'A Dictionary, Persian, Arabic, and English; with a Dissertation on the Languages, Literature, and Manners of Eastern Nations' [‎21v] (47/1826)

XXVI
DISSERTATION.
brutal tyrant, whose oppression of the Jews drew
upon him the resentment of Ardeshir Dirazdast,
king of Persia, who removed him from the govern
ment, and appointed in his room Coresh, a prince
of the blood, grandson of Lohorasb. The mother
of this prince, they add, was a Jewess ; and this
they give as one reason for the warmth with which
he espoused the cause of the Israelites ; to whom
he gave permission to return to Jerusalem, w r ith
every encouragement towards the rebuilding of the
temple. Now let us observe the chronology, and
we shall find a remarkable concurrence. Darab
II. is said, by the Persian historians, to have
reigned fourteen years *, Darab I. twelve ; and queen
Humay thirty; whose immediate predecessor, as
before observed, was Ardeshir. If we place then
the issuing of the proclamation two years before
Ardeshir’s death, this brings it to the year 388
B. C., a difference of only three years from the
Jewish dates ; and of small consequence in such
remote transactions. Ardeshir reigned long ; let
us suppose thirty-eight years before the proclama
tion of Curesh ; add about thirty more for the reign
of Kishtasb ; and the commencement of the seventy
years captivity will be placed in the end of the reign
of Lohorasb, by whose orders Nabocodnassar, as
before observed, conquered Syria, Palestine, and
other Western districts.
The great lines coinciding thus, in a manner so
singular, I shall proceed to observations on the
seeming disagreement of some inferior points. It
appears evident both from Daniel and the Persian
historians, that Cbresh or Cyrus acted a subor
dinate part in the taking of Babylon; the name
of his superior being, according to the Sacred
Writers, Darius the Mede ; but, according to the
Persians, Ardeshir or Bahaman. No etymological
ingenuity, it is certain, can discover a resemblance
between those names; but that does not seem to be
of the smallest consequence. The great rock, as
observed above, upon which our chronologers
have uniformly split, is an attention to the fancied
similitude of names; and to this they have often
sacrificed every consistency of fact. But nothing
can offer a more unsubstantial basis. It has been
long a custom in the East for the reigning sove
reign to give his son some important government,
with the title of king ; and this name he generally
changed when he succeeded to his father. The
son and successor of Shapur II. in the fourth
century, was called Karmanshah, and by our writers
Carmasat; but when he mounted the throne of
Persia he assumed the name of Bahrain. Changlz
Khan, in the early part of life, was called Temujin.
i Many of the Great Moguls have bore different
names before their accession. Similar instances are
innumerable. It was even common in Greece :
Plato was originally named Aristo. 1 hat an al
teration of names prevailed greatly in old times,
we have remarkable proofs in the Paralipomena
books of Scripture. When Esther was selected
amongst other virgins for the royal choice, her
former name Hadassah was dropt; and a new one
given to her, signifying, in Persian, a star. When
Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, were
chosen to attend the king, their names were
changed to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and
Abednego. All nations, we may also observe, have
had a greater or less partiality for metonymical and
metaphorical allusions ; and many personages have
been often described by some peculiar attribute, or
title, which was perfectly w T ell understood by those
to whom the speech or writing was addressed,
though by no means obvious to others without a
key. In the Sacred Writings, a history of the Per
sian empire is not intended : such points only are
touched upon as are connected with the annals of
the Jews: to be intelligible to the chosen people
is all that was proposed: the name, the title, or
the epithet of the sovereign of Persia, which was
most familiar to them, was consequently chosen;
and whether it was the King, the Great King,
! Darius, or any corresponding denomination, it was
certainly a point of no importance, whilst they all
were perfectly understood. Dcird, as observed
before, signifies, in Persian, a Great King ; and
the addition of Median might simply denote that
his chief residence was in that country. The dif-