minæ." Thus Lysias gives Alexias as the seventh, instead of as the fifth archon from Diocles, as given by Diodorus. This statement of Lysias must be held to be above all suspicion, and so of itself must be held sufficient to overthrow the list of Diodorus. Thus, out of the twenty-one additional archons, which there must have been, I have had the good fortune to find the names of ten, and it may be that with a more extended and careful search I might find more ; but these ten are more than enough for my purpose, and surely we must not without very strong reasons admit that all the passages in which these names are found are spurious, especially as the existence of more than twice as many additional archons was an antecedent probability. Further, it was in the early part of November, 1855, after I had laboured very diligently in the cause about two years, and had settled the outline of my scheme, that my attention was called to the Arundel Marble, or Parian Chronicle; and this too, instead of having led me astray, as Dr. Hincks supposes, only confirmed me in my previous conclusions. It agreed to a year with the inference that I had previously drawn from my many authorities. Of itself also this most precious marble is sufficient to overthrow the authority of Diodorus. This I have also set forth in my "Parian Chronicle subversive of the common chronology," which appeared in the Gentleman's Magazine of December, 1858, and March, 1859. But I may here notice some instances. First, the marble confirms the statement of Lysias, as to the interval between the archonships of Diocles and Alexias. Another remarkable instance is as to the distance of the reign of Philip of Macedon from the Peloponnesian war. Diodorus places the beginning of this war in 87 01. 2, U.c. 322, and the beginning of the reign of Philip in 105 Ol. 1, U.c. 393, and in the archonship of Callimedes. Thus, according to Diodorus, Philip began to reign in the seventy-first year after the beginning of the war. But, according to the marble, as copied by Selden in 1628, Euctemon was archon in the one hundred and fortyseventh year of its era, and as he was archon in the twenty-fourth year of the war, the war must have begun in the one hundred and seventieth year of the era. The accession of Philip is placed by the Marble in the ninety-third year of its era and in the archonship of Agathocles, and thus, according to the Marble, Philip began to reign in the seventy-seventh year after the beginning of the war, that is to say, there is a variation of six years between Diodorus and the Marble as to the beginning of the reign of Philip, and also a variation as to the archonship in which the reign of Philip began. But, Dr. Hincks finds fault with my adopting Selden's interpretation of the date of the archonship of Euctemon. In your page 426 Dr. Hincks says, "The false assumption which he (Mr. Parker) brings most prominently forward is, that the archonship of Euctemon was actually and intentionally assigned by the compiler of the Parian Chronicle to its one hundred and forty-seventh year. To me it is quite clear that the compiler of the Chronicle wrote one hundred and forty-fourth, and that either the sculptor, or what seems more NEW SERIES.-VOL. V., NO. IX.

M

probable-Selden the copyist, mistook the last part of the date, IIII, four, for ПII, seven. This mistake of II for II, or vice versa, is very apt to be made; I will hereafter bring forward a second instance of it in the Parian Chronicle, and will notice a similar error in reading an Egyptian date, where it has led to a mistake of eight years, instead of three; II having the value of ten in hieroglyphics. Now if we only read 144 for 147 in the Marble date of this epoch, considerably more than half the supposed inconsistencies which Mr. Parker finds in the chronology of Diodorus will at once disappear. He infers from this epoch, which is that of the twenty-fourth year of the war, the epochs of the first and of the twenty-seventh or last year of the war, making them all too great by three. He then compares these epochs with other epochs on the Marble, and, of course, he finds a constant difference of three years between the intervals deduced from the Marble and those deduced from Diodorus. Each of those differences he treats as an independent proof that Diodorus's list of archons is erroneous! but the single correction above given annihilates all these imaginary proofs."

As Selden had the advantage of copying the marble so soon as it came to England, his great abilities and integrity, assisted by his two learned friends, Patrick Junius and Richard James, should be sufficient vouchers for the credit of his copy: but if there were a constant difference of three years between all the intervals deduced from the marble, as interpreted by Selden, and those deduced from Diodorus, which would disappear by a single correction, we might be disposed to admit that Selden had in this instance mistaken IIII, four, for IIII, seven. But the difference between these two authorities is not always a difference of three years, and so all my imaginary proofs would not be annihilated by a single correction; and the very suspicion of a mistake in this instance is quite forbidden by the dates of the two next archons, which are mentioned on the marble. The next archon to Euctemon on the marble is Antigenes, and his date is 145. Consequently, the date next above it could not have been 144. But Dr. Hincks may suggest that in this case also Selden has mistaken II, two, for II, five, and that the proper date of Antigenes should be 142, and not 145. Be it so: but this would require two corrections, instead of a single one, to annihilate all my imaginary proofs. Nor would they all be annihilated by these two corrections. For if Euctemon was archon in 144, and Antigenes archon in 142, there must still, as before, have been another archon between them, according to the marble: but in Diodorus's list, Antigenes succeeded Euctemon as archon in the year immediately following, and this would of itself be sufficient to overthrow the list of Diodorus. Further: this second correction is also forbidden by the date of the next archon on the marble. The next archon to Antigenes on the marble is Callias, and of Callias Selden says in his p. 113, "Although the number of the epoch has disappeared, and also the first letter of the age of Sophocles (91), yet from what remains of it, and from what has before taken place with respect to Sophocles,

the number (143), which we have given to Callias, is not obscurely elicited."

According to the marble, Sophocles was twenty-eight years old in the two hundred and sixth year of the era, in the archonship of Apsephion. Therefore the year in which he was ninety-one (his age at his death) must have been 143, and if Callias were archon in 143, Antigenes, who was archon before him, could not have been archon in 142: nor could Euctemon, who was archon before Antigenes, have been archon in 144. Hence the supposition of the mistake by Selden, as to the date of Euctemon, is altogether forbidden. Further: with these two variations the marble would also still be at variance with Diodorus, as to the archonships of Apsephion and Micon and Laches, and their variance as to the interval between the Peloponnesian war and the beginning of the reign of Philip would only be reduced from six to three years. Their variance also as to the archonship in which Philip began to reign would still remain, and according to Diodorus, Agathocles was archon in the fourth year after Callimedes. I have already noticed that Lysias, in giving Alexias as the seventh archon from Diocles, is supported by the marble; but it is on the supposition that Selden has rightly represented Euctemon, as 147. In its turn Lysias may be produced as justifying the interpretation of Selden. According to Diodorus, Diocles was archon in the year immediately before Euctemon, and this would be 148 in the Marble Era, with Selden's interpretation (147) for Euctemon. Diodorus also gives Callias as archon in the year immediately before Alexias; and this would place Alexias in 142 of the marble, with Selden's 143 for Callias. Thus Alexias would be the seventh from Diocles, as stated by Lysias. Further: the number 147 for Euctemon receives a striking confirmation from Aulus Gellius and Orosius. If Euctemon, the archon in the twenty-fourth year of the war, was archon in 147, the war must have begun in 170; and the beginning of the reign of Philip is placed in the ninety-third year of the era. Thus, the reign of Philip began in the seventy-seventh year from the beginning of the war. Aulus Gellius (xvii., 21) places the beginning of the war in U.c.323, and the accession of Philip in u.c. 400. Orosius (iii., 12) also places the accession of Philip in v.c. 400; that is, the accession of Philip was in the seventy-seventh year from the beginning of the war, as we have already deduced it from the marble.

The name of the king of Macedon, who began to reign in the ninety-third year of the Marble Era, and in the archonship of Agathocles, has been obliterated from the marble; but no doubt can exist that it was Philip, as given by Selden. Prideaux, in his copy of the marble (1676), suggests that the record ought to have been of Philip's building Philippi, and not of his accession to the throne. This is a plain admission that Philip was the king of Macedon to whom the record referred, and his suggested alteration of the event (which is very plainly recorded) is as plain an admission that the marble is at variance with Diodorus in respect to it. Nor does Prideaux suggest that the archonship of Euctemon should have been

given as in the one hundred and forty-fourth year. Thus, the assumption which I bring most prominently forward, that the archonship of Euctemon was actually and intentionally assigned by the compiler of the Parian Chronicle to its one hundred and forty-seventh year, must be held, not to be a false, but a right assumption. But the great value of the marble arises not so much from its enabling us thus to throw down the chronology of Diodorus, as from the weight of its testimony in building up a true chronology, and this value depends entirely upon the right interpretation of its era. Selden, and the advocates of our common chronology, assume that Diodorus is correct in placing the archonship of Agathocles, the last archon with a date on the marble, in 105 Ol. 4, that is, B.C. 357. This would place the erection of the marble in 129 O1. 1, that is, B.C. 264, as the date of Agathocles on the marble is 93. But to this I demur. In its place I shall shew that the proper date of Agathocles is 101 Ol. 2, that is, B.C. 375, and that of the twenty-one years to be introduced between the end of the Peloponnesian war and the death of Alexander, fifteen are to be introduced in the reign of Philip, i. e., below the archonship of Agathocles. But, for the present, I must confine myself to the nine archons of the time of Philip that we have found in Demosthenes, and are not to be found in the list of Diodorus.

All are agreed that the death of Alexander, in the archonship of Agesias, is rightly placed by Diodorus in 114 Ol. 1, that is, B.C. 324. All are also agreed that the archonship of Evænetus, the archon in the second year of Alexander, that is, the year after the death of Philip, is rightly placed by Diodorus in 111 O1. 2, that is, B.C. 335. But the placing of the archonship of Agathocles, who according to Diodorus was archon in the fourth year of Philip, in 105 Ol. 4, must be wrong, if the nine additional archons of Demosthenes are to be introduced into the reign of Philip. I contend that they must be introduced, and that, therefore the date of the erection of the marble is not to be determined by the Olympic year in which Diodorus has placed the archonship of Agathocles, but by some other means. The Trojan war was the great event from which dates were reckoned by the ancients, and as the compiler of the marble has placed it in the nine hundred and fifty-fourth year of its era, I propose to employ it as the means of determining the date of the Marble Era. Dr. Hincks, in your page 427, refers to my mention of it, but he does not seem to be the least aware of the object which I have in view. In your p. 428 Dr. Hincks also greatly misrepresents what I have done respecting Timæus. He says, "We have to deal with historic dates; and Diodorus cannot be convicted of error in respect to them, because Timæus and the compiler of the Marble Chronicle differed from him as to prehistoric dates. He (Mr. Parker) fancies Timæus and the compiler of the Marble must have placed the return of the Heraclidæ in the same year; and he then argues to this effect:-The Heraclidæ returned eight hundred and twenty years before Evænetus, or 335, i.e., in 1155, according to Timæus [conceditur]. Conse

quently, according to the Marble [negatur]. But the marble date of the Heraclidæ is 873; and this taken from 1155 years gives 282 for the difference between the Marble epoch and the year before Christ." That Diodorus differs from Timæus and the Marble as to prehistoric or ante-Olympic dates may be easily shewn; but I do not from this infer that Diodorus must be in error as to historic dates. Instead of doing this, I have just shewn from Demosthenes, without any reference whatever to prehistoric dates, that Diodorus has omitted certain archons of the time of Philip, and that their omission of itself proves that Diodorus has placed the archonship of Agathocles, and all the preceding archons, in wrong Olympic years.

Also, without referring to prehistoric times, I have shewn from Lysias and the Marble that Diodorus is wrong in the order of succession in which he has placed several of his archons. Further, Dr. Hincks admits that the return of the Heraclide was in B.c. 1155, according to Timæus and Clitarchus; but I do not from this infer that it must therefore be in B.c. 1155, according to the Marble. Instead of doing this, I prove distinctly, without reference to Timæus and Clitarchus, that the return must have been in B.C. 1155, according to the Marble. The return is not mentioned on the Marble; but its date in its era may be easily deduced from the year (954) which the Marble assigns to the Trojan war. We learn from Thucydides (i., 12), Eratosthenes (ap. Clem. Al., i., 402), and Apollodorus (ap. Diodor., i., 5), that the period from the Trojan war to the return of the Heraclide was 80 years. These 80 deducted from 954 would leave 874, and thus the return must have been in 873 of the Marble Era, that is, 453 years before the date 420, in which the Marble places the archonship of Creon, the first annual archon. Now we learn from Julius Africanus that Creon was archon in 19 Ol. 3, that is, B.C. 702, and 702 years added to 453 years will give B.C. 1155, as the date of the return of the Heraclidæ, according to the Marble. Thus I find that the return of the Heraclidæ was in B.C. 1155, according to Timæus and Clitarchus, by learning from Diodorus that the archonship of Evænetus, which is mentioned by Timæus and Clitarchus, was in 111 Ol. 2, i. e., B.C. 335, and I find that it was in B.C. 1155, according to the Marble, by learning from Africanus that the archonship of Creon, which is mentioned by the Marble, was in 19 Ol. 3, that is, B.C. 702. This would place the erection of the marble in 124 Ol. 3, that is, B.C. 282, and the first Olympic year must have been in the four hundred and ninety-fourth year of the Marble Era. The death of Alexander in 114 Ol. 1 must have been in the forty-second year of the era, and the death of Philip in 111 Ol. 1, the year before the archonship of Evænetus, must have been in the fifty-fourth year of the era. But I must produce this testimony of Julius Africanus. As recorded by Syncellus (p. 212) Africanus states that the first annual archon, Creon, was appointed in the nineteenth Olympiad, but called by others the twenty-fifth Olympiad, and he adds that from Creon to Philinus,