CHAPTER VIII.

Of Authors who have most promoted Popular Conceit.

Now, forasmuch as we have discoursed of authority, and there is scarce any tradition or popular error but stands also delivered by some good author, we shall endeavour a short discovery of such as for the major part have given authority hereto; who, though excellent and useful authors, yet either being transcriptive, or following common relations, their accounts are not to be swallowed at large, or entertained without all circumspection. In whom ipse dixit, although it be no powerful argument in any, is yet less authentic than in many other, because they deliver not their own experiences, but others' affirmations, and write from others, as we ourselves from them.

1. The first in order, as also in time, shall be Herodotus, of Halicarnassus,3 an excellent and very elegant historian;

3 Herodotus of Halicarnassus.] It will be useful to place in apposition with our author's statement, respecting the writings of this historian, the opinion of their authenticity and character, so far as they relate to the history of Egypt, formed by one of the most sagacious investigators of ancient history of the present age. Since the early history of Egypt claims a much higher antiquity than that of almost any other nation, and is consequently involved in obscurity more impenetrable, if the relations of any ancient writer respecting it are found to be substantially correct, we may conclude, a fortiori, that his account of other nations also deserves our confidence.

"The only original authorities," observes Dr. Young, "on which we can depend for the early history of Egypt, are those of Herodotus, Manetho, Eratosthenes, Diodorus Siculus, and Strabo ; all of whom had been more or less in the country. Herodotus lived soon after the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses, when the names of the later monarchs could not easily have been forgotten. The earlier part of his history is of a much more apocryphal nature: he does not, however, continue the series of the kings further back than Sesostris and Moeris: so that almost all his names are sufficiently recent to be considered as completely within the province of legitimate history." "The stories of Herodotus, though told with an elegant simplicity, and with every appearance of good faith, are by no means free from a frequent mixture of fable; and, with respect to his Egyptian etymologies, he is almost universally mistaken; but his account of the ceremonies observed in the preparation of the mummies has many marks of authenticity, and he is perfectly correct in asserting, that the most splendid of the

whose books of history were so well received in his own days, that, at their rehearsal in the Olympick games, they obtained the names of the nine muses; and continued in such coffins are formed in imitation of the figures of Osiris; a circumstance which he could not easily have conjectured without direct and accurate information." Supp. Ency. Brit. art. EGYPT, p. 47, 52.

How

Of the above testimony to the fidelity of Herodotus, the writer of the present note is enabled to give a strong confirmation in one particular. Dr. Young, arguing from general grounds, observes, as above, that the account of the preparation of the mummies given by that historian "has many marks of authenticity." But the minute examination to which a very perfect mummy was subjected by Dr. Granville, a few years since, appeared to justify strong doubts of the correctness of the statements of Herodotus respecting the Egyptian processes of embalming; the mummy in question having been prepared by a very different method. ever, another mummy, in as perfect a condition as the former, has recently been described by Mr. Osburn, Secretary to the Philosophical and Literary Society of Leeds, which, as he has shown, must have been prepared, in every particular, by the process described by Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus as the most perfect mode of embalming practised by the Egyptians. The opinion antecedently expressed by Dr. Young, before any perfect mummies had been examined, is therefore fully confirmed, and the authority of Herodotus supported, on a subject of Egyptian history, on which, of almost all others, it must have been most difficult to acquire precise and correct knowledge. The weight which this train of circumstances imparts to the character of Herodotus, as a faithful historian, will readily be appreciated by the student of ancient history. Phil. Trans. 1825; Phil. Mag. and Annals, N. S. vol. v. p. 57, 1829. Some very remarkable and important points, in which even the minute accuracy of Herodotus has been established, are conected with his account (lib. i. s. 74) of the eclipse stated to have been predicted by Thales, and which, owing to a very singular coincidence, put an end to a furious war that raged between Cyaxases King of Media, and Alyattes King of Lydia. The investigations by which his accuracy on these points has been determined cannot be detailed in this place, but a full account of them will be found in "Brayley's Utility of the Knowledge of Nature considered; with reference to the Introduction of Instruction in the Physical Sciences into the General Education of Youth." London, 1831, 8vo.

As the extreme accuracy which we have thus seen the statements of Herodotus to possess, with relation to subjects on which it must have been difficult to obtain correct information, and with respect also to others requiring very nice observation, unquestionably guarantee his general fidelity, we have entered into these remarks, for the purpose of showing that he is much more worthy of the title of Historiarum parens, than of that of Mendaciorum pater. With the exceptions arising from the facts we have detailed, and viewed agreeably to the general bearing of those facts, the character of Herodotus given by our author may be regarded as substantially corect.-Br.

esteem unto descending ages that Cicero termed him historiarum parens; and Dionysius, his countryman, in an epistle to Pompey, after an express comparison, affords him the better of Thucydides. All which notwithstanding, he hath received from some the style of mendaciorum pater. His authority was much infringed by Plutarch, who, being offended with him, as Polybius had been with Philarchus, for speaking too coldly of his countrymen, hath left a particular tract, De malignitate Herodoti. But in this latter century Camerarius and Stephanus have stepped in, and, by their witty apologies, effectually endeavoured to frustrate the arguments of Plutarch or any other. Now, in this author, as may be observed in our ensuing discourse, and is better discernable in the perusal of himself, there are many things fabulously delivered, and not to be accepted as truths; whereby, nevertheless, if any man be deceived, the author is not so culpable as the believer. For he, indeed, imitating the father poet, whose life he hath also written, and as Thucydides observeth, as well intending the delight as benefit of his reader, hath besprinkled his work with many fabulosities; whereby if any man be led into error he mistaketh the intention of the author (who plainly confesseth he writeth many things by hearsay) and forgetteth a very considerable caution of his; that is, Ego quæ fando cognovi, exponere narratione mea debeo omnia: credere autem esse vera omnia, non debeo. 2. In the second place is Ctesias the Cnidian,4 physician

4 Ctesias the Cnidian.] The sum of our author's remarks on the authority of Ctesias is probably very near the truth; but in this instance again the researches of modern science have in a great degree rescued from obloquy the statements of ancient history. The descriptions given by Ctesias of many animals, which, as he alleges, are found in Persia and India, and his relations concerning the uses to which many objects of nature are applied by the inhabitants of those countries, are now known either to be actually true, or at least to be founded in truth. In other cases it has been shown that he has correctly described certain objects as represented in paintings or sculptures, but has erroneously attributed an actual existence to what were merely the offspring of the imagination of the artists or of the priests who instructed them. The historical relations of Ctesias, like those of Manetho and others, which have until recently been deemed altogether apocryphal, have received confirmation in many points, from the researches into the early history of Asia and Egypt, which our own age has witnessed; and it is impossible to say how many which yet appear untrue, may

unto Artaxerxes, king of Persia. His books are often recited by ancient writers, and, by the industry of Stephanus and Rhodomanus, there are extant some fragments thereof in our days. He wrote the history of Persia, and many narrations of India. In the first, as having a fair opportunity to know the truth, and as Diodorus affirmeth, the perusal of Persian records, his testimony is acceptable.5 In his Indian relations, wherein are contained strange and incredible accounts, he is surely to be read with suspension. These were they which weakened his authority with former ages; for, as we may observe, he is seldom mentioned without a derogatory parenthesis in any author. Aristotle, besides the frequent undervaluing of his authority in his books of animals, gives him the lie no less than twice con

be attributable to the errors of transcribers. As an instance of his marvellous and incredible relations which have proved to be positively true, we will cite an anticipation of modern discovery contained in his fragments relating to India, which was pointed out a few years since, by the late Rev. J. J. Conybeare, successively professor of AngloSaxon and of poetry in the University of Oxford. Ctesias relates (Ex Ctes. Ind. Hist. Excerpt. in app. Herodot. Wesseling. sub initio, p. 1827,) that a certain variety of iron is found in India, which, when fixed into the ground, has the power of averting storms and lightnings. See Annals of Philosophy, Sec. Ser. vol. iv. p. 439. This evidently describes an anticipation of the use of conductors for lightning. Prior, however, to the discovery of the nature of lightning, and to the invention, founded upon that discovery, of metallic conductors for conveying the electric fluid, of which lightning is a manifestation, silently and innocuously to the earth, about the middle of the last century, every reader would suppose that Ctesias, in the passage before us, was relating, not a philosophical truth, but an unfounded absurdity; and would regard it as one of the "strange and incredible accounts," which, according to our author, are contained "in his Indian relations."

Bearing all these circumstances in mind, the reader, by comparing our author's remarks on Ctesias with the following notes, (marked Br.,) will have the means of forming a correct opinion respecting the merits of that writer.-Br.

5

perusal of Persian records, &c.] In his account of the origin of the Assyrian empire, however, which he professes to have derived from the regal archives of the Medes, he differs considerably from Herodotus, who must be regarded, in this case, as by far the most authentic historian; and he also attributes to the conquests of Ninus and Semiramis an extent towards the west, which is absolutely incompatible with the Jewish and Egyptian history of the same periods. (See Cuvier, Discours sur les Revolutions de la Surface du Globe, 4to. Paris, 1826, p. 101.)—Br.

Yet

cerning the seed of elephants. Strabo, in his eleventh book, hath left a harder censure of him:6 Equidem facilius Hesiodo et Homero aliquis fidem adhibuerit, itemque tragicis poetis, quam Ctesia, Herodoto, Hellanico et eorum similibus. But Lucian hath spoken more plainly than any: Scripsit Ctesias de Indorum regione, deque iis quæ apud illos sunt, ea quæ nec ipse vidit, neque ex ullius sermone audivit. were his relations taken up by some succeeding writers, and many thereof revived by our countryman, Sir John Mandevil, knight and doctor in physick; who, after thirty years' peregrination, died at Liege, and was there honourably interred. He left a book of his travels, which hath been honoured with the translation of many languages, and now continued above three hundred years; herein he often attesteth the fabulous relations of Ctesias, and seems to con

6 Strabo, in his eleventh_book, &c.] Cuvier has remarked (Discours, ubi sup. p. 102) that Strabo was apparently led to this censure from the want of accordance between the various accounts of the antiquity of the Assyrian empire given by Ctesias and other ancient writers. But his ranking Ctesias with Herodotus, whose veracity has been established in modern times, in a manner so irrefragable, is in fact a testimony of considerable weight to the fidelity of the former. In reference to this particular subject Cuvier also alludes to the manifest errors of transcribers, in the fragments of Ctesias which are extant. Upon the whole, therefore, this writer ought not in any degree to suffer in our estimation on account of Strabo's censure.-Br.

7 Sir John Mandeville, &c.] Though spoken of by_Sale_(in his Preliminary Discourse, p. 177, note), by Parkhurst (Heb. Lex. p. 259, third edition), and by Chalmers, as entitled to more credit than has been usually assigned him, Mandeville's work is pronounced by Dr. Hugh Murray, to be "a pure and entire fabrication." Chalmers remarks, "that Sir John honestly acknowledges that his book was made partly of hearsay, and partly of his own knowledge; and that he prefaces his most improbable relations with some such words as these, thei seyne, or men seyn, but I have not sene it:"-and concludes that "there does not appear to be any very good reason why Sir John should not be believed in anything that he relates on his own observation.” He further observes that some of his improbabilities have been since verified; e. g. his hens that bore wool, &c. &c. Murray, on the other hand, asserts that Mandeville, not content with transplanting the fictions of Oderic, and other writers into his narrative, declares himself to have actually seen what they had only heard of. He is quite of opinion that Sir John compiled the greater and the most valuable part of his travels from Oderic, Carpini, Rubruquis, &c. and that what he has added of his own, consists, quite exclusively, of monstrous lies.