Did the voyagers keep an accurate log? Were they always careful to note how many days they drifted? In short, are we to assume the literal exactness of every statement in these Sagas? This some writers — and Mr. De Costa must be counted among the most persistent of the number -insist on doing. Not content with the general proposition that the Northmen visited our coasts, he gravely remarks in his notes: “This Cape was evidently not Point Gilbert, but the terminus of Cape Cod, known as Race Point." "This was the bay situated between Point Gilbert and Isle Nauset." "This was Nantucket." He does not, however, press the coincidence between Mount Hope and the name of Hop, which Thorfinn gave his settlement. Even Rafn, whose faith was almost boundless, was a little staggered by the hypothesis that a tribe of Indians should have preserved for nearly six centuries the designation applied to a locality by a few wandering Norse men. Of course the principal passage relied on by those who assert the possibility of a precise geographical determination of the discoveries of the Northmen is the statement in the Saga of Leif, that day and night were more equal in Vinland than in Greenland or Iceland: "for on the shortest day the sun was in the sky between Eyktarstad and the Dagmalastad." Mr. De Costa has a long note on this, giving the substance of the view advocated by Rafn and Finn Magnussen, which fixes the latitude of the place at 41° 43′ 10′′, being nearly that of Mount Hope Bay. The question is too intricate to be discussed in this place. Torfaeus, confessedly the highest authority on the general subject of Northern antiquities, gives one interpretation: Peringskiold, who, though a Swede, had the assistance, in preparing his translation, of Gudmund Olafsen, a learned Icelander, gives another; while Schöning, whose edition of the Heimskringla - the first volume of which was published in 1777 — is altogether the best that has yet appeared, adopts still a third. The interpretation given in the Antiquitates Americanæ is substantially that of Schöning, who derived it from an Icelandic bishop. In the face of all these differences Mr. De Costa characteristically remarks, "Thus we know the position of the Icelandic settlement in New England.” We submit, on the contrary, that even were the precise meaning of the two Icelandic words Eyktarstad and Dagmalastad ascertained beyond a doubt, which is by no means the fact, still such a statement, borrowed perhaps by an old legend from a still older song, could hardly be relied upon as the basis for an astronomical calculation. We are ready to admit that the passage proves that Leif and his companions wintered a good way south of Greenland; for otherwise there would be no way of accounting for the mention of the fact that there was such greater equality of days and nights than in Greenland; but we protest against apply ing the exact processes of science to the elucidation of a passage the etymological interpretation of which is still involved in so much obscurity. To us the whole discussion of the question in the Antiquitates Americana, has quite too much the appearance of an afterthought. Would the learned editors of that invaluable collection have been such sticklers for the old Stone Mill and the Deighton Rock? We regret that Mr. De Costa did not give less attention to these details, and more to a broad presentation of the grounds on which these Sagas should be accepted as substantially historic. Such a presentation might easily be made, and made with convincing force. But the most important circumstance bearing upon the historical authority of the Sagas he only alludes to in the most incidental manner, and evidently with no appreciation of its importance. We refer to the fact that there are discrepancies between the Sagas relating to Eric and his sons and those relating to Thorfinn, of such a nature as to leave no doubt that they must have come to us from two wholly distinct sources. Torfaeus was the first to direct attention to these discrepancies, at the same time remarking that they were of a nature to confirm rather than disprove the statements. The Eric Sagas were evidently composed in Greenland, while those relating to Thorfinn had their origin in Iceland. The discrepancies are in themselves of very little consequence, but they serve to establish the important fact, that the Sagas of Eric and of Thorfinn must be received as two independent authorities. Had Mr. De Costa so arranged his book as to have brought this main fact distinctly before the reader's eye, he would have added very greatly to its value. As the Sagas are printed, there is nothing whatever to indicate that the Saga of Thorfinn has anything to distinguish it from those which precede it. And yet this distinction is the most important feature which a critical student would rely upon to establish the historical character of the testimony adduced. Coupled with this fact of the independence of the two accounts is the fact that there are many little points of agreement, undesigned coincidences, which also goes far to confirm the impression of their truthfulness. Mr. Joshua Toulmin Smith, as it seems to us, treated this part of the subject with a good deal of skill, and Mr. De Costa might have profited by his example. We confess, also, to a feeling of some disappointment on finding that Mr. De Costa is able to give us the results of no more recent researches than those recorded in the Antiquitates Americanæ. That work was published more than thirty years ago. Grönlands Historiske Mindesmærker, from which he has derived a portion of his material, appeared in 1838. Is it possible that the Danish antiquaries have done nothing, for more than a generation, to illustrate this most interesting portion of their early history? If nothing whatever of importance has appeared since, at least the fact should have been stated. In some of his references to the earlier authorities, Mr. De Costa is not accurate. Thus, on p. 12, he quotes in a note from Torfaeus the statement that Greenland was first discovered by Gunnbiorn; but a reference to the passage in the Gronlandia Antiqua will show that Torfaeus, in this place, is simply quoting the language of an earlier writer. So, in his Introduction, he refers to this same work of Torfaeus as throwing much light on the early voyages of the Northmen to America. Now, we venture to say, that in the whole of the Gronlandia Antiqua there are not, at most, more than four or five allusions to Vinland, and these are hardly more than mentions of the name. The work of Torfaeus, in which the voyages of the Northmen are so thoroughly discussed that it may be questioned whether more recent investigations have added anything of value to his treatment of the subject, is the Historia Vinlandiæ Antiquæ, a volume which is classed by Professor Rafn as inter rarissimos libros, and seems wholly to have escaped Mr. De Costa's notice. We know, however, of at least two copies of this work which are not inaccessible to the historical student. These errors are of no great consequence, but they are errors which should not be found in a work devoted to the special discussion of a chapter of Scandinavian history. 2.- Étude chronologique des Livres d'Esdras et de Néhémie. Par F. DE SAULCY, de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres. Paris. 1868. M. DE SAULCY, the veteran numismatist and archæologist, has augmented the number of his monographs on Hebrew antiquities by a chronological étude on Ezra and Nehemiah, or, to speak more accurately, on the whole Persian period of Jewish history and a part of the following period. This elaborate, suggestive, and interesting essay, like all the other works of its distinguished author, is, as he informs us in a dedication to the Abbé Chauliac, the fruit of studies preparatory to the writing of a long-meditated history of the Maccabees. The materials from which the necessary data were to be drawn, M. de Sauley justly complains, are in conflict "with each other, and sometimes with themselves," scanty, and rather inconclusive, the principal being: the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Haggai, and Zechariah; the Books of the Maccabees, both canonical and apocryphal; and the History of Josephus. These he has closely studied, examining the most minute details, with the eye of independent and unprejudiced criticism. In reaching his conclusions he was controlled neither by the texts of the scriptural books, nor by the authority of Josephus, nor by the concurrent. opinions of modern critics. In fact, his disregard of texts and recent authorities is striking, and borders on arbitrariness, while Josephus is both treated with contempt and followed with deference, the reason of the latter course remaining unexplained. His principal conclusions may be briefly summed up in the following table of events and dates: 537. He releases the Jewish captives; Sheshbazzar leads the first party of Jews returning to their country. 529–522. — Reign of Cambyses, designated in the Book of Ezra by the name of Artahshashta; he stops the reconstructive works of the Jews. 522, 521. Gomates (Pseudo-Smerdis) reigns seven months, unmentioned in the Scriptures. 521. First year of Darius Hystaspis; Zerubbabel and Jeshua lead a second party of returning Jews. 520.-Aided by Haggai and Zechariah, they commence building the Temple. 515. The Temple is completed. 485. Xerxes, the Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther, succeeds Darius. 465.- Artaxerxes (I.) Longimanus, unmentioned in the Scriptures, succeeds Xerxes. 424-404.- Reign of Darius (II.) Nothus, unmentioned in the Scriptures. 404.- Artaxerxes (II.) Mnemon, the Artahshast of Ezra and Nehemiah, ascends the throne. 397.- Ezra arrives in Jerusalem. 384. Nehemiah rebuilds the walls of Jerusalem; Ezra and Eliashib assist him; Sanballat the Horonite and his associates try in vain to check the work. 372.-Nehemiah a second time in Jerusalem. 359. · Artaxerxes (III.) Ochus, unmentioned in the Scriptures, succeeds Artaxerxes II. 336-330.- Reign of Darius (III.) Codomannus; he appoints Sanballat the Horonite satrap of Samaria; the latter gives his daughter in marriage to Manasseh, the brother of the high-priest Jaddua; Nehemiah drives Manasseh from Jerusalem. -- 330. Darius is overthrown by Alexander the Great; Sanballat joins the conqueror, and builds the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim. In order the more easily to determine what in these historicochronological statements may be regarded as more or less original with M. de Saulcy, we shall contrast with them the corresponding dates NO. 224. VOL. CIX. -- 18 established by Zunz and Ewald, with whom Gesenius, Munk, Hersfeld, Fürst, and almost all other recent biblical critics of note agree in all important particulars. These are:— 538. Capture of Babylon. 536.- Cyrus allows the return of the Jews; Zerubbabel, whose court-name is Sheshbazzar, and Jeshua, the high-priest, lead the first returning column. 535. -The Samaritans check the building of the temple. 529-522. Reign of Cambyses (the Ahasuerus of the Book of Ezra, whom M. de Saulcy passes over in silence). 522.-Pseudo-Smerdis, the Artahshashta of the Book of Ezra; beginning of the reign of Darius Hystaspis. - Darius allows the rebuilding of the temple; Haggai and Zechariah co-operate with Zerubbabel. 516. The Temple completed. 485.-Xerxes, the Ahasuerus of Esther, succeeds Darius. 465. — Artaxerxes I., the Artahshast of Ezra and Nehemiah, succeeds 445 (Ewald, 444 Zunz). Nehemiah rebuilds the walls of Jerusalem; hostility of Sanballat and his associates. 424-404. — Reign of Darius II.; Nehemiah a second time in Jerusalem; he drives out Manasseh, grandson of the high-priest Eliashib, and son-in-law of Sanballat, who seeks refuge in Samaria; building of the Mount Gerizim temple (Zunz, later according to Ewald). 364 (Zunz, 359 Ewald). — Artaxerxes III. ascends the throne. 336-330 (Ewald, 335–330 Zunz). - Reign of Darius III. A comparison of the two tables will show the following deviations, in M. de Sauley's Etude, from the prevalent opinion, besides some chronological variations of minor importance: According to M. de Sauley, Sheshbazzar is not identical with Zerubbabel; the former leads the first column of returning Jews; Cambyses is not identical with the Ahasuerus of Ezra (iv. 6), but with Artahshashta (Ez. iv. 7 seq.); for Smerdis there is no name in the Bible; Zerubbabel leads his followers to Judæa, not under Cyrus, but under Darius; the Artahshast of Ezra and Nehemiah is not identical with the first Artaxerxes of the Greek historians, but with the second king of that name; the Sanballat of Nehemiah is identical with the Sanballat of Josephus, a contemporary of Alexander. To establish his points, M. de Saulcy adduces no evidence unknown to former critics. The newly deciphered inscriptions of the East are silent on these points; the well-known and long-scrutinized texts of the books mentioned above, besides some inconclusive and equally well-known |
