1S8U ICGX'AL SEV^^ f^ . ) CONNECTION SACRED AND PROFANE HISTORY. / ^S~:S7). Z^ J CONNECTION SACRED AND PROFANE HISTORY, THE DEATH OF JOSHUA TO THE DECLINE OF THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH. (iXTF.N'DED TO COMPLFTE THE WORKS OF S.MUCKFORI) AKD I'RlnEAUX.) BY T^TE REV. MICHAEL RUSSELL, L.L. D., EPISCOPAL MINISTER, LKITH. VOLUME II. LONDON : PRINTED FOR C. & J. RIVINGTON, ST Paul's church-yard, AND WATERLOO PLACE, PALL MALL. 1827. ( ONTENTS OF VOL. II. Page Book II. On the Ancient History of the Uriuntal Nations as connected with that of the Hebrew People in the Times of the Judges, namely, from the Year 1543 before the Birth of Christ, to 1099 before the same Era 1 Chap. I. On the Ancient History of the Babylonians and Assyrians, as connected with that of the Hebrews, between 1543 and 1099 B. C 3 II. Containing an Outline of such Parts of the Ancient History of the Hebrews as may appear to have been affected by the Power or Character of the Neighbouring Nations 127 III. On the Iranian or Ancient Persian Monarchy 279 IV. On the Origin of the more remarkable States and Kingdoms of Ancient Greece 3t;i V. On the Argonautic Expedition ; the Capture of Troy ; and the Return of the HcraclidoE 489 BOOK IL ON THE ANCIENT HISTORY OF THE ORIENTAL NA- TIONS AS CONNECTED WITH THAT OF THE HEBREW PEOPLE m THE TIMES OF THE JUDGES, NAMELY, FROM THE YEAR 1543 BEFORE THE BIRTH OF CHRIST TO 1099 BEFORE THE SAME ERA. VOL. II. CHAPTER I. ON THE ANCIENT HISTORY OF THE BABYLONIANS AND ASSYRIANS, AS CONNECTED WITH THAT OF THE HEBREWS, BETWEEN 1543 AND 1099 B. C. The plan which I have adopted requires that I should now give some account of those nations which were con- temporary with the Hebrews in the times of the Judges ; and more particularly of such kingdoms as at that period had any intercourse with the chosen people, either in the relations of peace or of war. On the authority of history, both sacred and profane, we are warranted to assert that, even prior to the exode, the Assyrian empire had risen to considerable power ; that the successors of Ninus had already extended their arms towards the east and south as far as the Persian gulf, and the deserts which divide Media from the banks of the Indus ; and, moreover, that some of the more warlike of these princes had occasionally threatened the tranquillity of Egypt and the independence of Palestine. But the succinct and sometimes contradictory narratives of the ancient writers do not enable us to define with accuracy the limits of that government, or to ascertain the names 4 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. and succession of the monarchs by whom it was exercised. No question in the history of Asia has been less satisfac- torily determined than that which respects the time when the Assyrians first laid the foundations of a regular policy, and the length of the period during which their ascen- dancy as a state continued to subsist. Some authors have even expressed great doubts whether the ancient empire of Assyria ever had an existence ; and have accordingly viewed the several dynasties which are recorded by Ctesias, and Diodorus Siculus, as the fictions of oriental vanity, alike inconsistent with probability and with the more authentic annals of a later age. It may therefore be worth while to inquire, upon general grounds, into the authority of those lists of Babylonian and Assyrian kings which have been transmitted to our times in the works of historians and chronographers ; and which, in the discus- sions which have been pursued by the learned in regard to this intricate subject, are usually associated with the names of Ctesias, Abydenus, Eusebius, Africanus, and Syncellus. In the first place, we may be disposed to attribute to such catalogues as I have mentioned a greater degree of fidelity and exactness than we should otherwise ascribe to them, when we call to mind that the people of the East, and more especially the native tribes of Arabia and Syria, have always taken the greatest pains to preserve their genealogies, and to hand down an entire record of their principal families, their chiefs, their priests, and their judges. The first efforts of literature among the shepherds of Mesopotamia and Canaan, appear to have been directed to hardly any other object besides perpetuating the names and succession of their patriarchs ; and the tablets which contained the genealogy of his tribe were regarded by the descendant of Abraham as the most valuable treasure that Chap. I.] AND rilOFANE HISTORY. 6 could fall to him in right of inheritance. The same practice and the same feelings are universal in Arabia at the present day. The prince of a wandering horde, surrounded by his vassal kinsmen, his camels, and his sheep, is more proud of his pedigree than the sovereign of any European kingdom ; and more solicitous also to preserve in full force the recollection and the evidence of his ancient lineage. The catalogues which are inserted in the sacred writings afford at once an example and a proof of the care which was taken by the Hebrews, to preserve unbroken the long line of their ancestry. Nor was this usage confined to the sons of Jacob. On the contrary, it was found to prevail to an equal extent among the children of Esau, and, in- deed, among all the classes and denominations of eastern people who continued to recognize a common descent, and whose rank and possessions could only be determined by an appeal to their genealogical tables. For the reasons now mentioned, the lists which have come down to us of the Babylonian and Assyrian kings, are entitled to greater confidence than a hasty reader would be disposed to allow. It is indeed impossible to enter into particulars concerning the manner in which such documents were either constructed or preserved. Our ig- norance of the time and the mode in which letters were first applied to meet the necessities of social life, prevents us from satisfying a very natural curiosity in regard to the materials, as well as the method, which were employed in keeping these ancient records. But that such catalogues were made and carefully retained among the tribes of the East, we are not allowed to doubt ; and that they were, upon the whole, exact and faithful, every one will be ready to admit who duly considers their object, as well as the complete absence of all temptation to corrupt or to de- stroy. 6 CONNECTION OF SACRED [BoOK II. Our confidence, too, in the general accuracy of th ese ancient lists may be perfectly entire, although we cannot extend a similar belief to the warlike exploits and other achieve- ments which are, in some cases, too lavishly ascribed to the progenitors of the Asiatic monarchs. The actions of an ambitious chief might be very imperfectly recorded in the annals of his nation, though his name and the period of his government were inserted in the proper chronicle with the utmost exactness ; and we know well that, in respect to the fame of a popular leader, who may have saved his followers from the hands of their enemies or extended their power over a neighbouring community, it requires not the aid of an oriental imagination to exaggerate a few plain facts to such a degree as even to outrage the spirit of fiction. To give a simple narrative of events, connect- ed with the causes whence they arose and the circum- stances which marked their accomplishment, demands means and talents of a very different order from those which are sufficient for constructing a family record, or even for delineating the more prominent features of a suc- cessful warrior ; on which account we ought not hastily to reject the latter species of writings, although we should find in the former many things which are not only impro- bable, but positively extravagant and absurd. The distinction now stated applies not only to the per- sonal prowess and exertions of any individual monarch, but also to the extent of his dominions, the magnificence of his cities, and, above all, to the number and splendour of his troops. We may believe, for example, that Ninus reigned over the Assyrians at a very early period, and even that he was succeeded by his wife Semi- ramis; but we may be permitted at the same time to doubt whether he actually conducted his victorious armies from the borders of India to the river of Egypt, and Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 7 whether Nineveh in the days of his queen covered a space of ground sixty miles in circumference, and had walls on every side a hundred feet in height. It is enough, how- ever, for our present purpose, to be reminded that the im- probability of the latter statement ought not of itself to diminish the credibility which is due to the former. The admiration and fancy of posterity have added to the his- tory of Ninus, and of his immediate successor, many things which cannot be believed ; still, the reasonable scepticism which we are allowed to exercise in regard to their power, their conquests, and their personal qualities, will not by any candid reader be carried so far as to invalidate the authority of those ancient chronicles, which merely profess to establish the date and period of their government. These remarks are suggested by the numerous attacks which have been made by literary men, in almost every age, on the character of Ctesias. This celebrated anti- quary was a physician at the court of Artaxerxes Mnemon, about four hundred years before the Christian era ; and being a great favourite with the Persian monarch, was allowed to make researches into the ancient history of the country, and to compile a catalogue of the Assyrian kings, from Ninus down to the epoch of the Median revolt. But Ctesias, besides an historical work on the Persian empire, composed a similar treatise on India ; in which latter per- formance there were such palpable extravagancies, so many marvellous stories and improbable descriptions, as to have covered with suspicion the good sense and fidelity of the author in other respects, and to have assigned him a place in the list of fabulous writers. Aristotle condemn- ed his natural history ; Plutarch laughed at his biogra- phical sketches ; Strabo sneered at his geographical deli- neations; and later writers have indulged in invectives still more severe against his general veracity. « CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. But, without entering into an analysis of the charges which have been brought forward by the enemies of the Greek physician, or specifying the grounds upon which a defence might be raised for the incredible statements of his Indian history, may we not have recourse to the distinction explained above, and maintain that, though an author might be induced to repeat foolish stories, and insert in his book absurd descriptions of monstrous animals which he had never seen, he might yet be fully competent to the task of copying from an ancient record a catalogue of names and a series of dates ? Ctesias could have no in- ducement to extend beyond its proper limits the antiquity of the Assyrian empire. National vanity could not have any influence on the mind of a Greek, when tracing the vestiges of a power and a greatness which did not belong to his own people ; for which reason, it appears to me that our conviction of his general accuracy should require no other support than the assurance that the archives, which he is said to have transcribed, did really exist, and that he understood the language in which they were com- posed. The existence of such records, I repeat, is ren- dered extremely probable by the practice which is un- derstood to have anciently prevailed in all Eastern coun- tries; of which we find the most satisfactory proof in the sacred books of the Hebrews, and which continues among the simple tribes of Arabia at the present day. In reference to Ctesias, moreover, the most sceptical of his readers have never, so far as I know, accused him of fabricating the list of Assyrian princes which he submitted to the Greeks ; and whatever ground there may be for complaint in regard to the liberties which later authors have taken with his catalogue, there does not appear to be any reason to suspect his truth or accuracy Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTOllY. 9 in the first copy. But on this interesting subject some far- ther observations will be more suitably introduced when we come to examine the details of his work. In the second place, there is no reason why the discre- pancy which is sometimes observed in different editions of the same catalogue, whether in the names and dates, or in the actual number of the sovereigns who are described as having reigned during a certain period, should be pronoun- ced an unquestionable proof of forgery or even of corruption. Nothing, I admit, is so likely to puzzle the understand- ing, and disturb the belief of a young chronologer, as to find in different authors the names of the same dynasty of kings written so variously, that all the efforts of etymolo- gical skill may be expended upon them, without discover- ing the slightest resemblance either in their orthography or import. But to the reader of Eastern history, this cir- cumstance, which is apparently so inconsistent with accur- ate research, presents no particular difficulty. He feels no astonishment, for example, when the mo- narch, whose steps he has followed in Scripture as Darius the Mede, appears in the page of a profane author under the name of Ardeshir, or is alluded to by another annal- ist as the victorious Bahaman. He knows that it has Ions- o been a custom in Asia for the reigning sovereign to give his son some important government, with the title of king ; and that the latter generally changes his name when he succeeds to his father. The son and successor of Shapor the Second, in the fourth century, was called Kermanshah, and by European writers, Carmasat; but when he mount- ed the throne of Persia, he assumed the name of Baha- ram. Gengis Khan, in like manner, in the early part of his life, was called Temujin. Many of the Great Moguls, too, used, before their accession, names very different from those by which they were known when emperors of India. 10 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. The same practice was likewise adopted in Greece. Plato, it is said, was originally named Aristo. That it was also common among the Hebrews is amply proved by the books of Chronicles; where we find long lists of distin- guished individuals, the heads of families, and even of tribes, whose names, when compared with the correspond- ing series in other parts of the Old Testament, present so slight a degree of resemblance as not to be recognized. Esther, the favourite wife of Ahasuerus, is known even to the mere English reader as Hadassah the niece of Mordecai the Jew ; and the Persian scholar will be at no loss to re- new his acquaintance with the same personage as Satira, the star or beauty of an oriental palace. Daniel, on the same principle, becomes Belteshazzar ; while the three children, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, come forth, upon a change of circumstances, under the familiar deno- mination of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. All na- tions, it has been observed, have had a greater or less par- tiality for metonymical and metaphorical allusions ; and many persons have been described by some peculiar attri- bute or title, which, though it was perfectly well under- stood by their contemporaries, became in a few generations greatly obscured, and in certain cases altogether unintelli- gible. We ought not therefore to call in question the authen- ticity of any catalogue which may happen to be found in an ancient writer, merely because the particular names of which it is composed do not exactly coincide with a corre- sponding list in some other work of a similar nature. A complete agreement in this respect is never looked for in oriental histories ; not even when the several authors may have had access to the same sources of information ; be- cause, as almost every king had more than one appellation, it was obviously a matter of taste or convenience which of them any particular writer should adopt. In such a selection, Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 11 an historian or chronicler would allow himself to be deter- mined by the usage of the province to which his work was to be addressed, and by the particular dialect of the na- tional language which chanced to prevail in it, rather, per- haps, than by the literal expression of the record from which he drew his materials. For example, a Jewish compiler, writing exclusively for his own country;, would retain the original name of Daniel ; whereas, if his memoirs were intended for a more general perusal, and were meant to be read upon the banks of the Euphrates and the Tigris as well as on those of the Jor- dan, he would probably call him Belteshazzar. The niece of Mordecai, in like manner, would be spoken of among the Hebrews as the patriotic Hadassah ; would be celebrated among the Greeks as the prudent Esther ; and envied by the dames of Persia as the beautiful Satira. Even in our own land, the history of a royal house might be modified so as to suit the recollections and pre- judices of the people in either division of the island, and thereby be made to assume such a form as to perplex, in no small degree, an ignorant reader in a future age. The dynasty of Stuart would present, in a Scottish catalogue, a very different series of monarchs from that which an English historian would construct : and were the memo- rials of that unfortunate race to be collected by a bigotted Jacobite^ we should perhaps find in them the names of James the Third, of Charles the Third, and of Henry the Ninth, the immediate descendants of the last member of the family who swayed the sceptre of this kingdom. It is obvious, therefore, that the want of strict coinci- dence in the names of such Babylonian and Assyrian rul- ers, as are found in ancient catalogues, ought not to be regarded as a certain proof that the authors have been either ignorant or dishonest. On the contrary, in a case 12 CONNECTION OF SxVCRED [Book I L where thcr£ were so many causes of variation, where acci- dental epithets and titles so frequently superseded or changed the original name;, and where the same ruler was known to history under several designations, an entire cor- respondence in nomenclature, so far from removing all doubt, could hardly have failed to excite suspicion in regard to the independent authority of the more recent documents. But it must not be concealed, in the third place, that part of the discrepancy of which the reader of ancient history has to complain, appears to have originated in a source altogether different from accumulation of titles or variety of spelling. There is reason to suspect that the difficulties of Asiatic chronology have induced certain writers, as well Pagans as Christians, to alter the cata- logues which had passed into their hands, with the view of accommodating them to a system of dates which could not always boast of a stable foundation in fact. Even the learned bishop of Caesarea, to whose labours we are so much indebted, cannot be thoroughly acquitted of this unjustifiable practice. Africanus is chargeable with the same freedoms ; and, perhaps, from the days of Eusebius down to our own times, there is not one chronologer who has not either recommended or actually introduced very material changes in the names and dates of remote anti- quity. This acknowledgement rnay be thought by some scepti- cal readers to be tantamount to a complete withdrawal of all faith from ancient records. But it is not so ; for though it must be confessed that the tampering of unskil- ful hands with the archives of Assyria and Egypt has in- creased the obscurity which they wished to remove, and diminished the confidence which it was their object to es- tablish, there are yet to be found in those venerable relics themselves, such clear marks ©f truth and consistency as Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 13 will, in most cases, guide back the diligent inquirer to a distinct comprehension of their original import. The learned assiduity of the historian and chronographer has in many striking instances detected the very spot which was corrupted by the interpolation of his predecessors ; and by removing the stain, he has not only restored to the perverted document its first pureness and integrity, but, by pointing out the source whence the confusion had arisen, he has also created a fuller confidence in the know- ledge as well as in the veracity of the more ancient au- thor. If we can discover in Africanus, for example, an aber- ration from the statement of Ctesias respecting the order or number of the kings of Assyria, and have the means, at the same time, of accounting for the mistake of the former without any impeachment of his fidelity, we gain at once two very important objects. We not only prove that Ctesias was right in that particular instance, but be- ing able to analyse the process of reasoning by which the later chronologist introduced into his catalogue the erro- neous innovation, we attain a more perfect assurance as to the credibility of both ; and, in short, perceive the truth in a brighter light arising from the very collision of their opinions. Hence I conclude, that we are not hastily to pronounce against the truth of ancient writers on the simple ground of their occasional differences ; for when the points in which they happen to vary are once recon- ciled on the basis of sound learning and criticism, the au- thority of history, so far from being shaken or impaired, receives a stronger confirmation. These observations appeared necessary to prepare the mind of the reader for the discussion to which we are now about to proceed relative to the commencement and dura- tion of the Babylonian and Assyrian empires ; subjects on 14 CONNECTION OF SACRED [;Book II. which there has been a great diversity of opinion among chronologers, both ancient and modern, and on the eluci- dation of which much erudition, research, and ingenuity have been employed by divines and philosophers. As Dr Shuckford has given an abridged view of the origin and early fortunes of the Assyrian monarchy, I should not have resumed the consideration of a subject so extremely obscure, were not the chronological grounds on which he proceeded utterly inconsistent with the more comprehensive scheme adopted in these volumes, as well as with the conclusions of all ancient history, sacred and profane. Following the steps of the Masoretic Jews, he dates the commencement of that empire a hundred and one years after the Flood ; a period at which, we have the best reason to believe, there could not be on the face of the whole earth a sufficient number of inhabitants to found cities and kingdoms such as those mentioned in the book of Genesis, and to accomplish the other plans which are attributed to the adherents of Nimrod. If we confine our speculations to the statements of the Holy Scripture, we must admit, that, at the end of the first century, the descendants of Noah could not have mul- tiplied to any great extent. Even on the basis of the He- brew genealogy, we cannot, in that interval, establish more than three generations ; for Arphaxad lived five and thirty years before he begat Salah.; and Salah lived thirty years and begat Eber ; and Eber lived four and thirty years and begat Peleg.* The renovated race of mankind, be it re- membered, too, proceeded from the three sons of Noah only ; there being no mention made of any children born to that patriarch himself after the epoch of the Deluge. * Genesis xi. 12. 14. 16. Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 15 Were we to assume, then, the largest number that the laws of nature and of probabihty will warrant as the issue of the three families in the course of a hundred years, we shall find it much too small to be consistent with the ereat objects which appear to have been contemplated by those aspiring individuals who founded the Babylonian mo- narchy. In the first generation which proceeded from Noah's household, we count only sixteen sons, namely, seven in the family of Japheth ; four in that of Ham ; and five as the progeny of Shem. Suppose there was an equal number of daughters, and that all the cousins in the three families intermarried with one another, and we shall then have six- teen couples, upon whose prolific qualities we are to rely for the amount of the second generation. But let us take alone- with us, that at least ten years after the Flood must have passed away before sixteen sons and sixteen daughters could have been born in the houses of Shem, Ham, and Japheth ; and moreover that, as thirty-five appears to have been the usual age for marriage, the first generation could not be- gin to have children till about the fortieth year of the new era, on the average of all the families. Let us farther suppose that all the grandchildren of Noah were as fruitful as their parents had been, and that every couple produced five sons and five daughters ; the result will be sixteen multiplied by ten, or one hundred and sixty hu- man beings in the second generation. These were, of course, the contemporaries of Salah the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem. The next descent, or that to which Eber belonged, would, on the principles of this hypothesis, be increased five fold ; for as a hundred and sixty individuals consti- tute eighty couples, and as every couple is supposed to 16 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II- procreate ten children, the product of eighty multiplied by ten is eight liundred ; the amount of the third genera- tion born in the new world. The succeeding generation, or that in which Peleg flourished, cannot be included in the first century after the Flood ; for Eber, the father of the patriarch just named, and who in this particular may be taken as the representative of his age, did not marry till the beginning of the second century.* The number of mankind, therefore, at the time when, according to the Masorite chronology, the Babylonian monarchy was found- ed, would be as follows : — The family of Noah saved in the ark, - 8 The first generation, or that of Arphaxad, - 32 The second generation, or that of Salah, - 160 The third generation, or that of Eber, - 800 1000 That I have not withdrawn from this hypothetical calcu- lation any element which could be properly used for augmenting the number of Noah's descendants in the first century, will be seen by any reader who shall take the pains to examine with attention the tenth and eleventh chapters of Genesis. It will there be found that, instead of eighty males whom I have allowed for the second gene- ration, the great-grandsons of Noah, such at least as are mentioned in Scripture, did not in fact exceed thirty-six. * Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the Flood. To these add the 35 years of Arphaxad, the 30 years of Salah, and the 34 years of Eber, the sum v/ill be 101 ; the period at which ihe fourth generation may be computed to have commenced. Genesis xi. 10—17. Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 17 In the house of Japheth there is a record of - 7 of Ham 24 of Shem 5 36* Nor has any deduction been made for accidental or violent deaths. Every individual born in the course of the hundred years is not only supposed to have lived throughout the se- cond and third generations, but also to have married and be- come the parent of ten vigorous children ; and yet the aggregate amount of the human race at the termination of the first century is bounded by the limits of one thousand, consisting of both sexes and of all ages. In such circum- stances, the number of men fit for labour, for the toils of the chase, and the fatigue of war, would hardly reach the moderate sum of three hundred. It is, therefore, ex- tremely improbable that cities and empires were founded at so early a period ; or that the history of any nation can be traced back through any records or monuments now ex- isting to an epoch so near the universal deluge. But I must not omit to observe, that other calculations have been made, respecting the numbers of mankind in the * The sons of Gomer were Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah. And the sons of Javan were Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim ; in all seven of the Japhethites. The sons of Gush were Seba, and Havilal), and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtecha, and Nimrod. The sons of Mizraim were Ludim, and Ana- mini, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, and Pathrusim, and Casluhim, and Caphtorim. The sons of Canaan were Sidon, and Heth, and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite, and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, and the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite ; in all twenty-four Uamites. The children of Aram were Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash. The only son of Arphaxad was Salah : in all five Shemites. See Genesis x. 2 24. VOL. II. B 18 CONNECTION OF SACRED CBOOK II. days of Noah, whicli give a result not fk little at variance with that to which the above reasoning; has conducted us. Dr Richard Cumberland, a well-known bishop of Peter- borough, wrote, somewhat more than a hundred years ago, an amusing tract on this subject; in which he undertook to prove that about the time when Peleg the son of Eber died, there were or might have been in the world upwards of three thousand millions of married men ; or as he himself expresses it, " 3,333,333,330 males furnished with wives." When this number is doubled, so as to include the women, we shall have 6,666,666,660 persons, all in the state of matrimony : to which if we add the very low estimate of two children to a family, the population of the globe in the latter years of Noah woidd exceed considerably the magnificent amount of thirteen thousand millions ; that is about twelve thousand miUions of human beings more than ever were supposed to be alive upon it at one time.* The bishop rests his hypothesis on four simple postu- • The following table will present to the reader a general view of the pro- gress of population in the Noachic ages, according to Bishop Cumberland. A.M. Years after Flood. 1676 1716 1756 1796 1836 1876 1916 1956 1996 20 60 100 140 180 220 260 300 340 Couples born in the first Vicennium. after the Flood, and the couples born that descended from them. 30 300 3,000 Observations Celest. sent by Callis- thenes, begun. 30,000 Hereabouts Babel's Tower is at- tempted to be built. 300,000 Hereabouts Egypt and Phoenicia planted by Canaan and Mizraim. 3,000,000 30,000,000 300,000,000 3,000,000,000 About this time ./Egialeus founds the Sicyonian kingdom. Joctan, Phaleg's brother, founds a kingdom in Arabia. Tlie sum 3,333,333,330 Males furnished with wives. Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 19 lates ; that the brethren of Shem were of like constitution with himself, and in the course of nature might live much about as many years as lie did — that the descendants of Ham and Japheth were as strong, long-lived, and fruitful as the sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons of Shem — that the male issue of these three brothers began to g-enerate other issue soon after they were twenty years old — and lastly, that the issue produced was half males and half fe- males. " From these postulates or reasonable suppositions it will follow," says the learned prelate, " that in the first twenty years after the Flood, the three sons of Noah might beget each of them twenty children, the sum of which is sixty ; the one half of these is thirty males, and the other thirty yields a wife for each one of them. Hence it fol- lows, that at the sixtieth year after the Flood, the youngest of these children, whether male or female, will be forty years old, and may have generated twenty children more, the sum will be 600, whereof 300 will be males, the other 300 wives for them."* Assuming the accuracy of his postulates, the bishop goes on to make his Noachides increase their numbers ten- fold every forty years ; taking credit to himself in the mean time for the moderation of his views, and particu- larly for not availing his hypothesis of a capability Avhich women are said to possess of having a child regularly once in ten months. " We reckon of no births," says he, " within less time than a full year ; although we know that seven children may be born in every six years, allow- ing only single births.*}- We do not," he adds, " violently lay hands on all possible methods of multiplying men. Origines Gentium Antiquissimae, p. 146, &c. t Page 149. 20 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. but have left out very many ways whereby we might have increased our numbers,"* The reader will hardly allow that his lordship is en- titled to much praise for his reserve and abstinence, when it is stated that all the women in the world, for 340 years after the Flood, are charged by him, without any warrant from sacred history, with the laborious duty of bringing forth twenty children. Every couple was bound to begin to generate at the age of twenty, and to add to the stock of population ten boys and as many girls ; and as, accord- ing to his hypothesis, neither male nor female was sup- posed to die during a period of nearly five hundred years, we cannot admit that the bishop has left out many ways whereby he might have increased his numbers.-f* When an argument terminates in positive absurdity, it is hardly worth while to examine the process of reasoning by which the conclusion was attained. But the most care- less reader must be struck with the fact, that Dr Curaber- * Origines Gentium AntiquissimfB, p. 154. + On this subject Pezron observes, " Premierement, il faut que ceux qui s'attachent a I'Hebreu des Juifs, traitent des fables toutes les anciennes his- toires des nations de I'Asie; celles des Chaldeens, celles des Egyptiens, et celles des Chinois. lis sont meme contraints d'abreger I'empire des Assy- riens, &c. Secondement, ils sont obliges de mettre la construction de la tour de Ba- bel soixante ou quatre-vingts ans apres le deluge ; et de mettre aussi la dis- persion des hommes par toute la terre cent ans depuis cette inondation gene- rale ; ce qui est incroyable, quand on examine serieusement les choses. Car enfin I'esprit ne comprend pas qu'en nioins d'un siecle, ou plutot du un demi-siecle, les trois enfans de Noe, a scavoir, Sem, Ham, et .Japhet, ayant pu engendrer ce prodigieux nombre d'hommes qui ont travaille a batir la ville et la tour de Babel, et qui ensuite ont ete disperses par toute la terre. Je ne suis plus surpris apres cela, si les Kabbins, mais les anciens Rab- bins, reportes dans le Pirke EUc::cr, disent que les trois fils de Noe ont en- gendre' comme des reptiles. R. Elihai ait gcnerarunt illi trcsJUios siios,foc- ti^caverunt et 7nultiplicati sunt tanqiiani genus quoddam majoris rcptilis, sex quolibet partu ; cela veut dire que leurs femmes ayoient six enfans a chaque fois ou a chaque ventree. — Pe::roj/, Defense de VAntlqn'iti des Terns, pages 54fi, 547. Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 21 land has founded his third postulate in utter neglect of the sacred narrative ; which, so far from representing the sons of Noah as becoming the fathers of sixty children, states, in the most unambiguous language, that their male progeny in the first descent amounted only to sixteen ; and gives so little authority for asserting that these young men in their turn married at twenty, that, in the only case where an age is mentioned, the inspired writer takes the pains to inform us that the individual in question, a grandson of the great patriarch, did not find himself a parent until he was thirty-five. There is assuredly no room for doubt that Shem, Ham, and Japheth, had daughters as well as sons, and probably an equal num- ber of each ; but that they had thirty children of either sex, and that these became heads of families at the early age of twenty, and thereby afforded an example which was regularly followed by their descendants during several hundred years, is a position which cannot be maintained without impeaching the fidelity of the sacred volume. In admitting that the three generations proceeding from the three sons of Noah might at the end of a hundred years amount to a thousand individuals, I have, for the sake of argument, allowed the correctness of the genealo- gical tables which are exhibited in the modern copies of the Hebrew Bible. But no one who has paid any atten- tion to chronology in the present day, aided by the dis- coveries which the learning of the two last centuries has supplied, hesitates to acknowledge that the dates in the Masoretic text, for the period between the Flood and the birth of Abraham, have been altered and depraved. Not only do the Septuagint, the Samaritan version, and the Antiquities of Josephus, bear evidence to the fact now alleged, but even the common experience of mankind and the laws of human nature confirm the suspicion which 5 22 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. has so long been directed against the fidelity of the Rabbins, in the article of chronology. The marked disproportion be- tween the generations of the postdiluvian patriarchs, and the total length of their lives, betrays the vitiating industry of the school of Akiba ; for thirty-five, the age at which Arphaxad, Salah, and Eber, are described as begetting children, bears about the same ratio to four hundred and forty, the age at which they died, that six bears to seven- ty-five. Now, to assert that a race of human beings whose life, generally speaking, did not extend beyond seventy- five years, should become fathers and mothers at six, would surely be deemed equally unnatural and incredible ; and yet to maintain that Eber, who lived till he was four hundred and sixty-four, was a father at four and thirty, is not less inconsistent with the usual course of nature. The term of procreation, in his case, bore the same rela- tion to the term of his whole life, that the age of a child at five bears to the age of a man who dies at seventy- five.* When, on the other hand, we adopt the notation of the • These remarks apply with increased force to the hypothesis of Bishop Cumberland ; for on his system the age of procreation, compared to the total length of life, is in the proportion of three and a small fraction to seventy- five ; consequently we ought not to be more surprised when we hear of a child becoming a parent at three years and four months, than when we are assured by Jewish chronologers that Eber, who lived to the age of 464, was the father of Peleg at four and thirty. The bishop appears to have been aware of this objection to which his reasoning is exposed, but his answer is far from being satisfactory. "I postulate," says he, "that the male issue of the three brothers (Shem, Ham, and Japheth,) might begin to generate other issue soon after they were twenty years old. This every year's experience proves not to be an unreasonable demand. Therefore I cannot allow Isaac Vossius's postu- late, that these patriarchs might be longer before they came to puberty than men now are ; and he hath given no proof of what he supposes." It was not easy in such a case to give proof positively unquestionable ; but surely the analogy of nature, and the testimony of Josephus, with that of the Greek and Samaritan versions, ought to have some weight in determin- ing this chronological problem. Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 23 Samaritan Pentateuch, of Josephus, or of the Seventy, all inconsistencies disappear ; for a hundred and thirty-five, as the age of marriage, bears the same proportion to four hun- dred and forty, the term of life, that twenty-five bears to seventy-five, in the present day ; and this agreement, with- out doubt, ought of itself to be considered as a strong pre- sumption in favour of the more lengthened genealogy. For these cogent reasons, as well as for others which have been stated at some length in the Preliminary Dissertation, every author in modern times, with whose writings I am acquainted, rejects, without the sHghtest hesitation, the postdiluvian numbers of the Masoretic Hebrew text.* Mr Faber, speaking of the chronology of the Samaritan Pentateuch, remarks, " I cannot but believe that this in- valuable system has been preserved to us by the special good providence of God, in order that the cavils of infide- lity may be effectually put to silence. I have examined it with all the severity of attention which I can command, and, from beginning to end, I have been utterly unable to discover the least flaw. We have here no statements contradictory to the historical narrative ; we have here none of those perplexing difficulties which meet us at each step in the Hebrew chronology. Eveiy thing is through- out clear and consistent ; insomuch that no better evidence can be afforded us of the accuracy with which Moses de- tails the early postdiluvian events than the excellent table of descents exhibited to ws in the Samaritan Pentateuch. Shem is represented as dying nearly a century and a half before the death of Peleg, and little less than four cen- turies and a half before the death of Abraham ; while Abraham, in exact accordance with the history, dies pre- See Preliminary Dissertation, vol. i. p. 97 — 102. 24 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. cisely 100 years after his father Terah. Consequently, since the dispersion from Babel must have taken place to- wards the latter end of Peleg's life, in order that we may allow time for the thirteen sons of his younger brother Joktan to have become heads of families, both Noah and Shem will have died, as we proved they must have died, ^rior to the emigration from Armenia; and thus all the strange difficulties with which we are hampered by the Hebrew chronology, will be entirely avoided. We shall have no occasion to wonder how Nlmrod could acquire such a marvellous degree of authority, while he himself was a mere boy, and while the four royal patriarchs were yet living. We shall have no need to puzzle ourselves with computing how a multitude sufficiently large to build the tower and to found the Cuthic empire of Babel, could have been produced from three pairs within the very short time allowed for that purpose by the Hebrew Penta- teuch. AVe shall be under no obligation to account for the total silence respecting Shem which pervades the en- tire history of Abraham : that patriarch is not mentioned for the very best of all possible reasons ; instead of sur- viving Abraham 35 years, he had died in Armenia no less than 440 years before Abraham was born. " Nor is this the only service rendered by the Sama- ritan chronology : it makes sacred history perfectly accord with profane, while the Hebrew chronology sets them at complete variance with each other. The Babylonic his- tory of Berosus, and the old records consulted by Epi- phanius, equally place the death of Noah and his sons be- fore the emigration from Armenia ; and the worship of them as astronomical hero-gods, which even at the latest must have commenced previous to the dispersion, neces- sarily supposes their antecedent decease. With this the Samaritan chronology exactly agrees ; for it makes Shem Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 25 die 138 years before the departure of Peleg, and thus al- lows an ample space of time for the subsequent emigra- tion and dispersion ; while the Hebrew chronology throws every thing into inextricable confusion, by placing the death of Noah ten years, and the death of Shem 162 years, after the death of Peleg."* Sir William Drummond, in his late work on the origin of Eastern Nations, expresses a similar opinion respecting the vitiated condition of the modern Hebrew chronology, and gives, in like manner, a decided preference to the postdi- luvian genealogies of the Greek and Samaritan versions. " These variations from the Hebrew text as we have it now, and as Jerome must have read it in his time, have," he observes, " considerably perplexed chronographers ; but there is a partial solution of the difficulty recommend- ed by the learned Jesuits Du Halde and Tournemine, which I do not scruple to adopt. It is stated at Genesis, chapter xi, verse 10, in the figurative phraseology of an oriental style, that Shem was rrsa; nxn p, son of a hundred years, when he begot Arphaxad. Now, at verse 1 2, where it is said Arphaxad lived five and thirty years and begot Salah, the words son of a hundred years are to be under- stood after Arphaxad, and so of all the other descendants of Shem, in the time of Eber, down to Terah, who begot Abraham about his 70th year. According to this read- ing, which I have not the least doubt is the accurate one, we must reckon the period between the deluge and the call of Abraham at 1067 years. It is quite clear that Jo- seph us thus read and understood the Hebrew text, for he has everywhere supplied the 100 years, as is proposed • Origin of Pagan Idolatry, vol. iii. p. 422, 423. The reference in vo- lume first, p. 102, is wrong, and the quotation misapplied : Mr Faber hav- ing in view the Septuagint version, while my application of his remark is to the Hebrew text. 26 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. above, from Shem to Terah. It also appears that the Seventy, and the author of the Samaritan text, found or supphed the words which I have mentioned above, in every example (except in that of Nahor) from Shem to Terah. The Seventy, indeed, have introduced the name of the second Cainan, which has been erroneously omit- ted in the Hebrew and Samaritan texts, but which is re- ceived in the genealogy given by St Luke. " The state of society in the time of Abraham argues its long previous existence. Powerful kingdoms were al- ready established ; great cities had been built ; and regu- lar armies were maintained. Mankind already witnessed the pomp of courts, and the luxury of individuals. Pha- raoh appeared surrounded with his princes ; Abimelech came attended with the captain of his host; and Abra- ham himself was rich in gold and silver, in tents, in flocks, and in herds. Money, and even coined money, was in use ; nor let it be forgotten, that slavery was already in- troduced. These circumstances, with many others which might be enumerated, make it difficult to conceive that, only between four and five centuries before, the whole hu- man race had been destroyed with the exception of eight persons. I therefore propose to my readers to adopt as they think fit, the calculation, as it results either from the Samaritan text, or from that of the Septuagint, or from the Hebrew text itself, as it evidently must have been read and understood by Josephus, who, next to Philo, was the most learned of the Jews, and who, in this in- stance at least, could have had no interest either in alter ing the sense, or in disguising the truth."* • See Origines, or Remarks on the Origin of several Empires, States, and Cities. By the Right Hon. Sir William Drummond. 1824. Vol. i. p. 101—103. Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 27 If, then, according to the recommendation of these learned authors, we adopt the chronology of the Samari- tan Pentateuch, of Josephus, or of the Septuagint transla- tion, we must of necessity admit a conclusion which is per- fectly irreconcilable with the opinion of Dr Shuckford, and of all the other writers who maintain that the Babylo- nian monarchy was founded about a century after the Flood. Even on the supposition that three generations were produced within the first hundred years, I have shewn how probable it is that the aggregate number of hu- man beings, of all ages and of both sexes, did not exceed a thousand ; and, consequently, the total absence of autho- rity for those chronological systems which carry back the origin of the great Asiatic monarchies, as well as of the splendid cities of Babylon and Nineveh, to the early period which has just been mentioned. But the improbability of such hypotheses will appear in a still stronger light when we consider, that instead of three generations evolving themselves during the first cen- tury, there could not be more than one; for if all the grand- sons of Noah followed the rule which was observed by Arphaxad, who did not beget a son till he was 135 years of age, it is evident that the second postdiluvian genera- tion would not materially add to the strength of the first until towards the middle of the succeeding hundred years. Proceeding, therefore, on this new ground, we should not be disposed to look for any large political establishment, any regular monarchy, or capital city, till after the lapse of five or six centuries from the epoch of the deluge ; and it will be found, I believe, upon a comparison of the most authentic records that are preserved in the ancient annals of the human race, that the first kingdom in Asia did not originate before the period which has now been specified. But, before Mfte enter upon the more regular cbronolo- 28 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. gical inquiry which respects the commencement of the Babylonian and Assyrian empires, it seems expedient to make a few observations on the preliminary question as to whether these early governments were originally separate or united ; if they were separate, how long they continvied so ; and what were the circumstances which led to their junction, and the consequent ascendancy of the Assyrian name among the people of the East. The sacred historian, in the brief parenthetical account which he gives of Nimrod, the descendant of Cush, relates that the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. In the same incidental manner, he immediately subjoins, out of that land went forth Ashur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resen between Nine- veh and Calah.* All that we discover here is a reference to two events, connected, first, with the establishment of a regal power at Babel ; and, secondly, with the foundation of Nineveh, and some other great cities apparently in political subjec- tion to it. The inspired author appears not to have had the smallest intention to fix the dates of these important occurrences, nor even to supply to his reader such infor- mation as might enable him to determine the extent of the interval which had elapsed between them. He confines himself to the simple statement that an ambitious indivi- dual, whom he describes as belonging to the line of Cush, formed a civil polity at Babel ; and that, at some future period, a person called Ashur, or the Assyrian, migrated from the district in which Nimrod first exercised authori- ty, and laid the foundations of a separate government on the banks of the Tigris. * Genesis x. 10, 11, l^i Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 29 It is true, that, from the mere contiguity and apparent connection of the two portions of this narrative, some writers have concluded, not only that Nineveh was found- ed in the time of Nimrod, but even that Nimrod and Ashur were only two names for the same individual : and consequently that the metropolis of Assyria was indebted for its origin to the same aspiring hand which gave a beginning to the magnificent city of Babylon. There is hardly any reader who requires to be informed, that Bochart, Junius, Hyde, and other biblical critics have expressed their prefe- rence for that translation of the original text, which, instead of describing a man named Ashur as eoing; forth from the vicinity of the Euphrates, represents Nimrod himself as leaving his own country and proceeding into Assyria to lay the foundations of a new city and colony. But the Hebrew terms used by the divine historian do not proper- Iv admit of such a rendering ; and hence most modern authors who assert the identity of Nimrod and of the first Assyrian ruler, find it necessary to assume a different ground for their opinion, as will be hereafter explained at considerable length. Our object at present, however, is merely to examine into the authorities furnished by antiquity in regard to the separate origin and independent existence of their two empires ; and to ascertain, if possible, how long the one preceded the other in strict chronological order.* The principal authorities whose lights we must follow in this investigation are Alexander Polyhistor and Africanus, * The Hebrew text will not bear the interpretation put upon it by Bochart, Junius, and Hyde. It should, according to their sense of it, have been, not "yywH, Ashur, but ."Tna'X or 'iitrK'?, Assura or Le Assur. It is worthy of notice, too, that, in this particular, the Greek, Syriac, Latin, and Arabic versions, and the Samaritan Pentateuch, all agree with the Hebrew. Jose- phus takes the same view ; stating distinctly that Ashur built the city of Nineveh, and that the Assyrians derived their name from him. — Jackson, Chron. Aiitiq., vol. i. p. 230, and Josephus, Jcrvish An/iqiiitlcs, book i. chap. C. 30 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. who appear to have copied from more ancient authors the result of inquiries, the date of which is lost in the darkness of a very remote antiquity. These two chronographers agree in respect to the number of kings who succeeded Nimrod at Babylon, though they differ somewhat as to the length of time which was occupied by their successive reigns. I proceed, meantime, to extract from the valuable Chronographia of Syncellus the catalogue which he has preserved of the Chaldean kings, who began to govern in the sixth century after the deluge. The first and most celebrated was Euechoiis, who is also called Nembrod, who governed in Babylon six years. The second king of the Chaldeans was Chomasbolus, who reigned seven years and a half, beginning in the year of the world 2782. The third king of the Chaldeans was Porus, who reign- ed 35 years, beginning in the year of the world 2790. The fourth king of the Chaldeans was Nechubes, who reigned 43 years, beginning in the year of the world 2825. The fifth king of the Chaldeans was Abius, who reign- ed 48 years, beginning in the year of the world 2868. The sixth king of the Chaldeans was Oniballus, who reigned 40 years, beginning in the year of the world 2916. The seventh king of the Chaldeans was Zinzirus, who reigned 45 years, beginning in the year of the world 2956. The above is a literal translation from the work of Syn- cellus, who adds, in a note or commentary, that the em- pire of the Chaldeans sprang up 225 years after the disper- sion of the nations, beginning in the year of the world 2776, and ending in the 3000th year of the same era. In the 3001st year of the Chaldean monarchy the Arabians seiz- ed the government ; which was held by six kings of that I Chap. I.] AND PROF AN?: HISTORY. 31 nation 215 years, that is, until the year of the world 3215.* Alexander Polyhistor assigns to the first dynasty, of Chaldean monarchs a period only of 190 years ; differing from Africanus, or perhaps only from Syncellus, who may have taken the liberty to make this alteration, not less than 35 years. The chronographer, indeed, is honest enough to inform us, at page 78 of his laborious compilation, that Polyhistor, on the authority of Berosus, computed the duration of the first series of Babylonian kings at 190 so- lar years ; and also that, on a similar ground, he had as- sured his readers that the epithet Euechous was applied to Chosma-belus and not to Nimrod. But the main point at the present stage of our inquiry, I repeat, is to establish the fact that there was at Babylon a succession of sovereigns before Ninus began to rule in Nineveh over the provinces of Assyria. Syncellus observes, in the note which has just been quoted from him, that the successors of Nimrod were re- moved from the throne by a dynasty of Arabians, who held it during a period of 215 years. The names of these invaders are preserved by the same author in the following order : The first was Mardocentes, who reigned 45 years, be- ginning in the year of the world 3001. The second is omitted in this catalogue ; his name and duration of his government having been lost. The third was Sisiraardacus, who reigned 28 years, be- ginning in the year of the world 3086. ^ii aTo rou (3 ir 0 f' ko/t/^ikoii itou;, luii rov y' xoff/juKou^ aTTo Js tou y a • xovfii- X.OU £ Tot/; S/£X=|avTo Tr,t XaXSa/iUV fiairiXiiav A^aSsg i'TTi iTn a i %'• (ictfi^ds «■• tut rou y (T I ■'■ »(i, '2o0. 52 CONNECTION OF SACRED QBoOK II. the throne of Chaldea by an Arabian family, of whom six had reigned before Babylonia was conquered by Ninus. This statement, he maintains, stands in opposition to all historical testimony both sacred and profane ; for as Ninus was the son of Nimrod, it is, says he, impossible to sup- pose that the former did not live until thirteen generations after the latter. But the learned author is too ingenuous and well-informed to deny that the catalogues transmitted to us by Africanus are to be found in other collections ; and, moreover, that the voice of antiquity is almost unani- mous in declaring that several dynasties had occupied the throne of Chaldea, before the epoch at which Ninus laid the foundations of Assyrian greatness. For these reasons, and particularly from the consideration of the long period which must have elapsed between the origin of society in the land of Shinar, and the age when powerful kingdoms were already established, great cities were built, and man- kind witnessed the pomp of courts, he finds himself com- pelled to allow that a long succession of princes may have ruled at Babylon before it submitted to the arms of Ninus. *' Africanus may be right," he concludes, (for I adopt with him the chronology of the Seventy) " in asserting that two different dynasties had reigned over Chaldea be- fore the time of Ninus ; but he is manifestly wrong in re- presenting the first of those two dynasties as descended from Nimrod."* It does not, therefore, admit of any reasonable contro- versy that Babylon was the seat of a royal government many years before the establishment of the Assyrian em- pire under Ninus. We are not, indeed, thence to infer that the prince now named was the first monarch of Assy- Origines, vol. i. p. 223, 221. Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. S3 ria, or that the country which was planted by Ashur had not, in the course of several centuries, attained to a consi- derable degree of power. But it seems, notwithstanding, perfectly clear, that, until Ninus extended his victorious arms into Babylonia, no paramount dominion was acknow- ledged in those extensive plains which are watered by the Euphrates and the Tigris. The land of Ashur and the land of Nimrod presented each a small kingdom, consist- ing, it is probable, of many tribes or families ; the heads of which had not yet resigned into the hand of the general sovereign the privileges of independent chiefs, and espe- cially the right of making peace and war whenever their particular interests might appear to be affected. But it would be in vain to conjecture what was the ac- tual situation of the community which was governed by the successors of Ashur at Nineveh during the period that the first Babylonian kingdom subsisted ; or even to at- tempt to discover the reasons why its name did not sooner emerge from that obscurity which covers the origin of na- tions. It has been supposed that it was placed under a species of political subjection to the ruler of Babylon, in which it continued till the time of Belus, the father of Ninus ; who, in the capacity of a provincial governor, is imagined to have first set the example of throwing off the allegiance which was due to the older settlement, and;, final- ly, to have asserted the independence of the Assyrian pro- vinces. On this account he has been esteemed by many writers as the most ancient monarch of Assyria ; the first , of the long line of kings which stretched down to the ex- tinction of the empire in the days of Sardanapalus.* " " Je ne crains pas d'avancer que les successeurs d'Assur sont demeures dans Tobscurite pendant plus de GOO ans. Bien loin de trouver dans les libres sacre's les moindres vestiges de leur pretendiie puissance, il n'est besoin 54 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book If. Although I have attempted to prove, that between Nim- rod and Ninus there was an interval of several centuries, and also that a number of kings reigned at Babylon before the Ass^'rian colonists obtained that ascendancy over their brethren in the south which has raised their name to the highest place in the annals of ancient Asia, I have not pre- sumed to determine the exact extent of that interval, nor the precise amount of the royal successions which filled it up. Some chronographers have laboured to establish the existence of the three dynasties which, on the authority of Africanus and Abydenus, have been mentioned with con- siderable minuteness in the foregoing pages ; while others, exercising a whimsical scepticism in regard to certain parts of ancient history, have pronounced the whole doubtful, and the last, in particular, namely, the dynasty of the Cuthite Belus, to be nothing better than an idle tale.* The existence of these dynasties is chiefly contested by those writers who follow the chronology of the modern Hebrew, which leaves no time between the accession of Nim- rod and the days of Abraham for an ancient Babylonian kingdom. But, on the other hand, the testimonies of re- spectable historians and chronologers in support of this fact are so numerous, that some of the most sceptical read- ers of Africanus and Polyhistor have been compelled to allow that the seat of government was originally placed at Babylon, and that many years elapsed before it was trans- ferred to Nineveh. Bishop Cumberland, for example, ad- ^ mits that the observations sent to Greece by Callisthenes prove at once the antiquity of the Assyrian empire, and que d'une mediocre attention pour y decouvrir que ces princes ont ete plu- sieurs siecles sans songer a faire des conquetes." — liccherchcs svr I'liistoire dc I'Assyrle. Par RI. VAhhi Seviii, Hist, dc VAcad. Roi/., vol. iii. p. 248. " Origines, vol. i. Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 55 also that Babylon was its first head. From the beginning of Nimrod's reign to the establishment of Nineveh, and the proper commencement of the Assyrian monarchy^ there was, according to this author, an interval of 185 years; a period not very different from the limits assigned by Polyhistor to the first dynasty of Chaldean sovereigns.* The Abbe Sevin, in his researches into the history of Assyria, agrees with Pezron and Jackson in admitting the statement of Polyhistor and of Julius Africanus respect- ing the Arabian dynasty at Babylon ; and although he adopts the common opinion, so resolutely opposed by the author of the Chronological Antiquities, that Belus, the head of the third race, was the father of Ninus, he never- theless gives the full weight of his authority in favour of those ancient writers who place, between Nimrod and the Assyrian conqueror just named, the reigns of several suc- cessive monarchs. Assuming that Belus was a descendant of Ashur, he remarks, that he was no sooner on the throne than he determined to recover the province of Babylon which Nimrod had taken away from his ancestors. After the death of that usurper, says he, sundry great revolutions had taken place in this state. The Arabs, in the last instance, had taken possession of it ; and, accord- ing to Polyhistor and Africanus, 200 years had already * " I think that the celestial Observations found in Babylon when it was taken by or surrendered to Alexander, which had been made from above 1900 years before his time, and cannot be presumed to be kept as public records before a inonarchy was founded, prove the antiquity of the Assyrian monarcliy, whereof Babylon was a part, and its first head, (See Genesis x. 10,) although, in later times, Nineveh grew to contest for superiority. The beginning of these Observations being 2480 of the Julian Period, that year Scaliger affirms from Callisthenes in Simplicius to be the first year of the eldest epocha of the Chaldeans, supposing their years to be Julian years. Hence to J. P. 26G5, where I place the beginning of Nineveh and the Assyrian monarchy, are 185 years for Ham, and Cush, and Nimrod in Babylon."— Oiiffincx Gentium Antij, Kara, a- tjjv BaSu- oix TO Tent it Toi; .tu,oi; xiv'Sutoj)/ aTiioa; i^itt, Tourot; fji.ii \~x%i nXliv kxt iti- aum uoiiruv/ou; tpaotu;, to* 0£ (oairiXia tmv KaTw^oXifirthtTut Xatut fiira rat rtx- tut a.i/;^fix\aTat xTixriiti—Diodor. S'lcul. lib. ii. c. 1. ■f Ctesias transcribed the materials of his Persic and Assyrian History from the Royal Archives, and finished his work in the 3d year of the 95th Olympiad, and in the year B. C. 398. — Dio. Sic. lib. ii. c. 32. 9 60 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. amounts to about 1300 years, or, according to the various readings of different copies of Diodorus, to 1360, and even to 1400 years and upwards. The number of the reigns, too, varies somewliat in the several authors who profess to follow Ctesias ; but upon comparing their state- ments, in connection with their respective systems of chro- nology, there is little doubt that the original transcript presented to the Greek historians a succession of 36 Assy- rian princes. The list is as follows : — 1. Ninus, - - - 52 2. Semiramis, - - 42 3. Ninyas, . - - 38 4. Arius, - - 30 5. Aralius, - - - 40 C. Xerxes or Bala?us, - - 30 7. Armanithres, - - - 38 8. Belochus, - - 35 9. Balffius, - - - 52 10. Sethos, Altadas, - . 35 11. Mamythus, ... 30 12. Ascalius or Mascaleus, - - 30 13. Sphaerus, - - - 28 14. Mamylus, - - 30 15. Sparthaeus, - - - 40 16. Ascatades, , - 42 17. Amyntes, - - - 50 18. Belochus, 2d, - - 25 19. Baletores or Baletaras, - - 34 20. Lamprides, - - 37 21. Sosares, - - - 20 22. Lampares, - - 30 23. Pcinyas, - - - 45 24. Sosarmus, - - 42 Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 61 25. Mithrsus, - - - 37 26. Teutamus or Tautanus, - 32 27. Teutaeus, - - - 44 28. Thineus, - - 30 29. Dercylus, - - - 40 30. Empaemes, - - S8 31. Laosthenes, - - 45 32. Pertiades, - - 30 33. Ophrataeus, - - - 21 34. Ephecheres, - - 52 35. Acraganes, - - - 42 36. Thonos Concolerus or Sardanapalus, 20 1305 This catalogue has not obtained all the confirmation that could be desired from the pages of Diodorus Siculus ; who, instead of transcribing the whole, satisfied himself with naming the first three, Ninus, Semiramis, and Ninjas, after which he passes on at once to Sardanapalus, the last in the series, as recorded by Ctesias. It is not necessary, says he, to repeat the names of kings, or to determine how long they reigned, when we know that they did not perform any thing which is worthy of being remembered.* The above list, therefore, rests on the authority of other writers who copied from Ctesias, soon after the period in which he flourished, and from whose works Africanus, Eusebius, and Syncellus, transferred this valuable relic of antiquity to their own pages. But Diodorus, although he did not, for the reasons Diodor. Skul. lib. ii. 22. 62 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. which he himself assigns, think it expedient to enter into particulars, has given both the number of the reigns and the total amount of their duration, as he found them re- corded in the volumes of the Greek physician. Having described the manner in which Ninyas passed his time, he remarks, that his successors for thirty generations lived in the same way ; the son receiving the government from the father down to the time of Sardanapalus ; in whose days the Assyrian empire was transferred to the Medes, after it had lasted 1360 years^ as Ctesias the Cnidian has re- lated in his second book.* It is remarkable that Syncellus in quoting this passage has 1300 instead of 1360, as the term of the Assyrian monarchy ; and in regard to the number of reigns or gene- rations, all his citations from the same author give 35 from Ninus to Sardanapalus. In reference to the latter of these sovereigns, the Sicilian historian is made to say : S«g^«»«5r- «Ao5 at TpiKKoa-rog xcct Tiif^Trros utto Ntvov cTnTUfAivav n^v yiyifiovixv, ia-^xroih yivofiivo? ^xeriXivi Aa-a-v^tav : that is, Sardanapalus Avas the thirty-fifth from Ninus, who founded the empire, and the last of the Assyrian kings.*f" And again : Tuvzx o A««^»goj TTSQt mi Tov 'Zet^axvXTrciXov KXTxa-T^o^m? , x.xi ort A i. xtto N5. Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTOllY. 63 the thirty-fifth from Ninus, whom he had formerly men- tioned to be the first king of the Assyrians.""* There are several other passages in Syncellus, extracted from Diodo- riis, which prove satisfactorily both that the chronogra- pher must have read a text of that author different from the present ; and also that the historian must have origi- nally agreed with the other transcribers of Ctesias in giv- ing 36 generations, and only a little more than 1300 years to the Assyrian empire, from Ninus to the catastrophe of the prince who is known by the double appellation of Thonos Concolerus and of Sardanapalus. Assuming the accuracy of these corrections, it remains that we apply the facts so as to ascertain whether the term of the Assyrian monarchy recorded by Ctesias will coincide with the interval between the two points which have been actually fixed on for its commencement and its termination. I shall begin with the scheme of Mr Jack- son, whose opinions are always founded on deep research, and generally supported by accurate reasoning. Following the authority of Ctesias and of Diodorus Si- culus, he adopts the sums which have been stated above, as well for the number and length of the reigns between Ninus and ConcoleruS;, as for the united amount of their duration ; namely, 36 for the former, and 1306 for the latter. But as Ninus, according to the historian of Cni- dus, began his government in the year 21S7 before the Christian era, the Assyrian monarchy must have been dissolved 821 years before the same epoch ; that is, says Jackson, about 110 years before the revolt of the Medes, the event which is commonly regarded as marking the end of the emp've which was founded by the son of Belus.-f* " Syncelli Chronographia, ubi supra. + The numbers here, having a reference to the Christian era, proceed 64 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. The same author maintains that, in the year 821 before Christ, there was no revolution or change whatever in the Assyrian government, which could give any countenance to the statement of Ctesias respecting its dissolution at that period ; on which account he brings down the reign of the 36th king to the year 710, when, and not before, he asserts, the Medes under their prefect Arbianes did throw off their allegiance. Now, if to 1306, the entire du- ration of the Assyrian empire, we add 710, the term of the Median revolt, it will follow that the reign of Ninus must be dated in the year B.C. 2016. If, again, to the sum now stated we annex 622, the amount of the three Babylonian dynasties which are supposed to have preced- ed the foundation of the Assyrian monarchy, we shall find that the beginning of Nimrod's kingdom, according to this author, must have taken place about 532 years after the Flood, and before the era of Redemption 2638. There is much appearance of truth and consistency in this scheme ; for not only do the particular numbers coin- cide with the intervals to which they are applied, but the total sum appears to extend exactly over the space which is occupied in history, both sacred and profane, by the two monarchies of Babylon and Assyria. The beginning of the former is not too early ; and the termination of the latter, as an empire, is not too late. But we must, nevertheless, advert to the fact, that Mr Jackson has fixed the commencement of the Assyrian power on the ground of his calculation relative to the dura- tion of the three dynasties which are supposed to have on the ground of Mr Jackson's chronological conclusions, that our Saviour was born in the year of the world 5426 ; but I may add that, with re- spect to all events after the foundation of Solomon's temple, the diflerence among chronographers is a mere trifle. Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 65 ruled at Babylon ; of which dynasties the existence was not known to Ctesias, and has been called in question by several authors in more modern times. This is not, there- fore, of itself a sufficient reason for postponing the rise of the Assyrian state, and the era of its celebrated founder. To be satisfied that the beginning is properly placed, we must have good ground for concurring with him in the epoch at which he brings it to a close.* That Ctesias was mistaken in supposing that the Assy- rian monarchy was finally dissolved, and the government of Asia transferred to the Medes, 821 years before the Chris- tian era, is, Jackson thinks, rendered perfectly clear by the testimony of the sacred Scriptures; where mention is made of several kings of Assyria who reigned over Media and Babylonia at a much later period. It is, therefore, al- most certain that the Medes, whom he describes as hav- ing ascended the throne of Concolerus, were not sove- reigns at all, either at Nineveh or in their own country; but were merely local governors, who on many occasions, in- deed, assumed the exercise of independent authority, and set the lord paramount at defiance. But this mistake, if it be one, does not necessarily overthrow the credibility of Ctesias as to the remote origin of the Assyrian empire ; and upon examining the arguments of Freret, which we are now about to examine, we shall perhaps discover that, in the history of Ninus's successors, there occurred more " " I have shown," says Mr Jackson, " that Ctesias placed Ninus too high by more than a hundred years : this is evident from the Chaldean re- cords of the years of the Bahylonian kings to the time that he conquered Ba- bylon. But Ctesias never saw the Chaldean annals, nor knew any thing of the times of their kings before Ninus ; on which account he was more liable to mistake in fixing the epoch of the Assyrian era. Yet his catalogue is of the greatest service as giving us the entire term of the Assyrian empire to the revolt of the Medes, which otherwise we could not have known."— Chronological Antiquities, vol. i. p. 281. VOL. II. E 66 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. than one event which might, even by a careful annal- ist, be regarded as a change of dynasty and an entire loss of power. The hypothesis of the learned academician just named rests almost entirely upon an observation quoted by Vel- leius from ^milius Sura, the author of a chronological work on Roman history ; who remarks that, between the beginning of the reign of Ninus and the conquest of Asia by Lucullus and Pompey, there elapsed 1905 years. The following are the terms in which this opinion is expressed. Assyrii principes omnium gentium rerum potiti sunt ; deinde Medi ; postea Persse ; deinde Macedones ; exinde duobus regibus Philippo et Antiocho, qui a Macedonibus oriimdi erant, haud multo post Carthaginem subactam, devictis, summa imperii ad Populum Romanum pervenit : inter hoc tempus et initium Nini regis Assyriorum, qui princeps rerum potitus, intersunt anni MDCCCCV.* It is admitted on all hands, that the Roman dominion in Asia was fully estabhshed in the 63d year before the common era of our faith ; hence, if we adopt the amend- ed reading of the fragment cited by Velleius, the reign of the first king of Assyria must have begun in the year B.C. 1968; this being the sum of the two numbers 1905 and 63, mentioned above, and which are made the basis of all the succeeding chronological computations. In applying the principles of his theory, the author, as it will appear, was gratified with some very striking results ; " The more common reading is 1995 ; but Freret, on the authority of Conringius, maintains that the editions wliich give 1905, have the support of the most approved manuscripts. La le^on de 1995 est celle de I'edition de Beaiiis Rlicnamis, faite sur mi Manuscrit de Velleius trouvc a Murbael en 1505, ou plutot sur la copie faite a la hate^ propcrantcr et infdlcUer, d'un flianuscrit tres-corrompu, tarn prodigiose corrnptutn nt omnia rcstiiuere nonforct humairi tiigcni't.—Epist. Bait. Rhcn. &c. cited by Freret. Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 67 which, if they do not carry complete conviction to the mind of the reader, prove, at least, that, in some cases, only a very little management is necessary to reconcile the most stubborn facts in ancient history. In the first place, assuming that Nineveh was destroy- ed by the Medes and Babylonians, in B.C. 608, when the Assyrian monarchy ceased to exist in name as well as in power, its duration from the time of Ninus will be found to amount to 1360 years ; the very period mentioned by Diodorus, as the result of the inquiries which were made by his predecessor Ctesias. The former of these his- torians, indeed, states, in a particular part of his work, that the interval now spoken of extended to more than 1400 years ; but it is probable that in this lengthened period he included the years of Belus, which, Julius Africanus informs us, amounted to not less than fifty -five.* It is well known, in the second place, that Castor, the Rhodian chronographer, assigns to the Assyrian empire not more than 1280 years ; reckoning from the first Ninus, the son and successor of Belus, down to another Ninus, who, according to him, ascended the throne after the death or deposition of Sardanapalus. If the number just stated be subtracted from 1968, the revolution or other political change alluded to by Castor, as the opening of a new era in the affairs of Assyria, must have occurred in the year 688 before the Christian era. Now, it is very remarkable that this is the very year in which, according to Herodotus, the empire of the Medes in upper Asia had its commencement. This historian relates that the Median supremacy lasted 128 years from its beginning in the time of Dejoces to its termination in the first year of " Syncelli Chronographia, p. 92. 68 CONNECTIO^f OF SACRED [Book II. Cyrus; ami as the Persian prince came to the throne in 560, the suhj ligation of Armenia, Cappadocia, and other parts of the Assyrian territory achieved by the arras of the first sovereign of Media, will fall in the year 688, as has been stated above.* < This conformity, says Freret, between the calculation of Castor and that of Herodotus, as it is too perfect to be attributed to chance alone, ought to be regarded as a strong voucher for the truth of the epoch given by iEmi- lius Sura, for the beginning of the Assyrian empire. It shows, at the same time, that Castor, who had consulted Herodotus, did not think that the 520 years mentioned by the latter writer as the limits of the Assyrian dominion in upper Asia, constituted the full duration of their mo- narchy. Had he understood the father of history as re- stricting the house of Ninus to so short a period, he him- self, it may be presumed, would not have extended the term of its duration to 1280 years ; without at least allud- ing to this difference in their opinions, and even assigning reasons for his preference of the higher antiquity which he had been led to adopt. In the third place, Velleius Paterculus allows only 1070 years as the full duration of the Assyrian empire.-f- If this term began in the year B.C. 1968, as all the other epochs, according to the hypothesis of Freret, are supposed to have begun, it must have ended in 898 ; and it is in this very year, says he, that we must place the revolt of * Herodot. lib. i. c. 101. t Insequenti tempore imperium Asiaticum ab Assyriis, qui id obtinuerant annis MLXX, translatum est ad Medos, abhinc annos ferine DCCLXX. Quippe Sardanapalum eonim regem mollitiis fluentem, et nimium felicem malo suo, tertio et tricesimo loco ab Nino et Semiramide qui Babylona con- diderant, natum, ita ut semper successor regni paterni foret filius, Arbaces Medus imperio vitaque privavit.— Fc//. Patcrcuhis, lib. i. c. G, CuAP. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. ^ the tributary countries from the Assyrian throne ; the taking of Nineveh by Arbaces ; and the death of Sardana- palus, the thirty-third king from Ninus. He attempts to illustrate this position as follows. Justin, the abbreviator of TrogusPompeius, relates, that the kingdom of the Medes, from Arbaces to Cyrus, con- tinued 350 years.* Julius Africanus limits its duration to 283 years, and Eusebius to 261. The calculation of Velleius would give 338, that is to say, 12 years less than Justin, and 19 less than would result from a computation founded on the length of the reigns as recorded by Hero- dotus. But at bottom, he adds, this difference is not at all important, because there is no fixed event in this portion of Assyrian chronology by means of which we can deter- mine the relative place of those other events which precede or follow ; and because it is probable that some of the au- thors, mentioned above, have counted jfrom the beginning of the war, and others of them from the end of it. A revo- lution such as that which happened at Nineveh in the time of Arbaces is an occurrence which must have required a certain space of time^ and might perhaps extend through a considerable number of years. We read in Eusebius, and in the compilation of Syncellus, that all chronogra- phers had agreed to place the revolt of Arbaces and the death of Sardanapalus under the administration of Ari- phron, the ninth perpetual archon at Athens. Eusebius dates the beginning of Ariphron's government 68 years before the olympiad of Corcebus, that is, in the year 845 * fll. Juniani Justini Historiarum ex Trogo Pompeio, lib. i. c. 7- In co proelio Astyages capitur : cui Cyrus nihil aliud quain regnum abstiilit; ne- potemque in illo magis quam victorem egit ; eunique maxima; genti Ilyrca- nonim pra;posuit. Nam in Medos reverti ipse noluit. Hie finis Mcdorum imperii fecit. Kegnaverunt annos CCCL. 70 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. before the vulgar Christian era ; Syncellus 75 before the same olympiad, or the year 852 ; and Julius Africanus places it 122 years before Coroebus, or in the year 899- According to the chronicle of Paros, as found in the Arundelian marbles, epoch 31, Pherecles, the predecessor of Ariphron, governed at Athens in the year 414 before the passage of Xerxes, or the year 894 before the Chris- tian era. Pherecles, Ariphron, Theispeus, and Agamestor were archons from that year down to the olympiad of Coroebus ; which, according to Eusebius and the precise calculation of the Parian chronicle, happened in the first year of the archonate of -^schylus. Thus we have 117 years for the government of these four magistrates. Euse- bius, it is true, gives only 87 years, while Syncellus does not reckon it more than 94 ; but, at all events, M. Freret is convinced that the time of Ariphron, or the epoch of the revolt under Arbaces, could not be far dis- tant from the year 898, in which it falls by the calculation of Velleius. Ctesias, Castor, and Velleius Paterculus are of one mind in beginning the Assyrian empire with the reign of Ninus ; and if they differ as to the duration which they respectively assign to that monarchy ; if Ctesias gives 1360 years, Castor 1280, and Velleius only 1070 ; this discre- pancy must arise from the circumstance, that they do not end their catalogue of reigns with the same prince ; or, in other words, they do not agree in regard to the particular revolution which terminated the imperial authority in the hands of the Assyrians. Ctesias counted forty kings, as appears by the canon of Julius Africanus ; Castor reckon- ed thirty-six ; and Eusebius, who professes to follow Cas- tor, gave the same number. Velleius confines the list to thirty-three; hence it is manifest that, though they all end the list of Assyrian kings with a prince named Sarda- Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. Tl" napalus, they give this appellation to at least two different princes. The Sardanapalus of Castor coiild not be the Sardanapalus of Ctesias^, because, after the former, it is acknowledged, that there were kings at Nineveh ; whereas the death of the latter was followed by the complete sub- version of the empire, the destruction of the city, and the dispersion of the inhabitants over Media and Mesopota- mia.* ' ;*jL'!«- The conclusion of the argument I prefer to give in the author's own words : Quand meme Texistence de ces trois Sardanapales ne seroit pas etablie sur les preuves que je vais rapporter, c'est un moyen si aise de concilier des anciens chronologistes, et ces trois princes de meme nom sont une consequence si naturelle des trois difFerens cal- culs, que je ne puis concevoir comment les critiques qui ont enterpris d'eclaircir I'histoire d'Assyrie, n'ont pas eu recours a cette hypothese qui accorde tout. EUe est in- finiment plus simple que celle qu'ils ont fait des deux em- pires Assyriens consecutifs, le premier ayant dure pendant un tems considerable ; mais qu'ils allongent ou qu'ils ac- courcissent selon que leur systeme le demande. lis n'ont en cette occasion aucun egard pour les temoignages des " It does not appear that Ctesias himself introduced forty kings into the list of Assyrian successions from Ninus to Sardanapalus. This addition ap- pears either to have been the work of Afticanus or Syncellus ; who, finding the names of four or five princes who belonged to the third dynasty of Ba- bylonians before the days of Ninus, and not being aware that a third race of sovereigns had succeeded the Arabians at Babylon prior to the rise of the Assyrian monarchy, they contrived to insert them into the catalogue furnish- ed by Ctesias of sovereigns who had reigned at Nineveh. It is remarkable, that the names of the additional kings, as given by Africanus and Syncellus, are precisely the names of those who, according to Abydenus and Maribas, succeeded Belus, the head of the third dynasty at Babylon, many years be- fore Ninus was born. This, I need not add, is one of the instances where the correction of an error not only establishes truth in the particular case to which it is applietl, but also confirms the veracity of the historian in other parts of his narrative. 72 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. Anciens, dont, suivant leur methode ordinaire, ils recoi- vent une partie, tandis qu'ils rejettent Tautre, sans penser que ces temoignages ne peuvent etre devises sans etre de- truits. Ils font commencer le second empire par un Ni- nus deraeme que le premier, et fontaussifinir Tun et Tau- tre par un Sardanapale, mais sans rapporter aucunes des preuves que nous fournit I'antiquite, qu'il y a eu pleusieurs des rois d'Assyrie ausquels on a donne ce nom.* We cannot at present follow the ingenious author in his proofs for the existence of three Assyrian kings who bore the common name of Sardanapalus. That there were at least two princes of the house of Ninus who are known to history under this appellation cannot be doubted ; while there is equal reason to believe that several of the chrono- logical inaccuracies which continue to perplex the readers of Herodotus, Diodorus, Justin, and Paterculus, may be justly referred to this extension of a term, which was per- haps, after all, more applicable to official station, than to the person of any individual sovereign. It is enough for the ob- ject now more especially under our consideration, that we note the general results of M. Freret"'s computation ; namely, that in the years B. C. 608, 688, and 898 certain events took place in the Assyrian government, which so much weakened its power among the vassal and tributary nations, as to induce different historians to fix upon those several periods as the termination of its paramount or im- perial dominion. Velleius, according to this hypothesis, must have thought that the Assyrian empire ceased to exist about the year 898 ; Castor in the year 688 ; and Ctesiasintheyear 608, before the revelation of Christiani- ty : and it will be found, that, if these numbers are added * Histoire de TAcademie Royale des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, vol. v. p. 375. Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 73 to 1070, 1280, and 1360 respectively, the common sum in all the three cases will amount to 1968 ; the point on which M. Freret has fixed for the beginning of the reign of Ninus. So far there is a remarkable appearance of consistency and truth in the speculations of the learned Frenchman. It is, moreover, worthy of remark, that the period determin- ed by him for the reign of Ninus falls within the age of the patriarch Abraham ; and it is well known that the ancient chronographers were nearly unanimous in their opinion that the son of Terah and the successor of Belus at Nine- veh were contemporaries. According to the genealogical tables of the Septuagint, Abraham was born 1072 years after the Flood ; and as his life extended to 175 years, he died in the year 1247 of the same era ; that is, in the year of the world 3503, and before the birth of Christ 1938.* As Ninus ascended the throne in B. C. 1968, he must have spent thirty years in the days of the patriarch ; and as the term of his government is usually reckoned at 52 years, it follows that he did not live more than two and twenty after the decease of the father of believers. Thus we find that the conditions of the problem corre- spond very well with the facts which it was meant to explain. But it may be said that, when we look more narrowly into the historical works whence the materials of the hypothe- sis are extracted, we discover certain particulars mentioned by their authors, the import of which has not been suffi- ciently weighed by this modern chronologer. For example, Velleius Paterculus states, not only that the Assyrian em- pire had lasted IO7O years from Ninus to Sardanapalus, but also that the revolt of Arbaces, and the change of • Genesis xxv, 7- 74 CONNECTION OF SACRED [BoOK II. dynasty which, as he supposed, immediately followed, took place about 770 years before his own time ; abhinc annos ferme DCCLXX.* Velleius, as he himself informs us, wrote in the consulship of Vinicius, about the thirty-second year of the Christian era ; whence the conclusion is obvi- ous, that, agreeably to the views of this historian, Sardana- palus must have been dethroned 738 years before that era commenced. It is in vain to allege that the text has been vitiated ; for as there is no variety in the reading of the passage, and as no other dates are mentioned upon which an alteration of it might be supported, no chronographer can be allowed to introduce a hypothetical emendation merely to suit the exigencies of his system. No one can have read the short history of Velleius with- out anticipating the objection which has just been stated ; and it must be acknowledged that no degree of ingenuity can entirely remove the obstacle which it presents to a full and unreserved adoption of the chronological scheme with which it is here connected. M. Freret, indeed, exerts himself with considerable success to weaken, at least, the force of the argument which he was aware might be urged against his theory, from the above observation on the part of the Roman annalist. He insists on the great probability that Paterculus gave an earlier date to the re- volt of Arbaces, because in his narrative he places it be- fore other occurrences which are known to have come to pass at a remoter period than B.C. 738. It is not likely, for instance, that Velleius, in a chronological list, would relate an event of the year 770, before he mentioned the foundation of Carthage, which, according to him, took place in 867 ; or before the establishment of the Olympic games by Iphitus, Veil, Pater. Hist. lib. i. c. 6. Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. ^ in 833 ; or before the administration of Lycurgus, the Bcttlc- ment of Caranus in Macedonia, the foundation of Capua, and the publication of Hesiod's poems, all of which occur- red about 830. Even the first olympiad of Coroebus in 804, and the building of Rome in 782, which, in point of time, stand before the date assigned to the revolt of Arbaces, are by Velleius recorded in a later part of his narra- tive. The epoch which he mentions immediately before the subversion of the Assyrian empire is the age of Homer, in 950 ; and the event which, in the chronological canon, follows next after the notice respecting that monar- chy, is the foundation of Carthage in 867 ; hence M. Freret suggests that the revolt of Arbaces probably took place between these two points, and that it was originally so recorded by the Roman historian.* No one will deny that there is much show of reason in these observations. If Velleius did not intend to set at defiance all the ordinary rules of composition, we cannot but suppose that, in an outline of ancient history, he must have arranged the events which he records in strict chronolo- gical order. We should do very little justice, indeed, to his skill as an author, were we to believe that, immediately after narrating an event belonging to the year 950 before the consulship of Vinicius, he proceeded to describe an occurrence which fell out in the year 770, and then re- turned to relate an incident under the year 867."f' " All the above dates bear a reference to the consulship of Vinicius ; wherefore, to reduce them to the Christian era, it will be necessary in every case to subtract 30 or 32. •\- The words of Velleius are these : Hie (Homerus) longius a temporibus belli, quod composuit, Troici, quam quidam rentur, abfuit Nam ferme ante annos DCCCCL floruit, intra mille natus est. Quo nomine non est mirandum quod saepe illud usurpat, iwi vuv (i^oroi tun. Inseqiicnti tempore, imperium Asiaticum ab Assyriis qui id obtinuerant annis MLXX, translatum est ad Mcdos, abhinc annos ferme DCCLXX. Ea jetate clarissimus Graii 76 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. It may, indeed, be urged in reply, that the ancient his- torians paid less regard than the moderns to chronological accuracy and the advantages of a lucid arrangement. But we find that Velleius Paterculus, in the passage which is here quoted from his work, does, in all the other things which he mentions, adhere rigidly to the sequence of events. For example, he refers to the legislature of Lycurgus before he alludes to the foundation of Carthage, and we know that the latter was several years more recent than the former.* nominis Lycurgus Lacedcemonius, vir generis regii, &c. Hoc tractu tem- porum, ante annos quinque et sexaginta quam urbs Romana conderetur, ab Elissa Tyria, quam quidam Dido autumant, Carthago conditur. Circa quod tempus Caranus sextus decimus ab Hercule, profectus Argis, regnum Mace- doniae occupavit. Hujus temporibus jequalis Hesiodus fuit, circa CXX an- nos distinctus ab Homeri aetate, Quidam, hujus temporis tractu, aiunt a Tuscis Capuam, Nolamque conditam, ante annos fere DCCCXX. — Hist- lib. i. c. 5, 6. On this quotation, Freret remarks : " La date qui est marquee par Vel- leius pour la fin des 1070 ans de Tempire des Assyriens sur la haute Asie, et pour le temps de la revolte des Bledes sous Pharnaces (Arbaces) me paroit fautive ; car elle est posterieure aux sept dates qui sont donnees ensuite. II n'est pas vraisemblable que Velleius dans un canon chronologique, eut rapporte un evenement de I'annee 770 avant d'autres evenements qui etoient anterieurs a cette annee, s^avoir, la fondation de Carthage. — Hist, de VAcad. Jtoyak, vol. v. p. 369. • Lycurgus and Iphitus, who were contemporaries, are commonly sup- posed to have instituted the Olympic games 108 years before the period to which the Olympiads could be regularly traced. This was 77C before Christ, when Coroebus won in the foot-race. The era of Lycurgus, therefore, accord- ing to this rough computation, is 884. — See Gillies'' Greece, vol. i. p. 115. Edit. 1820. — " Lycurgus, the celebrated lawgiver of Sparta, flourished, ac- cording to the most judicious modern chronologers, about 898 years before the Christian era." — Biog. Diet. vol. xxi. p. 3. I have taken some pains to determine the time when Lycurgus flourished, because M. Freret, who brings it down to 800 years B. C, materially weak- ens his own argument, so far as it depends upon the chronological accuracy of Velleius, by making that author introduce a later event before a more re- mote one, in his retrospect of ancient history. The Roman annalist intro- duces the administration of Lycurgus before the foundation of Carthage ; in which arrangement he is perfectly correct : whereas I\I. Freret, contrary to the opinions of the most judicious modern chronologers, as Mr Chalmers describes them, represents the foundation of Carthage as more ancient than Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 17 For these reasons I am satisfied that Sir W. Drum- moiid has not paid to the chronological scheme of M, Freret the full attention to which it is entitled. He de- clares that he cannot understand it ; and even that the views which it embraces do not appear to be of any importance. He makes no allowance for the various reading which gives 1905 instead of 1995 ; and as to ^Emilius Sura himself, the author cited by Velleius Patcrculus, he hardly conde- scends to recognize his existence. " Who was iEmilius Sura.'' It is more than suspected that the passage in question is an interpolation ; and even if it were not, no- thing can be obtained from it. An author, whose name occurs nowhere but in the 21st page of Velleius Patercu- lus, tells us that the Assyrians, Medes, Persians, and Macedonians, had been the masters of Asia during 1995 years, until that country was conquered by the Romans. The witness is unknown and the evidence is vague. I can attach no value to the testimony of jEmilius Sura !"* The opinions of critics, in respect to the authenticity of the passage in question, have, no doubt, been very vari- ous, and upon the whole, perhaps, not very favourable to the conclusions of Freret. But the obscurity of an author, considered by itself, is assuredly no good ground for rejecting his testimony, or for pronouncing it a fiction ; and, moreover, in a philological inquiry, where we find such scholars as Scaliger, Vossius, and Boxhorn, satisfied with the integrity of the text and the fidelity of the re- ference, we must not be hasty in coming to an opposite decision. -[• the days of the Spartan lawgiver. He dates the labours of Dido in B. C. 837, while he places those of Lycurgus in the year B. C. 884. * Origines, vol. i. p. 243. + III my copy of Velleius Paterculus (Argentorati 1811,) containing the Annotations of Ruhnkenius and Krausius, there is the following remark on 78 CONNECTION OF SACRED {^BoOK II. The three epochs comprehended in the hypothesis of Freret proceed, as I have already remarked, on the suppo- sition that there occurred, in the history of the Assyrian monarchy, three great pohtical events, which made such an impression on the power of the state, as well as on the dynasty of her ancient sovereigns, as appeared, in the eyes of certain chronographers, to be equivalent to a com- plete dissolution of the empire. That such events did take place at different times, is rendered manifest by the several eras assigned by historians, for the termination of the paramount dominion which was founded in Asia dur- ing the reign of Ninus. The imperial government, it is well known, ceased many years before the final extinction of the monarchy which was effected by the victories of Cyaxares ; and hence, as there was great room for a difference of opinion as to the exact period when the court of Nineveh could no longer command the obedience of her vassal and tributary subjects, we ought not to be sur- prised that chronologers are not of one mind, in regard to the date of the particular insurrection by which that change was most fully accomplished. The same uncertainty extends to the names of the kings in whose reigns the crown of Assyria was succes- sively deprived of its lustre ; for as the decline of her poli- tical authority appears to have been gradual, and to have the quotation from Sura: — " Quae ab aliena manu in Velleii contextum venisse, nemo fuit inter eruditos qui dubitaret, prseter Scaligerum, Vossium, et Boxhornium ; nisi quod nonnulli ultima verba Inter hoc tenipits, &c. per- peram Velleio tribuerunt. Jam Rhenanus, teste Boeclero, ea uncis inclusit ; Acidalius vero e textu suo ejecit. Neque yEmilium Suram quisquam novit. Manilium Suram laudat Plinius Hist. Nat. lib. i. inter auctores unde pro- fecit, p. 211. The author referred to by Pliny is, in the Basle edition of 1549, written Manlhis Sura, not Blanilius ; but, considering the numerous errors attribu- table to the carelessness of copiers, it is not improbable that the three names may be given to one and the same writer. Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 79 been brought about by the repeated efforts of the con- quered states to recover their independence, the name of one unfortunate prince seems to have attached to the evil destiny of another. That there were more than one who bore the appellation of Sardanapalus, admits not of any doubt : and Callisthenes, in his history of Persia, acknow- ledges that there were two ; the one courageous and ac- tive, the other soft and effeminate.* Clitarchus, again, in his biography of Alexander, relates that Sardanapalus, after having been expelled from his throne, died of old age, — a description which does not apply to the Sardana- palus of whom Ctesias and Diodorus write, since the latter perished in the conflagration of his palace.-}* Even the tombs, it is thought, of these two monarchs have been discovered in different parts of Asia ; one in Cilicia, not far from Anchiale and Tarsus, cities which the unhappy tyrant boasted he had built in one day ; another, if any reliance may be placed on tradition, near the gates of Nineveh, which its feeble and effeminate master was not able to defend. But we cannot pursue this argument to any greater length. The reader, who is desirous to see all that can be said in support of an hypothesis which has been maintained with much ability, and assailed with not less wit and learning, will find his labour amply remu- nerated in the pages of M. Freret. Before we proceed to the more diffuse and elaborate reasoning of Hales, I shall state in a few words the opinions of Sir W. Drummond and of Mr Faber, rela- tive to the duration of the Assyrian empire. The former computes that, from the reign of Belus to the birth of Christ, there passed 1923 years ; but as he • Lib. ii. Persicorum, apud Suidam, voc. 'Sa^'SavaTaXts- •j- Lib. iv. apud Athenaeum, c. 7- 80 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. assigns 72 years to the administration of that prince, the interval which elapsed between the accession of Ninus and the supposed capture of Nineveh by Arbaces, amounts to 1104 years. This period, if divided into 33 reigns, will give on the average thirty-three years and six months to each, — a result which accords very well with the usual estimates of human life, when measured by successions from father to son. " I cannot," says he, " consent to exclude the reign of Belus in estimating the duration of the Assyrian empire. It remains, however, for the reader to decide for himself what may have been the length of the period which elapsed from the epoch when this mo- narch mounted the throne, to the death of Sardanapalus."* Mr Faber, as has been observed in a former section, re- jects the ancient Babylonian monarchy, which is supposed to have existed before the era of Ninus ; carrying back the commencement of the proper Assyrian empire to the days of Nimrod, who laid the first foundation of it at Babel. He adds, of course, to the thirty-six kings which are found in the dynasty of Ctesias, the seven princes mentioned by Polyhistor as belonging to the oldest race of Babylonian rulers ; and who, according to this writer, oc- cupied the government during the space of 190 years. Proceeding still farther on the ground supplied by the physician of Artaxerxes, and, assuming the accuracy of the period assigned to the long line of Ninevite sovereigns, he comes to the conclusion, that 1495 years, the sum of the two numbers 190 and 1305, composed the total duration of the Assyrian empire from Nimrod to Thonos Concolerus.-f* • Origines, vol. i. p. 284. f " If we add together 100 years, or the length of the earliest Iranian dynasty, and 1305, or the length of the second Iranian dynasty, we shall have the gross sum of 1495 years for the entire duration of the great Iranian empire, from its foundation by Nimrod, to its dissolution under Thonos Con- 9 Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 81 I take no notice at present of Mr Faber's hypothesis, by means of which he contrives to identify the Scythian, the Iranian^ and the Assyrian empires ; or rather, I should say, to apply these three epithets to one and the same an- cient monarchy. Whether he has not founded more on a single expression of Justin than the general narrative of that author will bear, must appear extremely doubtful to those who are accustomed to modify their reflections on ancient history by a regard to what is probable, as well as by a critical examination of authentic records.* It is clear, at all events, that he has drawn from the words of the historian a meaning which the latter never entertained, and which, at the same time, is directly at variance as well with the context as with the literal import of the particular terms which he employs. The abbreviator of Trogus Pompeius, there can be no doubt, believed that, prior to the brilliant reign of Ninus over the Assyrians, a Scythic government had existed in Asia during fifteen hundred years ; and it is obviously impossible to reconcile the statement of Justin with the lists of Ctesias and the colerus about the middle of the ninth century before Christ." — Origin of Pagan Idolatry, vol. iii. p. 397- " Justin, in the third chapter of his second book, remarks, that Asia was tributary to the Scythians fifteen hundred years ; and that Ninus, the king of the Assyrians, was the first who put an end to the paying of tri- bute. His igitur Asia per viille quingeiitos annos vectigalis fuit. Pendendi trihuUimfinem Ninus Rex Assyriorum imposuit. It is perfectly clear that the Ninus mentioned by Justin was the son of Belus and husband of Semiramis, for he informs us that it is the same war- rior who subdued all the people of the East, and finally attacked Zoroaster, the magician king of Bactria. (See book i. chapter 1.) Hoc occiso, et ipse (Ninus) dccessit, relicio impubere adhuc fiUo Ninya, et uxore Semiramide. Mr Faber himself is compelled to acknowledge that "Justin, by mistaking the third Ninus for the second, assigns to the dynasty founded by the third a duration which truly belongs to the dynasty founded by the second. In other words, he reckons the thirteen centuries twice over ; and by this error apparently throws back the rise of the Scythian empire to an epoch before the deluge." — Origin of Pagan Idolatry, vol. iii. p. 401. VOL. II. F 82 CONNECTION OF SACIIED [Book II. narrative of Diodorus Siculus, without making such altera- tions in the text of the Roman author as would amount to a full impeachment either of his knowledge or his veracity. But, returning to the subject more immediately before us, we have to observe, that, as Mr Faber places the dis- solution of the Assyrian empire in the year B.C. 830, the beginning of it must be dated in B.C. 2325, that being the sum of 830 and of 1495, the computed duration of the two dynasties mentioned respectively by Polyhistor and by Ctesias, " The era of its commencement,'" says he, " will be the year A.C. 2325, which coincides, ac- cording to the Samaritan chronology, with the year 613 after the deluge ; for as Abraham died in the year A.C. 1821, and as Peleg died 477 years earlier, Peleg must have died in the year A.C. 229S ; and 27 years, added to 2298, will thus give the year A.C. 2325, for the com- mencement of the Cuthic empire at Babel. We had," he continues, " previously found, on the authority of the Sa- maritan chronology, that the Cuthic empire must have com- menced somewhere between the years 559 and 640 after the deluge : and we now, lastly, find, in exact accordance with the excellent table of descents exhibited in that chro- nology, that a calculation deduced from the year A.C. 830, which must have been very nearly the time when the Cuthic empire was dissolved, and conducted through a long period independently ascribed by pagan history to the duration of that empire, brings us to the year 613 after the deluge ; which is precisely about the time, in or- der to make Scripture consistent with itself, that the Cu- thic empire of Nimrod must have commenced at Babel, where, we are told, it did commence, in the heart of Iran."* Origin of Pagan Idolatry, vol. iii. p. 420. Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY, 83 To find the accession of Ninus we have only to subtract 190 from 2325, and the remainder 2135, reckoning back- ward from the birth of Christ, will give the year when, according to Mr Faber, the dynasty recorded by Ctesias began to supply sovereigns to the throne of Nineveh. But this result, it is obvious, does not coincide with the opinion of those more ancient authors who inform us that Abraham and Ninus were contemporaries. On the con- trary, it carries back the era of the first Assyrian mo- narch nearly 300 years farther than that of the patriarch ; and thereby creates a difficulty which does not attach to the systems of Freret, Jackson, or of Sir William Drum- mond. The weight of the objection founded on this cir- cumstance will be taken into consideration afterwards ; mean time let us go on to examine the leading principles of the chronological scheme proposed by Dr Hales, for ex- plaining the history and duration of the empire of As- syria. The industrious author of the New Analysis of Chro- nology entertained the opinion that Nimrod began to rule in the year B.C. 2554, or 601 after the Flood ; and that Babylon was founded in the seventh year of his reign, or in the year B.C. 2547.* The first monarch was succeeded by six others, apparently of the same lineage, whose united reigns amount to 317 years. After this dynasty was exhausted, a long interregnum of about a thousand years succeeded; during which the Assyrian monarchy is understood to have been dissolved, and the dominion of Asia to have passed into the hands of the Persians. " Of Nimrod's immediate successors,'"" says Dr Hales, " history * The reader may perhaps require to be remindetl, that, according to Hales, the first year of the Christian era fell in the year of the world 5411, and 3 \ 50 years after the epoch of the Flood. 84 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. has preserved no other account than that Abius, the fifth in the series, made a predatory excursion of three bands into the land of Uz, and carried off Job's camels, and slew his servants. This achievement took place in the year B.C. 2237."* The dissolution of the ancient Assyrian empire is proved^ this author imagines;, by the war in which Abraham displayed his zeal and courage ; " for," says he, " though the king of Shinar is named first in the list on account of the priority of his kingdom, it is evident the king of Elam or Persia was the head of the confederacy ; and that, at that date, the sceptre had departed from Assyria to Persia.""!" The interregnum which began in the year B.C. 2237 ended in B.C. 1252 ; when the Assyrian monarchy re- commenced with Mithrasus, the twenty-fifth sovereign in the list of Ctesias. Dr Hales accuses the physician of Cnidus of having fabricated a catalogue of 36 kings, of whom only the last twelve are admitted to have reigned at Nineveh. " The first twenty-four reigns of Ctesias," he asserts, " are not true ; for they encroach on the first Assy- rian interregnum, and the first Persian dynasty. The last twelve reigns will be found fully sufficient for the du- ration of the second Assyrian dynasty.":}: The twelve kings, from Mithraeus to Thonos Concolerus, occupy a period of 341 years ; the entire dynasty ending in the year B.C. 821. The third race of Assyrian princes is that which is made known to us in Holy Scripture; be- ginning with the king of Nineveh, to whom Jonah was commissioned, and terminating with Serac or Sardana- * New Analysis of Chronology, vol. iii. p. 22, 23. f Ibid. vol. iii. 28. X Ibid. vol. iii. p. 62, 53. Chap. I.] AND PROF AN f: HISTORY. 85 palus, 606 years before the era of human redemption. The catalogue is as follows : — B.C. 1. King of Nineveh, (name not recorded) - 821 2. Pul or Belus II., - - 790 3. Tiglathpileser, - - 747 4. Shalmanasar, - - 726 5. Sennacherib, - - 714 6. Esarhaddon, Asaradin, or Sardanapalus I. 710 7. Ninus III. . - 667 8. Nabuchodonosor, - - 658 9. Serac, or Sardanapalus II. - 636 Nineveh taken 606 Dr Hales draws proof in support of his system from the facts and testimony which I am now about to copy. In the first place, Herodotus states, " that the Assyrians held the sovereignty of all Upper Asia not more than 520 years before the defection of the Medes."* But the Medes revolted, says the learned doctor, B.C. 710, and counting backwards from thence 520 years, we get the commencement of the Assyrian dominion B.C. 1230. 2. " Appian says that the Assyrians, Medes, and Per- sians, successively ruled Asia 900 years. But the Per- sian empire ended with the death of the last Darius B.C. 330, from which, counting backwards 900 years, we get the commencement of the Assyrian dominion B.C. 1230, as before. 3. " The history also furnishes internal evidence in favour of the shorter account. By a gross blunder, arising • Book i. c. 95. 86 CONNECTION OF SACRED CBooK II. from ignorance of Oriental languages, Diodorus and Jus- tin confound mi-a Ninuah or Nivsun, ' the city of NiiC or Ninus, with his supposed son Ninuas or Ninyas ; and his wife Semiramis, with her namesake the wife or mother of Nabonassar, who really walled Babylon, about B.C. 747, as we learn from Herodotus. 4. "Justin confesses that Ninus lived after Sesostris, the famous Egyptian king, whom he calls Vexoris^ and after Tanaus, king of Scythia. But Sesostris began to reign B.C. 1308 ; and in the course of his nine years' ex- pedition, invaded Libya, southwards ; Asia, including Assyria, eastwards ; and advanced as far as Scythia north- wards, and returned home about B.C. 1299, after having been checked, or perhaps defeated, by Tanaus, the sixth king of Scythia, in Pontus. '* The accession, therefore, of the twenty-fifth Assyrian king in the list of Ctesias, called Mithrseus, B.C. 1252, critically corresponds in time to Ninus the second. For Ninus might have finished his conqviests B.C. 1230, ac- cording to Herodotus and Appian, in the twenty-second year of his reign according to Ctesias. " Instead of the second anachronous reign of Semira- mis in Diodorus and Justin, here follows the twenty-sixth in Ctesias, namely, Teutamus, who reigned during the Trojan war, till the destruction of Troy B.C. 1183. But, according to Diodorus, he sent the son of Tithonus, then prefect of Persia, Memnon, with an army of 20,000 foot and 200 chariots to the assistance of his vassal Priam in this war ; in which Memnon signalized his valour against the Greeks, until he was surprised and slain by the Thes- salians, when the Ethiopians rescued his body, and carried his ashes to his father Tithonus.* • Dioilor, Sicul. lib. ii, c. 0, Chap. I,] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 87 *' Laosthenes, also, the thirty-first in the Ust, was reign- ing 165 years after the destruction of Troy, or in B.C. 1018.* But this was actually the thirteenth year of his reign by the table.-f- ' ' ' " Such remote and incidental coincidences of sacred and profane history and chronology are highly curious and valuable. They tend strongly to corroborate the validity of the present adjustment by the harmony and consistency of the parts, without altering the original documents, but only omitting such as are proved to be superfluous or unsound. " Thonos Concolerus, the last in the list of Ctesias, has been injudiciously confounded either with Sarac, the last Sardanapalus, who perished in the overthrow of Nineveh B.C. 606 ; or else with Esarhaddon, the former Sardana- palus, who began to reign when the Medes revolted B.C. 710. But the end of the reign of Thonos, B.C. 812, (821 :j:) according to Ctesias, so long before either of these • Cyril, cont. Julian, p. 11. •|- As this Table may be referred to again, it may prove convenient to have it inserted. Years. B.C. 25. MithrfEus or Ninus II. . 37 1252 26. Tautanes or Teutamus, . 32 1215 27. Teutaeus, . 44 1183 28, ThinjEus, . 30 1139 29. Dercylus, . 40 1109 30. Eupalis or Eupachmes, - 38 10G9 31. Laosthenes, . 45 1031 32. Pertiades, . 30 986 33. OphratcBus, - 21 956 34. Epecheres or Ofratanes, - 52 935 35. Acraganes or Acrazapes, . 42 883 36. Thonos Concolerus, . 20 841 End of dynasty 821 '\. Dr Hales's volumes arc exceedingly ill printed : the errata extend to 24 pages in the smallest letter ; and if he had inserted all the necessary cor- rections, they would have occupied half as many pages more. 88 CONNECTION OF SACRED [BoOK II. princes, cannot possibly agree to either. It does, how- ever, critically correspond to the commencement of the third and last Scripture dynasty; beginning with that king of Nineveh who reigned in the time of the prophecy of Jonah.* The first remark which suggests itself upon examining this section of Dr Hales's chronological system, respects the apparent caprice of the author in admitting one part of the ancient catalogue of Assyrian kings as authentic, and rejecting the rest as a gross fabrication. The last twelve raonarchs, for example, are adopted by him from the list of Ctesias, while the whole twenty-four who precede them are entirely expunged from the record. Nor will the attentive reader be satisfied with the reason upon which he founds this distinction, in as much as the history of Persia, to which he gives the preference, is not less obscure than that of Assyria, and even more perplexed by the ignorance and vanity of her antiquaries. Sir William Jones, no doubts learned from intelligent missionaries in India, that a powerful monarchy had been established for ages in Iran before the accession of Cayu- mers ; that it was called the Mahabadean dynasty, and that many princes, and among them Mahabul or Maha- Beli, had raised their empire to the zenith of human glory.-f- But we know, at the same time, the authority upon which this opinion rests ; that, namely, of the Da- bistan, the work of a recluse who lived in the latter part of the seventeenth century. Of this singular composition I shall have occasion to speak afterwards ; mean time, it may be sufficient to remark, that the facts which it pro- • New Analysis of Chronology, vol. iii. p. 55, 5G, 57- •)- Sixth Discourse on the Persians, Works of Sir William Jones, vol, iii. p. 108. 8vo edit. Chap. L] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 89 fesses to embrace, and the chronological assumptions on which the narrative proceeds, appeared to Sir John Mal- colm, the latest historian of Persia, so entirely destitute of foundation, as to be viewed in no other light than that of an allegorical fiction.* Besides, if any credit is to be given to the positions which Shaik Mahomed Mohsin en- deavours to establish, we must believe that the empire of Iran extended not only over Asia westward of the Indus, but even over all the rich provinces which are situated be- tween that river and the frontiers of China.-|* It cannot, therefore, be without considerable hesitation that an in- telligent reader accedes to the scheme of Dr Hales ; who, on such an authority as that now mentioned, transfers the sceptre of western Asia from the Assyrians to the Per- sians, and thereby opposes himself to the testimony and judgment of the most enlightened portion of antiquity. It will not be denied, that, as the Assyrians and Per- sians were under one dynasty of sovereigns, whose lineage and country have not been precisely ascertained, the latter might, without any impropriety, claim to themselves the honour of being the dominant state, and even associate the designation of the general government with the name of their particular country. On this principle, it signifies not greatly whether we assign to that primaeval empire the epi- • History of Persia, vol. i. p. 182. " The extravagant number of years assigned to the dynasties, and tlie character of the few events that are re- corded, make us suspect," says Sir William Jones, " that the historical part of this work is a mere fable, allusive to the early condition of mankind." + " There appears throughout the whole of this branch of his subject a great desire to connect the ancient history of the Persians and of the Hin- doos. The fourteen Mahalads are evidently the fourteen Menus of the latter nation ; and the division which the first of that race made of the inhabitants into four casts, seems to be a transcript, even to the names, of the Hindoo tradition of the first establishment of that celebrated institution in India." — History of Persia, as cited above. 90 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. tliet Iranian or Assyrian, or whether we even adopt the notion of Mr Faber, and call it Scuthic or Scythian. But it seems absurd, in the extreme, to maintain that an an- cient empire must have been dissolved, merely because we find, in a modern compilation, which does not rise above the rank of a monkish legend, that national vanity has, in a particular instance, sought its usual gratification by con- necting its name and power with the history of a royal house. Nor does this weak argument derive any confirmation from the state of society in the days of Abraham. The victory gained by the patriarch over the predatory bands of the Arabian border, does not destroy the credit due to those early writers, who inform us that a regular govern- ment had been already formed on the banks of the Eu- phrates. Besides, the son of Terah flourished before Ni- nus had strengthened the foundations of his new empire. He lived at the time when the arms of the Ninevite colo- nists had just been turned against the successors of Nimrod at Babylon ; and when, consequently, the southern tribes must have been considerably reduced in strength — an oc- casion which, perhaps, was seized by the five kings of Ca- naan to recover their independence, and relieve their sub- jects from tribute. But if the reasoning of Dr Hales respecting the condi- tion of the surrounding countries has any weight at all, it may be turned with full force against his own hypothe- sis of a revived empire in B. C. 1252, after the interregnum of nearly a thousand years. The brilliant reigns of David and Solomon did not begin till two hundred years poste- rior to that epoch, when, it might be presumed, the mo- narchs of Assyria must have attained to a great degree of power ; and yet we find that these Hebrew princes pushed their conquests to the very waters of the Euphrates, built Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 91 cities in the Syrian desert, and maintained strong posts along the whole line of the Mesopotamian frontier. If there were, in short;, during this long and various history of the East, any one period at which, owing to the ascen- dency of the nations of Palestine, we should be disposed to doubt the existence of a powerful empire in their neigh- bourhood, it would be the era of David and of his imme- diate successor on the throne of the twelve tribes. But we are assured, notwithstanding, even by Dr Hales himself, that the arm of Assyria had at that time recovered its strength, extended the sceptre of its dominion over the Medes, Persians, and Babylonians, and, in a word, was at the very zenith of its might and glory as well in upper as in lower Asia ! Were Dr Hales' argument closely followed up in all its consequences, those who adopt his views would find them- selves under the necessity of acceding to the conclusion of Newton, Marsham, and Jameson ; who maintained that the Assyrian empire did not begin to exist until more than two centuries after the reign of Solomon.* The principal facts upon which these authors support their reasoning • Vide Newtoni Opuscula, Brevia Chronica, p. 25. " Pul jacit Imjjcru Assyrii fundamenta A.C. ^D0 :" et Chronologia Veter. Regnor. Emendata, c iii. p. 186. D. Johan. Marshami " Canon Chronicus," lib. iv. secul. xvii. p. 503, &c. " Spicilegia Antiq. jEgypti," cap. iv. p. 76. Auctore Gul. Jameson. 1720. To this author, who was professor of History in the University of Glasgow, and who, I believe, had the misfortune to be blind, Duker, the celebrated editor of the " Origines" of Perizonius, alludes in the following terms : — " Deinde, partim eorum, qu£e de quibusdam capitibus ad versus ilium disputata in notitiam meam venerant, addenda piitavi : in primis ea, quibus sententiam illius de Esarhaddone, Sennacheribi filio, et occupata ab eo Babylone, deque Sesostri ac Sesaco, in Spicilcgio Antiqui- iatum Mgypti et vicinarum Gentiufn, stilo interdum satis horrido, et acer- bioribus, quam res postulabat, verbis, impugnavit Gulielmus Jameson," &c. &c — Dukeri ProcfatiOy sub init, ^\^latever may be thought of Jameson's arguments, there can be but one opinion as to his style and his temper ; both of which appear to have been abundantly rough and repulsive. 92 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. are, first, the facility with which the Israelites made con- quests in Syria and Mesopotamia ; and, secondly, the en- tire silence of Scripture, until about eight hundred years before Christ, in respect to any powerful kingdom beyond the Euphrates. I repeat, therefore, if the ground assum- ed by Dr Hales, in order to prove that the ancient Assy- rian empire must have been dissolved before the time of Abraham, be tenable for that particular end, it will as- suredly support objections of a more formidable nature ; and, if vised by a skilful antagonist, will supply materials for overthrowing even the most popular of our chronolo- gical systems, and his own among the first. I shall not fatigue the patience of the reader by enter- ing into a minute examination of the abbreviated schemes of Marsham and Newton. They are made to rest chiefly on the circumstances which have just been specified, and are supported by the testimony of Herodotus, Appianus Alex- andrinus, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. The first of these writers states, that the Assyrians had possessed up- per Asia 520 years before the revolt of the Medes. Ac- cording to the same author, the kingdom of Media sub- sisted 150 years ; the termination of which was marked by the accession of Cyrus in B. C. 560. Add these three sums together, 520 + 150 + 560, and the commencement of the Assyrian empire will be found to coincide with the year B. C. 1230. The testimony of Appian of Alexandria seems to repose on the same foundation and authority. The times of the Assyrians, Medes, and Persians^ the three greatest empires, are, says he, when added together, and brought down to Alexander, the son of Philip, little removed from nine hundred years.* Now, if to B. C 330, the date when the * Arfv^iuv re, xa/ M>jS&/v, xai Tli^fuy, r^iuv ruv ?e fnyiffruv vytfioviav, ii; Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 93 Macedonian prince conquered Darius, we annex 900, the period assigned by Appian to the three monarchies, the joint sum will amount, as before, to 1230, denoting the commencement of the Assyrian power in Asia. But Marsham, who was perfectly well acquainted with the numbers of Herodotus and Appianus, saw no evidence in either upon which to rest his belief that the Assyrian empire began so early. Neque in historia sacra, neque iEgyptiorum monumentis reperitur ulla Assyrioriim me- raoria antequam desiisset in Asia ^gyptiorum imperium. Postea, anno Tenipli 232, primus in Ciseuphratensibus regionibus inclaruit Phul rex Assyriorum ; qui mercede conductus, confirmavit Menahem in regno Israelis.* Newton^ again, carries up the origin of the Assyrian mo- narchy to the year B.C. 790, in which, he says, the founda- i tions of that state were laid by Pul, — an opinion which was previously maintained by the Glasgow Professor, whose little volume, although published seven years before the ; death of the illustrious mathematician, it is very probable I he never saw. But, without collecting to any greater extent the opinions of others, on a subject where learning and research, in mo- dern times, have only produced an increased degree of discrepancy in the judgments which are actually formed, I and a diminished confidence in the sources whence all our I information must be derived, I shall proceed to compare the results which seem the most firmly established by ancient I authorities, and thereby endeavour to reconcile, in the tes- itimony of the several Greek and Latin writers, those points in which they are supposed to exhibit the greatest variation. A>.£|av5goy tav ^tXifjmu, iruvrihfiivav, out etv ^^ovo; l^iKotTO rav Ivyecxofiaiv iraiv. —Appian. Alcxandrln. HisU Prooem. p. 5. " Canon Chronicus, p. 509. The 232d year of the temple corresponds to B.C. 747. 94 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. In all cases, then, where there is any uncertainty respecting the first principles on which an investigation is to be con- ducted, it will be found convenient to fix on some matter of fact, of which the date and circumstances are clearly ascer- tained. Having secured sufficient ground whereon to es- tablish a distinct proposition, we can advance analytically from the known to the unknown ; and whatever may be our success in reaching the object we have in view, we shall at least be able to determine the point where cer- tainty leaves us and doubt begins, where light departs and darkness or obscurity succeeds it. Applying this maxim to the inquiry before us, we may with confidence commence our researches at the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, when the monarchy of the Medes merged in the rising empire of the Persians. All authors are agreed that the event now mentioned took place in the beginning or end of the year B. C. 536 ; whence, if we reckon backward, so as to include the term of the Median kingdom and the duration of the Assyrian empire, up to the true epoch when the former became independent, we shall, in all probability, determine the period at which the latter assumed its origin. Herodotus, then, informs us, that, after the Assyrians had been in possession of upper Asia five hundred and twenty years, the Medes, first of all, revolted from their authority : contending with such obstinate bravery against their masters, that they were ultimately successful, and exchanged servitude for freedom. Other provinces soon followed their example ; but as they all afterwards fell into a state of anarchy, and sufi'ered many of the severest | evils that arise from the absence of legitimate rule, they at length came to the resolution of electing a king. The ' wisdom and virtue of Dejoces, a man of influence among the Medes, pointed him out for this high oflice ; who, as Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 95 soon as he had complied with the request of his country- men to become their sovereign, assumed the full state and prerogatives of a monarch, built a magnificent palace, and surrounded himself with guards.* After a reign of 53 years on the throne of Media, he was succeeded by his son Phraortes, who held the sceptre 22 years. Next followed Cyaxares, the period of whose government, including the domination of his Scythian conquerors, extended to 40 years ; and Astyages, the last of the race, in whose time, after he had reigned 35 years, the Persian dynasty laid hold of the supreme power of Asia. The sum of these four reigns amounts to 150 ex- actly; which, added to B.C. 560, the date which Herodo- tus appears to have assigned to the Babylonian conquest, gives, for the accession of Dejoces, the year B. C. 7lO.-f- So far the narrative of Herodotus, although different from that of Ctesias, is not inconsistent with it. The lat- ter historian, it is true, carries back the origin of the Me- dian kingdom more than a hundred years beyond the pe- riod determined by the former. Again, instead of four so- vereigns, he exhibits a catalogue of nine ; beginning with Arbaces, whom he describes as the leader of the revolt, and ending with Astyages, whose reign is unanimously regarded as the termination of Median power.;]: Thus • Herodot. lib. i. 95 — 100. + Herodot, lib. i. c. 130. ^ The Median kings who, according to Ctesias, succeeded Thonos Con- colerus on the throne of Assyria, are as follows : — Years. B.C. 1. Arbaces, . - 28 beginning 821 2. Mandauces, - -20 793 3. Sosarmus, . - 30 773 4. Artycas, - - - 30 743 5. Arbianes, - - 22 713 6. ArtsBus, - . - 40 G91 7. Artynes, - -22 (>51 8. Astibaras, . - • 40 C29 9. Aspadas, or Astyigas, - 35 589 96 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. we have two points fixed upon by two ancient authors, both of whom, in this particular at least, appear worthy of unbounded credit, at which has been dated that revolt of the Medes which was supposed to put an end to the paramount authority of the Assyrian empire. Jackson endeavours to liberate his system from the dif- ficulty now mentioned, by suggesting, as I have already mentioned, that Ctesias has confounded, in the case of the first five sovereigns on his list, the office of prefect with that of king. " It is certain," says he, " that Arbaces the Mede, and his successors to Dejoces, whom Ctesias men- tions as reigning over the greatest part of the Assyrian empire after Sardanapalus, were only prefects under the kings of Assyria who preceded Thonos Concolerus, called falsely Sardanapalus ; and the Assyrian empire still sub- sisted, and had both Media and Babylon under it, till the revolt of the Medes under the last prefect Arbianes, some years before they chose Dejoces for their king.""* " This account," he adds, " is entirely agreeable to He- rodotus, who knew of no Median king before Dejoces ; but he knew there were kings of Assyria, both when he reigned in Media and many years after : and of this truth we are assured from Scripture, which relates the historical actions of those Assyrian kings ; and some of whose names are recorded. Sennacherib, one of the Assyrian kings, reigned at Nineveh several years before Dejoces was made king of Media, and above a hundred years after the " The sum total of the duration of the Median empire, to the end of the reign of Astyages, is 267 years, in the year B.C. 554 ; and this wants only four years of the true account of the era from Arbaces to Cyrus's conquest of Astyages." — Jackson, vol. i. p. 253, 254. The sum 267 exceeds by six years the usual amount : 500+267=827 : the real interval at least, according to Herodotus, being 821 years. " Chronological Antiquities, vol. i. p. 255, 256. 9 I f Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 07 time that Ctesias supposed Nineveh and the Assyrian em- pire to have been destroyed by Arbaces : this Assyrian king is mentioned by Herodotus,* and by Berosus, as Jo- sephus tells us.-f* Herodotus also relates that Phraortes, the second king of the Medes, was slain in a battle with the Assyrians who reigned at Nineveh : and that Cyaxares, the last king of the Medes but one, was the king who con- quered Nineveh and destroyed the Assyrian empire.^ It has been usual with chronologers, as Freret some- where observes, to receive as much of a historical narra- tive or list of kings as they find convenient, and to reject the remainder merely because it does not agree with their hypothesis. No reader, it is obvious, can have any confi- dence in a system which requires such management ; on which account, our usual trust in Jackson is greatly im- paired, when we find that he not only brings down the As- syrian dynasty given by Ctesias a hundred and eleven years lower than the date which the compiler himself as- signs to it, but also that he excludes from his catalogue a race of Median kings which, the same historian assures us, succeeded, on the throne of Nineveh, the last monarch of the ancient house of Ninus. To reconcile the statements of Ctesias and Herodotus, both of which bear evident marks of sincerity and truth, we have only to admit that the sovereigns who reigned at Nineveh from B. C. 821 to B. C. 606 were of Median ex- traction, though, from the seat of their government and the established name of the people over whom they ruled, they continued to be described as kings of Assyria. This explanation of the tables constructed by the Greek phy- • Herodot. lib. ii. c. 141. •f* Antiq. Jud. lib. x. c i. if Chronological Antiquities, vol. i. p. 256. VOL. II. 98 CONNECTION OF SACRED [BoOK II. sician does not imply that Media became an independent kingdom upon the accession of Arbaces, or whatever else was the name of the Median prefect who took up the sceptre which was laid down by Thonos Concolerus ; it amounts to nothing more than that a race of monarchs, who were Medes by birth or lineage, occupied, during more than two hundred years, the throne of Assyria and the city of Nineveh. If I be right in this conjecture, it Avill follow that the four monarchs who, in Scripture, are called the " King of Nineveh," Pul, Tiglathpileser, and Shalmaneser, and who, by Ctesias, are denominated Arbaces, Mandauces, Sosar- mus, and Artycas, are respectively the same persons ; and that they were, in fact, Assyrian kings who had sprung from a Median family. As yet, Assyria, Babylonia, and Media, were under the same crown ; and it was not until the year B. C. 711 that the people of the last-named coun- try, who were dissatisfied with the imperial government, revolted from its authority, and made preparations for the establishment of an independent aovpreignty in their own land. After a certain period of anarchy Dejoces was elected king ; and at this point commences the Median kingdom, properly so called. According to the views which we are now following, there were sovereigns of Median extraction on the throne of Ecbatana as well as on that of Nineveh ; and, perhaps, we ought to regard the list of kings transmitted by Ctesias as applicable to the several successions in the latter city only. Artycas, for instance, was followed by Arbianes, after whom came Artseus, Artynes, Astibarus, and Aspadas. I am aware that modern writers take upon them to assert that Artffius is only a different name for Dejoces, that Artynes is the same as Phraortes, as well as that Astibarus means Cyaxares, and Aspadas is the substitute of Astyages. But i Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 99 all this is said without the slightest shadow of proof; and we have the greater reason to believe that Cteslas meant to exhibit the catalogue of sovereigns who exercised the Assyrian government, when we find that the sum of their reigns exactly fills up the space which intervenes between the time of Thonos Concolerus, when the new dynasty began to rule, and the end of the Median government in the days of Cyrus. From the year B. C. 821 to B. C. 560, the usual, though perhaps not the most correct date of the Persian ascendency, is a period of 261 years ; and the amount of all the reigns from Arbaces to the last king mentioned by Ctesias is 267 ; the difference being only 6 years, the length of a supposed anarchy or interregnum occasioned by a provincial insurrection.* It would appear, therefore, that, in the archives which were copied by Ctesias, there was enrolled a list of all the sovereigns who had swayed the imperial sceptre of Western Asia, from the reign of Ninus down to the conquests of Cyrus ; including the old Assyrian dynasty, as well as that of the Medes which followed it, after the death or removal of Thonos Concolerus. But we have no reason to believe that a similar list had been preserved at Nineveh of the Median kings who, after they achieved their independence, opposed themselves to the more ancient government found- ed by the son of Belus : and it is on this very account, perhaps, that even when the sovereign of Media proper, in the person of Cyaxares, obtained possession of the im- perial authority, no notice is taken of any interruption in that branch of the dynasty which ended with Serac or Sar- danapalus. The catalogue is, at once, continued down to the era when the successors of Arbaces gave way to the rising See page 95 of this volume. 100 CONNECTION OF SACRED [;BooK II fortunes of the Persian prince. In a word, the records to which Ctesias had access, presented only the successions in what may be called the imperial line of the Asiatic mo- narchy, and did not extend to such rulers as from time to time started up in the provinces and disputed the supre- macy of the great king. That there was a new race of sovereigns elevated to the throne of Assyria in the year B. C 821, is so fully admit- ted by the best informed chronologers, that Dr Hales be- gins at that era his third Assyrian dynasty ; which, says hci commenced with that king of Nineveh who reigned in the time of the prophecy of Jonah.* Nor will any valid objection to this view be founded on the circumstance that the monarchs who succeeded Arbaces are called kings of Assyria, and not kings of Media ; for although the new dynasty were Medes by birth or connection, they ascend- ed the throne of Nineveh, the capital of the Assyrian em- pire, of which IVIedia was only a province. Syncellus, in allusion to this apparent discrepancy between the facts of history and the appellation of the pai'amount state, re- marks, that, though it is perfectly certain the Medes held the imperial government after the time of Arbaces, yet the kingdom retained its former designation ; as well, says he, from the antiquity and power of the Assyrian name which had become associated with the country, as from the recent power of the Medes, who, till then, were known only as provincial s.-|- He farther observes, as a proof that the kings of Assyria were masters also of the Median ter- ritory, that the captives carried away by Shalmaneser from the tribes of Israel were placed in the towns of the * Hales, vol. iii. p. 57. ■|- 'H iriXovori MriS&iv f/.iv yivo; Kura. ^iaoo^>iv aTo A^Secxou iSccfiXiuinv, h Se /3b- fftXlia Km A.7ffu^itav 'ikiyiro, eix ro \uyiMi; 'TToXa.iot t»js a.p-)(r,i Kai to t'/is ^aoctf Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 101 Medes ; whence it is obvious, that the accession of the countrymen of Arbaces to the imperial throne did not at the first lead to any dismemberment of the empire, but that, on the contrary, the name and power of Assyria con- tinued unchanged till a much later period. If there be any foundation for the distinction which I am now endeavouring to establish between a Median dy- nasty on the imperial throne, who were called kings of As^ sijria, and a Median dynasty beginning about a hundred and twenty years after in the person of Dejoces, who were strictly Mngs of Media, or who, at least, did not acknow- ledge the paramount claims of the older race, we shall there- by be enabled, not only to reconcile Herodotus and Ctesias, but to remove much confusion, contradiction, and obscurity which have hitherto attached to the history of Western Asia. We shall, in particular, find reason to be satisfied that, while the chronographer of C nidus exhibited only a list of the sovereio;ns who had followed in succession from Ninus to the last member of the imperial race whose name was Aspadas or Astyages, the father of history, on the other hand, confined his Median catalogue to the rulers who kept up, at Ecbatana or elsewhere, the independent kingdom which was founded by Dejoces. In short, Cte- sias does not appear to have recognised the Median sove- reignty at all, as distinct from the Assyrian empire ; for his list of the kings who succeeded Arbaces the Mede ex- tends downwards from B. C. 821 to B. C. 554, the era at which both Medes and Assyrians submitted to the arms of Cyrus. The archives which he consulted contained lists of only the sovereigns paramount ; whereas the authori- ties upon which Herodotus appears to have proceeded, in his account of Media, furnished only records of the local or national king's. Hence, too, we shall likewise find it in our powef to 102 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. trace satisfactorily the ground of the difference among an- cient writers respecting the duration of the Median king- dom. Justin, as has been already remarked, reckoning from Arbaces to Cyrus, assigns to it a period of 350 years, Julius Africanus gives 283, Eusebius 261, and Herodotus 150. Now it is manifest that the last-named historian counted from the election of Dejoces, which took place a few years after the revolt B. C. 710. Suppose the anarchy which preceded his accession continued six years, and it will follow that the commencement of Median royalty must be dated B. C. 704; from which, if we subtract 150 years, the termination will be found to coincide with the year B. C. 554*; that is, within four years of the time when, according to Jackson and Hales, Cyrus succeeded his uncle Cyaxares in the government of Media. Or, if we should prefer to date the origin of kingly power among the Medes in the very year of their revolt, 150 subtracted from 710 will give 560, — a result which corresponds ex- actly with the first year of Cyrus in his native Persia. The larger numbers of Africanus and Eusebius apply, it is obvious, to the accession of the Median dynasty to the Assyrian throne in the time of Arbaces ; in which sense the phrase Median Mng'dom does not denote the separate independent monarchy established by Dejoces, but the Assyrian empire during the period it was governed by kings of Median extraction. In this case we must begin the era in question with the reign of the first Mede B. C. 821 ; from which epoch, if we subtract 283, the full du- ration assigned by Africanus to the sway of that people, the end of their power will fall in the year B. C. 538 ; be- ing not more than two years before the taking of Babylon, when, it is well known/the Persian empire finally super- seded the Median throughout the whole of the ancient As- syrian dominions. If, again, from 821 we subtract 261, Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 103 the term of Median rule fixed on by Eusebius, the re- mainder will exhibit the year B. C. 560 ; when, as has been already stated, the great Cyrus mounted the throne of Persia.* The reader cannot fail to be struck with the remark- able coincidence and harmony which are introduced into the numerical statements of ancient authors, by means of the distinction which I have attempted to establish, be- tween the Median dynasty on the throne of Assyria, and the separate kingdom of Media which arose at a later pe- riod. Upon the same principle we get rid of the awkward expedient, which has been very frequently resorted to by historians and chronologers, of imagining txoo Assyrian em- pires ; the first ending with Thonos Concolerus, and the se- cond with the capture of Nineveh in the reign of Serac or Sardanapalus. The latter empire is supposed to have been much weaker than the former, and to have possessed a less extensive territory ; whereas, in fact, we find, in the Scriptural history, that the power of Assyria became greater, after the accession of the Arbacidae or Median dynasty, than ever it was before ; stretching westward to the Mediterranean sea^, and southward to the very borders of Egypt. Even Sir William Drummond feels himself necessitated to have recourse to the supposition that Nineveh was twice taken by the Medes ; first under the command of Arbaces in the 747 before the Christian era, and, secondly, under the command of Cyaxares, in the year 603 before the same epoch : and it is on this account, he thinks, that the " I have not taken particular notice of the number of Justin, both because it is very generally pronounced corrupt, and because it does not barmoni /.e with any system of chronology which has yet been devised. Freret's attempt does not give satisfaction. 104 CONNECTION OF SACRED [;Book II. Greeks have been led into mistakes and contradictions concerning the duration of the Assyrian empire. " This empire,'" he adds, " was in fact dissolved in the time of Ar- baces ; but as Assyria still existed as a kingdom, and as Nineveh was not destroyed till the reign of Cyaxares, the difference between the state of Assyria before Sardana- palus and after the death of that monarch, may have escaped the attention of writers who were not accurately acquainted with oriental history.""* But there is not the most distant evidence, either in the sacred writings, or in the works of the Greek historians, for a double capture of Nineveh. On the contrary, it is manifest that it suffered nothing from the hand of the de- stroyer till the end of the seventh century before Christ, when it was reduced by the Medes and Babylonians. The mission of Jonah was directed to a sovereign of Nineveh who must have reigned about the time of Arbaces, and who, in fact, was either that Mede himself or his im- mediate successor ; and we know, on the best authority, that the capital of Assyria was not consigned to destruc- tion for many years after the warning of the prophet. The whole of this confusion has arisen from a mistake on the part of Ctesias, or rather perhaps of Diodorus Sicu- lus, who has transferred to the revolution which placed the Arbacidae on the Assyrian throne, the circumstances which belonged to the capture of Nineveh by the Me- dian and Babylonian armies under the command of Cyaxares. It is true, that all the particulars connected with the change of the Assyrian dynasty in the year B.C. 821 are covered with the deepest obscurity. That an in- surrection took place, and that Thonos Concolerus was Origines, vol. i. p. 22?. Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 105 either slain or driven from his capital, are events which come recommended to us upon the strongest probability ; but the subsequent state and history of the Assyrian government prove incontestably that Nineveh was not destroyed, and that the power of her kings was not in the slightest degree curtailed. That an important change did take place in the Assyrian monarchy about the year B.C. 821, is, I repeat, acknow- ledged by every writer who has had occasion to study that portion of ancient history. Eusebius places this revolt in B.C. 818, Petavius in the year B.C. 870, and Usher in B.C. 747. Petavius, it is clear, carries the event in ques- tion 45 years too high, although in this he agrees within a short interval with Justin, who gives 350 years to the duration of the Median kingdom from Arbaces to Cyrus. Usher, on the contrary, brings it down 73 years too low ; and, without any authority that will bear exami- nation, makes Belesis, who is supposed to have assisted Arbaces in the war against their common sovereign, to be Nabonasar, the first Babylonian king in Ptolemy's canon. Eusebius and Petavius are known to have computed in different ways, from an arbitrary reckoning of the time when Ninus began to reign, as well as of the total dura- tion of the Assyrian empire itself. The archbishop, on the other hand, alleged the testimony of Herodotus, who says, that the Assyrians had, at the time of the revolt, reigned over the upper or greater Asia 520 years. But, as Jackson remarks, Herodotus does not say that Nimis began to reign only 520 years before the Median insur- rection ; on which account, the supposition made by Usher, that it was the first king of Assyria who did then commence his government, is not only unsupported by the declaration of Herodotus, but is contrary to the evidence of all ancient writers, who agree that the Assyrian em- 106 CONNECTION OF SACRED [^BooK II. pire had subsisted about 1300 years before the Medes disturbed the succession of her monarchs.* EusebiuS;, indeed, appears to have had very confused no- tions in regard to the condition of things during the period from Arbaces to Dejoces ; which he, however, properly calcu- lates at a hundred and eleven years. He relates that, Ar- baces Medus, Assyriorum imperio destructo, regnum in Me- dos transtuUt : et intei-im sine principihus res agebatur usque ad Deiocem regem Medorum ; that is, Arbaces the Mede, upon destroying the empire of the Assyrians, transferred the kingly power to the Medes ; and in the meanwhile affairs were conducted without the intervention of princes, until the time of Dejoces, the king of the Medes. He likewise imagines that, during this long period, the Chal- deans were in possession of the supreme power, though he had just the moment before said that Arbaces transferred it to the Medes ; and he even supposes that all the other nations which had composed the Assyrian empire were governed by their own kings for a hundred and eleven years."}" The Assyrian name, in fact, is supposed to have been extinct ; and yet, in a subsequent part of his work, he represents Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, as carrying the ten tribes from Samaria into the mountains of Media. He admits also, that Sennacherib, who certainly reigned at Nineveh, sent a colony of Assyrians into Judea, and, • Chronological Antiquities, vol. i. p. 300. " Usher's is a strange hypothe- sis," he adds, " and altogether unsupported ; and it is a metachronisra of no less than 748 years, by his own reckoning, of the time of the Median revolt." " Dr Prideaux, in his Connection of the Old and New Testament, makes Arbaces the same with Tiglathpileser, and Belesis to be Nabonasar ; which is aU mere invention, and not founded in any chronology. — Chronolog. An- tiq. vol. i. p. 303. + Chaldaei proprie praevalebant ; quorum separates quadam regum succes- siones feruntur. Reliquas autem gentes propriis regibus utebantur. — Eiiseb. Pamphil. Chron. lib. i. p. 24- Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 107 moreover, that Tiglathpileser transported a great number of Jews into Assyria, — an exercise of power which is quite incompatible with the supposition that the Assyrian em- pire was quite dissolved upon the revolt of Arbaces.* Scaliger and Petavius were not less embarrassed with the same unlucky position which has been founded on the mistaken testimony of Ctesias, namely, that the Assyrian empire was overturned by Arbaces. They were compel- led to allow that the Assyrians, after their subjection to the Medes, must at some time and in some manner, of which there are no traces in history, have shaken off their thraldom, and established a new empire at Nineveh. Scaliger at length, driven from the very conclusions which he himself had formed, by the absurdities which he found inseparable from every hypothesis that implied the destruction of the Assyrian capital and the downfall of its power, in the days of Arbaces, ventured to call in ques- tion the existence of the facts upon which he had all along proceeded. Farther inquiry satisfied him that Ctesias had either been himself misinformed, or that he must have been ill understood by Diodorus Siculus and the other writers who followed him. " Quum dicat Medos a clade Sardanapali ad obitum Astyagis, Assyriorum regnum obtinuisse, merito ut dubitetur, facit sacra pagina, quae Tiglath-pul-Asar et Sennacherib regum Assyriae meminit. Sed neque verum est, Ninum a Medis solo aequatam, ut refert idem Ctesias, cum ei et divinarum literarum auc- • Decern tribus quae vocantur Israel, et erant in parte Samarias, victae a Sennacherib, qui et Salmanassar, rege ChaldEeorum, translatae sunt inter montes Rledorum. Sennacherib rex ChaldjEorum ad custodiendam regionem Judaam accolas misit Assyrios, qui aemulatores legis Judfei facti Samaritae nuncupati sunt ; quod Latina lingua exprimitur custodes.—Euseh. Paviph. Chron. lib. post p. 116. 108 CONNECTION OF SACRED [^BooK II. toritas, et Herodotus refragetur, qui in hac parte longe certior Ctesia a nobis deprehenditur.* But although Ctesias has had the unhappiness to be misinterpreted, in regard to the political results which have been supposed to accompany the change of dynasty at the time when Arbaces ascended the throne of Assyria, there is no reason to suspect his accuracy relative to the chronolo- gical period at which that event actually took place. On the contrary, his evidence cannot but appear to be completely confirmed by the very remarkable circumstance stated above, that the sum of the reigns which he assigns to the kings of the Median line fills up almost exactly the inter- val between Arbaces and the accession of Cyrus as king of Media. The term occupied by his nine kings extends, as I have already observed, to 267 years ; which being de- ducted from B.C. 821, the date of the new dynasty, we have B.C. 554<; the very epoch denoted by Herodotus for the commencement of the Persian sway. His agreement with the father of history, during the latter division of the period in particular, is very striking ; and when we call to mind that the one drew his materials from the archives which contained the successions of the imperial throne, and the other from records which respected the national crown of the Medes, we cannot fail to see, as M'ell in the points where their statements coincide as where they differ, the most satisfactory proof of their knowledge and vera- city. The following table will illustrate this observation ; • Scaligeri Emend. Temp. Not. in Fragm. p. 42, CrtAP. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 109 Herodotus. 1. Median revolt and in- terregnum, 2. Dejoces, 3. Phraortes, 4. Cyaxares, 5. Astyages, y. li.C. 6 710 33 704 22 651 40 629 35 589 56 554 CtESIAS. Y. U.C/ Arbaces and interregnum, 22 710 Artffius, - - 40 688 Artynes, - 22 648 Astibarus, - - 40 626 Aspadas or Astyigas, 32* 586 Cyrus the Persian, 156 554 In endeavouring to fix the time of Arbaces in a former section, I alluded to the fact mentioned by Eusebius and Syncellus, that the power of the Assyrians was dissolved in the time of Ariphron, the ninth perpetual archon at Athens. Now, according to the Parian marble, Ariphron succeeded Pherecles in the year B.C. 846 ; and his ad- ministration, says Africanus, lasted 31 years ; consequent- ly the revolution conducted by Arbaces must have taken place before 815. Eusebius, it is true, allows only 20 years for the archonate of Ariphron, which, of course, must have ended in B.C. 826 ; and some writers, accord- ingly, among whom I may rank Mr Faber, have been disposed to conclude that the defection from the Assyrian monarch may have begun a few years prior to the full completion of the object which the insurgents had in view, and, at least, before the accession of the Median dynasty in B.C. 821. The numbers of the bishop of Caesarea, I must add, are confirmed by those of the Parian record ; hence it is very probable that the com- putation of Africanus is wrong, and that the administra- tion of Ariphron did not extend to so low a period as the * As the number of years during which Aspadas or Astyages reigned is not given by Diodorus, I have inserted 32, which makes the two catalogues coincide exactly. It is usual to supply 35, the number given by Herodotus. which creates a difference of 3 years. It is obvious that the last two kings in each list must be the same persons ; because, after the capture of Nineveh in B. C. 600, the kingdom of Media merged in the empire of the Medes. 110 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. year B.C. 815. But my object in referring to these au- thorities is fully gained, if I have thereby established the important fact, that the revolt of Arbaces and the end of the old Assyrian race of kings came to pass more than 800 years before the Christian era. Those who are de- sirous of entering more deeply into this question, will find ample materials on which to form their judgment in the volumes of Eusebius and of the monk George.* It appears, then, upon the whole, that this portion of ancient history will be greatly elucidated if the reader has found, in the arguments which have just been detailed, satisfactory reasons for believing that Ctesias carried the chain of succession downwards through the several dynas- ties of Assyrian monarchs — whatever might be their birth or lineage — from Ninus to the last sovereign who swayed the sceptre of Western Asia prior to the accession of Cyrus ; and that whatever distinction he may have other- wise made between Medes, Persians, and Assyrians, he took no notice of any difference, in blood or nation, when he copied the list of kings which he found in the records of the ancient empire which so long flourished on the banks of the Tigris. In a word, he appears to have counted from the son of Belus to the son of Cambyses in an unbroken line ; and thereby supplied us with the means of determining that the total duration of the Assy- rian empire, including that of the Medes, amounted to 1572 years; that is, 1305 + 267=1572, from Ninus to Cyrus the Persian. * Eusebii Pamphili Chron. lib. posterior^ p. 110. " Sub Ariphrone, Assy- riorum regnum destructum, et Sardanapalus ut nonnulli scriptitant. Assy- riorum tricesimus sextus, Thonos Concolerus, ann. xx. qui vocatur Graece Sardanapalus. See also the " Animadversions" of Scaliger, p. 63. The words of Syncellus are as follows : KaviXiuffiv A^if^an Oi^ixXiovs i^n x'. xara Ss A^piKavov 'irti X >;'• xara -r our 01 rov Af/^^ova >) ruv Kaav^tui KariXvSn xgX*i' ^^ To-ira. )X«u IXiev l-xo A;^aiuv ; that is, in his 32d year, Troy was taken b}' the Greeks. Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 113 that the Assyrians, at the time of Teutamus, had possess- ed the empire of Asia more than a thousand years. If, then, we add B.C. 1000 to B.C. 1183, the amount will be B.C. 2183, being 57 years higher than the date at which we have placed the beginning of Ninus. But the computation of Ctesias is understood by Cephalion and others to bear a reference to the earliest commencement of the Assyrian government in the days of Belus ; and as the reign of this monarch is usually estimated at 55 years, we come at once within two years of the thousand stated by Ctesias. If, on the other hand, we estimate the ad- ministration of Belus at 62 years, the term assigned to it by the old Latin Chronicle, the beginning of his reign will ascend to a thousand and five years before the taking of Troy ; thereby confirming the chronological scheme which I have adopted, and, at the same time, illustrating the observation of the Greek physician, relative to the du- ration of the Assyrian empire.* We are not greatly concerned in the result of whatever inquiry may be instituted respecting the truth of the tra- dition recorded by Ctesias. It has appeared to many anti- quaries extremely doubtful whether an Assyrian king, twelve hundred years before the birth of Christ, could have any relations of peace or war with a petty sovereign on the very western extremity of Asia. Even the narra- tive of Diodorus confesses the uncertainty which attaches to the expedition of Memnon, and informs us that the Ethiopians of the Nile claimed him as a countryman, and continued to point out a palace which bore his name. How- gi«», )i5 l/rrpaTtiyii Mi/u,vuv i TiSuvou. Tiwra/^sv ya.^ ZaffiXtvovro? rtis Atriocf, og iv Diodor. Sicul. lib. ii. c. 22. VOL. II. H 114 CONNECTION OF SACRED QBooK II. ever that may be, subjoins the historian, there is a con- stant tradition that Memnon was sent to the aid of the Trojans with 20,000 foot and 200 chariots ; where he dis- played the greatest bravery in repeated battles with the Greeks, till at length being ensnared by the Thessalians, he was taken prisoner and slain.* With these legendary notices, I repeat, we have no farther concern than as they are connected with the date of one great historical event, by means of which we are enabled to ascertain the relative antiquity of another ; the distance between the first and the second being distinctly stated. It is enough that we can thereby remove every objection to the testimony upon which we believe that the Assyrian empire was founded about a thousand years before the taking of Troy. Having on the grounds now explained fixed the com- mencement of the Assyrian monarchy in the year B.C. 2126, it remains that we make an attempt to determine, on a similar footing, the origin of the more ancient king- dom which is supposed to have been established by Nim- rod at Babel. According, then, to the dates supplied by Polyhistor, Africanus, and Moses of Chorene, the three dynasties which occupied the Chaldagan throne, prior to the era of Ninus, filled up a period of 622 years. This sum added to 2126 will give B.C. 2748, or 437 years after the Flood, for the beginning of Nimrod's power on the banks of the Euphrates, — a chronological epoch which most readers will think considerably too high, as well as inconsistent with the main facts of the ancient patriarchal history. If, therefore, we leave out the third dynasty, which was unknown to Africanus and Polyhistor, and which we owe entirely to the Armenian historian, Moses * Diod. Siculus, lib. ii. C. 22. 'Ou f^tiv aXXec mis T^affi Xiyirai (ion^nfavra Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 115 Chorenensis, the period assigned to the ancient Baby- lonian kingdom will be reduced to 405 or 440, according as we shall adopt the larger or smaller term attributed to the first dynasty. The latter number added to 2126 will carry back the time of Nimrod to the year B.C. 2566, or 619 after the deluge, — a result which does not differ much from the calculation of Hales and Faber ; the year of Nimrod, according to the former, being 601 after the Flood, and according to the latter 613. It would betray a silly affectation of accuracy, which, in matters of this kind, is not to be attained, were I to enter into a chronological disquisition in support of the several conclusions to which the above statement has conducted us. In regard to the events of a period at once so remote and so completely destitute of the steady light which be- longs to later ages, we cannot reach certainty, whatever may be the path by which we attempt to approach it. But, proceeding upon the few facts with which we are supplied in sacred history, and directing our researches by the established laws of human nature, we cannot carry the origin of kingdoms to an earlier date than the middle of the sixth century after the Flood. The opinions of Bishop Cumberland in regard to population are absurd in the extreme ; and hence all the chronological systems which assume the existence of Nimrod's kingdom about a hundred years after the renewal of the human race, are encumbered with numerous and insuperable difficulties. I am aware of the objection which has been urged against the Ctesian list of Assyrian kings, on the ground that the length of their reigns exceeds somewhat the usual average of successions, in all countries where the term of human life has been distinctly ascertained. Thirty-six generations in the course of 1300 years will, when di- vided, be found to give a reign of fullv thirty-six years 116 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. to every sovereign from Ninus to Thonos Concolerus ; which being about three years above the ordinary length must, it is said, carry the origin of their dynasty a hun- dred years too high. But without entering into particu- lars on this head, where we have no facts to guide us which apply to the early times under consideration, I shall satisfy myself with an answer taken from the work of Dr Prichard. " The fallacy of the attempt to guess at chronological facts by means of the average length of reigns is placed in the strongest point of view by applying it to a few particular instances. If we take an average of the kings of France, from the time of Henry the Fourth, we shall find that they continued upwards of forty years one with another. Let us apply this average to the emperors of Rome. The number of reigns from Caesar Augustus to Augustulus was sixty-two, and the latter prince fell in the year 476. Calculate on the average above deduced, and Augustus must be computed to have begun his reign 2004 years before Christ. Even if we adopt Sir Isaac Newton's average of twenty years, we shall place him a thousand years before his real time. On the other hand, we should shorten the English and French history in a like degree, if we calculate its duration by an average de- duced from the Roman. We may conclude that this me- thod of calculating the duration of reigns in one country from a rule formed by the succession in another, is likely to lead us into great errors, especially if we apply to an hereditary unbroken series, an estimate drawn from the mutable succession in more turbulent governments."* Whatever may be the degree of confidence which the * Critical Examination of the Remains of Egyptian Chronology, by J. C Prichard, M.D. p. 138. London, 1811). Chap. L] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 117 reader may think proper to place in the deductions rela- tive to the Assyrian empire, which have arisen from the principles that I have endeavoured to establish, it will not be lessened when he reflects^ that the argument has all along proceeded on a uniform principle, and without using any liberties with the ancient records whence the chrono- logical facts have been derived. I have carefully avoided the practice of that bold criticism which bends to its own objects the clearest statements of the authors whose works it examines ; holding it as a first principle, that the testimony of an ancient writer must be received in its literal mean- ing, and, with the exception of manifest corruptions and typographical errors, either adopted in whole or rejected in whole. For this reason, I could not follow the example of the learned and zealous Jackson, who, in order to ac- commodate the statement of Ctesias to his own hypothesis respecting the Assyrian empire, alters the dates through- out the whole catalogue by not less than a hundred and eleven years. Dr Hales, again, adopts the last twelve kings as given in the record of the Grecian antiquary, while he rejects the remaining twenty-four as " not true." But it is as clear as the day that the whole list, which we believe to have been copied by him from the Persian ar- chives, depends upon the very same authority ; and con- sequently that, if the first two-thirds of the succession be fictitious, the last third must be equally destitute of every claim to credit. Finding, in Ctesias, the most satisfactory marks of truth and good information, I have trodden in his steps from Ninus down to Astyages, a period of 1572 years; that is, from B.C. 2126 to B.C. 554, according to the table which I now annex. The slight difference of one year might, perhaps, have been avoided ; but in reckoning backward from the accession of Cyrus as king of Media, to the beginning of Ninus, the result came out exactly as I have now given it. 118 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. 1. Ninus, 2. Semiramis, 3. Ninyas, 4. Arius, 5. Aralius, 6. Xerxes or Balaeus, 7. Armanithres, 8. Belochus, 9. Balasus, 10. Sethos, Altadas, 11. Mamythus, 12. Ascalius or Mascaleus, 13. Sphaerus, 14. Mamylus, 15. Sparthaeus, 16. Ascatades, 17. Amyntes, 18. Belochus, 2d. 19. Baletores or BaJetaras, 20. Lamprides, 21. Sosares, 22. Lampares, 23. Panyas, 24. Sosarmus, 25. Mithra?us, 26. Teutamus or Tautanus, 27. Teutaeus, 28. Thineus, 29. Dercylus, SO. Empacmes, 31. Laosthenes, 32. Pertiades, 33. Ophrataeus, Y. B.C. 52 2126 42 2074 38 2032 30 1994 40 1694 30 1924 38 1894 35 1857 52 1821 35 1769 30 1734 80 1704 28 1674 30 1646 40 1616 42 1574 50 1534 25 1484 34 1459 37 1425 20 1388 30 1368 45 1338 42 1293 37 1251 32 1214 44 1182 30 1138 40 1108 38 10G8 45 1030 80 985 21 955 Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 119 Y. B.C. 34. Ephecheres, - 52 934 35. Acraganes, - - 42 882 36. Thonos Concolerus or Sardanapalus, 20 841 37- Arbaces, - - 28 821 38. Mandauces, - - 20 793 39. Sosarmus, - - 30 773 40. Artycas, - 30 743 41. Arbianes, - - 22 713 42. Artaeus, - - 40 691 43. Artynes, - - 22 651 44. Astibaras or Cyaxares 1st, - 40 629 45. Astyigas or Astyages, - 35 589 Sum of reigns, 1572 554 In the time of Arbianes the celebrated revolt took place which gave a beginning to the separate kingdom of Me- dia, of which the sovereigns were Dejoces, Phraortes, and Cyaxares. The last of these monarchs took Nineveh, upon which the imperial authority passed into the hands of the Median kings of Ecbatana ; and hence the reason why the last two princes of that line are inserted in the catalogue of Assyrian emperors. So far, I think, we may rely upon Ctesias, because to this extent he acted only the part of a clerk or copyist. The mistake into which he fell respecting the destruction of Nineveh in the time of Arbaces, arose evidently from a different source. He found nothing concerning it in the archives of Persia ; whence, it is probable, the account which he gives of that event was found floating among the traditions of the Greeks, and was on that authority alone introduced into his narrative. A great degree of obscurity continues to hang over the annals of the Medes, between the period when their coun- 120 CONNECTION OF SACRED QBooK II. tryinen first ascended the Assyrian throne, and the occur- rence of those events which are supposed to have esta- bUshed their independence in the time of Dejoces. It is even extremely doubtful whether that independence was ever acknowledged by the court of Nineveh. Dejoces, indeed, is said to have made conquests and to have ex- tended far to the northward the power and reputation of Media. But we find that Phraortes his successor was checked in his first attempt on the Assyrian provinces, and ultimately defeated and slain by Nabuchodonosor, the warlike monarch of that country. In the seventeenth year of his reign the Assyrian took the field at the head of a formidable army, when he defeated the Median forces near Ragau or Rages, a city in their own territories ; took Arphaxad or Phraortes prisoner, and put him to death the same day, as a rebellious satrap ; stormed Ec- batana his capital, which he had strongly fortified ; de- molished its tower and spoiled its palaces ; and then re- turned to Nineveh, where he feasted his victorious troops a hundred and twenty days.* In truth, upon a minute and candid examination of his- torical records it must be acknowledged that, except in the pages of Herodotus, we have no evidence for an in- dependent sovereignty in Media till after the success of Cyaxares and his allies before the walls of Nineveh. That there were kings at Ecbatana and even at Babylon before the rod of the Assyrians was broken, in the days of Sarac, will be readily granted by every one in the least conversant with ancient history ; but that these sovereigns owed no allegiance to the paramount authority at Nineveh, is more than doubtful. The Babylonians, indeed, down * Hales, vol. iii. p. 6C. Compare Judith i. 16. with ii. 1. Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 121 to the last moment of the imperial government, are uni- versally acknowledged to have been vassals and tributaries to the Assyrians, if we except a short period of insurrec- tion about the end of the eighth century before Christ ; and that the Medes owned a similar subordination to the ancient empire on the Tigris, will, I am certain, appear more probable in proportion as the testimony of the old writers, both sacred and profane, is carefully examined. To conclude, as has usually been done, that the Me- dian power obtained an ascendency over the Assyrian at the time when Arbaces, a Mede by birth or office, ascend- ed the throne of Nineveh, is not only in itself a groundless assumption, but directly contrary to the best-established facts of contemporaneous history. The attempt made by Larcher, the celebrated editor of Herodotus, to extricate from confusion and contradiction the opinions which are usually entertained on this subject, affords a striking proof, not only of the dominion of system even over a vigorous mind, but also of the utter untenability of the hypothesis in favour of which his reasoning is employed. Admitting that Nineveh was not destroyed at the revolt of Arbaces, and even that several kings reigned in that city after the event now mentioned, he finds it necessary to suggest that the prefect just named, and Belesis his confederate, must, after they dethroned the tyrant against whom they had taken arms, have come to the resolution of setting up another sovereign in his place ; on condition that he, the king of kings and master of the Assyrian empire, should profess himself a tributary and vassal to them, the gover- nors of Media and Babylon ! II est certain que le royaume de Ninive ne fut point de- truit par la revolution arrivee sous Sardanapale. Castor, qui fait mention de cette revolution, parle de Ninus suc- cesseur de ce prince. II y a grande apparence que Ar- 122 CONNECTION OF SACRED HBoOK II. baces et Belesys considerant que s''ils vouloient subjuguer le reste des provinces Assyriennes, il etoit a craindre qu'- ils ne reussissent pas, aimerent mieux reconnoitre Ninus pour roi, lui imposant un tribut, et se retirer dans leurs etats respectifs pour y afFermir leur puissance.* The plan here ascribed to the governors of Media and Babylon is sufficiently absurd. They were desirous, it is said, to conquer all the Assyrian provinces, and yet they began by establishing a king over the country which they meant to overrun with their arms ; the capital of which, too, with all its wealth and influence, they had just thought proper to relinquish ! Why should they retire into their respective provinces to confirm their power, when Nineveh was already in their hands ? And why set up a king in the centre of the empire, and immediately withdraw into their several governments to collect a force in order to de- throne him ? One absurdity follows another here so closely, that it is only a waste of time to repeat them. The account given by Ctesias, on the other hand, is plain and simple. He tells us, that Arbaces himself ascended the Assyrian throne ; which was held by him and his suc- cessors during 267 years, — a period which terminates at the very time when Cyrus put an end to the Median empire in the reign of Astyages. Larcher very naturally asks, as the monarchy of Assy- ria subsisted after the death of Sardanapalus, why the most part of ancient authors should agree in fixing the destruction of it at that epoch .'* This question he is pleas- ed to answer on the ground of the same hypothesis which has led him into so much inconsistency ; for, assuming the identity of the prince whom Arbaces deposed, and of Sar- " Memoire sur quelques Epoques des Assyriens. Par M. Larcher. Hist, de r.\cademie des Inscrip. et Belles Lettres, vol. xlv. p. 379. Chap. I.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 123 danapalus, who perished amidst the ruins of Nineveh, he maintains that the Assyrians, from the revolt of Arbaces, fell into comparative insignificance, and no longer played the first part on the theatre of the world. J'ai observe que depuis ce moment Tempire d'Assyrie ne joua, pour ainsi dire, sur la scene du monde, qu'un role secondaire ; que depouille de ses plus belles provinces il perdit presque tout son ancien eclat ; qu'eclipse par les royaumes de Ba- bylone et de Medie, il n'attira plus sur lui les yeux de rOrient ; en un mot, qu'il cessa d'etre compte au nombre de grandes monarchies.* It is not a little remarkable, that this very epoch, which is fixed upon by Larcher for the decline of the Assyrian empire, when it was eclipsed by other kingdoms, and ceas- ed to be counted in the number of the great monarchies, has been singled out by Marsham, Newton, and Jameson as the era when that empire first began to attract notice ! The brilliant reigns of Pul, Tiglathpileser, and Shalma- neser, and the mighty host of Sennacherib, afford ample evidence that the power of Assyria was not yet diminish- ed, and that her crown was not yet deprived of its glory. We are assured, too, in holy writ, that the captives taken by these warriors in their repeated invasions of the land of Israel were placed in the cities of Media ; a province which must, at that period, when, according to Larcher, the kings of Nineveh were tributaries to its governor, have been in complete subjection to them. The editor of Herodotus could not find any means of reconciling the narrative of sacred history with the chro- nological scheme which he had been led to form. He could not conceal from himself the convincing- evidence • Larcher. Memoire sur quelques Epoques des Assyriens, p. 380. 124 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. presented in the Old Testament for the existence of the Assyrian empire in full strength and splendour ; while, according to the conclusions of his system, he was compel- led to regard it as tributary to the satrap of Media, and as utterly disabled from disputing the commands of that re- bellious province. To relieve his argument from this di- lemma, he ventures to suggest that the Assyrian monarch, finding he was not a match for the Medes, resolved to carry his arms against the Israelites, whom he describes as a feeble people and long a prey to their neighbours.* Such policy on the part of the Ninevite sovereign must appear at least very questionable, whatever we may be disposed to think of its probability ; and, in fact, unless we are sup- plied with stronger reasons than M. Larcher has devised, we shall still be slow to believe that a king, who could not protect his hereditary dominions against rebellious sub- jects, would lead out the flower of his army to make foreign conquests in a poor and distant country. But as the captives taken during his expedition in the land of Israel were sent by the Assyrian ruler into the ci- ties of the Medes, it is to be presumed that these cities were still under his dominion ; for which reason M. Larcher desires his reader to imagine that Shalmaneser had, at a con- venient moment, invaded some little canton of Media, and conquered the places whither he afterwards despatched his prisoners. " Historians," says he, '' have, without doubt, kept silence respecting this invasion of Media, because it was confined to the conquest of a very small country, and was therefore too inconsiderable to deserve to be transmitted * Ce prince, ne se sentant point assez puissant pour faire rentrer les IVIedes sous son obeissance, aima mieux porter I'efFort de ses armcs centre les Israelites, peuple foible, et depuis longtemps la proie de ses voisins. — Me- mnire/s . t 1 Kings xv, "20. 216 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. his palace and the city, and to carry away all his wealth, and whatsoever was pleasant in his eyes. This threaten- ed indignity at length roused the dormant spirit of Ahab ; who, encouraged by his counsellors and the elders of his city, declared to the besieger that he would not submit to a condition so extremely offensive and debasing. " Where- fore, he said unto the messengers of Benhadad, Tell my lord, the king, all that thou didst send for to thy servant at the first will I do, but this thing I may not do." The refusal irritated the proud feelings of the Syrian despot. He declared that he would bring up such an army against Samaria, that were every soldier to take even one handful of earth, the whole land would be removed.* Ahab made no other return to this foolish menace, except an ad- monition to his adversary to found his triumphs upon deeds rather than upon words. " Let not him that gird- eth on his harness boast as he that putteth it off^'f The Syrian army now received orders to invest the city of Samaria in form, and to prepare for the assault. In the mean time, Benhadad, who seems to have been a very voluptuous prince, followed his pleasures, heedless of all danger. But, in the midst of his security and ca- rousals, he was told that a party of Israelites was seen ad- vancing from the city ; which intelligence at first created a slight alarm in the camp, and even disturbed the king himself. Upon ascertaining that the number of the enemy was too insignificant to excite any apprehension, he gave directions that, whatever might be their purpose, they should be brought alive into his presence ; and then re- turned to his sottish enjoyments. The small body of citi- zens who had issued from the gates, consisted of Ahab himself and a hundred and thirty-two young men ; who, • 1 Kings XX. 1 — 21. t 1 Kings xx. 11. Chap. II.] AND I'llOFANE HISTORY. 2J7 though it was noon-day, had been encouraged by a pro- phet to go out and fall upon the mighty host of the Sy- rians. The latter not imagining that a handful of sol- diers, however brave or desperate, could meditate an at- tack upon an army at once so numerous and so well appointed, were taken by surprise ; and, before they had time to assume their arms, they found themselves as- sailed with the most determined fury, and cut in pieces by Ahab and his chosen band. A general panic seized the camp, and every one prepared for flight. Benhadad himself mounted a horse and joined the fugitives ; many of whom, being pursued by the victorious Hebrews, were slain in their confused and hasty retreat. This unexpected discomfiture covered the Syrians with the deepest shame, and created amongst them mutual re- crimination and contempt. Endeavouring to find some apology for their inglorious flight, they suggested that the gods of the Israelites were more powerful on the hills than the divinities of Syria ; and that, on this account alone, Ahab and his company had been crowned with success : assuring their king, at the same time, that if he would draw up his army in the plain, his gods, whose influence was most commonly exerted on level ground, would restore in his favour the fortune of the war. They insinuated, moreover, that his alHes had not shown suffi- cient ardour in the cause; that their leaders were deficient in skill ; and that there was a want of co-operation in the camp as well as in the field. They concluded by ad- vising him to raise another army equal to the former, chariot for chariot, horse for horse, and advance against the Israelites with the fullest confidence of victory. The Syrian monarch hearkened to this specious coun- sel. In the following year he marched against the king of Israel with a similar army ; as if determined to rea- 218 CONNECTION OF SACRED QBooK II. lize his empty boast, and carry off Samaria in the hollow of their hands. True to the advice which he had re- ceived respecting the godi.; of the hills, he encamped his forces at Aphek, in a champaign country ; where the dei- ties of his native land might have full scope for all their art and power. After waiting seven days in the presence of a small body of Hebrews, he thought proper to engage ; when he lost, of foot soldiers only, not less than one hun- dred thousand. The rest fled with precipitation to the stronghold of Aphek ; where twenty-seven thousand of their number were crushed to death by the city wall, which fell upon them as they were about to enter the gates. Benhadad, now finding that no reliance could be placed upon his gods, abandoned himself to despair. He sought concealment within the city of Aphek, which he resolved to defend against the conqueror ; when his followers re- minded him that the kings of Israel were not wont to pursue their advantages to extremity, and added the as- surance that Ahab would probably receive him with kind- ness and treat him like a brother. To engage the com- passion of that monarch, a certain number of the Syrian officers consented to go forth to him with sackcloth on their loins and ropes about their necks, and to entreat his cle- mency in behalf of their master. Ahab could not resist these tokens of humility and submission, but expressed a desire to have an immediate personal interview with Benhadad. The latter no sooner appeared than he was taken into the chariot of the Israelitish sovereign ; to whom he made a promise to restore all that his father had wrested from the ten tribes, and even to grant to them certain privileges in the city of Damascus. A peace was concluded, and the Syrian prince restored to liberty.* " 1 Kings XX. I — :54. Chap. II.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 219 Ahab soon found that he had confided too much in the assurances of his captive. Benhadad, unwilling to rehn- quish the hold which his predecessors had obtained upon Israel, refused to give up Ramoth-Gilead ; upon which the other, enraged at the ingratitude and faithlessness with which he had been treated, resolved to recruit his armies and to take the city by force. He prevailed on Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, to be his auxiliary in this war; and, accord- ingly, the two nionarchs, at the head of a large body of troops, directed their march to Raraoth, The Syrians were prepared to receive them, and to determine the dispute in a general action. The precautions adopted by Ahab, to save his life in the field, are familiar to every reader of Scripture. He disguised himself before he went into the battle, while Jehoshaphat put on his royal robes : But all his cares were fruitless ; for one of the enemy, drawing a bow at a venture, smote him between the joints of his harness, and wounded him mortally. He retired from the scene of conflict, bleeding profusely ; and lived only long enough to reach his capital, and to fulfil the predic- tions of the indignant prophet. The fight continued un- til the shades of night allowed each party to withdraw, with great loss, and doubtful claims of victory.* The Syrian army was led on this occasion by the cele- brated Naaman, who was shortly afterwards cured by Elisha of a dangerous malady.-f* His sense of this great obligation is supposed to have had a good effect upon the policy of his country ; which was thereafter more disposed to cultivate the relations of peace than to dispute the pos- session of insignificant towns, or the occupancy of a por- tion of desert. It is, moreover, imagined that the Syrian I Kings xxii. 3 — 35. -f 2 Kings v. 15. 220 CONNECTION OF SACKED CBooK II. captain renounced idolatry, and acknowledged from the heart that there was no god in all the earth but in Israel. The testimony, however, is not free from suspicion ; and, at all events, we are supplied with too few facts to warrant any positive conclusion respecting the views of Naaman. But whatever might be the sentiments of the victorious general in regard to the divine authority of the Jewish reli- ^on, it is certain that Benhadad himself remained equally sceptical and obdurate. Renewing his designs against Is- rael, he fixed a time and a place for encamping his troops ; when, to his surprise, he discovered that all his plans were known to the enemy. His suspicions being directed towards his own officers, they, in their defence, suggested to him that all the information obtained by the king of Israel was conveyed by Elisha, the man of God. " The heart of the king of Syria was sore troubled for this thing; and he called his servants and said unto them. Will ye not show me which of us is for the king of Israel ? And one of his servants said, None, O king : but Elisha, the pro- phet that is in Israel, telleth the king of Israel the words that thou speakest in thy bed-chamber.""* The infatuated Syrian allowed himself to imagine that, by force of arms, he could subdue the opposition which he had to encounter from a worker of miracles. " And he saidj Go, spy where he is, that I may send and fetch him. And it was told him, saying, Behold he is in Dothan. Therefore sent he thither horses and chariots, and a great host : and they came by night and compassed the city about. And when the servant of the Lord was risen early and was gone forth, behold an host compassed the city both with horses and chariots."-f- At the prayers of 2 Kings vi. 11, 12. f 2 Kings vi. 13 — 15. Chap. II.] AND PROFANE HISTOUY. 221 Elisha the Syrians were smitten with blindness, and fell into his hands afflicted and defenceless. He conducted the principal men into Samaria, and placed them before the king; upon which their sight was immediately restored and the peril of their situation rendered manifest. Jo- ram, who was at that time on the throne of Israel, seemed inclined to put them to death ; but the prophet, actuated by a better spirit, recommended to his youthful sovereign clemency and hospitality. " And the king said unto Elisha, when he saw them. My father, shall I smite them, shall I smite them ? And he answered. Thou shalt not smite them : wouldst thou smite those whom thou hast taken captive with thy sword and with thy bow ? Set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink and go to their master. And he prepared great provi- sion for them, and when they had eaten and drunk, he sent them away, and they went to their master. So the bands of Syria came no more into the land of Israel.'"* The remark with which the last paragraph concludes, could only apply to the occasion by which it was suggest- ed ; or, perhaps, it was meant to express nothing more than the fact that the Syrians had not again recourse to such concealed arts for accomplishing their views against the Hebrews. That it was not intended to impress on the mind of the reader, the belief of a total cessation of hosti- lities between the rival kingdoms of Israel and Damascus, is perfectly evident from the construction of the narra- tive ; for it is immediately added, " and it came to pass ifter this that Benhadad, king of Syria, gathered all his host, and went up and besieged Samaria." The circumstances which attended this memorable • 2 Kings vii. 6, 7- 222 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. siege ; the sufferings which were endured by the inhabi- tants from a scarcity of provisions; the resolution with which they held out against the powerful host which beleaguered their walls ; and the miraculous source whence they at length derived relief, are all recorded by the sacred his- torian in the most eloquent language. When the city was reduced to the last extremity, so that an ass''s head was sold for fourscore pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a cab of dove's dung for five pieces of silver, the camp of the Syrians was broken up by one of those incidents Avhich, though supernatural in their origin, are yet closely connected with the history of oriental warfare. In the course of the night, the Lord made the host of the Syrians to hear a noise of chariots and a noise of horses, even the noise of a great host : and they said one to another, Lo ! the king of Israel hath hired against us the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of the Egyptians, to come upon us. Wherefore they rose and fled in the twilight, and left their tents, and their horses, and their asses, even the camp as it was, and fled for their life.* The warlike and ambitious Benhadad was now drawing towards the close of his career, which had proved very fatal to Israel and Judah. Being overtaken by sickness, he sent one of his superior officers to Elisha, who happen- ed to be at Damascus, to inquire concerning his fate. The reply was ambiguous, importing that he might re- cover, but was certainly to die, — a form of words which Hazael interpreted so as to meet the objects of his 6wii aspiring views. He returned to the old king, whom he first flattered with the hopes of convalescence and then murdered. " It came to pass on the morrow, that he • 2 Kings vi. 21—23. Chap. II.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 223 took a thick cloth and dipped it in water, and spread it on his face, so that he died.'^* */l.'Of Benhadad, the Jewish historian remarks that he was an active man, and had the good-will of the Syrians and of the people of Damascus to a great degree; by whom both he and Hazael, who ruled after him, are hon- oured to this day as gods. He adds, that when Joram, the king of Israel, heard of his death, he recovered from his terror, and was happy to live in peace.-f* It is not without some surprise we learn that Hazael was anointed to the kingly office over Syria, by the hand of Elijah. That ambitious adventurer was, indeed, raised to the throne by the providence of God, to be a scourge for chastising the wickedness of the chosen people ; and, on this account, the ministry of the prophet, in the case now before us, was perfectly agreeable to the vocation which had been adressed to him by the voice of Heaven. *' The Lord said unto him. Go, return on thy way to the wilderness of Damascus, and when thou comest, anoint Hazael to be king over Syria : and Jehu the son of Nim- shi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel. And it shall come to pass that him that escapeth the sword of Hazael shall Jehu slay. "J ' When this aspiring leader had been some time in pos- session of supreme power, his fiery spirit was roused by an attack made upon his territory by Joram, king of Israel, and Amaziah, king of Judah. The claim of the former upon Ramoth-Gilead was revived; and an at- tempt for its recovery, similar to that which failed in tire days of Benhadad, was again undertaken by the confede- rated kings. It would appear that they now succeeded • 2 Kings viii. 16. -f Antiq. Jud. lib. ix. c. 4. J I Kings xix. 15, 16. 224 CONNKCTION OV SACKKD [Book II. either in reducing the city, or in obtaining it by capitula- tion ; for we are assured, in the ninth chapter of the se- cond book of the Kings, that Ramoth-Gilead was in the hands of Joram and of all Israel. But the sovereign now named was dangerously wounded at the siege, and returned to Jezreel to be cured ; and as the conspiracy headed by Jehu deprived both him and Ahaziah of their sceptres, before they could avail themselves of their suc- cess against Syria, the historian passes on, with a simple allusion to this event, to other matters more important to his narrative. But if Hazael was deprived of one city by the united forces of Israel and Judah, he obtained, during his re- peated inroads into the lands of these kindred nations, an ample compensation and revenge. Even the impetuous valour of Jehu could not save his country : for in those days the Lord began to cut Israel short, and Hazael smote them in all their coasts ; from Jordan eastward all the land of Gilead, the Gadites, and the ReubeniteSj and the Manassites, from Aroer, which is by the river Arnon, even Gilead and Bashan. Josephus informs us that, in the course of this expedition, the Syrian chief fully rea- lized the prediction of the prophet concerning his san- guinary and vindictive temper ; for he spared neither man, woman, nor child, but put all to the sword. Nor was the son of Jehu more fortunate in his wars with Damascus. In his days the oppression of Israel was very great under the hand of this formidable enemy. There were " not left to Jehoahaz but fifty horsemen, and ten chariots, and ten thousand footmen, for the king of Syria had destroyed them, and made them like the dust by thrashing."* " 2 Kings xiii. 3, 4, 7- 22. Chap. II.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 22;') Having thus punished the inconstancy of the ten tribes, Hazael next directed his arms against the king of Judah. He passed the Jordan, reduced the strong city of Gath, now become a possession of David's house and a royal residence, and made preparations for attacking Jeru- salem itself. But he was diverted from the enterprise by the submission and rich gifts which were presented to him by the dastardly Jehoahaz, who at that period bore the sceptre of Judah and Benjamin. The Syrian, allowing himself to be turned aside for a time from the entire conquest of the Holy Land, departed, loaded with gold and other valu- able treasure, only to arrange the means for undertaking a still more formidable invasion. Accordingly, before the year had expired, he sent a strong body of troops, to at- tack the capital of Judea, and to enrich his numerous soldiers with booty and slaves. " And they came to Ju- dah and Jerusalem, and destroyed all the princes of the people from among the people, and sent all the spoil of them unto the king of Damascus."* Hazael raised the power of Syria to its meridian strength ; he extended its conquests as far as Elath on the Red sea ; he subdued the richest parts of Israel and of Judah ; and kept both kingdoms in a state of subjection during the latter portion of his reign. -f- But his successor, Benhadad, inherited neither his talents nor his fortune. The courage of the Hebrew tribes once more returned : the armies of Syria ceased to be invincible ; and Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz, regained in three pitched battles all • 2 Chronicles xxiv. 23, \ This conquest of Elath by Hazael seems to be very much a matter of inference. 1 cannot find any direct statement to that effect ; and it is only because Rezin is said to have recovered it, that the previous capture is be. lieved. TOL. II. P 226 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. that his father had lost.* Jeroboam, also, his heir on the throne, followed up his victories against the Syrians. He prosecuted the war until he recovered for Israel Da- mascus and Hamath, which belonged to Judah ; nor did he lay down his arms before he had the satisfaction of seeing his native country possessed of her ancient do- mains, and able to defend her rights against all her ene- mies round about. Some time after the death of Jeroboam, the Syrians once more turned their thoughts to the conquest of Canaan. Kezin, their last sovereign, towards the close of his reign, entered into a league with Pekah, the king of Israel, against Ahaz, king of Judah, with a design to dethrone the latter, and to set up in his place, an adventurer named Tabeel, who could claim no connection witii the family of David. In prosecution of this object they be- sieged Ahaz in Jerusalem ; but finding that they could not succeed in their undertaking, they withdrew their army from the walls. It is to this occurrence that Isaiah alludes when he observes, " it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved and the heart of his people as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind. Then said the Lord, Go forth and meet Ahab, and say unto him. Take heed and be quiet ; fear not, neither be faint-hearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and for the son of Remaliah."-f- Disappointed in the main purpose of his expedition, the Syrian monarch marched into Edom, and made himself master of Elath on the Red sea ; where he planted a co- lony of seamen and merchants, which flourished many * 2 Kings xiii. 25. t Isaiah vii. 2. 3, 4. Chap. II.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 227 years after the final subversion of his kingdom.* Nor had he in the meanwhile finally relinquished his views against Judah. In the commencement of the following year, he renewed his confederacy with Pckah, and once more en- tered the dominions of Ahaz ; who, notwithstanding the warning which he had received the foregoing season, ap- pears to have been quite unprepared for this attack. He was not only a weak but a very wicked prince, "wherefore the Lord delivered him into the hand of the king of Syria ; and they smote him, and carried away a great multitude of them captive, and brought them to Damas- cus : and he was also delivered into the hand of the king of Israel, who smote him with a great slaughter- For Pekah the son of Remaliah slew in Judah an hundred and twenty thousand in one day, which were all valiant men ; because they had forsaken the Lord God of their fathers. And the children of Israel carried away captive of their brethren two hundred thousand, women, sons, and daughters, and took also away much spoil from them, and brought it unto Samaria."*}- But this successful inroad proved fatal to the confede- rated kings and to their respective dominions ; for Ahaz, perceiving that he could no longer defend his borders, bribed Tiglathpileser, the monarch of Assyria, to attack Rezin and Pekah, and to inflict upon them the revenge which he himself could only cherish in his heart. " Ahaz sent messengers to the king of Assyria, saying, I am thy servant and thy son ; come up and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the hand of the * "He recovered Elath to Syria," are the words of our version. Tlie Vulgate bears the same meaning, " In tempore illo rcstUuit Razin rex Syriae Aiiam Syrise." Whence it has been inferred that Elath was subdued by Hazael when he sent part of his army against Jerusalem, — An. Un, Hist, t 2 Chronicles xxviii. 5 — 8. 228 CONNECTION OF SACRED [BoOK II. king of Israel, which rise up against me. And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king's house, and he sent it for a present to the king of Assyria. And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him ; for the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and car- ried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin, And thus was fulfilled the prediction of Isaiah, who said. Be- hold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and the kingdom shall cease from Damascus, and the remnant of Syria. I will send fire, says Amos, into the house of Ha- zael, which shall devour the palaces of Benhadad. I will cut off him that holdeth the sceptre from the house of Eden : and the people of Syria shall go into captivity unto Kir, saith the Lord."* Concerning the laws and religious usages which distin- guished the ancient Syrians, we have already spoken in the chapter which treats of the superstitions of Canaan. It is certain they had many idols, the names of which are well known to every reader of Scripture ; the chief of whom was Rimmon, whose temple stood at Damascus. This ancient god is supposed to have given place to one of their deified monarchs, whose character and reputation induced his sottish people to worship him as a divinity, under the appellation of Adar or Ader. Some have imagined that this favoured prince was Benhadad the Second ; but it is more probable that such a token of popular veneration was bestowed upon Hazael, who raised their country to the highest pitch of greatness, and whose reign was a continued series of prosperity and brilliant exploits. Jo- sephus, indeed, asserts that both of these kings enjoyed * Isaiah xvii. 1 — 3 ; Amos i. 4, 5. Ancient Universal History, vol. p. 467. ChaI'. II.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 22& the apotheosis ; and as Adad or Hadad was a name com- mon to all the kings of Syria, it might be applied indiscri- minately to the one and to the other.* At the conquest of Tiglathpileser, a new form of idola- try was introduced among the Syrians, by the colonists who were sent from the banks of the Tigris to occupy their va- cant land. What other changes took place in the national worship, under the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans, it were vain to inquire, because we have no means of obtaining satisfactory knowledge ; but for an account of their ritual, as it existed in the second century of the Christian era, with all its grotesque and impure observances, the reader is referred to that particular tract of Lucian, which bears the title of the Syrian Goddess. The learning of ancient Syria has transmitted to us no specimens to confirm the eulogies which have been bestow- ed upon it by some of the Christian fathers. Clemens of Alexandria divides between this people and the Phenicians the honour of having invented letters, and of extending their use among the surrounding nations.*f Nor can it ad- mit of doubt that the local position of the Syrians, and the intercourse which subsisted between them and the most polished tribes of the East, must have afforded the best opportunities of profiting by the advancement of know- ledge, and even of adding to its increasing stock. The Syrian language, like that of most eastern coun- tries, was very deficient in written vowels till towards the latter end of the eighth century ; when, as is generally supposed, they were introduced by Theophilus of Edessa, chief astronomer to the khalif Al Mohdi. This learned • Josephi Antiq. Jud. lib. vii. c. G. Ancient Universal History, vol. p. 443. + Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. 230 CONNECTION OF S ACHED [Book II. person borrowed some characters from the Greek alphabet, and first made use of them to denote the proper pronun- ciation of names and titles in his Syriac translation of the works of Homer. The marks which he adopted to ex- press these peculiar sounds, still retain very nearly the exact form of five of the Greek vowels — the two long and the three doubtful — for the Syriac tongue, we are inform- ed, rejects all short vocal utterances. About a century, indeed, before the time of Theophilus, one of his coun- trymen, the celebrated James of Edessa, invented seven new characters, corresponding to the more complete alpha- bet of their western neighbours ; some ti'aces of which, as well as of more important imitations, are still extant in the works of contemporaneous authors.* Of the arts, the commerce, and the manners of the an- cient Syrians, we know as little as of their literature and education. But that, in all these branches of human pursuit, they had accomplished much more than can be now established by sufficient evidence, will be readily ad- mitted by those who have marked the effects of the obli- terating hand of time, on the most splendid monuments of human power and genius. For example, the industry of man had already made a great conquest over the sterility of nature, in the vast desert which divides Palestine from the ancient confines of Babylonia ; for, even at the present day, there are still traces of a great canal, ten leagues west- ward from the Euphrates, which must have flowed five hundred miles in the same direction with the parent river, spreading beauty and vegetation over the face of the wil- derness. Such a work, executed, it is probable, in a very remote antiquity, argues a considerable advancement " As»eman. Biblioth. Orient, toni. i. p. 4!>7- Bernard. Tab. Alphab. Chap. II.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 2'M in the arts of social life ; and proves, moreover, that good land had become so valuable as to induce the agriculturist to extend his means for supplying the wants and comforts of an increased population.* VIII. But some of these inquiries may be more pro- perly introduced when employed in giving an account of the Phenicians ; of whose history, as connected with that of the Israelites, I now proceed to exhibit a short abridgment. Much difference of opinion has existed among biblical critics and antiquaries respecting the origin of this singular people. Bochart, who thinks they were descendants of Canaan, suggests that, being ashamed of their extraction, and desirous to avoid the effects of the curse denounced against their ancestor, they changed their name into Pheni- cians, Syrians, and Syro-Phenicians.*|- Heidegger adopted the same views, and maintained that the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon were certainly Canaanites. The authors of the Ancient Universal History observe, that it is everywhere allowed the Phenicians were Canaanites by descent. No- thing, they add, is plainer or less contested, and, there- fore, it were time lost to prove it. " We shall only add, that their blood must have been mixed with that of foreigners in process of time, as it happens in all trading places; and that many strange families must have settled among them, who could consequently lay no claim to this remote origin, how much soever they may have been " Gillies's History of Greece, vol. i. part second, p. 89. •f Phaleg, lib. iv. cap. 34, Jam si roges cur Phoenices, si vero essent posteri Chanaan, in Gracorum monumentis Chananai nunquam vocantur : respondebo Chananaeos pudisse sui nominis, et desiisse sic appellari, propter anathema contortum in patrem suum Chanaan : maxime cum viderent a Judaeis se bello peti internecino, et magnis affligi cladibus, non alia de causa quam quod Chanaanaei essent. 232 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book IL called Phenicians, and reckoned of the same descent with the ancient proprietor?."* Perhaps, an additional argu- ment for their Canaanitish origin might be derived from the fact, that the country which they occupied in Pales- tine was included in the inheritance assigned to the tribes of Israel ; and, moreover, that they are mentioned in the list of those nations from whom the Almighty had at dif- ferent times delivered his chosen people.-f- They are, be- sides, ranked indiscriminately with those Canaanites whom the sons of Jacob did not expel from the promised land : for while we read that the Asherites " did not drive out the inhabitants of Accho, nor the inhabitants of Zidon, nor of Ahiab, nor of Achzib, nor of Keebah, nor of Aphik, nor of Rehob ;" we are also informed that " the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, ^the inhabitants of the land." + Sir William Drummond, in his late work on the origin of eastern nations, has given an eloquent and faithful statement of the arguments which might be employed on both sides of the question. In support of the hypothesis that the Phenicians were of a root and lineage quite dif- ferent from those of the Canaanites, he reminds the reader that, among all the eleven tribes or families descended from the grandson of Ham, the people who inhabited Tyre and Sidon are not to be found. The Scripture en- ables us to trace the settlements and ramifications of the former over the face of the whole country which had fallen to their lot; but they are nowhere said to have given birth to a race who bore the name of Phenicians. In the next place, he lays some stress upon the circum- * Ancient Universal History, vol. ii. p. 10. t Judges X. 12. + Judges i. 31, 32. Chap. II.3 AND PROFANE HISTORY. 233 stance that the Asherites, to whose share the sea-coast of Phenicia was assigned, did not insist upon their depar- ture from the towns and rich fieldswhich they had long pos- sessed ; but entered into a treaty with them, or, at least, exercised such a degree of forbearance as implied that the invaders would content themselves, for a time, with the oc- cupation of the hill-country. But this, it is obvious, is not a very cogent argument, and would not be pressed by any wise controversialist; for every reader of the book of Judges must, at the first glance, perceive that the Hebrews showed a similar forbearance towards several other nations which were avowedly sprung from the son of Ham, and consequently involved in the malediction which they were commissioned to execute. The Israelites being all armed as foot soldiers, soon discovered that they were not able to stand in the field against the chariots and horsemen of Canaan ; on which account, they prudently postponed the conquest of their promised inheritance, until experience and a better discipline should have rendered them a more equal match for such formidable warriors. If this consi- deration induced them to tolerate the residence of Canaan- ites in all the plain country, it would act with double force when applied to the inhabitants of the strong towns situated along the coast ; and hence, the opinions of those who maintain that the Phenicians were not Canaanites, receive no confirmation from the pacific intercourse which subsisted between this people and the neighbouring tribes. Did not the Jebusites retain possession of the fortress at Jerusalem till the reign of David, more than five hundred years after the invasion of Joshua ? But, in the third place, Herodotus states, in the opening of his first book, that, according to the Persians, the Phe- nicians came from the coast of the Erythrcsan sea- In his ninth book, the same historian assures us, that they give 234 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. the same account of their origin. The Phenicians, as they themselves report, anciently dwelt on the coast of the Erythraean gulf, and, passing over from thence, fixed their abode by the sea of Syria.* They appear to have chosen their first settlement near the lake of Genesareth ; but, being alarmed by an earthquake, they subsequently ad- vanced to the shores of the Mediterranean. This is the account of their migration which is furnished by Justin ;-|- to which, it is supposed, some confirmation may be derived from the writings of Strabo, who remarks that, according to some, the Phenicians were so called because they came from the Erythraean sea ; both these terms signifying red. There is a passage in Pliny, too, which is not unworthy of notice. This author, speaking of the island of Erythia, says, " Erythia dicta est quoniam Tyrii aborigines eorum orti ah Erythrao marijerehentur ;"" upon which the com- mentator Vossius observes, " Egufie** est dicta, ah Erythceis : Erythoei autem Phcenices, qui hoc nomen adepti ah Erythceo sive rubro mari, unde Tyrum venerant. Nempe Ery- thraei ab l^vS^oi, ruber : Erythea ah i^vSo?, r«&or.*'''J The etymological argument suggested by Pliny, has by some writers been pursued so far as to identify the Phenicians with the descendants of Esau or Edom, a term which likewise denotes the colour already mentioned : and thus Erythraeans, Edomites, and Phenicians are, up- on this hypothesis, understood to signify the same thing, and to be applied to the. same people. Supported by this conclusion, some commentators have proceeded to ex- • Herod, lib. vii. c. 89. + Justini Hist. lib. xviii. c. 3. Tyrorum gens condita a Phoenicibus fuit, qui terrae motu vexati, relicto patrio solo, Assyrium stagnum primum, mox mari proximum littus incoluerunt, condita ibi urbe, tjuam a piscium ubertate, Sidona appellaverunt . nam piscem Phoenices xidoii vocant. ^. Origines, vol. iii. p. 11. Chap. II.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 235 plain the threatening denounced against Edom by the pro- phet Amos, as applying to the relation of brotherhood which subsisted between that tribe and the progeny of Jacob. *' Thus saith the Lord, For three transgressions of Tyrus, and for four, I will not turn away the punish- ment thereof ; because they delivered up the whole cap- tivity to Edom, and remembered not the brotherly cove- nant : But I will send a fire on the wall of Tyrus, which shall devour the palaces thereof. Thus saith the Lord, For three transgressions of Edom, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because he did pur- sue his brother with the sword, and did cast ofF all pity, and his anger did tear perpetually, and he kept his wrath for ever. But I will send a fire upon Teman, which shall devour the palaces of Bozrah."* Assuming the identity of the Edomites and the Pheni- cians, we discover a meaning in the prophet's words which could not otherwise have been drawn from them ; and which, in fact, does not apply to the national alliance that was founded upon the private friendship of Hiram and king Solomon. On various occasions the people of Tyre had co-operated with the enemies of Israel. They had assist- ed the Arabians and Philistines in the days of Jehoram ; and joined with other invaders in jjlundering the cities of Judah, and in carrying the inhabitants into captivity.-|- Hence, it is concluded that the brotherly covenant was broken, and that, therefore, the anger of the Lord was stirred up against the descendants of Esau, the inhabi- tants of Tyre and Sidon. It must be admitted that the writers, who confine the denunciation of Amos to the infraction of a public treaty between the king of Tyre and a Hebrew prince, have on " Amos i. 9 — 12. t 2 Chronicles x%i. 10. ; Joel iii. 4, 5, C. 236 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book IL their side the authority of St Jerome. This father, who was unquestionably a learned as well as an ingenious ex- pounder of Scripture, could discover no other reason why the people of Tyre should be called brethren of the Jews^ than that their respective countries had been united in the bonds of amity. We do not find, however, that it was customary for the sacred writers to regard a political compact as the basis of a brotherhood so strict and sacred, that the curse of God was due to him who should at any time forget it ; or to teach that nations which had ever been at peace could not again go to war, without incurring the same tremendous anathema.* But the arguments used by those who maintain that the Phenicians were Canaanites, are still more probable, for they rest on a striking fact mentioned by the inspired writer of the Pentateuch ; namely, that Sidon was the first- born of Canaan, from whom, it is obvious, the city derived its appellation. It has, indeed, been contended that, long before the time of Joshua, the original Canaanites were expelled, and their place occupied by a colony from the shores of the Erythraean sea ; but of this conquest and mi- gration there is not, in sacred history, the slightest proof or memorial. It is a mere hypothesis, devised to account for a supposed fact, which is equally destitute of evidence and of probability. Besides, the compiler of the book of • Quaerimus, quomodo Tyrii sint fratres Judaeorum. Fratres hie amicos Voeat, et neeessitudine copulates, eo quod Hiram jmnceps Tyri cum David et Solomone habuerit amicitias. Hicronomi Opera, cited by Sir ^^^illiam Drummond. " The words of Amos," says the latter author, " consequent- ly contain nothing from which it can possibly be inferred that the Pheni- cians were descended from the Edomites." — Orig'mes, vol. iii. p. 51. I observe that Grotius approves the same interpretation. Et non sint RECORDATi FEDEBis FRATRUM^ Solomonis et Hirami ; nam federati in- ter se fratres vocabantur. — Annotaia in Amosum. Lowth, on the other hand, seems to adopt both views. — See his Commrn- tary upon Amos. Chap. IL] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 837 Joshua, and the authors of the Septuagint have, in many parts of their respective works, assumed the Canaanitish origin of the Phenician people ; using the two terms as strictly synonimous, and as being both equally applicable to the dwellers at Tyre and Sidon. Again, the Philistines were not Canaanites, and therefore their lands were not included in the gift made by Jehovah to the seed of Abra- ham : But the lands of the Phenicians were devoted as a part of the promised inheritance ; wherefore we may con- clude that the latter people were the offspring of him upon whom the curse was originally pronounced. I am not ignorant of the great weight that has been at- tached to the statement of Herodotus relative to the ori- gin of the Tyrians and Sidonians ; in which he assures us, that not only did the Persians assert that the Phenicians came from the coast of the Erythraean sea, but also that the Phenicians themselves maintained the same fact. Herodo* tus had been at Tyre ; and it is difficult to suppose him to have mistaken the meaning of what had been told to him both by the Persians and by the Phenicians. Nor is the effect of his testimony to be removed, by supposing that the Canaanites, who originally took possession of Phenice, must have previously dwelt on the shores of the Arabian gulf. The sacred historian tells us that Sidon was the eldest son of Canaan ; and this, as Sir Wilham Drum- mond remarks, is quite sufficient to prove the fallacy of the conjecture which would place the first settlement of the Canaanites on any part of the Erythrsean sea.* But we may perhaps be able to account for the above tradition, by supposing that some of the natives of the Persian coast, who were at a very early period addicted to commerce, may in their different voyages round the * Origjnes, vol. iii. p. 57. 238 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Boor II. margin of Western Asia, have touched at the Phenician ports, and ultimately obtained permission from the inha- bitants to repair their ships and land their goods. Such intercourse would, in a short time, lead to greater conces- sions and to more intimate relations. Tempted by the wealth and luxury which mercantile enterprise brought to their doors, the rude Syrians would perhaps allow their visiters to construct a harbour, and to build storehouses ; and hence would originate, among the descendants of Canaan, a colony of foreigners, who, having more intelligence and activity than the people whose lands they shared, must, in the course of a few generations, have acquired the ascen- dency and assumed the management of affairs. At a later period, when the Persian empire extended from the In- dus to the Mediterranean, it became a point of honour with the tributary nations to establish an affinity with the ruling tribe ; on which account, we should not be sur- prised that, in the days of Herodotus, some of the inhabi- tants of Palestine were disposed to trace their lineage to the shores of the southern ocean. This opinion rests on a stronger probability than the other suggested by Sir William Drummond, which is, that the cities of Tyre and Sidon were peopled in part by the fugitives who escaped from the rout of Chedorlaomer. It is not easy to divest of ridicule any narrative which represents the " Iranian monarch, whose dominions nearly extended to the Arabian gulf and the frontiers of Egypt/' to have been defeated by Abraham at the head of 318 men. But Sir William deems such a conclusion neither impro- bable nor ridiculous. " Dan," says he, " to which city Chedorlaomer had gone after his victory in the vale of Siddim, was one day's journey from the great plain of Si- don. Abraham attacked the Persians and their allies dur- ing the night ; and although the king of Iran and his Chap. II.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. 239 vassal kings may have escaped to Hobah, in the neigh- bourhood of Damascus, with the greater number of their troops who had saved themselves from the carnage at Dan, yet many probably fled, in the midst of the confusion, in different directions, and might have taken refuge in Sidon and Tyre."* This learned and most industrious author, who general- ly prefers, in matters connected with sacred history, to follow the beaten path of simple fact rather than the tor- tuous mazes of conjecture, has not, on the occasion now before us, exercised his usual judgment. Even were we to admit that the son of Terah, with a band of undis- ciplined shepherds, had beaten the monarch of Persia sur- rounded by his vassal kings, we should still have to en- counter the difficulty of discovering on what ground the enemies of Canaan, when defeated, should seek refuge in cities belonging to the Canaanites. It is, no doubt, assumed that certain Persian merchants, and others connected with that people, had already taken up their residence among the Tyrians and Sidonians ; but still, if the mass of the inha- bitants and the civic authorities were not subjects of the great king, there is nothing more unlikely than that troops, vanquished and dispersed, should turn their backs on their native land, and seek safety in towns at the distance of eight or ten leagues in the opposite direction. If Tyre and Sidon were Persian cities before the time of Abraham, — which, according to the chronological scheme of the eru- dite Baronet, coincides with the era of Nirarod, the grand- son of Ham, — we may at once relinquish the investigation into their origin, as far beyond the reach of historical tes- timony, and even of plausible conjecture. That adventurers • Origines, vol. iii. p. 61. 240 CONNECTION OF SACRED [BoOK II. from the Erythraean sea may have, at an early period, mixed with the Canaanitish inhabitants of the Syrian coast, will be readily admitted by every one who has studied the character of the former people ; and, perhaps, it may be found that the statement of Herodotus, when narrowly ex- amined, does not demand a greater concession. In the last place, those who deny that the Phenicians were Canaanites, have urged, as an argument founded on the best historical evidence, that the curse pronounced against the grandson of Noah was not fulfilled upon the former people ; but that, on the contrary, they were, dur- ing a long series of generations, one of the most flourish- ing states in the eastern world. The reply which is made to this remark by the author of the Origines must be given in his own words. " Phenicia, it is true, reigned for cen- turies the queen of the ocean ; Sidon was the mart of the world ; and Tyre was a crowning city. But how sad has been the downfall of all this greatness ! Phenicia return- ed to her hire; and Tyre, after seventy years of thraldom, again sung as a harlot. Take thy harp, said the prophet, go about the city, thou harlot, that hast been forgotten, make sweet melody, sing many songs, that thou mayest be remembered ! The persecuted slaves of Babylon, the Phenicians, wore lighter chains under the successive em- pires of Persia, Greece, and Rome ; but the curse of Ca- naan was upon them. They were the commercial agents of subjugated nations, — the carriers of the trade of coun- tries less humiliated than their own, — ministers to the wants of the needy, — panders to the appetites of the luxu- rious,— in every sense of the term, the servant of servants. Hear the words of a profane writer, who must have been an utter stranger to the prediction of Noah against Ca- naan, and who yet testifies that those proud and wealthy Phenicians, whose navies traversed the ocean, and whose 2 Chap. II.] AND PROFANE HISTORY. ^H colonies rose into mighty states, actually became the sub- jects and finally the victims of their own servants and slaves.* Will it now be doubted that the curse of Canaan was fulfilled against the Phcnicians — the servants, nay more, the victims of servants ? And what is now the fate of the virgin daughter of Sidon .'' Her harp is unstrung; her songs have ceased ; the noise of the waves resounds on her desolate coast; but the voice of her multitudes is heard no more. Tyre has become like the top of a rock, where the fisherman spreads his nets. The inhabitants of the once rich and flourishing Phenicia are reduced to the state of degraded slaves, that live and tremble, unhappy yet obedient, under the iron rule of the most barbarous tyrants that have ever trampled under foot the liberties of nations. The modern Syrians are the slaves of pachas, themselves the servants of the Ottoman emperor, and the instruments of the tyrannical decrees of the Turkish di- van. The curse of Canaan still rests on the land which was originally peopled by his progeny. "•!• Without pursuing to any greater length the question which respects the lineage of the Phenician people, we shall now give a short account of their history ; more par- ticularly as it may be found to have a connection with that of the children of Israel, after their settlement in Canaan. It is no part of our plan to analyze the mystical narratives of the Greeks, who have contrived to involve in the dark- ness of fable some of the plainest facts of ancient story. We can put no confidence, for example, in the fictions of " Ibi (in urbe Tyro) Persarum (Assyriorum) bellis diu varieque fatigati victores (Phccnices) quidem fuere ; sed attritis viribus, a servis suis multitudinc abundantibus indigna supplicia perpessi sunt ; qui, conspiratione facta, omnem liberum populum cum dominis interficiunt ; atque, ita potita urbc, lares dominoruni occupant, rcnnpublicani iiivadunt, conjuges ducunt, ct quod ipsi non erant, liberos procreant. — Jitstiiii Historearum, lib. xviii, c. :t. f Origines, vol. iii. p. (i!>, 7"' 242 CONNECTION OF SACRED [^BooK U" Apollodorus, when he gravely relates that Agenor and Be- lus were sons of Neptune by Lybia, the daughter of Epa- phus, a king of Egypt ; and that the latter of these young men reigned in his native country, while the former mi- grated into Phenicia, where he founded a kingdom, and became the father of a numerous race of princes. Europa, Cadmus, Phoenix, Thasus, and Electra, the immediate offspring of Agenor, make a prominent figure in all the adventures of the heroic age ; and adorn or disfigure the earliest efforts of poetry and romance in the literature of Greece. Such details could not be read with patience ; and would not, on any account, prove suitable to the more important object of our inquiries. Phenicia, like all other ancient states, appears to have been divided at an early period into several independent kingdoms. We read not only of sovereigns who swayed the sceptre of Tyre and of Sidon, but also of such as exercised a similar authority at Berytus and at Arad ; en- joying a regal power which confined itself within the walls of their respective cities ; or, at most, did not extend be- yond the limits of the surrounding fields from which they drew their subsistence. Of all these petty monarchies, Sidon has always been esteemed the oldest and the most powerful. It owed its foundation to the first-born of Canaan, who, at the same time, conferred upon it the hon- our of his name. He is said to have been succeeded by the following princes ; but whether by election or on the prin- ciple of hereditary right, historians have not thought it necessary to determine. Tetramnestus. Tennes. Strato. Ballonymus, Abdalominus, Abdolominus, or Alynomus. Chap. II.] Ax\D PROFANE HISTORY. 243 Of the history of Sidon, till a period comparatively re- cent, we meet with so few notices in Scripture that we cannot boast of having ascertained any thing more concerning it than that it existed, in considerable power and splendour, in the earliest times. In the tenth chapter of Genesis, for example, it holds a place among those primeval esta- blishments which marked the first boundaries of society upon its renovation after the Flood : and that it continued to retain its consequence in the days of the Judges is placed beyond doubt by the allusion which the sacred writer makes to it, when describing the expedition of the children of Dan against Laish.* But although we are certain that Sidon raised its head among the first of the nations, history is no longer in possession of those ancient records which her people took so much pleasure in pre- serving.*|- Her royal dynasties exhibit no other memorial than a bare list of names. Their successions cannot be determined, and the length of their reigns has become a subject of mere conjecture. After the founder, whose memory is associated with every ancient recollection of this queen of the seas, the next sovereign whose actions are recorded is Tetramnestus, who is said to have assisted Xerxes in his celebrated in- vasion of Greece. Herodotus informs us that this Sido- nian prince supplied three hundred galleys ; and that, for his skill and power as a naval commander, he was es- teemed very highly at the Persian court.J In the reign of the following king, whose name was Tennes, the people of Sidon, and other Phenicians, not * Genesis x. 19. " The border of the Canaanite was from Sidon a* ihoti comest to Gerar ;" and Judges xviii. 28. + Joseph, contra Apion. lib. i. 1 Herod. Polynu f. 'Jli. 244 CONNECTION OF SACRED [Book II. being able to bear the haughty and tyrannical conduct of the Persian governors, entered into a confederacy with Nectanebus, the monarch of Egypt, and rose up in arms with the view of throwing off the yoke. The Egyptian ruler, having been threatened with the overwhelming power of Persia, gladly availed himself of this opportunity to strengthen his country with an alliance, from which he had much to hope, and his enemies much to dread. In order, therefore, to encourage the Phenicians in their re- bellioUj he sent to their aid four thousand Greek mercen- aries, under the command of Mentor, a native of Rhodes. Nor was Tennes himself backward to second the efforts of his Egyptian ally. He fitted out a powerful fleet, and raised a considerable army, with which, by sea and land, he began the war against the Persian satraps ; and so great were the vigour and rapidity of his movements at the head of the combined forces, that, in a short time, he expelled the conquerors not only from Syria, but also from the remoter province of Cilicia. But these successes were not of long duration. The Persian king, enraged at the defeat of his lieutenants, as well as at some indignities which were inflicted upon the representatives of his person an'd majesty, vowed the most signal revenge upon all the disaffected Phenicians, and especially the inhabitants of Sidon. In pursuance of this object, he assembled at Babylon a mighty army, consisting of three hundred thousand foot and thirty thousand horsemen ; and, assuming the command, he issued orders for their immediate march into the provinces of Syria and Asia Minor. The terror of the Sidonians was increased by the fickleness of Mentor ; who, alarmed at the ap- proach of so formidable a host, appears to have recom- mended unconditional submission, and a speedy renewal of allegiance. It is even said that he despatched to the Chap. II.] AND FKOl- ANE HISTORY. 245 great king a trusty agent, avIio was enijiowered to enter into terms with him, not only for dehvering up Sidon, but also for dissolving the general confederacy, and even for reducing Egypt itself under the Persian dominion. Darius Ochus willingly acceded to the proposal of the faithless Greek, and, to secure him in his interest, lavished on him the most flattering promises and marks of his regard. The baseness of the mercenary is far less improbable than are some of the circumstances with which it was at- tended. History relates, that even Tennes himself entered into the plot against his own people, and agreed to accept part of tile bribe for which they were sold again to their cruel taskmasters. But of this charge the evidence is so improbable and contradictory, that we must not, on so slender a ground, pronounce the king a traitor to the good cause which he had recently promoted by his activity and valour. The Sidonians, meanwhile, confiding in the strength of their walls, prepared themselves for a long and vigorous siege : and, fixed in the resolution neither to surrender their town nor abandon its defence, they set fire to the ships in their harbour, that the hope of escape by sea might not paralyze their exertions on land. But the wavering faith of the Greeks could not be se- cured by any such precautions. Mentor opened the gates to the Persian army : upon which, the inhabitants, true to their determination not to solicit the mercy of the infuriated tyrant, shut themselves up in their houses with their wives and children, where they perished amidst vo- luntary flames, to the number of forty thousand. Tennes likewise fell a victim either to his own perfidy or to the rage of the conqueror, and was immediately put to death ; while Ochus, disappointed in his expectations of booty, is reported to have sold the ashes of the desolated town at 246 (T)NNECTIf)N OV SACRED [BooK II. a price equal lo the gold and silver which were supposed to be concealed vnider its ruins. After the defence which I have insinuated for Tennes on the mere ground of probability, determined indeed by a reference to the general principles on which mankind are usually found to act, it is due to the truth of history that I should mention the very unfavourable judgment which has been passed upon himby Diodorus Siculus. This ancient writer maintains that the treachery which undermined the walls of Sidon, originated with the king and not with the Rhodian commander ;* and that the latter was induced to betray the trust committed to him on the part of the sovereign of Egypt, from considerations addressed as well to his ambition as to his fears and avarice, by the very person under whose direction he was appointed to serve. Tennes was succeeded in his office by Strato ; to whom the few survivors of Sidon engaged their faith and duty. This ruler was on the throne when Alexander the Great entered upon his famous expedition against the Persian empire. Influenced by hatred and revenge, the subjects of Strato urged him to join his arms to those of the Ma- cedonian prince, and to avenge the sufferings of their country upon Darius and his proud satraps. But the king neither approved the zeal of his people, nor listened tQ_ their counsel. Dreading the power of a vindictive mo- fitaij^ XXI tofiKras tov; a^nrTuxoras oux a%it)fi,iii^ov; hvai, rnv ffarn^iav lOia •rooi^tiv Ixetvi. ^lO'TTi^ Tuv iaurou ^i^a-ravriuv tov ■^iirreTaTov Xa^^a, toiv Iiouviuv i^tTifAi^t irgo; Tov K^ra%i^nv, i'pra.yyiXof.tiviii avrea is f^iv Tv^iuv woxiui x«Teo-T)jj? Tv^ov tuv /5