« PoprzedniaDalej »
they must be set aside, as indefensible. These principles are thus concisely stated.
“ The 14 kings of the Latines, at 22 years apiece one with another, amount unto 280 years, and these years, counted from the taking of Troy, end in the 38th olympiad *." Thus are 432 years reduced to 280: "and the seven reigns of the kings of Rome, four or five of them being sain, and one deposed, may, at a moderate seckoning, amount to 15 or 16 years apiece one with another ; let them be reckoned at 17 apiece, and they will amount to about 119 years; which being counted backwards from the Regifuge, end also in the 38th olympiad : and by these two reckonings Rome was built in the 38th olympiad, or thereabout.” Historians assign to the seven kings a period of 244 years. The deduction from this article is 125, from the other 152, and the sum total 275.
PAINFUL it is to insinuate a disapprobation of the venerable Sir Isaac Newton's poftulates and conclusions ; much more to pronounce them equivocal and fallacious; but it is unavoidable.
The 14 kings of the Latins belong to the fabulous times, prior to the era of a correct chronology, and of authentic history. The duration of their reigns, either separately or collectively, is certainly amplified, as usually was done. But on perusing four different copies of these reigns, by Ovid, Virgil, Dionyfius of Halicarnassus, and Livy, not to mention others in different re
*Hookes Preface, p. 26.
cords, the writer of this Analysis ventures to affirm, that the names, number, order of succession, and years of sovereignty, are in no two registers the same.' As, therefore, neither the number of princes, nor the quantity of their distinct governments, can with certainty be defined, an equation is impracticable. '. But if the precise interval from Latinus to Romnulus, that is, from the fall of Troy to the rise of Rome, can be ascertained, let that number of years, whatever it be, fill up the blank, and from this quantity, as better known, the intermediate reigns and generations will be no impracticable discovery.
The seven reigns from Romulus to the first pair of confuls belong to a different epoch, that of an astronomical chronology and genuine history. The names of the sovereigns are in every record the same, the order of succession the same, the length of each reign the 'fame, and the aggregate sum the same, the space of every interreign, as oft as it happened, the same. Why then should Sir Isaac Newton, by a plausible artifice in computation, confound the historical period with the fabulous ?
« Some of the Greeks," he observes, “ called the times before the reign of Ogyges UNKNOWN, because they had no history of them; those between his flood and the beginning of the olympiads, FABULOUS, be- cause their history was much mixed with poetical fables ; and those after the beginning of the olympiads, historical, because their history was free from such fables. The fabulous ages wanted a good chronology;
and and so also did the hiftorical for the first 60 or 70 olympiads *."
This is an ambiguous and consequently a questionable criterion. Seventy olympiads make 280 years. To bring the date of authentic history among the geneiles so very low, is to extend the fabulous age so far as to the fifth century nearly before the Christian era. This poftulate is not to be admitted. Few histories of indubitable credibility indeed were then published; but the olympiad from its restoration, in the 34th of Uz. ziah king of Judah, was an infallible term of computation; and facts characterised with this era are not rashly to be pronounced fictitious or false. This is not the proper place for ample discussion. The inquisitive and learned reader is referred to Dr. Musgrave's “ Examination of Sir Isaac Newton's Objections to the Chronology of the Olympiads +.”
The arrangements in “ The Chronology of ancient Kingdoms amended,” are not only equivocal and elufive, but inconsistent with the author's own fundamental principles. For instance, .
« CARTHAGE was destroyed in the consulship of Lentulus and Mummius, A. P. J. 4568.” This was the Varronian year of Rome 608. A term in computation once assumed, for fixing the date of any other historical incident, ought not to be transferred to any other point of time; because the source of reckoning, if changed,
* Ancient Chronology amended, page 44.' † Lond. 1782, o&avo.
misplaces misplaces the date of the incident resting on that basis. Sir Isaac Newton ascribes to Carthage an existence of 130 years prior to the foundation of Rome, in the third year of the sìth olympiad. But if that foundation be. brought lower by 130 years, neither the rise nor fall of Carthage is determined. This arbitrary shifting of terms is a sort of legerdemain in chronology,
To bring discredit on the long reigns from Romulus to the second Tarquin, Sir Isaac Newton remarks, “ In the latter ages since chronology hath been exact, there is scarcely an example of ten kings reigning any where in continual succession, abore 260 years :" that is, 26 years the mean quantity. But Whiston, as quoted by Hooke, in his “ Confutation of Sir Isaac Newton's Chronology," observes, that in England we have had NINE successive reigns, at almost 30 years apiece, from Henry I. to Edward III.
TWELVE, at almof 28 years each, from William the Conqueror to Richard II.
The French have had fix reigns together, at almost 40 years apiece, from Robert to Philip II.
Eight reigns, at above 35 years apiece, from Robert to Lewis IX.
Ten reigns, almost 33 years apiece, from Robert to Philip IV. .. . Mr. Hooke is so very candid as to confess, “ Now
I think it must be granted, that the examples which Mr. Whiston has produced of long reigns in succesGon, both in England and in France, would be sufficient to make it credible, that the seven kings of Rome
reigned as long as they are reported to have done, if there were no objection to this report, but its being uncommon to find, in authentic and undisputed history, seven kings. reigning in succession 35 years, one with anothér *.” He produces, however, four reasons of dissent, set forth with a fair shew of plausibility ; but they are nugatory. : WHEN monarchy was exchanged for the consulate, no great care was taken to preserve the memorials of arbitrary power. The palace and temple of Numa acquired veneration ; but even the very name of the Tarquine family was transmitted with marks of infamy. Much stronger was the desire of consigning the whole sace to oblivion, than of perpetuating their names in the order of lineal succesion. Though the people, immediately after the revolution, decreed the restoration of Tarquin's private estates to his relations ; yet the lenate destroyed his palace, and distributed his lands among the needy citizens, retaining for public use a small portion of a field only, adjoining to the Campus Marrius, which the king had, by usurpation, added to his private property. Collatinus, that virtuous and, brave ,patriot, finding suspicion and jealousy attached inseparably to his family and name, took the moderate expedient of retiring into private life, even before the expiration of the first consulship. The records of the old kings in Latium, and those also of the second series from Romulus, were lost in the conflagration of the
• Hooke's Pref. p. 29.