The capture of Babylon by Cyrus was an event too remarkable in itself, and in the extraordinary circumstances attending it, to leave room for much diversity among the accounts of it which were transmitted to the next age. The Greek historians differ but little in relating this memorable event, and their testimony, independent as it is, when collated with the circumstantial predictions of the Hebrew prophet, deserves peculiar regard. If the history of Herodotus had no other claims to attention, it would have claim enough by affording, as it does, in several signal instances, an unexceptionable testimony in illustration of the fulfilment of prophecy.
The expedition of Cyrus against the Massagetes, a Scythian nation, in which he perished, closes the first book of the history. Here again there may be reason to suspect a want of authentic information. The scene of action was remote, not merely from Greece, but from Persia, and the survivors of the Persian army told, when they returned, each his own tale of wonder: nor is it probable that any other account of the war was extant in the time of Herodotus than what had been received from these persons.
The instances that have now been mentioned, occurring in the first book of Herodotus, may serve as examples of the different degrees of authority which may belong to different portions of an historical work—dependent both upon the means of information possessed by the writer, and upon his liability to contradiction and correction from his contemporaries. It is enough if we keep in view the general principles stated above (chap. XIII.), in adhering to which, we have a sufficient guidance in perusing a work like that of Herodotus, combining as it does, materials of all kinds, more or less valuable and authentic. As to some of the facts he relates, we may regard them as absolutely certain, others as doubtful, improbable, or unreal. With the worst intentions, and the meanest qualifications, an historian of recent events, whose writings are received in his own times as authentic, can seldom be charged with glaring falsifications of facts; on the other hand, the most cautious, industrious, and scrupulous writer, who compiles the history of remote times, and of foreign nations, may innocently wander very far from the path of truth. It would subserve no useful purpose to adduce a larger sample of instances in illustration of these obvious principles. We may now give some account of those who have signalised themselves as the assailants of this great writer.
Herodotus, as we have already said, was severely reprehended by several ancient writers, especially by Ctesias, Manetho, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Josephus, and, above all, by Plutarch, or by the angry writer who assumes his name. The grounds of exception taken by these writers are, in a few instances just; in most cases, the influence of prejudice or petty jealousy is apparent; yet none of these criticisms affect that part of the history which alone we allege to be unquestionably authentic. But modern authors also have attacked the reputation of the historian, and we may briefly notice some of these more recent criticisms; for if it is affirmed of a portion of this history, that its truth is absolutely certain, it ought to be shown that the facts in behalf of which so high a claim is advanced have never been called in question—or never, with any degree of plausibility.
Certain critics, of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, taking offence at some of the less authentic portions of this work, and especially at some ill-understood descriptions of animals and plants, speak of the historian as a compiler of fables: thus Ludovicus Vives, a learned Spaniard, well known in England during the reign of Henry VIII., speaks of the books of Herodotus as abounding in things untrue. Another says, “Herodotus, that he might not seem to have omitted anything, brought together, without selection, matters of all kinds; of which the greater part were derived, not from ancient records, but from the fables of the vulgar. And although his style is agreeable, and even elegant, he forfeits the confidence of those who exercise a sound and impartial judgment; for such readers cannot give credence to a work so crammed with various narrations.—By some indeed he is called the ‘father of history;’ but by others he is justly named the ‘father of fables.’”
Bodin, in his “Method of History,” says, “I wonder that Cicero should have designated Herodotus alone as the father of history, whom all antiquity accuses of falsehood; for there cannot be a greater proof that an historian is unworthy of credit, than that he should be manifestly convicted of error by all writers. Nevertheless I do not think that he ought to be wholly rejected; for besides the merit of eloquence, and the charm of the Ionic sweetness, there is in him much that holds forth antiquity, and many things in the latter books of his history, are narrated with an exact adherence to truth.”
Wheare, in his “Method of reading History,” thus speaks of our author: “Although Herodotus gives some relations that are not much better than fables, yet the body of his history is composed with eminent fidelity, and a diligent pursuit of truth. Many of those less authentic narratives he himself introduces by saying that he reports not what he thinks true, but what he had received from others.”
“It would be absurd,” says Isaac Vossius, “to confide in Herodotus alone, in what relates to Persian and Babylonian affairs; seeing that he was unacquainted with the Persian language, and unfurnished with the records of any of the nations of the east.” Bishop Stillingfleet speaks of the historian very much in the same strain as the authors above quoted. He has also been uncourteously treated by some later writers; of these Voltaire is the most distinguished. Whenever occasion presents itself he labours to cast contempt upon the father of history. Of this writer’s ignorance and flippancy in commenting upon Herodotus, we have already adduced an example: others of a similar kind might easily be cited. Thus, he represents the historian as affirming, in a number of instances, what he professes only to report; as the story of Arion, and that of the Lydians who are said to have invented various games to allay the pains of hunger. He denies as utterly incredible the account given by Herodotus of the dissolute manners of the Babylonians: “that which does not accord with human nature, can never be true.” Yet the customs alluded to are expressly affirmed to have prevailed there by Strabo, and are distinctly mentioned by a writer whose evidence in such a case need not be suspected—Baruch, VI. 43; and usages not less revolting are known to have been established in many ancient cities.
In several instances, either from ignorance or malice, Voltaire mistranslates Herodotus, in such a manner as to create an absurdity or impropriety which does not exist in the original; and sometimes he cites passages that are nowhere to be found in our author. Herodotus, (Thalia, 72) affirms that it was the custom of the Scythians to impale a number of persons, having first strangled them, as a part of the funeral rites with which their kings were honoured. But Voltaire makes the historian affirm that the victims of this barbarous custom were impaled alive; and he then finds occasion to deny the truth of the story. If there are any, who, at this time, think Voltaire’s criticisms upon the Scriptures worthy of any regard, they would do well to examine, with some care, the grounds of his remarks upon Herodotus. If in the case of a Greek historian, towards whom we may suppose him to have entertained no peculiar ill feeling, we find him displaying ignorance, indifference to truth, and a senseless flippancy—what may we expect when he attacks those writings towards which he avows the utmost hostility of intention?
Under all these attacks Herodotus has not wanted apologists; and while the writers above mentioned, taking an unfair advantage of some doubtful, or evidently fabulous passages, for the truth of which the historian does not pledge himself, have accused him of a want of veracity; others, more candid, have entered into the details of these accusations, and have shown, either that the author’s credit is not really implicated in the narratives he brings together; or that these accounts are much better founded than, at first sight, they may appear. The editors and translators of Herodotus—such as Aldus, Camerarius, Stephens, Wesseling, Gronovius—have undertaken his defence; in some instances establishing the disputed facts; in others excusing the author from the charge of falsification. These discussions relate, for the most part, to those portions of the history which we have excluded from our present argument; and with which therefore we have here no immediate concern.