Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this
file which includes the original illustrations
(eight color plates and 32 other illustrations).
See 45137-h.htm or 45137-h.zip:
(https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/45137/pg45137-images.html)
or
(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/45137/45137-h.zip)
Images of the original pages are available through
Internet Archive. See
https://archive.org/details/mythslegendsofba00speniala
MYTHS & LEGENDS OF BABYLONIA & ASSYRIA
by
LEWIS SPENCE F.R.A.I.
Author of "The Myths of Mexico and Peru" "The Civilization of Ancient
Mexico" "The Popol Vuh" "The Myths of the North American Indians"
"Myths and Legends of Ancient Egypt" etc.
With Eight Plates in Colour by Evelyn Paul and Thirty-Two Other
Illustrations
London
George G. Harrap & Company, Ltd.
2 & 3 Portsmouth Street Kingsway W.C.
1916
[Frontispiece: Sacrificing to Bel Evelyn Paul]
PREFACE
The purpose of this book is to provide not only a popular account of
the religion and mythology of ancient Babylonia and Assyria, but to
extract and present to the reader the treasures of romance latent in
the subject, the peculiar richness of which has been recognized since
the early days of archæological effort in Chaldea. Unfortunately, with
few exceptions, writers who have made the field a special study have
rarely been able to triumph over the limitations which so often obtrude
in works of scholarship and research. It is true that the pages of
Rawlinson, Smith, Layard, and Sayce are enlivened at intervals with
pictures of Assyrian splendour and Babylonian glory--gleams which
escape as the curtains which veil the wondrous past are partially
lifted--but such glimpses are only interludes in lengthy disquisitions
which too often must be tedious for the general reader.
It was such a consideration which prompted the preparation of this
volume. Might not a book be written which should contain the pure
gold of Babylonian romance freed from the darker ore of antiquarian
research? So far, so good. But gold in the pure state is notoriously
unserviceable, and an alloy which renders it of greater utility may
detract nothing from its brilliance. Romance or no romance, in these
days it will not do to furnish stories of the gods without attempting
some definition of their nature and origin. For more than ever before
romance and knowledge are a necessary blend in the making of a
satisfactory book on mythology.
Nevertheless, it is anticipated that it will be to the modern reader
who loves the romance of antiquity that this book will especially
appeal. It is claimed that the greater part of Chaldean romance
clusters around the wonderful mythology and religion of that land; it
is therefore of these departments of Chaldean lore that this volume
chiefly treats. But the history of Babylonia and Assyria has not been
neglected. The great names in its records will be found to recur
constantly in these pages, in most instances accompanied by a tale or
legend which will illuminate the circumstances of their careers and
serve to retain these in the mind of the reader. Nor has the Biblical
connexion with Chaldea been forgotten; the reader will find as he
proceeds frequent references to the pages of the most picturesque Book
in the world.
L. S.
CONTENTS
I. BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA IN HISTORY AND LEGEND
II. BABYLONIAN COSMOGONY
III. EARLY BABYLONIAN RELIGION
IV. THE GILGAMESH EPIC
V. THE LATER PANTHEON OF BABYLONIA
VI. THE GREAT GOD MERODACH AND HIS CULT
VII. THE PANTHEON OF ASSYRIA
VIII. BABYLONIAN STAR-WORSHIP
IX. THE PRIESTHOOD, CULT, AND TEMPLES
X. THE MAGIC AND DEMONOLOGY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA
XI. THE MYTHOLOGICAL MONSTERS AND ANIMALS OF CHALDEA
XII. TALES OF THE BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN KINGS
XIII. THE COMPARATIVE VALUE OF THE BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN RELIGIONS
XIV. MODERN EXCAVATION IN BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA
XV. THE TWILIGHT OF THE GODS
GLOSSARY AND INDEX
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Sacrificing to Bel _(Evelyn Paul) Frontispiece_
Assault on a City
Basalt Stele engraved with the Text of Khammurabi's Code of Laws
Sennacherib receiving Tribute
The Death of Sardanapalus (_L. Chalon_)
The Library of King Assur-bani-pal at Nineveh (_Fernand L. Quesne_)
Daniel interprets the Dream of Nebuchadrezzar (_Evelyn Paul_)
Grant of Privileges to Ritti-Marduk by Nebuchadrezzar I
Birs Nimrûd, the Tower of Babel
The Murder of Setapo (_Evelyn Paul_)
The Seven Tablets of Creation
"Mighty was he to look upon" (_Evelyn Paul_)
Conflict between Merodach and Tiawath
Types of En-lil, the Chief God of Nippur, and of his Consort Nin-lil
Ishtar, as (1) Mother-goddess, (2) Goddess of War, (3) Goddess of Love
The Mother-goddess Ishtar (_Evelyn Paul_)
Assyrian Rock Sculpture
Assyrian Type of Gilgamesh
Ut-Napishtim makes Offering to the Gods (_Allan Stewart_)
Nebo
Hall in Assyrian Palace (_Sir Henry Layard_)
Tiglath-Pileser I directed by Ninib (_Evelyn Paul_)
Assur-nazir-pal attended by a Winged Mythological Being
Zikkurats of the Anu-Adad at Ashur
Stage-tower at Samarra
Excavated Ruins of the Temple of E-Sagila
Exorcising Demons of Disease
Clay Object resembling a Sheep's Liver
Eagle-headed Mythological Being
Capture of Sarrapanu by Tiglath-Pileser II (_Evelyn Paul_)
The Fatal Eclipse (_M. Dovaston, R.B.A._)
Shalmaneser I pouring out the Dust of a Conquered City (_Ambrose Dudley_)
The Marriage Market (_Edwin Long, R.A_.)
A Royal Hunt
Elijah prevailing over the Priests of Baal (_Evelyn Paul_)
The 'Black Obelisk' of Shalmaneser II
Outline of the Mounds at Nimrûd (_Sir Henry Layard_)
The Palaces of Nimrûd (_James Ferguson_)
Work of the Excavators in Babylon
Ruins of Babylon
The Hanging Gardens of Babylon (_M. Dovaston, R.B.A._)
CHAPTER I: BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA IN HISTORY AND LEGEND
To our fathers until well-nigh a century ago Babylon was no more than
a mighty name--a gigantic skeleton whose ribs protruded here and there
from the sands of Syria in colossal ruin of tower and temple. But now
the grey shroud which hid from view the remains of the glow and glitter
of her ancient splendour has to some extent been withdrawn, and through
the labours of a band of scholars and explorers whose lives and work
must be classed as among the most romantic passages in the history of
human effort we are now enabled to view the wondrous panorama of human
civilization as it evolved in the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates.
The name 'Babylon' carries with it the sound of a deep, mysterious
spell, such a conjuration as might be uttered in the recesses of secret
temples. It awakens a thousand echoes in the imagination. It holds a
music richer than that of Egypt. Babylon, Babylon--the sonorous charm
of the word is as a line from some great epic. It falls on the ear of
the historian like distant thunder. Behind the grandeur of Rome and
the beauty of Greece it looms as a great and thick darkness over which
flash at intervals streams of uncertain light as half-forgotten kings
and priests, conquerors and tyrants, demi-gods and mighty builders pass
through the gloom from obscurity to obscurity--sometimes in the full
glare of historical recognition, but more often in the half-light and
partially relieved dusk of uncertainty. Other shapes, again, move like
ghosts in complete and utter darkness, and these are by far the most
numerous of all.
But the spirit of Babylon is no soft and alluring thing eloquent of
Oriental wonders or charged with the delicious fascination of the East.
Rather is it a thing stark and strong, informed with fate and epical
in its intense recognition of destiny. In Babylonian history there are
but two figures of moment--the soldier and the priest. We are dealing
with a race austere and stern, a race of rigorous religious devotees
and conquerors, the Romans of the East--but not an unimaginative race,
for the Babylonians and Assyrians came of that stock which gave to the
world its greatest religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism,
a race not without the sense of mystery and science, for Babylon was
the mother of astrology and magic, and established the beginnings of
the study of the stars; and, lastly, of commerce, for the first true
financial operations and the first houses of exchange were founded in
the shadows of her temples and palaces.
The boundaries of the land where the races of Babylonia and Assyria
evolved one of the most remarkable and original civilizations in the
world's history are the two mighty rivers of Western Asia, the Tigris
and Euphrates, Assyria being identical with the more northerly and
mountainous portion, and Babylonia with the southerly part, which
inclined to be flat and marshy. Both tracts of country were inhabited
by people of the same race, save that the Assyrians had acquired the
characteristics of a population dwelling in a hilly country and had
become to some extent intermingled with Hittite and Amorite elements.
But both were branches of an ancient Semitic stock, the epoch of
whose entrance into the land it is impossible to fix. In the oldest
inscriptions discovered we find those Semitic immigrants at strife with
the indigenous people of the country, the Akkadians, with whom they
were subsequently to mingle and whose beliefs and magical and occult
conceptions especially they were afterward to incorporate with their
own.
The Akkadians
Who, then, were the Akkadians whom the Babylonian Semites came to
displace but with whom they finally mingled? Great and bitter has
been the controversy which has raged around the racial affinities
of this people. Some have held that they were themselves of Semitic
stock, others that they were of a race more nearly approaching the
Mongol, the Lapp, and the Basque. In such a book as this, the object
of which is to present an account of the Babylonian mythology, it is
unnecessary to follow the protagonists of either theory into the dark
recesses whither the conflict has led them. But the probability is that
the Akkadians, who are usually represented upon their monuments as a
beardless people with oblique eyes, were connected with that great
Mongolian family which has thrown out tentacles from its original
home in central Asia to the frozen regions of the Arctic, the north
of Europe, the Turkish Empire, aye, and perhaps to America itself!
Akkadian in its linguistic features and especially in its grammatical
structure shows a resemblance to the Ural-Altaic group of languages
which embraces Turkish and Finnish, and this is in itself good evidence
that the people who spoke it belonged to that ethnic division. But the
question is a thorny one, and pages, nay, volumes might be occupied in
presenting the arguments for and against such a belief.
It was from the Akkadians, however, that the Babylonian Semites
received the germs of their culture; indeed it may be avowed that this
aboriginal people carried them well on the way toward civilization. Not
only did they instruct the Semitic new-comers in the arts of writing
and reading, but they strongly biased their religious beliefs, and
so inspired them with the idea of the sanctity of their own faith
that the later Babylonian priesthood preserved the old Akkadian
tongue among them as a sacred language, just as the Roman priesthood
has retained the use of the dead Latin speech. Indeed, the proper
pronunciation of Akkadian was an absolute necessity to the successful
performance of religious ritual, and it is passing strange to observe
that the Babylonian priests composed new religious texts in a species
of dog-Akkadian, just as the monks of the Middle Ages composed their
writings in dog-Latin!--with such zeal have the religious in all ages
clung to the cult of the ancient, the mystic and half-forgotten thing
unknown to the vulgar.
When we first encounter Babylonian civilization we find it grouped
round about two nuclei, Nippur in the North and Eridu in the South.
The first had grown up around a sanctuary of the god En-lil, who held
sway over the ghostly animistic spirits which at his bidding might
pose as the friends or enemies of men. A more 'civilized' deity held
sway at Eridu, which was the home of Ea, or Oannes, the god of light
and wisdom, who exercised his knowledge of the healing art for the
benefit of his votaries. From the waters of the Persian Gulf, whence
he rose each morning, he brought knowledge of all manner of crafts and
trades, arts and industries, for the behoof of his infant city, even
the mystic and difficult art of impressing written characters on clay.
It is a beautiful picture which we have from the old legend of this
sea-born wisdom daily enlightening the life of the little white city
near the waters. The Semites possessed a deep and almost instinctive
love of wisdom. In the writings attributed to Solomon and in the rich
and wondrous Psalms of David--those deep mines of song and sagacity--we
find the glories of wisdom again and again extolled. Even yet there
are few peoples among whom the love of scholarship, erudition, and
religious wisdom is more cultivated for its own sake than with the Jews.
These rather different cultures of the North and South, working toward
a common centre, met and fused at a period prior to the commencement
of history, and we even find the city of Ur, whence Abram came, a near
neighbour of Eridu, colonized by Nippur! The culture of Eridu prevailed
nevertheless, and its mightiest offshoot was the ultimate centre of
Euphratean civilization--Babylon itself. The first founders of the
city were undoubtedly of Sumerian stock--the expression 'Sumerian'
being that in vogue among modern scholars for the older 'Akkadian,' and
therefore interchangeable with it.
The Semite Conquerors
It was probably about the time of the juncture of the civilizations
of Eridu and Nippur that the Semites entered the country. There are
indications which lead to the belief that, as in the case of the
Semitic immigrants in Egypt, they came originally from Arabia. The
Semite readily accepted the Sumerian civilization which he found
flourishing in the valley of the Euphrates, and adapted the Sumerian
system of writing to his own language, in what manner will be indicated
later. But the Sumerians themselves were not above borrowing from
the rich Semitic tongue, and many of the earliest Sumerian texts we
encounter are strongly Semitized. But although the Semites appear to
have filtered into Sumerian territory by way of Eridu and Ur, the
first definite notices we have of their presence within it are in the
monuments of the more northern portion of that territory, in what is
known as Akkad, in the neighbourhood of Bagdad, where they founded a
small kingdom in much the same manner as the Jutes founded the kingdom
of Kent. The earliest monuments, however, come from Lagash, the modern
Tel-lo, some thirty miles north of Ur, and recount the dealings of the
high-priest of that place with other neighbouring dignitaries. The
priests of Lagash became kings, and their conquests extended beyond the
confines of Babylonia to Elam on the east, and southward to the Persian
Gulf.
[Illustration: Assault on a City from a bas-relief representing the
Campaigns of Sennacherib Photo W.A. Mansell and Co.]
A Babylonian Conqueror
But the first great Semitic empire in Babylonia was that founded by the
famous Sargon of Akkad. As is the case with many popular heroes and
monarchs whose deeds are remembered in song and story--for example,
Perseus, Œdipus, Cyrus, Romulus, and our own King Arthur--the early
years of Sargon were passed in obscurity. Sargon is, in fact, one of
the 'fatal children.' He was, legend stated, born in concealment and
sent adrift, like Moses, in an ark of bulrushes on the waters of
the Euphrates, whence he was rescued and brought up by one Akki, a
husbandman. But the time of his recognition at length arrived, and he
received the crown of Babylonia. His foreign conquests were extensive.
On four successive occasions he invaded Syria and Palestine, which he
succeeded in welding into a single empire with Babylonia. Pressing
his victories to the margin of the Mediterranean, he erected upon its
shores statues of himself as an earnest of his conquests. He also
overcame Elam and northern Mesopotamia and quelled a rebellion of some
magnitude in his own dominions. His son, Naram-Sin, claimed for himself
the title of "King of the Four Zones," and enlarged the empire left him
by his father, penetrating even into Arabia. A monument unearthed by J.
de Morgan at Susa depicts him triumphing over the conquered Elamites.
He is seen passing his spear through the prostrate body of a warrior
whose hands are upraised as if pleading for quarter. His head-dress
is ornamented with the horns emblematic of divinity, for the early
Babylonian kings were the direct vicegerents of the gods on earth.
Even at this comparatively early time (_c_. 3800 B.C.) the resources
of the country had been well exploited by its Semitic conquerors,
and their absorption of the Sumerian civilization had permitted them
to make very considerable progress in the enlightened arts. Some of
their work in bas-relief, and even in the lesser if equally difficult
craft of gem-cutting, is among the finest efforts of Babylonian art.
Nor were they deficient in more utilitarian fields. They constructed
roads through the most important portions of the empire, along which
a service of posts carried messages at stated intervals, the letters
conveyed by these being stamped or franked by clay seals, bearing the
name of Sargon.
The First Library in Babylonia
Sargon is also famous as the first founder of a Babylonian library.
This library appears to have contained works of a most surprising
nature, having regard to the period at which it was instituted. One
of these was entitled _The Observations of Bel_, and consisted of
no less than seventy-two books dealing with astronomical matters of
considerable complexity; it registered and described the appearances of
comets, conjunctions of the sun and moon, and the phases of the planet
Venus, besides recording many eclipses. This wonderful book was long
afterward translated into Greek by the Babylonian historian Berossus,
and it demonstrates the great antiquity of Babylonian astronomical
science even at this very early epoch. Another famous work contained
in the library of Sargon dealt with omens, the manner of casting them,
and their interpretation--a very important side-issue of Babylonian
magico-religious practice.
Among the conquests of this great monarch, whose splendour shines
through the shadows of antiquity like the distant flash of arms on a
misty day, was the fair island of Cyprus. Even imagination reels at the
well-authenticated assertion that five thousand seven hundred years ago
the keels of a Babylonian conqueror cut the waves of the Mediterranean
and landed upon the shores of flowery Cyprus stern Semitic warriors,
who, loading themselves with loot, erected statues of their royal
leader and returned with their booty. In a Cyprian temple De Cesnola
discovered, down in the lowest vaults, a hæmatite cylinder which
described its owner as a servant of Naram-Sin, the son of Sargon, so
that a certain degree of communication must have been kept up between
Babylonia and the distant island, just as early Egypt and Crete were
bound to each other by ties of culture and commerce.
Gudea
But the empire which Sargon had founded was doomed to precipitate
ruin. The seat of power was diverted southward to Ur. In the reign of
Dungi, one of the monarchs who ruled from this southern sphere, a great
vassal of the throne, Gudea, stands out as one of the most remarkable
characters in early Babylonian antiquity. This Gudea (_c_. 2700 B.C.)
was high-priest of Lagash, a city perhaps thirty miles north of Ur,
and was famous as a patron of the architectural and allied arts. He
ransacked western Asia for building materials. Arabia supplied him with
copper for ornamentation, the Amames mountains with cedar-wood, the
quarries of Lebanon with stone, while the deserts adjacent to Palestine
furnished him with rich stones of all kinds for use in decorative
work, and districts on the shores of the Persian Gulf with timber for
ordinary building purposes. His architectural ability is vouched for by
a plan of his palace, measured to scale, which is carved upon the lap
of one of his statues in the Louvre.
There is no intention in this sketch to follow minutely the events in
the history of Babylonia and Assyria. The purpose is to depict and
describe the circumstances, deeds, and times of its most outstanding
figures, its most typical and characteristic rulers. By following
this plan we hope to be better able to present the reader with a more
faithful and genuine picture of the civilization the myths of which
we are about to peruse, than if we squandered space and time in the
description of the reigns of kings during whose tenure of the throne no
event of importance is recorded.
[Illustration: Basalt Stele engraved with the Text of Khammurabi's Code
of Laws. The scene represents the King receiving the Laws from Shamash,
the Sun-god--Photo W. A. Mansell and Co.]
Khammurabi the Great
Like that which preceded it, the dynasty of Ur fell, and Arabian or
Canaanite invaders usurped the royal power in much the same manner
as the Shepherd Kings seized the sovereignty of Egypt. A subsequent
foreign yoke, that of Elam, was thrown off by Khammurabi, perhaps the
most celebrated and most popularly famous name in Babylonian history.
This brilliant, wise, and politic monarch did not content himself with
merely expelling the hated Elamites, but advanced to further conquest
with such success that in the thirty-second year of his reign (2338
B.C.) he had formed Babylonia into a single monarchy with the capital
at Babylon itself. Under the fostering care of Khammurabi, Babylonian
art and literature unfolded and blossomed with a luxuriance surprising
to contemplate at this distance of time. It is astonishing, too, to
note how completely he succeeded in welding into one homogeneous whole
the various elements of the empire he carved out for himself. So surely
did he unify his conquests that the Babylonian power as he left it
survived undivided for nearly fifteen hundred years. The welfare of
his subjects of all races was constantly his care. No one satisfied of
the justice of his cause feared to approach him. The legal code which
he formulated and which remains as his greatest claim to the applause
of posterity is a monument of wisdom and equity. If Sargon is to be
regarded as the Arthur of Babylonian history surely Khammurabi is its
Alfred. The circumstances of the lives of the two monarchs present a
decidedly similar picture. Both had in their early years to free their
country from a foreign yoke, both instituted a legal code, were patrons
of letters and assiduous in their attention to the wants of their
subjects.
If a great people has frequently evolved a legal code of sterling
merit there are cases on record where such an institution has served
to make a people great, and it is probably no injustice to the Semites
of Babylonia to say of them that the code of Khammurabi made them what
they were. A copy of this world-famous code was found at Susa by J. de
Morgan, and is now in the Louvre.
What the Babylonian chronologists called 'the First Dynasty of Babylon'
fell in its turn, and it is claimed that a Sumerian line of eleven
kings took its place. Their sway lasted for 368 years--a statement
which is obviously open to question. These were themselves overthrown
and a Kassite dynasty from the mountains of Elam was founded by Kandis
(_c_. 1780 B.C.) which lasted for nearly six centuries. These alien
monarchs failed to retain their hold on much of the Asiatic and Syrian
territory which had paid tribute to Babylon and the suzerainty of
Palestine was likewise lost to them. It was at this epoch, too, that
the high-priests of Asshur in the north took the title of king, but
they appear to have been subservient to Babylon in some degree. Assyria
grew gradually in power. Its people were hardier and more warlike than
the art-loving and religious folk of Babylon, and little by little they
encroached upon the weakness of the southern kingdom until at length
an affair of tragic proportions entitled them to direct interference in
Babylonian politics.
A Court Murder
The circumstances which necessitated this intervention are not
unlike those of the assassination of King Alexander of Serbia and
Draga, his Queen, that happened 3000 years later. The Kassite king
of Babylonia had married the daughter of Assur-yuballidh of Assyria.
But the match did not meet with the approval of the Kassite faction
at court, which murdered the bridegroom-king. This atrocious act met
with swift vengeance at the hands of Assur-yuballidh of Assyria, the
bride's father, a monarch of active and statesmanlike qualities, the
author of the celebrated series of letters to Amen-hetep IV of Egypt,
unearthed at Tel-el-Amarna. He led a punitive army into Babylonia,
hurled from the throne the pretender placed there by the Kassite
faction, and replaced him with a scion of the legitimate royal stock.
This king, Burna-buryas, reigned for over twenty years, and upon his
decease the Assyrians, still nominally the vassals of the Babylonian
Crown, declared themselves independent of it. Not content with such a
revolutionary measure, under Shalmaneser I (1300 B.C.) they laid claim
to the suzerainty of the Tigris-Euphrates region, and extended their
conquests even to the boundaries of far Cappadocia, the Hittites and
numerous other confederacies submitting to their yoke. Shalmaneser's
son, Tukulti-in-Aristi, took the city of Babylon, slew its king,
Bitilyasu, and thus completely shattered the claim of the older state
to supremacy. He had reigned in Babylon for some seven years when he
was faced by a popular revolt, which seems to have been headed by his
own son, Assur-nazir-pal, who slew him and placed Hadad-nadin-akhi on
the throne. This king conquered and killed the Assyrian monarch of his
time, Bel-kudur-uzur, the last of the old Assyrian royal line, whose
death necessitated the institution of a new dynasty, the fifth monarch
of which was the famous Tiglath-pileser I.
Tiglath-Pileser
Tiglath-pileser, or Tukulti-pal-E-sana, to confer on him his full
Assyrian title, came to the throne about 1120 B.C., and soon commenced
the career of active conquest which was to render his name one of
the most famous in the warlike annals of Assyria. Campaigns in the
Upper Euphrates against alien immigrants who had settled there were
followed by the conquest of the Hittites of Subarti, in Assyrian
territory. Pressing northward toward Lake Van in the Kurdish country he
subsequently turned his arms westward and overran Malatia. Cappadocia
and the Aramæans of Northern Syria next felt the force of his arms, and
he penetrated on this occasion even to the sources of the Tigris. He
left behind him the character of a great warrior, a great hunter, and a
great builder, restoring the semi-ruinous temples of Asshur and Hadad
or Rimmon in the city of Asshur.
It is not until the reign of Assur-nazir-pal III (_c_. 883 B.C.) that
we are once more enabled to take up the thread of Assyrian history with
any degree of certainty. In this reign artistic development appears to
have proceeded apace; but it cannot be said of Assur-nazir-pal that
in him culture went hand in hand with humanity, the records of his
cruelties being long and revolting. His successor, Shalmaneser II,
possessed an insatiable thirst for military glory, and during his reign
of thirty-five years overthrew a great confederacy of Syrian chiefs
which included Ahab, King of Israel. He was disturbed during the latter
part of his reign by the rebellion of his eldest son. But his second
son, Samsi-Rammon, came to his father's assistance, and his faithful
adherence secured him the succession to the throne in 824 B.C.
Semiramis the Great
It was probably in the reign of this monarch that the queen known in
legend as Semiramis lived. It would have been wonderful indeed had
the magic of her name not been connected with romance by the Oriental
imagination. Semiramis! The name sparkles and scintillates with gems
of legend and song. Myth, magic, and music encircle it and sweep round
it as fairy seas surround some island paradise. It is a central rose
in the chaplet of legend, it has been enshrined in music perhaps the
most divine and melodious which the songful soul of Italy has ever
conceived--yet not more beauteous than itself. Let us introduce into
the iron chain of Assyrian history the golden link of the legend of
this Helen of the East, and having heard the fictions of her greatness
let us attempt to remove the veils which hide her real personality
from view and look upon her as she was--Sammuramat the Babylonian,
queen and favourite of Samsi-Rammon, who crushed the assembled armies
of Media and Chaldea, and whose glories are engraved upon a column
which, setting forth the tale of her conquests, describes her in all
simplicity as "A woman of the palace of Samsi-Rammon, King of the
World."
Legend says that Ninus, King of Assyria, having conquered the
Babylonians, proceeded toward Armenia with the object of reducing the
people of that country. But its politic king, Barsanes, unable to
meet him by armed force, made a voluntary submission, accompanied by
presents of such magnificence that Ninus was placated. But, insatiable
in his desire for conquest, he turned his eyes to Media, which he
speedily subdued. His next ambition was to bring under his rule the
territory between the Tanais and the Nile. This great task occupied
him for no less than seventeen years, by which time all Asia had
submitted to him, with the single exception of Bactria, which still
maintained its independence. Having laid the foundations of the city
of Nineveh, he resolved to proceed against the Bactrians. His army
was of dimensions truly mythical, for he was said to be accompanied
by 7,000,000 of infantrymen, 2,000,000 of horse-soldiers, with the
addition of 200,000 chariots equipped with scythes.
It was during this campaign, says Diodorus Siculus, that Ninus first
beheld Semiramis. Her precise legendary or mythical origin is obscure.
Some writers aver that she was the daughter of the fish-goddess
Ataryatis, or Derketo, and Oannes, the Babylonian god of wisdom, who
has already been alluded to. Ataryatis was a goddess of Ascalon in
Syria, and after birth her daughter Semiramis was miraculously fed
by doves until she was found by one Simmas, the royal shepherd, who
brought her up and married her to Onnes, or Menon, one of Ninus's
generals. He fell by his own hand, and Ninus thereupon took Semiramis
to wife, having profoundly admired her ever since her conduct at the
capture of Bactria, where she had greatly distinguished herself. Not
long afterward Ninus died, leaving a son called Ninyas. During her
son's minority Semiramis assumed the regency, and the first great work
she undertook was the interment of her husband, whom she buried with
great splendour, and raised over him a mound of earth no less than a
mile and a quarter high and proportionally wide, after which she built
Babylon. This city being finished, she made an expedition into Media;
and wherever she went left memorials of her power and munificence. She
erected vast structures, forming lakes and laying out gardens of great
extent, particularly in Chaonia and Ecbatana. In short, she levelled
hills, and raised mounds of an immense height, which retained her name
for ages. After this she invaded Egypt and conquered Ethiopia, with
the greater part of Libya; and having accomplished her wish, and there
being no enemy to cope with her, excepting the kingdom of India, she
resolved to direct her forces toward that quarter. She had an army of
3,000,000 foot, 500,000 horse, and 100,000 chariots. For the passing
of rivers and engaging the enemy by water she had procured 2000 ships,
to be so constructed as to be taken to pieces for the advantage of
carriage: which ships were built in Bactria by men from Ph[oe]nicia,
Syria, and Cyprus. With these she fought a naval engagement with
Strabrobates, King of India, and at the first encounter sunk a thousand
of his ships. After this she built a bridge over the river Indus, and
penetrated into the heart of the country. Here Strabrobates engaged
her. Being deceived by the numerous appearance of her elephants, he at
first gave way, for being deficient in those animals she had procured
the hides of 3000 black oxen, which, being properly sewn and stuffed
with straw, presented the appearance of so many elephants. All this was
done so naturally that even the real elephants of the Indian king were
deceived. But the stratagem was at last discovered, and Semiramis was
obliged to retreat, after having lost a great part of her army. Soon
after this she resigned the government to her son Ninyas, and died.
According to some writers, she was slain by his hand.
It was through the researches of Professor Lehmann-Haupt of Berlin
that the true personal significance of Semiramis was recovered. Until
the year 1910 the legends of Diodorus and others were held to have
been completely disproved and Semiramis was regarded as a purely
mythical figure. Old Bryant in his _Antient Mythology_, published
at the beginning of last century, proves the legendary status of
Semiramis to his own satisfaction. He says: "It must be confessed that
the generality of historians have represented Semiramis as a woman,
and they describe her as a great princess who reigned in Babylon;
but there are writers who from their situation had opportunities of
better intelligence, and by those she is mentioned as a deity. The
Syrians, says Athenagoras, worshipped Semiramis, and adds that she was
esteemed the daughter of Dercatus and the same as the Suria Dea....
Semiramis was said to have been born at Ascalon because Atargatus was
there worshipped under the name of Dagon, and the same memorials were
preserved there as at Hierapolis and Babylon. These memorials related
to a history of which the dove was the principal type. It was upon the
same account that she was said to have been changed to a dove because
they found her always depicted and worshipped under that form.... From
the above I think it is plain that Semiramis was an emblem and that
the name was a compound of Sama-ramas, or ramis, and it signified 'the
divine token,' a type of providence, and as a military ensign, (for
as such it was used) it may with some latitude be interpreted 'the
standard of the most High.' It consisted of the figure of a dove,
which was probably encircled with the iris, as those two emblems were
often represented together. All who went under that standard, or who
paid any deference to that emblem, were styled Semarim or Samorim. It
was a title conferred upon all who had this device for their national
insigne." There is much more of this sort of thing, typical of the
mythic science of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. It
is easy to see how myth became busy with the name of the Assyrian
Queen, whose exploits undoubtedly aroused the enthusiasm not only of
the Assyrians themselves but of the peoples surrounding them. Just as
any great work in ancient Britain was ascribed to the agency of Merlin
or Arthur, so such monuments as could not otherwise be accounted for
were attributed to Semiramis. Western Asia is monumentally eloquent
of her name, and even the Behistun inscriptions of Darius have been
placed to her credit. Herodotus states that one of the gates of Babylon
was called after her, and that she raised the artificial banks that
confined the river Euphrates. Her fame lasted until well into the
Middle Ages, and the Armenians called the district round Lake Van,
Shamiramagerd.
There is very little doubt that her fame became mingled with that of
the goddess Ishtar: she possesses the same Venus-like attributes, the
dove is her emblem, and her story became so inextricably intertwined
with that of the Babylonian goddess that she ultimately became a
variant of her. The story of Semiramis is a triumphant vindication of
the manner in which by certain mythical processes a human being can
attain the rank of a god or goddess, for Semiramis was originally very
real indeed. A column discovered in 1909 describes her as "a woman of
the palace of Samsi-rammon, King of the World, King of Assyria, King
of the Four Quarters of the World." This dedication indicates that
Semiramis, or, to give her her Assyrian title, Sammuramat, evidently
possessed an immense influence over her husband, Samsi-rammon, and
that perhaps as queen-mother that influence lasted for more than one
reign, so that the legend that after a regency of forty-two years she
delivered up the kingdom to her son, Ninyas, may have some foundation
in fact. She seems to have made war against the Medes and Chaldeans.
The story that on relinquishing her power she turned into a dove and
disappeared may mean that her name, Sammuramat, was easily connected
with the Assyrian _summat_, the word for 'dove'; and for a person of
her subsequent legendary fame the mythical connexion with Ishtar is
easily accounted for.
The Second Assyrian Empire
What is known as the Second Assyrian Empire commenced with the reign
of Tiglath-pileser III, who organized a great scheme of provincial
government. This plan appears to have been the first forecast of the
feudal system, for each province paid a fixed tribute and provided a
military contingent.
Great efforts were made to render the army as irresistible as possible
with the object of imposing an Assyrian supremacy upon the entire known
world. Tiglath overran Armenia, defeated the Medes and Hittites, seized
the seaports of Ph[oe]nicia and the trade routes connecting them with
the centres of Assyrian commerce, and finally conquered Babylon, where
in 729 B.C. he was invested with the sovereignty of 'Asia.' Two years
later he died, but his successor, Shalmaneser IV, carried on the policy
he had initiated. He had, however, only five years of life in which
to do so, for at the end of that period the usurping general Sargon,
who laid claim to be a descendant of Sargon the Great of Akkad, seized
the royal power of Babylon. He was murdered in 705 B.C., and his son
Sennacherib, of Biblical fame, appears to have been unable to carry on
affairs with the prudence or ability of his father. He outraged the
religious feelings of the people by razing to the ground the city of
Babylon, because of the revolt of the citizens. The campaign he made
against Hezekiah, King of Judah, was marked by a complete failure.
Hezekiah had allied himself with the Philistine princes of Ascalon and
Ekron, but when he saw his Egyptian allies beaten at the battle of
Eltekeh he endeavoured to buy off the invaders by numerous presents,
though without success. The wonderful deliverance of Jerusalem from the
forces of Sennacherib, recorded in Scripture, and sung by Byron in his
_Hebrew Melodies_, appears to have a good foundation in fact. It seems
that the Assyrian army was attacked and almost decimated by plague,
which obliged Sennacherib to return to Nineveh, but it is not likely
that the phenomenon occurred in the watch of a night. Sennacherib was
eventually murdered by his two sons, who, the deed accomplished, fled
to Armenia. Of all the Assyrian monarchs he was perhaps the most
pompous and the least fitted to rule. The great palace at Nineveh and
the great wall of that city, eight miles in circumference, were built
at his command.
[Illustration: Sennacherib receiving Tribute From the Palace at Nineveh
--Photo W. A. Mansell and Co.]
His son and successor, Esar-haddon, initiated his reign by sending
back the sacred image of Merodach to its shrine at Babylon, which city
he restored. He was solemnly declared king in the restored temple of
Merodach, and during his reign both Babylonia and Assyria enjoyed
quiet and contentment. War with Egypt broke out in 670 B.C., and the
Egyptians were thrice defeated with heavy loss. The Assyrians entered
Memphis and instituted a protectorate over part of the country. Two
years later Egypt revolted, and while marching to quell the outbreak
Esar-haddon died on the road--his fate resembling that of Edward I,
who died while on his way to overcome the Scottish people, then in
rebellion against his usurpation.
Sardanapalus the Splendid
Esar-haddon was succeeded by Assur-bani-pal, known to Greek legend as
Sardanapalus. How far the legendary description of him squares with
the historical it is difficult to say. The former states that he was
the last king of Assyria, and the thirtieth in succession from Ninyas.
Effeminate and corrupt, he seems to have been a perfect example of the
_roi fainéant_. The populace of the conquered provinces, disgusted
with his extravagances, revolted, and an army led by Arbaces, satrap
of Medea, and Belesys, a Babylonian priest, surrounded him in Nineveh
and threatened his life. Sardanapalus, however, throwing off his
sloth, made such a vigorous defence that for two years the issue was
in doubt. The river Tigris at this juncture overflowed and undermined
part of the city wall, thus permitting ingress to the hostile army.
Sardanapalus, seeing that resistance was hopeless, collected his wives
and treasures in his palace and then set it on fire, so that all
perished.
[Illustration: The Death of Sardanapalus.--L. Chalon--Copyright, Braun and
Co.]
It is a strange coincidence that the fate which legend ascribes to
Sardanapalus was probably that which really overtook the brother of
Assur-bani-pal, Samas-sum-yukin. It is likely that the self-immolation
of Sardanapalus is merely a legendary statement of a rite well known to
Semitic religion, which was practised at Tarsus down to the time of Dio
Chrysostom, and the memory of which survives in other Greek legends,
especially those of Heracles-Melcarth and Queen Dido. At Tarsus an
annual festival was held and a pyre erected upon which the local
Heracles or Baal was burned in effigy. This annual commemoration of
the death of the god in fire probably had its origin in the older rite
in which an actual man or sacred animal was burned as representing the
deity. _The Golden Bough_[1] contains an instructive passage concerning
the myth of Sardanapalus. Sir James Frazer writes: "There seems to
be no doubt that the name Sardanapalus is only the Greek way of
representing Ashurbanapal, the name of the greatest and nearly the last
King of Assyria. But the records of the real monarch which have come
to light within recent years give little support to the fables that
attached to his name in classical tradition. For they prove that, far
from being the effeminate weakling he seemed to the Greeks of a later
age, he was a warlike and enlightened monarch, who carried the arms
of Assyria to distant lands and fostered at home the growth of science
and letters. Still, though the historical reality of King Ashurbanapal
is as well attested as that of Alexander or Charlemagne, it would be
no wonder if myths gathered, like clouds, around the great figure
that loomed large in the stormy sunset of Assyrian glory. Now the two
features that stand out most prominently in the legends of Sardanapalus
are his extravagant debauchery and his violent death in the flames of
a great pyre, on which he burned himself and his concubines to save
them from falling into the hands of his victorious enemies. It is said
that the womanish king, with painted face and arrayed in female attire,
passed his days in the seclusion of the harem, spinning purple wool
among his concubines and wallowing in sensual delights; and that in
the epitaph which he caused to be carved on his tomb he recorded that
all the days of his life he ate and drank and toyed, remembering that
life is short and full of trouble, that fortune is uncertain, and that
others would soon enjoy the good things which he must leave behind.
These traits bear little resemblance to the portrait of Ashurbanapal
either in life or death; for after a brilliant career of conquest the
Assyrian king died in old age, at the height of human ambition, with
peace at home and triumph abroad, the admiration of his subjects and
the terror of his foes. But if the traditional characteristics of
Sardanapalus harmonize but ill with what we know of the real monarch of
that name, they fit well enough with all that we know or can conjecture
of the mock kings who led a short life and a merry during the revelry
of the Sacæa, the Asiatic equivalent of the Saturnalia. We can hardly
doubt that for the most part such men, with death staring them in the
face at the end of a few days, sought to drown care and deaden fear by
plunging madly into all the fleeting joys that still offered themselves
under the sun. When their brief pleasures and sharp sufferings were
over, and their bones or ashes mingled with the dust, what more natural
that on their tomb--those mounds in which the people saw, not untruly,
the graves of the lovers of Semiramis--there should be carved some
such lines as those which tradition placed in the mouth of the great
Assyrian king, to remind the heedless passer-by of the shortness and
vanity of life?"
According to Sir James Frazer, then, the real Sardanapalus may have
been one of those mock kings who led a short but merry existence before
a sacrifice ended their convivial career. We have analogous instances
in the sacrifice of Sandan at Tarsus and that of the representative of
the Mexican god, Tezcatlipoca. The legend of Sardanapalus is thus a
distorted reminiscence of the death of a magnificent king sacrificed in
name of a god.
When the real Assur-bani-pal succeeded Esar-haddon as King of Assyria,
his brother Samas-sum-yukin was created Viceroy of Babylonia, but
shortly after he claimed the kingship itself, revived the old Sumerian
language as the official tongue of the Babylonian court, and initiated
a revolt which shook the Assyrian empire from one end to the other.
A great struggle ensued between the northern and southern powers,
and at last Babylon was forced to surrender through starvation, and
Samas-sum-yukin was put to death.
Assur-bani-pal, like Sardanapalus, his legendary counterpart, found
himself surrounded by enemies. Having conquered Elam as well as
Babylonia, he had to face the inroads of hordes of Scythians, who
poured over his frontiers. He succeeded in defeating and slaying one
of their chiefs, Dugdamme, whom in an inscription he calls a "limb of
Satan," but shortly after this he died himself. His empire was already
in a state of decay, and had not long to stand.
The First Great Library
But if Assur-bani-pal was effeminate and lax in government, he was the
first great patron of literature. It is to his magnificent library
at Nineveh that we owe practically all that we have preserved of the
literature that was produced in Babylonia. He saw that the southern
part of his empire was far more intellectual and cultured than Assyria,
and he despatched numerous scribes to the temple schools of the south,
where they copied extensively from their archives every description
of literary curiosity--hymns, legends, medical prescriptions, myths
and rituals were all included in the great library at Nineveh. These
through the labours of Layard and Rassam have been restored to us. It
is a most extraordinary instance of antiquarian zeal in an epoch which
we regard as not far distant from the beginnings of verifiable history.
Nearly twenty thousand fragments of brick, bearing the results of
Assur-bani-pal's researches, are housed in the British Museum, and this
probably represents only a portion of his entire collection. Political
motives have been attributed to Assur-bani-pal in thus bringing
together such a great library. It has been argued that he desired to
make Assyria the centre of the religious influence of the empire. This
would derogate greatly from the view that sees in him a king solely
fired with the idea of preserving and retaining all that was best in
ancient Babylonian literature in the north as well as in the south,
and having beside him for his own personal use those records which
many circumstances prove he was extremely desirous of obtaining. Thus
we find him sending officials on special missions to obtain copies of
certain works. It is also significant that Assur-bani-pal placed his
collection in a library and not in a temple--a fact which discounts
the theory that his collection of literature had a religious-political
basis.
The Last Kings of Assyria
After the death of Assur-bani-pal the Scythians succeeded in
penetrating into Assyria, through which they pushed their way as far as
the borders of Egypt, and the remains of the Assyrian army took refuge
in Nineveh. The end was now near at hand. The last King of Assyria was
probably Sin-sar-iskin, the Sarakos of the Greeks, who reigned for some
years and who even tells us through the medium of inscriptions that
he intended to restore the ruined temples of his land. War broke out
with Babylonia, however, and Cyaxares, the Scythian King of Ecbatana,
came to the assistance of the Babylonians. Nineveh was captured by the
Scythians, sacked and destroyed, and the Assyrian empire was at an end.
[Illustration: The Library of King Assur-bani-pal at Nineveh.--Fernand Le
Quesne--By permission of Messrs Hutchinson and Co.]
Nebuchadrezzar
But strangely enough the older seat of power, Babylon, still flourished
to some extent. By superhuman exertions, Nebuchadrezzar II (or
Nebuchadnezzar), who reigned for forty-three years, sent the standard
of Babylonia far and wide through the known world. In 567 B.C. he
invaded Egypt. In one of his campaigns he marched against Jerusalem and
put its king, Jehoiakim, to death, but the king whom the Babylonian
monarch set up in his place was deposed and the royal power vested in
Zedekiah. Zedekiah revolted in 558 B.C. and once more Jerusalem was
taken and destroyed, the principal inhabitants were carried captive to
Babylon, and the city was reduced to a condition of insignificance.
This, the first exile of the Jews, lasted for seventy years. The story
of this captivity and of Nebuchadrezzar's treatment of the Jewish
exiles is graphically told in the Book of Daniel, whom the Babylonians
called Belteshazzar. Daniel refused to eat the meat of the Babylonians,
probably because it was not prepared according to Jewish rite. He and
his companions ate pulse and drank water, and fared upon it better
than the Babylonians on strong meats and wines. The King, hearing of
this circumstance, sent for them and found them much better informed
than all his magicians and astrologers. Nebuchadrezzar dreamed dreams,
and informed the Babylonian astrologers that if they were unable to
interpret them they would be cut to pieces and their houses destroyed,
whereas did they interpret the visions they would be held in high
esteem. They answered that if the King would tell them his dream they
would show the interpretation thereof; but the King said that if they
were wise men in truth they would know the dream without requiring to
be told it, and upon some of the astrologers of the court replying
that the request was unreasonable, he was greatly incensed and ordered
all of them to be slain. But in a vision of the night the secret was
revealed to Daniel, who begged that the wise men of Babylon be not
destroyed, and going to a court official he offered to interpret the
dream. He told the King that in his dream he had beheld a great image,
whose brightness and form were terrible. The head of this image was of
fine gold, the breast and arms of silver, and the other parts of brass,
excepting the legs which were of iron, and the feet which were partly
of that metal and partly of clay. But a stone was cast at it which
smote the image upon its feet and it brake into pieces and the wind
swept away the remnants. The stone that had smitten it became a great
mountain and filled the whole earth.
Then Daniel proceeded to the interpretation. The King, he said,
represented the golden head of the image; the silver an inferior
kingdom which would rise after Nebuchadrezzar's death; and a third of
brass which should bear rule over all the earth. The fourth dynasty
from Nebuchadrezzar would be as strong as iron, but since the toes of
the image's feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, so should
that kingdom be partly strong and partly broken. Nebuchadrezzar was so
awed with the interpretation that he fell upon his face and worshipped
Daniel, telling him how greatly he honoured the God who could have
revealed such secrets to him; and he set him as ruler over the whole
province of Babylon, and made him chief of the governors over all the
wise men of that kingdom.
But Daniel's three companions--Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego--refused
to worship a golden image which the King had set up, and he commanded
that they should be cast into a fiery furnace, through which they
passed unharmed.
[Illustration: Daniel interprets the Dream of Nebuchadrezzar.--Evelyn
Paul.]
This circumstance still more turned the heart of Nebuchadrezzar in
the direction of the God of Israel. A second dream which he had, he
begged Daniel to interpret. He said he had seen a tree in the midst
of the earth of more than natural height, which flourished and was
exceedingly strong, so that it reached to heaven. So abundant was the
fruit of this tree that it provided meat for the whole earth, and so
ample its foliage that the beasts of the field had shadow under it, and
the fowls of the air dwelt in its midst. A spirit descended from heaven
and called aloud, demanding that the tree should be cut down and its
leaves and fruit scattered, but that its roots should be left in the
earth surrounded by a band of iron and brass. Then, ordering that the
tree should be treated as if it were a man, the voice of the spirit
continued to ask that it should be wet with the dew of heaven, and that
its portion should be with the beasts in the grass of the earth. "Let
his heart be changed from a man's," said the voice, "and let a beast's
heart be given him; and let seven times pass over him."
Then was Daniel greatly troubled. He kept silence for a space until
the King begged him to take heart and speak. The tree, he announced,
represented Nebuchadrezzar himself, and what had happened to it in the
vision would come to pass regarding the great King of Babylon. He would
be driven from among men and his dwelling would be with the beasts of
the field. He would be made to eat grass as oxen and be wet with the
dew of heaven, and seven times would pass over him, till he knew and
recognized that the Most High ruled in the kingdom of man and gave it
to whomsoever he desired.
Twelve months after this Nebuchadrezzar was in the midst of his palace
at Babylon, boasting of what he had accomplished during his reign,
when a voice from heaven spake, saying: "O King Nebuchadrezzar, to
thee it is spoken, the kingdom is departed from thee," and straightway
was Nebuchadrezzar driven from man and he did eat grass as an ox and
his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hair was grown like
eagle's feathers and his nails like bird's claws.
At the termination of his time of trial Nebuchadrezzar lifted his eyes
to heaven, and praising the Most High admitted his domination over the
whole earth. Thus was the punishment of the boaster completed.
It has been stated with some show of probability that the judgment
upon Nebuchadrezzar was connected with that weird disease known as
lycanthropy, from the Greek words _lukos_, a wolf, and _anthropos_,
a man. It develops as a kind of hysteria and is characterized by a
belief on the part of the victim that he has become an animal. There
are, too, cravings for strange food, and the afflicted person runs
about on all fours. Among primitive peoples such a seizure is ascribed
to supernatural agency, and garlic or onion--the common scourge of
vampires--is held to the nostrils.
[Illustration: Grant of Privileges to Ritti-Marduk, a famous Babylonian
Captain, by Nebuchadrezzar I.--Photo W. A. Mansell and Co.]
The Last of the Babylonian Kings
Nabonidus (555-539 B.C.) was the last of the Babylonian kings--a man
of a very religious disposition and of antiquarian tastes. He desired
to restore the temple of the moon-god at Harran and to restore such
of the images of the gods as had been removed to the ancient shrines.
But first he desired to find out whether this procedure would meet
with the approval of the god Merodach. To this end he consulted the
augurs, who opened the liver of a sheep and drew thence favourable
omens. But on another occasion he aroused the hostility of the god
and incidentally of the priests of E-Sagila by preferring the sun-god
to the great Bel of Babylon. He tells us in an inscription that when
restoring the temple of Shamash at Sippar he had great difficulty
in unearthing the old foundation-stone, and that, when at last it
was unearthed, he trembled with awe as he read thereon the name of
Naram-sin, who, he says, ruled 3200 years before him. But destiny lay
in wait for him, for Cyrus the Persian invaded Babylonia in 538 B.C.,
and after defeating the native army at Opis he pressed on to Babylon,
which he entered without striking a blow. Nabonidus was in hiding, but
his place of concealment was discovered. Cyrus, pretending to be the
avenger of Bel-Merodach for the slights the unhappy Nabonidus had put
upon the god, had won over the people, who were exceedingly wroth with
their monarch for attempting to remove many images of the gods from
the provinces to the capital. Cyrus placed himself upon the throne of
Babylon and about a year before his death (529 B.C.) transferred the
regal power to his son, Cambyses. Assyrian-Babylonian history here
ceases and is merged into Persian. Babylonia recovered its independence
after the death of Darius. A king styling himself Nebuchadrezzar III
arose, who reigned for about a year (521-520 B.C.), at the end of which
time the Persians once more returned as conquerors. A second revolt in
514 B.C. caused the partial destruction of the walls, and finally the
great city of Babylon became little better than a quarry out of which
the newer city of Seleucia and other towns were built.
The History of Berossus
It will be of interest to examine at least one of the ancient
authorities upon Babylonian history. Berossus, a priest of Bel at
Babylon, who lived about 250 B.C., compiled from native documents a
history of his country, which he published in Greek. His writings have
perished, but extracts from them have been preserved by Josephus and
Eusebius. There is a good deal of myth in Berossus' work, especially
when he deals with the question of cosmology, the story of the deluge,
and so forth; also the 'facts' which he places before us as history
cannot be reconciled with those inscribed on the monuments. He seems
indeed to have arranged his history so that it should exactly fill the
assumed period of 36,000 years, beginning with the creation of man and
ending with the conquest of Babylon by Alexander the Great. Berossus
tells of a certain Sisuthrus,[2] whose history will be recounted in
full in another chapter. He then relates a legend of the advent of the
fish-man or fish-god, Oannes, from the waters of the Persian Gulf.
Indeed he alludes to three beings of this type, who, one after another,
appeared to instruct the Babylonians in arts and letters.
Berossus' Account of the Deluge
More important is his account of the deluge. There is more than one
Babylonian version of the deluge: that which is to be found in the
_Gilgamesh Epic_ is given in the chapter dealing with that poem. As
Berossus' account is quite as important, we shall give it in his own
words before commenting upon it: "After the death of Ardates, his son
(Sisuthrus) succeeded and reigned eighteen sari. In his time happened
the great deluge; the history of which is given in this manner. The
Deity, Cronus, appeared to him in a vision; and gave him notice, that
upon the fifteenth day of the month Dæsius there would be a flood,
by which mankind would be destroyed. He therefore enjoined him to
commit to writing a history of the beginning, procedure, and final
conclusion of all things, down to the present term; and to bury these
accounts securely in the City of the Sun at Sippara. He then ordered
Sisuthrus to build a vessel, and to take with him into it his friends
and relations; and trust himself to the deep. The latter implicitly
obeyed: and having conveyed on board every thing necessary to sustain
life, he took in also all species of animals, that either fly, or rove
upon the surface of the earth. Having asked the Deity whither he was
to go, he was answered, To the gods: upon which he offered up a prayer
for the good of mankind. Thus he obeyed the divine admonition: and the
vessel, which he built, was five stadia in length, and in breadth two.
Into this he put every thing which he had got ready; and last of all
conveyed into it his wife, children, and friends. After the flood had
been upon the earth, and was in time abated, Sisuthrus sent out some
birds from the vessel; which not finding any food, nor any place to
rest their feet, returned to him again. After an interval of some days;
he sent them forth a second time: and they now returned with their feet
tinged with mud. He made trial a third time with these birds: but they
returned to him no more: from whence he formed a judgment, that the
surface of the earth was now above the waters. Having therefore made an
opening in the vessel, and finding upon looking out, that the vessel
was driven to the side of a mountain, he immediately quitted it, being
attended with his wife, children, and the pilot. Sisuthrus immediately
paid his adoration to the earth: and having constructed an altar,
offered sacrifices to the gods. These things being duly performed, both
Sisuthrus, and those who came out of the vessel with him, disappeared.
They, who remained in the vessel, finding that the others did not
return, came out with many lamentations and called continually on the
name of Sisuthrus. Him they saw no more; but they could distinguish his
voice in the air, and could hear him admonish them to pay due regard
to the gods; and likewise inform them, that it was upon account of his
piety that he was translated to live with the gods; that his wife and
children, with the pilot, had obtained the same honour. To this he
added, that he would have them make the best of their way to Babylonia,
and search for the writings at Sippara, which were to be made known to
all mankind. The place where these things happened was in Armenia. The
remainder having heard these words, offered sacrifices to the gods;
and, taking a circuit, journeyed towards Babylonia." Berossus adds,
that the remains of the vessel were to be seen in his time upon one
of the Corcyrean mountains in Armenia; and that people used to scrape
off the bitumen, with which it had been outwardly coated, and made use
of it by way of an antidote for poison or amulet. In this manner they
returned to Babylon; and having found the writings at Sippara, they
set about building cities and erecting temples; and Babylon was thus
inhabited again.
Analogies with the Flood Myth
It is interesting to note that Sisuthrus, the hero of this deluge
story, was also the tenth Babylonian king, just as Noah was the tenth
patriarch. The birds sent out by Sisuthrus strongly recall the raven
and dove despatched by Noah; but there are several American myths which
introduce this conception.
Birds and beasts in many cosmologies provide the nucleus of the new
world which emerges from the waters which have engulfed the old.
Perhaps it is the beaver or the musk-rat which dives into the abyss
and brings up a piece of mud, which gradually grows into a spacious
continent; but sometimes birds carry this nucleus in their beaks. In
the myth under consideration they return with mud on their feet, which
is obviously expressive of the same idea. Attempts have been made to
show that a great difference exists between the Babylonian and Hebrew
story. Undoubtedly the two stories have a common origin.
The first Babylonian version of the myth dates from about 2000 B.C.
and its text is evidently derived from a still older tablet. It seems
likely that this was in turn indebted to a still more archaic version,
which probably recounted the earliest type of the myth. This perhaps
related how the earth and its inhabitants were not to the liking of
the Creator, and how he resolved to recreate the whole. The great
ocean-dragon was therefore called in to submerge the world, after which
the Creator re-moulded it and set the survivor and his family upon it
as the ancestors of a new human race. It is possible also that the
great sea-dragon, or serpent, which was slain by the Creator, may have
flooded the earth with his blood as he expired: there is an Algonquin
Indian myth to this effect. In an old cuneiform text, in fact, the
year of the deluge is alluded to as "the year of the raging serpent."
The wise man who takes refuge in the ship or ark is warned by a dream
of the forthcoming deluge. In some North American Indian myths he is
warned by friendly animals. The mountain, too, as a place of refuge for
the ark, is fairly common in myth.
We have dealt in Chapter II with the creation myth found in Berossus,
and with this ends the part of his history which is of any importance.
Babylonian Archæology
Until about the middle of the nineteenth century our knowledge of
the history and antiquities of Babylonia and Assyria was extremely
scanty. The deeply interesting series of excavations which unrolled
the circumstances of these ancient civilizations before the almost
incredulous eyes of learned Europe are described at length towards
the close of this volume. Here we may say shortly that the labours of
Layard and Botta at Nineveh convinced antiquaries that the remains
of a great civilization awaited discovery. Layard's excavation
of the library of Assur-bani-pal was the first great step toward
reconstructing the ancient life of the two kingdoms. He was followed
by Oppert and Loftus, but the systematic excavation of the country was
yet to be undertaken. This, as we shall see, was commenced by George
Smith of the British Museum, but unfortunately he died on his way
home from the East. His work at Nineveh was taken up by Mr Hormuzd
Rassam, who succeeded in unearthing inscribed tables and bronze gates
in bas-relief. A few years afterward Mr Rassam discovered the site of
the temple of the sun-god of Sippara at Abu-habba to the south-west of
Bagdad. An important find by de Sarzec was that of the diorite statues
of Gudea, the Patesi or Ruler of Lagash, about 2700 B.C., the stone of
which, according to the inscriptions upon them, had been brought from
the Sinaitic peninsula. The university of Pennsylvania sent Mr J.H.
Haynes in 1889 to excavate at Nippur, where he unearthed the remains of
the great temple of En-lil, in the heart of which is a mound of bricks
stamped with the names of Sargon of Akkad and his son, Naram-sin. The
German expedition of 1899 explored the ruins of Babylon, the palace of
Nebuchadrezzar, and the site of Asshur.
The Tower of Babel
Many attempts have been made to attach the legend of the confusion of
tongues to certain ruined towers in Babylonia, especially to that of
E-Sagila, the great temple of Merodach, and some remarks upon this most
interesting tale may not be out of place at this point. The myth is
not found in Babylonia itself, and in its best form may be discovered
in Scripture. In the Bible story we are told that every region was of
one tongue and mode of speech. As men journeyed westward from their
original home in the East, they encountered a plain in the land of
Shinar where they settled. In this region they commenced building
operations, constructed a city, and laid the foundations of a tower,
the summit of which they hoped would reach to heaven itself. It would
appear that this edifice was constructed with the object of serving as
a great landmark to the people so that they should not be scattered
over the face of the earth, and the Lord came down to view the city and
the tower, and he considered that as they were all of one language this
gave them undue power, and that what they imagined to themselves under
such conditions they would be able to achieve. So the Lord scattered
them abroad from thence over the face of every region, and the building
of the tower ceased and the name of it was called 'Babel,' because at
that place the single language of the people was confounded. Of course
it is merely the native name of Babylon, which translated means 'gate
of the god,' and has no such etymology as the Scriptures pretend,--the
Hebrews confusing their verb _balal_ 'to confuse or confound,' with the
word _babel_. The story was no doubt suggested by one of the temple
towers of Babylon. Over and over again we find in connexion with the
Jewish religion that anything which savours of presumption or unnatural
aspiration is strongly condemned. The ambitious effort of the Tower
of Babel would thus seem abhorrent to the Hebrews of old. The strange
thing is that these ancient towers or _zikkurats_, as the Babylonians
called them, were intended to serve as a link between heaven and earth,
just as does the minaret of the Mahommedan mosque.
[Illustration: Birs Nimrûd, the Tower of Babel From _Nippur, or
Exploration and Adventure on the Euphrates_, by J. P. Peters.--By
permission of Messrs G.P. Putnam's Sons]
The legend of the confusion of tongues is to be traced in other
folk-lores than that of Babylon. It is found in Central America, where
the story runs that Xelhua, one of the seven giants rescued from the
deluge, built the great pyramid of Cholula in order to besiege heaven.
The structure was, however, destroyed by the gods, who cast down fire
upon it and confounded the language of its builders. Livingstone found
some such myth among the African tribes around Lake Ngami, and certain
Australian and Mongolian peoples possess a similar tradition.
Nimrod, the Mighty Hunter
It is strange that the dispersion of tribes at Babel should be
connected with the name of Nimrod, who figures in Biblical as well as
Babylonian tradition as a mighty hunter. Epiphanius states that from
the very foundation of this city (Babylon) there commenced an immediate
scene of conspiracy, sedition, and tyranny, which was carried on by
Nimrod, the son of Chus the Æthiop. Around this dim legendary figure
a great deal of learned controversy has raged. Before we examine his
legendary and mythological significance, let us see what legend and
Scripture say of him. In the Book of Genesis (chap. x, 8, _ff_.) he is
mentioned as "a mighty hunter before Yahweh: wherefore it is said, Even
as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord." He was also the ruler of
a great kingdom. "The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech,
and Accad, and Calneh in the land of Shinar. Out of that land went
forth Asshur" (that is, by compulsion of Nimrod) "and builded Nineveh,"
and other great cities. In the Scriptures Nimrod is mentioned as a
descendant of Ham, but this may arise from the reading of his father's
name as _Cush_, which in the Scriptures indicates a coloured race. The
name may possibly be _Cash_ and should relate to the Cassites.
It appears then that the sons of Cush or Chus, the Cassites, according
to legend, did not partake of the general division of the human race
after the fall of Babel, but under the leadership of Nimrod himself
remained where they were. After the dispersion, Nimrod built Babylon
and fortified the territory around it. It is also said that he built
Nineveh and trespassed upon the land of Asshur, so that at last he
forced Asshur to quit that territory.[3] The Greeks gave him the name
of Nebrod or Nebros, and preserved or invented many tales concerning
him and his apostasy, and concerning the tower which he is supposed to
have erected. He is described as a gigantic person of mighty bearing,
and a contemner of everything divine; his followers are represented as
being equally presumptuous and overbearing. In fact he seems to have
appeared to the Greeks very much like one of their own Titans.
Nimrod has been identified both with Merodach, the tutelar god of
Babylon, and with Gilgamesh, the hero of the epic of that name, with
Orion, and with others. The name, according to Petrie, has even been
found in Egyptian documents of the XXII Dynasty as 'Nemart.'
Nimrod seems to be one of those giants who rage against the gods, as do
the Titans of Greek myth and the Jotunn of Scandinavian story. All are
in fact earth-gods, the disorderly forces of nature, who were defeated
by the deities who stood for law and order. The derivation of the name
Nimrod may mean 'rebel.' In all his later legends, for instance, those
of them that are related by Philo in his _De Gigantibus_ (a title which
proves that Nimrod was connected with the giant race by tradition),
he appears as treacherous and untrustworthy. The theory that he is
Merodach has no real foundation either in scholarship or probability.
As a matter of fact the Nimrod legend seems to be very much more
archaic than any piece of tradition connected with Merodach, who indeed
is a god of no very great antiquity.
Abram and Nimrod
Many Jewish legends bring Abram into relationship with Nimrod, the
mythical King of Babylon. According to legend Abram was originally an
idolater, and many stories are preserved respecting his conversion.
Jewish legend states that the Father of the Faithful originally
followed his father Terah's occupation, which was that of making and
selling images of clay; and that, when very young, he advised his
father "to leave his pernicious trade of idolatry by which he imposed
on the world."
The Jewish Rabbins relate that on one occasion, his father Terah having
undertaken a considerable journey, the sale of the images devolved on
him, and it happened that a man who pretended to be a purchaser asked
him how old he was. "Fifty years," answered the Patriarch. "Wretch that
thou art," said the man, "for adoring at that age a thing which is only
one day old!" Abram was astonished; and the exclamation of the old man
had such an effect upon him, that when a woman soon after brought some
flour, as an offering to one of the idols, he took an axe and broke
them to pieces, preserving only the largest one, into the hand of which
he put the axe. Terah returned home and inquired what this havoc meant.
Abram replied that the deities had quarrelled about an offering which
a woman had brought, upon which the larger one had seized an axe and
destroyed the others. Terah replied that he must be in jest, as it was
impossible that inanimate statues could so act; and Abram immediately
retorted on his father his own words, showing him the absurdity of
worshipping false deities. But Terah, who does not appear to have been
convinced, delivered Abram to Nimrod, who then dwelt in the Plain of
Shinar, where Babylon was built. Nimrod, having in vain exhorted Abram
to worship fire, ordered him to be thrown into a burning furnace,
exclaiming--"Let your God come and take you out." As soon as Haran,
Abram's youngest brother, saw the fate of the Patriarch, he resolved to
conform to Nimrod's religion; but when he saw his brother come out of
the fire unhurt, he declared for the "God of Abram," which caused him
to be thrown in turn into the furnace, and he was consumed. A certain
writer, however, narrates a different version of Haran's death. He says
that he endeavoured to snatch Terah's idols from the flames, into which
they had been thrown by Abram, and was burnt to death in consequence.
A Persian Version
The Persian Mussulmans allege that the Patriarch, who was born in
Chaldea, after God had manifested himself to him, proceeded to Mecca,
and built the celebrated Kaaba or temple there. When he returned
home he publicly declared himself the Prophet of God, and specially
announced it to Nimrod, King of Chaldea, who was a worshipper of fire.
Abram met Nimrod at a town in Mesopotamia, called Urga, afterwards
Caramit, and now Diarbekr, in which was a large temple consecrated
to fire, and publicly entreated the King to renounce his idolatry and
worship the true God. Nimrod consulted his wise men and inquired what
punishment such a blasphemer deserved, and they advised that he should
be consigned to the flames. A pile of wood was ordered to be prepared
and Abram was placed upon it, but to their astonishment it would
not kindle. Nimrod asked the priests the cause of this phenomenon,
and they replied that an angel was constantly flying about the pile
and preventing the wood from burning. The King asked how the angel
could be driven away, and they replied that it could only be done by
some dreadful rite. Their advice was followed, but the angel still
persisted, and Nimrod at length banished Abram from his dominions.
The Mussulmans also relate that the King made war against the
Patriarch, and when he was marching against him, he sent a person to
him with this message--"O Abram! it is now time to fight; where is thy
army?" Abram answered, "It will come immediately;" and immediately
there appeared an immense sun-darkening cloud of gnats, which devoured
Nimrod's soldiers to the very bones.
Another tradition is preserved in the East, specially referring to
the casting of Abram into a fiery furnace at Babylon by order of
Nimrod, which seems to be a corrupted story of the deliverance of
the three Hebrews recorded by Daniel--Nimrod merely substituted for
Nebuchadrezzar, as no evidence exists that Abram ever was at Babylon.
"Nimrod," it is said, "in a dream saw a star rising above the horizon,
the light of which eclipsed that of the sun." The soothsayers who were
consulted foretold that a child was to be born in Babylon who shortly
would become a great prince, and that he (Nimrod) had reason to fear
him. Terrified at this answer, Nimrod gave orders to search for such
an infant. Notwithstanding this precaution, however, Adna, the wife of
Azar, one of Nimrod's guards, hid her child in a cave, the mouth of
which she diligently closed, and when she returned she told her husband
that it had perished.
Adna, in the meantime, proceeded regularly to the cave to nurse the
infant, but she always found him suckling the ends of his fingers, one
of which furnished him milk and the other honey. This miracle surprised
her, and as her anxiety for the child's welfare was thus greatly
relieved, and as she saw that Heaven had undertaken the care, she
merely satisfied herself with visiting him from time to time. She soon
perceived that he grew as much in three days as common children do in a
month, so that fifteen moons had scarcely passed before he appeared as
if he were fifteen years of age. Adna now told her husband, Azar, that
the son of whom she had been delivered, and whom she had reported dead,
was living, and that God had provided miraculously for his subsistence.
Azar went immediately to the cave, where he found his son, and desired
his mother to convey him to the city, as he was resolved to present him
to Nimrod and place him about the court.
In the evening Adna brought him forth out of his den, and conducted
him to a meadow where herds of cattle were feeding. This was a sight
entirely new to the young Abram, who was inquisitive to learn their
nature, and was informed by his mother of their names, uses, and
qualities. Abram continued his inquiries and desired to know who
produced the animals. Adna told him that all things had their Lord
and Creator. "Who, then," said he, "brought me into the world?" "I,"
replied Adna. "And who is your Lord?" asked Abram. She answered,
"Azar." "Who is Azar's Lord?" She told him, Nimrod. He showed an
inclination to carry his inquiries farther, but she checked him,
telling him that it was not convenient to search into other matters
because of danger. At last he came to the city, the inhabitants of
which he perceived deeply engaged in superstition and idolatry. After
this he returned to his grotto.
One evening, as he was going to Babylon, he saw the stars shining,
and among others Venus, which was adored by many. He said within
himself--"Perhaps this is the God and Creator of the world;" but
observing some time after that this star was set, he said--"This
certainly cannot be the Maker of the universe, for it is not possible
he should be subject to such a change." Soon after he noticed the moon
at full, and thought that this might possibly be the Author of all
things; but when he perceived this planet also sink beneath the horizon
his opinion of it was the same as in the case of Venus. At length, near
the city he saw a multitude adoring the rising sun, and he was tempted
to follow their example, but having seen this luminary decline like
the rest, he concluded that it was not his Creator, his Lord, and his
God. Azar presented his son Abram to Nimrod, who was seated on a lofty
throne, with a number of beautiful slaves of both sexes in attendance.
Abram asked his father who was the person so much exalted above the
rest. Azar answered--"The King Nimrod, whom these people acknowledge
as their God." "It is impossible," replied Abram, "that he should
be their God, since he is not so beautiful, and consequently not so
perfect, as the generality of those about him."
Abram now took an opportunity of conversing with his father about the
unity of God, which afterwards drew him into great contests with the
principal men of Nimrod's court, who would by no means acquiesce in the
truths he declared. Nimrod, informed of these disputes, commanded him,
as we have already mentioned, to be thrown into a burning furnace, out
of which he came without receiving the least hurt.
The 'Babylonica'
Fragments of Babylonian history, or rather historical romance, occur in
the writings of early authors other than Berossus. One of these is to
be found in the _Babylonica_ of Iamblichus, a work embracing no less
than sixteen books, by a native of Chalchis in C[oe]le-Syria, who was
much enamoured of the mysterious ancient life of Babylonia and Assyria,
and who died about A.D. 333. All that remains of what is palpably a
romance, which may have been founded upon historical probability, is an
epitome of the _Babylonica_ by Photius, which, still further condensed,
is as follows:
Attracted by her beauty and relying on his own great power, Garmus,
King of Babylon, decided to marry Sinonis, a maiden of surpassing
beauty. She, however, was already in love with another, Rhodanes,
and discouraged Garmus' every advance. Her attachment became known
to the King, but did not alter his determination, and to prevent the
possibility of any attempt at flight on the part of the lovers, he
appointed two eunuchs, Damas and Saca, to watch their movements. The
penalty for negligence was loss of ears and nose, and that penalty
the eunuchs suffered. In spite of their close vigilance the lovers
escaped. Damas and Saca were, however, placed at the head of troops and
despatched to recapture the fugitives. Their relentless search was not
the lovers' only anxiety, for in seeking refuge with some shepherds in
a meadow, they encountered a demon--a satyr, which in the shape of a
goat haunted that part of the country. This demon, to Sinonis' horror,
began to pay her all sorts of weird, fantastic attentions, and finally
compelled her and Rhodanes to abandon the protection of the shepherds
for the concealment offered by a cavern. Here they were discovered by
Damas and his forces, and must have been captured but for the opportune
arrival and attack of a swarm of poisonous bees which routed the
eunuchs. When the runaways were alone again they tasted and ate some of
the bees' honey, and almost immediately lost consciousness. Later Damas
again attacked the cavern, but finding the lovers still unconscious he
and his troops left them there for dead.
In time, however, they recovered and continued their flight into the
country. A man, who afterward poisoned his brother and accused them
of the crime, offered them sanctuary. Only the suicide of this man
saved them from serious trouble and probably recapture, and from
his house they wandered into the company of a robber. Here again
the troops of Damas came upon them and burned their dwelling to the
ground. In desperation the fugitives masqueraded as the ghosts of the
people the robber had murdered in his house. Their ruse succeeded
and once again their pursuers were thrown off the scent. They next
encountered the funeral of a young girl, and witnessed her apparent
return to life almost at the door of the sepulchre. In this sepulchre
Sinonis and Rhodanes slept that night, and once more were believed to
be dead by Damas and his soldiers. Later, however, Sinonis tried to
dispose of their grave clothes and was arrested in the act. Soracchus,
the magistrate of the district, decided to send her to Babylon. In
despair she and Rhodanes took some poison with which they had provided
themselves against such an emergency. This had been anticipated by
their guards, however, with the result that a sleeping draught had been
substituted for the poison, and some time later the lovers to their
amazement awoke to find themselves in the vicinity of Babylon. Overcome
by such a succession of misfortunes, Sinonis stabbed herself, though
not fatally. Soracchus, on learning this, was moved to compassion, and
consented to the escape of his prisoners.
[Illustration: The Murder of Setapo.--Evelyn Paul.]
After this the lovers embarked on a new series of adventures even
more thrilling than those which had gone before. The Temple of Venus
(Ishtar), situated on an island of the Euphrates, was their first
destination after escaping from the captivity of Soracchus. Here
Sinonis' wound was healed, and afterward they sought refuge with
a cottager, whose daughter consented to dispose of some trinkets
belonging to Sinonis. In doing so the girl was mistaken for Sinonis,
and news that Sinonis had been seen in the neighbourhood was sent at
once to Garmus. While selling the trinkets the cottage girl had become
so alarmed by the suspicious questions and manner of the purchasers
that she hurried home with all possible speed. On her way back her
curiosity was excited by sounds of a great disturbance issuing from
a house hard by, and on entering she was appalled to discover a man
in the very act of taking his life after murdering his mistress.
Terrified and sprinkled with blood she sped back to her father's
house. On hearing the girl's story, Sinonis realised that the safety
of herself and Rhodanes lay only in flight. They prepared at once to
go, but before starting Rhodanes kissed the peasant girl. Sinonis,
discovering what he had done by the blood on his lips, became furious
with jealousy. In a transport of rage she tried to stab the girl, and
on being prevented rushed to the house of Setapo, a wealthy Babylonian
of evil repute. Setapo welcomed her only too cordially. At first
Sinonis pretended to meet his mood, but as time went by she relented
of her treatment of Rhodanes and began to cast about for some means of
escape. As the evening wore on she plied Setapo with wine until he was
intoxicated, then during the night she murdered him, and in the first
early dawn left the house. The slaves of Setapo pursued and overtook
her, however, and committed her to custody to answer for her crime.
All Babylon rejoiced with its king over the news of Sinonis' discovery.
So great was Garmus' delight that he commanded that all the prisoners
throughout his dominions should be released, and in this general boon
Sinonis shared. Meanwhile the dog of Rhodanes had scented out the
house in which the peasant girl had witnessed the suicide of the lover
who had murdered his mistress, and while the animal was devouring the
remains of the woman the father of Sinonis arrived at the same house.
Thinking the mutilated body was that of his daughter he buried it,
and on the tomb he placed the inscription: "Here lies the beautiful
Sinonis." Some days later Rhodanes passed that way, and on reading the
inscription added to it, "And also the beautiful Rhodanes." In his
grief he would have stabbed himself had not the peasant girl who had
been the cause of Sinonis' jealousy prevented him by telling him who in
reality was buried there.
During these adventures Soracchus had been imprisoned for allowing the
lovers to escape, and this, added to the threat of further punishment,
induced him to help the Babylonian officers to trace Rhodanes. So in
a short time Rhodanes was prisoner once again, and by the command of
Garmus was nailed to a cross. In sight of him the King danced delirious
with revengeful joy, and while he was so engaged a messenger arrived
with the news that Sinonis was about to be espoused by the King of
Syria, into whose dominions she had escaped. Rhodanes was taken down
from the cross and put in command of the Babylonian army. This seeming
change of fortune was really dictated by the treachery of Garmus, as
certain inferior officers were commanded by Garmus to slay Rhodanes
should he defeat the Syrians, and to bring Sinonis alive to Babylon.
Rhodanes won a sweeping victory and also regained the affection and
trust of Sinonis. The officers of Garmus, instead of obeying his
command, proclaimed the victor king, and all ended auspiciously for the
lovers.
Cuneiform Writing
The manner in which the ancient cuneiform writing of Babylonia and
Assyria was deciphered and restored to the world of science and
letters may be regarded as a great triumph of human reason. The name
'cuneiform' is most appropriate, for each character or sign is composed
of a wedge or combination of wedges. It is written, as most Oriental
languages, from left to right. The cuneiform script was first noticed
by a European at such a relatively early period as the year A.D. 1470,
when Josaphat Barbaro, a Venetian traveller, observed it cut on the
platform of Rachmet in Persia. Another Italian, Pietro della Valle,
passing that way in 1621, copied a few of the signs, which he sent back
to Italy, and Sir John Chardin accurately reproduced an inscription
found at Persepolis in 1711. It was obvious that three separate
languages were written in this script, and these have since been
found to be Persian, Babylonian, and Susian. In 1765 Niebuhr visited
Persepolis, and in less than a month copied all the texts there, which
were then ready for decipherment. Returning to Denmark he occupied
himself with studying what he had set down at Persepolis, and divided
the smaller inscriptions into three classes, which he described as
Classes I, II, and III instead of into three languages. Discovering
that Class I embraced only forty-two signs, he set these in order, and
but little subsequent addition has had to be made to them. Deciding
that the language of the signs was written in alphabetic characters, he
found himself obliged to call a halt. But two other scholars were more
fortunate than he. Tychsen hit upon a certain diagonal sign as that
employed to separate words, and correctly identified the alphabetic
signs for 'a,' 'd,' 'u,' and 's.' Hunter of Copenhagen was more careful
to verify his historical data than Tychsen had been, and was able to
identify distinctly the authors of the inscriptions before him. He,
too, independently identified the oblique wedge as a separative of
words, and hit upon the significance of the sign for the letter 'b.'
But after these achievements it seemed as if little more could be done.
It must be remembered that up to this time no such assistance was
vouchsafed the searchers as in the case of the Egyptian hieroglyphs,
where a Greek inscription had been found side by side with an Egyptian
one.
Grotefend
But a man of the greatest natural ingenuity was resolved to combat
the difficulty presented by the cuneiform script. Georg Grotefend
took up the task in the early years of the nineteenth century.
Beginning with the assumption that the inscriptions represented three
languages, and that one of these was ancient Persian, he took two of
the inscriptions which he understood to be Persian, and placing them
side by side found that certain signs were of frequent recurrence. This
indicated to him the possibility that their contents were similar.
A certain word appeared very frequently in the inscriptions, but it
seemed to have two forms, a longer and a shorter, and this Grotefend,
adopting a suggestion of Hunter's, took to mean 'king' in the short
form and 'kings' in the longer, the juxtaposition of the two signs
thus being taken to signify 'king of kings.' In both the inscriptions
studied by Grotefend he found that this expression 'king of kings'
was followed by the same word, which he took to mean 'great.' But
there were no definite facts to support these hypotheses. Turning to
certain Sassanian inscriptions which had recently been deciphered,
he found that the expression 'great king, king of kings' inevitably
occurred, and this strengthened his opinion that it was present in the
inscriptions he studied. If this was so, thought he, the two texts
under his observation must have been set up by two different kings,
for the names were not the same at the beginning. Moreover the name
with which text No. I began appears in the third line of text No. II,
following the word supposed to be 'king,' and another which might mean
'son.' Grotefend thus concluded that in the two inscriptions he had the
names of a triad of rulers, son, father, and grandfather. Applying to
the list of the Achænenian dynasty in the attempt to find three names
which would suit the conditions, he selected those of Xerxes, Darius,
and Hystaspes. Supposing the name at the beginning of inscription I to
be Darius, he thus considered himself to be justified in translating
text I as "Darius, great king, king of kings, son of Hystaspes,"
and text II as "Xerxes, great king, king of kings, son of Darius."
Considering that the Persian spelling of Darius would be Darheush,
he applied the letters of that name to the letters of the cuneiform
script. Subsequent investigation has shown that the name should have
been read Daryavush, but Grotefend at least succeeded in discovering
the letters for 'd,' 'a,' 'r,' and 'sh.'
But this was practically the end of Grotefend's discoveries. Burnouf,
by a careful study of Persian geographical names, managed to decipher a
large number of the characters of the Persian alphabet, and Professor
Lassen of Bonn, by similar means, achieved a like end. These two
independent achievements raised a fierce controversy as to priority of
discovery, but Lassen's system was the more perfect, as he found out
that the ancient Persian signs were not entirely alphabetic but were
partially syllabic--that is, that certain signs represented syllables
instead of letters. This meant that Grotefend's system, which had
been almost vowelless, was now to a great extent filled in with the
necessary vowels.
Rawlinson
At this juncture a certain Major Henry Rawlinson, a servant of the
East India Company, with a good knowledge of Persian, went to Persia
for the purpose of assisting to organize the native army there. He
was far away from books, and when he began to copy certain cuneiform
texts it was because of deep personal interest. He was quite unaware
of the strenuous toil which had been lavished upon them in Europe and
worked quite independently of all assistance. The strange thing is
that he laboured almost on the same lines as Grotefend had done. He
saw almost at once that he had three languages to deal with, and being
a man of great natural gifts he soon grouped the signs in a correct
manner. Strangely enough he applied the very same names--those of
Hystaspes, Darius, and Xerxes--to the texts as Grotefend had done, and
found them answer in the same manner. Turning his attention to the
inscription of Darius at Behistun, high up in the face of the living
wall of rock there, Rawlinson succeeded in copying part of it at great
personal risk. In 1838 he forwarded his translation of the first two
paragraphs of the Persian text, containing the genealogy of Darius,
to the Royal Asiatic Society of London. The feat made a tremendous
sensation, and he was supplied with all the principal works on the
subject and much correspondence from European scholars. He was,
however, patience personified, and would not publish a work he had
written on the subject because he thought it better to wait until he
had verified his conclusions and perhaps made fresh discoveries. But in
1840 he was despatched to Afghanistan on a political mission and did
not return to Bagdad for three years, and it was not until 1846 that
he published a series of memoirs in the _Journal_ of the Royal Asiatic
Society, in which he gave to the world a translation of the Persian
text at Behistun. It was a marvellous achievement, for, unlike those
who had been labouring on the subject in Europe, he was ignorant of the
languages allied to Persian, yet he had surpassed all other scholars in
his results.
But the deciphering of the second and third languages had yet to be
attacked. In 1844 Westergaard, working on the lines of Grotefend,
attacked the second language. He selected the names of Darius,
Hystaspes, and Xerxes, and compared them with their equivalents in
the Persian texts. By this means he discovered a number of signs and
by their aid attempted to spell out the syllables or words. Judging
the writing to be partly alphabetic and partly syllabic, he gave the
name Median to the language. Morris, who had Rawlinson's copy of the
second transcription of the Behistun text to work upon, deciphered
nearly all of it. Shortly after this the language was named Susian. The
deciphering of the third of the three languages found at Persepolis
was attacked by Löwenstern, and by the Rev. Edward Hinks, an Irish
clergyman. This language was Assyrian purely. Hinks was fearful of
making blunders, and whilst he was engaged in assuring himself that
every step he took was not a false one, Longpérier, published in
1847 a translation of the entire text. He was only able to read it
by analogy with the other texts; he could not provide the forms of
the Assyrian words themselves. But Rawlinson once more came to the
aid of the study, and it was shown that a large number of signs were
ideographic. This paved the way for a band of others who by their
united efforts succeeded in unravelling the complicated script.
Origin of Cuneiform
This peculiar system of writing originated in Babylonia, its inventors
being the Sumerian or non-Semitic people who inhabited that country
before its settlement by the Babylonians. It was developed from
picture-writing, and indeed some of the more highly significant of
the pictorial signs can still be faintly traced in their cuneiform
equivalents. This early picture-writing was inscribed on stone, but
eventually soft clay was adopted as a medium for the script, and it
was found that straight lines impressed upon this medium tended to the
shape of a wedge. The pictures therefore lost their original character
and came to be mere conventional groups of wedges. The plural was
represented by doubling the sign, and a term might be intensified
by the addition of a certain stroke: thus the sign for 'house,' if
four small strokes were added to it, would mean 'great house,' and so
forth. The script was badly suited to the Assyrian language, as it
had not been originally designed for a Semitic tongue. It consists
of simple syllables made up of a vowel by itself or a vowel and a
consonant, ideograms or signs which express an entire word, and closed
syllables such as _bit_ or _bal_. Again, many of the signs have more
than one syllabic value, and they may be used as ideograms as well as
phonetically. As in the Egyptian script, determinatives are employed to
indicate the class to which the word belongs: thus, a certain sign is
placed before the names of persons, another before territorial names,
and a third before the names of gods and sacred beings. The date of the
epoch in which this writing first began to be used was probably about
4500 B.C. and it persisted until the first century B.C. The Assyrians
employed it from about 1500 B.C. until about the beginning of the sixth
century B.C. This ancient form of writing was thus used first by the
Sumerians, then by their Babylonian and Assyrian conquerors, then by
those Persians who finally overthrew the Babylonian and Assyrian empire.
The Sacred Literature of Babylonia
The literature which this peculiar and individual script has brought
down to us is chiefly religious, magical, epical, and legendary. The
last three categories are dealt with elsewhere, so that it only falls
here to consider the first class, the religious writings. These are
usually composed in Semitic Babylonian without any trace of Akkadian
influence, and it cannot be said that they display any especial natural
eloquence or literary distinction. In an address to the sun-god, which
begins nobly enough with a high apostrophe to the golden luminary of
day, we find ourselves descending gradually into an atmosphere of
almost ludicrous dullness. The person praying desires the sun-god to
free him from the commonplace cares of family and domestic annoyances,
enumerating spells against all of his relatives in order that they
may not place their 'ban' upon him. In another, written in Akkadian,
the penitent addresses Gubarra, Merodach, and other gods, desiring
that they direct their eyes kindly upon him and that his supplication
may reach them. Strangely enough the prayer fervently pleads that its
utterance may _do good to the gods!_ that it may let their hearts rest,
their livers be quieted, and gladden them like a father and a mother
who have begotten children. This is not so strange when we come to
consider the nature of these hymns, many of which come perilously near
the border-line of pure magic--that is, they closely resemble spells.
We find, too, that those which invoke the older deities such as Gibi
the fire-god, are more magical in their trend than those addressed to
the later gods when a higher sense of religious feeling had probably
been evolved. Indeed, it does not seem too much to say that some of
these early hymns may have served the purpose of later incantations.
Most of those 'magical' hymns appear to have emanated from that
extremely ancient seat of religion, Eridu, and are probably relics of
the time when as yet magic and religion were scarcely differentiated in
the priestly or the popular mind.
Hymn to Adar
A fine hymn to Adar describes the rumbling of the storm in the abyss,
the 'voice' of the god:
The terror of the splendour of Anu in the midst of heaven.
The gods, it is said, urge Adar on, he descends like the deluge, the
champion of the gods swoops down upon the hostile land. Nusku, the
messenger of Mul-lil, receives Adar in the temple and addresses words
of praise to him:
Thy chariot is as a voice of thunder.
To the lifting of thy hands is the shadow turned.
The spirits of the earth, the great gods, return to the winds.
Many of the hymns assist us to a better understanding of the precise
nature of the gods, defining as they do their duties and offices and
even occasionally describing their appearance. Thus in a hymn to Nebo
we note that he is alluded to as "the supreme messenger who binds all
things together," "the scribe of all that has a name," "the lifter up
of the stylus supreme," "director of the world," "possessor of the
reed of augury," "traverser of strange lands," "opener of wells,"
"fructifier of the corn," and "the god without whom the irrigated
land and the canal are unwatered." It is from such texts that the
mythologist is enabled to piece together the true significance of many
of the deities of ancient peoples.
A hymn to Nusku in his character of fire-god is also descriptive and
picturesque. He is alluded to as "wise prince, the flame of heaven,"
"he who hurls down terror, whose clothing is splendour," "the forceful
fire-god," "the exalter of the mountain peaks," and "the uplifter of
the torch, the enlightener of darkness."
Such descriptive hymns are the most valuable assets possible in the
hands of the judicious student of myth or comparative religion.
[1] Vol. iii, p. 167. Second Edition. (By kind permission of Messrs
Macmillan and Co.)
[2] Ut-Napishtim.
[3] This passage has, however, been interpreted by some Biblical
scholars to mean that "Nimrod went out of this land into Asshur" (or
Assyria) "and built Nineveh." See Bryant, _Antient Mythology_, vol. vi,
pp. 191-2-3.
CHAPTER II: BABYLONIAN COSMOGONY
The Babylonian Myth of Creation
Few creation myths are more replete with interest than those which
have literary sanction. These are few in number, as, for example, the
creation story in Genesis, those to be found in Egyptian papyri, and
that contained in the _Popol Vuh_ of the Maya of Central America. In
such an account we can trace the creation story from the first dim
conception of world-shaping to the polished and final effort of a
priestly caste to give a theological interpretation to the intentions
of the creative deity; and this is perhaps more the case with the
creation myth which had its rise among the old Akkadian population of
Babylonia than with any other known to mythic science. In the account
in Genesis of the framing of the world it has been discovered that
two different versions have been fused to form a single story; the
creation tale of the _Popol Vuh_ is certainly a composite myth; and
similar suspicions may rest upon the analogous myths of Scandinavia and
Japan. But in the case of Babylonia we may be convinced that no other
influences except those of the races who inhabited Babylonian territory
could have been brought to bear upon this ancient story, and that
although critical examination has proved it to consist of materials
which have been drawn from more than one source, yet these sources are
not foreign, and they have not undergone sophistication at the hands of
any alien mythographer or interpolator.
[Illustration: The Seven Tablets of Creation.--Photo W. A. Mansell and
Co.]
It would seem that this Babylonian cosmogony was drawn from various
sources, but it appears to be contained in its final form in what
are known as the Seven Tablets of Creation, brought from the library
of Assur-bani-pal at Nineveh and now in the British Museum. These
have from time to time been supplemented by later finds, but we may
take it that in this record we have the final official development of
Babylonian belief, due to the priests of Babylon, after that city had
become the metropolis of the empire. The primary object of the Seven
Tablets was to record a terrific fight between Bel and the Dragon,
and the account of the creation is inserted by way of introduction.
It is undoubtedly the most important find dealing with Babylonian
religion that has as yet come to light. Before we advance any critical
speculations respecting it, let us set forth the story which it has to
tell.
As in so many creation myths we find chaotic darkness brooding over a
waste of waters; heaven and earth were not as yet. Naught existed save
the primeval ocean, Mommu Tiawath,[1] from whose fertile depths came
every living thing. Nor were the waters distributed, as in the days of
man, into sea, river, or lake, but all were confined together in one
vast and bottomless abyss. Neither did god or man exist: their names
were unknown and their destinies undetermined. The future was as dark
as the gloom which lay over the mighty gulf of chaos. Nothing had been
designed or debated concerning it.
The Birth of the Gods
But there came a stirring in the darkness and the great gods arose.
First came Lahmu and Lahame; and many epochs later, Ansar and Kisar,
component parts of whose names signify 'Host of Heaven' and 'Host of
Earth.' These latter names we may perhaps accept as symbolical of the
spirits of heaven and of earth respectively. Many days afterward came
forth their son Anu, god of the heavens.
At this point it should be explained that the name Tiawath affords a
parallel to the expression _T'hom_ or 'deep' of the Old Testament.
Practically the same word is used in Assyrian in the form _Tamtu_, to
signify the 'deep sea.'[2] The reader will recall that it was upon
the face of the deep that the spirit of God brooded, according to the
first chapter of Genesis. The word and the idea which it contains are
equally Semitic, but strangely enough it has an Akkadian origin. For
the conception that the watery abyss was the source of all things
originated with the worshippers of the sea-god Ea at Eridu. They termed
the deep _apsu_, or a 'house of knowledge' wherein their tutelar god
was supposed to have his dwelling, and this word was of Akkadian
descent. This _apsu_, or 'abyss,' in virtue of the animistic ideas
prevailing in early Akkadian times, had become personalized as a
female who was regarded as the mother of Ea. She was known by another
name as well as that of Apsu, for she was also entitled Zigarun, the
'heaven,' or the 'mother that has begotten heaven and earth'; and
indeed she seems to have had a form or variant in which she was an
earth-goddess as well. But it was not the existing earth or heaven that
she represented in either of her forms, but the primeval abyss, out of
which both of these were fashioned.
At this point the narrative exhibits numerous defects, and for a
continuation of it we must apply to Damascius, the last of the
Neoplatonists, who was born in Damascus about A.D. 480, and who is
regarded by most Assyriologists as having had access to valuable
written or traditional material. He was the author of a work entitled
_Doubts and Solutions of the First Principles_, in which he states
that Anu was followed by Bel (we retain the Babylonian form of the
names rather than Damascius' Greek titles), and Ea the god of Eridu.
"From Ea and Dawkina," he writes, "was born a son called Belos or
Bel-Merodach, whom the Babylonians regarded as the creator of the
world." From Damascius we can learn nothing further, and the defective
character of the tablet does not permit us to proceed with any degree
of certainty until we arrive at the name of Nudimmud, which appears to
be simply a variant of the name of Ea. From obscure passages it may be
generally gleaned that Tiawath and Apsu, once one, or rather originally
representing the Babylonian and Akkadian forms of the deep, are now
regarded as mates--Tiawath being the female and Apsu, once female, in
this case the male. These have a son, Moumis or Mummu, a name which at
one time seems to have been given to Tiawath, so that in these changes
we may be able to trace the hand of the later mythographer, who, with
less skill and greater levity than is to be found in most myths, has
taken upon himself the responsibility of manufacturing three deities
out of one. It may be that the scribe in question was well aware that
his literary effort must square with and placate popular belief or
popular prejudice, and in no era and at no time has priestly ingenuity
been unequal to such a task, as is well evidenced by many myths which
exhibit traces of late alteration. But in dwelling for a moment on
this question, it is only just to the priesthood to admit that such
changes did not always emanate from them, but were the work of poets
and philosophers who, for æsthetic or rational reasons, took it upon
themselves to recast the myths of their race according to the dictates
of a nicer taste, or in the interests of 'reason.'
A Darksome Trinity
These three, then, Tiawath, Apsu, and Mummu, appear to have formed
a trinity, which bore no good-will to the 'higher gods.'[3] They
themselves, as deities of a primeval epoch, were doubtless regarded
by the theological opinion of a later day as dark, dubious, and
unsatisfactory. It is notorious that in many lands the early, elemental
gods came into bad odour in later times; and it may be that the
Akkadian descent of this trio did not conduce to their popularity with
the Babylonian people. Be that as it may, alien and aboriginal gods
have in all times been looked upon by an invading and conquering race
with distrust as the workers of magic and the sowers of evil, and even
although a Babylonian name had been accorded one of them, it may not
have been employed in a complimentary sense. Whereas the high gods
regarded those of the abyss with distrust, the darker deities of chaos
took up an attitude towards the divinities of light which can only be
compared to the sarcastic tone which Milton's Satan adopts against
the Power which thrust him into outer darkness. Apsu was the most
ironical of all. There was no peace for him, he declared, so long as
the new-comers dwelt on high: their way was not his way, neither was it
that of Tiawath, who, if Apsu represented sarcasm deified, exhibited a
fierce truculence much more overpowering than the irony of her mate.
The trio discussed how they might rid themselves of those beings who
desired a reign of light and happiness, and in these deliberations
Mummu, the son, was the prime mover. Here again the Tablets fails us
somewhat, but we learn sufficient further on to assure us that Mummu's
project was one of open war against the gods of heaven.
In connexion with this campaign, Tiawath made the most elaborate
preparations along with her companions. She laboured without ceasing.
From the waters of the great abyss over which she presided she called
forth the most fearful monsters, who remind us strongly of those
against which Horus, the Egyptian god of light, had to strive in his
wars with Set. From the deep came gigantic serpents armed with stings,
dripping with the most deadly poison; dragons of vast shape reared
their heads above the flood, their huge jaws armed with row upon row of
formidable teeth; giant dogs of indescribable savagery; men fashioned
partly like scorpions; fish-men, and countless other horrible beings,
were created and formed into battalions under the command of a god
named Kingu, to whom Tiawath referred as her 'only husband' and to whom
she promised the rule of heaven and of fate when once the detested gods
of light are removed by his mighty arm.
The introduction of this being as the husband of Tiawath seems to point
either to a fusion of legends or to the interpolation of some passage
popular in Babylonian lore. At this juncture Apsu disappears, as does
Mummu. Can it be that at this point a scribe or mythographer took up
the tale who did not agree with his predecessor in describing Tiawath,
Apsu, and Mummu, originally one, as three separate deities? This would
explain the divergence, but the point is an obscure one, and hasty
conclusions on slight evidence are usually doomed to failure. To resume
our narrative, Tiawath, whoever her coadjutors, was resolved to retain
in her own hands the source of all living things, that great deep over
which she presided.
But the gods of heaven were by no means lulled into peaceful security,
for they were aware of the ill-will which Tiawath bore them. They
learned of her plot, and great was their wrath. Ea, the god of water,
was the first to hear of it, and related it to Ansar, his father,
who filled heaven with his cries of anger. Ansar betook himself to
his other son, Anu, god of the sky. "Speak to the great dragon," he
urged him; "speak to her, my son, and her anger will be assuaged and
her wrath vanish." Duly obedient, Anu betook himself to the realm of
Tiawath to reason with her, but the monster snarled at him so fiercely
that in dread he turned his back upon her and departed. Next came
Nudimmud to her, but with no better success. At length the gods decided
that one of their number, called Merodach, should undertake the task
of combating Tiawath the terrible. Merodach asked that it might be
written that he should be victorious, and this was granted him. He
was then given rule over the entire universe, and to test whether or
not the greatest power had passed to him a garment was placed in the
midst of the gods and Merodach spoke words commanding that it should
disappear. Straightway it vanished and was not. Once more spake the
god, and the garment re-appeared before the eyes of the dwellers in
heaven. The portion of the epic which describes the newly acquired
glories of Merodach is exceedingly eloquent. We are told that none
among the gods can now surpass him in power, that the place of their
gathering has become his home, that they have given him the supreme
sovereignty, and they even beg that to them who put their trust in him
he will be gracious. They pray[4] that he may pour out the soul of
the keeper of evil, and finally they place in his hands a marvellous
weapon with which to cut off the life of Tiawath. "Let the winds carry
her blood to secret places," they exclaimed in their desire that the
waters of this fountain of wickedness should be scattered far and wide.
Mighty was he to look upon when he set forth for the combat. His great
bow he bore upon his back; he swung his massive club triumphantly. He
set the lightning before him; he filled his body with swiftness; and
he framed a great net to enclose the dragon of the sea. Then with a
word he created terrible winds and tempests, whirlwinds, storms, seven
in all, for the confounding of Tiawath. The hurricane was his weapon,
and he rode in the chariot of destiny. His helm blazed with terror and
awful was his aspect. The steeds which were yoked to his chariot rushed
rapidly towards the abyss, their mouths frothing with venomous foam.
Followed by all the good wishes of the gods, Merodach fared forth that
day.
[Illustration: "Mighty was he to look upon."--Evelyn Paul.]
Soon he came to Tiawath's retreat, but at sight of the monster he
halted, and with reason, for there crouched the great dragon, her scaly
body still gleaming with the waters of the abyss, flame darting from
her eyes and nostrils, and such terrific sounds issuing from her widely
open mouth as would have terrified any but the bravest of the gods.
Merodach reproached Tiawath for her rebellion and ended by challenging
her to combat. Like the dragons of all time, Tiawath appears to have
been versed in magic and hurled the most potent incantations against
her adversary. She cast many a spell. But Merodach, unawed by this,
threw over her his great net, and caused an evil wind which he had sent
on before him to blow on her, so that she might not close her mouth.
The tempest rushed between her jaws and held them open; it entered her
body and racked her frame. Merodach swung his club on high, and with
a mighty blow shattered her great flank and slew her. Down he cast
her corpse and stood upon it; then he cut out her evil heart. Finally
he overthrew the host of monsters which had followed her, so that at
length they trembled, turned, and fled in headlong rout. These also he
caught in his net and "kept them in bondage." Kingu he bound and took
from him the tablets of destiny which had been granted to him by the
slain Tiawath, which obviously means that the god of a later generation
wrenches the power of fate from an earlier hierarchy, just as one
earthly dynasty may overthrow and replace another. The north wind bore
Tiawath's blood away to secret places, and at the sight Ea, sitting
high in the heavens, rejoiced exceedingly. Then Merodach took rest and
nourishment, and as he rested a plan arose in his mind. Rising, he
flayed Tiawath of her scaly skin and cut her asunder. We have already
seen that the north wind bore her blood away, which probably symbolises
the distribution of rivers over the earth.[5] Then did Merodach
take the two parts of her vast body, and with one of them he framed
a covering for the heavens. Merodach next divided the upper from the
lower waters, made dwellings for the gods, set lights in the heaven,
and ordained their regular courses.
As the tablet poetically puts it, "he lit up the sky establishing
the upper firmament, and caused Anu, Bel, and Ea to inhabit it." He
then founded the constellations as stations for the great gods, and
instituted the year, setting three constellations for each month, and
placing his own star, Nibiru, as the chief light in the firmament.
Then he caused the new moon, Nannaru, to shine forth and gave him the
rulership of the night, granting him a day of rest in the middle of
the month. There is another mutilation at this point, and we gather
that the net of Merodach, with which he had snared Tiawath, was placed
in the heavens as a constellation along with his bow. The winds also
appear to have been bound or tamed and placed in the several points
of the compass; but the whole passage is very obscure, and doubtless
information of surpassing interest has been lost through the mutilation
of the tablet.
We shall probably not be far in error if we regard the myth of the
combat between Merodach and Tiawath as an explanation of the primal
strife between light and darkness. Among the most primitive peoples,
the solar hero has at one stage of his career to encounter a grisly
dragon or serpent, who threatens his very existence. In many cases
this monster guards a treasure which mythologists of a generation ago
almost invariably explained as that gold which is spread over the sky
at the hour of sunset. The assigning of solar characteristics to all
slayers of dragons and their kind was a weakness of the older school of
mythology, akin to its deductions based on philological grounds; but
such criticism as has been directed against the solar theory--and it
has been extensive--has not always been pertinent, and in many cases
has been merely futile. In fact the solar theory suffered because of
the philological arguments with which it was bound up, and neither
critics nor readers appeared to discriminate between these. But we
should constantly bear in mind that to attempt to elucidate or explain
myths by any one system, or by one hard and fast hypothesis, is futile.
On the other hand nearly all systems which have yet attempted to
elucidate or disentangle the terms of myth are capable of application
to certain types of myth. The dragon story is all but universal: in
China it is the monster which temporarily swallows the sun during
eclipse; in Egypt it was the great serpent Apep, which battled with
Ra and Horus, both solar heroes; in India it is the serpent Vritra,
or Ahi, who is vanquished by Indra; in Australia and in some parts of
North America a great frog takes the place of the dragon. In the story
of Beowulf the last exploit of the hero is the slaying of a terrible
fire-breathing dragon which guards a hidden treasure-hoard; and
Beowulf receives a mortal wound in the encounter. In the Volsung Saga
the covetous Faffnir is turned into a dragon and is slain by Sigurd.
These must not be confounded with the monsters which cause drought and
pestilence. It is a sun-swallowing monster with which we have here to
deal.
[Illustration: Conflict between Merodach and Tiawath.--Photo W. A.
Mansell and Co.]
The tablets here allude to the creation of man; the gods, it is
stated, so admired the handiwork of Merodach, that they desired to
see him execute still further marvels. Now the gods had none to
worship them or pay them homage, and Merodach suggested to his father,
Ea, the creation of man out of his divine blood. Here once more the
tablets fail us, and we must turn to the narrative of the Chaldean
writer Berossus, as preserved by no less than three authors of the
classical age. Berossus states that a certain woman Thalatth (that is,
Tiawath) had many strange creatures at her bidding. Belus (that is,
Bel-Merodach) attacked and cut her in twain, forming the earth out
of one half and the heavens out of the other, and destroying all the
creatures over which she ruled. Then did Merodach decapitate himself,
and as his blood flowed forth the other gods mingled it with the earth
and formed man from it. From this circumstance mankind is rational, and
has a spark of the divine in it. Then did Merodach divide the darkness,
separate the heavens from the earth, and order the details of the
entire universe. But those animals which he had created were not able
to bear the light, and died. A passage then occurs which states that
the stars, the sun and moon, and the five planets were created, and it
would seem from the repetition that there were two creations, that the
first was a failure, in which Merodach had, as it were, essayed a first
attempt, perfecting the process in the second creation. Of course it
may be conjectured that Berossus may have drawn from two conflicting
accounts, or that those who quote him have inserted the second passage.
The Sumerian incantation, which is provided with a Semitic translation,
adds somewhat to our knowledge of this cosmogony. It states that in the
beginning nothing as yet existed, none of the great cities of Babylonia
had yet been built, indeed there was no land, nothing but sea. It
was not until the veins of Tiawath had been cut through that paradise
and the abyss appear to have been separated and the gods created by
Merodach. Also did he create _annunaki_ or gods of the earth, and
established a wondrous city as a place in which they might dwell.
Then men were formed with the aid of the goddess Aruru, and finally
vegetation, trees, and animals. Then did Merodach raise the great
temples of Erech and Nippur. From this account we see that instead of
Merodach being alluded to as the son of the gods, he is regarded as
their creator. In the library of Nineveh was also discovered a copy
of a tablet written for the great temple of Nergal at Cuthah. Nergal
himself is supposed to make the statement which it contains. He tells
us how the hosts of chaos and confusion came into being. At first,
as in the other accounts, nothingness reigned supreme, then did the
great gods create warriors with the bodies of birds, and men with the
faces of ravens. They founded them a city in the ground, and Tiawath,
the great dragon, did suckle them. They were fostered in the midst of
the mountains, and under the care of the 'mistress of the gods' they
greatly increased and became heroes of might. Seven kings had they,
who ruled over six thousand people. Their father was the god Benani,
and their mother the queen, Melili. These beings, who might almost be
called tame gods of evil, Nergal states that he destroyed.[6] Thus
all accounts agree concerning the original chaotic condition of the
universe. They also agree that the powers of chaos and darkness were
destroyed by a god of light.
The creation tablets are written in Semitic and allude to the great
circle of the gods as already fully developed and having its full
complement. Even the later deities are mentioned in them. This means
that it must be assigned to a comparatively late date, but it possesses
elements which go to show that it is a late edition of a much earlier
composition--indeed the fundamental elements in it appear, as has been
said, to be purely Akkadian in origin, and that would throw back the
date of its original form to a very primitive period indeed. It has, as
will readily be seen, a very involved cosmogony. Its characteristics
show it to have been originally local, and of course Babylonian,
in its secondary origin, but from time to time it was added to, so
that such gods as were at a later date adopted into the Babylonian
pantheon might be explained and accounted for by it; but the legend
of the creation arising in the city of Babylon, the local folk-tale
known and understood by the people, was never entirely shelved by the
more consequential and polished epic, which was perhaps only known
and appreciated in literary and æsthetic circles, and bore the same
relation to the humbler folk-story that Milton's _Paradise Lost_ bears
to the medieval legends of the casting out of Satan from heaven.
Although it is quite easy to distinguish influences of extreme
antiquity in the Babylonian creation myth, it is clear that in the
shape in which it has come down to us it has been altered in such a
manner as to make Merodach reap the entire credit of Tiawath's defeat
instead of En-lil, or the deity who was his predecessor as monarch of
the gods. Jastrow holds that the entire cosmological tale has been
constructed from an account of a conflict with a primeval monster and
a story of a rebellion against Ea; that these two tales have become
fused, and that the first is again divisible into three versions,
originating one at Uruk and the other two at Nippur at different
epochs. The first celebrates the conquest of Anu over Tiawath, the
second exalts Ninib as the conqueror, and the third replaces him by
En-lil. We thus see how it was possible for the god of a conquering or
popular dynasty to have a complete myth made over to him, and how at
last it was competent for the mighty Merodach of Babylon to replace an
entire line of deities as the central figure of a myth which must have
been popular with untold generations of Akkadian and Babylonian people.
Type of Babylonian Cosmology
We must now consider the precise nature of the Babylonian cosmology and
its place among other creation myths. Like the cosmological efforts
of most primitive or barbarian peoples it does not partake of the
character of a creation myth so much as an account of an evolution
from chaos and the establishment of physical laws. The primitive mind
cannot grasp the idea of the creation of something out of nothing, and
the Babylonians and Akkadians did not differ in this respect from other
races in the same stage of development. In whatever direction we look
when examining the cosmologies of barbarian or semi-civilized peoples,
we find a total inability to get behind and beyond the idea that the
matter of creation lay already to the hand of the creative agency, and
that in order to shape a world it had but to draw the material therefor
from the teeming deep or the slain body of a hostile monster. Not only
does the idea of creating land and water out of nothingness seem absurd
to the primitive mind, but man as well must be framed from dust, mud,
clay, or the blood of the creative god himself. Yet Merodach was able
to bring a garment out of nothingness and to return it thither by
merely speaking a word! Why, then, did not the theology which admitted
the possibility of such a phenomenon carry out its own conception to
a logical conclusion and own the likelihood of the god's ability to
create an entire universe in the self-same manner? Perhaps the step was
too bold for an individual to take in the face of an entire theological
college, and in any case what would seem a perfectly feasible act of
magic to the theologians of Babylon when applied to a garment might
not serve for application to the making of the earth and all that is
therein. The cosmology of Babylon is therefore on a par with those of
Scandinavia, China, and many North American Indian tribes, nor does it
reach so high an imaginative level as those of ancient Egypt, India,
or the Maya of Central America, in some of which the vocal command of
a god is sufficient to bring about the creation of the earth and the
waters surrounding it.
The making of the sun, the moon, and the other heavenly bodies is, as
will be more fully shown later, of great importance in Babylonian myth.
The stars appear to have been attached to the firmament of heaven as
to a cloth. Across this the sun passed daily, his function being to
inspect the movements of the other heavenly bodies. The moon, likewise,
had her fixed course, and certain stars were also supposed to move
across the picture of the night with greater or less regularity. The
heavens were guarded at either end by a great gateway, and through one
of these the sun passed after rising from the ocean, whilst in setting
he quitted the heavens by the opposite portal.
The terrestrial world was imagined as a great hollow structure resting
on the 'deep.' Indeed, it would seem to have been regarded as an island
floating on an abyss of waters. This conception of the world of earth
was by no means peculiar to the Babylonians, but was shared by them
with many of the nations of antiquity.
As emanating from the blood of Merodach himself, man was looked upon
as directly of heavenly origin. An older tradition existed to the
effect that Merodach had been assisted in the creation of mankind
by the goddess Aruru, who figures in the Gilgamesh epic as the
creatress of Eabani out of a piece of clay. We also find an ancient
belief current that humanity owed its origin to the god Ea, but when
Merodach displaced this god politically, he would, of course, 'take
over' his entire record and creative deeds as well as his powers and
sovereignties. At Nippur Bel was looked up to as the originator of man.
But these beliefs probably obtained in remoter times, and would finally
be quenched by the advance to full and unquestioned power of the great
god Merodach.
Connexion with the Jonah Legend
Some mythologists see in the story of Jonah a hidden allusion to the
circumstances of Babylonian cosmology. Jonah, as we remember, was
summoned to Nineveh to prophesy against it, but proceeding instead
to Joppa (the scene of the later myth of Perseus and Andromeda) the
ship in which he set sail was storm-tossed, and he himself advised
the sailors to cast him overboard. They did so, and "a great fish"
swallowed him. This 'fish,' it has been claimed, is merely a marine
form of Tiawath, the dragon of chaos, and the three days and nights
which Jonah remains inside it are "the winter months."[7] This does
not seem very clear. Hercules in like manner descended into the
belly of a fish and emerged again after three days, according to the
Ph[oe]nicians. The name of Jonah may be compared with that of Oannes
or Ea. The love-god, in the Hindu _Vishnu Purana_, thrown into the
sea, is swallowed by a fish, like the ring of Gyges. Was there a local
sea-monster at Joppa, a variant of Tiawath, and is it the same in the
Jonah myth as that in the tale of Perseus? A tawny fountain at Joppa
was thought to derive its colour from the blood of the sea-monster
slain by Perseus, says Pausanias. Was then the monster who lay in wait
off Joppa, Tiawath the goddess of darkness, and was Jonah none other
than Ea or Oannes, her mortal foe, the god of light, whom she would
mythologically swallow during the sere months of winter?
[1] Another spelling is Tiamat.
[2] Sayce, _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 374.
[3] Of whom we now hear for the first time.
[4] In many mythologies we find the gods praying and sacrificing to
one another, and even to deities presumably higher than themselves
and unknown to man or only guessed at by him. Thus the Vedic gods are
constantly sacrificing one to the other, and there are many American
instances of this worship of god by god.
[5] See Pinches, _The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 39.
[6] This account has been claimed as a weak version of that part of the
creation story which deals with the creation of the host of the abyss.
The fact that Nergal states that he destroyed these monsters might
justify us in believing that the myth was on this occasion so edited as
to provide the monarch with an opportunity for boasting.
[7] _Bible Folk Lore_, London, 1884. Anonymous.
CHAPTER III: EARLY BABYLONIAN RELIGION
The Beginnings of Babylonian Religion
The true beginning of a religion is that epoch in its history when it
succeeds, by reason of local or national circumstances and environment
and by racial genius, in raising itself from those purely animistic
influences which are characteristic of early faith and from which all
great religions have emerged, if they have not been able entirely to
free themselves from associations which by reason of their antiquity
and the hold they achieve on the mind of humanity are particularly
difficult to cast off. Thus a sense of nationality and the attainment
of a high standard of righteousness assisted in shaping Jewish
religion. The necessity for military efficiency and therefore of
sacrifice to the gods was moulding a real if terrible religion in
ancient Mexico when the invading Spaniards ended the hideous masque of
tragedy. Insight and meditation lent an air of ethical exaltation to
the Vedic religion of India. Thus in a manner peculiarly its own, and
according to the trend of its particular genius, did each race evolve a
suitable religion from an original animistic basis.
If we are to discover the foundations of any system or cult, however,
if we are to excavate the soil religious as we would the soil
archæological in the hope of coming upon the basis of any particular
faith, we must undertake the work in a manner as thorough as that
of the antiquary who, pick in hand, delves his way to the lowest
foundations of palace or temple. The earliest Babylonian religious
ideas--that is, subsequent to the entrance of that people into the
country watered by the Tigris and Euphrates--were undoubtedly coloured
by those of the non-Semitic Sumerians whom they found in the country.
They adopted the alphabet of that race, and this affords strong
presumptive evidence that the immigrant Semites, as an unlettered
people, would naturally accept much if not all of the religion of the
more cultured folk whom they found in possession of the soil.
There is no necessity in this place to outline the nature of animistic
belief at any length. This has been done in so many other volumes of
this series and in such detail that it is sufficient to state here
succinctly that animism is a condition of thought or belief in which
man considers everything in the universe along with himself to be the
possessor of 'soul,' 'spirit,' or at least volition. Thus, the wind,
water, animals, the heavenly bodies, all live, move, and have their
being, and because of his fear of or admiration for them, man placates
or adores them until at length he almost unconsciously exalts them into
a condition of godhead. Have we any reason to think that the ancient
Semites of Babylonia regarded the universe as peopled by gods or
godlings of such a type? The proofs that they did so are not a few.
Spirits and Gods
Spirits swarmed in ancient Babylonia, as the reader will observe when
he comes to peruse the chapter dealing with the magical ideas of the
race. And here it is important to note that the determinative or
symbolic written sign for 'spirit' is the same as that for 'god.' Thus
the god and the spirit must in Babylonia have had a common descent.
The manner in which we can distinguish between a god and a spirit,
however, is simple. Lists of the 'official' gods are provided in the
historical texts, whereas spirits and demons are not included therein.
But this is not to say that no attempt had been made to systematize
the belief in spirits in Babylonia, for just as the great gods of the
universe were apportioned their several offices, so were the spirits
allotted almost exactly similar powers. Thus the _Annunaki_ were
perhaps regarded as the spirits of earth and the _Igigi_ as spirits
of heaven. So, at least, are they designated in an inscription of
Rammannirari I. The grouping evidently survived from animistic times,
when perhaps the spirits which are embraced in these two classes were
the only 'gods' of the Babylonians or Sumerians, and from whose ranks
some of the great gods of future times may have been evolved. In any
case they belong to a very early period in the Babylonian religion and
play no unimportant part in it almost to the end. The god Anu, the
most ancient of the Babylonian deities, was regarded as the father of
both companies, but other gods make use of their services. They do
not appear to be well disposed to humanity. The Assyrian kings were
wont to invoke them when they desired to inculcate a fear of their
majesty in the people, and from this it may be inferred that they were
objects of peculiar fear to the lower orders of the population--for
the people often cling to the elder cults and the elder pantheons
despite the innovations of ecclesiastical politicians, or the religious
eccentricities of kings. There can, however, be no doubt as to the
truly animistic character of early Babylonian religion. Thus in the
early inscriptions one reads of the spirits of various kinds of
diseases, the spirit of the south wind, the spirits of the mist, and
so forth. The _bit-ili_ or sacred stones marking the residence of a god
were probably a link between the fetish and the idol, remaining even
after the fully developed idol had been evolved.
Was Babylonian Religion Semitic in Type?
It has already been stated that the religion of ancient Babylon was
probably greatly influenced by those non-Semitic people whom the
Semitic Babylonians found occupying the country when they entered
it. The question then arises (and it is one of high importance), how
far did the religion of ancient Babylonia and Assyria partake of the
character of that group of religions which has been called 'Semitic.'
The classical pronouncement upon this phase of the subject is probably
that of the late Professor Robertson Smith, who in his _Religion of the
Semites_ (p. 13) says[1]: "The preponderating opinion of Assyriologists
is to the effect that the civilization of Assyria and Babylonia was
not purely Semitic, and that the ancient population of these parts
contained a large pre-Semitic element, whose influence is especially to
be recognized in religion and in the sacred literature of the cuneiform
records. If this be so, it is plain that the cuneiform material must
be used with caution in our enquiry into the type of traditional
religion characteristic of the ancient Semites. That Babylonia is the
best starting-point for a comparative study of the sacred beliefs and
practices of the Semitic peoples, is an idea which has lately had some
vogue, and which at first sight appears plausible on account of the
great antiquity of the monumental evidence. But, in matters of this
sort, ancient and primitive are not synonymous terms; and we must not
look for the most primitive form of Semitic faith in a region where
society was not primitive. In Babylonia, it would seem, society and
religion alike were based on a fusion of two races, and so were not
primitive but complex. Moreover, the official system of Babylonian and
Assyrian religion, as it is known to us from priestly texts and public
inscriptions, bears clear marks of being something more than a popular
traditional faith; it has been artificially moulded by priestcraft and
statecraft in much the same way as the official religion of Egypt;
that is to say, it is in great measure an artificial combination, for
imperial purposes, of elements drawn from a number of local worships.
In all probability the actual religion of the masses was always much
simpler than the official system; and in later times it would seem
that, both in religion and in race, Assyria was little different from
the adjacent Aramæan countries. These remarks are not meant to throw
doubt on the great importance of cuneiform studies for the history
of Semitic religion; the monumental data are valuable for comparison
with what we know of the faith and worship of other Semitic peoples,
and peculiarly valuable because, in religion as in other matters,
the civilization of the Euphrates-Tigris valley exercised a great
historical influence on a large part of the Semitic field."
Totemism in Babylonian Religion
Signs of totemism are not wanting in the Babylonian as in other
religious systems. Many of the gods are pictured as riding upon the
backs of certain animals, an almost certain indication that at one time
they had themselves possessed the form of the animal they bestrode.
Religious conservatism would probably not tolerate the immediate
abolition of the totem-shape, so this means was taken of gradually
'shelving' it. But some gods retained animal form until comparatively
late times. Thus the sun-god of Kis had the form of an eagle, and we
find that Ishtar took as lovers a horse, an eagle, and a lion--surely
gods who were represented in equine, aquiline, and leonine forms.
The fish-form of Oannes, the god of wisdom, is certainly a relic of
totemism. Some of the old ideographic representations of the names of
the gods are eloquent of a totemic connexion. Thus the name of Ea,
the god of the deep, is expressed by an ideograph which signifies
'antelope.' Ea is spoken of as 'the antelope of the deep,' 'the lusty
antelope,' and so forth. He was also, as a water-god, connected with
the serpent, a universal symbol of the flowing stream. The strange god
Uz, probably an Akkadian survival, was worshipped under the form of a
goat. The sun-god of Nippur, Adar, was connected with the pig, and was
called 'lord of the swine.' Merodach may have been a bull-god. In early
astronomical literature we find him alluded to as 'the bull of light.'
The storm-god Zu, as is seen by his myth, retained his bird-like form.
Another name of the storm-bird was Lugalbanda, patron god of the city
of Marad, near Sippara. Like Prometheus--also once a bird-god, as is
proved by many analogous myths--he stole the sacred fire from heaven
for the service and mental illumination of man.
The Great Gods
In the phase in which it becomes first known to us, Babylonian religion
is neither Semitic nor Akkadian, but Semitic-Akkadian: that is, the
elements of both religious forms are so intermingled in it that they
cannot be distinguished one from another; but very little that is
trustworthy can be advanced concerning this shadowy time. Each petty
state (and these were numerous in early Babylonia) possessed its own
tutelar deity, and he again had command over a number of lesser gods.
When all those pantheons were added together, as was the case in later
days, they afforded the spectacle of perhaps the largest assembly
of gods known to any religion. The most outstanding of these tribal
divinities, as they might justly be called, were Merodach, who was
worshipped at Babylon; Shamash, who was adored at Sippar; Sin, the
moon-god, who ruled at Ur; Anu, who held sway over Erech and Der; Ea,
the Oannes of legend, whose city was Eridu; Bel, who ruled at Nippur,
or Niffur; Nergal of Cuthah; and Ishtar, who was goddess of Nineveh.
The peoples of the several provinces identified their prominent
gods one with another, and indeed when Assyria rose to rivalry with
Babylonia, its chief divinity, Asshur, was naturally identified with
Merodach.
[Illustration: Types of En-lil, the Chief God of Nippur, and of his
Consort, Nin-lil from _Religious Belief and Practice in Babylonia and
Assyria_, by Professor Morris Jastrow.--By permission of Messrs G. P.
Putnam's Sons]
In the chapter on cosmology we have seen how Merodach gained the
lordship of heaven. It has been shown that the rise of this god to
power was comparatively recent. Prior to the days of Khammurabi a
rather different pantheon from that described in later inscriptions
held sway. In those more primitive days the principal gods appear
to have been Bel or En-lil, Belit or Nin-lil his queen, Nin-girsu,
Ea, Nergal, Shamash, Sin, Anu, and other lesser divinities. There
is indeed a sharp distinction between the pre- and post-Khammurabic
types of religion. Attempts had been made to form a pantheon before
Khammurabi's day, but his exaltation of Merodach, the patron of
Babylon, to the head of the Babylonian pantheon was destined to destroy
these. A glance at the condition of the great gods before the days of
Khammurabi will assist us to understand their later developments.
Bel
Bel, or, to give him his earlier name, En-lil, is spoken of in very
early inscriptions, especially in those of Nippur; of which city he was
the tutelar deity. He was described as the 'lord of the lower world,'
and much effort seems to have been made to reach a definite conception
of his position and attributes. His name had also been translated 'lord
of mist.' The title 'Bel' had been given to Merodach by Tiglath-pileser
I about 1200 B.C., after which he was referred to as 'the older Bel.'
The chief seat of his worship was at Nippur, where the name of his
temple, E-Kur or 'mountain-house,' came to be applied to a sanctuary
all over Babylonia. He was also addressed as the 'lord of the storm'
and as the 'great mountain,' and his consort Nin-lil is also alluded
to as 'lady of the mountain.' Jastrow rightly concludes that "there
are substantial reasons for assuming that his original city was on the
top of some mountain, as is so generally the case of storm-deities....
There being no mountains in the Euphrates valley, however, the
conclusion is warranted that En-lil was the god of a people whose home
was in a mountainous region and who brought their god with them when
they came to the Euphrates valley."[2]
En-lil is undoubtedly of the class of tempest-deities who dwell on
mountain peaks. No text appears to have been found which alludes to him
as of a red colour. The flashing of the lightning through the clouds
which veil the mountain summits usually generates a belief in the mind
of primitive man that the god who is concealed by the screen of vapour
is red in hue and quick in movement. The second tablet of a text known
as the 'crying storm' alludes to En-lil as a storm-god. Addressing
him it says: "Spirit that overcomes no evildoing, spirit that has no
mother, spirit that has no wife, spirit that has no sister, spirit that
has no brother, that knows no abiding place, the evil-slaying spirit
that devastates the fold, that wrecks the stall, that sweeps away son
and mother like a reed. As a huge deluge it tears away dwellings,
consumes the provisions of the home, smites mankind everywhere,
and wickedly drowns the harvests of the land. Devoted temples it
devastates, devoted men it afflicts, him that clothes himself in a
robe of majesty the spirit lays low with cold, him of wide pasture
lands with hunger it lays low. When En-lil, the lord of lands, cries
out at sunset the dreadful word goes forth unto the spacious shrine,
'Destroy.'"
Nippur, the city of En-lil, was of Sumerian origin, so we must connect
the earliest cult of En-lil with the Sumerian aborigines. Many of his
lesser names point to such a conclusion. But he greatly outgrew all
local circumstances, and among other things he appears to have been a
god who fostered vegetation. Some authorities appear to be of opinion
that because En-lil was regarded as a god of vegetation the change
was owing to his removal from a mountainous region to a more level
neighbourhood. The truth is, it would be difficult to discover a god
who wielded the powers of the wind and rain who was not a patron of
agriculture, but as he sends beneficent rains, so also may he destroy
and devastate, as we have seen from the foregoing text. The noise of
the storm was spoken of as his 'word.' Probably, too, because he was
a very old god he was regarded in some localities as a creator of the
world. The great winged bull of Assyrian art may well often represent
En-lil: no symbol could better typify the tempest which the Babylonians
regarded as rushing and rioting unrestrained over country and city,
overturning even tower and temple with its violence, and tumbling the
wretched reed huts of the lower caste into the dust.
The word _lil_ which occurs in the name En-lil, signifies a 'demon,'
and En-lil may therefore mean the 'chief-demon.' This shows the very
early, animistic nature of the god. There appear to be other traditions
of him as a war-god, but these are so obscure as scarcely to be worth
notice. In the trinity which consisted of Bel, Ea, and Anu, he is
regarded as the 'god of the earth,' that is, the earth is his sphere,
and he is at times addressed as 'Bel, the lord of the lands.'
We find the 'word' of the wind or storm-god alluded to in the _Popol
Vuh_ of the Kiches of Central America, where Hurakan (the deity from
whose name we probably get our word 'hurricane') sweeps over the face
of the primeval deep, voicing his commands.
Bel and the Dragon
The picturesque legend of Bel and the Dragon which appears in the
Apocrypha, and which was at one time appended to the Book of Daniel,
shows us the manner in which Bel was worshipped at Babylon, and how
he was supposed to take human shape, devour food, and behave very
much as a man might. The legend states that the Babylonians lavished
every day upon the idol of Bel twelve great measures of fine flour,
and forty sheep, and six vessels of wine. King Cyrus of Persia, who
had overthrown the Babylonian kingdom, went daily to worship Bel, and
asked Daniel why he did not do likewise. The prophet replied that his
religion did not permit him to worship idols, but rather the living God
who had created the heavens and the earth.
"Then said Cyrus: 'Thinkest thou not that Bel is the living God? Seest
thou not how much he eateth and drinketh every day?'
"Then Daniel smiled and said, 'O King, be not deceived, for he is but
clay within and brass without, and can never eat or drink anything.'
"Cyrus was exceeding wroth, and calling for his priests said to them,
'If ye tell me not who this is that devoureth these expenses ye shall
die, but if ye can show me that Bel devours them Daniel shall die, for
he hath spoken blasphemy against Bel;'" and to this Daniel cheerfully
agreed.
It would have been surprising had not the provisions vanished, because
we are told that the priests of Bel were threescore and ten in number
and had numerous wives and children. So Cyrus and Daniel betook
themselves to the temple of Bel, and the priests asked them to bless
the meat and wine before Bel, and to shut the door fast and seal it
with the King's own signet, stating that if they came on the morrow
they would find that Bel had eaten up all of the provisions.
But they had taken good care to protect themselves, for they had made
a secret entrance underneath the great table in the temple which they
used constantly, so that they might consume the good things that were
set before the idol.
And Cyrus did as the priests asked, setting the meat and wine before
the statue of Bel, but Daniel commanded his servants to bring ashes,
which they strewed throughout the temple in the presence of the King;
then they went out and shut the door and sealed it with the King's
signet.
And in the night time the priests with their wives and families entered
the temple by the secret way and speedily consumed the provisions.
In the morning Cyrus and Daniel betook themselves to the temple, and
the King broke the seals and opened the door, and when he perceived
that all the provisions had vanished he called out with a loud voice,
"Great art thou, O Bel, and with thee is no deceit at all."
But Daniel laughed, and barring the King's way into the temple
requested him to look at the pavement and mark well whose footsteps he
saw there.
And Cyrus replied, "I see the footsteps of men, women, and children."
He at once called the priests, who when they saw that their stratagem
had been discovered showed him the secret way into the temple; and in
his rage Cyrus slew them and delivered Bel into Daniel's power. The
prophet speedily destroyed the idol and the temple which sheltered it.
Now in that temple was a great dragon worshipped by the people of
Babylon, and the King said to Daniel: "Wilt thou also say that this is
of brass, for behold! he liveth, he eateth and drinketh, therefore
shouldest thou worship him!"
But Daniel shook his head and said to Cyrus: "Give me leave, O King,
and I will slay this dragon without sword or staff."
Then Daniel took pitch and fat and hair and boiled them all together,
and shaped them into great pieces. These he placed in the dragon's
mouth, and shortly the dragon burst asunder.
Now the people of Babylon became greatly incensed at these doings
and clamoured to Cyrus, asking him to deliver Daniel up to them, or
else they would destroy him and all belonging to him. And, continues
the legend, Cyrus being afraid for his crown delivered Daniel to the
people, who cast him into a lions' den where he remained for six days.
Seven lions were in the den and their food was removed from them so
that they might be the fiercer, and the Apocrypha story, which differs
considerably from that given in the sixth chapter of the Book of
Daniel, states that the angel of the Lord took up a certain prophet
called Habbacuc, who was about to carry a mess of pottage to certain
reapers, and taking him by the hair of the head, conveyed him all the
way from Palestine to Babylon along with the food, which he set at
Daniel's feet. Daniel partook of the meal, and Habbacuc was conveyed
back to Palestine in the same manner as that in which he had come.
And on the seventh day Cyrus came to the den to mourn for Daniel, and
when he looked in Daniel was there. So impressed was Cyrus with the
power of Daniel's God that he resolved to worship Him in future, and
seizing those who had been instrumental in casting the Hebrew prophet
into the den, he thrust them before the lions, and they were devoured
in a moment.
Beltis
Beltis, or Nin-lil, the wife of En-lil, shared his authority over
Nippur, where she had a temple which went back in antiquity to the
First Dynasty of Ur. As has been said, she was also called the 'lady of
the mountain,' and as such she had a sanctuary at Girsu, a quarter of
Lagash. In certain inscriptions she is described as 'the mother of the
gods.' The name Beltis meant 'lady,' and as such was accorded to her as
being 'the' lady, but it was afterwards given to many other goddesses.
The Temple of Bel
In 1876 Mr George Smith discovered a Babylonian text giving a
remarkable account of the temple of Bel at Babylon. This temple, the
wonder of Babylon, was founded while that city was still a place of
no very great importance, but its fabric lasted until the days of
Herodotus and Strabo, who have furnished us with accounts of it. The
former states that it consisted of eight stages or towers one above
another, forming a pyramid, the holy of holies being placed upon the
highest stage of all, the height of the entire building being about 600
feet--a very questionable dimension.
In the cuneiform tablet the measurements of the outer court are given
as 1156 feet in length and 900 feet in breadth. An adjoining court,
that of Ishtar and Zamama, was 1056 feet by 450 feet, and had six gates
which admitted worshippers to the temple--the grand gate, the gate
of the rising sun looking eastward, the great gate, the gate of the
Colossi, flanked by enormous figures, the canal gate, and the gate of
the tower-view.
A walled space, platform or _birut_, orientated so as to face the four
cardinal points, is next described. Inside this stood a building the
name of which is indecipherable. It was connected in some manner with
the Ziggurat or great tower, around the base of which were ranged the
temples of the principal gods, all of which faced one or other of the
four chief points of the compass.
On the eastern side of the group stood a large temple 117 feet by 67
feet broad, containing no less than sixteen shrines, the principal of
which were sacred to Nebo, the son of Bel, and his wife Tashmit. To the
north were temples to Ea and Nusku, the first 142 feet long by 50 feet
broad and the second a square 58 feet either way. To the south was a
shrine to Bel and Anu 117 feet by 50 feet.
The purpose of the buildings on the western side of the great tower is
only to be conjectured. It is known, however, that the couch of Bel and
his throne of gold alluded to by Herodotus were housed in one or other
of the buildings on this side. The couch is said to have measured 15
feet by 6 feet 8 inches.
In the centre towered the great Ziggurat, rising stage upon stage, its
sides facing the cardinal points. The first stage was 300 feet square
and 110 feet high and was ornamented with buttresses. The second was
260 feet square and 60 feet high, the third 200 feet square and 20 feet
high up to the seventh stage, which was 80 feet long, 70 feet broad,
and 50 feet high. The entire height of the Ziggurat was thus 300 feet,
exactly equal to the breadth of the base, or only half the height
attributed to it by Herodotus.
Regarding the possible site of this temple Mr Smith says: "The only
ruin now existing at or near Babylon which can be supposed to represent
the temple of Belus is the mound and enclosure of Bâbil, the ruins
corresponding fairly with the account of these structures in the Greek
authors and in the inscription. The sides of the building face the
cardinal points, like those in the inscription; the remains of the two
sides of the enclosure now existing indicate a circumference about
equal to the Greek measurement, and slightly in excess of that in the
inscription; but it must be remembered that the exact length of the
Babylonian measures is not known, and there are different opinions even
as to the length of the Greek stade, while the present remains of the
wall require careful measurement to determine more exactly their length
and the dimensions they indicate. On the other side of the Euphrates
stands a ruin, Birs Nimrûd, also consisting of an enclosure, various
temples, and a temple-tower; but this represents the site of the temple
of Nebo at Borsippa, and its angles, instead of its sides, face the
cardinal points, while not a single one of its known dimensions agrees
with the corresponding point in the inscription. The mound of Bâbil,
which is already identified by the best authorities with the temple of
Belus, consists now of the lower stage of the tower and the ruins of
the buildings round it."[3]
Yet Herodotus' account of the temple of Bel was not wholly false. He
says: "It had gates of brass, and was two stadia every way, being
quadrangular; in the middle of the temple a solid tower was built, a
stadium in height and breadth, and on this tower was placed another,
and another still on this, to the number of eight towers in all. The
ascent was on the outside, and was made by a winding passage round all
the towers; and about half up the ascent there is a landing and seats
for rest, where those ascending may repose; and in the highest tower
there is a large temple, and in the temple a large bed well furnished,
and beside it a golden table; but there is no statue erected in it; and
by night no one lodges in it, except a single woman of the country,
whom the god has selected from the rest, as say the Chaldæans, who are
the priests of this god."
An inscription was discovered and translated by Sir H.C. Rawlinson, in
which King Nebuchadrezzar boasts of having repaired and completed this
tower in honour of his god Merodach. "Behold now the building named
'The Stages of the Seven Spheres,' which was the wonder of Borsippa,
had been built by a former king. He had completed forty-two ammas (of
the height), but he did not finish its head. From the lapse of time it
had become ruined; they had not taken care of the exits of the waters,
so the rain and wet had penetrated into the brickwork; the casing
of burnt brick had bulged out, and the terraces of crude brick lay
scattered in heaps. Then Merodach, my great lord, inclined my heart to
repair the building. I did not change its site, nor did I destroy the
foundation platform; but in a fortunate month, and on an auspicious
day, I undertook the rebuilding of the crude brick terraces and the
burnt brick casing (of the temple). I strengthened its foundations,
and I placed a titular record in the parts that I had rebuilt. I set
my hand to build it up, and to finish its summit. As it had been in
former days, thus I exalted its head."
Nergal
Nergal was the patron god of Cuthah, eastward from Babylon. He was
a god of extremely ancient origin, and indeed the first inscription
which alludes to him is dated about 2700 B.C. He is mentioned in the
Old Testament (2 Kings xvii 30) as an idol whom the Babylonians who
re-peopled Israel brought with them. He seems to have had a close
connexion with the nether world, indeed he is practically the head
of its pantheon. He appears to have been a god of gloom and death,
and his name may signify 'the lord of the great dwelling place,' that
is, the grave. His city, Cuthah, may possibly have been renowned as a
burial-place. We find him associated with pestilence and famine, but he
has also a solar significance. He is indeed the sun in its malevolent
form, fierce and destroying, for in myth the sun can be evil as well as
good. We thus find the solar power depicted as a fierce warrior slaying
his thousands and tens of thousands. Again it is quite possible for a
solar deity to have an underworld connexion, seeing that the sun is
supposed to travel through that gloomy region during the night. We thus
see how Nergal could combine so many seemingly conflicting attributes.
As god of the dead he has a host of demons at his command, and it may
be these who do his behests in spreading pestilence and war. Where he
goes violent death follows in his wake. At times he is called the 'god
of fire,' the 'raging king,' 'he who burns,' and the 'violent one,' and
he is identified with the fierceness of flame. In this respect he is
not at all unlike the Scandinavian Loki who typifies the malevolence
of fire.
Dibarra
Dibarra was probably a variant of Nergal, in his guise as solar
destroyer. Concerning him a strange myth is recounted as follows:
"The sons of Babylon were as birds and thou their falconer. In a net
thou didst catch them, enclose them, and destroy them, O warrior
Dibarra. Leaving the city, thou didst pass to the outside, taking on
the form of a lion, thou didst enter the palace. The people saw thee
and drew their weapons."
So spoke Ishum, the faithful attendant of Dibarra, by way of beginning
an account of the havoc wrought in the valley of Euphrates by the
war- and plague-god. "Spare no one," is the gist of his commands to his
satellites. "Have neither fear nor pity. Kill the young as well as the
old and rob Babylon of all its treasures."
Accordingly against the first city a large army was dispatched to carry
out these instructions, and the battle with bow and sword was begun,
a strife which ended so disastrously for the soldiers and inhabitants
that their blood flowed "like torrents of water through the city's
highways." This defeat the great lord Merodach was compelled to
witness, powerless to help or avert it. Enraged at his helplessness and
overcome with fury, he cursed his enemies until he is said to have lost
consciousness because of his grief.
From this scene of devastation Dibarra turned his attention to Erech,
appointing others of his host to mete out to this city the fate of
Babylon. Ishtar, goddess of Erech, saw her devoted city exposed
to plunder, pillage, and bloodshed, and had to endure the agony of
inactivity experienced by Merodach. Nothing she could do or say would
stay the violence of Dibarra's vengeance.
"O warrior Dibarra, thou dost dispatch the just, thou dost dispatch the
unjust; who sins against thee thou dost dispatch, and the one who does
not sin against thee thou dost dispatch."
These words were used by Ishum, Dibarra's servant, in a subsequent
address to the god of war. He knew his lord's craving for battle and
bloodshed was still unappeased, and he himself was planning a war more
terrible than any he had yet conducted, a conflict not only world-wide
but which was to embrace heaven itself. So in order to gain Dibarra's
consent to the hideous destruction he anticipated, he continued to
pander to his war-like tendencies.
Said he: "The brightness of Shul-panddu I will destroy, the root of the
tree I will tear out that it no longer blossom. Against the dwelling of
the king of gods I will proceed."
To all of which the warrior-god listened with growing pleasure,
until fired by his myrmidon's words he cried out in sudden fierce
resolve--"Sea-coast against sea-coast, Subartu against Subartu,
Assyrian against Assyrian, Elamite against Elamite, Cassite against
Cassite, Sutaean against Sutaean, Kuthean against Kuthean, Lullubite
against Lullubite, country against country, house against house, man
against man. Brother is to show no mercy towards brother; they shall
kill one another."
"Go, Ishum," he added later, "carry out the word thou hast spoken in
accordance with thy desire."
And with alacrity Ishum obeyed, "directing his countenance to the
mountain of Khi-khi. This, with the help of the god Sibi, a warrior
unequalled, he attacked and destroyed all the vineyards in the forest
of Khashur, and finally the city of Inmarmaon. These last atrocious
acts roused Ea, the god of humanity, and filled him with wrath," though
what attitude he adopted towards Dibarra is not known.
"Listen all of you to my words, because of sin did I formerly plan
evil, my heart was enraged and I swept peoples away."
This was Dibarra's defence when eventually he was propitiated and all
the gods were gathered together in council with him. Ishum at this
point changing his tactics urged on Dibarra the necessity for pacifying
the gods he had incensed.
"Appease," said he, "the gods of the land who are angry. May fruits and
corn flourish, may mountains and seas bring their produce."
As he had listened to Ishum before, Dibarra listened again, and
the council of the gods was closed by his promising prosperity and
protection to those who would fittingly honour him.
"He who glorifies my name will rule the world. Who proclaims the glory
of my power will be without rival. The singer who sings of my deeds
will not die through pestilence, to kings and nobles his words will
be pleasing. The writer who preserves them will escape from the grasp
of the enemy, in the temple where the people proclaim my name, I will
open his ear. In the house where this tablet is set up, though war may
rage and the god Sibi work havoc, sword and pestilence will not touch
him--he will dwell in safety. Let this song resound for ever and endure
for eternity. Let all lands hear it and proclaim my power. Let the
inhabitants of all places learn to glorify my name."
Shamash
Shamash, god of the sun, was one of the most popular deities of the
Babylonian and Assyrian pantheon. We find him mentioned first in
the reign of E-Anna-Tum, or about 4200 B.C. He is called the son of
Sin, the moon-god, which perhaps has reference to the fact that the
solar calendar succeeded the lunar in Babylonia as in practically all
civilizations of any advancement. The inscriptions give due prominence
to his status as a great lord of light, and in them he is called the
'illuminator of the regions,' 'lord of living creatures,' 'gracious one
of the lands,' and so forth. He is supposed to throw open the gates
of the morning and raise his head over the horizon, lighting up the
heaven and earth with his beams. The knowledge of justice and injustice
and the virtue of righteousness were attributed to him, and he was
regarded as a judge between good and evil, for as the light of the
sun penetrates everywhere, and nothing can be hidden from its beams,
it is not strange that it should stand as the symbol for justice.
Shamash appears at the head of the inscription which bears the laws of
Khammurabi, and here he stands as the symbol for justice. The towns at
which he was principally worshipped were Sippar and Larsa, where his
sanctuary was known as E-Babbara, or the 'shining house.' Larsa was
probably the older of the two centres, but from the times of Sargon,
Sippar became the more important, and in the days of Khammurabi ranked
immediately after Babylon. In fact it appears to have threatened the
supremacy of the capital to some extent, and Nabonidus, the last
King of Babylon, as we shall remember, offended Merodach and his
priests by his too eager notice of Shamash. During the whole course of
Babylonian history, however, Shamash retained his popularity, and was
perhaps the only sun-god who was not absorbed by Merodach. One finds
the same phenomenon in ancient Mexico, where various solar deities did
not succeed in displacing or absorbing Totec, the ancient god of the
sun _par excellence_. But Shamash succeeded in absorbing many small
local sun-gods, and indeed we find his name used as that of the sun
throughout Semitic lands. There were several solar deities, such as
Nergal, and Ninib, whom Shamash did not absorb, probably for the reason
that they typify various phases of the sun. There is reason to believe
that in ancient times even Shamash was not an entirely beneficent solar
deity, but, like Nergal, could figure as a warrior on occasion. But in
later times he was regarded as the god who brings light and life upon
all created things, and upon whom depends everything in nature from
man to vegetable. His consort was Aa, who was worshipped at Sippar
along with him. Her cult seems to have been one of great antiquity,
but she does not appear to have any distinctive character of her own.
She was supposed to receive the sun upon his setting, and from this
circumstance it has been argued she perhaps represents the 'double
sun,' from the magnified disk which he presents at sunset; but this
explanation is perhaps rather too much on allegorical lines. Jastrow
thinks that she may have been evolved from the sun-god of a city on
the other side of the Euphrates from Sippar. "Such an amalgamation of
two originally male deities into a combination of male and female,
strange as it may seem to us," he says, "is in keeping with the lack
of sharp distinction between male and female in the oldest forms of
Semitic religions. In the old cuneiform writing the same sign is used
to indicate 'lord' or 'lady' when attached to deities. Ishtar appears
amongst the Semites both as male and female. Sex was primarily a
question of strength; the stronger god was viewed as masculine, the
weaker as feminine."
Ea
Ea was the third of the great Babylonian triad of gods, which consisted
of Anu, En-lil, and himself. He was a god of the waters, and like Anu
is called the 'father of the gods.' As a god of the abyss he appears to
have been also a deity of wisdom and occult power, thus allegorically
associated with the idea of depth or profundity. He was the father of
Merodach, who consulted him on the most important matters connected
with his kingship of the gods. Indeed he was consulted by individuals
of all classes who desired light to be thrown upon their crafts or
businesses. Thus he was the god of artisans in general--blacksmiths,
stone-cutters, sailors, and artificers of every kind. He was also the
patron of prophets and seers. As the abyss is the place where the seeds
of everything were supposed to fructify, so he appears to have fostered
reproduction of every description. He was supposed to dwell beside Anu,
who inhabited the pole of the ecliptic. The site of his chief temple
was at Eridu, which at one time stood, before the waters receded, upon
the shore of the Persian Gulf. We have seen already that Ea, under his
Greek name of Oannes, was supposed to bring knowledge and culture to
the people of Eridu. There are many confusing myths connected with
him, and he seems in some measure to enter into the Babylonian myth of
the deluge. Alexander Polyhistor, Apollodorus, and Eusebius, copying
from Berossus, state that he rose from the sea upon his civilizing
mission, and Abydenus says that in the time of Daon, the shepherd
king of the city of Pantibiblon (meaning the 'city where books were
gathered together'), "Annedatus appeared again from the Eruthrean sea,
in the same form as those who had showed themselves before, having the
shape of a fish blended with that of a man. Then reigned Aedorachus of
Pantibiblon for the term of eighteen sari. In his days there appeared
another personage from the sea of Eruthra, like those above, having
the same complicated form between fish and man: his name was Odacon."
From remarks by Apollodorus it would seem that these beings were
messengers from Oannes, but the whole passages are very obscure. The
chief extract from the fragments of Berossus concerning Oannes states
that: "In the first year there made its appearance from a part of the
Eruthrean sea, which bordered upon Babylonia, an animal endowed with
reason, who was called Oannes. According to the accounts of Apollodorus
the whole body of the animal was like that of a fish; and had under a
fish's head another head, and also feet below, similar to those of a
man, subjoined to the fish's tail. His speech, too, was articulate and
human; and there was a representation of him to be seen in the time of
Berossus. This Being in the daytime used to converse with men; but took
no food at that season; and he gave them an insight into letters and
science, and every kind of art. He taught them to construct houses, to
found temples, to compile laws, and explained to them the principles
of geometrical knowledge. He made them distinguish the seeds of the
earth, and showed them how to collect fruits; in short, he instructed
them in everything which could tend to soften manners and humanize
mankind. From that time, so universal were his instructions, nothing
material has been added by way of improvement. When the sun set, it was
the custom of this Being to plunge again into the sea, and abide all
the night in the deep." After this there appeared other creatures like
Oannes, of which Berossus promises to give an account when he comes to
the history of the kings.
The Writings of Oannes
"Moreover," says Polyhistor, "Oannes wrote concerning the generation
of mankind; of their different ways of life, and of civil polity; and
the following is the purport of what he said: 'There was nothing but
darkness, and an abyss of water, wherein resided most hideous beings,
which were produced of a twofold principle. Men appeared with two
wings, some with four, and with two faces. They had one body, but two
heads; the one of a man, the other of a woman. They were likewise in
their several organs both male and female. Other human figures were
to be seen with the legs and horns of goats. Some had horses' feet:
others had the limbs of a horse behind; but before were fashioned like
men, resembling hippocentaurs. Bulls likewise bred there with the heads
of men; and dogs with fourfold bodies, and the tails of fishes. Also
horses with the heads of dogs: men too, and other animals, with the
heads and bodies of horses, and the tails of fishes. In short, there
were creatures with the limbs of every species of animals. Add to
these, fishes, reptiles, serpents, with other wonderful animals; which
assumed each other's shape and countenance. Of all these were preserved
delineations in the temple of Belus at Babylon. The person, who was
supposed to have presided over them, had the name of Omorca. This in
the Chaldaic language is Thalath; which the Greeks express _thalassa_,
the sea: but according to the most probable theory, it is equivalent to
_selene_, the moon. All things being in this situation, Belus came, and
cut the woman-creature asunder: and out of one half of her he formed
the earth, and of the other half the heavens. At the same time he
destroyed the animals in the abyss. All this, Berossus said,[4] was an
allegorical description of nature. For the whole universe consisting of
moisture, and, animals being continually generated therein, the Deity
(Belus) above-mentioned cut off his own head, upon which the other
gods mixed the blood, as it gushed out, with the earth, and from this
men were formed. On this account it is, that they are rational, and
partake of divine knowledge. This Belus, whom men call Dis, divided the
darkness, and separated the heavens from the earth; and reduced the
universe to order. But the animals so lately created, not being able
to bear the prevalence of light, died. Belus upon this, seeing a vast
space quite uninhabited, though by nature very fruitful, ordered one of
the gods to take off his head; and when it was taken off, they were to
mix the blood with the soil of the earth; and from thence to form other
men and animals, which should be capable of bearing the light. Belus
also formed the stars, and the sun, and moon, together with the five
planets.'"
This myth, related by Ea or Oannes regarding the creation of the world,
bears a very close relation to that of Merodach and Tiawath, told in
Chapter II. It is not often that one finds a fish-god acting as a
culture hero, although we find in Mexican myth a certain deity alluded
to as the "old fish-god of our flesh." Allegorical mythology would have
seen in Ea a hero arriving from another clime in a wave-tossed vessel,
who had landed on the shores of the Persian Gulf, and had instructed
the rude inhabitants thereof in the culture of a higher civilization.
There is very little doubt that Ea has a close connexion in some manner
with the Noah legend of the deluge. For example, a Sumerian text
exists in which it would seem as if the ship of Ea was described, as
the timbers of which its various parts were constructed are mentioned,
and the refugees it saved consisted of Ea himself, Dawkina his wife,
Merodach, and Inesh, the pilot of Eridu, along with Nin-igi-nagir-sir.
Of course it would seem natural to the Babylonians to regard the
Persian Gulf as the great abyss whence all things emanated. As
Jastrow very justly remarks: "In the word of Ea, of a character more
spiritual than that of En-lil, he commands, and what he plans comes
into existence--a wholly beneficent power he blesses the fields and
heals mankind. His most striking trait is his love of humanity. In
conflicts between the gods and mankind, he is invariably on the side
of the latter. When the gods, at the instance of En-lil as the 'god
of storms,' decide to bring on a deluge to sweep away mankind, it
is Ea who reveals the secret to his favourite, Ut-Napishtim (Noah),
who saves himself, his family, and his belongings on a ship that he
is instructed to build."[5] The waters personified by him are not
those of the turbulent and treacherous ocean, but those of irrigating
streams and commerce-carrying canals. He is thus very different from
the god En-lil, the 'lord of heaven' who possesses so many attributes
of destruction. Ea in his benevolent way thwarts the purpose of the
riotous god of tempest, which greatly enrages En-lil, and it has been
thought that this myth suggests the rivalry which perhaps at one time
existed between the two religious centres of Eridu and Nippur, cities
of Ea and En-lil respectively. In an eloquent manner Ea implores
En-lil not to precipitate another deluge, and begs that instead of
such wholesale destruction man may be punished by sending lions and
jackals, or by famines or pestilences. En-lil hearkens to his speech,
his heart is touched, and he blesses Utnapishtim and his wife. If this
myth is a piece of priestcraft, it argues better relations between
the ecclesiastical authorities at Eridu and Nippur. Ea had many other
names, the chief of which, Nin-a-gal, meaning 'god of great strength,'
alluded to his patronage of the smith's art. He was also called En-ki,
which describes him as 'lord of the earth' through which his waters
meandered. In such a country as Babylonia earth and water are closely
associated, as under that soil water is always to be found at a
distance of a few feet: thus the interior of the earth is the domain of
Ea.
The Story of Adapa and the South Wind
Here is the story of Adapa, the son of Ea, who, but for his obedience
to his father's command, might have attained deification and
immortality.
One day when Adapa was out in his boat fishing the South Wind blew with
sudden and malicious violence, upsetting the boat and flinging the
fisherman into the sea. When he succeeded in reaching the shore Adapa
vowed vengeance against the South Wind, which had used him so cruelly.
"Shutu, thou demon," he cried, "I will stretch forth my hand and break
thy wings. Thou shalt not go unpunished for this outrage!"
The hideous monster laughed as she soared in the air above him,
flapping her huge wings about her ungainly body. Adapa in his fury
leapt at her, seized her wings, and broke them, so that she was no
longer able to fly over the broad earth. Then he went his way, and
related to his father what he had done.
Seven days passed by, and Anu, the lord of heaven, waited for the
coming of the South Wind. But Shutu came not; the rains and the floods
were delayed, and Anu grew impatient. He summoned to him his minister
Ilabrat.
"Wherefore doth Shutu neglect her duty?" he asked. "What hath chanced
that she travels not afield?"
Ilabrat bowed low as he made answer: "Listen, O Anu, and I will tell
thee why Shutu flieth not abroad. Ea, lord of the deep and creator of
all things, hath a son named Adapa, who hath crushed and broken the
wings of thy servant Shutu, so that she is no more able to fly."
"If this be true," said Anu, "summon the youth before me, and let him
answer for his crime."
"Be it so, O Anu!"
When Adapa received the summons to appear in heaven he trembled
greatly. It was no light thing to answer to the great gods for the
ill-usage of their servant, the demon Shutu. Nevertheless he began to
make preparations for his journey, and ere he set out his father Ea
instructed him as to how he should comport himself in the assembly of
the gods.
"Wrap thyself not in a vesture of gold, O my son, but clothe thee in
the garments of the dead. At the gates of heaven thou wilt find Tammuz
and Gishzida guarding the way. Salute the twain with due respect, I
charge thee, baring thy head and showing all deference to them. If thou
dost find favour in their eyes they will speak well of thee before Anu.
And when thou standest within the precincts of heaven, don the garment
that is given thee to wear, and anoint thy head with the oil that
is brought thee. But when the gods offer thee food and drink, touch
them not; for the food will be the 'Meat of Death,' and the drink the
'Water of Death'; let neither pass within thy lips. Go now, my son, and
remember these my instructions. Bear thyself with humility, and all
will be well."
Adapa bade his father farewell and set out on his journey to heaven.
He found all as his father had predicted; Tammuz and Gishzida received
him at the portals of the divine dwelling, and so humble was Adapa's
attitude that they were moved with compassion towards him. They led him
into the presence of Anu, and he bowed low before the great god.
"I am come in answer to thy summons," said he. "Have mercy upon me, O
thou Most High!"
Anu frowned upon him.
"It is said of thee," he made answer, "that thou hast broken the wings
of Shutu, the South Wind. What manner of man art thou, who darest
destroy Shutu in thy wrath? Knowest thou not that the people suffer for
lack of nourishment; that the herb droopeth, and the cattle lie parched
on the scorching ground? Tell me why hast thou done this thing?"
"I was out on the sea fishing," said Adapa, "and the South Wind blew
violently, upsetting my boat and casting me into the water. Therefore I
seized her wings and broke them. And lo! I am come to seek thy pardon."
Then Tammuz and Gishzida, the deities whose favour Adapa had won at the
gates of heaven, stepped forth and knelt at the feet of their king.
"Be merciful, O Anu! Adapa hath been sorely tried, and now is he truly
humble and repentant. Let his treatment of Shutu be forgotten."
Anu listened to the words of Tammuz and Gishzida, and his wrath was
turned away.
"Rise, Adapa," he said kindly; "thy looks please me well. Thou hast
seen the interior of this our kingdom, and now must thou remain in
heaven for ever, and we will make thee a god like unto us. What sayest
thou, son of Ea?"
Adapa bowed low before the king of the gods and thanked him for his
pardon and for his promise of godhead.
Anu therefore commanded that a feast be made, and that the 'Meat of
Life' and the 'Water of Life' be placed before Adapa, for only by
eating and drinking of these could he attain immortality.
But when the feast was spread Adapa refused to partake of the repast,
for he remembered his father's injunctions on this point. So he sat in
silence at the table of the gods, whereupon Anu exclaimed:
"What now, Adapa? Why dost thou not eat or drink? Except thou taste
of the food and water set before thee thou canst not hope to live for
ever."
Adapa perceived that he had offended his divine host, so he hastened to
explain. "Be not wroth, most mighty Anu. It is because my lord Ea hath
so commanded that I break not bread nor drink water at thy table. Turn
not thy countenance from me, I beseech thee."
Anu frowned. "Is it that Ea feared I should seek thy life by offering
thee deadly food? Truly he that knoweth so much, and hath schooled thee
in so many different arts, is for once put to shame!"
Adapa would have spoken, but the lord of heaven silenced him.
"Peace!" he said; then to his attendants--"Bring forth a garment that
he may clothe himself, and oil bring also to anoint his head."
When the King's command had been carried out Adapa robed himself in the
heavenly garment and anointed his head with the oil. Then he addressed
Anu thus:
"O Anu, I salute thee! The privilege of godhead must I indeed forego,
but never shall I forget the honour that thou wouldst have conferred
upon me. Ever in my heart shall I keep the words thou hast spoken,
and the memory of thy kindness shall I ever retain. Blame me not
exceedingly, I pray thee. My lord Ea awaiteth my return."
"Truly," said Anu, "I censure not thy decision. Be it even as thou
wilt. Go, my son, and peace go with thee!"
And thus Adapa returned to the abode of Ea, lord of the dead, and
there for many years he lived in peace and happiness.
Anu
Along with En-lil and Ea, Anu makes up the universal triad. He is
called the 'father of the gods,' but appears to be descended from still
older deities. His name is seldom discovered in the inscriptions prior
to the time of Khammurabi, but such notices as occur of him seem to
have already fixed his position as a ruler of the sky. His cult was
specially associated with the city of Erech. It is probable that in
the earliest days he had been the original Sumerian sky-father, as his
name is merely a form of the Sumerian word for 'heaven.' This idea is
assisted by the manner in which his name is originally written in the
inscriptions, as the symbol signifying it is usually that employed for
'heaven.' It is plain, therefore, that Anu was once regarded as the
expanse of heaven itself, just as are the 'sky-fathers' of numerous
primitive peoples. Several writers who deal with Anu appear to be of
the opinion that a god of the heavens is an 'abstraction.' "Popular
fancy," says Jastrow, "deals with realities and with personified powers
whose workings are seen and felt. It would as little, therefore, have
evolved the idea that there was a power to be identified with the
heavens as a whole, of which the azure sky is a symbol, as it would
personify the earth as a whole, or the bodies of waters as a whole. It
is only necessary to state the implications involved to recognize that
the conception of a triad of gods corresponding to three theoretical
divisions of the universe is a bit of learned speculation. It smacks
of the school. The conception of a god of heaven fits in moreover
with the comparatively advanced period when the seats of the gods
were placed in the skies and the gods identified with the stars."[6]
A merely superficial acquaintance with the nature of animism and the
sky-myths of primitive and barbarian peoples would lead us to the
conclusion that the opposite is the case. In Egyptian, Polynesian, and
North American Indian myth the sky itself is directly personalized.
Egyptian mythological illustration depicts the sky in female form,
for in Egyptian myth the sky is the mother and the earth the father
of everything. Lang has shown that the sky-father is frequently
personalized as a "magnified non-natural man" among races which possess
no theological schools. We do not say that the arrangement of Anu, Ea,
and En-lil into a triad is not "a bit of learned speculation," but to
state that early animism did not first personalize the sky and the
earth and the sea is rash in the extreme. When Deucalion and Pyrrha in
the Greek myth asked the gods how they might best replenish the earth
with the human race, they were instructed to cast "the bones of their
mother" behind them, and these bones they interpreted as the stones
and rocks and acted accordingly. So would primitive man all the world
over have interpreted this advice, for universally he believes the very
soil upon which he walks to be the great mother which produced his
ancestors, out of whose dust or clay they were formed, and who still
nourishes and preserves him.
Jastrow proceeds to state that "Anu was originally the personification
of some definite power of nature, and everything points to this power
having been the sun in the heavens. Starting from this point of view
we quite understand how the great illuminer of heaven should have been
identified with the heavens in an artificially devised theological
system, just as En-lil became in this system the designation of the
earth and of the region above the earth viewed as a whole."[7] The very
fact that in the earliest times Anu was identified with the expanse of
the sky itself, and that the symbol used to denote him meant 'heaven,'
is against this supposition. Again, the theory suffers from lack of
analogy. In what other mythology is there to be found a sky-god who
at one time possessed a solar significance? The converse might be the
case. Some sky-gods have attained the solar connexion because of their
rule over the entire expanse of the heavens, just as they have attained
the power of wielding lightning and the wind. But we are at a loss to
recall any deity originally of distinctive solar attributes who later
took the position of a sky-god.
Anu was regarded as head of the triad and the father of En-lil. We are
told that the goddess Aruru first shaped man in the image of Anu, who
must thus have attained an anthropomorphic condition. He appears also
to have been regarded as the conqueror of primeval chaos. His consort
was Anatu, probably a later feminine form of himself.
Ishtar
Ishtar was undoubtedly a goddess of Semitic origin and symbolized the
fertility of the earth. She was the 'great mother' who fostered all
vegetation and agriculture. It is probable that her cult originated at
Erech, and in the course of centuries and under many nominal changes
dispersed itself throughout the length and breadth of western Asia
and even into Greece and Egypt. It is probable that a number of lesser
goddesses, such as Nanâ and Anunit, may have become merged in the
conception of this divinity, and that lesser local deities of the
same character as herself may have taken her name and assisted to
swell her reputation. She is frequently addressed as 'mother of the
gods,' and indeed the name 'Ishtar' became a generic designation for
'goddess.' But these were later honours. When her cult centred at
Erech, it appears to have speedily blossomed out in many directions,
and, as has been said, lesser cults probably eagerly identified
themselves with that of the great earth-mother, so that in time her
worship became more than a Babylonian cult. Indeed, wherever people
of Semitic speech were to be found, there was the worship of Ishtar.
As Ashteroth, or Astarte, she was known to Canaanites, Ph[oe]nicians,
and Greeks, and there is some likelihood that the cult of Aphrodite
had also its beginnings in that of Ishtar. We shall enquire later
whether she can be the Esther of the Scriptures. Astrologically she was
identified with the planet Venus, but so numerous were the attributes
surrounding her taken from other goddesses with which she had become
identified that they threatened to overshadow her real character,
which was that of the great and fertile mother. More especially did
her identification with Nin-lil, the consort of En-lil, the storm-god,
threaten to alter her real nature, as in this guise she was regarded
as a goddess of war. It is seldom that a goddess of fertility or
love achieves such a distinction. Gods possessing an agricultural
significance are nearly always war-gods, but that is because they bring
the fertilizing thunder-clouds and therefore possess the lightning
arrow or spear. But Ishtar is specifically a goddess of the class of
Persephone or Isis, and her identification with battle must be regarded
as purely accidental. In later times in Assyria she was conceived as
the consort of Asshur, head of the Assyrian pantheon, in days when a
god or goddess who did not breathe war was of little use to a people
like the Assyrians, who were constantly employed in hostilities, and
this circumstance naturally heightened her reputation as a warlike
divinity. But it is at present her original character with which we are
occupied, indeed in some texts we find that, so far from being able
to protect herself, Ishtar and her property are made the prey of the
savage En-lil, the storm-god. "His word sent me forth," she complains;
"as often as it comes to me it casts me prostrate upon my face. The
unconsecrated foe entered my courts, placed his unwashed hands upon me,
and caused me to tremble. Putting forth his hand he smote me with fear.
He tore away my robe and clothed his wife therein: he stripped off my
jewels and placed them upon his daughter. Like a quivering dove upon a
beam I sat. Like a fleeing bird from my cranny swiftly I passed. From
my temple like a bird they caused me to fly." Such is the plaint of
Ishtar, who in this case appears to be quite helpless before the enemy.
The myth which best illustrates her character is that which speaks of
her journey to Aralu, the underworld.
[Illustration: 1. Ishtar, the Mother-goddess.--2. Ishtar as the Goddess
of War.--3. Ishtar, the Goddess of Love.--From _Religious Belief and
Practice in Babylonia and Assyria_, by Professor Morris Jastrow.
--By permission of Messrs G. P. Putnam's Sons.]
The Descent of Ishtar into Hades
The poem, which in its existing form consists of 137 lines in cuneiform
characters, appears to be incomplete. We are not told therein what was
the purpose of the goddess in journeying to the 'House of No-return,'
but we gather from various legends and from the concluding portion
of the poem itself that she went thither in search of her bridegroom
Tammuz, the sun-god of Eridu. The importance of the myth of Ishtar and
Tammuz lies partly in the fact that, travelling westwards to Greece by
way of Ph[oe]nicia, it furnished a groundwork for classic myths of the
Adonis-Attis type, which still provide mythologists with matter for
endless speculation. The mythological significance of the poem and the
persons it mentions will be dealt with later; the theories concerning
the primitive status of Tammuz and Ishtar are numerous and distinct,
more than one of them being sufficiently plausible to call for a
careful scrutiny. Consideration of the myth may therefore be deferred
till we have glanced at the Babylonian story itself and some of its
principal variants and analogues.
Tammuz and Ishtar
The myth of Tammuz is one of high antiquity, dating possibly from
4000 B.C. or even earlier. Both Tammuz and Ishtar were originally
non-Semitic, the name of the former deity being derived from the
Akkadian Dumu-zi, 'son of life,' or 'the only son,' perhaps a
contraction of Dumu-zi-apsu, 'offspring of the spirit of the deep,'
as Professor Sayce indicates. The 'spirit of the deep' is, of course,
the water-god Ea, and Tammuz apparently typifies the sun, though he is
not, as will presently be seen, a simple solar deity, but a god who
unites in himself the attributes of various departmental divinities. An
ancient Akkadian hymn addresses Tammuz as "Shepherd and lord, husband
of Ishtar the lady of heaven, lord of the underworld, lord of the
shepherd's seat;" as grain which lies unwatered in the meadow, which
beareth no green blade; as a sapling planted in a waterless place; as
a sapling torn out by the root. Professor Sayce identifies him with
that Daonus, or Daos, whom Berossus states to have been the sixth king
of Babylonia during the mythical period. Tammuz is the shepherd of
the sky, and his flocks and herds, like those of St Ilya in Slavonic
folk-lore, are the cloud-cattle and the fleecy vapours of the heavens.
Ishtar has from an early period been associated with Tammuz as his
consort, as she has, indeed, with Merodach and Assur and other deities.
Yet she is by no means a mere reflection of the male divinity, but
has a distinct individuality of her own, differing in this from all
other Babylonian goddesses and betraying her non-Semitic origin. The
widespread character of the worship of Ishtar is remarkable. None of
the Babylonian or Assyrian deities were adopted into the pantheons
of so many alien races. From the Persian Gulf to the pillars of
Hercules she was adored as the great mother of all living. She has
been identified with Dawkina, wife of Ea, and is therefore mother of
Tammuz as well as his consort. This dual relationship may account for
that which appears in later myths among the Greeks, where Smyrna,
mother of Adonis, is also his sister. Ishtar was regarded sometimes
as the daughter of the sky-god Anu, and sometimes as the child of
Sin, the lunar deity. Her worship in Babylonia was universal, and in
time displaced that of Tammuz himself. The love of Ishtar for Tammuz
represents the wooing of the sun-god of spring-time by the goddess
of fertility; the god is slain by the relentless heat of summer,
and there is little doubt that Ishtar enters Aralu in search of her
youthful husband. The poem we are about to consider briefly deals with
a part only of the myth--the story of Ishtar's descent into Aralu. It
opens thus: "To the land of No-return, the region of darkness, Ishtar,
the daughter of Sin, turned her ear, even Ishtar, the daughter of Sin,
turned her ear, to the abode of darkness, the dwelling of Irkalla,
to the house whose enterer goes not forth, to the road whence the
wayfarer never returns, to the house whose inhabitants see no light,
to the region where dust is their bread and their food mud; they see
no light, they dwell in darkness, they are clothed, like the birds, in
a garment of feathers. On the door and the bolt hath the dust fallen."
The moral contained in this passage is a gloomy one for mortal man;
he who enters the dread precincts of Aralu goes not forth, he is
doomed to remain for ever in the enveloping darkness, his sustenance
mud and dust. The mention of the dust which lies "on door and bolt"
strikes a peculiarly bleak and dreary note; like other primitive races
the ancient Babylonians painted the other world not definitely as a
place of reward or punishment, but rather as a weak reflection of the
earth-world, a region of darkness and passive misery which must have
offered a singularly uninviting prospect to a vigorous human being. The
garment of feathers is somewhat puzzling. Why should the dead wear a
garment of feathers? Unless it be that the sun-god, identified in some
of his aspects with the eagle, descends into the underworld in a dress
of feathers, and that therefore mortals who follow him must appear in
the nether regions in similar guise. The description above quoted of
the Babylonian Hades tallies with that given in dream to Eabani by the
temple-maiden Ukhut (Gilgamesh epic, tablet VII).
At the Gates of Aralu
Coming to the gate of Aralu, Ishtar assumes a menacing aspect, and
threatens to break down the door and shatter its bolts and bars if
she be not admitted straightway. The keeper of the gate endeavours
to soothe the irate deity, and goes to announce her presence to
Eresh-ki-gal (Allatu), the mistress of Hades. From his words it would
appear that Ishtar has journeyed thither in search of the waters of
life, wherewith to restore her husband Tammuz to life. Allatu receives
the news of her sister's advent with a bitter tirade, but nevertheless
instructs the keeper to admit her, which he proceeds to do.
Ishtar on entering the sombre domains is obliged to pass through seven
gates, at each of which she is relieved of some article of dress or
adornment (evidently in accordance with the ancient custom of Aralu),
till at last she stands entirely unclad. At the first gate the keeper
takes from her "the mighty crown of her head"; at the second her
earrings are taken; at the third her necklace; at the fourth the
ornaments of her breast; at the fifth her jewelled girdle; at the sixth
her bracelets; and at the seventh the cincture of her body. The goddess
does not part with these save under protest, but the keeper of the
gate answers all her queries with the words: "Enter, O lady, it is the
command of Allatu." The divine wayfarer at length appears before the
goddess of the underworld, who shows her scant courtesy, bidding the
plague-demon, Namtar, smite her from head to foot with disease--in her
eyes, side, feet, heart, and head.
During the time that Ishtar is confined within the bounds of Aralu all
fertility on the earth is suspended, both in the animal and vegetable
kingdoms. Knowledge of this disastrous state of affairs is conveyed to
the gods by their messenger, Pap-sukal, who first tells the story to
Shamash, the sun-god. Shamash weeps as he bears the matter before Ea
and Sin, gods of the earth and the moon respectively; but Ea, to remedy
the sterility of the earth, creates a being called Ashushu-namir, whom
he dispatches to the underworld to demand the release of Ishtar. Allatu
is greatly enraged when the demand is made "in the name of the great
gods," and curses Ashushu-namir with a terrible curse, condemning him
to dwell in the darkness of a dungeon, with the garbage of the city for
his food. Nevertheless she cannot resist the power of the conjuration,
wherefore she bids Namtar, the plague-demon, release the Annunaki, or
earth-spirits, and place them on a golden throne, and pour the waters
of life over Ishtar. Namtar obeys; in the words of the poem he "smote
the firmly-built palace, he shattered the threshold which bore up the
stones of light, he bade the spirits of earth come forth, on a throne
of gold did he seat them, over Ishtar he poured the waters of life
and brought her along." Ishtar is then led through the seven gates of
Arula, receiving at each the article of attire whereof she had there
been deprived. Finally she emerges into the earth-world, which resumes
its normal course. Then follow a few lines addressed to Ishtar, perhaps
by the plague-demon or by the keeper of the gates. "If she (Allatu)
hath not given thee that for which the ransom is paid her, return to
her for Tammuz, the bridegroom of thy youth. Pour over him pure waters
and precious oil. Put on him a purple robe, and a ring of crystal
on his hand. Let Samkhat (the goddess of joy) enter the liver...."
These lines indicate with sufficient clearness that Ishtar descended
into Hades in order to obtain the waters of life and thus revive her
bridegroom Tammuz. The poem does not relate whether or not her errand
was successful, but we are left to conjecture that it was. There still
remain a few lines of the poem, not, however, continuing the narrative,
but forming a sort of epilogue, addressed, it may be, to the hearers of
the tale. Mention is made in this portion of mourners, "wailing men and
wailing women," of a funeral pyre and the burning of incense, evidently
in honour of the god Tammuz.
Ishtar and Persephone
As has been indicated already, the myth of Tammuz and Ishtar furnished
the groundwork for certain myths of classic Greece and Rome. The
Ph[oe]nician Astarte (Ashtoreth), a development of Ishtar, became in
time the Aphrodite of the Greeks, a deity who plays a part in the
Adonis legend analogous to that of Ishtar in the Tammuz story. The
name Adonis itself is derived from _Adoni_ ('my lord'), the word with
which the Ph[oe]nician worshippers of Tammuz hailed the setting sun.
The myth of Adonis is perhaps the most nearly related of any to that
of Tammuz, since its chief characters are acknowledged counterparts
of those in the Babylonian legend, while the tale of Ishtar's descent
into Hades may be regarded as a sequel to the Greek story, or rather
to an early Babylonian variant thereof. Briefly outlined, the story
runs as follows: Adonis was the fruit of an unnatural union between
the Syrian king Theias and his daughter Smyrna (Myrrha). Theias
pursued the princess, intending to take her life for the crime, but
the pity of the gods turned her into a tree from which, at the end
of ten months, Adonis was born. It is said that a boar rent open the
tree-trunk with its tusk, and thus enabled the divine infant to see the
light. Aphrodite, charmed with the beauty of the child, gave him into
the care of Persephone, who was so enamoured of her charge that she
afterwards refused to give him up. The goddesses appealed to Zeus, who
decreed that Adonis should spend six months of each year with Aphrodite
and six with Persephone in the underworld; or, according to another
version, four months were to be passed with Aphrodite and four with
Persephone, while the remaining four were to be at his own disposal. He
was afterwards slain by a boar sent against him by Artemis (herself, by
the way, a development of Ishtar). It may be remarked that Aphrodite,
who figures, like Ishtar, as the goddess of love and beauty, is also
closely associated with the nether regions, perhaps because she was
identified with the Babylonian goddess in her journey to Hades in
search of her spouse.
Akin to Adonis is the god Attis, who likewise, according to one
version of his myth, is slain by a boar. After his death he becomes a
pine-tree, and from his blood violets spring. He is beloved of Cybele,
the mother-goddess, who laments his untimely end.
In the Adonis legend there is evidence of some overlapping. Persephone,
or Proserpine, who here corresponds to the Allatu of the Babylonian
variant, figures in another well-known myth as the prototype of Tammuz.
When she is carried off to the netherworld by Pluto, her mother,
Ceres, will not suffer the corn to grow while her daughter remains
a prisoner. Like Ishtar in search of her spouse, the mother-goddess
seeks her child with weeping and lamentation. Through the eating of a
pomegranate seed, Proserpine is finally obliged to pass four (or six)
months of every year with her dark captor, as his consort.
Another myth which has affinities with the tale of Tammuz and Ishtar
is the Egyptian one which deals with the quest of Isis. The god Osiris
is slain through the machinations of his brother Set (who, being
identified elsewhere with a black hog, recalls the boar which slew
Adonis and Attis), and his body, enclosed in a chest, is cast into
the Nile. Afterwards the chest is thrown up by the waves, and round
it springs miraculously a tamarisk tree. Meanwhile Isis, wife and
sister to Osiris, travels hither and thither in search of his remains,
which in due time she finds. However, the chest is stolen from her by
Set, who, taking therefrom the body of Osiris, tears the corpse into
fourteen pieces, which he scatters broadcast through the land. Isis
still pursues her quest, till she has found all the portions and buried
them.
These tales were the mythical correlates of certain ritualistic
practices designed to bring about the change of seasons, and other
natural phenomena, by means of sympathetic magic. The burden of a great
duty falls upon the shoulders of primitive man; with his rites and
spells and magic arts he must assist the universe in its course. His
esoteric plays, typifying the mysterious fact of growth, are necessary
to ensure the sprouting of the corn; his charms and incantations are
essential even for the rising of the sun; lacking the guarantee of
science that one season shall follow another in its proper order,
he goes through an elaborate performance symbolizing the decay and
revival of vegetation, believing that only thus can the natural order
be maintained. Through the force of sympathetic magic he sees his puny
efforts related to the mighty results which follow them.
This, then, is the origin of the ritual of the Tammuz festival, which
may conceivably have had an existence prior to that of the myth itself.
The representation of the death and resurrection of the god, whether in
myth or ritual, had undoubtedly a seasonal significance, wherefore the
date of his festival varied in the different localities. In Babylonia
it was celebrated in June, thus showing that the deity was slain by
the fierce heat of the sun, burning up all the springtide vegetation.
Ishtar's sojourn in Hades would thus occupy the arid months of summer.
In other and more temperate climes winter would be regarded as the
enemy of Tammuz. An interesting account of the Tammuz festival is that
given by an Arabic author writing in the tenth century, and quoted by
Sir James Frazer in his _Golden Bough_. "Tammuz (July). In the middle
of this month is the festival of el-Bûgât, that is, of the weeping
women, and this is the Ta-uz festival, which is celebrated in honour
of the god Ta-uz. The women bewail him, because his lord slew him so
cruelly, ground his bones in a mill, and then scattered them to the
wind. The women (during this festival) eat nothing which has been
ground in a mill, but limit their diet to steeped wheat, sweet vetches,
dates, raisins, and the like." The material for this description was
furnished by the Syrians of Harran. Of the curious legend attaching to
the mourning rites more will be said later.
Lamentations for Tammuz
Characteristic of the Tammuz ritual are the lamentations, of which
several series are still extant. In later times it appears that a
different cause was assigned for the weeping of the "wailing men and
wailing women." They no longer mourned the death of Tammuz, but the
departure of Ishtar into the netherworld, and so the legend of her
journey to Aralu came to be recited in the temples. Sir James Frazer
suggests that the ritualistic counterpart of the Tammuz-Ishtar myth
may have included the pouring of water over an effigy of the god, the
practice corresponding to the pouring of the water of life over him in
order to bring him back to life. If this indeed formed a part of the
Tammuz ritual we may take it that it was intended as a rain-charm.
Likewise the Adonia festival of the Greeks symbolized the death and
resurrection of Adonis. This feast occupied two days; on the first day,
images of Adonis and Aphrodite were made and laid each on a silver
couch; on the second day, these images were cast by the women into the
sea, together with 'Adonis gardens,' as they were called--pots filled
with earth in which cut flowers were stuck. It is believed that this
rite was meant to signify the revival of vegetation under the influence
of rain. The persons engaged in it indulged in such lamentations as
were uttered by the worshippers of Tammuz in Babylonia, tore their
hair, and beat their breasts. The festival of Adonis fell in the
summer-time at Alexandria and Athens, in the spring at Byblus, while
in Ph[oe]nicia it occurred in the season when the river Nahr Ibrahim
(formerly called Adonis) bore down from the mountains of Lebanon the
red earth in which the devout saw the blood of the slain Adonis.
Golden boxes of myrrh were employed at the Adonia festival, incense
was burned, and pigs were sacrificed. Pigs were sacrificed also to
Osiris, whose cult, as has been shown, had much in common with that of
Tammuz and Adonis. The Egyptian god was cast by his enemies into the
waters of the Nile; and it may be that this myth too had a ritualistic
counterpart, designed as a charm to produce rain.
It has been indicated already that the elucidations of the myth of
Ishtar's journey to Aralu are many and divergent. The variants above
enumerated serve each to cast light on the other, and from a comparison
of these we may succeed in arriving at a satisfactory conclusion. To
begin with, however, it must be remembered that when the cult of any
deity has reached a fairly advanced stage it is impossible to assign
to him any one department of nature, to say that he is a sun-god, a
rain-god, a corn-god, for he may possess the attributes of all of
these. In giving any god a departmental designation we are striving to
express his primitive or predominant characteristics merely.
[Illustration: The Mother-goddess Ishtar.--Evelyn Paul.]
An Allegorical Interpretation of the Myth
A truly allegorical elucidation of the myth of Ishtar's descent into
Hades would depict Ishtar, as the goddess of fertility, seeking in the
underworld for her husband, the sun-god, slain by the icy breath of
winter. During her sojourn in the nether regions all fertility ceases
on the earth, to be resumed only when she returns as the joyful bride
of the springtide sun. The surrender of her clothing and jewels at
the seven gates of Aralu represents the gradual decay of vegetation on
the earth, and the resumption of her garments the growing beauty and
verdure which mark her return. Another hypothesis identifies Ishtar
with Dawkina, goddess of the earth, wife of Ea and therefore mother as
well as consort of Tammuz. According to this view Ishtar represents
not the fertility of the earth, but the earth itself, deprived of
its adornments of flowers and leafage by the approach of winter, or
variously, by the burning heat of summer. The waters of life, with
which she sprinkles and restores her husband,[8] are the revivifying
rains which give to the sun-god his youthful vigour and glory. Against
this view it has been urged (_e.g._ by Sir James Frazer) that "there is
nothing in the sun's annual course within the temperate and tropical
zones to suggest that he is dead for half or a third of the year, and
alive for the other half or two-thirds."
Alternatively it is suggested that Tammuz is a god of vegetation, and
that Ishtar doubles the rôle. The slaying of Tammuz and the journey
of Ishtar would thus represent two distinct myths, each typifying
the decay and subsequent revival of vegetation. Other instances may
be recalled in which two myths of the same class have become fused
into one. This view, then, presents some elements of probability; not
only Tammuz but most of his variants appear to possess a vegetable
significance, while the Ishtar type is open to interpretation on
the same lines. Thus Adonis is associated with the myrrh-tree, from
whose trunk he was born, and Osiris with the tamarisk, used in the
ritual connected with his cult, while Attis after his death became a
pine-tree. Tammuz himself was conceived of as dwelling in the midst of
a great world-tree, whose roots extended down to the underworld, while
its branches reached to the heavens. This tree appears to have been the
cedar, for which the ancient Babylonians had an especial reverence.
One feature which leads us to identify the deities of this class, both
male and female, with gods of vegetation is their association with the
moon. Osiris is regarded, and with much reason, as a moon-god; in one
of her aspects Aphrodite is a lunar deity, while a like significance
belongs to Proserpine and to the Ph[oe]nician Ashtoreth. Ishtar
herself, it is true, was never identified with the moon, which in
Babylonia was a male divinity; yet she was associated with him as his
daughter. Among primitive peoples the moon is believed to exercise a
powerful influence on vegetation, and indeed on all manner of growth
and productivity. The association of a god with the moon therefore
argues for him also a connexion with vegetation and fertility. It may
be remarked, in passing, that a lunar significance has been attached
by some authorities to the story of Ishtar's descent into Hades, and
to kindred myths. It is held that the sojourn of the goddess in Aralu
typifies a lunar eclipse, or perhaps the period between the waning of
the old moon and the appearance of the new. But, as has been said, the
ancient Babylonians saw in the luminary of night a male deity, so that
any lunar characteristics pertaining to Ishtar must be regarded as of
merely secondary importance.
Ishtar, Tammuz, and Vegetation
If it be granted, then, that Ishtar and Tammuz are deities of
vegetation, it is possible still further to narrow their sphere by
associating them particularly with the corn. Adonis and Aphrodite
are connected with the growth of the crops. Ceres, who forbids the
corn to spring while her daughter is in the realm of Pluto, is
undoubtedly a corn-mother, and Proserpine evidently partakes of
the same nature. Osiris was the culture-deity who introduced corn
into Egypt. A representation of him in the temple of Isis at Philæ
depicts corn-stalks growing out of his dead body--the body of Osiris
(the grain) is torn to pieces, scattered through the land, and the
pieces buried (or planted) in the earth, when the corn sprouts from
it. Moreover, Tammuz himself was cruelly disposed of by his lord,
who "ground his bones in a mill, and then scattered them to the
wind"--plainly a type of the treatment meted out to the corn. An Arabic
writer relates that Tammuz was cruelly killed several times, but that
he always came to life again, a story which recalls Robert Burns' _John
Barleycorn_, itself perhaps based on mythical matter.
May not these examples suggest an elucidation on animistic lines?
Deities of the Tammuz type appear to symbolize the corn-grain and
nothing more--cut down, bruised and beaten, buried in the earth, and
finally springing to renewed life. Who, then, are the goddesses,
likewise identified with the corn, who seek in the underworld for
lover or child, endeavouring with tears to ransom the corn from the
dark earth? Are they not the primitive corn-spirits, the indwelling
animistic spirits of the standing grain, doomed at the harvest to
wander disconsolately through the earth till the sprouting of the corn
once more gives them an opportunity to materialize?
The stories of the mutilation and dispersion of the bodies of Tammuz
and Osiris, and of the many deaths of the former god, furnish a basis
for yet another explanation of the Tammuz myth. Sir James Frazer brings
forward the theory that the 'Lamentations' of the ancient Babylonians
were intended not for mourning for the decay of vegetation, but to
bewail the cruel treatment of the grain at harvest-time, and cites in
this connexion the ballad of _John Barleycorn_, which, we are told, was
based on an early English poem, probably itself of mythological origin.
It is, however, most likely that the myth of Tammuz and Ishtar is of
a composite nature, as has already been indicated. Possibly a myth
of the sun-god and earth-goddess has been superimposed on the early
groundwork of the corn-spirit seeking the corn. It would certainly seem
that Ishtar in her descent into Aralu typified the earth, shorn of
her covering of vegetation. Then in time she might come to symbolize
the vegetation itself, or the fertility which produced it, and so
would gain new attributes, and new elements would enter into the myths
concerning her. Only by regarding her as a composite deity is it
possible to reach an understanding of the principles underlying these
myths.
Ishtar and Esther
We have already questioned whether the Scripture story of Esther is in
some manner connected with the goddess Ishtar. Writing of the Jewish
feast of Purim, Sir James Frazer says (_Golden Bough_, vol. iii, p.
153): "From the absence of all notice of Purim in the older books of
the Bible, we may fairly conclude that the festival was instituted
or imported at a comparatively late date among the Jews. The same
conclusion is supported by the Book of Esther itself, which was
manifestly written to explain the origin of the feast and to suggest
motives for its observance. For, according to the author of the book,
the festival was established to commemorate the deliverance of the Jews
from a great danger which threatened them in Persia under the reign
of King Xerxes. Thus the opinion of modern scholars that the feast of
Purim, as celebrated by the Jews, was of late date and Oriental origin,
is borne out by the tradition of the Jews themselves. An examination
of that tradition and of the mode of celebrating the feast renders
it probable that Purim is nothing but a more or less disguised form
of the Babylonian festival of the Sacæa or Zakmuk.... But further,
when we examine the narrative which professes to account for the
institution of Purim, we discover in it not only the strongest traces
of Babylonian origin, but also certain singular analogies to those very
features of the Sacæan festival with which we are here more immediately
concerned. The Book of Esther turns upon the fortunes of two men, the
vizier Haman and the despised Jew Mordecai, at the court of a Persian
king. Mordecai, we are told, had given mortal offence to the vizier,
who accordingly prepares a tall gallows on which he hopes to see his
enemy hanged, while he himself expects to receive the highest mark
of the King's favour by being allowed to wear the royal crown and
the royal robes, and thus attired to parade the streets, mounted on
the King's own horse and attended by one of the noblest princes, who
should proclaim to the multitude his temporary exaltation and glory.
But the artful intrigues of the wicked vizier miscarried and resulted
in precisely the opposite of what he had hoped and expected; for the
royal honours which he had looked for fell to his rival Mordecai, and
he himself was hanged on the gallows which he had made ready for his
foe. In this story we seem to detect a reminiscence, more or less
confused, of the Zoganes of the Sacæa, in other words, of the custom of
investing a private man with the insignia of royalty for a few days,
and then putting him to death on the gallows or the cross....
"A strong confirmation of this view is furnished by a philological
analysis of the names of the four personages. It seems to be now
generally recognised by Biblical scholars that the name Mordecai, which
has no meaning in Hebrew, is nothing but a slightly altered form of
Marduk or Merodach, the name of the chief god of Babylon, whose great
festival was the Zakmuk; and further, it is generally admitted that
Esther in like manner is equivalent to Ishtar, the great Babylonian
goddess whom the Greeks called Astarte, and who is more familiar to
English readers as Ashtaroth. The derivation of the names of Haman
and Vashti is less certain, but some high authorities are disposed
to accept the view of Jensen that Haman is identical with Humman or
Homman, the national god of the Elamites, and that Vashti is in like
manner an Elamite deity, probably a goddess whose name appears in
inscriptions."
Lang on the Esther Story
Commenting on this theory, Lang in his _Magic and Religion_ (p. 161)
says: "The name Mordecai resembles Marduk, Esther is like Ishtar, Haman
is like Humman, the Elamite god, and there is a divine name in the
inscriptions, read as resembling 'Vashti,' and probably the name of an
Elamite goddess. Thus the human characters in Esther are in peril of
merging in Babylonian and Elamite gods. But, lest that should occur,
we ought also to remember that Mordecai was the real name of a real
historical Jew of the Captivity, one of the companions of Nehemiah in
the return from exile to Jerusalem. Again, Esther appears to me to be
the crown-name of the Jewish wife of Xerxes, in the Book of Esther:
'Hadassah, that is Esther.' In the Biblical story she conceals her
Jewish descent. Hadassah, says Nöldeke, 'is no mere invention of the
writer of Esther.' Hadassah is said to mean 'myrtle bough,' and girls
are still called Myrtle. Esther appears to have been an assumed name,
after a royal mixed marriage. Now if a real historical Jew might be
named Mordecai, which we know to be the case, a Jewess, whether in
fact, or in this Book of Esther, which, says Dr. Jastrow, 'has of
course some historical basis,' might be styled Esther.... But, if
Mordecai be, as it is, an historical name of a real Jew of the period,
while Esther may be, and probably is, a name which a Jewess might bear,
it is not ascertained that Vashti really is the name of an Elamite
goddess. Yet Vashti is quite essential as a goddess to Mr. Frazer's
argument. 'The derivation,' he says, 'of the names of Haman and Vashti
is less certain, but some high authorities are disposed to accept the
view of Jensen that Haman is identical with Humman or Homman, the
national god of the Elamites, and that Vashti is in like manner an
Elamite deity, probably a goddess whose name appears in inscriptions.'"
It is thus seen that the facts regarding these names make such an
explanation as is advanced by Sir James Frazer rather a hazardous one.
Haman, according to his theory, would represent the dying god, whilst
Mordecai would play the part of the re-risen god of vegetation. Lang
puts forward a counter-theory, and that is that Haman or Humman was
a conquering god of the Elamites, which accounts for him having been
whipped and hanged in derision. This Humman was, he thinks, possibly an
Elamite god of vegetation.
Nin-Girsu
Girsu was a part of the city of Lagash, and the name Nin-Girsu means
'Lord of Girsu.' Gods frequently had lordship over a city quarter, one
of the best-known instances of this being that of Huitzilopochtli, who
ruled over that part of the city of Tenochtitlan, called Mexico, which
afterwards gave its name to the entire community. Girsu had originally
been a city itself and had become merged into Lagash, so its god was
probably of ancient origin. Nin-Girsu is frequently alluded to as 'the
warrior of Bel'--he who broke through the hostile ranks to aid the
worshippers of the great god of the netherworld. Like many combatant
deities, however, he presided over local agriculture, and in this
connexion he was known as Shul-gur, 'Lord of the corn heaps.' He is
even identified with Tammuz.
Bau
In ancient inscriptions, especially those of Gudea, Urbau, and
Uru-kagina, the goddess Bau is alluded to as the great mother of
mankind, who restores the sick to health. She is called 'chief daughter
of Anu,' and seems to play the part of a fate to some extent. She
has also an agricultural side to her character. Gudea was especially
devoted to her, and has left it on record that she "filled him with
eloquence." Her temple was at Uru-Azagga, a quarter of Lagash, and as
the goddess of that neighbourhood she would, of course, have come into
close contact with Nin-Girsu. Indeed she is spoken of as his consort,
and when Uru-Azagga became part of Lagash, Bau was promoted as tutelar
goddess of that city and designated 'Mother of Lagash.' She has been
identified with the primeval watery depths, the primitive chaos, and
this identification has been founded on the similarity between the name
Bau and the Hebrew _bohu_, the word for 'chaos,' but proof is wanting
to support the conjecture. A closely allied form of her seems to be
Ga-tum-dug, a goddess who has probably a common origin with Bau, and
who certainly is in some manner connected with water--perhaps with the
clouds.
Nannar
Nannar was the moon-god of Ur, the city whence came Abram, and with
that place he was connected much as was Shamash with Sippar--that is
to say, Ur was his chief but not his only centre of adoration. Why he
came to have his principal seat at Ur it would be difficult to say.
The name Ur signifies 'light,' so it may be that a shrine dedicated to
Nannar existed upon the site of this city and constituted its nucleus.
In Babylonian mythology the sun was regarded as the offspring of the
moon, and it is easy to see how this conception arose in the minds of
a race prone to astronomical study. In all civilizations the lunar
method of computing time precedes the solar. The phases of the moon are
regarded as more trustworthy and more easily followed than the more
obscure changes of the brighter luminary, therefore a greater degree of
importance was attached to the moon in very early times than to the
sun. The moon is usually represented on Babylonian cylinders as bearing
a crescent upon his head and wearing a long, flowing beard described as
of the colour of lapis-lazuli--much the same shade as his beams possess
in warmer latitudes. Nannar was frequently alluded to as 'the heifer of
Anu,' because of the horn which the moon displays at a certain phase.
Many monarchs appear to have delighted in the upkeep and restoration of
his temple, among them Nur-Ramman and Sin-iddina.
Nannar in Decay
But, as happens to many gods, Nannar became confounded with some
earthly hero--was even alluded to as a satrap of Babylonia under the
Median monarch Artaios--a personage unknown to history. Ctesias hands
down to us a very circumstantial tale concerning him as follows:[9]
"There was a Persian of the name of Parsondes, in the service of the
king of the Medes, an eager huntsman, and an active warrior on foot
and in the chariot, distinguished in council and in the field, and of
influence with the king. Parsondes often urged the king to make him
satrap of Babylon in the place of Nannaros, who wore women's clothes
and ornaments, but the king always put the petition aside, for it
could not be granted without breaking the promise which his ancestor
had made to Belesys. Nannaros discovered the intentions of Parsondes,
and sought to secure himself against them, and to take vengeance. He
promised great rewards to the cooks who were in the train of the king,
if they succeeded in seizing Parsondes and giving him up. One day,
Parsondes in the heat of the chase strayed far from the king. He had
already killed many boars and deer, when the pursuit of a wild ass
carried him to a great distance. At last he came upon the cooks, who
were occupied in preparations for the king's table. Being thirsty,
Parsondes asked for wine; they gave it, took care of his horse, and
invited him to take food--an invitation agreeable to Parsondes, who
had been hunting the whole day. He bade them send the ass which he had
captured to the king, and tell his own servants where he was. Then he
ate of the various kinds of food set before him, and drank abundantly
of the excellent wine, and at last asked for his horse in order to
return to the king. But they brought beautiful women to him, and urged
him to remain for the night. He agreed, and as soon as, overcome by
hunting, wine, and love, he had fallen into a deep sleep, the cooks
bound him and brought him to Nannaros. Nannaros reproached Parsondes
with calling him an effeminate man, and seeking to obtain his satrapy;
he had the king to thank that the satrapy granted to his ancestors had
not been taken from him. Parsondes replied that he considered himself
more worthy of the office, because he was more manly and more useful to
the king. But Nannaros swore by Bel and Mylitta that Parsondes should
be softer and whiter than a woman, called for the eunuch who was over
the female players, and bade him shave the body of Parsondes and bathe
and anoint him every day, put women's clothes on him, plait his hair
after the manner of women, paint his face, and place him among the
women who played the guitar and sang, that he might learn their arts.
This was done, and soon Parsondes played and sang better at the table
of Nannaros than any of the women. Meanwhile the king of the Medes
had caused search to be made everywhere for Parsondes; and since he
could nowhere be found, and nothing could be heard of him, he believed
that a lion or some other wild animal had killed him when out hunting,
and lamented for his loss. Parsondes had lived for seven years as a
woman in Babylon, when Nannaros caused a eunuch to be scourged and
grievously maltreated. This eunuch Parsondes induced by large presents
to retire to Media and tell the king the misfortune which had come
upon him. Then the king sent a message commanding Nannaros to give up
Parsondes. Nannaros declared that he had never seen him. But the king
sent a second messenger, with orders to put Nannaros to death if he
did not surrender Parsondes. Nannaros entertained the messenger of the
king; and when the meal was brought, 150 women entered, of whom some
played the guitar, while others blew the flute. At the end of the meal,
Nannaros asked the king's envoy which of all the women was the most
beautiful and had played best. The envoy pointed to Parsondes. Nannaros
laughed long and said, 'That is the person whom you seek,' and released
Parsondes, who on the next day returned home with the envoy to the king
in a chariot. The king was astonished at the sight of him, and asked
why he had not avoided such disgrace by death. Parsondes answered,
'In order that I might see you again and by you execute vengeance on
Nannaros, which could never have been mine had I taken my life.' The
king promised him that his hope should be realized, as soon as he came
to Babylon. But when he came there, Nannaros defended himself on the
ground that Parsondes, though in no way injured by him, had maligned
him, and sought to obtain the satrapy over Babylonia. The king pointed
out that he had made himself judge in his own cause, and had imposed
a punishment of a degrading character; in ten days he would pronounce
judgment upon him for his conduct. In terror, Nannaros hastened to
Mitraphernes, the eunuch of greatest influence with the king, and
promised him the most liberal rewards, 10 talents of gold and 100
talents of silver, 10 golden and 200 silver bowls, if he could induce
the king to spare his life and retain him in the satrapy of Babylonia.
He was prepared to give the king 100 talents of gold, 1000 talents of
silver, 100 golden and 300 silver bowls, and costly robes, with other
gifts; Parsondes also should receive 100 talents of silver and costly
robes. After many entreaties, Mitraphernes persuaded the king not to
order the execution of Nannaros, as he had not killed Parsondes, but to
exact from him the compensation which he was prepared to pay Parsondes
and the king. Nannaros in gratitude threw himself at the feet of the
king; but Parsondes said, 'Cursed be the man who first brought gold
among men; for the sake of gold I have been made a mockery to the
Babylonians.'"
[Illustration: Assyrian Rock Sculpture from _The Monuments of Nineveh_,
by Sir Henry Layard.]
It is impossible to say what the mythological meaning hidden in
this tale may portend. We have the moon-god attempting to feminize
an unfortunate enemy. Does this mean that Parsondes came under the
influence of the moon-god--that is, that he became a lunatic?
Aralu, or Eres-ki-Gal
The deities of the underworld, of the region of the dead, are usually
of later origin than those of the heavens.[10] They are frequently
the gods of an older and discredited religion, and are relegated to
the 'cold shades of opposition,' dwelling there just as the dead are
supposed to 'dwell' in the grave. A legend exists regarding Aralu which
was discovered among other texts at Tel-el-Amarna. The story goes that
the gods once gave a feast to which they invited Aralu, apologizing at
the same time that they were unable to go down to her and regretting
that she could not ascend to them. In their dilemma they requested
her to send a messenger to bring to her the viands which fell to her
share. She complied with the request, and when the messenger arrived
all the gods stood up to do him honour for his mistress's sake--all
save Nergal. The messenger acquainted Aralu with this slight, and
greatly enraged she sent him back to the dwelling of the gods to ask
that the delinquent might be delivered into her hands so that she
might slay him. The gods after some discussion requested the messenger
to take back him who had offended the dark goddess, and in order
that the envoy might the more easily discover him, all the gods were
gathered together. But Nergal remained in the background. His absence
was discovered, however, and he was despatched to the gloomy realm
of Aralu. But he had no mind to taste death. Indeed Aralu found the
tables turned, for Nergal, seizing her by the hair, dragged her from
her throne and prepared to cut off her head. She begged to be allowed
to speak, and upon her request being granted, she offered herself as a
wife to her conqueror, along with the dominions over which she held
sway. Nergal assented to her proposals and they were wed.
Nergal is the sun which passes through the gloomy underworld at night
just as does Osiris, and in this character he has to conquer the powers
of death and the grave. It is rare, however, to find the sun-hero
allying himself by marriage to one of the infernal powers, although in
the Central American _Popol Vuh_ one of the explorers to the underworld
weds the daughter of one of its overlords, and Persephone, the
corn-goddess, is forced to become the spouse of the lord of Hades.
Dagon
Dagon, alluded to in the Scriptures, was, like Oannes, a fish-god.
Besides being worshipped in Erech and its neighbourhood, he was adored
in Palestine and on occasion among the Hebrews themselves. But it was
in the extreme south of Palestine that his worship attained its chief
importance. He had temples at Ashdod and Gaza, and perhaps his worship
travelled westward along with that of Ishtar. Both were worshipped at
Erech, and where the cult of the one penetrated it is likely that there
would be found the rites of the other.
Dagon his name; sea-monster, upward man
And downward fish,
as Milton expresses it, affords one of the most dramatic instances in
the Old Testament of the downfall of a usurping idol.
"And the Philistines took the ark of God, and brought it from Eben-ezer
unto Ashdod.
"When the Philistines took the ark of God, they brought it into the
house of Dagon, and set it by Dagon.
"And when they of Ashdod arose early on the morrow, behold, Dagon was
fallen upon his face to the earth before the ark of the Lord. And they
took Dagon, and set him in his place again.
"And when they arose early on the morrow morning, behold, Dagon was
fallen upon his face to the ground before the ark of the Lord; and the
head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off upon the
threshold; only the stump of Dagon was left to him.
"Therefore neither the priests of Dagon, nor any that come into Dagon's
house, tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod unto this day.
"But the hand of the Lord was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he
destroyed them, and smote them with emerods, even Ashdod and the coasts
thereof.
"And when the men of Ashdod saw that it was so, they said, The ark of
the God of Israel shall not abide with us: for his hand is sore upon us
and upon Dagon our god."
Thus in the Bible story only the 'stump' or fish's tail of Dagon was
left to him. In some of the Ninevite sculptures of this deity, the
head of the fish forms a kind of mitre on the head of the man, while
the body of the fish appears as a cloak or cape over his shoulders and
back. This is a sure sign to the mythological student that a god so
adorned is in process of quitting the animal for the human form.[11]
Nirig, or Enu-Restu
This deity is alluded to in an inscription as "the eldest of the gods."
He was especially favoured by the Kings of Assyria, and we find his
name entering into the composition of several of their texts. In a
certain poem he is called the "son of Bel," and is described as being
made "in the likeness of Anu." He rides, it is said, against the gods
of his enemies in a chariot of lapis-lazuli, and his onset is full
of the fury of the tempest. Bel, his father, commands him to set
forth for the temple of Bel at Nippur. Here Nusku, the messenger of
Bel, meets him, bestows a gift upon him, and humbly requests that he
will not disturb the god Bel, his father, in his dwelling-place, nor
terrify the earth-gods. It would appear from this passage that Nirig
was on the point of taking the place of Bel, his father, but that he
ever did so is improbable. As a deity of storm he is also a god of
war, but he was the seed-scatterer upon the mountains, therefore he
had also an agricultural significance. It is strange that in Babylonia
tempest-gods possess the same functions and attributes--those of war
and agriculture--as do rain or thunder, or rain-thunder, or wind and
rain deities elsewhere-a circumstance which is eloquent of the power
of climatic conditions in the manufacture of myth. In Mesopotamia
fierce sand-storms must have given the people the idea of a savage and
intractable deity, destructive rather than beneficent, as many hymns
and kindred texts witness.
We have now briefly examined the elder gods of the Babylonian pantheon.
Other, and in some cases more imposing, gods were yet to be adopted by
the Babylonians, as we shall see in the following chapters.
[1] The passage is quoted by kind permission of Messrs A. & C. Black.
[2] _Religious Belief in Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 69.
[3] _Athenæum_, Feb. 12, 1876.
[4] Polyhistor is still speaking. The passage is somewhat obscure, and
of course relates to the myth of Merodach and Tiawath--Bel representing
Merodach, and "the woman-creature" Tiawath.
[5] _Religious Belief in Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 88.
[6] _Religious Belief in Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 81.
[7] _Religious Belief in Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 82.
[8] Elsewhere Ishtar herself is sprinkled. See p. 130.
[9] Translation from Prof. Sayce's _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 157.
[10] These deities of the underworld must not be confounded with the
gods of the abyss referred to at great length in Chapter II. The first
group are gods of the dead, the second gods of the primeval waters.
[11] In sacrifice, too, the totemic or symbolic animal of the god
is often flayed and the skin worn by the priest, who in this manner
personates the god. In ancient Mexico the priests of Centeotl wore the
skin of a woman sacrificed annually to that goddess.