Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

through all the dates of the heroic period, from Cecrops to the destruction of Troy; whereas, in the second or historic period, (according to the division here introduced, on Selden's authority,) the two methods agree to the end.

The cause of this systematic difference has not been explained, nor even attempted to be explained, by any of the writers upon the Chronicle that have come to my knowledge. Nor will I presume to erect the following conjecture into certainty. Still, however, I flatter myself it will not be adjudged altogether fanciful or unfounded by those candid and skilful readers, who are most willing and most able to appreciate the profound difficulty and obscurity of the subject, in traversing "the dark backward, and abyme of Time."

In order to prepare the way for this investigation, the first step necessary, was to construct a Table of the reigns of the Athenian kings, from Codrus downwards, which should critically correspond with the Chronicle, and give the precise year denoted by the twenty-second of Menestheus, in which Troy was taken. Such a table is, I trust, the XIVth, collected from careful comparison of the Chronicon of Eusebius, Petavius, Helvicus, Playfair, &c. with the Chronicle itself; by means of which, I at length discovered, that the twenty-second of Menestheus corresponded to the year B. C. 1184, the very year assigned for the taking of Troy by Apollodorus, and the Greek Chronographers in general; and, consequently, that the Chronicle, in its primitive mode of computation by reigns, established the received date of this leading epoch of Greek chronology.

In constructing this Table, I ascended from the fixed date of the appointment of annual Archons, B.C. 684, according to Prideaux and Playfair; and this process gave the commencement of the reign of Cecrops, B.C. 1558, the same year assigned by Petavius from Eusebius. And that it was rightly assigned may be collected from the following considerations :

1. Castor, of Rhodes, who flourished about B. C. 50, reckoned that Cecrops began his reign 780 years before the first Olympiad, B.C. 776, or B.C. 1556, two years later. This date is adopted by Usher.

2. Isagoras, the orator, born B. C. 436, reckoned that "not less than 1000 years had intervened from the first settlement of the Athenian polity by Cecrops, till its subversion by Pisistratus, B. C. 561. This would give the accession of Cecrops,

B. C. 1561, or three years earlier. Whence we are warranted to assume the mean date, B. C. 1558, as correct.

3. This is confirmed by the Chronicle itself:

By the former method of computation, from the accession of Cecrops, B. C. 1582, to the destruction of Troy, B. C. 1209, was an interval of 373 years; but precisely the same interval results by the latter, from the first of Cecrops, B. C. 1558, to the twenty-second of Menestheus, B. C. 1185. Consequently, B. C. 1558, must have been the specific date upon which the table of reigns, adapted to the Chronicle, was originally constructed.

There appears, at first sight, a slight difference between the twenty-second of Menestheus, B. C. 1185, and the received date of the capture of Troy, B. C. 1184. But this is only apparent, depending on the different commencement of the Attic year, about the Summer solstice. Troy was taken, according to the Chronicle, on the 24th of Thargelion, or 26th of May, near the end of that Attic year, which therefore began in the Julian year, B. C. 1185, and ended in the succeeding, B. C. 1184. And the critical accuracy of the Chronicle, and correctness of the conjectural reading Thargelion, are vouched by Dion. Hal. who states, that "Troy was taken near the end of the Spring, seventeen days before the Summer solstice, on the 23d of Thargelion, according to the Attic reckoning.”

The same is confirmed by poetical authority:

Et Danaum decimo vere redisse rates.-Propert. IV.

vix prima inceperat æstas,

Et pater Anchises dare fatis vela jubebat.-Virg. Æn. III.

Here Propertius states that the Grecian fleet returned in the Spring of the tenth year of the siege; and Virgil, that Æneas set sail, soon after, at the very beginning of Summer ensuing.

But how are we to account for this systematic difference between the two methods, of about 25 years, which pervades the upper part of the Chronicle, but vanishes in the lower, where both methods agree?

The leading date of the first period appears to be that of the capture of Troy, the established date of which, B. C. 1184, is furnished by the latter method of computation by reigns. But the compiler of the Chronicle, rejecting this date, adopted the earlier, of B. C. 1209, probably on the authority of authors that rated it higher, such as Dicæarchus, a celebrated historian and

philosopher, of the Aristotelian school, who flourished B. C. 310. or about 50 years before the Chronicle was engraved, and reckoned that Troy was taken, B. C. 1212, three years sooner. Whence the compiler found it necessary to raise all the other dates of this period by the same difference of 25 years; and by so doing, has proved the inaccuracy of his assumed date, B. C. 1209; because several of the earlier epochs are thereby thrown out of their proper places an entire reign backwards. Thus, epoch 21, the political reform of Theseus, which, by the table of reigns adapted to the latter method, happened B. C. 1234, in the second year of his reign, as confirmed by the testimony of Plutarch, and others, that he began his reform soon after his accession to the throne, is thrown back by the former method to B. C. 1259, the twenty-fourth year of the reign of his father Ægeus!

That the dates of the reigns, Tab. XIV. are rightly assigned, is confirmed also by another epoch, 32; in which, though the supplementary number is obliterated, yet" the twenty-first year of" the perpetual Archon " Eschylus" is fortunately preserved, which was B. C. 758. But Eusebius dated the foundation of Syracuse twenty-four years before the accession of the decennial Archon Clidicus, in B. C. 734, which, added thereto, gives the same result, B. C. 758, and corrects a slight error in Selden, p. 1514, who cites this testimony of Eusebius, and yet dates the epoch, B. C. 757, a year later.

This epoch, with which the historical or second period of the Chronicle begins, is of considerable importance:

1. It verifies the next epoch, 33, by reckoning downwards, and fixes the establishment of annual Archons in B. C. 684. 2. It also detects an error in Petavius, adopted by Playfair, that the decennial Archonship expired with Eryxias, B. C. 687, three years earlier; in consequence of which, the latter has unwarrantably deducted two years from the decennial Archon Charops, and one year from Æsimedes, in order to fix the accession of the first decennial Archon Charops, in B. C. 754, which he rightly does, following Prideaux. It is to be regretted, indeed, that this excellent chronologer did not adduce his authorities in the first edition of his useful work; and it is to be hoped that he will remedy this defect in the next, which is now in contemplation. 3. Selden judiciously observes, that this epoch furnishes an important adjustment of the dates of the succeeding

colonies, after Syracuse, which settled at Naxos, Catana, Trotilus, &c. and are noticed in the beginning of the sixth book of Thucydides.

We are now warranted, upon the high authority of the Parian Chronicle, to consider the thirty reigns of the Athenian kings and archons, from Cecrops to Creon, the first annual archon, as one of the most authentic and correct documents to be found in the whole range of Profane Chronology; while the Chronicle also verifies the broken list of annual archons, as far as it reaches downwards, by confirming, in near twenty instances, the dates assigned by other historians, both earlier and later.

We are also enabled to adjust that much disputed epoch of the time of Homer with a high degree of precision. Diognetus, in whose archonship he flourished, epoch 30, did not begin to reign till B. C. 893; consequently, the date B. C. 907, furnished by the supplemental number, which is perfect, must be erroneous: if then we reduce it to B. C. 884, the ninth year of Diognetus, we shall find it confirmed by the important testimony of Herodotus, who declares, that " Hesiod and Homer lived not above four hundred years before his time." B. 2. 53. Herodotus was born B. C. 484, which, added to 400, gives B. C. 884.

The supplemental number in the epoch of Hesiod 29, is imperfect, DCLXX. . Selden supplies the chasm with another X, and so makes it 680; but Prideaux, with II, reducing it to 672, which also reduces the epoch to B. C. 936, and so leaves a difference of 52 years between the poets, which is still too much. But if we further deduct the systematic difference of 25 years, it will reduce Hesiod's time to B. C. 911, and leave an interval of only 27 years between them.

The conjectural date assigned to epoch 28, of the Ionic migration, B. C. 1077, by Selden, and followed by his successors, requires to be lowered in the same proportion. For Eusebius states, that this migration took place in the eighth year of the Athenian king Acastus, which, according to his Canon, was B. C. 1043; and Eratosthenes dated it 140 years after the destruction of Troy, which he reckoned B. C. 1183, furnishing the same year, B. C. 1043. And this rectification critically corresponds with the account of Thucydides, who, in his curious and valuable summary of the ancient state of Greece, antecedent to the Peloponnesian war, B. 1, dates the return of the Heraclide to Peloponnesus, 80 years after the destruction of Troy; and he

[ocr errors]

describes the planting of Ionia, and several of the islands, as a good while after their return," which agrees very well to 60 years after.

CORRECTIONS OF THE CHRONICLE.

Besides the general rectification of the first period, Table XIII. there are some epochs in the second that require correction.

Epoch 36, B. C. 605, cannot be understood of the first year of the reign of Alyattes, which began B. C. 619. It probably refers to the time of his war with Cyaxares, king of Media, which was put an end to by the celebrated eclipse of Thales, two years after, B. C. 603.

Epoch 42, B. C. 556. This was the fifth year of the reign of Croesus, and refers perhaps to his first inquiry concerning his son who was dumb; to which the Oracle replied, that in an evil day he should hear his son speak! which was afterwards verified at the surprise of Sardis by Cyrus; when the son, alarmed for his father's life, eagerly exclaimed to the Persian soldier, "Kill not Croesus!"

Epoch 43. The supplemental number being obliterated, we may supply B. C. 548, the correct date of the capture of Croesus. This corresponds with the sequel: for Hipponax, his contemporary, flourished in the 63d Olympiad, B. C. 528, according to Pliny; and Croesus survived Cyrus, who died B. C. 529, and lived in the reign of Cambyses.

Epoch 45. The conjectural date B. C. 517, furnished by Selden, supposing that the last three letters of the supplemental number were III. is raised by Prideaux, to B. C. 520, substituting III, or VI. And this probably was the actual year of the accession of Darius I. after the death of Smerdis Magus, and also after the short reigns of Maraphis and Artaphrenes, noticed by Eschylus, which might altogether have taken up a year or more; but which, according to the construction of Ptolomy's Canon, are assigned to Darius, in dating his reign B. C. 521, or are included in his first year. See the ensuing article of Ptolomy's Canon.

Epoch 50. The conjectural date of the death of Darius, B.C. 490, is incorrect, however it be filled up, for it comes before B.C. 486, in the next epoch; but Xerxes succeeded Darius in B.C. 485, according to the Canon.

Epoch 52, 53. These dates are each a year too high.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »