tinned until, and hence was previous to, the second year of king Darius. Some German expositors, indeed, as Herzfeld (Gesch. d. Volkes Isr. i. 303), Merx, Schrader, <kc., admit the irreconcilability, and, believing that the two kings in question were Xerxes and his son, maintain that the compiler of the book of Ezra was guilty of a mistake in, referring the documents cited to the period preceding, instead of to the period subsequent to, the reign of Darius. But, apart from all questions about inspiration, this must be condemned as an illegitimate procedure. Our only original witness to the events connected with the return of the Jewish exiles is the book of Ezra, and it is not permis sible to alter its testimony, or to set it aside as erroneous, because it presents some appearances of discrepancy with what is otherwise ascertained. It is to be added that the Apocryphal 1st Esdras, in the version which it gives of the same events, refers them and the king Artaxerxes to the period intervening between Cyrus and Darius (Esdras ii. 16-30, v. 72, 73), and that Josephus also in so far agrees that he assigns the events to the same period, though making no mention of Artaxerxes, and naming Cambyses as the king by whom the work at Jerusalem was hindered
(Ant. Jud., xi. 2).Retaining, therefore, the more common view, and identifying the Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes of Ezra iv. with Cambyses and the pseudo-Smerdis, it remains to be considered if the difference in the names presents any insuperable, or even any serious, objection. Confining the discussion to the subject of the present article (for the other name see Ahasuerus), it has been already abundantly evinced that Artaxerxes is a regal name, and was assumed by all who are certainly known to have borne it, in addition to their private and personal designation, on their accession to the regal power. There is no difficulty in supposing that the Magian Gomates, when, in the absence of Cambyses on his Egyptian expedition, he personated Bardiya or Smerdis, the younger son of Cyrus, and usurped the throne, assumed also, like the later usurper Bessus, this as his official name, under which, of course, the public decrees of his administration would be couched, and which would naturally be most current among those who, like the Jews, belonged to the foreign subjects of the Persian monarchy (cf. Tyrwhitt, Esther and Ahasuerus, p. 333). Nor are we desti tute of express though somewhat obscure testimony to the fact. Two other names are found applied in the classical writers to the pseudo-Smerdis. He is called Tanyoxares by Xenophon (Gyrop., viii. 7) and by Ctesias (Pers., 8-13), and Oropastes by Justin (i. 9). The latter, as Ewald (Gesch. Israels, iv. p. 118) suggests, may well be supposed to be a corruption derived from Ortosastes, which is an exact repro duction of the Hebrew form of the name Artaxerxes (cf. the rendering Ap0a.o-a.o-0d in the LXX., Ezra iv. 7, &c.) In regard to this identification two additional and final remarks are to be made. On the one hand, it is unreasonable to allege, as Keil and others do, by way of objection, that the reign of the pseudo-Smerdis was too short(only seven months) to allow of representations being made to his court, and an answer returned in reference to affairs at Jerusalem. It is to be taken into account that the enemies of the Jews had begun then- machinations in the time of his predecessor, and their agents were doubtless present in the Persian capital when the new king ascended the throne, ready to avail themselves of the new opportunity. On the other hand, all that is known of the policy of the usurper is in excellent harmony with the part ascribed to him by the sacred writer. Belonging to the Magian tribe, and ruling, probably, in the interest of Median as opposed to Persian supremacy, he naturally set himself to subvert the policy of Cyrus ; and we have express and indisputable testimony, in the elaborate inscription at Behistun engraved by the authority of his successor Darius, that his procedure, especially in regard to religious interests, was of the nature of a revolution, which the son of Hystaspes glories in having arrested and reversed (cf. Bawlinson s Anc. Monarchies, iv. p. 397).
In the Sassanian dynasty there are three royal personages bearing the name now in question: (1.) The founder of the dynasty is called Artaxerxes, or Ardeshir, surnanied Babegan, from the name of his father Babek. He was probably tribu tary king of Persia under the Parthian rule, and he revolted against Artabanus, king of Parthia, about 220 A.D. Arta- banus was defeated and slain in a great battle in the plain of Hormuz, and Artaxerxes succeeded in establishing the ascendency of Persia, and his own position as independent sovereign in 226 A.D. (see Malcolm, op. cit. i. p. 89 ; Raw- linson, Sixth Oriental Monarchy, p. 365, /.) (2.) Another Artaxerxes, belonging to the dynasty of the Sassanides, reigned for four years, 381-385 A.D. ; and (3.) immediately before the Mahometan conquest, an infant prince was raised to the throne by the same name, and nominally occupied it for five months, 629 A.D. For further details regarding these monarchs see Persia.
ARTEDI, Peter, an eminent naturalist, was born in the province of Angermania, in Sweden, on the 2 2d February 1705. His parents were poor, but found means to give him a liberal education, and with this view sent him to the college of Hernosand. Intending to become a clergyman, he went, in 1724, to study theology at Upsal ; but he turned his attention to medicine from the strong bent of his mind for the study of natural history, in which science he made rapid progress, and soon rose to considerable eminence, particularly in the department of ichthyology, the classifi cation of which he remodelled upon philosophical principles. This arrangement afterwards became popular over Europe. In 1728 his celebrated countryman Linnaeus arrived in Upsal, and a lasting friendship was formed between the two. In 1732 both left Upsal, Artedi for England, and Linnaeus for Lapland ; but before parting, they reciprocally bequeathed to each other their manuscripts and books in the event of death. In 1735, however, they met again at Ley- den, where Artedi was introduced to Seba, and was employed in preparing for the press the third volume of that eminent naturalist s Thesaums, which chiefly related to fishes. He intended, as soon as that work was finished, to return to his native country, and publish the results of his own labours ; but as he was returning home from Seba s house on the evening of the 27th September 1735, the night being dark, he fell into the canal and was drowned. According to agreement, his manuscripts came into the hands of Linnaeus, and his Bibliotheca Ichthyologica and Philosophia Ichthyologica, together with a life of the author, were published at Leyden in the year 1738.
the reign of Marcus Aurelius. He called himself The Daldian, from Daldia, or Daldis, a small town in Lydia, the birth-place of his mother, in order to distinguish himself from Artemidorus, the geographer, who was likewise a native of Ephesus. The work by which he is known, Oi/eipo/cpmKa, the Interpretation of Dreams, is said to have been written by command of Apollo Mystes, who had granted to the author the power of divination. The treatise, which contains some valuable notices on ancient customs and modes of thought, is divided into five books : the first and second, addressed to Cassius Maximus, treat generally of divination by dreams ; the third and fourth, addressed to his son, discuss some minor parts of the theory ; and the fifth consists of a collection of prophetic dreams which had been realised. Artemidorus boasts of the trouble expended on this work ; he read all the authors en tho subject, travelled widely, and corresponded or conversed
with all who had made dreams their study. He is also