may have been cased with stone, the upper being entirely of brick; as, according to Xenophon, were the walls of Mespila and Larissa.*

According to Diodorus Siculus the walls of Nineveh were one hundred feet high, and so broad that three chariots might be driven abreast upon them. They were furnished with fifteen hundred towers, each two hundred feet in height. Those of Babylon, according to Herodotus, were two hundred cubits (or about three hundred feet) high, and fifty cubits (or about seventy-five feet thick.† In the Book of Judith the walls of

* Cyrop. lib. iii. The lower part of the walls of Mespila, according to Xenophon, was fifty feet high, and as many broad, and the upper one hundred high. The plinth was of a polished stone full of shells-the limestone still abounding in the country. The base of the walls is frequently the common river conglomerate. There are no remains at Kouyunjik to show that any part of the wall was of solid stone; yet there can scarcely be a doubt that Mespila is represented by the ruins opposite Mosul. Nor does the circuit of six parasangs, mentioned by Xenophon, agree with the present dimensions, which do not amount to as many miles. Some allowance must be made for a little exaggeration.

The walls of Babylon formed one of the standard fables of the ancients. According to some they were of brass. The Greek scholiast, upon the passage in the Periegesis of Dionysius (quoted p. 262), says :-"To the south (of the Matieni) lies the great city of Babylon, which Semiramis crowned with unbreakable, brazen or strong, walls; for the wall is said to be brazen, for it was on every side flanked by the river." Eustathius, commenting on the same passage of Dionysius, observes:-" In the south of Mesopotamia is Babylon, the Persian metropolis, a sacred city surrounded with a brazen wall according to some, and with a river flowing round it; all of which, he says, Semiramis crowned with unbreakable walls. Where some, forsooth, as it has been said, have narrated that the wall was of brass, and have put forth many other marvels about it, besides those above explained," &c. "Some say that when Ninus, king of (As-) Syria founded Nineveh, his wife, in order to surpass her husband, built Babylon in the plain with baked bricks, asphalt, and hewn stones three cubits broad and six long. Its perimeter was 355 stadia; the walls were forty cubits high and thirty broad, so that chariots could pass one another, and were flanked with gates with lofty towers. And she made brazen doors of a great height." According to Josephus, who quotes Berosus, Nebuchadnezzar built three walls round the interior, and three round the exterior of Babylon, or probably three round the new, and three round the old city Within these walls were the celebrated hanging gardens. He built also high walks of stone, with all manner of trees upon them, to give the appearance of a mountain; besides which he made a paradise, which was called the hanging garden, to

Ecbatana are stated to have been seventy cubits in height, and fifty broad, or corresponding in thickness with those of Babylon. They were built of hewn stones, six cubits long and three broad; and the gates, "for the going forth of the mighty armies (of Nebuchadnezzar) and for the setting in array of the footmen," were seventy cubits high and forty wide.*

Of these enormous structures, allowing for exaggeration and inaccuracy, in the statements of the Greek historians,† there are still certain traces. They do not, however, inclose the space attributed to either Babylon or Nineveh, but form. quadrangular inclosures of more moderate dimensions, which appear to have been attached to the royal dwellings, or were perhaps intended as places of refuge in case of siege. Such are the remains of Nimroud, Kouyunjik, and Khorsabad; and those on the left bank of the river Euphrates, near Hillah, the site of the Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar. These walls are now marked by consecutive mounds, having the appearance of ramparts of earth hastily thrown up. On examination, however, they are found to be regularly constructed of unbaked bricks. In height they have, of course, greatly decreased, and are still gradually decreasing, but the breadth of their base proves their former magnitude; and that they were of great strength, and able to resist the engines of war then in use, we learn from the fact that Nineveh sustained a siege for nearly three years in the time of Sardanapalus, and could only be taken by the combined armies of the Persians and Babylonians when the river had overflowed its bed, and had carried away a part of the wall. According to Xenophon, Larissa was captured during the consternation of the inhabitants caused by an eclipse of the sun.

please his wife, who, coming from Media, loved a mountainous country. (Against Apion, book i.)

* Chap. i. v. 1-4.

+ The walls of Nineveh were built, according to Eustathius, in eight years, by 140,000 men. Those of Babylon in fifteen. (Berosus, Frag.) According to Quintus Curtius, a stadium was finished each day. (lib. v. c. 26.)

At certain distances in the walls there were gates, sometimes flanked, as at Kouyunjik, by towers adorned with sculptures, and sometimes formed by gigantic figures, such as the winged bulls and lions. An entrance of this kind has recently been by chance exposed to view, in the mounds forming the quadrangle at Khorsabad. The lofty pyramidal structures, which still exist at Nimroud, Kalah Sherghat, and Khorsabad, may have been used, as it has been already observed, as watchtowers. In the edifices of Nineveh, bitumen and reeds were not employed to cement the layers of bricks, as at Babylon; although both materials are to be found in abundance in the immediate vicinity of the city.* The Assyrians appear to have made much less use of bricks baked in the furnace than the Babylonians; no masses of brickwork, such as are every where found in Babylonia Proper, existing to the north of that province. Common clay moistened with water, and mixed with a little stubble, formed, as it does to this day, the mortar used in buildings. But, however simple the materials, they have successfully resisted the ravages of time, and still mark the stupendous nature of the Assyrian structures.

* Rich, however, mentions stones cemented with bitumen, as having been found in an excavation amongst the ruins opposite Mosul.

CHAPTER III.

THE remarks in the foregoing chapter, on the architecture of the Assyrians, naturally lead to the consideration of the state of the arts in general amongst them. It is impossible to examine the monuments of Assyria without being convinced, that the people who raised them had acquired a skill in sculpture and painting, and a knowledge of design and even composition, indicating an advanced state of civilization. It is very remarkable, that the most ancient ruins show this knowledge in the greatest perfection, attained by the Assyrians. The bas-relief representing the lion-hunt, now in the British Museum, is a good illustration of the earliest school of Assyrian art yet known. It far exceeds the sculptures of Khorsabad, Kouyunjik, or the later palaces of Nimroud, in the vigor of the treatment, the elegance of the forms, and in what the French aptly term "mouvement." At the same time it is eminently distinguished from them by the evident attempt at composition, by the artistical arrangement of the groups. The sculptors who worked at Khorsabad, and Kouyunjik, had perhaps acquired more skill in handling their tools. Their work is frequently superior to that of the earlier artist, in delicacy of execution-in the details of the features, for instance-and in the boldness of the relief; but the slightest acquaintance with Assyrian monuments will show, that they were greatly inferior to their ancestors in the higher branches of art-in the treatment of a subject, and in beauty and variety of form. This decline of art, after suddenly attaining its greatest perfec

tion in its earliest stage, is a fact presented by almost every people, ancient and modern, with which we are acquainted. In Egypt, the most ancient monuments display the purest forms, and the most elegant decorations. A rapid retrogression, after a certain period, is most apparent, and serves to indicate approximately the epoch of most of her remains. In the history of Greek and Roman art, this sudden rise and rapid fall are equally apparent. Even changes in royal dynasties have had an influence upon art; as a glance at monuments of that part of the East of which we are specially treating will show. Thus the sculpture of Persia, as that of Assyria, was in its best state at the time of the earliest monarchs, and gradually declined until the fall of the empire. After the Greek invasion, it revived under the first kings of the Arsacid branch; Greek taste still exercising an influence over the Iranian provinces. How rapidly art degenerated to the most barbarous forms, the medals and monuments of the later Arsacids abundantly prove. When the Sassanians restored the old Persian monarchy, and endeavored to restore the ancient religion and ⚫ sacred ceremonies of the empire, art again appears to have received a momentary impulse. The coins, gems, and rock sculptures of the first kings of this dynasty, are distinguished by considerable elegance, and spirit of design, and beauty of form. But the decay was as rapid under them, as it had been under their predecessors. Even before the Khosraws raised the glory and power of the empire to its highest pitch, art was fast degenerating. By the time of Yezdigird, it had become. even more rude, and barbarous, than in the last days of the Arsacids.

This decline in art may be accounted for by supposing that, in the infancy of a people, or after the occurrence of any great event, having a very decided influence upon their manners, their religion, or their political state, nature was the chief, if not the only, object of study. When a certain proficiency had been attained, and no violent changes took place to shake the established order of things, the artist, instead of endeavoring