Babylonian empire. The town founded there by Nimrod could have been but of little consequence, and that little it probably lost after the confusion of tongues recorded in the next chapter. For an account of the city in its palmy state, see Note on Dan. iv. 30. Is not this great Babylon?" and for an account of its present desolation, see Note on Isaiah xiii. 19-22, where that desolation is foretold. The site of Babel being found, we must look in the same district for the other cities.

"Erech."-According to the Rabbins this is the same as the present Orfah, known in the Bible as Ur. But this is unreasonably distant from Babel, and would give too great extent to the kingdom of Nimrod. It is generally believed to have been a city of Chaldæa, which took from it its present name of Irak. Cities, the names of which are evidently formed from Erech, are mentioned by Herodotus, Ptolemy, and Ammianus Marcellinus. Mr. Bryant, on examining the matter, finds that there were two cities distinguished as And-Erech and Ard-Erech-the former in Susiana, near some fiery or bituminous pools, and the latter stood on the Euphrates below Babylon. The latter probably occupied the site of the original Erech of the text.

"Ca/neh."-A great mass of authority, ancient and modern, European and Oriental, concurs in fixing the site of this city at what was the great city of Ctesiphon, upon the eastern bank of the river Tigris, about 18 miles below Bagdad. Opposite to it stood Seleucia, which was built by the Greeks for the express purpose of ruining Babylon, and was made the capital of their empire east of the Euphrates. After the lapse of several centuries, Ctesiphon, which seems to have been in previous existence as a small town, began to assume importance as a rival to Seleucia, in the hands of the Parthians, the bitter and implacable enemies of the Greeks. It is said to have been first walled in the reign of one Pacoras, king of the Parthians, who was contemporary with Mark Anthony. Seleucia ultimately fell before the ascendancy of Ctesiphon and the Parthians, and became a sort of suburb to its rival under the name of Coche, and were both identified by the Arabs under the name of Al-Modain, or "the cities." Ctesiphon became a magnificent city, and the winter capital of the Persian empire under the native Sassanian dynasty, which threw off the Parthian predominance. The city was taken by the Arabs in the year 637, and from that time declined amazingly; and when the Caliph Al-Mansoor built Bagdad, the ruins of Al-Modain furnished the principal materials for the new city. Of Seleucia nothing now remains but a portion of the wall, and evident traces of its former extent in the now denuded surface, rendered uneven by extended mounds, which, in most cases, alone remain to mark the site of the numerous cities with which this celebrated region teemed in ancient times. Ctesiphon has been rather more fortunate. Not only may the enormously thick walls of the city be traced to a considerable extent along the river, but a vast and imposing structure of fine brick still remains as an object of solitary magnificence in this desolate region, and is visible from a great distance. It is unlike any building in that part of the world, and is considered to have been built by Greek artists in the employ of the Persian kings. It presents a façade of 300 feet in length, pierced in the middle by an arch whose curve forms a large parabola rising from about half the height. The height of this arch from its apex to the ground is 103 feet, and it leads to a vast hall of the same height, and 82 feet broad by 160 in depth. The vaulting of this hall is broken at the back, and there is a large fissure about 15 feet from the entrance. It is called Tauk Kesra, or "the arch of Khosroes," and is believed to have been the palace of the Persian kings, and is presumed to be the "white palace," the magnificence and internal riches of which struck the barbarous conquerors from Arabia with amazement and delight.

"Accad."-The probabilities which have been allowed to operate in fixing Erech and Calneh, find equal, or more than equal, room in assigning Accad to the Sittace of the Greeks, and the Akkerkoof of the present time. It is situated about nine miles west of the Tigris, at the place where that river makes its nearest approach to the Euphrates. "Sittace" retains some elements of the name Accad; and Akkerkoof has more similarity to the original name than will sometimes be found in analogies on which elaborate theories have been founded. The situation and the name being concurrently favourable, its identity with the ancient Accad finds another confirmation in the remarkable and primitive monument which is found there, and which the Arabs, to this day, call Tel Nimrood, and the Turks, Nemrood Tepassé; both which appellations signify the "Hill of Nimrod." It consists of a mound, surmounted by a mass of building which looks like a tower, or an irregular pyramid, according to the point from which it is viewed. It is 300 feet in circumference at the bottom, and rises 125 or 130 feet above the greatly inclined elevation on which it stands. The mound which constitutes the foundation of the structure is composed of a mass of rubbish formed by the decay of the superstructure. In the tower itself the different layers of sun-dried bricks, of which it is composed, may be traced very distinctly. The bricks are cemented together by lime or bitumen, and are divided into courses varying from 12 to 20 feet in height, and separated by layers of reeds, such as grow in the marshy parts of the country, and in a state of astonishing preservation. The solidity and loftiness of this pile, as well as the difficulty of discovering any other use for it, would indicate it to have been one of those immense pyramidal towers which were consecrated to the worship of the heavenly bodies, and which served at once as the temples and observatories of the primitive times. That this religion arose very early we shall have occasion to state; and it is agreed on all hands, that it arose in the country in which this pile is found. There seem to have been piles of this nature in all the primitive cities of this region; built, probably, more or less after the model of that in the metropolitan city of Babylon. The Tel Nimrood, therefore, sufficiently indicates the site of a primitive town, which it is not presuming more than is usual, to suppose to have been Accad.

11. "Out of that land went forth Asshur."-The form of expression in Hebrew gives equal authority to the marginal reading, which is, "Out of that land, he [Nimrod] went forth into Assyria ;" and opinions are pretty equally divided as to which of the senses is to be preferred. Understood as in the text, it appears that Asshur, the son of Shem, in being driven out of Shinar by Nimrod, went and settled in Assyria; while the other reading makes Nimrod extend his original encroachments on the Shemites by appropriating Assyria also; or else, that he relinquished his kingdom in Shinar for some unknown reason, and went to found another in Assyria. Some commentators build an excellent character for Nimrod on the superstructure which the last hypothesis offers, contending that this ancient hero, being disgusted with the mad project of the tower of Babel, withdrew from the country, to exonerate himself from the consequences: yet the common accounts make him the prime mover in this famous transaction.

“Nineveh.”—Whether Nimrod or Asshur founded this city, it does not appear to have been of much importance for many centuries afterwards. Indeed the text before us leads us to conclude that Resen was in its origin a more important city than Nineveh. It did not rise to greatness until subsequently, somewhere about B.C. 1230, when it was enlarged by Ninus, its second founder, and became the greatest city of the world and the mistress of the East. The testimony of most ancient writers concurs with the local traditions and the surviving name to fix Nineveh on the site of the village of Nunia, opposite the town of Mosul on the river Tigris, which formed the boundary of Assyria Proper. In the book of Jonah, it is emphatically called "an exceeding great city;" and we must refer to the Note on that text for an account of its ancient greatness and present remains.

“Rehoboth, Calah, Resen.”—The site of Resen is indicated with more than ordinary precision in the text; but in fixing its site, or those of the other two cities, we have no such evidence and strong probabilities as have helped in determining the sites of the towns of Nimrod's kingdom in Shinar. We can only conjecture that they existed on the Tigris, below, and perhaps above, Nineveh, at no great distance from each other. Most writers concur in placing Calah on the Great Zab, before it enters the Tigris, and Resen higher up on the latter river, so as to be between Nineveh and Calah. But Rehoboth has been shifted about every where. Some place it above Nineveh, others below Calah, while some fix it on the western bank of the Tigris, opposite Resen.

16, 17, 18.-All these, as before (see Note on v. 6), are the names of tribes, not individuals.

25. "Peleg."-Peleg means "division," and appears to have been given to commemorate either a natural convulsion or a political division of the earth among Noah's descendants at the time of his birth. The latter is the most common opinion; but it is not agreed whether the division indicated was the dispersion at Babel, or the earlier migrations from Armenia.

26 And Terah lived seventy years, and

2 begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

27 Now these are the generations of

3 Heb. a man said to his neighbour.
4 Heb. burn them to a burning.
81 Chron. 1. 19. 9 Called, Luke 3. 35., Phalec. 10 Luke 3, 35., Saruch.
12 Josh. 24. 2. 1 Chron. 1. 26.

Verse 1." One language."-What the primeval language was is a point which has excited very much discussion. Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, Chaldee, Phoenician, Egyptian, Ethiopic, Greek, Sanscrit, and Chinese, have each had their prior claims warmly advocated. The weight of number and authority is in favour of the Hebrew and the Syriac, which were originally one and the same:-1. Because the names of the letters, and the numeral values assigned to them, in Hebrew and Syriac, have been generally adopted by the rest, however unlike the letters may be formed. 2. That the superior antiquity of the Hebrew and Syriac letters (which had originally but one form) is demonstrated by the greater simplicity of their shapes. 3. From internal evidence-such as, that words derived from or identical with Hebrew words run through all the greater number of known languages; that all oriental proper names of rivers, mountains, cities, persons, &c. are deducible from the Hebrew; that when Abraham "the Hebrew" travelled in Palestine and Egypt, he was everywhere understood ;-with other arguments of similar character and force.

3. " Brick."-The want of stone in the plain watered by the Euphrates and Tigris, in the lower half of their course, rendered brick formerly, as it still is, the universal material in all the buildings of the country. The text will be best elucidated by observing what materials are employed in those masses of ruin which, whether belonging to the original city and tower or not, are undoubtedly among the most ancient remains in the world. The bricks are of two sorts, one dried in the sun, and the other burnt by fire. The size of the latter is generally thirteen inches square by three thick; there are some which do not exceed half those dimensions, and a few with shapes adapted to particular purposes, such as for rounding corners, &c. They are of several colours-white, approaching more or less to a yellowish cast, like our Stourbridge, or fire-brick, which is the finest sort; red, like our ordinary brick, which is the coarsest sort; and some that have a blackish cast, and are very hard. The sun-dried brick is considerably larger, and in general looks like a clod of earth, in which are seen particles of broken reed and chopped straw, obviously intended to give compactness to When any considerable degree of thickness was required, the practice in the Babylonian structures seems to have been, to form the mass with sun-dried bricks, and then invest it with a case of burnt bricks. The ruins exhibit evident traces of this mode of construction, although, in the course of ages, the external coverings of burnt bricks have been taken away for use in building. If we are to understand the text as meaning burnt bricks-which the original

the mass.

does not state so positively as our translation-it by no means follows that such only were used, as no large construction at Babylon was at any time wholly, or even principally, composed of burnt brick.

"Shime."-"They had bitumen for cement" would be a better translation of this passage; for the word in this place does undoubtedly denote that remarkable mineral pitch to which the name of bitumen is given, and which is supposed to have been formed in the earth from the decomposition of animal and vegetable substances. It is the most inflammable of known minerals. There are two or three sorts, but having the same component parts. It is usually of a blackish or brown hue, and hardens more or less on exposure to the air. In its most fluid state it forms naphtha; when of the consistence of oil it becomes petroleum; at the next stage of induration it becomes elastic bitumen, then maltha, and so on, until it becomes a compact mass, and is then called asphaltum, the word by which the Septuagint renders the word chemar, which we have here as "slime." Herodotus states that the Babylonians derived their supplies of this substance from Is on the Euphrates. This is the modern Hit, a small mud-walled town, chiefly inhabited by Arabs and Jews, situated on the western bank of the river, and fixed by Rennell in N. lat. 33° 43' 15". The principal bitumen pit has two sources, and is divided by a wall in the centre, on one side of which bitumen bubbles up, and oil of naphtha on the other. Mr. Rich remarks, that bitumen was by no means so generally used in the structures of Babylon as is commonly supposed. This is demonstrated by the fact, that bitumen is only found in the ruins as a cement in a few situations, generally towards the basement, where its power of resisting wet rendered it valuable. Before it can be used as a cement, it must be boiled with a certain proportion of oil, and this troublesome and expensive process was not likely to be used exclusively in such a pile as the tower of Babel, particularly when cements abound, all of which are more easily prepared, and one of which at least is much superior to bitumen. These consist of three kinds of calcareous earth found abundantly in the desert west of the Euphrates. The first, called noora, is, in present use, mixed with ashes, and employed as a coating for the lower parts of walls in baths and other places liable to damps. Another, called by the Turks karej, and by the Arabs jus, is also found in powder mixed with indurated pieces of the same substance and round pebbles. This forms even now the common cement of the country, and constitutes the mortar generally found in the burnt brick-work of the most ancient remains. When good, the bricks cemented by it cannot well be detached without being broken, whilst those laid in bitumen can easily be separated. The third sort, called borak, is a substance resembling gypsum, and is found in large lumps of an earthy appearance, which, when burned, forms an excellent plaster or whitewash. Pure clay or mud is also used as a cement; but this is exclusively with the sun-dried bricks. 4. "A tower, whose top may reach unto heaven.”—-The latter clause of this phrase is literally" and its top in the skies"-a metaphor common in all languages and nations for a very elevated and conspicuous summit; and which exonerates the builders from the imputed stupidity of attempting to scale the heavens. Whether there was any or what bad intention in this erection, has afforded much matter of discussion, into which we cannot enter. It is probable enough that some attempt to frustrate the appointed dispersion of mankind was involved in the undertaking; and it does not appear that the confusion of tongues was so much a punishment for this attempt, as a proper and obvious measure for giving effect to the intended dispersion and distribution of the human race. Leaving this matter, in which we have only conjectures and doubtful interpretations to guide us, let us inquire what became of this famous tower in after-times, and whether any traces now remain of its existence.

There is no statement that this great work sustained any damage at the Confusion: it is simply said, that the building of the city, and doubtless of the tower also, was discontinued. What were its precise dimensions it is impossible to determine, where different authorities make it range from a furlong to five thousand miles in height. It is generally admitted, and is indeed in the highest degree probable, that the fabric was in a considerable state of forwardness at the Confusion; and that it could have sustained no considerable damage at the time when the building of Babylon was recommenced: and therefore, finding that this great city was in later periods famous for a stupendous tower, described as an object of wonder comparable to the Egyptian pyramids, it is not unsafe to infer that the original Tower of Babel formed at least the nucleus of that amazing tower which, in the time of the early authors of classical antiquity, stood in the midst of the temple which was built by Nebuchadnezzar, in honour of Belus. It seems that this splendid prince, whose reign began about 605 years B. C., took the idea of rendering this old ruin the principal ornament of the city which it gave him so much pride to embellish. Whatever additions he made to it, there is no room to doubt that the original form was preserved; for not only would it have taken enormous labour and expense to alter it, but the form it afterwards bore is that which would hardly, in such comparatively late times, have been thought of, being in its simplicity and proportions characteristic not only of very ancient but of the most ancient constructed masses which have been known to exist on the earth. Our earliest authentic information concerning this tower is from Herodotus, who however did not see it till thirty years after the Persian king Xerxes, in his indignation against the form of idolatry with which it had become associated, did as much damage to it as its solid mass enabled him, with any tolerable convenience, to effect. Herodotus describes the spot as a sacred inclosure dedicated to Jupiter Belus, consisting of a regular square of two stadia (1000 feet) on each side, and adorned with gates of brass. In the midst of this area rose a massive tower, whose length and breadth was one stadium (500 feet); upon this tower arose another and another, till the whole had numbered eight. He does not say how high it was; but Strabo, who concurs with him in the dimensions of the basement-flat, adds, that the whole was a stadium in height. Taking these proportions of 500 feet high, on a base of 500 feet on each side, we have a structure as high as the greatest of the Egyptian pyramids, but standing on a much narrower base; as the dimensions of the pyramid may (on an approximation from various statements) be reckoned at 480 feet in height, on a base of 750 feet each way. Herodotus goes on to say, that, on the outside, steps were formed, winding up to each tower; and that in the middle of every flight a resting-place was provided, with seats. In the highest tower there was a magnificent chamber, expressly sacred to Belus, furnished with a splendid couch, near which was a table of gold. But there was no statue, the god being supposed to inhabit it at will. About two centuries after the devastations committed by Xerxes, Alexander, among his mighty projects, conceived the idea of restoring this famous tower to its former condition; and, as a preparatory step, employed 10,000 men, for two months, in removing the rubbish which had fallen from the superstructure in consequence of the Persian king's dilapidations. This circumstance alone would induce us, at this distant time, in looking for the remains of this earliest great work of man, to be content with very faint traces of what we may suppose the original structure to have been. The distinction of being a remain of the Tower of Babel has been claimed for three different masses; namely, for Nimrod's Tower, at Akkerkoof; for the Mujelibe, about 950 yards east of the Euphrates, and five miles above the modern town of Hillah; and for the Birs Nemroud, to the west of that river, and about six miles to the south-west of Hillah. The Tel Nimrood, at Akkerkoof, has already been mentioned as denoting the site of Accad. Many travellers have believed it to be the Tower of Babel, having perhaps their imaginations excited by the name of Nimrod attached to it: but the people of the country certainly do not believe it to be the Tower of Babel, the site of which they always indicate by a reference to Hillah, on the Euphrates.

The Mujelibe was first described, in the conviction of its being the Tower of Babel, by Della Valle, who examined the ruins in 1616, and characterises this mass as "a mountain of ruins," and again, as "a huge mountain." The name means "overturned;" and as either this or the Birs Nemroud must afford the remains of the famous tower, if such still exist, we shall give a short description of both from the "Memoir on the Ruins of Babylon," compared with the accounts furnished by Sir Robert Ker Porter and Sir John Macdonald (Kinneir). The latter gentleman concurs with Delta Valle, D'Anville, Rennell, and other high names, in considering it the Tower of Babel; but it is to be borne in mind, that none of them, except Macdonald, had any distinct information concerning the Birs Nemroud.

The Mujelibe is second only to the last-named pile, in being one of the most enormous masses of brick-formed earth raised by the labour of man. Its shape is oblong, and its height, as well as the measurement of its sides, very irregular. Its sides face the four cardinal points; the measurement of that on the north being 200 yards in length, the southern 219, the eastern 182, and the western 136; while the elevation of the highest or south-east angle is 141 feet. The summit is a broad, uneven flat. It ascends towards the south-eastern point, and forms an angular kind of peak, sloping gradually down in an opposite direction upon the bosom of the mound to a depth of about 100 feet. The mass of the structure, as in that at Akkerkoof and the other Babylonish remains, is composed of bricks dried in the sun, and mixed with broken straw or reed in the preparation, cemented in some places with bitumen and regular layers of reeds, and in others with slime and reeds. In most Babylonish structures, several courses of brick intervene between the layers of reeds; but in this the reeds are interposed between every single course of bricks. The outer edges of the bricks having mouldered away, it is only on minute inspection that the nature of its materials can be ascertained. When viewed from a distance, the ruin has more the appearance of a small hill than a building; and the ascent is in most places so gentle, that a person may ride all over it. The bricks are larger and much inferior to most others; nor indeed do any of those in the ruins near the Euphrates equal those in the ruins at Akkerkoof. Deep ravines have been sunk by the periodical rains in this stupendous mass, and there are numerous long narrow cavities, or passages, which are now the unmolested retreats of hyaenas, jackals, and other noxious animals. Quantities of kilnburnt bricks are scattered about at the base of the fabric, and it is probable that this, as well as the other recesses which only now exhibit the inferior material, were originally cased with the burnt bricks, but which, in the course of ages, have been taken away for the purposes of building—a practice which is known to have been in operation for more than 2000 years.

Every one who sees the Birs Nemroud feels at once, that of all the masses of ruin found in this region, there is not one which so nearly corresponds with his previous notions of the Tower of Babel; and he will decide that it could be no other, if he is not discouraged by the apparent difficulty of reconciling the statements of the ancient writers concerning the Temple of Belus, with the situation of this ruin on the western bank, and its distance from the river and the other ruins. That this difficulty is not insuperable has been shown by the writer of the article "Babylon," in the Penny Cyclopædia ;" and without giving any decided opinion, we cannot but subscribe to the view that the Birs Nemroud must probably be identified with the tower in question, if the latter is to be identified at all.

We give Mr. Rich's description, referring to Sir R. K. Porter for a more detailed account. "The Birs Nemroud is a mound of an oblong form, the total circumference of which is 762 yards. At the eastern side it is cloven by a deep furrow, and is not more than 50 or 60 feet high; but on the western side it rises in a conical figure to the elevation of 198 feet, and on its summit is a solid pile of brick, 37 feet high by 28 in breadth, diminishing in thickness to the top, which is broken and irregular, and rent by a large fissure extending through a third of its height. It is perforated by small square holes, disposed in rhomboids. The fire-burnt bricks of which it is built have inscriptions on them; and so excellent is the cement, which appears to be lime-mortar, that it is nearly impossible to extract one whole. The other parts of the summit of this hill are occupied by immense fragments of brick-work, of no determinate figure, tumbled together, and converted into solid vitrified masses, as if they had undergone the action of the fiercest fire, or had been blown up with gunpowder, the layers of brick being perfectly discernible." These ruins," continues Mr. Rich, "stand on a prodigious mound, the whole of which is itself in ruins, channelled by the weather and strewed with fragments of black stone, sandstone, and marble. In the eastern part, layers of unburnt brick, but no reeds, were discernible in any part: possibly the absence of them here, when they are so generally seen under similar circumstances, may be an argument of the inferior antiquity of the building. In the north side may be seen traces of building exactly similar to the brick pile. At the foot of the mound a step may be traced scarcely elevated above the plain, exceeding in extent by several feet each way the true or measured base; and there is a quadrangular inclosure around the whole, as at the Mujelibe, but much more distinct and of greater dimensions."

It may be observed that the grand dimensions of both the Birs and the Mujelibe correspond very well with that of the Tower of Belus, the circumference of which, if we take the stadium at 500 feet, was 2000 feet; that of the Birs is 2286, and that of the Mujelibe 2111, which in both instances is a remarkable approximation, affording no greater difference than is easily accounted for by our ignorance of the exact proportion of the stadium and by the enlargement which the base must have undergone by the crumbling of the materials. Sir R. K. Porter seems to show that three, and part of the fourth, of the original eight stages of the tower may be traced in the existing ruin of Birs Nemroud; and, with regard to the intense vitrifying heat to which the summit has most evidently been subjected, he has no doubt that the fire acted from above, and was probably lightning. The circumstance is certainly remarkable in connexion with the tradition that the original Tower of Babel was rent and overthrown by fire from heaven. Porter thinks that the works of the Babylonish kings concealed for a while the marks of the original devastation; and that now the destructions of time and of inan have reduced it to nearly the same condition in which it appeared after the Confusion. At any rate it cannot now be seen without recollecting the emphatic prophecy of Jeremiah (ch. li. 25): "I will stretch out mine hand upon thee, and roll thee down from the rocks, and will make thee a burnt mountain."

9. "The Lord did there confound the language of all the earth."-We have no distinct information as to the extent in which this remarkable event operated on the languages of men; and accordingly this verse has occasioned much discussion. It is certainly not necessary to suppose that the confusion of languages was then so great as at present. Some learned men, who consider that the present diversity of languages is not greater than would naturally arise in the lapse of long time and in changes of climate and country by migrations, think the confusion operated very slightly at first, consisting merely in the introduction of various inflections and some new words, which sufficed to make the people misunderstand one another. This is the opinion of those who think that all existing languages are derived from one parent stock. But others, who believe that the existing diversity is too great to allow the doctrine of their being all derived from one common stock, think new languages were formed at the Confusion, to each of which it is possible to trace the various derivative languages which have been formed from it in the lapse of time, by removals, intermixtures, and refinements. It is allowed, however, that the formation of two new languages, or strongly marked dialects, for two of the families of Noah, while the other retained the primitive tongue unaltered, would be sufficient to account for all