time had become obscure, ἐν ἐξηγήσει τῶν Ηροδότου γλωσσῶν, says, he calls Sophists the heads of schools, the leaders of sects, viv Lopioràs, τοὺς διατριβῶν προϊσταμένους. It was beginning to be taken as a term of reproach, however, as may be seen by some passages of the same orator, pp. 42. 51. of Stephens's edition. So long as the wise men discoursed of virtue disinterestedly, so long the name of Sophist was honorable; but when they began to prostitute philosophy by receiving money for their lessons, it became a term of contempt. "He," says Xenophon, • "who sells wisdom to the first comer for money, we call Sophist."

And thus a term, honorable at its origin, became in the sequel an offensive appellation. It is the same with us in regard to the term Philosopher. It was considered an honor to bear it so long as those to whom it was applied cultivated and practised the science of morals, which is inseparably connected with the doctrines of the existence of God and of the Christian religion; but since the sceptics and the infidels have appropriated to themselves this appellation, it is become odious, and is now the worst of insults.

Ὡς ἕκαστος αὐτέων ἀπικνέοιτο] Each repaired thither in person. The punctuation of the manuscripts, and of the editions likewise, has always appeared to me erroneous. I place a point after éóvres, after which I read: ὡς ἕκαστος αὐτέων ἀπικνέοιτο, καὶ δὴ καὶ Σόλων, ἀνὴρ K. T. X. As each of them repaired to Sardis, Solon repaired thither likewise.' Without this punctuation the sentence is confused.

The Greek phrase signifies that each of them went to Sardis of his own accord, without concert or association with the others. See the note of Wyttenbach, in selectis Principum Historicorum, p. 346.

с

Tur vóμwv Twv Oero] Laws which he had established. Kuster' pretends, in his treatise on the Middle Verb, that beīvaι vóμov is always put for the legislator who makes the law, and 0éoðaι vóμov for the people who cause the law to be made by the legislator, or accept it from his hands, and ratify it. Moschopulus expresses himself thus: Θέσθαι, τὸ δέξασθαι καὶ κυρῶσαι. Θεῖναι γὰρ λέγουσι τὸν νομοθέτην τὸν νόμον· θέσθαι δὲ, τὸν δῆμον, ἤγουν δέξασθαι καὶ κυρῶσαι. It is true that the Attic authors scrupulously observe this rule. Tóre dè ἀκίνητα θεμένους, ἤδη χρῆσθαι μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων νόμων, οὓς ἔταξε κατ' ἀρχὰς ὁ θεὶς αὐτοῖς νομοθέτης. “ That they ratify these laws, that they look on them as irrevocable, and that they observe them as

.

4

a

strictly as the others which this legislator gave them at the beginning.” “ Ὁ θεὶς τὸν περὶ τῶν δοκιμασιῶν νόμον, “he who made the law concerning the inquiry into the lives and morals of the citizens.' But the example before us proves that the ancients did not rigorously abide by this rule. The same historian, three lines farther on, again makes use of the middle verb in speaking of the legislator. Tovs (νόμους) ἂν σφίσι Σόλων θῆται, and Book xi. § LXXVII.

с

XXX. Ilapà Kpoioov] To that of Crasus. Some authors have pronounced this interview of Solon with Croesus to be a fable invented by Herodotus. M. Fréret puts into the mouth of Plutarch, "that the succession of the Archons is not exempt from difficulty, and that his reason for preferring tradition to the testimony of the chronologists, is that this story corresponds with the manners of Solon, and is worthy of his magnanimity and wisdom."

d

Plutarch does not exactly say this. That writer explains himself as follows in the passage referred to: "Some authors reject the interview of Solon with Croesus as a circumstance irreconcilable with chronology; but I do not feel disposed to pass over in silence so fine a conversation, which is attested by so many authors, and which, moreover, is so consistent with the character of Solon, and so worthy of his wisdom and greatness of soul. No, I do not think myself bound to pay so great a deference to the chronological Canons, which many learned men are to this day employed in setting to rights, but without being able to agree amongst themselves, or to do away the contradictions in which they involve history."

We see by this passage, that Plutarch argues very rationally, and that he holds a language very different from that which M. Fréret puts into his mouth. It would be easy to refute all that this learned man alleges for the purpose of proving this interview imaginary, and that it is more worthy of a cynic, than of a gay, laughing, and even licentious courtier; traits with which it has pleased M. Fréret to represent a philosopher, whom antiquity had ranked amongst the seven wise men of Greece; but the nature of this work would scarcely permit it. Yet I cannot refrain from expressing my surprise, to find M. Fréret casting ridicule upon Solon, in order to discredit his interview with Croesus. "We see," says he, "a mighty monarch studiously lavishing honors of every description upon a simple citizen of Athens." Would not any one believe that M. Fréret was speaking of a citizen

a Lysias advers. Evandri petitionem Sacerdotii, p. 176. init.

Plutarch. Vit. Parallel. Vol. i. p. 3. B.

e Mémoires de l'Académie des Belles Lettres, tom. v. pp. 277. 278.

6

d These attestations we must suppose are from ancient writers. Máprup signifies 'a witness,' and cannot be rendered by 'tradition.'

• Mémoires de l'Acad. des Belles Lettres, tom. v. p. 278.

of Paris, who should be entertained by a Prince? Can this learned man be ignorant that the title of Citizen of Athens was so great an honor, as to be eagerly coveted by the greatest Princes? Was he ignorant that Solon had passed through the highest offices of the state? that he had had the honor of giving laws to his country? that the fame of his wisdom was equally spread in other countries as in his own? and finally, that his birth was most illustrious, being descended from Codrus, the last king of Athens, who had devoted himself for the good of his country?

But whether or not the conversation of Solon was worthy of him, or consistent with his character, it proves nothing for or against the fact of his interview with Crœsus.

M. Fréret places this interview, supposing it to have occurred, towards the close of Solon's life; and he founds his conjecture upon the calculation of Phanias of Ephesus, who asserts," that this philosopher died somewhat less than two years after the commencement of the tyranny of Pisistratus. But why should he prefer the testimony of Phanias to that of Herodorus of Pontus, who, according to Plutarch himself, affirms, that Solon lived many years after Pisistratus had seized on the sovereign power?

с

Solon witnessed the representation at least of the earlier pieces of Thespis; Plutarch distinctly asserts this. The Alcestes of Thespis was acted in the year 272 of the Attic era, as appears from the Oxford Marbles, p. 27; which corresponds with the 1st year of the 61st Olympiad, or the year 536 before the vulgar era. It is very probable that this was not the first production of the poet, which is the opinion of Father Corsini; but when this learned man asserts that Plutarch proves that the earlier pieces of Thespis appeared before the tyranny of Pisistratus, because, as he makes that author to say, Solon thought these pieces had excited the criminal boldness of Pisistratus to seize on the sovereign power, I am tempted to believe him in error; at least I find nothing in the text of that author to justify his opinion. But towards the end of the 95th page of the 1st vol. this wise legislator reproaching Thespis for amusing the people with lies and fictions, the poet answered, that it was very allowable to use

a

• Plutarch. Vit. Parallel. in Solone, p. 96. F.

Plutarch. ibid. Diogen. Laert. in Solone, passim.

The figures are partly effaced; the editor of the Marbles has put 273, on what authority I know not. I think, from Suidas, that we should read 272.

d I do not know in what edition of the Oxford Marbles M. Geinoz (Mémoires de

l'Acad. des Inscript. tom. xxi. Mémoires, p. 141.) has seen that Thespis had begun to perform his pieces in the second year of the reign of Croesus. The last edition positively asserts that it was after the capture of Sardis.

e Fast. Attic. Vol. iii. p. 116.

f Father Corsini is mistaken; it is not Plutarch who says so, but Diogenes Laertius, lib. i. segm. Ix. pp. 37. 38.

them in mere sports: on which Solon, striking his stick on the ground, replied as with indignation: "But we who see and approve of these fictions for our diversion, shall soon see them creep into our solemn engagements." Father Corsini must have read this passage hastily, and from that circumstance attached to it an interpretation so different from the true one.

The Oxford Marbles, p. 27, fix the taking of Sardis in the year 278, i. e. the third year of the 59th Olympiad, or the year 542 before the vulgar era, and the commencement of the reign of Croesus in the year 292, which corresponds with the first year of the 56th Olympiad, or the year 556 before the vulgar era; which makes fourteen years, as Herodotus has it, Book I. § LXXXVI.

Pisistratus seized on the sovereign power in the archontate of Comias, about the month of January in the year 4154 of the Julian era, 560 years before our era, and the fourth year of the 54th Olympiad, as will be seen proved in my Essay on the Chronology of Herodotus, chap. xx. I do not see how, according to these calculations, supported by the authority of Heraclides of Pontus, Diogenes Laertius, and the Oxford Marbles, there can remain a doubt of the interview of Solon with Croesus.

I cannot however deny that these calculations are founded on conjecture only, which, though possessing every degree of probability, I should be sorry to be suspected of passing for incontestable truths.

The epoch of the death of Solon will always remain involved in obscurity; the authors who have spoken on this subject being so much at variance with each other.

There is almost as much uncertainty as to the end of the reign of Croesus, and consequently as to the year when he ascended the throne. The Chronicle of Paros, which has been referred to in the view of fixing the year when this prince was taken prisoner, throws no light whatever on the subject, the figures being partly effaced, and the editors having supplied the chasm only with their own conjectures. As to the commencement of his reign, this Chronicle does not say a word. Mr. Chandler, to whom we are indebted for the last edition, has struck out these words, Tis 'Arias eßariλevoe, which cannot be reconciled with the embassy that Croesus sent to Delphos, as it is ascertained that he did not send it in the first year of his reign.

But even if the figures relating to this epoch had remained, and we could have ascertained with certainty of what embassy the author of the Chronicle spoke, we should be no forwarder, so long as we were ignorant of the connexion of this embassy with some other known fact. For as to the opinion of M. Fréret, I shall pay the less atten

tion to it, as it is founded wholly on conjectures, which appear to me to possess but little probability. The reader may however refer to the Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions, tom. v., Mém. p. 275. where the subject is treated at length.

The eclipse of the sun, which put an end to the war between Alyattes, king of Lydia, and Cyaxares, king of Media, is an epoch equally indeterminate. Authors are divided in opinion as to the year when it took place, and consequently as to the commencement of that war. All that is known is, that the eclipse happened in the sixth year of the war. I shall speak of this more particularly in the note on LXXIV. of this Book.

The Chronicle of Paros (Epoch 36) mentions the year when Alyattes ascended the throne; but the beginning of the date is effaced, and the editors have supplied it from conjectures, which seem to me wholly without foundation. Indeed, if we place the commencement of the reign of Alyattes in the year 341, that will correspond with the 605th year before our era. If from this last number we subtract 71 years, the sum total of the reigns of Alyattes and Croesus, we shall have the year 534, that is, the 3rd year of the 61st Olympiad, for the date of the taking of Sardis; which is contradicted by all the writers, and will neither accord with subsequent nor preceding events. The learned Father Petau places the commencement of this reign in the 2nd year of the 41st Olympiad; Eusebius differs from him. Amongst so great a variety of opinions, how shall we decide? I fix the epoch when Croesus ascended the throne in the month of May, in the year 4155 of the Julian era, which is the 1st year of the 55th Olympiad, and 559 years before our era. I make my calculation from the eclipse of the sun which terminated the war between Alyattes and Cyaxares, which happened on the 9th of July in the year 4117 of the Julian, and 597 years before our era, and from other grounds, which I have explained in my Essay on the Chronology of Herodotus, chap. VII.

I wish to add a few words respecting the Chronicle of Paros, which I have several times mentioned in this note. It is to be found in the Oxford Marbles, 19th and following pages. This little di

a Petav. de Doctrinâ Temporum, Vol. ii. p. 304.

I was surprised on reading M.Dorigny's work on the Chronology of Egypt, that on the subject of the Marbles of Paros, (tom. i. p. 101. note,) he should have sought to perpetuate an odious suspicion against a man of letters, an Englishman by birth, who certainly does not merit it. The facts are these: A Mr. Peiresc had bought these

Marbles for 50 louis-d'or, by the intervention of a Frenchman, named Samson. The Turks, urged by avarice and mistrust, seized the Marbles, and threw Samson into prison. Some time afterwards, Mr. Pettee, a man of letters, whom the Earl of Arundel had sent into Greece to collect monuments of antiquity, bought these same Marbles at a much higher price, and was fortunate enough to convey them to Eng