against Troy, (3) were acquainted with writing; and the prevailing opinion is, that they were ignorant of that art. It is certain that the Greeks possess no written composition which is admitted to be earlier than the poems of Homer. The time of Homer was subsequent to the Trojan war; and it is said that even his poems were not left by him in writing, but were afterwards collected from memory as they were sung in separate portions; which mode of preservation has led to their numerous discrepancies. Those who made the first essays of historical composition in Greece, Cadmus of Miletus, Acusilaus of Argos, and others of the same class, were only a little anterior to the Persian war.'(14)

Josephus further adverts to the absence of all registration of events by public authority in Greece. Not only (he remarks) was the keeping of public annals neglected by the Greeks in general, but even the Athenians, who are said to have been the aboriginal inhabitants of their country, and to have cultivated literature, had no such institution: their earliest public document is said to be the laws of Draco, only a little prior to the time of Pisistratus.'(15) It has been observed, in a former chapter, that the Greek history had, from its outset, a spontaneous and individual character, and grew out of the literary tastes of the nation; instead, like the Roman history, of taking its origin from annals compiled by public officers under the superintendence of the state. (16)

(13) The Parian marble places Cadmus 310 years before the fall of Troy; Mr. Clinton however (who treats Cadmus as a historical personage) thinks that 130 years is sufficient; F. H. vol. i. p. 85.

(16) Above, vol. i. p. 97. The freedom of individual judgment which constitutes one of the great excellences of the Greek historiography stands in remarkable contrast with the character of the oriental histories, the only works of a historical nature which existed when the Greeks began to write narratives of facts. In the great monarchies of Asia (says Mr. Clinton) oriental history has seldom been faithfully delivered by the orientals themselves. In the ancient times, before the Greek kingdoms of Asia diffused knowledge and information, it is not likely that history would be undertaken by private individuals. The habits of the people, and the form of their governments, precluded all free inquiry and any impartial investigation of the truth. The written histories of past transactions would be

VOL. II.

K K

Dionysius of Halicarnassus describes the early Greek historians, who preceded Thucydides, and lived before the Peloponnesian war, as resembling one another in their choice of subjects and style of composition. Some (he says) wrote histories of Greek, others of barbarous countries; not combining them into a single narrative, but treating each separately. Their common object was to collect the memorials preserved in the different nations and cities, whether in sacred or civil depositories, and to publish them for general information, in the form in which they were obtained, without addition or subtraction. Among these were fables which had been believed on account of their great antiquity, and marvellous occurrences, which seem puerile to the present generation. The diction of these historians was for the most part moulded in the same type: it was perspicuous, pure, free from peculiarities of phrase, concise, and suited to the subject; and there was no appearance of artificial elaboration. Nevertheless, their compositions possess a certain pleasing grace, some in a greater, some in a less degree; on which account they still meet with readers.'(17) Afterwards he adds, that much excuse is to be made for these writers, if they admitted fabulous stories into their works. For in all countries and cities, memorials of such tales were carefully preserved, and handed down from father to son; and the possessors of such traditions required the historians to publish them in the precise form in which they had been received from the former generations.(18)

The account which Dionysius gives elsewhere of the early Roman historians deriving the events of their native history from

contained in the archives of the state; and these royal records, drawn up under the direction of the reigning despot, would deliver such a representation of facts as the government of the day thought fit to give; just so much of the truth as it suited their purpose to communicate;' Fast. Hell. vol. ii. p. 307.

(17) ἵνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν φυλάττοντες σκοπὸν, ὅσαι διεσώζοντο παρὰ τοῖς ἐπιχωρίοις μνῆμαι κατὰ ἔθνη τε καὶ κατὰ πόλεις, εἶτ ̓ ἐν ἱεροῖς, εἶτ ̓ ἐν βεβήλοις ἀποκείμεναι γραφαί, ταύτας εἰς τὴν κοινὴν ἁπάντων γνῶσιν ἐξενεγκεῖν οἵας παρέλαβον, μήτε προστιθέντες αὐταῖς τι μήτ' ἀφαιροῦντες. De Thuc. Jud. e. 5. Krüger reads ypapaîs for ypapaì upon conjecture; but the text seems right

as it stands.

(18) Ib. c. 7.

ancient traditions preserved in sacred registers, (19) is not unlike his description of the sources from which the Greek logographers drew the materials for their works. His characteristic of their diction is probably also applicable to the class of Roman historians, whom Cicero criticises with so much severity.(20) The marvellous stories collected by the Greek logographers are particularly indicated by Dionysius, and the stories of early Roman history were not dissimilar; it may however be doubted whether, as he supposes, the Greek logographers were reluctant instruments in their publication, and whether the historians did not share the popular belief in the reality of the events which they recounted.(21)

The earliest Greek writer who was a contemporary historian in the strict sense of the word-who narrated events which had occurred since he had reached the age of manhood-was Thucydides. His proper subject was the Peloponnesian war; and he lived through the whole of it (as he himself informs us), an attentive observer of its events;(22) having been forty years of age at its commencement, and sixty-seven at its termination. He was not able to complete his history: the last book is unfinished; and breaks off abruptly in 411 B.C., seven years before the end of the war.(25)

(19) Above, vol. i. p. 89, n. 39.

(20) Above, vol. i. p. 40-1.

(21) See Krüger, Dionysii Historiographica (Hal. Sax. 1823), p. 74. (22) v. 26. See above, p. 266, n. 46. He mentions that he himself was one of the sufferers from the plague of Athens, in 430 B.C.; ii. 43. He also states that he lived in exile for twenty years after 424 B.C. (v. 26), that is to say, until the end of the war. Marcellinus, Vit. Thuc. 19, 20, states that Thucydides married a Thracian wife, who was very wealthy, and possessed mines in Thrace: and that he did not spend this income in luxurious living, but from the beginning of the Peloponnesian war he gave money to Athenian and Lacedæmonian soldiers, and others, to bring him intelligence of the things done and said in different places.

(23) Niebuhr, not considering Herodotus as properly a contemporary historian, makes Thucydides the earliest Greek who wrote history, strictly so called. The first real and true historian (he says), according to our notion, was Thucydides; as he is the most perfect historian among all that have ever written, so he is at the same time the first: he is the Homer of historians; Lect. on Anc. Hist. vol. i. p. 169. In the following passage, he bestows similar praise upon Thucydides, without however denying to

Thucydides prefixes to his history, a digression, or introductory episode, containing an account of the affairs of Greece between the Persian and the Peloponnesian wars, in order that he may explain the causes which led to the formation of the Athenian empire. He describes himself as having inserted this narrative, because all the previous writers had either related the affairs of Greece before the Persian war, or had composed the history of the Persian war itself, and none had descended to the subsequent period, except Hellanicus, who had treated it in his Attic history, but briefly, and without attention to chronology.(24) The narrative which he thus introduces, comprehends the course of events from the battle of Mycale, in 479 B.C., to the surrender of Samos, in 440 B.C.(5) As Thucydides was born in 471 B.C., the chief part of this period fell within his life; but there was only a small portion of which he could be considered as an intelligent witness, and his knowledge of it must have been principally derived from persons of the preceding generation, within whose lifetime the whole interval was included.

Herodotus the appellation of a historian. The Peloponnesian war, which in some respects resembles that against Hannibal, is the most immortal of all wars, because it is described by the greatest of all historians that ever lived. Thucydides has reached the highest attainable point in historiography, both in regard to the positive historical certainty, and to the animated style of the work;' ib. vol. ii. p. 34. It is difficult to speak too highly of Thucydides, or to overrate his excellences as a historian: nevertheless, it must be remembered that he wrote before the age of paper, printing, newspapers, maps, roads, a letter-post, shorthand writing, or a chronological notation; and that all the speeches in his history (which form nearly a fourth part of the entire work), though stated to represent the general effect of what was really said, are avowedly composed by the author himself. When it is affirmed that he stands before all other historians, with respect to 'positive historical certainty,' the material disadvantages under which he necessarily laboured, as compared with a modern historian, ought to be borne in mind.

(24) ἔγραψα δὲ αὐτὰ καὶ τὴν ἐκβολὴν τοῦ λόγου ἐποιησάμην διὰ τόδε, ὅτι τοῖς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἅπασιν ἐκλιπὲς τοῦτο ἦν τὸ χωρίον, καὶ ἢ τὰ πρὸ τῶν Μηδικών Ελληνικὰ ξυνετίθεσαν ἢ αὐτὰ τὰ Μηδικά· τούτων δὲ ὅσπερ καὶ ἥψατο ἐν τῇ Αττική ξυγγραφή Ελλάνικος βραχέως τε καὶ τοῖς χρόνοις οὐκ ἀκριβῶς ἐπεμνήσθη, i. 97.

(25) i. 88-117. Concerning this portion of the history of Thucydides, see Clinton, F. H. vol. ii. app. c. 8. A detailed account of the treason and death of Pausanias the Spartan (477 to about 470 B.C.), is also given in i. 128-135, as well as of the treason of Themistocles (466-449 B.C.) ib. 135-8.

§ 5 The continuous historical narrative of Grecian affairs, given by Herodotus, may be considered as commencing with the Naxian war, and the revolt of the Ionians, in 501 B.C., and it is brought down to the surrender of Sestos, in 478 B.C., where it terminates somewhat abruptly. As 484 B.C. is the earliest date assigned for the birth of Herodotus, he was not a contemporary observer of any portion of the period comprised within his history; he was only six years old when the last event related in it took place.(26) The whole of this eventful period of twenty-three years was however comprehended within the lives of the previous generation. A man twenty-five years old at the battle of Marathon, would have only just passed sixty years, when Herodotus had reached the age of thirty; a man twenty-five years old at the Ionic revolt, would have just passed seventy years when Herodotus had reached the same age. It is undoubtedly true that Herodotus would have had a fuller and more accurate knowledge of the Ionic revolt,(27) if, like the historian Hecatæus,

(26) Pliny, after citing some statements of Herodotus concerning ivory, proceeds thus: Tanta ebori auctoritas erat, urbis nostræ trecentesimo decimo anno (= 444 B.C.): tunc enim auctor ille historiam eam condidit Thuriis in Italiâ;' N. H. xii. 8. Lucian, Herod. c. 1, supposes him to have composed his history at Halicarnassus, before he visited Greece. The stories of his recitations, in late Greek writers, imply the belief that parts at least of his work were in existence before he went to Thurii. The arguments of Dahlmann, Herodot. p. 38-52, only prove that the composition of his work, as we have it, was not completed until he was an old man : they prove nothing as to the time when the materials for it were collected, and the composition was commenced.

(27) Niebuhr exaggerates the interval between the time of the events in the history of Herodotus, and the time when he collected the evidence respecting them, by assuming 420 B.C. as the year from which he reckons : in 420 B.C. Herodotus was sixty-four years old, and even if he composed his history at this age (of which there is no proof), it does not follow that his materials had not been previously obtained. When Herodotus wrote (he says), fifteen olympiads, that is, sixty years, had passed away since the expedition of Xerxes, and seventy years since the battle of Marathon. Now if before him no important historical work was written upon these events, pray consider what changes, during so long a period, may have taken place in a tradition which was not fixed by writing, and how many fabulous additions may have been made to it. It is well-known that the account of Napoleon's expedition to Egypt has already assumed, in the mouth of the Egyptian Arabs, such a fabulous appearance that it might seem to have required a century to develop it; and instances of the same kind occur frequently. At a time when an occurrence engrosses the mind of everybody, the account of it undergoes incredible changes; events are