it rests mainly on hypothesis; nor is complete confidence placed in the
surveys on which the maps and plans have been constructed. The English
surveys, which have been unfortunately lost, are said not to have placed
the detached mounds in any such decided lines as M. Oppert believes them
to occupy, and the general impression of the British officers who were
employed on the service is that "no vestige of the walls of Babylon has
been as yet discovered." [PLATE XI.]


[Illustration: PLATE XI.]


For the size and plan of the city we are thus of necessity thrown back
upon the reports of ancient authors. It is not pretended that such
reports are in this, or in any other case, deserving of implicit
credence. The ancient historians, even the more trustworthy of them, are
in the habit of exaggerating in their numbers; and on such subjects as
measurements they were apt to take on trust the declarations of their
native guides, who would be sure to make over-statements. Still in
this instance we have so many distinct authorities--eyewitnesses of the
facts--and some of them belonging to times when scientific accuracy had
begun to be appreciated, that we must be very in credulous if we do not
accept their witness, so far as it is consentient, and not intrinsically
very improbable.

According to Herodotus, an eye-witness, and the earliest authority on
the subject the _enceinte_ of Babylon was a square, 120 stades (about 14
miles) each way--the entire circuit of the wall being thus 56 miles, and
the area enclosed within them falling little short of 200 square miles.
Ctesias, also an eyewitness, and the next writer on the subject, reduced