Persicae; hanc mihi Auramazdis obtulit "hoc
pomoerio ope equi (Choaspis) clarae virtutis."' This translation was
published in 1844, and the arguments by which Lassen supported it, in
the sixth volume of the 'Zeitschrift fuer die Kunde des Morgenlandes,'
may be read with interest and advantage even now when we know that
this eminent scholar was mistaken in his analysis. The first step
towards a more correct translation was made by Professor Holtzmann,
who in 1845 pointed out that Smerdis was murdered at Susa, not at
Persepolis; and that only six days later Darius was elected king of
Persia, which happened again at Susa, and not at Persepolis. The
monument, therefore, which Darius erected in the [Greek: proasteion],
or suburb, in the place where the fortunate event which led to his
elevation occurred, and the inscription recording the event in loco,
could not well be looked for at Persepolis. But far more important was
the evidence derived from a more careful analysis of the words of the
inscription itself. Niba, which Lassen translated as pomoerium,
occurs in three other places, where it certainly cannot mean suburb.
It seems to be an adjective meaning splendid, beautiful. Besides, niba
is a nominative singular in the feminine, and so is the pronoun hya
which precedes, and the two words which follow it--uva_s_pa and
umartiya. Professor Holtzmann translated therefore the same sentence
which Professor Lassen had rendered by 'hoc pomoerio ope equi
(Choaspis) clarae virtutis,' by 'quae nitida, herbosa, celebris est,' a
translation which is in the main correct, and has been adopted
afterwards both by Sir H. Rawlinson and M. Oppert. Sir H. Rawlinson
translates the whole passage as follows: 'This province of Persia
which Ormazd has granted to me, which is illustrious, abounding in
good horses, producing good men.' Thus vanished the horse of Darius,
and the curious confirmation which the cuneiform inscription was at
one time supposed to lend to the Persian legend recorded by Herodotus.

[Footnote 47: 'A Lecture on the Original Language of Zoroaster.' By
Martin Haug. Bombay, 1865.]

It would be easy to point out many passages of this kind, and to use
them in order to throw discredit on the whole method by which these
and other inscriptions have lately been deciphered. It would not
require any great display of forensic or parliamentary eloquence, to
convince the public at large, by means of such evidence, that all the
labours o