in the triple Inscriptions of the Persians, &c. 281 
documents substantially agree may be reckoned, the pedigree of Darius; the 
number of the provinces of his empire ;* the invasion of Egypt by Cambyses ; 
the fact that this Cambyses was son of Cyrus; the murder procured by him of 
Smerdis, his brother ; the circumstance of this man being so related to him, on 
the mother’s as well as on the father’s side; the personation of this brother, and 
seizure of the empire, by one of the Magi; the death of this Magian by the hands 
of Darius himself; the number and names, as far as they are legible, of his asso- 
ciates in this enterprise ; his elevation to the throne of Persia; and his quelling 
a revolt of the Babylonians, and capture of Babylon. The only point related by 
them in common, on which they materially differ, is respecting the names of the 
provinces of the empire of Darius. Even here they agree with regard to a 
majority of the names in question ; and, where they do not, the difference may, 
with a considerable degree of probability, be accounted for, partly by the circum- 
stance of some of the provinces having more names than one,f and partly by the 
practice of Herodotus, in distinguishing others, not by their territorial denomina- 
tions, but by those of the tribes by which they were respectively occupied.{ On 
* Darius states the number of provinces in his empire to be twenty-three, while Herodotus, 
on the other hand, reckons them only twenty. But the latter author omits Persia, which was free 
from taxation, as he enumerates only those countries and nations which paid tribute ; and at the 
end of his list he observes that, in the course of time, contributions were levied also from certain 
islands, and from those inhabiting Europe [from the Bosphorus] as far as Thessaly. Igsidyre: 
HErTOL TOD edvor, nal amo yyowy Hm eornie “Aros Pogo, nab tov ey 7 Eveann wees Occuring olxnpezvasy.— 
Herodotus, \ib. iii. cap. 96. If, in this passage, the writer understood the places from which the 
additional contributions came to form two provinces, he and Darius agree exactly as to their 
number; and at any rate they differ but by one. 
+ As an instance of the above mode of reconciling the two sets of names may be taken the 
‘ Mudraya’ of the Persian list, which is clearly identified with the A’jyuxres of the Grecian one, 
by the context of the portion of the Behistun record which relates to Cambyses. In accordance 
with this identification, it is stated by one of the Byzantine writers, that Egypt was called 
‘Muara’ (or rather ‘ Mudra’) by the Phcenicians,—ixaydn xal Muaga 4 ywen tro Doiwixwv,— 
Stephanus Byzantinus de urbibus et populis, in loco ubi disserit de Algypto,—where, by the 
way, as has been justly observed by Major Rawlinson, the cuneiform inscription enables us to 
correct an error of the copyists of this Grecian geographer and grammarian; since it shows that 
they changed MYAPA into MYAPA, deceived by the similarity of the letters A and A. 
+ The second of the above modes of accounting for the difference between the two lists may 
be illustrated by the ‘ Arabaya’ of the Persian list, which has no denomination to correspond 
VOL. XXI. 2N 
