ART. VII.-1. The Works of Sir William Jones. London.

2. Institutiones Linguæ Persicae cum sanscrita et zendica comparatæ. J. A. VILLIERS. Giessen. 1840.

3. Grammatik der lebenden Persischen Sprache. Leipsick. 1847. 4. A Grammar of the Persian Language. By DUNCAN FORBES. London.

IN tracing the history of a nation a double sequence of events must be kept in view, the one logical, the other chronological; the former having for its object to connect the events narrated by the chain of cause and effect, the latter to assign facts to their proper period in time. A history constructed in violation of this principle has no value as a source of instruction, since it is a knowledge of the causes of events, more than of the events themselves, which teaches us what to avoid and what to imitate. The absence of correct chronological sequence entails a confusion which renders a narrative completely worthless, and at the same time seriously impairs logical sequence, since contemporary events often bear the mutual relation of cause and effect, a relation which could not be appreciated apart from a knowledge of the fact that they are contemporary.

Starting with this principle, which lies at the very basis of history, and applying it to the country whose name heads this article, we are stopped in limine by a serious lack of both conditions. Notwithstanding the numerous and laborious researches of the archæologists of the last and the present centuries, but comparatively little has been discovered serving to throw light on the ancient history of Persia. True, the untiring zeal and profound scholarship of Sir William Jones, Sir William Ousely, and M. d'Herbelot, have opened the way to discovery, and have developed many interesting points, although none of the latter have been entirely rescued from the mazes of doubt. This appears all the stranger to us on reflecting that Persia occupies a central position in Asia, and that both profane and sacred writings are replete with allusions to the greatness of the early Persian princes. But the reason of this anomaly may be discovered in certain peculiarities of the Persian religion, peculiarities to which we will now merely allude, as we intend dwelling on them at greater length. hereafter. If we accept, with M. Cousin, that every age and nation has its

fixed, dominant idea, which influences each existing institution, and gives tone to religion, politics, social economy, literature, science and art, we shall find therein the key to the problem before us. We shall find that the prevailing thought of early Persian times was such precisely as to detract from the importance usually bestowed on the means and conditions of constructing sound history.

In examining the annals of the Persian religion we discover that the earliest form was based on the metaphysical idea of dualism, to wit: that an eternal struggle is going on between the principle of light and the principle of darkness; and that compared to this interminable strife, the wars of princes are but trifles. According to the Zoroasterian idea, Ahriman the principle of darkness and Ormuzd the principle of light are two abstract powers, without shape or visible form, all reaching, ever-existing, though dependent on the supreme god Mithra, and compelled by the nature of things to fight incessantly till victory shall fall to the side of Ormuzd. Having no idea of a deity beyond these twin-conflicting powers, the Persians worshiped no idols-"Neither image, nor temple, nor altar," says Herodotus, "have ever been erected in Persia, and the Persians have no such anthropological views of the divinity as the Greeks."

The effect of this devotion to an idea was to exalt the universal, the invisible, the divine; to regard it, as the only reality; to deem it alone deserving of profound contemplation, and to spurn the merely human as illusory and unreal. We, as men, according to Zoroaster, are but mere phantasmagoria, the only reality being the dual principle which is neither seen, nor felt, nor heard. In consequence of this forced alienation of the human soul from God, and the substitution of a double, universal, thinking substance, which is inappreciable as far as it is real, mere human works sink into insignificance, and a forced subjection to and exaltation of blind necessity become the first duty of man. Hence, we see art vainly endeavoring to reproduce in Persian sculpture and hieroglyphics, this strange conception of the human intellect. We find vast misshapen figures striving to eliminate humanity, and to embody the idea of invisible, necessary power. On the other hand, human events are of dwindled importance, being considered but as the product of unreality. Wars are waged, empires and dynasties pass away, and neither poet nor historian, neither child of Melpomene, nor of Clio, springs up to chant or narrate the valor of kings and heroes.

In this way we venture to account for the striking lack of materials which exists concerning the history and civilization of ancient Persia; but a supplementary reason may be assigned. Though we derive most of our knowledge of Persian antiquities from Greek and Jewish sources, yet the perverse orthography prevalent among writers of both nations has caused a great deal of confusion. Thus we see that Ghustasp, the eleventh king of the Pischdadian line was called Hystaspes by the Greeks; and Lohorasp, a prince of the Caianian dynasty, was called Esdras, by some Jewish, writers.

Previous to the time of Sir William Jones it had been customary to look upon the Pischdadian race of kings as the first that ruled in Persia, though it was impossible to settle definitely the precise period of their assumption of the sovereign power. Sir William Jones, during his sojourn in the East, discovered a work written by Moshan Fain, a learned Mahometan, which throws most unexpected light on this difficult question. According to this writer, a powerful monarchy had been established for ages in Iran before the accession of Cayumers, the first of the Pischdadian race; that it was called the Mahabadian dynasty, and that many of its princes had raised their empire to the zenith of human glory. Accepting this account, we are still in doubt to what nation of the East to refer these Mahabadian princes, though the probability is, according to Sir William Jones, that they sprung from a Hindoo stock. This conjecture is strengthened by the striking resemblance we discover between Hindoo pantheism and the dualism of the Persians. Assuming the truth of this opinion, the first Persian line of monarchs must have been the oldest in the world.

The line of kings which succeeded the Mahabadian dynasty is generally known as the Pisdadian, and the records of their reign being chiefly contained in Persian narratives, but little authentic can be learned concerning them. The various Tarikhs or chronicles abound in legendary matter, in which but little truth or even verisimilitude can be discovered, though to the mind of the philosopher such legends are not devoid of deep interest. . Thus it is, that in pondering over the strange phantasies of Khondenier, Fordusi, and the various Tarikhs we can obtain glimpses of the civilization of those days; there we find allusions to works of art or science which incidentally reveal the fluctuating progress of mental development at that period. In the earliest dawn of eastern his

tory we find stories of great cities and stupendous monuments, the size and character of which only partially discovered, fill us with wonderment and curiosity. To-day we find in the plains of Iran the remains of a city, the date of whose foundation is nearly coeval with history itself, and the traveller stands amazed at the colossal ruins which nearly forty centuries have not obliterated. Persepolis, or as it was called among the early Persians, Istakhan, was built under Jemshid, one of the first Pishdadian princes, and though we may not believe all that has been written about it by Persian annalists, yet enough has reached us from authentic sources to render its vast dimensions indubitable. It may, indeed, appear to us incredible that a city, especially in those early times, should take in an area of three hundred and thirty-two miles; yet we must reflect that farms, country-seats, parks and preserves were comprised within this vast enclosure. Moreover, at this period of human history, the minds of men had not been usurped by the contemplation of works less grand than those of nature; and as the mind of the early poet strove to embody ideas gathered from the great book of nature, and not painfully gleaned from human productions, so architects and founders of cities endeavored to imitate the greatness of nature in the monuments and cities which they built.

Throughout the long line of the Pisdadian monarchs, the history of Persian affairs is involved in impenetrable darkness, neither Greek nor Jewish historian having cast the least glimmer of light on the events which then transpired in Persia. Of course Persian chronicles abound in narratives replete with interest to the poet, but of little value to the historian or the student of antiquities. The bards of later times have sung the valor and exploits of the princes and chieftains of those early days, they have flung the charm of poesy over the history of fierce warriors, whose names were a terror to surrounding nations, and they have sung the glories of peaceful princes who fostered the arts among their people, bent their swords into pruninghooks, and peacefully died, lulled to their last rest by the sighing of the breeze, as it swept over golden-eared fields. But these legendary records give little insight into Persian manners and civilization, and we must come down to a much later period ere we can point to a single fact, the proof of which is placed beyond dispute. The earliest element of Persian civilization that we can discover, as it is the earliest in the history of every nation, is its language, and we will

here offer a few remarks on its structure, development, and peculiarities, as serving to throw light on the stage of intellectual development reached by the Persian at the extinction of the first historical line of Persian.princes.

It was not till the establishment of the Caianian dynasty that the ancient language of Persia assumed those characteristics and peculiarities which we recognize in the writings of Zoroaster. These writings, which are chiefly comprised in the Zeudavesta, are the only relic of the earliest Persian tongue known as the Zend. Taking the lists of M. Anquetil, we find the most marked resemblance of the Zend language to the Sanscrit, the same fertility in the expression of abstract ideas, the same richness of metaphor, the same suitableness for metaphysical speculation; and, descending to verbal structure, the same sort of termination to the words. This supposition is still further borne out by the suggestion above advanced, that Persia, or Iran, as it was then called, had been ruled by a Hindoo race of kings who may have introduced the Sanscrit language. The Zend language, however, was not the only dialect in use among the Persians of old; indeed it is highly probable that it constituted the liturgical language, and was exclusively employed in the composition of sacred works. This may be inferred both from the recent researches of antiquaries who have made no discovery of the Zend dialect in any profane writing or monument, and from the prevalence in all eastern countries of a sacerdotal language.

The other ancient language of Persia more popularly used, though not claiming such high antiquity, was the Pahlavi, closely cognate to the Chaldaic. This analogy M. Anquetil has satisfactorily established in his Zendavesta, by furnishing a list of similar names from the Pahlavi and the Chaldaic, the differences displaying an admixture of Tartarian in the former. The hypothesis is further strengthened by the considerations, that, according to the nature of the Chaldean tongue, most words ended in the first long vowel like Shemia, heaven, and that very word unaltered in a single letter, we find in the Pazend, the commentary on the Zend, together with lailia, night: so Zamar, by a beautiful metaphor from pruning trees, means in Hebrew to compose verses, and thence by an easy transition to sing them, and in Pahlavi we see the verb zamruniten to sing, the verbal termination of the Persian being added to the Chaldaic root. According to some philologists the Arabic predominates in the Pahlavi,