545 I do not contend that the chronological statements in the Spartan lists form an _authentic document_, more than those in the catalogues of the priestesses of Here and in the list of Halicarnassian priests (Boeckh Corp. Ins. Gr. No. 2655). 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, since they could not have been produced by mere computation; and yet the date of 328 years before the 1st Olympiad was entirely founded upon them. 546 Ap. Clem. comp. Diod. de Virt. et Vit. p. 547, ed. Vales. 547 P. 411. Fragm. ed. Heyn. from Tatian and Clemens I. p. 327. comp. p. 309. Pausan. III. 2. 4. Eusebius’s quotation of Apollodorus at the 18th year of Alcamenes is incorrect, as may be seen from Plutarch. Lycurg. I. 548 I. 65. Pausan. III. 2. 3. 549 Ælian. V. H. IX. 41. 550 Simonid. ap. Plutarch. Lyc. 2. and compare Schol. Plat. Rep. X. p. 474. 21 Bekker. The latter, also, according to Aristot. Polit. II. 7. 1. Ephorus ap. Strab. X. p. 482. Compare Dieuchidas, ap. Plutarch. Lycurg. 2. et Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 328. ed. Colon, (p. 390 Potter). cf. Strab. X. p. 481. He took Lycurgus for a son of Polydectes and a younger brother of Eunomus, and placed him 290 years after the taking of Troy. Dionys. Hal. Arch. Rom. II. 49. calls Lycurgus the uncle of Eunomus, whom he probably places with Herodotus (VIII. 131.) _after_ Polydectes. Thucydides I. 18. places Lycurgus not long before 800 B.C. Timæus escaped the difficulty by supposing that there were two Lycurguses. Xenophon disagrees the most (Rep. Lac. 10. quoted by Plutarch. Lyc. I.), as he says that Lycurgus lived κατὰ τοὺς Ἡρακλείδας, _i.e._ κατὰ τὴν Ἡρακλειδῶν κάθοδον. 551 VIII. 131. 552 See Clinton, F. H. vol. I. p. 144. The same explanation also diminishes the difficulty about the relationship of Lycurgus; yet there still remains the great discrepancy between Herodotus (where the emendation proposed by Marsham does not suit the context) and Xenophon. 553 The dates of these are given, doubtless from Alexandrine chronologists, by Diodorus, fragm. 6 p. 635, where (with Wesseling after Didymus) 30 years must be assumed from the return of the Heraclidæ to the reign of Aletes, by which the computation comes out right. This has been overlooked by Eusehius, since he makes Aletes contemporary with Eurysthenes. See the Armenian Eusebius, p. 16. Mai. 554 See above, p. 136. note t. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “district of Laconia.”] _ 555 Æginetica_, p. 62. Comp. Theocritus XVII. 27. 556 As may fairly be inferred from V. 4. 3.