with ſuch excellent figures, that by retaining all the clearneſs, of him that he imitates, his Stile has nothing in it, either too flatly low, or too highly Towering. He occaſionally uſes, ſometies oblique Orations, and ſometimes direct ones. And all along, in his Second Book, he Artificially couches the imperious letter of Alexander to Darius. The Oration of Calliſthenes, againſt Anaxarchus, who would have Alexander to be adored, is one of the moſt conſiderable, of thoſe that are direct. And there are Two others, not inferiour to it, of the ſame Prince to his Souldiers, which began to mutiny, once in the Indies, and the other time on the Banks of the River Tygris. Thoſe which were made, before the Battel, given at the Streights of Amanus, and at the Plain of Arbela, or Gaugamela, are oblique, and much more conciſe, than the occaſion required. Photius makes a very favourable judgment of the Hiſtory of Arrian (viz.) that whoſoever ſhall compare it, with the moſt Ancient of thoſe, [Page] which are ſo much eſteemed, it will be found, that there are many things in them, which in no wiſe approach the valew of the other.

But yet there is one paſſage, in the middle of his firſt Book, wherein there is Vanity enough, to ſtain the whole body of his Hiſtory, if decency did not oblige us, to conſider it with that indulgence, which the beſt of us may ſometimes need, in reſpect to our own productions; the place I mean, is, where he declares, that the greatneſs, and number, of the famous Atchievements of Alexander, made him enterpriſe the writing of his Hiſtory, by the aſſurance he had, of being able to acquit himſelf well therein: and that without putting his name to it, or mentioning his extraction, or Quality, he would have the world to know, he might valew himſelf in all thoſe reſpects: and that having loved letters from his Infancy, as Alexander has merited the chiefeſt Rank, amongſt the Leaders of Armies; ſo the greateſt, amongſt thoſe that have enterpriſed the writing of Hiſtory, cannot without injuſtice he denied to him. This impudence of Arrian puts me in mind, of the impertinence of another Grecian,Sect. 131. that was contemporary with him, of whom Photius writes, that he dedicated his compoſition, to the Emperor, Marcus Antoninus, to get thereby the more credit to it, and that it might obtain a more favourable reception: and at his firſt entrance, preparatory to the matter, he pretended, that his Stile ſhould be as [Page] Sublime, as the actions of Alexander, which was the ſubject of his Book, when, alas! Nothing was ever lower, and more barren, than his Narrations, nor more weak and faint, than the expreſſions wherein he expoſed them. It may be reaſonably believed, that the Ambition of this pretender equalled in the beginning the vanity of Arrian; but his weak performances made all his promiſes ridiculous in the end, whereas the other hath given, to Poſterity, one of the beſt Hiſtories that Antiquity hath left us; yet he ought not to paſs without a cenſure, for the fault he committed, there being ſcarce any thing in the world more inſupportable than ſelf praiſe; which, inſtead of the eſteem and reputation that our merit might juſtly challenge for any worthy enterpriſe, draws on us nothing but contempt, and hatred.

Beſides the Seven Books, before mentioned, of the expeditions of Alexander the Great, and the Eighth, of ſo much of the Eaſt-Indies, as was known in his time: He writ, in Ten Books, the Hiſtory of thoſe actions, which happened amongſt Alexanders Captains, after his death, for they could not agree about the dividing their Conqueſts; but of thoſe there remains nothing at this day, but an abridgment of them, which Photius gives us, in his Bibliotheca, and we have alſo loſt his Bithynicks; and Two other Treatiſes, One, of the moſt conſiderable actions, performed by Timoleon of Corinth, in Sicily, and the Other, [Page] of the means uſed by Dion of Syracuſe, to free the City ſo called, and all the circumjacent Country, from the Tyranny and oppreſſion of Dionyſius, the Second Tyrant of that name: nor has the misfortune of the Age been leſs, by the loſs of another work of his, compoſed in Seventeen Books, which Stephanus, in his Cities, mentions more than once, whoſe Subject is, of the Parthians, and their deſcent from the Scythians, and their Wars with the Romans, in the time of the Emperour Trajan.

Photius informs us, that he writ another Treatiſe, called the Alanick History: ſo that many believe, that which Dion Caſſius reports, of one Arrian Governour of Cappadocia, under the Emperour Adrian, who reduced the Alanians, and Maſſagets, to the obedience of the Empire, was meant of our Hiſtorian: it is he alſo, to whom Plinius Novocomenſis addreſſes Seven of his Epiſtles,Voſſius de hiſt. graecis, c. 11. betwixt whom there was a friendſhip contracted, whilſt the ſame Pliny was Proconſul of Pontus, and Bithynia, which our Arrian acknowledges to be the place of his Nativity.Lib. 43. dig. tit. 3. leg. 1. par. 4. et Lib. 44. digeſt. tit. 7. leg. 47. in Pſeud. And if we may aſcribe to him, thoſe Deciſions of Law, which Vlpian, and Paulus determin by his Authority: the knowledg of that learned Science may be added, to his excellency in Geography, Hiſtory and Philoſophy.

But one of the greateſt Encomiums that can be given to any, is that which Lucian applies to him, when he excuſes himſelf for writing the [Page] life, of his falſe Prophet Alexander: Let no man, ſaies he, blame me, for imploying my time, on ſo inconſiderable a Subject, ſince Arrian, that worthy Diſciple of Epictetus, one of the greateſt among the Romans, who hath exerciſed himſelf among the Muſes, condeſcended to write the life of the Villain Tiliborus.

It is not to be doubted but there are many Arrians, I [...] Gordian. beſides this perſon of whom we now write, for Julius Capitolinus, quotes one Arrian, a Greek Hiſtorian, to prove that there were three of the narne of Gordianus, againſt the opinion of thoſe, who pretend there were but Two; and this cannot be meant of our Arrian, who lived an Age, before the time of any of thoſe Emperors; and Su [...]tonius mentions a Poet of that name, more Antient than any of the others, becauſe Tiberius is ſaid to have imitated him, in his Greek Poeſy. And perhaps, this may be the ſame Arrian, cited by Suidas, to be the Author of an Heroick Poem, divided into Four and Twenty Books, called Alexandriades, written to celebrate the Honour of Alexander the Great.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF APPIAN.

[Page]

APPIAN is ſo much the more conſiderable, amongſt all thoſe that have laboured in the Roman Hiſtory, in that, beſides the commendation which Photius gives him, to have, as truly as poſſible, delivered his matter: He alone has particularly deſcribed their actions, according to the Provinces, and different Regions, wherein they were tranſacted: Not that he has, in this method, excelled all other Hiſtoriographers, for the moſt Ancient of them have alwaies followed the order of time, and related things annually done, in Countries very diſtant, one from the other.

But though Appian ſeems, in ſome things, to have affected an order, even contrary to Nature, not obſerved by any of the Ancients, yet it muſt be acknowledged, that his Method, in general, [Page] is very uſeful, to expreſs the things performed diſtinctly, and ſeparately from each other, to repreſent, as to our view, all that paſſed in each Country, ſo that no way of writing is more inſtructive, and apter, in that reſpect, to conten [...] the mind of the Readers. We learn from Suidas, that his Hiſtory, by an excellency of Title, was ſometimes termed Baſilick, or Royal. And his Roman Hiſtory (which he writ in Twenty Four Books,Voſſias de Hiſtoricis graecit. l. 2. c. 13. from Aeneas, and the Taking of Troy, to the Foundation of Rome) contains, in the firſt thereof the Goverment of its Seven Kings, as may be conjectured by the Text of Photius. Florus his Epitome is indeed compoſed of Wars, and actions ſeperated one from the other; but Appian has repreſented them more intirely, how long ſoever any of them endured; whereas the Other confounds his relations, in the mixtures of them: as in the Firſt, Second, and Third Punick Wars, he ſhuffles together all the affairs of the Romans with the Gaules, Ligurians, Macedonians; and many other People, with whom they had conteſt, in the interval of thoſe Two ceſſations of Arms, which happened betwixt the Carthaginians and them.

But this favourable judgment of Photius, in Appians behalf,Meth. hiſt. cap. 4. does not reſtrain Bodin, from accuſing both his memory, and judgment in the matter of his Hiſtory: for this bold Cenſurer aſſerts, that the Romans did never lend their Wives one to the other, according to the cuſtome [Page] of the Parthians, and Lacedemonians; and imputes therein too much credulity to Appian: Though Plutarch hath written the ſame thing, affirming that Cato freely ſent his Wife, to Hortenſius the Oratour,In vita Cat. V. to raiſe of her an iſſue to him: nor is the Law of Romulus, or that againſt Adulterers, mentioned by Aulus Gellius, repugnant to this practiſe (as Bodin unadviſedly imagins.) He taxes him likewiſe, to have made Caeſar ſay, in his Second Book of the Civil Wars of Rome, certain expreſſions, which were not uttered by him, but Pompey, in a threatning ſpeech, which he uſed to the Senate, when he put his hand on his Sword, and told them, if they would not grant him the things he deſired, that Sword ſhould purchaſe them: but this may be aſcribed to a failure of memory, to which all mankind is ſubject: as alſo another error, which he notes of him, in miſtaking Calphurnia, for Pompeia, that Wife of Caeſar, which was vitiated in the Temple, called by the Romans, the Temple of the good Goddeſs. But Sigonius is more indecent, who arraigns him of levity, and many omiſſions, without alledging any proof or inſtance thereof. And Scaliger is not leſs bold in the cenſure that he makes of him, in his Animadverſions on the Hiſtory of Euſebins, where he ſaies, he would appear to be a Child in the buſineſs of Hiſtory, were it not that an infinity of matters are added to his Treatiſe of the Wars of Syria. Yet though I approve not of theſe reflections; I preſume, [Page] one may truly impure it to him as a fault in all his works, that he too much flatters the Romans, alwaies making the right, as well as the advantage, to be on their ſide, to the prejudice of all other Nations in the world, with whom they were concerned, as well as of his own Native Country. And we may add to this, that he often attributes to himſelf the labours of others, tranſcribing many Paragraphs, and intire Sentences of Polybius, Plutarch, and other Authors more Antient, and inſerting them in his Book, without citing their Texts, to render them that acknowledgment, which is due to their merit, on ſuch occaſions. And ſome affirm that he in like manner tranſcribed, the greateſt part of the Commentaries of Auguſtus; which contained (as Suetonins relates) the principal actions of his life. This is indeed a ſort of theft not to be allowed; Deprehendi in furto malle, quam mutuum reddere. As Pliny ſaies to Veſpatian, on the ſame ſubject, and Scaliger, on this occaſion, calls him, alienorum laborum fucum, in reſemblance to a certain ſort of Flies, which nouriſh themſelves with the honey of others.

I have read in ſome Author, that the Rhodians, when they had a purpoſe to honour the memory of any well deſerving perſon, by having his Statue erected in ſome publick place, were uſed only to take the head from ſome of the old Statues in their City, and put a new one in the place of it, of the Figure of him they deſigned [Page] to repreſent. Thoſe that ſteal from the writings of others, do the ſame thing as thoſe Rhodians did, but in a more ridiculous faſhion, for by putting their names to other mens Works, hoping thereby to acquire honour to themſelves, they ordinarily, inſtead thereof, reap only ſhame and contempt, for ſo ſordid a practiſe. This matter calls to my remembrance an abuſe, which was put upon Diomedes, by his friend Alcibiades, to whom he committed the charge, of conveying his Horſes to the Olympick games; for by changing the inſcription which belonged to them, and making them to run in the name of Alcibiades, he took to himſelf the honour of the victory they acquired, which was not of ſmall conſequence at that time, and to complaet his deceit, was ſo unjuſt to retain them to himſelf, without ever making reſtitution to Diomedes, who truſted him therewith. What greater treachery can there be in reſpect to letters, than to aſcribe to our ſelves, the productions of others, when inſtead of yeilding the glory to thoſe, by whoſe thoughts we have profited, we would have thoſe very conceptions paſs, for the pure inventions of our own wit.Crimen Plagium à Plagis (1) à dolore quo is afficitur qui ſurreptus eſt. Cat. The figurative expreſſion of Plagiary, which the Latins give to thoſe, that are guilty of a Crime ſo abject, and odious, ſufficiently denotes the Abomination they had for it; as if, by the word Plagium, it were to be underſtood, that ſuch offences could not be expiated, but by a Whip. Vitruvius, in the Preface [Page]to his Seventh Book of Architecture, after having aſſerted, that ſuch of whom we now treat, are to be puniſhed, as impious, and infamous, he informs us, with what ſeverity, and Ignominy, Ptolomy puniſhed ſome Poets, that had been ſo impudent to recite, in a publick Aſſembly in Alexandria, certain Verſes ſtoln by them, out of different Authors, and to expoſe them as their own; whereby they had carried the prize, (which the King propoſed to be given them that beſt performed, by the ſuffrage of Six of the Judges, and all the People) if the Seventh, who was called Ariſtophanes, that had been more converſant in Books, than the other, had not diſcovered the abuſe; preferring a Poet, before them, that was the leaſt applauded of all the reſt, but one that had pronounced nothing, in the Aſſembly, that was not of his own compoſition. Theocritus boaſted, in one of his Epigrams, with a kind of aſſurance, that he never was of the number of thoſe, that aſcribed to themſelves the Verſes of other men,Lib. 5. et [...] Strom. Lib. 9. Cap. 2. & 3. but I am not ignorant of the excuſes, that many are forced to make in his behalf, for that very aſſertion. They tell us, that Clemens Alexandrinus, and Euſebius in his Evangelical preparation, report, that the Greeks did not only take from the Hebrews, that which is beſt in their Writings, but inſtanced in many examples, how they frequently borrowed from one another alſo.

Strabo writes of Eudorus, and Ariston, Two Peripatetick Philoſophers, Geogr. Lib. 17. which had writ ſome [Page] Commentaries of Niliss, ſo like in Phraſe, and matter, that the Oracle of Jupiter Hammon only could diſcover, which of them was the true Author, upon their mutual accuſations of one another, of the theft committed.

Marcianus Heracleota affirms, that Eratoſthenes tranſcribed a Treatiſe, writ by one Timoſthenes, of an Epitome of the Iſles, from one end to the other, and publiſhed it as his own. Athenaeus defames Plato, about the end of the Eleventh Book of his Deipnoſophiſts, to have taken the greateſt part of his Dialogues, from Byrſon, Ariſtippus, and Antiſthenes. And though it be known, that Apuleius his Golden Aſs, is not of his own Fabrick, it is not yet diſcovered, whether he took it from Lucian, or Lucius Patrenſis, for both theſe have writ of the ſame Subject, and each of their peices paſs as Originals. But all theſe examples, and many more that might be inſtanced, cannot produce the effect, which thoſe that make them, promiſe to themſelves; nor is it enough to excuſe a fault, by ſaying many others are guilty of the like, for if that were ſufficient, there is ſcarce any that would not be eaſily pardonable.

Appian lived in the time of Trajan, Adrian, and Antoninus Succeſſive Emperors of Rome, and about the 140th year, of our Saviours Incarnation. In the Preface of his Hiſtory, he declares his Extraction, to be from one of the beſt Families of Alexandria, from whence being [Page] come to Rome, he rendred himſelf, in a ſhort while, ſo conſiderable in the imployment of Advocate, that he was elected, and inrolled in the number of thoſe, that were the Proctors of the Emperor,Procuratores Caeſaris, an Office which reſembles the charge of Attorny General in England. and to have (as Photius relates) the Adminiſtration of a Province. Sigonius, and ſome others call him, Sophista Alexandrinus, and make him an Egyptian.

His Hiſtory was divided into Three Volumes (which as the ſame Photius mentions) contained Four and Twenty Books, or Twenty Two, as [...]arolus Stephanus Volaterranus, and the before named Sigonius inform.O [...]ſus ab Aeneâ, et Ilio capto, percurrit illa tempara, uſ (que) ad Romulum. Inde accu [...]atius perſequitur omnia uſque ad Auguſtum. Quaedam etiam carptim at (que) obiter addit, uſque ad Trajanum. Voſſius loco citato. It began at the burning or taking Troy, and the fortune of Aeneas, and extended beyond the Reign of Auguſtus, making ſometimes excurſions even to the time of Trajan. As to his Stile, the ſame Photius obſerves, that as his manner of writing was plain and eaſie, ſo he had nothing in it, that was ſoaring high, or ſuperfluous, and he gives to him the prerogative, of being not only very faithful (as we hinted in the beginning) but one of thoſe, that has given the greateſt Teſtimony, of his knowledg in the art of War, and all kind of military Diſcipline. To read the deſcription of his battels would make one fancy himſelf in the middle of them. And he is ſo happy in his Orations, that he manages, and moves the affections, which way he pleaſes: whether it be to revive the courage of the drooping Souldiers, or expreſs the extravagant tranſports of thoſe that are too violent. [Page] But of the many works which he compoſed, there remains to this time but the leaſt part which deſcribe the Punick, Syrian, and Parthian Wars, Thoſe againſt Mithridates, againſt the Spaniards, againſt Hannibal: and Five Books of the civil Wars of Rome, and thoſe of Illyria: As for that of the Celtick War, or the War of the Gaules, there is only a fragment or compendium of it extant, rather to make us regret what we want, than ſatisfie our minds with that which remains.

Thus far we have confined our ſelf, in this Chapter of Appian, to Monſieu [...] de la Mothe le Vayer, our Author, who in many things ſeems to me, not ſo exact in his judgment of this Hiſtoriographer, as his merit requires, and too ſevere in his reflection, whilſt he makes ſo long a defamatory digreſſion, againſt thoſe that incorporate the writings of others in their works, on occaſion of the mention of his borrowing ſomething, in his Hiſtory, from Polybius and Plutarch, which he makes to be the more unpardonable, becauſe he cites not, in his Books, the Texts of thoſe Authors, to render them (as he Phraſes it) the acknowledgment due to their merit. And yet he himſelf, even in this Chapter, borrows ſome part of his matter from Voſſius, without quoting him. But may it not be doubted, whither this Gentleman ever ſaw the Original Manuſcript of Appian, where perhaps thoſe Quotations were, to know thereby, whether he or thoſe that tranſcribed it, are to be blamed for [Page] this omiſſion, or indeed whether, in thoſe Ancient times, ſuch citations were practiſed: for though the borrowing of writings from others, may be ſometimes in ſome circumſtances a great offence; it is not alwaies to be ſo accounted, ſince there is not any thing written, that is not taken from the conceptions of them that went before: and when we take from others to improve their reaſon, that it may be derived to us in a more familiar, refined and exquiſite ſenſe, it is rather commendable than faulty; as may be ſaid of that which Virgil takes from Homer, or to ſpeak of our time, of what our Ben Johnſon extracts from Catullus, Juvenal, Horace, Plautus, and other Poets, and from Tully alſo, who ſo much improves their thoughts, that they themſelves, if they were alive, would not think themſelves diſhonored, by the uſe he makes of them.

What our Author mentions of Scaliger, which is alſo hinted by Voſſius, of Appians being a Child in Hiſtory, is rather to be imputed to his paſſion, than right judgment, whoſe cenſures are not alwaies to be allowed, eſpecially when they contradict the more general conſent of the learned in all Ages. What he ſaies alſo, in the beginning of this Chapter in one place, that Appian ſeems to have affected an order of writing, even contrary to Nature, is an opinion, wherein he is very ſingular, for Caelius Secundus Curio (who had, it may be, more curiouſly ſtudied Appian than he) in his Epiſtle Dedicatory, before the Latin Impreſſion [Page] at Baſil 1554, writes thus of him.

It is certain (ſaies he) that Appian propoſed to himſelf,Caellus Secundus Curio, in Epiſtolâ Dedicatoriâ, ad Bonifacium Amberbachium, verſus finem. the method, and contexture of Thucydides, and Saluſt, and endeavo [...]red to imitate them both, in their veracity of expreſſion, and quickneſs of tranſition, for he did not weave together a perpetual ſeries of Hiſtory, as Livy and others, but from the whole matter (that is to ſay) from the greateſt, moſt, and immortal actions of the Romans, he ſeparated the Wars they made, upon any Nation or People; and made ſo many bodies of Hiſtory, as they undertook and waged Wars, which Reaſon and image of writing Caeſar purſued, in his ſo much celebrated Commentaries, wherein nothing is found, empty, fabulous, or prodigious. No ſuperfluous, or feigned ſpeeches, or Orations for oſtentation; but all pure, true, religious, and neceſſary; in which he did not imitate the Vanity of the Greeks, which to do, is not indeed to write a Hiſtory, but deceive the World with Fables.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF DIO OR DION CASSIUS.

[Page]

DIO Caſſius, who is beſides known by the Surnames of Cocceius and Cocceianus, was born at Nicea, a City of Bithynia, whether he retired, in his latter years, to paſs in quiet the remaining part of his life, after the example of thoſe Animals, who alwaies return, as they ſay, to dy in their Manſions. The infirmity of his leggs called him to this retirement, and he writes, that his Genius had foretold it him long before by a Verſe of Homers Iliads, recited by Photius. As Socrates was ſaid to have had a Familiar Spirit or Daemon, who was as a Director of his life, Dio alledges that he was warned by his, to avoid by a retirement, the Ambuſhes which the [...]retorian Militia prepared for him: [Page] and the ſame Spirit, or Goddeſs (to uſe his own terms in his Threeſcore and Twelfth Book) made him write his Hiſtory, who before exerciſed himſelf only in Philoſophical learning, as that of the Divine Dreams, and their Interpretation, of which he had compoſed a Book.Homo Conſularis. His Father Apronianus a Conſular man (according to the Phraſe of that Age) was Governor of Dalmatia, and ſometime after Proconſul of Cilicia: He himſelf had the ſame Conſular dignity beſtowed on him twice, which he exerciſed jointly with the Emperor Alexander, Son of Mammea; after he had paſſed through divers Imployments under the precedent Emperors: for Macrinus had eſtabliſhed him Lieutenant or Governor of Pergamus, and Smyrna, and he ſometime commanded in Affrick; and had afterwards the Adminiſtration of Auſtria and Hungary, then called Pannonia, committed to him. Theſe things are convenient to be known, before we ſpeak of his Writings, becauſe they recommend, and give the greater Authority to them. His Hiſtory compriſed all the time from the building of Rome, to the Reign of Alexander Severus, which he writ in Eighty Books, divided into Eight Decades, whereof few are ſaved from that unhappy loſs, which, as we have elſewhere ſhown, has been fatal to many admirable Works of this nature, whereof the ignorant and barbarous Ages have deprived us. At preſent the Five and Thirtieth Book is the firſt of thoſe that remain intire (for [Page] we have but ſome Eclogues or Fragments of the Four and Thirtieth preceding. His progreſs to the Sixtieth is intire enough. But inſtead of the laſt Twenty, we muſt be content with what Xiphilinus, a Conſtantinopolitan Monk, has given us in an Epitome or Compendium of them; for the Text of thoſe peeces of Dion is not to be found whole, by a misfortune alwaies incident to Books, that are abbreviated. Photius obſerves, that he writ his Roman Hiſtory, as ſome others had likewiſe done, not from the Foundation of Rome only, but even from Aeneas his Deſcent into Italy, which he continued to the Tyranny of Heliogabalus, and ſome part of the Reign of Alexander Severus, his ſucceſſor. That which we have of it now in our poſſeſſion, comprehending the events of Three Hundred years at leaſt,Lucullus lived about 71 years, before Chriſt, and about 23, before Julius Caeſar aſſumed the government of the Roman Empire. begins but at the time, when Lucullus had his great commands, and finiſhes with the death of Claudius the Emperor, the reſt is the Epitome of Xiphilinus, before mentioned.

Though all that has been loſt of this excellent Author, is much to be regretted, I think nothing is ſo deplorable, as the loſs of the Forty laſt years, of which he writ as an Eie-witneſs, and one that had a part in the government of the State. For he could not expreſs, what was before the Empire of Commodus, but from the relation of ſtrangers, and as others had done it before him. But after that Emperor, until the other, with whom he had the honor, to be Collegue [Page] in the Conſulſhip, he built no more upon the faith of other men; but what he relates, that deſcends to us, by his Organ Xiphilinus, is no other than what he ſaw himſelf, and wherein he was a principal Actour. It is a clear proof of Dion's prudent conduct, that he could paſs over ſuch bad times, as thoſe of the Tyrannical Dominion of Commodus, Caracalla, Macrinus, and Heliogabalus, without loſs of life, goods, or reputation, which are often in danger under ſuch Princes, without a wonderful dexterity of Wit. His was ſo commendable, that after having overcome thoſe Stormy and Tempeſtuous ſeaſons, wherein the quality of a ſtranger and his riches expoſed him to much envy, he arrived happily at a ſafe Port, to wit the Raign of Alexander Severus an exceeding Lover of juſtice, and a moſt powerful Protector of virtuous men.

Under him he publiſht the Roman Hiſtory, to which as he was led by his Genius, as we before hinted, ſo he was commanded by Septimius Severus. He confeſſes himſelf, that he imploied Ten years, in providing the neceſſary materials for this great building, and twelve more in raiſing it, and adding that Majeſty unto it, which makes us, even at this day, admire its diſmembred Fragments and Ruins. A man of his Quality, who had paſſed all his life in the management of affairs, and had read men as well as Books, and of ſuch an experimented conduct, muſt needs have been a very conſiderable Hiſtoriographer. [Page] Nor have any of them revealed ſo much unto us as he, of thoſe ſtate ſecrets, which Tacitus Stiles Arcana Imperii, and whereof he makes ſo high a Miſtery. He is ſo exact in deſcribing the order of the Comitia, the eſtabliſhing of Magiſtrates, and the uſe of the publick Rights of the Romans, that thoſe things are no where elſe learned more diſtinctly. And in what relates to the Conſecration of Emperors, their Apotheoſis, or inrolling amongſt the number of the Gods; We may ſay, that he is the only Writer, who has ſhewn us a good form, except Herodian who coveted afterwards to imitate him in the ſame Subject. But particularly, in the Fifty Sixth Book, he is very curious, where he repreſents the Pomp of Auguſtus his Funerals, his Bed of State, his [...]ſſigies in Wax, and the Funeral Oration, which Tiberius read before the People, he expoſes after that the manner of the burning his body, how Livia gathered, and laid up his Bones, finally with what dexterity they made an Eagle part from the Funeral Pile, whence that Bird of Jupiter ſeemed to bear the Soul of the Emperor to Heaven.

The Funeral Oration before mentioned obliges me to remark, that Dion freely uſed, not only the Oblique, but the Direct way of Oration alſo in the body of his Hiſtory. Thoſe of Pompey to the Romans, and of Gabinius afterwards, in his Thirty Sixth Book, are of the laſt frame. The Philoſophical diſcourſe of Philiſcus to Cicero, which [Page] is ſeen in the Eight and Thirtieth, to perſwade him to bear his Exile into Macedonia conſtantly, is alſo in the form of a Proſopopaea, after a very conſiderable Dialogue between them Two. The Orations of Agrippa, and Mecaenas, the firſt of which exhorted Auguſtus to quit the Empire, the Second on the contrary to retain it, are of the ſame ſort, and contain the whole Fifty Second Book. And Xiphilinus was not contented, in his Abbreviation of the Sixty Second, to make Paulinus, Governor of great Brittain, ſpeak a direct Oration to his Troops, ready to Engage with the Britiſh Forces, after he had divided them into Three different Bodies, but makes him ſpeak Three ſeparate ones, on the ſame Subject, to perſwade them to fight couragiouſly, and thereby to obtain the Victory. By this it appears, that they who believe that all ſorts of Orations are indecent in Hiſtory, will not be ſatisfied with Dio's method of writing, for he abſtains not from thoſe, which are moſt to be avoided, namely the direct, and has made uſe of Dialogues alſo. which is contrary to the rules of the Criticks in Hiſtory; but if we muſt take notice of his faults, there are others, which deſerve ſooner to be complained of, than what we mentioned. He is accuſed of having taken Caeſars part too much, againſt Pompey, to accomodate himſelf to the courſe of Fortune. Nor ſeems he more equitable in reſpect of Antonius his Faction, which he alwaies favours to the prejudice of that of Cicero. [Page] And whoever reads in the Forty Sixth Book, the invective of Q. Fuſius Calenus, againſt this incomparable Oratour,Cicero. will be hardly able to indure all the injuries, with which it ſeems Dio would have Sullied his reputation. Not content to make him be reproached, that he was the Son of a Fuller or Dyer, very often reduced to dreſs Vines, or cultivate Olive Trees; he aſſaults his perſon, and touches his honour in all the moſt ſenſible parts: he renders him ridiculous for his fearfulneſs: and to blaſt him the more, affirms, that of all the Orations which were ſeen of his, he delivered not one of them, after the manner in which they were writ, and therefore his want of memory is imputed as a crime to him. But he makes Calenus much more ſevere, He would have him contented, not to wear the long Robe, if he had not wanted it to hide his ill-ſhapt Leggs and Feet. And arraigns his Conjugal Bed, to expoſe the vice of his Wives, defaming him to have proſtituted the honour of one of them: and in the mention of his Children, he accuſes him of Inceſt with his Daughter; and repreſents his Son, as an infamous Libertin, Drunk Night and Day. Certainly, to treat one of the greateſt perſons of the Roman Republick thus, is rather like a Satyriſt than an Hiſtorian. But Dion does ſo purſue his diſparagement, that in the following Book, he takes a new occaſion to make Fulvia, the Wife of Antonius, vomit out abundance of reproaches againſt his memory, who pierces his [Page] Tongue through and through with her Needle.

He has not been much more reſpectful to Seneca, if the conjectures of ſome men are not true, who think that Xiphilinus, in that part, maliciouſly delivered the thoughts of Suillius, or ſome other as bad, for thoſe of Dio. Yet we read in what Conſtantinus collected out of him, beſides what is related in the Epitomy of Xiphilinus, that Seneca led a life quite contrary to his Writings, and the Philoſophical profeſſion, to which he pretended.Lib. 60. He is accuſed of Adultery, with Julia and Agrippina, and of the death of the laſt. He is taxed with reading Lectures of Pederaſty, to Nero, and charged with aſ-ending the Theatre with him, to make Orations in his applauſe. In fine his Luxury and Avarice are aggravated to that pitch, that the cauſe of the Rebellion of Great Brittain, is imputed to him, where the People could no more indure his extortion, than Nero could ſuffer his Conſpiracies, from which he had no means to deliver himſelf, than by putting ſo bad a Maſter to death. But what we before hinted, that the invectives againſt Seneca, are rather the words of Tigellinus the abbreviator, than our Author, ſeems to be very manifeſt, becauſe Dion, in his Fifty Ninth Book, ſpeaks very honourably of Seneca.

We might perhaps accuſe him of Superſtition and Credulity, and thereby ſomething diſcredit his Hiſtory; if ſomething were not to be allowed to Humanity, and if we did not know, that the [Page] beſt Authors in this kind, have fallen into the ſame inconveniences. In his Forty Seventh Book he tells us, the Sun appeared at Rome ſometimes leſſer, and ſometimes greater than ordinary, to foretel the bloody Battel, fought in the Fields of Philippi, which was alſo ſignified by many other Prodigies. How he credited the report of the ſtrange quality of theTheſe Pſylli are mentioned, to have been imployed by Auguſtus Caeſar, to cure Cleopatra of her poiſon, by ſucking the venome out of her wounds, that he might carry her in Triumph to Rome-Sueton. in Aug. c. 17. Lib. 66. Lib. 67. A City of Cappadocia. Pſylli, to expel poiſon, may be read in his One and Fiftieth Book, on the Subject of the death of Cleopatra, whom theſe men (ſince there was no Female amongſt them, and they begot themſelves) endeavoured in vain, to bring to life again. In his Fifty Eighth Book he reports, that a Phaenix was ſeen in Aegypt, in the Seven Hundred and Nineteenth year of the Foundation of Rome. In another place he writes, that Veſpaſian cured a Blind Man, by ſpitting in his Eies, and worked a like Miracle, on a Lame mans Hand, which he cured and reſtored to its vigour, by walking upon it, they being both forewarned in a Dream, that they ſhould receive this benefit from the Emperor. In another place he expreſſes, that the famous Apollonius Tyanaeus ſaw, in the City of Epheſus, all that paſſed at the death of Domitian in Rome, at the ſame inſtant that he received it; ſo that he cried out, calling on the name of Stephanus, which was that of his Murtherer, bidding him strike boldly, and ſoon after that (ſaies he) it was done; as if Dion would have conformed himſelf to Philoſtratus, who writ at the ſame time, the Imaginary[Page]life of this Philoſopher;V. Lib. 8. de Vita Apol. c. 10. and as if there were no difference to be put, betwixt true, and Fabulous Hiſtory.

Though ſome men, and Baronius amongſt others,Ad Ann. Chr. 176. find fault with Dio, becauſe he was not favorable to Chriſtianity, I think it not worthy to be conſidered, ſince he is to be eſteemed as a Pagan Author, who was not like to uphold a Religion contrary to that which he profeſſed. It is true that ſpeaking of the victories of Marcus Aurelius, he attributes to the Magick Art, of one Arnuphis an Aegyptian, rather than to the prayers of the Chriſtians, the miraculous Rain, which fell in favour of the Romans, and the ſtrange Tempeſts, which afflicted the Army of the Quadi, whom the learned Cluverius takes, for the preſent Moravians. But is it a wonder, in things ſubject to various interpretations, as are ordinarily ſuch Prodigies, that Dio, an Idolatrous Hiſtorian, ſhould not give the ſame judgment, as a believer? And that he ſpake otherwiſe of them, than Tertullian, Euſebius, Paulus Diaconus, and ſome others have done?

His Stile is by Pho [...]ius, put into the rank of the moſt elevated, being extraordinarly raiſed by the loftineſs of his thoughts. His diſcourſe, ſaies he, is full of Phraſes, which reſemble the Antient conſtruction or Syntaxis, and his expreſſion anſwers the greatneſs of the matter he treats of. His periods are often interrupted with Parentheſes, and he uſes many Hyperbates, or tranſitions, [Page] which are very troubleſome when they are not uſed Artificially after his manner. But one thing is very remarkable, that though his language is very numerous, and adjuſted according to Art, yet it appears to be ſo little laboured, that the Reader does in no wiſe perceive the care that has been taken in it, becauſe it is ſo clear and intelligible, that every one preſuppoſes as much facility in the compoſition, as there is in the reading. He ſeems to have imitated Thucydides, whom he follows, eſpecially in his Narratives, and Orations: But he has the advantage over him, not to be reproached with obſcurity: In all elſe Thucydides is the pattern, by which he Copies with all ſort of Circumſpection. This is the judgment Photius gives of him, who is much more creditable in this point, than Sigonius, that to ſay ſomething of his own, long ſince thought on, accuſes Dio of being too Aſiatick, and ſo prolix in his Orations, that he is troubleſome to his Readers. The world muſt be left to their liberty of thinking, according to the Law of the Romans, Populo libera ſunto ſuffragia. Yet I conceive, for what relates to language, the ſureſt way is to leave that to thoſe to whom it is natural, and who have ſucked it with their milk, rather than to ſtrangers, who are much more ſubject to be miſtaken.

Beſides Dio's Hiſtory, and his little Treatiſes before mentioned, it ſeems that Suidas aſcribes to him, ſome other compoſitions, as the life of the Philoſopher Arrianus, the action of Trajan, [Page] and certain Itineraries. Raphael Volaterranus makes him beſides, Author of Three Books, intituled de Principe, and ſome ſmall Treatiſes of Morality.

We muſt alſo obſerve, that there have been many Dio's of great repute; and one amongſt the reſt, who lived an Age before Dio Caſſius, in the ſame Emperor Trajans time. This is he, who for his Eloquence, had the Surname of Chryſoſtomus, who was of Pruſſia, and by conſequence of Bithynia, as well as the other, and for whom Trajan had ſo particular a Love, that he often honoured him with a place by him in his Ch [...]riot. Theſe Two Dions are diſtinguiſhed, by their profeſſions, as well as their Surnames. The firſt, according to the times they lived in, was an Oratour, and Phiſopher, the Second, an Hiſtorian, and Stateſman, ſuch as we have repreſented him in this Section.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF HERODIAN.

[Page]

THE Hiſtory of Herodian (as moſt of thoſe we have already mentioned) receives its commendation, from the merit of its Author. He declares at the beginning of his firſt Book, that he will only write of the affairs of his own time, which he himſelf hath ſeen, or underſtood from creditable perſons; for which he was very competent, becauſe of the publick imployments that he exerciſed, for he might juſtly boaſt, to have paſſed through the principal charges of the State.

About the end of his Second Book, he acquaints us) before he begins to write of the life of Septimius Severus, which contains all the Third Book) that his Hiſtory in general ſhall comprehend the ſpace of Seventy years, and treat of the Government of all the Emperors, which [Page] ſucceeded one another, during that time, that is, from the Reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus the Philoſopher, to that of the younger Gordianus Grandchild of the former,A Latin Hiſtorian. which ſome, with Julius Capitolinus, reckon to be the Third of that name. His Eighth Book, which is the laſt of his Work,Two Roman Emperors killed at Rome A [...]. 237. ends with the unworthy ſlaughter of the Two old men Balbinus, and Pupienus, whom he calls Maximus, committed on them by the Praetorian Souldiers, to advance the forementioned Gordianus Junior to the Throne.

Photius writes of his Stile, that he has writ in an Air ſo much the more cleer and agreeable, in that he has not too much affected the Attick terms; but ſo tempered his Phraſe, that his diſcourſe is heightned above the lower form of Oration: and as there is nothing ſuperfluous in his writings, ſo it cannot be ſaid, that he has omitted things neceſſary or uſeful to be known: and he adds (to compleat his Elogium of him) that conſidering all the virtues of an Hiſtorian, there are few Authors to whom Herodian ought to ſubſcribe.

We have obſerved in the preceding Sections, that he hath, as well as Dion Caſſius, informed us of the Pagan Ceremonies, uſed at the Conſecration of their Emperors. It is in the beginning of his Fourth Book, where he ſo well repreſents to us all the Funeral honours, rendered to the Aſhes of Severus (which his Children had tranſported from England, in an Alablaſter [Page] Cheſt) that it is hard to ſee any where, any thing more exact, and more inſtructive. He tells us how they were put into an Urne, with the general adoration of the Senate and the People, and carried by the Conſuls to the Temple, where the Sacred Monuments of their Emperors were preſerved, and then proceeding to deſcribe the Funeral Pomp, he informs us, that his Effigies in Wax, all cloathed in Robes of Gold, was placed at the Gate of his Palace on an Iv [...]ry Bed, elevated from the Ground, and magnificently adorned: Where Seven daies together the Senators clothed in black, and the Roman Ladies all in White (without any other Ornaments) came to pay their reſpects, taking their places, the Women on the right, and the men on the left ſide of the Bed, all appearing with very mournful countenances. He obſerves alſo, that the Phyſitians came duly to viſit this repreſentation of the Emperor, making formal approaches to the Bed, as if he were alive, and declaring that his ſickneſs grew daily worſe and worſe; ſo true it is that this world is a continual Comedy.Univerſus Mundus exercet Hiſtoriam, Sea. After this time was paſſed over, the moſt conſiderable of the Youth, and the Knights, carried the ſame Bed on their ſhoulders, firſt to the great Market places, where the Magiſtrates of Rome uſed to Surrender their charges; and there a Chorus of young men on one ſide, and Virgins on the other, Sung Hymns to the praiſe of the dead Emperor: from thence they proceeded to [Page] the Campus Martius, which was out of the Town, where the Bed, and Effigies, were placed in a large ſquare Tabernacle of Wood, reſembling and elevated,Pharos vulgo dict. to the height of one of thoſe Towers, upon which Lights are placed on the Sea Coaſts, to direct Mariners to avoid the dangers of Rocky ſhores, whereof he makes ſuch exact deſcriptions, both as to the exterior and interior Ornament, and the ſeveral ſtories of it, that any one may eaſily thereby comprehend the manner of the ſtructure. In the next place he writes that the Roman Knights made their Horſes run round about the Tabernacle in certain orderly motions, which were at that time called Motus Pyrrhichii, and in orbicular revolutions. And at the ſame time there were a certain number of Chariots, filled with perſons which repreſented the moſt qualified men of the Empire, which alſo went in a kind of Proceſſion, round the great Machine, till the next ſucceſſor of the Emperor, firſt took a Torch in his hand, and with it kindled ſome combuſtible matter, made for that purpoſe at the bottom of it, and then in a little time all that S [...]perbe Edifice was conſumed in Flames, and at the ſame time they let an Eagle fly, which the Pagan ſuperſtition of that Age believed, was to carry away the Soul of the deceaſed.

Herodian uſed direct O [...]ations in all his Hiſtory. As in the firſt Book we have that of Marcus Antoninus to his friends, a little before his [Page] death: with another which Commodus delivered to his ſouldiers (whilſt he was yet very young) to gain [...]heir affections to him. And his Eighth Book does as it were conclude, with that ſpeech which Maximus made in the middle of his Army, a little before he marched with it to Rome: and all his other Books are filled with the like diſcourſes, which are leaning to the form of Declamation; and which without any difficulty he continually uſed as occaſion offered; as may be ſeen by that letter which Macrinus writ from Antioch, to the Senate and Roman People, in the beginning of his Fifth Book.

He did not moreover avoid Digreſſions in his Compoſitions. There is one in his firſt Book, on the occaſion of that Idol of the Mother of the Gods, which the Romans cauſed to be brought from Phrygia; after having related that the Stone, all ingraved as it was into the form of the Image, fell down from Heaven, in the Field of Peſinunta, and made the Ship that carried it ſtop at the Mouth of Tyber, till a Veſtal in proof of her Virginity had drawn it out with her cincture: and he gives no other reaſon for the Sacrifices, which the Eunuchs celebrated to ſuch a Divinity, and many other Fables which depended thereon (in this whole diverſion) than that, writing in Greek, he thought it might be acceptable to his Country-men, to be informed of the Theology of the Latins, whereof few of them had any knowledg.

[Page] Julius Capitolinus mentions Herodian, He was an Hiſtorian that writ many Books, whereof ſome are loſt, by the injury of the times. He lived in the time of Diocleſian the Emperor. Voſſ. de Hiſt. Latinis Lib. 1. Cap. 7. in the Life of Clodius Albinus, as a good Hiſtorian, but accuſes him nevertheleſs, in his two Maximins, to have favoured one, in hatred of Alexander Severus, whoſe memory was diſpleaſing to him. He did indeed commend the clemency and mild diſpoſition of that Prince, who reigned Fourteen years, without any effuſion of blood; and without taking away the life of any one, otherwiſe than by the ordinary courſe of Juſtice, which he remarks as a virtue very rare, and without example, ſince Antoninus Philoſophus.

As to the Empreſs Mammea (who is propoſed by ſome, as a Pattern to thoſe to whom the Education of ſuch Princes, which they ſhall have brought into the World, may appertain) he by no means approved of her Government; ſometimes he deſcribed her as an avaritious perſon, that invaded the poſſeſſions of many perſons, by evil and fraudulent means, and ſaies, ſhe was for that reaſon hated by her Son. And then he repreſents her to be ſo proud, that ſhe could not endure her Daughter in Law Augusta, impatient to have the Title of Empreſs given to any but her ſelf, but baniſhed her into Affrick, after having cauſed her Father to be put to death, againſt the conſent of the Emperor; becauſe he made publick complaints of the wrongs, he, and the young Empreſs Auguſta his Daughter had endured by the cruelty of the ſame Mammea: nor was ſhe leſs injurious to her Son, who, when [Page] he regretted the defeat of a Roman Army, which was too far advanced in to the Country of the Parthians, could not but impute the diſhonor of it to her, who on pretext of her care, which perſwaded him not to hazard his perſon, was thereby the occaſion of the loſs of that Army, and all the reproach and infamy that attended it. Not does Herodian aſſign any other cauſe of the death of both the Mother, and the Son, who were aſſaſſinated by the Souldiers, than the hatred they had conceived againſt Mammea, becauſe of her inſatiable avarice and ſhameleſs parcimony, whereby Maximinus was advanced to the Empire.

Lampridius alſo, after having called Mammea a pious Woman, does not refrain from arraigning the impudence of her avarice, for amaſſing together all the Gold and Silver ſhe could gather. And when he relates the aſſ [...]ſſinate of Alexander Severus, he ſaies, that Prince was grievouſly reproached by his Murtherers, with the covetouſneſs of his Mother. And Sextus Aurelius Victor declines not, to have it pronounced to that unfortunate Emperor, at the laſt moment of his life; that the ſame perſon which gave it to him, was the cauſe of his death. And he adds that Mammea had reduced her Son to that extremity, by her frugal humour, that the meat which was untouched at the Table one day, was ſaved to be ſerved to it the day following, to content her, though at beſt it was but meanly furniſhed.

[Page] But though Herodian juſtly blamed Mummea, for her ill conduct in the matter of Government of the State, he very much commends her care for the inſtruction of her Son, excluding from him all depraved perſons, and eſpecially thoſe Peſts of Courts, which flatter the bad inclinations of Princes; and thereby pe [...]vert their nature, and immediately vitia [...]e their underſtandings: ſhe would let none approach him, that were not virtuous in their lives, and of approved behaviour: and ſo diſcreetly regulated his time, that it was chiefly occupied, in imployments worthy of him, not permitting any leiſure for indecent actions, which are begotten and nouriſhed by idleneſs, as their proper Aliment. Certainly theſe wiſe precautions cannot be ſufficiently priſed, and do well deſerve thoſe commendations which are aſcribed to this unhappy Princeſs. Nor was her vigilance, and the great pains ſhe took, to preſerve her Son from ſo vile a Monſter as Heli [...]gabalus (who tried alwaies, to deprive him of his life) leſs praiſe worthy, as our Hiſtorian obſerves. And Lampridius, who, as it was before hinted, commended her piety of life; adds to it, that never any Prince was better educated, than Alexander Severus, in all the exerciſes of peace and War, by the excellent Maſters ſhe provided for him. And he finiſhes his diſcourſe of the life of that Emperor, in ſaying he was of a very good diſpoſition, being the Son of a moſt virtuous Mother. Zoſimus relates that the Animoſity of [Page] the Souldiery, againſt Mammea and her Son, proceeded from her favour to Vlpian the famed Lawyer, preferring him above the Captian of the Emperors Guards, which is no ſmall proof of the zeal ſhe had,He was Secretary of State, to Theodore King of Italy, An. Dom. 584. he writ many Books, and died it a Monaſtery in Calabria, to which he retired: Legra [...] dictionaire de Morere. to maintain the Laws. The Chronologer Caſſiodorus reports, that the piety and reſpect which Alexander had for his Mother Mammea, made him to be beloved by all men. But Euſebius has ſurpaſſed all others in her commendation, extolling her to be a Lady of virtue and piety, in a more religious ſenſe than that of Caſſiodorus, and equal to, if not exceeding therein, all the Women of her time, and he improves that his good opinion of her to us; becauſe of her ſending for Origen from Antioch, to confer with him of the miſteries of Chriſtianity.

What ſhall we then conclude of the bad reports which Herodian writes of her, may we not believe, with Julius Capitolinus, that as he was diſpleaſed with the Government of Alexander Severus, he for that reaſon arraigned the Qualities of his Mother, or rather that in a mixture of virtues and vices wherewith Mammea was taxed, he would ſuppreſs neither of them, to acquit himſelf the better of the duty of an Hiſtorian; which laſt I take to be the moſt equitable opinion.

Though we conſider Herodian in this place, but as an Hiſtorian, Suidas informs us that he writ many other Books, which are not preſerved to our time. He was Originally a Grammarian of Alexandria, and lived in the Three Hundredth year [Page] of Chriſt, the Son of one Apollonius, ſurnamed Difficilis of the ſame profeſſion: and perhaps it is for this reaſon that Ammianus Marcellinus calls him, Artium minutiſſimum ſciſcitatorem. However, he paſſed the beſt part of his life at Rome, in the Courts of the Emperors, where he had the means to inform himſelf (with that curioſity which appears in his writings) of many excellent particulars, which are no where elſe to be found.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF ZOSIMUS.

[Page]

THEY who with Sigonius make no diſtinction, between the Hiſtorian Zoſimus, and Two or Three others of the ſame name, commit in my opinion an inexcuſable fault. For Suidas names Two; the Firſt an Alexandrian, that had, amongſt other his Works, writ the life of Plato; and the Second, of Gaza, or Aſcalon, who commented upon the writings of Demoſthenes, and Lyſias, in the time of the Emperor Anaſtaſius. We ought not therefore to confound this laſt Zoſimus, Lib. 3. with the Hiſtorian, who (as Evagrius expreſsly affirms, in his invective againſt him) lived under Theodoſius the younger. Eccl. Hiſt. Cap. 41. Neither do I know, why we ſhould take the Alexandrian for the ſame Hiſtorian, their writings being quite different, and the Quality of Count, and Advocate of the Treaſury wherewith [Page] the last was dignified, was not attributed to the other by Suidas, who gives him only the Title of Philoſopher. Balthaſar Bonifacius would have it, that the Hiſtorian Zoſimus wrot a Chymical Book of the Tranſmutation of Metals, L. de Rom. hiſt. ſ [...]r. which he heard was kept in that excellent Library Royal of Paris: But he is miſtaken in his conjecture, for the Manuſcript he mentions, which I have examined, is of one Zoſimus, who ſtiles himſelf Panopolitanus, and is indeed a counterfeit name; a practiſe uſual among Chymiſts, who delight ſo to deceive one another, by writings, which they aſcribe falſly, ſometimes to Democritus, ſometimes to Zoſimus, and ſometimes to others, to give them the better Authority. But the Hiſtory of Zoſimus has no reſemblance to thoſe compoſitions. If we may believe Photius, it may have ſome affinity, with Eunapius his Hiſtory of the Caeſars, which Zoſimus is ſaid to have meerly abridged, ſo great a likeneſs there was between one and the other, except in thoſe places where Stilico was concerned, whoſe reputation Zoſimus did not defame as Eunapius did; whereof we might more particularly relate, if the Venetians had made publick the Manuſcript, which we are aſſured they have of Eun [...]pius his Hiſtory.Hiſtor. Eccleſ. l. 3. Zoſimus as Evagrius reports left in his Hiſtory in ſix Books,Cap. 41. whereof the firſt comprehends all the Caeſars from Auguſtus to Probus, and was by the Author continued to Diocletian; but the matter is ſo contracted and ſuccinct that nothing [Page] thing can be more: the Five other Books are larger, eſpecially when he comes to the time of Theodoſius the G [...]eat, and of his Children Arcadius and Honorius, becauſe he then writ of what he had ſeen. He goes but a little beyond the Siege which Alaricus laid to Rome; and the occaſions of diviſion which ſome Sowed between Honorius and him. And indeed we have but the beginning of the Sixth Book, the end being loſt. But I know not upon what Authority Sigonius builds, to aſſert that there was a Seventh Book of Zoſimus his Hiſtory, which was alſo loſt, ſince Photius mentions but Six, and no other perſon ſaies any thing of a Seventh.

We hinted before, that there was an Invective of Evagrius againſt Zoſimus, which may be ſeen more at large in Nicephorus Calliſtus, Lib. 16. Eccl. Hiſt. Photius ſaies indeed that he barks like a Dog, at thoſe of our Chriſtian belief.Cap. 41. & ſe [...]. And few Chriſtian Authors, till Leunclavius who tranſlated his Hiſtory into Latin, made any Apology for him: To ſay the truth although this learned German defends him very pertinently in many things, ſhowing that they were to blame to require of a Pagan Hiſtorian, as Zoſimus was, other thoughts than thoſe he expoſed; or that he ſhould refrain from diſcovering the vices of the firſt Chriſtian Emperors, ſince he alſo had not concealed their virtues: Nevertheleſs it may be ſaid, that, in many places, he expreſſed more Animoſity, in that behalf, than the Laws of Hiſtory do permit. Yet [Page] I think, he had reaſon to reproach Conſtantin, of that impoſition of Chryſargyr or gliſteting Gold, which Anaſtaſius afterwards removed, and that his duty obliged him to arraign his luxury and prodigality: nor was it a fault to have accuſed him, of having made his wife Fauſta to be ſmothered in too hot a Stove, after he had commanded through Jealouſie his own Son Criſpus to be put to death: Perhaps Euſebius writing in this Conſtantine's time, or at the lateſt in that of his Son Conſtantius, durſt not publiſh ſuch bold truths, as it happens to thoſe who expoſe any relations, wherein the Governing powers are intereſſed. Nor is it unknown, that Conſtantine committed ſeveral other actions worthy of blame. He repealed from Exile the Arch Haeretick Arrius, to gratify his Siſter Conſtantia; and baniſht St Athanaſius to Tryers, to the great prejudice of Chriſtianity. But nevertheleſs Zoſimus cannot be excuſed, who as much as in him lay, made an ill interpretation of all the actions of this Prince: who made himſelf a Chriſtian, if you believe him, only becauſe he was told, that Paganiſm had no faculty to waſh away ſo many crimes as he had committed; and therefore he reſolved by the advice of a certain Aegyptian, to imbrace the Chriſtian Religion,Lib. 2. which promiſed an abſolution of all ſorts of offences. But this aſſumption is as if Zoſimus had penetrated into the inward thoughts of Conſtantine, and all thoſe graces with which his Soul might be filled, by [Page] the liberality of Heaven. Moreover, when he ſpeaks of the differences he had with his Brother in Law Licinius, he laies all the blame on him, as one that never kept his word. And he is not content to ſay, that Conſtantin cauſed him to be ſtrangled in Theſſalonica, violating thereby his faith given to the Wiſe of this unhappy perſon; but it was his uſual Stile, to take hold of all occaſions to blaſt his reputation to the world.

And yet it is not on the Subject of Conſtantin alone, that his paſſion is ſeen againſt Chriſtianity. He attributes the fall of the Roman Empire, to the contempt of the Ancient Pagan Religion, and principally to their neglecting in Diocletian's time, the celebration of the ſecular Plays. And to the misfortunes which happened to Gratian, Lib. 2. he aſſigns no other cauſe, than his refu [...]l as a Chriſtian, to be the Pontifex Maximus of the Gentils, for which even Conſtantin, ſaies he, had no averſion. When Theodoſius exhorted the Roman Senate, to quite the worſhip of Idols,Lib. 4. declaring, that he would no more go to the charge of Sacrifices; he put this anſwer into the mouths of all the Senators, that there was no reaſon to oblige them to abandon a Religion, wherein they had proſpered, during Twelve Hundred years, to follow an unreaſonable faith, to which it was intended they ſhould be compelled. The injurious deſcription of the Monathal Order, Lib. 5. which he ſaid, did appropriate to its ſelf all the wealth of the Nation, under a pretext [Page] of making the poor partake of it, is no ſmall proof of his Animoſity. He called that Olympius, an Hypocrite, and wicked man, who was the cauſe of the ruine of Stilico, as well to make him alwaies paſs for innocent, as becauſe the other was a Chriſtian of great eſteem, as may be ſeen by Two Letters, which Saint Auguſtin writ to him. In fine, no perſon, in my opinion, ought to believe him; when he does not only repreſent St John Chryſoſtome, Ep. 124. & 129. as a Seducer of the People; but affirms that Pope Innocent the Firſt, whom he names [...] ur [...]is Epiſcopum, permitted Pagan Sacrifices to be made, for the ſafety of Rome, whilſt Alaricus beſieged it.

Zoſimus his averſion to Chriſtians will be leſs wondered at, when one conſiders what deference he had, to all the Superſtitions of Idolatry, which made him tell many tales; that I ſhould think unworthy of Hiſtory, if I had not already obſerved, that the like are found even in thoſe, who have writ with the greateſt reputation. In the firſt Book, after the taking of Zenobia by Aurelian, he re [...]ites the Oracles, and ſhews the Podigies, which did forerun the ruine, of the Palm [...]renians her Subjects. And in a Famine towards the Rhine, he makes corn enough to fall from Heaven to make bread, and by that means render the legions of the Emperor Probus victorious. The Fable of that Vaeleſius, who was warned by a voice, to Sacrifice to Ceres, [Page] and Proſerpina, is ſeen in his Second Book: And in the Fourth he alledges, that the Sacrifices offered to Achilles by one Neſtorius, defended Athens, and all the Athenian Territory from a great Earth-quake, after the death of Valentinian. In the Fifth, he pretends that the ſame City was again ſaved, by the Apparition of that Hero, and of Minerva who pacified the mind of Alaricus, Ad. Ann. Chr. 395. art. 16. which I leave to the learn [...]d Baronius to refute. He mentions Two Statues, one of Jupiter, and the other of that Daughter of his, to be miraculouſly preſerved from a fire, happening in Arcadius his Reign, in Conſtantinople: and all the misfortunes which overwhelmed the Houſe of S [...]ilico, to proceed from the imprecations of a Veſtal, becauſe his Wife Serena had the temerity to adorn her ſelf, with one of Rhea's attires for the head; and alſo becauſe ſhe took her Collar, the impiety was puniſht with a Cord, wherewith Serena being ſtrangled, ſuffered Death in that part which ſeemed to be moſt culpable.

May it not then be reaſonable to avouch, that infidelity has made Zoſimus write many things, either in favour of his Altars whoſe deſtruction he was unwilling to ſee, or againſt ours which he could not indure, to the prejudice of his Hiſtory: and that we might be therefore induced to deſpiſe it, if it did not contain ſome curious matters, which are not learned elſewhere. And it is certain that laying aſide the exceſs of ſharpneſs and Animoſity, which [Page] he ſhowed againſt the firſt Chriſtian Emperors, it is injuſtice to take it ill, that he noted their defects, when he omitted not, as hath been ſaid, to praiſe their virtues, as may be ſeen, in what he expreſſed, both of Theodoſius, and Conſtantine. Was he not obliged in duty, to reproach the Children of the laſt, with their ſtrange cruelties, in ſpilling the blood of their neareſt Relations? And can we think it ſtrange, that he ſhould exhibit the ſucceſſours of the Firſt in their lively colours? Arcadius, to make the ſame Alluſion, which Leunclavius uſed, was a true Animal of Arcadia. His brother Honorius was no better: and both miſerably poſſeſt by Women, and Eunuchs, who abuſed their Authority, and were the cauſe of ſo many diſgraces in the Roman Empire, that its ruin has not a more certain Epoche, th [...] the time of their dominion. Zoſimus had then been faulty, if he had not inſtructed us in all this, and they are much to blame, who bear him an ill will for having done it.

His Stile is recommendable, in the judgment of Photius, for its purity, and that agreeable ſweetneſs, which ordinarily accompanies that which is writ intelligibly. His ſentences are ſhort, and his phraſe conciſe, as they ought to have been, ſince he brought into a narrower compaſs, what others had more diffuſedly expoſed before him. It is alſo for this reaſon, that Photius obſerves his language to have rarely had any figures, [Page] which are not proper to the manner of writing that he uſed. He likewiſe refrained from Orations, and all thoſe Ornaments which only become high Eloquence: and we cannot but acknowledg, that he is no way comparable to thoſe firſt Hiſtorians which we have already examined.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF PROCOPIUS.

[Page]

PROCOPIUS was a perſon of great fame in the Reign of Juſtinian the Emperor, he was Secretary of Beliſarius, all the time when that renowned General was imploied in the Wars of Perſia, Affrick, and Italy; and deſcribed the actions of many of them. He was both an Oratour and a Rhetorician, and no mean Hiſtorian. His Hiſtory contains Eight Books, Two, of the Perſian War, epitomized by Photius in the Sixty Third Chapter of his Bibliotheca: Two, of the Wars of the Vandals: and Four, of that of the Goths: Of all which there is a kind of Compendium, in the Preface of Agathias, who began his Hiſtory, where Procopius left. But beſides theſe Eight Books, Suidas mentions a Ninth, which comprehends matters not before publiſhed, and he calls it his [...] or inedita, which [Page] is an invective againſt Juſtinian and his Wife Theodora: and thoſe inedita were by Voſſius thought to be loſt; though there have been of late ſome Editions of them, as will hereafter appear.

He is ſaid, to have uſed in his Hiſtory, both oblique and direct Orations, and all ſuch as he believed, might make him approach the method and manner of the Ancients; yet he, as well as Zoſimus, came far ſhort of them. That which induces me to put him in the Rank of the precedent, is, that I conceive, he may paſs, with Agathias who follows next, for the Two laſt Pagan Hiſtorians that have writ in Greek, of whom in our time there remains any thing conſiderable. I know that many take him for a Chriſtian Author: and that in ſome paſſages of his works, eſpecially in the Treatiſe he made of the Edifices of Juſtinian, he ſpeaks like the Chriſtians of his time. But there are other paſſages in his writings, ſo contrary to that doctrine; and the opinion of thoſe that believe he is an Ethnick, is founded upon ſuch ſtrong conſiderations, that I cannot but yeild to it. For not inſiſting upon his ſeeming in many places, to eſteem Fortune a great Goddeſs: and not minding the ſtrange Antimoſity which he ſhewed againſt Juſtinian, grounded partly upon the intereſt of Religion: that place alone in his Firſt Book of the Wars of the Goths, where he ſpeaks of the Ambaſſadors which the Emperor ſent to the Biſhop of Rome, to reconcile the different opinions of Chriſtians, [Page] is ſufficient to undeceive thoſe who conſidered him as a Chriſtian Hiſtorian. [...]. I will not trouble my ſelf, ſaies he, to relate the Subject of ſuch controverſies; (although it is not unknown to me) becauſe I hold it a meer folly to covet to comprehend the Divine Nature, and underſtand what God is. Human wit knows not the things here below, how then can it be ſatisfied in the ſearch after Divinity? I led alone therefore ſuch vain matter, and which the credulity of man only cauſes to be reſpected; contenting my ſelf with acknowledging, that there is one God full of bounty, who governs us, and whoſe power ſtretches over this whole Univerſe. Let every one therefore believe what he thinks fit, whether he be a Prieſt and tyed to Divine Worſhip, or a man of a private and ſecular condition. How could he more plainly deride all our Theology, and the zeal of the Fathers of the Church, who were then buſied in ſuppreſſing the Hereſie of the Arrians, in what relates to the Second perſon of the Trinity? His diſcourſe expreſſes him to be a perfect Deiſt, who thought, as many other Philoſophers have done (and amongſt the reſt that Meliſſus in Heſychius) that one could determin nothing of God but raſhly, and that it was impoſſible to have any knowledg of him. How can it be imagined, that ſuch a man was a Chriſtian, who founded his whole belief of Heavenly matters upon ſuch erronious maxims? If we add to this, the marks of Pagan Superſtition which appear in all his books, we ſhall be hardly [Page] able to diſtinguiſh him from the moſt profane of the Gentils. The Tale he tells in the firſt book of the Perſian War, of the Artifice uſed by ſome of the Magi, to make One Arſaces confeſs the truth, is of this ſtrain. They covered one half of a borded Floor with Perſian Earth, and the other with Armenian, and both of them conjured in ſuch a ſort, that when Arſaces was upon the laſt half which was that covered with his country Earth, he confeſſed all that he had denied upon the other. In the following Book, he relates that ſome military Enſigns turned of themſelves, from the Weſt to the Eaſt, preſaging thereby the calamity wherein the Inhabitants of Antioch fell. He makes King Genzerich, in the firſt Book of the War of the Vandals, to underſtand by the flight of an Eagle upon the head of Martianus, that he ſhould be one day Emperor. And he reports, that Attila ready to quit the Siege of Aquileia, ſtaied his enterpriſe upon ſeeing a Stork carry its young ones out of the City. And in the ſame Book he relates one of his dreams, which was the moſt vain that ſleep could form; and yet to teſtify how much he relyed on it, he confeſſes that nothing but that made him reſolve on his Sea Voyage with Beliſarius. Nor are his Writings concerning the War with the Goths, Lib. 1. leſs exempt from ſuch like ſuperſtition; wherein he makes a Jew foretel, by Thirty Hogs the ruin of the Goths in Italy: and Conſtantin bury in the chief Market-place of the City [Page] (which bears his name) that renowned Palladium of Aeneas, purpoſely tranſported thither from Rome. Which wild relations have no conformity with the purity of Chriſtian Religion.

But ſince we have mentioned ſomething of that ill will Procopius bore to Juſtinian, which he made ſo viſible in his Anecdota, I [...]edita. it is expedient to examin that work a little; becauſe it is the place from whence, thoſe who pretend to defame this Emperor, have alwaies collected their detractions. If we make it apparent that Procopius was much to blame, in writing ſo defamatory a Satyr againſt his Soveraign, to gratify his paſſion; we ſhall at the ſame time render thoſe aſperſions inconſiderable, which others have caſt upon his reputation. The word Anecdota imports that it was a ſecret work, and that the Author thereof had no mind to be known. He is judged to have compoſed it, in the Two and Thirtieth year of the Empire of Juſtinian, and left it imperfect, as well becauſe he repented that he was ſo far tranſported, as for the ſatisfaction he received in his Stipend (which was then paid him) and many other favours which he obtained. He had complained in ſeveral places before that one, that the Salaries of ſuch ſerviceable men as he were detained: and it was an inſupportable grief unto him, to ſee himſelf excluded from thoſe honorable places and imployments above Thirty years, to which others were admitted, whoſe deſert he thought no way equal to [Page] his. Laſtly having been Beliſarius his Secretary, during all the Wars of Perſia, Affrick, and Italy (as it was before mentioned) he was received into the number of the Senators: attained unto the Quality of Illuſtrious, which was given to few men: and to compleat his dignity the Emperor made him Prefect of new Rome, where all offices were inferiour to his. In the mean time his book of Anecdota remained; Suidas makes mention of it, and they who for divers conſiderations have been animated aganſt the memory of Juſtinian, made uſe of it and alledged the matters in it to his prejudice: it was not long ſince printed with Expoſitions and Comments (as bad as the Text they explain) others beſides my ſelf have already indeavoured to confute the abſurdities of it;Thomas Rivius, and Gabriel Trivorius. but it ſhall ſuffice to ſho [...] ſummarily, that all which Procopius has writ of Hiſtory will prove ridiculous, if never ſo little credit be given to the Calumnies of this piece.

He proteſts in the beginning of the Firſt Book of the Perſian War, that he cannot be reaſonably reproached of writing any thing for favour, or to oblige the undeſerving; nor of refraining to ſpeak the truth to ſpare a friend: and acknowledges in the ſame place, that as Eloquence is the object of Rhetorick, and Fable that of Poetry; the knowledg of truth is the only end of Hiſtory. After this declaration what can be ſaid in his excuſe, for having repreſented Juſtinian [Page] in his Hiſtory, as a mighty and moſt virtuous Prince, and in this Libel rendred him the moſt infamous and vicious of men? The fear of offending the Soveraign Powers which is thereupon alledged, cannot qualify ſuch a ſhameful diverſity, nor reconcile ſo manifeſt a contradiction. And Procopius is at the ſame time convinced of having treſpaſſed, againſt the two moſt important Laws of Hiſtory, whereof one forbids the writing of lies, and the other, concealing of a truth which ought to be diſcovered. But for a better underſtanding of this matter it may not be impertinent to proceed to ſome particulars.

It is certain that Procopius ever made very honourable mention of Juſtinian, She was a common Comedian before he married her. and his Wife Theodora in his Hiſtory, although he did it not ſo often as he might. In the Second Book of the War againſt the Perſians, he extols the Emperor for providence joined with ſingular l [...]iety, on the Subject of that great Peſtilence which paſſed from Aegypt to Conſtantinople, where he uſed all poſſible means to allay it. And in his Six Narrations of the Edifices of the ſame Juſtinian, he inceſſantly celebrates his greatneſs of Courage, his devotion, liberality, clemency, and magnificence. That Monaſtery of Penitent Women, whom the Empreſs Theodora withdrew from vice, gives him occaſion to commend her zeal and charity jointly with her Husbands, although he recounts the action otherwiſe in his Anecdota. But he has remembred this Lady in many places of his Hiſtory [Page] with great titles of honour.Lib. 1. de Bello Perſ. When a councel was held to reſiſt the enterpriſes of Hipatius (who had cauſed himſelf to be proclaimed Emperor in Conſtantinople) he makes her argue ſo generouſly that, as he affirms, nothing infuſed ſo much courage into the whole imperial councel, as her Heroical reſolution. And when he deſcribes the ill conditions of that Johannes of Cappadocia who was turned out of his office of Praefect of the Praetorate, he ſaies, he was ſo indiſcreet and raſh, as to ſlander the Empreſs Theodora even in the preſence of Juſtinian, whom he there Stiles a very diſcreet Lady. And though he did not praiſe her in other places of his Hiſtory, he never blamed her. In the end of the Second Book of the Perſian War, he mentions her death, but does not ſpeak ill of her. And in the Third treating of the War of the Goths, he again remembers her deceaſe, which happened at the ſame time that Beliſaerius ſent his Wife Antonina to Court, to forward his affairs there by the favour of the Empreſs, which he relates without uſing the leaſt invective againſt her.

But let us now ſee the reverſe of the Medal, and with how many different colours he draws the Picture of Juſtinian and Theodora, in that extravagant Satyr which we complain of.

To render this Prince the more odious,Pag. 37. he will have him reſemble Domitiaen in his outward form, whoſe memory was ſo much abhorred, that by a Decree of the Senate of Rome, his Statues [Page] wear beat down through the whole Empire, and his name razed out of the publick inſcriptions. But though he is conſtrained in the compariſon he makes of theſe Two Monarchs, to confeſs that Juſtinian was not ill-favoured, yet he likens him in one place to an Aſs, not only for his dulneſs and ſottiſhneſs, but alſo in reſpect of his wagging Ears, which made him be called in a full Theatre [...] that is to ſay Maſter Aſs, Pag. 36. by thoſe of the Praſine Faction whereto he was an Enemy; according to the obſervation of Nicalacis Alemannus, who lately cauſed theſe Anecdota to be printed with Hiſtorical Notes of the ſame kind. Moreover he makes him a Prince, that condemned upon the firſt, and very light information without hearing; and would coldly and without any remorſe, order the razing of places, the ſacking of Cities, and the deſolation of Provinces.Pag. 39. & 59. The love of Women, he ſaies, tranſported him beyond all bounds; and he was an irreconcilable Enemy. He alſo accuſes him to make a ſhow of being a Chriſtian, but that in his heart he eſteemed the Heathen Duities. His prodigality (he writes) eſpecially in building, forced him to aſe ſtrange exactions,Pag. 91. ſo that beſides the extraordinary Tolls, he drew from the Prefect of his Tribunal of Juſtice, a tribute, which he himſelf called in a ſcoffing manner an Airy Lap, becauſe it had no other foundation than his covetous and Tyrannical humour. His light mind was ſuſceptible of all impreſſions except [Page] humanity. He never kept his word, but when it was to his advantage:Pag. 60. and was ſo tranſported with flattery, that nothing made him affect Tribonianus ſo much, as hearing of him once ſay, that he feared his extream piety would make Heaven ſteal him from the Earth on a ſudden, and when it was leaſt thought of. Laſtly, it ſeemed, if this Character of him was true, that Nature had took pleaſure to inſtil into the Soul of this Monarch, all the defects which are capable to defame the reſt of Mankind. And the more eaſily to betray thoſe they had a mind to ruin, his Empreſs and he laid this Snare, they feigned to be alwaies at diſcord, ſo that the one to compaſs their deſign, ſided with thoſe of the blew Livery, the other openly favoured the contrary party namely the Green, which were the Two factions of that time. They were both of them ſo impious ſaies this Detractor, that many perſons to inſinuate themſelves into their eſteem, ſeemed to be wicked and have all their inclinations bent to vice. And amongſt thoſe who knew them ſo well as Procopius, Pag. 56. they paſſed for no other than Devils Incarnate, and true Furies inveſted with humanity, more conveniently to infeſt human kind, incenſe Nations one againſt the other, and turn all the world upſide down. It is certain, as he pretends, that the Mother of Juſtinian often confeſſed, that he was not begotten by her Huſband Sabbatius, but an Incubus who lay with her. And as for Theodora, they who loved her [Page] while ſhe was a Comedian, Lib. 58. reported that Demons or Nocturnal Spirits often forced them from her, to take their places in her bed. That part of the book which for ſhame was cut off, from the One and Fortieth, and Two and Fortieth Pages of the printed Anecdota, was ſent to me from Rome, wherein Procopius renders this Woman Author of actions ſo ſtrangely incontinent, that I think no body has reaſon to envy the Vatican Library the Original entire, and that ſuch abominations were never heard off. But let this that has been writ, ſuffice for a brief deſcription of Justinian and Theodora, acco [...]ng to the lineaments wherein Procopius has repreſented them, in that infamous work which diſcred is all the reſt we have of his. I ſhall not inlarge on what Nicephorus Bartholus, Johannes Faber, Gennadius, and ſeveral others have written of Juſtinian, who report that he was ranked amongſt the Saints, aſſigning even the Calends of Auguſt for his holy day. But though he and his Empreſs had been the moſt vicious perſons in the World, Procopius ought not to have been ſo unlike to himſelf, and ſo unfaithful to truth, as to ſpeak of them ſo as he did, overthrowing the Faith of his Hiſtory in his book of Antidota: and that of Anecdota, in his Treatiſe of the Edifices of Juſtinian, which is the laſt of his works. But without undertaking to refute ſo many calumnies, what appearance is there to accuſe this Emperor of cruelty, after he had given the world a proof [Page] of his clemency, by his gentle uſage not only of the Vandal Kings, but of Vi [...]ges, and Gilimer, thoſe very Subjects who had conſpired againſt his perſon and Government. Johannes de Cappadocia his prefect, and the valiant Captain Artaban [...] convicted of perfidiouſneſs, eſcaped with impriſonment only, and the Laſt in a ſhort time was reſtored to his offices, and the favour of that Prince, from whom he would have taken both life and Empire. I know that he is reproached for having been too ſevere to Beliſarius. Yet we read nothing of it in Procopius, who in all likelihood would not have concealed it. Agathias writes plainly that thoſe who envied this great Captain, were the cauſe that his ſervices were not worthily rewarded, without ſpeaking one word either of the condemnation, or confiſcation of his goods.Lib. 3. Hiſt. cap. 32. Gregory of Tours alledges, that Juſtinian was neceſſitated to ſubſtitute in his place the Eunuch Norſes in Italy, becauſe he was too often defeated there by the French, adding that to humble him, the Emperor reduced him to his firſt place of Conſta le, which could not be ſo conſiderable at Conſtantinople, aa it was not long ſince in France. Some, but petty writers of no Authority, affirm that being reduced to extream miſery, he was forced to beg; but that muſt be accounted as a Fable: and on the contrary we may obſerve in his perſon the bounty of his Prince, who having heaped riches and Honours on him, never treated him worſe, although endeavours [Page] were thrice uſed to render him ſuſpected of deſigning to be maſter of the State. It is alſo ſtrange that he upbraids Juſtinian with his buildings, who writ a book purpoſely in their commendation, and who deſcribing the lofty ſtructure of ſo many Churches, Hoſpitals, and Monaſteries, did no leſs admire the Piety, than the magnificence of their Founder. Evagrius attributes unto him the reparation or re-eſtabliſhment of a Hundred and Fifty Cities; But I ſee no reaſon for this to be imputed to his diſadvantage. Nor has the love of Women, for which his reputation is blemiſhed, any better foundation. For though he may be blamed, for having ingaged himſelf ſo far in the affection of Theodora, as to extort from his Predeceſſor Juſtin, new laws in favour of Actreſſes, that ſhe might be qualified to marry him; we cannot therefore accuſe him, like Procopius, for having abandoned his thoughts to Women, without ſpecifying any particulars, when neither his own Hiſtory, or any other mentions thoſe Ladies to whom he was ſo paſſionately addicted; and who doubtleſs would have prevailed on his weakneſs, if he had been ſo fond on that ſide, as the Anecdota would make it be believed. I could not forbear to manifeſt in ſome ſort, the abſurdity of theſe Two or Three heads of accuſation, by which one may judge of the reſt, though they were not confuted either by themſelves, or by what we had obſerved before we propoſed them.

[Page] I muſt nevertheleſs, add this only word on the Subject of the Stupidity of Juſtinian, that though he had wagging Ears as the Satyr applies to him, he was never ſo blockiſh as he repreſents him.

The truth is, a fault which was committed a a Hundred and Fifty years ago, by one Chalcondylius that then printed Suidas by a corrupt Copy, where the name of Justinian paſſed for that of Juſtin, Anecd. Pag. 28. with the Surname of [...] an illiterat man, which even Procopius attributes only to the laſt, who could not ſo much as write his name; has made worthy men miſtake: amongſt which Alciatus and Budaeus, when upon this falſe Authority, which all the Vatican Manuſcripts contradict, they ranked Juſtinian with the moſt ignorant Princes that ever were. I was curious to ſee in the King of France his Library, Three other Manuſcripts of Snidas which are there, to aſſure me of the miſtake which happened in that impreſſion: Two of the beſt account were very correct, and aſcribe this ignorance to Juſtin alone (who was known to be a mean keeper of Oxen, before he bore Arms by which he attained to the Empire) but the Third was falſe, and in that Juſtinian was called Juſtin, which ſhews that the Impreſſion before mentioned probably followed a Copy, as erronious as the printed Book. In the mean time it is notorious, that Juſtinian had made a great progreſs in learning, under his Tutor the Abbot Theophilus. [Page] Many Books are aſcribed unto him by Iſidorus and others. Caſſiodorus his letters ſtile him moſt learned. And this obſervation has been alſo made, that many crowned Heads at the ſame time made profeſſion of Philoſophy, Choſroes in Perſia, the unfortunate Theodahatus in Italy, and our Juſtinian at Conſtantinople; which plainly diſcovers the injury that is done him, by thoſe tearms of ſtupid and ignorant.

Though Procopius is to blame for having yeilded ſo much, to his particular reſentments againſt Juſtinian, the reading of his Hiſtory is of great moment, becauſe we can learn from no other, what he delivers as an Eye-witneſs, of the Wars of this Emperor in Perſia, of the Vandals in Affrick, and of the Goths in Italy. It was that which made Leonard Aretin commit the crime of a Plagiary (for we have no other tearm to ſignifie that ſort of theft) when he had a mind to publiſh their Hiſtory in Latin. For being not able to learn almoſt any thing of them elſewhere, he reſolved to Tranſlate the Three books of Procopius into the Roman Language; dividing them into Four by making Two of the laſt, and reſcinding in ſome places, what he judged leſs important to his Country, and adding ſomething in others; as the burning of the Capitol by Totilas, by whom as Procopius affirms, ſo much of Rome was not conſumed by fire, as Aretin reports. In the mean time he is contented to ſay in his Preface, that he uſed ſome Forreign Commentaries, [Page] or Greek relations, not naming the perſon of whom he is meerly a bad tranſlater, by an affected forgetfulneſs which cannot be too much condemned. We have already in our foregoing Sections, exclaimed upon thoſe who counterfeit Authors, aſcribing books to perſons that never thought upon making of them. And certainly it is a great point of infidelity thus to deceive as much as one can even all mankind: But as this vice is very great, I find that of a Plagiary which is the contrary, and takes away inſtead of giving, to be much the more ſhameful: becauſe there is nothing more vile or infamous than to ſteal, and they who apply to themſelves other mens labours, confeſs their own inability to produce ſomething of value. But to return to Procopius, he was acquainted under Beliſarius, with almoſt all the ſecrets of State of that Age, which renders his Hiſtory of great weight. But the exceſſive zeal which he has for this General, makes Bodin amongſt others, accuſe him of too much partiality towards him. Thus Eginard is reproved for having alwaies flattered Charlemagne; Euſebius, Constantine; Paulus Jovius, Coſmodi Medici; Sandoual Charles the Fifth; and ſeveral others, the Princes whom they affected to oblige at the expence of truth. It is certain that Procopius never ſpeaks but to the advantage of Beliſarius; he illuſtrates all his actions, and rather chuſes to ſuppreſs a part of the ſucceſſes which he recites,Pag. 58. than to write any thing which [Page] might any waies blemiſh the reputation of his Hero. I ſhall produce one ſingle inſtance, and ſuch a one that I think is not to be marched in any other Hiſtorian, the place is in his Second Book of the War of the Vandals, where, after the Oration of Beliſarius to his Souldiers, and Two others of his Adverſary Stozas; Procopius writes that the Troops of the former revolting, forced their Chiefs to retire into a Temple where they were all killed. He was obliged in reaſon to ſignifie thereupon what became of Beliſarius, who one would think was maſſacred with the reſt. But becauſe it was an unhappy event, without telling how he came off; Procopius adds only, that Juſtinian upon this ill news diſpatched away his Nephew Germanus, who came and took poſſeſſion of the command of the Armies in Affrick; and not ſaying the leaſt word of Beliſarius, he makes his narration ſo lame that the Reader knows not where he is. The Latin Text is a little deffective here, having not all which is read in the Greek, yet this fault we ſpeak of appears alſo in that verſion.

This puts me in mind of another place, in the Second Book alſo of the War of the Goths, where upon a meer Letter of Beliſarius to Theodebert King of France, he quits the purſuit of his victories in Italy, and returns haſtily into his Country. He acknowledged his fault, ſaies he, and his temerity, as ſoon as he had read the Letter of Beliſarius, returning with all ſpeed to [Page] France: as if this powerful Monarch came thither like a raw Schollar, without having well conſidered what he did; and the Rhetorick of Beliſarius had obliged him and all his Councel, to abſent themſelves for want of a reply. Certainly there is a great defect of judgment in this paſſage, and Aretin had reaſon to ſupply ſomething of his own in this place, ſaying that hunger and want of victuals made the Victorious French return into their Countries. He might have added ſickneſs, according to the relation of Gregory of Tours who ſpeaks of this retreat. I find moreover,Lib. 3. Hiſt. cap. 32. that our Hiſtorian makes Theodebert Author of an action, which does not agree with what he had ſaid a little before of him, namely that the French were the men of the world, who violated their Faith the moſt; when the letter of Beliſarius, which upbraids that Prince with nothing elſe but not obſerving Treaties, had nevertheleſs ſuch power over him. An Author of more judgment would not have ſaid ſo, nor have raſhly offended a whole Nation, with the like Animoſity wherewith the Romans declaim againſt the Greek and Punick Faith, at the ſame time when they themſelves were the moſt unfaithful, that ever had been, to all Nations of the World. I muſt, before I leave that place where Procopius ſpoke ſo ill of the French, do the Nation reaſon, by remarking with how much malice and abſurdity, he makes them in the ſame place, become Maſters of the Camp of the Goths, [Page] and of that of the Grecians Romanized, as it were by a ſurprize, although they exceeded the number of a Hundred Thouſand: as if their Army deſcended from Heaven upon the heart of Italy, like Graſhoppers, which a boyſterous Tempeſt of wind tranſports ſometimes, from one Region to another. But ſince we reprove him of having been too partial, let us ſtop here the courſe of the zeal, which we have for our Anceſtours, Meaning the French. that it may not be judged exceſſive.

To conclude, I think that Procopius deſerves to be read attentively, eſpecially in conſideration of the things which he alone treats of with an exact knowledge. And that beſides a great diſcretion is to be uſed in reading of him, to diſcern the good things from the bad, and the defects, whereof we have produced Examples, from what he has writ more judiciouſly. He was of Caeſarea in Palaeſtine, from whence he came to Conſtantinople, in the time of the Emperour Anastaſius, whoſe eſteem he obtained, as well as that of Juſtin the Firſt, and Juſtinian. Suidas after he had given him the Surname of Iluſtrious, calls him Rhetorician and Sophiſter, as truly he ſeems to have been to much for an Hiſtorian. He is diffuſed, but with a Copiouſneſs more Aſiatick than Athenian, which has often in it more ſuperfluity than true Ornament. Photius only inſerted in his Library, as was before mentioned, [Page] an abſtract of the Two Books of the War againſt the Perſians, Cap. 160. although he made ſome mention of the reſt. He diſtinguiſhes him elſewhere, from another Procopius Surnamed Gazeus, who lived in the ſame time of Juſtinian, and who alſo was a Rhetorician by Profeſſion. If I durſt follow the judgment of one of the men of this Age,M. Gueit. who has the greateſt inſight into the Greek Tongue; I ſhould willingly be of his mind, that the Book of Anecdota is a ſuppoſed work, and falſely aſcribed to the Hiſtorian Procopius. For that which is really his, is writ in a Stile much different from that of this Satyr, and has much more of the Air of Ancient Greece. But becauſe even they who have writ againſt the Anecdota, ſeem to agree, that they are his to whom they are imputed, I was obliged to make the precedent Reflections, and to treat Procopius upon this Foundation, more to his diſadvantage than I had othewiſe done. It is true, that at the ſame time I end this Section, an Epiſtle of Balthaſar Boniface to the Clariſſimo Molini, which I read even now, hinders me from repenting of what I did. It is printed at the end of his judgment upon thoſe who wrot the Roman Hiſtory. And becauſe they did not mention the Anecdota in the Chapter of Procopius, he takes occaſion to declare his opinion to that Noble Venetian in the ſaid Letter. He appears to be no leſs concerned than I, at ſuch an inſolent invective. And [Page] wonders, as I did, that Rivius, and they who undertook to anſwer it, never thought of conſidering it as a ſuppoſed piece, although he himſelf comes to no determination therein, being only content to declare how much he ſuſpects it.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF AGATHIAS.

[Page]

I HAVE as much reaſon to doubt of the Religion of Agathias, as I had of that of Procopius. For when he ſpeaks, in the beginning of his Hiſtory, of the French of his time; he praiſes them amongſt other things, for being all Chriſtians, and becauſe they entertained (as he adds) very good thoughts of God. But when he gives a reaſon in his Third Book, why the fortreſs of Onogoris Situate in Colchis, was called in his time the Fort of St Stephen; he reports, that this Protomartyr was ſtoned to death in that Place, uſing the term [...] as they ſay, or as it is ſaid; from whence many draw a ſtrong proof of his infidelity. The moſt common opinion alſo, founded as well on this paſſage, as on ſome others, liſts him in the number of the Gentils; although he never railed any more than [Page] Procopius, againſt Chriſtianity; as moſt Pagan Hiſtorians did in imitation of Zoſimus. The time wherein theſe Two lived, not favouring Paganiſm, is perhaps the only cauſe. He himſelf declares in his Preface, that Murina a City of Aſia, was the place of his Nativity; which he diſtinguiſhes from another of Thrace, bearing the ſame name. His Father was called Memnonius; and he profeſſed the Law, pleading at the Judicatories of Smyrna in Quality of an Advocate, as Suidas reports; whence he had the Surname of Scholaſti [...]us: becauſe the places where the Roman Laws were taught, then went under the name of Schools, as they are even at this time in ſome places called. He confeſſes that Poetry was the Miſtris of his firſt affections, which led him to write many ſmall Poems in Heroick Verſe, that he publiſhed under the Title of Daphnicks. And there are certain of his Epigrams collected by divers hands, whereof, I believe, many are ſeen in the Greek Anthology under his name. And this renders his Stile ſo agreeable and Florid, having undertook Hiſtory, by the advice of Eutychianus the Firſt Secretary of State, as approaching in this reſpect to, and bordering (as he tearms it) upon Poetry. Sigonius and Verderius were of another mind concerning his writing, and that very different from this opinion, liſting him amongſt the loweſt and impureſt writers. But they were not only miſtaken in Agathias his Stile; but have been accuſed for ſeveral [Page] other raſh judgments; ſo that I have been conſtrained many times hitherto, to follow ſome more equitable cenſures than theirs. He began not to write till after the death of Juſtinian, in the Reign of Juſtin the Second, as he himſelf declares in his Preface, beginning his Hiſtory where Procopius left. And I doubt not, but that great Stateſman Eutychianus, who put him upon ſo high an Enterpriſe, and who was his intimate friend, furniſhed him with many rare pieces and Memorials of conſequence, to make him ſo ſucceſsful as he has been. There are Letters and Direct Orations in all his Books; as that of Narſes in the Two Firſt; of Aetes in the Third; of the Deputies of Colchos in the Fourth; of Beliſarius in the Fifth. And not content to penetrate into the Councels, and to diſcover the principal cauſes of events, he frequently gives his judgment thereupon: and contrary to the cuſtom of Xenophon and Caeſar, who never declare what they think of things, he delivers his opinion of matters; and therein imitates ſome great Authors, who were not of the mind of theſe we mention.

Although Agathias highly commends Procopius; he does not refrain from following opinions very contrary to his, and even reproves him ſometimes, for having given unreaſonable conjectures: of which there are many examples; the moſt conſiderable whereof, is that which he ſaid to the advantage of the French, in his Firſt Book, [Page] againſt the infamous reproach which Procopius had caſt upon them, of being the moſt unfaithful of men. Agathias on the contrary, after he had ſhown that they were very polite and civil, as they who already made uſe of the Roman Laws almoſt in all things, adds, that they were to be eſteemed for nothing ſo much, as the exact juſtice they obſerved without exception, their Kings themſelves being not exempted from it; whereby they lived in an admirable Union. Certainly, beſides that juſtice is a tranſcendent virtue, and which comprehending all others, cannot ſubſiſt without fidelity; nothing is more contrary to it, than breach of word of Faith, and conſequently Agathias could not more reaſonably contradict Procopius, nor make better amends for the wrong he had done the French Nation.

It is obſervable, that notwithſtanding theſe Two Hiſtorians had ſuch oppoſite thoughts in what concerned us,The French. they agreed in what related to the greatneſs and independence of our Kings. Procopius acknowledges, in the Third Book of the Gothiſh War, that They, and the Roman Emperors, were the only Monarchs in the World, who had the priviledge to ſtamp their Images on golden Coin; ſo that even the King of Perſia, who had ſuch glorious Titles, durſt not attempt to do the like. Agathias alſo ſpeaking of King Theodebert, ſaies, that he was ſo much offended to ſee, that the Emperor Juſtinian aſſumed among other Titles, that of Francious; as if he had [Page] conquered the French, and held ſome right of ſuperiority over them; that for this conſideration alone he reſolved to go and ſubdue Thrace, lay Siege to Conſtantinople, and overthrow the Roman Empire, whereof that City was then the Capital. I know that the ſame Agathias calls that deſign raſh, preſuppoſing that Theodebert would have periſhed in ſo bold, or, to uſe his tearm, in ſo furious an Enterpriſe. Nevertheleſs he confeſſes, that this King had brought it to ſuch a paſs; that if he had not been killed, as he was hunting a wild Bull, nothing had retarded him in it: and God knows, whither the event would have anſwered the conjectures of Our Hiſtorian. But we may ſay that theſe are unreproachable teſtimonies, of the abſolute power of the French Monarchy, which never acknowledged any Superiour but God (and according to the words of a good Gaule to Alexander) any thing but Heaven to be above it.

To return to the reflections of Agathias, very different from thoſe of Procopius, which ſeem to have the force of argument wholly on their ſide, we will examine a very remarkable place of his Fourth Book. Where he cannot endure that Procopius, not content to ſay that Arcadius left his Son Theodoſius, and Empire, to the protection of Iſdigerdes King of Perſia (which no Author worthy of credit ever writ before him) ſhould moreover praiſe the action, as if it were full of prudence: and add, that although Arcadius was not [Page] very diſcreet in other things, yet in this he ſhewed wiſdom, and demeaned himſelf very prudently. This, ſaies Agathias, is judging of things by their ſucceſs, as the vulgar alwaies do; but weighing them with reaſon, it will be found, that a Soveraign never did any thing more blameworthy, than this Declaration of Arcadius: for he ſeemed in it to make a Wolfe Gardian of a Sheep, truſting his Son and State in the hands of their greateſt Enemy; through a confidence which though it is ſometimes tolerable in private men, was not ſufferable when the ſafety of a young Monarch lay at ſtake, and the preſervation of a Crown by ſo much the more envied, as it pretended to give Laws to all others. Methinks, every one ought to yeild to this opinion of Agathias, and conclude with him, that in the event of this Tuition, happy as it appeared, there is more reaſon to admire the goodneſs and integrity of the King of Perſia, than the wiſdom of the Emperor Arcadius.

Amongſt many very remarkable things found in the Five Books of the Hiſtory of Agathias, particular notice is to be taken, not only of what he ſaies of the following Oriental Monarchies, towards the end of the Second; but chiefly of what he adds in the Fourth, concerning the ſucceſſion of the Kings of Perſia, ſince Artaxares who reſtored the Empire to them, from whoſe hands the Parthians had taken it, and placed it in their own. For beſides his care and induſtry [Page] to handle this matter well, the authority of one Sergius an Interpreter is of great weight, who had from the Annalists and Library-keepers of the Perſian Kings, all that this Hiſtorian delivers unto us. Wherefore doubtleſs, he had reaſon to correct the writings of Procopius, by the Records wherewith this Interpreter had furniſhed him, and to prefer them before all other relations; becauſe they that deſcribe the Hiſtory of their o [...]n Country, are rather to be believed than ſtrangers, eſpecially if their diſcourſe be grounded on ſuch Authentick Pieces, as were thoſe of the Publick Archives, Places where Ancient Records were kept. which were communicated unto Sergius. Thus we have finiſhed all we purpoſed, on the firſt part of our Enterpriſe; and ſhall procceed to the Second, which is to conſider the writings of the moſt conſiderable of the Latin Hiſtorians, which remain of the Ancients.

THE SECOND PART▪ BEING REFLECTIONS upon the Writings OF THE LATIN HISTORIANS.

[Page]

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF CRISPUS SALUSTIUS.

[Page]

[Page]

THE ſame reaſon which induced me to give Herodotus, the firſt place amongſt the Greek Hiſtorians, obliges me to allow the ſame rank, amongſt the Latin, to Criſpus Saluſtius, although there have been ſome much more Ancient than he. For it is known that Ennius had writ Eighteen Annals in Heroick Verſe long before him: and that Nevius in the ſame Age deſcribed the firſt Punick War, in another ſort of Verſe called Saturnian. Fabius Pictor was the firſt of the Romans (as Voſſius obſerves) that compiled a Hiſtory in Latin [Page] Proſe. Poſthumius Albinus, Caſſius Hemina, and C. Fannius, whom Saluſt celebrates for true Hiſtorians, writ after him. And Cato with his Origines Hiſtoricae, Sempronius, Vaelerius Antias, and Quadrigarius (ſo often quoted by Aulus Gellius) may be all ſaid to have preceded Saluſt in this ſort of writing. But ſince there remains to us nothing of their works, but the grief for the loſs of them (the Hiſtories of Fabius, Cato, and Sempronius delivered unto us by Annius of Viterbum, being all counterfeit, by an impoſture which we have already complained of more than once) is it not juſt to begin this our Second Enterpriſe with Saluſt, from whom we have Entire pieces of Hiſtory, and other Fragments which all learned men reſpect? I know that Julius Caeſar is as Ancient as he, and that ſome even affirm, that Saluſt though Elder, died Seven years after the murder of this Emperor. It cannot be a fault to give precedence in this place, now he is dead, to One that he could never indure while he lived. The name of Commentaries rather than Hiſtory which his works bear, invites me to it: And the language of Saluſt (that is raxed with the Air of Antiquity, and affectation of the old words of Cato) may be another Motive, in which alſo the judgment of Martial (which all the world alledges in his favour) very plainly concurs:

Hic erit,

Mart. in Apop [...].

ut perhibent doctorum corda virorum,

Criſpus Romanâ primus in Hiſtoriâ.

[Page] Beſides the reproach made him by Aſinius Pollio, A. Gell. l. 1. c. 15. for having too much affected that old way of writing, which Cato uſed in his Origines, the quite contrary vice is imputed to him (Viz.) of making too many new words; Audacious Tranſlations, as Suetonius calls them; and Phraſes purely Greek;L. 9. inſt. cap. 3. Whereof Quintilian gives this Example, Vulgus amat fieri. Moreover he is accuſed of having been too conciſe in his expreſſions, thereby rendering his Stile obſcure and difficult, as ſhortneſs ordinarily confines upon obſcurity. Wherefore the ſame Quintilian inſtructs young men to read Livy more than Saluſt; L. 2. inſt. c. 5. & l. 4. c. 2. and charges them to avoid carefully, that broken and contracted way of writing, of which Saluſt made a perfection; and which is truly very agreeable in him: but we ought not to propoſe it to our ſelves for imitation, becauſe it may render us inſenſibly leſs intelligible, which is very contrary to true Eloquence. We learn alſo from divers paſſages of Aulus Gellius, L. 3. c. 1. l. 4. c. 15. [...] l. 10. c. 20. that many perſons in his time, found fault with the Education of Saluſt; though it appears ſufficiently, that he himſelf was not diſpleaſed with it: for he calls him in one place, Subtiliſſimum brevitatis Artificem, and in another, Proprietatum in verbis retinentiſſimum, L. 11. ep. 1 [...]4. Seneca likewiſe, whoſe [...]tile fitted to his Philoſophical profeſſion, is wonderful ſhort and interrupted, does not forbear to rail at the affectation of one Aruntius, who in his Hiſtory of the Punick Wars, took great pains to expreſs [Page] it in the very terms of Saluſt. He cenſures his too frequent repetition of the word hyemare, and of Famas in the plural ſignifying Fame, and ſome other expreſſions which were read in Aruntius. But nevertheleſs he writes, that in the time of Saluſt, obſcure brevity, and cut periods, which left men to gueſs at the ſenſe, paſſed for an Ornament of language; Saluſtio vigente, amputatae ſententiae, L 5. Satur. c. 1. & verba ante expectatum cadentia, & obſcura brevitas, fuere pro cultu. But do we not ſee that Macrobius many Ages after, under the Authority of one of Euſebius his Entertainments, makes Saluſt reign in the conciſe way of writing; that is, he rendered himſelf ſo conſiderable in it, that no body thereupon could diſpute the firſt rank with him.

Becauſe the word brevity is equivocal, and many perſons ſpeak of Tacitus, and Saluſt, as of Authors equally brief; it may be convenient to declare, of what great conſequence it is, not to confound their Stile as agreeing, when they are very different. It cannot be denied that Tacitus followed Saluſt in a cloſe way of writing, which both uſed; wherein they may be ſaid ſomewhat to reſemble one another. And in this all thoſe agree that have conſidered the Stile of the Ancients; and even Tacitus himſelf acknowledges, how much he eſteemed that of Saluſt, L. g. hiſt. when he called him Rerum Romanarum florentiſſimum Auctorem, which made him imitate him. But it cannot be affirmed that this Laconick expreſſion, [Page] which is common to them both, makes them equal in the reſt, and can make them paſs for as correct Hiſtorians one as the other: for to ſpeak properly, a ſuccinct way of writing does not ſo much contribute to make an exact brief Hiſtorian; as when the matter whereof he writes is ſuch, that nothing can be taken from it, without a prejudice to his Subject, and the ſpoyling of his work. Tacitus is admitted to be an Author correct, and brief in his Phraſe, by the impoſſibility there is to cut of the leaſt word of his compoſition, without neceſſarily diminiſhing his thoughts, and doing a notable injury to his narration. But it is not ſo with Saluſt, who though he ſtraightens his Stile, puts many things into his Hiſtory, which are not eſſential to it, and may be ſevered from it without diſtracting his deſign,Lib. 4. de re Poet. Cap. 24. or wronging the conduct of it, according to the obſervation of Julius Scaliger.

We have but parcels of the principal Hiſtory of Saluſt, the beginning whereof was at the foundation of Rome: but Two intire pieces of his remain, Catilines conſpiracy, and the War againſt Jugurtha; from whence may be drawn ſufficient proofs of what I have ſaid of him. As for the firſt, though ſmall, it has Two Prefaces, whereof that which precedes, and is a moſt excellent Declamation againſt idleneſs, may nevertheleſs be called a true Saddle for all Horſes; becauſe, as Quintilian well obſerved, it has nothing which relates to his Hiſtory, nor any thing which [Page] renders it more proper for this than any other compoſition. It is followed by a deſcription of the good and bad conditions of Cataline in Three or Four periods. And from thence he paſſes to the Second Preface, finding himſelf obliged, as he ſaies, by the immorality of Cataline, to deſcribe the virtues of the firſt Romans, and that which made them degenerate in his time. To this end he begins no nearer, than at the foundation of Rome by the Trojans, when the Fugitive Aeneas with the reſt, came to diſpute, that part of Italy where it is founded, with the Aborigines. He afterwards ſhews how it was governed by Kings, who were depoſed for their pride, and how it became great in a ſhort time, by the virtue of the Inhabitants, He inſiſts upon the Wars they waged with the Carthaginians, the ſlackning of Diſcipline which happened ſince; and the civil Diſſentions of Marius and Sylla, which had like to have made the Republick deſolate. All this he relates to come at length to Catilines time, the moſt corrupted of all; and which ſeemed to invite that bad Citizen to enterpriſe his conſpiracy. Wherefore methinks, it cannot be properly ſaid, that he who takes occaſion to write, though very well, ſo many things, before he enters upon his chief purpoſe, affects brevity. The Preface of the Jugurthine War is no nearer to its Subject. It is an Invective againſt thoſe, whom Vice and Riot divorted from imbracing thoſe occupations of the mind, wherewith Nature had ſufficiently endowed [Page] them. He pretends not to be of that number; and therefore judging it in no wiſe convenient, conſidering the corruption of the Age, to intereſs himſelf in the Government of the State, he declares he will endeavour to be uſeful to it, by the imployment he undertakes of writing Hiſtory; and will begin with that of the Wars which the Romans had againſt Jugurtha. But we cannot better ſhow, with what liberty he inlarges upon all he thought, might render his work more agreeable, than by the Digreſſion of thoſe Two Brothers named the Philani, who died ſo gloriouſly, for the love of their Country: and that upon the pretext alone of Two Deputies of the little City of Leptes, ſituate between the Two Syrtes, who came to Metellus after the taking of Thala; where he takes occaſion to ſay, that he thinks fit to relate a Notable action, which happened in the ſame Country, of Two Young Men of Carthage, who buried themſelves alive to increaſe the Territory of their Nation. And thereupon he makes a curious deſcription of the State differences, and Wars, which the Cyrenians heretofore had with the Carthaginians concerning their limits, and how they agreed upon a courſe, wherein the Two Philaeni, after an extream diligence, were contented for the good of their Country, to take ſo generous a reſolution. It is certain that the War of Jugurtha might have been deſcribed as well without this Digreſſion; and if Saluſt had affected to be conciſe in his [Page] Hiſtory, he would doubtleſs have forborne it. Which induces me to affirm, that though his Expreſſion or Phraſe was very ſhort, as was that of Tacitus, it does not reſtrain him from being large like Livy, in the body of his Hiſtory, who uſes not ſuch confined expreſſions. And perhaps Servilius Nonianus had no other meaning, when he ſpoke theſe words mentioned by Quintilian, Viz. that Saluſt and Livy were rather equal than alike, Lib. 10. inſt. c. 1. pares eos magis eſſe quam ſimiles, becauſe both of them handled their Subjects very diffuſedly though in different manner.

I ſhall be very ſorry if it be thought, that by marking this Digreſſion of Saluſt, I ſeek to condemn it. It ſeems to me very agreeable; and I am of the opinion, that no ſort of Epiſodes are to be blamed, unleſs when they are unreaſonably uſed: not would I be underſtood to arraign him for what I have related concerning his Phraſe and expreſſion, either as too new, or too old, deſiring not to be of the number of thoſe that cenſure a whole work, for a word which diſpleaſes them. It is good to avoid as much as one can, that form of ſpeech which is out of uſe, or which is not enough uſed: and perhaps Saluſt in the time he writ, was juſtly reproved upon that account, conſidering the authority of his Accuſers. But we ought not to be too ſcrupulous in that point, and I deſire thoſe that are ſo nice, that they cannot ſuffer any thing in language, that grates them never ſo little, to conſider what Dion Chryſoſtomus, [Page] one of the moſt celebrated Oratours of Greece, Orat. 22. obſerves, when he deſcribes the incomparable Eloquence of Homer. He ſaies that he freely uſed all Dialects, and as a Painter mixes his Colours, he agreeably mingled the Dorick, Attick, and Ionick Dialects, He made no difficulty to imploy a ſignificant term, were it never ſo Ancient, and not commonly approved of; and therefore Dion compares him to thoſe who have found a Treaſure, and ſell old pieces of Gold and Silver, whoſe worth is eſteemed becauſe of their intrinſick valew, though they are not currant coin. And where he found energy and grace, though in new and barbarous words, he compoſed them, ſaies he, freely in his verſes; as often as there was occaſion to expreſs, the murmure of running Waters, the noiſe of Winds, or ſome ſuch reſemblance. In the mean time (adds this Great Oratour) whatever liberty Homer took, he is acknowledged to be the moſt eloquent of all Poets, and the Prince of thoſe of his Profeſſion. And we ought to give the like judgment of the Eloquence of Hiſtory or Oratory, as Dion does of that of Homer; but becauſe I have inſiſted upon it largely enough in another Treatiſe, I ſhall ſay no more of it here.

To return to Saluſt, it is no wonder that he was diſcommended for his Stile,Vell. Patere. in voce Zenobius, ſince Thucydides, whom he had propoſed to himſelf for a Rule and Prototype, was not free from cenſure. Yet this did not hinder Zenobius a Greek Sophiſter, [Page] who lived in the time of Adrian the Emperour, from taking the pains to tranſlate the Hiſtory of Saluſt into Greek, ſo great a reputation it had amongſt thoſe of his Nation, as well as the Romans, as Suidas reports.L. 9. cont. decl. 1. But the judgment of Seneca in behalf of our Hiſtorian, is very conſiderable, who writes in one of his Declamations, that Saluſt only equalled by Quintilian, to Thucydides, ſurpaſſed him in his conciſe way of writing, and as he terms it, conquered him even in his own fortification, in the place where he ſeemed to have the greateſt advantage, cum ſit praecipua in Thucydide virtus brevitas, hac eum Saluſtius vicit, & in ſuis eum caſtris caecidit. His reaſon is, becauſe one may take away ſomething from a ſentence of Thucydides, impairing a little the Ornament of it, but not utterly ſpoiling it; whereas to do the like to the expreſſions of Saluſt, they will be very perceptibly defaced. And Seneca complains thereupon of the injuſtice of Livy who endeavoured on the contrary to advance Thucydides above Salust. It was not ſaid he, for the great affection he bore Thucydides that he prefers him, but becauſe he is not jealous of him, and therefore he does it to get more eaſily the applauſe from Saluſt, whom he had ranked below the other.

The Emperour Adrian was of another fancy, when he preferred one Caecilius to Saluſt, Cato to Cicero, In Hadr. and Ennius to Virgil. But Spartianus, who took notice of the capricious judgment of this [Page] Prince, ſhows us that of Another as advantagious to our Hiſtorian, In Sev. as this was prejudicial. He writes that Septimius Severus at the point of death, feeling himſelf ſubdued by ſickneſs, ſent to his Eldeſt Son that Divine Oration (ſo he terms it) which Salust makes Micipſa at his death ſpeak to his Children, to exhort them to concord: This Oration is in the beginning of the Jugurthine War; and by the credit it received from that Emperour, it makes its Author be valued above that contempt of him, which Adrian expoſed, and none ever imitated.

There is an Oration that Cicero aſcribed to Saluſt, which is a counterfeit, and ought not to be admitted as his, for it is not an Hiſtorical work; and all the learned agree, that how Ancient ſoever it may be, and notwithſtanding that it is quoted by Quintilian, Lib. 4. inſt. cap. 1. yet Saluſt never was the true Author of it. But there is not a like conſent amongſt the Criticks, in what relates to the Two Orations, or rather Epistles addreſſed to Caeſar, probably about the time when he made War in Spain, and which treat of the order that might be eſtabliſhed in the Government of the Republick. Lewis Carrion cannot be perſwaded that they are of Saluſt, eſpecially conſidering that none of the Ancients, who often quoted paſſages of his writings, ever recited any part of theſe Two Epiſtles. John Douza on the contrary part affirms, that their Stile, and the Faith of all Manuſcripts ought to oblige us, to hold they [Page] proceeded from Saluſt his own hand. It is true that none can deny that they are very Ancient, and were writ in the time of the purity of the Latin Language.

It is of much more importance to obſerve, that from Saluſt may be drawn a certain Teſtimony, that all judgments of the manners of men by their writings, are not receivable. No one ever ſpoke better ſentences than he, in favour of all ſort of Virtues, and chiefly of Chaſtity; nor uſed more rigid invectives againſt the exceſs and avarice of his time. But notwithſtanding this, it is recorded, that his immorality made him be expelled the Senate by the Cenſors: and that being taken in Adultery with Fauſta the Daughter of Lucius Scilla, by Milo, he had been ſentenced to be ſhamefully whipped, if he had not by mony commuted for the offence;Lib. 17. Noct. A [...]t. cap. 18. which we learn from Aulus Gellius, under the Authority of Varro, Pedianus Servius and others. He is moreover accuſed to be immoderate in his deſire of riches, joined with great profuſion, which is not only objected to him by the Satyr of Leneus an illuſtrious Grammarian,Suet. de Ill. Gram. cap. 15. and Freeman of Pompey, but the Oration, which they make Cicero ſpeak againſt him, mentions that he had conſumed his Patrimony, and even in his Fathers time, their Houſe was depreſſed becauſe of his debts. It is true that Caeſar reſtored him to his dignity of Senatour and procured him the Praetorſhip;Apud Dionem lib. 42 & 43. and having ſent him into Numidia, furniſhed him with occaſion [Page] to recover his former State and Riches; which laſt he purſued with ſo much Tyranny, that (though after he had ranſacked the whole Province, and found a way to be abſolved by Caeſar, he could not eſcape the infamy of his actions, which was ſo much the greater in him, becauſe it was conſidered how ſeverely he had in his Hiſtory, expoſed thoſe who were much leſs guilty than he, and Metellus amongſt others, whoſe exceſs and expences in Spain he very much arraigned) He returned ſo rich from Africa, that he immediately purchaſed one of the nobleſt dwellings in Rome, in the Mount Quirinal, with Spacious Gardens, which are at this day called the Gardens of Saluſt; and beſides this he had a Country houſe at Tivoli, which Cicero tells him of in the ſame Oration. His life therefore was very different from his writings; and his Example alone is ſufficient to prove, that as very good men may write very bad Books, ſo vicious men ſometimes may compoſe thoſe that are good; it being not incongruous that an Author ſhould at the ſame time be an excellent Hiſtorian, and a wicked man.

Amongſt the things obſerved in him, and which are moſt conducing to the recommendation of his Hiſtory, is his imbarking purpoſely to take a preciſe view of the places in Africk, of which he intended to make a deſcription; becauſe it was requiſite ſo to do, for the better underſtanding of what he writ. And this was the practice of the beſt Hiſtorians; and Meſſenio's words in Plautus, ſhow [Page] ſufficiently, how important and neceſſary to an Hiſtorian, the Romans thought Voyages, and the ſight of places. That Servant ſaies to one of the Manechmi, Maenechmi a Comedy ſo called in Plautus becauſe of Two of that name ſo called in it. that they had travelled over the world enough, and that it is time to return home, unleſs they have a Hiſtory to write.

—Quin nos hinc domum,

Redimus, niſi ſi hiſtorians ſcripturi ſumus.

So perſwaded they were at Rome, where this was ſaid, that to be a good Hiſtorian, it was expedient to have travelled aforehand, which I think I have already obſerved in the Section of Polybius. It is moreover affirmed, that Saluſt made proviſion of many books writ in the Punick Tongue, which he cauſed to be very carefully interpreted to him, to make uſe of them likewiſe in his Hiſtorical Treatiſe. But though few are ignorant how much the Ancients eſteemed this Author, as it is before expreſſed, I ſhall nevertheleſs produce the Authority of Lipſius, though a Modern Author, to join in his commendation, who made no ſcruple to call him the Prince of Hiſtorians. Praef. in Tac. & not. in l. 1. Pol. He frankly prefers him to Caeſar, Livy, and the reſt of thoſe he ſtiles minorum gentium hiſtoricos; and praiſes Cornelius Tacitus for nothing ſo much, as having excellently imitated Saluſt. Turnebus alſo averred, that he found ſo much Eloquence in his writings,L. 28. adverſ. c. 22. Juſtini [...]s l. 38. that in his opinion he approached nearer to Demoſthe [...]es than Cicero. I have purpoſely paſſed in ſilence, what Trogus Pompeius objected againſt the Orations of Livy and Tacitus, which he made [Page] Direct, inſtead of being Oblique; becauſe though he, and ſome others are of that opinion, yet it is ſubject to much debate. Saluſt inſerts Letters in his writings, without regarding whither that of Lentulus to Cataline, or that other of Mithridates to Arſaces, does interrupt the contexture of his Narrations. But though theſe are little things, yet they deſerve to be taken notice of in great Authors, for an example. If Keckerman, and ſome modern Writers, had been touched with ſuch a reaſonable conſideration, they would not have condemned, as they did, all ſort of blame or praiſe given by an Hiſtorian. The reaſon they give for their opinion is weak, ſaying that ſuch things are more the buſineſs of an Oratour; and according to them, a naked Narration leads a Judicious Reader enough, to eſteem or diſapprove the actions repreſented: for they obſerve not, that an Oratour and an Hiſtorian have many things in common, which makes Cicero ſay ſome where, that Hiſtory is the moſt important part of Oratory,Lib. 1. de l [...]g. opus oratorium maxime. And on the other ſide the authority of Saluſt, joined with that of Thucydides, Livy, Agathias, and ſeveral others (whoſe writings we read with ſo much ſatisfaction, who were either contrary to the perſons they ſpeak of, or to the things they report) ought to render them more reſerved in their cenſures.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF JULIUS CAESAR

[Page]

THE name of Julius Caeſar is ſo illuſtrious, that nothing can be added to the commendation of his works, of what nature ſoever they are, after it is ſaid that he is the Author of them. So that he is not indebted to his military actions alone, for the high reputation that follows him; ſince his learning has contributed little leſs to it than his Arms; and he is not leſs glorious by the Crown he received from the Muſes upon their Parnaſſus, than his Triumphs by Bellona's ſide in the Fields of Mars. Which made Quintilian ſay, that Caeſar ſpoke writ and fought by the ſame Spirit, and that the ſame happy Genius which favoured all his victories,L. 10. inſ. c. 1. eodem animo dixiſſe quo bellavit. animated even his Orations and writings. It is obſervable, that amongſt the praiſes which the Ancients gave to the Orators of that time; [Page] though they valued much the ſharpneſs of Sulpitius, the gravity of Brutus, the diligence of Pollio, the judgment of Calvus, and the copiouſneſs of Cicero, they admired above all the vigour of Caeſars Stile, vim, Caeſaris: as if the ſame virtue by which he executed ſo many military exploits, had inſpired him with that Ardour and vehemence, by which he was alwaies ſo eminently diſtinguiſhed from the reſt of that Age. But if it may be fit to enlarge on this ſubject, and draw new parallels of the learning and valour of this incomparable Prince; it will not be difficult to ſhew, that Europe, Aſia, and Africa, even all the parts of the world then known, divided his Conqueſts: nor has he leſs penetrated into the intellectual Globe, having hardly left any Science uncultivated, and not improved to admiration. In his moſt tender age he compoſed the Praiſe of Hercules, Aſcon. Pedia. and wrot the Tragedy of Oedipus, and ſome other Poems under the Title Julii, which Auguſtus afterwards did forbid to be publiſhed. We cannot affirm, what the Poem called Iter was, which Suetonius mentions. But as for that Epigram which ſome aſcribe to him,In Caeſ. cap. 56. and others to Germanicus, made upon the young Thracian which fell into the River Hebrus, as he played upon the Ice; it is one of the moſt delicate pieces of all Latin Poetry. Great was his fame in Oratory, as it is before expreſed: and his Orations for the Bithynians for the Law Plautia, for Decius à Samnite, for Sextilius, [Page] and many others (which are now wanting) gave a certain Teſtimony of his excellency therein. At the age of One and Twenty, he ſolemnly accuſed Dolabella: and being no more then Quaeſtor he compoſed the funeral Orations of his Aunt Julia, and his Wife Cornelia; and his two Anticatones ſhewed what he could do in Satyr; as his Two other books of Analogy gave him no ſmall place amongſt the moſt eſteemed Grammarians. He wrot ſome Treatiſes of preſaging by the flight of Birds; and others of Augury; and ſome of Apothegms or ſhort and witty ſentences. But what he publiſht of the motion of the Stars, which he had learned in Aegypt, deſerves ſo much the more to be conſidered, becauſe it Prognoſticated his own death on the Ides of March (if the Elder Pliny may be credited) nor muſt we omit the mention of his reformation of the Calendar, Macr. 1. Satur. cap. 14. [...] l. 11. Aea. which ſucceeded that work. I paſs over the Ephimerides or Journals mentioned by Servius, which he left, to proceed to his Commentaries, which are his Hiſtorical writings that we now propoſe to examine, and the only work remaining of ſo many different pieces, whereof methinks a perfect Encyclopaedie might be made.

The Title of theſe Commentaries alone makes it manifeſt, that Caeſar had no deſign to write a compleat Hiſtory.In Beuto. They are ſo naked, ſaies Cicero, and ſtript of all thoſe ornaments of Oration, which he was very capable to give them; that though they are extreamly agreeable in the condition [Page] they are, they are to be taken for nothing elſe but Notes prepared by him, for their uſe who would compile a Hiſtory of his time. And though materials ſo well provided might have excited ſome perſons raſh enough to attempt any thing, to try their skill to refine and poliſh them: yet all judicious men have abſtained from doing it, and others that perhaps endeavoured in it, have found themſelves altogether unable, and unlikely to gain to themſelves any Honour, by medling with a deſign framed by ſo great an Artificer. His pure and elegant Stile is ordinarily compared to that of Xenophon. And though he is brief, nothing that is obſcure can be imputed to him; for the places wherein he ſeems any thing difficult are without doubt corrupted. Since we know that he was ſo far from falling into the vice of obſcurity,A Gell. l. 1. Noct. Att. c. 10. & Macr. l. 1. Satur. c. 5. that he himſelf gives it as an important precept, to avoid like a Bock all expreſſions that are not frequently uſed, and thereby leſs proper to explain a thing neatly and clearly. As for the matters whereof he treats in his Commentaries, they are his own actions which he deſcribes, and he recounts few events that he has not ſeen.In Caeſar. 56. Nevertheleſs Suetonius makes Aſinius Pollio accuſe him of not having been exact enough, and even to have ſwerved ſometimes from truth, either through credulity when he relyed on falſe reports, or wittingly for defect of memory; ſo that as the ſaid Aſinius conjectures, if he had lived, he would have reviewed his [Page] Commentaries, and corrected them in ſeveral places. To ſay the truth, his report is very different in many things that concern himſelf, from what we read of him in other Authors, ſuch as Dion, and Plutarch who have writ on the ſame ſubject. An Example of this (to inſtance no more) may be obſerved, in what he writes concerning that publick Treaſure, which was preſerved from the time that Rome was taken by the Gaules, not to be made uſe of but in ſome extream neceſſity. He pretends that Lentulus who had order to ſend it to Pompey, abandoned it by his flight, upon the firſt Rumour that Caeſars Troops began to be maſters of Rome, though it was a falſe report. But that which is received for a certain truth in this matter, is, that Metellus intending as Tribune, to hinder Caeſar from ſeizing on the Treaſure, was forced to quit the City, being terrified by the Menaces of Caeſar, who made the Gates of the place where that ſinew of War and of the State was kept to be forced open, which proved a wonderful advantage to his deſigns. This ſhews that it is oftentimes no leſs difficult to an Hiſtorian, than any other writer, to reſiſt the temptations of humanity, and treat as indifferently of the things which concern himſelf, as thoſe wherein he is no way intereſſed. For my part I doubt not, but Caeſar ſaid many things of the Ancient Gaules, which would be contradicted by their Hiſtories, if any of them had been preſerved to our time.

[Page] Some Criticks have maintained,Fr. Floridus Sabinus, et Lud. Carrio. that neither the Three Books of the Civil War, nor the Seven of the War of the Gaules, were writ by Caeſar. but ſuch an opinion is ſo groundleſs that it merits not the leaſt reflection. As for the Eighth book of the laſt mentioned work, moſt agree that Hirtius was the Author of it, who writ alſo the Commentaries of the Wars of Alexandria, Africa, and Spain. Though ſome aſcribe them to Oppius an intimate friend of Caeſars, who likewiſe wrot a Treatiſe, to prove that the Son of Cleopatra, which ſhe pretended to have had by the ſame Caeſar, was not of his begetting. Whoſoever was the Author of the laſt book of the War of the Gaules, appeared to have been much in the favour and confidence of Caeſar, for he ſaies in one place, that though all that read the writings of Caeſar admire them as well as he, yet he had more reaſon to do it than others, becauſe they conſider in them only the purity of Phraſe, and excellency of Stile; but he who knew with what facility and expedition he uſed his Pen, had a more particular ſubject of admiration. This paſſage calls to my memory the noble Elogy which Pliny gave him (viz.) to have ſurpaſſed in vigor of mind all the reſt of Mankind.L. 7. Nat. hiſt. c. 25. He writ that he has been ſeen at the ſame time to read, write, dictate, and hear what was ſaid to him; and adds that he made nothing at once to dictate to Four Secretaries; and when he was not diverted by other affairs, he uſually imploied Seven [Page] to write under him. This activity of thought is as if he [...]ere ſomething more than human, and indeed the greatneſs of his genius would be judged wholely incomparable, ſhould we examine it exactly in the extent of all his actions: but this being not the proper place for ſuch an inquiry, we ſhall confine our ſelf to what particularly concerns his Commentaries.

They are deſtitute of many Rhetorical Ornaments, as we have already obſerved, yet they contain both Oblique and Direct Orations: and they have been ſo valued by all Nations, that they are tranſlated into moſt languages. Selimus the Great cauſed them to be turned into Arabick. And it is held that the reading of them, which was no leſs agreeable than ordinary with him, contributed much to the conqueſt of ſo many Provinces, wherewith he augmented his Empire. And Henry the Fourth that famous Monarch of Franco, took the pains to tranſlate into French thoſe that related to the War of the Gaules; which doubtleſs were no ſmall aſſiſtance to that Heroick Ardour, wherewith his whole life was animated. It was under Florence Chriſtian his Tutor, that he undertook th [...]t work ſo worthy of himſelf. And Caſaubon who affirms that he ſaw it writ by the Kings own hand, adds, that he told him he was recollecting his matter, to write commentaries of his own actions, which he would finiſh as ſoon as his leaſure would permit. But God was not pleaſed to allow him that leaſure, and his haſty death, [Page] by a crime more deteſtable than was that of the Murtherers of Caeſar, has deprived us of thoſe Second Commentaries, which might have made a greater reſemblance between theſe Two Princes, than there is; though the clemency, valour, diligence, and ſeveral other virtues wherein they both excelled, rendered them very conformable to each others, not to mention the reſemblance of their ends.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF TITUS LIVIUS.

[Page]

SOME perſons have given the ſame Elogy to Livy, as Seneca the Rhetorician aſcribed to Cicero (viz.) to have had a wit anſwerable to the greatneſs of the Roman Empire. And others have not been content to equal the eloquence of this Hiſtorian to that of ſo great an Oratour, but have proceeded ſo far, as to ſuppoſe that if Cicero had attempted to write a Hiſtory, he would have been inferiour to him in the performance of it. But without reflecting on either to their diſadvantage by ſuch compariſons, we may ſay that they both excelled in their way of ſtudy; and as never any one was heard with ſo much attention and tranſport at Rome as Cicero, ſo we have no example of a reputation higher and more glorious in reſpect of Hiſtory than that of Livy. Pliny the Younger has left us a memorable [Page] paſſage of his fame in one of his Epiſtles. Where he ſaies that his Predeceſſors ſaw a man come into Italy from the extremities of Spain (which was then counted the remoteſt place of the Earth in the Weſt) to have the ſatisfaction to ſee Livy, and injoy for ſome time his converſation, who ſought no other diverſion than the diſcourſe he had with ſo great a perſon; and though the Capital City of the world where he found him had many rarities to entertain his curioſity, nothing thereof could detain him, after he had converſed ſome time with him for whoſe ſake he undertook ſuch a journey. But we muſt obſerve that the credit Livy has amongſt the learned, is not only for the writing of this Hiſtory, for he had writ certain Philoſophical Dialogues before he came to Rome, which he dedicated to Auguſtus Caeſar. and which acquired him the love and protection of that renowned Monarch, the moſt favourable to the Muſes that ever governed the Roman Empire.Ep. 101. And beſides theſe Dialogues which are mentioned by Seneca, we learn from Quintilian, that in a Letter to his Son he delivered excellent Precepts of Rhetorick, Lib. 10. inſt. cap. 1. wherein he eſpecially commended to his reading the writings of Demoſthenes, and Cicero, bidding him neglect many other Authors, unleſs any were found amongſt them, to reſemble thoſe which he adviſed him to have alwaies in his view.In Claud. cap. 41. And one may read in Suetonius, that Livy was choſen amongſt the moſt learned men of his Age, to take care of the [Page] inſtruction of Claudius who afterwards was Emperor;Suetonius in Claud. loco citato. and in his younger years by the advice of this his Tutor, as Suetonius reports, he undertook to write the Roman Hiſtory, of which he gave many volumes to the Publick which are loſt to us. As to the writings of Livy the laſt and moſt conſiderable thereof, is the Hiſtory which reached from the foundation of Rome to the death of Druſus in Germany; Quint. l. 10. inſt. c. 1. the fine contexture whereof, the agreeable narrations, and the pleaſing eaſineſs makes him to be compared to Herodotus, and placed in the firſt rank of the Latin Hiſtorians. It was not at firſt divided by Decades, as we now ſee it. That is a recent diſtribution or diſtinction, whereof no mention appears in Florus his Abbreviator, nor in any of the Ancients;Ep. ad. Jo. Boc. l. 7. de hon. diſc. [...]. 12. and which Politian, Petrarch, with Petrus Crinitus have already diſputed. Of the Hundred and Forty, or Hundred and Two and Forty Books which it contained, there remain not above Five and Thirty, nor are they all in an uninterrupted continuation, for the whole Second Decade is wanting, and we have but the Firſt, the Third, and the Fourth, with half of the Fifth which was found at Wormes by one Simon Gryneus. The beginning of the Forty Third book has been alſo lately recovered, by the means of a Manuſcript in the Library of the Chapter of Bamberg; but this fragment is a little conteſted. Franciſous Bartholinus that brought it from Germany into Italy, Antonius Quaerengus, and Gaſpar Luſignanus the [Page] Author of the firſt impreſſion, judge it Authentick.L. 9. [...]. 19. de hiſt. la [...]. But Voſſius and ſome others on the contrary, pretend that it is a counterfeit piece, and can be only impoſed on thoſe who have ears like Midas. For the remaining Fourteen Decades we muſt reſt ſatisfied, with that Summary or Epitomy which Florus compiled, if he was the Author of a work which many perſons condemn, believing him to have been the cauſe of the loſs of Livys writings, a loſs that cannot be enough lamented. This is the opinion of Bodin who likewiſe accuſes Juſtin, In Meth. hiſt. c. 2. for having done the ſame prejudice to Trogus Pompeius, Xiphilinus, and Dion, in epitomizing them. Caſaubon is alſo of this mind, who thinks that the brief collection made by Conſtantine, of a body of Hiſtory in Fifty Three parts, occaſioned the neglect of the Authors that compoſed it, which were afterwards loſt. But if the Three Decades and a half which we have of Livy, make us deplore the want of the reſt, they are yet ſufficient to repreſent him to our eſteem, moſt worthy of the Elogies which he received from the Ancients.Anna 1451. The moſt celebrated whereof was that yielded to him, two hundred years ago by Alphonſo King of Arragon, when he ſent his Embaſſador to demand of the Citizens of Padua, and obtained from them as a pretious relique, the bone of that Arm wherewith this their famous Country-man had writ his Hiſtory, cauſing it to be conveyed to Naples with all ſorts of honour, as the moſt eſtimable preſent [Page] could be made him. And it is ſaid that he recovered his health from a languiſhing indiſpoſition, by the delight he had in reading the ſame Hiſtory.

But it is ſtrange to conſider with how much paſſion others went about to defame if they could, a perſon of ſuch rare merit. In the Age wherein he lived Aſinius Pollio arraigned his Stile, which he called Patavinity. Auguſtus taxed him of having favoured Pompey's party, but did not therefore diminiſh his good will towards him. And Caligula a while after, accuſed him of negligence on the one ſide, and too exceſſive redundancy of words on the other, taking away his image and writings from all Libraries, where he knew they were curiouſly preſerved. But the capricious and Tyrannick humour of this Prince, was exerciſed in the ſame manner towards the works and Statues of Virgil. Suet. in Calig. cap. 34. et in Domit. c. 10. And he would have ſuppreſſed the Verſes of Homer, pretending that his power ought to be no leſs than Plato's who had prohibited the reading them in his Imaginary Republick. Moreover hating Seneca, and all men of eminent Virtue, it came into his head to aboliſh the knowledg of Laws, with all thoſe Lawyers whoſe learned deciſions were reſpected. But the humorous conceit of ſuch a Monſter cannot prejudice Livy, nor thoſe others we named, no more than that of Domitian a ſecond prodigy of Nature, who put to death, through a like animoſity, Metius Pompoſianus, becauſe amongſt others he delighted [Page] to expoſe ſome Orations of Kings and Generals, collected by him out of Livy's Hiſtory. The Teſtimony of Augustus is full of moderation, he declares that the ſame Hiſtory inſtead of flattering the victorious Party, could not condemn that of the good and moſt honeſt men in the Common-wealth, who had all liſted themſelves on Pompey's ſide, which rather tends to the commendation of Livy than otherwiſe. But that which Pollio finds fault with in all his obſervations, is a thing which deſerves to be a little more reflected on.

The moſt common opinion is, that this Roman Lord accuſtomed to the delicacy of the language ſpoke in the Court of Auguſtus, could not bear with certain Provincial Idioms, which Livy as a Paduan uſed in divers places of his hiſtory. Pignorius is of another mind, and believes that this odious Patavinity had reſpect only to the Orthography of certain words, wherein Livy uſed one letter for another, according to the cuſtome of his Country, writing ſibe, and quaſe, for ſibi, and quaſi; which he proves by divers Ancient inſcriptions. Some think that it conſiſted meerly in a repetition, or rather multiplicity of many Synonymous words in one period, contrary to what was practiſed at Rome, where they did not affect ſuch a redundancy which denoted a Forreigner. Others report that the Paduans having alwaies been of Pompey's Party, which was apparently the juſteſt as we have obſerved, Pollio [Page] that was a Caeſarian, derided Livys Patavinity, and accuſed him of having ſhown too great an inclination for the unhappy faction of the vanquiſhed; which ſeems ſo much the likelier, by the conformity it has with that opinion of Auguſtus, which we already mentioned. There are thoſe who likewiſe affirm, that Livy's partiality for thoſe of Padua, appeared manifeſtly in thoſe books which are loſt, where he was led by his Subject to an immoderate praiſe of his Country-men. It is the ſame fault which Polybius imputed to Philinus as a Carthaginian, and Fabius as a Roman. And many modern Hiſtorians have been charged therewith, whereof Guicciardin was one, who to oblige the Floreutines dwells ſo long upon the leaſt concerns of their State, and amplifies ſo much their ſmalleſt actions, that he often becomes troubleſome, and ſometimes ridiculous in many mens judgment. The quaint Diſtich of Actius Syncerus, againſt that of Poggius on the like occaſion, renders it altogether deſpicable,

Dum patriam laudat, damnat dum Poggius hoſtem;

Nec malus eſt civis, nec bonus hiſtoricus.

They who rather imagine than prove a like paſſion in Livy, pleaſe themſelves with a belief, that this was that which Pollio found fault with in his Hiſtory, when he was offended that it had too much Patavinity. I rather build upon that ſenſe which Quintilian gives the word,Lib. 1. inst. cap. 5. who in all probability knew in his time the true ſignification of it. He quotes it in the Chapter of the virtues [Page] and vices of Oration, where he remarks, that Vectius was reproached of having imployed too many Sabine, Tuſcan, and Praenestine words in his writings; ſo that, ſaies he, Lucilius thereupon laughed at his language, as Pollio did at the Patavinity of Livy. Wherefore after an interpretation ſo expreſs, of ſuch a conſiderable Author in this reſpect as Quintilian, I ſhould be loath to wreſt the ſignification of that word, which the Courtiers of Rome reproved in the Hiſtory we ſpeak of, to any other ſenſe than that of Stile and Phraſe.

Juſtin informs us, that Trogus Pompeius cenſured Livy's Orations for being Direct, and too long; which many attribute to ſome jealouſy, that might ariſe between Two Authors of the ſame time and profeſſion,Lib. 9. inſt. cap. 4. Quintilian obſerved that Livy begins his Hiſtory with an Hexameter Verſe: and Maſcardi in the Fifth Treatiſe of his Art of Hiſtory, Cap. 6. rehearſes many others which he found there; but there is no proſe where ſome do not occur, if looked after with too much curioſity.Tr. 1. c. 4. The ſame Maſcardi taxes him in another place, of having been defective in many important circumſtances,L. 9. contr. decl. 1. which we read in Appian, and which he ought not to have omitted. I have already ſhown in a precedent Section, how Seneca the Rhetorician accuſes Livy, of having ſuffered himſelf to be ſwayed by envy, when he gave Thucydides the preference to Saluſt. I here add in oppoſition to Voſſius his opinion, that [Page] although Seneca the Philoſopher conferred the Title of moſt Eloquent upon Livy, Lib. 1. de Ira. c [...]ult. he does likewiſe reprove him in the ſame place, for having attributed to any man greatneſs of wit without goodneſs, believing them to be inſeparable Qualities. And in another place on the ſubject of the Great Library of Alexandria, Lib. de. tranq. c. 9. he blames him for commeding the care of thoſe Kings who founded it; and yet pretending, that they did it rather in a vain oſtentation of glory, than a true affection for books. But ſuch Stoical Auſterities do not much wound the reputation of an Hiſtorian, who ſpeaks according to the common ſenſe of things, and is not obliged to follow all the opinions of Philoſophers. But if Antoninus his Itinerary, ſuch as Annius of Viterbum expoſed was true,Vide Voſſium de Hiſt. Lati. pag. 95. cap. 19. it would be a hard matter to excuſe Livy of a great fault which he accuſes him of, in ſpeaking of Fanus Volturna, which was his ſuppreſſing of the moſt gallant actions of the Tuſcans, whereof he envyed them the glory. But it is of importance to know, that the impudent ſuppoſition of Annius in this reſpect, appears manifeſtly in the good editions of that Itinerary, which we have from Simler, and Surita, wherein nothing like that is read, becauſe it is a ſlanderous addition of the Impostour, who ſoiſted in this corrupt relation with that Comment, whereof we have ſo often complained already. But I find it a harder task to anſwer the zeal of Gregory the Great, who would not ſuffer Livy's Works in any Chriſtian [Page] Library, becauſe of his Pagan Superſtition; which I remember I read in the Preface of Caſaubon upon Polybius. And indeed it cannot be denyed that his Hiſtory is filled with many Prodigies, which denote a great adherence to Idolatry. Sometimes an Ox ſpoke; one while a Mule ingendered; another time Men, Women, and Cocks, and Hens changed their Sex. There are often ſhowers of Flint-ſtones, Fleſh, Chalk, Blood, and Milk. and the Statues of the Gods be mentioned to ſpeak, ſhed tears, and ſwet pure blood. How many Ghoſts are made to appear; Armies ready to ingage in Heaven; with Lakes and Rivers of Blood; and the like? So that no Hiſtorian ever reported ſo much of the vulgar's vain belief of that time, as he. But we ſhould condemn almoſt all the books of the Gentils, if our Religion received any prejudice from ſuch trifles. One might moreover repreſent to Pope Gregory, that Livy expoſes all thoſe and ſome others of the ſame nature, no otherwiſe than as fond opinions of the vulgar,Dec. 1. l. 5. et dec. 3. lib. 1. et 4. and uncertain rumours which he derides; often proteſting, that although he is obliged to report them; becauſe they made ſuch an important impreſſion upon the minds of moſt men of that time, and had a mighty influence on the greateſt affairs, yet there was nothing therein but vanity and impoſture.

Some modern Authors have been found,Lib. 2. de conſec. hiſt. Jul. Scal. l. 1. poet. c. 2. ſuch as Bodin, Benius, and others like them, who preſumed to cenſure Livy's Stile for being too Poetical [Page] in ſome places, too prolix in others, and often unlike it ſelf. But theſe are raſh judgments, and worthier of pitty than conſideration, chiefly in reſpect to thoſe that give them. Yet the like cannot be ſaid of Budaeus, and Henricus Glareanus, that accuſe him of injuſtice to the Gaules in all his narrations, where he treats of them and their Wars. I know they who have indeavoured to defend him from this imputation, reply in his behalf, that if the powerful conſideration of Auguſtus his Protector, could not hinder him from ſpeaking honourably, not only of Pompey, Lib 4. annal. but even of Caſſius, and Brutus, as Cremutius Cordus teſtifies in Tacitus, it is improbable that he ſhould refrain from ſaying the truth in what concerned the Gaules, out of a particular Animoſity, to render himſelf more acceptable to the Romans. But it is certain, he was borne away herein with the common tide of opinion, and that there was no Latin Hiſtorian of that time, who did not as well as he uſe all Nations ill, to oblige the Italian, either through flattery or ignorance, taking their relations from the reports of the victorious, who ſuppreſſed all the memorials of others.

So general a fault nevertheleſs, ought not to hinder us from eſteeming Livy in particular, as one of the firſt men of his Country. He was of Priori nomine Patavium appellata. Padua, and not ofVicus ad Euganeos colles in Italiâ prope Patavium. Aponus, as Sigonius imagined, becauſe of a verſe in Martial which puts one place for another, by a figure ordinary enough [Page] to Poets. His reſidence at Rome, and the favour of Auguſtus, afforded him the means to have all the inſtructions neceſſary for the compiling of his Hiſtory. He compoſed one part of it in that Capital of the Empire, and the other at Naples whither he retired from time to time to digeſt his matter with leſs diſturbance. After that Emperors death he returned to the place of his Birth, where he was received with unparalell'd honours, and applauſes by the Paduans, and there he dyed in the Fourth year of the Reign of Tiberius, and the very day of the Calends of January, which was alſo Ovids laſt day, according to the obſervation of Euſebius in his Chronicles. His life was lately delivered unto us by Jacobus Philippus Thomaſinus the Paduan Biſhop, who omitted nothing that a Paduan could ſay, to the advantage of One whom he conſiders as the glory of his Country. He mingled in all places of his Hiſtory Oblique and Direct Orations, wherein his Eloquence principally appears. And he did not refrain from Digreſſions, though he excuſes himſelf for it, in the Ninth Book of his firſt Decade, on the Subject of Alexander, whoſe renown, he ſaies, obliged him to reflect upon the probable ſucceſs he might have had againſt the Romans, if he had attacked them. He makes a queſtion of equalling Ten or Twelve Roman Captains to that invincible Monarch, but manages it with ſo much diſadvantage on one ſide, and ſo much flattery on the other, that it is the place in his whole Hiſtory, [Page] which is the leaſt agreeable to a judicious Reader. Is it not ridiculous to ſay upon ſo ſerious a Subject, that the Senate of Rome was compoſed of as many Kings, as there were Senators? And ought he not to have conſidered, that Alexander led Twenty Generals under his command, Ptolemaeus, Lyſimachus, Caſſander, Leonatus, Philotas, Antigonus, Eumenes, Parmenio, Cleander, Polyperchon, Perdiccas, Clitus, Ephestion, and others like them, more renowned and experienced in military affairs, if we may judge by their actions, than all thoſe Roman Chiefs which he pretends to compare to him? To ſay the truth, that his Digreſſion examined in all its parts, is more worthy of a declamer, than of an Hiſtorian of Livy's reputation.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF VELLEIUS PATERCULUS.

[Page]

THOUGH Velleius Paterculus in the Two Books he compoſed, pretended only to write an Epitomy of the Roman Hiſtory, from the Foundation of Rome to the time wherein he lived, which as he himſelf reports, was in the Reign of the Emperour Tiberius. Yet he began his Treatiſe with things more Ancient, for though the beginning of his firſt Book is loſt, we nevertheleſs find, in the remains of it, the Antiquities of many Cities more Ancient than Rome, the Originals whereof he diſcovers, before he deſcribes the Foundation of that great Metropolis. He was of an illuſtrious extraction as appears by thoſe of his family,Vide Voſſium de ſcriptoribus latinis. Lib. 2. who had ſignaliſed themſelves in the exerciſe of many of the greateſt imployments of the Roman Empire. And he himſelf having gloriouſly ſucceeded in the military [Page] profeſſion, ſaies that the remembrance of the countries he had ſeen, during the time he commanded in the Armies, and in his voyages through the Provinces of Thrace, Macedonia, Achaia, Aſia the leſs, and other more Eaſterly Regions, eſpecially thoſe upon both the ſhores of the Euxin Sea, furniſhed his mind with moſt agreeable diverſions. Whereby one may judge that if he had writ this Hiſtory as intire and large, as he ſometimes promiſed, we ſhould have found many things very conſiderable in it, as reported by a man who was ſo Eminent an Eyewitneſs, and had a ſhare in the execution of the nobleſt part of them. In that little which is left, wherein he repreſents all compendiouſly, divers particulars are related that are no where elſe to be found; which happens either by the ſilence of other Hiſtorians in thoſe matters, or the ordinary loſs of part of their labours.

The Stile of Velleius Paterculus is very worthy of his Age, which was alſo the time of pure language. His greateſt excellence lies in diſcommending or praiſing thoſe he ſpeaks of; which he does in the ſofteſt terms and moſt delicate expreſſions, that are ſeen in any other Hiſtorian or Oratour. But he is blamed, and perhaps with reaſon, for flattering too much the Party and Houſe of Auguſtus, and making extravagant Elogies not only of Tiberius, but even of his Favourite Sejanus, whoſe merit he celebrates as of one of the prime and moſt virtuous perſons, which [Page] the Roman Common wealth has produced. But the like fault may be obſerved in many others that have writ the Hiſtory of their own times, with a deſign to publiſh it whilſt they lived. However it was, Lipſius imagined that thoſe his exceſſive praiſes of Sejanus, were the cauſe of his fall, and the ruine of the reſt of that unhappy Favourites friends, who were almoſt all put to death upon his account; but yet this opinion can paſs for nothing but a meer conjecture, ſince it is no here elſe to be ſeen. The nature of his Epitomy did not (it ſeems) admit of Orations. Yet an Oblique one is ſeen in his Second Book, which he introduces the Son of Tigranes to ſpeak before Pompey, to procure his favour. I find beſides a very remarkable thing in his Stile, to wit, that amongſt all the Figures of Oratory which he uſes, he imploies the Epiphonema ſo gracefully, that perhaps no One ever equalled him in that reſpect. So that in all or moſt of the events which he mentions, there are few that he does not conclude with one of theſe ſententious reflections, which Rhetoricians call by that name. And beſides the beauty of that figure when it is judiciouſly imployed, as he knew how to do it, there is nothing inſtructs a reader more uſefully, than that ſort of Corollary applyed to the end of the chief actions of every narration. He ſhewed his great inclination to Eloquence, in his invective againſt Mark Anthony, on the Subject of his proſcription, and the death [Page] of Cicero, whom none ever raiſed higher than he does in that place, and in another of the ſame book, where he acknowledges that without ſuch a perſon, Greece though overcome in Arms, might have boaſted to have been victorious in wit. And this he did in purſuance of that zeal, which made him declare in his firſt book, that excepting thoſe whom this Oratour ſaw, or by whom he was ſeen and heard, there was none amongſt the Romans who ought to be admired for their Eloquence, which was a faculty as to the excelling part, as it were incloſed only in the ſpace of Cicero's life.

Beſides the Two Books of the abridged Hiſtory of Velleius Paterculus, a Fragment has been ſeen which is aſcribed to him, touching the defeat of ſome Roman Legions in the Country of the Griſons. Civitatem non muro, ſed vallo foſsaque &c. quam appellabant Cicera, è nomine deae Ciſae, quam religioſiſſimè colebant. Wolfangus Lazius. Lib. 1. de frag. Velleii. And of that part amongſt others where this ſmall writing place a City called Cicera, it informs us, that of a Legion there ingaged, Verres alone eſcaped, whom the above mentioned Cicero cauſed afterwards to be condemned with infamy, for having during his Proconſulſhip in Sicily, uſed ſuch extortions in ſo important a Province, that they had like to have made it deſolate. But moſt learned men, & Velſerus with Voſſius amongſt the reſt, declaim againſt this piece, which they affirm to be counterfeit as well by the Stile, which ſeems of an Age much inferiour to that of Paterculus, as by the matter whereof it treats, wherein they find great abſurdities. But laying [Page] aſide the doubtful judgment of Criticks, it is evident in reſpect of the true Phraſe of this Author, that excepting the faults which proceed rather from his tranſcribers than himſelf, and the Copies than the Original, we have nothing more pure in all the Latin Language than his Writings; nor more worthy of the times of Augustus and Tiberius.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF QUINTUS CURTIUS RUFUS.

[Page]

ALEXANDER has no reaſon to complain (as once he did) for not having like Achilles, a Homer to celebrate his praiſes, ſeeing there was found amongſt the Latins, ſo eminent an Hiſtorian as Quintus Curtius to deſcribe the actions of his life. I take him to be one of the greateſt Authors they had; and the excellency of his Stile would oblige me to think him more Ancient than Livy, and Paterculus, Lib. 3. ad Q. fr. ep. [...]. and to make him paſs for him of whom Cicero ſpeaks in one of his Epiſtles, if the more common opinion of thoſe who have laboured in the ſearch of his Age, did not yeild him Veſpaſian's Contemporary; and ſome to have lived in the Reign of Trajan. I will not inſiſt upon the [Page] paſſages of his fourth book where he ſpeaks of Tyre, nor on that of the Tenth where he makes a Digreſſion upon the felicity of his Age, becauſe many are ſubject to wreſt thoſe expreſſions to their own ſenſe. But as he lived to a great Age, he may well be the ſame perſon that Suetonius mentioned, as a great Rhetorician in the time of Tiberius; and Tacitus as a Praetor and Proconſul of Africa under that Emperour,Lib. 11. Ann. for there is not above Two and Thirty years from the laſt year of Tiberius to the firſt of Veſpaſian. And what the Younger Pliny reports of a Phantaſm which appeared in Africa to one Curtius Rufus, Lib. 7. ep. 27. ad Suram. can be underſtood of no other than him that was mentioned by Tacitus as aforeſaid.

But it is of little moment to my deſign, to reconcile the diverſity of opinions on this ſubject, which are collected together in Voſſius, and Raderus a Commentator of Quintus Curtius. He is perhaps a Son only of thoſe whom Cicero or Suetonius mentions, and may have nothing in common with any of the other that we named, eſpecially conſidering that neither Quintilian, nor any of the Ancients, have ſaid the leaſt word of him or his Hiſtory, which is very ſtrange: for how Quintilian, who omitted not to mention all the conſiderable Hiſtorians then extant, in the Tenth Book of his Inſtitutions, writ in Domitians Reign, could forget him, is not to be anſwered, without preſuppoſing that the works of Quintus Curtius were not at that time publiſhed.

[Page] The ordinary impreſſions of this Author witneſs, that his Two Firſt Books, and the end of the Fifth are loſt, as alſo the beginning of the Sixth, and in ſome few places of the laſt which is the Tenth, there manifeſtly appears a defect. It was not Quintianus Stoa, but Chriſtopher Bruno that ſupplied the Two firſt Books, which he did out of what Arrianus, Diodorus, Juſtin, and ſome others left us in writing of the Archievements of Alexander the Great. Quintus Curtius did well to abſtain from the relations of the counterfeit Calliſthenes (the true one cited by Plutarch being not to be found) which make One Nectanebus a Magician to be the Father of that Monarch, inſtead of Philip of Macedon, and repreſent him rather as a Roland, or Amadis of Gaule than a true Conqueror. Henry Glarean is not followed by any, in his diſtribution of Quintus Curtius his Hiſtory into Twelve Books, re-eſtabliſhing the Two firſt, and dividing the reſt into Ten others, inſtead of the ordinary Eight. But in what manner ſoever his Hiſtory is diſpoſed, it will be alwaies found worthy of its Subject; and to him alone can that Elogy be applyed, which one Amyntianus inſolently and undeſervedly arrogated to himſelf (Viz.) that he had in ſome ſort equalled by his Stile the noble actions of Alexander. Apud Photium ſect. 131. As Cenſurers are every where found, it is not to be ſuppoſed that Curtius will eſcape them. The ſame Glarean whom I mentioned before, reproves him for having like an ill Geographer, made [Page] the River Ganges proceed from the South; and confounded Mount Taurus with Caucaſus, and alſo miſtook the Jaxartes of Pliny for the River Tanais. But one may anſwer in his behalf that theſe errors (if they are ſuch) are not his, who as a Latin Author did no more than follow the Grecian Relators, from whom he borrowed his Hiſtory. Strabo obſerved in the Fifteenth Book of his Geography, that the Macedonians called that, Caucaſus, which was but part of the Mount Taurus; becauſe the former furniſhed them with more fabulous matter than the latter, as that wherewith they delighted to flatter the ambition of Alexander, and their own alſo. And as for the courſe of the Ganges, although it is true that generally ſpeaking it deſcends from the North to the South, yet Strabo adds that it finds ſuch oppoſition as obliges it many times to hold different courſes, and that at length it conveighs all its waters to the Eaſt.Tr. 5. dell'. arte hiſt. c. 2. ep. 3. But Maſcardi makes other objections, he thinks him exceſſive in the uſe of Sentences; and though he cannot but confeſs that all his are very elegant and ingenious, yet he accuſes him for not having alwaies imploied them judiciouſly, making ſome perſons ſpeak in a Phraſe no way proportionable to their conditions; and he inſtances in that Oration of the Scythians to Alexander in the Seventh Book. I have read it over and over by reaſon of this imputation, but with far different Eies from thoſe of Maſcardi; and I can ſcarce believe that it is a [Page] piece contrived by the Author, for I find all matter and Stile, ſo fitly ſuited to the perſons of the Scythian Ambaſſadors that pronounced it, both in reſpect of the Sentences, and all the reſt of its parts, that it paſſes in my judgment for a Copy taken from the true Original of Ptolemaeus, Ariſtobulus, Calliſthenes, Oneſicritus, or ſome other of thoſe preſent with Alexander at the time it was ſpoke, who had the curioſity to inſert it in the Hiſtory of that Monarch. I inſiſt not on that part which is ſo well accommodated to the preſent made by thoſe Barbarians, of a pair of Oxen, a Plough, a Cup, and an Arrow. The Greek Proverb of the ſolitary places of their Country is admirably applyed. And the Scythian deſcription of Fortune without feet, whoſe flight cannot be ſtopped, although you have hold of her hands, ſeems unexpreſſibly graceful in their mouths. But though all theſe things do ſuit wonderfully well with the perſons that utter them, I find the greateſt harmony in the manner of imploying thoſe Sentences which Maſcardi arraigns; and if ever the Decorum of the Latins was conſidered, or thoſe rules obſerved which their Rhetoricians authoriſed, I think one may ſay that Quintus Curtius has on this occaſion moſt religiouſly kept them.

They who know with what liberty the Scythians and Tartarians uſe Fables in all their diſcourſes, and that they, like the reſt of the Eaſtern People, ſcarce ſay any thing without intermixing [Page] parables therewith, will admire the judgment of Curtius in the moſt ſententious part of that Oration, which his Cenſurer found ſo much fault with. Are you ignorant (ſay thoſe Ambaſſadors to Alexander) that the talleſt Trees which are ſo long growing, may be beat down and rooted up in an inſtant? It is not the part of a wiſe man to mind only the fruit they bear, and not to conſider their height, and their danger of falling. Take heed leſt endeavouring to climbe up to the top, their uttermoſt branches do not break, and make you fall with them. The Lion be it never ſo great and fierce, ſometimes ſerves for nouriſhment to the leaſt Birds; and Iron for all its hardneſs is often conſumed with ruſt. Nor is there any thing ſo ſolid or ſtrong in Nature, that may not be hurt by the weakeſt things, and which have in appearance the leaſt vigour. Certainly here are many Elegant expreſſions, which inſtead of being condemned for unſeemlineſs, as ſpoken by Scythians, Lib. 6. & Lib. 10. ought rather to be eſteemed in a more than ordinary manner, for the Air they have of their Country, and that unuſual way of expreſſion, which almoſt totally differs from that of the Greeks or Latins. If I had a mind to cenſure this Hiſtory, as well as Others, I would not find fault with its Geography, or Rhetorick; I ſhould rather accuſe Quintus Curtius for his Immorality, wherein he can be no way juſtified. For after he had acknowledged in more than one place, that Alexander made the ſame uſe of the [Page] Eunuch Bagoas, as Darius did, which made him have ſo great a power over his affections (not to ſpeak of Epheſtion, whoſe friendſhip he does not render ſo ſhameful or criminal as others have done) he had the confidence afterwards to affirm, that the pleaſures of Alexander were natural and lawful. The place I mean, is where he firſt repreſents the death of that Prince, and then examins his virtues and vices, uſing theſe very terms, veneris juxta naturale deſiderium uſus, nec ulla niſi ex permiſſo voluptas. How! this infamous paſſion he had for Bagoas was not then eſteemed againſt Nature? I know not, ſince long before, notwithſtanding the darkneſs of Paganiſm, Phocylides had obſerved in one of his verſes, that even Brutes naturally abhorred that ſort of conjunction. And Plato how infamous ſoever in that reſpect, acknowledged in the Eighth Book of his Laws, that even before the time of Laius, that Example of Beaſts, made maſculine love be ſtiled a ſin againſt nature. Certainly Quintus Curtius his fault herein cannot be palliated, what licence ſoever may be aſcribed to the Gentils, both Greeks and Romans, on this Subject.

I will not repeat in this place what I ſaid in the Section of Arrian, of ſome ſmall errours of Quintus Curtius, which are amended by the writings of the former, or rather by the mutual aſſiſtance which theſe Two Authors give one to the other to be rendered more intelligible. But I will obſerve, that notwithſtanding the praiſe [Page] we attributed to the Graecian, of having been one of the moſt tender writers in matter of prodigies, he whom we now examine is much more reſerved therein than he, of which there needs no more proof, than what they both writ of one or two extraordinary Springs, which newly ſprung up from the ground where Alexander had Encamped, near the River Oxus. Arrian ſaies that one of them was of Oil, and the other of clear Water, which he confidently reports, as if he would impoſe a belief thereof on his Readers.Lib. 7. Quintus Curtius on the other hand, ſaies nothing of the Source of Oil, but that in digging of Wells a Spring was found in the Kings Tent, of which as ſoon as it was diſcovered, a rumour ran as if it had been miraculous; and Alexander himſelf ſo far improved it, as to be pleaſed that it ſhould be thought a grace of Heaven, beſtowed on him by the Gods. But to ſhew clearly, with what circumſpection this Hiſtorian alwaies handled things which admitted of doubt,Lib. 9. But this fierceneſs ſo admired and doubted by Curtius, is not ſtrange to us, that ſee the like courage in our Maſtifs on all occaſions. I will inſtance the terms wherewith he accompanies the narration he writes of a Dog in the Kingdom of Sopita, that faſtened on a Lyon with ſo much courage, that he ſuffered his members to be cut piece-meal, rather then loſe the hold he had taken. Equidem, ſaies he, plura tranſcribo, quam credo. Nam nec affirmare ſuſtineo de quibus dubito, nec ſubducere quae accepi. And this moderation may be applied to that place of the ſame book, where on the occaſion of Ptolomy's ſickneſs, a Serpent ſhewed to Alexander [Page] in his ſleep, an Herb which would cure him. Truly when an Author is ſo modeſt in his relation, that he appears not to have any deſign to invade the credulity of his Readers, he may write what he pleaſes, as we have already remonſtrated in the Chapter of Livy.

Amongſt all the Latin Hiſtorians there is none more generally approved than Quintus Curtius. Some are for Livy's Stile, others for that of Tacitus, but all agree that Curtius has writ very agreeably, and well. Lipſius adviſes that no book is more worthy the peruſal of Princes, than this Hiſtory which he commends to their frequent inſpection. Some there are of that dignity, who have not only recreated their minds with this Book, but found other advantages by it. We have already reported ſomewhat like this in what we writ of Livy; and I remember I obſerved that one Laurentius di Medicis, who cauſed the Hiſtory of the Emperors to be read to him, was ſo affected with the recital of ſome notable Act of Conrard the Third of that name, that he thought he owed his health to the content he received from that relation.Lib. de reb. geſt. Alph. Antonius Panormitanus, and ſeveral others obſerve a memorable occurrence concerning our Author, in reference to Alphonſo that wiſe King of Arragon, who finding himſelf oppreſſed with an indiſpoſition, from which all the remedies of his Phiſitians could not delive him, ſought ſome diverſion in the Hiſtory of Quintus Curtius; which was with ſo much ſatisfaction and good ſucceſs, [Page] that he became cured of his infirmity, and proteſted to all about him, that neither Hippocrates, nor Avicenna, ſhould ever be of equal conſideration to him with that Treatiſe. But to draw to a concluſion, I muſt admit that Curtius is excellent in all his Orations, either Direct or Oblique. I have ſeen but one Letter in all his works, which is the anſwer of Alexander to Darius. And I do not remember that there is any other Digreſſion, than that one of the Tenth Book which I mentioned before, where, taking an occaſion from the Diviſions amongſt the Macedonians after the death of him that had made them Monarchs of the world, he celebrates the felicity of the Roman People, reunited in the time when he wrote, under a great and happy Emperor.Suppoſed to be Veſpatian. We muſt not take for a Digreſſion, the Relation of the manner of living of the Indians, and the Deſcription of their Country, which is found in the Eighth Book, becauſe there is nothing therein, that is not eſſential to the Theme which the Author propoſed to himſelf; for being to write of the Exploits of Alexander in that Country, it was requiſite for him to give ſome ſummary account of it.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF CORNELIUS TACITUS.

[Page]

IN all the impreſſions of Cornelius Tacitus, his Annals are printed before his Hiſtory, which is underſtood to be becauſe they have a farther beginning,I ſuppoſe the Author is miſtaken in this computation, for Voſſiſius ſpeaks but of two years. treating of the laſt daies of Auguſtus, and proceeding unto the end of Nero's Reign, whoſe laſt Twelve years are nevertheleſs wanting; whereas the books of his Hiſtory ſeem to follow one another from the Epoche of the death of that Tyrant, to the happy Government of Nerva and Trajan. And yet there is no doubt but Tacitus firſt compoſed his Hiſtory, as being nearer to his own time;Extremum Neronis Biennium deeſt. de Hiſt. Latinis lib. 1. cap. 30. for he quotes a place in the Eleventh of his Annals, to which he refers his Reader, concerning what he had already writ of the actions of Domitian, which were not by him mentioned any where, but in the Books of his Hiſtory. Of this Hiſtory there remains to us but [Page] Five Books, and Lipſius gueſſes that there are Ten loſt. For if they reached from Galba, to Nerva, and Trajan, which includes at leaſt a ſpace of Twenty one years, it is probable the greateſt part of them are wanting, ſeeing the Five we have comprehend little more than the occurrences of one year.

Their Stile is more large and florid than that of the Annals, which are compoſed in a cloſe contracted Phraſe; but Tacitus his Eloquence appears every where in his grave way of writing,Muret. or. de Tac. which has ſomething of that [...] or ſublimity in it, from which the Rhet [...]icians have obſerved, that Demoſthenes never ſtraved. Amongſt ſo many Cenſurers, who find every one ſomething thing to ſay againſt the works of this Hiſtorian, none are more excuſable than thoſe who only complain of his obſcurity. For as he often leaves his Narrations imperfect, he is ſometimes found leſs intelligible. And the faults of the Copies, and depravation thereby of his ſenſe, in many places, contributes much to render his matter difficult to be underſtood; but where the Paragraphs are intire and uncorrupted, his meaning is eaſily diſcovered. Howſoever it be, it is no wonder if Tacitus (having imitated Thucydides, and both followed Demoſthenes) retained ſomething of that roughneſs and auſterity, which is obſerved in the writings of thoſe Two Graecians; and which all the Ancients accounted as a virtue, ſo far is it from deſerving to be imputed as a [Page] fault, to him that ſhould propoſe them to himſelf for imitation. And as ſome Wines are recommended to our palates by a little bitterneſs that is in them; and many perſons find that a dusky and obſcure light in Churches in moſt ſutable to their exerciſe of devotion: ſo others conceive the obſcurity of an Author, mixed with a little roughneſs of Stile, is rather to be eſteemed than otherwiſe; becauſe it diſpoſes the mind to attention, and elevates and tranſports it to notions, which it would not arrive at in a more eaſy compoſition.

As for thoſe who were ſo confident to pretend that Tacitus writ ill Latin, I judge them more worthy of compaſſion for that extravagance, than any ſolid anſwer. Yet Two great Civilians were of that opinion, Alciat, who maintained that the Phraſe of Paulus Jovius was preferable to that of this Ancient Hiſtorian, which, he ſaid, was full of Thornes; and Ferret, who condemn'd his Stile, as being in his judgment not Roman enough. If ever men were abſurd in cenſures, doubtleſs theſe were: and I do affirm againſt ſuch unreaſonable opinions, that apparently Tacitus makes the leaſt Groome or Cook, in narratives, ſpeak better Latin than either Ferret, or Alciat: they are indeed learned in the Law, but very bad judges of the Roman Eloquence. For though Tacitus has not writ like Caeſar, or Cicero, that is no argument of his bad performance. Eloquence is not uniform; there are divers kinds of it: and it is not unknown [Page] to the Learned, that Latin flouriſhed in all of them differently till the Reign of the Emperor Adrian, who was not ſo Ancient as Tacitus, to whom the greateſt Orators of his time Freely yielded the Palm of Hiſtory. And Pliny the younger who was one of the moſt conſiderable amongſt them, declared in many of his Epiſtles, that he eſteemed Tacitus one of the moſt Eloquent of his Age. In the Twentieth Epiſtle of the firſt Book, he makes him Judge of a diſpute he had, about the Eloquence to be uſed in pleading at the Bar, againſt a learned man that maintained the moſt conciſe to be alwaies the beſt.Epiſt. 1. l. 2. And in another place he deſcribes to one of his friends the Pomp of Virginius Rufus his Funerals, obſerving his laſt and principal happineſs to conſiſt in the praiſes of the Conſul Cornelius Tacitus, who made his funeral Oration, and who was the moſt eloquent of that time; laudatus eſt à Correlio Tacito. Nam hic ſupremus felicitati ejus cumulus acceſſit laudator eloquentiſſimus. When he imparts to another called Arrian, the ſucceſs of a great cauſe againſt a Proconſul of Africa, accuſed of robbing the publique Treaſury, he ſaies, that Cornelius Tacitus made a replication to the perſon that defended him,Ib. ep. 11. wherein his Eloquence and gravity inſeparable from his diſcourſe were admired; reſpondit Cornelius Tacitus eloquentiſſimè; & quod eximium orationi ejus ineſt, [...]. And when the ſame Pliny deſigned to provide a publick Preceptor for the City of Coma in his Native Country,L. 4. ep. 13. [Page] he intreated Tacitus, as one to whom all the great Wits of the Age applyed themſelves, to recommend one to him to exerciſe that charge. I mention not the deſcriptions he makes him, in two different Letters, of the death of the Elder Pliny his Uncle,Lib. 6. ep. 16. et 20. and of the burning of Veſuvins, which he was ſo deſirous that the Hiſtory of Tacitus ſhould deſcribe,Lib. 7. ep. 33. that he conjures him elſewhere not to forget his name in it, declaring his paſſion for it in terms, which I think not unfit to rehearſe in this place: Auguror, nec me fallit augurium, Hiſtorias tuas immortales futuras, quo magis illis, ingenue fatebor, inſeri cupio. Nam ſi eſſe nobis curae ſolet, ut facies noſtra ab optimo quoque artifice exprimatur, nonne debemus optare, ut operibus noſtris ſimilis tui ſcriptor praedicatorque contingat. But the place, wherein Pliny ſhews moſt the eſteem which he and all Italy had of Tacitus, Ib. ep. 20. is that of another Letter, where he declares that from his youth upwards he had choſen him for a pattern of Eloquence, from amongſt the great number of excellent Orators, which were then in Rome. And becauſe we learn preciſely from that place the age of thoſe two men, I will again very willingly inſert it in its native language: Equidem adoleſcentulus cùm tu jam fama gloriaque floreres, te ſequi, tibi longo, ſed proximus intervallo & eſſſe & haberi concupiſcebam. Et erant multa clariſſima ingenia, ſed tu mihi (it a ſimilitudo naturae ferebat) maxime imitabilis, maxime imitandus videbaris. There is no need to ſeek [Page] other proofs of Tacitus his reputation in his own time, which produced ſo many excellent perſons: and few are ignorant how all the following ages have honoured his endeavours, whereof we ſhall give ſome more Teſtimonies before we finiſh this Section. But in the mean time is it not ſtrange, that any ſhould be ſo barbarous as Alciat and Ferret, and contradictory to all the Ancient Romans, to maintain that ſo conſiderable an Author could not ſo much as ſpeak his mother-tongue? One muſt certainly have a brazen face, and a very empty head to advance ſuch propoſitions. For my part ſhould I ſee a Thouſand things that diſpleaſed me, I ſhould rather accuſe my own weak underſtanding, or the faults of the Copies, or ſome other defect (which ought not to be imputed to him) than give the lye to all Antiquity, by falling into ſuch an imaginary imputation.

There is a third ſort of Tacitus his accuſers, who tax him of ſpeaking untruths; Vopiſcus is of that number.In Aurel. But becauſe he only arraigns him to excuſe himſelf in this general propoſition, that the beſt Hiſtorians of the world cannot avoid the mixture of lies in their trueſt narrations. Tacitus his reputation ſeems not to be much concerned therein. We have ſhown elſewhere that ſeveral perſons took delight to maintain this theſis. Orat. 11. And I remember Dion Chryſoſtome endeavouring to prove in one of his Orations, that one never knows the truth of things, is not content [Page] to ſay, that the taking of Troy by the Graecians is a meer Fable; and that the Perſians delivered a very different account of the wars of Xerxes and Darius againſt Greece, than the Graecians themſelves; but he adds, as a note of the ſmall certainty there is in Hiſtory, that amongſt the moſt famous of the Greek Hiſtorians, ſome held that the Naval victory of Salamin preceded that of Plataea, and others aſſerted the contrary. It is ſufficient then to anſwer, that there are untruths which our humanity bears with, when they are related by report, and without lying. But when Tertullian reproaches Tacitus with impoſture, and Budaeus calls him one of the moſt vile and impious Authors we have, it is evident that they mean ſomething more than that ſort of miſreport, which ignorance may excuſe; and which one may retort upon errors Authoriſed by common belief. For they are offended at what he impiouſly ſpoke of Chriſtians, & in deriſion of our holy religion, whom he aſſaults even in the foundations of the Old Teſtament, deriding the Miracles of Moſes, and reproaching the Jews with adoring the Effigies of a Wild Aſſe. I confeſs that one cannot too much condemn what he writ on that ſubject, as he was a Pagan. But nevertheleſs we muſt be forced to acknowledg, that if he muſt be totally renounced for what he writ againſt the true God, and our Altars, we ſhall be obliged to burn with his Books, almoſt all thoſe of the Gentils, very few of them having abſtained from the [Page] like calumnies. I ſay the ſame thing againſt the judgment which Caſaubon in his Preface, paſſed upon Polybius, where he pretends that Princes cannot read a more dangerous book than Tacitus; becauſe of the bad examples which are ſeen in it. For it is an ill cuſtome that Caſaubon has followed, never to write upon an Author without blaming all others, to give that the greater Authority; and we know that he has praiſed Tacitus elſewhere as much as any one can do. It is true his Hiſtory has repreſented unto us, the actions of the moſt wicked Princes that ever were; and that by misfortune thoſe Books which contained the beſt Emperors Raigns, as of Veſpaſian, Titus, Nerva, and Trajan, are loſt. Yet it is the way to cenſure all the Hiſtories we have in the world, even without excepting the Holy Writ, to make that of Tacitus reſponſible for the bad examples it contains, there being none found that have not ſome very dangerous in them, and where there is no need of diſtinguiſhing with judgment, the good and the bad of every Narration. But perhaps heretofore, as even in Tertullians time, the Pagans invectives againſt us might be apprehended, becauſe the world was not then purged of their errors, as it is at preſent by the Grace of God. I cannot imagine that any perſon can be found at this day, that would let himſelf be ſeduced by the Calumnies of the Ethnicks; or by all that the infidelity they lived in, could make them write againſt our Evangelical truths.

[Page] The general eſteem the works of Tacitus have gained, might ſuffice alone againſt the Authorities we have examined, though we wanted reaſons to refute them. If it were needful to weaken them by other contrary authorities, I can produce Two, beſides the Univerſal conſent of learned men, which are ſo weighty that they will alwaies turn the Scale on their ſide. The firſt is that of the Emperor Tacitus, who though inveſted in the ſupreme dignity of the world, did not forbear near two hundred years after the death of our Hiſtorian, to glory in that name common to them, eſteeming it as an honour to have had ſuch an Anceſtour, and to be acknowledged one of his Poſterity. He cauſed his Statue to be placed in all Libraries, and all his books to be writ over Ten times every year, that they might paſs from hand to hand, and from Age to age, as they have done unto ours. The Second Authority ſhall be that of the Great Duke Coſmo di Medicis, whoſe memory will never want veneration, as long as the Science of Polity or good government (as his Countrymen term it) ſhall be cultivated. That Prince choſe Tacitus amongſt all the Hiſtorians, as one from whom his mind could receive the moſt inſtruction and ſolid ſatisfaction. Add to the Teſtimony of Princes and Emperors, that the tranſlation of this Author into all Tongues, gives a certain proof of the valew of him in all Nations. Beſides his Commentaries & Hiſtory, he wrote a Treatiſe of divers people who inhabited Germany in his [Page] time, and of their different manners; with another Book of the Life of his Father in Law Agricola. Some moreover aſcribe to him, the book Entituled the cauſes of the corruption of Latin Eloquence, which others attribute to Quintilian, and which poſſibly belongs to neither of them, according to the probable conjecture of Lipſius. As for the collection of the book of the pleaſant ſayings of Tacitus, Taciti facetiae. which Fulgentius Planciades mentions, it is a meer counterfeit, which never deceived any one but that Grammarian. The true compoſitions of Tacitus are diſcernable enough,Lib. 2. de re poet. c. 1. et l. 3. c. 1. either by their form, or matter, taking, as Scaliger does, the words of the Hiſtory for the matter, and the things it unfolds for the form. He ſcatters here and there throughout the whole, Oblique and Direct Orations, as the condition of time, place, and perſons require. But as conciſe as he is in his Stile, he flies out into Digreſſions in many places, witneſs that of the God Sarapis amongſt the reſt, in the Fourth Book of his Hiſtory; and that other wonderful one in the Fifth, which we have already in ſome ſort reflected on, relating to the Religion of the Jews, and that of Moſes their Law-giver. He was of the opinion, that, as there is no Traveller who may not go out of his way ſometimes, to ſee a memorable place, or ſome ſingular thing of the Countries he paſſes through; ſo the Laws of Hiſtory do no more forbid a Writer to make ſome ſmall excurſions, which pleaſe and refreſh the mind more than they diver it, when they are [Page] uſed only in apt ſeaſon. He is no leſs ſententious than Thucydides or Saluſt, but with ſuch artifice, that all the maxims he laies down, iſſue from the nature of the ſubjects he treats of, in the ſame manner as Stars are made of the proper ſubſtance of the Heavens. There is nothing of Foreign, affected, too far fetched, or ſuperfluous in what he writes; each thought holds a place which becomes it ſo well, that it cannot be diſputed. Moreover you do not only learn from him the events of things paſt; He ſeldom fails to diſcover their cauſes, and the foregoing councels. One may ſay the ſame thing of Hiſtory, as the Poet ſaid of Husbandry.

Faelix qui potuit rerum cognoſcere cauſas.

Virg. 2. Georg.

And if what many people aver, be true, to wit, that the water is ſweeter in the bottom of the Sea, than in the Superficies; it is more certain that an Hiſtorical relation, which only gives an inſight into affairs, and the purſuance of events, leaving the Antecedent cauſes and advices unpenetrated, cannot be ſo uſeful or pleaſant, as that which reveals all the miſteries thereof, and does not hide the greateſt ſecrets contained in thoſe affairs, which reliſh according to the comprehenſion we have of them. But that which neightens the merit of Tacitus his works, is the obſervation which others have made before me, that one often learns no leſs from what he left unſaid,L. 1. Hiſt. than what he expreſſed, his ſilence being as inſtructive as his language, and his cyphers (to ſpeak in the terms of [Page] numbers) as conſiderable as his moſt important figures, becauſe all therein deſcribed is full of conſideration, proportion, and judgment. Thus as the Ancients report, the Painter Timanthes left more in his Pictures to be imagined, than he expoſed to the view of Spectators. And it is known that Tacitus did not ſet himſelf to write, before he was very old, after Nerva's Reign, and under that of Trajan, as he himſelf declares.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF LUCIUS ANNAEUS. FLORUS.

[Page]

THEY who make Lucius Florus to live under Trajan, are obliged to correct that place of his Preface, where he ſaies there was little leſs than two hundred years, from Auguſtus his time to his. The moſt probable opinion is that he was of a little later time. And it is beleived that the Poet Florus, whoſe verſes Spartianus quotes in the Life of the Emperor Adrian, is the ſame of whom we now write, the Author of the Epitomy of the Roman Hiſtory in four books. The verſes are in a very familiar Stile;

Ego nolo Caeſar eſſe,

Ambulare per Britannos,

Scythicas pati pruinas.

The Emperor Adrian was addicted to Poetry, [Page] as may be ſeen by the pleaſant anſwer which he returned.

Ego nolo Florus eſſe,

Ambulare per Tabernas,

Latitare per popinas,

Calices pati rotundos.

And one may ſee that the Phraſe of his Hiſtory is wholly Poetical, and that the love of Parnaſſus cauſed him ſometimes, like Virgil, to imploy Hemiſtichs in his Periods, But though he ſeems very licentious in it, and his ſpeech and expreſſions often favour more of a Declamer, than an Hiſtorian, yet we muſt affirm Sigonius to be very unjuſt, when he ſtiles him an impertinent Writer. The manner in which Florus treats of every War apart, did not deſerve ſo ſevere a cenſure. And it is apparent, that he was ever acknowledged to be a very fluent Author, full of Eloquence, and very agreeable flowers of Oratory. He is moreover repleniſhed with very ingenious ſentences, thoughts expreſſed with force and vehemency. And laying aſide ſome little places, which may be thought cold, in compariſon of others, many refined precepts are contained in what he writes, which could not be expreſſed in better terms.

Some doubt whither Florus that made the four books above mentioned, was the ſame that compoſed Arguments to the books of Livy's hiſtory. Nevertheleſs it is a great miſtake, to beleive that he intended to Epitomize the whole Hiſtory of Livy, in his four books, for he does not follow it [Page] in divers places, but rather purſues his particular fancy. Which is ſo extravagant in reference to Chronology, or the account of time, that it is not ſafe for any that will be truly informed, to take him him for a guide in that matter, becauſe of the many faults he has committed therein, through negligence, or otherwiſe. He is accuſed alſo of contriving the loſs of Livy's works, to value his own collections; but I judge thoſe that are of that opinion, to be in an error, ſuch a ſort of ſummary Narration being not ſufficient ſo to ſatisfy the mind, as to make it reject a work, whereof that Compendium gives but a very ſuperficial account.

Moreover ſome make Seneca to be the Author of the Compendious Hiſtory of Florus, becauſe Lactantius laies down, in the fifteenth Chapter of the Seventh book of his Divine Inſtitutions, a Diviſion of the Roman Empire into four different ſeaſons, aſcribing Metaphorically to it, Infancy, Youth, Virility, and Old Age, which he attributes to Seneca's invention. And becauſe the like diviſion is ſeen, in the Preface of Florus his books, they conclude that Seneca is the Author of them; and that the name of Florus is to be no otherwiſe conſidered, than as a counterfeit. But he that ſhall well obſerve the writings of theſe two Authors, will eaſily diſcern great differences in them. Seneca makes the Youth or Adoleſcency of Rome, as he terms it, reach to the end of the laſt Punick War, whilſt Florus makes it continue but to the firſt. [Page] And Seneca begins its Old Age, when the Civil Wars aroſe between Julius Caeſar, and Pompey; whereas Florus accounts it from Auguſtus his eſtabliſhment in the abſolute power of the Empire. Is it not therefore more probable that Florus made uſe of Seneca's thought, varying it, and rendering it in a manner his own, by the alteration he made therein? I am apter to believe, that Lactantius was miſtaken, than to imagine that all the Manuſcripts ſhould err, which have put L. Annaeus Florus in the Title of the Books we now mention. But perhaps Florus and Seneca, being both of the ſame family▪ Viz. that of the Annaei, their names may have been confounded by adoption, or otherwiſe; and that Florus was therefore ſometimes called Seneca, as one cannot deny that he is in ſome old Copies; and ſome have given him alſo the Surname of Julius. Whereupon we muſt obſerve that the Houſe of the Heraclidae, is not more honoured in the valour of the many gallant men it hath beſtowed on the world, than that of the Annaei in the number of the excellent perſons it has produced in all ſorts of learning. Seneca the Philoſopher, the Tragedian, and the Rhetorician, (if they are three) prove it ſufficiently, as well as the Poet Lucan, and our Hiſtoriographer, whoſe Stile retains ſomething of the Genius of that laſt Family, born all to be Maſters of Eloquence, and Poetry. It will not be amiſs to obſerve, that the praiſes which Florus gave in many places to Spain, are reproached to him by thoſe who think, that the [Page] love of his country induced him to exceed a little, in the ſixth, ſeventeenth, and eighteenth Chapters of the ſecond book, beſides what he adds in the third,Cap. 22. treating of the Warlike exploits of Sertorius in that Country.

There was another Julius Florus, more Ancient than the Hiſtoriographer, who lived in Tiberius his Reign. Seneca, in his Controverſies, ſaies that he was inſtructed in the art of ſpeaking well, by the Oratour Portius Latro. Lib. 1. inſtit. c. 3. And Quintilian, ſpeaking of that Florus, ſaies he was the Prince of Eloquence, and was a publick Profeſſor of it in Gallia. They who build upon the Surname of Julius (which ſome Manuſcripts attribute, as we have already ſaid, to him whoſe Hiſtory we examin) imagin he may be deſcended from that other Florus, whereof Seneca and Quintilian have made ſuch honourable mention. But it is a meer conjecture, and ſo light, that it deſerves not to be further reflected on.

I will only add, that amongſt the Licences Florus has aſſumed, as we have already obſerved, there is one ſo Poetical, and ſtrangely Hyperbolical, that Scaliger with reaſon blames him, in his Commentaries upon Euſebius, Pag. 134. for having in a miſtaken zeal, ſuffered himſelf to be led away, by a mean and childiſh appetite of relating wonderful things to the prejudice of truth.Lib. 2. It is where he relates the expedition of Decimus Brutus, Cap. 17. along the Celtique, Galician, and Portugueſe Coaſts. Where he alledges that Brutus never ſtopped his victorious [Page] courſe, till he beheld the Sun fall into the Ocean, and heard with horrour its fire extinguiſh in the waters; which gave him a certain apprehenſion of being Sacrilegious, and to have done more than his religion permitted. Putida [...] ſunt haec, ſaies Scaliger, after he had uſed theſe terms, Florus [...] Poetica drama amplificat. The ſame deſire of writing ſome ſtrange thing ought to be cenſured in him, where he ſpeaks of the defeat of the Cimbri by Marius. He pretends that two Young Men were ſeen in Rome near the Temple of Caſtor and Pollux, preſenting to the Praetor Letters accompanied with Laurel, to witneſs a victory obtained. But I ſhall on this occaſion repeat a Maxim, which I have elſewhere eſtabliſhed, viz. that if an Hiſtorian ſometimes inſerts any thing in his Narration, of ſo extraordinary a nature, he ought at the ſame time to ſignify the ſmall faith he has therein, and proteſt that he meerly reports it as a popular rumor.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF SUETONIUS.

[Page]

I Have hinted in the Preface of this Book, that I would not have ranked Suetonius with the other Hiſtorians, if what he writ of the twelve firſt Caeſars, had not contained as well as their Lives, an Hiſtorical ſeries of what happened, during ſo conſiderable a time as an Age and more. Moreover I obſerve that no body mentions the Roman Hiſtory, without ſpeaking very advantagiouſly of Suetonius; and Lodovicus Vives has not ſtuck to prefer him for diligence, and fidelity, to all the Greek and Latin Writers extant.Lib. 5. de trad. diſc. Bodin likewiſe affirms, that none of them has compoſed any thing exacter, or better accompliſhed, than what we have of this Hiſtorian. But though he is very deſerving, I ſhould be loath to aſcribe ſo much to him, as to celebrate his praiſe to the prejudice of thoſe whom we have [Page] hitherto treated of. I allow him to be one of the Principal of the Latin Writers. He was Secretary of State to the Emperor Adrian, which is an evidence that he poſſeſſed, beſides the knowledge of Great Affairs, a competent capacity to deliver them in proper and apt expreſſions. It is ſaid, his imployment was taken from him, becauſe of ſome private familiarity he had with the Empreſs Sabina, which was diſliked, as if the reſpect and reverence due to her ſupreme dignity, had been thereby violated. But it happens ſometimes that particular diſgraces are uſeful to the publick, as was evidenced in his perſon, for his fall, and the leiſure he had by it, reduced him to a ſtudious contemplation, which has procured us amongſt other works, that which gives him a place amongſt the beſt Hiſtorians.

Beſides his Hiſtorical Labour, we have part of his Treatiſe of the Illustrious Crammaninus, and that of the Rhetoricians, and ſome remains of another which contained the Lives of the Poets. For that of Terence is almoſt all of Suetonius his writing, as Donatus himſelf confeſſes, who adds ſomething to it. And the Lives of Horace, Juvenal, Lucan, and Perſeus, are probably of the ſame compoſition. However it be, ſome write that St Hierome took him for his Pattern, when he made his Catalogus of the Eccleſiastical Writers. But we ought not to believe, that which is extant of the Elder Pliny's Life, under the name of Suetonius, to be of his writing; and if the Stile [Page] were not an obſtacle, the Phraſe is enough to diſcover it to be of a more modern contexture. Suctonius was too much a friend to the Younger Pliny, (as it is apparent in his Epistles) to ſpeak ſo coldly, and ſay ſo little of his Uncle, that was a moſt worthy perſon. There are many of the Epiſtles of the Nephew addreſſed to Suetonius, in one whereof Pliny takes notice, that he deſired him to defer for ſome daies,Lib. 1. ep. 18. the pleading of his cauſe, on the occaſion of an ominous dream, which made him apprehend at that time, the event of his buſineſs. This ſhews on the one ſide that Suetonius was ſuperſtitious; and the anſwer Pliny makes him, importing that dreams are often to be taken in the contrary ſenſe, witneſſes that he yeilded no leſs than his friend, to that ſort of vanity. And in another Epistle Pliny merrily menaces Suetonius, that if he delayed to publiſh his writings, he would change the Hendeoaſyllables, which he had made in their praiſe,Lib. 5. ep. 11. into Scazons of defamation, adding withal, to incourage their publication, that his work was arrived to ſuch a ſtate of perfection, that the file inſtead of making it brighter, did now diminiſh its value, and weaken it. Perfectum opus abſolutumque eſt, nec jam ſplendeſcit lima, ſed atteritur.

One may read in Aulus Gellius, Servius, Tzetzez, and in Suidas, the Titles of ſeveral Compoſitions of Suetonius, which we have loſt; As that of the Games and Spectacles or Shewes repreſented by the Romans; The Republick of Cicero; An Account [Page] of the Illuſtrious Families of Rome; and many others. Suidas gives him barely the character of Roman Grammarian, a Quality much more conſidered in that time, than it has been ſince. Auſonius mentions a Treatiſe of Kings, Ep. 19. writ by Suetonius in three books, whereof Pontius Paulinus contracting them made a Poem. Moreover the Surname of Tranquillus, which is given to Suetonius, is in effect the ſame in ſignification, as that of his Father, whom he himſelf calls,Cap. 10. in the Life of Otho, Suetonium Lenem, reporting that his charge of Tribune of the thirteenth Legion, obliged him to be preſent, when that Emperors Troops engaged againſt thoſe of Vitellius. They therefore were deceived who beleived,In vita Suet. var. lect. l. 5. c. 11. that this Suetonius of whom we write, was Son of that Suetonius Paulinus, whereof Tacitus, Pliny, and Dion make mention. Sicco Polentonus, and Muret committed this error, which Lipſius, and Some Others judiciouſly repair, there being no reaſon in what they affirm, to confound a Military Tribune with a Conſul. Gerardus Voſſius ſhews alſo the miſtake of thoſe who read, in the tenth Chapter of the firſt book of the Divine Inſtitutions of Lactantius, Tranquillus, inſtead of Tarquitius, who was another Author very learned in the Pagan Religion, and whom probably in that reſpect, Lactantius ſpeaking of Aeſculapius, rather intends than our Suetonius.

But to return to his particular Hiſtory of the Twelve firſt Emperors, There are ſome Criticks which affirm, that the beginning of the firſt book [Page] is wanting; and the ground of their opinion is founded on the improbability, that Suetonius ſhould have writ nothing of the birth and firſt years of Julius Caeſar, when he took the pains to ſearch into the Original, and Education, of eleven other Emperors that ſucceeded, whoſe lives he has deſcribed. He laboured in it, according to the judgement of St Hierome, (with the ſame liberty as Soveraigns ſo abſolute aſſumed) in a condition exempt from all ſort of fear.Eadem libertate ſcrip [...]lt, quâ ipſ [...] vixerunt. Muret indeed, in his Oration upon Tacitus, converts this to his diſadvantage, and maintains that St Hierome rather blamed, than praiſed him in that ſaying. For, ſaies Muret, it were to be wiſhed, that we had not learned ſo many Riots, and ſhameful Vices, as he declares to have been practiſed by the Tiberii, Nerones, and Caligulae. They are, ſaies he, ſo filthy, that they almoſt make the Paper bluſh, upon which they are repreſented. And if what one of the Ancients ſaies, be true, namely that there is but little difference,Parum abeſt à docente qui talia narrat. between him who deſcribes ſuch infamy with care, and he who teaches it; we ſhall have much ado to excuſe Suetonius, for having acted ſuch a part as he did. And to augment his charge, he is accuſed of having uſed the Chriſtians ill,In Ner. cap. 16. calling them a ſort of men, who imbraced a new, and miſchievous ſuperſtition, which made them be perſecuted in Nero's time. But, as we have already anſwered to the like objections in other Sections, is there any of all the Hiſtorians of repute, who is [Page] not guilty, if it be a crime in him, to have repreſented the wicked actions of thoſe they write of, which makes the greateſt, and often the moſt conſiderable part of the narration? Does not the Sacred Hiſtory it ſelf, ſhew us Parricides, Inceſts, Idolatry, and many other Profanations, amongſt the beſt examples, and holieſt inſtructions? And ought we not to caſt into the fire all the books of thoſe Pagans, who have writ ſince the beginning of Chriſtianity, if what they expoſed againſt our Religion, ſhould make us abſolutely condemn it.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF JUSTIN.

[Page]

SOME think they are to blame that complain of Abreviators, becauſe without contributing to the loſs of the writings they epitomiſed, they have not left us deſtitute of the moſt remarkable memorials of many Authors, of whoſe works nothing now remains. But thoſe which are of this opinion, ought to confeſs themſelves obliged to Juſtin, by whoſe Induſtry, the Great Labour of Trogus Pompeius is ſo happily reduced into little, that we have few Latin compoſitions more conſiderable than his Epitome, either for the Stile, or matter thereof. Yet methinks, theſe ſort of writers are not ſufficiently diſcharged, in aſſerting that they have left behind them valuable works, unleſs it be made to appear, that they have not been acceſſory to the loſs of the Originals, which is the crime imputed [Page] to them by many Learned Men, as we have already obſerved in the Chapters of Herodotus, Dion Caſſius, and Livy. The Extracts or Collections of that Underſtanding Emperor Porphyrogenetus are inſtanced on this occaſion. And Tribonianius meets with the like entertainment, for having made a defective compilation, in his Pandects, of the Texts, or rather Oracles, of all thoſe Ancient Lawyers, whoſe excellent reaſonings, and elegant expreſſions, ought to have been preſerved from ſo bold an attempt. A very ſpeculative modern Author ſpeaking of Epitomys, Verulam de aug. Scient. l. 2. c. 6. does not ſtick to call them Moths and Worms that gnaw Hiſtory, which have made ſuch a ſpoil therein, that there often remain but miſerable ſhreads of the firſt contexture. And indeed there ought to be more than a bare negation, to refute ſo probable an opinion; though it may be alledged that the works of moſt Abreviators, and thoſe of Juſtin amongſt the reſt, ought to be now very acceptable to us, becauſe we can have recourſe to no other relations of the matter they deliver.

It is eaſy to make a near gueſs at the time when Trogus Pompeius lived, by what he ſaid in his forty third book, of his Parents that came from Gallia Narbonenſis, where he declares his Grandfather to be made a Citizen of Rome, by the favour of Pompey the Great (whoſe Surname probably he took) during the Wars of Sertorius; and that his Father, after he had borne Arms under Caius Caeſar (who is here taken for the firſt [Page] Emperor who bore that name, rather than for Caligula) had the honour to be his Secretary, and jointly to keep his Seal. It is therefore thought, that Trogus Pompeius wrote his Hiſtory under Augustus and Tiberius, having ſpoken of the former at the end of the whole work. It was divided into forty four books, whoſe number Juſtin has not changed, no more than their Title, which was the Philippick Hiſtory, becauſe (as it appears from the ſeventh unto the one and fortieth book,) it was a continued narration of the Macedonian Empire, which owed its riſe to Philip Father of Alexander the Great. Theopompus had written before, fifty eight books called Philippicks, which are quoted by Athenaeus and Diodorus, and by Some held to be the Model which Trogus Pompeius followed; as Cicero, imitating Demoſthenes, named his Orations Philippicks, with much leſs reaſon. The ſeven firſt books of that Hiſtory, in purſuance of the Title we mention, compriſed the firſt beginnings of the world, or of the Inhabitants thereof, together with deſcriptions of Places and Countries, which Juſtin has apparently cut of, as it may be collected from the Ancient Preambles before each book of Trogus Pompeius, publiſhed by Bongars. But we had been more fully ſatisfied herein, if that Friend of Aldus, who bragged he had in his hands all the works of that Hiſtorian, and would even in a ſhort time ſhew them the light, had ſaid a truth.

As to what relates particularly to Juſtin, he [Page] made his Epitome, according to the moſt common opinion, under Antoninus ſurnamed Pius, to whom it is thought he dedicated it in his Preface. I know, the paſſage wherein that Emperor is mentioned, is diverſly interpreted; and ſome have been perſwaded, that he wrote after the Eſtabliſhment of the Roman Empire in Conſtantinople, becauſe of a place in the eighth book, where he ſpeaks of the Soveraign power of Greece. But that may admit other interpretations, without a neceſſity of making him live two hundred years later than he did, and in an Age which produced nothing ſo polite or elegant, as all we have of this Author is. Yet it is a greater error to confound him with Juſtin the Martyr, as one Martin' a Polander did in his Chronicle. For though theſe Two Juſtins were Contemporary, the manner how the Hiſtorian treats the Iſraelites in his ſix and thirtieth book, where he will have Moſes to be the Son of Joſeph, and the Latter a very Great Magician, ſhews that he was of the Pagan belief. And Juſtin the Martyr never wrote but in Greek, nor did Euſebius, St Hierome, or Photius rank the Epitomy of Trogus Pompeius, amongſt his Works. Though St Hierome indeed quotes ſomething of it in his Preamble upon Daniel; And no Author more Ancient than that Father of the Church, ſpoke of Justin the Hiſtorian.

He was not like to uſe Direct Orations, when he whom he epitomiſed, had condemned them [Page] in Saluſt and Livy, as we have already elſewhere mentioned. Which appears in the eight and thirtieth book, where he rehearſes in an Oblique form, that long Oration of Mithridates to his Souldiers, to animate them againſt the Romans. And that of Agathocles in the twenty ſecond book, pronounced as ſoon as he arrived at Africa, to incourage his Troops then terrified by the obſcurity of an Eclipſe of the Sun, is no leſs conſiderable than that of Mithridates, though it be ſhorter. But he is cenſured by Some, for introducing a few Digreſſions in a work ſo cloſe and ſhort, as the Hiſtory he writes. The firſt is found in the beginning of his ſecond book, where the Scythians and the Egyptians have a debate on the point of honour, in what relates to their Antiquity, both of them pretending to have ſufficient reaſons to call themſelves, the moſt Ancient People of the Earth. The ſecond is in the twentieth book, on the ſubject of Pythagoras, whoſe birth, voyages, learning, virtues, and death, he deſcribes, without forgetting the misfortune which happened to his Diſciples, whereof threeſcore were burnt in Croton, and the reſt exiled. Whence one may conclude, that all ſort of Digreſſions are not to be condemned; when ſo eminent an Author as Juſtin, who contracted into ſo little a ſpace, the Hiſtory of the Tranſactions of two thouſand years (which are reckoned from Ninus the Founder of the Aſſyrian Monarchy, to the Emperor Auguſtus) made no difficulty [Page] ſometimes to divert himſelf this way upon an agreeable ſubject.

But though Juſtin's manner of writing is ſo excellent, that it was thought worthy of Auguſtus his Age, rather than of that of the Antonines; his elegancy of Stile cannot atone for his miſtakes in relation.Cap. 40. Pererius has convinced him of many errors in reference to the Jews, In Aurelio. in his Commentaries upon Daniel. And Vopiſcus places him in the rank of Hiſtorians who could not avoid lying: but one may ſay, that his aſſociating him with Livy, Saluſt, and Tacitus, renders that accuſation very light. That which he cannot be excuſed in, is Chronology, where he was ſo much miſtaken, that one ought not to follow him alwaies. And that which makes his fault the greater, is that the reputation of Trogus Pompeius, and the eſteem which all the Ancients had for him, obliges men to think, that thoſe miſreckonings in the ſequel of times, are rather of the Copy, than the Original, or of the Abreviator, rather than the Primitive Author. Which is the ordinary judgment of thoſe who have laboured moſt in the beſt Editions of Juſtin.

[Page] I Should have ended here, according to my firſt intention, not finding after Juſtin and the time of the Antonines, any Latin Hiſtorian amongſt the Ancients, whence one might draw any profitable inſtruction to compoſe a Hiſtory, or whoſe works might merit a ſerious reflection, unleſs it ſhould be abſolutely to condemn the expoſition, and ill conduct of them. They who are uſually called the Writers of the Auguſt Hiſtory, Spartianus, Wlcatius Gallicanus, Trebellius Pollio, Julius Capitolinus, Lampridius, and Vopiſcus, have nothing in them contrary to this propoſition, or otherwiſe conſiderable, except it be that they teach us things of many Emperors, whereof we hardly learn any thing elſewhere, though indeed Vopiſcus is the leaſt faulty of them. Trebellius Pollio may be put in the ſecond order. Spartianus, Lampridius, and Wlcatius are incomparably more faulty and more negligent than the others; and Julius Capitolinus is the worſt of all, by the advice of thoſe who have taken the pains to examin them. But it is very ſtrange that a whole Age and more ſhould paſs away, from that of the Antonines to Diocletian (under whom all thoſe before mentioned did write) without the appearance of one good Hiſtorian in the Roman Empire, who might deſerve to have his works deſcend to us. Neither will Sextus Aurelius Victor (who came a little after) merit a better eſteem, whoſe abridged Hiſtory [Page] contains but a word of each Emperor's Life, from Auguſtus to Julian; nor would it be any advantage to him if we ſhould confound in one, the three who bore the ſame name of Sextus Victor, to Theodoſius the Great. And as for Eutropius, who dedicates almoſt at the ſame time, his Hiſtorical Breviary, to the Emperor Valens, and whom Suidas calls an Italian Sophiſter, I ſhall ſay little of him, as having nothing comparable in his writings, to thoſe of the celebrated Authors, whoſe works we have examined. There remains only Ammianus Marcellinus, whom I cannot with a good conſcience decline, he having compiled a juſt body of Hiſtory, and by whom I will finiſh this Treatiſe: for we cannot extend it to the Age of Juſtinian, as we have done that of the Greek Hiſtorians; unleſs we ſhould introduce Jornandes, and Caſſiodorus, indiſcreetly mingling the barbarity of the Goths, with the purity and adreſs of the beſt Authors of the Latin Language.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS.

[Page]

IT muſt be confeſſed, that Ammianus Marcellinus is not conſiderable in reſpect of the beauty of his language. For he was a Greek by Nation, as he himſelf declares at the end of his laſt book. And from an Epiſtle of Libanius to him, it is inferred, that he was a Citizen of Antioch; he ſpeaks of him with Elogies, as often as occaſion does occur, excuſing him in his two and twentieth Book, on the ſubject of the Invectives of the Miſopogon of Julian, which he affirms to have been exceſſive, and contrary to what might be juſtified with truth. After the death of the Emperor Valens, he retired to Rome, where it is beleived by very probable conjectures, that he complied his Hiſtory after he had paſſed through the moſt honourable Offices of the Militia, which he exerciſed under divers Emperors, having been in his [Page] youth, of the number of thoſe who were then named Protectores Domeſtici; which was a Quality that reſembles that of the Gardes du Corps in France, Guards of the King of France his body. an ordinary ſtep to the higheſt Imployments of the State. He flouriſhed under the Emperors Gratianus and Valentinian, and wrote his Hiſtory in one and thirty books, which he began at the end of Domitians Reign, or the beginning of Nerva, and continued to the death of Valens; the firſt thirteen of them are loſt, and the eighteen that remain, are full of imperfections, which the injury of time, and the inſolent temerity of Criticks have introduced in them,Henr. Valeſius. as the learned Author of the laſt Edition of that work, has very prudently obſerved.

It is eaſy to judge that the books of Ammianus his Hiſtory, which are wanting, were writ much more compendiouſly, than thoſe we have; for he compriſed in the thirteen firſt, the Reigns of as many Caeſars, as were between Nerva and Conſtantius, who makes the beginning of the fourteenth; all the reſt which followed being imployed to deſcribe, what paſt from that laſt Emperor's, to Gratian's time, under ſeven Reigns only. We have ſpoken in the Section of Joſephus, of thoſe who undertook to write in Foreign Tongues. I will not repeat any thing here that I there mentioned; but only add, that if the Hiſtory of Ammianus Marcellinus receives ſome prejudice from his defects in the Latin Elocution, in which a Graecian, and a Souldier by profeſſion as he was, could [Page] not very much excell, it is ſo well recompenſed by the merit of the thoughts, and all the reſt of his work, that an advantagious place, amongſt the Prime and Principal Hiſtorians, cannot be refuſed him, He is of the number of thoſe who writ the things they ſaw, in which they often had a great part; wherefore he has ſomething common with Caeſar and Xenophon. Nevertheleſs I do not think (as others have done) that he is that Free Prince of Dalmatia and Illyria, of whom Suidas ſpeaks, though he bore the ſame name, and was a great friend of Saluſtius the Philoſopher, who ought not to be confounded with another of that name, a Principal commander of the Praetorian Militia, under Valentinian. But Ammianus Marcellinus is very much to be valued; becauſe, though he was a Pagan, he had the diſcretion to publiſh nothing directly contrary to Chriſtianity; and abſtained from many Invectives, which his equals often in that time uſed againſt our Religion. He gives indeed exceſſive praiſes to Julian; Lib. de virtute Paganorum. and though that Apoſtate cannot be too much deteſted, for his infidelity and revolt, yet it cannot be denied but he was indued, according to the ordinary definitions of the Schools, with the Moral and intellectual virtues of Chaſtity, Magnanimity, Learning, and Temperance, unleſs the faith of all Hiſtories that have writ of him be diſputed; which is needleſs in the Age in which we live, wherein the grace of God has left us nothing more to fear from the Idolatry of the Ancients. If the opinion [Page] of Geſner may be allowed, who maintains that Marcellinus the Hiſtorian is the ſame that writ the Life of Thueydides, it may be wondered that he treated Chriſtianity with ſo much moderation. The Author of the Life commends Thucydides for nothing ſo much, as that he had the power over himſelf, to forbear writing with Animoſity, againſt Cleon, or Braſidas (who had cauſed him to be baniſhed) never ſhewing any where his reſentment of ſo great an injury; though, to ſpeak the truth, he did not wholly refrain from repreſenting the bad conditions of Cleon. It is no marvel then, that Marcellinus practiſed himſelf what he eſteemed ſo much in others, or that he made uſe of that virtue in his diſcourſes, which he commended in thoſe of Thucydides.

One of the conſiderations which ought to oblige us to a greater eſteem of the Hiſtory of Ammianus, Meaning the French. is, that we have none like that, which gives us the knowledge of many Antiquities of the Gaules, or ſo well explains the Originals of the firſt French, Germans, and Burgundians, of whom it makes frequent mention. Morover it contains many things beſides, which are found no where elſe, and has had the approbation of all Ages ſince it was writ, becauſe of the ſincerity and veracity of the Author. And for his reputation, we may add to what has been already ſaid of him, and his Employments, that he paſſed his laſt years with great reputation, under the Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodoſius the Great.

[Page] But all theſe Encomiums do not protect him, from being accuſed of having too often acted the part of a Philoſopher in his writings, affecting to appear learned, beyond what the Laws of Hiſtory permit, which do not admit of Entertainments of ſo great oſtentation, as many of thoſe he relates.

It is the ordinary fault of thoſe that are diſtinguiſhed by their profeſſion, from men of letters, and has great reſemblance to that vice, which the Greeks named [...], which ſignifies a learning in old age; becauſe they which ſtudy when they are advanced in age, and againſt the Rules of the uſual courſe of ſtudy, are much more ſubject to it than others. And indeed, Ammianus Marcellinus cannot be juſtified in many places of his Hiſtory, where he indecently quits the proſecution of his narration, to enter upon diſcourſes of Philoſophy, and other Sciences, which have hardly any relation to the matters whereof he treats. But to make the thing clearer, and conſequently more inſtructive, I will produce two or three examples of his practice herein.

In the ſeventeenth book, ſpeaking of terrible Earthquakes, which happened under the Reign of Conſtantius in Macedonia, in the Province which at that time bore the name of Pontus, and in many parts of Aſia Minor, he makes an excellent deſcription, and not improperly, of the ſtrange Ruines which Nicomedia the Capital City of Bithynia ſuffered by this accident. And if he had ſtopped there, he had done enough, but he takes occaſion on that [Page] ſubject, to ſeek for the Phyſical cauſes of ſuch ſhakings in the loweſt part of the Univerſe. And conſiders firſt what the Prieſts of his Religion ſaid of it. Thence, examining the reaſons of Ariſtotle, Anaxagoras, and Anaximander, ſtrenghtned by the Teſtimony of the Poets, and Theologians, he ſhews that there are four ſorts of Earthquakes. And after a long enumeration of the new Iſles, which appeared in divers places after ſuch ſhocks, he names thoſe that were ſwallowed up by a quite contrary violence, and one amongſt the reſt, which was of a greater extent than all Europe, and was ſwallowed by the Atlantick Sea; which doubtleſs he took from Plato's Timaeus though he does not name him. At laſt having a long time Philoſophically expatiated himſelf, he begins his narration again with Julian's reſidence at Paris, being then only a deſigned Caeſar or Emperor.

In the beginning of the twentieth book, he takes notice of a great Eclipſe of the Sun, in the year when the Scotch, & the Picts waſted England, which was that of the tenth Conſulat of Conſtantius, and the third of Julian. As this was a good obſervation to be made, and very worthy of his Hiſtory, ſo there is no reaſon on that circumſtance, to fall upon the moſt ſecret miſteries of Aſtronomy, not only in what concerns thoſe Periodical defects of the light of the Sun, but alſo in what touches the travels of the Moon▪ as the Poets ſay, when the Earth darkens it with its ſhadow. He expoſes on that ſubject the opinion of Ptolemaeus, in the ſame [Page] words he uſed; and not content to treat of Eclipſes, he inquires into the cauſe of the Parelia, when we think we ſee more than one Sun in the Heavens; ſo that one would think in this place, he quite abandons the proſecution of his Hiſtory, to deliver to his readers, a Lecture of Aſtronomy. Nevertheleſs at laſt he reſumes his diſcourſe, recounting the preparations of Conſtantius againſt the Perſians, and his jealouſy of the brave actions of Julian, after a tireſome and intolerable excurſion.

The third and laſt example of the vicious digreſſions of Ammianus, is in his thirtieth Book, where he obſerves with curioſity and profit, how the Emperor Valens was diverted by his Courtiers from hearing cauſes pleaded, and aſſiſting at judgments, that they might thereby purſue their unjuſt Monapolies; and becauſe they feared, conſidering his rigid and ſevere nature, he would cauſe juſtice to be exerciſed as legally and juſtly, as it was a little before, under the government of Julian. Thence he takes occaſion to inveigh againſt the profeſſion of Advocates, which he ſays, Epicurus named the Art of Knavery [...]. And the better to repreſent the infamous proceedings of thoſe of his time, he exaggerates the merit of one Demoſthenes, that made all Greece come to Athens, when he was to ſpeak in publick; and of one Calliſtratus, who made even Demoſthenes leave Plato in his Academy to go and hear him; And then he mentions Hyperides, Aeſchines, Androcides, Dinarchus, and one Antiphon, who was the firſt [Page] of all Antiquity that was recompenſed for pleading in a weighty cauſe. From the Greeks he paſſſes to the Romans, and naming thoſe great Orators Rutilius, Galba, Scaurus, Craſſus, Antonius, Philippus, and Scaevola, he deſcends to Cicero, to prove that formerly, they that had exerciſed the chief imployments of State; after having been Cenſors, Conſuls, Generals, and had Triumphed, did not diſdain to take a place at the Bar; and add to the glory of their precedent actions, as a Corollary, that of having had the applauſe of a whole Audience in pleading. And after having ſhown ſo fine a Scene, he draws the Curtain, to expoſe to all eies the ſhameful and criminal proſtitution of the Advocates of his Age, dividing them into four ſorts, whoſe impoſtures, impertinencies, and perplexing tricks he does ſo particularly diſplay, that one has much ado to get out of the Laborinth, to recover the narration, and return to Valentinian in Tryers, where he had left him. Though his Declamation is very moral and elegant being ſeparately conſidered, it muſt needs be troubleſome, and tedious as he introduces it, becauſe it too viſibly interrupts the courſe of the Hiſtory. And thoſe that would be inſtructed in Phyſicks, Aſtronomy, or Moral Philoſophy, do not ſeek ſuch leſſons in an Hiſtorian, and to thoſe that deſign to be informed in Hiſtory, nothing can be more uneaſy, than to find in the midſt of a relation foreign diſcourſes, which divide or miſlead the mind, and do but ſhew his learning that expoſes them.

[Page] Beſides this vicious oſtentation, which one may eaſily perceive in thoſe three paſſages I inſtanced, Ammianus Marcellinus is blamed for having made certain deſcriptions ſo Poetical, that they are hardly ſufferable. And though, as we have elſewhere obſerved,In the Section of Agathias. Lib. 2. cap. 8. Hiſtory and Poetry are good friends enough, and agree in many things; Cauſſinus the Jeſuite, in his Treatiſe of Eloquence, gives divers examples of this defect, which appear ſo frequently in the writings of Ammianus, that it is hard not to find ſome in every opening of the book. But all theſe cenſures cannot deprive him of the praiſes we have given him. There are generally ſpeaking, certain things in books that are diſpleaſing, which nevertheleſs are not to be rejected, becauſe they ſerve for a Baſis to others which are better, and are like the Lees, which preſerve the Wine, in its ſpirits.

But after all that has been ſaid, the imperfections of this Hiſtorian ſeem to me ſo much the leſs conſiderable, as the virtues of his Age were rare. And it is that which induces me to put an end here to my labour, hardly finding after him, any thing but groſs errors, in the writings of thoſe Authors of the next ſucceeding age, which buſied themſelves in writing Latin Hiſtory. To write of the Modern Hiſtorians is not my deſign, and the Interval of time which divides them from the firſt of that order, is a juſt occaſion for me to make a ſtop here.

FINIS.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

Notitia historicorum selectorum, or, Animadversions upon the antient and famous Greek and Latin historians written in French by ... Francis La Mothe le Vayer ... ; translated into English, with some additions by W.D. ...Des anciens et principaux historiens grecs et latins dont il nous reste quelques ouvrages. English

La Mothe Le Vayer, François de, 1583-1672.

Edition statement

1678

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2005-12 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A49146

ID [STC]

Wing L301

ID [STC]

ESTC R16783

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

12210126

ID [OCLC]

ocm 12210126

ID [VID]

56273

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A49146)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 56273)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 765:12)

Source

— Notitia historicorum selectorum, or, Animadversions upon the antient and famous Greek and Latin historians written in French by ... Francis La Mothe le Vayer ... ; translated into English, with some additions by W.D. ..., Des anciens et principaux historiens grecs et latins dont il nous reste quelques ouvrages. English, La Mothe Le Vayer, François de, 1583-1672., D'Avenant, William, Sir, 1606-1668..

Extent

[16], 256 p.

Printed by Leon Lichfield ..., for Ric. Davis,. Oxford :: 1678.. (Includes bibliographical references.) (Reproduction of original in Bodleian Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.