The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1884-07-06

0ayss's AsrsAssus.
OF the books purporting to deal with CLASH
cal literature that have bean recently published
In England not one has excited 80 much dis
cussion - The Ancient Empires Of the East by
Prof. A. H. sayce tMacmilsn) In this volume
Of some $50 pages 10 reprinted the Crock text
OF the first three books OF Herodotus. which 70.
count what tho historian could learn By eye or
ear Of the civilizations that grew up in the val
leys OF the Nile and the Euphrates. In the high
lands Of Media and Persia. In Asia Minor and
along the seacoast Of Syria. Tho aim Of the foot
notes. which are frequent and full ID TO ex-
plain. correct. or supplement the original mar
rative with the moro exact and extensive infor-
nation which the essentially modern sciences
Of historical criticism and archaeology have
supplied. We need not say that Rawlinson had
the same aim In view. but archaeology has made
much progress since his version OF Herodotus
appeared. and oven those English readers who
may continue to make Acquaintance with the
Greek historian through that translation.
will do well to keep beside them for refer
sncs this new and In some respects moro
Trustworthy compendium OF the latest results
Of archaeological research. The notes. how
ever. In which particular statements Of the
| ancient author are expanded or refuted do not
| constitute the only valuable features Of the
present volume. A third Of its pages is de-
voted to series OF original dissertations in
which Prof. Sayoe sums up the generally ac-
| copied conclusions and most authoritative
opinions relating to that curly part Of the his
tory Of Egypt Of Bsbylonis and Assyria. Of
Phentcia and Lydia. which preceded the
| period whom the inhabitants Of those countries
| came into close contact with the Greeks.
After oil deductions have been made for the
difficulty experienced by the reader In dis
tinguishinG the ncontroverted from the disput-
| ed and conjectural elements Of such pictures.
the fact remains that nowhere else 10 1t pos
| sible to gain Ut one glance 90 much knowledge
Of the progress made OF late years by Egyptolo-
gists and Assyriologists. who between them
have illumined vast tracts Of time that lie be-
yond the dim beginnings Of written history.
as that phrase was understood before the
hisrstic and ounsiform records came In turn To
be deoiphered.
| II Prof. sayce had confined himself to placing
side BY side with the text Of Herodotus the
far more authentic and capacious stores Of
historical material which have only been made
accessible by the methods and appliances Of
modern scientific research. and had avoided
i6psaching the good faith Of the Greek his
torian. he would not have aroused the re-
|
have upheld the reputation OF Herodotus with
aunanimlty that was by no means evinced by
| the Greeks themselves. But In an Introductory
essay on the historical orsdibliity OF Hsrodotua
| he was not satisfied with showing how far the
hearsay reports 90 abundant In the narrative
are unfoundsd. but proceeded TO accuse Horod-
otus not only OF plundsring his predecessor.
HecatBus. but OF wilful prevaricatlon and
rank msndacity. This somewhat hasty and
wsnton exhibition OF sgcressivsness instantly
arraysd against Prof. Sayce almost all OF the
old-fashioned scholars who survey tho fold
Of ancient history from the point OF view Of q
minute grammatical study OF Greek literature
rather than from the broader position Of the
Archaeological The justice Of his structures
on the veracity OF the Creek historian was
forthwith controverted BY the Edinburgh Re
vie,o In vigorous article. which we arc doubt.
less warranted by internal evidence In asorIb.
| ing to Mr. r. q. Jebb. and this severe arraign.
msnt was followed by equally violent but lest
effective assaults In other quarters. 1t may be
doubted whether thore was anything In the
tone Of the criticism propounded by Prof. Sayce
In his Introduction TO justify tho wsspish and
vindictive temper exhibited BY the rsjolnder In
the Edinburgh. But It will not bs gsinssid. we
imagine. By impartial readers that Prot Jebb-
H. indeed. no b the author of the review In
Question-has completely indicated Hsrodotui
from the imputstions of plagiarism and bad
faith. He leaves Us convinced that we maj
still accept the verdict In which great ma
jority Of modern scholars have concurred-
that Herodotus was scrupulously careful Il
distinguish betwson what no saw with his OWE
eyes and what he learned OF BY report; tina,
| what no got by hesrsay was at least faithfully
set down. and that what no says he saw ma,
b implicitly beloved.
But while Prof. Ssyoe has failed to prov
Hsrodotus untrustworthy-whilee even the At
tempt to impeaoh his credibllity was blundel
tending TO divert attention from the main pur
pose Of his book. which WAS to explain ant
supplement- rather than to confute-ws oanno
think Prot Jsbb justified In seeking 70 dis
psrase the substantial services which Prol
Ssycs has rendered Us In his specific role o
srcheolosist We repeat that the student VII,
desires 70 learn what modern science has dis
covered. With complete or spproximativs cor
| fnlufy. With NHlArd 10 anAlAnt RAhYioniA AnI