of the letters, because the most ancient characters are as easily counterfeited as the modern.' But this objection is equally applicable to all other ancient infcriptions, and is not to the purpose, if the prefent infcription has any peculiar marks of imposture in its characters and orthography. The characters do not resemble the Sigean, the Nemean, or the Delian infcriptions.' Mr. R. answers this objection himself by adding, which are fuppofed to be of a more ancient date.' The oppofite reafon to this will be a fufficient answer to the other objection, that they do not resemble the Far-. nefan pillars or the Alexandrian MS.' If they differ in many reSpets from the Marmor Sandvicenfe,' they may be prefumed to agree in many. They seem to refemble, more than any other, the alphabet taken by Montfaucon from the Marmor Cyzicenum. Thus it appears that the Parian Chronicle moft nearly resembles the two infcriptions, to whofe age it moft nearly approaches.

When Mr. R. adds, that the letters are fuch as an ordinary flone-cutter would probably make, if he were employed to engrave a Greek infeription, according to the alphabet now in ufe,' he muft be understood cum grano falis. The engraver of a fac fimile generally omits fome nice and minute touches in taking his copy; but, even with this abatement, we dare appeal to any adept in Greek calligraphy whether the fpecimen facing p. 56, will jus tify our author's obfervation. The small letters (0, 0, N), intermixed among the larger, have an air of affectation and artifice.' Then has the greater part of ancient infcriptions an air of affectation and artifice. For the O is perpetually engraved in this diminutive fize, and 2 being of a kindred found, and of a kindred shape, how can we wonder that all three should be reprefented of the fame magnitude? In the infcription which immediately follows the marble in Dr. Chandler's edition, N° xxiv. thefe very three letters are never fo large as the reft, and often much smaller; of which there are inftances in the three first lines. See alfo two medals in the fecond part of Dorville's Sicula, Tab. xvi. Num. 7. 9.

• From the archaims, fuch as ἐγ Λυκωρείας, ἐγ Κυβέλοις, ἐμ Пápwi, &c. &c. no conclufion can be drawn in favour of the authenticity of the infeription.' Yet furely every thing common to it with other infcriptions, confeffedly genuine, creates a reasonable prefumption in its favour. But what reafon could there be for thefe archaisms in the Parian Chronicle? We do not usually find them in Greek writers of the fame age, or even of a more early date. The reafon is, according to our opinion, that such archaifms were then in ufe; this we know from other inscriptions, in which fuch archaifms (or, as our author afterward calls them, barbarifms) are frequent. Nothing can be inferred from the Greek writers, unlefs we had their autographs. The prefent fyftem of orthography in our printed Greek books is out of the

D 4

queftion.

queftion. Again, The infeription fometimes adopts and fometimes neglects thefe archaifms, as in lines 4, 12, 27, 52, 63, 67.' This inconfiftency either is no valid objection, or if it be valid, will demolish not only almost every other infcription, but almoft every writing whatsoever. For example, in the infcription juft quoted, No XXIV. we find TN Barixía 1. 20. and oraM TÉμπ, 24. A little farther, No xxvI 1. 31 we have i Mayroías, 5773. 81. ἐκ Μαγνησίας, and 106. 108. ἐΚΓ Μαγνησίας. The Corcyrean infcription (Montfaucon, Diar. Ital. p. 420.) promifcucully ufes ἐκδανείζομαι and εΓδανείζομαι. In Englim, who is forprifed to find has and hath, a hand, and an hand, a useful, and an useful, in the works of the fame author? We could produce inftances of this inaccuracy from the fame page, nay from the fame fentence.

The authenticity of those infcriptions, in which these archaifms appear, must be established, before they can be produced in oppofition to the prefent argument.' This is, we cannot help thinking, rather too fevere a restriction. If no infcription may be quoted, before it be proved genuine, the learned author of the Differtation need not be afraid of being confuted, for nobody will engage with him on fuch conditions. Perhaps the reverfe of the rule will be thought more equitable: that every infcription be allowed to be genuine, till its authenticity be rendered doubtful by probable arguments. We will conclude this head with two fhort obfervations. In Selden's copy, 1. 26. was written ПOнΣIN, which the later editors have altered to ПOIHEIN, but without reason, the other being the more ancient way of writing, common in MSS. and fometimes found on infcriptions. (See G. Koen's Notes on Gregorius de Dialectis, p. 30.) In 1. 83. the Marble has Kanλiou, for which Palmer wifhed to fubftitute Kanniou. Dr. Taylor refutes him from the Marmor Sandvicenfe, obferving at the fame time, that this orthography occurs in no other place whatever, except in these two monuments. Is it likely that two engravers fhould by chance coincide in the fame mistake, or that the forger of the Parian Chronicle (if it be forged) fhould have feen the Marmor Sandvicenfe, and taken notice of this peculiarity with the intention of afterward employing it in the fabrication of an imposture?

We will now confider, more briefly, the other objections. II. It is not probable that the Chronicle was engraved for private ufe. 1. Because it was fuch an expence, as few learned Greeks were able to afford.' If only a few were able to afford it, fome one of thofe few might be willing to incur it. But let Mr. R. confider how likely it is that a modern, and probably a needy Greek, fhould be more able to afford it in the last century, than a learned Greek 2000 years ago! 2. A manufcript is more readily circulated.' Do men never prefer cumbrous fplendour to cheapness

and

7

and convenience? And if this compofition, inftead of being engraved on marble, had been committed to parchment, would it have had a better chance of coming down to the present age? Such a flying sheet would foon be loft; or, if a copy had, by miracle, been preferved to us, the objections to its being genuine would be more plausible than any that have been urged against the infcription. What Mr. R. fays about the errors to which an infcription is liable, &c. will only prove that chronological infcriptions ought not to be engraved; but not that they never were. We allow that the common method of writing in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus was NOT on STONES. But it was common enough to occur to the mind of any person who wished to leave behind him a memorial at once of his learning and magnificence.

III. This objection, that the marble does not appear to be engraved by public authority, we fhall readily admit, though Bentley (Duff. on Phalaris, p. 251.) leans to the contrary opinion. In explaining this objection, the learned Differtator obferves, that though the exprethion, ἄρχοντος ἐμ Πάρωι, would lead us to fuppofe that the infcription related to Pares, not a single circumftance in the hiftory of that ifland is mentioned. But this expreffion only fhews that the author was an inhabitant of Paros, and intended to give his readers a clue, or PARAPEGMA, by the aid of which they might adjust the general chronology of Greece to the dates of their own hiftory. It is as abfurd as would be a marble in Jamaica containing the revolutions of England." We fee no abfurdity in fuppofing a book to be written in Jamaica, containing the revolutions of England. The natives of Paros were not uninterested in events relating to the general hif tory of Greece, particularly of Athens; and how can we tell whether the author were an inquilinus or a native of the island; whether he thought it a place beneath his care, or whether he had devoted a feparate infcription to the chronology of Paros? IV. It has been frequently obferved, that the earlier periods of the Grecian history are involved in darkness and confufion. Granted. It follows then, that an author who should attempt to fettle the dates of the earlier periods would frequently contradict preceding, and be contradicted by, jubfequent writers: that he would naturally fall into miflakes, and at beft could only hope to adopt the most probable fyftem. But the difficulty of the task, or the impoffibility of juccefs, are not fuffuient to prove that no man has been rafb or mad enough to make the attempt. On the contrary, we know that many have made it. What a number of difcordant opinions has Mr. R. himself given us from the ancients concerning the age of Homer? This confideration will in part obviate another objection, that the Parian Chronicle does not agree with any ancient author. For if the ancients contradict one another, how could it follow more than

one

one of them? and why might not the author, without any imputation of ignorance or rafhnefs, fometimes depart from them all? If indeed he difagrees with them when they are unanimous, it might furnish matter for fufpicion; though even this would be far from a decifive argument, unless the ancients were fo extremely unlike the moderns, as never to be fond of fingular and paradoxical pofitions.

V. This Chronicle is not once mentioned by any writer of antiquity. How many of thofe infcriptions, which are preferved to the prefent day, are mentioned by claffical authors? Verrius Flaccus compofed a Roman calendar, which, as a monument of his learning and induftry, was engraved on marble, and fixed in the moft public part of Prenefte. Fragments of this very calendar were lately dug up at Prenefte, and have been published by a learned Italian. Now, if the paffage of Suetonius, which informs us of this circumftance, bad been loft, would the filence of the Latin writers prove that the fragments were not genuine remains of antiquity? It may be faid, that the cafes are not parallel, for not a fingle author mentions the Parian Chronicle, whereas Suetonius does mention Verrius's Roman calendar. To this we answer, It is dangerous to deny the authenticity of any monument on the flender probability of its being cafually mentioned by a fingle author. We fhall alfo obferve, that this fact of the Hemicyclium of Verrius will anfwer fome part of the Differtator's fecond objection: The Parian Chronicle is not an Infcription that might have been concealed in a private library.' Why not? it is of no extraordinary bulk; and might formerly have been concealed in a private library, or in a private room, with as much ease as many infcriptions are now concealed in very narrow spaces. But unless this monument were placed in fome confpicuous part of the island, and obtruded itself on the notice of every traveller, the wonder will in great meafure ceafe, why it is never quoted by the ancients. Of the nine authors named in p. 109, had any one ever vifited Paros? If Paufanias had travelled thither, and published his defcription of the place, we might perhaps expect to find fome mention of this marble in fo curious and inquifitive a writer. But though the infcription exifted, and were famous at Paros, there feems no neceffity for any of the authors whofe works are ftill extant to have known or recorded it. If there be, let this learned antagonist point out the place where this mention ought to have been made. If any perfons were bound by a stronger obligation than others to speak of the Parian infcription, they must be the profeffed chronoJogers: but alas! we have not the entire works of fo much as a fingle ancient chronologer; it is therefore impoffible to determine whether this Chronicle were quoted by any ancient. And fuppofing it had been feen by fome ancient, whofe writings filh

remain,

remain, why fhould he make particular mention of it? Many authors, as we know from their remains, very freely copied their predeceffors without naming them. Others, finding only a collection of bare events in the Infcription, without historical proofs or reasons, might entirely neglect it, as deferving no credit. Mr. R. feems to lay much stress on the precife, exact, and particular specification of the events, p. 109. But he ought to reflect, that this abrupt and pofitive method of speaking is not only ufual, but neceffary, in such short fyftems of chronology as the Marble contains, where events only, and their dates, are fet down, unaccompanied by any examination of evidences for and againft, without ftating any computation of probabilities, or deduction of reafons. When therefore a chronological writer had undertaken to reduce the general hiftory of Greece into a regular and confiftent fyftem, admitting that he was acquainted with this Infcription, what grounds have we to believe that he would say any thing about it? Either his fyftem coincided with the Chro nicle, or not: if it coincided, he would very probably difdain. to prop his own opinions with the unfupported affertions of another man, who, as far as he knew, was not better informed than himself. On the other hand, if he differed from the authority of the Marble, he might think it a fuperfluous exertion of complaifance, to refute, by formal demonftration, a writer who had chosen to give no reasons for his own opinion.-We fhall pafs hence to objection

VII. With respect to the parachronisms that Mr. R. produces, we shall without hesitation grant, that the author of the Infcription may have committed fome miftakes in his chronology, as perhaps concerning Phidon, whom he seems to have confounded with another of the fame name, &c. But these miftakes will not conclude against the antiquity of the Infcription, unless we at the fame time reject many of the principal Greek and Roman writers, who have been convicted of fimilar errors. We return therefore to objection

VI. Some of the facts feem to have been taken from authors of a later date. We have endeavoured impartially to examine and compare the paffages quoted in proof of this objection; but we are obliged to confefs, that we do not perceive the faintest traces of theft or imitation. One example only deferves to be excepted, to which we fhall therefore pay particular attention.

The names of fix, and, if the lacunæ are properly fupplied, the names of twelve cities, appear to have been engraved on the Marble, exactly as we find them in Elian's Various Hiftory. But there is not any imaginable reafon for this particular arrangement. It does not correfpond with the time of their foundation, with their fituation in lonia, with their relative importance, or with the order in which they are placed by other eminent hiftorians,'

The