468

4

DESPOTIC POWER OF THE KING.

APP. BOOK III.

tation may have been placed upon the authority of a weak and timid king by the grandees of his court, pleading the inviolability of Persian law, it is certain that a sovereign of any energy of character could set himself up above all legal restraints, and follow to the fullest extent the dictates of his own caprice. The answer of the royal judges to Cambyses sets this matter in its true light, and shows clearly that the power of the kings was absolutely without limit. The judges "found a law that the Persian king might do whatever he pleased.' Such a principle would cover any and every transgression of all rules, religious or other, which might be supposed to have a universal obligation. Accordingly we find the Achæmenian monarchs not only tyrannising at will over the persons of their subjects, but trampling whenever it pleases them upon the most sacred religious ordinances. No class is secure from their oppression, no privilege beyond their control, no law safe from their infraction." Like other despots they are liable to the last resort of the oppressed-assassination; but so long as they live, their word is law, and their will without check or hindrance.

There does not appear to have been in ancient, any more than in modern' Persia, a regularly established council. The king occasionally referred matters to the decision of the royal judges," and convened assemblies of the grandees for deliberation on affairs of particular importance; but nothing seems to have bound him either to call such councils, or, if he called them, to abide by their sentence. When a council was summoned at the court, certain nobles, it is probable, had the right of attendance, but the monarch might invite to his counciltable any persons whose judgment he valued."

In default of a legitimate control the Persian kings were apt to fall under the influence, either of a favourite, or more commonly of the

6

See Dan. vi. 14-15; Herod. ix. 111.

4

* Herod. iii. 31: τῷ βασιλεύοντι Περσέων ἐξεῖναι ποιεῖν τὸ ἂν βούληται. Marriage with a sister was clearly considered as incestuous in Persia, yet Cambyses married two of his (Herod. loc. cit.).

The law that the king should only marry from the families of the six conspirators (Herod. iii. 84) was one which, if any, might have seemed likely to be observed. Yet it was broken by Ahasuerus (Xerxes?) when he espoused Esther (Esth. ii. 17).

Of the nine kings who succeeded Darius, three (Xerxes I., Xerxes II., and Artaxerxes III.) were murdered.

See Chardin, vol. ii. p. 296.

10 See Herod. iii. 31. There is no reason to suppose that these judges were, as Heeren supposes (As. Nat. i. p. 390), necessarily Magi.

1 See Herod. vii. 8, viii. 67; Esth. i. 13-15.

2 This is evident from the words and conduct of Xerxes (Herod. vii. 8, 11-18). The "seven princes of Persia " may have had the right of attendance, and so have been called par excellence the king's counsellors (Esth. i. 14; Ezra vii. 14), but the monarch summoned besides "all that knew law and judgment" (Esth. i. 18). Those who attended the great council of war before the invasion of Greece seem to have been the satraps and commanders of the troops throughout the provinces (Herod. vii. 8, §§ 4 and 19.)

Generally a eunuch, as Spamitres (Ctes. § 29), the favourite of Xerxes in his later years; Artoxares (ib. § 49), the favourite of Darius Nothus; Bagoas (Diod. Sic. xvi. 50, end), the favourite of Artaxerxes Ochus, &c.; but sometimes a noble, as Mardonius, who governed Xerxes in the beginning of his reign.

ESSAY III.

PRIVILEGES OF THE DOMINANT RACE.

469

queen-mother, or of one of their wives. Bred up in the seraglio, under the tutelage of eunuchs and women, and often with no definite expectation of the crown," they found themselves at their accession in a state of vassalage, which they mostly lacked strength to throw off. The real ruler of Persia was in general a Bagoas, or a Parysatis, in whose hands the monarch was but a puppet, and who, from the interior of the gynæceum or harem, directed the counsels and bestowed the honours of the empire. These disorders however belong to the later period of the monarchy. They first appear at the close of the reign of Darius,' and only come into full play after the return of Xerxes from the Greek expedition.

12. The native Persians themselves, though equally destitute with the conquered races of any real personal freedom, were permitted, by the favour or policy of their rulers, certain special privileges. The province of Persia Proper was exempt from tribute. Persians had universally precedence over the other nations which composed the empire. Offices and employments of importance, though not absolutely confined to them, were yet, with rare exceptions, conferred upon the dominant race." They alone appear to have formed the household of the monarch. Many of them received assignments upon the conquered countries, of houses, lands, and vassals, from which they drew large

3

See Herod. vii. 3, end; ix. 111; Plut. Artaxerx. p. 1861-6; Xen. Anab. I. i. §§ 3-4.

The law of succession was very ill determined (Herod. vii. 2), and left the monarch a power within certain limits of determining his successor. This power he would rarely exercise till towards the close of his life (see Herod. i. 208; Ctes. Persic. 8), when the character of the youth was formed.

Herod. vii. 3, end: 'H yàp Aroσσα eÏXE Tò Tâν крáтоs. The accounts given by Ctesias (Persic. §§ 8, 9), which would extend to the reigns of Cambyses, and even of Cyrus, the manners of his own day, appear to me little worthy of credit.

Acts of tyrannical cruelty have most commonly Persians for their objects. It is sufficient to mention the cases of Prexaspes (Herod. iii. 35), Eobazus (ib. iv. 84), Masistes (ib. ix. 111-3), Mithridates (Plutarch, ii. p. 1861), and the twelve nobles buried to the head by order of Cambyses (Herod. iii. 35, end). The higher position of the Persians brought them into contact with the sovereign more frequently than others. (See Heeren, As. Nat. i. p. 362.)

9 Herod. iii. 97. Of course it supported its satrap and garrisons, but it paid nothing to the central government.

In war (Herod. vii. 55, viii. 113, ix. 31). In processions, where the right hand, the post of honour, was assigned to them (Xen. Cyrop. vII. iii. § 10). In games (ibid. § 25). In approaching the king (ibid. § 14).

It is not very uncommon to find high office entrusted to a Mede (see Herod. i. 156, 162; vi. 94; vii. 88; Beh. Inscr. 11. xiv. 6, and 111. xiv. 3), but wonderfully few instances occur of high office held by a native of any other conquered country. Profane history furnishes, I believe, but two examples, that of Tabalus (Herod. i 153), and that of Xenagoras (ibid. ix. 107). Even the Median appointments are rare compared with the Persian. Of course the cases must be excepted of tributary princes, and native rulers allowed to maintain a certain authority over their people, but forming no part of the recognised staff of the government.

3 Heeren's arguments (As. Nat. i. p. 395) scarcely prove that the household was composed entirely of Pasargadæ, but there seems no reason to doubt that it was, at least as a general rule, made up of Persians.

Xen. Cyrop. VIII. vi. § 5. The statement is confirmed by the known practice of conferring occasionally such gifts upon foreigners, as upon Themistocles (Thucyd. i. 138) and Demaratus (Herod. vi. 70).

470

6

5

GRADATIONS OF RANK AMONG THE PERSIANS. APP. BOOK III.

revenues. Others accompanied the satraps to their provinces as bodyguards, and lived at the expense of the inhabitants. None engaged in trade, or in any menial employ. All Persians of the tribes which were neither agricultural or pastoral, seem, unless attached to the court, to have followed the profession of arms. They formed a martial caste, which held itself distinctly above the rest of the population.

13. Besides the difference here indicated between the three leading Persian tribes and the other six, some further gradations of rank and dignity are found to have prevailed. The tribe of the Pasargada, to which the royal family of the Achæmenida belonged, had a decided pre-eminence over both the Maraphians and the Maspians. Among the Pasargadæ, the royal family, which owing to the prevalence of polygamy was very numerous, held the first place. Next in order seem to have followed the families of the six conspirators, which had the privilege of furnishing wives to the king. Among these the descendants of Otanes possessed special rights, though of what nature we have no distinct information. Perhaps the representatives of these six families, and of the royal house,' formed the "seven princes of Persia, which saw the king's face, and sat the first in the kingdom." 2 Further than this there was no order of nobility, unless we consider the possession of the crown grants mentioned above, which were handed down from father to son, to have constituted a noble class.

Such seem to have been the chief outlines of a system, which, simple and inartificial as it was, sufficed to maintain one of the largest empires that the world has ever seen during a space of more than two centuries.

Oroetes was guarded by a thousand Persians (Herod. iii. 127). The only peculiarity in his case was the number.

Hence the contempt which Cyrus is said to have expressed for the Lacedæmonians (Herod. i. 153).

Heeren (As. Nat. ch. ii.) carries this pre-eminence beyond its just bounds, and says nothing of the rank of the Maraphians and Maspians. Yet Herodotus distinctly states it (i. 125, compare iv. 167).

Herod. iii. 84 (cf. note ad loc.).

We know indeed that the head of the family of Otanes received an annual kaftan of the most splendid description. But the family must have had other rights unknown to us, to justify the expression of Herodotus (iii. 83, diateλéei povrn èλevθέρη ἐοῦσα Περσέων, καὶ ἄρχεται τοσαῦτα ὅσα αὐτὴ θέλει).

There is some difficulty in supposing this (see note on Book iii. ch. 71); but perhaps the royal house was represented by the head of the branch next in order of succession to that upon the throne, which was the position of Darius at the time of the conspiracy.

2 Esth. i. 14.

3 Xen. Cyrop. 1. s. c. The estates of Demaratus were, we know, transmitted to his descendants (Xen. Hell. III. i. § 6.)

ESSAY IV.

TOPOGRAPHY OF BABYLON.

471

ESSAY IV.

ON THE TOPOGRAPHY OF BABYLON.

1. Want of an accurate survey. 2. Great extent of Babylon according to ancient writers. 3. No traces of the original enceinte. 4. General plan of the existing ruins. 5. Their position on the left bank of the Euphrates a difficulty-modes of meeting it. 6. Canal between the northern and the central ruins. 7. Mound of Babil, the temple of Belus-its present state. 8. Proofs of the identity. 9. Mounds of the Kasr and Amrám, the ancient palace. 10. Site of the great reservoir. 11. Palace of Neriglissar, and embankment of Nabunit. 12. Triangular enclosure, of

the Parthian age. 13. The Birs-Nimrud-its present appearance. 14. Original plan of the Birs. 15. Its ornamentation. 16. The Birs rebuilt by Nebuchadnezzarhis account of the restoration.

1. THE topography of ancient Babylon is a subject which is still involved in so much doubt and difficulty that only a very slight sketch of it will be attempted in the present Essay. Accurate surveys on a large scale have recently been made by thoroughly competent persons' under the direction of the Indian Government; but the results have not yet reached England, and it is uncertain whether months or years may elapse before they become accessible to the public. In default of these materials it is necessary to have recourse to the very incomplete and inexact charts which have been published by the late Mr. Rich' and Sir R. Ker Porter-charts which can only be viewed as giving a general notion of the extent of the ruins, and roughly determining a few main positions. It is clearly undesirable, when the data are so insufficient, and when they are likely to be in a year or two superseded by materials of a vastly superior character, to enter into an elaborate discussion of the various intricate questions involved in the wide subject here proposed for consideration. Certain main points may, however, be regarded as sufficiently determined, even by means of the rough surveys already published, and certain principal buildings and other features of the ancient city may be considered as identified by the inscriptions on their

The chief superintendant of the surveys has been Captain Jones, already so well known from his similar labours in Upper Mesopotamia. (See As. Soc. Journ. vol. xv. Part 2, Art. v.)

In his "Memoir on Babylon," first published in the Mines de l'Orient, and since frequently reprinted. The last and best edition is that edited by his widow

in 1839.

Travels, vol. ii. opp. page 349. Mr. Layard is not a separate authority. He derived the plan given in his Nineveh and Babylon (p. 490) from Sir R. K. Porter. See his acknowledgment, p. 492, note.

472

EXTENT OF THE ANCIENT CITY.

APP. BOOK III

remains and by the descriptive documents of the Babylonian kings. To these leading features of the topography, and to these only, it is proposed at present to direct the reader's attention.

2. The most remarkable fact recorded of Babylon by the ancient writers is its extraordinary extent. According to Herodotus it was a square, 120 stades or nearly 14 miles each way, covering thus an area of nearly 200 square miles! This estimate is somewhat diminished by the historians of Alexander," who reduce the side to about 11 miles, and the area to something less than 130 square miles. Even this space is (according to modern notions) enormous, being five or six times the size of London. The authority, however, upon which it rests is of great weight and importance; for one cannot but suppose that accurate measurements would be made by the Greeks upon their conquest of the city. It seems, therefore, necessary to accept the statement, and to suppose that a wall of great height' surrounded an area of the size indirated, and that the name Babylon attached in popular parlance to the entire space within the rampart. Of course, however, if the wall was of this extent, only a small proportion of the ground within it can have been covered with buildings. The Babylon thus described was not a town, but a great fortified district very partially built upon, and containing within it not only gardens and parks, but numerous fields and orchards."

9

10

3. Of the great wall enclosing this space, it is agreed by almost all travellers that not a vestige remains. It has been destroyed by quarrying, or has sunk into the ditch from which it arose; and there is no possibility of even determining its position, unless by the merest conjecture. The earliest of the Mesopotamian explorers' imagined that it included within it the Birs-Nimrud, which is six miles from the Euphrates; but the inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar make it certain that this vast ruin marks the site of a distinct town."

Book i. ch. 178.

For the details see note on the above-named chapter.

The only argument that can be urged with any effect against this, is that the walls had perished before Alexander's conquest, and therefore that his historians only reported a tradition. But it is very unlikely that they could have altogether disappeared so early. And Abydenus expressly states that the wall of Nebuchadnezzar continued to Alexander's time. (See vol. i. Essay viii. p. 412, note 1.)

On the height of the wall see note on Book i. ch. 178.

This is declared to have been the case by Q. Curtius (v. i. § 27). It has been generally allowed by modern writers. (See Rich's Second Memoir, p. 14; Ker Porter, vol. ii. p. 386; Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 494; Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient History, vol. i. p. 24, note 5, E. T.)

• M. Oppert alone, I believe, disputes this. He is of opinion that he has found traces of the walls, or rather of their towers and gates, in certain of the mounds or Tels which cover the flat country on either side of the Euphrates. These views will no doubt be developed in his forthcoming work on Mesopotamia. See Note Bat the end of this Essay.

10 See vol. i. Essay viii. p. 427.

1 Rich, Second Memoir, pp. 31–2; Ker Porter, vol. ii. p. 382.

2 M. Oppert admits that the Birs-Nimrud marks the site of the ancient Borsippa, but he supposes this place to have been a sort of second citadel (Acropolis minor) to Babylon, and to have lain between the outer and the inner walls.