· (1.) As for its chronological commencement, we have no concern with the particular year in which it was seen by Daniel : abstractedly, the vision may chronologically commence, either before that year, or in that year, or after that year; for, in fact, the chronological commencement of a vision has nothing to do with the epoch in which it may have been seen by a prophet. Hence we gain nothing as to settling the chronological commencement of the present vision, by knowing that Daniel saw it in the year before Christ 553 : because he may have beheld this commencement, either retrospectively like that of the vision of the four beasts, or prospectively like that of the things noted in the Scripture of truth.

The chronological commencement of a prophetic vision, in the same manner as the chronological commencement of a literal history, must be determined solely, either by its own declaration, or by matters which are virtually equivalent to such declaration : and, on this point, nothing can be more evident, than that such a vision must chronologically commence from the earliest circumstance set forth in it. Hence the only question can be, as to the earliest circumstance which is set forth in the present vision.

They, who would reckon the 2300 years from the beginning of the ram's conquests, maintain, that the present vision opens with those conquests : for, since the 2300 years are undoubtedly to be reckoned from the commencement of the vision, they

nation ; 'and, in the hinder part of their kingdom, a king fierce of countenance shall STAND UP! Hence, from the general phraseology of Daniel, I conclude, that, when he beheld THE STANDING UP OF THE RAM, he retrospectively beheld THE RISE OF THE PERSIAN MONARCHY.

Now the vision opens, not with THE PUSHING of the ram, but with the circumstance of his STANDING UP: and THE STANDING UP OF THE RAM denotes THE RISE OF THE PERSIAN MONARCHY; just as the standing up of the fierce king, in this same vision, denotes the rise of the spiritual Empire of Mohammedism. Therefore, since the present vision opens with THE STANDING UP OF THE RAM, the chronological commencement of the present vision must evidently synchronise with THE RISE OF THE PERSIAN MONARCHY.

The precise year, in which this monarchy arose, cannot be determined from history; though we may lay down, with some little care and attention, the time about which it arose.

If we are to credit the more romantic of the Persian historians, Caiumuras, the founder of their Empire, was the great-grandson of Arphaxad the grandson of Noah : but, while national vanity leads them to make this extravagant assertion, the numerical tale of the kings who constitute their first and second dynasties, as arranged in the more moderate though still too ample chronology of Mirk

Dan, viii. 22, 23.

reigns of the twenty kings through a period of 3947 years; which gives to each reign an average length of 1973 years : while others, not much more modestly, assign to the twenty reigns a period of only 3184 years ; which gives an average length of 159} years to the reign of each of these longlived sovereigns'.

I need scarcely remark, that the palpably fabulous chronology of these Persian writers must inevitably be rejected : but, while we reject their chronology, I see no reason why we should reject also the numerical tale of their sovereigns. The very circumstance of their retaining the tale, though in itself it furnishes a confutation of the chronological arrangement which a foolish national vanity has led them to adopt, is no mean evidence, that the tale is numerically accurate : for the fact seems to have been, that they did not venture to falsify well known numbers, though they scrupled not to stretch the reigns of a dark and well-nigh forgotten period to a length which exceeds every measure of probability.

That such an opinion wanders not very far from the truth, may, I think, be gathered from the much more reasonable statement of Mirkhond. Aware, that the figment of Arphaxad's near relationship to Caiumuras and the tale of only twenty Persian sovereigns before Alexander the great could not

See Tarikh Jehan Ara, transl. by Ouseley, sect. ii. chap. 1. and Anc. Univ. Hist. vol. v. p. 329.