The Progress of Ethnology

The Rev. T. Brockman, who was sent by the Royal Geographical Society of England for the purpose of geographical and antiquarian research in the Arabian peninsula, had proceeded up the coast from Aden to Shehar, midway between Aden and Muscat, and had coasted along to Cape Ras al-Gat. Subsequently in attempting to reach Muscat, he was arrested by sickness at Wadi Beni Jabor, where after a few days he died. His papers, which will be sent to the Geographical Society, are thought to contain matters of interest respecting this region.[66 - Particulars read to the meeting of Royal Geographical Society of London, November 9, 1846. – London Ath.]

The following list embraces all of consequence that has been written on Southern Arabia and the Himyaritic Inscriptions.

Pococke, Specimina Historiæ veterum Arabum. Oxford, 1649, reprinted 1806.

De Sacy, sur divers Évènemens de l'histoire des Arabes avant Mahomet, in Mém. de Lit. de l'Acad. Française, Vol. L. Paris, 1805.

Historia Jemanæ, e cod. MS. arabico, ed. G.T. Johannsen. Bonn, 1828.

Travels in Arabia, by Lieut. Wellsted, 2 vols. 8vo. London, 1838.

Memoir on the south coast of Arabia, by Capt. Harris. Journal Royal Geographical Society, Vol. VI. IX.

Narrative of a Journey from Mokha to Sana: by C.J. Cruttenden. – Ibid. Vol. VIII.

Gesenius, Über die Himjaritischen Sprache und Schrift, Halle, 1841.

Rödiger, Versuch über die Himjaritischen Schriftmonumente. Halle, 1841. This was republished, with many improvements, in an Appendix to the author's German translation of Wellsted's Travels. 2 vols. Halle, 1842.

Ewald, on an inscription recently dug up in Aden, Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 1843.

The Historical Geography of Arabia, or the Patriarchal Evidences of Revealed Religion. By the Rev. Charles Forster, 2 vols. 8vo. London, 1844.

F. Fresnel. Letters to M. Jules Mohl, on the Himyaritic Inscriptions. Paris, 1845.

Account of an excursion to Hadramaut, by Adolph Baron Wrede. Journal Royal Geographical Society, Vol. XIV.

Memoir of the south and east coast of Arabia, by Capt. S.B. Harris. – Ibid. Vol. XV.

Sclavonic Mss. – It is stated in the Russian papers that M. Grigorowitsch, professor of the sclavonic tongues in the Imperial University of Kasan, has returned to that capital from a two year's journey in the interior of Turkey, by order of the Russian government, in search of the graphic monuments of the ancient Sclavonic nations. He has brought home fac-similes of many hundred inscriptions, and 2,138 Sclavonian manuscripts – 450 of which are said to be very ancient, and of great importance.

The Caucasus. – The results of a scientific expedition for the exploration of the Steppes of the Caspian Sea, the Caucasus, and of Southern Russia, under the direction of M. Hommaire de Hell, has lately been published. This portion of the East has been little noticed by travellers, and the present work has therefore added much to our previous knowledge of the country. It is accompanied by a large map, on which the geographical and geological peculiarities are defined with great minuteness and elegance.[67 - Les Steppes de la mer Caspienne, le Caucase, la Crimée et la Russie méridionale; voyage Pittoresque, Historique et Scientifique; par X. Hommaire de Hell. 3 vols. royal 8vo. and folio atlas of Plates. Paris, 1845.]

ASSYRIA AND PERSIA

The discoveries recently made, and the researches now in progress in those regions of the world known in ancient times as Assyria, Babylonia and Persia, are among the most interesting and important of the age. Of the ancient Assyrians and Babylonians we know nothing, but what we find in the Bible, or what has been preserved and handed down to us by the Greek historians. Unlike Egypt, who has left so many records of her greatness, of her knowledge of the arts, and of her advancement in civilization, in the numerous and wonderful monumental remains in the valley of the Nile, the Assyrians were supposed to have left nothing, no existing monuments as evidences that they ever had an existence, save in the vast and misshapen heaps along the banks of the Euphrates and Tigris, believed to wash the spots where the great cities of Nineveh and Babylon once stood. The site of Nineveh still remains doubtful; and so literally have the prophecies in regard to Babylon been fulfilled, that nothing but vast heaps of rubbish, of tumuli, and traces of numerous canals, remains. The language of the Assyrians is unknown, and the impressions of characters in the form of a wedge or arrow-head stamped upon the bricks and other relics dug from these heaps, have been looked upon as mysterious and cabalistic signs, rather than the representatives of sounds, or belonging to a regular form of speech. For more than twenty centuries, these countries have been as a blank on the page of history; and all we have gathered from them consists in the observations of curious travellers, who, at the risk of their lives, have ventured to extend their wanderings this way.

Pietro della Valle, Le Brun, Niebuhr, Ker Porter, Rich, and Ouseley, have given us descriptions of the ancient remains in Persia and Assyria, particularly those at Persepolis, Pasargadæ, and Babylon. These consist of views of the monuments and sculptures, together with copies of the inscriptions in the cuneiform, or arrow-head character. The object of the edifices, the subject of the sculptures, and the meaning of the inscriptions, were wholly matters of conjecture; and it seemed a hopeless task to arrive at any conclusions in relation to them, until some key should be discovered, by the means of which the language should be made known, and the numerous inscriptions decyphered. No bilingual tablet, such as the Rosetta stone of Egypt, had been discovered; and, although it appeared that many of the inscriptions were recorded in three different languages, no means seemed to exist by which philologists could obtain a clue to their meaning. With this dark prospect in view, the task of decyphering the arrow-headed characters was attempted by M. Grotefend, one of the most sagacious and distinguished philologists of Europe. The particulars of the attempt and its results, we shall briefly state.

At Persepolis it is known are extensive ruins, chiefly belonging to a large edifice, with every indication that this edifice was originally a royal palace. History and tradition supported this belief; and the general character of the sculptures and architecture, together with the inscriptions, would carry its origin back to a period some centuries before the Christian era. It was doubtless the work of one of the great monarchs of Persia; of Cyrus, Cambyses, Xerxes, Darius, or some other with whom history is familiar.[68 - I feel warranted in going back and tracing the progress of these discoveries, as so little is known of it by English readers. The translation of Grotefend's essay in Heeren's Researches, was the only accessible original treatise on the subject, until the recent publications of Major Rawlinson and Prof. Westergaard. In Germany, much has been written and some in France. These papers are chiefly in antiquarian or philological Transactions and are scarcely known here. A full account of the discovery in question, of its progress and present state, seems therefore necessary.] On some of the monuments at Persepolis, are inscriptions in the Pehlvi character, parts of which have been decyphered by M. de Sacy. In one of these, the titles and name of a king are often repeated; these titles M. Grotefend thought might be repeated in the same manner in the arrow-head characters.[69 - Grotefend's Essay on the cuneiform inscriptions, in Heeren's Asiatic Nations. Vol. II. p. 334.]

Over the doorways and in other parts of this edifice, are portraits, evidently of kings, as there is always enough in the dress and insignia of a monarch to enable one to detect him on any ancient monument. Over these portraits are inscriptions; these it was natural to suppose related to the person represented, and if so, contained the name of the king and his titles. Such would be the conclusion of any one who reflected on the subject, and such was the belief of M. Grotefend and other philologists. In these inscriptions one group of characters was repeated more frequently than any other, and all agreed that the decyphering of this group would furnish a key to the whole. On this group of characters then our Savans set to work.

According to the analogy of the Pehlvi inscriptions, decyphered by De Sacy, it was believed that the inscriptions then under consideration, mentioned the name of a king son of another king, that is the names of father and son. M. Grotefend first examined the bas-reliefs at Persepolis, to ascertain the particular age of the Persian kings to which they belonged, in order that he might discover the names applicable to the inscription. A reference to the Greek historians convinced him that he must look for the kings of the dynasty of the Achæmenides, and he accordingly applied their names to the characters of the inscriptions. "These names could obviously not be Cyrus and Cambyses, because the names occurring in the inscriptions do not begin with the same letter; Cyrus and Artaxerxes were equally inapplicable, the first being too short and the latter too long; there only remained therefore the names of Darius and Xerxes;" and these latter agreed so exactly with the characters, that Mr. Grotefend did not hesitate to select them. The next step was to ascertain what these names were in the old Persian language, as they come to us through the Greek, and would of course differ somewhat from the original. The ancient Zend, as preserved in the Zendavesta, furnished the only medium through which the desired information could be obtained.[70 - The Zendavesta is one of the most ancient as well as remarkable books that has come down to us from the East. It was first made known in Europe in the year 1762, by Anquetil du Perron, who brought it from Surat in India, whither he went expressly to search for the ancient books of the East. He spent many years (seventeen it is said) in making a translation, which he accompanied with valuable notes, illustrative of the doctrines of Zoroaster, and in elucidation of the Zend language, in which this book was written. A great sensation was produced in Europe among the learned at the appearance of the work. Examined as a monument of the ancient religion and literature of the Persians, it was differently appreciated by them. Sir William Jones[113 - Sir William Jones's Works. Vol. X. p. 403.] and others, not only questioned its authenticity, but denounced the translator in very harsh terms. But later writers, among these some of the most distinguished philologists of Europe, are willing to let it rank among the earliest books of the East, and as entitled to an antiquity at least six centuries anterior to the Christian era.The Zendavesta (from zend living, and avesta word, i. e. "the living word") consists of a series of liturgic services for various occasions, and bears the same reference to the books of Zoroaster that our breviaries and common-prayer books do to the Bible. It embraces five books. 1. The Izechné, "elevation of the soul, praise, devotion;" 2. the Vispered, "the chiefs of the beings there named;" 3. the Vendidad, which is considered as the foundation of the law; 4. the Yeshts Sades, or "a collection of compositions and of fragments;" 5. the book Siroz, "thirty days," containing praises addressed to the Genius of each day; and which is a sort of liturgical calendar.[114 - See note to the "Dabistan." Pub. for the Oriental Translations Fund. Vol. I. p. 225.]The doctrines inculcated in the Zendavesta are "the existence of a great first principle. Time without beginning and without end. This incomprehensible being is the author of the two great active powers of the universe – Ormuzd the principle of all good, and Ahriman the principle of all evil. Ormuzd is the first creative agent produced by the Self-Existent. He is perfectly pure, intelligent, just, powerful, active, benevolent, – in a word, the precise image of the Element; the centre and author of the perfections of all nature." Ahriman is the opposite of this. He is occupied in perverting and corrupting every thing good; he is the source of misery and evil. "Ordained to create and govern the universe, Ormuzd received the Word, which in his mouth became an instrument of infinite power and fruitfulness."[115 - Frazer's History of Persia. p. 150-157.]"The first created man was composed of the four elements, – fire, air, water, and earth. "Ormuzd to this perishable frame added an immortal spirit, and the being was complete." The soul of man consists of separate parts, each having peculiar offices. "1. The principle of sensation. 2. The principle of intelligence. 3. The principle of practical judgment. 4. The principle of conscience. 5. The principle of animal life." After death, "the principle of animal life mingles with the winds," the body being regarded as a mere instrument in the power of the will. The first three are accountable for the deeds of the body, and are examined at the day of judgment. "This law or religion is still professed by the descendants of the Persians, who, conquered by the Mohammedans, have not submitted to the Koran; they partly inhabit Kirman and partly the western coast of India, to the north and south of Surat."[116 - Note to the "Dabistan." Vol. 1. p. 222. by its editor, A. Troyer.] The traces which are apparent in the Zendavesta of Hindoo superstitions, indicate that its author borrowed from the sacred books of India, while its sublime doctrines evidently point to the Pentateuch.Mr. Eugene Burnouf is now publishing at Paris a new translation of the Zendavesta from a Sanscrit version under the title of "Commentaire sur le Yaçna," in which he has embodied a vast deal of oriental learning, illustrative of the geography, history, religion and language of ancient Persia. The first volume was published in 1833.] He next ascertained that Xerxes was called Kshershe or Ksharsha; and Darius, Dareush. A farther examination gave him the name of Kshe or Ksheio for 'king.'[71 - The modern title of the sovereign of Persia, Shah, is at once recognised in the ancient name Kshe or Ksha of the monuments.] The places or groups of characters corresponding with these names, were then analyzed and the value of each character ascertained. These were then applied to other portions of the inscriptions, and led to the translation of two short ones, as well as to the formation of a considerable portion of the alphabet.

Such was the result of Professor Grotefend's labors up to the year 1833. His first discovery was made and announced as early as 1802, but an account of his system of interpretation did not appear until 1815, in the appendix to the third German edition of Heeren's Researches. This was afterwards enlarged in the translation of Heeren published at Oxford in 1833, when it was first made known to English readers. In 1837 he published a treatise containing an account of all the Persepolitan inscriptions in his possession, and another in 1840 on those of Babylon.

The brilliant success which attended Grotefend's earlier efforts, soon attracted the attention of other philologists to the subject. M. Saint Martin read a memoir before the Asiatic Society of Paris in 1822, but did not make any additions to our previous knowledge. Professor Rask next took it up, and discovered the value of two additional characters. M. Burnouf followed in 1836, with an elaborate memoir, in which he disclosed some important discoveries.[72 - Mémoire sur deux Inscriptions cuneiforms, trouvées près d'Hamadan. Paris, 1836.] Professor Lassen, in his Memoir published in 1836, and in a series of papers continued up to the present day,[73 - Die Alt-Persischen Keil-Inschriften von Persepolis. Bonn, 1836. The other papers of Prof. Lassen may be found in the "Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes," a periodical work published at Bonn, exclusively devoted to Oriental subjects. It is the most learned work on Oriental Philology and Archæology published in Europe.] has identified at least twelve characters, which had been mistaken by all his predecessors, and which, says Maj. Rawlinson, "may entitle him almost to contest with Professor Grotefend the palm of alphabetical discovery."

In 1835, Major Rawlinson, then residing in Persia, turned his attention to the subject, and decyphered some of the proper names on the tablets at Hamadan. In the following year he applied himself to the great inscription at Behistun, the largest and most remarkable that is known in Persia, and succeeded in making out several lines of its contents.

The result of Major Rawlinson's first attempt at decyphering the Behistun inscription, was the identification of several proper names, and consequently the values of additional characters towards the completion of the alphabet.[74 - While Major Rawlinson was occupied in Persia, the subject was attracting much attention among the Orientalists of Europe. Burnouf and Lassen, as we have seen, then published the results of their investigations, which were afterwards found to be almost identical with those of Major R. Neither of these scholars was aware at the time of the others' labors. This is an interesting fact, and establishes the correctness of the conclusions at which they eventually arrived.] But more was wanted than the alphabet, which only enabled the student to make out proper names, but not to advance beyond; and it was the lack of this knowledge which prevented the sagacious and indefatigable Grotefend from carrying out to any great extent, the discoveries which he had so well begun.

The language of the inscriptions must next be studied; and as the Zend had been the medium through which the first links in the chain of interpretation had been obtained, it was naturally resorted to for aid to farther progress. The Zendavesta, with the researches of Anquetil du Perron, and the commentary at the Yaçna by M. Burnouf, wherein the language of the Zendavesta is critically analyzed, and its grammatical structure developed, furnished the necessary materials. To the latter work, and the luminous critique of M. Burnouf, Major Rawlinson owes the success of his translations; as he acknowledges that by it he "obtained a general knowledge of the grammatical structure of the language of the inscriptions."

But the Zend was not of itself sufficient to make out all the words and expressions in the Behistun and other inscriptions. Other languages contemporary with that of the inscription and of the Zend must be sought for, to elucidate many points which it left obscure.[75 - The Zend language is known to us chiefly by the "Zendavesta." Of its antiquity there is doubt. Some philologists believe that it grew up with the decline of the old Persian, or was formed on its basis, with an infusion from the Sanscrit, Median, and Scythic languages. It was used in the time of Darius Hystaspes, B.C. 550, at which period Zoroaster lived, who employed the Zend in the composition of the "Zendavesta." Its antiquity has formed the subject of many memoirs; but late writers, among whom are Rask, Eugene Burnouf, Bopp, and Lassen, have decided from the most severe tests of criticism, that the Zend was an ancient language derived from the same source as the Sanscrit, and that it was spoken before the Christian era, particularly in the countries situated west of the Caspian Sea, in Georgia, Iran proper, and northern Media. Note to the Dabistan, Vol. I. p. 222. The only specimen of this language yet known, with the exception of a few MSS. of little importance among the Parsees, is the Zendavesta. Major Rawlinson[117 - See Rawlinson. Memoir on Cuneiform Inscriptions. Note to page 42.] adopts views at variance with those of the distinguished German philologists, in regard to the antiquity of the Zend language. Its "very elaborate vocalic organization," he thinks, "indicates a comparatively recent era for the formation of its alphabet;" and of the Zend-Avesta, he is of opinion that "the disfigurement of authentic history affords an argument of equal weight against the antiquity of its composition." He fully agrees, however, with all others as to the very remote composition of the books generally ascribed to Zoroaster. In fact this is beyond all question, for Plato mentions them (Pol. B. XXX.). Clemens of Alexandria says they were known in the 5th century B.C. and many other ancient writers could be cited in proof of the same.[118 - See a note to the "Dabistan," Vol. I. p. in which is given a list of all the ancient writers who mention Zoroaster and his works.]] The Sanscrit was the only one laying claim to a great antiquity, whose grammatical structure was sufficiently developed to render it useful in this enquiry. A knowledge of this language had previously been acquired by Major Rawlinson, and he was therefore fully prepared for the arduous task he had undertaken. Neither of these, it must be observed, was the language of the inscriptions, which it is believed had ceased to be a living form of speech, at the period when the Sanscrit and Zend were in current use.

It is unnecessary to note in detail the difficulties and great labor attending the decyphering of the Behistun tablets, on which Major Rawlinson was occupied from time to time during a space of ten years. His discoveries were announced in London, in a memoir read before the Royal Asiatic Society in 1839, but were not published in extenso until 1846.

Briefly to sum up the results of his labors, it will suffice to state that they present "a correct grammatical translation of nearly four hundred lines of cuneiform writing, a memorial of the time of Darius Hystaspes, the greater part of which is in so perfect a state as to afford ample and certain grounds for a minute orthographical and etymological analysis, and the purport of which to the historian, must be of fully equal interest with the peculiarities of the language to the philologist." In a few cases it may be found necessary to alter or modify some of the significations assigned; but there is no doubt but that the general meaning of every paragraph is accurately determined, and that the learned Orientalist has thus been enabled "to exhibit a correct historical outline, possessing the weight of royal and contemporaneous recital, of many great events which preceded the rise and marked the career of one of the most celebrated of the early sovereigns of Persia."

Such is the history of this great discovery, which has placed the name of Major Rawlinson among the most distinguished Oriental scholars of the age. He will rank among the laborers in cuneiform writing, where Champollion does among the decypherers of Egyptian hieroglyphics; for though, like Champollion, he did not make the first discoveries in his branch of Palæography, he is certainly entitled to the honor of reducing it to a system, by ascertaining the true powers of a large portion of the alphabet, and by elucidating its grammatical peculiarities, so that future investigators will find little difficulty in translating any inscription in the particular class of characters in question.

The cuneiform (wedge-shaped) or arrow-headed character is a system of writing peculiar to the countries between the Euphrates and the Persian frontier on the East. Various combinations of a figure shaped like a wedge, together with one produced by the union of two wedges, constitute the system of writing employed by the ancient Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, and the Achæmenian kings of Persia. The character seems to have been as extensively employed in this portion of the world, as the Roman letters now are in Europe. Particular arrangements or combinations of these characters apparently belonged to different nations, speaking different languages. When and where this system of writing originated is not known. Professor Westergaard[76 - On the Decyphering of the Median species of Arrow-headed Writing, by N.L. Westergaard, in the Mémoires de la Société Royale des Antiquaires du Nord. Copenhagen, 1844.] thinks that "Babylon was its cradle, whence it spread in two branches, eastward to Susiana, and northward to the Assyrian empire, from whence it passed into Media, and lastly into ancient Persia, where it was much improved and brought to its greatest perfection."

Major Rawlinson makes of the arrow-headed writing three great classes or divisions, the Babylonian, Median and Persian. The first of these he thinks is unquestionably the oldest. "It is found upon the bricks excavated from the foundations of all the buildings in Mesopotamia, Babylonia, and Chaldea, that possess the highest and most authentic claims to antiquity;" and he thinks it "not extravagant therefore to assign its invention to the primitive race which settled in the plain of Shinar."[77 - Memoir on the Cuneiform Inscriptions, p. 20.] In the recent excavations made by M. Botta and Mr. Layard, on or near the site of ancient Nineveh, numerous inscriptions in this form of the arrow-head character were found. It also occurs in detached inscriptions from the Mediterranean to the Persian mountains.

A comparison of the various inscriptions in the Babylonian class of writing has led Major Rawlinson to believe that it embraces five distinct varieties, which he calls the Primitive Babylonian, the Achæmenian Babylonian, the Medo-Assyrian, the Assyrian, and the Elymæan.[78 - Ibid. p. 28.] The peculiarities of these several varieties, with the countries in which they are found, are pointed out in the second chapter of our author's learned Memoir on cuneiform writing. The Median and Persian classes are peculiar to the trilingual tablets of Persia, and are better known than the first class or Babylonian.

Mr. Westergaard[79 - On the Median variety of Arrow-headed Writing. Mémoires de la Société des Antiquaires du Nord, for 1844. p. 272.] divides the cuneiform writing into five classes: the Assyrian; the Old Babylonian; and the three kinds on the trilingual tablets of Persia, which embrace the Median and Persian varieties, and the one called by Rawlinson the Achæmenian Babylonian.

The history we have already given of the progress made in decyphering these characters applies exclusively to one of the varieties on the tablets of Persia. The inscriptions on these monuments are almost invariably repeated in three sets of characters, and doubtless in three different languages. The characters of what appears in each case to be the primary or original inscription, of which the others are translations, are of the simplest construction, and consequently were the first to attract the attention of decypherers, and to yield to their efforts. The language in which they are written has been found to exhibit close affinities both to the Sanscrit and to the Zend, and is now termed by philologists the Old Persian. The system of writing is alphabetic, that is to say, each character represents a single articulate sound; whereas that of the other two species is at least in a great measure syllabic, which renders the task of decyphering them much more difficult.

For our knowledge of the second variety of characters on the Persian trilingual tablets, we are indebted to the labors and sagacity of Professor Westergaard.[80 - Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes. 1844-45. Prof. Westergaard has also published his paper in English, in the Mémoires de la Société Royale des Antiquaires du Nord, Copenhagen, 1844, prefixing to it Lassen's alphabet of the first sort of Persepolitan writing. He was probably induced to do this by observing the limited extent to which the German language is cultivated by English scholars, insomuch that even Rawlinson complains that he was unable to read any more of Lassen's papers than his translations of the inscriptions, which are in Latin.] These characters had remained entirely undecyphered until the first kind had been completely made out. It was evident that the inscriptions in the second kind of character were but a translation of those in the first; and with this supposition, this learned Orientalist began the task of decyphering, by identifying the proper names Darius, Hystaspes, Cyrus, Xerxes, Persians, Ionians, &c., which frequently occur in the inscriptions decyphered by Major Rawlinson. Having obtained these, he next analyzed each and ascertained the phonetic values of the several characters of which they are composed. By this means, he was enabled to construct an alphabet. He next examined the introductory words and the titles of the sovereigns, and finally the entire inscriptions, all of which he has most satisfactorily made out, and with them has reconstructed the language in which they are written. In his learned and elaborate article detailing the process of this discovery, Professor Westergaard gives a systematic classification of the characters, one hundred in number, of which seventy-four are syllabic, twenty-four alphabetic, and two signs of division between words. The character of the language, which for convenience sake he terms Median, he does not pretend to decide, though he considers that it belongs to the Scythian rather than to the Japhetic class of languages; in which opinion Major Rawlinson coincides. The Oriental Journal alluded to in the second note to p. 90, contains several learned papers by Professors Westergaard and Lassen, on the arrow-headed inscriptions.

In the third sort of Persepolitan characters, termed the Achæmenian Babylonian, some advances have been made by Major Rawlinson. The contents of the other portions of these tablets being known, he pursued the course adopted by Professor Westergaard, namely that of identifying the groups of characters corresponding with the proper names in the other inscriptions. He has thus been enabled to ascertain the phonetic values of a large number of characters which must in time lead to a knowledge of the rest of the alphabet. A beginning in this direction was also made by Professor Grotefend, who in his Memoirs of 1837 and 1840, singles out and places in juxtaposition the names of Cyrus, Hystaspes, Darius and Xerxes, in the first and third species of Persepolitan writing. There is every reason to hope that the labors of the three accomplished Oriental scholars, Rawlinson, Lassen, and Westergaard, which have been so far crowned with success, will add to their fame by making out the characters and language of this species of writing also. A high degree of interest is attached to it, not only on account of the information it embodies, but in regard to the nation to which it is assignable.

It will be recollected, that besides these three sorts of Persepolitan writing, there are two other distinct classes of arrow-head characters, called Babylonian and Assyrian. Little or nothing has yet been accomplished towards decyphering them; which is owing to the fact that they are of a very complicated nature, and that they have hitherto been found alone, that is to say not accompanied by a version in any other language or character. A Parisian savant, M.J. Löwenstern, who has applied himself to the study of the Assyrian tablets, published in 1845 an Essay on the monument recently discovered by M. Botta at Khorsabad near Mosul, in which he thinks he has made out the groups which stand for the words great king, and also several alphabetical characters. Further investigations can alone determine whether or not his conclusions are correct.

It will be necessary to state some of the historical facts brought to light by the labors of Major Rawlinson, to which we have alluded. The great tablet at Behistun relates exclusively to Darius. "To this monarch," says Major Rawlinson, "insatiable in his thirst of conquest, magnificent in his tastes, and possessed of an unlimited power, we are indebted for all that is most valuable in the palæography of Persia. Imbued, as it appears, with an ardent passion for monumental fame, he was not content to inscribe the palaces of his foundation at Persepolis with a legend commemorative of their erection, or with prayers invoking the guardianship of Ormuzd and his angels, but he lavished an elaborate workmanship on historic and geographic records in various quarters of his empire, which evince considerable political forethought, an earnest regard for truth, and an ambition to transmit the glories of his reign to future generations, to guide their conduct and invite their emulation. At Persepolis, the high place of Persian power, he aspired to elevate the moral feelings of his countrymen, and to secure their future dominancy in Asia, by displaying to them their superiority over the feudatory provinces of the empire,[81 - Memoir on the Persian cuneiform inscriptions. p. 47.] while upon the sacred rock of Baghistan, he addressed himself in the style of an historian, to collect the genealogical traditions of his race, to describe the extent and power of his kingdom, and to relate, with a perspicuous brevity worthy of imitation, the leading incidents of his reign. His grave relation of the means by which, under the care and favor of a beneficent Providence, the crown of Persia first fell into his hands, and of the manner in which he subsequently established his authority, by the successive overthrow of the rebels who opposed him, contrasts strongly but most favorably with the usual emptiness of Oriental hyperbole."

The following are some of the translations from the great inscription at Behistun, which embraces upwards of four hundred lines in the arrow-headed characters. In Major Rawlinson's Memoir, are given fac-similes of the original inscriptions, a transcription of the same in Roman letters with an interlineal translation in Latin, and a translation in English. Accompanying these, is a critical commentary on each line, together with notes, rendering the whole as clear as possible.

"I am Darius, the great king, the king of kings, the king of Persia, the king of (the dependent) provinces, the son of Hystaspes, the grandson of Arsames, the Achæmenian.

"Says Darius the King: – My father was Hystaspes; of Hystaspes, the father was Arsames; of Arsames, the father was Ariyaramnes; of Ariyaramnes, the father was Teispes; of Teispes, the father was Achæmenes.

"Says Darius the King: – On that account, we have been called Achæmenians: from antiquity we have been unsubdued; from antiquity those of our race have been kings.

"Says Darius the King: – There are eight of my race who have been kings before me, I am the ninth; for a very long time we have been kings.

"Says Darius the King: – By the grace of Ormuzd, I am king; Ormuzd has granted me the empire.

"Says Darius the King: – These are the countries which have fallen into my hands – by the grace of Ormuzd, I have become king of them – Persia, Susiana, Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt; those which are of the sea, Sparta and Ionia; Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, Zarangea, Aria, Chorasmia, Bactria, Sogdiana, the Sacæ, the Sattagydes, Arachosia, and the Mecians; the total amount being twenty-one countries.

"Says Darius the King: – These are the countries which have come to me; by the grace of Ormuzd, they have become subject to me – they have brought tribute to me. That which has been said unto them by me, both by night and by day, it has been performed by them.

"Says Darius the King: – Ormuzd has granted me the empire. Ormuzd has brought help to me until I have gained this empire. By the grace of Ormuzd, I hold this empire.