tween Cyaxares and Halyattes— in which Endemoa, if more tlian the date be his, merely repeats Herodo- tus ; bat the addition is as likely to be Clement's own. The Eclipse of Thales, therefore, b by no means so cardinal an event as has been assomed ; and to uphold the looee statement of Herodotos, in connection with the earlier date B.C. 610, is as precarious a proceeding as is the attempt to urge it with the lower, and, in all probability, anthentic date, B.C. 585, to the subversion of the received chronology. Mr. Bosanquet, however, holds that firom the testimony of this eclipse there is no escape ; and supporting by this the arguments de- scribed under the above heads, together with others derived from new combinations, he does not hesitate to interpose " 25 years of Scythian rule in Babylon" be- tween KabopoUssar and Nebuchadnezzar, thereby low- ering the epoch of the latter from B.C. 601 to 579. The effect of this is to bring the destruction of the Temple to B.C. 560 ; Sennacherib's 8d and Hezekiah's 14th year to 689 ; and the 4th of Solomon to 989 or 990. Of coarse this involves the necessity of exten- sire changes in the history and chronology of the low- er portion of the 6th century B.C. Thus Cyrus is made into two persons of the name ; the first, begin- ning to reign in Persia B.C. 559, succeeded by Cam- byses as viceroy 585 (which is made the Ist year of Evil-merodach), and as king, B.C. 529, together with a second Cyrus as joint-king of Media in 18 Cam- by8e8=B.C. 528. The length of reign of this Cyrus II is not assigned ; he disappears from Mr. B.'s table, together with Cambyses, who, with Smerdis between, is followed at 516 by Darius Hystaspb as king, which Darius had become viceroy in Babylon and Media in B.C. 521. It should be remarked that this " readjust- ment" of the chronology is proposed with a view to a fulfilment of Daniel's Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks (Cknmol. of the Time$ of Daniel, Etra, cmd Nfkemiah, 1S48) — namely, the predicted seventy years of desola- tion reach from the destruction of the Temple, B.C. 560 to B.C. 490 ; the date of Daniel's prophecy in the first Babylonian year of Darius Hystaspis, then " 62 years old" (Dan. vi, IX ia made B.C. 498, whence to the birth of Christ, which the author places (wrongly) in B.C. 8, are the seventy times seven years foretold ; abo this year 493 is Itself the goal of an earlier period of 490 years, reckoned from B.C. 988, Mr. B.'s date of the dedication of Solomon's Temple. So extensive a refiuhioning of the history will hardly be accepted on the strength of the alleged proofs, especially as the prophecy of Daniel in question is itself susceptible of a better chronological solution. This view was bold- ly followed out, in ignorance or scorn of all Gentile chronology, by the framers of the Jewish Mundane £ra. Assuming that a period of 490 years must reach from the destruction of the first Temple to that of the second, which latter they set at A.D. 69 (a year too early), they obtahied for 19 Nebuchadnezzar = 11 Zedeldah, the year B.C. 422 (which, in profane chro- D^fogy, lies in the reign of Darius Nothus). On like grounds Ughtfoot does not hesitate to place the first year of Cyrus 490 years before the Passion, for which Ws date ist^D. 88. "Prom this year [B.C. 458] to the death of Christ kre 490 years; and there is no cause, because of doubtful records among the hea^ then, to make a doubt of the fixedness of the time, which an angel of the Lord had recorded with so much exactness" {Harmany of the Old Tettammt, in WorU, it 312). A late noble writer (Duke of Manchester, Damd and kit Timet, 1845), with the like end in view, identifies the Darius of Ezra, Haggai, and Zechariah, and of Dan. viii, 1 (made^iflforent fh)m him of vi, 1), with Darius Nothus ; and, in order to thb result, sets himself to show that the founder of the Persian mon- wchy, whom the Greeks call Cyrus, is in feet Nebu- duuinezzar I (the Nabopolassar of the Canon), for the "Persians" and the "Chaldasans" are the same peo- ple; his son Cambyses is the Nebuchadnezzar of the
Bible, destroyer of the Temple ; Bebhazzar is the last king of the Cynu dynasty at Babylon ; his conquer- or, ** Darius the Mede," Dan. vi, 1, is Darius Hystaa- pis; and the Biblical Koresh, the restorer of the Jews (and Cyrua of Xenophon, i^together different from him of Herodotus and Ctesias), is a satrap, or feudatory of Xerxes and Artaxerxes. Strange to say, this wild speculation, with its portentous conglomerar tion of testimonies, sacred and profene, ancient and modem, genuine and spurious (conspicuous among these the "Philo'* and '^Megasthenes" of the impu- dent forger Annius of Yiterbo), has not only been gravely Ustened to by scholars of Germany, but has found among them zealous advocacy and fhrtheranoe (Ebrard in the Theol. Studien «. Krittken, 1847 ; Metzke, Cyrvt der GrUnder det Pert. Reichet war nicht der BO" fitter der Juden tondem der Zerttdrer Jerutalemtj 1849). See Sbventt Weeks. It should, however, be re- marked, that the identification of Ezra's Darius with D. Nothus has commended itself (still with a view to Daniel's prophecy) to more than one eminent writer. Proposed by Scaliger, it is advocated by the late Dr. Mill (in his Trtatite on the Dttcent and Farentoffe <f our Saviour, 1842^ p. 158). See Darius.