The new palace built by Nebuchadnezzar was pro- digious in size and superb in embellishments. Its outer wall embraced six miles; within that circum- ference were two other embattled walls, besides a great tower. Three brazen gates led into the grand area, and every gate of consequence throughout the city was of brass. In accordance with this fact are the terms which Isaiah (xlv, 1, 2) employs when, in the name of Jehovah, ho promises Cyrus that the city should fall before him: " I will open before him the two-leaved gates ; I will break in pieces the gates of brass;" a prophecy which was fullilled to the letter when Cyrus made himself master of the place. The palace was splendidl}' decorated with statues of men and animals, with vessels of gold and silver, and fur- nished witli luxuries of all kinds brought thither from conquests in Egypt, Palestine, and lyre. Its great-
est boast were the hanging gardens, which acquired even from Grecian writers the appellation of one of the wonders of the world. They are attributed to the gallantry of Nebuchadnezzar, who constructed them in compliance with a wish of his queen Amytis to pos- sess elevated groves such as she had enjoyed on the hills around her native Ecbatana. Babylon was all flat; and to accomplish so extravagant a desire, an artificial mountain was reared, 400 feet on each side, while terraces one above another rose to a height that 1 overtopped the walls of the city, that is, above 300 feet in elevation. The ascent from terrace to terrace I was made by corresponding flights of steps, while the | terraces themselves were reared to their various stages J on ranges of regular piers, which, forming a kind of j vaulting, rose in succession one over the other to the J required height of each terrace, the whole being bound together by a wall of 22 feet in thickness. The level of each terrace or garden was then formed in the fol- lowing manner : the top of the piers was first laid over with flat stones, 16 feet in length and 4 feet in width ; I on these stones were spread beds of matting, then a thick layer of bitumen ; after which came two courses of bricks, which were covered with sheets of solid lead. j The earth was heaped on this platform ; and in order to admit the roots of large trees, prodigious hollow I piers were built and filled with mould. From the ' Euphrates, which flowed close to the foundation, water was drawn up by machinery. The whole, says Q. Curtius (v, 5), had, to those who saw it from a dis- [ tance, the appearance of woods overhanging moun- tains. Such was the completion of Nebuchadnezzar's work, when he found himself at rest in his house, and flourished in his palace. The king spoke and said, "Is not this great Babylon that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power and the honor of my majesty" (Dan. iv), a picture which is amply justified by the descriptions of heathen writ- ers. Nowhere could the king have taken so compre- hensive a view of the city he had so magnificently constructed and adorned as when walking on the high- est terrace of the gardens of his palace.
Babylon, as the centre of a great kingdom, was the seat of boundless luxury, and its inhabitants were no- torious for their addiction to self-indulgence and ef- | feniinacy. Q. Curtius (v, 1) asserts that " nothing could be more corrupt than its morals, nothing more j fitted to excite and allure to immoderate pleasures. I The rites of hospitality were polluted by the grossest and most shameless lusts. Money dissolved every ! tie, whether of kindred, respect, or esteem. The I Babylonians were very greatly given to wine and the enjo}rments which accompany inebriety. Women were ' present at their convivialities, first with some degree of propriety, but, growing worse and worse by de- grees, they ended by throwing off at once their modes- ty and their clothing." Once in her life, according to Herodotus (i, 199), every native female was obliged to visit the temple of Mylitta, the Babylonian Astarte (q. v.) or Venus, and there receive the embraces of the first stranger who threw a piece of money into her lap; an abominable custom, that is alluded to in the Apocrypha (Baruch vi, 43) and by Strabo (vi, 1058). On the ground of their awful wickedness, the Baby- lonians were threatened with condign punishment, through the mouths of the prophets ; and the tyranny with which the rulers of the city exercised their sway was not without a decided effect in bringing on them the terrific consequences of the Divine vengeance. Nor in the whole range of literature is there any thing to be found approaching to the sublimity, force, and terror with which Isaiah and others speak on this painful subject (Isa. xiv. 11; xlvii, 1; Jer. li, 39; Dan. v, 1). Babylon even stands, therefore, in the New Test. (Iiev. xvii, 5) as the type of the most shame- less profligacy and idolatry. — Kitto.
5. Investigation of th; ancient Topogroj)hy .■ — In ex-
BABYLON
598
BABYLON
amining tlic truth of these descriptions, we shall most conveniently commence from the outer circuit of the town. All the ancient writers appear to agree in the fact of a district of vast size, more or less inhabited, having been enclosed within lofty walls, and included under the name of Babylon. With respect to the ex- act extent of the circuit they differ. The estimate of Herodotus and of Pliny (//. K. vi, 26) is 480 stades, of Strabo (xvi, i, 5) 385, of Q. Curtius (v, i, 2G) 368, of Clitarchus (ap. Diod. Sic. ii, 7) 365, and of Ctesias (ap. eund.) 3G0 stades. It is evident that here we have merely the moderate variations to be expected in independent measurements, except in the first of the numbers. Setting this aside, the difference between the greatest and the least of the estimates is little more than one half per cent. With this near agree- ment on the part of so many authors, it is the more surprising that in the remaining case we should find the great difference of one third more, or 33J- per cent. Perhaps the true explanation is that Herodotus spoke of the outer wall, which could be traced in his time, while the later writers, who never speak of an inner and an outer barrier, give the measurement of Herodo- tus's inner wall, which may have alone remained in their day. This is the opinion of M. Oppert, who even believes that he has found traces of both enclosures, showing them to have been really of the size ascribed to them. This conclusion is at present disputed, and it is the more general belief of those who have exam- ined the ruins with attention that no vestiges of the ancient walls are to be found, or, at least, that none have as yet been discovered. Still it is impossible to doubt that a line of wall inclosing an enormous area originally existed. The testimony to this effect is too gtrong to be set aside, and the disappearance of the wall is easily accounted for, either by the constant quarrying, which would naturally have commenced with it (Rich, First Mem. p. 4-1), or by the subsidence of the bulwark into the moat from which it was raised. Taking the lowest estimate of the extent of the cir- cuit, we shall have for the space within the rampart an area of above 100 square miles — nearly five times the size of London. It is evident that this vast space cannot have been entirely covered with houses. Dio- dorus confesses (ii, 0, cdft'n.) that but a small part of the enclosure was inhabited in his own day, and Q. Curtius (v, i, 27) says that as much as nine tenths con- sisted, even in the most flourishing times, of gardens, parks, paradises, fields, and orchards.