How high a state of civilisation the Babylonians had reached is shown

by the fact that the invention of writing was a long-accomplished fact

with them. The oldest inscriptions known to us, and which certainly

date as far back as 4000 B.C., are already written in a species of

character which from similarity to the second Egyptian style of writing

has been called hieratic, and it has been proved that this hieratic

style of writing has been evolved from older hieroglyphics, long since

fallen into disuse.

It is not known whether any other material than stone or clay was used

to write upon, and whether in such case syllabic writing was used or

not. It has been surmised that the Babylonians and Assyrians also used,

and perhaps exclusively at first, papyrus, leather, and other soft

materials to write upon, and engraved upon stone or clay only such

matter as they wished to preserve. This is not improbable, even though

we do not possess any such manuscripts. For as a matter of course the

first named materials could not withstand the Babylonian climate as

well as the Egyptian, and only the last named are proof against fire

and water. It is a fact, however, that the bas-reliefs show the scribes

recording the number of the slain on soft material, probably leather,

as well as upon hard tablets. Whether they also wrote books or letters

on papyrus or leather has not been definitely established.

However much the writing of the Babylonians and Assyrians may have

been an inheritance from very ancient times, and how much they may be

indebted to the early Chaldeans for the single form and the structure

of the whole system, the cuneiform writing in which they represented

their language was their own invention in more than one respect, since

they did not thoughtlessly use what was ready to hand, but modified and

altered it with deliberation.

Writing was also used by the Babylonians and Assyrians for purely

literary purposes. The narratives, legends, or poems were inscribed

on tablets of clay, and if in case of a work of greater size, the two

sides covered with microscopic characters did not suffice, a series

of such was used, which were clearly designated and numbered, so that

they were in fact leaves of a book. Generally the title of the whole,

as usual with the Hebrews, the first words and the first words of the

following tablet were inscribed on every tablet. This literature even

if limited to the productions of the imagination, is comparatively

abundant. Although in this respect it may not equal the literature of

some races still living, such as the Chinese, Arabian, Persian, and

Indian, nor that of the ancient times of Greece and India, which in the

last named country grows as luxuriantly as its vegetation, yet on the

other hand, it excels in this respect that of the other Semitic races,

the Hebrews not excepted. This is proved not only by the writings

so far discovered but also by the catalogues of books in Babylonian

libraries or of similar works elsewhere. However, enough has been

brought to light, and in a fair state of preservation, to enable us to

form an opinion of the literary talent of the Babylonians, and to prove

to us what great varieties of it they cultivated.

[Illustration: BAKED CLAY CYLINDER OF SARGON II, KING OF ASSYRIA,

B.C. 722-705, INSCRIBED WITH A CHRONICLE OF HIS EXPEDITION]

The Assyrians stand, in a literary sense, in about the same relation

to the Babylonians as the Romans to the Greeks, disciples who never

equalled their masters, although as far as can be seen, even relatively

considered, Roman literature stands higher in relation to Greek

than Assyrian stands in relation to Babylonian. The tendency of the

Assyrians was warlike, and directed to practical ideas: to found a

mighty empire, and to maintain their supremacy was the end for which

they strove. Therefore they were more interested in history than in

creations of the imagination; purely literary work had little charm

for them. Only much later, a desire is awakened in them to become

acquainted with the productions of the Babylonians in this field, and

to acquire as much as possible of it for themselves. And perhaps even

here interest in the ancient religions and national traditions played a

greater rôle than love for poetry.

The Assyrians seem to have had more taste for what may be designated

the science of the period, than for literature. Here also, they were

following the lead of the Babylonians, and accomplished little beyond

taking possession of the treasures of the Babylonian libraries. The

prestige which attached to the Babylonians in antiquity as the earliest

cultivators of science is well known, although some thought that

they had borrowed it from the Egyptians. Without doubt they reached

the greatest eminence in antiquity in the knowledge of astronomy.

Kalisthenes sent Aristotle astronomical observations from Babylon,

which, according to the most moderate statement, reach back to 1903

before Alexander, _i.e._, 2324 B.C.; and there is nothing improbable

in this. The number of eclipses mentioned on the astronomical tablets

would lead to a conclusion that there was an even longer period of

recorded calculations. It may be that the Ziggurat of the temples,

which originally had a religious significance, might, in Assyria at

least, have been used as observatories. It has even been surmised

that the Babylonians had some sort of a telescope, and this surmise

rests upon the finding of a lens in the ruins, and upon the fact that

they were acquainted with the planet Saturn, which is invisible to

the naked eye; but this doss not seem probable. One thing is certain,

they gave names to the constellations, especially to the signs of

the Zodiac, which have in part remained in use. They were acquainted

with five planets, and distinguished them very exactly from the other

heavenly bodies. They observed, and with great accuracy, the eclipses

of the sun and moon, perhaps also the sun spots, the comets, the orbit

of Venus, and the position of the Polar star; but they had some very

childish ideas about the causes of eclipses and the character of the

other heavenly phenomena. Naturally the Milky Way did not escape their

observation. They even calculated the regular recurrence of eclipses of

the moon as well as its phases.

A few of the mathematical tablets extant prove that they had made

great progress in arithmetic and higher mathematics, so indispensable

to the study of astronomy. The prevalent system was the sexagesimal,

with the 60 as the unit, but the decimal system seems to have been

known and used. However in spite of the recognition of the high value

of these researches, they hardly deserve the name of science. These

researches were certainly not undertaken from a love of science. The

prime object, no doubt, was to discover the will of the gods in regard

to the future. The science of mathematics itself was made subservient

to the art of divination. Astronomy was a secondary object, astrology

the principal one. Knowledge was sought of what must happen when there

should be a recurrence of certain phases of stars and heavenly bodies.

All observations of planets, comets, and other stars, of eclipses and

other phenomena, were immediately connected with occurrences on earth,

which at some former time had fallen in conjunction with them and

consequently must be expected again.

No more were other branches of science besides astronomy cultivated for

their own sakes. Their science of medicine was based almost entirely

upon magic, and appears to have stood on a lower plane than that of the

Egyptians, at least in so far as the still existing inscriptions will

permit us to judge. They indeed used as did the Vedic Indians external

and internal remedies, but they probably regarded them as charms;

whatever progress they may have made in the science of medicine, the

records of it in the ancient inscriptions prove that it was somewhat

less than what we know of the Vedic physicians and their cures. Thus

it is rather an exaggeration to speak of physical, geographical,

grammatical, and mythological writings of the Babylonians and

Assyrians, unless the myths and legends belonging to literature already

discussed are meant.

There are various reasons for the supposition that each of the

Babylonian libraries according to the studies of the several religious

and scientific schools had a distinctive character. The Assyrian

libraries, on the other hand, being all of later date, had more general

and more varied contents.

The idea that these libraries were for the use of the general public,

is not well founded, and rather improbable. They were probably designed

in the first place, for the learned men and scribes of the king, as

well as for his own use, for the instruction of his sons, and future

officials, as well as for archives of the state. They do not in the

least prove that culture, learning, and erudition were the property of

all classes in Assyria.[h]

_Epistolary Literature_

At the same time the large number of written private documents which

have been unearthed--the letters and contract tablets--show that

writing was not an unusual thing among the people as a whole.

From one point of view these old letters are the most interesting

form of Babylonian literature because they show better than anything

else the real life of the nation. At first thought it may seem that a

correspondence on clay must have been cumbersome, but most of these

little letters were not so large as an ordinary envelope and some of

them were only two or three inches long, and could easily be carried

in the pocket. Some of them were enclosed in an outer envelope of clay

which frequently contained a copy of the real document within.

In connection with the code of Khammurabi, his correspondence with one

of his officials, Sin-idinnam, is particularly interesting because

in these letters we find references to the same subjects which are

treated of in the laws. In them all, we see Khammurabi attending to

the minutest affairs of his kingdom, taking a personal interest in

everything. It seems to have been a comparatively easy matter to get

the king’s ear. He received letters complaining of things we should

perhaps consider beneath the notice of a powerful king, and he seems to

have devoted careful thought to all.

The letters of Khammurabi have been edited and translated by Mr. L. W.

King, of the British Museum. They have been also translated by Dr. G.

Nagel[i] for a doctor’s dissertation, at Berlin, and published in the

_Beiträge zur Assyriologie_, vol. IV. Some of the latter’s translations

are given below.[a]

_To Sin-idinnam say: Thus saith Khammurabi._ Naram-Sin the keeper

of flocks hath said: “To the leaders of the troops have our

shepherd lads been given.” Thus did he say. The shepherd lads of

Apil-Shamash and of Naram-Sin must not be given to the troopers.

Now send to Etil-hi-Marduk and his fellows that they give back the

shepherd lads of Apil-Shamash and of Naram-Sin which they have

taken.

_To Sin-idinnam say: Thus saith Khammurabi._ The whole canal was

dug, but it was not dug clear into Erech, so that water does not

come into the city. Also … on the bank of the Duru canal has fallen

in. This labour is not too much for the people at thy command to do

in three days. Directly upon receipt of this writing dig the canal

with all the people at thy command, clear into the city of Erech,

within three days. As soon as thou hast dug the canal, do the work

which I have commanded thee.

_To Sin-idinnam say: Thus saith Khammurabi._ Tummumu of Nippur has

announced to me as follows: “In the place Unaburu (?) I deposited

seventy tons of grain in a granary (?). Avel-ilu has opened the

granary and taken the grain.” Thus did he tell me. See, I am

sending Tummumu to thee with this. Let Avel-ilu be brought before

thee. Examine their dispute. The grain belonging to Tummumu which

Avel-ilu took, he shall give back to Tummumu.

_To Sin-idinnam say: Thus saith Khammurabi._ See, I have ordered

and sent Sin-aiaba-iddina, Guzalu and Shatammu to the war. They

will reach thee on the 12th day of Marshewan. When they have

reached thee, do thou proceed with them. The cows and flocks of

thy province, put into safe keeping. Also Nabu-malik, Ilu-naditum,

Shamash-mushalim, Sin-usili, Taribum, and Idin-Ninshah shall go

with thee and take part in the war.

_To Sin-idinnam say: Thus saith Khammurabi._ Immediately upon

receipt of this letter, have all the keepers of thy temple and

Ardi-Shamash, the son of Eriban, the shepherd of the Shamash temple

come before thee, together with their complete account. Send them

to Babylon to give their account. Let them ride day and night.

Within two days they should be in Babylon.[i]

We also have examples of the private correspondence of the same

period, showing the style of letter one Babylonian wrote to another.

The following remarks and translations of letters are taken from a

dissertation giving letters from the time of Khammurabi.[a]

The insignificant contents of some of these letters show that letter

writing at that time was a general custom and the theory again and

again thrusts itself forward that a comparatively regular postal

service was already in existence. These letters also show how far

Babylonian commerce extended in the second half of the third century

before Christ. Every letter throws new light upon that far distant past

and helps us to form an ever surer picture of the daily life of the old

Babylonian people. Following are a few examples to give an idea of the

epistolary style.

_To my father say: Thus speaks Elmeshu. May Shamash and Marduk keep

my father alive forever. Mayest thou, my father, be in health,

mayest thou live. May the protecting deity of my father lift up the

head of my father in favour. To greet my father have I written.

May the prosperity of my father before Shamash and Marduk endure

forever._ After Sin and Ramman had spoken thy name, my father,[33]

thou, my father, didst speak as follows: “As soon as I come to

Der-Ammizadaduga on the Sharku canal, I will send thee, within a

short space, a lamb with five mina of silver.” This didst thou say,

my father. My father made me expectant, but thou hast sent nothing.

Now after thou, my father, hadst started out to Taribu, the

queen, I sent a letter to my father. Thou, my father, hast never

voluntarily sent anyone who brought (even) a silver shekel. In

accordance with the … of Sin and Ramman who have blessed my father,

may my father send me that for which I am eager, so will my heart

not be grieved, and I will pray for my father to Shamash and Marduk.

_To my lord, say: Thus speaketh Belshunu, thy slave._ Since I have

been confined in prison thou, my lord, hast kept me alive. What is

the reason that for five months my lord has neglected me? The house

in which I am confined is a house of want. Now I have sent the

Mar-abulli (gate-keeper[?]) to you with a letter. I am also ill.

May my lord have pity on me, send me corn and vegetables so that

I may not die. Send me also a dress to cover my nakedness. Either

a half shekel of silver or two mina of wool let him (Mar-abulli)

bring, for my service let him bring it. Let not Mar-abulli be sent

empty away. If he cometh empty, the dogs will devour me. As thou,

my lord, so also every inhabitant of Sippar and Babylon knows that

I am confined without guilt; not because of a _bilshu_, I have

been imprisoned. Thou, my lord, didst send me beyond the river to

carry oil, but the Sutu people met me and took me captive. Speak

a favourable word to the servant of the king’s grand vizir. Send,

that I die not in the house of need. Send one _ka_ of oil and

five _ka_ of salt. What thou didst send a short time ago was not

delivered. Whatever thou sendest, send it well guarded.

_To my father say: Thus saith Zimri-erah. May Shamash and Marduk

give my father everlasting life._ Ibi-Ninshah the younger brother

of Nur-ilishu has fallen upon Nabu-atpalam and beaten him; he has

also spoken insults concerning me which are not to be endured. I

shall beat the young man! Wherefore has he cursed me? I have as yet

said nothing to the person. I thought to myself: “I will send to my

father, let him send his decision about the matter, and then I will

speak to the person.” Now I have sent a tablet to Nabu-atpalam, for

information in this matter. Up! make a decision in this matter,

send your judgment, give (?) a word.

_To the secretary of the merchants of Sippar, Iahruru speak: Thus

saith Ammidatitana._ The wool dealer has informed me as follows:

“I have written to the secretary of the merchants of Sippar,

Iahruru to send his spun wool to Babylon, but he has not sent

his spun wool.” Thus has he informed me. Why hast thou not sent

thy spun wool to Babylon? Since thou hast not feared to do this

thing, so send--as soon as thou seest this tablet--thy spun wool to

Babylon.[34]

_To Appa speak: Thus saith Gimil-Marduk. May Shamash keep thee

alive._ I have spoken in thy behalf to the person in question and

he said; “Let him come so that he may speak.” And the tablets which

thou didst take to examine, take them according to thy examination

and come quickly.

_To Etil-Shamash-iddina speak: Thus saith Avel-Ruhati. May Shamash

and Ishtar keep thee alive; I am well._ Humtani has given for

Amti-Shamash 8⅚ _kat_ and 15 _she_ of silver. To Musalimma, I will

give the money wherever he commands. I am going into the service of

the king’s daughter. I will quickly send thy desire. Send an answer

to my tablet.[j]

Among the large number of letters which have been preserved it has

been possible to find more than one written by the same person, and,

by putting these together, to get some idea of the life and character

of the writer. The letters of a certain Bel-Ibni are prominent among

these. They contain allusions to historical events mentioned on the

monuments, thus contributing valuable details to these rather barren

records of events. Bel-Ibni himself was a general in the army of

Ashurbanapal. Below is a translation of one of these letters made by

Dr. C. Johnston,[k] in the _Epistolary literature of the Assyrians and

Babylonians_ in the _Journal of the American Oriental Society_, vol.

XVIII.[a]

_To the lord of kings, my lord, thy servant Bel-Ibni! May Ashur,

Shamash and Marduk decree length of days, health of mind and body

for the lord of kings, my lord!_ Shuma, the son of Sham-iddina, son

of Gakhal, son of Tammaritu’s sister, fleeing from Elam, reached

the (country of the) Dakkha. I took him under my protection and

transferred him from Dakkha (hither). He is ill. As soon as he

completely recovers his health, I shall send him to the king, my

lord.

A messenger has come to him (with the news) that Nadan and the

Pukudeans of Til … had a meeting with Nabu-bel-shumate at the

city of Targibati, and they took a neutral oath to this effect:

“According to agreement we shall send you whatever news we may

hear.” To bind the bargain (?) they purchased from him fifty head

of cattle, and also said to him: “Our sheep shall come and graze

in the pasture (?) among the Ubanateans, in order that you may

have confidence in us.” Now (I should advise that) a messenger of

my lord, the king, come, and give Nadan plainly to understand as

follows: “If thou sendest anything to Elam for sale, or if a single

sheep gets over to the Elamite pasture (?) I will not let thee

live.” The king, my lord, may thoroughly rely upon my report.[k]

Professor Delitzsch in an article in the _Beiträge zur Assyriologie_,

vol. I. entitled _Beiträge zur Erklärung der babylonisch-assyrischen

Brieflitteratur_, has given a translation of a letter from the king to

this same Bel-Ibni:

_The word of the king to Bel-Ibni: May my greeting make glad thy

heart!_ Concerning thy communication about the Pukudeans on the

river Charru--In the future, whoever loves the house of his lords,

shall communicate whatever he sees and hears to his lords. See!

whilst thou inform me concerning the cause of thy communication.[l]

[Illustration: BAKED CLAY TABLETS FROM THE LIBRARY OF ASSHURBANAPAL AT

NINEVEH]

Some of the letters throw light on religious ceremonies, others are

communications from astrologers telling whether or not the signs of the

heavens are propitious for certain undertakings. There are still others

from physicians telling of patients under their care. The following is

translated by Dr. Johnston:[a]

_To the king, my lord, thy servant, Arad-Nana! Greeting most

heartily to my lord, the king! May Adar and Gula grant health of

mind and body to my lord, the king. A hearty greeting to the son of

the king.…_ With regard to the patient who has a bleeding from his

nose, the Rab-mugi reports: “Yesterday, towards evening, there was

much hemorrhage.” Those dressings are not scientifically applied.

They are placed on the alæ of the nose, oppress the breathing, and

come off when there is hemorrhage. Let them be placed within the

nostrils, and then the air will be kept away and the hemorrhage

restrained. If it is agreeable to my lord, the king, I will go

to-morrow and give instructions; (meantime) let me hear how he

does.[k]

Several letters have been preserved of a certain Ishtar-duri, who

appears to have lived during the reign of Sargon (722-705 B.C.), and

was perhaps identical with the eponym of the same name in the year

714. Dr. Johnston has translated a communication of his to the king:[a]

_To the king, my lord, thy servant Ishtar-duri! Greeting to the

king, my lord!_ I send forthwith to my lord, the king, in company

with my messenger, the physicians Nabu-shum-iddina and Nabu-erba,

of whom I spoke to the king, my lord. Let them be admitted to the

presence of the king, my lord, and let the king, my lord, converse

with them. I have not disclosed (to them) the true facts, but have

told them nothing. As the king, my lord, commands, (so) has it been

done.

Shamash-bel-uçur sends word from Der: “We have no inscriptions

to place upon the temple walls.” I send therefore to the king,

my lord, (to ask) that one inscription be written out and sent

immediately, (and that) the rest be speedily written, so that they

may place them upon the temple walls.

There has been a great deal of rain, (but) the harvest is gathered.

May the heart of the king, my lord, be of good cheer![k]

ART

Art occupies too prominent a position in the life of the Babylonians

and Assyrians, and they have produced too much that is original and

peculiar to them, for this history to pass over the question in

silence. Even a mere sketch of their culture would be incomplete

without it. At the same time great precaution is necessary. In the

determination of the chronological succession of undated monuments

so much depends on subjective valuation and æsthetic judgment that,

without a long and conscientious study of the history of art, one

is liable to serious error. And the determination of dates largely

influences one’s conception of the progress of Babylonian-Assyrian

art; æsthetic judgment, one’s decision concerning the character,

independence, and value of this artistic effort.

Here again, as in the language, religion, and in the whole civilisation

of this people the unity of the Babylonian-Assyrian race comes clearly

to light. Whatever differences may exist between Babylonian and

Assyrian art in the conception of detail, in certain peculiarities

of technique, in the choice of subjects, at bottom they are one. It

has ever been characterised as a national school in which one and the

same character prevails, so that a work of art, be it from Telloh,

Babylon, Nineveh, or Kalah, at once shows its connection with it. All

the differences are merely shades, changes caused by time. This is

especially noticeable when one considers what material for example

was used for building. In Babylonia it is difficult to obtain stone;

there are no rocks there. Consequently this material, which had to be

brought from a distance, and was therefore expensive, was kept like

precious and other metals for the decoration of the whole, for pillars,

bas-reliefs, dedicatory inscriptions, etc., or for making a firm

foundation, while dried and burnt bricks were used for the buildings

themselves. Among the Assyrians this difficulty did not exist.

Excellent stone, which was easily worked, was found in close proximity,

and the Assyrians understood how to hew and shape it. In spite of this,

they imitated the Babylonian custom and used mainly bricks for their

buildings. They preferred continually to repair these temples and

palaces, which soon fell into ruin, or else to replace them by others,

rather than to depart from the traditional mode of building of their

ancestors.

The question has been raised as to whether Babylonian-Assyrian art

may not perhaps have been a daughter of the Egyptian. Without doubt

Assyrian art was at least influenced by it. All the ivory objects

which have yet been found are plainly imitations of Egyptian motives,

although they were certainly not made by Egyptians, and some of

them date from the time of Asshurnazirpal. The lotus ornament also,

which is so often used as a temple decoration, points to an Egyptian

origin. Perhaps, however, the models were not borrowed directly from

the Egyptians. Certain dishes and cups for drink-offering, which

occur in Mesopotamia, as well as in western Asia and southern Europe,

are plainly ornamented with Egyptian cartouches, hieroglyphics, and

symbols, but in such a divergent form that no Egyptian could have made

them; and these objects have the name of the artificer in Aramaic

characters on the border or back. It is thus plainly to be seen that

this Egyptian fashion wandered into Assyria through the influence of

Aramäen artists.

When it is acknowledged, however, that Egyptian patterns were imitated

by the Assyrians at a comparatively late date, and that Egyptian

motives were borrowed from her artists, it does not by any means

follow that Babylonian-Assyrian art as a whole was of Egyptian origin.

This could be proved only from the oldest monuments to be found in

Babylonia. It was in fact believed, when the art works of Telloh first

became known, that they showed a great similarity to the products of

Egyptian art. They displayed the same simplicity and naïveness, the

same clean-shorn heads and faces, and many other coincidences. The

connoisseurs of art, however, believe differently. The similarity is

great; nevertheless a careful examination shows the independence of

Babylonian art in respect to Egyptian. Thus in the oldest monuments

the same peculiarities, truth and strength, appear, which in the later

development of art among the Assyrians were so greatly exaggerated,

whereas they are wholly lacking in Egyptian figures.

A further similarity is found between the oldest pyramids in the Nile

valley and the Babylonian-Assyrian Ziggurat. In the first place,

however, the pyramids had a wholly different object from the Ziggurat,

and, in the second place, it must not be forgotten that the Babylonian

temple architecture varies greatly from the Egyptian. If there is any

dependence it is not on the side of the Chaldeans; they did not borrow

their art from the Egyptians. At the same time the similarities are so

remarkable, especially between the old Chaldaic statues and the oldest

productions of Egyptian sculpture, such as the statues of Shafra,

Chufu, and Ra-em-ke, that we are compelled here, as in the case of the

writing, to suppose a common stock out of which both branches grew

independently and in a way peculiar to each.

The important discoveries made by the French consul, De Sarsac, at

Telloh have first thrown some light on the old Chaldean art in which

the whole Babylonian-Assyrian art has taken its origin. The question

as to whether the works of art found there are Semitic or non-Semitic

does not concern us here. It is more probably the latter. At any rate

we are here confronted with a civilisation preceding the flourishing

period of the known Semitic dominion in Babylonia.[35] A temple was

found there 53 by 31 metres square which shows the same fundamental

plan as the later Chaldean architecture, that is, a structure of burnt

on a foundation of dried brick, the corners exactly facing the points

of the compass (not the side as in Egypt), a Ziggurat in the centre,

the whole, as is seen from stamps on the stones, dating from the time

of the priest-prince Gudra, who is known from other sources, and who

rebuilt or founded this temple. Besides, a large number of larger

and smaller works of art were discovered, cylinders, reliefs, bronze

objects, especially statues, which had been collected either by the

ruler already mentioned or by other priestly princes or kings.[h]

Before building a temple or palace, a religious ceremony took place

corresponding to what we call to-day laying the corner-stone. Nabuna’id

relates that in the ruins of the oldest Chaldean temples he looked for

the foundation stone, the _temen_ which the original kings had placed

there, and that he had the good fortune to find this corner-stone,

whereas several of his predecessors had excavated only in vain. In

our days such cylindrical tubes have been found covered with close

writing difficult to decipher, which had been placed in little niches

at the corners of the foundation facing the four points of the compass.

Thus at Nimrod, Rawlinson caused excavations to be carried on in one

of the corners of the tower, feeling sure that he would find objects

similar to those which had been met with elsewhere. He relates his

discovery as follows: “At the end of half an hour a small cavity was

found. ‘Bring me,’” said Rawlinson to the man in charge of the digging,

“‘bring me the dedicatory cylinder.’ The workman put his hand into the

hole and showed the cylinder; those present could not believe their

eyes and looked at each other in amazement. The cylinder, covered with

inscriptions, then came out of the hiding-place where it had been

placed probably by the hands of Nebuchadrezzar himself, and where

it had lain for twenty-nine centuries.” In the fruitful excavations

which he undertook at Telloh, De Sarsac made similar discoveries. “I

found,” said he, “at a depth of scarcely thirty centimeters under the

original soil, four cubes of masonry of large bricks and bitumen,

measuring eighty centimeters on each side. In the centre of these cubes

was a cavity of twenty-seven centimeters by twelve and by thirty-five

of depth. This cavity filled with yellow sand enclosed a statuette

of bronze, representing now a man kneeling, again a woman standing,

sometimes also a bull. At the foot of each statue, usually embedded

in the bitumen which lined the cavity, were found two stone tablets,

one white, the other black. It was the black one which usually bore an

inscription in cuneiform characters, like or almost like the one carved

on the figure of bronze.” Moreover De Sarsac in place of statuettes

found cones of clay in the shape of large nails with hemispherical

heads, and having an inscription around the stem.[m]

It has been believed that three stages of development may be detected

in this ancient art. To the first belong the reliefs, which represent

scenes of war and burial which have not yet been satisfactorily

explained, drawn very awkwardly and comparatively rough and primitive.

This stage represents the infancy of art. To the second stage are

counted the eight statues of Gudea and the one of Ur-ba-’u which are

carved with great skill and fine artistic feeling out of hard stone, as

it appears of diorite.

The strength which characterises the sculptural efforts of the

Babylonians and especially of the Assyrians, is already manifest,

although without that exaggeration of the muscles and joints which is

so pronounced with the latter. Hands and feet in particular are most

carefully executed. The heads are totally different from the hairy and

bearded Assyrian, or even early Babylonian heads. They are perfectly

clean shaven, but sometimes seemingly decked with an artificial hair

arrangement or something of that sort; all just as in Egypt. In

addition, an attempt to suggest the folds of draperies is seen, which

we do not find among the Babylonians and Assyrians nor the Egyptians,

but only later among the Persians and Greeks. In the third so-called

classic period are placed works of art of most finished execution,

which show a decided advance, among which are pictures, in which beard

and hair are worked out with the greatest care.

It would be exaggerated scepticism to deny that these art productions

exceed in antiquity, nearly everything found in Babylonia until now.

The only exception could be the beautiful cylinder of the time of

Sargon I, if we assume that this monarch reigned about 3800 B.C.,

and that this work of art is of his time. But this is by no means

established as a fact.

It can also not be denied that these creations of early Chaldaic art,

although in some instances only feeble attempts, in others, however,

are of such finished perfection, that in succeeding periods they were

never excelled and seldom equalled.

We have here a similar case to one in Egypt, where, for instance, under

the kings of the fourth dynasty, sculpture reached an eminence, which

nothing of later date ever approached, and where the oldest works of

art have a value which none of the Egyptian sculptures of the following

centuries can claim. In both these countries therefore there is an

early, surprisingly rapid development, followed by a speedy decline;

where even in succeeding brilliant epochs no successful attempts to

equal the results of the first florescence were ever made. Such a

phenomenon is all the more striking when it is considered that these

later epochs, whether in Egypt, in Babel, or in Asshur, were by no

means periods of degeneration, but show, although with continual

fluctuations, marked progress in literature, science, government,

and general culture. It seems probable that the cause lies in the

difference of race. The artists who carved the statues of King

Schafra, were no more Semites than, judging from all appearances and

from the facial types of the monarchs, pictured, were the sculptors

who immortalised King Gudea. Later on the Egyptian population became

more and more affected by Semitic elements, and under the increasing

influence of the Semites, art declined.

Not until under the Saits, who certainly were not descended from a

race intermixed with Semitic blood, did art rise again to a height

which recalled the palmy days of the ancient realm. Thus early Chaldaic

art was the mother of that of Babylonia and Assyria, and the Semites

of Babylon and Asshur proved themselves diligent students, gifted

imitators, who gave to their works also the stamp of their own genius;

but they were never more than students and imitators, they never

produced anything original which might stand in equality by the side

of early Chaldaic art. The Semitic race occupies one of the foremost

positions in the history of civilisation, and is highly talented. But

in architecture and sculpture it has always worked in close connection

with foreign masters, and never produced anything really great by

itself.[36] The further it goes from the ancient centres, where the

great tradition of the former so highly developed art still lived

on, the more unskilful become its productions in this field. Assyria

where the Semitic blood was purer than in Babylonia, and which was

certainly surpassed in art by the latter, Phœnicia, Palestine, and

Arabia, are proofs of this. Only when the Semites have handed down the

old tradition which they have at least preserved, to the Aryans, the

Persians, and Greeks, is there an independent higher development of

plastic art. Be that as it may, considered as artists, the Babylonians

and Assyrians stand foremost among the Semites, but they are indebted

for this to the early Chaldeans.

The character of the Babylonian-Assyrian building has remained in

general about the same, from the earliest times, until the destruction

of the nation. The architect, more than any other artist, is dependent

upon the nature of the material at his disposal; and this in Babylonia

was almost exclusively in the form of tiles of clay, either dried

in the sun, or baked in the fire. The former, which were made most

skilfully in Babylonia, were generally used for foundations, either

by simply placing them in layers, or cementing them with wet clay or

pitch, or, as in the substructures of the Assyrian palaces, by using

them while still in a moist condition, in order that under the pressure

of the superstructure they might be united in one solid mass. For the

covering of the walls, baked tiles were used. Enamelled or glazed

bricks were used in those parts of the building which were most exposed

to moisture or the changes of the weather. In Assyria where stone

was not expensive this was also used as the outer coating of walls.

This, however, is the only important variation which the Assyrian

architects allowed themselves. Although it would have been easier for

them to erect more beautiful, more pleasing, and certainly more durable

buildings of stone, they were not able to rise to the attempt, although

they had only to carry out and use in larger measure what had already

been found in Chaldea. A short step was indeed taken in this direction.

The Babylonians already knew how to make wooden pillars or columns,

probably covered with metal, and made use of them in lighter

architecture, as for instance the _Naos_, or canopy over the figures

of the gods. The Assyrians not only copied this, but built columns

of stone, and a certain originality and gracefulness in the capitals

and bases of their pillars is not to be denied. However, the column

never played the same important rôle in their architecture as it does,

for instance, in the Græco-Roman and even in the Egyptian. In their

great buildings they clung almost servilely to the designs handed down

during centuries. The question as to whether the buildings had more

than one story, was formerly almost generally admitted as a fact, but

it is generally denied now, and can really hardly be determined. The

ruins give no positive support to either theory; but a few reliefs give

representations of two-storied buildings.

Tile construction presents necessarily a certain monotony which is

here accentuated by the absence of windows. To relieve this monotony,

glazing, colouring, or woodwork were resorted to, in case the use of

columns was excluded; sometimes more artistic measures were used,

such as projecting pilasters, which in Chaldea were somewhat crude,

but richly ornamented in Assyria; also mosaics of conical form, or

decorations of vases on the walls. The upper stones of the walls were

decorated with battlements. The inner, as well as the outer walls, had

a stone covering up to a certain height, and higher up a polychromatic

layer of stucco. Ivory, and particularly bronze decorations, were much

employed. In spite of all this, the impression given by Babylonian and

Assyrian buildings is one of massiveness, almost clumsiness, and the

decorations seem childish, paltry, and commonplace. Hence also the

disproportion of length and breadth, in other words the elongated form

of the rooms, whose roof not being supported by columns, had to rest on

the side walls, and whose breadth depended on the length of the roof

beams.

On the other hand, the almost exclusive use of tiles had this

advantageous result, that it was almost imperative to make prodigal

use of arch and vault construction. That the Chaldaic architects were

the inventors of these constructions, with which the Etruscans were

formerly erroneously credited, cannot be positively affirmed, for they

are also found in Egypt, although seldom made use of there. Without

doubt, however, the Babylonians and Assyrians developed them greatly

and knew how to make use of them with great skill. From the false arch,

which is formed by allowing each succeeding layer of stone to project

over the foregoing one, to the finished arch, all kinds are represented

by them. Not only were all underground canals and sewers, vaults of

masonry, but all gateways ended in arches, and even the ceilings of

some apartments, particularly those in the part of the palaces which

seems to have been the harem were wholly or partially vaulted.

The Babylonians and Assyrians have built extensively many and great

cities enclosed within mighty walls, extended palaces and peculiar

temples. They cannot be enumerated here or even described in general

terms.

A few important points, however, may be touched upon. In the first

place it must be noticed that, while in Egypt the monumental buildings

were tombs and temples, in Babylon and Asshur they were mainly palaces.

Although no pains nor expense were spared in the erection of the

temples, they were smaller than the palaces, of which they were in some

cases certainly annexes.

The tombs were constructed with great care, in order to guard against

the rapid decay of the corpses, yet the inhabitants of Mesopotamia

never reached the same degree of perfection in the embalming of

bodies as the Egyptians: they were also fitted out with everything

that, according to their faith, was necessary for the dead, but they

were piled upon each other, and thus excluded from view. Art was not

expended upon them; on the other hand, however, all known means of

art were used to decorate the residences of the kings and the earthly

habitations of the gods in the most splendid and sumptuous manner.

Their size increased continually. The early Chaldaic palace discovered

at Telloh, had an area of only 53 meters long by 31 broad; the

so-called Wasevas at Warka (Erech) was 200 meters long by 150 broad;

the palace of Sargon II at Dur-Sharrukin covered an area of about 10

hectares, and contained 30 open courts and more than 200 apartments.

Under the Sargonids the rooms also became larger. One in the palace

of Sennacherib was almost as long as the entire palace at Telloh,

_i.e._, 46 meters long by 12 wide. Another in the palace of Esarhaddon,

which was intended to be 15 meters by 12 meters, remained unfinished,

probably on account of the difficulty of construction. The palace

of Asshurbanapal was of somewhat smaller, though still magnificent

proportions. The great palace of Nebuchadrezzar II, consisting of the

old palace of his father and a new one constructed by him and joined

to the old, has not yet been sufficiently explored, but according to

the descriptions, must have surpassed in splendour, if not in size,

all those of his predecessors. All palaces were constructed on the

same plan, and contained separate living apartments for the king and

his court, for his wives, for the lower court officials, and, as it

appears, also a temple with various sanctuaries and a tower.

Too little is as yet known of the Babylonian-Assyrian temples to

judge with any certainty of their style of architecture. Here and

there, remains of temples have been found, but it has not yet been

proved that the buildings designated as temples were really devoted to

religious purposes. Most of the temples seem to have been small, at any

rate not intended for large assemblages. The altar stood outside and

consequently the religious services must usually have taken place there.

Every large town had many temples but always only one Ziggurat. This

constituted only one part of the principal temple, albeit the most

prominent one. There were various kinds of such towers, of three

or more, sometimes seven stories, which were attainable by a single

inclined plane encircling the whole building, or a double one rising

on two sides of it. The ground plan was a perfect square in some, in

others a parallelogram; all rested, however, on a massive substructure,

and seem to have been crowned with a small sanctuary.

Although these principal temples, including the Ziggurat, were not of

equal extent with the royal palaces, they were nevertheless imposing

buildings, and the towers in particular were erected with much care

and at great expense. It would be wrong to conclude from this ratio of

temples and palaces that the Assyrians were less religious and more

servile than the Egyptians, who, entirely dominated as they were by the

dogma of immortality, lavished more care on the tombs of the dead kings

than on the habitations of the living ones. The valuable decorations

and sculptures which the Assyrians and Babylonians gave to their gods

prove their pious tendency. In reality the whole palace was a sacred

edifice in which the representative of the deity lived on earth with

and beside his god.

The aid which architecture received from other arts has already been

briefly mentioned. There are still a few particulars to be noticed in

regard to this point. The Assyrians as well as the Babylonians were

skilful workers in bronze. Proofs of this are the bronze door-sill

1½ meters long, found at Borsippa, whose decorations of rosettes and

squares are in very good taste, and particularly the bronze gates at

Balawat, belonging to the 9th century B.C., which are masterpieces of

their kind, and a great number of other remains.

Painting was also employed to decorate the exterior as well as the

interior of walls. Ornaments and figures were painted with great

skill on stucco, _al fresco_ in such a case, or on tiles which were

afterwards glazed. These tiles were sometimes joined to make one

picture. In what remains of such work it is shown that painting had

attained quite an eminence in Babylon and Asshur. Drawing and grouping

are often very successful, and the treatment has often a certain

breadth. These paintings are also important because it is seen from

them how much conventionality prevailed in Assyrian sculpture. In

painting there is nothing of that exaggerated muscularity nor of the

almost clumsy strength of the sculptured figures. Beard and hair are

not as stiffly curled as in the sculptures, but hang more loosely and

naturally.[h] A beautiful example of glazed tiling has recently been

excavated by the Deutsche Orient Gesellschaft at Babylon. It is in the

so-called Procession street leading from Babylon to Borsippa; on either

side of the street were walls faced with coloured tiles representing

a stately procession of lions and other animals, very artistically

drawn.[a]

Sculpture, more than painting, was employed in decorating buildings,

the works of which covered the greater part of the palace walls, and

ornamented the gateways, courts, terraces, and apartments. The material

which the sculptor used in Chaldea was usually valuable stone difficult

to procure, such as basalt, dolorite, diorite; in Assyria, generally a

commoner, more easily worked species, such as alabaster and sandstone.

The difference of material naturally influenced the work itself.

Figures of cast bronze are also often found.

The inscriptions of the Babylonian kings often speak of columns erected

in honour of the gods, of which some were made of solid gold or silver,

others only coated with precious metal, and the Assyrian kings also

mention such dedications. Naturally the columns of precious metal have

not survived, but a great number of stone pillars have been found. It

may be chance, that the greater number of statues in the round are from

Babylon, the greater number of bas-reliefs from Assyria. The objects

of these surviving sculptures are mainly of a religious or historical

character. But rarely does a representation of the domestic life of the

monarch or other social circles appear.

Only once is a banquet pictured, that of king Asshurbanapal and his

queen. Otherwise no women, except captives, appear in the reliefs.

On the whole little tendency is shown to represent female beauty and

grace, as compared with the Egyptians and especially with the Greeks.

The nude female figure is seldom pictured, and if so, in a repulsively

realistic form, as in the small figures of the mother goddess. Cheerful

or comic scenes, which are not wanting even in Egyptian reliefs and

vignettes, are never found here. Hasty conclusions, however, should not

be drawn from this, and it should not be forgotten, that most of the

surviving reliefs are from the palaces, few from the temples, still

fewer from the tombs, and none at all from private residences. This

is doubtless one of the reasons why representations of domestic or

private life are so scarce. In fact, in a few of the tombs reliefs have

been found whose subjects recall favourite representations in those of

Egypt. Most prevalent certainly, are those scenes relating to religious

and public life.

In the treatment of these objects, truth is often sacrificed to

certain conventionalities. Thus for instance the Lamassi and Shedi,

the man-headed lions and bulls have five legs, in order that they

may always present four to the eye, whether viewed from the front

or the side; the heads are usually represented in profile with the

eyes in full face, but sometimes in full face, although the image

presents a side view to the beholder, which was also customary in

Egypt; so also, the stiff curling of the hair and beard is unnatural.

Apparently no attempt had ever been made in Egypt to make portraits

of historical personages, and the individual differences of rank and

condition can only be recognised by objects of secondary importance.

There is, however, still some doubt upon this point. There is indeed

a great uniformity, but an attempt at least to differentiate facial

traits cannot be overlooked. Ignoring all accessories, the features

differ among kings and higher courtiers on the one hand, and lower

men-at-arms on the other, among men and eunuchs, among adults and

youths. Wherever the artists of Mesopotamia were not limited by

conventionality,--notably in the representation of animals,--they

have surpassed in accuracy, in truth and strength of representation

all other nations of antiquity, the Greeks hardly excepted. This is

particularly true of the representation of native animals, yet foreign

ones were treated with great skill, although the delineation of these

betrays less practice. Even in the picturing of therianthropic deities,

they remain as true to nature as possible, and with much taste and tact

allow the human attributes of the figure to predominate. Wherever it

is possible to partially or wholly break away from tradition, their

talent is displayed in a manner truly marvellous. Their only prominent

fault is their exaggerated realism, which shows itself not only in the

monstrous drawing of muscles and joints, but also in the disgusting

details of the nude figures of Astarte.

Too little of the sculpture of the new Babylonian realm has been

preserved to allow judgment of the state of art during this period.

The well known carving of Nebuchadrezzar II on a cameo would force

us to have a very high opinion of it, if convincing reasons did not

argue that, although genuine, it is the work of a foreign, probably a

Cyprian, artist.

There is no doubt that the art of music was cultivated among the

Babylonians and Assyrians, since the reliefs show musicians very

frequently, at religious festivals, at triumphal greetings of the

victorious king and at festivities. They play singly or in concert, and

also accompany singing. The musical instruments are of various kinds,

and the musicians, who are sometimes very daintily attired, are not

always eunuchs, and are of different ages.

On the whole it must be conceded, that the Assyrio-Babylonian nation

was artistically inclined and that it cultivated various branches of

art with talent and success. If they, the Assyrians in particular, had

been able to free themselves from tradition, they might have surpassed

their predecessors and teachers. They practised art, however, not for

itself alone, but as a means of glorifying the gods or the kings, and

the historical reliefs at least, are for the greater part nothing

more than illustrations to the inscriptions, a sort of war-report in

pictures. They were not an artistic people like the Greeks. Still

they have produced more and better results in this respect, than all

other nations of their race put together. And although in some special

instances they may have been excelled by the Egyptians, in others they

are far in advance of them. The Assyrians, following the example of the

Babylonians, showed their artistic talents also in the productions of

their industries; art and industry were with them closely related.

Among the productions to be considered here are primarily the hundreds

of seals, which are still in preservation, and whose number will not

seem so surprising when it is remembered that every Babylonian and

Assyrian of quality had his private seal. In early times these were

always, and in later times generally, cylinders, pierced through

the centre, to be worn around the neck suspended from a cord. The

impression was made by rolling them over moist clay. After the eighth

century conical and half-spherical seals appear. These cylinders are

made of many different materials, at first, of easily carved, later

of harder, material, such as porphyry, basalt, ferruginous marble,

serpentine, syenite and hematite. After that, semi-precious stones

were used, jasper, agate, onyx, chalcedony, rock-crystal, garnet,

etc. In the oldest stones the pictured objects were rather suggested

by indentations and strokes, than actually executed and carved; but

gradually a great skilfulness was attained, and there are beautiful

cuttings in the hard stones also. The execution varied greatly of

course, not only in proportion to the talent of the artist, but also

according to the rank and wealth of the person who gave the commission.

The subjects chosen are mostly of a religious nature, the adoration of

a goddess, an offering of sacrifice, various emblems such as winged

animals, sun, moon, and stars, and very frequently the tree of life, in

whose shadow stand two persons, or which is guarded by two genii. Under

the new Babylonian dominion and under the Achamenides, glyptics as an

art declined rapidly.

Ceramic art seems not to have occupied a very lofty position in

Babylonia at first. Clay vases and utensils, during a long period made

by hand, are crude and inartistic in earliest times. Gradually with the

introduction of the potter’s wheel, however, they become more graceful

in form, and towards the end of the Assyrian period are enamelled and

decorated with patterns painted in colours. However, Babylonian ceramic

art cannot compete with that of Greece, although it surpasses that of

Egypt. Glass has not been found in large quantities, to be sure, but

quite advanced progress had been made in its manufacture. The Assyrians

and Babylonians showed particular skill in the working of metals.

Bronze, a mixture of copper and tin, was known to them in the earliest

times. They had a knowledge of iron earlier than the Egyptians, and

certainly made much greater use of it. Gold objects are commoner than

those of silver, and lead is seldom used. Ornaments, such as bracelets,

ear-rings, and necklaces are usually cast of precious metal and often

inlaid with pearls. It may be taken as a proof of highly advanced

culture that they used not only spoons, but forks, a luxury introduced

into Europe only at the close of the Middle Ages, and that toilet

articles, such as combs, pins, etc., were ornamented with the greatest

care and skill.

[Illustration: BAS-RELIEF OF WILD SOW AND YOUNG AMONG REEDS

(Layard)]

The Assyrians were also more skilled in mechanics than the Egyptians

and were not inferior to them in agriculture. Two reliefs, one

Assyrian, the other Egyptian, give us an opportunity to compare how

each nation overcame the difficulties attending the moving and putting

in place of their enormous collossi of stone. It is shown that the

Assyrians knew the use of the lever, which the Egyptians did not, and

that they took much greater precautions against upsetting the collossi.

How the Babylonians and Assyrians, like the Egyptians and Chinese, made

use of irrigation is well known. On the same tablets with the records

of their deeds of war, the rulers often spoke of the laying out of

canals, the regulating and deepening of the river beds “enduring waters

for the enduring use of town and country,” and associated their own

names with them. On account of the higher altitude of their country

than that of their southern brethren, the Assyrians had to surmount

greater difficulties in achieving such works, but this did not deter

them from rivalry with them. One canal leading from the Upper Zab and

one of its tributaries, irrigated the region between this river and the

Tigris, and also supplied the capital, Kalah, with drinking water.

Sennacherib did something similar for Nineveh, which together with

its environs was completely dependent upon rain. He had a network of

canals constructed, which were fed, partly by the Khushur, and partly

by the small mountain brooks of the Accad and Tash mountains. Here

also two objects were attained, to furnish Nineveh with good drinking

water, and to make the surrounding country fruitful; for the king had

it all planted with many kinds of plants, among which was the vine.

Floriculture was also much encouraged by the kings of Babylon and

Asshur. They admired beautiful parks in which strange foreign animals

were bred and nurtured. Marduk-bel-iddin, king of Bit-Yakin, apparently

the same who at one time overcame Babylon, owned sixty-seven vegetable

gardens and six parks of which a catalogue still exists, although

he was constantly at war or guarding against the vengeance of the

Assyrians.[h]

ASSYRIAN ART

But the world-historic relations of Mesopotamian art are best brought

out by a study of the later and more perfectly preserved examples

of Assyrian craftsmanship. It was the Assyrian who borrowed more

directly from the Egyptian in developing his art, and who passed on

artistic impulses to the Persians on the one hand, and to the Greeks on

the other. The question to what extent the Assyrians were themselves

influenced by the Mycenæan art of early Greece is one regarding which

students of the subject are not agreed, and which we need not enter

upon here.[a]

It is impossible to examine the monuments of Assyria without being

convinced that the people who raised them had acquired a skill in

sculpture and painting, and a knowledge of design and even composition,

indicating an advanced state of civilisation. It is very remarkable

that the most ancient ruins show this knowledge in the greatest

perfection attained by the Assyrians. The bas-relief representing

the lion hunt, now in the British Museum, is a good illustration of

the earliest school of Assyrian art yet known. It far exceeds the

sculptures of Khorsabad, Kuyunjik, or the later palaces of Nimrud, in

the vigour of the treatment, the elegance of the forms, and in what

the French aptly term _mouvement_. At the same time it is eminently

distinguished from them by the evident attempt at composition--by the

artistical arrangement of the groups. The sculptors who worked at

Khorsabad and Kuyunjik had perhaps acquired more skill in handling

their tools. Their work is frequently superior to that of the earlier

artists in delicacy of execution--in the details of the features,

for instance--and in the boldness of the relief; but the slightest

acquaintance with Assyrian monuments will show that they were greatly

inferior to their ancestors in the higher branches of art--in the

treatment of a subject and in beauty and variety of form. This decline

of art, after suddenly attaining its greatest perfection in its

earliest stage, is a fact presented by almost every people, ancient

and modern, with which we are acquainted. In Egypt the most ancient

monuments display the purest forms and the most elegant decorations.

A rapid retrogression, after a certain period, is apparent, and the

state of art serves to indicate approximately the epoch of most of her

remains. In the history of Greek and Roman art this sudden rise and

rapid fall are equally well known. Even changes in royal dynasties have

had an influence upon art, as a glance at monuments of that part of the

East of which we are specially treating will show. Thus the sculpture

of Persia, as that of Assyria, was in its best state at the time of

the earliest monarchs, and gradually declined until the fall of the

empire. After the Greek invasion it revived under the first kings of

the Arsacid branch, Greek taste still exercising an influence over the

Iranian provinces. How rapidly art degenerated to the most barbarous

forms, the medals and monuments of the later Arsacids abundantly prove.

When the Sassanians restored the old Persian monarchy and introduced

the ancient religion and sacred ceremonies of the empire, art again

appears to have received a momentary impulse. The coins, gems, and

rock sculptures of the first kings of this dynasty are distinguished

by considerable elegance, and spirit of design, and beauty of form.

But the decay was as rapid under them as it had been under their

predecessors. Even before the Chosroes raised the glory and power of

the empire to its highest pitch, art was fast degenerating. By the time

of Yezdigird it had become even more rude and barbarous than in the

last days of the Arsacids.

This decline in art may be accounted for by supposing that, in the

infancy of a people, or after the occurrence of any great event having

a very decided influence upon their manners, their religion, or their

political state, nature was the chief, if not the only, object of

study. When a certain proficiency had been attained, and no violent

changes took place to shake the established order of things, the

artist, instead of endeavouring to imitate that which he saw in nature,

received as correct delineations the works of his predecessors, and

made them his types and his models. In some countries, as in Egypt,

religion may have contributed to this result. Whilst the imagination,

as well as the hand, was fettered by prejudices, and even by laws,

or whilst indolence or ignorance led to the mere servile copying of

what had been done before, it may easily be conceived how rapidly

a deviation from correctness of form would take place. As each

transmitted the errors of those who had preceded him, and added to them

himself, it is not wonderful if, ere long, the whole became one great

error. It is to be feared that this prescriptive love of imitation has

exercised no less influence on modern art than it did upon the arts of

the ancients.

As the earliest specimens of Assyrian art which we possess are the

best, it is natural to conclude that either there are other monuments

still undiscovered which would tend to show a gradual progression,

or that such monuments did once exist, but have long since perished;

otherwise it must be inferred that those who raised the most ancient

Assyrian edifice derived their knowledge directly from another people,

or merely imitated what they had seen in a foreign land. Some are

inclined to look upon the style and character of these early sculptures

as purely Egyptian. But there is such a disparity in the mode of

treatment and in the execution, that the Egyptian origin of Assyrian

art appears to me to be a question open to considerable doubt. That

which they have in common would mark the first efforts of any people of

a certain intellectual order to imitate nature. The want of relative

proportions in the figures and the ignorance of perspective--the

full eye in the side face and the bodies of the dead scattered above

or below the principal figures--are as characteristic of all early

productions of art as they are of the rude attempts at delineation of

children. It is only in the later monuments of Nineveh that we find

evident and direct traces of Egyptian influence: as in the sitting

sphinxes and ivories of Nimrud, and in the lotus-shaped ornaments

of Khorsabad and Kuyunjik; perhaps also in the custom which then

prevailed of inserting the name of the king, or of the castle, upon

or immediately above their sculptured representations. Neither the

ornaments of the earliest palace of Nimrud, nor the costumes, nor the

elaborate nature of the embroideries upon the robes, with the groups

of human figures and animals, nor the mythological symbols, are of an

Egyptian character; they show a very different taste and style.

[Illustration: BAS-RELIEF OF SCRIBES WRITING DOWN THE NUMBER OF HEADS

OF THE SLAIN

(Layard)]

The principal distinction between Assyrian and Egyptian art appears to

be that in the one conventional forms were much more strictly adhered

to than in the other. The angular mode of treatment, so conspicuous

in Egyptian monuments, even in the delineation of every object, is not

perceivable in those of Assyria. Had the arts of the two countries

been derived from the same source--or had one been imitated from

the other--they would both surely have displayed the same striking

peculiarity. The Assyrians, less fettered, sought to imitate nature

more closely, however rude and unsuccessful their attempts may have

been; and this is proved by the constant endeavour to show the muscles,

veins, and anatomical proportions of the human figure.

We must not lose sight of the assertion of Moses of Chorene--derived

no doubt from ancient traditions, if not from direct historical

evidence--that when Ninus founded the Assyrian Empire, a people far

advanced in civilisation and in the knowledge of the arts and sciences,

whose works the conquerors endeavoured to destroy, were already in

possession of the country. Who that people may have been, we cannot

now even conjecture. The same mystery hangs over the origin of the

arts in Egypt and in Assyria. They may have been derived, before the

introduction of any conventional forms, from a common source--from a

people whose very name, and the proofs of whose former existence, may

have perished even before tradition begins.

The monuments of Assyria furnish us with very important data, as to the

origin of many branches of art, subsequently brought to the highest

perfection in Asia Minor and Greece. I conceive the Assyrian influence

on Asia Minor to have been twofold. In the first place, direct, during

the time of the greatest prosperity of the Assyrian monarchy or

empire, when, as it has been shown, the power of its kings extended

over that country; in the second, indirect, through Persia, after the

destruction of Nineveh. Of the influence exercised upon the arts of

western Asia, during the early occupation of the Assyrians, few traces

have hitherto been discovered, unless the remarkable monuments on the

site of ancient Pteria, or Pterium, belong to this period. The evident

connection between the divinities and sacred emblems worshipped in

various parts of Asia Minor, and those of Assyria will be hereafter

particularly pointed out. The Assyrian origin of these monuments, and

of these religious symbols, once admitted, we shall have no difficulty

in recognising the influence of Assyria on the arts and customs of

Asia Minor. The antiquities of that country, prior to a well-known

period, the Persian occupation, have been but little investigated.

Few remains of an earlier epoch have yet been discovered. That such

remains do exist, perhaps buried under ground, I have little doubt. It

is most probable that, as we have additional materials for inquiry, we

shall be still more convinced of this Assyrian influence, pointed out

by Herodotus, when he declares the founder of the kingdom of Lydia to

have been a descendant of Ninus, and by other authors, who mention the

Syrian, or Assyrian, descent of many nations of Asia Minor.

But the second, or indirect, period of this influence is very fully

and completely illustrated by the monuments of Asia Minor, of the

time of the Persian domination. The known connection between these

monuments and the archaic forms of Greek art renders this part of the

inquiry both important and interesting. The Xanthian marbles, acquired

for England by Sir Charles Fellows, and now in the British Museum,

are remarkable illustrations of the threefold connection between

Assyria and Persia, Persia and Asia Minor, and Asia Minor and Greece.

Were those marbles properly arranged, and placed in chronological

order, they would afford a most useful lesson, and would enable even

a superficial observer to trace the gradual progress of art from its

primitive rudeness to the most classic conceptions of the Greek

sculptor. Not that he would find either style, the pure Assyrian

or the Greek, in its greatest perfection; but he would be able to

see how a closer imitation of nature, a gradual refinement of taste

and additional study, had converted the hard and rigid lines of the

Assyrians into the flowing draperies and classic forms of the highest

order of art.

I have termed this second period that of _indirect_ influence, because

the arts did not then penetrate directly into Asia Minor from Assyria,

but were conveyed thither through the Persians. The Assyrian Empire

had already existed for centuries, and had exercised the supreme power

over Asia, before it was disputed by the kingdoms of Persia and Media,

united under one monarch. The Persians were probably a rude people,

possessing neither a literature nor arts of their own, but deriving

what they had from their civilised neighbours. We have no earlier

specimen of Persian writing than the inscription containing the name

of Cyrus, on the ruins supposed to be those of his tomb, at Murghaub

[Pasargarda]; nor any earlier remains of Persian art than the buildings

and sculptures of Persepolis, and other monuments to be attributed

beyond a question to the kings of the Achæmenian dynasty. It has

already been shown that the writing of the Persians was imitated from

the Assyrians, and it can as easily be proved that their sculptures

were derived from the same source. The monuments of Persepolis

establish this beyond a doubt. They exhibit precisely the same mode of

treatment, the same forms, the same peculiarities in the arrangement

of the bas-reliefs against the walls, the same entrances formed by

gigantic winged animals with human heads, and, finally, the same

religious emblems. Had this identity been displayed in one instance

alone, we might have attributed it to chance, or to mere casual

intercourse; but when it pervades the whole system, we can scarcely

doubt that one was a close copy, an imitation, of the other. That the

peculiar characteristics of the Persepolitan sculptures were derived

from the monuments of the second Assyrian dynasty--that is, from

those of the latest Assyrian period--can be proved by the similarity

of shape in the ornaments and in the costume of many of the figures.

Thus, the head-dress of the winged monsters forming the portals is

lofty, squared, and richly ornamented at the top, resembling those of

Khorsabad and Kuyunjik, and differing from the round, unornamented cap

of the older figures at Nimrud.

The processions of warriors, captives, and tribute-bearers at

Persepolis are in every respect similar to those on the walls of Nimrud

and Khorsabad; we have the same mode of treatment in the figures, the

same way of portraying the eyes and hair. The Persian artist introduced

folds into the draperies; but, with this exception, he certainly did

not improve upon his Assyrian model. On the contrary, his work is

greatly inferior to it in the general arrangement of the groups and in

the elegance of the details.

From whence the Persians obtained the column and other architectural

ornaments used at Persepolis, it may be more difficult to determine.

We have seen that the column was not unknown to the later Assyrians,

although it does not appear to have been employed in the construction

of their palaces. The Persians, therefore, may have partly derived

their knowledge from them; and partly, perhaps principally, from the

Egyptians, whom, before the foundation of Persepolis, they had already

conquered. It will be observed that the capitals of their columns

frequently assume the shape of Assyrian religious types, the bull for

instance; whilst other portions of them nearly resemble in the form of

their ornaments, though not in their proportions, those of Egypt.

The Persians introduced into Asia Minor the arts and religion which

they received from the Assyrians. Thus the Harpy Tomb and the monument

usually attributed to Harpagus at Xanthus, and other still earlier

remains, show all the peculiarities of the sculpture of Persepolis, and

at the same time that gradual progress in the mode of treatment--the

introduction of action and sentiment, and a knowledge of anatomy--which

marks the distinction between Asiatic and Greek art. Whilst there was

a manifest improvement in the disposition of the draperies and in the

delineation of the human form, we still remark, even in the latest

works of the Persian period in Asia Minor, the absence of all attempt

to impart sentiment to the features, or even to give more than the side

view of the human face.

Many architectural ornaments, known to the Assyrians, passed from them,

directly or indirectly, into Greece. The Ionic column is an instance.

We have, moreover, in the earliest monuments of Nineveh that graceful

ornament, commonly called the honeysuckle, which was so extensively

used in Greece, and is to this day more generally employed than any

other moulding. In Assyria, as I have pointed out, it was invested with

sacred properties, and was either a symbol or an object of worship.

That the similarity between the Assyrian and Greek ornament is not

accidental, seems to be proved, beyond a question, by the alternation

of the lotus or tulip, whichever this flower may be, with the

honeysuckle, by the number of leaves or petals of the flower, and by

their proceeding in both from a semicircle, supported by two tendrils

or scrolls. The same ornament occurs, even in India, on a lath erected

by Asoka at Allahabad (about B.C. 250); but whether introduced by the

Greeks--which, from the date of the erection of the monument, shortly

after the Macedonian invasion, is not improbable--or whether derived

directly from another source, I cannot venture to decide.

[Illustration: ASSYRIAN HARNESS]

That the Assyrians possessed a highly refined taste can hardly be

questioned when we find them inventing an ornament which the Greeks

afterwards, with few additions and improvements, so generally adopted

in their most classic monuments. Others, no less beautiful, continually

occur in the most ancient bas-reliefs of Nimrud. The sacred bull, with

expanded wings, and the wild goat are introduced, kneeling before

the mystic flower which is the principal feature in the border just

described. The same animals are occasionally represented supporting

disks, or flowers, and rosettes. A bird, or human figure, frequently

takes the place of the bull and goat; and the simple flower becomes a

tree, bearing many flowers of the same shape. This tree, evidently a

sacred symbol, is elaborately and tastefully formed; and is one of the

most conspicuous ornaments of Assyrian sculpture.

The flowers at the ends of the branches are frequently replaced in

later Assyrian monuments and on cylinders by the fir or pine cone, and

sometimes by a fruit or ornament resembling the pomegranate.

The guilloche, or intertwining bands, continually found on Greek

monuments, and still in common use, was also well known to the

Assyrians, and was one of their most favourite ornaments. It was

embroidered on their robes, embossed on their arms and chariots, and

painted on their walls. This purity and elegance of taste was equally

displayed in the garments, arms, furniture, and trappings of the

Assyrians. The robes of the king were most elaborately embroidered.

The part covering his breast was generally adorned, not only with

flowers and scroll-work, but with groups of figures, animals, and even

hunting and battle scenes. In other parts of his dress similar designs

were introduced, and rows of tassels or fringes were carried round the

borders. The ear-rings, necklaces, armlets, and bracelets were all

of the most elegant forms. The clasps and ends of the bracelets were

frequently in the shape of the heads of rams and bulls, resembling our

modern jewellery. The ear-rings have generally on the later monuments,

particularly in the bas-reliefs of Khorsabad, the form of a cross.

In their arms the Assyrians rivalled even the Greeks in elegance of

design. The hilt of the sword was frequently ornamented with four

lions’ heads; two, with part of the neck and shoulders, made the

cross-bar or defence, and two more with extended jaws were introduced

into the handle. The end of the sheath was formed by two entire lions,

clasped together, their heads turned outward and their mouths open.

Sometimes the whole of the sheath was engraved or embossed, with groups

of human figures, animals, and flowers. The handles of the daggers were

no less highly ornamented, being sometimes in the form of the head of a

horse, bull, or ram. The sheath frequently terminated in the head of a

bird, to which a tassel was suspended. The part of the bow to which the

string was attached was in the shape of an eagle’s head. The quiver was

richly decorated with groups of figures and fanciful designs.

Ornaments in the form of the heads of animals, chiefly the lion, bull,

and ram, were very generally introduced even in parts of the chariot,

the harness of the horses, and domestic furniture. In this respect the

Assyrians resembled the Egyptians.[b]

ASSYRIAN SCULPTURE AND THE EVOLUTION OF ART

The study of a country’s art is interesting, primarily of course

purely as a study in the expression of beauty or in the portraiture

of national types and ideals. The study should not, however, stop

here, but one should consider also the effect each school has had upon

the evolution of the world-art. This phase of Assyrian art has been

examined by the Editor in a paper called “The Influence of Modern

Research on the Scope of World History,” a Prefatory Essay to Vol.

III of the New Volumes of the Ninth Edition of the _Encyclopædia

Britannica_, from which a quotation may be permitted here.[a]

Whoever would see the story of the evolution of Greek art illustrated,

should go to the British Museum and pass from the Egyptian hall, with

its grotesque colossi, to the Assyrian rooms, with their marvellous

bas-reliefs, and then on to the Elgin marbles from the Parthenon. In

particular, the art treasures of the Assyrian collection should demand

the closest scrutiny. In the Nineveh gallery, for example, where one

finds collections of strange Assyrian books, the walls are flanked

everywhere with bas-reliefs that come from some buried palace that once

stored the literary treasures.

[Illustration: BATTLE IN A MARSH IN SOUTHERN MESOPOTAMIA

(Layard)]

It appears that the kings of that far-off time and land were

connoisseurs of art as well as patrons of literature; and the art

treasures of their palaces certainly form the most striking, if not the

most important, part of the mementoes they have left to us. The more

closely these figures in low relief are examined, the more wonderful

they will seem. They take the place of the Egyptian carvings in the

round; and if they are less striking to first view than the great

sarcophagi, the grotesque gods, and colossal animal forms of that

people, they will prove infinitely more expressive and incomparably

more artistic on closer inspection. For these flat sculptures depict,

not alone gods and sacerdotal scenes, but everyday affairs and the

events of Assyrian history. The bas-relief was clearly the focal point

of Assyrian art. Even the great bulls and lions that guarded the

palace entrances were only partially detached from their background,

and a frescoed statue of King Asshurnazirpal shows the same tendency.

The full rounded statue was not indeed unknown to them, as several

examples testify; but their real _forte_ lay in mural decoration in low

relief. And the particular walls on which the artists mainly expended

their skill, if we may judge from what the ruins have revealed to us,

were not the walls of temples, but the palaces of kings. It is quite

clear that these great conquerors of antiquity were very human, very

like their successors of after times. They loved to have their heroic

deeds, real or alleged, heralded to the world, and recalled incessantly

to their own memories. So one finds whole histories epitomised on

these walls--wars, conquests, victories; the storming of cities, the

slaughter of the enemy, the leading of captives, and bringing of

tribute by subject people--everything, in short, but Assyrian reverses;

the court artist, true to his colours then as now, never made the

mistake of depicting those.

As historical records these sculptures are of priceless value, both

for what they tell of political history and for the light they throw

on the powers and limitations of antique art. But before you venture

to judge the Assyrian artist in the latter regard, you must pass on to

the room of Asshurnazirpal, and from that to the adjacent room, where

the mural decorations of the dining-hall of the last of the great

Assyrian kings, Asshurbanapal, have been placed _in situ_, reproducing

an effect which they first made in the palace of Nineveh in the seventh

century B.C. Here you may see at once both another phase of royal life

in Assyria and another stage of Assyrian art. Not war, but the chase is

now the theme. King Asshurbanapal is seen in pursuit of the goat, the

wild ass, the lion. The king, of course, towers above his attendants,

though not in the grotesque disproportion of the Egyptian paintings.

To the oriental mind such excessive stature seemed indissoluble from

royal station. One recalls how the mother of Darius, made captive at

Issus, mistook Hephæstion for the king, because he was taller than

Alexander; and how Agesilaus, when he went to Egypt as an ally of the

Egyptians, was held in contempt, despite his renown, because of his

diminutive stature; and one cannot help wondering what would have been

the real aspect of the Assyrian and Egyptian monarchs could they have

been subjected to the camera. Be that as it may, there was apparently

no doubt in the mind of the court artist as to what his chisel should

reveal in this respect, and the king may always be distinguished by his

stature, without regard to his royal robes. Still, it is notable, as a

distinction between Egyptian and Assyrian art, that the realistic eye

of the Assyrian sculptor never let him depict the king as a Brobdingnag

among the pigmies, after the Egyptian fashion. At the most he is a head

taller than those about him.

The royal hunter pursues his quarry sometimes on foot, more usually

standing in his chariot. His weapon is usually the bow, sometimes the

spear; on one occasion he grapples with the lion, hand to jowl, and

stabs the quarry to the heart with a short sword. The quiet dignity

and royal calm with which the feat is achieved must have insured the

artist a high and enduring place in the royal favour. The action,

however, of the human figures in these sculptures is always sedate and

reposeful, suggestive of reserved strength perhaps, or possibly of the

artist’s limitations. Whichever it is, the real power of the artist is

not shown in the human figures. These, to be sure, are in part strongly

anatomised; in the main, they are fairly proportioned, and, unlike the

Egyptian figures, they have the shoulders drawn in proper perspective.

But the faces are fixed, impassive; the eyes are not in perspective,

and, as a whole, they cannot claim high merit as works of art, viewed

from an abstract modern standpoint. Considered in relation to their

time, they are wonderful enough, so far ahead are they of anything

that we could suppose to have been accomplished in the world of that

day. But they fall far short of the standard which the same artist has

himself given us in animal figures of his composition. It seems as if

the human figures might have been done from memory, whereas the animal

forms are clearly enough from the natural model. Indeed, when we turn

to these animal figures we may criticise them, not with reservation as

to their age, but from the standpoint of modern art, and as individual

figures they will not be found wanting. The three fundamental

canons--“proportion, action, aspect”--have been successfully met. The

lions skulk sullenly from their cages, spring furiously into action,

or roll in death agony at the will of the depicter. The lioness, with

spine broken by an arrow, dragging her palsied hind-quarters, is a

veritable masterpiece. The same is true of many of the figures of

goats, of running and pacing wild asses, and of dogs. As a whole, these

animal frescoes are nothing less than wonderful. It is worth a visit to

London from the remotest land to see these sculptures from the palace

of the old Assyrian king.

[Illustration: BAS-RELIEF OF A WOUNDED LIONESS

(Now in the British Museum)]

Still, though these bas-reliefs have intrinsic merits as works of art,

their chief value is for what they teach regarding the evolution of

art in the world. Previously to their discovery it had been supposed

that the stiff formalism of Egyptian sculpture represented the fullest

flight of pre-Grecian art, and that Greek art itself had stepped

suddenly forth, rather a new creation than an evolution. But the pick

and shovel of Layard at Nineveh dispelled that illusion. For these art

treasures, that had lain there under the deposits of centuries, were

found to represent an enormous advance upon Egyptian models, precisely

in the direction of that realism for which Greek art is distinguished.

If we would judge how direct and unequivocal was the impulse which the

dying nation transferred to the adolescent one in point of art, we

have but to take a few steps in the British Museum, from the Assyrian

rooms to the wonderful hall that holds Lord Elgin’s trophies from

the desecrated Parthenon. Look, then, upon the frieze of bas-relief

that bears the magic name of Phidias. If anything can reconcile us to

the act that deprived Greece of her priceless heirlooms, it is the

fact that they have found lodgment here close beside their oriental

prototypes, where half a million visitors each year may at least have

an opportunity to learn the lesson that human progress is an accretion,

a growth, a building upon foundations; and, specifically, that Greek

art, no less than other forms of human culture, was an evolution, and

not an isolated miracle. For what is the Parthenon frieze, as we now

come to it fresh from the palaces of Nineveh, but an Assyrian fresco

adapted to the needs and ideals of another race and developed by the

genius of a newer civilisation? The profiled figures in low relief

coursing together, are they different in conception from the profiled

figures of the palaces we have just left? The horses of the Parthenon

frieze might almost seem to have stepped bodily from the palaces of

Asshurbanapal. They have gained something in suppleness of limb, have

altered their attitude in a measure, to be sure, thanks to their new

environment. But their type has not changed by so much as an actual

breed of horses might be changed in as many generations. Note the

head, the most typical and characteristic feature of this Grecian

steed. Line for line it is the same head, trappings aside, that we have

just seen at Nineveh. Even the defects of the Assyrian drawing are

there--the too small and slender face, and receding lower jaw, the tiny

ear, the far too full and “chuffy” neck. Possibly no horse in nature

was ever like this, but the Assyrian artist so conceives it; the Greek

copies that conception; and the distorted type will be transmitted down

the generations to the Italian of the Renaissance, to the classical

painters of Spain, the Netherlands, and Germany, and France; nay,

even to the artist of the nineteenth century. The court artist of an

oriental prince of the ninth or tenth century B.C. conceives a certain

ideal; and, following him, a certain type of sculptured horse, such as

the artist who carved it has never seen, steps before the chariot on

Napoleon’s Arc de Triomphe in nineteenth-century Paris.[c]

[Illustration: BAS-RELIEF OF HORSES]

If Mesopotamian art and literature had been forgotten in succeeding

ages, Chaldean science had not shared the same fate. The fame of the

Babylonian astrology and astronomy was still fresh in the mind of the

Greeks of the day of Diodorus, as we shall see, and it is curious to

reflect that even at this relatively late period after Greece had

passed far beyond the culminating point of her own career the learned

Greek looked upon Chaldean science as something beyond the pale of the

science of his own nation. It would seem as if the cultivated Greek

looked back upon the Babylonian civilisation with something of that

reverence which “modern” European nations have reserved for Greece

itself. It is significant, too, that the Babylonians themselves, even

in the day of their decline, continued to regard the Greeks, along with

the rest of the outside world, as “barbarians” in something more than

the Greek sense of the word.

The older civilisation always thus regards the younger, regardless of

the actual relative merits of the two. It was an Egyptian priest who

lectured the famous Greek in these words: “O Solon! Solon! You Hellenes

are but children, and there is never an old man who is a Hellene. In

my mind you are all young. There is no old opinion handed down among

you by ancient tradition, nor any science hoary with age”; but the

same words might well have been pronounced by a priest of Chaldea. We

have learned through Diodorus that the Egyptians guarded the secrets

of their science very jealously from the Greeks, who travelled and

sojourned there for the express purpose of learning them; and there is

reason to suppose that much the same reception was accorded the Greek

traveller in Babylonia, since Herodotus seems to have learned so

little there beyond what his own direct observations taught him.

But how much ground the Babylonian had for this arrogance of

intellectual attitude the modern world had little material for

judging, beyond such general assertions as that of Diodorus, until

the records of the libraries were revealed. Then it was made evident

that as original scientific investigators the Babylonians were no whit

inferior to their contemporaries of the Nile, if, indeed, they were not

superior; that in short they fully merited the praise which classical

tradition accorded them. A people that thus excelled in theoretical

science, no less than in art and literature and in practical

civilisation, has many claims to be considered the foremost nation of

antiquity.[a]

A CLASSICAL ESTIMATE OF CHALDEAN PHILOSOPHY AND ASTROLOGY

“Here it will not be amiss to say something of the Chaldeans (as the

Babylonians call them) and of their Antiquity, that nothing worth

Remark may be omitted,” says Diodorus, as translated in 1700 by Booth.

“They being the most ancient Babylonians, hold the same station and

dignity in the Common-wealth as the Egyptian Priests do in Egypt: For

being deputed to Divine Offices, they spend all their Time in the study

of Philosophy, and are especially famous for the Art of Astrology.

They are mightily given to Divination, and foretel future Events,

and imploy themselves either by Purifications, Sacrifices, or other

Inchantments to avert Evils, or procure good Fortune and Success.

They are skilful likewise in the Art of Divination, by the flying of

Birds, and interpreting of Dreams and Prodigies: And are reputed as

true Oracles (in declaring what will come to pass) by their exact and

diligent viewing the Intrals of the Sacrifices. But they attain not to

this Knowledge in the same manner as the Grecians do; for the Chaldeans

learn it by Tradition from their Ancestors, the Son from the Father,

who are all in the mean time free from all other publick Offices and

Attendances; and because their Parents are their Tutors, they both

learn every thing without Envy, and rely with more confidence upon the

truth of what is taught them; and being train’d up in this Learning

from their very Childhood, they become most famous Philosophers,

(that Age being most capable of Learning, wherein they spend much

of their time). But the Grecians for the most part come raw to this

study, unfitted and unprepar’d, and are long before they attain to the

Knowledge of this Philosophy: And after they have spent some small time

in this Study, they are many times call’d off and forc’d to leave it,

in order to get a Livelihood and Subsistence. And although some few

do industriously apply themselves to Philosophy, yet for the sake of

Gain, these very Men are opinionative, and ever and anon starting new

and high Points, and never fix in the steps of their Ancestors. But

the Barbarians keeping constantly close to the same thing, attain to a

perfect and distinct Knowledge in every particular.

“But the Grecians cunningly catching at all Opportunities of Gain, make

new Sects and Parties, and by their contrary Opinions wrangling and

quarelling concerning the chiefest Points, lead their Scholars into a

Maze; and being uncertain and doubtful what to pitch upon for certain

truth, their Minds are fluctuating and in suspence all the days of

their Lives, and unable to give a certain assent unto any thing. For if

any Man will but examine the most eminent Sects of the Philosophers, he

shall find them much differing among themselves, and even opposing one

another in the most weighty parts of their Philosophy. But to return to

the Chaldeans, they hold that the World is eternal, which had neither

any certain Beginning, nor shall have any End; but all agree, that all

things are order’d, and this beautiful Fabrick is supported by a Divine

Providence, and that the Motions of the Heavens are not perform’d by

chance and of their own accord, but by a certain and determinate Will

and Appointment of the Gods.

“Therefore from a long observation of the Stars, and an exact Knowledge

of the motions and influences of every one of them, wherein they excel

all others, they fortel many things that are to come to pass.

“They say that the Five Stars which some call Planets, but they

Interpreters, are most worthy of Consideration, both for their motions

and their remarkable influences, especially that which the Grecians

call Saturn. The brightest of them all, and which often portends many

and great Events, they call Sol, the other Four they name Mars, Venus,

Mercury, and Jupiter, with our own Country Astrologers. They give the

Name of Interpreters to these Stars, because these only by a peculiar

Motion do portend things to come, and instead of Jupiters, do declare

to Men before-hand the good-will of the Gods; whereas the other Stars

(not being of the number of the Planets) have a constant ordinary

motion. Future Events (they say) are pointed at sometimes by their

Rising, and sometimes by their Setting, and at other times by their

Colour, as may be experienc’d by those that will diligently observe it;

sometimes foreshewing Hurricanes, at other times Tempestuous Rains, and

then again exceeding Droughts. By these, they say, are often portended

the appearance of Comets, Eclipses of the Sun and Moon, Earthquakes and

all other the various Changes and remarkable effects in the Air, boding

good and bad, not only to Nations in general, but to Kings and Private

Persons in particular. Under the Course of these Planets, they say are

Thirty Stars, which they call Counselling Gods, half of whom observe

what is done under the Earth, and the other half take notice of the

actions of Men upon the Earth, and what is transacted in the Heavens.

Once every Ten Days space (they say) one of the highest Order of these

Stars descends to them that are of the lowest, like a Messenger sent

from them above; and then again another ascends from those below to

them above, and that this is their constant natural motion to continue

for ever. The chief of these Gods, they say, are Twelve in number, to

each of which they attribute a Month, and one Sign of the Twelve in the

Zodiack.

“Through these Twelve Signs the Sun, Moon, and the other Five Planets

run their Course. The Sun in a Years time, and the Moon in the space

of a Month. To every one of the Planets they assign their own proper

Courses, which are perform’d variously in lesser or shorter time

according as their several motions are quicker or slower. These Stars,

they say, have a great influence both as to good and bad in Mens

Nativities; and from the consideration of their several Natures, may be

foreknown what will befal Men afterwards. As they foretold things to

come to other Kings formerly, so they did to Alexander who conquer’d

Darius, and to his Successors Antigonus and Seleucus Nicator; and

accordingly things fell out as they declar’d; which we shall relate

particularly hereafter in a more convenient time. They tell likewise

private Men their Fortunes so certainly, that those who have found the

thing true by Experience, have esteem’d it a Miracle, and above the

reach of Man to perform. Out of the Circle of the Zodiack they describe

Four and Twenty Stars, Twelve towards the North Pole, and as many to

the South.

“Those which we see, they assign to the living; and the other that do

not appear, they conceive are Constellations for the Dead; and they

term them Judges of all things. The Moon, they say, is in the lowest

Orb; and being therefore next to the Earth (because she is so small,)

she finishes her Course in a little time, not through the swiftness of

her Motion, but the shortness of her Sphear. In that which they affirm

(that she has but a borrow’d light, and that when she is eclips’d, it’s

caus’d by the interposition of the shadow of the Earth) they agree with

the Grecians.

“Their Rules and Notions concerning the Eclipses of the Sun are but

weak and mean, which they dare not positively foretel, nor fix a

certain time for them. They have likewise Opinions concerning the

Earth peculiar to themselves, affirming it to resemble a Boat, and to

be hollow, to prove which, and other things relating to the frame of

the World, they abound in Arguments; but to give a particular Account

of ’em, we conceive would be a thing foreign to our History. But this

any Man may justly and truly say, That the Chaldeans far exceed all

other Men in the Knowledge of Astrology, and have study’d it most of

any other Art or Science: But the number of Years during which the

Chaldeans say, those of their Profession have given themselves to the

study of this natural Philosophy, is incredible; for when Alexander

was in Asia, they reckon’d up Four Hundred and Seventy Thousand Years

since they first began to observe the Motions of the Stars. But lest we

should make too long a digression from our intended Design, let this

which we have said concerning the Chaldeans suffice.”[d]

THE BABYLONIAN YEAR

The Babylonian year, according to Eduard Meyer, consisted of simple

lunar months (twenty-nine or thirty days), which, as with the Greeks

and the Mohammedans, was determined by the course of the moon itself.

To make this year coincide with the course of the sun, an extra month

was intercalated; in olden times this seems to have been done after the

first or the sixth month.

This year, with the names of its months, was adopted by the Jews at

the time of the Exile, and is still in use with them. The commencement

of their year (Nisan) falls at the time of the spring equinox. The

Babylonians had no continuous chronology; they dated according to the

years of the kings, or, rather, they marked the year according to any

important event which took place in it. Thus we see dates like “on

the 30th Adar in the Sixth year after the conquest of Nisin by King

Rim-Sin.”

Later on in Babylon, and also in Assyria, they reckoned simply the

years of the kings, from the day of their accession to the throne. The

remainder of the year, in the course of which the predecessor had died,

was therefore considered the first part of the first year of the new

reign, and was very often called “the beginning of the reign” of the

king in question.

Chronological calculations were reckoned from the same starting-point

as in Egypt. They reckon the calendar year in which a king comes to

the throne as his first year, and hence his death takes place in the

first year of his successor. This is the method of the Ptolemaic canon,

one of the most important chronological monuments of antiquity. It

is the list beginning with Nabonassar (about 747 B.C.) of the native

and Persian kings of Babylonia, to which the Egyptian rulers up to

Alexander are added. It is an addition to the astronomical work of

Ptolemy, and was intended to throw light on the passages relating to

the Babylonian, and later on to the Alexandrian chronological methods.

It is authentic, and is confirmed by the monuments. Yet, in using the

same, it must be recollected that all dates of the Egyptian “vague”

year (and the Egyptian months) are reduced. Therefore the first year of

the Nabonassar era begins on the 1st Tehuti, the 26th February, 747 B.C.

In Assyria there is also a second and far more common form of

specifying the years. Since a very early date (as far back as the

fourteenth century) it was customary to name the year after some high

official. The year, as such, is called _limmu_, “eponymic year.”

Of course, they had continuous lists of these eponyms; and we have

recovered several fragments. The lists for the years 893 to 666 are

complete, and with fragments we can go still farther back. The kings

frequently used this system, and private persons regularly used this

eponym.

Some copies of the lists contain accounts of the changes of reigns,

and give short statements of important internal and external events

of the particular years. Thus an eclipse of the sun June 15, 763

B.C., mentioned therein can be astronomically fixed, and the dates

arrived at thereby concur exactly with the accounts of the Ptolemaic

canon. The chronological history of this epoch is therefore perfectly

determined.[e]

THE BABYLONIAN DAY AND ITS DIVISION INTO HOURS

This being the Babylonian method of reckoning dates, it is interesting

to note on what plan they subdivided the day. Investigations were

made in this line by that indefatigable Irishman, Edward Hincks, from

whose article “On the Assyrio-Babylonian Measures of Time,” in the

_Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy_, we quote.[a]

I begin with the day and its divisions.

Our knowledge on this subject is mainly derived from a tablet in the

British Museum, marked K. 15. A paper of mine was read before the Royal

Irish Academy in 1854, and was published in the twenty-third volume of

the _Transactions_ in which this tablet was discussed. As that paper

contained some slight philological errors, I will here repeat the

substance of it, correcting those errors.

I now translate the inscription on the Tablet as follows, omitting the

customary benedictory formula. “On the sixth day of the month Nisan

the day and the night are equal; six kazabs [kashbu] are the day; six

kazabs [kashbu] are the night.” It is evident that this inscription

records the observation of an equinox; and I will return to the

consideration of it with that view. At present I will only remark that

it points to a double division of the day, or _Nycthemeron_; viz., the

first into the day properly so called, and the night; which were in

this instance equal, though not generally so; the second into twelve

equal kazabs [kashbu].

I proceed to the second division of the day into twelve kazabs

[kashbu]. Each of these was equivalent, putting out of sight errors

of observation, to two hours of _mean solar time_, such as we use in

ordinary life. The word kazab [kashbu] is from a Hebrew root meaning

“to fail,” which is applied to streams that run dry. This suggests

the primary signification, “runnings out,” namely, of the water which

had been poured into a vessel with a small hole in the bottom. The

Babylonians measured time by clepsydræ, which, when they had been

filled, would be emptied in two hours of mean time. Such clepsydræ

would maintain a sufficiently accurate division of the day into twelve

kazabs [kashbu] if the first were set to run at apparent noon, the

second when the first had run out, and so on till the thirteenth, which

would be set to run at the next apparent noon, whether the twelfth was

just running out, or had already run out, or had still a little water

in it.

The kazab [kashbu] is mentioned as an ordinary measure of time in more

than one passage. The distance from the mainland to an island in the

Persian Gulf is said to be a voyage of thirty kazabs [kashbu] (Botta,

41. 48), just as that from Cyprus to Syria is said to be one of seven

days (Botta, 38. 41). Also, in Rawlinson, 42. 13, Sennacherib speaks

of slaughtering his enemies for the space of a journey or march of two

kazabs [kashbu]. This use of the word seems to me a positive proof that

the clepsydræ was in use among the Assyrians and Babylonians generally,

and was not confined to the astronomers.

There does not appear to me any reason to suppose that a division of

the day from sunrise to sunset into twelve hours, varying in length

according to the season of the year, and again of the night, from

sunset to sunrise into twelve similar hours, was ever known to the

Babylonians. Such a division was in use among the Egyptians, and was

adopted from them by the Greeks, but the Babylonians and Assyrians

knew nothing of it. I may here observe that some modern writers have

committed a strange mistake in supposing the clepsydræ to have been

invented so late as the third century before Christ and at Alexandria.

These writers have confounded two totally different things; viz., the

original invention of the clepsydræ marking mean solar time, which

goes back to remote antiquity, and is almost certainly due to the

Babylonians, and the adaptation of the clepsydræ to the _seasonable_

(καιρικαὶ) hours of the Egyptians and Greeks, which was accomplished

at the time and place which these writers mention. I have met with

no subdivisions of the kazab [kashbu], and I much doubt whether the

Babylonians had any means of marking such.[f]

ASSYRIAN SCIENCE

The exact sciences were cultivated in Assyria from the earliest times,

nor had natural sciences been neglected. Zoology, botany, mineralogy

are largely represented in the library of Nineveh, and as all these

tablets contain a Sumerian as well as the equivalent Assyrian text, we

are justified in believing that the Ninevites, in this respect, still

followed the traditions of their predecessors.

We find lists of animals arranged in a certain order which indicates

an attempt at classification; thus the dog, lion, and wolf are in the

same category, whilst the ox, sheep, and goat form another. In the

enumeration of the different animals, there is a very evident design of

establishing genera and families, and of distinguishing species. Thus

we have a family comprising the great Carnivora: the dog, lion, and

wolf; then we have different species in the dog family--such as the dog

itself, the domestic dog, the coursing dog, the small dog, the dog of

Elam, etc. The scientific side of this classification is revealed by an

easily recognised circumstance; thus one finds after the common name a

special nomenclature, which belongs to a scientific classification with

which the Assyrians seem to have been familiar.

Among the birds similar attempts at classification are evident. Birds

of rapid flight, sea-birds, or marsh birds are differentiated. Insects

form a very numerous class; we see an entire family whose species are

differentiated according as they attack plants, animals, clothing, or

wood. Vegetables seem to be classified according to their usefulness,

or the service that industry can make of them. One tablet enumerates

the uses to which wood can be put, according to its adaptability, for

the timber-work of palaces, the construction of vessels, the making

of carts, implements of husbandry, or even furniture. Minerals occupy

a long series in these tablets. They are classed according to their

qualities, gold and silver forming a division apart; precious stones

form still another, but there is nothing to indicate on what basis a

classification would be established.

If we pass from the natural sciences to geography, we find the latter

in a synthetic and fairly confused state. Nevertheless several lists

give us a series of the names of towns, rivers, and mountains, arranged

according to their geographical disposition, as we can easily prove.

Sometimes the data are of a practical character, and names are followed

by mention of natural or industrial products of localities, their

revenue taxes, or tributes. But the science, _par excellence_, which

was especially cultivated in Assyria, and which the learned men of

Asshurbanapal connected with the greatest care with antique Chaldean

traditions, was astronomy.

This science was not indeed born at Nineveh; the Greeks teach us that

astronomical observations were first made in lower Chaldea 1903 years

before Alexander, and consequently 2226 years before Christ. Whatever

the value of this date may be, the tradition of this origin is found in

the works of the Assyrians, who constantly refer to the observations

of their predecessors. Asshurbanapal had sent these learned men to the

old schools of Mesopotamia, Ur, Sippar, Agade, Babylon; there to imbibe

the elements of the science which was the glory of the southern empire.

In the seventh century before our era, observations were carried on

at Nineveh. At this date the fixed stars had long been distinguished

from the planets; the sidereal revolutions, the divisions of the year,

the course of the sun in the different constellations of the zodiac,

periodic return of eclipses, and even the precession of the equinoxes,

had been calculated. These achievements imply long and conscientious

observation, a special intelligence to undertake them, and simple

methods of rigorous calculation.

We are ignorant as to the nature of the instruments with which the

Assyrio-Chaldeans could observe the stars. The chances of error in

observations by the naked eye are evidently very great, and errors

can only be rectified by multiplied operations and the most minute

calculations. It is known that the determining of the periodicity of

the moon’s eclipses rests on a knowledge of the cycle of 223 lunations

which bring back the same eclipses periodically. It is certain that

the Assyrio-Chaldeans must have also known another cycle of 22,325

lunations equalling 1805 tropical years plus 8 days, or 1805 Julian

years of 365¼ days; after which the eclipses return with still greater

precision in the same order. How long did it take the human mind to

observe and understand a sufficient number of lunations so as to

combine the data they afforded and deduct the law that Meton formulated

and to which he has given his name?

In regard to eclipses of the sun, the cycle is so very much greater

that the beginnings of the observations on which the calculations of

their periodicity would rest, would take us back to a period which

is quite beyond the limits of the historic age. Diogenes Laertius

estimates it as 48,863 years. During that time 373 eclipses of the moon

and 832 eclipses of the sun had been observed. When they turned their

attention to the calculations resulting from these observations the

Assyrio-Chaldeans were marvellously helped by their system of notation.

Their numerical system lent itself with ease to the most complicated of

calculations. We must content ourselves with stating the results. As

we were saying a minute ago, the observations were carried on under

Asshurbanapal; the king sent astronomers to different points to study

celestial phenomena, and the results of their labours were sent him.

Here are the terms in which these reports were expressed:

“To the King, my Lord, his humble servant Ishtar-iddin-apal, chief

astronomer of the town of Arbela writes this: Peace and happiness to

the king my master and may he long prosper.

“On the 29th day, I observed the node of the moon, the clouds obscured

the field of observation, and we could not see the moon.

“In the month of Sebat (January) the 1st day during the year

Bel-haran-saduya (648 B.C.).”

The result of this mission was not satisfactory. The eclipse had been

predicted, but although the state of the atmosphere did not allow of

observation, the attesting of this failure proves the care with which

every circumstance that could serve to explain the phenomenon was

noted. Here is an observation which was entirely successful:

“To the director of observations my Lord, his humble servant

Nabu-shum-iddin, Great Astronomer of Nineveh writes this: May Nabu and

Marduk be propitious to the director of these observations, my Lord.

“The 15th day we observed the node of the moon, and the moon was

eclipsed.”

Here is a more complicated observation:

“To the king, my Lord, may the Gods Nabu and Marduk be propitious, may

the great gods grant to the king, my master, long life, the benefits of

the flesh and satisfaction of the heart.

“The 27th day the moon disappeared; the 28th 29th and 30th day we

continually observed the node of the obscuring sun. The eclipse did not

take place. The 1st day (of the following month) we saw the moon during

the first day of the month Tammuz (June) above the star Mercury of

which I have previously sent an observation to the king my master. In

its course during the day of Anu, around the shepherd star (the planet

Venus), it was seen declining: on account of rain the horns were not

very distinctly visible, and so it was in its whole course. The day

Anu I sent the observation of its conjunction, to the king my master.

It was prolonged and was visible above the star of the Chariot in its

course during the day of Baal; it disappeared towards the star of the

Chariot.

“To the King, my Lord, peace and happiness.”

The discovery of the precession of the equinoxes is generally

attributed to Hipparchus. It was he, indeed, who taught this fact

to the Greeks, and he estimated its yearly amount as from 36 to 39

seconds; but it is certain that he learned about it in Chaldea, and

that he obtained the elements of his calculations from the astronomical

observations made on the lower Euphrates. All the astronomical

knowledge of the Ninevite savants had the same point of origin.

Two thousand years before our era, from the time of a king of Agade

called Sharrukin (Shargani-shar-ali), and who is usually known as

Sargon I (the Ancient), the precession of the equinoxes was an

observed and calculated fact, since it had already brought sufficient

disturbance into the calendar to make a corrective element necessary.

Sargon had given a brilliancy to his century which the learned men

of Nineveh only echoed. In his time there was a library at Agade,

the importance of which we can judge by the fragments which were

preserved at Nineveh. We are certain that at these remote times the

great divisions of the uranographic chart were already determined upon.

Fixed stars were designated according to the different groups or

constellations which were known by the names they have retained to this

day.

Outside these fixed stars the signs of the zodiac were perfectly

determined in that portion of the celestial vault which the texts

designate by the name of harranu (the way), that is to say, the way of

the stars. These stars were the planets. The Chaldeans knew of seven,

and they were thus known to them: Shamash, the sun; Sin, the moon;

Alap-Shamash, Saturn; Rus, Jupiter; Ashbat, Venus; Sulpa-sadu, Mars;

Nivit-Anu, Mercury. The Ninevite savants borrowed their astronomical

knowledge from the Chaldeans; they made use of the calendar as it was

transmitted to them, and as such it has been used by all nations from

the remotest times up to the present day.

The Assyrian year was composed of twelve lunar months. It began with

the new moon preceding the vernal equinox. A well-known tablet thus

fixes the day of the equinoxes: “At the sixth day of the month of Nisan

(March) the days and nights are equal (and comprise), six kashbu for

the day and six kashbu for the night. May Nabu and Marduk be propitious

to the King, my Lord.”

To correct the error resulting from the difference between the lunar

and solar year, a supplementary month was intercalated, the length of

which necessarily varied with circumstances. The Ninevite tablets offer

us calendars arranged in conformity with the different exigencies of

life. Some are purely scientific, and show us the divisions of the year

into days, months, and seasons. Others are formed to meet the needs of

religion, and tell us, by the day, the feasts consecrated to divinities

invoked or honoured by special ceremonies. Others seem to take current

superstitions into account; thus days are marked by a particular

sign, according as they are considered propitious or disastrous. We

see tables constructed to indicate the influence of the stars on each

day of the year, with a mention of appropriate prayers, to propitiate

favourable auguries and ward off those which are fatal.

The importance of these last documents must not be exaggerated; they

are related to superstitions common to all ages and lands; and, in the

ancient East, as everywhere else, these beliefs merely represent one of

the most curious, but the least interesting phases of the aberrations

of the human mind.[g]

FOOTNOTES

[33] [This probably means that the father had been called to a high

office.]

[34] [This is a letter from King Ammidatitana, the king who was third

from the end of the first Babylonian dynasty. It is an example of the

usual style of a royal letter.]

[35] For a description of these monuments and the history of their

discovery, as well as for the conclusions which are to be drawn from

them for the history of art in Mesopotamia, the reader is referred

to De Sarsac’s album of reproductions [l’Art Chaldéen], also to L.

Heerzey, _Les fouilles de Chaldée_ in the _Revue Archæologique_, 1881,

new series, vol. xlii, p. 56 ff. and 257.

[36] Here of course only architecture and sculpture in general are

intended, without denying that the Semites, also those of Babylonia

and Assyria have accomplished original things in single cases, in

execution, and in certain genres, as, for example, in the reproduction

of animal forms.

[Illustration: BABYLONIAN KING LION HUNTING]

APPENDIX A. CLASSICAL TRADITIONS

Such is the fate of empire: Asshur rose

Where elder thrones and prouder warriors stood;

Before the Memphian priest his precepts chose,

Men reasoned greatly of the highest good;

Before Troy was, or Xanthus rolled in blood,

Armies were ranged in battles’ dread array:

They fought--their glory withered in its bud;

They perished--with them ceased their tyrants’ sway;

New wars, new heroes came--their story passed away.--JAMES GATES

PERCIVAL.

It is a curious paradox that our knowledge of this oldest civilisation

should be the very newest and most novel record with which present-day

history has to deal. The Chaldeans, Assyrians, and Babylonians, of

whose accomplishments we speak so confidently to-day, lived out their

national life, and vanished from the earth, as nations, mostly before

civilisation had its dawning in Europe; and for two thousand years they

were but a reminiscence.

It was reserved for nineteenth century investigators literally to

dig from the earth their lost records, and to read the secrets of

their forgotten history. Marvellous secrets they were, as we shall

see; but before we turn to them, it will be of interest to recall

the reminiscences that did service as the history of these wonderful

peoples for so many centuries. In a few extracts we may set forth

the substance of all that the world remembered of that marvellous

civilisation from the days of Herodotus and Diodorus till the middle

of the nineteenth century. A mixture of fact and fable, it still has

absorbing interest, the more so that we may now compare it with the

surer records brought to light in our own time. Aside from their

intrinsic interest, the classical records have, in this regard, a

unique importance.

As to the precise classical authorities in question, we have already

become acquainted with Diodorus and Ælianus in the earlier portion

of this work. Another author we shall now have occasion to quote is

Berosus. As to this author and the exact status of his work, we cannot

do better than quote the following critical estimate from the _Babylone

et la Chaldée_ of Joachim Menant.

“Berosus came of a priestly family and was born in Babylon, about

330 B.C. He himself is authority for the information that he was a

contemporary of Alexander the Great. According to Tatian, he is the

most learned of all Asiatic historians. He was deeply versed in the

ancient traditions of his country and taught them to the Greeks,

through whom they have come down to us. Vitruvius informs us that he

left Babylon and went to live on the island of Cos, where he opened

a school of astrology. He invented, or at least introduced among the

Greeks, a particular kind of time-keeping. There still exist fragments

of astrological works to which Berosus has attached his name, and

owing to the special interests of the writers who have borrowed from

his works, the fame of the astrologer perhaps outshines that of the

historian. Pliny (VII. 37) declares that the Athenians erected a

golden-tongued statue to him in the Gymnasium, on account of his

wonderful predictions.