e than one favorite general, distinguished for irresistible
valour? Is it not also possible that "BUONA PARTE" may have been
originally a sort of cant term applied to the "good (i.e., the bravest
or most patriotic) part" of the French army, collectively; and have been
afterwards mistaken for the proper name of an individual?[23] I do not
profess to support this conjecture; but it is certain that such mistakes
may and do occur. Some critics have supposed that the Athenians imagined
ANASTASIS ("Resurrection") to be a new goddess, in whose cause Paul was
preaching. Would it have been thought anything incredible if we had been
told that the ancient Persians, who had no idea of any but a monarchical
government, had supposed Aristocratia to be a queen of Sparta? But we
need not confine ourselves to hypothetical cases; it is positively
stated that the Hindoos at this day believe "the honourable East India
Company" to be a venerable old lady of high dignity, residing in this
country. The Germans, again, of the present day derive their name from a
similar mistake: the first tribe of them who invaded Gaul[24] assumed
the honourable title of "_Ger-man_" which signifies "warriors," (the
words "war" and "guerre," as well as "man," which remains in our
language unaltered, are evidently derived from the Teutonic,) and the
Gauls applied this as a _name_ to the whole _race_.

However, I merely throw out these conjectures without by any means
contending that more plausible ones might not be suggested. But
whatever supposition we adopt, or whether we adopt any, the objections
to the commonly received accounts will remain in their full force, and
imperiously demand the attention of the candid sceptic.

I call upon those, therefore, who profess themselves advocates of free
inquiry--who disdain to be carried along with the stream of popular
opinion, and who will listen to no testimony that runs counter to
experience,--to follow up their own principles fairly and
consistently. Let the same mode of argument be adopted in all cases
alike; and then it can no longer be attributed to hostile prejudice,
but to enlarged and philosophical views. If they have already rejected
some histories, on the ground of their being strange and
marvellous,--of their relating facts, unprecedented, and at variance
with the established course of nature,--let them not give credit to
another history which lies open to the very same objections,--the
extraordinary and r