however, that in order to get at these, it is necessary to dig into the earth, where they are found in layers: the earth, therefore, if really such, must have composed a part of the fabric: but may not this earth be the mass which Della Valle describes as being composed of sun-dried bricks? It is certain that the ruin named Aggarkuf, near Bagdad, which seems to possess the characteristic of a Babylonish building, (as having reeds between the courses,) is composed chiefly of sun-dried bricks. Every traveller who has described it, seems to have considered its bricks, as having been simply dried in the sun. M. Niebuhr and M. Evers, are positive as to this point: and the reports of Ives and Taverniere imply it. But Mr. Ives observed, that those which remained in the building, were softer than those which lay scattered about, amongst the rubbish, at the foot of the ruin. We therefore conclude, that two sorts of bricks were used; as Della Valle also reports of the tower of Belus; for it cannot well be supposed that sun-dried bricks would become harder by lying exposed to the weather. And indeed it appears extraordinary altogether, that bricks, simply dried in the sun, or, in other words, clods of earth, should preserve their form, and not moulder down nearer to a natural slope, like other earth, in a course of so many ages.

It appears equally unaccountable, that Della Valle

This gentleman published a Journal of his Voyage from India to England, in 1784.

should have overlooked the layers of reeds, osiers, or whatsoever was placed between the courses of masonry in the tower, as that Beauchamp should not have observed the sun-dried bricks, and clay mortar, in the same place. Yet we cannot doubt but that all the three exist amongst the ruins in question. It is no new observation, that one man observes one thing, and another, another.

According to Strabo, p. 738, the Euphrates was only a stadium in breadth at Babylon; which account has been cavilled at. Texeira, who crossed it in a boat at Musseib, about 20 miles above the site of Babylon, guessed it to be about 200 paces wide, or from 450 to 500 feet. M. Niebuhr had a better opportunity of ascertaining its width at Hillah, a part of the site itself, by means of the bridge of boats there. He says it is 400 feet (if Danish, then about 390 English) wide at that place, which is even below Strabo's report. Accordingly, when we read of the vast breadth allowed to the Euphrates by Diodorus (who says that the bridge of Babylon was five stadia in length); and by Rauwolf, Shirley, and others, we must not receive their testimonies as founded on fact. As to its breadth at Thapsacus, or any other place higher up, it can be no guide in forming a judgment of it in this part; for here it is very deep'; there shallow and although it is very wide at Thapsa

He speaks only of broken reeds, or straw, in the mud cement, between the sun-dried bricks.

1 Texeira was told that it was 30 feet deep at Musseib. Hence, it may be concluded, that it was at least very deep there.

cus, it was exceedingly narrow near Zeugma and Roumkala 2.

Della Valle informs us, that the particular course of the Euphrates is from west to east, through the plain of Babel; by which we should understand that it was such near the ruin of the tower of Belus: and by what he says of it higher up, (for he coasted the river bank for more than 30 miles above the site of Babylon,) as well as by the information of Texeira, the Euphrates forms some very deep windings in this part. Its general course, for 40 miles above, and the same distance below, Babylon, is from NNW W to SSE E: but more particularly 14 at and above that site, it is from NNW to SSE.

Below Hillah, Mr. Ives's party traced it, and found its course to be remarkably serpentine. (See the Map opposite page 441.) And this being the effect of the current of the river, on a loose soil, its bed must have been subject to great changes: so that, in its course of eight or nine miles through the city, a vast expence must have been required to protect the banks from the depredations of the stream. And we are accordingly told, by Herodotus, Diodorus, and Curtius, that a provision was made for this purpose, by a strong wall cemented with bitumen, in the

2 It may be inferred, from the circumstance of Alexander's ordering a bason to be dug at Babylon for his fleet, that there was not room in the river for it; (Arrian, lib. vii.) In effect, the present state of the Euphrates at the site of Babylon, shews what it must have been anciently or indeed it ought to be rather larger there now, than anciently; since the canals that were drawn from it to the Tigris no longer exist.

:

nature of an embankment, on both sides. Herodotus, moreover, tells us, that because the city was endangered by the rapid current of the river, (perhaps rendered more rapid by its being straitened by artificial works, in its passage through the city,) a part of its waters were drawn off by an artificial canal, or canals, far above the city: so that, during the floods, the river of Babylon could only be considered as the principal channel of the Euphrates : and thus might carry nearly the same body of water at all seasons 3.

We are not told in positive terms, whether or not the four sides of Babylon fronted the four cardinal points of the heavens. The only notice concerning it is, that Diodorus says, "the Euphrates runs to the south, through the midst of Babylon:" and which may, nevertheless, be meant only in a general sense. Those, however, who have indulged their fancies in making a plan of that city, have not only made its sides to face the cardinal points, but have conducted the river through it, in a straight channel, from north

3 The territory round Hillah, named BABEL at the present day, is composed chiefly of plains, whose soil is rich; and the river banks are bordered with willows. We cannot forget the pathetic words put into the mouths of the captive Jews, by the author of the cxxxviith psalm:

By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.

"We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. "For there they that carried us away captive, required of us a song and they that wasted us, required of us mirth, saying, sing us one of the songs of Zion.

"How shall we sing the LORD's Song in a strange land?"

to south; and made it to divide the city into two equal parts. It may, however, be supposed that two of its sides were parallel to the general course of the river, which, as we have said, is NNW and SSE; or perhaps more oblique: and even if a new channel had been prepared for it, through the site of the intended city, it might be expected that common sense would have given it a direction that was conformable to the general course of the stream. As M. Beauchamp says, that certain foundations, which he took for those of the city wall, ran at right angles with the course of the river, this circumstance is in favour of our supposition 1.

It may reasonably be concluded, that very great changes have taken place in the course of the river, since the date of the descriptions of Babylon, by the early Greek authors. No doubt, the temple of Belus was farther from the river, at that time, than the descriptions of the moderns allow it to be, (taking the mount of ruins for the tower,) so that the river ran more to the west. (See again the Map opposite page 441.)

We shall now enter on the description of the ruins, seen in the western quarter of Babylon. Here it may be remarked, that, as the visits of European travellers have been mostly confined to the eastern quarter of the ancient city; and that, as their inquiries may be supposed to be directed by the people of the country, it may be inferred, either that

The streets of cities, in hot climates, ought indeed to lie in a direction that is oblique to the cardinal points; because more shade is thrown during the hottest part of the day.