BOOKS.
RAWLINSON'S HER.ODOTI7S.* Tot oldest authors are in one sense the youngest ; their freshness never decays. The patriarchal history—Homer—Herodotus-- where can we find any other literary works to the beauty and in- terest of which such a testimony is borne by all ages, as these earliest fruits of history and poetry have received ?- While their gtnial simplicity wins its way to the heart of youth, and makes them the fittest guides to the acquisitipn of the languages in which they are written, minds the most matured in learning and re-
ch find in them abundant scope for the exercise of their fa- culties. One generation after another of commentators and trans- wars endeavours to explain their meaning or transfuse their beauties into a modern language. We have lately noticed an elaborate work on ,#omer ; that which is now before us is an equally remarkable proof of the honour in which these early fathers of literature continue to be held.
A distinguished triumvirate have combined their talents in its production ; Mr. Rawlinson, an eminent scholar, competent to all the duties of a translator ; his brother, whose name is connected with the greatest discovery in philology which has been made in our tunes, and who is versed, beyond most men in the history and geography of Asia ; and Sir Gardner Wilkinson, who has made Egypt the study of his life. In the volumes now published, indeed, the editor almost disappears behind his coadjutors. But we presume that when Herodotus approaches his native land and its history, he will assume the place of principal ; and as he will have to traverse the same ground with Mr. Grote, we may be in- structed by seeing the different views taken of Grecian history by an Oxford Conservative and a Radical politician. Of the translation in itself little needs be said. No one who can read Herodotus in the original could ever take pleasure in a version; nor could the best version aipire to anything beyond fluency and correctness. Beloe's, besides making Herodotus, as Lord Macaulay says, as flat as champagne drunk in tumblers, is exceedingly inaccurate. Mr. Rawlinson acknowledges the gene- ral fidelity of Taylor's, and the chief difference between it and his own is that he has aimed at giving his own more of the ease and liveliness of expression for which the original is so remark- able. The opening paragraph of the history was quoted by Aris- totle as an example of the unperiodic style. This is the manner in which the two translators have dealt with it.
"Herodotus of Halicarnassus publishes his researches, in order to pre- vent the achievements of men from fading in the oblivion of time, and lest the great and admirable exploits, both of Greeks and barbarians, should fail of their due renown. He also proposes to explain the occasions of the wars which have been carried on between them.' (Taylor.) "These are the researches of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, which he pub- lishes in the hope of thereby preserving from decay the remembrance of what men have dove, and of preventing the great and wonderful actions of the Greeks and barbarians from losing their due meed of glory ; and withal to put on record what were their grounds of feud." (Rawlinson.)
By breaking the sentence into two, Taylor has obliterated the character on which Aristotle remarked ; and his "fading in the oblivion of time" is a decoration unnecessarily bestowed on the
simple phrase of Herodotus. On the other hand, his rendering of the last words of the sentence is more correct than Mr. Rawlin- son's ; for Herodotus is speaking of acts of hostility, and a feud is a feeling, not an act, though prompting to acts. But neither the " also ' of the one, nor the archaic "withal" of the other gives the true force of the ssi TO &XXCC, Kai of the original, which, like the cum—tun; of the Latins, imports the force of " especi- ally." This is not a trivial point. The special purpose which Herodotus thus announces is the key to his whole history, the guiding thread through the labyrinth of digressions and episodes which at first sight it presents. Without this clue it would seem "a mighty maze,. and quite without a plan." Everything is subordinate to his purpose of relating the wars of the barbarians, i.e. the Persians as the predominant power in Asia, with the Greeks. From the first line of his history he had Marathon and Matea in view. He takes up the subject in the mythic age, with the abduction of lo and the seduction of Helen, dismisses these stories as not worth the trouble of inquiry, and proceeds at once to Crcesus, the first historic personage who had exercised hostilities against the Greeks. But many revolutions of power in Asia pre- ceded the age of Crcesus. He was subdued by Cyrus the Per- sian, himself the successor of Medea and Assyrians ; and the his- torian may seem for a while to have forgotten his great theme, while he describes Babylonia and Egypt, and tells the romantic history of Cyrus ; but he has kept it steadily in view and faith- fully returned to it, when he has explained the rise of that mighty monarchy whose forces were wrecked in the invasion of Greece. Mr. Itawlinson has devoted an Essay of 150 pages to the sub- jects of the Life of Herodotus, the sources of his history, and, his merits and, defects as an historian. These have all been discussed by previous writers—Dalhnaann, 0. Muller, Jager, Heyse, and re- in eentlif a more ample manner than before, by Colonel Mine. ir.
°-avilinson enters fully into every point, and the result of his =cessions is to plate the merits of his author on even higher
• The.Hinory of Ilerodotu : a new English Version, with copious Notes and APPelichees, illustrating the History and Geography of Herodotus from the most surecennagrat SourehieezdwhInicfhormhaapeoben,.and embodying the chief Results., Historical. and btaaned in the Progress of Cuneiform and Iliero- 0,phicall/iscovery. By GeorgenRawlinson, M.A., late Fellow and Tutor of Exeter it.:2Llege,r Oxford; assisted by Colonel Sir Rawlinson, R.C.B.. and Sir J. G. Wil- K.S. In four volumes. With Maps and Illustrations. Two volumes 11°W Published. Vol. I. pp. 4100, B. i., Vol. II. pp. 602, B. ii. iii. Published by Murray. ground than any preceding critic had claimed for him. On the much debated question of a recitation of the history at Olympia, he inclines to the scepticism of Dahlmann, but admits at the same time that he went to Olympia with the design of reciting his his- tory, and that he actually did recite it at Athens, where it was heard by Thucydides and awakened in him the desire to be also an historian. He thus abandons the principle, that we must either take the story, whole and entire, as Lucian and Marcellinus tell it, or reject it altogether ; and there is no improbability, no- thing inconsistent with Grecian manners, or the admitted practice of the age of Herodotus, in a recitation ; not indeed in the burn- ing sun of the plain of Ella, but, as Lucian says, in the opisthodo- mos of the temple of Jupiter. Mr. Rawlinson has facilitated the conception of a recitation at Olympia, by showing, that the history is an aggregate of parts, separately composed, and of which a por- tion might be recited without wearing out the patience of a lively Greek audience. Bunsen in his Philosophy of History has recently adopted the common story. Mr. Rawlinson even admits a double publication of the history, the author having in the first edition called himself "Herodotus of Halicarnassus," and in the second, "of Thorium." This supposition removes some chronological difli.- collies, and our author thinks he has found a proof of it in the pas- sage (VI, 43) in which Herodotus adverts to the doubts which had been entertained by some of the Greeks, whether the Persian con- spirators ever meditated the establishment of a democracy. This according to him proves that his history had been already pub- lished and made the subject of criticism. Kruger had used the same passage, as a proof that it had been recited in various places ; but neither supposition is necessary. Herodotus was not, we pre- sume, the inventor of the report respecting the discussion among the conspirators; he had adopted it from common rumour, or some lost historical work; and while he emphatically declares his own belief in it, fairly acknowledges that it was not universally ad- mitted. Mr. Rawlinson can only support his argument for a double publication, by an arbitrary alteration of the text. Dahlmann had supposed that Herodotus did not even begin to compose his history, at least to put it into its present form, till he was seventy- seven years of age ; Mr. Rawlinson thinks he died at the age of sixty at the latest—a discouraging difference for those who endea your to compose his biography from his work. But since Dahl- mann wrote, a very important piece of evidence has come to light, which would probably have induced him to change his opinion. The strongest argument for the late publication of the history is derived from the passage, I, 130, where a revolt of the Medea from Darius and their subjugation is spoken of; and as no suoh revolt was known except that in the reign of Darius Nothus, which oc- curred in the 24th year of the Peloponnesian War (408 B.c.) it was concluded that he must have been alive at that time, when, his birth having taken place in 484 B.c., he must have been seventy-six. But the cuneiform inscription of Bisitum records a re- volt of the Medea under Darius Hystaspis, and it is now generally admitted, that to this earlier event Herodotus alludes. If he died after a short residence at Thorium, we may more readily explain the almost entire absence of all allusion to Italy in his history. Mr. Rawlinson thus concludes his estimate of the character of He- rodotus as a writer and a man.
"With Herodotus composition is is not an art but a spontaneous outpour- ing. He does not cultivate graces of style or consciously introduce fine usages. Ile writes as the subject leads him, rising with it, but never transcending the modesty of nature, or approaching the confines of bombast. Not only are his words simple and common, but the structure of his sen- tences is of the least complicated kind. Hence the wonderful clearness and 'transparency of his style, which is never involved, never harsh or forced, and which rarely allows the shadow of a doubt to rest upon his meaning. The same spirit is apparent in the whole tone and conduct of the narrative. Everything is plainly and openly related ; the author freely admits us to his confidence, and is not afraid to mention himself and his own impres- sions; introduces us to his informants ; tells us plainly what he saw and what he heard ; allows us to look into his heart, where there is nothing that he needs to hide, and to become sharers alike in his religious sentiments, his political opinions, and his feelings of sympathy or antipathy towards the various persons or races whom he is led to mention. Hence the strong per- sonal impression of the writer which we derive from his work, whereby We are made to feel towards him as towards an intimate acquaintance, and to regard ourselves as fully entitled to canvass and discuss all his qualities, moral as well as intellectual. The candour, honesty, amiability, piety, and patriotism of Herodotus, his primitive cast of mind and habits, his ardent curiosity, his strong love of the marvellous, are familiar topics with his commentators, who find his portrait drawn by himself with as much com- pleteness (albeit unconsciously,) in his writings, as those of other literary men have been by their professed biographers."
Nearly 350 pages of the first volume are occupied with appen- dices, professedly illustrating various passages in the first book. We must be allowed to express a dsubt whether the authors have a clear idea of what an illustration ought to be. Grounding our- selves on etymology as well as the reason of the case, we should say that nothing comes under this title which does not throw light upon the author professed to be illustrated. But profound and interesting as these dissertations are, many of them might with equal propriety have been hung upon a hundred other pea- sages of ancient authors. The true fine of distinction will be best shown by a couple of examples. Herodotus in his narrative of the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, introduces the names of Ni- tocris and Labynettis, and his readers would thankfully receive from Sir H. Rawlinson any elucidation of the personages and the chronology of this period, with which his researches have fur- nished him. But is this a sufficient reason for giving us a his- tory of Assyria and Babylonia from 2200 years B.C., filled with names and events of which Herodotus contains not a trace ?. Or is his mention of the tribes of Asia, respecting whom he neither knew nor cared whether they were descended from Shem, Ham, or Japheth, whether they were Iranian or Turanian, a good plea for devoting some forty pages to their ethnic affinities ? Even if all that has been written on this subject were sound and certain, we should still say, Non erat his locus. Instead of being illus- trated, Herodotus suffers an occultation ; we seem to have lighted on a volume of Dr. Prichard, or an essay of Max Miiller's. Be- neath the load of commentary he is buried like Alyattes in his mound, or Cheops in his pyramid. If this mode of commentary should become fashionable, may we not expect to see a system of geology appended to Pythagoras' declaration in Ovid, " Vidi factas ex aguore terras" ; or an account of the atomic theory in a note to Lucretius ? Those who can enter into profound ques- tions of philology, are not likely to need an English Herodotus. The second volume is less overloaded with irrelevant matter than the first. Herodotus knew much more about Egypt than he did about Assyria and Babylonia, and therefore illustration has a much wider field for its legitimate exercise, though the same tendency pervades it, to run into discursive disquisition. Mr. Rawlinson thinks that Egypt was peopled from Asia, contrary to the opinion of Herodotus, who, troubled with no difficulties about the unity of the human species, thought the Egyptians had lived on the banks of Nile since the beginning of time. The argument from language, so elaborately examined by Bunsen, is in favour of their Asiatic origin ; but Mr. Rawlinson's reasons are curiously inconclusive. That Egypt was peopled by the primeval immigra- tion of a Caucasian race he thinks is indicated by the Bible history, where the grandsons of Noah are made the inhabitants of Ethio- pia, Egypt, Libya, and Canaan. How the descent of these black nations in the second degree from Noah proves the primitive Egyptians to have been fair Caucasians, or Caucasians at all, it is not easy to perceive. He adds, "And Juba, according to Pliny, affirms with reason, that the people of the banks of the Nile from Syene to Meroe were not Ethiopians (black) but Arabs." That the right bank of the Nile above the cataracts was occupied by Arab tribes in Juba's time is unquestionable ; but what has this to do with the population of Egypt, which lay wholly below the cataracts ? or what evidence could the assertion of an author, who lived a little before the Christian sera, have furnished re- vecting the primitive population of Egypt, even had he spoken of Egypt at all ? The contradiction between the statement of Herodotus, that the Egyptians were black, and had crisp hair, and the evidence of the monuments and the mummies, still re- mains inexplicable. The pictorial illustrations of the second book are very nu- merous; they sometimes confirm and sometimes contradict the text-4 eing in either case valuable. But we are bound to observe that with hardly an exception (it is dangerous to venture on uni- versal assertion) they have all appeared, some more than once, in Sir G. Wilkinson's previous works. Mr. Murray has taken a leaf out of Mr. Charles Knight's book, who, we believe, set the example of this mode of reproduction. But Mr. Knight's vocation has always been to make Useful Knowledge cheap ; which cannot be said of his aristocratic brother of Albemarle Street; least of all in this costly publication. The reader is sometimes tantalized by the want of a new illustration. Sir Gardner says, (page 267, note,) "That the rhinoceros was known to the Egyptians in the twelfth dynasty, and had the pointed nose and small tail of that animal ; ebo, a name applied to ivory and to any large beast, being written over it." An illustration here would have been most wel- come both to the zoologist and the biblical scholar. Boehart mains4 tamed that the Beetn of Scripture, the " unicorn" of our tram'sr lation, was the rhinoceros. To this it was an obvious objectiM that the rhinoceros was not known westward of the Indus or northward of Nubia, till long after the time of Moses. Without seeing a drawing of the figure to which Sir G. Wilkinson alludes, it is impossible to judge whether it really represents a rhinoceros ; especially as the name ebo appears to have belonged to the tusk of the elephant, so common in the representations in the tombs.
These volumes are a mine of curious information ; but we mus regret that it has been given to the public lathe uncongenial form of a translation of Herodotus. The translation itself, accom- panied only by such a commentary as is necessary to elucidate the text, would have been a very valuable contribution to our literature. It should not, however, have been broken into para- graphs corresponding to the chapters, since by this means the con- tinuity and, cohesion of the narrative is sometimes interrupted. Taylor has gone into the other extreme, neglecting altogether to mark the chapter ; the consequence of which is, that it is impos- sible to compare his translation with the original. Both in- conveniences might have been avoided by dividing the para- graphs according to the sense, and putting the ordinary division of chapters in the margin.
Previous page
