-would seem to favour Colonel Rawlinson's hypothesis. According to his version of col. i. par. 14, the Magian is declared to have destroyed temples, and abolished certain chaunts and forms of worship. Now it will be remembered that, according to the testimony of Herodotus, the Persians had no temples, and looked with contempt on certain expressions of devotion. This seems to favour the opinion that the worship which the historian was then describing was the Magian rather than the strictly Persian element of their religious system. Still the iconoclastic spirit may, for aught we know, have originally belonged to Dualism no less. The corruption of an imageless to an idolatrous worship is a phenomenon of which there are many examples in history; and the Magian would probably preface his demolitions by parading his zeal for the purity of worship.

And not only is Magism undetermined by this famous document, but it is equally free from any traces of a Dualistic theosophy. Mr. G. Rawlinson was under a different impression when the above theory was framed. He tells us no less than three times that the language of the inscription makes explicit reference to a power of evil. (See vol. i. p. 553; and vol. ii. pp. 427, 428.) This he subsequently ascertained to be an error. The Babylonian version,' he tells us, in a foot-note to page 610 of the second volume, apparently without observing the discrepancy, proves beyond dispute that the allusion is to Ormazd, as usual. We are quite willing to concede that no argument is to be drawn from this silence. The scrupulous Persian would very likely shrink from naming expressly the Evil Being, from a feeling akin to that which prompted the Greeks to call the odious furies, the gracious ones, and their left hand the 'well-named.' And moreover, the writings of the Zendavesta, by some ascribed to this period, though without sufficient certainty perhaps, contain ample evidence as to what became the distinguishing feature of the religious system of the Persians. Only this deserves to be noted, that the language of the inscription gives us no clue, in this particular, as to what the nature of the heresy of Gomates was. Moreover, it seems to us improbable that this Manichæan theory, as we may by anticipation call it,―had distinctly enunciated itself at the early age to which Mr. Rawlinson refers it. The writings of the Zendavesta, which Colonel Rawlinson holds to be considerably more modern than the cuneiform documents, cannot be conclusive on this point, for they would be likely to interpret the previous history of the nation in the light of its later and more systematized creed. The language of Darius in the inscription is that of a man who believes his deity to be supreme and omnipotent, able to bestow victory when and

where he will, rather than one fettered by the opposition and counteraction of an evil Being well nigh as mighty. This doctrine of two antagonistic personalities dividing between them the universe, seems to be one which only gradually developes itself in the human mind. It is one of the many ways in which man attempts to solve a problem too vast for him; the reconcilement of the existence of evil with the providence of a God infinitely good and wise. When first rising upon the horizon of thought it would be dim and ill-defined. There would be the presentiment of a form, as in our great poet's conception of Death:

'what seemed his head

The likeness of a kingly crown had on.'

But there would be none of that systematic and symmetrical development of the doctrine which characterizes the later and full-grown Persian system, even when, according to Mr. Rawlinson, Magism had completely obtained the ascendancy over it. Such a vague, shadowy Dualism, we are willing to admit, the Arians may have brought with them from beyond the Indus,' but nothing more than this, we imagine. The name Bagistanus -place of Baga'-clearly points to the worship of a sun-deity, identical with the Sanscrit Bhaga-a name which, as has been shown by Dr. Donaldson, in an article in the Edinburgh Review, is the origin of the Slavonic word for God, Bog, and appears both in the Vedas and the Zendavesta, as a general term for deity. (Edinburgh Review, No. 192, Art. I.) The reader will remember the statement of Professor Wilson, to which reference has been made, according to which the Magi appear as priests of the sun at Moultan. The apportionment of the two conflicting elements of Dualism and Nature-worship, seems to us, indeed, rather more difficult than Mr. Rawlinson would represent. We should be disposed to put a very emphatic note of uncertainty to such a statement as the following:-But Magism was, as has 'been already shown, the old Scythic religion (i. e., Natureworship) and was professed wherever there was a Scythic popu'lation.-Vol. ii. p. 552.

We must confess to having undergone some fluctuation of opinion with regard to this part of Mr. or Colonel Rawlinson's. hypothesis. Its extreme plausibility disposed us to accept it at first, with something of the interest which would naturally be felt in it by its propounder. But further consideration has not strengthened our confidence in it, at least, has not served to remove it for us from the domain of conjecture into that of history. This, however, scarcely detracts from our sense of the value of the researches made in connexion with it; and we have

Mr. Rawlinson's Translation.

481 no hesitation in expressing our conviction that the papers contained in these volumes bearing upon the usurpation of Smerdis alone would constitute them the most important historical contribution to the study of Herodotus which has been made for many years. The author has, we consider, entirely demolished the generally received theory of the national character of the revolution under the pseudo-Smerdis, and has shown strong reasons for believing it to have been religious rather than political. He has also done good service in discriminating between the two conflicting elements of the Persian religious system, even though we suspend our judgment as to the theory by which he would account for the amalgamation; and in the course of his investigations has thrown much light on other interesting related subjects.

The above observations have been extended to some length, from a sense of the interest which these papers of the author will be generally felt to possess; in dwelling upon them, we have indicated only one of the points upon which historical illustration has in these volumes been richly heaped, but which we are compelled for the present to pass by. Beside the introductory chapters on the life of Herodotus, his sources of material, and his features as a historian, constituting the best introduction to the author with which we are acquainted, we would call attention to the discussions upon Lydian, Median, and Assyrian history, with the chapter upon The Ethnic Affinities of the Nations of Western Asia,' as particularly interesting and valuable.

We have a few words to add as to the manner in which the body of the work, comprising the translation, is executed. On the whole, we are of opinion that he has acted wisely in giving a version rather than the original text. Of course, no one who can use the original will care to read a translation; but the Greek scholar is sure to have a copy of Herodotus on his shelves, and the familiar aspect of the English will tempt many to peruse the volumes who would regard the Greek text as a sort of warning to persons found trespassing.' Mr. Rawlinson lays claim to no higher merit for his rendering than that of 'exactness' we may add that, while faithful to the sense, it is free from verbal servility, and will be found tolerably idiomatic and pleasant reading. It would be too much to expect the reproduction of all the quaintness and simplicity which charm us so much in the original. Perhaps a thoroughly good translation is impossible in the present day. As time drifts along, hurrying us into modes of thought and speech more and more markedly different from those of the old Greek, the task becomes increasingly hopeless. Hobbes has left us a translation of Thucydides,

which, though not so correct as better philological knowledge might have made it, is yet the most faithful reproduction we possess of the hard, austere, strength of the original. Daniel De Foe might perhaps have done the same service for Herodotus, or quaint old Fuller. The translations by Beloe and Littlebury are of little value; and that published by Mr. Bohn, while generally correct, is more fitted to be employed as a crib' than by an English reader. That of Mr. Isaac Taylor is perhaps less known than it deserves to be. While preserving much of the simplicity of the original, it is free from the stiffness which is apt to make translations cramped and unreadable. But it is often inaccurate, and not unfrequently fails to catch that graphic picturesqueness which is such a capital feature of Herodotus. Mr. Taylor evidently understands the duty of a translator. Loose and

paraphrastic renderings,' he says in his preface, I discard; and would rather sometimes seem uncouth, than not retain the 'significant turns and phrases of my author. Indeed, the analogies between the Greek and English languages are so many ' and striking, that they often invite an absolutely literal render'ing.' But from a trial of the labour involved, we can well understand that the patience should often fail and the hand tire in executing the translation of a lengthened work like that of Herodotus on such principles as these; and Mr. Taylor is sometimes loose and paraphrastic in spite of himself. Rawlinson tells us, in his preface, that, had he been aware of the existence of Mr. Taylor's version at an earlier period, he would have been inclined, if permitted, with certain changes, to have adopted it.' Mr. Taylor has the advantage in the easy flow of his diction, but his successor is far more accurate.

Mr.

Mr. Rawlinson occasionally gives to his renderings somewhat too modern a cast. Thus, for example, in Book i. 126, Cyrus is made to say to the assembled Persians, 'I feel that I am destined by Providence to undertake your liberation.' We fancy we hear the words of some modern revolutionary, except, perhaps, in the devout acknowledgment of Providence. Nor in this particular case is the fidelity of the translation more to be commended than the tone of it. Word for word the Greek is, For myself, 'methinks, I must have been by a divine chance born to take this business in hand.' A few lines lower down we have, as if God had deprived him of his senses.' This is to render the Greek ὥστε θεοβλαβὴς ἐν. The expression is a difficult one we are quite willing to admit; but it would have been far better to have said with Mr. Taylor, as if infatuated;'-a word which is used by our best writers in the sense of Herodotus, and does not make the polytheistic writer recognise the existence of a One

Mr. Rawlinson's Translation.

483

Supreme. In the same paragraph èλɛv0ɛpouvтo is rendered, 'they shook of the yoke ;' δεινὸν ποιεύμενοι, 'impatient of; ̓ ἐθελοκάκεον, 'they counterfeited fear;'-correctly enough, but with a lack of freshness and piquancy. In such expressions as the last-' they played the volunteer-coward,'-as we may venture to put itFuller would have felt himself at home.

We give the following passage as a fair specimen of Mr. Rawlinson's manner in dealing with continuous narrative. Unsuccessful in war against the Tegeans, the Spartans had sent to Delphi for counsel.

The answer of the Pythoness was that, before they could prevail, they must remove to Sparta the bones of Orestes, the son of Agamemnon. Unable to discover his burial-place they sent a second time, and asked the god where the body of the hero had been laid. The following was the answer they received:

Level and smooth is the plain where Arcadian Tegea standeth;
There two winds are ever, by strong necessity, blowing,
Counter-stroke answers stroke, and evil lies upon evil.
There all-teeming earth doth harbour the son of Atrides;
Bring thou him to thy city, and then be Tegea's master,'

'After this reply the Lacedæmonians were no nearer discovering the burial-place than before, though they continued to search for it diligently; until at last a man named Lichas, one of the Spartans called Agathoergi, found it. The Agathoergi are citizens who have just served their time among the knights. The five eldest of the knights go out every year, and are bound during the year after their discharge to go wherever the State sends them, and actively employ themselves in its service.

Lichas was one of this body when, partly by good luck, partly by his own wisdom, he discovered the burial-place. Intercourse between the two States existing just at this time, he went to Tegea, and, happening to enter into the workshop of a smith, he saw him forging some iron. As he stood marvelling at what he beheld, he was observed by the smith, who, leaving off his work, went up to him and said, Certainly, then, you Spartan stranger, you would have been wonderfully surprised if you had seen what I have, since you make a marvel even of the working of iron. I wanted to make myself a well in this room (Query, is this a fit translation of the word avλǹ?), and began to dig it, when, what think you? I came upon a coffin seven cubits long. I had never believed that men were taller in the olden times than they are now, so I opened the coffin. The body inside was of the same length: I measured it, and filled up the hole again.'

'Such was the man's account of what he had seen. The other, on turning the matter over in his mind, conjectured that this was the body of Orestes, of which the oracle had spoken. He guessed so, because he observed that the smithy had two bellows, which he under