superable
difficulties from the mistakes of those who had preceded. I know no censure
more severe and just than that which Strabo has passed upon the historians
and geographers of Greece, and of its writers in general. In speaking of
the Asiatic nations, he assures us, that there never had been any account
transmitted of them upon which we can depend. [540]_Some of these nations_,
says this judicious writer, _the Grecians have called Sacae, and others
Massagetae, without having the least light to determine them. And though
they have pretended to give a history of Cyrus, and his particular wars
with those who were called Massagetae, yet nothing precise and satisfactory
could ever be obtained; not even in respect to the war. There is the same
uncertainty in respect to the antient history of the Persians, as well as
to that of the Medes and Syrians. We can meet with little that can be
deemed authentic, on account of the weakness of those who wrote, and their
uniform love of fable. For, finding that writers, who professedly dealt in
fiction without any pretensions to the truth, were regarded, they thought
that they should make their writings equally acceptable, if in the system
of their history they were to introduce circumstances, which they had
neither seen nor heard, nor received upon the authority of another person;
proceeding merely upon this principle, that they should be most likely to
please people's fancy by having recourse to what was marvellous and new. On
this account we may more safely trust to Hesiod and Homer, when they
present us with a list of Demigods and Heroes, and even to the tragic
poets, than to Ctesias, Herodotus, and Hellanicus, and writers of that
class. Even the generality of historians, who wrote about Alexander, are
not safely to be trusted: for they speak with great confidence, relying
upon the glory of the monarch, whom they celebrate; and to the remoteness
of the countries, in which he was engaged; even at the extremities of Asia;
at a great distance from us and our concerns. This renders them very
secure. For what is referred to a distance is difficult to be confuted_. In
another place, speaking of India, he says, that it was very difficult to
arrive at the truth: _for the [541]writers, who must necessarily be
appealed to, were in continual opposition, and contradicted one another.
And how_, says Strabo, _could it be otherwise? for if they erred so
shamefully when they had ocular proof, how cou