almost four hundred years before the taking of Troy. 3. Cecrops is here made to be four hundred and fifty years later than Semiramis, which cannot well be reconciled with Eusebius. 4. Five hundred and five years computed backwards from the eightieth year of Cecrops, will not bring us back to Ninus; for according to this canon, Cecrops' first year is four hundred and fifty years after the last year of Ninus, so that the position of Cecrops in the present canon of Eusebius does but ill agree with two of Eusebius' four marks of Cecrops' time, and evidently differs from the other two; whereas the true time of Cecrops, as fixed by the marble, agrees perfectly with all the four. But the learned know that the Chronicon of Eusebius, which he himself composed, is long ago lost, and that the work we now have of that name was composed by Scaliger, from such fragments as he could find of Eusebius in other writers; and he has in some things given us his own sentiments, instead of Eusebius' chronology, of which we have an evident instance in this particular; which, with several others, ought carefully to be distinguished by those, who would build upon the authority of Eusebius' chronicon. Thus at last it appears, that the marble differs from Scaliger only, and not from Eusebius. Scaliger was probably led into this mistake by Castor's computations; not attending to what Eusebius has said upon the subject in his other works, and in his preface to this.

I might offer something further, to shew how Castor was led into his mistake in this point; but I fear the reader is already tired with too long a digression;

however, I will suggest a hint, which the reader may consider further, if he pleases. It is agreed by all the best writers, that Cecrops lived about the time of Triopas king of Argos; and according to Castor's computations, Triopas began to reign A. M. 2458; but it is remarkable that Castor sets Triopas lower in the Argive list than he ought to have done; for he has inserted a king as his predecessor, who never reigned there. He makes Apis the third king of Argos, and says he reigned thirty-five years; but we find from Eschylus, that Apis was not a king of Argos, but a foreigner who came from Ætolia, and did indeed do the Sicyonians a public service, and so might possibly have his name recorded in their registries. Pansanías confirms this point, for he does not insert Apis amongst the kings of Argos, but places Argus of Criasus next to Phoroneus, omitting Apis. Now, if we strike Apis out of the roll, and deduct the years of his reign, we shall bring Castor's opinion thirty-five years nearer to the marble, and leave but a small difference between them. Upon the whole, Africanus observed, that the ancient writers differed in their sentiments about the times of Cecrops; some (he says) supposed him contemporary with Prometheus, Atlas, and Epimetheus; others placed him sixty, and others ninety years after them." Clemens Alexandrinus places Prometheus, Atlas, Epimetheus, and Cecrops, together in the time of Triopas," and so does Tatian,"

y In Corinthiacis.

* Stromat. lib. 1.

с

but Eusebius seems to differ from them in this parti cular, and to think Atlas, Prometheus, and Epime theus, before Cecrops; how long, he has not told us, nor can we possibly guess from Scaliger's canon of Eusebius; for he has inserted Atlas twice; eightytwo years before Cecrops in one place, and again with Prometheus and Epimetheus thirty-one years be fore him in the other. Most probably Eusebius thought that Clemens and Tatian placed him too early, by making him contemporary with Atlas, and yet found that sixty or ninety years after him would be too late, and so chose a medium; and we find he was far from being singular in his opinion; for the Parian Chronicon agrees very nearly, if not exactly with him; so that here are two authorities concurring, which is more than can be found in favour of any of the other computations.

After Cecrops was made king of Attica, he endeavoured to form the people; who were, before his time, but unsettled and wandering peasants, lived up and down the country, reaped the fruits of the earth, and took the cattle for their use when and where they could find them; for this was the wild and disorderly manner in which the ancient inhabitants of Greece lived.' But Cecrops instructed his people, and gave them laws for society, and taught them how to be of help and comfort, and advantage to one another; and in

See Præp. Evang. lib. 10. c. 9. p. 486. d Num. Euseb. 379.

Thucyd. Hist. lib. 1. p. 2.

• Num. 430.

order to teach them this more fully, he endeavoured to draw them together, and to have them live in a settled habitation, within the reach of his influence and inspection, and therefore taught them to build houses, and make a town or city, which he called Cecropia, from his own name. Strabo from Philochorus says," that Cecrops instructed his people to build twelve cities; but if such a number of cities were really built by a prince of this name, I think, according to what the most learned Dr. Potter, the present Lord Bishop of Oxford, has remarked, that these twelve cities. were built by Cecrops the second of that name, and seventh king of Attica, and not by this first Cecrops." Twelve cities were not to be attempted at once; it was great thing to raise one from so uncultivated a people. The Scholiast upon Pindar' reports from Philochorus, that Cecrops instituted a poll, to see how many subjects he had to begin with, causing every man to cast a stone into a place appointed, and that upon computation he found them to be in number twenty thousand; but may we not think that this particular also belongs to the second Cecrops, and not to the first? I cannot well imagine how Cecrops could at first get together twenty thousand of these untaught people; or if he could have got them together, how he could well have managed them. It is more likely he would have chosen to begin with a less company. But certainly the country itself could not at this time supply him with so many men; for if we look to the

* Lib. 9. h Archæologia Græca, p. 9. vol. 1. 'Olympion, ode 9.

Trojan war, though the Athenians had been a growing people all along until that time; and though Theseus vastly augmented their number by inviting all foreigners who could be got into his city; yet we find the Athenians sent but twenty ships to Troy, in each of which, if we suppose with Plutarch, a hundred and twenty men, or which, from the calculation of our English Homer,' seems more probable, eighty-five men only in each vessel, it will appear that Athens could then furnish out at most but 6000, or rather 4250 men, and therefore could not begin with 20000. For considering how numerous they made their armies in these early days, in proportion to the numbers of their people, twenty thousand men in the days of the first Cecrops must have made Athens able to have furnished out a greater number of soldiers for an expedition, in which all Greece was forward to engage with its utmost strength. Cecrops therefore began his kingdom, like other legislators, with a far less number of subjects than the Scholiast represented. Romulus at first had but few inhabitants for his city, which became afterwards the mistress of the world. When he wanted wives for his subjects, six hundred and eighty-three Sabines were a great supply ;" and after that, when he had incorporated the people of two nations" with

k Plutarch in Theseo.

'Pope's Notes upon Homer's Catalogue of Ships, Il. 2. See Thucydid. Hist. 1. 1.

m

Dionys. Halicarnass. 1. 2. p. 97. All his number were 2300, ibid. p. 86. Some say, the Sabine virgins taken were but thirty. Valerius Antias makes them 527: Juba, 683. Plut. in Rom.

n Id. p. 100.