supposition above mentioned; and hence the comparatively little value as to any philosophical purpose of the generality of histories respecting the earliest times.'
6. To dogmatise that any date is chronologically infallible because it has been repeated and handed down for hundreds, or even thousands, of years, is only begging the question. Errors have often been perpetuated solely on account of the magnitude of their fallacy. For instance, five centuries ago belief in the powers of the philosopher's stone was a universal tenet; so, too, in aërial apparitions and in witches. Nay, more, the thinkers of that epoch—the men who were guiding the nations—declared that the heavens revolved round this earth according to the Ptolemaic Laws. To-day what do we find? To-day all these fallacies are rejected. But chronological progress has not kept step with advancement in ethical matters. Fabulous dates still find a place in records, and are handed down with zealous care.
7. 'History to be above evasion or dispute must stand on documents, not on opinions.'[1] And in another sentence the same great authority cogently observes that 'if men were truly sincere and delivered judgment by no canons but those of evident morality, then Julian would be described in the same terms by Christian and Pagan, Luther by Catholic and Protestant, Washington by Whig and Tory, Napoleon by patriotic Frenchman and by patriotic German.' Coming from such a source, these two observations are of great consequence; and mutatis mutandis they apply to the principles of chronology. Chronology should stand upon valid documents; and the
- ↑ Lord Acton, pp. 45 and 46.
