cessive periods, they were the dominant power in Asia; while they them- CHAP. 11. selves never submitted to the disgrace of a foreign yoke. The first of these periods is that, with which alone we are at present concerned: and it is thus described from the ancient documents furnished by Trogus. Vexoris, king of Egypt, having declared war against the Scythians because they refused to acknowledge his supremacy; that gallant people, great alike in wisdom and in arms, marched to encounter him. Their rapid approach terrified the invader: so that, ingloriously leaving his whole army behind, he fled with precipitation to his own country. The victorious Scythians followed him, but were prevented by the morasses from penetrating far into Egypt. They returned therefore into Asia, which they conquered and made tributary. Nor was this a mere marauding excursion: so firmly was their dominion established, that their paramount imperial authority continued during the space of 15 centuries. At length Ninus threw off the yoke, and became the founder of the Assyrian empire'. We have here a most curious piece of ancient history, corrupted indeed, yet amply sufficient for the purpose on account of which it is adduced. It seems then, that, antecedent to a revolt of Assyria under Ninus, there was a very powerful empire in the Scythic line; which domineered over all Asia as known to the early western nations, and which had excursively penetrated even as far as Egypt. (2.) Justin is not the only writer, who notices this primeval Scythic monarchy: Strabo, when enumerating the dominant powers of the east, speaks of the old Scythians, as being a most warlike and powerful race; though he acknowledges, that the early accounts of them, as well as those of the Persians and the Medes and the Assyrians, are deeply tinged with fabulous inaccuracy. In this assertion he is perfectly right: the fact of a primitive Scythic empire may be indisputable, though the details of it do not bind us to entire acquiescence in all points. His testimony is chiefly valuable, as to the fact and the age of its existence. We may observe, that he specifies thl Persians, the Medes, and the Assyrians, in a retrograde chronologicae 'Just. Hist. lib. ii. c. 3. 2 Strab. Geog. lib. xi. p. 507. BOOK VI. order, as being masters of Asia. Hence it is manifest, that the true order is, first the Scythiaus, then the Assyrians who are viewed as comprehending the Babylonico-Assyrians, then the Medes, and lastly the Persians. Thus again we find a Scythic empire antecedent to the Assyrian empire. IV. And now the question is, who these Scythians could be, that, descending from their native Armenian Caucasus, founded the primeval monarchy in Iran. It will not, I trust, be very difficult to afford a satisfactory answer. The excessive length of their domination clearly proves, that they could not have established it prior to the epoch of Nimrod or the first Ninus: and the same circumstance equally proves, that they could not have established it prior to the epoch of that second Ninus, with whom, after the interval of 190 years from the beginning of Nimrod's reign, commenced what is called the second Assyrian dynasty in Nineveh. Of this the reason is obvious fifteen centuries, reckoned back from the accession of either of these early Nini, would carry us many ages before the era of the flood. It can only remain therefore, that the Ninus and the Assyrian empire, which were immediately preceded by the Scythic domination, were a third Ninus and a much later Assyrian empire than that which was founded by Nimrod. Now such an empire, as we have seen, rose up synchronically with the kingdoms of Media and Persia, about the middle of the ninth century before Christ. Consequently, the Ninus, with whom it commenced and who flourished in the days of the prophet Jonah, must have been that Ninus; who, according to the documents of Trogus, first broke the long Asiatic domination of the Scythians. But the empire, which fell to pieces at the beginning of his reign by an universal spirit of revolt throughout the provinces, was undoubtedly that; which has generally been styled the Assyrian from the scite of its capital Nineveh, which was originally founded by Nimrod, and which expired under Thonus Concolerus. Hence, as the princes of that empire and the princes of a distinct Scythic empire could not both have been lords of Asia during the self-same period of time; and yet as the princes of that empire and the princes of a Scythian dynasty are alike declared to have been lords of Asia previous to the rise of an Assyrian monarchy, which can only be that that arose about the middle of the ninth century before Christ: I see not what conclusion we can draw, except this; CHAP.. that the princes of the old Assyrian empire from Nimrod to Thonus, and the princes of the Scythian dynasty mentioned by Trogus and hinted at by Strabo, were the self-same race of men. Accordingly, with this conclusion every particular will be found to agree. The domination of the Scythic princes lasted, in round numbers, 1500 years the domination of the old Assyrian or Nimrodian dynasties lasted, if the reigns be exactly summed up, 1494 years. The domination of the Scythic princes was broken by revolt: the domination of the old Assyrian dynasties was also broken by revolt. At the close of the Scythic domination, commenced that Assyrian kingdom which afterwards in its turn obtained the lordship of Asia: at the close of the old Assyrian domination, commenced that identical Assyrian kingdom which rose up when the Scythic yoke was broken. Thus minute is the correspondence in every particular '. • It must however be remarked, that Justin, though accurate in the duration which he assigns to the Scythian empire, has confounded the third Ninus with the second. This has clearly arisen, partly from his misapplication of the chronological numbers which were handed down to him, and partly from the circumstance of the Scythian empire acquiring the name of Assyrian when Nineveh became the seat of government. The Scythian rule, he tells us, lasted fifteen centuries; which sum has been produced by adding together 190 years and 1305 years or the two successive periods of the first and second Cuthico-Assyrian dynasties. At the close of that term, Ninus threw off the yoke and founded the Assyrian empire: this, he informs us, continued for the space of thirteen centuries. Now the period of fifteen centuries, ascribed to the primeval Scythian empire, proves, as we have just seen, that the Assyrian Ninus, who rose up at the close of it, must have been the contemporary of the prophet Jonah; and consequently that his dynasty did not begin to reign, until after the middle of the ninth century before Christ. But Justin knew, that a period of thirteen centuries was ascribed to an Assyrian empire, which likewise began with a Ninus. Hence, although these thirteen centuries are really the last 1300 years of the fifteen centuries during which the Scythian Assyrians under two successive dynasties were lords of Asia; Justin, by mistaking the third Ninus for, the second, assigns to the dynasty founded by the third a duration which truly belongs to the dynasty founded by the second. In other words, he reckons the thirteen centuries twice over; and by this error apparently throws back the rise of the Scythian empire to an epoch before the deluge. Compare Justin. Hist. lib. i. c. 1, 2. with lib. ii. c. 3. Pag. Idol. VOL. III. 3 E BOOK VI. But, if the Scythic dynasty be the same as the Nimrodian dynasties, then the Nimrodian dynasties must have been composed of Scythic princes: and, since the Scythians are described as having nationally obtained the lordship of Asia; not only the royal family must have been Scythic, but likewise the military nobility and the most efficient part at least of the soldiery. Now we know from Scripture, that Nimrod and his immediate followers were of the house of Cush or Cuth, whence they were called Cushim or Cuthim. The imperial Cuthim therefore of Holy Writ must inevitably be the same as the imperial Scythians or Scuthim of Trogus. Whence it will follow, that the Scythians were not of the house of Japhet through the line of Magog, as one writer after another has taken for granted on the mere unsupported assertion of Josephus; but that they were members of the house of Ham, through the line of Cush. Such being the case, we may be morally sure, that the descent of the Scythians from the Armenian Caucasus, previous to their acquiring the sovereignty of Asia, really means, however it may be disguised, the descent of the Cuthim, at the head of the subjugated Noachidæ, from mount Ararat into the Babylonian plain of Shinar; and that the national appellation of Scythians or Scuthim is the self-same word, pronounced only with a sibilant prefix, as Cut him or Cushim. Consequently, though the primeval empire of Iran may not have been improperly called an Assyrian empire from the locality of its capital Nineveh, and though its sovereigns may have been thence familiarly styled Assyrian kings those sovereigns, as we may both gather from the scriptural account of the foundation of Babylon and Nineveh by the Cuthic Nimrod, and as we positively learn from the ancient documents consulted by The subjoined table will distinctly shew the nature and origination of Justin's error, 1. First Cuthico-Assyrian dynasty lasts 190) These jointly give the 1500 years, which Justin ascribes to his primeval Scythian empire. years. 2. Second Cuthico-Assyrian dynasty lasts 1305 years. 3. Third Assyrian dynasty commences with Justin, mistaking this third dynasty for the second, ascribes to it a duration of 1300 years; which is the real duration of the second. Trogus, really constituted a double dynasty of Cuthic or Scuthic princes'. CHAP. 11, They, and their military nobility, were of an entirely different stock from the subjugated multitude of Ashur and Aram and Madai and Elam, much as our early Norman kings and nobility were perfectly distinct from the Saxon English whom they governed and so systematically was this difference of origin remembered and preserved, that, at the close even of fifteen centuries, the overthrow of the Iranian empire by the revolt of its provinces was considered as the subversion of a Scuthic monarchy. I need scarcely remark, that these Scuthic lords of Asia, being the same as the Nimrodian double dynasty of Assyrian kings which ended with Thonus Concolerus, must also be identified with the Mahabadian dynasty which was paramount in Iran previous to the rise of the Pishdadian dynasty. Hence the most eminent of the Mahabadian princes is said to have been Maha-Beli, who is plainly no other than the great Belus or Nimrod: and hence the Hindoos properly call the whole of Iran Cusha-dwip from the Cushim or Cuthim who were its first rulers. The subject shall now be pursued more in detail. 1. Epiphanius, who has transmitted to us a most curious epitome of the early Scythic history, tells us, that those nations, which extended southward from that part of the world where Europe and Asia incline to each other, were universally distinguished by the ancient appellation of Scythians: and he adds, that these were the prime architects of the tower, and the founders of Babylon. He further tells us, that Scythism prevailed from the deluge to the building of the tower, and that it was followed by what he calls Hellenism or Ionism. He likewise mentions the Scythian succession, which he connects with the Scythian title: and he informs us, that they both lasted until the time of Serug. We meet with the like account in the Paschal Chronicle and in the Chronicle of Eusebius: and it has evidently, I think, been drawn from the same ancient records, as those which were This double dynasty, in the same Cuthic house, is described, as we have just seen, under the appellation of the first and second Assyrian dynasties: the one lasting 190 years; the other, 1305 years. Epiph. adv. hær. lib. i. p. 6, 8, 9. |