indirectly, in levelling the earth’s surface, is enormous. I have shown
that the amount of heat required to evaporate a quantity of water which
would cover an area of 100 square miles to a depth of one inch would
be equal to the heat which would be produced by the combustion of half
a million tons of coals, and that the amount of force of which this
consumption of heat would be the equivalent corresponds to that which
would be required to raise a weight of upwards of one thousand millions
of tons to a height of one mile.[45] When we remember that the land
surface of the earth amounts to about fifty millions of square miles,
we perceive how enormous must be the force-equivalent of the annual
rainfall of our earth. We are apt to overlook when contemplating the
silent and seemingly quiet processes of nature—such as the formation
of the rain-cloud or the precipitation of rain—the tremendous energy
of the forces really causing these processes. “I have seen,” says
Professor Tyndall, “the wild stone-avalanches of the Alps, which smoke
and thunder down the declivities with a vehemence almost sufficient to
stun the observer. I have also seen snow-flakes descending so softly
as not to hurt the fragile spangles of which they were composed; yet
to produce from aqueous vapour a quantity which a child could carry of
that tender material demands an exertion of energy competent to gather
up the shattered blocks of the largest stone-avalanche I have ever
seen, and pitch them to twice the height from which they fell.”
_ANCIENT BABYLONIAN ASTROGONY._
It is singular to consider how short a time elapsed, after writings
in the arrow-headed or cuneiform letters (the Keilschriften of the
Germans) were discovered, before, first, the power of interpreting them
was obtained, and, secondly, the range of the cuneiform literature
(so to speak) was recognized. Not more than ninety years have passed
since the first specimens of arrow-headed inscriptions reached Europe.
They had been known for a considerable time before this. Indeed, it
has been supposed that the Assyrian letters referred to by Herodotus,
Thucydides, and Pliny, were in this character. Della Valle and
Figueroa, early in the seventeenth century, described inscriptions in
arrow-headed letters, and hazarded the idea that they are to be read
from left to right. But no very satisfactory evidence was advanced to
show whether the inscriptions were to be so read, or from right to
left, or, as Chardin suggested, in vertical lines. The celebrated Olaus
Gerhard Tychsen, of Rostock, and other German philologists, endeavoured
to decipher the specimens which reached Europe towards the end of the
last century; but their efforts, though ingenious and zealous, were not
rewarded with success. In 1801 Dr. Hager advanced the suggestion that
the combinations formed by the arrow-heads did not represent letters
but words, if not entire sentences. Lichtenstein, on the other hand,
maintained that the letters belonged to an old form of the Arabic
or Coptic character; and he succeeded to his own satisfaction in
finding various passages from the Koran in the cuneiform inscriptions.
Dr. Grotefend was the first to achieve any real success in this line
of research. It is said that he was led to take up the subject by a
slight dispute with one of his friends, which led to a wager that he
would decipher one of the cuneiform inscriptions. The results of his
investigations were that cuneiform inscriptions are alphabetical, not
hieroglyphical; that the language employed is the basis of most of the
Eastern languages; and that it is written from right to left. Since
his time, through the labours of Rich, Botta, Rawlinson, Hincks, De
Saulcy, Layard, Sayce, George Smith, and others, the collection and
interpretation of the arrow-headed inscriptions have been carried
out with great success. We find reason to believe that, though the
original literature of Babylon was lost, the tablet libraries of
Assyria contained copies of most of the writings of the more ancient
nation. Amongst these have been found the now celebrated descriptions
of the Creation, the Fall of Man, the Deluge, the Tower of Babel, and
other matters found in an abridged and expurgated form in the book of
Genesis. It is to that portion of the Babylonian account which relates
to the creation of the sun and moon and stars that I wish here to call
attention. It is not only curious in itself, but throws light, in my
opinion, on questions of considerable interest connected with the views
of ancient Eastern nations respecting the heavenly bodies.
It may be well, before considering the passage in question, to consider
briefly—though we may not be able definitely to determine—the real
antiquity of the Babylonian account.
In Smith’s interesting work on the Chaldæan account of Genesis, the
question whether the Babylonian account preceded the writing of the
book of Genesis, or _vice versâ_, is not definitely dealt with.
Probably this part of his subject was included among the “important
comparisons and conclusions with respect to Genesis” which he preferred
to avoid, as his “desire was first to obtain the recognition of the
evidence without prejudice.” It might certainly have interfered to
some degree with the unprejudiced recognition of the evidence of the
tablets if it had been maintained by him, and still more if he had
demonstrated, that the Babylonian is the earlier version. For the
account in the book of Genesis, coming thus to be regarded as merely an
expurgated version of a narrative originally containing much fabulous
matter, and not a little that is monstrous and preposterous, would
certainly not have been presented to us in quite that aspect in which
it had long been regarded by theologians.
But although Mr. Smith states that he placed the various dates as low
as he fairly could, considering the evidence,—nay, that he “aimed to
do this rather than to establish any system of chronology,”—there can
be no mistake about the relative antiquity which he in reality assigns
to the Babylonian inscriptions. He states, indeed, that every copy of
the Genesis legends belongs to the reign of Assurbanipal, who reigned
over Assyria B.C. 670. But it is “acknowledged on all hands that the
tablets are not the originals, but are only copies from earlier texts.”
The Assyrians acknowledge themselves that this literature was borrowed
from Babylonian sources, and of course it is to Babylonia we have to
look to ascertain the approximate dates of the original documents.
“The difficulty,” he proceeds, “is increased by the following
considerations: it appears that at an early period in Babylonian
history a great literary development took place, and numerous works
were produced which embodied the prevailing myths, religion, and
science of that day. Written, many of them, in a noble style of poetry
on one side, or registering the highest efforts of their science on
the other, these texts became the standards for Babylonian literature,
and later generations were content to copy these writings instead of
making new works for themselves. Clay, the material on which they were
written, was everywhere abundant, copies were multiplied, and by the
veneration in which they were held these texts fixed and stereotyped
the style of Babylonian literature, and the language in which they
were written remained the classical style in the country down to the
Persian conquest. Thus it happens that texts of Rim-agu, Sargon, and
Hammurabi, who were 1000 years before Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus,
show the same language as the texts of these later kings, there being
no sensible difference in style to match the long interval between
them,”—precisely as a certain devotional style of writing of our own
day closely resembles the style of the sixteenth century.
We cannot, then, from the style, determine the age of the original
writings from which the Assyrian tablets were copied. But there are
certain facts which enable us to form an opinion on this point.
Babylonia was conquered about B.C. 1300, by Tugultininip, king of
Assyria. For 250 years before that date a foreign race (called by
Berosus, Arabs) had ruled in Babylonia. There is no evidence of any of
the original Babylonian Genesis tablets being written after the date of
Hammurabi, under whom it is supposed that this race obtained dominion
in Babylonia. Many scholars, indeed, regard Hammurabi as much more
ancient; but none set him later than 1550 B.C.
Now, before the time of Hammurabi several races of kings reigned,
their reigns ranging over a period of 500 years. They were called
chiefly Kings of Sumir and Akkad—that is, Kings of Upper and Lower
Babylonia. It is believed that before this period,—ranging, say, from
about 2000 B.C. to 1550 B.C. (at least not later, though possibly,
and according to many scholars, probably, far earlier),—the two
divisions of Babylonia were separate monarchies. Thus, evidence
whether any literature was written before or after B.C. 2000, may
be found in the presence or absence of mention, or traces, of this
division of the Babylonian kingdom. Mr. Smith considers, for example,
that two works,—the great Chaldæan work on astrology, and a legend
which he calls “The Exploits of Lubara,”—certainly belong to the
period preceding B.C. 2000. In the former work, the subject of which
specially connects it, as will presently be seen, with the tablet
relating to the creation of the heavenly bodies, Akkad is always
referred to as a separate state.
Now Mr. Smith finds that the story of the Creation and Fall belongs
to the upper or Akkad division of the country. The Izdubar legends,
containing the story of the Flood, and what Mr. Smith regards as
probably the history of Nimrod, seem to belong to Sumir, the southern
division of Babylonia. He considers the Izdubar legends to have been
written at least as early as B.C. 2000. The story of the Creation
“may not have been committed to writing so early;” but it also is
of great antiquity. And these legends “were traditions before they
were committed to writing, and were common, in some form, to all the
country.” Remembering Mr. Smith’s expressed intention of setting all
dates as late as possible, his endeavour to do this rather than to
establish any system of chronology, we cannot misunderstand the real
drift of his arguments, or the real significance of his conclusion that
the period when the Genesis tablets were originally written extended
from B.C. 2000 to B.C. 1550, or roughly synchronized with the period
from Abraham to Moses, according to the ordinary chronology of our
Bibles. “During this period it appears that traditions of the creation
of the universe, and human history down to the time of Nimrod, existed
parallel to, and in some points identical with, those given in the book
of Genesis.”
Thus viewing the matter, we recognize the interest of that passage in
the Babylonian Genesis tablets which corresponds with the account in
the book of Genesis respecting the creation of the heavenly bodies. We
find in it the earliest existent record of the origin of astrological
superstitions. It does not express merely the vague belief, which
might be variously interpreted, that the sun and moon and stars were
specially created (after light had been created, after the firmament
had been formed separating the waters above from the waters below, and
after the land had been separated from the water) to be for signs and
for seasons for the inhabitants of the world—that is, of our earth.
It definitely states that those other suns, the stars, were set into
constellation figures for man’s benefit; the planets and the moon next
formed for his use; and the sun set thereafter in the heavens as the
chief among the celestial bodies.
It runs thus, so far as the fragments have yet been gathered together:—
FIFTH TABLET OF CREATION LEGEND.
1. It was delightful all that was fixed by the great gods.
2. Stars, their appearance [in figures] of animals he arranged,
3. To fix the year through the observation of their
constellations,
4. Twelve months (or signs) of stars in three rows he arranged,
5. From the day when the year commences unto the close.
6. He marked the positions of the wandering stars (planets) to
shine in their courses,
7. That they may not do injury, and may not trouble any one.
8. The positions of the gods Bel and Hea he fixed with him.
9. And he opened the great gates in the darkness shrouded,
10. The fastenings were strong on the left and right.
11. In its mass (_i.e._ the lower chaos) he made a boiling.
12. The god Uru (the moon) he caused to rise out, the night he
over shadowed,
13. To fix it also for the light of the night until the shining
of the day,
14. That the month might not be broken, and in its amount be
regular.
15. At the beginning of the month, at the rising of the night,
16. His horns are breaking through to shine on the heaven.
17. On the seventh day to a circle he begins to swell,
18. And stretches towards the dawn further.
19. When the god Shamas (the sun) in the horizon of heaven, in
the east,
20. . . . formed beautifully and . . .
21. . . . . . . to the orbit Shamas was perfected
22. . . . . . . . . . the dawn Shamas should change
23. . . . . . . . . . . . . going on its path
24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . giving judgment
25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to tame
26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a second time
27. . . .
Of this tablet Smith remarks that it is a typical specimen of the
style of the series, and shows a marked stage in the Creation, the
appointment of the heavenly orbs running parallel to the biblical
account of the fourth day of Creation. It is important to notice
its significance in this respect. We can understand now the meaning
underlying the words, “God said, Let there be lights in the firmament
of the heavens, to divide the day from the night; and let them be for
signs and for seasons, and for days and years.” The order, indeed,
in which the bodies are formed according to the biblical account is
inverted. The greater light—the sun—is made first, to rule the day:
then the lesser light—the moon—to rule the night. These are the
heavenly bodies which in this description rule the day of 24 hours.
The sun may be regarded also as ruling (according to the ancient view,
as according to nature) the seasons and the year. The stars remain as
set in the heaven for signs. “He made the stars also.” “And God set
them”—that is, the sun, moon, and stars—“in the firmament of the
heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over
the night,” and so forth.
No one can doubt, I conceive, that the biblical account is superior
to the other, both in a scientific and in a literary sense. It states
much less as actually known, and what it does state accords better with
the facts known in the writer’s day. Then, the Babylonian narrative,
though impressive in certain passages, is overloaded with detail.
In both accounts we find the heavenly bodies set in the firmament
by a special creative act, and specially designed for the benefit
of man. And in passing I would observe that the discovery of these
Babylonian inscriptions, however they may be interpreted, and whether
they be regarded as somewhat earlier or somewhat later than the Bible
narrative, appears to dispose finally of the fantastic interpretation
assigned by Hugh Miller and others to the biblical cosmogony, as
corresponding to a series of visions in which the varying aspects
of the world were presented. It has long seemed to me an utterly
untenable proposition that a narrative seemingly intended to describe
definitely a certain series of events should, after being for ages
so interpreted, require now for its correct interpretation to be
regarded as an account of a series of visions. If the explanation were
reconcilable in any way with the words of Genesis, there yet seems
something of profanity in imagining that men’s minds had thus been
played with by a narrative purporting to be of one sort yet in reality
of quite a different character. But whatever possibility there may be
(and it can be but the barest possibility) that the Genesis narrative
admits of the vision interpretation, no one can reasonably attempt to
extend that interpretation to the Babylonian account. So that either
a narrative from which the Genesis account was presumably derived was
certainly intended to describe a series of events, or else a narrative
very nearly as early as the Genesis account, and presumably derived
from it at a time when its true meaning must have been known, presents
the sun, moon, and stars as objects expressly created and set in the
sky after the earth had been formed, and for the special benefit of man
as yet uncreated.
I am not concerned, however, either to dwell upon this point, or to
insist on any of its consequences. Let us return to the consideration
of the Babylonian narrative as it stands.
We find twelve constellations or signs of the zodiac are mentioned
as set to fix the year. I am inclined to consider that the preceding
words, “stars, their appearance in figures of animals he arranged,”
relate specially to the stars of the zodiac. The inventor of this
astrogony probably regarded the stars as originally scattered in an
irregular manner over the heavens,—rather as chaotic material from
which constellations might be formed, than as objects separately and
expressly created. Then they were taken and formed into figures of
animals, set in such a way as to fix the year through the observation
of these constellations. It is hardly necessary, perhaps, to remind the
reader that the word zodiac is derived from a Greek word signifying
an animal, the original name of the zone being the zodiacal way,
or the pathway of the animals. Our older navigators called it the
Bestiary.[46] “Twelve months or signs in three rows.” Smith takes the
three rows to mean (i.) the zodiacal signs, (ii.) the constellations
north of the zodiac, and (iii.) the constellations south of the zodiac.
But this does not agree with the words “twelve signs in three rows.”
Possibly the reference is to three circles, two bounding the zodiac
on the north and south respectively, the third central, the ecliptic,
or track of the sun; or the two tropics and the equator may have
been signified. Instead of “twelve signs in three rows,” we should,
probably, read “twelve signs along a triple band.” The description was
written long after astronomical temples were first erected, and as
the designer of a zodiacal dome like that (far more recently) erected
at Denderah would set the twelve zodiacal signs along a band formed
by three parallel circles, marking its central line and its northern
and southern limits, so we can understand the writer of the tablet
presenting the celestial architect as working in the same lines, on a
grander scale; setting the twelve zodiacal signs on the corresponding
triple band in the heavens themselves.
The next point to be noticed in the Babylonian astrology is the
reference to “wandering stars.” Mr. Smith remarks that the word
_nibir_, thus translated, “is not the usual word for planet, and
there is a star called _Nibir_ near the place where the sun crossed
the boundary between the old and new years, and this star was one of
twelve supposed to be favourable to Babylonia.” “It is evident,” he
proceeds, “from the opening of the inscription on the first tablet of
the Chaldæan astrology and astronomy, that the functions of the stars
were, according to the Babylonians, to act not only as regulators of
the seasons and the year, but also to be used as signs, as in Genesis
i. 14; for in those ages it was generally believed that the heavenly
bodies gave, by their appearance and positions, signs of events which
were coming on the earth.” The two verses relating to Nibir seem to
correspond to no other celestial bodies but planets (unless, perhaps,
to comets). If we regard Nibir as signifying any fixed star, we can
find no significance in the marking of the course of the star Nibir,
that it may do no injury and may not trouble any one. Moreover, as the
fixed stars, the sun, and the moon, are separately described, it seems
unlikely that the planets would be left unnoticed. In the biblical
narrative the reference to the celestial bodies is so short that we
can understand the planets being included in the words, “He made the
stars also.” But in an account so full of detail as that presented
in the Babylonian tablet, the omission of the planets would be very
remarkable. It is also worthy of notice that in Polyhistor’s Babylonian
traditions, recorded by Berosus, we read that “Belus formed the stars,
the sun, the moon, and the five planets.”
In the tablet narrative the creator of the heavenly bodies is supposed
to be Anu, god of the heavens. This is inferred by Mr. Smith from the
fact “that the God who created the stars, fixed places or habitations
for Bel and Hea with himself in the heavens.” For according to the
Babylonian theogony, the three gods Anu, Bel, and Hea share between
them the divisions of the face of the sky.
The account of the creation of the moon is perhaps the most
interesting part of the narrative. We see that, according to the
Babylonian philosophy, the earth is regarded as formed from the waters
and resting after its creation above a vast abyss of chaotic water.
We find traces of this old hypothesis in several biblical passages,
as, for instance, in the words of the Third Commandment, “the heaven
above, the earth beneath, and the waters under the earth;” and again
in Proverbs xxx. 4, “Who hath bound the waters in a garment? who
hath established all the ends of the earth?” “The great gates in the
darkness shrouded, the fastenings strong on the left and right,” in the
Babylonian account, refer to the enclosure of the great infernal lake,
so that the waters under the earth might not overwhelm the world. It
is from out the dark ocean beneath the earth that the god Anu calls
the moon into being. He opens the mighty gates shrouded in the nether
darkness, and creates a vast whirlpool in the gloomy ocean; then “at
his bidding, from the turmoil arose the moon like a giant bubble, and
passing through the open gates mounted on its destined way across the
vaults of heaven.” It is strange to reflect that in quite recent times,
at least 4000 years after the Babylonian tablet was written, and who
shall tell how many years after the tradition was first invented?—a
theory of the moon’s origin not unlike the Babylonian hypothesis has
been advanced, despite overwhelming dynamical objections; and a modern
paradoxist has even pointed to the spot beneath the ocean where a
sudden increase of depth indicates that matter was suddenly extruded
long ago, and driven forcibly away from the earth to the orbit along
which that expelled mass—our moon—is now travelling.
It would have been interesting to have known how the Babylonian tablet
described the creation of Shamas, the sun; though, so far as can be
judged from the fragments above quoted, there was not the same fulness
of detail in this part of the description as in that relating to the
moon. Mr. Smith infers that the Babylonians considered the moon the
more important body, unlike the writer or compiler of the book of
Genesis, who describes the sun as the greater light. It does not seem
to follow very clearly, however, from the tablet record, that the
sun was considered inferior to the moon in importance, and certainly
we cannot imagine that the Babylonians considered the moon a greater
light. The creation of the stars precedes that of the moon, though
manifestly the moon was judged to be more important than the stars. Not
improbably, therefore, the sun, though following the moon in order of
creation, was regarded as the more important orb of the two. In fact,
in the Babylonian as in the (so-called) Mosaic legend of Creation,
the more important members of a series of created bodies are, in some
cases, created last—man last of all orders of animated beings, for
instance.