2796. ] 
and I can find no proper evidence to 
charge him with the calculations of other 
writers. Some of the 49 kings may, for 
aught I know, be imaginary princes. 
But let Fulus Africanus anf{wer for 
himfelf. 
Something muft be faid of the termi- 
nation of the period of years, the dura- 
tion of which we have hitherto invefti- 
gated. On this point both writers appear 
to me to agree in the main. There can 
be no difficulty as to Herodotus. He 
plainly affigns to the manceuvres of 
Dejoces, the final diffolution of the A/y- 
yian domination; and what he faith of 
the firuation in which that artful man 
found the eaftern part of that empire, fo 
fully agrees with the feriptural account 
of the end of Sennacherib, explained by 
Tobit, that one may eafily give that great 
‘event its due place inthe fcale of time. 
But it muft be obferved befides, that the 
father of hiftory had, at leaft, a confufed 
knowledge of another revolution, prior 
to that juft mentioned; and different 
‘from it in the moft material circumftances 
TMowTay an eUTKY (Agcvetwy) Mnco noCavlo 
TOC UT aL — TELL Ing cheundepons [Ary NTP. EVOE Tots 
Agausiors eyevoylos coyepes ayes, net aTWOK= 
petvar Iny dovreucuny eeu cowoey. This firft 
revolution was fuccefsfully effected dy 
force of arms; and the Medes became 
free. But they, as well as other na- 
tions who had, like them, fhaken off the 
Affyrian yoke, were again enflaved 1m this 
MARNEY, woewviles Eig TULGYVEOES megerdoy. L hen 
followeth an account of the arts, by which 
Dejoces, a Mede, taking advantage of the 
weaknefs of the Affyrian government, 
and eractes Iveoyvaidasy found means to raife 
himfelf to the throne. ‘The firft of thefe 
fubverfions of the A/fyrian grandeur, can 
be no other than that in which ARBACEs 
' (2.conqueror known to all antiquity) de- 
feated Sardanapalus. But the fecond and 
la& revolution is that which, after that 
empire had been revived by PHutL, and 
fhone with confiderable luftre, 
four fucceffive kings, was begun by the 
immediate hand of God, in Judea, and 
afterwards accomplifhed by the cunning 
of Deuces. , From this lat, Afyria never 
recovered. It was lefe an infignificant 
ftate, of no weight or importance in the 
{cale of Afiatic powers. 
That bloodlefs, yet important tranfac- 
tion, being in the age in which the two 
Greek hittorians lived, generally known 
to have been the diffolution of that domi- 
nation, which had once extended itfelf 
over upper Afia Ins aeyw AGLIC 5 I think that 
beth took it, with reafon, for the final 
Chronelogy of Ctefias and Herodotus. 
under ~ 
195 
epocha of the Afyrian empire. Nor is 
this cua al a groundlefs fuppofition, 
with refpeét to Ciefias. For though we 
have only a few fragments of that hifte- 
rian, yet we have enough to judge that 
he divided the 1360 years, which he 
gives to the Afyrians, into two diftinét 
periods. The firkt is of ebirty generations 4 
that is to fay, one thoufand years, accord- 
ing tothe rule laid down by Herodotus ; 
and that ending at Sardanapalus. he 
fecond, of courfe, confifts of the remaining 
360 years. But Céefas doth not appear 
to have followed that rule, which, at beft, 
is a whimfical one. He counts the ge- 
nerations in the natural and~ hiftorical 
order from father to fon, at St. Matthew 
did, i. 17. -How many years that Jeaveth 
for the fecénd period, can be afcertained 
only by comparing the refpective eras of 
Arbaces and Dejuces. . But, upon the 
whole, fince the thirty generations do 
not amount to the 1360, it is plain Cre- 
/as did not look upon the end of thofe 
generations as the termination of his 
number of years, and there can be no 
reafon to think that he had any other ter- 
mination in view, but the cataftrophe of 
the Afjrian empire under Sennacherib 
and Affaradon. However, it muft be 
owned, that there is fome confufion in his 
account which might perhaps be cleared 
up had we his work entire, inftead of 
broken fragments and extraéts. From 
what is left, he does not appear to have 
taken any fpecial notice of Afpria, 
after Sardanafta’ss; and a probable rea- 
fon may be afhened, why he did not: 
the affairs of Affyria came but incident- 
ally within the plan of his hiftory. As 
foon as he had fhortly given as much of 
them as was proper, by way of prelimi- 
nary, to fhew the origin of the Babylonian 
and of the Median ftates, he neglected a 
country, the conneétion of which with 
Babylon was entirely broken, and paffed 
to that of which a fuller account was a 
neceflary introdu€tion to the hiftory of 
Perfia. ARBACES, who was the anceftor 
of the princes under whom Cie/as lived, 
was fo connected with the Babylonians, 
ever fince their joint revolt againft Sar-_ 
danapalus, that it was impoffible to treat 
of the affairs of one nation, without 
{peaking of the other. To that caufe I 
think may be afcribed the indiftinétnefs 
which is obferved in what we have of 
Crefias, with refpeét to Affyria, after the 
feparation of Babylon from that empire ; 
and which might poflibly be met within 
the whole work, had it come to our 
hands. 
C Ce Now 
