of ever after re-establishing the traditional empire of the ancient Sargon and Khammurabi?  The new dynasty sprang from a town in Pashe, the geographical position of which is not known.  It was of Babylonian origin, and its members placed, at the be ginning of their protocols, formula which were intended to indicate, in the clearest possible manner, the source from which they sprang:  they declared themselves to be scions of Babylon, its vicegerents, and supreme masters.  The names of the first two we do not know:  the third, Nebuchadrezzar, shows himself to have been one of the most remarkable men of all those who flourished during this troubled era.  At no time, perhaps, had Chaldaea been in a more abject state, or assailed by more active foes.  The Elamite had just succeeded in wresting from her Namar, the region from whence the bulk of her chariot-horses were obtained, and this success had laid the provinces on the left bank of the Tigris open to their attacks.  They had even crossed the river, pillaged Babylon, and carried away the statue of Bel and that of a goddess named Eria, the patroness of Khussi:  “Merodach, sore angered, held himself aloof from the country of Akkad;” the kings could no longer “take his hands” on their coming to the throne, and were obliged to reign without proper investiture in consequence of their failure to fulfil the rite required by religious laws.*

* The Donation to Shamud and Shamai informs us that Nebuchadrezzar “took the hands of Bel” as soon as he regained possession of the statue.  The copy we possess of the Royal Canon.  Nebuchadrezzar I.’s place in the series has, therefore, been the subject of much controversy.  Several Assyriologists were from the first inclined to place him in the first or second rank, some being in favour of the first, others preferring the second; Dolitzsch put him into the fifth place, and Winckler, without pronouncing definitely on the position to be assigned him, thought he must come in about half-way down the dynasty.  Hilprecht, on taking up the questions, adduced reasons for supposing him to have been the founder of the dynasty, and his conclusions have been adopted by Oppert; they have been disputed by Tiele, who wishes to put the king back to fourth or fifth in order, and by Winckler, who places him fourth or fifth.  It is difficult, however, to accept Hilprecht’s hypothesis, plausible though it is, so long as Assyriologists who have seen the original tablet agree in declaring that the name of the first king began with the sign of Merodach and not with that of Nebo, as it ought to do, were this prince really our Nebuchadrezzar.

Nebuchadrezzar arose “in Babylon,—­roaring like a lion, even as Bamman roareth,—­and his chosen nobles, roared like lions with him.—­To Merodach, lord of Babylon, rose his prayer:—­’How long, for me, shall there be sighing and groaning?—­How long, for my land, weeping and mourning?—­How long, for my countries, cries of grief and tears?