almost entirely annihilated in the confequences of the Arabian conqueft; and that the Greeks wrote nearer to the events which they have recorded.' When we reflect that they not only wrote nearer, but nearer by above a thousand years, this circumftance alone must have a prodigious weight; because tra dition, how vigorous foever it may be fuppofed in the Eaft, can fcarcely be put in competition with written record of fo ancient a date. That the European Greeks never paid any tribute to the Perfians, might be proved from the relative poverty and courage of the former, if it were not fufficiently evident from the whole tenor of their hiftory. Their hiftorians and orators enter into a minute detail of the military tranfactions, negociations, and treaties between the two nations. The different ftates of Greece throw the blame on one another, of any tranfitory advantage which the Perfians acquired over the whole confederacy. It is a declared object in feveral Gre cian orations, ftill preserved to us, to point out the respect paid to the Perfians at one time, beyond what was paid to them at another; but no where do we find the leaft mention that the Greeks had ever been their tributaries, which is a circumftance of fuch importance that, had it really taken place, it could not poffibly have been omitted. The first Grecian writer who records the Perfian wars, is a contemporary hiftorian of unqueftioned veracity, who relates fables indeed which he had heard, but who defcribes with minute accuracy every event which is fufficiently attefted. Thucydides, Xenophon, Lyfias, Ifocrates, Demofthenes, a chain of writers fucceeding one another, confirm the accounts of this hiftorian. As to the exact number of the Perfian forces which invaded Greece, and several other particulars, these writers differ from Herodotus and one another. But this difference, while it proves that their relations were not copied with fervility from more ancient accounts, adds new force to their evidence. They all agree in the principal facts, that the force of Afia was poured into Europe, that Xerxes himself the Great King, the Lord of all Afia, commanded in person the second expedition into Greece, that he was shamefully defeated, and that the Perfians foon after concluded a difhonourable peace with the Greeks. But fhould Mr. Richardson object, that this is ftill the Greeks who tell what the Greeks have performed; we may answer, that all the Greeks were by no means interested in exaggerating these events. The Thebans, and feveral others, intimidated by the Perfian arms, or corrupted by the Perfian gold, took part with the invaders. of their country. They would naturally be inclined, therefore, to contradict the pompous defcriptions of the Athenians, which tended fo much to their own dishonour. But we find not that even in the zenith of their power, they ever ventured to do so.

The

The victories over the Perfians formed a principal topic of pá nygeric in many public folemnities. In the general orations fpoken at Olympia, where fpe&tators were affembled from all the different states, this topic never was forgotten; nor did one diffentient voice, by denyingthe praife to be due, render it neceffary for the orators to establish the authenticity of the facts on which their panygeric was founded.

Although we cannot allow as much weight as Mr. Richardfon does to the relations of the Perfians, we think, however, that they ought not by any means to be difregarded. The materials of ancient history are fo few, and fo uncertain, that nothing tending to enlarge or authenticate them, ought to be defpifed or rejected. Mr. Richardfon has proved that the Perfian annals correspond nearer than thofe of the Greeks, with the fucceffion of Perfian kings mentioned in Scripture. He has proved, likewife, that the Perfian and Arabic languages are of no small importance in the investigation of remote Gentile antiquities. Thefe furely are interefting points, efpecially as they clash with the opinions, which fome of the most learned and ingenious men in this country, or in Europe, havé delivered on the fainè fubjects.

Amongst others is Mr. Bryant, author of the celebrated Analysis of ancient Mythology. The chief points which Mr. Bryant means to establish, are firft, the universality of the deJuge from Gentile authorities; fecondly, the migration after the Babel difperfion of a people whom he calls Cuthites or Amonians, the defcendants of Chus, the fon of Ham. Thirdly, the Arkite ceremonials, with the general worship of the fun and fire, as introduced by thofe people into the different countries where they established colonies. Mr. Bryant * acknowJedges himself a stranger to the Perfian and Arabic languages; and in order to establish the points above mentioned, he fays, ⚫ that we must have recourse to the writers of Greece. It is in vain to talk about the Arabian and Perfic literature of modern date. By this obfervation he attacks a province which Mr. Richardfon thinks himself obliged to defend ; and we must acknowledge that he defends it in such a manner as reflects equal honour on his candour and his abilities.

The utility of the Perfic and Arabic languages is not at all concerned in the proofs which Mr. Bryant alleges of the univerfality of the deluge. But in eftablishing the migrations of the people called Cuthites, or Amonians, the great weight of his evidence refts chiefly on the ground of etymological deduction. • Most ancient names, fays he, not only of places but of per

fons, have a manifeft analogy; there is likewife a great correfpondence to be observed in terms of fcience, and in the titles which were of old bestowed upon magistrates and rulers. The fame obfervation may be extended even to plants and minerals, as well as to animals, especially to thofe which were esteemed at all facred; their names feem to be compofed of the fame or fimilar elements, and bear a manifeft relation to the religion in ufe among the Amonians, and to the Deity whom they adored. This Deity was the Sun; and most ancient names will be found to be an affemblage of titles beftowed upon that luminary. In confequence of this I have ventured to give a lift of fome Amonian terms, which occur in the History of Greece and in the hiftories of other nations. Moft ancient names feem to have been compofed out of these elements; and into the same principles they may be again refolved by an eafy and fair evolution. I fubjoin to these a fhort interpretation, and at the fame time produce different examples of names and titles, which are thus compounded. From hence the reader will fee plainly my method of analyfis, and the bafis of my etymological enquiries." In pursuing this plan Mr. Bryant begins by giving a list of Amonian terms or elements, which he afterwards calls radicals; most of which are fhown by Mr. Richardfon to be Perfic and Arabic words, ftill in general use at this day. He obferves, however, that of forty radicals, one half at least do not appear. to approach the fenfes which Mr. Bryant has given them: whilft mifled by the ear and the eye, he has fancied analogies which the oriental languages will not bear. Among many examples to this purpose we shall mention the derivations from the name Ham, the son of the Patriarch Noah, and the fuppofed progenitor of the Cuthite family. Ham in the Hebrew, as well as in the Arabic, is fpelt with a letter, the true pronun ciation of which is a strong afpiration, refembling H in Hound! In both of their languages the alphabets are divided into certain letters which are called radicals and ferviles. The first are fo effential to the texture of the word, that to omit any of the radicals, whether in the word itfelf or in its derivatives, either deprives them altogether of meaning, or gives them a fenfe totally incompatible with the intrinfic fignifications of their themes. The initial H in Ham is a radical letter; to remove it, fays Mr. Richardfon, is precifely removing the whole. word; Amon, on these principles, can apparently have no reference to the fon of Noah; and every conclufion drawn from the Amonian appellative of the Cuthite people, feems to be a foundation far too flight to support the edifice which the learned gentleman has erected.'

We

We shall mention but one other example for the fake of perfpicuity. As, is, ees, according to Mr. Bryant, means the fun. As, he fays, is fometimes compounded with itself and rendered afas and azaz', and then he draws a variety of conclufions, as if the combinations from afas and azaz were deducible from the fame original. But Mr. Richardfon obferves that Cicero and Scanderbeg are not more diftin&t than the roots from which they fpring; the firft, in Hebrew, fignifying fire; and in Arabic a foundation, origin, first principle; the fecond denoting glory, dignity, power, &c. . S and Z, however interchangeable fometimes in other languages (as patronife, patronize, in English) are equally remote, in the eastern dialects, from promifcuous ufe, as the moft oppofite founding characters in the alphabet.'

Thefe examples are not felected as more favourable to Mr. Richardfon's argument, than twenty others which might be mentioned; and on the whole it must be acknowledged that he has weakened Mr. Bryant's fyftem by fhaking its foundation. But at the fame time it would be injuftice to this most learned and valuable man, not to acknowledge that it is impoffible to read his elegant Analysis of ancient Mythology, without being perfuaded, that even in the etymological part of it, which is by far the moft exceptionable, fome important truths are blended with much ingenious fiction.

Mr. Richardfon proceeds next to trace the probable influence of eastern manners on thofe of modern Europe, and he afcribes to an oriental origin many of thofe cuftoms which at present prevail in this quarter of the globe, and which were totally unknown to the Greeks and Romans. Tartary he fuppofes to be the great fource from which these characteristic eastern manners flowed into Europe. Writers in general have taken notice of the Saracen conquest of Spain, the Crufades, and Odin's flight from the Euxine to Scandinavia. The laft Mr. Richardfon proves, upon the best grounds, to be nothing more than a Scaldic fable. The two former events had, doubtless, a confiderable effect in changing the manners and genius of European nations; but if we embrace Mr. Richardson's hypothesis, which feems to be fupported upon the best evidence that the nature of the fubject can admit, we shall be able to account more completely than has hitherto been done, for the introdu&ion of Afiatic manners into the different provinces of the Roman empire. Moft writers look no farther for the fierce invaders of thefe provinces than to Scandinavia and the northern parts of Germany, But Mr. Richardfon fuppofes with more probability, that Tartary is the great officina gentium from which many myriads of barbarians have poured, at different periods, into the more cultivated regions of the earth. These people poffefs al

most

moft the whole interior of the Afiatic and European Continents. Strongly attached to their nation and their tribe, they have little regard for their country. They fcorn to cultivate the ground, and lead a roving irregular life, wandering from one district to another. Their riches confift entirely of moveables; and, in order to increafe their wealth, they have burft repeatedly upon every adjacent country. The ancient annals of Perfia commemorate their numerous wars with the Tartars. China and Hindoftan have often felt their fury. The Tartar chiefs, Jengiz Khan, and Tamerlane, approached nearer to univerfal monarchy, than any conquerors of ancient or modern times. That the Weft must have been the object of Tartar invafion, as well as the Eaft and South, there can be little ground to queftion. The Scandinavian Goths are difcovered to have been early compofed of two diftin&t races of people. One of these e were, the aborigines, or native inhabitants of that country. The other came from the Eaft: their eastern origin is frequently alluded to, and they are even filed Orientals. They probably came originally from Tartary, and fettled in the countries which they had invaded. The old inhabitants, fays Mr. Richardfon, would adopt by degrees many of the cuftoms and beliefs of the eastern strangers, and they, in return, falling in with habits and ideas peculiar to the aboriginal people, a few generations would naturally incorporate them; and form in time thofe various nations, known by the names of Goths, Vandals, Lombards, Franks, whofe roaming, rapacious, Tartar genius, became afterwards confpicuous, in the deftruction of the Roman empire.' The first important alteration introduced by these eaftern invaders was the feudal fyfIn Europe this is an exotic plant, and we can point to a period when it cannot there be discovered. In Perfia, India, Tartary, and other eaftern countries, it is indigenous, univerfal, immemorial. Mr. Richardfon proves, from oriental hiftorians, that it exifted in its full force in the Eaft, as far back as any records extend. We every where find one great king at the head of the whole nation, with a number of fubordinate chiefs or princes, whofe authority was abfolute in their particular tribe or district. The government approached nearer to defpotism or aristocracy in proportion to the genius and abilities .of the paramount king; fometimes the feudatory princes became almost independent; at other times they were governed with an authority nearly abfolute. When the fovereign goes to war, he iffues orders for the attendance of his vaffals, with their contingents of troops. We can perceive even the ruder draughts of ftates general, of parliaments, of juries; in the Tartar affembly, called Kourikai, which bears fo near a refemblance

tem.

to