The controversy respecting the historical character of the Homeric poems resolves itself into the question, whether, like the Persæ of Eschylus, or the epic of Tasso, they are founded on fact, or are the results of a purely creative invention. But even if they contain some fragments of fact, we have no independent accounts which enable us to separate these from the mass of fiction with which they are incrusted. In the romances relating to Charlemagne, we are enabled to identify Charles himself, as well as Orlando, Ruggieri, and some other knights, with real persons, because the events of that period have been preserved in authentic records. (220) By comparing the poems of Bojardo and Ariosto with the true history of the times of Charlemagne, we can determine how much is reality, and how much is fiction. We can satisfy ourselves, for example, that although Charlemagne was a real prince, and Roger was king of Sicily, yet the description, at the beginning of Bojardo, of his high court held at Paris, of the arrival of Angelica, and of the combats on her account, is a pure fable. A similar test would be applicable

supposition is not equally reserved for special application to Roman history. For what other country is an attempt made to write an authentic constitutional history, while all the contemporary events are admitted to be uncertain and legendary? Is it possible to conceive a constitutional history treated in vacuo, and abstracted from men and their political acts? No such separation is attempted in Greek history; our knowledge of the constitution of a state begins at the same time as our knowledge of the events of its history.

(220) For an investigation of the historical contents of the romances of chivalry, see Panizzi, Essay on the Romantic Narrative Poetry of the Italians (prefixed to his edition of Bojardo and Ariosto, Lond. 1830),

86, sqq. He has shown how the historical names of the romances were borrowed from history: In two or three centuries, the ballads in which

the name of Charles was mentioned must have been considered as all relating to one individual; so that of Charles Martel, Charles the Great, Charles the Bald, Charles the Fat, and Charles the Simple, one single Charles being made, he was naturally supposed to be the most famous of the name, i. e. Charlemagne. The same very probably occurred with respect to Rinaldo, the name being very common during that period. Even without this similarity of name, one individual was often compounded of two or more, where they happened to resemble each other in any par ticular circumstance of their lives. The process consisted simply in joining into one, several short ballads relating to different persons (ib. p. 113-4). On the blending of truth and fiction in romances, ib. p. 138-40. As to the derivation of Ruggieri from Roger, king of Sicily, and other princes of that name, see Life of Bojardo, vol. ii. p. lxxx. xcviii.

to the romances concerning King Arthur, if, indeed, it were not uncertain whether there is any contemporary record of this prince, and whether the oral legends in which he was celebrated were founded on a genuine tradition. (1) It is possible that Agamemnon, Menelaus, Achilles, and other heroes of the Iliad, were the names of real princes, floating in popular legends, which were caught up by Homer as characters in his epic poems; but if the acts which he assigned to them bore the same relation to the reality, as the adventures of the knights in the medieval romances bore to ascertained history, (2) the amount of fact preserved in the Homeric poems is very minute.

Great ingenuity, learning, and research have, of late years, been bestowed upon the mythico-historical period of ancient history; but no efforts of the modern historian can supply the defect of contemporary testimony, or enable him to chuse with safety between different versions of a fact, when the character of the witnesses is unknown. He may be guided by the laws of probability in rejecting marvellous details; he has, however, no criterion for discriminating between relations, probable in themselves, but destitute of clear external attestation. Still less is he able to detect probable fiction, when all the accounts agree in the same version.

The very unsatisfactory results which have hitherto attended

(221) Sir J. Mackintosh, in his History of England (vol. i. p. 27), considers it altogether unreasonable' to doubt of the existence of King Arthur. But the evidence of Nennius, on which Gibbon relied (Decl. and Fall, c. 38), has crumbled away since his time. See Stevenson's preface to his edition, 1838; and the preface to the Monumenta Hist. Brit. p. 62, 1848; and, although his name was certainly celebrated before the publication of Geoffrey of Monmouth's history, yet there is no contemporary account of him, unless the Welsh poems and documents are admitted to be as early as the 6th and 7th centuries. According to Ellis (Specimens of early Engl. Metr. Romances, vol. i. p. 103), Arthur is recorded in the Triads, and by Welsh bards, as a brave, and generally successful, warrior, but without any excessive or exaggerated praises.' Compare Sharon Turner's Vindication of the Ancient British Poets,' p. 599, 618, in the third vol. of his History of the Anglo-Saxons.

(222) F. v. Raumer remarks that, in the narratives respecting Charlemagne and the round table, there are very few historical facts or allusions; and that they describe rather the views and manners of the time of their authors than of past periods.-Geschichte der Hohenstaufen, vol. vi. p. 625;

ed. 2.

the attempts to extract truth out of legendary materials, justify a confident anticipation that the progress of historical investigation will not only confirm the nullity of the period usually called mythical, but that it will more and more disclose the uncertainty of the mythico-historical ages, and exhibit the difficulty of giving a well-grounded preference to any one of the various hypotheses and conjectures of modern speculative historians concerning this period. It is natural that persons who have consumed much time, and exercised much ingenuity, in comparing the scattered and discordant accounts relating to this portion of antiquity, should flatter themselves with a belief that they have established some valuable facts; and it is equally natural that specious conjectures, supported with extensive learning, and fortified by numerous apparent analogies, should impose upon an ordinary reader. But a steady attention to the distinction between contemporary and traditionary evidence will, in general, dissipate the mist which erudition can throw round doubtful questions of fact.

It must at the same time be borne in mind, that different portions of a mythico-historical period may be very unequally illuminated. The earlier parts of it may approximate to the darkness of the mythical age, while the later years may be distinguished from a period of contemporary history by the meagreness, rather than by the uncertainty of the events. Pre-contemporary history is a compound of fact and fiction; but the constituent parts may be mixed in varying proportions. Sometimes fact, and sometimes fiction, may predominate. Its progress may resemble the transition from night to day; it may pass gradually from a faint glimmer to nearly perfect light. Thus, we need not doubt that the Samnite wars described at the end of the first decade of Livy, are more purely historical than the account of the expulsion of the Tarquins and the battle of Regillus, or the treachery of Coriolanus; or that the account of Solon's legislation is less alloyed with fiction than that of the legislation of Lycurgus; though all these events are anterior to contemporary history.

The characteristic of a mythico-historical narrative is, that truth and falsehood are intimately blended together, without there being any certain test for their discrimination. We may be satisfied that the main facts rest on contemporary registration; that oral tradition has embellished fact, and has not fabricated an original story; but we are unable to separate the dross from the pure ore. Now, it may happen, with respect to an event prior to contemporary history, that only one version of it may be preserved; and that, though the narrative may be mythico-historical, yet there may be no discrepancy as to its details. Frequently, however, there are different versions of events belonging to this period; and when this is the case, the legendary character of material inconsistency in the several accounts is very apparent. When different witnesses describe the same fact, but err in their accounts, from infirmity of memory, or bias of feeling, their errors are confined within certain limits, and vibrate, as it were, round a common centre. But when the several accounts are drawn from the imagination, they follow independent lines, and have no common point of reference except the names of the actors. (223)

Thus, on comparing different histories of England for the events of the 17th century, we find different colours put upon the same transaction, and praise or blame differently distributed, according to the political or religious opinions of the historian. We find certain incidents passed lightly over in one, which are brought into prominent relief in another; we find numerous discrepancies in the details; but the groundwork of the narrative is at once recognised as identical in all its material parts. We do not find the execution of Strafford placed by some writers in the reign of Charles II., or the execution of Sidney placed by others in the reign of Charles I. We do not find discussions whether Hampden was a Royalist or a Parliamentarian; whether Charles I. really died on the scaffold, or whether his public execution is not a romantic story, invented to excite pity; whether

(223) The existence of one legendary account must never be understood as excluding the probability of other accounts, current at the same time, but inconsistent with it.'-Grote, Hist. of Gr. vol ii. p. 9.

Cromwell was contemporary with Louis XI. or Louis XIV.; or whether Oliver and Richard Cromwell were the same man, or different men.

But, in a mythico-historical time, we are met, not only with innumerable variations in the subordinate parts of the narrative, but with wide discrepancies as to important facts. Thus Herodotus, Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle, Ephorus, and, indeed, the general voice of antiquity, attribute the characteristic features of the Lacedæmonian constitution to the legislation of Lycurgus.(**) Hellanicus, however, who was born before Thucydides, and whose early date ought to have given him facilities for obtaining information, made no mention of Lycurgus, but attributed the entire constitution to Eurysthenes and Procles, the first kings.(~) Plutarch commences his life of Lycurgus with the following sentence :— It is impossible to say anything concerning Lycurgus the lawgiver which is not disputed. His family, his travels, his death, and, in addition to all, even his proceedings respecting the laws and constitution of Sparta, are differently related; least of all is there any agreement as to the time when he lived.' There were two versions of the quarrel between Sparta and Messenia, which preceded the Messenian wars. (2) Aristomenes was, without dispute, the hero of the defeated party in these conflicts; but some accounts placed him in the first war, some in the second war: there is no valid ground for giving a preference to either account; and it has even been conjectured that there were two

:

(224) See Herod. i. 65-6; Xen. Rep. Lac. i. 2; Ephorus, Fragm. 19, 64, ed. Didot. Plato classes Lycurgus with Charondas and Solon, Rep. x. 3, 599. Aristotle places Lycurgus and Solon together, as being the authors both of laws and a constitution, Pol. ii. 12. He also thought that Lycur gus was not honoured in Lacedæmon in proportion to his merit-Plutarch, Lyc. 32.

(225) Strab. viii. 5, § 5; Fr. 91, ed. Didot. Some writers (says Heraclides Ponticus) attribute the entire constitution of the Lacedæmonians to Lycurgus (Polit. 2), evidently implying, that other writers did not. Compare Müller, Dor. b. iii. c. 1, § 7. If, however, Plutarch is to be believed, Aristides, who came into public life soon after the time when Hellanicus was born, was an admirer and imitator of Lycurgus.Aristid. 2.

(226) See Paus. iv. 4, and Manso, i. 1, p, 205. Pausanias, in recounting the discrepancies respecting another legendary event, remarks generallyἥκει γὰρ δὴ ἐς ἀμφισβήτησιν τῶν ἐν Ἑλλάδι τὰ πλείω.—iv. 2, § 2.