Of the Study of Hi s t o ry.

5

Julius Afrtcanus, Eusebius , and Georgethe monk opened the principal fources of all thisfcience; but they corrupted the waters. Their pointof view was to make profane hiftory and chrono-logy agree with facred; though the latter chronologyis very far from being eftablilhed with the clearnefsand certainty neceffary to make it a rule. For thispurpofe, the ancient monuments, that thefe writersconveyed to pofterity, were digefted by them ac-cording to the fyftem they were to maintain : andnone of thefe monuments were delivered down intheir original form, and genuine purity. TheDynafties of Manetho , for inftance, are brokento pieces by Eusebius ; and fuch fragments ofthem as fuited his defign, are ftruck into his work.We have, we know, no more of them. The CodexAlexandrinus we owe to George the monk. Wehave no other authority for it: and one cannotfee without amazement fuch a man as Sir JohnMarsham undervaluing this authority in one page,and building his fyftem upon it in the next. Hefeems even by the lightnefs of his expreffions, if Iremember well, for it is long fmce I looked intohis canon, not to be much concerned what foun-dation his fyftem had, though he fhowed his fkillin forming one, and in reducing the immenfe anti-quity of the Egyptians within the limits of theHebraic calculation. In fhort, my lord, all thefefyftems are fo many enchanted caftles; they appearto be fomething, they are nothing but appearances:like them too, diffolve the charm, and they vanifljfrom the fight. To diffolve the charm, we muft

B 3