varnish, which is much harder than the rock beneath it, and is better adapted for the preservation of the engraved letters. In order to put the inscription out of the reach of the "Englishman's umbrella," it has been executed on a portion of the surface three hundred feet above the level of the plain. It has been completely deciphered by Colonel Rawlinson, who informs us that its object is to record the names and histories of the various rivals with whom Darius, son of Hystaspes, had to contend for this empire, and of the associates by whose means he was enabled to overcome them. Rawlinson's list of these associates identifies five out of six of those mentioned by Herodotus as having assisted in placing Darius on the throne. We extract the account given by Mr. Vaux in his Nineveh and Persepolis, 100 :

p.

"The names of his associates, are Vidafraná, son of Veispares; Otanes son of Socris; Gobryas son of Mardonius; Hydarnes the son of Megabigues; Megabyzus the son of Dadocs; and Ardomanes the son of Vacces-all Persians of rank.

"The first Vidafraná Major Rawlinson considers to be the Intephe renes or Intaphrenes of Herodotus (iii. c. 118-119); he is, perhaps, mentioned first, owing to his recognised superiority of rank. The second, Otanes, occurs, as we have seen, in the history of Herodotus, and would appear from his story to have been the prime mover in the conspiracy against the magian. The third, Gobryas, appears also in Herodotus, and is associated by him with Megabyzus in the same conspiracy. Gobryas was nearly allied to Darius, the latter having married his daughter, while Gobryas himself married his sister. The fourth, Vidarna is the Hydarnes of Herodotus and the Hernes of Etesias. Under Xerxes he commanded in after times the Asiatic coast, and his two sons are mentioned, the one as commanding the Immortals and the other the Arians during the campaign against Greece. The fifth, Megabyzus, occurs in Herodotus, while Justin gives the name of Topegrus, and Etesias substitutes two entirely different and unknown names of Megabyzus and his colleague. The sixth, Ardomanes, is not mentioned in any of the Greek narratives. Herodotus speaks of a conspirator whom he calls Aspathines, and Major Rawlinson conjec, tures, not without reason, that he assumed this name from the confidential position which Aspachana enjoyed as the quiver-bearer to the king, according to the brief legend at Nakheh-i-rustam which records his name and office."

In referring to Herodotus' account of India, it should be borne in mind that he had no opportunity of testing, by personal inspection, the information supplied him by his Persian friends. We do not, however, think that his Indian account requires much apology. To judge from some of the fantastic embellishments with which it is adorned-which he gives without note or comment-it would appear that his informants endeavoured

to practise upon his credulity. They succeeded, no doubt, in a few instances: but we also feel sure that our historian has exercised his own judgment in some of his statements, and has pruned the luxuriant intelligence reported to him by his loquacious informants. It is only to be regretted that he did not use the knife more. A little more critical judgment here and there in his description, would have left us nothing to desire except fuller details on a subject so interesting.

His story of the Indian gold-hunters is at first sight, it must be admitted, sufficiently startling :

"There are other Indians," he says, "living near the city Caspatyrus and the country of Pactyica, (the city and territory of Cabul), situated to the north of the rest of the Indian nation, and resembling the Bactrians, their neighbours, in their manner of life. These are the most warlike of all the Indians, and the people who go to procure the gold. For in the neighbourhood of this nation is a sandy desert, in which are ants, less in size than dogs, but larger than foxes, specimens of which are to be seen at the residence of the king of Persia, having been brought from that country. The creatures make themselves habitations under ground, throwing up the sand like the ants in Greece, which they nearly resemble in appearance. The sand, however, consists of gold dust. To procure this the Indians make incursions into the desert, taking with them three camels, a male one on each side, and a female in the centre, on which the rider sits, taking care to choose one which has recently foaled. When in this manner they come to the place where the ants are, the Indians fill their sacks with the sand, and ride back as fast as they can, the ants pursuing them, as the Persians say by the scent; the female camel, to eager rejoin her young one, surpassing the others in speed and perseverance. It is thus, according to the Persians, that the Indians obtain the greater part of their gold; at the same time that the metal is also found, though in less quantities, in mines." Herod. iii. 102, 106.

The Indians" living to the north of the rest of the nation" are the inhabitants of the mountains of little Thibet, or little Bucharia, and the sandy desert in the vicinity is the desert of Kobi, which is bounded on the west by those mountains.

"There is no doubt," says Heeren, "that the account of the historian is applicable to this region. We have already remarked that the lofty chain of mountains which limits the desert, is rich in veins of gold; and not only the rivers which flow from it westward, through great Bucharia, but the desert streams, which run to the east and lose themselves in the sand, or in inland seas, all carry down a quantity of gold sand. Besides, who knows not that the adjacent country of Thibet abounds in gold? Nor can we be surprised if, at the present day, the rivers in question should be less abundant than formerly in that metal, as must always be the

case when it is not obtained by the process of mining, but washed down by a stream. As late, however, as the last century, gold sand was imported from this country by the caravans travelling to Siberia."

But what shall we say to the ants? That they were not what we understand by ants is clear from the historian's account, but they probably resembled those animals in form or habits; and hence obtained their name; just as we call the large species of bat with which Calcutta abounds, the flying-fox. But whether the whole story is fictitious, invented by the natives to make the "diggings" terrible, and therefore secure from foreign interference, or whether some burrowing animal did really make it dangerous to approach those localities, who shall decide? Nor is there any occasion, so far as Herodotus and his informants are concerned, to settle this question, for it is now certain that it is no invention of theirs, but a purely Indian story. Colonel Wilford (Asiatic Researches, xiv. 467) tells us that these animals, though they are there represented as birds, are mentioned in the institutes of Menu, and are called Hamakaras or goldmakers. Another Indian legend represents them as veritable ants; but in both stories they are said to make the gold; while Herodotus, who must undoubtedly have got his account from this source, exercised his critical judgment, and represented the animals as merely throwing up the gold-dust while burrowing in the ground. Is he, then, the childish and credulous reporter which so many of his commentators have represented him to be?

On one point, however, Herodotus had certainly most correct information. The Indians, he tells us, consist of various nations, speaking different languages. This remark indicates a tolerably good acquaintance with the general character of the country, and must be allowed to qualify his assertion that the regions to the east of the Indus, i. e. of the Persian province of India, consisted of nothing more than a sandy desert. It undoubtedly implies a wider acquaintance with the country than such as would be obtained from a knowledge of those tribes only who lived near the banks of the Indus. The student of history will appreciate the value of this information, and the philosophical spirit which elicited it from the Persian soldiers or merchants who had visited the country.

The historian continues :-"Some of them lead a nomad life; others not. Others again live amid the marshes of the river (Indus) and live on fish, which they eat raw, and take by means of canoes made of canes." Herod. iii. 98. He is here describing the various tribes that live near the Indus; and it is (to say the least) highly probable that they would be divided, as the historian divides them, into nomads, settled agriculturists,

and fishermen. Whether these latter ate their fish raw may be questioned; but if they occupied the delta of the Indus during its formation, as Heeren and other writers consider likely, the absence of wood for the purpose of cooking would render the statement not improbable.

Ma

As we get farther to the east our historian's account becomes still more unpalatable. "Other Indians," he says, "situated to the east of the former, are nomad tribes, living on raw flesh, and called Padæans. They are said to observe the following customs, when any is sick among them, whether man or woman: if a man, the men who are his principal associates, put him to death, alleging that by allowing him to linger on, his flesh would be spoiled. He denies with all his might that he is sick, but the others, not listening to him, kill him and make a feast of him. In like manner if a woman be sick, the women that are her principal associates do the like by her. Those who happen to attain to old age are all killed and eaten; but this is the case with few, as the generality fall beforehand into some disease which causes them to be put to death." Herod. iii. 99. Who these Padai were it is not easy to determine. jor Rennell's attempt to identify the name with Padda, or Padma, an appellation of the Ganges, can hardly be considered successful is that name assigned to any part of the Ganges except the eastern or Dacca branch? The more important question is, did any of those tribes live on human flesh? Whatever may be the foundation of the report, it is very remarkable that the same story was repeated almost word for word by Marco Polo, nearly two thousand years after the time of Herodotus. Thevenot, quoted by Heeren, who visited India in the 17th century, affirms that shortly before his visit, food of this description was exposed for sale in the bazar of Debea.* Though we are unable to give a positive contradiction to this statement, -which by the way goes much beyond Herodotus'-we must be permitted to express our doubts whether human flesh has ever been eaten by man except in cases of extreme hunger, with any other object than that of completing the sacrificial offering of human life.

:

It is only, we believe as "a feast upon a sacrifice," or, at any rate, as a religious act, that human flesh has ever been devoured by human beings. But may not the practice of burning the dead have given rise to the report? If this practice were unknown, as it might have been, to the tribes living on the west of the Indus, a report of such a practice might easily have been construed by a

*May not some terrific famine have given a foundation to the story? +We presume, of course, that Capt. Erskine's account of the Feejeeans, who eat it from taste, is exaggerated.

barbarous people as implying that the distant occupants of the interior were in the habit of cooking human bodies: and if this were the case, we can hardly be surprised at their going a step further, and inferring,—what more natural correlative?—that they also ate them.

"There are other Indians," Herodotus continues, "who live as follows: they neither kill anything having life, nor sow seed, nor possess houses, but live on a kind of grain nearly as large as millet, enclosed in a husk, and springing up spontaneously, which they cook and eat in the husk. If any one among these fall into a malady, he retires into the desert and is there laid up; nor does any one shew the least concern about him during his sickness or at his death."

In this description Heeren believes that we have an account of the Marhattas; and the grain on which they are said to live he finds no difficulty in identifying with rice, "which is," he says, "the principal diet of these tribes, and (so to speak) indigenous in their country." One (at least) of these suppositions is a terrible slip for such a scholar as Heeren,-the high table land of the Marhatta country being utterly unsuited to the production of rice. To speak of rice as indigenous in the Marhatta country is about as correct as to talk of the pyramids of the Guinea coast. Nor is his other supposition much happier. We are sadly afraid, but we may say it safely within the protection of the Marhatta ditch, that the Marhattas do "kill" living creatures,-whatever they may do in the way of eating. And we cannot help thinking that they did "sow seed." Surely it must be evident to every one that Herodotus' description could never apply to a national community, for no nation could continue in existence unless its members exerted themselves to procure food.

He is describing, undoubtedly, a religious sect, the adherents of which bound themselves never to take away life from any living creature; who engaged in none of the ordinary occupations of life, lived either in the open air or in natural dwelling-places, and, finally, so entirely disregarded their connection with this visible world as to evince no concern when a member of their body was removed from it by death. Have we not here a description of the most prominent practices of the Buddhists? That sect had been in existence about a century when Herodotus wrote this account, and had, therefore, become of sufficient importance for its fame to have reached Persia, where, probably, it would attract particular attention on account of the almost contemporaneous rise, in that country, of another religious reformation under Zoroaster.

We have thus endeavoured to give our readers an insight into one of the most instructive and interesting books of antiquity.