OXFORD MARBLES, or PARIAN CHRONICLE, are ancient stones (as has been supposed), whereon is inscribed a chronicle of the city of Athens, engraven in capital letters in the island of Paros, one of the Cyclades, 264 years before Jesus Christ. They take their first name from Thomas earl of Arundel, who procured them out of the East, or from Henry his grandson, who presented them to the university of Oxford.

The Arundelian marbles, in their perfect state, contained a chronological detail of the principal events of Greece during a period of 1318 years, beginning with Cecrops, before Christ 1582 years, and ending with the archonship of Diogenes, before Christ 264. But the chronicle of the last 90 years is lost; so that the part now remaining ends at the archonship of Diotimus, 354 years before the birth of Christ; and in this fragment the inscription is at present so much corroded and effaced, that the sense can only be discovered by very learned and industrious antiquaries; or, more properly speaking, supplied by their conjectures.

This chronicle, and many other relics of antiquity, real or pretended, were purchased in Asia Minor, in Greece, or in the islands of the Archipelago, by Mr William Petty, who in the year 1624 was sent by Thomas Thomas earl of Arundel for the purpose of making such collections for him in the east. They were brought into England about the beginning of the year 1629, and placed in the gardens belonging to Arundel house in London.

Soon after their arrival they excited a general curiosity, and were viewed by many inquisitive and learned men; among others by Sir Robert Cotton, who prevailed upon Selden to employ his abilities in explaining the Greek inscriptions. Selden and two of his friends, Patrick Young, or, as he styled himself in Latin, Patricius Junius, and Richard James, immediately commenced their operations, by cleaning and examining the marble containing the Smyrnean and Magnesian league, and afterwards proceeded to the Parian chronicle. The following year Selden published a small volume in quarto, including about 39 inscriptions copied from the marbles.

In the turbulent reign of Charles I. and the subsequent usurpation, Arundel house was often deserted by the illustrious owners; and, in their absence, some of the marbles were defaced and broken, and others either stolen or used for the ordinary purposes of architecture. The chronological marble in particular, was unfortunately broken and defaced. The upper part, containing 31 epochs, is said to have been worked up in repairing a chimney in Arundel house.

In the year 1667, the Hon. Henry Howard, afterwards duke of Norfolk, the grandson of the first collector, presented these supposed remains of antiquity to the university of Oxford.

Selden's work becoming very scarce, Bishop Fell engaged Mr Prideaux to publish a new edition of the inscriptions, which was printed at Oxford in 1676. In 1732 Mr Maittaire obliged the public with a more comprehensive view of the marbles than either of his predecessors. Lastly, Dr Chandler published a new and improved copy of the marbles in 1763, in which he corrected the mistakes of the former editors; and in some of the inscriptions, particularly that of the Parian chronicle, supplied the lacunae by many ingenious conjectures.

The Arundelian marbles have generally been regarded as a curious monument of antiquity. They were, however, discovered in some instances to be inconsistent with the most authentic historical accounts; Sir Isaac Newton and several other modern philosophers paid little or no regard to them; and of late their absolute authenticity has been severely questioned in an express dissertation upon the subject, entitled The Parian Chronicle. In this dissertation much ingenuity as well as judgment, and a great extent of ancient learning, are displayed. His doubts, the author observes, arise from the following considerations.

I. "The characters have no certain or unequivocal marks of antiquity." The Π and Ζ, which frequently occur in the form supposed to be the most ancient (viz. the perpendicular line of the Π on the right hand only half as long as that on the left, and the Ζ in the form of a prostrate Ω), are so well known, that any modern fabricator of a Greek inscription, which he intends to impose upon the world as a relic of antiquity, would most probably use them in preference to the more common and ordinary forms. But the letters in the Parian chronicle have no appearance of antiquity except this very equivocal one. They do not in the least resemble the Siegan, the Nemean, or the Delian inscriptions, which are supposed to be of a more ancient date. They differ in many respects from the letters on the Marmor Sandycense, which, according to the learned editor of that inscription, was engraved in the year before Christ 374. They bear no sort of resemblance to the characters on the Farnesian pillars, to those of the Alexandrian manuscript, or others of a later date. They seem, continues our author, to resemble perhaps more than any other letters of the alphabet taken by Montfaucon from the Marmor Cyzicenum at Venice. They are plain and simple in their form, and such as an ordinary stonecutter of the present age would probably make, if he were employed to engrave a Greek inscription according to the alphabet now in use. The small letters intermixed among the larger have, in the opinion of our author, an air of affectation and artifice, rather than genuine antiquity; and he persuades, that the antiquity of an inscription can never be proved by the mere form of the letters, because the most ancient characters may be as easily counterfeited as those which compose our present alphabets.

That the learned reader may form a competent idea of the characters in the Parian chronicle, the author has compared them with those of other inscriptions, and given what is usually termed a fac simile.

In regard to several archaisms, as they are called, in this chronicle, and which our author specifies, he contends, that no conclusion can be drawn from them in favour of its antiquity. What reason could there be, he asks, for introducing these into the Parian chronicle? We do not usually find them in Greek writers of the same age, or even in those of the most early date. The reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, with the 21st year of which the date of the chronicle coincides, was not an age of rude antiquity with respect to the Greek language; being only 130 years after the time of Xenophon and Plato, when the Greek was spoken and written in its utmost purity and elegance: and we can scarcely suppose, that even a stonecutter, in that refined age, would have been permitted to disgrace a superb and learned monument with such barbarisms as occur in the chronicle. The archaisms, however, he remarks, are not uniformly observed in this inscription. He adduces six instances of deviation; and adds, he is almost tempted to suspect, that ἡ Παγος, ἡ Μεγάλη, and other pretended archaisms, are owing to a mere affectation of antiquity, or to a corrupted dialect and pronunciation in later ages. Those archaisms, our author acknowledges, appear on other marbles: but he thinks, that, for that very reason, they would naturally be adopted by the fabricator of a supposititious inscription; and the authenticity of those inscriptions in which they appear must be established before they can be urged in opposition to the present argument.

II. "It is not probable that the chronicle was engraved for private use." Our author thinks it an impossible supposition that such an expensive and cumbersome work could have been executed by a private citizen, either for his own amusement, or for the benefit of his fellow citizens. In the first place, a long inscription could not be engraved in marble without such an expense as few learned Greeks were able to afford. Or, if its author, by an uncommon felicity, was able to erect such a literary monument, the scheme would have been useless and imprudent; as all the contents of the inscription might have been published more commodiously and effectually by the common mode of writing in use at that time.

A variety of arguments is adduced, illustrating the superiority of a manuscript to such an inscription as the chronicle, in a number of respects; and enforcing the improbability of its having ever been executed, either for public or private use. Much evidence from ancient history is likewise produced in support of the assertion, that the common mode of writing, in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, was not on stones. It is not, however, necessary to prove, by the testimony of ancient authors, that books were written on parchment, or paper made of the Egyptian papyrus, or any such materials, before the date of the Parian chronicle. This is sufficiently evinced by the very existence of the writings of Moses, David, Solomon, and the Jewish prophets; the works of Homer, Hesiod, Anacreon, Pindar, Æschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Herodotus, Hippocrates, Arithophanes, Thucydides, Xenophon, Plato, Demosthenes, Aristotle, &c.: And it is still more incontrovertibly proved by the libraries which were collected in preceding ages, or about that time; such as those of Polycrates in Samos, Pisistratus and Euclides at Athens, Nicerates in Cyprus, Euripides the poet, Aristotle the philosopher, Clearchus at Heraclea Pontica, and the most extensive and magnificent library of Ptolemy Philadelphus in Egypt, founded in or before the year 284, which in his time is said to have contained 100,000 volumes, and to have been enlarged by his successors to the amount of almost 600,000. Not long afterwards a library was founded at Pergamus by Attalus and Eumenes, which, according to Plutarch, contained 200,000. These are clear and decisive proofs that the common mode of writing in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus was not on stones.

III. "The chronicle does not appear to have been engraved by public authority."

1. The first argument in support of this opinion is, that inscriptions of that kind usually begin with a particular form, as, Ἡ ΒΟΥΛΗ ΚΑΙ Ο ΔΗΜΟΣ. 'The senate and the people;' or thus, ἘΔΩΣΕΝ ΤΗΙ ΒΟΥΛΗΙ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΙ ΔΗΜΟΙ. 'It pleased the senate and the people, &c.' But the Parian chronicle begins in the manner of a private man, speaking of his own performance in the first person singular. This argument, our author remarks, cannot be much affected by observing, that the beginning of the inscription is obliterated; for it is necessarily implied by the words now remaining.

2. The facts and dates which are mentioned in this chronicle, do not appear to have been extracted from any public records, or calculated to answer the purpose of authentic documents; as many eminent princes and magistrates are passed over without notice; in several instances, the transactions of whole centuries are omitted; and the facts, chiefly specified, are not matters of general or national importance.

3. The Parian inscription is such a one as we can hardly suppose the magistrates or the people of Paros would have ordered to be engraved. Stately sepulchres, pillars, triumphal arches, and the like, were erected to perpetuate the glory of eminent men. The remembrance of events in which nations were interested, the succession of princes, &c., were preserved in the same manner. Leagues, decrees, and law, were likewise engraved on marble or brass, and fixed to a pillar, the walls of a temple, or other public buildings; because such inscriptions were designed for the inspection of the people, as they essentially concerned their conduct, their property, their liberty, or their lives. But, our author asks, for whom could the chronicle of Paros be intended? It contains no encomiums of any of the patriots, the heroes, or the demigods of the country, no decrees of the magistrates, no public records, no laws of state. On the contrary, it is a work of mere speculation and learning, in which the inhabitants of that island, especially the common people, had not the least interest or concern.

These words at the beginning, ἀξιον τε Παρων, would naturally lead us to suppose, that the inscription related to Paros. And, if so, it would have been natural for the author to have mentioned some of the most important occurrences in the history of that island. But, says this acute and learned critic, what scheme does our chronologer pursue on this occasion? Does he record the events and revolutions of his own country? Does he mention any of the battles, sieges, and treaties of the Parians? any of their public institutions? any of their poets, patriots, or warriors? Does he mention Archilochus, who was honoured by his countrymen, and distinguished as a poet in a general assembly of the Greeks? Not a syllable on any of these subjects! On the contrary, he rambles from place to place, and records the transactions of Athens, Corinth, Macedon, Lydia, Crete, Cyprus, Sicily, Persia, and other foreign countries with which Paros had no connexion.

In this view the inscription seems to have been an impertinent in the island of Paros, as a marble monument would be in this country, recording the antiquities of France or Spain; or one in Jamaica recording the revolutions of England. But upon supposition that the inscription is a forgery, it is easy to account for this extraordinary circumstance. A few chronological occurrences in the ancient history of Paros would not have been so interesting to the generality of readers, or so valuable in the estimation of every lover of antiquities, or, in short, so profitable to the compiler, as a general system of Grecian chronology.

IV. "The Greek and Roman writers, for a long time after the date of this work, complain that they had no chronological account of the affairs of ancient Greece." This position is confirmed by the testimony of Julius Africanus, Justin Martyr, Plutarch, Josephus, Varro, Diodorus Siculus, and others; and the following series of interrogatories is subjoined: "Thucydides, I know, lived 140 years before the chronicle is said to have been written; but if Thucydides, as well as other writers, complained that there was nothing but uncertainty in the earlier period of Grecian history, from whence can we suppose the author of this inscription collected such a clear, determinate, and comprehensive system of chronology? If he had any sources of information, which were unknown to succeeding writers, how happens it, that they should all of them overlook this most considerable, most exact, most creditable author?" Why did they omit this ancient account of their early ages? Why did they not copy his most memorable epochs? Why did they not produce his authority? or, at least, why did they not mention his opinion? Surely nothing, to all appearance, could be more elaborate, more important, or of higher authority, than a chronological table, which was thought worthy of being engraved on marble.

V. "The chronicle is not once mentioned by any writers of antiquity." This, indeed, appears a strong argument against its authenticity. Apollodorus, an Athenian, the disciple of Aristarchus the grammarian, and Panætius the philosopher, wrote a genealogical and historical work on the early ages of Greece; but, though composed 120 years after the date of the Parian chronicle, it does not contain the smallest traces of a systematical chronology. It is remarkable, too, that the chronicle of Apollodorus is quoted by Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Plutarch, A. Gellius, Lucian, and many other writers of antiquity; while the Parian chronicle, which comprehends a more extensive period, is entirely unnoticed. It contains, however, such wonderful discoveries in ancient history, that if it had existed 264 years before the Christian era, it must have excited a general attention, and been referred to as an authority by writers of succeeding times. But we do not find, in any author of antiquity, either poet or historian, geographer or chronologer, mythologist or scholiast, the most distant allusion to the Parian chronicle; though it was such a common practice among the ancients to mention the works of their predecessors, that in many books we find references and allusions to three, four, five, six, or seven hundred different authors of every denomination.

VI. "Some of the facts mentioned in the chronicle seem to have been taken from writers of a later date." Our inquirer collates several passages in the Parian chronicle with parallel passages in Greek authors, to evince that there is, in the former, an appearance of imitation, or a stronger resemblance than such as may be supposed to arise from accident; that there are likewise some improbabilities attending the account of Deucalion, as related in the Parian chronicle; and that the names of six, and, if the lacunæ are properly supplied, the names of 12 cities appear to have been engraved on the marble, exactly as we find them in Ælian's Various History. But there is not, our author observes, any imaginable reason for this particular arrangement. It does not correspond with the time of their foundation, with their situation in Ionia, with their relative importance, or with the order in which they are placed by other eminent historians. The argument by which our author endeavours to prove that the Parian chronicle has, in this instance, copied Ælian's Various History, seems decisive of the fact. He observes, that six names may be transposed 720 different ways; and that 12 names admit of 479,001,600 different transpositions. Supposing, then, that there is no particular reason for one arrangement rather than another, it will follow, that the chance of two authors, placing them in the same order, is, in the former case, as 1 to 720; and in the latter, as 1 to 479,001,600. It is therefore, says he, utterly improbable, that these names should have been placed in this order on the marble, if the author of the inscription had not transferred them from the historian.

It may indeed be urged, with regard to this similarity of arrangement in the Parian chronicle and Ælian's Various History, that the inference might be the very reverse of that which is specified by our author. But that Ælian should have seen the Parian chronicle, without once mentioning it; or that he should have exactly copied a list of towns, arranged neither according to chronological or topographical order, is indeed a supposition equally improbable with the other.

VII. "Parachronisms appear in some of the epochs, which we can scarcely suppose a Greek chronologer in the 12th Olympiad would be liable to commit." After specifying these, our inquirer asks, Would a writer of reputation and learning, in one of the most polished and enlightened eras of ancient Greece, commit such mistakes, in opposition to the positive attestations of the most accurate historians, in events of public notoriety? Would a private citizen, or a magistrate of Paros, order a crude and inaccurate series of epochs to be engraved at a great expense, and transmitted to posterity on a marble monument? It is hardly probable.

VIII. "The history of the discovery of the Parian chronicle is obscure and unsatisfactory." Our author observes, that it is attended with some suspicious circumstances, and without any of those clear and unequivocal evidences which always discriminate truth from falsehood. There are no data in the inscription by which to discover the place where the marble was erected. The place likewise where it was found is not ascertained; though the generality of writers who have had occasion to mention it have supposed that it was found in the island of Paros. If it was erected at Smyrna, as some imagine, our author asks for what purpose does the writer mention Athenian the archon of Paros, and not one circumstance relative to Smyrna? If, adds he, it was erected at Paros, why does he not mention more archons of that city than one? or how shall we account for his profound silence with respect to all the events and revolutions which must have happened in that island, and have been infinitely more interesting to the natives than the transactions of any foreign country?

The train of circumstances by which the Parian chronicle came into the possession of Mr Petty, whom Lord Arundel had sent into the east for the purpose of collecting antiquities, as well as the subsequent conduct of Peirene its former owner, affords our author a strong presumption, that "the inscription was actually fabricated, with the view of obtaining for it a high price, upon the pretence that it was a relic of great antiquity. It is certain, that there is something mysterious in the conduct of the first ostensible proprietors. These marbles had been totally unknown, or unnoticed, for almost 1900 years, and at last are dug out of the ground—nobody can tell us when or where!"

IX. "The literary world has been frequently imposed upon by spurious books and inscriptions, and therefore we should be extremely cautious with regard to what we receive under the venerable name of antiquity." This proposition is illustrated by a great variety variety of examples, and very properly exposes the forgeries which have disgraced the republic of letters in different ages; and although one of the more recent ones cited, namely, Offian's poems, be a point very far indeed from being established, yet that deceptions of this kind have been practised is an unquestionable fact.

In endeavouring, towards the end of his dissertation to investigate the time of the supposed forgery, he observes that the 16th century, and the prior part of the 17th, produced a multitude of grammarians, critics, and commentators, deeply versed in Grecian literature, and amply qualified for the compilation of such a chronological system as that of the Arundelian marbles. Above all, the science of chronology was particularly studied and investigated about that time; "Numa fert chronologia," says Scaliger in the year 1625, "omnes hoc ferrum excalacunt." Caiusbon treats those persons with contempt who were unacquainted with the improvements which had been made in that department of learning after the revival of letters. Innumerable systems of chronology had been published before the year 1625: from which it was easy to extract a series of memorable events, and give the compilation a Grecian dress. "The avidity," says our author, "with which all relics of antiquity were then collected, and the high price at which they were purchased, were sufficient inducements to any one, whose avarice or whose necessity was stronger than his integrity, to engrave his labours on marble, and transmit them to Smyrna, as a commodious emporium for such rarities."

The precise period of the fabrication, however, must still be reckoned apocryphal and uncertain. The sum of fifty guineas, which Peirese gave to the supposed fabricator, was inadequate to such a laborious and expensive work. Upon the whole, perhaps, it would be too hasty to pronounce decisively that this famous chronicle, so long respected, is an imposition upon the public. It may, however, be safely affirmed, that the suspicions against it are extremely strong, and the objections already cited of a nature very difficult to be removed. No attempts have yet been made with this view: But under some future article, as Chronology, Marbles, or Parian Chronicle, we may possibly have an opportunity of resuming the subject with additional information.