Obrazy na stronie
PDF

star above her head, standing in a chariot drawn by he obtained A.D. 379.

winged horses, while in one hand she holds a torch, and with the other scatters roses, as illustrative of the flowers springing from the dew, which the poets describe as diffused from the eyes of the goddess in liquid pearls. (Compare Inghirami, Mon. Etrusc., 1, 5– Millin, Wases de Canosa, 5. Vases, 1, 15–Id. ibid., 2, 37.—Eckhcl, Syll, 7, 3–Müller, Archaeol. der Kunst, p. 611.) AURUNci, a people of Latium, on the coast towards Campania, southeast of the Wolsci. They were, in fact, identical with the Ausonians. The Italian form of the name Ausones can have been no other than Aurant, for from this Aurunci is manifestly derived. Auruncus is Aurunicus; the termination belongs to the number of adjective-forms in which the old Latin luxuriated, so as even to form Tuscanicus from Tuscus. {Niebuhr's Rom. Hist., vol. 1, p. 56, 2d ed., Cambridge transl.) AusAR, a river of Etruria, which formerly joined the Arnus, not far from the mouth of the latter. At present they both flow into the sea by separate channels. Some indication of the junction of these rivers seems preserved by the name of Osari, attached to a little stream or ditch which lies between them. (Cramer's Anc. Italy, vol. 1, p. 174.) Ausch Isae, a people of Libya. (Herodot., 4, 171.) They extended from above Barca to the neighbourhood of the Hesperides. (Compare Rennell's Geography of Herodotus, vol. 2, p. 266.) Ausci, a people of Gallia Aquitania. Their capital was Ausci, now Ausch, on the Ger, one of the southern branches of the Garumna or Garonne. Its earlier name was Climberris or Climberrum. (Caes., B. G., 3, 27.—Mela, 3, 2.-Amm. Marc., 15, 28.) Auson, a son of Ulysses and Calypso, from whom the Ausones, a people of Italy, were fabled to have been descended. (Vid. Ausonia.) Ausonia, a name properly applied to the whole southern part of Italy, through which the Ausones, one of the ancient races of Italy, had spread themselves. Its derivation from Auson, son of Ulysses and Calypso, is a mere fable. The sea on the southeast coast was for a long time called from them Mare Ausonium. tion of the great Oscan nation. p. 56, 2d ed., Cambridge transl.) Ausonius (Decius, or, more correctly, Decimus, Magnus), a Roman poet of the fourth century. The most authentic particulars respecting him are to be found in his own writings, and more especially in the second volume of his Praefatuncula, wherein he treats the subject professedly. He was born at Burdigala (Bourdeaux), where his father, Julius Ausonius, was an eminent physician, and also a Roman senator and member of the Municipal Council. Had his education been solely confided to paternal attentions, it is probable that no record of him would have been necessary among the Latin poets, since the elder Ausonius, although well read in Greek, was but indifferently acquainted with the Latin tongue. By the exertions, however, of his maternal uncle, AEmilius Magnus Arborius, himself a poet, and the reputed author of an elegy still extant, “Ad nympham nimis cultam,” and those of the grammarians Minervius, Nepotian, and Staphylus, the disadvantages of our poet's circumstances were abundantly removed. From these eminent men he acquired the principles of grammar and rhetoric. His success in the latter of these studies induced him to make trial of the bar; but the

(Rom. Hist., vol. 1,

Niebuhr makes the Ausonians a por

[ocr errors]

The question has been often started, whether Ausonius was a Christian or not. Some have doubted the circumstance on account of the extreme licentiousness of certain of his productions. It is difficult, however, to deny the affirmative of this question without attacking the authenticity of some of his pieces, such as, for example, his first Idyl: besides, how can we imagine that so zealous a Christian as Valentinian would have confided to a pagan the education of his son : . As to the licentious character of some of his poetry, it may be remarked, that, in professing the prevailing religion of the day, he omitted, perhaps, to follow its purer precepts, and hence indulged in effusions revolting to morality and decency. #. frequent use ..". makes of the pagan mythology in his writings does not prove anything against his observance of Christianity, since the spirit of the times allowed this absurd mixture of fable with truth.-The exact time when Ausonius died is uncertain; he was alive in 392–The poetry of Ausonius, on the whole, like that of Avienus, is marked by poverty of argument, profusion of mechanical ingenuity, and imitation of, or, rather, compilation from, the ancients. It is valuable, however, to the literary historian: its variety alone affords us a considerable insight into the state of poetry in that age; and the station and pursuits of the author allowed him that familiarity with contemporary poets which has imparted to his works the character of poetical memoirs.Of the editions of Ausonius, the best, although a very rare one, is that of Tollius, Amst., 1671, 8vo. It contains the learned commentary of Joseph Scaliger, together with selected notes from Accursius, Barthius, Gronovius, Graevius, and others. The Delphin edition is also held in considerable estimation. The Bipont edition, published in 1783, 8vo, is a useful and correct one. (Bahr, Gesch. Rom. Lit., vol. 1, p. 304, seqq.—Schöll, Hist. Lit. Rom., vol. 3, p. 52.-Encyclop. Metropol., Div. 3, vol. 2, p. 576, seq.) Auspices, a sacerdotal order at Rome, nearly the same as the augurs. Auspex (the nom. sing.) denoted a person who observed and interpreted omens, especially those connected with the flight, the sounds, and the feeding of birds; and hence the term is said to be derived from aris, “a bird,” and specu), “to behold” or “observe,” the earlier form of the word having been avisper. In later times, when the custom of consulting the auspices on every occasion lost much of its strictness, the term auspez acquired a more general signification. Before this, the name was particularly applied to the priest who officiated at marriages; but now, those employed to witness the signing of the marriage contract, and to see that everything was rightly performed, were called auspices nuptiarum, otherwise proxeneta, conciliatores, and pronubi, in Greek Tapaviou%tot. (Valerius Marimus, 2, 1, 1– Cicero, de Dirin., 1, 16. — Suetonus, Claud., 26.— Servius, ad AEn., 1, 350, et 4, 45.—Buleng., de Aug. et Ausp., 3, 13.) Hence ausper is put for a favourer or director; thus, ausper legis, “one who advocates a law;” diis auspicibus, “under the guidance of the

gods;” auspice musa, “under the inspiration of the muse,” &c. (Consult remarks under the article AuGUREs.)

AustER, the South wind, the same with the Notos of the Greeks. Pliny (2, 48) speaks of it as a drying, withering wind, identifying it, therefore, with the Sirocco of modern times. Aristotle (Probl, 1, 23) ascribes to its influence burning fevers. Horace (Serm., 2, 6, 18) calls it “plumbeus Auster,” thus

former was his choice, and in A.D. 367 he was ap- characterizing it as unhealthy; and, on another occapointed by the Emperor Valentinian tutor to the young sion, he speaks of it in plainer language, as “nocene

prince Gratian, whom he accompanied into Germany corporibus.” He became successively Count roses as dying at its first approach, “Pubentesve rosa of the empire, quaestor, governor of Gaul, Libya, and primos moriuntur ad Austros.” Latium, and first consul. The last of these dignities | Compare Virg., Eclog., 2, 58.)

the following year.

(Od., 2, 14, 15.) Statius describes the

[ocr errors]

the husbandman neither to trim his trees nor prune his vines when this wind blows (18, 76). On another occasion (16,46) he states, that the pear and the almond trees lose their buds if the heavens be clouded by a south wind, though unaccompanied by rain. This remark, however, is not confirmed by modern experience. The south wind is also described by the Latin poets as bringing rain. (Tibull., 1, 1, 47-Orid, Met., 13, 725, &c.) We must distinguish, therefore, between the dry and humid southern blasts, as Pliny does in the following passage: “(Auster) humidus aut astuosus Italia, est; Africa, quidem incendia cum serenitate adfert” (18, 76). AutochthāNrs, an appellation assumed by the Athenians, importing that they sprang from the soil which they inhabited. (Consult remarks under the article AtticA.) AutolóLAE, a people of Africa, on the western or Atlantic coast of Mauritania Tingitana. (Plin., 6, 31.-Lucan, Pharsal., 4, 677.-Sil. Ital., 2, 63.) Autolycus, son of Mercury and Philonis, according to the scholiast on Homer (Od., 19,432), but, according to Pausanias (8, 4), the son of Daedalion, and not of Mercury. He dwelt on Parnassus, and was celebrated as a stealer of cattle, which he carried off in such a way as to render it nearly impossible to recogmise them, all the marks being defaced. Among others, he drove off those of Sisyphus, and he defaced the marks as usual; but, when Sisyphus came in quest of them, he, to the great surprise of the thief, selected his own beasts out of the herd, for he had marked the initial letter of his name under their hoofs. (The ancient form of the X was C, which is of the shape of a horse's hoof.) Autolycus forthwith cultivated the acuaintance of one who had thus proved himself too able or him; and Sisyphus, it is said, seduced or violated his daughter Anticlea (who afterward married Laertes), and thus was the real father of Ulysses. (Pherecyd, ap. Schol. ad Od., 19, 432.-Schol. ad Îl., 10, 267. —Tzetz. ad Lycophr., 344.—Keightley's Mythology, p. 400.) AutoMEdoN, a son of Dioreus, who went to the Trojan war with ten ships. He was the charioteer of Achilles, after whose death he served Pyrrhus in the same capacity. (Hom., Il., 9, 16, &c.—Virg., AEn., 2, 477.) AutoNöE, a daughter of Cadmus, who married Aristasus, by whom she had Actaeon, often called Autoneius heros. The death of her son (vid. Actaeon) was so painful to her, that she retired from Boeotia to Megara, where she soon after died. (Pausan., 1,44. —Hygin., fab., 179.-Ovid, Met., 3, 720.) AutrigöNEs, a people of Hispania Tarraconensis, among the Cantabri. They occupied what is now the eastern half of La Montana, the western quarter of Riscay and Alava, and the northeastern part of Burgos. Their capital was Flaviobriga, now Porto Gallete, near Bilboa. (Florez, Esp. S., 24, 10.— Ukert, Geogr., vol. 2, p. 446.) Mannert, however, makes it to be Santander. (Geogr., vol. 1, p. 373.) Axenus, the ancient name of the Euxine Sea. The word signifies inhospitable, which was highly applicable to the manners of the ancient inhabitants of the coast. It took the name of Euxinus after the coast was settled by Grecian colonies. (Wid. Pontus Euxinus.) Axius, the largest river in Macedonia, rising in the chain of Mount Scardus, and, after a course of eighty miles, forming an extensive lake near its mouth. It falls into the Sinus Thermaicus, after receiving the waters of the Erigonus, Ludias, and Astracus. In the middle ages this river assumed the name of Bardarus (Theophylact., Epist., 55.—Niceph. Greg., vol. 1, p. 230), whence has been derived that of Vardari or Wardar, which it now bears. (Cramer's Anc. Greece, vol. 1, p. 235.)

AzAN, I. a mountain of Arcadia. sacred to Cybele (Stat., Theb., 4, 292.)—II. A son of Arcas, king of Arcadia, by Erato, one of the Dryades. He divided his father's kingdom with his brothers Aphidas and Elatus, and called his share Azania. There was in Azania a fountain called Clutorius, whose waters gave a dislike for wine to those who drank them. (Vitruv., 8, 3.−Ovid, Met., 15, 322.—Pausan., 8, 4.—Plin., 21, 2–Etymol. Mag., s. v. KAuróptov.)—III. A region on the northeastern coast of Africa, lying south of Aromatum Promontorium and north of Barbaria. It is now Ajan. (Ptol—Arrian, Peripl. Mar. Erythr. —Stukius, ad Arrian, l.c., p. 93.)

AzîRIs, a place in Libya, surrounded on both sides by delightful hills covered with trees, and watered by a river, where Battus built a town, previous to found. ing Cyrene. (Herod., 4, 157.) É. calls the place Arylis. The harbour of Azaris, mentioned by Synesius (c. 4), appears to coincide with this same place. Pacho thinks that the Aziris of Herodotus coincides with the modern Temmineh. (Voyage, &c., p. 50, seqq.

Azötus (the Asdod of Scripture), one of the five chief cities of the Philistines, and, at the same time, one of the oldest and most celebrated cities of the land. The god Dagon was worshipped here. It lay on the seacoast, and in the division of the country among the Israelites, it fell to the tribe of Judah, but was not conquered until the reign of Solomon. In the time of King Hezekiah it was taken by the Assyrians, and subsequently by Psammetichus, king of #. after a siege of twenty-nine years. (Herod., 2, 157.) At a later period Azotus became the seat of a Christian bishop. The ruins of the ancient city are near a small village called Esdud. (Mannert, Geogr., vol. 6, pt. 1, p. 261, seq.)

[ocr errors]

BABRius or BABRIAs (or, as the name is sometimes corrupted, GABRíAs), a Greek poet, who lived, according to Tyrwhitt, either under Augustus or a short time before that emperor; while Coray, on the other hand, makes him a contemporary of Bion and Moschus. The particulars of his life have not reached us. All that we know of him is, that, after the example of Socrates, who, while in prison, amused himself with versifying the fables of AEsop, Babrius published a collection of fables under the title of uíðot or uv6íautot; from which the fables of Phaedrus are closely imitated. They were written in choliambics, and comprised in ten books, according to Suidas, or two volumes, according to Avianus. (Av., Praef. Fab.)—These two accounts are not at variance with each other, as the books were doubtless divisions made by the author, like the books of Phaedrus, perhaps with an appropriate introduction to each; while the “volumna” of Avianus were probably rolls of parchment or papyrus, on which the ten books were written. It may be farther observed, that Avianus calls the books of Phaedrus libelli, and not volumina. In this manner may be explained the statement of Pliny (8, 16), that Aristotle's writings on Natural History were contained in nearly fifty volumina. (Compare Menage, ad Diog. Laert., 5, 25.) This collection threw all preceding ones into comparative obscurity. It appears to have been still in existence as late as the twelfth century, in the days of Tzetzes: the copyists, however, of succeeding times, little sensible of the charms of the versification which Babrius had adopted, thought they could not do better than convert it into so much prose; and the fragments of verses, which they were unable in this way perfectly to disguise, are all that recalls the original lines which they have spoiled. The collection of Babrius, thus dishonoured, was perpetuated by numerous copies, in which traces of the original became more and more obseured, until a single apologue alone, that of the swallow and nightingale, bore marks of a versified fable. This piece found its way into a collection of fables attributed to Ignatius Magister, a priest of Constantinople, who, being in possession of a copy of the original fables of Babrius, in choliambic verse, as that author had written them, resolved to change them into iambic tertrastics. With this view he abridged and tortured each apologue until he succeeded in reducing them individually to four verses. Fifty-three fables were thus strangled; but as if Ignatius had wished, by means of a comparison, to augment our regrets for those which he had altered, he preserved entire and unchanged a single fable, the one to which we have alluded. At the period when the Greek authors began to be printed, the true collection of Babrius no longer existed: it was thought, however, that the collection of Ignatius was the original one, and hence it was published under the name of Babrius, or rather Gabrias, the B in the manuscripts being confounded with a T The error of the name was only perceived about the close of the sixteenth century. Two English scholars, the celebrated Bentley, in his dissertation on AEsop, and, at a later period, Tyrwhitt, in his dissertation on Babrius (Lond, 1776, 8vo), have avenged the memory of the poet, and dissipated much of the obscurity which hung over this portion of literary history. The latter of these two scholars reunited all the fragments of Babrius to be found in Suidas, as well as all those which were to be met with in other works. In this way he succeeded in recomposing four of the fables of Babrius, so that their number now amounted in all to five. Thirty-three years afterward (1809) De Furia published many fables of AEsop, up to that time inedited. In the number of these were thirty-six, which he believed to be written in prose like the rest, and which he printed as prose compositions; they were, in reality, however, versified fables, and a few corrections sufficed to restore them to their primitive form. This service has been rendered by Coray, in his collection of AEsop's Fables; by J. G. Schneider, at the end of his edition of Esop, from the Augustan MS.; by Berger, in an edition of the remains of Babrius, published at Munich in 1816; by Mr. G. Burges, in the Classical Journal (whose collection, however, is unfinished); by the present Bishop of London (Dr. Blomfield), in the third number of the Museum Criticum ; and by an anonymous writer in the second number of the Cambridge Philological Museum. (Schöll, Hist. Lut. Gr., vol. 4, p. 61, seq.—Cambridge Philol. Mus., n. 2, p. 282, seq.) Babylon, I. a celebrated city, the capital of the Babylonian empire, situate on the Euphrates, in 32° 25 north latitude, and 44° east longitude, as is supposed. Its origin is lost in the obscurity of early times. It is remarkable enough that Herodotus should have given us no intimation respecting its founder; he merely informs us that Semiramis and Nitocris, two of its queens, strengthened the fortifications, and guarded the city against inundations of the river, as well as improved and adorned it. May we not conclude from this, asks Rennell (Geography of Herodotus, vol. 1, p. 442), that its antiquity was very great; and ascended so high that Herodotus could not satisfy himself concerning it! At the same time, adds this intelligent writer, the improvements that took place in the city in the reign of Semiramis, might occasion the original foundation to be ascribed to her; the like having happened in the history of other cities. Herodotus informs us (1,178), that Babylon became the capital of Assyria after the destruction of Nineveh. Perhaps, then, we ought to date the foundation of those works which appear so stupendous in history from that period only: for, wonderful as these works appear, even when ascribed to the capital of an em

pire, the wonder increases when ascribed to the capital of a province only. If, then, with the ancient authors generally, we allow Semiramis to have been the foundress of that Babylon described by Herodotus, we cannot fix the date of the improved foundation beyond the eighth century before the Christian era: so that the duration of this city, in its improved form, was less than 800 years, reckoning to the time of Pliny. (Rennell, Geography of Herodotus, vol. 1, p. 443, seqq.)— The shape of the city of Babylon was that of a square, traversed each way by twenty-five principal streets, which, of course, intersected each other, dividing the city into 625 squares. These streets were terminated at each end by gates of brass, of prodigious size and strength, with a smaller one opening towards the river. Respecting the height and thickness of the walls of Babylon, there are great variations among the ancient writers. Herodotus makes them 200 royal cubits, or 337 feet 8 inches high, and 50 royal cubits, or 84 feet 6 inches broad. Ctesias gives 50 fathoms (Öpyviat), or 300 feet, for the height. An anonymous writer in Diodorus Siculus makes the height 50 common cubits, or 75 feet, and this estimate is followed by Strabo and Quintus Curtius. Pliny gives 200 feet, and Orosius 200 common cubits, or 300 feet (Herod., 1, 178. Ctesias, p. 402, td. Baehr.—Diod Sic., 2, 7. — Strabo, 738. – Curtius, 5, 1. Pliny 6, 26. — Orosius, 2, 6.) In this statement, Ctesia, evidently copies from Herodotus, since fifty fathoms make exactly 200 cubits; only he appears not to have perceived that royal cubits were meant by the latter It is also clear, that the anonymous writer mentioned by Diodorus Siculus, as well as Strabo and Quintus Curtius, had Ctesias respectively in view, but that, startled at the number of 50 fathoms, they have reduced it to the number of 50 cubits. The number 200, employed by Pliny, proves that he had consulted Herodotus merely; but that, through inadvertence on his part, or through the fault of later copyists, feet are substituted for cubits. Orosius follows Herodotus, but, forgetting that the latter speaks of royal cubits, he contents himself with giving 200 common cubits. (Larcher, ad Herodot., 1, 178.) But are we to receive the estimate of Herodotus as correct, and entitled to full belief! Evidently not: the measurement is in: credible, and bears on its very front the impress of gross exaggeration. A difficulty also presents itself with regard to the extent of the walls of Babylon. Herodotus makes them 120 stadia each side, or 480 in circumference. Pliny and Solinus give the circuit at 60 Roman miles; which, reckoning eight stadia to a mile, agrees with the account of Herodotus. Strabo makes it 385 stadia. Diodorus, from Ctesias, assigns 360, but from Clitarchus, who accompanied Alexander, 365. Curtius gives 368. It appears highly probable, remarks Rennell (Geography of Herodotus, vol. 1, p. 447), that 360 or 365 was the true statement of the circumference, since one of these numbers was reported by Ctesias, the other (which differs so little) by Clitarchus, both of them eyewitnesses. Taking the circumference of Babylon at 365 stadia, and these at 491 feet, each side of the square (which is equal to 91+ stadia) will be 8.485 British miles, or nearly 8}. This gives an area of 72 miles and an inconsiderable fraction. If the same number of stadia be taken at 500 feet each, the area will be 74.8. And, finally, the 385 stadia of Strabo, at 491 feet, about 80. The 480 stadia of Herodotus would give about 126 square miles, or eight times the area of London' But that even 72 contiguous square miles should have been in any degree covered with buildings, is on every account too improbable for belief. This famous city, in all likelihood, occupied a part only of the vast space enclosed by its walls. It is a question that no one can positively answer, “what proportion of the space was occupied ?” It is possible, however, that nearly two thirds of it might have been occupied in the mode in which the large cities of Asia are built; that is, in the style of some of those of India at the present day, having gardens, reservoirs of water, and large open places within them. Moreover, the houses of the common people consist of one floor only; so that, of course, fewer people can be accommodated in the same compass of ground in an Indian than in a European city. This accounts at once for the erroneous dimensions of some of the Asiatic cities; and perhaps we cannot allow much less than double the space to accommodate the same number of Asiatics that Europeans would require That the area enclosed by the walls of Babylon was only partly built on, is proved by the words of Quintus Curtius (5,4), who says, that “the buildings in Babylon are not contiguous to the walls, but some considerable space was left all around.” Diodorus, moreover, describes a vast space taken up by the palaces and public buildings. The enclosure of one of the palaces was a square of 15 stadia, or near a mile and a half; the other of five stadia: here are more than 2% square miles occupied by the palaces alone. Besides these, there were the temple and tower of Belus, of vast extent; the hanging gardens, &c. From all this, and much more that might be adduced, we may collect most clearly, that much vacant space remained within the walls of Babylon: and this would seem to do away, in some degree, the great difficulty respecting the magnitude of the city itself. Nor is it stated as the effect of the subsequent decline of Babylon, but as the actual state of it, when Alexander first entered the place: for Curtius leaves us to understand, that the system of cultivating a large proportion of the enclosed space originated with the foundation itself; and the history of its two sieges, by Cyrus and Darius Hystaspis, seems to show it. (Rennell's Geography of Herodotus, vol. 1, p. 447.)—The walls of Babylon were built of brick baked in the sun, cemented with bitumen instead of mortar, and were encompassed by a broad and deep ditch, lined with the same materials, as were also the banks of the river in its course through the city, the inhabitants descending to the water by steps through the smaller brass gates already mentioned. Over the river was a bridge, connecting the two halves of the city, which stood, the one on its eastern, the other on its western bank; the river running nearly north and south. The bridge was five furlongs in length, and thirty feet in breadth, and had a palace at each end, with, it is said, a subterranean passage beneath the river from one to the other, the work of Semiramis. Within the city was the temple of Belus, or Jupiter, which Herodotus describes as a square of two stadia: in the midst of this arose the celebrated tower, to which both the same writer and Strabo give an elevation of one stadium, and the same measure at its base. The whole was divided into eight separate towers, one above another, of decreasing dimensions to the summit; where stood a chapel, containing a couch, table, and other things, of gold. Here the principal devotions were performed; and over this, on the highest platform of all, was the observatory, by the help of which the Babylonians are said to have attained to great skill in astronomy. A winding staircase on the outside formed the ascent to this stupendous edifice—The two palaces, at the two ends of the bridge, have already been alluded to. The old palace, which stood on the east side of the river, was 30 furlongs (or three miles and three quarters) in compass. The new palace, which stood on the west side of the river, opposite to the other, was 60 furlongs (or seven miles and a half) in compass. It was surrounded with three walls, one within another, with considerable spaces between them. These walls, as also those of the other palace, were embellished with an infinite variety of sculptures, representing all kinds of animals to the life. Among the rest was a

curious hunting-piece, in which Semiramis on horse. back was throwing her javelin at a leopard, and her husband Ninus piercing a lion. In this last palace were the hanging gardens, so celebrated among the Greeks. They contained a square of 400 feet on every side, and were carried up in the manner of several large terraces, one above another, till the height equalled that of the walls of the city. The ascent was from terrace to terrace by stairs ten feet wide. The whole pile was sustained by vast arches raised upon other arches, one above another, and strengthened by a wall, surrounding it on every side, of twenty-two feet in thickness. On the top of the arches were first laid large flat stones, sixteen feet long and four broad; over these was a layer of reeds, mixed with a great quantity of bitumen, upon which were two rows of bricks closely cemented together. The whole was covered with thick sheets of lead, upon which lay the mould of the garden. And all this floorage was contrived to keep the moisture of the mould from running away through the arches. The earth laid thereon was so deep that large trees might take root in it; and with such the terraces were covered, as well as with all other plants and flowers that were proper to adorn a pleasure-garden. In the upper terrace there was an engine, or kind of pump, by which water was drawn up out of the river, and from thence the whole garden was watered. In the spaces between the several arches upon which this whole structure rested, were large and magnificent apartments, that were very light, and had the advantage of a beautiful prospect. Amyitis, the wife of Nebuchadnezzar, having been bred in Media (for she was the daughter of Astyages, the king of that country), desired to have something in imitation of her native hills and forests; and the monarch, in order to gratify her, is said to have raised this prodigious structure.—Babylon was probably in the zenith of its glory and dominion just before the death of Nebuchadnezzar. The spoils of Nineveh, Jerusalem, and Egypt had enriched it; its armies had swept like a torrent over the finest countries of the East, and had at this time no longer an enemy to contend with ; the arts and sciences, driven from Phoenicia and Egypt, were centred here ; and hither the philosophers of the West came to imbibe instruction. The fall of Babylon, before the victorious arms of Cyrus, occurred B.C. 538. The height and strength of the walls had long baffled every effort of the invader. Having understood at length, that on a certain day, then near approaching, a great annual festival was to be kept at Babylon, when it was customary for the Babylonians to spend the night in revelling and drunkenness, he thought this a fit opportunity for executing a scheme which he had planned. This was no other than to surprise the city by turning the course of the river; a mode of capture of which the Babylonians, who looked upon the river as one of their greatest protections, had not the smallest apprehension. Accordingly, on the night of the feast, he sent a arty of his men to the head of the canal, which led to the great lake made by Nebuchadnezzar to receive the waters of the Euphrates while he was facing the banks of the river with walls of brick and bitumen. This party had directions, as soon as it was dark, to commerce breaking down the great bank or dam which kept the waters of the river in their place, and separated them from the canal above mentioned; while Cyrus, in the mean time, dividing the rest of his army, stationed one part at the place where the river entered the city, and the other where it came out, with orders to enter the channel of the river as soon as they should find it fordable. This happened by midnight; for, by cutting down the bank leading to the great lake, and making besides openings into the trenches, which, in the course of the two years' siege, had been dug round the city, the river was so drained of its water that it became nearly dry. When the army of Cyrus entered the channel from their respective stations on each side of the city, they rushed onward towards the centre of the place; and finding the gates leading towards the river left open, in the drunkenness and negligence of the night, they entered them, and met by concert at the palace before any alarm had been given: here the guards, partaking, no doubt, in the negligence and disorder of the night, were surprised and killed. While all this was going on without, a remarkable scene of widely different character was transacting within. Daniel was deciphering the writing on the wall; and, soon after, the soldiers of Cyrus, having killed the guard, and meeting with no resistance, advanced towards the banqueting-hall, where they encountered Belshazzar, the ill-fated monarch, and slew him, with his armed followers—Babylon had suffered much when carried by the troops of Cyrus; but other sufferings were to come. Cyrus having established his court at Susa, Babylon, formerly the seat of empire, was thus reduced to the rank of a provincial city; and the inhabitants, who, grown wealthy and proud during their empire over the East, could ill brook this change of fortune, resolved to make an effort towards regaining their former power and grandeur. Accordingly, in the fifth year of Darius Hystaspis, and twelve years after the death of Cyrus, having for several years covertly laid in great stores of provisions, and every necessary, they openly revolted; which, as they might have expected, soon brought upon them the armies of Darius. The city a second time was taken by stratagem (rid. Zopyrus), and Da

rius, when he again became possessed of it, gave it

up to the plunder of his soldiers. He impaled 3000 of those who were supposed to have been most active in the revolt; took away the gates, and pulled down the walls to the height of fifty cubits. During the remainder of the reign of Darius, Babylon continued in much the same state in which it was left after the siege. But in the succeeding reign another blow was struck towards her downfall. Xerxes, in his return from his Grecian expedition, partly to indemnify himself for his losses, and partly out of zeal for the Ma

ian religion, which ...' every kind of image-worship in abhorrence, destroyed the temples and plundered them of their vast wealth, which appears to have been hitherto spared, and which must have been indeed prodigious; that in the temple of Belus alone amounting, according to Diodorus, to above 6000 talents of gold, or about 21 millions sterling. From this period, Babylon, despoiled of her wealth, her strength, and her various resources, was in no condition for any more revolts; and it is reasonable to suppose, that, with the decay of her power and local advantages, the population also must decline. We hear, in fact, no more of Babylon until the coming of Alexander, 150 years after; when the terror of his name, or the weakness of the place, was such, that it made not the slightest pretensions to resistance. Alexander, after a short visit to Babylon, proceeded on his expedition to India; and, at his return from thence, finding Babylon more suitable in its situation and resources for the capital of his empire than any other place in the East, he resolved to fix his residence there, and to restore it to its former strength and magnificence. For this }. having examined the breach which Cyrus

ad made in the river, and the possibility of bringing it back to its former channel through the city, he employed 10,000 men in the work, and, at the same time, an equal number in rebuilding the temple of BeJus. An entire stop, however, was put to these great undertakings by the death of Alexander, who here terminated together his mighty projects and his life. After the death of Alexander, Babylon and the East fell to the lot of Seleucus, one of the generals who divided his empire among them. Seleucus, for several years, was too much engaged in contention with

his rivals to pay much attention to Babylon; which, still labouring under accumulated evils, continued to decline. But what completed its downfall was the building of Seleucia by Seleucus, about 40 miles distant, on a spot more favourable for commercial intercourse; the restoration of Babylon to its ancient matural advantages appearing perhaps hopeless. This, together with the removal of the court, soon exhausted Babylon of the little that remained of its ancient trade and population. It never after revived, but continued, through each succeeding age, to make farther advances in its progress of depopulation and decay, until nothing but the ruins of this once famous city were to be found. It will be interesting to trace the successive accounts of those who have

made mention of Babylon during this latter period:

that is, from the building of Seleucia to its entire de

struction. The first of these is Diodorus Siculus,

who wrote about 45 years before the Christian era.

He relates, that Babylon having fallen into the hands

of the Parthians, the temples were burned; much of

the remaining part of the city demolished; and many

of the inhabitants sold into slavery. This was about 130 B.C.: and, in his own time, 85 years after, he

says, that the public buildings were destroyed or fall

en to decay; that a very small part of the city was

inhabited; and that the greater part of the space with

in the walls was tilled. Strabo, who wrote about 70

years after Diodorus, says, that the city was nearly deserted; and that the same might be applied to it which was said of Megalopolis in Arcadia, that the great city was becoming a great desert. Quintus Curtius, the next in order, and who wrote about 60 A.D., is cited by Dr. Wells to show that Babylon “was lessened a fourth part in his time;” who im

mediately after says, that it was reduced to desolation in the time of Pliny. Now, besides that this account of Quintus Curtius is perfectly inconsistent with preceding ones, the city must have undergone a prodigious decline, and that without any assignable cause, in the short space of 20 years, which was about the time that intervened between Curtius and Pliny. The truth is, that Dr. Wells has mistaken the period referred to by Quintus Curtius, which was that of the arrival of Alexander at Babylon, whose history he was writing, for that in which the historian himself lived. Pliny, who lived, as we have seen, about 20 years after Quintus Curtius, and 70 after Christ, declares, that Babylon was at that time “decayed, unpeopled, and lying waste.” From this time may be said to have commenced the ruin of the ruins; which has been so complete, that they are with difficulty traced; and, indeed, their exact position has become a matter of learned dispute. Pausanias, about the middle of the second century, says, that of Babylon, the greatest city the sun ever saw, there was remaining but the walls. And Lucian, about the end of the same century, says, that in a little time it would be sought for, and not be found, like Nineveh. Jerome, in the fourth century, gives the account of a monk, at that time living in Jerusalem, who had been at Babylon, and who says that the space occupied by the city was converted into a chase for wild beasts, for the kings of Persia to hunt in ; the walls having been repaired for that purpose. Among more recent travellers, the best accounts of the ruins of Babylon are given by Kinneir, Rich, Porter, and Buckingham

The ancient city is supposed to have been situated in what is now the Turkish pachalic of Bagdad, near the village of Hill or Hella, on the Euphrates. Ruins of various kinds are found for many miles around this place. Of these, one of the most interesting is that which is thought to be the remains of the tower of Belus. Mr. Rich, after refuting the opinion of Rennell, who places it on the eastern side of the river,

gives the following account of this stupendous ruin,

« PoprzedniaDalej »