It may not be amiss, therefore, to follow out the supposition, and to inquire how far, by its aid, the' ancient and the recent descriptions can be brought to accord.
Ancient Babylon consisted of an immense square, divided by the Euphrates into two nearly equal parts. It is distinctly stated by Herodotus, that the palace and tower were opposite divisions to each other. If, then, the ruins on the eastern side be the palace, we must look to the western for the tower. There we find the Bins Nimrod, a stupendous pile, the dimensions and. character of which are precisely such as the tower, in a state of total dilapidation, might have been expected to ex hibit. Yet, to its really being the remains of that edifice, the objections are formidable. First, its dis tance of nearly ten miles from the 1VIujelibe would, to include it within the city, require an extension even of the vast limits assigned by Major Rennell. But it is certain, that the extent of Babylon was im mense; that it rather resembled an inclosed dis trict than a city. A great part of its area was under cultivation ; and it has even been asserted, that the produce raised within the walls could, in case of siege, support its immense population. Without resting on the authority of Herodotus, though it be confirmed by Pliny, even the dimensions of Strabo, reckoned according to his own estimate of the stadium, would give upwards of eleven miles to each side of the square. But it is supposed that the palace and tower must each be in the centre of their respective divisions ; an arrangement cer tainly incompatible with the actual situation of the ruins. The expression of Herodotus, no doubt, is mow, in the middle ; which Major Rennell has translated centre. We doubt much, however, if this
expression can be understood in so precise and ma thematical a sense. It is familiarly said, that a build ing is in the middle or heart of a city, when it is completely inclosed within it, and surrounded by its buildings, even though it may approach to one of its extremities. Such, it appears to us, might be the present meaning, especially since the palace, being upon the river, could not, geometrically speaking, be in the middle of its division. The Kasr above de scribed seems pretty exactly what we should expect in the ornamented and inhabited part of the palace. The Mujelibe, Mr Rich conceives, might be the hanging gardens. We would suggest the mound of Amran as a more probable situation, from its vicinity both to the river and to the palace, while the Muje libe is at an inconvenient distance from both. This last structure, from Mr Rich's observations, seems decidedly to suggest the idea of a royal sepulchre. • Of such structures, several are mentioned in Baby lonish history, particularly that of Ninus, said to have been built within the palace, and of extraordi nary elevation. (Diod. I. ii. 7.) Mr Rich mentions his intention of making repeat ed visits to this spot, and of examining the different objects with greater care and minuteness. Additional light may thus certainly be thrown upon the subject, though it seems improbable, after the surveys already made, that any grand feature should remain to be discovered. See Memoir on the Ruins of Babylon, by Claudius James Rich, Esq. 8vo. Lond. 1815. (a.)