OGYGES. 1 HOUGH it would be quite contrary to the design and spirit of this Miscellany to make it a stage for controversy, it does not exclude amicable criticism on any part of its own contents. We need therefore offer no apology for the remarks we are about to make on one of the essays in our last number, which contains some opinions on a mythological question from which we find ourselves compelled to dissent. We do this with the less hesitation because on such subjects the only chance of approaching the truth, which is perhaps the utmost that is within our reach, is by investigating it in various direc- tions, and examining it from many different points of view : and we feet sure that if in the present instance a comparison of the opinion we are about to propose or rather to defend with that to which it is opposed should throw any light on the subject, there is no one to whom the result will be more welcome than to the author of the abovementioned essay. We speak of the article on the early Kings of Attica^ and of the hypothesis maintained in it on the name and history of Ogyges. We begin by taking common ground with J. K. on the main question concerning this personage, whom we also assume to be merely fabulous. In the mind of Raoul Rochette, and perhaps of many others, he is, we are aware, quite as much a historical person as Hugh Capet : and since, as it has been well observed, " we want certain acknowledged criteria, by which to distinguish between what is mythical and what is historical : and these, it will not be easy to find : ^ (Dr Arnold Thucydides Preface Vol. ii. p. xiv.) it is possible that we may never be able to prove the contrary, any more than we can now. But as there is no saying how long we may have to wait for the decisive criteria, we take, as we freely give, the liberty of forming a provisional opinion on the subject, and presuming
