It must be admitted, however, that the foregoing scheme of identification (which is that proposed by Rawlinson, Herodotus, ii, Essay iv) involves the improb- able supposition of a mistake on the part of the ancient authorities concerning the course of the Euphrates through the middle of the city ; it seems also unduly to restrict the ancient limits, and thus excludes the Bira Nimrud ; and it affords no explanation of the re- markable line of mounds meeting in a right angle on tie east of the ruins, and most naturally thought by nearly all topographers (Rich, Ker Porter, Flandin, Layard, and Fergusson) to have been one of the cor- ners of the city wall. Nor does it altogether agree with th^ recent conjectural restoration of the royal res- idence at Babylon on the bold plan of M. Oppert (in the Altas accompanying his Expedition en Mesopotamia, Par. 1858), who supposes the extant remains opposite Hillah to be those alone of the palace, with its accom- panying structures, and gardens, and enclosing walls, the double line of city walls being of much larger ex-
tent. He appears, however, to have disregarded many details of the modern as well as ancient indication in his identification (see Rawlinson, ut sup. p. 487 sq.). Perhaps it will yet appear that, while Rawlinson's lo- cations (as above) are correct so far as concerns the royal buildings themselves, the chart of Oppert (given above) truly represents the entire circuit of the city ; and that the palace, with its appendages, was enclosed in an interior quadrangle, which the river likewise di- vided diagonally, its eastern half corresponding to the triangle embracing the modern ruins here described.
The most remarkable fact connected with the mag- nificence of Babylon is the poorness of the material with which such wonderful results were produced. The whole country, being alluvial, was entirely desti- tute jof stone, and even wood was scarce and of bad quality, being only yielded by the palm-groves which fringed the courses of the canals and rivers. In de- fault of these, the ordinary materials for building, re- course was had to the soil of the country — in many parts an excellent clay — and with bricks made from this, either sun-dried or baked, the vast structures were raised which, when they stood in their integrity, provoked comparison with the pyramids of Egypt, and which, even in their decay, excite the astonishment of the traveller. A modern writer has noticed, as the true secret of the extraordinary results produced, " the unbounded command of naked human strength" which the Babylonian monarchs had at their disposal (Grote's Hist, of Greece, ii, 401); but this alone will not ac- count for the phenomena ; and we must give the Baby- lonians credit for a genius and a grandeur of concep- tion rarely surpassed, which led them to employ the labor whereof the)' had the command in works of so imposing a character. With only " brick for stone," and at first only "slime (T^n) for mortar" (Gen. xi, 3), they constructed edifices of so vast a size that they still remain at the present day among the most enor- mous ruins in the world, impressing the beholder at once with awe and admiration. — Smith.
8. Literature. — For the descriptive portions, Rich's Two Memoirs on Babylon ; Ker Porter's Travels, ii, 238 sq. ; Layard's Xineveh and Babylon, ch. xxii ; Fresnel's Two Letters to M. Mold, in the Journal Asiatique, June and July, 1853 ; Loftus's Chaldwa, ch. ii ; Olivier, Voyages, ii, 436 sq. ; Maurice, Observ. on the Ruins of Bab. (Lond. 1816); Wellsted, Travels (Lond. 1838); Ritter, Erdkunde, xi, 865 sq. ; Mannert, Geographic, VI, i, 408 sq. ; Ainsworth's Researches (Lond. 1838) ; Chesney, Euphrates Exped. (Lond. 1850); Bucking- ham, Trav. in Mesopotamia (Lond. 1828); Mignan, Trav. in Chaldcca (Lond. 1829); Fraser, Travels in Kurdistan (Lond. 1840). On the identification of the ruins with ancient sites, compare Rawlinson's Ileroditus, vol. ii, Essay iv ; Oppert's Maps and Plans (Paris, 1858) ; Rennell's Essay in Rich's Bahybm and Persepolis (Lond. 1839) ; Jour. Royal Asiatic Soc. (Lond. 1855), xv, pt. 2. On the architecture, Hirt, Gesch. d. Bauhmst, 5, 145 sq. ; Fergusson, Palaces of Nineveh and Persepilis (Lond. 1851). On the religion, language, arts, and customs, Munter, Rel. d. Babylon. (Copenh. 1829) ; Miiller, Archaol. p. 283 sq. ; Botticber, Vasengemalde, i, 105 sq. ; Heine, Be Babyism, mulier, in templo Veneris, in the Comment. Soc. Coiling, xvi, 32 sq. ; Bertholdt, Ueb. d. Magier-Institut, in his ote Exc. zu Dan. ; Wahl, Gesch. d. morg. Spr,,ch. p. 570 sq. ; Jahn, Einleit. i, 284 ; Grotefend, in the Zeitschr.f. Kunde d. Morgenl. i, 212 sq. ; ii, 171 sq. ; iii, 179 sq. ; Rawlinson, Cuneiform In- scriptions (Lond. 1850) ; Jour. Sac. Lit. Jan. 1859. See Babylonia.
2. Another Babylon la}' in Eg}'pt, south of Heliop- olis, on the east bank of the Nile (Strabo, xvii, 807) ; it was founded by Babylonians, who had emigrated to Egypt during the civil commotions between the two empires (Diod. Sic. i, 56; Joscphus, Ant. ii, 15, 1). Its ruins are described by Ilartmann (Erdbeschr. u. Africa, 192G), Prokesch (Erinnervngen, i, 59 sq.), and
BABYLONIA
002
BABYLONIA
Champollion (VEgypte, ii, 33). It is now called Ba- boul (Smith's Diet, of Class. Ueogr. s. v.).