and on the Non-identity of Babylon and Babel. 509 
on their side. Under their hypothesis, however, Charax, 
which was situate at the confluence of the Tigris and Eulzeus, 
will have to be placed not 37 but about 100 miles up the 
river; so that “the plain fact” by which ‘even the increase 
of 35 miles” in the distance of that city from the sea is “an- 
nihilated” in so summary a manner, is not quite so manifest. 
The position of Charax remains, I conceive, yet to be deter- 
mined; but, let it have been where it may, I confess I do not 
exactly understand how my “extravagant hypothesis” is to be 
‘at once disposed of,” for the reason that, “if the distance of 
Charax, the port, had increased but 70 miles” (or it may be 
only 35 miles,) between the times of Alexander and Pliny (400 
years), “‘the whole distance to Babylon could have increased 
but 70” (or 35) miles in the 2160 years which have elapsed 
since the voyage of Nearchus down to the present time. Leav- 
ing the ‘extravagant hypothesis” quite out of the question, it 
appears to me that, assuming the same rate of increase through- 
out the whole period, the gain would be about 380 (or 190) 
miles. 
The “‘diversitas auctorum” of which Pliny complains, is a 
point upon which Mr. Carter makes a great stand; and hence 
he comes to the strange conclusion, that the distance between 
Babylon and Charax was “utterly uncertain.” Now it may 
be perfectly comprehensible that the naturalist should have 
been in difficulty upon the subject, and unable to arrive at 
any satisfactory result, on account of the apparent discrepan- 
cies among the various authorities which were before him ; yet 
it will not, I presume, be thence argued, that either Babylon 
or Charax was so situate as not to have been perfectly easy of 
access, so that the distance between them might always have 
been ascertainable, in the same way as it would be in the 
present day (and perhaps with less difficulty,) were both cities 
in existence. There is not the slightest reason, therefore, for 
imagining that “the distance was utterly uncertain.” The 
various authors must be presumed to have made their several 
statements upon good grounds, and with a competent know- 
ledge of the actual distance; and whatever discrepancies may 
be found among them, beyond those which will always exist 
where distances are only estimated and not actually measured, 
are mainly, if not entirely, to be attributed to differences in 
the standards of measurement employed by them respectively. 
And this, in fact, is what Pliny himself says: ‘Inconstantiam 
mensurae” (the measure itself and not the distance measured,) 
*‘diversitas auctorum facit: cum Perse quoque schceenos et pa- 
rasangas, alii alia mensura determinent*.” 'This difficulty be- 
* Hist. Nat., lib. vi. cap. 27. 
