A view of the dissertation upon the epistles of Phalaris, Themistocles, &c lately publish'd by the Reverend Dr. Bentley ; also of the examination of that dissertation by the Honourable Mr. Boyle, in order to the manifesting the incertitude of heathen chronology. Milner, John, 1628-1702. 1698 Approx. 107 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 45 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2003-01 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A50874 Wing M2082 ESTC R32092 12321750 ocm 12321750 59486 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A50874) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 59486) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1017:6) A view of the dissertation upon the epistles of Phalaris, Themistocles, &c lately publish'd by the Reverend Dr. Bentley ; also of the examination of that dissertation by the Honourable Mr. Boyle, in order to the manifesting the incertitude of heathen chronology. Milner, John, 1628-1702. [8], 78 p. Printed by H.C. for John Jones ..., London : 1698. Running title: A view of Dr. Bentley's, and Mr. Boyle's dissertations &c. Attributed to Milner by Wing and NUC pre-1956 imprints. Errata: p. 78. Reproduction of original in the Cambridge University Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Bentley, Richard, 1662-1742. -- Dissertation upon the epistles of Phalaris. Orrery, Charles Boyle, -- Earl of, 1676-1731. -- Dr. Bentley's dissertations on the epistles of Phalaris and the fables of Aesop. History, Ancient -- Chronology. 2000-00 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2001-11 SPi Global Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2002-02 TCP Staff (Oxford) Sampled and proofread 2002-02 TCP Staff (Oxford) Text and markup reviewed and edited 2002-03 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion A VIEW OF THE DISSERTATION UPON THE EPISTLES OF PHALARIS , THEMISTOCLES , &c. Lately Publish'd by the Reverend Dr. BENTLEY . ALSO Of the Examination of that Dissertation by the Honourable Mr. BOYLE . In order to the Manifesting the Incertitude of Heathen Chronology . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Plutarch in Vit. Solon . LONDON : Printed by H. C. for Iohn Iones , at the Dolphin and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard , 1698. THE PREFACE . IT is not my purpose to intermeddle in the Controversie concerning the Epistles of Phalaris , Themistocles , Socrates and Euripides . Whether they be genuine or no , I shall not trouble my self to enquire ; nor yet whether AEsop was such a Monster for Vgliness as some make him , or whether the Fables that go under his Name are his , or whether we have any thing now Extant of AEsop's own Composing . I remember a Passage in Quintilian Instit. Orat. l. 5. c. 11. Illae quoque Fabulae quae etiamsi originem non ab AEsopo acceperunt ( nam videtur earum primus auctor Hesiodus ) nomine tamen AEsopi maxime celebrantur , &c. By which it may seem that he was of Opinion that Hesiod was the first Author of the Fables , which bore AEsop's Name in his time . But I shall not interpose in any of these Controversies ; that which I design is ( if I mistake not ) a Matter of much greater moment . There are many that have set themselves highly to Extol and Magnifie the study of Chronology , and seem to have thought that they could never exceed in their Encomiums of it . And it is not my purpose to rob it of its due Praises . So far as there are hopes of attaining any certainty in it , it is without doubt a very laudable Study ; and therefore the acquainting our selves with Scripture Chronology is very necessary , and no less profitable than it is pleasant and delightful . For whatsoever is plainly express'd in Sacred Writ , relating to Chronology is no less certain , than it is that the Author of the Scripture is Truth it self . Therefore when I speak of the uncertainty of Chronology , I am to be understood of Heathen Chronology . I grant also that even that was of good use to Josephus , Africanus , Clemens Alexandrinus , Eusebius , and other Ancients , for destroying the Heathens pretensions to Antiquity . By this it appears , That I do not go about to dissuade Men from all study of Chronology ; but there are sundry things which ( I think ) are greatly to be dislik'd in many of our modern Chronographers , that I would have Men caution'd against . There are who cannot contend more earnestly for the most necessary and fundamental Article of Religion , than they do for a Chronological Trifle . They cannot endure that any should dissent from them , and fall foul upon those that do , treating them many times with very rude and unbecoming Language . There are also who will presume to assign not only the Year , but the Month , yea , perhaps the very Day , in which such or such things were done ; Qui horas & singula annotarunt momenta , cum de integris seculis nihil certi adfirmare potuerint , as one saith . But that which is most to be lamented , is Men's Expence of so much time and pains in this Study , and after all , leaving their Reader as unsatisfi'd as they found him . Some have spent a great part of their Life in it ( as appears by the large Volumes writ upon this Subject ) and these Men of extraordinary Parts , great Learning and Diligence ; so that they might have been serviceable both to the Age in which they liv'd , and to Posterity , if they had set themselves with the like Application to more useful Studies . These are some of the things which I could not but dislike in our modern Chronologers , and a serious Reflection upon them hath made me often desire , that some Person fit for so great a Work would make it his business to convince the World of the uncertainty of Chronology . But not hearing of any that did apply himself to so necessary a Work , I thought it not amiss to lay hold of the Advantage offer'd me by the late Dissertation upon the Epistles of Phalaris , Themistocles , &c. wherein I found many Passages in which the Reverend and Learned Author doth plainly bear Testimony to the uncertainty of Heathen Chronology , and more which may be made use of in order to the manifesting of it . If Men were fully satisfy'd of this , methinks there should need no more to prevent their falling into the foremention'd Errors . We might hope that they would not contend so earnestly , nor be so impatient of contradiction , in Matters in which they are convinc'd , that it is impossible to attain to any certainty ; and that they would not throw away so many precious Hours in the Study of them , nor lay so much stress upon the Arguments that are built upon them , as many do . They would consider that it is not easie to build certain Conclusions upon a sandy Foundation . How little Plutarch was mov'd with Arguments drawn from Chronology , is apparent from those Words of his , which I have Transcrib'd in the Title Page ; and also refer to in Part II. when I enquire after the time of Solon's Death . If others had rely'd upon such Arguments no more than Plutarch did , it is probable that the unhappy Controversie about Phalaris's Epistles had never been started . The View of the Dissertation was finish'd not long after it was Publish'd ; but I resolv'd to wait till I saw what Answer would be made to it , believing that I should have more assistance from the Answer , than I have had from the Dissertation it self . And my Expectation was not frustrated ; for I found that the Honourable the Author of the Examination , had not only more frequently , but also more plainly and directly born Testimony to the uncertainty of Chronology , than the Reverend Author of the Dissertation had done . So that I am now apt to flatter my self with the hope , that the Authority of two such great Names will be of force effectually to persuade Men , not to throw away so much time upon the Study of Chronology , nor to rely so much upon it , as some have done . A VIEW OF THE DISSERTATION UPON THE EPISTLES OF Phalaris , Themistocles , &c. PART . I. THE Time of Phalaris's Tyranny cannot be precisely determined ; so various and defective are the Accounts of those that write of him . Thus the Dissert . p. 14. Here it is plainly acknowledg'd , That the Time of Phalaris's Tyranny is uncertain , and the reason that is given , is , because The Accounts of those that write of him are so various and defective . If then it appear , That the Accounts given by those who write of the other Persons mention'd in the Dissertation , are no less various and defective , we may as firmly conclude that the Time of their Flourishing or Reign is uncertain . The same may be apply'd to the Cities spoken of in the Dissertation . Eusebius sets the beginning of it , Olymp. 31. 2. Phalaris apud Agrigentinos Tyrannidem exercet ; and the end of it , Olymp. 37. 2. Phalaridis Tyrannis destructa . By which reckoning he govern'd 28 Years . But St. Hierome , out of some unknown Chronologer ( for that Note is not Extant in the Greek of Eusebius ) gives a different time of his Reign , above 80 Years later than the other , Olymp. 53. 3. or as other Copies read it , 52. 2. Phalaris Tyrannidem exercuit annos 16. Which is agreeable to Suidas , who places him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , about the 52 Olympiad , Dissert . p. 14. Here the Doctor declares the uncertainty of the time of the beginning , continuance , and end of Phalaris's Tyranny . It begun Olymp. 31. 2. according to Eusebius , but according to St. Hierome , Olymp. 53. 3. or ( as other Copies have it ) 52. 2. so that there is above 80 Years difference . It continu'd according to Eusebius 28 Years ; according to St. Hierome only 16. It ended according to Eusebius , Olymp. 37. 2. according to St. Hierome , Olymp. 57. 3. Thus the Doctor . But the time of Phalaris's Government is still more uncertain , because the Copies of Eusebius's Chronicon do here very much vary . It seems that the Copy which the Doctor follow'd sets the beginning of it , Olymp. 31. 2. But other Copies set it , Olymp. 31. 4. Vid. Edit . Paris . A. D. 1512. Edit . Basil. A. D. 1570 , and Edit . Pontaci . A. D. 1604. Likewise his Copy sets the end of his Reign , Olymp. 37. 2. but in Scaliger's Edition , A. D. 1606. it is set , Olymp. 38. 2. and Pontacus's Edition , together with that at Paris , and that at Basil placeth it , Olymp. 39. 3. So as to the later account of the Time of Phalaris's Tyranny , which we have in Eusebius's Chronicon , and which the Doctor ascribes to St. Hierome , his Copy refers it to Olymp. 53. 3. and yet he himself tells us , That other Copies place it , Olymp. 52. 2. as Scaliger's Edition sets it , Olymp. 53. 4. and the Edition at Paris , and that at Basil , Olymp. 51. 4. From all this I may conclude , That it is most-certainly true which the Doctor saith , that The time of Phalaris 's Tyranny cannot be precisely determin'd . Stesichorus was but 6 Years old at that supposed time of Phalaris's Death . Dissert . p. 15. By That supposed Time of Phalaris 's Death , the Doctor means , Olymp. 37. 2. so that the Authors whom the Doctor follow'd , make Stesichorus to have been 6 Years old at that time and no more . But according to Suidas's account , he could not be of the Age of 6 Years at that time , for he says expresly , That Stesichorus was born in that very Olympiad , viz. Olym. 37. And Eusebius seems not to agree very well either with the Doctor 's Authors , or with Suidas . For he sets Stesichorus's Death , Olymp. 55. 1. and we are told by Lucian , in his Macrobii , That he liv'd to the Age of 85 Years , according to which account he must be born , Olymp. 33. 4. and consequently ( not 6 only , but ) 14 or 15 Years old at that suppos'd time of Phalaris's Death . And we may here observe , That Suidas neither agrees with Eusebius , as to the time of Stesichorus's Death , nor with Lucian , as to the Age to which he liv'd . For Suidas makes him to have died , Olymp. 56. ( not Olymp. 55. 1. as Eusebius . ) And whereas Lucian says , That he liv'd 85. Years , according to Suidas ( who placeth his Birth , Olymp. 37. and his Death , Olymp. 56 ) he did not reach 80. Add hereto , That Eusebius makes him to have been famous , Olymp . 42. 1. at which time he was but 20 Years old ( if he was that ) according to Suidas's account of him ; but it is not probable that he should be so fam'd a Poet at that Age. Tho' they that believe the relation of Pliny , Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 29. That a Nightingal sung in his Mouth when he was an Infant , may perhaps not think it strange , that he should be so celebrated a Poet so Young. But what shall we say to the Marmor Arundel . which according to Mr. Selden , refers Stesichorus , to Olymp. 73. 3. ? Or to Conon , who ap . Photium Cod. 186. Sect. 42. makes him Contemporary to Gelon , of whom hereafter ? If these speak of the same Stesichorus , that Eusebius and Suidas do , there needs no more to manifest the uncertainty of Stesichorus's Age at that suppos'd time of Phalaris's Death , i. e. Olymp. 37. 3. Aristotle and Iamblichus make these three to be Contemporaries ; Dissert . p. 15. The Three , of whom the Doctor speaks this are , Phalaris , Stesichorus and Pythagoras . And it is true , that Aristotle Rhetor. l. 2. c. 21. makes Stesichorus to be Contemporary to Phalaris , and Iamblichus in the Life of Pythagoras shews , That he and Phalaris were Contemporaries . But if Pythagoras liv'd in the Time of Numa , he could not be Contemporary to the other Two , according to the account that is given of them . Now Livy , l. 1. n. 18. acquaints us that there were who gave out that Numa was Pythagoras's Scholar ; and Dionys . Halicarnas . l. 2. says , That there were many that had writ thus . I grant that these two celebrated Historians do not approve of that Opinion concerning the Time of Pythagoras's Flourishing ; but it shews however , that it was not certain then at what Time he Flourish'd , as it is uncertain still . Those that agree that he was not so early as Numa's Time , differ much among themselves about the Time when he liv'd . Livy says , That he was in Italy when Servius Tullius Reign'd at Rome , but Cicero Tuscul. Quaest. l. 1. and A. Gellius , l. 17. c. 21. say , That he came into Italy in the Reign of Tarquinius Superbus . According to Pliny , Nat. Hist. l. 2. c. 8. he liv'd about Olymp. 42. according to Dionys. Halicarn . l. 2. after Olymp. 50. according to Diog. Laertius , in Pythagoras , about Olymp 60. according to Clemens Alex. ( Vid. Strom. l. 1. his ) Olymp. 62. according to Eusebius , in Edit . Pontaci item Paris . and Basil , Olymp. 63. 4. in Scaligers's Edition , Olymp. 65. 1. Plutarch in Numa , bears Testimony to the uncertainty of the Time when Pythagoras flourish'd , and also to the incertitude of Chronology in general . For having acquainted us that some affirm'd that Pythagoras convers'd with Numa , but that others made him almost 5 Generations later , he adds , That 't is difficult exactly to adjust the Times ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Alaesa was first built by Archonides a Sicilian , Olymp. 94. 2. or , as others say , by the Carthaginians about two Years before Diod. p. 246. So that here are above 120 Years slipt since the latest Period of Phalaris , Dissert . p. 16. Here we have two that bear Testimony to the uncertainty of the time when this City was built , viz. Diodorus Sic. and the Dr. Diodorus having said , that Archonides built the City Alesa , a little after adds , That some say that Alesa was built by the Carthaginians , about the time that Amilcas made Peace with Dionysius ; now the same Diodorus speaks of Amilcas's making Peace with Dionysius , Olymp. 93. 4. Thericles , the Corinthian Potter was Contemporary with Aristophanes the Comaedian ; Athenaeus , p. 470. — Thericles , with the Cups that had their Appellation from him , come above 120 Years after Phalaris's Death . Dissert . p. 19. Athenaeus's Words are these , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which seem to leave it uncertain whether Thericles liv'd at the same time that Aristophanes did , or only in the Times near it . But let it be granted , that he liv'd at the same time that Aristophanes did , still it will not be certain that he was above 120 Years after the Death of Phalaris . It must be confess'd that , if that was certainly true which Suidas hath concerning Aristophanes , that he liv'd , Olymp. 114. this would make something towards the Proof of this , That Thericles was above 120 Years after Phalaris's Death . But the Authority of Diodorus Sic. doth utterly destroy the certainty of this account of Suidas , for l. 12. he affirms , That Aristophanes was about the Age of Pericles , and withal , that Pericles died , Olymp. 87. 4. so that according to him , Aristophanes liv'd before Olymp. 87. 4. Yea , Eusebius makes him not only to have liv'd , but also to have been famous , Olymp. 85. 4. and so Thericles ( if he was Aristophanes's Contemporary , as the Doctor says that he was ) might be famous for his Cups then or before . Whence it follows , that it cannot be certain , That Thericles was above 120 Years after the Death of Phalaris , for from Olymp. 57. 3. to Olymp. 85. 4. are not 120 Years . Thucydides , l. 6. p. 414. relates , That at the Time of Xerxes's Expedition into Greece ( which was , Olymp. 73. ) Anaxilaus , King of Rhegium , besieg'd Zancle , and took it , and call'd it Messana , from the Peleponnesian City of that Name , the Place of his Nativity . The same says Herodotus , l. 6. c. 23. and agreeably to this Narrative , Diodorus sets down the Death of Anaxilaus , Olymp. 76. 1. when he had Reign'd 18 Years . Pausanias Messen. p. 134. placeth this same Anaxilaus of Rhegium about 180 Years higher than they do , telling , That he assisted the Refugees of Messana , in Peleponnesus , after the second War with the Spartans , to take Zancle in Sicily ; which thereupon was call'd Messana , Olymp. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . — The time of the Messenian War agrees with that Computation , and the ancient Catalogue of the Olympionicae puts Chionis's Victory at that very Year , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Dissert . p. 24 , 25 , 26. Here are many Things very uncertain , as 1st . It is uncertain whether Xerxes's Expedition was Olymp. 73. for according to Eusebius , Xerxes begun his Reign , Olymp. 73. 3. and if he came not to the Empire till that time , it is manifest , as by the account given by others , so by the relation of Herodotus , that his Expedition into Greece was not Olymp. 73. For Herodotus says , l. 7. c. 7. That in the second Year after the Death of his Father Darius , he made an Expedition into Egypt to reduce it , and c. 20. that having done this , he spent Four Years compleat in Preparation for the War against Greece , and set forward in the Fifth Year . I know that there are considerable Writers who do not agree with Herodotus , as to the Time that was taken up in Preparation against Greece ( Diodorus Sic. l. 11. making it but Three Years , Iustin. l. 2. c. 10. affirming , That he spent Five Years in it , which number of Years , Iulian Orat. 1. in laudem Constantii , doubles , making it to have taken up Ten Years ) but this only renders it more uncertain in what Year Xerxes's Expedition into Greece was : To return to Eusebius , he sets his Reduction of Egypt , Olymp. 74. 1. and his making a Bridge over the Hellespont , Olymp. 74. 4. ( Vid. Edit . Paris . & Basil. & Pontaci ) Diodorus Sic. l. 11. refers the Expedition into Greece to the Year following , Olymp. 75. 1. with whom Dionys. Halicarn . l. 9. agrees , as the Marmor Arund . according to Mr. Selden , and others agrees with Eusebius , for they make the An. 217. to which the Marble refers Xerxes's making a Bridge over the Hellespont , to answer to Olymp. 74. 4. Clemens Alex. Stro. 1. sets this Expedition 297 Years after the first Olympiad , as Thucydides , l. 1. placeth it in the Tenth Year after the Battle at Marathon , so that if that Battle was , Olymp. 72. 1. ( as Eusebius sets it ) Xerxes's coming against Greece , was Olymp. 74. 3. But Plato de Legibus , l. 3. says , That it was but almost Ten Years between Datis's coming into Greece , and the Fight at Salamis . It must then be confess'd , that it is not certain in what Year Xerxes's Expedition into Greece was , nor yet that it was , Olymp. 73. as the Doctor sets it , unless Olymp. 73. be the Printers Mistake . 2dly . It is uncertain when Anaxilaus Reign'd , and when Zancle was call'd Messana . For the Doctor acquaints us , That Pausanias is so far from agreeing with Herodotus , Thucydides , and Diodorus Sic. about the time of Anaxilaus , and of his changing the Name of that City , that their Accounts differ about 180 Years . It may perhaps be said , That if the three other eminent Historians plainly agree upon the Time , Pausanias's Dissent will not make it less certain ; for we may conclude that it was his Mistake . The Question then will be whether Herodotus , Thucydides , and Diodorus Sic. do plainly agree about the Time. And I shall grant that Herodotus , and Diodorus Sic. seem to agree as to the time of Anaxilas , or Anaxilaus , or Anaxileos , ( for the Name is written thus differently , ) Herodotus , l. 6. c. 23 , 24. signifying that he Reign'd in the Time of Darius , the Father of Xerxes , and Diodorus Sic. saying , That having Reign'd 18 Years , he died Olymp. 76. 1. But of his changing the Name of Zancle into Messana , Diodorus in that place hath not a Word , and tho' lib. 4. he doth mention the change of the Name , yet there he doth not tell us either when , or by whom it was changed . Herodotus , lib. 7. c. 164. speaks of the change of the Name from Zancle to Messene , as Eustathius upon Dionys. Alex. also doth , alledging Herodotus ; but they do not mention Anaxilaus as the Author of the Change , nor inform us when that Change was made . I grant that Herodotus speaks of it upon occasion of his mentioning one Cadmus , who liv'd at the time of Xerxes's Expedition against Greece ; but he does not say that the Change was made then ; yea , he seems to signifie that Zancle had chang'd its Name before : His Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which had chang'd its Name to Messene . To come to Thucydides , Herodotus and he seem not to agree very well in that which they say of the King of Rhegium . By the persuasion of Herodotus's Anaxileos , the Samians possess'd themselves of Zancle , but Thucydides's Anaxilas , cast the Samians out of it , not long after that the Samians had driven the Sicilians out of it ; so that perhaps it may be question'd , whether those two Historians speak of one and the same Person . Besides , tho' the Doctor says , That Thucydides , l. 6. p. 414. relates , that at the time of Xerxes 's Expedition into Greece , Anaxilaus took Zancle , and call'd it Messana ; yet the truth is , That Thucydides doth not there make any mention of Xerxes's Expedition . He tells , That the Samians who had driven the Sicilians out of Zancle , fled from the Medes , but we cannot infer hence , that the Name of that City was chang'd at the time of Xerxes's Expedition into Greece , much less that Thucydides relates it . The Conclusion is , That Herodotus , Thucydides , and Diodorus Sic. leave us uncertain as to the Time of Zancle's changing its Name , and Pausanias's Testimony alledg'd by the Doctor seems to make the Matter still more uncertain . 3dly . It is not certain , that Chionis was Victor , Olymp. 29. tho' Pausanias doth affirm positively that he was ; for in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in Scaliger we read , thus , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Where we see that it is left doubtful , some said that Xenophon , others , that Chionis was then Victor . But of this see more in Part 2d . Some Sicilians planted themselves , Olymp. 96. 1. upon an Hill call'd Taurus , near the Ruins of Naxos , and built a new Town there , which they call'd Tauromenion , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , from their Settlement upon Taurus ; so Diodorus , l. 14. p. 282 , and 305. About 40 Years after this , Olymp. 105. 3. one Andromachus a Tauromenite , gather'd all the remnant of the old Naxians , that were dispers'd through Sicily , and persuaded them to fix there ; Id. l. 15. p. 411. Dissert . p. 31. The Doctor having said , That Andromachus persuaded the Naxians to fix there , should have added that which follows in Diodorus Sic. viz. That having stay'd a long time there , he call'd it Tauromenium , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . If the Doctor had not conceal'd this , it would have appear'd how uncertain it is , both when , and by whom the Name Tauromenium was given , and also that Diodorus Sic. bears Testimony to this incertitude , since l. 14. he says , That the Sicilians , that planted themselves there gave it that Name , Olymp. 96 1. and l. 15. that Andromachus gave it that Appellation , Olymp. 105. 3. I need not trouble my self to enquire , how well Diodorus Sic. his Accounts of Tauromenium agree with Strabo's , l. 6. who makes Tauromenium to have been a Colony of the Zancleans , and Catana of the Naxians ; whereas Diodorus Sic. his later Account makes Tauromenium to have been inhabited by the Naxians . Democritus was too Young to know even Pythagoras , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , says , Diogenes ( in Vit. Democ. ) and yet Pythagoras surviv'd Phalaris , nay , depos'd him , if we will believe his Scholars . Dissert . p. 34. Diogenes Laert. ( in Vit. Democ. ) seems to say ( not that Democritus was too Young to know Pythagoras , but ) that he was too Young to be his Hearer . But Eusebius makes Democritus to have been famous before Pythagoras's Death , setting the Death of Pythagoras , Olymp. 70. 4. and Democritus's being famous , Olymp. 69. 3. in Edit . Pontaci item Paris . and Basil , Olymp. 70. 1. in Scaliger's Edition . The truth is , he that enquires into the Birth , Age and Death of Democritus , will find the time of every one of them to be uncertain . As to his Birth , Thrasyllas sets it , Olymp. 77. 3. but Apollodorus , Olymp. 80. as Diogenes Laertius testifies ; and Suidas takes notice of this difference . I know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in Diog. Laert. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in Suidas , are rendred Vixit , but I translate them Natus fuit , because Diog. Laert. adds , That he was a Year Elder than Socrates , and he from Apollodorus tells us , That Socrates was born , Olymp. 77. 4. See him in Socrate . Whether we translate it one way or the other , it is evident , that the account of the time either of his Birth , or when he liv'd and became famous is various , and so uncertain . As to his Age. Hipparchus in Diog. Laert. gives him 109 Years , Lucian in Longaevis , and Phlegon de Mirabilibus & Longaevis , allow him but 104 Years ; Diodorus Sic. contracts it to 90 Years . Lastly , as to his Death , Diodorus Sic. ( ibid. ) sets it Olymp. 94. 1. but Eusebius refers it to Olymp. 94. 4. Simonides was but Seven Years old , or as others say yet unborn , when Phalaris was kill'd , Dissert . p. 34. Here the Doctor plainly bears Testimony to the uncertainty of Simonides's Age , acquainting us , that some say that he was but Seven Years old , others that he was unborn when Phalaris died . Whereto I add , That it is not certain that he was either but Seven Years old , or unborn at the time of Phalaris's Death . In Eusebius , we have four different accounts of the Time when Simonides flourish'd . It is set first , Olymp. 28. 4. Secondly , Olymp. 55. afterward , Olymp. 60. or 34. lastly , Olymp. 73. 3. Now if we follow the second of these accounts which makes him to have flourish'd , Olymp. 55. 1. ( in Edit . Pontaci , item Paris . and Basil , ) Olymp. 55. 2. ( in Scaliger's Edit . ) it is so far from being true , that he was unborn , or but Seven Years old , that he was famous Nine or Ten Years before the time that the Doctor pitcheth upon for Phalaris's being slain , viz. Olymp. 57. 3. And according to the first account he was famous above 100 Years sooner . Clemens Alex. says , That Simonides liv'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and that Archilochus was known after Olymp. 20. Suidas refers him to Olymp. 56. and adds , That others place him Olymp. 62. There were more than one of that Name , which might be the cause of these so much differing Accounts . The Marmor Arund . takes notice of two Simonides's , both Poets , and the one Grandfather to the other . The former it makes to have flourish'd Olymp. 72. 4. the latter , Olymp. 79. 3. according to Mr. Selden's Computation . From Aristophanes , the famous Grammarian , we know that Euripides's Philoctetes was written , Olymp. 87. This also is uncertain , for tho' it is true , that Aristophanes the Grammarian in his Argument of Euripides's Medea doth say , That Medea , Philoctetes , &c. were acted , Olymp. 87. yet others name his Phaenissae , &c. as having been acted then ; so Scaliger's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as also Scholiast . Aristophan . Alcestis , the first Tragedy of Thespis , was acted about the 61. Olympiad , which is more than Twelve Years after Phalaris's Death ; Marm. Arund . Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Dissert . p. 40. I shall not enquire whether Alcestis was Thespis's first Play , it is not plainly affirm'd either in the Marmor Arund . or in Suidas that it was . Suidas doth not mention it , tho' he names other Plays of his : He says of Thespis , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , but that Alcestis was acted then he hath , not a Word . The Marm. Arund . is so defective , that little or nothing can be made of it . Part of the Name which is suppos'd to be Alcestis is wanting , and likewise part of the Archons Name , yea , part of the number that should denote the Years , so that it is only by uncertain conjecture that some make the number of the Years to be 272 or 273 , the Archon to be Alcaeus , and the Play Alcestis . And whereas the Marm. Arund . speaks of a● He-Goat being propos'd , Eusebius refer that to Olymp. 47. 2. between which and Olymp. 61. there is an interval o● many Years . I add , That both Plutarch and Diogenes Laert. ( in Vit. Solon . ) testifie , That Thespis made Plays in Solon ● Time , and Plutarch adds , That Solo● saw him Act ; withal , he says , That a●cording to Phanias , Solon died when Hegestratus was Archon , i. e. ( as some say ) Olymp. 53. 4. but ( as others ) Olymp. 50. 2. Thucydides , l. 1. p. 90. and Charon Lampsacenus say , That Themistocles , when he fled into Asia , made his Address to Artaxerxes , who was newly come to the Throne , wherein they are follow'd by Cornelius Nepos , and Plutarch ( in Vit. Themistoc . ) against the common Tradition of Ephorus , Heraclides , and most others , that make Xerxes the Father then alive . Dissert . p. 80. Here the Doctor bears Testimony to the uncertainty of the Time of Themistocles's coming to the Persian Court , and long before him we have Plutarch , and Cornelius Nepos witnessing it . Plutarch writes , That Ephorus , Dinon , Heraclides , Clitarchus , and many more say , That Themistocles came to Persia in the time of Xerxes , but that Charon Lampsacenus agrees with Thucydides ; affirming , That Themistocles came in the Reign of Artaxerxes . And when the said Plutarch comes to give his own Opinion , he only says , That Thucydides seems to agree better with the Annals or Chronicles , and he judg'd those Chronicles not to be exact , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , so he . As to Cornelius Nepos , I grant that he thought that we should believe Thucydides rather than the other ; but he , withal , testifies , That the most were against Thucydides . If the incertitude of the Time of Themistocles's coming to the Persian Court was not sufficiently prov'd already , it might be made more apparent from the disagreement of other Eminent Persons about it . For tho' Diodorus Sic. l. 11. and Valerius Maximus , l. 8. c. 7. together with Eusebius , refer it to the time of Xerxes , yet Cicero ad Atticum , l. 10. epist. 7. following Thucydides , refers it to the time of Artaxerxes , Non vidit quid Artaxerxi polliceretur ; so he . Hiero was come to the Crown some Years before Themistocles's Banishment and Voyage to Corcyra . 'T is true , the Chronology of this part of History is not so setled and agreed , as to amount to a Demonstration against the Letters ; but however , when join'd with the Arguments preceding , at least it will come up to a high Probability . Theophrastus in his Treatise of Monarchy , ( ap . Plutarch Themist . p. 225. ) relates , That when Hiero had sent Race-horses , and a most sumptuous Tent to the Olympian Games ; Themistocles advis'd the Greeks to plunder the Tyrants Tents , ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) and not to let his Horses run . 'T is evident then , if Theophrastus speak properly , that Hiero was Monarch of Syracuse , when Themistocles was at Olympia ; but it is most certain he never came thither after his Exile . But to deal fairly , it must be confess'd that AElian ( Var. Hist. 9.5 . ) in telling this Story varies from Theophrastus ; for he says Hiero himself came to the Games : But that he would go thither in Person after he got the Government is wholly improbable . So that if AElian be to be believ'd , this Business must have been done before Hiero came to the Throne . For even in Gelo's Life-time , who left him the Monarchy , he kept Horses for the Race , and won at the Pythian Games . Pythiad the 26. ( Pind. Schol. Pyth. 1. and 3. ) which answers to Olymp. 74. 3. But besides , that Theophrastus is of much greater Authority , the other refutes himself in the very next Words . For he says , That Themistocles hindred Hiero on this pretence , That he that did not share in the common Danger , ought not to share in the common Festival : Where its certain by the common Danger , he means Xerxes's Expedition , when Gelo either refus'd or delay'd to give the Grecians his Assistance : This Affront then was put upon Hiero , after that Expedition . But the very next Olymp. after Hiero was in the Monarchy , Diod. 11. p. 29. Besides these Inferences and Deductions , we have the express Verdict and Declaration of most of the Chronologers ( Schol. Pind. Pyth. Diod. 11. p. 29 , 41. Euseb. in Chron. ) who place the beginning of Hiero's Reign , Olymp. 75. 3. and Themistocles's Banifhment seven Years after , Olymp. 77. 2. The Arundelian Marble indeed differs from all these in the Periods of Gelo and Hiero , which would quite confound all this Argumentation from the Notes of Time. But either that Chronologer is quite out , or we can safely believe nothing of History . For he makes Gelo first invade the Government two Years after Xerxes's Expedition . But Herodotus spends half a dozen Pages in the account of an Embassy to Gelo , from Sparta and Athens , to desire his Assistance against the Persian . And 't is agreed among all , That Gelo's Victory over the Carthaginians in Sicily , was got the very same Day with the Battle at Salamis ; Herodot . l. 7. and Diod. l. 11. Dissert . p. 83 , 84 , 85 , 86. It is here plainly acknowledg'd , That the Chronology of this part of History which concerns Themistocles and Hiero , is not clearly setled and agreed . And not only so , but the Doctor in his Margin also sets down the Words of Plutarch in Themist . wherein that Great Man plainly declares , That the Annals or Chronicles are not so exact , that they can be depended upon , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . The Doctor moreover confirms the Truth of that Observation , That the Chronology of this Part of History is not clearly agreed . For First , he says , That Theophrastus , if he speak properly , makes Hiero Monarch of Syracuse , at that time when Themistocles advis'd the Grecians not to permit his Horses to run at the Olympian Games . Whereas ( says he ) if AElian be to be believ'd , this Business must have been done before Hiero came to the Crown . Secondly , he says , That the Arundelian Marble differs from all those whom he had nam'd , ( viz. Scholiast . Pindar . Diodorus Sic. and Eusebius ) in the Periods of Gelo and Hiero. The Doctor perceiving that it was not very easie to loose these two Knots resolv'd to cut them , by diminishing the Authority of AElian , and the Arundelian Marble , and going about to prove that the former refutes himself , of which Attempt of the Doctors I shall only say , That I humbly conceive that he hath undertaken a difficult Task . We have seen how plainly the Doctor doth acknowledge , that this part of Chronology is not clearly setled and agreed , and yet there are some Passages in him that seem to say , That it is at least pretty well adjusted and agreed . As , First , He says , That we have the express Verdict and Declaration of most of the Chronologers , who place the beginning of Hiero 's Reign , Olymp. 75. 3. and Themistocles 's Banishment Seven Years after Olymp. 77. 2. But we may observe , First , That he only says , That we have the Verdict of most of the Chronologers , he doth not say of all . Secondly , Tho' he say of most of the Chronologers , he names only three , Schol. Pind. Pyth. 1. Diod. 11. p. 29 , 41. Euseb. in Chron. And as to the first of these , the Scholiast . upon Pindar , he Pyth. 1. places the beginning of Hiero's Reign , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in Olymp. 85. not 75. Possibly some bold Critick will tell us , That 85 is by the Scribes or Printers mistake put for 75 , but still it will not well agree with that which the same Scholiast hath , Pyth. 3. where he makes Hiero to begin his Reign , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . As to the time of Themistocles's Banishment , I have not found that the Scholiast gives any account of it . Diodorus Sic. is the next , and it is true that he speaks of Hiero's beginning his Reign in Olymp. 75. 3. and of Themistocles's Banishment in Olymp. ●●● 2. but we may observe , That he speaks of Themistocles's Death in the same Year , viz. Olymp. 77. 2. whereas it is clear that his Banishment and Death could not be in the same Year ; and therefore from Diodorus's mentioning Themistocles's Exile in that Year , we cannot conclude that it was his meaning , that it was the very Year of his being Banish'd . In that Year Diodorus gives an account as of Themistocles's Banishment , so also of his going to Argos , his Flight from thence to Admetus , and afterward from Admetus into Asia , his Journey from thence to the Persian Court , and what befel him there , and lastly of his Death . Not that all these happen'd within the space of one Year ( for there was a considerable time from his Banishment to his coming to the Persian Court , and a considerable time again from his coming thither to his Death , ) but the Historian thought it best to dispatch all that concern'd Themistocles's Fall at once . Eusebius's Chronicon only remains , in which it is left uncertain whether the beginning of Hiero's Reign is to be refer'd to Olymp. 75. or Olymp. 76. We read first Hieron Syracusis regnat , Olymp. 75. 3. and presently after Hieron post Gelonem Sycucusis Tyrannidem exercet , Olymp. 76. 2. As to Themistocles's Banishment it is not mention'd in the Chronicon , tho' his Flight to the Persians is . And if it were true , that according to Diodorus Sic. his Banishment was Olymp. 77. 2. it must be confess'd , that Eusebius differs very much from him , who sets his Flight to the Persians , Olymp. 76. 4. whereas his Banishment was a considerable time before it , as we have seen from Diodorus Sic. already ; and it may appear further from Thucydides , l. 1. who informs us , That his living some time at Argos , and going into other Parts of Peloponnesus , his flying thence to Corcyra , and thence to King Admetus , and from him to Asia , did all intervene between his Banishment and Flight into Persia. By this which hath been said it may be judg'd , whether we have the express Verdict and Declaration of most of the Chronologers , that Hiero begun his Reign , Olymp. 75. 3. and that Themistocles was Banish'd Olymp. 77. 2. Secondly , The Doctor says , That it is agreed among all , that Gelo 's Victory over the Carthaginians in Sicily , was got the very same day with the Battle at Salamis . But tho' he saith among all , he only names Herodotus , and Diodorus Sic. And Herodotus , l. 7. c. 166. only says , That it was reported , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. They say , that Gelo 's Victory over the Carthaginians was the same Day with the Victory over the Persian at Salamis ; so he . And as to Diodorus Sic. he is so far from agreeing to this , that he says , That Gelo overcame on the same Day that Leonides fought Xerxes at Thermopylae , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; so Diodorus , l. 11. Concerning this Gelo , I may observe , That the accounts of the Time both of the beginning and continuance of his Government are so various , that we cannot think it strange that it is so uncertain , when his Successor Hiero came to the Crown . As to the beginning of Gelo's Government ( not to take notice of the Marmor Arund . ) according to Pausanias Eliac Post. he begun to Reign Olymp. 72. 2. with whom Dionys. Halicarn . partly agrees , who , l. 7. speaking of an Embassy which was in that Year , says , That Gelo was then newly come to the Government ; but Eusebius sets the beginning of his Reign , Olymp. 73. 2. and according to Diodorus Sic. it begun Olymp. 73. 4. As to the continuance of it , Scaliger's Greek Eusebius says , That he Reign'd 17 Years , and yet the Time of Hiero's succeeding him is there set , so that he Reign'd but Twelve Years . The Latin Eusebius , according to one account gives him Twelve Years , according to another only Nine : Aristotle in Polit. l. 5. c. 12. allows him Seven , and something more : Gelo ( says he ) Reign'd Seven Years , and dy'd in his Eighth Year . Finally , Diodorus Sic. l. 11. allows him only Seven Years . Diodorus , who hath brought all his History into the method of Annals , places the Death of Pausanias Olymp. 75. 4. and the Exile of Themistocles Six Years after , Olymp. 77. 2. — Plutarch in Themist . p. 224. makes Themistocles after his Banishment to have private Dealings with Pausanias . Dissert . p. 87 , 88. If the Doctor have rightly represented these two Eminent Historiographers , we have here a clear confirmation of that which I have lately inculcated , viz. the Incertitude of the Time of Themistocles's Banishment , for it was before the Death of Pausanias , according to the one , Six Years after it according to the other . And it will not be easie to reconcile them , unless we shall say , That Themistocles had Dealings with Pausanias , when Pausanias had been dead Six Years . Athenaeus , l. 11. p. 505. among other Errors in Chronology , for which he chastises Plato , brings this in for one , that he introduces Phaedrus Discoursing with Socrates , who must certainly be dead before the Days of that Philosopher . Dissert . p. 93. If Athenaeus do justly chastise Plato for Errors in Chronology , this alone may seem to be a sufficient Demonstration of the Incertitude of it . For if Plato could and did err in the Chronology of his own Time , or that which was near it , how can we give Credit to the account that we meet with in any Heathen Chronographers of things done long before their Time ? Now the Instances which Athenaeus 9. gives of Plato's erring , are in Things of his own Time , or nor much remote from it , as any one that will consult him may see , both in the Place alledg'd by the Doctor , viz. l. 11. p. 505. and in l. 5. p. 217. where Athenaeus says , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . We may content our selves with the Instance produc'd here by the Doctor of Phaedrus and Socrates . That Socrates was in Plato's Time will be readily granted , and if Phaedrus was Plato's Scholar , ( as some Learned Men make him to have been ) he was in his ( i. e. Plato's ) Time also . But it will be said , This cannot be , for the Doctor informs us , That Phaedrus was certainly Dead before the Days of Socrates . To which I answer , that it is true , That the Doctor tells us so ; but Athenaeus says no such thing . Athenaeus's Words are these , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , so that here is nothing of Phaedrus's being Dead : But Athenaeus's meaning might be , That he was not born in the Time of Socrates , or at least too young to Discourse with him in such sort . I cannot but take notice , That Macrobius Saturnal . l. 1. c. 1. Transcribes some of those Instances which Athenaeus doth , but is not severe upon Plato as Athenaeus is . Socrate ita Parmenides antiquior , ut hujus pueritia vix illius apprehenderit senectutem , & tamen inter illos de rebus arduis disputatur . Paralus vero & Xanthippus quibus Pericles pater fuit , cum Protagora apud Platonem disserunt secundo adventu . Athenis morante , quos multo ante infamis illa pestilentia Athenis absumpserat . Thus Macrobius . They that please may see what Aristides Platonica 2 da hath to the same purpose . Among the rest that writ Elegies and Encomiums on Gryllus , the Son of Xenophon , Hermippus says , Socrates was one , Laert. in Xenophon . Which is a Blunder of no less then Thirty Seven Years , the interval between Socrates's Death , and the Battle of Mantinea . Socrates was put to Death , Olymp. 95. 1. when Laches was Magistrate . This is universally acknowledg'd : See Diodorus , Favorinus , Diog. Laert. Aristides , Marmor Arund . Euseb. Argument . Isocrat . Busir . &c. Dissert . p. 99. I do not find , that it is universally acknowledg'd , that Socrates died Olymp. 95. 1. Suidas says , That he was born Olymp. 77. and liv'd 80 Years , according to which account he died Olymp. 97. The Chronicon Alexand. makes him to have died Olymp. 104. 1. about which Time the Battle of Mantinea was according to the Doctor . Even some of these whom the Doctor here alledges for his being put to Death , Olymp. 95. 1. do not acknowledge it . Eusebius in Edit . Paris . and Basil. with Pontacus's sets his Death Olymp. 95. 3. in Scaliger's Edition , Olymp. 95. 2. The Marmor Arund . ( if Mr. Selden computes right ) sets it Olymp. 94. 4. In Argument . Busir . ap . Isocrat . 't is only said that Socrates died Laches being Archon , there is no mention of Olymp. 95. 1. The same may be said of Aristides . There are then only two of all these whom the Doctor names , that say plainly that he died Olymp. 95. 1. As to Hermippus , he doth not say that Socrates writ an Encomium of Gryllus being Dead , he only says in general , that he writ an Encomium of him , which he might do while Gryllus was living . We have it from good Hands ( Diog. Laert. in Socrate , Argum. Isocrat . Busir . ) that Euripides , in a Play of his , call'd Palamedes , using these Words , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. design'd to lash the Athenians for Socrates's Murther , and the whole Theatre perceiving it burst into Tears . Socrates therefore died before Euripides . But 't is well known that the later died Six Years before Laches was Archon . Dissert . p. 100. The Doctor might well infer from that which Diogenes Laert. affirms , touching Euripides lashing the Athenians for the Murther of Socrates , that ( if he really did so ) Socrates was Murther'd before the Death of Euripides . And yet Philochorus in the same Diogenes Laertius says the quite contrary , That Euripides died before Socrates . Must we not then conclude that there is no certain Constat whether of them died sooner ? But the Doctor says , That Euripides died Six Years before Laches was Archon , and so Six Years before Socrates , who died in the Time of Laches's Magistracy . To which I answer , First , The uncertainty of the Time of Socrates's Death hath been already manifested . Secondly , It is not certain that Euripides died Six Years before Laches was Archon . If Laches was Archon Olymp. 95. 1. ( as the Doctor makes him to have been ) according to Eusebius , Euripides died above Six Years before his Magistracy , for he sets his Death Olymp. 92. 4. and the Marmor Arund . ( according to Mr. Selden's computation ) agrees with Eusebius . But the Chronicon Alex. differs from them both , placing Euripides's Death Olymp. 94. 3. ( not 6 , but ) only Two Years before Laches's being Archon , supposing that to have been Olymp. 95. 1. Diodorus Sic. l. 13. saying , That Apollodorus sets the Death of Euripides Olymp. 93. 3. ( Six Years before Laches's being Archon ) and withal , That others make him to have dy'd a little before those Times , plainly bears Testimony to the uncertainty of the time of his Death . Palamedes was acted Olymp. 91. 1. ( AElian Var. Hist. 2. 1. Schol. Aristoph . p. 401. ) which is Sixteen Years before Laches . Dissert . p. 100. If Palamedes was acted after the Murther of Socrates , then it was not acted Olymp. 91. 1. unless we will say that Socrates dy'd before the time . But the Doctor says , That we have it from good Hands , that Euripides in his Palamedes design'd to lash the Athenians for Socrates 's Murther , and then it must be acted after it . And it cannot be prov'd either from AElian or Schol. Aristoph . that Palamedes was acted Olymp. 91. 1. AElian speaks of Palamedes ( not l. 2. c. 1. but ) l. 2. c. 8. and as to the time of its being acted , his Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of which nothing can be made ; and the Latin hath Olympiade prima supra octogesimam . The Scholiasts Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . But how it can be concluded from them that Palamedes was acted Olymp. 91. 1. I know not . So that until it can be made to appear from other Authors when it was acted , it must remain uncertain . According to most Chronologers , Euripides was about Seventy , and by the most favourable account above Sixty , when Archelaus came to the Crown . Dissert . p. 131. Here the Doctor plainly declares the uncertainty of Euripides's Age , when Archelaus came to the Crown , since according to him most Chronologers say , That he was about Seventy , but others only that he was above Sixty . Further we have no certainty as to the Time of Archelaus's coming to the Crown . Athenaeus , l. 5. p. 217. ( the very Place alledg'd by the Doctor in his Margin ) seems to say plainly , That it was in the Third Year of the Peloponnesian War , but Eusebius will have it to have been sooner , viz. at the beginning of that War. And the time of the beginning of that War is not exactly agreed and setled . Diodorus Sic. l. 12. and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refer it to Olympiad 87. 2. but Eusebius to Olymp. 87. 1. and not Eusebius only , but also Thucydides , who writes the History of that War , for he makes it to have begun when ●ythodorus was Archon , now he was Archon Olymp. 87. 1. according to Diodorus Sic. l. 12. and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Pliny , l. 30. c. 1. says , it begun a trecentesimo nostrae urbis anno , but circa annum fere trecentesimum vicesimum tertium , says A. Gellius , l. 17. c. 21. Now if we follow either Eusebius's or Athenaeus's account of the Time of Archelaus's coming to the Crown , Euripides could not be at that time either about Seventy , or above Sixty Years of Age. According to Diog. Laertius in Socrate , Euripides was born Olymp. 75. 1. and according to Eusebius's account , Archelaus came to the Throne Olymp. 87. 1. viz. Forty Eight Years after ; so that as Clemens Alex. Strom. 1. says , That there were Forty Eight Years between Xerxes's Passage into Greece ( at which time Euripides is said to have been born ) and the beginning of the Peloponnesian War , so by this account , Euripides was only the Age of Forty Eight Years , at the beginning of Archelaus's Reign . According to Athenaeus's account , Archelaus succeeded in the Kingdom when Epameinon was Archon , i. e. ( according to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) Olymp. 87. 4. Epaminondas ( who was Archon Olymp. 87. 4. according to Diodorus Sic. l. 12. ) is believ'd to be the same with Athenaeus's Epameinon . Now from Olymp. 75. 1. ( the Year of Euripides's Birth ) to Olymp. 87. 4. are no more than Fifty One Years , which are far short of about Seventy , or above Sixty . Notwithstanding that the Doctor says , That according to the most Chronologers , Euripides was about Seventy when Archelaus came to the Crown , yet after all , in his Margin he only names Diod. Sicul. & alios apud Athen. l. 5. p. 217. But he had done well if he had directed us to the place in Diod. Sicul. where he gives this account of Euripides's Age ; for my part I despair of finding any such . And as to Athenaeus , in all that p. 217. to which we are refer'd there is no mention of Euripides . I grant that there is an account of the time of Archelaus's succeeding Perdiccas ; but it is such as makes not for the Doctor 's purpose , but wholly against him , as I have just now declar'd . And now that I name Perdiccas , what can make more toward the manifesting the uncertainty of Chronology , than that which Athenaeus in that very place observes , touching the wonderful Discord that there is about the number of Years that Perdiccas Reign'd ? Nicomedes Acanthius ( says he ) gives him Forty One Years , Theopompus Thirty Five , Anaximenes Forcy , Hieronymus Twenty Eight , Marsyas and Philochorus Twenty Three : Thus Athenaeus . The accounts of the Time that Perdiccas Reign'd being so various , it must be more difficult to assign the Time of Archelaus's succeeding him . I know that a Learned Critick takes upon him to correct Athenaeus , making him to set the Time of Archelaus's coming to the Crown much later than it is in our Copies . But if this was so that he set it later , it would make the difference greater between Eusebius and him . Withal , I am not satisfy'd with this Criticks Correction or Alteration , for First , I find that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agrees exactly with our Copies of Athenaeus , placing the beginning of Archelaus's Reign in the 3d Year of the Peloponnesian War , when Epamelnon was Archon . Secondly , He doth not produce the Authority of any approved Copies to warrant his Alteration . Thirdly , He doth not alledge any ancient Historian , that says expresly that Archelaus begun his Reign that Year which he pitcheth upon , viz. Olymp. 93. 3. He only infers this from the Words of Diodorus Sic. l. 14. whom he makes to say , That Archelaus dy'd Olymp. 95. 2. having Reign'd Seven Years ; and if both these be true , that he Reign'd Seven Years and no more , and dy'd Olymp. 95. 2. the beginning of his Reign must be placed Olymp. 93. 3. But not to take notice that this Critick mistakes the Year of Archelaus's Death ( for Diodorus Sic. sets it not Olymp. 95. 2. but 95. 1. ) the same Diodorus l. 13. relates , That Archelaus King of the Macedonians besieg'd Pydna , Olymp. 92. 3. therefore he was King then , and how long before that time we know not . It appears then that there is no agreement , either as to the time how long Perdiccas Reign'd , or as to the time when Archelaus succeeded , or as to Euripides's Age at the time of his succeeding , but they are all uncertain . Planudes lived about 2000 Years after AEsop. Dissert . p. 149. The Doctor doth well in using this cautious Expression About 2000 Years , for unless we could be assur'd both when AEsop , and when Planudes lived , we cannot be certain how long the one lived after the other . The Doctor in his Margin ( from good Authority without doubt ) makes Planudes to have lived A. D. 1370. but others refer him to A. D. 1340. and have perhaps as good Authority for so doing . And as we are thus uncertain how long Planudes lived after Christ , so there is no certainty how long AEsop was before him . Suidas says , he was before Pythagoras , but Heraclides de Politiis makes him to have been famous at the Time when Pythagoras was . Plutarch in Vit. Solon . & in septem Sapientum convivio , relates , That he was very much in the favour of King Croesus , as also what pass'd between Solon and him , when Solon had incurr'd Croesus's Displeasure ; but Eusebius will have him to have been slain before Croesus's coming to the Monarchy . For according to Eusebius , Croesus came to the Crown Olymp. 54. 2. and AEsop was slain either Olymp. 54. 1. ( for so Scaliger's Edition hath it , and that account seems to be follow'd by Suidas ) or Olymp. 53. 4. as it is in other Editions . And as to the Birth of Christ , he sets it Olymp. 194. 3. so that according to him , AEsop dy'd not much above 560 Years before it . But if we follow Plutarch , we must place AEsop's Death later , viz. in the time of Croesus's Reign , and then there were not so many Years between it and our Savious's Birth ; and if we follow those Eminent Chronologers that will not allow that there were above 490 Years between the first Year of Cyrus and our Saviour's Death , we must still diminish the number of Years from AEsop's Death to the Birth of our Saviour , and say , That there were not compleat 500 Years from the one to the other . By this it appears , That there is not any certainty how long AEsop lived before Christ , any more than there is how long Planudes lived after him ; but tho' we take the extream accounts , and suppose the one to have lived somewhat more than 560 Years before our Lord's Nativity , and the other 1370 Years after , yet the whole time will fall considerably short of 2000 Years . A VIEW OF THE EXAMINATION OF THE DISSERTATION UPON THE EPISTLES OF Phalaris , Themistocles , &c. PART . II. ZAleucus we are sure was a Pythagorean , Porph. in vita Pyth. p. 15. and Diod. Sic. l. 12. p. 84. Thus Mr. Boyle , p. 53. If this be certain , we must confess that the Time both of the Master's and of the Scholar's flourishing is most uncertain . The Scholar Zaleucus , is by Eusebius in Chron. refer'd to Olymp. 29. yet the Master Pythagoras , is both by the same Eusebius , and by several other Authors placed much later . And there are others who make Zaleucus very ancient , as well as Eusebius doth , particularly Clemens Alex. Strom. 1. who writes , That Zaleucus was reported to be the first Lawgiver , and that he receiv'd his Laws from Minerva ; the later of which he confirms by the Testimony of Chamaeleon , Heracleotes and Aristotle : And I add , That Valerius Maximus , l. 1. c. 2. says the same , Zaleucus sub nomine . Minervae apud Locrenses prudentissimus habitus est . But it will not be an easie Task to reconcile this account to that of Diog. Laertius in Vit. Pythagorae , who , tho' he says expresly , That Pythagoras was Zaleucus's Master , yet sets Pythagoras's flourishing as late as Olymp. 60. above 120 Years after the Time that his Scholar Zaleucus was so much celebrated among the Locrians according to Eusebius . Instead of Olymp. 37. he means , I suppose , Olymp. 38. as 't is in Eusebius — I 'll suppose 37 a false Print . Thus Mr. Boyle , p. 118. When Dr. Bentley , Dissert . p. 14. says , That according to Eusebius , Phalaris's Tyranny ended Olymp. 37. Mr. Boyle is so Ingenuous as to suppose , That by the Printers Mistake , Olymp. 37. is put for Olymp. 38. But when the same Honourable Person adds , That it is Olymp. 38. in Eusebius , it is manifest , That he follows Scaliger's Edition of his Chronicle , for in other Editions , it is not Olymp. 38. but Olymp. 39. as in that of Paris , A. D. 1512. and that of Basil , A. D. 1570. and Pontacus's ; so that it is altogether uncertain to what Olympiad Eusebius refers the end of Phalaris's Tyranny , as it is likewise uncertain to what Year Eusebius refer'd the beginning of it , whether to Olymp. 31. 2. according to Scaliger's Edition , or to Olymp. 31. 4. according to the other . Page 13th , he says , Xerxes's Expedition was Olymp. 73. Page 85th , he says , the very next Olympiad after Xerxes's Expedition , Hiero was in the Throne ; and quotes Diodorus ( 11. p. 39. ) for it : Where we read , That Hiero came to the Crown Olymp. 75. 3. Therefore here Dr. Bentley is of Opinion , That Xerxes's Expedition was in the 74th Olympiad . And yet if Diodorus is to be believ'd , Xerxes Expedition was neither in the 73d , nor 74th , but 75th Olympiad . Thus Mr. Boyle , p. 119. Here ( if I mistake not ) are two false Prints , one in Mr. Boyle , another in Dr. Bentley . In Mr. Boyle , the Printer hath put Page 13 instead of Page 24 , for it is in his Dissert . p. 24. that Dr. Bentley speaks of Xerxes's Expedition . In Dr. Bentley , I conceive , That by the Printers fault , Olymp. 73. is put instead of Olymp. 75. I somewhat suspected this before , but am now fully confirm'd in it by considering , First , That I cannot meet with any Author that refers Xerxes's Expedition to Olymp. 73. and then Secondly , That the very same Historian , who is alledg'd by Dr. Bentley , Diss. p. 85. to prove that Hiero was in the Monarchy the very next Olymp . after Xerxes's Expedition ( viz. Diod. Sic. ) placeth Xerxes's Expedition Olymp. 75. Supposing then as I now do , That Dr. Bentley makes Xerxes's Expedition to have been ( not in the 73d , but ) in the 75th Olympiad , then it is most true , That according to Diod. Sic. Hiero was in the Monarchy the very next Olympiad after it , viz. Olymp. 76. And it is to be observ'd , That Dr. Bentley here ( Diss. p. 85. ) doth not take Olympiad for the space of Four Years , but for the time when the Olympick Games were celebrated ; and if we understand it thus , Hiero according to Diod. Sic. was not in the Throne in any Olympiad before the 76th . To conclude this , from Dr. Bentley's quoting Diod. Sic. I infer that his meaning is , That Hiero was in the Monarchy Olymp. 76th , and that being according to him the very next Olympiad after Xerxes's Expedition , it follows that with Diod. Sic. he refers that Expedition to Olymp. 75. But then I have shew'd in the former part of this View , that there are who differ from Diod. Sic. as to the Time of it , and so nothing can be certainly concluded concerning it . I have shew'd there also , that it is uncertain when Hiero came to the Monarchy . He begins his Chronological Observations with the AEras of some Cities ; a very slippery Foundation to build an Argument upon : For all these Cities are so very ancient , that it would puzzle a good Chronologer to trace their Originals . The olded Historians now Extant had but very slender Memoirs of those Times , and accordingly we find their Accounts so confus'd and contradictory , that none should pretend to draw Demonstrations from ' em . I hear the famous Mr. Dodwell is now Printing some Lectures at Oxford , in which he shews how very obscure and uncertain the Histories of those Ages are ; and that from the concurrence of those rude Accounts he meets with , he hath made it probable , That Phalaris must be brought much lower than even St. Hierome places him — I hear Mr. Dodwell brings Phalaris down to Olymp. 70. Mr. Boyle , p. 120. and 154. Here Mr. Boyle bears Testimony so plainly and fully to the uncertainty of Chronology , that a clearer Evidence cannot be desired . Eusebius sets the beginning of Phalaris's Tyranny , Olymp. 31. St Hierome brings it down to Olymp. 52. or 53. Mr. Dodwell thinks it must be plac'd still lower , viz. Olymp. 70. Thucydides says , That Anaxilaus beat out the Samians from Zancle , and call'd it Messana ; but fixes the Time of this Action no otherwise than only by saying , 'T was not long after the Samians flying from the Medes possess'd it . Dr. Bentley calls this Xerxes Expedition , as if the Medes had never made an incursion upon Greece , till the time of Xerxes . What Herodotus says , l. 6. is so far from being the same with Thucydides's Story , that it contradicts it ; for he says , not that Anaxilaus expell'd the Samians from Zancle , but that he assisted 'em to take it . That Anaxilaus chang'd the name of Zancle into Messana , is agreed between Dr. Bentley and me ; the only Question is about the Date of this Change. Thucydides fixes upon no Date : Diodorus places the Death of one Anaxilaus in the 76th Olympiad , but does not say this was the Anaxilaus that nam'd Messana . Herodotus in the place cited , says nothing about the change of the Names , but tells a story of the Samians seizing Zancle , a little after Miletus was taken ; and all the ground that we have from this Passage of Herodotus , to conclude the change of the Name Zancle into Messana , to have happen'd after this Time , is his calling the City Zancle , and not Messana throughout this Story : Which , I think , proves nothing more , than that the old Name was not yet so utterly abolish'd , but that it was call'd indifferently either Zancle or Messana still . So that hitherto we have had no direct and positive Testimony about the Time of Zancle's changing its Name . Mr. Boyle , p. 127 , 128 , 129. All this manifestly declares how uncertain Herodotus , Thucydides , and Diodorus Sic. leave us , as to the Time of the name Zancle , its being exchang'd for Messana ; so that there is no need of making any Remarks upon it . Pausanias is the only Author , that speaks fully up to the Point : and he expresly affirms this to have happen'd in the 29th Olympiad , and tells the story with a great deal of Solemnity and Circumstance . — Against an indirect and dubious Proof , built chiefly on a disputable Passage in Herodotus , we have the express and full and undoubted Authority of Pausanias . Mr. Boyle , p. 129. and 131. Tho' Herodotus , Thucydides , and Diod. Sic. leave us uncertain as to the Time of the change of the Name , yet it seems in Mr. Boyle's Judgment , we may rely upon the undoubted Authority of Pausanias , and conclude certainly that it was Olymp. 29. But I crave leave to question , whether we can rely so certainly upon Pausanias's Authority in this case . For , First , Tho' Thucydides doth not fix the Time of the change of the Name any otherwise than by saying , That it was not long after the Samians flying from the Medes , possess'd Zancle : Yet this is sufficient to make us doubt of Pausanias's Assertion , that it happen'd Olymp. 29. unless some Records can be produc'd , which may certifie us , That the Medes made any Incursion upon Greece so early as before that Olympiad . Secondly , when Herodotus , l. 7. c. 165. mentions the change of the Name , he is speaking of things done about the time of Xerxes's Expedition ; now is it not strange that he should speak of it so late , if the change was made ( as Pausanias sets it ) Olymp. 29. i. e. about 180 Years before ? Especially when he had occasion to speak of Zancle before . Thirdly , Mr. Boyle , p. 130. makes Pausanias to differ from Herodotus , and to reject his Testimony concerning the Age of Anaxilaus ; now if the Name was chang'd from Zancle to Messana in his Time ( as they say it was ) from their differing as to the Age in which Anaxilaus liv'd , it must follow , that they also differ'd as to the Time when the change of the Name was made . Now whatever Pausanias's Authority may be in other things , I question whether it is such , as that we can certainly rely upon him , when two such Historians as Herodotus and Thucydides differ from him . I may add , That if Diodorus Sic. who places the Death of one Anaxilaus Olymp. 76. speaks of the Anaxilaus that nam'd Messana , he also differs from Pausanias . In the 29th Olympiad , when Chionis won the Prize the second time . Mr. Boyle , p. 129. It is true , that Pausanias in Messenicis , p. 134. hath these very Words , and yet afterward in the same Page he says , That Xenophon the Corinthian won the Prize in the 29th Olympiad ; so that I know not how to reconcile him to himself , unless by putting a difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . He useth the former Words concerning Chionis , the later concerning Xenophon ; and the later we must translate ( not In , but ) About the 29 th Olympiad . But then what is the meaning of About the 29 th Olympiad ? If it be said that his meaning is , That Xenophon was Victor in the next Olympiad to it , viz. the 30th , I ask why did he not plainly say so ? Besides , Pausanias in Arcadicis , p. 269. says ( not that Xenophon , but ) Chionis was Victor the third time in the 30th Olympiad . Here I might also observe , That Pausanias agrees not with himself as to the Time when Miltiades was Archon . In Messenicis , p. 134. he says it was in the 29th Olympiad , in which Chionis won the Prize the 2d time ; but in Arcadicis , p. 269. he says it was in the 2d Year of the 30th Olympiad , in which Chionis won it the 3d time . The most Eminent Chronologers , and Men best vers'd in these Things , fall in with this account of Pausanias . Vbbo Emmius follows it in his History of ancient Greece , l. 1. p. 18. Lydiat , in his Notes on the Chronicon Marmoreum , Ios. Scaliger , in his Animadversions upon Eusebius , p. 27. and in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; so does Petavius too , Rat. Temp. par . 1. p. 38. and Meursius Lect. Att. l. 2. c. 23. Mr. Boyle , p. 130 , 131. Such Eminent Chronologers following Pausanias's account of the time of the change of the Name from Zancle to Messana , some Persons may be apt to look upon it as certain : But on the other side , I say , First , Suppose it true , That they do all follow his account , yet if they do not alledge some other ancienr Historian that agrees with it , it signifies little ; for it depends upon Pausanias's sole Authority still . Secondly , It doth not appear that they follow it . Vbbo Emmius , in his first Book mentions Messana , but of the change of the Name from Zancle to Messana ( as far as I perceive ) he says nothing . In his 7th Book , he speaks of the change of the Name , but is wholly silent as to the Time of it . I add , that in his first Book he quotes Pausanias , when he is speaking of the Arcades , and the second Messenian War ; but certainly we cannot conclude hence , that he follow'd Pausanias's account of the Time , when the new Name Messana was given to the City , which was before call'd Zancle . Scaliger both in his Ammadversions , p. ( mihi ) 21. and in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( if that be his ) refers the change of the Name to Olymp. 30. not to Olymp. 29. as Pausanias doth . Petavius agrees not either with Pausanias or Scaliger , but as Scaliger fixes the Time latter than Pausanias , so Petavius sets it sooner , viz. Olymp. 27. See him , de Doctrina Temporum , l. 13. and in Rat. Temp. par . 1. l. 2. c. 8. Meursius is so far from agreeing with Pausanias , that he plainly shews how little Pausanias is at agreement with himself ; and he takes upon him to correct Pausanias , instead of following him . Lydiat only remains , and if by his Notes on the Chronicon Marmoreum , Mr. Boyle means the Notae Historicae ad Chronicon Marmoreum , I grant that he doth fall in with Pausanias's account . To conclude then , since none of these Modern Chronologers ( except Lydiat ) do agree with Pausanias , and since the ancient Historians , Herodotus and Thucydides do less agree with him , what certainty can we have as to the Time when the City had the new Name Messana given it ? Diodorus in his 14th Book says , That some Sicilians planted themselves upon Taurus , and from their settlement there , call'd the place they built Tauromenium : In the 16th Book he says , That about Forty Years after this , Andromachus planted some of the old Naxians upon Taurus , and from his long stay there , call'd the place where he planted them Tauromenium . Mr. Boyle , p. 132. Here this Honourable Person observing , That Diodorus plainly gives two different accounts of the Time when the place was nam'd Tauromenium , and those contradictory one to the other , says enough to satisfie us of the Incertitude of it . There was a River Tauromenius ( if Vibius Sequester is to be credited , who says the Town had its Name from thence ) before there was a Tauromenium . Mr. Boyle , p. 133. Here the Time when the Town was first call'd Tauromenium , is made still more uncertain ; for if it had its name from the River Tauromenius , it might have it long before the former of the Times mention'd by Diodorus Sic. Diomedes Grammaticus , l. 3. the Scholiast . of Aristophanes in Prolegom . and Clemens Alexandrinus Stro. 1. attribute the invention of Comedy to Susarion . But that he was not the inventer of it , the Chronicon Marmoreum does more than intimate , when it says only of him , That he first erected a Stage in Athens , to Act Comedies upon . Mr. Boyle , p. 141. All this tends directly to manifest the uncertainty of the Time when Comedy was invented . The Authority of Clemens Alex. with the other two , affirming , That Susarion was the inventer of it , is oppos'd to that of the Marm. Arund . which more than intimates , That it was invented before Susarion , and attributes this only to him , That he erected a Stage at Athens , to Act Comedies upon . But then suppose it was certain , That it was not invented before Susarion's Time , and that he was the inventer of it , what certainty have we of the Time when Susarion liv'd ? All that Mr. Boyle can say of it , is , That according to the Marble , his erecting a Stage at Athens must be before the Tyranny of Pisistratus , and that those Learned Men , who have taken pains to illustrate that Chronicle , have by the concurrence of other Histories plainly shewn , That the Time of Susario must fall between the 610 th and 489 th Year before Christ. Thus Mr. Boyle , p. 140 , 141. But by the Printers fault 489 is put instead of 589. This will appear , if we consult Lydiat's Annotations upon the Chronicon Marmoreum , Epoch . 40. where his Words are Susarion innuitur claruisse inter annum , 610. and 589. ante Evangelium . So that according to Lydiat , the Marm. Arund . makes Susarion to have flourish'd between the 610th , and 589th Year ( not before Christ , but ) before the Gospel , i. e. before the Time of the first Preaching , or Publishing of the Gospel . In the Notae Historicae ad Chronicon Marmoreum , Epoch . 40. we read thus , Susarionem inter Olympiadem 50. and 540. sloruisse indicat mutilum Marmor ; but 540. is by the fault of the Press instead of something else , perhaps instead of 54. for as Mr. Selden computes the Marm. Arund . sets Susarion between Olymp. 49. 3. and Olymp. 54. 4. All this while Susarion's Time is made to depend upon the sole Authority of the Marm. Arund . if there be Learned Men , who have by the concurrence of other Histories plainly shewn , That the Time of Susario must fall between the Years which Lydiat mentions : As Mr. Boyle doth not tell us who they are , so I have not seen them . If there are several material Circumstances that disparage this one Witness 's Testimony ; if he liv'd at a great distance from the Time he writes of ; if he speaks by report and hearsay only , without vouching any Authority ; if he expresses himself , so that we have room to doubt , whether we know his Mind ; or should we know his Mind , yet if he contradicts himself immediately afterward : I say , if these things appear against him , then this one Witness is so far from being as good as a Multitude , that he is as good as none . Mr. Boyle , p. 148. Mr. Boyle says all this of Athenaeus , and both in this , and in the six Pages following , makes it his Business to Demonstrate , how little credit is to be given to his Testimony concerning the Age in which Thericles liv'd , and to which we owe the invention of the Thericlean Cup ; so that more needs not be said to manifest the uncertainty of it . Solon was Archon Olymp. 46. 3. Mr. Boyle , p. 166. Diog. Laertius alledged by Mr. Boyle in his Margin , says , That Solon was Archon Olymp. 46. 3. if we may believe Sosicrates , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Sosicrates is follow'd also in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . But what shall we say then to Tatianus Orat. con . Graecos in fin . who makes Solon to have been Archon about the 40th Olympiad , and to A. Gellius , who makes him to have writ his Laws about the 49th Olympiad ? Now as Diog. Laertius in Solon . observes , He writ his Laws when he was Archon . The Words of A. Gellius , l. 17. c. 21. are these , Solonem accepimus , unum ex illo nobili numero Sapientum , leges scripsisse Atheniensium Tarquinio Prisco Romae regnante anno regni ejus tricesimo & tertio . Now if Tarquinius Priscus begun his Reign Olymp. 41. 2. ( as Dionysius Halicarnassaeus , l. 3. says he did ) his 33d Year must be Olymp. 49. 3. Mr. Boyle's Margin tells us , That Eusebius in his Chronicon puts Solon 's Archonship a Year later than Olymp. 46. 3. but he should rather have said , That he sets it a Year sooner , for so it is in all the Editions of his Chronicon that I have seen . Solon dy'd at the end of the 53d , or the beginning of the 54th Olympiad ; Plut. Vit. Sol. Mr. Boyle . p. 166. Plutarch only says , That according to Phanias , Solon dy'd when Hegestratus was Archon , and there is no Constat as to the Year in which he was Archon . Some say in the first Year of the 55th Olympiad , others in the fourth Year of the 53d , others in the second Year of the 50th Olympiad . Diog. Laertius gives us an Epistle from Solon to Croesus , and it is apparent , That it was writ after that Croesus came to the Kingdom . In it , Solon tells Croesus , That he would come to him , which he accordingly did ; not immediately after his writing that Letter , but from Athens he went to AEgypt , thence to Cyprus , and thence to Croesus , with whom he remain'd some time . Thence he went to Cilicia , and at last dy'd in Cyprus ; Thus Laertius . By all which it appears , That Solon's Death was long after Croesus's coming to the Throne , and therefore if Croesus did not come to it till Olymp. 54. 2. ( as Eusebius hath it ) Solon must have liv'd long after Olymp. 53. or 54. And this is confirm'd by the Testimony of Theophilus ad Autolycum , who makes Solon to have liv'd in the Time of Cyrus and Darius , and according to Eusebius , the beginning of Cyrus's Reign was not till Olymp. 55. 1. But we need go no further than Plutarch the Author here quoted , who says indeed , That Phanias makes Solon not to have liv'd two Years after the beginning of Pisistratus's Tyranny ; but withal , tells us , That Heraclides reports that he liv'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a long time after it . Can we desire a clearer and more authentick Testimony of the uncertainty of the Time when Solon dy'd than this is ? And here I cannot but take notice of another passage in the same Life of Solon , which shews how little Arguments drawn from Chronology did sway with Plutarch . Some ( as he tells us ) would refute the History of Solon's conversing with Croesus , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , by Arguments drawn from the consideration of the Times ; but ( says he ) their Chronological Canons ( as they call them ) will not persuade me to reject so illustrious an History , attested by so many Writers , and so agreeable to Solon's Prudence , Magnanimity and Manners . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. So Plutarch . That Pisistratus siez'd the Government of Athens some Years before Solon's Death , Dr. Bentley , I dare say , will grant me : That he was turn'd out in , or rather before Phalaris's Reign , he will not I hope deny me ; because he has own'd it in Terms , p. 41. of his Dissertation . Mr. Boyle , p. 167. Whether Dr. Bentley will grant that Pisistratus siez'd the Government some Years before Solon's Death I know not , but I am sure that they who are mov'd with the Authority of Phanias ap . Plut. Vit. Sol. will not grant it ; for he says expresly , That the interval of Time between Pisistratus's invading the Government , and the Death of Solon was less than two Years , ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) and therefore according to him , the one was not some Years before the other . It is true ( as was lately observ'd ) that according to Heraclides ap . Plut. the one was some Years , perhaps many Years before the other , but this difference between Heraclides and Phanias only shews how uncertain it is , how long it was before Solon's Death , that Pisistratus's Tyranny began . Phanias ap . Plut. says , That Pisistratus siez'd the Government when Comias was Archon , and that Solon dy'd when his immediate Successor Hegestratus was Archon ; but it is not agreed in what Year either of them was Archon . Some refer Comias's Archonship to Olymp. 53. 3. others to Olymp. 50. 1. in the Marm. Arund . it is refer'd to Olymp. 54. 4. ( if the Learned Men who have taken pains to illustrate that Marble , interpret it rightly ) as it also makes Pisistratus to have begun his Tyranny then . But the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refers the Government of the Pisistratidae or the Sons of Pisistratus , to Olymp. 50. 1. as both Tatianus Orat. con . Graecos , and Clemens Alex. Stro. 1. say , That the Time of their Government was about the 50 th Olympiad : So that , if these be in the right , the Time of the Fathers siezing the Government must be set much higher . For Iustin , l. 2. c. 8. says , That Pisistratus Reign'd 33 Years , with whom agrees Heraclides de Politiis , and also Aristotle de Republica , l. 5. c. 12. if I dot not mistake his meaning , when he says , That in Thirty three Years Pisistratus Reign'd only Seventeen Years , i. e. ( if I understand him rightly ) tho' there were Thirty three Years in all between Pisistratus's invading the Tyranny and his Death , yet he enjoy'd it only Seventeen Years , the other Sixteen Years he liv'd in Exile . After all , I freely confess , That , if it could be made out , that the Word Pisistratidae is not always used strictly as it denotes the Sons of Pisistratus , but sometimes in a more comprehensive Sense , as including Pisistratus and his Sons too , this Argument from the Authority of Tatianus , and Clemens Alex. would lose all its force : But till that be made appear , it plainly Demonstrates how little certainty there is of the Time when Pisistratus first seiz'd the Government . Nor is it more certain when he was turn'd out of it . Dr. Bentley , Diss. p. 41. says , It was in the Days of Phalaris , but Mr. Boyle will have it rather to have been before Phalaris's Reign ; both which accounts leave us uncertain when he was driven out , unless it could be certainly known what time Phalaris Reign'd . Besides Herodotus , l. 1. c. 5. informs us , That Pisistratus was driven out twice , and as often recover'd the Tyranny ; therefore we should have been inform'd of whether turning out they speak , otherwise we cannot so well judge of the Time of it . It is not to be doubted , but the Alcestis of Phrynichus ( that Phrynichus , who was Thespis's Scholar ) was acted before Olymp. 67. Mr. Boyle , p. 168. But ( craving this Honourable Persons leave ) I cannot but doubt of it , for as I know not that any Author affirms it , so he doth not declare what ground he hath for such assurance . I know that Suidas affirms , That Phrynichus won the Prize in that very Olympiad , and mentions Alcestis as one of his Plays ; but it cannot be infer'd hence , That Alcestis was acted before that Olympiad ; Yea , if I should say that it was one of those Plays of his that were acted then , and by which he won the Prize , or that it was acted after that Time , it would not be easie to disprove it . Tragedy is of ancient Vsage in this Country , nor did it take its Rise from Thespis and Phrynichus , as some imagine ; but if you consider the thing well , you find that it is extreamly ancient ; Plato in Minoe . Mr. Boyle , p. 170 , 171. Here Plato bears Testimony to the uncertainty of the Antiquity of Tragedy , in telling us his own Opinion , viz. That it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , very ancient , and yet withal , that others were of a contrary Opinion , that it took its Rise from Thespis . Besides , he doth not tell us how ancient he believ'd Tragedy to be . I know Mr. Boyle says , That he ( i. e. Plato ) thought it almost as ancient as Minos , and that the reason of his introducing the Reflection shews it ; but , if we consult Plato , we shall find that the reason of his introducing it shews no such thing . Whether Plato thought Tragedy more ancient than Minos , or only as ancient , or but almost as ancient , cannot be determin'd from the reason of his introducing the Reflection . Mr. Boyle knows not what to make of a Passage of Plutarch , in his Life of Solon , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , i. e. Thespis now beginning to move or set on foot the Play called Tragedy ; but ( says he ) he could not mean , That there was no such thing as Tragedy of any kind before the Days of Thespis , and be consistent with himself ; for he expresly tells us in another place ( the Life of Theseus ) that the acting of Tragedies was one part of the funeral Solemnities which the Athenians perform'd at the Tomb of Theseus : Thus Mr. Boyle , p. 176. But I do not find any such thing in the Life of Theseus . Indeed , in the Life of Cimon , there is a Passage which some Ignorant or less considering Persons may possibly construe to such a Sense , but Mr. Boyle could not . I add , that if there be any such Passage in Plutarch , it doth not contradict this , That Tragedy took its Rise from Thespis , for Theseus had no Tomb at Athens , before the Days of Thespis . So that notwithstanding any thing that Mr. Boyle alledges , Plutarch by those Words in the Life of Solon might mean , That there was no such thing as Tragedy of any kind before the Days of Thespis . To proceed , Mr. Boyle , p. 171. brings Diog. Laertius as a Witness , That Tragedy is more ancient than Thespis ; but on the other side , p. 177. he speaks of Authors in the Plural Number , who make Thespis the Inventer of it , and p. 176. he calls them old Writers ; so that he acknowledges that there are ancient Writers for the one Opinion , as well as the other . I know that he would persuade us , That when these Authors make Thespis the Inventer of Tragedy , their meaning is , That he was the Improver of it , or that he was the Inventer of that sort of Tragedy which consisted in Imitation , and a Fable , ( See him , p. 174. ) whereas there was Tragedy ( tho' not of that sort ) before : But he himself is not very confident that this was their meaning , for he says , p. 177. In this Sense it is that we must understand those Authors who make Thespis the Inventer of Tragedy , or allow that they spake inconsiderately . We are left ( you see ) to our liberty whether we will understand those Authors in the forementioned Sense , or allow that they spake inconsiderately . But for my part , I am not forward to pass such a Censure upon ancient Writers , that they spake inconsiderately and unwarily , particularly I am not forward to believe either that Clemens Alex. spake inconsiderately , or that he spake of this or that sort of Tragedy , but of it in general , when speaking of the Inventers of other things he comes at length to Tragedy , and says , That Thespis ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) devis'd or invented it . But it may be said , If Thespis was the Inventer of it , then the Date of Tragedy is not uncertain . To which I answer , That this would follow , if we were certain of the Time when Thespis liv'd and flourish'd ; but Mr. Boyle sufficiently makes it appear how far we are from being certain of that . For p. 166. he says , That Plutarch and Diog. Laertius expresly affirm , That Thespis was Contemporary with Solon , telling us very particularly what pass'd between Solon and Thespis , in relation to the Plays of the later ; and adds , That Solon dy'd at the end of the 53 , or the beginning of the 54 Olympiad . In p. 167. he says , That the Arundel Marble fixes the acting of Alcestis , one of Thespis 's Plays as low as the 60 th Olympiad . And p. 170. he tells us , That Suidas says , Thespis flourish'd in the 61 st Olympiad . Mr. Boyle further tells us , That taking our account at the lowest , we must make him to have written according to Plutarch , and Diog. Laertius two or three Years before Solon ' s Death ; but we may take it higher , and make him to have begun to write Plays near the time of Solon's Archonship , which according to Mr. Boyle , was Olymp. 46. 3. and we may the rather do this , because Eusebius Chronicon placeth the Rise of Tragedy at the 47 th Olympiad , as Mr. Boyle observes , p. 166. Now between Olymp. 47. and Olymp. 61. are above Fifty Years . Thus it fully appears from the Authors alledg'd by Mr. Boyle , how little certainty we have of the time of the Rise of Tragedy ; those that say it is more ancient than Thespis , not ascertaining us how much more ancient it is , and those that make Thespis the Inventer of it , not being agreed about the Time when he liv'd , and begun to write Tragedies . Need I after all this take notice of that which Suidas hath to this purpose , acquainting us , That some make Thespis the first Tragedian , but others Epigenes Sicyonius ; some saying , That Thespis was the 16th from Epigenes , and others that he was the 2d ? An old Scholiast alledg'd by Iul. Caesar Bulenger de Theatro , l. 1. c. 2. mentions one Theomis , who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. first found out Tragical Melodies , and was admir'd for them among the Grecians , in the time of Orestes ( they that please may see his Words either in Bulenger , or in the Tractatus de Tragaedia , prefix'd to the late Cambridge Edition of Euripides ) but of what Authority that Scholiast is I know not . Eustathius's Time was about 200 Years before Planudes was born . Mr. Boyle , p. 270. Nicetas Choniat . Annal. l. 1. vers . fin . makes Eustathius to have liv'd in the Time of Andronicus Commenus , and he came to the Empire ( as we are told ) in or about An. Do. 1182. As to Planudes , when he was born I know not , but as to the Time of his flourishing , Dr. Bentley , p. 149. placeth it An. Do. 1370. but other Learned Men set it An. Do. 1340. And it must be allow'd , That he was born at least 20 Years before : And so according to one account , he was born at or before An. Do. 1320. according to the other , at or before An. Do. 1350. If then we make Eustathius to have liv'd about An. Do. 1182. the interval between his Time , and the Birth of Planudes will fall considerably short of 200 Years ; so that the Account which Mr. Boyle's Authors follow'd differs from these ; but which is the truest cannot be determin'd . Thus I have taken notice of most of the Passages in the Dissertation and Examination of it which relate to Chronology , and conceive that with the assistance of the Learned and Worthy Persons , the Authors of them , I have manifested the uncertainty of the Time , when the Persons lived , or the Cities were built , or the Things were done , which are mention'd in those Passages . And we may believe that other parts of Heathen Chronology being strictly examin'd , would be found to have no juster pretensions to Certainty , than these which have been now consider'd are found to have . FINIS . ERRATA . Read IN the Title-page , l. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and l. 19. blot out the Comma after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and place it after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 7. l. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 8. l. 14. Imilcas's , p. 10. l. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 18. l. 21. 3 or 4. p. 20. l. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 22. l. 3. & p. 25. l. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 22. l. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 24. l. 14. Pyth. 1. Diod. p. 30. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and stop in the same line thus , is there set so , that , p. 32. l. 11. blot out 9. ] p. 37. l. 4. before that time , p. 64. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 67. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 71. l. 8. you will find . Books Printed for John Jones , at the Dolphin and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard . PRactical Discourses upon several Divine Subjects , viz. Of Religious Discourse in Common Conversatition . Of the Fear of Death . Concerning the Extent of Christ's Satisfaction . Concerning Practical Atheism . Of Walking by Faith. Concerning Charity to the Poor . Concerning the Right Use of the World. Concerning the Successive Vanity of Human Life . An Admonition Concerning Two Late Books , Called A Discourse of the Love of God. Vol. IV. Written by Iohn Norris , M. A. Rector of Bemerton near Sarum . Treatises upon several Subjects . viz. Reason and Religion , or the Grounds and Measures of Devotion . Reflections upon the Conduct of Human Life . The Charge of Schism continued . Two Treatises concerning Divine Light. Spiritual Counsel , or , The Fathers Advice to his Children . Written by Iohn Norris , M. A. Rector of Bemerton in Sarum . The Present State of the Universe , or an Account of I. The Rise , Births . Names , Matches , Children , and near Allies of all the present Chief Princes of the World. II. Their Coats of Arms , Motto's , Devices , Liveries , Religions , and Languages . III. The Names of their Chief Towns , with some Computation of the Houses and Inhabitants , their Chief Seats of Pleasure , and other Remarkable things in their Dominions . IV. Their Revenues , Power and Strength . Also an Account of Common-Wealths , relating to the same Heads . The Second Edition much amended and enlarged , with the Addition of the Styles or Titles of the several Potentates and Republicks .