Thus far then, matters are now perfectly clear; but scholars have not acquiesced in the opinion of Herodotus and Dr. Lepsius: and the question as to whether the monument first discovered by Mr. Renouard is really a monument of Sesostris and executed by his command, has been made the subject of further discussion in M. Kiepert's article in the Archaeologische Zeitung. There can be no doubt that the monument is the same as the one which Herodotus saw and described: the locality, (about a mile sideward of the road from Smyrna to Sardis) the expression TUTTOS ¿YKEKOλaμμévos, the description of the figure, and above all, the measurement of the figure, which agree with what is seen at the present day, prove the identity of the monument beyond all question. The confusion between the right and left hand is one of so frequent occurrence, and one which is so easily made by the beholder of a picture or sculpture, that it is of no weight in comparison with the other evidence just adduced. Nor can the fact that Herodotus makes no mention of the frame in which the bird is represented, be urged against the identity. But Kiepert, Rosellini and Gerhard, agree in denying the Egyptian origin of the monument altogether. In the time of Herodotus it was the general belief of the Ionian Greeks that it was an Egyptian monument, and the only difference of opinion mentioned by the historian is, that some thought it to be a monument of Memnon, an opinion which Herodotus absolutely rejects. M. Kiepert remarks on this point: "The belief in its Egyptian origin was probably founded on the γράμματα ἱρὶ Αἰγύπτια which existed on the breast of the warrior, but the Greeks were scarcely able to judge of the genuineness of an Egyptian inscription, nor do the place and form of this alleged inscription, as Dr. Lepsius justly remarks, agree with the Egyptian custom, according to which the king's name would not have been omitted. The whole habitus and costume (especially the cap or tiara, which is very different from the Egyptian pshent, and the form of the shoes), the clumsiness and rudeness in the proportions of the body and in the whole execution, do not agree with other well-known monuments of Sesostris and his time, nor with Egyptian art in general. The only circumstance that might be alleged in support of its Egyptian origin, is the bird in the frame-work before the face of the warrior, which has hitherto not been seen on any other than Egyptian monuments." While we must thus, continues M. Kiepert, strongly doubt the Egyptian origin of the monument, and let this opinion rest on the authority of the Greeks and Herodotus, we think it just as improbable that it should be of Persian origin, for among the extant Persian sculptures there is nothing that can be compared with it. The Persian conquest of Ionia, moreover, belongs to so late a period that Herodotus, who wrote his history scarcely a century after, and the Ionian Greeks, would surely have known it, if the relief had been cut into the rock by the Persians. Nothing therefore remains but to ascribe the work to some one of the native nations of Asia Minor, or to a nation which ruled there at one time. Many of the sculptures found in Asia Minor present a striking resemblance in the costume with the one under consideration. We allude to reliefs cut into the rocks near the ruins of an ancient town on the east of the river Halys, which were first discovered and published by Charles Texier'. These reliefs show almost precisely the same figures and costume as the monument near Nymphi, except that the proportions of the figures are more correct, for which reason they must perhaps be ascribed to a more advanced stage of the art of sculpture. Their arms only are different, for instead of the bow and lance, they carry clubs and a kind of double-edged sword or axe. Mr. Hamilton (1. p. 394) is inclined to think these figures to be representations of Lydians and Phrygians, for he says, "their head-dress resembles the well-known Phrygian bonnet." But this opinion is inadmissible for two reasons; first, the high head-dress or tiara which appears in these sculptures, is very different from the Phrygian bonnet; and secondly, we know from Herodotus (VII. 74) that the armour of the Lydians resembled very closely that of the Greeks. Hence the opinion which Texier has now adopted seems to be the most probable, namely, that the sculptures east of the river Halys belong to the Saca or Scythians. This opinion is supported by the description which Herodotus (vII. 64) gives of the costume and armour of the "Scythians whom the Persians called Saca." This description agrees perfectly with • What here follows is only the substance of Kiepert's article, which enters into sundry other matters not directly connected with the monument near Nymphi. 7 Déscription de l'Asie Mineure, pl. 72, 75-79. Compare Hamilton, Re searches in Asia Minor, the plate after p. 394, in Vol. 1. 8 Σάκαι δὲ οἱ Σκύθαι περὶ μὲν τῇσι κεφαλῇσι κυρβασίας ἐς ὀξὺ ἀπηγμένας ὀρθὰς εἶχον πεπηγυίας, αναξυρίδας δὲ ἐνδεδύκεσαν· τόξα δὲ ἐπιχώρια καὶ ἐγ χειρίδια, πρὸς δὲ σαγάρεις εἶχον. the relief of Nymphi, with the exception of the axes, instead of which we have here a lance. Thus we might, indeed, regard the sculptures described by Texier and that of Nymphi as monuments made during the dominion of and by the Cimmerian Scythians, previous to the time of Alyattes of Lydia and Cyaxares of Media; and by the supposition that the relief near Nymphi was executed by the Scythians themselves, we might account for the rudeness of the workmanship, which is of such a kind that it can hardly be ascribed to the Assyrians, Medians or Lydians. We might even ascribe the monument of Nymphi to an earlier invasion of Asia Minor by the Scythians. (Herod. 1. 6, with Bähr's note.) But whatever view we may adopt, thus much appears to be certain, that henceforth no one can refer to the monument of Nymphi to support the authenticity of the tradition about an Egyptian invasion of Asia Minor in the time of Sesostris. Some remarks and conjectures of Rosellini on this monument are added to Kiepert's article by Gerhard. (Archaeol. Zeit. p. 45 foll.) In these attempts to explain away the Egyptian origin of the monument near Nymphi, there appears to me to be one great difficulty, which Kiepert only just notices without endeavouring to remove it. I would ask, how was it possible, that Herodotus, who must have seen more Egyptian monuments and inscriptions than any modern traveller, as well as a great many of the monuments and inscriptions scattered about in Asia Minor, should without the least hesitation have pronounced the one near Nymphi Egyptian, if it had not borne strong marks of its origin? He knew the Scythian dress and armour as well as we do, who in fact have learnt these things from him; why then should he not at once have perceived the resemblance of the figure to that of a Scythian warrior? Further, Herodotus expressly mentions the γράμματα ἱρὶ Αἰγύπτια, that is, the Egyptian hieroglyphics which he saw cut upon the breast of the figure, and he could surely never have confounded Egyptian hieroglyphics with any other kind of inscriptions that were to be found in Asia Minor: on this point his own judgment must have been perfectly independent of popular notions and traditions. To complete the account of the so-called monuments of Sesostris, which Herodotus saw, I add a few words on those in Palestine Syria (v Пadariv Evpia). As Herodotus does not say anything to suggest the locality in which he saw them, the difficulty of discovering and identifying them is, of course, much greater than in regard to those in Ionia, where the one on the road from Ephesus to Phocæa may be discovered ere long. About five miles to the north-east of Berytus (Beirut), by the side of an ancient road, near the mouth of the river Lycus (Nahr-el-Kelb) a number of sculptures are cut in the living rock, which were discovered many years ago and then believed to be the monuments of Sesostris mentioned by Herodotus. They were for the first time published from drawings of Count de Bertou, and discussed by Dr. Lepsius. Six of these reliefs are unquestionably of Persian origin, and the three remaining ones are as unquestionably Egyptian. In the hieroglyphics of the latter even the name of king Sesostris occurs twice, according to Dr. Lepsius'. But notwithstanding this, the monuments cannot possibly be those which Herodotus saw, for first of all, those which Herodotus saw were orλa or pillars 1o, whereas here we have reliefs cut into the rock. We may also take it for granted, that he would not have omitted to mention the Persian sculptures, if he had seen them, and they must have been there in his time, since some of them at least were executed under Cambyses. The existence of Egyptian monuments in Syria cannot surprise us, since Egyptian kings of the historical ages made conquests in that country at different times; but there is little hope of ever discovering the pillars of Sesostris which Herodotus saw, since most of those which the Egyptian conqueror was said to have erected in various countries, had disappeared as early as the time of Herodotus himself. L. SCHMITZ. 9 Annali dell Instituto di Corres. Archeol. 1838. Vol. x. p. 12. foll. See also Landseer, Sabean Researches, No. 9, to which my attention was drawn by Mr. Rose. 10 Τὰς δὲ στήλας τὰς ἵστα κατὰ τὰς χώρας ὁ Αἰγύπτου βασιλεὺς Σέσωστρις, αἱ μέν πλεῦνες οὐκέτι φαίνονται περιεοῦσαι, ἐν δὲ τῇ Παλαιστίνῃ Συρίῃ αὐτὸς ὅρεον ἐούσας καὶ τὰ γράμματα τα εἰρημένα ενεόντα καὶ γυναικὸς αἰδοῖα. XIX. MR. FRERE'S TRANSLATIONS OF ARISTOPHANES. The ACHARNIANS, KNIGHTS, BIRDS, and FROGS, of ARISTOPHANES, translated by the Right Honourable John Hookham Frere. 4to. (Privately printed.) THE reproduction of the comedies of Aristophanes in a modern language seems almost a hopeless task. The endless variety of his style and metres, the exuberance of his witty imagination, the richness and flexibility of the Attic language in which he wrote, and the perpetual by-play of allusions, often intimated merely by a pun, a metaphor, or a strange new compound, to the statesmen, poets, political events and institutions, manners, and domestic history of his times, appear to make it equally difficult to execute a poetical version which shall adhere to the letter, or render the spirit of the original. Mr. Mitchell's translation is lively and clever; and it is the work of a person who has carefully studied the author, and has an extensive acquaintance with Greek literature. By his translation, and his subsequent editions of several of the original plays, he has rendered valuable assistance to the student of Aristophanes. But, considered as a literary work, his translation does not satisfy us. The language is often forced and unnatural; there is an absence of the ease and idiomatic expression by which the Attic poet is so remarkably distinguished; and there is a visible endeavour to supply the graceful freedom and comic luxuriance of the original by strain and exaggeration'. 1 In order to avoid any appearance of unfairness, we take, as an illustration of our meaning, a short chorus in the Knights, which the critic in the Quarterly Review, states "to be translated by Mr. Mitchell with great power and effect.” (ν. 303. ὦ μιαρὲ σὺ.) 'Wretch! without a parallel- From earth's centre to the sea, In th' assembly, black war In an accent of thunder; It climbs to the spheres, And rives heaven asunder. Athens deafens at the sound in her ears still drumming; |