ESTHER AND AHASUERUS: AN IDENTIFICATION OF THE PERSONS SO NAMED. FOLLOWED BV A HISTORY OF THE THIRTY-FIVE YEARS THAT ENDED AT THEIR MARRIAGE. WITH NOTES AND AN INDEX TO THE TWO PARTS : ALSO AN APPENDIX. RICHARD EDMUND TYRWHITT, M.A. RRTIKED INDIA CHAPLAIN. IN TWO HALF-VOLUMES. HALF-VOLUME II. JAMES PARKER AND CO. 1868. PRINTED AT THE PITSLIGO PRESS, BURXTISLAXIT PART II. CHAPTER III. I. RETURN we now to the story of which we have undertaken both to collect the remains, and to set each fragment as near as possible to where its place should be in a complete record. We left Darius in Media, probably at Agbatana, newly seated on a dangerous throne, which the pretended younger brother of Cambyses had occupied for not eight full months. The year was the five hundred and twenty- first before our era, as Ptolemy's Canon attests ; but the time of year was some ten months later than at first we supposed ; for, interpreted now by the lately-recovered Calendar of Assyrian months, to which it tacitly refers us, Darius's own account shews that the season was about the first month of winter, or the November of the year in which (by slaying the Magian) he ended an usurpation that had lasted since the end of March or the beginning of the pre- ceding hot weather. A little before the usurpation, within the same year, Darius probably had been in Egypt in atten- dance upon his king and cousin Cambyses, who had been four years absent in that country. Subsequently to the same event, he had witnessed the despair and death of Cambyses ; he had accompanied the royal corpse to the old home of the Akhasmenian family in Persis; and now he had punished the presumption that (masked as the next heir, the younger son of Cyrus) had claimed to supersede Cambyses 1G9G7SO 474 living or to inherit from him after his death. So capable, therefore, and so fortunate, having done so much for his nation and his family, no other Persian, no other Akha?- menian, not even his own father Hystaspes, seemed fit, as Darius, if, indeed, there was any other that would have dared, to sit amid the perils by which the majesty of the throne of Cyrus was surrounded. The new king was about twenty-eight years old. All his vigour of body, all his sagacity, all his force of character, were soon called upon, to procure submission, to anticipate hostility, to crush the open antagonists that threatened him successively or at once in various quarters ; in short, to maintain the integrity of the empire. The news of what had happened in Media produced in an instant commotion in Susiana and Babylonia. In each of these once independent or at least separate kingdoms, arose a man proclaiming himself successor to the former native rulers, and he was recognised as such by the people. But in Susiana (called by the modern Persians Khuzistan) among the various populations, Kissians and Elymrcans, besides Mardians and Uxians, a there must have been little m Strabo xi. 13 3, 6 ; quoting Alexander's admiral Nearchus as placing between the Susii (or occupants of the city and proper territory of Susa) to the westward, Persis eastward, Media to the north, and the coast of the Persian gulf to the south, four predatory nations, 1. the Amardi, contiguous to the people of Persis ; 2. the Kosssei, who bordered on theMedes; 3. the Ely nisei ; and 4. the Uxii ; the two last lying between the Susii and the Amardi. In the Journal R. A. S. vol. xv. pp. 4 and 97, on the name Afarti, which in the second language of the Behistun inscription is substituted for the Elam (?) or Elumat of the third, the Assyrian language, and for the 'Uwaja or Khoja of the first, the Aryan language, Mr Norris remarks that the root of the name may have been pronounced Amar, Abar, or Avar, as well as Afar: and referring to Strabo, in the passages above noted, he supposes the cunei- form Afarti to be the Amardi or Mardi of the Greeks. Herodotus makes the Mardi one of the four tribes of Persian nomads, (i. 125) ; and Arrian's account of their subjugation by Alexander (Exp. Alex. iii. 24) is cited by Rawlinson to shew that they inhabited the range of moun- tains which divides the valley of Persepolis from the region on the Persian gulf. That the second language of the Behistun inscription was proper to a people seated in Susiana, the country which that language terms Afarti, Mr Norris argues from the fact, that this is the 475 unanimity. For Darius tells us, with a brevity that defies our curiosity to penetrate into the state and feelings of the province, that he sent thither ; that the pretender was arrested and brought before him bound ; and that he put him to death. The man who had called himself king and to whom fortune had thus speedily given the lie in Susiana, is named Atrina (or perhaps Athrina) son of Upadanna in the Aryan record ; Asina in the only passage of the Assyrian where the name is still legible ; and in the Kissian, where he is also described as a native of the country, Assina son of Ukbadarranma. b His own name, (whatever may be thought of his father's) seems altered to Assina from the Aryan, rather than to Atrina from the Kissian. only ethnic appellation peculiar to that version of the inscription ; all the rest being similar, if not to the Aryan, at least (as the 19th in the list cited above pp. 417, 418,) to the Assyrian appellations. We have assented to this reasoning, in calling the second language Kissian : for Kissian and Kosssean we take to be Greek forms of the Aryan adjective 'Uwajiya i. e. Khojiya, signifying " who (or which) belongs to 'Uwaja or Khoja. " The identity of the monumental articulation 'uwa with Mo seems evident from the identity between ' Uwarazmiya and XjX of Alexander's historians, a city whose site is still called Arbil. See Sir H. C. Rawlinson's " Ancient Persian Vocabu- lary," Journal R. A. S. vol. xi. p. 39. But a more familiar instance is Babirush, the name substituted in Aryan for the Babel or Babilu of the Assyrian, for the Bapilu of the Kissian. and for the B*,3i/>. of theGreek. 477 exile in Carmania. And now, he might certainly be thought to have a son fit for the throne at Babylon, as there was a son of Hystaspes become king at Agbatana. But if merely to be son of Nabunita was to have a good claim upon the Babylonians for theft allegiance, the name of Nebukhadrezzar gave lustre to the claim, and conveyed to the people the notion that the bearer (no less than Belshazzar formerly) was descended from that great Nebu- khadrezzar, under whom Babylon had attained not only her splendour and dimensions as a city but her dignity as queen of the nations of Western Asia. On the whole, since the family of her conqueror Cyrus was now confes- sedly extinct, whether Smerdis had met his death at the hand of Darius or of Cambyses, it might be hoped that under a new Nebukhadrezzar Babylon would recover her independence and her glory. The revolt, therefore, was universal in favour of the native pretender. When Darius arrived upon the Tigris, he found a part of the new Nebukhadrezzar's levies at the spot, occupying the passage, which one might suppose was an ordinary and frequented one, having, if not a ford or bridge of boats, some other facility for crossing, of which it was desired to deprive the Persians. Indeed, Darius's record, as in the matter of Gaumata's religious innovations, gives us unwonted explanation ; having a brief statement of the mode in which he was obstructed and of the operation by which he overcame the difficulty. But our translators appear to be unable here as yet to explain the mutilated original texts. The result was, that by the aid of Aura- mazda Darius gained the right bank of the river, where the bulk of the Babylonian army was posted in support ; and he routed it with great slaughter. This victory he gained about six and forty days after he slew the Magian ; for it was on the twenty-sixth of the month Atriyada, the Assyrian and Jewish Khisleu, in the latter part of Decem- ber B. C. 521. From the Tigris, Darius went on towards Babylon. Near this capital, at a town on the Euphrates called Zazana, after five or six days, Naditabel (or, as he was called, 478 Nebukhadrezzar) met him in person, and gave him battle. The Babylonian army was defeated, driven into the river, and destroyed. This day was the second of Anamaka, the Assyrian and Jewish Tebeth, a month which (for the most part of it at least) corresponded with the January of B. C. 520 ; though it may have begun before the close of the previous December. Naditabel himself with a faithful body of horsemen, reached Babylon. Darius followed and obtained pos- session both of the city and of the person of its new- made king, whom he put to death. If any considerable resistance had been offered to the entrance of the conqueror, it is probable, that the date of this capture of Babylon would have been noted, like the days of the preceding battles. Nor does any very great number of executions appear to have followed the occupation of the city ; for if such a punishment had been inflicted immediately, the practice of Darius's record in other places leads one to believe that it would have been commemorated. We may surmise that the Chaldean capital at this, her second capture by a Persian conqueror, was treated with what (according to the existing usages of war) was considered great tenderness. Indeed, the still critical condition of Darius's enterprise evidently demanded a conciliatory con- duct towards the people whose master he was become, as soon as the immediate wants of his army had been supplied. II. AT Babylon, where Darius's stay was protracted (in the city or the province) for not less than fourteen months, the new king at a moment of the utmost need found a dignity, security, and strength, befitting his pretensions. Scarcely was he master here, at the head of forces well satisfied with their leader and with themselves, when news came that the people in Media had. cast him off and taken another for their king. Nevertheless, at Babylon he seemed, and from Babylon to every quarter of the empire, 479 where doubt or indecision prevailed, he was assuredly announced, both king and conqueror. He had won the most famous seat of empire and the best centre of opera- tion, at a time when perhaps he had been like to depend on the territory which for the day he could cover with his cavalry. Had Naditabel declined a decisive engage- ment in the field ; had Babylon been ready or resolved to sustain a siege, as she showed herself three years after- wards, the revolt of Media might at once have placed Darius in a situation, the difficulties of which he perhaps could not have overcome. But, possessed of Babylon, notwithstanding the rising of a Median rival, Ms might well appear to be the same imperial throne to which the Mede whose name he bore had been conducted by the wars of Cyrus. Moreover, in the great capital which Nebukhadrezzar had created, Darius, with his victorious Persians and Medes, occupied the most strongly fortified city in the wealthiest of the kingdoms of Western Asia. He was surrounded with all that sun and water could enable a skilled and industrious population of cultivators to raise from the soil of an extensive country ; and for purposes of war or peaceful life and enjoyment, he was abundantly supplied in the work-shops or manufactories of the great city, and the numerous district towns, where all arts anywhere known had been immemorially practised and improved. But he had more than the power of Media proper to contend against. He has left us a list of provinces that revolted from him, or the news of whose revolt reached him (if we may venture so to modify his expression) while he was at Babylon. They are not enumerated in the order of the seasons at which they severally either rose against Darius, or were reduced to submission. The suc- cession of those revolts with which the recorded leaders were immediately connected, seems to be displayed in the scene sculptured at Behistun ; the series of victories is related in the trilingual inscription which accompanies that piece. But a comparison of other lists of provinces evinces that here, as in them, precedence of name is given 480 partly to rank, partly to geographical position ; a com- bination of respects which (according to Herodotus) was in use with the Persians.* Darius tells us ; "Whilst I was in Babylon, these are the provinces that rebelled against me, Persis, Kissia, Media, Assyria, Egypt, Parthia, Margia, Sattagydia, Sakia." Of these countries, the only one which we have not seen named in the general catalogue, Aryan, Kissian, and Assyrian, already cited, is Margia, or according to Darius's trilingual nomenclature, Margush, Marcus-pa, and Mar- gin a. It appears to have been a dependency of the great Baktrian satrapy, and to be unnamed in the general lists of provinces because comprehended under the name of Baktria. b At the head of the particular list now before us, we have Persians, Kissians (or people of Susiana) and Medes; the Kissians taking rank before the Medes. Then, we have the western nations that were to be included, being in number only two. Then come the nations that rebelled in the east, four in number, beginning with the Parthians. Now, it is exactly the same method that Darius employs on the south wall of the platform at Persepolis, in a list of the tributary nations that besides the Persians owned him their king. This list forms part of an inscription intended especially for the Persian popu- lation of the royal city, being in Aryan only; for the accompanying Kissian and Assyrian inscriptions do not See Herod, i. 134. b If, 4 then, we number the Margians as Baktrians, the nine revolted provinces here enumerated may be found above in their respective places at pp. 417, 418, in the provinces of the trilingual list there numbered 1, 2, 10, 4, 6, 13, 17, 21, and 20. The name of Egypt (Mudr'aya, and Misir) has been restored to the defective Aryan and Assyrian lists on the authority of the Kissian, which has in that place Matsariya-fa. For Nammiri, the true Assyrian name of the Sakas, see Journal R. A. S. vol. xv. p. 236. For the initial character equivalent to n, the copies of the Assyrian version of the tomb inscription at Nakhsh-i-Rustam made by Tasker and Westergaard, had led Sir H. C. Rawlinson to substitute in his own copy of the Behistun inscription a character equivalent to ff, and to suppose that the Assyrians regarded the Sakas as of the race called by the Greeks Ki/nft^ioi and often supposed to be represented by the modern Cymry and the Cimbri of the Roman annals. 481 eontain the list and are not otherwise translations of the Aryan. Now, of these states, tributary to Darius and lying beyond the limits of his ancestral Persian kingdom, the first two are Kissia (or Susiana) and Media. Then come eight western provinces, the last of which is Ionia " both of the mainland and of the sea ; " for isles of the Egaean had now been acquired to the obedience of Darius. To these, the remaining nations are subjoined ; with this connecting preface, " also the provinces in the East ; " which clearly indicates a geographical arrangement. They are thirteen in number ; their first and second being Asa- garta or Sagartia (in other lists not named, because in- cluded in a neighbouring province) and Parthia. The lesson thus given in the list at Persepolis, how to construe the order in which Darius atBehistun enumerates the nations that revolted while he was at Babylon, is a lesson repeated with almost equal clearness in Darius's tomb-inscription, when we examine the order of the enumerated provinces, the number of which is there swelled by a train of conquests made in. or after, the great expedition into Thrace and across the Danube. After the Persians, at the head of the tributary states, we find the Medes and Kissians ; the precedence being now given or, perhaps we should say, restored to the Medes. Next to these, we have eleven eastern countries, beginning with the Parthians and ending with Sakas of two de- scriptions. Then follow eight countries of the west, the first being Babylon and the eighth Ionia. Lastly, subjoined to these, are seven other names, evidently denoting countries conquered beyond, and beginning with certain Sakas, who, if seated (as we understand their description) Tho Medes were placed next after the Persians and before the Kissians, in the muster-roll referred to by Herodotus, of the nations that composed the great host of Xerxes ; see above p. 112. In Darius's list of the nations that composed the empire of Cambyses, he has placed the Medes in the tenth place only, but apparently at the head of the nations which formed the Median empire before the wars in which Cyrus the Persian commanded. 31 482 beyond the narrow sea, the Hellespont, Propontis, and Bosporus, should be Thracians. d By thus examining the lists of Darius's provinces, extant at Persepolis and at his tomb, we learn, then, that in the enumeration of nations that revolted while he was at Babylon in the year B. C. 520 and the first two months of B. C. 519, the order of names results from their having been set down as they occurred in running over a complete catalogue of provinces,* and that it is not intended to d For the tomb inscription and the list of nations contained therein, see Sir H. C. Rawlinson for the Aryan text, Mr Norris for the Kissian, and Mr H. F. Talbot for the Assyrian, in Journal R. A. S. vols. x. xv. and xix. For the Aryan inscription containing a list of provinces at Persepolis, see Sir H. C. Rawlinson, Journal R. A. S. vol. x. pp. 279-285. Even the Behistun catalogue which we have given above pp. 417, 418, setting forth the extent of the empire which Darius became possessed of by the death of Gaumata the Magian, if a list were made of the provinces that revolted while Darius was at Babylon in the order in which they there severally stand would exhibit them (with the exception of the Medes and Satagydians) in the same order as Darius sets them down here. But the arrangement of the names in that former list is peculiar. It may exhibit chronological indications and not only dignity and geographical position. The Persians and Kissians, who stand first and second, are followed by Babylon and the other western provinces except Armenia and Cappadocia. Then comes Media, followed first by these two western provinces, and after them, by Parthia and the rest of the eastern provinces. This arrangement might suggest that Armenia and Cappadocia as well as the eastern provinces appertained more peculiarly to Media, having been acquired before the wars of Cyrus and growth of the Persian horn. That Cappadocia belonged to the Medes before the fall of Sardis B. C. 554, and that the river Ilalys till then had been the Median boundary towards the west, is asserted in Herodotus's account of the war between the Lydians under their king Croesus and the Medes commanded by Cyrus; see Herod. i. 72. And Xenophon makes Armenia to be a kingdom in vassalage to the Medes, at the time when the war commenced between the Medes and Assyrians, after the accession of the son of Astyages to the Median throne (B. C. 558). See Cyrop. ii. 1 6 ; iii. 1 g 1, 10, 33, 34 : ii. 4 g 12 &c. &c. iii. 2 g 24. But if (to speak summarily) the catalogue of states given above at pp. 417, 418 exhibits the empire in two great divisions ; the first composed of Persia and the Persian conquests, the second of Media and the Median conquests, we should suppose not only 483 convey any chronological information whatever ; although such service was designed, as we have said, not only by Darius's verbal account of his achievements, but by the sculptured tablet also, in the order in which the conquered kings are exhibited to all beholders, strung together, one behind another, and forming a file which Auramazda causes to come before Darius, as the king stands with his left foot on the belly of the prostrate Gaumata the Magian. By the testimony of this sculpture, confirmed by the date of the first engagement between the forces of Darius and the revolted Medes, we are assured that Frawartish the Mede (who stands immediately behind Naditabel the Babylonian) led the revolt which in time as well as in importance was the first that ensued ; though before he lost his life towards the end of the year B. C. 519, the pretender, who follows him in the sculpture, had finished a much shorter career in like manner, as we learn from the inscription. We are able, then, to say that hardly two months can have elapsed since the Magian's death and that Darius can scarcely have taken possession of Babylon and put Naditabel to death, when he heard (or we perhaps might better say, it became known to his army) that a rival had arisen behind him, whom the Medes had ac- knowledged as their king. Then, all saw how precious had been the vigour and promptitude with which Darius had crushed the rebellion of Naditabel and won such a basis for future operations as the great and wealthy seat of the late splendid Chaldsean monarchy. But, as we that the connection of Kissia (Susiana) with the Persians was as intimate as we shall find that of Armenia to have been with the Medes, but (as we have already on other grounds contended) that Kissia or Elam never formed part of the dominions of Astyages. See pp. 25-29. Two other conjectures which we have made elsewhere, might also seem confirmed ; first (a matter of which, indeed, we have no doubt) that Assyria proper (as in B. C. 592, Ezek. xxiii. 23) had belonged to Baby- lon ever since the fall of Nineveh in B. C. 608 : second, that Cyrus's first war, whereof Persis was the theatre, the war for Persian independence, was waged in the latter part of the reign of Astyages, not against the Medes but against the forces of Babylon: Persis having been previously in immediate vassalage to the king of Babylon. 31* 484 have said, Darius had more than the Medes alone to cope with, in the partisans of Frawartish. Except Susiana where a king of its own was set up, when its second revolt was made; and Egypt, where, to the natives we may suppose a Mede would he not less odious than a Persian ; it seems not improbable that all the provinces which abandoned obedience to Darius about the time when the Medes did so, or before the Medes were subdued, sup- ported the Median pretender. At least, it is plain that this was the purpose of the rebels (or, the foes ultimately subdued) the traces of whose proceedings during six and twenty months, both in Armenia to the west and eastward in Parthia, will be chronicled in their turn from the be- ginning of Thuravahara or February, the month after that in which Darius took possession of Babylon in B. C. 620, and the beginning of Garmapada or April in the year B. C. 518. Of Darius's Median rival, antecedently to his unsuccessful enterprise, we know only what the conqueror may intimate in the record of its commencement ; " There arose among the Medes a man, named Frawartish, who addressed the people saying, I am Khshathrita of the family of (Kh)uwakhshatara. Then the people (or soldiery) of the Medes that were at home went over to Frawartish and he became king in Media." By the legend which describes his figure in the sculpture, it is affirmed that in so saying Frawartish lied. And in like manner, all the pretenders in the sculpture (except the high-capped Saka named Sakuka, whose figure was added at a later date *) are called liars. f The rivals of Darius are likewise called liars in the great inscription itself, in a recapitulation of the king's victories, subjoined to the record of the last of them, the capture of Babylon after its second revolt. For an engraving of the rock-sculpture exhibiting Darius and his vanquished competitors ; see Journal R. A. S. vol. x. We shall have occasion to refer to it again, as exhibiting the order of time in which those rivals arose and declared themselves ; while for the order of the dates of Darius's victories, wo refer to the inscription. For Darius's trilingual account of the rising of Fravrartish, see Journal R. A. S. vol. x. pp. 216, 241 and (for the legend belonging to his figure in the sculpture) 263 ; also vol. rv. pp. 108, 125 and (for the legend) 134; also vol. xiv. "Sheets exhibiting the Assyrian text of the great inscription," lines 43 4S5 Scanty and fragmentary as is our knowledge of the times and countries, the defection of the Medes on this occasion is not surprising or unaccountable. Such of them as had now survived to the great age of eighty years, were con- temporaries of that last king of their nation, Darius, who both when he came into possession of the throne at Babylon, on its capture by the Medes and Persians under Cyrus, and afterwards, in the third year of the reign of Cyrus, is distinguished, by his epithet " the Mede," first from his Chaldaoan predecessors and again from his Per- sian successor. For this king (named more fully " Darius the son of Akhshurush or Khshurush of the seed of the Medes ") was sixty-two years old when he took the king- dom of Babylon in B. C. 538 ; so that his birth happened eighty years before the time of which we now write, when the Medes rejected the son of Hystaspes and accepted for their king Frawartish their countryman, calling himself Khshathrita descendant of (Kh)uwakhshatara. The wars of the days of Darius the Mede and of the days of his father Khshurush were a time of glory for the name of Medes in which these old warriors and their fathers had played a part. Their fathers had served and 92 ; and " Detached Inscriptions " (legends describing the several figures of the sculpture) No. 4. For the later date of composition and engraving of the figure of Sakuka the Saka and of the fifth column of Aryan text, which seems to have no Kissian or Assyrian counterpart, see Journal K. A. S. vol. x. p. 265. Observe, that the revolt of the Medes under Frawartish, who called himself Khshathrita a descendant from Khu\v;ikhsliatara, is Herodotus'* revolt of the Medes in the reign of Darius (tlie only Darius of the Akhiemenian family who had yet been king while the historian lived) the mention of which revolt ia introduced by Herodotus (i. 130) in connection with his account of the fall of Astyages. By not mentioning this revolt and the suppres-sion of it by force of arms, in his history of Darius's reign (where also he erroneously supposes the pretended Smerdis who dispossessed Cauibyses, to have been a Mede because he was a Magian, and his usurpation, therefore, to have been an imposture by which the Medes unawares recovered their pristine superiority) Herodotus indicates very plainly that this passage was introduced into his first book (as the description of the city Babylon may have been likewise) after the third book hud been completed, and perhaps after the first draught of all the nine books ; see above p. 301, 302. 486 with the prince called by the Greek historians Astyages, before he succeeded to the throne, when the power of the domineering Scythian host was broken and when (with the Persians in their train) the Medes aided the revolt from Assyria of the ruler of Babylon, Nabopolassar father of Nebukhadrezzar ; and so the great city Nineveh with all that remained of her supremacy in Asia was overthrown. Afterwards, whether in quarrels where their own king was a principal or in others in which he served the cause of the king of Babylon, these fathers of living Medes had fought against the chief of the kings of Lesser Asia, the Lydian Alyattes, whose daughter afterwards became the wife of Astyages. They had swelled the hosts of Nebu- khadrezzar in his wars with successive kings of Egypt, the Pharaohs Nekho and Hophra. But besides their fathers' exploits, the aged Medes might with much reason claim for theirs, as the superior and most numerous nation, the chief merit in all the successful wars wherein after the deposition of king Astyages they themselves had fought for his son under Cyrus the Persian. The capture of Sardis the Lydian capital, with Croesus the last of the Lydian kings, the capture of Babylon, when Bel- shazzar the last Chaldean king was slain and left his throne to their own Darius son of Akhshurush, that is, apparently to the son of Astyages, they must have re- garded as Median achievements, though they may have owned the valour of the Persian bands and the surpassing merits of the Persian general to whom (as son of Astyages's daughter Mandane and nephew of Astyages's successor) the command of the Medes and Persians had been entrusted in the field; and who from that post of second in the kingdom had succeeded to the throne, on the death of their own Darius son of Aklishurush. But now, the sons of Cyrus the Persian were both dead, kings who had received their homage rather for the father's sake than be- cause through their mother they were said to be descended from the Median line; as Cyrus was descended likewise. No issue male of either Smerdis or Cambyses was pretended to exist. Therefore, when a countryman presented him- 487 self as descended, (through males of course) from the father of Astyages, from (Kh)uwakhshatara (the Kuakh- shara or Cyaxares of the Greeks) under whom they had broken the Assyrian yoke and overthrown the seat of Assyrian empire, his claim to be their king was more to their mind than that of the son of Hystaspes ; whose act, in slaying the pretended Smerdis son of Cyrus, was odious to all under Magian influence or not convinced that the king thus slain was an impostor. The claim of the son of Hystaspes to be king, was not derived from Cyrus but only from Cyrus's Persian ancestor Akhaemenes. It en- titled him at the utmost to the subordinate Persian king- dom ; but assuredly not to that of the Medes or to the throne of King Supreme, which with Babylon had been won at first for their own Darius son of Akhshurush. Such must have been some of the reasons why the people in Media, especially those of a past generation who had outlived the age for foreign service, preferred Frawartish or (to use the Greek form) Phraortes* to the Persian Darius son of Hystaspes, even though the latter through his mother may have claimed to be a grandson of Darius the Mede, as before this we have offered some reasons for believing. Where polygamy existed, even if females were held capable of inheriting and transmitting the kingly rank, a title to the throne derived from a mother must have been particularly liable to distrust. III. NOTWITHSTANDING the revolt in Media, the Persians and Medes of Darius's army at Babylon remained faithful. He even proceeded to detach a part of them against the rebels, under a leader whose name would identity him This form *{, to be 60 skhoenes of Egypt or 120 Persian parasangs. Reducing this to Greek measure, he makes the Egyptian sea- board 3000 stades long, which (at 606| English feet to the 600 Greek feet which made a stade) is equal to 413 miles and 1220 yards English ; whereas the real length of the coast from the bay of Plinthine even to the eastern end of Lake Serbonis, according to Sir J. G. Wilkinson, is by the shore little more than 300 miles. The day's journey of 150 etades in Herod, v. 55, will be seventeen miles and 417 yards, that is, nearly seven instead of five parasangs according to Isidore's measure- ment. We may take the skhoene of Isidore and Strabo or the parasang of Herodotus and Xenophon for an hour's march, and as to our twelve marches each of 7 hours or 7 skhoenes measure between Babylon and the border of Kampadene, note that in Herod, iii. 26 the journey across the sand from Egyptian Thebes to the city Oasis (which is reasonably identified with El-Khargeh, the modern chief town of the Great Oasis) is cjckuned one of seven days. But El-Khargeh is said to be distant 490 the south-west of Media, not only did the force under Darius's lieutenant bar any progress the movement might have made in that quarter in favour of Frawartish, but, moreover, it protected the mountain passes in the northern frontier of Susiana ; and, perhaps, kept open a communi- cation with Agbatana in Upper "Media, if the fortress at that capital remained still in the possession of Darius. Having sent Hydarnes into south-western Media, the next step against his Median rival which Darius has re- corded, was this. The king despatched into Armenia a man of that country, Dadarshish by name, with a commission exactly like the one given to the troops of Hydarnea, empowering and commanding him to destroy all that did not own Darius for their lord, and were not called his. It is not said that Dadarshish was furnished with troops. But, bearing in mind the custom of the king's record we can only conclude from this, that the Armenian departed without any Persians and Medes in his train. And if by birthright or by office (as it is probable) he was powerful in his own country, he may have needed little more than the authority of Darius to employ the means Armenia itself might furnish against those by whom the country was disturbed. When Dadarshish reached Armenia, he was assailed, but the forces of Darius which now we find under his command hit the enemy heavily, at a fortress or mansion which the Kissian and Assyrian copies of the king's record name Zuza, and where perhaps Dadarshish had arrived to take up his residence as Darius's representative. by one road 42, by another 52 hours, from ancient Thebes. If so, the seven days of Herodotus are marches of six hours each by one road and seven and three-sevenths by the other. But as the distance now seems to be computed at 6 days only by the shorter and 7 by the longer road, it appears that each day's march is one of seven hours. Alexander is related to have reached Rhaga on the llth day from Ekbatana, hoping to overtake Darius in his flight, that is (since the distance is stated by modern authority to be 198 miles) after eleven successive marches of 18 miles apiece ; see Arrian, Exp. Alex. iii. 20. In the Assyrian text prefixed to the name of this place is the ordinary monogram for a city, as Sir H. C. Rawlinaon supposes, pronounced t> (Heb. *vy) In the Aryan the name has in apposition to it the pre- 491 We have assumed that the enemy with whom Dadar- shish contended, was a professed friend of Darius' s Median rival ; and we would point out, that (though for a whole year after this, the scene of an obstinate struggle between two of Darius's lieutenants and his enemies) Armenia is not included by the king among the provinces which became disaffected while he was at Babylon, (or as we may be allowed to understand him) between the dates at which he crossed the Tigris against Naditabel and re- crossed that river on his return by way of Susa into Media against Frawartish. In all the three professed lists of the various nations or great provinces of the empire, engraved at different epochs in Darius's reign we find separate mention of Armenia, although this country seems to have been reduced to vassalage by the Medes before the Persians under Cyrus began to take the lead of them. Therefore, if here it is omitted from the list of the provinces that revolted from Darius while he was at Babylon, though during those fourteen months the field of many battles, this cannot be because it was not considered as in itself a province. To understand the omission, we should rather connect it with the fact that the first person who received Darius's commission to act against the enemy in Armenia, was himself an Armenian. Another fact that may help to explain why Armenia is acquitted of rebellion and yet the enemy was five times defeated dicate awahanam (rendered by Sir H. C. Rawlinson "village," but by Mr Norris (Journal R. A. S. vol xv. p. 212) "residence ") and in the Ki.ssian it is defined by the term Yuvanis, likewise applied to the place where Gaumi'ita wus slain. But Siktakhotish is described by the Aryan term didd, rendered "a fort," of which the usual Kissian correspondent is afvarris (expressed by the Greek /9{< f and by the Hebrew and Ara- maic i"l"V3) as in the description of the places where Dadarshish had hia second and third fight. In the Assyrian, Siktakhotibh has the prefix supposed to be sounded ir. Just so (to borrow the words of Gesenius) "creberrime dicitur HT3n JK'-IB' non tantum de arce regia, Nehem. i. 1. Esth. i. 2 ; ii. 3, 8 ; iii. 15 ; Dan. viii. 2, sed etiam de tota urbe adjacente, Esth. 1. 5. ii. 5. viii. 14, ix. 6, 11, 12 (confer Ezra vi. 2.) qua) alibi accuratius ]&)& "VJ7H vocatur, Esth. iii. 15, viii. 15." The place seems to have been at once a fortress and a palace, having a city adjoining it. So Zuza or Zutza may have had its palace which Dadarshish occupied in his viceregal capacity. 4U2 there, is this that the country claimed by the Armenians and called Armenia (though not by the Assyrians, yet) by the Persians as well as the Greeks, and after the Persians by the Kissians also, was inhabited by several races of men occupying separate districts, and not fused into one people. Those whom the Medes and Persians called Armenians, bordered in one direction, on the Medes, in another, on the Kardukhsean mountaineers, in another, on the Khaldaeans of the north. These last appear to have shared the same origin and language with the Khal- daeans of Babylonia, though whether as the parent stock, or as transplanted from the south, we cannot say. They are described as the warlike inhabitants of a mountainous country the productive part of which was small, so that armed with a shield of the sort called ytppov by the Greeks and with a couple of darts, they were ready to serve any one for hire in war, and were constantly seeking pillage on the lands of their Armenian neighbours. Before the first campaign in which Cyrus commanded for the successor of Astyages against the empire of Babylon, the story was told that, in order to consolidate the power of the Medes, he reduced the re- bellious Armenians to submission, and then seized and fortified certain heights in the Khaldaean territory which commanded the Khaldsean and Armenian confines. Put- ting here a garrison of Medes to keep the peace, he caused the two nations to come to terms of amity, with interchange of daughters for wives, and of plough-lands and pastures for more convenient occupation. And this treaty still subsisted in the time of Xenophon, between these northern Khaldaeans and the king of Persia's lieu- tenant in Armenia. 41 Another matter of import to the question, Who were Darius's enemies in Armenia, is the probability, which even what has just been noted suggests, that throughout the territory there were lords of lands, villages, towns, and castles, of Median extraction, whose grants were from the Median kings and who naturally favoured the new <> Xenoph. Cjrop. ii. 1. 6; iii. 1. \ 34; iii. 2 1-15, 24; ii 493 king of their nation, called Khshathrita and said to be descended from the famous king of the Medes Khuwakh- shatara. That Armenia at this time was in some sense a de- pendency of Media, appears from this, that the operations of Darius's forces there (like those that ended, as we shall see, in the defeat of the Sagartians by Khamaspada the Mede) are certainly included by the king, along with those begun by Hydarnes and finished by himself in the proper country of the Medes, when, at the end of the detail, he sums it up with the words, " This I did in Media." After the victory at Zuza, obtained on the eighth day of Thuravabara (the month called by the Assyrians and Jews Sabatu and Sebat and answering mostly to the Julian February) Dadarshish was not left unmolested in his proceedings in Armenia. The enemy soon mustered again, and assailed him a second time at a fort named in Aryan, like the famous river, Tigra. But they were again defeated, on the eighteenth of Thuravahara. Here, as in the record of some subsequent battles in Armenia, Parthia, and Margia, the Assyrian copy of Darius's inscription gives a bill of the slain whether in or after battle. It was not part of the king's plan, ever to commemorate disasters or to note the cost of his victories, but at this second fight the troops of Dadarshish are said to have slain of the king's enemies 546 in action and 520 after- wards. However, though broken now in two encounters during the first moon of spring, the enemy within three months gathered together again and attacked Dadarshish for the third time. They beat up his quarters, as apparently he was proceeding in the pacification of the province, at a fort named in the Kissian (as deciphered by Mr Norris) Huiyama, and in the Aryan (as Sir H. C. Rawlinson conjectures) Uhyama. As usual, they are reported to have been heavily smitten ; and, perhaps, none but what were regarded as handsome slaughters or hard blows upon the enemy were admitted for remembrance. After inflicting this defeat (probably in May or the first moon of the midsummer quarter ; for it is dated the ninth of 494 the month Thaigarchish which the Assyrians and Jews called Aim and lar B. C. 520) Dadarshish advanced no further in the province, but waited till Darius should him- self enter Media. Here we see again, if not the depen- dence of Armenia on the province properly called Media, yet certainly, that the operations in Armenia were carried on against that enemy whom Darius was to destroy in his strong-hold of Media proper. Nothing further is related of Dadarshish in Armenia ; and though other battles, fought and won in that country by Darius's people, require to be registered before the forward movement into Media, of the king's main army commanded by himself, yet we find that the space of eight months intervened before the date of the first of them. We will, therefore, not proceed at once to the operations of Vaumisa in Armenia, as does the narrative of Darius ; but, during the interval, we turn to other matters which certainly belong to it, or else may conveniently be treated of here. IV. AMONG the nations that revolted at this time, particularly those three (if not four) concerning which nothing more than their names is known in the matter, Egypt, the recent conquest of Cambyses is, perhaps, the one which most excites our curiosity. But all that we have been able to find bearing on this revolt, is no more than the fact that (if we believe Herodotus) the same satrap Aryandes, in whose hands Cambyses had left the country, was still invested with the government, so long after as at the date of the expedition which Darius made across the Bosporus into Thrace and across the Danube into the country of the Scythians.* His conduct, then, during the For this synchronism, see Herod, iv, 145, 165, 167. The date of the invasion of the Scythians by Darius is doubtful. It is placed by Wesseling (ad Herod, vi. 40, cited by Clinton) at B. C. 508-507, later than the year in which Mordecai succeeded Ilaman as Darius's prime- minister, which was hia 12th regnal year and began with Nisan B. C. 495 revolt of Egypt recorded in the Behistun inscription, must have been satisfactory: and we can only suppose that the disaffection whether a rising of the natives or a mutiny in the Perso-Median army was suppressed by the satrap and his subordinates before Darius (who may have been far from inactive on the occasion) quitted Babylon for the eastward. We might have expected a brief record of the success, like those relating to the two revolts in Susiana. That there is none, may be taken to indicate, either that no one in Egypt, of the natives or of the foreign soldiery, pretended to the throne of the Pharaohs, or else, that the adventurer escaped the hands of those by whom Darius was served in the country. But perhaps the king's satrap was resisted by a portion of the army, in behalf of the man who calling himself Khshathrita, and claiming descent from the ancient kings of the country, was reported to be the king acknowledged in Media. In Syria at this time, we find Darius served by zealous and active officers on an occasion which now demands our attention. We have already seen that, having changed his pre- tended proper name of Smerdis for the regal appellation Artaxerxes, Gaumata the Magian, on a representation transmitted to him by the Samaritans, had sent a royal letter commanding to stop the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem, and forbidding any work there to be re- sumed without special order from himself. Also, inci- dentally, we have been led to some particulars connected with a renewal of the building which the people at Jerusalem were induced to undertake without any such license. To this matter we are brought now by the course of events and in the order of time. 510. For the silver coinage of Aryandes, and his being put to death by Darius as meditating revolt, see Herod, iv. 166. On the coins supposed to be of Aryandes, see Sir J. G. Wilkinson's note in G. Ravrlinson's Herodotus, vol. 3, p. 145. For the expedition sent by Aryandes from Egypt against Barka, to aid Pheretima mother of king Arcesilaus in taking revenge for the murder of her son, see Herod, iv. 165, 167 and 200-203. 496 Its date (according to Ezra, Haggai, and Zechariah) 5s the second regnal year of Darius ; and this seems to be that Assyrian no less than Jewish calendar year, which followed immediately after the one wherein Gaumata was slain and Darius became king in fact. b But this next year, to the one marked in the Jewish and ordinary Assyrian calendar by the accession of Darius, had begun with Nisannu or Nisan, the moon before that in which the last victory of Dadarshish was gained for Darius in Armenia. In other words, the second year of Darius spoken of by the fore-mentioned Hebrew writers, was that calendar year of the Jews and Assyrians which began about April B. C. 520. Evidently, it was not the Jewish civil year, or year of contracts, which began with Tasritu or Tisri, the seventh month of the Mosaic and of the Assyrian calendars. Nor yet was it the regnal year of the Khaldaean annalists (used also by Nehemiah) which (as we have seen reason to conclude) began with Mar- khesvan, the eighth month of the same calendars. For, the series of days noted in the second year of Darius by the fellow prophets Haggai and Zechariah, begins with the sixth month Ululu or Elul, and ends in the eleventh month Sabatu or Shevat ; * that is, begins before either of those twelvemonths. The same argument also shews, that this year, which Haggai and Zechariah's series of notable days belongs to, is not the year of the Egyptian calendar reckoned for Darius's second regnal year in Ptolemy's Canon ; for this is the year E. N. 228, which began a quarter of a day before 1 January B. C. 520, that is, in the course of Thabitu or Tebeth, the tenth Mosaic and Assyrian month. But, if the year called by Haggai b Just so, the second month of the second year of the coming of Zerub- babel's expedition to the house of God at Jerusalem (Ezra iii. 8.) was the next lar after the seventh month (or Tisri) of the year in which they arrived, Ezra iii. 1. c The series of dates is as follows ; the first of the sixth month (Elul,) Haggai i. 1; the 24th of the same month, Hagg. i. 15 ; the 21st of the 7th month (Tisri,) Hagg. ii. 1 ; the (beginning of the ?) 8th month rMarkhesvan,) Zech. i. 1. ; the 24th of the 9th month (Khisleu,) Hagg. ii. 10 and 20 ; the 24th of the llth month " which is the month Sebat," Zech. i. 7. 497 and Zechariah the second of Darius, began in the circle of months, later than the eleventh and earlier than the sixth, what other can- it be than the year beginning with Nisannu or Nisan, the first month of both the Assyrian, and the Jewish calendar, which also seems to begin the twelvemonth according to the use of the author of the book Esther ? No other year can be proposed. It was in the autumn, then, of B. C. 520, about Sep- tember, after the lapse of more than ten months since the death of the Magian king, when the Jews began again to work at the house of God in Jerusalem, on the 24th day of the sixth month, that is, Elul, the sixth month from Nisan. d Previously, on the first day of the month, the word of Jehovah by the hand of Haggai the prophet had come to the captain or governor of Judah, Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel or Salathiel, and to Joshua son of Jozedekh the high priest. It had said ; " Thus speaketh Jehovah Sabaoth, saying, This people say, The time is not come, the time that the house of Jehovah should be built." But, answered the Word, " Is it time for you, ye, to dwell in your cieled houses, and this house to lie waste ? Consider your ways. Ye have sown much and bring in little ; ye eat, but ye have not enough ; ye drink, but ye are not filled with drink ; ye clothe you, but there is none warm ; and he that earneth wages, earneth them for a bag with holes therein. Consider your ways. Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house, and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified. Ye looked for much ; and lo, it came to little ; and when ye brought it home, I did blow upon it. Why ? Because of My house that is waste, and ye run every man to his own house. Therefore the heaven over you is stayed from dew, and the earth is stayed from her fruit ; and I called for a drought upon the land, and upon the mountains, and upon the corn, and upon the new wine, and upon the oil, and upon that which the ground bringeth forth, and upon men, and upon cattle, and upon all the labour of the hands." 6 a llagg. i. 15. Ilagg. i. 1-11. 32 498 Hearing this message from Jehovah, Zeruhbabel and Joshua and all the people testified their submission, and did homage before Jehovah. It would seem, that for their procrastination in the work of the house of God, since the removal of legal hindrance effected by the death of the king who pretended to be Smerdis son of Cyrus, and surnamed himself Artaxerxes, the people of Judah had met with unusual failure in all they had put their hands to on their own account. In particular, they had received but a scant measure of the good gifts of God in the late harvest, the present fruit season, and the year's increase of their flocks and herds. They had also mis- carried in the use of that which they had brought home. It was for themselves alone that they had laboured, and their labour had but tended to poverty. But now that they humbly promised obedience to the Word of Jehovah, His messenger Haggai spake again unto the people and said; " I am with you, saith Jehovah ." f Then the spirit of Zerubbabel and the spirit of Joshua and the spirit of all the people was stirred by Jehovah, so that on the four-and-twentieth day of the month (as we have already related) they came and worked in the house of Jehovah Sabaoth. Intending to dwell in the midst of them again, this God (Who is our God as well as their's, through His adoption of us) had upbraided them for their slowness in the work of preparing Him the house. Perhaps, the three weeks that elapsed, after the delivery of Haggai's first message from Jehovah, were not spent in the stirring up of their spirit by Jehovah. Perhaps in those weeks they were making all ready for the building which they resumed on the twenty-fourth of the month. The command on the first of the month had been, " Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build." Perhaps, before the twenty-fourth they had been to the mountain and brought wood, and on the twenty-fourth they began to lay it on the walls. 8 Again, in the following month (the seventh of the Assyrian and Mosaic twelvemonth but the first of the f Hagg. i. 13. g Comp. Ezra v. 8. 499 civil year) on the twenty-first day of the month, which was the last and great day of the feast Tabernacles, Haggai was visited by the Word of Jehovah again, and was commanded to speak to the governor, to the high priest, and to the people, and say thus ; " Who is left among you that saw this house in its first glory ? And how do ye see it now ? Is it not in your eyes, in com- parison of that, as nothing? Yet now, be strong, O Zerubbabel, saith Jehovah ; and be strong, O Joshua son of Josedekh the high priest ; and be strong, all ye people of the land, saith Jehovah, and work; for I am with you, saith Jehovah Sabaoth. According to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so My Spirit remaineth among you ; fear ye not. For thus saith Jehovah Sabaoth ; Yet once, it is a little while ; and I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land, and I will shake all nations, and the DESIRE OP ALL NATIONS shall come ; and I will fill this house with GLORY, saith Jehovah Sabaoth. The silver is Mine, and the gold is Mine, saith Jehovah Sabaoth. The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith Jehovah Sabaoth, and in this place I will give PEACE, saith Jehovah Sabaoth." h The promise was fulfilled when our Lord Jesus the Messiah (Who is to come again) came first. Then, before the faithless and perverse generation whom He visited had entirely passed away, the house and the city were destroyed by the people of a second Babylon, the Romans. The city has been rebuilt and there are Jews among its people ; but they are not its masters ; and they have no temple. Again, in the eighth month, about November B. C. 520, came the word of Jehovah to Zechariah son of Berechiah son of Iddo, saying, " Jehovah hath been sore displeased with your fathers. Therefore, say thou unto them, Thus saith Jehovah Sabaoth, Turn ye unto Me, saith Jehovah Sabaoth, and I will turn unto you, saith Jehovah Sabaoth. Be ye not as your fathers, unto whom the former prophets > Hagg. ii. 1-8. 32* 500 have cried saying, Thus saith Jehovah Sabaoth, Turn ye now from your evil ways and your evil doings ; but they did not hear nor hearken unto Me, saith Jehovah. Your fathers, where are they ? And the prophets, do they live for ever ? But My words and My statutes which 1 com- manded My servants the prophets, did they not overtake your fathers ? " l Again, on the four-and-twentieth day of the ninth month (which fell in December B. C. 520) the word of Je- hovah came to Haggai the prophet, commanding him to put this question to the priests upon the law ; " If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread or pottage or wine or oil or any meat, shall it be holy ? " Accordingly, he asked the question, and they answered ; "No." Then he (as he was commanded) asked again ; " If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? " They answered, " Unclean." Then said the prophet ; " So is this people, and so is this nation before Me, saith Jehovah; and so is every work of their hands ; and" (consequently) " that which they offer there " (at the altar of burnt- offering) " is unclean." Then the message bade them review the years that had elapsed since the day that the foundation of Jehovah's house was laid, ^ how when one 1 Zech i. 1-6. The remainder of the sixth verse is, perhaps, no part of the message from Jehovah, but describes its effect with the people. It is, " And they returned and said, Like as Jehovah Sabaoth thought to do unto us, according to our ways and according to our doings, so hath He dealt with us." Here the " they " may perhaps mean Zerubbabel and Joshua and all the people ; for this is the meaning of " them " in verse 3, a pronoun which has no expressed antecedent in the previous text. Otherwise, we are to understand God's message as affirming that the fathers of those who heard it had glorified God by confessing that they had deserved their chastisement and that it was no other than that with which God had threatened them when He called on them to repent. J The foundation was laid in the 2nd month (lar) of the second year of their coming to the house of God at Jerusalem, Ezra iii. 8 13, that is, about May B. C. 535. Therefore, the word " even," identifying the day when the foundation of Jehovah's Temple was laid, with the four and twentieth day of the ninth month in Haggai ii. 18, has been erroneously supplied by the Anglican translators. The days there mentioned and also in Hagg. ii. 15. are the two limits of a period 501 came to a heap of twenty measures, there were but ten ; when one came to the press-vat for to draw out fifty vessels, there were but twenty ; " I smote you," said Jehovah, " with blasting, and with mildew, and with hail, in all the labours of your hands; yet ye turned not to Me ! " But after this retrospect, the message ended with a pro- mise of His favour to them in spite of their ill desert. It asked, " Is the seed yet in the barn * Yea, as yet the vine and the fig-tree and the pomegranate and the olive tree hath not brought forth." The season was December ; and man could neither ensure nor foresee the result of his labours, that the next harvest and next fruit season were to bring forth ; nor did the remembrance of those past years to which their attention had been turned, encourage hope. But our God gave them notice ; "From this day will I bless you." All things were to be made to work together for their good. The years of chastisement were ended, years of prosperity were begun. The civil year (which was now three months old) would be crowned with abundance between Passover and Pentecost at the corn harvest, and again in the fruit season at the end of the twelvemonth ; and years of like prosperity should follow.* Before corn-harvest arrived, and while (with the Jews as with the Assyrians) the regnal year was still the second of Darius, the word of Jehovah came to His people again through Haggai's fellow servant Zechariah. The prophet described many scenes in which he had taken part in the night of the twenty-fourth vj^rj/^spov of the eleventh month ; for he had seen and heard and at certain moments himself had asked a word. In the first of these visions there is an incident recorded which may be selected attention is culled to. The same period is spoken of, Zech. viii. 9, 10 where, in verse 9, the sense is, "Ye that hear in these days, so many of you as were in the day when the foundation of this house was laid." For the pronoun " Ye " is the antecedent of both the relative clauses that follow in succession the clause "That hear in these days &c," and the clause, " Which were in the day that the foundation of the house was laid." k Hagg. ii. 10-19. 502 for our purpose. An angel of Jehovah who talked with the prophet, made intercession and said ; " Jehovah Saba- oth, how long wilt not Thou have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which Thou hast had indignation these three-score and ten years ? " And Jehovah "answered the angel with good words and comfortable words." So the angel bade Zechariah ; " Cry thou, Thus saith Jehovah Sabaoth ; I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy ; and I am very sore displeased with the heathen that are at ease ; for I was but a little displeased, and they helped forward the affliction. Therefore, thus saith Jehovah, I am re- turned to Jerusalem with mercies: My house shall be built in it, saith Jehovah Sabaoth : and a line shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem." The angel said more- over to the prophet ; " Cry again : Thus saith Jehovah Sabaoth, My cities through prosperity shall yet be spread abroad ; and Jehovah shall yet comfort Zion, and shall yet choose Jerusalem." l Thus, more plainly than before, was the epoch announced at Jerusalem of a new era in the divine government. Seventy years of indignation had elapsed : henceforth God will again be gracious to Jerusalem. Nay, He is already returned with mercies to her, and those who were the too eager instruments of His former displeasure, will themselves be punished. But when did those three-score and ten years begin ? If we count them back- ward from the date of the announcement by Zechariah, which is the twenty-fourth day of Shebat in B. C. 519, we arrive at the twenty-fourth day of the same Assyrian and Jewish month in B. C. 589. But what commencement of indignation do we find manifested against Jerusalem then ] Why, that last and fatal siege of Jerusalem by Nebu- khadrezzar king of Babylon is lately begun. The siege, which at last in the eleventh year of king Zedekiah in B. C. 587 ended in its thirty-first month with the capture of the city, and then was followed in the ensuing month by the burning of the temple and the palaces and by > Zech. i. 7, 12-17. 503 the demolition of the city walls, had now been going on for the last six weeks, ever since the tenth day of the previous month Tebeth in the ninth year of Zedekiah. m "> 2 Kings xxv. 1-10, Jerem. xxxix. 1-8 ; lii. 4-14, Ezek. xxiv. 1-2. Compare Baruch 1. 2. where is a mistake of the pretended Baruch for u.wi in the date r - m i * T >TT 1/33^ or i, i&ip,,) p*,*. The three- score and ten years of Zech. i. 12 and vii. 5 are the same as the three- score and ten of 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21. But reference to Jeremiah's prophecies is made in this last passage as in Dan. ix. 2. where the conclusion is made in the first year of Darius the Mede (which year by Chaldsean reckoning began with Markhesvan, by Assyrian probably with Nisan, B. C. 538, but by that of Ptolemy's Canon with the year E. N. 210, that is, on the 5th of January B. C. 538). Seventy years are in fact foretold by Joremiah xxv. 11, 12. and xxix. 10. In the latter place seventy years captivity of the Jewa at Babylon are clearly spoken of; and the period is the same which Ezra i. 1. alludes to, as terminated in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia (called king of Babylon, Ezra v. 13) that is, in a year which by Chaldaean reckoning would begin with Markhesvan, by Assyrian with Nisan, B. C. 536. But the seventy years of the former prophecy are (in one respect at least) the duration of the supremacy of Babylon B. C. 608-538, which was expired in the first year of Darius the Mede : as Daniel understood by docu- mentary evidence ; though he was too sanguine in supposing that the desolations of Jerusalem were to last no longer. But (according to a suggestion by the Rev. Geo. II. Forbes of Burntisland, that three weeks of years are predicted in the 21 days of Dan. x. 13) the prophet was admonished in the 3rd year of Cyrus that the Angel Prince of the kingdom of Persia, by the power given to him of resistance, would delay the fulfilment of Daniel's prayer for the city and the Tem- ple of God, till the end by Chaldaean computation of the 4th year of Darius at Babylon and of the 70th since the end of the year of Nebu- khadrezzar in which Jerusalem was destroyed if we reckon from the beginning of the reign of Darius the Mede in B. C. 538 : or rather (if we reckon from B. C. 536, the first year of Cyrus at Babylon, when the exhortation to the Jews was issued to go up and build the temple at Jerusalem, and when the holy vessels of the former temple were restored to them ; Ezra i. 1-11) till the end of the sixth year of Darius at Babylon in which year the temple was finished at Jerusalem ; Ezra vi. 15-22. On the whole, we observe that the seventy years of Zechariah, recognized also as so many sabbath years of the soil of Judah in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21 (and there said to have been foretold by the prophet Jeremiah) are a period known to us only from the retrospect in Zechariah, not being found previously announced to the people from God in the recorded words of Jeremiah. However, the theory may be sug- gested, that the predicted punishment of the king of Babylon when 70 years should bo accomplished, was to be more than once fulfilled, not 504 Thenceforward, the tenth of Tebeth became a yearly fast: and undoubtedly, the anniversary had been a day of mourning at Jerusalem at its late return, although this was since the message through Haggai had been received whereby God promised on the twenty-fourth of Khisleu last past, " From this day will I bless you." It appears, then, that the ninth of Zedekiah is the first of the seventy years that the indignation lasted against Jerusalem and against the other cities of Judah. Now, this year began with Tisri B. C. 590, being the seventeenth year of Nebukhadrezzar's dominion over the kings of Judah, and the fifteenth of his reign at Babylon in succession to Nabopolassar his father. Consequently, the seventy-first year the year of God's return with mercies, the year of His first promises of blessing by Haggai and Zechariah, began with Tisri B. C. 520. n "When those promises, one of which we have cited, were made through Zechariah on the twenty-fourth day of Shebat in the second year of Darius, the work in the house of God had been proceeding anew for five full months, only in the death of Belshazzar when Babylon was taken by Cyrus, B. C. 538, but in the execution of the first pretender styled Nebukha- drezzar son of Nabunit after Darius's first seizure of Babylon in Anamaka in the first year of his reign, towards the end of December B. C, 521 or early in January B. C. 520 ; and a third time, in the execution of the Becond pretender of the same assumed designation at the second capture of Babylon by Darius B. C. 516 in Markazana (June?) of the 6th year of his reign by Assyrian and Jewish calculation, or the 5th by Chaldean registration. Now, the supposed fulfilment in the first year of Darius, marks the last of the seventy years' indignation against Jerusalem which we have cited from Zech. i. 12. The capture of Baby- lon in B. C. 516 happened in the 71st year after the end of the Jewish civil year (the eleventh of Zedekiah) in which Jerusalem was taken and burnt by Nebukhadrezzar, or in the 7 1st year of a series which began with the month Tisri in B. C. 587. It is an obvious objection, however, to thus supposing Jerem. xxv. 11, 12 to refer to the disasters which befell Babylon and her king both in B. C. 521-20 and in B. C. 517-16 as well as in B. C. 538, that the supposed dates of fulfilment are not both 70th or both 71st years, but one a 70th and the other a 71st year, from epochs in Jewish history. n For the fast on the tenth of Tebeth commemorating the commence- ment of Nebukhadrezzar's last siege, see Zech. viii. 19 ; vii. 1, 5. 505 since it had been resumed, as we have seen at God's command. So, it was probably soon after, if not before this that the proof to which we have alluded, of zeal and activity in their master's service was exhibited by Darius's governor and other officers west of the Euphrates. This chief commissioner for the administration of the king's affairs in Syria, probably resided principally (or in ordinary times would have resided principally) at the capital or in its neighbourhood. The distance of Damascus, which there is reason to fix upon as the chief city of Syria under the Persian kings, is not, indeed, great, yet vigilance and activity are indicated by the fact that the governor, named Tatnai, came to Jerusalem in person, with others in his company by whom his responsibility was shared, and it is probable that the business on which he is record- ed to have been engaged during his stay, was that which brought him. The doings of the Jews seem to have been reported with the suggestion, that what they were about was unauthorized; though no great stress could be laid on the fact that the late usurper's government had forbidden them to proceed. Arrived in the province of Judsea, at the place which in their subsequent report to Darius they designated not as a city (in which respect it was not worth speaking of) but as the site of the house of the Great God, the governor and other officials found this house built of ponderous stones, with timber laid in the walls, and the whole work going on fast and prospering. Then, they asked the elders of the people, by whose command they were building that house and rearing those walls (around it). They also took down the names of the men that were the chief among those engaged in the work, to report them with the authority they pleaded for the building. But by God's blessing it happened that Tatnai and his companions were contented to refer the matter to Darius, and did not think proper to stop the work till his decision The name ^nn in Ezra v. 3, 6 ; vi. 13, which as now pointed is Tatnai, is rendered 2^;,v rf in Esdras vi. 3, 7, 27 ; vii. i. &*,* in Josephus Ant. xi. 4 4-7, xi. 1. g 3. In Esdras 0' v. 3, 6, vi 13, the reading of the Vatican MS. in the Roman edition is efi, that of the Alex. MS 506 should arrive. The builders were reported to the king, as representing themselves to be the servants of the God of the heavens and the earth, and their work to be the rebuilding of a house that a great king of Israel had set up in old time, but which was destroyed within the memory of men still alive, by Nebukhadrezzar king of Babylon the Khaldaean, when, their fathers having provoked the God of the heavens unto wrath, He delivered them into the hand of Nebukhadrezzar, and they were carried captive to Babylon. As to the authority by which they were en- gaged in repairing the destruction Nebukhadrezzar had made, King Cyrus had issued a decree " in the first year of Cyrus king of Babylon," to build this house of God, and the vessels also of gold and silver of the house of God, which Nebukhadrezzar took out of the temple at Jeru- salem and brought into the temple at Babylon, Cyrus the king did take out of the temple at Babylon, and they were delivered unto one named Sheshbazzar whom he had made captain or governor, and who was commanded to carry the vessels into the temple at Jerusalem, and to cause the house of God to be rebuilt in its place. By Sheshbazzar, " the prince of Judah " was meant, who (except when he is spoken of in an official manner) is called Zerubbabel. p So much the elders of the people answered Tatnai as to their authority. They added that this Sheshbazzar (whom of course they pointed out among them) had accordingly come from Babylon and laid the foundation of that house of God at Jerusalem; and that from that time to the present the house had been in building, and was not finished. To this deposition of the Jews, Tatnai and those who were in commission with him, subjoined their counsel as to what was to be done. They advised that if it seemed good unto the king, a search should be made in the king's treasure-house there at Babylon, to ascertain whether in fact a decree had been made of Cyrus the king to build this house of God at Jerusalem : and they re- quested the king to send them his pleasure in the matter. 1 P The Sheshbazzar of Ezrai. 11 ; v. 14, 16, is called "prince of Judah," Ezra i. 8. l Ezra v. 3-17. 507 This despatch seems to assume a fact which we have learnt from the Behistun inscription, that the king was not only master of Babylon but resident there at that time. Their advice was complied with, and, search having been made not only at Babylon but also at Agba- tana, the decree of Cyrus was discovered at the latter place, and an order most favourable to the Jews was thereupon issued by Darius. T But this result may not have taken place till after the overthrow of the king's Median rival, which seems to have happened so late as in October of B. C. 519, in Darius's third regnal year accor- ding to the Assyrian and Jewish computation. For it is not certain that, while the power of Frawartish lasted, Darius (even if his people held the palace-fort at Agbatana) was able, without an extraordinary effort, to send thither and make the search which his lieutenant of Syria advised. V. FROM Judaea, where the prophets Haggai and Zechariah have now published the termination of the Divine Wrath denounced by Jeremiah and Ezekiel, under which Jeru- salem and the other towns of the country had lain in desolation for full seventy years, return we to Armenia where Darius's record of fresh successes indicates that the struggle still subsisted, in which the victories of Dadarshish had been obtained. We have seen that the king's lieutenants, Vidarna and Dadarshish, had been stationary ; Vidarna, for many months after defeating once the forces of Frawartish in south-western Media, and Dadarshish, after three later conflicts with the enemy in Armenia; both generals waiting, as Darius appears to have directed them, as soon as the enemy was checked, till he himself should be arrived with an overwhelming force in Media, the centre of his competitor's strength. His stay, however, at Baby- r Ezra vi. 1-12. 508 Ion being prolonged, and support meanwhile or a fresh leader being required by his troops in Armenia, a Persian general was despatched, Vaumisa by name, to that province, where he arrived about the beginning of B. C. 519 and fought two battles with the Medes or their allies. His commission (like that of Vidarna and that of Dadar- shish) was to exterminate all rebels, but it is not recorded in his case, more than in that of Dadarshish, that he was accompanied by any detachment from the king's army. We may conclude, that any fresh men he may have brought with him, were not Persians or Medes. As no more mention is made of Dadarshish the Ar- menian (though we shall hereafter meet with one of this name, a Persian) it may be that he was dead or had been recalled, and that Vaumisa was despatched, not so much in aid, but rather to replace Dadarshish in Armenia. But the enemies of Darius appear to have gained new strength, for Vaumisa had not yet crossed the Armenian frontier when he was assailed by the rebels on the fifteenth day of the month Anamaka, or in January B. C. 519, in a district belonging to Assyria, another of the provinces that are said to have revolted while the king was at Babylon ; and this fact may suggest that the revolt in Assyria had taken place since the last success of Dadar- shish. and had created the necessity for the despatch of Vaumisa to support the king's interest in Armenia. However, Vaumisa inflicted a severe repulse upon the rebels. The name of the Assyrian district in which the battle was fought (as we learn from the Kissian text of Darius's great inscription) was Atchidu. On this occasion the Assyrian text again adds a particular not found in the two other versions the number of the enemy's slain. It was two thousand and twenty-four. Six weeks after their disaster in Assyria, and six days after the message by Zechariah in Judaea of the return of Jehovah Sabaoth with mercies to Jerusalem, Darius's general having meanwhile followed them across the bor- der into Armenia, the enemy returned to the attack. It was at the close, or, as the Assyrian text has it, on the thirtieth of the month called in Aryan Thuravahara, the 509 Assyrian and Jewish Sabatu or Shebat, answering to the first month alike of the spring and of the year according to the Chinese reckoning,* or nearly the Julian February. Again, however, they were defeated, in a district of Ar- menia called Autiyara, and with greater slaughter than before ; for, as we find it announced to all who understood the Assyrian language, two thousand and forty-four of them were killed in action ; and (besides one or two thousands, the notation of which has been obliterated from the rock by time) fifteen hundred and fifty-nine that had been taken alive, were executed afterwards. This victory having been achieved, no further attacks on the king's forces are recorded to have been made ; or rather to have been signally defeated. Vaumisa, thus far successful, having now acquired a secure position in the country, made no further advance but waited, as Dadarshish had already resolved to wait in Armenia, and as Vidarna was still waiting in Kampadene, till the king should himself arrive in Media to assail the main body of a revolt rooted (as it seems) in the northern and eastern as well as in the central parts of that country, whence, though now checked in the west and south-west, it had extended itself in other directions into the neighbouring provinces. Before the expiry of the month after Vaumisa's last success, that is, of the mid-spring month called by the Aryans Viyakhana, by the Assyrians Adarru, Darius, as we calculate, had quitted Babylon. But before we accompany him, there is yet a matter to be related which had previously occupied the king, though how long we The Chinese subdivide their twelve signs of the Zodiac into two apiece, and the names of these twenty-four subdivisions are applied respectively to the days when the Sun is in the first and the 15th degree of each of the twelve signs. Spring, summer, autumn, winter, have each its six of these sub-signs or fortnightly Zodiacal divisions. The first of these, coinciding with the first day of the sign Tiger (Aquarius) and of the spring quarter, is called Lih-tchun, "commencing spring." In 1843 it was the fifth, in 1855 it was the 8th, day of our February ; See Heal Life in China by the Rev. W. G. Milne, pp. 137-140, 142 of the 2nd edit, of Tasset's French Translation, with Introduction and notes by G. Pnuthier. 510 are not able to determine. This was the fresh appearance of a rival in Susiana b who proclaimed himself king of the country : though apparently with a smaller measure of support than Assina or Atrina, the former adventurer, had found at the outset of his attempt. The new danger is thus briefly recorded by Darius ; " There was a man named Martiya son of Chi(n)chikrish, whose place of abode was in Persis at a town named Kuganaka" (in Aryan, but in Kissian Kukkannakan.) " This man arose in Susiana and said to the people, I am Immannis c king of Susiana." Assuming kingship, a man put on the peculiar dress and ornaments of royalty. So, too, it was thought necessary, more or less perhaps for every one, but chiefly of course for a man of the lowest previous station or fame, to abandon his former name, as a petty, vulgar or ill-beseeming garb, and to invest himself with an appellation such as by b In Afardi (the country of the Afarti-fa) according to the Kissian version ; in ' Uwaja, according to the Aryan. The name in the Assyrian text is not as usual expressed by the three characters commonly deci- phered Nu va (or ma) ki, whereof the last (being found also after the names Babylon and Asshur) may be set aside as no part but a predicate of the name. The second, too, of the three characters is supposed not absolutely necessary to the expression of the name, which is sometimes represented by the first and third alone. See Journal R. A. S. vol. xiv p. xvi. To the first character, in one of the ancient vocabularies, the meaning or else the phonetic power is assigned of Elam. See Journal R. A. S. vol. xv p. 236, note. So much for the usual Assyrian expres- sion of this name. The expression used here, (Beh. Inscr. Assyrian text, line 41) consists of three characters deciphered E lu ti. But the third character, which ia also the predeterminative of a province, has likewise the sound or meaning mat. See Sir H. C. Rawlinson's obser- vations, Journal R. A. S. vol. xiv. Analysis p. xxiii. also Memoir p. 6. We may, therefore, believe that according to the expression of the Assyrian text, Martiya arose in Elumat ; and we may see in this name the 'E>.uuais* of the Greeks ; e. g. Strabo xvi. 1 17. e We select the Kissian spelling as deciphered by Norris, supposing the name to have been indigenous. The Assyrian text of the "Detach- ed Inscriptions," No. 5, has the name written Yammanesu, Journal R. A. S. vol. xiv. The true Aryan form is found to be Imanish. See Sir H. C. Rawlinson in the " Note " appended to Journal R. A. S. vol. xii, p. xviii, where the statement of vol. x. p. xlvii. (in a note on the Aryan text, col. 2 line 10) is corrected. 511 its signification, by the memories it suggested, or by its mere difference from the old one, might denote a new and exalted character. We may presume that Immannis (as the Kissian text spells it,) was a name no less fit to win homage in Susiana than Nebukhadrezzar had been lately and was again to be considered in Babylonia. We shall see (and we have noted it already) that as his rival Frawartish took the name Khshathrita among the Medes, so Darius now desired or consented to be called, as Cam- byses had been new-named before him, Akhshurush, that is, Khshurush ; because apparently that name which had been borne by at least one king of the Median line pre- viously, d was suitably put on, when allegiance was claimed by a Persian from the nation of the Medes. But possibly Immannis may be identical with Uinman, the name of a deity after whom the king of Susa in the time of Sen- nacherib king of Assyria was addressed as " Eldest son of Umman." This Umman, again, may have been the same withStrabo's "Persic" deity Omanes. 6 Immannis, how- ever, may be an Aryan name ; for the two last syllables, whether in the Aryan writing of it (Imanish) or in the u See Daniel ix. i, and compare Tobit, at the end of the book. The name Omanes is employed by Strabo in the genitive form, /* only ; Strab. xi. 8 g 4 and xv. 3 15, and this genitive may have had for its nominative, 'a^.ts. This deity Sir H. C. Rawlinson (Journal R. A. S. vol. xi p. 96, note) takes to be the same as the Khomcean Apollo of Amuiianus xxiii. 6, who was worshipped at Humdnia, the X*/M of Ptolemy v. 20. Mr II. Fox Talbot tells us (Journal R. A. S. vol. xviii, p. 48) on the authority of an inscription, that some fugitives from Babylon, defeated by Sennacherib or his generals, flying to the court of the king of Susa, address him thus ; " Eldest son of Umman ! send thine army to help us." Observing that Umman was the great national deity of the Susians, and reminding the learned that among the hieroglyphics of Karnak there is a scene where the ambassadors of an eastern nation asking peace of Pharaoh Ramses, begin their suppli- cation, " Oh Son of Ammon " (and thus employ the title assumed by Alexander the Macedonian) Mr Talbot conjectures the Susian Umman to be identical with the Egyptian Ammon. Both nations were Hamito ; Mizraim son of Ham being the father, or the tribe, from whom the Egyptians descended, and Kush son of Ham being the father not only of the Kush or Ethiopians of the Upper Nile but of Nimrod and the Asiatic Ethiopians to whom the Kissians belonged. 512 Kissian, are also the two last of Hakhamanish, (in Kissian, Akkamannis) the name of the great progenitor of Cyrus and Darius. We have seen that Darius declares Martiya to have been originally an inhabitant of Parsa or Fars, that is, Persis. Moreover, in a later passage of his record, a recapitulation of the nine competitors he had overcome, Darius calls this fifth that arose, but fourth that fell before him, a Persian. f There seems, however, to be some ground for suspecting him to have not been, what Darius in the inscription upon his own tomb calls himself, " a Persian the son of a Persian, an Aryan of Aryan race." * We cannot, indeed, positively affirm that the quality of a Persian used to be bestowed (like the citizenship of Rome) on men having none of the blood of the nation to which the name of Persian properly belonged. Yet, if there was a population in Persis descended from one that occupied the country when the Perso-Aryan immigration happened, this race (which is thought to have been akin to the neighbouring Kissians) may have had more or less of the privileges of Persians conceded to it by that nobler or stronger race, especially since the wars in which the great Cyrus commanded. For to Cyrus, at the outset of the struggle between the Medes and Persians on the one side, and the Assyrian or Chaldseo-Assyrian power seated at Babylon, on the other, Xenophon attributes a measure, for making the auxiliary army from his native Persis more effective, whereby the common people were put upon an equality in arms and military prospects with the nobles, the 6,ttoY//4o/, and he is represented as admitting zealous auxiliaries of whatever nation, to an equal share with distinguished Persians in the fruits of the ultimate con- quest. 11 Or we might suppose Martiya to have been in the case of the children of the Athenian Metiokhus, the f Beh. Inscr. Aryan col. iv. line 16 ; Kissian col. iii. line 52. e See Journal R. A. S. vol. x. p. 292 ; vol. xv. p. 150. In the Assyrian text the one clause, " A Persian the son of a Persian," is all ; the other clause being omitted. See H. F. Talbot's "Assyrian text of the Naksh- i-Rustam Inscription of Darius ; " Journal R. A. S. vol. xix pp. 261-273. * Xenoph. Cyrop. ii. 1 9-19; yii. 4 28. 513 eldest son of the great Miltiades. These, being born of a Persian mother given in marriage to their father by king Darius when, many years after this time, Metiokhus had become Darius's prisoner, were accounted Persians. 1 Cer- tainly, we suspect Martiya to have been neither Persian nor Aryan by unmixed descent, but to have come of the old Kephenes, as Hellenic legends styled the nation, a stock on which the Persian off-shoot of the Aryan race had become engrafted when in the country of the Kephenes it probably found wives as well as lands. Now, these Kephenes appear to have been of Ethiopian race, that is to say, a branch of the race of Kush son of Ham son of Noah ; and if so, to have been of the same blood with the Kissians or Kossseans of adjacent Susiana. For Kepheus, from whose daughter accordi-ng to the legend the Persians were descended, is himself son of Belus J and king of Ethiopia. k That is to say, he and his people were Kushites of Babylonia. Accordingly, there is a fragment extant of the first book of his Persian history, in which Hellanicus asserts that " after the death of Kepheus, the people left Babylon and occupied Khoge, so that the country (of Babylon) was now no longer called Kephenia nor the people Kephenes, but the people Khaldseans and the whole country Khaldaica." Another account represents Perses the son of Perseus and Andromeda, as expelled with his Kephenes by the Khaldaeans after his grand- father's death, and as establishing himself among the Artseans or people of Aryan race. 1 1 Herod, vi. 41. J Herod, vii. 61, 150 ; vi. 54. k Apollodorus, Bibliothec. ii. 4 2, 4. Also Deinias the Argive and other history- writers of his school, cited by Agatharkhides ap. Phot, cod. 250. See Fragm Historic. Grcec. torn. i. p. 131 ; torn. iii. p. 25. 1 See Hellanicus, in Frag. Hist. Gr. torn. i. p. 67. Perhaps, it was in the belief that the Kissians and builders of Susa came from beyond the Tigris, that Babylon has been called the mother-city OITJ.AI<) of tho Persians. Eustathius in his commentary on Dionysius Periegetes, verse 1005 cites Arrian (probably his Farihica, now lost) thus ; Ji n.<-f, * u.rr t Tt>.i ( ti B^i/Xi, Kijer.af TTI Xi7<-0; Qrifft, 'A;iri~,) i{ A>J{/*s3f yittTiu v'tts, , i riitrvof Kr.fCuf ra{' iiiu.at.ffl, xtu rtltvTui *VTV xa.riXivi TY,I run K)f)5Vv i'-^.i. oi U.VTU ijr'Xaira* rf,f %*(.!. 'O Oi rr ~K.r,ra/aiy) iSto;, KOLI ffTa.tia.^tTa.! fCfaf . . There seem to be two elements of the Persian nation acknowledged here ; one, Kephenian, the other, Artaean. We have expressed the opinion above p. 13 that the appellation Artaean is nearly equivalent to Aryan ; appealing to Dr Donaldson's account of {i- the initial element of many both Mede and Persian names, that it is the perfect passive participle of the Sanskrit root Hi. That Artaei is thus derived and signifies " Men honoured," is agreeable to the statement of Stephen 515 with the Kushite population of Persia, he had more en- couragement to try his luck at the game of aggrandizement amid the Kushites of Susiana, whose position in respect of other inhabitants was probably higher than in Persia, the Byzantine, that the appellation is connected with the *;T of many Persian names, and that in old time the Persians called men artaans, as the Greeks called them heroes. Others would refer 'Ajr./on to the native name of the Kissians, Afarti-fa (which Mr Norris compares with 'Afi.aflo,) and Mr Norris was inclined to connect the word with a Kissian root, ir or irs, allied to the Magyar eros and the Ostiak ar, " great." See Journal R. A. S. vol. xv. p 205, and note on Herod, vii. 61 in Q. Rawlinson's Herodotus. From the Ethiopians of the kingdom of Kepheus, who migrated to Khoge and into the Artaean country or country (afterwards) occupied by an Aryan race let us pass to the Ethiopians led by Memnon to the relief of Priam after Hector's death. At Delphi in one of the paintings by Herodotus's contemporary Polygnotus, there was a figure, having two special tokens whereby it was understood to represent the hero, called by Pausanias in his account of the picture, "Memnon, a king of the Ethiop race, who came to Ilium from Susa of the Persians and from the river Khoaspes." On his Khlamys (rendered scarf in Smith's "Diet, of Greek and Roman Antiquities") were birds painted representing those called Memnonides, which (as the Hellespontians said) came on certain days every year to the grave of Memnon, and with their wings wet from the water of the ^Esepus, both swept and sprinkled so much of the mound as was bare of trees or herbage. This is one of the marks by which Polygnotus had indicated the person he intended. The other was this. Beside the figure, there was painted an Ethiop boy naked. Thus, the hero was not himself presented as an Ethiop, but the boy who attended him was painted black ; see Pausanias x. 31 g 7. As to the quarter from which Meranon's Ethiopian troops were supposed to have been brought, at the time when this painting was executed, Herodotus tells us that the palace at Susa was called the Memnonian palace and Susa itself the Memnonian city or Memnonian Susa; see Herod, v. 53, 54; vii. 151, and compare Strabo xv. 3 g 2. So too Pausanias, iv. 31 \ 5, mentions * Miuven ri ix 2i at Susa. Thus, Tithonus's bed in the East was considered by ^Eschylus to be that of an Ethiop or Rush-descended wife. The name Memnon seems to belong to a language which embraced Agamemnon's Achaaans no less than Priam's Trojan and Dardan subjects ; but his mother may have been of Kushite race as well as the forces which he led from the east. We conclude by giving his story as told by Diodorua ii. 22 out of Ktesias's tales of Assyrian history. " The supremacy (>iyi,a;*) of the Assyrians from the reign of Ninyas son of Semiramis to that of Sardanapallus (when it passed to the Medes) lasted 30 generations and more than 1300 years." But Ktesias gave nothing but the names and lengths of reign of a line of kings till he came to the 20th, Teutamus; pretending (or leaving Diodorus to infer) that there had been no achievements hitherto worthy of remembrance ; and that the aid then sent by the Assyrians to the Trojans, under the command of Memnon (the only matter recorded by himself) was also the only event of which the memory had been preserved by an Assyrian inscription. It seems that the legend concerning Perseus and Andromeda was not used by him. But now at last, he has something to tell us, and he tells it thus ; "They say that it was in the reign of Teutamus, who was the 20th from Ninyas son of Semiramis, that the Greeks with Agamemnon went upon the war against Troy : at which time the Assyrians had held the supremacy of Asia for more than a thousand years." Such, indeed, may have been the belief at the court of Artaxerxes Mnemon king of Persia, of those with whom Ktesias possihlv conversed about the Trojan war. Well ; " Priam king of the Troad, finding the war more than he could bear f and being a vassal of the king of Assyria, sent to his lord for succour : whereupon Teutamus despatched 10,000 Ethiopians and as many more Susianians." We stop to remark, that we should like to know whether Susiane, the name of the country which Diodorus a' ways uses (for example in the story of Ninus ; Diod, ii. 2 3) was found by him in Ktesias's narrative. To proceed: "These forces, besides 200 chariots, were placed under the command of Memnon son of Tithonus. Now, Tithonus was at that time the general in command of Persis ; and he 519 Again, the name of the town in Fars or Persia where Martiya had his abode, is written in the Aryan text, " Kuganaka," in the Assyrian, " Kugunakka," but in the Kissian, " Kukkannakan." Here it may be imagined, had more credit with the king than any of the governors that were established over the provinces." Note we, that he who told this, conceived of Persis as of a province which comprehended Susiane or had Susa for its chief city ; a state of things resembling the actual condition in the time of Ktesias's master Artaxerxes Mnemon, when (instead of Pasargadas or even Persepolis) Sim was become the chief residence of the Akhaemenian king. But our author proceeds ; " Memnoa also was in the prime of age, excellent both for valour and for splendour of spirit; and he had built upon the hill-top (or citadel, {.-) the palace at Susa that subsisted to the time of the supremacy of the Persians, and was called from him Memnoneia." Here, \ve may be content to ascribe, not to Diodorus but to Ktesias, the past tense of the verb " subsisted," and we may suppose that the palace of Memnon, at the time of Arta- xerxes Mnemon, had been replaced by another perhaps the building (begun at least by Darius son of Hystaspes) where Artaxerxes introduced the idols Mitlira and Anakhita, as the inscription found in its ruins by Mr Lofcus still informs us. But we are inclined to read l-cr", rf.t ax(*t r^t i> ^aufnt Parana. TO. Jijiti/*Ti *. T. x. i. e. ' upon the citadel or fort-hill in Susa a palace that subsisted &c.' " Memnon had also constructed a high-way, *?<>< tio>, through the country that to this day " (said Ktesias, as we suppose, not Diodorus of his own knowledge) " is named Meranoneion." After noticing the claim made by the Ethiopians " about Egypt," that Memnon was born there, and the ancient palace which they said was still called Memnoneia, our author goes on with his story thus : " Well ; Memnon is said to have re-inforced the Trojans with 20,000 foot and 200 chariots, to have exhibited wonderful valour, and destroyed many of the Greeks in his battles, but to have been at last cut to pieces in an ambuscade by the Thessalians. The Ethiopians, however, got possession of his body, and having burnt it, carried back the bones to Tithonus." It is plainly Ktesias not Diodorus who then subjoins ; " Some such story as this about Memnon, the Barbarians say is told in the royal records," T.TV 0a.,xit, tifOi**; (as Ktesias does, Diod. ii. 32) records to which they had no access, or inscriptions on slab and cylinder which (if exposed to public gaze) they yet perhaps could not read or understand. That Memnon brought an Ethiopian force to the defence of Troy, from parts beyond the remotest eastern districts mentioned by Homer in the second book of the Iliad, we are quite ready to believe. That the Kissians were considered Ethiopian by those who thought they had found in their country the 520 that the absence of the final n in the Aryan and Assyrian transcripts, is not necessarily due to elision, which sup- poses the Kissian to be the proper form of the name, but may be accounted for by supposing the previous vowel to have had a nasal sound inherent in it, according to the Aryan and Assyrian pronunciation, which had to be ex- pressed by a separate letter in Kissian speech. Never- seat whereto Tithonus had emigrated in the east, seems also mani- fest : and the judgment may be allowed to have weight. Whether, however, the country from which Memnon led his father's Ethiopians, was really situated on the Khoaspes, may still be regarded as a mere conjecture rather than a matter of authentic record. However, we incline to think that the description of Memnon's forces, cited from Ktesias, which makes them 10,000 Ethiopians and 10,000 men of Susiane, is not the trace of a twofold realm of which Teutamus was king, comprehending (say) both Susiane and Babylonia, but rather a story in which the people of Susiane were originally described as Ethiopian, but which was disfigured in the report of it, by persons who considered them of different race as in later times perhaps they were ; so far at least, as the inhabitants of the city and surrounding district of Susa itself were concerned. Let us conclude by owning, that, though at the technical date assigned by Eratosthenes to the taking of Troy, B. C. 11 83, the Assyrian arms are thought to have been carried as far westward as Cappadocia, we find no Teutamus king of Asshur at that time when As- shur, the modern Kileh-Shergat on the right bank of the Tigris, 60 miles south of Nineveh, was still the capital ; see Rawlinson's Herod, vol. i. pp. 455-460. The name Teutamos would rather remind one of Thothmes, the name of four kings of the 18th Egyptian dynasty, of whom the third about B. C. 1440 extended his conquests to Assyria; Rawl. Herod, vol. ii. pp. 356-360. And his Ethiopians would be from the Nile. We would observe that the Syrians of Cappadocia (perhaps an Assyrian colony ; see Scylax 85) may have been called " White Syrians " by the Greeks (Scymnus of Chios v. 917. Strabo xvi. 1 2. xii. 3 g 5, 9, 25 citing Meandrius) to distinguish them from others of a swarthier hue. These, an author cited by a Scholiast on Apollon. Rhodius ii. 140, took to be the Syrians in Phoenice, and Strabo intimates something equivalent. According to Simonides (who was born seven years beforo Darius son of Hystaspes and 31 years before the poet ^Eschylus) in an ode entitled Memnon, the hero was buried near Paltus (now Beldeh) on the part of the Syrian coast belonging to the island Arad; Strabo xv. 3 2 ; xvi. 2 12. For the dates see Clinton's Fasti Hellenic!. We may perhaps infer that the Kissian land when Simonides was in middle age, was not yet supposed by the Greeks to be Memnon's native country. 521 tlieless, with or without the final n, the latter part of the name seems to mark it as a Kissian compound. For, speaking of the Kush or Kissians who settled in the country called (after its first proprietor) by the Hebrews and Assyrians " Elam," and having asserted that they gave to their capital the vernacular appellation " Shus" (a variety of their patronymic Kush) Sir H. C. Ravvlinson adds, that in one of the older inscriptions found in the ruins of Susa, there occurs in almost every line the name " Susinaga." This name he takes for a synonym of the Sushan or Shushan of the Assyrians and Hebrews ; and of the Susa, not only used by Greek writers but found in a later inscription, discovered by Colonel Williams in the ruins of the city and thought by Sir H. C. Rawlinson to be of the age of Darius Hystaspes' son ; for in Colonel Williams's inscription the name is stated to be " Shusa." m m See Journal R. A. S. vol. xv. p. 239, note ; and vol. xiv. Analysis, p. xvii, note. The older description of records of Susiana Sir H. C. Raw- linson describes as an extensive collection of legends, on bricks and slabs, belonging to a series of kings who from their language must be judged of Hamite race. Of these inscriptions the character he affirms to be almost the same as the "hieratic Chaldaean" of the early bricks of Lower Babylonia ; but the language seems to resemble the Scythic (Kissian) of the Akhaemenian trilingual tablets, rather than the primi- tive language of Babylonia. See Geo. Rawlinson's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 448. At page 445 Sir Henry had stated that for the most part the inscriptions at Susa belong to the 8th cent. B. C. ; the kings named in the legends being (l>y the mention of them probably in the Assyrian annals, proved to be) contemporary with Sennacherib, Sargon and their immediate predecessors, kings of Assyria. However, in the long inscription of Sutruk Nakhunta on the broken obelisk at Susa, he notes what may he thinks be dates ; two sets of numbers occurring, which may be read 2455 and 2465, and, if they be numbers of years, indicate an epoch nearly 3200 years B. C. The Cushites, he observes, pp. 448, 449, (if we may judge from the works of which the citadel at Susa is an example, or from the extent of country over which Susian monuments are found) could hardly have been inferior in power or civilization to the Chaldaeans who ruled on the Lower Euphrates. Bricks of the Susian type and bearing Scythic (Kissian) legends, have been found amid the ruins of Rishire, (near Bushire,) and of Taurie (Sira/ofthe Arabs); and in all probability, the line of mounds which may be traced along 522 But, whether Martiya was or was not, partly at least, of Kissian blood, notwithstanding the regal name which he assumed of Immannis, his enterprise was ill-supported. In consequence as it seems of an advance upon the province made by Darius in person from Babylon, a change took place in the temper of the people of Susiana, which we may ascribe to the encouragement now given to Darius's friends and to the dismay produced among his enemies. In the end, Martiya was seized and slain by those who had owned him their chief." the whole extent of the eastern shores of the Persian gulf, contains similar relics. With the names Shus and Avar, found in Elam or Susiana, Sir H. C. Rawlinson connects the Hyk-sos invaders of Egypt and their famous city Avaris (on the east of the Bubastite river or Nile-mouth, according to Manetho) Journal R. A. S. vol. xv. p. 239. We would ask, Whether the space of twelve years, during which the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the neighbouring cities served Chedorlaomer king of Elam and the three kings his confederates, together with the 13th year in which they rebelled (Genesis xiv. 3, 4,) may not be the very 13 years of Egypt mentioned by Manetho (in Joseph, cont. Apian i. 26) during which Egypt was in subjection to invaders from Palestine, descended from the expelled Hyk-sos, and called in to their aid by a body of Egyptian lepers and unclean. From Genesis xiv. 4, 5, 9 we might infer that the coalition of four kings was made up of two confederacies, each consisting of a pair of kings ; that for the rank of his kingdom Amraphel king of Shinar was the first, but that Chedorlaomer king of Elam was foremost in action. If, however, he is rightly identified with Kudur- Mabuk, a king apparently of Elamite origin and paramount at Babylon (see Geo. Rawlinson's Bampton Lectures pp. 72, 359) we must suppose Amraphel king of Shinaar subordinate to Chedorlaomer. By Aristobulus and Khares, companions of Alexander's, the name Susa was derived from Suson, c,, a native word equivalent to the Greek */.>, "a lily;" Athenaeus xii. p. 113. In his Clialdcea and Susiana, Mr Loftus tells us, that during nine months the whole country is burnt up by the sun. At the beginning of January, however, under the heavy rains which fall from December to the end of March (i. e, to the beginning of the Aryan Garmapada) the young grass is brought forth and increases with a truly tropical rapidity and luxuriance, plentifully interspersed with a sweet and delicate iris which has suggested to some that the name of the ancient city Shushan (which also means "a lily ") was hence derived. n The brief record of the change of mind in Susiana, its occasion, and the issue of it, appears to be this ; " And forasmuch as 1 was moving (?) 523 Thus Darius, whether he pursued his march from Babylon or whether for the present he deterred his visit to Susiana, had now the road before him through this province unobstructed, whether towards Media north- towards Susiana, then the people of Susiana, influenced (? or "frightened?) by me, seized that Martina who was their chief, and killed him." Of this, the clause which accounts for the change of purpose in Martiya's support- ers, is wholly lost in the Assyrian but is perfect in the Kissian, and by aid of the latter can be fully or sufficiently restored in the Aryan. But as yet the meaning of certain words remains doubtful in both texts. The Aryan is, [. . . . ada]kya adam ashaniya aJiam ahiyn ' Uwtjum. The Kissian is deciphered thus, hiak Hu avasir Affarti inkanna senniyat. Of this Kissian text, the first word hiak, "and," is a conjunction which has not always its correspondent in the Aryan text ; but there is room for one here on the rock tablet, uta. The Aryan word adakya is restored with certainty, because it is elsewhere (viz. in Aryan, col. ii, 24, iii. 81 and 82) the correspondent of the word found here in the Kissian counter- part avasir ; see the Ki?sian, col. ii. 17; iii. 93. Now, the wordertxwr signifies, "when, whereas, forasmuch as, since": see Mr Norm's Glossary ; Journal R. A. S. vol. xv. p. 166. The Aryan word ashaniya does not occur in the inscriptions elsewhere. With some hesitation Sir H. C. Rawlinson explains it as a present participle, or rather gerund admitting no inflexion, and derived from the Sanskrit root ash, "to go." The termination aniya for an, he justifies by the ex- amples ckartaniya, "joining," which occurs frequently: thastaniya, " stopping," and vataniya ; See Journal R. A. S. vol. xi pp. 66, 141, 175. On the Aryan text, then, we take our stand, accepting Mr Norris's ex- planation of adakya and Sir II. C. Ravvlinson'sof ashaniya. As to the Kissian, we have only to observe ; 1. That while in the Aryan we have ' Uwaja the name of the country, in the clause now cited, and in the next clause, 'Uwajiyd the name of the inhabiting people, we have in both the corresponding places of the Kissian, the same word, an appellation deciphered (doubtfully as to the first syllable) Affarti and considered identical with Afarti-fa (Kissian, col. i. 57, 58; iii. 50, 53 and in Detached Inscriptions C and F.) that is, the people of the country called Afardi ; this name of the country being written with a letter supposed to be to the other as the cerebral d to t. 2. Of the Aryan phrase, ashaniya aham abiya 'Uicajam, "going was (I) towards Khoja," the counterpart in the Kissian is, Af (?) farti inkanna sennigat, and we might take inkanna for a post-position conveying at least as much as the Aryan preposition abiya, " to, towards," <**', but more than abiya, if the Kissian word senniyat here, corresponds only with the Aryan aham ; as in Kissian col. ii. 48 and col. iii. 35 it corresponds with the mere 524 ward or towards Persia to the east : and thus, the master whom they seemed to reject, might now (according to an image of the united nations shewn to the prophet Daniel not more than five-and-thirty years before this time) proceed at his choice to seize upon the Aryan Ram by either horn. For in Persis as well as in Media reigned a revolt, over which, probably from the first, there pre- sided a king of its own, a new pretended Smerdis. dham of the Aryan, col. ii. 6 and col. iii. 76. Perhaps inkanna means "near" or "approaching." 3. The Kissian word, of which the Aryan correspondent is effaced in the clause following the one quoted and expressing the change of the Susian mind, and which is rendered conjecturally "influenced" or "alarmed ; " though he has here read it fanifa, may (says Mr Norris) be tanifa, as in VI. (the Kissian tomb inscription) 14 There we read in Mr Norris's decipherment, vasir tanifa. And there (if vasir be equivalent to avasir) the meaning may be "because in awe" or " as in dread (of me)." Though the words appear to have no exact correspondents in the Aryan or Assyrian, one might suppose from the Assyrian the meaning of them to be "as they were commanded." Daniel viii. 3, 4. Can there be any etymological connection between the Latin aries, "a ram " and the Sanskrit predicate Arya, "honourable" ? The ram may have been regarded as the honourable one of the flock. CHAP. IV. I. IT is distinctly attested by the Behistun inscription, that it was not till after a the fifth victory of his forces in Armenia, which was Vaumisa's second victory ; that is, it was not till after Thuravahara or February, the first month of the Persian spring, in B. C. 519, that Darius moved from Babylon. The same record attests also, that it was not before the twenty-sixth of Adukanish, that the king defeated his rival Frawartish in Media. But it was before this achievement, as we have shewn (whether very shortly, or by an interval of many months) that an advance of Darius from Babylon caused another antagonist, Martiya, who had arisen later in Susiana, to be destroyed by the very men who had owned him for their king. And, if we have rightly identified Darius with the Akhshurush or Khshurush of the book Esther, he must have resided at Susa in this year B. C. 519 for more than six months after the commencement of his regnal year, that is, after the first day of Nisan or Gar- See Beh, Inscr. Aryan text, col. 2 line 64 (para. 12) ; Kissian text, col. 2 line 49 ; where the relation in time between the preceding and the ensuing achievement is denoted by the word pasdwa in the former and vasni in the latter, that is, " afterwards." 526 mapada, the last month of a quarter of the year, which in that latitude, may be wholly regarded as the spring. We, therefore, conclude, that in Viyakhana (which answered to the last month of the Assyrian twelve, Adarru, and which in the Persian twelvemonth stood between Thura- vahara and Garmapada) Darius went from Babylon to Susa ; a distance of twenty days' journey ; b that he spent the first of Nisannu, the Assyrian New year's day (say, the first of April) at that capital ; that it was in the seventh Assyrian month, Tasritu, the Jewish Tisri, and after the seventh day of that month, when he left Susa for Media, and lastly, that this month was the Adukanish of the Aryan text of the Behistun inscription, on the twenty-sixth dav of which he defeated Frawartish in Media. With regard to the last of these conclusions, that the Aryan Adukanish corresponded with the Assyrian Tasritu, we rely upon the indication furnished us by the narrative in Esther. For the Behistun inscription enables us only to affirm that Adukanish was the Aryan name for either the third, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth, or the seventh month of the Assyrian and of the Jewish Calendars. And, therefore, but for the evidence of the book Esther that Darius stayed at least 187 days at Susa of the third Assyrian year of his reign, the chances would be four to one against Tasritu being the Assyrian month with which Adukanish corresponded. From the paragraph in the Behistun inscription containing the date, " twenty-sixth of Adukanish," all notice of the king's stay at Susa was excluded by the plan of the inscription, which is a record of battles gained and rivals overthrown. Yet the clauses introducing its subject the battle in Media upon the twenty-sixth of Adukanish are so worded as to be compatible with, if they do not obscurely intimate a stay of the king's at some place between Babylon and the spot * Alexander the Great (B. C. 331) did it in 20 days ; Arrian Exp. Al. Hi. 16 g 6. Antigonus (B. C. 315) marched with a heavy train from Susa to Babylon in 22 days; Diod. xix. 55 1, 2. 527 where ultimately he crossed the Median frontier. His march from Babylon into Media may have been made at twice. He records two moves, successive but discon- nected. For the paragraph (which is the one just after the record of Vaumisa's second victory in Armenia) begins thus; "Afterwards I went out from Babylon : I pro- ceeded to Media." We presume that Darius's stay at Susa was employed in securing his interest in a province which, since his reign began, had already twice attempted to recover its ancient independence, by setting up a king of its own. He was also, probably, in the course of this summer receiving reinforcements from all parts of the empire where he could command or influence. Himself, from wealthy Babylon along with his army, and perhaps a train of Jews (including Mordecai and his household) glad to exchange the Chaldaean capital for the king's protection at Susa, d it must be supposed that Darius had brought every supply required for the fitting reception of the expected re-inforcements ; for the entertainments with which he proposed to dignify his residence at Susa ; or for the campaign which (when the summer heats were past) he meant to conduct in the country where Frawar- tish was still called king, beyond the neighbouring moun- tains. While forces were mustering, councils must have been held continually, not only on the internal adminis- tration and civil affairs of Susiana and the other subject provinces, but on the war and on the measures to be c The disjunction is expressed both in the Aryan and in the Kissian ; the Assyrian text is here defaced ; See Journal R. A. S. vol. x. p. 222 ; vol. xv. p. 113. 1 We follow Josephus (Antiq. xi. 6. 2) so far as to regard Babylon the native place of Mordecai and Esther, though he ia contradicted by the book Esther (ii. 5.) in the statement that they were still at Babylon when Esther was taken for the king's Hareera, that is, at latest in the 6th year of his reign. The condition of Babylon at that time and during the previous rule of the second pretender to the name Nebukhadrezzar while the city was being besieged by Darius's forces, shews that Jose- phus cannot possibly be accurate in this respect. How so, will be seen below. 528 adopted in respect of provinces where a wavering might be perceptible in allegiance or in hostility on the part of satraps or subjects. Feasts (according to Herodotus) were especially occasions whereon, amid the wine in which they much indulged, the Persians were wont to canvass matters of importance. 6 But into these particulars not being a political his- tory the book Esther does not enter. So much only is rela- ted of what happened at this time, as was needed to explain how Hadassah, that is Esther the Jewess, became Darius's queen, so as in that position to be the means about five years later of saving her nation from destruction. We are told that, " Like the sitting of king Akhshurush on his chair of kingdom, that was at Shushan the palace, in the third year of his reign, he made a feast unto all his lords and his servants, while, before a host of Persis and Media, and the presidents f and lords of the provinces, he Herod, i. 133, -where commentators cite the similar conduct of the Germans, from Tacitus, Germ. 22. But Plato (in his "Laws," Book 1. p. 637, E.) is cited by G. Rawlinson as saying, that the practice prevailed among the Thracians, the Scythians, the Celts, the Iberians, and the Carthaginians. The ancestors of Tacitus's Germans (it seems probable) had not yet occupied Germany, or, at least, had not yet driven the Celts across the Rhine, in the days of Plato, B. C. 428-347. * The partmim DMpJVIS of Esther i. 3, vi. 9, are persons named by a title supposed to be a Persian one, corresponding with the Sanskrit pratama, which exists (it is said) in Zend in the formfratemo and in Pehlevi as pardom. See Lee and Gesenius. This may seem incom- patible with the fact, that Daniel (i. 3) designates princes of Judah partmim. But this chapter (from the last verse of it) seems to have been written at earliest in the first regnal year of Cyrus at Babylon, the date of the proclamation by which the king summoned the people of Jehovah the God of the heavens, to go up to Jerusalem in Judah and there rebuild the temple which Nebukhadrezzar had destroyed. At that time there had been an Aryan government (that of the Medes) at Babylon for full two years already ; so that the word in its peculiar application, might be in use. That these partmim were "lords," as we have rendered the term Sarim 0^5? but of higher rank, appears in part from Est. i. 3, but particularly from the expression of Est. vi. 9, wA mis-sarei ham-melekliap-partmtm, " a man among the king's lords, the partmim." 529 displayed the riches of the glory of his kingdom and the honour of the splendour of his majesty for one hundred and eighty days." By this we may understand, that on taking his seat as king at Susa, when he arrived there for the first time, Darius judged it suitable to the occasion, befitting the inauguration of his kingdom, as he had with him a Perso-Median army with many great men both of his court and of the provinces, for part of a display of his wealth and splendour, to provide every day a banquet for all his satraps and military leaders, as well as for those of his court and palace, during the space of six whole months. But he went further : for the book adds that "when those days were expired," and when, we may presume, all his troops were now assembled, " the king made a feast to all the people that were found in Shushan the palace, to both great and small, seven days, in the court of the garden of the king's palace." His Persians and Medes were here ; his soldiers of other provinces of his empire ; and with them, perhaps, the citizens of Susa, certainly so many as had been levied for the army. The assemblage was marshalled under awnings,* white, green, We have rendered it "presidents," as the English version of Daniel vi. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 calls the three sarkin, j^nD to whom the Mede Darius's hundred and twenty satraps accounted for the king's revenue. From Esther i. 3, where they may seem opposed to the lords of the provinces, one might take them for court lords, dignitaries of the central government. We find from Esth. vi. 10 that Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite (after the king had advanced him and Bet his seat above all the lords that were with him, Esth. iii. 1) was one of the partmim, though not of Aryan race nor a Persian by blood. It is, therefore, to be supposed that Mordecai the Jew became one also, when he succeeded to the place of Haman, receiving the king's signet-ring which the king had before entrusted to Haman : see Esth. iii. 10 ; viii. 2, 15 ; ix. 4. Perhaps, the seven lords named Esth. i. 14, were of the same class Compare Ezra vii. 14, 28. Also Cyrua's council of war, Ui^ia/t n>u{ f^nut, Herod, i. 206. * Josephus Antiq. xi. 6 1 gives this explanation (derived perhaps from the Septuagint paraphrase) r*ri>aifiM xrt&pHOf ix ^urim , . .. With Darius's great entertainment at Susa in B. C. 519, we may 34 530 and blue, hung by silver rings on pillars of marble. Thus sheltered from the sun, they were all made to recline, probably in companies and battalions, or in tribes and nations, under their respective leaders, on beds of gold and silver, ranged upon a pavement of red, blue, white, and black marble. The royal wine was supplied in golden compare another at Persepolis in B. C. 316. Here, Peukestes was the Macedonian Satrap of Persia and we might conclude, of the Uxian territory also, if we did not consider this as more probably an appendage of Susiana, which was claimed as his satrapy by Antigenes, another of those who co-operated at this time against Antigonus with Eumenes. And here Peukestes feasted a confederate army, of which his own was by far the most numerous contingent, after it had under Eumenes foiled Antigonus on the Pasitigris, the western boundary of the Uxian territory. Antigonus had since crossed the mountains into Media, the satrap of which was in his army, and the confederates under Eumenes had reached Persepolis, thence to proceed to the Panetakenian frontier (Diod. xix. 34 7. Corn. Nepos, Eumenes, cap. 8) to stop the invasion of Antigonus in that quarter ; see Diod. xix. 24 4 and compare Arrian Exp. Alex. iii. 19 g 2 ; Curtius v. 35. A vast number of animals supplied from every part of the province, were sacrificed to the gods and to Alexander and Philip. The altars formed the common centre of four circles in which the army reclined, and ate the flesh of the sacrifices. The inmost circle was distant 202 feet from the altars, having a circumference of two Stades or 1212 feet. It was reserved (where not crossed by roads from the altars to the outer circles) for the beds of the generals, the leaders of the cavalry, and the Persians of greatest distinction. At the distance of another 202 feet, (that is, 404 feet from the altars) a second circle of four stades circum- ference was filled with leaders of second rank, generals unattached, friends, and the men of the cavalry. The breadth of space between the first and second circles was doubled for the interval between the second circle and the third ; this last being eight stades in circumference and distant 808 feet from the altars. It was occupied by the Macedonian infantry brigade called Argyraspids or " Silver-shields; and by such of the Hetceri or " Companions " as had served with Alexander. The outermost circle of all was as near to the third as the second circle was to the first ; the interval being 202 feet. It was ten stades in circum- ference; distant, therefore, from the altars 1010 feet ; and filled with tho mercenaries and allies. The guests thus assembled appear to have been over 40,000 men ; compare Diod. xix. 14 and 28. The beds, **,,, on which they stretched themselves, were of the leafage of trees ; and over thes were awnings (?) ix;<. and coverlets, Tiji.ef, and, though the last (like Mcmucan by Darius) was called upon to give his opinion first. Every satrap great or small would need the advice and sanction of men versed in the royal edicts, the laws of the Persians and Medea, no less than the king himself. Perhaps the " Master of the edicts " (rendered in our English Vulgate, " chancellor") \\ hose authority is exhibited in the sub-province Samaria by Ezra iv. 8, 9, 17, 23, was such a judge appointed by the king. 535 Shethar, Adnatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, Memucan, sitting partly as counsellors, partly as judges, the king put the question, What shall we do unto the queen Vashti, according to law, because she hath not performed the king Akhshurush's commandment by the eunuchs ? Then, the last of the seven, Memucan, answered before the king and the lords, to this effect ; Queen Vashti's offence is against the master of the house as well as against the king. It affects not the king Akhshurush alone, but also the lords and all the nations that are in all the king's provinces. For the queen's word will go forth through all the wives, to the causing of contempt of their masters in their eyes, when they say, King Akhshurush spake to cause Vashti the queen to come before him, and she came not. Also, this day, the ladies of Persis and Media will say what they heard of the queen's speech, to all the king's lords ; and like the abundance of the contempt, will the exasperation be also. If it seem good unto the king, there shall a word of kingdom go forth from before him, and it shall be written in the laws of Persis and Media, and shall not pass away ; that Vashti (for queen she shall be called no longer) shall not come before the king Akhshurush, and her royalty the king shall give to her companion that is better than she. And, men shall say, It was heard, was the king's decree, that he shall make, in all his kingdom, great as it is, and all the wives give honour to their masters, great and small ! " The counsel in the eyes of the king and the lords was good ; and the king did according to the word of Memucan. He sent letters to all the king's provinces, to province after province, according to its writing, and to people after people, according to its tongue, for every man to be constituted a bearer of lordship in his house and a giver of sentence according to the tongue of his people. The purpose, then, for which the king's letters were sent throughout all the provinces seemed to be, that everywhere every householder should be master of his own house, and that his word there should be law among people of m baalim, compare Hosea ii. 16 ; also Manu v. 151, 154. 536 his own language." But this enactment, it would seem, was prefaced by a recital of Queen Vashti's offence and of the punishment which had been awarded her. From other instances we know it was customary, that matters of joy or mourning for the king and his household, should be communicated to all the nations, that all men might take their part and manifest their sympathy. But on this occasion, it appeared as if the king's action was prompted, not so much by the desire of obtaining the general assent to his decision in the case of Vashti, as by that of promoting the general good ; and his charter, besides authority to householders in their families, might seem by analogy to grant the same to lords of nationalities or heads of tribes, in cases where none but men of the same language were concerned. Like many other charters since, this no doubt was very generally but a dead letter from the first. Yet it seemed to affirm a principle which courts of justice might enforce upon appeal that as the king was an image of God upon the earth, or within his empire, so every man should be in his own household. In the law of some countries the maxim has been asserted, that every man's house is his castle, making him a baron within his own doors ; but Darius may seem to have laid it down, that every man's house is his kingdom, and his word there a sentence from which there is no appeal. This we suppose to be quite in accordance with the sentiment of the old laws and customs of other Indo- Germanic nations. p Indeed, in the primitive state of man- n Perhaps this decree of the king's would not have been interpreted as giving Metiokhus son of Miltiades the same power over his Persian wife ; Herod, vi. 41. When Cyrus lost his wife, Kassandane, he made great mourning himself and gave notice to all the subjects of his empire to mourn likewise ; Herod, ii. 1. On his marriage with Atossa or HadasMah, that is, Esther, our Darius not only made a feast for his lords and his servants, but he made a release to the provinces and gave gifts ac- cording to the state of the king ; Esth. ii. 18. So Gaumata the Magian in the character of Smerdisson of Cyrus, taking possession of the throne, sent immediately to every nation a three years' release from military service and tribute; Herod, iii. G7. P For the Hindu law regarding females, see particularly Mann v. 147- 156 ; In g 152 observe the absolute power of the husband is made to arist; from the wife's having been given him l>v her father. 537 kind throughout the world, every man's house was his sphere of a theoretically absolute power, like the caves and mountain solitudes of the Cyclop giants, who, according to Homer , q had no meetings for counsel or for decisions of law, but every one gave law to his children and his wives. However, Darius's charter has been pronounced ludi- crous to modern ears by the author of the History of the Jews in the Family Library.' Of course, his opinion must have been the same of the Hindu legislator's ordinances respecting the fair sex. To us, if there be any feature in the history which might tempt a smile, it is not the matter of the counsel but the art of the counsellor. We admire the courtier-like address and the judicial solemnity of Memucan, in affecting to merge Darius's cause in that of all the husbands and fathers in the empire. Yet the homage thus rendered to public opinion, and to the rule of considering the public interest in every act of the royal will, is not ludicrous ; nor yet the counsellor's care for the king's dignity. Perhaps, the writer we refer to, meant simply that the world is now old enough (in Europe at least and in America) to know that law against the will of the ladies is unavailing. For if to modern ears Darius's decree (supposing always that it was unarmed with penal terrors) seems only ludicrous ; could those ears in our author's opinion, be required to receive with reverence certain injunctions to the wives of Christendom pronounced by apostles of the King of kings ? That in fact, those precepts are little reverenced, we know ; but would our author have said that he, too, thought them ludicrous ? As to Darius's law, there are questions of interest to be solved. Was each master of a house left to maintain his right by his own force and discretion, or was he to appeal to such courts of justice as existed in his nation or his neighbourhood ? And if he was to appeal to the magistrates, what were the punishments they were em- powered to award 1 Or were these left to the discretion q Horn. Od. ix. 106-115 quoted in part by Strabo xiii. 1 g 25. r vol. 2 p. 18, second edition, London 1830. 538 of the judge I Or, to the custom of each country 1 In the case of Vashti, the punishment which Darius's supreme court awarded her on his demand, was not a divorce but degradation. It deprived her of her privilege as a wife, and of her dignity as the queen ; but it left her still in her husband's custody, dependant on him alone for the necessaries and comforts of life. It seems an error to suppose her behaviour to have been a mere compliance with the absolute requirement, ac- cording to alleged Oriental notions, of female " modesty." If it had been the king's marriage-feast that was held out of doors, what was now required of Vashti would have been a matter of course. 8 Besides, the term " modesty " in pleadings of commentators desiring the praise of chapel or drawingroom, is probably used by substitution, for " a sense of female and queenly dignity." Now, this obligation of self-respect is precisely what, according to B So talk the commentators we have seen, who appear to confound Musulman and Oriental. Joseph us, indeed, Antiq. xi. 6 g 1 writes : ft Si, :/>.*? rial *.(. Hi(C/4iya.i xo.1 TotjJfcafli'sovTO ixo.erri ru letvrr,s' el Si i3l%iu iciurev ixaffref X(o7<*( Si He also gave gifts on the occasion to as many as 10,000 other Macedonians, who had previously married Asiatic women ; Arrian Exp. Alex. vii. 4 gg 7, 8. Compare the conduct of the Persian envoys in Macedonia in the time of our Darius ; Herod, v. 18-20. "We may believe that they said truly ; " We Persians have a custom when we make a great feast, to bring with us to the board our wives and concu- bines, and make them sit beside us." 539 Oriental notions of duty to the husband and the king, Vashti should have esteemed less authoritative and less forcible than Darius's command. In regard of the king's conduct, it may be owned that he was not above his age ; if it be fair to put aside the consideration of what his kingly character may have required. It may be admitted that in thus punishing his wife for no adultery, he evinced a hardness of heart to which, even in the Church of God, the Mosaic Law still permitted scope, in the complaints of husbands ; though by analogy, it had become evident already, and it was soon to be authoritatively declared by a Prophet,* that the God of Israel hated the putting away of wives. But our modern handlers of Scripture histories might as reasonably and usefully exclaim at Darius's revels, as at his legislation in the matter of husbands and wives, fathers and children. His revels, no less than his laws, shew him to have been a true Persian, of the times when the Persians were supreme, and in the countries where their supremacy was exercised far from their native or ancestral land. If he had disregarded Vashti's publicly- exhibited contempt of his command, it would not have been a noble forbearance ; it would have been because he was insensible to dishonour ; or at least, because he feared dishonour less than he feared his wife. In either case, he would have been contemned by his assembled host. The nations and their lords for such a king would hardly have marched with ardour against the Mede. However (as Herodotus sometimes subjoins to a dis- putable opinion) " every reader is at liberty to judge the matter as he will." u t Malachi ii. 16. u It would probably require a volume to illustrate the hypothesis that Darius's law which he published on the occasion of Vashti's disobedience, was in accordance with the general notions of right in the Persian empire. An apostle tells us that the husband is the head of the wife ; and more with which we are familiar : the Zoroastrian doctors say that the hus- band is a Mithra or Sun-god to his (more than one) wife : " fceminis salutationem non injungunt Soli, eodem modo quo viri faciunt : sed foeminis prcescribuntealutationem, nempe, Utquotidie euntes ad maritos tarn mane quiim tcmporc precis secundee," (i. e. at midday) "et mani- 540 II. AMONG the governors of provinces who attended the court at Susa in B. C. 619, bringing probably each his re-inforce- ment to the king's army, Oroites, certainly, did not appear. He was a Persian whom Cyrus, father of the late king Cambyses, had made his lieutenant at Sardis the Lydian capital.* Whether, at the time of this appointment he had or had not been invested with a superiority over all bus ad latent applicatis, eie dicant, Quid prcecipisl An bene quievisti * Quid cogitas ut nosfaciamus? Num qvicquid prcecfpci-isid facturce svmia. Quicquid enim maritus praeceperit, id statim prasstare debent. Mariti contentationem quaerant : et die nocteque sic se gerant. Nam quando maritus contentus est, Dominus etiam contentus erit. Cum foemina sic fecerit, ea est multo praestantior. Paradisaea et beata erit, quando erga maritum lingua blandiloqua fuerit, et ad eum die nocteque judicium suum detulerit. At si marito non obedierit, sed duo crumenag duo corda fuerint, turn ilia yocabitur irreverens, impudens, infernalis, et polluta. Nam marito non contento, quamvis multa merita habuerit, quandonam talia merita ad Aniraam ejus pertingent? Quandonam a gehenna liberabitur ? Si vero maritus ejus contentus erit, talis fcemina in boo mundo Paradisaea erit." See the book Sad-der, cap. 65. For the command to men to salute the Sun thrice a day or twice at the least ; instead of which the wives are here enjoined to salute their husbands twice ; also for the command to salute Fire and the Moon in like manner, see Sadder cap. 96 : (Hyde, De relig. vet. Persarum pp. 487, 509). We have already referred to the Laws concerning females in the Hindu code of Manu. We cite a specimen of them from the " Livres sacres de 1' Orient par G. Pauthier " p. 386; "Quoique la con- duite de son epoux soit blamable, bien qu'il se livre a d'autres amours, et soit depourvu de bonnes qualites, une femme vertueuse doit constam- ment le reverer comme un dieu." Manu v. 154. But the most ungallant of all, is this; " Une petite fille, une jcune femme, une femme avancee en age, ne doivent jamais rien faire selon leur propre volonte, meme dans leur maison." Manu v. 147. For some assert that women like to have their own way. The incessant obedience " die nocteque " required of the wife by our Zoroastrian author, is recorded by Darius Hystaspes' son, of the provinces of his empire. It is "both by night and by day " in the Aryan, col. 1. line 20 ; but the corresponding Kissian expression, col. i. line 16 Mr Norris renders " by day and night," though doubtfully; Journal R A. S. vol xv. pp 97, 98/174, 198. If he is right, the Magian phrase is mure Kt'snian than Aryan. a z(;> {xf, Herod, iii. 120. 541 governors of provinces lately subject to the Lydian mon- archy, 1 * we find his authority now extending greatly beyond the border of the dominion of Croesus, the last of the kings that had reigned at Sardis. Of the twenty satrapies into which, for fiscal purposes at least, Darius's dominions in Asia and Africa were afterwards divided, three the Phrygian, the Lydian, and the Ionian, including not fewer than eighteen distinct nationalities were held at this time by Oroites. d In the Ionian satrapy, Herodotus b After the establishment of his power at Babylon, the Great Cyrus is represented by Xenophon as having in the first instance, sent Artabatas satrap into Cappadocia, Artakamas into Great Phrygia, Khrysantas into Lydia and Ionia, Adusius into Caria, and finally, Pharnukhusinto Phrygia on the Hellespont and yEolis. But of Cilicia, Cyprus and the Paphlagonians he sent not satraps, because they had willingly taken part in the expedition against Babylon, though he appointed them tributes to pay like the others ; Cyrop. viii. 6 7, 8. A similar distribution of the main-laud of Asia Minor into seven governments, five under satraps and two under native kings, seems to have existed in Xenophon's own time, and may, indeed, have been the ground, or on of the grounds, on which he relied in his account of the dispositions made by the founder of the Persian empire. For, to Lydia the satrapy of Artimas, Phrygia (the Greater) the satrapy of Artakamas, Lycaonia and Cappadocia that of Mithridates, Bithynia that of Pharnabazus, with Cilicia the province of the native king Syennesis and Paphlagonia that of the native Korylas (which Xenophon enumerates among those the Greek ten-thousand had traversed, Anab. vii. 8 g 25) we may add Caria as tho satrapy of Tissaphernes (Hellenic, iii. 2 12) and divide the Greek cities on the ^Egean and Hellespontian shores between him and Pharnabazus. The native kings, even of the very independent Paphlagonians and Cilicians, may have accounted with neighbouring satraps for their tribute to the king. If so, this may explain the supply of money obtained by young Cyrus from the wife of Syennesis king of Cilicia ; Anab. i. 2. g 12. Herod, iii. 89 ; Esther x. 1. d Herod, iii. 127 comparing iii. 90. With this power of Oroites, com- pare that granted to his younger son Cyrus, by Okhus Darius (Nothus). Cyrus was sent down satrap (in chief, at least; see the last note but one) of Lydia, of Great Phrygia, and of Cappadocia ; and, withal, appointed commander in-chief of all military forces, the duty of which it was to muster in the plain of the Castolus ; that is, apparently, of all the provinces bordering on the ^Kgean ; see Xenophon, Anab. i. 9 g 7 with Hellenic, i 4 g 3 and Anab. i. 1 2 ; i. 2 7 ; and compare the case of Tissaphernos, who after the death of Cyrus, besides his own satrapy and 542 specifies seven populations, lonians, Asiatic Magnesians, ^5Colians, Carians (including Dorian colonies from Greece of which he does not make a separate people as he had considered them before in his list of the nations subject to Croesus, though his native city Halicarnassus was one of them) also Lycians, Milyans, Pamphylians. In the Lydian satrapy, he enumerates five nations : Mysians, Lydians, Lasonians, Cabalians, and Hygenneans or Hy- tenneans. In the Phrygian division, six ; Hellespontians of the Asiatic shore, Phrygians, the Thracian immigrants called Bithynians, Paphlagonians, Mariandynians, and Cappadocians, called by the Greeks Syrians or White - Syrians. Of these eighteen names, two at least belong to nations that were not subject to Croesus ; the Syrians of that of Cyrus, was appointed commander-in-chief, and acts as such when Pharnabazus with his forces is present ; Hellenic, iii. 1 3 and iii. 2 13, 18. After Tissaphernes by the king's order had been beheaded, Pharnabazus protested to Agesilaus, that should any other be sent down as general, and he himself be put under that general, he would embrace the alliance of the Lacedaemonians ; but if the command should be assigned to himself, he would do his utmost against them ; Hellen. iv. 1 37 ; also Vit. Agesil. 3 5. Note, that Okhus Darius's letter which his son Cyrus carried to all upon the coast, xetretrsf&wa Kl'^sv xaifecvov rorv lit "Ketfra^ov cf.6f6iZou,, a.^, and **<) to mean *{.<. The letters in young Cyrus's favour, (like those obtained from Darius Akhshurush son of Hystaspes by Haman and by Mordecai; Esth. iii. 12, viii. 9) being circular, were written in the languages of the several nations that were addressed. 6 See Herod, iii. 90. For the non-Hellenic nations of Herodotua's Phryg- ian (and Hellespontian) satrapy in the army of Xerxes, compare Herod, vii. 72, 73, 75; for those of the Lydian satrapy, Herod, vii. 74, 76, 77 ; for those of the Ionian satrapy, who all (except the Milyans) served on board the fleet, Herod, vii. 77, 91, 92, 93. On the Cabalians of Hero- dotus's Lydian satrapy (Herod, iii. 90) and of the army of Xerxes (Herod, vii. 76, 77) one portion of whom was by descent Maeonian and by proper name Lasonian, while the rest (or Cabalians proper) seem to have been considered by some as of the same Solymaean origin which Herodotus ascribes to the Milyans ; see above pp 113-115, note. For the designation "White-Syrians" applied to the Cappadokians or Syrians of Cappadocia, see Strabo xvi. 1 2, xii. 3 5 xii. 3 g 9, 12, 25 ; also Marcianus of Herakleia in his Epitome of Menippus's Periplus of the Inner Sea ; Geogr. Grace. Minores, ed. C. Muller, torn. i. p. 571. 543 Cappadocia and the Lycians. f Besides the followers of the provincial lords whose tenure required them to attend at the vice-regal gate, and besides the king's troops occu- pying fortresses or charged with the peace of districts forces which Oroites, without the commission of commander in chief, would be able to influence as governor-general and as their pay-master, though it was the king himself ordinarily who appointed their captains * he had a body-guard of a thousand Persians. Such was his formi- dable position in Lower Asia at the time of Darius's great muster and splendid entertainments at Susa. Oroites had lately got rid of two powerful neighbours who (whether they were esteemed in any respect his subordinates or not) had given him offence or umbrage. Once, during the reign of Cambyses, happening to be seated in the assembly of those who did duty by attending at the king's gate, he had been publicly reproached by a Persian named Mitrobates, the satrap resident at Dasky- leium on the south side of the Propontis, for suffering ' Herod, i. 28, 71-76. e For the independence in regard of the satraps in which it was the rule of the Persian government to maintain I, ra.1, * ? , f ttv ( (x ut and tout x.i*.i*tx.tvs rut xatric ri x.!, a subordinate bound to obey him, he may have spoken rather as commander-in-chief on the Western Coast than as Satrap of Lydia. For sometimes one of the satraps (as we have observed in his case and in that of Tissaphernes) was invested with a military command more extensive than the borders of his own province. The case of Dadarshish satrap of Baktria, com- missioned to put down the Margian revolt, and of Vibanus satrap of Arakhotia, defending the province against those who were sent by the second pretended Smerdis to invade it, Beh. Inscrip. col. 3 para. 2 and col. 3 paras. 9, 10, 11, are perhaps of two sorts, namely, case of a satrap acting under a special commission and case of one exercising his ordinary powers. It would seem that commanders of the king's troops within a satrap's borders, required his order upon the provincial treasury for their pay ; for Xenophon's King Cyrus describes his first intended satraps as men, tiTivtl itfovffi Ta, inmouiruf, xa.} re, tatr/tit ltt/j.p.H>trt(, n7 f TI ). Cyrop. viii. 6 3. For the vassals who waited upon the satrap and whose children were trained at his gate, see Cyrop. viii. G 10. 544 the naval power of the Ionian Polycrates, tyrant of Samos, to grow up and flourish independently, close to the coast of his satrapy. Polycrates (we may be sure) was already odious to the ruler of Sardis ; very possibly Mitrobates was so too. In like manner, in a later generation, we find the satrap resident at Daskyleium and ruler of a great part of the Phrygian satrapy of Herodotus, Pharnabazus son of Pharnakes, h during a series of years regarded h Pharnabazus son of Pharnakes seems to have enjoyed an hereditary satrapy. With Thucyd. viii. 6 (B. C. 412) where he is himself intro- duced, compare Thucyd. ii. 67 (B. C. 430) where his father seems to be the person who in the same situation Is called Pharnakes son of Pharnabazus, and who afterwards (B. C. 422) gave Atramyttium to the people expelled by the Athenians from Delos ; Thuc. v. 1. In a preceding generation (B. C. 478) wo have Artabazus son of Pharnakes (for whose former history, see Herod, vii. 66, viii. 126, ix. 41, 66, 89,) sent down to the coast by Xerxes with orders rr> ri AA.7nr rarftfart^ett r{a>.a,3m, M(ya/S ?fx< xatJ Tac, partly uninclosed, partly parked. It was girdled, too, by a river abounding with fish and water-fowl ; Hcllen. iii. 4 13, iv. 1 15. Geo. Raw- linson justly contends, that the satrap did not live on the coast ; and from Strabo xii. 8 g 10, 11, xiii. 1 3 infers, that his mansion was on the river now called Lufer Su, where that stream forms a lake called by Strabo Daskylitis, before its junction with the Rhyndakus, which presently after enters the Propontis on its south coast. A site within a bend of the river scorns intimated by Xenophon's expression, TJ<;'{I< tl xai *oTa.,u.i:. From Strabo's language it seems clear, that of three lakes in this neighbourhood, the waters of which ran off into the sea by the mouth of the Rhyndakus, the lake Daskylitis was the smallest, also the nearest to the coast. Skylax in his Periplus 94, 95, 96, assigns to Phrygia (besides ^Eolis and Troas) a coast of its own on the Propontis and Hellespont, enumerates its Greek cities (of which Kyzicus above- mentioned is one) and notes the mouth of the river Rhyndakus. For the lake Daskylitis and the river Rhyndakus, see also Plutarch, Lucull. capp. 9, 11. To the same family which we have observed for about 100 years invested with the satrapy of Hellespontian Phrygia, a contempo- rary of Philip the Macedonian, Artabazus, and his son Pharnabazus a contemporary of Alexander son of Philip, may have belonged. The name Pharnabazus seems made up from those other family names Pharnakes and Artabazus. ' In B. C. 412 when, after the destruction of the great Athenian fleet and army in Sicily; Tissaphernes as well as the subjects of Athens in- vited the Lacedaemonians into Ionia, the former c; $ari).u Aaflia Ta 'AjTaJe'fJou fTfa.Tr,-/.P.v><'Soi roX'vr oi IvtatpfiO! , vr^a.-r-r.y.a.i. that his satrapy included both Caria and Ionia, the whole narrative of the operations in which he assists the Peloponnesian fleet, evinces. In Xenoph. Hellen. i. 1 9 we find him imprisoning Alcibiades at Sardis. This may denote him satrap also of Lydia ; in which case it will follow that he lost this satrapy as well as his military appointment, by the subsequent mission of the king's son Cyrus. But perhaps the fortress at Sardis was his, because the king's governor was his subordinate not in his Satrapial but in his military capacity. After the death of Cyrus in reward for his services he was sent back, Xenophon tells us (Hellen. iii. 1 3) ffotT(rc( r,t^i x,, and Anacreon of Teos with him. lie was lying down (perhaps on a divan) with his face to the wall ; and when the herald camo in and spoke with him, rehear- sing the business of Oroites, he neither turned round nor answered ; 552 If Oroites reported his good service, he must have done BO, it would seem from Herodotus's account, to the Magian the successor of Cambyses. .For even if, when the deed was perpetrated, the king was still living at whose gate Oroites, by the taunts he received and the danger of the royal displeasure which he incurred, was stimulated to the destruction of Polycrates, an announcement that Smerdis son of Cyrus had been acknowledged for their king by the Persians and Medes, and that he was now sitting on his father's throne at Agbatana, circulated everywhere throughout the empire, must have reached Oroites before the news of the death of Cambyses, because Cambyses himself had received it in Syria before he gave himself (accidentally or by purpose) the fatal wound. And if on the first intelligence, Oroites hesitated between the pretended Smerdis and Cambyses, the next news that Cambyses was dead must have decided his profession of allegiance. Eight months later, the Magian was slain and succeeded by Diirius. But Darius's pre- tensions had ever since been disputed, (as we have seen) during the sixteen months or more that had elapsed since the Magian's death, before his appearance in Susa. There- fore, though he had acknowledged Darius as his king, and though at least three revolts from Darius had been successfully quelled, yet as Frawartish was still owned by the Medes and other nations for their king, Oroites continued to keep aloof at his seat of government. Nay, since the death of Polycrates he had taken advantage of the confusion of the empire, to gratify his animosity and increase his power by slaying both Mitrobates and his son Cranaspes, and by seizing on the satrapy of Daskyleium. Herod, iii. 121. The furniture, xic^s, of this hall was worth seeing ; and was afterwards deposited by Maiandrius in the temple of IJera ; Herod, iii. 123. The following is a story ascribed to Diodorus x. frag. 15, but from what author Diodorus took it, does not appear; "Certain Indians, flying from the power of Oroites the satrap, landed at Samoa with much treasure, and became Polj-crates's suppliants. At first he received them in an affable manner, but shortly after he slew them all, and became master of the treasure." 553 Ruler, therefore, now of the Ionian, the Lydian, and the Phrygian or Hellespontian satrapies (constituting, as described by Herodotus, a larger part of Asia Minor than the Lydian monarchy at its best) his demeanour lately had been sullen and disloyal. Besides other outrages of his, an express from the king, ayya/^/'o!/ Aaps/6t>, whose message being embarrassing was to seem not to have reached him or his answer to it to have miscarried (for, indeed, it sum- moned him to Darius's gate) he had caused to be way-laid and murdered on his return : taking care that neither the horse nor the body of the rider should prove the violence. If the measures ultimately adopted against Oroites had not yet been thought necessary (as we suppose they had not) when the muster was made and the entertainment was begun at Susa, in the summer of the year B. C. 519, the absence of the satrap then, must have made such measures appear more necessary and pressing. Darius had too much on his hands, to despatch an army against Oroites, even if the nature of his crimes and disaffection had seemed to require that course. However, the king called together Tlepesuv rot; do-/.i>j,urdroi>s, as Herodotus tells us, those of the highest distinction or most approved deserts at his court. Perhaps, they were or at least compre- hended the partmim of the book Esther or " presidents," as we have rendered the term. He had a service (he told them) which he desired one of them to undertake, and which he wished to be accomplished without force or disturbance, by device and cleverness only: for force, he said, was out of place in a matter of wit. " Which of you," he asked, " will either bring me Oroites alive or else put him to death?" Then, to justify his purpose he detailed the conduct of Oroites. On the one hand, this governor of the country to the west of Armenia had given them no aid in their past difficulties ; had made away with two of their body, Mitrobates and his son ; and now, when summoned to court, he kills the king's messengers. Immediately, of those who listened to this exposition, thirty persons offered each to undertake the service Was it a council of thirty that Darius addressed ? Was it a committee of Elders like that (; pv>.M,r l( y i { ,>i{i) which chose their king's son to 554 alone. Lots then were cast; the dangerous prize fell to Bagaios son of Artontes ; and he proceeded thus. He caused many papers 1 * to be written, royal orders on a variety of subjects, and had them stamped with the king's seal. With these despatches (one of which might be imagined to be the decree founded on Queen Vashti's offence, if the mission to Sardis was so late in the year) Darius's envoy set out. When he had reached his destination and had been introduced to the presence of Oroites to transact his business, he began to take the king's letters one by one from their wrappers, and hand them to the king's secretary in the satrap's court, who, according to the duty of his office (first having, we may presume, pronounced them genuine) read them off aloud.i By this method of proceeding, Bagaios intended to try the temper of the guards who surrounded Oroites, and to judge whether they might be induced to desert him for the king. Therefore, when he beheld them doing great worship to the documents themselves and yet greater to what was read out of them, he gives now another letter to the secretary in which it was written, " Persians, king command the auxiliary army required by the king of the Medes when threatened by the king of Babylon (Neriglissar ?) ; Xenoph. Cyrop. i. 5 g 5. These suffered Cyrus to choose himself 200 of the fair,**, to accompany him, each of whom was also permitted to select four others of the same class : while to the thousand thus obtained, the council allotted thirty common soldiers apiece. P Herodotus's term /3<#i/, according to the general practice of the Septuagint elsewhere, should translate the DH?P of Esth. i. 22, iii. 13, viii. 5, 10, ix. 20, 25, 30. Compare p^;* in 1 Maccab. i. 44. In Plutarch, Lysand. cap. 20 the same document is called successively inrnM,, fiftt-itt and y.i^,*.. All these terms are used in the Septuagint Esther. 9 Herod, iii. 128, ,3io/..ai> It 'ixaf-rti trtfituftu/^tttf, ittitv ru yfaff.u.a.rifrn ru jlafiKrju tnt.iyiricn. r(a.fj.u.a.Tif-Ta.( J< ^an^cvs el rains Cvafx.ti Ixfvn. With this testimony compare Ezra iv. 8, 9, 17, 23, where the officer second in rank in the under-goTernment of Samaria appears to have been 1BD which Aramaic predicate (equivalent to the Hebrew "IED "a writer" or "accountant," and like the Hebrew word rendered in the Septuagint ^ t ^^ r ,i c ) is akin to the term cited in the last note, and ignifying "writs," " books," " letters." 555 Darius forbids you to be body-guards to Oroites." Hear- ing this " word of the king " the guards let drop their spears ; whereupon, seeing their obedience, Bagaios put into the secretary's hand the last of the sealed writs. It contained these words, "King Darius commands the Persians at Sardis to kill Oroites," which the guards no sooner heard than they obeyed.' Drawing their short straight poniard-like swords, which as men of warrior caste they had retained when they relinquished their duty as guards of the body to Oroites, (as the adherents of Martiya had done in Susiana) they slew the man whom they had lately served. 8 Thus, in his death no less than r The " word of the king " being law, whether carried by the mouth of a messenger or written upon paper, seems to have been prefaced by such a formula as in Thucjdidcs the letter of Xerxes to Pausanias begins with, Thuc. i. 129 ; or such as commences the proclamation of Cyrus to the Jews, Ezra i. 2, and rendered in the Septuagint cilretf life Ku(0f /3Xllf Ill'ffur. In the letter of Artaxerxes (son of Xerxes) to Ezra, the words, " Thus saith," or, " Thus did eay," are omitted ; see Ezra vii. 12. But the paragraphs of the Behistun inscription begin each in the Aryan thus, Thatiya Ddrayavush khsMyathiya, " Saith Darius (the) king : " or in the Kissian, Tariyavaus Ko(1)nanri, "Darius (the) king saith." The Assyrian formula so far as deciphered by Sir H. C. Rawlinson in Journal R. A. S. vol. xiv. Analysis pp. iii. iv. has Dariyavas sarru . . . yagalbi " Darius (the) king ... saith." Note, that the Greek historians (e. g. Thucydides and Xenophon) use Panels without the article as a sort of proper name, to denote the king of Persia. The formula we have been studying, prefixed to a written or oral message, is much older than the Persian kings see 1 Kings xx. 2; " Thus saith (lit. " said " or " spake ") Benhadad." 2 Kings xviii. 19 ; " Thus saith (spake) the great king, the king of Assyria." Compare 2 Kings ix. 18, 19 ; 2 Chron. xviii. 26 ; 2 Kings xviii. 29. The formula resembles that used to commence their messages by the prophets of God. 8 Herod, iii. 128. The weapon used was the i x ^ K r. { . This weapon was the image of the god of war worshipped by the Scythians of Herodotus ; see Herod iv. 62. It was carried by the Caspians in the army of Xerxes; Herod, vii. 67. Herodotus explains the term by another, Ut^ixot &>r vii. 54. It is expressly stated to have been straight, by Josephus (Antiq. xx. 7 g 10) and is very frequently represented 556 in his policy, Oroites resembled Tissaphernes. All the property of which the satrap had possessed himself, whereof his slaves (including Demokedes) were of course a no inconsiderable part, was seized for the king's use, and was carried up, not perhaps to Susa (for this may be a name of the king's residence which Herodotus or his informant merely presumed) but rather to where Darius happened to be at the time. And this may have been Agbatana the capital of Media, where Darius arrived before the end of B. C. 519, if he left Susa and defeated Frawartish in Media during the last month of autumn in that year. III. IT was in the month called by the Persians Adukanish and corresponding as we suppose with the Tasritu or Tisri of the Assyrians and Jews ; perhaps, as early as the eighth of that month, when Darius (if we have rightly identified him with the Akhshurush of the book Esther) set forth for Media, after the seven days' feast where- with he regaled his whole army at Susa. To do this, had undoubtedly been his purpose when in the spring he arrived at Susa from Babylon. His first task, therefore, now was to cross the mountainous region to the north- ward, called by modern Persians Luristan, through which (if ordinary maps are to be trusted) the waters from Media, penetrate by two large rivers to the plains of Khuzistan, where the ruins of Susa are still seen between them in the latitude of their nearest approach to one another. in ancient sculptures, both in and out of the scabbard. It was worn on the outside of the right thigh ; see Geo. Rawlinson's note and woodcuts on Herod, vii. 54. May we compare the weapon of the northern invaders of Thuringia, after which " mutato nomine quze ad id temporis Turingia, ex longis cultellis sed victoriosis postmodum vocata est non Saxonia sed Anglico elemento Saexonia ; " see the continuation of Florence of Worcester's Chronicle, vol. 2 p. 101 ed. Thorpe; who tells us the tradition comes from Widukind (ap. Leibnitz, torn. i. p. 73 sq.) 557 Our description will be rightly understood to exclude the little river which skirts the west side of the mounds, whereon once stood the fortress and palace of Susa. It will be applied to the river Kerkhah (or Kerrah) which crosses the latitude of Susa on the west, and to the river (called by Sir R. K. Porter, Afzal) which having passed by Diz-ful (that is, Diz-bridge) city, crosses the same latitude to the east of Susa, and afterwards (at Bend-i-kir or Benderghil) discharges its waters into the Karun, a to be by that conveyed to the Persian gulf at a point a little east of the mouth of the Shat-el-Arab so the Tigris is called after it has received the waters of the Euphrates from the right and those of the above-named Kerkhah from the left. Of these rivers, then, which after their descent into the plain, approach the ruins of Susa so nearly, the course of one or other through Luristan might suggest something like the line (or principal line) of march by which Darius reached Media from Susa. But the upper waters of the Kerkhah (which seems to be the more considerable river) are derived from streams of the district Kampada or Campadene, a part of Media already occupied when Darius began his march, by the forces under Hydarnes, which might serve as a vanguard to the king's army as it advanced, and might secure the supply of all that it would require on its arrival in Media. We may, therefore, think that the Kerkhah shews the likelier line of Darius's march. This also seems to be the river which Antigonus regained after Eumenes had defeated his attempt by crossing the line of the Koprates and the Pasitigris (that is the Afzal and the Karun) to advance a Higher up the Karun river is Shuster, a capital created for himself by the Sassanian Shapoor, the conqueror of the Roman Valerian. The name (according to Macdonald Kinnier) was given in allusion to that of the ancient capital not fifty miles distant, which is still Shus ; for Shus (says he) is a Pehlevi word signifying " pleasant," and Shuster signifies " more pleasant." See Sir R. K. Porter's Travels vol. ii. p. 411. If this word Shus be connected with Khush (which also signifies " pleasant " in modern Persian ; see D. Forbes's Hind. Diet. p. 251) it is plain that the city might really have derived its name from Kush sou of Ham. 558 upon Persis from Susa where a part of his troops blockaded the fortress. Finding his condition critical, Antigonus determined to move northward into Media, and to make that province, whose satrap accompanied him, the base of his future operations. His first step was a retrograde march of great hardship to his army, from the west bank of the Koprates to the Eulseus and a town upon it named Badake, where he recovered his forces from their fatigue by a rest of several days. He then attempted the passage of the mountains. This he effected in nine days, notwith- standing the opposition of the Kossaeans, the warlike race by which the hill-region was inhabited. b b Diodor. xix. 19. The names of the rivers of Susiana are much confounded by Greek writers. The Eulasus of Diodorus xix. 19, ia evidently distinguished not only from the Tigris or Pasitigris of the previous narrative, but also from the Koprates, an affluent of the Pasitigris on the right (that is, Antigonus's) side of that river. It is clearly the westermost of the three rivers, and thus corresponds with the Khoaspes of Strabo in this one passage ; Strabo xv. 3 6 U.CTO. yk* TO Xeae-TV ' KT{ rettt Kaja.f xx~/'ju.-\a.i; xupuut. Diod. xvii. 110 3. rf.i Bet^uXat/Kf i> -ro.~; ettu.it' tu.iti; K;> xuuai;. Diod. xix. 12 1 ; the nearest point of the Tigris to which, appears to have been 300 stades ft. e. the distance of Seleukeia and of the spot at which on his approach from Ekbatana, Alexander was met by the warning Khaldsean deputation) from Babylon, ibid, g 3. (in Diod. xviii. 73 g 3 the names Tigris and Euphrates appear to have been transposed 559 It may well be doubted, whether Darius's Median rival had ever been in possession of the royal residence, the fortress at Agbatana. His possession seems negatived by the fact preserved to us by Ezra, that Cyrus's edict for by mistake ; comp. Diod. xix. 13). See Arrian, Exp. Alex. vii. 7 1, G. Thus, the same river is by Arrian called Pasitigris when (as it seems) he follows Nearkhus, and Eulaeus when he follows another writer. From Straho's citations it is at least clear, that Nearkhus himself called the river Pasitigris. In Dicdor. xvii. 67 we have a good account of the rise and course of the (Pasi)tigris, and hence it appears (as it does also from Curtius v. 10 1) that the river was reached on the fourth march from Susa towards the frontier of Persis. At this point probably (which should not have been higher than that at which the Karun receives the Afzal or Diz river) was the Raft of Arrian, Indica cap. 42. The CeSy/K* D T/V;iSaf of Diod. xix. 18 4 must have been above the confluence of those rivers ; that is, higher up the Pasitigris by however short a distance than the spot by which the Koprates entered it. As to the town of Badake, whence Antigonus started to cross the country of the Kossseans, (and which, it seems, has been identified by Sir H. C. Rawlinspn with Madakta, a royal city which, when in the 7th year of his reign Sennacherib king of Assyria invaded Susiana, he boasts to have taken from the Elamite ; Journal R. A. S. vol. xix. p. 158) it may not have been exactly on the Kerkhah, though the Kerkhah is meant by the Eulaeus on which Diodorus places it. It was, perhaps, on a small affluent which seems to join that river from the right on the south side of the mountains : for the Map of the Turkish Empire published under the superintendence of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge (in Stanford's Harrow Atlas) seems to place a town named Patak in that situation. But to return to the narrative of Diodorus referred to at the com- mencement of this note ; there is a difficulty created by the statement (Diod. xix. 17 3) of the distance from Susa of the river (Pasi)tigris, to the further side of which, on Antigonus's approach from the west, Eumenes transported his army after that in conjunction (it is to be supposed) with Antigenes who commanded his "Silver-shields" and had been appointed satrap of Susiana, he had given charge to the keeper of the royal fort and treasure at Susa to listen to no demands of hia antagonist. It is stated that, at the point where the river joins (IX.ITO.I, " holds to" or "takes in hand,") the country of the independent mountaineers called Uxians, the (Pasi)Tigris was a day's journey distant from Susa. This may be true of the river on which Diz-ful now stands, and it may, therefore, be thought that this river (which modern geographers make the tributary of the Karun) was by Diodorus's author considered the main stream. But if, of the rivers which unite 560 the rebuilding of the temple of Jehovah at Jerusalem, was found among the archives at Agbatana in the palace, in consequence of an order to search for it issued by Darius as early (it would seem) as in the second year of his reign ; whereupon a search was made at Babylon, but apparently without success. The extent of the sway of Frawartish at Bend-i-kir, he took the westerly stream to be the principal, there seems no room left for that tributary of the Pasitigris on the Susian side, the Koprates ; Diod. xix. 1 8 3 ; unless, indeed, with the violence dealt to the Gordian knot, we suppose the state of the river Kerkhah at that time to have been what according to Mr Loftus it plainly has been once that where it enters the plain, the Kerkhah (whether naturally or by the labour of men) did then throw off a branch to the south-eastward (described as 900 feet wide and from ten to 20 feet deep) which branch carried a portion of its waters to the Karun, while the remainder of the river pursued its course (as the entire river does now) to the Shat-el Arab ; though by a channel (now dry and overgrown with timber) which passes within 600 yards to the west of the mound of Susa. Such a branch from the Kerkhah might be the Koprates, while the river whereon Dizful stands, was considered the principal river of the two which meet at Bend-i-kir. A water communication between the Kerkhah and the Karun might also excuse the above- noted diversity in the application of the name Eulaeus by Arrian and by Diodorua. But after all, it is a more probable solution of the difficulty created by the statement in Diod. xix. 17 3, that his author (or rather, he in citing that author) mis-stated the distance or applied it to the wrong river. See Ezra vi. 1. 2. For "in Agbatana in the palace that (is) in Media the province," our own translation, and for It ''Ex^a.-ra.vtK rri /3ji/ TJ U MiJl/ "?* the translation of Esdras , vi. 23, (followed by Josephus Antiq. xi. 4 6 though for the last three words he has I, Ma; only) we have in the Aramaic original JKnpnp no? ^ NHT?? N^PON? Here we might long for authority to read Akhmethan, but the n final is subject to elision, as is proved by the instances Susa for Shushan, Rakkan for Raga, and Kuganaka for Kukkannakan. Calmet asserts that the Syriac version here has Ahmathan ; compare " Shushan the palace" in Hebrew rrviin JB>P Esth. i. 2, 5 ; ii. 3, 5, 8; iii. 15; viii. 14; ix. 6, 11, 12 and Nehem. ii. 1. As Ezra adds the province to Agbatana, so does Daniel to Susa. We have in Dan. viii. 2. jnrnpn o^p I^K. rrvan jw? "at Shurfhan the palace which (is) in Elam the province." We have seen 561 had certainly been cramped in Media from the first, by the defeat of his forces at Mams or Varus in the begin- ning of the year B. C. 520 ; since which Darius's lieutenant Hydarnes seems to have maintained himself in Campadene. The partisans of the king of the Medes had also been repeatedly worsted in Armenia ; and the forces of Darius in that province must have been now in a condition to invade Media from the north-west. But neither from the north-west nor from Campadene did Darius's lieutenants propose to advance, till their master should arrive in Media ; and this he may have now at last accomplished from Susa, with greater ease and in less time than Anti- gonus did afterwards, if (as is probable) the inhabitants of the mountains were in his interest. He had, perhaps, been ten days in Media, when Frawartish came against him with an army, and a battle was fought at a town named Ku(n)drush of which the situation is as yet unknown to us. It was on the twenty-sixth of Adukanish (say, October) B. C. 519 ; and a victory was obtained by Darius which Herodotus, not in his history of Darius's reign but writing of Cyrus, has acknowledged.* 1 From the scene of his defeat, Frawartish and some who still remained with him escaped on their horses into the district of Ruga. For it is as a district and not as a city, that the name of the locality is characterized in the JTV3 translated p*t'<- It i 8 otherwise translated in Diodorus xix. 18 1 where we read f,xi, ('it loZra. TO faf&utr compare Died. xix. 21 2, and f,xov lit n* o XK\l7rx,i lltffixo).!;. Diod. xix. 46 C. These phrases were perhaps borrowed from the historian Hieionymus of Cardia, who served Eumenes, and, after the death of that accomplished soldier, was well treated and employed by Antigonus. a Herod, i. 130. In the history of Darius in the third book, the first pretended Smerdis, the Magian, is supposed to be a Mede (compare i- 101) and the head of a revolt of the Medes, but no battle is related to have been fought in which his supposed partisans were defeated. 36 562 Assyrian as well as in the Aryan text of the Behistun inscription ; and a division of Media is so named by Dio- dorus. 6 Under the Parthian empire, Isidore of Kharax appears to mean the same (or partly the same) district, by the one he calls Rhagiane of Media. This last was traversed by the road from Agbatana to the Caspian Gates for the last 58 skhoenes, that is, the last 145 miles, of the interval. At the city of the same name with the district (the ruins of which, now called Rey, are about four miles distant from the modern Persian capital, Teheran) Alex- ander arrived on the eleventh day from Agbatana, in pursuit of Darius Codomannus. f He killed many horses on the way, left many of his foot soldiers behind ; and if Teheran be 198 miles distant from Hamadan, as it is said, he must for those many successive days have made eighteen miles a day. That Frawartish directed the course of his flight to- wards the Caspian Gates,s and the border of the united Who tella us (xix. 44 \ 4) how Antigonua after his victory (having caused hia prisoner Eumenea to die by starvation) distributed hie army into winter quarters throughout Media ; and especially The Aryan name Raga in Beh. insc. col. 3 para. 1, is said to be a feminine singular. If the same word were considered a plural mascu- line, it would correspond in number with the Greek "fi-yt^ and might be supposed to signify properly not the city but the name of a tribe, as Saka (Aryan) is in Greek 2*/. With Isidore of Kharax the name of the city which waa then the greatest in Media is ij'Piy*, a singular feminine; see C. Miiller's Geogr. Grace. Minorca torn. i. p. 251. In one place, too, the singular "Pya. is used by Strabo xi. 13 6. In Tobit vi. 9 f' Pay? has been put (apparently by a mia-correction) for ?* E*0Tut t ri; AX*K>(. In early modern times, the long hair ef the Anglo-saxon nobles who followed their conqueror William in his first return to Normandy, attracted the eyes of all; so tells us Ordericus Vitalis, torn. ii. p. 168. Where we find the shaving of head and face used as a token of grief, we may be sure that the people regarded the loss as an abasement or dis- honour. For other indignities were submitted to for the like purpose. A remarkable instance is the exposure of their persons by Egyptian women, in mourning for the dead. It is pourtrayed in some of the plates which accompany Sir J. G. Wilkinson's Manners &c. of Ancient Egypt, and it is alluded to as an exhibition of woe by Hebrew prophets. See Isaiah's prophetic picture of the Daughter of Babylon ; xlvii. 1-3. Of the Moabites, in a time of coming calamity it is foretold ; "On all their heads shall be baldness and every beard shall be cut off; " Isai. xv. 2. The Assyrians were the oppressors then ; but a like woe to Moab, of which the Khaldaeans must have been the instruments, is denounced by Jeremiah, xlviii. 37. On this self-inflicted demonstration of misery, compare Jerem. xli. 5 ; Ezra ix. 3 ; Ezekiel v. 1 : Isai. vii. 20 ; 2 Sam. x. 4. To return to the passage on which this note is written ; after the three clippings, a fourth insult seema recorded ; but both Sir H. C. Rawlinson on the Aryan and Mr E. Xorris on the Kissian text, can only conjecture as to the meaning. 565 royal may yet have lingered. For we read of one who (his sentence being revoked) was taken down from the tree alive. The principal abettors of Frawartish (inclu- ding, it may be, others than Medes) were also punished within the fortress at the same city ;J but in what way is a point not yet (it would seem) determined by the trans- lators. It seems probable, that while their chief was exposed in his death, and was made to suffer as much dishonour as he had aspired to of dignity, they (like captives that had been paraded in a Roman triumph as far as the ascent to the Capitol) were slaughtered in prison. Darius's treatment of his Median rival was, perhaps, little, if at all, less cruel than that which the aspiring Ionian Polycrates had suffered at the hands of the satrap of Sardis. In both cases the would-be lord is punished by his more fortunate rival, as a fugitive slave might have been by his master. Probably, the course pursued was counted both politic and just. The degradation of the conquered was supposed to heighten the superiority of the victor. But, unlike Oroites, king Darius cannot fairly be supposed to have employed any falsehood, even by his people, to entrap his enemy. He did not torture to death and load with ignominy the man whom he had lured into his grasp by cries for help. The king now remained for a considerable time in Media : his head-quarters (we may suppose) being generally at Agbatana ; of which the representative now is found, east of Mount Elwend or Alwand, in a city named Hamadan. From accounts of the old city, relating to times later than those of which we write by rather more than 300 years, it is described by Polybius as the original seat of the J The expression in the Aryan text is, Hagainatanaiya atara didam ; " Ecbatanis intra arcem " ; col. 2 lines 77, 78 ; in the Kissian, Akva- tana Afvarris- va ; col. 2 lines 57, 58. Mr Norris notes, that Afvarris is the correspondent of the Persian dida, and he compares the Magyar nouns var and varos, " fort " and " city." Perhaps, the first syllable af is allied to Afs, the Kissian term signifying "a town ; " in Persian rardanam. In Hebrew and Aramaic, we find Afvarris expressed by HT3 See Ezra vi. 2 ; Esther i. 2, and more above, in a former note. 506 kingdom of the Medes, k and as seeming still by the sumptuousness of its building to have greatly surpassed all the provincial cities of Media; which, since the Macedonian conquest, according to a policy commenced by Alexander the Great himself, had been planted with Greeks. It was situated, Diodorus says, in the plain at the distance of twelve stades from a mountain, twenty-five stades in ascent, named Orontes, from a reservoir beyond the water shed of which an artificial tunnel brought an abundant supply of water to the city. 1 But, to return to our first author; Polybius places Agbatana under the ridge-side of the Orontes ; and reports it unwalled ; m being in this last particular like Susa, like Sardis, like Memphis, and perhaps like Nineveh taken in the widest sense of the name, and like Egyptian Thebes. But as Susa and Sardis had their citadels, and Memphis its " White Fort," It will be observed, that Polybius (like previous Greek writers) has no notion of any Ekbatana of Media in Atropatene or elsewhere, besides the town now Ilamadan ; though 500 years after the accounts followed by Polybius, there was extolled a second Ekbatana in Atropatene ; see above p. 61. As to the fact that Ekbatana is described by Polybius as " adjacent to the parts of Asia about the Maeotis and the Euxine," the description though vague will be found applicable, if we remember that Polybiue's Lake Maeotis, which receives the waters of the Tanais (Polyb. x. 48) is most assuredly (as the context shows) the modern Lake Aral which receives the Syr river, the ancient Jaxartes ; the equivocal nomenclature being due to the persuasion of the first Macedonian conquerors when they arrived on the south bank of the Jaxartes, that they had reached the Tanais and that the plains beyond the river were those of Europe to the right of the river Don or Tanais. Therefore, in Polyb. x. 27 we must understand by the Maeotis and the Euxine, the Aral and tho Caspian sea ; though in x. 48 Polybius calls the Caspian by a name which was proper to it, " the Hyrcanian sea." i See Diodorus ii. 13 6, 7. At xvii. 110 7 he writes ; " They say its circumference is one of 250 stades." Perhaps wo should have written, Under the side-hills which run along tho flank of Mount Orontes ; unless TV, after r*(U(i;*t be an interpo- lation ; in which case Polybius describes the city as lying alongside of Mount Orontes under the flank of the mountain. See Polyb. Book x (fragments of) chap. 27. 567 so Agbatana had within it a citadel which was entirely artificial and wonderfully constructed for security. 11 Under the citadel was a palace nearly seven stades (or 1414 yards) in compass, which by the sumptuousness of its particular buildings, shewed the wealth of the original founders : for, though the wood-work was all of cedar and cypress, no part was left naked ; but the beams and panels of the ceilings and the pillars in the porticos and peristyles were overlaid with a coating, some of silver some of gold ; and the roof-tiles were of silver, all of them. Of these, the greater part was stript off at the invasion of Alexander and the Macedonians, and the remainder under the dominion of Antigonus and Seleucus Nikator. Nevertheless, at the arrival of Antiochus called the Great (who was grandson's grandson to Seleu- cus) in his war with the second Arsakes, king of Parthia, the sanctuary of the goddess Anahita (which, as at Susa, was a part of the palace) had still the surrounding pillars gilded ; a great many tiles of silver had been put together within; there were also some few bricks of gold, and there remained a great many of silver. Out of all these was struck off for the king's use the sum of little less than 4000 talents of coin. This palace, we may be confident, was the work of times subsequent to those of which we write ; though, later in his reign, Darius son of Hystaspes may have n Poly bi us proceeds a.zKv ' Iv The text of Polybius has ~S.D,I^IU -n~j !*;*?{?. Seleucus is usually surnamed Nikator. It was by defeating Nikanor, a general left in command by Antigonus in Media and the countries thereabout, that, having already recovered his satrapy of Babylonia since the defeat of Demetrius son of Antigonus by Ptolemy satrap of Egypt, at Gaza (B. C. 312) Seleucus added to it Media and Susiana ; Diodor. xix. 92. But this Nikanor is called Nikator in Appian, de Reb. Syr. cap. 55. and Appian says that Seleucus acquired the surname N.*TP for his great success in his wary, rather than because (as it was said) he had killed Antigonus's general, Nikator; ibid. cap. 57. On the other hand, Eusebius p. 184 (quoted by Clinton F. II. vol. 3 Appendix chap. 3 " Kings of Syria ") says " ex Clique (victoria) dictus est Nikanor." 568 begun it. At the date of the Macedonian conquest there appears to have been another palace in the neighbourhood of Agbatana, in which Antigonus spent the remainder of the winter after the defeat and death of Eumenes. p A palace, in the neighbourhood of Susa rather than within it, may likewise have been the scene of our Darius's late entertainments. When Polybius tells us, that the citadel was artificial, made by hand of man, he certainly must be understood to say that it was not (like that at Sardis or like the Acro- polis at Athens) a hill or rock, the natural advantages of which had been seized upon and improved by art. We might even suspect an intimation that (like the citadel at Susa) it consisted partly of an artificial mound which gave it an elevation above the surrounding city. Accordingly, Herodotus asserts that the fortress at Agbatana, sur- rounded (as he relates) by seven concentric circles of wall, stood on a mound, xoXuvoc, which accident assisted to pro- duce the desired effect, that every inner circle in succession should be elevated to the view of the spectator above the circle immediately without it, by the height of the battle- ments alone. In the inmost circle stood the palace and P Diod. xix. 44 4. Iv nit jcu/4*) xa.ei%itf&4tftf t ouf9i *Xr,fiov 'Ex/3ctrayf, f r, rr,s %&{et{ ixl.tr,; ifrt ret 0B0&MF Compare Isidore's 'AS;> T /Sar/Ana TI It Bara.oif . twelve skhccncs on the great road west from the metropolis ; and seven skhosnes east from Koy*i{, now called Kangavar and distant 45 miles from Hamadan; See " Mansiones Parthic." 6 ed. C. Muller, and Journal R. A. S. vol. xii. p. 100. Ruins of this palace, as Sir II. C. Rawlinson thought, exist "at the delightful village of Artaman near the western foot of the mountain ; " Journal R. A. S. vol. x. p. 321. note. Mr Masson tells us (Journal R. A. S vol. xii. p, 123) that south of the modern city Hamadan are conspicuous mounds : the principal of which, known to the inhabitants as the treasury of Darab (Darius), suggests the site of the citadel of Deiokes. We add, that these mounds to the southward indicate a quarter over which the old city extended. So modern Rome has shrunk, as it were, into a corner of the imperial city. The treasury and temple of Anaitis which Isidore mentions at the metropolis, seem to mark respectively the citadel and the palace below it. 569 the treasure-houses or magazines. Five different colours distinguished the five outer walls in succession, white, black, red, blue, orange ; the sixth and the seventh (which was the inmost wall) had their battlements coated respectively with silver and with gold. Within this seven-circled fortress, lived the king ; outside were the habitations of the people : whence arises a confirmation of the statement by Polybius, that the city was unwulled.i When Herodotus tells us that the outer circle of wall about the fortress was about as large as the circle of Athens, we know that Athens proper, or the upper city, is meant; but one is led to suspect, that the historian's informant should rather have compared the fortress at Agbatana (if he did not reaily compare it) with the Acropolis only of Athens which, indeed, before the reign of Theseus was the " city," , near the end of the chapter, we should read CTU ! xuxx<,. * See Thuc. ii. 15. TO Ji T-JO reCnu (9r,fituf) r, i*jVoX(f , ij vut euro., iroX/f t>t, xati r uv' avrr.t T{f tint (JM^tfTO. TlTtXp.ft.itOI. He ends the chapter thus; xa,>.iiT(ti tl S' TV, TXii TKury xetntxria-it xi ri o.x(iire).ic f-ixt' nuti in v*' Afl!*/ <"*< Liddell and Scott in their Lexicon, add that the rest of the city was called if rv, referring to Aristophanes, Eq. 1093 ; Lys. 245, and illustrating these by the above-cited Thuc. ii. 15 to which they add i, if *<, seemingly used for ! ?? i* 4 .ar'x (of Athens) ; Xenoph. Anab. vii.' 1 27. 570 IV. THE next of Darius's successes recorded at Behistun, was the result of his conflict with a nation of warlike herdsmen, the Asagartiyas or Sagartians, of whom Herodotus's description, that they were of the same stock with the Persians, perhaps means only that, like both Medes and Persians, they boasted to be of Aryan race. One Chit- ra(n)takhma proclaimed in the host, or the free muster of his nation ; " I am descended from (Kh)uwakhshatara." And here we suppose (as in regard of the similar claim made by Frawartish among the Medes) that the celebrated king of the Medes, the father of Astyages, is meant, whose name (according to Greek and Roman writers) is Kuakhshara or Cyaxares. Having declared his right of blood, the bold speaker added ; "I am king in Asagarta" So is the country named on the Akhsemenian monuments. 3 It is, perhaps, a difficult question to answer that arises here, not so much this When did the Sagartian revolt take place, but rather When was it that Chitra(n)takhma required of his people an allegiance due to a representative of the Median line of kings. Like the Hyrkanians, who shared the Parthian revolt, as it will be seen hereafter, and like the Margians, who revolted alone, the Sagartians are not separately mentioned in the list of the nations, the inheritance of Cambyses, wrested from Gaumata the Magian by Darius. But, unlike the Margians and like the Hyrkanians, they are also not enumerated among those who revolted while Darius remained at Babylon after the overthrow of Naditabel. From the former omission we may conclude, of the Sagartians also as of the Hyr- kanians and Margians, that they were considered an appendage of some greater nation or country than their a There is the locative case, Asagartaiya (which we have rendered in our text) found in the Aryan copy of the Behistun inscription, col. 2 lines 80, 81 ; and there is the nominative, Asagarta, in Darius's Persepolitan list of provinces, found in an Aryan inscription only ; sec Journal R. A. S. vol. x p. 280. 571 own. Now, if that greater country, unlike to Baktria which remained in obedience when the Margians revolted, but like to Parthia, was one that threw off its allegiance while Darius was at Babylon, the revolt of the Sagartians though happening at the same time, would not be sepa- rately mentioned. Therefore, the omission of the name of the Sagartians in the list of the nations that revolted before Darius left Babylon in March B. C. 519 to go by way of Susa into Media, must not be held to prove that they revolted afterwards, in which case Darius in his introduction to the record of his success against them, would have added where he was when their re volt occurred, as he has done in the case of the Babylonians who revolted after he had left their city. The omission of their name in the list of nations that revolted, must be regarded a proof that the Sagartians are included under one of the names enumerated. Next, that the Sagartian country at this time was considered to belong to Media rather than to Persis (as might have been concluded from Herodotus) may fairly be presumed from Darius's counting, as he does, the defeat of its people for a part of what he had achieved in Media. b Herodotus himself, by a fact which he attests, seems to warn us not to reckon the Sagartians to Persis; for, whereas the Persians (he informs us) were exempt from tribute, he enumerates the Sagartians as tributary to the king of Persia in the same section of the empire not, indeed, with the Medes but with the Sarangas and others." 1 On the whole, then, we conclude, that the Sagartians, though at a later date allotted to a satrapy on their eastern border, yet when Darius seized the throne, i Beh. Inscr. col. 2 para. 15. On the other hand, see Herod, i. 125, vii. 18. Herod, iii. 97. d Herod, iii. 93. See above p. 170. The Sarangas are the province called on the monuments, Zaraka in Aryan, Sarranka in Kissian (in the text of Darius's tomb inscription) and Zaranga in Assyrian ; the 14th province on the Bebistun list given above at pp. 417, 418, and the 8th on the tomb liet; Journal R. A. S. vol. x. p. 294 ; vol. xv. p. 150 ; vol. xix. p. 262. 572 were held to belong to Media. That their country was to the east of Media, we infer from the fact, that in the only list where they are named (in consequence of their being for the time regarded as a separate people and province) Darius's list on a slab built into the southern face of the great platform at Persepolis, they stand the first of the file of "eastern provinces " that is, of the countries to the east of Media and Persis. This region seems to be that afterwards called " the desert of Carmania." e That, when Darius made himself king, or (as he says) when Aura- mazda gave him the kingdom, the Sagartians were more closely connected with the Medes than with the Persians, seems also intimated by the very record that one of their own nation recommended himself as fitter to be their king than Darius (who was of the Persian royal family, descen- ded from Akhaemenes) because he, Chitra(n)takhma, was descended from the great king of the Medes, Khuwakh- shatara. By the bye, descent through a female was probably not all that the Sagartian was understood and intended to claim; particularly, if he lied, as Darius asserts ; for a descent from the royal line of Media might have been truly asserted not only by Cyrus the Persian and his sons and perhaps (as we have contended) by Darius himself, but, probably, by many a noble family of nations whose kings or rulers formerly were allies of the Mede. Yet, if he and they were equally supposed to derive their royal blood through princesses of the family of Khuwakhshatara, he at least had the advantage in the eyes of his people, of being a Sagartian. But, however nearly connected with the Medes, and though in their revolt (if it was not a simultaneous one,) they may have followed the example of the Medes. it is 6 i-. \.r,,u S K ? jt./t. Martian's " Periplus Exteri Mans," in the Geogr. Graec. Minorca torn. i. p. 531. Sir H. C. Rawlinson places the perma- nent seats of the Asagartiyas between Parthia and Media ; see his interesting speculations on this branch of the Aryan race, in Journal R. A. S. vol. xi. pp 424, 425. The Carmanian Desert seems to have extended northward from Carmania to Parthia : see Strab. XT. 2 14. 573 contrary to evidence to suppose that the Sagartians did not accept Chitra(n)takhma for their master till after the defeat, on the field at Kundrush, of the king to whom the Medes had given themselves. We have evidence which shews that, boasting among the high-spirited Sagartians the like of that descent which Frawartish asserted to the Medes, Chitra(n)takhma either produced the first open revolt of his people from Darius or soon became its head. Indeed, that by his pretension he caused the revolt, is in one place declared by Darius's record in the very words used of Frawartish and the other pretenders.' It is also attested by the order of figures in Darius's sculpture, that he declared himself king in his own country before the new pretender to the name and rights of Smerdis son of Cyrus appeared in Persis, and, therefore, probably if not certainly (as will be explained hereafter) before Darius quitted Babylon in March B. C. 519. But, though from the beginning of their revolt acknowledged by the Sagar- tians for their king, he may have acted -at the head of his wild forces as an ally of the Median pretender. Accor- dingly, we shall meet with a fact that may indicate the plains of Assyria, one of the provinces that revolted while Darius yet stayed at Babylon, or even Armenia which seems to have been invaded on behalf of Frawartish, rather than his native Sagartian deserts, as a quarter in which he had been conspicuous before his overthrow. Our idea of the levies he commanded, must (in some features at least) be shaped or coloured by Herodotus's description of the Sagartian contingent in the great army mustered for his invasion of Europe by Darius's son Xerxes. In number this consisted of eight thousand men, in dress half-Persian half-Paktyan, and for arms carrying only a lasso and a dagger. It seems to have been after the defeat of Frawartish that Darius turned his attention to the Sagartian pre- tender. From his head quarters, apparently in Media, he 1 See the recapitulation ; Beh. Insc. col. 4 para. 2. 574 sent against Chitrantakbma a column, the command of which we are surprised to find given to a Mede named Takhmaspada.e But we shall meet with a. more remark- able instance of high trust reposed by the conqueror of Frawartish in a Median commander. The king's com- mission now given to the forces of which Takhmaspada waa made the chief, was like the one we have seen delivered to the column led by the Persian Vidarna or Hydarnes, which marched first from Babylon into Media at the beginning of the year B. C. 520. h It was this ; " Go ye forth ; Smite ye the insurgent people that do not call themselves mine." In our poverty of materials, we must not omit this circumstance, that the force commanded by Takhmaspada, though described as " Persian and Mede " in both the Aryan text and the Kissian, was designated in the corresponding but now unfortunately mutilated passage of the Assyrian, either as "of Media" only, or (if any other name of a province was originally added) as " of Media," with precedence over that other. 1 To act against 8 Or Khamaspada, according to the Aryan text. But Mr Norris observes in his Kissian Vocabulary (Journal B. A. S. vol. xv. p. 185.) " it may be suspected that an initial t is wanting." In the Assyrian, the name is gone in both places. We have assumed the initial from the Kissian orthography, which (as deciphered by Mr Norris) is Takmasbata. h The commission in these two instances (and also in the case of the army with a Mede for its chief, afterwards sent against Babylon) is given to the chief (in Aryan, mathishta) and the rest collectively, by plural imperatives, Prita and Jata. A like T collective commission on the other side was given after this by the second Pseudo-Smerdis to a lieutenant despatched against Darius's satrap of Arakhotia. But in two instances in the case of Dadarshish the Armenian and Vaumisa the Persian we have seen the commission addressed by the singular impera- tives, pridiya and jadiya, to the chiefs alone. So it will be in the case of the commission to the satrap of Baktria to put down the rebellion in the Margian country ; but in these cases no forces appear to have been furnished by the king himself to the persons charged with his commis- sion. That Vidarna's men were " Persians and Modes" is not expressly stated, but seems implied by the context. 1 See Journal R A. S. vol. xiv ; " Assyrian text of the Behistun Inscrip- tion," line 61. 575 the Sagartians, the force must have been composed (chiefly at least) of cavalry, and we know that the best horses of the Perso-Median empire were bred in the plains of the Nisaean district in Media : also, that (accor- ding to Xenophon) it was not till the time of Cyrus that the Persians obtained horses and learnt to ride.J The expedition was successful; or, indeed, it would have been unnoticed at Behistun. The success is thus briefly inscribed upon the rock ; " "When they had received their commission, Takhmaspada marched with the people. They encountered Chitrantakhma in battle. Auramazda was Darius's helper. By the grace of Auramazda they smote the army of Chitrantakhma. They took Chitrantakhma himself and brought him before Darius." Then, with one omission, the mutilations inflicted on Frawartish are recorded as having been repeated upon the person of the Sagartian pretender. Darius proclaims to his empire and to future generations, " I cut off his nose and his ears." Then he adds a circumstance which (as in the case of Fra- wartish, where it is also found) our translators have not yet been able to explain ; k and he concludes the account by tell- J Herod, vii. 40 ; Xenoph. Cyrop. ir. 3. k Here, as before in the case of Frawartish, one particular of torture is untranslated. In the Kissiun (col. 2 lines 56, 65) as deciphered by Mr Norris, it is expressed by Rcdakiduva, which (he says) is " likely to be a verb of the first person singular ; " " something like / smote or / killed : " see Journal R. A. S. vol. xv. pp. 114 and 205. But in the prefixed grammatical observations, p. 80, he implies that the phrase consists of two words reda and kiduva, and says of the latter that it is " certainly a first person singular" of the past tense. The Aryan, unfortunately, wants the two first characters of the object of the verb. If these be ex- pressed by x and y, the whole expression will be utashaiya xy sh(a)m awajam, "also his .... I smote (or, I took off?) " See Sir H. C. Rawlinson's noteson col. 2 lines 75, 89, after revisiting Behistun. Elsewhere, of the verb awajam, Sir H. C. Rawlinson says, " It should be the first person active imperfect of the verb which occurs in the third person middle imperfect in col. 1 line 32." Now, as in col. 3 line 74 we have awiija, so in col. 1 lines 31, 32 we have twice the verb amtja, "he (Cambyaes) killed" or " took off; " and once, tho verb awajata, " he (Smerdis) was killed or taken off." That putting and being put to death is directly or indirectly 576 ing us ; " He was held in bonds at my gate : all the people beheld him : then I gibbeted him," (stuck him upon the sharp top of a pole planted upright in the ground) " at the town " (as, with its unvarying precision of expression, the Assyrian text defines the name of the locality) " Arbira." So Persians and Medes pronounced the name ; but the Assyrian text gives us the genuine form, Arbil, signifying " city of Bel," the Arbela of the Greeks. 1 The fact that this place is not particularly explained to be a town, and is not referred to its province (as Agbatana also before, was not) in either the Aryan or the Kissian text, may mark the place not only as well known to Aryans and Kis- sians but as a capital. We may suppose it to have become the seat of provincial government in Assyria, not perhaps expressed, appears from the Kissian counterpart, and also (it is said) the Assyrian. Of the Aryan awaja and awajata, the respective Kissian correspondents are afpis and afpika. So, too, the Aryan awdjanam (col. i. lines 57, 59, 83, col. 2 line 5) is represented by the Kissian afpiya, " I killed." And the third person awdjaniya, twice (col. i. lines 51, 52) is represented by the Kissian afpis, " he killed." But the Kissian afpiya and its equivalent Hu afpi, represent also the Aryan ajanam, col. i. lines 89 and 95, col. 2 line 89, col. 4 line 6-7 ; while the Kissian a/pis represents the Aryan aja in col. 2 lines 26, 36, 55, 87. col. 3 lines 6, 18, 39, 46, 62, 67. It would appear, then, that the Aryan ajanam and awajanam; also aja, awaja and awdjaniya ; are respectively equivalents. See Norris (Journal R. A. S. vol. xv. p. 176) on the verb afpi. This verb represents, also, the Aryan imperatives jadiya andjatd, 11 smite thou " and " smite ye." Part of the ignominious and cruel usage of offenders by Persian masters, was scourging, as we may learn from the description given of the mal-treatment of the mummy of Amasis by Cambyses, and of his own person by Zopyrus. Compare the beating with rods, which preceded the use of the lictor's axe in the case of condemned citizens at Rome, and preceded crucifixion in the case of aliens. 1 See Journal R. A. S. vol. xi. p. 39 sub voce. Rawlinson cites Dion Cassius Ixxviii. 1, as affirming Arbela to have been a place of royal sepulture under the Parthian kings ; also Curtius v. 1. as testifying that at the time of the Macedonian conquest it contained the royal treasures. If Darius's army stores are not meant, we may suppose the fact reported to be, that the provincial treasury was here. Rawlinson would infer its consequence from Strabo's describing it as *<*: i'xy., xyi. 1 3. 577 immediately after the fall of imperial Nineveh in B. C. COS, but at least, since the second calamity which befell that city and the neighbouring Calah (called by Xenophon, Mespila and Larissa) when Cyrus in B. C. 558 at the head of the revolted Medes and of the Persians, having previously made Astyages king of the Medes his prisoner at Agba- tana, seems immediately to have invaded this province of the Babylonian erapire. m For Astyages was old," and perhaps attached to the state of things in which he had long enjoyed his power ; identifying his own interest, as vassal or ally, with that of Babylon. It may be further conjectured that, being thus the first conquest made by the Medes and Persians under the successor of Astyages, the lands of Assyria Proper fell into the hands of Median lords exclusively, the Persians being only auxiliaries and their country distant, while that of the Medes was near. Arbela must have been the chief city of the province in B. C. 331 when the Macedonian Alexander flew thither, a distance of 600 stades,or rather twenty parasangs, from his victory at Gaugamela or Camel's House, a village on the Lumodus which joined the Lycus or Zab from the right, and when the conqueror by so doing, caused the name of Arbela to be given to the battle. And under Alexander's first successors (coupled with Mesopotamia in a single satrapy) we find a province called after this capital, Arbelitis. To this day the name of the city subsists ; and m See Xenoph. Anab. iii. 4 7-9 ; and an article by the present writer; " Ptolemy's Chronology of reigns at Babylon," printed in the Journal R. A. S. vol. xviii. n He was the young Persian general's grandfather ; and already in B. C. 600, seems to have been the father of Darius the Mede. See Arrian, De successoribus Alexandri (apud Phot. cod. xcii 35) and Diod. xviii. 39 6. By Arbelitis we may understand the province more properly called Adiabene ; to which belonged both Arbela and Gaugamela according to Dio Cassius Iviii. 26. For the field of the battle of Arbela, see Arrian Exp. Alex. iii. 8, 7 ; 15 4, 5 ; and (quoting Aristobulus and Ptolemy) vi. 11 g 5; Strabo xvi. 1 3; Plut. Vit. Alex, cap. 31. Itin. Alex. 57, 64. The 600 stades' distance of Gaugamela from Arbela being divisible by 30, the number of stades generally assigned to a parasang, while the shorter distance of 500 stades which 37 578 the great mound of Arbil is described as an imposing object of view. To intimidate the Medo-Assyrian population of the province, which was one that had joined the revolt of the Medes while Darius was at Babylon, must have been the king's intention when he exposed the body of the Sagartian transfixed upon a pole at Arbela, as he had exposed that of the Median pretender at Agbatana. But the suspicion is here suggested, that Chitrantakhma, the pretended descendant from the Mede who shared the conquest of Nineveh with a revolted vassal of Assyria, the Babylonian Nabopolassar, had been well known among the Median lords of the soil in the Assyrian province, though the field of his last struggle with the forces and the fortune of Darius may rather be supposed to have been some obscure spot within his native wildernesses. As the place is unnamed, so too the date of the defeat and capture of the Sagartian is not given by Darius; though in most cases of success recorded at Behistun, these particulars are added: but having placed the victory upon the list of his achievements, he sums up with the words, " This did I in Media." Now, in this and in the other like cases, the peculiarity is not to be disregarded. Here, as wherever else it occurs, we believe the omission of the date to be inten- tional. The date was not inserted, because it would here have been out of its place in the series of dates; though for the record of the matter itself, here was the fittest opportunity, it being desired by the king that the account of the Median war might be presented complete, and that the story of the Parthian war to which he had next to proceed, might neither interrupt that of his achievements in Media nor be itself interrupted by the detail of one of them. Just as we have seen the death of Martiya undated, some laid down, is not BO divisible, it seems that the local estimate of the distance was 20 parasangs, which some made 600 stades, others (at 25 Btades or three Roman milliapassuum or 5000 English yards to the parasang) 500 Blades. 579 and just as the story of his unfortunate revolt in Susiana is prefixed to that of the operations against Frawartish in Media and Armenia;, while it is plain from the Behistun sculpture that Martiya's enterprise began after that of Frawartish (though the Behistun inscription illustrated by the Book Esther shows that it ended first) even so the case stands here. In like manner as, not to interrupt the tale of the war with Frawartish, that of Martiya's revolt which was the first to end in disaster, is related from beginning to end before the other is begun, so, in order not to interrupt the more important narrative of the successes in Parthia, and at the same time not to disconnect the defeat of the Sagartians from the other successes of Darius's forces in Media, the expedition against Chitrantakhma is put first in the narrative, though in fact it was not terminated till a date later at the least than that of Darius's first victory in Parthia, and perhaps later than the suppression of the revolt in that country towards the end of spring in B. C. 518. But, as in these particular cases he had forsaken the order of time in his narrative, he omits their dates. If we have now rightly answered, Why the destruction of Martiya in Susiana, and why the defeat, the capture, and the execution of Chitrantakhma, the one catastrophe no less than the other, is undated in the Behistun inscription, we are prepared to meet a doubt that may occur to the reader hereafter, as to the year which certain dated transactions in Arakhotia belong to. But the question, now we hope well answered, if it had suggested itself before might have led us to place the undated termination of the first revolt in Susiana, when Atrina proclaimed himself king of that country, not where it stands in Darius's narrative, that is, before the first of the king's operations against Naditabel the Babylonian, but in the midst of those operations. Atrina's discomfiture is not dated, because it is not told by Darius in the place of its occurrence according to the order of time. And this particular matter is not related in the order of time, because, if it had been so placed among the events of his 37* 580 narrative, it would have interrupted the story of his war with Naditabel.p V. IT was Darius's maxim That force is needless when address will do the business ; or that where policy will suffice, it is always to be preferred to violence. Probably, the king had many a success to boast of in these years, which had been gained either by clever conduct of his own or by the dexterous service of his officers. These achievements, however, like the events at Susa in the third year of his reign which the book Esther preserves, it was no part of Darius's design to publish at Behistun. Nevertheless, when they were the acts of the king's servants, they were noted to the credit of the doers in the king's private records ; like the information of the plot against his life which (about four years after this) he obtained from Mordecai. Successes of this noiseless description, in which individuals or parties rather than large armed musters succumbed, may be presumed to have been obtained, if not exactly in the revolts which we have chronicled of Susiana, yet in those of provinces, whose desertion of allegiance to Darius while the king was at P See above pp 475, 476. Atrina and Naditabel arose about the same time and the risings are recorded together, before the relation of the suppression of either. See Behistun inscription (Aryan text) col. i. para. 16. But if there was a priority, we may assign it to Atrina, because in the sculpture the figure of Atrina stands in front of that of Naditabel. Again, the Susian catastrophe (" Atrina was taken and bound and brought before Darius, who put him to death ; " col. i. para. 17) must b placed before the execution of Naditabel by Darius at Babylon (col. 2 para. 1.) And not being dated, we suppose it to have happened after the first dated event of the campaign against Naditabel, that is, later than the 26th of Atriyadiya (December B. C. 521). Indeed, we may conjecture that it was immediately after his victory over the Babylonians at the passage of the Tigris, that Darius sent with such effect to Susiana ; col. i. para. 17. It is the slaughter of Gaumata and his friends rather than the capture of Atrina, that (with the final capture of Babylon) makes up the 19 combats of col. 4 line 5. 581 Babylon (but nothing more concerning them) is com- memorated in the Behistun inscription. And the method which we have seen used for preventing a great revolt in Lower Asia, by suddenly cutting off the perfidious Oroites, may give a good idea of some of these triumphs. Supposing that Bagaios did not depart on his mission to Sardis before the end of the entertainments at Susa where Oroites should have appeared (that is, not before the date when the king himself, resuming his march from Babylon, proceeded in person against his Median rival) we shall be led to presume that the confiscated effects of Oroites, including the Greek doctor Demokedes and the other proceeds of the satrap's success in luring Polycrates into his power, reached Darius's palace at Susa or Darius himself in Media, at a date not later than that assigned by the king to the next of the achievements recorded at Behistun. The journey from Sardis to the Kissian capital was reckoned by the Ionian Aristagoras during Darius's reign to be one of three months, and that statement (made in connection with the first recorded project of the descen- dants of those who fought at Troy, to upset the throne of an Asiatic king of kings) is confirmed by Herodotus ; who contributes an account, obtained in his own time, of the stages and distances on the king's road between the two cities ; making it (at five parasangs a day) a journey (for an army) of ninety days exactly.* The journey from Sardis to the capital of Media would not be longer. As he went down to Sardis, the king's commissioner may fairly be supposed to have travelled with a light train and to have used far greater despatch ; so that the news a Herod, v. 50-53; "On our construction," says James Rennell, late Major of Engineers and Surveyor General in Bengal, " there is found an aggregate of about 1120 Geographical miles between Sardis and Susa, take nthrough the points of Issus and Mosul which, divided by 450, the number of parasangas " (Herod, v. 53), " gives 2. 489 Geographical miles for each parasanga, or nearly two (geographical) miles aud a half; " see " Geography of Herodotus," 2nd ed. vol. i p. 436. Rennell identified the ancient Susa with the modern Sus ; pp. 268, 440. . 582 of his success carried by relays of couriers, sometimes riders sometimes runners, might have reached the king in ten or fifteen days ; but the conveying to Darius of the property of Oroites the gold, the silver, the brass, the garments, the cattle, the slaves b might consume the full three months. For, though Major Rennell observes that the slowest of travellers (namely, those who travel in caravans) far outstrip an army, the 90 days of Herodotus are exclusive of days of rest. The news, then, of the death of Oroites may have reached Darius before the end of December B. C. 519, and the satrap's spoils may have arrived in the March follow- ing the month in which the king's forces achieved the first defeat of the Parthians and Hyrkanians. Of these, the former only were mentioned in the list of the nations that revolted during Darius's stay of fourteen months at Babylon ; but the Hyrkanians (who are not mentioned as a separate people or country in any of the general lists of provinces bequeathed by Darius) were undoubtedly in- cluded in the name of the more numerous nation. They stood higher, however, than the Parthians in the esteem of the kings of Persia. Accordingly, they are ranked the fourth in Herodotus's list of the nations that formed the infantry in the famous host of Xerxes, while the Parthians are but the twelfth. Nevertheless, the same writer attests the geographical connection between the Hyrkanians and the Parthians ; d and (unless they are the Parikanians of the tenth on his list of the fiscal divisions of Darius's Asiatic and African dominions) he does not give a separate place to the Hyr- kanians in that survey of the Persian empire. 6 Xenophon describes them as a nation of no great number, bordering on, and military vassals of, the Babylonian or New Assyrian empire in the reign of Kuakhshara or Cyaxares son of Astyages king of the Medes, when the war broke out in which Cyrus commanded the Medes and Persians > Herod, v. 49. e Herod, vii. 62 : also above pp. 112, 113. d Herod, iii. 117. See above p. 170. 583 against the king of Babylon. " They were then as now," says Xenophon, "esteemed excellent horsemen." When, in the first campaign, the Babylonian army had been obliged to leave an entrenched position to the Medes and Persians, it is told that a thousand Hyrkanian horse- men who formed the rear-guard of the retreating army, transferred themselves with their carts and followers to Cyrus, and at once assisted him to surprize the enemy, on condition that they should be of no less esteem than Medes or Persians. " Accordingly," says our author, " you may see Hyrkanians in trust and in possession of commands, no less than such of the Persians and Medes, as are thought of rank sufficient for the like." f The Sakas (in Aryan Saka, in Greek 2axa/) who according to the same writer, subsequently followed the example of their Hyr- kanian neighbours in joining the army of Cyrus, seem to be the Parthians ; whom Xenophon nowhere mentions under this peculiar name, and who are represented by Trogus Pompeius and others as of Sakan (or, as they term it, Scythian) origin. But the question, whether the Hyrkanians were not usually reckoned to Parthia, seems authoritatively decided in the affirmative by the language in which (after record- ing the two victories now gained over the Parthians and Hyrkanians) Darius first expresses the result ; " Then the province became mine," and next sums up the matter ; " This I did in Parthia." * f Xenoph. Cyrop. iv. 2 g 1, 8. B Beh. Insc. col. 3 para. 2. The Hyrkanians (whose name in Zend, answering to the Persian Gurgan, Sir H. C. Rawlinson interprets " wolves ") are referred to the Aryan race ; while the Parthiana are considered to have been principally Turanian. See Geo. Rawlinson'a Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 649, 650, 674. The Scythians Proper (described by Herodotus as inhabiting what was before the Kimmerian country, a land north of the Euxine sea) appear to have been of Indo-Germanic race ; see G. Rawlinson's Essay on the subject. Ktesias's version of the debt of Cyrus and the Persians to the Hyrkanians, may be seen in the new fragments of Nicolaus Damascenus in the Fragm. Historic. Grcec. vol. 3. p. 406. Here are authorities for the Sakan origin of the Parthians : 1. Trogus 584 The record of his achievements in Parthia had been introduced with this brief explanation ; " The Parthians and Hyrkanians revolted from me and called themselves Frawartish's (people)." h This happened before Darius left Babylon in the spring of B. C. 519 : because (as has been said) the Parthians are inscribed among the nations who threw off their allegiance during the abode of the king in that capital, which began with the year B. C. 520 Pompeius (in Justin, xli. 1.) " Parthi, penes quos. . . nunc (Mentis imperium est, Scytharum exsules fuere. Hoc etiam ipsorum vocabulo manifestatur ; nam Soythico sermone, Parthi exsules dicuntur. ... Hi domesticis seditionibus Scythia pulsi, solitudines inter Hyrkaniam et Dahas et Areos et Sparnos et Margianos-furtim occupavere. . . " (cap. 2) ..." Serzno his inter Scythicum Medicumque medius est ; utrinque mixtus." 2. Eustathius (on Dionysius Periegetes, verse 1039) in C. Miiller's Geographi Greed Minores torn. ii. p 394. re; /f-.- 3. Quintus Curtius (iv. 45 11) enumerating the nations of the column that formed the line of Darius Codomannus's left wing at Arbela, has these words, " ParthyaDorum (?) deindegens incolentium terras quas nunc Parthi Scythia profecti tenent, claudebant agmen." In vi. 6 14 he says, " The Scythians who founded the Parthians " (Scyihce qui Parthos condidere) came no doubt from beyond the Tanais : " by which name his Greek author meant the Jaxartes, because Alexander's companions when they reached the left bank of the Jaxartes, and beheld the Sakas beyond, thought they were arrived upon the left bank of the Tanais (now the Don river) which falls into the Mosotis or Sea of Azoff. h In the Aryan text Parthva and Varkdna (that is, the countries) are said to have revolted : in the Kissian, plural nouns are used (signifying the men of those countries respectively) Parfhuvas-pa and Virkaniya-fa. Of these names of peoples, the derivation of the first is curious ; for it consists of a plural termination subjoined to the name of a country ; PartKuvas occurring four times in the subsequent context as the corres- pondent of the Aryan Parthva. The plural Virkaniya-fa consists perhaps of the Aryan term for a man of Varkana, with a Kissian plural ending. See Beh. Tnsc. col. 2 paras. 16, 17, 18. Before (col. 1 para. 6) in the list of provinces to the dominion over which Darius had succeeded, we have Parthuva-pa, and in col. 2 para. 2 (the list of the provinces that revolted while Darius was at Babylon) we have Parthuva-fa, in the Kissian for the Aryan Parthm. In the list in Darius's tomb inscription, the Aryan Parthva is in the Kissian text, Parthuva not PartKuvas. 585 and lasted about fourteen months. Darius's explanatory preface proceeds ; " Vishtaspa my father was in Parthia ; the people forsook him and revolted." It seems the most obvious sense, here suggested, that Hystaspes was already in Parthia when the revolt took place the revolt from him being the revolt before-mentioned from the king, and not another. If so, and if at the same time we believe that Darius had left his father in Persis (as Herodotus's story would have it) when he came and slew the Magian on the tenth of Bagayadish (November) B. C. 52 L, the revolt in Parthia would not appear to have been consum- mated at any early day of the king's residence at Babylon; time being allowed for the mission of Hystaspes, which must have been designed to secure the eastern provinces from the contagion of the Median revolt. We might suspect, however, that on his son's accession, Hystaspes was endowed with the revenues of the province, as Asty- ages the Mede (it would seem) had been of Hyrkania after he yielded up the throne. Having thus introduced his father's campaign against the revolted Parthians and Hyrkanians, the king proceeds to say; "Afterwards, Vishtaspa marched with his people; 1 he fought a battle with the rebels at a town in Parthia 1 In the Kissian text (which alone is perfect here) Tassunos appo tavini itaka thak, " people who hia with, marched." The third (which is the important word here) is the only doubtful one. Mr Norris remarks ; " Tavi-ni must be identical with ni-tavi ; but the transposition is curious." In his glossary he renders Xitavi, " his," and refers to seven places of the Behistun inscription ; see Journal R. A. S. vol. xv. pp. 116, 196, 182. That Darius should say, " Vishtaspa marched with his people," instead of saying, " he marched with my people," is consistent with the respect for his father which afterwards makes him say of both the victories, " Vishtaspa smote the rebels," instead of (as is his wont when a lieutenant or deputy is in command) " My people smote them." From the fragments which he recovered on a later visit to the rock, of the paragraph in the Aryan text, Sir II. C. Rawlinson seems to have concluded that the phrase there used signified, " with the people who were under his rule ; " see his " Note on the Persian Inscriptions at Behistun," p. v ; where the word anushiya recovered in col. 2 line 95, is rendered by him "Sub jugo." 586 named Vispauzatish ; Auramazda was my helper ; By the favour of Auramazda, Vishtaspa smote the rebel people mightily. It was on the twenty-second day of the month Viyakhana that thus they fought the battle." We are here surprised to find ourselves brought to so late a date as the twenty-second of Viyakhana (March) B. C. 518, only four days short of five full months since the defeat of Frawartish at Ku(n)drush on the twenty-sixth of Adukanish B. C. 519. During this considerable interval after the overthrow of the man acknowledged for their king by the enemy, Hystaspes, it would appear, was unable till at last to assume the offensive. Before his son's victory in Media, he must have been living still longer in a state of unwilling inactivity within the walls of some strong-hold. The ere-while companion-in-arms of the great Cyrus may have not been more than fifty or fifty-five years old at this time. Indeed, we can hardly suppose him older, having no reason for believing that Darius was not the son of a wife of his youth. Victorious at Vispauzatish, he, however, needed re-inforcement ; and Darius sent him immediately a body of Persians from Rhaga j in Media, where Frawartish had been taken after his flight from Ku(n)drush. At Rhaga Darius had now, perhaps, his head-quarters, during the double war that he was waging both in Parthia and in the Sagartian country. For, if we have reasoned well, Chitra(n)takhma was not taken till after the first victory gained by Hystaspes in Parthia at the earliest. And that the operations were simultaneous, is confirmed by the fact that a force, not of Persians and Medes but of Persians only, is said to have been sent to the aid of Hystaspes ; while we have already observed, that the troops despatched under a Median leader against the Sagartian, though called in the Aryan and Kissian an army of " Persis and Media," were in J In the Aryan, TiacM Ragdyd. This name, Rawlinson tells as, " is the ablative singular of a feminine theme in long a." This feminine noun Ragd (aa we have seen) was before described both in the Aryan and the Assyrian as a district. 58T fact principally or wholly of the Median portion of the united kingdom ; as the language of the Assyrian text of the inscription evinces. When the Persian force arrived, Hystaspes marched at the head of it ; for no more mention is made of the troops he employed before. He fought a battle with the rebels at a town called Patigrabana in Parthia, only nine days after his first fight. The result is related by Darius thus ; " Auramaz,da was my helper. By the favour of Aura- mazda, Vishtaspa smote the rebel army mightily. It was on the first day of the month Garmapada (April B. C. 518) that thus they fought the battle." Here, being entire, the Assyrian text (as before in the case of three out of the five engagements in Armenia, and after this in the case of the defeat of the Margians) adds the numbers slain of the enemy in the fight and afterwards; "He killed of them 6,560 and executed of the prisoners 4,1 82." k With this terrible punishment the revolt in Parthia ended ; or, as Darius expresses the result, " Then the province became mine." The day of this victory, if the Aryan months corresponded day for day with the Assyrian (as the Behistun inscription supposes) was the first day of Darius's fourth year, according to the Assyrian and the Jewish computation. VI. THE death of Oroites was probably known already, and perhaps his spoils were arrived at the residence of the king, when (taking advantage, it would seem, of the change of government at Sardis) SYLOSON appeared, to sue for the political inheritance of his brother Poly crates; k The word of the Assyrian here (and in other like places) used, is deciphered by Sir H. C. Rawlinson bullu, and translated conjecturally " hung." The same word is used with respect (as it seems) to followers of Chitra(n)takhma's (not mentioned in the Aryan or Kissian text) who appear to have been punished at the same time when their leader was put upon the tree (or crucified.) Beheading seems the most likely capital punishment to have been inflicted on large numbers especially; and we hare instances of it in the Assyrian sculptures. 588 and that the hands in which Oroites had allowed it to remain, should be dispossessed in his favour. The new comer seated himself in the assembly mustered at the Royal Gate, and announced himself one of the king's benefactors. This was duly reported within ; and Syloson was admitted into the king's presence. There, standing in the midst, on the enquiry of the interpreters Who he was, and By what act he claimed to be the king's benefactor, he told the story of the shawl or cloak which he had given when Cambyses was alive at Memphis. Thereupon, Darius graciously acknowledged himself under obligation, and Syloson for his recompense asked neither gold nor silver, but that the king of kings should recover for him as a home, and give to him for a possession, the place of his birth, from which he was still an exile, as when he encountered Darius in Egypt, and the lordship of which (since the death of his brother Polycrates) belonged to him, though it was now held by the servant to whom it had been left in trust, when Polycrates set out on his fatal visit to Oroites. " Give me the island called Sarnos," said Syloson, " without killing any of the inhabitants or carrying them off for slaves." King Darius assented ; and, as Herodotus proceeds to relate, entrusted a force to Otanes, one of the Six who had helped him to slay Qaumata the Magian, with the commission to go and accomplish for Syloson all that he had asked. Otanes, therefore, (the 'Utana of the Behistun inscription in its Aryan text) went down to the sea and embarked his army.* To grant Syloson's request was to destroy a source of annoyance on the frontier, to add another, though not in a See Herod, iii. 140, 141. In this Ionic narrative we have v^*,, for the kdram of the Aryan and the tassunos of the Kissian speech. Also f-Tfarvro, for the Aryan superlative mathishtam (" chief," " Most great ") and the Kissian irsarra ; which last word, used as an adjective, corresponds also with the Aryan adjective, wazarka, in the composition of the terms expressive of " Great king " and " Great God." For the Aryan form of the name Otanes, the Kissian substitute is Yuttana, the Assyrian Huvittaria. 589 appearance an important, state to the Persian empire, and to invest with the government a vassal whose only policy would be to preserve the advantages of his new position by maintaining the obedience of the people in his charge to all the king's demands, whether fixed duties or extraordinary services. But that Otanes was sent down to the sea merely to accomplish the desire of Syloson, as Herodotus's story would make one believe, cannot be supposed by any critical reader; particularly if acquainted, as we are, with the circumstances in which Darius at this time was placed. The mission of Otanes was unquestionably the com- pletion of a great political undertaking, the successful commencement of which had been the removal of Oroites ; and it may be supposed, that Otanes went either simply to succeed Oroites in the exercise of all the powers which that Satrap had possessed, or (whatever might be the portion of the other's satrapies that he was endowed with) to exercise in chief the military command in those Low Countries over which the authority of Oroites had ex- tended. Syloson's petition, therefore, was put in at a seasonable moment. Oroites (who besides graver matters, had been blamed for not annexing Samos to the province of which he was governor) was now dead, and Otanes was commissioned to make good the omissions of the other as well as to reverse all acts prejudicial to Darius's authority. Firmly to establish this authority, power was to be delegated to able and faithful officers, the king's friends were to be rewarded, and the guilty or worthless were to be displaced and punished. The new Chief was, therefore, charged in particular with the execution of Darius's promise to Syloson. It is plain, then, that, though Herodotus says only that Otanes having received his commission went down to the sea, he did not mean the sea-board of Phoenicia or Cilicia but that of Ionia ; b and we need not doubt but that it b When a Persian fleet, bound for the ^Egaean, consisted in the main of Phoenicians, Cypriote, Cilicians and Egyptians, the rendezvous in two 590 was in the ports of the Asiatic coast of the ^Egsean that transports were procured for the forces with which Otanes afterwards invaded Samos ; also, war-galleys, if there was reason to expect a conflict with any remainder of the fleet maintained by Polycrates, whether at sea in the short passage from the mainland, or off the port or sea- beach of Samos. When the Persian armament reached the island, none at first made any resistance. Maiandrius, who still held the power his master Polycrates had left in his keeping, professed his readiness to abandon the Samian city and island, if he might do so without hindrance or molestation. The Chief of Darius's forces consented; and a formal treaty to that effect is said to have been con- cluded, or in fact, perhaps, was begun. On this peaceable appearance of things, in order to complete their remaining business, the Persians of note (probably, the men in authority , of whom in particular Otanes was the Mathishta) had their chairs placed opposite the acropolis or city-fort, and there seated themselves with their attendants around them. c Meanwhile, Maiandrius prepared to slip away by himself through a covered passage unknown to his garrison, and leading from the acropolis to the sea-shore. Here he was able to put his valuables on board of a ship. At the same time (perhaps to distract attention from his escape by the confusion that would ensue,) he permitted a mad brother of his who had been till now in custody, to sally well-known cases of this reign, was in Cilicia. These are (1.) the expedition of Mardonius which failed at the doubling of Mount Athos : and (2 ) the expedition of Datis and Artaphernes, which carried the army defeated by the Athenians and Plataeans at Marathon ; see Herod, vi. 43, 95. On the latter occasion, the part of Cilicia is mentioned the Aleian plain bordered by the sea, between the rivers Sarus (Syhun) and the ancient coarse of the Pyramus (Jyhun) ; see Geo. Rawlinson's note on the passage. The fleet of Datis was reinforced to some extent by ships of the lately re-conquered Ionian and Jiolian states; but these, probably, did not join the fleet before it reached Samos ; (Herod, vi. 95). They seem to have all joined, before Datis left Delos for Eretria ; Herod, yi. 98. Compare Jeremiah xxxix. 3. 591 out and attack the Persians in front of the fortress, at the head of those mercenaries by whom the authority of Polycrates had always been maintained at home, and who, perhaps, had reason to dread the ill-will of the citizens, should they now be expelled from their strong- hold and be disarmed by Syloson and the Persians. For, even if he possessed the means, and might have been per- mitted to carry off his garrison with him, perhaps these soldiers would have been far from unanimous in the disposition either to accompany their present paymaster in his flight or to let him go off with his wealth alone. Probably, had they accompanied him they would only have embarrassed his plans for the future ; and he who had little sympathy for their profession (which it was but by chance that he had been obliged to make use of) foresaw this, and chose to sacrifice them rather than forego his own desire. As to the citizens of Samos, we are informed that certain terms, on which he had offered, when the news of the death of Polycrates arrived, to restore them their freedom, had been scornfully and with threats rejected. And hence we may be sure, that, on the present invasion of their island.it had been plainly aversion for their actual ruler that destroyed the little inclination of the Samians to resist the brother of Polyerates coming to seize the lordship, with the Great King's forces at his back. It is, therefore, credible enough that, as Herodotus relates, Maiandrius wished to do as much mischief as possible to all parties at his departure. So he went now quietly off himself, and sailed for Lacedaemon. On the other hand, the mercenaries with the mad fellow at their head, rushed out upon the unsuspecting Persians and set to work, killing such as were carried in chairs, d as the persons it d( efu/tiMiv. Compare in the Assyrian sculptures, the chairs wherein images of gods are seen carried on men's shoulders. These, with poles lashed to them, and carried along thereby, would bear comparison with the wheel-mounted seats or bodies of chariots, Ji?:. becoming vehicles: like the European sedan-chair. When set down upon the ground, they would again be e ( <,. chairs. 592 was most important to be rid of. However, the rest of the Persian troops coming speedily to the rescue, the assailants were presently beaten off and driven back again into their fortress. Then, Otanes thinking that he had been long enough executing his commission in the manner prescribed, " without killing or making slave of a single person," as if he had been absolved from this way of proceeding by the conduct of those who held the acropolis, determined to forget his instructions, and to deal with the Samians in his own way. He ordered a general massacre of all, " whether men or boys, whether in sanctuary or out of sanctuary," to be executed by one division of his forces, while the rest blockaded the acropolis. At last, when (according to our historian) they had as with a net completely dragged the island, the Persians handed it over thus depopulated, but, if not its ordinary buildings, with its temples at least (as we happen to know 6 ) not completely gutted, to the little-to-be-envied Syloson. How- ever, afterwards warned it was said by a Vision, and afflicted by a disease which perhaps was taken for an omen that he should be childless or that his posterity should perish Otanes did what seems to bespeak him, not only a commander of Persian troops but the person we have supposed, the successor of Oroites in Lower Asia. He assisted Syloson to re-people the city thus bereaved of her children. He may have sent back women and girls, perhaps even men and boys whose value as plunder, rather than pity, may have caused them to be spared by some of his soldiers in the massacre. Other Samians, and volunteers who were not Samians yet like them lonians, may have been collected in the ports and towns of the main-land; and to the Samian exiles who, in the time of Polycrates were numerous, and many of whom had sought their fortunes beyond the sway of Persian satraps in the West, Syloson may have offered terms such as induced them, the opposite faction being destroyed, to return to their old or their fathers' home. e ' The furniture of Polycrates's hall remained in Herodotus's time in the temple of Hera, where Maiandrius had dedicated it ; Herod, iii. 123. 593 When Ionia revolted in the latter part of Darius's reign, Samos was able to furnish sixty trireme galleys for the war. f These, to row and fight them, needed not less than twelve thousand men ; of whom the rowers, however, may have been mostly or largely slaves. Nevertheless, we learn that it is not in our own century only, or in new worlds, that cities in some situations grow with great rapidity. Herodotus asserts, that of all the states, Greek or Barbarian, which (in following what seems to have been considered the peculiar vocation of a king or at least of one claiming to be a king of kings) Darius added to the empire left by Cambyses, Samos was his first conquest.* Thenceforth, Syloson ruled it as a vassal of the king's, and probably in subordination to the king's satrap at Sardis. ' Herod, vi. 8. This is Geo. Rawlinson's remark. e Herod, iii. 139. 38 CHAPTEE V. I. HERODOTUS has certainly cramped up into a space much narrower than the real length of time, the events which he relates, belonging to the early years of Darius's reign. When we say this, we exclude (however deserving of the censure) the regnal position certainly given to the king's assessment of tributes to be paid by " the countries which he possessed besides Persis;" a also, the position ap- parently assigned to the adventures of Demokedes, the Greek physician in Darius's service. We speak only of the events which it falls within our own plan to relate. How it came to pass that the historian omitted some of them and abridged the time occupied by all together, we may learn from the Behistun inscription. From that testimony of Darius himself it appears, that there was a second revolt of Babylon, that it detained part of his forces during a protracted conflict in the land of his an- cestors, where he was engaged with a second pretended Smerdis, and that it was not crushed till after that rival and his adherent chiefs had been destroyed. This revolt Herodotus plainly failed to distinguish, in the notices which he had collected, from that former one which the 1 See Darius's tomb ingcription. 595 ame Behistun inscription has shown us breaking out and speedily extinguished in B. C. 521, immediately after the seven months of the same year during which the first that assumed the character of Smerdis (namely Gaumata the Magian) was acknowledged king throughout the realm of Cambysea. The two revolts of Babylon in the first few years of Darius's reign were, as Herodotus viewed them, blended into a single object, which he places where the first revolt has its date, investing it with all the interesting circumstances that attended the second revolt. And the intervening struggle of Darius with Frawartish the Mede, extending from Media Proper into Armenia and Assyria on the one hand and into Parthia and Hyrkania on the other this, together with the rebellions in Susiana, Sagartia, Margiana, Persis and elsewhere, (though he was not altogether unacquainted with them, as dis- turbances which favoured the insubordination of the satrap whose jurisdiction his own lonians at that time belonged to) he seems to have considered a commotion not requiring any special attention from him, but the very natural result of the killing of the only pretended Smerdis he knew of, by Darius the son of Hystaspes the Akhae- menian. Believing the tribe Gaumata sprang from, to be Medes in the same sense as the descendants, among whom they were scattered, of an immigrant Aryan nation he supposed the Magian usurper of the throne of Cambyses to be, in the disguise of the brother of Cambyses, what Frawartish was really and without disguise, the champion of that Median nation which (under the first Frawartish or Phraortes and his successors, Cyaxares, Astyages and Darius the Mede) not only had been independent at home, but had acquired a sovereignty over many neighbouring nations. However, though he used his excellent, perhaps ample but probably fragmentary, information, with little regard to unpicturesque details, which were not invested with interest by a desire on his part to restore them to their proper relative positions, Herodotus has (accidentally as it were) preserved one particular, important to us as a 38* 596 note of time, since it no longer misleads us as to the date of the death of Oroitea and that of the expedition through which Syloaon was put in possession of Samoa. We perceive it now to be the connection in time between the conquest of that island by the forces of Darius and a revolt of Babylon considerably later than the one with which our historian confounded it. He tells us ; b " While the armament was gone to Samos, the Babylonians revolted," and (as when they revolted before, at the beginning of Darius's reign) again gave their allegiance (we may add) to a pretended son of the Labynetus or Nabonedus of the Greeks, called by the great name of Nebukhadrezzar. Now, if the subsequent siege of Babylon, which we shall have to recite from Herodotus, lasted so long as he pro- ceeds to relate, that is, one year and eight months ; and if the month, called by the Aryans Markazana, in which Darius tells us the capture of the city happened, was the eighth month (as Herodotus's narrative seems to indicate) of the Babylonian, that is, the Khaldsean regnal year, (which we have found him referring to before, and which for its first month seems to have begun with the Assyrian " eighth month," named in the Calendar of the Jews Mark- hesvan, the Aryan Bagayadish) then, the first month of the siege will be that same first month of the Khaldsean regnal year, coinciding nearly with November in the year B. C. * Herod, iii. 150. The Greek is, Iwi it Set/ten (not "Saivm) fTfaTtufiutnc tetuTtxcZ c'fx.i/*.(ra. Compare i TJ? .., x .av,, , VX rl, "last night;" Herod, i. 209; also fttra. six*.. ti x c>i.>, " after Solon was gone ; " Herod, i. 34. That "ix.ir6t signifies not " to be going " but " to be gone," is everywhere evident. It appears in the saying of Xenophon's Gadatas to Cyrus after a narrow escape, Nv T0 U,}* IT* lUAi 7^6U-/, TO $' tVt ff<>} fiffQtO'U,V t i. Cyropaed. v. 4 g 11. But the fact has not been always recognized. In the present passage of Herodotus ; w *s is translated by Cary, " While it was on its way." Such a date for the Babylonian revolt would have been wonderfully precise. The truth is implied in Geo. Rawlinson's paraphrase; "After the armament of Otanes had sailed for Samos." But Herodotus says, "During the absence of the armament." At this time, perhaps, the news arrived at Sardis and in Ionia. 597 518. Thus, the siege will have begun fully seven months after the final victory gained in Parthia by Darius's father Hystaspes, on the first of Garmapacla, that is, on the Aryan correspondent of the Assyrian New-year's Day, the first day of Darius's fourth regnal year by Assyrian and Jewish computation. Equally long, or still longer, must the siege have begun after Otanes received his commission respecting not only the countries of which Sardis might still be counted the capital, but the island called Samos also. However, we are inclined to think that Herodotus's twenty months (beginning where we infer that they began) were the measure (derived from the Khaldaean annals) of the reign of the second pretended Nebukhadrezzar son of Nabunita ; rather than the measure of the length of the siege which Babylon sustained in his reign ; however speedily the beleaguerment may have begun after the adventurer had made himself master of that city. We may be certain that the length of this third Nebukhadrezzar's reign was a matter of authentic record at Babylon ; but, whether authentic information as to the beginning of the siege which ended in his ruin was also accessible, we may doubt ; as well as the likelihood of its having begun (of all the days in the year) on the first of Markhesvan, the Khaldsean New-year's day. Now, according to this view of ours, the pretender probably proclaimed himself before Mai'khesvan in B. C. 518 ; because (as we have shewn in a former chapter 1 ') the first year of a king of Babylon by the Khaldaean annals was not reckoned to begin till the New-year's day after his accession to the throne. But, though we suppose this c See above pp 439 and following. According to this rule, the reign of the first pretender to the name of Nebukhadrezzar son of Nabunita, though he was recognized by all, would not be found in the annals ; because no New- Year's day arrived after his accession to the throne. It was after Gaum.ita's death on the 10th of Bagayiidish (the correspon- dent of the Khaldaean first month of the regnal year) when he was proclaimed king; and he was \<\\t to death in Anamaka, which cor- responds with tho third month of that Khaldaean year. 598 second revolt of Babylon to have begun before " eighth month " of the Assyrian (that is, before Markhesvan of the Jewish) year in B. C. 518, we do not suppose it to have broken out till after the harvest had been secured in April and May of that year, and we should hardly date the sailing of Otanes with Syloson for Saruos, later than in August. But before and (as we shall endeavour to shew) much before these contemporary events, the second revolt of Babylon and the conquest of Saraos by Diirius's lieutenant, it appears that the throne of Cyrus and Cambyses, (which, since the death of the first who personated the lawful heir, Darius had occupied) was again claimed by an adventurer who put himself forth as Smerdis son of Cyrus, Sinerdis brother of Cambyses, Smerdis the sole represen- tative not only of Akhsemenes in Persis but of Cyrus and Cambyses in United Persis and Media and in every part of that empire which Cyrus had conquered which Cambyses had inherited and enlarged. Darius introduces the record of his subsequent successes against this pretender by telling us ; " There was a man named Vahyazdata dwelling in Parsa " (that is, Fars or Persis) " at a town named Tarva," but which the Kissians called Tarrahuva, " in a district named Yutiya," or (ac- cording to the Kissian text) "Ihutiyas." When we notice these differing Aryan and Kissian names of town or dis- trict in Persis, where the Persians (properly so called) were an immigrant people, it occurs as likely, that the Kissian orthography exhibits the more genuine name ; d d On the other hand, we prefer the Aryan form of the pretender's name, in which ahya is represented by the single vowel i in the Kissian substitute, Vistadta. See Behistun Inscription ; Aryan text, col. 3 lines 22 and 23 ; Kissian text, col. 3 lines 1 and 2. The Assyrian form deciphered Huvisdata, is related to the Kissian form, as the Assyrian Huvidarna is to Vidarna, the Aryan and Kissian correspondent The Kissian Ihutiyas for Yatiyd, with other Kissian proper names, may suggest that what Herodotus says of Persian names, is more applicable to their Kissian than to their Aryan forms that they end in the letter which the lonians call siyma and the Dorians san. 599 nay, that the original population were akin to the Kissians as we have already on other grounds contended. But Darius proceeds to say ; " This man a second time arose in Persia, and said among the people, I am Bardiya son of Kurush. Then the Persian people, that were with their families, remote from communication, 6 revolted from me. They went over to that Vahyazdata. He became king in Persis." But though owned in Persis only, it is certain that he claimed indeed, he was in consistency obliged to claim all that Cyrus, all that Cambyses had possessed else- where.' We have now to enquire as to the epoch at which this revolt of the Persians took place in favour of Vahyazdata. The order of the figures of Darius's rivals in the Behistun rock -sculpture proves, we say, two points as to this revolt. The first is, that it was one of older date than the second The words, "remote from communication " (not added in the case of the Medes, col, 2 para. 5 and which seem to be an excuse for the Persians) are a doubtful interpretation we have been led to by Sir II. C. Rawlin- Bon's remarks; Journal R. A. S. vol. x. p. 232. The Kissian counterpart seems as yet to yield no help ; unless in ground for doubt ; ibid. vol. xv p. 119. The Assyrian is here effaced. 1 This appears from the legend of his figure in the sculpture, where his claim is expressed to have been not, " I am king of Persis " (as, accor- ding to their legends, the others claimed to be kings of Susiana, or Babylon, or Media, or Sagartia, or Margiana) but the same that (ac- cording to his legend) had been the claim of the first false Smerdis, the Magian Gaumata, " I am king," that is, " I am the king ; " see the legends in the Aryan and Kissian. In the Assyrian, Gaumata and Vahyazdata (the two who claimed to be Smerdis) Naditabel and Arakha (the two who claimed to be Nebukhadrezzar son of Nabunita) and the Mede Frnwartish, claim no kingdom, but only each of them to be a differently named person of a certain regal stock; while Chitrantakhma the Sagartian claims to be of such a stock, without pretending to any other name than his own. The three others all claim to be kings in their several provinces (two successively in Susiana, and one among the Marxians). Martiya alone, the author of the second revolt in Susiana, takes also a new name Yammanesu as well as the title of king in Susiana. None of the three claim a royal descent; not even Martiya, in assuming a new name, appears thereby to pretend to be some one having a title which he did not possess himself. GOO revolt of Babylon ; the date of which we have concluded to be about August in B. C. 518. The other point proved by the sculpture is, that Vahyazdata presented himself to the Persians after the date of the like conduct of Chitrantakhma among the Sagartians. Now, we have supposed, of Chitrantakhma's rebellion, that (though he did not present himself to the Sagartians till after Frawartish had been owned for their king by the Medes) Darius's inscription includes it in that of the Medes; and, therefore, that it happened before Darius quitted Babylon in March B. C. 519 : because, though the Sagartians are not separately named among the provinces that rebelled while the king was still at that capital, they are also not said to have revolted while he was in Susiana, between March and October of the same year, nor yet (as it is specified of the Babylonians on the mention of their second revolt) after the king arrived " in Persis and Media ; " while there is evidence to persuade us that they were a people appended at that time to the nation of the Medes. Both Chitrantakhma's reign among the Sagartians and the reign of Vahyazdata which afterwards began in Persis (the latter no less than the former) may have begun while Darius was yet in Babylon ; though (as the order of the figures in the king's sculpture mutely intimates) at points in that period successively subsequent to the appearance not only of Frawartish as king of the Medes but also of Martiya, the second pretender to the Susian throne. But that this was really so, we have evidence in the case of the Persian reign which may terminate doubts as to the Sagartian reign also. In the inscription added to Darius's sculpture at Behistun, the Persians are found in a list of the nations that revolted before he quitted Babylon. 8 Again, where it introduces the person of Vahyazdata (in order to recount to us the battles Darius's forces defeated him in, and the capital punishment inflicted upon him at last) the inscription (as we have seen) declares that, * See Bchiatun Inscription, ool. 2 para. 2, cited above p 480. 601 Vahyazdata having pretended to be the younger son of Cyrus and brother of Cambyses, the people of Persia re- volted from Darius and went over to Vahyazdata. This revolt, therefore, being made not from Frawartish the Mede or any other rival, but from Darius himself, cannot be distinguished from the revolt of the Persians which happened before Darius left Babylon, without the violent supposition (equivalent to the interpolation of a sentence in the inscription) that when Vahyazdata offered himself, they were returned, (perhaps since the defeat of the Mede at Kundrush,) from the revolt they had been guilty of while Darius was at Babylon. We, therefore, feel obliged to conclude, that before March in B. 0. 519 when Darius advanced from Babylon to Susa, (and when it might have been a matter of doubt whether it was Media or Persis that he meditated to invade) the people in Persis had preferred to him, though he was descended from the founder of their royal family, not a Mede of the family of the famous king of the Medes, Khuwakhshatara, but a Persian, 11 pretending to be the long-missing and now only- surviving son of their beloved " Cyrus, the king, the descended from Akhaemenes." A former re-appearance among them (as it was supposed to be) of Smerdis son of Cyrus, had caused them to set an example of revolt from the mis-government of Cambyses, which was followed by the Medes and by the other nations, in B. C. 521 : for it was in Persis that Gaumata first showed himself and was first owned as Smerdis and as the king.' And now, a second time, upon Vahyazdata's counterfeiting the same h Vahyazdata is expressly called a Persian ; Behistun Inscription, col. 4 line 26 of the Aryan, col. 3 line 57 of the Kissian. i Behistun Inscription ; col. i. para. 11, cited abure p328. In Darius's recapitulation (Behistun Inscription, col. 4 para. 2) we read. " One (of the nine kings) named Gaunnita was a liar: he said thus, I am Bardiya son of Kurush. He made Parsa (Persis) to revolt." The same acts in the same words are ascribed to Vahyazdata. The town and district of Persis Vahyazdata belonged to, are named, Behistun Inscription, col. 3 para. 5. The place where Gaumata arose is named, col. i. para. 11, and evidently attested to belong to Persis, in col. 3 para. 7. 602 character, they did likewise. There was no intermediate revolt of the Persians, either from Gaumata or from Darius. The second rising of a pretended Smerdis produced (not a third but) the second rebellion of the inhabitants in Persis who, having revolted before from Cambyses, now revolted from Darius ; just as afterwards, the second appearance of a pretended Nebukhadrezzar son of Nabunita, produced a second revolt of the Babylonians.^ Accordingly, in a third passage of Darius's inscription, where he summarily recapitulates the previous story of the defeat of nine rival kings in nineteen fights, k two and only two revolts are recorded of Persis ; the one caused by Gaumata's lie, the other by that of Vahyazdata ; just as two, and only two, Babylonian revolts are there recorded ; the one, kindled by Naditabel's lie, the other (as we shall presently see) by the similar lie of a new adventurer. On the whole, we conclude that the new pretended son of Cyrus cannot have appeared in Persis later, though he may have appeared there earlier by months, than February B. C. 519 : and if so, it follows that a hostile government subsisted in that province, all the while that Darius stayed at Susa and all the while that the operations I The addition, " For a second time " (in Aryan duvitiyarri) which is made to qualify the appearance of Vahynzdata in Persis (Behistun Inscription, col. 3 para b) is attached to the act of the Babylonians, in accepting lor their king the second that called himself Nebukhadrezzar son of Nabunita, in col. 3 para. 13. Only in this last passage it is with a preposition, patiya duvitiyam. k Behistun Inscription, col. 4 lines 5 and 7 of the Aryan ; col. 3 lines 48 and 49 of the Kissian text. The corresponding part of the Assyrian contains the nine kings, but the mention of the nineteen engagements is obliterated. The nineteen actions seem exclusive of the slaughter (by Darius and the Six) of the first enumerated of the nine kings, Gaumuta; also, of the slaughter of Martij-a, the second pretender in Susiana, who was destroyed by his own people. But if so, the number nineteen must include the capture of Babylon by Yindafra or Vintaparna the Mede. That this should be counted, is probable, even because it is the only recorded success of the second struggle with the Babylonians. But the record seems to be an argument for believing that (as Herodotus ex- pressly relates) the city was taken by assault. 603 already noticed were being carried on, in Media by Darius in person, in Parthia by his father Hystaspes, and among the Sagartians by his lieutenant Takhmaspuda the Mede. If a combined resistance to Darius had been otherwise practicable, one obstacle is apparent. The pretensions of a king who called himself son of the Persian Cyrus and brother of the Persian Cambyses, were hardly to be reconciled with those of a descendant from Cyaxares the Mede. The Medes, indeed, on Gaumata's proclaiming himself Smerdis, had followed the Persians in owning him king in place of Cambyses : but the claim of Frawartish, as descended from the great Cyaxares, which seems to have extended to the whole dominion ultimately obtained by the Medes and Persians, was not recognized in Persia ; the inhabitants of which did not revolt from Darius till Vahyazdata presented himself in the character of Smerdis. II. AFTER that Media, Parthia, and the Sagartian country were subdued. Darius's attention must have been directed almost exclusively to Persis, and the pretended son of Cyrus who, for more than a year, as we may safely say, had there been acknowledged king. The last victory in Parthia had been obtained on the first of Garmapada, the Assyrian Nisannu, when (by Assyrian and Jewish com- putation) Darius's fourth regnal year began, about April in B. C. 518. After the ensuing hot weather, during which season he may naturally have determined to rest his forces, to add to their numbers, and to renovate their organization and equipment, Darius probably had planned to invade Persis, an operation which would seem to be of easier execution from Media than from the side of Susa where the preceding season of heat had been spent. But, during the repose of his troops and while his thoughts were busy with his proposed undertaking, news came that the Babylonians had again revolted and that a new 604 " Nebukhadrezzar son of Nabunita " was owned their king. Darius's account of this matter is given, merely to intro- duce and explain the last great success of his five years' struggle to win and keep that inheritance of Cambyses, the whole or some one or other member of which (formerly an independent kingdom) was claimed by (all together) nine rival pretenders. He says ; " While I was in Persis and Media, a the Babylonians for the second time became revolters from me. A man arose in Babylon, named Arakha, an Armenian, son of Handita. b From the district " (or as the king says in the Kissian text, " from the town") " Dubana he arose : He lied thus, I am Nebukhadrezzar son of Nabunita. Then, the Babylonian people revolted from me. To that Arakha it went. He seized Babylon. He became king in Babylon." The intercourse between Armenia and Babylon was constant : for the great Khaldaeun capital was supplied by water-carriage from the hill-country of Armenia whence the Tigris and Euphrates take their rise, with commodities which no doubt had formerly found their mart at Nineveh and the sister cities on the Upper Tigris. Herodotus mentions in particular, wine ; meaning that of the grape ; which may have come from nearer places on the way. c Beh. Insc. col. 3 para. 13. As to the expression, "While I was in Persis and Media," observe, that it states the king's whereabout in a general way. The king says, " While I was in the United Kingdom," instead of saying more particularly, " While I was in Media." So above (col. 2 para. 14) the " army of Persis and Media " sent under Takhmaspada the Mede against the Sagartians, seems from the imperfect Assyrian text to have consisted of soldiers from Media only. b Handita for Nandita is a correction made by Sir II. C. Rawlinson on revisiting Behistun. But the value of the Aryan letter represented by n in the names Handita and Dnbiina is considered doubtful. Arakha, the proper name of the son of Handita, occurs also in the topographical nomenclature of Babylon, attached apparently to a ditch or canal : see the India House Inscription ; Rawlinson's Herod, vol. 2 p. 585. c Herod, i. 194. For the vines of Albania on the left of the K U{ K, now Kur, river, which falls into the Caspian from the west, seeStrabo xi. 4 3. Sir H. C. Rawlinson tells us, that grape wine is now brought to Baghdad from K>rkuk, but that the vine does not grow in Armenia. C05 Possibly, Arakha was a Khaldaean of Armenia and, there- fore, better qualified by his mother tongue to win the confidence of those who spoke the Akhad language if it was still spoken by any in Babylonia. But the extant inscriptions of his pretended father Nabunita are in Assy- rian; a language with which a native of Armenia might also easily be familiar. Long before the revolt, according to Herodotus perhaps, ever since Darius left the place, in March B. C. 519 ; since which date two harvests had been gathered in; stores of victual had been quietly accumulated, not perhaps in the capital alone, but at points in the country connected with Babylon by river or canal, so that at the outbreak the city was immediately provided with subsistence for a siege. d But although it is unnoticed (not only as we might have expected in Darius's rehearsal of his victories at Behistun, but also by Herodotus) there was a Persian governor with his garrison, in possession of palace, armoury, and strong-hold, who had to be over- powered or surprized, before Arakha could call himself master of Babylon and believe himself able to hold it against Darius. So, when in Photius's abstract of Ktesias's Persian history we study the only story of a Babylonian revolt, and find it stated that the Babylonians revolted, killing Zopyrus their general in the absence of king Xerxes son of Darius at Agbatana, we are led to think, that a mistake of the father for the son has been made, with respect both to the king and to his lieutenant ; so that, as in the case of the king, the name of Xerxes is substituted for that of Darius, so in the case of the governor, Zopyrus the son is put in place of Megabyzus the father, one of the Six whose name (according to the For vines in Assyria, Mr Layard (in "Nineveh and its Remains" vol. 2 p. 425) cites 2 Kings xviii. 32. May not Armenian boats have brought wine from intermediate points on the rivera ; e. y. from Khalybonitis in Syria ; compare Strabo xv. 3 22. a'llerod. iii. 150. Ba!/Xinsi tt.xt.ifTr.ff a.* xafrit lu rtf(tfxtvttffj.iitr it era yx( c rt Maj-of ?{| xa.4 tl 'fa-rat, iwa.tffrt>fcty It Tt\,-rw *a.i-ri T* x.(cta xtti f>? Ta'atx? f T V TA/{/ij raiT, 000 Aryan orthography) is Bagabukhsha." In this correction of Ktesias's story, we are confirmed by finding as we e Photii Cod. Ixxii. 20, 6 d; Sep%r t $ arpandsi SKI roiig "EXXjjvag . . . TLponpov &e s!( Ba/SuXika apixtTO, xa/ idsTv svsdvfJt'Tjat rbv BsX/rai/a racpov, xa/ sTds 3/d Mapdovicv, xa,! rr t v jff/a5 xa/ T A 5k Tf/ ZOITTU^OU !x?w>; Xi/s/ (TAJIV or/ j)/j,iovo aurf) grexei') g.ra* o rifuurarn ruv /3at, neither of them is equivalent to psrennitas or " everlastingness." Moreover, the Anglican version of the Hebrew holy writings seems to recognize Gesenius's secondary for the principal sense: as does Professor Lee in his Hebrew Lexicon. With Perizonius, therefore, (as cited by C. Miiller) we may render , Buunmi **.., "the tomb of Bel the Strong." But this Bel, being also termed B- f<*.it(, portions of the city eastward and west- ward, divided by the river, were the inner, * eSp, and the outer city, ft it* **,?, of Berosus ; these designations having respect to the Euphrates and signifying, i im z E;TM IT! rr.t xi\it zarit- rxtua^nt, orttl@K\tr rfl~t fit* TY.; itttf Tct.lv; fi^i^iXfjf, T(l7; Si rr,s ej' ttuTim Ss (so I read for want of better, instead of the variants ? tl in Joseph. Antiq. and iT in Joseph, cont. Apion. respectively; and so I find does Georgius Syncellua, citing the same passage of Berosus, p. 417 ed. Dindorf) rev; u.l i ovrrrit **'*Bev xeti iir$6ov. Here it might be understood that, of the two triple lines of fortification the one which surrounded the old city was built of kiln-burnt bricks laid in bitumen, while the triple line defending the new city was composed of terraces of sun-dried brick, but we prefer supposing Berosus's meaning to be, that each city's outermost J,>X M , or girdle of defence, was of sun-dried brick only. Afterwards, in his notice of Nabunita's reign (calling him Nabonnedus, as Herodotus names him Labynetus) he adds car/ rc^rcy TO, T) rot Tora^or TS/^T; rr.f Ba^c/X&r/*? ToA&; (5 4vrr t ( xXitBav xa.} &fffa>.nu Ka.TiKcr/j.r.er,. These walls on the river side of each division of the city are described by Herodotus i. 180 ; also, the brick edging and lining of the river channel's sides, Herod, i. 186. By the bye, be it observed as to the last mentioned king and as to the walls of Babylon, that Abydenus in his work upon the Assyrians (himself rather than Megas- thenes, the fourth book of whose Lidica he had just cited) asserted expressly what could not be more than probably inferred, if we had only the Jewish historian's citations of Berosus's account to go upon ; that Nabonnedus, whom Abydenus calls Nabannidokhus or Namannedokhus, was in no way related to the preceding king of Babylon : see Euseb. Prcep. Evany, torn. ii. p. 442 ed. Gaisford. where Eusebius also cites a statement of Abydenus's, that "the city of Babylon was first walled by Belus : " as to which, compare Curtius v. 4, and note that, perhaps it is not Nebukhadrezzar's palace but the one represented by the mound of Amram, which we have called Nabopolassar's, that Curtius means 611 molished in that historian's time. The outermost circum- vallation had been destroyed (as Berosus related) by the by his " still standing palace of Belus." Abydenus goes on to say ; " But this fortification having disappeared in process of time, again Nebukhadrezzar built the one which subsisted until the reign of the Macedonians, having gates of brass." These were the walls of which Kleitarkhus and others, the companions of Alexander, gave the measurements cited by Diodorus ; and of which, Curtius (probably citing Kleitarkhus) says, that they were covered with spectators at the entry of Alexander into Babylon, Curt. v. 3, while Nearkhus related, that as Alexander arrived at them he saw a number of crows fighting and beating one another, and some of them fell beside him : Plut. vit. Alex. cap. 73. These, too, were the walls, of which, we are told, Alex- ander caused ten stades' length to be pulled down to furnish burnt bricks, and (as it seems) after the ground had been levelled, room for the funeral pile of his beloved friend Hephaestion, a square structure, the sides of which at the base were each a stade in length and the height of the whole more than 130 cubits; Diodor. xvii. 115. Nebukh- adnezzar's walls, according to the same Abydenus, constituted a triple line of defence ; B^uXay irn'^nri r(iT>. !r<{<0X. But Berosus, writing in early Macedonian times, after having de- scribed N ebukhadrezzar's walls as T7f 4 i0fo.v," three circumvallations," relates that Cyrus who had previously (he says) issued forth from Persia with a numerous army and subdued the rest of Asia, after having invaded Babylonia, defeated Nabonnedus and taken Babylon, gave orders ret. l%* r ro\ius re/xi xarKirxa.-^Ki, " to demolish the outer walls of the city." Therefore the walls at the time of the Macedonian conquest and as they existed in Berosus's time, were at the utmost a double line only. As to the demolition attested by Berosus, it is to be observed that Herodotus, writing less than a century after the capture of the city by Cyrus, in the time of the king the grandson of Darius Hystaspes' son, makes the double assertion that Cyrus did not, but that Darius did, order it. He says of Darius Ti{Oy, i*.u* KvfOt TTII Herod, iii. 159. But here it seems strange at first sight that the demolition of the surrounding wall having been mentioned, the writer should add, that all the gates were torn away, as if this particular was not included in the demolition of the wall. The difficulty, however, is removed by Berosus's account, which enables us to perceive that, after the wall was taken away according to the order of Darius, there still remained interior defences ; indeed, a double line of them, as is evinced by Herodotus's own account of the city, as it existed in his time ; an 39* 612 command of Cyrus, after he had made himself master of account which, though placed in his first book, appears to have been writ- ten (like another passage in that book relating to the history of Darius) after the third book of his history had been finished. It was, therefore, of these interior walls described by Herodotus, Ktesias, and Kleitarkhus, that Darius caused the gates to be taken away, in addition to the demolition of the outer wall. We have already cited the passage in which Berosus describes the three circuits of wall constituting the defences of the city as originally completed : we now cite from Herodo- tus's account of the defences, where the present tense is used throughout, the words which attest but two remaining circumvallations : roc,t*of u,\* TOUTO. pur . nttBiif fAtra, Ss rii^cg. (Herod, i. 178.) nun fj.it Sti ra riixff Btifr.l irri' 'irtfet ti ifaBit Ti?x5 [-{i8s7]u TXA TIM itrSf- tia-Ttfor nu Irifeu rti%tt, frsittTtftn tl, Herod, i. 181. When this description, then, was first given, that is (as, after having doubted, we are now sufficiently assured) when Artax- erxes the Long-armed resided in Babylon and Herodotus visited the city, the outermost of the three circumvallations attested by Berosus had been demolished. This work, ascribed to Cyrus by Berosus and to Darius by Herodotus, was all the easier if, as we have interpreted Berosus's description already, the outer Ti e ;/2xf f or girdle of defence, was composed entirely of" mere brick," that is, sun-dried brick, cemented with mud. Such an embankment might be overturned into the trench or other excavations outside, from which it had been raised, and the surface afterwards be levelled for suburban buildings, fields, and gardens so as (after the lapse of some gonerations at least) to exhibit no very evident or continuous traces of the rampart which had been thrown down. Even the outer wall described by Herodotus must have been merely cased with burnt brick. While by degrees this choice building material in the lapse of generations was stripped off for various employ- ment, far and near ; and perhaps most of all, for the walling by Seleucus Nikator, of the place on the Tigris which (whatever was its former name) he called Seleukeia and made the capital (see Strabo xvi. 1 g 5) there probably went on a simultaneous process of levelling the interior mass of mere earth and filling up ditches and other excavations out of it, in order to turn the ground to profit by cultivation. In Strabo's time the city was for the most part deserted ; so that what a lino of comedy said punningly of the Arcadian Megalopolis, was tragically true of Baby- lon ; 'i^uLioL /LtcyaX*} V-ny ft Utiyei^r, vroXis. the mighty city was become a mighty desolation. The works Berosus attributed to the reign of Nabonnedus, certainly included the wall of burnt brick described by Herodotus, i. 180, as running along the brink of the river on both sides within the city and 613 the city ; but Herodotus, writing at least 150 years before as having narrow gates affording communication between the river and the streets which ran thitherward. They include also some of the works attributed by Herodotus to Queen Nitokris, the bridge, the stairs, descending to the water from each gate in the river-side walls, and the facing of brickwork with which she protected the sides of the bed of the river; Herod, i. 18G; for she was the wife of the historian's >0 of Semira- mis," extending apparently from the right bank of the river Tigris 614 Berosus, 1 while he affirms expressly that Cyrus did nothing of the sort, ascribes the demolition (as we shall see) to our Darius, after the capture of the city by his lieutenant Vindafrathe Mede. We know not what account (if any) Berosus gave of the siege under Darius, but, if the Khal- daean writer and his more famous Ionian predecessor be granted us as generally trust- worthy authorities, we may use Herodotus to justify Berosus and Berosus to reconcile Herodotus's description of Babylon in his first book with the (probably previously written) account in his third book of the measures adopted against the city, after its capture in the reign of Darius. We, therefore, conclude that Babylon was substantially as well fortified, when it re- volted from Darius the Persian the son of Hystaspes, and prepared for a second siege, as when it was assailed by the Medes and Persians under Cyrus at the close of the regency of Nabunita and the reign of the last native sovereign, Belshazzar. On both occasions, it would appear to have possessed a triple circumvallation ; J of which the exterior line seems to have been added the last, and to have been finished at least after the death of the great Ne- bukhadrezzar. In order that their provisions might serve the longer, Herodotus reports, That having reserved, each man of opposite the City Opis, across the mid-river region to the Euphrates, Strabo ii. 1 26 ; xi. 14 8. And we may suppose it built when Astyages having been overthrown at Agbatana, Assyria Proper having been conquered by the Medes, and the coalition against the rising power having terminated in the overthrow of Croasus, the Babylonians began to dread invasion, and to employ the skill, the labour, and the wealth they had at their command in the construction of defences. 1 Berosus in his youth was a contemporary of Alexander, but his Chaldaean history was brought out in the reign of AntiokhusSoterwho succeeded to the throne of bis father Seleucus, Nikator, B. C. 280. For this is cited Tatian Or. advers. Gr. 58. J Nebukhadrezzar in the Standard Inscription, G. Rawlinson's Herod, vol. 2 pp. 585, 587, seems to own only that double circumvallation which Herodotus describes. "We conclude that the outer line was added or at least completed by Nabunita. 615 them his mother and one other woman of his household k to make his bread, the Babylonians mustered together the rest of the female population and strangled them all on the spot. But Babylon in the hands of a new pretended Nebukh- adrezzar son of Nabunita, was not all that distracted Darius in the midst of his purpose to crush the pretended son of Cyrus, now reigning in Parsa-land. To the north of a territory then called Hariva, watered by the Arius or Hari river, and now belonging to Herat, is another country, watered by the Margos of Greek writers, and bounded on the south by the mountains whence that river descends, while its north side is skirted by a desert, into the bosom of whose sands the river discharges its waters at last. This region lay between the satrapy of the united Parth- ians and Hyrkanians on the west, and that of Baktria on the east ; being the Margiane of the Greeks. By Darius it is called Margush in Aryan : by the modern Persians it is known as Merv and its river as the Murgh-ab or Murgh Water. It is not set down as a separate province by Darius, at Behistun, at Persepolis, or at his tomb, in his lists of the countries that called him master. Nor does Herodotus mention this people separately, either in the host of Xerxes or among Darius's tributaries. But before the point in his narrative at which we are now arrived, Darius had already named them among those that threw off their allegiance to him, during his stay at Babylon in the first and second of his regnal years. Perhaps, like their western neighbours, the Parthians and Hyrkanians, they had at first called themselves the liege men of Frawartish the Mede. But certain it is, that after the death of Frawartish and when the Parthians and Hyrkanians were subdued, having (for the time at least of the hot weather) been left to themselves, and probably k i T i> i-t/wD ;*/,. "out of his own house" seems to be the reading of most MSS, Herod, iii. 150. There seems, however, to be some authority for .W, "persons of the family. 11 Compare vw* e'.xwrtrvt, "by his own brother; " Herod iii. 65. 616 encouraged by the revolt of Babylon, they put a leader of their own at their head, who then called himself king in Margiana. We date his appearance, by the order wherein Darius's rivals are presented to view in the Behistun sculpture; for there, the Margian stands last of the Nine, be- hind the second so-called Nebukhadrezzar son of Nabunita. Nevertheless (as the catalogue of Darius's victories informs us) the Margian was overthrown, not only before that pretender but before the Persian who repeated the imposture of Gaumata the Magian and who stands seventh in the file ; that is to say, next in front of the second Nebukhadrezzar. The account in the Behistun Inscription is this : " Saith Darius the king, A province named Margush became my enemy. A certain man named Frada a Margava" (or, as we should say, " a Margian ") "him they made Mathishta. Afterwards, I sent to a Persian, a servant of mine, the satrap in Baktria, named Dadarshish. Thus I said to him : Go thou, smite thou that people which is not called mine. Afterwards, Dadarshish went with a people. He made battle with the Margavas. Auramazda brought me help. By the will of Auramazda my people smote that rebel people mightily. On the twenty-third day of the month Atriyadiya, then it was that the battle was made them thus. Saith Darius the king ; Afterwards the province became mine. This is what was done by me in Baktria." 1 See Behistun inscription, Aryan text, col. 3. para. 3. For Margava signi- fying a man of Margush, one should have expected Marguviya, after the analogy of Babiruviya in col. i. lines 77, 79. Perhaps this and Margayai- bish (the dative or ablative plural) col. 3 line 16 are contracted forms. As to the Margian territory, Strabo, ii. 1 14, extols the climate and fertility of Hyrkania, Aria, Margiane and Baktriane. Of Margiane in particular he reports it to have been said, that the vine stock is often found so large as to require two men to clip it with their extended arms. This he repeats xi. 10 g 2 with the addition that the clusters would be often of two cubits (length?). In the previous section, xi. 10 g 1, he had introduced Aria and Margiane together as a single division of his 617 Here we perceive the reason, why this province doe3 not appear under its own name in the lists of the countries subject ; having before, in xi. 8 g 1, more expressly made them one by calling them rat Ma{^/a> xtti rUt ' Afi'ut Idits. This unity may have been administrative and peculiar to the timea of the geographer's authors. In some passages, even under the single name Aria, he may seem to comprize both countries, their mountains of which he speaks, and their plains watered respectively by the rivers Arius (now Hari) and Margos (now Murgh). It is incidentally remarked, after Aristobulus, by Strabo xi. 12 5 (as by Arrian Exp. Alex. iv. 6 g 6, where also, on the same Aristobulus's authority no doubt, Arrian asserts that the river gives its name to the people or country) that the Arius is ultimately swallowed up in the sand of the desert. The corrupt passage which follows the mention of both rivers in Strab. xi. 10 g 1 may seem to be one in which either Aria comprehends Margiane or else Margiane is comprehended in Baktria. It is this, Here the editor of Didot's Strabo, Carl Muller, dispels the chief obscurity, by a felicitous conjecture. For t/sr,>. Or lastly *) [if Ansf] if instead of the same xi ?*,,. We would amend the words preceding the restored iw 2T-' ?v for **; T$. So that altogether the passage in English will be ; " Aria borders upon Baktriane, and indeed it was under Stasanor who had (the satrapy of) Baktriane." This would intimate Strabo's belief that Aria had at one time formed part of Stasarior's Baktrian satrapy ; and we own that we do not find evidence of that fact. But we find that Stasanor had been made by Alexander the Great his satrap, first of Aria, then of the Zarangoe or Drangse also ; see Arrian Exp. Alex. iii. 29 5 ; iv. 18 g 1, 3 ; vi. 27 3 ; and we find that on the death of Alexander he was confirmed in the government of these two nations by the guardian of the empire, Perdiccas, in B. C. 323 ; Diod. xviii. 3 g 3 ; compare Arrian de Succ. Alex, g 8. While Stasunor was thus satnip of Aria and Drangae, the satrap of Baktriane and Sogdiano was Philip, and the satrap of Parthia and Ilyrkania was Phrataphernes ; but when Antipater, succeeding to Perdiccas, assigned the satrapies in B. C. 321, Philip was transferred to the satrapy of Phrataphernes, Stasanor to that of Philip, and Stasandrus (like Sta- sanor a native of Cyprus) was put into Stasanor's place as satrap of 618 subject to Dariua. The Margian rebels quelled by the satrap of Baktria, are held by the king to belong to Aria and Drangene ; Diod. xriii. 39 g 6 ; Arrian, de Succ. Alex. 36. This Stasandrus, having joined the confederacy under Eutnenes against Antigonus (see Diod. six. 14 7) was succeeded in his satrapy (on Antigonus's victory) by Euitus, who, dying shortly after, was succeeded by Euagoras (Diod. xix. 48 2) Stasanor remaining still satrap of Baktriane and Sogdiane. As to our remark that in the amended passage Strabo xi. 10 1, it may seem either that the term Aria comprehends Margiane or that Margiane is included under Baktriane, observe that Aria is made to have a part of Baktria adjoining it to the north, though that country in general is said to lie to the east of Aria; Strab. xi. 11 g 1. In Strab. xi. 8 1 Baktriane follows Aria in the progress eastward from the Caspian or Hyrkanian sea. In Strabo ii. 1 14 Margiane follows Aria, but is coupled with Baktriane instead of being coupled with Aria. If to the emendations embraced above, of Strabo xi. 10 $ 1, it be proposed for the sake of greater historical accuracy, to add the substitu- tion of Drangiane or Zarangiane for Baktriane, we object that in the context following, Strabo adds what would then be tautological ; fu*rt\r,( 3' ?y a.lrr, (i. e. rr, 'A{/) * ^ Ajaj-yjae**; ,*X{' KJ*>I',-. C. Muller's first and second proposed emendations of the former part of the passage, which introduce Margiane into the text, either by substitu- tion for the former Baktriane or in addition to it, seem likewise excluded for the similar reason that the words which presently follow (xi. 10. g 2) T 4 arX!ir('a 3' \^ WOllld then be a tautology. Strabo gives to Aria three cities ; Artakaena, the original capital (tor Arrian writes ' A{T**< w\ '<; p*r&ut* ? 'Afi/uv, Exp. Alex. iii. 25 g 5) with Alexandreia and Akhaia, cities named after their founders. These seem to be the Kharacene Isidore's three cities in Aria (Stathmi Parthici g 15) named Kandak, Artakauan and Alexandreia i 'A<.>K. the last of which is taken for Herat. From Antiokheia * Iu3 in Margiane northward (Stathm. Parthic. 14) a place identified with the Merc al rud, that is, " Merv on the River," of our maps Isidore travels to Kandak in Aria southward, while Strabo in his enumeration proceeds from Akaia in Aria southward to Isidore's single Margian city Antio- keia northward ; and this seems to confirm the inference that arises from the comparison of names in the two lists, that Strabo's city Akuia is Isidore's city Kandak. Strabo tells us that Antiokhus Soter (B. C. 280-261) admiring the excellent nature of the Margian plain, surrounded it with a wall of 1500 stades (either !5H=50, or^w=60 parasangs) in extent ; and built a city Antiokeia. 3 This city " according to Pliny N. H. vi. 18 had been previously built by Alexander the Great. Pliny's words are quoted by Isidore's editor C. Muller thus; "Sequitur 619 Baktria : though it seems that the Satrap did not march against them without an express order from his master. regio Margiane apricitatis inclutao, sola (?) in eo tractu vitifera, undique inclusa montibus amoenis, ambitu stadiorum MD, difficilis aditu propter harenosas solitudines per CXX m. p." (i. e. 40 parasangs at 3 milliapas- suum or 25 stadea to the parasang 1 ) " et ipsa contra Parthise tractum sita ; in qua Alexander Alexandriam condiderat. Qua diruta a barbaris, Antiochus Seleuci filius eodem loco restituit Syriam ; nam interfluente Margo, qui conrivatur in Zothale, is maluerat illam Antiochiam appellari. Urbis amplitudo circumitur stadiia LXX." This last sum, not being a multiple either of 30 or 25, seems not to represent a Persian measure- ment. Of another Margian city, Merv Shah Jehan in N. Lat. 37 deg. 26 min. on the same Murgh water but more than a hundred miles lower down, we are not able to produce any notice from Greek authors. m For satrap the Aryan word both here col. 3 line 14 and at col. 3 line 55, is Khshatrapdvd, and this written after the Kissian pronunciation is Saksabavana ; see the Kissian test col. 2 line 80, and col. 3 line 22 ; though how far in the latter passage the word is Mr Norris's restoration we do not know. Klisliadrapan, the singular form indicated by the plural D^EmtJJnK found in Esther, and the Aramaic correspondent in Daniel, seems the contraction of Khshatrapdcdn, a form indicated by the above-cited Kissian pronunciation. In the Sanskrit legends on the coins of no less than 13 rulers of Surtishtra (an Indian kingdom " of which the peninsula of Guzerat may be taken as the metropolitan province ") the word Ksliatrapasa is a genitive form equivalent to the Greek ra.?^. These rulers were of the Sah dynasty, placed in the two centuries next before the Christian era, and may have been (originally at least) vassals of the Groeco-Baktrian kingdom. See Strabo xi. 11 1 and Journal R. A. S. vol. xii. pp 1-72. The Perso- Aryan word repre- sented by the Greek nom. sing. lxt,pMT. fu>o?, rttft O Si ruraintf Irreti Mn $1* , 'Afrufitt a.vx,r,f4ti. . . 'O /*! Btf*ica.s . It has been thought, (but erroneously according to Clinton, upon more mature reflexion) that in this story as well as in what precedes it, Abydenus quoted Megasthenes, the contemporary of Scleucus Nikator, the companion of the first Macedonian satrap of Arakhosia and Gedrosia, Sibyrtius, and the envoy to the great king of the Hindus, Sandracottus or Chandragupta ; see Clinton F. If. vol. 3, Appendix chap. 12, "Greek authors ; " No. 12 " Megasthenes." 633 with the impostor owned in Persis as Smerdis son of Cyrus anJ rightful heir to Cambyses. Darius's head- quarters seem to have been still in Media ; although an expression of his has been thought to indicate a temporary absence from the province and a subsequent return to it with fresh Persian forces. 4 We have remarked already, d The Assyrian preposition itti answering to DNMn Hebrew (one of the three forms in which the prepositive particle HNI is found connected with the pronouns) translates the prepositions pasa and hada of the Aryan, with their respective Kissian correspondents, kik and itaka ; compare Behistun Inscription, Assyrian text, line 73 with the Aryan text col. 3 lines 32, 33 and the Kissian text col. 3, lines 7 and 8. That hadd Aryan, and itaka Kissian, mean " with," may be granted. But may not ittiya, the preposition combined with a pronoun, of the Assyrian line 73, be equivalent to the French " chez moi ? Compare VlX Genes, xxx. 29 which Gesenius renders " apud me " . e. " me pastore." The question is, How to render the Aryan phrase (Behistun Inscription col. 3, line 32) hya aniya kdra Pdrsa pasa, mand ashiyava Madam, or the Kissian words corresponding to the four last of that phrase, ir-porik Mata-pa-ikki Hu-kik ; which in the Assyrian again are, ittiya itriku'a Mddai. Mr Norris renders the Kissian kik according to Sir H. G. Rawlinson's rendering of the Aryan pasa, "after." But query, if kik (which seems to occur but this once and is written with the same two characters which in the reverse order form frequently a postposition read ikkf) have not the same meaning as ikki, " to " ? Again, if in Aryan pasa be topasawa (which last occurs in almost every paragraph of the Behistun Inscription) as in Latin post topostea; and also, if the words pasa mand be rightly constructed together as signifying " after me ; " still, the meaning of this need not be " at my heels." Perhaps the phrase intimates, that what other Persian troops Darius had, besides those with him which he intended to despatch with Artavardiya against Vahyazdata, all came to Media to join him, to place themselves under his command, or, simply, to be with him. Compare such instances as these in Greek of the construction of ^.IT* with an accusative (a pre- position which with the genitive signifies "along with") Htm fiira. N>T{ Horn II. x. 73 ; "to go after Nestor," *'. e. to go to fetch him : 0?,nu ptr*n*t ;} sr{ry.. The expedition accompanied by Skylax of Caryanda (in Caria) which Darius despatched to sail down the Indus and from the mouth of that river, crossing the Erythraean sea and circumnavigating the Arabian peninsula, to reach Egypt by the Arabian gulf (our Red Sea) started * K^TT^<>W (or according to the San- croft MS Ketfreurvftv') rt vhite a.\ rf,( nKrv'ixf,{ yr.;. Herod, iv. 44. The name of this city upon the Indus seems more correctly written in the San- 640 of the Sattagydas is enumerated by Darius among the provinces that revolted from him while he was at Babylon, in the first two years of his reign : but, being entirely uninformed by what means and when it was reduced to obedience, we can only suppose the success to have been attained without any of those violent collisions of the mustered forces of both sides, which, when they ended in the defeat of the enemy, it was Darius's plan to com- memorate by his Behistun inscription. Moreover, it is probable that the submission of the Sattagydas, if not yielded immediately after the destruction of the Margian rebels by Dadarshish the satrap of Baktria, was, at the utmost, not protracted long after the recovery of Arakhotia by the satrap Vivana. m croft MS Kastapura ; but the true name perhaps is Kaspapura ; which may be made up out of both readings ; commencing with K**i, 2*ufl ixri. See Hecatseus's Fragments, No. 179, in the Fragmenta Scriptorum Grcecorum edited for Didot by Carl and Theodore Muller, torn. i. p. 12. By comparing the two writers we may learn, that a part at least, of the Paktyan land lying upon the (right hand bank of the upper) Indus, was occupied by the nation termed r*>a. " a Hindu people," though by Herodotus as well as by Darius's Inscriptions they are distinguished from the Hindus of Darius's dominion (who were those conquered by Darius himself: Herod, iv. 44: whereas the Ganda- rian nation was inherited from Cambyses, as the Behistun list evinces) see Hecataeus, frag. 178. Here, then, is a confirmation of our opinion of Herodotus's confusion of the 7th and 13th satrapies, in Herod, iii. 91, 93 ; see above pp 169, 170. It may also be suspected on a com- parison of Herodotus and Hecataeus, that the Paktyans were in some sense "Scythians," for while Kaspapura is placed in the Paktyan land by Herodotus, this city of an Indian and, therefore, Aryan, race is referred by Hecatseus to the Scythian region. m Besides the list of provinces that revolted from Darius about B. C. 520, all Darius's three general lists of subject provinces contain Thata- gush. In two, namely at Behistun and at Persepolis, the name pre- 641 The two battles, gained by Vivana on the thirteenth of Anamaka and the seventh of Viyakhana, we have assigned to the year B. C. 516 ; concluding that the order of time cedes, in one (the tomb- inscription) it follows, Hara'uwatish or Arakhotia. At Persepolis it stands between 'Uwarazmiya, or Khorasmia, and Arakhotia; but we attach little importance here to the juxtaposition with Khorasmia; because after Khorasmia the enumerator seems t-> have been obliged to return, having reached the extremity of the empire in this direction. Perhaps a like remark is appropriate in the case of the Behistun list, where Thatagush follows Saka. But in the tomb list, after Zaraka and Hara'uwatish (that is, the Zarangas or Drangas and Arakhoti, which formed a line from west to east towards India, Strabo. xv 2 8) we have Thatagush, Gadara IIi(n)dush. Here it seems strongly indicated, that these last three also follow in a line from west to east ; that is to say, from the eastern border of Ilariva, or Herat, which had been before enumerated, to within the western frontier of the Panjab, the country where lived the Hindus conquered by Darius, near the Gandarian city Kaspapura but on the left bank of the Indus. If so, Thatagush was a country east of Hariva, within the limits given (from Eratosthenes) by Strabo xv. 2 9 to the Paropamisadas, the people inhabiting between the river Indus on the east and Aria or country of the Arii (Hariva) on the weat, also between Bactriane on the north (in which direction the ridge of Paropamisus was their strong border) and Arakhotia on the south. We will here remark on a passage of the preceding section (where Strabo describes the direct road to India after arriving from the Caspian Gates through Parthia at Alexandreia i, -A;.) that for B*r ? <*,? f we ought to read 'A^iH(. The passage we would thus correct is this : ilH' r, u.\, if' fJGt.'xs I, it rtj( 'RxKTtia.tf.! xau TV; v*if&a.rtv{ ri i(tu( tit 'OfTtrtrxnt tTt T>,t \K BaTi*y r/0$0y, r, Ttf ifTTtt tv To7f Tlet{Oirix.u.t(reL$ac.it. We are inclined to suppose that the Sattagydas (Thatagush) and the Aparytas who in Herod, iii. 91. are linked, the one to the other, by the Gandarians and the Dadikas (of whom the former are the Gandarae of Hecatseus, the Kantara of Darius's tomb-inscription in the Kissian version, and the Gadara of the Aryan inscriptions) are included in the general ethnic name of Paktyes in Herod, vii. 67. For in Herod, vii. 66, the Gandarians and D.idikas form a separate command together ; while the Sattagydas and Aparytas are not mentioned at all by their proper names in the host of Xerxes. And according to our correction (referred to in the last note) of the statement made by Herodotus iii. 91, 93 concerning the 7th and 13th satrapies, the four nations that are linked together, as we have said, in Herod, iii. 91 the Sattagydas, the Gandarii, the Dadikas, and the Aparytas, belong to the Paktyan satrapy which is to be separated entirely from Armenia. 41 G42 in which they happened was the same as the order of place which they hold in the Behistun narrative; that is, that they happened both of them after the overthrow of It would appear, then, that the Paropamisadas of Eratosthenes are broken into two nations in the lists of Darius, the Thatagush and another, which in the Kissian and Assyrian versions of the Behistun list was termed Parrupamisanna but in the Aryan text Gadara. Also it would appear that, though distinct for military employment in the time of Xerxes, yet for payment of tribute and for their civil government the two formed but one satrapy, before the end of our Darius's reign no less than at the date of the death of Alexander the Great. This satrapy formed what Herodotus calls the Paktyan land, if our correction be admitted of what we call the historian's mistake, Herod, iii. 91, 93. Thus, the Paropamisadan satrapy of Alexander's historians and of the geographer Eratosthenes, is identified with the Paktyan country of Herodotus, and with a satrapy which Darius son of Hystaspes formed out of four nations, the Sattagydas, the Gandarii, the Dadikas, and the Aparytas. We are, therefore, well prepared to subscribe to a theory which has been proposed That the name Paktyan is connected ety- mologically with a title the Affghans give themselves, Push tun or Puhtan : (see Malte-Brun, Anuaitt nouvdles des Voyages torn. ii. pp. 344 etc. cited by G. Rawlioson, Herod, vol. iv. p. 215) confirmed as the notion is, by this judgment of Viscount Strangford's in an article on the Pushtu, or language of the Affghans ; Journal R. A. S. vol. xx p. 60. " There is no reason for doubting that the forms n^-nt; and u^Knixr, %<%<*., met with in Herodotus, express the modern national name of Pushtu in the pronunciation of the eastern Affghans, with whose geographical position they completely coincide." It seems, moreover, plain that the Gandarii and Dadikas, though they lived in Paktyan land, were not Paktyans as the Sattagydas were. They formed a separate command in the army of Xerxes, and (like the Parthians, the Khorasmians and the Sogdians) they were armed and attired in the Baktrian fashion, whereas the Paktyans proper, armed with their country bows and with daggers, were also oi, " wearers of sheep- skin or goatskin cloaks." But two other commands are expressly said to have been attired in the Paktyan fashion ; that of the O5i and M^.* and that of the n { <*././. These three nations are the 20th, 21st and 22nd of p. 113. The skin-cloak, -,>{,, was also worn by the Caspians, the 17th nation of p. 113. Several questions arise here. 1. Were the people called by Herodotus Paktyans (part of whose country had been occupied by the Gandarians from India) themselves of Aryan race ? 2. Should we add to the Sattagydas and Aparytas, as also Paktyan, a people placed by Alexander's historians on the border of the Gedrosiana 643 the second pretended Smerdis in Parsa-land. For if not, they must have been fought, either both of them before the victories gained for Darius by Artavardiya, or partly between the Zarangae and the Arakhoti, that had received from Cyrus the title of " Benefactors " but were otherwise called Arimaspi ? 3. Bat from their name Arhrtaspi according to Diod. xvii. 81 may we not suspect these " Benefactors " of Cyrus's to hare been of Mon- golian race ; and their language to have been akin to the Kissian ? For the last syllable of this name may easily have been the Kissian plural termination pa, altered according to the analogy of Greek ; and there was a remote nation of Arimaspi whose name was fancifully interpreted to mean " One-eyed," placed by Herodotus beyond the Issedones ; see Herod, iv. 13 and iii. 116 ; compare Diod. ii. 43 5. We have elsewhere suggested, that Tiax-rvte represents the vernacular equivalent of the title " Benefactors ; " since pikti in the Kissian phrase Auramasta pikti Hu-tas answering to the Aryan Auramazddmiya upastdm abara, if it does not mean " help " like upastdm, must mean " helper." The Arimaspi, if of Mongolian race, might come under the general Persian appellation Saka (which the Greeks interpreted " Scy- thian ") and they may have been the people of the Kharecene Isidorua's Sakastane lying on the road between Zarangiane and Arakhosia; see the Stathmi Parthici 18. But as to the argument founded on the proper name of Cyrus's Benefactors, it will of course be replied that Arrian, who places this people on the river Etymander, Exp. Alex. iv. 6 G makes their name to have been Ariaspas A^a^ai, Exp. Alex. iii. 27 gjJ 4, 5 which is no other in the singular than 'A..***,,, the name of a Mede, one of the companions of Cyrus in Xenoph. Cyrop. v. 1 2 &c. or Ariaspcs father of Atossa, in Hellanicus frag. 163; and, like that, ia in both its parts of Aryan derivation, being equivalent to the Greek proper name Kalippus. However, Arimaspos rather than Ariaspas seems to have been the reading of Curtius vii. 11 where all Zumpt's eleven Florence and Berne MSS have the corrupt armatos, though a Leyden MS which Zumpt notes as Voss. 2. is said to have Armaspos. In the Itinerarium Alexandri discovered among the Ambrosian MSS by Cardinal Mai, and printed with the Pseudo-Callisthenes at the end of the Arrian published by Didot, immediately after an incidental mention in cap. 87 of the Etymander river running through the country of the EvergetoR or Benefactors, (parallel with that of Arrian Exp. Alex. iv. 6 6) we read at the beginning of cap. 88, " Ilieme igitur apud Arimaspos declinata," where the blunder Arimaspos for Zariaspa, the capital of Baktria (Arrian, Exp. 'Alex. iv. 1 5 Strabo xi. 11 g 2) seems to indicate the name which the mention of the Evergetae had suggested to the compiler's mind or the name which his author had given to the Ever- getae. We will only add a conjecture aa to Sakastane, that its other 41* 644 before and partly after those successes in Persis. Now, if the victories in Arakhotia, of Anamaka and Viyakhana, had happened both of them before the earliest victory in Persis, they would also have been related first. Indeed, they would have belonged to a previous year ; for Viya- khana, the date of the latest of the supposed preceding victories (a month answering to our March) if it belonged to the same year, would be later than Thuravahara, (that is, February) when the first victory was gained in Persis. Again, if the successes in Arakhotia had been obtained partly before and partly after those in Persis ; that is, if the victory in Arakhotia of Anamaka had happened before the victory in Persis of Thuravahara, but the victory in Arakhotia, of Viyakhana, after it (though withal before the victory in Persis of Garmapada in the same year B.C. 517) in that case (as we conclude from Darius's former prac- tice in relating the suppression of the two revolts in Susiana and the campaign of his lieutenant Takhmaspada the Mede against the Sagartians) they would have been left undated on the monument." We are, therefore, satisfied that we have done well in identifying the Anamaka and Viyakhana marked by Vivana's victories, with the January and March of our year B. C. 516. In other words, we fully believe that these successes in Arakhotia belong to the year after the one in which two great blows in Persis destroyed the kingly power of the pretended Smerdis, Vahyazdata. name n^m,*,,* given it by Isidore, if it cannot by a more correct orthography be connected with the (Paktyan ?) 'AJT.^ of Herod, iii. 91, may be supposed to be derived from a colony of n{.Ti, from Baktria (comp. Arrian, Exp. Al. iy. capp. 21 and 22) rather than from Media. u See above p. 579. 645 V. AFTER the recovery of Arakhotia, completed in March of the year B. C. 516, except in beleaguered Babylon, no resistance to Darius was anywhere prolonged, whether in behalf of a rival claiming to be the nearer heir of Cyrus and Cambyses, or in the hope of separating a nation from the dominion of the Persian, and re-establishing it in possession of a king of its own with prospect of possible aggrandizement in time to come. Many nations had drunk of the cup of chastisement ; and now " the king of Sheshak," Nebukhadrezzar son of Nabunita, as the Armenian adventurer had fatally styled himself, was to drink after them ; one that, more like the inmate of a prison, than the head of a powerful nation, inhabited the palace and sat on the throne of the victorious Nebukha- drezzar.* The regnal year of the Khaldseans actually current, was the second of this phantom Nebukhadrezzar, and the fifth of Darius, as rival kings of Babylon. The lapse of it had reached the fifth month ; for its first had been in the order of the Assyrian and Jewish twelve, the eighth month called by the Jews Markhesvan and answering nearly to the November of the year B. C. 517. The year before this that is, the new Nebukhadrezzar's first had been the last of a term of seventy years that began with the eighteenth year of the son of Nabopolassar and ended with the fourth year of the son of Hystaspes, according to the Khaldsean registers ; b and while all these seventy See Jerem. xxr. 26. The Sheshak of this text seems explained by Jerera. li. 41, " How is Sheshak taken ! and how is the praise of the whole earth surprised ! How is liabylon become an astonishment among the nations I " b Darius's first regnal year, by the Assyrian and Jewish reckoning, began, (as has often been intimated) with the first month of the Assyrian and Jud;*?o- Assyrian Calendar ; being the first month (say, April it B. C. 521) of the reign of the Magian who assumed the character of Smerdis son of Cyrus This is the reckouing of the books, Haggai, C46 years lasted, the Jews had continually commemorated the anniversaries of four signal epochs in those disastrous years which closed the reign of their last native king Zedekiah. But we have seen that, when the seventieth year was not two months old, when of the four mournings the last they had kept was the one which for the sixty- ninth time had recalled to their minds the murder of Zechariah, and Esther. But, according to the Khaldaean account which we detected in the report of Herodotus, and which seems to be followed in the case of Artaxerxes the Long-armed in the book of Nehemiah, Darius's first year began with the Magian's eighth month in B. C. 521 ; that being the month which the regnal year of the Khaldsean registers began with. As to the regnal years of the son of Nabopolassar, it is well known that, by Khaldyean account, he was not king in the 4th year of Jehoiakim king of Judah (which the Hebrews considered his first) because during the whole of this year his father was yet alive. Nor did the Khaldaean annalists write him king in the fifth year of Jehoiakim king of Judah, though Xabopolassar's death probably took place before the close of that Jewish civil year or at least before the end of the first month of the following civil year, the Gth of Jehoiakim ; because the Khaldaean method was the reverse of that of Ptolemy's canon. The canon reckons the whole of the (Egyptian) year in which a king began to reign at Babylon, to the new king as his first ; whereas the Khaldaeans reckoned the whole of the (Khald,m) year in which such king began to reign at Babylon to the predecessor. Thus, the 70 years' grief for the temple were the (43 17=the) 26 last years of the Great Nebukhadrezzar + the two years of his son Evil- Merodakh + the four years of the usurper Xeriglissar + the 17 years given to Nabonedus, + the (2 of Darius the Mede+7 of Cyrus) 9 years ascribed to Cyrus + the 8 years including the first seven mouths of the Magian's reign but ascribed entirely to Cambyses + the first 4 years of Darius. For these items, see Berosus's Fragments, Ptolemy's Canon, and, for the last of them, Zech. vii, 5, where (as mentioned in a former note) the words translated " those seventy years," should rather be rendered " this seventy years," that is, "this now (in Khisleu) seventieth year. 1 ' The afteryears, therefore, duringwhichtheBabylonians might triumph for their victory, while the men of Judah might sorrow and cry to the God of Israel for the punishment of their oppressors, began with Markhesvan B. C. 587 and ended with Tisri, the Assyrian Tasritu, B.C. 517. For the year of the capture of Jerusalem (which began with Markhesvan B.C. 588 and was the 19th of Xebukhadrezzar's reign according to the Hebrews, or his 17th according to the Khaldaean date of his accession to the throne) see 2 Kings xxv. 1-4, 8 ; Jerem. Hi. 4-6, 12. 647 Gedaliah in their seventh month, the twelfth of the Khal- daean year, and when the first mourning of the seventieth year by the Khaldsean reckoning was now approaching, namely the fast for the commencement of the siege of Jerusalem by Nebukhadrezz ir's army in the tenth month of their own Mosaic and of the Assyrian twelve just then, in reply to a consultation regarding them, the Word of God by the prophet Zechariah had given a promise that these four seasons of mourning should be to the House of Judah joy and gladness and cheerful feasts. However, during the seventieth year, the first counted by his adherents to the new Nebukhadrezzar at Babylon, the four fasts had been held (we suppose) as usual at Jerusalem, and it had not yet seemed clear (while in Persis and Arakhotia, as well as at Babylon, the pretensions of Darius were disputed by armed opponents) that the promise was fulfilled. In the present year, too, the seventy-first, which was now five months old, the anniversary of the tenth of Tebeth when the Babylonians began the siege of Jerusalem, had probably been remembered there by the appointed fast, though in Arakhotia on the thirteenth Darius's enemy sustained his first defeat. But in March B. C. 516 that enemy vanished; and before the next fast of the year arrived, there occurred an event which made it impossible for the Jews to keep in the manner prescribed either this which commemorated the entry of the Khal- deeans into Jerusalem in the fourth Mosaic month, or the great fast of all in the month following which reminded them of the execution of Nebukhadrezzar's sentence upon the city in the burning of the temple and great houses, and in the demolition of the walls. The event which was thus to make all mourning cease, was a great retaliation upon their conquerors, the capture of Babylon by the forces of the king under favour of whom they had for some time been prospering in the re-building of the temple as well as in their private affairs ; and whose stores now supplied the daily service of that altar of burnt-offering which stood before the door of the unfinished House ; having been put up before the building was commenced, 648 and when the people first returned from Babylon under Zeruhbahel the Prince of Judah and Jeshua the High Priest of the sons of Aaron. During a year and five months, that is, for the time already elapsed at the point of the history where we now find ourselves, and for two months yet to come, according to Herodotus the city was blockaded in vain ; although all possible plans and devices had been employed to take it. We are assured that among these attempts the stratagem had not been forgotten by which Cyrus had suddenly succeeded, having made his preparations without being discovered and having selected for the execution the time of a festival within the city at which (as Xeno- phon adds to Herodotus's account and to that of Daniel) " the people of Babylon were in the habit of drinking and revelling all night long." But during this long second siege the Babylonians were vigilant ; all above forty years of age remembering well how they had been taken before; the interior walls along theriver sides were never deserted; their posterns affording communication between the city and the river, were never left open or unguarded. There- fore, at the season when tbe Euphrates is lowest, which Darius's army had spent before Babylon twice in the winters of his fourth and fifth regnal years, if the water of the river was ever turned off from its natural course to run upon the country westward through the outlets and into the prodigious reservoirs which former kings had excavated for the irrigation of that region and perhaps also in part for its defence against Arab depredators as well as to facilitate building at the bottom and sides of the river and its canals within the walls of Babylon, how- ever shallow the stream may have been rendered that still followed the bed of the river, the city it traversed was nevertheless in no danger of being taken by assault from the river ; d and it was still abundantly supplied with o Herod, iii. 152. For the method of the capture by Cyrus, see Herod, i. 191. For AJII phon'a similar acoount, and for bis testimony (confirming Daniel 649 drinking water not only from wells but from vast tanks within the walls. 8 T. 30, 31) that among those slain in the capture was the king of Babylon (the aon according to Herod, i. 188 of Labynetus's wife Nitokris) named, not as Herodotus asserts, " Labynetus like his father," but really Bel- ehazzar, as we learn from Daniel, or Bd-shar-ussur according to the inscription on his father (that is, we think, his step-father's) cylinders found by Mr J. E. Taylor at Muqeyer or Mugheir, and of which Mr il. F. Talbot has given a decipherment and translation in Journal R. A. S. vol. xix p. 194) see Xenoph. Cyrop. vii. 5 g 7-31. Of one sentence in the chapter referred to of Herodotus, we would offer a correction. It is this ti f&ir vut vfOfruQtvTV Of BajSvAttftf, r iu,otOov, T* \x rou IC(*c xmCuttof tH ' At fi-.i'.f.Ti; fai H-ffix; in>. : Jt~ if rr.r ireAo tiifSiifnt XO.XIS-TX. To make sense of this, it might seem necessary to read J;^i.>9i. { , translating, If the Babylonians had received previous information, or had comprehended what was doing by Cyrus, they would not have perished miserably, even if they had permitted the Persians to enter the city, or rather, the channel of the Euphrates between the two divisions of the city. But we would not correct the text thus. We would merely substitute ; J ' it for i? i. that is, read an iota for a upsilon ; whereby we obtain a text which may be translated thus ; " If the Babylonians had been informed beforehand or had comprehended what was being done of Cyrus, why then, after having suffered the Persians to enter into the city, they would have destroyed them miserably." How so, the next sentence explains. We do not see what is gained by Sohweighaeuser's correction i for ^' (nor yet by substituting i ^F, the variant of some MSS, for ') if we do not at the same time change 2u>9,., into 2,, i, ir.yj^r. i,* On this Schweighaeuser observes that both the and the it might have been left out. In the passage of Herod i. 191 that we are con- sidering, it may be thought that the infinitive i-ix0i7 was preferred to the participle . r.y rt fj.tr p.r,*K fTt,ut TtTTaf* xlrTo.. rt II w\M.rt( ivi r'ia.xtr',*t (query i{"txT)X/8tif, ri II C-^f,t>t Hmrimt fr.rit, i(-,vi*, rim-JOtr*, T* Ji rt(rf ii{X' T &V*t ifyti'S' i(38Au5T. The palace on the opposite side of the river (which, according to him, must have been the east side, but seems to have been really the west bank) was but 30 stades in circumference. This seems to be the palace of Neriglissar, and to have adjoined the r<8(.--;A.I, ; ( > the words which we would place between commas, xxxi/x, *) i,- ipi nirt in ;; Herod, i. 181. 655 cubits found in Diodorus, Strabo and Curtius, may not be due to early transcribers of Kleitarkhus. 1 In like manner we may hope, that even Ktesias's exaggeration of the same height, was not in the original manuscript fifty fathoms, as cited by Diodorus, but fifty cubits only. For Diodorus had already repeated Ktesias's assertion, That no one since Ninus had ever built so great a city as Nineveh (which the Medes demolished when they broke up the Assyrian kingdom) not only for the bigness of its compass, which was 480 stades (the area inclosed being 150 stades in length and 90 stades in breadth) but more- over for the grandeur of the wall, which was 100 feet high, was broad enough for three chariots to pass abreast, and had 1500 towers in it, each 200 feet high. m But if by Ktesias's estimate the wall of Babylon had been fifty fathoms high, he must have believed it to be three times as high as the wall of Nineveh, which yet he said had never been equalled. For 50 fathoms is 300 feet. We 1 It is further to be observed that Strabo, xvi. 1 5, though plainly following Curtius's author, instead of representing the towers as rising ten feet higher than the intervals of wall, makes them 60 cubits high ; that is, 10 cubits more than 50 cubits high. His words are C4f Ji rS, pi, pirtrvty!*, xr. x uf i in the Alex. MS of the Septuagint ; also in 2 Chron. iv. 5 ; also in Psalm xxxix. 6. The latter form is rendered x>r&i + 160 tibki=l8Q tibki lengths of inscriptions. In the same Cylinder, contain- ing annals of the first two years of Sennacherib's reign, we have the G57 Thus as to the height of the great wall of Babylon, described by Herodotus, Ktesias, and Kleitarkhus, we conclude, that it was more probably fifty feet than fifty fathoms or even fifty cubits; though the royal cubit of Babylon, if it exceeded the Greek cubit by three finger- breadths or one eighth of such a cubit, being about sides of the old palace pulled down by Sennacherib, measuring 360, 80, 134 and 95 " half-Aiw" respectively; a measure which seems opposed to the " big hit " or hu rebtu of the Michaux Inscription, line 1. Of Sen- nacherib's New palace, the four sides, according to the Bellino Cylinder lines 51, 52, measured Shukli rebti 1700, 162, 217 and 386. These " big shukli " seem opposed to the " half Aw " and to be identical with the hu-rebti. Shukli, rendered " measures " by Mr H. F. Talbot, he takes for the plural of an Assyrian correspondent to the Hebrew 7j2t> shekd, but a length not a weight. The AM (thought to be an old Hamite term) is proved to be synonymous with the ammo, (in the plural, ammat) of Nebukhadrezzar's inscriptions, by a comparison, first made by Dr Hincks of two passages in the India House Inscription, viz. vi. 25 and viii. 45 ; see Journal R. A. S. vol. xviii. p. 45. The amma is explained by the Hebrew and Aramaic ilSX. Of itinerary measures we have the half-fcas&u or " small kasbu " in the Bellino Cylinder, line 61, and Taylor Cylinder in Journal R. A. S vol. six, p. 165. Mr H. F. Talbot says in Journal R A. S. vol. xviii p. 102, that the kasbu of time was two hours. If this be correct, the half kasbu of distance will be equivalent to aparasang. Herodotus says ; " The royal cubit (of Babylon) is longer by three fingers than the moderate, average, or middle-sized cubit, c ^ITJ/OU rr. X uc 1. 178 ; and he tells of a woman whose height was three fingers short of four cubits ; 1. 60. Elsewhere he tells us ; "A hundred fathoms, <*yi/ fair, are a stade of six plethrums, >,, if the fathom measure six feet and four cubits, and if the feet are of four hand- breadths each and the cubit of six hand-breadths ; Herod, ii. 149. The hand-breadth, x*>.*ifrf,t or r*x*ii here named, is the Septuagint render- ing (as has been said) of the HDD which was divided into four JTiy3^ (' n the Septuagint X**TUA<) "finger- breadths; " compare Jerem. lii. 21 with 1 Kings vii. 26 and 2 Chron. ir. 5. Herodotus (we have seen) speaks of feet of four hand-breadths and cubits of six hand-breadths ; as if he knew of feet and cubits measuring otherwise. We are told that "from a tolerably extensive field of enquiry M. Oppert (in the Athenceum Franrais, 1854, p. 370) has valued the length of the Babylonian foot at 315 millimetres, which is as nearly as possible twelve and two-fifths English inches ; also, that the Babylonian cubit was to this foot, not as 3 to 2, the proportion of the Greek cubit to the Greek foot, but as 5 to 3 , being 42 G58 twenty English inches and a half, the Bahylonian foot or brick-length (if two-thirds of this length) would exceed in fact a cubit of 5 hand-breadths each of 5 fingers, while the foot was divided into three such hand-breadths ; " see Rawlinson's Herodotus, vol. 1 p. 315 notes. The foot spoken of by M. Oppert seems to be the gar cited above from the Michaux inscription. Sir H. C. Rawlinson was led by his researches to believe the ordinary Babylonian foot less than the Greek foot and less even than the English : and, so, to compare it rather with the Roman foot of 11.6496 English inches. Perhaps, in the long period of Khaldsean and Assyrian history, the foot measure at Babylon varied in its length. The bricks of two sizes in the ruin at Muqeyer or Mugheir, of the temple of the Moon, those of the founder (who was the earliest or one of the earliest known Chaldsean kings) eleven and a quarter inches square and the fifth of this or two and a quarter thick, and those of Nabunita (who in B. C. 555-538 rebuilt the temple) 13 inches square and 3 inches thick, might suggest that the ancient foot fell short of the English foot ; though the foot of latter times exceeded the same in length ; see Mr J. E. Taylor's account ; Journal R. A. S. vol. xv p. 261. The notion that Herodotus's p-ir^n *ws was the cubit of one and a half Greek feet, and that the royal cubit of Babylon was three fingers, or one-eighth of a Greek cubit, longer than such a cubit, seems confirmed when we find the length of the royal cubit of Babylon, thus obtained, to be almost exactly that of the Egyptian cubit. In the Nile island, Elephantine, on one of the walls of a stair that leads down to the river, is a succession of graduated scales, each containing one or two cubits, with inscriptions recording the rise of the water at various dates during the rule of the Caesars. Every cubit is divided into fourteen parts, each of two digits (finger-breadths) giving 28 digits to the cubit. The length of the cubits here, according to Sir J. G. Wilkinson who carefully measured them all, and was guided by the general length as well as by the average of the whole, is 20.625 inches. This gives 0.736 decimal of an inch to each of the 28 digits. Again, there are wooden cubits from Egypt, divided and subdivided into palms (7) double digits (14) and digits (28) besides other parts. One found at Memphis, is stated by M. Jomard (in his Etalon Mttnque and Lettre a M. Abd Remusat sur une nouvette mesure de coudee) to be 520 millimetres or (if, according to the Table in Dr Lardner's Arithmetic, one Millimetre is .03937 decimal of an inch) 20.4724 English inches. One in the Museum at Turin he states to be 522.7 millimetres or 20.57869 English inches. Others are particularized, which, on account of some seeming error in the typography, we do not report from Sir J. G. "Wilkinson. But the average of wooden cubits M. Jomard is said to state at 523.506 millimetres, that is, 20.610195 English inches. A measure discovered at Karnak and proved by the position in which it the English foot by about one inch and two- thirds, so that the height of fifty feet would be all but fifty-seven English feet. But the Michaux Inscription seems to make the Babylonian foot three-fifths only of the cubit, so that, if the cubit was twenty inches and a half long, fifty Baby- lonian feet would exceed fifty English feet, by fifteen inches only. But we have also to consider the reported circumference of this rampart; and here, too, we have a diversity of statement to begin with. Herodotus tells us that the city was four-cornered, and that each face or frontmeasured 120 stades, so that the stades of its whole compass were in all 480. The later accounts of Ktesias and Kleitarkhus seem to be connected both of them with a story, told perhaps not by Ktesias but by Kleitarkhus and the Macedonians only, that the whole rampart had been completed in one year ; the number of stades in the length of the whole being equal to the number of days in a year, and one stade's length having been built every day. Others more plausibly told the story thus ; Semiramis distributed the 360 or 365 stades of wall to as many of her courtiers, who, being provided with work-people and materials, carried on the building in every lot simultaneously, so as to finish it in a year ; every one superintending the build- ing of his own share. The wall may in fact have been placed (in Magian times at least) under the tutelage of the 360 or 365 guardians of the circle of the year. But (in connection, as we have said, with this story) Ktesias was found to belong to the 18th Egyptian dynasty, is a double cubit divided into 14 parts, each the double of the 14th part of the cubits above-mentioned. It is 41.3 English inches long; so that the half or single cubit is 20.65. This double cubit has its first 14th part halved and its second quartered ; the halves being the 14th parts of the single cubit, and the quarters the 28th parts or digits ; See Sir J. G. Wilkin- son's Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, second series, vol. 1 pp 29-33. These double and single Egyptian cubits correspond at least, if their lengths were not also respectively the same, with " big hu " and half-Au of the last note. 42* 660 related that the wall measured 360 stades ; Kleitarkhus made the length 365 stades. To reconcile this testimony with that of Herodotus, as to the length of a wall with which Babylon was still encom- passed after the demolition of an outer bulwark by Darius son of Hystaspes, we do not suppose that Herodotus has transmitted to us by mistake the measurement of the wall which had disappeared so long before his visit, and that Ktesias has given the measurement of that remaining outer line of wall which both he and Herodotus beheld. This, however, seems to be the ground on which it has been supposed that Babylon was once girt by a quadran- gular rampart, each of the four sides of which was 120 stades long, but that in the days of Ktesias there remained only the wall of an interior city, the four sides of which were each ninety stades in length. We ascribe to Hero- dotus a different error ; considering the outer and inner Babylon of Berosus to have been separated by the Euphrates. We believe Herodotus erred in supposing that the breadth of the quadrilateral figure, presented to him by the city, was equal to the length ; that he mistook a rectangular parallelogram (which we often improperly call a square) for the perfect square, which is such a parallelogram having also equal sides. Mistaking an oblong figure for a square, and having heard its length proclaimed to be 120 stades, he inferred that the wall which surrounded it was four times as long. Ktesias's account, that the whole circuit of wall was 360 stades, seems to rest upon the same estimate of the length from end to end of the inclosure. He seems to have regarded the area of the city as a parallelogram of 120 stades by 60, that is, just half the square of Herodotus. The error which we impute to Herodotus in respect of the figure formed by the rampart of Babylon, is the more probable, inasmuch as he appears to have committed it again in the same description of Babylon. Of the temple of Zeus Belus, that is, the sacred precinct of Bel Mero- dakh, he describes both the inclosure and the tower 661 within to be square ; saying that the inclosure measured two stades each way, and the tower, one ; whereas the analogy of other temples (as that of Nebo at Borsippa and that of Sin, or the Moon, at the place now called Muqeyer or Mugheirj leads us to expect that both tower and inclosure were oblong; while in fact the great mound at Babylon called by the Arabs of the present day Babel, and which seems now to be unanimously considered the wreck of the tower, is oblong. Again, we are justified in supposing that 120 stades was the length not of the shorter but of the two greater sides of the area of Babylon, because in the case of the temple of Belus our historian seems to have given, as the length common to all the four sides, what was in fact only the length of the two greater sides. As we have already stated, he says that the temple was four-angled and measured two stadea every way, while a solid eight-storied tower built in the midst mea- sured at bottom one stade both in length and in breadth. Now, Mr Rich gives 200 yards (that is, one stade) length as the measure of one of the two greater sides of the existing mound. p That Babylon was indeed surrounded by a quadrilateral rampart, as Herodotus intimates, of which the total length according to Ktesias was 360 stades, and neverthe- less that the four sides were not considered by Ktesias equal, that is, each of them ninety stades long, but that in his view of the matter, the inclosure was twice as long one way as it was the other, or 120 stades long and 60 stades broad, is, moreover, a conclusion that one should be led to by Ktesias's purely imaginary account of the P Herod, i. 181. The dimensions of the mound as given by Mr Rich are: The northern side, 200 yards in length; south side, 219 yards ; east side, 182 yards ; west side, 136 yards ; see Layard's Nineveh and Babylon p. 502, note, also Geo. Rawlinson, Herodotus vol. 2 p. 575 citing Rich's First Memoir, p. 28. Sir R. K. Porter, ii. p. 340, makes the north face 551 feet ; the south 552 feet long ; and gives the length of 230 feet to each of the other sides ; ibid. The stade, Herodotus's estimate of the length of each side of the many-storied tower, was of course 600 Greek feet, or 606 English feet, equal to 202 yards. 662 former and (as he boasted) the far larger Assyrian capital, Ninus, which the Medes had demolished two centuries before his time. By that account, already cited, Nineveh was quadrangular but longer one way than by the other ; being 150 stades in length and 90 in breadth ; so that all four sides put together, measured 480 stades.i Not only, then, must we believe the supposed parallelogram to have been greater than the Babylon with which Ktesias must have had a better personal acquaintance than Herodotus could have acquired by his visit ; but we may perceive the fact, that if Babylon could have been set down in the middle of it, its shape being similar to that of Babylon, its boundaries would have stretched beyond Babylon in every direction, so as to leave an interval of fifteen stades between each of its sides and the adjacent parallel wall of Babylon. In short, the description of Ktesias's Nineveh seems to have been based on the shape and dimensions of the existing Assyrian capital ; for such was Babylon in the estimation of Herodotus, Xenophon, and the Greeks iii general. 1 This is exactly the circumference attributed by Herodotus to what Ktesias represented as the smaller city of the two ; being the quadruple of 120 stades, which Herodotus made to be the length of every side of that great quadrangle Babylon. But if the imaginary Nineveh of Ktesias measured 150 stades in length by 90 in breadth, it contained but 13,500 square stades ; while Babylon, the smaller city of Ktesias, con- tained 14,400 square stades according to the dimensions given to it by Herodotus. If it should be suggested that this larger area of Babylon was not the area actually walled in the time of Herodotus, but the area reported to have been bounded by that outer wall which the evidence of Berosus and Herodotus put together makes us suppose to have been destroyed by Darius ; and that the report of this previous larger area waa transformed into a description of the former Assyrian capital Nineveh ; the observation is still just, That Ktesias's plan of the larger city inti- mates the Babylon which he beheld, which Herodotus had seen before him and which the companions of Alexander occupied after him, to have been not a square but an oblong parallelogram. It is to be noted that 480 stades' circumference, at the rate established by Herodotus and Xenophon of 30 to the parasang, gives three (army) marches, each one- third of a parasang longer than usual ; and we behold an exceeding great city of three days' journey in circuit ; see Jonah iii. 3. 6fi3 . According, then, to the best Greek testimony, the area of Babylon, measuring 120 stades in length and sixty stades in breadth, appears to have been a parallelogram containing 7,200 square stades. Now, if we take the side of the square stade to have been the true Greek stade 202 yards long, Babylon will be supposed to have measured 24,240 yards, or more than thirteen miles, six furlongs, in length ; and 12,120 yards, or more than six miles, seven furlongs, in breadth ; and, therefore, to have contained a surface of nearly ninety-five square miles. Now, after deducting the space taken up by the moat, the ramparts, and a roadway two plethrums or one-third of a stade in breadth, behind the rampart; also, the ground covered by the walls that ran along both banks of the river and by the Euphrates itself ; also, the area occupied by the palaces, the temple of Bel Merodakh, the great reservoir, the canals; nay, after allowing for a great extent of ground kept under cultivation within the city, the size of the area remaining may still seem incredible. 1 " We may be driven r For the open space, Me t;,\,9f. e , left between the houses of the city and the wall, throughout the whole circumference, see Diodorus ii. 7 5; and compare Curtius v. 4; " ^dificia non sunt admota muris sed fere spatium jugeri unius absunt." The Roman jugerum, considered as a measure of length, was the side of two square actus or " droves " that is (120 x 2=) 240 Roman feet. As to the proportion of the area occupied by houses and employed for the purposes of cultivation, Curtius proceeds, " Ac ne totam quidein urbem tectis occupaverunt : per LXXX stadia" (so Zumpt after seven MSS, instead of the commonly printed " XC stadia") " habitatur : nee ouinia continua sunt: credo quia tutius visum est pluribus locis spargi. Cietera serunt coluntque ut si extcrna vis ingruat, obsessis aliraenta ex ipsius urbis solo subminis- trentur." It may be questioned, however, whether these grounds under cultivation when Kleitarkhus wrote or when the Macedonians became master* of Babylon, were so extensive in the days of Cyrus and Darius son of Ilystaspes. For the deduction from the inhabited surface to be made on account of the river, see Diod. ii. 8 g 3, where he tells of Semiramis. Here we have two river-side walls, each ten yards thick (for Kleitarkhus stated the equal thickness of the ramparts at 32 feet or room for eight horses abreast, at 4 feet (the width of the Roman actus or " drove ") to a 664 to suppose, that besides the exaggeration which made the breadth of the quadrilateral city equal to its length, there horse. The two walls, then, taken together, may be put at one-tenth of a stade in thickness, which multiplied by the length of 160 stades, gives 16 square stades covered by these walls. Again, the breadth of the river stated by Xenophon, Cyrop. vii. 5 8 to be more than two stades in the part that traversed Babylon, if multiplied by 160 stades' length of the intramural river, gives 320 square stades covered by the river. Strabo, however, says that the river flows through the city cretticuot W>MT<>(, xvi. 1 5 ; while Diodorus ii. 8 2 represents the bridge, built in the narrowest part of the river, by Semiramis (or rather, according to Herodotus, by Nitokris) as five stades long. Mr Layard in Nintvh and Babylon p. 489 (with a reference to Col. Uhesney's Expedition for the Survey of the Euphrates and Tigris vol. 1 p. 57) describes the Euphrates flowing through Hillah, a modern town, occupying probably the site of an extramural settlement on the south side of the old city, as a noble stream with a gentle current, about 200 yards wide and 15 feet deep. This account confirms that of Strabo ; and from this we cannot suppose more than 160 square stades to have been covered by the river within the circuit of the walls. We have seen Curtius's account of the extent of land devoted to cultivation within the walls, at the time of the Macedonian conquest, and with this state of things the fact is consistent, that B. C. ;U2, 311 in the struggle of Seleucus with the generals of Antigonus to recover and preserve the satrapy of Babylonia, we read of no attempt on either side to defend the city. Seleucus stormed the citadel in which his children and friends had been placed in custody by Antigonus ; and where the partisans of Antigonus had taken refuge. And afterwards, when Seleucus's general Patrokles was invaded by Demetrius son of Antigonus, though his master had the good-will of the people, he was obliged to order the evacuation of the city by its inhabitants, and he only placed garrisons in two citadels (perhaps the palaces on opposite sides of the river described by Diodorus ii. 8). Of these, one was captured and given up to pillage by Demetrius ; the siege of the other he left to be finished by a subordinate when he himself was obliged to leave for the Mediterranean coast with the greater part of his forces; see Diodor. xix. 91, 100. This was before the foundation of Seleukeia on the Tigris. Writing as of his own time, Diodorus tells us ii. 9 9. t p(et%,v n fitfts i'xi7rcci, TO Si rAlTrnt if rti^cvt And Strabo, remarking on the result of the transfer of the remaining dignity of Babylon to Seleukeia, says, xvi. 1 5 XK'I 1> : r. xa.1 nut r, u.\i y'-yotl B,3vAiu>f jU.f/W r, 2' itr,us r. TOXX^. Such was the state of Babylon about the time of the first Roman emperor, and when our Lord appeared. The Babylon of the New Testament is a city standing in the same relation to Jerusalem aa had 6G5 was another source of error in a substitution by the Greek reporters of their own stade for a much smaller Babylonian unit of length. Observing that Nebukhadrezzar, in the India House Tablet, gives the measure of his lengths of wall in hun- dreds of " ammas," that is, as the same term in Hebrew signifies, " cubits ; " and remarking that the hundred cubits has the same relation to the palm or hand-breadth which the stade has to the foot, being six hundred palms, one might suspect that in the Greek reports the term stade was substituted for a Babylonian term signifying the measure of a hundred ammas, each about twenty English inches and a half long, 8 and that the walled parallelogram been occupied of old by the city on the Euphrates. This is incontestible as to the Babylon of the Apocalypse ; and as to 1 S. Pet. v. 13, ifra^iTKi ufj.it n i B/3uAi ruitxKtxrti. observe, that as ;, I*XIT is not to be taken literally, as some commentators have done very laughably ; but, " she who is your fellow-elect " signifies mystically, the Church in the place from which S. Peter wrote (as Churches are signified by the Elect Lady and her Elect sister, in 2 S. John 1, 13) so the city wherein this mystical person lived, is spoken of not by its proper but by its mystical name. Trajan visited Babylon in A. D. 116. xaCi tii-/nfti iy T aixr.uxTi it a iri-rt\iurr,xti. So Dion Caasius (according to the abridgement of Xiphilinus) Ixxxriii 30. Trajan may have found the palace still habitable where Alexander died. 8 The Babel-Assyrian inscription on the Michaux stone is strangely connected by an inscription in the British Museum, with the reign of Marduk-haddon, or Marduk-adan-akhi king of Babylon ; who, again, by the Inscription of Bavian is proved to have been a contemporary of the first known Tiglath-Pilezer king of Assyria, at about B. C. 1120. This very ancient inscription was long ago brought to Paris by the traveller Michaux from a palace on the banks of the Tigris, one day's journey below Baghdad, not far from the site of the ancient Ktesiphon. It is given in Roman characters and accompanied with an English translation by Mr II. F. Talbot in the Journal R. A. S. vol. xviii. pp 52- 76. Here we have a field measuring 3 susi in length and apparently half that, or 1 sus and 50 gar, in breadth. Of this sus or "Sixty " (applied to length of space, as Berosus applies the <;, r ? f , and {,. to length of time viz. 60 and 60 * 10 and 60 * 10 x 6 years) the unit is supposed to be the hu mentioned in the first line of the same inscription and proved by Dr Hincks to be identical with the amma or " cubit " of 666 described by Ktesias was but 12,000 ammas long and 6,000 broad, or 3 miles, 1553 yards long and one mile, 1656 yards broad. But this figure, in circuit eleven miles 1140 yards and containing a little more than seven square miles and a half, seems too small, or at least not to have sufficient length, when applied to the existing field of heaps traversed and briefly described by Mr Layard;* Nebukhadrezzar's inscriptions. The whole Sns is equal to 100 gar if (as it is argued) the breadth was half the length of the field, and if so, one gar (equal to three-fifths of a hu, amma or "cubit") must have been the Babylonian measure answering to the Greek and Roman foot, and the Sixty of cubits or the Hundred of Babylonian feet must have been the correspondent of the Greek plethrum ; and six such Babylonian plethra, would correspond with the Greek stade or measure of six Greek plethra. Perhaps, such a Sus or Babylonian plethrum is meant when Strabo (xvi. 1 5) reports the length of each side of the Hanging Garden at Babylon to have been four plethra, and when Diodorus (repeating here, it would seem, Curtius's authority, Kleitarkhus) reports the space left vacant between the houses and the city wall at Babylon to have been two plethra wide; Diod. ii. 7 5. Such a Sus or Babylonian plethrum seems to have been converted by Diodorus's authority (probably Ktesias) into a stade, where he reports the bridge over the Euphrates at Babylon five stades long ; Diod. ii. 8 2. Berosus, too, on one occasion seems to have mis-translated such a Sits or plethrum into a stade. For, whereas in Genesis vi. 15 the length of Noah's ark is 300 ammahs, that is cubits, the ark of Khshisuthrus is five stades long ; Berosus, quoted by Geo. Syncellus ; ed. Dindorf. p. 54, and in the Armenian Eusebius p. 14, ed. Mai. It is true, that the breadths are not in like proportion, 50 cubits and two stades. t From Amran, the last and most southerly of the great mounds, to Hillah is about an hour's ride ; Layard Nineveh and Babylon p. 484. From a line of earth-works on the south bank of a wide and deep canal, crossed near the village Mohawill on the road to Hillah from Baghdad, the distance to the most northerly of the great mounds, the one now called by the Arabs Babel, is about four miles, a tract of low mounds and canal banks. Between this and the southern extremity of the Amran mound, or for a distance of nearly three miles southward from the Babel mound, there is almost an uninterrupted line of mounds, the ruins of vast edifices, within a triangular space that has the Euphrates for its base, and for its sides two earthen ramparts whereof the one to the north leaves the foot of Babel and makes the apex of the enclosure by joining the south rampart about two and a half miles east-ward of the river. From the most southerly point of 667 though the walls of Rome commenced by Aurelian in A. D. 271, including those of the Trastevere and the Vatican, are but from twelve to thirteen miles in circuit." But again, it may be thought that the 120 stades length of one longer side of the area of Babylon, and 360 stades, the length of all four sides of that oblong rectangle, as we have learnt to regard the place, may have been parasangs in the original information, and that these (according to the custom of Herodotus and Xenophon) may have been reckoned equal each to 30 stades ; though for our own part (as for instance, on the road from Seleukeia on the Tigris to Agbatana) we have hitherto had reason to regard the parasang as equal to no more than two and a half English miles or 4,400 yards. This suspicion that parasangs in the original information, or similar Babylonian measures, were converted into stades in the Greek reports, at the rate of thirty stades to one parasang, is strengthened when we observe that the rectangle imagined (or credulously accepted) by Ktesias for the area of the vanished and, therefore, more prodigious Nineveh, may, no less than that of Babylon, be measured exactly by parasangs of thirty stades a-piece, and that thus measured, it becomes exactly one parasang, both in length and breadth, bigger than Babylon. If, then, we reduce to parasangs the numbers of stades given in the Greek measurement of Babylon which we have accepted as the most authentic, we find the outer line of the defen- ces, as it remained after the execution of the orders issued by Darius in B. C. 516, to be four parasangs or ten English miles long, and two parasangs or five miles broad : and thus we make it appear that the circumference of the city was thirty English miles, and its surface fifty square miles, this tract of great mounds to the town Hillah, as between the Mohawill village and the Babel mound, can only be traced low heaps and embankments scattered irregularly over the plain : ibid. pp. 491, 492. The longer side of a parallelogram of 12,000 arnmas by 6000, might extend from a little north of Babel to a little south of Amran. u See Murray's Hand-book of Rome and its Environs, ed. 1862, p. 5. 668 according to Ktesias, and apparently according to a stan- dard reckoning of which Kleitarkhus's is but an attempted emendation. But it is further to be observed, that in such an original description of the circuit of Babylon (with which we may compare that of Nineveh in the Prophet Jonah, " a very great city of three days' journey ") the parasang may have been a measure of time in travelling, an hour, and may have represented (by the custom of the country, or owing to various obstructions to progress in the neighbourhood of Babylon) a distance as much inferior to two and a half miles as is the length of the Indian coss. which is hardly two miles ; T so that the city might be not more than eight miles long and four miles broad, with a circumference about the double of that of Rome, and a surface of thirty- two square miles. Of what we have termed the moat authentic dimensions reported by Greeks, it is perhaps the breadth, or its proportion to the length, which is the most doubtful. We will now leave the enquiry ; with a misgiving that recent surveys and investigations on the spot, may have rendered it superfluous, by supplying a surer basis of calculation than the testimonies of ancient Greek writers. In the matter of numbers, our readers may be of opinion that a method of dealing with those testimonies, better than our calculations, is suggested by the example of Strabo and of Mr Layard in the case of Xenophon'a estimate of the breadth of the Euphrates at Babylon. Xenophon states it at two stades or about 400 yards ; whereas according to Strabo (probably following Kleitar- khus) and according to Mr Layard, appealing to Colonel Chesney, it is but one stade or 200 yards. * In Messrs Allen's Map of India, 1844, also in Messrs Walker's Map of India in Elphinstone's Hist, of India, ed. 1857, the degree of 60 geographical or 69.12 British miles is divided into 42 cosses of Hindustan. Four of these by two form a parallelogram of six and a- quarter by three and an-eighth English miles. 6G9 VI. AFTER a year and seven months had elapsed, Herodotus tells us, " Darius was troubled and all his army with him; not having it in their power to take the Babylonians." But in the twentieth month (whether of the siege, as Herodotus says, or of the new Nebukhadrezzar's reign, as reckoned by the Khaldaeans, or, both of the siege and of the space in some Tables of years assigned to the new reign) there befell a change. To shew what this was, let us first repeat the story told by Herodotus, then, make certain observations which it suggests, and lastly, offer a correction which seems necessary to restore it to its original shape. " In the twentieth month," says Hero- dotus,* (that is, as his previous context intimates, in the eighth month of the second Khaldsean year) "a marvellous thing happened to Zopyrus, a son of one of the Seven that the Magian was pulled down by, namely Megabyzus. It was this ; one of the pack-animals used by Zopyrus to bring victual to the siege a she-mule dropped a foal. Having convinced himself of the fact, and remembering what had been shouted from the rampart, that mules must have foals before the city could be taken, he com- manded his servants to keep the matter secret, believing that the impossible condition having by divine power been brought to pass, the city might now be taken, and that he himself was specially invited to be the great Benefactor by whom the service to the king should be achieved. However, he could not devise any plan likely to succeed, except this ; to desert to the besieged, win their confidence, and then betray them into Darius's hands. But how should he make them trust him ? Why, he cut off his own nose and ears, he clipped off the hair round about his head in rascal fashion ; he laid stripes upon his back, and in this mangled condition, the high-caste Persian came before his king. At sight of him, Darius started up from Herod, iii. 152-158. 670 his throne with a loud exclamation, and asked, Who had treated him so vilely 1 and What had he done ? Zopyrus said he had resolved that the Persians should no longer be laughed at by a set of Assyrians; and that he had executed what was necessary for his part, before com- municating with the king, who would have refused his consent to a scheme that was to cost his servant so dear ; but now, Darius had nothing to do but to perform his own part, and they would take Babylon. He would desert to the city, tell the besieged that Darius had treated him thus, and get a command. Then, on the tenth day after the one on which he should have entered the city, the king should post a thousand men over against the gate of Semiramis ; and again, on the seventh day after the tenth, a couple of thousands over against the Gate of the Ninians ; then, let twenty days go by, and bring four thousand men and set them down over against the gate of the Khaldseans. On none of these days were the troops so posted to be of a choice description or well provided for resistance. They might have their side-arms, that is daggers or short swords, but no other weapons ; and so, the Babylonians sallying out upon them, headed by Zopyrus, were to be able to destroy them. Then, after the twentieth day, straightway Darius was to command an assault of all his forces upon every side of the city ; posting the Persians over against two gates, the Belidan and the Kissian. Upon that, Zopyrus who would now be trusted with the keys, promised to let them in, and with those good troops to finish the business. These measures having been concerted, Zopyrus left the king and went off towards the gate of the city, turning from time to time to look behind him, as a real deserter might have done in fear of pursuit. Then, the watchmen posted on the (gate) towers, seeing him approach, ran down, and pushing one of the leaves of the gate a little aside, asked him, Who he was, and What he wanted. His answer preserved him from hurt and gained him admittance ; he was led before the authorities, was believed, and obtained a command of troops. Then, on the tenth day, according to the plan concerted with Darius, he led out his Babylonians, made a circuit to the rear b of the thousand men that Darius had posted first, and cut them all to pieces. The citizens were delighted, and became more ready to second him than before. Again, after the days agreed upon had elapsed, he led out a picked body of men and cut to pieces Darius's two thousand ; thereby gaining extraordinary applause in the city. Again he let the days agreed upon go by, then led forth to the point that had been named, and taking them in the rear cut to pieces the four thousand. This achievement raised the credit of Zopyrus among the Babylonians to the highest pitch ; so that they made him commander of the forces and keeper of the walls. Then Darius, as it had been agreed, ordered a general assault upon the wall, attacking the place on every side, and Zopyrus shewed what sort of game he had been playing. For, while the Babylonians mounted the walls and were engaged in repelling the assaults, Zopyrus threw open the leaves both of the Belidan and of the Kissian Gate ; and let in the Persians within the rampart. Then the Baby- lonians, as many as had seen the deed, fled to the sacred precinct of Zeus Belus; while those who had not, remained every man at his post, till they, too, found that they were betrayed." Such is the tale of Herodotus, abridged in merely decorative particulars. We must remark upon it in the first place, that king Darius was not with his army when Babylon fell into his power. This is plain from his own account of the event, engraved on the rock at Behistun. Next, we would observe that the foaling of a she mule in Zopyrus's quarter is clearly an embellishment of the story of the capture, added on repetition by one who bore in mind how it had been jeeringly said that mules must produce their like before the city could be taken ; but, not understanding the reference to Cyrus, took this for a b The expressions of Herod, iii. 157 which we have ventured to interpret, not "surrounding" but "getting round" the enemy, are xuxXAxra^fvtr nv( xiX< xari?o>ii/.iffTot, ttf T{iff%t\iovf ctttrzoXoTiffl. Hero 1. iii. 159. To shew that i,.<> T ,w, is equivalent to &rr i**.T/v,-. In the case referred to of Leonidas, it had been related, Herod, vii. 238, ii>.ivfft a.-TeTatu.ov7ct; r>;> xs~x.>.r* otvot.f,i it-re tl'{r,f. So, Thoas king of the Tauri (in the Kimmerian country) calling his people to the pursuit of Orestes, is made to say, r*Aj>^i sr*j.,u.i Hftat, Eurip. Iph. in Taur. ed. Matth. v. 395. Orestes, again, having bid Electra give the body of ^Egisthus to wild beasts if she liked, proposes an alternative. r, rxZltr 'iailfii, ttiOifn rixtm, vr,eLf ' t^ticof rx\wt. Eurip. Elect, ed. Matth. lines 901, 902. The ffxx-4-, like the Roman vail us, was a palisade used in fortification; pee Horn. II. viii. 343 ; Od. vii. 45 ; Herod, ix. 97. In Xenophon Anab. v. 2 the same stockade is called rxfaenf, "pales" 5, and rrvvftputr*, 15, 19, 27 ; also apparently x *s**f*, " a paling " g 26 ; Further, to make their way through this, we read, nut rrtwfcls ;**, w **e a-jnui, tif.ttuj. g 21. A comparison of the Greek and Roman x;<**" or valli is found in Polyb, xviii. 1. and Livy xxxiii. 5. Herod, iii. 14. 681 text. In particular, we should have had, as in the accounts of other victories in the Assyrian text, the number of those that were executed ; a record for which ample space appears to remain in the obliterated portion of the lines, as well as for the matters related in the Kissian text. Whether, indeed, Darius commemorated also that demo- lition of fortifications which, as Herodotus informs us, he proceeded to, is beyond conjecture. Whether recorded at Behistun or not, the act was his, not that of Cyrus, to whom Berosus erroneously ascribed it. The elder historian briefly states ; " He stripped them of their wall and tore off all their gates, for the former time when Cyrus took Babylon he did neither the one of these things nor the other." The truth, indeed, of this would seem to be incompatible with the account of the walls in his first book, which our travelled historian gives us as one who had surveyed them himself. But (as we have observed before) Berosus reconciles the inconsistency. For, having asserted in his account of the great Nebukhadrezzar's reign, that the city was fortified with three circuits of wall, he relates afterwards that Cyrus the Persian, as soon as he had got Babylon into his hands, gave orders to demolish the outer walls of the city. p Here, when we have substituted Darius for Cyrus, we are taught to restrict to the outermost rampart that phrase of Herodotus's which credits Darius with " stripping Babylon of its wall ; " though the historian, under the reign of Darius's grandson, describes the city as possessing still two circuits of wall. And, while we thus interpret our author's " wall of Baby- lon " that the city was stript of, to mean the outermost of three circuits of wall that it possessed at the commencement of the siege, we are justified by his adding of himself, that Darius moreover tore away all the gates. For the mention of this particular supposes walls which survived the afore- Herod, iii. 159. His words (which we have translated, " He stript them of their wall ") are, rQfm r rt~x,tf Tt{U?X. V TO. if* rf,( TAlf TI/X). Berosus, ap. Joseph, cont. Apion. 1. 20. G82 mentioned demolition of fortifications, but which were to be made unserviceable. The purpose we have reason to believe, was effected, not only by the taking away of the gates, but also, by the pulling down of the housing provided for men, military stores, and victual, in the rows of chambers which, like two huge parapets, ran at top along the edges of the outermost at least of the two remaining circumvallations.i The entire demolition of the outermost of the three ramparts was an easier work, by reason of the nature of its materials. For, while both the walls which survived seem to have been at least cased thickly with burnt-brick, well cemented, we learn from Berosus (when his expression is restricted to the ut- most) that one rampart was made of " mere brick without bitumen," or (we may venture to add) any other cement except mud; for by this "mere brick" we understand sun-dried brick. r If the outermost of all the ramparts at Babylon was composed entirely of this material, obtained from a trench dug on the outside of it, the labour would be comparatively little to throw it down again into its ditch ; and there would be this advantage immediately accruing, that the area of both ditch and wall might at once be devoted to cultivation. This wall may have had no gates of its own, but may have been bent inward in a series of curves ; its moat joining that of the second wall on each side of every gate of the city. Five gates of Babylon are named in Herodotus's story 1 Herod, i. 179. The space left at top of the wall between the two rows of building, the historian calls, e..w TI{I!'A. The demolition of the upper-works is implied by the statement (of Kleitarkhus) in Curtius and Strabo, that the wall was 32 feet broad ; wide enough for two chariots to pass, having each four horses harnessed alireast. Thus, each horse is allowed four feet of road, the width of the Roman actus or " drove " (left for man or animal to pass, between every two lots of land 120 feet square ; the pair or yoke of which was called jvgus or jugerum and each one act us quadratus ; see Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities). To overturn the ^eiu.a.x.iSnaf, seems to have been a dismantling of a place commonly resorted to by the captors ; see Herod, i. 164. T See Berosus ap. Joseph. Antiy. x. 11. and <-unt. Aj>in. i. 19. 083 of the capture ; the gate of Semiramis, the gate of tin Ninians, that is apparently Ninevites, the gate of the Khaldaeans, the Belidan gate, and the Kissian gate.* Of these, the second, the third, and the fifth seem obviously named after the people to which the quarter they opened from was appropriated; 4 and it may be observed in passing, that on the fall of Nineveh in B. C. 608, a large number of the inhabitants may have been transplanted to Babylon. The gate of Semiramis, we may be induced to identify with the one where, (as Herodotus says in his first book) the body of Nitokris was entombed over-head, and which was disused in consequence ; people generally shrinking from a passage that led underneath a dead body. For, as in later Greek accounts of Babylon we find 8 See Zopyrus's explanation of his plan ; Herod, iii. 155. The last two gates, the Kissian and the Belid or Belidan, are again named in the account of the execution of the plan ; chap. 118. 1 Compare S. John, Revel, xxi. 12, 13; Ezek. xliii. 30-34; Numb. ii. 1-30. u Herod, i. 187. As to the gates, perhaps that of Semiramis and that of the Ninians may be identified with the gate of Mula and the gate of Xin, in Nebukhadrezzar's India House Inscription (G. Rawlinson's Herodotus vol. ii. p. 585). Here, Mula and Nin appear to be deities presiding over their respective gates. Is Mula the deity called in the Akkad language Mulita and in Assyrian Bilta, the M U XITT and B^X of the Greeks, who was regarded as the wife both of Bel-Nimrud and of Nin his Ion? See Sir H. C. Rawlinson's Essay on the Religion of the Babylonians &c. in G. Rawlinson's Herodotus vol. i. pp. 595, 603, 604, 625. The Belidan gate, in Nebukhadrezzar's wall of Babylon, Sir If. C. lliiwlinson supposes to have been so named because the road through it went forth to a city the ruins of which are called Niffer, a corruption of the name in Semitic cuneiform, which was Nipur ; the Nopher of the tract Yoma in the Talmud, which that tract identifies with Calneh, one of Nimrod's capitals. The original ILunite cuneiform name of this city was identical with that of the god it was dedicated to, as yet unknown, the 2d of the twelve gods and also of the first triad of the twelve, who is called for convenience Bel-Nimrud. The city is mentioned by this name in the titles of the Khuldaean king, Ismi-dagon, whose accession is approximately fixed at B. C. 1861 ; see Sir II. C. Rawlinson's Essay on the Early History of Babylonia, in G. Rawlinson's Herodotus vol. i p. 437, note ; also his Essay on the Religion of the Babylonians and Assyrians p. 590. But, even if we suppose the corners of the (oblong) 684 Semiramis taking the place of Nitokrls, so here Nitokris may have been put into that of Semiramis. It is difficult to imagine that such a tomb should have been assigned to a queen who survived the death of the native king her son and the surrender of the regent her husband when Babylon was taken from its former kings by Cyrus. The Belidan and the Kissian gates must have been situated both of them at no great distance from the temple of Merodakh (or as Herodotus and other Greeks call him, Zeus Belus) whereof the mound now named Babel by the Arabs is supposed to be the ruin ; because we are told that such of the Babylonians as saw Darius's troops gain possession of the two gates fled to this temple. For they must have been near the gates to have seen what happened there ; while yet the temple they fled to, must have been the nearest place that, by its sanctity rather than strength and stores, seemed capable of protecting them. Our conclusion, as to the situation of the gates, is not a little confirmed by the name of one of them, the Belidan, which seems to show that the god was its special guardian ; though, on this occasion, traitor or impotent ; and that the quarter whence it afforded issue, was the one in which the god's temple stood, if it was not also inhabited by a tribe of Khaldaeans considered as his children and after him called Belidan. Of the two gates, one might suppose quadrilateral rampart of Babylon, to have pointed as did probably the corners of the temple of Zeus Belua, N. S. E. and W. (in which case the side nearest the temple, supposing the temple to be represented by the present Babel mound, would run from N. to E.) the situation of Nifler seems too far south of the latitude of Babylon east-ward to allow of the direct road thither from Babylon to have issued from a gate which Herodotus's narrative places near the Belus temple, that is, the Babel mound. The Belus or Bel of Babylon (who is the Merodakh of the great Nebukhadrezzar's Inscriptions) seems to have been sometimes identified in those inscriptions with the Bel of Nipur ; though properly he was a distinct deity, the ninth of the twelve gods ; see the above-cited Essay, p. 598, note. As to the Kissian gate, it may be thought to help the proof that this opened the way to the Kissian country, that Nineveh, too, had its Nuva (that is, Kissian or Elamite country) gate ; See Sennacherib's Inscription on the Taylor cylinder, translated by Mr. II. Fox Talbot ; Journal R. A. S. vol. xix p. 109. 685 the Kissian, to have been in the outer, and the Belidan in the inner of the two walls, which survived in Herodotus's times ; though our author in this part of his work (not distinguishing more than one circuit of wall in the defences of Babylon) supposes them to have been threatened and seized by two distinct bodies of Persians furnished by Vindafra's army. On which, by the bye, it may be appropriate to remark that these " Persians " would probably have been called " Persians and Medes " if Darius had told the story. But Darius does not acknowledge any Persian and Median division in the army ; and hence perhaps, his special mention of Vindafra. At the time of the city's capture, Merodakh's precinct we may suppose, in the midst of which rose, tower above tower, the high place of the sanctuary of the god, had been crowded with fugitives. Afterwards (whether it had been able to protect them or not) it was allowed we know to retain its brazen or copper plated gates. T Indeed, the reason of this is obvious. They were necessary for the security of the treasures which it was still permitted to possess. For, though we may be sure that its hoards were largely confiscated by Darius, the idol, sitting beside a table, which Herodotus saw in a shrine at the bottom of the tower, with the altar before the door of that lower or (as we may term it) downstairs sanctuary of Bel (for so using a title for his name, the people called the god) though idol, chair, table, altar, were all of gold, must have been at that time in existence and left in the temple by Darius for the worship of the people. Indeed, Sir H. C. Rawlinson considers the idol described by Herodotus to be certainly the same as the great idol of Merodakh in the temple of Babylon, so curious an account of which has been left (he says) by Nebukhadrezzar. It had been made of silver by an earlier king; but it was overlaid with plates of gold by Nebukhadrezzar.* The like Herod, i. 181. * Sir II. C. Rawlinson cites the India House Inscription col. 3. lines 1 to 7 ; see his Essay on the Religion of the Babylonians and Assyrians in G. Rawlinson's Herodotus vol. i p. 629, note. Sir H. 0. Rawlinson 686 indulgence must have been extended by the Persian conqueror to the golden table set beside a bed of large dimensions in the sacred chamber at the top of the seventh stage of the tower. There was also in the court below, when Vindafra took Babylon, an image of a man, 1 made of gold, twelve cubits high, and solid ; of which it was afterwards related in particular, that Darius was much disposed to carry it off, though he refrained. It was no longer standing in the precinct at the time of Herodotus's visit, having been taken away by Xerxes ; who also slew says "in the temple of Bit Saggat," understanding by the Bit Saggator Beth Saggath the great temple of Babylon ; and he concludes that it was the great idol in this temple that had the special name of Bel. On col. 1 line 5 of the Birs Nimrud Inscription Mr H. Fox Talbot remarks ; " At first I supposed that Beth Sbagathu was an individual temple so named at Babylon, and that Beth Zida was another ; but I have since found that in almost every great city there were buildings so named; and, therefore, I now think that it has the general meaning of " Temple " or " Place of worship." It is derived, I believe, from Shagad, " to worship, fall down in adoration before an image &c." Heb. *UD (Gesen.p. 763) from whence, as Gesenius well observes, is derived the Arabic shejed, " to adore " and mesjid, " a house of prayer," which latter word [signifying a Mahommedan place of worship in Hindustani, see Forbes Hind. Diet. p. 494] has become in English " a mosque." I find (continues Mr H. F. Talbot) that Mr Cureton in his Syriac Gospels p. xlvii. says that Biih Shagadtha means " a house of worship," and mashgad, " worship." And Castelli's Lex. Syr. p. 578, has Shagad, " adoravit ; " see Journal R. A. S. vol. xviii pp. 36, 44. In lines 15 and 16 of the same column, the particular temple at Babylon is called in Mr H. F. Talbot's decipherment, beth shagathu betli rob shamie u irtsit, subat bd Uu Marduk ; which he renders, " the house of worship (in Babylon), the palace of heaven and earth, the dwelling of Merodakh king of the race of the gods." Perhaps, the tower particularly specified in line 23, represented the heavens or stages of heaven ; and the court around it, the earth. Note, that this temple of Bel or Merodakh was pre-eminently ril, B*0vx>i !{*, as Herodotus calls it, i. 183, or " the temple of Babylon," as it is twice called by the elders of the Jews in Ezra v. 14, in opposition to " the temple in Jerusalem." The word /?*n which forms part of both terms (in its emphatic or definite form N^?*n) is equivalent to beth-rab, in the above cited designation of the temple of Bel, that is, "a palace, great house." * i3{(f, Herod, i. 183, to be distinguished from ?x/ in chapters 183 and 181. C87 the Priest as he was in the act of prohibiting the removal. This image probably represented some famous personage of the prosperous days of Babylon ; perhaps Nebukhad- rezzar; and was judged legitimate plunder ; the property, not of the god but of the Aryan conqueror. The Khaldseans asserted, in Herodotus's time, that the Bel which he saw with its chair, table, and the step or stand, (jSetyov i. e. paste), whereon the sitting figure, (if not the entire group) was elevated, were made out of eight hundred talents of They should have known, if they did not take into y See Herod, i. 181-183. According to Herodotus, the " Babylonian talent " in which the silver tributes were paid to Darius, weighed one- sixth more than " the Euboic " in which the gold was paid ; its sixty minas being of equal weight with seventy Euboic minds ; see Herod, iii. 89. But a more exact account is supposed to be found in the ancient writer followed by JEiian Far. Hist. i. 22 who made the Babylonian talent equal to 72 Attic minas ; meaning thereby, old Attic, the same as Euboic and still used in commerce after the legislation of Solon had introduced at Athens the smaller talent and mina, afterwards distinguished as Attic. This Babylonian talent, weighing one-fifth more than the Euboic, is shewn to have been identical with the -(Eginetan talent, from Pollux ix. 76, 86 ; each containing 10,000 of Solon's drachmas. The oriental origin of the Euboic as well as of the ^Eginetan weights is acknowledged ; see the article on the word Pondera by Philip Smith in Dr William Smith's " Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities." Two Hebrew talents, standing to one another as sixty shekels to fifty (the proportion of the Babylonian to the Euboic talent) are inferred from Exodus xxxviii. 24 &c. Ezek. xlv. 12 and a comparison of three manahs in 1 Kings x. 17 with 300 bekahs or half shekels, 2 Chron. ix. 16. Mr E. Norris argues for two Hebrew talents, that of the Sanctuary and that of the King ; the first the double of the latter ; and he cites the testimony of the Rabbins in the Aruch ; " The legal shekel is equal to four diiiarin and the dinar is the zuz (or drachma). The shekel of our Rabbins is but one-half and contains two dinars." He also cites the testimony of the Targum on Samuel, which translates " the fourth part of a shekel," 1 Sam. ix. 8 by &nn$ MT " one drachma," illustrating the fact that though the shekel (that is, two bekahs) was equal to an ordinary *-Tr;{ or tetradrachma, that is, a four- drachma piece or two didrachmae (S. Matt. xvii. 27) the Septuagint sometimes translates it, didraohma, meaning the two-drachma piece of Alexandria which numismatists inform us was equal to the Attic four- drachma piece. Mr Norris has passed to this question from the main subject of an article on Assyrian and Babylonian Weights, in Journal 688 account, the fact above cited, that, under the exterior of gold, the idol was of silver. Herodotus's account of this temple, contemporary with the reign of the son of Xerxes, shows how entirely false was the story, told to the companions of Alexander in B. C. 331-323, that the ruin in which it then lay was the work of the celebrated invader of their country, Xerxes. 1 After the battle of Arbela in B. C. 331, Alexander, on his arrival at Babylon, ordered the fallen tower to be put up again ; but between this visit and his return in B. C. 324, R. A. S. vol. xvi, in which from ancient weights found at Nineveh it is shewn conclusively, that the Assyrian Fifteen, Five, Three, Two and One manah weights, also Quarter manahs and Fifths of a manah, weighed twice as much as weights of the same denomination among the Babylonians ; the fifteen-manah Assyrian (or thirty-manah Babylonian) weight being something more than forty-one pounds English and (at sixty manahs to the talent) intimating the existence of an Assyrian talent of 164 pounds weight and a Babylonian of eighty- two pounds. The Babylonian talent, which the Greeks called JSginetan, was understood by Josephus (Antiq. iii. 6 7) to be intended by the kikkar of Exod. xxv. 39, which the Septuagint render i-aA*. The original form of this Hebrew word, according to Gesenius, was kirkar ; but Josephus writes it in Greek */*. On the weight of the golden candlestick, recorded in that passage of Moses, Josephus has the words, Avgy/ct . . ff-rot&LLO* l^cvfftf. f&tetf ixetTOr a.; 'E^acie/ u.lv xetfavrt x.'yx&ttf (read *%<, striking off the last syllable which seems to hare grown out of a reduplication of the preposition which follows) l(f tl rr.r 'EMtnxr,* atra^aXXoaiKit yXaffat, fr,u.tt!tti TX/.Z-.TC.*. These hundred minas, making one ^Eginetan or Babylonian talent, are Attic minas of Solon ; whereof three-fifths, that is sixty, weighed a little Attic or Solonian talent, and five-sixths, that is eighty-three and a-third, a big Attic or Euboic talent, while each one of them was the weight of 100 Attic drachmas. Accordingly, we learn from Pollux, ix. 76, 86 that the ^Eginetan talent contained 10,000 Attic drachmas while the Attic talent contained but 6000. That is, the JEginetan talent contained 100 (new) Attic minas, and the (new) Attic talent, sixty. Thus, the New Attic or Solonian talent was to the ^Eginetan or Babylonian, as three to five, while the old Attic or Euboic was to the same as five to six. * See Strabo xvi. 1 5 ; Arrian, Exp. Alex. iii. 16 3, vii. 17 2-4. The ruined state of the temple of Belus in the days of Kleitarkhus must be the cause of the entire omission of this great wonder of the place in Curtius's description of Babylon. 689 the preliminary business of clearing the spot had been feebly prosecuted, and the king thought to set about it with his whole army. Merely to remove the fallen mass of earth and rubbish, we are told, was " two months' work for ten thousand men," and after Alexander's death in B. C. 323, nobody troubled himself further with the enterprize. Indeed, it would seem, the Khaldaean priests themselves were by no means eager for the restoration ; or desirous (as perhaps we might express it) that the " tomb of Bel " should become once more' the " temple of Bel." Arrian relates, that when, early in the year before that of his death, Alexander approached Babylon from Agbatana, as soon as he had crossed to the right bank of the Tigris (at a point distant, as we learn from Diodorus, 300 stades from Babylon ; perhaps the place subsequently made the capital and called after his own name by Seleucus) he was warned from Bel by a deputation of learned Khaldceans, not at that time to enter the city, or at any rate not with his face toward the sun-down or leading his army in that. direction ; but when he came, to approach the city with his face towards the sun-rise. But Alexander suspected (not without appearance of reason, we may be sure) that it was on their own account they wished to keep him away.* Though Alexander thus suspected the oracle, yet his companion Aristobulus (as cited by Arrian) tells us, he resolved to obey its admonition in respjct of the direction of his course when he should enter the city. Accordingly, he encamped the first day beside the Euphrates ; (that is, having heard the message of the go.i;> -n.t *i).tui -r* p.i t f is l\,ff(jMt riT(af*.piter if radr? irtfrfi-^Ktr *>( in ifytit. 'AXA' ei yat^ tinrtfr.tett irre tuf^ufittf Crat ilaftti rut rn rre*Ti* " desiring to get beyond the part of the city that faced the west, and then to wheel about and lead his army towards the east; but the difficulty of the ground made it i-np =;>ible to proceed with the army thua " And why ? CTI ret. ATO tur/^at if,t account the inference seems to 44 For he was full of his purpose to restore the temple of Bel ; while the god had much land that he had been endowed with of the Assyrian kings; also, much gold; and out of this (arb roD ; query a-ro rovro-J) of old the temple used to be repaired and the sacrifices offered to the god ; but at that time the produce of the god's property went to the Khaldzoans ; there being nothing to spend it upon. b To restore the temple and to renew the services of it, might therefore increase the labour and diminish the revenue of the priesthood. The fall of the upper stages of the tower in the temple of Bel, with the sacred chamber of the god that had been at top of all, is exemplified and one (probably the chief) cause of it is mentioned, in the description given by the king who repaired the structure last, of the state in which he found the similar but smaller temple-tower at Borsippa ; the famous pyramidal wreck of which in our days is called by the Arabs Birs Nimrud. " From the lapse of time," says the great Nebukhadrezzar's inscription (which is repeated on two cylinders obtained from the wreck of the King's restorations by Sir H. C. Rawlinson) the head of it having meanwhile been left unfinished, " the building had become ruined. They had not taken care of the exits of the waters. So the rain and wet had penetrated into the brick-work. The casing of burnt brick had burst open ; and the crude brick of the bulk of it was poured out in heaps." The condition of the tower of the temple of Bel arise, that the angles of the Babylon city- wall pointed due North, South East, and West ; and that Alexander wished to reach the North-west face. Diodorus xvii. 112 (the placo referred to in the text) evidently following Nearkhus, represents the Khaldaeans as saying the king might escape the danger by stopping his intended march and passing the city, * { f'x9., r*,, WA./F. Here, too, may be meant not getting beyond a north-west angle but rather passing an angle of the city-wall which pointed to the North but was east of the Euphrates. b This statement would imply that the sacrifices and burning of incense spoken of by Herodotus as performed at two altars in the court at foot of the tower and in front of what we may call the earthly sanctuary, were no longer celebrated in B. C. 324. c See Sir H. C. Rawlinson's translation (sent from Baghdad Nov. 1854 691 may have been worse than this when Alexander first arrived at Babylon; and it is to Alexander's labour, preliminary to rebuilding, it is to the clearing away of the crude brick, turned to earth, and of the rubbish of the harder materials of the fallen mass, that we may attribute the fact, reported of the mound Babel, that the shape is not conical but flat-topped : shewing no traces of former upper stages. d In spite of this appearance, therefore, we may still give credit to Herodotus's description of the pile which Babel is believed to represent ; at least so far as the attestation goes, that it consisted of seven solid quadrangular towers (irvpyoi, or masses of but not printed by the R. A. S. till 1859) at p. 51 of an article intended for the first of vol. xviii. of the Journal but stitched up with Part 2 of vol. xvii. We have substituted " burst open " for " bulged out; " the Assyrian word uptaddiru being (as Mr H. F. Talbotin 1860 informs us) the T conjugation of the verb "IDS " to split," Gesen. p. 818. For " the terraces of crude brick," we have substituted "the crude brick of the bulk of it ; " the Assyrian word kum in the term libitti-kummi-sJia, meaning, according to Mr II. F Talbot, " mound " or " mass " and being related to the Hebrew and Aramaic Dip " surgere," whence the Heb. npip " height " Also, for " lay scattered " we have substituted " was poured out ; " being taught by Mr Talbot tii&tishapik (in the Senkereh Inscription, 15, ishapku) is the passive of ^]D^ "effundere," Gesen. p. 1032. Compare ishshafck 3 pers. masc. sing, of the present tense Niphal in Genesis ix. 6 of which the plural would be islishafku. The whole passage in Mr Talbot's independent translation (presented to the R. A. S. May 1861, without any such alterations as Sir H. C. Rawlinson's then recently published translation might have suggested) is this ; " Ob dies antiques in ruina ceciderat ; non curati fuerant canalea aquarum ejus; propria ruina ceciderant lateres ejus ; lateres pulchri vestientes earn disrupti erant ; lateres formantes molem ejus effusi erant cum ruina ; " see Journal R. A. S. vol. xviii p. 38 comparing notes, p. 47. As to the clause " propria ruina ceciderant lateres ejus," in his Additional Notes pp. 362, 363, Mr Talbot gives some forcible reasons that had induced him to abandon it in favour of Sir II. C. Rawlinson's translation. Further, we think that the term agurri, rendered by Mr Talbot, " lateres pulchri," is well proved by Sir II. C. Rawlinson in Journal R. A. S. vol. xviii p. 9) to mean "lateres coctiles," and that lie also teaches us well to regard the opposed term libitti (i. e. libinti) as signifying bricks in the raw state, " crudi laterculi," sun-dried bricks, such as Berosus seems to mean by his " mere brick." d See G. Rawlinson's Herodotus vol. ii. p. 576. 44* earth and brick work) raised one on the top of another ; the smaller upon the larger; and on the summit of the whole, an eighth story, not solid but having within it a, sanctuary, shrine or holy lodging, \r t l;, wherein was a table of gold, beside a large bed ; but no image of the god ; who, indeed, in this lofty habitation was said to pass the night in his proper person with the one of all the women of Babylon whom lie had chosen according to the priests to share his bed. From this account, and from our historian's silence as to its existence, one should infer that the sanctuary contained no coffin or trough-like receptacle, x-Ji/.og, such as appears in Ktesias's story of the sacrilegious visit of King Xerxes to the " Tomb of Bel." e Perhaps, the sepulchral chamber was believed to be situate in some other part of the building ; but the pile seen by Herodotus may have been already a ruin in the time of Ktesias. By this author's story Xerxes is made to have entered the tomb (whether through roof or wall) biaead-^as, " by a breach." It is certain that the gigantic pile described by Herodotus, is by Greek writers sometimes termed the" tomb of Belus." f As to the Ktesias ap. ^lian. Var. Hist. xiv. 3 and ap. Photium, Biblioth. cod. 72 21. In such a *ci>. s was deposited the tody of Cyrus, in his tomb at Pasargadaa ; see Aristobulus in Arrian Exp. Alex. vi. 29 and Strabo xv. 3 7. In the romance of the Life of Alexander by a Psoudo Callisthenes, the King when he was at Persepolis, is said to have seen among others the tomb of Cyrus ; f . Si *i&l ;<<; JJl m??, ixtirt m.unt i> xf vrf, rui\r,, (read rr, atT >.L.ro tl Ba^bXoi BrXar. Strabo, too, speaking of Babylon, xvi. 1 5 says, " The tomb of Belus is there ; now indeed demolished (and Xerxes, they say, pulled it down) ; but it was a four-cornered pyramid of burnt brick, itself a stade 693 means of access to the sanctuary on the summit, Herodotus says ; " There is an ascent formed to the towers on the outside, going in a circle round them all." From this one should suppose, that stairs led to the bottom of each higher tower in succession, not as at Borsippa on the same side, the north-eastern, but on every side in its turn ; so that the top of the seventh tower (that is to say, the terrace supporting the eighth tower) would be reached from the side, or quarter of the horizon, opposite to that at which the ascent began. For example, if the ascent began, as at Borsippa, on the North-east (not as in the Mugheir and Abu-Shahreyn temples of southern Babylonia on the South-east) it would reach the top of the seventh tower on the South-west side ; supposing the four corners of the structure to be right opposite to the cardinal points of the horizon.* By this interpretation of Herodotus we high and each of its sides a stade long ; the which Alexander wished to put together again (i*ut is there any evidence that the fall of the upper stages had taken place in the time of Ktesias ; that is (let us say) before the accession ot' Arsakes Artaxerxes Mneiuon '? We suspect that such was the fact, and that the story of the triad of idols at top, is earlier than Macedonian times, having been borrowed by Diodorus from Ktesias. 696 When Darius had exacted from the people of Babylon the full measure of retribution due in blood, he restored the city to the remnant to dwell in ; having probably (as, in the days of Xenophon, Cyrus was said to have done) distributed among his friends, houses of private persons and residences of hereditary or temporary rulers, giving them lordship and authority over the body of the people. Zopyrus was made governor. That is, the mutilated Persian having helped to repair the loss which had befallen his master when Megabyzus his father was governor, was consoled and rewarded by being put in his father's place. A large body of Persian soldiers was established as a permanent garrison in Babylon. These were maintained at the expense of the population whose submission they enforced. The practice subsisted still in the reign of Arsakes Artaxerxes Mnemon, and that it was then of long standing, we learn from the good authority of Xenophon. But when the same writer ascribes the measure to Cyrus, his report is of little weight. Like the demolition of the outer line of fortification which, though ascribed by Berosus to Cyrus, we have learnt from earlier testimony to attribute to Darius, we suppose the policy of the Persian government, in respect of its military occupation of Babylon, to have been first adopted by Darius. 1 The two revolts of the city in the first four years of his reign may be accepted as proof sufficient of the fact. ' \Ve apply to Darius son of Hystaspes what Xenophon (in Cyrop. vii 5 g 69. 70) has told of Cyrus. vouifas Zl Ktti BacptiXi'Kf /.]? ?iXj S|7 liiau IXKMVS, I'T' i*iiriu.t nurit -riy^mtt when he had his own body-guard just before mentioned, of 10,000 Persians. IITI xai ixolr./j.ai, Ka.ritrrr,ffi xa."i (as well as to his body guards) Xenophon adds, what we accept without modification. -rr J*iv tr, . . 1 697 VII. THE capture of Babylon was the prosperous termination of those manifold dangers with which Darius had been hitherto engrossed. His rivals now were everywhere overthrown. None of his nation could now gainsay the assertion, that Auramazda had given him the kingdom which the family he belonged to, the Akhsemenians, had been dispossessed of when Persis and Media and the other provinces revolted from Cambyses and owned Gaumata the Magian for their king. The date of his last achieve- ment the 22d of the Persian Markazana, the Sivannu or Sivan of the Assyrians and Jews, in the year B. C. 616 is, therefore, the commencement of a season of calm and comparative inactivity which may fairly be regarded as that in which, as the Hebrew, book Esther relates, the King Akhshurush (being probably again at Susa) re- membered Vashti, her offence, and his own irrevocable decree. His sentence had been, that she should never more come into his presence and that her queenly, rank should be given to another and a better than herself. Rich as he was with the pillage of Babylon, and perhaps full of the impression produced by its works of the sculptor's and the founder's art, he might now cause (as at some date or other he seems in fact to have commanded) her image in gold, to preserve and honour her memory ; but, breathless, speechless, cold, that could not supply the loss of her living self. a Therefore (as the final clause of the decree which banished Vashti warranted them) those who waited on him in the interior of the palace suggested, that he should appoint officers in all the provinces of his kingdom to send up the fairest young maidens that might a See Esther ii. 1, and compare Herodotus vii. 69 where it ia related that Artystone (" daughter of Cyrus," as queen, though daughter of Gobryas by birth, and identical with Vashti, according to our finding) was the best- beloved of Darius's wives, and that it was she whose image Dariua caused to be wrought in gold ; compare the expecting widower Admetus's promise to Alccstis ; Euripid. Alcest. vv. 300-366. 698 be found, to the royal residence at Susa, the king's partiality for which seems to have been already declared. There, in the House of Women, in the custody of Hegai, the eunuch, they might abide ; and when they had passed through the prescribed term of purification, the king might admit them to his presence and select one of them to be queen instead of Vashti. Darius acquiesced. In Susa itself, there lived a Jew called Mordecai, a name akin to that by which the Babylonians distinguished the planet next to Saturn the remotest visible to the unaided human eye. In Roman mythology this planet was connected with the god Jupiter, whose name it still bears with us. At Babylon it was associated with the god to whom the citizens rendered their highest worship, Marduk or Merodakh. This was their Bel, who, though he occupied at first an inferior place among the Twelve gods, seems, as the greatness of Babylon grew, to have supplanted the Bel of the first triad ; as Zeus among the Greeks usurped the throne of Kronos. Mordecai was son of Jair son of Shimei son of Kish a Benjamite. This Kish from his name, from that of his son, and from his tribe, may be supposed to have belonged to the house of Mephibosheth son of Jonathan son of Saul king of Israel ; and, indeed, that he was of the family of Saul is asserted by Josephus. He was one of the captives that, along with Jeconiah son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, the great Nebukhadrezzar had brought to Babylon in the eighth year, both of his sway as the king of Judah's lord and of that first captivity of Jews at Babylon which included Daniel and his companions. Thus, the great grandfather of Mordecai had shared in that second deportation of men of Judah to Babylon, which took place when Jerusalem, having revolted from her lord paramount under Jehoiakim, surrendered under his son ; and the king of Babylon left her, as his under-king, Mattaniah brother of Jehoiakim, having changed his name to Zedekiah. b b 2 Kings xxiv. 10-16. The descent of Mordecai from Kish the captive, is stat jd in Esth. ii. 5, 6. The clause " who had been carried away . . ." or a "Benjamite who had been carried away . . ." has been referred by 699 In the house of Mordecai, bred up as his own child, was his cousin Hadassah, that is Esther, the orphan daughter of his uncle Abihail. Her original name by which she was known among her own people seems to have been Esther ; and this appellation we would refer to the Assyrian ISHTAR, signifying "goddess" in general and the one represented by the planet Venus in particular, as on the authority of Assyrian inscriptions Sir H. C. Ilawlinson undertakes to affirm. The name Hadassah or Atossa, one might suppose to have been already celebrated among the Persians, if we gave heed to fragments of Hellanicus and to a pedigree of Kappadocian kings pre- served by Diodorus out of the histories of the successors of Alexander the Great. In ordinary use, perhaps, it was either Assyrian or Aramaic. In the cognate Hebrew of the children of Israel it signified " abninch of myrtle." The name may have been bestowed upon Esther when she was received by Hegai into the House of maidens, or on her introduction to the king, or, perhaps, on the promotion she attained to afterwards. But at the time of which we now speak (after the subjugation of Babylon in the month Sivan, or about June, of the year B. C. 516) the King's decree ordering the fairest maidens in every quarter to be sent to Susa, was issued ; and after a while, many such having accordingly been gathered together there in the royal mansion under keeping of Hegai, Esther also was taken from her home in the adjoining city and placed in the same eunuch's hands, d Josephus relates, that Babylon was the place some commentators not to " Kish a Benjamite " or to " Kish " (in the respective cases) the person last before mentioned, but to Mordecui, the person from whom the ascent to Kish begins. By this method, which has been urged not merely as possible but as the only one admissible, we might make strange nonsense of the fifteenth verse ; " Now whon the turn of Esther the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai who had taken her for his own daughter, was come . . ." We might insist that the clause, " Who had taken her for his own daughter " related not to tho antecedent Mordecai but to the first name of the string, " Esther." c Esth. ii. 7-15. * Esth. ii. 8. 700 where the beautiful maiden was found, e and that her uncle (as he miscalls her cousin Mordecai) removed from Babylon to Susa for love of her. This tradition we may so far regard, as to believe, that Mordecai and Esther were both natives of the Khaldaean capital, whither their ancestor Kish had been transplanted from Jerusalem in B. C. 598 ; but that before the second revolt of the city in B. C. 518, (perhaps as shortly before as when Darius left Babylon in March B. C. 519 to proceed first to Susa and thence into Media) they had transferred their residence to Susa. The keeper of the women was greatly pleased with Esther. Not knowing her people or her kindred, (for these particulars were naturally of little interest to him, and Mordecai, who seems to have generally kept them back in his own case, had instructed her not to divulge them*) the eunuch may have referred her to that part of the Babylonian population whereof she spoke the language, probably the Aramaic. He supplied her speedily with all she needed in order without delay to enter upon her twelve months of purification, or rather, perhaps, her twelve monthly purifications. Not till this term of preparation was past, could she be presented to the king. A measure for another purpose, but of a character very similar to this of the levy of maidens for the king's house, is assigned by Herodotus to this time. In fact, one of these measures may have been subservient to the other ; and both may have been carried out by the same machinery if they were not even both decreed by a single edict, combining a matter in which the king alone was concerned with one urgently required by the condition of one of the principal kingdoms of the empire. And this may have been the case, although of the two measures (or perhaps, parts of the same royal order) one was disregarded as not to his purpose by the writer of Esther, while the other, if known to Herodotus's informants, was a matter either considered not worth telling or which they gladly left in oblivion. Juseph. Autiq. xi. 6 2. f Esth. ii. 10 ; iii. 4. 701 Dreadful sufferings had been endured by the people of Babylon, the consequence of their revolt, of their long resistance, and of their forcible capture. The desolation denounced by prophecy as finally to befall, and which, accordingly, has now long since befallen, the great city, may have seemed already imminent. In particular (as we have seen) the female population, except a generally unprolific remnant, consisting of every man's mother and a handmaid to grind his grain and make his bread, had been strangled by the revolters themselves at the beginning of the siege. Therefore, to replace these wives and daughters, Darius imposed on the surrounding nations a levy of 50,000 women ; each nation having also to deliver at Babylon the portion at which it was rated. The edict was heard and obeyed ; and from the supply of women thus poured into the place, were descended the Babylonians of Herodotus's time ; which was that of Darius's grandson, Artaxerxes son of Xerxes. How the imported women were assigned to their husbands our historian does not inform us. According to the usage before prevalent and which our Greek traveller thought (or perhaps affected to think) so clever, no father could dispose of his own daughter. The law took this matter out of his hands. In every ward of the city and every village of the country, the maidens of marriageable age were assembled yearly, arid hurdled up together, while the men stood round them, outside the pen. Then, a crier began to put up the handsome girls, one by one, to be sold for wives to the highest bidders. When all had been disposed of, for whose charms any money could be obtained, the presiding officer next put up the ill-favoured girls, beginning with the ugliest, to be given successively each of them in marriage to the man who offered to take her for the smallest marriage portion or gratuity ; all such dowries being paid out of the fund which had accrued from the sale or disposal in marriage of the good-looking damsels. Such, by Herodotus's account, was the rule according to which till Babylon was impoverished by its revolt in 702 B. C. 518 and its capture in B. C. 516, the maidens, hand- some or not, who had reached maturity, were married off on a particular day of every year ; rich men buying the beauties, and poor husbands being purchased for the ill- favoured girls.s To the discontinuance of the ^ holesome custom thus established, Herodotus attributes the pro- stitution which in his day was the usual manner of life, and means of subsistence, followed by the young women of Babylon. h It seems probable, however, that the former yearly auctions for the settlement of new-grown maidens in marriage had originated among, if they were not also always confined to, the Hamite population of the country. VIII. WHILE Esther at Susa was in the course of what we might figuratively term her sanctification for the presence of earth's King of kings, the House of the God of the Heavens was at last completed at Jerusalem. We have the date of this event in the book of Ezra, that illustrious man of God, who states what was the descent from Aaron K See Herod, i. 196 and iii. 159. h The disregard at Babylon for the chastity of wives, daughters, sisters, except as a marketable commodity, is not surprising among a people who made it a matter of religious obligation that every female among them should wait in the holy precinct of a goddess till she was able for once at least to offer to the temple treasury the price of her own whoredom ; see Herod, i. 199. This estimate of female purity at Babylon is attested on the occasion of Alexander's arrival in B. C. 331 after the battle of Arbela. It is, probably, after Kleitarkhus, that Curtius tells us, v. 5 ; " Nihil urbis ejus corruptius moribus ; nihil ud irritandas illiciendasque immodicas cupiditates instructius. Liberos conjugesque cum hospitibus stupro coire, modo pretium flagitii detur, parentes maritique patiuntur. Convivales ludi tota Perside regibus purpuratisque cordi sunt. Babylonii raaxime in vinum et quae ebrietatem sequuntur effusi sunt. Foeminarum convivia ineuntium in principle modestus est habitus ; dein summa quaeque amicula exuunt, paulatimque pudorem profanant ; ad ultimum (honos auribus habitus sit) iina oorporum velamenta projiciunt. Nee meretricum hoc dedecus est, sed matronarum virginumque ; apud quas comitas habetur vulgati corporis vilitas." 703 which made him a priest in Israel and describes himself, by the business of his life, as " a scribe of the words of the commandments of Jehovah, and of His statutes to Israel ; " while we find him, accordingly, styled in the commission he received from our Darius's grandson, " a scribe of the God of the Heavens."* Ezra records it, that the " House was finished on the third day of the month Adar which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the King. b We cannot tell whether "Ezra vii. 11-12. b Ezra vi. 15. In the Esdras of tho Septuagint, the materials of which come chiefly from canonical books of Hebrew Scripture, at vii. 5 the date is in the same month Adar of Darius's sixth regnal year, but the day of the month is the twenty-third instead of the third. Josephus, Antiq. xi. 4 \ 7 makes the twenty-third of Adar to be the day of the year, but he substitutes the ninth for the sixth year of Darius. In this departure from Esdras , a book which we have found to be his authority elsewhere, Josephus seems to exhibit an element of the popular but (almost of course) erroneous calculation made by the Jews of Herodian times and alleged by them to our Lord (S. John iii. 20) that it had taken forty six years to rebuild the temple in the days of Zerubbabel and Jeshua. For nine years (assigned by Josephus as the age of Darius'a reign when the temple was completed at Jerusalem) added to eight years assigned to the previous reign of Cambyses by Herodotus (who divides the months of the Magian usurper's reign between the last year of Cambyses and the first year of Darius) ; and added to twenty-nine years assigned by Herodotus to the reign of Cyrus (on the supposition that it commenced immediately after the overthrow of Astyages) amount to forty-six years. Other chronologers contrived to make up the fabulous forty-six years without corrupting Ezra's date for the completion of the temple. We find them lengthening Cyrus's supposed reign as Astyages's successor (that is, lengthening the interval between Astyagea and Cambyses) from twenty-nine to thirty-one years ; and they interpolate a year for the reign of the Magian, though in fact he had no such year assigned him in Tables of Reigns ; his eight months being (as we have said) the end of the eighth of Cambyses and the beginning of the first year of Darius. But this manipulation 31 + 8 + 1+6 gives forty-six years. The great exaggeration of the length of time that the rebuilding of the temple lasted, was due to the ignoring of a Median reign which intervened between those of Astyages and Cyrus and was described by Xenophon as the reign of Cyaxares son of Astyages, by Daniel as that of Darius the Mede the son of Akhshurush. The next step was to identify the first year of Astynges's successor with the first 704 it was Ezra's practice to count the regnal years of the Persian kings, like the author of the book Esther and like the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, by the Assyrian and Jewish calendar, or whether like Xehemiah, his younger contemporary, he used the method of Babylon and counted as regnal years a parcel of the years of Khaldaean tables beginning with the New-year's day next after the king's accession. However, there is no doubt arising hence as to the number of the year before the commencement of our era in which the House at Jerusalem was finished. For it is the same month Adar, whether the sixth year of Darius began with the Khaldseans on the first day of Markhesvan B. C. 516 or with the Assyrians and Jews on the first of Nisan in the same year. Only this Adar or Adarru would be the fifth month of the Khaldsean regnal year, and the twelfth month of the Assyrian. It, therefore, coincides nearly with March B. C. 515. The House of the God of Israel being now finished, the Priests, the other Levites, and the rest of the Children of the Captivity, kept the Dedication of it with joy. In front, on the altar of burnt-offering they offered 100 bullocks, 200 rams, 400 lambs ; and also, for a sin-offering in behalf of all Israel wherever scattered, twelve he-goats, according to the number of the tribes sprung respectively from the sons of that Jacob unto whom the word of Jehovah came, saying, Israel shall be thy name. In the following month, the first of the Assyrian calendar year as it was also of the Mosaic, the children of the captivity kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the month, according to the Law of Moses. The males of the house of Aaron, the heirs of their ancestor's priest- hood, with those of the other families of the tribe of Levi, who inherited the subordinate functions of the holy ministry not such only as belonged to the particular divisions whose turn it happened to be to serve them before God, but all who were of lawful age purified year of Cyrus, spoken of in Ezra i. 1 ; that is, a year which began (according to Herodotus) November B. C. 558, with a year commencing November B. C. 536 by Khaldaean registration. 705 themselves for duty, and killed the passover-lambs for the general multitude, as well as for their brethren of the sacerdotal tribe and for themselves. So, all of Israel that were returned to their own land, whether out of the Babylonian or perchance some of them out of the Assyrian captivity, and together with them all such persons as, having separated themselves by circumcision of their males from the filthiness of the heathen of the land, had joined themselves to the children of Israel to seek Jehovah the God of Israel, did eat the passover. Also, they kept the feast of Unleavened Bread with joy on the seven days following ; because Jehovah had made them joyful. For it was by Him, their God and our's, the Only God, that the heart of " the king of Assyria " (so they called the present possessor, though a Persian, of all the dominions of their old Assyrian masters) had been inclined to favour them, and to strengthen their hands in the work of the House which God had condescended to accept at Jerusalem." They had possessed an altar of burnt-offering ; the daily sacrifices had been renewed and carried on there continually, ever since the beginning of Tisri (as, after the corresponding Assyrian seventh, that seventh of the Mosaic months was called) the first month of their old civil calendar in the year B. C. 536. This we say, supposing the first of Cyrus recorded by Ezra to have begun with the Nisan of that year. Otherwise, if the regnal year be meant beginning with the first of See Ezra vi. 16-22. The appellation " King of Babylon " is given by Neheuiiah, xiii. 6, to our Darius's grandson, the king under whom he as well as Ezra served the people of God. There is some evidence to justify the view taken by Herodotus, by Xenophon in his Cyropaedia, and by others (among whom we single out Ptolemy in his Canon of Reigns Assyrian and Mede at Babylon) that after the fall of Nineveh and before the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, the Kings of Babylon not only possessed Assyria and were in fact kings of Assyria, but sometimes or in some parts of their empire styled themselves " kings of Assyria " although the con temporary Hebrew writers designate them " Kings of Babylon " or " Kings of the Rhaldaeans ; " see Mr Norris's article on Assyrian and Babylonian Weights, in Journal R. A. S. vol. xvi p. 218. 45 706 Markhesvan in B. C. 536, the erection of the altar at Jerusalem by Zeruhbabel and Jeshua must be referred to the first of Tisri B. C. 535. But, whether it was in B. C. 535 or B. C. 536, ever since that event they would have been justified if, for the fast in the month Tisri whereby they deplored the calamity sustained by the nation many years before in the death of Gedaliah, they had substituted a feast of joy and thankfulness on account of the returning mercy of God and the mitigation of His chastisements. \et, till now in B. C. 515, during seven years of Cyrus, eight of Cambyses and six of Darius, for want of a D.velling-place of God's to look to and pass into from the altar, the Mosaic services for one-and-twenty years since the termination of the seventy years' captivity at Babylon, had been very imperfectly performed at Jerusalem. d 4 \Ve remind the reader that we have noticed four distinct periods, having alike a duration of seventy year* : I. The seventy years' supremacy of Babylon, which lasted from the overthrow of Nineveh in B C. 608 till its own capture by the Medes and Persians under Cyrus in B. C. 538. 2. The seventy years' Captiv.ty of Jiula'i at Babylon, fruni the beginning of the fourth of Jehoiakim to the e id of the hist year assigned in the Khaldaean annals to Darius the Mede ; B. C. 606- 536. (These periods are both foretold by the Prophet Jeremiah.) 3. The seventy years of indignation against Jerusalem and the cities of Jadah, spoken of as already past in Zechuriali i. 12 ; the same which we suppose to have begun with the ninth year of Zedekiah king of Jud.ib (or rather the year of Nebukhadrezzar therewith corresponding) and to have ended with the first year of Darius son of Hyataspes as reckoned at Babylon ; B. C. 590-520. 4. The seventy years mentioned Zech. vii. 5 during which the fasts of the fifth and of the seventh months had been first commemorated in Israel; commencing, we suppose, with what would have been the twelfth year of Zedekiah (or rather a month later, with the ; e ir of Nebukhadrezzar at Babylon therewith corres- ponding) on the first of Markhesvan B. C. 587 ; and ending with the month Tisri B. C. 517, the end of the fourth year of Darius as reckoned at Babylon. In a manner somewhat similar, there seem to be two periods of twenty-one years, in which the mercy of God to Judah is obstructed. These seem to be supplementary respectively to the two spaces of saventy years foretold by Jeremiah : the first beginning (and, there- fore, ending) two years before the second. These seem typified by twenty-three out of the twenty-four days of Nisan in the third year of Cyrus (Nisan B. C. 534) mentioned Dan. x. 1-4, 13. During three full 707 IX. IT has been related, that when many maidens had been gathered together at Shushan the palace, to the custody of Hegai, Esther was brought also unto the king's house. It is likewise to be remembered, that the maiden pleased the keeper of the women ; so that he speedily gave her every thing needed tor purification, with her allowances and her appointed suite of seven maids out of the king's weeks or twenty-one days of this time, Duniel fasted and prayed ; and on the twenty-fourth and last day he received a reply mentioning a resistance which it had encountered for one and twenty days. The years corresponding with the whole twenty-four days, seem to be two of Darius the Mecle + 7ofCyrus + 8ofCambyses ; + 7ofDarius the Persian, beginning by the Assyrian calculation with Nisan, or by the Babylonian with Markhesvan of B. C. 538. Now, in the last year of the series, the seventh of Darius son of Ilystaspes, if it be reckoned to begin with Nisan B. C. 515, we have an evident declaration that obstruction is a an end, in the recommencement at Jerusalem of the services of the newly-completed Sanctuary. In the tenth month of the same Assyrian end Mosaic year, we have the marriage of Esther to the great king; and this sign may still be cited, if the twenty-fourth year of the series, the seventh regnal year of the son of Hystaspes, be reckoned (aa at Babylon) from Markhesvan B. C. 515. But, as to the question, which are the two distinguishable periods of twenty-one years in this space of twenty-four years, we may say : 1. The first period of twenty-one years, beginning with the first regnal year of Dariua the Mede at Babylon, ended with the fourth of" Darius the Persian by Babylonian registration. It completed seventy years after and exclusive of the year by Babylonian registers in which the army of Nebukhadrezzar destroyed Jerusalem ; for at the first of Markhesvan B. C. 538, the beginning of the first year assigned to Darius the Mede, forty-nine years only had elapsed since the expiration of the one in which Jerusalem perished. And thus, it also completed a period of ninety-one years or thirteen weeks of years since Babylon began to sit as a queen, in B. C. 608. 2. The second space of twenty -one years is the one we have mentioned in the text. It was that in which the men of Judah, being returned from their captivity of seventy years at Babylon, struggled to restore the Temple of God, from Tisri B. C. 536, when the altar was rebuilt on the first of the month till the eve of that day in B. C. 515, the end of the civil year in which the Sanctuary had been finished and its services recommenced. It was a space the extremities of which were the first regnal year of Cyrus and the sixth of Darius son of Hystaspes at 45* 708 nouse. He also changed her and her maids to the best place or quarter of the House of Women. Under these circumstances we may be certain, that no time was lost before her " twelve months began according to the manner of women ; " wherein, besides other things for the purifying of women, oil of mvrrh was used for six months and sweet odours for six months. " Xow when every maid's turn was come to go in to King Akhshurush " after she had passed her twelve months' preparation, " then came she to the king in this manner. Whatsoever she desired was given her to go with her out of the House of Women into the King's Babylon, and it completed a period of ninety-one years or thirteen weeks of years since the expiration of the third year of Jehoiakini king of Judah in which Jerusalem first yielded to a Babylonian conqueror. And here, to us it seems worth remarking further, that between the close of this period and the commencement (as we calculate it) of Daniel's seventy weeks of years (that is, the first of Tisri B. C. 459) is an interval which may be measured by weeks of years no less than by years ; being fifty-six years or eight weeks of years, in duration, and comprizing the last thirty years of our Darius, the twenty-one of Xerxes, and the first five of Artaxerxes Makrokheir. Moreover, the Jewish civil years from and after the one which expired with Elul in A. D. 32 (the close, by our calculation, of Daniel's seventy weeks) to the end of Elul in the present autumn of A. D. 1866, fill up 262 weeks of years exactly ; whereof eighty-two extend to the end of Elul in A. D. 606. From that time or about the commencement of an apotacy in the mystical Babylon, shortly before denounced as such by Gregory the Great when it threatened to appear elsewhere, exactly 180 weeks of years have since elapsed. The 1260 years which go to these 180 weeks of years have seemed to many commentators to be the forty-two mystic months or 1260 mystic days of prophecy ; and to be the whole reign of the popish apostacy at Rome, set up by Phocas the Greek emperor in A. D. 606 and about to be abandoned, as it would seem, by the Frank emperor, Napoleon in A. D. 1866. Thus, from B. C. 606 to A. D. 1866, we remark, in the history of Israel ancient and modern a series of periods consisting of weeks of years ; Israel's captivity at Babylon, seventy years ; struggle for the rebuilding of the Temple at Jerusalem, twenty-one years ; interval before the rebuilding of the walls in the sixth year of Artaxerxes Makrokheir fifty-six years ; the Seventy Week period, 490 years ; the growth of the Church from the call of the Gentiles till the Roman apostacy, 574 years ; Usurpation of Supremacy by the Bishops of Rome, 1260 years. 709 house. In the evening she went thither, and on the morrow she returned into the second House of Women ; to the custody of Shaashgaz, the king's eunuch which kept the concubines. She came in unto the king no more, except the king delighted in her, and that she were called by name." So, when it came to be Esther's turn to go in unto the king, she would not exercise her privilege of choosing whatever she desired to carry with her ; " she required nothing but what Hegai the king's eunuch, the keeper of the women, appointed." Thus did she shew herself docile, unexacting, and self-controuled, on an occasion for self-indulgence which might never again be offered her, and at a moment when a desire to please the king's eunuch for the sake of future advantage could not have been a motive ; inasmuch as she was not to return any more to his custody. She was ever, we may believe, no less winning by her behaviour than by the beauty which had caused her to be selected for the king at first. It is said, " Esther obtained favour in the sight of all them that looked upon her." . Thus was Esther taken unto king Akhshurush, into his House Royal, in the tenth month, called by the Jews Tebeth, as by the Assyrians Thabitu, in the seventh year of his reign. It was the tenth month of his seventh year, according to the Jewish and (\ve make no doubt) the Assyrian reckoning ; but it was the third month of his seventh year, by the Khaldcean account so often explained. As Tebeth is one of the five months, from Markhesvan to Adar, counted to regnal years of the same number whether Jewish or Khaldaean, no doubt as to the year before our era in which Esther was brought to the king could arise from a question whether the regnal years of the book Esther are calendar years of the Assyrians and Jews or calendar years of Babylon. This Tebeth of Khshurush Darius' s seventh regnal year answered nearly to January of the year B. C. 5l4. a If we follow the indications given by Josephus and Philo, we shall place Tebeth as the month next after midwinter in the Jewish twelve- 45** 710 " Then the king loved Esther above all the women ; and she obtained grace and favour before him, more than all the virgins." His choice was fixed. None that had been already introduced could compare with her and after her he had no desire or curiosity to see any one who had not yet been presented. So he set the crown royal upon her head, and made her queen instead of Vashti. We have seen all reality of mourning destroyed at Jerusalem, both at the fast of the fourth month, Thammuz, and at the fast in the fifth month, Ab, in the year B. C. 516, by the news of Darius's having taken Babylon on the twenty-first or twenty- second of the month before Thammuz. This change to joy fulfilled (as we have observed) a promise of God's, made in Khisleu B. C. 518, that their fasts, commemorating national calamities for the seventieth time in the year then recently begun, should be turned to feasts and rejoicings. Long before (as we have lately noted) even at their first return from Babylon, the month Tisri had furnished an occasion for yearly thankfulness, to balance the death of Gedaliah for which the fast in that month had been ordained. And now, the mournful memory of the month Tebeth and the fast for the commencement of the fatal sie.ire of Jerusalem, might justly give place to joyful recollections in the years month. According to the adaptation of the Jewish months to the Julian year preserved by Geo. Bjnedlitt and referred to above, p. 107 note, the tenth of Tebeth was the first of January. Instead of tl.e month Tebeth, the book Esther in the Septuagint (followed by Joseph u*) substitutes, " the twelfth month Adar." For the text of the Septuagint Esther, we appeal to the Roman Edition, to the Alex. MS, and to Tischendorf's MS Frid-August. The text of this List MS (H portion, it ia said, of the now famous Codex Sinaiticus) differs as left by the first scribe, in this only, that it reads '&1u for 'Ai ? The correction of the text by a later but ancient hand from Origen's Hexapla, has been already cited above p. 106 note ; see Tischendorf's Septuagint, ed. 1856 in loco and Prolegom, g 31. In the note on p. 106 there is expressed an inclination to the belief, that " the Persians began their year at the same season with the Jewish Church." U'e have since learnt that the Mosaic year began at the same season of the year as the Assyrian ; and in latter times derived its month-names from those of the Assyrian months. 711 at least that followed this. That in the month Tebeth Esther became the Great King's crowned wife, was enough to make it no more a month of mourning but of gladness. On the occasion itself, " the king made a great feast, to all his princes and his servants, even Esther's feast; and he made a release to the provinces and gave gifts according to the state of the king." Thus, not only a sense of their duty as subjects, to sympathize with the joy of the king, but the royal bounty on this occasion, when announced to the provinces, must have spread festivity throughout the empire. 1 * It seems to have been at this time and for the purpose of this feast, as well as perhaps for the preliminary ceremony of a public selection by the king of the one among so many on whom he intended to bestow the queenly crown, that (as we read) " the virgins were gathered together the second time." The record may be taken to express, that whether they had passed in their turn to the house of concubines or whether they remained still in the first house where the maidens were kept, all who had been gathered to the royal fortress at Susa from their several homes,in distant or in neighbouring provinces, were now re-assembled. If the purpose was, as we have conceived it, honour to Esther, bounty to her late b Josephus follows some other authority than that of the Septuagint, when he makes the virgins 400. He is certainly incorrect in reporting the term of their purification to have been six months. He also writes of the king, ijtireu.'4/t Ttt*'jz urya^ovf \fyo^99vt its T idiot E(7au atvreie roue TOL{.uf aii-i,- is n/{Ti(u>us (of the Persians) xeii (of all the nations) iravrar ixiiret irixecifii f,fxt Xfi afn>2TTi O.ITU Mztui xfinnei tT>x.i xeti ritttt xai o.-/a.8ui. Addressing them respectively as friends and allies, he says, "flrzif It nifrait far) rolf i^iiois el CU.CTIIJUI iiaytuiTHfOUTa XKI f,u-Ht fri/ju x.(r,tu.i ir8o.il itrns revs itTifteus xa>-ras .xt( xo.} ixt7 i, tSru xi ,ut in roioZrit l xet-ro, -rr., 'A TfifHrSai, pr, xoLfikv irri TO.S 9-Jftt.t. rti-rtvf iTM . . . And here again as a witness to existing matters of fact. Xenophon adds, .T.J^r^Ji .j i ,Z, jS.c.x.i,, t., rlf w J ( , < 7, . cu f&iv (says he) wXovrSav t'ixtt jU-sVl* lyu bi returot Totr.ytt tutu' xo.1 ia> TI o.yoffti *{Z?f i", ?*J, ipi * ttunut i*i OCfat iii xxt r* T4 bzvTett. Ibid. viii. 6 10 ; also g 14. Those who owed attendance at the King's or satrap's gate, owed also military service if required of them. Indeed, it was that they might be ready to execute the king's behests, whether by head or hand, at home or abroad, that they were required to be ever in attendance. We will conclude with some observations on the attendance at the king's gate mentioned in the book Esther, as illustrated by the language of the version or paraphrase of that book in the Septuagint. To the term of the Anglican version "the king's gate," answers in the Greek the term ;x*, that is Court, or Court yard; the outer court being meant; see Esth. ii. 19, iii. 2, 3 ; iv. 2 (bis); v. 9, 13; vi. 10, 12. But the same Greek term corresponds with the term court of the Anglican Version in Esther vi. 4, 5 ; where the outer court is meant. In Esth. iv. 11. the English phrase " into the inmr court " answers to this in the Septuagint ifc rr., >.; T -}> . But it is not surprizing that in Esth. vi. 4 for the English expression " into the outward court " we have simply J if *ixf; in the Greek. In one passage the Septuagint version is obliged to distinguish between the Gate and the (outer) Court of the king. In Esth. iv. 2 we read, ?fxfii tut -rf,f *l*.r, ( (but avtft in the Alex. MS.) TOU 0* nVX07 I'K rr,t aiXr, i r? ixn, or (as Xenophon expresses it) i9tf *, or /-/, ri r.u.ttS,, as the text is said to be corrected by a later hand in the Frid.-Aug. MS from Origen's Hexapla. Here in Esth. ii. 23, the good service of Mordecai is said to have been deposited for a memorial J.if /s-,>./*ji ,s.0;u<>9r,*!. By his own account Ktesias, while in the service of Arsakes Artaxerxes Mnemon, derived the history which he published after his return to Greece, tx T $.iK*it 3f$df{ it tut ' \\('ffa.t TCI; Ta.>.etiet; *(eilte xttrot TIVOL *OLL&* '<' ri/triTaru.intf. see Diodor. ii. 32. If he really got anything from this authentic 715 There, for several years, it lay unnoticed, till (on the occasion of a terrible jeopardy which threatened the whole scattered people of Israel far and near in every province of the empire) it spoke to the king and along with Esther's intercession against their enemies, it operated to a preservation which is still commemorated yearly by the Jews in their present wider dispersion upon the earth But the story of Hainan son of Hammedatha the Agagite belongs to the 12th year of Darius's reign, which, according to the Assyrian calculation followed in the book Esther, began with Nisan of the year B. C. 510, whereas it is with the festival on account of Esther's marriage in the beginning of the year B. C. 514, that our undertaking is accomplished ; a contribution towards the connection of ancient Israelite with ancient Gentile history. The period is brief that we have studied ; yet the result is important ; if (as we think) it has been our happy lot though in an inferior department of labour to find the true position in history of one of the Sacred Records, and thereby (as it happens) to vindicate it alike from that absolute denial of its historical character which some critics have pronounced, and from the perhaps more- insulting treatment which others have thought necessary, when (in order only to misapply it) they have perverted or ignored its testimony in the chief particulars. It is now found consistent in all respects with the rest of the extant history of the reign it refers to, without having suffered violence in its statements as to either time, place, source, we may be sure that it related to times then recent ; and probably, was obtained at second-hand, as from some eunuch's report of what he professed to have heard recited by the king's reader or munshi, JjJF*u.<"x';<>*;f. Psammekherites, and it might be dreamt that this name contains in it that of the sixth Egyptian month, Mekhir, the MI Z ; { and M.^UJ of MSS of the Syncellus's work (vol. 1 p. 13) the month (as we calculate) in which Psammenitus was captured by Cambyses. For, as to the six months that Psammenitus or Psammekherites reigned, they were undoubtedly the first six months of the Calendar Egyptian year in which Amasis died and he himself succeeded to the throne; for (after the method pursued in Ptolemy's Canon) that Calendar year was counted his first regnal year. It was the year in which Cambyees had thought to find Amasis still on the throne ; hut, when he led his invading army into Egypt, he found Amasis dead ; he defeated Psammenitus the son and successor of Amasis in a great battle ; and after a siege, he took both Memphis the capital city of Lower Egypt and the person of king Psammenitus ; no doubt before high Nile. Now, according to Manetho (as represented by Eusebius at least), it was in the 5th year of Cambyses that the Persian conquered Egypt. Moreover, Manetho's evidence as reported by Africanus seems to be in reality the same in this point as that of Eusebius. For the m of Africanus in Dindorfs Syncellus (ed. 1829) vol. 1 p. 141 line 17 seem to be a misprint for Irn t the reading of Eusebius. Goar's Latin version has " quinto anno," and we are not warned by a note that the reading of Goar's Greek text was in, i but that one or both of the Paris MSS (used for the emendation of the text by Dindorf) give I, t. Moreover, that in, was the reading of the old text, appears from its being found in Routh's Africanus ; see Routh Rdiq. Sacrce, vol. 2 p. 147 ed. 1814. This also is the reading at p. 596 vol. 2 of the edition of Manetho's remains in the Fragmenta Hist. Grcecorum. The same fifth year of Cambyses, occurring as the date of the conquest of Egypt by the Persians in Geo. Syncell. vol. 1 p. 397, seems taken from a document already noticed (exhibiting a list of 86 kings of Egypt from Menes to Cambyses) his 16th and last 723 extract from which, the Syncellus had just given. According to Ptolemy's Canon, the fifth year of Cambyses was the year E. N. 223, the first month of which, Thoth, began at midnight with the 2d day of January in the year B. C. 525, and its sixth month, Mekhir, ended (6 x 30=) 180 days afterwards; on the 30th of June. We suppose, then, that Memphis was taken and king Psammenitus became the Persian's bondsman, in June B. C. 525, and that is before the annual Nile-flood. As all the previous Egyptian dates exhibited in our Table depend upon this, we will add that Eusebius elsewhere (quoted by Clinton) not only assumes Carnbyses to have made himself master of Egypt in his fifth regnal year, but withal places the event in the 3d year of the 63d period of four full years which began with the Olympic games; his expression being; " 01. 63. 3, Carabyses obtinuit ^Egyptum anno quinto regni sui." Now, this Olympic year began with the moon of which the full was the first after midsummer- day B. C. (776-62| x 4, or 250 years=) 526 ; for, in the first year of every four, the games were celebrated during the five days next after the 10th of this moon, (see Bo3ckh on Pindar's scholiast, Olymp. iii. 35. referred to in the article Olympia from the pen of the editor of Dr, Smith's " Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities," 2d Edit.) and we may venture, perhaps, to ascribe this time of the games as the third Jive-day week of the particular moon. Well, the Olympic year specified by Eusebius. which began thus about Midsummer B, C. 526, ended likewise about Midsummer B. C. 525 ; and it is the latter half of it which coincides nearly with the first half of the year E. N. 223, the fifth regnal year of Cambyses according to Ptolemy's Canon. To Diodorus also (i. 68) we are referred by Clinton for a corroboration of Eusebius. Diodorua says, that Amasis died what time Cambyses king of the Persians made his expedition against Egypt, in the 3rd year of the 63d Olympiad, the festival at which Parmenides of Camarina won the foot-race. It may be remarked, that the position in the Egyptian annals of this great epoch, the Persian conquest, was easy for the Greeks to obtain out of Egyptian Tables of years and reigns, and had in fact become well known to the Greeks of Alexandria in the time of the Ptolemaoan dynasty. Accordingly, Diodorus gives it in a place where he does not appear to have been obliged in any degree by his subject to hazard an assertion for which he had not very good authority. Of his tenth book, which contained the history of Cambyses and where the date of his conquest of Egypt might justly be called for, fragments only remain, whereof one or two only concern Cambyses. For the nature of the succession in the 26th dynasty, between the first Nekho and Apries, that it is a descent from father to son ; also for the fact, that Psammenitus was son of Amasis, we are indebted to Herodotus. The connection between Amasis and the preceding king Apries, by a wife of Amasis who was daughter of that Psametik the 3d who reigned at Thebes and whose wife Xeith-akri was sister to Apries 724 is given us by Sir J. 'G. Wilkinson on monumental evidence, in Kawlinson's Herodotus vol. 2 p. 387. If, then, as we have concluded, the reign of Psammenitus was counted to begin with the first day of the 223d revolution of a circle of 305 days from mid-day the 2Gth of February B. C. 747; that is, if it began at midnight with the 2d of January B. C. 525 ; then, the reign of Amasis was computed to have begun with the first day of Thoth E. N. (223 44=) 179 or at midnight with the 13th of January B. C. (525 + 44z=r) 569; the reign of A pries, with the first day of Thoth E. N. (17918=) 161 ; or mid-day 17th January B. C. (569 + 18=) 587; the reign of Psametik the 2d, with 1st of Thoth E. N. (1616=) 155 or at midnight with the 19th of January B. C. (587+6=) 593; the reign of Nekho the 2d, with the first of Thoth E. N. (15516=) 139 or at midnight with the 23d January B. C. (593 + 16:=) 609 ; the reign of Psametik 1st, with the first day of Thoth E. N. (139 54 ) 85 or mid-day 5th Feb. B. C. (609 + 54=) 663; and lastly, the reign of Nekho the First or his sub-kingship in a district of Lower Egypt, with the 1st of Thoth E. N. (858=) 77 ; or mid-day 7th Feb. B. C. (663 + 8=) 671. Thus, have we shewn the evidence on which the dates in the Egyptian column of our " Comparative Table " have been given. It will be observed, however, that the last date now mentioned, or the earliest in the Table, the commencement of the reign of Nekho 1st, stands on evidence inferior to that by which all the subsequent dates are established. This father of Psametik the 1st, in the 21st year of the reign of his son, the year E. N. 105, beginning 31 Jan. B. C. 643, was not counted by that eon's subjects the priests at Memphis to have been the predecessor of his son upon the throne. For (according to Sir J. G. Wilkinson in Rawlinson's Herod, vol. 2 p. 380) an Apis stela testifies, that a sacred bull born in the 26th year of Tehrak, died in the 21st year of Psametik aged 21 years ; the reign of Tehrak having continued only ten months and four days after the birth of this Apis. If, then, at the time in Psametik's reign when the bull died, Tebrak was held to have been the last preceding king, it is clear the eight years assigned by Manetho to Psametik's father Nekho, also the six years ascribed to Nekho's predecessor, Nekhepso, and the seven years of Nekhepso's predecessor, Stephinates, the first Saite of the 26th dynasty, wore regnal years of Egypt in which Tarkus or Tarakus, the last of the three Ethiopians who fill Manetho's 25th dynasty, was the real king of Egypt in the estimation of the highest Egyptian authorities of the year B. C. 643. The 26 years, ascribed to Tehrak by the Apis stela and placed immediately before the reign of Psametik, began, therefore, with the first day of Thoth E. N. (85 26i=) 59, or at midnight with the 12th of February B. C. (663 + 26=) 689 ; about ten years after the encounter within the Syrian border between the forces of Tirhaqah king of Kush (that is, Ethiopia) and those of the Assyrian Sennacherib 725 (2 Kings xix. 9 ; Iai. xxxvii. 9) at which time the second Shebek (called by Manetho, Sebikhos son of Sabakon) must have been the Ethiopian on the throne of Egypt. It would appear from the annals of Assurbanipal king of Assyria, who (if his father Esarhaddon be intended by the Assaradinus king of Babylon in Ptolemy's Canon) came to the throne E. N. 81, or in B. C. 667, that his father Esarhaddon had over-run Egypt, had driven out the unnamed Ethiopian master of the country, and had established rulers in the various Nomes or districts of both Upper and Lower Egypt, who were called kings and depended immediately upon the king of Assyria. These nomarkhs or district-kings, however, were afterwards put down by the Ethiopian king Tarku ; to punish whom, Assurbanipal at the very beginning of his reign led his forces against Egypt. He found Tarku in Memphis, and drove him to Thebes, called by him Ni'a or Xo as in Scripture. He re-established the petty kings in the several sections of the land, twenty in all ; the first of whom ia no other than Psametik's father, " Niku king of Mimpi and Tsai : " while the last is " Mantimi-ankhe king of Ni'a," or No. He then withdrew from the country, having regulated the tributes that were to be paid him by the kings. But these afterwards rose against the garrisons that the king of Assyria had left in Memphis and Thebes. Tarku re-entered Egypt from Ethiopia. Both Niku and another nomarkh of Lower Egypt, Pakruru ruler of Pi-sebet, (that is, Pi-beseth or Bubastis) are mentioned in the struggle that followed, in which the Assyrian leaders are said to have suppressed the insurrection. Sir H. C. Rawlinson (from whose account in the Athenaeum of Assurbani- pal's annals these particulars have been taken) remarks, that the 20 provincial kings represent the Dodecarchy of Herodotus, and we find Sir J. G. Wilkinson previously regarding the same Dodecarchy or Twelve-king administration (of Lower Egypt) as a government sub- ordinate to the king of Ethiopia. Both are probably right : though the mode of administration is only noticed by Herodotus as existing after the departure of the Ethiopian at the end of fifty years; a sum equivalent, aa it happens, to the total of the 26 years given by the Apis stela to the last Ethiopian Tehrakand the 24 years divided equally by Eusebius's Manetho between the two Sabakos. Rawlinson under- stands Assurbauipal to say, that Niku had a share in the revolt of the states of Egypt from the Assyrian, but Herodotus, ii. 152, relates that he was put to death by Sabakos the Ethiopian king, and that thereupon, his son Psametik fled into Syria, that is, beyond the border of Egypt and within the Assyrian empire. It is true, that though there were three Ethiopian kings, Herodotus has but one name for them all, Sabakos, who both conquered Egypt at first, and at last after a reign of 50 years voluntarily retired from the country. If Niku was slain by the Ethiopian king, ho was certainly slain not by Sabakos, either the father or the son, but by the Tarkus of Mauetho, the Tarku of the 47 726 Assyrian annals, the Tehrak of Egyptian monuments. The execution of Niku and flight of his son into Syria, shew clearly enough both how the governor of Memphis and Sais was looked upon by Tehrak, and that the Ethiopian at last recovered Egypt from the Assyrians. Tho return of Niku's son into Egypt, there to become one of the Twelve kings by whom Lower Egypt at least was jointly governed, is dated by Herodotus on the retirement, induced by a dream, of the Ethiopian who had put his father to death ; and he was brought back by those of the Saite nome ; Herod, ii. 152, 151. When he was again obliged to take shelter in the marshlands of the Delta, suspected by his eleven colleagues of aspiring to be sole ruler of the country, it may be hard to say, whether his treason was to the eleven, as Herodotus thought, or to a distant suzerain, either Ethiopian, or, as we should say, Assyrian. The monuments attest that (at a later time of his life, perhaps) he had for wife a daughter of an Ethiopian king called Pionkhe, and of Queen Araunatis who ruled at Napata, the chief Ethiopian city of the time, under " the sacred mountain," now called Gebel Berkal ; see Sir J. G. W. in Eawlinson's Herodotus vol. 2 p. 381. This fact may be taken for proof sufficient, that, ultimately at least, he was ac- knowledged by the Ethiopian to be his brother the king of Egypt. Also, the fact owned during his own reign, that Tehrak (the Ethiopian) was his immediate predecessor, seems to urge the conclusion that, after Tehrak's death or resignation of the government, Psametik having (either then or previously) aspired to become king instead of nomarkh, and having had to fly to the marshlands in consequence, ultimately compassed his desire ; and that afterwards, his regnal years were counted (whatever the interval may have been before he really became king) as if they had followed those of Tehrak without dispute or in- terruption. The story told by Herodotus, that this king captured Azotus (Ashdod) a great city of (Philistine) Syria, after a siege of nine and twenty years (Herod, ii. 157) looks like the distortion of a much more credible fact that, having been at war with the Assyrians by whom the Philistine country was occupied, from the beginning of his reign, at last in his 29th year he made himself master of Azotus. The 29th of Psametik would seem from our Table to be the last but one of the reign of Phraortes the first king of the Medes, who became a formidable neighbour to Assyria ; though he miscarried at last : Herod, i. 102. It was some six or seven years at the least after this supposed date of the capture of Azotus, when the Scythians (Herod, i. 105) by whose aid the Assyrians had lately vanquished Cyaxares son of Phraortes king of the Medes, and seem to have recovered for a while their dominion in Asia, marching against Egypt, were met by Psametik within the border of Syria, and were induced by gifts and fair speeches to retire. Yet the temple which they pillaged on their way as they went off by Askalon, being nearer to Egypt than Ashdod, may have been situate 727 within the range of Psametik's acquisitions in Syria ; though the Assyrians might seem to have been still in possession of Gaza (Kadytis) the southernmost of the Philistine cities, if we believed, as Herodotus tells us, that it was taken by Psametik's son, Nekho, in consequence of a victory which he gained over the Syrians in Magdolus. But, as Herodotus has probably substituted a defeat of the Syrians at Migdol or Magdolus on the confines of Egypt for the defeat of Josiah king of Judah " at Megiddo ; " " in the valley of Megiddo," that is (apparently) in the valley of the river Kishon, two or three marches from the northernmost Philistine city, so he seems to have substituted Kadytis (that is, Gaza) for Karkemish on the Euphrates, Nekho's object, which the king after his victory probably obtained, or Jerusalem which certainly fell into his power ; see Herod, ii. 159 ; 2 Kings xxiii. 29-35, 2 Chron. xxxv. 20-24. xxxvi. 3, 4. For Migdol or Magdolus, see Exod. xiv. 2, Jerem. xlvi. 14 (or in the Septuagint xxvi. 14) Ezek. xxix. 10, and xxx. 6 as translated in the Septuagint. For Megiddo, see " Lands of the Bible " vol. 2 p. 86 where the author Dr Wilson remarks, that the Waters of Megiddo in Judg. v. 19 probably mean the Kishon, now called Makatt'a. Nekho certainly advanced after hia victory as far as Hiblah in the land of Hamath ; 2 Kings xxiii. 33. Herodotus (or rather his informants) whom we suppose mistaken in the geography of Nekho's wars, certainly erred in dating them later in his reign than his digging of the canal from the Nile to the Red Sea ; for it will be seen from our Table that his first expedition to Karkemish was in the very first year of his reign B.C. 609 and his second (when hia enemy was no longer the Assyrian but the Chaldaean inheritor of the power of fallen Nineveh, and when he suffered a great defeat) was in B. C. 605, the fifth of his reign ; see Jerem. xlvi. 2. It may be a trivial observation suggested by the Table, that Astyages king of the Medea and Nekho's son Psametik the 2d, began to reign in the same year ; but it is not such to remark that Psametik the 2d, was succeeded by Apries, that is, by Pharaoh-hophra, in the very year when Jerusalem was at last taken and destroyed by Nebukhadrezzar ; because it suggests that the sudden retreat of the Egyptian army and the resumption of the siege of Jerusalem by the Chaldseans, who had abandoned it on the approach of the Egyptians, may have been connected with the death of the Egyptian king ; see Jeremiah xxxvii. 5-15 ; xxxiv. 21, 22. We will say no more of the reign of Apries than this ; That his sea-fight with " the Tyrian," and his expedition against Sidon, if accurately ascribed to him by Herodotus ii. 161 must have happened during the reign of Eithobal king of Tyre, when Nebukhadrezzar besieged Tyre for 13 years according to the Phoenician annals of Philostratus cited by Josephus, cont. Apion. i. 21 and Antiq. x. 11. For, after Tyre (the old Tyre on the mainland) was taken by Xehukhadrezzar, Apries was invaded about B. C. 571 ; see Ezek. xxix. "l 7-20, Jerem. xliv. 30, xliii. 10, xlvi, 13, 26. And in B. . 569 it appears from the Table, he was a prisoner in the 47* 728 hands of Amasis : while, divided apparently for a time between Amasis and Psametik the 3d, the latter reigning in Upper Egypt and Amasis in the Lower, the whole country came into a state of vassalage to Babylon. On the remaining personages of this column, mention will be made in the second article of this Appendix, "On the position in Persian History of the 28th, 29th, and 30th, Egyptian dynasties." B As to the succeeding columns of our Table, the reader is given to under- stand, by a note added to the Table itself, that Ptolemy's Canon of Reigns is the authority for all the dates in the Column of Kings of Baijylon; for the dates of the reigns of Cyrus the 3d and Cambyses the 3d, in the Column of Median Kings ; and for the dates in the column of Persian Kings, attached all of them to reigns following that of Cambyses the 3d, and like his, like his father's, and like those of the kings in the second column, reigns at Babylon belonging to Ptolemy's List. An inaccuracy in this statement shall be noticed in the next section to this. (Section C.) The relationships or consanguinities exhibited in our column of (Native) kings of Babylon, are warranted for the first four kings by the Khaldaean historian Berosus, as cited by Josephus Antiq. xi. 11 and cont. Apion. i. 19, 20. In the same passages, Berosua confirms the Canon of Ptolemy as to the length of each of these reigns and also of that of Nabonnedus (the Nabunita or Nabunahita of the monuments) who in the Canon is named Nabonadius. These five numerical particulars are found in the second column of Ptolemy's Canon, the column of Years of the Reigns ; where also each of them stands, on the same line from left to right with the king it belongs to in Ptolemy's first column ; the column of Kings. The Canon will be exhibited below in Article iii. of this Appendix. That Nebukhadrezzar was son of Nabopolassar, is also established by existing monumental evidence. Nebukhadrezzar king of Babylon calls himself eldest son of Nabopolassar king of Babylon, on a Cylinder now in the British Museum, which was found by Mr W. K. Loftus at Senkerch, in the ruin of the Temple of the Sun, and a copy of which in the Roman character with an English translation and notes is given by Mr H. Fox Talbot in the R. A. S. 's Journal vol. xix. pp. 187-192. Also, Nebukhadrezzar makes a similar assertion on the Birs Nimrud Cylinders, obtained by Sir II. C. Rawlinson, and given in Roman character with English translation and notes by Mr II. F. Talbot in the Journal R. A. S. vol. xviii. pp. 35-52. That Evil-Merodakh (mentioned 2 Kings xxv. 27 and Jerem. Hi. 31) was a son, and that BekiuuBMT (whose reign is recorded by Dauk'l) was a son's son, of NcbukhaJrezzar, is intimated by Jeremiah, at xxvii. 7, 729 where it ia related how having ordered the prophet to preface his words with a parable in dumb-ehew, making bonds and yokes, putting them on his neck ; and then taking them off and sending them to the king of Edom, the king of Moab, the king of Ammon, the king of Tyre, and the king of Zidon, by the hand of messengers that had come from those kings to Zedekiah (Nebukhadrezzar's vassal, who had rebelled or was purposing rebellion at Jerusalem) God dictated a message to be added from Himself, the God of Israel, Who had made the earth with the man and the beast that are upon it, and had given it to whomsoever it seemed meet to Him, that He now had given all these countries into the hand of Nebukhadrezzar king of Babylon His servant, and that all nations thereof were to serve Nebukhadrezzar and his son and his son's son until the very end of his land should come. This evidence, however, would not be sufficient alone to establish the relationship of either Evil-Merodakh or Belshazzar to Nebukhadrezzar. But in the case of Evil-Merodakh, we have the positive testimony of Berosus, already referred to, that he was the son as well as the successor of Nebukhadrezzar. And Berosus in this and his other statements of relationship, is confirmed as we shall see by Abydenus. But that Belshazzar is referred to in the term, " son's son " of the passage above cited from Jeremiah, might be disputed with the greater force, because (in a passage already referred to) Berosus records that Evil-Merodakh's sister's husband Neriglissar murdered Evil-Merodakh, succeeded him on the throne, reigned (as Ptolemy's Canon likewise testifies) four years, and left the throne to his son Laborosoarkhod ; who in fact (till on whatever occasion he was beaten to death by the courtiers) occupied it for nine months, though no year was assigned him in Tables of Years and Reigns at Babylon. For Laborosoarkhod may be presumed to have been son of Neriglissar by his wife, the sister of Evil-Merodakh, in which case the boy would be by his mother, grandson of Nebukhadrezzar ; and might, perhaps, even be not incorrectly called his son's son; Neriglissar his father, being perhaps considered to have been made by his marriage a son of Nebukhadrezzar. (Note, that Neriglissar was, perhaps, the son of a person who had filled Nebukha- drezzar's place for seven years during Nebukhadrezzar's abasement to the mental condition of a brute animal ; for, in inscriptions of his he calls himself son of Bil-zikkar-iskun king of Babylon ; see G. Rawlinson's Herodotus vol. 1 p. 518). On what authority, then, have we in our Comparative Table of Descents exhibited Belshazzar as son of a son of Nebukhadrezzar's, probably Evil-Merodakh, by a queen Nitokris, afterwards wife of Nabonnedus or Nabanita? It is well known, that before certain late discoveries of monumental evidence, the statement joined in by Berosus and by Ptolemy's Canon on the one hand and the Book of the Prophet Daniel on the other, seemed to offer us irreconciliuble facts. The former evidence omitted all 730 mention of Belshazzar and stated that, on the murder of Laborosoarkhod, the conspirators met and invested a certain Babylonian named Nabonnedus, one of their number, with the royal authority, and that he exercised it till, in the 17th year of his reign, Cyrus the Persian invaded the country ; whereupon Nabonnedus, having been defeated in battle, took refuge in Borsippa and on the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, surrendered himself with his stronghold to the conqueror, by whom he was well treated and sent away to spend the rest of his days in Karmania. On the other hand, according to Daniel (chap, v) Belshazzar was the king of Babylon when what Jeremiah calls " the very end of Nebukhadrezzar's land " arrived, and the kingdom was given into the hands of the Medes and Persians. We are told that he was giving a great feast when the sentence of God was declared; that he was slain the same night; and that Darius the Mede took the kingdom. That the place of the feast and of Belshazzar's death was Babylon, appears, perhaps from all the circumstances, but certainly from this ; that among the vessels of gold upon the banquet table, were those that Nebukhadrezzar had brought out of the temple of the God of Israel at Jerusalem and had deposited in the temple (of Bel) at Babylon ; Compare Daniel v. 2 with Ezra i. 7 ; v. 14; vi. 6. Therefore, since not only the names are different but the fortunes also of Nabonnedus and Belshazzar, (the latter slain in the capture of Babylon, the other surviving that event,) we cannot, without violence to the evidence, identify Belshazzar with Nabonnedus ; though Josephus did so of old, and Prideaux has done the same in modern times ; see Joseph. Antiq. x. 12, and Prideaux's, " Connection of the history of the Old and New Testament," vol. 1 p. 158 ed. 1820. Moreover, the special particular in which Daniel's Belshazzar differs from the Nabonnedus of Berosus, is attested by Xenophon Cyrop. vii. 5 28-30 where he describes minutely how the king of Babylon was slain in that night of banqueting within, when Cyrus at the head of the Medes and Persians surprized the city and won it from the confederates. Nevertheless, it was impossible with due regard for the testimony of the witnesses concerning the end of Belshazzar's reign and the end of that of Nabonnedus, to separate the "time of the one reign from the time of the other ; the first and third years of which appear as dates of visions of Daniel (in Dan. vii. 1 and Dan. viii. 1). This, however, has been attempted ; e. g. in the document (a corrupted edition of Ptolemy's Canon) preserved by Geo. Syncellus under the name of the Ecclesiastical Canon, where Belshazzar is identified with Neriglissar, while Nabonnedus, Astyages, Darius son of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes are made to be one and the same person ; see Geo. Syncell. ed. Dindorf. vol. 1 p. 393. But the two kings manifestly jostled one another in the same period at Babylon. To wait for fresh evidence before deciding on the reconciliation of Daniel's narrative with that of Berosus and others, was all that remained 731 for fair and prudent men to do. Nevertheless, to deal with the difficulty, oa with the Gordian Knot, by refusing credence to one or other of the seemingly opposite accounts, was a more congenial course to many. Besides, such hasty decision would have been accounted bigotry in those only who being persuaded of the Hebrew prophet's credibility, might be so rash as to reject the Khaldsean evidence. For to have discarded Daniel's story as unworthy of attention, being only that of one of the Church's prophets, might be regarded in a certain boastful school which enjoys great credit in the literary world, as a laudable freedom from prejudice or a piece of Philosophic Liberality. But after all, what would have happened? Stores are accumulated of disinterred rolic-s of Assyria and Babylon. Among these are numerous records of Nabonnedus's reign, which, for a while, indeed, might delight us by their confirmation of the premises at least of our rationalistic argument, " There was a Nabonnedus ; therefore, there never was a Belshazzar." But by and bye, to our confusion out come four cylinders from their several holes within the solid brickwork of the four corners of an old Khaldaean ruin at the place now called Muqeyer or Mugheir. The prisons which had preserved them so long, were broken open, and they were brought forth in triumph to be placed in the British Museum by Mr J. E. Taylor ; and the reader may find the single inscription repeated for safety's sake on all the cylinders, still more likely to survive the vicissitudes of time, as long as men shall live upon the earth, by its transliteration into the Roman character, and its appearing with an English Version and Notes (the work of Mr H. Fox Talbot) in the R. A. S. 's Journal vol. xix. pp. 193-198, (to say nothing of the copies in paper and print of the cuneiform text itself, which we believe the authorities of the British Museum have issued to the world). For the discovery of the cylinders by Mr. Taylor, see the R. A. S.'s Journal vol. xv. pp. 263, 264. Inscribed upon them are words of Nabunita, Nabo-Nid, or Nabunahid ; the Nabonnedus, Labynetus, or Nabonadius of Berosus, Herodotus, and Ptolemy's Canon. He commemorates in the first of two columns of inscription, bis rebuilding of the structure in which the cylinders were deposited ; a temple- tower dedicated to the Moon-god and reared at first in the earliest period of the Khaldsean monarchy. The second and last column is a prayer to the god whose name was San or Sin : (compare Sir H. C. Rawlinson's account of this god in his brother's Herodotus, vol. 1 pp. 614-618). After other petitions come the following, according to Mr Talbot's translation ; " And as for me, Nabo-Nid king of Babylon ; preserve thou me in the pure faith of thy great divinity : Give me abundance of length of days, even to overflowing I And to Bd-sar-ussur, my eldest son, my rising hope, fix firmly in his heart the awe of thy great divinity ! " Belshazzar, then, was the eldest son of Nabonnedus, or at least was so entitled. But it seems to be an honour not commonly given to a son, to bo introduced by namo into such a prayer, as the king's partner in the benefits for which the god that has been propitiated is solicited. 732 Having, then, adduced an unexceptionable contemporary testimony that there was a Belshazzar as related by Daniel, no less than a Nabonnedus as attested by Berosus and others, who lived at one and the same time in the kingdom of Babylon, we would now proceed to infer, as it has been generally inferred by others from the narrative of Daniel (in Dan. v. 2, 11, 13, 18, 22) that Belshazzar may safely be regarded as a son or grandson of the great Nebukhadrezzar. We do not here adduce as a proof of the same, either Jerem. xxvii. 7 already quoted, or 2 Chron. xxxvi. 20 (perhaps written by Ezra) where it is said that what the sword had left when Jerusalem was taken and destroyed, Nebukhadrezzar carried away to Babylon where they were servants to him and his sons till the reign of the kingdom of Persia. Confining ourselves here to the passage indicated of the book of Daniel, we find Nebukhadrezzar repeatedly called Belshazzar's father, alike by the writer of the narrative and by personages he introduces ; and we find Belshazzar once called son of Nebukhadrezzar. The narrator calls Nebukhadrezzar Belshazzar's father, in beginning the story ; and of the personages concerned in the action of it, we have first the queen entering the banquet-house where Belshazzar with his wives and concubines had been feasting and drinking wine before a thousand of his lords, but where all were now in terror and confusion because there had appeared fingers of a man's hand, and they had written words over against the candlestick on the plaister of the wall, such as the wise men of Babylon, having been called in immediately, had been unable to read and interpret. She quiets the king's fears, and counsels him to call in one Daniel, who, for the spirit of divine wisdom that was in him, " King Nebukhadrezzar thy father " (said she to Belshazzar) " made master of the magicians, astrologers, Khaldaeans, and soothsayers," naming him Belteshazzar. Next, we read how Daniel was brought in before the king, " and the king spake and said unto Daniel ; Art thou that Daniel of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out ot Jewry ? " And presently after, he reiterates to Daniel a promise which he had already made in vain to the wise men of Babylon ; " Now, if thou canst read the writing and make known to me the interpretation thereof, thou shalt be clothed with scarlet and a chain of gold about thy neck, and thou shalt be the third ruler in the kingdom." Apparently, there was already in the kingdom a second ruler. Thus the Queen calls Nebukhadrezzar the king's father ; the king himself calls Nebukhadrezzar his father ; and now in his replies we shall see that Daniel does no less. He declines the gifts, he promises to read the writing to the king and to make known to him the interpretation. He goes on to say; " O thou king, the most high God gave Nebukhadrezzar thy father a kingdom and majesty and glory and honour." He describes the greatness of Nebukhadrezzar 's majesty and power. Ho adds; "But when his heart was lifted up and his mind hardened to deal proudly, he was made to come down from his kingly throne and they took his 733 glory from him ; and he was driven from the sons of men, and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild assea ; and they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till he knew that the Most High God ruled in the kingdom of men and that He appointeth over it whomsoever He will. And thou, his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this ..." We have cited enough. Now, if Belshazzar, whom Nabonnedus calls his son, was Nebukha- drezzar's grandson, it was not through Nabonnedus. For we are expressly told by Abydenus, in his work upon the Assyrians, quoted by Eusebius Prcep. Evang. ix. 41 that they appointed to be king Ndbannidoklius (so he calls Nabonnedus, for he is not merely repeating Berosus) although this Nabannidokhus was in no way related to his predecessor, that is, Neriglissar's son Laborosoarkhod : and that, when Cyrus took Babylon, he bestowed upon Nabannidokhus the government of Karmania. In thus describing Nabonnedus as unconnected with the royal family, Abydenus does but express plainly what Berosus (as already cited) certainly intimates. The same is confirmed by cuneiform inscriptions in which Nabonnedus appears as himself a king but not as the son of a king of Babylon ; only of one in high office. See G. Rawlinson's Herodotus vol. 1 p. 520 note. But was Belshazzar through Jiis mother Nebukhadrezzar's son or son's son ? It seems to be his mother who presents herself to us in the shape of that Queen recorded by Daniel, who enters the banqueting- house, amid the general alarm, and advises king Belshazzar to call in a man to solve the mystery, who had been promoted above all the wise men of Babylon by the king's father because " the spirit of the Holy Gods was in him." She who thus tells Belshazzar what Nebukha- drezzar his father had done, is distinguished broadly from the king's wives and concubines who had been sharers in his feast ; see Dan. v. 3, 23. She is greater than a wife ; she is older and wiser than a wife of Belshazzar ; she is the Queen. She cannot, then, be any other than Belshazzar's mother ; the Queen Daniel shews us, is the Queen-mother. Was Belshazzar's mother, then, a daughter of Nebukhadrezzar, married to Nabonnedus ? Married to Nabonnedus she may have been, but she can hardly have been Nebukhadrezzar's daughter, or surely Berosus and Abydenus would have mentioned this connection in the case of Nabonnedus as they had in the case of Neriglissar. For Berosus's very particular account of this, and all the relationships in our 2d column, for which we have cited him, is sufficiently confirmed by Abydenus, in the passage of Eusebius lately referred to. Abydenus describes Neriglissar as the xritcrr.,. or " connexion by marriage," of Evil-Merodakh ; whereas he immediately describes Nabonnedus as not in any way connected with Laborosoarkhod, T ( orr,x,Ta. ; s,ii,. He cannot have known him to be Laborosoarkhod's uncle by marriage, his mother's sister's husband. 48 734 But we know who Belshazzar's mother was. She w.os Herodotus's Queen Nitokris, to whom he assigns works attributed by the Khaldaean historian to Nabonnedus, and bricks of which still bear Nabonnedus's name. For Herodotus i. 1 88, tells us, that it was against this queen's son that Cyrus waged the war in which he took Babylon. Moreover, Herodotus calls Labynetus (that is, Nabonnedus) the father of this same king, the son of Nitokris ; thus confirming the cylinder above-cited of Nabonnedus, and explaining the fact that Berosus ascribes to Nabonnedus the very works which he for his part had ascribed to Nitokris. It is, indeed, by no means surprizing that Berosus should ascribe them to the husband ; but the degree of surprize that may be felt at their being attributed by Herodotus to the wife, will presently be removed when we find, that there was a respect in which Nitokris commanded a higher degree of honour and regard from the Babylonians than could her husband Labynetus. Yet this Nitokris, Belshazzar's mother (we have already given reason for believing) was not a daughter of Nebukhadrezzar's ; and, therefore it was not on account of her birth that she stood higher than her husband in the estimate of the people. And now, we confirm this negative conclusion by observing, that she is proved by her name to have been an Egyptian princess by birth. Herodotus himself remarks (ii. 100) that the name of a female sovereign once read to him by the priests in Egypt out of a catalogue of their kings, was the same as that of the Babylonian queen Nitokris. This Egyptian queen was placed by Manetho (according to Africanus and Eusebius) in his 6th Dynasty and described by him as a spirited and beautiful woman, the builder of the third Pyramid. Africanus makes her the sixth and last sovereign that ruled at Memphis of this dynasty; see Geo. Syncellus ed. Dindorf. vol. i. pp. 108, 109. She is also found as the 22d on a list of 38 " kings of them of Thebes " which bit by bit, as he proceeds, the Syncellus transcribes for us out of Apollodorus [i] ^oxxo'f, this last having borrowed it from Eratosthenes, who said he got his knowledge from Egyptian records through the temple scribes or professors of hieratic writing, iifoyja^oereTf, at Diospolis (Thebes) and translated it by the king's command out of Egyptian into Greek. See Geo. Syncell. vol. 1 p. 195 and pp. 171 and 279. In this document, the name Nitokris is stated to signify -A0W N/*.,^. Lastly, the same early female sovereign is attested by the Turin Papyrus where she is named Neitakri. See in G. Rawlinson's Herodotus, Sir J. G. Wilkinson's note on Herod, ii. 100, where he exhibits her two hieroglyphic name-shields, adding ; " There was another Nitokris of the 26th dynasty, written Neitakri with the usual name of the goddess Neith " (as an element in it) .... " The name is perfectly Egyptian . . " The Nitokris of Manetho's sixth dynasty is related by Herodotus to have been placed upon the throne of a brother that his subjects had put to death. By Eratosthenes she is described as ruling "instead of her husband." According to 735 Egyptian law, the same person might be both her brother and her husband. He had reigned but one year, according both to Manetho and Eratosthenes, who, however, call him by different names. Manetho calls him Menthesuphis and makes him to have been the 2d of that name in the same dynasty. The description of his wife or sister Nitokris seems to indicate some admixture at least of foreign blood. She was {>; rr., w.>, and may have been born of a fair complexioned mother : comp. Genes, xii. 10-20. This description of her complexion, added to the feat of having built the third pyramid, is suggested to have occasioned the confusion with a certain Rhodopis, celebrated as a courtezan in Egypt in the time of Amasis; see Herod, ii. 134, 135 and notes of Sir J. G. Wilkinson. According to Wilkinson, there are monuments which shew this dynasty of Memphite kings (Manetho's sixth Egyptian dynasty) to have been contemporary with another, Manetho's llth, which was ruling in the Thebaid ; as well as with Manetho's 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th dynasties, which were ruling in other parts of Egypt. Further, the predecessor of Nitokris's lato husband or brother, is stated in a papyrus (according to Brugsch) to have been censured by one of those kings of the Thebaid for favouring the Shepherd invaders, (perhaps, we should rather say, immigrants and intruders). See Wilkinson in G. Rawlinson's Herodotus vol. 2 pp. 347, 348. Nitokris, then, the wifo of the ruler of Babylon, Nabonnedus or Labynetus, and the mother of Bel-sar-ussur or Belshazzar, is proved by her name to have been of Egyptian parentage. How, then, can Belshazzar bo son or son's son to Nebukhadrezzar, as we should conclude from Daniel and Jeremiah, if neither his father nor his mother belonged to Nebukhadrezzar's family ? The only answer appears to bo this. He must have been either the son of Nabonnedus by a former wife, a daughter of Nebukhadrezzar's, or the son of a former husband of Nitokris whether a son of Nebukhadrezzar's or Nebukhadrezzar himself. But that Nabonnedus before his marriage with Nitokris had received in marriage any daughter of Nebukhadrezzar's, is a supposition contra- dicted (as we have seen already) by the conduct of Berosus and Abydenus, who, while they lay stress on the fact that Neriglissar, Evil- Merodakh's successor, had married a daughter of Nebukhadrezzar's, say immediately with equal emphasis, that Nabonnedus was unconnected with his predecessor Nebukhadrezzar's grandson, Laborosoarkhod. It remains, then, that Nitokris was the widow either of Nebukhadrezzar or of a son of Nebukhadrezzar's, and that by that former marriage she was already the mother of Belshazzar at the time when she became the wife of Nabonnedua or Labynetus. As to her parentage, we cannot help suspecting strongly, not merely that she was of the Egyptian royal family (which will probably be conceded) but further, (what we find also Sir J. G. Wilkinson apparently inclined to believe) that she 48* 736 was the daughter of Apries, said to have been sent to his Asiatic suzerain by Amaais; see ilerod. iii. 1-3. This daughter of Apries was, it is true, according to the story, called Nitetis. On the other hand, the name Nitokris, or rather Neith-akri, is found in the family of Apries : it had belonged to a sister of his, the wife of that third Psametik, who during the earlier years of the reign of Amasis appears to have been Nebukhadrezzar's deputy-king in Upper Egypt ; see Wilkinson in G. Rawlinson's Herodotus, vol. 2 p. 387. In both the names Nitetis no less than Nitokris the name of the great goddess of Sais, the patroness of the 2Gth dynasty, is the principal element ; and the two are at least not more dissimilar than are (for instance) the appellations given by Herodotus and Manetho to the father of Apries, from that which the monuments give him. Nitetis is as near to Nitokris as either Psammis or Psammuthis to Psametik. Nebukhadrezzar, who invaded Apries and pillaged Egypt not earlier than 1 Nisan B. C. 571, may have carried off Nitokris among his trophies, or she may have been sent to him afterwards, when Apries had been superseded by Amasis in the Lower country and by Psametik the 3d in Upper Egypt, in B. C. 569. She may have been given by the conqueror to his son Evil-Merodakh as the daughter of Alyattes king of Lydia was required by Cyaxares king of the Medes for his son Astyages, or as a daughter of Cyaxares was asked by Nabopolassar, the last king of Nineveh's deputy on the throne of Babylon, for his son Nebukhadrezzar. Belshazzar's birth can hardly be placed before B. C. 568, or after the last year of Evil-Merodakh B. C. 560. After the death of Evil-Merodakh and the succession of the murderer, his sister's husband, to the throne, the widow of Evil-Merodakh may have been glad to embrace the protection to herself and child which a marriage with one of the powerful nobility of Babylon might afford. And when, a few years afterwards, the nobles, and her new husband Nabonnedus among them, put Neriglissar's son and successor out of the way of her son Belshazzar's recovery of his father's throne, the selection of Nabonnedus, as the person by whom the royal authority was to be administered immediately, may have been due in part at least to his marriage with Nitokris. As mother of Nebukhadrezzar's heir, during the childhood at least of her son, Nitokris, especially if a woman of much natural capacity, would be very generally regarded (at least in the capital) as her husband Nabonnedus's superior, a new Semiramis. His true position seems to result from a comparison of his inscriptions where he styles himself king of Babylon, with the narrative already cited from the book of Daniel where the place of second ruler in the kingdom is indicated as existing and filled by some one who could not be removed. Wo suppose, then, that Nabonnedus was but second king; yet that, supported by his consort, he was in possession of almost all the regal power outside of Babylon, while Nitokris swayed her son within the capital. 737 We hope, we have now shewn cause fur entirely dissenting from an opinion thus expressed in Rawlinson's Herodotus vol. 1 p. 520 note ; " The theories which regard Nitokris as the wife of Evil Merodach (Wesseling ad Herod, i. 185) or of Nebukhadnezzar (Heeren, As. Nat. yol. ii. p. 179, Eng. Trans ; Niebuhr, Lectures on Anc. Hist. vol. i. p. 37; Clinton, F. H. vol. i. p. 279 note) are devoid of any sure foundation." Good grounds, it is hoped, have been shewn to exist for the belief, that the famous consort of Labynetus or Nabonnedus, was Belsbazzar's mother by a former husband ; and that this husband, if not (which is possible) Nebukhadrezzar himself, must have been a son of his, most probably Evil-Merodakh. We have cited Herodotus to prove the fact, that Nitokris was the mother of that ruler of the Assyrian (t. e. Chaldaeo-Assyrian) empire who was attacked in Babylon by Cyrus ; and to prove also the fact, that she was wife of Nabonnedus or Labynetus. It would not be quite fair to leave unnoticed some other propositions, either intimated or expressly asserted by Herodotus, in respect of Nitokris, her husband, and her son. 1. The historian evinces pretty plainly his belief that Nitokris was a widowed mother when the works he attributes to her were being constructed at Babylon. Now, she was, indeed, all the while the widow of Belshazzar's father but not (as our historian naturally concluded) of Labynetus. 2. Again, Herodotus i. 1 88 affirms that the son of Nitokris was named Labynetus like his father. This is only his own inference, (but an erroneous one) from two facts, which we believe as well as he did, first, That Belshazzar's father was then dead ; and, second, that there was one in power named Labynetus when Cyrus attacked Babylon. The Labynetus, however, then in power was neither the son of Nitokris nor his natural father, but his step-father, the second husband of Nitokris. 3. But this second husband of Nitokris is rightly recognized by Herodotus i. 77 as alive and in power at Babylon at an earlier date, when the Lydian Croesus and his capital were taken by Cyrus. In the story of Croesus he had told us that when, after the indecisive battle with Cyrus, fought beyond the river Halys, the Lydian king returned to Sardis, intending after the approaching winter was past, to renew his invasion with a larger army, he despatched heralds not only to the Lacedaemonians but to the Egyptians, with whose " king " Amasis he had sworn a league before he entered into alliance with the Lacedaj- monians, and also to the Babylonians whose " tyrant " was Labynetus ; the heralds were charged to warn these confederates to be at Sardis in the fifth month from that time. But as soon as this was done and his army, so far as it consisted of troops hired from abroad, was dismissed, Cyrus appeared at the head of his army ; the Lydians mustered but were defeated, and Sardis was taken after the siege of a fortnight. Now, Herodotus relates that this, according to the Delphian answer to the complaint of Croesus, happened three years after the predestined time 738 on account of the presents sent by Croesus to Delphi when he first consulted the oracle ; see Herod, i. 91 : he also (as we understand his narrative) places the year of the capture of Sardis two years more, that is (3+2=) five years in all, after the reign began of the monarch substituted for Astyages on the throne of the Medes ; see Herod, i. 45. Now, the 29 years' interval reckoned by Herodotus, i. 214, between the reigns of Astyages and Cambyses son of Cyrus, will begin (according to Ptolemy's Canon) with the year E. N. (219 29=)190 or about 10 Jan. B. C. 558. The year also in which Croesus sent to Delphi, being the third of the reign after that of Astyages (compare the above-cited Herod, i. 45, and 91) will be E. N. 192, beginning 8 Jan. B. C. 556. And this conclusion is sufficiently confirmed by the authority of the Parian Marble, which placed Croesus's mission to Delphi in the archonship at Athens of Euthydemus, 292 years before the archonship at Athens of Diognetus which began Midsummer B. C. 264, that is, in a year beginning Midsummer B. C. 556 as does the first year of the 56th Olympiad ; see the Parian Marble in the Fragmenta Historic. Graecorum torn. 1. p. 549. Lastly, the year in which Sardis was taken (or fifth year of Astyages's successor and third year from the mission of Croesus) will be E. N. 194 B. C. 554 and the 3d year of the 56th Olympiad just before winter. Now, at this time (according to Ptolemy's Canon) Nabonadius or Nabonedus was already king of Babylon, the first of his 17 years being identified with E. N. 193, commencing 8 January B. C. 555. "We remark in conclusion, that no more opposition is intended by Herodotus betwixt king and tyrant in the case of Amasis and Labynetus (Herod, i. 77) than in that of Astyages and Cyaxares, Herod, i. 72. 4. The last passage we have to notice of Herodotus, touching this subject of Nitokris, Labynetus, and the son of Nitokris, is Herod, i. 75 ; where, telling how the Cilician and the Babylonian acted as arbitrators between Cyaxares the Mede and Alyattes the Lydian, after their battle had been stopped by an eclipse of the sun, he names the Babylonian, Labynetus. This is clearly a mistake. The king of Babylon at that time was Nebukhadrezzar son of Nabopolassar. For, according to Herodotus himself (Herod, i. 107, 130) Cyaxares's reign of 40 years extended to B. C. (558 + 35^)593 or E. N. (19035=) 155, the first year of his son and successor Astyages, and the 12th year of Nebukha- drezzar's 43 years' reign as Nabopolassar's successor. We have con- tended in the R. A. S.'s Journal vol. xviii. on " Ptolemy's Chronology of Babylonian reigns," that the eclipse was the one in the forenoon of 18 May B. C. 603, being the 6th year after the fall of Nineveh in B. C. 608 and the 28th year of the absence of the Scythians on service in Asia, which was 22 years under the Assyrians and 6 years under the Lydians ; borrowing the number 6 from Herod, i. 74; the number 28 from Herod, i. 106 and iv. 1 ; and the number 22 from Herod, i. 130 where to make up 150, the years to be added to 128 are 22. But 739 the fact attested by Herodotus, that Cyaxares was king of the Modes when the eclipse happened, proves that the eclipse of May B. C. 585 was not the one (as some have contended) which led to the arbitration of the kings of Cilicia and Babylon between the contending kings of tho Lydians and of the Medes. Since the identification of Belshazzar given in this section was written, we have found Mr Talbot, in his notes on the lust sentence of the inscription on the four cylinders extracted from the four corners of the second story of the temple tower at Mugheir, referring to " the great inscription of Nabonidus col. 2. line 27, where the king prays the gods to bless his son," (Belshazzar). Perhaps this " great inscription " is the one on " the fragments of tho barrel cylinder " found by Mr Taylor while excavating a mass of fallen rubbish at top of the first story of the same temple-tower; see Journal R. A. S. vol. xv. pp. 202, 203. C. A NOTE added to the comparative Table itself, and cited at the be- ginning of the Section preceding this, (sect. B.) gives the reader to understand that, not only the regnal years of Cambyses the 3d, in the column of Median kings, and those of his successors, in the column of Persian kings, but the regnal years of his father, the Great Cyrus, are taken from the Canon of Ptolemy. But this is not exact. The truth is, that the interval of nine years between those assigned in the Canon to Nabonadius and those assigned to Cambyses (the third of the name in our Table) is given there entirely to the Great Cyrus, as the same space of nine years was also given him by Berosus ; see a fragment of the account derived from Berosus by Alexander Polyhistor, preserved in tho Armenian Eusebius, ed. Mai, and thence transferred to the Fragmenta Histor, Grcec. t. ii. pp. 504, 505 where we read ; " Regnavit autem Babylone Cyrus annis novem, donee in planitie Daharum alio praelio conserto periit. Tune imperium tenuit Cambyses annis octo. Deinde Darius annis sex et triginta. Deinde Xerxes caeterique Persarum reges." Whereas, we have divided those nine years, assigning the first two of them to a Mede by whom Cyrus was preceded, whose name is omitted in tho Canon and by Berosus but who is called in our Table Cyaxares the 2d. To Cyrus we have given the seven remaining years only ; and for that allotment, we plead not only the arithmetical argument derived from the fact, that seventy years preceded the reign of Cyrus, of which 45 belong to Nebukhadrezzar, 2 to Evil Merodakh, 4 to Neriglissar, and 17 to Nabonnedus, but we refer the reader to the authority of Xenophon Cyrop. xviii. 7 g 1 a passage which we have commented on, above pp. 252-254. But we do not find like authority for the space we have given to Cyrus's predecessor, culled by Xenophon, " Cyaxares eon of Astyages," by Josephus, Antiq. x. 11 g 4, " Darius son of Astyages," and in the book of Daniel, " Darius 740 son of Akhshurush of the seed of the Medes." We must have been trusting to memory and speaking without book, when formerly we named Josephus as a witness to the two years during which this king was master of the kingdom of Babylon. The reader will also observe in regard to our Comparative Table, that the 29 years' interval between Astyages and Cambyses son of Cyrus, described by Herodotus i. 214 as the reign of Cyrus, is by us divided between Darius or Cyaxares son of Astyages, and his nephew who succeeded him, Cyrus. That he preceded Cyrus on the Median throne, we are convinced by the books of Daniel and Ezra (the passage of the latter book to which we refer, Ezra vi. 2-3, has been commented on, above p. 244) also by the Cyropaedia of Xenophon and by Josephus. VThen he succeeded his father in B. C. 558, the seat of his kingdom was of course Agbatana : and, even after the capture of Babylon by the Medes and Persians, when he succeeded to the throne of Supreme King, for the short time that he survived, he may have continued, during the greater part of the year at least, to reside at the Median capital. Indeed, it is in Media that Josephus places Daniel's presidency and the lions' den ; Antiq. x. 11 4-7 ; and he proceeds to ascribe to Daniel a certain beautiful building at Agbatana of wonderful construction, looking still as fresh as ever, where they buried the Median, Persian, and Parthian kings down to his days ; the person in charge of it being a Jewish Priest. He Calls it $iyi t Saying u'xoMftr.n, U Ex^a.nittii re7 f Mr,tie7e /3Z(i, and 9a.fnufi ? l if /3{i<. One cannot think that the royal fortress built by Deiokes (see above pp. 568, 569) could in Josephus's time either be fresh-looking or be ascribed to Daniel. This seems intended in 1 Esdras vi. 23 and Joseph. Antiq. xi. 4 6, where we read i^i'fc,!, E X J*,HS if 0<* ? i, -r? I, Mfl8i/ x*?f- Nor can Daniel's /3{u be the palace afterwards built under the fort : see above p. 567. One might rather liken it to a burial-tower of the Parsis (Zoroastrians) of India. In reference to the continued residence of the Mede at Agbatana, it may be observed that this is Xenophon's representation also. For the lengths of the preceding Median reigns, we follow Herodotus. As to Astyages and his 35 years, see Herod, i. 107-130. As to Cyaxares the first, and his 40 years, " including those of the Scythian dominion," r\ 7 2*;0; ?ti f. > ; 2*;9< ? {x ., i. e. " exclusively of the Scythian rule " of 22 years, see Herod, i. 130. The first year of Cambyses being adjusted in Ptolemy's Canon to the year E. N. 219 beginning 2 January B. C. 529, the year of Egyptian registers in which Cyrus died and he succeeded, the first years of the several preceding kings will be found according to the same rule, by the adding to the year B. C. 529, and the subtracting from the year E. N. 219, of the intermediate regnal years. 741 These same reigns, however, when adjusted to Rhaldaean Tables of Years, would appear to begin about ten months later. For from Herodotus iii. 66, 67, 68 and from the Behistun Inscription (as in- terpreted in matter of month-dates by the lately discovered Assyrian Calendar containing the Assyrian as well as the old Khaldican month- names) wo have learnt that the 8 years ascribed to Cambyses, by Berosus in a passage lately quoted and by Ptolemy in the Canon, concluded with a space of seven months during which the Magian was king, and the last of which was the month called Tasritu or Tisri by the Assyrians and Jews, say, October B. C. 521. Consequently, by this reckoning, the first year of Cambygea began with the first of Markhesvan (say, 1 Nov.) B. C. 529. Whereas (as we have seen by Ptolemy's Canon) the eight years of Cambyaes were the years E. N. 219-226, beginning the first of the Egyptian month Thoth, or 2 January B. C. 529 and ending with the last of the five supplementary days, the 31st of December B. C. 522. Therefore, the reigns preceding that of Cambyses must also, by the Khaldsean reckoning, have commenced with the Markhesvan next after the commencement of the Egyptian year of Nabonassar to which the first year of each reign would have to be adjusted on the rule of Ptolemy's Canon. For instance, the reign of Deiokes will begin with the first day of the Assyrian Markhesvan in- stead of the first day of the Egyptian Thoth, (that is, with about the first of the Roman November instead of the 16th of the Roman February) B. C. 708 or E. N. 40 ; see above pp. 433-435, 427, and Table B. which fronts p. 431. As to Darius the Mede the son of Akhshurusb, exhibited to us by Daniel as the predecessor of Cyrus, and who stands in our Table as he is named by Xenophon, Cyaxares son of Astyages ; we have observed that Josephus (who remarks, by the way, that the Greeks gave him another name) calls him Darius son of Astyages. This identification of Astyages with the Akhshurush of Dan. ix. l,is countenanced by the last verse of the Book Tobit, where it is said of Tobit's son Tobias, that " before he died, he heard of the destruction of Nineveh, which was taken captive by Nabukhodonosor and Asuerus (or Ahasuerus) and ho rejoiced over Nineveh before he died." For, though the confederate vassals who overthrew Nineveh in B. C. 609 were Nabopolassar king of Babylon and Cyaxares (first of the name) king of Media, yet, as in B. C. 606 we find it expressly stated by Berosus that Nabukhodonosor (or Nebukha- drezzar) commanded his father Nabopolassar's army that crossed the Euphrates and invaded Syria and Phoenicia, we may readily believe that he had also commanded his father's forces before in the attack upon Nineveh. And if Nabopolassar was represented there by his son, we may readily believe that Cyaxares also kept himself in reserve, giving the command of the Modes that took the field, to his son Astyages. If so, it is Astyages that in the book Tobit (written it appears originally in Chaldee, for Jerome's Latin version was made from a (modern) 742 Chaldee, that is, an Aramaic copy) the Hellenist translator calls ' or 'Aftur^t, the name which in Hellenist versions of Daniel and Ezra represents the one which the Hebrews wrote CM"ni'T!N and in Esth. x. 1 Ehc>nN that is, Akhshurush, and which the Aryans of Media pronounced as we suppose, KhshiirusJi. According to our Table, a sister of Astyages named Amyite, was wife of Nebukhadrezzar. We obtain this form of the name CA/W?TT) from Geo. Syncellus, p. 210 B, (ed. Dindorf. vol. 1 p. 396) who had before him the Greek test of Eusebius's Chronicon i. 4, 9 with the citations there made from Alexander Polyhistor and from Abydenus ; while we have only the same in S. Jerome's Latin version and in an Armenian version published at Milan in Latin by Mai and Zohrab, and in both Armenian and Latin by Aucher at Venice. In the Armenian, the name of the Median daughter-in-law of Nabopolassar, the wife of Nebukhadrezzar, is Amuhia not (as we might have expected) Amiihida. But that the Syncellus has given us a pretty correct form used by the Polyhistor and Abydenus, may be believed from its near resemblance to Amytis,"A.fj.uns, the name of Cyrus's Median wife, and also of that daughter of Xerxes who was wedded to Megabyzus the second ; see Ktesias ap. Photium, Cod. Ixxii. 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 20, 22, 28, 30, 40, 41, 42, 43. The " satrap of Media," as he is called, who gave his daughter to be the wife of Nebukhadrezzar, is called Astyages (by the Syncellus, or Asduhages in Mai's version of the Armenian Eusebius) from Alexander Polyhistor and Abydenus. But, according to the history and also the chronology of Herodotus as well as the fact that the son of Astyages, Darius the Mede, was 62 years old in B. C. 538, seventy years after the fall of Nineveh, and, therefore, was not born till eight years after the marriage of Nebukhadrezzar, prove that the Astyages of Abydenus and the Polyhistor is a misnomer for Cyaxarcs. The Syncellus in the passage above indicated, though he names Alexander Polyhistor only, must have also had in view the passage quoted by Eusebius from Abydenus ; because he relates not only that Nabopolassar sent to the satrap of Media and obtained a daughter of his as a wife for his son Nebukhadrezzar, but also the result of this proceeding ; how, though bearing the commission of Sarakus's general, he marched against Sarakus king of the Chaldgeans (or rather, Assyrians, as Abydenus expresses it) to Nineveh, where Sarakus set fire to his own palace and perished in the flames. For this result of the contract between the Babylonian and the Mede, is not contained in Eusebius's citation from the Polyhistor, as represented in the Armenian version ; which says only, " Is ad Asdahagem qui erat Mediae gentis praeses et eatrapa, copias auxiliares misit ; videlicet ut filio suo Nabucodrossoro desponderet Amuhiam e filiabus Asdahagis unam. Deinde Nabucod- rossorus dominatus est tribus annis supra quadraginta." The more valuable account given by Abydenus, of the decline and fall of Nineveh is this ; " .'Egyptum prreterea parteeque inferiores Syria) ac- 743 quirebat Axordia " (Esarhaddon). " Hinc Sardanapallua " (Asshurbani- pal) " exortua est. Post quern Saracus" (Asshur-irik-kin, Sir 11. C. Rawlinson in Athenaeum Aug. 22, 1863) " imperitabat Assyriis ; qui quidem, certior factus turmarum vulgi collectitiarura quae a rnari adversus se adventarent, continue [Na]busalussorum militiao ducem Babylonem mittebat. Sed enim hie capto rebellandi concilio Amuhiam Asdahagis Medorum principis filiam nato suo Nabucodrossoro des- pondebat ; moxque raptim contra Ninum, seu Ninevem, urbem impetum faciebat. Re omni cognita rex Saracus regiam, Evoritam, inflammabat. Turn vero Nabucodrossorus, sumrna rerum potitus firmis moenibua Babylonera cingebat." Eusebius adds; "His narratis reliqua etiam Nabucodrossori gesta ita persequitur Abydenua ut a libris Hebrseorum prorsua non abhorreat." These extracts from Mai's edition of the Armenian Eusebiua, pp. 19-25, are given along with the passage from the Syncellus, by Clinton, F. H. vol. 1 pp. 270, 271 and by G. Rawlinson, Herod, vol. 1 p. 487 note. The passage of Syncellus and Eusebiua's extracts from the Polyhistor (whoso authority certainly waa Beroaus) are to be found among the fragments of Berosus in the Frag. Hist. GrcBcorum torn. ii. Eusebius's extract from Abydenus ia to be found among the fragments of that writer, torn. iv. p. 482. Berosus also related that it was for the sake of his Median consort that Nebukhadrezzar erected the famous Garden in the Air, or Suspended Garden, at Babylon ; see Josephus Aptiq. x. 11 ; Cont. Apion. i. 19 ; Fragm, Hist. Grcec. torn. ii. p. 507. She is miscalled a Persian (probably after Ktesias) by Diodorus, ii. 10; compare Curtius v. 5. D IN the column of Persian Kings, the genealogy from Akhemenea to Xerxes is taken from Herodotus vii. 11. It seema to be confirmed by the statement in the Behistun Inscription, that eight of the Akhaeme- nian family had reigned before Darius son of Hystaspes ; though the same inscription places Darius in only the fifth degree of sonship from Akhaemenes, omitting the first Teispes, the first Cambyses, and the first Cyrus, the son, the grandson, and the great-grandson of AkhaDmenea in the Herodotean pedigree. We suppose that at the time of the engraving of the inscription, the Teispes father of Ariaramnea was (by no very strange error) confounded with another Teispes. his great-grandfather, and an immediate son ot Akhaernenes ; see above pp. 231, 232. Cyrus father of Cambyses and grandfather of the Great Cyrus, occura Herod, i. 111. For Cambyses the father of Cyrus, the legend on a brick found at Senkereh in Lower Chaldaea is cited by Sir H. C. Rawlinson in which Cyrus calls himself " son of Cambyses the powerful king." For the same Cambyses, the grandfather of the well-known Carnbyses the conqueror of Egypt, (also, for Mandane, daughter of Astyages, his wife), see Herod, i. 107-9 and Xenophon e. g. Cyrop. i. 2 1 where 49* 744 the Perseida (as the family Cambyses belonged to, is named) are the Akhemenidse (for whom, see Herod, i. 123. iii. 65) regarded as sprung from the Greek hero Perseus ; for so by Greek genealogists Akhaemenes was reckoned. Among the Aryans, he was regarded merely as a descendant from Parsa, but by the Greeks as the immediate offspring of Perses who was son of their own Perseus by Andromeda the daughter of Kepheus. For Perses son of Perseus, see Herod, vii. 61, 150. For Akhaemenes son of Perses, see Nicolaus of Damascus (as cited in the Etymologicum Magnum) and the Scholiast (who seems to be quoting Hellanicus) on Dionysius Periegetes line 1053. In this last passage the double assertion is made (apparently by a contemporary of Herodotus) that Perses son of Perseus had a son named Akhsemenes and that he gave name to the united nation of Artoeans (So C. Muller corrects Argeians) and Kephenians ; see the Fragm. Hist. Grcec. torn. iii. p. 365, also Geogr. Grcec. Minorestom. 2 p. 456 and compare what we have said already, p. 514 note. The line of descent from the second Teispes down to Okhus Artaxerxes or Artaxerxes the 3d, gathered from Greek writers, is fully established by the cuneiform inscriptions of Darius son of Hystaspes, of Xerxes, of Artaxerxes Mnemon or Artaxerxes the 2d, and of Okhus Artaxerxes ; see Journal R. A. S. vol. x pp. 196, 320, 323, 324, 327, 334, 337 : vol. xv p. 159 ; vol. x pp. 341-2. The inscription here last referred to, has the line from Arsames to Artaxerxes the 3d : the one next before it, the line from Hystaspes to the second Artaxerxes : the first of all, the line from the second Teispes to Hystaspes. That Arses was the son of the third Artaxerxes, also our statement of the descent of the Darius Codomannus from Darius Okhus commonly called Nothus or the Bastard, both appear from Diodorus xvii 5 3, 5. As to the dates of the eight reigns, they are given (as it has been said) on the authority of Ptolemy's Table of Reigns at Babylon ; where the 190 years from E. N. 227 to E. N. 416, are assigned to them respectively, in the eight portions following, 36, 21, 41, 19, 46, 21, 2, 4, from the 1st of January B. C. 521 to the 13th of November B. C. 332. These same eight reigns in the Khaldiean Tables, probably extended from the 1st of Markhesvan B. C. 521 to the last day of Tisri B. C. 331 ; see our argument as to the previous reigns, grounded on the case of the last Cambyses, in the Section C. page 741. In Assyrian and Jewish Tables of Reigns, we may conclude from the books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Esther, that these same eight reigns, following that of Cambyses, extended from 1 Nisan B. C. 521 to 1 Nisan B, C. 331. Before we pass from this Column of Persian Kings to the next, wo will give place here to some notes as to Uystaspos the father nnd Artaxerxes the grandson of our Darius Khshurush. The grandson according to Josephus, Antiq. xi 6 g 1, was Kurush (which he writes in Greek fashion, KS { .,-, the name transcribed by the Latins, Cyrus) though 745 the Greeks (adds our Jewish historian) call him Artaxerxes. Perhaps (as we have already observed above p. 2 note) this assertion was not made on authority but was an inference from the book Esther, the story of which Josephus places in the reign of Artaxerxes. Such an inference would imply a belief in Josephus that K f6 ,- was the same as Klishurush and that Klishurush was the name written in the Hebrew books K'lllC'nN- But it would also imply that Josephus's pronunciation of the Hebrew word was not the one indicated by the present pointing. Wo ourselves suppose Kurush to be the Persian and KJishitrush the Median form of the same name ; according to which conclusion it will have been Darius's private name in the form celebrated among the Medes, and his grandson's in the since more celebrated Persian form. The epithet given to the grandson ^ ax ^ x s> f , " long-arm," " long-armed," in Latin " Longimanus " may have indicated in its original Persian form, no personal peculiarity but only an attribute of every Persian monarch, his reach of power. This attribute is urged upon the Athenians by the Macedonian of the day when Mardonius offered them tO be the king's allies, iC,eifJ.n i*i( a.9r Q Pxntic; i *<*/ %ti( v. Diodorus mentions Akoris, not only, as we have seen, at a date con- sistent with Manetho's statement of the lengths of the several reigns in the 28th and 29th Egyptian dynasties (that is to say, under the arkhons Mystikhides and Dexitheus, in years 3 and 4 of the 98th Olympiad, years divided by the midsummer of the year B.C. 385), but later under Kallias, the fourth 1 arkhon of the 100th Olympiad, who took office at midsummer B.C. 377 : see Diod. xv. 29, comparing, for the date, 23, 24, 25, and 28. This year coincides most nearly with the Egyptian year of Nabonassar 372, the 29th of Egyptian independence. But the 29th year was already the second, if not the third, year of the Sebennyte independent dynasty, or 29th dynasty of the entire series, if we give credit to Manetho's totals of years reigned by the Saite and 788 Mendeadan, or 28th and 29th dynasties. As reported iu the Syucellus's list and by Eusebius, these two dynasties reigned 6 + 21 years ; ac- cording to Africanus's Manetho, 6 + 20 years. Thus at Diodorus's later dater in B.C. 377-6 it was no longer Akoris, the second Men- desian, that was king of Egypt according to Manetho, but the first Sebennyte, the long who in Africanus and Eusebius's reports of Manetho (cited by Georgius Syncellus, Paris ed. pp. 76, 77), no less than in the Syncellus's own list, is called Nectanebes, but by Theo- pompus, ap. Photium, and in Diod. xv. 42, Nectanebii, and by our- selves at times Nectanebus the First. Diodorus's story in B.C. 377-6 is this : While the Great King's general Pharnabazus was busy preparing an invasion of Egypt, the king of that revolted province (whom he speaks of by name but once, and then calls Akoris) was assembling, by dint of liberal pay and promises, a very considerable force of soldiers hired from abroad, the command of which was accepted by the Athenian Khabrias. On this, Pharna- bazus complained to the Athenian commonwealth ; warning the citi- zens that, by this act, Khabrias was alienating from them the good-will of the Great King. The republic immediately ordered its citizen home ; but, it would appear (though this is no part of Diodorus's narrative), immediately bestowed upon him an important command in its own service : for we find that he gained them the victory in a great and decisive sea-fight at Naxos, on the 17th of Boedromion, the third month of the following arkhon Kharisander, that is, about September B.C. 376. (See F. H., vol. ii. Tables; where Clinton adduces con- temporary evidence to prove Diodorus inaccurate in placing Khabrias's victory in the previous arkhonship.) The Athenians not only recalled Khabrias from Egypt, but further gratified Pharnabazus by sending him Iphicrates to occupy in the invading army a post like that relin- quished by Khabrias in the defence of Egypt. But we repeat it, Pharnabazus's remonstrance with the Athenians was made in the arkhonship of Callias, the fourth year of the 100th Olympiad. If then, for the regnal years of the independent Saite and Men- desian, or 28th and 29th dynasties, Manetho's numbers be admitted, it follows that on this second occasion (in xv. 29) Diodorus is incorrect in still naming the king of Egypt Akoris ; and that the king at this time was really that same Nectanebis whom the historian mentions three years afterwards in the third arkhonship of the 101st Olympiad, the year of the assassination of Evagoras. See Diod. xv. 41, 42. Moreover, from Photius's epitome of the 12th book of the Philij>]>i<-u of Theopompus, we may infer that the inaccuracy was not his author's but Diodorus's own. Photius writes thus : The 12th book has in it about Akoris king of the Egyptians . . . ; and in what way they (the Lacedaemonians) made the peace under Antalkidas; and how Tiribuzus warred ; and how he took counsel against Evagoras ; and Inur Ecaguras joined with Orontes in accusing him to the king ; and Inn/:, Ncrdim-lii* 789 having succeeded to the kingship of Egypt, Evagoras sent ambassadors to the Lacedaemonians ; and in what way his war in Cyprus was ended for him. See Fragm, Historic. Grsec. vol. i. p. 295. Theopompus therefore placed the accession of Nectanefew before the end of Eva- goras's ten years' war, and represented this event as one that induced an effort on the part of Evagoras to form a new combination against the enemy. Now, according to Manetho, the year in which Nectanefces came to the throne was, at latest, the (6 + 21 + 1 =) 28th, or at earliest, the (6 + 20 + 1 =) 27th year of the independence. That is, it was at latest the year of Nabonassar 371, according to the Egyp- tians, which year began with the 26th day of November B.C. 378 ; or at earliest it was the year of Nabonassar 370, which began at 25 days of November B.C. 379. This seems to confirm the general correctness of Clinton's conclusion (derived from Isocrates in Evag. 23, and Panegyric. 39), that Diodorus mistook the active operations of the first two years of the ten that the war lasted, begun by Tiribazus, for the final operations of the war. But the ten years need not be made to have commenced with the first of the two arkhons mentioned by Diodorus, namely Mystikhides, at midsummer B.C. 386 ; and then, continuing under the arkhons Dexitheus, Diotrephes, Panostratus, Evander, Demophilus, Pytheas, Nikon, Nausistratus, to have concluded with Callias, who went out of office at midsummer B.C. 376, and was arkhon, according to Diodorus, when Pharnabazus, making preparations for the invasion of Egypt, complained at Athens that Khabrias had taken service under the king of Egypt. The expedition against Egypt (whether the preparations began thus simultaneously with the restoration of peace in Cyprus or shortly afterwards) was, we doubt not, facilitated by the peace. But the peace appears to have begun, and the ten years' war sustained by Evagoras to have ended, a year earlier. The ten years seem to have been reckoned by Theopompus to begin with the predecessor of Mysti- khides, the arkhon Theodotus, under whom (as it is testified by Aristides, torn. ii. p. 286, and by Callisthenes, ap. Diod. xv. 117, quoted by Clinton) and also in the earlier part of his year, or about autumn B.C. 387 (as Clinton further shows) the general peace of Antalkidas was concluded, and Cyprus was left to be dealt with by Artaxerxes at his pleasure. If then the ten years' war in Cyprus begun by Tiribazus was counted to have commenced with the arkhon under whom the peace of Antalkidas was consented to in Greece, it must have been reckoned to end with Nausistratus, the predecessor of Callias, at mid- summer B.C. 377. Then followed the negotiation in the year of Callias between Pharnabazus and the Athenians touching Khabrias's having accepted a command under the king of Egypt. We have now seen that though Diodorus names this king Akoris, not only does Manetho make the person on the throne to be Nectanebes, the first of the three Sebennytes that compose the 30th dynasty, but 790 Theopompus does the same ; telling us that Nectanebis succeeded to the kingship in Egypt before the peace (in the year of the arkhon Callias at the latest, or rather in the year of Callias's predecessor Nausistratus, or Nausinikus), which ended Evagoras's ten years' war in Cyprus. For, whether the peace was made in the year of Callias, which ended at midsummer 376, or, as Theopompus appears to have related (counting from the arkhon year in which the peace of Antal- kidas was concluded), in the year of Nausinikus, which ended at midsummer B.C. 377, if Akoris's reign was no more, and that of Nectanebis was begun, before the peace, then it was Nectanebis, not Akoris, who was threatened by Pharnabazus in the year of Callias. Thus, if Diodorus does not, in this instance, confirm the chronology of Manetho, it is through his calling the king of Egypt in the year of Callias by a wrong name, and not for any fault of Manetho's. For Theopompus confirms Manetho ; giving us to conclude that not Akoris, as Diodorus says, but Nectanebes, as Manetho has it, was the name of the king of Egypt whom Khabrias was engaged to, between the mid- summers of the years 377 and 376 B.C., in a year (the fourth year of the 100th Olympiad) corresponding for the most part of it with the 30th Egyptian year of independence. The chronology of Manetho has now been shown to be consistent with that of Diodorus in respect of the Mendesian kings, Nepheritcs the First and Akhoris ; also to agree with that of Theopompus in the case of the first of the Sebennyte kings, Nectanebes. But as to this last king, who, for the similarity, if not identity, of his name with that of the Sebennyte conquered by Artaxerxes Okhus, may be called Nectanebus the First, we have also a testimony of Diodorus's, placing him at a date that agrees with the chronology of Manetho. Pharna- bazus's preparations to invade Egypt, begun in the year before mid- summer B.C. 376, were complete in the year in which Evagoras's assassination is placed, that of Socratides, the third arkhon of the 101st Olympiad, who came into office at midsummer B.C. 374. In xv. 41-43, Diodorus relates how the land forces, numbering 20 myriads, Barbarians, and 20 thousands, Greeks, were united on the coast at Ake (now Akka or Acre) with a war-fleet of 300 triremes and 200 thirty-oared galleys, besides a multitude of store-ships. From this point the expedition set forth by land and by sea together at the be- ginning of summer ; Pharnabazus being the commander-in-chief, and Iphicrates of Athens the leader of the Greek troops. If the season was the beginning of summer, then, as the year of the invasion, by Greek computation, begins after midsummer B.C. 374, we must date the setting forth from Akka about the beginning of May B.C. 373 ; that is to say, the summer of the 32d year of the revolt and the 375th of Nabonassar, according to the Egyptians, a year whose first of Thoth had been the 25th of the preceding November. When the naval forces and land army of the Persians reached Egypt, they found every 791 preparation for defence complete. King Nectanebis had been well informed respecting the great armament mustered to invade him ; but the natural strength of the country, and the difficulty of ap- proaching it, encouraged him by every possible means to add to those advantages. All entrances, by land and by sea, the invaders found admirably fenced. At every mouth of the Nile a town or fort with lofty towers had been built on each side of the stream where it entered the sea ; a bridge of wood united the places, and commanded the navigation. But the Pelusiac mouth, being the nearest to the Syrian frontier, and the most likely to be assailed by an enemy from that quarter desiring to force a passage into the country, was the channel where the prin- cipal defences were constructed. These were manned in large numbers. Every approach on the lan;l side was flooded; while the creeks, most favourable for the entrance of vessels from the sea, were barred by obstructions of earth and mason-work. The result equalled all that had been hoped. The Pelusiac branch of the Nile defying them, the invaders proposed to make a descent upon the coast at the Mendesian mouth of the river, the squadron entrusted with the operation keeping out of sight of the land during its passage. A landing was effected ; the Egyptians, after a severe fight, were driven within their walls, and these again were taken and destroyed. Iphicrates advised to sail up the river immediately and seize Memphis, which he learnt from the prisoners was destitute of troops : but Pharnabazus rejected the pro- ject as too dangerous ; nor would he and his generals permit Iphicrates to execute it alone, which he offered to do with such Greek mercenaries as were on the spot. His boldness inspired them with jealousy and alarm. Pharnabazus decided to wait till the whole force should be conveyed to the point of which they were in possession. The Egyp- tians thus gained time to despatch a force to occupy Memphis, and with all their disposable men to hem in the invaders, and to harass them with incessant attacks, which, aided by the difficult nature of the country, did great damage to the Persians. This warfare continued till the Etesian Winds having set in, the rise of the Nile, and the inundations in every quarter, made the country continually stronger for defence. Under these circumstances the Persian generals re- solved to abandon the enterprise, and to return to the Syrian coast ; whence Iphicrates, remembering the arrest and punishment of Conon, managed to escape in a vessel by night, and so reached Athens in safety. For the yearly Etesian Winds in the height of summer, Clinton, B.C. 341, cites Ulpian, pp. 35, 41, ed. Par., and Vit. Pytliag. ap. Pliotimn. cod. 249, p. 1321. For the fate of Conon, comp. Xenoph. I Ml. iv. 8, 12-16 ; Diodor. xiv. 85 ; Corn. Nep. Vil. Con. cap. 5 ; Isocrat. Panegyric. 41. 792 D THE above extracts from Diodorus and Theopompus, it is hoped, have sufficiently confirmed the chronological accounts of the 28th and 29th Egyptian dynasties, derived from Manetho by Africanus, Eusebius, and the author, whoever he was, from whom Georgius Syncellus copied his own list of the kings of those dynasties. It may therefore here be proper to justify our Comparative Table of Descents (facing p. 91), in the column of Egyptian Kings, where we distinguish Amyrtaeus the Saite, who forms alone Manetho's 28th dynasty and reigns six years, as a different person from Amyrtaeus, called by Thucydides the " king in the Marshes," who joined the son of Psametikhus, Inaros the Libyan, in his revolt from the Persians in the reign of the first Artaxerxes. We consider the six years' reign of Amyrtaeus the Saite, attested by Manetho, to be the first six years of the reign of Artaxerxes the Second called Mnemon ; or, which is the same thing, the first six years of that revolt from the Persians, and that establishment of self-government in Egypt, which took place (as the testimony of Manetho, confirmed by the silence of the historians of the previous Peloponnesian war, has led us to conclude) on the death of Darius Nothus in the year B.C. 404. We had at one time fancied, as others have fancied, that Manetho's 28th dynasty (instead of following the 27th, or Persian, dynasty, whereof Cambyses was the first king and Darius Nothus the last) was really contemporary with the fourth Persian of the 27th, Artaxerxes Makrokheir, the son of Xerxes. We had identified its position with the period of the war maintained by Inaros and his Greek allies against the Persians, which after six years (as Thucydides testifies, i. 110) ended disastrously. But besides the improbability, whatever that may be, of Manetho's having committed such an error, it is not till after Inaros's captivity in B.C. 455 that Amyrtaeus, his confederate, is spoken of as "king in the Marshes," maintaining himself through the peculiar character of the district and the martial habits of its inhabitants. He is mentioned last in B.C. 449, during an invasion of Cyprus by the Athenians and their allies under Cimon, when, being sent to by Amyrtaeus, they detached sixty triremes to Egypt, and with 140 remaining besieged Kitium ; but, Cimon dying and a famine following, were compelled to abandon that operation, and, after de- feating the Phoenicians and Cilicians on the same day by land and sea on the other side of Salamis, to return home, and the ships from Egypt with them. See Thucyd. i. 112. Here, it is true, we have Amyrtseus alive and holding out against the Persians at the end of another six years, after Inaros had fallen into the hands of Mega- byzus the Persian general. But if these years were intended, in the six given by Manetho to the 28th dynasty, why were not the six of Inaros prefixed? Or if Manetho's Amyrtaeus be the confederate 793 of Inaros, why does not his son who succeeded him appear in the 28th dynasty? For, as Herodotus assures us, iii. 15, the Persian government permitted Pausiris son of Amyrtseus to succeed to his father's government in Egypt, as it permitted Thannyras son of Inaros to succeed to his father's Libyan principality. The identity of the six years, given by Manetho to his Amyrtaus the Saite of the 28th dynasty, with the six years of the revolt of luaros, under the reign of Artaxerxes Makrokheir in the 27th dynasty, is regarded with favour by Professor Geo. Rawlinson, in his Note on Herod, iii. 15 ; and he maintains it as not unlikely, that the summary of Manetho's work used by Eusebius (he does not mention a like summary used by Africanus) misrepresented Manetho here, as it did in other places according to Bunsen (and he cites Bunsen's Egypt, vol. i. p. 86, Eng. Trans.), making dynasties seem to be consecutive, which Manetho knew and confessed to be contemporary. A similar opinion (as we learn from Clinton, who rejects it) was expressed by Larcher, and before him by Wesseling, in commenting on the same text of Herodotus ; also by Dodwell, in Annal. Thucyd. p. 99. For ourselves, we not only abandon this supposition, but we reject (as does Professor Rawlinson) one retained by Clinton and Sir J. G. Wilkinson, that Manetho's Amyrtaeus, being the same person as the Amyrtaeus of Herodotus and Thucydides, began his six years' reign in B.C. 414-413, forty years after the defeat and capture of Inaros. This date, the llth year of the reign of Darius Nothus, is the one assigned by Eusebius, in his own chronology, for the commencement of indepen- dent government in Egypt, under the 28th, 29th, and 30th dynasties. As quoted by Clinton (F. H. vol. ii. Appendix, chap. 18, " Kings of Persia "), Eusebius's words, in the Latin Version, are these : Olymp. 91, 3. jEyyptus a Persia recessit; et rursum jEgyptiorum renascitur dynastia 28a ; et regnavit Amyrtaeus annis sex. We object, first, that Arnyrtjeus, when he was succeeded in his Egyptian district by his son Pausiris no less than Inaros when he was succeeded in his Libyan government by his son Thannyras, as recorded by Herodotus must be supposed to have been completely removed from the scene of his resistance to the Persians, whether by death or by captivity, long before the llth year of Darius Nothus. Secondly, we refer to the reasons we have given for believing that the independence of Egypt did not begin till after the death of Darius Nothus in the summer of the year B.C. 404 ; that is, not till five-and-forty years after the last mention of the confederate of Inaros in Greek history, and more than fifty years after Inaros fell into the hands of the Persians. Amyrtaeus the contemporary of the first Artaxerxes may have belonged to the Saite family which reigned in Egypt before the con- quest by Cambyses, and formed the 26th dynasty. The relationship will seem probable if we consider that tradition of Asiatic empire which Herodotus calls a Persian principle ; and in compliance where- 794 with the Great King invested Pausiris with the deputy-kingship which his father had misused. Again, Manetho's Amyrtseus the Saite, the contemporary of Artaxerxes Mnemon, may have been a son of Pau- siris. This, we now learn from C. Muller (on Manetho's 28th dynasty), is the opinion of Boeckh. But the dates of Diodorus and Theopompus lately cited by attesting the general accuracy of the chronology of the 28th and 29th dynasties exhibited by those summaries of Manetho's work, to which alone Africanus and Eusebius are supposed to have had access destroy the hypothesis, lately cited, that the 28th dynasty did not really follow the 27th, but was hi fact contemporary with the Artaxerxes of the 27th dynasty. They destroy also the Eusebian opinion, followed by Clinton, that the accession of the 28th dynasty happened in the third year of the 91st Olympiad, the year after midsummer B.C. 414, coinciding for the most part with the llth year of Darius Nothus, or 335th of Nabonassar by the Egyptian reckoning ; which year began with the 5th of December B.C. 414. Diodorus and Theopompus prove the Amyrtseus of Mauetho to be rightly placed as king of Egypt during those six years of the annals of the country that followed the last of Darius Nothus's reign, or followed the year of Nabonassar 343 accord- ing to the Egyptians. From the evidence of Diodorus and Theopompus we have produced points of tune at which were reigning kings called Nephereus, Akoris, ami Nectanebis (the latter being a different person from Nectanebos, and indeed preceding him by the interval of one reign at least, that of Takhos). These epochs, as we have shown, fall within the positions assigned by Manetho to the reigns of the manifestly identi- cal kings, Nepherites the First, Akhoris, and Nectanebes. But they only fall into these positions on the supposition that the 28th, 29th, and 30th dynasties followed where Manetho or his summarizers, as reported by Africanus and Eusebius, have actually placed them in succession after Darius Nothus, the last of the Persian kings of the 27th dynasty. If Manetho's chronology be thus confirmed in respect of the three kings named, it is also confirmed for the previous reign of Amyrtseus. The account of the reigns of the 29th dynasty receives no confirmation, in the case of the first Nepherites, from the date at which Nephereus is mentioned by Diodorus as the ally of the Laceclsemonians, if we reject the account of the 28th dynasty. And we do reject tliat account if we suppose the 28th dynasty to have been contemporaneous, either with a part of the reign of Artaxerxes the First, or a part of the reign of Darius the Second. If Nepherites, the earliest kingof the29th dynasty, reigned, as Manetho says, six years, but, instead of following next but one (Amyrtseus) after Darius Nothus, as Manetho places him, be supposed to have followed Darius Nothus immediately, then Nepherites must also be supposed to have been for the last three years succeeded by another, between the midsummers of 396 and 395 B.C., or hi the year of Nabonassar 353 according to the Egyptians. That is to say. 795 Akhoris, not Nepherites, will have been king already, at the time when the Lacedaemonians, being at war with Artaxerxes Mnemon, and having sent Agesilaus to invade the satraps Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus by land, are related to have procured corn and other necessaries for their fleet from Nephereus king of Egypt. But if Diodorus's mention of Nephereus king of Egypt in B.C. 396-395 be admitted as evidence confirmatory of Manetho's chronology of the 28th and 29th dynasties (according to which Nepherites the First reigned during the seventh and five following years of the revolt, or from 453 to 458 E.N.), then Manetho is withal supposed to have correctly interposed the six years of Amyrtaeus the Saite, the only king of the 28th dynasty, between Darius Nothus and Nepherites the First. E EN T OUGH has been said to justify the assertion that Egypt was not lost to the Persian Empire during the reign of Darius Nothus. It has become sufficiently apparent that the years of independence under the 28th, 29th, and 30th dynasties were counted from that of the death of Nothus and accession of his eldest son Arsakes, who took the name of Artaxerxes and is entitled Mnemon. Proceeding too from this date, the times allotted by Manetho to the several reigns of the Saite or 28th and the Mendesian or 29th dynasty, are at least sufficiently accurate in their measurement to coincide with the notices of some of the kings in Greek history. The names of all the kings, as given in Georgius Syncellus's list, have been recited ; and they are the same that Africanus is reported to have given from Manetho. Eusebius adds to the Mendesian dynasty a fifth king, Miithis, who reigned one year, making the reign of the dynasty 21 years and four months, instead of 20 years and four months, which is the measurement of Africanus. The Syncellus also gives the same space to the 29th dynasty as Eusebius, by allotting to the third king, Psammuthis, two years instead of the one he reigned according to Africanus and Eusebius. See Svncell., Paris ed., pp. 76, 77, and pp. 256, 257. But, as to the date which the reign of the Sebenuyte or 30th dy- nasty extended to, the decision is more difficult. We have already recited Diodorus's account of an expedition conducted by Okhus Artaxerxes, the son and successor of Arsakes Artaxerxes Mnemon, during the years of the arkhons at Athens Thettalus and Apollodorus, the point of separation between which is the midsummer of B.C. 350 ; how under Thettalus he reduced Phoenice, and, under Apollodorus, Egypt. We have shown that the curtailment in the Syncellus's list of the years assigned by Africanus to the three kings of the 30th dynasty conforms exactly to Diodorus's chronology. And here we may add another confirmation of this chronology, or conformity with it, as the case may be decided. It is found in an ancient calculation ascribed 796 by Geo. Syncellus to Manetho, but, as C. Miiller thinks (Frag. Hint. Grate, torn. ii. p. 537), a Pseudo-ManetJio, known to the Syncellus through Panodorus, rather than the Manetho of Africanus and Eusebius. See Geo. Syncell., Paris ed., pp. 52, 53. This Manetho of Panodorus, if we may so term him, made the last year of the 30th Egyptian dynasty to be about the 15th year before the reign (the Syncellus's expression is x.otrft,ox.pei7opioi) of Alexander the Macedonian. Now the first year of Alexander, as king of Macedonia, being the year of the arkhon Pythodemus (see Arrian, Exp. Alex. i. 1), the first of the lllth Olympiad (see Diodor. xv. 91), is the 15th from and with that of the arkhon Apollodorus, which was the third year of the 107th Olympiad, and the year in which, according to Diodorus, Okhus by right of con- quest began to reign in Egypt. For the 13 intervening arkhons, see Dionysius of Halicarnassus, de Dinarcho, 9, and Diodor. xv. 52, 53, 56, 59, 66, 69, 70, 72, 74, 77, 82, 84, 89. Of the whole 15 years, the first 12 are the remainder of 21 years given to Okhus in Ptolemy's Canon ; two are years of his son Arses, according to the same ; and one is the first year at Babylon of Darius the Third ; and in Macedonia, of Alexander son of Philip. For the two came to their several thrones about the same time. See Diodor. xvii. 6, 5 ; also Ptolemy's Canon, which divides 12 years between Darius and Alexander on the throne of Babylon; while Aristobulus tells us, in Arrian, E. A. xii. 28, 1, that, besides the year in which he died, counted by the Canon, in the Egyptian use of it, to Aridseus, his successor, Alexander reigned 12 years ; whence it follows that Darius's four years were the first four of Alexander's reign. It may truly be objected to this argument, that our Syncellus under- stands the 15 years to extend from the World-year 5147 (which is his last year of the 30th dynasty in Egypt) to the World-year 5162, which is his seventh year of Alexander in Macedonia and first upon the Baby- lonian throne. But, according to his own figures (taken, however, it would seem, from the author whom we have called Panodorus's Manetho), if 3555 years, beginning with the World-year 1586, constitute the duration .of the 30 dynasties, they ended with the World-year 5140 ; and a clear interval of 15 years is found between them and the year of the World 5156, which our Syncellus makes Alexander's first year on the Mace- donian throne. See Georg. Syncell., Paris ed., pp. 52, 257, 260, 261. Still, when all is said, we are unable to accept Diodorus's date for the conquest of Egypt by Okhus Artaxerxes. The evidence of a con- temporary exulting, in an address to Philip king of Macedonia four years later, that Okhus's efforts had been ineffectual, is irresistible. It is clear that if an attempt upon Egypt was made in the arkhonship of Apollodorus, B.C. 350-49, it was unsuccessful. For how can we suppose, with Mr. Mitford, that, if the Persian had then recovered Egypt, Isocrates could have thought it proper to pass over the recent 797 success, and insist upon a previous failure, when the business in hand was to show that the state of the Persian empire invited attack? " Who," says he, " that has heard the situation of the country will not be stimulated to wage war with the present king? Egypt indeed had revolted in the time of his father, but then they used to be afraid lest some time or other the king should make an expedition against them in person, and overcome both the difficulties which the country pre- sents to an invades, on account of the river, and all their preparation besides. But now this king has freed them from that fear. For, after having mustered the largest army he possibly could, and marched against them, he came back from thence not only worsted, but covered with ridicule, and having showed himself unfit either to be king or to command an army. Again, Cyprus, and Phoenice, and Cilicia, and those parts, whence they used to supply themselves with naval forces, in his father's time, when Clearkhus commanded the Greeks in the expedition of Cyrus, belonged to the king ; but now they are partly revolted, and partly are involved in war and calamities so great that none of those nations can be serviceable to him ; but they will be in a disposition very convenient for thee, if thou shouldst wish to war upon him." So writes Isocrates, in the address To Philip, 42. See Dobson's Oratores Attici, vol. iii. p. 278. For the date of the address, one indication follows immediately after the extract we have given. It is what Isocrates says of the doubtful relations that existed between Idrieus and the Persian government ; in particular, of the hostilities that had taken place between them, though they were not now at war. For we learn from Diodorus that Idrieus was just come to the lord- ship of Caria (which, in the arkhonship of Lykiscus, the year of the 109th Olympic festival, beginning at midsummer B.C. 344, he had held for seven years), when, in the arkhonship of Thettalus, as we have seen, he received and obeyed an order to attack the revolted island of Cyprus. Diod. xvi. 40, 42, 45, 69. It would seem that his conduct under this commission had not given satisfaction. He may have pursued his own ends, betrayed the king's interests, maintained a correspondence with the enemy. But Clinton, from 3, 21, 31, shows that Isocrates published his Address to Philip before the con- clusion of the Phocian war, which was in the arkhonship of Arkhiaa, and some time after the 19th of Elaphdbolion, in the previous arkhon- ship of Themistocles, when peace was made with Philip by the Athe- nians. The date, therefore, is early in the summer of B.C. 346. It is clear, then (to say nothing of the state of Phcenice, Cyprus, and Cilicia), that at this date Egypt was still unsubdued, and that the expedition against the country, if there was one, in the year of Apol- lodorus, had failed. That, indeed, may have been the occasion, alluded to by Diodorus himself, when the success of Xectanebos was due to his having confided the entire direction of his defence to two able Greek leaders, Diophantus of Athens, and Lamius of Sparta. 56 798 Perhaps, also, it was in his first attempt, through want of acquaint- ance with the locality, that Okhus, after reaching the Serbonid Lake, is said to have lost a part of his army in the passage of the Barathra an adjoining tract of swamp and quicksand, reckoned by Diodorus among the natural barriers of Egypt, and which may have been fed from the Pelusiac channel, then a chief outlet of the water of the Nile. See Diod. xvi. 40 ; comparing the description in i. 30, which he himself sends us back to, of the Serbonid Lake, and the miry ]>lcihix of the adjoining desert, catted Barathra : vt^iet rs^et-u^, r irpoaec- '/opfvofAtvet ~Bdpoc0pec. The existence of an olden communication be- tween the Pelusiac branch of the Nile and the Serbonid Lake has been already suggested above, p. 290, note. But if Diodorus's date for Okhus's recovery of Egypt, the year of ApollodSrus, be rejected ; and if, moreover, the achievement was un- accomplished when King Philip was addressed by Isocrates, towards the close of the arkhonship of Themistocles, which was the fourth from that of Apollodorus, that is to say, if, far from being conquered in the year which ended at midsummer B.C. 349, Egypt still laughed at Okhus a little before midsummer B.C. 346, can any later date be pro- posed, on authority, for the success which he ultimately obtained ? Both Africanus and Eusebius (as copied by Geo. Syncellus, pp. 77, 78, ed. Paris) concur in a statement for which they seem to cite the Third Part (TO^O?) of Manetho's Egyptian History. They say that the 31st dynasty of kings in Egypt (consisting of Okhus, Arses, and the Darius who was pulled down by Alexander the Macedonian) began to reign over Egypt in the 20th year of Okhus's Persian reign. But though they alike profess to cite Manetho, they differ in the numbers they assign, of regnal years in Egypt, to Okhus, Arses, and Darius ; also in the total number of years that intervened between Okhus's recovery of Egypt and the end of the last Darius's reign ; Africanus's figures being 2 + 3 + 4 = 9 years, and Eusebius's 6 + 4 + 6 = 16 years. It is the difference as to the length of Okhus's reign in Egypt that here concerns us chiefly. Both say that, according to Manetho, Okhus became king of Egypt in the 20th year of his Persian reign ; but Africanus makes this 20th year the second, while Eusebius makes it the sixth, before the beginning of the reign of his son Arses. Thus Africanus, with Ptolemy's Canon, which also gives 46 years to the second Artaxerxes, the father of Okhus, reckons Okhus to have reigned 21 years in all, while Eusebius extends his reign to 25 years. But it seems to be, as to when Artaxerxes Mnemon was succeeded by Okhus, not as to when Okhus was succeeded by Arses, that they differed. Eusebius seems to have given to Okhus the last four years of Arta- xerxes Mnemon, somewhat like Diodorus, according to whom Artaxerxes Mnemon reigned 43 years only (Diod. xiii. 108, xv. 93), and Okhus 23 years (Diod. xv. 93). If, then, the difference as to the length of the reign of Okhus between 799 Africanus and Eusebius be a difference as to the date of his accession, the 20th year of his reign has a different meaning as used by the one from that applied to it by the other. According to Africanus, the 20th year of Okhus, like his 20th by Ptolemy's Canon, is his last year but one. It may therefore seem pro- bable that the year of Egypt intended by Africanus is the year of Nabonassar (according to the Egyptians) 409 ; for that is the 20th year of Okhus according to Ptolemy's Canon. And the year of Nabo- nassar 409 began 408 Julian years, all but i^ or 102 days, after mid- day 26th Feb. B.C. 747, or began at mid-day the 16th of November B.C. 340. Thus the high authority of Manetho, according to Africanus, would place the flight of Nectanebos and the accession of Okhus to the throne of Egypt in the year of Egypt which began at mid -day 16th Xov. B.C. 340, in the fifth month or thereabout of the arkhonship of Theophrastus, the year of the 110th Olympic festival. But this date no less than that of Diodorus is disproved by the lan- guage of a contemporary. It is shown to be too late by a letter of Philip king of Macedonia to the people of Athens, replied to in a speech of Demosthenes to that people ; both the letter and the speech belonging to the arkhonship of Theophrastus, and immediately pre- ceding the war which Philip was understood to threaten, and which the Athenians were moved by Demosthenes to declare. For this date see the authorities in Clinton, F. H. vol. ii. Tables B. C. 340, 339, espe- cially the citation from the 6th book of the Atthis of Philokhorus, in Dionys. Halic. ad Ammieum in Sylburg's edition, vol. ii. p. 123. In the 3d section of the epistle Philip says, " Ye have arrived, d&xfc, at such a degree of recklessness and ill-will that ye have even sent (5r<7r/.x*T) ambassadors to the Persian, to persuade him to make war upon me, a thing that one might be particularly surprised at ; for before his taking of Egypt and Phcenice, ye passed a vote, if he should attempt any change in the state of things, oLv sxiho; n vtartpi^y, in like manner to summon me and all the other Greeks against him ; but now ye have such a superabundance of hatred to me as to discuss with him the subject of an offensive alliance." See G. S. Dobson's Oratores Attici, vol. v. pp. 257, 258. Thus Africanus's date, the 20th year of Okhus, if it means the year of Nabonassar 409, is below the true date at which Okhus recovered Egypt. But it may justly be contended that the 20th year of Okhus according to Africanus is the 19th year of Okhus according to Ptolemy s Canon, that is, the year of Nabonassar 408 according to the Egyptians, a year which not began but ended at the point in the arkhonship of Theophrastus above mentioned, mid-day November the 16th B.C. 340, beginning 6 hours P.M. 16th November B.C. 341, in the arkhonship of Nicomakhus. We say that Africanus may justly be thought to have meant this 800 year 408 of Nabonassar by the 20th of Okhus, because this 20th is by him computed to be the 65th year of independence hi Egypt, and the ninth before the beginning of the year which in Theon's copies of Ptolemy's Canon is the first of Alexander on the throne of Darius, when the Macedonian occupied Egypt, and ma.iv.hing thence into Assyria, defeated Darius in the province of Arbela. For the 65th year of the revolt of Egypt is the 65th after the end of Darius Nothus's reign by Egyptian registration, that is, the year of Nabonassar 343 + 65 = 408. And again, the ninth year before the beginning of the year counted to Alexander as his first on the throne of Egypt and of Asia, in Theon's or the unadulterated copies of Ptolemy's Canon, is the year of Nabonassar 417 - 9 = 408. It must be here interposed by way of explanation, first, that when we say Africanus computed the 20th regnal year of Okhus to be the ninth before the beginning of Alexander's first on the throne of Asia according to the true Canon of Ptolemy, we give the result of his numerals. He distributes the interval, being the reign in Egypt of the 31st dynasty, thus: to Okhus 2 years, to Arses 3 years, to Darius 4 years; giving the same number to Darius as the Canon does, but one year more to Arses than does the Canon. Secondly, when we say that by Africanus's computation the 20th year of Okhus was the 65th of the Egyptian revolt, we express the result of his numerical statements. He distributes the interval of independence in Egypt, between the end of Darius Nothus's reign and the beginning of the 20th year of Okhus, thus : to Amyrteeus of Sais, and in him the entire 28th dynasty, 6 years ; to the 29th dynasty of four Mendesians, Nepherites, Akhoris, Psammuthis, and Nepherites, 6 years, 13 years, 1 year, and 4 months respectively ; to the 30th, a Sebennyte dynasty of three kings, Nec- tanebes, Teos, and Nectanebus, 18 years, 2 years, and 18 years re- spectively. See G. Syncell. pp. 76, 77, Paris ed. Now if we consider the four months of the second Nepherites (as we must by the Egyptian rule of registration) to have been either entirely comprehended in the year registered the first of his successor, or to have formed partly the beginning of the year registered as his successor's first and partly the end of his predecessor's last, the other particulars of number given by Africanus as from Manetho amount to 64 years. Therefore the 20th of Okhus in Persia (which was his first in Egypt, because in it, by expelling Nectanebus, he terminated the independence of Egypt and made himself the king of the country) was according to Africanus the 65th of the revolt, though by Ptolemy's Canon the 20th of Okhus was the 66th of the revolt. This explanation having been made, let us take in hand again the year of Nabonassar 408, commencing in the year of the arkhon Nico- makhus at 15| November B.C. 341, and search whether if Africanus rightly identified it with Manetho's (?) 20th year of Okhus it is admissible as the date of the recovery of Egypt by Okhus. 801 In other words, can Egypt perhaps have been recovered when Philip wrote to the people of Athena, BO recently as during the winter of the arkhon immediately preceding the one under whom the letter was written, or since November B.C. 341 ? For we may presume that the season selected for the invasion, especially since the failure of Phar- nabazus and Iphicrates, began after the end of the annual Nile-flood. We contend that Egypt was conquered before the year of Nabonassar according to the Egyptians 408, and before the arkhonship of Nico- makhus, which began midsummer B.C. 341. It was at the beginning of this arkhonship that Demosthenes's fourth Philippic was pronounced ; in which (sec. 9) he urged particularly and at length the despatch of that embassy to the Great King of which Philip complained a year or more afterwards, when probably the satraps of the Asiatic side had already, by their master Okhus's orders, thrown into Perinthus, which Philip was besieging, a force of mercenaries, under a captain named Apollodorus, that finally saved the place. See Dobson's Ora- tores Attici, vol. v. pp. 235, 236. For proof that the fourth Philippic was spoken in the arkhonship of Nicomakhus, that is after midsummer B.C. 341, see Dionysius Halic. ad Ammaeum, p. 738, quoted by Clinton, who shows that the state of things under which it was spoken was not altered since the date of the third Philippic, delivered before mid- summer B.C. 341, in the arkhonship of Sosigenes. For this date, too, see Dionys. Halic. ad Ammseum, ibid. In the third Philippic, too, 15, Oratores Attici, vol. v. p. 223, he had briefly but emphatically named the Great King as one to whom an embassy should be sent, in their quest of succour in men and money against Philip. In the pre- vious harangue on the Khersonesus, under the arkhon Sosigenes, 18, be had spoken of embassies to every quarter without name of place or person. See Dobson's Oratores Attici, vol. v. p. 200. It appears, then, that before the year of Nabonassar 408, which began 15J November B.C. 341, and which Africanus's figures would make the 2Uth of Okhus, and therefore the year of the recovery of Egypt, the Athenians had been urged to send the embassy which Philip afterwards complained of their having sent. We argue, there- fore, that Egypt had been recovered before the Athenians, on the advice of Demosthenes, in the arkhonship of Nicomakhus, sent the embassy ; for Philip's complaint in the following arkhonship of Theo- phrastus is : " Before the Persian recovered Egypt and Phoenice, ye decreed to call in me and all the Greeks against him, if he attempted to effect a change ; but now (z.e. since liis conquest of Egypt and Phoenice) your hatred is so great of me that ye treat with him about the offensive alliance (which ye are making)." This seems to inti- mate not only that Egypt was recovered when the satraps interfered to save Perinthus, but also when the Athenians acted on the advice of the fourth Philippic, not long after midsummer B.C. 341 ; that is, before 15| November B.C. 341, when the 408th year of Nabonassar 802 began, the claims of which to be the date of the conquest we are now considering. It is to be observed, that in advising application against Philip to the Great King, Demosthenes says nothing about Egypt and Phcenice. Now, if Okhus had been still foiled in his attempts against those provinces, one might have expected some reason why it was not useless for the Athenians to send ambassadors to him ; whereas if, as we believe, he had already succeeded, it was prudent in the orator not to dwell upon a known fact, the fear of which had once induced the Athenians to contemplate a general confederacy against the Persian. But we also remark, that the year 408 of Nabonassar has no claim to be regarded as the date of the recovery of Egypt, except the mere mistake of Africanus in supposing this to be the position of the 20th year of Okhus, in respect to the death of Darius Nothus on the one hand, and the battle of Arbela on the other. It was by omitting a year (which Eusebius's Manetho and the Syncellus's author re- stored to the 29th dynasty) that Africanus counted only 64 years between the last year of Darius Nothus and the 20th year of Okhus Artaxerxes ; and it was by giving an adlitional year to Arses, to remedy the former mistake, that he counted nine years of Persian rule in Egypt, beginning with the supposed year of the conquest, the 20th of Okhus, and ending with the fourth year of Darius, which Ptolemy's Canon also made to be the last of Darius's reign. If Africauus thought himself justified, in giving three years to the reign of Arses by such authority as Diodorus's, who (in xvii. 5) relates that Arses was slain by Bagoas in the third year of his reign, the answer to him is, that by the Egyptian method of Ptolemy in the Canon of Reigns this third year is the same which is counted as the first of Darius Codomannus's four. The year, then, being too low of the arkhon Nicomakhus (like that of the arkhon Theophrastus), according to the testimony of Philip and Demosthenes, while not only Diodorus's year of the arkhon Apollo- dorus, but even the date of Isocrates's Address to Philip after the conclusion of a peace between him and the Athenians, the close of the arkhonship of Themistocles, is too high a date for the conquest of Egypt, we are left to seek the year and the season of Okhus's victory in the interval between Themistocles and Nicomakhus, that is, between the midsummer of B.C. 346 and the midsummer of B.C. 341. There is considerable authority, to terminate doubt, in favour of the arkhonship of Arkhias, which immediately followed that of Themis- tocles, when Isocrates finished his address to Philip. The Manetho of Eusebius, while making the 20th year of Okhus in his Persian kingdom the year of his accession to the double crown of Egypt, places this 20th year as the (6 + 4 + 6=) 16th before the death of Darius Codomannus, or rather before the beginning of the arkhonship of Aristophon, in whose first month Darius was slain, and whose year was the first of the first Calippic Period, beginning at midsummer B.C. 330. For this, according to some chronologers, was the first 803 year of the ki>Hj6ss, Manual Tables of Astronomy. Not only from the Syncellus's language, but from that of the fragment of a commentary (addressed by Theon to his son Epiphanius, and described as a second and more popular com- mentary) tig roiif 7rpo%sipov zetvova.;, on the Manual Tables (for which fragment see Dodwell's aforesaid Appendix), it would seem that the civil time-table, used for the astronomical purposes of that work, was, substantially at least, Dodwell's later Table, or series of tables, of Reigns. This series of reigns first Greek, afterwards Roman begins with the reign next after that of Alexander, the Founder (as the conqueror of Asia was called at his own Alexandria) ; that is to say, it begins with Philip Aridaeus, whose lieutenant, at his accession to the kingship, the first of the Ptolemies was made in Egypt. The principal part of the Manual Tables of Astronomy the Syncellus seems to describe as an astronomical table of 1476 Egyptian years, beginning with the first of Philip ; and the Syncellus's language receives light from the fragment of Theon. Accordingly, we are led to conceive that this cycle of 1476 Egyptian or 1475 solar years was divided into a series of 59 lesser periods of 25 solar years apiece ; each solar year being computed to be, not, as that of Alexandria was, ^igjths of an Egyptian year, according to the old calculation adopted by Calippus in the time of Alexander the Great, and by Sosigeues in the time of 817 Julius Caesar, but |H$ths of the same ; that is, 365 days, 5 hours, 56 minutes, 20 seconds, and $ths of a second : while Hipparkhus's cal- culation, as reported by Ptolemy, was 365 days, 5 hours, 55 minutes, 12 seconds. See Clinton's F. H. vol. ii. Appendix, chap. 19. It was in order to find in this cycle of 1476 years of Philip the dates corre- sponding with epochs of the., Alexandrian eras of Diocletian or of Augustus, that the Canon of Reigns subsequent to that of Alexander the Great (the Egyptian Canon, or Canon of the Egyptian era, as we may especially term it) was added to the Manual. The years of Alexandria were fixed, and differed from those of Egypt, which were vague, or receding years, by the intercalation of a sixth epagomene, or day supplementary, at the end of every four years or 1460 days ; and the method of reducing any date in the series of these years to a date in the cycle of 1476 Egyptian years is explained by Theon. He takes as an example the 77th year of Diocletian, the 22d day of Thoth, the llth hour of daylight ; and he finds the corresponding point of time in the cycle of 1476 years thus : To begin, he turns to the Canon of Reigns subsequent to Alexander's, or reigns of the era of Philip Aridseus, and out of the third column, or column of totals, he obtains the number of years from the commencement of the reign of Philip to that of the reign of Diocletian, which is 607. To this he adds the number of years in the date given for reduction ; that is, 77 years of Diocletian (current). Next, to determine the position of the total, which is 684 years in the Canon (of astronomical positions) for a cycle of 1476 years, he carries the same tig TO run fixoatvfrrotf?vptoa* ifpuTov asX/S/ov, to the column of twenty -Jives of years, which is the first in the lesser Canon thereof. (For the Greek phrase, understanding its meaning, from what had been said some time previously, to be this, its TO TC-IV tix-GOtTTlVTOltTYIplba* HOtVOVtOV X.O.TC6 TO "TffUTOV ffiA/SfOV, WC W6r6 inclined to propose fi; TO TUV tix.oanrtvTtT-/ipfou, irpuTOV o, TatfTypfia is here the abbreviation of TOV TUV tix.witTftvTa.tTii- pidav X.O.VOVIW.) Here Theon finds the number next less than 684 years. This (consisting of Egyptian years current in so many twenty-fives of solar years) is 676 ; corresponding with 27 complete twenty-fives of solar years. Therefore 676 is said to be the first of the five required xfA/ or heads of the given date, as contained in the Astronomical Table ; that is, the head of six.oaiirf!rra,tTypiOe;, or 25 year periods: while the eight years' remaining surplus (for 684 - 676 = 8), being a fraction of the current 28th period of 25 years, are taken for the z-x , single years, the second of the five heads or particulars required in the Canon (of astronomical positions) for 1476 Egyptian years. Now here, when tliis section was written, we suspected that Theon's figures had been altered, and that they should have been 607 + 77 current = 684th year current ; and 684 years current -(27 x 25 =) 675 whole 818 years = 9th year current. But we have since found that Theon reports the canon of planetary positions for the cycle of 1-476 years aright. See below, Section E. Thus, of the five heads or particulars of date in the cycle of 1476 years, two are now obtained, the number of 25 year periods elapsed, which is 27 ; and the number of the year in the current period of 25 years, which number is eight. Next he proceeds to the finding of the other three particulars, the month, the day, and the hour ; and he takes from the Canon of Reigns, subsequent to Alexander's, the number of years from the beginning of Augustus to that of Diocletian, 313. This is his first step. The second step in the operation is thus previously explained : The years of Augustus of the Alexandrian register, being fixed in relation to the circle of the seasons by an intercalation like the Julian, formed a series which, having in any commencement of a year coin- cided with a year of the register of Egyptian years, could not so coin- cide again till after 1460 Alexandrian years of Augustus, reckoned at 365^ days apiece, or after 1461 Egyptian years, each consisting of 365 days. But such a coincidence in commencement did take place five years after the beginning of the reign of Augustus ; or, as he had said before, in the fifth year of Augustus's reign. The two expressions are this, ytvwQac.i (read ytywyiadcti) /mroc * IT/J -njj p%*is TOW (read rye) A.V-/OVOTOV fiountetot;, and this, ry Trsft-^TU tru A.v*/ovi|v5p*' S/* TO *< vetpec rat/; %up: oj' xeti XAov xpovov. We have here made three or 820 four corrections : (1) inserting TJV before ruv 7rpox.fip.ftta* "jrp^flpuv xatvovuv, and understanding from the preceding context fx.di TJJC 3/<7xA, as referring to %povov in the previous context. (3) We have put aS-n?, " this (beginning)," for ratinyv. Sense would also have been made by reading TOVTO, " this (thing)," for T^T!>. (4) Dodwell's text has *o,*W, or the nominative for the dative: perhaps a mere misprint. The text of Georgius Syncellus, thus illustrated by Theon, is also to be compared with other statements of his own. One at p. 204, C, ed. Paris, runs thus, according to Dindorf : d TJJ? otpws owv TOVTOV (of Aridseus Philip) oi %povot run Tpoxfipuv xotyovuv x.otrde, H-roteftariciv Av off | pi6ftov ft; x.f oiAAac hiivfotloti r,0Ki a-^ovox^an dvrt ($' OTOffctiaax;, x,xiirtp tv o!AXo/A$opiot 7rsj|TO, [' Apxw (read dpffl, or perhaps dpxy) AiyvTrrietMv x.xi ' EAAflwxow frov; xofrd ryv vpurn rov &u6 ftYivof, voip A.i"/vjrrtoii heyofiivov, x,ff TOV Avyovtrrov ftYic;~\ ovuxv dfo- >CT06<7T*T/JJ, o'^to'x,00OV 0/*oXoyOV^6)f ftTTl TU fJO STfl TbV XOOf&OV, dvO 1>s TOV ctirrov vpurov trovf ^i^iwdu (tsxpi TV; x,6atipiaius KXOTTpf, t-til urn* (insert TOV;) dtrrpoyoputovs notvovx^ 'nrujvvet'yi'ra.t J yivovreti (5169 + 294 =) ev%i^' xoaftizov trov; xetl TO ftytt' V Ss *FXft T^S oX>)f ficurihu'ct; ctirrou TU tvnii. Iletvooapos SJ TYI fiudy/natTix.*! t^ooio^ov^av tiiooati, tip fttv dpxfty Tqf Avyoixrrov fictatteieis TQ tvva, tTtt TOV xwrftov taTOi^elatrt, TO tit T&OS TU UO =) 212, of Philip (5712 - 5169 =) 543. But this year of Philip, which is con- firmed by the Canon of Reigns subsequent to Alexander's printed in DodwelTs Appendix, began at 6 A.M. 30th Juno A.D. 219 : for Kkpi- 827 balus's first year by Egyptian reckoning had ended six hours later in A.D. 218, when his actual reign was but 23 days old. Now Africanus also speaks of this emperor's third year ; but he means the third year reckoned from Elegabalus's accession to the throne on the 8th of June A.D. 218, describing it as the year of the consuls Gratus and Seleucus, i.e. A.D. 221, in which it certainly expired. The same year is made by Africanus the year of the World 5723 ; and it appears that nearly six centuries before our Syncellus's labours Africanus had placed our Lord's nativity in the year of the World 5501 ; therefore his year of the World 5723 is his 223d of the manhood of our Lord. Now, following Luke iii. 1, 23, but omitting the Passover indicated by John vi. 4, he placed the crucifixion in the 31st year of the man- hood, and in the 5531st year of the World ; also in the 16th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, that is, at Passover A.D. 30. Therefore his year of the Nativity and year 5501 of the World will coincide with our year B.C. 1 ; his year of the Manhood 223 will coincide with our A.D. 222 ; and in placing here the consulship of Gratus and Seleucus he places it a year too late. See Georg. Syncellus, pp. 212, 323, 324, 325, 326 of the Paris edition ; and Clinton's F. R., A.D. 221 ; also A.D. 30, where, observing on Af ricanus's date of the crucifixion (which, besides the particulars already cited, has also this, the second year of the 202d Olympiad), Clinton says, " The Passover of the 16th of Tibe- rius is in the spring of A.D. 30, a little before the close of the first year of Olympiad 202." We only add, that Africanus made the con- sulate of Gratus and Seleucus to coincide with the (year of the) 250th Olympiad, otherwise denominated the first year of the 250th Olympiad ; the truth being, that the six months of the consulate following mid- summer coincided with the first six months of the Olympic year alleged, which is treated by Africanus as if it was a Julian year of Rome, beginning with the Kalends of January A.D. 221. It appears, then, that it is not to our A.D. 802, but to A.D. 809, that, according to Georgius Syncellus, the Canon of Reigns in Ptolemy's Manual Tables of Astronomy was continued ; and the discussion seems to have shown that in Georgius's difference with Panodorus (to whom we should be glad to know the extent of his obligations) he may be considered in the wrong. We have remarked above, that if the Syncellus supposed the first year of Philip to be the year of Adam 5170, he should have placed the nativity of our Lord (as Panodorus did on the same supposition) in the year of Adam 5493. Accordingly, in the last days of the Grseco- Roman empire at Constantinople, the year of our Lord's nativity being then held to be nine years later in the era of the first Adam and of the World than the Syncellus's date, and (9 + 7 =) 16 years later than the year assigned by Panodorus, that is to say, the Nativity being placed in the year of the World beginning with September 5509 (as the Greeks compute it still), the first year of Philip was concluded to be one coin- 828 tiding (nearly) with the year of the World 5186 ; the 16th, namely, from and after the year assumed alike by Panodorus and by Georgius Syncellus. See a calculation subjoined to the Abbe Halma's edition in 4to derived from MSS. 2394 and 2390 of the now Imperial Library of Paris, 1819 of the two Canons, the Khaldsean, of Reigns before Alexander's, with Alexander's own ; and the Egyptian, of Reigns, Macedonian and Roman, subsequent to Alexander's. The latter is pro- longed to the end of the fifth year of Constantino Palseologus and the taking of Constantinople by the Turks ; and towards the end of it, on a slight inspection, appeared to differ much in expression from the corresponding table in Dod well's edition. The calculation we refer to is taken from the above-mentioned MS. 2394. It is an exposition made in the reign of Antoninus Palaeologus or Antoninus the Monk, who reigned, according to the Table, the 45 Egyptian years from 1608 to 1652 of the era of Philip. The expounder is described as 6 pi-/*; Aoyo0*Tf Kotvovcts ruv dvr'hoivav dartpav eyx,stret,i xetvovix S/ uv ^vva.ra.i rig yvava,! rqv fx.oi.arov ftyvof qfttpotv it; 7roia.v qftipav 7% iftlo/net.'So; xaroivroi. Suidas also uses the singular form to designate this work of Ptolemy's. A commentary upon it in a list of Theon's works he entitles, E/j rov Hroteftxtov -xpoxtipov x.a,vovee. : and in enumerating Ptolemy's works he gives us ~K.oi.vuv Kpoxupog, pp. 1174, D, and 3158, D, cited in Clinton's F. E. vol. ii. pp. 313 and 283. But a better acquaintance with this work is to be had than that which we have gleaned from Geo. Syncellus from the fragment of Theon's Commentary printed by Dodwell, from the Emperor Herakleius, and from Suidas. Professor De Morgan, of University College, London, in Smith's Diet, of Gr. and Roman Biography, art. THEON, tells us that Kuster, speaking of an emendation of the text of Suidas, said that Theon wrote a commentary on the Canon of Ptolemy, which Canon existed in manuscript in the Imperial Library. Accordingly, Delambre found a manuscript in the Koyal Library at Paris, which he has described (Hist. Ast. Anc. vol. ii. p. 616) under the head of iuvo$ 'AAe^aS^&>5 xetvovig irpoxttpot, Tables Manuelles de Theon cTAlexandrie. This work was afterwards published by Halma, but under the title Commentaire de Theon . . . sur les tables manuelles astronomiques de Ptoleme'e, in three parts, Paris 1822, 1823, 1825, 4to. Having only very recently seen this last work (continues Mr. De Mor- gan), we have only as recently known that there is a distinct work of Ptolemy himself, the netvovt; ^p6%tipot. Ptolemy's part is addressed to Syrus ; Theon's to his son Epiphanius. The contents are Prolego- mena, Tables of latitude and longitude, and a collection of Astronomical Tables somewhat more extensive than that in the (Magna) Syntaxis. The Prolegomena are separately headed : one set is given to Ptolemy. 831 another to Theon. But the Tables themselves are headed, Ilrofaftetiov (diuvog xi ' Yirccrix; vp^tipoi xetvovt;. Dodwell had previously printed a fragment of the Prolegomena in his Dissertationes Cyprianicse, Oxford 1684, 8vo. So far Mr. De Morgan. Thus instructed, we inquired for the Abbe Raima's Commentaire de Theon, etc., at the Royal Library at Brussels ; but of the three parts, 4to, above-mentioned, were informed that the Library possessed the second only. It is entitled a collection of Astronomical Tables, TLrofo- ftctt'ov x.atl Qiuvo; Trpo^etpot Kotvont;, and is dated de Vimprimerie de A. Bobee Rue de Tabkttiere, Paris, 1823. At pp. 112-119, in Greek and French on opposite pages, we have a Table in five parts (for so, on examination, we thought we might de- scribe it), entitled Evoxai ruv irivrt etanpuv, Positions of the Five Stars, and divided into 12 columns. The first part, as we think, will be a table of 12 columns, whereof the respective titles are 1. Eix.vxhov ; 6. rov etvrov otartpog ; 7. Apto;' xtvrpov fTriKvx.hov ', 8. rov etvrov otunpog ', 9. AQpobirYi;' x,tvrpov sirix.vx.'h.ov ; 10. TOV etvrov uartpos ; 11. 'Epftov' xenrpov tvix.vx.'hov ; 12. TOV etvrov etortpo;. We have some recollection of this first part of the Tables of Positions having a title of its own, tixwivtvrottrtipibts ruv irerrt etffrtpuv Twenty-five-year periods of the five stars. The second part, as we suppose, will be a table of 12 columns, hav- ing its first column headed with the title ?T>J ***.&, single years. The headings of the other columns are the same respectively as those of the corresponding columns in the first part. This second part has its general title, ?T>J -x ruv irtvrt otanpav, single years of the five stars. Of this, the title of the first column, 'irn 9rA, is obviously an abbrevi- ation only. . The third part will be a table of 12 columns, having for the title of its first column, Myvf; Aiyvirr., Eyypt. Months. The remaining columns have the same titles respectively as the last eleven columns of the previous tables. The whole table has for a general title Mm? Aiyv-Trriaii ruv vtvrt etartpuv, whereof the title of the first column is obviously an abbreviation only. The fourth part will be a table of 12 columns, having its first column headed ' Hfttpxi, and the others headed respectively as the last eleven columns in the preceding tables. A general title of this part is ' HfAtpa* Af/vTrri&iv otpiOftoi ruv TtvTt etartpuv, Numbers of Egyptian days of the Jive stars. The title of the first column signifies the same in one word. The fifth part will be a table of 12 columns, headed respectively as before, all but the first, the title of which is 'Ho*/, Hours; being an abbreviation of the general title of the whole part, ' flpu etiro fts^ft- fipiet; otpiSftfjt ruv Ktvn otartpuv, Numbers of Hours counted from mid- day ofthefii-e stars. 832 In the first of these, the Five-and-twenty*year Table, the first column, or column of twenty-fives, consists of 60 numbers in as many succes- sive lines, beginning with 1, increasing progressively by 25 at a time, and ending with 1476. On a line with these 60 numbers respectively, in the other parallel columns, seem to be noted the positions at the several times of Eegulus in respect of the autumn equinoctial point, and of Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Mercury (perhaps in longitude and latitude) in respect of Regulus. The eleven columns have also a 61st line, whereon are noted (distances) additional. The reader, it is hoped, may derive some information from this account, though, as it comes from one wholly ignorant of astronomy, it may present very obvious blunders to him for correction. In the second part, or Single-year Table, we have in the first column , headed Single Years, a series of numbers of years below 25, from 1 in the top line to 24 in the bottom line. Corresponding severally with these, in the other columns, are distances of Regulus and of the five planets of the same description as those of the previous table. These other eleven columns have also a line of additional distances, as in the former table, making a 25th line. In the third part, or Egyptian Month Table, we have in the first column, headed Egyptian Months, 13 names on successive lines from top to bottom; for the five supplementary days at the end of the twelvemonth are considered as a 13th month. These names are Thoth, Phaophi, Athyr, Khoiak, Tybi, Mekhir, Phamenoth, Pharmuthi, Pakhon, Pagni, Epiphi, Mesdri, Epagomense. Opposite these 13 in the other columns are distances such as we have already noticed ; and at bottom those columns have a 14th line of additional distances. In the fourth part, or Day Table, the first column, headed Days, presents the numbers of the month-days from 1 to 30. The other columns, on as many lines, exhibit corresponding distances of Regulus and the five planets such as we have described already, and also ad- ditional distances on a 31st line at bottom. In the fifth part, or Hour Table, the first column, headed Hours, presents the numbers of the hours from 1 to 24 after mid-day. The other columns exhibit distances such as those already described, and on a 25th line additional distances, as at the bottom of the correspond- ing columns of previous tables. These five parts seem to be called by Theon xttvoviet, their titles x*i, in his example of the use of the Table of Reigns in the era of Philip, for reducing a date of one of the Alexandrian eras to the fivefold description of the same in a Table of the Jive planets during a cycle of 1476 years of Philip. This example we cited above in Section C. The Table of Kings in one of DodwelTs collated copies, which lie calk 1 Voss., ends with Phokas, the predecessor of the Emperor Herakleius, and with the year of Philip 933 : that is to vy, at -2:1 { 833 March A.D. 610. We have also seen that the table in Geo. Syncel- lus's hands (ending perhaps with the predecessor of Nikephorus) enabled him to calculate the (year of the World 6302-5169=) year of Philip 1133, which was the 8th (and last but one) year of the Emperor Nikephorus. Another copy collated by Dodwell, Voss. 2, ends with the year of Philip 1136 and the reign of Mikhael Ranka- bseus, to whom the Canon, after its manner, the Egyptian, gives the whole year in which Nikephorus died and the son of Nikephorus was succeeded by Mikhael Rankabaeus. Another copy, Savil. 2, ends with Basileius the Macedonian and the year of Philip 1209 ; adding the name only of the next emperor, Leon. Still Dodwell had a copy which enabled him to continue his Table of Reigns subsequent to Alexander's, down to that of the first Turkish emperor, whom it miscalls the Emir Amurath or Murad o eiftYipA; 'OfAvptirns. But the numbers seem hopelessly corrupt. In the Manual Tables also, we learn from Mr. De Morgan that the Table of Kings is carried down to the fall of the eastern empire, with the heading ITi-oAt^a/ov eetpf*,ov0i Tfrpottii, SvoYa?. ... If we assign the corresponding dates of the Julian Calendar of Rome accord- ing to the Comparative Table used by Geo. Syncellus (a copy of whose work Dindorf 's Codex A is part of the same manuscript volume, No. 1711), we must suppose the Pseudo-Callisthenes to refer to the Egypto- Julian year of Alexandria, which was first introduced at that city in the 295th year of Philip Aridseus. Then, according to Geo. SyncelL p. 8, B, the 1st of Tybi is the 27th of December ; and according to Georg. Syncell. p. 7, A, the 4th of Pharmuthi is the 30th of March. We shall obtain the same results if we take the 29th of August for the first of the Alexandrian Thoth (as it was, except in the first year of each four-year period), and if we know that Tybi was the fifth and Pharmuthi the eighth months of the Egypto- Julian no less than the 845 proper Egyptian year. The dates of Codex A have evidently been interpreted, though not accurately, according to the Egypto-Julian Calendar in use at Alexandria, either by Nectarius the monk of Otranto in Calabria, whose pen in A.D. 1469 executed C. Miiller's Codex B (Paris MS. No. 1685), or else by a previous scribe. For that MS. exhibits the passage thus: l*/ttvii6in ftivo 'A*i%,civ'!>po; ftwos'Iavyovctptov vioftyviif JTOAJ; o<7? rov jjx/ov. fTeteurwf tit ftyvos ' Asrjs/AA/ov nfo/awicc 8t* qpipetv su ft ij ' AXs<>/>/ kothu a.ya.&^v elvott x.l I? roc STrttTot try dp^f rvjg d-xctpidftqaiu; ctirrav voftifaSett. The decree thus described seems to have established the day of the capture as the one with which, in time to come, every new year, of the series after- wards called in Egypt years of Augustus, was to begin. A result of the enactment would be, that henceforth the year at Alexandria would be fixed ; and this result was obtained by adding, as we have said, a sixth epagomene, or day supplementary, at the end of every period of four years : for thus at Alexandria was applied a doctrine concerning the length of the solar year, which, since the reformation of the Calendar by Julius Csesar, had been professedly followed for the last sixteen years at Rome. Thus it was expected that every succeeding New-year's day at Alexandria would fall on the same day of the Roman Calendar as that of the capture of the city. And this would have happened if the 1461st day had been intercalated in the course of the same consulship and Julian year of Rome at the Imperial City and at Alexandria. Before we add anything on this head, we interpose two observations. First, we would illustrate Dion's meaning, in the passage above cited, by his previous words concerning the day in B.C. 31 which was ordained to be the first of the era of Actium. In li. 1, he writes, roi- etvrii tig jj vetvfAei^tat ctvruv T>J favrtpep TOU ^fTTTiftfipfov tytvvro' roDro ^i ovx. aXXsif fiTrov, . . . AX' Sri rort Trparov o K.xtactp TO x,pu.To; vsi ftoi/o; tff^sj/, uari x,oii rqv dirotpi&ft.ifiotv TUV TJJ [/.ovoip-^iotg etirrov kruv 0.1: txtivng TJJ? ijfitpets dxpifiovc&eti. Observe, that if the new year was to begin to be numbered on a certain day, the series of days in that year would also begin with that day. Secondly, we would remark, that at Rome also there was afterwards instituted a series of years called anni Augustani, or anni Augustorum. But of these the first was the Roman year B.C. 27 ; when, as Censorinus, de Die Natali, cited by Clinton, tells us, cap. 21, the surname Augustus was given to the Caesar by a decree of the 16th before the Calends of February. But the Egyptian years of Augustus were counted from the end of Cleopatra's reign ; that is, as we say, if pure Egyptian years according to the Egyptian method of registration, from the 1st day of Thoth next before her death ; if years of Alexandria, from the day before, or the yesterday of that New-year's day, both days being to Egyptians and Alexandrians respectively, the commencement of the reign of the Romans in the person of the conqueror, afterwards named Augustus. Hence the year when Censorinus wrote, that is, the consulship of Ulpius and Pontianus(A.D.238), wasA.D. 238+B.C.27= (as he says) the 2C5th Augustan year at Rome ; while the year at Alexandria, still current during the first two-thirds of the same year, and ending with the 28th of August, was (A.D. 237 + 29 B.C. =), as he says, the 267th of Augustus in that capital. See Censorinus, de Die Natali, cap. 21, cited by Clinton. 853 If we now seek the day of the Roman Calendar when the Alexan- drian years of Augustus began, we shall find that it should have been counted the 30th, though it was called the 29th, of August ; and con- sequently the first of Thoth that year, being the morrow, was the 31st, though counted as the 30th. It will be seen, too, how this difference of a day, between the common reckoning and a better, came to exist. That the 29th of August, or fourth before the Calends of September, was the day intended by the decree of the Roman senate and people, may be sufficiently demonstrated by the following testimonies. The latest in time is that of Georgius Syncellus. We have already cited from him a passage, pp. 326, 327 of Gear's Paris edition, where the day of the Roman Calendar which answered (in three years out of four) to the Alexandrian first of Thoth is declared ; though the pas- sage in this case seems to be interpolated. For two other places where the correspondence between the Alexandrian and the Roman Calendars is given, we refer the reader to pp. 7 and 312 of the same edition marked in Dindorf s margin. Of these we will cite the former only. The Syncellus, having apparently before him a comparative table of the three calendars, is setting forth the correspondence of a certain Julian year of the Hebrews, first with that of the Romans, and secondly with that of Alexandria. Having begun with Nisan, and being now arrived at Elul, he writes, "Ex-re? ft^ E/Aot/, qftepav rpi- X,OI>TOC /&!;, TTO Taj x.-/' rov Avyov and tag, as in modern Greek, with accusatives. What we cite next, showing the place of the same Elul in the Alexandrian Calendar, is confused, and also somewhat corrupt in the reading : vo TS A' rov Meaopi \_Jiotl i fvef/ofttvati] tu; T? x,t TOV Qud. [axd rf xS' TOW Avyof/oroi; tu; rot; KVJ. ' H ydo eipxv TOW (dud eivo rei; x.0 AwyoiWov f<7. Now the ,/i/vrt before the Nones of May is the 6th of May : see the art. Calendarium, by Professor T. H. Key, in Smith's Zh'cJ. o/ Gr. and Rom. Antiquities ; or The Roman Calendar, in Sir Harris Nicolas's Chronology of History. Again, the consulship of Sextus Erycius Clarus, the second time, and Cnaeus Claudius Severus, was the year of our Lord 146 : see Clinton's F. R. Thirdly, Pakhon is the ninth month both of the moving Egyptian year and of the fixed year of Alexandria : see for the first, Sir J. G. Wilkinson in Rawlin- son's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 283 ; and for the latter, Geo. Syncellus, pp. 7, 8 of Gear's Paris edition. Therefore, reckoned from the 29th of August, the 6th of May is the 251st day of the Julian Calendar of Rome, as of our own also ; for 3 + 30 + 31 + 30 + 31 + 31 + 28 + 31 + 30 + 6 = 251. And so is the llth of Pakhon the 251st day from the first of Thoth ; for 30 x 8 + 11 = 251. Therefore the Alex- andrian year began with the 29th of the Roman month Sextilis, that is, August, A.D. 146. Wherefore also this is concluded to have been the day of the Roman Calendar whereon, in the year B.C. 30 or U.C. 724, Alexandria was taken by the Romans under C. Caesar Octavianus, then for the fourth time consul, and having for his colleague M. Licinius Crassus. This day was the epoch whence the years of a new era, those of Augustus, were ordered to begin at Alexandria. Thus the first year of Augustus, by Alexandrian reckoning, did not exactly coincide with the first of Augustus by the Egyptian computa- tion of Ptolemy. By Dodwell's edition of the Table of Reigns used for the calculations of Claudius Ptolemy's Manual Tables of Astronomy , that is, the Table of Reigns subsequent to Alexander's, we perceive that the Egyptian first year of Augustus was identical with the 295th year of the era of Philip Aridaeus. (This era, be it observed by the way, had been in use under the Lagidae, of whom Cleopatra was the last, from the time of Ptolemy son of Lagus, the first of that Greek dynasty ; for coins of Paphos and Kitium in Cyprus bearing the like- ness and legend of a Ptolemaeus exhibit the 39th and 49th years of the era. See Yaillant's Hist. Ptolemieorvm, cited by Clinton, F. H. vol. iii., Appendix, chap. On the Kings of Egypt.) Now, being the 425th year of Nabonassar (as we have proved already, and as is shown in our Table of the Years of Kings of Babylon from the first of Nabonassar to the first of Seleucus Nicator, in Sec- tion A), the first year of Philip Aridaeus began, according to the Egyptian calculation of Claudius Ptolemy, at noon 12th November B.C. 324, that is, on the expiration of 424 years of 365 days apiece since noon the 26th of February B.C. 747, or from a first of Thoth with which, according to Egyptian rule, the first year of Nabonassar king of Babylon began. Therefore the 295th year of Philip Aridaeus. or, as we have stated, the first year of the Roman dominion and of the reign in Egypt of Augustus, began, according to the native Egyp- 856 tian mode of reckoning, after the lapse of 294 Egyptian years, or 294 Julian years all but 294 quarters of a day, from the beginning of the first of Philip Aridseus by the same reckoning. That is, the first of Augustus, by their computation, began at midnight with the Roman civil day the 31st of August B.C. 30. Thus there seems to be the dif- ference of two whole civil days of Rome between the Alexandrian and the native Egyptian commencement of the first year of Augustus : according to the Egyptians, it began with the Roman 31st of August; according to the Alexandrian Greeks, with the Roman 29th of August. In reality we shall see there was but half this difference, that is, there was but the difference of a single Roman day between the two accounts : the rest of the apparent difference, that is, one day, being an error in the Roman Calendar of the year B.C. 30. Theon tells us that the Egyptian first of Thoth coincided exactly with the Alexandrian day so called in the fifth year of Augustus. In the fragment printed by Dodwell of Theon's Commentary on Ptolemy's Manual Tables of Astronomy, we have instructions how (as a prelimi- nary to astronomical calculations by the Manual Tables) to reduce any given Greek date of Alexandria to the corresponding point of the register of Egyptian time in the Manual Tables. And here our Alex- andrian professor writes thus : -ytyovt te q tipy/awn S/ etu % (1460) truv s, **o tivos *?&<; xpwov (Note, B.C. 26 + 1460 = 1486), irti Aiiyovorov /3ovAf/c' a$ tx, rovrov KotKtv rov ^ao'vof TV? ti TOVJ A/yi/*T/ot/; Trpaketfufieiyeiit jcxff SX.OUTTOV fmavrov rp rsreiprifi ftiosi TJJ? tif^foatf. Nor is there any doubt as to the position intended, either of the first or of the fifth year of Augustus. For in the sequel it is argued from the Canon of Reigns subsequent to Alex- ander's, that from the beginning of the first of these, the reign of Philip Aridseus, to the beginning of Diocletian's, were 607 Egyptian years ; and from the beginning of Augustus to the beginning of Dio- cletian, a total of 313. Therefore the first of Augustus was the 295th, and the fifth of Augustus the 299th, year of Philip Aridaeus. Of these two, it has already been shown that the former year begins in the middle of the night between the 30th and the 31st of August, that is, with the Roman day called Prirlie Calendas Septembris, of the Julian year B.C. 30. The latter year of the two will begin four Julian years all but 24 hours, that is, 1 460 days earlier, or at midnight between the 29th and the 30th of August, along with the Roman day called Antediem tertium Calend. Septemb. in the Julian year B.C. 26. Now, this beginning of the Egyptian year of Philip Aridaeus 299, and of Augustus five (that is, this 30th day of August B.C. 26), Theon, as we have seen, assures us, coincided exactly with the beginning, or first of Thoth, of the Alexandrian fifth year of Augustus. Therefore, according to Theon, the civil day of the Roman Calendar with which the Alexandrian first of Thoth coincided in B.C. 26, was the 30th of August : whereas wo have found it attested. ./">*' in n document fol- 857 lowed by Geo. Syncellus, secondly in a special treatise by the Emperor Heraclius, and thirdly on a marble of the consuls of the year of our Lord 146, that the Alexandrian 1st of Thoth was the Roman 29th of August. To explain this difference of a day, we offer the following observa- tions. In the year B.C. 46, by intercalations amounting in all to 96 days, Julius Caesar, as Pontifex Maximus, had restored the Roman civil year to something like its old position in relation to the seasons of the solar year ; and in order to keep it continually in the restored position, having increased its days to 365, he had ordered for the future one day besides to be intercalated every four years before the Sixth of the Calends of March, that is, at the point in the old Calendar where the month used to be intercalated when it was sought to re- adjust the months of the then lunar year to their former seasons in the solar year. The day was henceforth to be here intercalated (in the last of) every four such years as Julius Caesar then constituted, and as have descended to ourselves from the Romans ; because, according to the common Egyptian computation (long before followed by Calippus, as then by Sosigenes and other Greeks), the length of the solar year was 365 days and 6 hours, that is, was the quarter of one day greater than the length of the Egyptian civil year. But the great dictator did not live to superintend the execution of his edict as to intercalation, even on the first occasion. He was assassinated on the Ides of March in the year B.C. 44 a year called by Censorinus (De die natali, cap. 22) " THE SECOND JULIAN YEAR," when the consuls were, himself a fifth time, and Mark Antony the first time. The pontiffs, thus left, without an infallible head, to their own interpretation of the edict, and mis- taking the year designated as the fourth year, though probably under- standing the term in a more usual sense, had intercalated a day before the sixth of the Calends of March five times, instead of four times, before the capture of Alexandria by the dictator's adopted son C. Caesar Octavianus, and the deaths of Antony and Cleopatra in B.C. 30. The five days intercalated being days during which the year as it were stood still, during which the progress of the numbering of ordinary month-days was suspended, the pontiffs had thus diminished the number of each month-day of the Calendar more by one unit than Julius Caesar intended since their fifth intercalation. The edict had pointed out every fourth year for a year of intercalation ; and they had not regarded these fourth years as the last of so many rtrptt- trripfifs, distinct periods of four times 365 days, but in the count of the four years had included the year of previous intercalation as the first of the four. They commenced their reckoning from and with the year B.C. 46, in the course of which Julius Caesar had put in 96 days, instead of from and after that year. Hence they intercalated a day (bisextum, as it was called) in February B.C. 43 ; then, counting another four years from and with, instead of from and after, this year 43. they intercalated a bistxtum in February B.C. 40. Altogether. 858 between the year B.C. 46, when Julius Caesar made the great inter- calation of 96 days, and the year B.C. 30, when Alexandria was taken by the Caesar Octavianus, afterwards Augustus, they had intercalated in the years B.C. 43, 40, 37, 34, and 31, whereas they should have intercalated four times only, in what Censorinus would have designated the 4th, 8th, 12th, and 16th Julian years, being the years B.C. 42, 38, 34, and 30. Accordingly, the day of the taking of Alexandria, which should have ranked in the Calendar as antediem iii. Calend. Seplemb., that is, the 30th of Sextilis, afterwards August, was there numbered antediem iv. Calend. Septemb., that is, the 29th of August. The num- ber of the day had been put back one further than the rule of the Calendar required. Wherefore also the morrow of the capture, which happened to be the 1st of Thoth, the Egyptian New-year's day, stood as the 30th of August in the pontifical Calendar, though, if Julius Caesar had been alive, it would have been named the 31st. So much for the error of the pontifical Calendar at Rome in the year B.C. 30, whereby the day of the capture of Alexandria and the following Egyptian New-year's day stood as the 29th and 30th, instead of the 30th and 31st, of August respectively. But in B.C. 26, when the Roman, or, as it was afterwards termed, the Augustan, reign had lasted in Egypt 1460 days, or four whole years of the country, that is, on the expiration of the year of Philip Aridaeus 298, the ensuing New-year's day, the 1st of the Thoth of the fifth year of Augustus and 299th of Philip, had receded 24 hours in the Calendar, or, in other words, had arrived 24 hours sooner, in the circle of the Julian year. In this year, therefore, the 1st of Thoth by the native Egyptian reckoning coincided with the anniversary of the Roman conquest, the New-year's day of the Egypto-Julian Calendar, that had been adopted at Alexandria after the conquest. By the pontifical Roman Calendar, the one as well as the other was the fourth day before the Calends of September, that is, the 29th of August ; though, had the intercalations been made at Rome according to Julius Caesar's meaning, the day would have been the 30th of August, or third before the Calends of September. For though, in the course of the last four years, the number of each month-day in the Roman Calendar, through the yet ruling miscon- struction of the plan of it, had again been put back or diminished by one, since an undue intercalation in February B.C. 28, the number of the 1st day of Thoth in the Roman Calendar had been restored to where it stood before, by the intercalating at Alexandria of a sixth supplementary day at the end of the year which completed the first Four-year Period of the new era and the Egypto-Julian Calendar. So in B.C. 26, the native or true Egyptian 1st of Thoth coincided with the Alexandrian 1st of Thoth in that Roman day which was counted the 29th, but would have been the 30th, of August in a rightly-kept Roman Calendar. 859 They of Alexandria, to whom the care was confided of the new Egypto-Julian Calendar (for the first day of which this 29th, that should have been the 30th, of August in B.C. 30 had been fixed upon by the senate and people of Rome), understood the principle of the Julian year better than the Roman pontiffs. The civil year in actual use consisted already of 365 days, a duration, as it was supposed, just six hours less than that of a solar year ; so that to compensate its gain upon the solar year, at every revolution, in the speediest possible manner, and to fix it in relation to the equinoxes and solstices, they merely added (as we have said already) another, that is a sixth, sup- plementary day at the end of the 12th Egyptian month Meson of every period of four full ordinary years, making their total of days 1461 instead of 1460. This day made the last year of the four to con- sist of 366 days; and it seems to have been duly intercalated at the end of the 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, 20th, 24th, 28th, 32d Augustan years of Alexandria, and so on without any irregularity (through the suc- cessive times of Claudius Ptolemy, of his commentator Theon, and of the Emperor Heraclius), down to the days of Georgius Syncellus. Thus their day was intercalated six months later indeed, but in the same Roman year in which Julius Csesar had intended the Roman day to be intercalated, that is to say, in the years B.C. 26, 22, 18, 14, 10, 6, 2 ; A.D. 3, 7, and so on. Had the Roman pontiffs made the pre- scribed intercalation in the intended years from and after B.C. 46, the Alexandrian New-year's day, or first of the Thoth of the Egypto- Julian year, would always have coincided with the same day of the Roman Calendar. And that day would have been the 30th of August. For though the intercalation of a day at Rome just before the sixth of the Calends of March, making a second such sixth or doubling that day in the February, by retarding the count of the following days in the Roman Calendar, would, for six months after, have advanced the relative position of the several Alexandrian month-days, making them to be one day earlier or higher than they would have been in the Roman Calendar, yet afterwards, in August, the intercalation of a day at Alexandria at the end of the usual five days' supplement that followed the 12th month Mesori, and closed the year, would have restored the old correspondence between Alexandrian day and Roman day for the next three years and six months. For the day being a pause, and for the purpose of intercalation regarded as a sixth supple- mentary day of the old year, instead of the new-year's first of Thoth, and the count of the month-days being thus suspended for one day in the Alexandrian, while it was being continued in the Roman Calendar, the position of the first day of Thoth on the morrow, and of every Alexandrian month-day afterwards, would have been again lowered by a day, and brought back to the correspondence with the Roman Calendar which would have existed if there had been no intercalation made either at Rome or at Alexandria. 860 But, in fact, the Alexandrian 1st of Thoth, though in three years out of four it coincided with the 29th of the Roman August, did, in the years of Rome when a sixth supplementary day was counted at the end of the Alexandrian year, coincide with the 30th of August. We prove the assertion thus : In prescribing how to find a given Roman day in the nomenclature and numeration of the Alexandrian Calendar, and (as to a date in an ordinary Roman year) having informed us that the September of the Alexandrians, which they themselves called Thoth, began three (whole) days before the Roman September, namely, with the 29th of August, the Em- peror Heraclius (in a tract already cited, and given us by Dodwell in the Appendix to his Dissertationes Cypriairicse) next proceeds to the case of a date in the Bisextum or Bissextile year of Rome. He tells us that in the year of Rome preceding the Bisextum, that is, says he, when the Alexandrians get their full, receiving the one day wanted to make up their complement of 1461 days in four years, in that year (and that only), after their August, which with them is called Mesori, instead of the five-day month, they make up one of six days ; so that the September, which they call Thotb, begins but two full days before the Roman September, with the 30th of the Roman August. The emperor's words are these : ore 8* tfasfcrw to-riv, i T vpo rov %ioi%rov fvietvTU, TOVTftTTit Sri v~^THfudL Avyovaroy, TOV hf/op&evov vetp' ctvroi; ^IfaapL dtrri TOV Thus it appears, that even after the error of the pontiffs at Rome had been discovered, and intercalation had been suspended long enough to recover, or nearly to recover, the position which had been overstepped, the intercalation was not resumed in the several Julian years at first intended, but in the February of the years next to them respectively; being the February next after an intercalation duly made at Alexandria. It was not till after they had made twelve years bissextile instead of nine in the first 36 Julian years, according to Macrobius (Saturnal. i. 14, quoted by Clinton, F. H. Tables, B.C. 45), that the error was discovered. We have seen already that the first day alike of the Alexandrian and of the native Egyptian Thoth in B.C. 26 was by the Roman Calendar a 29th of August that should have been the 30th. In the following Julian year, B.C. 25. an intercalation by the pontiffs at Rome put back the Alexandrian New-year's day to the 28th of August; and here it remained till the year 19 B.C. ; for the intercala- tion at Rome in B.C. 22 was balanced in its effect by that at Alexandria six months afterwards, in the same year. In B.C. 19, however, through an intercalation at Rome, the first of Thoth at Alexandria came to be the 27th of August in the Roman Calendar. An intercalation the next year, B.C. 18, at Alexandria brought it on again to the 28th, where it continued to stand in the year B.C. 1 7. But the year after, 8G1 in B.C. 16, through an intercalation at Rome, the Alexandrian New- year's day fell back again to the 27th of August in the Roman nomen- clature of days ; and there it stood also in B.C. 15. But in B.C. 14 an intercalation at Alexandria restored its place to the 28th. Again, in B.C. 13, the march of the Roman days having been retarded by an intercalation in February, the Alexandrian first of Thoth arrived comparatively earlier, and coincided with the day numbered in the Roman Calendar the 27th of August. There it remained till the year B.C. 6 ; for in B.C. 10 two intercalationsone at Rome, the other at Alexandria producing equal results in opposite directions, caused no change of correspondence between the days of the two calendars after the last intercalation had undone the effect of the first. It was after the intercalation made at Rome in B.C. 10 that the erroneous interpretation of Julius Caesar's edict was discovered, that had been followed for six-and-thirty years by the pontiffs. Perhaps it had been noticed in the August of that year, and had been loudly complained of, that for the last 16 years the Alexandrian first of Thoth had never fallen on the 29th (which should have been described as the 30th) of August, according to the decree of B.C. 30 ; but had coincided nine times with the 28th, and seven times with the 27th, day of that month. Inquiry must have proved that the fault did not lie with those who managed the Calendar at Alexandria, but with the pontiffs at Rome. The conqueror of Alexandria then put forth an edict, that 12 years should pass without intercalation at Rome, annos duodecim sine interkalari die transigi, as Macrobius says, thereby, as it was calcu- lated, making those years as much shorter than the like number of solar years, as the previous 36 years of the Calendar had been made longer than the solar years with which they had been supposed to coincide. Afterwards intercalation was to be resumed at the intervals really intended by the edict of Julius Caesar ; or, as Macrobius says, post hoc unum diem secundum ordinationem Csesaris quinto quoque inci- piente anno interkalari jussit. Accordingly, one would have expected that when 36 + 12 = 48 Julian years, and therewith 12 four-year periods from the epoch of Julius Caesar's reformation of the Calendar, had gone by, along with the year of our Lord by vulgar computation 3, a thirteenth four-year period would have begun with A.D. 4, and the intercalation of one day in four years before the sixth of the Calends of March would have been made in the years of our Lord 7, 11, 15, being the Julian years 52, 56, 60, and so on ; that is, in the same years wherein inter- calation was actually made at Alexandria. But this, it seems, was not done. The Julian years 49, 53, 57, 61, and so on, being the years of our Lord, as vulgarly computed, 4, 8, 12, 16, and so forth, were made the bissextile years : the first fifth year (according to the new designation of the year of intercalation employed 64 862 by Caesar Augustus, quinto quoque anno) being found by beginning to count, not with the Julian year 48 or year 3 of our Lord, the last of the 12 years which Augustus would seem to have ordered to be let go by without intercalation, but with the year before our vulgar era, the year in which the pontiffs, according to their interpretation of the terms of Julius Caesar's edict, would have intercalated a day for the third time since the date of Augustus's edict suspending intercalation, and for the fifteenth time since the reformation of the Calendar in B.C. 46. We will establish what has now been asserted as to the years which were made bissextile at Rome, when intercalation was resumed, by such proof as we have to give. That intercalation was not again put into practice at Rome, as we should have expected, in the Julian year 52, or seventh year of Christ by the vulgar computation, appears, first, from the fact that this is not a bissextile year by the present rule, which yet we ourselves can show to have been the one followed so early as the year of Christ 140, by means of the Greek Consular Fasti, printed in Dodwell's Appendix to his Dissertationes Cyprianicse. By this rule leap year, or the bissextile year, is the last of a sum of years of Christ of the vulgar era divisible without a remainder by four. But that the year 7 of Christ was not bissextile, appears also from the fact that it was the year of Rome in which the intercalary day was inserted at Alexandria. For if the first intercalation there was made in August B.C. 26, as Theon testifies, then in August A.D. 7 the like must have been done for the ninth tune. Now the Emperor Heraclius, as above quoted, shows us that intercalation was made at Alexandria in the year of the Roman Calendar before the bissextile year of Rome. Therefore, as we desired to prove, the year Seven of our era was not a bissextile year. Nor, again, was the bissextile year Eight of our era the first year that was made bissextile at Rome after the expiration of the period during which, by the order of Augustus, intercalation was suspended ; because, if it had been such first bissex- tile year since B.C. 10, the Alexandrian first of Thoth which occurred in the previous year of our era Seven, and which followed the ninth intercalation of a 1461st day since the commencement of the era, the day of the capture of Alexandria by Augustus, would have been thereby carried on or delayed to the 31st of August, four whole days later than where it stood, as we have seen, in B.C. 10, when intercala- tion was interrupted at Rome for three turns to come. This effect would have been produced by the three intercalations made at Alex- andria in B.C. 6, B.C. 2, and A.D. 3, while it is admitted no compen- sating delays in the count of time were made at Rome, added to the one made at Alexandria in A.D. 7 ; if (which we deny) intercalation was not renewed at Rome till A.D. 8. and therefore the delay created by the intercalation at Alexandria in A.D. 7 was uncompensated. And with the 31st of August in the Roman Calendar the Alexandrian 863 first of Thoth would have continued to correspond in the year follow- ing an intercalation, that is, in the first year of every four-year period to come, after the one ending thus in A.D. 7 ; while in the last three years of every such future period it would have been the 30th of August. This, indeed, seems to be asserted as 'the real fact of the matter by the second scholiast, as we call the penman of the second marginal observation in a passage above quoted from Geo. Syncellus. But the Emperor Heraclius attests that in every year of Rome in which the Alexandrians had six instead of the usual five supplementary days after their 12th month Mesori, the first of Thoth following was the Roman 30th of August ; though in other years of Rome it was a day earlier, the 29th of August. Apparently, then, it follows, that after the interruption that took place under the edict of Augustus, the first fresh intercalation was made by doubling the sixth day before the Calends of March in A.D. 4. For in the previous year of Rome, A.D. 3, there had a third intercalation been duly made at Alexandria ; while to remedy past mistakes no intercalation had been allowed at Rome since the year B.C. 10, when intercalation had been made both at Rome and at Alexandria. And these three intercalations had brought on the new year's first of Thoth from August the 27th, where, as we have shown, it stood in B.C. 10, to August the 30th, where it stood in A.D. 3. And here, Heraclius tells us, it always stood in his time after an Alexandrian intercalation ; that is, in the year of Rome pre- ceding the Roman bissextile year. Therefore the year 4 of Christ was bissextile ; and the first bissextile year after Augustus's suspension of intercalation at Rome. The same fourth year of our era is also proved to have been bissextile by our present rule (the antiquity of which we have already contributed to show), because it is the last year of a sum of years of our era divisible without a remainder by four. It was un- doubtedly fixed upon as the first of the new series of bissextile years because it was the fifth year current from the year B.C. 1, when, for the third time since the intercalation in B.C. 10, a day, according to the pontifical interpretation of the term fourth year in Julius Caesar's edict, should have been, but in obedience to the edict of Augustus had not been, intercalated. It would seem, then, that the edict of Augustus was construed to order three omissions of the intercalary day at times of pontifical inter- calation, that is, in the fourth year, which, by the counting of the pontiffs, included the year of last intercalation, and happened thrice in the space from B.C. 10 to B.C. 1 ; namely, in the years B.C. 7, 4, and 1. For it would be consistent with this construction to order that the next bissextile year, after the times omitted, should be the year of the consuls Sextus ^Elius Catus and C. Sentius Saturninus, the 49th Julian year by the computation of Censorinus, and the fourth year of the Christian era. For intercalation, when resumed, was by the edict of Augustus to take place every fifth year, by which expres- 864 sion the pontiffs would understand what the fourth year of the former edict had been intended to convey. Now, the fourth year of our era is the fifth year counted from and with the first year before our era. So, too, the next bissextile year, being the Julian 53d and the 8th of our era, is the fifth year counted from and with the year of the pre- vious intercalation. Thenceforward, in short, from bissextile year to bissextile year, extremes included, the space was five years. We have cited the expression of a scholiast upon the chronography of Geo. Syncellus, which seems to assert that after an ordinary Alex- andrian year, the next year's first of Thoth was the Roman 30th of August ; but that after the last year of an Alexandrian TtrpttfTipis, four-year period, it was the 31st of August. It has also been observed that this would really have been the state of the correspondence between the calendars of Rome and Alexandria, if, after the temporary suspension ordered by Augustus of Julius Csesar's edict in respect of intercalation, the first bissextile year of the new series had been the Roman year counted by us as the eighth of our Lord, and by Cen- sorinus as the 53d Julian year. But, as evidence of the actual usage, the scholiast's assertion is not only contradictory to that of a previous annotator on the Syncellus's chronography, and to the view of the Syncellus himself, it is also overruled by the testimonies we have cited of the Emperor Heraclius, and of the ancient marble adduced by Scaliger. All agree that the first day of the Alexandrian Thoth was (in three years out of every four) the 29th of August by the Roman Calendar. The scholiast's assertion seems to proceed upon no evidence of calendars that were, or had been, in use with Romans or with disciples of Alexandrian schools ; nor yet upon a belief that the eighth year of our era was the first Roman year since the 10th before our era that was made bissextile. It was probably founded on an observation, which we have ourselves justified by the evidence of Theon, that in the year B.C. 26, when the Alexandrian first of Thoth coincided exactly with the Egyptian, this day was properly the 30th of August, and the morrow properly the 31st, though, by the mistake of the pontiffs, these days stood in the Roman Calendar as the 29th apd 30th respectively. The day also in the year 30 B.C., of which the Alex- andrian first of Thoth was ordained to be the anniversary, had in like manner been marked with a number too low by one, when the news came that Csesar Octavianus had entered Alexandria as conqueror on the 29th of August. If, since the Calends of January B.C. 45. the first day of what Censorinus teaches us to call the first Julian year, the edict of Julius Csesar concerning bissextile years had been acted on according to its true intention, the day when Csesar Octavianus took possession of Alexandria would have been, according to the Roman Calendar, the 30th of Sextilis, the month afterwards called August. But the pontiffs (as we have cito'l sufficient ancient testimony n, 865 prove), by having made five years instead of four bissextile, had reduced the number of days counted as month-days since the first day of the first Julian year by one more than the edict really required. At the date of Octavianus's entry into Alexandria, one day, that had been unduly reckoned a duplicate of the sixth before the Calends of March, had to be added to the number of every day in the Roman Calendar if one would have exhibited them according to the intention of Julius Caesar. This error in the numerical designation of the Roman days had grown from one to as many as three too few when it was discovered, or at least brought into public notice, after the pontifical intercalation, whereby the year B.C. 10, or 36th Julian year, was made bissextile. But it would have been completely retrieved, if, under the edict of Augustus then issued, intercalation had been suspended as long as mere regard for the original intention of Julius Caesar would have dictated, and if no year before the Seventh of our era, or 52d Jdlian year, had been again made bissextile. Had this been done, eight intercalations of a day at Alexandria against seven intercalations at Rome would have taken place before that year arrived, and since the Augustan era of Alexandria began in B.C. 30. The one intercalation made at Alexandria more than at Rome would have compensated the error that already existed in the Roman Calendar in August B.C. 30, and which, as we have explained, was owing to the pontiffs having made five years bissextile instead of four since B.C. 46. The day when the era of Augustus at Alexandria commenced had thus been made to correspond with the 29th instead of the 30th of August ; and if, under the edict of Augustus, by which the pontifical error was amended, and the practice for the future prescribed, the first bissextile year of the new series had been the seventh instead of the fourth of our era, the Alexandrian first day of Thoth the 33d anniversary would have been retarded by one day, and brought to the 30th of August, the true Julian day of the capture of the city by Augustus. And with this day of the Roman Calendar the Alexandrian New-year's day would have continually corresponded afterwards, unaffected by future inter- calations, because the one at Rome making it a day earlier, and the one at Alexandria making it a day later in the Roman Calendar, would have thenceforth happened in the course of the same Alexandrian as well as Roman year. But in this case, the act of the senate at Rome in B.C. 30, by which it was ordered that the fourth before the Calends of September, or, as we say, the 29th of August, should be the New-year's day at Alex- andria, would never more have been literally obeyed. Perhaps it was to prevent this contradiction, and to preserve the due yearly com- memoration of a day marked as a good and happy one in the Calendar, that a fresh intercalation, though arithmetically premature, was made at Rome, as we have proved, in A.D. 4 ; the result of which was, that 866 the fourth before the Caleiids of September became the Alexandrian 1st of Thoth in three years out of every four. To help ourselves through the foregoing argument, we did what some reader may find useful for the same purpose. We wrote down in a column the numbers denoting the successive years from B.C. 46, when Julius Caesar first restored the position of the Roman year by intercalating 96 days, to A.D. 7 ; and then marked off on one side the years in which a day should have been intercalated to retard the march of the New Civil Year, according to his intention, for the future, distinguishing among them the years in which a like intercalation at the end of the Alexandrian year was actually made ; for these, as it happened, were likewise years of Rome that should have been bissex- tile. We then marked off, on the other side of the column of 53 years, those years which were actually made bissextile by the pontiffs at Rome, together with those which would have been so made according to the same rule, had not Augustus interposed, after the pontiffs had made the year B.C. 10 bissextile, with an edict forbidding intercalation for three turns to come, and directing that the bissextile year after- wards should be always the fifth year, counted from and with the year that was (or would have been) the last bissextile year. On this side of the column also we took care to distinguish, in the series thus brought out, the years that would have been from the years that were made bissextile. To do this aright, it was only necessary to be pro- vided with the above-cited testimony of Macrobius concerning the error of the pontiffs, and the remedy ordered by Augustus in respect of the Roman Calendar. And, as to the years of Rome in which the march of the Alexandrian year was retarded by the intercalation of a sixth epagomene, before it became complete, we had only to make use of the testimony of Theon, establishing the fact that such addition of a day was made at the end of the fourth year of Augustus at Alex- andria, that is, in B.C. 26. This testimony is implied in a passage we have quoted, where Theon states the result, the exact coincidence of the Alexandrian with the native Egyptian New-year's day on the morrow of the intercalation, the first day of the fifth year of Augustus. The series first obtained, of years which should have been bissextile at Rome, and years which, moreover, were marked by an intercalation at Alexandria, consists of the years B.C. 42, 38, 34, 30, 26, 22, 18, 14, 10, 6, 2, and A.D. 3 and 7. The years of the other series are B.C. 43, 40, 37, 34, 31, 28, 25, 22, 19, 16, 13, 10, 7, 4, 1, the last three being those which the pontiffs would have made bissextile, had not their procedure been interdicted by Augustus. Nothing more was required for our purpose, except knowing that Augustus became master of Alexandria in August B.C. 30, and that the anniversary of the conquest in B.C. 26 was also the first day of the Egyptian 299th year of Philip Aridaeus. The difference of a day between mathematicians and Roman annalists 867 in the date of the capture of Alexandria, is now accounted for. It is traced to a mismanagement of the Julian Calendar at Rome for six- and-thirty years, which it cost another twelve years to remedy. But when we had completed this solution, we found that the same source of the difference was long ago conjectured by the famous Scaliger. Georgius Syncellus's first editor, Goar, refers upon the subject to Scaliger, De emendatione temporum, lib. iv., and Isag. Canon, xxxi. 12, also to Petavius, De doct. temp. lib. x. cap. 71. According to Dod- well's oft-cited Appendix (Prolegomena, 8), Scaliger, not having the aid of the fragment of Theon which Dodwell in that Appendix first gave to the world, supposed that the first day of Thoth in the year of Philip Aridseus 295 (the first of the native Egyptian years of Augustus) was the day of the taking of Alexandria with which the series of Alexandrian or Egypto-Julian years began. On this supposition, the difference between the pontifical Calendar and the true Julian tune would have been two days ; for the first of Thoth in B.C. 30 coincided with the 31st of August by the true time, and Alexandria was taken on the 29th of August by the pontifical reckoning. It is now certain, from the testimony of Theon, that the New-year's day of the vague Egyptian year did not coincide with that of the Egypto-Julian year of Alexandria till on the arrival of the fifth year of Augustus in Egypt. Theon's date is ry TT^TTT^ trti Avyovorov ; and this must be held to explain his other expression of the same, fteroi i ITJ? rf,; dpxvs TOV (read -rij?) Av-yowrov ftxai^si'xf. Accordingly (he adds), from this date the Egyptians had taken their beginning to get again ahead (of the solar year supposed to measure 365^ days) by the fourth part of a day every year : ug sx, TOVTOV vothtv rov xpovw rr t i> ecp%iii> ft~Ari(pfi>i TOV; A/yt/TTT/of irfdhct^ctv^iv x.ctS izctarov sviecvrov ru Tereipra fttpti rijf yifieoot;. Here are words from which it may certainly be concluded (though Dodwell appears to find fault with Petavius for having so concluded), that before the fifth anniversary of the day when Augustus took Alexandria and began there his reign in fact, there had been a day intercalated in the Alexandrian reckoning of years. It may also be presumed that, according to the same rule which was followed afterwards, this day was put into the Calendar at the end of the fourth year, making the fourth year to contain 366 instead of 365 days, and the whole four years 1461 instead of 1460 days. Secondly, it may safely be concluded that the first day of this fourth-year period, the day of the entry of Csesar Octavianus into Alexandria, was but one day behind the Egyptian first of Thoth ; that is, was the last of the five tvcfyofifvcti or supplementary days of the year of Philip Aridaeus 294. How it came to pass that the day of the capture was counted among the Romans the 29th of August, while the first day of the Thoth of the year of Philip 295 is calculated to have been the 31st of August, we have shown. Prideaux, in his Connection of the Old and New Testaments, vol. iv. pp. 301-303, does not mention Scaliger, but 868 follows him in supposing that the day which began the Alexandrian era of Augustus was the first day of the civil year of Egypt, counted as the 295th of Philip Aridseus, which day should have stood as the 31st of August in the Roman Calendar. And as the day of the taking of Alexandria was certainly counted the 29th of August in that Calendar, the erroneous supposition leads him to believe that the error in the Calendar of the pontiffs amounted to two days in B.C. 30. The fact, however, attested by Theon is, that the day of the capture of Alexandria did not coincide with the Egyptian first of Thoth till the 299th year of Philip arrived in B.C. 26; whence we conclude that a sixth supplementary day had been added to the fourth year of Augustus at Alexandria. This conclusion seems to be confirmed by the direct testimony of a no contemptible authority, discernible though contained in a confused statement of Georgius Syncellus's. The pas- sage is referred to by Dodwell, but simply to reject its evidence as to what was the year of Alexandria that first was supplemented by a 366th day ; just as he denies our conclusion from the words of Theon, which is the conclusion of Petavius. For the whole passage, which deserves much attention, see Syncell., Paris ed., pp. 312, 313. But the portion we speak of is this : octroi $e Hav&apov x.$ TO$ %v Avyovarov (that is, it was so when the Egyptian year began at the same point of time with the Alexandrian) B; TO rwg TroAXov? xetrec TO f xetvovas kv Tctis fxtetywi TUU 060 tyuoTqpuv, X.T.A. Hence it appears that the Egyptian chronographer Panodoms, whom we have already had occa- sion to introduce, living in the reign of the Emperor Arcadius, pleaded general consent that the intercalary day at the end of four years, or 1460 days, was first added at Alexandria in the fifth year of the reign of Augustus, reckoned from the taking of Alexandria. Here we may understand the fifth Roman year, counting the year 30 B.C., when Alexandria was taken, for the first year ; and the year 26 B.C., when the first intercalation in the Alexandrian era was made, for the fifth year. And thus our conclusion from Theon will be confirmed. As to the other alleged point of general agreement, that Alexandria was taken in the 16th year of the (prior) reign of Augustus, it may be observed, that though the year 30 B.C. was not the 16th of Augustus's power, even reckoned, as by many it was, from the Ides of March B.C. 44, it was, however, what Censorinus teaches us to call the Wth Julian year, or 16th year of the new Roman Calendar, which came first into use on the 1st of January B.C: 45, after the restoration of the months to their seasons in the preceding year. But our Syncellus appears to confound the Alexandrian intercalation with the Roman, the addition of a sixth supplementary day to the 8G9 year of Alexandria in the August of the Roman year B.C. 26, with the insertion of a second sixth before the Calends of March, or a second 24th of February, improperly made by the managers of the Roman Calendar in the year B.C. 25. Two passages may be pointed out : 1. The first is at p. 312, B, of the Paris, or p. 590 of the Bonn edition, the beginning of the same paragraph from which the citation of Pano- dorus has just been quoted. Here, though by and by at the end of the same page of the Paris edition he places the Ktx.*-.oTouit; or restitution in position of the Egyptian first day of Thoth in the 5471st year of the World and loth of Augustus (at Rome), agreeably, as it seems, with the supposition above noted of Scaliger, he affirms that in the 5472d year of the World, and the sixth year from the taking of Alexandria, coinciding with the 15th of Augustus (which he seems to reckon from the Ides of March B.C. 44), "trrov Ka/' 2/ 2JS tTfl ruv fbiuy opait ta-nfi 6 syixvrof. The 189th Olympic festival, opening the year at midsummer B.C. 24, is put for the Roman year B.C. 24. But as the fourth year of the 187th Olympiad (called also the 5472d of the World) shortly before, on the same authority as it would seem of Africanus, had been assigned, instead of the third year of the same, as the year of the capture of Alexandria, this year of the 189th Olym- piad, or rather this year B.C. 24, should here, by a like error, designate the year B.C. 25 for the Roman bissextile year. Again, since (as the reader may find it demonstrated by Clinton) the era of Antioch began (with the month Dius) in autumn B.C. 49, it follows that the 24th year of that era here given by Africanus, began with Dius in B.C. 26 that is, later in that year of Rome than the introduction of a sixth supplementary day to fill up the previous four-year period at Alex- andria, and than the commencement of the fifth Egypto-Julian year of Augustus in that city, which happened at the same moment as the commencement of the native Egyptian 299th year of Philip Aridaeus. Thus the Roman intercalation erroneously made in February B.C. 25, appears to be substituted by our Syucellus for the famous first Alex- andrian intercalation in August B.C. 26. H To what has been said on the Canon of Reigns subsequent to Alex- ander's, the Table of Years of Reign beginning with the first of Philip 65 870 Aridseus, as reckoned by the Egyptians, at noon the 12th of Nov. B.C. 324, and inserted down to his own time by Claudius Ptolemy in his Manual Canons of Astronomy, we add an epitome of the same to show how it branches off from the series of years which we have given above, in Section A, of reigns at Babylon from the first year of Nabonassar to the first of Seleucus Nicator. Our epitome, however, is carried down only to the last year of the Emperor Phocas, the pre- decessor of Heraclius on the Roman throne. Kings. Years of Reign. Totals. End of each Total, cal- culated from 11$ Xov. B.C. 324 and 25j Feb. B.C. 747. Tears of Philip. Tears of Nabonassar. Philip Aridaeus, . . . 1 1 425 lli Nov. B.C. 323 Ptolemy son of Lagus, first as lieutenant, afterwards as king (besides the last two years of his life, which are counted to his son, then his partner on the throne of Egypt), reigned . . 38 39 463 1J Nov. B.C. 285 Nine other Lagidae from Ptolemy PhUadelphus to Cleopatra, ... 255 294 718 30 Aug. B.C. 30 Twenty-six Roman sovereigns, from Au- gustus to Diocletian's predecessor Cams, 313 607 1031 12| June A.D. 284 Twenty others, from Diocletian to Phocas, the predecessor of Heraclius, .... 326 933 1357 23i Mar. A.D. 610 On this Table it is to be observed, that the numbers of years in the second column assigned to Aridaeus Philip, and to Ptolemy son of Lagus, respectively, that is 1 + 38 years, are a corrected distribution of the total. These thirty-nine years, in the Canon of Reigns pub- lished by Petavius and Dodwell, are assigned thus : (At Babylon), Reign of Philip Aridseus, 7 years. Total, 7 years of Philip. another Alexander, 12 years. 19 years of Philip. (In Effypf), Ptolemseus son of Lagus, 20 years. 39 years of Philip. We have here a corruption, due to critics less unscrupulous or more skilful than those who produced the Church Canon out of Ptolemy's 871 Khaldaean Canon, inasmuch as they respected totals while they meddled with particulars. Just such critics, however, were they who produced Georgius Syncellus's copy of the Khaldaean Canon ; where the total number of years of Nabonassar that had elapsed before the reign of Cyrus is respected, and yet, in order to assign 1 + 1 + 17 additional years to the three reigns intervening between Nebukhad- rezzar's and that of Cyrus, just so many, or 11 + 8 years, are taken away from the two predecessors of Nebukhadrezzar's father Nabo- polassar. Philip Aridseus was murdered by Olympias, mother of Alexander the Great, in the year of Demogenes, the fourth arkhon of the 115th Olympiad at Athens, after a reign of six years and four months. So says Diodorus, xix. 2, 11. For the Olympic year, see Porphyry of Tyre, both in the Greek and in Mai's Armenian version (translated) of Eusebius : Fragm. Historic. Greec. vol. iii. p. 697. See also the comparison of Diodorus's arkhons with those of Dionysius, de Dinarcho, instituted by Clinton, in F. H. vol. ii., Introduction, pp. xiii. xiv. Omitting fractions, Justin says, xiv. 5, Aridaeus had reigned six years. His reign is measured from the, death of Alexander, near the end of the arkhon Hegesias, say 13th June B.C. 323, to his own death after Demogenes became arkhon at Athens in B.C. 317. The arkhons officiating during this interval were Hegesias (the first arkhon of the 114th Olympiad), Kephisodorus, Philokles, Arkhippus, Neaekhmus, Apollodorus, Arkhippus, Demogenes, and the duration of Philip Aridaeus's reign estimated from them is six whole years and two fragments of a year. Diodorus, however, xviii. 2, places the (actual) succession of Philip Aridseus, not under Hegesias, but under the fol- lowing arkhon Kephisodorus. The seven years given to the reign of Philip Aridaeus by the cor- rupter of Ptolemy's Table of Reigns subsequent to Alexander's com- mence with the year of Egypt in the course of which Alexander died, that is, the year of Nabonassar, according to the Egyptians, 425, at mid-day 12th Nov. B.C. 324. But they were not distinct from and followed by the 12 years assigned by the same would-be amender to another Alexander. This Alexander was a posthumous son of the conqueror by Roxana, who was eight months gone in her pregnancy when her royal consort died : see Justin, xiii. 2. He was murdered along with his mother by order of Cassander in the year when Siino- nides was arkhon at Athens, after the peace was concluded between Cassander, Ptolemy, and Lysimakhus on the one side, and Antigonus on the other : see Diod. xix. 105. We have already given the series of eight arkhons from Hegesias, under whom Alexander the Conqueror died in June B.C. 323, to Demogenes, under whom Philip Aridaeus was murdered. Between the last of this series and Simonides, under whom Roxana and her son Alexander met the fate of Aridaeus, these five arkhons intervened : 872 Demokleides, Praxibulus, Nikodorus, Theophrastus, and Polemou. This last gave place to Simonides at midsummer B.C. 811. Thus 12 whole years had elapsed since Alexander's death at that of Roxana's son Alexander, besides the fragment of Hegesias's arkhonship that was unexpired at Alexander's death, and the portion of the arkhonship of Simonides that preceded the assassination of the boy. But for seven years the young Alexander, who was born not only after his father's death, but apparently after the arkhonship of Hegesias was ended, was but joint inheritor with his uncle Aridaeus of his father's throne. By the Egyptian annals, the year of his father's death and of his own birth, the 425th of Nabonassar, beginning at noon 12th Nov. B.C. 324, would be the first of his reign ; and the year of Nabonassar 437, beginning mid-day 9th Nov. B.C. 312, being the year of his death, would be treated as the first of his successor. As we have intimated, he was associated with his uncle Aridseus in the kingship as soon as he was born. See Arrian, Success, (ap. Pholiam, cod. 92), 9; Dexippus, ap. Phot. cd. 82, in the Fragm. Hist. Grsec. vol. iii. pp. 667, 668 ; Porphyry of Tyre, ap. Georg. Syncell., ed. Paris, pp. 264, 265, and ap. Euseb. Chron. Armen., ed. Mai, p. 171, given in Fragm. Hist. Grace. vol. iii. pp. 693, 694, 697. Compare Justin, xiii. 2-4, 6. "We con- clude, then, that seven years were assigned on the monuments to the joint reign of Philip Aridseus and the young Alexander, and five years more being the eighth and four following years of his reign to the young Alexander alone. At Semenood, the ancient Sebennytus, there remain (Sir J. G. AVilkinson tells us) a few sculptured stones, on one of which are the name and figure of the god Sem, Gem, or Semnouti (whence the Coptic name of the city Gemnouti). He was the same as Moui, " son of The Sun," regarded by Sir J. G. W. as the Splendour or Force of the Sun, and compared by the Greeks, as they did Khons also, the third member of the Theban Triad, with their own He m !:!<*. The Semenood sculptures are of the time of Alexander, son of Alex- ander the Great, who was nominally sovereign ; Ptolemy son of Lagus being, as we have seen, the autocratic or plenipotential governor of Egypt. See Sir J. G. W.'s notes on Herod, ii. 43, 166, in Rawlinson's Herodotus. Our own distribution of the 39 years that begin the series in the Table of Reigns subsequent to Alexander's, whereby the first year is given to Philip Aridaeus at Babylon, and the following 38 to Ptolemy son of Lagus in Egypt, rests upon the authority of Porphyry of Tyre, preserved by Eusebius. See the Fragm. Historic. Grsec. vol. iii. p. 719: compare Clinton, F. H., vol. ii. Tables, B.C. 306 ; vol. iii., Ap- pendix, chap. 5, Kings of Egypt. We must not conclude this article without observations on the com- mencement of Seleucus's reign, and the era of the Seleucidae. The same Porphyry of Tyre whom we cited from Eusebius just now, writes thus of Seleucus (according to Angelo Mai's interpretation of the 873 Armenian version of Eusebius, p. 183) : " Seleucus enjoyed the kingdom for 32 years, from the first year of the 117th Olympiad to the fourth year of the 124th Olympiad, his life having been prolonged to the 7oth year, when he perished by the treachery of a familiar of his own, Ptolemy Keraunus:" see Fragm. Hist. Grace., vol. iii. p. 707. The year of the 117th Olympiad began midsummer B.C. (776-116 x 4, or 464, =) 312. How this year came to be fixed upon as the first of Seleucus's reign in Registers of Olympic years, we shall soon see. But one might have expected his first regnal year to be considered the one in which he is related to have done no less than Ptolemy, Lysimakhus, and Cassander, when, with or without the diadem, they assumed or ac- cepted the title of king, lest they should own an inferiority to their antagonist Antigonus. For after the great sea-fight off Salamis in Cyprus, Ptolemy having there been defeated by Demetrius son of Antigonus, and having lost Cyprus in consequence, Antigonus accepted, and permitted Demetrius to accept, the title and diadem of king. This happened in the year of Anaxicrates, the second arkhon of the 118th Olympic period, B.C. 307-6 : see Diod. xx. 38, 45, 53. But we have other authority for asserting that what Seleucus began at that time to do was to use in intercourse with Greeks a title which (or rather, we must say, the equivalent of which) he had already assumed in all his dealings with barbarians, that is to say, Asiatic dependents or Asiatic potentates. See Plutarch, vit. Demetrii, cap. 18. This preliminary objection being removed, we now ask about the year which began at midsummer B.C. 312 with the 117th celebration of the Olympic games, why was it made by Porphyry of Tyre and his authorities the first regnal year of Seleucus ? The reason that justi- fied them is soon discovered on examining the history of that year in Diodorus, xix. 77, 80-86, 90-91, 92-100. In that year Seleucns re- turned from Egypt, repossessed himself of his satrapy of Babylonia, and added to it Susiana and Media. It is on account of these achieve- ments that, in after years at least, the year was counted Seleucus's first. Since the distribution of provinces made at Triparadeisus in Upper Syria by Antipater and the Macedonians (see Diod. xviii. 39, and for the date, Clinton, F. H. vol. ii., Tables, B.C. 321), he had been satrap of Babylonia for more than the four years stated by Diodorus (xix. 91), and his government was become highly accept- able, when in the second year of the 116th Olympiad, the year of the arkhon Praxibulus, beginning at midsummer B.C. 315 (see Diod. xix. 55, 17), after the defeat and death of Eumenes, and the consequent establishment of Antigonus's authority in Media, Persis, and Susiana, this general of the king's army, for so he had been created by the game authority which made Seleucus satrap of Babylonia, visited Babylon. Seleucus had strenuously resisted Eumenes and aided Antigonus, and he now received the victorious general with splendid gifts, and found hospitable reception for his whole army : but he was 874 treated as a dependent ; an account of the revenue of his province was demanded ; and perceiving his life -to be threatened, he fled from Babylon with a party of 50 horsemen, and, escaping pursuit, found a refuge in Egypt with Ptolemy son of Lagus. Here, by his account of Antigonus's behaviour since he had overthrown the confederacy headed by Eumenes, not only to those who, like Peukestes, the Mace- donian satrap of Persis, had supported Eumenes, but to Python, the satrap of Media, and to himself, as well as in respect of the royal treasury at Susa, he alarmed Ptolemy for his lordship of Egypt and Cyrene, and pretensions upon Lower Syria ; Cassander for his lord- ship of Macedonia, and pretensions upon Greece and parts of Asia Minor ; and Lysimakhus for his government of Thrace. They were induced to unite in demanding of Antigonus, who pretended to act for Roxana and her boy Alexander as general-in -chief and regent, though they were actually in the hands of Cassander, the restoration of Babylonia to Seleucus, the surrender of Hellespontian Phrygia to Lysimakhus, of Cappadocia and Lycia to Cassander, and of Syria to Ptolemy, as well as a share to each of the royal treasures of which he had possessed himself. Their demands were rejected, and war fol- lowed. In B.C. 312, after the third summer had been spent, so far as Ptolemy was concerned, in the putting down of a revolt at Cyrene by his general Agis, and in an expedition led by the satrap himself, in which he crushed all remaining opposition in the states of the island of Cyprus, and then made successful descents upon the coasts of Upper Syria aud Cilicia, distracting the forces of Antigonus, he returned to Alexandria, and was induced by Seleucus to invade Syria, of which Antigonus, since the war began, had gained complete pos- session by the capture of Tyre, Joppa, and Gaza, and where his forces, commanded in his absence by his son, the youthful Demetrius, were now distributed in winter quarters. However, on his arrival at Old Gaza, Ptolemy found Demetrius with forces assembled ready to resist. A battle ensued, in which Ptolemy and Seleucus gained a great victory. Demetrius fled first to Ashdod, and afterwards to Tripolis. Ptolemy took Gaza at once ; then partly by force, partly by persuasion, recovered all the fenced places of Lower Syria, Sidon and Tyre included. Seleucus also, eager to improve the opportunity afforded by the absence of Antigonus in Phrygia, and by the successes of Ptolemy in Syria, was satisfied with the slender force of no more than 800 foot-soldiers and 200 horse, spared him by Ptolemy, and set forth to recover Babylon. At Karrhse in Mesopotamia he obliged the Macedonian settlers to accompany him. When he had crossed the Babylonian border, he was met by the inhabitants in crowds, offering him service ; and one of Antigonus's officers, named Polyarkhus (cap- tain, perhaps, of the first fort at Babylon, the possession of which is otherwise unaccounted for), joined him with more than a thousand soldiers ; while those who kept faith with Antigonus, seeing the 875 general inclination of the people towards Seleucus, fled all together to the fort at Babylon of which Diphilus was keeper, where the children and friends of Selencus had been lodged in arrest ever since Seleucus himself went off from Babylon. That satrap now laid siege to the place, and took it ; and thus, having recovered his government, began buying up horses and levying men for his service. Hearing that Antigonus's general Nicanor, with an army of more than 10,000 foot and about 7000 horse, assembled out of Media, Persis, and the parts adjoining, was coming down against him, he at once set forth to meet him, at the head of only 3000 foot and 400 horse. He crossed the Tigris at the place where Nicanor in a few days would reach the river from the east, concealed his men in covert afforded by neighbouring marsh-lands, and waited there. Nicanor, when he arrived on the Tigris, finding no enemy, encamped negligently at a king's stage-house which stood there ; irpo$ rim fixathixy ara^y. . In the night Seleucus fell suddenly on the ill-guarded camp, and the Persians (or perhaps, more properly, those of the Hari river province : see Diod. xix. 48) engaging him, lost Evagoras, their satrap, and other leaders. Where- upon the greater part of Nicanor's people, partly in panic, partly out of old disaffection to Antigonus, went over to Seleucus ; and Nicanor, distrusting those who remained, fled over the desert with his friends. And so Seleucus, now master of a considerable force, and behaving courteously to everybody, soon won Susiana and Media, and some of the parts adjoining. Nor did the change of fortune which befell in his absence obliging Ptolemy to evacuate Syria, and enabling Deme- trius to make an inroad into Babylonia seriously affect his position. For Patrocles, whom he had left in command, though too weak to fight with Demetrius, caused the inhabitants to abandon Babylon, and take refuge in the desert or across the Tigris in Susiana, while, him- self, he kept hovering from one strong position to another in the neighbourhood -of the invaders ; and though, of two fortresses in the city of Babylon, Demetrius stormed one and blockaded the other, the time allowed him by his father being spent, he was obliged to return into Syria to Antigonus, leaving only one-third of his forces behind him to prosecute the siege. Of this siege we hear no more. Whether the fortress yielded, or continued to defy the besiegers, without rein- forcements these cannot have been able to face Seleucus on his return from beyond the Tigris. It is plain, then, that the year of the 117th Olympic festival was made by Porphyry of Tyre the first regnal year of Seleucus, because in that year, during the winter which followed the defeat of Demetrius at Gaza, Seleucus recovered Babylonia and conquered Susiana and Media ; thereby laying the foundation of an empire which he afterwards greatly enlarged, and which he held, as he had gained it, by the sword, not under a commission from Alexander son of Roxana, or any one acting in his name, whether Antigonus or Cassander. 876 But the commencement of Seleucus's reign is also the epoch of the Seleucidan era ; and this was not at midsummer B.C. 312, when the Olympic year began, but in the autumn of B.C. 312, and of the first year of the 117th Olympiad. So much is proved by irrefragable evidence. We refer the reader to seren proofs recited minutely by Clinton in the Fasti Ilclkiiici, after Norisius, in the work entitled, Annus et Epochae Syro-Mucedonum (4to, Lips. 1696). These proofs are derived (1) from the testimony of the Persian astronomer Moghul Ulug-Beg ; (2) from a coin of Hadrian struck at Tripolis ; (3) from three coins of Elagabalus struck at the same place ; (4) from a coin of Caracalla struck at Emison-colonia ^ (5) from a coin of Augustus struck at Damascus ; (6) from the history of the Council of Nice ; and (7) from the testimony of an Arabian astronomer of the ninth century, Albategni. See Clinton, F. II. vol. iii., Appendix, chap. 4, " Mace- donian Months." Thus, although the epoch, or first starting-point, of the Seleucidan era stood in the autumn alike of B.C. 312 and of the first year of the 117th Olympiad, yet it was to Seleucus's successful operations during the following winter that he owed his first possession of the throne in Babylonia and adjoining provinces. His kingship, then, is antedated (being counted from a point in the autumn which preceded the actual acquisition of it), and for a reason perfectly analogous to that which caused Porphyry of Tyre, or his authorities, who dated by Olympiads, to count Seleucus's reign from midsummer B.C. 312 ; namely, that at Babylon (as we have shown above, p. 435) the year by which reigns were measured in the Annals began in autumn ; as did the old Hebrew year, afterwards the civil year of the Jews, which (as we have argued, p. 749), under the kings of the House of David, was also the regnal year at Jerusalem. However, the year at Babylon seems to have begun with the eighth month of the Mosaic and Assyrian year, that is, with Markhesvan ; whereas the Jewish civil year began with the seventh month Tisri. The latter, under the name of the former Tishrin, was likewise the first month of the Syro- Julian year, followed in calculations of Seleu- cidan years by the Arab writer Alfergani, and the Moghul grandson of Timur, the learned Ulug-Beg, who, reigning at Samarcand, observed the stars and wrote Persian about A.D. 1430. This is shown by the account which they give of the Syrian months. The first is Tishrin el-ewel, and has 3 1 days ; the second, Tishrin el-akher, has 30 days ; the third, Kanun d-ewel, 31 days ; the fourth, Kanun el-akher, 31 days ; the fifth, Shebat, 28 days, and in bissextile years 29 days ; the sixth, Adar, 31 days ; the seventh, Nisan, 30 days : the eighth, Ayar, 31 days; the ninth, Haziran, 30 days; the tenth, Tamuz, 31 days; the eleventh, Ab, 31 days ; the twelfth, Eilul, 30 days. For these names in the Syriac character we are referred to Bereregii Instil. Chron., App. p. 256, ed Traj. ad Rheuum, 1734, 8vo. This twelve- 877 mouth Alfergani distinguishes as Syrian, from another beginning with Kanun el-akher, which he calls er-rum, Roman or Greek, and which, in fact, is the Julian year of Old Rome beginning with the 1st of January. But the Syrian twelvemonth above given, beginning with the 1st day of October, is the original Syro- Julian year. Traces of the existence of the old Roman Julian year in Syria existed in the time of Mesudi (in the ninth century) ; for, in an extract published by Desguignes, vol. i., of Notes et extraits, he says that the Syrians those of Antioch in particular (which, observe, had its special era, and was the seat of the Roman administration in the province) celebrated the contends (calends) the 1st of Kanun el-akher (that is, the 1st of January) by bonfires which they lighted during the night. Observe that the Roman civil day began at midnight. See translations from the German of Ideler in the Abbe Raima's Chronologic de Ptolemee, partie 3me de Timprimerie de Bobe'e, Paris 1819, 4to. The reader will observe that the epoch Mid-day the 9th of November B.C. 312, the commencement of the Egyptian year of Philip, that would have been reckoned Seleucus's first in Egypt, though given in our " Table of the Reigns from Nabonassar to Seleucus by both Egyp- tian and Khaldsean reckoning" (see above, Section A of this article), does not appear to have been anywhere used as the epoch of the Seleucidan era. For in Egypt the era of Philip (Aridseus), not that of Seleucus, was the one employed. It may be observed, that if we distinguish two Alexanders, the son of Roxana as well as the great conqueror his father, the era of Syria, no less than the Egyptian era, may have been rightly called the era after Alexander. At Babylon, we suppose the epoch of the Seleucidan era to have been, as our table has it, the first day of the latter Tishrin, or Tishrin el-akher, or Markhesvan, in B.C. 311 ; that is, the New-year's day of the 437th Khaldaean year of Nabonassar. For we have adduced reason to believe that Markhesvan was the first month of the old Khaldaean year ; and Josephus identifies Markhesvan with Dius, the first month of the Macedonian twelve, Ant. xii. 7, 6 : to show the significance of which, we will here cite Pausanias Damascenus's work On Antioch, quoted by Malalas, p. 198, ed. Bonn (in Fragm. Hist. Griec. vol. iv. p. 469), for the assertion that Seleucus applied the Macedonian names to the Syrian months : ix.i'htvai It 6 etino; x.etl rovf ft-wets TJJJ 2vpletf xecrct ~Mstx.fo6ya.; x-ctKiiadcti. It was natural that the Macedonians should call the lunar months of the Syrian and Khaldsean Calendars by the old familiar names, rather than by the Aramaic or the Akkad denominations, as the Romans are found to have called the Egypto-Julian months of Alex- andria, from Thoth to Mesori, by the names of the nearly correspond- ing Julian months of their own Calendar from September to August. For this fact, see the double names prefixed to each month in Ptolemy's Almanac or Calendar of the year, entitled ct/>ii apud nos vocatur Januarius, et est in anni primus exordia. Apud Ori- entales enim populos . . . October erat primus mensis et Janii(irintt quartus. Again, at? Zechar. i. 7, he affirms, Est (Shebat) in aci-rrin/o tempore hiemis, qiti ab JEgyptiis MecMr, a Macedonibus Peritius, Romanis Feliruarius appellatur. Norisius infers that before Hierony- mus's time this had been the year in use at Antioch. Clinton dis- putes the conclusion, F. H. vol. iii., App. chap. 4, in the section upon Hyperberetseus. Later is found a Syro-Julian year, beginning with Eihil. Now Eilul, as a Hebrew no less than a Syrian lunar month, was identified by Josephus with the llth Macedonian month Gorpiseus ; which last, again, after the introduction of a Syro-Julian year, is identified with the Roman September by Evagrius and the Alexandrian Chronicle. See Clinton, as before, on the Macedonian months. Norisius proves from Evagrius, whose Ecclesiastical History was written in A.D. 593 or 594, that this Syro-Julian year was in use at Antioch in the sixth century. But the years of a cycle equal to three of the ancient lustra, and called Indictions from the emperors annual Jndictio, or ix-ivi floats, that is, imposition or assessment of taxes, began in the eastern empire of Rome, like the years of the Era of the World at Constantinople, with the first day of September, as the Russian year did, and the modern Greek year does still. Therefore the Syro-Julian year now before us, which began with Eilul, or Gorpiseus or September, may be regarded as the civil year of the new Rome, Constantinople, which was employed in the financial administration of the Syrian province. Being thus the last form of the Roman year that had been in use before the conquest of Syria by the Arabs, it was used for the measure- ment of the Seleucidan era by Albategni or Albatani, the first Arab astronomer who dates by years of Seleucus. He not only is said to name Eilul before the other Syriac months in his 32d chapter, Oil the Movements of the Stars (whereof a Latin translation, with notes, ap- peared at Nuremburg in 8vo, 1537), but a computation of his in the 27th chapter is appealed to by Ideler in the Abbe Halma's version as proof that Eilul was the first month of his year of Dsi-karnein, "the two-horned." So Albategni and others call Seleucus, who adopted a 879 variety of an old Assyrian head-dress in his statues, as Appian attests, De rebus Syriac. cap. 57, and on his coins (of which one is represented in the art. SELEUCUS in Smith's Diet, of Gr. and Rom. Biography). For Albategni's Seleucidan year, see too Clinton (citing Norisius) in the F. H. vol. Hi., where he treats of the Seleucidan era in the chapter of the Appendix on Macedonian Months. According to Lleler, Alba- tegni wrote at a city of Syria called Rahk, which, if the same as Rakkah in the general map accompanying Mr. Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, is on the left bank of the Euphrates, some five miles south of the 36th degree of north latitude, and in about 39 deg. 10 min. longitude east of Greenwich, that is, 9 deg. 20 rain, longitude east of Alexandria, and therefore 37 min. and 20 seconds of time forwarder than Alexandria. Clinton, desirous of accounting for a difference of 39 minutes in the statements of Albategni concerning the date of his own observation and the time that elapsed since an observation of Ptolemy's, conjectures that the Arab took his observation at a place 9 degrees and 45 minutes east of Alexandria. The date of the obser- vation, which was of the autumn equinox, as given by Xorisius, p. 226, is Anno ab obitu Alexandra 1206, Dylkarnaim 1194, die 19o mensia Elul (that is, of September), Pachon (the ninth Egyptian month) 8i?o, 4 hor. 45 min. ante ortum diei, sire 1 hor. 15 min. a media node. Of the two dates, the Egyptian of the era of Philip, which commenced 1 1 November B.C. 324, is a day which began at noon 19th September, called by Albategni Eilul, A.D. 882. On this day the 1194th year of Dylkarnaim, according to Albategni, was already current. If we go back 1193 Julian years complete, we arrive at noon the 19th of September B.C. 312, when the era of Seleucus was as many days old as the 1194th year of that era was at noon 19th September A.D. 882. That is to say, the first year of the era by Albategni's reckon- ing was already current at that time. Therefore, if the era certainly began in B.C. 312, it began, according to Albategni's form of the year, not with October, but with September, called by the Syrians Eilul. But this later Syro-Julian year, beginning with Eilul, and the earlier one preferred by subsequent calculators, which began with Tishrin el- ewel, or October, were both of them still in use in the time of Gregory Bar Hebrseus, a Monophysite doctor called Abulf araj, in the 13th century of our era. He is cited by Ideler as saying (Dynast. Hist.) that " in one way they begin the year with the month Tishrin of the Syrians ; in the other, with the month Eilul of the Greeks.'" As both months are equally Syrian, the meaning seems to be, that the year in Syrian style began with the former Tishrin, that is, Tishrin el-ewel, but accord- ing to the style of Constantinople with Eilul. Accordingly, the same Abulfaraj ap. Norisium, De Epoch. Syro-Maced. p. 228, cited by Clin- ton, writes, Si s&rx. S,!,u,-iilitr'itii cnjn.t ittitiinn cat Tisrin prior mensem ii/iiiin addidfrinnu pnnlilimit wo&is (tnni intef/ri el menses ani fracti 1'njns initium t.-V I'Anl I/H& <>/ i poclin Ti/?, or Almagest, pp. 232, 269, quoted by others, and by Clinton in the oft-cited chapter on Macedonian Months, under Dius, it appears that the 67th, 75th, and 82d years of the Khaldseans corresponded with the 68th, 76th, and 83d years respectively of the commonly known Seleucidan era. 1. For the 5th day of the second month Apellseus, or about the 35th day of the year in the 67th year xetr* X*Ad/ot/j (that is, as reckoned by the Khaldseans)^ is said to correspond with the 27th day of Thoth in the 504th year of Nabonassar x.r Ai'/virriovs, by Egyptian reck- oning. Therefore this 504th Egyptian year of Nabouassar began about (35 27 =) 8 whole days later than the Khaldsean 67th year ; also it began 503 quarters of a day less than 503 Julian years after 25 February B.C. 747, that is, 125| days before 25 February B.C. 244. Therefore it began 22f October B.C. 245, and the Khaldsean year 67 began with the 1st day of Markhesvan, or Dius, at about 14| October B.C. 245, while the year 1 began with Dius B.C. 311. But the Egyptian year in which Seleucus began to reign in Babylon was their 437th of Nabonassar, commencing at 8 November B.C. :'.! _'. according to our table in Section A. Take away, then, the previous 436 years of Nabonassar from the 503 years and 27 days of Nabonassar that ended with 66 years and 35 days of the Khaldseans. AVhat remains is 67 years and 27 days of the Seleucidan era as it would have been counted in Egypt, from 8 November B.C. 312, ending, as before, with 66 years and 35 days of the Khaldsean era at Babylon. But this Khaldsean quantity 66 years 35 days translated into time of the Syrian era of Seleucus, beginning in the autumn of the same year B.C. 312, will be about 30 days more, that is, 67 years and 65 days, because the Khaldsean year began a month later than the Syrian, with Markhesvan or Tishrin el-akher, instead of Tisri or Tishrin el- ewel. The difference of epochs between the Syrian era of Seleucus and the Khaldsean era is therefore a year and a month, and the 67th Khaldsean year begins a month later than the 68th year of Selencos according to the Syrians. 883 2. Again, Ptolemy attests that the 14th of (the first month) Dius of the 75th year *T X*x3/ovj, was the 9th of Thoth in the 512th year of Nabonassar X.O.T Aiyuirriovg ; so that the 1st of Thoth was the 6th of Dius. From the end of 436 Nab. -(Egypt., that is, of the year before the first of Seleucus according to the Egyptian annals, to the beginning of 512 Nab. ^Egypt., is 75 complete years. But 436 Nab. . xxhetudui/ ^Ictp- TIUV, ITOVS "Svoofiotmdoitav $%/', ' Amoxiuv vT6>v ' OTTIZU wporspov x,ett Aiiaovuv, oi B' fxttvov; x-ot/rota^iiv Sanpov "Qax.ui> ri 'idog' TOITOV; 5' tiro T.V/AI&>VI fxtivovf e>' CTTO Tvppyvav iKTtatisi. Here, for oi B' lx/jot/f, Thomas Tyrwhitt, our grandfather's elder brother, pro- posed to read per ixtivovs, and Kramer has proposed ovv fxttvoi; : but we read 2/Soi> 2/ni, by the Roman Tarquinii, and the Prisci of Roman history by the Pthtst/i of the Greeks. To the first of these explanations we were led, by observing that Turchina (i.e. Turkina), the modern name of the site of the ancient city Tarquinii, would, in the present provincial speech of Tuscany, take an aspirate instead of the guttural, and be pronounced Titrllna, as co.sa, for example, is pronounced ha.m. That Tyrrheni should be written also Tyrseni by the earlier Greeks, involves only a common substitution of sibilant for aspirate, such as we see in the equivalent Latin and Greek numerals sex and ?;, septem and im*. And as to the vowel of the second syllable, which is long c, >j, in the Greek word, and i in the Roman, observe that the same difference of pronunciation still exists between Italian and vulgar Roman speech. Thus wra, vero, moneta, are in Roman pronunciation si'ra, viro, monita. Add that Bolsena, not Bolsina (which last recalls Felsina, the name of the old Etruscan city beyond the Apennines now called Bologna), is the present name of the city, on the south of the mountains, termed by old Roman authors Vobinii and Volsinium. Thus it would appear that the name by which the Greeks had from the remotest times designated the people of Etruria, belonged properly to the people of the Etruscan city Tarkena or Tarkina (otherwise called Tyrrhena and Tyrsena), the Tarquinii of Roman writers, the founder of which, as of the rest of the 12 cities of Etruria, was said to be one Tarkon or Tarchon. The chief from whom the native ethnic name Rasena is said to have been derived, would by analogy be Rason, which may be regarded as iden- tical with Lason ; but Dionysius seems to assert that the name of the leader and of the people was the same, Rasena. The identification of Prisci with Pelasyi, if admitted, will lead to important conclusions. Thus the famous Roman king Lucius Tar- quinius Priscus will be referred to the Pelasgian population of Tar- quinii, which was in a subject condition. The same cognomen Priscus, found as early as B.C. 495 (that is, before the death of Tarquinius Superbus) in the gens Servilia (one of the Albau houses transplanted to Rome), may have been applicable to many (nay, to all) the fami- lies of that yens; just as the surname Salh/ns 1 1< !/!//< axis, first be- stowed in B.C. 505, afterwards was among the Claudii at Rome. The surname Priscus is also found in the gens Numicia, in the person of Titus Numicius Priscus, consul B.C. 467. In both houses it may be taken to have indicated the claim to descent from the Prisci Latini, the old Pelasgians of Latium. 67 886 APPENDIX NO. V. AT the end of the Table of Darius's Twenty Satrapies in Asia and Africa (p. 170) we promised Notes upon the Table here. But the sub- ject belongs but incidentally to our work ; to elucidate it properly would be out of place here, requiring, too, more time and labour than we are able to bestow. Moreover, many points have been illus- trated in previous notes as well as in our text. COBKECTIONS, ADDITIONS, ETC, P. 10, last Line. Add to the note (up vif&Trovfft, TOV eoturov 7rXoiv **< 893 TOJV "Metpi'etv TTtpivKtvaotf eivo/iiiiii oVot/ vvv 'AAe^**- 3p/ woAatv/i%*i, TO Ot oipp.it %uph OixTretT- f&'hwia.t. P. 151, Line 26 (or 23 of note). For, " B.C. 458 will be the year which next ensued after," read, " B.C. 459 will be the year of the going forth of." P. 151, Lines 29, 30 (or 26, 27 of note). For, "Moreover the pre- vious year, wherein the order went forth, will be that Jewish civil year," read, " Now this first of the 490 Jewish civil years will be that very year." P. 151, Lines 34, 35 (or 31, 32 of note). Omit the parenthesis, " according to the Egyptian reckoning and that of Ptolemy's Canon." P. 151, Line 36 (or 33 of note). After " B.C. 459," add to the sentence this : " according to the Egyptian reckoning ; or, as we shall see below, on the 1st of Markhesvan B.C. 458 according to the Chal- dseans, but on the 1st of Nisan B.C. 458 according to the Judaeo- Assyrian tables of years, followed not only by Haggai, Zechariah, and the author of Esther, but, as we believe, by Ezra also." We would also add these further observations: Prideaux makes the 490 years end with our Lord's crucifixion, an event which he also places on the 14th of Nisan A.D. 33 ; and he supposes the period to have begun with the setting forth of Ezra from Babylon on the 1st of Nisan B.C. 458. The interval is about a fortnight more than 490 years, and might be reduced to 12 days by supposing it to have begun with the departure from the river Ahava : Ezra viii. 31. But the Messiah's death is fixed by the prophecy, not at the end of the seventy weeks of years, but in the middle of the seventieth week, that is, in the 487th year of the period. For the prophecy declares, first, that the Messiah shall be cut off after 62 weeks, a subdivision of the 70 which follows a former group of seven weeks ; that is to say, the pro- 68 894 phecy declares, first, that the Messiah is to be cut off in the 70th week of years. Secondly, it is foretold, that in the middle of that week (during which He shall also confirm the covenant with many) the Messiah shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease. Now the Gospel declares, that by the sacrifice of himself the Messiah, being the true Priest typified by Aaron and his successors, caused the Mosaic sacrifices and priesthood, as to their virtue and obligation, to cease. We must therefore conclude that our Lord, the Messiah, Jesus's cruci- fixion, according to the prophecy, happened in the 487th year of the period. But the Lord's death, according to St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, happened not less than 16 years before that visit of St. Paul's to Jerusalem, during which, according to St. Luke's Acts of the Apostles, shortly after Passover, Herod Agrippa king of Judah died. See Gal. i. 18, ii. 1 ; Acts xi. 29, 30, xii. 1, 4-6, 19-25. But the testi- monies of Josephus enable Clinton to place the death of Herod Agrippa in the summer of A.D. 44. (See that year in Clinton's Fasti Romani.) Now, the Jewish civil year which ended with the month EIul A.D. 44 is the sixteenth of a series beginning with the month Tisri A.D. 28. In accordance, therefore, with the testimony of St. Paul in the passages referred to of his Epistle to the Galatians, we place our Lord's crucifixion in the Nisan of A.D. 29. We may add, that thus the crucifixion is found to have happened at the 33d Passover of a series commencing with the one that followed the death of the first Herod in B.C. 4. (For this date of Herod's death, later than an eclipse of the moon on the 13th of March, see that year in Clinton's Fasti Hellenici, vol. 3.) In other words, the crucifixion happened 32 full years after the death of that Herod who hoped to slay our Lord by destroying all the infants of Bethlehem " from two years old and under" eivo lifrov; xl Ketra-ripu, Matt. ii. 16 ; or, as we understand it, born during the previous and since the commencement of the then current Jewish civil year. We suppose, then, that at Herod's death our Lord was in the first at least, but perhaps in the second, Jewish civil year since his birth. Perhaps his conception by the Virgin Mother happened in the civil year which ended with Elul, and his birth in that which began with Tisri, B.C. 5. The Passover of the crucifixion is the third distinctly marked in our Lord's course after He had received the baptism of John. See St. John ii. 13, vi. 4, and xii. 1. And it seems to be of the time of his receiving that baptism that St. Luke says He was about 30 years old (auii t?a rptiix.ovTU., Luke iii. 23). He says that Jesus was as it were 30 years old at his beginning, eipxoftevof ; and this beginning is to be explained both by the previous context, in which his baptism is related, and also by Mark i. 1, where the beginning of the gospel t] dp%vi rov tvxy- '/fhtov of Jesus Christ Son of God is plainly John's ministry, and the baptism of the Lord Jesus by him. But the most precise proof of St. Luke's meaning in Luke iii. 23 is found in Acts i. 22. If the baptism 895 happened after the 1st of Tisri A.D. 26, and commencement of the Baptizer's second year, we might suppose the 30 years to be years of the Civil Calendar completed on that day. As to the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, in consequence whereof the street was to be built again and the wall in troublous times, Dan. ix. 25, the notification of this resolve of the king's appears to be regarded by Ezra as the most recent of the mercies by which, since the nation had lost its freedom, God had mitigated their condition. Confessing to God upon his knees, with his face toward the sanctuary and his hands stretched out, in the ninth month of the year in which he came to Jerusalem, Khisleu, B.C. 458, he mentions this particular last. He says, " Our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy to us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof, and to give us a wall in Judah and Jerusalem." See Ezra ix. 9. The repairing of the desolations of the house of God here spoken of may have been recent, and not included in that setting up of the house which had been accomplished nearly 60 years before ; for since Ezra's arrival, the commissions which he carried for them having been delivered to the king's lieutenants and to the governors west of the Euphrates, they fur- thered the people, it is said, and the house of God: Ezra viii. 36. But the king's commission, giving to the people a wall in Judah and Jerusalem, and which Prideaux also makes the commencement of the 490 years, though he places it at 1st Xisan B.C. 458, instead of, as we do, before 1st Tisri B.C. 459, that is, in the year which ended with Elul B.C 459, is considered by that learned person to have reference to a moral defence. He takes " wall " metaphorically. But that a royal order to fortify Jerusalem had been issued since the completion of the house of God in the time of Darius, and perhaps very long since, we may safely infer from the lamentation of Nehemiah in the 20th year of this reign, B.C. 444-3, at the news that the people in the province of Judah were in great affliction and reproach, and that the wall of Jerusalem also was broken down, and the gates thereof burned with fire : Neh. i. 3. Nehemiah certainly was not so deeply affected by the old story of what the Chaldaeans had done 140 years before. P. 155, Line 27. For " golden poniard," read "poniard." P. 156, Line 18 (i.e. line 8 of note). After " too unlike to Greek," insert this sentence : "For the language on the remains of Etruscan art is often (i.e., apparently, when it is Tyrrheno-Pelasgian) very closely akin to Greek ; as in the well-known legend, Mi Kaluirn fuios, tipi (or query tyu) Kst^mipov Ft//o'?, in Lanzi's Epitafi scelti, No. 191." So G. R. in his Herodotus, vol. iii. p. 545. P. 156, Line 40. To the note (c) ( u Herod, vii. 113 "), add the fol- lowing : " Perhaps the many ceremonies attendant on the passage of the Strymon by Xerxes were due to the fact, that it was the boundary 896 between the Thracians and races that spoke languages akin to Greek. G. R. observes in his Herodotus, vol. iii. pp. 542, 543, that ^Eschylus makes Pelasgus king of Argos rule over all Greece, from the Pelopon- nese on the south to the river Strymon in the north : Supplices, 245- 257." P. 157, Lines 13, 14 (or 2 and 3 of Note (/)). For, " We think George Rawlinson's version, set it on fire (in his note . . .), inconsistent," read, " The version, set it on fire (in a note of G. R.'s on Herod, vii. 114), is a misrepresentation of the sense of the Greek verb in the Middle Voice, and carries a sense inconsistent." P. 157, Line 18 (or 7 of Note (/) ). Instead of, "Following, then, the common meaning of 5r<74<," read, " Therefore, for the differ- ence between St^eu vvp and x-^xadxl TIVO;, referring the reader to St. Luke xxii. 51, 55." P. 160, Lines 5 and 10. Transpose "not a few of the learned" from line 5 to line 10. placing the words before "have been pleased to." P. 170, last Line. Cancel this note and the Apology No. 5 of Ap- pendix. P. 172, Line 11. After " 1013 Euboean talents of silver," add to the paragraph the following : " Such is the difference, according to Herodotus's statement, of the proportion between Babylonian and Euboean talents. But a more exact account of the matter is derived from a writer followed by Julian, Var. Hist. i. 22. According to him, the Babylonian talent really weighed 72 Euboean minae, or one-fifth more than a Euboean talent ; so that instead of six Babylonian talents being equal to seven Euboean (as Herodotus leads us to conclude), five Babylonian equalled six Euboean talents. Now, according to this pro- portion, the 7600 Babylonian talents of yearly silver tribute (which we have obtained by adding together the tributes of 19 non-Europsean and silver-paying satrapies, as stated in detail by Herodotus) will be equal to 9120 Euboean talents, falling short of the 9880 Euboean talents, Herodotus's total silver tribute, by 760 Euboean talents only. And this smaller difference may, more probably than the other, be taken to represent the king's tribute from the islands and countries of his dominion hi Europe. And if the other Herodptean reading, 9540 for 9880, be preferred for the total of silver, the difference is further reduced to 420 Euboean talents." P. 172, Lines 18-21. As to the assertion, " However," etc. . . ., what is the authority ? Is not the reverse the better authenticated state of the case ? P. 173, Line 13. The passage of Megasthenes is quoted from Aby- denus by Eusebius, Pr. Ev. ix. p. 456 D, and Chron. Arm. p. 27, ed. Mai. In the former quotation only does Eusebius name Abydenus's authority. See Fragm. Historic. Griecorum, torn. ii. p. 417. P. 174, Line 24. For, " to somewhat more than 1000," read, " to 760, or perhaps only 420." 897 P. 174, last Line. To the note (e), which forms this lino, add this : " It is confirmed by the Persian monarch's grant to Themistocles (cited by George Rawlinson from Tlmcyd. i. 138), a grant of the revenue not only of the inland city Magnesia, but of the sea-side Myus (comp. Thucyd. iii. 19, Herod, i. 142, Pherecydcs, cited by Strabo, xiv. 1, 3), and also Lampsacus. "On the other hand, in Thucyd. viii. 5, 6, not only have we both Pharnabazus and Tissapbernes anxious for Peloponnesiau aid to free the Greek sea-towns from the Athenians because of the tribute which they desired to recover, bnt, more than this, we read that Tissaphernes had been dunned by the king's treasury for the tribute due from the Greek cities of his government, although, because of the Athenians, he had been unable to recover it. Perhaps Herodotus' s statement concerning the tributes in his day was to be taken with the under- standing of the qualifying clause, " so far as they are still paid ;" and we may suppose that for so much of their land as was insufficiently protected by the naval power of Athens, or was exposed to the ravage of the satrap's troops, the cities still paid the tribute assessed upon them." P. 175, last Line. Omit " and gold." P. 179, Line 28. For, "B.C. 515," read, "B.C. 514." P. 179, Line 31. For, " B.C. 511," read, " B.C. 510 ; or from the 23d of Sivan' in .the 12th year of Darius, according to the Assyrian and Jewish registers." P. 186, Lines 7, 8. For, " in the beginning of," read, " in about November of." P. 186, Line 12. For, "at the beginning of," read, "at the acces- sion of Darius in." P. 187, Lines 36, 37. For, " to which the command of the fleet on the same occasion was entrusted," read, " to which the admiral on the same occasion belonged." P. 211, Line 3. The name Hien Fung ought perhaps to be written Tien Fung ; for we have found Mr. T. T. Meadows writing it Teen- fung, and saying that Teen-fung's father, the Emperor Taou-kwang, died 25th February 1850. P. 215, Lines 12, 13. For "which," read, "Now this." P. 215, Lines 20, 21. Instead of "which the analogy of other like-spelt names in the Perso-Aryan inscriptions proves to be," read, " For the analogy of other like-spelt names in the Perso-Aryan in- scriptions proves 'Uwaj to be." P. 223 (Title of Part 2). In a revision of this work, the view taken may be modified so as to allow for " Darius surnamed Khshurush," the substitution of ; ' Khshurush surnamed Darius." P. 226, Line 6. Note : The capture of Babylon took place appa- rently in Sivan B.C. 516, when Darius's sixth year was some six months old by the Egyptian reckoning, and in its third month by the 898 Assyrian and Jewish reckoning. But the fifth year was still current by the Khaldsean account. P. 227, Line 37. After "brother," add to the paragraph: "In Plutarch's Vit. Akxandri, cap. 22, 3, we read of Ada, whom Alex- ander made his mother, and appointed queen of Caria. And Strabo (xvi. 4, 21), speaking of the Xabathsean king of Petra, says : ' He has a deputy (tKiTpa-xov), one of the Companions who is called brother.' Strabo particularly mentions King Obodas's deputy Syllaeus, who, for his treacherous conduct when he acted as ./Elius Callus's guide in the expedition from Egypt into Arabia, was beheaded at Rome. Ibid. 23, 24. The king's kinsmen, av*/y!ysi;, in the army with which the last Darius met Alexander in Cilicia, formed, according to Curtius, a body of 15,000 men. [When Plutarch calls this Darius's Statira rv ftetat'hf^ yvveiix.a x.a.1 cti&Qviv, Vit. Alex. cap. 30, 2, and TJJV rt6i- aaotv 3sX, 7." insert. " (It is to be remembered, however, that in this passage, according to Zumptius, 899 Dervices (t. e. Derbices) is a restoration due to Hadrianus Junius; the reading of the MSS. in general, and of the early editions universally, being idem rides, while one MS. has idem vices, and another idem vigies.) Thus the region where Cyrus met his death-wound, accord- ing to Ktesias, is the same in which happened his death in battle according to Alexander Polyhistor as cited by Eusebius (Euseb. Chron. Armen., ed. Mai, p. 19, cited vol. ii. p. 505 of C. Miillers Frag. Hist. Grszc.), that is, ' in planitie Daharum." 1 For the Dahae are placed on the east of the Caspian Sea, and north of a desert on the south side of which was Hyrcania, by Strabo, xi. 7, 1 ; vii. 3, 12 ; xi. 8, 2. Elsewhere Strabo makes them reach to the Okhus river (Strabo xi. 9, 2), which he describes as a river of Hyrkania (Strab. xi. 7, 3), and which seems to be the Akes of Herod, iii. 117. " However, in the time of Alexander the Great there appear to have been Dahae, A*/, on the Tanais, that is, the Jaxartes. See AIT. E. A. iii. 28, 8, 10. And this is the position of the Massagetae with whom Cyrus fought according to Herodotus. Strabo's remarks on the name Dacus might lead one to identify Dahse with Massagetse by aid of that middle term : see Strab. vii. 3, 12." P. 252, Lines 23, 24. Omit the words, "attested by Josephus and." P. 256, Line 5. For iirvOoftyv read iKv6opi8t>t. P. 258, Line 18. Omit " with four-faced or cube-shaped stones." The original is hifov Tsrpav&ov. If this be rightly translated " four- faced stone," we may understand oblong stones having two ends and four sides, any one of which might form part of the face of the wall. In the Latin version, the term is translated Saxo quadrato. P. 263, Line 23. For " more," read, " 17 miles and 380 yards." P. 277, Line 1. Omit " the beginning of." P. 287, Line 33. Add to this note the following : " In illustration of the point that, according to Arabic authors, the Nabathaeans were not children of Nebaioth (Gen. xxv. 13, xxviii. 9, xxxvi. 3), but an Aramaic people, we may perhaps adduce a passage cited by Hyde, Rel. Vet. Pers. pp. 41, 42, from Abu Mohammed Mustapha. 'The time of Nimrod,' says this author, ' endured in Al Sowad 400 years ; and Al Sowad had for its ruler after him one of his race, whose name was Nebat the son of Koud, for 100 years.' Hyde says that Chaldaea or Irak is elsewhere called Nabathaea: he refers the epithet Sowad, ' black, 1 to the Arab tents of Kedar, or black tents, for "np is ' blackness.' " P. 292, last Line of Note (m). Add to this note the following : "Plutarch tells us, Alex. cap. 36, that in the palace at Susa Alex- ander obtained possession of 40,000 talents of com, tofti'trftetTos ; and Arrian puts the treasure at as much as 50,000 talents of money (dpyv- pi'ov), Exp. Alex. iii. 16, 6. But it is apparently with more accuracy that Diodorus, xvii. 66, 1, 2, reports ' more than 40,000 talents of gold and silver uncoined, tia^ov, besides 9000 talents of gold in darics.' 900 Curtius writes, v. 8, ' Incredibilem ex thesauris summam pecunise egessit, L. millia talentum argenti non signati forma sed rudi pondere ;' where, perhaps, et has been dropt in transcription after egessit. [Note. A woodcut representing a mould for casting coins is cr^-cn by Mr. James Yates, F.R.S.: Art. Forma in Snath's Diet, of Gr. and Rom. A Htifjuititn.]' 1 P. 297, Lines 4, 5. Instead of " for three whole years from B.C. 525 to B.C. 522," read, " from about midsummer B.C. 525 till prob- ably the spring of B.C. 521.'' P. 298, Line 23. For \l6it,va,uv read Al6i6^ay. P. 301, Line 28. After " Hapi" add " Moou." P. 301, last Line. Instead of "be the lake discovered by Capt. Speke," read, "include the two Nyanzas, discovered by Capt. Speke and Mr. Baker the Victoria and the Albert." P. 324, Lines 3, 4, 5. Instead of "by Egyptian reckoning, being the 22Gth of Nabonassar, which coincides almost exactly with the year B.C. 522 at about midsummer," substitute, " by a Khaldsean reckon- ing, of which we shall have more to say hereafter, about April B.C. 521." P. 325, Line 14. Instead of " B.C. 458," substitute "B.C. 459." P. 328, Line 27. For, " town and district," read, " district and mountain." P. 328, Lines 29, 30, 31. Instead of " corresponding, we think, with the 14th of the Egyptian fifth month Tobi E.N. 226 (which day was about the 14th of May B.C. 522)," substitute, " in the year B.C. 521, probably a day of March." P. 331, Line 14. Instead of " May B.C. 522," read, " March B.C. 521." P. 331, Lines 22, 23, 24. Instead of " the 9th of the Egyptian sixth month, Mekhir, or about the 8th day of June," read, " some day of April." P. 332, Line 10. For " Darius's," read, " the Aryan version of Darius's." P. 332, Lines 23-34. Instead of " he derived his information ; that is," etc. (to the end of the paragraph), substitute, " his informa- tion originated. Supposing that people to be the Egyptians, we went on, at first, to take Bagayadish to be the Persian correspondent of the Egyptian month Thoth ; and this particular Bagayadish, which should have commenced Cambyses' ninth year, to be the Thoth of E. X. 227, that is, of the year following the eighth of Cambyses in Ptolemy's Canon, and assigned as his first to the king who slew the Magian, being, according to the method of that Canon, the year already begun when Darius succeeded to the throne. But if the Magian reign ter- minated in Thoth E. N. 227, it terminated in January B.C. 521 ; for it is certain that the 30 days that particular Thoth was composed of, were the first 30 days of the January we have mentioned. At this rate, too, the Garmapada when the Magiau began to reign, was the 901 June, and the Viyakhana when he proclaimed himself to be Smerdis son of Cyrus, was the May, of B.C. 522. It will be seen below why we have abandoned these conclusions, with others depending upon them ; and now regard the Bdgay&dish that ended the Magian's reign and began that of Darius to be nearly the Julian month November, the Viyakhana when he first appeared in Persis to be nearly the March, and the Garmapada wherein he ascended the throne in Media to be nearly the month April, of the year B.C. 521." P. 332, Line 35. Instead of "the Egyptians," read, "whether Egyptians or Khaldaeans." P. 339, Lines 11, 12, 13. Instead of " (perhaps the 10th of the Egyptian Thoth E. N. 227, which was also the 10th of our Roman January B.C. 521)," read, " corresponding nearly, as we shall find, with the month November of B.C. 521." P. 340, last Line. To the note here ending, add the following : "Referring to Sir H. C. R.'s march from Zohab to Khuzistan, de- tailed in the Geogr. Society' 's Journal, vol. x. p. 100, G. Rawlinson remarks, Herod, vol. i. p. .41, note (6), that the Nissean district may probably have been the tract of excellent pasture land which lies be- tween Behistun and Khorram-abad, known now as the plains of Khawah and Alistar." P. 341, Lines 22, 23. Omit " before the era of Nabonassar." P. 354, Lines 27, 28. Instead of " fifth Egyptian month in the eighth year of Cambyses E. N. 226, or to May B.C. 522," read, "fifth month of the eighth year of Cambyses, according to a calendar to be produced hereafter ; and also answered nearly, as we have already said, to March B.C. 521." P. 355, Lines 11, 12. Instead of " what would have been counted in Egypt to Cambyses," read, "what at Babylon, as we shall show, would have been counted to Cambyses." P. 357, Line 10. After "the lawful king," add to the paragraph so ending the following : " Moreover, after the clause in which he sums up by saying, So much did I after, when I became king, Darius immediately proceeds to date the season of his ensuing achievements as, after, when I slew Gaumdta the Magian (o). Thus the date at which he became king was earlier in his own estimation than the date at which he slew Gaumata." P. 357 (bottom of). As a footnote on the lines introduced at line 10, add, " (o) See Aryan text, col. 1, line 73 ; or para. 16 according to Sir H. C. R.'s division." P. 371, Line 14. For terror read KSTTTUV. P. 389, Lines 12, 13. For, " Khonds maintain," read, " Khonds believe." P. 394, Line 36. To the end of Note (h) add this : " The name Asura occurs also in the preceding hymn 54, where, in stanza 4, it is said to Indra, Thou hast hurled . . . the . . . thunderbolt ayriiimt tin 69 902 assembled Asuras: for the word Asuras is not printed here within brackets as a scholiast's gloss. In the text, too, of stanza 2, hymn 30 of the 6th Mandala and 4th Ashtaka, the Asura-deslroying vigour of Indra is proclaimed. See Professor H. H. Wilson's Rig- Veda Sanhita, vol. i. pp. 148, 151 ; vol. iii. p. 443. P. 395, Line 14. For "and" read "though." P. 395, Lines 31, 32. Instead of the short sentence, " The Jaxartes is called by Herodotus, i. 201, Araxes, Arakkshas," read, " For notices of the Rakhshasas in the Rig-Veda hymns, see H. H. Wilson's Rig- Veda Sanhita, vol. i. p. 100 ; vol. ii. pp. 29, 30 ; vol. iii. pp. 41, 143, 304, 414, 419. According to a commentator on the second of these passages, they were of a black colour. Araxes (Arakhsha), a cele- brated river-name, is by Herodotus, i. 201, applied to the Jaxartes. This latter name, Fofo/mr/a, may have been properly the name of a region occupied by the Yakshas, and watered by the river so called. Tanais was a mere Macedonian misnomer of this river: o Ssj xeti ' Ap/oTc/3oi/Xof . So writes Arrian, Exp. Alex. iii. 30, 7." P. 396, Line 43. Add to the note that ends here, this : " However, for Asura, as an epithet of honour, we may refer to the 7th and 10th stanzas of a hymn which stands the 30th both in the first Ashtaka and the first Mandala of the Rig- Veda Sanhita ; where it is applied, along with other epithets, to Suparna (the Solar Ray), and to Savitri, the same as Surya or ' the Sun.' It is there explained ' Life-giving,' from asu, 'vital breath,' and ra, 'who gives.' See Wilson, R.-V. Sanhitd, vol. i. p. 99, and his note on stanza 7. In the 4th stanza of the 1 64th hymn, we have Asuh rendered by Sayana, ' breath.' See Wilson's Translation of the 2d Ashtaka, p. 127, note (#)." P. 400, Line 39. To the note here ending, add, " The psalm be- longs to the 5th and last section of the Book of Psalms, which begins with the 107th Psalm, and is supposed to consist in great measure of psalms written after the return from Babylon. Granting this descrip- tion, the unlearned reader will yet observe that the 110th Psalm, or 4th of the bundle which forms the last section of the book, is ascribed by our Lord to David, and that the difficulty of the question He proposes ' If David call the Messiah his Lord, how is the Messiah David's son ?' might have been eluded if the scribes had known the psalm to be not one of David's. It follows, that the 136th Psalm also may be far older than the captivity, though found in the last volume of the Psalter. The previous sections begin with the 1st, 42d, 73d, and 90th Psalms respectively." P. 403, Line 34. For " ensuing," read, " the current." P. 403, Line 35. For " following," read, " in B.C. 549." P. 403, Line 37. For "Assyrian" read " Khaldsean." P. 404, Line 4. For H, read h, in " His." P. 415, Line 13. Read " PasargadjB.' 1 903 P. 416, Line 21. Instead of " He is the only Persian king," read, " He was not, however, as it has been erroneously affirmed." P. 417, Line 2. Add to the paragraph ending here, " The same compliment appears to have been previously paid to Cambyses." P. 417, Lines 22-25. Instead of the present commencement of the note, from " So Sir J. G.," to " Wilkinson adds," read, " The asser- tion had been made in Wilkinson's Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, vol. i. p. 199, with an appeal for confirmation to Diod. i. 25. The error is proved by the case of Cambyses, given by the same author, in Rawlinson's Herod, vol. ii. p. 390. As to Darius, however, Wilkinson here relates." P. 419, Line 17. For "twentieth" read "nineteenth." P. 420, Line 2. The sentence beginning here with the words, " But the," and completing the paragraph which ends p. 422, line 6, will require alteration if the corrections above given should be made, as desired, in a new edition of this work. The following might be substituted : " On this subject we have been enabled to mature our conclusions through a recent discovery at the British Museum, which was made known to us by the great kindness of Mr. Edwin Norris." P. 421, Line 35. To the paragraph here ending, add the following: " The great difference between the Macedonian dialect and Greek in the time of Alexander the Great appears, where Philotas, having been called upon by Alexander to plead his cause before the mustered Macedonians in the language of their fathers, excuses himself for speaking Greek, as Alexander himself had done, on the ground that there were many present who would then understand him better. See Curtius, vi. 30. But further, there would seem to have been a resemblance between this dialect and that of Phrygia ; for we find a Macedonian officer, who had risen from a low rank, adding to his other charges against Philotas, ludibrto ei fuisse rusticos homines Phrygasque et Paphlagonas appellatos, qui non erubesceret, Macedo tiuttts, homines linguae suse per interpretem audire. See Curtius, vi. 41. Two inscriptions in the Phrygian language very nearly akin to Greek are furnished us from M. Texier's Aide Afineure, in G. Rawlinson's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 166." P. 421, Line 36. Omit the note in this line, the passage it is ap- pended to, and the page it refers to, p. 230, being alike altered in this article. P. 422, Line 5. Instead of " just now adverted to," previous cor- rections require us to substitute, " to this second part of our work." P. 424, Line 5. After " Nabonassar," add, " used by Ptolemy." P. 425, Line 8. Instead of " in preceding pages we have," it will be proper, for the sake of harmony with former corrections, to read, " at first we." P. 425, Line 10. Omit " have." P. 425, Line 14. Omit " have." P. 425, Line 17. For ' have supposed,'' read " supposed." 904 P. 425, Line 21. Again omit " have." P. 425, Line 26. Omit "now." P. 425, Line 28. For "tends" read " tended," and omit " even." P. 425, Line 30. For " are " read " would be." P. 427, Line 1. To " B.C. 522-518," subjoin, "or B.C. 521-516." P. 429, Line 25. Instead of " Ant. xi. 7, 6," read, " Ant. xi. 5. 4 ; xii. 7, 6, 7." P. 429, Line 29. Between "148" and "called" insert, "; the eight days' annual commemoration whereof, called (para, by Josephus, is." P. 429, Line 39. After " Ezra vi. 15," insert this parenthesis : " (where Josephus, Ant. xi. 4, 7, tells us the Macedonian name of the month was Dystrus)." P. 437, Lines 20-23. Omit this last sentence of the paragraph (the sentence beginning "Hence," and ending "Darius"), as no longer necessary after former corrections. P. 438, Line 37. For the same reason, omit " now." P. 447, Line 23. Instead of the sentence beginning here with the word "Formerly," and ending, p. 448, line 4, with the word "dis- tinguished," substitute the following: "However, corresponding as it does nearly with January, Anamaka corresponds also with the last pair of the six half-zodiac signs of the quarter which the year closes with in China. The first sign of this closing pair began on the 5th of January in A.D. 1844. Now, if Anamaka was considered by the Persians (what, with its moon, that last pair of the twenty-four half- zodiac signs is considered in China) the last month of the year, then it must be owned that the moon periodically intercalated in order to adjust the lunar to the solar year, would follow immediately after Anamaka, and form a second Anamaka, according to a very general practice among the ancient nations of intercalating at the end of their respective years." P. 448, Line 5. For, "then supposed," read, "once supposed." P. 448, Line 12. Omit " or." P. 448, Line 17. After " Yezdegherd," insert, " the last Sassanian king of the Persians on the eve of the Arab conquest, or before that conquest was completed." P. 448, Line 21. To the section here ending, add this : " Thus, as Anamaka has been observed to correspond in season with what is the last month of the winter and the year in China, while by its name also may be intimated a connection of it with the end of the Perso-Aryan year; so the ensuing month, Thuravahara, corresponding nearly with our February, corresponds likewise with the first of the twelve pairs of Half-signs into which the Chinese divide the Zodiac and the Calendar year. Nay, we find the equivalent of Thuravahara in the name of the first of those two corresponding fortnights, Lih-tchiii. which is inter- preted ' Opening the Spring.' In our year 184;> the Lih-tchin began with the 5th of February; and the ceremony ]'htf/-fchi>t,or 'Meeting 905 the Spring,' outside the east gate of a city, was fixed on the 4th of February, that is, the eve of the new year and new spring's day (o). Thus we are led to expect the old Persian year (as distinguished from the Assyrian, the Khaldsean, and the Magian) to have begun with Thuravahara and ended with Anamaka." 7 } . 448. The addition above made to the here-ending sixth Section requires the following footnote : " (o) The procession went forth by the east gate of the city to a building in an open space in the suburb, where were set up figures one, of the god of the Spring, the other, of a parti -coloured ox. The former is sometimes a young man, said to be the deified son of one of the ancient emperors of China. With the latter is in some places used a ceremony called p'ien-tchin, or ' Hasten- ing the Spring.' The presiding officer strikes the ox with a stick, to make him begin the work of the plough, when instantly the figure is torn in pieces, and the pieces are scrambled for by the crowd. (Com- pare the scramble for pieces of the flesh of a human sacrifice in Orissa among the aborigines.) In some places the Ox of Spring is a huge figure of clay ; but commonly it is a rude painting on paper, pasted to a bamboo frame three feet high and five feet broad. (See Milne's /,'. nl L[f, in China, pp. 120-15U. French Translation, Part 2, chap. 3.) -Mr. Milne is inclined to refer the modern ceremony to a custom spoken of in the Chou-king (Shoo-king) under the Hia dynasty 4000 years ago as follows : In the first month of spring a messenger of the em- peror's went here and there on the roads with a wooden rattle, to announce to the country people the return of spring and its labours. (With the Chinese ceremony of Meeting the Spring, compare the Magian Feast of the Beardless Rider.)" /'. 454, Lines 34, 35. For " Ganbil" read "Gaubil." P. 468, Line 12. Instead of "years of Yezdegherd and of Nabon- assar," read, " series one of Egyptian years of the era of Nabonassar, and another of a hundred and twenty Magian years, beginning with the eighth month of the year in which the seventh month had been doubled, and ending (if the series was complete) with the seventh month of the year in which the eighth month was doubled, under Yez- degherd's auspices, and (as we suppose) in A.D. 649, or A. Sel. 960." P. 468, Line 34. For " noon," read, " the noon of." P. 470, Line 2. For " 310" read " 210." P. 484, Line 4. After " was made,'' for, "and Egypt," read, " and Persis, of which no less will appear hereafter ; also Egypt." P. 491, Line 7. For " (or " read " or (." P. 494, last Line. After " 12th regnal year," insert, " by the Jewish, which was also the Assyrian reckoning." P. 519, Line 26. For " Memnoneion " read " Memnoneian." P. 531, Line 6. Instead of "With, 1 ' read, "On a separate and loftier couch, having a table for his single use beside it (o), and with." The note to be as follows: " (o) Athenaeus, iv. p. 153 A., cites from 906 Posidonius of Apamea in Syria, Hpei ndpOois h rotf faiirvois 6 ftctat- XEI)J (not their own king indeed, but his captive, whom he treated like a king, Demetrius Nicator king of Syria) TJJV T* x.^ivw, ftp' sjc /*6vo; (4.6'ju nmdotvip qpai 5rAsjp fiotpflotpixay dotvyftiiTua KotpauiUftsvw. Deme- trius remained in captivity nearly the 10 years B.C. 138-128, in the successive Parthian reigns of Mithridates I. and Phrahates II. ; and the birth of Posidonius seems to fall within the same 10 years. There is an Assyrian sculpture in the B. M. exhibiting the king on a couch quaffing from a bowl, with ladies and eunuchs before him." P. 533, Lines 2, 3. For, " the wives of men of other countries of low as well as high degree," read, " those who had accompanied hus- bands of high degree from elsewhere." P. 533, Line 31. Omit "Persian." P. 533, Line 32. After " kether" insert, " And that this was not an Aryan but a Shemitic word, is sufficiently apparent from the exist- ence in Hebrew, not only of the cognate verb (in the Piel and Hith- pael forms), but also of the cognate noun kothereth in 1 Kings vii. 16, etc., 2 Chron. iv. 12, signifying the ' capital of a pillar.' But of late the word kitarri has been found in Assyrian : see Nebukhadrezzar's Borsippa cylinder, col. 2, line 13, where Mr. H. F. Talbot renders it the ' top ' or ' crown ' of a building ; see Journal R.A.S. vol. xviii. pp. 39, 47. TVe may confidently suppose that the kings of the Medes adopted both the name and the thing from their Assyrian predecessors in imperial majesty." P. 536, Line 40. To the note (o), which ends here, add the fol- lowing : " To the mourning proclaimed by Cyrus we have also to add that ordered by Alexander the Great after the death of Hephsestion. Diodorus tells us, xvii. 114, that all who dwelt in Asia were com- manded to extinguish the Fire, called by the Persians Sacred, during the funeral rites ; as they had been in the habit of doing at the death of the Great King. For an example of sacrificing to Hephsestion as to a god Assessor, 6tu irctptipia, Alexander slew 10,000 victims, ispsia, of all kinds, and entertained the multitude splendidly. Ibid. cap. 115. One might safely estimate the multitude at not less than 10 to every beast of sacrifice, or 100,000 in all. This illustration of Darius's feast at Susa we add to the one already given, p. 529, Note (jOr/f, and with him the forces that had accompanied the late king, and that he was seeking to get the regency into his hands. Observe, however, that the Persia and Media of the first Book of Mac- cabees, like the Parthian empire, extends so far west as to comprehend Babylon. See 1 Mace. vi. 4, 5; where observe also that the term Persis is used alone to designate the region over which, in the author's time, the Parthian sway extended. But the double term Persis and Media, in our Khshurush Darius's use of it, excludes Babylon. Our other passage is 1 Mace. xiv. 1-3 ; where we are told how ' Demetrius gathered his forces and went to Media, that [when he had accomplished certain hopes there] he might draw to him succour to subdue [his now strong antagonist in Syria] Tryphon. And Arsakes 6 Pourihii/s rijf Ilspafio; x.xl M/iSs/a?, the king of Persis and Media, heard that Deme- trius was come to his borders ; and he sent one of his governors to seize him alive : and he went and smote the camp of Demetrius, and seized him, and brought him to Arsakes ; and he put him in ward.' In both the passages cited the one singular article 7*1$ (though in the latter passage omitted by the Alex. MS.) being prefixed to the couple of countries is significant of a single kingdom, formed by the union of the two countries Persis and Media." The expedition of Demetrius Nicator marks so important a crisis in the after history of the countries our work relates to, that we may be excused for dwelling here a few moments upon it. Posidonius of Apamea in Syria (who for the period in which he lived might have been son of Demetrius), as quoted by Athenaeus, iv. p. 153, A., con- firms our author above cited in the important particular that Media was the country Demetrius went to ; for he related that the king (Athenaeus miscalls him Seleucus) having gone up to Media, and warring against Arsakes, was taken prisoner by the barbarian, and spent a long time with Arsakes, being kept the while like a king. The Jewish historian Joseplms, who makes great use of the first Book of Maccabees, gives us minuter information from some other authority on the expedition of Demetrius. Previously, in Antiq. xiii. 5, 3, 4, he 908 had told us, that after Tryphon had defeated Demetrius in battle, and had won the city of Antioch and the elephants, Demetrius retired into Cilicia (leaving, however, his queen Cleopatra, with her children, in the fortress of Seleucia, the port at the mouth of the Orontes, where Aeskhrion was his governor, as it would appear from Jos. Antiq. xiii. 7, 1, and the extracts from Diodorus published in Fr. Hist. Grate. vol. ii. pp. xix. xx. ). Afterwards, having detailed the successes of Jona- than, the high priest of the Jews, against Demetrius's commanders in Southern Syria, our author proceeds to relate, Antiq. xiii. 5, 11, that Demetrius went across and arrived in Mesopotamia, purposing to occupy that and Babylon (query, Babylonia, elsewhere coupled with Mesopotamia, as e.g. Antiq. xii. 3, 4) ; and after he should have become possessed of the Upper Satrapies, thence to derive the resources of his whole kingly estate (or, query, the whole resources of his king- ship), iirrtvdiv irQiiiaSeii T? oX/jj (query oAj: comp. rd; oXj dopftd$, G. Sync., Dind. ed., p. 56, line 9) -rij? /3ff/A/? ei(fopfcei;. For the Greeks and Macedonians that dwelt there were continually sending embassies to him ; promising that if he would come to them, they would give themselves up to him, and help to overpower Arsakes king of the Parthians. Encouraged by these hopes, he set forth to them ; having decided (if he subdued the Parthian, and got him a power) to fight Tryphon, and expel him from Syria. And they in the province having received him heartily, he gathered a power, warred against Arsakes, and having lost all his army, was himself taken alive. So Josephus. We had before learnt that Media was the intended field of war ; and here it is intimated that the Parthians were not yet masters of Meso- potamia and Babylonia. Now, Trogus Pompeius, in Justin xli. 6, assigns to the reign of the Arsakes with whom Demetrius contended, namely, Mithridates the First, a war between the Parthians and the Medes, the conquest of Media, and afterwards of the king of the Ely- maeans, and the extension of the Parthian frontier to the Euphrates. Demetrius, then, would seem to have interfered before the conquest of Media was fully achieved, or before the cities had thoroughly acquiesced in the new domination. And his captivity may have been quickly followed by that extension of the Parthian dominion to the Euphrates which is ascribed to his Parthian conqueror. According to Trogus Pompeius (in Justin xxxvi. 1), he undertook the Parthian war to re- trieve his credit in Syria, and with no unwillingness on the part of the eastern nations, who (though they seem to have become independent of the Syrian kings) were more inclined (now that they were invaded or threatened by the Parthians) to return to their Macedonian masters than to submit to new and more oppressive masters. And so (continues Justin), assisted by Persian, Elymsean, and Bactriau succours, Deme- trius routed the Parthians in many engagements. At last, howi-vi-r. deceived by a pretence of peace, he is taken. He is led through the gaze of the cities and exhibited to the populations that had revolted, 909 in ridicule of their preference. Sent afterwards into Hyrcania, he is treated bountifully, and in the style of his former fortune. For the sequel, see Justin xxxviii. 9, 1. That Demetrius obtained Persian, Elymaean. and Bactrian reinforcements for his war with the Parthians, is consistent with the fact before inferred, that Media was the scene of conflict ; also with the statement, that the conquest of the Elymaeans by the Parthians was not accomplished till after that of the Medes. It would further appear that the Medes, or some of them, had been previously conquered by the Parthians, and revolted to Demetrius upon his arrival in the country. We know not whether the conquest of Babylonia followed or preceded that of Susiana or Elymais. Orosius, v. 4, is cited, saying, " Mithridates victo Demetrio prsefecto Babyloniam urbem finesque ejus universes victor invasit." Porphyry of Tyre, in the Chronicon of Eusebius (see Mai's translation of the Armenian version), also in Syncell., p. 292, C., describes Demetrius as marching to Babylon and the upper provinces against Arsakes. We have heard Josephus describing Demetrius as having crossed (apparently from Cilicia) into Mesopotamia, intending to occupy that and Babylon. It would appear from an expression of Diodorus (Excerpta xxv., in the Preface to the second volume of the Fragm. Historic. Griecorum, p. xix.), that after Demetrius's captivity one of the satraps and generals of royal race, against whom the usurper Tryphon was still in warfare, was the satrap in charge of Mesopotamia, Dionysius the Mede. Hence it is a probable conclusion, that at least part of Mesopotamia was already belonging to Demetrius when he set forth on his Parthian "war. We know that the last Akhsernenian king of kings, Darius Codoman- nus, is called in the opening of the First Book of Maccabees "king of the Persians and Medes." We have cited the same author calling the Arsakes Mithridates the Second (perhaps prematurely), king of Persis and Media ; and we may perhaps conclude not only that the title was given to the Parthian monarchs in that author's time, but that they claimed the title as a part of the conquest. P. 605, Line 3. For " Akhad" read " Akka.l." P. 605, Line 35. Add to the note this : " Strabo's Khalybonitis has been generally identified with the district of the modern Aleppo which the Arabs call Haleb. Its wine has been supposed to be spoken of by Ezekiel, xxvii. 18, in the wine of Helbon supplied to Tyre from Damascus. But whatever the situation may be of the district intended by Strabo, the Helbon of Ezekiel seems to have been discovered by Mr. J. L. Porter at a modern village, the name of which in Arabic is exactly the Hebrew Helbon. It stands ten or twelve miles N.\V. of Damascus, high up in Antilebanon, in a wild glen, the bottom and sides of which are covered with terraced vineyards, as the country surrounding it is also rich in vines and fig-trees. See Mr. Porter's Art. HELP.ON in Smith's Jii/>/> Dictionary, where he refers to the Journal of Sacred Literature, July 1853, p. 260, to his work entitled 70 yio Five Years in Damascus, ii. pp. 230 sq., and his Handbook for Syria and Palestine, pp. 495, 496. Geo. Rawlinson, in Art. DAMASCUS, refers to Journ. Geo. Soc. vol. xxvi. p. 44. P. 617, Line 29, note. For, " xettroiye and X,XITOI, Acts xvii. 27, Lach. and Tisch.," read, " **/ yt, and so the Vat. MS." P. 618, Line 38. Read " Akhaia." P. 625, Line 22. Note that the 70th year of mournful commemora- tion spoken of in the paragraph here ended, belongs to a period of which a particular year is called by Ezekiel the 14f& year after that the city (Jerusalem) icas smitten. P. 635, Line 32. After "p. 328" place a full stop and cancel the remainder of the note, which will be unnecessary if the corrections in p. 328 of lines 27 and 29-31 have been made as above directed. P. 652, Line 42. For, " adjoined the," read, " contained the park or." P. 664, Line 37. After the words, " writing of his own time," insert this parenthesis : " (when the Parthian dominion had further wasted the older capital, Diod. xxxiv. frag. 21, where Euhemerus is the Himerus of Justin xlii. 1, called by Posidonius, ap. Athen. x. p. 466, B., tyrant both of the Babylonians and of the people of Seleukeia)." P. 665, Lines 6, 12. There was such a measure in Egypt : see Herod, ii. 168. P. 668, Lines 13-19. Place a full stop after " two miles," and then instead of " so that," etc., to the end of the paragraph, read thus : " Indeed we strongly suspect the Babylonian unit of road measure to have been shorter than the coss of Hindustan. The half-kasbu of the Bellino cylinder, which we may regard as the Babylonian parasang (see p. 657, note), may have been six neri or one sartts of cubits ; that is, may have been 60 times the sossns or sus, that is, the ' Sixty ' of cubits mentioned in the Michaux Inscription (see p. 665, note). These cubits, in number 3600, should be the .half has, or half cubits, that are opposed to lig hus, or big cubits, in the Assyrian inscriptions, as ordinary Egyptian cubits differ from the double cubit of the 18th dynasty found at Karnak (see pp. 658-9, note). One sarm of big hus, that is, 3600 double cubits, should be the big kasbu, an Assyrian parasang the double of the parasang of Babylon, and analogous to the Assyrian talent, which, as Mr. Edwin Xorris has discovered, weighed double the Babylonian talent, or 164 pounds English, instead of 82. And this Assyrian kasbu being just 300 yards short of 2| English miles, will be identified with the parasang or skhoenus of the Perso- Median and Parthian empires, known to us from the Greeks. But at 20 inches each, the 3600 half hus (or cubits equal to the ordinary cubits of Egypt, but longer by one-eighth than Greek cubits) give us for the half or small kasbu, which we call the parasang of Babylon, in English measure, 2050 yards exactly. [It was perhaps the double of this, and not of the big kasbu of Assyria, that we should recognise 911 in the Skhoenus which Herodotus found in Egypt, and describes to have been twice as long as the parasang (see p. 489, note), though he sup- posed it to be double the ordinary parasang of the Persian empire, and was led thereby to erroneous conclusions.] We have already sug- gested that the Greek description of the length and breadth of Babylon, 120 stades by 60, may, at their usual rate of 30 stades to the parasang, be understood to mean 1 parasangs by '2 ; and then, supposing these parasangs to have measured '2$ English miles apiece, we found the length of the walls, and the measure of the area they contained, to be still too great for credit. But we now propose to consider the walls of Babylon as a rectangle of 4672 .waller kaxbm ; that is, of 8200 by 4100 yards ; so that the four sides measured 24,600 yards, or 40 yards only less than 14 miles ; and thus in length they exceeded the circuit of the walls of Rome by more than a mile." P. 673, Note (e). To this note may be added the following: " Thucydides tells us, that after the 18 months' siege by the Persians of the Nile-island Prosopitis, whither the Athenians had retired, and after its capture, through a diversion of the stream from the channel where the fleet of the Athenians lay, there were but few of the Athenians and allies, compared with those that had perished, who made their way across Libya, and reached Gyrene in safety. According to Diodorus, xi. 79, it was a treaty with the Persian generals that permitted the Greeks thus to retire from Egypt. And this seems a different treaty from the one spoken of by Ktesias, con- cerning the surrender of Inaros and 6000 Greeks, who were besieged together in a city called Byblus, whether this city was situated in the island Prosopitis or not." P. 684, Line 25. After, " Of the two gates," insert, " if they were not nearly opposite to one another on different sides of the northern angle of the city." P. 694, Line 31. For, " formed originally of," read, " covered ori- ginally with." P. 694, Lines 38-46. Instead of the lines beginning, " Of these measurements," we would close the note thus : "In order to reduce these English measurements to those of Nabonedus, we observe, first, that it has been seen (p. 656, note) the Assyrians had a measure of 60 tibki, palms or handbreadths, equal to 10 hu-ammas or cubits, and the sixth part of a 100-. the Atropatenian : Gazaka BO 914 Agbatana called in the third century of our era, 61. Unknown to Polybius as to previous Greek writers, 566 note. in Persis, near Pasargadas, 62. on Mount Cannel, 326. Ahasuerus (Akhshurush or Khshu- rush), Esther's : Who he was accord- ing to Josephus and the Septua- gint, 2, 93. According to Joseph Scaliger, 3, 94, 95. According to Ussher, 4, 94, 96. According to Eusebius, 94. A Perso- Median king, 8, 18, 22, 49. Finally dis- covered, 161-175. the Mede (Daniel's) : Apparently Astyages, 15, 34, 162 notes. Men- tioned in Tobit, 54, 75 note. (in Ezra) : Median name of Cam- byses, 54, 76, 162, 325 note. Airi/atit-m vaejo : The country of the Aryans, whence the Persians emigrated originally, according to Zend writings, 14. Aka, or Akka : Ptolemais, Acre, 65 note. Akhseinenes (Hakhamanish), 11, 201, 232-3, 327, 336. brother of Xerxes, satrap of Egypt, 145. Slain at Papremis, ibid. Ktesias's erroneous descrip- tion of him, 145-6 note. Akhadtoerosh, or Akhashuerush (Ahasuerus) : The word ill-pointed, 218. How pronounced by Hellen- ist translators, 219. Without vowel points becomes Akhshu- rush, 219. Akhshiresh, son of Sakhbon : A Ma- gian, 219 note. Akhshurush : Hebrew pronuncia- tion of Khshurush, 219. Theques- tion why this name never appears in Darius's inscriptions, 531-33 note. Written in one place with- out the two vaug, 533 note. Alarodians : People of Ararat, 170. Alexander the Great, 79. His visit to the tomb of Cyrus, 257. Orders the restoration of the temple of Bel at Babylon, 688, 689 and note. Trajan's visit to the room where he died, 665 note. son of the former by Rokhshana, murdered by Cassander, 440 and note. and Philip, 530 note. (Perhaps Alexander son of Roxaiia and Alexander Philip Aridams, "the kings' whose letters or warrant Eumenes bore, empowering him to draw upon the treasury at Susa. Dio- dorus, xix. 15, sect. 5.) Alexandria : Its situation, 142 note. (in Aria or Hariva) : Road from, to Ortospana in the Paropamisa- dan land, passed through Ariana (i. e. Aria) rather than Baktria, 641 note. Alkides, of Kaunus, kills Zopyrus son of Megabyzus, and is executed as a felon by Amestris, 154. Alor, or Aror : A Hindu capital near Bakkar in Sindh, taken by Mohammed Casim, 156 note. Alyattes, king of Lydia, 27, 34, 548-9. Amadiyah in Kurdistan once called Agbatana, 61, 888. Amasis, king of the 26th Egyptian dynasty, 36 note, 39, 43, 45, 53, 295-6, 549. Successor of Apries, 282, 283. Buried in the court of the temple of Neith at Sais, 295. His mummy abused and burnt, ibid. How had he offended? ibid. Had once been master of the Cypriots who followed Cambyses against him, 300 note. or Amosis, of a former dynasty. Through the severity of his deal- ings towards vagrants and depre- dators, loses Egypt to Aktisanes the Ethiopian, 289 note. Appa- rently the same as Ames or Am6s, first king of the 18th dynasty, ib'ul. Sec Ames. A Persian of the Maraphian tribe : Trusted with a command by Aryandes, satrap of Egypt, probably son of an Egyptian woman, 187 note. Ameinias (brother of Aeschylus) at Salamis, 199 note. Amenti : The region of good de- parted spirits in the west, where Osiris reigned, 309 note, 315. Ames, or Amos, first king of the 18th Egyptian dynasty, by aid of Ethiopians, took Avaris and com- pleted the expulsion of the shep- herds, 289 note. Amestris, queen of Xerxes, 3, 4 note, 96. An obstacle to such orders as those of Esther's Ahasu- erus in the sixth year of his reign, 915 Amcstris 129 ; and to identifying him with Xerxes, 130. Her children, Da- rius Hystaspes, Artaxerxes, Amy- tis, Rhodogunu, 131. Daughter not of Onophaa, but Otanes, 132. Cannot be Esther, 133. Nor Vashti, 133-5. All we know of her, 130-42. Amma: The Assyrian as well as Hebrew term rendered cubit, otherwise called Hu, 657 note, 665. Ammon, temple of, in Libya, 144 note. On the expedition supposed to have been directed thither by Cambyses, 303-4. At a spot now called Siwah, 304. son of : A title given to a Pharaoh long before the time of Alexander the Great, 511 note. Amorges, king of the Sacai or Sakas, 33 note, 43 note, 70 note, 240. SVe Amyrgian, Humawarga. Amphipolis : Town built by the Athenians at Xiii<- Ifmnlx, on the east bank of the Strymon above Eion, 158. Amun, or Ammon: The god of Egyptian Thebes, confounded with Kneph, but not like Kneph, and like the Libyan Amun ordi- narily exhibited as ram-headed, 318 note. The name compared with that of the Susian deity Umman, 511 note. Amyite, sister of Astyages, 74. The name perhaps identical with that of Cyrus's Median wife, ih'ul. Mis- called daughter of Astyages by Alexander Polyhistor, 75 note. Amyntas (king of the Macedonians) : His son Alexander, and daughter Gyga;a, wife of Bubares, a Per- sian, 187. son of Bubares by Gyg;ua, daugh- ter of Amyntas king of the Mace- donians, 1ST. Amyrgians, or Amyrgian Sakas, or Huniawargu, 246, 247 note. Amyrtajus of Herodotus and Thucy- dides, king in the marshes of Egypt, partner in the revolt of TnarAs king of the Libyans, 143, 147, 150. of Ktesias : A misnomer appa- rently for Psammenitus son of Amasis, 73, 148 note. of Manetho : Not the Amyrkuus Amyrtceus of Herodotus and Thucydides, 74 note, 792-5. Amytis (the former) : Median wife of the Great Cyrus. Mother of Cambyses and Smerdis, 69-74, 131. Name perhaps the same as that of M ebukhadrezzar's wife, the daughter of Cyaxares I., 74. Her former husband, her sons by him and by Cyrus, 247- 50. Curses Cambyses, and dies, 54, 70. Seems to have been left by Cyrus Lady of the Derbika and the Barkanians, her sons Spitakes and Megabernes being her satraps, 247-8 note. (the younger) : Daughter of Xerxes, 131. Wife of Megabyzus, 152. Her light carriage in her husband's lifetime and after his death, 152, 153. Her intimacy with Apollonides, and death, i/>id. A benefactor of the Athenians, 153 note. Ana (or Anu) : A Babylonian god. His epithet Mi. Female forms Anata, Anuta, Anakhita, 363 note. Anacreon, 551 note. Anadatus (partner of a temple at Zela with Anaitis and Omanes): The same as the Anedotus of Berosus, 64 note, 371 note. See Aned6tus. Anaitis (Anahid, Anakhita) : Her worship propagated by Artaxerxes Mnemon, 63, 64 note. Her name written also Tanais, ibid. ; and Tanaitis, 362 note. Confounded by Herodotus with Mithra, iliid. and 364 note. Her temple at Zela, 371-2 note; and at Agba- tana, 376. In Cappadocia her idol had for partners of its altar in the same temple Omanes and Anadatus, and was served by Magian priests, 371 note. Her sanctuary part of the royal man- sion or palace at Agbataua, 567. 8* Anakhita. Anakhita: A Babylonian goddess much worshipped by Artaxerxes Mnemon, 361. Apparently the same as the Assyrian Aphrodite" miscalled by Herodotus Mitra, 364. Images of her and of M it lira, or Mitra, set up by Artaxerxes Mnemon, 362 note. 91G Anakhita Seems to have been called by Berosus Aphrodite Tanais or Aphrodit^ Anaitis, ibid. The name in a Kissian inscription written Anam-Tanata, in the Aryan counterpart Anahata, in the As- syrian Anakhita, 3(52-3 note. Ety- mology of Anakhita proposed by the author, ibid. As wife of Anu, she may have been more like the Egyptian Isis wife of Osiris than the Hindu Bhavani, 388 note ; or than the Khond Earth-goddess Tan Pennu, 387-8. See Anata, Anaitis, Tanais. Anamaka (i.e. Nameless) : The Aryan correspondent of the month Thabitu or Tebeth of the Assy- rians, Table B, facing p. 431. Not necessarily the intercalary month (though intercalation, when needed, may have been made by doubling this month), 447. (Pro- bably the last month of the Aryan year. See Additions and Correc- tions on 447. ) Anaphas, son of Otanes, 187. king or satrap of Cappadocia, perhaps descended by females from Otanes, 187. Andromeda, 234-5 note. Deliver- ance of Jonah changed by Greeks into that of Andromeda near Joppa, //;/'/. Aned6tus : Described by Berosus as the second of seven semi-daemons, or demigods, half fish half man, who instructed the first, the third, the sixth, and the seventh antediluvian generations in Khal- diea, 371 note. The first syllable alone of his name (signifying god) the prefix of any name of a god in Assyrian cuneiform inscrip- tions, 373-4 and note. Angel-princes, 78, 79, 110. Annals: Hebrew, confirm and are confirmed by those of Babylon, 446. Aittnliht i-'irins : Their kings, and their half fish half human teachers, 371-2 note. Antigonus: His march into Media from Susiana, 557-8. Antioch (the Margian) : Now Mt.ro- al-Rud, built by Antiokhus Sott'-r son of Seleucus Nicator, 618-19 note. Antiokhus Soter : Son and successor of Seleucus Nicator, 614 note. Epiphanes, 405 note. Aparytas : A people of the Paktyan- land, 641, 644 note. Apis (god): The sacred bull at Memphis, 311 ; mortally wounded by Cambyses, 56, 306; slaughtered and served at table by Okhus (Artaxerxes III.), 320. Burial- place near Memphis, 306-7. At an Apis funeral Osiris lamented, 307. The title Owr-Api*, 307 note, 308 note. The name Apis given also to the Mendesian he- goat, ibid. An image of Osiris and Osiris himself, metempsy- khosis or miraculous conception of, 308. The principal colour of it black, 309. Other marks, 309 note. His house (the Ajitiimn) at Memphis, 309 note. Repre- sented on mummy-cases bearing away a red-palled corpse, 309 note. city, of Egyptian Libya, 143, 144 notes. Ammon's oracle con- cerning Mareia and Apis, 144 note. Apobatana : A corrupt reading in Isidore of Kharax, 59. Apollo, 36 note. Apollonides of C6s (a physician be- longing to Artaxerxes I. ) : Given up to the king's mother, who, to avenge her daughter Amytis, puts him to chastisement and to death, 153. Apries (Pharaoh-Hophra), 40 note, 45, 90. Buried in the temple of Neith at Sais, 295. 'Arab and 'Eber : Perhaps the same word, 281 note. Arabia : That of Xenophon was the fifth of the 20 Herodotsean sa- trapies ; "the land of the He- brews ;" the Arabia of Darius's lists of provinces, sometimes in- cluding, sometimes excluding, the maritime parts of Phiiistia and Ph note, 655 note. A tunnel be- tween them, 653 note. Genuine native account of height of walls, 651, 653, 656. What this is in English measure, 657-9. The thickness of the wall, and height of the towers upon the wall, 654, 663 note. The brazen -plated gates of the city removed by Darius, 654 and note. The city quadrilateral, as stated by Hero- Babylon dotus, bat not equilateral, 660. The length regarded by Ktesiaa as twice the breadth, 661-2 and note. Regarded by the Greeks as the Assyrian capital, 662. Occu- pied by houses for a distance of 70 stades, but in other parts ploughed and sowed, according to the author followed by Curtius (probably Kleitarkhus), 663. Not the city, but only the two for- tresses, defensible in B.C. 312, p. 664 note. Its river-side walls, 6o'3 note. Its two palaces, pro- bably the two citadels, garrisoned for Seleucus by Patrocles, and at- tacked by Demetrius son of Anti- gonus, 664 note. Described by Strabo as now for the most part waste, and smaller than Seleukeia on the Tigris, 664 note. Its con- dition when visited by the Ro- man Emperor Trajan, 665 note. Ktesias's measurement of the cir- cumference of the walls may be diminished by various supposi- tions : first, by supposing the 120 by 60 stades to be as many mea- sures of 100 cubits, or indeed of 100 gar, or 60 cubits only, the Ba- bylonian plethrum, 665-6. Again, by taking the 360 stades to merely interpret 12 Babylonian corre- spondents of the Parasang, like the Hindu cost, 667-8. (The cor- respondents of the parasang per- haps half kasbus, and equal each to a saru* of ordinary hus or am- mas (cubits), that is, 3600 cubits of 20 inches, or 2050 English yards. Thus Babylon will have been represented as four saruses long by two saruses broad, or 40 yards short of 14 miles in circuit. See Addition* and Corrections on page 668, lines 13-19 in the Ap- pendix.) Gates, of Semiramis, of the Ninians, of the Khaldseans, with the Belidan and Kissiangates, 670, 683. Outermost of Babylon's three circumvallations destroyed, not by Cyrus, but by Darius, 681. The remaining circuits of wall dismantled by taking away the gates, and throwing down the parapets, and housing at top for men and stores, 682. The four corners of the fortified quadri- Babylon lateral area pointed perhaps to the cardinal points, 684 note. This fact apparently intimated by Aris- tobulus, 689-90 note. Disregard of female chastity at Babylon, 702 and note. Babylon of the N. T., 665 note. Badake", on the Eulaeus, 558. Iden- tified with the Madakta of As- syrian inscriptions, 559 note. Perhaps represented by Patak, a town south of the mountains, on an affluent of the Kerkhah, 559 note. Bagas : The Devas of the Hindus, so called by the Persians, 395. Bagaeus, son of Artontes, destroys Oroites, 554-5. Bagapates : A chief eunuch in Cam- byses' service, 70, 89, 335 note, 337. Bdgayddish : A month with which Darius's reign commenced, at trr^t conjectured to be the corresjxm- dent of the Egyptian Thoth, which began with January B.C. 521, afterwards found to correspond with the Jewish Markhesvan, 424 (and Table A), 427 et 8&J., and Table B. Bagistane, and the Bagistan Moun- tain (Behistun), 339 note. The works at, popularly ascribed to Semiramis, 340. Baktrians, with Amyrgian Sacas attached to them in the same division of infantry, 112 ; with Caspians attached in the same division of cavalry, 116 ; the said Caspians and Sacas occupying to- gether the same revenue division of territory, 171. Masistes, satrap of Baktria, proposed to raise a re- volt of the Baktrians and Sacas, 140. Banquets : Great enterprises dis- cussed at, by the Persians and other nations, 99 note. Baptana : A place in Kampad^ne' ; the name in Isidore corrupt. Per- haps Bagistana or Bagapatana, 59-60 note. Baptism, Christian, 72 note. Barca : Sends its surrender to Cam- byses, 291, 297. Punished by Pheretima, mother of Arcesilaus king of Cyren6, 140 note. Bardiya : The Persian form of the 922 Bardiya (Median) name Smerdis, 66, 328 etpasisiui. The relation of Bardiya (or Mardus) to Smerdis, like that of Gaumata to Gaumashta, and of Hydaspes and Vidaspa to Hys- taspes and Vishtaspa, 329 note. Baren<$ : Near Agbatana, 36 note, 43 note. Barkanians, The, 33 note, 248. Name apparently the same as Varkana and Paricanians, which see. Barsin espoused by Alexander the Great, 538 note. Baruch : A mistake of the Pseudo- Baruch, 503 note. Beeves intended for sacrifice, why in Egypt not to have a single black hair ? 309 note. Beheading, common, 587 note. Behistun, or Bisitun : Rock inscrip- tion at, 6. In Aryan, Kissian, and Assyrian, 12 note, et passim. Importance of assigning its months to the right seasons of the year, 229. The Bagistan^ of Diodorus, 340. The sculptured tablet there exhibits the order of the risings, while the inscription relates the successive dates of defeat, 479, 483, 484 note. Bel of Niffer (God of the city, the Semitic name of which is Nipur, Nopher, or Niffer) : The third of the thirteen (or the second of the twelve) great gods ; often identi- fied with the Bel of Babylon, that is,Merodakh,607note. Called for convenience Bel Nimrod, 683 note. Bel Merodakh : The Bel of Babylon, 124. Tenth of the thirteen (or ninth of the twelve) chief 'gods, 607 note. Seems a deification of the king Belus, who was said to have erected the first walls of Babylon, ibid. Sometimes identi- fied with the Bel of Nipur, 684 note. Great idol of, 685 and note. See Belus the King. Belesys and Arbaces of Ktesias : Misnomers, 74 note. Belidan gate of Babylon : Whether so named because men went forth thereby to the city of Bel Nimrod, now Niffer, or because it belonged to the same quarter as the temple of Bel Merodakh at Babylon, 683-4 note. Belshazzar king of the Khaldaeaus succeeded by Darius son ol Khshurush (Ahasuerus), of the seed of the Medes, 8, 16, 31. Son Nitokris, 37, 38, 40. Slain at the capture of Babylon, 53, 88. His regnal years given in Ptolemy's Canon to Nabonadius (Nabon- edus), ibid. Might have left children, 88. Son of Labynetus or Nabonedus's wife Nitokris, and named in cuneiform Bel-shar- ussur, 649 note. Belus, the Creator: His work in creation communicated to men by Cannes, 372 note. By the Greeks called Zeus.; by the Armenians ,4razaste(Auramazda), ibid: Per- haps the Bel of Niffer, confounded with the Bel of Babylon, 606, 607 note. Belus the Primeval, or Of the Be- ginning : His tomb at Babylon, according to Ktesias, broken into by Xerxes, 606 note. Meaning of his name Belithan, ibid. Regarded as Nebukhadrezzar's ancestor, 632 note. See Belus the king. Belus the king : Built the original walls of Babylon, 610 note. His palace (still standing at the Ma- cedonian conquest) is probably represented by the Mound Am- ram, 610-11 note. See Belus the Olden and Bel Merodakh. Belus, father of Kepheus, king of the Kephenes, an Ethiopian people, afterwards called Persians (as the Britons were afterwards mis-called English), 234 note. Belus, Temple of : An oblong, not an equilateral parallelogram, as supposed by Herodotus, 661 and note. Description of it and its idols, 685-8 and notes. Its de- struction falsely ascribed to Xerxes, 688. Why this wonder of Babylon is iinnoticed by Klei- tarkhus's follower, Curtius, 688 note, 695 note. Its fallen tower ordered by Alexander to be re- stored, 688-9 ; against the inclina- tion of the Khaldaeans, 689-90. Its condition then probably worse than that in which Nebukhailrcx- zar found the Temple of Nebo at Borsippa, G90. Existing result of Alexander's labour in clearing away the ruins, 691. Corners of 923 Belus, Temple of the quadrilateral pile pointed E. W. N. S., 693 and note. The tower or Zlggurrat of, described by Herodotus while yet standing, G61, 693 ; by Strabo also, but not on the authority of eye-witnesses, 692-3 note. Diodorus's tale of three idols of gold at top rejected, 695. The fall of (at least the up- permost stages of) the tower may have happened before the time of Ktesias, 695 note. Belus, Tomb or Temple of, at Ba- bylon, 8 note, 88, 258 note, 259 note, 606 note, 607 note, 622. The four corners probably looked to the cardinal points of the hori- zon, 184 note. Bendamir : River in Fars of 113 farsakhs, course from west to east, falling into the salt lake Bakhtegan. The olden name of this river, Kur or Kur, 263 note. Benhadad, 58 note. Beni Israel : Mahrattas so called, 180, 181 note. Berosus : Demolition of the outer- most of the three ramparts of Babylon erroneously ascribed by him to Cyrus, 613-14. Bessus : Took the new name of Artaxerxes when he declared him- self king after Darius Codoman- nus's death, 197 note. Bhav and Bhavani: Hindu male and female earth-gods, Shiva and Kali, 338 note. Bible history: Confidence in, justi- fied by new-found Assyrian testi- mony, 51. Birthday of king of Persia, 139. Feast thereon called Tukta, i.e. "Perfect" (or perhaps "per- fected"), 139. Bisitun or Behistnn, 9, 225. See Behistun. Bit Saggat, or Beth Shagathu, at Babylon and elsewhere : Meaning and derivation of the term, 686 note. Boges: Persian governor of Eion, besieged by Cimon son of Milti- ades, 155. Boora-Pennu ("Light-god"): The Good God the Creator, accord- ing to the Khonds of Orissa, 387. By one sect held the victor of evil, 388. Borsippa, Naboi.c-Jus's surrender of, 53, 88. Temple of Nebo at, now called Birs Nimnid, 88. Its ruined condition when Nebu- khadrezzar set about the repair of it, 690. The angles, not the sides, of the Birs Nimnid mound look to the cardinal points, 693 note. Brahma, 397. Bricks: Babylonian, 652 note, 658 note. Bryges: The parent stock (called Thracian) of the Phrygians of Asia Minor, 420 note. Geogra- phical position of, ibid. Perhaps a Paionian people, ibid. Bubares a Persian: Names his son Amyntas after Amyntas, his wife Gygaea's father, 187. Bubastis, 164 note. Pibeseth or Pi-bath, 188 note, 291. Budii of Media, 414 note. Budini, 415 note. Burning alive : No profanation of fire, 155, 159. Buri/ing alive : A Persian punish- ment, not a profanation of earth, 145, 158-9. Burying up to the neck, 158, 159. What god thereby propitiated, ibid . Byblus, city of Egypt, where Inar6s after his defeat was besieged, along with 6000 Greeks, by Mega- byzus the Persian, 148-49. Byzek, Bihizek, and Bihterek, 466- 67 note. CABALIAXS (in Asia Minor) : Of two descriptions, (1) the Maionian called Lasonians (a colony of whom may have been the Lydian settlers in Etruria) ; (2) the Caba- lians Proper, 113-15 note, 170, 542 note. Said to be Solymi, as the Milyes also are described to be by Herodotus, 115 note, 542 note. (of Libya), a tribe settled in the midst of the Auskhisa?, 144 note. Cabeiri, The : Had a shrine at Mem- phis ; were related to Phthah, as the Cabeiri of l.emnos to Hephaes- tus, 323, 324 note. Their images thrown into the fire by Cambyses, 323. Cadusians, the, 251 note. 924 Calah, called by Xenophon Larissa, 35. Taken by Cyrus the Great, 238. Calendar, Perso-Babylonian, 5, 6. Graeco-Magian, 465-9 note. Call of the Gentiles, Date of, 150 note, 893-5. Calynda : A state bordering on Kaunus, 154 note. Cambyses (Kabujiya), 11. Son of Cyrus, 32, 33 note, 35, 43, 54, 65, 71, 73, 80. His death and burial, 71-2. Called by Ezra Akhshu- rush, 76, 188, 191. Canal of Sesostris, Nekho, Darius I., and the Ptolemies, from the Nile to the Red Sea, 163 note. Its breadth, 164 note. Point where it issued from the Nile, according to Herodotus and Sir J. G. Wilkinson. Canal from Phakussa perhaps to the Lake Ballah; also from the Lake Ballah to the "Bitter Lakes," ibid. CandacS (Kandake") : Every king of Ethiopia's mother so called, 299 note. At Mero the queen-mother her son's superior in the kingdom, ibid. Candy*, a sort of tunic, 260. Canon (Ptolemy's) : According to Theon, and according to Georgius the Syncellus, two versions, 30note. Theon's copy confided in by scho- lars, 51, 52 note. The Khaldsean and the Hebrew chronology corro- borate one another, 50. Omits Darius the Mede, as previously Belshazzar and Laborosoarkhod ; also subsequently Gaumata the Magian, and others, 53. Its Egyptian rule for registration of & first regnal year, 102, 111 note. Canopic Nile, 143, 144 note. Capada, Campada, Campade'ne: A district of Media, 488, 557. Cappadocia : That it belonged to the Medes before the wars of Cyrus, indicated by the Behistun in- scription, 482 note. Capth-ify, Egyptian, lasting 40 years, 53 note. Carmania: Given to the conquered Nabonedus, 44 note. Ten dis- tricts of, 274. Originally an ap- pendage of Persis, 636. Carmanians, query Barkanians, i.e. Hyrkanians, part of the portion of Smerdis son of Cyrus, 69, 247-8 Ciirmanians note, 250. The same as the Per- sian Gennanians of Herodotus, 274. Carthage: Menaced by Cambyses, 297, 300. Casian Mount, Station at : One march from Pelusium towards Gaza, 288. Considered by Hero- dotus as the frontier of Egypt and Syria, 290 note. Caspapura, rather than Caspatyrus, or even Castapyrus, the place on the Indus in the Paktyan land whence Skylax started, 639, 640 note. Caspeirians (for Caspians) : A con- jecture of Reizius, 117 note. Caspians : A nation settled in two different quarters, 116 and notes. In the llth and loth satrapies of Herodotus's list (having the Sakas joined with them in the latter satrapy), 170, 247 note. The con- jectural substitution of Caspeiri- ans for Caspians in the second instance, disapproved, 117 note. Here the Caspians seem connected with Caspapara, 116. Caspian Gates, 562 and note. Boun- dary of Media there crossed by one leaving whether for Parthia or Hyrcania, 563 note. Caspian Sea : In one place mis- named by Polybius the Euxine, in another called the Hyrcanian Sea, 566 note. Cassandane" : "Wife of Cyrus, 131, 133 note, 536 note. See Kassan- dane. Cast61us, Plain of, 541 note. Catabathmus : A ridge dividing Egyptian from Cyrenian Libya, Chaldaeans of the North : Neigh- bours of the Armenians, 492. (Probably included in the same satrapy with them, 170.) Charioteer : Stood, or sat, in the chariot beside the king, 379 (and note), 382. No human driver took that place, during a proces- sion, in Auramazda's car, toid, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, 522 note. China, Emperor and Empire of, compared with the Perso-Median monarch and his dominions, 209, 211. Theory of the Chinese mon- 925 China- arch's place and duty upon earth, 402-3. Emperors of, called them- selves by a petty name, while others spoke of them by a name of state, or regal name, 531-2 note. Chitratakhma : Darius's Sagartian rival, 570-8. Why his overthrow is not dated, 578-9. Cilicia : Its willing co-operation against Babylon, how said to have been rewarded by Cyrus, 541 note. Aleian plain in, more than once the rendezvous of naval ex- peditions against Greece, 590 note. Cimon, son of Miltiades, 150, 153, 292 note. Coin, Use of, by the Persian kings, 292. Coincidence, Supposed points of, be- tween the story of Esther and that of Xerxes, 98. The first examined, 99-105. The second, 105-127. Colkhians, 115. Planted rather by an Assyrian than by an Egyptian conqueror, 165 note. Their quin- quennial present to the Great King, 173. Perhaps included among those who, according to Megasthenes, were planted on the Poutus Euxinus by Nebukhad- rezzar, ibid. Colossse, in Great Phrygia, 544 note. Combapheus, eunuch of the king of Egypt, 72, 285-6. Cometes (apparently the same as Gaumata) : Name assigned by Trogus to a Magian (called by Herodotus Patizeithes), who placed a brother of his on the throne of Cambyses, 350-51 note. Commemoration (of destruction of the Temple, and of Gedaliah's death). When the 70 years of, began? 625. When they began and ended? 645-6. When the last three sevens of them ended ? 503 note. What regnal years of successive kings completed the number, 646 note. Corpses: How treated by ancient Magians and modern Zoroastrians, 159. How by the Persians under the Akhsemenian kings, ibid. Cos, The Temple at, of ^Esculapius, 153. Coss : Hindu itinerary measure, 668 and note. Councils (Persian) convened by Cam 72 Councils byses, and Darius I., and Xerxes, Character of, 101. Coxe, Mr. W. H., of the British Museum : His discovery of an As- syrian Calendar in which the old Babylonian (initials of?) month- names are accompanied by those of Assyria, 425. Crcesus, 35, 36, 482 note, 548. His kingdom, compared with the sa- trapy of Oroites, 542. Crucifixion, The, Date of, 150 note. See Corrections and Additions on page 151. Assyrian and Persian method of, 551, 564-5, 576, 628, 635, 679 and note, 714. Cubit : Substituted for foot by early transcribers of Kleitarkhus's testi- mony as to height of wall of Ba- bylon, 654-5 and note. Fathom in like manner substituted for the Cubit of Ktesias's original account of the same height, 656. (The Royal, of Babylon) exceeded the Greek or also the ordinary Babylonian cubit of six hand- breadths by three finger-breadths, or |th of the said smaller cubit, 652, 657 note ; and was equal to the Egyptian cubit, 658 note. (A smaller Babylonian) consisted of six hand-breadths, each mea- suring 3th English inches. See Additions and Corrections on page 694, lines 38-46. (The Egyptian) : Its length in English measure, 658 note ; con- sisted of 28 fingers, or 7 hands, i. e. palm -breadths, ifnd. An Egyptian double-cubit correspond- ing with the big Hit of Assyrian inscriptions, 659 note. Curds, or Koords, The, 416 note. Set Kyrtii. Curses and blessings, Conditional and Unconditional, 70, 71 note, 336 note. Curtius (Quintus) : On the days of the Persian (. e. Magian) year, 454. On the length and height of the walls of Babylon, 453-4 note. Gush, and Cushites. 8ee Rush and Ethiopians. Cyaxares I., son of Phraortes, 11, 74. His reign examined, 26-28. Never master of Elam, 27. II. (son of Astyages), 7, 33 note, 926 Cyaxares II. 238. His reign of 22 years ex- amined, 29, 31. Remained at home while Cyrus conducted his wars abroad, 37. See Darius the Mede. Cyprus : Co-operated willingly against Babylon, and was accord- ingly rewarded by Cyrus, 541 note. Cyr^ne, 147, 140 note, 144 note, 167, 170. Submission of, to Cambyses, 291, 297. Cyrus (Kurush), 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 15, 17, 29, 31, 33 note. His Median wife, 32, 33 note. Subdues As- syria Proper, 35. Tomb of, at Murghab (i.e. the ancient Pasar- gada?), 257-61 ; compared, in one respect, with the temple of Nebo (Birs Nimrud) by Sir H. C. Raw- linson, 8 note ; guarded by Magi, 62, 258-60. Inference thence re- specting the Bel of Babylon and Nebo of Borsippa, 8 note. Over- throws Croesus, 36. Takes Ba- bylon, 43. Succeeds to the throne the third year after, 51. May have restored their captives to Elam and to Egypt, as well as to Judah, 45. Reigns seven years, 53, 252. His name, 201, 215. Ancestors of his, of the same name, 232. ' His first war (in Persia) was not perhaps with the Medes, but the Babylonians, 238, 250 note. Acquainted with the name Jeho- vah, and with what had been written of himself by Isaiah, 402, 241 . Restored the vessels brought from the temple of God at Jerusa- lem, 242. His last campaign and death, 246. Ktesias's account re- concilable with that of Xenophon, 251, 252. His age at death, 251 note. His seventh and last visit to Persis, 252-4. Tomb of, de- scribed by Sir William Ouseley, 262 note. Onesicritus's notion of the tomb, 692. The same year, his first as king of Persia and as king of Babylon, 409 note. Called a Persian Mule, 632. Both his sons and he born of Median mothers, 486. The lower race, or classes, in Persis, how indebted to him, 512. How he surprised Babylon, 648. Result of the posi- tion that Ezra considered Cyrus's Cyrus first regnal year to begin with Nisan B.C. 536, p. 705. Result of the supposition that Ezra did not consider Cyrus's first regnal year to begin with Nisan, as Haggai, Zechariah, and the author of Esther would have done ; but with Markhesvan B.C. 536, as Nehemiah might have done, 706. (The Younger), younger brother of Artaxerxes II., 19, 20, 33 note, 191, 195, 296, 414, 541 note, 542 note, 545, 546. Cyzicus, 546 note. DAPARSHISH the Armenian, 490-4, 508. Dadarshish the Persian, satrap of Baktria, 543 note. Subdues the revolt in Margiane', 616. Daduhya, father of the Mepahyzus who helped Darius, 608. Whether the name be not the Persian ori- ginal of the Greek Zopyrus, 608 note. Damascus, now Damask, 65 and note. In Hebrew Scripture Dcnunn^rr/, Darmdseq, and Da rmeseq,ibid. Ety- mology of the name suggested, Ibid. Damatthki, the royal city in Tusu or Tush (otherwise Atesh land), 67 note. Its population carried offbyTiglath-Pileser, ibid. Seems to have been the capital of Syria under the Persians, .S2( i. Daniel (the prophet) : Two Greek versions of, 4. Indicates the ori- ginal superiority of the Medes over the Persians, 8. His vision of the two-horned ram, 16. His Darius the Mede the last Medo- Persian king, 7. W T hat was told him of the fourth successor of Cyrus fulfilled in Xerxes, 118. The plot of Darius the Mede's ministers against him, 239-40. By the term satraps of Nebukhad- rezzar's, attests that king's Aryan dominion, 278, 279. Terms by which he describes Jehovah to the king, 401, 405. As an hif<-r- jirrfcr of Jeremiah's prophecies, how far right and how far over- hasty in conclusion (made B.C. 538-7), p. 503 note. Set right by a revelation to himself, ibid. Daphno? (Tahpanhes) of Egypt, 56. 927 Daphnse- Otherwise Daphnas, Taphnas, or Taphanhes, 285 notes. Now Tel- Defeineh, 284. Darayavusb. (Darius), 3 note, 5, 77. The name indicates royal Median descent no less than Akshurush or Khshurush, 533 note. Darius J. (son of Hystaspes), 12. How his name degenerated to Gwhtasp, Hydaspes, and Darin* Hyttaapct, 3 note. His titles, 17. Famous in Biblical and Greek history, 77. Tomb of, at Xakhsli- i-Rustam, 12. Said to have re- moved the Magi from Pasargada.', 63. A temple built by him at Susa, 63 note. His Scythian ex- pedition, 82 note. Like Esther, of the same generation as the great-grandchildren of Astyages, 89, 102. The husband of Esther, 161-65. More direct proof, 165- 75. His death certainly happened in the Egyptian year, E.N. 263, which began with 22d Dec. B.C. 486, and was by Egyptian regis- tration the first of Xerxes, 111 note. The first Asiatic sovereign who ruled from India to Ethiopia, 162. Compared with Sesostris, 162, 163. Completes to the Red Sea the canal made first by Se- sostris, and again by Nekho, 163 note. The voyage of exploration executed by his order from Kas- papura on the Upper Indus to Egypt, 163 note ut alibi. Nick- named tin- Jlnrktti-r, 167. His 20 satrapies in Asia and Africa, with their tributes, 167, 173. The tribute paid him from his Euro- pean acquisitions, 170, 171. (Com- pare Additions and Corrections on 173.) Two characteristics of Darius's, besides the extent of his dominion, ascribed to Esther's Ahasuerus, 173, 174. Believed to be Esther's Ahasuerus by the compiler of Esdras, , 177, ITS. He identified Auramazda with Jehovah, 178. Table of his wives and children, facing p. 178. His title to the throne, 184, IS."). His last act, 103. Styled "Son of the Sun," like a native king in Egypt, 204. His ovals on the large temple in the Great Oasis, ibid. His pedigree on the father's Darius I. side, 231. Born about the third year after Confucius, and seventh before the Buddhist era, 237. His mother perhaps a daughter of Darius the Mede, 281. Serves in the body-guard of Cambyses at Memphis, 282. Dream of Cyrus father of Cambyses concerning him, 322. Probably escorted the corpse of Cambyses to Pasargadap, 326 and note. The first Akhee- menian king that resided princi- pally at Susa, 329 note. The six who helped him against the Magian, now named, 335, 338, 343. Claimed to be king before he slew the Magian, 353-7. Wor- ship of Auramasda, before a sacred fire, sculptured on his tomb, 373. First publicly recognised and pro- claimed king probably at Agba- tana, 408-9. Reverses the acts of Gaumata, 410, 411. Forces the passage of the Tigris, and defeats the Babylonian Naditabel, 477- Defeats Naditabel at Zazana on the Euphrates, 477-8. His head- quarters then for some consider- able time at Babylon, 478. De- spatches Hydarncs into South- west Media, 588-90; Dadarshiah into Armenia, 490. His policy in respect of national worships, 416. His regnal years in Judah, 496-7. His 187 days' stay at Susa in B.C. 519 (not incompatible with the Behistun inscription), why unnoticed there, 526. The business of his stay, why un- touched in the book Esther, 528. The question raised whether Akh- shurush was not rather his private than his regal name, 531, 532 and notes. His punishment of Vashti considered, 539. De- spatches Bagjcus to kill or cap- ture Oroites, 554. Crosses the mountains into Media, 557-8, 561. Defeats, captures, and at Agba- t:ma impales Frawartish the Mede, 56 1 -l>4. Sends Takhmaspada the Mede against the Sagartians, 574. From I'haga sends Persian suc- cour to his father in Parthia, 580. Causes the Sagartian chief to IM> impaled at Arbela, 586, 579. Sends Otanes to Sardis, and orders him to put Syloson in possession 928 Darius 1. of Samos, 588. Sends to his satrap in Baktria to act against the Margians, 616. His final order concerning the temple at Jerusalem, 627-8. Sends Vin- dafra the Mede to smite Baby- lon, 630-31. Sends Artavardiya against the new pretended Smerdis in Persia, 634-35. His first regnal year according to Assyrian and Jewish reckoning, 645 note. The same, by the Khaldaean account, 646 note. How he dealt with Babylon after its capture by Vin- dafra, 679, 681 ; how, with the temple of Bel Merodakh, 685, 686. Makes Esther his queen, 710. To him is to be ascribed (not to Cyrus) the occupation of Babylon by a numerous Persian force, 696. II. (Okhus Darius Nothus) : Called Okhus before his acces- sion, 64 note, 93, 94, 201, 542 note. III. (Codomannus), 49, 65 note. Son of Arsames, 75, 77. (eldest son of Xerxes) : His age in the seventh year of his father's reign, 132, 137. Accused of his father's murder, and put to death, 141. (son of Artaxerxes II. ) : His quarrel with his father, and death, 376. (the Mede), 7, 8, 15, 22. His reign of 20 years at Agbatana, and two years as king also of Babylon, 29, 40-3, 237. Not Esther's Ahasuerus, 30, 33, 37. Josephus's account of him, 31. King supreme, not a viceroy placed by Cyrus at Babylon, 40, 45, and notes. Cannot be Asty- ages, ibid. His regnal years in Ptolemy's canon given to Cyrus, 53. Had a Greater than Cyrus to help him, 79. Add 485. Daruyadiva, or Darauga-diva (Ka- kodsemon) : Epithet apparently of Areimanius, as the Evil Being was called by the ancient Per- sians, 384 note, 385 note. Daskyleium : Seat of the satraps Mitrobates and Pharnabazus, 543. Ravaged and burnt by Agesilaus, T>44-5 note. Daskylltis : Lake formed by the Daskylitis now Lufer Su river, which dis- charges its waters into the old Khyndacus, and thereby into the Propontis, 545 note. Dates of Darius' s successes: Why sometimes omitted in the Behis- tun inscription, 578-9. Daiujhttr of Cyrus: Title of the crowned wife of Cambyses the Magian, and Darius Hystaspes' son, 184 et seq. Applied not only to Atossa, but to Artystoue wite of Darius, 185. Deiokes, king of the Medes before Phraortes, 25. His building pos- terior to Sargon's invasion, 62. Demetrius son of Antigonus : De- feated at Gaza, recovers Syria, marches against Petra of the Na- bathaeans, and invades Babylonia, 440 and note. Captures and pil- lages one of the fortresses within the city Babylon, 664 note. D^mokedes, the physician, 83; from Crotona, 550, 551, 556, 581. His adventures as a servant of Darius misplaced by Herodotus, 594. Derbikes, the, 33 note. Derbiki or Derbika>, subdued by Cyrus, 246, 247. They and the Barkanians adjoining nations, 248 note (the Barkanians being the Hyrcanians, who dwelt to the south of the Derbikes, ibul.). The Darivnka, "Wasps," of the Vendidad, 248 note. Their worship of Earth, and other customs, ibid. Derketo, 214. Diadem (as worn on the Persian king's kidaris or tiara) : Described by Curtius, 1 67 note. Worn by the numerous class called " king's kinsmen," 198 note. On the fore- head of the king's diadema or head-band, a figure of the Sun, 202 note, 198 note. Didrachma of Alexandria, worth an ordinary tetra-drachma, and ac- cordingly sometimes used in the Septuagint to express a shekel, 687 note. a (arithmetical), Cause of, in Herodotus between the total of his particulars of payment in silver to the royal Persian Trea- sury, and the total reported by himself, 171. Dispersion, Jewish, 48. 029 Domitiau (Emperor and Pontiff) banished St. John to Patmos, 78. Doriscus, 112, 113. Durga, or Kali, or Bhavani: Wife of the Hindu Evil Deity Shiva, 388 note, 390. Duru city (that is, Dor, Josh. xvii. 11), 234 note. Dynasties (26th and 27th of Ma- netho), 107; (28th, 29th, and 30th), 773-804. EARTH : Whether undefiled, accord- ing to the Magi, by the consign- ing of living bodies thereto, 158, 159. Modern Zoroastrian angel of, 158. Sacrifice to, by Xeno- phon's Cyrus, 367 note, 382. (Apparently as the habitation or vehicle of Areimanius, the Evil Spirit, 367 note, 383, 386.) Pro- pitiation of, compared with the worship of the Earth goddess by the Khonds, ibid. Perhaps Kis- sian rather than Aryan, i//i>/. Earth goddess, worshipped by the Derbikes, 248 note. Of the Skyths, wife of their greatest god Papaeus, 367 note. Compare the Herthum of the Angli and other ancient Germans, ibid. In the Rig Veda, Earth Mother is op- posed to Heart n Father, ibid. The Earth goddess of the Greeks and Romans, ib'ul. The evil god- dess of the Khonds (See Tari- ^Pennu), 386. 'Eber and "Arab : Perhaps the same name, 281 note. Ecbatana, 62. See Agbatana. Eclipse of the sun, B.C. 603, p. 26 note; B.C. 557, p. 35, 238. Egypt : Conquered by the Persians under Cambyses, 54, 107. Re- jected Darius at the beginning, 484 ; but seems to have been brought to submission by its satrap, 495. Having revolted the year before that of Darius's death, was subdued again by Xerxes, 102, 103. Revolt of, in the reign of the son of Xerxes, 143-50. Independent under Ar- taxerxes Mnemon, and during part of Okhus's reign, 73, 93. Egyptians : Made no mention of Nebukhadrezzar in the story of Apries ; nor of any Assyrian in- Egyptians vaders but the defeated Senna- cherib, 103. Supposed (but too hastily) to have been Herodotus's informants concerning Cambyses, Darius, and Xerxes, 107. Eion: On the east bank of the Strymon, 155, 158. Eilethyias, in Egypt: Old Coptic and modern Arabic names of, 297 note. Elam, or Kissia, 22, 23, 25. Pro- bably allied with Nabopolassar king of Babylon, 27. Crushed by Nebukhadrezzar, 28 note, 41. The Elymaeans and Kissians united in war against the Baby- lonians and Susians, 28 note. The "Bow of Elam, " ibid. When con- quered by Cyrus, 42, 43. See Afardi or Afarti, Khoja, and Susiana. Elam and Media : Isaiah's prophecy of, xxi. 2-9; when fulfilled, 24 note. Elephantin^ : An island in the Nile, 56, 302. Home of Manetho's 2d and 5th dynasties, 311 note. El-Guisr, the plateau of, the pas- sage by which Jacob entered Egypt, 285. El-Khargeh (of the Great Oasis): Its distance in hours and in marches from Egyptian Thebes, 489-90 note. Occupied by Cam- byses, 304. Elumat (rather than Eluti) : An Assyrian name no less than Elam, equivalent to the Aryan Khoja and the Kissian Afardi, that is, Susiana, 510 note. Emendati m*s : Of ^Eschylus, Persae 532, p. 19; of the place-names Sap- tana and Apobatana in Isidore's Mansiones ParthiccB, 59-60 note; of the account of the Pasargadas in Marclanu* Heracleota, 62 note; of Herod, vii. 76, p. 1 13 note; of the name Khalybfs, in Herod, i. 28, and in Ephorus, ap. Strab. xiv. 5, 24, Aid. ; of the name Ortho- korubantii in Herod, iii. 92, p. 170; of the word felicitate in Justin ii. 10, p. 194; of the epithet Persic in Arrian, A'.-r. iii. 25, 3, coun- tenanced however by Diod. xix. 14, 5, p. 197 ; of a name in Quintus Curtius, iii. 4, 5, p 249 note ; of Arrian, Exp. Alex. vi. 29, 9, p. 260 note; of Herod, ii. 42, p. 317 note ; of Athenaaus, xiv. (>.'!'.i ( . :;t-J note; of Plutarch, Vit. Alex. 930 Emendation* cap. 30, 2, p. 366 note; of Strabo, vii. frag. 41, p. 420 note ; of Jose- phus, Antiq. i. 3, 3, p. 429 note; of Diodorus, ii. 7, 3, p. 453 note; of Diodor. ii. 22, 3, p. 519 note ; of Herod, i. 98, near the end, 569 note; of Strabo, xi. 10, 1, com- pleting Carl Mailer's restoration, 617 note; of Strabo, xv. 2, 7, where, however, if adopted, Ari- an6 must be understood of the Harh'a territory, 641 note ; of Herod, i. 191, p.' 649 note; of Jose- piius, Antiq. iii. 6, 7, p. 688 note; of Arrian,Axp. Alex.vii. 17, p. 690; of Henry Dodwell's Fragment of Theon's Commentary on Ptolemy's Canon, 818, 819; of Geo. Syncell. p. 207 A, p. 204 C, pp. 326-327, p. 7ed. Paris, 819, 820, 825, 853 4; of Strabo, v. 4, 3, p. 884; Quint. Curtius, v. 8, p. 900. Ephraim, 47. Epidaurus, Mother city of C6s: Had been occupied by the Carians be- fore the " Return of the Hera- cleidae," 153. Temple of .Escula- pius there, ibid. Erdavirdf Ndma: How old a book, 3 note. Esarhaddon : His colony in the countryof which Samaria had been the capital (the Samaritans), 245. Esdras,a: Consequence of this book's omission of Ezra iv. 6, p. 76 note, 81 note. Esfendarmad: Zoroastrian angel of Earth, 158. Esfitaman, Sfitaman, or Espinta- man : Father of Zoroaster, 3 note. (Spitamenea.) Esfintamad : The third of the Angel Sisters presiding over the five supplementary days of the Magian year, 189 note. Esther : Identified by Joseph Sca- liger and others with Amestris, 3. Of the same generation as the great-grandchildren of the great Nebukhadrezzar and of Astyages; also as Psammenitus, 87, 90, 91. Why not mentioned in the book Ezra, 94 note. Liberally identi- fied with Amestris, 96. Her story ill appreciated, 97. The supposition of Scaliger, Eichhorn, Milman examined, that she en- tered on her preparation for Esther- Xerxes' bed not later than the month Tebeth next after the battle of Salamis, 129. Cannot be Amestris, 133, 136. Proved to be Atossa, the queen consort of Darius son of Hystaspes, 178 et seq. Esther the private name of Atossa in her own family and people, 180. Supposed by Ge- senius to be a name given her by the Persian, equivalent to Sit a re h, that is, "Star," 180 note. Like Zerubbabel, a Babylonian name, ibid. : and related to Ishtar as Mordecai to Merodakh, 180 note, 182, 699. Though a favourite name among the Jews, not given to daughters among the Mahratta Beni Israel, ibid. Born at Baby- lon, but carried by her cousin Mordecai to Susa, 700. Her marriage erroneously placed in the month Adar by the Septua- gint and Josephus, 711 note. (The Book) : An internal proof that it was written before the time of Nehemiah, 456 and note. Ethiopians (both Asiatic and Afri- can), 297, 298, and notes. Asiatic Ethiopians well known to the ancestors of the Homeric Greeks, 299, 300 notes. Straight-haired, 113. The African Macrobii, 298 note. Their bows, 299 note. Power of queen-mothers among them, ibid. The Macrobii iden- tified by Herodotus with the Ethiopians of Meroe, 300. Woolly- haired above Egypt, 82 and note. Served under Xerxes, 84, 95, 113. Their triennial present to the Great King, 173, 305. Etymander river, 643 note. Eulc-eus river : According to Dio- dorus, the most westerly of the three rivers of Susiana, Pasi- tigris, Coprates, and Eula-us, ,V>S note; thus answering to the Kho- aspes of Strabo in one passage, ibid. By other authors, the Pasi- tigris, or more easterly of the three rivers, is called EuL-eus, 558-9 note. Eumenes : Resists Antigonus first on the Pasitigris, afterwards on the Para-takenian frontier of Persis, 530 note, 558. Taken and starved to death, 562 note. 931 Euphrates: Breadth of, in Babylon, 664 note, 668. Evil Merodakh, 29, 39 and note, 40 note. During his reign the people of Persis appear to have revolted under Cyrus, 238. His regnal years began, by Babylonian ac- count, with Markhesvan B. ( '. ."><; 1 , p. 441. After his father's death he released Jeconiah before the end of the year, that is, when his first regnal year had not yet begun, 441. Ezra, 17. When he was sent to Jerusalem, the restoration of the walls had been also ordered by the king, 150 note. His commis- sion, 403. His account of the completion of Zerubbabel's temple, 703-4. Whether the regnal years he mentions began with Nisan or Markhesvan, 705-6. (That they began with Nisan, evinced in the case of the seventh of Artaxerxes, see Additions and Corrections on p. 151.) PARS : Meaning of the name, 236 note. See Parsa. Farsakh (Parasang) of Sir W. Ouse- ley, of Herodotus, and of the Arab geographers, appealed to by Capt. Felix Jones, I.N., 262-3 note. See Parasang, Kasbu, Skhcene. Faruab, or Paruab : The stream that runs by Murghab and Mader- i- Suleiman, and that falls into the Bendamir, 263 note. Its course IS/arsakhs, /'/,;//. Feasts : A season for consultation among many nations, 528 and note. Fervardaghdn : Five sisters Ahu- navad, Ashtuvad, Estintamad (which name see), Vahukhshater, and Vahishtushiyush, who, ac- cording to Magian doctrine, spin, weave, and sew, making garments (when the Creator of the universe so ordains) for souls that are stript of their bodies. They preside over the five supplementary days of the year, 189 note. Fire, Persian, i.e.. Magian, Worship of, 156. Profanation of, 1~>7 notr. The worship connected with that of the Sun, 368. (Like Agni by the Hindus) invoked by the Per- sians as a mediator, 370, 373, 375. The worship a corruption of the divine institution of the sacrifice of animals by fire, 370. Practised in Cappadocia not only in the fire- temples, but in the temple courts of Anaitis and Omanes, 371 note. Portable grates of sacred fire, 383 note. What Strabo calls sacrifice to, 384. Fire and Water : Images of gods to the Persians, 362 note, 368 note. Fire-burners (Pynethi) : Magi so called in Cappadocia, 371. Fire-temples (Pyrsetheia), and the daily service of, by the Magi, 371 note. Forbes, Alexander Kinloch (in Me- moriam), 69 note. Rev. G. H., of Burntisland : A suggestion of his to the author, 503 note. Frada : Darius's antagonist in Mar- gian, 616, 620. May have saved his life in the defeat and butchery of his people, 621. Frankincense : Arab tribute of, 173. Frawartish : Darius's Median rival, 483. His cause maintained in Armenia and Parthia, 484. His name the same as that of the second king of the Medes, 487 note. Defeated, taken, and im- paled, 561-4. Free training ;/''"" "'/< /'// Persis : Whether at other places (e.g. among the Maraphii and Maspii as well as at Pasargada?) a ques- tion connected with this other, Whether the 12 tribes mentioned by Xenophon were hereditary or arbitrary divisions, 270. GAB.'E in Gabiane", 249 note. Gadura : Gandara (the Gandarae of Hecatteus, and Gandarii of Hero- dotus), 82 note, 83, 85 note, 641. They and their town Kashtapura or Kaspapiira, part of the empire won by Darius from the Magian usurper, 84 note, 640 note. Their country, Paropamisus, 84 note, 639, 640 note. May have possessed the valley of the KOphfin river, as well as that of the Khoaspa, 85 note. Called a Hindu people by Hecateus, 640 note. Perhaps in- 932 Gadara tended by Arrian's Hindus of the hither side the Indus, and con- quered by Alexander between Bactra and the Indus, 85 note. Not Paktyans Proper, though they lived in Paktyanland, 642 note. Gadutava, or Kanduvata : A district of Arakhotia, 638. Gandaridse of Diodorus, 85 note. Gandaris of Strabo in the Panjab, 85 note. Gandarltis of Strabo : Traversed by a Khoaspes, a tributary of the K6phn river, 84, 85 note. Gar: Three-fifths of a AM (or Ba- bylonian cubit), apparently the Babylonian foot, 656 note, 658 note, 665-6 note. Its length in English measure, 657-8 note. A hundred Gar the correspondent of the Greek plethrum and Roman actus or half-juger, 666 note, 663 note. (2.) Another Gar, 12 Eng- lish inches (the two-thirds of another cubit, three fingers shorter than the Royal cubit), used at Mugheir under Nabonedus. (3.) A still shorter Gar of the oldest Khaldaean times, measuring 11-| inches, the three-fifths of the common short cubit of 19 inches. See Additions and Corrections on p. 694, lines 38-46. Gannapada : First month of the stage of heat, 447. Oate : Attendance at king's or satrap's, 712-3 note. Gather son of Aram, 395 note. Gaugamela (village near which Alexander defeated Darius Codo- mannus in the province of Arbela) : Its situation, 577. Gaumata the Magian, 10, 66, 88. Perhaps Gomashtah in modern Persian, 69, 329, 351 note. Gu- matta is to Gumashta as the San- skrit ritta, " gotten," to the Zend vista, 329. The name preserved in the Cometes of Trogus, 350 note. Two phases of his usurpa- tion, 354-5. His acts regarded after his death as of no validity, 410. Gaza or Kadytis, 286. Gazaka, or Ganzaka: The capital of Atropatene, sometimes styled the second Agbatana, 61. Not walled, 60 note. Gedaliah : Murdered in the last Gedaliah month of the Khaldsean year that was reckoned the 19th regnal year of Nebukhadrezzar by the Jews, but his 17th by registers at Babylon, 624-5. Gedrosia : United to Arakhotia under the satrap Sibyrtius, 637. Its capital Pura, 637 note. Georgius Syncellus. See Syncellus. Germanians or Carmanians, 636, 637 note. Germans, Ancient: Analogy between their religion and that of the an- cient Persians, 358-9, 362 note. Their horses brought with them from the steppes of Tartary and Russia, 359 note. Gerrha, on the Persian Gulf: Its ancient trade, 288 note. on the Mediterranean, 288 note. Now Tel Gerreh, 284 note. Geshem or Gashmu, the Arabian; that is, the Nabathaean, 280. Getae, on the Danube, 342 note. Ghava the blacksmith and Dahhak the king, story of, alluded to, 268 note. Gimirri : An Assyrian name for a people in Thrace called Saka and Sakka in Persian and Kissian. Query, Kimmerii, 82 note, 246 note. Gobryas : His daughter Darius's wife, the Vashti of Scripture, seems to be the wife named " Ar- tyst6n6 daughter of Cyrus," 186. son of Darius by Artyst6ne\ 186-7. (son of Mardonius), one of Darius's six fellow-conspirators, probably the same as Gobryas who was sister's husband to Darius, and father of the Mar- donius who fell at Platsea, 277. Possibly the same as Herodotus's Gobryas, who was wife's father to Darius, 277-8. If a different person, not the son, but perhaps the nephew of the other, 278. Wife's father, according to Xeno- phon, of Hystaspes the father of Darius, supposed to be the person more correctly described by Hero- dotus as wife's father to* Darius, .277-9. Gojesta (the Devil of the Zoroas- trian Book Sad-der) : The same called in the Behistun inscription 933 Gojesta God of lies, 268 note. The name one of many applied by Persian writers to the devil, 269 note. Gold, the Hindu, 85 note. In what shape hoarded by the Persian kings, 292. Gudrush or Gundrush in Media, 82 note. Gushtasp = Vishtaspa, i.e. Hystas- pes, 3 note. Gyndes: River on the road to Baby- lon from Media, 56 note. HADASHAH, a Samaritan female name, 189 note. Hadassah : Identity of the name with Atossa noticed by Usher, 4 note. Esther's court name, 180, 182, 183, 199. Written Edem by Georgius Syncellus, 184 note. Haggai the prophet, 496 et seq. Hakhamanish (Akluemenes), 10, 11, 55, 103, 184, 231. Hall, Professor Fitz-Edward, 218 note. Halys, river, 35-6. Hamadan, 23, 50, 60. Haman, 34, 50, 166, 185. Hamath, Khamath, afterwards Epi- phania, now Hamah, 57. Handbreadths (Tibki) : Heights reckoned in, by the Assyrians, 656, 694, 651 note. Those of Herodotus, whereof four made an ordinary foot and six an ordinary cubit, 657 note. Those of Egypt measuring four fingers each, and whereof seven made a cubit, 658 note. Those of 3 inches in the Temple of the Moon at Mugheir. See A'l'fifi'Hix "nd Corrections on p. 694, lines 38-46. Hapi-M6ou (name of the Nile-god): If Hapi intimates M(t<-l;in**, "Black Water," 310 note; or " Blue Water," as perhaps Nil also indicates, ibid. The Black Water, as well as the Black Bull Apis, connected with Osiris, 311 note. Hariva: The country watered by the Hari or Arius, and inhabited by the Arii, 615. Its three cities Artakoana, the original chief town ; Kandak (called from a Macedonian founder Akcea); and Alexandreia (now Herat), built 73 Hariva by Alexander the Great, 118 note, 641 note. Hariva had Thatagush or the Satagydas on the east, 641 note. Head-washing of the Persian mon- arch, and of the Scythians, 139. Heaven, Son of (that is, Son of God), a title of the Emperor of China, 209. (Father) of the Rig-Veda, 367 note. Among the Persians Hea- ven = Auramazda, ibid. Exhi- bited the ubiquity of Auramazda, 365. Seems intended by the Circle in the sculptured emblem of Auramazda, 374 note. Among the Jews, "Heaven" or "Hea- vens" = The God of the Heavens, i.e. Jehovah, 405 and note, 406. So, too, among the Chinese, Heaven = The Supreme Being, 407. Hecatompylos : Seat of royalty in Parthia, 562 note. Hepha?stion : His funeral pile at Babylon, 611 note. Hephaestus (called by the Latins Vulcan) : Cast down from Heaven into Lemnos, 323. Recognised by the Greeks in the Phthah of Memphis, ibid. note. Entertained in Lemnos by the Sinties, ibid. Hermotybians : One section (the Calasirians being the other) of the warrior caste in Egypt, 145, 147. Herodotus : Confounds the husband and the son of Queen Nitocris, 37 and note. Supposes (probably incorrectly) Susa to have been the chief residence of Cyrus, Cam- byses, and the Magian, 156. Mis- applies the name Mithra, 64 note, 364 note. His confusion of the 7th and 13th satrapies of his list, making what should have been the xo'i-ittfi to be the latter part of the tltirti-niffi, and what should have been the latter part of the 13th to be the 7th of his list, an error connected with the fact that in the original document the 13th was the satrapy that in his order should have been the seventh, 169, 170, 640 note. His error in supposing Cyrus the immediate successor of Astyages proved by a record of Cyrus's at Agbatana, 244. Preferred accounts by which Cyrus was depreciated, 251. His 934 Herodotus- knowledge, displayed in the Thalia, of the Ethiopians that Cambyses wished to conquer, and of the Medes in the reign of Darius I., supplemented in the Euterpe" and the Clio, 301, 302. His testimony that the Magian Pseudo-Smerdis was slain in the eighth month, leads to correct conclusions as to the order of the Persian months Bagayadish, Atriyadiya, Anamaka, Thuravahara, Viyakhana, Gar- mapada, and Thaigarchish, 421-3. By making the month Bagayadish the first month of the first of Darius's 36 regnal years, suggests the inquiry, What was the civil year he had in view? 423, 432, 433, 435. Supposed the Magian usurpation of the throne of Cam- byses made in the interest of the Medes, 485 note. Herodotus blended two revolts of Babylon into one under Darius I., and as- cribed the character of the Median revolt under Frawartish to the Magian usurpation, 595. His observation as to the final letter of Persian names, 598 note. Mis- understood what he was told of the height of the Wall of Baby- lon, being unable to judge by the eye, 651 note. The knowledge he possessed, when he wrote the Thalia, of the state in which Darius I. left Babylon, supple- mented in the Clio, 612 note. Mistaken in supposing both Baby- lon and the temple of Belus to be equal-sided as well as four-sided parallelograms, 660-61. Misun- derstood his story of the 20th month of the siege of Babylon, 626, 676-7- Certainly mistaken when he gives to the first stage or story of theZifjr/urrat or tower of the Bel temple at Babylon, the height given by Strabo to the whole pile, one stade, 693 note. Herthum, Earth-goddess of the Angli, 367 note. Hesperida?, 144 note. Hestia : By this name of the Greek Hearth-goddess (the Roman Vesta), Xenophon means the Sacred Home Fire of the Per- sians, 351-2 note. Hezekiah, sixth year of, 50, 51. Hiddekel or Tigris, 78, 79 note. Hidush, Sintus, Indi (or Hindus): Men of Hind or Sindh, 81 note. Xot in the Behistun, but adde.l in Darius's subsequent lists of his provinces, 83 ; and forming the 20th satrapy, 170. Account of the exploration, subjugation, and tribute imposed upon them, 83, 84 note. Situation of, 639 note. Served under Xerxes against Greece, 83 note. The Indians in the several contingents of the Baktrian and Arakhotian satraps at Arbela, 85 note. Darius's India re-annexed by Alexander the Great, 437 note. Hillah, town, 664 note, 666 note. Hind, Homa, and Harequaitl, for Sindh, Soma, and Saraswati, 214. History (Ancient Persian) : Dis- regard of truth in the compilation and reciting of, 272. Homa (in Zend) or Soma (in San- skrit), the Moon-god, 364 note, 394. Horses sacred to the Persian Sun- god, 358-9. Their neighings oracular among the Germans, 358-9. Eaten by the Persians, 383 note. Sacrificed to the Sun- god by the Massagetaj, 3.~>9; as well as by the Persians, 359, 381, 382. Of 'Xisjea, 339 note, 379. Horus : Last king of the 18th Egyp- tian dynasty, 164 note. Hu: Proved by the late Dr. Hincks equivalent to the Hebrew, Ara- maic, and Assyrian amma or cubit, 657 note, 655 note. A bi- rection-s on p. 694, lines 38-46. ) Huivama, or Uhyama, in Armenia, 493. Humawargd (Amyrgii) : These and the Tigrakhuda, two nations of Sakas (besides the Sakas of Europe, who seem to be Thra- cians), enumerated by Darius I., 247 note. Huresh, or Hurush : The natural Perso-Aryan form of the Sanscrit Suresh (which see), 214. : A sun to his wife, that 935 Husband should receive her homage in the plaoe of Mithra, 220. Hydarnes, 488. See Vidarna. Hydaspes: Corrupted from Hystas- pes, 3 note. Or a dialectic variety of Hystaspes, whereof there are other analogous in- stances, 329 note. Hyks6s (of Avaris in Egypt): These invaders, whether their name be connected etymologically with the names Shus and Avar of Susiana, 5-2-2 note. Whether connected by a certain 13 years found in the history of Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and a like period in Ma- netho's history of Egypt, ibid. Hymns of the Rig- Veda, 411-12 note. Hyrkanians, 112. In Aryan Var- kana, 249. Probably intended by the Parikanii of the 10th satrapy, 248. Regarded as the equals of the Persians and Medes, 250, 583. Had precedence over the Par- thians, their fellow-provincials, 582. Xenophon's account of them and their service to Cyrus, 583. Their name interpreted by Sir H. C. R. "wolves," ibid. note. Hystaspes (Vishtaspa) : Father of Darius, 77. The name corrupted to Hydaspes, and by modern Per- sians to Gushtasp, 3 note. Sur- vived Cyrus many years, 89. His wife not the daughter of Gobryas, but perhaps of Darius the Mede, 276-80. Presided probably at the funeral of Cambyses in Persis, 327. Crushed the Parthian revolt from his son, 585-87. (son of Xerxes), 131. Satrap of Baktria at the time of his father's murder, 141. IENYSUS : The waterless tract be- tween this and the Casian Pro- montory, 286, 288. A vestige perhaps of the name in the present Khiin- Y iiiui*, 2!M) note. Ikhthyophagi (of Elephantine" ) : How employed by Cambyses, 302. Fish- eating clans (in Babylonia), 302 note. II, or El (that is, God), 205-6 note. Semitic equivalent of old Baby- lonian Re or Ra, //*///. l)mi-i!if< /.< of, Arab equivalent of the old Egyptian daughter of Ra, 206. Iloarudamus (Evil-Merodakh), 39 note. Imanish: The regal name assumed by Darius's second antagonist in Susiana, 510 and note. Perhaps akin to Umman, a god whose "eldest son," a king of Susa in Sennacherib's time was called, 511. Inaros (son of Psammetikhus, and king of the Libyans at Mareia): His revolt from Artaxerxes I., 142, 143. Probably descended from the Egyptian dynasty over- thrown by Cambyses, 143. Main- tained his revolt for six years, 144. How supported by the Athenians, 145. His end, 148. Indi, or Hindus. Ste Hidush. Indra, 397. Indra and Agni: Ride together in a car, which seems to be the Sun, 365 and note. Indus, river, 83. Intaphernes : One of the six, 186. Usher's fancy about him, 4 note. Miscalled Artaphrenes and Ata- phernes by -rEschylus and Ktesias, 226 note. His end, 347. Isfendarmad (a Magian month), 139 note. See Esfendarmad (Zoroastrian angel of Earth), 158. Ishtar (whence Esther): The Assy- rian Venus, 180 note, 182, 699. Isis (Egyptian goddess), 319, 318 note. Issidu (so-called in Assyrian): The Aryan Machchiyas or fish-eaters of the Tomb List; apparently the Issedones of Herodotus, 83 note, 415 note. Itnurnrii (Antonine), 284 note. Izabates: A chief eunuch in Cam- byses' service, 70, 89, 326 note, 327, 335 note. JAXARTES (or Yaksharta), the Sir or Sihon river, 219 note, 395 note. How it came to be called Tanais, 566 note. Jeconiah (Jehoiakin) king of Judali: Carried to Babylon, 86-7. Con- temporary of Psammis or Psam- metikhus II., 90. Released from his prison in Adar B.C. 561 by 936 Jeconiah Evil-Merodakh, 441. Years of his captivity connumerary with the regnal years of Zedekiah, 442 note. Days of his reign, ibid. Jehoahaz (son of Josiah) : His three months' reign, 443 note. Jehoiakim (son of Josiah) king of Judah, 35, 87, 441 note. His corpse not buried, 296 note. His regnal years, and those of Zede- kiah, a continuous series of the same sort, 442 note. JEHOVAH: Reserve of the Jews as to this name of God, 398. Jelaleddin, Sultan : His fixed years related to the proper Magian year, as the Alexandrian to the proper Egyptian year, 456. Commence- ment of, 457 note. Jeroboam : Reign of, 47. Seems to have made the civil year of Israel begin with Markhesvan instead of Tisri, 434. Jews : Exaggerate the time taken in the rebuilding of the temple, 17. When it was, the name came to be applied to men of all the tribes of Israel, 46, 47. -When they began to withhold the name Je- hovah from the knowledge of strangers, 398. Permitted by Cyrus, many returned from Baby- lon to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple, 241-5. Resume under Darius the work that had been suspended, 495-507. Joakim son of Zerubbabel, 178. John, St., the apostle, 1, 78. Jonah, 399, 234-5 note. Josephus the historian : On Esther's Ahasuerus, 2. Asserts that Arta- xerxes I. was named Kurush, 2. Mistakes the patron of Ezra and Nehemiah for Xerxes, ibid. note. Rightly identifies the Darius under whom Ezra places the completion of Zerubbabel's temple with the father of Xerxes, 5. His error concerning Elam son of Shem, 24 note. Follows not Ezra, but Es- dras, 81 note, 177. Xt the Hebrew Esther, but some para- phrase, 166. Follows the Septua- gint or Vernacular Targums rather than the original text of the ca- nonical books of Holy Hebrew Scripture, 106 note. Why, having ignored the person of the Lord Josephus Jesus in his Jt wink War, he names Him in his Anti'/uities, 179. Like the Septuagint book Esther, knows not the name Hadassah, 181. Supposes erroneously that ^the name Meroe was due to Camby- ses, 298 note, 301. Contradicted by the book Esther, and also by the state of Babylon before the time when Esther was taken to the house of women at Susa, in the statement that Mordecai and Esther were then living in Baby- lon, 52" note. Josiah: His regnal years form a continuous series with those of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, 442-3 note. Judah : Political growth of the tribe in Israel, 47. Judith, The book, Anachronism in, 18. Jugus or Jug f rum: The Roman measures of length and surface so called, 663 note, 682 note. (As the Roman act us, signifying a measure of length, corresponded with the Assyrian Siis (or sixty) of half-Hits (or small cubite), so the Roman Jugerum seems to cor- respond with an Assyrian Sus of. big Hm, equal to Egyptian double cubits, and to be the sixtieth part of the Assyrian big Kasbu. See Kasbu.) KADYTIS (Gaza), 286. Kampad(*n4 : Province of Lower Media, 59 note, 62. See Capada. Kandak : The town in Aria so named by Isidore identified with the Akzea of Strabo, 618 note. Kanduvata or Kadutava : District in Arakhotia, 638. Kapishkanish : Fort in Arakhotia, 638. Kara, ktmfz, or Kardn kdmce: A place on the right bank of the Tigris, at the same distance from Babylon as (afterwards) Seleukeia, and where there was a passage of the river, 558 note. Karda (whence a sort of men, Kar- dakes) : Meaning of this Persian word, 413. Kardukhians, 21, 251 note. 937 Karka or Karsa : Whether Kolkhi ans ? 83 note. Kaxbu : An Assyrian measure oJ distance; the big and the little or half kasbu, 657 note. The little kasbu may have been GO Baby- lonian pleihra, or 60 sus of cubits, i.e. a mrus of cubits, or (at 20.', iuches to the cubit) 2050 English yards ; while the well-known parasang of the period of Persian supremacy may have been the biy k'lxlm, a sarus or 3600 of double cubits or bit/ httx. See At'>i>.< and Correction* on page 668, lines 13 to 19. Kaspapura, or Kastapura (not Kas- patyrus): A town of the Gandarae in the Paktyan region, 83-4 note, 110, 117 note. Probably on the Indus near Peshawar, 85 note, 163 note. Kassandane : A Persian wife of Cyrus, not the mother of Cam- byses, 74. See Cassandane". Kaunus city, 154. The people de- scribed themselves as originally from Crete (being perhaps Ter- mite, like the intruders in the land afterwards Lycia), 154 note. Keph^nes (Ethiopians of the East): The people of Kepheus, son of Belus and father of Andromeda, 234 note, 513. Migration of, from Khaldaea to Khoge; under Perses colonize the Artaean land, ibid., 234 note. Left their former country to the Khaldaeans, 513, 514 note. Kepheus king of the Ethiopian Kephenes, 234, 235 note, 513. Kerkhah river: Its upward course probably followed nearly by Darius I. (as afterwards by Antigonus) in marching from Susiana into Media, 557-8. The Eulams of Diodorus, ibid. note. A branch or canal once carried a part of its waters to the Karun, while the remainder, as now, ran to the Shat-el-Arab, but by a course nearer to Susa, 5(50 note. Kerkiik: Sends wine to Baghdad, 604 note, 66. Khaire'rnon: A Greek pretender to knowledge of Egyptian history and science, 452 note. Khalybes in Herod, i. 28 (and Ephorus quoted in Strabo, xiv. 5, Khalybes- 24) : Perhaps a misnomer of Kabalians, 113 note. See Caba- lians. Kharax (Spasini), 66-7 note. Kharitimides the Athenian, 146. ^ Slain, 148. Kliiirtiuiiiiiiiii, "Magicians:" Ety- mology of the term, 41 note. Khawona of Diodorus, between Bagistane and Agbatana: Perhaps the "royal residence" where Gaumata was slain at Sikthako- tish, 340. the , 340. The name perhaps tl :e as the old Persian awahana and the modern Persian khdna, 340. Khebar river in Khaldaja, 78. Khedorlaomer, 24 note. Khem (Ham), god of Kabti, 110 note. Worshipped at Khemmis (Panopolis) in Upper Egypt, 307 note. Khoaspes, river of Susiana : Its course made by Strabo in one place more westerly than the rivers Koprates and Pasitigris, so as to answer to the Eulseus of Diodorus, 558 note. But before confounded with the Pasitigris, ibid. A tributary of the K6phe"n river, 85 note. Khodaidaya or 'Uwadaidaya, town in Persis, 635. Khoge (whither the Kephenes emi- grated), 513, 234 note. The name perhaps identical with the Aryan Khoja, ibid. Although Salmasius proposed to read Khokht, signify- ing a place also called Kokht, 514 note. Considered by Hellanicus a part of Artaea, i>>>">">. Kundrush or Kudnish in Media, the place where Frawartish was defeated, 561. To ascertain its situation important, ;"63. Kur (with vowel both long and short) : The modern name of rivers in Fars and Georgia called by Greek writers Kops (Cyrus), 211. Meaning of the name indi- cated by that of the Tatar river Gihon, 212 note. Analogous in its two forms to Sura (having both its vowels short) and Sura (having the first vowel long and the last short), an appellation of the sun in Sanscrit, 213. The Kur of Fars now called the Bendaniir, 263 note. Kurush (Cyrus) : The former name of Artaxerxes the First, 2. Per- haps taken by Josephus for an equivalent of Khshurush, 2 note. The name meant the Sun, 201 ; being also pronounced Khurush, 211, 212 note, 213, 216. Other varieties, 214-216. May be the Persian form of Khshurush, 329 note, 531. Kush or Kish (in Africa) repre- sented by an uiixtriuxj how, 28 note. Some of them conquered by Cambyses, 82. Both these and the eastern Cushites followed Xerxes, 113. See Ethiopians. Kyrtii of .Strabo: Whether a name akin to Sagartii, 416 note. LABOROSOARKHOD, 39, 40 note. Labynetus or Nabunita, husband of Nitokris, 649 note. See Nabo- nedus. Labyzus : Chief eunuch of Tana- oxares or Smerdis, 70. Lactantius: Error of, 3 note. Larissa: Calah so called, 35. Lasonians: A portion of the Caba- lians that was descended from the Maionians or primitive popu- lation of Lydia, 113-14 note, 170. Perhaps the parent stock of those called Jiasena by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and it is thought Lome on Etruscan monuments, ibid. Identified with Lysineans Lasonians (inhabitants of Lysinoe or Ly- sinia), 114 note. May be those inhabitants of Cabalis mentioned by Strabo, from whom one of the four dialects of Kibyra (the Lydlan) was derived, 115 note. Lemnos : Its fires, ancient inhabit- ants, and god Hephaestus, 323 note. Lesbos: Its relations with the Asian mainland before and after the establishment of the Medo- Persian supremacy, 547-8 and note. Liars (supposed) : Punished by Cambyses, 306. " Lila-rals," 70. In criticism, 96. Surrender whatever makes against them, 105. All for Haman and the Amalekites, 136-7. Instinc- tively hate Israel and sympathize with his enemies, 160. Libyans west of Egypt: Surrender to Cambyses, 291. Lies, God of: Perhaps an object of Magian worship, 158. The Go- jesta and Devil of the Zoroastrian book Sad-der, 268 note. See Areimanius. Li h- tch tin, commencing spring of the Chinese year, 509 note. Litun/y, the Magian, 459-60. Lucky days and hours, 462-4 note. Lycians, originally TermiliJe from Crete, who settled in the territory of the Solymi, 118, 154. The Lycian language I ndo- Germanic, ibid. Lydians, subdued by the Medes under Cyrus, 238-9. Lysinoe or Lysinia: Its situation, 114, 115 note. Perhaps marked by a village still called Allahmn or Allay soon, 115 note. See La- sonians. MADA (Medus), 14 note. See Madai. Madai (in Aryan Mada), ancestor of the Medes, 9. .17 in/' f-i-Siiti 'uiitin (on the road from Istakhr to Ispahan) : Extensive ruins of, a farsakh and a half short of Murghab, and near to which is the tomb of Cyrus, 261 note. Taken by Sir W. Ouseley for the ruins of a city, 262 note. Mseander river, 544 note. Magnesia on the, 550 note. 940 Maeandrius: Secretary and successor of Polycrates at Samos, 550. De- posits Polycrates's hall furniture in the temple of Hera, 552 note, 592 note. His conduct when Darius's lieutenant came to install Syloson at Samos, 590-1. Mseotis lake : Apparently an ancient misnomer of the lake now called Aral, if that existed in Polybius's author's time, 566. Magi, The, at Pasargad^e, 63. Guard the tomb of Cyrus, 62, 258-9. Interpret prodigies to Cambyses, 71. Idolatrous Magi in Cappa- docia spoken of by Strabo; their idols called Persian, but really Kissian and Babylonian, 371 note. Under name of Magas recognised as a caste of Brahmans, 414-15. Medes, but not Aryan Medes, 414 note. Their influence as a caste of priests in Persis, before the overthrow of the Akhsemenian dynasty, 415. Under the Par- thians supersede the royal Persian clan at Pasargadse, ibid. And by Strabo are counted a tribe in Persis, ibid. note. Probably be- longed to either the Elamite or Kushite population of Susiana, 448. Their different prayers for the 365 days of their year, 459-60. That they were not an Aryan tribe, intimated perhaps by Xeno- phon, 460 note. Why they ob- jected to such a method of inter- calation as that of the Egyptian year, first made by the Greeks of Alexandria B. C. 26, and introduced into the Magian year by Sultan Melek Shah Jelaleddin A. D. 1079, p. 462 and 462-3 note. On the Ma- gian intercalation and the Grseco- Magian Calendar, 465-9 note, 470. Magidu: Assyrian correspondent of Megiddo (Josh. xvii. 4), 234 note. Mago-phonia : The Persian com- memorative festival, 338-9. Mahadeva: Epithet of the malignant Siva in the Puranas, 395. Manatsuah: Assyrian correspondent of the name Manasseh (M'nash- sheh), 234 note. Maudan^, 31. Maraphii and Maspii, the second and third of the three leading Persian tribes, 274, 276. Com- pare 187 note. Marathon (Battle at), fought the 6th of Boedromion, the third Athenian month B.C. 490, p. 122 note. Interval between this and the battle at Salamis, 109-10 note. Marble, The Parian, 36 note. Marching, Alexander's rate of, 562. Mardghiran: A Magian festival, 139 note. Mardokempadus : See Merodakh Baladan; his first regnal year by the Khaldzean account, 443-4. Connumerary with the first of Sargon king of Assyria, ibid. note. Mareia: The seat apparently of the deputy king of the Adyrmakhidae or Libyans dependent upon Egypt, 142-144 note. The fresh water lake Mareotis, 142-144 note. Filled from the Nile, 144 note, 290 note. Margiane (Margush) : Its vines, 616 note. Treated by Strabo as a province united to Aria or Hariva, 616-17 note. Now Merv, 615. A dependency of the Baktrian sa- trapy ; its revolt, 480, 616-19. Watered by the Margus river, now Murgh-ab, 615. Markazana: An Aryan month, the position of which is not deter- mined by the Behistun inscrip- tion, 446-7. Probably the Sivannu or Si van of Assyria; see table B opposite page 431. That is, the eighth mouth of the Khaldaean year, which began with Markhes- van, 590, 677-8. Markhesvan or Khesvan : The only Jewish month-name not found in the list of Assyrian month - names, where its place is taken by the designation eighth month, 425, 427-29 note, 429 note. Why numbered and not named in the Assyrian Calendar, 447. Marmaridas : Libyans of Cyrenaica, 143 and note. Comprised appa- rently by the Gilligammae, the Asbystas, and (including Caba- lians) the Auskisse, 144 note. Marriage: Among the Persians a duty of the young man, 269-70 and note, 279. As among the high-caste Hindus, 267 note, 270 note. The Asura marriage (con- demned by Manu) practised by Mongols and Khonds, 394. Martiya (Darius's second rival in 941 Martiya Susiana) : Proclaims himself king by the name of Immania, 510. A Persian, but of Kephenian, that is, Kissian, rather than Aryan blood, 512-13, 515. Whether the name of his father and of his domicile in Fare do not betray a Kissian origin, 516-21. Slain by those who had owned him their chief, 522, 525. Why is his death not dated? 578-9. Mams or Maru'a, in Campadene, 488, 470-1 note, 56. Masistes : Younger brother of Xerxes, 132, 134, 135. Present during the disaster at Mycale', 137. Massagetse, The: Their queen To- myris and her son Spargapeises, 246, 249 note. Sacrifice horses to their only god, the sun, 359 note. An etymology of the name pro- posed, 360 note. Measure* of length: Greek, 657 note. Certain Roman ones, 663 note. Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, 556-8 note, 665-6 note. Medes: Called Arii, 13. Called Aryans by Armenian writers, 14. Termed Aj-dahak, "the biting snake," in the Zendavesta, 15. Their tribes, 414 note. Their country extended by Xenophon westward to the Tigris, 20, 281-2 note. Their position in the Be- histun List of Nations explained, 481 note, 482 note. Their revolt from Darius under Frawartish jus- tified, 485-87. and Persians: Significance of the term used by Daniel, 8. Both nations of Aryan race, 4. Megabazus : The general who con- quered Thrace for Darius proved by a new argument to be a diffe- rent person from the Megabyzus who helped to slay the Magian, 609 note. Megabernes, 33 note. Megabyzus (in Aryan Bagabukhsha) : Father of Zopyrus, son of Da- duhya, and one of the six, 608. Five generations of his family enumerated, 608-9 note. Gover- nor of Babylon, and slain when the city was won by the second pretended son of Nabunita, 605-8, 672, 680. - son of Zopyrus, and one of 74 Megabyzus Xerxes' generals-in-chief, 606 note. Re-conquers Egypt for Artaxerxes son of Xerxes, his wife's brother, 146, 148, 673-4. Resists the fresh Athenian inva- sion of Cyprus, and makes peace, he and Artabazus, 150. His re- volt from Artaxerxes, 149-50, 674. Reconciled, exiled, for- given, and at his death lamented, 151. Husband of Amytis, Xerxes' daughter, complains of her to her father; listens to but reveals the scheme of Artapanus against her brother king Artaxerxes; despe- rately wounded in fight with the sons of Artapanus, but cured by Apollonides, a physician of the king's, 452-3. Megasthenes: Envoy of Seleucns's satrap of Arakhotia to Chandra- gupta, the great Hindu monarch, 632 note. Mdek Taoos: Appellation by which the Yezedees signify Satan, 385. Memnon : Polygnotus's picture of, described by Pausanias, 515 note. By the painter's contemporaries the hero was supposed to have come from Susa, Ibid. By later Greeks brought from above Egypt, ibid. His statue at Thebes not assigned to him by the Egyptians, 516 note. Son of Priam's brother Tithonus by the goddess of the Morn, ibid. Why Hellenicus may have made his mother, not Morn, but Day, ibid. The epic poet Arktinus's account of him gleaned from Proclus, and from the Posthomerica of Quintus Smyr- naeus, 517. Pindar's account of him, ibid. His mother a Kissian according to ^skhylus, 518 note. His story as told by Ktesias, 518- 19 note. The old palace or king's fortress at Susa, that was called Memnon's, replaced under the Persian supremacy, 519 note. Where the hero was buried, ac- cording to Simonides, 520 note. Memphis, city, 54, 55, 104. A third part of it, called the White For- tress, besieged by the Athenians, 145. Taken by Cambyses, 291. Memucan: His sentence in the mat- ter of Vashti, 535. The tact dis- played in it, 537. 942 Mendes: The sacred he-goat at, 307 note, 311 note, 316 note. Per- haps Osiris with the attributes of Khem (Ham) ; the mourning at its death being, it would seem, mystically a mourning for Osiris; reason for believing that, like the bull at Memphis, it was called Apis, 307 note, 317 note. Mendesian Nile-mouth, 147 note, 148. Merodakh Baladan : Antagonist of Sargon and Sennacherib, 25. His son and grandson, ibid. The Mardokempadus of Ptolemy's Canon, 51. Expelled by Sargon from Babylon, 52 note. Meroe, city and country, 298-9 note. Written Meru or Merua in hiero- glyphic, 299 note. Its kings first priests of Ammon; succeeded by their consorts before their sons, who were second priests of Ammon, ibid. Soldiery that fled from Psammetikhus, where planted in Ethiopia, 301 note. Table of the sun a daily public entertainment at Meroe", 302. The prison there, the fetters of which were of gold, ibid. The dead enclosed in pillars of glass, ibid. Meaning of the unstrung bow sent thence to Cam- byses, 303. Merv Shah Jan: Near which Yez- degherd was killed, 406 note. More than 100 miles lower down the water than Merv-al-Rud, 619 note. Mesanaeans, The, 66-7 note. Meshech, son of Japhet, 66 note. son of Aram, 66 note. Called Meses, father of the Mesanaans, by Josephus, ibid. Mespila : Opposite the modern Mosul, 20. Metiskhus, son of Miltiades : His story, 513. Query, How would the edict on Vashti's case have affected him ? 536 note. Michaux's inscription, 665 note. Mihr or Mithra: A Zoroastrian Izad, 214 note. Milyans: Anciently called Solymi, 114, 154, 170. Their language supposed to be Semitic, 156 note. Mithra, the sun-god, 63 note. In the Rig- Veda of the Hindus, Mitra, 364 note. For this name Xenophon substitutes the Greek Mithra term signifying thesun, asforAura- mazda he substitutes the name of the chief Greek god, 351-2 note. Connection between the sun-god Mithra and the sky-god Aura- mazda, 360, 365-66. Distinct from Auramazda, 361, 363-4. Strabo first attests this to be the name of the sun-god, 364 note. Name misapplied by Herodotus, ibid. Hymns to Homa and Mithra in the Zendavesta, ibid. Perhaps regarded as the charioteer of Auramazda, 365. Named the Mediator, 366. As such analo- gous to the Agni of the Vedas, 367. More prominent under the second and third Artaxerxes than under the first Darius and Xerxes, 377-8, 387. A wife's substitute for, 539 note. Daily salutation of, 540 note. Mitra, worn by the Kissiaiis, 198 note. Mitrobates, satrap at Daskyleium, slain by Oroites, 553. Mnevis: The sacred bull of On, 311 note. Represented Osiris, 307 note. Its title Osor-Mnevis, 307-8 note. Months: Order and season of the Persian and the proper Babylonian months established by aid of the Assyrian correspondents, 421,431. Conclusion from Herodotus, as to the order of them, verified by the ordinary Babylonian Calendars, 422. Synonymous and connume- rary, the Assyrian and Mosaic months were also contemporary, 435. Month-names : Assyrian, 427, and in Tables A and B facing page 431. Adopted by the Jews, 4:26, 430. Aryan, 427, and Tables A, B, as before. Jewish, attested, so far as they occur, from the Bible, Josephus, and the books Macca- bees, 428-9. Syrian and Mace- donian, 430 note. Magian, 459. The Aryan form of the Magian names not anterior to the reform of Magianism attributed to Darius son of Hystaspes, 457-8. Persian (of a new calendar ascribed to Yezdegherd, the last of the Sas- sanians), 472. Mordecai, 34, 88, 90, 166, 179, 185, 943 Mordecai 527 note, 698. The interpreta- tion, Esther ii. 5, 6, which would make, not Kish, but Mordecai, the fellow-captive of Jeconiah, re- futed, 699 note. Born at Babylon, but migrated to Susa, 700. Takes a seat at the king's gate, 712. Mugheir (Muqeyer) : Cylinders of Nabonedus found at, 38. Men- tioning his son Bel-shar-ussur, 649 note, 653 note, 658 note, 661, 694 note. The angles, not the sides of the big ruin at, face the four cardinal points, 693, 694 note. Jtfiij, The book, 189 note. Afu'jMt, The book, 235 note. Mula, a Babylonian deity, 683 note. Murghab (about 15 farsakhs from Persepolis on the road to Ispahan) : The ancient Pasargadaj; tomb of Cyrus near extensive ruins called Mader-i-Suleiman, about 14 far- sakh on the Persepolis side of Murghab, 261 note. Musulman and " Oriental " not synonymous, 538 note. Mycale: Destruction of the Persian fleet ashore at, 121. On the 3d of Boedromion, the third Attic month, Sept. B.C. 479, p. 122. Mygdonians: Called Thracian; per- haps akin to the Homeric Phry- gians, 421 note. Mylitta: The goddess so called by Herodotus, 364-5 note. Myriad : A division of cavalry or infantry, not necessarily consist- ing of so many as 10,000 men, 112, 117. Xerxes's army mea- sured by means of an enclosure, which admitted one myriad at a time, 118. The myriads of the proper Persian army as many as the Persian tril>es, 273. The 12 myriads of Persians represented apparently by 12 khiliails of foot and 12 khiliads of horse, in at- tendance upon Xerxes, 380 note. Mysians, 113, 170. Their invasion of Europe, 240 note, 420 note. N (the letter): Elided by the Per- sians, but not by Kissians or Assyrians of Babylon, 81-2 note, 519-20, 560 note. Nabatlueans: Conquered Edom after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nabathieans the KhakL-eans, 280 note, 286. Not Ishmaelite, but Aramaic, 287 note. Number of the Nabathaeans of Petra at about B.C. 312; their cisterns underground in thedesert, 288-9 note. Nabo-imduk, another name of Nabo- nid or Nabunita (having perhaps the same significance in the Accad as the other in Assyrian), 38 note. Nabonadius, form given in Pto- lemy's Canon of the name Nabo- nedus, 37. Nabonedus (Labynetus, Nabonadius, Nabunita), king of Babylon, 36- 39 and note, 40, 53, 88. Two >n successively assume the name of Nebukhadrezzarsonof Nabunit, 88, 90, 476, 604. Might be be- lieved the father of a grown-up son when the first pretender ap- peared, 476. His coalition with Amasis and Croesus, 549. His buildings at Babylon, 610 note, 612-13 note. Called by Abydenus Nabannidokhus or Namanedo- khus, 610 note. His works as- cribed by Herodotus to his queen Nitokris, 613 note.' Perhap the builder of that outermost circum- vallation of Babylon which Darius son of Hystaspes destroyed, 613 note, 614 note. Builder perhaps of the wall of Media described by Xenophon, ibid. Nabonassar, Years of: Difference as to the commencement of these regnal years in the Egyptian and the Babylonian computations, 439, 440, 441, and Appendix, Art. 3. Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, as- sisted by Cyaxares son of Phra- ortes the Mede, 27. Polyhistor's story of his negotiation with the "satrap of Media," derived from Berosus, 75 note. Died in the year that ended with Tisri B.C. 604, p. 646 note. Nabunita, Nabunit, Nabonid, 36, 38. See Nabonedus. Naditabel, Darius's first rival in Babylonia, 476-8. Nakhsh-i-Rustam : Darius Hystas- pes' sons' tomb at, 12, 83, 229, 348 note, 373. (Add 74.1) Names (Regal) assumed on accession to the throne by modern Chinese, 944 Names as by the old Perso- Median mon- archy 210-11. Namirri : Assyrian apjpellation ap- plied to the Sakas of Asia, while Gimirri appears to be applied to the Sakas of Europe (Thracians), 82 note. Whether, however, Na- mirri should be deciphered Gimirri, ibid., 246 note, 280 note. Nana or Nansea (a Babylonian deity): Perhaps the same as the Anaea of Strabo, 364-5 note. Nations (names of the) that went with Xerxes against Greece, 112- 117. The 36th name concluded to be Non-Mceonian Cabdlians, 113-115 note. - forming, the empire of Camby- ses son of Cyrus, 417-18. that revolted while Darius was at Babylon, 480. List of the tributary, at Perse- polis, 480. The tomb-list at Nakhsh-i-Rustam, 481. Nearkhus, 84. Nebo son of Merodakh: His temple at Borsippa (Birs Nimrud), 8 note, 88. Nebukhadrezzar, 27-29, 36 note, 38, 46, 75 note, 86. His eighth regnal year in Hebrew reckoning the llth of Jehoiakim king of Judah, 87. Generation of his great-grandchildren, 87, 88. The holy vessels taken by him from the temple at Jerusalem, 242-3. Wars with Nekho the grandfather, and Hophra or Apries the grand- son, 90. Close of his reign, 399- 400. His satraps (mentioned by Daniel) lieutenants of Aryan pro- vinces, or Aryans beneficed in non-Aryan parts of his empire, 278, 279. Commencement of his regnal years by Jewish reckoning (before his father's death), 441, 445, 625, 646 note. By that of the Khaldasans, ibid. His victory over Nekho at Karkhemish before his father's death, ibid. The actual beginning of his reign at Babylon, 445 note. His buildings there, 609 and note, 610 note. and Cyrus: Their dealings with the temple at Jerusalem, 506. Nehemiah : Additions to book of, 49, 77. Sent to repair the recently broken walls of Jerusalem, 150, Nehemiah 404. Regnal year employed by, 435. Inference from his using the month-names Khisleu, Nisan, and Elul, without adding the number of the place of each in the twelvemonth, like the author of Esther, 436. Neith, goddess, 294. A "tomb" of Osiris behind her sanctuary at Sais within the holy precinct, 294 note. There being other so- called tombs of Osiris elsewhere, 308. In the same precinct, the tombs of Amasis, as well as those of Apries and his predecessors of the 26th dynasty, 295. Nekho (I. ), Asshur-bani-pal's deputy at Memphis and Sais, 25. (See Appendix, Art. 1.) II. (Pharaoh), 90. His canal to the Red Sea, and circumnaviga- tion of Africa, 163 note. Defeated at Karkhemish in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, 445. Nergel-shar-uzur : The same as Neriglissar, 39 note. Neriglissar, 29, 38 note, 39 note. Nerus (number, measure) : Ten times the Sus or Sdssos of Baby- lon, 665 note. Nicephorus, Archbishop of Constan- tinople, 94 note. Nicolaus Damascenus, 33 note, 66-7 note. Niffer, anciently Nipur : Semitic name of the city of the second of the Babylonian twelve gods, whose Accad name appears to be as yet unknown, 683 note. Nile, 286 note. The Blue River and the White, 301 note. Meaning, antiquity, and ethnic origin of the appellation, 310 note. Whether a twofold Nile is indicated by the monuments, Hi'ul. Nimrod son of Cush, 299 note. Nin, deity, 683 note. Nine Roads: A spot on the east bank of the Strymon, whence the river was crossed in the country of the Edonian Thracians, and where Amphipolis was afterwards built, 158. Nineveh or Ninus, taken, 26, 27. Pretended height, length, and thickness of its walls, 655. Sen- nacherib's palace at, 656. Kte- sias's purely imaginary account of 945 Nineveh the city walls, based on the shape and dimensions (with which he was familiar) of Babylon the As- syrian capital of his own time, 662. Ktesias's 150 by 90 stades circuit of Nineveh, perhaps a ver- sion of 5 by 3 parasangs or hours of march, 667-8. Probable depor- tation of citizens to Babylon after capture of Nineveh, 683-4. \i,/> ii-fii battles gained by Darius, 602 note. Ninians (or Ninevites), Gate of the (at Babylon), 670, 683. Seems to be Nebukhadrezzar's Gate of Nin, 683 note. Nirikassolassarus : That is, Neri- glissar, 39 note. Nissea (Nisaya) of Media: Its great horse - breeding establishment visited by Alexander on his way to Agbatana from Opis on the Tigris, after having passed Bagistane", 339 note. The place where Alex- ander stayed in the district, a seven days' march from Agbatana, 340 note. on the Okhus or Akes river in (or bordering on) Hyrkania, 340 note. NitStis, daughter of Apries, 90. Nitokris, wife of Nabonedus, 36, 37, 38, 42, 88, 90. Perhaps the same as Nit4tis daughter of Apries, 40 note, 90. Her burial-place, 683. Norris, Mr. Edwin: Valuable infor- mation received from, 6. In one of the ordinary Assyrian calendars (containing the monograms or ini- tials of the old Babylonian month- names, without interpretation), 230; and subsequently, in an ac- count of a newly-discovered calen- dar, wherein these names have their Assyrian correspondents an- nexed, 425, 426 and note. (See, after the Appendix, Ax and Corrections.) His Kissian version of the Behistun inscrip- tion, and other contributions to the R. A. S. 's Journal, passim. Nu (for Niwa or Numa-ki] explained to mean Elam, 510 note. Equi- valent to Khoja and Afardi, ibUl. Nus: Hieroglyphic name of a town once situated on the left bank of the Nile, opposite the rock necro- polis at Ben: -Hassan, 305 note. Nysa (above Egypt) : Sacred to Dio- nysos, that is, Osiris, 305 and note. CANNES and his successors the in- structors of antediluvian men, 371-2 note. Oasis, the Greater (now Wah El- Khargeh) : Of old an image of Osiris's realm of spirits in the west, being called "Isle of the Blessed," .304. (Can el-Khargeh be connected with Kargh, a Zend or Perso-Aryan form of Swarg, " Heaven," in Sanskrit? See G. R.'s Herod, vol. i. p. 348.) Okhus (whose regal name was Arta- xerxesIIL): Calls himself Artakh- shatra (Artaxerxes) in his only known inscription, 532 note. In the same calls his father Arsakes and grandfather Okhus by their regal names Artaxerxes and Darius only, ibid. Calls the son of Hys- taspes, not Khshurush, but Darius, ibid. See Artaxerxes III. River, the Akes of Herodotus, 340 note. Olympic games, 119. Omanes: Probably a Kissian, but called by Strabo a Persian deity, 24 note. Sharer with Anadatus in the temple of Anaitis at Zela, 64 note, 371 note. His image carried in procession, 371 note. Perhaps the deity of Susa named Umman, 511. Taken for the Khomaeus Apollo worshipped at Khumana or Rumania, 511 note. Omens, anc. Persian, 337, 350, 35 J, 357; anc. German, 358. On, surnamed Rabek or Heliopolis, 147 note, 291. Onesicritus: His account of the tomb of Cyrus and its bilingual inscrip- tion, 259 note, 262 note, 692 note. Onophas (or Anaphas), son of Otanes and brother of Amestris, mistaken for his father by Ktesias, 132. Opis, on the river Phyakus, 20. Near its confluence with the Tigris, 339 note. Opposite this city, on the right bank of the Tigris, the Median wall or cross wall of Semiramis seems to have begun, 614 note. Oroites: His story, 540-56. Oromasdes, Oromazes, 376, 385. 946 Oromasdes 386. The Power of good and God, and of all sensible objects most like to Light, 367 note. See Auramazda. Orontes: A Persian, 534 note, 543. Mountain (now called Elwend), 566. Oropasta: Name given by Trogus to the Magian Smerdis of Herodotus, the Sphendadates of Ktesias, the Gaumata of the Behistun inscrip- tion, 351 note. Orotal and AlUat: Deities invoked by the Arabians or Nabathaeans in treaty-making, 287 note. Orthokyrbasians of the 10th satrapy, 170. Ortospana: In the land of the Paro- pamisadas, 641 note. Osiris: His character derived from primeval revelation, 207. Why diversely regarded as son of Saturn and son of the Sun, ibid. Receives the acquitted dead in Amenti, 214, 296, 304. His lesser and greater mysteries, 294 note. Red-haired men said to have been sacrificed of old at one of his tombs, 297 note. Identified by Greeks with their Dionysos, 305. Represented by Apis, Mnevis, and other sacred animals of Egypt; perhaps also by the he-goat of Mendes ; Phallic figures of his filled with grain, and buried; by many identified, like Khem, with the Greek Pan, 307 note. Figured as a man with a bull's head, and called Apis Osiris, 308 note. Hero- dotus' religious silence on the mystery of the death of Osiris, and connection with Apia, 308 note. Tomb of, in the precinct of the sanctuary of Neith at Sais, and other tombs in other places, 308 note. His figures black or green, 309 note. His name by some interpreted many-eyed, 315. His death lamented in those of Apis, of the Mendesian goat, and of a ram annually sacrificed at Thebes, 317 note. Ostrakin^ : Half-way station be- tween Rhinokorura and Mount Casius, now Ras Straki; why so called, 288 note. Otanes, 132, 13.3 : Helped Darius against the Magian ; commanded Otanes the forces that put Syloson in possession of Samos, 136, 588-93. Also commanded the Persian division of the army of Xerxes, ibid. Father of Phaiclima detects the Magian's imposture, 335, 337, 343, 346. His name, 588 and note. In what capacity he was sent down by Darius to the ^Egsean sea, 589. His service against the Magian exaggerated among the Greeks, 674. PAIONIANS : Called themselves a colony of Teucri, 420 note. Part of the nation transplanted into Phrygia by Darius Hystaspes' Paktyan land, 83-4 note, 170. The Paropamisadan province divided into Thatagush on the west, and Gandara qn the east, 639. In some respects a "Scythian" country, 640 note. Paktyes, or Paktyan people: The name perhaps connected etymo- logically with the Kissian term of the Behistun inscription signi- fying Helper to me; and the nation perhaps of the same stock as the Kissian, and the original popula- tion of Persis, 116 note, 643 note. The Paktyes proper were perhaps the Satagydas (Thatagush) and Aparytas, 641 note. The name Pak- tyes exists in that given to them- selves by the Affghans, 642 note. Whether Cyrus' benefactors the Arimaspi on the river Etyman- drus were Paktyans, 643 note. Panticapseum, or Kertch, 341 note. Paphlagonians : Having co-operated heartily against Babylon, were left free from the residence of a Persian satrap, 541 note. Paprgmis, city of Egypt, 145, and one of the Xomes of the Hermo- tybian warriors, ibid. The Per- sians and Egyptians slain there in the defeat of Akluemenes by Inards ; why left unburied, 159 note. Paradise, Zoroastrian notion of, 270 note. Pin-a, 206. Saul king of Israel : His arms and body, how treated by the Philis- tines, 680 note. Savitri and his Car (in the Rig- Veda), 265 note. Saxons, i.e. Long-knives, 556 note, i (Anglo-Saxons) Long hair of the, i 564 note. Scaliger, Joseph : His identification of Esther and Ahasuerus, 3. Hia notion concerning the identity of the Darius of Ezra confuted by Prideaux, 6 note. Scythians (of the once Kimmeriau land) : Their reign of 22 years in the Assyrian empire, 26 and note. Serve Alyattes six years against Cyaxares (I.) king of the Medea, 27. Their country invaded by Darius son of Hystaspes, 82 note. Their name Skyths in Aryan, Kissian, and Assyrian, 82, 83 note. Mode of purifying them- selves after a funeral, 139. Sacri- fice horses, 359. Concubines and servants buried with deceased kings of, 341 note. Fresh immo- lations of men and horses on the first return of the day of death, 342 note. Their scornful presents to Darius, ibid. Appear to have been Indo-Germanic, 583 note. Seb, The Egyptian Saturn : His wife Netpe, his children Osiris, Aroeris, Seth (Typhon), Isis, Nephthys, 204, 205, 207. Sebennytic branch of the Nile, 147 note. Seleucia on the Tigris, 488 and note, 514 note. At the very distance from Babylon where stood, on the right bank, the Karae, or Karon, villages, 558, 689. Walled, pro- bably by Seleucus, with burnt brick taken from the old walls of Babylon, 612 note. Described by Strabo as greater (bigger) than Babylon, 664 note. Seleucidse (Coins of the) : The first coin extant that bears a date, one of Antiokhus the Great, 461 note. Seleucidan Era (of the Khalda>ans) : How it came to begin a year after that of the Greeks, 439 and Ap- pendix Art. 3. Of the Greeks, 457 note, 468, 469. Began on the expiration of 12 years from the death of Alexander, or rather of the Egyptian era of Philip Aridajus, 457 note, 466-8. The Magian intercalation-period of 1440 years (whereof 960 had elapsed at some point in the reign of the last Sassanian king) pro- bably began with this era, 470. Seleucus : His first regnal year by Babylonian reckoning, the civil 952 Seleucns year next after the one in which he won the throne, 440 and Ap- pendix Art. 3. Surnamed Nica- nor, or Nikator, 567 note. Storms a citadel at Babylon where friends of Antigonus had taken refuge, 664 note. Builder of Seleucia on the Tigris, 689. Self-immolation, 155-6 note. Selli and Helli (whence perhaps Hellenes, if Agrianes may be re- ferred to Agrioi), 215. Semiramis (Sammuramit), 183 note. According to Ktesias and his school, author at Babylon of all the works of Nitokris and her consort, also (except the Hanging Gardens) of those of Nebukhad- rezzar and his predecessors, 613 note. Also of the Wall of Media, ibid. Herodotus's sober account of her, ibid. Gate of, at Babylon, perhaps identical with the "Gate of Mula," 683 note. Sennacherib : His regnal years, 442. Seraiah (the priest) : Parallel de- scents from him and from Kish, 91. Serbonid Lake : The part west of the Mons Casius, perhaps alone so called by Herodotus, 290 note, 489 note. Once perhaps received water from the Nile, ibid. Fre- quented of old by the hippopota- mus, ibid. Sesosis : Perhaps signifies "Son of Sethi" (who was Eameses II.), 164 note. See Sesostris. Sesostris of Herodotus, or Sesosis of Diodorus, compared with Darius son of Hystaspes, 162, 163, 164. Proved to be Ramses Mi-Amun son of Sethi, and grandson of Ra- meses or Ramases, the first king of the 19th Egyptian dynasty, 163 note. His canal from the Nile to the Red Sea, supposed by Herodotus to have been begun by Nekho, ibid. His war-fleet on the Red Sea, 164 note. The Shoaly Sea, to which his naval expedi- tions reached, perhaps the head of the Persian Gulf, HM. Sesostris for Sesosis or Sesothis, the mis- pronunciation of Persian inform- ants, ibid. Extraordinary length of his reign alluded to by Darius Hystaspes' son, 163, 165 note. Sesostris How the story originated that he conquered the Scythians and Thracians, ibid. Seventy Years : Four periods of, laid down by the prophets, 706 note. of Babylonian supremacy fore- told in xxv. 11, 12 of Jeremiah, 503 note, 706 note. (Whether the punishment of the king of Babylon was foretold of three kings, 503-4 note.) of Captivity of Jews at Babylon : How connected with the 70 years' supremacy of Babylon, 241. When the captivity began and ended, 441 note, 445, 503 note, 706 note ; foretold xxix. 10 of Jeremiah, 503 note. of divine indignation against Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, 502, 504. Spoken of by an Inter- cessor with Jehovah in Zechariah's hearing, ibid. (Seventy years) of commemoration by fast of the fifth and seventh months, beginning Markhesvan B.C. 587, p. 625, 645-6 and note, 706 note. The commemoration suddenly stopped in the 71st year, 678. Sfendermad. See Isfendermad. Sfitaman and Esfitaman (or Spinta- man and Espintaman), father of Zoroaster, 3 note. Shahpoor (or Sapor) : Titles assumed by, 208. Sheba (Gr. Saba), Queen of: Whence came she to Solomon? 298 note. In her time the king of Egypt subordinate to Ethiopia, 299 note. Sheikh Adi, 385. Shekel (of the law): Worth a tetra- drachm ; the half of it, or bekah, worth a didrachm ; the quarter worth a drachma of Athens, 687 note. Of the Rabbins, worth but two drachmas, 687 note. Sheshak: Babylon so called, 645 note. Sheshbazzar : The official name of Zerubbabel, 180 note, 242, 506 and note. Sheth or Seth: The Egyptian name of Typhon, 321 note. Meaning of the name, 341. 953 Shinar, kingdom, 522 note. Shita, or Khita, of Egypt monu- ments identified with the Khatti of the Assyrians and the Hittites of Holy Scripture ; confounded by the Egyptians with the Skyths of Herodotus'a time, 165 note. Shiva and Durga of the Hindus, 390, 386 note, 388 note. Meaning of Shiva as a Sanskrit appellative, 391. Sli'ii/iitlxk: Meaning of the word, 396 note. Shudra, caste : Sprung from the Creator's foot, 206 note. Etymo- logy of the name, 217. Shushan, that is, Susa, 23, 24 note. Shuster (on the Karun) : Why so called, 557 note. Sibilants: Derived through palatals from gutturals, 216 note. Sibyrtius: His satrapy, 637. Sikthakutish (in Nisasa of Media): The place where Gaumata was slain, 339. Situate apparently between Bisitun (Bagistane) and Hamadan (Agbatana) ; as was Khawona of Diodorus, 340. The ditld or fort at, also an awakanam (query, "royal residence"), ibid. See Kluxewia. Simonides (the poet) : In his time the Kissian land not yet generally recognised as Memnon's birth- place, 520 note. Sinties of Lesbos and Sinti of Thrace, 323 note. Sirbis, river of Lycia, by the Greeks called Xanthus, 156 note (query, whether the name may not be allied to the Gr. tpritv and Lat. xi r/ a- re, whence serpens and tpvrt- ro> ; correspondents, according to Liddell and Scott, of the Sanskrit Sarpa). Hl;li nt' or Parasang, 488-9 note. A skhoene of Egypt equal to two parasangs, ibid. See Parasang and Kdxhti. Sky lax (the Karyandian) : His voyage from Kaspapura on the Indus to the mouth of the Nile canal in Egypt, 83, 84 and note, 117 note, 163 note, 639 note. Smerdis son of Cyrus: Slain by his brother Cambyses five years before the Magian proclaimed himself king, 56, 70, 73. Twice person- ated after death, How eu- Sinerdis dowed by his father's last will, 250. - The Magian pretender, 55, 57, 66. Length of his reign, accord- ing to Ktesias, 68. His story from Herodotus and the Behistun in- scription, 328-340. See Sphenda- dates and Gaurnata. The Persian pretender to the name. See Vahyasdata. Solymi, afterwards Milyes, ancient inhabitants of Lycia, 114, 154 note. Supposed to be of Semitic tongue, 156 note. Soma, the moon-god. See Homa. Sorush or Surush: His function, ac- cording to Zoroastrians, on the bridge of Paradise, 214 note. Otherwise, in function no less than in name, he answers to the younger Horus of the Egyptians, ibid. Sosigenes : Employed in reforming the Roman calendar, 451 note. Sothis, or dog-star: The Heliacal rising of, 452 note, 464 note. Sparda, Sparta-pa, or Saparda: The name in Aryan, Kissian, and As- syrian, for which the Greeks sub- stituted Sardis, 419 note. Sparta of the Peloponnesus, perhaps a name derived from the same people, ibid. Whether the same race may not have given name to Sardinia, 420 note. Sphendadates (equivalent to Zend Spentaddta): Ktesias's appellation of the Magian Gaumata, 68, 70. Very like the son of Cyrus, 70. Assumes for his regal name Arta- xerxes, 68. See Gaurnata. Spitakes and Megabernes, sons of Spitamas, 33 note, 247. Spitamas : Former husband of Amytis wife of Cyrus, 33 note, 247. Stasandrus : Made satrap of Aria and Drange"n on the promotion of Stasanor, 617-18 note. Super- seded after the defeat of Eumenes, 618 note. Stasanor (satrap of Baktriane" and Sogdiane under Antipater and Antigonus) : The name felicitously restored to the text of Strabo by Carl Muller, 617 note. Strymon, river, 155, 156, 157. Sun, The : Type of the King of kings, 201, 202, 3(ifi note. Signi- fied by the royal title in Egypt 954 Sun (see Pharaoh), 202-3. Sole god of the Massagetse, according to Hero- dotus, 359 note ; and of the Per- sians, according to Trogus Pom- peius, ibid. Image of the Sun or the disk of the Sun beamed above the tent of Darius TIL, 361 note. With the Persians an image not of the Great God, but of a Mediator with Him, 369. See Mithra. Son of the: Title of every king of Egypt, 203; and of every king of Ethiopia, 299 note; as of each Inca of Peru, ibid. Daughter of the: Applied in Egypt to a female sovereign, 204. A title also of goddesses, as Neph- thys, who was really supposed to be daughter of Seb, 204-5. The Arab equivalent, " daughter of God," 206. Suphis (two brothers successively kings at Memphis) received from the dynasty at Elephantin^ stone for the great pyramid, 311 note. Suresh or Suresha (lord of the Sun) : Title of the Hindu god Indra, 213. A softened form of Khshurush, 189 note. Perhaps the same word as Syrus, the name of Semiramis's father, and the latter element of the name Artasyras the Hyrkanian, 213, 214. Apparently identical with the Zoroastrian angel Surush or S6rush, 214. Surush, the Magian angel of the 17th of the month, 189 note. Surya (the Sun-god) and his car. 366. Sus, or Soss, "Sixty:" A measure of space, as well as time, in Baby- lonia, 665-6 note. Equal to 100 gar or Babylonian feet, ibid. And cor- respondent of the Greek plethrum and Eoman actua of 120 feet, 663 note, 666 note. Seems to have been turned into a stade by Ktesias in his account of the bridge at Babylon, ibid. Also by Berosus in his account of Khshisuthrus's ark, ibid. That is, to have been regarded as the 30th part of a parasang or big kasbu. See Addi- tions and Corrections on page 668, lines 13-19. Susa (capital of Elam), called the mother city or the capital of the Persians, and even of Persis, 24 Susa note. Seems to have been Nebu- khadrezzar's in his war with the Elymaeans and Kossaeans, 28 note. Never belonged to the Medes, Phraortes, Cyaxares I., and Asty- r, 25, 27, 29, 40, 41, 42. Made Perso - Median capital by Darius I., 253. Itself and its palace called Memnonian in Hero- dotus's time, 515 note. Its old palace had been replaced in Kte- sias' time, 519 note. A Greek etymology of the name, and modern description of its neigh- bourhood, 522 note. Situation of, 556-7. The modern name Shush has a signification that be- longs also to the word Khuxh, 557. Its distance from Sardis, 581. Susa and Ecbatana: A Greek desig- nation of the Perso-Median king- dom, 19, 20. Susia: A place in Areia or Hariva, 197 note. Susiana : First revolt there against Darius I., 474-5. Various popu- lations of, 474 note. Its three different names in the trilingual inscriptions of Darius, ib'ul. To one of its peoples belonged the second language of the Behistun inscription, 474-5 note. Its inti- mate connection with Persis indi- cated to have been like that of Armenia with Media, 483 note. Older series of its kings, with the language and character of their records, 521 note. Probably equal in power and arts to the Khal- daeans of the Lower Euphrates, ibid. Syennesis king of Cilicia, 541 note. His supply of money through his wife to Cyrus the younger ex- plained, ;///. Syloson, brother of Poly crates, 321. An exile, 549. Sues for his bro- ther's inheritance, 587-8. Obtains it, 592. Assisted by Otanes to re-people Samos, 592. Syncellus (Georgius the) : Lumps into one Astyages, Nabonedus (or Nabonadius), Darius son of Aha- suerus, of the seed of the Medes, and Esther's Ahasuerus, 30. Syrians, the White, of Cappadocia, "371 note, 113, 170, 520 note, 542 and note. 9.55 TABA: : In Panetakene, 249 note. Table, Comparative, c* Descents, facing91. Of Darius's20 satrapies, 170. Of his wives and children, facing 178. Of corresponding months, Assyrian, Old Babylo- nian, and Aryan, 427. Of Be- histun dates, on the supposition that the eighth regnal month of Gaunuita corresponded with the Egyptian month Thoth (A), facing page 431. On the supposition that this month was the Assyrian Markhesvan (B), ibid. Remark on Table B, 446. Takhmaspada, the Mede : Com- manded for Darius against the Sagartians, 574, 584 note. Talents, Eutxean and Babylonian, 171, 172 (see Corrections and Ad- ditions), 687 note. The Eubcean the same as the Old Attic, the Babylonian as the zEginetan, ibid. Weight of the Babylonian but half that of the Assyrian talent, viz. 82 pounds, and its manahs but half of the Assyrian manahs, 688 note. Understood by Josephus to signify the kikkar of Exod. xxv. 39, ibid. The new Attic talent, how it stood to the Aeginetan or Babylonian, it>!d. Tanais and Tanaitis (a goddess) : In Kissian Tanata, 362 note. The initial perhaps a feminine article, ibid. See Anata, Anakhita, Anai- tis. Tanais : A Macedonian misnomer of the Jaxartes river, 566 note. Tanaoxares (Smerdis), 32, 67. His story, 69-70, 88. Tanaoxarkes, 33 note, 67, 69. Tarva or Tarrahuva : A town in Yutiya, or Ihutiyas, a district of Persis, 598. Tan, Pennu : The earth goddess of the Khonds, 386-8 note. Her name Tari perhaps identical with Kali, wife of the Hindu god Shiva, 388 note. In quality of earth goddess corresponds with the Hindu Bhavani wife Bhav or Shiva, ibid. Communicates with men in the form of a woman, Umbally Bylee, 388-9. Requires human sacrifices, 390. Tatnai : Darius's governor in Syria, 505, 506, 628. Various Greek forms of the name, 505 note. Te and Wang: Difference between these Chinese titles, 407. Tebeth : The 10th Jewish and As- syrian month corresponding with the Syro-Macedonian Audynctus, 429 note. Its season according to the calendar used in the times of Philo and Josephus ; also in the Judaeo- Julian calendar (preserved by Geo. Syncellus), 709-10 note. The fast on the 10th of, 503-4. Teen-tse and "younger brother of Jesus Christ:" Intended difference between, 407. Teispes (in Perso-Aryan Chishpish) : Two ancestors of Darius so called, blended into one person in the Behistun inscription, 231, 232. Tel Defeineh : The ancient Takh- pankhas, or Daphnas, as the posi- tion of an army guarding against an invasion of Egypt from Syria, 285. Temple at Jerusalem : Might have been mistaken as reasonably as the sky by such as Strabo for the Object of Jewish worship, 407. The rebuilding of, by Zerubbabel ended in Adar B.C. 515, p. 704. Dedi- cation of, ibid. Error of the Jews as to the time taken in rebuilding, shared apparently by Josephus, 703 note. How deferred to by early Christian chronologers, ibid. Teucri: Along with the Mysians said to have invaded Europe be- fore the Trojan war, 420 note. Teutamus : Ktesias's 20th king of Assyria, who sent aid under Mem- non to king Priam, 518 note. Pos- sibly an Egyptian Thothmes, 520 Texts of Scripture : Concerning Elani and Media, Isa. xxi. 2, p. 24. Con- cerning the Bow of Khun. Jer. xlix. 34, p. 28 note. The seventy weeks before the call of the Gen- tiles, Dan. ix. 24-27, pp. 150-51 note. Call of the Gentiles, when and how made, Gal. i. 18-21, Acts ix. 26-30, xi. 25, 26, xxii. 17-21, xv. 7-9, xi. 16, x. 47, xi. 17, x. 48, xi. 12, x. 23, ibid. Correlation of Water and Holy Spirit, Acts x. 47, ibid. Satraps under Nebu- khadrezzar, Dan. iii. 2, 3, 27, p. 278. The Arabian, Neh. ii. 19, p. 280 note. The 3d, not 1 1th, of Jehoi- akim referred to, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 956 Texts of Scripture 6, 7, p. 290 note. Zech. i. 1-6, Hagg. ii. 15, 18, p. 500 note. Dan. x. 13, p. 503 note. Zech. vii. 5, pp. 503, 640, notes. Ezra iv. 8, 9, 17, 23, p. 534 note. Zech. vii. 2, pp. 622 note, 706 note. 1 Pet. v. 13, 2 John 1, 13, p. 666 note. Esther ii. 5, 6, pp. 698-9 note. Zech. i. 12, p. 766 note. Dan. x. 1-4, pp. 706-8 note. Gal. i. 18, ii 1, p. 894. Luke iii. 23, ibid. Ezra ix. 9, Neh. i. 3, p. 895. Thannyras, son and successor of Inards king of the Libyans, 143. Thatagush or country of the Satta- gydas : Situation of, 639. Thermopylae (pass of) held against Xerxes by the Greeks, but lost, 119, 120. Thuravahara : An Aryan month, the correspondent of the Assyrian Sabalu, or Shebat. Table B, facing p. 431. Probable meaning of the name, 448. Answers to the first month of the Chinese year, 509. Probably the first of the Aryan twelve, its first fort- night answering to the Lih-tchun or "Opening Spring" of China. Additions and Corrections on p. 448. See Lih-tchun. Thracians : Seem intended by the Sakas beyond the Bosporus of the Aryan and Kissian tomb-list, and by the Gimirri of the Assyrian, 83 note. Tiara (also Kidaris): "The Upright," oftn, or directa, and the Folded one, projecting towards the fore- head, Jrn/y^svw xeet 7-. Extraordinary compliment of Darius to, 672, 677. That the name is abbreviated from Vida- frana shown by an analogous ex- ample, 673 note. Vidafrana, or Intaphernes, 186, 226 note, (iT.'i. Vidarna, or Hydames, defeats the Medes in Campadene, 488, 557. Vidaspa, or Hydaspes : As the name of the Jelum river in the Pan jab, ;v misnomer for Vitasta, the true Sanskrit name, 330 note. Vintaparna : The Kissian form of VidafrA and VidafranA. See those names. Vishnu : The Hindu deity. Whether the name be cognate with the Perso-Aryan ]'ia, 391 note. Yishtaspa, l.< . Hystaspes, 3 note, .">. Vidaspa a dialectic variety of, 329 note. His residence in Parthia ; 76 Vishtaspa the province revolts, and he sub- dues it, 585-7. Vispanzatish : A town in Parthia, 586. Vivana, satrap of Arakhotia : In- vaded from Persis, 636. His suc- cesses, 638. Their date, 641-644. Vritra : The foe of the god Indra, 397 note. WALLS of Jerusalem restored by Ar- taxerxes at the time of Ezra's mis- sion ; broken down apparently in the war between Megabyzus satrap of Syria and the king's forces under the satrap of Babylonia ; restored under the king's commission, by Nehemiah, 150. Of Babylon, height and length of, 652-668 ; also A dditlons and Corrections on p. 668. Water : Magian worship of running, 156, 157. How defiled, 156 note, 157. Week, Five-day, 34 note. A natural rather than (as the seven-day week) an arbitrary division of time, 342 note. Used by the Magi, 455. s,,;,i-day: A divine institution, 342. Weeks, Of years, 10 + 3 + 8 + 70 + 82 + 180 from 1 Tisri B.C. 606 to last day of Elul A.D. 1866, 708. Weeks, Seventy, of years, 150, 151 note (as corrected in Additions and Corrections), 708 note. Wives, Chief, and concubines, of Persian monarchs, 130. Zoroas- trian precepts concerning, 539-40, and note. Winds : Adored by the Persians, 368 ; as also (under the name of Maruts) by the Vaidik Hindus, 384. Connection of, with the sacred fire (Agni), iliiil. Women : Their freedom among the old Persians conjectured, 538 note. Accompanied their husbands to feasts, i1>i<1. Manu's maxims con- cerning, 540 note See Wii-'.t. Works, of Superhuman Power and Words of Superhuman Knowledge 1 to roiiumiiiieutions of <.oil'.-. with men, 15S note. World: Mominion of the, claimed formerly by the Persian kings, as now, and of old, by the Emperor of China, 209-10. 958 Writs, or Letters Koyal : Their form, 555 note. XANTHUS : Town in Lycia, so called by Greeks, but Arna or Arina by the natives, 155 note. River of Lycia which gave the Greek name to the town upon it, 155 note. Its ancient name Sirbis, whether rightly or not, supposed to signify Xanthus (I.e. yellow) in the lan- guage of the Solymi or Milyes, 155, 156 note. Xenophon : His use of the term "Susa and Agbatana," 20, 21, 253. His account of Cyaxares son of Astyages, historical, 32. His Cyropsedia, how far historical, 254, 256. Correctly or incorrectly ascribes burnt-offerings (in the worship of Auramazda, Mithra, and others) to Cyrus and succeed- ing Akhsemenian kings, 352 note. Xerxes, the name, in Persian Khsha- yarsha, 77. Found by Gesenius in Aliasuerus, 3 note, and sub- stituted for Ahasuerus by the old Greek translator of Daniel, 4. Compared by Gesenius with the modern SMr-Shah, "Lion-King," 77 note. His inscriptions near Hamadan at Persepolis, and at Van, 12 note. Defeated at Sala- mis, 18. Not Esther's husband, 95, 96, 97, 135. His adulterous amours, 98. His first seven reg- nal years according to Herodotus, 107 et seq. Seems already arrived in Egypt on the 9th January B.C. 484, p. 110 note. Subdued the revolt there in the second year of his reign, 102, 108. His invasion of Europe in his sixth year and spring of B.C. 480, pp. 109-120. Order of the march of his own division out of Sardis, 378-80. Leaving Mardonius to continue the war, retires from Athens to Sardis, autumn B.C. 480, p. 121. After nearly a year's stay at Sar- dis, sets off on his return thence about September B.C. 479, p. 122. Seems to have wintered at Baby- lon, ibid. Spent at Sardis the Tebeth of his seventh regnal year according to the Egyptian reckon- ing, ibid. Plundered Bel-Mero- dakh's temple at Babylon of a Xerxes golden image, not of a god, but of a man, 134, 686. Murdered in his bed, 141, 142. At the Helles- pont, 112, 155 note. At Doriskus, 112-119. At the Strymon, 156. At Acanthus on the Athos Canal, 159. Loses his father's European dominions, 174. His succession to Darius disputed bv one, if not two, of his half-brothers, 190-194. Said to have broken into the tomb of Belus at Babylon, 692. Falsely reported, in the time of Alexander the Great, to have demolished the tomb or temple tower of Belus, 6S8, 692 notes. YAKSHAS and Rakshasas of San- skrit books : Whether dwellers on Yakhsharta, the Jaxartes of later writers, and the Arakhshaof Hero- dotus, 395 note. Yavan : lonians, i.e. Hellenes or Greeks, 41, 79, 258 note. Son of Japhet, 79 note. The Yavanu or Yuna, apparently conquered by Darius son of Hystaspes beyond the Bosporus, 82-83 note. The Yund takabard seem to include the Macedonians, 267 note. Year, Babylonian, beginning with the 8th Assyrian and Mosaic month, that is, with the second month of the old Hebrew year, 434. Seems to have been identical with one introduced into Israel by Jeroboam, ibid. The regnal year used by Nehemiah, 435, and by Herodotus in respect of Cambyses and Darius son of Hystaspes, ibid. The Assyrian, 427. The regnal year used in the book Esther, 435. The Mar/Ian probably that used at Susa, 448-9. Described, 450. Perhaps of antediluvian origin, 454. Analogous to the Egyptian, 463 note. A month intercalated in, once in 120 years between the times of the Seleucidan Antiokhus the Great and the Sassanian Yez- degherd, 456 note, 458 note, 461-2. At one time the Egyptian month Thoth and Persian Degh-month began together, 467 note. Tin L}/i//>fia, 451-2 note. Analogous to the Magian, 463 note. Egyptian e Roman 959 Year civil year by Julius C.-esar, 452 note. Tin- C/tiiH'w, Passage of the Shoo-klmj concerning, 454-5 note. Yezdegherd : The last of the Sas- sanian kings of Persia, 456 note, 459. Years of the era of, 457 note. In his reign the eighth in- tercalation of one month in an 120th Magian year, 461, 464. Two eras of Yezdegherd, one ordinarily recognised (which be- gan with the month Fervardin 15 June A.D. 632, or 447 years and 18 days of Yezdegherd before the era of Jelaleddin), 457 note ; the other era now discernible (which seems to have begun with the month Fervardin A.D. 633. See 468-9 note). The king did not take his seat on the throne till after November A.D. 634, ibid. Yezedees : Why they worship the Evil One and neglect Him who is Good, who is from the Light, 385. Yu, or Hu : Name of the Assyrian sky-god ; an element in the name of a king ; the grandson of the one who received presents from Jehu king of Israel, 184 note. Yuna : Persian form of the word lones, or lonians. See Yavan. Yutiya, or Ihutiyas : A district in Persia, 598. ZAOROS, MOUNT, 488. Zaranga, Sarranka, Zaraka, pro- vince, 417, 418, 571. Also called Drangre, 617 note. Drang6n6, 618 note. See, too, 641 note, 643 note. /ari.-ispa : Capital of Baktria, 643 note. Zazdna: By Babylon, on the Eu- phrates, 477. Zcchariah the prophet, 4%, etc. Zedekiah of Judah, 87. Zela in Pontus : A temple here of Anaitis, Omanes, and Anadatus, 64 note, 371 note. Zeratusht, or Zerdusht, son of Es- tintaman, i.e. Zoroaster, 3 note, 58 note, 268 note. Zerubbabel lays the foundation of the house of God, 244-5. Rejects the proffered co-operation of the Samaritans, 245. Resumes the building in the reign of Darius, 498. See SiuxMazzar and Zoro- babd. Zeus : A deity of theirs found by the Greeks in the Perso- Median Anra- mazda, 337 note, 351-2 note, 379. Also variously in Osiris, Amiin, and Noum or Kneph of Egyptian mythology, 119, 203 note. Com- pare 317-18 note. Identified also with the Khaldiean Belus the Creator, 372 note. Father of Per- seus by Danae, 234 note. Threw down Hephaestus into Lemnos, 323. Zif/f/arrat, or Tower, of Khaldaean Temples, 652 note. Zirbanit wife of Bel Merodakh, or the Zeus Belus of Babylon, 363 note. Zodiac, Chinese fortnightly divisions of the, 509 note. Zopyrus I. son of Megabyzus I., 608 note. Helped to recover Babylon, whereof afterwards he was made Darius's satrap, 669-696. Zopyrus II. son of Megabyzas II., and nephew of the first Artaxerxes, 153, 154, 609 note, 673. Zoroaster, 3 note. Whether the Baktrian antagonist of Ninus was or was not so named by Ktesias, 395 note. Zorobabel, or Zerubbabel, the Baby- lonian name of a prince of the captive Jews in Babylon, whose official name was Sheshbazzar, 180 note. Along with Joshua the priest, renews the out-door ser- vices of God at Jerusalem, 243. See Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel. Zuza in Armenia, 490. A royal or viceregal residence there, 490-91 note. T II E EN D. University of California SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 Return this material to the library from which it w