Another mistake which, in our opinion, Major fennel] has been led to make, is the determining, at the very commence ment of his inquiry, the site of the temple of Behis. Whether the position he has assigned it be the correct one, is another question; all that we suggest at present is, that such alloca tion is, in this ease, premature; it at once puts a limit to free inquiry, as it determines w hat must be the relative position of every other edifice. Mr. Rich, on the other hand, cmn meneing the subject entirely afresh, and taking a more comprehensive view of the matter, arrives at a different con he gives it as his opinion that the Birs Nemroud has the better claims to be considered as the ancient tower. In thvour of this opinion it may be observed, that it would at once obviate the difficulty we have in reconciling the state ment of the ancients, respecting the location of the palace and temple of Beim on opposite sides of the river, with the dis coveries of the moderns. But, it may be objected. Ilerodotus states that these edifices were in the centre of either division of the city : now the word used by that author is gm. itgeno, which, we think, may be translated literally enough by in the midst, or even by the preposition within, and certainly more correctly so than by in the centre. Should, however, any objection be made to this translation, we would argue that in so large a space, our author may be allowed a little latitude in cursorily describing the position of principal build ings in the plan of so vast a city. Alorenver, we have further evidence in favour of this assumption, in the remarkable similarity of the remains to the descriptions we have of the old edifice. Before proceeding further, we may as well get rid of one objection which may be urged in opposition to the statements we are about to make: time plan of the remains is an oblong• and not a square, as stated by flerodutus; now, we must remind our readers that, although the more common reading states the building to have been of a square plan, yet that this reading has been with good reason objected to, and has been altered by Wesseling in his edition ; we do not think, therefore, that this objection ought to have much weight. To return :—The ruins present the appearance of a building of 7t32 yards periphery, surrounded by an outer wall ; the present height of the building is :In feet, in which space Mr. Inch discovered traces of three different stages, similar to those described by I lerodotus ; and Mr. Buckingham, a later traveller, in the same space, thinks four stages clearly discernible. Now. if we add the same height for other four stages to complete the number of eight as given by Herodo tus, we shall find the total height of the building equal to -lit) feet, or about a stadium, the height given by the :tridents. This we think amounts to almost conclusive evidence fin• the supposition of Mr. Rich; further, however, the appearance of the kasr answers very well to the deseription of the ancient palace, and one part is especially to be noted for its resemblance to the hanging-gardens: the hollow shaft men tioned amongst the discoveries of Mr. Rich, is very similar to the hollow piers supporting, the terraces as described by Strabo. The author, from whose narrative we have so copiously extracted, supposes the whole of that mass of ruins on the eastern bank of the river, enclosed by circular walls, to have formed a part of the ancient palace, for, says he, it is manifest that the palace was not merely a single edifice, but consisted of a number of buildings,.surrounded probably by an outer wall ; and this supposition appears very probable, especially as it related that the hanging-gardens were within its precincts. Major Rennell, however, n bile he assigns the kasr especially to the palace, and the Mujelibe to the temple of Belus, considers the circular rampart which encloses them as an erection of modern date. In opposition to this notion, Mr. Rich suggests that we have no pecounts of any later erection on this spot, whereas Diodorus expressly states that the palace was surrounded by circular walls. Besides this, he brings forward what he considers a con vincing proof of its antiquity, which is this—that wherever bricks engraved with the arrow-headed characters are here found, they are all placed with the engraved sides downwards. This circumstance he considers sufficient evidence of the walls having been erected at a very early period; for during his extensive researches. he observed that in the old build ings the bricks were invariably laid in this particular posi tion ; in later erections, where the old materials had been made use of, this peculiarity had not been attended to.
The question respecting the identification of the remains with the ancient buildings, has elicited considerable informa tion on the subject, and has been very ably treated by many learned men. A variety of opinions has arisen in conse quence of the difficulties with which the subject is attended, none of which, however, have been broached without good reason: we are inclined to give the preference to Mr. I lich's
suggestions, but at the same time we must contbss that time other views taken of this case are worthy of most careful consideration.
We have extended the present article to so great a length, on account of the interest which must necessarily appertain to a style of building of such early date. Much as the origi nality of the various modes of architecture has been discussed, and although many weighty reasons have been alleged in proof of the superior antiquity of some few of the other styles, of, for instance, time Cyclopean, the Egyptian, and the Indian; yet it seems to us that the Babylonian has a greater claim to originality than any other. As flu• as we can discover from historical records, it is very evident that the first great empire established in the world was that of Babylon. The account given in the sacred history. and which is confirmed, as for as may be. by all other historical records, tells us that the first great kingdom was founded, and the first city built, by Nimrod, a name which has been preserved by tradition even up to the present time, and is still held in especial reverence; thus proving, at least, the existence of such a person, and his pre-eminent usefulness to the city and people of Babylon. It may be said, we are well aware, that this is mere tradition ; yet we cannot allow that tradition, even when it appears in its most absurd colouring, is entirely to be despised : we cannot account for the promulgation of any legend that has absolutely no origin, such an idea is indeed absurd; every traditional story must have some real, tangi ble source, and reality cannot but he truth ; such stories may have been embellished, or, if you please, disfigured by fiction, but they must have their foundation at least in fact.
Many persons, we know,•are very unwilling to assign much credit to the Mosaical narrative ; but we think we are fully entitled to claim tla- it equal authority with that of most of the other historians who make any reference to the occur rences of so early a date, especially as its author is allowed to be the earliest historian, and for this reason must have lived closer to, and have been, we should suppose, more competent to relate .the occurrences of, the times to which he refers. Claiming so much authority, then, for our author, we would beg our readers to allow a thir modicum of credit for his sketch of the early history of Babylon ; we say sketch, for it has no higher pretensions, nor could we naturally expect any detailed history from an historian living eight hundred years posterior to the period whose history he is relating. We may here apply a very sensible remark made by Rollin ;1/ speaking history of this empire : "where," he says, certainty is not to be.had, I suppose a reasonable person will he satisfied with probability." It is true that Moses does not expressly state that Babylon was the first city, but we have every reason short of certainty to believe that he intended to imply as much. In giving the genealogy of Noah's descendants, he stops at the name of Nimrod, to tell us that " he began to be a mighty one in the earth ;" which expression, if it does not indeed say in so many words that he was the first one who obtained superiority, may, at least, when taken in connection with all other attendant circum stances, imply quite as much ; and it is further told us, that "the beginning of his kingdom was Babel." Further on in the narrative, we are told where and what this Babel was, as well as when its erection took place, namely, in the time of Peleg, the fifth from Noah, probably at some particular period of his life ; perhaps shortly after his birth—for, " in his days was the earth divided :" the causes of this division, and the particulars of the building of Babel, are related as follows : " The whole earth was of one language, and of one speech ; and it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar ; and they dwelt there. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city, and a tower whose top may reach unto heaven ; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the children of men builded. And the Lord said. Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language ; and this they begin to do : and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth : and they left off to build the city ; therefore is the name of it called Babel." To any one reading this account, there can, we think, be little doubt, that it was the writer's intention to signify, that Babel was the first permanent erection of any significance, that it was the joint erection of all men then in existence, and also that it was the origin of the city afterwards known by the name of Babylon.