But, 2. if it be so, you conclude that there is no ground for thinking that Darius the Mede ever reigned at Babylon, because Cyaxares himself never reigned there.
Now, on the idea of Xenophon’s book being a romance, there might be good reason for the author’s taking no notice of the short reign of Cyaxares; which would break the unity of his work, and divert the reader’s attention too much from the hero of it: while yet the omission could hardly seem to violate historic truth, since the lustre of his hero’s fame, and the real power which, out of question, he reserved to himself, would make us easily forget or overlook Cyaxares. But, as to the fact, it seems no way incredible, that Cyrus should concede to his royal ally, his uncle, and his father-in-law (for he was all these) the nominal possession of the sovereignty—or that he should share the sovereignty with him—or, at least, that he should leave the administration, as we say, in his hands at Babylon, while he himself was prosecuting his other conquests at a distance. Any of these things is supposable enough; and I would rather admit any of them, than reject the express, the repeated, the circumstantial testimony of a not confessedly fabulous historian.
After all, Sir, I doubt, I should forfeit your good opinion, if I did not acknowledge that some, at least, of the circumstances, which you have pointed out, are such as one should hardly expect at first sight. But then such is the condition of things in this world; and what is true in human life is not always, I had almost said, not often, that which was to be previously expected: whence, an indifferent romance is, they say, more probable than the best history. But should any or all of these circumstances convince you perfectly that some degree of error or fiction is to be found in the book of Daniel, it would be too precipitate to conclude that therefore the whole book was of no authority. For, at most, you could but infer, that the historical part, in which those circumstances are observed, namely the sixth chapter, is not genuine: Just as hath been adjudged, you know, of some other pieces, which formerly made a part of the book of Daniel. For it is not with these collections, which go under the name of the prophets, as with some regularly connected system, where a charge of falsehood, if made good against one part of it, shakes the credit of the whole. Fictitious histories may have been joined with true prophecies, when all that bore the name of the same person, or any way related to him, came to be put together in the same volume: But the detection of such misalliance could not affect the prophecies, certainly not those of Daniel, which respect the latter times; for these have an intrinsic evidence in themselves, and assert their own authenticity in proportion as we see, or have reason to admit, the accomplishment of them.
And now, Sir, I have only to commit these hasty reflections to your candour; a virtue, which cannot be separated from the love of truth, and of which I observe many traces in your agreeable letter. And if you would indulge this quality still further, so as to conceive the possibility of that being true and reasonable, in matters of religion, which may seem strange, or, to so lively a fancy as your’s, even ridiculous, you would not hurt the credit of your excellent understanding, and would thus remove one, perhaps a principal, occasion of those mists which, as you complain, hang over these nice and difficult subjects.
I am, with true respect,
Sir, &c.
R. H.
I should not perhaps have thought it worth while to print either of these Letters, if a noble person had not made it necessary for me to give the former to the publick, by doing this honour (though without my leave or knowledge) to the latter. By which means, however, we are now at length informed (after the secret had been kept for twice twelve years) that the anonymous Letter-writer was Edward Gibbon, Esq. afterwards the well-known author of “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire[256].”
Of Mr. Gibbon’s Letter to me, I have no more to say: And of his History, only what may be expressed in few words.
It shews him, without doubt, to have possessed parts, industry, and learning; each in a degree that might have entitled him to a respectable place among the compilers of ancient history. But these talents were disgraced, and the fruit of them blasted, by a FALSE TASTE OF COMPOSITION: that is, by a raised, laboured, ostentatious style; effort in writing being mistaken, as it commonly is, for energy—by a perpetual affectation of wit, irony, and satire; generally misapplied; and always out of place, being wholly unsuited to the historic character—and, what is worse, by a free-thinking libertine spirit; which spares neither morals nor religion; and must make every honest man regard him as a bad citizen, as well as writer.
These miscarriages may, all of them, be traced up to one common cause, an EXCESSIVE VANITY.