[ 48 ] 



" would fav, that he h a writer of veracity in his defcrlp- 

 " tlons of what he faw, but of credulity in his relations of 

 " what he heard. 



SacH is the judgment of the moft competent of critics, 

 whofe comment upon his author was not the refult of clofet 

 invefligation, but of ocular examination into the fadls reported 

 — Such is the judgment of a learned and diligent enquirer, 

 who followed the fteps of Herodotus through almofl all his 

 travels, and had every pofllble opportunity of detecting his 

 errors, and contradiding his fahifications. Yet even in this 

 charadler of our author, which good fenfe, experience and can- 

 dour have didatcd, there is flill fomething which may perhaps 

 be allowed to bear rather too hard upon the venerable father 

 of hiflory. The credulity of Herodotus is a fault which his 

 mofl fanguine favourers have generally imputed to him ; and 

 yet even this may perhaps be palliated, when we candidly 

 confider the (late of the times in which he lived. Egypt was 

 in thofe days efteemed the feat of polifh, and the fountain of 

 fcience — Greece, not long fince emerged from ignorance, had 

 from thence received her philofophy, her religion, her Gods ; 

 and confequently the Egyptian priefts, in whom exclufively 

 refided all the knowledge of that fclentific region, would by 

 the Grecians be held in the higheft veneration ; in religious 

 matters efpecially they would be thought to poflefs a patri- 

 archal authority ; their relations and opinions would obtain 

 implicit credit, and almofl be confidered as articles of faith. 

 Herodotus was a traveller for inftrucftion, and had journeyed 



into 



