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