[1] Hesiod, Eoiai, Fragm. 58, p. 43, ed. Düntzer.

[2] Diodôr. iv. 37-60; Apollodôr. ii. 7, 7; Ephorus ap. Steph. Byz. Δυμᾶν, Fragm. 10, ed. Marx.

The Doric institutions are called by Pindar τεθμοὶ Αἰγιμίου Δωρικοί (Pyth. i. 124).

There existed an ancient epic poem, now lost, but cited on some few occasions by authors still preserved, under the title Αἰγίμιος; the authorship being sometimes ascribed to Hesiod, sometimes to Kerkops (Athenæ. xi. p. 503). The few fragments which remain do not enable us to make out the scheme of it, inasmuch as they embrace different mythical incidents lying very wide of each other,—Iô, the Argonauts, Pêleus, and Thetis, etc. But the name which it bears seems to imply that the war of Ægimius against the Lapithæ, and the aid given to him by Hêraklês, was one of its chief topics. Both O. Müller (History of the Dorians, vol. i. b. 1, c. 8) and Welcker (Der Epische Kyklus, p. 263) appear to me to go beyond the very scanty evidence which we possess, in their determination of this last poem; compare Marktscheffel, Præfat. Hesiod. Fragm. cap. 5, p. 159.

[3] Respecting this prophet, compare Œnomaus ap. Eusebium, Præparat. Evangel. v. p. 211. According to that statement, both Kleodæus (here called Aridæus) son of Hyllus, and Aristomachus son of Kleodæus, had made separate and successive attempts at the head of the Herakleids to penetrate into Peloponnêsus through the Isthmus: both had failed and perished, having misunderstood the admonition of the Delphian oracle. Œnomaus could have known nothing of the pledge given by Hyllus, as the condition of the single combat between Hyllus and Echemus (according to Herodotus), that the Herakleids should make no fresh trial for one hundred years; if it had been understood that they had given and then violated such a pledge, such violation would probably have been adduced to account for their failure.

[4] Apollodôr. ii. 8, 3; Pausan. iii. 13. 3.

[5] Apollodôr. ii. 8, 3. According to the account of Pausanias, the beast upon which Oxylus rode was a mule, and had lost one eye (Paus. v. 3, 5).

[6] Herodotus observes, in reference to the Lacedæmonian account of their first two kings in Peloponnêsus, (Eurysthenês and Proklês, the twin sons of Aristodêmus,) that the Lacedæmonians gave a story not in harmony with any of the poets,—Λακεδαιμόνιοι γὰρ, ὁμολογέοντες οὐδενὶ ποιητῇ, λέγουσιν αὐτὸν Ἀριστόδημον ... βασιλεύοντα ἀγαγεῖν σφεας ἐς ταύτην τὴν χώρην τὴν νῦν ἐκτέαται, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τοὺς Ἀριστοδήμου παῖδας (Herodot. vi. 52).

[7] Tyrtæus, Fragm.—

In a similar manner Pindar says that Apollo had planted the sons of Hêraklês, jointly with those of Ægimius, at Sparta, Argos, and Pylus (Pyth. v. 93).

Isokratês (Or. vi. Archidamus, p. 120) makes out a good title by a different line of mythical reasoning. There seem to have been also stories containing mythical reasons why the Herakleids did not acquire possession of Arcadia (Polyæn. i. 7).

[8] Plato, Legg. iii. 6-7, pp. 682-686.

[9] Pausan. vii. 1-3.

[10] Polyb. ii. 45; iv. 1; Strabo, viii. pp. 383-384. This Tisamenus derives his name from the memorable act of revenge ascribed to his father Orestês. So, in the legend of the Siege of Thêbes, Thersander, as one of the Epigoni, avenged his father Polynikês: the son of Thersander was also called Tisamenus (Herodot. iv. 149). Compare O. Müller, Dorians, i. p. 69, note 9, Eng. Trans.

[11] Diodôr. iv. 1. The historian Ephorus embodied in his work a narrative in considerable detail of this grand event of Grecian legend, the Return of the Herakleids,—with which he professed to commence his consecutive history: from what sources he borrowed we do not know.

[12] Strabo, viii. p. 389. Pausan. ii. 6, 2; 12, 1.

[13] Conôn, Nar. 36; Strabo, viii. p. 365.

[14] Strabo, viii. p. 359; Conôn, Narr. 39.

[15] Thucydid. iv. 42. Schol. Pindar. Olymp. xiii. 17; and Nem. vii. 155. Conôn, Narrat. 26. Ephor. ap. Strab. viii. p. 389.

Thucydidês calls the ante-Dorian inhabitants of Corinth Æolians; Conôn calls them Ionians.

[16] Ephorus ap. Strabo, x. p. 463.

[17] Strabo, viii. p. 358; Pausan. v. 4, 1. One of the six towns in Triphylia mentioned by Herodotus is called Ἔπειον (Herodot. iv. 149).

[18] Herodot. viii. 73; Pausan. v. 1, 2. Hekatæus affirmed that the Epeians were completely alien to the Eleians; Strabo does not seem to have been able to satisfy himself either of the affirmative or negative (Hekatæus, Fr. 348, ed. Didot; Strabo, viii. p. 341).

[19] Ephorus ap. Strabo. viii. p. 358. The tale of the inhabitants of Pisa, the territory more immediately bordering upon Olympia, was very different from this.

[20] Agatharchides ap. Photium, Sect. 250, p. 1332. Ὀυδ᾽ Εὐριπίδου κατηγορῶ, τῷ Ἀρχελάῳ περιτεθεικότος τὰς Τημένου πράξεις.

Compare the Fragments of the Τημένιδαι, Ἀρχέλαος, and Κρεσφόντης, in Dindorf’s edition of Euripidês, with the illustrative remarks of Welcker, Griechische Tragödien, pp. 697, 708, 828.

The Prologue of the Archelaus seems to have gone through the whole series of the Herakleidan lineage, from Ægyptus and Danaus downwards.

[21] Herodot. v. 72.

[22] Herodot. vii. 159.

[23] Herodot. i. 68; Pausan. vii. 1, 3.

[24] Pausan. v. 4, 2.

[25] The date of Thucydidês is calculated, μετὰ Ἰλίου ἅλωσιν (i. 13).

[26] Herod. vii. 176.

[27] See the Epigram ascribed to Aristotle (Antholog. Græc. t. i. p. 181, ed. Reisk; Velleius Patercul. i. 1).

The Scholia on Lycophrôn (912) give a story somewhat different. Ephyrê is given as the old legendary name of the city of Krannon in Thessaly (Kineas, ap. Schol. Pindar. Pyth. x. 85), which creates the confusion with the Thesprotian Ephyrê.

[28] Herodot. vii. 176; Velleius Patercul. i. 2-3; Charax. ap. Stephan. Byz. v. Δώριον: Polyæn. viii. 44.

There were several different statements, however, about the parentage of Thessalus, as well as about the name of the country (Strabo, ix. p. 443 Stephan. Byz. v. Αἱμονία).

[29] See K. O. Müller, History of the Dorians, Introduction, sect. 4.

[30] Pindar, Pyth. x. 2.

[31] Thucyd. i. 12. ἦν δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ ἀποδασμὸς πρότερον ἐν τῇ γῇ ταύτῃ ἀφ᾽ ὧν καὶ ἐς Ἴλιον ἐστράτευσαν.

[32] Pausan. ix. 5, 8.

[33] Pausan. x. 8, 3.

[34] Ephor. Fragm. 30, ed. Marx.; Strabo, ix. pp. 401-402. The story of the Bœotians at Arnê, in Polyænus (i. 12), probably comes from Ephorus.

Diodôrus (xix. 53) gives a summary of the legendary history of Thêbes from Deukalion downwards: he tells us that the Bœotians were expelled from their country, and obliged to return into Thessaly during the Trojan war, in consequence of the absence of so many of their brave warriors at Troy; they did not find their way back into Bœotia until the fourth generation.

[35] Stephen. Byz. v. Ἄρνη, makes the Thessalian Arnê an ἄποικος of the Bœotian.

[36] Homer, Iliad, ii.; Strabo, ix. p. 413; Pausan. ix. 40, 3. Some of the families at Chæroneia, even during the time of the Roman dominion in Greece, traced their origin to Peripoltas the prophet, who was said to have accompanied Opheltas in his invading march out of Thessaly (Plutarch, Cimôn, c. 1).

[37] Strabo, ix. 411-435; Homer, Iliad, ii. 696; Hekatæus, Fr. 338, Didot.

The fragment from Alkæus (cited by Strabo, but briefly, and with a mutilated text,) serves only to identify the river and the town.

Itônus was said to be son of Amphiktyôn, and Bœôtus son of Itônus (Pausan. ix. 1, 1. 34, 1: compare Steph. Byz. v. Βοιωτία) by Melanippê. By another legendary genealogy (probably arising after the name Æolic had obtained footing as the class-name for a large section of Greeks, but as old as the poet Asius, Olympiad 30), the eponymous hero Bœôtus was fastened on to the great lineage of Æolus, through the paternity of the god Poseidôn, either with Melanippê or with Arnê, daughter of Æolus (Asius, Fr. 8, ed. Düntzer; Strabo, vi. p. 265; Diodôr. v. 67; Hellanikus ap. Schol. Iliad. ii 494). Two lost plays of Euripidês were founded on the misfortunes of Melanippê, and her twin children by Poseidôn,—Bœôtus and Æolus (Hygin. Fab. 186; see the Fragments of Μελανίππη Σοφὴ and Μελανίππη Δεσμῶτις in Dindorf’s edition, and the instructive comments of Welcker; Griech. Tragöd. vol. ii. pp. 840-860).

[38] Pindar, Nem. xi. 43; Hellanic. Fragm. 114, ed. Didot. Compare Stephan. Byz. v. Πέρινθος.

[39] Kinæthon ap. Pausan. ii. 18, 5. Penthilids existed in Lesbos during the historical times (Aristot. Polit. v. 10, 2).

[40] It has sometimes been supposed that the country called Thrace here means the residence of the Thracians near Parnassus; but the length of the journey, and the number of years which it took up, are so specially marked, that I think Thrace in its usual and obvious sense must be intended.

[41] Strabo, xiii. p. 582. Hellanikus seems to have treated of this delay near Mount Phrikium (see Steph. Byz. v. Φρίκιον). In another account (xiii. p. 621), probably copied from the Kymæan Ephorus, Strabo connects the establishments of this colony with the sequel of the Trojan war: the Pelasgians, the occupants of the territory, who had been the allies of Priam, were weakened by the defeat which they had sustained and unable to resist the emigrants.

[42] Velleius Patercul. i. 4: compare Antikleidês ap. Athenæ. xi. c. 3; Pausanias, iii. 2, 1.

[43] Strabo, ix. p. 401.

[44] Strabo, i. p. 10.

[45] Plutarch, Thêseus, c. 24, 25, 26.

[46] Plutarch, Thêseus, c. 34-35.

[47] Eusebius, Chronic. Can. pp. 228-229, ed. Scaliger; Pausan. ii. 18, 7.

[48] Ephorus ap. Harpocration. v. Ἀπατούρια: Ἔφορος ἐν δευτέρῳ, ὡς διὰ τὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ὁρίων ἀπάτην γενομένην, ὅτι πολεμούντων Ἀθηναίων πρὸς Βοιωτοὺς ὑπὲρ τῆς τῶν Μελαινῶν χώρας, Μέλανθος ὁ τῶν Ἀθηναίων βασιλεὺς Ξάνθον τὸν Θηβαῖων μονομαχῶν ἀπέκτεινεν. Compare Strabo, ix. p. 393.

Ephorus derives the term Ἀπατούρια from the words signifying a trick with reference to the boundaries, and assumes the name of this great Ionic festival to have been derived from the stratagem of Melanthus, described in Conôn (Narrat. 39) and Polyænus (i. 19). The whole derivation is fanciful and erroneous, and the story is a curious specimen of legend growing out of etymology.

[49] The orator Lykurgus, in his eulogium on Kodrus, mentions a Delphian citizen named Kleomantis, who secretly communicated the oracle to the Athenians, and was rewarded by them for doing so with σίτησις ἐν Πρυτανείῳ (Lycurg. cont. Leocrat. c. 20).

[50] Pherekydês, Fragm. 110, ed. Didot; Vell. Paterc. i. 2; Conôn, Narr. 26; Polyæn. i. c. 18.

Hellanikus traced the genealogy of Kodrus, through ten generations, up to Deukaliôn (Fragment 10, ed. Didot.)

[51] Strabo, xiv. p. 653.

[52] Pausan. vii. 2, 1.

[53] Herodot. i. 146; Pausan. vii. 2, 3, 4. Isokratês extols his Athenian ancestors for having provided, by means of this emigration, settlements for so large a number of distressed and poor Greeks at the expense of Barbarians (Or. xii. Panathenaic. p. 241).

[54] Herodot. i. 146; vii. 95; viii 46. Vellei. Paterc. i. 4. Pherekydês Frag. 111, ed. Didot.

[55] Herodot. i. 147; Pausan. vi. 2, 7.

[56] Pausan. vii. 2, 2; vii. 3, 4.

[57] Pausan. vii. 4, 3.

[58] Herodot. iv. 145-149; Valer. Maxim. iv. c. 6; Polyæn. vii. 49, who, however, gives the narrative differently by mentioning “Tyrrhenians from Lemnos aiding Sparta during the Helotic war:” another narrative in his collection (viii. 71), though imperfectly preserved, seems to approach more closely to Herodotus.

[59] Homer, Iliad, xi. 721.

[60] Strabo, viii. p. 347. M. Raoul Rochette, who treats the legends for the most part as if they were so much authentic history, is much displeased with Strabo for admitting this diversity of stories (Histoire des Colonies Grecques, t. iii. ch. 7, p. 54): “Après des détails si clairs et si positifs, comment est-il possible que ce même Strabon, bouleversant toute la chronologie, fasse arriver les Minyens dans la Triphylie sous la conduite de Chloris, mère de Nestor?”

The story which M. Raoul Rochette thus puts aside, is quite equal in point of credibility to that which he accepts: in fact, no measure of credibility can be applied.

[61] Conôn, Narrat. 36. Compare Plutarch, Quæstion. Græc. c. 21, where Tyrrhenians from Lemnos are mentioned, as in the passage of Polyænus, referred to in a preceding note.

[62] Strabo, x. p. 481; Aristot. Polit. ii. 10.

[63] Herodot. vii. 171 (see above, Ch. xii. vol. i. p. 226). Diodôrus (v. 80), as well as Herodotus, mentions generally large emigrations into Krête from Lacedæmôn and Argos; but even the laborious research of M. Raoul Rochette (Histoire des Colonies Grecques, t. iii. c. 9, pp. 60-68) fails in collecting any distinct particulars of them.

[64] Steph. Byz. v. Δώριον.—Περὶ ὧν ἱστορεῖ Ἄνδρων, Κρητὸς ἐν τῇ νήσῳ βασιλεύοντος, Τέκταφον τὸν Δώρου τοῦ Ἕλληνος, ὁρμήσαντα ἐκ τῆς ἐν Θετταλίᾳ τότε μὲν Δωρίδος, νῦν δὲ Ἱστιαιώτιδος καλουμένης, ἀφικέσθαι εἰς Κρήτην μετὰ Δωρίεων τε καὶ Ἀχαιῶν καὶ Πελασγῶν, τῶν οὐκ ἀπαράντων εἰς Τυῤῥηνίαν. Compare Strabo, x. pp. 475-476, from which it is plain that the story was adduced by Andrôn with a special explanatory reference to the passage in the Odyssey (xv. 175.)

The age of Andrôn, one of the authors of Atthidês, is not precisely ascertainable, but he can hardly be put earlier than 300 B. C.; see the preliminary Dissertation of C. Müller to the Fragmenta Historicorum Græcorum, ed. Didot, p. lxxxii; and the Prolusio de Atthidum Scriptoribus, prefixed to Lenz’s edition of the Fragments of Phanodêmus and Dêmôn, p.xxviii. Lips. 1812.

[65] See Diodôr, iv. 60; v. 80. From Strabo, (l. c.) however, we see that others rejected the story of Andrôn.

O. Müller (History of the Dorians, b. i. c. 1, § 9) accepts the story as substantially true, putting aside the name Dôrus, and even regards it as certain that Minos of Knôssus was a Dorian; but the evidence with which he supports this conclusion appears to me loose and fanciful.

[66] Conôn, Narrat. 47; Ephorus, Fragm. 62, ed. Marx.

[67] Diodôr. v. 59; Apollodôr. iii. 2, 2. In the Chapter next but one preceding this, Diodôrus had made express reference to native Rhodian mythologists,—to one in particular, named Zeno (c. 57).

Wesseling supposes two different settlers in Rhodes, both named Althæmenês: this is certainly necessary, if we are to treat the two narratives as historical.

[68] Strabo, xiv. p. 653; Pausan. ii. 39, 3; Kallimachus apud Stephan. Byz. v. Ἁλικάρνασσος.

Herodotus (vii. 99) calls Halikarnassus a colony of Trœzên; Pomponius Mela (i. 16,) of Argos. Vitruvius names both Argos and Trœzên (ii. 8, 12); but the two œkists whom he mentions, Melas and Arevanius, were not so well known as Anthês; the inhabitants of Halikarnassus being called Antheadæ (see Stephan. Byz. v. Ἀθῆναι; and a curious inscription in Boeckh’s Corpus Inscriptionum, No. 2655).

[69] “La période qui me semble la plus obscure et la plus remplie de difficultés n’est pas celle que je viens de parcourir: c’est celle qui sépare l’époque des Héraclides de l’institution des Olympiades. La perte des ouvrages d’Ephore et de Théopompe est sans doute la cause en grande partie du vide immense que nous offre dans cet intervalle l’histoire de la Grèce. Mais si l’on en excepte l’établissement des colonies Eoliennes, Doriennes, et Ioniennes, de l’Asie Mineure, et quelques évènemens, très rapprochés de la première de ces époques, l’espace de plus de quatre siècles qui les sépare est couvert d’une obscurité presque impénétrable, et l’on aura toujours lieu de s’étonner que les ouvrages des anciens n’offrent aucun secours pour remplir une lacune aussi considérable. Une pareille absence doit aussi nous faire soupçonner qu’il se passa dans la Grèce peu de ces grands évènemens qui se gravent fortement dans la mémoire des hommes: puisque, si les traces ne s’en étaient point conservées dans les écrits des contemporains, au moins le souvenir s’en seroit il perpétué par des monumens: or les monumens et l’histoire se taisent également. Il faut donc croire que la Grèce, agitée depuis si long temps par des révolutions de toute espèce, épuisée par ses dernières émigrations, se tourna toute entière vers des occupations paisibles, et ne chercha, pendant ce long intervalle, qu’à guérir, au sein du repos et de l’abondance qui en est la suite, les plaies profondes que sa population avait souffertes. (Raoul Rochette, Histoire des Colonies Grecques, t. ii. c. 16. p. 455).

To the same purpose, Gillies (History of Greece, ch. iii. p. 67. quarto): “The obscure transactions of Greece, during the four following centuries ill correspond with the splendor of the Trojan, or even of the Argonautic expedition,” etc.

[70] Larcher and Raoul Rochette, adopting the chronological date of Herodotus, fix the taking of Troy at 1270 B. C., and the Return of the Herakleids at 1190 B. C. According to the scheme of Eratosthenês, these two events stand at 1184 and 1104 B. C.

O. Müller, in his Chronological Tables (Appendix vi. to History of Dorians, vol ii. p. 441, Engl. transl.), gives no dates or computation of years anterior to the Capture of Troy and the Return of the Herakleids, which he places with Eratosthenês in 1184 and 1104 B. C.

C. Müller thinks (in his Annotatio ad Marmor Parium, appended to the Fragmenta Historicorum Græcorum, ed. Didot, pp. 556, 568, 572; compare his Prefatory notice of the Fragments of Hellanikus, p. xxviii. of the same volume) that the ancient chronologists, in their arrangement of the mythical events as antecedent and consequent, were guided by certain numerical attachments, especially by a reverence for the cycle of 63 years, product of the sacred numbers 7 × 9 = 63. I cannot think that he makes out his hypothesis satisfactorily, as to the particular cycle followed, though it is not improbable that some preconceived numerical theories did guide these early calculators. He calls attention to the fact that the Alexandrine computation of dates was only one among a number of others discrepant, and that modern inquirers are too apt to treat it as if it stood alone, or carried some superior authority, (pp. 568-572; compare Clemen. Alex. Stromat. i. p. 145, Sylb.) For example, O. Müller observes, (Appendix to Hist. of Dorians, p. 442,) that “Larcher’s criticism and rejection of the Alexandrine chronologists may perhaps be found as groundless as they are presumptuous,”—an observation, which, to say the least of it, ascribes to Eratosthenês a far higher authority than he is entitled to.

[71] The date of Kallimachus for Iphitus is approved by Clavier (Prem. Temps, tom. ii. p. 203), who considers it as not far from the truth.

[72] These dates, distinguished from the rest by braces, are proposed as mere conjectures, founded upon the probable length of generations.

[73] Karl Müller observes (in the Dissertation above referred to, appended to the Fragmenta Historicum Græcorum, p. 568): “Quod attinet æram Trojanam, tot obruimur et tam diversis veterum scriptorum computationibus, ut singulas enumerare negotium sit tædii plenum, eas vel probare vel improbare res vana nec vacua ab arrogantiâ. Nam nemo hodie nescit quænam fides his habenda sit omnibus.”

[74] The distinction which Mr. Clinton draws between an upward and a downward chronology is one that I am unable to comprehend. His doctrine is, that upward chronology is trustworthy and practicable up to the first recorded Olympiad; downward chronology is trustworthy and practicable from Phorôneus down to the Ionic migration: what is uncertain is, the length of the intermediate line which joins the Ionic migration to the first recorded Olympiad,—the downward and the upward terminus. (See Fasti Hellenici, vol. i. Introduct. p. ix. second edit. and p. 123, ch. vi.)

All chronology must begin by reckoning upwards: when by this process we have arrived at a certain determined era in earlier time, we may from that date reckon downwards, if we please. We must be able to reckon upwards from the present time to the Christian era, before we can employ that event as a fixed point for chronological determinations generally. But if Eratosthenês could perform correctly the upward reckoning from his own time to the fall of Troy, so he could also perform the upward reckoning up to the nearer point of the Ionic migration. It is true that Eratosthenês gives all his statements of time from an older point to a newer (so far at least as we can judge from Clemens Alex. Strom. 1, p. 336); he says “From the capture of Troy to the return of the Herakleids is 80 years; from thence to the Ionic migration, 60 years; then, farther on, to the guardianship of Lykurgus, 159 years; then to the first year of the first Olympiad, 108 years; from which Olympiad to the invasion of Xerxês, 297 years; from whence to the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, 48 years,” etc. But here is no difference between upward reckoning as high as the first Olympiad, and then downward reckoning for the intervals of time above it. Eratosthenês first found or made some upward reckoning to the Trojan capture, either from his own time or from some time at a known distance from his own: he then assumes the capture of Troy as an era, and gives statements of intervals going downwards to the Peloponnesian war: amongst other statements, he assigns clearly that interval which Mr. Clinton pronounces to be undiscoverable, viz. the space of time between the Ionic emigration and the first Olympiad, interposing one epoch between them. I reject the computation of Eratosthenês, or any other computation, to determine the supposed date of the Trojan war; but, if I admitted it, I could have no hesitation in admitting also the space which he defines between the Ionic migration and the first Olympiad. Eusebius (Præp. Ev. x. 9, p. 485) reckons upwards from the birth of Christ, making various halts, but never breaking off, to the initial phenomena of Grecian antiquity,—the deluge of Deukalion and the conflagration of Phaëtôn.

[75] See the string of fabulous names placed at the head of the Halikarnassian Inscription, professing to enumerate the series of priests of Poseidôn from the foundation of the city (Inscript. No. 2655, Boeckh), with the commentary of the learned editor: compare, also, what he pronounces to be an inscription of a genealogy partially fabulous at Hierapytna in Krête (No. 2563).

The memorable Parian marble is itself an inscription, in which legend and history—gods, heroes, and men—are blended together in the various successive epochs without any consciousness of transition in the mind of the inscriber.

That the Catalogue of Priestesses of Hêrê at Argos went back to the extreme of fabulous times, we may discern by the Fragments of Hellanikus (Frag. 45-53). So also did the registers at Sikyôn: they professed to record Amphion, son of Zeus and Antiopê, as the inventor of harp-music (Plutarch, De Musicâ, c. 3, p. 1132).

I remarked in the preceding page, that Mr. Clinton erroneously cites K. O. Müller as a believer in the chronological authenticity of the lists of the early Spartan kings: he says (vol. iii. App. vi. p. 330), “Mr. Müller is of opinion that an authentic account of the years of each Lacedæmonian reign from the return of the Heraclidæ to the Olympiad of Korœbus had been preserved to the time of Eratosthenês and Apollodôrus.” But this is a mistake; for Müller expressly disavows any belief in the authenticity of the lists (Dorians, i. p. 146): he says: “I do not contend that the chronological accounts in the Spartan lists form an authentic document, more than those in the catalogue of the priestesses of Hêrê and in the list of Halikarnassian priests. The chronological statements in the Spartan lists may have been formed from imperfect memorials: but the Alexandrine chronologists must have found such tables in existence,” &c.

The discrepancies noticed in Herodotus (vi. 52) are alone sufficient to prove that continuous registers of the names of the Lacedæmonian kings did not begin to be kept until very long after the date here assigned by Mr. Clinton.

Xenophôn (Agesilaus, viii. 7) agrees with what Herodotus mentions to have been the native Lacedæmonian story,—that Aristodêmus (and not his sons) was the king who conducted the Dorian invaders to Sparta. What is farther remarkable is, that Xenophôn calls him—Ἀριστόδημος ὁ Ἡρακλέους. The reasonable inference here is, that Xenophôn believed Aristodêmus to be the son of Hêraklês, and that this was one of the various genealogical stories current. But here the critics interpose; “ὁ Ἡρακλἑους (observes Schneider,) non παῖς, sed ἀπόγονος, ut ex Herodoto, viii. 131, admonuit Weiske.” Surely, if Xenophôn had meant this, he would have said ὁ ἀφ᾽ Ἡρακλέους.

Perhaps particular exceptional cases might be quoted, wherein the very common phrase of ὁ, followed by a genitive, means descendant, and not son. But if any doubt be allowed upon this point, chronological computations, founded on genealogies, will be exposed to a serious additional suspicion. Why are we to assume that Xenophôn must give the same story as Herodotus, unless his words naturally tell us so?

[76] See Mr. Clinton’s work, pp. 32, 40, 100.

[77] “From these three” (Hyllus, Pamphylus, and Dymas,) says Mr. Clinton, vol. i. ch. 5, p. 109, “the three Dorian tribes derived their names.”

[78] Pomponius Mela, iii. 7.

[79] See the preceding volume of this History, Chap. ii. p. 66.

[80] Larcher, Chronologie d’Hérodote, chap. xiv. pp. 352-401.

From the capture of Troy down to the passage of Alexander with his invading army into Asia, the latter a known date of 334 B. C., the following different reckonings were made:—

(Clemens Alexand. Strom. i. p. 337.)

Democritus estimated a space of seven hundred and thirty years between his composition of the Μικρὸς Διάκοσμος and the capture of Troy (Diogen. Laërt. ix. 41). Isokratês believed the Lacedæmonians to have been established in Peloponnêsus seven hundred years, and he repeats this in three different passages (Archidam. p. 118; Panathen. p. 275; De Pace, p. 178). The dates of these three orations themselves differ by twenty-four years, the Archidamus being older than the Panathenaïc by that interval; yet he employs the same number of years for each in calculating backwards to the Trojan war, (see Clinton, vol. i. Introd. p. v.) In round numbers, his calculation coincides pretty nearly with the eight hundred years given by Herodotus in the preceding century.

The remarks of Boeckh on the Parian marble generally, in his Corpus Inscriptionum Græc. t. ii. pp. 322-336, are extremely valuable, but especially his criticism on the epoch of the Trojan war, which stands the twenty-fourth in the Marble. The ancient chronologists, from Damastês and Hellanikus downwards, professed to fix not only the exact year, but the exact month, day, and hour in which this celebrated capture took place. [Mr. Clinton pretends to no more than the possibility of determining the event within fifty years, Introduct. p. vi.] Boeckh illustrates the manner of their argumentation.

O. Müller observes (History of the Dorians, t. ii. p. 442, Eng. Tr.), “In reckoning from the migration of the Heraklidæ downward, we follow the Alexandrine chronology, of which it should be observed, that our materials only enable us to restore it to its original state, not to examine its correctness.”

But I do not see upon what evidence even so much as this can be done. Mr. Clinton, admitting that Eratosthenês fixed his date by conjecture, supposes him to have chosen “a middle point between the longer and shorter computations of his predecessors.” Boeckh thinks this explanation unsatisfactory (l. c. p. 328).

[81] Καὶ τοὺς θεοὺς δὲ διὰ τοῦτο πάντες φασὶ βασιλεύεσθαι, ὅτι καὶ αὐτοὶ, οἱ μὲν ἔτι καὶ νῦν, οἱ δὲ τὸ ἀρχαῖον, ἐβασιλεύοντο. Ὥσπερ δὲ καὶ τὰ εἴδη ἑαυτοῖς ἀφομοιοῦσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οὕτω καὶ τοὺς βίους τῶν θεῶν (Aristot. Politic. i. 1. 7).

[82] In the pictures of the Homeric Heroes, there is no material difference of character recognized between one race of Greeks and another,—or even between Greeks and Trojans. See Helbig, Die Sittlichen Zustände des Griechischen Heldenalters, part ii. p. 53.

[83] Niebuhr, Römische Geschichte, vol. i. p. 55, 2d edit. “Erkennt man aber, dass aller Ursprung jenseits unserer nur Entwickelung und Fortgang fassenden Begriffe liegt; und beschränkt sich von Stufe auf Stufe im Umfang der Geschichte zurückzugehen, so wird man Völker eines Stammes (das heisst, durch eigenthümliche Art und Sprache identisch) vielfach eben an sich entgegenliegenden Küstenländern antreffen ... ohne dass irgend etwas die Voraussetzung erheischte, eine von diesen getrennten Landschaften sei die ursprüngliche Heimath gewesen von wo ein Theil nach der andern gewandert wäre.... Dies ist der Geographie der Thiergeschlechter und der Vegetation analog: deren grosse Bezirke durch Gebürge geschieden werden, and beschränkte Meere einschliessen.”

“When we once recognize, however, that all absolute beginning lies out of the reach of our mental conceptions, which comprehend nothing beyond development and progress, and when we attempt nothing more than to go back from the later to the earlier stages in the compass of history, we shall often find, on opposite coasts of the same sea, people of one stock (that is, of the same peculiar customs and language,) without being warranted in supposing that either of these separate coasts was the primitive home from whence emigrants crossed over to the other. This is analogous to the geography of animals and plants, whose wide districts are severed by mountains and inclose internal seas.”