agree, that the Kaianian dynasty ended when Darab II. was conquered by Ascander, or Darius Codomannus, by Alexander of Macedon, B. C.

331,

Astyages and Cyrus, in Herodotus; and it is supported, in the main, by Eschylus, Xenophon, Josephus, and HOLY WRIT. 7. Richardson himself candidly allows weight to the counter-objection, that "the principal historians of Persia now known in Europe, are all subsequent to the Mohammedan era; that Persian literature was almost entirely annihilated in the consequences of the Arabian conquest: that the Greeks wrote nearer to the events which they have recorded; and therefore, though foreigners, have a superior claim to our credence, than the natives of after ages, who must have compiled their annals under many circumstances of discouraging obscurity." P. 42.-This satisfactorily accounts for much of the rubbish of the Persian historians, as well as for their omissions, the latter not having been supplied in such ancient Persian writings as escaped the Arabian proscription of such as inculcated the religion of the Magi. P. 64, 65.

3. The chronological speculations of Richardson are fanciful in the extreme, and tend to unsettle the fundamental dates of ancient chronology.

1. Misled by the supposed continuity of the Pischdadian and Kaianian dynasties, he places Zohak, and Gemshid, about, or above 800 years before the Christian era, p. 154, 181, or about 1200 years below their truer time. In this he is followed by Sir William Jones.

2. He supposes, that the Persian king, called w, Churos, (not Choresh) by Isaiah in his prophecies, destined to release the Jews from captivity and order the rebuilding of the temple, Isa. xliv. 28; xlv. 1, who, after the conquest of Babylon, B. C. 536, "when GoD had given him all the kingdoms of the earth," issued a proclamation to that effect. Ezra i. 1-4, was not Cyrus the Great, of the Greeks, or Kai chosru of the Persians; but another Coresh (or Kiresh) who lived in the reign of Ardeshir Dirazdest, and was appointed by him deputy governor of Babylon, in the room of the son of Bakhtunassar, (or Nabocodnassar) who was deposed for oppressing the Jews. That Coresh issued the proclamation in question, about B. C. 385, or B. C. 388, near the end of Ardeshir's reign; and consequently, that the seventy years of the Babylonish captivity began B. C. 458, near the end of the reign of Lohorash, by whose orders Nabocodnassar conquered Syria, Palestine, and other western districts. P. 90–93.

This hypothesis, to adopt his own expressions, " is founded on imaginary cras; and introduces, in consequence, a variety of anachronisms, in direct opposition to the historical books of Scripture, to Josephus, and to all observations on the longevity of man:" It is also at variance with the curtailed Jewish Chronicles, and even with the Persian reigns of the Kaianian dynasty, upon which it is professedly built. For

1. His first supposed date of the proclamation, B. C.385, is deduced from the alledged date of the Jewish larger Chronicle, [or Seder Olam Rabba] which finishes the building of the temple about 34 years before the fall of the Persian empire, B. C. 331, and after the building had been stopped by the Samaritans near 20 years. But B. C. 331 + 34 + 20 = B. C.

VOL. III.

H

331, which leads to the discovery and adjustment of the rest, and of their erroneous reigns, amounting to 712 years, according to Mirkhond, or 734 years, according to others; more than double the truth.

II.

B. C. 385. His second date, B. C. 388, is deduced, by counting upwards from the end of the reign of Darab II. or Codomannus, B. B. 331, fourteen years for his reign; twelve for Darab I. thirty for Queen Homai, and the two last of Ardeshir. But B. C. 331 + 13 +12 +30 +2 B. C. 388. And from this supposed date of the proclamation, again, he counts upwards, thirty-eight years more for Ardeshir, and about thirty for the reign of Kishtasb, or Gushtasp, and the two last, of Lohorash, till the commencement of the seventy years captivity. But B. C. 388 +38 +30 + 2 = B. C. 458.

Every step almost, of this chronological computation is faulty. David Ganz, p. 55, reckons that the second temple was finished in the year of the world 3412, or B. C. 348, instead of B. C. 365, here assumed. And the reigns of the Persian kings, all except the last, are altered at random from the table of the Kaianian dynasty, some shortened, others lengthened, according to his fancy; "like the ancient tyrant, he tortures every circumstance to adapt it to his iron bed: where defective, he stretches it upon the rack; and lops the superfluities, where it threatens to prove too much." According to his own excellent description of systematic writers, or framers of systems. P. 39.

2. He contradicts the historical books of Scripture, in making his imaginary Coresh a deputy of the Persian king Ardschir, instead of the sovereign of the Median, Persian, and Babylonian empire; and he degrades the mighty and haughty Nebuchadnezzar to the same dependant state; acting as general under Lohorasb, or Cambyses the son of Cyrus; by a glaring anachronism!

3. He misunderstands Josephus. For "Sanballat" the Samaritan governor appointed by Darab II. or Codomannus, "who was alive in the time of Alexander," was quite different from the Sanbullat in the time of Nehemiah, who gave so much interruption to the building of the temple. See vol. 11. p. 581, note. And he arbitrarily curtails the administrations of the High Priests down to Jaddua, in Alexander's time; asserting contrary to fact, that "the Jewish High Priesthood was remarkable for a very quick succession." See the lengths of their long administrations, vol. II. Seventh Period, p. 489, and Eighth Period, p. 576.

4. He contradicts all observations of the longevity of man in that age, by making his imaginary Coresh, B. C. 388, the contemporary of the Prophet Daniel, who was alive in the first year of "Cyrus the Persian," B. C. 536, when the proclamation was really issued, (and most probably by Daniel's counsel) 148 years before the fictitious proclamation!

The chronology of Cyrus is critically ascertained and adjusted, by means of Ptolemy's Scientific Canon, as it may justly be stiled; and it forms the basis of all chronology, sacred and profane. See vol. 1. p. 68 of this work. To unsettle it, is to unsettle all chronological history.

These

Hence, we get the accession of Kai kobad, or Cyaxares, B. C. 331 + 712 B. C. 1043, according to the former computation; or B. C. 331 + 734 = B. C. 1065, according to the latter. Both long after the Pischdadian dynasty, even by their own accounts of its remote antiquity.

To fill up the chasm, of which they were aware, the Persian historians not only more than doubled the amount of the reigns of the second dynasty, but inserted the enormous reigns of the first, so as to carry up the antiquity of their empire beyond the deluge, by making their first king Kaiumarath contemporary with Alorus, the founder of the Babylonian dynasty of Berosus, in B. C. 4355, as we have seen. For if we subtract from this date the true end of the Kaianian dynasty, B. C. 331, the true interval is 4024 years. And with this, nearly agrees And with this, nearly agrees the gross amount of the uncorrected reigns of the two dynasties. For the Pischdadian, including the four extravagant reigns, and 200 years interregnum after Kaiumarath, amounted to 3269 years; adding thereto the Kaianian, of

These strictures on an author, from whose learned works we have often derived instruction and entertainment, respecting "the languages, literature, and manners of Eastern nations," are a tribute to his celebrity. "It is error alone we should wish to reprobate : it is the path of truth we should wish to clear." Dissertations, p. 42.

734 years, we get the sum total, 4003 years, which differs only 21 years from the correct interval *.

So near a concurrence is not more curious than useful and valuable. It tends, 1. to verify and establish the present system of chronology, even from the very errors of the Persian historians; and, moreover, to detect the source of those errors and enormous lengths of reigns, by tracing them up to the national vanity of claiming a high Antediluvian origin for their empire. 2. To shew that the errors of the ancient chronographers consisted rather in filling up, or adjusting the parts of long periods of time, than in the outlines themselves. As instanced formerly in the case of Josephus, vol. 1. p. 104, 105 of this work, and afterwards of Ctesias and Herodotus, &c.

The same national vanity during the second dynasty, led the Persian historians of that age to trace the foundation of their empire, in a continued series of kings, up to Ninus I. or Nimrod, to flatter the vanity of the reigning monarchs.

Hence Ctesias, the Greek physician, who was taken prisoner in the rebellion of Cyrus the younger, against his brother Artaxerxes Mnemon, B. C. 401, and spent seventeen years at the Court of Persia, in great favour with that monarch, for curing him of a wound he received in battle from his brother, who was slain, wrote a history of Persian affairs, as he says, "from the Royal records;" which he afterwards published in Greece with great applause, and was followed by Diodorus Siculus, Justin, and many other Greek and Latin writers.

Ctesias fabricated a list of 36 kings, from Ninus, B. C. 2127, to Thonus Concolerus, ending B. C. 821, during a period of 1305 years, or 1300 years in round numbers, according to Justin. The entire list is to be found in Eusebius, Syncellus, and the early chronographers, with considerable variations, and is skilfully corrected by Jackson‍↑.

The

It is further remarkable, that the Persian and Hindu era of the Deluge Kali Yug, B. C. 3102, falls short only fifty-three years of the established era, B. C. 3155; and the birth of Abraham, according to the Chinese era of the Tehou, in B. C. 2131, falls short only twenty-two years of the established, B. C. 2153. See vol. 1. p. 293, 297.

+ The learned and laborious Jackson has given two lists, the one useful, the other fanciful. The first, vol. 1. p. 247-253, is the list of Ctesias, corrected, from Eusebius, by critical

*for

The first twenty-four reigns of Ctesias' list are not "true," for they encroach on the first Assyrian interregnum and first Persian dynasty. The last twelve reigns will be found fully sufficient for the duration of the second Assyrian dynasty, as follows.

critical comparison of other chronographers; reducing the amount of the reigns from 1240 years, (or 1239 in the detail of Eusebius) to 1305 years. This list is valuable.

In the second list, p. 276-280, Jackson has altered the chronology of Ctesias for the worse, lowering it 111 years throughout, beginning B. C. 2016, instead of B. C. 2127, in order to accommodate it to the hypothesis, that Thonus Concolerus, the last king, denoted Esarhaddon, whose reign began with the revolt of the Medes, B. C. 710. Whereas, upon Jackson's own principles, he should rather denote Sennacherib, " whose death gives the true time of the revolt of the Medes." P. 282. Both suppositions, however, are unfounded: Thonus more correctly represents the predecessor of that king of Nineveh who reigned in Jonah's time, from comparison of sacred and profane chronology.

Jackson himself has furnished sufficient proof of the superior correctness of the chronology of the former list. He states, that Cassiodorus placed the first king of Athens, Cecrops, in the reign of Sparthæus, the 15th in the list. But the accession of Cecrops, in B..C. 1582, according to the Parian Chronicle, (see vol. 1. p. 219) fell on the 25th year of Sparthæus, according to Ctesias; but only on the 12th year of Ascalius, the twelfth in the list, according to Jackson. Which shews, that he "has fixed the era of the Assyrian kings" too low; and not "Ctesias too high." See p. 279, note (77) of his work.

The average of the twelve last reigns in 431 years, here selected, is nearly 36 years apicce. This is rather high; Dr. Gillies therefore increased them to 17, which would give the average 25 years; nearer to the general standard. But the exact number of reigns is immaterial, provided the period itself of 431 years be correct. The present number, however, is supported by the agreement of the reigns of Teutamus and Laosthenes, with the references of Diodorus and Cyril; noticed in the text.

Causas rerum naturalium non plures admitti debere, quam quæ et veræ sint, et earum phænomenis explicandis sufficiant, Reg. I. philosophandi. Newton. Principia, Lib. iii.

SECTION