These words of Plutarch were applicable to the Parthenon little more than a century ago, and would still have been so, if it had not found enemies in the successive bigotry of contending religions, in the destruction of war, and the plundering mania of artists and amateurs.
The high preservation of those parts, which are still suffered to remain, is truly astonishing! The columns are so little broken, that were it not for the venerable reality of age, they would almost appear of recent construction.
These observations naturally carry us back to the period in which the Parthenon was built. That which was the chief delight of the Athenians, and the wonder of strangers, was the magnificence of their edifices; yet no part of the conduct of Pericles moved the spleen of his adversaries more than this. They insisted that he had brought the greatest disgrace upon the Athenians, by removing the treasures of Greece from Delos, and taking them into his own custody; that he had not left himself even the specious apology of having caused the money to be brought to Athens for its greater security, and to keep it from being seized by the Barbarians; that Greece would consider such an attempt as a manifest tyranny; that the sums they had received from them, upon pretence of their being employed in the war, were laid out by the Athenians in gilding and embellishing their city, in making magnificent statues, and raising temples that cost millions. Nor did they amplify in the matter; for the Parthenon alone cost 145,000. Pericles,[84] on the contrary, remonstrated to the Athenians, that they were not obliged to give the allies an account of the money they had received; that it was enough they defended them from the Barbarians, whilst the allies furnished neither soldiers, horses, nor ships. He added, that as the Athenians were sufficiently provided with all things necessary for war, it was but just that they should employ the rest of their riches in edifices and other works, which, when finished, would give immortal glory to their city, and the whole time they were carrying on give bread to an infinite number of citizens: that they themselves had all kinds of materials, as timber, stone, brass, ivory, gold, ebony, and cypress wood; and all sorts of artificers capable of working them, as carpenters, masons, smiths, stone-cutters, dyers, goldsmiths; artificers in ebony, painters, embroiderers, and turners; men fit to conduct their naval affairs, as merchants, sailors, and experienced pilots; others for land carriage, as cartwrights, waggoners, carters, rope-makers, paviors, &c. &c.: that it was for the advantage of the state to employ these different artificers and workmen, who, as so many separate bodies, formed, when united, a kind of peaceable and domestic army, whose different functions and employments diffused gain and increase throughout all ages and sexes: lastly, that, whilst men of robust bodies, and of an age fit to bear arms, whether soldiers or mariners, and those who were in the different garrisons, were supported with the public moneys, it was but just that the rest of the people who lived in the city should also be maintained in their way: and that as all were members of the same republic, they should all reap the same advantages, by doing it services, which, though of a different kind, did, however, all contribute to its security or ornament. One day as the debaters were growing warm, Pericles offered to defray the expense of all these things, provided it should be declared in the public inscriptions, that he only had been at the charge of them.
At these words, the people, either admiring his magnanimity, or fired with emulation, and determined not to let him engross that glory, cried, with one voice, that he might take out of the public treasury all the sums that were necessary for his purpose.
Historians expatiate greatly on the magnificent edifices and other works; but it is not easy to say whether the complaints and murmurs raised against him were ill-founded or not. According to Cicero, such edifices and other works only are worthy of admiration as are of use to the public, as aqueducts, city walls, citadels, arsenals, sea-ports; and to these must be added the work, made by Pericles, to join Athens to the port of Piraeus.
Mons. de La Martine speaks of the only two figures that now adorn the Parthenon thus:--"At the Parthenon there remain only the two figures of Mars and Venus, half crushed by two enormous fragments of cornice, which have glided over their heads; but these two figures are to me worth more than all I have seen in sculpture in my life. They live as no other canvas or marble has ever lived. One feels that the chisel of Phidias trembled, burned in his hand, when these sublime figures started into being under his fingers."
The following observations in regard to colour are by Mr.
Williams:--"The Parthenon, in its present corroded state, impresses the mind with the idea of its thousands of years. The purity of marble has disappeared; but still the eye is charmed with the varied livery of time. The western front is rich in golden hues, and seems as if it had absorbed the evening beams[85]; little white appears, except the tympanum and part of the entablature. But the brightest orange colour, and grey and sulphury hues, combine in sweetest harmony. The noble shafts of the huge columns are uniformly toned with yellow, of a brownish cast, admitting here and there a little grey. Casting the eye to the inner cell, we see dark hues of olive mixed with various tints, adorning the existing frieze and pillars; and these, opposed to brilliant white, afford a point and power of expression, which never fails to please."
Sir J. C. Hobhouse says, Lord Elgin's injuries were these; the taking off the metopes, the statue over the theatre of Bacchus, and the statues of the west pediment of the Parthenon; and the carrying away one of the Caryatides, and the finest of the columns of the Erectheum. "No other,"
continues Sir John, "comes, I believe, within the limits of censure--no other marbles were detached."
The monuments, now called the Elgin marbles, were chiefly obtained from the Erectheum, the Propylaea, and the Parthenon, more especially the last. We must here give room to the observations, vindicative of this proceeding:--"Perhaps one of the most judicious measures of government, with reference to the advancement of the arts in this country, was the purchase of these remains. We may go farther, and add, that the removal of them from Athens, where their destruction was daily going forward, to place them where their merits would be appreciated, and their decay suspended, was not only a justifiable act, but one which deserves the gratitude of England and of the civilised world. The decay of the Athenian monuments may be attributed to various causes. 'Fire and the barbarian' have both done their work. Athens has seen many masters. The Romans were too refined to destroy the monuments of art: but the Goths had a long period of spoliation; and then came the Turks, at once proud and ignorant, despising what they could not understand. The Acropolis became a garrison in their hands, and thus, in 1687, it was bombarded by the Venetians, whose heavy guns were directed against the porticoes and colonnades of the ancient temples. But the Turks still continued to hold their conquests; and the business of demolition went steadily on for another century and a half. Many travellers who visited Athens about a hundred years ago, and even much later, describe monuments of sculpture which now have no existence. The Turks pounded the marble into dust to make lime; one traveller after another continued to remove a fragment.
The museums of Egypt were successively adorned with these relics; at last, when, as column after column fell, the remains of Athens were becoming less and less worthy of notice, covered in the dust, or carted away to be broken up for building, Lord Elgin, who had been ambassador at Constantinople in 1799, obtained, in 1801, an authority from the Turkish government, called a firmaun, which eventually enabled the British nation to possess the most valuable of the sculptures of which any portion was left. The authority thus granted empowered Lord Elgin to fix scaffolding around the ancient temple of the Idols 'to mould the ornamental and visible figures thereon in plaster and gypsum;' and, subsequently, 'to take away any pieces of stone with old inscriptions or figures thereon.' For several years the intentions of Lord Elgin were carried into effect at his private risk, and at a cost which is stated to have amounted to 74,000_l_, including the interest of money. In 1816, the entire collection was purchased of Lord Elgin by act of parliament for 35,000_l._ It is unnecessary for us to go into the controversy, whether it was just to remove these relics from their original seats.
Had the Greeks been able to preserve them, there can be no doubt of the injustice of such an act. The probability is, that if foreign governments had not done what Lord Elgin did as an individual, there would not have been a fragment left at this day to exhibit the grandeur of the Grecian art as practised by Phidias. The British nation, by the purchase of these monuments, has secured a possession of inestimable value[86]."
From these observations, it would appear that the spoliation of the Parthenon may be vindicated on the ground, that neither the Turks nor the citizens cared any thing about them, and that if they had not been taken away, they would, in a short time, have been destroyed.
Respectable testimony, however, is opposed to this: most travellers have inveighed against the spoliation; and two, highly qualified, have given a very different account from what the above statement implies. These are Dr. Clarke and Mr. Dodwell. We shall select the testimony of the latter in preference to that of Dr. Clarke, only because he was at Athens at the very time in which the spoliation was going on. "During my first tour to Greece," says he, "I had the inexpressible mortification of being present when the Parthenon was despoiled of its finest sculpture, and when some of its architectural members were thrown to the ground." * * * "It is, indeed, impossible to suppress the feelings of regret which must arise in the breast of every traveller, who has seen these temples before and since their late dilapidation! Nor have I any hesitation in declaring, that the Athenians in general, nay, even the Turks themselves, did lament the ruin that was committed; and loudly and openly blamed their sovereign for the permission he had granted! I was on the spot at the time, and had an opportunity of observing, and, indeed, of participating, in the sentiment of indignation, which such conduct universally inspired. The whole proceeding was so unpopular in Athens, that it was necessary to pay the labourers more than their usual profits, before any one could be prevailed upon to assist in this work of profanation."
"Such rapacity is a crime against all ages and all generations," says Mr. Eustace; "it deprives the past of the trophies of their genius and the title-deeds of their fame; the present of the strongest inducements to exertion, the noblest exhibitions that curiosity can contemplate; and the future of the master-pieces of art, the models of imitation. To guard against the repetition of such depredations is the wish of every man of genius, the duty of every man in power, and the common interest of every civilised nation."
"That the Elgin marbles will contribute to the improvement of art in England," says Mr. Williams, "cannot be doubted. They must, certainly, open the eyes of the British artists, and prove that the true and only road to simplicity and beauty is the study of nature. But had we a right to diminish the interest of Athens for selfish motives, and prevent successive generations of other nations from seeing those admirable structures? The temple of Minerva was spared as a beacon to the world, to direct it to the knowledge of purity and of taste. What can we say to the disappointed traveller, who is now deprived of the rich satisfaction that would have compensated his travel and his toil? It will be little consolation to him to say, he may find the sculpture of the Parthenon in England[87]."
NO. XVII.--BABYLON.
Babylon and Nineveh appear to have resembled each other, not only in form but in extent and population. Quintus Curtius asserts, that Babylon owed its origin to Semiramis. In the Bible, however, it having been stated, that one of the chief cities of Nimrod was Babel; many authors have given into the idea, that Babylon was built by Nimrod. If we attend strictly to the words of Moses, however, we shall find that to have been an impossible circumstance.
Moses states, that Nimrod had four large cities[88]. Those were Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneth. Nimrod was a descendant of Ham; but the temple of Babel, on the establishment of which depends the origin of Babylon, was built by the descendants of Shem:--at least, we have the right to believe so; for Moses mentions the descendants of Shem last, and then goes on to say:--"The whole earth was of one language and of one speech: and it came to pass, as they journeyed from the East, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there."
When they had dwelt there some time, they said to one another, "Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar." This was the first of the subsequent town. They had not yet aspired to any particular distinction.
At length they said to themselves, "Let us build a city and a tower; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth." They were interrupted in their design, and "they left off building the city." There is, however, no account of its having been destroyed; nor any in regard to the destruction of the temple. The people, however, were scattered[89].
This city was, subsequently, called Babel; and the temple of Belus being the oldest temple recorded in history, it has been generally supposed, that it was no other than the tower, the family of Shem had endeavoured to build. This, however, is far from being certain; for Josephus, who, in this case is not without his weight, relates that the tower was thrown down by an impetuous wind or violent hurricane; and that it never was rebuilt.
The fact is, that the real origin of Babylon is lost in the depth of history; and all that can be stated, with any degree of certainty, is, that Nineveh and Babylon were founded much about the same time, and that Ninus, Semiramis, Ninyas, and Sardanapalus were sovereigns, though not during their whole lives, of both cities. This appears to us to be the only way in which we can understand the history of the first Assyrian empire.
We have no space to enter into the particular history of this most celebrated of all cities; neither does the plan of our work admit of it: our province only being to record its origin, to describe its ancient state, to give an account of its destruction, and then describe, from the pages of authentic travellers, the ruins which still remain.
Having given some account of its origin, we proceed to describe the height to which it was exalted. "The Assyrians," says Herodotus, "are masters of many capital towns; but their place of greatest strength and fame is Babylon[90]; where, after the destruction of Nineveh, was the royal residence. It is situated on a large plain, and is a perfect square; each side, by every approach is, in length, one hundred and twenty furlongs; the space, therefore, occupied by the whole, is four hundred and eighty furlongs: so extensive is the ground which Babylon occupies. Its internal beauty and magnificence exceeds whatever has come within my knowledge. It is surrounded by a trench, very wide, deep, and full of water; the wall beyond this is two hundred royal cubits high[91], and fifty wide; the royal exceeds the common cubit by three digits[92]." "It will not be foreign to my purpose," continues the historian, "to describe the use to which the earth dug out of the trench was converted, as well as the particular manner in which they constructed the wall. The earth of the trench was first of all laid in heaps, and when a sufficient quantity was obtained, made into square bricks, and baked in a furnace. They used, as cement, a composition of heated bitumen, which, mixed with the tops of reeds, was placed between every thirtieth course of bricks. Having thus lined the sides of the trench, they proceeded to build the wall in a similar manner; on the summit of which, and fronting each other, they erected small watchtowers of one story, leaving a space betwixt them, through which a chariot and four horses might pass and turn. In the circumference of the wall, at different distances, were a hundred massy gates of brass[93], whose hinges and frames were of the same metal. Within eight days' journey from Babylon is a city called Is, near which flows a river of the same name, which empties itself into the Euphrates. With the current of this river, particles of bitumen descend towards Babylon, by means of which its walls are constructed. The great river Euphrates, which, with its deep and rapid streams, rises in the Armenian mountains, and pours itself into the Red Sea[94], divides Babylon into two parts. The walls meet and form an angle at the river at each extremity of the town, where a breast-work of burnt bricks begins, and is continued along each bank.
The city, which abounds in houses from three to four stories in height, is regularly divided into streets. Through these, which are parallel, there are transverse avenues to the river opened through the wall and breast-work, and secured by an equal number of little gates of brass."
The historian then proceeds to describe the fortifications and the temple of Belus. "The first wall is regularly fortified; the interior one, though less in substance, is of about equal strength. Besides these, in the centre of each division of the city, there is a circular space surrounded by a wall. In one of these stands the royal palace, which fills a large and strongly-defended place. The temple of Jupiter Belus[95] occupies the other, whose huge gates of brass may still be seen. It is a square building, each side of which is of the length of two furlongs. In the midst, a tower rises of the solid depth and height of one furlong, upon which, resting as a base, seven other turrets are built in regular succession. The ascent is on the outside; which, winding from the ground, is continued to the highest tower; and in the middle of the whole structure there is a convenient resting-place. In the last tower is a large chapel, in which is placed a couch magnificently adorned, and near it a table of solid gold; but there is no statue in the place." Herodotus, however, states, that in another part of the temple there was a statue of Jupiter, in a sitting posture, with a large table before him; and that these, with the base of the table and the seat of the throne, were all of the purest gold, and were estimated in his time, by the Chaldeans, at not less than eight hundred talents.
We may here give place to a passage in a modern poem, highly descriptive of its ancient state.
Those walls, within Whose large inclosure the rude hind, or guides His plough, or binds his sheaves, while shepherds guard Their flocks, scure of ill: on the broad top Six chariots rattled in extended front.
For there, since Cyrus on the neighbouring plain, Has marked his camp, th' enclosed Assyrian drives His foaming steeds, and from the giddy height Looks down with scorn on all the tents below.
Each side in length, in height, in solid bulk, Reflects its opposite; a perfect square; Scarce sixty thousand paces can mete out The vast circumference. An hundred gates Of polished brass lead to that central point, Where through the midst, bridged o'er with wondrous art, Euphrates leads a navigable stream, Branch'd from the current of his roaring flood.
DR. ROBERTS, _Judah Restored_.
Thus we find the walls to have extended to a vast circumference--from forty-eight to sixty miles; but we are not to suppose them to have been entirely filled up with houses;[96] but, as in the old city of Moscow, to have been in no small part taken up with gardens and other cultivated lands.
In regard to the size of some ancient Eastern cities, Mr. Franklin has made some very pertinent remarks, in his inquiry concerning the site of the ancient Palibothra:--"For the extent of the city and suburbs of Palibothra, from seventy-five to eighty miles have been assigned by the Puranas; a distance, said to be impossible for the space occupied by a single city. So, indeed, it might, were we to compare the cities of Asia with those of Europe. The idea of lofty houses of brick and stone, consisting of many stories, with a number of inhabitants, like those of London, Paris, Vienna, and many others, must not be compared with the nature of the Asiatic cities. To look in them for regularly-built squares, and spacious and paved streets, would be absurd."
Herodotus gives the extent of the walls of Babylon at one hundred and twenty stades on each side, or four hundred and eighty stades in circumference. Diodorus three hundred and sixty stades in circumference.
Clitarchus, who accompanied Alexander, three hundred and sixty-five.
Curtius states it at three hundred and sixty-eight; and Strabo at three hundred and eighty-five stades. The general approximation of these measurements would lead us to suppose that the same stade was used by the different reporters; and if this was the Greek itinerary stade, we may estimate the circumference of the great city at twenty-five British miles[97]. "The lines, drawn on maps, are often only used to divide distant mounds of ruin. Accumulations of pottery and brickwork are met with occasionally over a great tract; but the connection, supposed between these and the corn-fields and gardens, within the common precincts of a wall, is gratuitous in the extreme. Imagine London and Paris to be levelled, and the inhabitant of some future city to visit their ruins, as those of then remote antiquity; if, in the one instance, Sevres, Mont Rouge, and Vincennes, or, in the other, Greenwich, Stratford-le-Bow, Tottenham, Highgate, Hammersmith, Richmond, and Clapham, be taken in as boundaries, or identified respectively as the ruins of Paris and London, what a prodigious extent would those cities gain in the eyes of futurity[98]!"
Babylon, as we have already stated, stood upon the Euphrates, as Nineveh did upon the Tigris. A branch of it ran entirely through the city from north to south; and on each side was a quay, walled towards the river, of the same thickness as the city walls. In these, also, were gates of brass, from which persons descended to the water by steps; whence, for a long time, they crossed to the other side in boats; that is, until the building of a bridge. These gates were open always in the day, but shut at night. A bridge was at length erected; and this bridge was equally celebrated with the other great buildings; for it was of vast size; but Diodorus would seem to make it to have been much larger than it really was. He says it was five furlongs in length. Now as the Euphrates, at the spot, was only one furlong wide, this would be impossible; so we suppose that there must have been a causeway on each side of the bridge; and that Diodorus included the two causeways, which were, probably, merely dry arches, as we find in a multitude of modern bridges. It was, nevertheless, thirty feet in breadth, and built with great skill. The arches were of hewn stone, fastened together with chains of iron and melted lead. To effect the building with the greater care and safety, they turned the course of the river[99], and laid the channel dry. While one part of the workmen were doing this, others were shaping the materials for the quays, so that all were finished at the same time.
During a certain portion of the year (viz., June, July, and August) the Euphrates overflows its banks, as the Nile does in Egypt, the Ganges in India, and the Amazon in South America. To remedy the manifold inconveniences arising from this, two large canals were cut to divert the superabundant waters into the Tigris, before they could reach Babylon[100]; and to secure the neighbouring country still the better, they raised artificial banks,--as the Dutch have done in Holland,--of a vast size, on both sides the river; not built, however, of earth, as in Holland, but of brick cemented with bitumen, which began at the head of the canals, and extended for some distance below the city. To effect all this, the Euphrates, which had been turned one way, in order to build the bridge, was turned another to build the banks. To this end they dug a vast lake, forty miles square, and one hundred and sixty in compass, and thirty-five feet deep. Into this lake the river was diverted, till the banks were finished; after which it was re-diverted into the former channel. The lake was, however, still preserved as a reservoir[101].
Perhaps some of our readers may be curious to know how long it would take to fill this lake up. It is thus stated in the Edinburgh Review[102]:--"Taking it at the lowest dimensions of a square of forty miles, by thirty feet deep; and supposing the Euphrates to be five hundred feet wide, ten deep, and to flow at the rate of two miles an hour, it would require one thousand and fifty-six days to fill the lake, allowing no absorption to the sides; but if absorption and evaporation are taken into the account, we may put the time at four years, or thereabouts; which, no doubt, would be sufficient, considering the number of hands employed, to complete the embankment[103]."
This lake, the bridge, and the quays of the river are ascribed to Nitocris, by Herodotus; but most of the other wonders of Babylon are ascribed by Josephus to Nebuchadnezzar, her father-in-law. "Perhaps,"
says one of the historians, "Nitocris might only finish what her father had left imperfect at his death, on which account the historian might give her the honour of the whole undertaking."
We are now called upon to describe other wonders. These are the palaces and hanging gardens. At each end of the bridge stood a palace; and those two palaces had a communication each with the other by means of a passage under the bed of the river, vaulted at the time in which it was laid dry[104]. The _old_ palace, which stood on the east side of the river, was three miles and three quarters in compass. It stood near the temple of Belus. The _new_ palace stood on the west side. It was much larger than the old one; being seven miles and a half in compass[105].
It was surrounded with three walls, one within the other, with considerable spaces between; and these, with those at the other palace, were embellished with an infinite variety of sculptures, representing all kinds of animals to the life; amongst which was one more celebrated than all the rest. This was a hunting piece, representing Semiramis on horseback throwing a javelin; and Ninus, her husband, piercing a lion.
Near the old palace stood a vast structure, known from all antiquity, and celebrated in every age as the most wonderful structure ever yet built; viz., the temple of Belus. We have given some account of it from Herodotus already. A tower of vast size stood in the middle of it. At its foundation it was a square of a furlong on each side; that is, half a mile in its whole compass, and the eighth part of a mile in height. It consisted of eight towers, built one above another, gradually decreasing in size to the top. Its height exceeded that of the largest of the pyramids[106]. It was built of bricks and bitumen. The ascent to the top was on the outside, by means of stairs, winding, in a spiral line, eight times round the tower from the bottom to the top. There were many large rooms in the different stories, with arched roofs, supported by pillars.
On the top was an observatory, the Babylonians having been more celebrated than any other people of ancient times for their knowledge of astronomy[107].
Notwithstanding the opinions of many, that this tower was built expressly for astronomical purposes, it appears certain that it was used as a temple also; for the riches of it were immense; consisting of statues, tables, censers, cups, and other sacred vessels, all of massy gold. Among these was a statue, weighing a thousand talents of Babylon, forty feet high. Indeed, so rich was this temple, that Diodorus does not hesitate to value all it contained at not less than six thousand three hundred Babylonian talents of gold; which implies a sum equivalent to twenty-one millions of pounds sterling! Surely some error must have crept into the MS.
This temple stood till the time of Xerxes. On the return of that prince from Greece he plundered it; and then caused it to be entirely demolished. When Alexander returned from India, he formed the design of rebuilding it upon the ancient plan; and probably, had he lived, he would have accomplished his wish. Ten thousand men were put to work to clear away the rubbish; but he died in the midst of his preparation.
Many of the chief erections in this city were planned and executed by Semiramis. When she had finished them, she made a progress through the various divisions of her empire; and wherever she went left monuments of her magnificence, by many noble structures, which she erected, either for the convenience or the ornament of her cities[108]. She was the best political economist of ancient times, and may truly be styled the first utilitarian: for she applied herself to the formation of causeways, the improvement of roads, the cutting through mountains, and the filling up valleys. She applied herself, also, most particularly, to the forming of aqueducts, in order that water might be conveyed to such places as wanted it: in hot climates desiderata of the first importance.
Valerius Maximus[109] records a circumstance of her, which paints the influence she possessed over her people in a very striking manner. One day, as she was dressing herself, word was brought that a tumult was raging in the city. Without waiting to dress herself, she hurried from her palace with her head half dressed, and did not return till the disturbance was entirely appeased[110].
We now pass on to the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, because the accomplishment of that dream is connected with the splendid state of Babylon in the time of its glory. This dream was, that[111] "he saw a tree in the midst of the earth, whose height was great: the tree grew, and was strong, and the height of it reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of the earth. The leaves were fair, and the fruit much; and in it was meat for all: the beasts of the field had shadow under it, and the fowls of heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof, and all flesh was fed of it. I saw the visions of my head on the bed, and, behold, a watcher, and an holy one, came down from heaven; he cried aloud, and said thus:--'Hew down the tree, and cut off his branches, shake off his leaves, and scatter his fruit; let the beasts get away from under it, and the fowls from his branches. Nevertheless, leave the stump of his roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beasts in the grass of the earth. Let his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given to him. This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand of the word of the holy ones, to the intent that the living may know, that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.'"
This dream was expounded by Daniel. "Let the dream be to them, O king, that hate thee; and the interpretation thereof to thine enemies." The prophet then declared, "that the king should be driven from the company of men for seven years; should be reduced to the fellowship of the beasts of the field, and feed upon grass like oxen; that his kingdom should, nevertheless, be preserved for him, and he should repossess his throne, when he should have learnt to know and acknowledge, that all power is from above, and cometh from heaven."
At the end of twelve months, as Nebuchadnezzar was walking in his palace, and admiring the beauty and magnificence of his buildings, he became so elated at the sight of the structures he had erected, that he exclaimed--"Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?" In an instant, a voice came from heaven declaratory of his fate, and his understanding was taken from him. He was driven from men, and did eat grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws.
At the expiration of seven years he recovered his intellectual powers.
He was restored to his throne, and became more powerful than he had been before. At this period he is supposed to have built the hanging gardens, which have been so celebrated in every age. Amytis, his wife, having been bred in Media,--for she was the daughter of Astyages, king of that country,--had been much taken with the mountains and woody parts of her native country, and therefore desired to have something like it at Babylon. To gratify this passion, the king, her husband, raised the hanging gardens. Diodorus, however, ascribes them to Cyrus; and states that he built them to gratify a courtezan.