That the Babylonians were among the most ingenious of all the nations of
antiquity, and had made considerable progress in the arts and sciences
before their conquest by the Persians, is generally admitted. The
classical writers commonly parallel them with the Egyptians; and though,
from their habit of confusing Babylon with Assyria, it is not always
quite certain that the inhabitants of the more southern country--the
real Babylonians--are meant, still there is sufficient reason to believe
that, in the estimation of the Greeks and Romans, the people of
the lower Euphrates were regarded as at least equally advanced in
civilization with those of the Nile valley and the Delta. The branches
of knowledge wherein by general consent the Babylonians principally
excelled were architecture and astronomy. Of their architectural works
two at least were reckoned among the “Seven Wonders,” while others, not
elevated to this exalted rank, were yet considered to be among the most
curious and admirable of Oriental constructions. In astronomical science
they were thought to have far excelled all other nations, and the first
Greeks who made much progress in the subject confessed themselves the
humble disciples of Babylonian teachers.
In the account, which it is proposed to give, in this place, of
Babylonian art and science, so far as they are respectively known to us,
the priority will be assigned to art, which is an earlier product of
the human mind than science; and among the arts the first place will be
given to architecture, as at once the most fundamental of all the fine
arts, and the one in which the Babylonians attained their greatest
excellence. It is as builders that the primitive Chaldaean people, the
progenitors of the Babylonians, first appear before us in history;
and it was on his buildings that the great king of the later Empire,
Nebuchadnezzar, specially prided himself. When Herodotus visited Babylon
he was struck chiefly by its extraordinary edifices; and it is the
account which the Greek writers gave of these erections that has, more
than anything else, procured for the Babylonians the fame that they
possess and the position that they hold among the six or seven leading
nations of the old world.
The architecture of the Babylonians seems to have culminated in the
Temple. While their palaces, their bridges, their walls, even their
private houses were remarkable, their grandest works, their most
elaborate efforts, were dedicated to the honor and service, not of man,
but of God. The Temple takes in Babylonia the same sort of rank which it
has in Egypt and in Greece. It is not, as in Assyria, a mere adjunct
of the palace. It stands by itself, in proud independence, as the
great building of a city, or a part of a city; it is, if not absolutely
larger, at any rate loftier and more conspicuous than any other edifice:
it often boasts a magnificent adornment: the value of the offerings
which are deposited in it is enormous: in every respect it rivals the
palace, while in some it has a decided preeminence. It draws all eyes
by its superior height and sometimes by its costly ornamentation; it
inspires awe by the religious associations which belong to it; finally,
it is a stronghold as well as a place of worship, and may furnish a
refuge to thousands in the time of danger.
A Babylonian temple seems to have stood commonly within a walled
enclosure. In the case of the great temple of Belus at Babylon, the
enclosure is said to have been a square of two stades each way, or,
in other words, to have contained an area of thirty acres. The temple
itself ordinarily consisted of two parts. Its most essential feature
was a _ziggurat_, or tower, which was either square, or at any rate
rectangular, and built in stages, the smallest number of such stages
being two, and the largest known number seven. At the summit of the
tower was probably in every case a shrine, or chapel, of greater or
less size, containing altars and images. The ascent to this was on the
outside of the towers, which were entirely solid; and it generally wound
round the different faces of the towers, ascending them either by means
of steps or by an inclined plane. Special care was taken with regard to
the emplacement of the tower, either its sides or its angles being
made exactly to confront the cardinal points. It is said that the
temple-towers were used not merely for religious purposes but also as
observatories, a use with a view to which this arrangement of their
position would have been serviceable.
Besides the shrine at the summit of the temple-tower or ziggurat, there
was commonly at the base of the tower, or at any rate somewhere
within the enclosure, a second shrine or chapel, in which the ordinary
worshipper, who wished to spare himself the long ascent, made his
offerings. Here again the ornamentation was most costly, lavish use
being made of the precious metals for images and other furniture. Altars
of different sizes were placed in the open air in the vicinity of this
lower shrine, on which were sacrificed different classes of victims,
gold being used occasionally as the material of the altar.
The general appearance of a Babylonian temple, or at any rate of its
chief feature, the tower or _ziggurat_, will be best gathered from a
more particular description of a single building of the kind; and the
building which it will be most convenient to take for that purpose is
that remarkable edifice which strikes moderns with more admiration than
any other now existing in the country, and which has also been more
completely and more carefully examined than any other Babylonian
ruins--the Birs-i-Nimrud, or ancient temple of Nebo at Borsippa. The
plan of this tower has been almost completely made out from data still
existing on the spot; and a restoration of the original building may be
given with a near approach to certainty. [PLATE XV., Fig. 1.]
[Illustration: PLATE XV.]
Upon a platform of crude brick, raised a few feet above the level of
the alluvial plain, was built the first or basement stage of the great
edifice, an exact square, 272 feet each way, and and probably twenty-six
feet in perpendicular height. On this was erected a second stage of
exactly the same height, but a square of only 230 feet; which however
was not placed exactly in the middle of the first, but further from its
northeastern than its south-western edge, twelve feet only from the one
and thirty feet from the other. The third stage, which was imposed in
the same way upon the second, was also twenty-six feet high, and was a
square of 188 feet. Thus far the plan had been uniform and without any
variety; but at this point an alteration took place. The height of the
fourth stage, instead of being twenty-six, was only fifteen feet. In
other respects however the old numbers were maintained; the fourth stage
was diminished equally with the others, and was consequently a square of
146 feet. It was emplaced upon the stage below it exactly as the former
stages had been. The remaining stages probably followed the same rule
of diminution--the fifth being a square of 104, the sixth one of 24, and
the seventh one of 20 feet. Each of these stages had a height of
fifteen feet. Upon the seventh or final stage was erected the shrine
or tabernacle, which was probably also fifteen feet high, and about
the same length and breadth. Thus the entire height of the building,
allowing three feet for the crude brick platform, was 150 feet.
The ornamentation of the edifice was chiefly by means of color. The
seven stages represented the Seven Spheres, in which moved (according
to ancient Chaldaean astronomy) the seven planets. To each planet fancy,
partly grounding itself upon fact, had from of old assigned a peculiar
tint or hue. The Sun was golden, the Moon silver; the distant Saturn,
almost beyond the region of light, was black; Jupiter was orange the
fiery Mars was red; Venus was a pale Naples yellow; Mercury a deep blue.
The seven stages of the tower, like the seven walls of Ecbatana, gave
a visible embodiment to these fancies. The basement stage, assigned to
Saturn, was blackened by means of a coating of bitumen spread over the
face of the masonry; the second stage, assigned to Jupiter, obtained the
appropriate orange color by means of a facing of burnt bricks of that
hue; the third stage, that of Mars, was made blood-red by the use
of half-burnt bricks formed of a bright red clay; the fourth stage,
assigned to the Sun, appears to have been actually covered with thin
plates of gold; the fifth, the stage of Venus, received a pale yellow
tint from the employment of bricks of that hue; the sixth, the sphere of
Mercury, was given an azure tint by vitrifaction, the whole stage having
been subjected to an intense heat after it was erected, whereby the
bricks composing it were converted into a mass of blue slag; the seventh
stage, that of the Moon, was probably, like the fourth, coated with
actual plates of metal. Thus the building rose up in stripes of varied
color, arranged almost as nature’s cunning arranges hues in the rainbow,
tones of red coming first, succeeded by a broad stripe of yellow, the
yellow being followed by blue. Above this the glowing silvery summit
melted into the bright sheen of the sky. [PLATE XVI.]
[Illustration: PLATE XVI.]
The faces of the various stages were, as a general rule, flat and
unbroken, unless it were by a stair or ascent, of which however there
has been found no trace. But there were two exceptions to this general
plainness. The basement stage was indented with a number of shallow
squared recesses, which seem to have been intended for a decoration. The
face of the third stage was weak on account of its material, which was
brick but half-burnt. Here then the builders, not for ornament’s sake,
but to strengthen their work, gave to the wall the support of a number
of shallow buttresses. They also departed from their usual practice,
by substituting for the rigid perpendicular of the other faces a slight
slope outwards for some distance from the base. These arrangements,
which are apparently part of the original work, and not remedies applied
subsequently, imply considerable knowledge of architectural principles
on the part of the builders, and no little ingenuity in turning
architectural resources to account.
With respect to the shrine which was emplaced upon the topmost, or
silver stage, little is definitely known. It appears to have been of
brick; and we may perhaps conclude from the analogy of the old Chaldaean
shrines at the summits of towers, as well as from that of the Belus
shrine at Babylon, that it was richly ornamented both within and
without; but it is impossible to state anything as to the exact
character of the ornamentation.
The tower is to be regarded as fronting to the north-east, the coolest
side and that least exposed to the sun’s rays from the time that they
become oppressive in Babylonia. On this side was the ascent, which
consisted probably of abroad staircase extending along the whole front
of the building. The side platforms (those towards the south-east and
north-west)--at any rate of the first and second stages, probably
of all--were occupied by a series of chambers abutting upon the
perpendicular wall, as the priests’ chambers of Solomon’s temple abutted
upon the side walls of that building. In these were doubtless lodged the
priests and other attendants upon the temple service. The side chambers
seem sometimes to have communicated with vaulted apartments within
the solid mass of the structure, like those of which we hear in the
structure supporting the “hanging gardens.” It is possible that there
may have been internal stair-cases, connecting the vaulted apartments
of one stage with those of another; but the ruin has not yet been
sufficiently explored for us to determine whether or not there was such
communication.
The great Tower is thought to have been approached through a vestibule
of considerable size. Towards the north-east the existing ruin
is prolonged in an irregular manner and it is imagined that this
prolongation marks the site of a vestibule or propylaeum, originally
distinct from the tower, but now, through the crumbling down of both
buildings, confused with its ruins. As no scientific examination has
been made of this part of the mound, the above supposition can only be
regarded as a conjecture. Possibly the excrescence does not so much mark
a vestibule as a second shrine, like that which is said to have existed
at the foot of the Belus Tower at Babylon. Till, however, additional
researches have been made, it is in vain to think of restoring the plan
or elevation of this part of the temple.
From the temples of the Babylonians we may now pass to their
palaces--constructions inferior in height and grandeur, but covering a
greater space, involving a larger amount of labor, and admitting of more
architectural variety. Unfortunately the palaces have suffered from the
ravages of time even more than the temples, and in considering their
plan and character we obtain little help from the existing remains.
Still, something may be learnt of them from this source, and where
it fails we may perhaps be allowed to eke out the scantiness of our
materials by drawing from the elaborate descriptions of Diodorus such
points as have probability in their favor.
The Babylonian palace, like the Assyrian, and the Susianian, stood upon
a lofty mound or platform. This arrangement provided at once for safety,
for enjoyment, and for health. It secured a pure air, freedom from the
molestation of insects, and a position only assailable at a few points.
The ordinary shape of the palace mound appears to have been square;
its elevation was probably not less than fifty or sixty feet. It was
composed mainly of sun-dried bricks, which however were almost certainly
enclosed externally by a facing of burnt brick, and may have been
further strengthened within by walls of the same material, which perhaps
traversed the whole mound. The entire mass seems to have been carefully
drained, and the collected waters were conveyed through subterranean
channels to the level of the plain at the mound’s base. The summit
of the platform was no doubt paved, either with stone or burnt
brick--mainly, it is probable, with the latter; since the former
material was scarce, and though a certain number of stone pavement slabs
have been found, they are too rare and scattered to imply anything like
the general use of stone paving. Upon the platform, most likely towards
the centre, rose the actual palace, not built (like the Assyrian
palaces) of crude brick faced with a better material, but constructed
wholly of the finest and hardest burnt brick laid in a mortar of extreme
tenacity, with walls of enormous thickness, parallel to the sides of the
mound, and meeting each other at right angles. Neither the ground-plan
nor the elevation of a Babylonian palace can be given; nor can even
a conjectural restoration of such a building be made, since the small
fragment of Nebuchadnezzar’s palace which remains has defied all
attempts to reduce it to system. We can only say that the lines of
the building were straight; that the walls rose, at any rate to a
considerable height, without windows; and that the flatness of the
straight line was broken by numerous buttressses and pilasters. We
have also evidence that occasionally there was an ornamentation of the
building, either within or without, by means of sculptured stone slabs,
on which were represented figures of a small size, carefully wrought.
The general ornamentation, however, external as well as internal, we
may well believe to have been such as Diodorus states, colored
representations on brick of war-scenes, and hunting-scenes, the
counterparts in a certain sense of those magnificent bas-reliefs which
everywhere clothed the walls of palaces in Assyria. It has been already
noticed that abundant remains of such representations have been found
upon the Kasr mound. [PLATE XV., Fig. 2.] They seem to have alternated
with cuneiform inscriptions, in white on a blue ground, or else with a
patterning of rosettes in the same colors.
Of the general arrangement of the royal palaces, of their height, their
number of stories, their roofing, and their lighting, we know absolutely
nothing. The statement made by Herodotus, that many of the private
houses in the town had three or four stories, would naturally lead us
to suppose that the palaces were built similarly; but no ancient author
tells us that this was so. The fact that the walls which exist, though
of considerable height, show no traces of windows, would seem to imply
that the lighting, as in Assyria, was from the top of the apartment,
either from the ceiling, or from apertures in the part of the walls
adjoining the ceiling. Altogether, such evidence as exists favors
the notion that the Babylonian palace, in its character and general
arrangements, resembled the Assyrian, with only the two differences,
that Babylonian was wholly constructed of burnt brick, while in the
Assyrian the sun-dried material was employed to a large extent; and,
further, that in Babylonia the decoration of the walls was made, not
by slabs of alabaster, which did not exist in the country, but
mainly--almost entirely--by colored representations upon the
brickwork.
Among the adjuncts of the principal palace at Babylon was the remarkable
construction known to the Greeks and Romans as “the Hanging Garden.” The
accounts which, Diodorus, Strabo, and Q. Curtius give of this structure
are not perhaps altogether trustworthy; still, it is probable that they
are in the main at least founded on fact. We may safely believe that a
lofty structure was raised at Babylon on several tiers of arches, which
supported at the top a mass of earth, wherein grew, not merely flowers
and shrubs, but trees of a considerable size. The Assyrians had been in
the habit of erecting structures of a somewhat similar kind, artificial
elevations to support a growth of trees and shrubs; but they were
content to place their garden at the summit of a single row of pillars
or arches, and thus to give it a very moderate height. At Babylon the
object was to produce an artificial imitation of a mountain. For this
purpose several tiers of arches were necessary; and these appear to have
been constructed in the manner of a Roman amphitheatre, one directly
over another so that the outer wall formed from summit to base a single
perpendicular line. Of the height of the structure various accounts are
given, while no writer reports the number of the tiers of arches. Hence
there are no sufficient data for a reconstruction of the edifice.
Of the walls and bridge of Babylon, and of the ordinary houses of the
people, little more is known than has been already reported in the
general description of the capital. It does not appear that they
possessed any very great architectural merit. Some skill was shown in
constructing the piers of the bridge, which presented an angle to the
current and then a curved line, along which the water slid gently.
[PLATE XV., Fig. 3.] The loftiness of the houses, which were of three or
four stories, is certainly surprising, since Oriental houses have very
rarely more than two stories. Their construction, however, seems to have
been rude; and the pillars especially--posts of palm, surrounded
with wisps of rushes, and then plastered and painted--indicate a low
condition of taste and a poor and coarse style of domestic architecture.
The material used by the Babylonians in their constructions seems
to have been almost entirely brick. Like the early Chaldaeans, they
employed bricks of two kinds, both the ruder sun-dried sort, and the
very superior kiln-baked article. The former, however, was only applied
to platforms, and to the interior of palace mounds and of very thick
walls, and was never made by the later people the sole material of a
building. In every case there was at least a revetement of kiln-dried
brick, while the grander buildings were wholly constructed of it. The
baked bricks used were of several different qualities, and (within
rather narrow limits) of different sizes. The finest quality of brick
was yellow, approaching to our Stourbridge or fire-brick; another very
hard kind was blue, approaching to black; the commoner and coarser
sorts were pink or red, and these were sometimes, though rarely, but
half-baked, in which case they were weak and friable. The shape was
always square; and the dimensions varied between twelve and fourteen
inches for the length and breadth, and between three and four inches
for the thickness. [PLATE XVII., Fig. 1.] At the corners of buildings,
half-bricks were used in the alternate rows, since otherwise the
joinings must have been all one exactly over another. The bricks were
always made with a mold, and were commonly stamped on one face with
an inscription. They were, of course, ordinarily laid horizontally.
Sometimes, however, there was a departure from this practice. Rows of
bricks were placed vertically, separated from one another by single
horizontal layers. This arrangement seems to have been regarded as
conducing to strength, since it occurs only where there is an evident
intention of supporting a weak construction by the use of special
architectural expedients.
[Illustration: PLATE XVII.]
The Babylonian builders made use of three different kinds of cement. The
most indifferent was crude clay, or mud, which was mixed with chopped
straw, to give it greater tenacity, and was applied in layers of
extraordinary thickness. This was (it is probable) employed only where
it was requisite that the face of the building should have a certain
color. A cement superior to clay, but not of any very high value, unless
as a preventive against damp, was bitumen, which was very generally used
in basements and in other structures exposed to the action of water.
Mortar, however, or lime cement was far more commonly employed than
either of the others, and was of very excellent quality, equal indeed to
the best Roman material.
There can be no doubt that the general effect of the more ambitious
efforts of the Babylonian architects was grand and imposing. Even now,
in their desolation and ruin, their great size renders them impressive;
and there are times and states of atmosphere under which they fill
the beholder with a sort of admiring awe, akin to the feeling which is
called forth by the contemplation of the great works of nature. Rude
and inartificial in their idea and general construction, without
architectural embellishment, without variety, without any beauty
of form, they yet affect men by their mere mass, producing a direct
impression of sublimity, and at the same time arousing a sentiment
of wonder at the indomitable perseverance which from materials so
unpromising could produce such gigantic results. In their original
condition, when they were adorned with color, with a lavish display of
the precious metals, with pictured representations of human life, and
perhaps with statuary of a rough kind, they must have added to
the impression produced by size a sense of richness and barbaric
magnificence. The African spirit, which loves gaudy hues and costly
ornament, was still strong among the Babylonians, even after they had
been Semitized; and by the side of Assyria, her colder and more
correct northern sister, Babylonia showed herself a true child of the
south--rich, glowing, careless of the laws of taste, bent on provoking
admiration by the dazzling brilliancy of her appearance.
It is difficult to form a decided opinion as to the character of
Babylonian mimetic art. The specimens discovered are so few, so
fragmentary, and in some instances so worn by time and exposure, that
we have scarcely the means of doing justice to the people in respect of
this portion of their civilization. Setting aside the intaglios on
seals and gems, which have such a general character of quaintness and
grotesqueness, or at any rate of formality, that we can scarcely look
upon many of them as the serious efforts of artists doing their best, we
possess not half a dozen specimens of the mimetic art of the people in
question. We have one sculpture in the round, one or two modelled clay
figures, a few bas-reliefs, one figure of a king engraved on stone,
and a few animal forms represented the same material. Nothing more has
reached us but fragments of pictorial representations too small for
criticism to pronounce upon, and descriptions of ancient writers too
incomplete to be of any great value.
The single Babylonian sculpture in the round which has come down to our
times is the colossal lion standing over the prostrate figure of a
man, which is still to be seen on the Kasr mound, as has been already
mentioned. The accounts of travellers uniformly state that it is a work
of no merit--either barbarously executed, or left unfinished by the
sculptor--and probably much worn by exposure to the weather. A sketch
made by a recent visitor and kindly communicated to the author, seems to
show that, while the general form of the animal was tolerably well hit
off, the proportions were in some respects misconceived, and the details
not only rudely but incorrectly rendered. The extreme shortness of
the legs and the extreme thickness of the tail are the most prominent
errors; there is also great awkwardness in the whole representation of
the beast’s shoulder. The head is so mutilated that it is impossible
to do more than conjecture its contour. Still the whole figure is not
without a certain air of grandeur and majesty. [PLATE XVII., Fig. 3.]
The human appears to be inferior to the animal form. The prostrate man
is altogether shapeless, and can never, it would seem, have been very
much better than it is at the present time.
Modelled figures in clay are of rare occurrence. The best is one figured
by Ker Porter, which represents a mother with a child in her arms. The
mother is seated in a natural and not ungraceful attitude on a rough
square pedestal. She is naked except for a hood, or mantilla, which
covers the head, shoulders, and back, and a narrow apron which hangs
down in front. She wears earrings and a bracelet. The child, which
sleeps on her left shoulder, wears a shirt open in front, and a short
but full tunic, which is gathered into plaits. Both figures are in
simple and natural taste, but the limbs of the infant are somewhat too
thin and delicate. The statuette is about three inches and a half high,
and shows signs of having been covered with a tinted glaze. [PLATE
XVII., Fig. 2.]
The single figure of a king which we possess is clumsy and ungraceful.
It is chiefly remarkable for the elaborate ornamentation of the
head-dress and the robes, which have a finish equal to that of the best
Assyrian specimens. The general proportions are not bad; but the form is
stiff, and the drawing of the right hand is peculiarly faulty, since it
would be scarcely possible to hold arrows in the manner represented.
[PLATE XVIII., Fig. 2.]
[Illustration: PLATE VXIII.]
The engraved animal forms have a certain amount of merit. The figure
of a dog sitting, which is common on the “black stones,” is drawn with
spirit; [PLATE XVIII., Fig. 1.] and a bird, sometimes regarded as a
cock, but more resembling a bustard, is touched with a delicate hand,
and may be pronounced superior to any Assyrian representation of the
feathered tribe. [PLATE XVIII., Fig. 3.] The hound on a bas-relief,
given in the first volume of this work, is also good; and the cylinders
exhibit figures of goats, cows, deer, and even monkeys, which are
truthful and meritorious. [PLATE XIX., Fig. 1.]
[Illustration: PLATE XIX.]
It has been observed that the main characteristic of the engravings
on gems and cylinders, considered as works of mimetic art, is their
quaintness and grotesqueness. A few specimens, taken almost at random
from the admirable collection of M. Felix Lajard, will sufficiently
illustrate this feature. In one the central position is occupied by
a human figure whose left arm has two elbow-joints, while towards the
right two sitting figures threaten one another with their fists, in the
upper quarter, and in the lower two nondescript animals do the same with
their jaws. [PLATE XVIII., Fig. 4.] The entire drawing of this design
seems to be intentionally rude. The faces of the main figures are
evidently intended to be ridiculous; and the heads of the two animals
are extravagantly grotesque. On another cylinder three nondescript
animals play the principal part. One of them is on the point of taking
into his mouth the head of a man who vainly tries to escape by flight.
Another, with the head of a pike, tries to devour the third, which has
the head of a bird and the body of a goat. This kind intention seems to
be disputed by a naked man with a long beard, who seizes the fish-headed
monster with his right hand, and at the same time administers from
behind a severe kick with his right foot. The heads of the three main
monsters, the tail and trousers of the principal one, and the whole of
the small figure in front of the flying man, are exceedingly quaint, and
remind one of the pencil of Fuseli. [PLATE XIX., Fig. 3.] The third of
the designs approaches nearly to the modern caricature. It is a drawing
in two portions. The upper line of figures represents a procession of
worshippers who bear in solemn state their offerings to a god. In the
lower line this occupation is turned to a jest. Nondescript animals
bring with a serio-comic air offerings which consist chiefly of game,
while a man in a mask seeks to steal away the sacred tree from the
temple wherein the scene is enacted. [PLATE XIX., Fig. 4.]
It is probable that the most elaborate and most artistic of the
Babylonian works of art were of a kind which has almost wholly perished.
What bas-relief was to the Assyrian, what painting is to moderns, that
enamelling upon brick appears to have been to the people of Babylon. The
mimetic power, which delights in representing to itself the forms and
actions of men, found a vent in this curious byway of the graphic
art; and the images of the Chaldaeans, portrayed upon the wall, with
vermilion, and other hues, formed the favorite adornment of palaces and
public buildings, at once employing the artist, gratifying the taste of
the native connoisseur, and attracting the admiration of the foreigner.
The artistic merit of these works can only be conjectured. The
admiration of the Jews, or even that of Diodorus, who must be viewed
here as the echo of Ctesias, is no sure test; for the Jews were a people
very devoid of true artistic appreciation; and Ctesias was bent on
exaggerating the wonders of foreign countries to the Greeks. The fact of
the excellence of Assyrian art at a somewhat earlier date lends however
support to the view that the wall-painting of the Babylonians had some
real artistic excellence. We can scarcely suppose that there was any
very material difference, in respect of taste and aesthetic power,
between the two cognate nations, or that the Babylonians under
Nebuchadnezzar fell very greatly short of the Assyrians under
Asshur-bani-pal. It is evident that the same subjects--war scenes and
hunting scenes--approved themselves to both people; and it is likely
that their treatment was not very different. Even in the matter
of color, the contrast was not sharp nor strong; for the Assyrians
partially colored their bas-reliefs.
Tho tints chiefly employed by the Babylonians in their colored
representations were white, blue, yellow, brown, and black. The blue was
of different shades, sometimes bright and deep, sometimes exceedingly
pale. The yellow was somewhat dull, resembling our yellow ochre. The
brown was this same hue darkened. In comparatively rare instances the
Babylonians made use of a red, which they probably obtained with some
difficulty. Objects were colored, as nearly as possible, according to
their natural tints--water a light blue, ground yellow, the shafts of
spears black, lions a tawny brown, etc. No attempt was made to shade
the figures or the landscape, much less to produce any general effect
by means of _chiaroscuro_; but the artist trusted for his effect to
a careful delineation of forms, and a judicious arrangement of simple
hues.
Considerable metallurgic knowledge and skill were shown in the
composition of the pigments, and the preparation and application of
the glaze wherewith they are covered. The red used was a sub-oxide of
copper; the yellow was sometimes oxide of iron, sometimes antimoniate of
lead--the Naples yellow of modern artists; the blue was either cobalt or
oxide of copper; the white was oxide of tin. Oxide of load was added in
some cases, not as a coloring matter, but as a flux, to facilitate the
fusion of the glaze. In other cases the pigment used was covered with a
vitreous coat of an alkaline silicate of alumina.
The pigments were not applied to an entirely flat surface. Prior to the
reception of the coloring matter and the glaze, each brick was modelled
by the hand, the figures being carefully traced out, and a slight
elevation given to the more important objects. A very low bas-relief was
thus produced, to which the colors were subsequently applied, and the
brick was then baked in the furnace.
It is conjectured that the bricks were not modelled singly and
separately. A large mass of clay was (it is thought) taken, sufficient
to contain a whole subject, or at any rate a considerable portion of
a subject. On this the modeller made out his design in low relief. The
mass of clay was then cut up into bricks, and each brick was taken and
painted separately with the proper colors, after which they were all
placed in the furnace and baked. When baked, they were restored to their
original places in the design, a thin layer of the finest mortar serving
to keep them in place.
From the mimetic art of the Babylonians, and the branches of knowledge
connected with it, we may now pass to the purely mechanical arts--as the
art by which hard stones were cut, and those of agriculture, metallurgy,
pottery, weaving, carpet-making, embroidery, and the like.
The stones shaped, bored, and engraved by Babylonian artisans were
not merely the softer and more easily worked kinds, as alabaster,
serpentine, and lapis-lazuli, but also the harder sorts-cornelian,
agate, quartz, jasper, sienite, loadstone, and green felspar or
amazon-stone. These can certainly not have been cut without emery, and
scarcely without such devices as rapidly revolving points, or discs, of
the kind used by modern lapidaries. Though the devices are in general
rude, the work is sometimes exceedingly delicate, and implies a complete
mastery over tools and materials, as well as a good deal of artistic
power. As far as the mechanical part of the art goes, the Babylonians
may challenge comparison with the most advanced of the nations of
antiquity; they decidedly excel the Egyptians, and fall little, if at
all, short of the Greeks and Romans.
The extreme minuteness of the work in some of the Babylonian seals and
gems raises a suspicion that they must have been engraved by the help of
a powerful magnifying-glass. A lens has been found in Assyria; and there
is much reason to believe that the convenience was at least as well
known in the lower country. Glass was certainly in use, and was cut into
such shapes as were required. It is at any rate exceedingly likely that
magnifying-glasses, which were undoubtedly known to the Greeks in the
time of Aristophanes, were employed by the artisans of Babylon during
the most flourishing period of the Empire.
Of Babylonian metal-work we have scarcely any direct means of judging.
The accounts of ancient authors imply that the Babylonians dealt freely
with the material, using gold and silver for statues, furniture, and
utensils, bronze for gates and images, and iron sometimes for the
latter. We may assume that they likewise employed bronze and iron for
tools and weapons, since those metals were certainly so used by the
Assyrians. Lead was made of service in building; where iron was also
employed, if great strength was needed. The golden images are said to
have been sometimes solid, in which case we must suppose them to have
been cast in a mold; but undoubtedly in most cases the gold was a mere
external covering, and was applied in plates, which were hammered into
shape upon some cheaper substance below. Silver was no doubt used
also in plates, more especially when applied externally to walls, or
internally to the woodwork of palaces; but the silver images, ornamental
figures, and utensils of which we hear, were most probably solid. The
bronze works must have been remarkable. We are told that both the town
and the palace gates were of this material, and it is implied that the
latter were too heavy to be opened in the ordinary manner. Castings
on an enormous scale would be requisite for such purposes; and the
Babylonians must thus have possessed the art of running into a single
mold vast masses of metal. Probably the gates here mentioned were
solid; but occasionally, it would seem, the Babylonians had gates of a
different kind, composed of a number of perpendicular bars, united by
horizontal ones above and below [as in PLATE XIX., Fig. 2.]. They had
also, it would appear, metal gateways of a similar character.
The metal-work of personal ornaments, such as bracelets and armlets, and
again that of dagger handles, seems to have resembled the work of the
Assyrians.
Small figures in bronze were occasionally cast by the Babylonians, which
were sometimes probably used as amulets, while perhaps more generally
they wore mere ornaments of houses, furniture, and the like. Among these
may be noticed figures of dogs in a sitting posture, much resembling the
dog represented among the constellations, figures of men, grotesque
in character, and figures of monsters. An interesting specimen, which
combines a man and a monster, was found by Sir R. Ker Porter at Babylon.
[PLATE XX., Fig. 1.]
[Illustration: PLATE XX.]
The pottery of the Babylonians was of excellent quality, and is scarcely
to be distinguished from the Assyrian, which it resembles alike in form
and in material. The bricks of the best period were on the whole better
than any used in the sister country, and may compare for hardness and
fineness with the best Roman. The earthenware is of a fine terra-cotta,
generally of a light red color, and slightly baked, but occasionally of
a yellow hue, with a tinge of green. It consists of cups, jars, vases,
and other vessels. They appear to have been made upon the wheel, and
are in general unornamented. From representations upon the cylinders, it
appears that the shapes were often elegant. Long and narrow vases with
thin necks seem to have been used for water vessels; these had rounded
or pointed bases, and required therefore the support of a stand. Thin
jugs were also in use, with slight elegant handles. It is conjectured
that sometimes modelled figures may have been introduced at the sides as
handles to the vases; but neither the cylinders nor the extant remains
confirm this supposition. The only ornamentation hitherto observed
consists in a double band which seems to have been carried round some of
the vases in an incomplete spiral. The vases sometimes have two handles;
but they are plain and small, adding nothing to the beauty of the
vessels. Occasionally the whole vessel is glazed with a rich blue color.
[PLATE XX., Fig. 3.]
The Babylonians certainly employed glass for vessels for a small size.
They appear not to have been very skilful blowers, since their bottles
are not unfrequently misshappen. [PLATE XX., Fig. 3.] They generally
stained their glass with, some coloring matter, and occasionally
ornamented it with a ribbing. Whether they were able to form masses
of glass of any considerable size, whether they used it, like the
Egyptians, for beads and bugles, or for mosaics, is uncertain. If we
suppose a foundation in fact for Pliny’s story of the great emerald (?)
presented by a king of Babylon to an Egyptian Pharaoh, we must conclude
that very considerable masses of glass were produced by the Babylonians,
at least occasionally; for the said emerald, which can scarcely have
been of any other material, was four cubits (or six feet) long and three
cubits (or four and a half feet) broad.
Of all the productions of the Babylonians none obtained such, high
repute in ancient times as their textile fabrics. Their carpets
especially were of great celebrity, and were largely exported to foreign
countries. They were dyed of various colors, and represented objects
similar to those found on the gems, as griffins and such like monsters.
Their position in the ancient world may be compared to that which is
now borne by the fabrics of Turkey and Persia, which are deservedly
preferred to those of all other countries.
Next to their carpets, the highest, character was borne by their
muslins. Formed of the finest cotton, and dyed of the most brilliant
colors, they seemed to the Oriental the very best possible material for
dress. The Persian kings preferred them for their own wear; and they
had an early fame in foreign countries at a considerable distance from
Babylonia. It is probable that they were sometimes embroidered with
delicate patterns, such as those which may be seen on the garments of
the early Babylonian kings.
Besides woollen and cotton fabrics, the Babylonians also manufactured
a good deal of linen cloth, the principal seat of the manufacture being
Borsippa. This material was produced, it is probable, chiefly for home
consumption, long linen robes being generally worn by the people.
From the arts of the Babylonians we may now pass to their science--an
obscure subject, but one which possesses more than common interest. If
the classical writers were correct in their belief that Chaldaea was
the birthplace of Astronomy, and that their own astronomical science was
derived mainly from this quarter, it must be well worth inquiry what the
amount of knowledge was which the Babylonians attained on the subject,
and what were the means whereby they made their discoveries.
On the broad flat plains of Chaldsea, where the entire celestial
hemisphere is continually visible to every eye, and the clear
transparent atmosphere shows night after night the heavens gemmed with
countless stars, each shining with a brilliancy unknown in our moist
northern climes, the attention of man was naturally turned earlier than
elsewhere to these luminous bodies, and attempts were made to grasp, and
reduce to scientific form, the array of facts which nature presented to
the eye in a confused and tangled mass. It required no very long course
of observation to acquaint men with a truth, which at first sight none
would have suspected--namely, that the luminous points whereof the sky
was full were of two kinds, some always maintaining the same position
relatively to one another, while others were constantly changing their
places, and as it were wandering about the sky. It is certain that the
Babylonians at a very early date distinguished from the fixed stars
those remarkable five, which, from their wandering propensities, the
Greeks called the “planets,” and which are the only erratic stars that
the naked eye, or that even the telescope, except at a very high power,
can discern. With these five they were soon led to class the Moon, which
was easily observed to be a wandering luminary, changing her place among
the fixed stars with remarkable rapidity. Ultimately, it came to be
perceived that the Sun too rose and set at different parts of the year
in the neighborhood of different constellations, and that consequently
the great luminary was itself also a wanderer, having a path in the sky
which it was possible, by means of careful observation, to mark out.
But to do this, to mark out with accuracy the courses of the Sun and
Moon among the fixed stars, it was necessary, or at least convenient, to
arrange the stars themselves into groups. Thus, too, and thus only, was
it possible to give form and order to the chaotic confusion in which
the stars seem at first sight to lie, owing to the irregularity of
their intervals, the difference in their magnitude, and their apparent
countlessness. The most uneducated eye, when raised to the starry
heavens on a clear night, fixes here and there upon groups of stars: in
the north, Cassiopeia, the Great Bear, the Pleiades--below the Equator,
the Southern Cross--must at all times have impressed those who beheld
them with a certain sense of unity. Thus the idea of a “constellation”
is formed; and this once done, the mind naturally progresses in the same
direction, and little by little the whole sky is mapped out into certain
portions or districts to which names are given--names taken from some
resemblance, real or fancied, between the shapes of the several groups
and objects familiar to the early observers. This branch of practical
astronomy is termed “uranography” by moderns; its utility is very
considerable; thus and thus only can we particularize the individual
stars of which we wish to speak; thus and thus only can we retain in
our memory the general arrangement of the stars and their positions
relatively to each other.
There is reason to believe that in the early Babylonian astronomy
the subject of uranography occupied a prominent place. The Chaldaean
astronomers not only seized on and named those natural groups which
force themselves upon the eye, but artificially arranged the whole
heavens into a certain number of constellations or asterisms. The very
system of uranography which maintains itself to the present day on our
celestial globes and maps, and which is still acknowledged--albeit under
protest--in the nomenclature of scientific astronomers, came in all
probability from this source, reaching us from the Arabians, who took
it from the Greeks who derived it from the Babylonians. The Zodiacal
constellations at any rate, or those through which the sun’s course lies
would seem to have had this origin; and many of them may be distinctly
recognized on Babylonian monuments which are plainly of a stellar
character. The accompanying representation, taken from a conical black
stone in the British Museum [PLATE XX., Fig. 2.], and belonging to the
twelfth century before our era, is not perhaps, strictly speaking, a
zodiac, but it is almost certainly an arrangement of constellations
according to the forms assigned them in Babylonian uranography. [PLATE
XXI.] The Ram, the Bull, the Scorpion, the Serpent, the Dog, the Arrow,
the Eagle or Vulture may all be detected on the stone in question, as
may similar forms variously arranged on other similar monuments.
[Illustration: PLATE XXI.]
The Babylonians called the Zodiacal constellations the “Houses of the
Sun,” and distinguished from them another set of asterisms, which they
denominated the “Houses of the Moon.” As the Sun and Moon both move
through the sky in nearly the same plane, the path of the Moon merely
crossing and recrossing that of the Sun, but never diverging from it
further than a few degrees, it would seem that these “Houses of the
Moon,” or lunar asterisms, must have been a division of the Zodiacal
stars different from that employed with respect to the sun, either
in the number of the “Houses,” or in the point of separation between
“House” and “House.”
The Babylonians observed and calculated eclipses; but their power of
calculation does not seem to have been based on scientific knowledge,
nor to have necessarily implied sound views as to the nature of eclipses
or as to the size, distance, and real motions of the heavenly bodies.
The knowledge which they possessed was empirical. Their habits of
observation led them to discover the period of 223 lunations or 18 years
10 days, after which eclipses--especially those of the the moon--recur
again in the same order. Their acquaintance with this cycle would enable
them to predict lunar eclipses with accuracy for many ages, and solar
eclipses without much inaccuracy for the next cycle or two.
That the Babylonians carefully noted and recorded eclipses is witnessed
by Ptolemy, who had access to a continuous series of such observations
reaching back from his own time to B.C. 747. Five of these--all eclipses
of the moon--were described by Hipparchus from Babylonian sources, and
are found to answer all the requirements of modern science. They belong
to the years B.C. 721, 720, 621, and 523. One of them, that of B.C. 721,
was total at Babylon. The others were partial, the portion of the moon
obscured varying from one digit to seven.
There is no reason to think that the observation of eclipses by the
Babylonians commenced with Nabonassar. Ptolemy indeed implies that the
series extant in his day went no higher; but this is to be accounted for
by the fact, which Berosus mentioned, that Nabonassar destroyed, as
far as he was able, the previously existing observations, in order that
exact chronology might commence with his own reign.
Other astronomical achievements of the Babylonians were the following.
They accomplished a catalogue of the fixed stars, of which the Greeks
made use in compiling their stellar tables. They observed and recorded
their observations upon occultations of the planets by the sun and moon.
They invented the _gnomon_ and the _polos_, two kinds of sundial, by
means of which they were able to measure time during the day, and to
fix the true length of the solar day, with sufficient accuracy. They
determined correctly within a small fraction the length of the synodic
revolution of the moon. They knew that the true length of the solar
year was 365 days and a quarter, nearly. They noticed comets, which they
believed to be permanent bodies, revolving in orbits like those of
the planets, only greater. They ascribed eclipses of the sun to the
interposition of the moon between the sun and the earth. They had
notions not far from the truth with respect to the relative distance
from the earth of the sun, moon, and planets. Adopting, as was natural,
a geocentric system, they decided that the Moon occupied the position
nearest to the earth; that beyond the Moon was Mercury, beyond Mercury
Venus, beyond Venus Mars, beyond Mars Jupiter, and beyond Jupiter, in
the remotest position of all, Saturn. This arrangement was probably
based upon a knowledge, more or less exact, of the periodic times which
the several bodies occupy in their (real or apparent) revolutions. From
the difference in the times the Babylonians assumed a corresponding
difference in the size of the orbits, and consequently a greater or less
distance from the common centre.
Thus far the astronomical achievements of the Babylonians rest upon
the express testimony of ancient writers--a testimony confirmed in many
respects by the monuments already deciphered. It is suspected that, when
the astronomical tablets which exist by hundreds in the British Museum
come to be thoroughly understood, it will be found that the acquaintance
of the Chaldaean sages with astronomical phenomena, if not also with
astronomical laws, went considerably beyond the point at which we should
place it upon the testimony of the Greek and Roman writers. There is
said to be distinct evidence that they observed the four satellites of
Jupiter, and strong reason to believe that they were acquainted likewise
with the seven satellites of Saturn. Moreover, the general laws of the
movements of the heavenly bodies seem to have been so far known to
them that they could state by anticipation the position of the various
planets throughout the year.
In order to attain the astronomical knowledge which they seem to have
possessed, the Babylonians must undoubtedly have employed a certain
number of instruments. The invention of sun-dials, as already observed,
is distinctly assigned to them. Besides these contrivances for measuring
time during the day, it is almost certain that they must have possessed
means of measuring time during the night. The clepsydra, or water-clock,
which was in common use among the Greeks as early as the fifth century
before our era, was probably introduced into Greece from the East,
and is likely to have been a Babylonian invention. The astrolabe, an
instrument for measuring the altitude of stars above the horizon, which
was known to Ptolemy, may also reasonably be assigned to them. It has
generally been assumed that they were wholly ignorant of the telescope.
But if the satellites of Saturn are really mentioned, as it is thought
that they are, upon some of the tablets, it will follow--strange as it
may seem to us--that the Babylonians possessed optical instruments of
the nature of telescopes, since it is impossible, even in the clear and
vapor-loss sky of Chaldaea, to discern the faint moons of that distant
planet without lenses. A lens, it must be remembered, with a fair
magnifying power, has been discovered among the Mesopotamian ruins.
A people ingenious enough to discover the magnifying-glass would be
naturally led on to the invention of its opposite. When once lenses
of the two contrary kinds existed, the elements of a telescope were in
being. We could not assume from these data that the discovery was made;
but if it shall ultimately be substantiated that bodies invisible to the
naked eye were observed by the Babylonians, we need feel no difficulty
in ascribing to them the possession of some telescopic instrument.
The astronomical zeal of the Babylonians was in general, it must be
confessed, no simple and pure love of an abstract science. A school of
pure astronomers existed among them; but the bulk of those who engaged
in the study undoubtedly pursued it in the belief that the heavenly
bodies had a mysterious influence, not only upon the seasons, but upon
the lives and actions of men--an influence which it was possible to
discover and to foretell by prolonged and careful observation. The
ancient writers, Biblical and other, state this fact in the strongest
way; and the extant astronomical remains distinctly confirm it.
The great majority of the tablets are of an astrological character,
recording the supposed influence of the heavenly bodies, singly, in
conjunction, or in opposition, upon all sublunary affairs, from the fate
of empires to the washing of hands or the paring of nails. The modern
prophetical almanac is the legitimate descendant and the sufficient
representative of the ancient Chaldee Ephemeris, which was just as
silly, just as pretentious, and just as worthless.
The Chaldee astrology was, primarily and mainly, genethlialogical.
It inquired under what aspect of the heavens persons were born, or
conceived, and, from the position of the celestial bodies at one or
other of these moments, it professed to deduce the whole life and
fortunes of the individual. According to Diodorus, it was believed
that a particular star or constellation presided over the birth of each
person, and thenceforward exercised over his life a special malign or
benignant influence. But his lot depended, not on this star alone, but
on the entire aspect of the heavens at a certain moment. To cast the
horoscope was to reproduce this aspect, and then to read by means of it
the individual’s future.
Chaldee astrology, was not, however, limited to genethlialogy. The
Chaldaeans professed to predict from the stars such things as the
changes of the weather, high winds and storms, great heats, the
appearance of comets, eclipses, earthquakes, and the like. They
published lists of luck and unlucky days, and tables showing what aspect
of the heavens portended good or evil to particular countries. Curiously
enough, it appears that they regarded their art as locally limited to
the regions inhabited by themselves and their kinsmen, so that while
they could boldly predict storm, tempest, failing or abundant crops,
war, famine, and the like, for Syria, Babylonia, and Susiana, they could
venture on no prophecies with respect to other neighboring lands, as
Persia, Media, Armenia.
A certain amount of real meteorological knowledge was probably mixed
up with the Chaldaean astrology. Their calendars, like modern almanacs,
boldly predicted the weather for fixed days in the year. They must
also have been mathematicians to no inconsiderable extent, since their
methods appear to have been geometrical. It is said that the Greek
mathematicians often quoted with approval the works of their Chaldaean
predecessors, Ciden, Naburianus, and Sudinus. Of the nature and extent
of their mathematical acquirements, no account, however, can be given,
since the writers who mention them enter into no details on the subject.