square than that of the Mujelibè, which may be accounted for, on the supposition of its having been in a state of ruin for a much longer period. I think from its general appearance there are some reasons to conclude it was built in several stages, gradually diminishing to the summit. The annexed sketch, in four different views,* will convey a clearer idea of it than any description would, and enable in some measure the reader to judge for himself. †

The

In forming a conjecture on the original destination of the Birs, the mound situated parallel to its eastern face, which must have been a building of great dimensions, must not be overlooked. temple attached to the tower of Belus must have been a very spacious edifice, and formed part of its quadrangular enclosure, of which it is probable it did not occupy more than one side, the three remaining ones being composed of accommodations for the priests and attendants, of course inferior in proportions to the temple: allowing some degree of resemblance in other respects, between the Birs and the tower, the elevation observable round the former will represent the priests' apartments, and the abovementioned mound, the temple itself. We find the same kind of mound, and precisely in the same situation, attached to other ruins which have a strong re

* The original engravings of Mr. Rich's sketches of the ruins of Babylon were so badly executed at Vienna, that instead of re-publishing them, it has been judged more advisable to give one view of each ruin, more perfectly executed, from Mr. Rich's original drawings. See the accompanying Plate.

semblance in themselves to the Birs; and we may, therefore, reasonably conclude that they were intended for the same design, either the honour of the dead, the observation of the celestial bodies, religious worship, or perhaps some of these motives combined. In like manner we find in Egypt the original idea of the pyramids exactly copied at different times on a smaller scale, and each pyramid having its dependant temple. I leave to the learned the decision of this point, and the determining what degree of resemblance, in form and purpose, exists between the pyramids of Memphis and the tower of Belus.

I have dwelt the longer on this most interesting of the Babylonian edifices, as I shall have but little to offer on the rest. The citadel or palace (for it served both these purposes, and was the only fortress within the walls) was surrounded by an exterior wall of sixty stadia in circumference; inside which was another of forty stadia, the interior face of which was ornamented with painting, as is the custom of the Persians at the present day; and again, within this last was a third, adorned with designs of hunting. On the opposite side of the river, and on the same side with the tower of Belus, was situated the old palace, the outer wall of which was no larger than the inner one of the new. Above the new palace or citadel were the hanging gardens, which, according to Strabo, formed a square of four plethra each face, and were fifty cubits in height. When I

tent.

consider the dimensions of the Sefivieh palace at Isfahaun, and other similar buildings yet remaining in the East, I see no difficulty in admitting the account of the Babylonian palace in its full exThe antiquarian will consider how far the measurement of the ruins enclosed between the river and the boundary on the east corresponds with those of the palace: in some respects the Mujelibè would answer sufficiently well with the accounts of the hanging gardens, were it not for the skeletons found there, which must embarrass almost any theory that may be formed on this extraordinary pile.

There was a tunnel under the Euphrates, of which no trace can reasonably be expected at this time. Semiramis, according to Diodorus, erected a stone obelisk of a hundred and twenty-five feet high by five feet square, which was cut on purpose in the Armenian mountains. As we do not trace this monument in any of the neighbouring towns after the destruction of Babylon, it is not impossible that some vestige of it may yet be discovered.

I have already expressed my belief that the number of buildings in Babylon bore no proportion to the space enclosed by the wall: besides this, it is most probable that the houses were in general small; and even the assertion of Herodotus, that it abounded in houses of two and three stories, argues that the majority consisted of only one. The peculiar climate of this district must have caused a similarity of habits and accommodation in all ages; and if upon