concerning the Assyrian empire; but any particular account of them, or an analysis of the information they afford, would only weary the reader. It is remarkable, that none of the authors alluded to, do more than mention by name any of the Assyrian kings, with the exception of the three great monarchs, Ninus, Semiramis, and Sardanapalus, whom traditions have made celebrated, and whose deeds, like those of all prominent characters in an epoch before sober history commenced, have been invested with superhuman features, or have been mixed up with fables. Yet above thirty generations elapsed between Ninus and Sardanapalus, during which a whole line of kings occupied the Assyrian throne, and maintained the power of the empire. Their names have been handed down to us in genealogical series by Eusebius, the Syncellus, and others †; but the lists themselves are more than doubtful, and are generally believed to furnish sufficient evidence against their own authenticity.

With regard to Ninus and Semiramis, I need only here mention that, like all heroes of primitive history and early tradition, their names appear to have become conventional all great deeds and national events being assigned to them. Originally historic characters, they have been to some extent invested with divine attribues, and have been mixed up with

* I may mention Berosus, Abydenus, Strabo, Nicolaus of Damascus, Castor, Polyhistor, Justin, Suidas, and the Syncellus.

† Abydenus gives a list of kings differing from those of Eusebius and the Syncellus.

the theology of the race of which they were the first monarchs. This leads to a well-known result the hero-worship of ancient nations. Still, in admitting this fact, we must guard against rejecting traditions, simply because they are connected with these names. Many have a foundation, and were probably derived from events which actually took place. It is the province of the critical inquirer to separate the mythic, from that which comes within the legitimate bounds of history; to trace the origin of fables, and to draw rational conclusions from them.

The Assyrians are not particularly alluded to in Holy Writ, until the period when their warlike expeditions to the west of the Euphrates, brought them into contact with the Jews. The first king whose name is recorded was Pul, who reigned between eight and nine hundred years before the Christian æra; and about two hundred previous to the fall of the empire; consequently he must have been nearly the last of a long succession of kings who, it is generally admitted, had ruled over the greater part of Asia. The later monarchs are more frequently mentioned in the Bible; as their conquests over the Jews, whom they led captive into Assyria, brings them continually under notice. But except when they particularly concern the Jewish people, very little is related of the deeds of even these monarchs.

Of modern historians who have attempted to reconcile the discrepancies of Assyrian chronology, and to restore to some extent, from the fragments to which I have alluded, a history of the Assyrian

empire, I scarcely know whom to point out. From such contradictory materials, it is not surprising that each writer should have formed a system of his own; and we may, without incurring the charge of scepticism, treat all their efforts as little better than ingenious speculations. In the date alone to be assigned to the commencement of the Assyrian empire, they differ nearly a thousand years; and even when they treat of events which approach the epoch of authentic history, such as the death of Sardanapalus, the invasion of the Medes, and the fall of the empire,

there is nearly the same comparative discrepancy. The Bactrian and Indian expeditions of Ninus, the wonderful works of Semiramis, and the effeminacy of Sardanapalus, have been described over and over again, and form the standard ingredients of the Assyrian history of modern authors. The narratives framed upon them convey useful lessons, and are, morcover, full of romantic events to excite the imagination. As such they have been repeated, with a warning that their authenticity rests upon a slender basis, and that it is doubtful whether they are to be regarded as history, or to be classed amongst fables. Although the names of Nineveh and Assyria have been familiar to us from childhood, and are connected with our earliest impressions derived from the Inspired Writings, it is only when we ask ourselves what we really know concerning them, that we discover our ignorance of all that relates to their history, and even to their geographical position.

It is indeed one of the most remarkable facts in

history, that the records of an empire, so renowned for its power and civilisation, should have been entirely lost; and that the site of a city as eminent for its extent as its splendour, should for ages have been a matter of doubt: it is not perhaps less curious that an accidental discovery should suddenly lead us to hope that these records may be recovered, and this site satisfactorily identified.

The ruins in Assyria and Babylonia, chiefly huge mounds, apparently of mere earth and rubbish, had long excited curiosity from their size and evident antiquity. They were, at the same time, the only remains of an unknown period,—of a period antecedent to the Macedonian conquest. Consequently they alone could be identified with Nineveh and Babylon, and could afford a clue to the site and nature of those cities. There is, at the same time, a vague mystery attaching to remains like these, which induces travellers to examine them with more than ordinary interest, and even with some degree of awe. A great vitrified mass of brick-work, surrounded by the accumulated rubbish of ages, was believed to represent the identical tower, which called down the divine vengeance, and was overthrown, according to an universal tradition, by the fires of heaven. The mystery and dread, which attached to the place, were kept up by exaggerated accounts of wild beasts, who haunted the subterraneous passages, and of the no less and of the no less savage tribes who wandered amongst the ruins. Other mounds in the vicinity were identified with the hanging gardens, and those marvellous structures which tradition

has attributed to two queens, Semiramis and Nitocris. The difficulty of reaching the site of these remains, increased the curiosity and interest with which they were regarded; and a fragment from Babylon was esteemed a precious relic, not altogether devoid of a sacred character. The ruins which might be presumed to occupy the site of the Assyrian capital, were even less known, and less visited, than those in Babylonia. Several travellers had noticed the great mounds of earth opposite the modern city of Mosul, and when the inhabitants of the neighbourhood pointed out the tomb of Jonah upon the summit of one of them, it was, of course, natural to conclude, at once, that it marked the site of the great Nineveh.* Macdonald Kinneir, no mean antiquarian and geographer, who examined these mounds, was inclined to believe that they marked the site of a Roman camp of the time of Hadrian; and yet a very superficial knowledge of the ruins of Babylonia would have shown at once that they were of a very different period.

The first to engage in a serious examination of the ruins within the limits of ancient Assyria was Mr. Rich, many years the political Resident of the East

* It need scarcely be observed, that the tradition placing the tomb of Jonah amongst the ruins opposite Mosul, is not authenticated by any passage in the Scriptures. It is now received by Christians and Musulmans, and probably originated in the spot having been once occupied by a Christian church or convent, dedicated to the prophet. The building, which is supposed to cover the tomb, is very much venerated, and only Mohammedans are allowed to enter it. The Jews, in the time of St. Jerome, pointed out the sepulchre of Jonah at Gath-hepher, in the tribe of Zabulon.