Dashwood is always busy. He comes in great haste to Fairy Hill, calls a little while at Robert's, looks in upon the Dandys, and devotes a few odd hours to uncle Joe. He is in such demand. People want him every where. He has not even time to accompany his own wife to the sea-side. My sister, who is a lady of fashion and independence, makes up her own parties, and goes any where, leaving her husband to pursue his business, or his pleasure, as a fashionable lady should do.

Therese, once so fond of admiration, is completely domesticated, and devoted to Robert and her boy. Louise, who was a type of indomitable constancy, is now a lady of ton, somewhat inclined to dissipation, Dashwood says, and exulting in the quantity and quality of her admirers.

Our glorious poet is still brilliant and handsome, and jocund, and delightful. He has a pleasant word and a beaming smile for all. He has the art of dispensing a few words to great profit. He has something to say to every old family servant, and a happy jest for dependants of all grades. His way through the world is but a triumphant march. And all this is the effect of his most happy and irresistible manner. His manner has made him great among men-has won golden opinions from the highest to the lowesthas filled his once empty purse-has gathered around his elegant wife the most refined circle in Virginia-has riveted his friends to him under all circumstanceshas brought him honor upon honor, and will, ultimately, give him any position he may demand. All this has been accomplished by a happiness of address which it is impossible to describe. Without it, he might have been honorable and good, and gifted, and sincere, but he would never have been what he is. I need not here dilate on the importance of tact, and manner. Plato, himself, never lost an opportunity to impress his pupils with the great importance of a conciliatory address. It can achieve more than is dreamed of in the cynic's philosophy. It has raised many a man to the highest honors in our great Democracy, while the want of it has caused talents of the first order to remain unnoticed and unpreferred.

But moralizing is not my forte, as the sagacious reader has doubtless perceived.

I will not sift from these dull pages the morals which lie therein embedded, as the precious metal in California's barren sands. I will not repeat that patience and perseverance overcometh all thingsnor the commandment with promise, wherein we are told to honor our fathers and mothers, etc. Time will teach all this for as he goes noiselessly on, he leaves his footprints in his wake.

He leaves (the stern old teacher) a few more shining locks-steals a little lightness from the lightest foot-tinges the gayest hearts-casts a shadow where the sun has ever shone-throws a quaintness over the old hill house-peers in upon the auburn curls-lifts the little boy upon his round, rolling feet-lays the faithful servant in his grave-checks the jocund laugh-lends a cane to the once fleet of foot-and thus he goes, and sprinkles lesson upon lesson in his path.

And may he deal gently with thee, oh martyr reader mine! may he not lag heavily with thee over these pages. May you close the book as the dinner-bell rings, and say, "Ha! I did not think it was so late!" And may you consult your watch, and find old Time has stolen a march upon you while you have been with me.

And at dinner may you sip the choicest wines, and astonish with your wit and brilliancy, oh martyr reader mine!

May you hold up the dainty glass and say, "Here's to the writer of the book with which I have beguiled the morning!" And may you in the overflowing goodness of your heart, do violence to "She wields a your conscience, and say, graceful pen (!) upon my word-so here's to her!"

Bless thee, reader mine! One word from thee were worth all the vintage in the world! One word from thee, would give wings unto my pen and tranquillity to my heart! One word from thee, would lighten the family nose which I am doomed to carry-would cause the Feejees to be served up in a piquant style -would set me to daguerreotyping Old Virginia for life-would infuse new vigor into the style and imagination of a lady doomed to all the horrors of single-blessedness, unless, with thy approval, she be wedded to Immortality.

SUCH

of our readers as have made themselves acquainted with the former explorations of Mr. Layard (and the number we presume is not small), will scarcely need more than the title-page of the book lying before us, to induce them cheerfully to renew their acquaintance with a traveller so truthful, instructive, and entertaining as Mr. Layard. The abundant success of our author in his first efforts at Nineveh, induced the Trustees of the British Museum to request of him a renewal of his labors in the same field; and we have here the results of a compliance with that request, together with an account of further researches made at Babylon. We have no hesitation in saying that we think the intelligent reader will pronounce this work more deeply interesting than Mr. Layard's first publication; and this alone we hold to be very high commendation. The former book betrayed, at times, the timidity of an unpractised author, though very clever man, who, in the uncertainty of the reception he might meet with, modestly made his bow to the public, and quietly awaited its judgment: that judgment was, as it should have been, decidedly favorable, and inspired a confidence, the effect of which, we think, is visible in the publication before us. While it is quite free from dogmatism, it yet exhibits more freedom both of thought and expression; and irrespective of the valuable discoveries it records, is an exceedingly lively and interesting narrative of travels, agreeably diversified with glowing descriptions of natural scenery, and pleasant incidents of an Eastern traveller's personal adventures.

We observe that to his name Mr. Layard now appends the letters M. P.; and we have such respect for his understanding as leads us readily to believe that he will prove neither an unwise nor unsafe legislator for his country: but whatever may be his parliamentary career; as men devoted to letters, we cannot help thinking that in his contributions already made to the cause of religion and learning, he has reared memorials as enduring and honorable as any to be found in the ordinary records of statesmanship.

Our limited space, however, admonishes us that we must devote our notice

to the book rather than to its author; and as we cannot give even an abridgment of his detailed account of exploration and travel, we must content ourselves with such excerpts arranged under different heads, as will convey to the reader a general idea of the work.

And first, what does it bring to the notice of the Biblical scholar? How far do recent discoveries afford confirmation of historical facts recorded in the sacred writings? To this we answer that the discoveries made at Nineveh, in their illustration and confirmation of the later portions of Bible history, appear to be performing a work similar to that which the monuments of Egypt have done for the earliest portions of the same venerable record. The Nile, the Euphrates, and the Tigris, all seem to be yielding their testimony to the truth of the Bible. We saw it, indeed, stated in a newspaper, not long since, that the recent explorations of Mr. Layard had thrown discredit on the prophet Daniel; and our curiosity was accordingly excited to a diligent search for the statements on which rested an assertion, that, to us at least, savored more of confidence than of learning. We have sought in vain in Mr. Layard for one word that discredits either Daniel or any other book in the Scriptures. But in our search, we have met with testimony of a different kind, full of interest. We found that the king who built the palace of Kouyunjik (opposite the present Mosul on the Tigris) was, beyond all question, the Sennacherib of Scripture. The Book of Kings informs us that the King of Assyria, in the fourteenth year of the reign of Hezekiah, came up against all the fenced cities of Judah and took them." (2 Kings, xviii. 13.)

This King of Assyria was Sennacherib, and in his disinterred palace, Mr. Layard found sculptured representations with inscriptions containing the annals of six years of his reign. These afford remarkable confirmation to history sacred and profane. In the first year of his reign he defeated, according to the inscriptions, Merodach Baladan, a name familiar to us, for he was the king, it will be remembered, who is mentioned in the Old Testament, as sending letters and a present to Hezekiah, (2 Kings, xx. 12.-Isaiah,

xxxix. 1,) when the latter ostentatiously displayed all his treasures, and was reproved for it by Isaiah, who predicted that all this treasure, together with the descendants of its owner, should be carried away as spoil to the very city whence these ambassadors of Merodach Baladan

came.

But the third year of Sennacherib's reign, as recorded in the inscriptions, is most interesting; for in it he overran all Syria. In the annals of that year, this is a part of the inscription:

"Hezekiah, King of Judah, who had not submitted to my authority, forty-six of his principal cities, and fortresses and villages depending upon them, of which I took no account, I captured; and carried away their spoil. I shut up himself within Jerusalem, his capital city. The fortified towns, and the rest of his towns, which I spoiled, I severed from his country, and gave to the Kings of Ascalon, Ekron, and Gaza, so as to make his country small. In addition to the former tribute imposed upon their countries, I added a tribute, the nature of which I fixed."-pp. 143, 144.

On this, Mr. Layard remarks:

"There can be little doubt that the campaign against the cities of Palestine recorded in the inscriptions of Sennacherib at Kouyunjik, is that described in the Old Testament. The events agree with considerable accuracy. We are told in the Book of Kings, that the King of Assyria, in the fourteenth year of the reign of Hezekiah, 'came up against all the fenced cities of Judah and took them,' as he declares himself to have done in his annals. And, what is most important, and perhaps one of the most remarkable coincidences of historic testimony on record, the amount of the treasure in gold taken from Hezekiah, thirty talents, agrees in the two perfectly independent accounts. Too much stress cannot be laid on this singular fact, as it tends to prove the general accuracy of the historical details contained in the Assyrian inscriptions. There is a difference of 500 talents, as it will be observed, in the amount of silver. It is probable that Hezekiah was much pressed by Sennacherib, and compelled to give him all the wealth that he could collect, as we find him actually taking the silver from the house of the Lord, as well as from his own treasury, and cutting off the gold from the doors and pillars of the temple, to satisfy the demands of the Assyrian king. The Bible may therefore only include the actual amount of money in the 300 talents of silver, whilst the Assyrian records comprise all the precious metal taken away.

"It is natural to suppose that Sennacherib would not perpetuate the memory of his own overthrow; and that, having been unsuccessful in an attempt upon Jerusalem, his army being visited by the plague de

scribed in Scripture, he should gloss over his defeat by describing the tribute he had previously received from Hezekiah as the general result of his campaign."-pp.144, 145.

But further still, sculptured on the walls of one of the chambers, Mr. Layard found a representation of a city besieged, and vanquished, captives taken, etc., and the conquering monarch sitting on his throne, while the vanquished chief, crouched and knelt before him. Over his head was this inscription: "Sennacherib, the mighty king, king of the country of Assyria, sitting on the throne of judgment, before (or at the entrance of) the city of Lachish. I give permission for its slaughter."

"Here, therefore (says our author), was the actual picture of the taking of Lachish, the city, as we know from the Bible, besieged by Sennacherib, when he sent his generals to demand tribute of Hezekiah, and which he had captured before their return. 2 Kings, xviii. 14. Isaiah xxxvi. 2. Evidence of the most remarkable character to confirm the interpretation of the inscriptions, and to identify the king who caused them to be engraved with the Sennacherib of Scripture. This highly interesting series of bass-reliefs contained, moreover, an undoubted representation of a king, a city, and a people, with whose names we are acquainted, and of an event described in Holy Writ. They furnish us, therefore, with illustrations of the Bible of very great importance. The captives were undoubtedly Jews, their physiognomy was strikingly indicated in the sculptures, but they had been stripped of their ornaments and their fine raiment, and were left barefooted and half-clothed." -pp. 152, 153.

We might here, in further confirmation of Bible history, advert to the discovery of a treaty, attested by the seals, respectively, of the Egyptian king, Sabaco, the Ethiopian, of the 25th dynasty, and of the Assyrian monarch. Sabaco is probably the So, mentioned in 2 Kings, xvii. 4, as having received ambassadors from Hoshea, King of Israel, who, by entering into a league with the Egyptians, drew down the vengeance of Shalmaneser, whose tributary he was, and led to the first great captivity of the people of Samaria. Shalmaneser, we know, was the immediate predecessor of Sennacherib, and Sabaco, or So, was on the throne of Egypt during the reign of both Shalmaneser and Sennacherib. But we must proceed.

In Ezekiel iii. 15, we read, "Then I came to them of the captivity at Tel-Abib, that dwelt by the river of Chebar." In Kings, the river is called Khabour, and such is the name used by the Arabs at this day. To this river, Mr. Layard

went, and found certain sculptures in mounds opened at Arban which he supposed to be very ancient, and thus speaks:

"To the Chebar were transported by the Assyrian king, after the destruction of Samaria, the captive children of Israel, and on its banks the heavens were opened' to Ezekiel, and he saw visions of God,' and spake his prophecies to his brother exiles. Around Arban may have been pitched the tents of the sorrowing Jews, as those of the Arabs were during my visit. To the same pastures they led their sheep, and they drank of the same waters. Then the banks of the river were covered with towns and villages, and a palace-temple still stood on the mound, reflected in the transparent stream. We have, however, but one name connected with the Khabour recorded in Scripture, that of Tel-Abib, the 'mound of Abio, or, of the heaps of ears of corn,' but whether it applied to a town, or to a simple artificial elevation, such as still abound, and are still called 'tels,' is a matter of doubt. I sought in vain for some trace of the word amongst the names now given by the wandering Arab to the various ruins on the Khabour and its confluents.

"We know that Jews still lingered in the cities of the Khabour until long after the Arab invasion; and we may perhaps recognize in the Jewish communities of Ras-alAin, at the sources of the river, and of Karkisia, or Carchemish, at its confluence with the Euphrates, visited and described by Benjamin of Tudela, in the latter end of the twelfth century of the Christian era, the descendants of the captive Israelites.

"But the hand of time has long since swept even this remnant away, with the busy crowds which thronged the banks of the river. From its mouth to its source, from Carchemish to Ras-al-Ain, there is now no single permanent human habitation on the Khabour. Its rich meadows and its deserted ruins are alike become the encamping places of the wandering Arab."— Pp. 283, 284.

Again, in his researches at Babylon, our author found certain bowls with inscriptions which, in the judgment of the learned, connect themselves, by means of the character used in the writing, with the Jews of the Babylonish captivity. These bowls, it would seem, were designed to be used for healing purposes, and were supposed to act by way of charm. They were filled with water or some other fluid, by which the writing became obliterated as the ink dissolved, and the patient then drank the contents of the bowl. Mr. Thomas Ellis, of the manuscript department in the British Museum, thus speaks of them :

"A discovery relating to the Jews of the captivity in Babylon, and consequently of

great interest to Oriental scholars, and especially to biblical students, was made by Mr. Layard during his second expedition to Assyria. Amongst the various curious objects found on the banks of the Euphrates, and in the ruins of ancient Babylonia, were several bowls or cups of terracotta, round the inner surface of which were inscriptions in the ancient Chaldæan language, written in characters wholly unknown, and, I believe, never before seen in Europe. The letters appear to be an admixture of the Syriac and Palmyrine, and in some instances resemble the ancient Phoenician. The subjects of these inscriptions are amulets or charms against evil spirits, diseases, and every kind of misfortune. They must have been written long prior to any existing manuscripts of the ancient Hebrew and Chaldæan languages that we now know of, there being no divisions between words (except in one instance, No. 5, where the forms of the letters would seem to indicate a later date), nor are there any vowel points. But the most remarkable circumstance connected with these inscriptions is, that the characters used on the bowl marked No. 1. answer precisely to the description given of the most ancient Hebrew letters in the Babylonian Talmud, which contains an account of the nature and origin of the letters used by the Jews. In the tract Sanhedrin we are told that the Jews called their characters Assyrian, DN, and that they were brought with them from Assyria. Abraham de Balmis in his Hebrew grammar states, that the characters called Assyrian were composed of straight lines: his

באותיותיה ויצאה עמנו מאשור,words are the Latin version of this in ;שהיא מיושרת

the same grammar is, 'Quia est recta in suis literis et exivit nobiscum ex Assyria.' The orthography of these inscriptions is very defective, and sometimes pure Hebrew sentences are found mixed with the Chaldee, especially in No. 5.; and the words 'Halleluiah' and 'Selah' occur in nearly every one of them. All this tends to confirm the opinion that the writers were Jews; for it is well known that the early Christians were utterly ignorant of Hebrew, nor is there any proof that it was cultivated at Babylon; on the contrary, it was at Babylon that the Hebrew ceased to be a spoken language, the Jews being compelled, by their lengthened captivity, to adopt the Chaldæan, whilst at the same time they were corrupted by the idolatry and superstitions of the Babylonians."-pp. 509, 510. To this, Mr. Layard adds

"Little doubt can, I think, exist as to their Jewish origin: and such being the case, there is no reason to question their having belonged to the descendants of those Jews who were carried captive by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon and the surrounding cities. These strangers appear to have clung with a tenacity peculiar to their race to the land of their exile. We can trace

"As early as the third century Hebrew travellers visited Babylon, and some of them have left records of the state of their countrymen. The Babylonian Talmud, compiled in the beginning of the sixth century, contains many valuable notices of the condition of the Jewish colonies in Babylonia, and enumerates more than two hundred Babylonian towns then under the Persian rule, inhabited by Jewish families. In manuscripts of the eighth and ninth centuries we have further mention of these colonies.

"In the twelfth century, Benjamin of Tudela found no less than twenty thousand Jews dwelling within twenty miles of Babylon, and worshipping in the synagogue, built, according to tradition, by the prophet Daniel himself. In Hillah alone were ten thousand persons and four synagogues, and he gives the number of families and of their places of worship, in every town he visited, keeping during his journey an exact daily itinerary, which includes nearly all the stations on the modern caravan routes. Allowing for some exaggeration on the part of this traveller, it is still evident that a very considerable Jewish population lived in the cities of Babylonia. It has greatly diminished, and in some places has entirely disappeared. A few families still linger at Hillah, and in Baghdad the principal native trade and money transactions are carried on by Jews, who are the bankers and brokers of the governors of the city, as they no doubt anciently were of the Abasside Caliphs.

"According to their own tradition these Hebrew families were descended from the Jews of the captivity. They still preserved their pedigrees, and traced their lineage to the princes and prophets of Judah. Their chief resided at Baghdad, and his title was 'Lord Prince of the Captivity.' He was lineally descended, according to his people, from king David himself. Even Mohamme dans acknowledged his claim to his noble birth, and called him 'Our Lord, the son of David.' His authority extended over the countries of the East as far as Thibet and Hindostan. He was treated on all occasions with the greatest honor and respect, and when he appeared in public he wore robes of embroidered silk, and a white turban encircled by a diadem of gold."--pp. 523, 524.

And having thus hastily glanced at matters of interest to the Oriental scholar and biblical student, we must refer him to the volume itself for much more that our limits compel us to pass by unnoticed and proceed to the consideration of

another topic, in which the Christian of our day cannot but feel a lively concern. What is the present state of Christianity among the Nestorian and Armenian Christians? Here is first Mr. Layard's picture of the Nestorian patriarch, for the full understanding of which, recent events in the history of the Nestorians (familiar enough, we presume, to Christians in America) must be recalled.

"Following a precipitous pathway, and mounted on a tall and sturdy mule, we spied an aged man with long robes, black turban, and a white beard which fell almost to his girdle. A few lusty mountaineers, in the striped dress and conical felt cap of the Christian tribes, walked by his side and supported him on the animal, which with difficulty scrambled over the loose stones. We at once recognized the features of Mar Shamoun, the Patriarch of the Nestorians, or, as he proudly terins himself, "of the Chaldeans of the East." He had not known of our coming, and he shed tears of joy as he embraced us. Kochhannes, his residence, was not far distant, and he turned back with us to the village. Since I had seen him, misfortune and grief, more than age, had worn deep furrows on his brow, and had turned his hair and beard to silvery grey. We had last met at Mosul, the day previous to his escape from confinement into Persia. Since that time he had been wandering on the confines of the two border countries, but had now sought repose once more in the old seat of the patriarchs of the mountain tribes.

"We soon reached his dwelling. It is solidly built of hewn stone, and stands on the very edge of a precipice overhanging a ravine, through which winds a branch of the Zab. A dark vaulted passage led us into the room, scarcely better lighted by a small window, closed by a greased sheet of coarse paper. The tattered remains of a felt carpet, spread in a corner, was the whole of its furniture. The garments of the Patriarch were hardly less worn and ragged. Even the miserable allowance of 300 piastres (about 27. 108.), which the Porte had promised to pay him monthly on his return to the mountains was long in arrears, and he was supported entirely by the contributions of his faithful but povertystricken flock. Kochhannes was, moreover, still a heap of ruins. At the time of the massacre Mar Shamoun scarcely saved himself by a precipitous flight before the ferocious Kurds of Beder Khan Bey entered the village and slew those who still lingered in it, and were from age or infirmities unable to escape.

"Mar Shamoun, at the time of my visit, had no less cause to bewail the misfortunes of his people than his personal sufferings. The latter were perhaps partly to be attributed to his own want of prudence and foresight. Old influences, which I could not but deeply deplore, and to which I do