PARIAN CHRONICLE is the name given to a block of marble preserved at Oxford, which contained in its perfect state a chronological account of the principal events In Greek history (luring a period of 1318 years, beginning with COCTOpS, B.C. 1582, and ending with the arehonship of Dlognetils, at Athens, s.c. 264. The chronicle of the last ninety years was however lost, so that the part which now remain ends( at the archonahip of Diotimus, n.c. 354. This chronicle oaf purchased at Smyrna, together with several other relics of antiquity by Mr. William Petty. wile was employed by the Earl of Arundel, it — — – the year 1624, for the purpose of making collection& for him of ancient works of art in Greece, Asia 34 inor, and the islands of the Archipelago. Gassendi states in his' Life of l'elrese ' (lib. iv., ed. of 1629), who was counsellor in the parliament of Provence, and a munificent patron of arts and learning, that the Pariau Chronicle was first discovered by means of and was purchased for him by one Sampson, his agent at Smyrna, for fifty pieces of gold. but that when it was ready to be sent un board, Sampson was thrown into prison, and that the Chronicle was afterwards purchased for Lord Arundel, by Mr. Petty, at a much higher price. Dr. Hales, in his A.nalysis of Chronology' (vol. i. p. 103, Svo. edition), brings forward several reasons to show the improbability of this account ; but however this may be, the Chronicle reached London in 1627, and was examined, at the suggestion of Sir Robert Cotton, with great care by the learned Selden, in conjunction with Patrick Young, librarian to James I. and Charles I., and Richard James, Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. " Many of the characters," says Selden, "were entirely obliterated, and many nearly so; nevertheless, by the assistance of glasses, and the critical sagacity of my very kind friend Patrick Young, after a great many repeated trials, I have restored them as well as 1 could.' The Chronicle was published by Selden, together with other inscriptions which were brought to England by Mr. Petty in the following year (1628), under the title of ' 3larmora Arundelliana.' During the civil war in the reign of Charles I., the Earl of Arundel
removed to Antwerp, and many of the marbles, which were deposited in the gardens of Arundel House, were defaced and broken, or used to repair the house. The latter was the fate of the Parian Chronicle ; the upper part of it, containing at least half the inscription, is said to have been worked up in repairing a chimney at Arundel House; but fortunately a copy of it was preserved in Selden's work.
In 1667 the Hon. Henry Howard, grandson of the Earl of Arundel who obtained the Chronicle from Greece, presented it to the University of Oxford, where it is preserved, together with other antiquities collected by the Earl of Arundel, in a room adjoining to the public schools, called the Museum Arundelianum. The Chronicle was pub lished again in Prideaux's Marmora Oxoniensia; fol. 1676, which was reprinted in 1732, under the care of Michael Maittaire, and again in 1791, Oxford, under the care of W. Roberts. In Chandler's 3Iarmora Oxoniensia,' which was published in 1763, great pains were bestowed upon the Parian Chronicle, and many parts in which the inscription was defaced were supplied by conjectures, which are frequently very ingenious and probable. It has also been published, with an English translation, in the works of Robertson, Hewlett, and Hales, which are mentioned in the course of this article.
The authenticity and antiquity of this Chronicle was never called in question till the latter end of the last century, when a work was published by the Rev. J. Robertson under the title of The Parian Chronicle, or the Chronicle of the Arundelian Marbles, with a Disser tation concerning its Authenticity,' London, 17a8, in which it is maintained to be a fabrication of modern times. The principal objec tions brought forward by Robertson are :-1. That the characters have no ccrtaiu or unequivocal marks of antiquity. 2. It is not probable that the Chronicle was engraved for private use. 3. It does not appear to have been engraved by public authority. 4. The Greek and Roman writers for a long time after the date of this Chronicle complain that they had no chronological account of the affairs of ancient Greece.