« PreviousContinue »
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 inscriptions, and is not to the purpose, if the present inscription has any peculiar marks of imposture in its characters and orthography. The characters do not resemble the Sigean, the Nemean, or the Delian inscriptions. Mr. R. answers this obje&ion bimself by adding, which are supposed to be of a more ancient date.' The opposite reason to this will be a sufficient answer to the other obje&ion, that they do not resemble the Faro , refian pillars or the Alexandrian MS. If they differ in many reSpects from the Marmor Sandvicense, they may be presumed to agree in many. They seem to resemble, more than any other, the alphabet taken by Montfaucon from the Marmor (yzicenum. Thus it appears that the Parian Chronicle moft nearly resembles the two inscriptions, to whose age it most nearly approaches.
When Mr. R. adds, that the letters are such as an ordinary Alone-cutter would probably make, if he were employed to engrave a Greek infcription, according to the alphabet now in use,' he muft be understood cum grano salis. The engraver of a fac fimile generally omits some nice and minute touches in taking his copy ; but, even witb this abatement, we dare appeal to any adept in Greek calligraphy whether the specimen facing p. 56, will justify our author's observation. The small letters (0, 0, 12), intermixed among the larger, have an air of affectation and artifice.' Then has the greater part of ancient inscriptions an air of affectation and artifice. For the O is perpetually engraved in this diminutive size, and 12 being of a kindred sound, and of a kindred thape, how can we wonder that all three Tould be reprefented of the fame magnitude ? In the inscription which imme. diately follows the marble in Dr. Chandler's edition, No XXIV. these very three letters are never lo large as the rest, and often much smaller; of which there are inttances in the three first lines. See also two medals in the second part of Dorville's Sicula, Tab. xvi. Num. 7.9.
From the archaijms, fuch as έγ Λυκώρειας, έγ Κυβέλοις, εμ Klapwi, &c. &c. no conclufion can be drawn in favour of the authenticity of the inscription." Yet surely every ining common to it with other inscriptions, confefledly genuine, creates a reasonable presumption in its favour. • But what reason could there be for these arcbaisms” in the Parian Chronicle? We do not usually find them in Greek writers of the same age, or even of a more early date.' The reason is, according to our opinion, that such archaisms were then in use; this we know from other inscriptions, in which such archaisms (or, as our author afterward cails them, barbarisms) are frequent. Nothing can be inferred from the Greek writers, unless we had their autographs. The present 1gftem of orthography in our prihied Greek books is out of the
question. Again, 'The inscription sometimes adopts and fometimes neglects these archaisms, as in lines 4, 12, 27, 52, 63, 67. This incorfiftency either is no valid objection, or if it be valid, will demol th not only almost every other inscription, but almost every writing whatsoever. For example, in the inscription just quoted, No XXIV, we find TÒN Barina I. 20. and TaM rép TTNI, 24. A licile farther, No XXVI 1.31 we have iT Meguroias, 5723. 81. K Magunoirs, and 106. 108. KT M&yunoías. The Corcyrean inicriprion (Montfaucon, Diar. Ital. p. 420.) promifcuoudy ufes εKδανείζομαι and εΓδανείζομαι. Ιo Englih, who is firprired to find has and hath, a hand, and an hand, a useful, and an useful, in the works of the same author ? We could produce initances of this inaccuracy from the same page, nay from the same sentence.
“ Ihe authenticity of those inscriptions, in which these archaisms appear, must be established, before they can be produced in opposition to the. present argument.' This is, we cannot help thinking, rather 100 severe a restriction. If no inscription 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 such conditions. Perhaps the reverse of the rule will be thought more equitable: that every inscription be allowed to be genuine, till its authenticity be rendered doubtful by probable arguments. We will conclude this head with two Thort observations. In Selden's copy, l. 26, was wri'ten NOHEIN, which the later editors have altered to IIOIHEIN, but without reason, the oiber being the more ancient way of writing, common in MSS. and sometimes found on inscriptions. (See G. Koen's Notes on Gregorius de D alectis, p. 30.) In l. 83. the Marble has Kanadou, for which Palmer wilhed to substitute Kaniou. Di. Taylor refutes him from the Marmor Sandvicense, observing at the same time, that this orthography occurs in no other place whatever, except in these two monuments. ls it likely that two engravers Thould by chance coincide in the same mistake, or that ihe forger of the Parian Chronicle (if it be forged) Tould have seen the Marnior Sandvicense, and taken notice of this peculiarity with the in.ention of afterward employing it in the fabrica ton of an impofture?
We will now consider, more briefly, the other objections. II. 'It is not probable that the Chronicie was engroved for private use. 1. Because it was such an expence, as few learned Greeks were able to afford.' If only a few were able to afford it, some one of those few might be willing to incur it. But let Mr. R. confider how likely it is tha: a modern, and probably a needy Greek, Mould be more able to afford it in the last century, than a learned Greek 2000 years ago! 2. A manuscript is more readily circulated.' Do men never prefer cumbrous splendour to cheapness
and convenience? And if this compofition, instead 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 soon be loft; or, if a copy nad, by miracle, been preserved to us, the objections to its being genuine would be more plauble than any that have been urged againft the inscription. What Mr. R. says about the errors to which an inscription is liable, &c. will only prove that chronological inscriptions 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 wilhed to leave behind him a inemorial at once of his learning apd magnificence.
III. This objection, that the marble does not appear to be engraved by public authority, we all readily admit, though Bentley (Dull. on Phalaris, p. 251.) leans to the contrary opinion. In explaining this objection, the learned Dissertator observes, that though the expression, åpxovtos fue llepwi, would lead us to suppose that the inscription related to Parus, not a single cir. cumstance in the biftory of that island is mentioned. But this expreffion only shews that the author was an inhabitant of Pa. ros, 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 bistory. “It is as absurd as would be a marble in Jamaica containing the revolutions of England.' We see no absurdity in fuppofing a book to be written in Jamaica, containing the revolutions of England. The natives of Paros were not upinterested in events relating to the general biltory of Greece, particularly of Athens; and how can we tell whether ibe author were an inquilinus or a native of the illand; whether he thought it a place beneath his care, or whether he had devoted a separate inscription to the chronology of Paros?
IV. It has been frequently observed, that the earlier periods of the Grecian history are involved in darkness and confusion. Granted.
It follows then, that an author who jould attempt to settle the dates of the earlier periods would frequently contradiel preceding, and be contradi&ted by, Jubsequent writers: that he would naturally fall into millates, and at best could only hope to adopt the molt probable system. But ibe difficulty of the talk, or the impoljibility of success, are not suffuient to prove that no man has been rajh or mad enough to make the ato temps. On the contrary, we know that many have made it. What a number of discordane opinions has Mr. R. himself given us from the ancients concerning the age of Homer ? This confia deration will in part obviate another objection, that the Parian Chronicle does not agree with any ancient author. For if the dacients contradict one another, how could it follow more than
one of them ? and why might not the author, without any ima putation of ignorance or rathness, sometimes depart from them all? If indeed he disagrees with them when they are unanimous, it might furnish matter for suspicion ; though even this would be far from a decisive argument, unless the ancients were so extremely unlike the moderns, as never to be fond of fingular and paradoxical positions.
V. This Chronicle is not once mentioned by any writer of antiquity. How many of those inscriptions, which are preserved to the prefent day, are mentioned by classical authors ? Verrius Flaccus composed a Roman calendar, which, as a monument of his learning and induftry, was engraved on marble, and fixed in the most public part of Preneste. Fragments of this very calendar were lately dug up ac Preneste, and have been published by a learned Italian. Now, if the passage of Suetonius, which informs us of this circumstance, kad been loft, would the filence of the Latin writers prove that the fragments were not genuine remains of antiquity? It may be said, that the cases are not parallel, for not a single 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 sender probability of its being casually mentioned by a single author. We shall also observe, that this fact of the Hemicyclium of Verrius will answer some part of the Differtator's second objection : The Parian Chronicle is not an Inscription 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 inscriptions are now concealed in very narrow spaces. But unless this monument were placed in some conspicuous part of the island, and obtruded itself on the notice of every traveller, the wonder will in great measure ceafe, why it is never quoted by the ancients. Of the nine authors named in p. 109, had any one ever visited Paros ? If Pauianias had travelled thither, and published his description of the place, we might perhaps expect to find some mention of this marble in so curious and inquilirive a writer. But though the inscription exifted, and were tamous at Paros, there seems no necessity for any of the authors whole works are still extant to have known or recorded it. If there be, let this learned antagonist point out the place where ibis mention ought to have been made. If any persons were bound by a stronger obligation than others to speak of the Parian inscription, they muft be the profefied chronoIngers: bur alas ! we have not the entire works of so much as a single ancient chronologer ; it is therefore impossible to determine whether this Chronicle were quoted by any ancient. And fuppofing it had been seen by fone ancient, whose writings still
remain, why should he make particular mention of it ? Many authors, as we know from their remains, very freely copied their predecessors without naming them. Others, finding only a collection of bare events in the Inscription, without historical proofs or reasons, might entirely neglect it, as deserving no credit. Mr. R. seems to lay much stress on the precise, exact, and particular specification of the events, p. 109. But he ought to reflect, that this abrupt and positive method of speaking is not only usual, but necessary, in such thort systems of chronology as the Marble contains, where events only, and their dates, are set down, unaccompanied by any examination of evidences for and against, without ftating ang computation of probabilities, or deduction of realons. When therefore a chronological writer bad undertaken to reduce the general biftory of Greece into a regular and consistent system, admitting that he was acquainted with this Inscription, what grounds have we to believe that he would say any thing about it? Either his” system coincided with the Chronicle, or not: if ic coincided, he would very probably disdain to prop his own opinions with the unsupported assertions of an other man, who, as far as he knew, was not better informed chan himself. On the other hand, if he differed from the authority of the Marble, he might think it a superfluous exertion of complaisance, to refute, by formal demonstration, a writer who had chosen to give no reasons for his own opinion.-We lhall pass hence to objection
vii. With respect to the parachronisms that Mr. R. produces, we ihall without hesitation grant, that the author of the Inscription may have committed some miftakes in his chronology, as perhaps concerning Phidon, whom he seems to have confounded with another of the same name, &c. But there miftakes will not conclude against the antiquity of the Inscription, unless we at the same time reject many of the principai Greek and Roman writers, who have been convicted of similar errors. We return therefore to objection
VI. Some of the facts seem 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 confess, that we do not perceive the fainteft traces of theft or imitation. One example only deserves to be excepted, to which we shall therefore pay particular attention.
· The names of fix, and, if the lacunæ are properly supplied, the names of twelve cities, appear to have been engraved on the Marble, exactly as we find them in Ælian's Various History. But there is not any inaginable reason for this particular arrangement. It does not correspond with the uime of their foundation, with their fuation in lonia, with their relauve imporrance, or with the order in which they are placed by other eminent historians.'