the exercise of its religion, and troubling the Persian worship of the elements by their promiscuous idolatry. The Persians who restored the empire, were headed by Ardaschir, son of Babek, who reckoned himself one of the race of Sassan, which gave rise to the silly story. The departure of the Parthians has been commemorated by a bas relief and an inscription. Ardaschir also restored the old fire-worship, but, to the great deterioration of its pristine purity, with a number of foreign rites; and therefore the Byzantines are quite right in saying that the later worship of the Persians was very different from the former one. The centre of the empire also was no longer the province of Persis: it was, on the contrary, removed from the Tigris to Ctesiphon, although Ardaschir and others after him have set up monuments at Persepolis. Susa had perished; Ecbatana was insignificant. Ardaschir, called by the Greek Artaxerxes, now that the empire was restored, and the nation was conscious of having achieved a great deed, at once asserted his claims against the Romans, whose decline could not have escaped his notice: he demanded the cession of all the countries to the Hellespont, because Asia belonged to the Persians, just as Europe might to the Romans: the answer of the Romans, of course, was war. In the issue of it, we have a remarkable example of the little reliance which we can place on the details of this history. Herodian’s account,—which is borne out by its intrinsic probability,—is that the Romans undertook the war with three armies; the first, on the right banks of the Euphrates; the second in Media; the third in Mesopotamia, to keep up the connexion between the two. He also says that the first, after a brave fight, had been obliged to retreat owing to the difficulty of the country; that the second had been entirely destroyed; and that the third moreover, which the emperor himself commanded, had not achieved its purpose. This statement is contradicted by an official letter of the emperor to the senate, wherein he boasts of the greatest successes over the enemy, for which the senate awarded him the honour of a triumph. Gibbon and Eckhel are quite of different opinions here. Eckhel takes a very high stand among the critical historians of our time, both for his learning and the excellence of his judgment. His works are far from being appreciated as they ought to be. His chronological criticisms have done much for the history of the Roman emperors, and there are few of the modern labourers in the field of ancient history to whom I owe so much as to Eckhel. Still, I am compelled to agree with Gibbon’s opinion. Eckhel deems it impossible that the report to the senate should have been a figment; but the vague and ambiguous expressions of this document tell very strongly against him: they are only meant to cover the defeat of the emperor. Herodian lived so shortly after that time, and in all that he really