Ruins of Ancient Cities (Vol. 2 of 2). Charles Bucke
It stands upon three steps, each of which is one foot two inches in height. The capital of the exterior column has been shaken out of its place, and will probably ere long fall to the ground. “I have not seen in Greece,” continues Mr. Dodwell, “any Doric temple, the columns of which are of such slender proportions as those of Nemea. The epistylia are thin and meagre, and the capitals too small for the height of the columns. It is constructed of a soft calcareous stone, which is an aggregate of sand and small petrified shells, and the columns are coated with a fine stucco. Pausanias praises the beauty of the temple; but, even in his time, the roof had fallen, and not a single statue was left.”
No fragments of marble are found amongst the ruins, but an excavation would probably be well repaid, as the temple was evidently thrown down at one moment, and if it contained any sculptured marbles, they are still concealed by the ruins.
Near the temple are several blocks of stones, some fluted Doric frusta, and a capital of small dimensions. This is supposed to have formed part of the sepulchre of Archemorus. Mr. Dodwell, however, found no traces of the tumulus of Lycurgus, his father, king of Nemea, mentioned by Pausanias, nor any traces of the theatre and stadium.
Beyond the temple is a remarkable summit, the top of which is flat, and visible in the gulf of Corinth. On one side is a ruinous church, with some rubbish; perhaps where Osspaltes and his father are said to have been buried. Near it is a very large fig-tree. To this a goatherd repaired daily before noon with his flock, which huddled together in the shade until the extreme heat was over, and then proceeded orderly to feed in the cool upon the mountain.
“Nemea,” continues Mr. Dodwell, “is more characterised by gloom than most of the places I have seen. The splendour of religious pomp, and the long animation of gymnastic and equestrian exercises, have been succeeded by the dreary vacancy of a death-like solitude. We saw no living creatures but a ploughman and his oxen, in a spot which was once exhilarated by the gaiety of thousands, and resounded with the shouts of a crowded population21.”
NO. VI. – NINEVEH
Of Nineveh, the mighty city of old,
How like a star she fell and pass’d away!
The Assyrian empire was founded by Ashur, the son of Shem, according to some writers; but according to others, by Nimrod; and to others, by Ninus.
Ninus, according to Diodorus Siculus, is to be esteemed the most ancient of the Assyrian kings. Being of a warlike disposition, and ambitious of that glory which results from courage, says he, he armed a considerable number of young men, that were brave and vigorous like himself; trained them up in laborious exercises and hardships, and by that means accustomed them to bear the fatigues of war patiently, and to face dangers with intrepidity. What Diodorus states of Ninus, however, is much more applicable to his father, Nimrod, the son of Cush, grandson of Cham, and great-grandson of Noah; he who is signalised in scripture as having been “a mighty hunter before the Lord;” a distinction which he gained from having delivered Assyria from the fury and dread of wild animals; and from having, also, by this exercise of hunting, trained up his followers to the use of arms, that he might make use of them for other purposes more serious and extensive.
The next king of Assyria was Ninus, the son of Nimrod. This prince prepared a large army, and in the course of seventeen years conquered a vast extent of country; extending to Egypt on one side, and to India and Bactriana on the other. On his return he resolved on building the largest and noblest city in the world; so extensive and magnificent, as to leave it in the power of none, that should come after him, to build such another. It is probable, however, that Nimrod laid the foundations of this city, and that Ninus completed it: for the ancient writers often gave the name of founder to persons, who were only entitled to the appellation of restorer or improver.
This city was called Nineveh. Its form and extent are thus related by Diodorus, who states that he took his account from Ctesias the Gnidian: – “It was of a long form; for on both sides it ran out about twenty-three miles. The two lesser angles, however, were only ninety furlongs a-piece; so that the circumference of the whole was about seventy-four miles. The walls were one hundred feet in height; and so broad, that three chariots might be driven together upon it abreast; and on these walls were fifteen hundred turrets, each of which was two hundred feet high.”
When the improver had finished the city, he appointed it to be inhabited by the richest Assyrians; but gave leave, at the same time, to people of other nations (as many as would) to dwell there; and, moreover, allowed to the citizens at large a considerable territory next adjoining them.
Having finished the city, Ninus marched into Bactria; his army consisting of one million seven hundred thousand men, two hundred thousand horse, and sixteen thousand chariots armed with scythes. This number is, doubtless, greatly exaggerated. With so large a force, he could do no otherwise than conquer a great number of cities. But having, at last, laid siege to Bactria, the capital of the country, it is said that he would probably have failed in his enterprise against that city, had he not been assisted by the counsel of Semiramis, wife to one of his officers, who directed him in what manner to attack the citadel. By her means he entered the city, and becoming entire master of it, he got possession of an immense treasure. He soon after married Semiramis; her husband having destroyed himself, to prevent the effects of some threats that Ninus had thrown out against him. By Semiramis, Ninus had one son, whom he named Ninyas; and dying not long after, Semiramis became queen: who, to honour his memory, erected a magnificent monument, which is said to have remained a long time after the destruction of the city.
The history of this queen is so well known,22 that we shall not enlarge upon it; we having already done so in our account of Babylon; for she was one of the enlargers of that mighty city.
There is a very great difference of opinion, in regard to the time in which Semiramis lived. According to
Alexander’s opinion of this celebrated woman may be gathered from the following passage of his speech to his army: – “You wish to enjoy me long; and even, if it were possible, for ever; but, as to myself, I compute the length of my existence, not by years, but by glory. I might have confined my ambition within the narrow limits of Macedonia; and, contented with the kingdom my ancestors left me, have waited, in the midst of pleasures and indolence, an inglorious old age. I own that if my victories, not my years, are computed, I shall seem to have lived long; but can you imagine, that after having made Europe and Asia but one empire, after having conquered the two noblest parts of the world, in the tenth year of my reign and the thirtieth of my age, that it will become me to stop in the midst of so exalted a career, and discontinue the pursuit of glory to which I have entirely devoted myself? Know, that this glory ennobles all things, and gives a true and solid grandeur to whatever appears insignificant. In what place soever I may fight, I shall fancy myself upon the stage of the world, and in presence of all mankind. I confess that I have achieved mighty things hitherto; but the country we are now in reproaches me that a woman has done still greater. It is Semiramis I mean. How many nations did she conquer! How many cities were built by her! What magnificent and stupendous works did she finish! How shameful is it, that I should not yet have attained to so high a pitch of glory! Do but second my ardour, and I will soon surpass her. Defend me only from secret cabals and domestic treasons, by which most princes lose their lives; I take the rest upon myself, and will be answerable to you for all the events of the war.”
“This speech,” says Rollin, “gives us a perfect idea of Alexander’s character. He had no notion of true glory. He did not know either the principle, the rule, or end of it. He certainly placed it where it was not. He was strongly prejudiced in vulgar error, and cherished it. He fancied himself born merely for glory; and that none could be acquired but by unbounded, unjust, and irregular conduct. In his impetuous sallies after a mistaken glory, he followed neither reason, virtue, nor humanity; and as if his ambitious caprice ought to have been a rule and standard to all other men, he was surprised that neither his officers nor soldiers would enter into his views, and that they lent themselves very unwillingly to support his ridiculous enterprises.” These remarks are well worthy
Barthelemy; Dodwell; Rees; Brewster.
See Herod. i. c. 184; Diodor. Sic. ii.; Pompon. Mela, i. c. 3; Justin. i. c. 1; Val. Max. ix. c. 3.