THE years of the Roman emperors and the fractions of months and days are carefully noted by Dio and other historians. But yet even if the genuine numbers were always preserved, which is not to be expected, the sum of all the reigns would not express the exact amount of time; for sometimes the reigns are in part contemporary; as the last 4 months of Justin were also the first 4 months of Justinian; the last 10 days of Justin II were the first 10 of Tiberius II; the two last days of the same Tiberius were the first two of Mauricius. Galba Otho and Vitellius were in part contemporary with Nero and Vespasian. The elder Gordians Pupienus and Balbinus were included for the most part in the reign of Maximin. The last day of an emperor was sometimes counted again as the first of his successor; thus Aug. 19 A. D. 14 was both the last day of Augustus and the first of Tiberius. Sometimes a short interval occurred; as 10 days after the death of Jovian; 3 days at the least after the death of Trajan; a day between Caligula and Claudius, called by Suetonius two days (current) of liberty. Sometimes the life or reign of an emperor was reckoned exclusive of the day of his death; as the life of Caracalla by Dio, and the reign of Heraclius by Nicephorus.

But on the other hand the chronographers give erroneous accounts because they often omit fractions of years that they may obtain a more convenient measure of time.

Rally of Athens, during the year after the defeat at Syracuse. b.c. 412.

About a year elapsed between the catastrophe of the Athenians near Syracuse and the victory which they gained over the Milêsians, on landing near Milêtus (from September 413 b.c., to September 412 b.c.). After the first of those two events, the complete ruin of Athens had appeared both to her enemies and to herself, impending and irreparable. But so astonishing, so rapid, and so energetic, had been her rally, that at the time of the second, she was found again carrying on a tolerable struggle, though with impaired resources and on a purely defensive system, against enemies both bolder and more numerous than ever. Nor is there any reason to doubt that her foreign affairs might have gone on thus improving, had they not been endangered at thiscritical moment by the treason of a fraction of her own citizens—bringing her again to the brink of ruin, from which she was only rescued by the incompetence of her enemies.

Commencement of the conspiracy of the Four Hundred at Athens—Alkibiadês.

That treason took its first rise from the exile Alkibiadês. I have already recounted how this man, alike unprincipled and energetic, had thrown himself with his characteristic ardour into the service of Sparta, and had indicated to her the best means of aiding Syracuse, of inflicting positive injury upon Athens, and lastly, of provoking revolt among the Ionic allies of the latter.

IT has been shewn in a former work that the era of Antioch was reckoned from Nov. 1 B.C. 49 U. C. Varr. 705. The first year therefore of Antioch was nearly conumerary with the 264th year of the Selewcidœ, which commenced in October B. C. 49 U. C. Varr. 705. But if the first year was conumerary with the 264th, the 301st of Antioch, with which this Table begins, was conumerary with the 564th of the Seleucidœ.

That the era of Diocletian was reckoned from his accession in A. D. 284 is determined by Theon ad Ptolemæi μ∈y. σuvTαξ. who attests that the 29th day of Aihyr in the year of Nabonassar 1112 fell within the 81st year of Diocletian. Aihyr 29 of the 1112th year was Nov. 25 A. D. 364, and the 81st year of Diocletian was then current. But if the 81st year was current Nov. 25 A. D. 364, the first was already current Nov. 25 A. D. 284, and we are carried back to his accession Sept. 17. It is probable however that in Alexandrian computation the years of this era were deduced from Aug. 29, as in the Alexandrian coins of Diocletian given in the Tables at A. D. 285 p. 328.

The Indictions in Marcellinus and in the Tables of Du Fresnoy torn. 1 p. 174 are compared with the consulship and the Julian year in which they end. In the following Table they are compared with the years in which they begin, because the years of the Christian era are here made the measure of the rest and contain the beginnings of all the other epochs.

Different spirit shown towards Sokratês and to wards the Sophists.

That the professional teachers called Sophists in Greece were intellectual and moral corruptors—and that much corruption grew up under their teaching in the Athenian mind—are common statements which I have endeavoured to show to be erroneous. Corresponding to these statements is another, which represents Sokratês as one whose special merit it was to have rescued the Athenian mind from such demoralising influences;—a reputation, which he neither deserves nor requires. In general, the favourable interpretation of evidence, as exhibited towards Sokratês, has been scarcely less marked than the harshness of presumption against the Sophists. Of late, however, some authors have treated his history in an altered spirit, and have manifested a disposition to lower him down to that which they regard as the Sophistical level. M. Forchhammer's treatise—“The Athenians and Sokratês, or Lawful Dealing against Revolution”—goes even further, and maintains confidently that Sokratês was most justly condemned as a heretic, a traitor, and a corruptor of youth. His book, the conclusions of which I altogether reject, is a sort of retribution to the Sophists, as extending to their alleged opponent the same bitter and unfair spirit of construction with that under which they have so long unjustly suffered. But when we impartially consider the evidence, it will appear that Sokratês deserves our admiration and esteem, not indeed as an anti-Sophist, but as combining with the qualities of a good man, a force of character and an originality of speculation as well as of method, and a power of intellectually working on others—generically different from that of any professional teacher—without parallel either among contemporaries or successors.

B.C. 415 April.

Preparations for the expedition against Siciliy—general enthusiasm and sanguine hopes at Athens.

For the two or three months immediately succeeding the final resolution taken by the Athenians to invade Sicily (described in the last chapter), the whole city was elate and bustling with preparation. I have already mentioned that this resolution, though long opposed by Nikias with a considerable minority, had at last been adopted (chiefly through the unforeseen working of that which he intended as a counter-manœuvre) with a degree of enthusiasm and unanimity, and upon an enlarged scale, which surpassed all the anticipations of its promoters. The prophets, circulators of oracles, and other accredited religious advisers, announced generally the favourable dispositions of the gods, and promised a triumphant result. All classes in the city, rich and poor—cultivators, traders, and seamen—old and young—all embraced the project with ardour; as requiring a great effort, yet promising unparalleled results, both of public aggrandisement and individual gain. Each man was anxious to put down his own name for personal service; so that the three generals, Nikias, Alkibiadês, and Lamachus, when they proceeded to make their selection of hoplites, instead of being forced to employ constriant and incur ill-will, as happened when an expedition was unpopular, had only to choose the fittest among a throng of eager volunteers. Every man provided himself with his best arms and with bodily accoutrements, useful as well as ostentatious, for a long voyage and for the exigencies of a varied land- and sea-service.

Capture of Minôa, opposite Megara, by the Athenians under Nikias

About the same time as the troubles of Korkyra occurred, Nikias the Athenian general conducted an armament against the rocky island of Minôa, which lav at the mouth of the harbour of Meeara, and was occupied by a Megarian fort and garrison. The narrow channel, which separated it from the Megarian port of Nisæa and formed the entrance of the harbour, was defended by two towers projecting out from Nisæa, which Nikias attacked and destroyed by means of battering machines from his ships. He thus cut off Minôa from communication on that side with the Megarians, and fortified it on the other side, where it communicated with the mainland by a lagoon bridged over with a causeway. Minôa, thus becoming thoroughly insulated, was more completely fortified and made an Athenian possession; since it was eminently convenient to keep up an effective blockade against the Megarian harbour, which the Athenians had hitherto done only from the opposite shore of Salamis.

Nikias—his first introduction, position, and character

Though Nikias, son of Nikeratus, had been for some time conspicuous in public life, and is said to have been more than once Stratêgus along with Periklês, this is the first occasion on which Thucydidês introduces him to our notice. He was now one of the Stratêgi or generals of the commonwealth, and appears to have enjoyed, on the whole, a greater and more constant personal esteem than any citizen of Athens, from the present time down to his death.