account for the introduction of Togarmah's name into the mythus, but will not explain why the Armenian patriarch was called Haic. When the confederation in Spain was broken up, Sallust tells us (vide p. 289) that the Persae went to Africa, and the Medi and Armeni to Libya, i. e. to the district lying between Egypt and the Syrtes. Now among the races called the 'peoples of the sea,' who twice invaded Egypt, we find a people called the Kehak mixed up with the Mashawasha, Turisha, &c. May not these Kehak be the Armeni of Sallust and the Haic of the modern Armenians? When the Medes and Persians left Africa for Asia it is probable that their neighbours, the Kehak, also yielded to the pressure of the Phoenician settlements and migrated likewise; and as the Medes and Persians conquered the Arioi and established their respective nationalities on that of the conquered people, so the Kehak may have conquered and coalesced with the surrounding tribes, and so have given the name of Haic to modern Armenia. Their nationality must have early taken deep root, for it survived the changes that followed the conquests of Alexander. Strabo tells us (11. 14. 5) that on the death of Antiochus the Great the governors of Sophēnē and other adjacent districts declared their independence, whence it came to pass that the men of those countries all spoke the same language. That language must have been the Armenian, and we may infer that the men who spoke it were for the most part descendants of Ashkenaz, for Josephus evidently alludes to the 'Askhanaxoi' as to an extant people well known in his day, and I know of no people but the Armenians that could answer to these requirements. Ashkenaz was the name of one of the three northern kingdoms that brought their cavalry against Babylon (Jer. 51. 27). Babylon fell 538 B.C., and as Herodotus, who flourished a century later, speaks (7. 73) of the 'Armenioi' as an established nationality, it is probable that it was in the interval 1 1 See above, p. 24. IX. ] AFRICAN SETTLEMENTS IN EUROPE. 311 that the Armenioi gained their ascendency. After the death of Antiochus had weakened the power of Syria, the neighbouring races seem to have been brought into closer union by the sympathies of a common language, and to have been called indifferently Armenioi or Askhanaxoi. According to the traditions of Sais,1 the domination of a great African power preceded Greek adventure in the west of Europe. Ancient legends relative to events of such remote antiquity are few and necessarily vague, but such as they are they confirm the accounts which Solon received from the Egyptian priests. Avienus, who had consulted the Carthaginian Annals (Ora Mar. 414), tells us that many writers asserted that Tartessus and its neighbourhood was at one time an African district (Ib. 332). In support of this view he quotes the elder Dionysius, who is so often referred to as an authority in matters of this kind :— Sacrum superbas erigit cautes jugum Locum hunc vocavit Herma quondam Graecia. Interfluum quae altrinsecus munit lacum. Pausanias tells us (10. 17. 2) that the Libues were the first settlers in Sardinia, and that they came under the conduct of Sardus, son of Maceris, who among the Egyptians and Libues was called Herakles. The ancient Sards were probably a Berber race and a red people; and perhaps we may be justified in saying as much of the Eteocretes, who appear to have been the earliest inhabitants of Crete. The other ancient race of Crete, alien to the Greeks, were the Kūdones, and these I believe to have been connected with the Eruthraioi of the Greeks, and to represent the people called in Scripture Cuth and Cuthah. The Berber 1 See above, p. 282. nationality in Africa seems to have sunk beneath the ascendency of the white races, who settled in that country after the disruption of the confederacy in Spain. If, as I have concluded, the Berbers were represented by the Kufa of the hieroglyphic inscriptions, they must have early attained a high degree of civilization, and we may feel the less inclined to quarrel with the accounts that have been handed down to us of the great power and influence they once exercised in western Europe. The Greek confederacy and the events it gave rise to must have more or less affected the fortunes of western Europe. Its details can be only dimly traced, but I cannot doubt that we have a real event and not a mere phantom before us; and to ignore the records of the past, because they have come down to us wrapped up in mythus and fable, seems to me to exhibit much more of 'philosophy' than of wisdom. One of the main defects of historical research in modern times has been the feeble attempts that have been made to carry it out continuously. The civilization of a particular epoch cannot be duly appreciated, unless we have some acquaintance with the civilization that preceded it. It is a delicate task to piece together the scattered shreds of information that have come down to us, so disjointed are the statements, and so various the degree of credit that may be due to them; but we should at least make an attempt to do so, and, even if it be a failure, it may not be without its value. Materials for founding right conclusions are accumulating daily; and the foregoing speculations will not be altogether worthless, if their only result be to direct the attention of scholars to points of difficulty, which at the present time seem more particularly to require their notice. CHAPTER X. Early biblical Chronology. Nature of Inspiration. Our knowledge of early chronology rests mainly on two dates, that of the call of Abraham and that of the Exodus; the genuineness of 1 Kings 6. 1 and of Gen. 15. 13 considered; St. Paul's statement Gal. 3. 17, reconciled; account of Moses' parentage Ex. 6. 20, not inconsistent with the 400 years of sojourn in Egypt; the 450 years ascribed to the period of the Judges explained. Dr. Hales on the longer scheme of chronology; Mr. Stuart Poole's ingenious attempt to support it. Difficulty of fixing the actual date of any event in early history; Zoan built seven years after Hebron, which was probably built not long before Sarah's death, and according to the calculation of Josephus about 2200 years B.C.; Abraham went to Egypt before the Hykshos invasion; during his sojourn in Canaan, the Elamites were dominant on the Euphrates; according to an Assyrian inscription they were pursuing their conquests on the Euphrates in the 23rd century B. C. The supremacy of the Elamites probably followed by that of the southern Chaldees or the Nahorites shortly before the year 2000 B. C.; by that of the Kassi or Kossaioi a few centuries later, and lastly by that of the Assyrians. - The Kassi the same people as the Kossaioi of the classical geographers and the Cush mentioned in the description of Eden, Gen. 2. 13; the dynasties of Berosus. The three languages used in the Achaemenian inscriptions probably those of the three great dominant races, viz. the Medes and Persians, the Assyrians, and the Kassi or Kossaioi. Origin of the two ancient races the Accadi and Sommari unknown; the phrase the four languages' equally ancient, and its meaning also unknown. In the preceding speculations we have touched very lightly on the subject of chronology. It is one of acknowledged difficulty, and may excuse some little hesitation on our part in dealing with it. But we can hardly hope to bring the scattered fragments of history into order without its aid, and when we cannot obtain all we want, we may act not unwisely in accepting what is within our reach. Scripture and the Egyptian monuments are our only trustworthy guides for the earlier periods. The monuments sometimes throw an astonishing light upon certain portions of Egyptian history, but it is fitful and partial, and we are again thrown back upon doubt and speculation; and, though Scripture affords us a steadier and more continuous light, yet the frequent mishaps we witness in others may teach us how many are the pitfalls that beset our footsteps even in this direction. One of the difficulties that accompany Scriptural statement is supposed to arise from its 'inspiration.' To attempt to define generally how the mind of Deity acts upon and controls the mind of man, would be little better than an act of folly, but there are passages in Scripture which seem in special cases to define that action, and by studying them I think we may gain a clearer insight into the mode in which it sometimes pleases the Maker to communicate his will to his creatures. The extraordinary seem to differ from the ordinary revelations of that will in degree rather than in kind. Our Lord promised his disciples that the Spirit should bring to their remembrance all that he had said unto them (John 14. 26). It is a well-known fact that matters, which appear to have entirely faded from the memory, may by some accident be brought back with all the vividness of first impressions. The three synoptic' gospels sometimes record the sayings of our Lord and others, partly with identity of phrase and partly with variations that are more or less important. By way of explanation, it has been suggested that there may have been an earlier gospel, written or oral, which was known to all the evangelists and used by them as their purposes required; while others suppose that there were never more than the extant gospels, the three synoptists copying and supplementing one another, though it has never been settled which was the original and which the copy. For my own part I believe each evangelist recorded his own experiences. The events he describes were as distinctly before his mind when he wrote, as when he saw them occur or heard them narrated; but some minds are more appreciative of circumstances than others, and |