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 ARUNDELLIAN 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, that this seems rather to be an answer to a defender of the inscription, than an objection. If a zealous partisan 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 fouls 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 expected in a monument claiming the age of 2000 years? The letters Π and Ξ 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 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 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 Farneian 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 Cyzicenum." Thus it appears that the Parian Chronicle most nearly resembles the two inscriptions, to whose age it most nearly approaches.

When Mr R. adds, that the letters "are such as an ordinary stone-cutter would probably make, if he 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 facsimile generally omits some nice and minute touches in taking his copy; but, even with 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 (O, Θ, Ω,) 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 Ω being of a kindred sound, and Θ 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 εν Λυκαιμενης εν Κυβελοις, ἐπι Παξιν, &c. &c. no conclusion can be drawn in favour of the authenticity of the inscription." Yet surely every thing common to it with other inscriptions, confessedly genuine, creates a reasonable presumption 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 τὸΝ βασιλεια, l. 20, and σταθμον, πρωτον, 24. A little farther, No. xxvi. l. 31, we have ἐκ Μαγνησίας, 57, 73, 81, ἐκ Μαγνησίας, 106, 108, ἐκ Κρήτης. The Corcyrean inscription (Montfaucon, Dior. Ital. p. 420.) promiscuously uses ἐκ Κρήτης and ἐκ Κρήτης. In English, who is surprised to find has and hath, a hand and an hand, a useful and an useless, 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 too 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, by probable arguments. We will conclude this head with two short observations. In Selden's copy, l. 26. was written ΠΟΗΣΙΝ, which the later editions have altered to ΠΟΗΣΕΙΝ, but without reason, the other being the more ancient way of writing, common in MSS. and sometimes found on inscriptions. (See G. Koen's Notes on Gregorius de Dialectis, p. 30.) In l. 83. the marble has Καλλίανος, for which Palmer wished to substitute Καλλίανος. Dr Taylor refuses him from the Marmor Sandwicensis, observing at the same time, that this orthography occurs in no other place whatever except in these two monuments. Is it likely that two engravers should by chance coincide in the same mistake, or that the forger of the Parian Chronicle (if it be forged) should have seen the Marmor Sandwicensis, and taken notice of this peculiarity with the intention of afterward employing it in the fabrication of an imposture?

The reviewers next proceed to consider, but more briefly, the other objections.

II. It is not probable that the Chronicle was engraved for private use.—1. Because it was such an expense, 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. consider how likely it is that a modern, and probably a needy Greek, should 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 splendor to cheapness and convenience? And if this composition, 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 lost; or, if a copy had, by miracle, been preserved to us, the objections to its being genuine would be more plausible than any that have been urged against 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 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 shall readily admit, though Bentley (Diff. on Phalaris, p. 251.) leans to the contrary opinion. In explaining this objection, the learned dissertator observes, that though the expression, ἐξερευνών τῆς Παροικίας, would lead us to suppose that the inscription related to Paros, not a single circumstance in the history of that island is mentioned. But this expression only shows that the author was an inhabitant of Paros, and intended to give his readers a clue, or parapetma, by the aid of which they might adjust the general chronology of Greece to the dates of their own history. "It is as absurd as would be a marble in Jamaica containing the revolutions of England." We see no absurdity in supposing 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 history of Greece, particularly of Athens; and how can we tell whether the author were an inquitinus, or a native of the island; whether he thought it a place beneath his care; or Chronicle, 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 should attempt to settle the dates of the earlier periods would frequently contradict preceding, and be contradicted by subsequent writers; that he would naturally fall into mistakes; and at best could only hope to adopt the most probable system. But the difficulty of the task, or the impossibility of success, are not sufficient to prove that no man has been rash or mad enough to make the attempt." On the contrary, we know that many have made it. What a number of discordant opinions has Mr R. himself given us from the ancients concerning the age of Homer? This consideration will in part obviate another objection, that the Parian Chronicle does not agree with any ancient author. For if the ancients contradicted one another, how could it follow more than one of them? and why might not the author, without any imputation of ignorance or rashness, 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 singular 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 present day, are mentioned by classical authors? Verrius Flaccus composed a Roman calendar, which, as a monument of his learning and industry, was engraved on marble, and fixed in the most public part of Preneste. Fragments of this very calendar were lately dug up at Preneste, and have been published by a learned Italian. Now if the passage of Suetonius, which informs us of this circumstance, had been lost, would the silence 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 slender 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 Dissertator'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 cease why it is never quoted by the ancients. Of the nine authors named in p. 109, had any one ever visited Paros? If Paufanas 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 inquisitive a writer. But though the inscription existed, and were famous at Paros, there seems no necessity for any 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 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. 199. 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 anything 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 paraphrasticisms 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 attention.

"The names of six, and, if the lacunae 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 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 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, first, 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. Secondly, We see no reason to allow, that the lacunæ are properly supplied. Suppose we should assert, that the names stood originally thus: Miletus, Ephesus, Erythre, Clazomenae, 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 confused 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 Voitius's conjecture that TEUM ought to be inferred in Paterculus after Myum TEM, be as true as it is plausible. But who imagines that Pausanias had either opportunity or inclination to copy Paterculus? Thirdly, Allowing that the names were engraved on the marble exactly in the order that Ælian 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 fertile 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 Athenæus. 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. Ælian therefore transcribed them from Athenæus; yet Ælian never mentions Athenæus in his Various History. So that whether Ælian copied from the marble, or only drew from a common source, he might, and very probably would, conceal his authority.

VIII. The history of the discovery of the Marbles is obscure and unsatisfactory.

In p. 169, it is said to be "related with suspicious circumstances, and without any of those clear and unequivocal evidences which always discriminate truth from falsehood." The question is then finally decided. If the inscription has not any of those evidences which truth always possesses, and which falsehood always wants, it is most certainly forged. The learned disputer seems for a moment to have forgotten the modest character of a doubter, and to perorate the dogmatist. But waving this, we shall add, that, as far as we can see, no appearance of fraud is discoverable in any part of the transaction. The history of many inscriptions is related in a manner equally unsatisfactory; and if it could be clearly proved that the marble was dug up at Paros, what could be easier for a critic, who is determined at any rate to object, than to say, that it was buried there in order to be afterward dug up? If the person who brought this treasure to light had been charged on the spot with forging it, or concurring in the forgery, and had then refused to produce the external evidences of its authenticity, we should have a right to question, or perhaps to deny, that it was genuine. But no such objection having been made or hinted, at the original time of its discovery, it is unreasonable to require such testimony as it is now impossible to obtain. "There is nothing said of it in Sir T. Roe's negotiations." What is the inference? That Sir Thomas knew nothing of it, or believed it to be spurious, or forged it, or was privy to the forgery? Surely nothing of this kind can be pretended. But let our author account for the circumstance if he can. To us it seems of no consequence on either side. "Pierref made no effort to recover this precious relic; and from this composition he seems to have entertained some secret suspicions of its authenticity." Pierref would have had no chance of recovering it after it was in the possession of Lord Arundel's agents. He was either a real or a pretended patron of letters; and it became him to affect to be pleased that the inscription had come into England, and was illustrated by his learned friend Selden. John F. Gronovius had, with great labour and expense, collated Anna Commena's Alexiades, and intended to publish them. While he was waiting for some other collations, they were intercepted, and the work was published by another. As soon as Gronovius heard this unpleasant news, he answered, that learned men were engaged in a common cause; that if one prevented another in any publication, he ought rather to be thanked for lightening the burden, than blamed for interfering. But who would conclude from this answer, that Gronovius thought the Alexiades spurious, or not worthy of any regard?

Mr R. calculates, that the vendors of the marble received 200 pieces. But here again we are left in the dark, unless we knew the precise value of these pieces. Perhaps they might be equal to an hundred of our pounds, perhaps only to fifty. Besides, as they at first bargained with Samson, Pierrefe's supposed Jew agent, for fifty pieces only, they could not have forgone the inscription with the clear prospect of receiving more; neither does it appear that they were paid by Samson. It is fully as reasonable to suppose fraud on the one side as on the other; and if Samson, after having the marble in his possession, refused or delayed to pay the sum stipulated, he might, in consequence of such refusal or delay, be thrown into prison, and might, in revenge, damage the marble before the owners could recover it. We own this account of ours to be a romance; but it is lawful to combat romance with romance.

IX. The 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.

Much truth is observable in this remark. But the danger lies in applying such general apophthegms to particular cases. In the first place, it must be observed, that no forged books will exactly suit Mr R.'s purpose, but such as pretend to be the author's own handwriting; nor any inscriptions, but such as are still extant on the original materials, or such as were known to be extant at the time of their pretended discovery. Let the argument be bounded by these limits, and the number of forgeries will be very much reduced. We are not in possession of Cyriacus Anconitanus's book; but if we were governed by authority, we should think that the testimony of Reinicus in his favour greatly overbalances all that Augustinus has said to his prejudice. The opinion of Reinicus is of the more weight, because he suspects Urbinus of publishing counterfeit monuments. We likewise find the most eminent critics of the present age quoting Cyriacus without suspicion (Vid. Ruhnken, in Timae Lex. Plat. p. 10. apud Koen, ad Gregor. p. 140.). The doctrine advanced in the citation from Hardouin is exactly conformable to that writer's usual paradoxes. He wanted to destroy the credit of all the Greek and Latin writers. But inscriptions hung like a millstone about the neck of his project. He therefore resolved to make sure work, and to deny the genuineness of as many as he saw convenient: to effect which purpose, he intertwines himself in a general accusation. If the author of the dissertation had quoted a few more paragraphs from Hardouin, in which he endeavours, after his manner, to show the forgery of some inscriptions, he would at once have administered the poison and the antidote. But to the reveries of that learned madman, respecting Greek supposititious compositions of this nature, we shall content ourselves with opposing the sentiments of a modern critic, whose judgment on the subject of spurious inscriptions will not be disputed. Maffei, in the introduction to the third book, c. i. p. 51. of his admirable, though unfinished, work, de Arte Critica Lapidaria, uses these words: Inscriptionum Graecæ locutionem commentarius, si cum Latinis comparamus, deprehendi paucas; neque enim ullum omnino est, in tanta debacchantium falsioriorum libidine, monumentum genus, in quod it fibi minus licere putaverint. Argumento est, paucaissimas uisque in hanc diem ab eruditis viris, et in hoc litterarum genere plurimum versatis rejectas esse, falsaque damnatas.

Books of Chronicles, a canonical writing of the Old Old Testament. It is uncertain which were written first, The Books of Kings, or The Chronicles, since they each refer to the other. However it be, the latter is often more full and comprehensive than the former. Whence the Greek interpreters call these two books Παρελθοντα, Supplements, Additions, or things omitted, because they contain some circumstances which are omitted in the other historical books. The Jews make but one book of the Chronicles, under the title of Dibre-Haianim, i.e., Journals or Annals. Ezra is generally believed to be the author of these books. It is certain they were written after the end of the Babylonian captivity and the first year of the reign of Cyrus, of whom mention is made in the last chapter of the second book.

The Chronicles, or Paraleipomena, are an abridgment of all the sacred history, from the beginning of the Jewish nation to their first return from the captivity, taken out of those books of the Bible which we still have, and out of other annals, which the author had then by him. The design of the writer was to give the Jews a series of their history. The first book relates to the rise and propagation of the people of Israel from Adam, and gives a punctual and exact account of the reign of David. The second book sets down the progress and end of the kingdom of Judah, to the very year of their return from the Babylonish captivity.