IV
PIGhius—Perizonius—beaufort.
a native of the province of Cleves, in the Netherlands, had
peculiar ideas about historical criticism, and exhibited pro-
digious learning in compiling; he was in possession of many
good ideas, but did not carry them out successfully. Next came
the investigations of Perizoiiius, which are masterly, and were
followed by the sceptical works of Bayle and Beaufort: and
here we see what always happens, when truth is not separated
from falsehood, or when the separation is not carried on after
it has been begun, and after the human mind has struck into
such paths that it has become impossible to avoid the complete
separation. In the eighteenth century Roman history could
not possibly be believed with the intense faith of the sixteenth,
when men viewed every thing Roman with as much interest
and delight, as they looked on their dearest friends. So long
as this was the case, Roman history might perfectly satisfy
even the noblest minds without any critical investigations.
But when the sphere of the human mind became extended,
as in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Roman history
could not possibly escape the general influence, since it came
into contact with other sciences. Sigonius had felt great
pleasure in inquiring, whether a man, whose name is other-
wise unknown, had been tribune twice or three times: and
and woe to us, if we treat these men with contempt, as if they
had busied themselves with trifles ! But men now began to
turn their attention to what they could comprehend; they
endeavoured to understand what they had before collected;
reason began to assert its rights. Had Perizonius pursued the
path he had struck into, had he not undertaken investigations
of quite a different kind, had he been able to believe in the
possibility of gaining positive results, matters would have been
far better ; but without faith no such results can be gained, as
in life a man can accomplish nothing without faith. His suc-
cessors did not proceed in the path which he had opened up ;
and those who attempted it had not the same extensive powers
which he had possessed. The early history of Rome was thus
known to be full of contradictions; and it could be demon-
strated that statements of much greater authority overthrew
the accounts given by Livy or Dionysius. Beaufort was a
man of great talent, but had not Sufliciently pursued philo-
logical studies: he belonged to that light class of sceptics,
who feel no want of a positive conviction, and he went so
GENEBAL scepticism.
far as to reject the wheat with the chaff, and to assert that
the first four centuries of Roman history deserved no credit.
Abbe Pouilly had done the same before him in the “ Mémoires
de !’Académie des Inscriptions et des belles Lettres”; but in
a very rude manner. It was the age of extreme scepticism.
Beaufort’s undertaking had great influence upon the English
and French writers, such as Hook and Ferguson, none of
whom was able to enter into the matter so deeply as he had
done. Scepticism, originating with Bayle and strengthened
by Freret, now prevailed generally; and men grew ashamed of
believing Roman history, as it was transmitted to them. This
was an easy method of getting over its difficulties. Although
Beaufort was not animated by the desire to examine his subject
in a scientific and thorough manner, yet he forms an era in
historical literature. It is remarkable that the most untenable
statements, when not attacked by Beaufort, were never doubted ;
as, for instance, the seven kings of Rome, the chronology, &c. :
the year of the foundation of the city was believed to be as
firmly established as any thing could be. Men saw the mote,
but not the beam, and were at last so much perplexed, that
they believed without knowing why, and rejected what was
very well established. After such a state of things a sound
and healthy criticism must follow, or else the subject is lost.
In fact, it is Livy himself who has brought the early history
of Rome into disrepute, not merely because he relates things
contradictory and impossible, but because he states in the
introduction to his sixth book, that a new era and a new life
began in Roman history from the destruction of Rome by the
Gauls; that, during the long period previous to this, history
was handed down only by tradition, and that all written docu-
ments concerning the earlier times, were destroyed in the burn-
ing of the city. This statement is only half correct, or rather
altogether false, and gives us quite an erroneous idea of the
early history. In my next Lecture, I shall speak of the sources
of Roman history previous to its literature. The first historian
we meet with lived in the second Punic war, and yet what a
minute account we have in Livy of the preceding times and of
the wars with the Samnites ! But of this to-morrow.