ritings.

These writings themselves sufficiently indicate the place of their
composition. It was not Media, but Bactria, or at any rate the
north-eastern Iranic country, between the Bolor range and the Caspian.
This conclusion, which follows from a consideration of the various
geographical notices contained in the Zend books, had been accepted of
late years by all the more profound Zend scholars. Originated by Rhode,
it has also in its favor the names of Burnouf, Lassen, Westergaard, and
Haug. If then the Zend is to be regarded as really a local dialect, the
idiom of a particular branch of the Iranic people, there is far more
reason for considering it to be the ancient speech of Bactria than of
any other Arian country. Possibly the view is correct which recognizes
two nearly-allied dialects as existing side by side in Iran during its
flourishing period--one prevailing towards the west, the other towards
the east--one Medo-Persic, the other Sogdo-Bactrian--the former
represented to us by the cuneiform inscriptions, the latter by the Zend
texts. Or it may be closer to the truth to recognize in the Zendic and
Achsemenian forms of speech, not so much two contemporary idioms, as two
stages of one and the same language, which seems to be at present the
opinion of the best comparative philologists. In either case Media can
claim no special interest in Zend, which, if local, is Sogdo-Bactrian,
and if not local is no more closely connected with Media than with
Persia.

It appears then that we do not at present possess any means of
distinguishing the shades of difference which separated the. Median from
the Persian speech. We have in fact no specimens of the former beyond a
certain number of words, and those chiefly proper names, whereas we know
the latter tolerably completely from the inscriptions. It is proposed
under the head of the "Fifth Monarchy" to consider at some length the
general character of the Persian language as exhibited to us in these
documents. From the discussion then to be raised may be gathered the
general character of the speech of the Medes. In the present place all
that will be attempted is to show how far the remnants left us of Median
speech bear out the statement that, substantially, one and the same
tongue was spoken by both peoples.

Many Median names are absolutely identical with Persian; e.g.,
Ariobarzanes, Artabazus, Artaeus, Artembares, Harpagus, Arbaces,
Tiridates, etc. Others which are not ab