the preceding, revolted from the Persians, and fled to, Athens. (Herod. iii. 160.) 3. The Thracian, a slave of Pericles, was appointed by the latter the Paedagogus of Alcibiades. (Plut. Alcib. i. p. 122.) 4. The Physiognomist, attributed many vices to Socrates in an assembly of his disciples, who laughed at him and at his art in consequence; but Socrates admitted the truth of his remarks, and said that such were his natural propensities, but that they had been overcome by philosophy. (Cic. Tusc. iv. 37, de Fato, 5; Alex. Aphrodis. de Fato, c. 6, p. 48, ed. Orelli.) ZOPYRUS (Záruрos), literary. 1. Of Tarentum, a Pythagorean philosopher. (Iambl. Vit. Pyth. extr.) 2. Of Clazomenae, a rhetorician, was a contemporary of Timon. (Quintil. iii. 6. § 3; Diog. Laërt. ix. 114.) 3. Of Byzantium, an historian (Plut. Parall. Min. c. 36), was probably the author of Mirov Krios, the fourth book of which is cited by the Scholiast on Homer (IL. x. 274). He is perhaps the same person as the Zopyrus mentioned by Marcellinus (Vit. Thuc. § 32). Stobaeus quotes two verses from Zopyrus (Floril. Ixiii. 8), and likewise makes an extract from a work entitled Theseis, also by Zopyrus, but it is impossible to determine whether this Zopyrus was the same as the Byzantine, or whether Stobaeus quotes from the same or from two different persons. There are some other persons of the name. (See Vossius, de Hist. Graec. p. 511, ed. Westermann.) A physician of this name is also mentioned in an old Latin inscription in Gruter's Inscript. p. 635. § 7. (See Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. xiii. p. 455, ed. vet.; Sprengel's Gesch. der Arzneik, vol. i. ed. 1846.) [W. A. G.] ZOPYRUS, is mentioned by Pliny as one of the eminent silver chasers who flourished in the time of Pompey the Great. Two cups of his, representing the trial of Orestes by the Areopagus, were valued at twelve thousand sesterces. (Plin. H. N. xxxiii. 12. s. 55: Zopyrus, qui Areopagitas et judicium Orestis in duobus scyphis [caelavit] H. S. XII. aestimatis.) [P. S.] ZOROASTER or ZOROASTRES (Zapodσrρns), the ZARATHUSTRA of the Zendavesta, and the ZERDUSHT of the Persians, was the founder of the Magian religion. The most opposite opinions have been held both by ancient and modern writers respecting the time in which he lived. In the Zendavesta itself, as well as in the writings of the Parsees, Zoroaster is said to have lived in the reign of Vitaçpa (as he is called in the Zendavesta) or Gushtasp (as the Persians name him), whom most modern writers identify with Dareius Hystaspis. According to this view the system of Zoroaster was not promulgated till the time of the third Persian monarch, and he must therefore be looked upon as the reformer and not the founder of the Magian religion, which was of much higher antiquity. This opinion was maintained by Hyde and Prideaux, who also attempted to prove that Zoroaster was a pupil of Daniel, and learnt from the prophet all those parts of his system which reZOPYRUS (Zwπvрos). 1. A surgeon at Alex- semble the tenets of the Sacred Writings. But andria, the tutor of Apollonius Citiensis and although this opinion has been adopted by AnPosidonius (Apoll. Cit. ap. Dietz, Schol. in Hippocr.quetil du Perron, Kleuker, Malcolm, and many other et Gal. vol. i. p. 2) about the beginning of the first century B. C. He invented an antidote, which he recommended to Mithridates, king of Pontus, and wrote a letter to that king, begging to be allowed to test its efficacy on the person of a criminal (Galen, De Antid. ii. 8, vol. xiv. p. 150). Another somewhat similar composition he prepared for one of the Ptolemies. (Cels. v. 23. § 2. p. 94.) Some of his medical formulae are quoted and mentioned by various ancient authors, viz. Caelius Aurelianus (De Morb. Chron. ii. 14, v. 10. pp. 425, 592), Oribasius (Coll. Medic. xiv. 45, 50, 52, 56, 58, 61, 64, pp. 478, 481, 482, 483, 485, 487), Aëtius (ii. 4. 57, iii. 1. 31, iv. 2. 74, pp. 417, 476, 732), Paulus Aegineta (vii. 11, p. 660), Marcellus Empiricus (De Medicam. c. 22, p. 342), and Nicolaus Myrepsus (i. 291, p. 420): and Pliny (H. N. xxiv. 87), and Dioscorides (iii. 99. vol. i. p. 446) mention that a certain plant was called zopyron, perhaps after his name. Nicarchus satirizes in one of his epigrams (Anthol. Gr. xi. 124), a physician named Zopyrus, who appears to have lived in Egypt, and who may possibly be the person mentioned by Apollonius Citiensis and Celsus: in which case Nicarchus must have lived earlier than is commonly supposed. [NICARCHUS.] 2. An acquaintance of Scribonius Largus in the first century after Christ (Scrib. Larg. De Compos. Medicam. c. 171, p. 222), a native either of Gordium in Phrygia (Gordiensis) or of Gortyna in Crete (Gortynensis), may perhaps have been the same physician who is introduced by Plutarch as one of the speakers in his Symposiaca (iii. 6) and said to have belonged to the Epicurean school of philosophy. modern writers, it will be found to possess no other evidence in its favour but the identification of Gushtasp with Dareius Hystaspis; for the testimony of the later Greek and Roman writers, who place Zoroaster at this period, is of no value in such an inquiry, and is counterbalanced by the statements of other classical writers who assign to him a much earlier date. Moreover, while this supposition has such a slender amount of evidence in its favour, it is open to the most serious objections. First, Zoroaster is universally represented as the founder of the Magian religion both by the Orientals and the Greeks, and it is unnecessary to prove that this religion was of greater antiquity than the commencement of the Persian empire, and that it had been previously the national religion of the Medes. The first Greek writer who mentions Zoroaster is Plato, who says that the Persian youths were taught the Mageia of Zoroaster, the son of Horomazes, which he interprets to mean the worship of the gods (ὁ μὲν μαγείαν διδάσκει τὴν Ζωροάστρου τοῦ Ωρομάζου – ἔστι de TOUTO Dev Depanela, Plut. Alcib. i. p. 122, a). Secondly, if Zoroaster had been the reformer of the Persian religion in the reign of Dareius Hystaspis, he would certainly have been mentioned by Herodotus. The silence of the historian is a conclusive argument to us against Zoroaster being a contemporary of Dareius. Thirdly, the king Gushtasp, under whom Zoroaster lived, is said in the Zendavesta to be the son of Auravataçpa, the Lohrasp of the modern Persians, while Hystaspes, the father of Dareius, was never king, and was the son of Arskama or Arsames. It would therefore seem that the Gushtasp, the contemporary of Zoroaster, was an entirely different person from Dareius Hystaspis. equal discrepancy in the Greek and Roman writers respecting the time at which he was said to have lived. Thus Aristotle and Eudoxus stated that he lived 6000 years before the death of Plato (Plin. H. N. xxxi. 1. s. 2), and Hermippus that he lived 5000 years before the Trojan war (Plin. l. c.; Diog. Laërt. i. 2); while others assign to him a much later date, making him a contemporary of Cyrus (Arnob. i. 52) or Pythagoras (Clem. Alex. Strom. i. p. 357; Appuleius, Florid. ii. p. 231). We only quote these statements as instances of the discrepancies in the Greek and Roman writers respecting the age and country of Zoroaster, and of showing the hopelessness of attempting to construct any theory from such contradictory accounts. Other dates have likewise been assigned to Zoroaster by modern scholars; but sound criticism compels us to come to the conclusion that it is quite impossible to determine the time at which he lived. All we learn from the Zendavesta is that he was the subject of a king named Gushtasp, who belonged to the dynasty of the Kâvja, or as they are called in the modern Persian, the Kayanians. The history of the dynasty has come down to us in a mutilated form; but it would appear that the kings of this race reigned in eastern Iran, and more particularly Bactria, at a period anterior to that of the Median and Persian kings. The Bactrian origin of Zoroaster is alluded to by several of There were extant in the later Greek literature the Greek and Roman writers, who obtained their several works bearing the name of Zoroaster, and information from Oriental sources. Thus Ammia- which are quoted under the titles of λóyıa, iepol nus Marcellinus (xiii. 6. § 32) calls Zoroaster a λόγοι, ἀποκαλύψεις, βίβλοι ἀπόκρυφοι ΖωροBactrian, and his testimony is of considerable im- | άστρου, περὶ φύσεως, περὶ λίθων τιμίων, ἀστεροportance because he must have received the in- σκοπικά, ἀποτελεσματικὰ, &c. Some of these formation from the Persians themselves, when he works were in existence as early as the time of attended the emperor Julian in his campaign Pliny, who relates that Hermippus wrote commen.. against the Parthians. Ctesias likewise, who re- taries on two million lines of Zoroaster. (Plin. l. c.; sided long at the court of Artaxerxes Mnemon, Suidas, s. v. Zwp.) These writings however must calls Zoroaster a king of Bactria (Ctesias, pp. 79, not be regarded as translations from the Zenda91, ed. Lion, copied by Justin, i. 1); and the same vesta, to which they bore no resemblance, as is statement occurs in Moses of Chorene (i. 6). The evident from the extracts preserved from them by tradition which represents Zoroaster of Median Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, and others. origin sprang up at a later time, when the chief seat (Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 14, p. 710; Euseb. Praep. of his religion was in Media, and no longer in the Ev. i. 10; Dion Chrysost. Or. 36.) They were, further East. We may therefore conclude that the on the contrary, forgeries of a later age, and belong religion of Zoroaster first appeared in Bactria, and to the same class of writings as the works of from thence spread eastward; but further than Hermes Trismegistus, Orpheus, &c. There is still this we cannot venture to go. As the founder of extant a collection of oracles ascribed to Zoroaster, the Magian religion he must be placed in remote which were published for the first time with the antiquity, and it may even be questioned whether commentaries of Gemistus Pletho [GEMISTUS], such a person ever existed. Niebuhr regards him under the title of Μαγικὰ λόγια τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ as a purely mythical personage (Kleine Schriften, vol. Zwpoάστpov Máywv, by Tiletanus, Paris, 1538, i. p. 200); but it is worthy of remark that we find 4to. They have also been edited by Patricius in no trace in the Zendavesta of the various wonders his Nova de Universis Philosophia, &c., Ferraand miracles which are connected with his name in riae, 1591, and Venet. 1593, foll.; by Morell, the Persian and Greek and Roman writers. It is Paris, 1595, 4to., and also in Latin; by Obsopaeus, unnecessary to repeat these stories, but we may Paris, 1507, 8vo., and by others. It would be mention as a specimen two tales related by Pliny. ridiculous in the present day to enter into any It is said that he laughed on the day of his birth, argument to prove the spuriousness of these oracles. and that his brain palpitated so violently as to Every thing known respecting the reputed works heave up the hand that was placed upon his head; of Zoroaster is collected by Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. and that he lived in the desert for twenty years on vol. i. p. 304, foll.). cheese, in consequence of which he was preserved An account of the religious system of Zoroaster from feeling old age. (Plin. H. N. vii. 16. s. 15, does not fall within the scope of the present work; xi. 42. s. 97.) It would be idle to attempt to but the reader will find abundant information on make even an approximation to the date of Zoro- the subject in the works quoted below. Mr. Milaster from the statements of the Greek and Roman man has given an excellent summary of the leading writers; for the most learned among them could tenets of the Zoroastrian system. (Hyde, Veterum not come to any agreement as to the time at which Persarum et Magorum Religionis Historia, Oxford, he lived, and many supposed that there were seve-1700 and 1760; Prideaux, Connection of the Hisral persons of this name, who lived at widely different times and in very different countries. Thus we find him called not only a Bactrian, but a Median (Clem. Alex. Strom. i. p. 399), a Chaldaean (Porphyr. Vit. Pythag. 12), a Persomedian (Suidas, s. v. Zwроáστpηs), a Persian (Diog. Laërt. Praef.), an Armenian (Arnob. i. 12), a Pamphylian (Arnob. | 1. c.), and even a native of Proconnesus. (Plin. H. N. xxx. 1. s. 2.) Many of these various statements probably arose from the circumstance that the Magian religion was introduced into these countries and places; and it is only in this way that we can explain the strange account in Pliny that he was a native of Proconnesus. We find | tory of the Old and New Testament, Part i. vol. i. p. 299, foll.; Anquetil du Perron, Zendavesta ; Kleuker, Zendavesta; Rhode, Die Heilige Sage des. Zendvolks; Heeren, Historical Researches, &c. Asiatic Nations, vol. i. p. 367, foll.; Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. i. c. 8; Milman, History of Christianity, vol. i. p. 65, foll.; Georgii, in RealEncyclopädie des classichen Alterthumswissenschaft, s. v. Magi; Lassen, Indische Alterthumskunde, vol. i. p. 752, foll.) ZORZINES, king of the Siraci, a people in the neighbourhood of the Caucasus, in the reign of the emperor Claudius. (Tac. Ann. xii. 15, 17, 19.) ZO'SIMUS (Zwouos). 1. A learned freedman of the younger Pliny, remarkable for his talents as | altogether) an abridgment or compilation of the a comedian and musician, as well as for his excellence as a reader. (Plin. Epist. v. 19.) 2. Prefect of Epeirus under Valentinian and Valens. He is mentioned in connection with some laws promulgated in A. D. 373. (Cod. Theodos. 6. tit. 31, 12. tit. 10.) 3. A Greek historian, who lived in the time of the younger Theodosius (Evagrius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 41). He is described by Photius (Cod. 98, p. 84, ed. Bekker) as κóμŋs kai àwopiσkoovvhyopos (comes et exadvocatus-fisci). He may possibly have been the son of Zosimus, the prefect of Epeirus, who is mentioned in the Theodosian Code. Zosimus was the author of a history of the Roman empire in six books, which is still extant. This work must have been written after the year 425, as an event is mentioned in it (v. 27) which took place in that year. How long after cannot be determined with certainty; but his description of the condition of the Greek empire at the time he wrote accords with the state of things in the latter part of the fifth century. Further biographical particulars have not come down to us. As Polybius had narrated the events by which the Roman empire had reached its greatness, so Zosimus undertook the task of developing the events and causes which led to its decline (Zosim. i. 57). As the commencement of this decline, he goes back to the change in the constitution of Rome introduced by Augustus. The first book comprises a sketch of the history of the early emperors, down to the end of the reign of Diocletian (A. D. 305). The second, third, and fourth books are devoted to the history of the fourth century, which is treated much less concisely. The fifth and sixth books embrace the period from A. D. 395 to A. D. 410, when Attalus was deposed. Though the decline of the Roman empire was the main subject which Zosimus selected, it was perhaps his ambition to imitate Polybius, which led him to introduce various matters connected with Persian, Grecian, and Macedonian history, which are not very intimately connected with his main design. It is clear that Photius and Evagrius had not more of the work than we have. Yet it seems likely on some accounts, either that a part of the work has been lost, or, what is more likely, that Zosimus did not live to finish it; for as we now have it, it does not embrace all that Zosimus himself tells us he intended to take up (iv. 59. § 4, 5, i. 58. § 9, iv. 28. § 3). There does not seem much probability in the conjecture that the monks and other ecclesiastics succeeded in suppressing that portion of the work in which the evil influences of their body were to be more especially touched upon (v. 23. § 8; Harles. ad Fabr. vol. viii. p. 65; comp. Voss. de Hist. Gr. p. 312). If the work was thus left incomplete, that circumstance would account for some carelessness of style which is here and there apparent. There may appear some difficulty at first sight, however, in the statement of Photius, that the work, in the form in which he saw it, appeared to him to be a second edition (véas èxdóσews). But it would seem that Photius was under some misapprehension. It is called in the MSS. ioTopía vea (in what sense is not quite clear). This may perhaps have misled Photius. He himself remarks that he had not seen the first edition. The work of Zosimus is mainly (though not works of previous historians. As far as the 41st chapter of the first book he follows Herennius Dexippus. From that point to the 11th chapter of the fifth book Eunapius is his guide, though he nowhere makes mention of him. Photius remarks in general terms of the work that it was not so much a history as a compilation from Eunapius. After Eunapius he follows Olympiodorus, sometimes copying from him whole chapters. The style of Zosimus is fairly described by Photius as concise, clear, pure, and not unpleasing. His chief fault as an historical writer is that he neglects to notice the chronology. Zosimus was a pagan, and is by no means sparing of the faults and crimes of the Christian emperors. In consequence of this his credibility has been fiercely assailed by several Christian writers, and has been sometimes defended merely because his history tended to the discredit of many leading persons in the Christian party. Photius thus expresses his opinion: ἔστι τὴν θρησκείαν ἀσεβὴς καὶ πολλάκις ἐν πολλοῖς ὑλακτῶν κατὰ τῶν εὐσε. 6v (1. c.). Evagrius (iii. 40, 41) and Nicephorus (xvi. 41, &c.) also speak in the most unfavourable terms. The question does not, as has sometimes been supposed, turn upon the credibility of the historians whom Zosimus followed, for he did not adhere in all cases to their judgment with respect to events and characters. For instance he entirely differed from Eunapius in his account of Stilicho and Serena. Of modern writers, Baronius, Laelius Bisciola, C. v. Barth, J. D. Ritter, R. Bentley, and St. Croix, have taken the derogatory side. Bentley in particular (Remarks upon a late Discourse of Freethinking, Part. ii. p. 21) speaks of Zosimus with great contempt. On the other hand, his historical authority has been maintained by Leunclavius, G. B. von Schirach, J. Matth. Schröckh, and Reitemeier. There are no doubt numerous errors of judgment to be found in the work, and sometimes (especially in the case of Constantine) an intemperate expression of opinion, which somewhat exaggerates, if it does not distort the truth. But he does not seem fairly chargeable with deliberate invention, or wilful misrepresentation. One passage in his history in particular has been fastened upon as evident proof of his untrustworthiness, where (ii. 29) he gives his account of the conversion of Constantine, placing it after the murder of his son (A. D. 326), whereas Constantine had declared himself a Christian much earlier. (Sainte-Croix, Mém. de l'Académie des Inser. vol. xlix. p. 466). But on the other hand, the common story of the conversion of Constantine does not rest on any authority that is worth much; and though it is pretty clear that Zosimus has committed an anachronism, it is not so gross as has been sometimes supposed; and there is thus much to be said in excuse for Zosimus, that it was not till the latter part of his life that Constantine received the rite of baptism; and it appears from Sozomen (i. 3) that a story similar to that told by Zosimus was current some time previously, so that the latter is not at any rate responsible for the origination of the tale. It is not to be wondered at that one who held to the old faith should attribute the downfall of the empire in great part to the religious innovations attendant upon the spread of Christianity. The history of Zosimus was first printed in the Latin translation of Leunclavius (Löwenklau), ac companied by a defence of the historian (Basel, 1576, fol.). The first two books, in Greek, with the translation of Leunclavius, were printed by H. Stephanus, in his edition of Herodian (Paris, 1581). The first complete edition of the Greek text of Zosimus was that by F. Sylburg (Scriptores Hist. Rom. Min. vol. iii.). Later editions are those published at Oxford (1679), at Zeitz and Jena, edited by Cellarius, with annotations of his own and others (1679, 1713, 1729). The next edition is that by Reitemeier, who, though he consulted no fresh manuscripts, made good use of the critical remarks of Heyne and other scholars (Leipzig, 1784). The last and best edition is by Bekker, Bonn, 1837. There is a German translation by Seybold and Heyler, and also an English and a French translation. (Schöll, Gesch. d. Griech. Lit. vol. iii. p. 232; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. viii. p. 62.) 4. A native of Ascalon, or, according to other accounts, of Gaza. He lived in the time of the emperor Anastasius. According to Suidas (s. v.) he was the author of a λégis pηтоρikǹ Kатà σTоIXELOV (of which Suidas himself made considerable use), and commentaries on Demosthenes and Lysias, some of which are still extant in MS. A life of Demosthenes by him is prefixed to most of the editions of Demosthenes. 5. A native of Thasos, the author of some epigrams still extant in the Anthology (vol. iii. p. 157, &c., ed. Jacobs). 6. An abbot, whose diaλoyioμol were edited by P. Possinus, in his Thesaurus Asceticus, p. 279. The editor thinks that he flourished in Palestine about A. D. 430. Several others of this name, not worth inserting here, are enumerated by Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. vol. viii. p. 71, &c.). [C. P. M.] ZO'SIMUS. The short pontificate of this Roman bishop, which lasted from the 18th of March, A. D. 417, until his death on the 26th of December in the following year, was rendered more remarkable by the rash activity with which he plunged into delicate and irritating controversies than by any display of sound judgment or high principle. His attention was first occupied by the representations of Caelestius and Pelagius, who, having appealed to his predecessor Innocentius against what they termed the harsh and prejudiced sentence of the Carthaginian synod, now earnestly demanded a full investigation of the charges preferred against their orthodoxy. Zosimus not only pronounced the complete acquittal of the accused, but inveighed in the strongest terms against the conduct of the African clergy, and published a letter testifying his entire satisfaction with the explanations of Pelagius. But scarcely had he given expression to these feelings when a total change was wrought in his sentiments by the edict of Honorius, issued at Ravenna on the last day of April, A. D. 418. Not satisfied with retracting the praise lavished on the two friends, he hastened to denounce them both as incorrigible heretics, and despatched a circular epistle (Tractoria) to convey a formal announcement of this condemnation to all the ecclesiastical authorities in the Christian world. and Simplicius of Vienne, he desired to make subordinate to the see of Arles, at that time occupied by a certain Patroclus, a priest of very doubtful reputation. The bishops of Narbonne and Vienne gave way to a certain extent, or at least did not peremptorily refuse obedience, but Proculus, warmly supported by his clergy and people, bade open defiance to his commands and excommunications. Nothing discouraged by this repulse, Zosimus, within a very short period of his death, boldly asserted his absolute jurisdiction over the African church by reinstating a certain Apiarius, a presbyter of Sicca, who had been regularly deposed for various grave offences by his own diocesan, thus exciting a storm among the fiery Numidians, which must have produced a violent convulsion had the author of the decree lived to follow up this stretch of power by ulterior measures. Fourteen Epistolae et Decreta of this pope addressed to various bishops and religious communities, chiefly in regard to the events detailed above, have been preserved, together with a few short fragments of the Tractoria, and of some other pieces, all of which will be found under their best form in the Epistolae Pontificum Romanorum edited by Coustant, fol. Paris, 1721, vol. i. pp. 934 -1006, in the Bibliotheca Patrum of Galland, fol. Venet. 1773, vol. ix. pp. 1-20, and also in the Conciliorum amplissima Collectio of Mansi, fol. Florent. 1760, vol. iv. pp. 348-372. (See the Prolegomena of Mansi and Galland ; Schönemann, Bibliotheca Patrum Lat. vol. ii. § 12; Bähr, Geschichte der Röm. Litterat. Suppl. Band. 2te Abtheil. § 141.) [W. R.] ZO'SIMUS, M. CANULEIUS, a gold and silver chaser, whose skill and probity are praised in an extant inscription. (Gruter, p. dcxxxix; Sillig. Catal. Artif. App. s. v.) The name is also found on some ancient cameos; and Raoul-Rochette, assuming the identity of the artist, takes this as a new proof that the art of engraving on metals and on precious stones was often practised by the same persons. (Lettre à M. Schorn, p. 158, 2d ed.) .[P. S.] ZOSTE'RIA (Zwornpía), a surname of Athena among the Epicnemidian Locrians. (Steph. Byz. s. v. Zworp; comp. Herod. viii. 107.) The masculine form Zosterius occurs as a surname of Apollo in Attica, on the slip of land stretching into the sea between Phaleron and Sunium. (Steph. Byz. l. c.) [L. S.] ZOʻTICUS, AURELIUS, surnamed The Cook, from the profession of his father, was a native of Smyrna, remarkable for his personal attractions. Having been summoned to Rome by Elagabalus, who had conceived for him a violent affection, he entered the city escorted by a magnificent procession, was received in the palace by the emperor with marks of the most exaggerated respect, and was immediately appointed chamberlain. speedily, however, fell into disgrace through the arts, it is said, of the rival favourite Hierocles, and was banished. (Dion Cass. lxxix. 16.) [W. R.] He ZYGIA and ZYGIUS (Ζυγία and Ζυγίος), are surnames of Hera and Zeus, describing them as presiding over marriage. (Hesych. s. v.; comp. His next encounter was with Proculus of Marseilles, whom, along with Hilarius of Narbonne, | HERA.) [L. S.] LIST OF TABLES. Chronological Tables of Greek History, from the first Olympiad to the Fall of Chronological Tables of Roman History, from the Foundation of the City, B. c. 753, The Athenian Archons Eponymi, from B. c. 496, to B. C. 292 Page 1337 1349 1395 1396 1400 |