Page:History of Greece Vol III.djvu/322

 306 HISTOICY OF GREECE number of similar rel.cs of Assyrian antiquity, obtained by M. Botta and others, have also been deposited in the museum of the Louvre at Paris. In respect to Assyrian irt, indeed to the history of art in general, a new world has thus been opened, which promises to be fruitful of instruction especially when we consider that the ground out of which the recent acqui- sitions have been obtained, has been yet most imperfectly examined, and may be expected to yield a much ampler harvest hereafter, assuming cir cr.mstances tolerably favorable to investigation. The sculptures to which vo are now introduced, with all their remarkable peculiarities of style and idea, must undoubtedly date from the eighth or seventh century u. c., a' the latest, and may be much earlier. The style which they display forms a parallel and subject of comparison, though in many points ex- tremely different, to that of early Egypt, at a time when the ideal com binations of the Greeks were, as far as we know, embodied only in epic and lyric poetry. But in respect to early Assyrian history, we have yet to find out whether much new information can be safely deduced from these interesting monu ments. The cuneiform inscriptions now brought to light are indeed very numerous : and if they can be deciphered, on rational and trustworthy principles, we can hardly fail to acquire more or less of positive knowledge respecting a period now plunged in total darkness. But from the monu mcnts of art alone, it would be unsafe to draw historical inferences. For example, when we find sculptures representing a king taking a city by as- sault, or receiving captives brought to him, etc., we are not to conclude that this commemorates any real and positive conquest recently made by the As- syrians. Our knowledge of the subjects of Greek sculpture on temples is quite sufficient to make us disallow any such inference, unless there be some corroborative proof. Some means must first be discovered, of discrimimit ing historical from mythical subjects : a distinction which I here notice, the rather, because Mr. Layard shows occasional tendency to overlook it in hi interesting remarks and explanations : see, especially, vol. ii, ch. vi. p. 409. From the rich and abundant discoveries made at Nimroud, combined with those at Kouyunjik and Khorsabad, Mr. Layard is inclined to comprehend all these three within the circuit of ancient Nineveh ; admitting for that cir cuit the prodigious space alleged by Diodorus out of Ktesias, four hundred and eighty stadia or near sixty English miles. (See Nineveh and its lie- mains, vol. ii, ch. ii, pp. 242-253.) Mr. Layard considers that the northwest portion of Nimroud exhibits monuments more ancient, and at the same time better in style and execution, than the south-west portion, or than Kouy- nnjik and Khorsabad (vol. ii, ch. i, p. 204 ; ch. iii, p. 305). If this hypothe- sis, as to the ground covered by Nineveh, be correct, probably future exca- vations will confirm it or, if incorrect, refute it. But I do not at all reject the supposition on the simple ground of excessive magnitude : on the con- trary, I should at once believe the statement, if it were reported by Herodo- tus after a visit to the spot, like the magnitude of Babylon. The testimony of Ktesias is. indeed, very inferior in value to that of Herodotus : yet it ought