REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF HERODOTUS.

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 2] 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 3] 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:

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 4] 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 5] 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 6] 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 7] 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 8] 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 9] 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 10] 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 11] 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 12] 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 31] 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.

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 16] 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 17] 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 18] 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 19] 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 20] 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 21] 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 22] 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 23] 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 24] 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 25] 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.

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 27] 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 28] 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 29] 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 30] 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 31] 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 32] 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.

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 34] 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 35] 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 36] 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.

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 37] 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 38] 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 39] 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 40] 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 41] 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 42] 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 43] 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 44] 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 45] 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.

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 47] 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 48] 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 49] 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 50] 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 51] 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 52] 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 53] 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 54] 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 55] 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 56] 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 57] 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.

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 59] 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 60] 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 61] 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 62] 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 63] 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 64] 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 65] 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 66] 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 67] 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 68] 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.

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 70] 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 71] 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 72] 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 73] 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 74] 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 75] 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 76] rehearses that place of the Jewish Antiquities, which makes such express mention of Jesus Christ. As for S^t 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 S^t 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 77] 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 78] 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 S^t 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 S^t 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 79] 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 80] 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 81] 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 82] 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.

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 84] 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 85] 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 86] 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 87] 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 88] 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 89] 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 90] 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 91] 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 92] 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.

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 94] 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 95] 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 96] 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 97] 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 98] 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 99] 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 100] 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 101] 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 102] 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 103] 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.

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 105] 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 106] 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 107] 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 108] 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 109] 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 110] 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 111] 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 112] 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 113] 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 114] 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 115] 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.

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 117] 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 118] 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 119] 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 120] 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 121] 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 122] 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 123] 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 124] 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 125] 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.

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 127] 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 128] 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 129] 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 S^t 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 130] 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 131] 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 S^t 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 132] 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 133] 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 134] 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.

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 136] 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 137] 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 138] 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 139] (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 140] 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 141] 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 142] 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 143] 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 144] 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 145] 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 146] 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 147] 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 148] 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 149] 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 150] 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 151] 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 152] 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 153] 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 154] 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 155] 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.

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 S^t 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 157] 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 158] 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 159] 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 160] 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 161] 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 162] 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.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE HISTORY OF CRISPUS SALUSTIUS.

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 166] 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:

[Page 167] 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 168] 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 169] 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 170] 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 171] 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 172] 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 173] 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 174] 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 175] 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 176] 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 177] 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 178] 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.

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 179] 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

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 181] 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 182] 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 183] 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 184] 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 185] 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 186] 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 187] 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.

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 189] 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 190] 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 191] 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 192] 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 193] 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 194] 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,

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 195] 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 196] 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 197] 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 198] 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 199] 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 200] 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.

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 202] 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 203] 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 204] 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 205] 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.

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 207] 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 208] 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 209] 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 210] 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 211] 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 212] 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 213] 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 214] 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 215] 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.

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 217] 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 218] 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 219] 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 220] 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 221] 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 222] 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 223] 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 224] 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 225] 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 226] 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.

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 227] 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.

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;

The Emperor Adrian was addicted to Poetry, [Page 229] as may be seen by the pleasant answer which he returned.

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 230] 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 231] 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 232] 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 233] 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.

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 235] 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 S^t 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 236] 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 237] 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 238] 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 S^t 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 S^t 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 239] 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.

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 241] 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 242] 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 243] 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, S^t Hierome, or Pho­tius rank the Epitomy of Trogus Pompeius, amongst his Works. Though S^t 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 244] 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 245] 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 246] 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 247] 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.

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 249] 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 250] 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 251] 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 252] 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 253] 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 254] 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 255] 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 256] 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.