O. Müller, in his Chronological Tables (Appendix vi. to History of Dorians, vol ii. p. 441, Engl. transl.), gives no dates or computation of years anterior to the Capture of Troy and the Return of the Herakleids, which he places with Eratosthenês in 1184 and 1104 B. C.
C. Müller thinks (in his Annotatio ad Marmor Parium, appended to the Fragmenta Historicorum Græcorum, ed. Didot, pp. 556, 568, 572; compare his Prefatory notice of the Fragments of Hellanikus, p. xxviii. of the same volume) that the ancient chronologists, in their arrangement of the mythical events as antecedent and consequent, were guided by certain numerical attachments, especially by a reverence for the cycle of 63 years, product of the sacred numbers 7 × 9 = 63. I cannot think that he makes out his hypothesis satisfactorily, as to the particular cycle followed, though it is not improbable that some preconceived numerical theories did guide these early calculators. He calls attention to the fact that the Alexandrine computation of dates was only one among a number of others discrepant, and that modern inquirers are too apt to treat it as if it stood alone, or carried some superior authority, (pp. 568-572; compare Clemen. Alex. Stromat. i. p. 145, Sylb.) For example, O. Müller observes, (Appendix to Hist. of Dorians, p. 442,) that “Larcher’s criticism and rejection of the Alexandrine chronologists may perhaps be found as groundless as they are presumptuous,”—an observation, which, to say the least of it, ascribes to Eratosthenês a far higher authority than he is entitled to.
[71] The date of Kallimachus for Iphitus is approved by Clavier (Prem. Temps, tom. ii. p. 203), who considers it as not far from the truth.
[72] These dates, distinguished from the rest by braces, are proposed as mere conjectures, founded upon the probable length of generations.
[73] Karl Müller observes (in the Dissertation above referred to, appended to the Fragmenta Historicum Græcorum, p. 568): “Quod attinet æram Trojanam, tot obruimur et tam diversis veterum scriptorum computationibus, ut singulas enumerare negotium sit tædii plenum, eas vel probare vel improbare res vana nec vacua ab arrogantiâ. Nam nemo hodie nescit quænam fides his habenda sit omnibus.”
[74] The distinction which Mr. Clinton draws between an upward and a downward chronology is one that I am unable to comprehend. His doctrine is, that upward chronology is trustworthy and practicable up to the first recorded Olympiad; downward chronology is trustworthy and practicable from Phorôneus down to the Ionic migration: what is uncertain is, the length of the intermediate line which joins the Ionic migration to the first recorded Olympiad,—the downward and the upward terminus. (See Fasti Hellenici, vol. i. Introduct. p. ix. second edit. and p. 123, ch. vi.)
All chronology must begin by reckoning upwards: when by this process we have arrived at a certain determined era in earlier time, we may from that date reckon downwards, if we please. We must be able to reckon upwards from the present time to the Christian era, before we can employ that event as a fixed point for chronological determinations generally. But if Eratosthenês could perform correctly the upward reckoning from his own time to the fall of Troy, so he could also perform the upward reckoning up to the nearer point of the Ionic migration. It is true that Eratosthenês gives all his statements of time from an older point to a newer (so far at least as we can judge from Clemens Alex. Strom. 1, p. 336); he says “From the capture of Troy to the return of the Herakleids is 80 years; from thence to the Ionic migration, 60 years; then, farther on, to the guardianship of Lykurgus, 159 years; then to the first year of the first Olympiad, 108 years; from which Olympiad to the invasion of Xerxês, 297 years; from whence to the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, 48 years,” etc. But here is no difference between upward reckoning as high as the first Olympiad, and then downward reckoning for the intervals of time above it. Eratosthenês first found or made some upward reckoning to the Trojan capture, either from his own time or from some time at a known distance from his own: he then assumes the capture of Troy as an era, and gives statements of intervals going downwards to the Peloponnesian war: amongst other statements, he assigns clearly that interval which Mr. Clinton pronounces to be undiscoverable, viz. the space of time between the Ionic emigration and the first Olympiad, interposing one epoch between them. I reject the computation of Eratosthenês, or any other computation, to determine the supposed date of the Trojan war; but, if I admitted it, I could have no hesitation in admitting also the space which he defines between the Ionic migration and the first Olympiad. Eusebius (Præp. Ev. x. 9, p. 485) reckons upwards from the birth of Christ, making various halts, but never breaking off, to the initial phenomena of Grecian antiquity,—the deluge of Deukalion and the conflagration of Phaëtôn.
[75] See the string of fabulous names placed at the head of the Halikarnassian Inscription, professing to enumerate the series of priests of Poseidôn from the foundation of the city (Inscript. No. 2655, Boeckh), with the commentary of the learned editor: compare, also, what he pronounces to be an inscription of a genealogy partially fabulous at Hierapytna in Krête (No. 2563).
The memorable Parian marble is itself an inscription, in which legend and history—gods, heroes, and men—are blended together in the various successive epochs without any consciousness of transition in the mind of the inscriber.
That the Catalogue of Priestesses of Hêrê at Argos went back to the extreme of fabulous times, we may discern by the Fragments of Hellanikus (Frag. 45-53). So also did the registers at Sikyôn: they professed to record Amphion, son of Zeus and Antiopê, as the inventor of harp-music (Plutarch, De Musicâ, c. 3, p. 1132).