BOOK VI.

Here we are explicitly informed, that the independent kingdom of Media was founded in consequence of a revolutionary defection from the paramount Assyrian empire: and we may further collect not obscurely, that that empire then fell to pieces; because the historian adds, that its other provinces soon followed the example of the Medes. The whole of this exactly corresponds with the arrangement of Ctesias: for that author describes the ancient Assyrian dynasty as becoming extinct, shortly before the Median dynasty commenced with Arbaces; and such extinction is precisely what might have been expected from the convulsed state of the empire, as exhibited by Herodotus.

But we must now attend to an important chronological discrepance between these two writers, who have hitherto so excellently harmonized together. Herodotus makes Dejoces the great grandfather of Astyages, and thus gives only four Median sovereigns from the founder of the monarchy to Astyages both inclusively: Ctesias, on the contrary, places Arbaces at the head of the dynasty, and from him to Astyages inclusively gives nine Median sovereigns. The consequence is, that, according to the length of reigns as stated by Herodotus, the Median revolt must have taken place in the year A. C. 710; and, as the anarchical interregnum may be shewn to have lasted six years, the first king must have been called to the throne in the year A. C. 704': while, according to the length of reigns as stated by Ctesias, the government of the first king must have commenced in the year A. C. 821; and therefore the Median revolt must have taken place six years earlier in the year A. C. 827. Abp. Usher and Dr. Hales prefer the arrangement of Herodotus; nor is it without much appearance of reason, for there certainly was a revolt of the Medes from the Assyrian empire about the year A. C. 710, shortly after and in consequence of the

Herod. lib. i. c. 102-107. Jackson's Chronol. Ant. vol. i. p. 253, 254. Herodotus has not expressly given the length of the anarchical interregnum, but he has furnished the data. He reckons the Scythian dominion in Media 28 years, and the whole length of the Median dynasty from Dejoces to Astyages inclusive 128 years more; or 156 years in all. But the reigns of his four kings amount only to 150 years. Consequently, these, being subtracted from the gross sum of 156 years, will leave six years for the period of anarchy. See Hales's Chronol. vol. iii. p. 85.

disastrous expedition of Sennacherib against Judah: but, after a long con- CHAP. 11. sideration of the subject, I feel assured, that there were two Median revolts; that Herodotus has blended them together into one; and that he has therefore brought down the rise of the monarchy from the era of the first to the era of the second, wholly suppressing the five earliest kings, and ascribing to the sixth monarch whom he calls Dejoces what was really performed by the first monarch whom Ctesias calls Arbaces: hence I am led to adopt the arrangement of Ctesias.

The grounds of my whole opinion are these. The ancient Assyrian dynasty certainly came to an end about or before the year A. C. 821: accordingly, Dr. Hales very properly makes what he calls the third Assyrian dynasty commence at that time'. Now this is in effect to allow, that a great revolution then took place. But precisely such is the declaration of Ctesias: whence, with much appearance of probability, he makes Arbaces become the first sovereign of Media directly after the extinction of the ancient Assyrian dynasty, the Medes having availed themselves of so favourable an opportunity to raise the standard of independence. And in this outline of history he agrees with Herodotus; who describes the rise of the Median kingdom, as occurring when the Assyrian empire was falling to pieces by the general defection of its provinces. No extinction however of any Assyrian dynasty took place in the year A. C. 710: so that, by fixing the original revolt of the Medes to that epoch, we take away from the rise of their kingdom one of its leading characteristics, namely the dissolution of a governing Assyrian empire. We moreover, by such an arrangement, violate the concinnity of another part of history: for, as we shall presently see, the independence of Persia commenced much about the time which Ctesias assigns for the commencement of Median independence: and we are assured, that it commenced just in the same manner, namely after a period of anarchical violence and subsequent to the domination of a very ancient imperial monarchy: hence the epoch of Persian independence must also, as circumstantial evidence very plainly determines, be the epoch of Median independence. Now with this epoch the account given by Ctesias

Pag. Idol.

'Hales's Chronol. vol. iii. p. 58.

VOL. III.

SC

BOOK VI. exactly agrees, both chronologically and circumstantially: but the account given by Herodotus does not thus agree. I am led therefore to prefer the former to the latter: and thence, with Ctesias, I place the rise of Median independence between the years A. C. 827 and 821; rather than, with Herodotus, between the years A. C. 710 and 704. Such then is what I believe to be the true epoch of the grand Median revolt: but there undoubtedly must have been a second revolt; which Usher and Hales rightly fix from Herodotus to the year A. C. 710, which that historian has confounded with the first revolt at the rise of the monarchy, and which took place in consequence of the favourable opportunity afforded by the disaster of Sennacherib. The order of events seems to have been, as follows. Not long after the middle of the ninth century before Christ, the old Assyrian dynasty became extinct with Thonus Concolerus, and the empire fell asunder by the defection of its provinces. About the same time arose the comparatively small kingdom of Assyria under what Dr. Hales calls the third Assyrian dynasty: while Media, after having experienced the inconvenience of revolutionary discord, became an independent state under the government of Arbaces. The new Assyrian kingdom however increased so rapidly in strength, that it was enabled to reconquer either the whole or a considerable part of Media, thus reducing the then sovereign of that country to the rank of a tributary vassal. This circumstance may be collected from Holy Writ: and it is that identical testimony of Scripture; which has led chronologers, too hastily (I think), to place the rise of Median independence so low as the year A. C. 710, and to pronounce all the five first Median princes enumerated by Ctesias mere prefects of the Assyrian monarch. When Shalmaneser had conquered the Israelites of the ten tribes, he carried them away, we are told; and placed them in Halah, and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes'. Now this happened between the years A. C. 721 and 719. Consequently, Media must then have been subject to the king of Assyria. But we know, that Media was independent during the reigns of Astyages and his immediate predecessors. Hence it must have recovered its independence sub

* 2 Kings xvii. 5, 6.

sequent to the year A. C. 719. Accordingly we learn from the chronolo- CHAP. II. gical numbers of Herodotus, though he has unfortunately blended the second Median revolt with the first, that the Medes finally threw off the Assyrian yoke in the year A. C. 710: which is the exact time, when we might expect such an exploit to be achieved by a high-spirited nation panting after the independence which it had recently lost; for it was the very year of Sennacherib's miraculous disaster in the land of Judah and of his consequent assassination by his sons.

On these grounds, I am led to fix what I esteem the original Median revolt to about the year A. C. 827, and the accession of the first independent Median king at the close of the six years anarchy to the year A. C. 821. Whence I conclude, that, as the revolt followed the extinction of the old Assyrian dynasty in the person of Thonus Concolerus, the dynasty in question must have become extinct, and the great Assyrian empire must have begun to be revolutionized, some short time previous to the year A.C. 827. 12. The propriety of such a conclusion will be decidedly confirmed by an inquiry into the true epoch of Persian independence.

When Sir Isaac Newton came to calculate backward the reigns of the recorded Persian kings, he found, that he was unable to place the rise of their monarchy higher than the year A. C. 790': and so just were his principles, that, if we compute those reigns as enumerated by the Persian historians themselves, we shall actually be brought for their commencement very nearly to the self-same year.

The Persian writers describe the Pislidadian dynasty, as being the first that governed their country with regal authority: and, although they make it consist of no more than eleven kings, they fabulously exhibit the reigns of those kings as stretching through the incredible space of 2450 years. To the Pishdadian succeeded the Caianian dynasty, which comprehended ten sovereigns: and to their joint reigns the more moderate, though still excessive, period of 734 years is attributed.00, lo mus

Now, if we direct our attention to the two last princes of this second dynasty, we shall happily obtain a sure chronological resting place, from

'Newton apud Jones. Asiat. Res. vol. ii. p. 47.

* Jehan Ara in Ouseley's Epit. of anc. his. of Persia. p. 3, 15.

BOOK VI. which we may be enabled to take a rational backward view of the prepos terously extended reigns of their predecessors. The tenth Caianian monarch is Secander Zul-Karnein: and this personage, though he is said to have been the son of a former king named Darab, is sufficiently identified with the Macedonian Alexander both by his appellation Secander and by the circumstance of his mother being described as the daughter of Philip king of Greece. Such being the case, his immediate predecessor Dara must undoubtedly be the Darius of classical story'. Accordingly, though Secander be thus arranged as the last prince of the Caianian dynasty, Mirkhond and the other Persian writers unanimously agree, that that dynasty really ended when Dara was conquered by Secander: and, though the author of the Jehan Ara has followed Ferdousi in exhibiting Secander as a son of Darab by a daughter of the Macedonian Philip, the more ancient and authentic Tabari rightly pronounces him to be the son of the Grecian monarch. The proper Caianian dynasty therefore, when the foreign Secander is excluded, contains only nine kings: and thus it doubtless ended in the year A. C. 331, with the murder of Dara or Darius Codoman.

This point being ascertained, we have now twenty kings from Caiumuras to Dara, both inclusive; namely, eleven Pishdadians and nine Caianians: and the joint duration of their reigns is to be calculated retrospectively from the year A. C. 331, which is a known chronological epoch. Now, on a grand sum of ten different regal dynasties, comprehending on the whole 454 kings and extending through the vast space of 10105 years, it has been accurately computed by Dr. Hales, that the average length of a reign may be estimated at 224 years3. In the present case, let us take the round number of 23 years, as the average length of our twenty Persian reigns; and, at that rate, calculate them backward from the murder of Dara in the year A. C. 331. A. C. 331. Such an operation will give, as their joint amount, the sum of 460 years: and, consequently, those 460 years added

Jehan Ara in Ouseley's Epit. of anc. his. of Persia. p. 25. 2 Hales's Chronol. vol. iii, p. 48, 49. Ouseley's Epit, p. 26. 3 Hales's Chronol. vol. i. p. 304, 305.