off a fictitious for a real animal form on Professor Owen of London. The
best linguists in Europe have accepted the decipherment of the cuneiform
inscriptions as a thing actually accomplished. Until some good linguist,
having carefully examined into the matter, declares himself of contrary
opinion, the author cannot think that any serious doubt rests on the
subject.

[Some writers allow that the Persian cuneiform inscriptions have
been successfully deciphered and interpreted, but appear to doubt
the interpretation of the Assyrian records. (See Edinburgh Review
for July, 1862, Art Ill., p. 108.) Are they aware that the Persian
inscriptions are accompanied in almost every instance by an Assyrian
transcript, and that Assyrian interpretation thus follows upon
Persian, without involving any additional "guess-work"]

The present volumes aim at accomplishing for the Five Nations of which
they treat what Movers and Kenrick have accomplished for Phoenicia, or
(still more exactly) what Wilkinson has accomplished for Ancient Egypt.
Assuming the interpretation of the historical inscriptions as, in
general, sufficiently ascertained, and the various ancient remains as
assigned on sufficient grounds to certain peoples and epochs, they seek
to unite with our previous knowledge of the five nations, whether derived
from Biblical or classical sources, the new information obtained from
modern discovery. They address themselves in a great measure to the eye;
and it is hoped that even those who doubt the certainty of the linguistic
discoveries in which the author believes, will admit the advantage of
illustrating the life of the ancient peoples by representations of their
productions. Unfortunately, the materials of this kind which recent
explorations have brought to light are very unequally spread among the
several nations of which it is proposed to treat, and even where they are