tion founded principally on Rabbinical traditions, but strangely connected with references to Mecca and Mohammed), all pass in review before the reader, with a devout gravity and simple credulity, whieh amply prove that the fetters of an absurd superstition were not less firmly rivetted on the human mind in the East than in the West, at the same period. Many of these ideas, however, Lariously combined and modified in their transmission through the minds of men inhabiting the different regions interposed between our own and that of their birth, have furnished us with some of the. most beautiful images that embellish our poetry.

The translator, with a confidence founded, not merely on a thorough. knowledge of the idiom of his author, but on a profound acquaintance, derived from long and laborious study, with the metaphysics of his mind, has. not hesitated to attempt that most difficult (as is well known to Persian scholars) of all the parts of a Persian composition, the preface—and in this particular instance, a preface utterly unintelligible, except through the most persevering acuteness of investigation. The first portion of this intricate specimen of Persian metaphysics had been accomplished by the Baron de Sacy, with that ability which has distinguished this profound Orientalist among the scholars of Europe; but Mr. Shea, with a praiseworthy resolution and perseverance, has waded through the whole, and has presented to the English reader, with remarkable fidelity, a highly curious picture of Persian. devoutness, hyperbole and adulation, conjoined with Persian ideas of historical composition.

The part of the work selected for translation begins with Kaiomars, a kind of mythical personage, about whom, according to Mirkhond, Persian. historians are not agreed, some affirming him to be Adam, others Umím, others the son of Japhet, and others again Canaan. Amidst all these contradictory opinions, the author has too much veneration for a matter so sacred, to decide. Kaiomars, after inventing numerous useful instruments, and after many strange conflicts with Afrits and demon-hearted men,-one of the former of whom had slain his beloved son Siámuk,-and "when nearly a thousand years of his life had passed, during forty of which the human, race were subject to his sway, being thoroughly convinced of the great sagacity and bravery of Houshung, he adorned his fortunate brows with the imperial diadem, and went into voluntary seclusion and retirement until the destined hour of fate arrived."

Houshung, "whom some maintain to be Mahaleel," proved an excellent monarch; his work on philosophy, and his moral maxims, some of which are extracted from the Tarikh-Maajem by the "amber-scented" pen of our author, were not lost on his son and successor Tehmuras. This prince, styled Div-band, or the Demon-binder,' performed a vast service to the human race, when he put a period to the annoyances of those frightful beings, who till then had been allowed to vex the earth with their presence. In this reign" arose so great a famine, that the kidnies of the people melted like water," and

"Their only food was to view the two round disks of Heaven;
"The sun by day, the lucid moon by night."

But the prince, mindful of the politico-moral philosophy of his father, ordered "that persons of substance should be content with their evening repast, and distribute that of the morning to the necessitous." Tehmuras, at length, having established his government in the affections, as he thought, of the people, consigned the administration to the "prudent conduct, and enlightened soul" of his vizier, and embraced the solitary life of a recluse.. He is, however, soon recalled by a rebellion of some of his ungrateful. subjects. He marches against them with an army "countless as the sands of the desert, and surpassing the extent of numbers, accompanied by three hundred elephants, demons in aspect, mountains in bulk." This (as might be expected) " overpowers the inmost hearts of the vile rebels with terror and dismay," and accordingly, to mitigate the wrath of their sovereign, they despatch to him "smooth-tongued ambassadors, who, by the magic of their eloquence, could undo the knot of unrelenting fierceness in the soul, and by their subtle devices could allure the bird of compliance, from the atmosphere of abhorrence, within the reach of the shaft." The king, however, is not gull enough to be so allured, and his army, "like fowls feeding eagerly on grain, pounced with resistless talons on the multitudes of the enemy." But the king has some suspicion of misgovernment, for he deter-, mines, after his victory, to visit the provinces of his empire, "that we may learn," he says, "the condition of the oppressed, who are prevented by tyranny from coming into our presence." He dies, after many mighty achievements, not the least of which is the having slain 1,480 demons. This, as we are afterwards told, is by some interpreted to mean "victory over all violent passions and sensual propensities, and the extirpation of vicious habits."

To Tehmuras succeeds Jemsheed. The era of this prince forms an important epoch in Persian history, the invasion of the Arabs. This event is. obscurely figured out in the extravagant legends respecting their chief Zohák. The virtues of Jemsheed and his splendid qualities were insufficient to save himself or his country from the disastrous irruptions of these barbarians.. The distribution of the nation into four castes, as well as various improve-, ments in the art of governing, is ascribed to Jemsheed. The violence and oppression of Zohák, at length, produce an insurrection of the Persians under Gávah, the blacksmith, beneath whose banner (his leathern apron, which proved equally fortunate on another occasion), the Persians routed their conquerors and again became independent. Gávah, with a forbearance and moderation rarely attendant on such success, rejects the crown himself, and places it on the head of a descendant of Jemsheed, Feridoon.

The reign of this prince is disturbed by the jealousies of his sons, two of whom conspire to assassinate the third and favourite of his father, Iraj. These, in the succeeding reign of Menucheher, pay the penalty of their treachery with the destruction of their army and the loss of their lives. It is in this reign that Zál the son of Sám, "the bulwark of the kingdom, and the prop of the state," gives birth to the hero Rustam Dastán. Under Nauzer occurred the formidable invasion of Irán by the northern tribes of Scythians or Turks, led on by their king Afrásiáb. Shortly after the fatal battle in Dehestán, in which the Persians were completely routed, Nauzer and many

of his nobles were taken prisoners and put to death. Afrásíáb and his wild hordes long continued their destructive exactions, which, together with the resistance made by the Persians, laid waste the land, and at length produced a famine, which compelled the Turks to retreat northward. Kaikobad (Dejoces) is elected to fill the vacant throne, and it is under his auspices and those of his successors, down to Behmen, that Rustam performs his wondrous prodigies of valour, which form so conspicuous a subject in the legends of the country, and are given at considerable length in this work.

The period that succeeds, including the reigns of Kaikaoos, Kaikhosrau, Lohorasp, Gushtasp, Behmen, Humai, Dárá, and Dárá the Less, we have not space to notice. They are, however, the more interesting, from their conformity with Greek histories, which is sufficiently marked to establish the identity of the facts narrated by both. The reign of Alexander exhibits perhaps a still greater conformity with the well-known events of that era: the attempt to connect his birth with the Persian royal family is highly curious, and illustrative of that spirit of nationality, which is probably universal.

A very adequate idea of the general style of Persian historical composition may be gained by a perusal of the translation before us. As far as our comparison has gone, and that has not been inconsiderable, it is a faithful reflex of the original; the epithets and phraseology are accurately preserved, a circumstance which must render it of inestimable value to the student of the language, while, at the same time, the English reader will find that the new dress has been so skilfully accommodated to the subject, as to furnish forth an object of graceful though somewhat startling novelty.

But we cannot dismiss the work without a few remarks on the original, one of the most esteemed historical works among the Persians, and therefore characterizing, to a certain extent, the intellectual qualities of the nation. Accuracy in the details of events is frequently wanting; important facts are often passed over with slight notice, and trifling puerilities are dwelt upon with the utmost gravity; the slightest effort of rational criticism is rarely attempted; contradictory opinions are often given, without any endeavour at reconciliation or selection; dates are utterly disregarded, and it would be nearly impossible to assign the period of any event, were it not for our means of comparison with other sources. Religious feeling peeps out on every occasion, and heroes of ancient times and of polytheistic creeds are made to propound modern Mohammedan doctrines. For example: Alexander ordered "the people to acknowledge the unity of the supreme God, and forbade the worship of statues and idols." And again: "whoever assigns equals to God, let the warriors eradicate the depravity of that person's nature, with the blows of the sabre, and the blood-shedding poniard.” Further he "committed to the flames the records of the magi, laid their temples waste, and by such means destroyed all vestige of that accursed faith."

The leading object of these histories seems to be rather the delivery of moral precepts than a narrative of facts; the speeches are mostly a string of moral aphorisms. Many of these are simple truisms, and in general most * It is much to be regretted that the Translation Committee has not been at the expense of publishing, with the translation, a good collated copy of the original; it would have been of unspeakable service to the young Orientalist.

injuriously overlaid with metaphor of the most exaggerated quality, which, however, are highly characteristic of the condition of the people under a despotic monarchy. The good kings exhort their successors to justice, forbearance, and mercy, and to take care to conciliate the army by liberality, and to be moderate in their impositions on the rayots. Magnanimous sentiments often appear: Feridoon wrote-"Our sway extends to overt acts, but not to alleged intentions; our dominion applies to public morals, not to the supposed secret purposes of the mind." The people are admonished to be obedient, and to make their contributions without evasion or deceit. The crime of rebellion, under whatever circumstances, is reprobated in the most unqualified terms. Kaikobad's letter to the governor of Mazenderan, whose people had withdrawn "their heads from the collar of obedience and submission," strikingly marks the awful difference between the rulers and the ruled. "The people, in some measure, resemble sheep and oxen; as their energies are confined to the obtaining of food and laying up things of indispensable necessity, and their ambition settled on acquiring profit or pleasure."-"The decision of the holy law declares, the king is the shadow of God on earth.'"

The notes are useful and interesting; the learned translator might have increased their number with advantage to the work. He should also have filled up the wide and gloomy chasm in Persian history between the death of Alexander the Great and the time of Ardeshir Babagan, A.D. 226. A condensed memoir on this head, like that on the age of Zoroaster, would have been very acceptable.

To conclude: whoever wishes to form an estimate of Persian civilization should read this work.

RAM MOHUN ROY.

DR. LANT CARPENTER, of Bristol, has just published* the discourse which he delivered on the occasion of the death of the late Rajah Ram Mohun Roy, containing some striking reflections upon his character, and a copious appendix of biographical and illustrative memoranda, from various sources, forming a "Review of the Labours, Opinions, and Character" of the deceased Rajah, which cannot fail to be read with deep interest. Dr. Carpenter has not, indeed, made very considerable additions to what is already before the public; but he has placed some points in a new and forcible light, and the eloquence, the ability and the temper, displayed in the work, are in excellent harmony with the character of the deceased.

Whilst he finds no fault with the general tenour of our Memoir of his departed friend, Dr. Carpenter dissents from the remarks in the concluding portion of it. We shall merely, in reply, repeat that the person by whom they were furnished we knew had been in close and intimate communication with the Rajah in England, as well as in India, and that we cannot suspect him of being partial merely because he is not encomiastic.

* A Review of the Labours, Opinions and Character of Rajah Rammohun Roy; in a Discourse, on occasion of his death, delivered in Lewin's Mead Chapel, Bristol; a series of Illustrative Extracts from his writings; and a Biographical Memoir: to which is subjoined an examination of some derogatory tatements in the Asiatic Journal. By LANT CARPENTER, LL.D. London, 1833. Hunter.

TO THE EDITOR.

SIR: Your article on the late Raja Ram Mohun Roy, in your last Number, has drawn forth some remarks in a pamphlet by the Rev. Dr. Lant Carpenter, of Bristol, which I deem it due to myself to notice; and as your Journal has been the occasion of them, I hope you will permit me to answer them through that channel.

An introductory editorial note, to a sketch of the deceased I gave in the Athenæum, stated that it was furnished by me, who had acted as his secretary from the time of his arrival in Europe as envoy from the King of Delhi. This is the only occasion on which I may be considered as accessory to my name having been mentioned in a public manner in connection with that distinguished individual, though I was intimately connected with all his political and literary labours from that period till within some months of his death; and, moreover, in that sketch I did not say one word about any assistance I had rendered him, though it is known that a great portion of my time during these two years was devoted to that object. Such reserve on my part might, I humbly think, have spared me the perusal of any laborious argument to prove that I could have assisted him only as an amanuensis. This position of the pamphlet is summed up in the following words: "It is his (the author's informant's) full conviction that, from the day of the Rajah's arrival in this country, he stood in no need of any assistance, except that of a mere mechanical hand to write.”

If this were the case, his selection of my hand for that purpose would have been a heavier imputation on his intellect than any thing I have yet met with; first, because that hand, always bad, was so spoilt, above a dozen years ago, by the practice of writing a daily newspaper in India, that I require an amanuensis myself; secondly, because he had always the assistance of one or two amanuenses, who could write much better than it was ever my good fortune to do in my life. For this reason, I recommended them to him; having experienced their merits, I knew they could more readily decipher my manuscript writings for him.

In my sketch, I bore ample testimony to his literary attainments, stating his acquaintance, more or less, with ten languages. His fame can, therefore, hardly be supposed to be affected by the reputation of his knowing a single one of these more or less perfectly. In my opinion, his powers of English composition must fairly be classed among the least considerable of his literary merits. He must have known himself what help he needed in this way better than those whose posthumous admiration would attribute to him every human perfection. It is, therefore, enough for me to say that he thought he required the aid of a secretary, and therefore in that capacity I acted accordingly. I drew for him, from his instructions and the materials he furnished, the papers enumerated in the accompanying document, which is authenticated by all the evidence of which the case admits +

1st. His various printed statements, official and private correspondence with the Government and persons here regarding the case of the King of Delhi, spreading over a period of nearly two years.

He spoke and wrote Bengali with classic elegance; and Persian with equal fluency; in Hindustani, as a matter of course, he conversed with the utmost ease, as well as in English. He has often told me that he acquired the latter by conversation rather than any course of reading or study; and while carried along by the stream of discourse, he spoke with force and clearness, even eloquence. But if restrained by the presence in which he was, he often fell into hesitation and obscurity, to which, from the absence of an animating impulse, he had a tendency in writing.

We have perused the document referred to, entitled "Statement of the Services rendered to Rajah Rammohun Roy by Mr. Arnot," which appears fully to confirm what is above stated.-EDITOR.