Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography Volume I Part 1.djvu/376

 858 BABYLON. Of the successors of SemiramU (supposing that she did reign in or found an empire at Babylon) we are in ahnost entire ignorance; though some names, as we have seen, have been preserved in Ptolemy {Astron. Canon.), and elsewhere. With r^ard to Nebuchadnezzar, another and an ingenious theory has hem put forth, which seems generally to have found &vour with the German writers. According to Heeren (^As, Nat. i. p. 382), it has been held that, some time previous to Nebu* chadnezzar's ascent of the throne in Babylon, a revolution had taken place in Western Asia, whereby a new race, who, descending from the north, had been for some time partially established in the pliun country of Babylonia, became the ruling people; and that Nebuchadnezzar was thdr first great sovereign. The difficulty of accounting for the Chaldaeans has given a plausibili^ to thb theory, which however we do not think it really merits. The Bible does not help us, as there is a manifest blank* between Esarhaddon and Nebuchadnezzar which cannot be satisfactorily filled up, if at all, from fragments on which we cannot rely. So far as the Bible is concerned, Nebuchadnezzar appears before us from first to last, simply as a great ruler, called, indeed, the Chaldaean, but not, as we think, for that reason, necessarily of a race difierent frt>m the other people of the country. Diodorus, indeed (ii. 10), attributes the Hanging Gardens to a Syrian king, telling the same story which we find in Be- rossus. It is probablci however, that he and Curtius (v. 1) use the word Syrian in the more extended sense of the word Assyrian, for all western and Bouthem Asia, between Taurus and the Persian Gulf. Differing accounts have been given of the manner in which Babylon was taken, in the Bible, in He- rodotus, and in Xenophon's Gyropaedeia. That in the Bible is the shortest. We are simply told (^Dan, V. 2 — 1 1 ) that Belshazzar, while engaged at a great feast, was alarmed by a strange Uniting on the wall of his banqueting room, which Daniel interpreted to imply the immediate destruction of the empire by the combined army of the Medes and Persians. " In that night," the Sacred Record adds, " was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldaeans slain." {Dan. v. 28.) Herodotus (i. 177, seq.) describes the gradual ad- vance of the army under Cyrus, and his attempt to take the city by a r^ular si^e, which, however, its vast extent compelled him to convert into a blockade. He mentions the draining the waters of the Euphrates by means of a canal cut above the city, and that by this means the Persians were enabled to enter the city, the water being only thigh-deep, the inhabit- ants being more careless of their defences, as the day on which they entered happened to be one of their great festivals. (Her. i. 191.) The narrative of Xenophon (^Cyrop. vii. 5) b substantially the same, though he givea many details which are not found elsewhere. He mentions especially, that the time of attack was one of general festivity, the drunkenness of the royal guards, and the death of the king on the palace being forced. The subsequent history of Babylon may be told in a few words. From the time of its overthrow by Cyrus it never recovered its previous splendour, though it continued for some centuries a place of considerable importance, and the winter residence of its conqueror Cyrus during seven months of each year. (Xeu. Cyrop. viii. 7. § 22.) Between the reign of Cyrus and that of Dareius, the -son of Hy- BABYLON. ttaapes, we hear nothing of it In the reign, how-> ever, of the latter kine:, Herodotus (iii. 150) men- tions a revolt of the Babylonians, and the cruel plan they adopted to prevent a scarcity of provision in the si^ they expected: he appears, however, to have confounded this revolt with a subsequent one which took place in the reign of Xerxes. (Ctes. Pertic. ap. Phot p. 50, ed. Didot) Herodotus, however, states that, at this time, the walls of the city were beaten down, which Cyrus had left stand- ing, and 3000 of the inhabitants were put to death; though Berossus (ap. Joseph, c. Apion. i. 20) and Ensebius {Chron. Armen. L p. 75) say that Cy- rus only destroyed the outer walls. In ndther case is it indeed necrasary to suppose that much more ruin was caused than was necessary to render the place useless as one of strength. It is certain that Babylon was still the chief city of the empire whoi Alexander went there; so that the actual injury done by Dareins and Xerxes could not have been very great The Behistan inscription mentions two revolts at Babylon, the first of which was put down by Dareins himself, who subsequently spent a considerable time there, while the second was quelled by his lieutenant (Rawlinson, As. Jowm. vol. x. pp. 188 — 190.) In the reign of Xerxes, Herodotus (i. 183) states that that king plundered the Temple of Belns of the golden statue which Dareius had not dared to re- move; and Arrian (vii. 17) adds, that he threw down the temple itself, on his return from Greece, and that it was in ruins when Alexander was at Ba» bylon, and was desirous of rebuilding it, and of re- storing it to its former grandeur. Stmbo (xvi. p. 738) adds, that he was unable to do so, as it took 10,000 men to clear away the ruins. Pliny (vi. 26), on the other hand, appears to have thought that the temple of Belus was still existing in his time. From the time of Alexander's death its decay liecame more rapid. Stiabo (xvi. p. 738) states, that of those who came after him (Alexander) none cared for it ; and the Persians, time, and the carelessness of the Macedonians aided its destructinn. Shottly after, Seleucus Nicator built Seleuceia, and transferred to it the seat of government, till, at length, adds the geographer, speaking probably of his own time, it may be said of Babylon, as whs said of Megalopolis by the Comic poet, " The vast city is a vast desert " (Cf. also Plin. vL 26; Pans. iv. 31, viii. 33; Dion Cass. Ixxv. 9.) But though Babylon had ceased, after the founda- tion of Seleuceia, to be a great city, it still continued f(Mr many centtuies to exist. At the time that Demetrius Poliorcetes took Ba- bylon, two fortresses still remained in it (Diod. xix. 100), one only of which he was able to take. Evemerus, a king of Parthia, b. c. 127, reduced many of the Babylonians to slavery, and sent their families into Media, burning with fire many of their temples, and the best parts of their city. About B. a 36 a considerable number of Jews were resi- dent in Babylon, so that when Hyrcanus the High Priest was released bom confinement by Phraates, king of Parthia, he was permitted to reside there (Joseph. AnL xv. 2), and that this Babylon was not, as has been supposed by some, another name for Seleuceia, is, we think, clear, because when Jo- sephus (AnL xviii. 2. § 4, viii. 9. §§ 8, 9) speaks of Seleuceia, he adds, " on the Tigris," showing, therefore, that he was acquainted ^ith its position. In the reign of Augustus, we learn from Diodorus that but a small part waa stiU inhabited, the re-