THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF PROPHECY. “NOT THE WISDOM OF THIS WORLD."—1 Coz. Il. 6. SOIANT IGITUR, QUI PROPHETAS NON INTELLIGUNT, NEO SOIRE DESIDERUNT, ASSHRENTES SE TANTUM EVANGELIO ESSE CONTENTOS, CHRISTI NESCTRE MYSTERIUM, ‘Junoue ov Er, a Era, VOL. VIL LONDON: JAMES NISBET AND CO., 21 BERNERS STREET. 1855.34 DARIUS THE MEDE, AND DARIUS HYSTASPES. Anr. V.—DARIUS THE MEDE, AND DARIUS HYSTASPES. Ws hope that the importance of the subject will plead our excuse for once more trespassing upon the patience of our readers, with reference to the possibility of identifying Darius the Mede, with Darius Hystaspes the Persian. We have been lately reading again, in a former number of the Quarterly Review, a critical notice of Major Rawlinson’s translation of the Persian cuneiform inscription at Behistun. More than eight years have elapsed since the publication of this translation, and suspicions and doubts with regard to the general correctness of Major Rawlinson’s decipherment and version have gradually disappeared. In the inscription in question, we appear to have some striking data to assist us in ascertaining that Darius Hystaspes was a Persian and not a Mede, and that, therefore, he cannot be identified with Darius the Mede. (L) In the inscription, the national distinction between Per- sian and Median seems to be established by such passages as the following :—“ There was not a man, neither Persian nor Median,* who would dispossess of the empire Gommtes the * We may notice the order in which these nationsl appellations are here found, viz., Persia taking the precedence of Media. We know that this is the case in the book of Esther, with only one exception, which may be easily accounted for. Thus, in the first chapter, the sacred historian speaks of “ the power of Persia and Media;” and of “the seven princes of Persia and Media.” And Memacan, one of these seven, in addressing the King Aha- sueras, speaks of “the iadies of Persia and Media ;” and of “ the laws of the Persians and Medes.” How different from this is that which we find in the seventh chapter of Daniel There, both Darius the Mede, and his courtiers, inverting the order of the amos in Esther, and the Bebiston inscription, talk of “the laws of the Medes and Persians.” Should we not naterally ‘expect that Media would take the precedence of Persia under a Median, smd Persia of Media under a Persian dynasty? Have we mot thes strong pre- sumptive evidence that the Ahasuerus of Esther was a Persian, who cannot, therefore, be identified with the Median Ahasuerus of Daniel (Dan. ix. 1), who was the father of Darias the Mede ! and also that the events recorded in the book of Esther happened not only after the retarn of the captive Jews from Babylon, but also after the Persian arms had extended their conquests as far as the Indus? This was accomplished by Darius Hye but cer- tainly not 80 early as his third year. Hence, when we read that the Aha- suerus of Esther was, so early as the third year of his reign, the undisputed sovereign “‘from India to Ethiopia,” we eeem constrained to conclude that this Ahasuerus was one of the monarchs of the Persian dynasty, and a son or grandson of Darius Hystaspes. Again, as it would appear from Eather il. 16, that, during the first seven or eight years of his reign, Ahasuerus was residii in and magnificence in his own dominions, he cannot well be identifi with Xerxes, who, in his sixth or seventh year, undertook his disastrous en- terprise against the Grecks. Hence, Josephus is probably correct in sup-DARIUS THE MEDH, AND DARIVS HYSTASPES. 35 Magian.” And again—‘I firmly established the kingdom, both Persia and Media.” : : (IL) Our next extract would appear to prove, almost beyond controversy, that Darius Hystaspes was, like Cyrus, a lineal descendant of Achsomenes, and therefore, like Cyrus, a Persian, and not a Mede. “1 am Darius, the great king, the king of Kin »* the king of Persia, the son of Hystaspes, the gran raames the Achamenian.” And immediately after, in the Fabien Darius proceeds to trace his descent, step bys step, from Achssmenes (from whom Cyrus also, according to Hero- dotus, was descended), and adds—‘ on that account we have been called Achwmenisns.” The simple fact that Darius Posing the Ahasuerus of Esther to have been Artaxerxes Longimanus, the son of Xerxes and grandson of Darius Hystaspes. But he is, perhaps, not to be followed in his opinion that Hara, and afterwards Nehemiah, went to Jerngajem in the reign of Xerxes, ‘Wo have observed that, in one instance only, in the book of Esther, does the name of Media precede that of Persia, This exception occurs in chap. x. 2, vig, “ the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia.” It is obvious ¢o remark thet we have not here the implied sasertion of @ pre- cedence of political auperiority; but rather of priority in chronological arrangement. ‘The inverted .order in the first chapter of Esther would, perhaps, justify us in considering the clause just quoted, as equivalent to— Pung, Boe of the chronictes of the kings of Metlia, and of the Kings of ’eraig.” * Cyrus, as grandson, through his mother, of Astyages, King of Media, might have been Jess sensitive than Darius, on the question of Persian pre- cedency, Artaxerxes calla himself “king of kings” (Ezra vii. 12), But ‘Corus vuly eammes the title of «King of Persia” (Gora 1.2). It is well known that an inseription has been found at Murghfb, on the (supposed) tamb of Cyrus, which Lassen and others thus translate,—Zgo Cyrus Rex Achamenius. ‘The Quarterly Reviewer observes, that Lassen (who thinks that this inscription relates to the younger Cyrus, who fell at Cunaxa, and that the tomb'was evected by his mother Parysatis) is unwilling tp believe that the inscription commemorates the name of Cyrus the Great, “on account of the modest simplicity of the language, in which Cyrus assumes neither the title of the Great King, nor of the King of Kings, the usual style of the later Persias monarchs.” ‘This objection is very mach weakened when we leam from Here that Oyrus, even towards the end of his splendid career, did not, in gn importent public document, ogll himself king of kings (although he professes to have received “all the kingdoms of the earth from the yf heaven”), but only King of Persia, Whether, therefore, the inseription in question was dictated by Cyrus himself, at some time previous to his death, or by his aon and snecassor Cambyses, we-need not feel surprise or doubt at Abe simplicity .of the language, and the absence of the title of king of kings. Daniel ma calls Nebuchadnezzar “a s king of kings” (chap. ii. $7), but we ‘have no reason to believe, so far as the sacred narrative is concerned, that Nebuchadnersar himesHf assumed it (Dan. iv. 1). Cyrus is called * Acheo- amsains ” an bis tomb ; and in the inacription, Darius states that he and his family sre also called -Achemenians. Rabshakeh wy 8 Sennacherib “the Great King.” The phrase, “Thus saith Sennacherib’ king of Assyria” (2 Chron. xxzti. 10), may be compared with the formula in the tnaeription, “‘aaye Dagiva the king.”36 “DARTUS THE MEDE, AND DARIUS HYSTASPES. Hystaspes, in the inscription, assumes the title of “king of Persia,” and not that of “king of Persia and Media,” is of itself almost an insuperable objection to our attempting to identify him with Darius the Mede. (IIL) The language of the inscription assists us indirectly, but powerfully, in ascertaining that the Cyrus of Herodotus was really an illustrious Persian sovereign, and a predecessor of Darius Hystaspes on the throne of the Persian empire. There is a passage in which Darius, describing a uw: whom he had overthrown, and whose imperial power he had himself claimed and taken possession of, expressly speaks of him as having usurped the throne which rightfully belonged to the son of Cyrus, inasmuch as he prof himself to be the son of Cyrus. For Darius tells us that this usurper, “Go- mates, a ian, would frequently address the state, which knew the old Bartius, saying, Beware lest it regard me as if I were not Bartius the son of Cyrus.” And w en he adds— “T slew Gomates the Magian, I dispossessed him of the empire ; by the grace of Ormuzd I became king”—are we not taught that, when the Magian was slain, Darius Hystaspes took pos- session of the throne and empire which had once belonged to Cyrus? and that if Gomates had really been the son of Cyrus, Darius would have submitted to him as the lawful sovereign of the Persian empire? How thoroughly does the inscription, in thus shewing that the throne of Darius Hystaspes was that which had been previously occupied by Cyrus, agree with the language of the sacred narrative—‘ All the days of Cyrus, king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius, king of Persia” {Ezra iv. 5). (IV.) Again, in the inscription, Darius does not speak of Babylon as if he had been the first Persian monarch who had conquered Babylon and annexed it to the Persian empire. On the contrary, the language of the royal annalist seems plainly to indicate that the Babylonians are defeated and punished as rebels, who, havin; already been in lawful subjection as one of the provinces of the Persian empire, had revolted from their rightful sovereign. For the reviewer writes—‘“ The rest of the inscription is occupied by successive rebellions in almost all the provinces of the empire; in each of which rose ‘a liar, proclaiming him- self the rightful king of the realm. Darius announces his triumph over each of these ‘liars,’ and, in general, the death of the usurper. One of these rebellious provinces was Baby- lon.” I would request the reader’s attention to this part of the subject. Ancient historians do not allow us to prolong the lifeDARIUS THB MEDB, AND DARIUS HYSTASPES, 37 of Darius Hystaspes beyond sixty-six or sixty-seven years. We know from the sacred narrative that Daring the Mede was about sixty-two years of age when, on the death of Belshazzar, he ascended the Persian throne. If, then, Darius Hystasy was the conqueror of Belshazzar and Babylon, through hi (supposed) general Cyrus, at the age of sixty-two, then must Babylon have, for a short time, thrown off the yoke of Persia within two or three years after the death of Belshazzar. But the very construction and character of the prophet Daniel’s narrative peremptorily forbids any other supposition than that Babylon continued to submit quietly to Darius the Mede, until she passed into the hands of Cyrus the Persian. And we may add, that the language of the Behistun inscription seems firmly to establish the fact that Babylon was already a province of the Persian empire when Darius Hystaspes ascended the throne. (V.)_It is important to notice that the reviewer also states, that “ Major Rawlinson’s inscription relates the assassination of his brother by the order of Cambyses, the usurpation of the throne by the false Smerdis the Magian, and the death of Cambyses on his return from Egypt (Mudraya), all according to Herodotus—the discrepancy is only in the names, The king’s brother is called Bartius,* the Magian Gomates.” Assuming the correctness of Major Rawlinson’s version, the royal inscription would seen—(1.) To shew that Babylon was a province of the Persian empire at the accession of Darius Hystaspes; and, also—(2.) So far to confirm the trustworthi- ness of Herodotus in his history of Cambyses, Smerdis, and Darius Hystaspes, as to warrant us to receive as correct his account of the capture of Babylon by Cyrus. And thus im- rtant secular documenta attest the accuracy of the sacred istorian Ezra, who styles the Cyrus who had been contem- porary with Darius the Mede, both “king of Persia,” and “king of Babylon.” Again, the Behistun rock-tablet and Herodotus unite in stating that there were two sovereigns on the Persian throne between Cyrus and Darius Hystaspes, viz., Cambyses and the usurper Smerdis. Here, again, the same secular authorities strikingly attest the accuracy of Ezra, who also interposes, between Cyrus and Darius, the two kings, Ahasuerus (Cambyses), and Artaxerxes (Smerdis the Magian) ; * At first sight, Smerdis may appear to have no resemblance to Bartius, Yet in some dialects the letter m has a sound approsching to that of 5, Thus the Arabs pronounce Mecca as if written Becca, And » Greek writer, living at Constantinople in the time of the crusades, expresses the name Robertus by the Greek form, ‘Poumapros, employing the letters pm (mp) to represent the sound of 3. In the inscriptions, Cambyses is Kabujiya; and ‘AyBarava is Hagmatans,388 DARIUS THE MEDE, AND DARIUS HYSTASPES. adding, that on the receipt of the letter of king Artaxerxes, «the work of the house of God ceased unto the second year of Darius king of Persia.” VI. We proceed to make another extract from the review “ The arms of Darius in the other rebellious provinces, Susiani, Media, Armeria, &., were as successful as against Babylon. The most dangerous insurgent seems to have been Phraortes, who claimed the throne of Media, in right of descent from Cyaxares—‘ Phraortes was taken and Brought before me. Afterwards at Ecbatana; there I had him crucified’” Here, again, if we may depend upon the correctness of Major Raw- linson’s version, we are expressly taught (as the Books of Daniel and Ezra, not to mention the predictions of Isaiah, seem to teach us), that before the accession of Darius Hystas- pes, that Median dynasty had passed away, whose last royal representative, under the inferior title of “ king of the realm of Chaldeans,” was found in Darius the Mede, the son of Ahasuerus of the seed of the Medes. I must, however, hasten to a conclusion, and would merely observe, that when Josephus says, that Darius the Mede “had another name among the Greeks,” the obvious interpretation of his words is, that the royal Mede was not called Darius by the Greeks. Hence, as the son of Hystaspes was known to the Greeks by no other name than that of Darius, this very circumstance should forbid any attempt to identify Darius the Mede with Darius the son of Hystaspes, at least so far as the authority is concerned. Since writing the above, we have unexpectedly met with a former number of the Foreign Quarterly Review, containing a critical notice of “ The Persian Inscription at Behistun, de- ciphered and translated by Major H. C. Rawlinson.” This reviewer gives the following extract from that part of the Behistun inscription which relates te the history of the Smerdis:—*Says Darius the king, This (is) what was done by me, before I became king. He who was named Cambyses (Kabujiya), the son of Cyrus, of our race, he was here king before me.” When Darius thus speaks of Cyrus and Cam- byses as “of our (the Achemenian) race,’ does he not at once confirm the accuracy of the prophet Daniel in giving to Cyrus the special title of “ the Persian,” and also prove that he himself cannot be identified with “Darius the Mede”? Again, the royal annalist proceeds to say—* There was of that Cambyses a brother, named Bardius—he was of the same father and mother as Cambyses. Afterwards Cambyses slew this Bardius. When Cambyses slew this Bardius,* the * It appears from the inscription, that Cumbyses slew his brother SmerdisDAHIUS THE MEDE, AND DARIUS HYSTASPES, 39 troubles of the state ceased, which Bardius had excited. Then Cambyses proceeded to Egypt (Mudraya, which is connected with the Hebrew Mitzraim, and Arabic Misc). Afterwards there was a certain man, a Magian (Magush), named Gomates.* Then it was, as he arose to the state, he thus falsely declared, ‘Tam Bardius, the son of Cyrus, the brother of Cambyses.’ Then the whole state became rebellious. From Cambyses it went over to that (Bardius), both Persia and Media, and the other provinces, He seized the empire. Afterwards Cam- byses, unable to endure his (misfortunes), died. That crown, of which Gomates the Magian had dispossessed Cambyses, that crown had been in our family ¢ from the olden time. After Gomates the Magian had dispossessed Cambyses both of Persia, and Media, and the (dependent) provinces, he did according to his desire—he became king.” This extract suggests one or two obvious inferences which bear upon the sacred narrative. Cambyses appears to have gngoged in no foreign conquests previous to his expedition into pt; and it would seem from the inscription that he marched directly from Persia into Egypt. If Babylon had been still under 4 powerful king, and Syria and Palestine (in- cluding Philistia), had still been provinces of the Chaldean kingdom, how is it that Cambyses marched, apparently with- out interruption, and as easily as if he had been king of Baby- Jon also, from Persia directly against Egypt? or rather, how can we conceive it possible that such a plan could have been seriously entertained by him for a single hour? It is no answer to this question to reply, that if, before the subjugation before his invasion of Egypt; but in Herodotus, this event does not occur until after that Cambyses, already master of Egypt, has received the bow and taunting message from the Ethiopian king. The reader cannot but see how, in the above extract, the language used by Darius clearly implies, that he felt Himself, although an Achamenian, to have been only a aubject of Cyrus and Cambyses, without any just claim to the crown until the race of Cyrus had Become extinct. * The Foreign Quarterly Reviewer observes, that “ Ctesias calls the im- postor Tanuoxarees. We do not know whether this word has been analyzed, ‘but no doubt it is merely a title erronioualy taken for the real name, and we would suggest that its meaning may be ‘prince,’ connecting it with the Sanscrit tanaya, ‘a son, and khshatra, which continually occurs in the in- scriptions, as ‘crown, empire’ The Greck Artaxerxes ocours in the later inscriptions as ‘Artakhehatra.’ It is singular that Trogus Pompelus pre- serves the Magian's name as Cometcs, which is all but identical with Gomates.” + Darius here speaks of his ancestors as having been kings, at least of the Persians. It is quite possible that the head of the Achmmenian clan or family, may have been prince or king of Persia, before this country had been subdued by the Median Phraortes.40 DARIUS THE MEDE, AND DARIUS HYSTASPES. of Babylon, Cyrus could lead a powerful army to the Halys against Croesus, Cambyses could have also marched with a large host into Syria and Palestine. The route of the former lay far to the north of Babylon, that of the latter through Meso- potamia. Hence the conclusion would seem to be obvious, and almost inevitable, under all the circumstances of the case, that Cambyses could not have thus marched directly from Persia through Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine, into Egypt, unless his father and predecessor Cyrus had already become sove- reign of Babylon, and, with Babylon, also of her dependent provinces of Syria and Palestine. And what is the state- ment of the sacred historians, Daniel and Ezra? Do they not clearly assert that Cyrus, before his death, was king of Persia and Babylon?* And if so, we may safely conclude that he of course became also the sovereign of the Chaldean depen- dencies of Syria and Palestine. Cyrus, by his decree, sanc- tioned the return into Judea of all the Jews who wished to go thither, and even commanded that they should build the temple of the God of Israel at Jerusalem. This is strong presumptive evidence that Cyrus, at the time in question, was the sovereign of Palestine. But this presumption becomes certainty, when we read how the peo] le of the land, the descendants of the Assyrian colonists in Samaria, “hired counsellors inst the returned Jews, to frustrate their purpose of building the temple, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia” (Ezra iv. 1). Here is a direct recognition of the sovereignty of Cyrus in Samaria and Judea. But Ezra proceeds to state that, upon the death of Cyrus, and in the reign of Ahasuerus (Cambyses), * The scriptural narrative implies more than this, When we read in Ezra vi, 2, that so early as in the second year of Darius Hystaspes, the decree of Cyrus was found at Achmetha (Eebatana) in the province of Media, we are justified in saying that Darius, on his accession, found Media to be a part of ‘the Persian empire; and that, therefore, not only his immediate predecessors Artaxerxes and Ahasuerus, but also Cyrus, beyond all reasonable doubt, were kings of Media as well as of Persia and Babylon; in this point also the Scriptures agree with the inscription at Behistun. ‘+ We may reasonably conclude, from the scriptural history, that Darius the Mede reigned at least one year, after the overthrow of the Chaldean dynasty. ‘The Jews received permission to return to their own land in the first year, and would scarcely begin to build in earnest until the second year of Cyrus (i.¢., as king of Babylon), From this time attempts were made to hinder them, “all the days of Cyrus.” This expression is almost equivalent to an asser- tion that Cyrus lived, at the very least, some two or three years after the Jews had returned into their own land. Hence, if Cyrus died cir. 530 B.0., vhe return of the Jews under Zerubbabel cannot be dated later than cir. 584 3.0. The language of Scripture, however, would be still more favourable to the earlier date of 536 8.0., for the decree of Cyrus; and, therefore, to that of 538 3.0, for the capture of Babylon and the overthrow of the Chaldean dynasty by Cyrus the Persian.DARIUS THE MBDE, AND DARIUS HYSTASPES, 41 and in the beginning of his reign, the adversaries of Judah wrote an accusation against the Jews of Judah and Jerusalem. Thus Ahasuerus or Cambyses Plainly succeeded, on the death of Cyrus, to the sovereignty of Babylon, and also to that of Samaria and Judea, and therefore, by obvious inference, to that of Syria also; and thus there is the most satisfactory agreement between the statements of the sacred historian and those of the Behistun tablet of Darius Hystaspes—and Cam- byses was able to march through Persian dependencies from the Tigris to the borders of Egypt. We add the following remark from the review, though unable to agree with it. ‘‘ Major Rawlinson has an interesting notice on the name Khshayarsha (Xerxes), certainly identify- ing it with the Ahasuerus of Scripture, and possibly with the royal title of Shdér amongst the Persian colony in the Paro- isus. We do not recollect that any one has observed that lerodotus (ix. 109) calls Xerxes’ queen, Amestris. Surely we can recognise Esther here; and the story of her cruelty towards Masistes will be that of Haman, distorted by national prajudices and jealousy. The incident of the banquet is a striking coincidence.” Let us conclude with a few additional remarks on the view which would recognise, in the history of Amestris, the wife of Xerxes, that of Esther and Haman, distorted by national pre- judice and jealousy. Were this the case, we must identify * erxes with the Ahasuerus of Esther. If, however, we read attentively the first two chapters of Esther, we shall find it almost impossible to believe that Ahasuerus was absent from his dominions during the greater part of the fifth year, the whole of the siath year, and the former half of the seventh year of his reign—and that, too, on a momentous and disas- trous expedition against Greece. But Xerxes is believed to * Dr Hale (and also Mr Townsend) thinks the Ahasuerus of Ezra iv. 6 to be Xerzes, but without apparent necessity, and, perhaps, contrary to the atrue- tare of the sacred narrative. It is plain, from comparing ver. 7 of this chap- ter with ver 28, 24, that the Artaxerxes of ver. 7 waa a predecessor of Darius. And if we compare ver. 6 with ver. 5 and ver. 7, we shall come to the conelu- sion, that the Ahasuerus of ver. 6 was the immediate successor of Cyrus, and predecessor of Artaxerxes and Darius. In short, Ezra appears to teach us, that the enemies of the Jews, taking advantage of the death of Cyras, wrote a letter against them to his son and succeseor Ahasuerus, or Cambyses. It may be true, though Seripture ia silent on the subject, “that, in the first year of Xerxes, the Samaritans wrote to him against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem ;” but, even if this were true, it does not, for one moment, prove the ‘Ahasuerus of Ezta iv. 6 to be Xerxes. For, if the Samaritans were frostrat- ing the purpose of the Jews all the days of Cyrus, even until the reign of Datiue, would they not have been even more likely to write to Cambytes than to Xerzes42 DARIUS THE MEDB, AND DARIUS HYSTASPES. have left Susa, on his march to the Hellespont, in the bogin- ning of his fifth year, in the month of April, 481 3.0, He halted at Sardis. He quitted that city in the spring of the following year, 480; and, in September 480, the Persians were defeated at Salamis; and, in November, Xerxes re- crossed the Hellespont, and soon after reached Sardis, where he continued for some time. But, immediately after the defeat of the Persian fleet at Mycale, at the end of August (or, as others say, on the 22d September) 479, Xerxes quitted the Lydian city, to return to Susa. On his homeward journey, he spoiled the Greek tem- ples, and carried away a golden statue from the temple of elus at Babylon. Without attempting to state the length of the time which intervened between his departure from Sardis and his arrival at Susa, we may safely believe that Xerxes was absent from his own dominions during the greater part of his fifth year, the whole of the sixth, and, at least, six months of his seventh year. It would thus appear to be impossible to identify Xerxes with the Ahasuerus of Esther. Josephus seems to be correct in identifying the latter king with Arta- xerxes Longimanus. But the Jewish historian appears to be in error, in suppos- ing that it was in the reign of Xerxes that Ezra was sent to Jerusalem; for, as Ezra received his letter from Artaxerxes in the seventh * year of his reign, it becomes very improbable, from what has eon advanced above, that this monarch was Xerxes, the son of Darius Hystaspes. Further examination renders this view still more improbable; for, when we compare together the books of Ezra and Nehemiah—and especially when we find the latter speaking of Ezra as assisting him in the work of national reformation at Jerusalem (Neh. viii. 1-9) —we cannot resist the conclusion, that the Artaxerxes of Ezra was identical with the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah. But the length of the reign of the Artaxerxes who favoured Nehemiah exceeded thirty-two years (xiii. 6); while secular history, which - assigns forty-one years to Artaxerxes Longimanus, limits the reign of his father Xerxes to twenty-one years. In the book of Esther we are told “ that Ahasuerus ¢ reigned * The heart of Xerxes was in the power of the God of Israel, who could incline it, in the most unfavourable times and circumstances, to fulfil his own wise and holy will. Yet may we not say, that the clear and authentic testi- mony ef secular history renders it almost impossible to suppose that, unless dy special Divine interposition, Ezra would venture to ask, or could hope to receive, a letter from Xerxes, in the seventh year of his reign, permitting him, and any Jews who wished it, to proceed to Jerusalem ? ‘+ Let us treat the book of Esther, at least as we would any other authenticDARIUS THE MBDB, AND DARIUS HYSTASPES. 43 from India even unto Ethiopia (i. 1), and that he laid a tribute upon the land, and the isles of the sea.” If we take these words according to their fair and obvious interpretation, with- out having recourse to the unworthy figment of Oriental exag- geration, we artive, without difficulty, at these probable conclusions :—(1.) It is very inconsistent with this description of the power of Ahasuerus, and of the vast extent of his do- minions, to think that, during the first fourteen years of his reign, a warlike, powerful, and ambitious monarch reigned at ylon over Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine. In fact, Ahasuerus cannot be supposed to have been contemporary with Nebuchadnezzar. (2.) The royal husband of Esther cannot well be thought contemporary with Croesus, the power- fal and ambitious king of Lydia. (3.) On the testimony of Herodotus and the Behistun tablet, we may say that Ahasuerus could not have lived during the reign of the illustrious Cyrus. Cambyses, who reigned only seven or eight years, could not have Ahasuerus, who reigned more than fourteen years. Some have sup Atossa, the wife of Darius Hystaspes, to be the Vashti of Scripture. But this does not ap to be at all supported by secular history, which tells us that, when he had obtained the crown, he married two of the daughters of Cyrus, one of whom, Atossa, had been the wife of her brother Cambyses. Xerxes, the successor of Darius, was his son, by Atossa, to the exclusion of an elder son by a former wife. It is a striking circumstance that, while some are inclined to bring down to a later date the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, and the restoration of the Jews from their cap- tivity, a learned and indefatigable student of the Assyrian inscriptions believes that Nineveh was taken, not in 606 B.c., but so early as 625 B.o. and respectable historical document. And is not the language of ita first verse obviously calculated to make us think of Abasuerus, as no mere Perso- Median sovereign, but as the royal master of almost all the then known world) The Cash or Ethiopia here epoken of may, undoubtedly, mean the Arabian Cush ; but it would be more according to the language of the narrative, to think that the extent of his dominions is set forth by naming the two ex- treme regions—India to the east, and Ethiopia to the south, of Egypt. And what are we to make of the expression, “The King Ahasuerus laid a tribute ‘tapon the land, and upon the isles of the sea”? (x. 1.) We may, of course, understand by “isles of the sea,” not only islands, but alao the maritime dis- tricts of the continent, And would the possession of the coasts of the Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf be sufficient for the description in the sacred narrative? Does it not seem to require us to regard Abasuerus aa the master of the coast of Asia Minor, with the adjoining islands, and of the maritime district of Palestine. If it be objected, that Artaxerxes Longimanus lost the sea-coast of Asia Minor, yet he retained Palestine and Egypt, and his dominions ex- tended to the confines of the African Ethiopia.