of primitive Hamitic civilization. But if this were so, it would be decidedly opposed to his view, since the conquering Aryans in India did not adopt the language of the more civilized conquered races. It may be also that in the Arabian peninsula the differences between the idioms of the north and the south may be explained in part by the presence or absence of an old Cushite race; and this would not agree with Dr. Müller's theory.

Thus there are traces of an ancient non-Shemitic race in the region embraced in the biblical Cush, with an established civilization, which, however, seems to have given way before Shemitic conquerors. How far the Egyptians and Canaanites were connected in language with this Cushite people has not been shown; Ebers assigns the other Hamite people of the Table, Put, to Arabia, therefore to this Cushite region. In any case there is no ground, from our present knowledge, for regarding the Egyptian as a composite language, like the English, for example, and we must look on its grammar as its own peculiarity, and not as borrowed from the aboriginal African tribes or from any other source; it may, of course, have borrowed words from Shemitic dialects, as Lauth supposes, though his comparisons (D. M. G. xxv. 4) are to be received with great caution.

This question, therefore-the mutual relation of the Hamitic and Shemitic peoples and languages—is not solved by Professor Müller's easy method. Aside from the prima facie difficulties of his hypothesis, he does not account for the difference between the Egyptian on the one hand and the Canaanitish-Hebrew and Ethiopic on the other. Similar objections might be urged to his hypothesis of the IndoEuropean origin of the Hyksos and Philistines; but a satisfactory statement of the question would take too much space.

As has been suggested, we need for the solution of these questions: 1) a more thorough working up of general or comparative Shemitic grammar, and a more scientific analysis of Shemitic roots; 2) a careful study of the African dialects in northeastern Africa, and a comparison of them with the

Coptic and Old Egyptian; and, 3) a better acquaintance with the languages and peoples which existed in the earliest accessible time in the region stretching from the northern extremity of the Persian Gulf to the strait of Bab-el-mandeb. Meantime it is better to forbear giving a decided answer to the question of linguistic and ethnographic relationship.

NOTE. Since the above was written, I have received the Article of Professor Schrader (in Z. D. M. G. xxvii. 3) on the "Origin of the Chaldeans and the primitive seat of the Shemites." Without undertaking to review the Article, I take the opportunity to make a remark on it. After showing that the Chaldeans of Xenophon have no connection with the true Chaldeans of Babylon, and that the latter were pure Shemites, he examines the linguistic and mythological relations of the Northern (Assyr.Aram.-Canaanitish) and Southern (Arab. - Eth.) groups of Shemitic dialects; and, concluding that the latter has retained more nearly the original forms of the parent-speech, thence infers that Arabia was the primitive seat of the Shemitic race, and that the Hebrews and Joktanidae cannot have had a common ancestor Arpakshad. His linguistic argument is clear, and his linguistic conclusion that the Arabic is nearer the original Shemitic tongue than any other dialect-may be accepted as altogether probable. But in respect to his ethnological inference it seems to me that caution is necessary. The linguistic priority of the Arabic does not prove Arabia to be the primitive home of Shemitism any more than the similar priority of Sanskrit among Indo-European languages proves India to be the primitive home of the Indo-European race. facts in the case may be just as satisfactorily accounted for by supposing a migration of the several divisions of the Shemitic family from a common centre, and separate developments in their several homes. And Professor Schrader does not seem to allow weight enough to the difference in the circumstances of the Northern and Southern sub-families—the former exposed to many modifying influences, the latter living almost alone, and able to follow their own inherited line of development uncontaminated by foreign elements. Further, as to the Arpakshadites, or more exactly, the Heberites, the biblical account does not necessarily make the Joktanidae the sole or the original inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula, while it in effect expressly states that the Hebrews or Terachites adopted a foreign dialect; that is, one already spoken by another people. So the Ishmaelites, no doubt, adopted the language of Arabia, and so the Joktanidae may have done. We cannot be said to know with exactness what region is pointed to by the name Arpakshad, whether Arrepachites, or Mesopotamia, or some other. Thus the great southern Shemitic tongue may have established itself in Arabia and Africa long before the existence of accurate

The

historical records, the Joktanidae may have passed southward and adopted it, while the cognate Pelegites went into another region, and assumed quite a different linguistic character.

In so complicated a question it is well to proceed with caution, as, indeed, Professor Schrader, in the beginning of his Article, calls his investigation a tentative one. The attempt he makes to settle the question is able and instructive, and will lead, it is to be hoped, to further investigation.

ARTICLE VIII.

PARTHIA THE RIVAL OF ROME.

BY REV. SELAH MERRILL, ANDOVER, MASS.

1. Parthia as Connected with Judea.

THE words, Parthia and Parthian, convey, even to the general reader of history, no very definite meaning. Parthia is thought of as some inaccessible mountain region of Western or Central Asia, and the Parthians as a wild, fierce tribe which inhabited the same. Can anything definite be known in regard to this country and people? The race-its origin, history, strength, civilization, and decay; the country-its geographical position, its physical features, and its resources; the empire in its rise and fall, to fix and appreciate the place of this country and people, in the world-history; such topics, if it is possible for light to be shed upon them, ought to command our attention.

The subject before us, aside from its interest for the general student of history, is of special importance for those who propose to investigate thoroughly the history of New Testament times. The generations to which Christ and Herod the Great respectively belonged, had vivid impressions of this, to us, strange, half-mythical race. They had seen their swarms of mounted warriors. They knew something of their terrible power. In the year 40 B.C. the Parthians had literally driven the Romans from Asia. Their hordes, chiefly mounted men, had swept over Syria like a cloud of locusts. Their army pushed southward, a part of it, under Pacorus, proceeding along the coast to Ptolemais and Mount Carmel, and the rest, under Barzaphernes, went down inland through Galilee. Jerusalem was taken and plundered, with the country lying about it. They settled Jewish politics in the most summary way. They placed Antigonus upon the throne of Judea. This prince, the last of the Asmonean princes, held the capital for three years, B.C. 40-37, "as a Parthian satrap, the creature and dependent of the great monarchy on the further side of the

1 Josephus, Ant. 14. 13. 9.

Euphrates." Still earlier, in B.C. 53, Crassus, who (in B.C. 55) had made his name odious in Judea by robbing the Temple of ten thousand talents in gold and silver, and carrying off one huge ingot of gold besides, prepared to advance against the Parthians. The Parthians sent ambassadors to him to ascertain "if this is Rome's or Crassus' war." Crassus, stung by the question replied: "I will answer you in Seleucia." The chief of the ambassadors, striking the palm of one hand with the fingers of the other, said: "Hairs will grow here, Crassus, before you see Seleucia!" But the proud Roman pushed on, only to meet with disaster and death. His splendid army was crushed like an egg-shell.1 Again, in A.D. 36 (or early in A.D. 37), Vitellius, the governor of Syria and Artabanus II. (Arsaces XIX. A.D. 14–44), king of Parthia, had a meeting on the Euphrates, at which a peace was concluded between the two empires. Here we find Herod Antipas, the civil ruler to whom Christ was subject, present as an ally of the Roman governor. The meeting was held in the middle of the river Euphrates, on a bridge of boats built for this purpose. After the peace was concluded Herod Antipas, thoroughly after the manner of the Herods, had a magnificent tent erected where he made a feast to the Parthian king and the Roman governor with their attendant officers. A curious fact connected with this event was, that Herod Antipas, quite in the style of a modern reporter for the New York Herald or Tribune, sent off private posts with letters, to the emperor Tiberius, giving him full particulars of the event and of the terms of peace agreed upon, which arrived some time before the dispatches of Vitellius. Vitellius never could forgive Antipas for this piece of smartness. Some time previous to A.D. 38, Izates, king of Adiabene, a province of Parthia, embraced Judaism. We find at his court a Jewish missionary from Galilee named Eleazar. Izates sent five of his sons to Jerusalem to be educated in the language and learning of the Jews. His mother, Helena, who had also embraced Judaism, visited Jerusalem in A.D. 41, intending to reside there permanently, and while there was able to relieve the severity of the famine which then, or soon after, afflicted Judea, by purchasing with her own funds great quantities of provisions in Alexandria and Cyprus, which she had brought to Jerusalem and distributed among the suffering people. The Jews never forgot the generous conduct of the queen and her son. The Jewish element in the population of the Parthian empire was one of recognized importance. In the different provinces they had numerous and flourishing colonies. The offerings made by them for the temple at Jerusalem amounted to vast sums, and were taken thither under an escort of" many ten thousand men." Parthians were present on the Day of Pentecost.* 1 Florus gives him eleven legions, Plutarch seven, and Appian raises his entire force to 100,000 men.

2 Josephus, Ant. 20. 2-4.

8 Josephus, Ant. 16. 6. 1; 18. 9. 1.

4 Acts ii. 9.

Josephus wrote his "History of the Jewish War" in Aramaic, for the special information of the Jews" who were beyond the Euphrates."1

These hints are sufficient to show that the history of Parthia was connected, in many ways, with that of Judea at the time of Christ.

8

We shall attempt to give a brief sketch of the country and people of Parthia, founded chiefly upon the excellent work of Professor George Rawlinson, using such other helps as may be at our command. A connected history of Parthia did not exist; but, scattered through many ancient writers were numerous notices of this country and people, and modern researches have added something further to the materials out of which such a history might be constructed. The task of working up these materials has fallen into capable hands, and "The Sixth Oriental Monarchy" is one of the most valuable historical works of our times.

2. The Geographical Position of the Country, its Climate, and Resources.

If one would fix definitely in his mind the position of Parthia, he must examine some recent and reliable map of Central and Western Asia. A complete map of this country is yet to be made. Ancient Parthia lay east and southeast of the southeast extremity of the Caspian Sea. The Elburz mountains, which begin in Armenia, sweep entirely around the southern end of this sea, and when near its southeast angle they bend to the north, and continue so for about four degrees of longitude, when they bend to the south, and continue slightly so for about four degrees more, when their course is easterly again. Thus this range for about eight degrees of longitude forms a sort of half-moon, which opens towards the south. The southern exposure of this mountain range sinks down into foot hills, and these into a belt of plain country, which, in turn, meets the Great Salt Desert. This belt is, perhaps, three hundred miles long; and varies in width from two to ten or fifteen miles. By a system of irrigation this belt, or "skirt" as it is called, was made very fertile. It is said to be "strewn with the ruins of magnificent cities." This belt and the southern slope of these mountains was the original seat of the Parthian empire.

I Wars, Preface, 2.

2 The Sixth Oriental Monarchy; or the Geography, History, and Antiquities of Parthia, collected and illustrated from ancient and modern sources, by George Rawlinson, M.A. 1 vol. 8vo. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.; New York: Scribner, Welford, and Armstrong. 1873.

3 In English at all events. The Germans had C. F. Richter's "Historischkritischer Versuch über die Arsaciden-und Sassaniden-Dynastie," Göttingen, 1804. In some respects a valuable work. We would refer also to the long and able Article in Ersch und Gruber's "Encyklopädie," entitled " Parther" (see also "Parthien "), pp. 376-417. Ersch und Gruber give a valuable review of the literature of the subject, including the Greek, Roman, Oriental, and modern. * Rawlinson, Herodotus, iv. 163 (American edition).