father alive, and still upon the throne."1 In reply it may be said, in the first place, that, were it so, no surprise need be felt; since, if the circumstances were as above supposed, if Nabonidus after a shameful flight was a prisoner in the hands of the enemy, and Belshazzar was conducting the defence alone, any distinct allusion to the captured king would be improbable. But, secondly, it is not true that there is "no hint." Belshazzar makes proclamation that, if any one can read and interpret the writing miraculously inscribed upon the wall, "he shall be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom" (v. 7); and when Daniel has read and interpreted the words, the acts promised are performed-"they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom" (ver. 29). It has been suggested that to be the "third ruler" was to be one of the three presidents who were subsequently set over the satraps (vi. 2); but neither is this the plain force of the words, nor was the organization of chap. vi. 1, 2 as yet existing. To be "the third ruler in the kingdom" is to hold a position one degree lower than that of "second from the king," which was conferred upon Joseph (Gen. xli. 40–44), and upon Mordecai (Esth. x. 3); it is to hold a position in the kingdom inferior to two persons, and to two persons only. That the proclamation ran in this

1 Fox Talbot, in "Records of the Past," I. s c.

form is a "hint," and more than a hint, that the first and second places were occupied, that there were two kings upon the throne, and that therefore the highest position that could, under the circumstances, be granted to a subject was the third place, the place next to the two sovereigns. If we compare the two nearly parallel cases of Joseph and Mordecai-subjects whom their despotic master" delighted to honour". with that of Daniel at this time, we shall find it scarcely possible to assign any other reason for his being promoted to the third place in the kingdom than the fact that the first and second places were already occupied by the son and father, Belshazzar and Nabonidus.

CHAPTER X.

FURTHER NOTICES OF BABYLON IN DANIEL.

"Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old. It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes, which should be over the whole kingdom."DAN. v. 31; vi. I.

THE reign of “Darius the Median" over Babylon is the second great historical difficulty which the Book of Daniel presents to the modern inquirer. According to Herodotus,' Berosus, and the Canon of Ptolemy, the immediate successor of Nabonidus (Labynetus) was Cyrus-no king intervened between them. The Babylonian records are in accord. Two contemporary documents declare that Cyrus defeated Nabonidus, captured him, and took the direction of affairs into his own hands. One of them contains a proclamation, issued by Cyrus, as it would seem, immediately after his conquest, in which he assumes the recognised titles of Babylonian sovereignty, calling himself “the 1 Herod., i. 188, 191. 2 Berosus, Fr. 14.

See the "Cylinder Inscription of Cyrus," published in the "Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society," vol. xii., pp. 85-9; and "Transactions of Bibl. Archæol. Society," vol. vii., pp. 153-169.

4"As. Soc. Journ.," vol. xii., p. 87.

great king, the powerful king, the king of Babylon, the king of Sumir and Akkad, the king of the four regions." Who, then, it has to be asked, is this "Darius the Median," who "took the kingdom," and made arrangements for its government, immediately after the fall of the native Babylonian power, and its suppression by that of the Medes and Persians?

All that Scripture tells us of “Darius the Median,” besides the points already mentioned, is that he was the son of Ahasuerus, that he was an actual Mede by descent ("of the seed of the Medes,” Dan. ix. 1), that he advanced Daniel to a high dignity (ch. vi. 2), and that afterwards he cast Daniel into the den of lions and released him. The first and second of these facts seem conclusive against a theory which has been of late years strongly advocated-viz., that he is really "Darius the son of Hystaspis," the great Darius, the only Darius mentioned in Scripture, except Codomannus, whose name occurs in one place (Neh. xii. 22). We know not only the father, but the entire descent of Darius Hystaspis, up to Achæmenes, the founder of the Persian royal family; and we find no "Ahasuerus -the Hebrew form of the Persian Khshayarsha, There is the strongest

the Greek Xerxes-in the list.
evidence that he was of pure Persian race, and not an
atom of evidence that he had any Median blood in his
veins. It is among his proudest boasts that he is "an

1 1 Particularly by Mr. Bosanquet ("Transactions,” etc., vol. vi., pp. 84, 100, 130).

2 See the Author's "Herodotus," vol. iv., pp. 254-5.

Aryan, of Aryan descent, a Persian, the son of a Persian." He was a member of the Persian royal family, closely akin to Cyrus. The Medes revolted against him, and fought desperately to throw off his authority and place themselves under a real Mede, Frawartish, who claimed to be "of the race of Cyaxares."2 Cyrus might with better reason be called a Mede than Darius, for some high authorities gave Cyrus a Median mother; but there is no such tradition with respect to Darius, the son of Hystaspis.

3

Another extraordinary theory, recently broached, identifies "Darius the Mede" with Cyrus.

Darius,

it is said, may be in Daniel, not a name, but a title. Etymologically the name would mean "holder," or "firm holder," and it may therefore have been a synonym for king or ruler. Daryavesh Madaya (in Dan. v. 31) may mean, not “Darius the Mede," but only “the king or ruler of the Medes, a fit title for Cyrus"!

But how does this conjectural explanation suit the other passages of Daniel where the name of Darius occurs? We read in ch. vi. 28, "So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus, the Persian." Does this mean, he prospered "in the reign of Cyrus, and in the reign of Cyrus"? Again, we read, in ch. ix. I, of "Darius, the son of Ahasuerus." How can this apply to Cyrus, who was the son of

1 See the Author's "Herodotus," vol. iv., p. 250.
2 Ibid., vol. ii., pp. 598–602.

"Herod., i. 108; Xen. "Cyrop.,” i. 2, ¿ 1.

4" Transactions," etc., vol. vi., p. 29.