of his reign was marked by numerous formidable revolts throughout the western provinces of the empire, which, however, were vigorously repressed, and after the re-subju gation of the revolted countries, the power of the empire was advanced to an extent and to an apparent stability unequalled since the time of the great Darius. This Artaxerxes perished by poison in 338 B.C. He is known as the builder of one of the palatial structures which stood on the platform of Persepolis; and an inscription proceeding from him (wrongly ascribed to the previous Artaxerxes by Benfey, Die persischen Keilinschriften, p. 67) has been found there, marked, like that already spoken of, and to a greater degree, by defects of style, and presenting his geuealogy in entire accordance with the preceding. (See Rawlinson, op. cit. x. p. 341 ; Oppert, op. cit. p. 297;
Spiegel, oj). cit. p. 67.)
4. We find yet another instance in the classical writers of the uso of Artaxerxes as a royal name during the Achaemenian period. After Darius Codomannus, the suc cessor of Artaxerxes Ochus, had been finally and decisively defeated by Alexander at Arbela, he was, while fleeing befure the conqueror, traitorously slain by Bessus, the satrap of Bactria, who thereupon, we are told, "assumed the upright tiara and the royal robe, and the name Arta xerxes instead of Bessus, proclaiming himself king of Asia" (Arrian, Exp. Alex., iii. 25, 3, cf. Curtius, vi. 6, 13).
Such are the Achasmenian kings known to the classical writers by the name Artaxerxes. But the name also occurs in the Scriptural books of Ezra and Nehemiah, as well as in some of the Apocryphal books, and in Josephus ; and it remains to be considered whether the persons there referred to are to be identified with any of the kings now mentioned, and if so, with whom ? In the book of Nehemiah, Arta xerxes, king of Persia, appears as the monarch to whom Xehemiah acted as cup-bearer (i. 2), from whom he received a commission, in the twentieth year of the king, to rebuild the wall and other ruined edifices in Jerusalem (ii. 1), and whose thirty -second year is also mentioned (v. 14, xiii. 6). In attempting to identify this Artaxerxes with one of those above named, our choice is at once limited by the length of his reign to those surnamed Longimanus and Mnernon. A sufficient proof that it is the former of these who is meant, is found in the genealogy of Eliashib, the high priest when Nehemiah came to Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 1, and xii. 10). For Eliashib was the grandson of Jeshua, and Jeshua was high priest when Zerubbabel led the first company of returned exiles to Judah, in the days of Cyrus (Ezra ii. 2, iii. 2). Now, the reign of Cyrus dates from 53G B.C.; and from this to the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, or 445 B.C., is a period of ninety-one years, leaving room for precisely three generations. The opinion, tvhich is the common one, that the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah is Artaxerxes Longimanus, is thus fully warranted (though some, as De Saulcy, Sept siecles de Vhistoire judaique, p. 28, identify him with Artaxerxes Mnemon), and this enables us to proceed with confidence when inquiring into the reference of the name as it occurs in the book of Ezra. Ezra was contemporary with Nehemiah (Neh. viii. 1), and mention is made in his book of an Artaxerxes who was his own contemporary (Ezra vil 1, 7, 11 ; viii. 1), in whose seventh year a decree was issued, giving authority to Ezra to levy whatever supplies were needful for the service of the temple at Jerusalem. This, therefore, must have been also Artaxerxes Longimanus, and the year referred to is 458 B.C. Hence, also, when it is said (Ezra vi. 14) that " the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered, . . . according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia," it may without difficulty be understood that the same monarch is here named, the writer singling out the three kings who, of all the Persian monarchs, distinguished themselves by the favour shov, n to the Jews.
chapter iv. In verse 5 of that chapter mention is made of efforts of the enemies of the Jews to hinder the rebuild ing of the temple, put forth " all the days of Cyrus, king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius, king of Persia." Then in the two succeeding verses Ahasuerus and Arta xerxes are specified as kings in whose reigns representations adverse to the Jews were made at the court of Persia ; and after the detailed accounts of the second of these repre sentations, and its success with Artaxerxes, it is said (ver. 24), " Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of Darius, king of Persia." The narrative has all the appear ance of consecutive history, and the natural interpretation obviously is that the two kings, Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes, intervened between Cyrus and Darius. It is true, mention is made in the memorial presented to king Artaxerxes of the building of the city and the walls, rather than of the temple, the rebuilding of which was at the time the great enterprise of the returned exiles ; but this may be easily accounted for, from the interest of the writers to make out the strongest possible case at the Persian court. Besides, it is impossible to believe that the city and its walls remained utterly desolate as the Chaldeans had left them while the temple was being rebuilt. There is, indeed, express testi mony to the contrary. Notice is taken of the " ceiled houses" of Jerusalem at this period (Haggai i. 4). Mention is also made of a " wall " of defence for its inhabitants (Ezra ix. 9), and Josephus (Ant. Jud., xi. 4, 4) records the "strong walls about the city " while the temple was still unfinished. It has indeed been argued, and that quite reasonably, that the wall mentioned in Nehemiah i. 3, which was reported to Nehemiah as " broken down," is that to which reference is made in the passages just cited from Ezra and Josephus, built by the first colony of returned Jews, and not that destroyed by the Chaldeans nearly a century and a half before (see Kitto s Cyclopedia, article " Ahasuerus "). There seems, therefore, to be nothing in the narrative to hinder the two kings to whom it relates, and whom it places between Cyrus and Darius, from being identified with the two kings who did actually intervene bet ween these monarchs, viz., Carnbyses and the pseudo-Smerdis ; and this is the view which is taken of the matter by the great majority of interpreters. The difference in the names, however, presents a difficulty which to not a few has appeared insuperable, and from which escape has been sought in various ways. Some, as Scaliger, Hottinger, Mill, believing that Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes in Ezra iv. 6, 7, mean Xerxes and Artaxerxes Longimanus, suppose also that Darius in chapters iv. 24,vi.l, &c., means the successor of the latter, viz., Darius Nothus. But the identification of the Darius with the well-known Darius Hystaspes is sustained by so overwhelming evidence (see DAEIUS), that this opinion may be at once and without hesitation rejected. Others, as Howes (see Pictorial JBiblt on Ezra iv.), Biley (Jour. Sac. Literature, July 1866), and many Germans, as Kleinert, Schultz, Heugstenberg, Auberlen, Vaihinger, Bertheau, Keil, ttc., believe that the paragraph, Ezraiv. 6-23, forms an interpolation or episode, in which the chronicler has summed up the attempts of tho adversaries of Judah to hinder the building of the temple, as well as what they did for the obstructing of the building of the city under Xerxes and Artaxerxes, in order to bring together in a compendious way all their machinations against the Jews (see Keil, ad loc.) It is impossible, however, to reconcile this view satisfactorily with the language of the narrative, especially of ver. 24, the plain meaning of which is that the interruption in the work of the house of God
caused by the decree of the king named Artaxerxea con-
