^{page 187 note 1} Diod. Sic. ii. 13.

^{page 188 note 1} Photius has particularly noticed the discrepancy between Herodotus and Ctesias on the subject of the siege of Babylon. See Phot. Biblioth., Hoeschel's Edition of 1653, p. 115.

^{page 188 note 1} It is no where expressly stated in the inscription, that the Medes, Assyrians, and Armenians were united in one common cause, but as the campaigns of Wumisa and Dadarshish are interposed between the first expedition of Hydarnes against Phraortes and the subsequent defeat of the Median pretender by Darius in person, and as there is no particular leader named for the Armenians or Assyrians, it is only natural to infer the association of the three provinces.

^{page 189 note 1} I know not the grounds upon which Whiston was led to attribute the events described in the book of Judith to the reign of Darius Hystaspes, but I am strongly inclined, from the evidence of the Inscriptions, to coincide in his opinion. Admitting, indeed, the identity of Phraortes and Arphaxad, and substituting the name of Darius for that of Nabochodonosor, the Chaldean legend will be singularly applicable. Herodotus probably alludes to the great Median revolt in lib. I., c. 130.

^{page 189 note 2} “Whilst I was in Media and Persia, the Babylonians a second time revolted against me.” See col. 3, par. 13, clause 2.

^{page 190 note 1} I was formerly inclined to think that the expression “hamahyáyá thrad(a),” which occurs so frequently in the 4th col., referred to the truthfulness of the record, but I have since found reason to doubt that meaning. In the 7th par. of the 4th col., we have, however, at any rate, an express declaration that the events have been truly recorded.

^{page 191 note 1} I See Hellenici, Fasti, vol. II., p. 313.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 2} For detailed accounts of Behistun, see De Sacy's, Ant. de la Perse, p. 211Google Scholar, sqq., and the excellent paper by the same author, published in the Memoires de l'Institut, tom. II., p. 162, sqq. See also the numerous authorities collected by Hoeck, , in his Vet. Med. et Pers. Monum., p. 107, sqq.Google ScholarPorter's Travels, vol. II., p. 150Google Scholar, may also be consulted with advantage, and a brief notice of the spot will be found in the Geograph. Journal, vol. IX., p. 112. I have not yet seen Mr. Masson's paper on the Route of Isidore, but I must distinctly deny the exist ence at Behistun of any remnants of the Syrian inscription of Semiramis.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 1} Fragments of the copper implements, employed in engraving the marble slabs of Assyria have within these few days been discovered by Mr. Layard among the ruined chambers of the palace of Nimrúd.—R. (Written early in 1846.—ED.)

page 195 note * For the convenience of reference, I have divided and numbered the clauses or sentences, and I have also marked the division of the lines in the Cuneiform text by a series of small numbers placed over the writing. The letters in italics are restorations, the parenthesis shows that I am doubtful if the short a should be pronounced, or if the letters which precede and follow it form a compound articulation.—R.

The fourth and fifth chapters were sent by Major Rawlinson before he had made the changes in the system of vowel combinations, detailed in the Supplementary Note at the close of the preceding chapter. The transcription of the ancient Persian text in these chapters has however been corrected according to the principle laid down in that note; but as some uncertainty appears to attach to a few points, such as the choice of v or w, as representing the and and the omission or insertion of the short a, any irregularity in these respects is not attributable to Major Rawlinson.—ED.

page 195 note † Dahyaunám cannot signify “of the world,” for we have the expressions “ khshayáthiya dahyaunám,” “khsháyathiya ahyáyá bumiyá,” following each other in the inscription of Artaxerxes.

page 197 note * The Cuneiform text is incorrect nthis passage, and the name of Gadára may be certainly read between Sugda and Saka.

page 198 note * The orthography of such words as tyishiya, avadashim, &c., proves that the subjoined pronouns cannot commence with a vowel, although if the m and sh were brought in contact in words like adamshám, khshatram, shim, &c, we should expect from the genius of the language that the first consonant would be elided.

page 198 note † This pronoun is exceedingly doubtful; it only occurs in two words, tyádish, and nyaduh, the latter of which, unless there were a short a before the dental, would, I imagine, be written nidish.

page 200 note * The restoration of huwa in the Cuneiform text has been omitted through an oversight.

page 201 note * It is very possible that tya may be used in this passage as a conjunction, and that awajata may represent the imperfect of a neuter verb. The fact, indeed, of an impostor shortly afterwards appearing, who personated the son of Cyrus, would lead us to suppose that the passage meant, “When Cambyses had slain Bardius, the State was in ignorance as to what had become of him;” but at the same time, I must confess, that I cannot find any suitable etymology either for az(a)dá or awajata. The explanation of these terms will be discussed at length in the vocabulary.

page 203 note * I rather think that the true signification of the third clause must be, “After Gomates, the Magian, had dispossessed Cambyses of Persia and Media and the other provinces, he acted with his own tribe;” for the allusion would appear to be to the transfer of sovereignty from the Achæmenians to the Magians; and ayasta in other passages certainly means, “together with.” I shall return to this difficult passage in the vocabulary, under the head of uwáip(a)shiyam.

page 205 note * Awahyarádiya will be found in other passages to refer to the following, rather than to the preceding clause, and the translation therefore may be, “He would frequently address the state, (or the troops,) which knew the old Bardius:” To the effect, “He would address the state lest it should regard me,” &c., &c.

page 206 note * Perhaps this word should rather be written patipadma, being formed from the compound root with the Unadi affix in

page 208 note * Vĭthabishcha might be considered, perhaps, to be connected immediately with abicharabish, the noun being in each instance in the dative plural.

page 210 note * I may observe in this place, that huwa, whatever be its etymology, is uniformly used as the nom sing. of the demonstrative pronoun, replacing in that capacity the pronoun of the 3rd person.

page 210 note † See Niebuhr's Inscription I, line 22.

page 213 note * I suspect this imperfect word to be nijáyam, which occurs in col. 2, line 64.

page 216 note * Vĭthápatiya, will etymologically, I think, refer to the tribes, of which the Median nation was composed, rather than to “homes,” or “houses,” the Sanskrit correspondent being (Zend vaêj, Peh. vij,) rather than Perhaps, therefore, 'if the restoration be correct, the true translation of the fifth clause will be, “Then the Medea, those of the tribes, revolted against me.”

page 217 note * Perhaps the word huwa may intervene between pasáwa and kára; it is not required by the context, but the single word kára will not fill up the interval on the rock.

page 218 note * In the |Cuneiform text I have conjecturally restored káma, but on further consideration I prefer the reading of chitá.

page 230 note * This word is valuable in showing that there was no distinction between the masculine and feminine forms of the demonstrative pronoun in the nom. singular; hauwa must be necessarily, in this passage, in the fem. gender, to agree with its antecedent dahyáush.

page 230 note † It would be more in accordance with Sanskrit grammar to suppose Márgawa the nom. plural, and to translate, “A certain man named Phraates, the Margians made him (their) leader;” but in col, 4, line 24, the term is certainly in the sing., and the nom. would hardly be the same in both numbers.

page 231 note * But see Supplementary Note, page 179.–ED.

page 231 note † Or, “Then the Persian people, the tribe population, being removed from connexion with me, revolted against me.” See the next note.

page 232 note * See note to page 216, where I suppose vĭthápatiya to refer to the tribes, the actual and permanent inhabitants of the country, contra-distinguished from the troops on service, rather than to the soldiers who were “at home.” Vĭtha, at any rate, is better translated by “a tribe or family,” than by “a house or habitation.”

page 232 note † Hachá yadáyá fratarta will be further examined in the Vocabulary.

page 234 note * This Pishiyáuwádá was the native country of Gomates, and evidently within the limits of Persia. I have sometimes supposed it might be the original of the Greek but there is nothing to favour the identity beyond the partial resemblance of orthography.

page 239 note * In the fourth clause, however, it is curious that we should have Babirauwa at the commencement of the sentence, instead of in its usual place after dahyáush.

page 241 note * Lit. “Has been the performance of the whole.”

page 248 note * Pruwa, whether declined as a pronoun or adjective, may form its nom. neut. with the visarga, elided as a terminal after a, the term standing for pruwas. Thrada also, although in the singular, may very well have a plural signification.

page 251 note * I am not sure, however, that the sentence may not be more correctly rendered, “Let that which has been done by me thus publicly, be a warning to thee, my successor, to that end that thou conceal it not.”

page 251 note * See the numerous examples given by Burnouf, M., in the “Comment. sur le Yaçna, Notes et Eclair., p. 148.”Google Scholar

page 252 note * Perhaps in every instance except in the third paragraph of the first column, awahyarádiya may be understood to have a retrospective application. The term appears to be nearly analogous to the Persian which is contracted from

page 255 note * These various forms of the verbs will be fully discussed in treating on the Grammar of the Cuneiform language.

page 259 note * The restoration of the name of Sarukha is doubtful, as I have explained in my notes to the Cuneiform text, page lxix., but I think it may be received in preference to any other reading.

page 260 note * See Lassen's Zusammenstellung, &c., Ins. N.R., line 26.

page 263 note * See Heeren's Researches, vol. I., p. 227.Google Scholar

page 264 note * I prefer the reading of Sarukha to that of Saradkha, notwithstanding that the Median orthography of the name agrees better with the latter form.

page 265 note * The sculptures at Nimrúd, now in the course of excavation, will, I think, determinably prove the first Assyrian dynasty to have been Scythian, and the second to have been Semitic; for the high-capped warriors are represented in the early tablets as victors, and on the later marbles as the vanquished. These Scythians or Chasdim were probably expelled from power in Assyria by the race of which Pul is the first monarch on record, but whether having retired to Babylon they may be identified with the House of Nabonasser, or whether, as I think more probable, they held Babylonia synchronously with their empire on the Upper Tigris, and were superseded in the decadence of their power by the first king of Ptolemy's canon in B.C. 717, we are not at present in a condition to decide.