the Nile, the pyramids, the origin and use of letters, and a most copious et cætera of subjects, are learnedly illustrated in notes which may be not improperly named essays and disquisitions. The contributions which Larcher has made available for the elucidation of his Author, are highly creditable to his industry, while the manner in which he has used them, manifests his honesty and candour; and the original observations which he has so plentifully intermingled, are always appropriate and interesting. To review at large a work so various in learning, and embracing so many subjects as the present, would require, instead of one article, a series of critical disquisitions, for which our readers would scarcely thank us; and M. Larcher's work is already too well known to the scholar, to render it necessary to add any thing by way of recommending the work to his attention. We shall therefore merely offer some desultory observations on a few of the notes.

The Latin translators have rendered the introductory words which Herodotus has employed to designate his work, in a very imperfect and indefinite manner. Larcher remarks, that 'Iorogin, in Herodotus, does not signify a history, but the result of researches carefully made; and he translates the expression, IoToping anódεis-In presenting to the public these researches. A rendering more corresponding to the original would be-the relation of the things which Herodotus himself saw, or learned from inquiry. The introductory passage is very properly praised by the Translator, as an example of the simplicity which distinguishes most of the ancient writers.

In Dalzel's Collectanea Gr. Maj". (Note in Herodotum, 6. 6.) there is an erroneous interpretation of the phrase, rou Bíou εù ἥκοντι, ὡς τὰ παρ' ἡμῖν, — at an advanced age, if one considers the 'nature of man.' This the student may correct from Larcher's

note.

To Biov EXOVT.] After having enjoyed a considerable fortune. The Abbé Geinoz has very satisfactorily proved, that Bios here signifies wealth, worldly goods, "les biens"; and that s Tà яag'nμ does not mean quantum in nobis est", but "pro modulo nostratium facultatum." The reader may refer to the remarks of this learned man, which are rather too long to be here quoted. Gronovius has ill translated this passage, and Wesseling leaves his reading uncorrected; which the more surprises me, as he has frequently profited by the observations of Geinoz, and generally has pointed out where they differed in opinion. Cornelius Nepos uses a similar expression in speaking of one Meneclides, a slanderer of Epaminondas--" Satis exercitatum in dicendo, ut Thebanum scilicet ", a tolerably clever orator, at least for a Theban.

Wealth does contribute to happiness, and I am far from disputing it; but yet, I am somewhat astonished that the ancient philosophers should have thought it impossible to be happy without it. Nevertheless, we find this sentiment in Theognis and a thousand other authors.

Sophocles says, in his tragedy of Creusa: "Men value nothing but riches: some think him happy who enjoys good health, but a poor man is never in good health; for, in my opinion, his state is that of perpetual disease." Vol. I. p. 47.

The conversations of Solon with Croesus, as related by Herodotus, have been pronounced by some writers to be a fable invented by the Historian; while, by others of the greatest reputation, the notion has been justly, we think, regarded as only a capricious objection to his veracity. There are, undoubtedly, chronological difficulties connected with the story, which it may not be very easy to obviate. This, however, is the case in respect to many facts of ancient times, which no one thinks of denying on the ground of the indefinite calculations applied to them. In what manner we are to explain the account which follows in the pages of the Father of History, respecting the consultation of the oracles by Croesus, and the answer received by him from the Delphian Apollo, previously to his engaging in war against the Persians, is a difficulty not a little perplexing. Croesus wished to obtain the decision of the most trust-worthy of the oracles on the question, whether he should commit himself and his empire to the perils of war; and to ascertain the quarter to which he should address his inquiry, he despatched ambassadors to the most celebrated of the shrines of divination, directing them to propose at the same time, each to the oracle which he was consulting, the question, What is Croesus, the son of Alyattes, king of Lydia, now doing? Croesus was, at the moment, cooking the flesh of a lamb and a tortoise, in a copper kettle; and this the Delphian oracle was reported by the Prince's messenger to have declared. The answer determined Croesus in favour of the oracle thus proved to be divine. Rollin is staggered at this relation, and concludes, That God, to punish the blindness of the pagans '(heathens), sometimes permitted demons to give them answers 'conformable to the truth.' Cicero is unwilling to credit the story. M. Larcher's opinion is, we think, the more probable one; that Herodotus found the story established in popular belief, and that the truth was, Croesus had confided his secret to some one, from whom the address of the priests had extracted it. The munificent donations of the Lydian king to the Delphian god, were ample testimonies of his veneration and gratitude; and we must be allowed to add a few observations to the concluding paragraph of M. Larcher's note, which refers to the numerous sacrifices offered on that occasion.

The number of victims immolated in the celebration of the religious rites of the ancients, on particular occasions, was very great. The accounts contained in the Jewish History have appeared to some critics scarcely credible; and corrections of the text have been suggested, on the supposition that, the enumera

tion having been made by letters, mistakes may very easily have occurred in the transcription of copies. We have, however, no evidence that numbers were anciently denoted in Hebrew manuscripts by combinations of letters; and we cannot admit the propriety of changes in the text, resting on mere conjecture. In profane history, we meet with details of a similar kind, which are not less surprising, and which may therefore be cited as very important examples to corroborate the statements of Scripture. At the passover celebrated at the period of Hezekiah's reformation, there were offered two thousand head of cattle and seventeen thousand sheep. The victims at the dedication of Solomon's Temple, were twenty-two thousand bullocks and one hundred and twenty thousand sheep. Croesus, according to the account in Herodotus, offered to the Delphian Apollo three thousand of each species of animals allowed for sacrifice (Clio 50). The number of victims, in the former instances, is not comparatively greater than in this latter case. The victims killed at the passover, and at the dedication of the Temple, were peace-offerings, only a portion of which was consumed upon the altar, the principal part serving for the entertainment of the people at those times of national festivity. The festival continued, on each of these occasions, for fourteen days, and the concourse of persons from all parts of the land was immense. It is not for us to judge of ancient manners, and more especially of ancient religious ceremonials, by any application to them of our own notions of fitness. We have too often had occasion to notice the hasty judgements pronounced upon Biblical subjects, by persons who might find the remedy for their flippancy and rashness in an enlargement of their knowledge. The passage in Herodotus to which we have referred, strikes us as of some moment.

When Croesus was meditating his designs against the Persians, Sandanis, a Lydian, attempted to dissuade him from his purpose, by reasonings which we cannot be surprised to find were disregarded by the monarch. The poverty of the Persians, and the barrenness of their country, might seem good reasons against invading them; but they who delight in war' would not be turned aside from their pursuit of it by considerations which could not extinguish their love of glory, or their hope of conquest. If Persia did not produce figs', it was a field where the Lydian king might gather the laurels of victory; and these have been sought by many of the mighty since his day in very sterile soils. An extract from one of the epistles of Julian, is given by M. Larcher, in a note on this speech of Sandanis.

Où σuxa de xovci Twy.] Unacquainted both with figs. "The historian, Herodotus, wishing to prove that a country is totally wild and

uncultivated, contents himself with saying, that neither figs, nor any thing else that is good, grows there; as if there were no other fruit superior to figs, or as if the people among whom this fruit grew, could want no earthly good. Homer praises fruits, some for their size, some for their colour, and some for the beauty of their form. The fig is the only fruit to which he allows sweetness. He gives to honey the epithe of green, as if fearing rashly to call that sweet which is sometime bitter; but the quality of sweetness he allows only to the fig, in com mon with nectar, as if it were the only sweet thing in nature." p. 108. Clio 71.

I.

Vol.

The temple of Jupiter Belus (Clio 181) was situated within a consecrated inclosure; and the description very clearly illustrates the different import of the words igòv and vaós.

We must bear in mind', remarks M. Larcher, that a temple of the ancients was very different from one of our churches. It comprised a considerable extent of ground, enclosed by walls, within which there were courts, a grove, pieces of water, sometimes habitations for the priests, and, lastly, the temple properly so called, and into which, most usually, the priest only was admitted. The entire precinct was called rù iɛgov, or, in the Ionian dialect, rò ipòv. The temple, properly so called, or the habitation of the god, was named vaòs, and in Ionian nos, "cella."'

This account is entirely correct; but M. Larcher is clearly in error when he represents, that in the Sacred Writings, the vads is that part of the temple at Jerusalem, into which the 'priests only were permitted to enter-the Sanctum Sanctorum, 'or Holy of Holies.' (Vol. I. p. 471.) In the Scriptures, vads has not this restricted meaning; and the priests were not admitted into the Holy of Holies.

In commenting on the infamous custom established among the Babylonians, related in the Clio 199, M. Larcher notices the objections of Voltaire, which have been subsequently urged against the credibility of so shameful a practice. Superstition certainly reconciles mankind to very gross observances, and harmonizes all sorts of contradictions; still, it is very revolting to believe, that a law of so flagitious a character could be in force among any people advanced in civilization. There would be no difficulty in crediting the account as a limited description of an immoral usage; but it may reasonably be doubted, whether a compulsory law, rendering the practice one of universal obligation, was ever in existence. M. Larcher adduces, in confirmation of the account, the authority of the prophet Jeremiah, who lived a century and a half before the time of Herodotus. The passage to which he refers, is found, not in the genuine writings of the Prophet, but in the Apocryphal Book of Baruch, which, though it might be assumed by Larcher, on the ground of its being acknowledged by the Romish Church as canonical, we cannot consider as an independent authority. It was of much

later origin, and the passage was probably introduced from the page of the Historian. M. Larcher appears to us very unnecessarily to perplex himself with the passage Mulieres autem circumdata funibus in viis sedent.'

By these women encircled with cords, we may understand those who, as Herodotus relates, sat in the alleys of the sacred precinct, inclosed with cords; or perhaps the prophet meant to say, that their heads were bound with cords, as both Strabo and Herodotus assert.'

The funes, we suppose, were girdles of cord, zona, with which these women were severally encircled. The connection evidently shews this to be the meaning of the words.

M. Larcher adopts the opinion of Wesseling respecting the age of Sesostris, and places him 1356 years before the common era, and 88 before the taking of Troy. Of this great conqueror, we may admit the existence; but so much of fable has been blended with the facts of his history, by the writers who have described his exploits, that we must be satisfied to leave the period in which he flourished, as well as the particulars of his reign, in the obscurity with which the conflicting accounts of this and some other early personages have transmitted them to us. On the uses of the word 'Tyrant', we have the following judicious remarks:

"

In this

'Eπidaúgov rúgavvos. Tyrant of Epidaurus. The poets frequently confound the rúgarvos with the Bacλs; but the prose writers seem to mark the distinction: for instance, they have never called the kings of Persia, of Lacedæmon, or of Athens, "tyrants"; but they have given that name to the kings of Syracuse, to Pisistratus, &c. Tyrant", with the Greek writers, ordinarily signifies an usurper, one who go verns a people against their will, without their consent, even though he should regulate his administration strictly according to justice. Pisistratus, therefore, was a tyrant, though his government was mild. Hieron was so likewise, though Xenophon gives him great praise in the treatise which he has entitled, "Hieron sive Tyrannicus.' work, he always calls him rúgavvos; and this has given some room to imagine, that amongst the Greeks the term conveyed no reproach; whereas in French (and in English) it is unequivocal. It signifies also, in our language, a prince who has succeeded legitimately to the throne, but who governs in a manner contrary to the well-being, the wishes, and the primitive object of society. But let us hear what Xenophon says on this point: "Socrates thought that tyranny and royalty were two species of government essentially different. That in which the subjects were governed by their own consent, and according to known laws, he considered royalty; but he deemed that tyranny, in which the subjects were governed against their will, contrary to law, and according to the caprice of the prince."

Cornelius Nepos also says: "Omnes autem et habentur et dicuntur tyranni, qui potestate sunt perpetuâ in eâ civitate, quæ libertate usa

est.'