place the seventh year and the twentieth year of Artaxerxes each from nine to ten years further back than the third does. i 1. Though Petavius agrees with Usher in reckoning the seventy weeks from the Nisan of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, and though he nearly agrees with him in his chronological arrangement of the first year of that prince, they do not adopt such an arrangement precisely on the same grounds. Petavius places the death of Xerxes in the same year with Dr. Prideaux; but supposes, that about ten years previous to his death he admitted Artaxerxes into a share of the government, and that from this admission all the years of the latter prince's reign (and therefore among them his twentieth year) are to be computed. He builds his hypothesis chiefly upon the authority of Thucydides; who tells us, that Themistocles, when he fled into Persia, addressed himself to Artaxerxes, then in the beginning of his reign. But we are informed by Diodorus Siculus, that Themistocles fled into Persia in the second year of the 77th Olympiad, several years before the death of Xerrest. Petavius therefore, Νεωστι βασιλευονία. in + Diodorus asserts, that Xerxes reigned 21 years, herein agreeing with the canon of Ptolemy; but he likewise asserts, that Themistocles fled into Persia in the second year of the in order to reconcile these two authors, conjectures, that Artaxerxes must have been admitted into a share of the government several years before the death of his father: and the number of these years he determines to be ten; which arrangement enables him to reckon the seventy weeks from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, supposing that year to be computed from his admission into a copartnership of the empire. The conjecture itself he grounds on the practice of the Persian kings to name their successors previous to their taking the field in any war of importance: and the particular war, previous to which Artaxerxes was so named, he supposes to be that against the Greeks, which Xerxes renewed after the death of Pausanias. Against this hypothesis more than one objection may be urged-1. There is nothing in history to warrant the conjecture which is necessary to it. Herodotus does indeed tell us, that, when a disputed succession was apprehended, the king of Persia was wont to name his successor: but the mere naming of a successor is a very different thing from the associating of a colleague into a copartnership of empire. From the latter the years of a prince might be reckoned; from the former it is 77th Olympiad: therefore he necessarily brings him to the Persian court several years before the death of Xerxes. impossible impossible that they should *-2. The seventh year of this same Artaxerxes is mentioned by Ezra, the immediate predecessor of Nehemiah who mentions his twentieth year: therefore, if the one year be computed from his supposed nomination as successor, the other must be similarly computed: in which case, if he were so nominated ten years before the death of his father, his seventh year must plainly coincide with that preceding his father's antepenultimate year. But the language used by Ezra in his account of the decree enacted in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, decidedly proves him to have been then reigning alone †. Therefore, if the father were dead in the seventh year of the son, and if this seventh year were reckoned from the son's association into the government, the son could not have been so associated ten years before the death of the father-3. Thucydides, in the passage whence the * Petavius wishes indeed to blend the two ideas together, as If the nominated successor must therefore be a colleague in empire: but Herodotus, to whom he refers, so far from corroborating his opinion, directly contradicts it. He tells us, that Xerxes was nominated the successor of Darius before the death of that prince, but that he did not ascend the throne until after it (See Herod. I. vii. c. 2, 3, 4, 5.). Yet, on the authority of this account, Petavius would make Artaxerxes to have been the colleague of Xerxes, and to have even borne the title of king in his father's life-time. ↑ See the whole of Ezra vii. H 2 opinion opinion of Petavius is deduced, evidently speaks of Artaxerxes as having recently come to the throne after the death of his father, not during his lifetime: consequently, this arrangement both contradicts Thucydides, and fails of reconciling him with Diodorus, because according to the latter historian Themistocles came to the Persian court during the life of Xerxes-4. Artaxerxes, as we are informed by Justin and Diodorus, was only a boy at the death of his father, which (according to Petavius) occurred about seven years after his reception of Themistocles; for Thucydides asserts that he received him in the beginning of his reign, and Petavius makes his reign commence about three years before the reception of his Athenian guest. Hence, if he were only a boy when his father died, he must have been little more than an infant seven years previous to that event: consequently, he must at that time have been incapable of receiving any address from Themistocles *. 2. Abp. * Abp. Usher objects to the account, which makes Artax, erxes a boy at the death of his father; because he is said by Justin to have stabbed Artabanus only seven months after that event, and because in his seventh year he is represented by Ezra (vii. 23.) as being the father of more than one son. These different circumstances the Primate thinks incongruous, as a boy would be unequal to the personal assassination of a mon, and as this boy could scarcely have been the father of a 2. Abp. Usher nearly agrees with Petavius in his arrangement of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, family in the seventh year after he was styled a boy. Annal. in A. P. J. 4241. The incongruity does not appear to me to be such as will' warrant our rejection of the testimony of Justin and Diodorus. Let us suppose Artaxerxes to have been twelve years of age at the time of his father's death. In that case, he was a boy when his father died, and might therefore with the strictest propriety have been so denominated in history. Yet, seven months afterwards, when he was nearly thirteen years old, I see no difficulty in conceiving, that he might have thrust Artabanus through with a sword in the manner that the story is told by Justin, namely when Artabanus was unarmed and off his guard. And, if we consider both the early puberty of the inhabitants of warm climates, and the prevailing practice of polygamy, I see as little difficulty in conceiving, that, in the seventh year after the death of his father, when he would have been eighteen years old, he might have been the parent by different wives even of many sons. The objection however of Abp. Usher furnishes another argument against the hypothesis of Petavius. If Artaxerxes were only a boy at the death of his father, if he were admitted into a copartnership of the empire from nine to ten years before that death, and if his seventh and twentieth years are to be reckoned from his admission into a share of the government; it is evident, that in his seventh year he must have been from two to three years younger than he was when his father died. But he was a boy even when his father died. Therefore, two or three years before that event or in his supposed seventh year, he must have been a still younger boy: that is to say, according to the hypothesis of Petavius, he could not, in his seventh year |