Monthly Review.

CHRONICLE, in matters of literature, a species or kind of history disposed according to the order of time, and agreeing in most respects with annals. See ANNALS.

Parian CHRoNicle. See ARUNDELIAN Marbles. Since that article was printed, in which an abstract was given of Mr Robertson's doubts and observations respecting the authenticity of the Parian Chronicle, one or two publications have appeared in answer, but none of them calculated to remove the objections, or materially to affect the arguments that had been stated with so much learning and ingenuity against it. The following strictures, however, with which the Monthly Reviewers have concluded their critique of Mr Robertson's performance, seem to merit consideration.

On Objection I. That the characters have no certain or unequivocal marks of antiquity, the Reviewers remark, Jan. 1789. that this seems rather to be an answer to a defender of the inscription, than an objection. If a zealous partizan of the marble should appeal to its characters and orthography, as decisive proofs of its being genuine, it would be proper enough to answer, that these circumstances afford no certain criterion of authenticity. But in this word certain sculks an unlucky ambiguity. If it means demonstrative, it must be allowed that no inscription can be proved to be certainly genuine from these appearances; but if it means no more than highly probable, many inscriptions possess sufficient internal evidence to give their claims this degree of certainty. The true question is, Has not the Parian Chronicle every mark of antiquity that can be expect ed in a monument claiming the age of 2000 years? The letters r and are, by Mr R.'s own confession, such as occur in genuine inscriptions; and to say in answer, that an impostor might copy the forms of these letters from other inscriptions, is already to suppose the inscription forged, before it is rendered probable by argument. The learned author of the Dissertation seems to betray some doubt of his own conclusion: for he adds, p. 56. " that the antiquity of an inscription can never be proved by the mere form of the let ters, 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 objection himself, 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 objection, "that they do not resemble the Farnesian pillars or the Alexandrian MS." If "they differ in many respects from the Marmor Sandvicense," they may be presumed to agree in many. seem to resemble more than any other, the alphabet taken by Montfaucon from the marmor Cyzicenum." Thus it appears that the Parian Chronicle most nearly resembles the two inscriptions, to whose age it most nearly approaches.

"They

When Mr R. adds, that the letters " are such as

an ordinary stone-cutter would probably make, if he Chronicle. were employed to engrave a Greek inscription, according to the alphabet now in use," he must be understood cum grano salis. The engraver of a fac-simile generally omits some nice and minute touches in taking his copy; but, even with this abatement, we dare appeal to any adept in Greck calligraphy, whether the specimen facing p. 56. will justify our author's observation?"The small letters (0, 0, 2,) 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 being of a kindred sound, and of a kindred shape, how can we wonder that all three should be represented of the same magnitude? In the inscription which immediately follows the marble in Dr Chandler's edition, No. xxiv. these very three letters are never so large as the rest, and often much smaller; of which there are instances in the three first lines. See also two medals in the second part of Dorville's Sicula, Tab. xvi. Numb. 7. 9.

"From the archaisms, such as sy Avxwgums sy Kußiλ015, que Пagwi, &c. &c. no conclusion can be drawn in fa vour of the authenticity of the inscription." Yet surely every thing common to it with other inscriptions, confessedly genuine, creates a reasonable presump tion in its favour. "But what reason could there be for these archaisms 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 afterwards calls them, barbarisms) are frequent. Nothing can be inferred from the Greek writers, unless we had their autographs. The present system of orthography in our printed Greek books is out of the question. Again, "The inscription sometimes adopts and sometimes neglects these archaisms, as in lines 4, 12, 27, 52, 63, 67." This inconsistency either is no valid objection, or if it be valid, will demolish not only almost every other inscription, but almost every writing whatsoever. For example, in the inscription just quoted, No. xxiv. we find TON ßuriasa, 1. 20. and oraM,

μ, 24. A little farther, N° xxvi. 1. 31. we have εΓ Μαγνησίας, 57. 73. 81. εκ Μαγνησιας, and 106, 108. Kr Maymosas. The Corcyrean inscription (Montfauçon, Diar. Ital. p. 420.) promiscuously uses Kdaouai and ardavus. In English, who is surprised 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 instances of this inaccuracy from the same page, nay from the same sentence.

"The 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 Loo severe a restriction. If no inscription may be quoted before it be proved genuine, the learned author of the Dissertation 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

Chronicle, any of the authors whose works are still 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 persons were bound by a stronger obligation than others to speak of the Parian inscription, they must be the professed chronologers; but 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 supposing it had been seen by some 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 entire ly 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 short 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 stating any computation of probabilities, or, deduction of reasons. When therefore a chronological writer had undertaken to reduce the general history 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 it coincided, he would very probably disdain to prop his own opinions with the unsupported assertions 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 superfluous exertion of complaisance, to refute, by formal demonstration, a writer who had chosen to give no reasons for his own opinion. We shall pass hence to

Objection VII. With respect to the parachronisms that Mr R. produces, we shall without hesitation grant that the author of the inscription may have committed some mistakes in his chronology, as perhaps concerning Phidon, whom he seems to have confounded with another of the same name, &c. But these mistakes will not conclude against the antiquity of the inscription, unless we at the same time reject many of the principal 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 passages quoted in proof of this objection; but we are obliged to confess, that we do not perceive the faintest traces of theft or imitation. One example only deserves to be excepted; to which we shall therefore pay particular

tance, or with the order in which they are placed by Chronicle. other eminent historians."

The chance of six names, says Mr R. being placed by two authors in the same order, is as 1 to 720; of 12, as 1 to 479,001,600." It is therefore utterly improbable that these names would have been placed in this order on the marble, if the author of the inscription had not transcribed them from the historian."

On this argument we shall observe, 1st, That the very contrary conclusion might possibly be just, that the historian transcribed from the inscription. Yet we shall grant that in the present case this is improbable, especially if the author of the Various History be the same Ælian, who, according to Philostratus, Vit. Sophist. II. 31. never quitted Italy in his life. But an intermediate writer might have copied the marble, and Ælian might have been indebted to him. 2dly, We see no reason to allow that the lacune are properly supplied. Suppose we should assert, that the names stood originally thus: Miletus, Ephesus, Erythræ, Clazomene, Lebedos, Chios, Phocæa, Colophon, Myus, Priene, Samos, Teos. In this arrangement, only four names would be together in the same order with Ælian; and from these Miletus must be excepted, because there is an obvious reason for mentioning that city first. Three only will then remain; and surely that is too slight a resemblance to be construed into an imitation. For Pausanias and Paterculus, quoted by our author. p. 154, have both enumerated the same twelve cities, and both agree in placing the five last in the same order; nay, the six last, if Vossius's conjecture that TEUM ought to be inserted in Paterculus after Myum TEM, be as true as it is plausible. But who imagines that Pausanias had either opportunity or in clination to copy Paterculus? 3dly, Allowing that the names were engraved on the marble exactly in the order that Elian has chosen, is there no way of solving the phenomenon but by supposing that one borrowed from the other? Seven authors at least (Mr R. seems to say more, p. 154, 155.) mention the colonization of the same cities: how many authors now lost may we reasonably conjecture to have done the same? If therefore the composer of the Chronicle and Ælian lighted on the same authors, the former would probably preserve the same arrangement that he found, because in transcribing a list of names, he could have no temptation to deviate; and the latter would certainly adhere faithfully to his original, because he is a notorious and servile plagiarist. Mr R. indeed thinks, p. 158, that if a succeeding writer had borrowed the words of the inscription, he would not have suppressed the name of the author. This opinion must fall to the ground, if it be shown that Ælian was accustomed to suppress the names of the authors to whom he was obliged. Ælian has given a list of fourteen celebrated gluttons; and elsewhere, another of twenty-eight drunkards (from which, by the way, it appears, that people were apt to eat and drink rather too freely in ancient as well as modern times); and both these lists contain exactly the same names in the same order with Atheneus. Now it is observable, that fourteen names may be transposed 87,178,291,200 different ways, and that twenty-eight names admit of 304,888,344,611,713,860,501,504,000,000 different transpositions, &c. &c. Elian therefore transcribed

N