^{page 219 note 1} To those who doubt the veracity of Cteslas, and delly his authority on historical questions, I would recommend a candid and unbiassed consideration of the circumstances under which he Wrote his history, and of the arguments in favour of his general veracity adduced by Stephanus, in whose opinion I fully agree:—“Quimelius, qui certius de rebus Persieis scribere potuerit quam Ctesias, arbitror fuisseneminem.” From what is recorded by sacred and profane authors, we have reason to believe that the Chronicles of the Kings of Assyria and of Persia were Written and preserved with the greatest attention. See Ctesias, Herodotus Moses of Chorene, and the books of Ezra, Esther, &c, &c. “Such,” observes Van Heeren, “was the origin of the Chronicles or Diaries of the Persians, which, being deposited in the principal cities of the empire, Susa, Babylon, and Ecbatana, formed what were called the Archives of the kingdom. A history compiled of such materials would necessarily be a history of the Court, rather than of the empire; and fragments of Ctesias serve to confirm this idea.”—Hist. Researches. This should be borne in mind throughout the following pages.

^{page 219 note 2} This date is made out as follows:—

It is stated by Diodorus, on the authority of Ctesia that there were ten kings, inclusive, from Arbaces to Cyrus, viz.:–

It is to be observed with regard to this list, that in the present editions of Diodorus's works, the duration of the reigns of Mandauces and Artychas, is given as fifty years for each. But Syncellus and Eusebius, who both wrote on the same authority, agree in assigning the shorter periods, which are here adopted. The duration of the reign of Astyages is not given by Diodorus; it is, therefore, taken on the authority of Herodotus.

Now the beginning of the reign of Cyrus the Great, is generally placed at the year b. c. 559. It is, however, probable that this refers to the period when Cyrus was placed at the head of the Persian armies, when they rose against the Median king; and that it was some time before he was strong enough to depose Astyages. I will, therefore, take, with Dr. Russell, the year 554, as the last year of the reign of Astyages, which, added to 267, the sum of the nine reigns above detailed, gives the year b. c. 821, as the date of the accession of Arbaces the Mede, to the throne of Sardanapalus.—See several authorities in support of this, in Russell's Connexion of Sacred and Profane History, Book II. c. 1.

^{page 220 note 1} This date is taken from Diodorus Siculus, who says, Lib. II. p. 118, that the revolt of the Medes under Deioces, as related by Herodotus, occurred in the second year of the seventeenth Olympiad, which corresponds with the year b. c. 710. Herodotus has assigned two different periods for the duration of the Median power, and the reigns of the Median kings, which I do not think has been clearly explained. He gives a list of four kings of Media, from Deioces to Astyages, who was deposed by Cyrus, and makes the sum of their reigns amount to 150 years. In another place he says, that the Median power fell before Cyrus, after it had subsisted 128 years; exclusive of a period of twenty-eight years, during which he tells us the Scythians held possession of Upper Asia; making thereby an interval of 156 years from the accession of Deioces to the defeat of Astyages, by Cyrus and the Persians. Now the proper explanation of these seeming incongruities, appears to me discernible from a careful attention to the words of Herodotus. It is more than probable, that Cyrus was invested with the royal title in his native country, before he had won the sceptre of the Medes. During this interval, Astyages was still the king of Media, and the Medes, till their defeat, were the paramount power in Upper Asia. But in writing a chronological list of kings, in which Cyrus succeeds Astyages, either the first years of the reign of Cyrus, or the last years of that of Astyages, must be omitted; or the chronology deducible from the two together would be incorrect. If then we suppose that the sum of the four Median kings of Herodotus, commencing in the year b. c. 710, and amounting to 150 years, ended with the first regnal year of Cyrus, we shall have for the date of that event the year b. c. 560, which exactly corresponds with the received chronology. But the Median power, which is not introduced in a chronological series, actually continued until it fell before Cyrus, in 554, as above stated. Its duration, therefore, counting from the establishment of the Median kingdom, in b. c.710, would be exactly 156 years, as it is correctly represented by Herodotus.—See Diod. Sic, Herod.

^{page 225 note 1} While treating of the Oriental accounts of Persia, I wish it to be understood that I intend, by that name, the whole country called by the modern Persians Iran. Of the Modes I am not aware of any mention being made in Oriental history. I consider them to have been a powerful tribe of the same stock as the Persians of Fars, whoso name has gradually fallen into disuse since the time when Cyrus raised his native country to the highest rank amongst the nations of Irán.

^{page 225 note 2} The name of Kaiomars appears to be Sanscrit, and signifies “Body of Clay,” and he is called by Persian writers Gil Shah, or “King of Clay.” The Parsís suppose him to be the first created being, which is correct with reference to the extent of their knowledge; for they have no account whatever of the deluge. According to the Dabistan, he is only the first of the fifth dynasty of the kings of Persia.

^{page 225 note 3} Other writers call Zohák the son of Shedad, king of Syria.—See the Zínat al Tawaríkh.

^{page 225 note 4} There is a circumstance connected with the history of Feridún, as recorded by the Persians, which I think is well deserving of attention. I allude to the story of the Dirafsh i Káwán, the famous Leather Standard of Persia. That such a standard did exist, is proved by the fact of its having been taken by the Arabs, under Saadi Wakas, the general of the Caliph Omar; but the question is, what was its origin? The Persians say it was first borne in the revolt of Feridún (the Arbaces of the Greeks), when ho freed his country from the yoke of Assyria. But can it be supposed that a standard of so peculiar a nature should have escaped the notice, not only of Herodotus and Ctesias, but also of Alexander, whose historians have preserved no mention whatever of any such a standard being borne by the Persians. Moreover Xenophon, who fought on the most momentous occasion that ever summoned a king of Persia to the field, expressly says that the standard of the empire was a golden eagle. And so says Q. Curtius. I consider that the Persians have made up of facts, which are fundamentally true, a story which is wrong in its application. I think that the hero of the Leather Apron was Artaxerxes, or Ardashir, who subverted the empire of the Parthian kings, and founded the Sassanian dynasty of Persia, a. d. 226, and who was, as Vaillant says, Cujusdam Persse viri infimæ sortis, et coriariam quidem exercentis filius.

^{page 227 note 1} There can be little doubt that these Tazis were Assyrians. Some Persian authors indeed assert that they came from Nineveh; and Firdousi countenances this assertion by saying, that when attacked by Arbaces, they made a final stand on the banks of the Tigris, and were chased by the Persians across that river, which we may therefore suppose to have been in the heart of their native country. It is worthy of remark, though it need not surprise us, that the Persian historians appear to have known nothing of the Assyrian empire under that designation, though it is incorrectly stated by a great Orientalist, that “Mohammedan writers knew nothing of Nineveh.” The Arab geographers call it Ninweh, , and say it was a city of the highest antiquity. The author of the Rouzet al Safa calls it by the same name, and says it was the capital of Mesopotamia. They have preserved, however, distinct accounts of the existence of a great power in ancient times on the banks of the Tigris, and have recorded some circumstances connected therewith, as related in the writings of the Hebrew historians. The invasion of Israel is mentioned, but the leader of it is called Punkun, king of Mesopotamia; and the destruction of the Assyrians before the walls of Jerusalem is described as in the Hebrew, except that by the Persians a wind is represented as the instrument of the Divine wrath employed against the idolatrous hosts of Assyria. With regard to the term Tazi, it is synonymous with Arab, and is applied to men, dogs, horses, &c. of Arab extraction. Oi the two words it is the most comprehensive, and was applied, I consider, by the ancient Persians to the people of Mesopotamia, Syria, Irak i Arabi, and Arabia, who spoke the Arabic, or some cognate dialect, (which I regard as having been the language of the Assyrians,) in the same manner as the term Feringi is applied indiscriminately to all Europeans, (save those of Turkey,) by the Persian writers of the present day.

^{page 227 note 1} With regard to the connexion between the Greek and Persian accounts of the successors of Deioces or Kaikobad, I would refer to the excellent summary of the Kaianian dynasty of the Persian kings, contained in chap. iv. and vii. of Sir John Malcolm's History of Persia. According to this, the Deioces and Phraortes of the Greek historians are identified with Kaikobad, and a king whose name Firdousi has not recorded, but who is called by the author of the Majmah al Tawarikh, by the name of Aphra, which nearly agrees with the Phraortes of the Greeks. The Cyaxares and Astyages of the Greek writers are both represented by the Kaikaus of the Persians, whom some call the son and some the grandson of Kaikobad. Kaikosrou, is Cyrus, the founder of the Persian dynasty of the Greeks. From this period we are not able to identify with certainty the succeeding kings till we arrive at Artaxerxes Longimanus of the Greeks, whose name alone is sufficient to identify him with the Ardeshir-Dirazdast, or Long-handed, of the Persians. The interval is filled up by the Greek historians with the reigns of Cambyses, Darius Hystaspes, and Xerxes, and the short usurpation of Smerdis-Magus and Artabanus. Some writers have thought proper to call in question the reigns and exploits of these princes, but their reasons for so doing are very insufficient, and the light lately thrown on this portion of history by the inscriptions on the temples and monuments of Egypt, bear ample testimony to the truth and correctness of the accounts which we have received from the Greek authors. The Persians have preserved the names of two kings only during this period; the first named Lohrasp, whom I consider to be Cambyses, the second Gushtasp, who was probably the Darius of Greek history. The Isfandiar of the Persians, the son of Gurshasp, was probably the famous Xerxes of the Greeks. He was probably called Shahinshah, or king of kings; the common title of the kings of Persia, which the Greeks may be supposed to have Hellenized into Xerxes. The Persian Sh being always represented in Greek by X. Herodotus, I know, derives the name from ⋯ρξείης “The Warlike.”

^{page 229 note 1} Numbers xxiv. 22, 24.

^{page 229 note 2} 2 Kings, xv. 19Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 3} 2 Kings, xv. 29.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 4} 2 Kings, xvi. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 5} 2 Kings, xv. 30.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 1} 2 Kings, xvii. 3—6.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 2} The following passage from Dr. Russell will show the chief points in which I admit, and in which I differ from the authority of his opinion.

“If I be right in this conjecture, it will follow that the four monarchs, who in scripture are called the ‘King of Nineveh,’ Pul, Tiglath-pileser, and Shalmaneser, and who by Ctesias are denominated Arbaces, Mandauces, Sosarmus, 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 country, who were dissatisfied with the imperial government, revolted from its authority, and made preparations for the establishment of an independent sovereignty 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 that of Nineveh.”

Now according to Dr. Russell (Book ii. chap. 1.) Arbaces ascended the throne of Nineveh b.c. 821, and, after a reign of twenty-eight years, was succeeded by Mandauces, who reigned twenty years. The end of his reign will therefore be about the year b.c. 773. Again, Dr. Russell himself shows (Prelim. Dissert.) that Menahem ascended the throne of Samaria b.c. 769, in whose reign Pul invaded Israel. I consider, therefore, that in the above comparison of the list of Gtesias with the scriptural accounts, Dr. Russell has committed an error, and think that he would himself acknowledge the correctness of the system here advanced.

^{page 232 note 1} Firdousi tells us, that Menucheher made Nozer king of Persia before his own death, and recommended him to the counsels of two famous Persian warriors, Sám and Zál, in case of an attack from the tribes of Turán, which I think favours the opinion here expressed, that he was himself departing to another part of his empire. Firdousi, however, it must be acknowledged, says he was dying.

^{page 233 note 1} 2 Kings, xxvii. 24.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 2} Kings, xx. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 1} The utter destruction of the most powerful nations and cities of antiquity, is a striking feature in the history of the world. They appear to have been destroyed by a moral deluge, which has scarce left a vestige of their former existence. The history of Assyria, and the destruction of Nineveh, may be cited as illustrative of this remark. The early history of this once great capital is buried in the darkness of extreme antiquity.—According to the Scriptures, it was founded by Ashur, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, about twenty-three centuries before the Christian era. According to Ctesias and the Greek historians, it was built by Ninus, in the twenty-second century b.c. The Greek, however, tells us that Ninus was not the first king of Assyria: we may, therefore, suppose him to have been the son or the grandson of Ashur, which will reconcile the slight difference between the two accounts. From this early age, we have no account of the capital of Assyria, till the time of the Arbacidse, in the ninth century before the Christian era, under whom we may suppose it attained its highest state, splendour, and prosperity. About the year b.c 605, Nineveh was taken and destroyed by Cyaxares. But its fine situation on the banks of the Tigris, in the midst of the most fertile parts of Assyria, would make it the abode of the merchant and husbandman, although it was no longer the capital of an empire. Accordingly we find it mentioned by Ptolemy, (L. xii.) Tacitus, (An. 13,) Dion Cassius, and others, as holding a place in their time among the cities of Assyria; and Ammianus Marcellinus (xxviii. 7,) speaks of it as a large place, so late as the middle of the fourth century of the Christian era. But the incursions of the Huns, in the fifth century, and the wars of Justinian and Noshirwan, in the sixth, would render the fertile banks of the Tigris illadapted for the operations of agriculture or commerce. And we are, therefore, not surprised to find, that in the year 627, the armies of Heraclitus contended with the Persians for the empire of Assyria, on the ground where the capital of Ninus had stood. In the words of the prophecy denounced against her, “She had become a desolation, and dry—like a wilderness—a place for beasts to lie in.” Since that period, Nineveh, like Babylon, has remained desolate. Still, in her desolation, she has retained the vestiges of her former greatness. The ruins of her walls, and towers, and palaces, lie along the Tigris, more like the works of nature than of man; and offer, in the silent solitude of the desert, an eloquent example of worldly vicissitudes, but an imperishable monument of the grandeur and magnificence of the capital of Assyria. And the fate of Ecbatana is no less striking; were it not that its position is determined by the accounts of ancient writers, there is little to show us, that the modern open town Hamadan, is the remains of the once magnificent Ecbatana; the town which Semiramis adorned with aqueducts; which Deioces encircled with a sevenfold wall; which the successors of Alexander, and the Parthian kings long preserved as a royal city. Bochart has advanced a strange opinion respecting the derivation of the word Ecbatana. Alluding to the sevenfold wall of Deioces, each wall of which is said to have been of a different colour, he observes: —“Ab hâc colorum varietate putaverim Ecbatana dicta, quia Arabicè hodie id ipsum significat. Giggeius al Agbatha, vario colore distinctus fuit.” Now, setting aside the question of an Arabic derivation for a Median town, I would observe, that Agbatha does not mean “particoloured,” but “dust or brick-coloured.” Thus, according to the Kamús, it means dust-coloured, whence a lion is called from his colour. So Meninski renders it, on the authority of the Wan Kuli, “Pulverulento quasi colore prseditus,” and the Persian lexicographers represent it as a colour produced by mixing black and red, which we all know produces a brown.

^{page 236 note 1} The foundation of the Egyptian monarchy may also be referred to the same period. The accession of Menes, the first king of Egypt whose reign appears to be authentic, is fixed about the latter end of the twenty-third century b.c. Eusebius places it in the year b.c. 2258; Julius Africanus in 2218. (See Hales, Analysis of Ancient Chronol.) Dr. Pritchard gives the year 2214 for the same event. (See Egyptian Antiquities.)

^{page 236 note 2} According to the Chronology of the Hebrew Bible, as calculated by Usher, the Deluge occurred 2348 years before the Christian era. Playfair makes it 2351. A much longer period is assigned by the Greek and Samaritan versions, which I consider to be incorrect.

^{page 238 note 1} The following is a specimen of the discrepancy between the several translations:—

1. Septuagint.—Κα⋯ κατωκήσεν αὐτοὺς ⋯ν Ἅλαε κα⋯ ⋯ν Ἅβωρ ποτάμοις Γώζαν κα⋯ ⋯ρη Μήδων.

2. Vulgate.—Posuitque eos in Hala, et in Habor, juxta fluvium Gozan, in civitatibus Medorum.

3. Chaldee Paraphrase.—Et collocarit eos in Hhalah, et in Habor, fluvio Gozan, et urbibus Madai.

4. Arabic Paraphrase, (Translation) with which the Syriac agrees.—Et habitare fecit illos in Hilahj et in Habor, fluminis Gozan, &c.

^{page 239 note 1} The cause of the introduction of this particle is obvious. By the literal interpretation, “Habor, the River of Gozan,” Habor is identified with the river of Gozan; to which it was objected, that in the other passage above quoted from 1 Chron. v. 26, Habor and the river Gozan are separately mentioned, as two different localities. But when it is considered, as will be shown in the sequel, that the Habor is actually the river of Gozan, and also that a town and district in the vicinity of that river are known by the same name, it will be evident that the liberty taken with the text is as needless as it is improper.

^{page 240 note 1} It is obvious that Calachena is a very different word from Halah, and we have no authority for identifying the mountain Chaboras of Bochart with the Habor of Scripture, which is said to have been a town or river. The objection is less with regard to Gauzania, except that the Gozan of Scripture history is said to be situated near the river Habor, whereas the stream which flowed by Gauzania, is known in the pages of ancient history by no other name than that of Cyrus. However we have no authority for supposing that Aria was the ancient name of Media. It is, indeed, asserted by some geographers, that the Medes were once called Ἀριοι, Arians, as were our ancestors once called Saxons and Normans, &c. But it is nowhere said that the country of the Medes was ever known by the name of Aria. We are indeed told by the Whistons (Annotat. in Moses Chorenen. Hist. Armen.) that the name is derived from a word signifying, “Bold, Courageous,” which would account for the Medes being called Arians, but would not authorize the assumption that their country was called Aria, and might therefore be identified with the Hara of Scripture. The Aria of the ancients lay to the east of the province of Khorasan, in the direction of the Seistan of the modern Persians, which is famous from having been the principality of Zal, and the great heroes of Persian history, who lived, as has been shown, about the time of the captivity of Israel.

^{page 242 note 1} 2 Kings, xvi. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 2} And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon and from Cuthah, and from Avah, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria, instead of the children of Israel.”—2 Kings, , xvii. 24.Google Scholar

With regard to these places, they may still be traced in the countries adjoining Mesopotamia and Assyria. Babylon is well known. Cuthah, is still Preserved. Thus the Kamoos “Cutha is a town in Irák, or Babylonia.” Avah is, I imagine, the Auchanitis regio of the ancients, situated above Babylon, on the right bank of the Euphrates. (Nitis is an affix, which subtracted leaves Aucha, which is perhaps the nearest form by which the Greeks and Romans could represent the guttural sound contained in the Hebrew name.) Hamath, is preserved without variation in the Syrian town of Hamah, or Hamat. and Sipharvaim may be traced in the Sipphara of Ptolemy, situated in Babylonia, not far above Babylon. Sipharvaim, it may be remarked, is in the dual number; the singular is Siphara, or Sipharva. The Sipphara of the Greeks lay on the left bank of the Euphrates, and, it is probable that the district extended to the opposite bank of the river; hence, being divided into two portions, it would with propriety be called Sipharvaim, or the two Sipharas.

^{page 243 note 1} The words of the Geographer are,—

“And from Al Habor to Karkasíah is two marches; and Karkasíah is a town on the east bank of the Euphrates, and under it flows the Hennas, commonly called Al Habor.”

It appears that the Jews of Mesopotamia entertain an idea, that these are the sites to which the captives of Samaria were carried. And it is remarked by the Rabbi David ben Hillel, in his travels through Mesopotamia, that, “about two hours' distance from Nisebbin, I passed a small river which the Israelites call Halah, which comes from the mountains. The Arabs call it Al Hali. It appears to me that it is the same river which is mentioned in 2 Kings xvii. 6. because it is very near the cities of the Medes, and the river Hóvor is not far from it.”

^{page 245 note 1} I should perhaps except the modern Samaritans, or Sichemites, who claim descent from Ephraim and Manasseh. “We believe in Moses, and in Mount Gerizim. We have priests of the race of Levi, descended in a right line from Aaron and Phineas. We are all of the tribe of Joseph, by Ephraim and Manasseh, and of the tribe of Levi; our habitation is in the Holy City of Sichem al Gaza.” See Letter addressed by the Sichemites to the Jews of England.—Basnage.

^{page 247 note 1} The idea of the Hebrew origin of the North American Indians, which was advocated so warmly by the early settlers in the new world, appears of late to be very generally disregarded, or to be looked on as an idle and visionary speculation, the mere offspring of the enthusiasm and imagination. That men who were excited by the interest of the subject, should fancy some analogies and points of resemblance, where others, who were indifferent, or perhaps incredulous, were unable to perceive, or unwilling to admit them, is too much in accordance with human nature to excite our surprise. But to say that the several facts and arguments which have been adduced by so many different authors in support of this opinion, are nothing more than the effects of imagination, is a bare assertion against positive testimony, a mode of reasonmg too unphilosophical to satisfy the mind of the most superficial inquirer. The idea of the Hebrew origin of the North American Indians, was entertained by almost all the first ministers who settled in New England, as early as the middle of the sixteenth century. It appears to have been first suggested to John Elliot, (the Indian Evangelist, as he is deservedly called,) by a Mr. Winslow, the agent in New England of the Massachusetts colony, about the year 1549; and was communicated as the opinion of a learned Jew, named Rabbi ben Israel. It was subsequently maintained by several other writers on the subject, and supported by arguments drawn from several striking peculiarities, which characterise the manners, customs, religion, usages, and physiognomy of the North American Indians. These writers are far too numerous to be quoted, but the report of Mr. Blome and Cotton Mather's “Magnalia Christi Americana,” published in the seventeenth century, and the work of Adair in the eighteenth, though not altogether free from objections, will suffice to show the general opinion of the age in which these writers lived. In later times the subject has been treated by Dr. Bodinot,’ in his “Star in the West,” in which he has applied to it the interpretation of the dream contained in 2 Esdraa xiii. 39, et seq., which contains these remarkable words: —“And whereas thou sawest that he gathered another peaceable multitude unto him; those are the ten tribes which were carried away prisoners out of their own land, in the the time of Osea, the king, whom Salmanasar, the king of Assyria, led away captive, and he carried them over the waters; and so came they into another land. But they took this counsel among themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the heathen, and go forth into a further country where never mankind dwelt. That they might there keep their statutes, which they never kept in their own land. And they entered unto Euphrates, by the narrow passages of the river. For the Most High then showed signs for them, and held still the flood till they were passed over. For through that country, there was a great way to go, namely of a year and a half; and the same region is called Arsareth,” &c. The last writer on the subject is Colton. And in these authors may be found perhaps all that can be said on the question.

^{page 249 note 1} With regard to their language, Colton observes, that “the universal paramount requisition among them of the guttural organs in the use of their languages is a remarkable type of the Hebrew.”

^{page 251 note 1} Others of them have a different story from what was told me. Wolff says, “I went with Mr. Stevenson among the few Benee Israel, children of Israel, who are resident at Poona. They are totally distinct from the rest of the Jews in Europe and Hindostan. Soon after the destruction of the first temple, they came in seven ships (thus they relate their own story,) from Arabia, into Hindostan, where they have since forgotten their law, but continue to repeat in Hebrew certain prayers. They have synagogues, but they have not in them, like the rest of the Jews, the Sephar Torah, or five books of Moses, written upon parchment.”— Researches, p. 494.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 2} This, however, is not a general sentiment. I have reason to believe that a considerable part of them disclaim, in toto, the name of Jew, and maintain that they are not Yahudi, but Beni Israel.

^{page 252 note 1} “And it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you, so the Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought. And ye shall lie plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it. And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even to the other. And there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone.”—Deuteronomy, xxviii. 63, 64.Google Scholar