FOOTNOTES:

Nebuchadnezzar did not fulfil these expectations. He was not a conqueror who sought to press on beyond all bounds, and extend his power further and further. On the contrary, he sought to keep his empire within the natural boundaries, and not go beyond the desert which separated him from Egypt. The subjugation of Syria was not complete so long as Tyre did not obey his authority. He directed his arms not against Hophrah but against Tyre. It was difficult to reach the island city without a fleet. Nevertheless Ezekiel looked forward to the speedy success of the Babylonians, and the immediate fall of the great trading city. Tyre will fall because she rejoiced over the fall of Jerusalem, because she cried: "I shall be full, since thou art desolate."[675]He describes in a lively mannerhow Nebuchadnezzar will set up his battering-rams against the walls of Tyre; how he will throw down their towers with his engines of war; will cast up a trench against them, and raise the shield upon them.[676]He sees the island already changed into a naked rock for spreading out nets.[677]These prophecies also were not fulfilled in their whole extent. The siege, after the capture of the old city, was no more than a blockade from the mainland, a cutting off of all intercourse of the city towards the coast, such as had once before been carried on in the time of Shalmanesar IV. and Assurbanipal of Assyria (pp. 83, 166), and now as then it was only feebly sustained from the sea by the ships which the subject neighbour-harbours had to furnish. Nebuchadnezzar's troops are said to have remained thirteen years before Tyre. The blockade was brought to an end, as it seems, in the year 573B.C., by an arrangement in which the Tyrians recognised thesupremacy of the king of Babylon. "A heavy service," says the prophet Ezekiel, "has Nebuchadnezzar compelled his army to perform against Tyre. Every head is bald, and every shoulder peeled, and there is no wages in his army for Tyre." The Tyrians, as it seems, allowed Nebuchadnezzar to elect their king. Ethbaal, king of Tyre, resigned the throne, and Nebuchadnezzar set up Baal in his place.[678]

After repeated struggles Nebuchadnezzar had driven the Egyptians out of Syria, had repulsed their attempts to support the rebellions of the Syrians. In addition to the tribes of the Arabs between Libanus and Antilibanus he had brought the states and cities of the Syrians to obedience; he had united under his supremacy the Semitic tribes from the Tigris to the Syrian coast, from the Persian to the Arabian Gulf. Never had the ancient kingdom of Babylon won such power, and taken up such a position. Yet this wide extent of dominion scarcely bore comparison with the empire of the Medes, in concert with which Babylonia had overthrown the Assyrians. But the territory of Babylon between the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf, as compared with the long stretch of the Median Empire, which reached from the Halys to the middle, and to the southern edge of the table-land of Iran, was better rounded off, and the population of Babyloniawas more homogeneous. It belonged to one tribe only. These advantages, combined with the profuse fertility and the highly-developed industrial activity of the native land, with the trade and maritime resources of the Phenician cities, could compensate to Babylonia in intensive power the advantage which Media had in extent. For the present the courts of Babylon, Media, and Lydia, were peacefully connected by the ties of relationship.

FOOTNOTES:[588]Above, p. 250. Joseph. "c. Apion.," 1, 19. "Antiq." 10, 11, 2.[589]Ezek. i. 1, 3; iii. 15, 23; x. 15; xx. 22; xliii. 3.[590]Jerem. ii. 23.[591]Jerem. xiii. 23.[592]Jerem. xxiii. 5.[593]Jerem. xxxi. 31-35.[594]Jerem. xxvi. 1-5, 13.[595]Jerem. vii. 18.[596]Jerem. vii. 1-15; viii. 8; xxvi. 6.[597]Micah iii. 12.[598]Jerem. xxv. 1-3. By this date the identity of these warnings with the writing which, according to xxxvi. 1, 2, was read on the fast day, is established, an identity which is also proved by internal reasons.[599]Jerem. ch. xxv.[600]Jerem. xxxvi. 1, 22.[601]Jerem. xxxvi. 9-26.[602]Beros. ap. Joseph. "Antiq." 10, 11, 2. "c. Apion," 1, 19. In these passages the acts of Nebuchadnezzar in Syria are put together in such a general way, that from them we cannot draw the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar in his first campaign into Syria passed the borders of Judah, and that even then he had not only set foot in Syria but had incorporated it. The uncertainty of the succession in the new kingdom must have called him back as quickly as possible to his home, and the retirement of the whole army is expressly mentioned. Besides, from Jeremiah xxxvi. 1, 9, 22, and xxv. 1, 3, it follows that Nebuchadnezzar, in the years 605-604B.C., and 604-603B.C.,i. e.in the fourth and fifth of the reign of Jehoiakim, had not yet marched with his army through Judah. Joseph., "Antiq." 10, 6, 1, represents Nebuchadnezzar as conquering Syria, except Judah, after the victory of Karchemish. The statement in the Book of Daniel (i. 1 ff) that Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim,i. e.in the year 606-605B.C., is not a cogent proof.[603]Jerem. xxv. 20-23; xlix. 28-33.[604]Habakkuk i. 6-11.[605]Habakkuk iii. 16.[606]Habakkuk i. 17; ii. 5-8.[607]Jerem. xlix. 19.[608]Jerem. xlix. 28-33.[609]Jerem. xlix. 3.[610]Jerem. xlviii. 40, 46.[611]Jerem. xlix. 23, 24.[612]Jerem. xlix. 16.[613]2 Kings xxiv. If it is stated here that Jehoiakim served Nebuchadnezzar for three years, and then revolted from him; if the punishment for this revolt falls not on him but on his successor Jechoniah, it is clear that these three years must be reckoned from the end of the reign of Jehoiakim, so that in this way the first subjugation falls in the year 600B.C.So Josephus ("Antiq." 10, 6, 1,) states that the subjugation of Jehoiakim took place in the eighth year of his reign,i. e.in 601-600B.C.[614]2 Kings xxiv. 1-10. That Jehoiakim could not have attempted a rebellion without reliance on the help of Egypt, is clear without further proof. Josephus ("Antiq." 10, 6, 2) says: Jehoiakim had revolted because he heard that the Egyptians were taking the field against Nebuchadnezzar; but the Egyptians had not had the courage really to take the field. An attack of Nebuchadnezzar on Egypt, as well as Egyptian prisoners who are led from Syria to Babylonia, are mentioned in the statements of Berosus, quoted by Josephus above, p. 328,n.But these statements are so general that they may also be referred to the war which Nebuchadnezzar carried on with the Egyptians in 587B.C., p. 341. Nevertheless, the observation in the Second Book of Kings, which follows after Jehoiakim's death, "that Nebuchadnezzar had taken all the land, as far as the brook of Egypt (2 xxiv. 7), which belonged to the king of Egypt," may have reference to a struggle then going on with Egypt. Beyond their own borders the Egyptians could only have maintained Gaza, and a few other cities of the Phenicians. The statement of the Chronicles that Jehoiakim was carried to Babylon in chains cannot be maintained against the accounts of the Books of Kings.[615]2 Kings xxiv. 10, 11.[616]Jerem. xxii. 24-27.[617]This date is fixed by the remark that it occurred in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xxiv. 12).[618]Ezekiel xvii. 13. 2 Kings xxiv. 13-17. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 13. In Jerem. xxxix. 1-3, and lii. 28, the number of the captives is given at 3023; the passages quoted from the Books of Kings put the number of the soldiers at 7000, of the captives generally at 10,000.[619]Jerem. xxviii. 1-4.[620]Jerem. xxviii. 12-17.[621]Jerem. xxix.; cf. xxiv. 5 ff.[622]Jerem. xx. 7, 8.[623]Jerem. xx. 9.[624]Jerem. xx. 14-18.[625]Jerem. xv. 15.[626]Jerem. xvii. 6.[627]Jerem. xi. 19.[628]Jerem. xv. 16-18.[629]Jerem. xii. 1.[630]Jerem. xii. 3.[631]Jerem. xviii. 21-23.[632]Jerem. i. 17-19; xv. 20, 21.[633]Jerem. xiv. 11-16.[634]Jerem. xiv. 20-22; xv. 1.[635]Jerem. xvii. 1.[636]Jerem. xxvii. 1-12.[637]Jerem. li. 59.[638]This conclusion is rendered certain by the fact that afterwards the island city of Tyre is the only one spoken of as not subjugated. Cf. p. 352.[639]Ezek. xxxii. 29 mentions Sidon among the nations which had succumbed to the sword of the king before the twentieth year of Nebuchadnezzar. Cf. xxviii. 21-26. Jerem. xlvii. 4.[640]Jerem. xlvi. 19, 26. The position of affairs shows that this announcement belongs to this date. According to Ezek. viii. 1, Zedekiah appears to have had dealings with Egypt as early as 591B.C.Cf. Joseph. "Antiq." 10, 7, 5.[641]2 Kings xxv. 1-3, 8. Jerem. xxxiv. 1-7. Ezek. xxiv. 1.[642]2 Kings xxv. 1.[643]Jerem. xxxiv. 7.[644]Ezek. xxi. 21, 22, 25, 26.[645]Jerem. xxi. 1, 10.[646]Jerem. xxxvii. 5. Ezekiel prophesies the ruin of the Egyptians in the tenth month of the tenth year of his captivity,i. e.in the year 587B.C.; in this year, no doubt, the march of the Egyptians took place.[647]Jerem. xxxvii. 6-10.[648]Jerem. xxxvii. 11-21.[649]Joseph. "Antiq." 10, 7, 1. Ezek. xvii. 17. At the beginning of the eleventh year of Zedekiah (586B.C.), Ezekiel says: "I have broken the arm of Pharaoh," xxx. 21; cf. xxxi. 1.[650]2 Kings xxv. 1-3. Jerem. lii. 4, 5. Cf. Ezek. iv. 2; xvii. 17; xxi. 21.[651]Jerem. xxxiii. 4.[652]Jerem. xxxviii. 4.[653]Jerem. xxxvii. 21; xxxviii. 28.[654]Jerem. xix. 9. Ezek. iv. 16, 17; v. 11, 12. Lamentations i. 19, 20; ii. 20; iv. 9, 10; ii. 11, 12.[655]Vol. II., p. 186. Jerem. xxxix. 3; lii. 6, 7. 2 Kings xxv. 3, 4. It was this outer wall of which the western front had to be pulled down for 400 cubits under Amaziah. Vol. II., p. 261.[656]The capture took place in the fourth month of the eleventh year of the reign of Zedekiah, in the nineteenth of Nebuchadnezzar. Cf. Ideler, "Handbuch der Chronologie," 1, 529. Ezekiel, chap. xii.[657]Jerem. xxxix. 6, 7; lii. 11. 2 Kings xxv. 7.[658]Jerem. xxxix. 6, where the statement is quite general, "all the nobles of Judah also the king of Babylon slew;" and lii. 16, "all the princes of Judah also he slew at Riblah."[659]2 Kings xxv. 13-17. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 18. Jerem. lii. 12-28. The ark of the covenant was not mentioned separately; it may have been already taken away in 597B.C.[660]2 Kings xxv. 8-11, 18-21. Jerem. xxxix. 9, 10.[661]Jerem. xl. 5-10.[662]Lamentations iv. 12; ii. 7; iv. 1.[663]Lamentations ii. 14-18; i. 12.[664]Lamentations v. 1-14.[665]Lamentations iv. 6.[666]Lamentations i. 7, 21, 22.[667]Lamentations v. 7, 21, 22.[668]Jerem. xl. 9.[669]Jerem. xl. 6.[670]Jerem. xl. 8.[671]Jerem. xxiv. 1, 8; chaps. xl.-xliv. Ezek. i. 1-3, &c.[672]The announcements of Ezekiel, chaps, xxix.-xxxii., belong to the period from the tenth to the twelfth year of the captivity,i. e.to the years 587 to 585B.C.[673]Daphne in Herod. 2, 30, 107.[674]Jerem. xliii. 8-13; xliv. 30.[675]Ezekiel, chaps, xxvi.-xxviii. The prophecy begins in the eleventh year after the captivity of Jechoniah, on the first day of the month, and therefore four months before the capture of Jerusalem; from xxvi. 7 it is clear that the siege of Tyre had not yet begun: because Tyre rejoiced in the fall of Jerusalem, she also was to be destroyed. Afterwards, in the year 570B.C., Ezekiel declares that the Chaldæans have received no reward for their heavy service against Tyre (xxix. 17). Hence the siege of Tyre, which, according to Josephus, lasted for 13 years, falls between 586-570B.C.This result is confirmed by the quotations of Josephus from Phenician annals ("c. Apion." 1, 21; "Antiq." 10, 11, 1). According to these, Cyrus ascended the throne in the fourteenth year of Hiram, king of Tyre. Before Hiram Merbaal reigned for four years; before him the judges Mutton and Gerastrat, and king Balator, for six years, the arch-priest Abbar for three months, the judges Eknibal and Chelbes for 12 months, king Baal for 10 years, and before him Ithobal, under whom Tyre was besieged for 13 years. The reign of Cyrus is obviously calculated from the date at which he conquered Babylon and the Persians took the place of the Chaldæans,i. e.from the year 538B.C.If we calculate the dates given by Josephus to this point, the siege of Tyre came to an end in the year 573B.C., and began immediately after the conquest of Jerusalem in 586B.C.The addition of Josephus that the siege of Tyre began in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar (599B.C.) is a direct contradiction to the other more detailed statements. No doubt we ought to read the seventeenth year of Nebuchadnezzar for the seventh year with M. Niebuhr ("Assur und Babel," s. 107).[676]Ezek. xxvi. 8, 9, 10.[677]Ezek. xxvi. 14.[678]That Tyre, though not captured, was subjugated by the Babylonians, must be concluded from the statement of Berosus, general though that is—that all Phœnicia was subjugated by Nebuchadnezzar (supr. p. 328,n.), and further from the fact that Josephus ("c. Apion." 1, 21) tells us that Merbaal and Hiram were fetched by the Tyrians from Babylon; and, finally, from the circumstance that the reign of Ithobal ceases with the end of the siege, and that of Baal commences. Hence it follows that Ithobal was deposed, and his race carried away to Babylon. That the deportation of kings and elevation of others in their place was usual among the Babylonians, as among the Assyrians, is clear from the example of Jechoniah, and from 2 Kings xxv. 28.

[588]Above, p. 250. Joseph. "c. Apion.," 1, 19. "Antiq." 10, 11, 2.

[589]Ezek. i. 1, 3; iii. 15, 23; x. 15; xx. 22; xliii. 3.

[590]Jerem. ii. 23.

[591]Jerem. xiii. 23.

[592]Jerem. xxiii. 5.

[593]Jerem. xxxi. 31-35.

[594]Jerem. xxvi. 1-5, 13.

[595]Jerem. vii. 18.

[596]Jerem. vii. 1-15; viii. 8; xxvi. 6.

[597]Micah iii. 12.

[598]Jerem. xxv. 1-3. By this date the identity of these warnings with the writing which, according to xxxvi. 1, 2, was read on the fast day, is established, an identity which is also proved by internal reasons.

[599]Jerem. ch. xxv.

[600]Jerem. xxxvi. 1, 22.

[601]Jerem. xxxvi. 9-26.

[602]Beros. ap. Joseph. "Antiq." 10, 11, 2. "c. Apion," 1, 19. In these passages the acts of Nebuchadnezzar in Syria are put together in such a general way, that from them we cannot draw the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar in his first campaign into Syria passed the borders of Judah, and that even then he had not only set foot in Syria but had incorporated it. The uncertainty of the succession in the new kingdom must have called him back as quickly as possible to his home, and the retirement of the whole army is expressly mentioned. Besides, from Jeremiah xxxvi. 1, 9, 22, and xxv. 1, 3, it follows that Nebuchadnezzar, in the years 605-604B.C., and 604-603B.C.,i. e.in the fourth and fifth of the reign of Jehoiakim, had not yet marched with his army through Judah. Joseph., "Antiq." 10, 6, 1, represents Nebuchadnezzar as conquering Syria, except Judah, after the victory of Karchemish. The statement in the Book of Daniel (i. 1 ff) that Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim,i. e.in the year 606-605B.C., is not a cogent proof.

[603]Jerem. xxv. 20-23; xlix. 28-33.

[604]Habakkuk i. 6-11.

[605]Habakkuk iii. 16.

[606]Habakkuk i. 17; ii. 5-8.

[607]Jerem. xlix. 19.

[608]Jerem. xlix. 28-33.

[609]Jerem. xlix. 3.

[610]Jerem. xlviii. 40, 46.

[611]Jerem. xlix. 23, 24.

[612]Jerem. xlix. 16.

[613]2 Kings xxiv. If it is stated here that Jehoiakim served Nebuchadnezzar for three years, and then revolted from him; if the punishment for this revolt falls not on him but on his successor Jechoniah, it is clear that these three years must be reckoned from the end of the reign of Jehoiakim, so that in this way the first subjugation falls in the year 600B.C.So Josephus ("Antiq." 10, 6, 1,) states that the subjugation of Jehoiakim took place in the eighth year of his reign,i. e.in 601-600B.C.

[614]2 Kings xxiv. 1-10. That Jehoiakim could not have attempted a rebellion without reliance on the help of Egypt, is clear without further proof. Josephus ("Antiq." 10, 6, 2) says: Jehoiakim had revolted because he heard that the Egyptians were taking the field against Nebuchadnezzar; but the Egyptians had not had the courage really to take the field. An attack of Nebuchadnezzar on Egypt, as well as Egyptian prisoners who are led from Syria to Babylonia, are mentioned in the statements of Berosus, quoted by Josephus above, p. 328,n.But these statements are so general that they may also be referred to the war which Nebuchadnezzar carried on with the Egyptians in 587B.C., p. 341. Nevertheless, the observation in the Second Book of Kings, which follows after Jehoiakim's death, "that Nebuchadnezzar had taken all the land, as far as the brook of Egypt (2 xxiv. 7), which belonged to the king of Egypt," may have reference to a struggle then going on with Egypt. Beyond their own borders the Egyptians could only have maintained Gaza, and a few other cities of the Phenicians. The statement of the Chronicles that Jehoiakim was carried to Babylon in chains cannot be maintained against the accounts of the Books of Kings.

[615]2 Kings xxiv. 10, 11.

[616]Jerem. xxii. 24-27.

[617]This date is fixed by the remark that it occurred in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xxiv. 12).

[618]Ezekiel xvii. 13. 2 Kings xxiv. 13-17. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 13. In Jerem. xxxix. 1-3, and lii. 28, the number of the captives is given at 3023; the passages quoted from the Books of Kings put the number of the soldiers at 7000, of the captives generally at 10,000.

[619]Jerem. xxviii. 1-4.

[620]Jerem. xxviii. 12-17.

[621]Jerem. xxix.; cf. xxiv. 5 ff.

[622]Jerem. xx. 7, 8.

[623]Jerem. xx. 9.

[624]Jerem. xx. 14-18.

[625]Jerem. xv. 15.

[626]Jerem. xvii. 6.

[627]Jerem. xi. 19.

[628]Jerem. xv. 16-18.

[629]Jerem. xii. 1.

[630]Jerem. xii. 3.

[631]Jerem. xviii. 21-23.

[632]Jerem. i. 17-19; xv. 20, 21.

[633]Jerem. xiv. 11-16.

[634]Jerem. xiv. 20-22; xv. 1.

[635]Jerem. xvii. 1.

[636]Jerem. xxvii. 1-12.

[637]Jerem. li. 59.

[638]This conclusion is rendered certain by the fact that afterwards the island city of Tyre is the only one spoken of as not subjugated. Cf. p. 352.

[639]Ezek. xxxii. 29 mentions Sidon among the nations which had succumbed to the sword of the king before the twentieth year of Nebuchadnezzar. Cf. xxviii. 21-26. Jerem. xlvii. 4.

[640]Jerem. xlvi. 19, 26. The position of affairs shows that this announcement belongs to this date. According to Ezek. viii. 1, Zedekiah appears to have had dealings with Egypt as early as 591B.C.Cf. Joseph. "Antiq." 10, 7, 5.

[641]2 Kings xxv. 1-3, 8. Jerem. xxxiv. 1-7. Ezek. xxiv. 1.

[642]2 Kings xxv. 1.

[643]Jerem. xxxiv. 7.

[644]Ezek. xxi. 21, 22, 25, 26.

[645]Jerem. xxi. 1, 10.

[646]Jerem. xxxvii. 5. Ezekiel prophesies the ruin of the Egyptians in the tenth month of the tenth year of his captivity,i. e.in the year 587B.C.; in this year, no doubt, the march of the Egyptians took place.

[647]Jerem. xxxvii. 6-10.

[648]Jerem. xxxvii. 11-21.

[649]Joseph. "Antiq." 10, 7, 1. Ezek. xvii. 17. At the beginning of the eleventh year of Zedekiah (586B.C.), Ezekiel says: "I have broken the arm of Pharaoh," xxx. 21; cf. xxxi. 1.

[650]2 Kings xxv. 1-3. Jerem. lii. 4, 5. Cf. Ezek. iv. 2; xvii. 17; xxi. 21.

[651]Jerem. xxxiii. 4.

[652]Jerem. xxxviii. 4.

[653]Jerem. xxxvii. 21; xxxviii. 28.

[654]Jerem. xix. 9. Ezek. iv. 16, 17; v. 11, 12. Lamentations i. 19, 20; ii. 20; iv. 9, 10; ii. 11, 12.

[655]Vol. II., p. 186. Jerem. xxxix. 3; lii. 6, 7. 2 Kings xxv. 3, 4. It was this outer wall of which the western front had to be pulled down for 400 cubits under Amaziah. Vol. II., p. 261.

[656]The capture took place in the fourth month of the eleventh year of the reign of Zedekiah, in the nineteenth of Nebuchadnezzar. Cf. Ideler, "Handbuch der Chronologie," 1, 529. Ezekiel, chap. xii.

[657]Jerem. xxxix. 6, 7; lii. 11. 2 Kings xxv. 7.

[658]Jerem. xxxix. 6, where the statement is quite general, "all the nobles of Judah also the king of Babylon slew;" and lii. 16, "all the princes of Judah also he slew at Riblah."

[659]2 Kings xxv. 13-17. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 18. Jerem. lii. 12-28. The ark of the covenant was not mentioned separately; it may have been already taken away in 597B.C.

[660]2 Kings xxv. 8-11, 18-21. Jerem. xxxix. 9, 10.

[661]Jerem. xl. 5-10.

[662]Lamentations iv. 12; ii. 7; iv. 1.

[663]Lamentations ii. 14-18; i. 12.

[664]Lamentations v. 1-14.

[665]Lamentations iv. 6.

[666]Lamentations i. 7, 21, 22.

[667]Lamentations v. 7, 21, 22.

[668]Jerem. xl. 9.

[669]Jerem. xl. 6.

[670]Jerem. xl. 8.

[671]Jerem. xxiv. 1, 8; chaps. xl.-xliv. Ezek. i. 1-3, &c.

[672]The announcements of Ezekiel, chaps, xxix.-xxxii., belong to the period from the tenth to the twelfth year of the captivity,i. e.to the years 587 to 585B.C.

[673]Daphne in Herod. 2, 30, 107.

[674]Jerem. xliii. 8-13; xliv. 30.

[675]Ezekiel, chaps, xxvi.-xxviii. The prophecy begins in the eleventh year after the captivity of Jechoniah, on the first day of the month, and therefore four months before the capture of Jerusalem; from xxvi. 7 it is clear that the siege of Tyre had not yet begun: because Tyre rejoiced in the fall of Jerusalem, she also was to be destroyed. Afterwards, in the year 570B.C., Ezekiel declares that the Chaldæans have received no reward for their heavy service against Tyre (xxix. 17). Hence the siege of Tyre, which, according to Josephus, lasted for 13 years, falls between 586-570B.C.This result is confirmed by the quotations of Josephus from Phenician annals ("c. Apion." 1, 21; "Antiq." 10, 11, 1). According to these, Cyrus ascended the throne in the fourteenth year of Hiram, king of Tyre. Before Hiram Merbaal reigned for four years; before him the judges Mutton and Gerastrat, and king Balator, for six years, the arch-priest Abbar for three months, the judges Eknibal and Chelbes for 12 months, king Baal for 10 years, and before him Ithobal, under whom Tyre was besieged for 13 years. The reign of Cyrus is obviously calculated from the date at which he conquered Babylon and the Persians took the place of the Chaldæans,i. e.from the year 538B.C.If we calculate the dates given by Josephus to this point, the siege of Tyre came to an end in the year 573B.C., and began immediately after the conquest of Jerusalem in 586B.C.The addition of Josephus that the siege of Tyre began in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar (599B.C.) is a direct contradiction to the other more detailed statements. No doubt we ought to read the seventeenth year of Nebuchadnezzar for the seventh year with M. Niebuhr ("Assur und Babel," s. 107).

[676]Ezek. xxvi. 8, 9, 10.

[677]Ezek. xxvi. 14.

[678]That Tyre, though not captured, was subjugated by the Babylonians, must be concluded from the statement of Berosus, general though that is—that all Phœnicia was subjugated by Nebuchadnezzar (supr. p. 328,n.), and further from the fact that Josephus ("c. Apion." 1, 21) tells us that Merbaal and Hiram were fetched by the Tyrians from Babylon; and, finally, from the circumstance that the reign of Ithobal ceases with the end of the siege, and that of Baal commences. Hence it follows that Ithobal was deposed, and his race carried away to Babylon. That the deportation of kings and elevation of others in their place was usual among the Babylonians, as among the Assyrians, is clear from the example of Jechoniah, and from 2 Kings xxv. 28.

Assyria had become known to the Greeks about the time when Tiglath Pilesar II. had reduced Syria to submission, and the cities of the Phenicians were subject to the kings of Asshur—i. e.about the middle of the eighth centuryB.C.Hence for them the name Assyrians denoted the whole population of Asia from the Syrian coast to the Tigris, and the range of the Zagrus: "Syrians" is merely an abbreviated form of the name "Assyrians." In this sense Herodotus says: "After the fall of Nineveh Babylon was the chief city of the Assyrians."[679]As a fact Nebuchadnezzar had united under his dominion the whole of the Semitic tribes on both sides of the Syrian desert. The stubborn resistance of the Phenicians and Hebrews had been broken by repeated campaigns; at least, after the subjugation of Tyre, we hear no more of rebellion by a Syrian tribe against Babylonia.

Nebuchadnezzar was able to complete the work which his father Nabopolassar had commenced by liberating Babylon from Assyria after two centuries of supremacy and one century of dominion, and had secured by it the annihilation of Assyria. The second king of this name on the throne of Babylon—Nebuchadnezzar I. had fought against Assyria with some success in the first half of the 12th centuryB.C.(II. 37)—he was the true founder of the new kingdom. Berosus is fully justified in saying of him, that he surpassed the achievements of all the earlier kings of the Chaldæans, though the addition that he ruled over Egypt, as well Phœnicia, Syria, and Arabia, is to be ascribed to the vainglory of the Babylonian.[680]Nebuchadnezzar was indeed a prince of extraordinary gifts. He proved himself a brave warrior in the great victory which he gained over the Egyptians at Karchemish, and in the subsequent campaigns against the Arabians, Syrians, and Egyptians. The fame of his battles reached the Greeks: we find Hellenic nobles, as Antimenidas of Lesbos, the brother of the poet Alcæus, in his army.[681]At Karchemish and in the south of Judah these had an opportunity of measuring themselves against their countrymen in the service of Necho and Hophrah. But Nebuchadnezzar did not allow the successes of his arms to tempt him beyond the limits which he had fixed for himself. He was not a conqueror in the Oriental sense, pressing onward to unlimited dominion. With a clear sense of his power, he placed bounds on his campaigns: as we saw, he refrained from attacking Egypt. His chief care was the secure foundation and continuance of his kingdom, and he clearly recognised the conditions which would promote this aim. The object, which he thus set before himself, he sought to realise with wisdom, with unwearied effort, and the greatest perseverance. He did much to promote the welfare of his kingdom; to encourage agriculture and trade; to improve the communications of Babylon by land and sea. He secured the strongest protection for his land and metropolis by a magnificent and well-considered system of fortifications. He must be numbered among the foremost princes of the ancient East. An engraved stone in the Berlin Museum presents us with a head; the cuneiform letters round it tell us: "To Merodach Nabukudurussur, king of Babylon: in his life he prepared it."[682]It is a portrait in profile, quite different from the only other relief of a Babylonian king which has come down to us (I. 302); quite different also from the delineations of the Assyrian kings. Instead of the tallkidaris, and the long curled hair and beard, this head wears a closing helmet with a low ridge. The hair can be seen beneath it, but it does not fall on the neck: the face is smooth and beardless. The lines are round and full, the neck strong. Under the helmet protrudes the forehead, which slightly recedes; the brows are closely knit; there is a look of authority in the eye. The nose is straight and well-formed: the chin is short and round, and slightly elevated. It is the picture of a strong and even imperious will, a firm self-conscious power.

Babylon must have suffered severely in the repeated campaigns of Tiglath Pilesar II., Sargon, Sennacherib, and Assurbanipal, in the struggle for the possession of the Chaldæan districts, for Bit Yakin and Babylon. Babylon was besieged and taken by Sennacherib, and severely punished. The restorations of Esarhaddon were no doubt again destroyed at the second capture of the city by Assurbanipal. How far Nabopolassar succeeded in securing not Babylon only and the larger cities, but the country also from devastation and plunder by the Sacæ, we do not know. In any case there must everywhere have been deep and severe wounds in need of healing.

We saw that the produce of the agriculture ofBabylon, the fruit of the field, depended on the irrigation, the system of canals, and the regulation of the overflow of the Euphrates. Nebuchadnezzar must have commenced his work by putting in order the dams of the Euphrates, which it was no easy task to keep up, by providing with water-courses or cleaning out the canals which had become dry or blocked up.[683]The great canals of the old kings were still in existence, the canal of Hammurabi, the Narsares, the Pallakopas, and the connecting canals between the Euphrates and Tigris above Babylon.[684]Nebuchadnezzar must have taken measures for their restoration. He increased the number of the connections between the Euphrates and the Tigris, and made them more useful by cutting a new canal from the Euphrates to the Tigris, of sufficient dimensions to carry the largest vessels. This was the Nahr Malka,i. e.the king's trench. Herodotus calls it the largest of the Babylonian canals. According to Xenophon's statement there were four canals connecting the Euphrates and the Tigris, one hundred feet in breadth, and deep enough to carry even corn ships. They were bridged over, and about four miles from each other. From these were derived the canals of irrigation, first the large, then the small, and lastly runnels like those in Greece for watering the fields of millet. The larger canals of irrigation were so deep that the Greeks with Clearchus could not cross them without bridges; and for the construction of these the palms which shadowed the banks of the canals were felled. Clearchus and Xenophon crossed the two northernmost of the connecting canals in order to come from the Median wall to Sittace on the Tigris.The first they crossed by the permanent bridge, the second by a bridge of boats supported by seven merchantmen. The lining of these canals was constructed of bricks, united with asphalt-mortar. There still exist four canals connecting the Tigris and the Euphrates. The Saklawiye is followed by the Nahr Sersar; further to the south is the Nahr Malka, which leaves the eastern bank of the Euphrates below Feludsha, in order to reach the Tigris at the point marked by the ruins of Seleucia—this is the great canal constructed by Nebuchadnezzar: lastly, immediately above Babylon, is the Nahr Kutha, named after the city of Kutha. Thus Nebuchadnezzar completed the old canal system of Babylon; he facilitated the communication between the two rivers in the upper part of the land, and increased the irrigation. He also gave attention to the lower land: between the Narsares and the Pallakopas, which carry away the overflow of the water of the Euphrates, below Babylon, he made trenches in order to drain the marsh, and he caused dams to be erected on the sea-coast in order to keep out the inundations of the sea.[685]

In order to avoid destructive floods at the time of the yearly inundation, in order to bring about a graduated and regular rise of the Euphrates, in order to receive the overflow in the years when the inundation was higher, and apply the water thus stored in the years of drought,—in a word, in order to have thewater of the Euphrates completely under control, Nebuchadnezzar took in hand, and completed, one of the most magnificent of hydraulic works. Above Babylon, and the four canals which connect the Euphrates with the Tigris on the northern border of Babylonia proper, lay the ancient city of Sippara (I. 257). Near this, on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, was excavated a vast basin, not inferior to the artificial lake of Amenemha. The circuit of this basin is said to have been 420 stades (i. e.50 miles); the depth reached 35 feet. The trenches and dams, which formed this basin, were cased, on the inclines, with masonry, and the excavated earth was used for the embankment of the Euphrates. According to the excerpt in Abydenus, Berosus allowed a circuit of 40 parasangs,i. e.150 miles, for this basin, with a depth of 20 fathoms, and added that the sluices, which opened and shut of themselves, according to the level of the water in the basin of the Euphrates, irrigated the level land. If the circuit of the basin was really 50 miles, we must suppose that here, as in the lake of Amenemha, a low-lying strip of land was changed by embankment into a basin or wide reservoir.[686]With this great undertaking wereconnected other hydraulic works erected at Ardericca. At this place Nebuchadnezzar caused a new bed to be excavated for the Euphrates, with sharp curves, either to lessen the force of the current, and make navigation up the current possible, or, which is more probable, because it was necessary to moderate the flow of the river in order to conduct the inundation into the basin at Sippara.[687]By means of this basin at Sippara Nebuchadnezzar really brought the Euphrates into his power. Even though the excess of the water of the stream might be too much for its large dimensions in any single year, the canals leading to the Tigris provided the means of carrying off the excess into that river, and at the same time it was possible owing to the connections to counteract by means of the Euphrates the inequality of the water in the lower Tigris.

The regulation of the inundation, of the bed and level of the Euphrates, and of the level of the Tigris, was not only an assistance to agriculture, but to trade also, inasmuch as it facilitated the navigation in bothstreams. In this way trade received considerable support, and Nebuchadnezzar also paid attention to it beyond the borders of the Babylonian land. To his time apparently belongs the foundation of the Babylonian colony of Gerrha on the Arabian coast of the Persian Gulf. For the trade of Babylonia with South Arabia and the products of India which came to South Arabia (I. 305), it was important to avoid the transport by land and the middle trade of the Arabians, and to obtain those wares by direct marine trade with Babylonia. The building of the harbour city of Teredon at the mouth of the Euphrates, 400 miles below Babylon, which became the chief centre of the trade in Arabian spices, is, as we are definitely informed, the work of Nebuchadnezzar, and the Dedanites in whose land lay the colony of Gerrha (the modern Chatif) opposite the Bahrain islands, at a distance of 300 miles from Teredon, had been subjugated by Nebuchadnezzar (p. 329). The Gerrhæans brought the products and the incense of Arabia on board ship to Babylon; from hence it was sent up the river to Thapsacus, and from thence carried by land in every direction.[688]In this way the lucrative trade with South Arabia by the sea-route of the Persian Gulf must have been gained for Babylon. Hence it appears that Nebuchadnezzar built Teredon and founded Gerrha with the same object with which the Phenicians—in order to avoid the middle trade of the Arabians, and the difficulties of the caravan trade—arranged their navigation from Elath to South Arabia, in the time of Solomon, Jehoshaphat, and Uzziah of Judah. The Babylonians were already or subsequently becameacquainted with the navigation on the Persian Gulf. Their voyages extended to the bold headland of the mountains of Maketa (Cape Mussendom), where it was possible to enter into direct communication with the Indians.[689]At a later time we hear only of the Gerrhæans as middle-men in the trade with the Sabæans, while in the Hebrew Scriptures the Rhegmæans and Dedanites carry on trade with Sabæa. The Gerrhæans carried the products of Arabia to Babylon by sea; then they passed not merely up the Euphrates, but also across the desert in a slanting direction to Syria. It must have been one of the most beneficial results of the hydraulic works of Nebuchadnezzar that the Euphrates could be navigated up the stream; and triremes could advance as far as Thipsach. Trade was greatly facilitated by the fact that the wares of India and Arabia could not only be brought by water to Babylon, but could also be conveyed along with the products of Babylonian industry to that city where the most crowded caravan routes from Cilicia, Syria, and Phœnicia, touched the Euphrates,[690]while, on the other hand, the wares brought along these routes from Syria could be carried in return to Babylon. By the Nahr Malka the ships of heaviest burden could then pass from the Euphrates into the Tigris. If the cities of the Phenicians lost their sea trade on the Persian Gulf by their dependence on Babylon—in case the Egyptians closed that gulf to the subjects of Nebuchadnezzar—they were compensated by the fact that they could obtain the products of South Arabia, not only by the caravan route by Elath, but also in Babylon itself. Moreover,the Arabian tribes on the Euphrates and in the Syrian desert, the Kedarites and their neighbours, were subject to Nebuchadnezzar, and the construction of the roads which led from Babylon through the desert to the West, to Sela and Elath, which provided a far shorter means of connection with Syria than the old caravan routes by Damascus and Tadmor to Thipsach, and by Riblah and Hamath to Karchemish, must certainly be ascribed to Nebuchadnezzar.[691]

Under the protection of the common head the caravans of the Phenicians travelled in peace along secure roads from the Syrian Sea to the Euphrates, the Tigris, the Persian Gulf, and the east coast of the Red Sea. The impulse which the trade thereby acquired might cause the supremacy of Nebuchadnezzar to appear to the Phenician cities not only tolerable, but advantageous. The easier and more secure connection with Babylon might, at any rate, teach them to forget in part the loss which their market had suffered by the fall of Nineveh. The increased productiveness of agriculture, the livelier trade, and consequent growth of industry, could not but raise the power and resources of the Babylonian kingdom. The more lively the intercourse between the two great halves of the kingdom separated by the desert, the more passable the desert became, the easier was it for troops to march from Babylon to Gaza, from Harran to Hamath. And if the canals of the Babylonian plain carried the ships of the Euphrates to the Tigris, and left no field without irrigation, they at the same time largely increased the means of defence in the native land.

The numerous invasions which Babylonia hadsuffered from the Assyrians must have been held in lively recollection, and the founder of the new kingdom could not omit to bestow his earnest attention on the mode of preventing such dangers for the future. They were only possible on the side of Media. So far as the difference of force in comparison with Media was not removed by the better frontier, the more homogeneous population, and the greater productive power in Babylonia, it was necessary to attempt to remove it by the erection of fortresses in the land. As the attacks of the Assyrians had taken place from the North, the attacks of the Medes were also to be expected from that quarter. Mesopotamia might, in case of necessity, be abandoned, if the native land were made secure. Babylonia had excellent bulwarks on the East and West in the Euphrates and the Tigris; in the North the line of canals, especially the new and broad canal, Nahr Malka, formed a similar protection. The basin of Sippara was not merely constructed with a view to the cultivation of the soil and the navigation; it was at the same time calculated that the supply of water contained in it was sufficient to change the most northern of these canals into deep watercourses. The sluices were guarded by the fortress of Sippara.[692]How destructive this basin would one day be to his metropolis, how it would render vain the fruit of all his labours, Nebuchadnezzar never dreamed. If every hostile power in the East and West had to cross a wide river in the face of the Babylonian army, the two rivers from Sippara downwards could now be filled by opening the great reservoir and by closing the sluices of the Pallakopas in such a manner that it became more difficult than ever to cross them. The same was the case with thecanals. But the difficulties here were not so great, and they did not satisfy Nebuchadnezzar. In order to strengthen the defence of the northern border, in order to protect the basin of Sippara, on which depended the filling of the upper canals and the feeding of the lower course of both streams, to make more secure the fertile part of Babylonia, Nebuchadnezzar built a strong wall, extending from the Euphrates to the Tigris, above the four canals and the fortified Sippara. This fortification the Greeks call "the Median wall." It was, in fact, intended to meet the attacks of the Medes. Had Nebuchadnezzar chosen for the line of the wall the point at which the two rivers most nearly approach each other, the length of it would have been little more than 25 miles; but as Sippara and all the land of the canals had to be protected, the wall must have been placed farther to the north. It appears to have left the Euphrates at Ssifeira below the modern Feludsha, and, extending in a north-easterly direction, it reached the Tigris at some distance above the modern Bagdad. The length was thus from 60 to 75 miles. The wall was constructed of burnt bricks joined together by mortar of asphalt; according to Xenophon,[693]who saw parts of it still standing, the breadth was 20 feet and the height 100 feet. The native land, the centre of the kingdom, was thus protected; and even when it was lost, in spite of the protection of the two streams, the canals, and the long wall, the metropolis was intended to present impregnable fortresses to the enemy.

Babylon had no doubt suffered the most severe wounds in all the land of Chaldæa through the capture by Assurbanipal. Berosus says: "Nebuchadnezzar restored the old city, and also built a new one, and that the besieger might not enter the city by averting the stream, he surrounded the inner city as well as the outer with three walls, one of burnt bricks, the other two of unburnt bricks and bitumen, and thus he fortified it in a very striking manner, and adorned the gates with great splendour."[694]Herodotus, who saw the city more than one hundred years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar, when it had been four times captured by Cyrus, Darius, and Xerxes, describes it thus: "The city is situated in a wide plain, and forms a square of 120 stades on each side, so that the whole circuit reaches 480 stades. It is divided into two parts, and the river Euphrates flows through the middle. It is surrounded by a broad and deep trench, which is always filled with water. The soil taken from this trench was made into bricks, and burnt; and these bricks were applied, first to lining the trenchand then to building the wall. The wall is 50 Babylonian cubits in thickness and 200 cubits in height. The bricks are held together by bitumen-mortar, and at every thirtieth course they are separated by a layer of reeds. On the wall are houses of a single chamber, built on either side opposite each other, and yet sufficient space is left between them for a chariot and four to pass. In the wall are one hundred gates, all of brass, with brazen lintels and side-posts. The wall has wings which run along the river on either side, and the banks are cased with masonry of burnt bricks. The city itself is filled with houses of three and four stories, through which are straight streets—both those which lead to the river and the rest. Those which run down to the river have each a brazen gate in the masonry on the river, through which you pass on steps of burnt brick into the water.[695]And within this wall, which is as it were the corslet of the city, is another wall, not much inferior in strength to the other, but less in extent. Of the two parts of the city the centre of the one is occupied by the royal citadel, the centre of the other by the temple of Belus with the gates of brass."[696]In another passage Herodotus gives the names of some of the gates of Babylon; he mentions the gate of Belus, the gate of Semiramis, the gate of Ninus, the gate of the Chaldæans, and the gate of the Cissians.

That gates in Babylon could not be named after Ninus and Semiramis,i. e.after fictitious rulers, and hardly after the Chaldæans, needs no proof in detail. But the narrative of Herodotus, in which these names are found, goes back in other respects to Medo-Persian poems, which, as we already found, could tell of Ninus and Semiramis. The Babylonians were betteracquainted with the history of Assyria. It is more striking that in the description of the city Herodotus speaks of the walls and gates of Babylon as if they were uninjured; and yet, some twenty years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus took Babylon by storm; and scarcely twenty years afterwards Darius overcame the city, after a siege which lasted nearly two years. A new rebellion quickly followed, to be crushed by a third capture of the city; and even after this a new rising of the Babylonians was again repressed by Xerxes. After this series of struggles the walls and gates could not have remained uninjured, and Herodotus himself tells us that Darius destroyed the gates after the long siege.[697]Were Cyrus, Darius, and Xerxes likely to allow the Babylonians, after each capture of the city, to restore the walls in which the city trusted?—were they not rather likely to take care that after each capture long portions of the wall should be destroyed, and so remain?

Next to Herodotus in point of time, Xenophon and Ctesias are our informants about Babylon. Xenophon did not see the city; he only came within 45 miles of it. He contents himself with remarking that Babylon, the wealthiest city in Asia, was surrounded by strong and lofty walls; that the Euphrates flowed through it; that it contained a palace and citadels, that the doors of the houses were made of palm-wood.[698]Ctesias, who had been in Babylon, gives to the wall of the city, "through which the Euphrates flows," a circuit of 360 stades (45 miles). The wall, built of burnt brick and bitumen, broken by numerous large towers, was 50 fathoms in height; and on either bank of the river ran a protecting wall, equal in strength to thecity wall. The length of these walls was about 160 stades. His description of the two royal citadels, "both of which lay on the river," one on the west side, the other on the east—the former was surrounded by a triple wall, and had a circuit of 60 stades, while the other on the east side was only half the size—his description of the golden statues of gods in the temple of Belus, and the golden altar and furniture, is already known to us (I. 293). About half a century after Ctesias, Cleitarchus and the companions of Alexander of Macedon inform us that the wall of Babylon had a circuit of 365 stades; the height they give at 50 cubits; the width allowed ample room for two wagons to pass each other. Two hundred and fifty towers rose above the wall, of a corresponding height and thickness. Between the wall and the houses was left a clear space of two plethra.[699]That the number of towers was so small in comparison with the circuit of the wall is no reason for wonder—so Diodorus or his authority adds—for the city was surrounded by a wide belt of marshes, and it did not appear to be necessary to build towers where the marshes afforded sufficient protection.[700]

The accounts which have been preserved of the stay of Alexander of Macedon in Babylon also prove the existence of two royal citadels, one on each bank of the Euphrates. In the last days of his life Alexander lived in the king's palace, from which the house of Bagoas, with whom on one occasion he banqueted, was distant ten stades.[701]From the banquet-hall in this palace, where he had given his commands to hisgenerals, and rested till the dusk of the evening, he was carried in a litter to the river, and conducted on board ship to the park on the other side of the river, where he bathed and rested. After spending three days there in his chamber—on the first day he played at dice with Medius; on the second he listened to the account of Nearchus about the voyage from the Indus through the great sea; on the third he bade his generals enter to receive instructions for setting out in three days—he caused himself to be brought into the house near "the large bath;" he gave orders for the generals to keep watch in the portico, and the Chiliarchs and the Pentacosiarchs before the doors. When more seriously ill he was conveyed from the garden into the more distant royal palace, where the generals entered, and the soldiers forced their way into his presence.[702]

Leaving out of sight what may have remained, and did remain uninjured, of the outer walls and towers of the city, when Herodotus and Ctesias were in Babylon, and when the Macedonians of Alexander saw the city, it is clear that in the fifth and fourth centuryB.C.so much remained standing that the line of the trenches and the wall could be clearly traced. If the circuit of 365 stades, given by Cleitarchus, is clearly a fiction derived from the number of days in the Babylonian year, we shall still be able to give the preference to the 360 stades of Ctesias over the 480 stades of Herodotus, though Aristotle remarks, "Babylon reached the extent of a nation, not of a city."[703]Since, as Ctesias also tells us, the two walls on the Euphrates were nearly 160 stades in length, the wall on each bank would be nearly 80 stades in length,i. e.about 10 miles. Supposing thatthe Euphrates passed diametrically through the city, which was not the case, the city wall, if we also suppose that the city, as Herodotus says, was an exact square, would at the utmost have a circuit of 320 stades,i. e.of about 40 miles. We cannot therefore avoid the conclusion that in the 480 stades of Herodotus the 160 stades of the two walls on the river were included; if he inquired about the total length of the city walls the answer may very well have included the walls by the river.

Berosus told us above that Nebuchadnezzar surrounded the old city as well as the new, the inner city as well as the outer, with a triple wall. By the outer city we must understand the new city, which, according to Berosus, Nebuchadnezzar built. The old city lay, like the old citadel (I. 298), on the west bank of the Euphrates. Of this old citadel the remains of a square keep on the river, now called Abu Ghozeilat, are still in existence. Herodotus, and the Greek authorities after him, know nothing of an old and a new city, they only knew a city divided into two parts by the Euphrates. Herodotus does not speak of three walls but only of two, an outer and an inner wall, "hardly inferior in strength to the other, but of less extent," (p. 369). If to these two walls of Herodotus we reckon the walls which enclosed the fortresses on each side of the Euphrates, Herodotus would be in agreement with Berosus. But Ctesias and the companions of Alexander know of one wall only, enclosing Babylon. It would be very remarkable that within half a century or even a century after the time of Herodotus, no trace was left of the two inner walls mentioned by him. Herodotus allows for the outer wall a height of 200 cubits,i. e.of 300 feet, and a breadth of 75 feet: Ctesias mentions the same height,(50 fathoms). Moreover, Ctesias allows a similar height for the second wall of the old citadel, and a height of 70 fathoms for the towers; the third wall was higher still (I. 298). The companions of Alexander allow a height of only 50 cubits for the walls of Babylon. The walls of the island city of Tyre, on the side turned towards the mainland, were 150 feet in height. Xenophon saw strips of wall 150 feet in height still standing on the site of ancient Nineveh. We saw above that the Median wall of Nebuchadnezzar, the first line of defence for the land, was 100 feet in height, and 20 feet in breadth; hence we may conclude that the walls of Babylon must certainly have been stronger and higher. A Hebrew contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar speaks emphatically of the "broad walls," "the lofty gates" of Babylon; he tells us that "Babylon reached to the heavens, and the height of the fortress none could climb."[704]As neither Cyrus nor Darius with all their siege material could make any impression on the walls of Babylon; as Nebuchadnezzar would certainly make the walls of Babylon stronger than the walls of Chalah and Nineveh, so that neither battering-rams nor besieging-towers could injure them, neither arrows nor scaling-ladders could over-top them, we have good ground for assuming that Nebuchadnezzar strengthened the wall already in existence, and raised it to a height of 200 feet, (Pliny gives it a height of more than 200 feet);[705]that the towers rose to 300 feet. It was the standing walls of towers of this height which caused Herodotus and Ctesias to believe that the wall was once of the same height throughout. A height of 200 feet presupposes a corresponding breadth of about 40 feet, which leaves for the gangway behind the towersbreadth sufficient for a chariot and four horses, or for two wagons of burden.

We may maintain the assertion of Berosus, that it was Nebuchadnezzar who added a new city on the eastern bank of the Euphrates to the old city on the western bank, so that the Euphrates henceforth flowed through the city. We have already seen that the great temple of Bel Merodach, Bit Saggatu, the tower of Babel, was on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, opposite to the old city and the citadel of the ancient kings, who ruled over Babylon before the times of the Assyrian dominion; we recognised the remains of it in the most northern heap of the ruins of Babylon on that bank of the river, the heap of broken bricks now called Babil. In the ruins we can recognise the traces of a square structure, the sides of which are directed to the four quarters of the sky. Its extent reaches 1500 or 1600 feet; the ruins now rise 140 feet above the level of the Euphrates. Herodotus allows a stadium (600 feet) for each side of the tower; the outer wall with the gates of brass was two stades on each side.[706]Berosus tells us: "Nebuchadnezzar built a second palace beside the palace of his father, which abutted upon it. To describe its height and splendour would be superfluous: it was large and quite extraordinary."[707]Since the bricks of a ruin-heap to the south of the remains of the tower of Belus, on the east bank of the Euphrates, now called El Kasr—bricks which are twelve inches long and as many broad, and three inches in thickness—bear on the under side the stamp of Nebuchadnezzar, we are certain that the restorers of the kingdom, Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar, built their residences on this side of the Euphrates, opposite to the palace of the ancient kings. It is these whichCtesias has described to us as the smaller royal citadel, lying on the eastern bank, and enclosed by a wall of 30 stades in length. He dwells on the statues of brass to be found here, and the descriptions of battles and hunting-scenes (I. 298). So far as the fragments allow us to see, the palaces of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar formed a square structure, which, 1600 feet in length, ran from north to south, close along the bank of the river: from the bank towards the east the breadth of the ruins is 1200 feet. The remains still rise about 70 feet above the river. Slabs of stone discovered in these ruins bear the inscription: "Great palace of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babel, son of Nabopolassar, king of Babel, the worshipper of Nebo and Merodach his lords."[708]Among tiles and bricks, yellow and white, we find here a number of glazed tiles, with brightly-coloured remains of pictures in relief, of horses' hoofs, and lions' paws, of parts of the human body, curled beards, and long hair, which prove that the walls of the palace or the sides of the rooms were adorned with reliefs, in mosaic, of hunting-scenes and battles. Like Assyrian plastic work, these remains are heavy, and mostly exaggerated in the modelling. The lion of granite, already mentioned, (I. 302) was discovered in the ruin-heap of Kasr.

In this citadel, so Berosus informs us, "Nebuchadnezzar erected platforms on stone pillars, which he caused to have the appearance of mountains, inasmuch as he so arranged them that they were planted with trees of every kind. This hanging garden (paradisus), as it was called, he built to please his wife, who had been brought up in the Median district, and wished to have a scene like her own home."[709]Nebuchadnezzar might gladly pay honour to Amyite, the daughter ofCyaxares, whose hand had been the seal of the league between Media and Babylonia against Assyria. Abydenus narrates, after Berosus, that "Nebuchadnezzar adorned the royal citadel with trees, and called the work the hanging gardens."[710]Diodorus also describes what he too calls theparadisus, by the name in use for such things in Iran: "To please a Persian lady these gardens were intended to imitate the mountain meadows and the tree-gardens of her land." "Theparadisus" so we are told in Diodorus, "was 400 feet on every side; it had an ascent like a mountain, and stories, one over the other, so that it looked like a theatre. Under the ascent were vaults, which bore the weight of the garden, in moderate height one over the other. The highest vault, which supported the highest layer of the garden, was 50 cubits in height, so that it was of an equal height with the towers of the outer wall (of the citadel). The walls of the pleasure-garden were artificially strengthened; they were 22 feet in width; the passages were 10 feet in width: the caps of the vaults were covered with stone slabs of 16 feet in length and 4 feet in breadth. On these were layers of reeds, with a large amount of bitumen, and upon this a double layer of burnt tiles united with gypsum; on this followed a third layer of plates of lead, that the moisture of the earth might not penetrate into the masonry. On the lead plates was then placed as much earth as was sufficient for the roots of the largest trees. This earth was then smoothed and planted with trees of every kind, which could give pleasure by their size and grace. In the vaults were various objects of the royal household economy; one of the uppermost contained the machines by which the water was raised through pipes from the river in such amanner that no one could observe it from the outside."[711]Strabo gives the following description: "The garden lies on the river. It is a square plantation, 400 feet on every side. The garden is supported by vaults which rest on arches, one of which is supported on another by means of cube-shaped pillars. The pillars are hollow and filled with earth, so that they can receive the roots of the largest trees. The vaults and arches are built of burnt tiles and bitumen. The uppermost story has an ascent like a stair-case, and abutting on this are pumping-works by which the persons appointed for the office continually raise water from the Euphrates into the garden."[712]This hanging garden is theparadisusinto which Alexander was brought from the old citadel on the other side of the river. We saw above that one side of the garden adjoined the great bath and the other the palace,i. e.the palace of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar. In the third and most southern heap of ruins in Babylon, on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, now called Amran ibn Ali, modern explorers believe that they have discovered the site of the hanging gardens which rose from the Euphrates. The bricks of the ruins bear the name of Nebuchadnezzar, but one has been found among them bearing the name of Esarhaddon of Asshur. We saw that Esarhaddon built much in Babylon, but hardly on this site; the inscription of the brick speaks of buildings at Bit Saggatu, but the brick itself has no doubt been brought to this site from some other place owing to the changes which Babylon underwent after the reign of Esarhaddon. According to the position of these ruins the buildings of which they are the remains formed an irregular square; the side on the river measures more than 1800 feet in length: theeastern side is about 1100 feet, the depth about 1300 feet. If this is really the site of the terrace gardens, the other ruins may be the remnants of the great bathing-house, of which we heard above (p. 372). The corpses found in the vaults of these ruins, of which the coffins are formed by bricks placed together, belong to the period of the rule of the Parthians over Babylon.[713]

Round the new citadel of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar on the eastern bank, round the old, most sacred temple of the city, the temple of Merodach, rising on a broad basis in seven receding stories (I. 296), which Nebuchadnezzar was the first to complete, as we shall soon see,i. e.to raise it to its full height of about 600 feet—round these great buildings, on the same side of the river, the new city must have arisen, which, according to the statement of Berosus, Nebuchadnezzar added to the ancient Babylon. As this new city and its fortification date from the time of Nebuchadnezzar, the permanent bridge over the Euphrates must also be the work of that king. This bridge Herodotus ascribes to Nitocris, queen of Babylon—by whom is meant Amyite, the consort of Nebuchadnezzar—while Ctesias represents it as being built by Semiramis, on the ground of the Medo-Persian songs which were inclined to ascribe everything to the founders of the extinct Assyria, but very little to the still existing Babylon.[714]Before there was a palace and city and city wall on the eastern bank, a permanent bridge was not merely not required and useless; it would have been a dangerous piece of folly for the city, which would simply have facilitated the approach to an enemy coming from the east. According to the description of the bridge which Diodorushas borrowed from Ctesias it crossed the Euphrates between the two citadels, "which lay on the river in order to overlook the whole city, and formed as it were the keys of the most important parts of it." It was of the length of five stades, and was supported by stone pillars, which stood at a distance of twelve feet from each other, and rested on an artificial foundation in the bed of the river. The stones of the pillars, in order to hold them together, were secured with clamps of iron, and the joints were filled up with lead. On the side which faced the stream the pillars formed sharp but rounded angles, which gradually extended to the width of the pillar, in order that the violence of the stream might be broken, and the rounded edge might moderate its force. The bed on the pillars was 30 feet in breadth and consisted of huge palm trunks and beams of cedar and cypress.[715]Herodotus says: "Any one who wished to cross from one side to the other had to go by ship. But as this was found to be troublesome, in my opinion, a remedy was discovered. The Euphrates was dried up by diverting all the water into the excavated basin; and nearly in the middle of the city a bridge was built of stones, which were clamped together with iron and lead, and at the same time the banks of the river so far as it flows through the city were cased with burnt bricks, and the descents from the small gates to the river were built up with similar bricks. In the day-time the beams of the bridge were let down so that the Babylonians could cross over; at night they were drawn up."[716]

Back to Index Next