Chapter XIX

APPLICATION OF CHRONOLOGY TO GRECIAN LEGEND.

Different schemes of chronology proposed for the mythical
events.—The data essential to chronological determination
are here wanting.—Modern chronologists take up the same
problem as ancient, but with a different canon of belief.—Mr.
Clinton’s opinion on the computations of the date of the Trojan
war.—Value of the chronological computations depends on the
trustworthiness of the genealogies.—Mr. Clinton’s vindication
of the genealogies—his proofs.—1. Inscriptions—none of proved
antiquity.—Genealogies—numerous, and of unascertainable date.—2.
Early poets.—Mr. Clinton’s separation of the genealogical
persons into real and fabulous: principles on which it is
founded.—Remarks on his opinion.—His concessions are partial
and inconsistent, yet sufficient to render the genealogies
inapplicable for chronology.—Mr. Clinton’s positions respecting
historical evidence.—To what extent presumption may stand in
favor of the early poets.—Plausible fiction satisfies the
conditions laid down by Mr. Clinton—not distinguishable from
truth without the aid of evidence.—Kadmus, Danaus, Hyllus, etc.,
all eponyms, and falling under Mr. Clinton’s definition of
fictitious persons.—What is real in the genealogies cannot be
distinguished from what is fictitious.—At what time did the poets
begin to produce continuous genealogies, from the mythical to the
real world?—Evidence of mental progress when men methodize the
past, even on fictitious principles. 34-57