3 88 LECTURES AND ESSAYS [1874- 



the Assyrian Eponym Canon affords new data, has been 

 afresh discussed by Oppert in a series of papers in the 

 Annales de Philosophic Chretienne, to which he gives the 

 somewhat pretentious title, &quot; Salomon et ses Successeurs ; 

 solution d un probleme chronologique &quot; (since published 

 in a separate form by Maisonneuve et Cie, 1877). The 

 supposed solution is not so convincing as this title would 

 lead one to suppose. M. Oppert appears greatly to under 

 rate the difficulties of the problem ; and he has not given 

 due weight to the arguments of previous writers, ignoring, 

 for example, the important paper of Wellhausen, of which 

 an account was given in vol. xxv. p. 380 of this journal. 

 Discrepancies between the Northern and Southern 

 chronology are reconciled by hypotheses so arbitrary 

 that they can hardly find a supporter, a second Menahem, 

 whose reign divides Pekah s rule into two parts, and a 

 temporary displacement of Jeroboam II., which is de 

 fended by a gross mistranslation of a passage of Isaiah. 

 In discussing the Assyrian evidence, M. Oppert renews 

 his old theory of a break of forty -seven years in the 

 Eponym Canon to be filled up by the reign of the Chaldean 

 Pul. Pul is the great crux of Assyriologists, and the 

 difficulties which lie in the way of identifying him with 

 Tiglathpileser, as is done by Rawlinson, Schrader, &c., 

 have been set in a strong light, not only by Oppert, but 

 by v. Gutschmid in a book presently to be named. But 

 the tone of Oppert s argument, and the unpardonable 

 brut ah ty with which he treats George Smith, whose essay 

 on the Eponym Canon opposes the views of the French 

 scholar, compel one to feel that till the controversy is 

 conducted with more modesty and appreciation of the 

 fact that historical conclusions from the monuments are 

 still very precarious, those who are not Assyriologists had 

 better stand aside. As usual, part of the quarrel turns 

 on the reading of proper names, on which score another 

 lively controversy has been going on for some time 

 between Schrader on one side, and Oppert, Wellhausen, 



