Sennacherib, had assigned a residence about a century before on the Euphrates, south of Babylon, (İsa. xxiii. 13;) or the supposition is not improbable that he headed a horde of those Scythians whose incursion is described by Herodotus,* and that he afterwards settled at Babylon. In the second year of his reign he completely destroyed the famous city of Nineveh, by which the prophecies of Nahum and Zephaniah were fulfilled. He died at a great age, after a reign of twenty years, soon after his son Nebuchadnezzar had defeated king Necho at Carchemish.†

Nebuchadnezzar II. or the Great, called by Ptolemy Nabocholassar, and by the Greeks, Nebuchodonosor, ascended the throne in the year 374 of the Revolt, 606 B. C., in the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim. His treatment of the rebellious Jews has already been related. In the second year after the destruction of Jerusalem, 586 B. C., he laid siege to Tyre. The siege continued thirteen years, when he gained possession of the city and destroyed it, but not till it had been deserted by its inhabitants, who with their treasures and the most valuable of their property, made their escape by sea. They afterwards returned, and built a new city on an island about four stadia from the ancient Tyre. To this city they also gave the name of Tyre. During this long siege the neighbouring places must have suffered severely, and it is at this time that the prophecies seem to have been accomplished, which Jeremiah and Ezekiel pronounced against the Zidonians, Philistines, Moabites, and Edomites.

After this, Nebuchadnezzar marched against Egypt, which now, on account of the intestine disturbances occasioned by the rival claims of Apries and Amasis, was still weaker than at the time when she dared not hazard a battle with the Chaldeans for the relief of Jerusalem. Without much difficulty the Babylonian monarch made himself master of the whole country, and transferred many Egyptians, as he had before Jews, Phenicians, and Syrians, to the territory beyond the Euphrates. Megasthenes, as quoted by Josephus, says that he then laid waste a great part of Africa, penetrated to Spain, and in the greatness of his exploits excelled Hercules himself. Τοῦτον τὸν βασιλέα τῇ ἀνδρείᾳ καὶ τῷ μέγεθει τῶν πράξεων ὑπερβεβηκότα τὸν Ἡρακλῆα, και ταστρέψαι γὰρ αὐτὸν Λιβύην τὴν πολλὴν καὶ 'Iẞnpiav. Strabo says, (p. 687,) "that Sesostris, king of Egypt, and Tearcon, (Taracos, Tirhaka,) king of the Ethiopians, went in their expeditions as far as Europe; but Nebuchad

Herodot. i. 103-106.

+ See Sect. 41, Note. Herodot. i. 106. Strabo, p. 737. Eusebius, Chron. p. 124. Syncellus, p. 218. Berosus in Josephus, Antiq. x. xi. 1, and against Apion, i. 19.

I Isa. xxiii. 1-13. Ezek. xxvi. 1, 8 ff; xxvii. 36; xxviii. 1 ff; xxix. 18. Jer. xxvii. 3; xxix. 22; xlvi. 1-26; xlvii.

1 ff. Amos ii. 9. Joel iii. 4. Comp. Diocles, Mega

sthenes, Philostratus, Annals of the Tyrians, as quoted by Josephus against Apion, i. 20, and Antiq. x. 11. 1. § Jer. xxv.; xlvii.-xlix. Ezek. xxv. comp. Joseph. Antiq. x. 11. 1.

Herodot. ii. 162, 163. Diodor. Sic. i. 68. Megasthenes and Berosus, in Joseph. Antiq. x.; xi. 1, and against Apion, i. 20. Compare Jer. xliv., xlvi. 14-19, 25. Ezek. xxix. 12, xxx. 7-14.

nezzar, who is venerated by the Chaldeans even more than Hercules is by the Greeks, went not only to the Pillars of Hercules, (for so far, according to him (Megasthenes) had Tearcon penetrated,) but he marched through Spain to Thrace and Pontus." The same events are referred to by Eusebius.*

As Nebuchadnezzar in this expedition had enriched himself with the spoils of his enemies, he employed his wealth in the ornamenting of the temples at Babylon, and in adding to the splendour of the city in which he resided. He built the splendid temple of Belus, a new royal castle, a city on the other side of the Euphrates, and surrounded the whole with very high and thick walls. He caused the Nahar Malcha to be dug from the Euphrates to the Tigris, the Pallacopas to be turned into a very large lake formed by the labour of men, and various canals to be constructed to draw off the water, so that the city might not be overflowed by the inundations of the Euphrates. The artificial lake into which the Pallacopas flowed, is said to have been twelve hundred and eighty stadia, or about one hundred and twenty-eight English miles in circumfer ence. These works were afterwards attributed to the fabled Semiramis; and it has also been said that they were completed by Nitocris, the mother of Belshazzar, the last of the Chaldee monarchs.†

Berosus, as quoted by Josephus, says that Nebuchadnezzar "was attacked by a disease, and died in the forty-third year of his reign." This disease must have been something remarkable, or it would hardly have been particularly noticed in the history. Eusebius relates from Abydenus a tradition of the Chaldeans, that Nebuchadnezzar, after the enlarging and beautifying of Babylon, pronounced on the roof of his palace a prophecy respecting the conquest of the city by the Medes and Persians, and then disappeared. This tradition is evidently a story made up from his prophetic dreams, his insanity, during which he withdrew from human society, and resided among wild beasts, and thus disappeared," and from Daniel's explanation of the unknown writing in the banqueting-hall of Belshazzar. (Daniel ii. iv. v.)

66

XLVII. EVIL-MERODACH-NABONNED. Evil-merodach, the son of Nebuchadnezzar, inherited his father's throne. By Megasthenes he is called Evilmaluruch; by Berosus, Evilmaradach; and by Ptolemy, Iloarudan. Immediately after his accession to the throne, he released Jehoiachin, king of Judah, from the imprisonment in which he had languished for thirty-seven years, admitted him to his table, assigned him an annual pension, and gave him rank before all the kings who were at Babylon. Jerome mentions a Jewish tradition, that Evilmerodach, during his father's insanity, had administered the affairs of the empire in so faulty a manner, that after the restoration of Nebuchadnezzar to reason, he was cast into the same

prison in which Jehoiachin was confined, and on this occasion a lasting friendship was contracted between them.* This is not improbable, but Jewish tradition is very uncertain authority. Uncertain as tradition is, however, it is at least as much to be relied on, as the conjectures of modern interpreters. According to the testimony of Berosus, Evil-merodach, when he assumed the reins of government after his father's death, proved himself to be an unworthy and tyrannical ruler; on which account he was assassinated in the second year of his reign, 561 B. C., by Neriglissor, his brother-in-law. Jehoiachin must have died before this, since it is said that he ate at the table of Evil-merodach as long as he lived.

Neriglissor, called by Megasthenes, Niriglissor, by Ptolemy, Niricassocholassar, and by Josephus, Niglissaros, the son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar, might have been, perhaps, one of the two officers who are mentioned in Jerem. xxxix.

3, under the name of Nergalsharezer. He made great preparations for war against the Medes, and invited to an alliance with him against the common enemy, the Lydians, Phrygians, Carians, Cappadocians, Paphlagonians, Cilicians, and all the neighbouring people. He was however defeated by Cyrus, and left dead on the field of battle, in the fourth year of his reign, 557 B. C.

Laborasoarchad, his son, called by Megasthenes, Labassoarask, succeeded him. He was young, but unjust and cruel. Probably it is to this prince that Xenophon refers, when he relates that the king of Babylon, in a hunting party, slew the son of Gobryas, because he twice struck down an animal which the king had missed; and caused Gadatas to be mutilated because he had been praised by one of his concubines. He was put to death on account of his tyranny, after a reign of nine months.‡

Nabonned, one of the conspirators against Laborasoarchad, next ascended the throne. He is named by Megasthenes, Nabannidoch, by Ptolemy, Nabonad, by Josephus, Naboandel, and by Herodotus, Labynetus. Berosus says nothing of his family; but Megasthenes, as quoted by Eusebius, has these words: Toúrov de áπо‡ανόντος βιαίῳ μόρῳ, Ναβαννιδόχον ἀποδείκνυσι Baridia, #poonкovтa ol ovčev: "After he (Labassoarask) had been put to death, they made Nabannidoch king, who did not approach him." This sentence, being taken out of its connexion, is somewhat ambiguous. The sense, however, does not appear to be that he was not related to, but that he was not like Labassoarask, whose cruelty had been the subject of discourse. This king is the Belshazzar of Scripture, who was certainly of royal blood, and a descendant of Nebuchadnezzar. His mother, in Daniel, appears the same as Nitocris, the mother of Labynetus, in Herodotus; a very politic, active, and resolute woman, who completed the works which Nebuchadnezzar had left unfinished, and in effect

2 Kings xxv. 27-30. Jerome, Comment. in Jes. xiv. 19.

+ Eusebius, Præp. Evan. ix. 41.

↑ Berosus in Joseph. against Apion, i. 21. Megasthenes in Eusebius, ubi supra. Joseph. Antiq. x. 11. 2. Xenophon, Cyrop. IV. vi. 2 ff.; V. iii. 13 ff.

governed the empire under her dissipated and thoughtless son; for such is the character given to Belshazzar both in the Cyropædia and the Bible. After a reign of seventeen years, he was slain at the taking of Babylon by the Medes and Persians, 540 B. C. Megasthenes and Berosus, as quoted by Josephus and Eusebius, say, that after being defeated in a battle before the walls of Babylon, he fled to Borsippa, and finally surrendered himself to Cyrus, who made him governor of Caramania. But Xenophon agrees entirely with the Bible, and says that Belshazzar was slain by the Persians in his palace, together with all his attendants.+

XLVIII. SURVEY OF THE HISTORY OF MEDIA.

The Biblical history becomes now more and more connected with those people, whose history has come down to us and tends to throw light on the Bible. On this account we shall here give a brief view of the history of Media, in order to open the way to a more full history of the Persians and Hebrews. The succession of Median kings was as follows:

Cyaxares I., as has already been mentioned, is said to have formed an alliance with Nabopolassar, the founder of the Chaldee-Babylonian empire; and Astyages, his son and general, in conjunction with the Chaldee monarch, destroyed the city of Nineveh, and put an end to the Assyrian empire. This Cyaxares is Guspasp, under whose reign Zoroaster introduced his reformation into Media, between forty and twenty years before the birth of Cyrus.‡

Astyages was the father of Cyaxares II., and the grandfather of Cyrus. Under Cyaxares II. hostilities broke out between the Median and Chaldee-Babylonian empires, and did not terminate till the destruction of the latter. When Cyaxares called the Persians to his aid, Cyrus was placed at the head of the Median army, and defeated Neriglissor. This happened twenty-one years before the conquest of Babylon, and from this period Cicero, following Herodotus, dates the commencement of Cyrus's reign. De Divinatione, lib. i., speaking of Cyrus, he writes: "Ad septuagesimum annum pervenit, cum XL annos nutus regnare cœpisset." After this battle, Media gained the ascendant; and after the destruction of the Chaldee-Babylonian empire by Cyrus,

Eusebius, ubi supra. Dan. v. 2, 11, 15, 22, comp. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 20. Jer. xxvii. 7. Herodot. i. 184-186. Prideaux, Connexions, vol. i. p. 108-112.

+ Dan. v. 30. Josephus and Eusebius, ubi supra. Xenophon, Cyrop. VIII. v. 9-13. Compare Michaelis, Anmerk. zu Daniel, s. 51.

Tychsen de Religion. Zoroast. apud veter. gentes Vestig. in Comment. Soc. Goett. vol. ii. p. 112, seq. Abbe Foucher, Appendix to the Zend-Avesta, band i. th. ii. s. 65 f. and s. 253 f.

army to punish the revolt of Gadatas; but Cyrus put him to flight, pursued him even to the walls of Babylon, and captured some of his fortresses.* As the Medes, under the conduct of Cyrus, were becoming every day more formidable, Nitoeris, the mother of Belshazzar, made every exertion to put the empire, or at least Babylon, in a state of defence; but all her efforts were fruitless. Belshazzar, in the fifth year of his reign, delivered himself up to the protection of Croesus, king of Lydia, and collecting a large army in Asia Minor from among the Thracians, Greeks, and other people, gave him the command.† On this occasion Croesus consulted the most celebrated oracles respecting the result of the war, and receiving ambiguous and enigmatical answers, he interpreted them to his own advantage, according to their most obvious meaning. But after the fatal termination of his expedition, he called the oracles to an account for their deception; and then an altogether different and hidden meaning was found for their responses, with which explanation Croesus was obliged to rest contented, having then no power to do otherwise.

Cyrus, who, by a trusty spy, had received accurate intelligence of the movements of his enemies, marched against Cræsus, who had already passed the river Halys, captured the city Pteria, and made inroads on the adjacent territories. He finally forced Croesus to action, put his cavalry to flight by the use of camels, and routed his whole army.§ Croesus immediately retired with his own soldiers to Sardis, his capital; and his allies returned home, the winter having already set in. But scarcely had he sent messengers to his auxiliaries, to warn them to be ready to take the field in the following summer, when Cyrus very unexpectedly approached Sardis with his victorious army. Herodotus relates that Croesus with his few soldiers, mostly cavalry, gave battle to the mighty host of Cyrus before the walls of the city, and that here Cyrus first made use of camels. How improbable this is, scarcely need be shown, since Xenophon, who resided so long a time at Sardis with Cyrus the younger, makes no mention of it.||

The city was captured in fourteen days; and according to Herodotus, Croesus, who, not expecting such an end, had formerly pronounced himself the most fortunate of men in opposition to Solon, being condemned to the flames by the sentence of Cyrus, was again set free, on his invoking, in a melancholy tone, the name of Solon from the already kindling pile. Xenophon says nothing of this; and besides, it agrees neither with the character of Cyrus, nor with the customs of the Persians. This victory was gained in the eighth year of Belshazzar's reign, 549 B. C., and in the fifty-seventh of the captivity.

After this, Cyrus subjected Asia Minor and

Cyrop. I. v. 4; II. i. 3; III. iii. 12-29; IV. ii. 1; vi. 1-6; V. ii. 1-15; iii. 4-21; iv. 1, 5, 23; VI. i. 2325.

+ Herodot. i. 185-188. Cyrop. VI. i. 15, 18-23; ii. 710. Herodot, i. 71, 75, 77, comp. Jer. li. 8, 9, 46.

1 Herodot. i. 46-55, 90, 91. Cyrop. VII. ii. 6, 7, comp. Isa. xli. 21-29.

§ Cyrop. VII. i. 4-22, comp. Isa. xxi. 7. Herodot. i. 75-77.

Herodot. i. 79, 80. Cyrop. VI. ii. i.

all the country west of the Euphrates, to the dominion of Cyaxares; and in the tenth year of Belshazzar he defeated the Chaldee army not far from Babylon, and marched immediately and without opposition to the walls of that great metropolis, into which the retreating hosts had thrown themselves.*

Its

L. CONQUEST OF BABYLON. Babylon was considered impregnable. high and strong walls, surmounted by lofty towers, its broad and deep ditches, its large magazines, and the numerous squares within the city, which were planted with corn and yielded an annual supply of provisions, seemed sufficient to secure its inhabitants for ever from all the attacks of their enemies. The Chaldeans had reason to hope that the besiegers would finally relinquish their enterprise in despair. They were accordingly in high spirits, and derided the Persians from their walls and towers. Cyrus, however, continued for some time the siege of the city, and employed each month a twelfth part of his army in the service. But every effort was in vain.t

A stratagem finally brought the city into the power of Cyrus. Having heard that it was customary, at an approaching festival, for the Babylonians to spend the whole night in banqueting and revelry, he employed a part of his army, at some distance from the city, to turn the course of the Euphrates into a large lake, according to Herodotus, but as Xenophon relates it, into an extensive ditch, which he had sunk, as if for the purpose of rendering the blockade more complete; and by this means the water in the natural channel of the river was so diminished that it could be easily forded. Meanwhile the siege was to all appearance carried on with the greatest vigour, that the Babylonians might not suspect his designs. When the appointed festival arrived, as soon as it was dark, Cyrus placed one half of his army at the entrance of the Euphrates into the city, and the other at its outlet. These two divisions entering the channel at the same time from above and below, pressed into the city through the gates leading down to the river, which in the negligence and dissipation of the feast, had not been closed,‡ and imitating the shouts of the revellers, they assembled by preconcerted appointment around the royal palace. When the king, imagining that he heard the clamour of a drunken mob before his residence, ordered his guards to open the gates, in order to ascertain the cause of the disturbance, his foes rushed in with resistless force, overthrew every thing which opposed them, and penetrated to the royal apartment. Belshazzar indeed drew his sword, but he was immediately overpowered and slain with all his attendants. Now all who were seen in the streets were put to the sword, and the Persians burnt those houses from the roofs of which they were annoyed, by

Cyrop. VII. ii. 2-4; iv. 1-7. Herodot. i. 81. 84. 86, 87. 153. 168-177. 190. comp. Jer. li. 30. Jer. li. 53-58. Herodot. i. 190. Cyrop. VII. v. 1 -7. Comp. Isa. xlv. 1.