Later seems that in some way the establishment of the lower Assyrian dynasty under Tiglath-pileser was connected with the successful movement of Nabonassar at Babylon, but we must wait for subsequent discoveries to enlarge our in formation on this point. It is equally a matter of uncertainty whether or not Nabonassar secured the throne to his posterity. Four insignificant names follow his in the list of Ptolemy, but the fifth king is more worthy of consideration. This is Mardo cempalus, the Merodach-Baladan of Isaiah. Of him we know from the inscriptions that he was attacked by Sargon in his twelfth year, who con quered and expelled him from his kingdom, when he either assumed the crown himself, or gave it to Arceanus, one of his sons. Scripture informs us that at an earlier period Merodach-Baladan had been moved by curiosity concerning the astronomi cal wonder that had happened to Hezekiali, and consequently had sent ambassadors to him for the professed purpose of making inquiries about it, and congratulating him on his recovery. Probably, however, he meant more than this by such an embassy, and perhaps a design was entertained of forming a league with those powers to whom Assyria was likely to be obnoxious or dangerous ; and it may have been in consequence of his acting on such a design that Sargon was induced to chastise him in the way he did. It was, however, only for a time that M ardocempalus was deposed ; he contrived to seat himself again on the throne, though but for half a year, for Sargon's more powerful son and successor, Sennacherib, attacked and defeated him, together with his allies, the Susianians, and he was obliged once more to flee for his life. After plundering the city Sennacherib placed on the throne Belibus or Elibus, who ruled at Babylon from 702 to 699. The party of Mar docempalus, however, appears to have regained strength once more, which was the cause of Baby lonia being again invaded by Sennacherib, who removed Belibus, and put in his place his own son Asshur-Nadin. The period of the next few years is one of obscurity, as it does not appear whether Asshur-Nadin and his successors ruled in their own right, or were viceroys of Sennacherib ; but about the year 68o we arrive at a time of more certainty, for it was at this period that Esarhaddon, the king of Assyria, resolved on reigning at Babylon as well as Nineveh, instead of placing a viceroy in the former city, as his predecessors had done. He may have held his court alternately at both places between 68o and 607, for many tokens of his rule have been found at Babylon, but that which is of special interest is the light this fact throws on the narrative of 2 Chron. xxxiii. 11-13, which states that the king of Assyria took Manasseh, the king of Judah, and carried him to Babylon. It is thus by the aid of cuneiform discoveries that we are enabled to explain how it was that a king of Assyria should take a captive prince to Babylon. More over, the accuracy of the sacred historian is con firmed, as Esarhaddon was the only Assyrian monarch who reigned both at Nineveh and at Babylon. The sons of Merodach-Baladan, who had the support of the Susianians, and still con tinued to annoy Esarhaddon in his residence at Babylon, were eventually removed, and thirteen years after his accession Esarhaddon felt himself sufficiently strong to appoint a viceroy in that city, which he intrusted to one Saosduchinus, who held the office for about twenty-eight years, and was succeeded by Ciniladanus, the last of the viceroys, and perhaps his brother. This man is said to have reigned for twenty-two years, but nothing is known of Babylonian history during that period. The next time that light breaks in upon it is when Babylon is about to rise to the proudest position she ever attained, and to enjoy that degree of prosperity and supremacy she had so long envied Nineveh. According to Abydenus, Nabopolassar was a general in the service of Saracus, the Assyrian monarch, and commissioned by him to oppose Cyaxares and his Medes in their advances on Nineveh. Proving treacherous, however, he went over to the army of the Median, who readily ac cepted his services, and consolidated his adherence by giving his daughter Amyitis to Nebuchadnezzar, the son of Nabopolassar. Cyaxares and Nabo polassar appear to have shared the conquered dominions between them, the former taking the northern and eastern portions of the Assyrian em pire, while the valley of the Euphrates and Syria, Phcenicia, and Palestine fell to the lot of Nabo polassar. Josiah was at this time king of Judah ; he was unaffected by the change of sovereigns ' beyond the river,' and therefore it is passed over without direct notice in Scripture, though we see that the Assyrian power was succeeded by the Babylonian in holding the sovereignty over Judma. Nabopolassar very probably removed the mass of the inhabitants of Nineveh to Babylon, and em ployed them in the various works in which he and his son engaged. The chief events of his reign are the wars he made with Alyattes, king of Lydia, and with Neco, the son of Psammetichus, king of Egypt. In the former case he assisted Cyaxares the Mede, in the latter he was helped by Josiah, king of Judah who met his death at Megiddo through devotion to his cause. After this battle Neco seems to have gained all the territories from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates, and on his return in triumph to Egypt to have deposed Jehoahaz and made Jehoiakim king in his stead. At this time Nabopolassar was unable, from sick ness or old age, to endure the fatigues of a cam paign, but in the fourth year of Jehoiakim he sent his son, Nabu-kuduri-uzur, with a large army, against Neco, who met him at Carchemish, but was completely routed. This is the battle spoken of in Jer. xlvi. 2, seq. The result of it was that all the territory as far as the river of Egypt was re covered, and that the king of Egypt came not any more out of his land. 2 Kings xxiv. 7.
Nebuchadnezzar was on the borders of Egypt when he heard of his 'father's death, after reigning twenty-one years. He returned with all speed to secure his succession to the throne, and immedi ately began to employ the host of captives he had accumulated, in those gigantic works which were the marvels of his own and succeeding times. These works consisted of enormous fortifications, in the form of an outer and an inner wall, the former of which enclosed a space of more than 130 square miles ; an entirely new palace, which he completed in fifteen days, and of which the ruins are seen in the modern Kasr. The great canal, 400 miles long, running from Hit to the Persian Gulf, large enough for ships, and serving also for the purposes of irrigation and defence against the Arabs, besides the reconstruction of various cities of Babylonia, Borsippa, Sippara, Cutha, etc., on whose bricks his name is almost exclusively found. He also built the famous hanging garden, which was pro bably an artificial hill planted with trees, said to have been made in honour of his wife, the Median princess, to remind her of the mountainous and wooded scenery of her native country, together with various temples, remains of which still exist in the mound of Babil and the Birs-Nimrild.
But the attention of the king was not absorbed in such undertakings. Soon after his accession to the throne, Judma and Phoenicia rebelled, and Ne buchadnezzar, with the aid of Cyaxares and the Medes, marched against the rebels, invested Tyre with a portion of his army, and with the rest be sieged Jerusalem.
Jehoiakim, who had depended on the Egyptians, finding no help from them, surrendered, but was put to death by Nebuchadnezzar, who placed in his stead his son Jeconiah. He, however, pro bably sheaving signs of disloyalty, was, after three months, deposed and carried captive to Babylon, while Zedekiah, his uncle, was placed on the throne. Tyre continued to resist all the king of Babylon's efforts to reduce it, and, in fact, was not taken till thirteen years after it had been first invested. Three years before its fall, Jerusalem had finally rebelled. The accession of Uaphris or Apries, or Pharaoh-Hopbra, had inspired the Jews with further hopes of regaining their independence, and Zedekiah sent ambassadors to Egypt to solicit aid against the king of Babylon ; but before his request was responded to, Nebuchadnezzar had besieged the city. It is true that, on the report of the Egyptian's approaching, he raised the siege to meet them, Jar. xxxvii. 5 ; but it was only to return again to capture the city, put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and carry him captive to Babylon. This was in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar, the capture of Tyre was in the following year. The whole extent of his reign was forty-two years, but for a period of seven years, probably some time subsequent to the captivity, he was the sub ject of that dreadful affliction recorded by Daniel. As yet no allusion to this event has been found in the monuments. He appears to have reigned some time after his recovery from what is said, Dan. iv. 36, and the year of his death was B.C. 561. He was succeeded by his son Evil-Mero-' dach, who `spoke kindly to Jehoiachin, and did lift up his head out of prison.' His reign, how ever, lasted but two years, when he is said to have been murdered by Neriglissar or Nergal-shar-uzzar, the husband of his sister. Of this monarch little is known. It is possible, but not certain, that he was the Nergalsharezer of the taking of Jerusalem ; if so, it must have been nearly thirty years before. He reigned but three years and a half, and was succeeded by his son Laborosoarchod or Labosso races. This king, who was but a child, reigned only for nine months. Some of his courtiers made a conspiracy, and murdered him, and then elected one of their own number to the throne. This was Nabonidus, Nabonadius or Labynetus, who began to reign, 8. c. 555, shortly before the war between Cyrus and Crcesus. He was persuaded to join a league with Egypt and Lydia against the rising power of Persia, and upon the fall of Crcesus would probably have come to his assistance if the move ments of Cyrus had not been too rapid for him. As it was, the principal effect that this event had upon him was to increase his diligence in the forti fication of his own city. The works attributed by Herodotus to Nitocris are most probably to be assigned to him ; and, as Babylon was not be sieged till fifteen years after the fall of Crccsus, he had abundance of time to prepare for, any enemy, both in the way of fortification, and also in that of laying up abundance of provision against a siege. his name is found stamped upon the bricks of the river walls ascribed by Herodotus to Nitocris. When Cyrus appeared before the city, he had only to fight one battle, and the Babylonians retreated to their strongholds, trusting, perhaps, too exclu sively to those very fortifications and defences which Nabonadius had made so fatally strong. We know not how long the siege lasted, but, after waiting for a religious festival, Cyrus put in action the stratagem of turning the river, and thus, con trary to all human foresight, brought about the fulfilment of the predictions in Jer. li.—contrary to all human foresight, for there were many possi bilities of defeat in the scheme of Cyrus, and any one of them would have proved fatal. A flood gate might have broken; or a dyke burst, and swamped a large portion of his army, or the sink ing of the water might have been observed, and then the water-gates of the city would have been closed, and his design frustrated. In the capture of Babylon was fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, ch. xxi., spoken 170 years before, while in the present condition of the site we observe the truth of the yet more magnificent chapters xiii. and xiv. It is but natural to suppose that the city was taken at the extremities, before the inhabitants of the centre were aware of or suspected it. In the words of Jeremiah, `One post ran to meet another, And one messenger to meet another, to shew the king of Babylon that his city was taken at one end.' Nabonadius, indeed, is supposed to have been at Borsippa when Babylon was taken, having fled thither on the defeat of his army by Cyrus before the walls. It seems, however, that he left in Babylon his son Bil-shar-uzar, whom he had a few years before admitted to a share in the government, and thus the accounts of Berosus and Daniel, hitherto at variance, may be reconciled. It was Belshazzar who spent the time which ought to have been devoted to vigilance, in feasting and revelry, and who was in Babylon when the Mcdes took it. It was Nabonadius who was really the king, but at this time was shut up in Borsippa with his army. Upon hearing of the calamity that had befallen his empire and his son, Nabonadius surrendered himself on the approach of Cyrus, who, having orders to destroy the fortifications of the captured city, had marched upon Borsippa. Cyrus treated him well, and, according to Berosus, he died there. After this, Babylon twice sustained a siege in the reign of Darius Hystaspis, and once in that of Xerxes. It may well be supposed to have suffered in all these attacks, but it still con tinued to be the second city of the Persian empire till the time of Alexander. Had his life not been cut short, he intended to have restored it to its ancient splendour, and made it the capital of his vast dominions ; but henceforth Babylon gradually decayed. In the time of Strabo and Diodorus it was in nuns, but Jerome, in the fourth century, was told that it had been converted into a paradise for the Persian kings, and that the walls had been repaired in order to preserve the game. What is its present condition and aspect has been shewn above. Such is the end of this devoted city, 'the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency,' which has become ' as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.' The writer is under great obligations to the various essays on the subject in vol. i. and ii. of Rawlinson's Hermlotus ; but see also Ker Porter's Travels ; Rich's Memoir on Babylon ; Winer's 14orterbuch; Layard's works ; Rawlinson's Notes on the Early History of Babylonia; Loftus' Chal Ikea ; Oppert's Rapport; M. Niebuhr's Geschichte d4sshier's ; etc. etc.—S. L.