(The remainder of the inscription is too mutilated for a satisfactory translation.) Whether I have succeeded in giving better renderings of certain difficult passages time alone will show, but two or three points come out with prominence. At the beginning of this long paragraph, in which I have inserted some words to make up the sense, it seems clear that the reproach levelled against Nabonidus, accusing him of removing the gods from their shrines, was correct. This, however, would seem to have been a common practice in days of national danger, such as he felt the country to be in, and it is perfectly certain that he would have been blamed if he had not done it. The god Bêl, referred to in connection with the New-Year festival, is Bel-Merodach, and on this occasion it was the custom for the other great gods of Babylonia to visit the head of the pantheon in the capital wherein his chief shrine lay. This was situated in the temple Ê-sagila (see p. 181). The meeting place of the deities was called Ubšukina-a counterpart and namesake of the heavenly meeting-place wherein their divine feasts took place. The following is a description of the ceremonies which were performed at the shrine of Merodach at Babylon: "The gods, all of them-the gods of Borsippa, Cuthah, Kiš, and the gods of the cities, all, to take the hands of Kayanu, the great lord Merodach, will go to Babylon, and with him, at the New-Year festival, in the holy place of the King (i.e., Merodach himself), will offer a gift before him. As for that day, on its appearance, Anu and Ellila will go from Erech and Nippur to Babylon to take the hands of Kayanu-Bêl, and will march in procession with him. To the temple of offerings all the great gods will go together to Babylon." The tablet which gives these instructions also seems to detail the reason why the ceremony was performed-it was apparently to be present when Merodach was represented as going down to the prison where the captive gods, who, at the Creation, had resisted the gods of heaven, were confined. There Merodach was regarded as going, opening the gates of the prison, and comforting them. The expression here used is a very interesting one, for it reads inaš réssunu, "he raiseth their head," and it is apparently owing to this ceremony that the Temple of Belus was called E-sagila, "the house of head-raising," for it was there that "the merciful Merodach" became reconciled to the gods who had been his enemies. An unsuspected beauty in the Legend of Merodach here meets us. From this inscription it would seem that the gods of Sippar, Cuthah, and Kiš ought to have taken part in this ceremony, whereas the "Annalistic Tablet " mentions the gods of Amarda or Marad, those of Hursag-kalama, and the gods of Akkad (northern Babylonia) who were "under the wind and over the wind" as having entered the city, but not the gods of Borsippa, Cuthah, and Sippar. It was probably in this that Nabonidus went astray-it was not that he took the deities to Babylon, but that he took the wrong ones-gods whom he ought not to have taken, including many whom the scribe does not name. It was on account of this that evil overtook the city and the land, in the opinion of the Babylonians. The name of Cyrus's general is given in the Annalistic inscription as Gubaru or Ugbaru-variants which suggest that the Babylonians really pronounced the name as G'baru. It will be noticed that he is called "Governor of Gutium," a portion of Media, and it is therefore safe to say that he was a Mede. The Darius who took Babylon in the account in the Book of Daniel was also a Mede-the two men, therefore, would seem to have been one and the same. Both took Babylon, and both appointed governors in Babylonia (though in this text the number given in Daniel-120-is not stated) afterwards. They may both be identified with other people, but that Gubaru or Ugbaru is the "Darius the Mede" of Daniel, is a conclusion from which there is no escape. One of the most important statements in this noteworthy inscription is that referring to the Temple of Belus, Ê-sagila, in lines 16-18. There we find a mention of certain tukkume of Gutium or Media (with the character for leather before the word) having shut the gates of Ê-sagila-Babani ša Ê-saggil upahhir—and apparently in consequence of that baṭla ša mimma ina Ê-saggil u ékurāti ûl iššakin, “loss of anything in Ê-sagila and the temples was not made." As we know, there was a considerable amount of valuable property in the temple, and measures for its due protection had apparently been taken-a stroke of policy which evidently impressed the Babylonians, and did not a little to reconcile them to Persian rule. The conqueror had preserved the treasures of their great sanctuary intact a thing which no conqueror had probably ever done before-and they found him worthy of their confidence. Though only a governor and commander-in-chief of the Persian forces, he had the power and authority of a king, and this is the title which Daniel gives Darius the Mede. It was not until four months later-the 3rd of Marcheswan, that Cyrus entered Babylon, and was met by the harine, which I have doubtfully rendered as deputations-the rendering demanded, apparently, by the context. It is noteworthy that Belshazzar was killed a week after the arrival of Cyrus at Babylon, but the honour of the capture of the inner city or citadel belongs to Gobryas. Though Cyrus had no hand in the operations, it is probable that the attack was only decided on after consultation with him-as for the deputations, they evidently knew that it was Cyrus who was king, and that everything depended upon him. As Nabonidus had been captured, Belshazzar, his son, became king in the eyes of the Babylonians, and is rightly so regarded in Daniel-indeed, it is not improbable that he had been associated with his father on the throne for many years; hence, as has been often pointed out, the appointment of Daniel, by Belshazzar, as "the third ruler in the kingdom." Note, also, that this appointment on the part of Belshazzar implies that he regarded his father as being still alive, and still virtual head of the state. Daniel, however, was fully aware of the precarious position of his royal master, shut up there in the inner city, or in the citadel, with the Medo-Persian army at his gates, and the answer which he is stated to have given is not one which we should regard as altogether respectful. "Let thy gifts be to thyself, and give thy rewards to another," was the preface to his interpretation of the handwriting. Though we have much to learn about this historical event, so far all the records fit well in together. Babylon was taken, as the Babylonian record says, without fighting, but "the city of the king's house" still held out. It was to gain this that the army of Cyrus entered by the drained river-bed, and it was there that the last stand of the Babylonians took place. NOTES. P. 167. For a translation of the Semitic Creation-Story, see the Journal of the Victoria Institute, 1903, pp. 17-56. P. 168. Dr. Poebel's description appeared in the Philadelphia Museum Journal for June, 1913. P. 169. The concluding lines of the Daily Telegraph fragment quoted are, as far as they are preserved, as follows: all the denizens, all of the creation which in the assembly of my family the assembly of the denizens was glorious The "glory" of the "denizens" would correspond with the expression "very good" in Genesis i. Note, however, that this is a version of the gods' Creation, not Tiawath's. P. 171. Ziugiddu. If I have read the characters shown by the half-tone blocks published by Dr. Arno Poebel (Philadelphia Museum Journal for June, 1913) aright, this name of the Babylonian Noah is written with the characters « « Y, Zi-û-giddu, Being+day+long." 66 Concerning him, Dr. Poebel says that he was a pašišu-priest of Enki (the god Ea), daily and constantly in the service of his god. To requite him for his piety, Enki tells him that, at the request of Enlil (the older Bel), the gods had resolved" to destroy the seed of mankind." Zi-û-giddu thereupon-this part, however, is broken away-builds a great boat and places thereon all kinds of animals. The storm rages for seven days and seven nights, after which the sun appears again, and when its light shines into the vessel the patriarch sacrifices an ox and a sheep. In the end, Zi-û-giddu worships before Enlil, whose anger against men had now abated, for Enlil says: "Life like a god I give to him (? ti dingira-gime munnašummu), an eternal soul like a god (zi dair dingira-gime) I create for him." Immortality was therefore regarded as having been conferred upon the Babylonian Noah-possibly, also, upon his descendants. Zi-û-giddu thus became "the being of everlasting day"-the gods' eternity. P. 171. In the version which the Babylonian Noah (Ut-napištim) related to Gilgameš, his sacrifice was of the produce of the earth. P. 173. It must have been from this record that Berosus obtained the material for the history of the world, now lost. Professor Hilprecht's notes upon the list of kings will be found in The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series A : Cuneiform Texts, vol. xx, part 1, p. 46, and plates 30 and XV. P. 174. Professor Scheil's description of the Chronological tablet was published in the Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres for the year named. Mr. George Smith's paper appeared in the Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, vol. iii, p. 361 ff. (1874). P. 175. The dynasty of the Kassites (Cossaeans) ruled from about 1780 to 1210 B.C. P. 175. "Prince Mastema" is one of the names of Satan in Rabbinical writings. P. 177. If the rendering at the end of the first paragraph here be correct, the seeding-plough was in use before 2000 B.C. P. 177. Among the new royal and other names revealed by the tablets from Jokha may be mentioned Libanuk-šabaš, viceroy of Marḥašu; Ḥabalul, viceroy of Adab or Udab; Nišilim, viceroy of Tutula; Ibdati, viceroy of Kubla; and Hulibar, viceroy of P. 185. The lowest stage or plinth of Ê-temen-anki (the Tower of Babylon) measures, according to the scale, about 95 metres (about 312 feet). This amounts to 300 "enlarged feet" (Babylonian) in Dieulafoy's scheme. George Smith calculated that the height equalled the width of the base, in which case it measured the same, 312 feet. M. Dieulafoy, however, makes it to have measured about 250 feet in all, above the level of the plain. But it is admitted that the height of the Tower is very uncertain, and modifications of the estimates thereof may be expected. P. 185. The friend to whom I owe the slides referred to is Mr. W. L. Nash, L.R.C.P., Secretary of the Society of Biblical Archaeology. P. 186. Various readings of the Aramaic form of the name transcribed as Anušat by Pognon have been suggested, among them being my own and Professor Prince's (independently argued) Ênurêštū, “primæval Lord," or the like. Hugo Radau reads En-usati, "lord of healing," whilst others favour En-arišti, En-maštu, etc. The deity in question was one of the gods of war, and is generally called Ninip, though Nirig is also a possible reading. For details concerning his character, see the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, December, 1906, pp. 270 ff. Interesting additions might now be made to the legends about him translated in that paper. DISCUSSION. The CHAIRMAN, in thanking the Lecturer, referred to the great difficulty in interpreting the cuneiform inscriptions, and said how necessary it was that there should be a succession of great scholars, like the Lecturer, to study them. He welcomed the references to the late George Smith, and to the Hibbert lectures which Professor Sayce delivered in 1887. For himself, he found the slides which had been exhibited of absorbing interest, especially those relating to the Tower of Babylon. A LADY asked whether there was any special significance in the Tower of Babylon; was it unique, or were there many such? The Rev. J. J. B. COLES said that the shape of the altar shown on one of the slides had struck him as being exactly like the altars |