1800. ] 
part of the city, opened an vnexpected 
avenue. ‘The hope of further refiftance 
was now given up by Efarhaddon, who 
colleéted in the palace his treafures, and 
his moft faithful adherents, fet fire to the 
pile, and was confumed with them. 
Arbaces now aflumed the royal dignity, 
and proceeded to recompence his feveral 
adherents: to Belefis he ellotted the go- 
vernment of Babylon, and granted the 
afhes of the palace of Efarhaddon, which 
Belefis, by means of the eunuchs, knew to 
be a mine of wealth. The reft of the 
plunder was fent to Ecbatana. 
The whole account of Diodorus. Sicu- 
lus favours the opinion, that the kingdom 
of Affyria, although governed by a royal 
dinafty of its own, was habitually tribu- 
tary to the empire of Media; fince it 
thence received an annual garrifon: a te- 
nure analogous to nabobfhip, and defignat. 
ed feemingly by the fame title ; Nebu-Sa- 
radan, Nebu-Rhadrezzar, Nebu-Shafban. 
Fis fiege is plainly the fame commemo- 
rated by Nahum: a {well of the Tigris 
in both cafes, opens a breach to the affail- 
ants ; in both, a conflagration waftes what 
the waters {pare: mi:uter circumftances— 
the luring of ftrange troops—the difper- 
fion of the infurgents on the mountains of 
Ararat—alfo comcide. His Belefis too, 
is evidently the Beltefhazzar, or Daniel, 
of the Jewifh writers, who was the arch- 
prieft of the empire, the governor of Ba- 
bylon, the confidential friend and auxiliary 
of Darius (Daniel ii. 48, and vi.2). But 
to what perfon has the name Arbaces been 
afigned? Is it to Darius himlelf, who 
under Cyrus, or Cambyfes, may well have 
commanded the Median garrifon ftationed 
at Nineveh? Is it to the Artaphernes of 
Herodotus, the brither of Darius, who 
had the fatrapy of Sardis, which pernaps 
extended alfo to Nineveh? Is it tothe 
Achiacharus of Tobit ? a man whofe re- 
ligious fympathies would eafily have be- 
trayed him into a confpiracy with Belte- 
fhazzar, whofe local confequence at Nine- 
veh is unqueftionable, and whofe connec- 
tion with Haman (Tobit xiv. 10) or In- 
taphernes (M. M. ix. 315) is a further 
ground for {uppofing him in the intereft 
of the feven confpirators. The firft is the 
more probable fuppofition, as Tobit ex- 
prefsly afligns to Affuervs himfelf the cap- 
ture of Nineveh; and there is no direé& 
. teftimony to the interference, of Arta- 
phernes, or Achiacharus: befides, Diodo- 
rus allots to bis Arbaces, on the authority 
of Ctefias, the empire of Afia, which was 
in fact acquired by Darius. 
The vindiétive delight felt by the Jew- 
] 
Toleration of the “fews in Pruffia. 
i 
ifh writers at the deftruction of Nineveh, 
may beft be accounted for by fuppofing 
Efarhaddon to have accompanied Cam- 
byfes in the war of Judea, and to be the 
Nebu-Zaradan who took Jerufalem, The 
Jews employed againit Nineveh are, no 
doubt, included by Diodorus under tite 
denomination Arabs: Arofch of Elam 
was perhaps the prince fo wholly devoted 
to Beltefhazzar (Daniel ii. 15). 
Of the Nebuchodonofor, faid by Tobit 
to have co-operated with Afluerus in the 
taking of Nineveh, no other authority 
gives any account: furely it is a falle 
reading, or an error of the Greek tranfla- 
tor, and conceals the name of that general 
of the Baétrians, whole critical arrival 
prevented the feparation of the difcouraged 
friends of Belefis and Arbaces. In this 
cafe, to re-eftablifh the true reading, the 
title Nebu fhould be prefixed to the name 
of fome adherent of Darius ; the Carfhena 
fuppofe of Etther (i. 14), or tothe name 
of fome townfhip in Baétriana, the Chil- 
med fuppofe of Ezekiel (xxvii. 23). 
One might furmife that the name Belte 
fhazzar originally ftood there; but the 
name was too familiar to be corrupted by 
Jewith tranfcribers. One might believe 
the author of Tobit to have written * 6 
the Nabuchodonofor Afuerus : Nabucho- 
donofor bzing atitle of the Medic or Per=) 
fian kings, and afcribed alfo to this Da~ 
rus feemingly in the mifplaced fecond 
chapter of Daniel. The laft is the iefs vi- 
olent conjecture. 
From this overthrow by the Nabucho. 
donofor Affuerus the old Nineveh did not « 
recover; but a new town, now called 
Moful, has arifen near the {pot on the op- 
pofite bank of the Tigris. The foregoing 
new application of teftimony places this 
deftruction of Nineveh about twenty-feven 
years after the fecond fiege of Jerufalem, 
and about three years after the date of the 
acceflion of Darius; eighty-four years 
later than in the Univerfal Hiftory, or 517 
years before Chrift. 
~—a 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
UCH attention has lately been ex- 
cited in Germany by a printed let- 
ter, addreffed to Provott Teller, Prefident 
of the Pruffian Confiftory, from fome Jew 
fathers of families (baufvater) at Ber 
lin. 
The writers begin by ftating, that their 
education had in nothing differed from that 
of their tribe ; the Talmud had been their 
grammar, and myfticifm papa He 
thei 
