20 GIBBON, ROBERTSON, VOLTAIRE, SISMONDI, AND OTHERS. CHAPTER IX. reputation so well. He excels in an eloquent and dignified style, and a skilful and perspicuous arrange Gibbon, Robertson, Voltaire, Sismondi, and others. ment of materials. He displays much sagacity in the development of causes and effects, and in the judgment of public characters and transactions. He exhibits, in particular, the candor and impartiality which belong to a cool temper enlightened by knowledge and directed by principle. As literary performances, his histories are likely always, to maintain a high rank; but in acuteness of perception and comprehensiveness of genius he must be placed far below Hume and Gibbon. He was, moreover, not fully acquainted with all the subjects on which he wrote, and many important errors and deficiencies are now visible in his works. To these three great English historians, we may add Mitford, whose history of Greece is a work of vast learning and patient research, but disfigured not only by a bad style, but such gross partiality as detracts immensely from its value. The strong preju GIBBON's history of the Decline and Fall of the dices of the writer against republican government led Roman Empire is a work of vast and accurate re-him to violate truth in almost every page of his history. search, and of enlarged and philosophical thinking. Among the more recent English historians, Hallam, The minute and extensive learning which it displays, Alison, Turner, Mackintosh, Lingard, and Macaulay not only supports the authenticity of the facts re-occupy a high rank. corded, but also enables the author to discuss many correlative and incidental subjects, which elucidate either the manners, customs, laws, and state of society, at different periods under review, or those institutions which now characterize the principal nations of Europe. The subject of Gibbon's work is, perhaps, the most splendid and imposing in the whole range of history. The overthrow of the mightiest empire that the world ever saw; the decay and ruin of ancient civilization; the birth and organization of the social institutions of modern Europe; all these various elements are cast into a magnificent whole, by the master hand of the historian. Of all the great historical works which distinguish the literature of modern times, the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire has attained the most extensive reputation, and appears the most likely to preserve its high rank, without rival or competition. The style of Gibbon is stately, elegant, and pompous, yet lacks the beautiful simplicity of Hume. But the fault which has drawn upon him severe and just censure is, the artful and disingenuous manner in which he has insinuated his attacks upon the Christian religion. Robertson has been placed in the same rank with Hume and Gibbon, though he has not sustained his Among the modern historians of Continental Europe, Voltaire is the most widely known. His writings show great literary skill, with the power of quick, but not very deep penetration. His pen is often guided by a humane and enlightened philosophy, but it is as often misled by strong partialities. He exhibits, to an undue extent, his systematic hostility against established opinions and forms of society, in which he does not scruple to employ the arts of misrepresentation. Voltaire's histories, however, will always be found entertaining, and to a reader on his guard, they may prove useful. De Thou, a Frenchman, sometimes called Thuanus, wrote the history of his own times, in Latin; a work which has been deemed worthy of comparison with those of the classical ages. Vertot and Raynal have written entertaining histories, but they are thought to have studied too much the arts of embellishment. Daniel, Mezeray, and Velly have written French history, but their works are little more than repositories of facts. These authors have been far surpassed by Sismondi, whose volume shows extensive learning,a praiseworthy impartiality, sound judgment, and GENERAL REMARKS ON THE WRITING OF HISTORY. Among the modern Italians, Machiavelli was the first who treated historical subjects in a philosophical spirit. Guicciardini's history is regarded by his countrymen as a finished literary production. Giannoni is a historian of learning and acuteness. Muratori furnishes an immense repertory of facts, arranged in a luminous chronological method. Bentivoglio, Father Paul, Davila, and Botta, also maintain a respectable rank among the Italian historians. 21 of an ideal world, where shadow and substance are so strangely mingled, that the effort to distinguish them is unavailing. Hence the few individuals who have energy enough to feel or feign the inspiration of a loftier spirit, are soon listened to as oracles. Their obscure thoughts, expressed in language still more obscure, are imperfectly caught by their wondering hearers. Dreams, reveries, and insanity itself, supply the substance of tradition; and its wild recitals are, of course, crowded with the phantoms of a disordered imagination. The commencement of all profane history is mythological. The fabulous beings that are introduced as gods, demigods, heroes, &c., appear to be, in some instances, personifications of the great agencies of nature, the storm, the whirlwind, the flood, and the flame. In some of these personifications are represented the sun, moon, and planets; in others, men of extraordinary strength and skill-warriors, kings, conquerors, teachers, false prophets, and the workers of miracles. The imaginary acts of these supernatural beings are commonly mixed up with shreds and patches of true history, with vague traditions of the creation and deluge, of an early state of innocence and a fall. In proportion as the mythologists acquire arts and letters, they multiply and diversify their fables. They envelop the truth in a new veil of fiction. They speak in parables, yet are understood literally. They write in hieroglyphics, and the symbol is mistaken for an exact picture. Finally, the poet comes in aid of the priest, and enriches the tale of wonder with all the charms of verse and all the luxuriance of a fertile imagination. Mariana is the chief historian of Spain; his work is regarded as approaching to the classical model. Zurita, Conde, Solis, and Herrera, have also written It is at a still later period that the historian becomes valuable histories in Spanish. Joan de Barros stands a narrator of actual events, and while making truth at the head of the Portuguese historians. Among the the basis of his representations, still deems it a part of Germans, history has been cultivated with success by his province to deduce lessons of wisdom from the Mosheim, Schiller, Niebuhr, the two Mullers, and story he has told. It is in this view of history that the many others who have displayed great learning, and present work is undertaken. It can hardly be necessary an uncommon degree of critical sagacity. to add, that the liberal and enlightened spirit of modern Lastly, our own country has made its contributions civilization should guide the pen of the historian who to this important branch of literature. All the old writes for the present age. War and conquest, and exStates of the American Union have their own his-amples of successful ambition, have been too long the torians, who, though they have not, in the greater objects of the blind admiration of mankind. The world number of instances, produced works of high literary is evidently coming to a more just appreciation of the finish, have yet formed very valuable collections of value of mere military renown. The praises of history, facts. Marshall and Ramsay have written histories we trust, are henceforth to be withheld from the oppresof the American Revolution with judgment and im- sors of mankind, and bestowed rather on those who partiality; and more lately, Prescott, Irving, Bancroft prove themselves the real benefactors of the human race. and Wheaton, have gained a well deserved reputation, not only in their own country, but in Europe, by their historical labors. CHAPTER X. General Remarks - Plan of the present Work. We have thus given a comprehensive sketch of the rise and progress of history. This picture of man has shared the fate of its original. It has had its infancy of fable, its youth of poetry, its manhood of thought, intelligence and reflection; and it has sometimes declined into an old age of dulness, decrepitude, bigotry, and barbarism. The mind of the savage, like that of the infant, is a chaos of wonder, confusion, and uncertainty; and as soon as it passes from the impressions of animal want and gratification, to meditation on the past or anticipation of the future, it touches at once on the borders A few words are required in explanation of the plan on which the following history is executed. In the arrangement of subjects we have adopted that order which combines clearness and perspicuity of narration with the regularity and completeness of detail which are so effective in exciting an interest in the general reader. We have given the history of each country and people separate, with such geographical descriptions as convey a general idea of the physical characteristics of the territory, and show how these peculiarities often exercise an important influence on the moral character of races, and thus control the destiny of nations. This arrangement, which may be called ethnographic-treating the history of different nations, or races, separately-in distinction from a chronological plan, which carries on the whole history of man in the order of events, and in one continuous view-is preserved throughout the work; yet in order to aid the reader in the formation of general views, chapters are given, at suitable points, in which the state and progress of the world at large, are exhibited. It is believed that this method affords many advantages to the general reader. It presents details first, and thus supplies the materials for just generalization. It especially avoids the bewildering maze into which the mind of the youthful student is plunged, by attempting to grasp the whole field of history, and comprehend as well its particular features as its general aspects, even before he is familiar with any portion of the subject. History is often spoken of under two divisions, ancient and modern. Some writers make the birth of Christ the point of separation; but this is arbitrary, having no foundation in the subject itself. The best arrangement is that which regards all before the fall of Rome, A. D. 476, as ancient, and all since as modern, history. Prior to this point, the spirit of antiquity prevailed throughout the world: from this period, events followed, which have resulted in the development of new institutions, social as well as political. Thus the extinction of the Roman empire was the termination of ancient civilization, and forms the broad landmark which divides ancient from modern history. one to another, chronology only arranges them according to their dates. A general system of chronology begins with the earliest periods of human history, and therefore the creation is its point of starting. But with respect to the periods of time at which the Deity executed his several works of creation, mankind have received no particular information. From viewing the phenomena of nature, and considering the general laws by which they are regulated, we cannot draw any conclusive or even plausible inference as to the precise period when the universe began to exist. We know not, nor can we hope to ascertain, whether the different planets circulating round our sun, and other fixed stars, were all created at one period, or each at a different period. We cannot determine from anything that appears on the face of nature, whether our earth be older or younger than her sister planets. Astronomers are, from time to time, making new discoveries in the heavens, and it is impossible to say whether some of these successive discoveries may not be owing to successive creations. History is far from being decisive as to the age of the world. We have, indeed, as will hereafter appear, many accounts of the creation, and there are also, in It may be proper to say a word as to the different ancient writers, many statements relative to the origin terms applied to historical treatises, according to their of human society. But these accounts are various and nature and subject. If a work be devoted to a partic- contradictory. Plato mentions an island called Ataular class of historical facts, as to those which relate lantis, which was believed to have been buried in the to the church, for example, it is called special; if it ocean 9000 years before the age in which he wrote. professes to embrace all topics, it is denominated gen- He affirms that this island was well known to the eral. If it be confined to the history of one country, as Egyptian priests, and to the contemporary inhabitants that of France, or the United States, it may be called of Attica. The whole story, however, is now regarded local history; if it gives a view of the history of man- as a fiction. The Chinese represent the world as some kind, from the beginning, it is universal. The present hundreds of thousands of years old. The Hindoos are work is proposed to be an example of the latter kind. equally extravagant. The astronomical records of the It is necessary to add one remark further, which is, Chaldeans carried back the origin of society for a that these pages are intended rather for popular use space of 473,000 years. It is hardly necessary to say than for the learned student. It is not the design of that these accounts are supported by no evidence. the author to unfold new discoveries, or present new combinations and inductions. His aims are at faithful compilation, -a collection, in a pleasant and convenient form, of the results of learned researches which have gone before,-making the whole, as far as possible, amusing and instructive, by interesting details and apt illustrations. CHAPTER XI. The sacred scriptures do not fix the era of creation with perfect precision. They leave it in some measure undetermined whether we are to understand what they say, as applicable to the whole contents of created space, or only to our earth and its inhabitants. Critics disagree as to the meaning of the word day in the Mosaic account of the creation; some understanding by it the time of twenty-four hours, and others a period of indefinite extent. Moreover, the date of the completion of the work varies in different copies of the Of Chronology-Age of the World Eras, &c. Bible. The Hebrew copy, which is generally followed, CHRONOLOGY is, literally, a reckoning of time. While history regards events in their connection and relation fixes the creation of the world 3944 years before the birth of Christ. The Samaritan Bible makes it 4305 years, and the Greek translation known by the name of the Septuagint places it at 5270 years before that era. Different systems of chronology have also been formed from the same source. Usher, whose system is generally followed, makes out from the Hebrew Bible 4004 years between the creation and the Christian era; Josephus, from the same authority, 4658 years; and Pezron, with the help of the Septuagint, extends it to 5872 years.* *The uncertainty of the age of the world, as inferred from the Bible, may be gathered from the following statement. Kennedy, in his Scripture Chronology, says that 300 different opinions, founded upon the Bible, may be collected as to the length of time that has elapsed between the creation and the birth of Christ. Fabricius, in his Bibliotheca Antiquaria, has given a list of 140 of these calculations. Dr. Hales, in his New Analysis of Chronology, has exhibited above 120. The work entitled L'Art de Verifier les Dates contains 108. Professor Playfair has given 88. Desvignolles, in This leads us to inquire, what sure means we pos- the death of Cambyses, King of Persia. B. C. 481, sess for fixing the dates of remote historical events. April 19th, an eclipse of the sun at the departure of Ancient manuscripts never can be relied on for accuracy, Xerxes from Sardis. B. C. 463, another eclipse of like printed books. Consequently their dates must ever be liable to suspicion. Here astronomical facts are of the utmost importance. Of all the incidental circumstances by which ancient writers enable us in an indirect manner to ascertain the time of events, none afford the means of more clear and satisfactory conclusions than the mention they make of celestial appear ances. the sun, followed by the Persian war. B. C. 431, August 31st, a total eclipse of the sun, followed by a plague at Athens. B. C. 413, August 27th, a total eclipse of the moon, when Nicias, the Athenian general, was defeated at Syracuse. B. C. 394, August 14th, an eclipse of the sun, when the Persians were defeated in a naval battle by Conon. B. C. 168, June 21st, a total eclipse of the moon, the day before PerThe regularity and constancy of the revolutions of seus, King of Macedon, was defeated by Paullus the heavenly bodies are such that we can depend Æmilius. A. D. 59, April 30th, an eclipse of the upon their uniformity in all ages. In this respect sun, reckoned by Nero among the prodigies which modern chronologies are much indebted to the su- accompanied the death of Agrippina. A. D. 306, July perstition with which the ancients regarded unusual 27th, an eclipse of the sun, at the death of the Emappearances in the heavens. Their imagined porten- peror Constantius. A. D. 840, May 4th, a great tous nature first drew upon them the attention of man- eclipse of the sun, at the death of Louis the Debonkind, who dreaded their unknown influences. It was naire. A. D. 1009, an eclipse of the sun at the capon this account, and not because they were thought ture of Jerusalem by the Saracens. proper subjects of philosophical inquiry, or of any use in chronology, that they have engaged the attention of ancient historians. Fortunately for us, the catalogue of eclipses-not observed with a philosophic eye, but gazed at by the superstitious vulgaris pretty full. Along with the history of many remarkable revolutions and critical periods in the annals of states, the eclipses which preceded or accompanied them are transmitted to us by the historian. Now, when the time, the place, and the quantity of an eclipse are mentioned, it is very easy, by astronomical calculation, to fix the very year and day when the event happened: for considering the prodigious variety which the three circumstances of time, place and quantity occasion in the appearance of eclipses, there is no room to suspect that any two happening within a moderate distance of each other, can be in the least danger of being confounded. For the satisfaction of the reader upon this interesting point, we shall notice some of the principal eclipses mentioned by historians, and which may be easily verified by any one familiar with astronomical computations. B. C. 585, May 28th, an eclipse of the sun foretold by Thales took place. This led to a peace between the Medes and the Lydians. B. C. 523, July 16th, an eclipse of the moon, which was followed by A history which contains an account of a sufficient number of these phenomena furnishes the surest means of testing its authenticity. Almost all the credit which is given to the Chinese history is derived from this source. The eclipses there mentioned, astronomers affirm, did really occur at the times assigned to them. Eras or Epochs are memorable events from which time is reckoned, and from which any subsequent year receives its denomination. The ancient Hebrews had no fixed era. The Greeks for a long time had none; afterwards they reckoned by Olympiads, which were games celebrated in honor of Jupiter, once in four years; this era began in midsummer, B. C. 776. The Romans first called their years by the names of the consuls presiding at the time; afterwards they dated from the foundation of their city, B. C. 753. Some histories are regulated by the year of Nabonassar, King of Babylon, who began to reign, as was supposed, B. C. 747. The Jews under the Greek dominion reckoned by the year of the Seleucida, sometimes called the Year of the Contracts, beginning B. C. 312. The Christians first made use of the Dioclesian era, which took its rise from the persecution by Dioclesian, A. D. 284. It was not till about a century later that the modern Christian era was adopted in books. The Russians date their time from the creation of the world. The old Spanish era was reckoned from B. C. 38, the period of the conquest of Spain by the Romans. This was not discontinued till A. D. 1333. The Mahometans reckon from the Hegira, or Flight of Mahomet from Mecca, A. D. 622. Their year consisting and conof twelve lunar months, is shorter than ours, tains only 354 days, Mahometan reckoning is thus at variance with the course of the seasons, and its New Year's day travels round the whole circle of the months every 33 years. In view of this subject, we may remark that beside many other considerations, the recent investigations of the antiquities of Egypt, Persia and Mesopotamia, induce a belief that the generally received Bible chronology, which fixes the creation at 4004 years before Christ, is erroneous, and that the true space of time which elapsed between these events is greater by one or two thousand years, at least. 24 COSMOGONIES, OR THEORIES OF THE CREATION. CHAPTER XII. Cosmogonies, or Theories of the Creation. The cosmogony of Sanconiathon is commonly ranked next to that of Moses in antiquity. This writer was a Phoenician, who lived about the time of the Trojan war. He professed to collect the opinions, traditions, and histories of his countrymen, respecting the first ages of the world. They closely resemble the traditions of the Greeks, and are, perhaps, the parent stock from which these were derived. According to these accounts, chaos and a spirit, or air, were the origin of all things. The manner in which the creation commenced is not described with much clearness. The spirit, we are told, fell in love with its own principles, and by this action all things were produced. As far as this system can be understood, it appears to be atheistical; at least, its object seems to be to show that the gods, as well as everything else, had a beginning from some necessity of nature. Anaxagoras, B. C. 500, was the first among the Greeks who entertained any tolerably accurate notion of the subject of creation. He believed in the agency of an Intelligent Mind in the arrangement of the cha It is but natural that mankind should seek to know otic materials. These views were gradually estabthe origin of the world they inhabit, and of the heav-lished among the Greeks, from whom they passed to enly bodies with which it seems associated. Accord- the Romans, who generally adopted them, notwithingly we find that in all ages philosophic minds have standing the authority of Lucretius, who attempted to struggled to solve these mighty questions. As might make the rival doctrines of Epicurus popular, by have been expected, no subject has given rise to a clothing them in his majestic Latin verse. Ovid has greater number of contradictory theories and systems collected the orthodox ideas which prevailed on the than that of the creation of the world. None of the subject, both among the Greeks and Romans, and has ancient philosophers conceived it possible to produce a expressed them with uncommon elegance in the first substance out of nothing; the Deity himself, according book of his Metamorphoses. There is the most strikto their belief, could not work without materials to ing coincidence between his account and that of operate upon. Hence some of them, among whom Moses; the reader would almost think, from the followwas Aristotle, asserted that the world was eternal, ing extract, he was translating from the book of Genboth as to matter and form. Others, though they believed that the gods had given the world its form, yet imagined the materials composing it to have been eternal from the beginning. In fact, the opinions of the ancients who had not the light of revelation to guide them were confused and contradictory, so that little of consequence can be attached to them. Various cosmogonies, or histories of the creation, have been framed by ancient authors. That of Moses is unquestionably the most ancient, and had it no other circumstance to recommend it, its superior antiquity would alone give it a claim to our attention. This history is very plain and simple. It first informs us that God created the heavens and the earth, and then proceeds to mention the order in which the various objects of creation were called into existence. First of all, the materials of which the future universe was to be composed were created. They were thrown together in one confused mass, which the ancients called chaos, and which they believed to have existed from eternity, but which Moses affirms to have been created by the power of God. The materials of chaos were either held in solution by the waters, or floated in them, or sunk under them. They were reduced into form by the spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters. Light was the first distinct object of creation; fishes were the first living things, and man was last in the order of creation. We are not to regard this account as claiming to be scientific; it may, however, be remarked, that geological researches have furnished some striking coincidences with it, so far as concerns the order in which the work of creation proceeded. In our geological sketch, we shall have further occasion to refer to this topic. esis. Before the seas and the terrestrial ball, |