SCIENCE AND HISTORY 589 



out having produced a single scientist. Pliny is the only Eoman who 

 has the slightest claim to this designation. Yet his " Natural History " 

 is such a vast collection of absurdities that one wonders how an avowed 

 atheist could think it worth while to record them. He cites nearly five 

 hundred writers as his authorities, and it is known that he was an inde- 

 fatigable reader. But he had time neither to think nor to observe. He 

 was conscientious in the performance of every duty incumbent upon 

 him, and thought he was doing posterity a great service in the compila- 

 tion of his work. He was skeptical in everything that came under his 

 own observation, and credulous of the testimony of others. He was a 

 predecessor of Faust who at one period of his career congratulated 

 himself that he knew more than everybody else, was haunted by neither 

 doubts nor scruples, feared neither hell nor the devil, hence had given 

 himself over to magic. It is unscientific to call anything that happens 

 or is, " strange " ; yet one is often tempted to apply the epithet to that 

 characteristic of man that makes him averse to the truth when it is dis- 

 agreeable or conflicts with preconceived opinions. Opinions and beliefs 

 can not change the most insignificant fact. It is only the truth whether 

 in science or history that abides. 



