514 Mr. Beke on the former Extent of the Persian Gulf. 
and inaccurate version. A reference to the original would 
have shown him that what the author really says respecting 
these four canals is simply cicGaAdovor 02 cig tov Edgperny: 
correctly rendered in the Oxford version (edit. 1676), ‘Iidem 
in Euphratem znfluunt,” and by Spelman “ they fall into the 
Euphrates.” Smaller streams are commonly said to fall into 
larger ones with which they communicate, so that these words 
do not necessarily convey any idea beyond that of mere union; 
and the writer being near the Euphrates (see the next para- 
graph of the text,) would naturally describe these canals as 
tributaries to that river, even had the actual run of the waters 
been in the other direction. Seeing, however, that these ca- 
nals were navigable, and that they were of course made without 
locks, it is manifest that no great difference of level between 
the two rivers could have existed ; and whichever way it may 
have been, most assuredly there was not, in a country which to 
this day is almost a dead flat, any opportunity for the one river 
to ‘pour its waters into” the other. 
Mr. Rich tells us in his Memoir on the Ruins of Babylon 
(2nd edit. p. 18), that during the inundation of the Euphrates 
“rafts laden with lime are brought almost every day from 
Felugiah to within a few hundred yards of the northern gate 
of Bagdad.” This must (I have reason to believe) be under- 
stood as referring to a canal existing there, which joins the 
two rivers, and which is filled during the flooded season; but 
even here, no less than 380 (600—220) miles above the Hie, 
by which (as Col. Chesney informs us, ) the Euphrates receives 
the waters of the Tigris, the levels of the two rivers so closely 
correspond as to allow of a navigable communication ex- 
isting between them! Mr. Carter has discoursed very learn- 
edly respecting the mode in which rivers produce their deltas, 
but there appears to be a fundamental defect in his reasoning: 
he takes as a “fact” that the Tigris ‘can be more rapid (than 
the Euphrates] only through flowing from a higher country 
down a greater slope.” But if we look to what is actually the 
fact, we find that at two distinct points, namely, at Felugiah 
(opposite Bagdad) and at Khorna, the Tigris and Euphrates are 
of equal (or nearly equal) heights. Between these two points, 
however, we have the unquestionable evidence of Col. Chesney 
that the two rivers are “very different in every respect,” the 
former moving in a rapid and the latter in a dull and lingering 
stream. This difference in character is clearly not produced 
by the Tigris ‘flowing from a higher country down a greater 
slope,” since at Bagdad that river is no higher than the Eu- 
phrates at Felugiah. Other causes have therefore to be sought 
for, among which may be noticed the greater length of the 
