the great principles of a Christian Philosophy of History.

We are met at the beginning of these investigations with a difficulty which must first be considered. Mr. Grote, whose extraordinary ability in the department of Grecian History must be admitted, and whose opinions are entitled to profound respect, rejects all incidents previous to the Olympiad of Corœbus, or 776 B.C., as not reducible to history or chronology.* If this be so, the poems of Homer are without value, as a basis of historical investigation. But we think Mr. Gladstone has shown conclusively that we are not compelled to this limitation of the historical field, and that he has materially strengthened the position of Bishop Thirlwall and Mr. Clinton as to the possibility of extracting historical data from what Mr. Grote calls legendary Greece. Without attempting a discussion of this question, it seems to us a most unreasonable assumption that the legendary lore of any na

*Grote's History of Greece, ii. p. 34.

tion is utterly destitute of historical foundation. Nothing could be more natural than for a people to surround the actual facts of their early history with a mass of exaggeration which, in the course of time, would take the form of mythical narratives. It is more reasonable to suppose that there is a basis of fact in all mythologies, and that it is the historical truth in the first place which obtains credence, while the false additions are of gradual growth, than that a system of mythology wholly and entirely false, without any historical foundation, comes to be universally believed. And if there is this historical basis in the legends of Greece, why should it be regarded as impossible to separate the true from the false? It is an easy method to reject the whole, on account of the mythical character of a part; but this principle would lead to the rejection of a vast deal of history of more modern date. It is in fact a needless skepticism, and is inconsistent with that bold and patient spirit of inquiry which expects to obtain some true results where there is any basis of fact. To say

that we have no evidence that there is any thing even approximately correct in Grecian chronology before 776 B.C.; that it is impossible to tell whether there are any real personages in the Iliad and Odyssey; that all inquiries are fruitless as to the race which inhabited Greece before the Hellenic period, is a voluntary abandonment, which we find it difficult to understand, of a field most fertile in historical results.

When we examine the claims of the poems of Homer to be considered as valuable historical documents, we find that the Greeks so regarded them, and regarded no others in the same light. And this harmonizes most perfectly with what appears to be the intention of the poems themselves. The minute accuracy which is everywhere evident, the digressions from the story which are readily explained if we suppose them to be of historical interest, but are inexplicable on any other supposition, and the artistic blending and yet easy separation of the natural and supernatural, all lead us to a probable basis of fact.

And when we bring to bear upon this question the light which Comparative Philology, Ethnology, and other cognate studies afford, we arrive at many results upon which we can confidently rely, and in regard to which all that the historical skeptic can say is, that they do not absolutely exclude the possibility of doubt.

It makes little difference in regard to the historical value of the Iliad and Odyssey, whether we regard them as the production of one or of many authors. If any one finds the difficulties of the case diminished by the supposition of a multiplicity, in one age, of such extraordinary poets as Homer, he is welcome to the relief thus afforded. It is enough to say that there has been in recent German critics a great reaction, on this point, from the skepticism of Wolf, and that the best English scholars maintain that the Iliad and Odyssey are the production of a single mind. The only point which is vital in this inquiry is, whether the author (supposing that there was but one) of these poems was in a position to

give a correct representation of the manners, customs, morals, and religion of the heroic age, and whether such a representation is actually contained in these poems as they have come down to us.

The evidence arising from the difficulty of forging ancient documents is very strong as to the genuineness of the poems of Homer. The fact that in the earliest times in Greece, of which we have any record, they were rehearsed in public, at festivals, by rhapsodists, is presumptive evidence that they were handed down without material alteration: for the errors of one rhapsodist would be sure to be corrected by the others. And since the time. we know them to have been committed to writing, there has been but little danger of any serious corruption of the text. If, therefore, these poems may be considered as genuine, it only remains for us to inquire whether Homer lived in such proximity to the age which he describes, that his representation of it can be relied upon. In this inquiry let it be observed that it matters very little whether