of Cyrus to the twentieth of Artaxerxes Longimanus. It relates the return of a great body of Jews to Jerusalem, under an edict of Cyrus, which permitted them to go and build their temple; it describes the difficulties they had to encounter in their undertaking from the opposition of the Samaritans, and its ultimate accomplishment in the reign of Darius Hystaspes. Then, at chap. vii., Ezra appears personally, having, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, received a commission from that monarch (the husband of Esther) to proceed to Jerusalem with whatever other Jews chose to go with him, to give full effect to the favourable edicts of Cyrus and Darius Hystaspes. The rest of the book is occupied with an account of the preparations for the journey of the large number of Jews who availed themselves of this opportunity of proceeding to the land of their fathers; and of the measures taken by Ezra after his arrival.

Verse 1. "In the first year of Cyrus the Persian."-As the intricacy of the names and dates of the later historical Scriptures is attended with great difficulty to general readers, we think it best to commence our notes with some remarks which may tend to assist the better understanding of the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Daniel, and portions of Zechariah and Haggai. These considerations will render it unnecessary to speak of each king, as his name occurs in the books before us, without precluding us from taking such opportunities as may seem most expedient for noticing such particulars of his history or character as may tend to illustrate the sacred text. For the facts, dates, and identifications, in the following outline, we shall of course avail ourselves freely of the fruits of Dr. Hales's researches, which, as we think, have nowhere been attended with more distinguished success than in this very difficult part of his great undertaking.

The sources of the perplexity arise chiefly from the manner in which the Jewish chronology is interwoven with that of the Babylonians, Medes, and Persians. And then, as Dr. Hales states: "the confusion of names is embarrassing: the royal title, Ahasuerus [the reader must remember that this is a title and not a proper name], is applied to Xerxes, Ezra iv. 6; to Artaxerxes Longimanus, Esther i. 1; and to Astyages, the father of Cyaxares, or of Darius the Mede, Dan. ix. 1; and "Darius, king of Persia," denotes Darius Hystaspes, Ezra iv. 5-24; but "Darius the Persian," Darius Nothus, Nehem. xii. 22.

Let us first premise, that after the destruction of the Assyrian and Hebrew monarchies, the great ruling powers in what was then known of Asia, were the Babylonians and the Medes. The former were paramount over the countries west of the river Tigris, and the latter over those to the east of the same river. A powerful kingdom, that of Lydia, also arose in Asia Minor; but as it is not mentioned in Scripture, it may suffice to intimate its existence till it was subdued by Cyrus (see the note on 2 Chron. xviii.). Such was the state of affairs when Cyrus was born. His father was a Persian of a ruling family, and his mother the daughter of the Median king Astyages ("Ahasuerus" of Dan. ix. 1). He lived in Persia with his parents, and was brought up in the peculiar discipline and manners of the Persians. He was distinguished as he grew up by his noble qualities and successful enterprises. He married the daughter of his uncle Cyaxares (Darius the Mede "), and when Astyages died and Cyaxares ascended the Median throne, the force of his character, with his double relationship and right to the succession, gave him such ascendancy over his uncle, that he became the actual ruler of the empire. As general of the combined army of Medes and Persians he gave Evil-Merodach king of Babylon that signal overthrow, which we mentioned in the note to 2 Kings xxv. 27. At Babylon, Evil-Merodach was succeeded by

BELSHAZZAR (B.c. 558-553), the common statement concerning whom we intimated in the note referred to above. He was slain certainly on the night that Daniel interpreted the writing on the wall, which, among other things, declared his kingdom to be given to the Medes and Persians. The usual statement on the subject, which makes the city to have been taken by the Medes and Persians on the same night that Belshazzar was assassinated, is disputed by Hales, on good authority, which leads him to consider that, on the death, nine months after, of Laborosoarchod, the young son of Belzhazzar,

"DARIUS THE MEDE" (Cyaxares), then succeeded peaceably to the dynasty which then became extinct. As the next of kin (he was the queen mother's brother); as the most powerful competitor; and as having been pointed out by God himself-his claim to the succession was the best that could be adduced; and being, reputedly, of an easy temper, the Babylonians would the more readily submit to what they could not resist. The prophet Daniel stood high in the favour of this prince, who died B.C. 551. On his death, a Babylonian nobleman, Nabonadius, whom Darius had appointed governor or "king" of Babylon, declared himself independent; and Cyrus, then absent in the western wars, had no leisure to attend to him till B.c. 538, when he defeated him in battle, and then laid siege to Babylon, which, after two years, he took by a stratagem which we shall hereafter have occasion to notice.

CYRUS after this reigned seven years, during which the Hebrews were treated with the most favourable consideration, as the text now before us intimates. This great prince is so much more honourably mentioned in Scripture than any other foreign king whatever, that his character will necessarily again come under our notice. He was succeeded by

his son

CAMBYSES (B. C. 529-521), a mad sort of a prince, who brought Egypt under the Persian yoke, and whose death, in an obscure town of Syria, afforded an opportunity for

SMERDIS the Magian (or Persian priest) to usurp the Persian throne, by pretending to be Smerdis, a son of Cyrus, who had been slain by order of his brother Cambyses. He reigned only seven months. It has been conceived very generally that Cambyses is the "Ahasuerus" of Ezra iv. 6; and Smerdis-Magus, the Artaxerxes of verse 7. But in the notes on those verses this will be questioned; and it will then appear probable that neither the son nor the pretended son of Cyrus are mentioned in the Bible; perhaps because nothing of importance to the Jews occurred in their reigns. The next prince then mentioned in Scripture, after Cyrus, is

DARIUS HYSTASPES ( B.C. 521-485), one of the seven noble conspirators who detected the cheat of the pseudoSmerdis, and slew him. He bears the character of a prince of great political wisdom and moderation, who did much to establish the vast empire which Cyrus conquered; and perhaps, in real greatness, he had no superior but Cyrus, among the Persian kings. He favoured and encouraged the Jews; and in the seventh year of his reign the Temple was at last finished. He was succeeded by

XERXES (B.c. 485-464), the proud king whose history fills many a page in the Greek annals, on account of his memorable invasion of Greece; but who is very slightly noticed in Scripture, under the title of "Ahasuerus" (chap. iv. 6, to mention that the Samaritans wrote a letter of accusation to him against the Jews. The result is not stated; but Josephus says, that he confirmed the Jews in all the privileges granted by his father, and even granted them the Samaritan tribute for the service of the Temple. He was succeeded by

ARTAXERXES, surnamed Longimanus (B. c. 464-423). He is the Artaxerxes of Ezra and Nehemiah, and the Ahasuerus of Esther. In the latter book, the Septuagint always translates "Ahasuerus" by "Artaxerxes," and Josephus does the same. The Scripture speaks more of this than of any other Persian king. The Jews began to 401

VOL. II.

3 F

CHAP. I.]

build the walls of Jerusalem early in his reign; but the letters of the hostile Samaritans induced the king to send an order for them to desist from the work. In 458 be made Esther his queen; and the year following sent Ezra to Jerusalem, with full civil and ecclesiastical powers, but without any expressed permission to build the walls. This permission was however granted, in 444 B.C., to Nehemiah, the king's cup-bearer, who was then appointed governor of Judea. He exercised that office twelve years, during which he rebuilt the walls and the city, and then returned to Persia, his commission having expired. His old master, Artaxerxes, still reigned, and ultimately allowed him to return to Jerusalem. Soon after (in 423) the king died, and was succeeded (omitting the two brief reigns of Xerxes II. and Sogdianus) by

DARIUS NOTHUS, or " Darius the Persian" of Neh. xii. 22; in the fourth year of whose reign (B.c. 420), and 166 years from the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the account of Nehemiah's proceedings at Jerusalem, and with it the canon of the Old Testament, appears to terminate.

It was our wish to have furnished authentic representations of at least some of the kings included in the above enumeration. The only source from which such illustrations could be derived are the very ancient sculptures of Persia at Persepolis. There is historical and internal evidence that these sculptures belong to the period in which these kings ruled; and as the royal figure several times occurs in them, it would be interesting to be able to identify them with some of the kings we have named; although, as their countenances are defaced, we should still remain without their portraits. Indeed, from the similarity of all their figures, some are inclined to suppose that the same king is in all cases intended; while others imagine that the same figure was invariably used for different kings, as appears to have been also the case in Egypt. A better acquaintance with the cuneiform inscriptions will perhaps throw some light on this subject; and meanwhile it is so far satisfactory to know that those inscriptions at Persepolis which have engaged the attention of Professor Grotefend and M. St. Martin, offer no other names than those of Darius the son of Hystaspes, and Xerxes the son of Darius. This perhaps will induce those who wish to be precise, to identify our figures with one or both of these kings, while others will be content to regard the elaborate sculptures to which these figures belong, as general illustrations of the state and glory of the race of kings who are so often mentioned in the later books of the Old Testament. We offer, in this view, the representations which our two cuts exhibit-that is, rather as illustrations of manners and costume than of precise identification. The first cut represents the king in that dress which the Persian court adopted from the Medes, and seated on a high seat, not unlike the carved chairs that might not long ago, or may still, be seen in our old family mansions. In his right hand is the golden sceptre (mentioned in Esther) and in his left the sacred vase, which was one of the royal distinctions, like the orb of our own kings. Before him, on the ground, incense burns in two censers, which are interposed between the king and a person who seems to be an ambassador, and who stands in a respectful posture with his hand raised to his mouth. A muffled attendant stands Dehind him. On the other side, behind the royal seat, is a eunuch, bearing a fly-flap-one of the insignia of royaltyin his right hand, and what seems a handkerchief in the other: and farther back are two armed guards of different corps-of which there are fifty more represented in the lower compartments of the same sculpture, which we have not introduced. In this manner, we may suppose, did the subject Jews behold "the great king," when they were admitted to his presence. The following cut represents what would seem to be the same monarch, walking. He bears in his hands the same ensigns of royalty as before; and behind him walk two attendants in Median robes, one of whom has the usual fan and handkerchief (?) while the other bears a parasol over the king's head. The umbrella is thought to have been a distinction of royalty in Persia; but probably it was also allowed to the governors of provinces, whose name "satrap" is conjectured by Sir John Malcolm to be a contraction of chattrapa, "lord of the umbrella of state." This very ancient exhibition of the umbrella will interest those who study the origin of inventions. The existence of the umbrella is mentioned by Xenophon, who, speaking of the complete Median effeminacy into which the Persians had fallen since the

time of Cyrus, mentions as one proof, that they were not, in the open air, content with the shade of trees and rocks, but had men to stand with artificial shades contrived on purpose. (Cyropædia,' viii. 8.)

We have thus endeavoured to give the reader such historical and descriptive ideas of the kings of this period, as may enable him to read more profitably the books on which we now enter.

PERSIAN KING WALKING.-FROM An ancient SculpTURE, ENGRAVED IN KER PORTER's Travels.

2. "He hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem.”—If the reader refers to Isa. xliv. 28, and xlv. 1-4, he will see that, two centuries before, the existence of Cyrus was foretold-the victories the Lord would give him—and the good he should do to Israel. No one, who compares the prophecy with the edict, will hesitate to believe that Cyrus had that prophecy in view. It is not difficult to suppose how he became acquainted with it, when so many Jews in his dominions were in situations of trust and importance. Daniel, for instance, may have made it known to him. Struck by its irresistible evidence, he humbly acknowledges that "the Lord God of heaven" had given him all his kingdoms, and hastened to obey the injunction which had been laid upon him several generations before he was born. 8. "Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah."-This is the same person elsewhere called Zerubbabel. One seems to have been his Jewish, and the other his Babylonian name. He was of the royal line of David, and an ancestor of our Saviour (see the genealogy in 1 Chron. iii, Matt. i., and Luke iii.); and, as to station, a very proper person to be entrusted with the superintendence of the returning Jews. He was alive in the second year of Darius Hystaspes, when the prophecies of Zechariah encouraged him and the high-priest to complete the building of the Temple. It is not stated

when he died.

11. "Five thousand and four hundred."-Yet the particulars make only the sum of 2499. There are various explanations of this difference; some of them account for a probable error or omission, by some copyist, in the particulars; and others would fix the error rather on this final statement. The latter, however, is so well supported by the versions, that we consider this the least tenable alternative. For ourselves we prefer Lightfoot's opinion, not only as very probable, but as having the advantage of leaving the text undisturbed: it is that the text "particularizeth only those that were of greater size, but summeth up both the great and the little." (Harm. Old Test.' A.M. 3470.)

19 The children of Hashum, two hundred baoth, twenty and three.

20 The children of 'Gibbar, ninety and five. 21 The children of Beth-lehem, an hundred twenty and three.

22 The men of Netophah, fifty and six. 23 The men of Anathoth, an hundred twenty and eight.

24 The children of 'Azmaveth, forty and

4 Or, Bimnui, Nehem. 7. 15. 7 Or, Bethazmaveth, Nehem. 7. 28. 8 See verse 7. 12 1 Chron. 9. 21. 13 1 Chron. 24. 8. 15 Or, Shamlai.

Verse 63. "The Tirshatha."-As Nehemiah is afterwards found bearing this title, it is thought that he is here intended, and that the text describes what he did when he ultimately became governor. The meaning of the word is not clearly known. Some regard it as a general title of the Jewish governors under the Persians, and, consequently, that Zerubbabel is here intended.

64. "Forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore."-But the numbers before given, when cast up, only make 29,818, being more than 12,000 less than here stated. The parallel chapter, Nehem. vii., gives the same sum total, but the amount of the several items there is only 31,089. There are various explanations of this difference between the enumeration and the full estimate. The most probable are—that those only are particularly specified who could prove their pedigree; but those who could not do this were nevertheless included in the final account; or else, that as the particular enumeration applies only to Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, the additional 12,000 were members of the ten tribes of the earlier captivity, and as such added to make the gross number, though not included in the details. Adding to these the 7337 male and female servants, and the 200 singing men and women, the whole number who returned becomes 49,897, or fifty thousand, in round numbers. For some further observations on the contents of this chapter, see Nehem. vii.

69. "Drams."-That is " Darics," see the note on 1 Chron. xxix. 7.

the children of Israel were in the cities, the people gathered themselves together as one man to Jerusalem.

2 Then stood up 'Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren the priests, and 3Zc

* Called Zorobabel, Matt. 1. 12. Luke 3. 27,