Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography Volume I Part 1.djvu/262

 separate existence of the Assyrian empire. Ctesias himself imagined that Nineveh was destroyed at the time of the first Median revolt (Diod. ii. 7), — the only one, indeed, mentioned by him. Many writers have more or less followed Ctesias in assigning a very high antiquity to the Assyrian empire. Thus Strabo (xvi. p. 737) — grouping Assyria and Babylonia together, as countries inhabited by those whom the Greeks called generically Syrians — states that Ninus founded Nineveh, and his wife Semiramis Babylon; and that he bequeathed the empire to his descendants to the time of Sardanapalus and Aibaces. He adds that it was overthrown by the Medes, and that Ninus (its capital) ceased to exist in consequence

Nicolaus Dam. (ap. Excerpt Vales. p. 229) makes Ninus and Semiramis the first rulers of Ninus. Aemilius Sura (ap. Velleium, i. 1, 6) gives 1995 years as the time from Ninus to Antiochus, which would place the commencement of the empire at B.C. 2185. Justin (i. 1, 3) mentions Ninus, Semiramis, and Ninyas, in succession, and adds that the Assyrians, who were afterwards called Syrians, ruled 1300 years, and that Sardanapalus was their last king. Velleius (i. 6) gives 1070 years for the duration of the Assyrian empire, and makes its transference to the Medes occur 770 years before his time. Duris (ap. Athenaeum, xii. p. 529, a.) mentions the names of Arbaces and Sardanapalus, but describes the fate of the latter differently from other writers. Abydenus (ap. Euseb. Chron. i. 12, p. 36) speaks of Ninus and Semiramis, and places the last king Sardanapalus 67 years before the first Olympiad, or B.C. 840. Castor (ap. Euseb. Chron. i. 13, p. 36) calls Belus the first Assyrian king in the days of the Giants; and names Ninus, Semiranus, Zames (or Ninyas), and their descendants in order, to Sardanapalus.

Cephalion — according to Suidas, an historian in the reign of Hadrian (Euseb. Chron. i. 15, p. 41) — followed Ctesias in most particulars, but made Sardanapalus the twenty-sixth king, and placed his accession in the 1013th year of the empire, throwing back the period of the revolt of Arbaces 270 years. According to him, therefore, the Median independence began in B.C. 1150, and the Assyrian empire in B.C. 2184. Eusebius himself mentions thirty-six kings, and gives 1240 years from Ninus to Sardanapalus; placing the Median revolt forty-three years before Ol. 1, or at B.C. 813. (Euseb. Chron. i. p. 1 14.) Georgius Syncellus (p. 92, B.) commences with Belus, and reckons forty-one reigns, and 1460 years; placing the commencement in B.C. 2285, and the termination in B.C. 826. His increased number is produced by interpolating four reigns after the twenty-seventh king of Eusebius. Lastly, Agathias (ii. 25, p. 120) gives 1306, and Augustine (Civ. Dei. xviii. 21) 1305 years, for the duration of the Assyrian empire.

We have been thus particular in mentioning the views of Ctesias and his successors on the subject of the duration of the Assyrian empire, because it seemed of importance that all which has been handed down to us should be made accessible to students. We do not pretend to maintain that Ctesias has given us the history as it really was, because it is contrary to universal experience that there should be so numerous a succession of kings, reigning in order for the number of years which must on the average have fallen to each, — and this, too, in an Oriental land, where the per-petuity of any one dynasty is far less common than in Europe. Yet, though the list of kings and their number may be wholly imaginary, though there may never have been either a Ninus or Semiramis, the statement of Ctesias — who, as Court Physician to Artaxerxes Mnemon had abundant opportunity of consulting, and did consult the royal records (βασιλικαί διφθέραι) — is valuable, as indicating a general belief that the Assyrian empire ascended to a far remoter antiquity than that assigned to it by Herodotus. It is not, indeed, necessary to suppose that the records of Herodotus and Ctesias contradict each other; though, as we have shown, there is considerable discrepancy between them. A very acute writer (Fergusson, Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis, Lond. 1851, p. 43) his conjectured, and, we think with some probability on his side, that the two accounts confirm and elucidate one another, and that one is the necessary complement to the other; though we confess we are not wholly convinced by some of the chronological arguments which he adduces.

According to Mr. Fergusson, the earlier period given by Ctesias to the Median revolt, which that author says took place by the agency of Arbaces the Mede and Belesys the Babylonian, is to be accounted for on the supposition, that the result of the outbreak was the establishment of Arbaces and his descendants on the throne of Ninus, under the name of Arbacidae; and that Herodotus does not allude to this, because he is speaking only of a native revolution under Deioces, which he placed 100 years later. Mr. Fergusson considers that this theory is proved by a passage which Diodorus quotes from (possibly some lost work of) Herodotus, in which Herodotus states that between the overthrow of the Assyrian empire by the Medes, and the election of Deioces an interregnum of several generations occurred (Diod. ii. 32). We confess, however, that, though much ingenuity has been known in its defence, we are not converts to this new theory, but are content to believe that the Median revolt did not take place till after the death of Sennacherib B.C. 711, and that even then, agreeably with what the Bible would naturally lead us to suppose, no change of dynasty took place — and that, though Media continued for some years independent of the Assyrian power, it was not till the final overthrow of Ninus (Nioeveh) about B.C. 606, that the Medes succeeded in completely subduing the territory which had belonged for so many years to the Elder Empire.

With regard to the kings of Assyria mentioned in the Bible, commencing with Pul, it may be worth while to state briefly some of the identifications with classical names which have been determined by chronological students. Mr. Clinton (F. H. vol. i. p. 263 — 283) has examined this subject with great learning, and to him we are indebted for the outline of what follows. According to Mr. Clinton, it is clear that the Sennacherib of Holy Scripture does not correspond with the Sennacherib of Polyhistor and Abydenus, who have ascribed to him many acts which are much more likely to be true of his son Esarhaddon. Esarhaddon (under the name of Sardanapalus) loses the Median Empire, and is commemorated as the founder of Tareus and Anchiale (Schol. in Aristoph. Aves, v. 1022; Athen. xii. p. 529). Again, the Sardanapalus of Abydenus is most likely the Nabuchodonosor of the Book of Judith, who reigned 44 yean, and invaded Judaea 27 years before the destruction of Nineveh. The combined testimony of Hellanicus, Callisthenes,