DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.25988#0345
181G. Correspondence. 3 21
amined is perfectly philosophical. What pleased me most was
the conjecture that the long reign of Zohauk represents the
whole duration of the Assyrian monarchy. It is well supported
by the arguments you bring, and coincides surprisingly with
other traditions about Zohauk. For instance, the descent of the
Affghan kings from Zohauk appears at first entirely inconsistent
with their descent from the Jews, though both are asserted on
the same authority—that of the Persians; but the incongruity
disappears if we suppose Zohauk to stand for the monarch
of the Assyrians, who, by transporting the Jews to Gfhore,
occasioned the first appearance of the Affghan nation in their
present seats. It is a curious circumstance connected with the
theory that the King of Caubul in Zal’s time is said to have been
of the race of Zobauk. This coincidence would be in favour of
the connection between Zohauk and Assyria, even if the Jewish
descent of the Affghans were false, since it would show that such
a connection was supposed by the Persians who invented the
story.
‘ Another thing that gave me great satisfaction in your
seventh chapter was the general respect with which you treated
the ancients, an honourable contrast to the vulgar trick that has
been practised in late days of seeking the praise of acuteness by
attempting to undervalue them. Your own narrative establishes
tfie truth of the Gfreek histories. Those of the Persians agree
with them in many particulars, and where they do not they are
so improbable that they would be set aside even if there were
no Gfreek authors to contradict them. The two accounts coin-
cide in the stories of Cyrus, Artaxerxes Longimanus, and
Darius Codomannus, and you have been very successful in
reconciling the contradictory accounts of the intervening
periods. The supposition that Xerxes and Isfendiar are the
same is very ingenious. In one point I think you allow a little
too much weight to ancient testimony. It is where Herodotus
speaks of the religion of the ancient Persians (page 197). I do
not understand him to speak so positively about his own know-
ledge as you represent him. I rather conceive him to mean
that tbe account lie gives is to the best of his knowledge. As
VOL. I. Y
amined is perfectly philosophical. What pleased me most was
the conjecture that the long reign of Zohauk represents the
whole duration of the Assyrian monarchy. It is well supported
by the arguments you bring, and coincides surprisingly with
other traditions about Zohauk. For instance, the descent of the
Affghan kings from Zohauk appears at first entirely inconsistent
with their descent from the Jews, though both are asserted on
the same authority—that of the Persians; but the incongruity
disappears if we suppose Zohauk to stand for the monarch
of the Assyrians, who, by transporting the Jews to Gfhore,
occasioned the first appearance of the Affghan nation in their
present seats. It is a curious circumstance connected with the
theory that the King of Caubul in Zal’s time is said to have been
of the race of Zobauk. This coincidence would be in favour of
the connection between Zohauk and Assyria, even if the Jewish
descent of the Affghans were false, since it would show that such
a connection was supposed by the Persians who invented the
story.
‘ Another thing that gave me great satisfaction in your
seventh chapter was the general respect with which you treated
the ancients, an honourable contrast to the vulgar trick that has
been practised in late days of seeking the praise of acuteness by
attempting to undervalue them. Your own narrative establishes
tfie truth of the Gfreek histories. Those of the Persians agree
with them in many particulars, and where they do not they are
so improbable that they would be set aside even if there were
no Gfreek authors to contradict them. The two accounts coin-
cide in the stories of Cyrus, Artaxerxes Longimanus, and
Darius Codomannus, and you have been very successful in
reconciling the contradictory accounts of the intervening
periods. The supposition that Xerxes and Isfendiar are the
same is very ingenious. In one point I think you allow a little
too much weight to ancient testimony. It is where Herodotus
speaks of the religion of the ancient Persians (page 197). I do
not understand him to speak so positively about his own know-
ledge as you represent him. I rather conceive him to mean
that tbe account lie gives is to the best of his knowledge. As
VOL. I. Y