Fasti Hellenici, the Civil and Literary Chronology of Greece, from the earliest accounts to the Death of Augustus

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search


. CT)














tisf -6















IN the work now offered to the public, the author has attempted to illustrate the Civil and Literary History of Ancient Greece from the age of Pisistratus to the accession of Ptolemy Philadelphus, by exhibit- ing a chronological view not only of the civil and military affairs of the Greeks, but also of their literature, within that period. The au- thorities upon which each fact is stated are expressed, and the original words of the authors are given, as far as the necessary brevity would allow.

The first idea of this work suggested itself to the author many years ago, when he found the want of a sufficient chronological guide, while engaged in studying the works of the ancient writers. The remains of the Orators, and of the Comic Poet, to be rightly understood, must be read in the order in which they were composed or exhibited ; and with a reference to the transactions with which they were con- nected. The ancient critics of the best times were diligent in their attention to this particular*. Apollodorus and Dionysius carefully

a IUa prmcipua scriptorum cura fu'isse vi- iletur, ut tempus quojhbulas suas comici tra- gicique docuissent inquirerent, et quo archonte quave anni tempestate singula quaquc dra- mata acta Juissent diligenter notarent. Non vulgare sane opus; cum in eo elucubrando crUicorum doctissimi industriam diligentiam- que suam collocarint: Dicmarchvs nimirum

Aristotelis disciptilus, Callimachvs, Carvb- tius, Aristophanes grammaticus, Apollo- dorus, Crates, et Eratosthenes. His Ari- stoteles ipse princeps pranverat, qui, tragi- corum comicorumque nominibus ctjhbularum iititU.i colhctis, a-uvaytayijv hanc apto et pro- prio vocahulo xep) hlaaxaXiuiv inscripscrat. Odcrici Epistola, p. vi.

a 2


marked the dates of literary works. But the grammarians of later ages, from whose hands we have received the relics of antiquity, so much neglected this necessary point, that no copy of Aristophanes now exists which has the Comedies disposed in the order in which they were exhibited ; nor any copy of Demosthenes, in which the Harangues and Public Causes are placed with any regard to the order of time. The author originally proposed to himself to arrange the orations and dramas which remain to us from antiquity in their proper order, and to verify the dates by the proper testimonies. This he imagined might have been accomplished in a short compass. By degrees he found the subject more extensive. Other topics of inquiry presented themselves, and his work increased upon his hands, until it grew into its present form, and into the bulk of a volume. He now ventures to submit it to the world, trusting that it may in some degree supply to others what he formerly wanted for himself.

He had reserved for the Appendix a history of the Dramatic Poets of the period, including the titles of their dramas. But this subject was found to be too copious to admit its insertion in the present Ap- pendix. This design was therefore laid aside, and that shorter account of the Tragic and Comic Poets was substituted, which appears in the Introduction. From this change in the original plan, a reference with respect to Epicharmus inadvertently left standing in the Tables, at B. C. 500, contains a promise which is not fulfilled in the present vo- lume.

It had been also intended to subjoin in the Appendix some observa- tions on the extent and population of Ancient Greece ; in which the reasons would have been explained of the numbers assigned to Attica at the census of Demetrius in B.C. 317. But this inquiry also it has been found necessary to omit.

The Index to the Tables exhibits, under the form of a short chro- nicle, a synopsis of the whole period. It will shew the station of every archon, and of every principal event in the second column. With re-


spect to the third and fourth columns of the Tables it is less complete. Some particulars recorded in these have been omitted in this Index through want of space. But this deficiency ifl supplied by the Alpha- betical Index of Literary Names at the end of the volume ; which con- tains all the references that belong to this branch of the subject, and where the author has inserted some few notices which he had omitted in the proper place.

Before he dismisses this volume, he is desirous of expressing his ac- knowledgments to the Delegates of the Oxford University Press, collec- tively, for their reception of his labours. To the Regius Professor of Greek, the Rev. Thomas Gaisford, individually, for the ready kindness with which he has promoted the publication of this work, the author is bound in an especial manner to declare his obligations.

Wklwyn, Herts, January 5, 1824.














note m . for " torn. II." read " torn. III." note e . " Carolirutae" r. " Caroliruhse" 10. "Goeller" r. " Goller" note b . " 392" r. " 292" 6. Aio-^uXo? r. Al&xvKtf 25. 2»</>\oKXe'ou; r. Z<x£o<c>.eov{ 6. vltboZi r. ui'Soi/;. According to an accurate judge of the proprieties of Attic language, it should be written I'ilaZ^. Elmsl. ad Sophocl. CKd. Colon, p. 83. Diphthongus m neque ante rw«- lem t neque ante consonant stare potest in eadem voce. Scribendum igitur w8oti<. Sic etiam fifSiov apud Aristoph. Vesp. 1347. But, as in Demosth. Macartat. p. 1057. Mr. Bekker ha«  preferred vlioZ.; on the authority of MSS. I hesitate. Isocrates, p. 424. a. has vliU~<. im- properly printed vttMt in some edd. N°. 23. Pantacles. This name may be omitted. From the testimonies of Antipho and Har- pocratio it only appears that he was a KvicXioSi&ao-icaXo? or dithyrambic poet. I have therefore improperly inserted him in the list of the Old Comedy. N°. 3 1 . Bathon — Place Bathon in the Poets of the New Comedy, after Theognetus : thus : "*18. Bathon," &c. 2. "344—292" r. "342—291" 4. " B. C. 386." r. " B. C. 387."

J5.C. 546. 531. 477. 468. 460.


454. 447. 444. 441. 433.

427. 407. 406. 405.


3. ivverl\KOVTa,. — iwerqK. — tyyevrjK. T. ivivriKOVTa. — ixy^K.—ivfyriK.

4. before " Ol. 62. 1." insert "Eusebius"

1. for "Moral, p. 785. A." read " Schol. in Hermogen. p. 410." 4. " Anthesterion" r. " Elaphebolion"

3. (p. 43.) " Soranus in Vita" r. " Auctor Vita?" Soranus is quoted in the next paragraph, but this particular is from Istotnachus.

3. after " to lefatfw irt><; T^; m$ oXujuiriabV add " legendum -nfr *' oXi7*naJo{. This error in the

text, of the biographer, long since corrected by Palmer, Taylor, Reiske, and others, (conf. Reisk. Plutarch, torn. IX. p. 321.) although unnoticed by Wyttenbach, might arise from a transcriber inadvertently repeating the preceding number, p 1 . — zl ft «to{ ■$< »£'. — "

4. (p. 47.) "B.C. 392." r. "B.C. 391."

2. 'Opx<>iA.tvt>v r. *0(>x<ijt*«you

3. (last line.) ?ti t* r. hi 6'

4. rpooytpiict r. rpaytphiq.

1. Apseudes. Add to the testimonies " Ptol. Mcy. rwraf. III. 2." and compare Append, c. 19.

p. 304.

3. <7%«8o» r. o-%«8o»

2. yavafx't T. vavapx'>i

1. Callias. Add to the testimonies "Arg. CEdip. Colon, apud Elmsleium. cf.a. 402."

4. (p. 79.) ayptvs r. dtrypm/c;




405. 4. (p. 79.) after " Ran. 67—78." insert as follows : " Arg. III. Sophocl. (Ed. Colon, ed. Elmsl. o 8e $(foi%H i» Moitroui, ac, ovyKaffqKe to7{ Barpaxou;, <f>i)<rh ovtuf paKap Xoi^okXc'ik, o? woXvv xpovov $iot? antBavty, (vlat/juw avy]f Kai Sefio'?. iroXXa; woi^ira? kcu K«Xa{ TpayaS/a? KaXS; tTtXei/nja - ', oCSe* wro/wiva; kcmcov.

—attesting both the recent death of Sophocles, and the respect in which he was held." The Tables of this work were printed before the (Edipus Coloneus edited by Dr. Elmsley had appeared, containing this Argument ; a part of which had been already given in the Baccha, p. 14. This Argument, it seems, first appeared in a foreign journal about ten years ago : and consequently I have erred in representing it at B. C. 396, 4. as first pub- lished by Dr. Elmsley. In the preceding sentence apud Elmsl. (Ed. Col. p. 5. 1. 6. for toI< a-rpaTijyovt we must read toiij rpayiKOvf. 403. 3. iVoTeXijs r. ktotcXtjj

402. 3. (p. 83.) for " cf. a. 373." r. " cf. a. 372."

398. 4. (p. 87.) «fWf<w r. t'KSa|e»

368. 3. Mava-uXoy r. MawraXov

365. 3. (p. 109.) for " in the year of Chion" read " in the year of Cephisodorus :" for M nrfw* r. c'«i

tcvtuv and compare Append, p. 314, note 8 . 35?. 4. after " Isocrates" omit " of Apollonia" and compare Append, p. 263. 346. 3. licT« r. &t» 340. 3. (p. 135.) 'AX«<€t« r. 'AXokiSs 338. 1. Charondas. Add to the testimonies " Plutarch. Vit. Demosth. c. 24." and compare Append.

p. 317 — 319. 33 1 . 2. Arhelii — /xi)»o« iruavt^iSvoj. Compare, for the correction of this passage, Append, p. 307. 330. 4. after " B. C. 283." add " Diod. Eclog. lib. XXIII. torn. IX. p. 318. Bip. *»X^ji*b» l\ i ku/ukU

typatyt ipdpxTtx. lirra. kcu ltevf,iavTtt, fltae-a; ct)) hvka. kcu iverqKOvra. AVess. ad loc. Mortem

cum vita commutavit anno primi Punici belli tertio [B. C. 262. the twenty-second year of Antigonus Gonatas] namque eum ad annum qua hie referuntur pertinent omnia. According to this account, Philemon might exhibit comedy almost seventy years."

316. 4. add as follows : " I am yet in doubt, whether the allusion of Alexis may not rather be to De- metrius Poliorcetes. In that case, we may, with Petitus, place the decree against the phi- losophers, (Laert. V. 38. Pollux, IX. 42. Athen. XIII. p. 610. e.) and consequently the "Ittâ„¢< of Alexis, within the 1 1 8th Olympiad : that is to say, after the liberation of Athens B. C. 307, and before the exile of Demochares B. C. 302. This drama of Alexis, together with the 'Tm«j3oXi^a«{, in which he mentioned king Ptolemy, (Athen. XI. p. 502. b.) and the *ajy«wcMr<£Xij<, (for which see the Tables B. C. 306,) would thus be brought down to the latest possible period of his exhibitions."

315. 1. Praxibulus. Add to the testimonies " Theophrast. mfi X»'9w, p. 702, Schneid. Plin. H.N. XXXIII. 7." and compare Append, p. 321.

314. I. Nicodorus. Add to the testimonies " Theophrast. Cans. Plant. I. 19, 5. Plin. II. N, III. 5." and compare Append, p. 321.

311. 1. Simonides. Add to the testimonies " Theophrast. Hist. Plant. VI. 3, 3." and compare Ap- pend, p. 321.

287. 2. omit these words, " But the seven years of Plutarch are confirmed by the times of Cassander, Pyrrhus, and Lysimachus."


345. 3. omit the words " Demosth. Ph'dipp. 11."

333. 3. for " Ephorus [Demosth.] in Theocrin." r. " Ephorus. [Demosth.] in Theocrin."

'-> "connection" r. "connexion"



1 98. N°. 24. Pyrrhus 8m." read "— 7m."

213. 22. ;x9«Jv r. !x61;

Ibid. note '. AioSopuv r. AioSa'po*

229. 25,

230. 9-

940. 4. " Pylngonis" r. " Pylagoras" 268. note ". col. 2. mXiuy r. *i\(uv

278. note e . col. 2. line 2. for " Jehoiakim's" r. " JehoiakinV

Ibid. ibid, line 17. after " lOy. 7m." add "(including the 3m. of Jehoiakin.)"

279. 1. after "year of Nabonassar 144" omit the comma.

Ibid. 9. /9ao-iX«<«i< r. |9ao-iXtia{

Ibid. 11. [Teo-o-afo/covTa] â– r. [rtmapcuttrra] (legendum â– tiaaapa)

Ibid. 20. fi ypipaf T. y{ rifttpaf

284. note l i. line 10. toE 8' ?tok< r. toE 8' "toh<

287. note. col. 2. line 24. " B. C. 625." r. " B. C. 623."

294. note '. col. 1. lyvpuaola' XV"" 1 r - iy^^yama .fyfiay

305 — 307. In the lunations, the fractions of time below a second are not expressed in these pages, al- though in computing the sums they have been taken into the account. Hence an apparent want of agreement in some of the amounts. 310. at the end of note ' add, " I exhibit this specimen in small letters, to save space."

314. at the end of note " subjoin as follows : " The ten years, referred to in a preceding note, ter-

minated at the loKifjuiaia of Demosthenes : Demosth. p. 8 1 4. Kap*d<raix6cu tc<jwto» %pi*w itn tyu ayijp euat SoKijuao-fie/ijv. p. 825. o 8' ipu>) 8oKi/xao-fl«')Ti vapi%oaa». p. 865. owe ft? iVr<{ ti% yiyeTm tZv tHiruy tuajy jm Xrj\f/(cr6ai map' ai-Tuy tVeiSav rax'trra ay\p tlyau &Ktiutr8t!r,y. I had not

sufficiently adverted to this in constructing the Tables B.C. 376,3. 365,3. The loafuurla being brought to the sixth or seventh month of Cephisodorus will bring the death of the father to the sixth or seventh month of Charisander. If, on the contrary, we place the father's death at the second month of Charisander, this will fix the ttxtyuurla of the son to the second month of Cephisodorus. &0KipaX,ay was the proper term on these occasions : Demosth. p. 947. 8oKi/*ao-6VvTO{ Uaa-iKKlmf. p. 950. rpUa HairucXyji atrip ytya/if ixepu^tro t>» \oyoy ttJ< eTriTSOjnj?. Isocrat. p. 147. a. 6r«8ij tl< avipa< ioKipuurOfifv. p. 352. C (Ttrpnn$^ vti Hepu<\(ov<; — &OKi/xao-0£i( 8« â€” k. r. X. Lysias, p. 897. Reisk. 0780'f ?t«< JojH.uao-fff'rriK toI rptrpv- rkpw toiV iMipaicloi*. Idem apud Dionys. t. V. p. 600. ithprnn — xapafoli t<i!i v'uXf lampuurfcs' â– ta Xpypara. Bekker, Anecd. Gr. p. 235, 14. Swci/xaijorrai 01 i<p' ijX«kx< o/xpawi tl ICyarrau li â– xxTpSz isapa tZy iicnpmuy amXa/Apdyeiv. The minor was held to he capable of managing his own estate at two years beyond the age of puberty : Isaeus, p. 72, 1 6. npm t»» jj^!^» t "» — tl ica7i(( ciroTe tVi SiVrt; tj^o-eiay* cCtu yap 01 yipuii KcXci/'ouriv. p. 80, 45. i np»f— if -rtifweiilat iici Si'fTe? rfiriaanas Kpaiih rZy xp^f-atuy. Demosth. p. 1 135. ylfut,' " la* ti< rfiipy ^»i iUtti, " KpartTy tZv xftpiaTuy." p. 1 136. yi/uf ""O ti a» yrqvlmi tmn vl£y i va-riip SiaSSprau, «'a* am- " 9uyu<Tiv 01 vhi$ np)y iiz) 8«Te$ r ;i S£v, tijv rov naTplf 8iaflijKip' KXiplay ttycu." Hyperides apud pocr. V. eVi tt(T((. a yipof — KtXfSM Kiiplovf elyai Tr/i eVocXijfOU xau t^< tiaian dxiay^ T6t{ wcula< ineitiav tr! 8/(Te« ijj3«o-i. Respecting the value of this expression grammarians differ : Harpocr. V. tVi 8iWfv ijfirja-at. AiSv^wV (pyiriy an) to! lay inicalifKa IrSy yiyipifyu' tJ yap ^{Spai peXP' TwrapuTKalbtKa l&Tiy' aXXoi, ((fnj^oi rap' 'A6Sjyai'o>{ oKTUKaiifKaeruf ylrwrat, «u pm»» «', to?V ^^njj9oi< ctij 8i'o. (vara rS Xi}£iapxii<£ iyypdtJKrrai ypaupmriif. Etymol. V. M itertf ifiqrai. T>vT(a-Tiy iruy (KKalfcxa ytv(<r9af to yap ^j3?o-a< /ne'x," iuccmwapv* irth. oXXm, f(plP*i fapa 'At*-

  • a


Page. Line.

i/eUon oKTUKaiieKa iruv yifipuvu t'Xeyovro - Kai (.\uyrn yXf h roTf i<{rqf}oif en; Wo. fvurtx ei( to Xi){»- afX'KW iypddnuro ypapt.\i.ati!w, Bekker, p. 255, 15. t'iri VitTtt, vffi\<rai' to yinlaOcu iruf iKtuKai- ioca' a/a »j|Si} y to iKKatleKa iruv yevt<r$cu. to t' ovv iiri 8/eT{{ ^/3Sjo-a/ t<rr< rl yvtiaBat ct£» aXX&w 5c»<V ji*eTa t^ if/Sip'. This difference may be reconciled by supposing a distinction between civil rights and military service. The minors were admitted to their estates at sixteen : the ephebi were called to military service at home, at eighteen. If this interpretation be not admitted, and if it should be thought that the seven years in Demosth. p. 814. mean seven years complete, from his enumeration of them at p. 833,— u KarcXcupSii* fjikv t'nowrio?, t{ ?tij U vfurerfmeithp — then we must reject the authority of Didymus altogether: the SoKi/xoo-ios of the minor will be fixed to the commencement of his eighteenth year, and the birth of Demosthenes will be raised to the beginning of B. C. 382. the sixth or seventh month of 01. 99.2. and a few months earlier than the date assumed in these Tables."

319. note '. ^'(/wo-jKa r. \f^<^MO-/ia

321. note ". for "verius" r. "verius"

Ibid. note d . col. 1. "Praxiteles" r. "Praxibulus"

Ibid. ibid. col. 2. <f>curi r. <\mt\

322. at the end of note f . subjoin, " There were two reasons why Orpheus would be mentioned in

connexion with the Phoenician Cadmus. 1 . He was said to have instituted the worship of Bacchus : Apollod. I. 3, 2. ilpe %i 'Op<peli; ical toj Aio»i/'<rot> f*u<m)f»a. which the Greeks received from Cadmus, (compare Herodot. II. 49.) 2. The invention of letters was by some ascribed to Orpheus. conf.Wolf. Proleg. in Horn. p. li. I think it very possible that Suidas might represent Cadmus as younger than Orpheus, although in reality three generations older. But yet we may restore the true chronology by an easy correction and transposi- tion, if we suppose the passage, in which Suidas abbreviated the account of some gram- marian, to have stood thus :

KoZ/ms TlavZlov<t( MiXvjo-io<, lirrop tKOf, o{ irpuTO< Kara ruia$ ovyypaffiv typa4* KosT«X&ya8ij>.

Swerafe 8e Kt/o-iv MiXtfrou — if j9ij3X/oj; S'.

"Otj rof KaSjtwv ipatrl itpuroy if irp 'EXXa&a xopulaat ra ypdjtjuira, amtp irpSrot $oiV(K<;

((JKvpov. MikjjS vtebtepos 'Optpajf."

323. 3. add the following note, after " Schol. Pindar. Nem. III. 21." " Catal. MSS. Clark, p. 72, 23.

KaT€K\yputre 8e ('Apio-TO^Kxv)];) ica) tt)v Aiya/ai/' u( ©foyoojj if 7$ vtpl Alyomft. It appears from

hence that Theagenes, who wrote «oi Aiy/wj?, was a later Theagenes, and lived after Ari- stophanes."

324. note P. line 14. MouceoWv r. Ma«SoVa»


THE period of two hundred and eighty years, from the 55th to the 1 24th Olympiad, may he considered as the second of three portions, into which the , whole subject of Grecian chronology and history down to the Christian era may be divided. The times which precede the age of Pisistratus compose the firs/ portion; the period from Pisistratus to Ptolemy Philadelphus is the second; and the space of time from Philadelphus to the Christian era is the third. This dis- tribution is not arbitrarily made, but seems naturally pointed out by the sub- ject itself.

The government of Pisistratus at Athens was a remarkable epoch, distinguished by many peculiar characters. In a chronological view, it is marked as being the first date in Grecian history from which an unbroken series of dates can be deduced in regular succession. It coincides with the reign of Cyrus and the rise of the Persian empire; and consequently coincides with that point of time at which sacred history first touches upon profane. Regarded in a literary view, this era is no less remarkable. It coincides with the commencement of histori- cal writing in prose. The rise of oratory at Athens, and the written drama, were subsequent to this date; and Thales, the founder of philosophy, had yet mam- years to live at the accession of Pisistratus to power.

But if the 55th Olympiad is naturally pointed out as the commencement, the 124th Olympiad is not less properly the termination of the period. That date con- stitutes a remarkable era, both in the civil and literary affairs of Greece. It coin- cides with the deaths of the first successors of Alexander, who were all withdrawn from the scene nearly at the same time. It falls upon the rise of the Achaean league, and upon the establishment of those four monarchies in Asia which arose after the death of Seleucus. This era is farther distinguished as the point of time at which the power of the nux»i«uS first came in contact with the Greeks, the war with Pyrrhus having begun in the last year of this Olympiad. This then was an epoch, at which the states and kingdoms of the ancient world began to take a



new direction; the ascendency of the Romans gradually increasing, till the whole was absorbed in the Roman empire. This date is also remarkable in literary history. Epicurus, Arcesilaus, Strato, and Zeno, flourished at this period: Po- sidippus was exhibiting comedy at Athens; and with the reign of Philadelphus a new literary era commenced, when Alexandria, instead of Athens, became the chief seat of learning. That brilliant and interesting portion of history, which is the subject of the present work, is divided from the times that preceded it by the nature of our information, and from the times that followed by the character of events. In the times which preceded, our information is imperfect; in the times which followed, a new course of affairs began in the history of mankind.

Grecian chronology for the times before Pisistratus demands a separate in- quiry, and is reserved for another occasion. But it may not be improper here to take a short survey of the state of that chronology. In all history, where our information is exact, we direct our attention to some leading events, which mark the beginning of a new order of things : and we distribute our subject according to the character of affairs. But in the early times of Greece, we are obliged to have in view the nature of our information, in the distribution of the subject. In the five centuries and a half which elapsed from Pisistratus to Au- gustus, our materials are ample and authentic; to each successive year may be assigned its proper incident. But in the thousand years which are computed from Cecrops to Pisistratus, this is far from being the case. It is enough, if we can conjecture the probable date of a few principal facts, by comparing the scanty memorials and uncertain traditions which descended to posterity, and from which the learned of a later age composed their chronology. The ancients themselves divided their early history in this manner. Never pretending to equal informa- tion with respect to the dates of the early and the later times, they kept in view the natural and necessary distinction. Censorinus a marks the gradations: Varro tria discrimina temporum esse tradit. Primum, ab hominum principio ad Cata- clysmum prior em: quod per ignorantiam vocetur alyXov. Secundum, a Cataclys- mo prior e ad Olympiadem primam: quod quia in eo multa fabulosa referuntur, fj.v6iKov nominatur. Tertium, a prima Olympiade ad nos: quod dicitur laTopiicov, quia res in eo gesta veris historiis continentur. Africanus b admits a similar dis- tribution ; professing to begin his chronology from the Olympiads, because /*«%/» j*€V OXvfKVtaStav oiiftev aKpifief 'imopfftcu toJV - EiXXvjat, iravrwv ffvyKeyv/xivccv kou koto, [txjfttv a De Die Nat. c. 21. <> Apud Euseb. Prcep. X. 10.


avro'ti tS>v â– npo tov <TviA(f>wvovvTuv. With tlicse plain testimonies, therefore, of the ancients themselves, we cannot but wonder that Dodwell should consider tin- years of the Attic reigns, stated in Euscbius, as entirely satisfactory: or that Corsini should quote for them the testimony of Euscbius without scruple: or that Dr. Hales, in his late chronological work c , should describe the thirty reigns of the Athenian kings and archons, as " one of the most authentic and correct do- " cuments to be found in the whole range of profane history." But even had the declarations of the ancients been wanting upon this point, it must have been ma- nifest, that we should vainly rely upon the dates which have been transmitted to us through a succession of later chronologcrs, from Castor and Thallus to Eu- sebius and Synccllus, for the reigns of the Argive or the Attic kings. For those dates, as we well know, were originally conjectures, formed by the early writers, who, in the deficiency of accurate accounts, computed the times of their ancestors by comparing genealogies, and extracting out of them a probable date. And how could that, which was insufficient evidence at first, become better testimony merely by being frequently repeated, and by the length of time through which it may have passed?

The Trojan era of Eratosthenes, B.C. 1183, and of Apollodorus, B. C. 1184, (which were essentially the same, the one reckoning complete, the other current years,) was adopted by the chronologers who came after them ; as for example, by Dionysius of Halicarnassus d ; by Diodorus e ; by Tatian f , Clemens &, and Eu- sebius h ; and by the Roman writers generally; Cato'; Nepos; Lutatius; Solinus k . But this date, by being thus frequently repeated, acquired no new kind of au- thority as evidence. When the same fact comes reported by several authors, all transcribing from one common source, these authors are not to be considered as so many independent authorities for the matter stated in common, but are all reducible to that one original source of which they are the copies. This plain proposition has not been sufficiently attended to by those who appeal to Dio- dorus or Eusebius as independent witnesses for the date of the Trojan war. Thus Petavius enters into an argument, to prove that Diodorus and Eratosthenes coin- cide, and that their authorities are equivalent upon this point 1 . Corsini adopts the same style of speaking: Primus Oh/mpicus annus in annum a Troja diruta 408

c Vol. I. p. 24 1 . d Ant. I. p. 1 87. Reisk. « I. 5. < Or. ad Gnecos.

« Strom. I. p. 332. " Prep. X. 9. p. 484. A. Apud Dionys. I. p. 187. k Solin. 1. 27.

1 Rat. Temp, pars II. lib. II. 10.

B 2


ex optima Diodori hypothesi convenitâ„¢. Ab Ilii clade ad primam Olymp. 407 anni intercessere; quod ex Diodoro quoque opportunius est observatum n . And Dr. Hales : "Both Eratosthenes and Diodorus Siculus have ascertained it within " a year of each other, by different and independent arguments." But Diodorus H uses no arguments ; enters upon no proofs ; and professes merely to follow Apol- lodorus: onto rtbv TpaitKwv aicokovSais 'AwoAAsScupa) jw Adtjvaia Ti8efi.iv, k. t. A. And the date of Apollodorus was the same, and founded upon the same principles as that of Eratosthenes. This Trojan era, then, is nothing more than a conjectural date originally fixed by Eratosthenes, and derived from him to succeeding chrono- logers.

But although we cannot promise ourselves that degree of certainty to which some have pretended, yet we are not to conclude the uncertainty so great as is supposed by the scheme of Newton. The inference of Newton may be said to be this; that because the Greek writers did not know the true date of the Trojan war within forty or fifty years, therefore they could not know it within three hundred : a proposition which cannot be granted. In the almost total loss of all Ionian histories and memorials, it is hazardous to pronounce upon the degree or amount of contemporary testimony concerning their origin, which might have remained among the Greek cities of Asia. If those monuments of Ionian litera- ture now existed, which were in the hands of Eratosthenes and his contempora- ries, as we should be better qualified to appreciate the soundness of their con- clusions in settling the chronology, so we should probably find, that those con- clusions were formed upon juster reasons than we are now disposed to allow. In the works of the poets who flourished within the two centuries preceding Pisistratus, many notices of contemporary events must doubtless have occurred, contributing to fix the times of great transactions. Thus Callinusi is appealed to as mentioning the Magnesians ; the poet Asius r noticed the luxury of the Samians of his time; Archilochus and Mimnermus mentioned in their poems the events of their own times. About a century later than Archilochus, prose annals began to be composed; and among the first objects which engaged the attention of the first prose writers were the annals of their native cities. Within about fifty years from the time when prose histories began to be written, and within five centuries and a half from the reputed date of the Asiatic colonies, Deiochus composed the annals

m Fast. Att. torn. II. p. xxvi. « Id. p. lxiv. ° Vol. I. p. 32. p I. 5.

1 Clem. Strom. I. p. 333. Strab. XIV. p. 647. r Athen. XII. p. 525. e. f.


of Cyzicus ; Hecatieus wrote the memorials of Ionia ; Charon, the antiquities of Lampsacus; Hellanicus, the history of the/Eolian settlements and of his native island Lesbos. Within less than six centuries from that reputed date, Ion of Chios began to compose the antiquities of his own country. Is it credible, that all these authors should have been so far beyond the reach of all memorials, should have found the local traditions so completely fail them, as to concur in supposing those colonies to have subsisted Jive centuries, or nearly five, which had in reality existed only two? The truth then is to be found between the two opinions. The actual date of the Trojan war was irrecoverably lost ; but an ap- proximation to the truth was possible, and perhaps the Trojan era may be deter- mined within fifty years of the real period.

It is affirmed by Mr. Mitford s , that " none of the early Grecian writers have " undertaken to fix the era of the Trojan war." If this be understood to mean the precise year of that event, it is undoubtedly true. Although, however, they have not undertaken to fix the year, yet they have expressed the period in round numbers and general terms. Isocrates, in three passages of his works, delivers his notion of the date of the Return of the Heraclidse. In the " Archidamus '," whose date was B.C. 366, he tells the Lacedsemonians, that they had been esta- blished in Peloponnesus 700 years. This would give B. C. 1066 for the Return. In the " Panathenaic Oration "," whose date was B. C. 3?i, he states the period again at 700 years. This gives B.C. 10|£. In the oration "On Peace*," whose date was B. C. 356, he again asserts that the Lacedsemonians had been 700 years in Laconia^, which would make the era of the Return B. C. 1056. Ephorus,

  • Vol. I. p. 262. ' Cap. IV. p. 1 18. b. /coo-/o<$ tTtsw — " 'Airi Aumc'fyoi/ Sijaok'ti, toI »wnj-

Cap. LXXXII. p. 275. e. . " trayTtf ai-cr,*. kcu enjiwiarrVa ij jyswXayia, Ka'mp «oX-

  • C. XXXII. p. 178. C. " Xri> l%ivTew t^k i^u/)i<r^ijTi)<ri» T«» x^' k "< *«' «fc

y TV \aK(ha.ifu>vtvv wo'Xiv lii<pt(iptt (ij Kara. 6aXa<r- " yeyoyf \vmvfy*( «5< <fn)<ri TlXovTapx'^, AvKtvfy. §. a."

<rav cipxri) — T V 7«f ft'/urtlav, %v l» iitTauuxrltM; itvttt (Schol. ad Isocrat. tOlll. II. p. 138.) The dif-

tittn olSev oil)' Ivl kMvu* 0S8' tiro o-v/AtpcpSY Kiyiflueav, ferences in the recorded dates for Lycurgus are

Tau'-njv iv ixiyp x?ivy (raXdiyvat — eWqaw. Wolf, doubtless considerable. But those variations have

who published Isocrates in 1551, thus remarks their limits: and perhaps all the varying dates

upon this passage : Plutarchus de eetate Lycurgi are capable of being reconciled, if referred to dif-

legislatoris Lacedcemoniorum dubitat, sed Isocrates ferent periods of the life of Lycurgus. No an-

chronologiam illius hie diserte tradit, cujus fries sit cient author at least has transmitted to us so ex -

penes auctorem. That Wolf should have imagined travagant a computation as this, which would

Lycurgus to be referred to is not so surprising; place Lycurgus 1056 years before the Christian

but it is extraordinary, that a recent editor of Iso- era : least of all could such a computation have

crates, the very learned Dr. Coray, should agree been made by Isocrates. For he fixes the Return

with him ; who observes upon the number ivra- of the Heraclida^ at that very |jeriod in two other


according to the text of Diodorus ', dated the " Return" B. C. 1090. According to our copies of Clemens a , his date was B. C. 107T. If we suppose them to have reckoned eighty years for the interval between the Trojan era and that of the Heraclidae, an allowable supposition, we have these dates for the Trojan era: B.C. 1146, 1120, 1136, 11/0, 1151. Democritus fixed the Trojan war at about B.C. 1150. (See these tables, B. C. 460.) The mean of all these numbers would be B. C. 1145, almost forty years below the date of Eratosthenes. But other writers, who preceded Eratosthenes, computed the time more largely. The date of Herodotus is B.C. 12/0; of the Parian Marble, B.C. 1209. Duris of Samos b adopted the extravagant date of B. C. 1335. Eratosthenes then seems to have fixed upon a middle point, between the longer and shorter computa- tions of his predecessors. Modern critics forget the grounds upon which the eras of the " Trojan war" and the " Return" have been assumed by chronolo- gers, when they attempt to strain the texts of ancient authors into a con- formity with technical dates. Mr. Lange, in his edition of Isocrates c , remarks, upon the number Ituv 'emamcim in Isocrat. HouiadyvaiK. c. 82. Numerus rotundus pro definite 764, incipiens a reditu Heraclidarum ad annum 339 A. C. quo tem- pore hac oratio scripta est. Dr. Coray d goes further, and supposes alteration in the text : tw a.vfipri(Tfi.ei)f Aayytos yp^cratrBai (pfjaiv \<roKparrrp apiSjxi avri tov ai<pt(3ov(, k. t. A.— evMxercu ^ VTOt **' ***< »" EIITAKOSIQN yeyptyBcu iraXa) OKTAKOSK2N- oZtw yap av eyyiov elrj tou aXvjQovs vjco\oyurfj.6s. As if Isocrates had in view that date which was determined by Eratosthenes upon technical principles of his own a century afterwards ! In the same spirit, the editor of the fragments of Ephorus e , remarking upon the variation between his numbers in Diodorus and

passages of his works. By this interpretation of (as Thucyd. 1. 18,) concerning the unsettled state

the present text, he would make Lycurgus con- of Sparta before the legislation of Lycurgus. We

temporary with Eurysthenes and Procles ; a de- must make allowance for the colouring of an ora-

gree of inaccuracy into which Isocrates can hardly tor. The general form of the Spartan government,

be imagined to have fallen. But as this date pre- a monarchy under a double race of kings, existed

cisely coincides with that which he always assigns from the first. Lycurgus introduced no change in

to the Return, and as it is his practice, when that respect. And the expressions of the orator

speaking of the Lacedaemonians, to refer to that may perhaps be justified, as applied to that exter-

epoch in their history, we cannot doubt that the nal form of their constitution.

establishment of the Dorians in Peloponnesus at the x XVI. 76. a Strom. I. p. 337.

Dorian conquest, and not the legislation of Lycur- b Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 337.

gus, is referred to by the orator. Nor shall we c P. 471. d Isocrat. torn. II. p. 209.

hesitate because the expressions seem inconsistent e P. 79. Carolirutae, 1815. with what is delivered to us by other authorities,


in Clemens: His 750 annis apud Diod. XVI. 7b'. ad Oli/mp. 109, 4 xuhtr.i annus 314 ante primam Olympiadcm Herat liilarum rcditui : ut i'jihtr Ephori ratio 13 vel 14 annis distct ah Enttostltcnis rationv. (Icuinix k.itur, p. 337, cum Ep/ioruni dint ab Herarlidis ad ()/i/»/p. 111. 3, numerasse BJMM 735, fttfj AM ^//</ librariorum errore J'alsus dcprclicnditur. Corsini r , speaking of the date assigned to Corcyra by Timieus, (6'00 years after the Trojan war:) Prtr- clare fallitur Ttnwus qtii Corcuram 6'00 annis post Troica deduvtam menwrnt • etenim — si 6*00 anni a Troicis supputentur, deductio ilia in Oli/mp. b"5 imitl This was true, indeed, of the Trojan era of Eratosthenes ; but Timseus computed differently. M. Goeller? reasons in a similar manner upon a date of the historian Philistus. But it is manifest, that the true date of the Return of the Heraclidse was wholly lost to the ancients; that there were great diversities of opinion upon it; that the date of Eratosthenes was offered as an approximation to the truth ; and that to make his era the standard by which to try the texts of older authors, is to invert the order of things ; to substitute inference for proof, and proof for inference. The texts of the older authors are the tests by which Eratosthenes himself is to be tried. In these early dates and eras, by a singular error in reasoning, the authority of Eratosthenes is made to be binding upon his pre- decessors, while those who came after him arc taken for original and independent witnesses in matters which they really derived from his chronology. The num- bers of Isocrates, seven hundred, thrice repeated in his works, are authentic and consistent; the accordance of Ephorus with his master in the same general amount of time still farther establishes the text : and all these passages col- lectively shew, that towards the end of the reign of Agesilaus, the Dorians were supposed to have been established about seven centuries in Peloponnesus. They likewise farther shew, that in those times precise accuracy was not attempted, but that it was thought sufficient to state the periods in general terms and in round numbers.

The Grecian traditions ascend about four centuries above the Trojan war. This space is filled by the Pelasgic di/nash/; by the Hellenes; and lastly by the heroic age, which occupied the century immediately preceding the Trojan era. After that era, we descend to the Dorian conquest; the JEolian colonies; the Ionian colonies. The Return of the Heraclidre produced the war between the Achaeans and Ionians. Out of that war arose the emigration of the Ionian families to Athens. After these events ensued two memorable reigns at Athens, f Fast. Att. torn. II. p. 28. * De Situ Syracus. p. 126.


of Melanthus and Codrus. Upon the death of Codrus, his sons conducted the colony to Asia. The course of these events is consistent with the computations which place 140 years between the Trojan war and the Ionic migration. So far we can proceed downwards. And the Trojan war is a cardinal point, from which we can trace history upward for about four centuries, to Phoroneus and Inachus, and downwards for about 140 years, to Codrus and Neleus. Here a void follows, which it is impossible to fill. No testimonies exist which enable us to deter- mine the amount of the interval between the settlement under Neleus and the Olympiad of Coroebus, an interval filled with important transactions. Iphitus and Lycurgus, Homer and Hesiod, flourished within this period. But its dura- tion no man can pronounce. Eratosthenes and Apollodorus made it 268 years, doubtless not designing that to express the precise amount, but proposing it as a conjectural date, descriptive of the probable interval. From the first Messe- nian war, chronology becomes gradually more certain ; and we can name the dates of the first Messenian war, of the Lydian and Median kingdoms, of the Sicilian colonies, of the Battiadse at Cyrene, of the Cypselidae at Corinth, till we arrive at the times of Cyrus and Croesus and Pisistratus.

The present work proposes to describe a period of 281 years. It includes within it the 55th and the 1 24th Olympiads. It commences with the archon Comias, whose archonship corresponded with B. C. 560, and concludes with the archon Gorgias, who began his year in July B. C. 280. It is arranged in four columns, in each of which the separate subjects are pursued separately. The first column is assigned to the archons ; the second to the civil and military affairs ; the third column is allotted to the philosophers, historians, and orators ; and the fourth to the poets. By the side of the first column are placed the years before the Christian era.

The succession of archons at Athens, a point so material for adjusting Grecian, and especially Attic chronology, was first to be determined ; and we fortunately possess an almost unbroken series for about 200 years, of the most important portion of history. Many lists of the Athenian archons have been published in various works, but all of these lists were more or less inaccurate till the time of Corsini, and on that account of little use in illustrating ancient history. A catalogue of the archons is given in Stanley's "Lives of the Philosophers; 11 " another, by Du Fresnoy ; another, by Dr. Hales, in his first volume k .

One cause of the incorrectness of these lists has been, the not adverting to " Folio, 168;. p, 938, &c. ! Tablettes, torn. I. p. 66, &c. 8vo. 1778. S P. 230—233.


a peculiarity of the Parian Marble; that the compiler places the annual archons who preceded the Peloponnesian war one year higher respectively than the Ju- lian year with which they were in reality conumerary. Hence two archons have been often made out of one. Again; those who have used this document did not always distinguish between what was attested by the Marble, and what was supplied by conjecture, where the Marble was defaced. Hence the Marble is often quoted for that which was only inserted by its editors. Various forms or corruptions of the name of an archon have been sometimes admitted as the names of different archons. From these causes, the catalogues of archons are not so correct and accurate as they might have been rendered. Error was sometimes propagated by authors negligently transcribing the lists of others, without recurring to the original sources. A few examples may be sufficient.

Dr. Hales.


Philombrotus. Pint. 595.

Critias I. Par. M. 594.

Dropides. Philostrat. 598.

Philostratus only says of Dropides, o? /mto. Ho\uva ypZev. And Solon being ar- chon in 594, Dropides was fixed at 593. But the testimony of Philostratus is here destroyed while it is quoted ; for the predecessor of Dropides is made to be, not Solon, but Critias I. on the authority of the Parian Marble. But the Parian Marble 1 is no authority in this case, because the date is obliterated; and Dr. Hales, in his own edition of the Marble" 1 , supplies B. C. 592 for the date of Critias I. Here, then, is an example, in which the conjecture of an editor, and that an erroneous one, has been unwarily adopted as the testimony of the Marble itself.

Dr. Hales. B.C.

495. Pythocrates. Par. Mar. 494. Philippus. Schol. Soph.

Stanley. B.C.

495. (01. 71. 2.) Pythocritus. Marm.

Du Fresxoy. B.C. 495. Philippus, on Pythocritus,

selon les marbres.

494. Philippus, mi Lacratidcs.

These three examples have all an inaccuracy arising from the same cause ; the want of recollection, that the Marble antedates its archons one year. The year 495 belongs to the archon Philippus; as is proved by the author of the life of

' No. 37. m P. 223.


Sophocles : l^&o/ttjjwarjj Trpmy okvft.moS>t Kara, to teirepov ero? ht) apypwos 'ASrjvyo-i 4»<- Xmmv. Dr. Hales has made the two archons change places. Du Fresnoy fluc- tuates between the testimony of the Scholiast and of the Marble, as he under- stood the Marble. But both are reconciled, and in perfect agreement with each other, when the practice of the Marble to place its archons one Julian year too high is remembered. And their joint testimony fills the years thus :


495. 01. 71. 2. Philippus.

494. Pythocritus.

Du Fresnoy.

Dr. Hales. B.C. 490. Phaenippus. Plut.

489. Aristides. Par. M.


491. Hybrilides ou Phaenippus. 490. Aristides. Bataille de Ma- rathon. 489- Aristides.

Stanley. B. C.

491. 01.72.2. Phaenippus. Plut. Hybrilides. Hal. Pausan.

490. 01. 72. 3. Aristides. Plut. Marm.

Plutarch only mentions the archon Phaenippus", to tell us, that he was archon in the year of the battle of Marathon ; and intimates that Aristides was archon immediately after him : fxera <&a.lvnrxov, l<ft ov r\v h> MapaSZvi \tAyrp> tviKQiv, evQbf 'Apt- arei^rji apyvv avayeypavTau. The Parian Marble confirmed this testimony", by mak- ing Phaenippus archon at the year of Marathon, and Aristides archon the year after. In the present state of that monument, Phaenippus is effaced, but his date remains ; while Aristides remains and his date is effaced. The date that remains is equivalent to B.C. 491, to which the battle of Marathon is annexed; a plain argument, that the Marble antedated these epochs a year. But Stanley and Du Fresnoy have so managed these testimonies, that they have disjoined Phaenippus from the battle of Marathon, and have inserted him in the year which was already occupied by Hybrilides. Dr. Hales has rectified the errors of his predecessors.

Dr. Hales. B.C.

481. Calliades. Herod. Par.

Mar. 480. Callias. Diod.

Stanley. B.C.

480. 01. 75.1 . Xanthippus. Mar.

Calliades. Dionys. Diod. 479. Timosthenes. Mar.

Xanthippus. Diod. 478. Adimantus. Mar.

Timosthenes. Diod. 477. Adimantus. Diod.

Du Fresnoy.


481. Callias.

480. Callias. Bat. de Salamine.

n Aristid. c. 5.

No. 49, 50.


Herodotus, the Marble, and Diodorus, all mention Calliades or Callias, (various forms of the same name,) to fix the time of the same event, the battle of Sala- mis ; which happened in an Olympic year, B. C. 480. But because the Marble, according to custom, antedated a year, and placed that battle in 481, Callias is separated from the fact with which he was connected, and two archons are made out of one. Because Stanley did not advert to this peculiarity, the remarkable coincidence of the Marble and Diodorus in the stations of three successive ar- chons is obliterated and lost.

It is needless to accumulate more instances. One example, however, of the hazard of transcribing or quoting at second hand, may be not unseasonable.


393. Arches. Diodor.

The foundation of this error will be best explained in the words of Wesseling. A Dion. Petavio hujus anni archon ex Diodoro constituitur Arches : quern, si penitius cognoscere velis, atque wide natales acceperit, Rhodomanni Latina in- spice. — Nos, inconsiderantiam hanc viro doetissimo ex inspecta leviter Rhodo- manni versione invisitatum archontem exstruenti, condonamusv. Rhodoman had translated; — Athenis, Arches, quam appellitant, dignitatem accepit Demoxtrntus. By some means or other, Arches has found his way into the list of Dr. Hales.

The valuable labours of Corsini have cleared away these errors. And we pos- sess, by the benefit of his diligence, a more perfect catalogue than former chro- nologers had published. We must not, however, withhold from Wesseling his due share of praise. This admirable critic has illustrated the archons, in his notes to Diodorus, so copiously, and has brought together all the testimonies with so much clearness and accuracy, as to supersede and surpass Corsini, within the period embraced by the remains of Diodorus. He who possesses the Diodorus of Wesseling will have no need of Corsini.

We possess the names of about twenty-four annual archons, in the 123 years which intervened between Creon, the first annual archon, B. C. 684, and Comias. In the eighty years which followed, from the year of Comias to the expedition of Xerxes, [B. C. 560 — 480.] the names and stations of about twenty-four more have been recovered. But from B. C. 480 to B. C. 303 we have an unbroken series, by the combined assistance of Diodorus and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. This last-mentioned writer enables us to continue them to B. C. 292. So that

p Ad Diod. XIV. 90. C2


we have an uninterrupted succession of the archons (with one exception, to be mentioned presently) for a space of nearly two hundred years. In this unbroken list, the only real difficulty which occurs is found in the twelve years contained within the 113th, 114th, and 115th Olympiads ; where the text both of Diodorus and Dionysius has suffered mutilation. But by comparing the two together we can correct the one by the help of the other.


B.C. 01. 113. 328. Euthycritus Euthycritus.

327. Hegemm Hegemon.

326. Chremes Chremes.

325. Anticles Anticles.


01. 114. 324. Hegesias Hegesias.

323. Cephisodorus Cephisodorus.

322. Philocles Philocles.

321. Archippus Archippus.

01. 115. 320. Neachmus Neaechmus.

319. Apollodorus Apollodorus.

318. Archippus Archippus.

317. Demogenes Demogenes.

The first lacuna in Diodorus, where Hegemon is omitted, is manifest ; and has been noticed, before Corsini, by Rhodoman ; and the archon Hegemon inserted by Palmerius and Wesseling. Corsini treats the point fully in his ninth disserta- tion. In the rejection of the interpolated archon, Sosicles, Corsini has been anti- cipated by Wesseling s . He has also been anticipated in the insertion of the two omitted archons, between Philocles and Apollodorus, by Rhodoman, (who pro- perly inserts them before Apollodorus, and therefore Corsini ' misrepresents him,) by Dodwell, and by Wesseling".

The omission of Hegesias in Dionysius is pointed out by Corsini, who mi- nutely and accurately" examines that list of Dionysius. He shews, that out of seventy archons, only sixty-eight appear in the present text : he shews, from Dio-

i Dinarch. p. 650. Reisk. the Tables, B. C. 327, 2.

r Sect. 15, where, however, he observes, Mc- ' Ad Diod. XVII. 112.

nychione mense Porus victus, not being aware of ' P. 14. torn. II. dissert. 9. the corruption, or error, in the text of Arrian, a See Wess. ad Diod. XVIII. 44.

where the month of that battle is specified. See * P. 24— 29. dissert. IX.


nysius himself, that in the present list the first twenty-six arc complete: he proves, from Dionysius himself?, that Cephisodorus [B.C. 323] is the 13th archon from Ewmetus: but in this list of seventy z , Cephisodorus is only the 12th from Euoe- netus ; one archon then is wanting before Cephisodorus, and that archon is He- gesias.

But still the number is incomplete; one name of the seventy is wanting. This Corsini a supplies by imagining two archontes eponymi in one year; an unskilful expedient, which would not remove the difficulty. As if Dionysius, in computing seventy years, would have reckoned the archons of a single year as two years. Nor does Corsini produce any example of two archontes eponymi in one year. Another name, then, is wanting after the archon Philocles. [B. C. 322.] We may gather from Diodorus compared with Dionysius, that the next twenty ar- chons, after Philocles, are complete ; the defect, then, is in the latter years of the list. Corsini affirms that the last fifteen of the seventy are perfect, because Dio- nysius reckons fifteen years between Anaxicrates [B. C. 307] an( * Philippus. Between these, then, he thinks nothing is wanting. This may be doubted : for by the terms, Philippus should be the sixteenth from Anaxicrates, and not the fifteenth : otherwise the time of exile is not fifteen but fourteen years. Dinar- chus returned from exile in the year of Philippus ; he was absent fifteen years, and returned in the sixteenth b . The seventieth name therefore seems wanting somewhere in the last ten years of the series, below the present limits of the history of Diodorus. With this single exception, we have an unbroken series, verified in most cases by many collateral evidences, from B. C. 481 to B. C. 292.

In the present Tables, Themistocles is inserted as archon of the year B. C. 481. Since Corsini excludes Themistocles, it is necessary to examine his claims for admission. Corsini contends , 1. That the construction of the Pirreus was com- pleted in two years, B. C. 478, 479, when the fasti are full. 2. That Themisto- cles could not be archon before B. C. 477, because in that year he was choragus; from which office his dignity would have exempted him. This latter argument will have weight, when it shall be proved that he who had been archon was afterwards exempt on that account from the Xtnovpylai to which his property subjected him. The immunity of the archon only lasted during the continuance of his office d . As to the first argument, it is nowhere in Plutarch or elsewhere

y Ad Ammajum p. 728. Reisk. c Tom. I. p. 36.

• Dionys. Dinarch. p. C48 — 651. Reisk. d No more than this is implied by Demosthe-

a P. 29. b See the Tables, B. C.392. nes, Leptin. p. 465. Reisk. or by his argument in


expressed, that the Piraeus was commenced after the defeat of Xerxes, but only that the work was seriously prosecuted and completed within those two years. Thucydides seems to. imply that the building was commenced some while before, and then laid aside. And as two years of Olymp. 74 have no archon, Themisto- cles might have filled one of those years e .

Thucydides f thus speaks; eireioe tov Heipaiag ra. Xonra 6 Qe/J-ioTOKX^ oiKo§ofj.e7v [this refers to B. C. 479> 478, ev$ii( fxera ryv My^cov avayaptjoivj virrjpKTO &' avTOv irpoTepov hrt Ti;? eicemv apyys yc Ka-r eviavrov 'AQyvaioit "hp£e. PausaniasS — b Yleipaieiig Vtjjxos itpoTtpov itp\v tj Qef*.ioTOK\r/i vipZev htiveiov ovk yjv' <$>akvjpov te — tovto o<pioiv eit'ivew yjv. Qe/xiaTOKX^f §e «? w|e (to!? yap i:\iovaiv iTtn-rfiuoTtpos b Heipaievf ecpaivero — ) tovto <r<f>l<nv eviveiov itvai KaTeo-Keva.o-a.To. Themistocles therefore was archon: and archon before the Median war. Corsini, indeed, has proved that he could not have been archon after it, when the fasti are full. Why then should we reject the testimony of the Scholiast 11 , who affirms that Themistocles was archon the year before the Median war — irpo Se t«v MyfiiKuv rjpZev eviavrov tva — when it is in entire conformity with Thucydides upon the subject?

An unlucky theory which Dodwell has adopted, respecting the archons Pha- don, Blon, and Apseudes, has led him to derange the archons of that period, and to falsify their chronology to such a degree, that, in a series of forty-five years, [B. C. 476 — 432] twenty-one archons are out of their proper places. There is no need to discuss this question, since he has been sufficiently refuted by Wes- seling' and Corsini k . Notwithstanding the bold alterations of Dodwell, the chro- nology of this period is still safe, and the archons, upon the joint authority of Diodorus and Dionysius, (with many collateral witnesses,) are placed in their proper stations.

The Attic year, after the archonship of Apseudes, [B.C. 433,] commenced at midsummer with the month Hecatombaeon ; which from that date we know to have been the first month of the Attic year. About this there is no difference of opinion. But it is not so easy to determine what was the beginning of the Attic year before that period. Some writers have held, that it always began at

the same oration, p. 463; where he asserts, that c Corsini resumes the subject, torn. III. p. 146.

only five or six citizens enjoyed the immunity, where he merely repeats his former arguments. But it 1s not credible, that the number should f I. 93. s 1,1,2.

have been no more than five or six, if every mau h Ad Thucyd. I. 93. ' Ad Diod. XI. 48, 89.

who had served the office of archon had enjoyed k In his ninth dissertation, Fast. Att. torn. \\,

the immunity during life. p. 51— 58.


midsummer; others, that it originally began at the winter solstice; that Game- lion was the first month, and that the change was made, and Hccatombicon be- came the first, in the year of Pythodorus, the first year of the 87th Olympiad. Let us hear the arguments of each.

Jackson ' thus states the question : " The Attic Greeks began their year at or " about the summer tropic, or at the new moon which was nearest to it : this is " agreed by all. But Scaliger thinks that they had two beginnings of their " year: one, the oldest, at the winter solstice; the other, at the summer tropic. " But for this he has not the least evidence or foundation. And our learned

  • Mr. Dodwell, following Scaliger, thinks that the institution of the year at the

" summer solstice was occasioned by Meton's cycle of 19 lunar years, which

" took its epoch from that cardinal point of the year. Meton probably made

" the epoch of his lunar cycle commence at the same time with the ancient solar

" year. It is, I think, sufficiently evident, that the old Attic year began about

" the summer tropic, before the cycle of Meton and Euctemon was known."

He quotes Thucyd. II. 1. Plato de Leg. lib. VI. where the magistrates are di- rected to meet eire/Sav /«AA»7 6 vtof tviavrhf fxera ra{ depivaf rpemai tZ ewtom pvrpit yet-

eaSai and Theod. Gaza de Mensibus ; 'Aflijvaib* t«5 mavrov yfxovro avo 'E*oto/x-

fiatavof, k. r. A. " Had any alteration been then made, Thucydides and Plato

" could not, in speaking of times contemporary with this alteration, have avoided " taking notice of it." In another part of his work"' he argues thus: " Mr. Dod-

  • well thinks, after Scaliger, that the old Attic year before Meton's cycle began

" at the winter solstice. Petavius (Doct. Temp. I. 12.) has proved against Sca-

" liger, that the most ancient Attic year commenced at the summer solstice : and " has given sufficient evidence from ancient testimonies : Festus Avienus —

Sed primccva Meton exordia sumsit ah anno Torreret rutilo cum Phoebus sidere Cancrum. " Theod. Gaza de Mensibus — apyr; rov erovf avo ipoitm Bepivwv 'ABrpicuotf, i( £</urA/- " kio{ \tyei' — apyy tov trovf 'E<caT0/x/3a<wv TpowtKOs wv Sepivof. aAAa fts/p km (opnpi Aftj- " vaiot Tore yyov ^//.OTeAiJ, km e$vov jxeyaXoitpeatii tm ijA«a> oif wept rpvtas em' e&* km to«/- <£ vopux t» fj-vpit 'E«aToyx/3a(wv, Kpovix vporepov *aAoi//xev», o>< nXovToy/pf <fnj<ri n .

On the other side of the question, Corsini , who follows Dodwell in fixing the

1 Chron. Ant. vol. I. p. 23, 24, 25. p. 23. Reisk. — Kfmlm pjvo<, » ni 'YxampPmZ** «a-

m Vol. II. p. 44. X«i«rj.

■Plutarch had said this, Vit. Thes. c. 12. 1. 1. ° Fast. Att. torn. I. p. 91, 92.


beginning of the year at Gamelion, before B. C. 432, although he avoids the blunder of Dodwell, by supposing Apseudes to have held his office eighteen months, instead of six^, reasons in this manner; Civiles Atheniensium annos [before 01. 87.] a Gamelione incepisse plurima ostendunt qua Dodwellus accu- rate comjdectitur (Dissert. I. s. 6.) atque Mud imprimis, quod embolimus mensis " Posideon II." appellari consueverit. Clariori tamen longeque certiori argu- mento esse poterit, quod Cleostrati simulque Harpali cyclus quo Athenienses ante Metonem ulebantur a solstitio hyberno ducebatur. Avienus —

Nam qua solum hiberna novem putat athere volvi

Ut luna spatium redeat, vetus Harpalus, ipsa

Ocyus in sedes momentaque prisca reducit.

Sed primava Meton exordia sumsit ab anno

Torreret, et cetA Scaligerus vetus Mud anni principium a Gamelione ad Hecatombaonem trans- latum esse putavit 01. 53. 3. [B. C. 566] quo majora Panathenaa festa sunt in- stituta. Petavius—fatetur se ignorare quando Gamelion primus anni mensis esse desierit, longe tamen antiquius hoc institutum esse putavit quam Scaligero videbatur. He himself thinks, with Dodwell, that the change was made B. C. 432. — Licet perspicua veterum testimonia deesse ego videam, quibus annus usque ad 01. 87. semper a Gamelione incepisse ostendatur, facile tamen id ex ipso pe- riodorum initio, quibus Athenienses ante Metonem utebantur, inferri posse puta- verim.

He has an argument from the age of Socrates : " who lived seventy years, and " was born in Thargelion of the archon Apsephio : but if the archon commenced " at Hecatombaeon, or Midsummer, this would be Thargelion B. C. 468; and " Socrates could not be seventy at his death in the year of Laches. It was there- " fore Thargelion B. C. 469, and Apsephio commenced at Gamelion."

He reasons from the Parian Marble s : " This monument, in all the dates pre-

p Dodwell supposes Apseudes to have com- 1 These lines are thus represented in Fast. Att.

menced his office at Gamelion, or January, B. C. but in the edition of Buhle, (Arat. torn. II. p.

432, to have been deposed or removed in six 1 77) more correctly —

months, and Pythodorus to have succeeded in Nam qui solem hiberna novem

Hecatombaeon, or July, B. C. 432. By this ar- Harpalus ipsam

rangement of Apseudes, he has incurred a dim- Ocius, &c.

culty from which he vainly endeavours to escape. r Tom. II. p. 46. dissert. IX.

Annal. Thucyd. p. 139. » Tom. III. p. lit xli.


" ceding B. C. 432, has the archon a year too high, while in the dates subsequent V " to that year the archons are placed in their true stations j" — archontes omnes ante Olymp. 87. 1. exeuntibus, post Olympiudis ejus ini/inm 'main films O/i/m- picis annis adscribit. Sic Phainippus archon exeunti anno Ol. 72. 2. adscribi de- bet; quamvis in Dionysii sententia anno tertio ineunti adscribatur, quod revera Phainippus primis etiam anni tertii mensibus imperaverit.

He argues', that Calliades began in Gamelion : Xerxis transit us in Hellesponto,

pugnaque ad Thermopylas, qua; Calliadis archontis anno adscribuntur, ante O/.75

initium contigere : Salaminia vero pugna, qua: eodem Calliade archonte commissa

fuit, Boedromione, adeoque Ol. 75. 1. incepto pugnataj'uit. Ergo Calliadis annus

postremos sex anni quarti, totidemque proximos anni primi menses complectitiu .

FreVet believed the change to have been made earlier than the 87th Olympiad". On ignore de quel temps est le changernent, qui a porte te commencement de fan- nee civile du solstice d'hiver au solstice (Fete. Dodwell a place Vepoque du

changernent arrive dans Vannee Athenienne a peu pres vers le temps de Melon.

Mais il a moins prouve cette opinion quil ne Va supposee. Dodwell a eu

raison de supposer un changernent arrive dans le commencement de Vannee Athe- nienne, mais je crois quit a eu tort (Ten placer Vepoque aussi bas quil rajait, cest-a-dire, a la premiere annee de la 87 c . Olympiade. Larcher x follows Cor- sini, but does not go into any proofs upon the subject.

There are, therefore, two questions for consideration: first, whether the Attic year ever began at all at the winter solstice : secondly, whether it ceased to com- mence at Gamelion, in B. C. 432. This latter question alone is material to our present subject.

Some of the arguments adduced by Dodwell and Corsini are open to objection. 1. The insertion of the intercalary month after Posideon does not prove the change to have been made at the cycle of Meton ; because Posideon II. re- mained the intercalary month after Meton's time no less than before : Perspicue ex Ptolemai testimonio colligitur Olymp. 99. 3. [the archonship of Evander] embolimum tamen mensem Posideonem adhuc Juisse: idque sequioribus etiam temporibus obtinuisse ex Sponiana inscriptione manifestissime demonxfraturT. The utmost that can be inferred from the station of the intercalary month, is, that Posideon was once the last month of the year : when it ceased to be the

« Tom. 111. p. 164. * Chron. Herodot. p. 543, 558, 559.

u Mem. Acad. torn. XXVI. p. 103, 164. * Fast. Att. torn. I. p. 94, 95.



last is not intimated : still less is it proved that Posideon continued to be the last month till the cycle of Meton. 2. The argument from Avienus is equivocal. Since the word primava seems rather to imply, that Meton adhered to the old beginning of the year, from which Harpalus had deviated. And in this sense it is understood by Jackson. 3. The archon Calliades proves nothing in favour of the theory of Corsini. Diodorus is not a Valid witness. It is his practice, as any one knows who is familiar with his history, to condense into one year trans- actions which occupied parts of two successive years. The season of military action (after the cycle of Meton at least, as all agree) did not coincide with the Attic year: a campaign, which was begun under one archon, would be completed in the first months of the year of his successor. Hence, not so much from inac- curacy, as from the necessity of the case, Diodorus frequently places the com- mencement of a transaction under the year of that archon in whose time it was completed. He has done this in the case of the expedition of Xerxes. That expedition coincided with Olymp. 75- 1. in its conclusion; Diodorus 2 therefore relates the beginning in that year : at the same time that he names the archon, he names the Olympic year, anticipating both. Herodotus indeed mentions the archon Calliades ; but he mentions him to shew the year of the battle of Sala- mis. Herodotus, then, proves that Calliades was archon in Boedromion B. C. 480 ; which was never doubted — he does not prove that Calliades was in office nine months before that date. And that Herodotus did not commence the year from the winter solstice may be collected from his own expressions in another passage of his history 3 . See the Tables, B. C. 479- Dionysius b , also quoted by Corsini, only states, that Calliades was archon Olymp. 75. koJS ov yj>ow» carpaTtvo-e "Ettpfys ht\ t>?v 'EAAa&a — a general statement, which by no means affirms that he was archon when Xerxes passed the Hellespont. 4. The argument from the age of Socrates is this : had he been born in Thargelion B. C. 468, he would have been only sixty-nine complete in Thargelion of the archon Laches, May or June B. C. 399. It is therefore inferred that he was born in B. C. 469; that is to say, his birth happened in Thargelion of Olymp. 77. 3, and not in Thargelion of Olymp. 77- 4 - But this inference is defeated by the chronology of the birth of Socrates himself, as it is stated by Apollodorus and Thrasyllus : both of whom place his birth in the fourth year of that Olympiad, and not in the third: tyev-

1 XI. 1. * IX. 121. " IX. p. 1739. Reisk. c Apollodor. apud Laert. II. 44.



(Ay/j.0KpiT6s), u( Spd(TvkXo(, Kara to rpirov ho( -rijf i^o^Koo-T^< km i/Sbo'/xijc iXv^ttaHof, maun?, (pyo-l, irpefffivTtpos ZwKpanvf' 1 . Both these chronologers, then, supposed So- crates to be born in Thargclion of the 4th year of the 77th Olympiad, or May B. C. 468. And the year of Apscphio, in their opinion, coincided with the Olympic year. At the period of his death, in Thargclion of the archon Laches, Socrates would have just entered his seventieth year: a term of life sufficiently corresponding with the description, ytyows «/3S«ju.ij/fovTa try, in Apollodorus and Demetrius'", understood of current years. The expressions of Plato f — e/33©/*ij*eyra km irXeiso — might seem to be at variance with these computations. But the au- thority of Plato is perhaps of less value in this case, from his known inaccuracy upon such points. Intent upon greater things, he is negligent of years and dates. Historical precision is nowhere his object. It must be farther observed, that if the age of Socrates might seem to require that the year should commence at Gamelion, other cases occur which require the archon to commence at mid- summer. Lysias was born in the year of Philoclcs : and was twenty-two years older than Isocrates, who was born in Ol. 86. 1, and in the year of Lysimachus. Now as there are twenty-two archons between Philoclcs and Lysimachus, it is plain that Lysias was born towards the end of the year of Philocles, and that Philoclcs was in office till midsummer B. C. 458. Again; Lysias was forty-seven at his return from Thurium, in the end of the year of Callias: and as there are forty-six archons between Philocles and Callias, this is also an argument that Lysias was born at the end of the year of Philocles, and that Philocles was in office till midsummer B. C. 458. otherwise Lysias would have been in his 48th and not in his 47th year, at his return to Athens, in B. C. 411. Euripides, who was born in Boedromion B. C. 480, was twenty-five at the Dionysia of the ar- chon Callias. Had that archon commenced at Gamelion, those Dionysia would have fallen upon his third month instead of his ninth; or March B. C. 456, when Euripides would have only been twenty-three complete. The Peliades were therefore exhibited rather in the ninth month of Callias, or March B. C. 455, and that archon commenced at Hecatombaeon. It may be also inferred, that the Dionysia of the abovementioned archon Philocles were in the end of his year, or March B. C. 458; because the Agamemnon of jEschylus was exhibited ewt QiKokXiovs apyjmot; QXvjAniati oyboyiKocrrvj tTti Sevrep-Ji. If Plmocles had begun his office at Gamelion, that exhibition would have fallen upon his third month, and

d Laert. IX. 41. e Apud Laert. II. 44. ' Apol. Socrat p. 17. d.



consequently would have happened in the preceding Olympic year, or Olymp. 80. 1. As it fell upon the end of his year, and Olymp. 80. 2, or spring B. C. 458, Philocles must have commenced at Hecatombaeon: which confirms the con- clusion drawn from the age of Lysias. More examples to the same purpose might be produced ; but these are enough to shew, that the argument derived from the age of Socrates is insufficient for determining the question.

The arguments of Corsini, then, are reduced to that single one founded upon the dates of the Parian Marble ; an argument of great weight, which might go far to prove that the Attic year before the cycle of Meton commenced at Game- lion. But the authority of the Marble is hardly sufficient to establish the point, unless supported by some collateral proofs : much less, to establish it, when other authorities appear against it. To the inference drawn from the Mar- ble we may oppose the silence of contemporary writers, when they had a fair occasion of alluding to the change. The Roman writers are careful to inform us of the change of stile in the Roman year: it may be presumed, that the Greek or Attic writers would have done the same, had any such change fallen within their own times.

Larchers, who follows Corsini and Dodwell, has added no new arguments, but has made an observation which deserves notice. L'annee civile des Atheniens concourant alors avec Vannee Olympique, [after the cycle of Meton,] les auteurs qui parlerent des temps anterieurs a cette etahlissement fixerent presque tou- jour s les dates, comme sil netoit point arrive de revolution dans Vannee civile, et comme si cette annee avoit toujours commence avec Vannee Olympique. This observation would be applied to some of the preceding cases : as to Arg. Aga- memnon, where the Dionysia of the archon Philocles are made to fall within Olymp. 80. 2; or to Laert. II. 44, where Thargelion of Apsephio is brought within 01. H. 4. But it is obvious that such passages do not favour the system of Corsini. They are obstacles in the way. They must be disposed of by sup- posing the authors inaccurate and inattentive to the change of stile. This is doubtless possible: and such passages might give way to positive testimony; such as the testimony in the case of the Roman consuls h : Hi primi consules Calend. Januar. magistratum inierunt. But in the absence of all positive evi- dence, the presumption is, that the Attic and Olympic year were conumerary, when they are affirmed to be so by any such texts of ancient authors. Besides, g H£rodote totri. VII. p. 543. h Cassiodor. Chron.


there is an inconsistency in the observation of Larcher. For the whole argu- ment derived from the Parian Marble is founded upon the supposition, that the author of that monument attended to the change of stile; while such authors as Apollodorus and Thrasyllus arc supposed to have neglected it. Is it proba- ble, that this material change in the Attic year, in the 87th Olympiad, if any such change existed, should have been overlooked by all other writers, even by the best chronologers, and should have been observed only by one nameless au- thor, of the age of Tinueus?

The first column, then, of the present Tables, contains the archons; recites the testimonies upon which their stations are assigned to them; and supposes them to commence at Hecatombaeon, or July. Those, who still incline to agree with Dodwell and Corsini upon this latter point, will raise the date of the births of Lysias and Socrates, and the time of some few dramatic didascalia, preceding the representation of the Medea in B. C. 431, one year higher respectively.

The second column in the Tables is reserved for civil and military events. It may be asserted, that, notwithstanding the labours of Dodwell and Corsini, not- withstanding the elaborate and valuable history of Mr. Mitford, this portion of the chronology is not yet arranged in a manner to satisfy the student of ancient history; and that something still remained to be done, in order to bring it to that degree of accuracy and clearness of which the subject was capable. The labours of Dodwell are highly valuable. His copious exhibition of the original authorities is eminently useful to the reajjer of Grecian history, or to the com- piler of Grecian chronology. Dodwell, however, treats only a part of the present period ; and his chronology is not free from considerable defects. Some of his erroneous theories (for when Dodwell errs, he errs upon system, and not through negligence) have been examined and refuted by Corsini and others. Some, however, remained untouched. Corsini does not lend much assistance in this part of the subject; since it did not fall within the scope and object of his work to treat the civil affairs minutely. Nor has Mr. Mitford fully supplied what was wanting in the chronology. While his attention is engaged with political and philosophical speculations, and with the facts themselves, (in illustrating which, he is far superior to any former writer,) he has not always been diligent in the dates of his history'. Within the period embraced by Thucydides and Xeno-

' No reference is here intended to Mr. Mit- himself a follower of Newton, and dissatisfied with ford's early Grecian chronology, contained in his the vulgar systems. That belongs to another in- first volume : in which he boldly and fairly avows quiry.


phon, he generally follows Dodwell, and is sometimes misled by his guide. An example will be found in the date of the Athenian empire, which is examined in the present work, in the appendix to B. C. 477- 1° the times of Philip and Alexander, where no such writer as Dodwell had preceded him, Mr. Mitford has often left the arrangement of the dates to future investigators. The reader will see an instance, by comparing the Asiatic campaigns of Alexander, recorded in these Tables, [B. C. 334 — 325,] with the observations contained in the appendix there referred to.

The third and fourth columns are assigned to the literary chronology. One of these is allotted to the prose writers, the other to the poets. Various learned men have illustrated portions of the literary chronology, by collecting the de- tached notices which are yet extant : but as they have chiefly compiled such tables as supplements or appendages to some other work, they have executed their task for the most part in a brief and summary manner.

The earliest collection of this kind appears to be the compilation of the cele- brated Scaliger, written in the Greek language, and entitled Ywayarpi 'loropiKij. — 'OAu/MnaSow avaypa<prj. Scaliger himself thus describes his own work k : A nobis partim ex editis partim ex nondum editis scriptoribus collectam ; qu<z non solum ad Eusebiana sed etiam ad memoriam veteris historice illustrandam magno pra- sidio erit. In the table of contents prefixed, the piece is described as 'laropiuv "Zwaywyvj, Collectanea Historiarum partim ex iis scriptoribus qui nondum editi sunt, partim ex iis qui editi. This work is a chronicle of affairs from the Olym- piad of Corcebus to the end of the 249th Olympiad, [B. C. 176 — A. D. 220] occupying thirty pages [p. 313 — 343] of his edition of the Chronicon of Eu- sebius. The chronicle is interspersed with notices of the times of ancient authors extracted from Eusebius and other sources. It is followed by a list of Olympic victors; [p. 343 — 350.] and these are followed by lists of ancient kings, of whom he has collected twenty dynasties, beginning with the kings of Egypt, and ending with the kings of Persia who succeeded the Arsacidae. [p. 351 — 399.] As that work of Scaliger s has had the singular fortune of being generally quoted as an ancient piece, this description of its contents will not be thought unsea- sonable.

Indeed, it is truly unaccountable by what chance so many learned men, from Meursius and Vossius down to the present day, should persevere in appealing

k P. 431. Euseb. Chron. edit. Ainst. 1658.



to this piece as if it were an ancient monument. Vossius, throughout the whok- of his treatise " de Historicis Greeds," refers to the " anonymous author of the " 'OkufMiiabw 'Avaypatf>r)" with entire satisfaction. Meursius has corrupted texts of ancient authors, to adapt them to the mistakes of Scaliger: see a memorahk* in- stance pointed out hy Bentley 1 . Petitus has corrected texts by this piece: Cor- rectionis nostra [of Olymp. O. for Olymp. 6. in Suid. v. Afo^t/Ao; m ] fundus est unonymus auctor in descriptione Olympiadum ad annum primum Olymp. JO". Jonsius employs much labour in refuting the errors of the * anonymous author" from whom he supposes Suidas to have copied. PerizoniusP quotes, as authority, ~Zwayvrff)v 'Iarop/cSv a Scaligero editam: againi, error in his: quod Euseb. in Chrvn. fuEC tradatur dicere, cum occurrant in anonymi Olympiadum catalogo*.

More recent critics might have learned the true author from Bentley, who points him out to be Scaliger in many passages of his Dissertation on Phalaris*. Stanley had already done it before him in the notes to /Eschylus : Viris doctis erratum comperimus ; qui Josephi Scaligeri Grceca Eusebio adjuncta quasi uno- nymi cujusdam untiqui auctoris (aliquando non sine infelicissimo eventu) addu- cunt*. In another place" he remarks — Quod si animadvert isset Meursius, Dio- genem Laertium non temere correxisset: neque, ut Leo Allatius (de Script. So- crat.) errorem secutus fuisset Josephi Scaligeri (quern pro anonymo qimpium auctore sumit uterque) Aphepsionem ad Olymp. "J4 constituentis. Bentley, in what he has written concerning this mistake of Meursius", may have borrowed a hint from Stanley.

After Bentley, Kuster* has more distinctly described this piece and its author; has admonished the learned world of their mistake; and has expressed his won- der that the mistake should have been committed. But notwithstanding his admonition, the same error has been propagated down to the present time; and many recent, and some living critics, have continued to quote the " anonymous

1 Diss. Phalar. p. 282, 283.

m The correction is judicious. But the au- thority to which Petitus appeals is no other than the authority of Suidas v. TlpaTlta*;, whose words Scaliger has transcribed. See the Tables, B. C. 499, 4.

» Miscell. III. 14.

n Hist. Philosoph. Scriptor. 1. 9, treating of Theopompus.

p Ad .Elian. V. H. XII. 35. ■» Ad XI. 1.

r And yet, in his note to III. 21, he suspects the real author : Auctor, sive is fueiit Scaligtrus, sice alius — .

• See pages 214, 158, 282. ed. 1699. » Ad Choeph. V. 1.

â– Ad ^schyl. p. 706.

  • Diss. Phalar. p. 282.

â– In his note upon Suidas, v. Aoo-t<. torn. II. p. 417.


" author of the Olympiads." Duker a refers to the piece as an ancient testimony. Heyne, in the last edition of Apollodorus b , quotes anonymum descript. Olym- piadum, 80. 1. as authority for a fragment of Apollodorus. And these anonymi Olympiades appear regularly in his Index of Ancient Authors. The editor of the fragments of Antimachus does the same: Floruit Antimachus, ut Diodorus prodidit, cui auctor t% 'OXv^ma^av ' Avaypcuprjs assentitur, &c. c M. Goller, in his dissertation de Ortu Syracusarum d , after quoting Diodorus, cites the author 'Av«- ypcupys 'OXvpnialoiv ad calcem Eusebii, apparently not knowing that the words which he cites are no other than the words of Diodorus himself, which Scaliger had transcribed. We can hardly imagine that all those, who have so strangely mistaken the authority of this work, can have quoted from actual inspection.

This collection, made by Scaliger, is far from accurate. Bentley e has pointed out some oversights, and has remarked, that " this great man mistook himself, " either through haste, or by trusting too much to memory." The inaccuracies may be partly ascribed to a want of sufficient attention to the value of authori- ties. He often draws his materials from Diodorus or Eusebius, neglecting the surer testimonies of Xenophon or the orators. And yet when we consider, that he had no predecessor in such a work, and that the plan and arrangement was original and his own, we shall give him due credit for having performed so much. His method of giving the archons, and of citing the original words of Diodorus and others, where his plan permitted him to do so, is judicious.

A literary chronology was projected by Gray. He describes his scheme in a letter to Dr. Wharton f : " You ask after my chronology. It was begun, as I told " you, almost two years ago, when I was in the midst of Diogenes Laertius, &c. " My intention in forming this table was not so much for public events, though " these too have a column assigned to them; but rather in a literary way, to " compare the time of all great men, their writings, and their transactions. I " have brought it from the 30th Olympiad, where it begins, to the 113th; that " is, 332 years. [B. C. 66o — 328.] My only modern assistants were Marsham, " Dodwell, and Bentley." Had this work been completed by a writer of Gray's

a Ad Thucyd. V. 49. b Vol. I. p. 412. ' "page was to consist of nine columns: one for

c Antimachi Reliquue, p. 9. He is however " the Olympiads : the next for the archons : the

warned of his error by Wolf, p. 124, 125. " third for the public affairs of Greece : the three

d P. 126. e Diss. Phal. p. 214. " next for the philosophers : and the three last,

f Dated April 25, 1749. In this table, "every " for the poets, historians, and orators."


taste, learning, and accuracy, it would have undoubtedly superseded the necessity of any other undertaking of the same kind. But since no part of this compila- tion appears now to exist, the fact of its having been designed only serves to shew the want of such a work.

What Mr. Gray projected, but did not accomplish, has been, in part at least, performed by Dr. Musgrave: who has exhibited seventy-five years of the dra- matic chronology, in the Chronologia scenica prefixed to his edition of Euripides. That piece is a valuable specimen of the literary chronology. The reference- are given, and the whole is executed after a method far more exact and critical than that adopted by Scaliger, or by any other compiler of similar tables. Tin- present work has many obligations to the Chronologia scenica. In some in- stances, where it was found necessary to differ from Musgrave, the reasons for that dissent are stated in the proper places.

In the third and fourth columns, then, of the present Tables, it is proposed, in the words of Gray, " to compare the times of great men, their writings, and their

    • transactions." The third column contains the philosophers, historians, and

orators. What was to be told of the philosophers was capable of being com- pressed within a narrower compass than the plan of Gray proposed. Their times and chronology, in the early periods, are little known to us. In the chronology, for instance, of Solon, there are great difficulties. The substance of what we know concerning his time will be found in the Appendix?. We can arrange with precision the times of Anaxagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle; but the dates for the births or deaths of Pythagoras, Xenophanes, Anaximenes, are wholly doubtful and uncertain. In these cases I have been careful to record the con- tradictory or doubtful testimony, that the degree and amount of the uncertainty might be brought into view. The investigator of these ancient monuments should not set out upon his inquiry with the persuasion that it is his office to clear every doubt, and to settle every difficulty. He should rather proceed with the determination of stating the exact proportion and amount of the uncertainty which exists ; and if, among many positions that are certain, some appear doubt- ful, he will be careful to specify these ; to separate and distinguish the one from the other; and to remember, that when the two are blended together, they will appear to stand upon the same authority, and the credit of what is true will be impaired by its admixture with what is false or doubtful.

I C. 1", Kings of Lydia: under the article Crcesus. e



In treating the historians, two things were to he done. The times of the his- torian himself were to be described, and the periods of history which his work embraced were to be marked : two points of time not necessarily coincident. Thus Herodotus is mentioned at B. C. 478, where his history terminates ; but the memorials of his life must be looked for nearly half a century below that date. The historical work of Callisthenes is noticed at B. C. 387; but: Callisthe- nes himself flourished in the reign of Alexander 11 .

In the extant works of the orators, the dates of many pieces are accurately fixed by internal evidence or ancient testimony. There are others, of which, al- though we cannot assign the actual year, yet we can approach it very nearly ; although the dates are uncertain, yet we can define the limits of that uncertainty. As, for example, the oration of Demades, of which we have a fragment, must have fallen between B. C. 326 and B.C. 318: the oration against Aristogiton was after the battle of Chseronea, and before the flight of Harpalus : the oration of Lysias Imtp Mavrrftov was soon after B. C. 394. These, then, are inserted at no great distance from their actual dates. The same remark is to be applied to some dramatic pieces in the fourth column. The dates of the ' AvSpunoppaieTyf of Strattis, and the Aavdrj of Sannyrio, are unknown; but we know that they were subsequent to the archonship of Diodes. I have therefore introduced the men- tion of these pieces at B. C. 407. It is not pretended in these cases to define the year ; it is only proposed to record the extent of what is ascertained concern- ing their chronology'.

The fourth and last column belongs to the poets. In the literary history of this department, by far the largest space is occupied by the tragic and comic poets of AthensJ. Particles of information preserved to us from the works of

h In the Appendix, c. 21, will be found the names, in chronological order, of the philosophers, historians, and orators, who are mentioned in the Tables.

1 These passages in the Tables are distinguished thus ( ).

j The following is a list of the poets, not dra- matic, who are inserted in the fourth column : —

1. Stesichorus, at B. C. 553.

2. Ibycus, 560. 539.

3. Anacreon, 559. 531. 525.

4. Hipponax, 546. 539.

5. Theognis, B. C. 544.

6. Phocylides, 544.

7. Simonides Ceus, 556. 525. 476. 467.

8. Melanippides, 520.

9. Telesilla, 510.

10. Lasus, 504.

11. Pindarus, 518 — 446.439.

12. Timocreon Rhodius, 471.

13. Bacchylides, 450.431.

14. Choerilus Samius, 479.

15. Melanippides junior, 520.

16. Panyasis, 489. 457.


the ancient critics, or from old inscriptions, enable us to fix the dates of some dramas : of others, the time may be determined upon the internal evident fragments. There are still, however, many poets, whose age is expressed to us in general terms, but of whose time our knowledge is so vague and indistinct, that they cannot be recorded under any particular year. These, as thev have no appropriate place in the Tables, may be conveniently described in this Introduc- tion.

The catalogues which Fabricius k has given of the tragic and comic poets MB not the most satisfactory on many accounts. Not a few of the names which he has inserted have no title to a place among the dramatic poets. We find there corruptions of names; as Amorphus 1 : of whom all that can be told is, that the word is a wrong reading for Phormis. Sometimes comic poets who are called tragic, or tragic who are called comic, by an error in the text of Suidas or a scholiast, or on account of the ambiguous title of a drama, are recorded by Fa- bricius in both lists and under both characters : thus Cephisodorus, Anaxandri- des, Cantharus, Callias, comic poets, have been presented to us already in the list of tragic; while Philocles, Agatho, Iopho, Dionysius, after having been de- scribed in the tragic catalogue, appear a second time as comic poets. His num- bers are enlarged with the names of actors; as Archias, Aristodemus, Athenodo- rus, Callipides : of lyric poets ; as Ibycus and Arion : of grammarians, as Era- tosthenes. We meet with Clean the demagogue as a comic poet, because he is mentioned in the " Knights" of Aristophanes, and with JEschines the orator among the tragic poets, because he is mentioned as an actor. If the catalogues of Fabricius were cleared of these names, and reduced to those who really have a claim to be inserted, his dramatic poets would sink to less than half their pre- sent numbers. Moreover, the alphabetical form of arrangement which he has adopted is not the most convenient for bringing into view the progress of the dramatic art, or the times in which the poets flourished. Writers of all periods,

17. Antimachus, B. C. 405. authority of Fabricius himself. In the Hamburg

18. Telestes, 401.398. edition of 1718, 1 do not find Amorpkus . although

1 9. Philoxenus, 398. 380. he appears in the edition of Harles j who recite*

20. Timotheus, 398.357. the criticism of Bentley, (Diss. Phalar. p. 201.)

21. Polyidus, 398. The late editor, then, if he has not inserted thi-. k Bibl. Gr. lib. II. c. 19, Notitia Tragicorum word in the list of his author, has at least restored,

deperditorum. lib. II. c. 22, Notitia Comicorum from an earlier edition of the Biblioiheca Grtrca,

deperditorum. a name, which Fabricius himself, in his subsequent

1 It may be doubted, whether Amorphus has the impression of the work, had prudently omitted.


of the age of Pericles, of the age of the Ptolemies, of the times of the Romans, are brought together without distinction : Lycophron, Sositheus, and the Pleias, are found in the same list with Thespis and Pratinas : the poets of the old, the middle, and the new comedy, are treated of in one class.

The literary history of the Greek dramatic poets should be arranged upon a plan altogether different from that of Fabricius. The catalogues both of authors and dramas should be purified from corrupt names and titles. The poets should be distributed in the order of time : thus, the tragic poets who flourished at Athens before the time of Alexander should be separated from those who flou- rished under the Ptolemies. Consequently, in a list of tragic poets of the period now under review, Lycophron, Sositheus, and their contemporaries, are to be omitted. These would come to be considered under the times of the Ptolemies. In the same manner, the comic poets are to be classed chronologically; Epichar- mus, Chionides, and Phormis, are the first, and Posidippus is the last, among those who belong to the times included within the present work: Posidippus may be accounted the last writer in this department for the Athenian stage ; and if there are any other comic poets later than Posidippus, of whom memorials or frag- ments remain, as Macho, Apollodorus Carystius, Epinicus, and others, these be- long to the Ptolemaean age of literature. The comic poets are farther to be divided into their three classes : 1. The old comedy, from Epicharmus and Phor- mis down to Strattis and Theopompus. 2. The writers of the middle comedy; the first of whom are Eubulus, Araros, and Antiphanes, and the last, Xenarchus and Dromo. 3. The writers of the new; who begin with Philippides and Phile- mon, and end with Posidippus.

Among the tragic poets, who flourished from the beginning of the tragic art down to the time of Aristotle, were the following :

1. Thespis, mentioned in the Tables at B. C. 535.

2. Choerilus, 523. 499. 483.

3. Phrynichus, 511. 483. 476.

4. JEschylus, 525. 499. 484. 472. 458. 456.

5. Pratinas, 499.

6. Sophocles, 495. 468. 447. 438. 431. 409. 405. (401.) 7- Aristarchus, 454.

8. Ion Chius, 451. 428.

9. Achaus, 484. 447



13. Neophron, before Euripides. Sec the satisfactory argument of Mr. Elmsley. {Ad Argum. Med. p. 68.)

1 1 . Euphorion, B. C. 43 1 .

12. Cleomachus, an unworthy rival of Sophocles. Atlien. XIV. p. 638. f.

13. Euripides, 480. 455. 447. 441. 431. 428. 415. 408. 406.

14. Aristeas, son of Pratinas, contended with Sophocles, ^Eschylus, and Euri-

pides. Vit. Sophocl.

15. Chcrremon.

16. Theognis, before the 'Axa/w<V». [B. C. 425.]

17. Nicomachus. — itapo&o%iDS Evpmilrjv km Qtoyvtv <v//oj<r€. Suid. ^itKOjxar^.

18. Philocles, before the "0pn6e<. [B.C. 414.] Alvyikiv a%tk<f>ibovf kou Uj/pwSk

MopvifMtv rov TpayiKov. Suid.

19. Agathon, 41 6.

20. Antiphon, contemporary with the elder Dionysius. Aristot. Rhet. II. 8.

21. Curcinus, before the Elprjvi). [41 9.]

22. Nothippus, ridiculed by Hermippus the comic poet. Athen. VIII. p. 344. c.d.

23. Acestor, before the "OpviQz$. [414.]

24. Pythangelus, before the Bdrpay^oi, [405.]

25. Xenocles, 415. son of Carcinus. Aristoph. Thesm. 440. Vesp. 1512. Schol.

Nub. 1264. Schol. Ran. 86.

26. Sthenelus, before the £<#;/«?. [422.]

27. Morsimus, 1 brothers; Aristoph. Pac. 803. Sons of Philocles; Schol. ad

28. Melanthius, ) loc. Before the Elprjvri. [41 9.]

29. Morychus, before the 'Ayapvus. [425.]

30. Iophon, 428. 405. i& So^AoAcAeov f . Suid. Schol. Ran. 73. 78.

31. Cleophon, contemporary with Critias. Aristot. Rhet. I. 16.

32. Astydamas, 3Q8. irpt(r(3vTris' v'ws MopatfMv rov QikoKkiovs. Suid.'Amti.

33. Meletus, before the Bdrpocxflt. [405.] oEto? c<ttiv HvKpdrr] ypafydfuw;. Schol.

Ran. 1337.

34. Aphareus, 368. 341.

35. Diogenes, ycyovev «r< 7% twv A' KaraXveetef. Suid. Atoyiv.

m By the expression, " before the Mgap^b" The same form of expression is to be understood

nothing more is meant, than that Theognis was in a similar sense elsewhere, in these lists, where

already known as a writer of tragedy, when that it is used for the sake of brevity, play was exhibited; in which he is mentioned.


36. Euripides junior. Evpmi^s Tpaywos, tov irpoTepov a^e\(f>i^ovi. Suid. Ej^mt/Sij?

— viKas aXtro L — fuav [MTa. Tekevrrjv, eiriiet^afjievov to Spapx tov a^ekcfu^ov avTov

Eipnribov. Suid. 37- Dionysius tyr annus.

38. Astydamas junior, 372.

39. Sophocles, Ho(f>oK\£ovs viibovs — 401. 396.

40. Theodectes, 352. 333.

41. Dicaogenes. Consult Harpocr. v. Aixaioyev. Arist. Poet. c. 29. Schol. Me-

dea, 169.

From the earliest comedies of Epicharmus (for Aristotle does not condescend to mention the rude farces of Susarion) to the latest exhibitions of Posidippus, was a period of about 250 years. About one half of this space belonged to the old comedy, while the middle and the new occupied the other half.

These were among the poets of the old comedy:

1. Epicharmus. See the Tables, B. C. 500. 485. 477.

2. Phormis, o-vyyjpovos 'EmyapfJ.te, olicuof Ykkwvi t» XtKtXiaf Tvpivvm. Suid. $o'pfJ.os.

3. Dinolochus, 487-

4. Euetes, -\

5. Euxenides, >485.

6. Myitis, J

7. Chionides, 487-

8. Magnes, after Epicharmus, and before Cratinus. 'EirifiaXku 'Eittyapf*-® ""f

vpeo-/3vTvi. Suid. Mayv.

9. Cratinus, 519. 454. 448. 436. 424. 423. 422.

10. Crates, 450.

11. Ecphantides. The authorities for placing Ecphantides here, are, Schol.

Vesp. 1182, (ubi corrupte ^pavTtlvn,) where he is mentioned with Crati- nus and Teleclides ; and Hesych. v. XopiXos compared with Hesych. v. 'EKKe.yoiptXuijj.kvri, whence it appears that Ecphantides the comic poet was ridiculed by Cratinus".

12. Pisander, before Plato, who ridiculed him tpafiMTi. Cf. Suid. 'ApKal.

fj.ifj.ovfj.. Schol. Av. 1555.

" See Nsekius, Choerili Fragment, p. 51 — 55, who has learnedly illustrated the time and history of Ecphantides.


13. Epilycus. Kparyf — oil 5}v a^fX(f>o( 'EwiXwco? votr)rii( **>*»• Suid. Kpdrrn. Epily-

cus woop-ijf lirav seems to be no other than Epilycus the comic poet. It this be so, his age is determined by the time of Crates.

14. Callias. See the Tables, 432. 394.

15. Hermippus, 432. 430. 426.

16. Myrtilus. 'ASvjvatcif, KupuKOf, vllf puv Ai/ffi&of a&tktfxx; $i 'Eppumv rev ku/ukcv.

Suid. MvpTi\c>(.

17. Lysimachus. Cf. Lucian. Jud. Vocal, c. 7- torn. I. p. 65. Bipont. Schol. ad

locum, et Hemsterhusli notam.

18. Hegemon, 413.

19. Sophron, rotf yjiovots i\v Kara aepfav Kai Evpnritiijv. Suid. Yaxpp'jiv.

20. Phrynichus, 435. 429. 414. 405.

21. Lycis, before the Bdrpay^oi. [405.]

22. Leucon, yeyovtiif tv roif UfKoTrovwivtaKoTs. Suid. Aewcaw. See the Tables, 422.

23. Pantacles. "EXayav HavraKXta lilaaKaXov. Antipho ttip) Xoptvrov, p. 142,31.

Cf. Harpocrat. v. A^do-Kate;.

24. Eupolis. See the Tables, 429. 425. 421. 420.

25. Aristophanes, 427 — 388.

26. Aristomenes, 431. 424. 388.

27. Ameipsias, 423. 414.

28. Teleclides, contemporary with Aristophanes. Cf'. Schol. Av. 11 26. Athen.

VI. p. 267. e. — 269. e.

29. Pherecrates, 420. contemporary with Plato, Aristophanes, Phrynichus,

Eupolis. Suid. Hxdrw.

30. Plato, 428. 405. 391. ypyovif rols yjpovotf Kara ' Aptarvfrdirrp, ^pvvi^ov, EvroAiv

Ka\ <f>eptKparriv. Suid.

3 1 . Diodes, avyyjpovos "Zavmptmt Ka) $i\vk\l<£. Suid. A/okA%.

32. Sannyrio, 407-

33. Philyllius, 394.

34. Hipparchus, KtofUKOf t% apyaiaq KcofJ-'xliaf. Suid. Imcapypf .

35. Archippus, 415.

36. Lysippus, A3 A.

37. Philonides, 'ABrpmtot, KwpuKOf dp-^ahi. Suid. &i\uvilvi<. — the father of Nico-

chares. Suid. NiKoydprif.

38. Xenophon, i% dpyalas KvpyWaf wo»fnjf. Lai'rt II. 59.



39. Arcesilaus, voi^rrji apyalaq ^a/AwS/a?. Laert. IV. 45.

40. Autocrates, kw\uko<; apyahs. Suid. t\\nwp£.Ti\<;.

41. Eunicus, contemporary with Philyllius and Aristophanes. Compare Athen.

III. p. 86. e. XIII. p. 567. c. 586. e.

42. Apollophanes, contemporary with Strattis. Compare Harpocr. v. ' AleX<f>^uv.

Bekker. An. Gr. p. 83, 27.

43. Nicomachus, contemporary with Pherecrates. See Harpocrat. v. MerakXuf.

44. Cephisodorus, 402.

45. Metagenes, contemporary with Pherecrates, Aristophanes, and Nicophon.

Athen. VI. p. 267. e. — 270. a.

46. Nicophon, 388.

4^. Cantharus. Tlkarov % KavBapos Dv^o^/a. Harpocrat. v. 'OpviSivr^. Plato and Cantharus, therefore, were contemporary, since the same comedy was sometimes ascribed to the one, and sometimes to the other.

48. Nicochares, 388. — ^iXumitov rev kw/xikov, (rvyxpovof 'ApicrTotfiocvovf. Suid. N<-


49. Strattis, 407. 394.

50. Alcceus, 388.

51. Xenarchus, 393. the fupvypa&s, son of Sophron.

52. Theopompus.

The following were poets of the middle comedy:

1. Eubulus. See the Tables, B. C. 375.

2. Araros, 388. 375.

3. Antiphanes, 407. 387. 343. 333.

4. Anaxandrides, 376. 347.

5. Calliades, contemporary with the orator Aristophon. Athen. XIII. p. 577- c -

6. Nicostratus, perm Kmfxmliag â– noirpfc. Athen. XIII. p. 587- d. Contemporary

with Philetserus' 1 : see Suid. v. NiKoa-rparoi. The son of Aristophanes ac- cording to some accounts. Thorn. Mag. Vit. Aristoph.

The 'l(piyipav is enumerated by Suidas v. It seems probable, that the same comedy was

2TjjaTTi? among the comedies of Strattis, and sometimes ascribed to Strattis, and sometimes to

~S.Tfa.rcii 'Itpiyipcini is cited, Anecd. Grsec. p. 83; Apollophanes; and that these poets consequently

wherefore, in Harpocratio, for aSeX^/^iv — xupa lived in the same period.

Si-pa-mSi Ka) 'ATioWocpdvei iv '\(piy(pmni, we should p Since this passage was written, Mr. Gaisford

perhaps read — Si-pa-mSi $ 'Air&XXo</>a>fi iv 'lcj>iyep. has pointed on* to me the following curious piece


7- Philippus, son of Aristophanes. "Eo^e Tptif v'tove, O/Aotcv, NtKorrparai kcu 'Apapora. Thorn. Mag. Vit. Aristoph. Tlatbaf iccnaXntwv {Aristophanes) rp*7(, fy'iXnrnov t-2 Tramroo ko.) NiKoorpetTiv kcu 'Apapora. Anon. Vit. Aristoph. p. xxxviii. Beck. (Philetarus, KtofxiKOf, vlos 'Apurrcidydvcvs tou KVfUKov. Suid. 4><X€t«u/>. See i\o. 6, Nl- costratus, note p.)

8. Anaxilas, contemporary with Plato the philosopher. Lacrt. III. 28.

9. Ophelion, also contemporary with Plato. Athen. II. p. 66. d.

10. Callicrates, contemporary with Sinope; fxvrjfAovtva t% E<v»njf — KaXXiKpdrnf

b Motr^iuvi. Athen. XIII. p. 586. a.

1 1. Heraclides, B. C. 348.

12. Alexis, 356. 316. 306.

13. Amphis, 336.

14. Axionicus, contemporary with Philoxenus and Corydus. Athen. VI. p. 241.

e. 239. f. 15J Cratinus veurepo;, in the time of Plato the philosopher. Lacrt. III. 28. — and of Corydus. Athen. VI. p. 241. c.

16. Eriphus, the plagiarist of Antiphanes. Athen. III. p. 84. b. c.

17. Epicrates, — transcribed from Antiphanes. Athen. VI. p. 262. d. e. f*A<rnc *»-

fxotiiai iroiyTYii. Athen. X. p. 422. f.

18. Stephanus. See the Tables, B. C. 332.

19. Strato T , t% fxiayji KUfjufiiaf. Suid. Irpdr. In the time of Philetas of Cos.

Athen. IX. p. 382. b 383. b.

of dramatic history, which is contained in Catal. tious him.

Codd. MSS. Clark, p. 72. Oxon. 1812. (' Apterro^a- ' Strato is supposed by some to be no other

wj<) rftlt, t(j%tv Ki'01/5, */'Xiinrov tov to~« E£j9«ft«ti lf*\iM- than Strattis ; and this opinion is ascribed to Ca-

env a.^taviaa.y.(my, kou 'Apapira i8/oi< t« koi tuv varpoi; saubon and Valesius. — Strato. Verisimile est [ut

ipa.ii.airt StriyuvHTitivov, ical tpfcov, %v 'AiroXXo8a;/»« f>iv jam Casaubon. ad Athen. p. 567, 568, et Faltstus

NIK02TPAT0N ko.\u, oi 8t ictp) AiKatapx'", *IAE- ad Harpocrat. v. "E««riciwo<, observarvnt. Harles.]

TAIPON. Nicostratus, then, and Phileta-rus, were Suidam deceptum — et pro IntJ&m legendum Irpif

one and the same person. I have thought it fit itf. B. Gr. c. 22. MM

to leave the passage in the text as it was origi- (Stratonis ♦oi»ut/8i)») nullam aliam esse nisi Irpit-

nally written, that the reader might be told, in ti8o{ *oiWo-a< statuervnt doctissimi viri. Schweigh.

the present note, to whom he is indebted for this Athen. torn. IX. p. 458. Strattidem pro Stra-

important correction. tone corrigendum censuerunt ciri docti in Athen.

i Corydus knew Ptolemy; Athen. VI. p. 242. 1. IX. p. 382. b.—sed aut Stratonis nomen tenen-

b. 245. f. — and was at Athens at the affair of dum, [on account of the mention of Philetas,] aut

Harpalus; Athen. VI. p. 246. a. Which esta- Strattis non veteris sed media eomadia fuerit poe-

blishes the age of the younger Cratinus, who men- ta. Schweigh. in Indice, v. Strato et Strattis.



20. Aristophon, contemporary with Philippides. Athen. XII. p. 552. e.

21. Euphron, in the time of Callimedon, to5 Kapapw. Athen. III. p. 100. d.

22. Sotades, o rye peo-ris K*>ff.a$iaf. Athen. VII. p. 293. a. Suid. *Luro&.

23. Augeas, t% /Ae<7^? KV/x^iai. Suid. Ay-yea?.

24. Ephippus, Tyf pVij? Kupufoias. Suid. *E<peinr. — mentions Menecrates the phy-

sician. Athen. VII. p. 289. b.

25. Heniochus, T17? fJLearjf Koi^fViai. Suid. 'Hv/o%.

26. Epigenes, contemporary with Antiphanes. See Athen. IX. p. 409. d. —

mentions Pixodarus; [prince of Caria B. C. 340.] Athen. XI. p. 472. f.

27. Mnesimachus, wo/^? t% /Aeo-^c /ce^ceS/a?. Suid. [Eudocia p. 303 has — t%

via; Kw/JLwb.^

28. Timotheus, t% ptavif Kcc/xu^iai. Suid. Tt[xo6eo(. 29- Sophilus, t% [J>-£o">lS K(ji[x.(i}^ias. Suid. HaxpiXof.

30. Antidotus, contemporary with Alexis. Athen. XIV. p. 642. c. d.

31. Bathon, contemporary with Cleanthes and Arcesilaus. Plutarch, de Adul.

et Amic. p. 55. c. (32. Nausicrates, or Naucrates: we have no distinct evidence of his time; and perhaps he has no claim for insertion here.)

33. Xenarchus*, contemporary with Timocles. Athen.YII. p.319. a. X. p. 431. a.

34. Dromo, in the time of Tithymallus ; Athen. VI. p. 240. d. who is men-

tioned by Alexis, Timocles, and Antiphanes.

The following were poets of the new comedy: 1. Philippides, mentioned in the Tables, B. C. 335. 301.

This last alternative is not possible. Not only is of Suidas, or of the QaivtKihiis, nor does he affirm

Strattis always ascribed to the old comedy, but it Strato to be Strattis. Casaubon also restores the

is likely that he began to exhibit at least as early Kmjcr/a; to its right author; ad Athen. p. 567.

as B. C. 4 1 5 ; and one play of Strattis we know With respect to Strato,' he appears to be in doubt :

to have been exhibited before the year B. C. 392. he inclines to think that Strato may be Strattis,

See the Tables, B. C. 394. The author, then, of but by no means asserts a positive opinion. In

that comedy could not have been the author of p. 659 of his commentary, ad Athen. IX. 382. b.

one in which the glosses, or philological works, of he avoids the question ; and passes the name of

Philetas are alluded to, sixty or seventy years af- Strato in silence.

terwards, at the soonest. Strato therefore was not • Xenarchus the comic poet, who wrote in the

Strattis. But the opinions of Valesius and Ca- Attic dialect, and lived as late as the reign of

saubon are not quite accurately stated. Valesius, Alexander, is a different person from Xenarchus

indeed, ad Harpocrat. p. 166, very properly cor- the son of Sophron, who wrote in Doric, and flou-

rects Srsdrrif iv Kiwjo-i'jt for Si-pa-ray Zv Kivt)<nV, in rished in the time of the elder Dionysius, sixty or

Schol. Avium, 1568. But he makes no mention seventy years before.


2. Philemon, B. C. 330.

3. Menander, 344. 321. 292.

4. Apollodorus Geloiis, viyxpovof tow kw/xikoZ Mevavfyow. Suid. 'AxtkkSt.

5. Diph litis, 320.

6. Dioni/sius 1 o Zivanrtvf, after Archestratus, whom he mentions. Apud Athen.

IX. p. 404. f. — 405. d. 7- Timocles, 324.

8. Theophilus, contemporary with Callimedon". Athen. VIII. p. 340. d.

9. Sosippus, contemporary with Diphilus. See Athen. IV. p. 133. f.

10. Anaxippus, 303.

11. Demetrius, SOf.

1 2. Archedicus, 302.

13. Sopater, 283. (His first exhibitions were in the reign of Alexander.)

14. Damoxenus, in the time of Epicurus : whom he mentions. Athen. III. p.

102. a.

15. Hegesippus*, or Crobylus, after Epicurus. Athen. VII. p. 279. d. Quoted

by the name of Crobylus, Athen. X. p. 429. e. 443. f. I/arpocr. v. «V< %'A/a?, and in other passages. See especially Athen. I. p. 5. f. VIII. p. 365. a.

16. Philemon vturepoi. Athen. VII. p. 29 1. d. v'tof ^iky/Mnos tow kwiukov. Suid.

1 Fabricius thinks it probable that Dionysius u Callimedon I Kapafa, also ridiculed by Ti-

flourished Olymp. 100. [B. C. 380.] consequently modes, Antiphanes, Eubulus, and Alexis: (see

in the times of the middle comedy: — circa Olymp. Athen. VIII. p. 339, 340.) — was «I< tS» <eara Av

100 vucisse verisimik est. But, from the age of /<o<r0«Tj to* f^TOfa »oXiT«vo/«W. Athen. III. 100.

Archestratus, the author of the Tcurrfwopla, this c. He was still living, and acted in public affairs,

could not be. Bentley has shewn, Diss. Phal. p. in B. C. 322. Plutarch. Phocion. c. 27. — and sur-

85, that Archestratus mentions one Diodorus of vived Phocion. Plutarch. Phocion. c. 25. Aspendus, a Pythagorean, (Athen. IV. p. 163. T "Rylpmt? Ata, la-tint Kfvj9vXo< frixaWpm<-

d. e.) who " was an acquaintance of Stratonicus oZ l<xii tlvou o 5' *'*■<«*'««> Ajj/mo-Swi iTiyfcu^urt^.

" the physician in the court of Ptolemy Lagus." Thus far Etymolog. Harpocrat. Phot. Lex. and

Athen. IV. p. 163. e. collato VIII. p. 350. — which Suidas. Suidas adds — t£» Spa/MTu* «/t«I irti *i-

brings down the time of Archestratus at least to Xitaufm, if 'A&ivouof. And yet, as Hegesippus the

the age of Alexander. Consequently, the Oeo-jKo- orator was acting in public affairs in B.C. 3-13,

<j>ipas of Dionysius, in which the poem of Arche- (see the Tables,) and Hegesippus the poet could

stratus is quoted, could not have been written not have mentioned the Epicureans earlier than

earlier than the times of the new comedy : and B. C. 300, the distance of the times appears hardly

Dionysius of Sinope would be contemporary with to admit that the poet and the orator should be

Diphilus. the same person.



17. Plato junior, after Epicurus. Athen. III. p. 103. c. VII. p. 279. a.

18. Theognetus, in the times of the Stoics. Athen. III. p. 104. c. and of Pan-

taleon the TtXdvos. Athen. XIV. p. 616. a. — whose death was mentioned

by Chrysippus. Athen. ibid. (19. Diodorus* Sn/awev?. We have no information of the time of Diodorus.) 20. P&sidippus, B. C. 289.

In the first of the three lists, Sophron and Xenarchus, the pipoypafai, have per- haps no just title to be inserted as poets of the old comedy. The claim of Hegemon may be admitted upon the authority of Athenaeusy. Theopompus, with the exception perhaps of Strattis, was the latest among the writers of the old comedy, of whom we have any distinct memorials. He was of the old comedy, by the general consent of grammarians : 0eoJr6/A7ro? QettieKTov y Qeao'wpov, ' ASyvaiof, KW/xiKOf' e&Z&afc ipa.jjM.Ta. k5 . eari ie tyjs apyalas Ktajj-wYiag koto. 'ApK7TCi(/)a.vYiv z . — tuv t% apyalas K(i>fJ.a>iia( irorrjTuv ovofj.ara kcu QeoTTO/XTrov ipafxara 1$ . HjpaTio'of ipafxara it. &epeKpa.Tov$ ipdfjMTa. irf, k. t. A. a We possess the titles of twenty comedies ascribed to Theopompus: of which, however, one is doubtful b . But among the remain- ing nineteen dramas are many which seem to have been composed after the first exhibitions of Anaxandrides and Eubulus. The 'AkSata, in which he mentioned Telestes c , might have been exhibited before the date of the second Plutus. For Telestes gained his first dithyrambic prize, B. C. 401. But the 'YHvyapif, in which the philosophy of Plato is ridiculed' 1 , could hardly have been written earlier than the 99th Olympiad. [B. C. 384.] In the M^os, Callistratus is noticed e ; who flou- rished in the times of Iphicrates and Chabrias, B. C. 373, 371. In the Qyaevs, he mentioned the orator Isseus: fj.vyjfj.ovevei ie 'laaiov xai Qeoirofj,Tro£ KVfjuicof ev ®yae7 { . But Isseus was in reputation during the early years of Demosthenes : perhaps about B. C. 370. Plutarch preserves a fragment, in which Theopompus spoke of the Lacedaemonian empire in terms which could scarcely have been used till near the time of the Olynthian war: aXka. ko.\ KtofxiKos QfonofjwGs eWe X-qpzh, anuica.- £»v tovs AaKeiatft-oviovi Tai{ Ka,nt\Kiaiv'

  • Diodorus of Sinope was perhaps of the same a Prolegom. Aristoph. p. xxxiv. Beck,

school of poetry, and flourished in the same times b The riavxaXtV. See Pollux, X. 4 1 .

as his countrymen Diphilus and Dionysius. If so, c Athen. XI. p. 502. a. a Laert. 111. 26.

he would be placed within the period of the new e Athen. XI. p. 485. c.

comedy. ( Vit. X. or. p, 839. F.

y I. p. 5. b. * Suid. and Eudoc.


-AaK&aifAovm It Taif KcnrqXtviv

EXtvSepiaf ytvacarrtf o^6( tviytavB. The peace of Antalcidas was made B. C. 386; the outrage of Phcebidas was com- mitted B. C. 382; and as Thcopompus describes the Lacedsemonian empire as grateful at first, and afterwards as severe, these lines were probably Written at that period. It is likely, then, that Theopompus, from the subjects which he treated, did not flourish with Aristophanes, where Suidas places him, but that he is rather to be fixed with Strattis, in the latest times of the old comedy.

The precise limits between the middle and the new comedy are difficult to be defined. The new comedy commenced in the reign of Alexander: — ij ph via kv- paftia. «n 'AAefavfyjou 1 '. And this is confirmed by the dates assigned to Philippides and Philemon. And yet we have Alexis of the middle comedy writing for the stage thirty years after the first exhibitions of Philippides and Philemon'. Alexis then, whose works were the standard and example of the middle comedy, was for thirty years contemporary with Philippides, Philemon, Menander, and Dipbilus. Sophilus, also a poet of the middle comedy, writes in the time of Stilpo k ; which brings down the compositions of Sophilus to as late a period as those of Alexis.

Neither are the terms middle and new always very carefully applied. Aristo- tle 1 recognises only two species of comedy, the old and the new: — llai av r$t <* twv K(ofj.a)iiwv tuv Kai twv kouvwv' to7$ /j.(v yap rjv yeXoiov ij aioypoXoyia, t&<V Ot fiaX- Xov y intovota, k. t. X. Dorotheusâ„¢ classed Antiphanes tois vtunipois KXfuxois' — &cpo- 8iw tw ' AaKaXaviTYj uvyypafj.fux. eK^oaSat twiypafapevov " irepi Avt itpavovf icai xtpi t^( tapa " to/? vtcoTepoif KwptKois MaTTvr)(." Mr. Schweighaeuser 11 well remarks, that Doro- theus here divided the Greek comedy into two classes, the new and the old : universam Gracam comoediam in rrjv vaXatav et ttjv vturipav distinctam intellexe- rat. In the same manner, Nicostratus, the contemporary of Eubulus and Araros, and accounted by some the son of Aristophanes, (which determines his age,) i9 reckoned by Harpocratio among the writers -n}? viat Kupufiiaf — 'OpviStvrrjf — IlA<x- t«v 17 Kdvdapoi "Lv/jLfMcxta. text t\ Kai tv -rq via KOi^atia Spafxa OpviStimif fcitcotrrpaTiu*

8 Plutarch. Lysand. c. 13. These verses have AnplXtv nl k.

been thus restored by Porson, Adversar. p. 300. ' Eth. Nicom. IV. 8.

h Prolegom. Aristoph. p. xxxii. Beck. m Athen. XIV. p. 6C3. f.

1 See the Tables, B. C. 306. D Atheneeus, torn. XII. p. 693.

k Laert. II. 120. Some critics, however, for ° Harpocrat. v. 'Opi*«vn(^ Sw<f>!h>v ToS kv/ukw i» IfifMrn VdfMi, propose to read


Epigenes is called twv vevv ns Kw/Jwcuvy—Timocles, tm vewTcpcov, — Theophilus, tuv nu- T€puv tis, — Eudoxus, Tig twv vtwv Kvpa&iov, by PolluxP. And yet we cannot with cer- tainty place all these among the writers of the new comedy. Epigenes was con- temporary with Antiphanes. Theophilus, perhaps, who treated of Callimedon, the contemporary of Demosthenes, might rather be placed in the second class than in the third. Of the time of Eudoxus we are wholly ignorant, nor can we pronounce whether he belonged to the middle or the new comedy; we know from Laertiusi, that he exhibited at Athens, and from Pollux, that he flourished some- where between Antiphanes and Posidippus. It is to be noted, however, that although the poets of the middle comedy are often called vlag KUfufiias, yet the poets of the new comedy properly so termed could never be called piavis Ktvfj.a&ias voirjTai; this term, when applied by grammarians, necessarily meant what is ex- pressed. We must therefore suppose that Alexis, although a great number of his dramas were written long after the new comedy had arrived at its perfection, nevertheless continued to compose upon the model of the middle comedy.

It will perhaps be imputed to these Tables as an omission, that they have not noticed the law irep) tov py ovo/jmo-t) Kce/jLcfietv, which will probably be looked for in the years of the 97th Olympiad, where it will not be found. The truth is, that I am not yet satisfied either with the interpretation usually given to that law, or with the date assigned to it. It is recorded that comic exhibitions were once suspended for three years: (B. C. 440 — 438.) and that their licence was restrained by a decree tov apycvra. [xyj KUfj-wSetv, which is fixed by Petitus to the year of the archon Isarchus, B. C. 424. Last of all, we are told that it was forbidden km/mos- §eiv If ovoparof. This law is thus described by Petitus r : Postea omnino vetitum est cuiquam expresso nomine in comcedia convicium facer e; py ku/jl^iv ef ovofxaros. Meminit hujus legis, sed non solus, Hermogenes mp) o-Taatwv. (Sect. 13. p. 7b.) evoju,ao"r/ Kafxa^tiv vo/xo; IkuXvo-cv — Horatius, epist. ad August. 145. " Fescennina "per hunc" 8$c. Idem ad Pisones, 281. Donatus. — Legem hanc tulit Antima- chus poeta Aristophanis aqualis. Comici interpres, Acharn. 1149- Hoku 8e 'Av- TiftM/fif cvTOf ^yj<f>ivpux — imo potius legem — iremiyKevai jj.vj $eiv kujX'x^v ef ovojj.oi.tcs. Id- que intra Olymp. 27- Nam post 01. 27 Cocalum et JEolosiconein fabulas scripsit Aristophanes : Plutus enim postrema est fabularum quas ipse docuit, acta 01.

p Epigenes is so mentioned by Pollux, VII. 29. « VIII. 90.

Timocles, X. 154. Theophilus, IX. 15. Eudoxus, r De Leg. Attic, p. 151 — 153. ed. Wesseling.

VII. 201.


9/. 4. Atqui typaipt Kuxakov, inquiunt veteres magistri, 4*i<f>t<Tfxarc,( ytvcpUnv Zrrt fjj»l imp-aeri KaifAtefotv riva. Prteterea ipse riAslrref btimpcf — j/ropter hanc legem %npw) errlpvjTai, chorum non hubet, (quern tamen halibut vpSnof TlAet/TOf,) ut neque Co- calus et JEolosicon neque nova comvcdia omnis: nam " lex est accepta chorusque " turpiter obticuit sublato jure nocendi." Quia hac pra-cipue erutit vhori, Xotlopt JV, rovf kclkois •npo.TTwrai luxfiahkeiv, Kai wavep Sij/x«.a7a ftdaTtyi ryj Kwfx-j^ia *'AaJV/v. (inure intra Ol. 97 videtur scripta hac lex. Ante editioncm tov hmripov riAcvr&i/. Attt* Ol. 97 lata nun est, quia tok 'EKKtyanxZovaaf, drama quod chorum hulnt k*\ rubwr- t% ovijxaTOi, docuit Ol. 96. 4. Ergo non ante neque post Olymp. 97, sed intra ipsum rogata et lata est hece lex. Cut qui impune j'acere volebant, nam inn omit- tebant, personas servabant: id est, larvas, quibus singuli quos traducebunf ei//ri- mebantur; quod avTOTvpoauitw; Kw/xfleiv dicebant: non nominabantur enim ea rut to- ne, sed reprcesentabantur tantum : wide lites stcpe et controversia. Hermogenes, I. I. avTGirpo<ra)Tra>s et&ayaiv ti$ rovf Kojjj.'jotovjxivovi 'vnaytrcu to> vo/jloi if ovoftavr^i Kuput&wv. Quanquam etiam, dum licebat ovo/wta-n Ka>fj.w$eiv licebat quoque avrmpovanrwf, atque id itajiebat. Upon the import of this law, Kuster 8 has the following remark : Ex priore Pluto oportet sumta esse loca ilia, in quibus ovo/mutti quidum perstrin- guntur; ut Pamphilus, v. 174. Agi/rrhius, v. 176. Philepsiu-s, 177- Philonides, 179, 303. Aristyllus, v. 314. Nam tempore Pluti posterior is lege lata jam ve- titum erat expresso nomine in scena quenquam comico sale perfricare: ut testa- tor Arum, in Vita Aristophanis, et pluribus probat Petit us, Leg. Att. p. 80. [151. Wess.~\ eadem autem licentia comicis adhuc concessa erat tempore Pluti prioris. Oderico 1 speaks to the same effect: KUfjuebtiv 1% ovofuxTos — latum intra (Jli/mpiadem 97 putat Petitus, cujus ego rationes, quando nihil obstare video, non invitus am- plector. He translates the law, neminem expresso nomine l<edi. In this sense the law is understood, and this seems the opinion generally received by critics of its date and meaning. Petitus himself is indistinct upon the precise meaning of the terms : but that he understood them in the sense of Kuster is proved by his mention of the Ecclesiazusa,; since that play, in the opinion of Petitus, con- tained some comic personalities, which became illegal before the time of the second Plutus. Such an import, however, of the law, is by no means warranted by the extant remains of the middle and new comedy. That law, in the sense of Kuster, either never existed at all, or had fallen into disuse in the time of Anaxandrides; who ridicules Plato by name", perhaps ten or twelve years after

• Ad Plutum, initio fab. ' De marmorea Didascalia Epistola, p. xlv. u Laert. III. 26.


the supposed date of this law. Alexis, at least, paid no attention to it, (if it existed through the times of the middle comedy,) when he satirized by name the same philosopher in four different dramas x ; nor did Anaxilas regard it, who in three comedies names Plato?.

But " in the time of the middle comedy, at whose rise democratia in oligar- " chiam mutata divites imperare cceperunt, the philosophers were ridiculed, and " the chief men of the state protected :" — the opinion of Jonsius 7 '. The former, therefore, were attacked by name, but the poets, after the date of that law, ab- stained from the public men. And yet Anaxandrides* mentions Polyeuctus by name; Antiphanes b names Demosthenes. A fragment of Antiphanes c is extant, full of personal allusions. Philetoerus d names the orator Hyperides; and Timo- cles e , in a comedy written towards the end of the reign of Alexander, ridicules by name five of the leading demagogues at once, in a passage which breathes the very spirit of the old comedy. The reader, who opens Athenseus, will see abun- dant evidence that the poets of the middle and new comedy laid themselves under little restraint in this respect.

What, then, are the ancient testimonies concerning this law? Hermogenes f has mentioned it. In the passage referred to by Petitus, he produces the follow- ing argument, as an example of reasoning upon a judicial question: 'Ovo/xaori KO>iJ.o}§tiv 6 vopos €K(i\v(7€V. avTOirpoaanraif ilaa/yav ns tov{ KWfj^ovjxivovg wrdyeTCU tx vofJ.ce,

«f ovofxatTTi KiofAailSuv'—" Ylapa rov vo/xov KUfAaftetf Tovq Ttoknag. " Kcu fxrjv ovk avo/Miaa

" ovbiva." The question is, ft fiovkopievos eKukvae tovto o i/o/Ao^enjf. o ph o'iukcov epei on a.veXe'iv (3ovko[J.tvos to aitkag kou avevSvvws Siafiakkeiv ovrivaovv rtiv irokiTuv' 6 § av (fietsycov ov §ta tovto ep(i, akk' iiriaTpednaSai fjiev avroiis §ia •nj? KU/xa^ia; efiovkeTO" o'vkovv aveike ■Jta.vra.- Tta.o-1 TTjV KU/JUi^iav, virofJ.vy[J.ixTa Se to7( /xeTa Tavra yevYiaofJ-tvois v\ to7( tots ovaiv avOpumois koilopiav eyovra. t&v irokiTav tivo$ ovk efiovkeTO eivai. yu.5) ovrav §e twv ovo[j.a,TCOv, r\ fj.ev enio-Tpodrt)

x Laert. III. 27, 28. ? Laert. III. 28. phos et poetas traducebant. Plato comicus junior

1 Postquam democratia in oligarchiam mutata Epicurum — traduxit. Sed prolixum foret omnia

divites imperare caperunt, comadia multis partibus poetarum dramata quibus philosophos eorumque vi-

est mutata. Etenim %of^yai deficiebant, hypothesis tarn perstrinxerunt recensere. Jonsius, Script. Hist.

mutabatur, neque quenquam aperte traducere cui- Philos. lib. I. 5. p. 28. — 6. p. 34.

quam in scena impune licebat: atque hzc erat me- a Athen. IV. p. 166. d.

dia comasdia. Poeta tamen, ut solenne suum ser- b Athen. VI. p. 223. e. Plutarch. Demosth. c. 9.

varent, idque impune, traducendos sibi sumebant c Athen. VIII. p. 339.

priores poetas. After quoting many passages, in d Athen. VIII. p. 342. a.

which the poets ridiculed the philosophers, he pro- e Athen. VIII. p. 341. f. See the Tables, B. C.

ceeds — Ita nimirum poetm media, comasd'ue, cum 324.

magnates vellicare edicto prohibebantur, philosO' f Ilefi Jv^Ktyia/MZ, p. 97. ed. Crispin. 1569.



y'mrcu ha. twv vpoaumwv, y It tl( rov (uto, ravra yjpivwt ^^ xtptypypeu, teal 15 »pe> roif aXkovg avSpwirws hafioky. AristidesE alludes to the law: fav/julfr u kw^Uu JJ«<m voteiv, Kav py ovo[M(tti Kcofx$ih %jj. — And again h ; Kte/jM^lac >Jo> noi^ral twv overrun d*i-

<ryovTO, km ilvvrjQtjaav dvev too o'vo/lkzot* K0)fi.a>$tiv to fya/xa aTtpydvaurBeu. And Julian 1 ;

€/xo/ Se airaryopeiu vo'fMi hi ovo/JLaTCf^—MTidaSou tovc aliKMfiivwi ftXv tvliv </xo< % c*«-

But how shall we reconcile these undoubted testimonies with the fragments already quoted of the poets themselves? Not, certainly, by understanding, with Kuster and others, the law to forbid that any citizen should be mentioned by name. But the reasoning of Hermogenes plainly shews the prohibition to be this ; that the poets were required to forbear introducing their fellow-citizens by name as dramatis personas, or characters in the dialogue; as Cleon was intro- duced in the 'l-mreif, or Socrates in the Nt<f>fkeu. The argument of Hermogenes supposes a distinction to be contended for between exhibiting the persons fea- tures in a mask, ainoirpoawvux fltrdyeiv, and exhibiting him by name as a character in the piece, ovo\mX,uv. The poet is supposed to maintain that the first was not within the letter of the statute, because the individual, though his features were exhibited, was not produced by name; — nor within its meaning, because it was not intended wholly to abolish the wholesome discipline of comic satire, but only to prevent it from being carried down to posterity to the prejudice of the party satirized: and that the object of the comic ridicule is sufficiently pointed out to the spectators of the piece, to whom he is known, by the representation of his features §ia. twv itpoaamwv*-, without the addition of his name to specify who is meant: — ^ ovtwv twv ovafuxTccv : — while, from the omission of the name as a drama- tis persona, the diffusion of the satire among the readers of the piece only is pre- vented. From the tenor of this argument it is manifest, that the law tow /x>j o'»o- jj.a.<TTi Kw/xa^tiv Tiva. was understood to prohibit the producing a person by name as a character in the piece; since the law is supposed to be evaded by producing his likeness on the mask of the actor, and suppressing his name. The allusions of Aristides acquire greater force and meaning by this interpretation of the law; and the passage of Donatus 1 , which is produced by Petitus, is clearly to the same purpose.

  • De Quatuor viris, p. 1 1 7. Jebb.= 1 96. Canter, with the best writers of the best times : as Aristot.

h P. 298. Jebb. = 496. Canter. Poet. c. 6. Bipont. Demoslh. p. 433. Reisk. Per-

' Misopogon. initio. haps, however, it was written hk ti» xf.a-t.ttU,>.

k Hermogenes might use tfia-vmv for a mask, ' Donatus — fetus comadia Ixtinpn dicta est,



This law, then, toS p; ovo/mutti Ktopxhtv, when limited to its proper sense, is by no means inconsistent with a great degree of comic liberty, or with those ani- madversions upon eminent names, with which we find the comic poets actually to abound. Indeed, what the grammarians deliver to us as the history of comedy must be received with some caution. Jonsius, as already quoted, supposes the restraint to have taken place, when, democratla in oligarchiam mutata, divites imperare cceperunt. This he derived from Platonius" 1 : -z% ^/j^Kparias vwyapol- o~yf wo twv Kara rag A6rjva$ TvpavvovvTCOv, kou Ka$i<TTa,fj.t.vfi$ oXiyapy^taf km fj.tTairiirrovari$ â– nj? tljovo-ias tov §y/J.ov elf oXiyovg km KpaTWOfxivYji ryf oXiyapyiaq, eveirnrre to<V irorr]Ta,7( <f>o(3os- — "t« rag irapafidaeif ovk tyovra [the pieces of the middle comedy] elildyG^, tvjs e^ovaiai a/so tov ^/j.ov fj.e6iaTajj.fvrn, km tij? oXiyapylas Kpaxovo-qs. But the tyranny of the Thirty was put down in eight months ; and after that event, the people were singularly jealous of their recovered liberty. For the twenty years which followed the expulsion of the Thirty, we have a living picture of the state of the popular feelings at Athens in the orations of Lysias: and Mr. Mitford has, with great acuteness and sagacity, laid open the political condition of Athens, from a critical examination of the works of that orator, and of his contemporary, Ando- cides °. The result of Mr. Mitford's inquiry will satisfy any reader that the in- fluence of the wealthy class was any thing but predominant, and that the bias of the constitution was the very reverse of oligarchical. Nor would it be possi- ble to name a period during the whole time that passed between the archonship of Euclides and the death of Alexander, (a space including the whole of the mid- dle comedy and much of the new,) at which it could be affirmed that democrafia in oligarchiam mutata divites imperare coeperunt. Comedy, therefore, although its form was changed, enjoyed the privilege of animadverting still upon public events and public men: and we find Isocrates in the midst of this period com- plaining of the licence of comedyP.

Neither is the date of this law so clear to us. The testimony quoted by Pcti-

quia inest in ea velut historica fides vera narratio- m Utp) lnup. Kupui. n Ibid.

nis, et denominatiu omnium de quibus libere descri- ° In the twenty-second chapter of his History

bebatur. Etenim per priscoe poetas non, ut nunc, of Greece, sect. 1, 2, he analyses, among others,

penitus ficta argumenta, sed res gestce a civibus pa- the oration of Lysias raâ„¢ 'AXKifiiaSw; that of the

lam cum eorum sape qui gesserant nomine decanta- same orator imp tZv 'Apta-TO(j>dvovs xprj/xdruv ; and

bantur. Sed cum poetce abuti licentius stylo et the oration of Andocides mp) MvaTijpi'uiv. The dates

passim bxdere ex libidine cmpissent plures bonos, ne of these were B. C. 400, 388, 387, within the very

quisquam in alterum carmen infame proponeret, period assigned to this dramatic law. lege lata siluere. v See the Tables, B. C. 356.


tusi ascribes the proposition to one Antimachus : 'Aw//wtj(o» tw enryypaujxa] \laxa< h) ovrof exakaro, twa^t] itpovtppavte tou? (TiniofJuXcvvTas haXtyo/xtvof. — ih)Kti it o 'Arriftayof ovroi ^(fna-fxa â– ntiroirjKivai /xr) SeTv Kai/xuhiv tf ovo/xarof. kou ivi rovxm toAAo/ t£v vottfrSn ei) wpocrrjXdciv Xvpf/ofJicwi -rov "/ppov. Kai SijAsv oti itoXXoi rav ypptvrwv iirtivm. tytprjyd h) i 'Arri- fxayps Tore, ore uvrjveyKe to ^(pto-fxa. o< h) Xtyovatv art votifnif «5v *aAof xppyjy&v wort pu- KpoXoyteg ToTf yopivrali typ^varo. But another scholiast ' ascribes it to one Syra- cusius : ~£vpa.Kovaix\ ovTOf twv irtpt to /Sijpx' not EvrroAif if AaAov «» IIi/Aaj,- [/<"££ «»

nOAESI] oW«,>€r

upotKoatof o (otKtv, rjVtK av Aeyij,

TO?? KVwWiO - / TQI&IV (T< T«V TttytW

avafiaf yap tvi to /3^/x uAaKTer •atpnpiywv.

SoKei h) /ca< \py(j>iG/xa reSetKevai /xr] Kai/xxh^aSat ovc/xaori Ttva, i( ^pvi/tyoi «» MovoTpoir* ^ijc7. Vwp' eye Y.vpa.KO<rioV hci<$>avf\<; yap avrm Kat fxiya ruyot. a<f>ti\(T0 yap KWfxxhiv o'vf httSt- /xevv. ho vtKporepov avrS> irpoacpepovrat. If this allusion of Phrynichus be rightly quoted from the Movo't^oto?, the law was proposed by Syracusius before the date of the "OpviQes, in B. C. 415. But as no such law could have existed so early, we must suppose the proposition of Syracusius, for that time at least, to have failed ; and the poets to have chastised him for the attempt, although unsuccess- ful. We are still, therefore, left in ignorance both as to the author of the law, and as to its time; although both Syracusius and Antimachus might have made such a proposition. If the account of Platonius is to have any weight, the enactment happened during the government of the Thirty : for that is the only period within these times, to which those descriptions could be applied — 1% t£ov- tri'af onto rov h^fxav fxidiaTafxfvrji, Kai tvjs oktyapyjas Kparovarjf — KaOurTapitvqs oXiyapytas Kat fj.eTa7[inTovayji i% tl~ovo-ia<; ttf oXtyovf, k. t. A. — which would bring the date within the 94th Olympiad, B.C. 404. consequently before the 'EKKXyjo-ta^ova-at. And this was very possible: for the dramatis persona in that play are all fictitious cha- racters; nor are the allusions any other than such as occur in the secoitd Pint it*. Some of the passages in this latter drama, in which names are mentioned, could not have well occurred in the Jlrst Plutus: as this line — tpa h) Aaif ov ha « 4>jA»- vihv, — From the age of that celebrated courtezan, who" tA^ftj vko N«i'»» errtrif fiii Xafyiov, and was therefore born B. C. 421, this allusion could not have had a place in the first Plutus, B. C. 408. Mention is also made of the renowned Thrasybulus 1 ; who, from his time, could not so properly have occurred for nc-

« Schol. Acharn. 1149. « Schol. Av. 1297. ' Schol. Plut. 179. ' V. 550.


tice in the former Plutus. But, as Thrasybulus is there mentioned in order to be praised, it may be said that this is not an analogous case.

The comic poets, whose names have been recited, to the number of more than one hundred, are only a part of those who nourished between Epicharmus and Posidippus. Besides these, we possess the names of many whose time cannot be ascertained at all from remaining memorials. Nearly sixty poets, probably dramatic, may be collected, of uncertain age and character. ' Of some of these, it cannot be discovered, whether they were of the ancient, the middle, or the new comedy: of others, it is doubtful, whether they belonged to this period at all, and whether they did not rather nourish after Posidippus, at Alexandria, or else- where: of others, it cannot be pronounced, whether they were tragic or comic. Perhaps the diligence of some future inquirer may be able to lessen the number, and to assert for some of these poets, upon valid testimony, a place in the pre- ceding listsâ„¢.

The Appendix, which follows the Tables, and forms a part of the present volume, principally refers to the matters contained in the second column, and is reserved for the discussion of questions relating to the civil and military affairs, which required a more extended detail than the plan of the Tables allowed. In two or three instances the inquiry has been carried down below the limits of the present period: as in the account of the kings of Macedonia, whose history has been pursued to the end of the monarchy under Perseus : and the survey of the kings of Lacedaemon, in the double line of the Agidae and Proclidae. An account of these has been given to the extinction of the dynasty, about B. C. 219; that the whole of these subjects might be brought under one point of view. It should also be explained, that two years have been added to the Tables, (B. C. 279> 2 78>) which more properly belong to the third period. This addition was necessary, because the archons Anaxicrates and Democles determine the position of the archon Gorgias; and because the irruption of the Gauls into Greece, and their passage into Asia, in those two years, were a sequel to the overthrow of Ptolemy Ceraunus, and parts of the same transactions.

An observation remains to be added, upon the dates made use of in this work. The first year of each Olympiad is expressed: which being known, the other three years are found without difficulty. The Olympic years are not inserted in

u Polyzelus, whom I have left among the poets those of the old comedy. See some memorials of of uncertain age, might perhaps be placed among Polyzelus, in the Tables, B. C. 364.

INTRODl ( TION. i] v

a separate column, that the page might not be occupied with unnecessary spaces". For the same reason, the Tables are not incumbered with the years of Nabonas- sar, the years of Rome, or the years of the Julian period. The conumcrary years i of these eras are of ready occurrence in all tables of general chronology, and are accurately given in those of Blair, which are in the hands of every student. The years of Nabonassar have no necessary connexion with Grecian annals. What has a reference to the present subject is introduced in the account of the kings of Persia. The years of the Julian period are still less necessary. The Varronian era of Rome becomes the leading date in the third period, from Philadelphus to the Christian era ; but, in the present annals of Greece, Rome is not yet known, and her affairs and history proceed in a separate channel; nor are the transactions of the two nations ever intermingled till the wars of Pyrrhus. The only measure of time that should be adopted for all ancient history are the years before the Christian era. This may be regarded as a common standard, ascending from a central point to the remotest time, by which the local chronology, and the sepa- rate computations, of each particular state can be measured and compared. It is " a long-established era, commencing from a known fixed epoch, both forwards " and backwards, and furnishing the most convenient standard of comparison for " all others?." He, who knows that the era of Nabonassar began in the 747th, the era of Rome in the 753d, the Julian period in the 4713th, and the era of the Seleucidae in the 312th year, before the vulgar Christian era, will be able to find for himself any given year of each of these eras respectively.

x The inconvenience in practice of filling the is left vacant by a prolix repetition of the several

Tables with technical dates may be seen by in- eras and Olympic years, spection of Larcher's Canon Chronologique, in the y Dr. Hales, vol. I. p. 8.

7th volume of his Herodotus : where half his page