Who can venture to foretel how their strange career will end?"-Vol. II. pp. 104, 105.

Mr. Layard gave a farewell entertainment to those who had assisted him in his labours, which is pleasantly described, and the parting between him and these wild wanderers is deeply interesting. For ourselves, we join in the hope expressed by the latter that they may again meet, to carry on their labours to completion.

We can but very briefly enter into Mr. Layard's treatises on the ancient Assyrians, from the materials now available, forming Part II. of his work. The final conquest of Nineveh by Cyaxares took place 606 B. C., but there is conclusive reason for believing that there was a prior conquest under an older race.

"It has already been seen that there are buildings of various periods in the mound of Nimroud, and I have mentioned that they contain the names and genealogies of several kings. The most recent palace was that discovered in the south-west corner; and it was principally built of slabs and materials taken from the edifices in the north-west, the centre, and other parts of the mound. This can be proved beyond a question; first, by identity in the style of the sculptures; secondly, by inscriptions in which certain formulæ occur; thirdly, by the fact of the sculptured faces of the slabs being turned against the wall of sun-dried bricks, and smoothed on the opposite side preparatory to their being used a second time; and, fourthly, by the discovery of sculptured slabs lying in different parts of the ruins, where they had evidently been left, whilst being removed to the new palace.”—Vol. II. pp. 162, 163.

Mr. Layard enters into an elaborate argument to shew that of all the known forms of the cuneiform writing, the Assyrian is the simplest and earliest, and that the characters, as formed in the oldest palace at Nimroud, long preceded those of the inscriptions of Khorsabad and Kouyunjik, near Mosul. Respecting the origin of this character, he suggests that in its simplest form it would be accurately produced by the impression of the solid angle of a square rod on a surface of soft clay. The figure of the wedge, however, appears to have been sacred, for it is found represented upon an altar on a Babylonian relic at Paris. Whether it became sacred from its employment in the written character, or whether it was adopted as an emblem, he does not attempt to inquire, though he remarks in a note that learned interpreters may easily find in it a direct illustration of the sacred triad, the basis of Chaldæan theology. He is inclined, however, to the opinion that the primitive elements of the letters were merely straight lines, the wedge or arrow-head being a subsequent embellishment. On a slab at Nimroud, belonging to the most ancient edifice, he found one line of writing, in which the characters were thus formed. It was beneath the usual inscription, and but slightly cut. Characters in the form of a hammer also occur. Mr. Layard suggests that the simpler letters may have been used in documents, as being more easily and quickly written, whilst the more elaborate monumental character would require both time and care. Every school-boy knows that those letters can be most easily carved which are formed of straight lines. The first records of the Assyrians, as of most ancient nations, were probably cut either on walls or the face of a rock. Subsequently, the most common mode of keeping records was on prepared bricks, tiles, or cylinders of clay, baked after the inscription was impressed. The characters appear to

have been formed by an instrument, or may sometimes have been stamped, as the inscriptions on the Babylonian bricks evidently were, a practice known also at a very remote epoch to the Egyptians and Chinese, and making a near approach to the modern invention of printing. The Assyrian characters, however, unlike the Babylonian, were evidently made separately, and, from their general irregularity, were most probably cut with an instrument and by the hand, furnishing an additional proof of the greater antiquity of the Assyrian writing. These inscribed surfaces of clay are in accordance with the testimony of ancient authors, and among them Ezekiel, who prophesied near the river Chebar in Assyria, and who was commanded to take a tile and portray upon it the city of Jerusalem. (Ch. iv. 1.) In the more recent of the Assyrian sculptures, eunuchs are represented writing the number of heads and the amount of spoil, after a victory, on rolls of leather, or some other flexible material. We cannot here follow Mr. Layard in his interesting investigation of the mode of interpreting the cuneiform inscriptions. He arrives at the conclusion, from a list of ten or perhaps twelve names of kings in succession as founders of different palaces, that the first palace at Nimroud could not have been founded later than 900 B. C., and that it was probably much earlier. There are several indications "that the edifices in one part of the mound of Nimroud were already in ruins and buried under ground before those in another part were founded." Mr. Layard enters minutely into the evidences of an intimate connection between Assyria and Egypt, from the intermixture of their respective names of monarchs, deities and symbols, and shews that this connection must have been subsequent to the earliest period of the Assyrian empire. On the most moderate calculation he assigns a date of 1100 or 1200 B. C. to the erection of the most ancient of the palaces of Nimroud, but thinks it was probably much more ancient still, shewing that every general consideration is in favour of attributing the highest antiquity to the Assyrian empire.

"There is no reason why we should not assign to Assyria the same remote antiquity we claim for Egypt. The monuments of Egypt prove that she did not stand alone in civilization and power. At the earliest period we find her contending with enemies already nearly, if not fully, as powerful as herself; and amongst the spoil from Asia, and the articles of tribute brought by subdued nations from the north-east, are vases as elegant in shape, stuffs as rich in texture, and chariots as well adapted to war, as her own. It is not improbable that she herself was indebted to the nations of Western Asia for the introduction of arts in which they excelled, and that many things in common use were brought from the banks of the Tigris. In fact, to reject the notion of the existence of an independent kingdom in Assyria, at the very earliest period, would be almost to question whether the country were inhabited, which would be directly in opposition to the united testimony of scripture and tradition."-Vol. II. pp. 225, 226.

The hunting scenes repeatedly occurring in the sculptures of the north-west palace at Nimroud, and in that alone, seem to identify it with the palace of Ninus or Semiramis, as described by Diodorus Siculus; and the figures on the obelisk already mentioned, which belongs to the same period, connect it with the Bactrian and Indian expeditions of Ninus and Semiramis, spoken of by Ctesias and other writers. Mr. Layard does not profess to draw positive conclusions from the data he

brings together, but shews that there is already strong probability in favour of his conjectures, which further research may increase.

In reference to the race to which the Assyrians belonged, and which he pronounces to have been, in accordance with the language of their inscriptions, Semitic or Syro-Arabian, Mr. Layard has some striking and eloquent remarks on the leading characteristics of the Shemite, the IndoEuropean and the Mongolian races, which we regret that we have not space to quote.* Respecting the site of Nineveh, after quoting from ancient authors as to its enormous extent, he expresses his opinion that Nimroud was undoubtedly the site of the original city, and that successive additions were made under different monarchs as the population increased, until it included the four great mounds of Nimroud, Kouyunjik, Khorsabad and Karamles, all on the eastern side of the Tigris, which would imply a circuit of about sixty miles, corresponding with the "three days' journey" of the prophet Jonah (supposing that expression to refer to the circuit of the city), and with the dimensions given by Diodorus Siculus. Much of the enclosed space, however, was probably occupied by gardens and arable land. Within the limits suggested, there are many large mounds, "and the surface of the country is strewed with the remains of pottery, bricks and other fragments." The absence of remains of private houses can easily be accounted for.

They were constructed of sun-dried bricks, and, like the houses now built in the country, soon disappeared when once abandoned and fallen into decay. The largest palaces would probably have remained undiscovered, had there not been the slabs of alabaster to shew the walls. There is, however, sufficient to indicate that buildings were once spread over the surface above described; for, besides the vast number of small mounds every where visible, scarcely a husbandman drives his plough over the soil without exposing the vestiges of former habitations."-Vol. II. p. 248.

Bitumen and reeds seem not to have been generally used to cement the layers of bricks, as at Babylon, though both materials abound in the neighbourhood, and Mr. Layard found a layer of bitumen underneath a slab. The Assyrians, also, seem to have made much less use than the Babylonians of bricks baked in a furnace. It would appear, therefore, that the story of the building of the tower of Babel (at which it is recorded that the builders used bricks thoroughly burnt, with bitumen for mortar) originated at Babylon, and perhaps at a period later than the earliest Assyrian edifices.

The perishableness of the material principally used by the Assyrians alone prevented them, in Mr. Layard's opinion, from rivalling India and Egypt in the magnitude and magnificence of their buildings. From the comparative narrowness of the long chambers, it would appear that they were not acquainted with the principle of the arch, except on a very small scale, as in a tunnel or vault. Nor do they seem to have made use of the column, though, in some of the later ruins, there are striking indications that they were not unacquainted with it, in a form rudely approaching to the Ionic order. Mr. Layard shews much ingenuity and imagination in picturing the construction of the Assyrian palaces, and their splendid appearance when entire. With reference to the knowledge of the arts among the Assyrians, we find the following interesting observations:

"It is very remarkable that the most ancient ruins shew this knowledge in the greatest perfection, attained by the Assyrians. The bas-relief representing the lion hunt, now in the British Museum, is a good illustration of the earliest school of Assyrian art yet known. It far exceeds the sculptures of Khorsabad, Kouyunjik, or the later palaces of Nimroud, in the vigour of the treatment, the elegance of the forms, and in what the French aptly term mouvement.' At the same time it is eminently distinguished from them by the evident attempt at composition,-by the artistical arrangement of the groups. The sculptors who worked at Khorsabad and Kouyunjik had perhaps acquired more skill in handling their tools. Their work is frequently superior to that of the earlier artist, in delicacy of execution-in the details of the features, for instance-and in the boldness of the relief; but the slightest acquaintance with Assyrian monuments will shew, that they were greatly inferior to their ancestors in the higher branches of art-in the treatment of a subject, and in beauty and variety of form. This decline of art, after suddenly attaining its greatest perfection in its earliest stage, is a fact presented by almost every people, ancient and modern, with which we are acquainted."

"This decline in art may be accounted for by supposing that, in the infancy of a people, or after the occurrence of any great event having a very decided influence upon their manners, their religion, or their political state, nature was the chief, if not the only, object of study. When a certain proficiency had been attained, and no violent changes took place to shake the established order of things, the artist, instead of endeavouring to imitate that which he saw in nature, received as correct delineations the works of his predecessors, and made them his types and his models. In some countries, as in Egypt, religion may have contributed to this result. Whilst the imagination, as well as the hand, was fettered by prejudices, and even by laws, or whilst indolence or ignorance led to the more servile copying of what had been done before, it may easily be conceived how rapidly a deviation from correctness of form would take place. As each copied the errors of those who preceded him, and added to them himself, it is not wonderful if, ere long, the whole became one great error. It is to be feared that this prescriptive love of imitation has exercised no less influence on modern art, than it did upon the arts of the ancients.”—Vol. II. pp. 280–283.

Similar observations have often been made with reference to the poetry of different ages, some writers having gone so far as to find in the very fact of the pre-eminent excellence of the Iliad of Homer, a proof that it must have been the first great attempt of its kind. But, whatever may have been the historical fact hitherto, it is at least to be hoped that there is no necessary incompatibility between the purest genius and the progress of civilization, and that future ages may afford ample proofs of the possibility of combining the glories and the blessings of both. But to return to Mr. Layard: he proceeds,

"As the earliest specimens of Assyrian art which we possess are the best, it is natural to conclude that either there are other monuments still undiscovered, which would tend to shew a gradual progression, or that such monuments did once exist, but have long since perished; otherwise, it must be inferred, that those who raised the Assyrian edifice, derived their knowledge directly from another people, or merely imitated what they had seen in a foreign land."-Vol. II. p. 283.

After pointing out the essential dissimilarity between the oldest Assyrian and the Egyptian sculptures, he proceeds,

"We must not lose sight of the assertion of Moses of Chorene,-derived no doubt from ancient traditions, if not from direct historical evidence,-that when Ninus founded the Assyrian empire, a people far advanced in civilization, and in the knowledge of the arts and sciences, whose works the

conquerors endeavoured to destroy, were already in possession of the country. Who that people may have been, we cannot now even conjecture. The same mystery hangs over the origin of the arts in Egypt and in Assyria. They may have been derived, before the introduction of any conventional forms, from a common source-from a people whose very name, and the proofs of whose former existence, may have perished even before tradition begins."Vol. II. p. 285.

A mysterious "older race" seems to have left indications of itself in both hemispheres,-in central America, as well as in Asia and Africa. "There were giants in the earth in those days." How far these indications are conclusive as to any thing approaching to a "golden age" in the past, and how much of the impression made by them is due to the principle laid down by Tacitus, "Omne ignotum pro magnifico," we leave our readers to determine for themselves, recommending them, however, if they have not yet done so, to consult Mr. Kenrick's "Essay on Primæval History." Mr. Layard, however, is far from affecting to believe in any alleged superiority of the ancients to the moderns.

We must pass over the consideration of the influence of Assyrian art on Asia Minor, and the resemblance of its ornaments to the more perfect forms of Greece. Most of the bas-reliefs and sculptures of the Assyrians appear to have been coloured, completely corresponding with the descriptions by the prophet Ezekiel (xxiii. 14, 15). After treating at great length of the evidence of the sculptures as to the costume, arms and pomp of the kings, their enemies, captives and system of warfare and of hunting, and also as to the domestic life of the Assyrians and the various animals known to them, Mr. Layard proceeds to treat of their religion as illustrated by the same sculptures. In the most ancient of them, representations of the heavenly bodies are of constant occurrence, closely resembling symbols found in India.

"It will be observed, that in the earliest sculptures of Nimroud, the king is only seen in adoration before one symbol of the deity—the figure with the wings and tail of a bird enclosed in a circle, resembling the Ormuzd of the Persian monuments. Although there are eagle-headed figures, and other mythic forms, yet in no case do they appear to be objects of worship. The king is generally standing or kneeling beneath this figure in the circle, his hand raised in sign of prayer or adoration. The sacred tree is before him, but only, it may be presumed, as a type. The same symbol is also seen above him when in battle, and during his triumphal return. It is never represented above any person of inferior rank, but appears to watch especially over the monarch, who was probably typical of the nation."--Vol. II. p. 447. "This emblem does not always preserve the form of the winged figure in the circle, but sometimes assumes that of a winged globe, wheel, or dish, either plain or ornamented with leaves like a flower. In this shape, its resemblance to the winged globe of Egypt cannot be overlooked."—Vol. II. p. 448.

"We may conclude 'from the prominent position always given to this figure in the Nimroud sculptures, and from its occurrence on Persian monuments as the representation of Ormuzd, that it was also the type of the supreme deity amongst the Assyrians. It will require a more thorough knowledge of the contents of the inscriptions than we at present possess, to determine the name by which the divinity was known. It may be conjectured, however, that it was Baal, or some modification of a name which was that of the great god, amongst nearly all nations speaking cognate dialects of the Semitic or Syro-Arabian language."-Vol. II. pp. 449, 450.

May not the above symbol, which came to be identified with the sun,