Chapter I. The First Empire of the Assyrians.
Sect. I. Duration of that Empire.—The Assyrian empire was undoubtedly one of the most powerful in the world. With respect to its duration, two opinions have chiefly prevailed. Some authors, as Ctesias, whose opinion is followed by Justin, give it a duration of thirteen hundred years: others reduce it to five hundred and twenty, of which number is Herodotus. The diminution, or probably the interruption of power, which happened in this vast empire, might possibly give occasion to this difference of opinions, and may perhaps serve in some measure to reconcile them.
The history of those early times is so obscure, the monuments which convey it down to us so contrary to each other, and the systems of the moderns[955] upon that matter so different, [pg 313] that it is difficult to lay down any opinion about it, as certain and incontestable. But where certainty is not to be had, I suppose a reasonable person will be satisfied with probability; and, in my opinion, a man can hardly be deceived, if he makes the Assyrian empire equal in antiquity with the city of Babylon, its capital. Now we learn from the holy Scripture, that this was built by Nimrod, who certainly was a great conqueror, and in all probability the first and most ancient of all those who have ever aspired after that denomination.
The Babylonians, as Callisthenes, a philosopher in Alexander's retinue, wrote to Aristotle,[956] reckoned themselves to be at least of 1903 years' standing, when that prince entered triumphant into Babylon; which makes their origin reach back to the year of the world 1771, that is to say, 115 years after the deluge. This computation comes within a few years of the time in which we suppose Nimrod to have founded that city. Indeed, this testimony of Callisthenes, as it does not agree with any other accounts of that empire, is not esteemed authentic by the learned; but the conformity we find between it and the holy Scriptures should make us regard it.
Upon these grounds, I think we may allow Nimrod to have been the founder of the first Assyrian empire, which subsisted with more or less extent and glory upwards of 1450 years,[957] from the time of Nimrod to that of Sardanapalus, the last king, that is to say, from the year of the world 1800 to the year 3257.
Nimrod. A.M. 1800. Ant. J.C. 2204.
Nimrod. He is the same with Belus,[958] who was afterwards worshipped as a god under that appellation.
He was the son of Chus, grandson of Ham, and great grandson of Noah. He was, says the Scripture, “a mighty hunter before the Lord.”[959] In applying himself to this laborious and dangerous exercise, he had two things in view; the first was, to gain the people's affection by delivering them from the fury [pg 314] and dread of wild beasts; the next was, to train up numbers of young people by this exercise of hunting to endure labour and hardship, to form them to the use of arms, to inure them to a kind of discipline and obedience, that at a proper time, after they had been accustomed to his orders and seasoned in arms, he might make use of them for other purposes more serious than hunting.
In ancient history we find some footsteps remaining of this artifice of Nimrod, whom the writers have confounded with Ninus, his son: for Diodorus has these words:[960] “Ninus, the most ancient of the Assyrian kings mentioned in history, performed great actions. Being naturally of a warlike disposition, and ambitious of the glory that results from valour, he armed a considerable number of young men, that were brave and vigorous like himself; trained them up a long time in laborious exercises and hardships, and by that means accustomed them to bear the fatigues of war patiently, and to face dangers with courage and intrepidity.”
What the same author adds,[961] that Ninus entered into an alliance with the king of the Arabs, and joined forces with him, is a piece of ancient tradition, which informs us, that the sons of Chus, and by consequence, the brothers of Nimrod, all settled themselves in Arabia, along the Persian gulf, from Havilah to the Ocean; and lived near enough to their brother to lend him succours, or to receive them from him. And what the same historian further says of Ninus, that he was the first king of the Assyrians, agrees exactly with what the Scripture says of Nimrod, “that he began to be mighty upon the earth;” that is, he procured himself settlements, built cities, subdued his neighbours, united different people under one and the same authority, by the band of the same polity and the same laws, and formed them into one state; which, for those early times, was of a considerable extent, though bounded by the rivers Euphrates and Tigris; and which, in succeeding ages, made new acquisitions by degrees, and at length extended its conquests very far.
“The capital city of his kingdom,” says the Scripture,[962] “was Babylon.” Most of the profane historians ascribe the [pg 315] founding of Babylon to Semiramis,[963] others to Belus. It is evident, that both the one and the other are mistaken, if they speak of the first founder of that city; for it owes its beginning neither to Semiramis nor to Nimrod, but to the foolish vanity of those persons mentioned in Scripture,[964] who desired to build a tower and a city, that should render their memory immortal.
Josephus relates,[965] upon the testimony of a Sibyl, (who must have been very ancient, and whose fictions cannot be imputed to the indiscreet zeal of any Christians,) that the gods threw down the tower by an impetuous wind, or a violent hurricane. Had this been the case, Nimrod's temerity must have been still greater, to rebuild a city and a tower which God himself had overthrown with such marks of his displeasure. But the Scripture says no such thing; and it is very probable, the building remained in the condition it was, when God put an end to the work by the confusion of languages; and that the tower consecrated to Belus, which is described by Herodotus,[966] was this very tower, which the sons of men pretended to raise to the clouds.
It is further probable, that this ridiculous design having been defeated by such an astonishing prodigy, as none could be the author of but God himself, every body abandoned the place, which had given Him offence; and that Nimrod was the first who encompassed it afterwards with walls, settled therein his friends and confederates, and subdued those that lived round about it, beginning his empire in that place, but not confining it to so narrow a compass: Fuit principium regni ejus Babylon. The other cities, which the Scripture speaks of in the same place, were in the land of Shinar, which was certainly the province of which Babylon became the metropolis.
From this country he went into that which has the name of Assyria, and there built Nineveh: De terrâ illâ egressus est Assur, et ædificavit Nineven.[967] This is the sense in which many learned men understand the word Assur, looking upon it as the name of a province, and not of the first man who possessed [pg 316] it, as if it were, egressus est in Assur, in Assyriam. And this seems to be the most natural construction, for many reasons not necessary to be recited in this place. The country of Assyria is described, in one of the prophets,[968] by the particular character of being the land of Nimrod: Et pascent terram Assur in gladio, et terram, Nimrod in lanceis ejus; et liberabit ab Assur, cùm venerit in terram nostram. It derived its name from Assur the son of Shem, who, without doubt, had settled himself and family there, and was probably driven out, or brought under subjection, by the usurper Nimrod.
This conqueror having possessed himself of the provinces of Assur,[969] did not ravage them like a tyrant, but filled them with cities, and made himself as much beloved by his new subjects as he was by his old ones; so that the historians,[970] who have not examined into the bottom of this affair, have thought that he made use of the Assyrians to conquer the Babylonians. Among other cities, he built one more large and magnificent than the rest, which he called Nineveh, from the name of his son Ninus, in order to immortalize his memory. The son, in his turn, out of veneration for his father, was willing that they who had served him as their king should adore him as their god, and induce other nations to render him the same worship. For it appears evident, that Nimrod is the famous Belus of the Babylonians, the first king whom the people deified for his great actions, and who showed others the way to that sort of immortality which human acquirements are supposed capable of bestowing.
I intend to speak of the mighty strength and greatness of the cities of Babylon and Nineveh, under the kings to whom their building is ascribed by profane authors, because the Scripture says little or nothing on that subject. This silence of Scripture, so little satisfactory to our curiosity, may become an instructive lesson to our piety. The holy penman has placed Nimrod and Abraham, as it were, in one view before us; and seems to have put them so near together on purpose, that we should see an example in the former of what is admired and coveted by men, and in the latter of what is acceptable and [pg 317] well-pleasing to God. These two persons,[971] so unlike one another, are the first two and chief citizens of two different cities, built on different motives, and with different principles; the one, self-love, and a desire of temporal advantages, carried even to the contemning of the Deity; the other, the love of God, even to the contemning of one's self.
Ninus.
Ninus. I have already observed, that most of the profane authors look upon him as the first founder of the Assyrian empire, and for that reason ascribe to him a great part of his father Nimrod's or Belus's actions.
Having a design to enlarge his conquests, the first thing he did was to prepare troops and officers capable of promoting his designs.[972] And having received powerful succours from the Arabians his neighbours, he took the field, and in the space of seventeen years conquered a vast extent of country, from Egypt as far as India and Bactriana, which he did not then venture to attack.
At his return, before he entered upon any new conquests, he conceived the design of immortalizing his name by the building of a city answerable to the greatness of his power; he called it Nineveh, and built it on the eastern banks of the Tigris.[973] Possibly he did no more than finish the work his father had begun. His design, says Diodorus, was to make Nineveh the largest and noblest city in the world, and to put it out of the power of those that came after him ever to build or hope to build such another. Nor was he deceived in his view; for never did any city come up to the greatness and magnificence of this: it was one hundred and fifty stadia (or eighteen miles three quarters) in length, and ninety stadia (or eleven miles and one quarter) in breadth; and consequently was an oblong square. Its circumference was four hundred and eighty stadia, or sixty miles. For this reason we find it said in the prophet Jonah, “That Nineveh was an exceeding great city, of three days' journey;”[974] which is to be understood of the [pg 318] whole circuit, or compass of the city.[975] The walls of it were a hundred feet high, and of so considerable a thickness, that three chariots might go abreast upon them with ease. They were fortified, and adorned with fifteen hundred towers two hundred feet high.
After he had finished this prodigious work, he resumed his expedition against the Bactrians. His army, according to the relation of Ctesias, consisted of seventeen hundred thousand foot, two hundred thousand horse, and about sixteen thousand chariots armed with scythes. Diodorus adds, that this ought not to appear incredible, since, not to mention the innumerable armies of Darius and Xerxes, the city of Syracuse alone, in the time of Dionysius the Tyrant, furnished one hundred and twenty thousand foot and twelve thousand horse, besides four hundred vessels well equipped and provided. And a little before Hannibal's time, Italy, including the citizens and allies, was able to send into the field near a million of men. Ninus made himself master of a great number of cities, and at last laid siege to Bactria, the capital of the country. Here he would probably have seen all his attempts miscarry, had it not been for the diligence and assistance of Semiramis, wife to one of his chief officers, a woman of an uncommon courage, and peculiarly exempt from the weakness of her sex. She was born at Ascalon, a city of Syria. I think it needless to recite the account Diodorus gives of her birth, and of the miraculous manner of her being nursed and brought up by pigeons, since that historian himself looks upon it only as a fabulous story. It was Semiramis that directed Ninus how to attack the citadel, and by her means he took it, and thus became master of the city, in which he found an immense treasure. The husband of Semiramis having killed himself, to prevent the effects of the king's threats and indignation, who had conceived a violent passion for his wife, Ninus married her.
After his return to Nineveh, he had a son by her, whom he called Ninyas. Not long after this he died, and left the queen the government of the kingdom. She, in honour of his [pg 319] memory, erected a magnificent monument, which remained a long time after the ruin of Nineveh.
I find no appearance of truth in what some authors relate concerning the manner of Semiramis's coming to the throne.[976] According to them, having secured the chief men of the state, and attached them to her interest by her benefactions and promises, she solicited the king with great importunity to put the sovereign power into her hands for the space of five days. He yielded to her entreaties, and all the provinces of the empire were commanded to obey Semiramis. These orders were executed but too exactly for the unfortunate Ninus, who was put to death, either immediately or after some years' imprisonment.
Semiramis.
Semiramis. This princess applied all her thoughts to immortalize her name, and to cover the meanness of her extraction by the greatness of her enterprises.[977] She proposed to herself to surpass all her predecessors in magnificence, and to that end she undertook the building of the mighty Babylon,[978] in which work she employed two millions of men, which were collected out of all the provinces of her vast empire. Some of her successors endeavoured to adorn that city with new works and embellishments. I shall here speak of them all together, in order to give the reader a more clear and distinct idea of that stupendous city.
The principal works which rendered Babylon so famous, are the walls of the city; the quays and the bridge; the lake, banks, and canals, made for the draining of the river; the palaces, hanging gardens, and the temple of Belus; works of such a surprising magnificence, as is scarce to be comprehended. Dr. Prideaux having treated this subject with great extent and learning, I have only to copy, or rather abridge him.
I. The Walls.—Babylon stood on a large plain, in a very fat and rich soil.[979] The Avails were every way prodigious. They [pg 320] were in thickness eighty-seven feet, in height three hundred and fifty, and in compass four hundred and eighty furlongs, which make sixty of our miles. These walls were drawn round the city in the form of an exact square, each side of which was one hundred and twenty furlongs,[980] or fifteen miles, in length, and all built of large bricks cemented together with bitumen, a glutinous slime arising out of the earth in that country, which binds much stronger and firmer than mortar, and soon grows much harder than the bricks or stones themselves which it cements together.
These walls were surrounded on the outside with a vast ditch, full of water, and lined with bricks on both sides. The earth that was dug out of it made the bricks wherewith the walls were built; and therefore, from the vast height and breadth of the walls may be inferred the greatness of the ditch.
In every side of this great square were twenty-five gates, that is, a hundred in all, which were all made of solid brass; and hence it is, that when God promises to Cyrus the conquest of Babylon, he tells him,[981] that he would break in pieces before him the gates of brass. Between every two of these gates were three towers, and four more at the four corners of this great square, and three between each of these corners and the next gate on either side; every one of these towers was ten feet higher than the walls. But this is to be understood only of those parts of the wall where there was need of towers.
From the twenty-five gates in each side of this great square went twenty-five streets, in straight lines to the gates, which were directly over-against them, in the opposite side; so that the whole number of the streets was fifty, each fifteen miles long, whereof twenty-five went one way, and twenty-five the other, directly crossing each other at right angles. And besides these, there were also four half streets, which had houses only on one side, and the wall on the other; these went round the four sides of the city next the walls, and were each of them two hundred feet broad; the rest were about a hundred and fifty. By these streets thus crossing each other, the whole [pg 321] city was cut out into six hundred and seventy-six squares, each of which was four furlongs and a half on every side, that is, two miles and a quarter in circumference. Round these squares, on every side towards the street, stood the houses (which were not contiguous, but had void spaces between them,) all built three or four stories high, and beautified with all manner of ornaments towards the streets.[982] The space within in the middle of each square, was likewise all void ground, employed for yards, gardens, and other such uses; so that Babylon was greater in appearance than reality, near one half of the city being taken up in gardens and other cultivated lands, as we are told by Q. Curtius.
II. The Quays and Bridge.—A branch of the river Euphrates ran quite cross the city, from the north to the south side;[983] on each side of the river was a quay, and a high wall built of brick and bitumen, of the same thickness as the walls that went round the city. In these walls, over-against every street that led to the river, were gates of brass, and from them descents by steps to the river, for the conveniency of the inhabitants, who used to pass over from one side to the other in boats, having no other way of crossing the river before the building of the bridge. The brazen gates were always open in the daytime, and shut in the night.
The bridge was not inferior to any of the other buildings, either in beauty or magnificence; it was a furlong in length,[984] and thirty feet in breadth, built with wonderful art, to supply the defect of a foundation in the bottom of the river, which was all sandy. The arches were made of huge stones, fastened together with chains of iron and melted lead. Before they began to build the bridge, they turned the course of the river, and laid its channel dry, having another view in so doing, besides that of laying the foundations more commodiously, as I shall explain hereafter. And as every thing was prepared beforehand, both the bridge and the quays, which I have already described, were built in that interval.
III. The Lake, Ditches, and Canals, made for the draining [pg 322] of the River.—These works, objects of admiration for the skilful in all ages, were still more useful than magnificent.[985] In the beginning of the summer, on the sun's melting the snow on the mountains of Armenia, there arises a vast increase of waters, which, running into the Euphrates in the months of June, July, and August, makes it overflow its banks, and occasion such another inundation as the Nile does in Egypt. To prevent the damage which both the city and country received from these inundations, at a very considerable distance above the town two artificial canals were cut, which turned the course of these waters into the Tigris, before they reached Babylon.[986] And to secure the country yet more from the danger of inundations, and to keep the river within its channel, they raised prodigious banks on both sides the river, built with brick cemented with bitumen, which began at the head of the artificial canals, and extended below the city.[987]
To facilitate the making of these works, it was necessary to turn the course of the river, for which purpose, to the west of Babylon, was dug a prodigious artificial lake, forty miles square,[988] one hundred and sixty in compass, and thirty-five feet deep, according to Herodotus, and seventy-five, according to Megasthenes. Into this lake was the whole river turned, by an artificial canal cut from the west side of it, till the whole work was finished, when it was made to flow in its former channel. But that the Euphrates, in the time of its increase, might not overflow the city, through the gates on its sides, this lake, with the canal from the river, was still preserved. The water received into the lake at the time of these overflowings was kept there all the year, as in a common reservoir, for the benefit of the country, to be let out by sluices, at convenient times for the watering of the lands below it. The lake, therefore, was equally useful in defending the country from inundations, and making it fertile. I relate the wonders of Babylon as they are delivered down to us by the ancients; but there [pg 323] are some of them which are scarce to be comprehended or believed, of which number is the vast extent of the lake which I have just described.
Berosus, Megasthenes, and Abydenus, quoted by Josephus and Eusebius, make Nebuchadnezzar the author of most of these works; but Herodotus ascribes the bridge, the two quays of the river, and the lake, to Nitocris, the daughter-in-law of that monarch. Perhaps Nitocris might finish what her father left imperfect at his death, on which account that historian might give her the honour of the whole undertaking.
IV. The Palaces, and Hanging Gardens.[989]—At the two ends of the bridge were two palaces, which had a communication with each other by a vault, built under the channel of the river, at the time of its being dry. The old palace, which stood on the east side of the river, was thirty furlongs (or three miles and three quarters) in compass; near which stood the temple of Belus, of which we shall soon speak. The new palace, which stood on the west side of the river, opposite to the other, was sixty 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. Amongst the rest was a curious hunting-piece, in which Semiramis on horseback 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.[990] They contained a square of four hundred 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 [pg 324] bitumen, upon which were two rows of bricks, closely cemented together with plaster. 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 hereon was so deep, that the greatest 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.
Amytis, the wife of Nebuchadnezzar, having been bred in Media, (for she was the daughter of Astyages, the king of that country,) had been much delighted with the mountains and woody parts of that country.[991] And as she desired to have something like it in Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, to gratify her, caused this prodigious edifice to be erected: Diodoras gives much the same account of the matter, but without naming the persons.
V. The Temple of Belus.[992]—Another of the great works at Babylon was the temple of Belus, which stood, as I have mentioned already, near the old palace. It was most remarkable for a prodigious tower, that stood in the middle of it. At the foundation, according to Herodotus, it was a square of a furlong on each side, that is, half a mile in the whole compass, and (according to Strabo) it was also a furlong in height. It consisted of eight towers, built one above the other, decreasing regularly to the top, for which reason Strabo calls the whole a pyramid. It is not only asserted, but proved, that this tower much exceeded the greatest of the pyramids of Egypt in height. Therefore we have good reason to believe, as Bochart asserts,[993] that this is the very same tower which was built there at the confusion of languages; and the rather, because it is attested [pg 325] by several profane authors, that this tower was all built of bricks and bitumen, as the Scriptures tell us the tower of Babel was. The ascent to the top was by stairs on the outside round it; that is, perhaps, there was an easy sloping ascent in the side of the outer wall, which, turning by very slow degrees in a spiral line eight times round the tower from the bottom to the top, had the same appearance as if there had been eight towers placed upon one another. In these different stories were many large rooms, with arched roofs supported by pillars. Over the whole, on the top of the tower, was an observatory, by the benefit of which the Babylonians became more expert in astronomy than all other nations, and made, in a short time, the great progress in it ascribed to them in history.
But the chief use to which this tower was designed, was the worship of the god Belus or Baal, as also that of several other deities; for which reason there was a multitude of chapels in different parts of the tower. The riches of this temple in statues, tables, censers, cups, and other sacred vessels, all of massy gold, were immense. Among other images, there was one forty feet high, which weighed a thousand Babylonish talents. The Babylonish talent, according to Pollux in his Onomasticon, contained seven thousand Attic drachmas, and consequently was a sixth part more than the Attic talent, which contains but six thousand drachmas.
According to the calculation which Diodorus makes of the riches contained in this temple, the sum total amounts to six thousand three hundred Babylonish talents of gold.
The sixth part of six thousand three hundred is one thousand and fifty; consequently six thousand three hundred Babylonish talents of gold are equivalent to seven thousand three hundred and fifty Attic talents of gold.
Now seven thousand three hundred and fifty Attic talents of silver are worth upwards of two millions and one hundred thousand pounds sterling. The proportion between gold and silver among the ancients we reckon as ten to one; therefore seven thousand three hundred and fifty Attic talents of gold amount to above one and twenty millions sterling.
This temple stood till the time of Xerxes;[994] but he, on his [pg 326] return from his Grecian expedition, demolished it entirely, after having first plundered it of all its immense riches. Alexander, on his return to Babylon from his Indian expedition, purposed to have rebuilt it; and in order thereto, set ten thousand men to work, to rid the place of its rubbish; but, after they had laboured herein two months, Alexander died, and that put an end to the undertaking.
Such were the chief works which rendered Babylon so famous; the greater part of them are ascribed by profane authors to Semiramis, to whose history it is now time to return.
When she had finished all these great undertakings, she thought fit to make a progress through the several parts of her empire;[995] and, wherever she came, left monuments of her magnificence by many noble structures which she erected, either for the conveniency or ornament of her cities; she was particularly careful to have water brought by aqueducts to such places as wanted it, and to make the highways easy, by cutting through mountains, and filling up valleys. In the time of Diodorus, there were still monuments to be seen in many places, with her name inscribed upon them.
The authority this queen had over her people seems very extraordinary, since we find her presence alone capable of appeasing a sedition.[996] One day, as she was dressing herself, word was brought her of a tumult in the city. Whereupon she went out immediately, with her head half dressed, and did not return till the disturbance was entirely appeased. A statue was erected in remembrance of this action, representing her in that very attitude and undress, which had not hindered her from flying to her duty.
Not satisfied with the vast extent of dominions left her by her husband, she enlarged them by the conquest of a great part of Æthiopia. Whilst she was in that country, she had the curiosity to visit the temple of Jupiter Ammon, to inquire of the oracle how long she had to live. According to Diodorus, the answer she received was, that she should not die till her son Ninyas conspired against her, and that after her death one part of Asia would pay her divine honours.
Her greatest and last expedition was against India; on this [pg 327] occasion she raised an innumerable army out of all the provinces of her empire, and appointed Bactra for the rendezvous. As the strength of the Indians consisted chiefly in their great number of elephants, she caused a multitude of camels to be accoutred in the form of elephants, in hopes of deceiving the enemy. It is said that Perseus long after used the same stratagem against the Romans; but neither of them succeeded in this artifice. The Indian king having notice of her approach, sent ambassadors to ask her who she was, and with what right, having never received any injury from him, she came out of wantonness to attack his dominions; adding, that her boldness should soon meet with the punishment it deserved. Tell your master (replied the queen) that in a little time I myself will let him know who I am. She advanced immediately towards the river[997] from which the country takes its name; and having prepared a sufficient number of boats, she attempted to pass it with her army. Their passage was a long time disputed, but after a bloody battle she put her enemies to flight. Above a thousand of their boats were sunk, and above a hundred thousand of their men taken prisoners. Encouraged by this success, she advanced directly into the country, leaving sixty thousand men behind to guard the bridge of boats, which she had built over the river. This was just what the king desired, who fled on purpose to bring her to an engagement in the heart of his country. As soon as he thought her far enough advanced, he faced about, and a second engagement ensued, more bloody than the first. The counterfeit elephants could not long sustain the shock of the real ones: these routed her army, crushing whatever came in their way. Semiramis did all that lay in her power to rally and encourage her troops, but in vain. The king, perceiving her engaged in the fight, advanced towards her, and wounded her in two places, but not mortally. The swiftness of her horse soon carried her beyond the reach of her enemies. As her men crowded to the bridge, to repass the river, great numbers of them perished, through the disorder and confusion unavoidable on such occasions. When those that could save themselves were safely over, she destroyed the [pg 328] bridge, and by that means stopt the enemy; and the king likewise, in obedience to an oracle, had given orders to his troops not to pass the river, nor pursue Semiramis any farther. The queen, having made an exchange of prisoners at Bactra, returned to her own dominions with scarce one-third of her army, which (according to Ctesias) consisted of three million foot, and five hundred thousand horse, besides the camels and chariots armed for war, of which she had a very considerable number. I have no doubt that this account is highly exaggerated, or that there is some mistake in the numeral characters. She, and Alexander after her, were the only persons that ever ventured to carry the war beyond the river Indus.
I must own, I am somewhat puzzled with a difficulty which may be raised against the extraordinary things related of Ninus and Semiramis, as they do not seem to agree with the times so near the deluge: I mean, such vast armies, such a numerous cavalry, so many chariots armed with scythes, and such immense treasures of gold and silver; all which seem to be of a later date. The same thing may likewise be said of the magnificence of the buildings, ascribed to them. It is probable, the Greek historians, who came so many ages afterwards, deceived by the similarity of names, by their ignorance in chronology, and the resemblance of one event with another, may have ascribed such things to more ancient princes, as belonged to those of a later date; or may have attributed a number of exploits and enterprises to one, which ought to be divided amongst a series of them, succeeding one another.
Semiramis, some time after her return, discovered that her son was plotting against her, and one of her principal officers had offered him his assistance. She then called to mind the oracle of Jupiter Ammon; and believing that her end approached, without inflicting any punishment on the officer, who was taken into custody, she voluntarily abdicated the throne, put the government into the hands of her son, and withdrew from the sight of men, hoping speedily to have divine honours paid to her according to the promise of the oracle. And indeed we are told, she was worshipped by the Assyrians, under the form of a dove. She lived sixty-two years, of which she reigned forty-two.
There are in the Memoirs of the Academy of Belles Lettres[998] two learned dissertations upon the Assyrian empire, and particularly on the reign and actions of Semiramis.
What Justin[999] says of Semiramis, namely, that after her husband's decease, not daring either to commit the government to her son, who was then too young, or openly to take it upon herself, she governed under the name and habit of Ninyas, and that, after having reigned in that manner above forty years, falling passionately in love with her own son, she endeavoured to induce him to comply with her criminal desires, and was slain by him: all this, I say, is so void of all appearance of truth, that to go about to confute it would be but losing time. It must however be owned, that almost all the authors who have spoken of Semiramis, give us but a disadvantageous idea of her chastity.
I do not know but that the glorious reign of this queen might partly induce Plato to maintain, in his Commonwealth,[1000] that women as well as men ought to be admitted into the management of public affairs, the conducting of armies, and the government of states; and, by necessary consequence, ought to be trained up in the same exercises as men, as well for the forming of the body as the mind. Nor does he so much as except those exercises, wherein it was customary to fight stark naked, alleging[1001] that the virtue of the sex would be a sufficient covering for them.
It is just matter of surprise to find a philosopher so judicious in other respects, openly combating the most common and most natural maxims of modesty and decency, virtues which are the principal ornament of the female sex, and insisting so strongly upon a principle, sufficiently confuted by the constant practice of all ages, and of almost all nations in the world.
Aristotle, wiser in this than his master Plato, without doing the least injustice to the real merit and essential qualities of the sex, has with great judgment marked[1002] out the different ends to which man and woman are ordained, from the different qualities of body and mind, wherewith they are endowed by the Author of nature, who has given the one strength of body and [pg 330] intrepidity of mind to enable him to undergo the greatest hardships, and face the most imminent dangers; whilst the other, on the contrary, is of a weak and delicate constitution, accompanied with a natural softness and modest timidity, which render her more fit for a sedentary life, and dispose her to keep within the precincts of the house, and to employ herself in the concerns of prudent and industrious economy.
Xenophon is of the same opinion with Aristotle;[1003] and in order to set off the occupation of the wife, who confines herself within her house, agreeably compares her to the mother-bee, commonly called the queen-bee, who alone governs and has the superintendence of the whole hive, who distributes all their employments, encourages their industry, presides over the building of their little cells, takes care of the nourishment and subsistence of her numerous family; regulates the quantity of honey appointed for that purpose, and at fixed and proper seasons sends abroad the new swarms in colonies, to ease and disburthen the hive of its superfluous inhabitants. He remarks, with Aristotle, the difference of constitution and inclinations, designedly made by the Author of nature between man and woman, to point out to each of them their proper and peculiar offices and functions.
This allotment, far from degrading or lessening the woman, is really for her advantage and honour, in confiding to her a kind of domestic empire and government, administered only by gentleness, reason, equity, and good nature; and in giving her frequent occasions of concealing the most valuable and excellent qualities under the inestimable veil of modesty and submission. For it must ingenuously be owned, that at all times, and in all conditions, there have been women, who by a real and solid merit have distinguished themselves above their sex; as there have been innumerable instances of men, who by their defects have dishonoured theirs. But these are only particular cases, which form no rule, and which ought not to prevail against an establishment founded in nature, and prescribed by the Creator himself.
Ninyas.
Ninyas.[1004] This prince was in no respect like those from whom he received his birth, and to whose throne he [pg 331] succeeded. Wholly intent upon his pleasures, he kept himself shut up in his palace, and seldom showed himself to his people. To keep them in their duty, he had always at Nineveh a certain number of regular troops, furnished every year from the several provinces of his empire, at the expiration of which term they were succeeded by the like number of other troops on the same conditions; the king putting a commander at the head of them, on whose fidelity he could depend. He made use of this method, that the officers might not have time to gain the affections of the soldiers, and so form any conspiracies against him.
His successors for thirty generations followed his example and even surpassed him in indolence. Their history is absolutely unknown, there remaining no footsteps of it.
A.M. 2092. Ant. J.C. 1912.
In Abraham's time the Scripture speaks of Amraphael, king of Shinar, the country where Babylon was situated, who with two other princes followed Chedorlaomer, king of the Elamites, whose tributary he probably was, in the war carried on by the latter against five kings of the land of Canaan.
A.M. 2513. Ant. J.C. 1491.
It was under the government of these inactive princes, that Sesostris, king of Egypt, extended his conquests so far in the East. But as his power was of a short duration, and not supported by his successors, the Assyrian empire soon returned to its former state.
A.M. 2820. Ant. J.C. 1184.
Plato, a curious observer of antiquities, makes the kingdom of Troy, in the time of Priam, dependent on the Assyrian empire.[1005] And Ctesias says, that Teutamus, the twentieth king after Ninyas, sent a considerable body of troops to the assistance of the Trojans, under the conduct of Memnon, the son of Tithonus, at a time when the Assyrian empire had subsisted above a thousand years; which agrees exactly with the time, wherein I have placed the foundation of that empire. But the silence of Homer concerning so mighty a people, and one which must needs have been well known, renders this fact exceeding doubtful. And it must be owned, that whatever relates to the times of the ancient [pg 332] history of the Assyrians, is attended with great difficulties, into which my plan does not permit me to enter.
Pul. A.M. 3233. Ant. J.C. 771.
Pul. The Scripture informs us, that Pul, king of Assyria, being come into the land of Israel, had a thousand talents of silver given him by Menahem, king of the ten tribes, to engage him to lend him assistance, and secure him on his throne.[1006]
This Pul is supposed to be the king of Nineveh, who repented, with all his people, at the preaching of Jonah.
He is also thought to be the father of Sardanapalus, the last king of the Assyrians, called, according to the custom of the eastern nations, Sardanpul, that is to say, Sardan, the son of Pul.
Sardanapalus.
Sardanapalus. This prince surpassed all his predecessors in effeminacy, luxury, and cowardice.[1007] He never went out of his palace, but spent all his time amongst a company of women, dressed and painted like them, and employed like them at the distaff. He placed all his happiness and glory in the possession of immense treasures, in feasting and rioting, and indulging himself in all the most infamous and criminal pleasures. He ordered two verses to be put upon his tomb, which imported, that he carried away with him all that he had eaten, and all the pleasures he had enjoyed, but left all the rest behind him.
Hæc habeo quæ edi, quæque exaturata libido
Hausit: at illa jacent multa et præclara relicta.[1008]
An epitaph, says Aristotle, fit for a hog.
Arbaces, governor of Media, having found means to get into the palace, and having with his own eyes seen Sardanapalus in the midst of his infamous seraglio; enraged at such a spectacle, and not able to endure that so many brave men should be subject to a prince more soft and effeminate than the women themselves, immediately formed a conspiracy [pg 333] against him. Belesis, governor of Babylon, and several others, entered into it. On the first rumour of this revolt, the king hid himself in the inmost part of his palace. Being obliged afterwards to take the field with some forces which he had assembled, he at first gained three successive victories over the enemy, but was afterwards overcome, and pursued to the gates of Nineveh; wherein he shut himself, in hopes the rebels would never be able to take a city so well fortified, and stored with provisions for a considerable time: the siege proved indeed of very great length. It had been declared by an ancient oracle, that Nineveh could never be taken, unless the river became an enemy to the city. These words buoyed up Sardanapalus, because he looked upon the thing as impossible. But when he saw that the Tigris, by a violent inundation, had thrown down twenty stadia[1009] of the city wall, and by that means opened a passage to the enemy, he understood the meaning of the oracle, and thought himself lost.
A.M. 3257. Ant. J.C. 747.
He resolved, however, to die in such a manner, as, according to his opinion, should cover the infamy of his scandalous and effeminate life. He ordered a pile of wood to be made in his palace, and setting fire to it, burnt himself, his eunuchs, his women, and his treasures. Athenæus makes these treasures amount to a thousand myriads of talents of gold,[1010] and ten times as many talents of silver, which, without reckoning any thing else, is a sum that exceeds all credibility. A myriad contains ten thousand; and one single myriad of talents of silver is worth thirty millions of French money, or about one million four hundred thousand pounds sterling. A man is lost, if he attempts to sum up the whole value; which induces me to believe, that Athenæus must have very much exaggerated in his computation; however, we may be assured, from his account, that the treasures were immensely great.
Plutarch, in his second treatise,[1011] dedicated to the praise of Alexander the Great, wherein he examines in what the true greatness of princes consists, after having shown that it can arise from nothing but their own personal merit, confirms it by two very different examples, taken from the history of the Assyrians, in which we are now engaged. Semiramis and [pg 334] Sardanapalus (says he) both governed the same kingdom; both had the same people, the same extent of country, the same revenues, the same forces and number of troops; but they had not the same dispositions, nor the same views. Semiramis, raising herself above her sex, built magnificent cities, equipped fleets, armed legions, subdued neighbouring nations, penetrated into Arabia and Ethiopia, and carried her victorious arms to the extremities of Asia, spreading consternation and terror everywhere. Whereas Sardanapalus, as if he had entirely renounced his sex, spent all his time in the heart of his palace, perpetually surrounded with a company of women, whose dress and even manners he had adopted, applying himself with them to the spindle and the distaff, neither understanding nor doing any other thing than spinning, eating and drinking, and wallowing in all manner of infamous pleasure. Accordingly, a statue was erected to him, after his death, which represented him in the posture of a dancer, with an inscription upon it, in which he addressed himself to the spectator in these words: Eat, drink, and be merry; every thing else is nothing: an inscription very suitable to the epitaph he himself had ordered to be put upon his monument.[1012]
Plutarch in this place judges of Semiramis, as almost all the profane historians do of the glory of conquerors. But, if we would make a true judgment of things, was the unbounded ambition of that queen much less blamable, than the dissolute effeminacy of Sardanapalus? Which of the two vices did most mischief to mankind?
We are not to wonder that the Assyrian empire should fall under such a prince; but undoubtedly it was not till after having passed through various augmentations, diminutions, and revolutions, common to all states, even to the greatest, during the course of several ages. This empire had subsisted above 1450 years.
Of the ruins of this vast empire were formed three considerable kingdoms; that of the Medes, which Arbaces, the principal head of the conspiracy, restored to its liberty; that of the Assyrians of Babylon, which was given to Belesis, governor of that city; and that of the Assyrians of Nineveh, the first king whereof took the name of Ninus the younger.
In order to understand the history of the second Assyrian empire, which is very obscure, and of which little is said by historians, it is proper, and even absolutely necessary, to compare what is said of it by profane authors with what we are informed concerning it by holy Scripture; that by the help of that double light we may have the clearer idea of the two empires of Nineveh and Babylon, which for some time were separate and distinct, and afterwards united and confounded together. I shall first treat of this second Assyrian empire, and then return to the kingdom of the Medes.