Israelite colony on the Euphrates, whence the prophet led his companions in exile to Jerusalem. If so, the Masca will correspond to the Ahava of Scripture. These ruins of Erzi were first noticed by Rauwolf in 1574, and Balbi in 1579, who, however, from the time which it occupied their boats in sailing round the insulated ruins, gave a very exaggerated idea of their magnitude and extent. Major Rennell admitted the coincidence of position and other circumstances of their ruins with the descriptions given of Corsote by Xenophon. On their road from Corsote to the Pyla (Пúλa) of Babylonia, they perceived a large and populous city situated on the other side of the Euphrates, called Charmande. Bochart (Chanaan 1. 18. 480), believes this city to be the same as the Chilmad of Scripture (Ezek. xxvii. 23). And from circumstances of position it would appear to correspond to the modern town of Hit, celebrated at present and in all antiquity under the various names of Is, Izanopolis, Ozogardana (Ammian. Lib. xxiv. c. 14), for its bitumen fountains, which were visited by Alexander, Trajan, and Severus. Zosimus (III. cap. 15), who writes it Zaragardia, speaks of the stone throne of Trajan as existing here: év ǹ Bîμa ὑψηλὸν, ἐκ λίθου πεποιημένον, ὃ Τραϊανοῦ καλεῖν εἰώθασιν οἱ ἐγχώριοι. The identity of places is not so well established here as in other places, because Xenophon does not indicate the exact distances; but we have the authority of Stephanus that Charmande was not far from the Pylæ. The Pyle of Babylonia which were attained after a journey of thirteen days march, or ninety parasangs, through the wilderness, express, apparently, that point where the rocky hills which characterize this part of the country, after the last contraction, recede from the banks of the river and leave a more level and open space to be occupied by the Anti-Babylonian alluvia, and the position of such site, which falls upon the map at a distance of sixty-nine miles south of Hit, and thirty-six miles north of Seïfarah, the ancient Sipphara, corresponds with the distances given by Xenophon as near as so great a distance of journey, effected by land, and along the right bank of the river, can be effectually compared with the navigation of the river, including its windings and the actual geographic space occupied, as determined by astronomical observation. There is a slight difference in the results obtained by comparing the distances entailed by the subsequent movements of the Greeks up to the time of the battle of Cunaxa, and the corrected distance of that spot from Babylon, which would amount, according to Xenophon, altogether to 108 geographic miles from the Pyle, while the river navigation of the Euphrates steamer gave a distance of only 102 geographic miles, thus making a difference of not more than six miles, which must be placed rather to the account of the journies from Corsote to the Pylæ, than to those from the Pyla to Cunaxa, both from the greater length and greater difficulties of the former. The correction thus made of six miles in a march of thirteen days through an irregular country, would place the Pylæ fourteen instead of eight miles north of Felújah, corresponding with the district in which the hilly country ceases, and the level alluvial plains of Babylonia commence, and four miles below which is the south-western termination of the Challu or Sidd Nimrud - the wall of Media or of Semiramis-and at the extremity of which is a mound of ruins, now called Seïfarah, and corresponding apparently to the Sipphara of Ptolemy, and the Sipparenorum Civitas of Abydenus. The millstones mentioned by Xenophon as occurring in these districts have been noticed in my Researches, &c. p. 82. Cyrus next proceeded through the country of Babylon, and after completing twelve parasangs in three days march, he reviewed his forces, both Greeks and barbarians, about midnight. The place at which this took place was 36 geographical miles beyond the Pylæ, and from the other data, 32 geographical miles south of the wall of Media, 36 miles north of Cunaxa, and 72 miles north of Babylon. From the field of review, Cyrus made in one day's march 3 parasangs, all his forces marching in order of battle, because he expected the king would fight that day; for in the middle of the march, and at a distance of 44 miles from the field of review, there was a trench cut 4 fathoms broad, and 3 deep; Kaтà yàp μéσov TÒV σταθμὸν τοῦτον τάφρος ἦν ὀρυκτὴ, βαθεῖα, τὸ μὲν εὖρος ὀργυιαὶ πέντε, τὸ δὲ βάθος ὀργυιαὶ τρεῖς. The distance marched from the wall of Media southward before arriving at this trench was 36 miles. The Pyle being 4 miles above Seïfarah at the south-western termination of the wall, and the place of review 36 miles below the gates, or 32 from Seïfarah, and the trench 44 beyond that. The point thus arrived at coincides with the position of the Nahr Melik, or royal canal, the chief of the Babylonian canals, and the trench is further described as extending from thence 36 miles upwards to the wall of Media; Παρετέτατο δὲ ἡ τάφρος ἄνω διὰ τοῦ πεδίου ἐπὶ δώδεκα παρασάγγας, μέχρι τοῦ Μηδίας τείχους, so that it would have come to within half a mile of the south-western extremity of that wall, as far as it has hitherto been traced near Seïfarah. And thus this trench, united on the one hand to the wall, on the other to the royal canal, would have completely separated the invaders from interior Babylonia, and hence the joy of Cyrus, who, on coming within the trench, sent for Silanus the soothsayer, and made him a handsome present. The statements made at this point by Xenophon regarding the existence, at this early period, of four great canals derived from the Tigris, and intersecting Babylonia, Ενθα δὴ εἰσὶν αἱ διώρυχες, ἀπὸ τοῦ Τίγρητος ποταμοῦ ῥέουσαι· εἰσι δὲ τέτταρες, and their identification with existing canals or beds of canals, and with the canals noticed by other ancient historians, is one which involves too much detail to allow of its discussion here; but a better acquaintance with the hydrographical features both of Babylonia and Chaldea, facilitates the explanation very much, but still not without our being obliged to admit an error on the part of the historian in regard to those canals which he did not see, and which intersected the plain south of the place where the battle of Cunaxa was fought. The day after Cyrus had passed the trench, the army no longer fearing an engagement, marched with less circumspection, and the third day Cyrus rode in his car, very few marching in the ranks, or observing order, when towards the middle of the same day news suddenly arrived of the appearance of the enemy. Considering the average amount of a day's march from what has preceded, and the irregular and uncertain nature of the last three days march, more than 3 parasangs or 9 geographical miles cannot be allowed for the total distance performed each day. It was the amount marched the day that the army proceeded to the trench in order of battle, and it is not likely to have been exceeded when each was loitering on, almost at his leisure. The distance, then, thus performed from a point 4 miles south of the trench, would amount to 27 miles, making a total of 72 miles from the Pylæ, and 68 from the wall of Media, leaving 36 miles to Babylon. In an after-part of his narrative, Xenophon is made to say, in most of the printed editions (II. 2. §6), that the field of Cunaxa was situated 3060 stadia from Babylon, which would carry the field of battle north of the Khabur, and must therefore be a mistake. We are indebted to the industry of Larcher for clearing up this difficult point. This scholar's researches on the sub ject were followed by the successful discovery, that in several copies of Xenophon in the king of France's library, the amount given is only 360 stadia, and this has since been corroborated by the reading of a manuscript copy of the text preserved at Eton. It is to Plutarch, in his Life of Artaxerxes, that we are indebted for the name of the place Cunaxa, and he lends additional testimony to the brevity of the distance from Babylon, by making that distance 500 stadia. It is remarkable, that by following this line of reasoning and adaptation of marches which we have made, to the distances obtained by the river navigation, that Cunaxa falls within 33 miles of the Mujalibah, and 36 geographical miles, or 360 stadia from Hillah, and would thus appear to be represented by the modern Imseyab, or Musseïbah, a small Arab town on the Euphrates. And this view of the question will be further elucidated by the detail of the occurrences which took place after the death of Cyrus, and the retreat of the army to Sitace by the wall of Media. W. FRANCIS AINSWORTH. XIV. CERTAIN POINTS IN THE CHRONOLOGY OF HERODOTUS, ILLUSTRATED, FROM NIEBUHR (KLEINE SCHRIFTEN, pp. 196-200), AND DAHLMANN'S HERODOT. (FORSCHUNGEN AUF DEM GEBIETE DER GESCHICHTE, 11. 1.) IN Niebuhr's Essay on the Chronicon of Eusebius (K7. Schr. p. 196, sqq.) we have the following remarks:-Herodotus says, in a well-known passage (11. 145), that Hercules was about 900 years before his time. By what reckoning? Not by the genealogy of the kings of Sparta, for this numbered only some one and twenty generations back to Hercules,—that is, by his own rule, 700 years. But with Herodotus not only the heroic families of Greece are Heracleids, but the Assyrian kings and the elder Lydian dynasty too (1. 7): for we cannot distinguish Belus and Ninus, the grandfather and the father of Agron, from the Assyrian kings so named: such a genealogy simply indicates that this Lydian dynasty came from Assyria. These Heracleids reigned in Lydia 505 Mermuadae 170 years, ending Ol. 58. 1. years: after them the Thence to the 90th Olympiad, which is probably the date of which Herodotus speaks as the present time, are 128 years. Add 100 years for the three generations from Hercules to Agron, and we have in all 903 years. Now let us reckon the periods of the Assyrian history: Two generations between Hercules and Ninus........ Four kings of Media (i. 130)........ Total, exclusive of the Anarchy Remains for the Anarchy, 900-876, = 66 520 150 20 120 876 24 years From Ninus to the taking of Babylon (exclusive of this anarchy) are 690 years. Now, taking the years of the Niniadae from Berosus at 526, adding 103 (Nabonassar's dynasty) to Nabopolassar, and 87 from thence to the taking of Babylon, we obtain 716 years for the same period, inclusive of the anarchy: and thus again we get 26 years for it, within 2 years of the former reckoning. And a short space-not more than a generation— seems the probable one to allow. The passage in Herod. 1. 130, ἄρξαντες τῆς ἄνω ̓Ασίης ἐπ ̓ ἔτεα τριήκοντα καὶ ἑκατὸν δυῷν δέοντα, παρὲξ ἢ ὅσον οἱ Σκύθαι ἦρχον, is very difficult; witness the interpretations of Conring, Harduin, Bouhier, and Valckenaer. All the MSS. give the sum of the four reigns as 150 years, and all, in two places, make the Scythian power 28 years. Valckenaer's explanation (with all respect to that great man) seems the greatest failure of all'. It is quite against the author's meaning to say that these 28 years were not included in the 40 of Cyaxares; and granting that the Median empire did not exist in the lifetime of Deïoces, still it is unjustifiable to fix it in the 2nd year of Phraortes, for no other reason than that the 100 years are thus brought out. And besides, if this were so, how could Herodotus express this by saying that the Medes had the empire 100 years? [1 Valckenaer remarks that the empire did not exist in the time of Deïoces (who reigned 53 years): Phraortes conquered, first the Persians, and then all Asia; say in his 2nd year. He reigned (22 years in all) say.. Cyaxares reigned (exclusive of the Scythian invasion). Scythian invasion.... Astyages reigned (35, λé, but Valck. reads \0') 21 40 28 39 128] |