but a small part of Babylon remained inhabited ; the greater part of the tract within the walls being turned into fields: but this does not agree with Strabo; and it is probable that Diodorus might not have been aware, how much of the area remained in the state of fields, from the beginning.

The history of the subsequent decline of Babylon, we are not acquainted with. Whilst the walls remained, it became (according to St. Jerome) a park, in which the Parthian kings took the diversion of hunting. This appropriation might, perhaps, preserve the walls to a later period, than in the usual course of things they would have remained. After that, it is probable, that as the walls decayed by time, depredations were also made on them; and their materials gradually removed to build houses, and cities, and even palaces, in other situations.

The palace of Chosroes (Tauk Kesra) is supposed to have been built about the time of Justinian, and of Babylonish bricks and as Babylon had

Tauk Kesra is a vast building, of nearly 300 feet in length in front, by 160 in depth; having in the centre a vaulted hall, which is between 90 and 100 feet in height, to the top of the arch, whose span is more than 80. Its walls are of a degree of strength fully proportioned to the weight of the superstructure; the piers of the vault being about 25 feet in thickness, and the front wall 19. It is void of elegance, and gives the idea of a barbarous imitation of Grecian architecture. Mr. Ives has given a drawing and description of it in his Voyage (p. 288): and Mr. Irwin (vol. ii. p. 351), who also speaks of the building, says, that the drawing is just in every respect, save that the arch is not flat enough; for the drawing makes it semicircular. M. Beauchamp is very particular in his description of it (see

declined so much before the foundation of Ctesiphon, it is probable that the latter was built of the same bricks also. At the date of the foundation of Bagdad (A.D. 762), it is probable that Babylon was so totally gone to decay as to furnish bricks for the new city generally. And this is the idea of Della Valle, to whom the bricks in question were familiar. Hillah is allowed by all to have been built of these bricks and, in effect, it stands on a part of the very site of ancient Babylon.

It must not be omitted, that Herodotus states, that Darius Hystaspes, on the taking of Babylon by the stratagem of Zopyrus, " levelled the walls, and took away the gates; neither of which Cyrus had done before." Thalia, 159. But let it be remarked, that Darius lived about a century and half before Alexander; in whose time the walls appear to have been in their original state; or at least, nothing is said that implies the contrary. And it cannot be believed that if Darius had even taken the trouble to level 34 miles of so prodigious a rampart as that of Babylon, that ever it would have been rebuilt, in the manner described by Ctesias, Clitarchus, and others, who describe it at a much later period. Besides, it

would have been quite unnecessary to level more than a part of the wall, in order to lay the place open and in this way, probably, the historian ought to be understood.

European Magazine, 1792). D'Herbelot refers its foundation to Chosroes I. called also Nouschirwan, in the sixth century of our era. (Article Nouschirwan). He is called by the Arabs Kesra; whence Tauk Kesra, or the throne (or palace) of Kesra.

Should the antiquities of Babylon become an object of curiosity amongst the learned, there is little doubt but that it might be abundantly gratified, if researches were diligently pursued for that purpose. The position and extent of the city walls might probably be ascertained, even at this day; as, no doubt, both the rampart and ditch must have left visible traces, although inundations may have raised the general level of the country itself. The delineation and description of the site and remains would prove one of the most curious pieces of antiquity that has been exhibited in these times.

SECTION XV.

CONCERNING

THE

DISPOSAL OF THE TEN TRIBES OF

THE JEWS, WHICH WERE CARRIED INTO CAPTIVITY,

TO NINEVEH: COMMONLY CALLED THE FIRST CAP

TIVITY.

The Ten Tribes carried first to Nineveh, and then distributed in Media-The Afghans, by some, taken for these Tribes-Captivity of the Syrians of Damascus, who were carried to Kir, or Assyria-Captivity of the Two Tribes and half; and of the Remainder of the Ten Tribes-Conjecture respecting the Cities of Media, in which they were placed: Habor and Halah, (or Chabor and Chalacho) by the River Gozan; and other Cities of the Medes-Abhar taken for Habor; Halah (or Chalacho), for Chalcal; Kizil-Ozan, for the Gozan-Jews placed also in Rages and Ecbatana, according to Tobit-Tombs of Esther and Daniel-Ispahan, originally a Jewish city-The Circumstances of the FIRST CAPTIVITY wanting-Improbability of the Removal of the whole Nation of ISRAEL: from the greatness of their Numbers-those Numbers probably erroneous in the copies of the Scriptures; with the supposed foundation of that Error-Circumstances of the SECOND Captivity adduced, and applied to the FIRST, as a parallel case-Only certain Classes of the Judeans were removed: the body of the People remained-History of Tobit, throws much light on the Distribution and Settlement of the Jews in Media-Jews employed in Stations of Trust and Confidence by their new Masters-Permanency of Eastern Customs exemplified-The Policy of PETER the Great of Russia, in the Distribution of the Swedish

Captives, similar to that of the King of Assyria-Great Numbers of Jews found in Babylonia in aftertimes-Observations of Diodorus Siculus respecting the Jews.

THE ten tribes of ISRAEL, or rather those amongst them, who were carried into captivity by the king of ASSYRIA, first to Nineveh, and afterwards distributed among the cities of MEDIA, have been sought after, without success, in almost every age. Some of the Asiatics have taken the AFGHAN nation for these expatriated Jews; either from a general resemblance of feature between them, or from prevailing traditions. But surely, the whole nation of Israel itself could not have been removed from Palestine into Assyria and Media: nor can it reasonably be supposed, that more than certain classes of persons, and those the least numerous, were thus transplanted; from the obvious difficulty attending the removal of so great a body of people.

It happens, unluckily, that the particular circumstances of the FIRST captivity (that is, of the TEN TRIBES) are not given, like those of the LAST (JUDAH and BENJAMIN); but if the inferences that may obviously be drawn from the history of the latter, may be allowed to apply to the former, they are clearly in favour of the above supposition. And since no detail of facts is given concerning the first captivity, it may perhaps be allowable to apply those which arise on what may be deemed a similar case.

There are several notices of a general kind, concerning the transplanting of the Israelites, from their own country to that of Assyria, &c. in the books of Ll

VOL. I.