The Turkmans, wandering hordes of Scythians who had come from the north and overrun all China and Central Asia, had been invited some years previously (A.D. 1000) by the khalifs into Persia, to prop up by their military energy a feeble and tottering power, opposed by rebellious and refractory vassals. Converted to Muhammadanism by their new connexion with the Saracen Arabs, they seized upon the monarchy, but suffered the monarch to exist; they declared themselves the lieutenants of

the Khalifs, and distributed their numerous clans over the whole of the countries between Bagdad and India, which they divided among themselves: hence the different dynasties of Sammanides, Gaznavides, Suljukians, Karizmians, &c., and at length Ottomans or Osmanlis, which last became the most celebrated from the duration and extent of their power, and which they have had the good fortune to retain to the present day.

Now it would seem, from this, that all the dynasties named by Mr. Barker derived their power from the seat of the Khilafat; and as he uses the word clans, one would imagine that they were very much like the Campbells and Macgregors, who now and then took a fancy to their neighbours' cattle. We must suppose, from the details given, that the Turkomans "who seized upon the monarchy" were the Búyides: the description applies in nowise to any other dynasty. Not that the Búyides were Turkomans at all, having originally come from Tabaristán, and being descended from Bahrám Gúr, one of the ancient kings of Persia; not that they were ever invited into Persia or anywhere else by the Khalifahs, who would just as soon have thought of inviting Iblís himself; and not because of the date A.D. 1000, since they first attained power in Baghdad A.D.945; but simply because they and no other race, did virtually govern the empire of the Khalifahs, under the title of Amír al-Umará, for many years. The "distribution of their numerous clans" is, however, absolute nonsense, since there never were any clans. The Sámánides, the Ghaznavides, the Saljúks, the Khárizmians, &c., were distinct, independent, and powerful dynasties, having no more connexion of clanship with the Búyides or with each other, than the Bourbons with the kings of Timbuctoo.

Some of Mr. Barker's historical conjectures in this chapter are amusing. At p. 57, adAt p. 57, adverting to the death of Frederick Barbarossa, the leader of the third Crusade, who, as every one knows, perished by drowning in the Cydnus, he remarks

But I am unwilling to credit this story, as it seems un

accountable that a general at the head of his army should be lost in fording a river, which is nowhere more than six feet deep; and I think it more probable that he was attacked by the malignant fever of the country,

Now the majority of the chronicles say that Frederick was drowned, not at the head of his army but whilst bathing, or that he died from the effects of too sudden immersion in cold water (see Guill. le Breton; Bernard le Trésorier; Jacques de Vitry, &c.): at any rate the shallowness of the water, upon which Mr. Barker grounds his ingenious correction of received history, was known long ago, since a contemporary Musulmán writer, quoted by M. Reinaud (Bibliothèque des Croisades, tome iv. p. 273), says - "L'Empereur, étant entré dans l'eau pour se baigner, se noya dans un endroit où l'eau ne venait pas à la ceinture; preuve que Dieu lui-même voulait nous en délivrer."

An important criterion in the appreciation of a writer's claims to knowledge as an Orientalist, is the manner in which he spells the proper names. It is true that almost every savant has a distinct system, but in this is danger to the "smatterer;" for if he combine one or two of such systems, he at once betrays his own ignorance. Why does Mr. Barker write "Yangbiz or Genghiz Khan"? The first letter is Ch or, દ . We imagine, as an Arab would write it, J that, never having seen the word except as written in the Roman character, and having heard that the names Job, Joshua, Jerusalem, &c. receive a wrong pronunciation by us, from having been transmitted through the German, Mr. Barker mistook the first letter of the Tátár's name for a German J, and fancied that his reading of Yanghiz would evince profound criticism and scrupulous exactness. The method of spelling observed by our author combines almost every kind of atrocity that has been perpetrated by ancient and modern writers in disguising Eastern names. We have the Amurad and the

Pyramet of the old authors, for Al-Murád and Pir Ahmad, and divers new improvements, for the most curious of which we feel we are indebted to the author. To take as an example, the name of the present Sultán. Every one is aware that the greater part of the proper names in the East are significant, and that a large number have reference to religion: the Sultán now on the throne is called Abd' ulMajíd, i. e. the servant of the Glorious (God)— a very pious and proper appellation for a powerful prince; but Mr. Barker, by the unfortunate insertion of the letter s, makes it Abd' ulMasjid, and the poor king becomes "the servant of the mosque" (.) This is not a mere error of the press the name so spelt occurs many times, and is even inserted in the Index. We cannot pursue the subject of our

*

author's cacography of Oriental names: he is not exact, consistent with himself, or with any received system in any two consecutive pages. There are, besides, hundreds of instances of ignorance of the signification of Eastern words. We have "Timur-lang, surnamed the lame," which, seeing that 'lang' means 'lame,' is about as accurate as saying, Louis le Grand, surnamed the Great. Mr. Barker also translates Hazrat Simun "the holy or beloved Simon" the word Hazrat, being merely a title by which holy and great men are addressed, equivalent to Majesty, Highness, Lordship, Worship, &c. Such mistakes would be unpardonable even in one who professedly derived his knowledge solely from translations; but they are absolutely culpable when coming from an author who hires a trumpeter to proclaim him as an Orientalist. Mr. Barker, by way we presume of proving his knowledge of Arabic, quotes at p. 329 a passage from the Kurán in the original. This passage, though introduced somewhat gratuitously, is written correctly, but at the end he has the assurance to add, "I quote from memory." No doubt, as the sentence is correct, Mr. Barker, having been told that it was from the Kurán, consulted Fluegel's Concordance, and thus, having got at the quotation, carefully copied it from an accurate text. There would be no harm in this: there are not ten, there are not five men in Europe who could quote the Kurán from memory, no, nor even the Hebrew Bible: but why should Mr. Barker pretentiously say, in the face of all his manifest ignorance, "I quote from memory"? We feel certain that Mr. Barker could not recite the Fátihah ; nay, we would wager his own price of "the Lares" that he could not write down the Muhammadan confession of faith without a fault in orthography. The fact is, that he can speak a little vulgar Arabic, which he has of necessity picked up during his residence in the East, but beyond this, he has no more claim to the name of an Orientalist than a courier who can jabber Romaic has to edit a Greek play.

Let us now see how Mr. Barker has acquitted himself as an antiquary; for this is necessary to advert to his "Lares and Penates," in the description of which it appears he has been assisted by a perfect phoenix amongst potters, named Abington, who is thus introduced

He not only mounted each piece on a pedestal adapted to it, and thereby presented the object in the most advantageous position to be viewed, but he addressed to me a

* Mr. Barker's ignorance is not confined to eastern words. Four times in two pages (210, 211) we find the name of the great Egyptologist Rosellini transformed into Rossalini.

series of remarks doubly interesting; first, as coming from a person who seems at home on every subject, ancient and modern; and second, as emanating from one who could speak artistically as well as scientifically, he being connected with one of the largest establishments of China pottery in England.

We confess we do not see, that because Mr. Abington is connected with pots and pans, it necessarily follows that he is an artist or a scientific man: indeed, his observations prove that he is neither one nor the other, and we happen to know that his restorations of the terra cottas are positively destructive of all value the relics may have originally possessed. This Mr. Abington, however, who is "at home on every subject," has, in conjunction with Mr. Barker, endeavoured to find favour with a portion of the public, by the supposition that the crockeries, are not mere ordinary relics of antiquity, but "the Penates of the ancient Cilicians, and consequently of a much more interesting character, inasmuch as they bear witness and testify to the triumphs of Christianity over the superstitions of the Gentiles." The arguments adduced in favour of this hypothesis are wholly inconclusive, the idea is clearly without foundation, and the title of the book iswe will not say what. The relics are clearly the remains, or perhaps refuse, of a pottery, and the attempt to connect them with the introduction of Christianity is nothing more nor less than a reprehensible appeal to the religious feelings of the multitude. Here is a specimen of the argument—

Some of the fragments are votive offerings, consecrated to the honour of the gods, and attesting their condescension to suffering humanity, and their power to help. To damage or remove such would have been considered the highest act of desecration. The most wicked man would have been shocked at such a crime. What, then, could have caused such a sweeping act of sacrilege? Here lie the prized memorials of relief obtained from the gods in time of trouble, and the very gods themselves lying in the same indiscriminate ruin. There lies the Olympic Thunderer with his jaw broken, No. 5, and the head of his saucy wife for a companion, in the dirt, No. 6. His wings could not save the patron, No. 7, a winged Apollo. There is no fact in history to account for this sacrilegious devastation, but the resistless progress of the Gospel in apostolic times.

We must now follow Mr. Barker in his description of the remains, and point out a few of the more glaring errors into which he has fallen.

At p. 56, No. 4, we have an engraving of what Mr. Barker coolly calls "Head and statue of Diana." Now we do not see any thing in this statue to connect it with Diana: on the contrary, Diana is much more usually represented with a short tunic exposing her legs, and suggesting the power of rapid motion or agility, but this figure is draped to the ground. The head may be that of any pretty girl, and the stag on the lamp is a simple ornament. Almost all the lamps-of which there are a hundred in the

British Museum-of early and late Roman times, with few, if any, of pure Greek workmanship, have ornaments of figures, of men, and animals, and there is nothing whatever to argue their appropriation to any particular temple or building.

The next fragment, No. 5, Mr. Barker designates a "Head of Jupiter." This cannot be a Jupiter, but may perhaps be a Neptune. Jupiter's hair almost always rises perpendicularly above the forehead, and is parted in two. No. 7.-"Apollo winged." There is no such thing as a winged Apollo. The fragment is most likely a Victory.

No. 8.- Mercury." There is no symbol from which any one but Mr. Barker could infer this to be a Mercury; the attitude is that of Harpocrates, but probably really only a draped child.

No. 2.-" Head of Messalina, the fifth wife of the Emperer Claudian." Why so, Mr. Barker? It is much more like one of the Empresses, Plotena, or Matidia or Marciana. We must remark, by the way, there was no such person as an Emperor Claudian. There was Claudius, A.D. 41, and Claudius, the successor of Gallienus, A.D. 268. Mr. Barker apparently confounds the first of these, with Claudian, the poet and panegyrist of Stilicho, who flourished 350 years later.

No. 22, p. 161, also p. 168.-" Apollo as Osiris." Nonsense! There is no evidence of deity at all. The leaves in the hair are vine leaves, and would refer therefore rather to Bacchus. The coin of Tarsus does not bear Apollo: whoever the figure may be, the whole type of this coin is Assyrian (vide woodcut in Vaux's "Nineveh and Persepolis," under 'Sardanapalus').

No. 24, p. 164.-" Priest, with attributes of Apollo." This is a winged Victory.

No. 27, p. 167.-" Head of Commodus or Hercules." It is about as much like Commodus as Hercules; nor does the head resemble any one of the Roman emperors. Moreover, there is no tiara, nor any other symbol indicative of that rank. The head may be that of a young Hercules.

No. 28.-" Head of a lady with all the attributes of Juno." We do not see one-much less all of the attributes of Juno. Even the tiara, if it exist at all, is so indistinct that no one could make it out from the drawing.

No. 16, p. 178.-" Adonis as Apollo,with the cloak and brooch."-No authority whatever for converting this child into an Adonis as Apollo with brooch. The said brooch is nothing more

than the common Roman bulla by which the cloak was kept from slipping off the shoulders.

P. 186.-" Image of a senator with the clavus latus." Whatever this figure may be it is certainly not a senator. The figure looks Greek, but the engraving or drawing has been defective. The clavus, so called, is a very common Greek ornament.

P. 189. This figure is chiefly remarkable in that the author shews a carelessness in copying the names he takes in view. It is Pescennius -not Piscennius Niger; and it is Victoria Alata-not Victoria Aleta. The work is probably much later than Mr. Barker places it; not much earlier than Diocletian.

No. 47, p. 193.-"Hero." We see no reason whatever for calling this Hero, nor do we know what Hero he refers to: not, we suppose, to Leander's lady, though the ignorance of this book is such, that even this is possible.

No. 17, p. 195.-" Part of the statue of Apollo." This may be part of any naked historical figure; and No. 18, the " Bacchus," is, we believe, a Cupid, or Victory, with the jug from which she is about to pour the sacrificial liquid. The thing behind it, if rightly drawn, is a wing; and Bacchus was never winged, except, perhaps, in some inebriated imagination.

But we feel that we grow tedious, and we close our note-book. The fact is, that Mr. Barker knows nothing about these matters. He and his friend, the crockery man, seem to have given names to their things at random.

As none but an Oriental scholar can see in all its glaring nakedness, the ignorance of all things oriental which Mr. Barker displays; so none but an antiquarian can have full sensation of the monstrous absurdities of his vague guesses at the real character of these old potters' stores.

We have only discussed Mr. Barker's work as that of an Orientalist and an antiquary, although he and his editor, and his friend Mr. Abington, appear as geographers, scholars, ethnographers, and philologists; and Mr. Barker himself, as he informs us, is a sportsman of the first magnitude. The geography and scholarship consist in references to Strabo, cum multis aliis, at second hand, and the ethnography and philology in a selection from "the most approved writers." The chapter, by the author, on Falconry, is crammed with technical terms, and there is a great parade of knowledge. If we could trust Mr. Barker, it would be interesting; but after what we have said, it is obvious that his facts and conclusions are more likely to be false than true.

THIS work, so long announced, has at length made its appearance, with all the advantages to be derived from the best paper, typography, and a profusion of illustrations. Notwithwithstanding all this, however, public interest in the subject of the recent Babylonian researches is manifestly beginning to wane; and although Mr. Murray, who has purchased from Dr. Layard the copyright of the book, boasts that 3000 copies were subscribed for by the trade, many months since, we question very much whether the subsequent demand will equal the expectations of that enterprising publisher.

Two maps accompany the volume, rendering it satisfactorily complete; but we cannot at all concur in the propriety of affixing to a work of this kind the frontispiece with which we are presented. It purports to be a restored elevation of the palace of Sennacherib (at Kouyunjik), from a sketch by a Mr. Fergusson: we must, however, warn our readers that it is almost as purely ideal as the wildest creation of Mr. Martin's exuberant fancy. All the data at the artist's disposal, consisted of a ground plan, some portion of the basement walls with their sculptures, and some broken columns. Yet here we have a stately edifice of five stories, with innumerable windows, colonnades, terraces, &c., delineated with photographic minuteness, as if from a structure scarce impaired by the hand of time! Willing are we to accord Mr. Fergusson all praise for his ingenuity, but we strongly protest against the publication of an engraving like this, under its present most deceptive title. It is a blemish to the work, and merits serious reprobation we cannot withhold our censure whenever we observe any attempt, however slight, to graft fiction upon truth.

Dr. Layard informs us at the outset of his narrative, that it was not until after his return to Constantinople in 1848 that he learnt the general interest felt in England in the discoveries made by him in the vicinity of ancient Babylon. He received, at the same time, a request from the Trustees of the British Museum to undertake a second expedition into Assyria. Having hastily sketched out a plan, almost, as he himself affirms, too vast for adoption, he shortly after received directions to return to Nineveh, and to continue the researches already commenced among its ruins.

Hasty and imperfect arrangements were made in England. Mr. F. Cooper had been selected to accompany the expedition as artist. Mr. Hormuzd Rassam, already well known for the energy he had displayed on former oc

casions, accompanied Mr. Cooper to Constantinople, where the preliminary preparations were completed, and the principal individuals selected to form the expedition.

On the 28th of August 1849 the party left the Bosphorus for Trebizond: their number, together with consequent indispensable incumbrances, rendered a caravan journey necessary. Dr. Layard at once determined to avoid the usual tracks, and to cross Eastern Armenia and Kurdistan. On the 31st they disembarked at Trebizond, and on the ensuing day the land journey commenced. On the 8th of September they reached Erzeroum; and on the following night rested in the village of Guli, whose owner, one Shehan Bey, had been apprised of Dr. Layard's intended visit. Descended from an ancient family of Dereh Beys, he had inherited the hospitality and polished manners of a class now almost extinct. From Guli our travellers crossed a high range of mountains by a pass called Ali Baba. To the south then rose before them the snow-capped mountains of the Bin-Ghiul, or the "Thousand Lakes." The villages here, thinly scattered over the low hills, were deserted by their inhabitants, who at this season pitch their tents and seek pasture for their flocks in the uplands. The track of the little caravan next extended over the Tiektma Mountains, through the fertile plain of Hinnis to Karagol, where they crossed the principal branch of the Euphrates. They now had to pick their way through a swamp, scaring, as they advanced, myriads of wild fowl. The water literally teemed with ducks, geese, and teal, the marshy grounds with snipes and herons, and the stubble with bustards and cranes. Passing along the banks of Lake Shailu and Nazik Gul, they entered an undulating country traversed by deep ravines, at the bottom of many of which they descried innumerable hamlets, surrounded by fruit-trees and gardens, sheltered by perpendicular rocks, and watered by running streams. For two or three hours they rode along these uplands, until suddenly a beautiful prospect of lake, woodland, and mountain opened before them. The lake is known by the name of Wan; and its view, we are told, on descending from the hills above Akhlat, is singularly striking. It appears, indeed, to be a vast inland sea, of the deepest blue, bounded to the east by vast piles of snow-capped mountains, springing here and there into the highest peaks of Kurdistan: beneath them the sacred Island of Akhtamar lies like a dark shadow on the water. In the far distance rises the sublime cone of the Subhan, the