gious gentleman.'* Themistocles is represented as addressing the Persian monarch in terms such as probably no European king would tolerate, except from a Quaker.'t When Lycurgus arrives at Sparta, and finds it torn by civil dissensions, he is called the venerable missionary from Delphi,' and is said to breathe into men's minds new impulses, and a desire to shake off the old social and political Adam.' Adopting a phrase, the counterpart of which has been ascribed to Napoleon's old guard, we are told that the Lacedæmonians die, but never surrender.' § His style is, perhaps, best adapted, for the discussion of social and political questions; but in the narration of events it rises with the greatness of the occasion, and he maintains the attention of the reader unflagging to the end. No one has related with more vigour, or thrown more varied interest over the grand drama of the Athenian expedition to Sicily; and the final battle in the great harbour of Syracuse may be cited as a model of historical description. Having described what appear to us the chief characteristics of Mr. Grote, we will next notice a few of the most important points in which he differs from his predecessors. As the subject is so vast we shall not attempt to enter into discussions upon controverted points, but shall content ourselves with laying before our readers, as briefly as we can, and as nearly as possible in Mr. Grote's own words, a few of the more salient features of his work. Mr. Grote was the first writer who drew a clear and welldefined line between legendary and historical Greece. The earlier modern historians followed implicitly the statements which they found in the later Greek writers and chronographers respecting the most ancient times, without making any inquiry into the sources of information possessed by these writers. A popular modern historian gravely says respecting Sicyon,-"The beginning of this petty sovereignty is placed by historians in the year of the world 1915, before Jesus Christ 2089, and before the first Olympiad 1313,' just as if the exact year was as well ascertained and rested on the same historical basis as the date of the accession of Alexander the Great, or the date of the death of Julius Cæsar. Even after the growth of historical criticism had shown beyond the possibility of doubt that all such statements were perfectly worthless, it was still thought that there must be some historical foundation for the more celebrated Grecian legends, and it was supposed to be possible, by the spirit of historical * Vol. vi. p. 391. † Vol. v. p. 38. Vol. ii. p. 533. § Vol. vi. p. 472. divination,' divination,' to which we have already alluded, to separate truth from falsehood, fact from fiction, history from legend. It is astonishing what an amount of learning and ingenuity have been expended by some of the ablest scholars, both in this country and in Germany, upon that which must, from the nature of the case, remain an insoluble problem. There is to us nothing more disheartening in philology than to pore over the interminable disputes respecting the origin and settlements of the Pelasgi, Leleges, Curetes, Caucones, Hyantes, Phlegyæ, and the other earliest inhabitants of Greece, and nothing more [fruitless or more unsound than to attempt to distil a supposed history out of the adventures of Perseus, Hercules, and Theseus, or out of the legends of the Theban, Argonautic, or Trojan expeditions. Into all such discussions Mr. Grote declines to enter. He begins the real history of Greece with the first recorded Olympiad, or B. c. 776, taking this date as an approximation to the period at which something like a general history may be said to commence. It is not, indeed, till long after this period that we have any historical records, properly so called; and as to the events which are alleged to have happened previous to the first Olympiad, they are entirely unsupported by any positive testimony, and have no claim upon our belief. These legends, however, exerted such an important influence upon the Greek mind, that a knowledge of them forms a necessary introduction to Grecian history; and accordingly they are given by Mr. Grote in their legendary form, before he commences the history, properly so called. The question is frequently asked, why these stories are disbelieved? But we would ask the interrogator in return, why he believes them? Surely the onus probandi lies upon the person who demands our assent. It is tacitly assumed that the belief of the Greeks themselves, without the smallest aid of special or contemporary witnesses, is sufficient to prove that the events actually occurred, provided such deductions are made from the mythical narratives as will remove all improbabilities. If we go a step further back, and inquire into the reasons of the belief of the Greeks themselves, we shall be told that it rests upon early tradition. But Mr. Grote justly remarks that tradition is an equivocal word, and begs the whole question; for, while in its obvious and literal meaning it implies only something handed down, whether truth or fiction, it is usually understood to imply a tale, descriptive of some matter of fact, originally accurate, but subsequently corrupted by oral transmission. What is called early tradition is, in fact, only the tales of the old poets, which, it is assumed, must have rested originally upon some particular historical event, involving the identical persons, things, and places which the original myths exhibit. This, however, is an an assumption, which cannot be admitted; for if we examine the influences predominant in the society in which this belief grew up, we shall see that the growth and diffusion of it may be satisfactorily explained, without supposing any special basis of matter of fact. Mr. Grote's remarks upon this subject deserve and will repay attentive perusal. 'The influence of imagination and feeling is not confined simply to the process of retouching, transforming, or magnifying narratives originally founded on fact; it will often create new narratives of its own, without any such preliminary basis. Where there is any general body of sentiment pervading men living in society, whether it be religious or political-love, admiration, or antipathy-all incidents tending to illustrate that sentiment are eagerly welcomed, rapidly circulated, and (as a general rule) easily accredited. If real incidents are not at hand, impressive fictions will be provided to satisfy the demand: the perfect harmony of such fictions with the prevalent feeling stands in the place of certifying testimony, and causes men to hear them not merely with credence but even with delight: to call them in question and require proof, is a task which cannot be undertaken without incurring obloquy. Of such tendencies in the human mind abundant evidence is furnished by the innumerable religious legends which have acquired currency in various parts of the world, and of which no country was more fertile than Greece-legends which derived their origin, not from special facts misreported and exaggerated, but from pious feelings pervading the society, and translated into narrative by forward and imaginative minds-legends, in which not merely the incidents, but often even the personages are unreal, yet in which the generating sentiment is conspicuously discernible, providing its own matter as well as its own form. Other sentiments also, as well as the religious, provided they be fervent and widely diffused, will find expression in current narrative, and become portions of the general public belief; every celebrated and notorious character is the source of a thousand fictions exemplifying his peculiarities. And if it be true, as I think present observation may show us, that such creative agencies are even now visible and effective, when the materials of genuine history are copious and critically studied—much more are we warranted in concluding that in ages destitute of records, strangers to historical testimony, and full of belief in divine inspiration both as to the future and as to the past, narratives purely fictitious will acquire ready and uninquiring credence, provided only they be plausible and in harmony with the preconceptions of the auditors.'-vol. i. pp. 577-579. The origin of the Grecian myths, and the manner in which they were understood, felt, and interpreted by the Greeks themselves, form the subject of one of the most instructive chapters in Mr. Grote's work, which ought to be carefully read by every one who desires to entertain clear and accurate views respecting what passes under the name of early Grecian history. Some critics have charged Mr. Grote with an excess of scepticism in denying the historical foundation of some of the more celebrated legends, such, for instance, as the Trojan war; but this is hardly a fair statement of the case. As we understand Mr. Grote, he neither affirms nor denies that the Homeric tale of Troy was based upon an historical fact; it may or may not have been all he maintains is, that the fact of the siege of Troy rests upon exactly the same evidence as the superhuman prowess of Achilles and the wounding of the god of war by the mortal Diomede. In either case our sole authority is Homer, and we have no sufficient reason for accepting the one statement and rejecting the other, except that the one may possibly be true, and the other must be false. It is too frequently taken for granted that if we refuse to believe, we must necessarily disbelieve. Men are impatient of uncertainty, and would sooner fancy that they know a thing than remain in a state of conscious ignorance; but it has been well observed by Mr. Grote, that 'conscious and confessed ignorance is a better state of mind than the fancy without the reality of knowledge.' The ordinary method of omitting from the mythical narrative everything that is miraculous or extravagant is never accompanied with any certainty that we have reached the positive truth; at the best we obtain only a series of credible incidents which may perhaps have really occurred, and against which no inherent improbability can be pleaded. This is the character of a well-written novel; and such a theory, as Mr. Grote truly remarks, overlooks altogether the existence of plausible fiction-of fictitious stories which harmonize perfectly well with the known course of facts. Such stories are only distinguished from real events by the want of competent and well-informed witnesses to authenticate them. This is put by Mr. Grote in a striking manner:— A 'To raise plausible fiction up to the superior dignity of truth, some positive testimony or positive ground of inference must be shown; even the highest measure of intrinsic probability is not alone sufficient. man who tells us that on the day of the battle of Platæa rain fell on the spot of ground where the city of New York now stands, will neither deserve nor obtain credit, because he can have had no means of positive knowledge; though the statement is not in the slightest degree improbable. On the other hand, statements in themselves very improbable may well deserve belief, provided they be supported by sufficient positive evidence: thus the canal dug by order of Xerxes across the promontory of Mount Athos, and the sailing of the Persian fleet through it, is a fact which I believe, because it is well-attested, notwithstanding notwithstanding its remarkable improbability, which so far misled Juvenal as to induce him to single out the narrative as a glaring example of Grecian mendacity. Again, many critics have observed that the general tale of the Trojan war (apart from the superhuman agencies) is not more improbable than that of the crusades, which every one admits to be an historical fact. But (even if we grant this position, which is only true to a small extent) it is not sufficient to show an analogy between the two cases in respect to negative presumptions alone; the analogy ought to be shown to hold between them in respect to positive certificate also. The crusades are a curious phænomenon in history, but we accept them nevertheless as an unquestionable fact, because the antecedent improbability is surmounted by adequate contemporary testimony. When the like testimony, both in amount and kind, is produced to establish the historical reality of a Trojan war, we shall not hesitate to deal with the two events on the same footing.' —vol. i. pp. 571, 572. In the chapter on the Legislation of Lycurgus, Mr. Grote controverts the views of K. O. Müller, Dr. Thirlwall, and most modern scholars, that the laws of Sparta were true Dorian institutions, and that the Spartans are to be regarded as the type and representative of the Dorians generally. Mr. Grote maintains, on the contrary, that the institutions of Sparta were peculiar to herself, and that the legislation of Lycurgus impressed upon the Spartans that peculiar character, which rendered them the least fit of all the Grecian states to be cited as examples of the real Dorians. Lycurgus is described as 'the founder of a warlike brotherhood rather than the lawgiver of a political community; and the distinctive attribute of Sparta is to be sought, not in her laws or political constitution, but in the universal training, under a rule partly military and partly monastic,' which was imposed alike upon boys and men, youths and virgins, rich and poor. Another important feature in the Spartan polity is brought into view by Mr. Grote. 'This attribute of the Spartan polity is its unparalleled steadiness for four or five successive centuries, in the midst of governments like the Grecian, all of which had undergone more or less of fluctuation. No considerable revolution-not even any palpable or formal changeoccurred in it from the days of the Messenian war down to those of Agis III. in spite of the irreparable blow which the power and territory of the state sustained from Epaminondas and the Thebans, the form of government nevertheless remained unchanged. It was the only government in Greece which could trace an unbroken peaceable descent from a high antiquity and from its real or supposed founder. Now this was one of the main circumstances of the astonishing ascendency which the Spartans acquired over the Hellenic mind, and which they will not be found at all to deserve by any superior ability in the conduct of |