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). I remarked in the preceding page, that Mr. Clinton erroneously cites K. O. Müller as a believer in the chronological _authenticity_ of the lists of the early Spartan kings: he says (vol. iii. App. vi. p. 330), “Mr. Müller is of opinion that an _authentic_ account of the years of each Lacedæmonian reign from the return of the Heraclidæ to the Olympiad of Korœbus had been preserved to the time of Eratosthenês and Apollodôrus.” But this is a mistake; for Müller expressly disavows any belief in the _authenticity_ of the lists (Dorians, i. p. 146): he says: “I do not contend that the chronological accounts in the Spartan lists form _an authentic document_, more than those in the catalogue of the priestesses of Hêrê and in the list of Halikarnassian priests. The chronological statements in the Spartan lists may have been formed from imperfect memorials: but the Alexandrine chronologists must have found such tables in existence,” &c. The discrepancies noticed in Herodotus (vi. 52) are alone sufficient to prove that continuous registers of the names of the Lacedæmonian kings did not begin to be kept until very long after the date here assigned by Mr. Clinton. Xenophôn (Agesilaus, viii. 7) agrees with what Herodotus mentions to have been the native Lacedæmonian story,—that Aristodêmus (and not his sons) was the king who conducted the Dorian invaders to Sparta. What is farther remarkable is, that Xenophôn calls him—Ἀριστόδημος ὁ Ἡρακλέους. The reasonable inference here is, that Xenophôn believed Aristodêmus to be the _son_ of Hêraklês, and that this was one of the various genealogical stories current. But here the critics interpose; “ὁ Ἡρακλἑους (observes Schneider,) non παῖς, sed ἀπόγονος, ut ex Herodoto, viii. 131, admonuit Weiske.” Surely, if Xenophôn had meant this, he would have said ὁ ἀφ᾽ Ἡρακλέους. Perhaps particular exceptional cases might be quoted, wherein the very common phrase of ὁ, followed by a genitive, means _descendant_, and not _son_. But if any doubt be allowed upon this point, chronological computations, founded on genealogies, will be exposed to a serious additional suspicion. Why are we to assume that Xenophôn _must_ give the same story as Herodotus, unless his words naturally tell us so?