from the dark ages, we make use of a rule, broad, defined, and one; we entirely release ourselves from the embarrassments that might be occasioned by an attention to the numeral dates recorded in the extant copies of ancient authors; and reduce to the least possible compass, and to one single class, every other difficulty by which the information contained in those authors is clogged. If again, out of deference to the scriptural statement that the length of human life was formerly far greater than at present, we qualify, with respect to the more ancient fables, the chronological calculus furnished by modern experience, here doubtless we admit an exception to our rule, but an exception of which the principle, though not perhaps as easy of application, is yet in itself as broad and simple as that of the rule itself. The matter, however, is perfectly altered, if, when we compute the chronology of a particular succession of kings, traditionally preserved, we are to find in the special circumstances of the case, some reason for deviating from all established canons of computation, some new calculus, confessedly neither sanctioned by experience, nor prescribed by unerring authority. It was comparatively little for the ancient chronologers to hand down to us a collection of successive names; it was by one degree more difficult to vouch that those names were all in a direct line of descent; but when they undertake to tell us with regard to princes who lived in distant and obscure times, whether they married at the age of twenty or of forty, or whether each was thirteen years old at his father's death, or thirty, they exact considerably more from our belief. Nor is the matter greatly mended, if they have not told us these things clearly, but have left us the task of searching them out, by sifting, comparing, and moulding together, twenty different hints, more or less obscure, from as many different authors. Here we have made a deep encroachment on the simplicity of our principle. We have rendered it dependent on those very criteria, which we had before renounced as fallacious and unmanageable, and from which we had hailed it as promising us an escape. We have deserted the bridge which we had built for a safe and easy transit across the palpable obscure' of ancient legends, and must once more 'O'er bog, o'er steep, through strait, rough, dense, or rare, In the few strictures which we have ventured to offer on the Newtonian, as contrasted with the vulgar chronology, we have confined ourselves, not only to the principles of genealogical computation respectively adopted by each, but to these solely as illustrated by the history of the early times of Greece. The reader will perceive that this path was prescribed to us by our present subject; subject; but it cannot be unknown to him, that this constitutes but one part of a very wide and complicated field of inquiry, and that those who would become familiar with the whole question, must turn over a far greater quantity of materials than the utmost ingenuity could compress into the space of the critique which we are now writing. Of arguments in opposition to the Newtonian system, no author has adduced such a store, or with such effect, as Freret himself; and, even where his uncommon erudition and address fail to produce conviction, they still cannot but excite admiration and pleasure. Perhaps, however, the English scholar may find a readier access to the New Analysis of Chronology by Dr. Hales; who, though he seems to be imperfectly, if at all, acquainted with the writings of Freret, and though, as we think, his book would have greatly benefited by such an acquaintance, yet contends against Newton with considerable learning, ingeniously applied. Indeed, while we must decidedly reprobate the severe and indecorous terms which Dr. Hales, with warm professions of regard for the general fame of Newton, has allowed himself to employ respecting the chronological speculations of that gifted genius, and while we are persuaded that his severity is, in not a few instances, misplaced, and capable of being retorted, it is impossi ble It would be irrelevant to enlarge on this subject in the text; but we shall give, in this place, one instance of our remark. According to Newton, Troy was taken in the year before our æra 904; and Hesiod and Homer flourished 30 or 35 years afterwards. But Herodotus gives it as his opinion that those poets lived 400 years before himself. Now, says Dr. Hales, Herodotus was born B. C. 484. Therefore Hesiod and Homer lived B. C. 884. That is, they lived only 20 years after Newton's date for the taking of Troy; and this, it seems, is absurd and altogether inconsistent with Newton's own account of 30 or 35 years. Newton's chronology we knew many years ago; but, from accidental circumstances, it so happens that we write without having it under our eyes. Yet, without immediate reference to it, we think we perceive in this reasoning of Dr. Hales, four radical flaws, First; when Herodotus, or any other author, not drawing a chronological scheme, but writing cursorily, mentions a round number like 400, it is perfectly hypercritical to pretend that the exact number may not be more or less by 10 or 15. Suppose that some modern writer should, in the course of a discussion on some other subject, observe that North America was discovered 300 years ago, would it not be mere perverseness to inform him that his statement was absurd and altogether inconsistent with fact, since the discovery in question took place, not 300, but 314, years ago? Secondly; Even were we disposed to construe the passage in Herodotus rigidly, both the form of expression which he uses, and the context, leave abundant scope for the subtraction which the Newtonian chronology requires. In the preceding sentence, the historian remarks that the knowledge of the theogony, and of the forms and natures of the gods, was with the Greeks so recent, that it might, in fact, be called an acquisition of yesterday. For, he proceeds, it appears to me that Hesiod and Homer, who first instructed the Greeks on these points, flourished four hundred years before my time, and no more. · Ἡσίοδον γὰρ καὶ Ὅμηρον ἡλικίην τετρακοσίοισι ἔτεσι δοκέω μεν πρεσβυτέρους γενέσθαι, καὶ οὐ πλέοσι.” This plainly does not amount to an assertion that those poets might not have flourished ten or fifteen years later than the date assigned; if the sentence is to be tied up at all, it is only on the other side, namely, that at any rate they flourished ble not to admit that he has made good several of the positions which he has attempted to occupy. On the other side, for an excellent defence, not indeed of all the peculiarities of the Newtonian system, but of the grand principle of cutting off near three centuries from the segment of history intercepted between the Trojan war and the institution of the Olympiads, we would refer an inquirer to some observations on Grecian chronology, which Mr. Mitford has annexed as an appendix to the third chapter of his masterly history of Greece. Mr. Mitford has, it must be owned, omitted, and we cannot very well account for the omission, to defend the computations of Newton with respect to the regal successions which we have already considered; but some other branches of the subject, he treats with equal fairness and good sense. We would especially instance his reasonings concerning the age of Homer; which, with one exception too trifling to be specified, seem to us extremely judicious and weighty, not to say, conclusive. On the whole, it appears to us that the republic of letters has been much less than just to the Newtonian system of chronology; a system which, though in no view comparable to some other productions from the same hand, would yet have immortalised an in ferior name. That it is open to many objections, and particularly, that the astronomical grounds on which it partly stands, are, not in a scientific but in a historic sense, insufficient, must, we fear, be admitted; but the case offers only a choice of difficulties; and flourished no earlier. Thirdly;-and this alone would be conclusive;-It appears a most unwarrantable assumption, that Herodotus counted the 400 years from the time of his birth. Why not from the time when he wrote his history? Why not from the time when he arrived at years of discretion? Or rather, why from any definite moment at all? For the absurdity consists in exactly fixing the higher end of the term of 400 years, when the lower is so evidently vague and indeterminate. But fourthly; The higher end is likewise vague and indeterminate; unless Dr. Hales intends to maintain that Hesiod and Homer flourished only during one single year, namely, the aforesaid year, 884. If, as may be presumed, he means merely that they flourished about that period, we humbly submit that he concedes nearly the whole question in dispute. This is not the only example that might be given, of the occasional rashness of Dr. Hales on this subject. On the contrary, the criticism with which he immediately follows up the foregoing, differs from it, as might easily be shewn, very little, excepting that it is urged with still greater petulance. It appears, as the author strongly suspects,' that Newton himself was aware of this absurdity and inconsistency, (the absurdity and inconsistency already commented on,) and, to hide it, referred the time of Hesiod and Homer, by a round-about reckoning, to the remoter date of Solomon's death, instead of referring it to the nearer date of the taking of Troy. It appears farther that, in attempting this clumsy stratagem, the unfortunate Newton ran from Scylla to Charybdis, and only subjected himself to a fresh overthrow from our modern chronologer. Our limits will not permit us to enter on the point; but the attentive reader of Dr. Hales will, we doubt not, agree with us in thinking that the blunder of Newton was precisely as great in the one case as in the other, that is, was precisely none at all, Nor is it Homer nods, but we that dream. VOL. V. NO. IX. B there there are, on the other side, many among the objections of Newton to the vulgar chronology, of which we must say, if not that they are incapable of refutation, at least that we know not how they are to be refuted. It would highly gratify us to believe that the imperfect observations which we have hazarded on the Grecian chronology, might at all contribute to place in a clearer light the pretensions of the system in question,-might at all assist our readers in appreciating even the meaner work of so mighty a masAt the same time, those observations have been suggested to us by an unprejudiced view of the subject, not dictated by our veneration, however profound, for the memory of Newton; nor are we of opinion that the fading chaplet which we have flung on the tomb of this second Bacon, this other hope of British philosophy, can lose any part of its humble merit as a tribute to genius, because it is also intended as an offering to truth. ter. It is worthy of notice, however, that even the full establishment of the Newtonian chronology would only partially affect the value of the chronological disquisitions before us; for the synchronisms of M. Clavier, or many of them, might remain equally good, on whatever scale his genealogies or successions were calculated. As an accompaniment, too, to the study of Pausanias and other Grecian antiquaries, his work will, we think, be useful, whatever be the soundness of the chronology which it recommends; because it exhibits a sort of paradigm of the loose and scattered information contained in those writers, and reduces it to as much shape as it is capable of receiving. We may take this opportunity of mentioning that, while we have little doubt that M. Clavier's promised translation of Pausanias will prove a performance of merit, we are apprehensive of his making somewhat too free with the text of his author. The alteration of a word in Pausanias, which he proposes in vol. ii. p. 45, of the present publication, we hold to be inadmissible. First, his objection to the usual reading, is, as we believe, groundless. Next, the reading which he would substitute, is liable to very solid objections. Not only is it harsher in itself; but it transfers a clause from the beginning of one sentence to the end of the preceding sentence, in a manner which, as the careful reader will perceive, if he is in the habit of attending to the force of Greek particles, is inconsistent with the laws of syntax. Our readers are, we doubt not, tired, like ourselves, of this thorny subject; and here, we are content to bid adieu to it. Before, however, we apply our attention to the historic merits, properly so called, of M. Clavier, there are two short passages, together with a note, which appear to us to call for some distinct animadversion, and this, as involving higher interests than those which occupy the attention of the mere chronologist. The The first of these passages, with the note annexed to it, is as follows: • Platon dit en effet *que la musique et la sculpture étoient encore de son temps en Egypte au même point où elles étoient il y avoit dix mille ans; ce n'est pas une façon de parler, ajoute-t-il, quand je dis dix mille ans, mais c'est l'exacte vérité; et comme il avoit voyagé dans ce pays-là, il avoit pu s'assurer par lui-même de cette antiquité, qui nous est d'ailleurs attestée par une foule de monumens dont la Haute Egypte est remplie. Cette haute antiquité ne s'accorde guères avec ce que nous lisons dans la Bible. Mais les théologiens les plus savans conviennent que si nous devons croire sans examen tout ce qu'elle nous enseigne sur le dogme et sur la morale; il n'en est pas tout-à-fait de méme de ce qui est purement historique, surtout lorsqu'il s'agit de nombres qui peuvent avoir été altérés, et qui l'ont été effectivement, puisque des chronologistes très-orthodoxes ont varié de près de deux mille ans sur l'époque de la création du monde; le P. Petau ne la portant qu'à l'an 3983 avant notre ère, et D. Pezron, savant bénédictin, la reculant jusqu'à l'an 5868, sans qu'on l'ait traité d'hérétique. On peut donc bien la reculer encore davantage sans offenser en rien la religion.'-Disc. Prel. pp. 5, 6. M. Clavier does not seem aware of the limits which orthodox writers have prescribed to themselves, in dissenting from the received text of the sacred records. Of the various readings which time and accident have introduced into the copies of the originals; but, in which, however, there is on the whole incomparably less variety, than in those of any other ancient work extant; it certainly is thought allowable for commentators to select such as they may best approve. At the same time, all conjectural emendation of the sacred text is strictly prohibited; not from any absurd or superstitious reverence for the mortal vehicle in which immortal truth has been transmitted to us; but on this plain and rational ground, that, where the license of conjecturing is so little required, and may prove so inexpressibly dangerous, a total abstinence from it is alike prescribed to us by prudence and duty. The spirit of this general canon extends to the Mosaic chronology, which, it is well known, differs according as it is computed from the Hebrew, the Samaritan, or the Septuagint pentateuch. Now Petavius adhering, we believe, to the Hebrew dates, fixed the creation at B C. 3984 (not 3983); while we can readily conceive that Pezron, of whose rashness no less than his erudition we are not ignorant, chose to follow the dubious authority of the Septuagint. It should be observed, however, that there is some room for discrepancy even among those who reckon from any one of these sources singly; and, consequently, the extreme opinions entertained with *De Legibus, L. II. T. 2, p. 656. |