Neither has Major Kennedy noticed, except cursorily in a note, the concurrence of the import of the name Bahman, or Ardeshir dirazdest, as agreeing with the Artaxerxes Makrokeir of the Greeks. The epithet thus common to both writers can scarcely be an accidental coincidence, and can only have originated in an actual personal peculiarity of the prince, which was thus commemorated. This concurrence is still further hostile to Major Kennedy's arrangement, and corroborative of the theories of Malcolm and Jones.

Much, however, as has been written on this subject, we conceive that it is far from exhausted, and that a careful collection of authorities is yet to be effected, compared with the results of modern investigation; and we do not despair, provided the task be attended by adequate erudition and diligence, of obtaining something like consistency, at least in the history of ancient Persia. To such an undertaking this paper of Major Kennedy will be a very valuable accession, as, although we may contest the accuracy of some of his conclusions, we cannot deny his views the merit of originality, or dispute the justice of many of his remarks.

The other paper by the same writer may be regarded as a continuation of the preceding. It is entitled, Remarks on the State of Persia, from the Battle of Arbela, in A. C. 331, to the Rise of Ardeshir Babegan, in A. D. 226, and introduces the volume just published.

The censure of the Greek geography with which Major Kennedy starts, founded chiefly on the supposed impracticability of verifying above three or four of the ancient names, as they occur in Herodotus, appears to us rather inconsiderate, and grounded upon insufficient research. He has argued, it is true, in his preceding paper, that the pure language of Persia has undergone no change, and that those words, which have come down to us, are the same as those, which were current in the days of Herodotus. He founds this on the language of Tabari and Firdausi which, he contends, must be much the same as that used under the Sassanian princes, and consequently, in the reign of Feridun—a consequence by no means obvious, when even the interval he assigns to it, is considered, of 1600 years. He adınits, also, that the Pehlevi language, which once prevailed in some part of Persia, may be regarded as lost, and he does

not tell us what he thinks of the Zend. If, as we have hitherto been led to believe by those, who pretend to a knowledge of Zend, that was the primitive language of Persia, it follows we have nearly lost two original languages; and it is rather more difficult to conceive, how any fragments have survived, than to suppose, that either a collateral dialect, or one of their earliest descendants, should have continued to triumph over the aggressions of tumult and time. We are therefore disposed to conceive, that a very great part of the original Persic has no existence, and that the nomenclature of Herodotus, even if literally precise, could not be uniformly verified in the present day. It is rather more surprising, that any of it should be traceable: and Major Kennedy admits, that Pars, Kirman, and Soghd, are to be found in Persia, Karmania, and Sogdia. He is further compelled, in a note, to confess, that Kharezm may possibly be the same as Chorasmia; Hari, or Herat, as Aria; and Bakhter, as Balkh, or Bactria. We can perhaps help him to a few nore, as Bahlika for Balkh; Gandharas Gandari; Madras for Mardi; Aparitas Aparytæ; Daradas for Daritæ; Sakas for Saco, or Sakæ, and several others, which may be found, of a less obvious, but scarcely questionable affinity in Capt. Wilford's disquisitions on the geography of the Puranas. It is true, these latter are from a Sanscrit source; but Major Kennedy will not doubt, we presume, the reality of a close connection between that language, and the old language of Persia, so undeniably established by the German philologists, and so evident by the sameness of an infinity of pure Persian and Sanscrit words. If, then, so many of the proper names specified by Herodotus are thus verifiable, it follows, we conceive, that it is but fair to admit the accuracy of the rest; for it is more likely, that he was right in all, as so many are right, than that he was wrong in all, except in a few, which, by some unaccountable accident, have proved to be correct. With the opinions subsequently advocated by Major Kennedy we entirely agree. It is clear, that the victories of Alexander were followed by little or no alteration in the circumstances of the states, which he subdued, and that, except in the persons, who were at the head of the government, no change was introduced. To suppose that the handful of Greeks, by whom Alexander or his successors were partially defended, wrought

any sensible effect upon the religion, literature, arts, or manners of the East, is to imagine a result absurdly disproportionate to its cause; and there can be no question, that they blended with the population of the country, and were lost amidst the mass. We shall here allow Major Kennedy to speak for himself: the facts and inferences appear to us to be indisputable.

"It hence seems obvious, that the conquest of Persia by the Greeks differs materially from every other conquest, which is recorded in history. The lands of the vanquished were not divided amongst the principal leaders of the victorious army, nor was even the country occupied, and its possession maintained by large bodies of troops. The government alone, which had previously existed, was in appearance subverted; but to the people this change was scarcely perceptible. The kingdom of Persia, like the rest of Asia, had been always divided into large provinces, the governors of which exercised unlimited authority. The great body of the people, therefore, were little acquainted with their sovereign, and their hopes and fears all centred in the governor of their particular province. In this mode of government the Greeks made no alteration, nor does it appear that any took place in the general administration of the provinces. The life of Alexander was too short to admit of his introducing any such changes, and constant wars and consequent weakness prevented Antigonus and the Syrian kings, from attempting any innovations. To the governors, therefore, was intrusted, as formerly, absolute authority over their provinces; and as they were not supported by any considerable number of foreign troops, it became their interest to conciliate the natives by every means in their power. Under such circumstances, it cannot be supposed that any would attempt to subvert their customs, laws, or religion: on the contrary, it seems far more probable, that the few Greeks who were scattered over the wide extent of Persia would assimilate themselves as much as possible to the natives, and that they would by intermarriages become, in the course of the second or third generation, entirely blended and identified with them.

If there be any justice in these remarks, it will follow that Bactriana, after Theodotus, in B. C. 255, declared himself independent, cannot in any sense of the word be considered as a Greek kingdom. It was situated in the remotest part of Persia, about 21 degrees to the east of Babylon; and it is only from an incidental passage in Arrian, that it is even known that Greek troops any were stationed in that province. He mentions, that on Alexander's march to India, Amyntas was left governor of Bactria, with 1500 horse and 10,000 foot, but he does not state of what nation these troops were. It is, however, evident, that Alexander's army was too small to admit of his weakening it, by leaving behind so strong a detachment, if it was composed entirely of Greeks; and it may therefore be concluded, that a considerable part of it were natives. Yet, admitting that the whole of these troops were

Greeks, the course of events, which occurred after they were stationed in Bactriana, will sufficiently evince the improbability of their ever having maintained any intercourse with Greece. They were thus left entirely to their own resources; and, as they were not accompanied by their wives, it cannot be doubted, that they would intermarry with the natives, and that in the course of seventy years their descendants, however they might distinguish themselves by the name of Greeks, would differ in no one essential from the Persians. Not having it in my power to consult the learned work of Bayer, I am unacquainted with the authorities, on which Bactriana is described to have been so flourishing and extensive a kingdom; but, if I be not mistaken, the only ancient writers who have mentioned any thing respecting it are Polybius, Trogus Pompeius, (if correctly epitomized by Justin,) and Strabo: and most certainly the information, which can be derived from them is far from justifying the description of Bactriana which is given by Mr. Maurice, the latest writer on this subject. The passage contained in Strabo, as it is short, I may be permitted to quote. Bactria is an extensive country, producing every thing except the olive; and the Greeks, who rebelled, so strengthened themselves by means of the excellence of this country, that they conquered Ariana, and also the Indians, as is related by Appollodorus, subduing more nations than Alexander, particularly Menander, if he passed the Hypanis, and proceeded as far to the eastward as Isamus. The Bactrii also possessed Sogdiana.' Such is all the information, which is given by Strabo; and little respecting the state of Bactriana can be learned from the short extracts of Polybius, which have been preserved; but it may from them be presumed, that the power and resources of the Bactrian king must have been very considerable, as they enabled him to prolong the contest with Antiochus the Great, after a sanguinary and unsuccessful battle, until Antiochus was glad to conclude a peace with him, and even to promise his son one of his daughters in marriage.

"It is hence by no means improbable, that the Bactrian kingdom might have been both extensive and flourishing; but it seems scarcely possible that the Greek troops who were stationed in Bactriana could have been in the slightest degree instrumental in diffusing either knowledge or science. It must always be recollected, that they were left there in B. C. 327, and that, from the remoteness of their situation, they were cut off from all comunication with Greece; nor does it appear from any ancient writer, that after Alexander's transient invasion, any other Greek or Syrian army than that of Antiochus the Great ever penetrated into Khorasan. The descendants of the Greeks in Bactria, therefore, could possess no peculiar knowledge, except such as they derived from their fathers; and any observation must be superfluous to shew, that the rude soldiers and the as rude officer were little likely to be acquainted with either literature or science. War was the only science, in which they were skilled, and it was no doubt by this knowledge, that they were enabled to maintain themselves in so remote a country but with regard to all other arts and sciences, it is most probable that, so far from being able to instruct either the Persians or Indians, they might have derived from them much more information, than they could possibly communicate."

The remainder of this paper is devoted to the investigation of the Parthian history under the Ashkanian and Ashganian dynasties, chiefly with a view to shew, that they were not, as has been usually supposed, of Scythian or Tartar stem, but of the genuine Persian stock. Major Kennedy, however, admits the Bactrian or Trausoxian origin of Arsaces and his followers; which brings us very near upon the races of Turan or Turkestan. There seem, in fact, to be varieties amongst the Tartar tribes, which have not been sufficiently adverted to in these enquiries; and although we can scarcely suppose there is much affinity between the Calmuck or Nogay Tartars, and the people of Persia, yet they must now, and may have had in ancient times, much in common with the Turk or Mogul races. Besides the testimony of the classical writers to this effect, later enquiries have tended to place this connection between the people of Iran and Turan out of doubt. M. de Saint Martin has traced the Parthians as belonging to that branch of the Scythian tribes called Dahæ, Dajika, or Tajika, and asserts that they gave that name to the Persians, although it was subsequently disclaimed by them. Klaproth and Remusat have ascertained, that at the commencement of the Christian era, the name Tiao dji, or Tajik, was applied to Persia by the Chinese; and the former has also found, that the colonies of Bucharians, which are scattered through Siberia speak pure Persian. (Journal Asiatique, Nos. 2 and 9.) Although, however, the Parthian princes may have been of Scythian descent, their subjects must have been chiefly Persians; and the classi cal writers, in distinguishing them and the Parthians as altogether a different people, entertained evidently erroneous notions of their real character. As the Parthians then were essentially one with the Persians, we may safely infer with Major Kennedy, that the national peculiarities underwent no material alteration, during the period of what is considered the duration of their empire. At the same time, it does not follow, that no modifications of manners or opinions took place in five centuries; and besides the operation of time, we can scarcely expect much invariability from that disorganised state, which has induced the Mohammedan writers to designate this period as the "age of the kings of the tribes"-a period something analogous to that coeval with the