408 HISTORY OF GREEClfi. magnitude and importance to the Peloponncsian war. 1 In this respect his opinion seems to have been at variance with that which was popular among his contemporaries. 1 Thucyd. i. 21-22. The first two volumes of this history have been noticed in an able article of the Quarterly Review, for October, 1846 ; as well as in the Heidelberger JahrbUcher der Literatur (1846. No. 41. pp. 641-655), by Professor Kortiim. While expressing, on several points, approbation of my work, by which I feel much flattered both my English and my German critic take partial objection to the views respecting Grecian legend. While the Quarterly Re- viewer contends that the mythopocic faculty of the human mind, though essentially loose and untrustworthy, is never creative, but requires some basis of fact to work upon Kortiim thinks that I have not done justice to Thucy- dides, as regards his way of dealing with legend ; that I do not allow suffi- cient weight to the authority of an historian so circumspect and so cold- blooded (den kalt-blQthigsten und besonncnstcn Historiker des Alterthums, p. 653) as a satisfactory voucher for the early facts of Grecian history in his preface (Tlerr G. Fehlt also, wenn er das anerkannt kritische Pro-cemium als Gewahrsmann verschmaht, p. 654). No man feels more powerfully than I do the merits of Thucydides as au historian, or the value of the example which he set in multiplying critical in- quiries respecting matters recent and verifiable. But the ablest judge or advocate, in investigating specific facts, can proceed no further than he finds witnesses having the means of knowledge, and willing more or less to tell truth. In reference to facts prior to 776 B. c., Thucydides had nothing before him except the legendary poets, whose credibility is not at all enhanced by the circumstance that he accepted them as witnesses, applying himself only to cut down and modify their allegations. His credibility in regard to the specific facts of these early times depends altogether upon theirs. Now we in our day are in a better position for appreciating their credibility than he was in his, since the foundations of historical evidence are so much more fully understood, and good or bad materials for history are open to comparison in such large extent and variety. Instead of wondering that he shared the general faith in such delusive guides we ought rather to give him credit for the reserve with which he qualified that faith, and for the sound idea of historical possibility to which he held fast as the limit of his confidence. But it is impossible to consider Thucydides as a satisfactory guarantee (Gewahrsmann^ for matters of fact which he derives only from such sources. Professor Kortiim considers that I am inconsistent with myself in refusing to discriminate particular matters of historical fact among the legends and yet in accepting these legends (in my chap.xx.^ as giving a faithful imr. ror of the general state of early Grecian society ("p. 653^. It appears to me that this is no inconsistency, but a real and important distinction. Whether HerakKs, Agamemnon, Odysseus, etc. were real persons, and performed all.
