writing. Mr. Asher thought the terms too high (I think that he said that it would have been more than twenty thousand thalers for five hundred copies), and the negociation was broken off in consequence of the siege of Rome and its subsequent occupation by the French. "Fourth, M. le Docteur Ch. Daremberg, who was in 1850 Bibliothécaire de l'Académie Nationale de Médecine at Paris (and who may still hold the same office as far as I know, but with the name changed to Impériale), informed me in May of that year that he had seen the printed edition and that MS. together in the Cardinal's hands at the Altieri Palace a few weeks previously. He then held out expectations that the edition would appear before long. But delay is the ruling principle at Rome as to everything of this kind. I mentioned the information that I had thus received from Dr. Daremberg in the Journal of Sacred Literature for July, 1850, p. 229. "I doubt whether any information of a precise kind could be obtained from compositors or others engaged in the work. Twenty years must have passed since the edition was printed; and since that time the greater part of Cardinal Mai's seventeen large quartos and twenty thick octavos, containing classical and patristic works in Greek and Latin, have issued, some printed at the Propaganda (alias Collegium Urbanum), and some "Typis Vaticanis." There would be no difficulty in procuring all that was needed for printing Greek works in the Roman offices. "The existence of such a printed edition not as yet published, and remaining so for many years, may be contrary to all our experience in this country; but irrespective of the testimony of four witnesses that I have given above, I think that you would hardly pronounce it incredible if you bore in mind that in Italy there have been similar instances of delay. Thus the Arabic Bible, edited by Sergius Risius, which was published at Rome in 1672, had been completed about half a century before; and to come to our own times, Bugati's Syro-Hexaplar text of Daniel appeared in 1820 after the editor's death, though it had been completed thirty years before. I do most heartily wish that the Vatican MS. could be rescued from the unworthy obscurity to which it is now consigned. "More information relative to the edition of the Codex Vaticanus by Cardinal Mai might probably be obtained from Signor Mostacci than from any one else. Mr. Asher, it is probable, had nothing in writing that could be published, as the negociation was carried on personally between him and Mostacci at Rome. "I remain, my dear Sir, "The Rev. O. T. Dobbin, LL.D., Ballivor, Kells." "S. P. TREGELLES. DARIUS THE MEDE AND DARIUS HYSTASPES. To the Editor of "The Journal of Sacred Literature." SIR,May I be permitted to point out some reasons for differing from your correspondent Mr. Bosanquet on a question which has been so ably discussed by him in your Journal, as to whether "Darius the Mede," and Darius Hystaspes, can be one and the same person, and consequently the correct date of the Babylonish captivity? I. It appears that Scripture distinguishes between the two, as may be inferred from these reasons:-(1.) On the fall of Babylon it is said, "Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old" (Dan. v. 31). Again, "In the first year of the reign of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolation of Jerusalem" (ix. 1, 2.) This proves that the foretold seventy years' captivity, which commenced according to Jeremiah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, and the first of Nebuchadrezzar (see Jer. xxv. 1), for that prophet declared that the people of Judah "should serve the King of Babylon seventy years," and that when the seventy years were accomplished, God would punish the King of Babylon and the land of the Chaldeans" (verses 11, 12); and he evidently refers to the desolation of Jerusalem as commencing at the time when he was commissioned to deliver his testimony against the cities of Judah, according to the expressive words as it is this day" (ver. 18). This was eighteen or nineteen years before Nebuchadrezzar destroyed Jerusalem and carried Zedekiah to Babylon (see 2 Kings xxv. 8), and it appears to explain the mistake, which I think Mr. Bosanquet has committed in arguing as he does (J. S. L. for 1856, p. 429), that Daniel's computation of the seventy years' captivity (ix. 2), is to be counted from the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, and will consequently bring us into the reign of Darius Hystaspes, whereas is it not evident from the words of Jeremiah, that the predicted desolation commenced eighteen or nineteen years earlier, viz., in the first year of Nebuchadrezzar, and therefore it will not bring us into the reign of Darius Hystaspes according to the received chronology of that period? (2.) Some time subsequently to "the first year of Darius the Mede," we find Cyrus "in the first year of his reign making a proclamation" to restore the Jews to Jerusalem, in order that "the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled" (Ezra i. 1). In other words, that after the seventy years of desolation had expired with the fall of Judah's enemy the King of Babylon, the Jews would be restored to their own land by him whom Isaiah had designated by name (Coresh or Cyrus) 200 years previously on his obtaining the throne of that king under whom their deportation had taken place. "the We find further, that in the reign of two of Cyrus' successors, adversaries of Judah" succeeded in " frustrating the purpose of Cyrus King of Persia even until the reign of Darius King of Persia" (Ezra iv. 5). The names of these two kings are given by the sacred writer as Ahasuerus or Ahashverosh, and Artaxerxes, and the copy of the letter of Artaxerxes, prohibiting the building of the city, is specially recorded with this remark, "So the work of the house of God ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius King of Persia" (ver. 24). Moreover, men tion is made by the same writer of the three kings of Persia by whose commandment the work of building was originally commenced, carried on and completed, viz.,. Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes (vi. 14). Thus then we have in Scripture the names of a succession of kings who occupied the throne of Babylon, and who consequently held the Jews in subjection, viz. : 1. "Darius the Mede," who took the kingdom of the Chaldeans (Dan. v. 31). 2. "Cyrus King of Persia," who gave the Jews permission to rebuild their temple (Ezra i. 1). 3. "Ahasuerus," in the beginning of whose reign enemies brought an accusation against the Jews (Ezra v. 6). 4. "Artaxerxes," who suspended the building of the temple (Ezra iv. 7-22). 5. "Darius King of Persia," who renewed the edict of Cyrus, and in whose reign the temple was finished (Ezra vi. 1—12). 6. "Artaxerxes King of Persia, king of kings," who gave two edicts in the seventh and twentieth years of his reign respecting the temple service and rebuilding Jerusalem (Ezra vii. 26; Neh. ii. 1—8). Does not this accord with the number and succession of kings mentioned by Herodotus and in Ptolemy's Canon as kings of Persia at that period (the Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes of Scripture standing for Cambyses and Smerdis of profane history), with the exception of Darius the Mede? And if we accept the testimony of Xenophon's statements (which in point of value would equal the testimony of an historian of the present day recording events which occurred at the accession of the House of Brunswick), that Cyaxares was King of the Medes at the time of the fall of Babylon (Cyropædia, 1. viii.), together with that of Josephus, who tells us that " 'Darius the Mede was the son of Astyages, and had another name amongst the Greeks (Antiquities, x., xi. 4), does not this accord with what is said in Scripture respecting the kings of the Medes (Jer. li. 11-28) being employed in the destruction of Babylon? when they had precedence of the Persians, as we may gather from the Book of Daniel, who always mentions them first, whereas in Esther, describing a later period in history, the order is reversed. And can we therefore have any difficulty in identifying "Darius the Mede" of Scripture with the Cyaxares King of the Medes of Xenophon? Mr. Bosanquet considers that as the name of "Darius the Mede" is not to be found in any inscription, that is an argument in favour of concluding him to be one with Darius Hystaspes. If however we call to mind how common it is for various authors to speak of the same king under different names (e. g., Josephus tells us that at the death of Xerxes, the kingdom came to his son Cyrus, whom, he adds, "the Greeks call Artaxerxes" (Antiquities, xi. vi. 1), but had he omitted this explanation, what a controversy might not the historian have caused by his declaration that Cyrus succeeded Xerxes), there is less difficulty in considering the Cyaxares of Xenophon to be the "Darius the Mede" of Daniel. And the mention of that name on the Behistun Rock (to which Mr. Bosanquet refers, though he draws a different inference from what I have always thought to be the most probable one), in connexion with the rebellion of the Median Phraortes against Darius Hystaspes, when he claimed to be "Xathrites of the race of Cyarares," appears to shew that the last King of the Medes must have been Cyaxares, and not Astyages, according to Herodotus, as a claimant to the throne would naturally ground his claims upon being descended from the last king whose name was known, and whose reign was remembered. With the knowledge therefore from Scripture, that "Darius the Mede" took the throne of Babylon at the capture of the city, from Xenophon that "Cyaxares" was King of the Medes at the time, and from an inscription on the Behistun Rock that an impostor in the reign of Darius Hystaspes claimed to be of the race of Cyaxares, does it not confirm the long-entertained opinion that Darius the Mede and Cyaxares are one and the same person? وو (3.) The inference from prophecy seems to forbid our considering "Darius the Mede" and Darius Hystaspes to be the same person on this ground. Daniel writes, "Also I, in the first year of Darius the Mede, etc.;-there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia, and the fourth shall be far richer than they all; and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia" (xi. 1, 2). As I conclude it is admitted by all that this refers to the first year of the reign of "Darius the Mede over the united kingdoms of Media and Chaldea, and that Cyrus was at that time King of Persia, the prophecy declares that after that time three kings should reign in Persia previous to the appearance of the great invader of Greece, which agrees with the testimony of profane history, e. g., that of Herodotus, in placing three kings,-Cambyses, Smerdis, and Darius Hystaspes,-between Cyrus and Xerxes, whose famous expedition against Greece is so well known, and concerning which the historian testifies to his wealth, when he declares that the attacking army consisted of 1,700,000 men (Herod., vii. 60), the largest number probably ever collected together under one leader. Is not this sufficient to prove that " Darius the Mede" must have preceded Darius Hystaspes by some years, and that as three sovereigns intervened between the time of their reigns on the throne of Chaldea, and two on that of Persia, they could not have been the same person? II. The testimony of profane history, which has already been referred to, seems to confirm this inference from Scripture. For though Herodotus makes no mention of "Darius the Mede," and records the termination of the Median monarchy in a manner differing from that of Xenophon (M. Rollin justly remarks, that "Xenophon is infinitely more worthy of credit than Herodotus on the subject of Cyrus' life, as he served a long time under the younger Cyrus, and says in the beginning of the Cyropædia, 'I advance nothing but what has been told me (Anc. Hist., vol. ii., chap. 1), yet it is clear from the genealogy which he gives of Darius Hystaspes, that no mention is made of Ahasuerus, or Cyaxares (doubtless the same according to Sir Isaac Newton), or any other name at all like it who is declared by Daniel to be the father or ancestor of "Darius the Mede." The genealogy is thus traced from Herodotus (see Polymnia, vii., 11), according to Larcher's note on the subject: This genealogy agrees with that on the Behistun Rock, excepting three descents, which appear to be omitted. It reads as follows:"Says Darius the king-My father was Hystaspes, of Hystaspes the father was Arsames, of Arsames the father was Ariyaramnes, of Ariyaramnes the father was Teispes, of Teispes the father was Achæmenes.” Do not these genealogical lists afford a strong confirmation that “Darius the Mede," the son or descendant of Ahasuerus according to Dan. ix. 1, must be a distinct person from Darius the Persian, amongst whose ancestors no such name appears? وو Further, the account on the Behistun Rock of the succession of Persian kings, viz., Cyrus, Cambyses, Gomatis the Magian (Smerdis), Darius Hystaspes, agrees so exactly with the history of Herodotus, that it appears impossible to make a Darius, who clearly reigned in Persia three reigns after Cyrus, the same as a Darius who according to the testimony of Scripture, certainly reigned in Babylon before Cyrus. No one, I think, can doubt that the relation by Herodotus (Clio, i., 188-191), of the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, is the same as that foretold by Isaiah and Jeremiah, and described by Daniel, when Belshazzar was slain, and "Darius the Mede took the kingdom; and in order to account for Herodotus' omission of the name of Darius, it should not be forgotten that the historian's chief object was to give the history of the kings of Persia and not of Media, and as he particularly notices that he gives the history of Cyrus upon "Persian authorities," while admitting there were "three other ways of relating his history" (Clio, i., 95), is it not likely that his informants omitted to mention the name of the last king of the Medes, whose reign over the Chaldeans after the fall of Babylon could not have extended over above one or two years, when Cyrus added the kingdoms of Media and Babylon to his hereditary kingdom of Persia? And the union of the forces of Media and Persia at the siege foretold by Isaiah xxi. 2, before the kingdom of the Medes had come to a termination, I have already noticed from Jeremiah li. 11, is confirmed by the account which Megasthenes gives of the prediction attributed to Nebuchadnezzar shortly before his death: "A Persian mule shall come, who by the help of your own gods fighting for him, shall bring slavery upon you, whose assistant or fellow-agent herein, shall be the Mede" (Apud Euseb. Prop. Evan., lib. ix.) I think, therefore, that the omission of "Darius the Mede” by Herodotus in his account of the fall of Babylon, is no proof |