Thus we find the walls to have extended to a vast circumference—from forty-eight to sixty miles; but we are not to suppose them to have been entirely filled up with houses;[96] but, as in the old city of Moscow, to have been in no small part taken up with gardens and other cultivated lands.
In regard to the size of some ancient Eastern cities, Mr. Franklin has made some very pertinent remarks, in his inquiry concerning the site of the ancient Palibothra:—"For the extent of the city and suburbs of Palibothra, from seventy-five to eighty miles have been assigned by the Puranas; a distance, said to be impossible for the space occupied by a single city. So, indeed, it might, were we to compare the cities of Asia with those of Europe. The idea of lofty houses of brick and stone, consisting of many stories, with a number of inhabitants, like those of London, Paris, Vienna, and many others, must not be compared with the nature of the Asiatic cities. To look in them for regularly-built squares, and spacious and paved streets, would be absurd."
Herodotus gives the extent of the walls of Babylon at one hundred and twenty stades on each side, or four hundred and eighty stades in circumference. Diodorus three hundred and sixty stades in circumference. Clitarchus, who accompanied Alexander, three hundred and sixty-five. Curtius states it at three hundred and sixty-eight; and Strabo at three hundred and eighty-five stades. The general approximation of these measurements would lead us to suppose that the same stade was used by the different reporters; and if this was the Greek itinerary stade, we may estimate the circumference of the great city at twenty-five British miles[97]. "The lines, drawn on maps, are often only used to divide distant mounds of ruin. Accumulations of pottery and brickwork are met with occasionally over a great tract; but the connection, supposed between these and the corn-fields and gardens, within the common precincts of a wall, is gratuitous in the extreme. Imagine London and Paris to be levelled, and the inhabitant of some future city to visit their ruins, as those of then remote antiquity; if, in the one instance, Sèvres, Mont Rouge, and Vincennes, or, in the other, Greenwich, Stratford-le-Bow, Tottenham, Highgate, Hammersmith, Richmond, and Clapham, be taken in as boundaries, or identified respectively as the ruins of Paris and London, what a prodigious extent would those cities gain in the eyes of futurity[98]!"
Babylon, as we have already stated, stood upon the Euphrates, as Nineveh did upon the Tigris. A branch of it ran entirely through the city from north to south; and on each side was a quay, walled towards the river, of the same thickness as the city walls. In these, also, were gates of brass, from which persons descended to the water by steps; whence, for a long time, they crossed to the other side in boats; that is, until the building of a bridge. These gates were open always in the day, but shut at night. A bridge was at length erected; and this bridge was equally celebrated with the other great buildings; for it was of vast size; but Diodorus would seem to make it to have been much larger than it really was. He says it was five furlongs in length. Now as the Euphrates, at the spot, was only one furlong wide, this would be impossible; so we suppose that there must have been a causeway on each side of the bridge; and that Diodorus included the two causeways, which were, probably, merely dry arches, as we find in a multitude of modern bridges. It was, nevertheless, thirty feet in breadth, and built with great skill. The arches were of hewn stone, fastened together with chains of iron and melted lead. To effect the building with the greater care and safety, they turned the course of the river[99], and laid the channel dry. While one part of the workmen were doing this, others were shaping the materials for the quays, so that all were finished at the same time.
During a certain portion of the year (viz., June, July, and August) the Euphrates overflows its banks, as the Nile does in Egypt, the Ganges in India, and the Amazon in South America. To remedy the manifold inconveniences arising from this, two large canals were cut to divert the superabundant waters into the Tigris, before they could reach Babylon[100]; and to secure the neighbouring country still the better, they raised artificial banks,—as the Dutch have done in Holland,—of a vast size, on both sides the river; not built, however, of earth, as in Holland, but of brick cemented with bitumen, which began at the head of the canals, and extended for some distance below the city. To effect all this, the Euphrates, which had been turned one way, in order to build the bridge, was turned another to build the banks. To this end they dug a vast lake, forty miles square, and one hundred and sixty in compass, and thirty-five feet deep. Into this lake the river was diverted, till the banks were finished; after which it was re-diverted into the former channel. The lake was, however, still preserved as a reservoir[101].
Perhaps some of our readers may be curious to know how long it would take to fill this lake up. It is thus stated in the Edinburgh Review[102]:—"Taking it at the lowest dimensions of a square of forty miles, by thirty feet deep; and supposing the Euphrates to be five hundred feet wide, ten deep, and to flow at the rate of two miles an hour, it would require one thousand and fifty-six days to fill the lake, allowing no absorption to the sides; but if absorption and evaporation are taken into the account, we may put the time at four years, or thereabouts; which, no doubt, would be sufficient, considering the number of hands employed, to complete the embankment[103]."
This lake, the bridge, and the quays of the river are ascribed to Nitocris, by Herodotus; but most of the other wonders of Babylon are ascribed by Josephus to Nebuchadnezzar, her father-in-law. "Perhaps," says one of the historians, "Nitocris might only finish what her father had left imperfect at his death, on which account the historian might give her the honour of the whole undertaking."
We are now called upon to describe other wonders. These are the palaces and hanging gardens. At each end of the bridge stood a palace; and those two palaces had a communication each with the other by means of a passage under the bed of the river, vaulted at the time in which it was laid dry[104]. The old palace, which stood on the east side of the river, was three miles and three quarters in compass. It stood near the temple of Belus. The new palace stood on the west side. It was much larger than the old one; being seven miles and a half in compass[105]. It was surrounded with three walls, one within the other, with considerable spaces between; and these, with those at the other palace, were embellished with an infinite variety of sculptures, representing all kinds of animals to the life; amongst which was one more celebrated than all the rest. This was a hunting piece, representing Semiramis on horseback throwing a javelin; and Ninus, her husband, piercing a lion.
Near the old palace stood a vast structure, known from all antiquity, and celebrated in every age as the most wonderful structure ever yet built; viz., the temple of Belus. We have given some account of it from Herodotus already. A tower of vast size stood in the middle of it. At its foundation it was a square of a furlong on each side; that is, half a mile in its whole compass, and the eighth part of a mile in height. It consisted of eight towers, built one above another, gradually decreasing in size to the top. Its height exceeded that of the largest of the pyramids[106]. It was built of bricks and bitumen. The ascent to the top was on the outside, by means of stairs, winding, in a spiral line, eight times round the tower from the bottom to the top. There were many large rooms in the different stories, with arched roofs, supported by pillars. On the top was an observatory, the Babylonians having been more celebrated than any other people of ancient times for their knowledge of astronomy[107].