THE SEVEN GREAT MONARCHIES

OF THE

ANCIENT EASTERN WORLD;

OR, THE HISTORY, GEOGRAPHY, AND ANTIQUITIES OF CHALDAEA, ASSYRIA

BABYLON, MEDIA, PERSIA, PARTHIA, AND SASSANIAN, OR NEW PERSIAN EMPIRE. 

BY

GEORGE RAWLINSON, M. A. , CAMDEN PROFESSOR OF ANCIENT HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD

IN THREE VOLUMES. 

VOLUME II. 

WITH MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS

THE FOURTH MONARCHY

BABYLONIA. 

[Illustration: MAP]

CHAPTER I. EXTENT OF THE EMPIRE. 

"Behold, a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof wasgreat; the tree grew and was strong: and the height thereof reached untoheaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth. "--Dan. Iy. 10, 11. 

The limits of Babylonia Proper, the tract in which the dominant powerof the Fourth Monarchy had its abode, being almost identical with thosewhich have been already described under the head of Chaldaea, will notrequire in this place to be treated afresh, at any length. It needsonly to remind the reader that Babylonia Proper is that alluvial tracttowards the mouth of the two great rivers of Western Asia--the Tigrisand the Euphrates--which intervenes between the Arabian Desert on theone side, and the more eastern of the two streams on the other. Acrossthe Tigris the country is no longer Babylonia, but Cissia, or Susiana--adistinct region, known to the Jews as Elam--the habitat of a distinctpeople. Babylonia lies westward of the Tigris, and consists of two vastplains or flats, one situated between the two rivers, and thus formingthe lower portion of the "Mesopotamia" of the Greeks and Romans--theother interposed between the Euphrates and Arabia, a long but narrowstrip along the right bank of that abounding river. The former of thesetwo districts is shaped like an ancient amphora, the mouth extendingfrom Hit to Samarah, the neck lying between Baghdad and Ctesiphon on theTigris, Mohammed and Mosaib on the Euphrates, the full expansion ofthe body occurring between Serut and El Khithr, and the pointed basereaching down to Kornah at the junction of the two streams. This tract, the main region of the ancient Babylonia, is about 320 miles long, andfrom 20 to 100 broad. It may be estimated to contain about 18, 000 squaremiles. The tract west of the Euphrates is smaller than this. Its length, in the time of the Babylonian Empire, may be regarded as about 350miles, its average width is from 25 to 30 miles, which would give anarea of about 9000 square miles. Thus the Babylonia of Nabopolassarand Nebuchadnezzar may be regarded as covering a space of 27, 000 squaremiles--a space a little exceeding the area of the Low countries. 

The small province included within these limits--smaller than Scotlandor Ireland, or Portugal or Bavaria--became suddenly, in the latter halfof the seventh century B. C. , the mistress of an extensive empire. On thefall of Assyria, about B. C. 625, or a little later, Media and Babylonia, as already observed, divided between them her extensive territory. Itis with the acquisitions thus made that we have now to deal. We have toinquire what portion exactly of the previous dominions of Assyria fellto the lot of the adventurous Nabopolassar, when Nineveh ceased tobe--what was the extent of the territory which was ruled from Babylon inthe latter portion of the seventh and the earlier portion of the sixthcentury before our era?

Now the evidence which we possess on this point is threefold. Itconsists of certain notices in the Hebrew Scriptures, contemporaryrecords of first-rate historical value; of an account which strangelymingles truth with fable in one of the books of the Apocrypha; and of apassage of Berosus preserved by Josephus in his work against Apion. The Scriptural notices are contained in Jeremiah, in Daniel, and inthe books of Kings and Chronicles. From these sources we learn that theBabylonian Empire of this time embraced on the one hand the importantcountry of Susiana or Elymais (Elam), while on the other it ran up theEuphrates at least as high as Carchemish, from thence extending westwardto the Mediterranean, and southward to, or rather perhaps into, Egypt. The Apocryphal book of Judith enlarges these limits in every direction. That the Nabuchodonosor of that work is a reminiscence of the realNebuchadnezzar there can be no doubt. The territories of that monarchare made to extend eastward, beyond Susiana, into Persia; northward toNineveh; westward to Cilicia in Asia Minor; and southward to the veryborders of Ethiopia. Among the countries under his sway are enumeratedElam, Persia, Assyria, Cilicia, Coele-Syria, Syria of Damascus, Phoenicia, Galilee, Gilead, Bashan, Judsea, Philistia, Goshen, and Egyptgenerally. The passage of Berosus is of a more partial character. Ithas no bearing on the general question of the extent of the BabylonianEmpire, but, incidentally, it confirms the statements of our otherauthorities as to the influence of Babylon in the West. It tells us thatCoele-Syria, Phoenicia, and Egypt, were subject to Nabopolassar, andthat Nebuchadnezzar ruled, not only over these countries, but also oversome portion of Arabia. 

From these statements, which, on the whole, are tolerably accordant, wemay gather that the great Babylonian Empire of the seventh centuryB. C. Inherited from Assyria all the southern and western portion of herterritory, while the more northern and eastern provinces fell to theshare of Media. Setting aside the statement of the book of Judith(wholly unconfirmed as it is by any other authority), that Persia was atthis time subject to Babylon, we may regard as the most eastern portionof the Empire the district of Susiana, which corresponded nearly withthe modern Khuzistan and Luristan. This acquisition advanced the easternfrontier of the Empire from the Tigris to the Bakhtiyari Mountains, adistance of 100 or 120 miles. It gave to Babylon an extensive tractof very productive territory, and an excellent strategic boundary. Khuzistan is one of the most valuable provinces of modern Persia. Itconsists of a broad tract of fertile alluvium, intervening between theTigris and the mountains, well watered by numerous large streams, whichare capable of giving an abundant irrigation to the whole of the lowregion. Above this is Luristan, a still more pleasant district, composedof alternate mountain, valley, and upland plain, abounding in beautifulglens, richly wooded, and full of gushing brooks and clear rapid rivers. Much of this region is of course uncultivable mountain, range succeedingrange, in six or eight parallel lines, as the traveller advances to thenorth-east; and most of the ranges exhibiting vast tracts of bareand often precipitous rock, in the clefts of which snow rests tillmidsummer. Still the lower flanks of the mountains are in generalcultivable, while the valleys teem with orchards and gardens, and theplains furnish excellent pasture. The region closely resembles Zagros, of which it is a continuation. As we follow it, however, towards thesouth-east into the Bakhtiyari country, where it adjoins upon theancient Persia, it deteriorates in character; the mountains becomingbarer and more arid, and the valleys narrower and less fertile. 

All the other acquisitions of Babylonia at this period lay towards thewest. They consisted of the Euphrates valley, above Hit; of MesopotamiaProper, or the country about the two streams of the Bilik and theKhabour; of Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine, Idumasa, Northern Arabia, andpart of Egypt. The Euphrates valley from Hit to Balis is a tract of nogreat value, except as a line of communication. The Mesopotamian Desertpresses it closely upon the one side, and the Arabian upon the other. The river flows mostly in a deep bed between cliffs of marl, gypsum, andlimestone, or else between bare hills producing only a few dry saplessshrubs and a coarse grass; and there are but rare places where, exceptby great efforts, the water can be raised so as to irrigate, to anyextent, the land along either bank. The course of the stream is fringedby date-palms as high as Anah, and above is dotted occasionally withwillows, poplars, sumacs, and the unfruitful palm-tree. Cultivationis possible in places along both banks, and the undulating country oneither side affords patches of good pasture. The land improves as weascend. Above the junction of the Khabour with the main stream, the leftbank is mostly cultivable. Much of the land is flat and well-wooded, while often there are broad stretches of open ground, well adapted forpasturage. A considerable population seems in ancient times to havepeopled the valley, which did not depend wholly or even mainly on itsown products, but was enriched by the important traffic which was alwayspassing up and down the great river. 

Mesopotamia Proper, or the tract extending from the head streams of theKhabour about Mardin and Nisibin to the Euphrates at Bir, and thencesouthwards to Karkesiyeh or Circesium, is not certainly known to havebelonged to the kingdom of Babylon, but may be assigned to it on groundsof probability. Divided by a desert or by high mountains from the valleyof the Tigris, and attached by means of its streams to that of theEuphrates, it almost necessarily falls to that power which holds theEuphrates under its dominion. The tract is one of considerable extentand importance. Bounded on the north by the range of hills which Strabocalls Mons Masius, and on the east by the waterless upland which liesdirectly west of the middle Tigris, it comprises within it all thenumerous affluents of the Khabour and Bilik, and is thus better suppliedwith water than almost any country in these regions. The borders of thestreams afford the richest pasture, and the whole tract along the flankof Masius is fairly fertile. Towards the west, the tract between theKhabour and the Bilik, which is diversified by the Abd-el-Aziz hills, is a land of fountains. "Such, " says Ibn Haukal, "are not to be foundelsewhere in all the land of the Moslems, for there are more than threehundred pure running brooks. " Irrigation is quite possible in thisregion; and many remains of ancient watercourses show that large tracts, at some distance from the main streams, were formerly brought undercultivation. 

Opposite to Mesopotamia Proper, on the west or right bank of theEuphrates, lay Northern Syria, with its important fortress ofCarchemish, which was undoubtedly included in the Empire. This tract isnot one of much value. Towards the north it is mountainous, consistingof spurs from Amanus and Taurus, which gradually subside into the deserta little to the south of Aleppo. The bare, round-backed, chalky or rockyranges, which here continually succeed one another, are divided only bynarrow tortuous valleys, which run chiefly towards the Euphrates orthe lake of Antioch. This mountain tract is succeeded by a region ofextensive plains, separated from each other by low hills, both equallydesolate. The soil is shallow and stony; the streams are few and oflittle volume; irrigation is thus difficult, and, except where it can beapplied, the crops are scanty. The pistachio-nut grows wild in places;Vines and olives are cultivated with some success; and some grain israised by the inhabitants; but the country has few natural advantages, and it has always depended more upon its possession of a carrying tradethan on its home products for prosperity. 

West and south-west of this region, between it and the Mediterranean, and extending southwards from Mount Amanus to the latitude of Tyre, liesSyria Proper, the Coele-Syria of many writers, a long but comparativelynarrow tract of great fertility and value. Here two parallel ranges ofmountains intervene between the coast and the desert, prolific parentsof a numerous progeny of small streams. First, along the line of thecoast, is the range known as Libanusin the south, from lat. 33° 20' tolat. 34° 40', and as Bargylus in the north, from lat. 34° 45' to theOrontes at Antioch, a range of great beauty, richly wooded in places, and abounding in deep glens, foaming brooks, and precipices of afantastic form. [PLATE VII. , Fig 2. ] More inland is Antilibanus, culminating towards the south in Hermon, and prolonged northward in theJebel Shashabu, Jebel Biha, and Jebel-el-Ala, which extends from nearHems to the latitude of Aleppo. More striking than even Lebanon at itslower extremity, where Hermon lifts a snowy peak into the air duringmost of the year, it is on the whole inferior in beauty to the coastrange, being bleaker, more stony, and less broken up by dells andvalleys towards the south, and tamer, barer, and less well supplied withstreams in its more northern portion. Between the two parallel rangeslies the "Hollow Syria, " a long and broadish valley, watered by thetwo streams of the Orontes and the "Litany" which, rising at no greatdistance from one another, flow in opposite directions, one hurryingnorthwards nearly to the flanks of Amanus, the other southwards to thehills of Galilee. Few places in the world are more, remarkable, or havea more stirring history, than this wonderful vale. Extending for abovetwo hundred miles from north to south, almost in a direct line, andwithout further break than an occasional screen of low hills, itfurnishes the most convenient line of passage between Asia and Africa, alike for the journeys of merchants and for the march of armies. Alongthis line passed Thothines and Barneses, Sargon, and Sennacherib, Neco and Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander and his warlike successors, Pompey, Antony, Kaled, Godfrey of Bouillon; along this must pass every greatarmy which, starting from the general seats of power in Western Asia, seeks conquests in Africa, or which, proceeding from Africa, aims at theacquisition of an Asiatic dominion. Few richer tracts are to be foundeven in these most favored portions of the earth's surface. Towards thesouth the famous El-Bukaa is a land of cornfields and vineyards, wateredby numerous small streams which fall into the Litany. Towards thenorth El-Ghab is even more splendidly fertile, with a dark rich soil, luxuriant vegetation, and water in the utmost abundance, though atpresent it is cultivated only in patches immediately about the towns, from fear of the Nusairiyeh and the Bedouins. 

[Illustration: PLATE VII. ]

Parallel with the southern part of the Coele-Syrian valley, to the westand to the east, were two small but important tracts, usually regardedas distinct states. Westward, between the heights of Lebanon and thesea, and extending somewhat beyond Lebanon, both up and down the coast, was Phoenicia, a narrow strip of territory lying along the shore, inlength from 150 to 180 miles, and in breadth varying from one mile totwenty. This tract consisted of a mere belt of sandy land along the sea, where the smiling palm-groves grew from which the country derived itsname, of a broader upland region along the flank of the hills, whichwas cultivated in grain, and of the higher slopes of the mountainswhich furnished excellent timber. Small harbors, sheltered by rockyprojections, were frequent along the coast. Wood cut in Lebanon wasreadily floated down the many streams to the shore, and then conveyedby sea to the ports. A narrow and scanty land made commerce almost anecessity. Here accordingly the first great maritime nation of antiquitygrew up. The Phoenician fleets explored the Mediterranean at a timeanterior to Homer, and conveyed to the Greeks and the other inhabitantsof Europe, and of Northern and Western Africa, the wares of Assyria, Babylon, and Egypt. Industry and enterprise reaped their usual harvestof success; the Phoenicians grew in wealth, and their towns became greatand magnificent cities. In the time when the Babylonian Empire cameinto being, the narrow tract of Phoenicia--smaller than many anEnglish county--was among the most valuable countries of Asia; and itspossession was far more to be coveted than that of many a land whosearea was ten or twenty times as great. 

Eastward of Antilibanus, in the tract between that range and the greatSyrian desert, was another very important district--the district whichthe Jews called "Aram-Dammesek, " and which now forms the chief part ofthe Pashalik of Damascus. From the eastern flanks of the Antilibanus twogreat and numerous smaller streams flow down into the Damascene plain, and, carrying with them that strange fertilizing power which wateralways has in hot climates, convert the arid sterility of the desertinto a garden of the most wonderful beauty. The Barada and Awaaj, bursting by narrow gorges from the mountain chain, scatter themselves innumerous channels over the great flat, intermingling their waters, andspreading them out so widely that for a circle of thirty miles thedeep verdure of Oriental vegetation replaces the red hue of the Hauran. Walnuts, planes, poplars, cypresses, apricots, orange-trees, citrons, pomegranates, olives, wave above; corn and grass of the most luxuriantgrowth, below. In the midst of this great mass of foliage the city ofDamascus "strikes out the white arms of its streets hither and thither"among the trees, now hid among them, now overtopping them with its domesand minarets, the most beautiful of all those beautiful towns whichdelight the eye of the artist in the East. In the south-west towersthe snow-clad peak of Hermon, visible from every part of the Damasceneplain. West, north-west, and north, stretches the long Antilibanusrange, bare, gray, and flat-topped, except where about midway in itscourse, the rounded summit of Jebel Tiniyen breaks the uniformity of theline. Outside the circle of deep verdure, known to the Orientals as ElMerj ("the Meadow"), is a setting or framework of partially cultivableland, dotted with clumps of trees and groves, which extend for manymiles over the plain. To the Damascus country must also be reckonedthose many charming valleys of Hermon and Antilibanus which open outinto it, sending their waters to increase its beauty and luxuriance, the most remarkable of which are the long ravine of the Barada, and theromantic Wady Halbon, whose vines produced the famous beverage whichDamascus anciently supplied at once to the Tyrian merchant-princes andto the voluptuous Persian kings. 

Below the Coelo-Syrian valley, towards the south, came Palestine, theLand of Lands to the Christian, the country which even the philosophermust acknowledge to have had a greater influence on the world'shistory than any other tract which can be brought under a singleethnic designation. Palestine--etymologically the country of thePhilistines--was somewhat unfortunately named. Philistine influence maypossibly have extended at a very remote period over the whole of it; butin historical times that warlike people did but possess a corner ofthe tract, less than one tenth of the whole--the low coast regionfrom Jamnia to Gaza. Palestine contained, besides this, the regions ofGalilee, Samaria, and Judaea, to the west of the Jordan, and those ofIturaea, Trachonitis, Bashan, and Gilead, east of that river. It was atract 140 miles long, by from 70 to 100 broad, containing probably about11, 000 square miles. It was thus about equal in size to Belgium, whileit was less than Holland or Hanover, and not much larger than theprincipality of Wales, with which it has been compared by a recentwriter. 

The great natural division of the country is the Jordan valley. Thisremarkable depression, commencing on the west flank of Hermon, runs witha course which is almost due south from lat. 33° 25' to lat. 31° 47', where it is merged in the Dead Sea, which may be viewed, however, as acontinuation of the valley, prolonging it to lat. 31° 8'. This valley isquite unlike any other in the whole world. It is a volcanic rent inthe earth's surface, a broad chasm which has gaped and never closedup. Naturally, it should terminate at Merom, where the level of theMediterranean is nearly reached. By some wonderful convulsion, or at anyrate by some unusual freak of Nature, there is a channel opened out fromMerom, which rapidly sinks below the sea level, and allows the stream toflow hastily, down and still down, from Merom to Gennesareth, and fromGennesareth to the Dead Sea, where the depression reaches its lowestpoint, and the land, rising into a ridge, separates the Jordan valleyfrom the upper end of the Gulf of Akabah. The Jordan valley dividesPalestine, strongly and sharply, into two regions. Its depth, itsinaccessibility (for it can only be entered from the highlands on eitherside down a few steep watercourses), and the difficulty of passingacross it (for the Jordan has but few fords), give it a separating poweralmost equal to that of an arm of the sea. In length above a hundredmiles, in width varying from one mile to ten, and averaging some fivemiles, or perhaps six, it must have been valuable as a territory, possessing, as it does, a rich soil, abundant water, and in its lowerportion a tropical climate. 

On either side of the deep Jordan cleft lies a highland of moderateelevation, on the right that of Galilee, Samaria, and Judsea, on theleft that of Ituraea, Bashan, and Gilead. The right or western highlandconsists of a mass of undulating hills, with rounded tops, composed ofcoarse gray stone, covered, or scarcely covered, with a scanty soil, butcapable of cultivation in corn, olives, and figs. This region ismost productive towards the north, barer and more arid as we proceedsouthwards towards the desert. The lowest portion, Judaea, isunpicturesque, ill-watered, and almost treeless; the central, Samaria, has numerous springs, some rich plains, many wooded heights, and inplaces quite a sylvan appearance; the highest, Galilee, is a land ofwater-brooks, abounding in timber, fertile and beautiful. The averageheight of the whole district is from 1500 to 1800 feet above theMediterranean. Main elevations within it vary from 2500 to 4000 feet. The axis of the range is towards the East, nearer, that is, to theJordan valley than to the sea. It is a peculiarity of the highland thatthere is one important break in it. As the Lowland mountains of Scotlandare wholly separated from the mountains of the Highlands by the lowtract which stretches across from the Frith of Forth to the Frith ofClyde, or as the ranges of St. Gall and Appenzell are divided off fromthe rest of the Swiss mountains by the flat which extends from the Rhineat Eagatz to the same river at Waldshut, so the western highland ofPalestine is broken in twain by the famous "plain of Esdraelon, "which runs from the Bay of Acre to the Jordan valley at Beth-Shean orScythopolis. 

East of the Jordan no such depression occurs, the highland there beingcontinuous. It differs from the western highland chiefly in this--thatits surface, instead of being broken up into a confused mass of roundedhills, is a table-land, consisting of a long succession of slightlyundulating plains. Except in Trachonitis and southern Ituraea, where thebasaltic rock everywhere crops out, the soil is rich and productive, thecountry in places wooded with fine trees, and the herbage luxuriant. Onthe west the mountains rise almost precipitously from the Jordan valley, above which they tower to the height of 3000 or 4000 feet. The outlineis singularly uniform; and the effect is that of a huge wall guardingPalestine on this side from the wild tribes of the desert. Eastward thetableland slopes gradually, and melts into the sands of Arabia. Herewater and wood are scarce; but the soil is still good, and bears themost abundant crops. 

Finally, Palestine contains the tract from which it derives itsname, the low country of the Philistines, which the Jews called the_Shephelah_, together with a continuation of this tract northwards tothe roots of Carmol, the district known to the Jews as "Sharon, " or "thesmooth place. " From Carmol to the Wady Sheriah, where the Philistinecountry ended, is a distance of about one hundred miles, which gives thelength of the region in question. Its breadth between the shore and thehighland varies from about twenty-five miles, in the south, between Gazaand the hills of Dan, to three miles, or less, in the north, betweenDor and the border of Manasseh. Its area is probably from 1400 to 1500square miles, This low strip is along its whole course divided into twoparallel belts or bands-the first a flat sandy tract along the shore, the Ramleh of the modern Arabs; the second, more undulating, a regionof broad rolling plains rich in corn, and anciently clothed in part withthick woods, watered by reedy streams, which flow down from the greathighland. A valuable tract is this entire plain, but greatly exposed toravage. Even the sandy belt will grow fruit-trees; and the towns whichstand on it, as Gaza, Jaffa, and Ashdod, are surrounded with huge grovesof olives, sycamores, and palms, or buried in orchards and gardens, bright with pomegranates and orange-trees. The more inland region isof marvellous fertility. Its soil is a rich loam, containing scarcely apebble, which yields year after year prodigious crops of grain--chieflywheat--without manure or irrigation, or other cultivation than a lightploughing. Philistia was the granary of Syria, and was important doubly, first, as yielding inexhaustible supplies to its conqueror, and secondlyas affording the readiest passage to the great armies which contended inthese regions for the mastery of the Eastern World. 

South of the region to which we have given the name of Palestine, intervening between it and Egypt, lay a tract, to which it is difficultto assign any political designation. Herodotus regarded it as a portionof Arabia, which he carried across the valley of the Arabah andmade abut on the Mediterranean. To the Jews it was "the land of thesouth"--the special country of the Amalekites. By Strabo's time it hadcome to be known as Idumsea, or the Edomite country; and under thisappellation it will perhaps be most convenient to describe it here. Idumasa, then, was the tract south and south-west of Palestine fromabout lat. 31° 10'. It reached westward to the borders of Egypt, whichwere at this time marked by the Wady-el-Arish, southward to the range ofSinai and the Elanitic Gulf, and eastward to the Great Desert. Itschief town was Petra, in the mountains east of the Arabah valley. Thecharacter of the tract is for the most part a hard gravelly and rockydesert; but occasionally there is good herbage, and soil that admits ofcultivation; brilliant flowers and luxuriantly growing shrubs bedeck theglens and terraces of the Petra range; and most of the tract producesplants and bushes on which camels, goats, and even sheep will browse, while occasional palm groves furnish a grateful shade and an importantfruit. The tract divides itself into four regions--first, a region ofsand, low and flat, along the Mediterranean, the Shephelah withoutits fertility; next, a region of hard gravelly plain intersected bylimestone ridges, and raised considerably above the sea level, theDesert of El-Tin, or of "the Wanderings;" then the long, broad, lowvalley of the Arabah, which rises gradually from the Dead Sea to animperceptible watershed, and then falls gently to the head of theGulf of Akabah, a region of hard sand thickly dotted with bushes, andintersected by numerous torrent courses; finally a long narrow regionof mountains and hills parallel with the Arabah, constituting IdumseaProper, or the original Edom, which, though rocky and rugged, is fullof fertile glens, ornamented with trees and shrubs, and in placescultivated in terraces. In shape the tract was a rude square or oblong, with its sides nearly facing the four cardinal points, its length fromthe Mediterranean to the Gulf of Akabah being 130 miles, and its widthfrom the Wady-el-Arish to the eastern side of the Petra mountains 120miles. The area is thus about 1560 square miles. 

Beyond the Wady-el-Arish was Egypt, stretching from the Mediterraneansouthwards a distance of nearly eight degrees, or more than 550 miles. As this country was not, however, so much a part of the BabylonianEmpire as a dependency lying upon its borders, it will not be necessaryto describe it in this place. 

One region, however, remains still unnoticed which seems to have beenan integral portion of the Empire. This is Palmyrene, or the SyrianDesert--the tract lying between Coelo-Syria on the one hand and thevalley of the middle Euphrates on the other, and abutting towards thesouth on the great Arabian Desert, to which it is sometimes regardedas belonging. It is for the most part a hard sandy or gravelly plain, intersected by low rocky ranges, and either barren or productive onlyof some sapless shrubs and of a low thin grass. Occasionally, however, there are oases, where the fertility is considerable. Such an oasis isthe region about Palmyra itself, which derived its name from the palmgroves in the vicinity; here the soil is good, and a large tract iseven now under cultivation. Another oasis is that of Karyatein, whichis watered by an abundant stream, and is well wooded, and productive ofgrain. The Palmyrene, however, as a whole possesses but little value, except as a passage country. Though large armies can never havetraversed the desert even in this upper region, where it iscomparatively narrow, trade in ancient times found it expedient toavoid the long detour by the Orontes Valley, Aleppo, and Bambuk, andto proceed directly from Damascus by way of Palymra to Thapsaeus on theEuphrates. Small bands of light troops also occasionally took the samecourse; and the great saving of distance thus effected made it importantto the Babylonians to possess an authority over the region in question. 

Such, then, in its geographical extent, was the great Babylonian Empire. Reaching from Luristan on the one side to the borders of Egypt on theother, its direct length from east to west was nearly sixteen degrees, or about 980 miles, while its length for all practical purposes, owingto the interposition of the desert between its western and its easternprovinces, was perhaps not less than 1400 miles. Its width was verydisproportionate to this. Between Zagros and the Arabian Desert, wherethe width was the greatest, it amounted to about 280 miles; betweenAmanus and Palmyra it was 250; between the Mons Masius and the middleEuphrates it may have been 200; in Syria and Idumsea it cannot have beenmore than 100 or 160. The entire area of the Empire was probably from240, 000 to 250, 000 square miles--which is about the present size ofAustria. Its shape may be compared roughly to a gnomon, with one longerand one shorter arm. 

It added to the inconvenience of this long straggling form, which madea rapid concentration of the forces of the Empire impossible, that thecapital, instead of occupying a central position, was placed somewhatlow in the longer of the two arms of the gnomon, and was thus nearly1000 miles removed from the frontier province of the west. Though indirect distance, as the crow flies, Babylon is not more than 450 milesfrom Damascus, or more than 520 from Jerusalem, yet the necessary detourby Aleppo is so great that it lengthens the distance, in the one caseby 250, in the other by 380 miles. From so remote a centre it wasimpossible for the life-blood to circulate very vigorously to theextremities. 

The Empire was on the whole fertile and well-watered. The two greatstreams of Western Asia--the Tigris and the Euphrates--which affordedan abundant supply of the invaluable fluid to the most important ofthe provinces, those of the south-east, have already been described atlength; as have also the chief streams of the Mesopotamian district, theBelik and the Khabour. But as yet in this work no account has been givenof a number of important rivers in the extreme east and the extremewest, on which the fertility, and so the prosperity, of the Empire verygreatly depended. It is proposed in the present place to supply thisdeficiency. 

The principle rivers of the extreme east were the Choaspes, or modernKerkhah, the Pasitigris or Eulseus, now the Kuran, the Hedyphon orHedypnus, now the Jerahi, and the Oroatis, at present the Tab orHindyan. Of these, the Oroatis, which is the most eastern, belongsperhaps more to Persia than to Babylon; but its lower course probablyfell within the Susianian territory. It rises in the mountains betweenShiraz and Persepolis, about lat. 29° 45', long. 52° 35' E. ; and flowstowards the Persian Gulf with a course which is north-west to Failiyun, then nearly W. To Zehitun, after which it becomes somewhat south of westto Hindyan, and then S. W. By S. To the sea. The length of the stream, without counting lesser windings, is 200 miles; its width at Hindyan, sixteen miles above its mouth, is eighty yards, and to this distance itis navigable for boats of twenty tons burthen. At first its waters arepure and sweet, but they gradually become corrupted, and at Hindyan theyare so brackish as not to be fit for use. The Jerahi rises from severalsources in the Kuh Margun, a lofty and precipitous range, forming thecontinuation of the chain of Zagros. About long. 50° to 51°, and lat. 31° 30'. These head-streams have a general direction from N. E. To S. W. The principal of them is the Kurdistan river, which rises about fiftymiles to the north-east of Babahan and flowing south-west to that point, then bends round to the north, and runs north-west nearly to the fortof Mungasht, where it resumes its original direction, and receiving fromthe north-east the Abi Zard, or "Yellow River"--a delightful stream ofthe coldest and purest water possible--becomes known as the Jerahi, andcarries a large body of water as far as Fellahiyeh or Dorak. Near Dorakthe waters of the Jerahi are drawn off into a number of canals, and theriver is thus greatly diminished; but still the stream struggles on, andproceeds by a southerly course towards the Persian Gulf, which it entersnear Gadi in long. 48° 52'. The course of the Jerahi, exclusively ofthe smaller windings, is about equal in length to that of the Tab orHindyan. In volume, before its dispersion, it is considerably greaterthan that river. It has a breadth of about a hundred yards before itreaches Babahan, and is navigable for boats almost from its junctionwith the Abi Zard. Its size is, however, greatly reduced in its lowercourse, and travellers who skirt the coast regard the Tab as the moreimportant river. 

The Kuran is a river very much exceeding in size both the Tab and theJerahi. It is formed by the junction of two large streams--the Dizfulriver and the Kuran proper, or river of Shuster. Of these the Shusterstream is the more eastern. It rises in the Zarduh Kuh, or "YellowMountain, " in lat. 32°, long. 51°, almost opposite to the river Isfahan. From its source it is a large stream. Its direction is at first to thesoutheast, but after a while it sweeps round and runs considerably northof west; and this course it pursues through the mountains, receivingtributaries of importance from both sides, till, near Akhili, it turnsround to the south, and, cutting at a right angle the outermost of theZagros ranges, flows down with a course S. W. By S. Nearly to Sinister, where, in consequence of a bund or dam thrown across it, it bifurcates, and passes in two streams to the right and to the left of the town. The right branch, which earned commonly about two thirds of the water, proceeds by a tortuous course of nearly forty miles, in a direction avery little west of south, to its junction with the Dizful stream, whichtakes place about two miles north of the little town of Bandi-kir. Justbelow that town the left branch, called at present Abi-Gargar, whichhas made a considerable bend to the east, rejoins the main stream, whichthenceforth flows in a single channel. The course of the Kuran from itssource to its junction with the Dizful branch, including main windings, is about 210 miles. The Dizful. Branch rises from two sources, nearly adegree apart, in lat. 33° 30'. These streams run respectively south-eastand south-west, a distance of forty miles, to their junction nearBahrein, whence their united waters flow in a tortuous course, witha general direction of south, for above a hundred miles to the outerbarrier of Zagros, which they penetrate near the Diz fort, through asuccession of chasms and gorges. The course of the stream from thispoint is south-west through the hills and across the plain, past Dizful, to the place where it receives the Beladrud from the west, when itchanges and becomes first south and then southeast to its junction withthe Shuster river near Bandi-kir. The entire course of the Dizful streamto this point is probably not less than 380 miles. Below Bandi-kir, the Kuran, now become "a noble river, exceeding in size the Tigris andEuphrates, " meanders across the plain in a general direction of S. S. W. , past the towns of Uris, Ahwaz, and Ismaili, to Sablah, when itturns more to the west, and passing Mohammerah, empties itself into theShat-el-Arab, about 22 miles below Busra. The entire course of the Kuranfrom its most remote source, exclusive of the lesser windings, is notless than 430 miles. 

The Kerkhah (anciently the Choaspes) is formed by three streams ofalmost equal magnitude, all of them rising in the most eastern portionof the Zagros range. The central of the three flows from the southernflank of Mount Elwand (Orontes), the mountain behind Hamadan (Ecbatana), and receives on the right, after a course of about thirty miles, thenorthern or Singur branch, and ten miles further on the southern orGuran branch, which is known by the name of the Gamas-ab. The riverthus formed flows westward to Behistun, after which it bonds to thesouth-west, and then to the south, receiving tributaries on both hands, and winding among the mountains as far as the ruined city of Rudbar. Here it bursts through the outer barrier of the great range, and, receiving the large stream of the Kirrind from the north-west, flowsS. S. E. And S. E. Along the foot of the range, between it and the KebirKuh, till it meets the stream of the Abi-Zal, when it finally leaves thehills and flows through the plain, pursuing a S. S. E. Direction to theruins of Susa, which lie upon its left bank, and then turning to theS. S. W. , and running in that direction to the Shat-el-Arab, which itreaches about five miles below Kurnur. Its length is estimated at above500 miles; its width, at some distance above its junction with theAbi-Zal, is from eighty to a hundred yards. 

The course of the Kerkhah was not always exactly such as is heredescribed. Anciently it appears to have bifurcated at Pai Pul, 18 or 20miles N. W. Of Susa, and to have sent a branch east of the Susa ruins, which absorbed the Shapur, a small tributary of the Dizful stream, andran into the Kuran a little above Ahwaz. The remains of the old channelare still to be traced; and its existence explains the confusion, observable in ancient times, between the Kerkhah and the Kuran, to eachof which streams, in certain parts of their course, we find the nameEulseus applied. The proper Eulseus was the eastern branch of theKerkhah (Choaspes) from Pai Pul to Ahwaz; but the name was naturallyextended both northwards to the Choaspes above Pai Pul and southwards tothe Kuran below Ahwaz. The latter stream was, however, known also, bothin its upper and its lower course, as the Pasitigris. 

On the opposite side of the Empire the rivers were less considerable. Among the most important may be mentioned the Sajur, a tributary ofthe Euphrates, the Koweik, or river of Aleppo, the Orontes, or river ofAntioch, the Litany, or river of Tyre, the Barada, or river of Damascus, and the Jordan, with its tributaries, the Jabbok and the Hieromax. 

The Sajur rises from two principle sources on the southern flanks ofAmanus, which, after running a short distance, unite a little to theeast of Ain-Tab. The course of the stream from the point of junction issouth-east. In this direction it flows in a somewhat tortuous channelbetween two ranges of hills for a distance of about 30 miles to TelKhalid, a remarkable conical hill crowned by ruins. Here it receives animportant affluent--the Keraskat--from the west, and becomes suitablefor boat navigation. At the same time its course changes, and runseastward for about 12 miles; after which the stream again inclines tothe south, and keeping an E. S. E. Direction for 14 or 15 miles, entersthe Euphrates by five mouths in about lat. 36° 37'. The course of theriver measures probably about 65 miles. 

The Koweik, or river of Aleppo (the Chalus of Xenophon), rises in thehills south of Ain-Tab. Springing from two sources, one of which isknown as the Baloklu-Su, or "Fish River, " it flows at first eastward, as if intending to join the Euphrates. On reaching the plain of Aleppo, however, near Sayyadok-Koi, it receives a tributary from the north, which gives its course a southern inclination; and from this point itproceeds in a south and south-westerly direction, winding along theshallow bed which it has scooped in the Aloppo plain, a distance of 60miles, past Aleppo to Kinnisrin, near the foot of the Jebel-el-Sis. Hereits further progress southward is barred, and it is forced to turn tothe east along the foot of the mountain, which it skirts for eight orten miles, finally entering the small lake or marsh of El Melak, inwhich it loses itself after a source of about 80 miles. 

The Orontes, the great river of Assyria, rises in the Buka'a--the deepvalley known to the ancients as Coele-Syria Proper--springing froma number of small brooks, which flow down from the Antilibanus rangebetween lat. 34° 5' and lat. 34° 12'. Its most remote source is nearYunin, about seven mites N. N. E. Of Baalbek. The stream flows at firstN. W. By W. Into the plain, on reaching which it turns at a right-angleto the northeast, and skirts the foot of the Antilibanus range as far asLebweh, where, being joined by a larger stream from the southeast, 130 ittakes its direction and flows N. W. And then N. Across the plain to thefoot of Lebanon. Here it receives the waters of a much more abundantfountain, which wells out from the roots of that range, and is regardedby the Orientals as the true "head of the stream. " Thus increased theriver flows northwards for a short space, after which it turns to thenortheast, and runs in a deep cleft along the base of Lebanon, pursuingthis direction for 15 or 16 miles to a point beyond Ribleh, nearlyin lat. 34° 30'. Here the course of the river again changes, becomingslightly west of north to the Lake of Hems (Buheiret-Hems), which isnine or ten miles below Ribleh. Issuing from the Lake of Hems about lat. 34° 43', the Orontes once more flows to the north east, and in five orsix miles reaches Hems itself, which it leaves on its right bank. It then flows for twenty miles nearly due north, after which, onapproaching Hama (Hamath), it makes a slight bend to the east roundthe foot of Jebel Erbayn, and then entering the rich pasture country ofEl-Ghab' runs north-west and north to the "Iron Bridge" (Jisr Hadid), in lat. 36° 11'. Its course thus far has been nearly parallel withthe coast of the Mediterranean, and has lain between two ranges ofmountains, the more western of which has shut it out from the sea. At Jisr Hadid the western mountains come to an end, and the Orontes, sweeping round their base, runs first west and then south-west down thebroad valley of Antioch, in the midst of the most lovely scenery, to thecoast, which it reaches a little above the 36th parallel, in long. 35°55'. The course of the Orontes, exclusive of lesser windings, is about200 miles. It is a considerable stream almost from its source. At Hamah, more than a hundred miles from its mouth, it is crossed by a bridgeof thirteen arches. At Antioch it is fifty yards in width, and runsrapidly. The natives now call it the Nahr-el-Asy, or "Rebel River, "either from its running in an opposite direction to all other streams ofthe country, or (more probably) from its violence and impetuosity. 

There is one tributary of the Orontes which deserves a cursory mention. This is the Kara Su, or "Black River, " which reaches it from the AgaDenghis, or Bahr-el-Abiyad, about five miles below Jisr Hadid and fouror five above Antioch. This stream brings into the Orontes the greaterpart of the water that is drained from the southern side of Amanus. Itis formed by a union of two rivers, the upper Kara Su and the Afrin, which flow into the Aga Denghis (White Sea), or Lake of Antioch, fromthe north-west, the one entering it at its northern, the other at itseastern extremity. Both are considerable streams; and the Kara Su onissuing from the lake carries a greater body of water than the Orontesitself, and thus adds largely to the volume of that stream in its lowercourse from the point of junction to the Mediterranean. 

The Litany, or river of Tyre, rises from a source at no great distancefrom the head springs of the Orontes. The almost imperceptible watershedof the Buka'a runs between Yunin and Baalbek, a few miles north ofthe latter; and when it is once passed, the drainage of the water issouthwards. The highest permanent fountain of the southern stream seemsto be a small lake near Tel Hushben, which lies about six miles to thesouth-west of the Baalbek ruins. Springing from this source the Litanyflows along the lower Buka'a in a direction which is generally a littlewest of south, receiving on either side a number of streamlets andrills from Libanus and Anti-libanus, and giving out in its turn numerouscanals for irrigation, which fertilize the thirsty soil. As the streamdescends with numerous windings, but still with the same general course, the valley of the Buka'a contracts more and more, till finally itterminates in a gorge, down which thunders the Litany--a gorge athousand feet or more in depth, and so narrow that in one place itis actually bridged over by masses of rock which have fallen from thejagged sides. Narrower and deeper grows the gorge, and the river chafesand foams through it, gradually working itself round to the west, and soclearing a way through the very roots of Lebanon to the low coast tract, across which it meanders slowly, as if wearied with its long struggle, before finally emptying itself into the sea. The course of the Litanymay be roughly estimated at from 70 to 75 miles. 

The Barada, or river of Damascus, rises in the plain of Zebdany--thevery centre of the Antilibanus. It has its real permanent source in asmall nameless lake in the lower part of the plain, about lat. 33°41'; but in winter it is fed by streams flowing from the valley above, especially by one which rises in lat. 33° 46', near the small hamletof Ain Hawar. The course of the Barada from the small lake is at firsttowards the east; but it soon sweeps round and flows-southward for aboutfour miles to the lower end of the plain, after which it again turns tothe east and enters a romantic glen, running between high cliffs, andcutting through the main ridge of the Antilibanus between the Zebdanyplain and Suk, the Abila of the ancients. From Suk the river flowsthrough a narrow but lovely valley, in a course which has a generaldirection of south-east, past Ain Fijoh (where its waters are greatlyincreased), through a series of gorges and glens, to the point where theroots of the Antilibanus sink down upon the plain, when it bursts forthfrom the mountains and scatters. Channels are drawn from it on eitherside, and its waters are spread far and wide over the Merj, which itcovers with fine trees and splendid herbage. 

One branch passes right through the city, cutting it in half. Othersirrigate the gardens and orchards both to the north and to the south. Beyond the town the tendency to division still continues. The river, weakened greatly through the irrigation, separates into three mainchannels, which flow with divergent courses towards the east, andterminate in two large swamps or lakes, the Bahret-esh-Shurkiyeh and theBahret-el-Kibli-yeh, at a distance of sixteen or seventeen miles fromthe city. The Barada is a short stream, its entire course from the plainof Zebdany not much exceeding forty miles. 

The Jordan is commonly regarded as flowing from two sources in theHuleh or plain immediately above Lake Merom, one at Banias (the ancientPaneas), the other at Tel-el-Kady, which marks the site of Laish orDan. But the true highest present source of the river is the spring nearHasbeiya, called Nebaes-Hasbany, or Eas-en-Neba. This spring rises inthe torrent-course known as the Wady-el-Teim, which descends from thenorth-western flank of Hermon, and runs nearly parallel with the greatgorge of the Litany, having a direction from north-east to south-west. The water wells forth in abundance from the foot of a volcanicbluff, called Eas-el-Anjah, lying directly north of Hasbeiya, and isimmediately used to turn a mill. The course of the streamlet is veryslightly west of south down the Wady to the Huleh plain, where itis joined, and multiplied sevenfold, by the streams from Banais andTel-el-Kady, becoming at once worthy of the name of river. Hence itruns almost due south to the Merom lake, which it enters in lat. 33°7', through a reedy and marshy tract which it is difficult to penetrate. Issuing from Merom in lat. 33° 3', the Jordan flows at first sluggishlysouthward to "Jacob's Bridge, " passing which, it proceeds in the samedirection, with a much swifter current down the depressed and narrowcleft between Merom and Tiberias, descending at the rate of fiftyfeet in a mile, and becoming (as has been said) a sort of "continuouswaterfall. " Before reaching Tiberias its course bends slightly to thewest of south for about two miles, and it pours itself into that "sea"in about lat. 32° 53'. Quitting the sea in lat. 32° 42', it finallyenters the track called the Ghor, the still lower chasm or cleft whichintervenes between Tiberias and the upper end of the Dead Sea. Here thedescent of the stream becomes comparatively gentle, not much exceedingthree feet per mile; for though the direct distance between the twolakes is less than seventy miles, and the entire fall above 600 feet, which would seem to give a descent of nine or ten feet a mile, yet, asthe course of the river throughout this part of its career is tortuousin the extreme, the fall is really not greater than above indicated. Still it is sufficient to produce as many as twenty-seven rapids, orat the rate of one to every seven miles. In this part of its coursethe Jordan receives two important tributaries, each of which seems todeserve a few words. 

The Jarmuk, or Sheriat-el-Mandhur, anciently the Hiero-max, drains thewater, not only from Gaulonitis or Jaulan, the country immediately eastand south-east of the sea of Tiberias, but also from almost the wholeof the Hauran. At its mouth it is 130 feet wide, and in the winter itbrings down a great body of water into the Jordan. In summer, however, it shrinks up into an inconsiderable brook, having no more remotesources than the perennial springs at Mazarib, Dilly, and one ortwo other places on the plateau of Jaulan. It runs through a fertilecountry, and has generally a deep course far below the surface of theplain; ere falling into the Jordan it makes its way through a wildravine, between rugged cliffs of basalt, which are in places upwards ofa hundred feet in height. 

The Zurka, or Jabbok, is a stream of the same character with theHieromax, but of inferior dimensions and importance. It drains aconsiderable portion of the land of Gilead, but has no very remotesources, and in summer only carries water through a few miles of itslower course. In winter, on the contrary, it is a roaring stream with astrong current, and sometimes cannot be forded. The ravine through whichit flows is narrow, deep, and in some places wild. Throughout nearlyits whole course it is fringed by thickets of cane and oleander, whileabove, its banks are clothed with forests of oak. 

The Jordan receives the Hieromax about four or five miles below thepoint where it issues from the Sea of Tiberias, and the Jabbok abouthalf-way between that lake and the Dead Sea. Augmented by these streams, and others of less importance from the mountains on either side, itbecomes a river of considerable size, being opposite Beth-shan (Beisan)140 feet wide, and three feet deep, and averaging, in its lower course, a width of ninety with a depth of eight or nine feet. Its entire course, from the fountain near Hasbeiya to the Dead Sea, including the passageof the two lakes through which it flows, is, if we exclude meanders, about 130, if we include them, 360 miles. It is calculated to pour intothe Dead Sea 6, 090, 000 tons of water daily. 

Besides these rivers the Babylonian territory comprised a number ofimportant lakes. Of these some of the more eastern have been describedin a former volume: as the Bahr-i-Nedjif in Lower Chaldsea, and the Lakeof Khatouniyeh in the tract between the Sinjar and the Khabour. It waschiefly, however, towards the west that sheets of water abounded: theprincipal of these were the Sabakhah, the Bahr-el-Melak, and the Lakeof Antioch in Upper Syria; the Bahr-el-Kades, or Lake of Hems, in thecentral region; and the Damascus lakes, the Lake of Merom, the Sea ofGalilee or Tiberias, and the Dead Sea, in the regions lying furthest tothe south. Of these the greater number were salt, and of little value, except as furnishing the salt of commerce; but four--the Lake ofAntioch, the Bahr-el-Kades, the Lake Merom, and the Sea of Galilee-werefresh-water basins lying upon the courses of streams which ran throughthem; and these not only diversified the scenery by their clear brightaspect, but were of considerable value to the inhabitants, as furnishingthem with many excellent sorts of fish. 

Of the salt lakes the most eastern was the Sabakhah. This is a basin oflong and narrow form, lying on and just below the 36th parallel. Itis situated on the southern route from Balis to Aleppo, and is nearlyequally distant between the two places. Its length is from twelve tothirteen miles; and its width, where it is broadest, is about fivemiles. It receives from the north the waters of the Nahr-el-Dhahab, or"Golden River" (which has by some been identified with the Daradax ofXenophon), and from the west two or three insignificant streams, whichempty themselves into its western extremity. The lake produces a largequantity of salt, especially after wet seasons, which is collected andsold by the inhabitants of the surrounding country. 

The Bahr-el-Molak, the lake which absorbs the Koweik, or river ofAleppo, is less than twenty miles distant from Lake Sabakhah, which itvery much resembles in its general character. Its ordinary length isabout nine miles, and its width three or four; but in winter it isgreatly swollen by the rains, and at that time it spreads out so widelythat its circumference sometimes exceeds fifty miles. Much salt isdrawn from its bed in the dry season, and a large part of Syria is hencesupplied with the commodity. The lake is covered with small islands, andgreatly frequented by aquatic birds-geese, ducks, flamingoes, and thelike. 

The lakes in the neighborhood of Damascus are three in number, and areall of a very similar type. They are indeterminate in size and shape, changing with the wetness or dryness of the season; and it is possiblethat sometimes they may be all united in one. The most northern, whichis called the Bahret-esh-Shurkiyeh, receives about half the surpluswater of the Barada, together with some streamlets from the outlyingranges of Antilibanus towards the north. The central one, called theBahret-el-Kibliyeh, receives the rest of the Barada water, which entersit by three or four branches on its northern and western sides. The mostsouthern, known as Bahret-Hijaneh, is the receptacle for the streamof the Awaaj, and takes also the water from the northern parts of theLedjah, or region of Argob. The three lakes are in the same line--a linewhich runs from N. N. E. To S. S. W. They are, or at least were recently, separated by tracts of dry land from two to four miles broad. Densethickets of tall reeds surround them, and in summer almost cover theirsurface. Like the Bahr-el-Melak, they are a home for water-fowl, whichflock to them in enormous numbers. 

By far the largest and most important of the salt lakes is the GreatLake of the South--the Bahr Lut ("Sea of Lot"), or Dead Sea. This sheetof water, which has always attracted the special notice and observationof travellers, has of late years been scientifically surveyed byofficers of the American navy; and its shape, its size, and even itsdepth, are thus known with accuracy. The Dead Sea is of an oblong form, and would be of a very regular contour, were it not for a remarkableprojection from its eastern shore near its southern extremity. In thisplace, a long and low peninsula, shaped like a human foot, projectsinto the lake, filling up two thirds of its width, and thus dividing theexpanse of water into two portions, which are connected by a long andsomewhat narrow passage. The entire length of the sea, from north tosouth, is 46 miles: its greatest width, between its eastern and itswestern shores, is 101 miles. The whole area is estimated at 250geographical square miles. Of this space 174 square miles belong to thenorthern portion of the lake (the true "Sea"), 29 to the narrow channel, and 46 to the southern portion, which has been called "the back-water, "or "the lagoon. "

The most remarkable difference between the two portions of the lake isthe contrast they present as to depth. While the depth of the northernportion is from 600 feet, at a short distance from the mouth of theJordan, to 800, 1000, 1200, and even 1300 feet, further down, the depthof the lagoon is nowhere more than 12 or 13 feet; and in places it isso shallow that it has been found possible, in some seasons, to ford thewhole way across from one side to the other. The peculiarities of theDead Sea, as compared with other lakes, are its depression below thesea-level, its buoyancy, and its extreme saltness. The degree of thedepression is not yet certainly known; but there is reason to believethat it is at least as much at 1300 feet, whereas no other lake is knownto be depressed more than 570 feet. The buoyancy and the saltness arenot so wholly unparalleled. The waters of Lake Urumiyeh are probablyas salt and as buoyant; those of Lake Elton in the steppe east of theWolga, and of certain other Russian lakes, appear to be even salter. Butwith these few exceptions (if they are exceptions), the Dead Sea watermust be pronounced to be the heaviest and saltest water known to us. More than one fourth of its weight is solid matter held in solution. Ofthis solid matter nearly one third is common salt, which is more thantwice as much as is contained in the waters of the ocean. 

Of the fresh-water lakes the largest and most important is the Sea ofTiberias. This sheet of water is of an oval shape, with an axis, likethat of the Dead Sea, very nearly due north and south. Its greatestlength is about thirteen and its greatest width about six miles. Itsextreme depth, so far as has been ascertained, is 27 fathoms, or 165feet. The Jordan flows into its upper end turbid and muddy, and issuesforth at its southern extremity clear and pellucid. It receives also thewaters of a considerable number of small streams and springs, some ofwhich are warm and brackish; yet its own water is always sweet, cool, and transparent, and, having everywhere a shelving pebbly beach, hasa bright sparkling appearance. The banks are lofty, and in generaldestitute of verdure. What exactly is the amount of depression below thelevel of the Mediterranean remains still, to some extent, uncertain; butit is probably not much less than 700 feet. Now, as formerly, the lakeproduces an abundance of fish, which are pronounced, by those who havepartaken of them, to be "delicious. "

Nine miles above the Sea of Tiberias, on the course of the same stream, is the far smaller basin known now as the Bahr-el Huleh, and anciently(perhaps) as Merom. This is a mountain tarn, varying in size as theseason is wet or dry, but never apparently more than about seven mileslong, by five or six broad. It is situated at the lower extremity ofthe plain called Huleh, and is almost entirely surrounded by flat marshyground, thickly set with reeds and canes, which make the lake itselfalmost unapproachable. The depth of the Huleh is not known. It is afavorite resort of aquatic birds, and is said to contain an abundantsupply of fish. 

The Bahr-el-Kades, or Lake of Hems, lies on the course of the Orontes, about 139 miles N. N. E. Of Merom, and nearly the same distance south ofthe Lake of Antioch. It is a small sheet of water, not more than sixor eight miles long, and only two or three wide, running in the samedirection with the course of the river, which here turns from north tonorth-east. According to Abulfeda and some other writers, it is mainly, if not wholly, artificial, owing its origin to a dam or embankmentacross the stream, which is from four to five hundred yards inlength, and about twelve or fourteen feet high. In Abulfeda's time theconstruction of the embankment was ascribed to Alexander the Great, andthe lake consequently was not regarded as having had any existence inBabylonian times; but traditions of this kind are little to be trusted, and it is quite possible that the work above mentioned, constructedapparently with a view to irrigation, may really belong to a very muchearlier age. 

Finally, in Northern Syria, 115 miles north of the Bahr-el-Kades, andabout 60 miles N. W. W. Of the Bahr-el-Melak, is the Bahr-el-Abyad (WhiteLake), or Sea of Antioch. [PLATE. VIII. , Fig. 1. ] This sheet of wateris a parallelogram, the angles of which face the cardinal points: in itsgreater diameter it extends somewhat more than ten miles, while itis about seven miles across. Its depth on the western side, where itapproaches the mountains, is six or eight feet; but elsewhere it isgenerally more shallow, not exceeding three or four feet. It lies in amarshy plain called El-Umk, and is thickly fringed with reeds round thewhole of its circumference. From the silence of antiquity, somewriters have imagined that it did not exist in ancient times; but theobservations of scientific travellers are opposed to this theory. Thelake abounds with fish of several kinds, and the fishery attracts andemploys a considerable number of the natives who dwell near it. 

[Illustration: PLATE VIII. ]

Besides these lakes, there were contained within the limits ofthe Empire a number of petty tarns, which do not merit particulardescription. Such were the Bahr-el-Taka, and other small lakes on theright bank of the middle Orontes, the Birket-el-Limum in theLebanon, and the Birket-er-Eam on the southern flank of Hermon. It isunnecessary, however, to pursue this subject any further. But a fewwords must be added on the chief cities of the Empire, before thischapter is brought to a conclusion. 

The cities of the Empire may be divided into those of the dominantcountry and those of the provinces. Those of the dominant countrywere, for the most part, identical with the towns already describedas belonging to the ancient Chaldaea, Besides Babylon itself, thereflourished in the Babylonian period the cities of Borsippa, Duraba, Sippara or Sepharvaim, Opis, Psittace, Cutha, Orchoe or Erech, andDiridotis or Teredon. The sites of most of those have been described inthe first volume; but it remains to state briefly the positions of somefew which were either new creations or comparatively undistinguished inthe earlier times. 

Opis, a town of sufficient magnitude to attract the attention ofHerodotus, was situated on the left or east bank of the Tigris, near thepoint where the Diyaleh or Gyndes joined the main river. Its positionwas south of the Gyndes embouchure, and it might be reckoned as lyingupon either river. The true name of the place--that which it bears inthe cuneiform inscriptions--was Hupiya; and its site is probably markedby the ruins at Khafaji, near Baghdad, which place is thought to retain, in a corrupted form, the original appellation. Psittace or Sitace, the town which gave name to the province of Sittacene, was in the nearneighborhood of Opis, lying on the same side of the Tigris, but lowerdown, at least as low as the modern fort of the Zobeid chief. Its exactsite has not been as yet discovered. Teredon, or Diriaotis, appears tohave been first founded by Nebuchadnezzar. It lay on the coast of thePersian Gulf, a little west of the mouth of the Euphrates, and protectedby a quay, or a breakwater, from the high tides that rolled in from theIndian Ocean. There is great difficulty in identifying its site, owingto the extreme uncertainty as to the exact position of the coast-line, and the course of the river, in the time of Nebuchadnezzar. Probably itshould be sought about Zobair, or a little further inland. . The chiefprovincial cities were Susa and Badaca in Susiana; Anat, Sirki, andCarchemish, on the Middle Euphrates; Sidikan on the Khabour; Harran onthe Bilik; Hamath, Damascus, and Jerusalem, in Inner Syria; Tyre, Sidon, Ashdod, Ascalon, and Gaza, upon the coast. Of these, Susa wasundoubtedly the most important; indeed, it deserves to be regardedas the second city of the Empire. Here, between the two arms of theChoaspes, on a noble and well-watered plain, backed at the distanceof twenty-five miles by a lofty mountain range, the fresh breezes fromwhich tempered the summer heats, was the ancient palace of the Kissiankings, proudly placed upon a lofty platform or mound, and commandinga wide prospect of the rich pastures at its base, which extendednorthwards to the roots of the hills, and in every other direction asfar as the eye could reach. Clustered at the foot of the palacemound, more especially on its eastern side, lay the ancient town, thefoundation of the traditional Memnon who led an army to the defenceof Troy. The pure and sparkling water of the Choaspes--a drink fit forkings--flowed near, while around grew palms, konars, and lemon-trees, the plain beyond waving with green grass and golden corn. It may besuspected that the Babylonian kings, who certainly maintained a palaceat this place, and sent high officers of their court to "do theirbusiness" there, made it their occasional residence, exchanging, in summer and early autumn, the heats and swamps of Babylon for thecomparatively dry and cool region at the base of the Lurish hills. But, however, this may have been, at any rate Susa, long the capital of akingdom little inferior to Babylon itself, must have been the first ofthe provincial cities, surpassing all the rest at once in size and inmagnificence. Among the other cities, Carchemish on the Upper Euphrates, Tyre upon the Syrian coast, and Ashdod on the borders of Egypt, heldthe highest place. Carchemish, which has been wrongly identified withCircesium, lay certainly high up the river, and most likely occupied asite some distance to the north of Balis, which is in lat. 36° nearly. It was the key of Syria on the east, commanding the ordinary passageof the Euphrates, and being the only great city in this quarter. Tyre, which had by this time surpassed its rival, Sidon, was the chief of allthe maritime towns; and its possession gave the mastery of the EasternMediterranean to the power which could acquire and maintain it. Ashdodwas the key of Syria upon the south, being a place of great strength, and commanding the coast route between Palestine and Egypt, which wasusually pursued by armies. It is scarcely too much to say that thepossession of Ashdod, Tyre, and Carchemish, involved the lordship ofSyria, which could not be permanently retained except by the occupationof those cities. 

The countries by which the Babylonian Empire was bounded were Persia onthe east, Media and her dependencies on the north, Arabia on the south, and Egypt at the extreme southwest. Directly to the west she had noneighbor, her territory being on that side washed by the Mediterranean. 

Of Persia, which must be described at length in the next volume, sinceit was the seat of Empire during the Fifth Monarchy, no more needbe said here than that it was for the most part a rugged and sterilecountry, apt to produce a brave and hardy race, but incapable ofsustaining a large population. A strong barrier separated it from thegreat Mesopotamian lowland; and the Babylonians, by occupying a feweasily defensible passes, could readily prevent a Persian army fromdebouching on their fertile plains. On the other hand, the naturalstrength of the region is so great that in the hands of brave and activemen its defence is easy; and the Babylonians were not likely, if anaggressive spirit led to their pressing eastward, to make any seriousimpression in this quarter, or ever greatly to advance their frontier. 

To Media, the power which bordered her upon the north, Babylonia, on thecontrary, lay wholly open. The Medes, possessing Assyria and Armenia, with the Upper Tigris valley, and probably the Mons Masius, could at anytime, with the greatest ease, have marched armies into the low country, and resumed the contest in which Assyria was engaged for so many hundredyears with the great people of the south. On this side nature had set noobstacles; and, if danger threatened, resistance had to be made by meansof those artificial works which are specially suited for flat countries. Long lines of wall, broad dykes, huge reservoirs, by means of whichlarge tracts may be laid under water, form the natural resort in sucha case; and to such defences as these alone, in addition to her armies, could Babylonia look in case of a quarrel with the Medes. On this side, however, she for many years felt no fear. Political arrangements andfamily ties connected her with the Median reigning house, and she lookedto her northern neighbor as an ally upon whom she might depend for aid, rather than as a rival whose ambitious designs were to be watched andbaffled. 

Babylonia lay open also on the side of Arabia. Here, however, the natureof the country is such that population must be always sparse; and thehabits of the people are opposed to that political union which can alonemake a race really formidable to others. Once only in their history, under the excitement of a religious frenzy, have the Arabs issued forthfrom the great peninsula on an errand of conquest. In general they arecontent to vex and harass without seriously alarming their neighbors. The vast space and arid character of the peninsula are adverse tothe collection and the movement of armies; the love of independencecherished by the several tribes indisposes them to union; the affectionfor the nomadic life, which is strongly felt, disinclines them tothe occupation of conquests. Arabia, as a a conterminous power, istroublesome, but rarely dangerous: one section of the nation may almostalways be played off against another: if "their hand is against everyman, " "every man's hand" is also "against them;" blood-feuds divide anddecimate their tribes, which are ever turning their swords against eachother; their neighbors generally wish them ill, and will fall upon them, if they can take them at a disadvantage; it is only under very peculiarcircumstances, such as can very rarely exist, that they are likely evento attempt anything more serious than a plundering inroad. Babyloniaconsequently, though open to attack on the side of the south as wellas on that of the north, had little to fear from either quarter. Thefriendliness of her northern neighbor, and the practical weakness of hersouthern one, were equal securities against aggression; and thus on hertwo largest and most exposed frontiers the Empire dreaded no attack. 

But it was otherwise in the far south-west. Here the Empire borderedupon Egypt, a rich and populous country, which at all times covetsSyria, and is often strong enough to seize and hold it in possession. The natural frontier is moreover weak, no other barrier separatingbetween Africa and Asia than a narrow desert, which has never yet proveda serious obstacle to an army. From the side of Egypt, if from no otherquarter, Babylonia might expect to have trouble. Here she inherited fromher predecessor, Assyria, an old hereditary feud, which might at anytime break out into active hostility. Here was an ancient, powerful, andwell-organized kingdom upon her borders, with claims upon thatportion of her territory which it was most difficult for her to defendeffectively. By seas and by land equally the strip of Syrian coast layopen to the arms of Egypt, who was free to choose her time, and pourher hosts into the country when the attention of Babylon was directedto some other quarter. The physical and political circumstances alikepointed to hostile transactions between Babylon and her south-westernneighbor. Whether destruction would come from this quarter, or from someother, it would have been impossible to predict. Perhaps, on thewhole, it may be said that Babylon might have been expected to contendsuccessfully with Egypt--that she had little to fear from Arabia--thatagainst Persia Proper it might have been anticipated that she wouldbe able to defend herself--but that she lay at the mercy of Media. TheBabylonian Empire was in truth an empire upon sufferance. From the timeof its establishment with the consent of the Medes, the Modes mightat any time have destroyed it. The dynastic tie alone prevented thisresult. When that tie was snapped, and when moreover, by the victoriesof Cyrus, Persian enterprise succeeded to the direction of Medianpower, the fate of Babylon was sealed. It was impossible for thelong straggling Empire of the south, lying chiefly in low, flat, openregions, to resist for any considerable time the great kingdom of thenorth, of the high plateau, and of the mountain-chains. 

CHAPTER II. CLIMATE AND PRODUCTIONS. 

The Babylonian Empire, lying as it did between the thirtieth andthirty-seventh parallels of north latitude, and consisting mostly ofcomparatively low countries, enjoyed a climate which was, upon thewhole, considerably warmer than that of Media, and less subject toextreme variations. In its more southern parts-Susiana, Chaldaea (orBabylonia Proper), Philistia, and Edom---the intensity of the summerheat must have been great; but the winters were mild and of shortduration. In the middle regions of Central Mesopotamia, the Euphratesvalley, the Palmyrene, Coele-Syria, Judaea, and Phoenicia, while thewinters were somewhat colder and longer, the summer warmth was moretolerable. Towards the north, along the flanks of Masius, Taurus, andAmanus, a climate more like that of eastern Media prevailed, the summersbeing little less hot than those of the middle region, while the winterswere of considerable severity. A variety of climate thus existed, but avariety within somewhat narrow limits. The region was altogether hotterand drier than is usual in the same latitude. The close proximity of thegreat Arabian desert, the small size of the adjoining seas, the want ofmountains within the region having any great elevation, and the generalabsence of timber, combined to produce an amount of heat and drynessscarcely known elsewhere outside the tropics. 

Detailed accounts of the temperature, and of the climate generally, inthe most important provinces of the Empire, Babylonia and MesopotamiaProper, have been already given, and on these points the reader isreferred to the first volume. With regard to the remaining provinces, itmay be noticed, in the first place, that the climate of Susiana differsbut very slightly from that of Babylonia, the region to which it isadjacent. The heat in summer is excessive, the thermometer, even in thehill country, at an elevation of 5000 feet, standing often at 107°Fahr. In the shade. The natives construct for themselves serdaubs, or subterranean apartments, in which they live during the day, thussomewhat reducing the temperature, but probably never bringing it muchbelow 100 degrees. They sleep at night in the open air on the flat roofsof their houses. So far as there is any difference of climate at thisseason between Susiana and Babylonia, it is in favor of the former. Theheat, though scorching, is rarely oppressive; and not unfrequently acool, invigorating breeze sets in from the mountains, which refreshesboth mind and body. The winters are exceedingly mild, snow being unknownon the plains, and rare on the mountains, except at a considerableelevation. At this time, however--from December to the end ofMarch--rain falls in tropical abundance; and occasionally there areviolent hail-storms, which inflict serious injury on the crops. Thespring-time in Susiana is delightful. Soft airs fan the cheek, ladenwith the scent of flowers; a carpet of verdure is spread over theplains; the sky is cloudless, or overspread with a thin gauzy veil; theheat of the sun is not too great; the rivers run with full banks andfill the numerous canals; the crops advance rapidly towards perfection;and on every side a rich luxuriant growth cheers the eye of thetraveller. 

On the opposite side of the Empire, in Syria and Palestine, a moister, and on the whole a cooler climate prevails. In Lebanon and Anti-Lebanonthere is a severe winter, which lasts from October to April; much snowfalls, and the thermometer often marks twenty or thirty degrees offrost. On the flanks of the mountain ranges, and in the highlands ofUpper and Coele-Syria, of Damascus, Samaria, and Judsea, the cold isconsiderably less; but there are intervals of frost; snow falls, thoughit does not often remain long upon the ground; and prolonged chillingrains make the winter and early spring unpleasant. In the low regions, on the other hand, in the _Shephelah_, the plain of Sharon, thePhoenician coast tract, the lower valley of the Orontes, and again inthe plain of Esdraelon and the remarkable depression from the Merom laketo the Dead Sea, the winters are exceedingly mild; frost and snow areunknown; the lowest temperature is produced by cold rains and fogs, which do not bring the thermometer much below 40°. During the summerthese low regions, especially the Jordan valley or Ghor, are excessivelyhot, the heat being ordinarily of that moist kind which is intolerablyoppressive. The upland plains and mountain flanks experience also ahigh temperature, but there the heat is of a drier character, and isnot greatly complained of; the nights even in summer are cold, the dewsbeing often heavy; cool winds blow occasionally, and though the sky isfor months without a cloud, the prevailing heat produces no injuriouseffects on those who are exposed to it. In Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon theheat is of course still less; refreshing breezes blow almost constantly;and the numerous streams and woods give a sense of coolness beyond themarkings of the thermometer. 

There is one evil, however, to which almost the whole Empire must havebeen subject. Alike in the east and in the west, in Syria and Palestine, no less than in Babylonia Proper and Susiana, there are times whena fierce and scorching wind prevails for days together--a wind whosebreath withers the herbage and is unspeakably depressing to man. Calledin the east the Sherghis, and in the west the Khamsin, this fierysirocco comes laden with fine particles of heated sand, which at onceraise the temperature and render the air unwholesome to breathe. InSyria these winds occur commonly in the spring, from February to April;but in Susiana and Babylonia the time for them is the height of summer. They blow from various quarters, according to the position, with respectto Arabia, occupied by the different provinces. In Palestine the worstare from the east, the direction in which the desert is nearest; inLower Babylonia they are from the south; in Susiana from the west or thenorth-west. During their continuance the air is darkened, a lurid glowis cast over the earth, the animal world pines and droops, vegetationlanguishes, and, if the traveller cannot obtain shelter, and the windcontinues, he may sink and die under its deleterious influence. 

The climate of the entire tract included within the limits of the Empirewas probably much the same in ancient times as in our own days. In thelow alluvial plains indeed near the Persian Gulf it is probable thatvegetation was anciently more abundant, the date-palm being cultivatedmuch more extensively then than at present; and so far it might appearreasonable to conclude that the climate of that region must have beenmoister and cooler than it now is. But if we may judge by Strabo'saccount of Susiana, where the climatic conditions were nearly the sameas in Babylonia, no important change can have taken place, for Strabonot only calls the climate of Susiana "fiery and scorching, " but saysthat in Susa, during the height of summer, if a lizard or a snaketried to cross the street about noon-day, he was baked to death beforeaccomplishing half the distance. Similarly on the west, though there isreason to believe that Palestine is now much more denuded of timber thanit was formerly, and its climate should therefore be both warmer anddrier, yet it has been argued with great force from the identity of themodern with the ancient vegetation, that in reality there can havebeen no considerable change. If then there has been such permanency ofclimate in the two regions where the greatest alteration seems to havetaken place in the circumstances whereby climate is usually affected, it can scarcely be thought that elsewhere any serious change has beenbrought about. 

The chief vegetable productions of Babylonia Proper in ancient timesare thus enumerated by Berosus. "The land of the Babylonians, " hesays, "produces wheat as an indigenous plant, " and has also barley, and lentils, and vetches, and sesame; the banks of the streams and themarshes supply edible roots, called gongoe, which have the tasteof barley-cakes. Palms, too, grow in the country, and apples, andfruit-trees of various kinds. Wheat, it will be observed, and barley areplaced first, since it was especially as a grain country that Babyloniawas celebrated. The testimonies of Herodotus, Theophrastus, Strabo, andPliny as to the enormous returns which the Babylonian farmers obtainedfrom their corn lands have been already cited. No such fertility isknown anywhere in modern times; and, unless the accounts are grosslyexaggerated, we must ascribe it, in part, to the extraordinary vigor ofa virgin soil, a deep and rich alluvium; in part, perhaps, to a peculiaradaptation of the soil to the wheat plant, which the providence of Godmade to grow spontaneously in this region, and nowhere else, so far aswe know, on the whole face of the earth. 

Besides wheat, it appears that barley, millet, and lentils werecultivated for food, while vetches were grown for beasts, and sesamefor the sake of the oil which can be expressed from its seed. All grewluxuriantly, and the returns of the barley in particular are stated at afabulous amount. But the production of first necessity in Babyloniawas the date-palm, which flourished in great abundance throughout theregion, and probably furnished the chief food of the greater portionof the inhabitants. The various uses to which it was applied have beenstated in the first volume, where a representation of its mode of growthhas been also given. 

In the adjoining country of Susiana, or at any rate in the alluvialportion of it, the principal products of the earth seem to have beennearly the same as in Babylonia, while the fecundity of the soil was butlittle less. Wheat and barley returned to the sower a hundred or eventwo hundred fold. The date-palm grew plentifully, more especially in thevicinity of the towns. Other trees also were common, as probably konars, acacias, and poplars, which are still found scattered in tolerableabundance over the plain country. The neighboring mountains couldfurnish good timber of various kinds; but it appears that the palm wasthe tree chiefly used for building. If we may judge the past bythe present, we may further suppose that Susiana produced fruits inabundance; for modern travellers tell us that there is not a fruit knownin Persia which does not thrive in the province of Khuzistan. 

Along the Euphrates valley to a considerable distance--at least asfar as Anah (or Hena)--the character of the country resembles that ofBabylonia and Susiana, and the products cannot have been very different. About Anah the date-palm begins to fail, and the olive first makes itsappearance. Further up a chief fruit is the mulberry. Still higher, innorthern Mesopotamia, the mulberry is comparatively rare, but itsplace is supplied by the walnut, the vine, and the pistachio-nut. This district produces also good crops of grain, and grows oranges, pomegranates, and the commoner kinds of fruit abundantly. 

Across the Euphrates, in Northern Syria, the country is less suited forgrain crops; but trees and shrubs of all kinds grow luxuriantly, thepasture is excellent, and much of the land is well adapted for thegrowth of cotton. The Assyrian kings cut timber frequently in thistract; and here are found at the present day enormous planes, thickforests of oak, pine, and ilex, walnuts, willows, poplars, ash-trees, birches, larches, and the carob or locust tree. Among wild shrubs arethe oleander with its ruddy blossoms, the myrtle, the bay, the arbutus, the clematis, the juniper, and the honeysuckle; among cultivatedfruit-trees, the orange, the pomegranate, the pistachio-nut, thevine, the mulberry, and the olive. The adis, an excellent pea, and theLycoperdon, or wild potato, grow in the neighborhood of Aleppo. Thecastor-oil plant is cultivated in the plain of Edlib. Melons, cucumbers, and most of the ordinary vegetables are produced in abundance and ofgood quality everywhere. 

In Southern Syria and Palestine most of the same forms of vegetationoccur, with several others of quite a new character. These are dueeither to the change of latitude, or to the tropical heat of theJordan and Dead Sea valley, or finally to the high elevation of Hermon, Lebanon, and Anti-Lebanon. The date-palm fringes the Syrian shore ashigh as Beyrut, and formerly flourished in the Jordan valley, where, however, it is not now seen, except in a few dwarfed specimens near theTiberias lake. The banana accompanies the date along the coast, andeven grows as far north as Tripoli. The prickly pear, introduced fromAmerica, has completely neutralized itself, and is in general requestfor hedging. The fig mulberry (or true sycamore), another southern form, is also common, and grows to a considerable size. Other denizens ofwarm climes, unknown in Northern Syria, are the jujube, the tamarisk, theelasagnus or wild olive, the gum-styrax plant (_Styrax officinalis_), the egg-plant, the Egyptian papyrus, the sugar-cane, the scarletmisletoe, the solanum that produces the "Dead Sea apple" (_SolanumSodomceum_), the yellow-flowered acacia, and the liquorice plant. Amongthe forms due to high elevation are the famous Lebanon cedar, severaloaks and juniper, the maple, berberry, jessamine, ivy, butcher's broom, a rhododendron, and the gum-tragacanth plant. The fruits additional tothose of the north are dates, lemons, almonds, shaddocks, and limes. 

The chief mineral products of the Empire seem to have been bitumen, withits concomitants, naphtha and petroleum, salt, sulphur, nitre, copper, iron, perhaps silver, and several sorts of precious stones. Bitumen wasfurnished in great abundance by the springs at Hit or Is, which werecelebrated in the days of Herodotus; it was also procured from Ardericca(Kir-Ab), and probably from Earn Ormuz, in Susiana, and likewise fromthe Dead Sea. Salt was obtainable from the various lakes which had nooutlet, as especially from the Sabakhab, the Bahr-el-Melak, the DeadSea, and a small lake near Tadmor or Palmyra. The Dead Sea gave alsomost probably both sulphur and nitre, but the latter only in smallquantities. Copper and iron seem to have been yielded by the hills ofPalestine. Silver was perhaps a product of the Anti-Lebanon. 

It may be doubted whether any gems were really found in Babyloniaitself, which, being purely alluvial, possesses no stone of any kind. Most likely the sorts known as Babylonian came from the neighboringSusiana, whose unexplored mountains may possess many rich treasures. According to Dionysius, the bed of the Choaspes produced numerousagates, and it may well be that from the same quarter came that "berylmore precious than gold, " and those "highly reputed sard, " which Babylonseems to have exported to other countries. The western provinces may, however, very probably have furnished the gems which are ascribedto them, as amethysts, which are said to have been found in theneighborhood of Petra, alabaster, which came from near Damascus, and thecyanus, a kind of lapis-lazuli, which was a production of Phoenicia. Nodoubt the Babylonian love of gems caused the provinces to be carefullysearched for stones; and it is not improbable that they yielded besidesthe varieties already named, and the other unknown kinds mentioned byPliny, many, if not most, of the materials which we find to havebeen used for seals by the ancient people. These are, cornelian, rock-crystal, chalcedony, onyx, jasper, quartz, serpentine, sienite, haematite, green felspar, pyrites, loadstone, and amazon-stone. 

Stone for building was absent from Babylonia Proper and the alluvialtracts of Susiana, but in the other provinces it abounded. The Euphratesvalley could furnish stone at almost any point above Hit; the mountainregions of Susiana could supply it in whatever quantity might berequired; and in the western provinces it was only too plentiful. Nearto Babylonia the most common kind was limestone; but about Had-disah onthe Euphrates there was also a gritty, silicious rock alternating withiron-stone, and in the Arabian Desert were sandstone and granite. Suchstone as was used in Babylon itself, and in the other cities of thelow country, probably either came down the Euphrates, or was broughtby canals from the adjacent part of Arabia. The quantity, however, thusconsumed was small, the Babylonians being content for most uses withthe brick, of which their own territory gave them a supply practicallyinexhaustible. 

The principal wild animals known to have inhabited the Empire in ancienttimes are the following: the lion, the panther or large leopard, thehunting leopard, the bear, the hyena, the wild ox, the buffalo (?), thewild ass, the stag, the antelope, the ibex or wild goat, the wild sheep, the wild boar, the wolf, the jackal, the fox, the hare, and the rabbit. Of these, the lion, leopard, bear, stag, wolf, jackal, and fox seem tohave been very widely diffused, while the remainder were rarer, and, generally speaking, confined to certain localities. The wild ass wasmet with only in the dry parts of Mesopotamia, and perhaps of Syria, thebuffalo and wild boar only in moist regions, along the banks of riversor among marshes. The wild ox was altogether scarce; the wild sheep, therabbit, and the hare, were probably not common. 

To this list may be added as present denizens of the region, andtherefore probably belonging to it in ancient times, the lynx, thewildcat, the ratel, the sable, the genet, the badger, the otter, thebeaver, the polecat, the jerboa, the rat, the mouse, the marmot, the porcupine, the squirrel, and perhaps the alligator. Of these thecommonest at the present day are porcupines, badgers, otters, rats, mice, and jerboas. The ratel, sable, and genet belong only to the north;the beaver is found nowhere but in the Khabour and middle Euphrates;the alligator, if a denizen of the region at all exists only in theEuphrates. 

The chief birds of the region are eagles, vultures, falcons, owls, hawks, many kinds of crows, magpies, jackdaws, thrushes, blackbirds, nightingales, larks, sparrows, goldfinches, swallows, doves of fourteenkinds, francolins, rock partridges, gray partridges, black partridges, quails, pheasants, capercailzies, bustards, flamingoes, pelicans, cormorants, storks, herons, cranes, wild-geese, ducks, teal, kingfishers, snipes, woodcocks, the sand-grouse, the hoopoe, the greenparrot, the becafico, the locust-bird, the humming-bird (?), andthe bee-eater. The eagle, pheasant, capercailzie, quail, parrot, locust-bird, becafico, and humming-bird are rare; the remainder are alltolerably common. Besides these, we know that in ancient times ostricheswore found within the limits of the Empire, though now they haveretreated further south into the Great Desert of Arabia. Perhapsbitterns may also formerly have frequented some of the countriesbelonging to it, though they are not mentioned among the birds of theregion by modern writers. 

There is a bird of the heron species, or rather of a species betweenthe heron and the stork, which seems to deserve a few words of specialdescription. It is found chiefly in Northern Syria, in the plain ofAleppo and the districts watered by the Koweik and Sajur rivers. TheArabs call it Tair-el-Raouf, or "the magnificent. " This bird is of agrayish-white, the breast white, the joints of the wings tipped withscarlet, and the under part of the beak scarlet, the upper part being ofa blackish-gray. The beak is nearly five inches long, and two thirds ofan inch thick. The circumference of the eye is red; the feet are of adeep yellow; and the bird in its general form strongly resembles thestork; but its color is darker. It is four feet high, and covers abreadth of nine feet when the wings are spread. The birds of thisspecies are wont to collect in large flocks on the North Syrian rivers, and to arrange themselves in several rows across the streams where theyare shallowest. Here they squat side by side, as close to one another aspossible, and spread out their tails against the current, thus forming atemporary dam. The water drains off below them, and when it has reachedits lowest point, at a signal from one of their number who from the bankwatches the proceedings, they rise and swoop upon the fish, frogs, etc. , which the lowering of the water has exposed to view. 

Fish are abundant in the Chaldaean marshes, and in almost all thefresh-water lakes and rivers. [PLATE. VIII. , Fig. ] The Tigris andEuphrates yield chiefly barbel and carp; but the former stream has alsoeels, trout, chub, shad-fish, siluruses, and many kinds which haveno English names. The Koweik contains the Aleppo eel (_Ophidiummasbacambahis_), a very rare variety; and in other streams ofNorthern Syria are found lampreys, bream, dace, and the black-fish(_Macroptero-notus niger_), besides carp, trout, chub, and barbel. Chub, bream, and the silurus are taken in the Sea of Galilee. The black-fishis extremely abundant in the Bahr-el-Taka and the Lake of Antioch. 

Among reptiles may be noticed, besides snakes, lizards, and frogs, whichare numerous, the following less common species--iguanoes, tortoises oftwo kinds, chameleons, and monitors. Bats also were common in BabyloniaProper, where they grew to a great size. Of insects the most remarkableare scorpions, tarantulas, and locusts. These last come suddenly incountless myriads with the wind, and, settling on the crops, rapidlydestroy all the hopes of the husbandman, after which they stripthe shrubs and trees of their leaves, reducing rich districts in anincredibly short space of time to the condition of howling wildernesses. [PLATE. VIII. , Fig. 3. ] If it were not for the locust-bird, which isconstantly keeping down their numbers, these destructive insects wouldprobably increase so as to ruin utterly the various regions exposed totheir ravages. 

The domestic animals employed in the countries which composed the Empirewere, camels, horses, mules, asses, buffaloes, cows and oxen, goats, sheep, and dogs. Mules as well as horses seem to have been ancientlyused in war by the people of the more southern regions-by the Susianiansat any rate, if not also by the Babylonians. Sometimes they were ridden;sometimes they were employed to draw carts or chariots. They werespirited and active animals, evidently of a fine breed, such as that forwhich Khuzistan is famous at the present day. [PLATE. VIII. , Fig. 4. ]The asses from which these mules were produced must also have been ofsuperior quality, like the breed for which Baghdad is even now famous, The Babylonian horses are not likely to have been nearly so good; forthis animal does not flourish in a climate which is at once moist andhot. Still, at any rate under the Persians, Babylonia seems to have beena great breeding-place for horses, since the stud of a single satrapconsisted of 800 stallions and 16, 000 mares. If we may judge of thecharacter of Babylonian from that of Susianian steeds, we may considerthe breed to have, been strong and large limbed, but not very handsome, the head being too large and the legs too short for beauty. [PLATE IX. , Fig. 1. ]

[Illustration: PLATE IX. ]

The Babylonians were also from very early times famous for theirbreed of dogs. The tablet engraved in a former volume, which gives arepresentation of a Babylonian hound, is probably of a high antiquity, not later than the period or the Empire. Dogs are also not unfrequentlyrepresented on ancient Babylonian stones and cylinders. It would seemthat, as in Assyria, there were two principal breeds, one somewhatclumsy and heavy, of a character not unlike that of our mastiff, theother of a much lighter make, nearly resembling our greyhound. Theformer kind is probably the breed known as Indian, which was kept upby continual importations from the country whence it was originallyderived. [PLATE. IX. , Fig. 2. ]

We have no evidence that camels were employed in the time of theEmpire, either by the Babylonians themselves or by their neighbors, theSusianians; but in Upper Mesopotamia, in Syria, and in Palestinethey had been in use from a very early date. The Amalekitos and theMidianites found them serviceable in war; and the latter people employedthem also as beasts of burden in their caravan trade. The Syrians ofUpper Mesopotamia rode upon them in their journeys. It appears thatthey were also sometimes yoked to chariots, though from their size andclumsiness they would be but ill fitted for beasts of draught. 

Buffaloes were, it is probable, domesticated by the Babylonians at anearly date. The animal seems to have been indigenous in the country, andit is far better suited for the marshy regions of Lower Babylonia andSusiana than cattle of the ordinary kind. It is perhaps a buffalo whichis represented on an ancient tablet already referred to, where a lionis disturbed in the middle of his feast off a prostrate animal by a manarmed with a hatchet. Cows and oxen, however, of the common kind areoccasionally represented on the cylinders [PLATE IX. , Fig. 4. ], wherethey seem sometimes to represent animals about to be offered to thegods. Goats also appear frequently in this capacity; and they wereprobably more common than sheep, at any rate in the more southerndistricts. Of Babylonian sheep we have no representations at all on themonuments; but it is scarcely likely that a country which used wool solargely was content to be without them. At any rate they abounded in theprovinces, forming the chief wealth of the more northern nations. 

CHAPTEE III. THE PEOPLE. 

"The Chaldaeans, that bitter and hasty nation. "--Habak. 1. 6. 

The Babylonians, who, under Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar, held thesecond place among the nations of the East, were emphatically a mixedrace. The ancient people from whom they were in the main descended--theChaldaeans of the First Empire--possessed this character to aconsiderable extent, since they united Cusbite with Turanian blood, andcontained moreover a slight Semitic and probably a slight Arian element. But the Babylonians of later times--the Chaldaeans of the Hebrewprophets--must have been very much more a mixed race than their earliernamesakes--partly in consequence of the policy of colonization pursuedsystematically by the later Assyrian kings, partly from the directinfluence exerted upon them by conquerors. Whatever may have been thecase with the Arab dynasty, which bore sway in the country from aboutB. C. 1546 till B. C. 1300, it is certain that the Assyrians conqueredBabylon about B. C. 1300, and almost certain that they establishedan Assyrian family upon the throne of Nimrod, which held for someconsiderable time the actual sovereignty of the country. It was naturalthat under a dynasty of Semites, Semitic blood should flow freely intothe lower region, Semitic usages and modes of thought become prevalent, and the spoken language of the country pass from a Turanian orTurano-Cushite to a Semitic type. The previous Chaldaean race blended, apparently, with the new comers, and people was produced in which thethree elements--the Semitic, the Turanian, and the Cushite--held aboutequal shares. The colonization of the Sargonid kings added probablyother elements in small proportions, and the result was that amongall the nations inhabiting Western Asia there can have been none sothoroughly deserving the title of a "mingled people" as the Babyloniansof the later Empire. 

In mixtures of this kind it is almost always found that some one elementpractically preponderates, and assumes to itself the right of fashioningand forming the general character of the race. It is not at allnecessary that this formative element should be larger than any other;on the contrary, it may be and sometimes is extremely small; for it doesnot work by its mass, but by its innate force and strong vital energy. In Babylonia, the element which showed itself to possess this superiorvitality, which practically asserted its pre-eminence and proceeded tomold the national character, was the Semitic. There is abundantevidence that by the time of the later Empire the Babylonians had becomethoroughly Semitized; so much so, that ordinary observers scarcelydistinguished them from their purely Semitic neighbors, the Assyrians. No doubt there were differences which a Hippocrates or an Aristotlecould have detected--differences resulting from mixed descent, aswell as differences arising from climate and physical geography; but, speaking broadly, it must be said that the Semitic element, introducedinto Babylonia from the north, had so prevailed by the time of theestablishment of the Empire that the race was no longer one sui generis, but was a mere variety of the well-known and widely spread Semitic type. 

We possess but few notices, and fewer assured representations, fromwhich to form an opinion of the physical characteristics of theBabylonians. Except upon the cylinders, there are extant only three orfour representations of the human forms by Babylonian artists, andin the few cases where this form occurs we cannot always feel at allcertain that the intention is to portray a human being. A few Assyrianbas-reliefs probably represent campaigns in Babylonia; but the Assyriansvary their human type so little that these sculptures must not beregarded as conveying to us very exact information. Tho cylinders aretoo rudely executed to be of much service, and they seem to preservean archaic type which originated with the Proto-Chaldaeans. If we mighttrust the figures upon them as at all nearly representing the truth, we should have to regard the Babylonians as of much slighter and sparerframes than their northern neighbors, of a physique in fact approachingto meagreness. The Assyrian sculptures, however, are far frombearing out this idea; from them it would seem that the frames ofthe Babylonians were as brawny and massive as those of the Assyriansthemselves, while in feature there was not much difference between thenations. [PLATE IX. , Fig. 3. ] Foreheads straight but not high, noseswell formed but somewhat depressed, full lips, and a well-marked roundedchin, constitute the physiognomy of the Babylonians as it appearsupon the sculptures of their neighbors. This representation isnot contradicted by the few specimens of actual sculpture left bythemselves. In these the type approaches nearly to the Assyrian, whilethere is still, such an amount of difference as renders it tolerablyeasy to distinguish between the productions of the two nations. The eyeis larger, and not so decidedly almond-shaped; the nose is shorter, andits depression is still more marked; while the general expression of thecountenance is altogether more commonplace. 

These differences may be probably referred to the influence whichwas exercised upon the physical form of the race by the primitiveor Proto-Chaldaean element, an influence which appears to havebeen considerable. This element, as has been already observed, waspredominantly Cushite; and there is reason to believe that the Cushiterace was connected not very remotely with the negro. In Susiana, wherethe Cushite blood was maintained in tolerable purity--Elymseans andKissians existing side by side, instead of blending together--there was, if we may trust the Assyrian remains, a very decided prevalency of anegro type of countenance, as the accompanying specimens, carefullycopied from the sculptures, will render evident. [PLATE IX. , Fig. 6. ]The head was covered with short crisp curls; the eye was large, the noseand mouth nearly in the same line, the lips thick. Such a physiognomyas the Babylonian appears to have been would naturally arise from anintermixture of a race like the Assyrian with one resembling that whichthe later sculptures represent as the main race inhabiting Susiana. 

Herodotus remarks that the Babylonians wore their hair long; and thisremark is confirmed to some extent by the native remains. These ingeneral represent the hair as forming a single stiff and heavy curl atthe back of the head (No. 3). Sometimes, however, they make it take theshape of long flowing locks, which depend over the back (No. 1), orover the back and shoulders (No. 4), reaching nearly to the waist. Occasionally, in lieu of these commoner types, wo have one which closelyresembles the Assyrian, the hair forming a round mass behind the head(No. 2), on which we can sometimes trace indications of a slight wave. [PLATE X. , Fig. 1. ] The national fashion, that to which Herodotusalludes, seems to be represented by the three commoner modes. Wherethe round mass is worn, we have probably an Assyrian fashion, which theBabylonians aped during the time of that people's pre-eminence. 

[Illustration: PLATE X. ]

Besides their flowing hair, the Babylonians are represented frequentlywith a large beard. This is generally longer than the Assyrian, descending nearly to the waist. Sometimes it curls crisply upon theface, but below the chin depends over the breast in long, straightlocks. At other times it droops perpendicularly from the cheeks and theunder lip. 15 Frequently, however, the beard is shaven off, and the wholeface is smooth and hairless. 

The Chaldaean females, as represented by the Assyrians, are talland large-limbed. Their physiognomy is Assyrian, their hair not veryabundant. The Babylonian cylinders, on the other hand, make the hairlong and conspicuous, while the forms are quite as spare and meagre asthose of the men. 

On the whole, it is most probable that the physical type of the laterBabylonians was nearly that of their northern neighbors. A somewhatsparer form, longer and more flowing hair, and features less sternand strong, may perhaps have characterized them. They were also, itis probable, of a darker complexion than the Assyrians, being to someextent Ethiopians by descent, and inhabiting a region which lies fourdegrees nearer to the tropics than Assyria. The Cha'ab Arabs, thepresent possessors of the more southern parts of Babylonia, are nearlyblack; and the "black Syrians, " of whom Strabo speaks, seem intended torepresent the Babylonians. 

Among the moral and mental characteristics of the people, the firstplace is due to their intellectual ability. Inheriting a legacyof scientific knowledge, astronomical and arithmetical, from theProto-Chaldaeans, they seem to have not only maintained but considerablyadvanced these sciences by their own efforts. Their "wisdom andlearning" are celebrated by the Jewish prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, andDaniel; the Father of History records their valuable inventions; and anAristotle was not ashamed to be beholden to them for scientific data. They were good observers of astronomical phenomena, careful recorders ofsuch observations, and mathematicians of no small repute. Unfortunately, they mixed with their really scientific studies those occult pursuitswhich, in ages and countries where the limits of true science are notknown, are always apt to seduce students from the right path, havingattractions against which few men are proof, so long as it is believedthat they can really accomplish the end that they propose to themselves. The Babylonians were astrologers no less than astronomers; theyprofessed to cast nativities, to expound dreams, and to foretell eventsby means of the stars; and though there were always a certain numberwho kept within the legitimate bounds of science, and repudiated theastrological pretensions of their brethren, yet on the whole it mustbe allowed that their astronomy was fatally tinged with a mystic andunscientific element. 

In close connection with the intellectual ability of the Babylonianswas the spirit of enterprise which led them to engage in traffic andto adventure themselves upon the ocean in ships. In a future chapterwe shall have to consider the extent and probable direction of thiscommerce. It is sufficient to observe in the present place that the sameturn of mind which made the Phoenicians anciently the great carriersbetween the East and West, and which in modern times has renderedthe Jews so successful in various branches of trade, seems to havecharacterized the Semitized Babylonians, whose land was emphatically "aland of traffic, " and their chief city "a city of merchants. "

The trading spirit which was thus strongly developed in the Babylonianpeople led naturally to the two somewhat opposite vices of avarice andover-luxuriousness. Not content with honorable gains, the Babylonians"coveted an evil covetousness, " as we learn both from Habakkuk andJeremiah. The "shameful custom" mentioned by Herodotus, which requiredas a religious duty that every Babylonian woman, rich or poor, highbornor humble, should once in her life prostitute herself in the temple ofBeltis, was probably based on the desire of attracting strangers tothe capital, who would either bring with them valuable commoditiesor purchase the productions of the country. The public auction ofmarriageable virgins had most likely a similar intention. If we maybelieve Curtius, strangers might at any time purchase the gratificationof any passion they might feel, from the avarice of parents or husbands. 

The luxury of the Babylonians is a constant theme with both sacredand profane writers. The "daughter of the Chaldaeans" was "tender anddelicate, " "given to pleasures, " apt to "dwell carelessly. " Her youngmen made themselves "as princes to look at--exceeding in dyed attireupon their heads, "--painting their faces, wearing earrings, and clothingthemselves in robes of soft and rich material. Extensive polygamyprevailed. The pleasures of the table were carried to excess. Drunkenness was common. Rich unguents were invented. The tables groanedunder the weight of gold and silver plate. In every possible waythe Babylonians practised luxuriousness of living, and in respect ofsoftness and self-indulgence they certainly did not fall short of anynation of antiquity. 

There was, however, a harder and sterner side to the Babyloniancharacter. Despite their love of luxury, they were at all times braveand skilful in war; and, during the period of their greatest strength, they were one of the most formidable of all the nations of the East. Habakkuk describes them, drawing evidently from the life, as "bitter andhasty, " and again as "terrible and dreadful--their horses' hoofs swifterthan the leopard's, and more fierce than the evening wolves. " Hence they"smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke"--they "made theearth to tremble, and did shake kingdoms"--they carried all before themin their great enterprises, seldom allowing themselves to be foiled byresistance, or turned from their course by pity. Exercised for centuriesin long and fierce wars with the well-armed and well-disciplinedAssyrians, they were no sooner quit of this enemy, and able to take anaggressive attitude, than they showed themselves no unworthy successorsof that long-dominant nation, so far as energy, valor, and militaryskill constitute desert. They carried their victorious arms from theshores of the Persian Gulf to the banks of the Nile; wherever they went, they rapidly established their power, crushing all resistance, and fullymeriting the remarkable title, which they seem to have received fromthose who had felt their attacks, of "the hammer of the whole earth. "

The military successes of the Babylonians were accompanied with needlessviolence, and with outrages not unusual in the East, which thehistorian must nevertheless regard as at once crimes and follies. Thetransplantation of conquered races--a part of the policy of Assyriawhich the Chaldaeans adopted--may perhaps have been morally defensible, notwithstanding the sufferings which it involved. But the mutilations ofprisoners, the weary imprisonments, the massacre of non-combatants, therefinement of cruelty shown in the execution of children before the eyesof their fathers--these and similar atrocities, which are recorded ofthe Babylonians, are wholly without excuse, since they did not so muchterrify as exasperate the conquered nations, and thus rather endangeredthan added strength or security to the empire. A savage and inhumantemper is betrayed by these harsh punishments--a temper common inAsiatics, but none the less reprehensible on that account--one that ledits possessors to sacrifice interest to vengeance, and the peace ofa kingdom to a tiger-like thirst for blood. Nor was this cruel tempershown only towards the subject nations and captives taken in war. Babylonian nobles trembled for their heads if they incurred by a slightfault the displeasure of the monarch; and even the most powerful classin the kingdom, the learned and venerable "Chaldaeans, " ran on oneoccasion the risk of being exterminated, because they could not expounda dream which the king had forgotten. If a monarch displeased his court, and was regarded as having a bad disposition, it was not thought enoughsimply to make away with him, but he was put to death by torture. Amongrecognized punishments were cutting to pieces and casting into aheated furnace. The houses of offenders were pulled down and made intodunghills. These practices imply a "violence" and cruelty beyond theordinary Oriental limit; and we cannot be surprised that when finaljudgment was denounced against Babylon, it was declared to be sent, ina great measure, "because of men's blood, and for the violence of theland-of the city, and all that dwelt therein. "

It is scarcely necessary to add that the Babylonians were a proudpeople. Pride is unfortunately the invariable accompaniment of success, in the nation, if not in the individual; and the sudden elevation ofBabylon from a subject to a dominant power must have been peculiarlytrying, more especially to the Oriental temperament. The spirit whichculminated in Nebuchadnezzar, when, walking in the palace of hiskingdom, and surveying the magnificent buildings which he had raided onevery side from the plunder of the conquered nations, and by the laborof their captive bands, he exclaimed, "Is not the great Babylon whichI have built by the might of my power and for the honor of mymajesty?"--was rife in the people generally, who, naturally enough, believed themselves superior to every other nation upon the earth. "I am, and there is none else beside me, " was the thought, if notthe speech, of the people, whose arrogancy was perhaps somewhat lessoffensive than that of the Assyrians, but was quite as intense and asdeep-seated. 

The Babylonians, notwithstanding their pride, their cruelty, theircovetousness, and their love of luxury, must be pronounced to have been, according to their lights, a religious people. The temple inBabylonia is not a mere adjunct of the palace, but has almost the samepre-eminence over other buildings which it claims in Egypt. The vastmass of the Birs-i-Nimrud is sufficient to show that an enormous amountof labor was expended in the erection of sacred edifices; and the costlyornamentation lavished on such buildings is, as we shall hereafter find, even more remarkable than their size. Vast sums wore also expended onimages of the gods, necessary adjuncts of the religion; and the wholeparaphernalia of worship exhibited a rare splendor and magnificence. Themonarchs were devout worshippers of the various deities, and gave muchof their attention to the building and repair of temples, the erectionof images, and the like. They bestowed on their children namesindicative of religious feeling, and implying real faith in the powerof the gods to protect their votaries. The people generally affectedsimilar names--names containing, in almost every case, a god's nameas one of their elements. The seals or signets which formed almost anecessary part of each man's costume were, except in rare instances, ofa religious character. Even in banquets, where we might have expectedthat thoughts of religion would be laid aside, it seems to have been thepractice during the drinking to rehearse the praises of the deities. 

We are told by Nicolas of Damascus that the Babylonians cultivated twovirtues especially, honesty and calmness. Honesty is the natural, almostthe necessary virtue of traders, who soon find that it is the bestpolicy to be fair and just in their dealings. We may well believe thatthis intelligent people had the wisdom to see their true interests, and to understand that trade can never prosper unless conducted withintegrity and straightforwardness. The very fact that their trade didprosper, that their goods were everywhere in request, is sufficientproof of their commercial honesty, and of their superiority to thosetricks which speedily ruin a commerce. 

Calmness is not a common Oriental virtue. It is not even in generalvery highly appreciated, being apt to strike the lively, sensitive, andpassionate Eastern as mere dulness and apathy. In China, however, itis a point of honor that the outward demeanor should be calm and placidunder any amount of provocation; and indignation, fierceness, evenhaste, are regarded as signs of incomplete civilization, which thedisciples of Confucius love to note in their would-be rivals of theWest. 

We may conceive that some similar notion was entertained by the proudBabylonians, who no doubt regarded themselves as infinitely superiorin manners and culture, no less than in scientific attainments, to the"barbarians" of Persia and Greece. While rage boiled in their hearts, and commands to torture and destroy fell from their tongues, etiquettemay have required that the countenance should be unmoved, the eyeserene, the voice low and gentle. Such contrasts are not uncommonlyseen in the polite Mandarin, whose apparent calmness drives his Europeanantagonist to despair; and it may well be that the Babylonians of thesixth and seventh centuries before our era had attained to an equalpower of restraining the expression of feeling. But real gentleness, meekness, and placability were certainly not the attributes of a peoplewho were so fierce in their wars and so cruel in their punishments. 

CHAPTEE IV. THE CAPITAL. 

Babylon, the capital of the Fourth Monarchy, was probably the largestand most magnificent city of the ancient world. A dim tradition currentin the East gave, it is true, a greater extent, if not a greatersplendor, to the metropolis of Assyria; but this tradition first appearsin ages subsequent to the complete destruction of the more northerncity; and it is contradicted by the testimony of facts. The walls ofNineveh have been completely traced, and indicate a city three miles inlength, by less than a mile and a half in breadth, containing an area ofabout 1800 English acres. Of this area less than one tenth is occupiedby ruins of any pretension. On the admitted site of Babylon strikingmasses of ruin cover a space considerably larger than that which atNineveh constitutes the whole area of the town. Beyond this spacein every direction, north, east, south and west, are detached moundsindicating the former existence of edifices of some size, while theintermediate ground between these mounds and the main ruins showsdistinct traces of its having been built upon in former days. 

Of the actual size of the town, modern research gives us no clear anddefinite notion. One explorer only has come away from the country withan idea that the general position of the detached mounds, by which theplain around Hillah is dotted, enables him to draw the lines of theancient walls, and mark out the exact position of the city. But the verymaps and plans which are put forward in support of this view show thatit rests mainly on hypothesis; nor is complete confidence placed in thesurveys on which the maps and plans have been constructed. The Englishsurveys, which have been unfortunately lost, are said not to have placedthe detached mounds in any such decided lines as M. Oppert believes themto occupy, and the general impression of the British officers who wereemployed on the service is that "no vestige of the walls of Babylon hasbeen as yet discovered. " [PLATE XI. ]

[Illustration: PLATE XI. ]

For the size and plan of the city we are thus of necessity thrown backupon the reports of ancient authors. It is not pretended that suchreports are in this, or in any other case, deserving of implicitcredence. The ancient historians, even the more trustworthy of them, arein the habit of exaggerating in their numbers; and on such subjects asmeasurements they were apt to take on trust the declarations of theirnative guides, who would be sure to make over-statements. Still inthis instance we have so many distinct authorities--eyewitnesses of thefacts--and some of them belonging to times when scientific accuracy hadbegun to be appreciated, that we must be very in credulous if we do notaccept their witness, so far as it is consentient, and not intrinsicallyvery improbable. 

According to Herodotus, an eye-witness, and the earliest authority onthe subject the _enceinte_ of Babylon was a square, 120 stades (about 14miles) each way--the entire circuit of the wall being thus 56 miles, andthe area enclosed within them falling little short of 200 square miles. Ctesias, also an eyewitness, and the next writer on the subject, reducedthe circuit of the walls to 360 stades, or 41 miles, and made the areaconsequently little more than 100 square miles. These two estimates arerespectively the greatest and the least that have come down to us. Thehistorians of Alexander, while conforming nearly to the statements ofCtesias, a little enlarge his dimensions, making the circuit 365, 368, or 385 stades. The differences here are inconsiderable; and it seems tobe established, on a weight of testimony which we rarely possess in sucha matter, that the walls of this great town were about forty miles incircumference, and enclosed an area as large as that of the Landgraviatof Hesse-Homburg. 

It is difficult to suppose that the real city--the streets andsquares--can at any time have occupied one half of this enormous area, A clear space, we are told, was left for a considerable distance insidethe wall--like the _pomaerium_ of the Romans--upon which no houseswere allowed to be built. When houses began, they were far from beingcontinuous; gardens, orchards, even fields, were interspersed amongthe buildings; and it was supposed that the inhabitants, when besieged, could grow sufficient corn for their own consumption within the walls. Still the whole area was laid out with straight streets, or perhaps oneshould say with roads (for the houses cannot have been continuousalong them), which cut one another everywhere at right angles, like thestreets of some German towns. The wall of the town was pierced with ahundred gates, twenty-five (we may suppose) in each face, and the roadsled straight to these portals, the whole area being thus cut up intosquare blocks. The houses were in general lofty, being three or evenfour stories high. They are said to have had vaulted roofs, which werenot protected externally with any tiling, since the climate was so dryas to render such a protection unnecessary. The beams used in the houseswere of palm-wood, all other timber being scarce in the country; andsuch pillars as the houses could boast were of the same material. Theconstruction of these last was very rude. Around posts of palm-woodwere twisted wisps of rushes, which were covered with plaster, and thencolored according the taste of the owner. 

The Euphrates ran through the town, dividing it nearly in half. Itsbanks were lined throughout with quays of brick laid in bitumen, andwere further guarded by two walls of brick, which skirted them alongtheir whole length. In each of these walls were twenty-five gates, corresponding to the number of the streets which gave upon the river;and outside each gate was a sloped landing place, by which you coulddescend to the water's edge, if you had occasion to cross the river. Boats were kept ready at these landing-places to convey passengers fromside to side; while for those who disliked this method of conveyancea bridge was provided of a somewhat peculiar construction. A numberof stone piers were erected in the bed of the stream, firmly clampedtogether with fastenings of iron and lead; wooden drawbridges connectedpier with pier during the day, and on these passengers passed over; butat night they were withdrawn, in order that the bridge might not be usedduring the dark. Diodorus declares that besides this bridge, to which heassigns a length of five stades (about 1000 yards) and a breadth of 30feet, the two sides of the river were joined together by a tunnel, whichwas fifteen feet wide and twelve high to the spring of its arched roof. 

The most remarkable buildings which the city contained were the twopalaces, one on either side of the river, and the great temple ofBelus. Herodotus describes the great temple as contained within a squareenclosure, two stades (nearly a quarter of a mile) both in length andbreadth. Its chief feature was the _ziggurat_ or tower, a huge solidmass of brick-work, built (like all Babylonian temple-towers) in stages, square being emplaced on square, and a sort of rude pyramid being thusformed, at the top of which was the main shrine of the god. The basementplatform of the Belus tower was, Herodotus tells us, a stade, or rathermore than 200 yards, each way. The number of stages was eight. Theascent to the highest stage, which contained the shrine of the god, wason the outside, and consisted either of steps, or of an inclined plane, carried round the four sides of the building, and in this way conductingto the top. According to Strabo the tower was a stado (606 feet 9inches) in height; but this estimate, if it is anything more than aconjecture, must represent rather the length of the winding ascent thanthe real altitude of the building. The great pyramid itself was only 480feet high; and it is very questionable whether any Babylonian buildingever equalled it. About half-way up the ascent was a resting-place withseats, where persons commonly sat a while on their way to the summit. The shrine which crowned the edifice was large and rich. In the timeof Herodotus it contained no image; but only a golden table and a largecouch, covered with a handsome drapery. This, however, was after thePersian conquest and the plunder of its principal treasures. Previously, if we may believe Diodorus, the shrine was occupied by three colossalimages of gold--one of Bel, one of Beltis, and the third of Rhea orIshtar. Before the image of Beltis were two golden lions, and near themtwo enormous serpents of silver, each thirty talents in weight. Thegolden table--forty feet long and fifteen broad--was in front of thesestatues, and upon it stood two huge drinking-cups, of the same weight asthe serpents. The shrine also contained two enormous censers and threegolden bowls, one for each of the three deities. 

At the base of the tower was a second shrine or chapel, which in thetime of Herodotus contained a sitting image of Bel, made of gold, witha golden table in front of it, and a stand for the image, of the sameprecious metal. Here, too, Persian avarice had been busy; for ancientlythis shrine had possessed a second statue, which was a human figuretwelve cubits high, made of solid gold. The shrine was also richin private offerings. Outside the building, but within the sacredenclosure, were two altars, a smaller one of gold, on which it wascustomary to offer sucklings, and a larger one, probably of stone, wherethe worshippers sacrificed full-grown victims. 

The great palace was a building of still larger dimensions than thegreat temple. According to Diodorus, it was situated within a tripleenclosure, the innermost wall being twenty stades, the second fortystades, and the outermost sixty stades (nearly seven miles), incircumference. The outer wall was built entirely of plain baked brick. The middle and inner walls were of the same material, fronted withenamelled bricks representing hunting scenes. The figures, according tothis author, were larger than the life, and consisted chiefly of a greatvariety of animal forms. There were not wanting, however, a certainnumber of human forms to enliven the scene; and among these were two--aman thrusting his spear through a lion, and a woman on horseback aimingat a leopard with her javelin--which the later Greeks believed torepresent the mythic Ninus and Semiramis. Of the character of theapartments we hear nothing; but we are told that the palace had threegates, two of which were of bronze, and that these had to be opened andshut by a machine. 

But the main glory of the palace was its pleasure-ground--the "HangingGardens, " which the Greeks regarded as one of the seven wonders of theworld. This extraordinary construction, which owed its erection to thewhim of a woman, was a square, each side of which measured 400 Greekfeet. It was supported upon several tiers of open arches, built one overthe other, like the walls of a classic theatre, and sustaining at eachstage, or story, a solid platform, from which the piers of the next tierof arches rose. The building towered into the air to the height of atleast seventy-five feet, and was covered at the top with a great mass ofearth, in which there grew not merely flowers and shrubs, but tressalso of the largest size. Water was supplied from the Euphrates throughpipes, and was raised (it is said) by a screw, working on the principalof Archimedes. To prevent the moisture from penetrating into thebrick-work and gradually destroying the building, there were interposedbetween the bricks and the mass of soil, first a layer of reeds mixedwith bitumen, then a double layer of burnt brick cemented with gypsum, and thirdly a coating of sheet lead. The ascent to the garden was bysteps. On the way up, among the arches which sustained the building, were stately apartments, which, must have been pleasant from theircoolness. There was also a chamber within the structure containing themachinery by which the water was raised. 

Of the smaller palace, which was opposite to the larger one, on theother side the river, but few details have come down to us. Like thelarger palace, it was guarded by a triple enclosure, the entire circuitof which measured (it is said) thirty stades. It contained a number ofbronze statues, which the Greeks believed to represent the god Belus, and the sovereigns Ninus and Semiramis, together with their officers. The walls were covered with battle scenes and hunting scenes, vividlyrepresented by means of bricks painted and enamelled. 

Such was the general character of the town and its chief edifices, if wemay believe the descriptions of eye-witnesses. The walls which enclosedand guarded the whole--or which, perhaps one should rather say, guarded the district within which Babylon was placed--have been alreadymentioned as remarkable for their great extent, but cannot be dismissedwithout a more special and minute description. Like the "HangingGardens, " they were included among the "world's seven wonders, "and, according to every account given of them, their magnitude andconstruction were remarkable. 

It has been already noticed that, according to the lowest of the ancientestimates, the entire length of the walls was 360 stades, or more thanforty-one miles. With respect to the width we have two very differentstatements, one by Herodotus and the other by Clitarchus and Strabo. Herodotus makes the width 50 royal cubits, or about 85 English feet, Strabo and Q. Curtius reduced the estimate to 32 feet. There is stillgreater discrepancy with respect to the height of the walls. Herodotussays that the height was 200 royal cubits, or 300 royal feet (about 335English feet); Ctesias made it 50 fathoms, or 300 ordinary Greek feet;Pliny and Solinus, substituting feet for the royal cubits of Herodotus, made the altitude 235 feet; Philostratus and Q. Curtius, followingperhaps some one of Alexander's historians, gave for the height 150feet; finally Clitarchus, as reported by Diodorus Siculus, and Strabo, who probably followed him, have left us the very moderate estimate of 75feet. It is impossible to reconcile these numbers. The supposition thatsome of them belong properly to the outer, and others to the inner wall, will not explain the discrepancies--for the measurements cannot by anyingenuity be reduced to two sets of dimensions. The only conclusionwhich it seems possible to draw from the conflicting testimony is thatthe numbers were either rough guesses made by very unskilful travellers, or else were (in most cases) intentional exaggerations palmed upon themby the native ciceroni. Still the broad facts remain--first, that thewalls enclosed an enormous space, which was very partially occupied bybuildings; secondly, that they were of great and unusual thickness;and thirdly, that they were of a vast height--seventy or eighty feet atleast in the time of Alexander, after the wear and tear of centuries andthe violence of at least three conquerors. 

The general character of the construction is open to but little doubt. The wall was made of bricks, either baked in kilns, or (more probably)dried in the sun, and laid in a cement of bitumen, with occasionallayers of reeds between the courses. Externally it was protected by awide and deep moat. On the summit were low towers, rising above thewall to the height of some ten or fifteen feet, and probably serving asguardrooms for the defenders. These towers are said to have been 250 innumber; they were least numerous on the western face of the city, wherethe wall ran along the marshes. They were probably angular, not round;and instead of extending through the whole thickness of the wall, theywere placed along its outer and inner edge, tower facing tower, witha wide space between them--"enough, " Herodotus says, "for a four-horsechariot to turn in. " The wall did not depend on them for its strength, but on its own height and thickness, which were such as to renderscaling and mining equally hopeless. 

Such was Babylon, according to the descriptions of the ancients--agreat city, built on a very regular plan, surrounded by populous suburbsinterspersed among fields and gardens, the whole being included within alarge square strongly fortified enceinte. When we turn from this pictureof the past to contemplate the present condition of the localities, weare at first struck with astonishment at the small traces which remainof so vast and wonderful a metropolis. "The broad walls of Babylon"are "utterly broken" down, and her "high gates burned with fire. ""The golden city hath ceased. " God has "swept it with the bosom ofdestruction. " "The glory of the kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees'excellency, " is become "as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrha. " Thetraveller who passes through the land is at first inclined to say thatthere are no ruins, no remains, of the mighty city which once lorded itover the earth. By and by, however, he begins to see that though ruins, in the common acceptation of the term, scarcely exist--though there areno arches, no pillars, but one or two appearances of masonry even yetthe whole country is covered with traces of exactly that kind which itwas prophesied Babylon should leave. Vast "heaps" or mounds, shapelessand unsightly, are scattered at intervals over the entire region whereit is certain that Babylon anciently stood, and between the "heaps" thesoil is in many places composed of fragments of pottery and bricks, anddeeply impregnated with nitre, infallible indications of its having oncebeen covered with buildings. As the traveller descends southward fromBaghdad he finds these indications increase, until, on nearing theEuphrates, a few miles beyond Mohawil, he notes that they have becomecontinuous, and finds himself in a region of mounds, some of which areof enormous size. 

These mounds begin about five miles above Hillah, and extend for adistance of about three miles from north to south along the course ofthe river, lying principally on its left or eastern bank. The ruins onthis side consist chiefly of three great masses of building. The mostnorthern, to which the Arabs of the present day apply the name ofBABIL--the true native appellation of the ancient citys--is a vast pileof brick-work of an irregular quadrilateral shape, with precipitoussides furrowed by ravines, and with a flat top. [PLATE X. , Fig. , 3. ] Ofthe four faces of the ruin the southern seems to be the most perfect. It extends a distance of about 200 yards, or almost exactly a stade, and runs nearly in a straight line from west to east. At its easternextremity it forms a right angle with the east face, which runs nearlydue north for about 180 yards, also almost in a straight line. Thewestern and northern faces are apparently much worn away. Here arethe chief ravines, and here is the greatest seeming deviation from theoriginal lines of the building. The greatest height of the Babil moundis 130 or 140 feet. It is mainly composed of sun-dried brick, but showssigns of having been faced with fire-burnt brick, carefully cementedwith an excellent white mortar. The bricks of this outer facing bear thename and titles of Nebuchadnezzar. A very small portion of the originalstructure has been laid bare enough however to show that the linesof the building did not slope like those of a pyramid, but wereperpendicular, and that the side walls had, at intervals, the support ofbuttresses. 

This vast building, whatever it was, stood within a square enclosure, two sides of which, the northern and eastern, are still very distinctlymarked. A long low line of rampart runs for 400 yards parallel to theeast face of the building, at a distance of 120 or 130 yards, and asimilar but somewhat longer line of mound runs parallel to the northface at rather a greater distance from it. On the west a third linecould be traced in the early part of the present century; but it appearsto be now obliterated. Here and on the south are the remains ofan ancient canal, the construction of which may have caused thedisappearance of the southern, and of the lower part of the westernline. [PLATE XII. , Fig. 1. ]

[Illustration: PLATE XII. ]

Below the Babil mound, which stands isolated from the rest of the ruins, are two principal masses--the more northern known to the Arabs as ELKASR, "the Palace, " and the more southern as "the mound of Amran, " fromthe tomb of a reputed prophet Amran-ibn-Ali, which crowns its summit. The Kasr mound is an oblong square, about 700 yards long by 600 broad, with the sides facing the cardinal points. [PLATE XII. , Fig. 2. ] Itsheight above the plain is 70 feet. Its longer direction is from northto south. As far as it has been penetrated, it consists mainly ofrubbish-loose bricks, tiles, and fragments of stone. In a few placesonly are there undisturbed remains of building. One such relic is asubterranean passage, seven feet in height, floored and walled withbaked brick, and covered in at the top with great blocks of sandstone, which may either have been a secret exit or more probably an enormousdrain. Another is the Kasr, or "palace" proper, whence the mound hasits name. This is a fragment of excellent brick masonry in a wonderfulstate of preservation, consisting of walls, piers, and buttresses, andin places ornamented with pilasters, but of too fragmentary a characterto furnish the modern inquirer with any clue to the original plan of thebuilding. The bricks are of a pale yellow color and of the best possiblequality, nearly resembling our fire-bricks. They are stamped, one andall, with the name and titles of Nebuchadnezzar. The mortar in whichthey are laid is a fine lime cement, which adheres so closely to thebricks that it is difficult to obtain a specimen entire. In the dustat the foot of the walls are numerous fragments of brick, painted, andcovered with a thick enamel or glaze. Here, too, have been found a fewfragments of sculptured stone, and slabs containing an account of theerection of a palatial edifice by Nebuchadnezzar. Near the northern edgeof the mound, and about midway in its breadth, is a colossal figure of alion, rudely carved in black basalt, standing over the prostrate figureof a man with arms outstretched. A single tree grows on the huge ruin, which the Arabs declare to be of a species not known elsewhere, andregard as a remnant of the hanging garden of Bokht-i-nazar. It is atamarisk of no rare kind, but of very great ago, in consequence ofwhich, and of its exposed position, the growth and foliage are somewhatpeculiar. 

South of the Kasr mound, at the distance of about 800 yards, is theremaining great mass of ruins, the mound of Jumjuma, or of Amran. [PLATEXII. , Fig. 3. ] The general shape of this mound is triangular, 107 but itis very irregular and ill-defined, so as scarcely to admit of accuratedescription. Its three sides face respectively a little east of north, a little south of east, and a little south of west. The south-westernside, which runs nearly parallel with the Euphrates, and seems to havebeen once washed by the river, is longer than either of the others, extending a distance of above a thousand yards, while the south-easternmay be 800 yards, and the north-eastern 700. Innumerable ravinestraverse the mound on every side, penetrating it nearly to its centre. The surface is a series of undulations. Neither masonry nor sculpture isanywhere apparent. 

All that meets the eye is a mass of debris; and the researches hithertomade have failed to bring to light any distinct traces of building. Occasionally bricks are found, generally of poor material, and bearingthe names and titles of some of the earlier Babylonian monarchs; but thetrenches opened in the pile have in no case laid bare even the smallestfragment of a wall. 

Besides the remains which have been already described, the mostremarkable are certain long lines of rampart on both sides of the river, which lie outside of the other ruins, enclosing them all, except themound of Babil. On the left bank of the stream there is to be traced, in the first place, a double line of wall or rampart, having a directionnearly due north and south, which lies east of the Kasr and Amranmounds, at the distance from them of about 1000 yards. Beyond this is asingle line of rampart to the north-east, traceable for about two miles, the direction of which is nearly from north-west to south-east, and adouble line of rampart to the south-east, traceable for a mile and ahalf, with a direction from northeast to south-west. The two lines inthis last case are from 600 to 700 yards apart, and diverge from oneanother as they run out to the north-east. The inner of the two meetsthe north-eastern rampart nearly at a right angle, and is clearly apart of the same work. It is questioned, however, whether this line offortification is ancient, and not rather a construction belonging toParthian times. 

A low line of mounds is traceable between the western face of the Amranand Kasr hills, and the present eastern bank of the river, bounding asort of narrow valley, in which either the main stream of the Euphrates, or at any rate a branch from it, seems anciently to have flowed. 

On the right bank of the stream the chief remains are of the same kind. West of the river, a rampart, twenty feet high, runs for nearly a mileparallel with the general line of the Amran mound, at the distance ofabout 1000 yards from the old course of the stream. At either extremitythe line of the rampart turns at a right angle, running down towards theriver, and being traceable towards the north for 400 yards and towardsthe south for fifty or sixty. It is evident that there was once, beforethe stream flowed in its present channel, a rectangular enclosure, amile long and 1000 yards broad, opposite to the Amran mound; and thereare indications that within this _enceinte_ was at least one importantbuilding, which was situated near the south-east angle of the enclosure, on the banks of the old course of the river. The bricks found at thispoint bear the name of Neriglissar. 

There are also, besides the ramparts and the great masses of ruin abovedescribed, a vast number of scattered and irregular heaps of hillockson both sides of the river, chiefly, however, upon the eastern bank. Of these one only seems to deserve distinct mention. This is the moundcalled El Homeira, "the Red, " which lies due east of the Kasr, distantfrom it about 800 yards--a mound said to be 300 yards long by 100 wide, and to attain an elevation of 60 or 70 feet. It is composed of bakedbrick of a bright red color, and must have been a building of a veryconsiderable height resting upon a somewhat confined base. Its bricksare inscribed along their edges, not (as is the usual practice) on theirlower face. 

The only other ancient work of any importance of which some remains arestill to be traced is a brick embankment on the left bank of the streambetween the Kasr and the Babil mounds, extending for a distance ofa thousand yards in a line which has a slight curve and a generaldirection of S. S. W. The bricks of this embankment are of a bright redcolor, and of great hardness. They are laid wholly in bitumen. Thelegend which they bear shows that the quay was constructed by Nabonidus. [PLATE XIII. ]

[Illustration: PLATE XIII. ]

Such then are the ruins of Babylon--the whole that can now withcertainty be assigned to the "beauty of the Chaldees' excellency"--the"great Babylon" of Nebuchadnezzar. Within a space little more than threemiles long and a mile and three quarters broad are contained all theundoubted remains of the greatest city of the old world. These remains, however, do not serve in any way to define the ancient limits of theplace. They are surrounded on every side by nitrous soil, and by lowheaps which it has not been thought worth while to excavate, but whichthe best judges assign to the same era as the great mounds, and believeto mark the sites of the lesser temples and the other public buildingsof the ancient city. Masses of this kind are most frequent to the northand east. Sometimes they are almost continuous for miles; and if we takethe Kasr mound as a centre, and mark about it an area extending fivemiles in each direction (which would give a city of the size describedby Ctesias and the historians of Alexander), we shall scarcely find asingle square mile of the hundred without some indications of ancientbuildings upon its surface. The case is not like that of Nineveh, whereoutside the walls the country is for a considerable distance singularlybare of ruins. The mass of Babylonian remains extending from Babil toAmran does not correspond to the whole _enceinte_ of Nineveh, but to themound of Koyunjik. It has every appearance of being, not the city, but"the heart of the city"--the "Royal quarter" outside of which were thestreets and squares, and still further off, the vanished walls. It mayseem strange that the southern capital should have so greatly exceededthe dimensions of the northern one. But, if we follow the indicationspresented by the respective sites, we are obliged to conclude that therewas really this remarkable difference. 

It has to be considered in conclusion how far we can identify thevarious ruins above described with the known buildings of the ancientcapital, and to what extent it is possible to reconstruct upon theexisting remains the true plan of the city. Fancy, if it discards theguidance of fact, may of course with the greatest ease compose plansof a charming completeness. A rigid adherence to existing data willproduce, it is to be feared, a somewhat meagre and fragmentary result;but most persons will feel that this is one of the cases where the maximof Hesiod applies--"the half is preferable to the whole. "

[Illustration: PAGE 182]

The one identification which may be made upon certain and indeedindisputable evidence is that of the Kasr mound with the palace builtby Nebuchadnezzar. The tradition which has attached the name of Kasr or"Palace" to this heap is confirmed by inscriptions upon slabs found onthe spot, wherein Nebuchadnezzar declares the building to be his "GrandPalace. " The bricks of that part of the ruin which remains uncoveredbear, one and all, the name of this king; and it is thus clear thathere stood in ancient times the great work of which Berosus speaks asremarkable for its height and splendor. If a confirmation of the factwere needed after evidence of so decisive a character, it would be foundin the correspondence between the remains found on the mound and thedescription left us of the "greater palace" by Diodorus. Diodorusrelates that the walls of this edifice were adorned with coloredrepresentations of hunting scenes; and modern explorers find that thewhole soil of the mound, and especially the part on which the fragmentof ruin stands, is full of broken pieces of enamelled brick, varied inhue, and evidently containing portions of human and animal forms. 

But if the Kasr represents the palace built by Nebuchadnezzar, as isgenerally allowed by those who have devoted their attention to thesubject, it seems to follow almost as a certainty that the Amran moundis the site of that old palatial edifice to which the erectionof Nebuchadnezzar was an addition. Berosus expressly states thatNebuchadnezzar's building "adjoined upon" the former palace, adescription which is fairly applicable to the Amran mound by means of acertain latitude of interpretation, but which is wholly inapplicable toany of the other ruins. This argument would be conclusive, even if itstood alone. It has, however, received an important corroboration in thecourse of recent researches. From the Amran mound, and from this partof Babylon only, have monuments been recovered of an earlier date thanNebuchadnezzar. Here and here alone did the early kings leave memorialsof their presence in Babylon; and here consequently, we may presume, stood the ancient royal residence. 

If, then, all the principal ruins on the east bank of the river, withthe exception of the Babil mound and the long lines marking wallsor embankments, be accepted as representing the "great palace" or"citadel" of the classical writers we must recognize in the remains westof the ancient course of the river-the oblong square enclosure andthe important building at its south-east angle--the second or "smallerpalace" of Ctesias, which was joined to the larger one, according tothat writer, by a bridge and a tunnel. This edifice, built or at anyrate repaired by Neriglissar, lay directly opposite the more ancientpart of the eastern palace, being separated from it by the river, whichanciently flowed along the western face of the Kasr and Amran mounds. The exact position of the bridge cannot be fixed. With regard to thetunnel, it is extremely unlikely that any such construction was evermade. The "Father of History" is wholly silent on the subject, whilehe carefully describes the bridge, a work far less extraordinary. The tunnel rests on the authority of two writers only--Diodorus andPhilostratus--who both wrote after Babylon was completely ruined. Itwas probably one of the imaginations of the inventive Ctesias, from whomDiodorus evidently derived all the main points of his description. 

Thus far there is no great difficulty in identifying the existingremains with buildings mentioned by ancient authors; but, at the pointto which we are now come, the subject grows exceedingly obscure, and itis impossible to offer more than reasonable conjectures upon the truecharacter of the remaining ruins. The descriptions of ancient writerswould lead us to expect that we should find among the ruins unmistakabletraces of the great temple of Belus, and at least some indication of theposition occupied by the Hanging Gardens. These two famous constructionscan scarcely, one would think, have wholly perished. More especially, the Belus temple, which was a stade square, and (according to some) astade in height, must almost of necessity have a representative amongthe existing remains. This, indeed, is admitted on all hands; and thecontroversy is thereby narrowed to the question, which of twogreat ruins--the only two entitled by their size and situation toattention--has the better right to be regarded as the great andcelebrated sanctuary of the ancient Babylon. 

That the mound of Babil is the _ziggurat_ or tower of a Babyloniantemple scarcely admits of a doubt. Its square shape, its solidconstruction, its isolated grandeur, its careful emplacement with thesides facing the cardinal points, and its close resemblance to otherknown Babylonian temple-towers, sufficiently mark it for a buildingof this character, or at any rate raise a presumption which it wouldrequire very strong reasons indeed to overcome. Its size moreovercorresponds well with the accounts which have come down to us of thedimensions of the Belus temple, and its name and proximity to the othermain ruins show that it belonged certainly to the ancient capital. Against its claim to be regarded as the remains of the temple ofBolus two objections only can be argued: these are the absence of anyappearance of stages, or even of a pyramidical shape, from the presentruin, and its position on the same side of the Euphrates with thepalace. Herodotus expressly declares that the temple of Belus andthe royal palace were upon opposite sides of the river, and states, moreover, that the temple was built in stages, which rose one above theother to the number of eight. Now these two circumstances, which do notbelong at present to the Babil mound, attach to a ruin distant from itabout eleven or twelve miles--a ruin which is certainly one of the mostremarkable in the whole country, and which, if Babylon had really beenof the size asserted by Herodotus, might possibly have been includedwithin the walls. The Birs-i-Nimrud had certainly seven, probably eightstages, and it is the only ruin on the present western bank ofthe Euphrates which is at once sufficiently grand to answer to thedescriptions of the Belus temple, and sufficiently near to the otherruin to make its original inclusion within the walls not absolutelyimpossible. Hence, ever since the attention of scholars was firstdirected to the subject of Babylonian topography, opinion has beendivided on the question before us, and there have not been wantingpersons to maintain that the Birs-i-Nimrud is the true temple ofBelus, if not also the actual tower of Babel, whose erection led to theconfusion of tongues and general dispersion of the sons of Adam. 

With this latter identification we are not in the present placeconcerned. With respect to the view that the Birs is the sancturyof Belus, it may be observed in the first place that the size of thebuilding is very much smaller than that ascribed to the Belus temple;secondly, that it was dedicated to Kebo, who cannot be identified withBel; and thirdly, that it is not really any part of the remains of theancient capital, but belongs to an entirely distinct town. The cylindersfound in the ruin by Sir Henry Eawlinson declare the building to havebeen "the wonder of Borsippa;" and Borsippa, according to all theancient authorities, was a town by itself--an entirely distinct placefrom Babylon. To include Borsippa within the outer wall of Babylon is torun counter to all the authorities on the subject, the inscriptions, thenative writer, Berosus, and the classical geographers generally. Noris the position thus assigned to the Belus temple in harmony with thestatement of Herodotus, which alone causes explorers to seek for thetemple on the west side of the river. For, though the expression whichthis writer uses does not necessarily mean that the temple was in theexact centre of one of the two divisions of the town, it certainlyimplies that it lay towards the middle of one division--well withinit--and not upon its outskirts. It is indeed inconceivable that themain sanctuary of the place, where the kings constantly offered theirworship, should have been nine or ten miles from the palace! Thedistance between the Amran mound and Babil, which is about two miles, isquite as great as probability will allow us to believe existed betweenthe old residence of the kings and the sacred shrine to which they werein the constant habit of resorting. 

Still there remain as objections to the identification of the greattemple with the Babil mound the two arguments already noticed. The Babilmound has no appearance of stages such as the Birs presents, nor has iteven a pyramidical shape. It is a huge platform with a nearly leveltop, and sinks, rather than rises, in the centre. What has become, it isasked, of the seven upper stages of the great Belus tower, if this ruinrepresents it? Whither have they vanished? How is it that in crumblingdown they have not left something like a heap towards the middle? Tothis it may be replied that the destruction of the Belus tower has notbeen the mere work of the elements--it was violently broken down eitherby Xerxes, or by some later king, who may have completely removed allthe upper stages. Again, it has served as a quarry to the hunters afterbricks for more than twenty centuries; so that it is only surprisingthat it still retains so much of its original shape. Further, whenAlexander entered Babylon more than 2000 years ago 10, 000 men wereemployed for several weeks in clearing away the rubbish and laying barethe foundations of the building. It is quite possible that a conicalmass of crumbled brick may have been removed from the top of the moundat this time. 

The difficulty remains that the Babil mound is on the same side of theEuphrates with the ruins of the Great Palace, whereas Herodotus makesthe two buildings balance each other, one on the right and the otheron the left bank of the stream. Now here it is in the first place tobe observed that Herodotus is the only writer who does this. No otherancient author tells us anything of the relative situation of the twobuildings. We have thus nothing to explain but the bald statement of asingle writer--a writer no doubt of great authority, but still one notwholly infallible. We might say, then, that Herodotus probably made amistake--that his memory failed him in this instance, or that he mistookhis notes on the subject. Or we may explain his error by supposing thathe confounded a canal from the Euphrates, which seems to haveanciently passed between the Babil mound and the Kasr (called Shebil byNebuchadnezzar) with the main stream. Or, finally, we may conceivethat at the time of his visit the old palace lay in ruins, and that thepalace of Nerig-lissar on the west bank of the stream was that of whichhe spoke. It is at any rate remarkable, considering how his authority isquoted as fixing the site of the Belus tower to the west bank, that, inthe only place where he gives us any intimation of the side of the riveron which he would have placed the tower, it is the east and not the westbank to which his words point. He makes those who saw the treachery ofZopyrus at the Belian and Kissian gates, which must have been to theeast of the city, at once take refuge in the famous sanctuary, which heimplies was in the vicinity. 

On the whole, therefore, it seems best to regard the Babil mound as theziggurat of the great temple of Bel (called by some "the tomb of Belus")which the Persians destroyed and which Alexander intended to restore. With regard to the "hanging gardens, " as they were an erection of lessthan half the size of the tower, it is not so necessary to suppose thatdistinct traces must remain of them. Their debris may be confused withthose of the Kasr mound, on which one writer places them. Or they mayhave stood between the Kasr and Amran ruins, where are now some moundsof no great height. Or, possibly, their true site is in the modern ElHomeira, the remarkable red mound which lies east of the Kasr at thedistance of about 800 yards, and attains an elevation of sixty-fivefeet. Though this building is not situated upon the banks of theEuphrates, where Strabo and Diodorus place the gardens, it abuts upona long low valley into which the Euphrates water seems formerly to havebeen introduced, and which may therefore have been given the name ofthe river. This identification is, however, it must be allowed, verydoubtful. 

The two lines of mounds which enclose the long low valley abovementioned are probably the remains of an embankment which here confinedthe waters of a great reservoir. Nebuchadnezzar relates that heconstructed a large reservoir, which he calls the Yapur-Shapu, inBabylon, and led water into it by means of an "eastern canal"--theShebil. The Shebil canal, it is probable, left the Euphrates at somepoint between Babil and the Kasr, and ran across with a course nearlyfrom west to east to the top of the Yapur-Shapu. This reservoir seems tohave been a long and somewhat narrow parallelogram, running nearly fromnorth to south, which shut in the great palace on the east and protectedit like a huge moat. Most likely it communicated with the Euphratestowards the south by a second canal, the exact line of which cannot bedetermined. Thus the palatial residence of the Babylonian kings lookedin both directions upon broad sheets of water, an agreeable prospect inso hot a climate; while, at the same time, by the assignment of a doublechannel to the Euphrates, its floods were the more readily controlled, and the city was preserved from those terrible inundations which inmodern times have often threatened the existence of Baghdad. 

The other lines of mound upon the east side of the river may either beParthian works, or (possibly) they may be the remains of some of thoselofty walls whereby, according to Diodorus, the greater palace wassurrounded and defended. The fragments of them which remain are soplaced that if the lines were produced they would include all theprincipal ruins on the left bank except the Babil tower. They maytherefore be the old defences of the Eastern palace; though, if so, it is strange that they run in lines which are neither straight norparallel to those of the buildings enclosed by them. The irregularityof these ramparts is certainly a very strong argument in favor oftheir having been the work of a people considerably more barbarous andignorant than the Babylonians. [PLATE XIV. ]

[Illustration: PLATE XIV. ]

CHAPTER V. ARTS AND SCIENCES. 

That the Babylonians were among the most ingenious of all the nations ofantiquity, and had made considerable progress in the arts and sciencesbefore their conquest by the Persians, is generally admitted. Theclassical writers commonly parallel them with the Egyptians; and though, from their habit of confusing Babylon with Assyria, it is not alwaysquite certain that the inhabitants of the more southern country--thereal Babylonians--are meant, still there is sufficient reason to believethat, in the estimation of the Greeks and Romans, the people ofthe lower Euphrates were regarded as at least equally advanced incivilization with those of the Nile valley and the Delta. The branchesof knowledge wherein by general consent the Babylonians principallyexcelled were architecture and astronomy. Of their architectural workstwo at least were reckoned among the "Seven Wonders, " while others, notelevated to this exalted rank, were yet considered to be among the mostcurious and admirable of Oriental constructions. In astronomical sciencethey were thought to have far excelled all other nations, and the firstGreeks who made much progress in the subject confessed themselves thehumble disciples of Babylonian teachers. 

In the account, which it is proposed to give, in this place, ofBabylonian art and science, so far as they are respectively known to us, the priority will be assigned to art, which is an earlier product ofthe human mind than science; and among the arts the first place will begiven to architecture, as at once the most fundamental of all the finearts, and the one in which the Babylonians attained their greatestexcellence. It is as builders that the primitive Chaldaean people, theprogenitors of the Babylonians, first appear before us in history;and it was on his buildings that the great king of the later Empire, Nebuchadnezzar, specially prided himself. When Herodotus visited Babylonhe was struck chiefly by its extraordinary edifices; and it is theaccount which the Greek writers gave of these erections that has, morethan anything else, procured for the Babylonians the fame that theypossess and the position that they hold among the six or seven leadingnations of the old world. 

The architecture of the Babylonians seems to have culminated in theTemple. While their palaces, their bridges, their walls, even theirprivate houses were remarkable, their grandest works, their mostelaborate efforts, were dedicated to the honor and service, not of man, but of God. The Temple takes in Babylonia the same sort of rank which ithas in Egypt and in Greece. It is not, as in Assyria, a mere adjunctof the palace. It stands by itself, in proud independence, as thegreat building of a city, or a part of a city; it is, if not absolutelylarger, at any rate loftier and more conspicuous than any other edifice:it often boasts a magnificent adornment: the value of the offeringswhich are deposited in it is enormous: in every respect it rivals thepalace, while in some it has a decided preeminence. It draws all eyesby its superior height and sometimes by its costly ornamentation; itinspires awe by the religious associations which belong to it; finally, it is a stronghold as well as a place of worship, and may furnish arefuge to thousands in the time of danger. 

A Babylonian temple seems to have stood commonly within a walledenclosure. In the case of the great temple of Belus at Babylon, theenclosure is said to have been a square of two stades each way, or, in other words, to have contained an area of thirty acres. The templeitself ordinarily consisted of two parts. Its most essential featurewas a _ziggurat_, or tower, which was either square, or at any raterectangular, and built in stages, the smallest number of such stagesbeing two, and the largest known number seven. At the summit of thetower was probably in every case a shrine, or chapel, of greater orless size, containing altars and images. The ascent to this was on theoutside of the towers, which were entirely solid; and it generally woundround the different faces of the towers, ascending them either by meansof steps or by an inclined plane. Special care was taken with regard tothe emplacement of the tower, either its sides or its angles beingmade exactly to confront the cardinal points. It is said that thetemple-towers were used not merely for religious purposes but also asobservatories, a use with a view to which this arrangement of theirposition would have been serviceable. 

Besides the shrine at the summit of the temple-tower or ziggurat, therewas commonly at the base of the tower, or at any rate somewherewithin the enclosure, a second shrine or chapel, in which the ordinaryworshipper, who wished to spare himself the long ascent, made hisofferings. Here again the ornamentation was most costly, lavish usebeing made of the precious metals for images and other furniture. Altarsof different sizes were placed in the open air in the vicinity of thislower shrine, on which were sacrificed different classes of victims, gold being used occasionally as the material of the altar. 

The general appearance of a Babylonian temple, or at any rate of itschief feature, the tower or _ziggurat_, will be best gathered from amore particular description of a single building of the kind; and thebuilding which it will be most convenient to take for that purpose isthat remarkable edifice which strikes moderns with more admiration thanany other now existing in the country, and which has also been morecompletely and more carefully examined than any other Babylonianruins--the Birs-i-Nimrud, or ancient temple of Nebo at Borsippa. Theplan of this tower has been almost completely made out from data stillexisting on the spot; and a restoration of the original building may begiven with a near approach to certainty. [PLATE XV. , Fig. 1. ]

[Illustration: PLATE XV. ]

Upon a platform of crude brick, raised a few feet above the level ofthe alluvial plain, was built the first or basement stage of the greatedifice, an exact square, 272 feet each way, and and probably twenty-sixfeet in perpendicular height. On this was erected a second stage ofexactly the same height, but a square of only 230 feet; which howeverwas not placed exactly in the middle of the first, but further from itsnortheastern than its south-western edge, twelve feet only from the oneand thirty feet from the other. The third stage, which was imposed inthe same way upon the second, was also twenty-six feet high, and was asquare of 188 feet. Thus far the plan had been uniform and without anyvariety; but at this point an alteration took place. The height of thefourth stage, instead of being twenty-six, was only fifteen feet. Inother respects however the old numbers were maintained; the fourth stagewas diminished equally with the others, and was consequently a square of146 feet. It was emplaced upon the stage below it exactly as the formerstages had been. The remaining stages probably followed the same ruleof diminution--the fifth being a square of 104, the sixth one of 24, andthe seventh one of 20 feet. Each of these stages had a height offifteen feet. Upon the seventh or final stage was erected the shrineor tabernacle, which was probably also fifteen feet high, and aboutthe same length and breadth. Thus the entire height of the building, allowing three feet for the crude brick platform, was 150 feet. 

The ornamentation of the edifice was chiefly by means of color. Theseven stages represented the Seven Spheres, in which moved (accordingto ancient Chaldaean astronomy) the seven planets. To each planet fancy, partly grounding itself upon fact, had from of old assigned a peculiartint or hue. The Sun was golden, the Moon silver; the distant Saturn, almost beyond the region of light, was black; Jupiter was orange thefiery Mars was red; Venus was a pale Naples yellow; Mercury a deep blue. The seven stages of the tower, like the seven walls of Ecbatana, gavea visible embodiment to these fancies. The basement stage, assigned toSaturn, was blackened by means of a coating of bitumen spread over theface of the masonry; the second stage, assigned to Jupiter, obtained theappropriate orange color by means of a facing of burnt bricks of thathue; the third stage, that of Mars, was made blood-red by the useof half-burnt bricks formed of a bright red clay; the fourth stage, assigned to the Sun, appears to have been actually covered with thinplates of gold; the fifth, the stage of Venus, received a pale yellowtint from the employment of bricks of that hue; the sixth, the sphere ofMercury, was given an azure tint by vitrifaction, the whole stage havingbeen subjected to an intense heat after it was erected, whereby thebricks composing it were converted into a mass of blue slag; the seventhstage, that of the Moon, was probably, like the fourth, coated withactual plates of metal. Thus the building rose up in stripes of variedcolor, arranged almost as nature's cunning arranges hues in the rainbow, tones of red coming first, succeeded by a broad stripe of yellow, theyellow being followed by blue. Above this the glowing silvery summitmelted into the bright sheen of the sky. [PLATE XVI. ]

[Illustration: PLATE XVI. ]

The faces of the various stages were, as a general rule, flat andunbroken, unless it were by a stair or ascent, of which however therehas been found no trace. But there were two exceptions to this generalplainness. The basement stage was indented with a number of shallowsquared recesses, which seem to have been intended for a decoration. Theface of the third stage was weak on account of its material, which wasbrick but half-burnt. Here then the builders, not for ornament's sake, but to strengthen their work, gave to the wall the support of a numberof shallow buttresses. They also departed from their usual practice, by substituting for the rigid perpendicular of the other faces a slightslope outwards for some distance from the base. These arrangements, which are apparently part of the original work, and not remedies appliedsubsequently, imply considerable knowledge of architectural principleson the part of the builders, and no little ingenuity in turningarchitectural resources to account. 

With respect to the shrine which was emplaced upon the topmost, orsilver stage, little is definitely known. It appears to have been ofbrick; and we may perhaps conclude from the analogy of the old Chaldaeanshrines at the summits of towers, as well as from that of the Belusshrine at Babylon, that it was richly ornamented both within andwithout; but it is impossible to state anything as to the exactcharacter of the ornamentation. 

The tower is to be regarded as fronting to the north-east, the coolestside and that least exposed to the sun's rays from the time that theybecome oppressive in Babylonia. On this side was the ascent, whichconsisted probably of abroad staircase extending along the whole frontof the building. The side platforms (those towards the south-east andnorth-west)--at any rate of the first and second stages, probablyof all--were occupied by a series of chambers abutting upon theperpendicular wall, as the priests' chambers of Solomon's temple abuttedupon the side walls of that building. In these were doubtless lodged thepriests and other attendants upon the temple service. The side chambersseem sometimes to have communicated with vaulted apartments withinthe solid mass of the structure, like those of which we hear in thestructure supporting the "hanging gardens. " It is possible that theremay have been internal stair-cases, connecting the vaulted apartmentsof one stage with those of another; but the ruin has not yet beensufficiently explored for us to determine whether or not there was suchcommunication. 

The great Tower is thought to have been approached through a vestibuleof considerable size. Towards the north-east the existing ruinis prolonged in an irregular manner and it is imagined that thisprolongation marks the site of a vestibule or propylaeum, originallydistinct from the tower, but now, through the crumbling down of bothbuildings, confused with its ruins. As no scientific examination hasbeen made of this part of the mound, the above supposition can only beregarded as a conjecture. Possibly the excrescence does not so much marka vestibule as a second shrine, like that which is said to have existedat the foot of the Belus Tower at Babylon. Till, however, additionalresearches have been made, it is in vain to think of restoring the planor elevation of this part of the temple. 

From the temples of the Babylonians we may now pass to theirpalaces--constructions inferior in height and grandeur, but covering agreater space, involving a larger amount of labor, and admitting of morearchitectural variety. Unfortunately the palaces have suffered from theravages of time even more than the temples, and in considering theirplan and character we obtain little help from the existing remains. Still, something may be learnt of them from this source, and whereit fails we may perhaps be allowed to eke out the scantiness of ourmaterials by drawing from the elaborate descriptions of Diodorus suchpoints as have probability in their favor. 

The Babylonian palace, like the Assyrian, and the Susianian, stood upona lofty mound or platform. This arrangement provided at once for safety, for enjoyment, and for health. It secured a pure air, freedom from themolestation of insects, and a position only assailable at a few points. The ordinary shape of the palace mound appears to have been square;its elevation was probably not less than fifty or sixty feet. It wascomposed mainly of sun-dried bricks, which however were almost certainlyenclosed externally by a facing of burnt brick, and may have beenfurther strengthened within by walls of the same material, which perhapstraversed the whole mound. The entire mass seems to have been carefullydrained, and the collected waters were conveyed through subterraneanchannels to the level of the plain at the mound's base. The summitof the platform was no doubt paved, either with stone or burntbrick--mainly, it is probable, with the latter; since the formermaterial was scarce, and though a certain number of stone pavement slabshave been found, they are too rare and scattered to imply anything likethe general use of stone paving. Upon the platform, most likely towardsthe centre, rose the actual palace, not built (like the Assyrianpalaces) of crude brick faced with a better material, but constructedwholly of the finest and hardest burnt brick laid in a mortar of extremetenacity, with walls of enormous thickness, parallel to the sides of themound, and meeting each other at right angles. Neither the ground-plannor the elevation of a Babylonian palace can be given; nor can evena conjectural restoration of such a building be made, since the smallfragment of Nebuchadnezzar's palace which remains has defied allattempts to reduce it to system. We can only say that the lines ofthe building were straight; that the walls rose, at any rate to aconsiderable height, without windows; and that the flatness of thestraight line was broken by numerous buttressses and pilasters. Wehave also evidence that occasionally there was an ornamentation of thebuilding, either within or without, by means of sculptured stone slabs, on which were represented figures of a small size, carefully wrought. The general ornamentation, however, external as well as internal, wemay well believe to have been such as Diodorus states, coloredrepresentations on brick of war-scenes, and hunting-scenes, thecounterparts in a certain sense of those magnificent bas-reliefs whicheverywhere clothed the walls of palaces in Assyria. It has been alreadynoticed that abundant remains of such representations have been foundupon the Kasr mound. [PLATE XV. , Fig. 2. ] They seem to have alternatedwith cuneiform inscriptions, in white on a blue ground, or else with apatterning of rosettes in the same colors. 

Of the general arrangement of the royal palaces, of their height, theirnumber of stories, their roofing, and their lighting, we know absolutelynothing. The statement made by Herodotus, that many of the privatehouses in the town had three or four stories, would naturally lead usto suppose that the palaces were built similarly; but no ancient authortells us that this was so. The fact that the walls which exist, thoughof considerable height, show no traces of windows, would seem to implythat the lighting, as in Assyria, was from the top of the apartment, either from the ceiling, or from apertures in the part of the wallsadjoining the ceiling. Altogether, such evidence as exists favorsthe notion that the Babylonian palace, in its character and generalarrangements, resembled the Assyrian, with only the two differences, that Babylonian was wholly constructed of burnt brick, while in theAssyrian the sun-dried material was employed to a large extent; and, further, that in Babylonia the decoration of the walls was made, notby slabs of alabaster, which did not exist in the country, butmainly--almost entirely--by colored representations upon thebrickwork. 

Among the adjuncts of the principal palace at Babylon was the remarkableconstruction known to the Greeks and Romans as "the Hanging Garden. " Theaccounts which, Diodorus, Strabo, and Q. Curtius give of this structureare not perhaps altogether trustworthy; still, it is probable that theyare in the main at least founded on fact. We may safely believe that alofty structure was raised at Babylon on several tiers of arches, whichsupported at the top a mass of earth, wherein grew, not merely flowersand shrubs, but trees of a considerable size. The Assyrians had been inthe habit of erecting structures of a somewhat similar kind, artificialelevations to support a growth of trees and shrubs; but they werecontent to place their garden at the summit of a single row of pillarsor arches, and thus to give it a very moderate height. At Babylon theobject was to produce an artificial imitation of a mountain. For thispurpose several tiers of arches were necessary; and these appear to havebeen constructed in the manner of a Roman amphitheatre, one directlyover another so that the outer wall formed from summit to base a singleperpendicular line. Of the height of the structure various accounts aregiven, while no writer reports the number of the tiers of arches. Hencethere are no sufficient data for a reconstruction of the edifice. 

Of the walls and bridge of Babylon, and of the ordinary houses of thepeople, little more is known than has been already reported in thegeneral description of the capital. It does not appear that theypossessed any very great architectural merit. Some skill was shown inconstructing the piers of the bridge, which presented an angle to thecurrent and then a curved line, along which the water slid gently. [PLATE XV. , Fig. 3. ] The loftiness of the houses, which were of three orfour stories, is certainly surprising, since Oriental houses have veryrarely more than two stories. Their construction, however, seems to havebeen rude; and the pillars especially--posts of palm, surroundedwith wisps of rushes, and then plastered and painted--indicate a lowcondition of taste and a poor and coarse style of domestic architecture. 

The material used by the Babylonians in their constructions seemsto have been almost entirely brick. Like the early Chaldaeans, theyemployed bricks of two kinds, both the ruder sun-dried sort, and thevery superior kiln-baked article. The former, however, was only appliedto platforms, and to the interior of palace mounds and of very thickwalls, and was never made by the later people the sole material of abuilding. In every case there was at least a revetement of kiln-driedbrick, while the grander buildings were wholly constructed of it. Thebaked bricks used were of several different qualities, and (withinrather narrow limits) of different sizes. The finest quality of brickwas yellow, approaching to our Stourbridge or fire-brick; another veryhard kind was blue, approaching to black; the commoner and coarsersorts were pink or red, and these were sometimes, though rarely, buthalf-baked, in which case they were weak and friable. The shape wasalways square; and the dimensions varied between twelve and fourteeninches for the length and breadth, and between three and four inchesfor the thickness. [PLATE XVII. , Fig. 1. ] At the corners of buildings, half-bricks were used in the alternate rows, since otherwise thejoinings must have been all one exactly over another. The bricks werealways made with a mold, and were commonly stamped on one face withan inscription. They were, of course, ordinarily laid horizontally. Sometimes, however, there was a departure from this practice. Rows ofbricks were placed vertically, separated from one another by singlehorizontal layers. This arrangement seems to have been regarded asconducing to strength, since it occurs only where there is an evidentintention of supporting a weak construction by the use of specialarchitectural expedients. 

[Illustration: PLATE XVII. ]

The Babylonian builders made use of three different kinds of cement. Themost indifferent was crude clay, or mud, which was mixed with choppedstraw, to give it greater tenacity, and was applied in layers ofextraordinary thickness. This was (it is probable) employed only whereit was requisite that the face of the building should have a certaincolor. A cement superior to clay, but not of any very high value, unlessas a preventive against damp, was bitumen, which was very generally usedin basements and in other structures exposed to the action of water. Mortar, however, or lime cement was far more commonly employed thaneither of the others, and was of very excellent quality, equal indeed tothe best Roman material. 

There can be no doubt that the general effect of the more ambitiousefforts of the Babylonian architects was grand and imposing. Even now, in their desolation and ruin, their great size renders them impressive;and there are times and states of atmosphere under which they fillthe beholder with a sort of admiring awe, akin to the feeling which iscalled forth by the contemplation of the great works of nature. Rudeand inartificial in their idea and general construction, withoutarchitectural embellishment, without variety, without any beautyof form, they yet affect men by their mere mass, producing a directimpression of sublimity, and at the same time arousing a sentimentof wonder at the indomitable perseverance which from materials sounpromising could produce such gigantic results. In their originalcondition, when they were adorned with color, with a lavish display ofthe precious metals, with pictured representations of human life, andperhaps with statuary of a rough kind, they must have added tothe impression produced by size a sense of richness and barbaricmagnificence. The African spirit, which loves gaudy hues and costlyornament, was still strong among the Babylonians, even after they hadbeen Semitized; and by the side of Assyria, her colder and morecorrect northern sister, Babylonia showed herself a true child of thesouth--rich, glowing, careless of the laws of taste, bent on provokingadmiration by the dazzling brilliancy of her appearance. 

It is difficult to form a decided opinion as to the character ofBabylonian mimetic art. The specimens discovered are so few, sofragmentary, and in some instances so worn by time and exposure, thatwe have scarcely the means of doing justice to the people in respect ofthis portion of their civilization. Setting aside the intaglios onseals and gems, which have such a general character of quaintness andgrotesqueness, or at any rate of formality, that we can scarcely lookupon many of them as the serious efforts of artists doing their best, wepossess not half a dozen specimens of the mimetic art of the people inquestion. We have one sculpture in the round, one or two modelled clayfigures, a few bas-reliefs, one figure of a king engraved on stone, and a few animal forms represented the same material. Nothing more hasreached us but fragments of pictorial representations too small forcriticism to pronounce upon, and descriptions of ancient writers tooincomplete to be of any great value. 

The single Babylonian sculpture in the round which has come down to ourtimes is the colossal lion standing over the prostrate figure of aman, which is still to be seen on the Kasr mound, as has been alreadymentioned. The accounts of travellers uniformly state that it is a workof no merit--either barbarously executed, or left unfinished by thesculptor--and probably much worn by exposure to the weather. A sketchmade by a recent visitor and kindly communicated to the author, seems toshow that, while the general form of the animal was tolerably well hitoff, the proportions were in some respects misconceived, and the detailsnot only rudely but incorrectly rendered. The extreme shortness ofthe legs and the extreme thickness of the tail are the most prominenterrors; there is also great awkwardness in the whole representation ofthe beast's shoulder. The head is so mutilated that it is impossibleto do more than conjecture its contour. Still the whole figure is notwithout a certain air of grandeur and majesty. [PLATE XVII. , Fig. 3. ]

The human appears to be inferior to the animal form. The prostrate manis altogether shapeless, and can never, it would seem, have been verymuch better than it is at the present time. 

Modelled figures in clay are of rare occurrence. The best is one figuredby Ker Porter, which represents a mother with a child in her arms. Themother is seated in a natural and not ungraceful attitude on a roughsquare pedestal. She is naked except for a hood, or mantilla, whichcovers the head, shoulders, and back, and a narrow apron which hangsdown in front. She wears earrings and a bracelet. The child, whichsleeps on her left shoulder, wears a shirt open in front, and a shortbut full tunic, which is gathered into plaits. Both figures are insimple and natural taste, but the limbs of the infant are somewhat toothin and delicate. The statuette is about three inches and a half high, and shows signs of having been covered with a tinted glaze. [PLATEXVII. , Fig. 2. ]

The single figure of a king which we possess is clumsy and ungraceful. It is chiefly remarkable for the elaborate ornamentation of thehead-dress and the robes, which have a finish equal to that of the bestAssyrian specimens. The general proportions are not bad; but the form isstiff, and the drawing of the right hand is peculiarly faulty, since itwould be scarcely possible to hold arrows in the manner represented. [PLATE XVIII. , Fig. 2. ]

[Illustration: PLATE VXIII. ]

The engraved animal forms have a certain amount of merit. The figureof a dog sitting, which is common on the "black stones, " is drawn withspirit; [PLATE XVIII. , Fig. 1. ] and a bird, sometimes regarded as acock, but more resembling a bustard, is touched with a delicate hand, and may be pronounced superior to any Assyrian representation of thefeathered tribe. [PLATE XVIII. , Fig. 3. ] The hound on a bas-relief, given in the first volume of this work, is also good; and the cylindersexhibit figures of goats, cows, deer, and even monkeys, which aretruthful and meritorious. [PLATE XIX. , Fig. 1. ]

[Illustration: PLATE XIX. ]

It has been observed that the main characteristic of the engravingson gems and cylinders, considered as works of mimetic art, is theirquaintness and grotesqueness. A few specimens, taken almost at randomfrom the admirable collection of M. Felix Lajard, will sufficientlyillustrate this feature. In one the central position is occupied bya human figure whose left arm has two elbow-joints, while towards theright two sitting figures threaten one another with their fists, in theupper quarter, and in the lower two nondescript animals do the same withtheir jaws. [PLATE XVIII. , Fig. 4. ] The entire drawing of this designseems to be intentionally rude. The faces of the main figures areevidently intended to be ridiculous; and the heads of the two animalsare extravagantly grotesque. On another cylinder three nondescriptanimals play the principal part. One of them is on the point of takinginto his mouth the head of a man who vainly tries to escape by flight. Another, with the head of a pike, tries to devour the third, which hasthe head of a bird and the body of a goat. This kind intention seems tobe disputed by a naked man with a long beard, who seizes the fish-headedmonster with his right hand, and at the same time administers frombehind a severe kick with his right foot. The heads of the three mainmonsters, the tail and trousers of the principal one, and the whole ofthe small figure in front of the flying man, are exceedingly quaint, andremind one of the pencil of Fuseli. [PLATE XIX. , Fig. 3. ] The third ofthe designs approaches nearly to the modern caricature. It is a drawingin two portions. The upper line of figures represents a procession ofworshippers who bear in solemn state their offerings to a god. In thelower line this occupation is turned to a jest. Nondescript animalsbring with a serio-comic air offerings which consist chiefly of game, while a man in a mask seeks to steal away the sacred tree from thetemple wherein the scene is enacted. [PLATE XIX. , Fig. 4. ]

It is probable that the most elaborate and most artistic of theBabylonian works of art were of a kind which has almost wholly perished. What bas-relief was to the Assyrian, what painting is to moderns, thatenamelling upon brick appears to have been to the people of Babylon. Themimetic power, which delights in representing to itself the forms andactions of men, found a vent in this curious byway of the graphicart; and the images of the Chaldaeans, portrayed upon the wall, withvermilion, and other hues, formed the favorite adornment of palaces andpublic buildings, at once employing the artist, gratifying the taste ofthe native connoisseur, and attracting the admiration of the foreigner. 

The artistic merit of these works can only be conjectured. Theadmiration of the Jews, or even that of Diodorus, who must be viewedhere as the echo of Ctesias, is no sure test; for the Jews were a peoplevery devoid of true artistic appreciation; and Ctesias was bent onexaggerating the wonders of foreign countries to the Greeks. The fact ofthe excellence of Assyrian art at a somewhat earlier date lends howeversupport to the view that the wall-painting of the Babylonians had somereal artistic excellence. We can scarcely suppose that there was anyvery material difference, in respect of taste and aesthetic power, between the two cognate nations, or that the Babylonians underNebuchadnezzar fell very greatly short of the Assyrians underAsshur-bani-pal. It is evident that the same subjects--war scenes andhunting scenes--approved themselves to both people; and it is likelythat their treatment was not very different. Even in the matterof color, the contrast was not sharp nor strong; for the Assyrianspartially colored their bas-reliefs. 

Tho tints chiefly employed by the Babylonians in their coloredrepresentations were white, blue, yellow, brown, and black. The blue wasof different shades, sometimes bright and deep, sometimes exceedinglypale. The yellow was somewhat dull, resembling our yellow ochre. Thebrown was this same hue darkened. In comparatively rare instances theBabylonians made use of a red, which they probably obtained with somedifficulty. Objects were colored, as nearly as possible, according totheir natural tints--water a light blue, ground yellow, the shafts ofspears black, lions a tawny brown, etc. No attempt was made to shadethe figures or the landscape, much less to produce any general effectby means of _chiaroscuro_; but the artist trusted for his effect toa careful delineation of forms, and a judicious arrangement of simplehues. 

Considerable metallurgic knowledge and skill were shown in thecomposition of the pigments, and the preparation and application ofthe glaze wherewith they are covered. The red used was a sub-oxide ofcopper; the yellow was sometimes oxide of iron, sometimes antimoniate oflead--the Naples yellow of modern artists; the blue was either cobalt oroxide of copper; the white was oxide of tin. Oxide of load was added insome cases, not as a coloring matter, but as a flux, to facilitate thefusion of the glaze. In other cases the pigment used was covered with avitreous coat of an alkaline silicate of alumina. 

The pigments were not applied to an entirely flat surface. Prior to thereception of the coloring matter and the glaze, each brick was modelledby the hand, the figures being carefully traced out, and a slightelevation given to the more important objects. A very low bas-relief wasthus produced, to which the colors were subsequently applied, and thebrick was then baked in the furnace. 

It is conjectured that the bricks were not modelled singly andseparately. A large mass of clay was (it is thought) taken, sufficientto contain a whole subject, or at any rate a considerable portion ofa subject. On this the modeller made out his design in low relief. Themass of clay was then cut up into bricks, and each brick was taken andpainted separately with the proper colors, after which they were allplaced in the furnace and baked. When baked, they were restored to theiroriginal places in the design, a thin layer of the finest mortar servingto keep them in place. 

From the mimetic art of the Babylonians, and the branches of knowledgeconnected with it, we may now pass to the purely mechanical arts--as theart by which hard stones were cut, and those of agriculture, metallurgy, pottery, weaving, carpet-making, embroidery, and the like. 

The stones shaped, bored, and engraved by Babylonian artisans werenot merely the softer and more easily worked kinds, as alabaster, serpentine, and lapis-lazuli, but also the harder sorts-cornelian, agate, quartz, jasper, sienite, loadstone, and green felspar oramazon-stone. These can certainly not have been cut without emery, andscarcely without such devices as rapidly revolving points, or discs, ofthe kind used by modern lapidaries. Though the devices are in generalrude, the work is sometimes exceedingly delicate, and implies a completemastery over tools and materials, as well as a good deal of artisticpower. As far as the mechanical part of the art goes, the Babyloniansmay challenge comparison with the most advanced of the nations ofantiquity; they decidedly excel the Egyptians, and fall little, if atall, short of the Greeks and Romans. 

The extreme minuteness of the work in some of the Babylonian seals andgems raises a suspicion that they must have been engraved by the help ofa powerful magnifying-glass. A lens has been found in Assyria; and thereis much reason to believe that the convenience was at least as wellknown in the lower country. Glass was certainly in use, and was cut intosuch shapes as were required. It is at any rate exceedingly likely thatmagnifying-glasses, which were undoubtedly known to the Greeks in thetime of Aristophanes, were employed by the artisans of Babylon duringthe most flourishing period of the Empire. 

Of Babylonian metal-work we have scarcely any direct means of judging. The accounts of ancient authors imply that the Babylonians dealt freelywith the material, using gold and silver for statues, furniture, andutensils, bronze for gates and images, and iron sometimes for thelatter. We may assume that they likewise employed bronze and iron fortools and weapons, since those metals were certainly so used by theAssyrians. Lead was made of service in building; where iron was alsoemployed, if great strength was needed. The golden images are said tohave been sometimes solid, in which case we must suppose them to havebeen cast in a mold; but undoubtedly in most cases the gold was a mereexternal covering, and was applied in plates, which were hammered intoshape upon some cheaper substance below. Silver was no doubt usedalso in plates, more especially when applied externally to walls, orinternally to the woodwork of palaces; but the silver images, ornamentalfigures, and utensils of which we hear, were most probably solid. Thebronze works must have been remarkable. We are told that both the townand the palace gates were of this material, and it is implied that thelatter were too heavy to be opened in the ordinary manner. Castingson an enormous scale would be requisite for such purposes; and theBabylonians must thus have possessed the art of running into a singlemold vast masses of metal. Probably the gates here mentioned weresolid; but occasionally, it would seem, the Babylonians had gates of adifferent kind, composed of a number of perpendicular bars, united byhorizontal ones above and below [as in PLATE XIX. , Fig. 2. ]. They hadalso, it would appear, metal gateways of a similar character. 

The metal-work of personal ornaments, such as bracelets and armlets, andagain that of dagger handles, seems to have resembled the work of theAssyrians. 

Small figures in bronze were occasionally cast by the Babylonians, whichwere sometimes probably used as amulets, while perhaps more generallythey wore mere ornaments of houses, furniture, and the like. Among thesemay be noticed figures of dogs in a sitting posture, much resembling thedog represented among the constellations, figures of men, grotesquein character, and figures of monsters. An interesting specimen, whichcombines a man and a monster, was found by Sir R. Ker Porter at Babylon. [PLATE XX. , Fig. 1. ]

[Illustration: PLATE XX. ]

The pottery of the Babylonians was of excellent quality, and is scarcelyto be distinguished from the Assyrian, which it resembles alike in formand in material. The bricks of the best period were on the whole betterthan any used in the sister country, and may compare for hardness andfineness with the best Roman. The earthenware is of a fine terra-cotta, generally of a light red color, and slightly baked, but occasionally ofa yellow hue, with a tinge of green. It consists of cups, jars, vases, and other vessels. They appear to have been made upon the wheel, andare in general unornamented. From representations upon the cylinders, itappears that the shapes were often elegant. Long and narrow vases withthin necks seem to have been used for water vessels; these had roundedor pointed bases, and required therefore the support of a stand. Thinjugs were also in use, with slight elegant handles. It is conjecturedthat sometimes modelled figures may have been introduced at the sides ashandles to the vases; but neither the cylinders nor the extant remainsconfirm this supposition. The only ornamentation hitherto observedconsists in a double band which seems to have been carried round some ofthe vases in an incomplete spiral. The vases sometimes have two handles;but they are plain and small, adding nothing to the beauty of thevessels. Occasionally the whole vessel is glazed with a rich blue color. [PLATE XX. , Fig. 3. ]

The Babylonians certainly employed glass for vessels for a small size. They appear not to have been very skilful blowers, since their bottlesare not unfrequently misshappen. [PLATE XX. , Fig. 3. ] They generallystained their glass with, some coloring matter, and occasionallyornamented it with a ribbing. Whether they were able to form massesof glass of any considerable size, whether they used it, like theEgyptians, for beads and bugles, or for mosaics, is uncertain. If wesuppose a foundation in fact for Pliny's story of the great emerald (?)presented by a king of Babylon to an Egyptian Pharaoh, we must concludethat very considerable masses of glass were produced by the Babylonians, at least occasionally; for the said emerald, which can scarcely havebeen of any other material, was four cubits (or six feet) long and threecubits (or four and a half feet) broad. 

Of all the productions of the Babylonians none obtained such, highrepute in ancient times as their textile fabrics. Their carpetsespecially were of great celebrity, and were largely exported to foreigncountries. They were dyed of various colors, and represented objectssimilar to those found on the gems, as griffins and such like monsters. Their position in the ancient world may be compared to that which isnow borne by the fabrics of Turkey and Persia, which are deservedlypreferred to those of all other countries. 

Next to their carpets, the highest, character was borne by theirmuslins. Formed of the finest cotton, and dyed of the most brilliantcolors, they seemed to the Oriental the very best possible material fordress. The Persian kings preferred them for their own wear; and theyhad an early fame in foreign countries at a considerable distance fromBabylonia. It is probable that they were sometimes embroidered withdelicate patterns, such as those which may be seen on the garments ofthe early Babylonian kings. 

Besides woollen and cotton fabrics, the Babylonians also manufactureda good deal of linen cloth, the principal seat of the manufacture beingBorsippa. This material was produced, it is probable, chiefly for homeconsumption, long linen robes being generally worn by the people. 

From the arts of the Babylonians we may now pass to their science--anobscure subject, but one which possesses more than common interest. Ifthe classical writers were correct in their belief that Chaldaea wasthe birthplace of Astronomy, and that their own astronomical science wasderived mainly from this quarter, it must be well worth inquiry what theamount of knowledge was which the Babylonians attained on the subject, and what were the means whereby they made their discoveries. 

On the broad flat plains of Chaldsea, where the entire celestialhemisphere is continually visible to every eye, and the cleartransparent atmosphere shows night after night the heavens gemmed withcountless stars, each shining with a brilliancy unknown in our moistnorthern climes, the attention of man was naturally turned earlier thanelsewhere to these luminous bodies, and attempts were made to grasp, andreduce to scientific form, the array of facts which nature presented tothe eye in a confused and tangled mass. It required no very long courseof observation to acquaint men with a truth, which at first sight nonewould have suspected--namely, that the luminous points whereof the skywas full were of two kinds, some always maintaining the same positionrelatively to one another, while others were constantly changing theirplaces, and as it were wandering about the sky. It is certain that theBabylonians at a very early date distinguished from the fixed starsthose remarkable five, which, from their wandering propensities, theGreeks called the "planets, " and which are the only erratic stars thatthe naked eye, or that even the telescope, except at a very high power, can discern. With these five they were soon led to class the Moon, whichwas easily observed to be a wandering luminary, changing her place amongthe fixed stars with remarkable rapidity. Ultimately, it came to beperceived that the Sun too rose and set at different parts of the yearin the neighborhood of different constellations, and that consequentlythe great luminary was itself also a wanderer, having a path in the skywhich it was possible, by means of careful observation, to mark out. 

But to do this, to mark out with accuracy the courses of the Sun andMoon among the fixed stars, it was necessary, or at least convenient, toarrange the stars themselves into groups. Thus, too, and thus only, wasit possible to give form and order to the chaotic confusion in whichthe stars seem at first sight to lie, owing to the irregularity oftheir intervals, the difference in their magnitude, and their apparentcountlessness. The most uneducated eye, when raised to the starryheavens on a clear night, fixes here and there upon groups of stars: inthe north, Cassiopeia, the Great Bear, the Pleiades--below the Equator, the Southern Cross--must at all times have impressed those who beheldthem with a certain sense of unity. Thus the idea of a "constellation"is formed; and this once done, the mind naturally progresses in the samedirection, and little by little the whole sky is mapped out into certainportions or districts to which names are given--names taken from someresemblance, real or fancied, between the shapes of the several groupsand objects familiar to the early observers. This branch of practicalastronomy is termed "uranography" by moderns; its utility is veryconsiderable; thus and thus only can we particularize the individualstars of which we wish to speak; thus and thus only can we retain inour memory the general arrangement of the stars and their positionsrelatively to each other. 

There is reason to believe that in the early Babylonian astronomythe subject of uranography occupied a prominent place. The Chaldaeanastronomers not only seized on and named those natural groups whichforce themselves upon the eye, but artificially arranged the wholeheavens into a certain number of constellations or asterisms. The verysystem of uranography which maintains itself to the present day on ourcelestial globes and maps, and which is still acknowledged--albeit underprotest--in the nomenclature of scientific astronomers, came in allprobability from this source, reaching us from the Arabians, who tookit from the Greeks who derived it from the Babylonians. The Zodiacalconstellations at any rate, or those through which the sun's course lieswould seem to have had this origin; and many of them may be distinctlyrecognized on Babylonian monuments which are plainly of a stellarcharacter. The accompanying representation, taken from a conical blackstone in the British Museum [PLATE XX. , Fig. 2. ], and belonging to thetwelfth century before our era, is not perhaps, strictly speaking, azodiac, but it is almost certainly an arrangement of constellationsaccording to the forms assigned them in Babylonian uranography. [PLATEXXI. ] The Ram, the Bull, the Scorpion, the Serpent, the Dog, the Arrow, the Eagle or Vulture may all be detected on the stone in question, asmay similar forms variously arranged on other similar monuments. 

[Illustration: PLATE XXI. ]

The Babylonians called the Zodiacal constellations the "Houses of theSun, " and distinguished from them another set of asterisms, which theydenominated the "Houses of the Moon. " As the Sun and Moon both movethrough the sky in nearly the same plane, the path of the Moon merelycrossing and recrossing that of the Sun, but never diverging from itfurther than a few degrees, it would seem that these "Houses of theMoon, " or lunar asterisms, must have been a division of the Zodiacalstars different from that employed with respect to the sun, eitherin the number of the "Houses, " or in the point of separation between"House" and "House. "

The Babylonians observed and calculated eclipses; but their power ofcalculation does not seem to have been based on scientific knowledge, nor to have necessarily implied sound views as to the nature of eclipsesor as to the size, distance, and real motions of the heavenly bodies. The knowledge which they possessed was empirical. Their habits ofobservation led them to discover the period of 223 lunations or 18 years10 days, after which eclipses--especially those of the the moon--recuragain in the same order. Their acquaintance with this cycle would enablethem to predict lunar eclipses with accuracy for many ages, and solareclipses without much inaccuracy for the next cycle or two. 

That the Babylonians carefully noted and recorded eclipses is witnessedby Ptolemy, who had access to a continuous series of such observationsreaching back from his own time to B. C. 747. Five of these--all eclipsesof the moon--were described by Hipparchus from Babylonian sources, andare found to answer all the requirements of modern science. They belongto the years B. C. 721, 720, 621, and 523. One of them, that of B. C. 721, was total at Babylon. The others were partial, the portion of the moonobscured varying from one digit to seven. 

There is no reason to think that the observation of eclipses by theBabylonians commenced with Nabonassar. Ptolemy indeed implies that theseries extant in his day went no higher; but this is to be accounted forby the fact, which Berosus mentioned, that Nabonassar destroyed, asfar as he was able, the previously existing observations, in order thatexact chronology might commence with his own reign. 

Other astronomical achievements of the Babylonians were the following. They accomplished a catalogue of the fixed stars, of which the Greeksmade use in compiling their stellar tables. They observed and recordedtheir observations upon occultations of the planets by the sun and moon. They invented the _gnomon_ and the _polos_, two kinds of sundial, bymeans of which they were able to measure time during the day, and tofix the true length of the solar day, with sufficient accuracy. Theydetermined correctly within a small fraction the length of the synodicrevolution of the moon. They knew that the true length of the solaryear was 365 days and a quarter, nearly. They noticed comets, which theybelieved to be permanent bodies, revolving in orbits like those ofthe planets, only greater. They ascribed eclipses of the sun to theinterposition of the moon between the sun and the earth. They hadnotions not far from the truth with respect to the relative distancefrom the earth of the sun, moon, and planets. Adopting, as was natural, a geocentric system, they decided that the Moon occupied the positionnearest to the earth; that beyond the Moon was Mercury, beyond MercuryVenus, beyond Venus Mars, beyond Mars Jupiter, and beyond Jupiter, inthe remotest position of all, Saturn. This arrangement was probablybased upon a knowledge, more or less exact, of the periodic times whichthe several bodies occupy in their (real or apparent) revolutions. Fromthe difference in the times the Babylonians assumed a correspondingdifference in the size of the orbits, and consequently a greater or lessdistance from the common centre. 

Thus far the astronomical achievements of the Babylonians rest uponthe express testimony of ancient writers--a testimony confirmed in manyrespects by the monuments already deciphered. It is suspected that, whenthe astronomical tablets which exist by hundreds in the British Museumcome to be thoroughly understood, it will be found that the acquaintanceof the Chaldaean sages with astronomical phenomena, if not also withastronomical laws, went considerably beyond the point at which we shouldplace it upon the testimony of the Greek and Roman writers. There issaid to be distinct evidence that they observed the four satellites ofJupiter, and strong reason to believe that they were acquainted likewisewith the seven satellites of Saturn. Moreover, the general laws of themovements of the heavenly bodies seem to have been so far known tothem that they could state by anticipation the position of the variousplanets throughout the year. 

In order to attain the astronomical knowledge which they seem to havepossessed, the Babylonians must undoubtedly have employed a certainnumber of instruments. The invention of sun-dials, as already observed, is distinctly assigned to them. Besides these contrivances for measuringtime during the day, it is almost certain that they must have possessedmeans of measuring time during the night. The clepsydra, or water-clock, which was in common use among the Greeks as early as the fifth centurybefore our era, was probably introduced into Greece from the East, and is likely to have been a Babylonian invention. The astrolabe, aninstrument for measuring the altitude of stars above the horizon, whichwas known to Ptolemy, may also reasonably be assigned to them. It hasgenerally been assumed that they were wholly ignorant of the telescope. But if the satellites of Saturn are really mentioned, as it is thoughtthat they are, upon some of the tablets, it will follow--strange as itmay seem to us--that the Babylonians possessed optical instruments ofthe nature of telescopes, since it is impossible, even in the clear andvapor-loss sky of Chaldaea, to discern the faint moons of that distantplanet without lenses. A lens, it must be remembered, with a fairmagnifying power, has been discovered among the Mesopotamian ruins. A people ingenious enough to discover the magnifying-glass would benaturally led on to the invention of its opposite. When once lensesof the two contrary kinds existed, the elements of a telescope were inbeing. We could not assume from these data that the discovery was made;but if it shall ultimately be substantiated that bodies invisible to thenaked eye were observed by the Babylonians, we need feel no difficultyin ascribing to them the possession of some telescopic instrument. 

The astronomical zeal of the Babylonians was in general, it must beconfessed, no simple and pure love of an abstract science. A school ofpure astronomers existed among them; but the bulk of those who engagedin the study undoubtedly pursued it in the belief that the heavenlybodies had a mysterious influence, not only upon the seasons, but uponthe lives and actions of men--an influence which it was possible todiscover and to foretell by prolonged and careful observation. Theancient writers, Biblical and other, state this fact in the strongestway; and the extant astronomical remains distinctly confirm it. The great majority of the tablets are of an astrological character, recording the supposed influence of the heavenly bodies, singly, inconjunction, or in opposition, upon all sublunary affairs, from the fateof empires to the washing of hands or the paring of nails. The modernprophetical almanac is the legitimate descendant and the sufficientrepresentative of the ancient Chaldee Ephemeris, which was just assilly, just as pretentious, and just as worthless. 

The Chaldee astrology was, primarily and mainly, genethlialogical. It inquired under what aspect of the heavens persons were born, orconceived, and, from the position of the celestial bodies at one orother of these moments, it professed to deduce the whole life andfortunes of the individual. According to Diodorus, it was believedthat a particular star or constellation presided over the birth of eachperson, and thenceforward exercised over his life a special malign orbenignant influence. But his lot depended, not on this star alone, buton the entire aspect of the heavens at a certain moment. To cast thehoroscope was to reproduce this aspect, and then to read by means of itthe individual's future. 

Chaldee astrology, was not, however, limited to genethlialogy. TheChaldaeans professed to predict from the stars such things as thechanges of the weather, high winds and storms, great heats, theappearance of comets, eclipses, earthquakes, and the like. Theypublished lists of luck and unlucky days, and tables showing what aspectof the heavens portended good or evil to particular countries. Curiouslyenough, it appears that they regarded their art as locally limited tothe regions inhabited by themselves and their kinsmen, so that whilethey could boldly predict storm, tempest, failing or abundant crops, war, famine, and the like, for Syria, Babylonia, and Susiana, they couldventure on no prophecies with respect to other neighboring lands, asPersia, Media, Armenia. 

A certain amount of real meteorological knowledge was probably mixedup with the Chaldaean astrology. Their calendars, like modern almanacs, boldly predicted the weather for fixed days in the year. They mustalso have been mathematicians to no inconsiderable extent, since theirmethods appear to have been geometrical. It is said that the Greekmathematicians often quoted with approval the works of their Chaldaeanpredecessors, Ciden, Naburianus, and Sudinus. Of the nature and extentof their mathematical acquirements, no account, however, can be given, since the writers who mention them enter into no details on the subject. 

CHAPTER VI. MANNERS AND CUSTOMS. 

"Girded with girdles upon their loins, exceeding in dyed attire upontheir heads, all of them princes to look to, after the manner of theBabylonians of Chaldaea, the land of their nativity. "--Ezek. Xxiii. 15. 

The manners and customs of the Babylonians, though not admitting of thatcopious illustration from ancient monuments which was found possible inthe case of Assyria, are yet sufficiently known to us, either from theextant remains or from the accounts of ancient writers of authority, tofurnish materials for a short chapter. Herodotus, Strabo, Diodorus, andNicolas of Damascus, present us with many interesting traits of thissomewhat singular people; the sacred writers contemporary with the acmeof the nation add numerous touches; while the remains, though scanty, put distinctly and vividly before our eyes a certain number of curiousdetails. 

Herodotus describes with some elaboration the costume of the Babyloniansin his day. He tells us that they wore a long linen gown reaching downto their feet, a woollen gown or tunic above this, a short cloak or capeof a white color, and shoes like those of the Boeotians. Their hair theyallowed to grow long, but confined it by a head-band or a turban; andthey always carried a walking-stick with a carving of some kind onthe handle. This portraiture, it is probable, applies to the richerinhabitants of the capital, and represents the Babylonian gentlemanof the fifth century before our era, as he made his appearance in thestreets of the metropolis. 

The cylinders seem to show that the ordinary Babylonian dress wasless complicated. The worshipper who brings an offering to a god isfrequently represented with a bare head, and wears apparently butone garment, a tunic generally ornamented with a diagonal fringe, andreaching from the shoulder to a little above the knee. The tunic isconfined round the waist by a belt. [PLATE XXII. , Fig. 1. ] Richerworshippers, who commonly present a goat, have a fillet or headband, nota turban, round the head. They wear generally the same sort of tunicas the others; but over it they have a long robe, shaped like a moderndressing-gown, except that it has no sleeves, and does not cover theright shoulder. [PLATE XXII. , Fig. 1. ] In a few instances only we seeunderneath this open gown a long inner dress or robe, such as thatdescribed by Herodotus. [PLATE XXII. , Fig. 2. ] A cape or tippet of thekind which he describes is worn sometimes by a god, but is never seen, it is believed, in any representation of a mortal. 

[Illustration: PLATE XXII. ]

The short tunic, worn by the poorer worshippers, is seen also in arepresentation (hereafter to be given) of hunters attacking a lion. Asimilar garment is worn by the man--probably a slave--who accompaniesthe dog, supposed to represent an Indian hound; and also by a warrior, who appears on one of the cylinders conducting six foreign captives. [PLATE XXII. , Fig. 4. ] There is consequently much reason to believe thatsuch a tunic formed the ordinary costume of the common people, as itdoes at present of the common Arab inhabitants of the country. It leftthe arms and right shoulder bare, covering only the left. Below the beltit was not made like a frock but lapped over in front, being in factnot so much a garment as a piece of cloth wrapped round the body. Occasionally it is represented as patterned; but this is somewhatunusual. [PLATE XXII. , Fig. 3. ]

In lieu of the long robe reaching to the feet, which seems to havebeen the ordinary costume of the higher classes, we observe sometimesa shorter, but still a similar garment--a sort of coat without sleeves, fringed down both sides, and reaching only a little below the knee. Theworshippers who wear this robe have in most cases the head adorned witha fillet. [PLATE XXIII. , Fig. 1. ]

[Illustration: PLATE XXIII. ]

It is unusual to find any trace of boots or shoes in the representationsof Babylonians. A shoe patterned with a sort of check work was wornby the king; and soldiers seem to have worn a low boot in theirexpeditions. But with rare exceptions the Babylonians are representedwith bare feet on the monuments; and if they commonly wore shoes in thetime of Herodotus, we may conjecture that they had adopted the practicefrom the example of the Medes and Persians. A low boot, laced in front, was worn by the chiefs of the Susianians. Perhaps the "peculiar shoe" ofthe Babylonians was not very different. [PLATE XXIII. , Fig. 1. ]

The girdle was an essential feature of Babylonian costume, common tohigh and low, to the king and to the peasant. It was a broad belt, probably of leather, and encircled the waist rather high up. The warriorcarried his daggers in it; to the common man it served the purpose ofkeeping in place the cloth which he wore round his body. According toHerodotus, it was also universal in Babylonia to carry a seal and awalking-stick. 

Special costumes, differing considerably from those hitherto described, distinguished the king and the priests. The king wore a long gown, somewhat scantily made, but reaching down to the ankles, elaboratelypatterned and fringed. Over this, apparently, he had a close-fittingsleeved vest, which came down to the knees, and terminated in a set ofheavy tassels. The girdle was worn outside the outer vest, and in warthe monarch carried also two cross-belts, which perhaps supported hisquiver. The upper vest was, like the under one, richly adorned withembroidery. From it, or from the girdle, depended in front a singleheavy tassel attached by a cord, similar to that worn by the early kingsof Assyria. 

Tho tiara of the monarch was very remarkable. It was of great height, nearly cylindrical, but with a slight tendency to swell out toward thecrown, which was ornamented with a row of feathers round its entirecircumference. The space below was patterned with rosettes, sacredtrees, and mythological figures. From the centre of the crown there roseabove the feathers a projection resembling in some degree the projectionwhich distinguishes the tiara of the Assyrian kings, the rounded, andnot squared, at top. This head-dress, which has a heavy appearance, wasworn low on the brow, and covered nearly all the back of the head. Itcan scarcely have been composed of a heaver material than cloth or felt. Probably it was brilliantly colored. 

The monarch wore bracelets, but (apparently) neither necklaces norearrings. Those last are assigned by Nicolas of Damascus to a Babyloniangovernor; and they were so commonly used by the Assyrians that wecan scarcely suppose them unknown to their kindred and neighbors. TheBabylonian monuments, however, contain no traces of earrings as worn bymen, and only a few doubtful ones of collars or necklaces; whence wemay at any rate conclude that neither were worn at all generally. The bracelets which encircle the royal wrist resemble the most commonbracelet of the Assyrians, consisting of a plain band, probably ofmetal, with a rosette in the centre. 

The dress of the priests was a long robe or gown, flounced and striped, over which they seem to have worn an open jacket of a similar character. A long scarf or riband depended from behind down their backs. Theycarried on their heads an elaborate crown or mitre, which is assignedalso to many of the gods. In lieu of this mitre, we find sometimes, though rarely, a horned cap; and, in one or two instances, a mitre of adifferent kind. In all sacrificial and ceremonial acts the priests seemto have worn their heads covered. [PLATE XXIII. , Fig. 6. ]

On the subject of the Babylonian military costume our information isscanty and imperfect. In the time of Herodotus the Chaldaeans seem tohave had the same armature as the Assyrians--namely, bronze helmets, linen breastplates, shields, spears, daggers, and maces or clubs; and, at a considerably earlier date, we find in Scripture much the samearms, offensive and defensive, assigned them. There is, however, oneremarkable difference between the Biblical account and that given byHerodotus. The Greek historian says nothing of the use of bows by theChaldaeans; while in Scripture the bow appears as their favorite weapon, that which principally renders them formidable. The monuments are onthis point thoroughly in accordance with Scripture. The Babylonian kingalready represented carries a bow and two arrows. The soldier conductingcaptives has a bow an arrow, and a quiver. A monument of an earlierdate, which is perhaps rather Proto-Chaldaean than pure Babylonian, yetwhich has certain Babylonian characteristics, makes the arms of a kinga bow and arrow, a club (?), and a dagger. In the marsh fights ofthe Assyrians, where their enemies are probably Chaldaeans of the lowcountry, the bow is the sole weapon which we see in use. 

The Babylonian bow nearly resembles the ordinary curved bow of theAssyrians. It has a knob at either extremity, over which the stringpasses, and is thicker towards the middle than at the two ends; the bendis slight, the length when strung less than four feet. [PLATE XXIII. , Fig. 2. ] The length of the arrow is about three feet. It is carefullynotched and feathered, and has a barbed point. The quiver, asrepresented in the Assyrian sculptures, has nothing remarkable aboutit; but the single extant Babylonian representation makes it terminatecuriously with a large ornament resembling a spearhead. It is difficultto see the object of this appendage, which must have formed noinconsiderable addition to the weight of the quiver. [PLATE XXIII. , Fig. 3. ]

Babylonian daggers were short, and shaped like the Assyrian; but theirhandles were less elegant and less elaborately ornamented. They wereworn in the girdle (as they are at the present day in all easterncountries) either in pairs or singly. [PLATE XXIII. , Fig. 3. ]

Other weapons of the Babylonians, which we may be sure they used inwar, though the monuments do not furnish any proof of the fact, were thespear and the bill or axe. These weapons are exhibited in combinationupon one of the most curious of the cylinders, where a lion is disturbedin his meal off an ox by two rustics, one of whom attacks him in frontwith a spear, while the other seizes his tail and assails him in therear with an axe. [PI. XXIII. , Fig. 5. ] With the axe here representedmay be compared another, which is found on a clay tablet brought fromSinkara, and supposed to belong to the early Chaldaean period. 30 TheSinkara axe has a simple square blade: the axe upon the cylinder has ablade with long curved sides and a curved edge; while, to balance theweight of the blade, it has on the lower side three sharp spikes. Thedifference between the two implements marks the advance of mechanicalart in the country between the time of the first and that of the fourthmonarchy. [PLATE XXIII. , Fig. 4. ]

Babylonian armies seem to have been composed, like Assyrian, of threeelements--infantry, cavalry, and chariots. Of the chariots we appearto have one or two representations upon the cylinders, but they are toorudely carved to be of much value. It is not likely that the chariotsdiffered much either in shape or equipment from the Assyrian, unlessthey were, like those of Susiana, ordinarily drawn by mules. A peculiarcar, four-wheeled, and drawn by four horses, with an elevated platformin front and a seat behind for the driver, which the cylindersoccasionally exhibit, is probably not a war-chariot, but a sacredvehicle, like the tensa or thensa of the Romans. [PLATE XXIV. , Fig. 2. ]

[Illustration: PLATE XXIV. ]

The Prophet Habakkuk evidently considered the cavalry of the Babyloniansto be their most formidable arm. "They are terrible and dreadful, " hesaid; "from them shall proceed judgment and captivity; their horsesalso are swifter than the leopards, and are more fierce than the eveningwolves; and their horsemen shall spread themselves, and their horsemenshall come from far; they shall fly, as the eagle that hasteth toeat. " Similarly Ezekiel spoke of the "desirable young men, captainsand rulers, great lords and renowned; all of them riding upon horses, "Jeremiah couples the horses with the chariots, as if he doubted whetherthe chariot force or the cavalry were the more to be dreaded. "Behold, he shall come up as clouds, and his chariot shall be as a whirlwind; hishorses are swifter than eagles. Woe unto us! for we are spoiled. " In thearmy of Xerxes the Babylonians seem to have served only on foot, whichwould imply that they were not considered in that king's time to furnishsuch good cavalry as the Persians, Medes, Cissians, Indians, andothers, who sent contingents of horse. Darius, however, in the Behistuninscription, speaks of Babylonian horsemen; and the armies which overranSyria, Palestine, and Egypt, seem to have consisted mainly of horse. The Babylonian armies, like the Persian, were vast hosts, poorlydisciplined, composed not only of native troops, but of contingentsfrom the subject nations, Cissians, Elamites, Shuhites, Assyrians, andothers. They marched with vast noise and tumult, spreading themselvesfar and wide over the country which they were invading, plunderingand destroying on all sides. If their enemy would consent to a pitchedbattle, they were glad to engage with him; but, more usually, theircontests resolved themselves into a succession of sieges, the bulk ofthe population attacked retreating to their strongholds, and offeringbehind walls a more or less protracted resistance. The weaker towns wereassaulted with battering-rams; against the stronger, mounds were raised, reaching nearly to the top of the walls, which were then easily scaledor broken down. A determined persistence in sieges seems to havecharacterized this people, who did not take Jerusalem till the third, nor Tyre till the fourteenth year. 

In expeditions it sometimes happened that a question arose as to thepeople or country next to be attacked. In such cases it appears thatrecourse was had to divination, and the omens which were obtaineddecided whither the next effort of the invader should be directed. Priests doubtless accompanied the expeditions to superintend thesacrifices and interpret them on such occasions. According to Diodorus, the priests in Babylonia were a caste, devoted to the service of thenative deities and the pursuits of philosophy, and held in high honor bythe people. It was their business to guard the temples and serve atthe altars of the gods, to explain dreams and prodigies, to understandomens, to read the warnings of the stars, and to instruct men how toescape the evils threatened in those various ways, by purifications, incantations, and sacrifices. They possessed a traditional knowledgewhich had come down from father to son, and which none thought ofquestioning. The laity looked up to them as the sole possessors of arecondite wisdom of the last importance to humanity. 

With these statements of the lively but inaccurate Sicilian those of theBook of Daniel are very fairly, if not entirely, in accordance. A classof "wise men" is described as existing at Babylon, foremost among whomare the Chaldaeans; they have a special "learning, " and (as it wouldseem) a special "tongue;" their business is to expound dreams andprodigies; they are in high favor with the monarch, and are oftenconsulted by him. This body of "wise men" is subdivided into fourclasses--"Chaldaeans, magicians, astrologers, and soothsayers"--asubdivision which seems to be based upon difference of occupation. It isnot distinctly stated that they are priests; nor does it seem thatthey were a caste; for Jews are enrolled among their number, and Danielhimself is made chief of the entire body. But they form a very distinctorder, and constitute a considerable power in the state; they havedirect communication with the monarch, and they are believed to possess, not merely human learning, but a supernatural power of predicting futureevents. High civil office is enjoyed by some of their number. 

Notices agreeing with these, but of less importance, are contained inHerodotus and Strabo. Herodotus speaks of the Chaldaeans as "priests;"Strabo says that they were "philosophers, " who occupied themselvesprincipally in astronomy. The latter writer mentions that they weredivided into sects, who differed one from another in their doctrines. Hegives the names of several Chaldaeans whom the Greek mathematicianswere in the habit of quoting. Among them is a Seleucus, who by his nameshould be a Greek. 

From these various authorities we may assume that there was in Babylon, as in Egypt, and in later Persia, a distinct priest class, which enjoyedhigh consideration. It was not, strictly speaking, a caste. Priestsmay have generally brought up their sons to the occupation; but otherpersons, even foreigners (and if foreigners, then _a fortiori_ natives), could be enrolled in the order, and attain its highest privileges. It was at once a sacerdotal and a learned body. It had a literature, written in peculiar language, which its members were bound to study. This language and this literature were probably a legacy from the oldtimes of the first (Turano-Cushite) kingdom, since even in Assyria itis found that the literature was in the main Turanian, down to the veryclose of the empire. Astronomy, astrology, and mythology were no doubtthe chief subjects which the priests studied; but history, chronology, grammar, law, and natural science most likely occupied some part oftheir attention. Conducting everywhere the worship of the gods, theywere of course scattered far and wide through the country; but they hadcertain special seats of learning, corresponding perhaps in some sort toour universities, the most famous of which were Erech or Orchoe (Warka), and Borsippa, the town represented by the modern Birs-i-Nimrud. Theywere diligent students, not wanting in ingenuity, and not content merelyto hand down the wisdom of their ancestors. Schools arose among them;and a boldness of speculation developed itself akin to that which wefind among the Greeks. Astronomy, in particular, was cultivated with agood deal of success; and stores were accumulated of which the Greeks inlater times understood and acknowledged the value. 

In social position the priest class stood high. They had access to themonarch: they were feared and respected by the people; the offerings ofthe faithful made them wealthy; their position as interpreters of thedivine will secured them influence. Being regarded as capable of civilemployment, they naturally enough obtained frequently important offices, which added to their wealth and consideration. 

The mass of the people in Babylonia were employed in the two pursuitsof commerce and agriculture. The commerce was both foreign and domestic. Great numbers of the Babylonians were engaged in the manufacture ofthose textile fabrics, particularly carpets and muslins, which Babyloniaproduced not only for her own use, but also for the consumption offoreign countries. Many more must have been employed as lapidaries inthe execution of those delicate engravings on hard stone, wherewith theseal, which every Babylonian carried, was as a matter of course adorned. The ordinary trades and handicrafts practised in the East no doubtflourished in the country. A brisk import and export trade wasconstantly kept up, and promoted a healthful activity throughout theentire body politic. Babylonia is called "a land of traffic" byEzekiel, and Babylon "a city of merchants. " Isaiah says "theory of theChaldaeans" was "in their ships. " The monuments show that from veryearly times the people of the low country on the borders of the PersianGulf were addicted to maritime pursuits, and navigated the gulf freely, if they did not even venture on the open ocean. And AEschylus is awitness that the nautical character still attached to the people aftertheir conquest by the Persians; for he calls the Babylonians in the armyof Xerxes "navigators of ships. "

The Babylonian import trade, so far as it was carried on by themselves, seems to have been chiefly with Arabia, with the islands in the PersianGulf, and directly or indirectly with India. From Arabia they must haveimported the frankincense which they used largely in their religiousceremonies; from the Persian Gulf they appear to have derived pearls, cotton, and wood for walking sticks from India they obtained dogs andseveral kinds of gems. If we may believe Strabo, they had a colonycalled Gerrha, most favorably situated on the Arabian coast of the gulf, which was a great emporium, and conducted not only the trade betweenBabylonia and the regions to the south, but also that which passedthrough Babylonia into the more nothern districts. The products of thevarious countries of Western Asia flowed into Babylonia down the coursesof the rivers. From Armenia, or rather Upper Mesopotamia, came wine, gems, emery, and perhaps stone for building; from Phoenicia, by wayof Palmyra and Thapsacus, came tin, perhaps copper, probably musicalinstruments, and other objects of luxury; from Media and the countriestowards the east came fine wool, lapis-lazuli, perhaps silk, andprobably gold and ivory. But these imports seem to have been brought toBabylonia by foreign merchants rather than imported by the exertions ofnative traders. The Armenians, the Phoenicians, and perhaps the Greeks, used for the conveyance of their goods the route of the Euphrates. TheAssyrians, the Paretaceni, and the Medes probably floated theirs downthe Tigris and its tributaries. 

A large-probably the largest-portion of the people must have beenengaged in the occupations of agriculture. Babylonia was, before allthings, a grain-producing country--noted for a fertility unexampledelsewhere, and to moderns almost incredible. The soil was a deep andrich alluvium, and was cultivated with the utmost care. It grew chieflywheat, barley millet, and sesame, which all nourished with wonderfulluxuriance. By a skilful management of the natural water supply, theindispensable fluid was utilized to the utmost, and conveyed to everypart of the country. Date-groves spread widely over the land, andproduced abundance of an excellent fruit. 

For the cultivation of the date nothing was needed but a proper watersupply, and a little attention at the time of fructification. The maleand female palm are distinct trees, and the female cannot produce fruitunless the pollen from the male comes in contact with its blossoms. Ifthe male and the female trees are grown in proper proximity, naturalcauses will always produce a certain amount of impregnation. Butto obtain a good crop, art may be serviceably applied. According toHerodotus, the Babylonians were accustomed to tie the branches ofthe male to those of the female palm. This was doubtless done at theblossoming time, when it would have the effect he mentions, preventingthe fruit of the female, or date-producing palms, from falling off. 

The date palm was multiplied in Babylonia by artificial means. It wascommonly grown from seed, several stones being planted together forgreater security; But occasionally it was raised from suckers orcuttings. It was important to plant the seeds and cuttings in a sandysoil; and if nature had not sufficiently impregnated the ground withsaline particles, salt had to be applied artificially to the soilaround as a dressing. The young plants needed a good deal of attention. Plentiful watering was required; and transplantation was desirable atthe end of both the first and second year. The Babylonians are saidto have transplanted their young trees in the height of summer; othernations preferred the springtime. 

For the cultivation of grain the Babylonians broke up their land withthe plough; to draw which they seem to have employed two oxen, placedone before the other, in the mode still common in many parts of England. The plough had two handles, which the ploughman guided with his twohands. It was apparently of somewhat slight construction. The tail rosefrom the lower part of one of the handles, and was of unusual length. [PLATE XXIV. , Fig. 3. ]

It is certain that dates formed the main food of the inhabitants, Thedried fruit, being to them the staff of life, was regarded by the Greeksas their "bread. " It was perhaps pressed into cakes, as is the commonpractice in the country at the present day. On this and goat's milk, which we know to have been in use, the poorer class, it is probable, almost entirely subsisted. Palm-wine, the fermented sap of the tree, wasan esteemed, but no doubt only an occasional beverage. It was pleasantto the taste, but apt to leave a headache behind it. Such vegetablesas gourds, melons, and cucumbers, must have been cheap, and may haveentered into the diet of the common people. They were also probably theconsumers of the "pickled bats, " which (according to Strabo) were eatenby the Babylonians. 

In the marshy regions of the south there were certain tribes whosesole, or at any rate whose chief, food was fish. Fish abound in thesedistricts, and are readily taken either with the hook or in nets. Themode of preparing this food was to dry it in the sun, to pound it fine, strain it through a sieve, and then make it up into cakes, or into akind of bread. 

The diet of the richer classes was no doubt varied and luxurious. Wheaten bread, meats of various kinds, luscious fruits, fish, game, loaded the board; and wine, imported from abroad was the usual beverage. The wealthy Babylonians were fond of drinking to excess; their banquetswere magnificent, but generally ended in drunkenness; they were not, however, mere scenes of coarse indulgence, but had a certain refinement, which distinguishes them from the riotous drinking-bouts of the lesscivilized Modes. Music was in Babylonia a recognized accompaniment ofthe feast; and bands of performers, entering with the wine, entertainedthe guests with concerted pieces. A rich odor of perfume floated around, for the Babylonians were connoisseurs in unguents. The eye was delightedwith a display of gold and silver plate. The splendid dresses of theguests, the exquisite carpets and hangings, the numerous attendants, gave an air of grandeur to the scene, and seemed half to excuse theexcess of which too many were guilty. 

A love of music appears to have characterized both the Babylonians andtheir near neighbors and kinsmen, the Susianians. In the sculpturedrepresentations of Assyria, the Susianians are shown to have possessednumerous instruments, and to have organized large bands of performers. The Prophet Daniel and the historian Ctesias similarly witness to themusical taste of the Babylonians, which had much the same character. Ctesias said that Annarus (or Nannarus), a Babylonian noble, entertainedhis guests at a banquet with music performed by a company of 150 women. Of these a part sang, while the rest played upon instruments, some usingthe pipe, others the harp, and a certain number the psaltery. These sameinstruments are assigned to the Babylonians by the prophet Daniel, who, however, adds to them three more--viz. , the horn, the sambuca, and aninstrument called the sumphonia, or "symphony. " It is uncertain whetherthe horn intended was straight, like the Assyrian, or curved, like theRoman cornu and lituus. The pipe was probably the double instrument, played at the end, which was familiar to the Susianians and Assyrians. The harp would seem to have resembled the later harp of the Assyrians;but it had fewer strings, if we may judge from a representation upona cylinder. Like the Assyrian, it was carried under one arm, and wasplayed by both hands, one on either side of the strings. [PLATE XXV. , Fig. 3. ]

[Illustration: PLATE XXV. ]

The character of the remaining instruments is more doubtful. The sambucaseems to have been a large harp, which rested on the ground, like theharps of the Egyptians. The psaltery was also a stringed instrument, and, if its legitimate descendant is the modern santour, we may presumethat it is represented in the hands of a Susianian musician on themonument which is our chief authority for the Oriental music of theperiod. The symphonia is thought by some to be the bagpipe, which iscalled sampogna by the modern Italians: by others it is regarded as asort of organ. 

The Babylonians used music, not merely in their private entertainments, but also in their religious ceremonies. Daniel's account of theirinstruments occurs casually in his mention of Nebuchadnezzar'sdedication of a colossal idol of gold. The worshippers were to prostratethemselves before the idol as soon as they heard the music commence, and were probably to continue in the attitude of worship until the soundceased. 

The seclusion of women seems scarcely to have been practised inBabylonia with as much strictness as in most Oriental countries. Thetwo peculiar customs on which Herodotus descants at length--the publicauction of the marriageable virgins in all the towns of the empire, andthe religious prostitution authorized in the worship of Beltis--werewholly incompatible with the restraints to which the sex has commonlysubmitted in the Eastern world. Much modesty can scarcely have belongedto those whose virgin charms were originally offered in the publicmarket to the best bidder, and who were required by their religion, atleast once in their lives, openly to submit to the embraces of a manother than their husband. It would certainly seem that the sex hadin Babylonia a freedom--and not only a freedom, but also aconsideration--unusual in the ancient world, and especially rare inAsia. The stories of Semiramis and Nitocris may have in them no greatamount of truth; but they sufficiently indicate the belief of theGreeks as to the comparative publicity allowed to their women by theBabylonians. 

The monuments accord with the view of Babylonian manners thus opened tous. The female form is not eschewed by the Chaldaean artists. Besidesimages of a goddess (Beltis or Ish-tar) suckling a child, which arefrequent, we find on the cylinders numerous representations of women, engaged in various employments. Sometimes they are represented in aprocession, visiting the shrine of a goddess, to whom they offer theirpetitions, by the mouth of one of their number, or to whom they bringtheir children for the purpose, probably, of placing them under herprotection [PLATE XXV. , Fig. 5. ], sometimes they may be seen amusingthemselves among birds and flowers in a garden, plucking the fruit fromdwarf palms, and politely handing it to one another. [PLATE XXV. , Fig. 4. ] Their attire is in every case nearly the same; they wear a long butscanty robe, reaching to the ankles, ornamented at the bottom with afringe and apparently opening in front. The upper part of the dresspasses over only one shoulder. It is trimmed round the top with a fringewhich runs diagonally across the chest, and a similar fringe edges thedress down the front where it opens. A band or fillet is worn round thehead, confining the hair, which is turned back behind the head, and tiedby a riband, or else held up by the fillet. 

Female ornaments are not perceptible on the small figures ofthe cylinders; but from the modelled image in clay, of which arepresentation has been already given, we learn that bracelets andearrings of a simple character were worn by Babylonian women, if theywere not by the men. On the whole, however, female dress seems to havebeen plain and wanting in variety, though we may perhaps suspect thatthe artists do not trouble themselves to represent very accurately suchdiversities of apparel as actually existed. 

From a single representation of a priestess it would seem that womenof that class wore nothing but a petticoat, thus exposing not only thearms, but the whole of the body as far as the waist. 

The monuments throw a little further light on the daily life of theBabylonians. A few of their implements, as saws and hatchets, arerepresented. [PLATE XXV. , Fig. 2]; and from the stools, the chairs, thetables, and stands for holding water-jars which occur occasionally onthe cylinders, we may gather that the fashion of their furnituremuch resembled that of their northern neighbors, the Assyrians. It isneedless to dwell on this subject, which presents no novel features, and has been anticipated by the discussion on Assyrian furniture in thefirst volume. The only touch that can be added to what was there saidis that in Babylonia, the chief--almost the sole-material employed forfurniture was the wood of the palm-tree, a soft and light fabric whichcould be easily worked, and which had considerable strength, but did notadmit of a high finish. 

CHAPTER VII. RELIGION. 

The Religion of the later Babylonians differed in so few respects fromthat of the early Chaldaeans, their predecessors in the same country, that it will be unnecessary to detain the reader with many observationson the subject. The same gods were worshipped in the same temples andwith the same rites--the same cosmogony was taught and held--the samesymbols were objects of religious regard--even the very dress of thepriests was maintained unaltered; and, could Urukh or Chedorlaomer haverisen from the grave and revisited the shrines wherein they sacrificedfourteen centuries earlier, they would have found but little todistinguish the ceremonies of their own day from those in vogueunder the successors of Nabopolassar. Some additional splendor in thebuildings, the idols, and perhaps the offerings, some increased useof music as a part of the ceremonial, some advance of corruption withrespect to priestly impostures and popular religious customs mightprobably have been noticed; but otherwise the religion of Nabonidus andBelshazzar was that of Urukh and Ilgi, alike in the objects and the modeof worship, in the theological notions entertained and the ceremonialobservances taught and practised. 

The identity of the gods worshipped during the entire period issufficiently proved by the repair and restoration of the ancient templesunder Nebuchadnezzar, and their re-dedication (as a general rule) tothe same deities. It appears also from the names of the later kings andnobles, which embrace among their elements the old divine appellations. Still, together with this general uniformity, we seem to see a certainamount of fluctuation--a sort of fashion in the religion, wherebyparticular gods were at different times exalted to a higher rank in thePantheon, and were sometimes even confounded with other deities commonlyregarded as wholly distinct from them. Thus Nebuchadnezzar devotedhimself in an especial way to Merodach, and not only assigned him titlesof honor which implied his supremacy over all the remaining gods, buteven identified him with the great Bel, the ancient tutelary god of thecapital. Nabonidus, on the other hand, seems to have restored Bel to hisold position, re-establishing the distinction between him and Merodach, and preferring to devote himself to the former. 

A similar confusion occurs between the goddesses Beltis and Nana orIshtar, though this is not peculiar to the later kingdom. It may perhapsbe suspected from such instances of connection and quasi-convertibility, that an esoteric doctrine, known to the priests and communicated bythem to the kings, taught the real identity of the several gods andgoddesses, who may have been understood by the better instructed torepresent, not distinct and separate beings, but the several phasesof the Divine Nature. Ancient polytheism had, it may be surmised, to agreat extent this origin, the various names and titles of the Supreme, which designated His different attributes or the different spheres ofHis operation, coming by degrees to be misunderstood, and to pass, firstwith the vulgar, and at last with all but the most enlightened, for theappellations of a number of gods. 

The chief objects of Babylonian worship were Bel, Merodach, and Nebo. Nebo, the special deity of Borsippa, seems to have been regarded as asort of powerful patron-saint under whose protection it was importantto place individuals. During the period of the later kingdom, no divineelement is so common in names. Of the seven kings who form the entirelist, three certainly, four probably, had appellations composed with it. The usage extended from the royal house to the courtiers; and such namesas Nebu-zar-adan, Samgar-Nebo, and Nebushazban, show the respect whichthe upper class of citizens paid to this god. It may even be suspectedthat when Nebuchadnezzar's Master of the Eunuchs had to give Babyloniannames to the young Jewish princes whom he was educating, he designed tosecure for one of them this powerful patron, and consequently calledhim Abed-Nebo--the servant of Nebo--a name which the later Jews, eitherdisdaining or not understanding, have corrupted into the Abed-nogo ofthe existing text. 

Another god held in peculiar honor by the Babylonians was Nergal. Worshipped at Cutha as the tutelary divinity of the town, he was alsoheld in repute by the people generally. No name is more common on thecylinder seals. It is sometimes, though not often, an element in thenames of men, as in "Nergal-shar-ezer, the Eab-mag, " and (if he be adifferent person) in Neriglissar, the king. 

Altogether, there was a strong local element in the religion of theBabylonians. Bel and Merodach were in a peculiar way the gods ofBabylon, Nebo of Borsippa, Nergal of Cutha, the Moon of Ur or Hur, Beltis of Niffer, Hea or Hoa of Hit, Ana of Erech, the Sun of Sippara. Without being exclusively honored at a single site, the deities inquestion held the foremost place each in his own town. There especiallywas worship offered to them; there was the most magnificent of theirshrines. Out of his own city a god was not greatly respected, unless bythose who regarded him as their special personal protector. 

The Babylonians worshipped their gods indirectly, through images. Each shrine had at least one idol, which was held in the most piousreverence, and was in the minds of the vulgar identified with the god. It seems to have been believed by some that the actual idol ate anddrank the offerings. Others distinguished between the idol and the god, regarding the latter as only occasionally visiting the shrine where hewas worshipped. Even these last, however, held gross anthropomorphicviews, since they considered the god to descend from heaven in order tohold commerce with the chief priestess. Such notions were encouraged bythe priests, who furnished the inner shrine in the temple of Bel with amagnificent couch and a golden table, and made the principal priestesspass the night in the shrine on certain occasions. 

The images of the gods were of various materials. Some were of wood, others of stone, others again of metal; and these last were eithersolid or plated. The metals employed were gold, silver, brass, or ratherbronze, and iron. Occasionally the metal was laid over a clay model. Sometimes images of one metal were overlaid with plates of another, aswas the case with one of the great images of Bel, which was originallyof silver but was coated with gold by Nebuchadnezzar. 

The worship of the Babylonians appears to have been conducted with muchpomp and magnificence. A description has been already given of theirtemples. Attached to these imposing structures was, in every case, abody of priests; to whom the conduct of the ceremonies and the custodyof the treasures were intrusted. The priests were married, and livedwith their wives and children, either in the sacred structure itself, or in its immediate neighborhood. They were supported either by landsbelonging to the temple, or by the offerings of the faithful. Theseconsisted in general of animals, chiefly oxen and goats; but othervaluables were no doubt received when tendered. The priest alwaysintervened between the worshipper and the deities, presenting him tothem and interceding with uplifted hands on his behalf. 

In the temple of Bel at Babylon, and probably in most of the othertemples both there and elsewhere throughout the country, a greatfestival was celebrated once in the course of each year. We know littleof the ceremonies with which these festivals were accompanied; butwe may presume from the analogy of other nations that there weremagnificent processions on these occasions, accompanied probably withmusic and dancing. The images of the gods were perhaps exhibited eitheron frames or on sacred vehicles. Numerous victims were sacrificed; andat Babylon it was customary to burn on the great altar in the precinctof Bel a thousand talents' weight of frankincense. The priests no doubtwore their most splendid dresses; the multitude was in holiday costume;the city was given up to merry-making. Everywhere banquets were held. Inthe palace the king entertained his lords; in private houses there wasdancing and revelling. Wine was freely drunk; passion Was excited; andthe day, it must be feared, too often terminated in wild orgies, whereinthe sanctions of religion were claimed for the free indulgence of theworst sensual appetites. In the temples of one deity excesses of thisdescription, instead of being confined to rare occasions, seem to havebeen of every-day occurrence. Each woman was required once in her lifeto visit a shrine of Beltis, and there remain till some stranger castmoney in her lap and took her away with him. Herodotus, who seems tohave visited the disgraceful scene, describes it as follows. "Many womenof the wealthier sort, who are too proud to mix with the others, drivein covered carriages to the precinct, followed by a goodly train ofattendants, and there take their station. But the larger number seatthemselves within the holy inclosure with wreaths of string about theirheads--and here there is always a great crowd, some coming and othersgoing. Lines of cord mark out paths in all directions among the woman;and the strangers pass along them to make their choice. A women whohas once taken her seat is not allowed to return home till one of thestrangers throws a silver coin into her lap, and takes her withhim beyond the holy ground. When he throws the coin, he says thesewords--'The goddess Mylitta (Beltis) prosper thee. ' The silver coin maybe of any size; it cannot be refused; for that is forbidden by the law, since once thrown it is sacred. The woman goes with the first man whothrows her money, and rejects no one. When she has gone with him, andso satisfied the goddess, she returns home; and from that time forthno gift, however great, will prevail with her. Such of the women as aretall and beautiful are soon released; but others, who are ugly, have tostay a long time before they can fulfil the law. Some have even waitedthree or four years in the precinct. " The demoralizing tendency of thisreligious prostitution can scarcely be overrated. 

Notions of legal cleanliness and uncleanliness, akin to those prevalentamong the Jews, are found to some extent in the religious system of theBabylonians. The consummation of the marriage rite made both the manand the woman impure, as did every subsequent act of the same kind. The impurity was communicated to any vessel that either might touch. Toremove it, the pair were required first to sit down before a censer ofburning incense, and then to wash themselves thoroughly. Thus only couldthey re-enter into the state of legal cleanness. A similar impurityattached to those who came into contact with a human corpse. TheBabylonians are remarkable for the extent to which they affectedsymbolism in religion. In the first place they attached to each god aspecial mystic number, which is used as his emblem and may even standfor his name in an inscription. To the gods of the First Triad-Ami, Bel, and Hea or Hoa--were assigned respectively the numbers 60, 50, and 40;to those of the Second Triad--the Moon, the Sun and the Atmosphere--weregiven the other integers, 30, 20, and 10 (or perhaps six). To Beltis wasattached the number 15, to Nergal 12, to Bar or Nin (apparently) 40, asto Hoa; but this is perhaps doubtful. It is probable that every god, or at any rate all the principle deities, had in a similar way somenumerical emblem. Many of these are, however, as yet undiscovered. 

Further, each god seems to have had one or more emblematic signs bywhich he could be pictorially symbolized. The cylinders are full of suchforms, which are often crowded into every vacant space where roomcould be found for them. A certain number can be assigned definitely toparticular divinities. Thus a circle, plain or crossed, designates theSun-god, San or Shamas; a six-rayed or eight-rayed star the Sun-goddess, Gula or Anunit; a double or triple thunderbolt the Atmospheric god, Vul;a serpent probably Hoa; a naked female form Nana or Ishtar; a fish Baror Nin-ip. But besides these assignable symbols, there are a vast numberwith regard to which we are still wholly in the dark. Among these may

[Illustration: PAGE 229]

tree, an ox, a bee, a spearhead. A study of the inscribed cylindersshows these emblems to have no reference to the god or goddess namedin the inscription upon them. Each, apparently, represents a distinctdeity; and the object of placing them upon a cylinder is to imply thedevotion of the man whose seal it is to other deities besides thosewhose special servant he considers himself. A single cylinder sometimescontains as many as eight or ten such emblems. The principal templesof the gods had special sacred appellations. The great temple of Belat Babylon was known as Bit-Saggath, that of the same god at Niffer asKharris-Nipra. That of Beltis at Warka (Erech) as Bit-Ana, that ofthe sun at Sippara as Bit-Parra, that of Anunit at the same place asBit-Ulmis, that of Nebo at Borsippa as Bit-Tsida, etc. It is seldom thatthese names admit of explanation. They had come down apparently fromthe old Chaldaean times, and belonged to the ancient (Turanian) form ofspeech; which is still almost unintelligible. The Babylonians themselvesprobably in few cases understood their meaning. They used the wordssimply as proper names, without regarding them as significative. 

CHAPTER VIII. HISTORY AND CHRONOLOGY. 

The history of the Babylonian Empire commences with Nabopolassar, who appears to have mounted the throne in the year B. C. 625; but tounderstand the true character of the kingdom which he set up, itstraditions and its national spirit, we must begin at a far earlier date. We must examine, in however incomplete and cursory a manner, the middleperiod of Babylonian history, the time of obscurity and comparativeinsignificance, when the country was as a general rule, subject toAssyria, or at any rate played but a secondary part in the affairs ofthe East. We shall thus prepare the way for our proper subject, while atthe same time we shall link on the history of the Fourth to that ofthe First Monarchy, and obtain a second line of continuous narrative, connecting the brilliant era of Cyaxares and Nebuchadnezzar with theobscure period of the first Cushite kings. 

It has been observed that the original Chaldaean monarchy lasted, under various dynasties from about B. C. 2400 to B. C. 1300, when it wasdestroyed by the Assyrians, who became masters of Babylonia under thefirst Tiglathi-Nin, and governed it for a short time from their owncapital. Unable, however, to maintain this unity very long, they appearto have set up in the country an Assyrian dynasty, over which theyclaimed and sometimes exercised a kind of suzerainty, but which waspractically independent and managed both the external and internalaffairs of the kingdom at its pleasure. The first king of this dynastyconcerning whom we have any information is a Nebuchadnezzar, who wascontemporary with the Assyrian monarch Asshur-ris-ilim, and made twoattacks upon his territories. The first of these was by the way ofthe Diyaleh and the outlying Zagros hills, the line taken by the greatPersian military road in later times. The second was directly across theplain. If we are to believe the Assyrian historian who gives an accountof the campaigns, both attacks were repulsed, and after his secondfailure the Babylonian monarch fled away into his own country hastily. We may perhaps suspect that a Babylonian writer would have told adifferent story. At any rate Asshur-ris-ilim was content to defend hisown territories and did not attempt to retaliate upon his assailant. Itwas not till late in the reign of his son and successor, Tiglath-PileserI. , that any attempt was made to punish the Babylonians for theiraudacity. Then, however, that monarch invaded the southern kingdom, which had passed into the hands of a king named Merodach-iddin-akhi, probably a son of Nebuchadnezzar. After two years of fighting, in whichhe took Eurri-Galzu (Akkerkuf), the two Sipparas, Opis, and evenBabylon itself, Tiglath-Pileser retired, satisfied apparently with hisvictories; but the Babylonian monarch was neither subdued nor daunted. Hanging on the rear of the retreating force, he harassed it by cuttingoff its baggage, and in this way he became possessed of certain Assyrianidols, which he carried away as trophies to Babylon. Warcontinued between the two countries during the ensuing reigns ofMerodach-shapik-ziri in Babylon and Asshur-bil-kala in Assyria, but withno important successes, so far as appears, on either side. 

The century during which these wars took place between Assyria andBabylonia, which corresponds with the period of the later Judges inIsrael, is followed by an obscure interval, during which but little isknown of either country. Assyria seems to have been at this time ina state of great depression. Babylonia, it may be suspected, wasflourishing; but as our knowledge of its condition comes to us almostentirely through the records of the sister country, which here failus, we can only obtain a dim and indistinct vision of the greatness nowachieved by the southern kingdom. A notice of Asshur-izir-pal's seemsto imply that Babylon, during the period in question, enlarged herterritories at the expense of Assyria, and another in Macrobius, makesit probable that she held communications with Egypt. Perhaps these twopowers, fearing the growing strength of Assyria, united against her, and so checked for a while that development of her resources which theyjustly dreaded. 

However, after two centuries of comparative depression, Assyria oncemore started forward, and Babylonia was among the first of her neighborswhom she proceeded to chastise and despoil. About the year B. C. 880Asshur-izir-pal led an expedition to the south-east and recovered theterritory which, had been occupied by the Babylonians during the periodof weakness. Thirty years later, his son, the Black-Obelisk king, madethe power of Assyria still more sensibly felt. Taking advantage ofthe circumstance that a civil war was raging in Babylonia between thelegitimate monarch Merodach-sum-adin, and his young brother, he marchedinto the country, took a number of the towns, and having defeated andslain the pretender, was admitted into Babylon itself. From thence heproceeded to overrun Chaldaea, or the district upon the coast, whichappears at this time to have been independent of Babylon, and governedby a number of petty kings. The Babylonian monarch probably admitted thesuzerainty of the invader, but was not put to any tribute. The Chaldaeanchiefs, however, had to submit to this indignity. The Assyrian monarchreturned to his capital, having "struck terror as far as the sea. " ThusAssyrian influence was once more extended over the whole of the southerncountry, and Babylonia resumed her position of a secondary power, dependent on the great monarchy of the north. 

But she was not long allowed to retain even the shadow of an autonomousrule. In or about the year B. C. 821 the son and successor of theBlack-Obelisk king, apparently without any pretext, made a freshinvasion of the country. Mero-dach-belatzu-ikm, the Babylonian monarch, boldly met him in the field, but was defeated in two pitched battles (inthe latter of which he had the assistance of powerful allies) and wasforced to submit to his antagonist. Babylon, it is probable, became atonce an Assyrian tributary, and in this condition she remained tillthe troubles which came upon Assyria towards the middle of the eighthcentury B. C. Gave an opportunity for shaking off the hated yoke. Perhapsthe first successes were obtained by Pul, who, taking advantage ofAssyria's weakness under Asshur-dayan III. (ab. B. C. 770), seems tohave established a dominion over the Euphrates valley and WesternMesopotamia, from which he proceeded to carry his arms into Syria andPalestine. Or perhaps Pul's efforts merely, by still further weakeningAssyria, paved the way for Babylon to revolt, and Nabonassar, who becameking of Babylon in B. C. 747, is to be regarded as the re-establisherof her independence. In either case it is apparent that the recovery ofindependence was accompanied, or rapidly followed, by a disintegrationof the country, which was of evil omen for its future greatness. WhileNabonassar established himself at the head of affairs in Babylon, acertain Yakin, the father of Merodach-Baladan, became master of thetract upon the coast; and various princes, Nadina, Zakiru, and others, at the same time obtained governments, which they administered in theirown name towards the north. The old Babylonian kingdom was broken up;and the way was prepared for that final subjugation which was ultimatelyaffected by the Sargonids. 

Still, the Babylonians seemed to have looked with complacency on thisperiod, and they certainly made it an era from which to date their laterhistory. Perhaps, however, they had not much choice in this matter. Nabonassar was a man of energy and determination. Bent probably onobliterating the memory of the preceding period of subjugation, he"destroyed the acts of the kings who had preceded him;" and the resultwas that the war of his accession became almost necessarily the era fromwhich subsequent events had to be dated. 

Nabonassar appears to have lived on friendly terms with Tiglath-Pileser, the contemporary monarch of Assyria, who early in his reign invaded thesouthern country, reduced several princes of the districts about Babylonto subjection, and forced Merodach-Baladan, who had succeeded hisfather, Yakin, in the low region, to become his tributary. No war seemsto have been waged between Tiglath-Pileser and Nabonassar. The king ofBabylon may have seen with satisfaction the humiliation of his immediateneighbors and rivals, and may have felt that their subjugation ratherimproved than weakened his own position. At any rate it tended to placehim before the nation as their only hope and champion--the sole barrierwhich protected their country from a return of the old servitude. 

Nabonassar held the throne of Babylon for fourteen years, from B. C. 747to B. C. 733. It has generally been supposed that this period is the samewith that regarded by Herodotus as constituting the reign of Semiramis. As the wife or as the mother of Nabonassar, that lady (according tomany) directed the affairs of the Babylonian state on behalf of herhusband or her son. The theory is not devoid of a certain plausibility, and it is no doubt possible that it may be true; but at present it isa mere conjecture, wholly unconfirmed by the native records; and we mayquestion whether on the whole it is not more probable that the Semiramisof Herodotus is misplaced. In a former volume it was shown that aSemiramis flourished in Assyria towards the end of the ninth and thebeginning of the eighth centuries B. C. ---during the period, that is, of Babylonian subjection to Assyria. She may have been a Babylonianprincess, and have exercised an authority in the southern capital. Itwould seem therefore to be more probable that she is the individual whomHerodotus intends, though he has placed her about half a century toolate, than that there were two persons of the same name within so shorta time, both queens, and both ruling in Mesopotamia. 

Nabonassar was succeeded in the year B. C. 733 by a certain Nadius, who is suspected to have been among the independent princes reducedto subjection by Tiglath-Pileser in his Babylonian expedition. Nadiusreigned only two years--from B. C. 733 to B. C. 731--when he was succeededby Ghinzinus and Porus, two princes whose joint rule lasted fromB. C. 731 to B. C. 726. They were followed by an Elulseus, who hasbeen identified with the king of that name called by Menander king ofTyre--the Luliya of the cuneiform inscriptions; but it is in the highestdegree improbable that one and the same monarch should have borne swayboth in Phoenicia and Chaldaea at a time when Assyria was paramountover the whole of the intervening country. Elulseus therefore mustbe assigned to the same class of utterly obscure monarchs with hispredecessors, Porus, Chinzinus, and Nadius; and it is only withMerodach-Baladan, his successor, that the darkness becomes a littledispelled, and we once more see the Babylonian throne occupied by aprince of some reputation and indeed celebrity. 

Merodach-Baladan was the son of a monarch, who in the troublous timesthat preceded, or closely followed, the era of Nabonassar appears tohave made himself master of the lower Babylonian territory--the trueChaldaea--and to have there founded a capital city, which hecalled after his own name, Bit-Yakin. On the death of his fatherMerodach-Baladan inherited this dominion; and it is here that we firstfind him, when, during the reign of Nabonassar, the Assyrians underTiglath-Pileser II. Invade the country. Forced to accept the positionof Assyrian tributary under this monarch, to whom he probably lookedfor protection against the Babylonian king, Nabonassar, Merodach-Baladanpatiently bided his time, remaining in comparative obscurity during thetwo reigns of Tiglath-Pileser and Shalmaneser his successor, and onlyemerging contemporaneously with the troubles which ushered in thedynasty of the Sargonids. In B. C. 721--the year in which Sargon madehimself master of Nineveh--Merodach-Baladan extended his authorityover the upper country, and was recognized as king of Babylon. Here hemaintained himself for twelve years; and it was probably at some pointof time within this space that he sent embassadors to Hezekiah atJerusalem, with orders to inquire into the particulars of the curiousastronomical marvel, or miracle, which had accompanied the sickness andrecovery of that monarch. It is not unlikely that the embassy, whereofthis was the pretext, had a further political object. Morodach-Baladan, aware of his inability to withstand singly the forces of Assyria, wasprobably anxious to form a powerful league against the conquering state, which threatened to absorb the whole of Western Asia into its dominion. Hezekiah received his advances favorably, as appears by the fact that heexhibited to him all his treasures. Egypt, we may presume, was cognizantof the proceedings, and gave them her support. An alliance, defensive ifnot also offensive, was probably concluded between Egypt and Judaea onthe one hand, Babylon, Susiana, and the Aramaean tribes of the middleEuphrates on the other. The league would have been formidable but forone circumstance--Assyria lay midway between the allied states, andcould attack either moiety of the confederates separately at herpleasure. And the Assyrian king was not slow to take advantage of hissituation. In two successive years Sargon marched his troops againstEgypt and against Babylonia, and in both directions carried all beforehim. In Egypt he forced Sabaco to sue for peace. In Babylonia (B. C. 710) he gained a great victory over Merodach-Baladan and his allies, the Aramaeans and Susianians, took Bit-Yakin, into which the defeatedmonarch had thrown himself, and gained possession of his treasures andhis person. Upon this the whole country submitted; Merodach-Baladanwas carried away captive into Assyria; and Sargon himself, mounting thethrone, assumed the title-rarely taken by an Assyrian monarch of "Kingof Babylon. "

But this state of things did not continue long. Sargon died in the yearB. C. 704, and coincident with his death we find a renewal of troubles inBabylonia. Assyria's yoke was shaken off; various pretenders startedup; a son of Sargon and brother of Sennacherib re-established Assyrianinfluence for a brief space; but fresh revolts followed. A certainHagisa became king of Babylon for a month. Finally, Merodach-Baladan, again appeared upon the scene, having escaped from his Assyrian prison, murdered Hagisa, and remounted the throne from which he had been deposedseven years previously. But the brave effort to recover independencefailed. Sennacherib in his second year, B. C. 703, descended uponBabylonia, defeated the army which Merodach-Baladan brought against him, drove that monarch himself into exile, after a reign of six months, andre-attached his country to the Assyrian crown. From this time tothe revolt of Nabopolassar--a period of above three quarters of acentury--Babylonia with few and brief intervals of revolt, continuedan Assyrian fief. The assyrian kings governed her either by meansof viceroys, such as Belibus, Regibelus, Mesesimordachus, andSaos-duchinus, or directly in their own persons, as was the case duringthe reign of Esarhaddon, and during the later years of Asshur-bani-pal. 

The revolts of Babylon during this period have been described at lengthin the history of Assyria. Two fall into the reign of Sennacherib, one into that of Asshur-bani-pal, his grandson. In the former, Merodach-Baladan, who had not yet given up his pretensions to the lowercountry, and a certain Susub, who was acknowledged as king at Babylon, were the leaders. In the latter, Saos-duchinus, the Assyrian viceroy, and brother of Asshur-bani-pal, the Assyrian king, seduced fromhis allegiance by the hope of making himself independent headed theinsurrection. In each case the struggle was brief, being begun andended within the year. The power of Assyria at this time so vastlypreponderated over that of her ancient rival that a single campaignsufficed on each occasion of revolt to crush the nascent insurrection. 

A tabular view of the chronology of this period is appended. 

[Illustration: PAGE 237]

Having thus briefly sketched the history of the kingdom of Babylon fromits conquest by Tiglathi-Nin to the close of the long period of Assyrianpredominance in Western Asia, we may proceed to the consideration of the"Empire. " And first, as to the circumstances of its foundation. 

When the Medes first assumed an aggressive attitude towards Assyria, and threatened the capital with a siege, Babylonia apparently remainedunshaken in her allegiance. When the Scythian hordes spread themselvesover Upper Mesopotamia and wasted with fire and sword the fairestregions under Assyrian rule, there was still no defection in thisquarter. It was not till the Scythic ravages were over, and the Medesfor the second time poured across Zagros into Adiabene, resuming theenterprise from which they had desisted at the time of the Scythicinvasion, that the fidelity of the Southern people wavered. Simultaneously with the advance of the Medes against the Assyriancapital from the east, we hear of a force threatening it from the south, a force which can only have consisted of Susianians, of Babylonians, or of both combined. It is probable that the emissaries of Cyaxares hadbeen busy in this region for some time before his second attack tookplace, and that by a concerted plan while the Medes debouched from theZagros passes, the south rose in revolt and sent its hasty levies alongthe valley of the Tigris. 

In this strait the Assyrian king deemed it necessary to divide hisforces and to send a portion against the enemy which was advancing fromthe south, while with the remainder he himself awaited the coming of theMedes. The troops detached for the former service he placed under thecommand of a certain Nabopolassar? (Nabu-pal-uzur), who was probablyan Assyrian nobleman of high rank and known capacity. Nabopolassar hadorders to proceed to Babylon, of which he was probably made viceroy, andto defend the southern capital against the rebels. We may conclude thathe obeyed these orders so far as to enter Babylon and install himselfin office; but shortly afterwards he seems to have made up his mindto break faith with his sovereign, and aim at obtaining for himselfan independent kingdom out of the ruins of the Assyrian power. Havingformed this resolve, his first step was to send an embassy to Cyaxares, and to propose terms of alliance, while at the same time he arrangeda marriage between his own son, Nebuchadnezzar, and Amuhia, or Amyitis(for the name is written both ways), the daughter of the Medianmonarch. 

Cyaxares gladly accepted the terms offered; the young persons werebetrothed; and Nabopolassar immediately led, or sent, a contingent oftroops to join the Medes, who took an active part in the great siegewhich resulted in the capture and destruction of the Assyrian capital. 

A division of the Assyrian Empire between the allied monarchs followed. While Cyaxares claimed for his own share Assyria Proper and the variouscountries dependent on Assyria towards the north and the north-west, Nabopolassar was rewarded by his timely defection, not merely byindependence but by the transfer to his government of Susiana on theone hand and of the valley of the Euphrates, Syria, and Palestine onthe other. The transfer appears to have been effected quietly, theBabylonian yoke being peacefully accepted in lieu of the Assyrianwithout the necessity arising for any application of force. Probablyit appeared to the subjects of Assyria, who had been accustomed to amonarch holding his court alternately at Nineveh and at Babylon, thatthe new power was merely a continuation of the old, and the monarch alegitimate successor of the old line of Ninevite kings. 

Of the reign of Nabopolassar the information which has come down tous is scanty. It appears by the canon of Ptolemy that he dated hisaccession to the throne from the year B. C. 625, and that his reignlasted twenty-one years, from B. C. 625 to B. C. 604. During the greaterportion of this period the history of Babylon is a blank. Apparently the"golden city" enjoyed her new position at the head of an empire too muchto endanger it by aggression; and, her peaceful attitude provoking nohostility, she was for a while left unmolested by her neighbors. Media, bound to her by formal treaty as well as by dynastic interests, could berelied upon as a firm friend; Persia was too weak, Lydia too remote, tobe formidable; in Egypt alone was there a combination of hostile feelingwith military strength such as might have been expected to lead speedilyto a trial of strength; but Egypt was under the rule of an aged and waryprince, one trained in the school of adversity, whose years forbade hisengaging in any distant enterprise, and whose prudence led him to thinkmore of defending his own country than of attacking others. Thus, whilePsammetichus lived, Babylon had little to fear from any quarter, andcould afford to "give herself to pleasures and dwell carelessly. "

The only exertion which she seems to have been called upon to makeduring her first eighteen years of empire resulted from the closeconnection which had been established between herself and Media. Cyaxares, as already remarked, proceeded from the capture of Nineveh toa long series of wars and conquests. In some, if not in all, of these heappears to have been assisted by the Babylonians, who were perhaps boundby treaty to furnish a contingent as often as he required it, EitherNabopolassar himself, or his son Nebuchadnezzar, would lead out thetroops on such occasions; and thus the military spirit of both princeand people would be pretty constantly exercised. 

It was as the leader of such a contingent that Nabopolassar was ableon one occasion to play the important part of peacemaker in one of thebloodiest of all Cyaxares' wars. After five years' desperate fightingthe Medes and Lydians were once more engaged in conflict when an eclipseof the sun took place. Filled with superstitious dread the two armiesceased to contend, and showed a disposition for reconciliation, of whichthe Babylonian monarch was not slow to take advantage. Having consultedwith Syennesis of Cilicia, the foremost man of the allies on the otherside, and found him well disposed to second his efforts, he proposedthat the sword should be returned to the scabbard, and that a conferenceshould be held to arrange terms of peace. This timely interferenceproved effectual. A peace was concluded between the Lydians and theMedes, which was cemented by a royal intermarriage: and the resultwas to give to Western Asia, where war and ravage had long been almostperpetual, nearly half a century of tranquillity. 

Successful in his mediation, almost beyond his hopes, Nabopolassarreturned from Asia Minor to Babylon. He was now advanced in years, and would no doubt gladly have spent the remainder of his days inthe enjoyment of that repose which is so dear to those who feel theinfirmities of age creeping upon them. But Providence hadordained otherwise. In B. C. 610--probably the very year of theeclipse--Psammetichus died, and was succeeded by his son Neco, who wasin the prime of life and who in disposition was bold and enterprising. This monarch very shortly after his accession cast a covetous eye uponSyria, and in the year B. C. 608, having made vast preparations, hecrossed his frontier and invaded the territories of Nabopolassar. Marching along the usual route, by the _Shephilah_ and the plain ofEsdraelon, he learned, when he neared Megiddo, that a body of troops wasdrawn up at that place to oppose him, Josiah, the Jewish king, regardinghimself as bound to resist the passage through his territories of anarmy hostile to the monarch of whom he held his crown, had collected hisforces, and, having placed them across the line of the invader's march, was calmly awaiting in this position the approach of his master's enemy. Neco hereupon sent ambassadors to persuade Josiah to let him pass, representing that he had no quarrel with the Jews, and claiming adivine sanction to his undertaking. But nothing could shake the Jewishmonarch's sense of duty; and Neco was consequently forced to engage withhim, and to drive his troops from their position. Josiah, defeated andmortally wounded, returned to Jerusalem, where he died. Neco pressedforward through Syria to the Euphrates; and carrying all before him, established his dominion over the whole tract lying between Egypt onthe one hand, and the "Great River" upon the other. On his return threemonths later he visited Jerusalem, deposed Jehoahaz, a younger son ofJosiah, whom the people had made king, and gave the crown to Jehoiakim, his elder brother. It was probably about this time that he besieged andtook Gaza, the most important of the Philistine towns next to Ashdod. 

The loss of this large and valuable territory did not at once arouse theBabylonian monarch from his inaction or induce him to make any effortfor its recovery. Neco enjoyed his conquests in quiet for the spaceof at least three full years. At length, in the year B. C. 605, Nabopolassar, who felt himself unequal to the fatigues of a campaign, resolved to entrust his forces to Nebuchadnezzar, his son, and to sendhim to contend with the Egyptians. The key of Syria at this time wasCarchemish, a city situated on the right bank of the Euphrates, probablynear the site which was afterwards occupied by Hierapolis. Herethe forces of Neco were drawn up to protect his conquests, and hereNebuchadnezzar proceeded boldly to attack them. A great battle wasfought in the vicinity of the river, which was utterly disastrous to theEgyptians, who "fled away" in confusion, and seem not to have venturedon making a second stand. Nebuchadnezzar rapidly recovered the lostterritory, received the submission of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, restoredthe old frontier line, and probably pressed on into Egypt itself, hopingto cripple or even to crush his presumptuous adversary. But at thispoint he was compelled to pause. News arrived from Babylon thatNabopolassar was dead; and the Babylonian prince, who feared a disputedsuccession, having first concluded a hasty arrangement with Neco, returned at his best speed to his capital. 

Arriving probably before he was expected, he discovered that his fearswere groundless. The priests had taken the direction of affairs duringhis absence, and the throne had been kept vacant for him by the ChiefPriest, or Head of the Order. No pretender had started up to dispute hisclaims. Doubtless his military prestige, and the probability that thesoldiers would adopt his cause, had helped to keep back aspirants; butperhaps it was the promptness of his return, as much as anything, thatcaused the crisis to pass off without difficulty. 

Nebuchadnezzar is the great monarch of the Babylonian Empire, which, lasting only 88 years--from B. C. 625 to B. C. 538--was for nearly halfthe time under his sway. Its military glory is due chiefly to him, whilethe constructive energy, which constitutes its especial characteristic, belongs to it still more markedly through his character and genius. It is scarcely too much to say that, but for Nebuchadnezzar, theBabylonians would have had no place in history. At any rate, theiractual place is owing almost entirely to this prince, who to themilitary talents of an able general added a grandeur of artisticconception and a skill in construction which place him on a par with thegreatest builders of antiquity. 

We have no complete, or even general account of Nebuchadnezzar's wars. Our chief, our almost sole, information concerning them is derived fromthe Jewish writers. Consequently, those wars only which interested thesewriters, in other words those whose scene is Palestine or its immediatevicinity, admit of being placed before the reader. If Nebuchadnezzar hadquarrels with the Persians, or the Arabians, or the Medes, or the tribesin Mount Zagros, as is not improbable, nothing is now known of theircourse or issue. Until some historical document belonging to his timeshall be discovered, we must be content with a very partial knowledgeof the external history of Babylon during his reign. We have a tolerablyfull account of his campaigns against the Jews, and some informationas to the general course of the wars which he carried on with Egypt andPhoenicia; but beyond these narrow limits we know nothing. 

It appears to have been only a few years after Nebuchadnezzar'striumphant campaign against Neco that renewed troubles broke out inSyria. Phoenicia revolted under the leadership of Tyre; and about thesame time Jehoiakim, the Jewish king, having obtained a promise of aidfrom the Egyptians, renounced his allegiance. Upon this, in his seventhyear (B. C. 598), Nebuchadnezzar proceeded once more into Palestineat the head of a vast army, composed partly of his allies, the Medes, partly of his own subjects. He first invested Tyre; but, finding thatcity too strong to be taken by assault, he left a portion of his army tocontinue the siege, while he himself pressed forward against Jerusalem. On his near approach, Jehoiakim, seeing that the Egyptians did not careto come to his aid, made his submission; but Nebuchadnezzar punished hisrebellion with death, and, departing from the common Oriental practice, had his dead body treated with indignity. At first he placed upon thethrone Jehoia-chin, the son of the late monarch, a youth of eighteen;but three months later, becoming suspicious (probably not withoutreason) of this prince's fidelity, he deposed him and had him broughta captive to Babylon, substituting in his place his uncle, Zedekiah, a brother of Jehoiakim and Jehoahaz. Meanwhile the siege of Tyre waspressed, but with little effect. A blockade is always tedious; and theblockade of an island city, strong in its navy, by an enemy unaccustomedto the sea, and therefore forced to depend mainly upon the assistance ofreluctant allies, must have been a task of such extreme difficulty thatone is surprised it was not given up in despair. According to the Tyrianhistorians their city resisted all the power of Nebuchadnezzar forthirteen years. If this statement is to be relied on, Tyre must havebeen still uncaptured, when the time came for its sister capital to makethat last effort for freedom in which it perished. 

After receiving his crown from Nebuchadnezzar, Zedekiah continued foreight years to play the part of a faithful vassal. At length, however, in the ninth year, he fancied he saw a way to independence. A young andenterprising monarch, Uaphris--the Apries of Herodotus--had recentlymounted the Egyptian throne. If the alliance of this prince could besecured, there was, Zedekiah thought, a reasonable hope that the yokeof Babylon might be thrown off and Hebrew autonomy re-established. Theinfatuated monarch did not see that, do what he would, his countryhad no more than a choice of masters, that by the laws of politicalattraction Judaea must gravitate to one or other of the two greatstates between which it had the misfortune of lying. Hoping to free hiscountry, he sent ambassadors to Uaphris, who were to conclude a treatyand demand the assistance of a powerful contingent, composed of bothfoot and horse. Uaphris received the overture favorably; and Zedekiah atonce revolted from Babylon, and made preparations to defend himself withvigor. It was not long before the Babylonians arrived. Determined tocrush the daring state, which, weak as it was, had yet ventured torevolt against him now for the fourth time, Nebuchadnezzar came inperson, "he and all his host, " against Jerusalem, and after overcomingand pillaging the open country, "built forts" and besieged the city. Uaphris, upon this, learning the danger of his ally, marched out ofEgypt to his relief; and the Babylonian army, receiving intelligenceof his approach, raised the siege and proceeded in quest of their newenemy. According to Josephus a battle was fought, in which the Egyptianswere defeated; but it is perhaps more probable that they avoided anengagement by a precipitate retreat into their own country. At anyrate the attempt effectually to relieve Jerusalem failed. After a briefinterval the siege was renewed; a complete blockade was established; andin a year and a half from the time of the second investment, the cityfell. 

Nebuchadnezzar had not waited to witness this success of his arms. The siege of Tyre was still being pressed at the date of the secondinvestment of Jerusalem, and the Chaldaean monarch had perhaps thoughtthat his presence on the borders of Phoenicia was necessary to animatehis troops in that quarter. If this was his motive in withdrawing fromthe Jewish capital, the event would seem to have shown that he judgedwisely. Tyre, if it fell at the end of its thirteen years' siege, must have been taken in the very year which followed the capture ofJerusalem, B. C. 585. We may suppose that Nebuchadnezzar, when he quittedJerusalem and took up his abode at Eiblah in the Coele-Syrian valley, turned his main attention to the great Phoenician city, and madearrangements which caused its capture in the ensuing year. 

The recovery of these two important cities secured to the Babylonianmonarch the quiet possession thenceforth of Syria and Palestine. Butstill he had not as yet inflicted any chastisement upon Egypt; thoughpolicy, no less than honor, required that the aggressions of thisaudacious power should be punished. If we may believe Josephus, however, the day of vengeance was not very long delayed. Within four years of thefall of Tyre, B. C. 581, Nebuchadnezzar, he tells us, invaded Egypt, putUaphris, the monarch who had succored Zedekiah, to death, and placeda creature of his own upon the throne. Egyptian history, it is true, forbids our accepting this statement as correct in all its particulars. Uaphris appears certainly to have reigned at least as late as B. C. 569, and according to Herodotus, he was put to death, not by a foreigninvader, but by a rebellious subject. Perhaps we may best harmonize theconflicting statements on the subject by supposing that Josephus hasconfounded two distinct invasions of Egypt, one made by Nebuchadnezzarin his twenty-third year, B. C. 581, which had no very importantconsequences, and the other eleven years later, B. C. 570, whichterminated in the deposition of Uaphris, and the establishment onthe throne of a new king, Amasis, who received a nominal royalty fromChaldaean monarch. 

Such--as far as they are known--were the military exploits of this greatking. He defeated Neco, recovered Syria, crushed rebellion in Judaea, took Tyre, and humiliated Egypt. According to some writers his successesdid not stop here. Megasthenes made him subdue most of Africa, andthence pass over into Spain and conquer the Iberians. He even wentfurther, and declared that, on his return from these regions, he settledhis Iberian captives on the shores of the Euxine in the country betweenArmenia and the Caucasus! Thus Nebuchadnezzar was made to reign over anempire extending from the Atlantic to the Caspian, and from the Caucasusto the Great Sahara. 

The victories of Nebuchadnezzar were not without an effect on his homeadministration and on the construction of the vast works with which hisname is inseparably associated. It was through them that he obtainedthat enormous command of "naked human strength" which enabled him, without undue oppression of his own people, to carry out on the grandestscale his schemes for at once beautifying and benefiting his kingdom. From the time when he first took the field at the head of an armyhe adopted the Assyrian system of forcibly removing almost the wholepopulation of a conquered country, and planting it in a distant partof his dominions. Crowds of captives--the produce of his variouswars--Jews, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Syrians, Ammonites, Moabites, weresettled in various parts of Mesopotamia, more especially about Babylon. From these unfortunates forced labor was as a matter of course required;and it seems to have been chiefly, if not solely, by their exertionsthat the magnificent series of great works was accomplished, whichformed the special glory of the Fourth Monarchy. 

The chief works expressly ascribed to Nebuchadnezzar by the ancientwriters are the following: He built the great wall of Babylon, which, according to the lowest estimate, must have contained more than500, 000, 000 square feet of solid masonry, and must have requiredthree or four times that number of bricks. He constructed a new andmagnificent palace in the neighborhood of the ancient residence of thekings. He made the celebrated "Hanging Garden" for the gratification ofhis wife, Amyitis. He repaired and beautified the great temple of Belusat Babylon. He dug the huge reservoir near Sippara, said to have been140 miles in circumference, and 180 feet deep, furnishing it withflood-gates, through which its water could be drawn off for purposesof irrigation. He constructed a number of canals, among them the NahrMalcha or "Royal River, " a broad and deep channel which connected theEuphrates with the Tigris. He built quays and breakwaters along theshores of the Persian Gulf, and he at the same time founded the city ofDiridotis or Teredon in the vicinity of that sea. 

To these constructions may be added, on the authority either ofNebuchadnezzar's own inscriptions or of the existing remains, theBirs-i-Nimrud, or great temple of Nebo at Bor-sippa; a vast reservoirin Babylon itself, called the Yapur-Shapu; an extensive embankment alongthe course of the Tigris, near Baghdad; and almost innumerable temples, walls, and other public buildings at Cutha, Sippara, Borsippa, Babylon, Chilmad, Bit-Digla, etc. The indefatigable monarch seems to have eitherrebuilt, or at least repaired, almost every city and temple throughoutthe entire country. There are said to be at least a hundred sites inthe tract immediately about Babylon, which give evidence, by inscribedbricks bearing his legend, of the marvellous activity and energy of thisking. 

We may suspect that among the constructions of Nebuchadnezzar wasanother great work, a work second in utility to none of those abovementioned, and requiring for its completion an enormous amount of labor. This is the canal called by the Arabs the _Kerek Saideh_, or canal ofSaideh, which they ascribe to a wife of Nebuchadnezzar, a cutting400 miles in length, which commenced at Hit on the Euphrates, and wascarried along the extreme western edge of the alluvium close to theArabian frontier, finally falling into the sea at the head of the Bubiancreek, about twenty miles to the west of the Shat el-Arab. The tracesof this canal which still remain indicate a work of such magnitudeand difficulty that we can scarcely ascribe it with probability to anymonarch who has held the country since Nebuchadnezzar. 

The Pallacopas, or canal of Opa (Palga Opa), which left the Euphratesat Sippara (Mosaib) and ran into a great lake in the neighborhood ofBorsippa, whence the lands in the neighborhood were irrigated, may alsohave been one of Nebuchadnezzar's constructions. It was an old canal, much out of repair, in the time of Alexander, and was certainly thework, not of the Persian conquerors, but of some native monarch anteriorto Cyrus. The Arabs, who call it the Nahr Abba, regard it as the oldestcanal in the country. 

Some glimpses into the private life and personal character ofNebuchadnezzar are afforded us by certain of the Old Testament writers. We see him in the Book of Daniel at the head of a magnificent Court, surrounded by "princes, governors, and captains, judges, treasurers, councillors, and sheriffs;" waited on by eunuchs selected with thegreatest care, "well-favored" and carefully educated; attended, wheneverhe requires it, by a multitude of astrologers and other "wise men, " whoseek to interpret to him the will of Heaven. He is an absolute monarch, disposing with a word of the lives and properties of his subjects, eventhe highest. All offices are in his gift. He can raise a foreignerto the second place in the kingdom, and even set him over the entirepriestly order. His wealth is enormous, for he makes of pure gold animage, or obelisk, ninety feet high and nine feet broad. He is religiousafter a sort, but wavers in his faith, sometimes acknowledging theGod of the Jews as the only real deity, sometimes relapsing into anidolatrous worship, and forcing all his subjects to follow his example. Even then, however, his polytheism is of a kind which admits of aspecial devotion to a particular deity, who is called emphatically "hisgod. " In temper he is hasty and violent, but not obstinate; his fierceresolves are taken suddenly and as suddenly repented of; he is moreovercapable of bursts of gratitude and devotion, no less than of accesses offury; like most Orientals, he is vainglorious but he can humble himselfbefore the chastening hand of the Almighty; in his better moods he showsa spirit astonishing in one of his country and time--a spirit of realpiety, self-condemnation, and self-abasement, which renders him one ofthe most remarkable characters in Scripture. 

A few touches of a darker hue must be added to this portrait of thegreat Babylonian king from the statements of another contemporary, theprophet Jeremiah. The execution of Jehoi-akim, and the putting out ofZedekiah's eyes, though acts of considerable severity, may perhaps beregarded as justified by the general practice of the age, and thereforeas not indicating in Nebuchadnezzar any special ferocity of disposition. But the ill-treatment of Jehoiakim's dead body, the barbarityof murdering Zedekiah's sons before his eyes, and the prolongedimprisonment both of Zedekiah and of Jehoiachin, though the latter hadonly contemplated rebellion, cannot be thus excused. They were unusualand unnecessary acts, which tell against the monarch who authorizedthem, and must be considered to imply a real cruelty of disposition, such as is observable in Sargon and Asshur-bani-pal. Nebuchadnezzar, itis plain, was not content with such a measure of severity as wasneeded to secure his own interests, but took a pleasure in the wantoninfliction of suffering on those who had provoked his resentment. 

On the other hand, we obtain from the native writer, Berosus, oneamiable trait which deserves a cursory mention. Nebuchadnezzar wasfondly attached to the Median princess who had been chosen for him asa wife by his father from political motives. Not content with ordinarytokens of affection, he erected, solely for her gratification, theremarkable structure which the Greeks called the "Hanging Garden. "A native of a mountainous country, Amyitis disliked the tiresomeuniformity of the level alluvium, and pined for the woods and hillsof Media. It was to satisfy this longing by the best substitute whichcircumstances allowed that the celebrated Garden was made. Art stroveto emulate nature with a certain measure of success, and the lofty rocksand various trees of this wonderful Paradise, if they were not a veryclose imitation of Median mountain scenery, were at any rate a pleasantchange from the natural monotony of the Babylonian plain, and must haveformed a grateful retreat for the Babylonian queen, whom they remindedat once of her husband's love and of the beauty of her native country. 

The most remarkable circumstance in Nebuchadnezzar's life remains to benoticed. Towards the close of his reign, when his conquests and probablymost of his great works were completed, in the midst of completetranquillity and prosperity, a sudden warning was sent him. He dreamta strange dream, and when he sought to know its meaning, the ProphetDaniel was inspired to tell him that it portended his removal from thekingly office for the space of seven years, in consequence of a curiousand very unusual kind of madness. This malady, which is not unknown tophysicians, has been termed "Lycanthropy. " It consists in the beliefthat one is not a man but a beast, in the disuse of language, therejection of all ordinary human food, and sometimes in the loss of theerect posture and a preference for walking on all fours. Within a yearof the time that he received the warning, Nebuchadnezzar was smitten. The great king became a wretched maniac. Allowed to indulge in hisdistempered fancy, he eschewed human habitations, lived in the open airnight and day, fed on herbs, disused clothing, and became covered witha rough coat of hair. His subjects generally, it is probable, were notallowed to know of his condition, although they could not but be awarethat he was suffering from some terrible malady. The queen most likelyheld the reins of power, and carried on the government in his name. Thedream had been interpreted to mean that the lycanthropy would not bepermanent; and even the date of recovery had been announced, only witha certain ambiguity. The Babylonians were thereby encouraged to awaitevents, without taking any steps that would have involved them indifficulties if the malady ceased. And their faith and patience metwith a reward. After suffering obscuration for the space of seven years, suddenly the king's intellect returned to him. His recovery was receivedwith joy by his Court. Lords and councillors gathered about him. He oncemore took the government into his own hands, issued his proclamations, and performed the other functions of royalty. He was now an old man, andhis reign does not seem to have been much prolonged; but "the glory ofhis kingdon, " his "honor and brightness" returned; his last days were asbrilliant as his first: his sun set in an unclouded sky, shorn of noneof the rays that had given splendor to its noonday. Nebuchadnezzarexpired at Babylon in the forty-fourth year of his reign, B. C. 561, after an illness of no long duration. He was probably little short ofeighty years old at his death. 

The successor of Nebuchadnezzar was his son Evil-Mero-dach, who reignedonly two years, and of whom very little is known. We may expect that themarvellous events of his father's life, which are recorded in the Bookof Daniel, had made a deep impression upon him, and that he was thenceinclined to favor the persons, and perhaps the religion, of the Jews. One of his first acts was to release the unfortunate Jehoiachin from theimprisonment in which he had languished for thirty-five years, and totreat him with kindness and respect. He not only recognized his royalrank, but gave him precedence over all the captive kings resident atBabylon. Josephus says that he even admitted Jehoiachin into the numberof his most intimate friends. Perhaps he may have designed him somefurther advancement, and may in other respects have entertained projectswhich seemed strange and alarming to his subjects. At any rate he hadbeen but two years upon the throne when a conspiracy was formedagainst him; he was accused of lawlessness and intemperance; hisown brother-in-law, Neriglissar, the husband of a daughter ofNebuchadnezzar, headed the malcontents; and Evil-Merodach lost his lifewith his crown. 

Neriglissar, the successful conspirator, was at once acknowledgedking. He is probably identical with the "Nergal-shar-ezer, Rab-Mag, " ofJeremiah, who occupied a prominent position among the Babylonian noblesleft to press the siege of Jerusalem when Nebuchadnezzar retired toRiblah. The title of "Rab-Mag, " is one that he bears upon his bricks. It is doubtful what exactly his office was; for we have no reason tobelieve that there were at this time any Magi at Babylon; but it wascertainly an ancient and very high dignity of which even kings mightbe proud. It is remarkable that Neriglissar calls himself the son ofBel-sum-iskun, "king of Babylon"--a monarch whose name does not appearin Ptolemy's list, but who is probably to be identified with a chieftainso called, who assumed the royal title in the troubles which precededthe fall of the Assyrian Empire. 

During his short reign of four years, or rather three years and afew months, Neriglissar had not time to distinguish himself by manyexploits. So far as appears, he was at peace with all his neighbors, andemployed his time principally in the construction of the WesternPalace at Babylon, which was a large building placed at one corner of afortified inclosure, directly opposite the ancient royal residence, andabutting on the Euphrates. If the account which Diodorus gives of thispalace be not a gross exaggeration of the truth, it must have been amagnificent erection, elaborately ornamented with painting and sculpturein the best style of Babylonian art, though in size it may have beeninferior to the old residence of the kings on the other side of theriver. 

Neriglissar reigned from B. C. 559 to B. C. 556, and dying a natural deathin the last-named year, left his throne to his son, Laborosoarchod, or Labossoracus. This prince, who was a mere boy, and therefore quiteunequal to the task of governing a great empire in critical times, wasnot allowed to retain the crown many months. Accused by thoseabout him--whether justly or unjustly we cannot say--of giving manyindications of a bad disposition, he was deposed and put to death bytorture. With him power passed from the House of Nabopolassar, which hadheld the throne for just seventy years. 

On the death of Laborosoarchod the conspirators selected one of theirnumber, a certain Nabonadius or Nabannidochus, and invested him with thesovereignty. He was in no way related to the late monarch, and his claimto succeed must have been derived mainly from the part which he hadplayed in the conspiracy. But still he was a personage of some rank, forhis father had, like Neriglissar, held the important office of Rab Mag. It is probable that one of his first steps on ascending the throne wasto connect himself by marriage with the royal house which had precededhim in the kingdom. Either the mother of the late king Laborosoarchod, and widow of Neriglissar, or possibly some other daughter ofNebuchadnezzar, was found willing to unite her fortune with those of thenew sovereign, and share the dangers and the dignity of his position. Such a union strengthened the hold of the reigning monarch on theallegiance of his subjects, and tended still more to add stability tohis dynasty. For as the issue of such a marriage would join in one theclaims of both royal houses, he would be sure to receive the support ofall parties in the state. Very shortly after the accession of Nabonadius(B. C. 555) he received an embassy from the far north-west. An importantrevolution had occurred on the eastern frontier of Babylonia three yearsbefore, in the reign of Neriglissar; but its effects only now began tomake themselves felt among the neighboring nations. Had Cyrus, on takingthe crown, adopted the policy of Astyages, the substitution of Persiafor Media as the ruling Arian nation would have been a matter of smallaccount. But there can be little doubt that he really entered at onceon a career of conquest, Lydia, at any rate, felt herself menaced by thenew power, and seeing the danger which threatened the other monarchiesof the time, if they allowed the great Arian kingdom to attack themseverally with her full force, proposed a league whereby the commonenemy might, she thought, be resisted with success. Ambassadors seemto have been sent from Sardis to Babylon in the very year in whichNabonadius became king. He therefore had at once to decide whether hewould embrace the offer made him, and uniting with Lydia and Egypt ina league against Persia, make that power his enemy, or refuse theproffered alliance and trust to the gratitude of Cyrus for the futuresecurity of his kingdom. It would be easy to imagine the arguments proand contra which presented themselves to his mind at this conjuncture;but as they would be destitute of a historical foundation, it is perhapsbest to state simply the decision at which he is known to have arrived. This was an acceptance of the Lydian offer. Nabonadius consented to jointhe proposed league; and a treaty was probably soon afterwards concludedbetween the three powers whereby they united in an alliance offensiveand defensive against the Persians. 

Knowing that he had provoked a powerful enemy by this bold act, andignorant how soon he might be called upon to defend his kingdom, fromthe entire force of his foe, which might be suddenly hurled against himalmost at any moment, Nabonadius seems to have turned his attention atonce to providing means of defence. The works ascribed by Herodotus to aqueen, Nitocris, whom he makes the mother of Nabonadius (Labynetus)must be regarded as in reality constructions of that monarch himself, undertaken with the object of protecting Babylon from Cyrus. Theyconsisted in part of defences within the city, designed apparently tosecure it against an enemy who should enter by the river, in part ofhydraulic works intended to obstruct the advances of an army by theusual route. The river had hitherto flowed in its natural bed throughthe middle of the town. Nabonadius confined the stream by a brickembankment carried the whole way along both banks, after which he builton the top of the embankment a wall of a considerable height, piercedat intervals by gateways, in which were set gates of bronze. He likewisemade certain cuttings, reservoirs, and sluices at some distance fromBabylon towards the north, which were to be hindrances to an enemy'smarch, though in what way is not very apparent. Some have supposed thatbesides these works there was further built at the same time a greatwall which extended entirely across the tract between the two rivers--ahuge barrier a hundred feet high and twenty thick--meant, like the Romanwalls in Britain and the great wall of China, to be insurmountable by anunskillful foe; but there is ground for suspecting that this belief isill-founded, having for its sole basis a misconception of Xenophon's. 

Nabonadius appears to have been allowed ample time to carry out to thefull his system of defences, and to complete all his preparations. The precipitancy of Croesus, who plunged into a war with Persiasingle-handed, asking no aid from his allies, and the promptitude ofCyrus, who allowed him no opportunity of recovering from his first falsestep, had prevented Nabonadius from coming into actual collision withPersia in the early part of his reign. The defeat of Croesus in thebattle of Pteria, the siege of Sardis, and its capture, followed sorapidly on the first commencement of hostilities, that whatever hiswishes may have been, Nabonadius had it not in his power to give anyhelp to his rash ally. Actual war was thus avoided at this time; andno collision having occurred, Cyrus could defer an attack on the greatkingdom of the south until he had consolidated his power in the northand the northeast, which he rightly regarded as of the last importance. Thus fourteen years intervened between the capture of Sardis by thePersian arms and the commencement of the expedition against Babylon. 

When at last it was rumored that the Persian king had quitted Ecbatana(B. C. 539) and commenced his march to the south-west, Nabonadiusreceived the tidings with indifference. His defences were completed: hiscity was amply provisioned; if the enemy should defeat him in the openfield, he might retire behind his walls, and laugh to scorn all attemptsto reduce his capital either by blockade or storm. It does not appear tohave occurred to him that it was possible to protect his territory. Witha broad, deep, and rapid river directly interposed between him and hisfoe, with a network of canals spread far and wide over his country, withan almost inexhaustible supply of human labor at his command forthe construction of such dikes, walls, or cuttings as he should deemadvisable, Nabonadius might, one would have thought, have aspired tosave his land from invasion, or have disputed inch by inch his enemy'sadvance towards the capital. But such considerations have seldom hadmuch force with Orientals, whose notions of war and strategy are evennow of the rudest and most primitive description. To measure one'sstrength as quickly as possible with that of one's foe, to fight onegreat pitched battle in order to decide the question of superiorityin the field, and then, if defeated, either to surrender or to retirebehind walls, has been the ordinary conception of a commander's dutiesin the East from the time of the Ramesside kings to our own day. Nospecial blame therefore attaches to Nabonadius for his neglect. Hefollowed the traditional policy of Oriental monarchs in the course whichhe took. And his subjects had less reason to complain of his resolutionthan most others, since the many strongholds in Babylonia must haveafforded them a ready refuge, and the great fortified district withinwhich Babylon itself stood must have been capable of accommodating withease the whole native population of the country. 

If we may trust Herodotus, the invader, having made all his preparationsand commenced his march, came to a sudden pause midway between Ecbatanaand Babylon. One of the sacred white horses, which drew the chariot ofOrmazd, had been drowned in crossing a river; and Cyrus had thereupondesisted from his march, and, declaring that he would revenge himselfon the insolent stream, had set his soldiers to disperse its waters into360 channels. This work employed him during the whole summer and autumn;nor was it till another spring had come that he resumed his expedition. To the Babylonians such a pause must have appeared like irresolution. They must have suspected that the invader had changed his mind and wouldnot venture across the Tigris. If the particulars of the story reachedthem, they probably laughed at the monarch who vented his rage oninanimate nature, while he let his enemies escape scot free. 

Cyrus, however, had a motive for his proceedings which will appearin the sequel. Having wintered on the banks of the Gyndes in a mildclimate, where tents would have been quite a sufficient protection tohis army, he put his troops in motion at the commencement of spring, crossed the Tigris apparently unopposed, and soon came in sight of thecapital. Here he found the Babylonian army drawn out to meet him underthe command of Nabonadius himself, who had resolved to try the chanceof a battle. An engagement ensued, of which we possess no details; ourinformants simply tell us that the Babylonian monarch was completelydefeated, and that, while most of his army sought safety within thewalls of the capital, he himself with a small body of troops threwhimself into Borsippa, an important town lying at a short distance fromBabylon towards the south-west. It is not easy to see the exact objectof this movement. Perhaps Nabonadius thought that the enemy wouldthereby be obliged to divide his army, which might then more easily bedefeated; perhaps he imagined that by remaining without the walls hemight be able to collect such a force among his subjects and allies aswould compel the beleaguering army to withdraw. Or, possibly, he merelyfollowed an instinct of self-preservation, and fearing that the soldiersof Cyrus might enter Babylon with his own, if he fled thither, soughtrefuge in another city. 

It might have been supposed that his absence would have produced anarchyand confusion in the capital; but a step which he had recentlytaken with the object of giving stability to his throne renderedthe preservation of order tolerably easy. At the earliest possiblemoment--probably when he was about fourteen--he had associated with himin the government his son, Belshazzar, or Bel-shar-uzur, the grandsonof the great Nebuchadnezzar. This step, taken most likely with a view tonone but internal dangers, was now found exceedingly convenient forthe purposes of the war. In his father's absence Belshazzar tookthe direction of affairs within the city, and met and foiled for aconsiderable time all the assaults of the Persians. He was young andinexperienced, but he had the counsels of the queen-mother to guide andsupport him, as well as those of the various lords and officers ofthe court. So well did he manage the defence that after a while Cyrusdespaired, and as a last resource ventured on a stratagem in which itwas clear that he must either succeed or perish. 

Withdrawing the greater part of his army from the vicinity of the city, and leaving behind him only certain corps of observation, Cyrus marchedaway up the course of the Euphrates for a certain distance, and thereproceeded to make a vigorous use of the spade. His soldiers couldnow appreciate the value of the experience which they had gained bydispersing the Gyndes, and perceive that the summer and autumn of thepreceding year had not been wasted. They dug a channel or channels fromthe Euphrates, by means of which a great portion of its water would bedrawn off, and hoped in this way to render the natural course of theriver fordable. 

When all was prepared, Cyrus determined to wait for the arrival of acertain festival, during which the whole population were wont to engagein drinking and revelling, and then silently in the dead of night toturn the water of the river and make his attack. It fell out as he hopedand wished. The festival was held with even greater pomp and splendorthan usual; for Belshazzar, with the natural insolence of youth, tomark his contempt of the besieging army, abandoned himself wholly to thedelights of the season, and himself entertained a thousand lords in hispalace. Elsewhere the rest of the population was occupied in feastingand dancing. Drunken riot and mad excitement held possession of thetown; the siege was forgotten; ordinary precautions were neglected. Following the example of their king, the Babylonians gave themselvesup for the night to orgies in which religious frenzy and drunken excessformed a strange and revolting medley. 

Meanwhile, outside the city, in silence and darkness, the Persianswatched at the two points where the Euphrates entered and left thewalls. Anxiously they noted the gradual sinking of the water in theriver-bed; still more anxiously they watched to see if those withinthe walls would observe the suspicious circumstance and sound an alarmthrough the town. Should such an alarm be given, all their labors wouldbe lost. If, when they entered the river-bed, they found the river-wallsmanned and the river-gates fast-locked, they would be indeed "caught ina trap. " Enfiladed on both sides by an enemy whom they could neithersee nor reach, they would be overwhelmed and destroyed by his missilesbefore they could succeed in making their escape. But, as they watched, no sounds of alarm reached them--only a confused noise of revel andriot, which showed that the unhappy townsmen were quite unconscious ofthe approach of danger. 

At last shadowy forms began to emerge from the obscurity of the deepriver-bed, and on the landing-places opposite the river-gates scatteredclusters of men grew into solid columns--the undefended gateways wereseized--a war-shout was raised--the alarm was taken and spread--andswift runners started off to "show the King of Babylon that his city wastaken at one end. " In the darkness and confusion of the night a terriblemassacre ensued. The drunken revellers could make no resistance. Theking paralyzed with fear at the awful handwriting upon the wall, whichtoo late had warned him of his peril, could do nothing even to checkthe progress of the assailants, who carried all before them everywhere. Bursting into the palace, a band of Persians made their way to thepresence of the monarch, and slew him on the scene of his impiousrevelry. Other bands carried fire and sword through the town. Whenmorning came, Cyrus found himself undisputed master of the city, which, if it had not despised his efforts, might with the greatest ease havebaffled them. 

The war, however, was not even yet at an end. Nabonadius still heldBorsippa, and, if allowed to remain unmolested, might have graduallygathered strength and become once more a formidable foe. Cyrus, therefore, having first issued his orders that the outer fortificationsof Babylon should be dismantled, proceeded to complete his conquest bylaying siege to the town where he knew that Nabonadius had taken refuge. That monarch, however, perceiving that resistance would be vain, didnot wait till Borsippa was invested, but on the approach of his enemysurrendered himself. Cyrus rewarded his submission by kind and liberaltreatment. Not only did he spare his life, but (if we may trustAbydenus) he conferred on him the government of the important provinceof Carmania. 

Thus perished the Babylonian empire. If we seek the causes of its fall, we shall find them partly in its essential military inferiority tothe kingdom that had recently grown up upon its borders, partly in theaccidental circumstance that its ruler at the time of the Persian attackwas a man of no great capacity. Had Nebuchadnezzar himself, or a princeof his mental calibre, been the contemporary of Cyrus, the issue of thecontest might have been doubtful. Babylonia possessed naturally vastpowers of resistance--powers which, had they been made use of to theutmost, might have tired out the patience of the Persians. That lively, active, but not over-persevering people would scarcely have maintaineda siege with the pertinacity of the Babylonians themselves or ofthe Egyptians. If the stratagem of Cyrus had failed--and its successdepended wholly on the Babylonians exercising no vigilance--the captureof the town would have been almost impossible. Babylon was too large tobe blockaded; its walls were too lofty to be scaled, and too massive tobe battered down by the means possessed by the ancients. Mining in thesoft alluvial soil would have been dangerous work, especially as thetown ditch was deep and supplied with abundant water from the Euphrates. Cyrus, had he failed in his night attack, would probably have at onceraised the siege; and Babylonian independence might perhaps in that casehave been maintained down to the time of Alexander. 

Even thus, however, the "Empire" would not have been continued. So soonas it became evident that the Babylonians were no match for the Persiansin the field, their authority over the subject nations was at an end. The Susianians, the tribes of the middle Euphrates, the Syrians, thePhoenicians, the Jews, the Idumseans, the Ammonites and Moabites, wouldhave gravitated to the stronger power, even if the attack of Cyrus onBabylon itself had been repulsed. For the conquests of Cyrus in AsiaMinor, the Oxus region, and Afghanistan, had completely destroyed thebalance of power in Western Asia, and given to Persia a preponderanceboth in men and in resources against which the cleverest and mostenergetic of Babylonian princes would have struggled in vain. Persiamust in any case have absorbed all the tract between Mount Zagros andthe Mediterranean, except Babylonia Proper; and thus the successfuldefence of Babylon would merely have deprived the Persian Empire of aprovince. 

In its general character the Babylonian Empire was little more thana reproduction of the Assyrian. The same loose organization of theprovinces under native kings rather than satraps almost universallyprevailed, with the same duties on the part of suzerain and subjects andthe same results of ever-recurring revolt and re-conquest. Similarmeans were employed under both empires to check and discouragerebellion--mutilations and executions of chiefs, pillage of therebellious region, and wholesale deportation of its population. Babylon, equally with Assyria, failed to win the affections of the subjectnations, and, as a natural result, received no help from them in herhour of need. Her system was to exhaust and oppress the conqueredraces for the supposed benefit of the conquerors, and to impoverish theprovinces for the adornment and enrichment of the capital. The wisest ofher monarch's thought it enough to construct works of public utilityin Babylonia Proper, leaving the dependent countries to themselves, anddoing nothing to develop their resources. This selfish system was, likemost selfishness, short-sighted; it alienated those whom it would havebeen true policy to conciliate and win. When the time of peril came, thesubject nations were no source of strength to the menaced empire, Onthe contrary, it would seem that some even turned against her and madecommon cause with the assailants. 

Babylonian civilization differed in many respects from Assyrian, towhich however it approached more nearly than to any other known type. Its advantages over Assyrian were in its greater originality, itssuperior literary character, and its comparative width and flexibility. Babylonia seems to have been the source from which Assyria drew herlearning, such as it was, her architecture, the main ideas of hermimetic art, her religious notions, her legal forms, and a vast numberof her customs and usages. But Babylonia herself, so far as we know, drew her stores from no foreign country. Hers was apparently the geniuswhich excogitated an alphabet--worked out the simpler problemsof arithmetic--invented implements for measuring the lapse oftime--conceived the idea of raising enormous structures with the poorestof all materials, clay--discovered the art of polishing, boring, andengraving gems--reproduced with truthfulness the outlines of human andanimal forms--attained to high perfection in textile fabrics--studiedwith success the motions of the heavenly bodies--conceived of grammaras a science--elaborated a system of law--saw the value of an exactchronology--in almost every branch of science made a beginning, thusrendering it comparatively easy for other nations to proceed with thesuperstructure. To Babylonia, far more than to Egypt, we owe the artand learning of the Greeks. It was from the East, not from Egypt, that Greece derived her architecture, her sculpture, her science, herphilosophy, her mathematical knowledge--in a word, her intellectuallife. And Babylon was the source to which the entire stream of Easterncivilization may be traced. It is scarcely too much to say that, butfor Babylon, real civilization might not even yet have dawned upon theearth. Mankind might never have advanced beyond that spurious andfalse form of it which in Egypt, India, China, Japan, Mexico, and Peru, contented the aspirations of the species. 

APPENDIX. 

A. STANDARD INSCRIPTION OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR. 

The Inscription begins with the various titles of Nebuchadnezzar. Itthen contains prayers and invocations to the Gods, Merodach and Nebo. The extent of N. 's power is spoken of--it reaches from one sea to theother. 

An account is then given of the wonders of Babylon, viz. :

1. The great temple of Merodach. (The mound of Babil is the tower orziggurat of this. )

2. The Borsippa temple (or Birs). 

3. Various other temples in Babylon and Borsippa. 

The subjoined description of the city follows: "The double inclosurewhich Nabopolassar my father had made but not completed, I finished. Nabopolassar made its ditch. With two long embankments of brick andmortar he bound its bed. He made the embankment of the Arahha. He linedthe other side of the Euphrates with brick. He made a bridge (?) overthe Euphrates, but did not finish its buttresses (?). From. .. (the nameof a place) he made with bricks burnt as hard as stones, by the helpof the great Lord Merodach, a way (for) a branch of the Shimat to thewaters of the Yapur-Shapu, the great reservoir of Babylon, opposite tothe gate of Nin. 

"The _Ingur-Bel_ and the _Nimiti-Bel_--the great double wall ofBabylon--I finished. With two long embankments of brick and mortar Ibuilt the sides of its ditch. I joined it on with that which my fatherhad made. I strengthened the city. Across the river to the west Ibuilt the wall of Babylon with brick. The Yapur-Shapu-the reservoir ofBabylon--by the grace of Merodach I filled completely full of water. With bricks burnt as hard as stones, and with bricks in huge masses likemountains (?), the Yapur-Shapu, from the gate of Mula as far as Nana, who is the protectress of her votaries, by the grace of his godship(i. E. Merodach) I strengthened. With that which my father had made Ijoined it. I made the way of Nana, the protectress of her votaries. The great gates of the Ingur-Bel and the Nimiti-Bel-the reservoir ofBabylon, at the time of the flood (lit. Of fulness), inundated them. These gates I raised. Against the waters their foundations with brickand mortar I built. [Here follows a description of the gates, withvarious architectural details, an account of the decorations, hangings, etc. ] For the delight of mankind I filled the reservoir. Behold! besidesthe Ingur-Bel, the impregnable fortification of Babylon. I constructedinside Babylon on the eastern side of the river a fortification suchas no king had ever made before me, viz. , a long rampart, 4000 ammassquare, as an extra defence. I excavated the ditch: with brick andmortar I bound its bed; a long rampart at its head (?) I strongly built. I adorned its gates. The folding doors and the pillars I plated withcopper. Against presumptuous enemies, who were hostile to the men ofBabylon, great waters, like the waters of the ocean, I made use ofabundantly. Their depths were like the depths of the vast ocean. I didnot allow the waters to overflow, but the fulness of their floods Icaused to flow on, restraining them with a brick embankment. .. . Thus Icompletely made strong the defences of Babylon. May it last forever!"

[Here follows a similar account of works at Borsippa. ] "In Babylon--thecity which is the delight of my eyes, and which I have glorified--whenthe waters were in flood, they inundated the foundations of the greatpalace called Taprati-nisi, or 'the Wonder of Mankind;' (a palace) withmany chambers and lofty towers; the high-place of Royalty; (situated) inthe land of Babylon, and in the middle of Babylon; stretching from theIngur-Bel to the bed of the Shebil, the eastern canal, (and) fromthe bank of the Sippara river, to the water of the Yapur-Shapu;which Nabopolassar my father built with brick and raised up; when thereservoir of Babylon was full, the gates of this palace were flooded. I raised the mound of brick on which it was built, and made smooth itsplatform. I cut off the floods of the water, and the foundations (ofthe palace) I protected against the water with bricks and mortar: and Ifinished it completely. Long beams I set up to support it: with pillarsand beams plated with copper and strengthened with iron I built up itsgates. Silver and gold, and precious stones whose names were almostunknown [here follow several unknown names of objects, treasures of thepalace], I stored up inside, and placed there the treasure-house ofmy kingdom. Four years (?), the seat of my kingdom in the city. .. , which. .. . Did not rejoice (my) heart. In all my dominions I did not builda high-place of power; the precious treasures of my kingdom I did notlay up. In Babylon, buildings for myself and the honor of my kingdom Idid not lay out. In the worship of Merodach my lord, the joy of my heart(?), in Babylon, the city of his sovereignty and the seat of my empire, I did not sing his praises (?), and I did not furnish his altars (i. E. With victims), nor did I clear out the canals. " [Here follow furthernegative clauses. ]

"As a further defence in war, at the Ingur-Bel, the impregnable outerwall, the rampart of the Babylonians--with two strong lines of brick andmortar I made a strong fort, 400 ammas square inside the Nimiti-Bel, the inner defence of the Babylonians. Masonry of brick within them (thelines) I constructed. With the palace of my father I connected it. In ahappy month and on an auspicious day its foundations I laid in the earthlike. .. . I completely finished its top. In fifteen days I completed it, and made it the high-place of my kingdom. [Here follows a description ofthe ornamentation of the palace. ] A strong fort of brick and mortar instrength I constructed. Inside the brick fortification another greatfortification of long stones, of the size of great mountains, I made. Like Shedim I raised up its head. And this building I raised for awonder; for the defence of the people I constructed it. "

B. ON THE MEANINGS OF BABYLONIAN NAMES. 

The names of the Babylonians, like those of the Assyrians, weresignificant. Generally, if not always, they were composed of at leasttwo elements. These might be a noun in the nominative case with a verbfollowing it, a noun in the nominative with a participle in apposition, or a word meaning "servant" followed by the name of a god. Under thefirst class came such names as "Bel-ipni"--"Bel has made (me)"--from Bel, [Illustration: PAGE 263]

[Illustration: PAGE 264]

[Illustration: PAGE 265]