"سرد لرحلة إلى موقع مدينة بابل في ١٨١١، طُبعت الآن لأول مرة: مذكرات على الأطلال؛ مع نقوش من الخرائط المدبئية للمؤلف: ملاحظات على طبوغرافية بابل القديمة،بقلم الرائد رينيل؛ في إشارة إلى المذكرات: مذكرات ثانية على الأطلال؛ في إشارة إلى ملاحظات الرائد رينيل: مع سرد لرحلة إلى برسبوليس: طُبعت الآن لأول مرة، مع كتابات مسمارية نسخت في برسبوليس ولم تُنشر من قبل: كتبها الراحل كلوديوس جيمس ريتش، المحترم، المقيم البريطاني السابق لشركة الهند الشرقية في بغداد. حررته أرملته." [‎١‎٤‎٥] (٤٧٤/٢٣٣)

RUINS OP BABYLON.
145
respect the best authority for its state in his time.
The circumference he assigns to it has been gene
rally deemed exaggerated ; but, after all, we cannot
prove it to be so. He says nothing to determine
the situation of the Palace (for he speaks but of
one) and Temple; he has no mention of east or
west, or of proximity to the river. It is true, it has
been attempted to establish from him, that the
Temple was exactly in the centre of one of the
halves into which the city was divided by the river;
which, by the way, if clearly made out, would not
agree with Major Rennell's position of it on the
river's banks; but the error appears to have arisen
from translating /xsW, centr Herodotus's words
are, W <^6 ipdpas'i Ixars 'go; rr,s TroXtoS I tsteij^isto ev
Iv rS) wv ra ^aaiK-nix, ltBpiQoka> rs lAsyocXco ts 'tiy^upa)'
lv Se tw sTspu, Atoy BrjXoy t . X.
(Herod. Wessel. p. 85), in which I do not see the
necessity of adopting so mathematical a significa
tion. (B) Strabo, as might be expected, contains
much fewer particulars than Herodotus; and the
other Grecian and Roman historians still less: they
are consequently of little use in a topographical
inquiry. It appears, therefore, that none of the
ancients say whether the Tower of Belus was on
the east or the west of the Euphrates; that its
position in the centre of the city, or even of one of
its divisions, is by no means clearly made out; and
that while the description of the best ancient author
involves no difficulties, the only particulars which