phrates and Tigris, to water the lands: he studied gardening, and explored the virtues of plants, and made many wise regulations.

In the sixtieth year of his reign, Apheresiab, or Afrasiab, the reigning king of Turan, invaded Iran with a prodigious army, under the pretence of avenging his ancestor, Tur's death; against whom, being unable to contend, Manugiahr ceded to him all the country eastward of the great river Gihon, or Orus, which rises at the foot of mount Imaus, and runs into the Caspian Sea; which tract, thenceforth, took the name of Ma over al nahar, "over," or beyond "the river."

Tabari, an ancient Persian author, has recorded the following pious speech of Manugiahr, delivered in a great council of his nobility, when he heard that the Turks had passed the river Gihon to invade him.

"THE MOST HOLY and MOST HIGH GOD gave me this kingdom, that I might render him praise and glory, and that I might be the guardian of my kingdom, and consult the welfare of my subjects, and exercise judgment among the people, that so GOD, THE BEST AND GREATEST, may increase this my kingdom. But if I be found guilty of ingratitude, in not giving him thanks, He will take away from me this kingdom, and will, moreover, torment me in the other world.—GOD, of his greatness, hath granted us this grace, and we are thankful; and we beseech Him, to keep us in the right way, and to guard our heart in the truth; for we know that all this (the Turkish invasion) is from Him; and to Him let us return." See Hyde, p. 156-158.

How nearly does this resemble the substance of Daniel's speeches to the haughty Nebuchadnezzar, iv. 19-37; and the impious Belshazzar, v. 17-29.

The surname of this illustrious prince, was Firouz; signifying "happiness," "victory," or a precious stone, called a turquoise, of a deep blue colour, found in the mountains of Farganah.

"the prophet Schoaib,

In his days, according to the Persian historians,, (or Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses,) was sent, by GoD, to preach the

seven canals of communication between the Euphrates and Tigris: one of which he calls, the "Ancient Nahrmalka,” signifying "the Royal River," or grand Canal, running from Ctesiphon, on the Tigris, to Neapolis, on the Euphrates. Might not this, and some of the others, have been the works of Manugiahr?

Faith

Faith to the Midianites;" and afterwards "Moussa and Haroun, (Moses and Aaron) were sent, by GOD, to Valid, the Pharaoh*, or king of Egypt, who was of the race of Had." Herbelot, p. 559, 772.

Moses was born B. C. 1728, twelve years after the death of Firouz: therefore Jethro, his father-in-law, and high-priest of Midian, must have flourished in his reign. The embassy of Moses and Aaron, to the king of Egypt, in B. C. 1648, was only thirteen years after the end of the Dynasty.

The critical coincidence of these chronological characters with the preceding adjustment of the period of this Dynasty, affords a satisfactory proof of its correctness.

NODAR

Firouz was succeeded by his son, Nodar, whose reign was short and unfortunate. Taking advantage of the weakness of the Persian empire, occasioned by the intrigues and seditions of the grandees, Parhang, the next king of Touran, invaded Iran, a second time, with a prodigious army of 400,000 horse and foot, under the command of his eldest son, Apheresiab; who defeated Nodar, and slew him with his own hand. This decided the war; and left the kingdom in possession of the Turks.

APHERESIAB.

The cruelties of this Intruder, and his haughtiness and insolence, rouzed the Persians to revolt; and at length, under the conduct of that famous general, Zalzer, the son of the Visier Soham, he was so harrassed, and weakened by repeated engagements, though not decisive, that the Turkish prince agreed to retire into Turan, without molestation, and leave Iran under the protection of Zalzer. This loyal subject, refusing the crown, sought out

Pharaoh, in the Egyptian tongue, signified" a king;" Phiraon, in Arabic," a crocodile." The Arabs call the Egyptians, Phiraon koumi," the people of the crocodile;" rather as a name of contempt. It may be questioned, whether the Egyptians themselves ever gave this. title to their kings. Richardson, p. 260..

Zab,

Zab, or Zoub, the legitimate heir of the house of Kaiumarath; and put the crown upon his head.

ZAB.

This prince applied himself to restore, as well as he could, the shattered affairs of Persia; and associated in the empire his nephew, Gershasp, or Gershab, to whom he resigned the crown, having been advanced in years at the time of his accession.

GERSCHASP.

He was a prince of great merit, and deserved a better fate than he met. Afrasiab, disregarding the former treaty with Zalzer, took advantage of the disorders of the kingdom, to invade it, a third time; and, in a pitched battle, defeated the Persians, and slew their king. With him the Pischdadian Dynasty ended, by the general consent of the Persian historians; though Khondemir supposes, that it ended with his predecessor, Zab.

This Persian Dynasty differed widely from its predecessor, the Assyrian: that was founded in rebellion against GOD, and usurpation against man: this, in piety and virtue, and the willing consent of its constituent provinces; and it was rightly termed Pischdadian, or "the just," from the uniform endeavours of its princes to administer justice, and promote the happiness of their subjects. It is much to be regretted, that the Grecian writers, who adopted the romantic mythology of the Pischdadian Dynasty, were strangers, in great measure, to their history.

That the Pischdadian Dynasty indeed, ended about B. C. 1661, or not long after, we may collect from HOLY WRIT. For the Israelites were reduced to servitude by Chusan Rishathaim, king of Mesopotamia, in B. C. 1572; and were rescued eight years after, by Othniel, their first judge, who defeated Chusan in battle. After which, the land had rest forty years. Judg. iii. 8-10. Chusan appears to have been an independant prince, who made war on his own account, from the change of the former title of Shinar, into Mesopotamia; but he seems to have been only a petty prince, since he was not able to retrieve a single defeat: for we hear no more of him, or his people, in the book of Judges.

This first Persian dynasty was succeeded by a very long interregnum of more than a thousand years. During which, Iran was subject to the empire of Turan, and afterwards of Assyria, until the revival of the second Persian dynasty of the Kaianites, B. C. 641.

The grand and fundamental error of the Persian historians and chronologers, was the supposition that the Kaianian dynasty followed the Pischdadian, in continuity, or immediate succession. This gave rise to the enormous reigns which they assigned to their kings, in order to fill up the chasm; and it precluded all possibility of adjusting them with those of the Greek historians and chronologers; insomuch, that some learned antiquaries have questioned the veracity of the latter, and represented their accounts of the Persian dynasty either as fictitious, or as relating only to some provincial transactions of the mighty Persian empire, by their satraps, or deputies *.

The

• The learned Orientalist Richardson, so well skilled in Oriental etymology and Persian romance, as we have seen, has failed, most lamentably, in the important subject of chronology. Not being able to reconcile the dissonant accounts of the second, or Kaianian dynasty, as delivered by the Greek and Persian historians, and giving undue credence to the latter, he has sceptically rejected the former, in great measure, as fabulous and unfounded. His objections are thus stated by himself.

"From every research," says he, " which I have had an opportunity to make, there seems to be nearly as much resemblance between the annals of England and Japan, as between the European and Asiatic relations of the same empire of the Medo-Persians, during the Kaianian dynasty, commencing with the Cyaxares of the Grecks, about B. C. 610, according to Sir Isaac Newton's conjecture, and ending with the Macedonian conquest. The names and numbers of their kings have no analogy; and in regard to the most splendid facts of the Greek historians, the Persians are entirely silent. We have no mention of the Great Cyrus, nor of any king of Persia, who in the events of his reign can apparently be forced into a similitude. We have no Cræsus, king of Lydia; not a syllable of Cambyses, or of his frantic expedition against the Ethiopians. Smerdis Mugus, and the succession of Darius Hystaspis by the neighing of his horse, are to the Persians circumstances equally unknown as the numerous assassinations recorded by the Greeks. Not a vestige is at the same time to be discovered of the famous battles of Marathon, Thermopyla, Salamis, Plataa and Mycale; nor of that prodigious force which Xerxes led out of the Persian empire to overwhelm the states of Greece. These famous invasions may possibly therefore have been simply the movements of the Governor of Asia Minor, to enforce a tribute, which the Persians might often pay, and the Greeks might never pay. Marathon, Salamis, and other celebrated battles, may indeed have been real events :-but the Grecian writers

to

The existence of this chasm, or long interregnum, is proved from the Persian historians themselves. Mirkhond and the rest unanimously

agree,

to dignify their country, may have swelled the thousands of the Persian satrap into the millions of the Persian king." Dissert. p. 52—54.

To these objections it may be answered,

1. That there is not so great a dissimilitude as he represents, between the Grecian and Persian accounts throughout. There subsist, indeed, several strong and striking traits of resemblance.

2. There is a remarkable analogy between the names of several of the kings. 1. The Persian Kai-chobad is equivalent to Kai-achsueros, and this is the parent of the Greek variation, Kv-agapns, Cyaxares. 2. Kai-choru, dropping the prefixed title Kai, leaves the remainder analogous to w, Churos, or Koç, by only reversing the three last letters, 12, Chosru. (See the foregoing note on Oriental titles.) 3. Gushtasp is plainly Hystaspes, by interchange of gutturals. 4. Ardshir has little analogy to Artaxerxes, but his epithet, Dirazdest, signifies paxgo-xg, longimanus, or " long-handed." 5. The two last Durabs correspond to Darius Ochus and Codomannus. Three of the Grecian kings, indeed, Xerxes, Darius Nothus, and Artaxerxes Mnemon, are altogether omitted in the Persian account. And Queen Homai, on the other hand, is omitted likewise in the Grecian. But these omissions, and the other diversities, may be easily accounted for.

For, 1. where historical materials are copious, but scattered, different writers may select differently, according to their opportunities of information, or their views. 2. The Greek writers, in general, had not access to the Persian records; and the Persian writers, from a principle of national vanity, or through adulation of the reigning princes, by whose command they wrote, might naturally wish to omit disastrous events, and even to suppress entire reigns that tarnished the glory of the empire; and such were those of Xerxes, Darius Nothus, and Artaxerxes Mnemon. They did not hesitate, we see, to adulterate their chronology, and can we imagine they were more scrupulous in their history? 4. They deal also to the full, as much, or more, in the marvellous, on the one side, as the Greeks on the other. 5. The supposed exaggerations of the Greek writers, even in the Persian war, are not confined to a single author, Herodotus; others vouch them likewise, and the variations in their accounts, upon which Richardson reckons so much, p. 308-310, only prove, that they were independent writers, that collected from different sources; while their general agreement, in the greatness of the armament of Xerxes, corroborates the curious and valuable catalogue given by Herodotus of the different provinces of the mighty Persian empire, which furnished their contingents of troops and ships for the Grecian war. B. vii. A catalogue which, in the main, bears strong internal marks of authenticity; so various and so minute in the description of the several remote nations especially, and their habits and weapons, that no Grecian could possibly have forged. And Herodotus travelled to Babylon and Assyria, and probably Media. 6. On the other hand, the history of Kaikaus and Kai Chosru in the Persian writers, is much more credible than the history of Astyages