fice among the ancients to mention the works of their predeceffors, that in many books we find references and allufions to three, four, five, fix, or feven hundred different authors of every denomination. But not a fyllable of the learned Parian, or of his elaborate fyftem of Grecian chronology!

There are three objections which may be alledged against the preceding arge

ment.

Firft, as there were many chronologi cil writers among the ancients, the author of the Parian Chronicle might have been one of them, and cited under his proper name, without any reference to the infcription.

In anfwer to this objection the author obferves, that the ancients ufually fpecified the works of their predeceffors which they had occafion to quote, and that the chronology of the learned Parian does not correfpond with that of the ancients in events of the utmost notoriety, fuch as the Trojan war and the age of Homer. This point our author illuftrates by a great variety of examples, and concludes with obferving, that the opinion adopted by the author of the Chronicle, which fuppofes Heñod to be older than Homer, is not well fupported, or the most commonly received opinion; and that in all the controverfy, relative to the age of Homer, fo frequently and fo warmly debated, both in Greece and Italy, we do not find the leaft reference or allufion to the Chronicle of Paros, or any one author of antiquity to which this work can be fairly attributed.

Secondly, the author of fome Differtations, fubjoined to the book of Daniel fecundum Septuaginta, printed at Rome in 1772, afcribes the Parian Chronicle to Demetrius Phalereus.

This opinion is likewife adopted by Dr. Chandler *; but our author feems to have entirely removed the objection, by accurately examining the history of Demetrius, by fhewing that he could not be alive in the 129th Olympiad, and that the prefumptive evidence against the opinion maintained by the editor of Daniel, which arifes from the filence of all the writers of antiquity, is in this inftance remarkably ftrong, if not decifive. Demetrius Phalereus, he fays, was not a writer of an inferior clafs, or an obscure rhetorician, but an author of the higheft diftinction, whofe name and character would have given fo much authority to

the infeription, that it must have excited the attention of fucceeding hiftorians, biographers, or chronologifts. But as not one of them has either cited or mentioned it, we can never fuppofe it was the production of this illuftrious philofopher and legislator.

Thirdly, it may be objected, that thể works of fome eminent writers of antiquity, fuch as Phædrus, Q. Cartius, &c. lay in obfcurity for many centuries, and were not difcovered till later ages.

Our author endeavours to anfwer this objection, by confidering the peculiar circumstances of thofe writers, and the various caufes that have contributed to fupprefs many valuable manuscripts, which cannot be fappofed to have operated with respect to a work of public importance OSTENTATIOUSLY ENGRA

VED ON MARELE.

The twelfth chapter contains a comparifon of feveral paffages in Greek writers, with others in the Chronicle, in which the author thinks there is an appearance of imitation. We shall take notice of one, which feems to be particularly striking.

The names of fix, and if the lacunæ are properly fupplied, the names of 12 cities in Ionia, appear to have been engraved on marble, exactly as we find them in Elian's Various Hiftory, 1. viii. c. 5. but there is not any imaginable reafon for this arrangement. It does not correfpond with the time of their foundation, with their relative importance, or with the order in which they are placed by other eminent hiftorians.

It is obfervable, fays this acute examiner, that fix names may be tranfpofed 720 different ways; and that 12 names admit of 479,001,600 different tranfpofitions. Suppofing then that there is no particular reafon for one arrangement rather than another, it will follow that the chance of two authors placing them in the fame order, is, in the former cafe, as 1 to 720; and, in the latter, as I to 479,001,600. It is therefore utterly improbable that thofe names would have been placed in this order on marble, if the author of the infcription had not tranfcribed them from the hiftorian.

But how does it appear that Ælian and others did not copy the marbles? Our author replies: It is not probable that the hiftorians, geographers, and miscellaneous writers of antiquity, living in different ages and in distant countries,

would

would in cafes of no particular importance, incidentally introduced, ufe the words of an infcription in the inland of Paros; and if, in fome inftances, they might have borrowed the words of fuch an infc.iption, it is not probable that they would have deviated from the general custom of their cotemporaries, by fuppreffing the name of the author, whole expreffions they adopted, and on whofe authority they depended.

The 13th chapter exhibits a number of parachroniims, or errors in chronology, which appear on the marble, and which we can fcarcely fuppof a Greck chronologer in the cxxixth Olympiad would be liable to commit.

The laft argument which our author ufes in fupport of his opinion is, the obicure and unfatisfactory account which is given us of the difcovery of the Chro nic. It is remarkable that the place where it was found is not afcertained. Du Fin, Du Frefnoy, Dr. Ravlinfon, and Abe Banier, affert, that it was difcovered in the end of Paros. Palmnerius and Petavias expressly affirm, that it was dug out of the ground at Smyrna. Th editors of the Marmora give us no fatisfaction in this particular. Selden's “ æquum eft ut conjectemus,” Maittaire's non liquet," and Chandler's" ut fas "fit credere," leave us toily in the dark. In the infiption itself we have no date, by which we can any ways difcover the place where the marble was erected.

Sir Thomas Roe, who was ambaffador at Conftantinople, and whole letters from the year 1621 to 1628 inclufive, are publifhed under the title of Ne. gociations, correfponded with Lord Arundel on the fubject of arcient manufcripts, coins, ftatues, and infcriptions, and at the same time recommended and fifted Mr. Petty, whom the Earl had fent into Am for the purpose of collecting antiquities; yet, in his letters to hs Lordhip, elative to the difcoveries made by Mr. Petty, he does not once mention the Pariar Chronicle.

Gaflendus, in the life of M. de Peirefc, gives us the following account of its first discovery.

"About this time (fome time in the year 1629) Peirefc received the learned Selden's valuable commentary on the Arundel Marbles, or certain ftones with Greek infcriptions engraved upon them, which had been conveyed on of Afia into England, by the direction of the illustrious Earl of Arundel, and placed in his gardens. These marbles, I must obferve, were first discovered, and dug out of the ground, in confequence of the application and order of Peirefc, who paid fifty pieces of gold

for that purpose, by the hands of one Samfon, his agent at Smyrna, But when they were ready to be fent on board, by fome artifice of the venders, Samfon was thrown into prifon, and the marbles, in the mean time, left in a state of confufion. I muft likewife add, that Peiresc was extremely pleased, when he was informed, that thefe celebrated relics of antiquity had fallen into the hands of fuch an eminent perfonage as Lord Arundel; and more partcularly, when he found, that they had been happily illuftrated by his old friend Selden.

"As a citizen of the world, whofe only view was the benefit of mankind, Peirefe thought it immaterial, whether he himself, or another, received the glory, provided any thing could be brought to light, which might contribute to the advantage of the republic of letters. He was of opinion, that an incomparable treasure is contained in thefe Grecian epochas, which not only give a clear and confiftent account of the dates of fome important tranfactions in the hiftoric times,

but of others alfo in the fabulous and heroic ages; while they defcribe every memorable occurrence for 800 years before the Olympiads, and for 550 † years after their com

mencement."

Several circumstances in this narrative are

worthy of obfervation.

1. There is fomething very fingular and unufual in the conduct of Peiresc, on the lofs of this infcription, after he had purchafed it for a confiderable fum. His agent, it feems, was committed to prifon, and the marbles were diffracta, broken, feparated, and thrown about in confusion.

It would have been natural for an ordinary virtuofo, who had received information of fuch a CURIOSITY, to have exerted all his activity and intereft, in order to procure it. But Peirefc, a rich and indefatigable col

lector, a philofopher, and an eminent pa. tron of learning, does not, as far as we can perceive, make the leaft effort to recover this infcription; notwithstanding it was apparently of much greater value than any other marble monument in the univerfe. On the contrary, he lofes the money he had advanced, chearfully refigns his claim, and is glad to find the marbles were preserved in a foreign country.

His composure, on this occafion, would lead us to imagine, that he entertained fome SECRET fulpicion, relative to the authenti. city of the infcription.

2. Peirefc, we are told, paid for these marbles aureos quinquaginta, fifty pieces of gold." What Lord Arundel paid for them we are not informed. Prideaux tells us they were redeemed by Mr. Petty, majori pretio †, "at a greater price;" and Dr. Chandler fays, pretio LONGE majori †, "for a far greater fum."

Suppofing then, that Mr. Petty paid only tance as much as Peiresc had paid before, the owners or venders received 200 pieces for the marbles. This, I apprehend, was an extraordinary acquifition, amply fufficient for the gratification of the author and the ftone-cutter, efpecially at Smyrna, in the earlier part of the laft century. It was cerLamly as powerful a motive, in conjunction with others, which we do not know, as those which actuated either Aunius of Viterbo, or any of his brethren, in the fabrication of infcriptions.

3. The fum, which was paid for thefe marbles, was much greater than what a writer at Paros, 264 years before the birth of Chrift, could poffibly expect; and affords, as far as profit alone is concerned, a fufficient anfwer to the question, What advantage could any man propofe, by the fabrication of the infcription, adequate to the trouble and expence attending the execution of this project?

4. It is certain, that Peiresc was never in Afia; that he trufted to the integrity of his agent at Smyrna; and confequently was very luble to be impofed on in this negotiation, On the one fide or other, there was evidently fome craft or impofition. Who Samfon was, we are not informed: probably he was a Jew. He was however thrown into priton. This gives us no favourable opinion of his integrity. Gaffendus indeed fays, he was confined, venditorum arte, “by the ini

If

quitous contrivance of the venders." Sam on was guilty of no fault, the people who fold the marbles feem to have been capable of executing any scheme which might gratify their avarice. For after they had received a confiderable fum from Peirefc, they imprifoned his agent, and fold them a fecond time to Mr. Petty.

Such were the firtt oSTENSIBLE POSSESSORS of these marbles! and to dark and unfatisfactory is the account, which is tranfmitted to us of their difcovery! They had been totally unknown, or unnoticed for atmoft nineteen hundred years, and, at last, they are dug out of the ground-no body can tell us WHEN OF WHERE!

tila

It will probably be objected, that the mu

ftate of the marbles, when they were first brought to England, and examined by Selden, is a proof of their authenticity, as it cannot be fuppofed, that any man, in his fenfes, would deface his own infcription.

Io anfwer to this objection we may obferve, that the Chronicle may be a modern compilation, and yet not have come inamediately from the hands of the original fabriIt might have been ACCIDENTALLY defaced, before it was purchased for Mr. Peiresc.

cator.

We are informed, that after Samfon was imprisoned, the marbles were broken, feparated, and thrown about promifcuously at Smyrna. This will fufficiently account for their mutilation.

But fecondly, fome occafional lacunæ might have been artfully contrived, to conceal falfe affertions and chronological errors; and, at the fame time, to give the marbles a venerable air of antiquity, which was not fufficiently confpicuous in the Greek characters. This artifice has been frequently practifed. We fhall fee a remarkable instance of it in the XVIth chapter, where this account is given of one H. Cajadus: "Lapides, datâ operâ detruncatos, ut aliqua ineffent ANTIQUITATIS VESTIGIA, obrui præcepit."

It is well known, that a true antiquary values a fragment, as much as a perfect piece; and his gufto is perhaps more ftimu lated by the idea of what is loft, than gratified by the part which is preferved.

The ftory of the Sibyl, who appeared to Tarquin, the last king of Rome, is not inapplicable on this occafion.

A woman in ftrange attire came to Tar

Prid. Marm. Oxon. pref. p. ix. Chand. Marm. Oxon. p. ii.

quin, and offered to fell him a collection of prophecies in nine volumes, for three hun• dred pieces of gold. Upon his refusing to buy them on thefe extraordinary terms, the woman threw three of them into the fire, and afked the fame price for the remaining fix. Tarquin, looking upon her as a mad woman, treated her with contempt. Upon which she burnt three volumes more, and still perfifted in demanding as much for three, as he had done for the whole collection.

The old woman formed a proper notion of human nature. Tarquin's CURIOSITY was immediately excited; and the fragments were purchased at the price the demanded †.

In Gaffendus's account of the difcovery of the Chronicle, there are, we must confels, fome chicumitances which are extremely fufpicious. Samfon and the fellers of the marble fem to have been jointly concerned in the fraud; and the noft obvious way of accounting for Samfon's imprisonment is by fuppofing, that he had attempted to cheat his affo

ciates.

The two fuccceding chapters contain an account of the fpurious books and infcriptions, which have been impofed upon the world, in ancient and modern times; from which the author infers, that we fhould therefore be extremely CAUTIOUS with regard to what we receive under the venerable name of antiquity.

The differtator concludes with fome general obfervations, but does not attempt to afcertain the time, when we may fuppofe the Chronicle was compiled. He only observes, that innumerable systems of Chronology had been publifhed before the year 1625, from which it was eafy to extract a feries of memorable events, and give the compilation a Grecian drefs.

The avidity with which all relics of antiquity were then collected, and the price at which they were purchased, were, he thinks, fufficient inducements to any one, whofe avarice, or whofe neceffity, was tronger than his integrity, to engrave his lucubrations on marble, and Iranimit them to Smyrna, as a commodious emporium for fuch rarities.

Whether this was the cafe with the Parian Chronicle or not; whether it is an authentic monument of antiquity, or a modern compilation; whether its au

thority is indifputable, or, as he fuppo fes, apocryphal, he leaves to the decifion of the judicious and impartial reader.

This, we believe, is the first attempt that has been made to invalidate the authority of the Arundelian Chronicle. But what reception it may meet with among the learned, we fhall not prefume to foretel.

The field is open for farther inveftigation. The enquiry is important; and the marbles, which have been held in the highest estimation for above 150 years, both in England and in other countries, will certainly have their advocates.

However this may be, the Differtation now before us contains many objections, which will not be cafily removed. The arguments are stated with great perfpicuity and force; and at the fame time with great modefty. With respect to claffical erudition, this is one of the moft ingenious and entertaining publications which the prefont age has produced.

This work is afcribed to the Rev. Mr. Robertfon, Vicar of Horncastle, who is likewife, if we mistake not, the author of the following publications.

1. The Subverfion of ancient Kingdoms confidered. A Sermon preached at St. John's, Westminster, on Friday, Feb. 13, 1761, the day appointed for a ge neral faft. 8vo. 1761.

2. A Letter to Mr. Sanxay, furgeon, in Effex-ftreet, occafioned by his very fin gular Conduct in the Profecution of Mifs Butterfield, &c. 8vo. 1775

5. Obfervations on the Cafe of Mifs B. 8vo. 1776.

4. An Effay on Culinary Poifons, 8vo. 1781.

5. An Introduction to the Study of Polite Literature, vol. 1. 12mo. 1782. 6. An Effay on Punctuation. 12mo. 1785.

Mr. R's name is prefixed, as editor, to the last correct and elegant edition of Algernon Sydney's Difcouries on Government, with hiftorical notes, 4to. 1772. And to Sermons on various Subjects. By Gregory Sharpe, LL. D. 8vo. 1772.

By a note in the Differtation on the Parian Chronicle, p. 205. Mr. R. appears to have been one of the authors of the Critical Review, from August 1764 to September 1785 inclufive.

WE

E are informed by Sir John Dalrymple, in his preface, that fourteen years ago he published a volume, of which the prefent is a continuation, together with his vouchers; but that the calumny which followed him fo far as to amount to even an accufation of his forging fome of the papers, together with the uneafinefs which reprefenting certain characters in their true colours created in their defcendants of the prefent day, had determined him to defift; but that lately feeing England on the verge of a war with France from a continental alliance, he refolved to proceed with the prefent work, either that he might ferve his country in preventing a war if poffible, by fhewing from paft experience the mifchief of fuch connexions; or, if that could not be, to point out fome of the weak and vulnerable parts of the French and Spanish Monarchies which had hitherto been overlooked, or, at leaft, unaffaileda laudable motive.--The ftorm, however, having overblown, tho' not until a confiderable part of the book was printed, Sir John, nevertheless, thought proper, fortunately for the public, to proceed, and juftifies it in the following fingularly modeft manner.

If other authors were as ingenuous as I am, they would acknowledge, that not to publish a book, which is dreffed as far as I can dress any thing, is printed, and always looks lovely in the eyes of its author, is a piece of felf-denial almost above human na ture; and therefore, although the occafion that called for the book is faid to be over, I have thrown it upon the public, which it was fincerely intended to ferve.

The firft, indeed the great idea which obtrudes itfelfall through the work on the mind of the reader is a melancholy and humiliating one-that during the period he treats of, fcarce one character in England, however ennobled by birth, clerated by fortune, or advanced by royal favour, but was abafed by duplicity, funk by corruption, and degraded by treachery. We look with astonishment at naines, which have fo long remained unimpeached, convicted by that most undeniable of all teftimonies, their own, of fuch infamous conduct, as would hame

VOL. XIV,

the Senate of Rome in the days of Ju gurtha; and are almoft tempted, in the words of the fatirift, to brand our country as a monftrum nulla virtute redemptum a vitiis. A Marlborough in the army, a Ruffell in the fleet, a Carmarthen and a Rochester in the cabinet, fhuffling and equivocating; this day clamorous for measures, which the next they laboured to impede; planning expeditions, and in the inftant betraying them to France; ofcillating between William and James; traitors to the Monarch whom themselves had introduced, without ferving him whom they had compelled to abdicate; affix an everlafting ftigma on the peerage, the nation, and human nature.-Such accufations as these are not lightly to be taken up; but Sir John appears to have been fufficiently careful in his affertions that they go not beyond the original papers ftill remaining; and has indeed collected fuch a mafs of evidence, as must remove all doubt on the fubject.

But let us hear his own words:

The year 1694 is made remarkable by an event which, without the aid of any other caufe, liam's war both by land and fea, though accounts for all the bad fuccefs of King Wilconducted by a Prince of abilities, come manding a people enriched by long peace, and unbroke by war; because it proves that his councils were betrayed to Louis XIV. by the greatest perfons in his fervice.

rough,