NOTE A.

ALLIANCE OF CYAXARES AND NABOPALASAR.

HERODOTUS mentions the overthrow of the Scythians, and the alliance between the Median king, and the governor of Babylon. The battle between Cyaxares and the remnant of this horde, who had retreated into Asia Minor, is memorable for the eclipse predicted by Thales, which separated the combatants. The truth of this prediction has been admitted by modern astronomers; and Mr. Bailey's calculation, that it took place in B.c. 610, coincides very well with the period that the history would seem to require. The Labynitus mentioned in this part of his history by Herodotus as King of Babylon was probably Nabopalasar. The occurrence of the eclipse caused the separation of the contending armies, from fear of the vengeance of the gods; and a peace was made, Syennesis the king of Cilicia, and Labynitus king of Babylon, acting as mediators between the Lydians and the Medes. To make this the more binding, Herodotus adds that it was agreed that Alyattes, king of the Lydians, should give his daughter Aryenis to Astyages, the eldest son of Cyaxares; and the contracting parties made incisions in their arms, and licked each other's blood, the most indissoluble form of treaty which could be devised.

NOTE B.

SARDANAPALUS.

A curious coin has been lately procured, of which we give a representation, the reverse of which has been supposed to represent the tomb of Sardanapalus. The classical tradition was that this monument existed at Tarsus, and the type of this reverse may have been intended to represent the rogus, or funeral pyre. The legend, however, is not confirmed by the Cuneiform inscriptions, which assign to Sardanapalus a much greater antiquity. The coin itself is a tetradrachm of Antiochus VIII., King of Syria, and was struck at Tarsus. It is very rare, and was found in 1848 in a leaden box by an Arab labourer, between the sites of the ancient cities of Tarsus and Adana, in Cilicia, about twenty feet below the surface of the earth. The whole number of coins discovered was about 150, all Syrian regal tetradrachms, including specimens of the coinage of Antiochus VII., Demetrius II., Cleopatra and Antiochus V., and Antiochus VIII., ranging between the years B.C. 138 and B.C. 97. The "trouvaille" was forwarded to Smyrna, where it was purchased by Mr. Borrell, and some specimens sent to England. The type is not new, but occurs on small silver coins of Demetrius II. from the same place; and on some large brass

Greek Imperial coins, as late as the time of Gordian. We have therefore evidence that the tradition had maintained its hold upon the popular mind as late as the third century of our era. It is not clear what the animal is on which the figure is standing; but on most of the coins we have seen, it appears to be a fabulous composition of a lynx or a lion with goat's horns. We are indebted to Major General Fox for permission to engrave

the above specimen, which is in his cabinet. Another, nearly the same, is in the Collection of the British Museum.

There can be no doubt that the Greeks have preserved a remembrance of at least two kings who bore the name of Sardanapalus; and as we have already stated, the Cuneiform inscriptions, as interpreted by Colonel Rawlinson, show the correctness of this view. The first or warlike one is most likely the Scriptural Pul, the last of the Ninus dynasty; but we have no details from which we can judge what grounds the Greek historians had for their account of his fate. According to them, Arbaces, the governor of Media, and Belesis, the ruler of Babylon, determine to dethrone the king of Assyria. For this purpose, they seek and obtain the assistance of the king of the Arabans. A long war ensues, in which they are at first unsuccessful. Sardanapalus defeats them in three battles; but at length, on the arrival of the Bactrians, he is driven within his walls, and Nineveh is besieged for two years. The city is then taken, and the king and his chief followers perish on a funeral pyre erected in the principal palace. It is to this Sardanapalus that the Greeks have attributed (as we have already mentioned) the foundation of Tarsus and Anchiale. The Sardanapalus of Ctesias is probably the Saracus of Abydenus, as the same particulars are narrated of both.

CHAPTER IV.

Nebuchadnezzar-Battle of Megiddo-Final Destruction of Jerusalem-Nebuchadnezzar lays siege to Tyre-Conquest of Egypt-Remarkable fulfilment of Prophecies there-Works of Nebuchadnezzar at Babylon-Magnitude of that City-Belshazzar-Accounts of the Taking of Babylon in Holy Scripture-Herodotus and Xenophon-Dareius the Mede.

THE history of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar himself is well ascertained from the harmony of the Sacred and profane historians; and the order of events is that which we might antecedently expect. On the overthrow of the Assyrian monarchy by the united armies of the Babylonians and Medes, the city of Babylon became the mistress of the East, and its vast power caused, not unnaturally, the jealousy of the surrounding nations. Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt, was the first to take up arms against her, and to invade Palestine, with the intention, as it would seem, of at once advancing upon the capital of Mesopotamia. On his way, however, he met with an interruption he did not anticipate from the king of Jerusalem, for Josiah, who was himself at peace with Babylon, refused to allow a hostile force to march through his dominions to attack a friendly power: hence a battle ensued at Megiddo, between the hosts of Israel and Egypt, which terminated in the death of the king of Jerusalem.

The invasion of the Babylonian empire by Pharaoh Necho is chiefly memorable for the curious tradition Herodotus has preserved of it. From the Bible, it appears that Necho, in the thirty-first year of the reign of Josiah, marched with a great army towards the Euphrates, as Josephus (Ant., x., cap. 6) says, "to make war upon the Medes and Babylonians, who had dissolved the Assyrian Empire," and that on his attempting to traverse Judæa, Josiah, then at least in alliance with the Babylonian monarch, if not his tributary, posted his forces in the valley of Megiddo, to dispute the passage of the Egyptian army. On this, Necho sent ambassadors to Josiah, to inform him that he had no intention of molesting the Jews; but Josiah, unheeding his request, joined battle with the Egyptians, and was completely overthrown, receiving himself a mortal wound, of which he died a short time afterwards at Jerusalem. Megiddo, where the

66

battle was fought, was a city in the tribe of Manasseh, on this side Jordan, near to the town of Hadad-Rimmon, afterwards called Marcianopolis; hence the lamentation for the death of Josiah was called, the lamentation of Hadad-Rimmon in the valley of Megiddo," which was so great and so long continued, that the lamentation of Hadad continued to be long afterwards a proverbial phrase to express any great and extraordinary sorrow. Herodotus mentions the expedition of Necho, whom he calls the son of Psammitichus, and the battle at Megiddo, which he calls Magdolum; and adds that the king of Egypt took Cadytis with his victorious troops, a city in the mountains of Palestine, about the size of Sardes in Lydia, the chief city of Lesser Asia, when he wrote. It has been generally supposed that by Cadytis, Herodotus means Jerusalem, which we know that Necho took after the battle; and there is this probability in favour of this hypothesis, that there could scarcely have been any town in those parts, except Jerusalem, comparable in size with Sardes, while its position among the mountains answers to the description. Cadytis indeed is nothing more than a græcised form of the Hebrew and Arabic words which express the Holy: its modern form being Al Kuds, as we know from many travellers (Sandys, iii., p. 155). In the Old Testament it is called Eer Hakodes, or the City of Holiness; and the inscription on the Jewish coins struck shortly after the return from the Captivity, reads Jerusalem Hakodeshah, or Jerusalem the Holy. In Syriac the name was slightly changed, and became Kadatha; while the Arabs usually called it Beit Al-Mukaddas, or Beit Alkuds, the Holy Buildings.

Herodotus probably received his account from the Egyptian priests in this as in other cases; as he mentions Necho's victory over the Jews, but not his subsequent defeat at Carchemish (or Carcesium). In the short interval which elapsed after that battle, the death of Josiah took place, and the people raised his youngest son, Jehoahaz, to the throne; three months later Necho returned from the conquest of the sea-coast, removed Jehoahaz, whom he carried with him to Egypt, placed Eliakim, the elder son, on the throne in his place, and returned to Egypt after exacting a heavy contribution from the Jews. His previous successes seem to have made him ambitious, and to have led

* Nehem., xi. 1, 18; Is., xlviii. 2; lii. 1; Dan., ix. 24.

F

him to suppose that his success against the Babylonians would be equal to that which he had had in his war against the Jews. For in the third year after his first expedition, he again collected a numerous army from Western Africa, Libya, and Æthiopia, and invading the territory of the king of Babylon, advanced as far as the Euphrates. Nabopalasar was, at this time, says Berosus, old and infirm; so he gave up the command of his army to Nebuchadnezzar, who at once attacked the Egyptians, defeated them at Carchemish, and drove them out of Asia. The victorious prince marched immediately to Jerusalem, then under the sovereignty of the king who had been placed on the throne three years before by Necho. After a short siege, the city surrendered, and Jehoiakim was reinstated in his power as the viceroy of Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar took part of the ornaments of the temple for his booty, sending to Babylon some of the sacred vessels, and a large number of the nobles and chief men in Jerusalem. Among the prisoners were Daniel and his three friends, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, whose names were subsequently changed to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. The king of Jerusalem was made a tributary, and the whole land placed under the vassalage of the Babylonian empire.

Then it was that the famous era of the Jewish Captivity commenced, shortly after the overthrow of Nineveh.

It is not easy to keep the order of the events quite distinct, and there are some variations between the accounts in the Books of Kings and Chronicles. It would seem that Nebuchadnezzar, after his departure from Jerusalem, on his first invasion of Palestine, was occupied during the whole of that year in carrying on the war against the Egyptians, in which he was so successful, that before the ensuing winter he had brought under subjection to him all the country which had been previously conquered by the king of Egypt, from the Euphrates to what was called the river of Egypt; whether by this is meant, as most commentators have supposed, the small stream at the southern extremity of Palestine, or, as we think more probable, the eastern or Pelusiac branch of the Nile itself, it is further probable that he had just accomplished this conquest, when the news of his father's death recalled him in person to Babylon. He seems to have gone there at once with a small party of followers, leaving the main bulk of his army, with his prisoners, to follow him