CHAPTER V.

COMPARISON BETWEEN EGYPT AND CHALDÆA.

In the ages that rolled away before the commencement of the period

that we call antiquity, the eastern world saw the birth of three great

civilizations; the civilization of Egypt, the civilization of Chaldæa,

and the civilization of China. All three are primitive in character.

So far at least as we can judge, no other form of civilized life had

preceded them in those countries; the past had left no examples to

guide them on their way. In the valleys of the Nile, the Euphrates, and

the Yang-tse-kiang, three natural theatres in which all was prepared

for the work to be performed upon their stages, man emerged from

barbarism much sooner than he did in any other part of Asia or Africa;

he there formed organized societies whose beginnings are lost in so

impenetrable a past that we have no little difficulty in deciding on

which hearth the flame of civilized life was first kindled.

Although these civilizations had each a physiognomy of its own, they

had, nevertheless, more than one common feature. It would take too long

to notice all the resemblances, but we may point out two by which the

historian can hardly fail to be impressed as soon as the idea of making

a comparison suggests itself to his mind.

All three nations learnt to write, and to write in ideographic

characters. These characters are by no means alike in Egypt, Chaldæa,

and China. In each case they began by representing the thing whose idea

they wished to convey, and with time they reduced and simplified the

images thus created until they had a certain number of conventional

forms. This work of simplification did not always proceed on the same

lines. The direction it took and the final result were greatly affected

by the materials employed. Writing traced upon rice paper or papyrus,

with a reed pen, gradually put on an appearance very different to

that of characters punched in clay with a point or stylus. The three

systems were in the end perfectly distinct; and when, by dint of long

and patient effort, you have mastered all the difficulties of Chinese

writing, you are no nearer than you were before to a comprehension of

the wedges or the hieroglyphs.

And yet these three creations of man’s genius are identical in method

and principle. Their point of departure was the same. They began by

figuring every object to which a distinctive name had been given.

The next step was to invent expedients by which these concrete signs

could be used for the expression of abstract ideas, and the next again

to employ them for the notation, not of ideas, but of sounds. In one

country the passage from the direct to the metaphorical use of a term,

and from the pure ideogram to the phonetic character, was made with

more skill and rapidity than in another. Here the corrections and

retouches suggested by practice were more cleverly used to remedy the

vices of the system than there. But the fact to be remembered is that,

without previous concert, all three societies solved the problem put

before them in the same fashion, and that problem was how to fix their

thoughts and transmit them to future generations. They began with naïve

and roughly executed images, like those made by modern savages. From

this stage, in which so many less gifted races stuck fast, all three

nations emerged with equal decision and good fortune. By the same

roads and by-ways they arrived at the expression of the most complex

ideas with a most imperfect instrument. But in spite of all their good

will and their subtle intellects, neither Egypt nor Chaldæa nor China

succeeded in reducing the word to its elements, and fixing upon a

special symbol for each of the fundamental articulations of the human

voice. A kind of hidden force, a secret instinct, seems to have urged

them on to the required analysis, while they were held back by some

fatality or prejudice of their birth or early education. They were all

three on the point of touching the goal, but they never quite reached

it, and it is to another race that the glory of having invented the

alphabet must be given.

These civilizations have a second characteristic at which the

observer cannot but feel surprise, namely, their singular longevity

and immobility. No doubt when we examine them closely we see that they

changed, like everything else that is born, that lives and dies; but

the changes only took place with extreme slowness. In the course of

three or four thousand years beliefs and mental ideas could hardly

remain quite stationary, but the forms and ceremonies of religion

varied in no appreciable degree.

We may say the same of manners and social institutions. These could

not, of course, remain quite the same during such a lapse of time;

a single word, for instance, may have changed its meaning more than

once in so many centuries; but it is none the less true that the

conservative spirit, as we should call it, had a permanent force that

it seems to have lost in the west, amid the rapid transformations and

perpetual mobility of our modern world.

And we must recollect that these societies did not escape any more

than others from the disorders of civil war, of political revolutions

or barbarian inroads. Like all other human systems, they were subject

to catastrophes which must have thrown everything into confusion for

a time. But after each crisis had spent its force the ranks were

closed and dressed, like those of a well-disciplined regiment after

receiving a destructive volley. When quiet had come again men returned

to their places in the framework of a society closely bound together

by habits formed during countless generations. This framework had been

so patiently elaborated and co-ordinated, it was so elastic, and,

at the same time, so full of resistance, that even a foreign master

found it more politic to preserve it and fall in with its ways than

to destroy it; he was content, in most cases, to step into the place

occupied by the prince whom he ousted. Affairs thus fell into their

accustomed groove as soon as a conquest was complete; classes were

reconstituted on their old bases; property and people took up their

former conditions; the only difference lay in the fact that a new group

of privileged individuals shared the wealth created by agricultural,

industrial, and commercial activity. The sovereign and his chief

officers might be of foreign race, but the social machine rolled on

over the same road and with the same wheels as before.

The effect of this uniform and continuous movement did not stop here:

it had another consequence in the rapid assimilation of heterogeneous

and accidental elements, which adapted themselves in a very short

time to the mould into which they were pushed and pressed by the

never-sleeping action of an intense organic life, until, in time, they

became fused and lost in the life they had meant to dominate.

Thus we find that Egypt, from the time of Menes to the end of the Roman

domination, appropriated, and, as it were, digested and absorbed all

the emigrants who came to establish themselves within her borders. Some

of these came sword in hand, after having destroyed all opposition;

others crept in humbly, demanding nothing better than permission to

live in peace. Some were barbarian mercenaries in the pay of Pharaoh,

some shepherds or agricultural labourers attracted by the splendid

fertility of the soil, others were artizans in search of wealthy

patrons, or merchants who sought a profit in distributing the products

of the Egyptian soil or industry over foreign lands. No matter to what

race they belonged, all these strangers and foreign sojourners, from

the Hyksos to the Phœnicians and the Greeks, came under the spell of

Egypt and exercised but little influence over her constitution, her

manners, and ideas. To dissolve a body that appeared indestructible

required two great religious revolutions--the rise of Christianity,

and, but a few centuries later, that of Islamism.

So it was with the civilization born in the double valley of the Tigris

and Euphrates. Between the days of Ourkam and those of the Sassanids it

had many different masters, but long before the apparent triumph of the

Greek system, we find certain religious types maintained and repeated,

which bear witness to the tenacity with which habits and beliefs,

formed long before the first dawn of historic times, clung to life.

Finally, China offers us a still more curious example of the intimate

cohesion and the resisting force that defies the centuries. Egypt,

Chaldæa, and Assyria are only memories; but China, protected by its

situation, and by the circle of mountains and deserts that nature has

drawn about it, the China of Confucius, still lives upon its ancient

sites. Its religion is still that of the two primitive peoples we have

been studying, an elaborate form of _fetishism_, or _animism_

as some would have us call it. The adoration of the sovereign and of

his great officers is addressed chiefly to the celestial bodies, to the

sky itself, to the earth and its mountains; the common people fear and

worship the genii that people the air and the waters, and, still more,

the spirits of their own dead. These they feel hovering about them;

they talk to them; with touching solicitude they prepare their funeral

feasts.

As for the chief by whom these five hundred millions of human beings

are governed, his power still preserves the absolute, theocratic, and

patriarchal character that distinguishes royalty in all primitive

social systems. We cannot tell what the future may have in store for

China, which is now in contact with the west on all its frontiers,

but it is curious to think that we have as contemporaries in one of

the vastest empires in the world, a nation of men who in all their

intellectual conceptions are nearer to the ancient Egyptians or

Chaldæans than to a modern Englishman or Frenchman. And what adds to

our surprise is that a people of whom we are sometimes inclined to

speak with contempt is not more easily affected by our ideas and our

scientific knowledge, and even goes so far as to add one more to the

anxieties that beset the civilization of which we are so proud. Even

a power like that of the United States of America takes alarm at the

invasion of Chinese workmen, who do more work for less pay than men of

Anglo-Saxon, Irish, or German birth.

The isolation in which China has lived so long has prevented us

from giving her a place in our history, but we could not ignore her

altogether; we have felt ourselves compelled to point out the close and

striking resemblances that make her a sister of Egypt and Chaldæa--a

younger sister indeed, but one that has survived her elders; and the

comparison is important because the example of China enables us to

realize better than we otherwise could the conditions under which the

industrial activities of Egypt and Chaldæa were exercised. Thanks

to the data she furnishes we can understand how the workshops of

Babylonia and the Nile delta were able to scatter their productions

in such prodigious quantities over all the markets of Western Asia;

how objects elegant and carefully made as they were could be delivered

at a price low enough to find plenty of buyers, even when the heavy

charges for freight, brokerage, &c., were added to their original

cost. On the fertile plains of the Euphrates and the Nile, as in the

“yellow” district of China, life was so easy and food so abundant that

the workman’s wage was almost _nil_. This gave to the dwellers

in those happy regions a first advantage over the tribes condemned

to win a laborious existence from the dry soil of the islands and

mountain-chains of Southern Europe.

In a great bee-hive like modern China, where men swarm in countless

millions, work is not only done cheaper, it is done better than among

the poor and scanty tribes that peopled the shores and narrow valleys

of Greece and Italy in those remote days when Memphis and Babylon were

still great capitals. These small clans of fishermen and woodmen, of

shepherds and agriculturists, were cut off from one another by lofty

ridges, which were often to be crossed only by difficult and dangerous

paths. A happy chance or a well directed effort of thought might lead

one of them to discover some technical secret, but a long time would

elapse before the invention would cross the mountains and simplify

the toil of the neighbouring tribes. In that western world which

remained so restless until the eleventh or tenth century before our

era, it constantly happened that a tribe was bitten by a kind of mania

to seek for a new and more favourable home. These displacements put

an end to labour for a time, and brought about shocks and conflicts

by which development was arrested and settled questions reopened. A

canton sacked or a few villages destroyed was enough to put an end to

some promising invention or to destroy the memory of some successful

process. No conquest over natural difficulties was final.

It was quite otherwise in those ancient states which had a population

firmly rooted in the soil, and of industrious, sedentary habits. In

such societies there was no danger of a rude interruption to a work

begun. When some artizan more skilful or imaginative than his fellows

improved the tools of his trade, the knowledge of those improvements

spread rapidly from workshop to workshop. Even in the cities of the

modern East those who follow a particular trade live together in their

own quarter of the town. In Constantinople and Cairo, in Damascus

and Bagdad, there is the armourers’ quarter, the jewellers’ quarter,

that of the saddlers, the tailors, and of many others. These quarters

have their own special entrances, their officers and watchmen; in the

days of antiquity as now, they formed so many small industrial towns,

where, thanks to the heredity of professions and the constancy of

habits and fashions, the prosperity of the manual arts was not at the

mercy of political accident. Wars and changes of dynasty might cause

a moment of stagnation and dulness, but such troubles did not prevent

the apprentice from receiving from his master the instruction in his

trade that he would afterwards pass on to his successors, with all that

he himself could add to the legacy of the past. There were no sudden

interruptions, no solutions of continuity: all that was found was kept;

nothing was forgotten or wasted.

Until the still distant day when Ionia, Greece, and Italy should also

have their populous cities, Egypt and Chaldæa found themselves in a

very favourable situation compared with the peoples, or rather tribes,

who dwelt on the shores of the Mediterranean. Among the latter none

but those simple industries that could be carried on under the family

roof, and in which the women and children could take their part, were

understood. In the basins of the Nile and the Euphrates there were

real manufactures. Artizans were specially trained and grouped into

corporations; they did not work only in the hours they could spare from

agriculture; they laboured at their trade without interruption from

one end of the year to the other, producing objects which commerce

would afterwards “place” where the demand was brisk. In fact they had

a real, we might almost say a great industry. Beside the machine-fed

industry of modern Europe its output was no doubt small; neither Egypt

nor Chaldæa had steam, nor electricity, nor the “spinning-jenny;” but

their organization and division of labour gave them a superiority

over their contemporaries no less crushing than that by which modern

Europe is enabled to flood the whole surface of this planet with her

manufactures, and to substitute them for the local industries. In

every little village of Anatolia I found the cottons of Manchester and

the blue plates of Creil; they could be bought cheaper than native

pottery and textiles. It was the same in antiquity. In the islands and

on the coasts of the Ægæan, there was no competition to be feared by

the faïence, the vessels of terra-cotta or metal, the textiles, the

arms, the ivories, the glass, the utensils of every shape and kind sent

out in such inexhaustible quantities from the workshops of Egypt and

Chaldæa.

We must endeavour to point out the channels by which the overflow

from this rich and varied production reached the people by whom it

was consumed. And we have a distinction to make between the various

foreign countries to which it was conveyed. We have, on the one

hand, those countries that were in direct contact with Egypt and

Chaldæa, such as Syria, for instance, which dealt immediately with

the manufacturers of the Delta and the Euphrates valley. On the other

there were distant clients who scarcely knew the name of the country

from which their merchandize was brought. They made their purchases at

second or even third hand. The influence of the two great primitive

civilizations was naturally felt with less force at a distance than

when close at hand. In the case of next-door neighbours, it no doubt

favoured the progress of industry and the creation of wealth, but at

the same time it must have weighed like an incubus on the national

genius and imagination; by furnishing it with a complete repertory

of forms and types it must have discouraged it and prevented it from

becoming truly creative. On the other hand, with those who only came

under that influence when attenuated, and, as it were, refracted by

interposed media, the effect was quite different. It gave useful

hints and suggestions, stimulating the spirit at the same time as

it dispensed with the necessity of long periods of experiment and

uncertainty. In the latter case originality was not crushed in the bud;

it was enabled to develop itself with complete freedom.

These differences will be pointed out hereafter as they occur, but it

was necessary to insist before going any further on the common features

presented and the similar parts played by Egypt and Chaldæa in all

the earlier ages of antiquity. These two peoples, who were so long

practically forgotten, were the real founders of western civilization.

To be ignorant of this capital fact or to shut one’s eyes to it for

a moment is to lose one’s grasp of the true rise and subsequent

development of the system which is in course of completion under our

eyes and with our help.

Five or six centuries seem to have been sufficient for Greece and Italy

to raise themselves to the pitch of refinement and culture suggested to

us by the names of Pericles, of Alexander and Augustus. At first one

is not amazed by this singular phenomenon. One thinks a satisfactory

reason has been given for it by a few general statements as to the

genius of those gifted races. But criticism has now grown to be more

exacting. It has more precise observations and more numerous points of

comparison at its command. It knows how slowly, especially in the first

steps, collective and successive works are accomplished. It seeks for

an explanation of such rapid progress in the duration and importance of

the preliminary work carried out with untiring patience by the older

societies, the laborious forerunners of the brilliant favourites of

history. Without this long preparing of the ground, lasting at least

some two or three thousand years, without the countless efforts of

invention and the prolific activity that filled up that period, how

much longer the nations of Southern Europe would have been in shaking

themselves free of the barbarism in which Scythians and Sclaves, Celts

and Germans were steeped until they were conquered by Rome. What

turn things might have taken we cannot even guess, but of this we

may be sure, that the world would not have witnessed when it did the

marvellous and almost sudden appearance of the flowers of classic art

and poetry.

Now the industries of Egypt and Chaldæa won their great prestige, and

the works with which they flooded all the countries within their reach

awakened the plastic genius of the western races, because behind them

there was an art, an art not without faults, but yet with no little

originality and grandeur.

In both countries architecture had created buildings whose wealth

of decoration corresponded to their ample size, and gave point to

the significance of their plans. The ambition of Chaldæa was no less

high than that of Egypt. For size and general magnificence its great

edifices might be looked upon as worthy rivals to those of the Nile

valley, and yet we cannot say they deserve to be put quite on the same

level. In the vast plains of the Euphrates those staged towers whose

restoration we have attempted had a singular importance; they amazed

the eye with their size, and pleased it with their brilliant colours;

but they fell short of the nobility, the mysterious beauty and dignity

of the Egyptian temples. Temples, sanctuaries, or palaces, all the

great structures of Mesopotamia seem to us to suffer from a certain

heaviness and want of variety, and they had another great fault. They

bore in their bosoms the seeds of their own rapid dissolution. Unlike

the halls of Carnac and Luxor they had no defences against the action

of time and the violence of man.

The Chaldæan architect must, then, be put below his Egyptian rival,

and the real cause of his inferiority, as we have already explained,

is to be looked for in the defects of the only material in which his

conceptions could be carried out. That material was brick, brick either

burnt in the kiln, or dried in the sun, with which any conception may

be realized but one in which delicate mouldings and slender columns

play a conspicuous part.

In the case of sculpture the balance hangs about level. The two schools

rendered living forms, and especially those of mankind, in different

ways, but their merits have seemed to us to be distinct rather than

very unequal. In one we have found a more delicate feeling for line,

for grace and refinement of contour; in the minutest statuettes as in

the most gigantic colossi, we have tasted the charm of that proud and

smiling serenity that is expressed as much in attitude and gesture as

in the face. In the other we are chiefly struck by energy of modelling

and power of movement. We have estimated these qualities of force and

vigour at their full price, and we have pointed out that the form

of man occupies a far more important place in the religious art of

Chaldæa than in that of Egypt. In its more frankly anthropomorphic

character it has seemed to us an advance upon that Egyptian sculpture

which put the heads of crocodiles, hawks and hippopotamuses on the

shoulders of its gods. And yet we have been obliged to acknowledge

that the natural conditions were in some respects unfavourable to the

development of Chaldæo-Assyrian art. Their funerary rites did not

demand the absolute fidelity which made the early Egyptian sculptors

such admirable portraitists. In the absence of such compulsion the

Mesopotamian sculptors created general types rather than individual

figures, and their art always had a more or less conventional character

in consequence. Its progress was also hindered by the barrier of opaque

drapery that was interposed between the artist and his model. In his

figures of animals we may see how great his genius for the expression

of life, form, and movement really was, and in all imitative qualities

they leave his figures of men far behind. Nothing in the world can make

up for the absence of that patient study of the nude, on which all

really great sculpture is founded.

It is because Mesopotamian art never studied at this elementary school,

and never mastered these foundations of all plastic skill, that such of

its productions as border on what we call the industrial arts, never

shook themselves clear of a certain heaviness of hand and a certain

monotony of effect. These defects are easily accounted for; a robe--and

especially a straight and clinging robe like that of Assyria--hides all

refinements of modelling, and all the grace of those undulating lines

by which the human form is bounded. If, as in Egypt, the sculptor and

painter had made all the beauties of the human figure, and especially

the graceful contours of woman, familiar to every eye, artizans would

have known how to give more subtle and agreeable forms to their

creations, and would have been compelled to give them. A knowledge of

the nude would have enabled them to make countless variations on a

single theme, and to use it again and again without danger of tiring

the eye. All robed figures have a certain mutual resemblance, however

little there may be in common in their movement and costume. In at

least one Assyrian relief we have been obliged to leave it in doubt as

to whether a life-size figure is that of a god or a goddess.

On the other hand, two nude figures may be almost identical in attitude

and gesture, but even a careless eye will not confound one with the

other. In one the bony framework and muscular development will be more

strongly marked than in the other. Sex, age, habits of work or repose,

will leave their unmistakable marks upon the fleshy contours. The

artist’s difficulties begin when he attempts to record all the shades

of form, and, no doubt, he can never be successful in such an attempt

until he has accumulated no little stock of professional knowledge and

skill. But it is something when he begins to perceive those shades, and

to understand their interest and value. In endeavouring to reproduce

them he feels his hand become lighter and more adroit; in time he will

set himself to imitate nature in all her marvellous variety, and in

doing so he will be led to perceive how she never repeats herself, how

she gives to each individual his own distinctive physiognomy at the

same time that she never confuses the identity of type or species. Put

on his mettle by this discovery, he will become more ingenious and more

inventive every day. Having learnt how scarcely perceptible variations

of line and proportion suffice to distinguish between one being and

another, he will accustom himself to give variety to his creations

by the same process; however slight the changes may be between his

successive productions, each will be a new and unique creation in the

fullest sense of the word. Thenceforward the limits of his art will

be as wide as those of nature herself. Once it has entered upon the

road thus pointed out, it may indeed encounter certain difficulties

of execution, but it need fear no longer a relapse into the worst of

faults, monotony and uniformity.

Unlike the Egyptians, and, as we shall see, still more unlike the

Greeks, the Chaldæans had to dispense with this invaluable training.

Hence the inferiority of their art. That their imaginations were

lively enough is proved chiefly by the decoration of their carpets and

embroidered stuffs, on which all the resources of line are developed

with unfailing taste and fancy; on which vegetable and animal forms,

both real and fantastic, are mingled with the figures of men and

supernatural genii in a fashion that is always graceful and full of

variety. But the variety is more apparent than real. Every human figure

is robed and practically identical in appearance; the artist was

without the resources enjoyed by his Egyptian rival for modifying his

theme without destroying its fundamental character.

Compelled to judge of these embroideries from a small number of

examples handed down to us on the reliefs, we are ready to admire

them for the diversity of their motives, but perhaps if we had a

larger collection we should find some particular group or figure

frequently reappearing. But even if it were so it ought not to lead

us to condemn the taste of the artizans who made them. On stuffs used

for garments, on carpets spread upon floors and tapestries hung upon

walls, repetitions were not out of place. The motive was not looked at

for itself, for its value as an isolated creation, but for the effect

produced by its continual repetition. The eye receives a certain kind

of pleasure from the constant return of a single arrangement of line

or harmony of colour; and an element which, taken by itself, would

have but little value, may be used to build up rich and graceful

compositions. This is sufficiently proved by the ceramics and textiles

of the modern East, such as the faïence of Persia, the shawls of India,

the embroidered silks of China and the porcelain of Japan.

[Illustration: FIG. 260.--Egyptian mirror, reduced by

about a fifth of its actual size. Louvre. Drawn by Saint-Elme

Gautier.]

The same law does not hold good in all the sumptuary arts. Take jewelry

and gold or silversmith’s work, for instance. The aim is no longer

to decorate and illumine a surface of indefinite extent, it is to

create an object with a distinct unity and form of its own. The

great resource of the worker in precious metal lies, therefore, in

those figures of men and animals to which nature has given a clearly

defined shape and special features by which one is distinguished

from the other. In this respect the goldsmith is the pupil of the

sculptor. He reproduces, on a smaller scale, the types created by

the statue-maker, and multiplies his copies with the freedom of hand

imposed by the necessity for meeting a wider demand. It matters little

that in one time or place these imitations are made with less care and

refinement of taste than in another; the principle is always the same.

In the industrial arts, at least in those in which the figure plays

an important _rôle_, we find nothing that cannot be referred to

some model created by the same people in their fine arts. The work of

the artizan is the reduction, the reflection--enfeebled, indeed, but

faithful so far as it goes--of the work of the artist.

In glancing over the productions of Chaldæo-Assyrian armourers,

jewellers, workers in metal, cabinetmakers, turners, &c., we shall,

then, feel no surprise at the introduction and skilful treatment of

animals and parts of animals, for we have already shown that the

Assyrian sculptors were, perhaps, the foremost _animaliers_ of all

antiquity. On the other hand, in the whole of those objects which have

taught us some of the favourite motives of the Assyrian ornamentist,

we have hardly encountered a human figure; at the most we can only

point to one or two objects on which it was used. In the throne of

Sennacherib (see above, Fig. 47) it was in reality no more than a

symbol. It was not introduced for its own sake, but in order to suggest

a particular idea to the mind of the spectator. And as for the earrings

moulded into the shape of a child (Figs. 251 and 252), we are not at

all sure that they belong to the place and period to which they are

ascribed.

But although we are met on all sides by animals and by fragments from

their bodies, by serpents, rams, goats, bulls, lions (most frequent of

all), griffins and other fictitious monsters, we are distressed by the

absence of those figures of men, still more of women, which occur so

continually on the articles of furniture, on the domestic utensils, on

the metal vases and the jewelry of the Egyptians. Wearied by the very

wealth of an art so rich and so marvellously inventive, we have given,

perhaps, in our volumes upon Egypt, examples too few and chosen from an

insufficient number of classes; but our readers cannot have forgotten

the graceful girlish forms carved on the handles of the perfume spoons,

here stepping delicately among the stems of papyrus, there with their

slender limbs extended like those of a swimmer.[461] We may be allowed,

perhaps, to refresh the memories of readers who have dwelt so long

with us in Assyria, by placing before them two more examples from the

marvellous art wealth of the Nile valley (Figs. 260 and 261).

These two examples do not belong to the same class as the perfume

spoons, but their ruling idea is the same. They are mirrors with bronze

handles. In both cases these handles are modelled in the shape of nude

women or young girls, the slender proportions recalling the sculptures

and paintings of the New Empire. In the first the right arm hangs by

the side while the left is crossed upon the chest; the head alone,

protected by the thick hair or wig, supports the mirror (Fig. 260). In

the second both arms are raised as high as the shoulders and the hands

bent upwards from the wrists to meet a depressed cross-piece to which

the polished disk is attached (Fig. 261). In both cases the modelling

of limbs and torso is a little dry and summary; but the motive is well

imagined, and in spite of defects in detail the whole is characterized

by style and grace.

Nothing of the kind has been found, or, to all appearance, will ever

be found, in the goldsmith’s work of Babylon and Nineveh. As new

excavations are made, we shall, no doubt, find new arrangements,

but it is very unlikely that anything yet to be discovered can

essentially modify the idea we have been led to form of the tastes and

habits of Mesopotamian industry. We are sufficiently familiar with

Chaldæo-Assyrian sculpture, both in its strength and its weakness,

to thoroughly understand the gaps which must always have existed in

the storehouse to which the artizan went for his ideas. The artizan

followed the example of the sculptor; he gave his attention to the

bas-relief and it repaid his trouble. Among the figures sprinkled

with so lavish a hand over stone and wood, ivory and metal, some were

traced with the point or engraved in intaglio; others were beaten up

with the hammer or chisel so as to stand in gentle salience above their

bed. But, speaking generally, no attempt was made to model the nude

figures of men or women in the round. No suspicion of the wealth

of suggestion latent especially in the latter, seems to have dawned

upon the Assyrian mind. If we except a few terra-cotta statuettes, the

artist who in some way gave proof of so much resource, of so much skill

and ingenuity, seems never to have felt the charm of female beauty. The

beauty of woman is the light of nature, the perennial joy of the eye;

to exclude it from the ideal world created by the plastic arts is to

condemn that world to a perpetual twilight, to cast over it a veil of

chill monotony and sadness.

[Illustration: FIG. 261.--Egyptian mirror, actual size.

Louvre. Drawn by Saint-Elme Gautier.]

In the arts of all those peoples who received the teachings of Egypt

and Chaldæa, whether at first hand, like the Phœnicians, or at second,

like the Greeks, the two distinct influences can always be traced.

Mesopotamia may be recognized in certain ornamental motives, such as

the “knop and flower,” the rosettes and palmettes, as well as in its

taste for the symmetry given by coupled figures; still more clearly

is it betrayed in motives into which lions and the whole tribe of

fantastic animals are introduced, struggling with and devouring each

other, and occasionally brought to the ground by some individual

dressed in a long gaberdine and crowned with a tiara.

On the other hand, it is to Egypt that our thoughts are turned when

the human body meets our eyes in its unveiled nobility, with all

the variety of attitude and outline its forms imply. The peoples of

Western Asia learnt much in the school of the Chaldæan artist, but

the teaching given by the Egyptian sculptor was of a higher order,

and far better adapted to guide them in the way that leads to those

exquisite creations in which delicacy and certainty of hand are happily

allied with imaginative power. Sooner or later such teaching must have

aroused, in open and inquiring minds, a feeling for beauty like that

felt in her peculiar fashion by Egypt, a feeling to which Greece, when

once put in her right way, gave the fullest expression it has ever

received in marble and bronze.

In order to make good a comparison that no historian of art can avoid,

we have placed ourselves successively at two different points of

view, and from both we have arrived at the same result: as artists

the Egyptians take a higher rank than the Assyrians, than those

constructors who obstinately neglected the column even when they built

with stone, than those sculptors who avoided measuring themselves with

nature, and who shirked her difficulties by draping their figures. But

before thus bringing the two methods and the two ways of looking at

form into opposition, we ought perhaps to have pointed out a difference

in which this inequality is foreshadowed. In all the monarchies of

the East the great monuments were anonymous, or, at least, if a name

was given in the official texts it was not that of the artist who

conceived them, but of the king under whom they were created. It is

not till we arrive at Greece that we find public opinion placing the

work of art and its author so high that the latter feels himself

justified in signing his own creation. But although this practice was

not inaugurated in Egypt, numerous inscriptions bear witness to the

high rank held in Egyptian society by the artists to whom the king

confided the construction and decoration of his buildings.[462] These

men were not only well paid; they received honours which they are

careful to record, and their fame was spread over the whole valley of

the Nile. In the cuneiform texts we have so far failed to discover the

name of a single architect or sculptor, and it does not appear that a

reason for the omission is to be sought in the peculiar conditions of

Chaldæo-Assyrian epigraphy. Although Babylon and Nineveh have not left

us thousands of epitaphs like those rescued from the sands of Egypt,

we possess many private contracts and agreements in which information

similar to that afforded in other countries by the sepulchral steles is

to be found. Neither there nor elsewhere do we find a trace of anything

corresponding to the conspicuous rank held under the Theban princes of

the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties, by a Semnat, a Bakhenkhonsou,

or any other of the royal architects whose names have been handed down

to us in the texts.

It is unlikely that this difference will vanish when more texts have

been translated. The inequality in the position of the two artists is

readily explained by the unequal development of the two arts. Egyptian

architecture is learned and skilful after a fashion quite distinct

from that of Mesopotamia. It is not content, like the latter, to

spread itself out laterally and to heap up huge masses of earth, to be

afterwards clothed in thin robes of enamelled faïence, of painted and

sculptured alabaster. In spite of their rich decorations, palaces like

those of Nimroud and Khorsabad never quite threw off their appearance

of gigantic improvisations. Their plans once determined--and Assyrian

plans only varied within very narrow limits--the method of roofing,

flat or vaulted, fixed upon for each apartment, all the rest was only

a matter of foremen and their legions of half-skilled workmen. At the

very least we may say that the architect who superintended the building

of a Ninevite palace had a far easier task than his rival of Thebes or

Memphis. The arrangement of porticoes and hypostyle halls demanded much

thought and taste, and, if the work when finished was at all to come up

to the ideas of its creator, the workmen who cut the graceful capitals

and sturdy architraves from the huge masses of granite, sandstone, or

limestone, had to be supervised with an unremitting care unknown and

uncalled for in Mesopotamia. The architects who raised the colonnades

of Karnak and the Ramesseum for Seti and his famous son, were the

Ictinus and Mnesicles of the East. We may become better acquainted than

we are now with the monumental history of Mesopotamia, but we shall

never find within her borders artists worthy to be placed on a level

with those Theban masters.

And if we compare the sculptors of Thebes and Nineveh, we shall

arrive at the same conclusion. On the one hand we find artists who,

whether they worked for the tomb or the temple, in the most stubborn

or the most kindly materials, chiselled images that either delight us

with their simple truth, or impress us with their noble gravity and

colossal size. A whole nation of statues issued from those Egyptian

studios through which we have conducted our readers, many of them

real masterpieces in their way. In Mesopotamia, after early attempts

that seemed full of promise, the art of modelling statues was soon

abandoned. In the glorious days of Nineveh, all that was required of

the sculptor was a talent, we might say a knack, for cutting in the

soft gypsum or limestone realistic illustrations of the conquests and

hunts of the reigning prince. He had to turn out purely historical and

anecdotic sculpture by the yard, or rather by the mile; while in Egypt

we see the whole nation, with its kings and gods, revive to a second

life in those forceful and sincere portraits of which so many thousands

have come down to our day.

In placing the distinctive features of the individual upon wood or

stone, the sculptor did something more than flatter the vanity of

the great; he prolonged their existence, he helped them to keep off

the assaults of death and to defy annihilation. From Pharaoh to the

humblest fellah, every one had to conciliate the man who possessed such

a quasi-magic power, and from whom such an all-important service might

have to be demanded. The common people bought ready-made figures in

a shop, on which they were content to cut their names, but the kings

and nobles commissioned their statues from the best artists of the

time, and some reflex from the respect and admiration surrounding the

sovereign must have fallen upon the man to whom he confided the task of

giving perpetuity to his royal features, in those statues that during

the whole of his reign would stand on the thresholds and about the

courts of the temple, and on the painted walls of that happy abode to

whose shadows he would turn when full of years and eager for rest.

If, before the advent of the Greeks, there were any people in the

ancient world in whom a passion for beauty was innate, they were the

people of Egypt. The taste of Chaldæa was narrower, less frank and less

unerring; she was unable, at least in the same degree, to ally force

with grace; her ideal had less nobility, and her hand less freedom

and variety. It is by merits of a different kind that she regains the

advantage lost in the arts. If her artists fell short of their rivals,

her _savants_ seem to have been superior to those of Egypt. In

their easy-going and well-organized life, the Egyptians appear to have

allowed the inquiring side of their intellects to go to sleep. Morality

seems to have occupied them more than science; they made no great

efforts to think.

The Chaldæans were the reverse of all this. We have reason to believe

that they were the first to ask themselves the question upon which

all philosophy is founded, the question as to the true origin of

things. Their solution of the problem was embodied in the cosmogonies

handed down to us in fragments by the Greek writers, and although

their conceptions have only been received through intermediaries by

whom their meaning has often been altered and falsified, we are still

enabled to grasp their fundamental idea through all the obscurities

due to a double and sometimes triple translation, and that idea was

that the world was created by natural forces, by the action of causes

even now at work. The first dogma of the Babylonian religion was the

spontaneous generation of things from the liquid element.[463]

The first vague presentiment and rough sketch, as it were, of certain

theories that have made a great noise in the world in our own day,

may be traced, it is asserted, in the cosmogonic writings of ancient

Chaldæa. Even the famous hypothesis of Darwin has been searched for

and found, if we may believe the searchers. In any case it seems

well established that the echo of these speculations reached the

Ionian sages who were the fathers of Greek philosophy. Their traces

are perceptible, some scholars declare, in the _Theogony_ of

Hesiod. Possibly it is so; there are certainly some striking points

of resemblance; but where the influence of such ideas is really and

clearly evident is in those philosophic poems that succeeded each other

about the sixth century B.C., all under the same title: _concerning

nature_ (περὶφύσεως).[464] These poems are now lost, but judging

from what we are told by men who read them in the original, the

explanation they gave of the creation of the world and of the first

appearance upon it of organized beings, differed only in its more

abstract character from that proposed many centuries before, and under

the form of a myth, by the priests of Chaldæa. If we may trust certain

indications, these bold and ingenious doctrines crossed over from Ionia

to the mainland of Greece, and reached the ears of such writers as

Aristophanes and Plato.

It does the greatest honour to Chaldæa that its bold speculations

should have thus contributed to awaken the lofty intellectual ambitions

and the scientific curiosity of Greece, and perhaps she may have

rendered the latter country a still more signal service in teaching her

those methods by whose use man draws himself clear of barbarism and

starts on the road to civilization; a single example of this will be

sufficient. It is more than forty years since Bœckh, and Brandis after

him, proved that all the measures of length, weight and capacity used

by the ancients, were correlated in the same fashion and belonged to

one scale. Whether we turn to Persia, to Phœnicia or Palestine, to

Athens or Rome, we are constantly met by the sexagesimal system of the

Babylonians. The measurements of time and of the diurnal passage of the

sun employed by all those peoples, were founded on the same divisions

and borrowed from the same inventors. It is to the same people that

we owe our week of seven days, which, though not at first adopted by

the western nations, ended by imposing itself upon them.[465] As for

astronomy, from a period far away in the darkness of the past it seems

to have been a regular branch of learning in Chaldæa; the Greeks knew

very little about it before the conquests of Alexander; it was more

than a century after the capture of Babylon by the Macedonians that the

famous astrological tables were first utilized by Hipparchus.[466]

In the sequel we shall come upon further borrowings and connections

of this kind, whose interest and importance has never been suspected

by the historian until within the last few years. Take the chief gods

and demi-gods to whom the homage of the peoples of Syria and Asia

Minor was paid, and you will have no difficulty in acknowledging that,

although their names were often changed on the way, Mesopotamia was

the starting place of them all. By highways of the sea as well as

those on land, the peoples established on the eastern shores of the

Mediterranean entered into relations with the tribes of another race

who dwelt on the European coasts of the same sea; they introduced them

to their divinities and taught them the rites by which those divinities

were honoured and the forms under which they were figured. Without

abandoning the gods they worshipped in common with their brother

Aryans, the Greeks adopted more than one of these Oriental deities.

This is not the place to consider the question in detail. We must put

aside for the present both the Cybele of Cappadocia and Phrygia and

that Ephesian Artemis, who, after being domiciled and naturalized in

one of the Hellenic capitals, so obstinately and so long preserved

her foreign characteristics; we must for the moment forget Aphrodite,

that goddess of a different fortune whose name is enough to call up

visions of not a few masterpieces of classic art and poetry. Does not

all that we know of this daughter of the sea, of her journeys, of the

first temples erected to her on the Grecian coasts and of the peculiar

character of her rites and attributes--does not all this justify us in

making her a lineal descendant of Zarpanitu, of Mylitta and Istar, of

all those goddesses of love and motherhood created by the imagination

and worshipped by the piety of the Semites of Chaldæa? On the other

hand the more we know of Egypt the less inclined are we to think that

any of the gods of her Pantheon were transported to Greece and Italy,

at least in the early days of antiquity.

Incomplete as they cannot help being, these remarks had to be made.

They will explain why in the scheme of our work we have given similar

places to Chaldæa and Egypt. The artist will always have a predilection

for the latter country, a preference he will find no difficulty in

justifying; but the historian cannot take quite the same view. It is

his special business to weigh the contributions of each nation to the

common patrimony of civilization, and he will understand how it is that

Chaldæa, in spite of the deficiencies of its plastic art, worked more

for others than Egypt and gave more of its substance and life. Hidden

among surrounding deserts the valley of the Nile only opened upon the

rest of the world by the ports on a single short line of frontier.

The basin of the Euphrates was much more easily accessible. It had no

frontier washed by the Mediterranean, but it communicated with that

sea by more numerous routes than Egypt, and by routes whose diversity

enhanced the effect of the examples they were the means of conveying to

the outer world.

It is, to all appearance, to the ancient inhabitants of Mesopotamia

that humanity owes the cultivation of wheat, its chief alimentary

plant.[467] This precious cereal seems to have been a native of the

valleys of the Indus and Euphrates; nowhere else is it found in a wild

state. From those two regions it must have spread eastwards across

India to China, and westwards across Syria into Egypt and afterwards

on to the European continent. From the rich plains where the Hebrew

tradition set the cradle of the human race, the winds carried many

seeds besides those by which men’s bodies have so long been nourished;

the germs of all useful arts and of all mental activities were borne

on their breath like a fertilizing dust. Among those distant ancestors

of whom we are the direct heirs, those ancestors who have left us that

heritage of civilization which grows with every year that passes, there

are none, perhaps, to whom our respect and our filial gratitude are

more justly due than to the ancient inhabitants of Chaldæa.

[Illustration]

ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS.

VOL I.

P. 155.--It was not only as mortar that bitumen was used. Mr.

RASSAM tells us that he found at Abou-Abba (Sippara), in

Chaldæa, a chamber paved with asphalte much in the same fashion as a

modern street in London or Paris (_Proceedings of the Society of

Biblical Archæology_).

P. 200.--From a late communication to the _Society of Biblical

Archæology_ we learn that Mr. RASSAM found the Sippara tablet in the

corner of a room, under the floor; it was inclosed in an inscribed

earthenware box.

P. 242, line 12; for Shalmaneser III. _read_ Shalmaneser II.

P. 266, line 8 from foot: for Plate X. _read_ Plate IX.

P. 305.--Intercourse between the valley of the Nile and that of the

Tigris and Euphrates seems to have begun not sooner than the eighteenth

Egyptian dynasty. To this conclusion we are led both by Egyptian texts

and by the tablets in the library of Assurbanipal. Most of the tablets

are reprints--if we may say so--of texts dating originally from Ur, and

from the time of the ancient Chaldæan monarchy. Now these texts seem to

have been written by a people who knew not Egypt; no mention of that

country is to be found in them. They contain a division of the world

into four regions, in none of which Egypt has a place (SAYCE,

_The Early Relations of Egypt and Babylonia_, in Lepsius’s

_Zeitschrift_, p. 150).

P. 349.--We may here draw attention to an object which may be compared

to that described by M. Clermont Ganneau, both for its intrinsic

character and its probable destination. It is a tablet in brown

limestone, portable, and surmounted by a ring or staple cut in the

material. On one face there is a bas-relief in which the goddess who

occupies the lower register in Péretié’s bronze again appears. She has

the head of a lioness, a snake dangles from each hand, the arms are

outstretched, and two animals, in which LAYARD recognises a

lioness and a sow, hang to her breasts. This goddess stands before an

animal which has a bull’s head in the engraving given by Lajard. But

its feet are those of a horse, and no doubt we should find that the

animal in question was a horse if we could examine the original; but

we do not know what has become of it. If, as there seems reason to

believe, this goddess is an infernal deity, it is easy to understand

why serpents were placed in her hands. These reptiles are the symbols

of resurrection; every year they quit their old skins for new ones.

The object in question is described in detail in the _Recherches sur

le Culte de Vénus_, p. 130, and figured in Plate XVI, Fig. 1. Upon

one of the larger faces of the tablet and upon its edges there are

inscriptions, magic formulæ according to M. Fr. Lenormant.

This tablet was formerly in the cabinet of M. Rousseau, at one time

French consul at Bagdad. It was found in the ruins of Babylon. Size, 24

inches high by 24 inches wide, and 3⅞ inches thick.

P. 384.--In speaking of the excavations made by Sir H. RAWLINSON at

Borsippa, we forgot to mention his paper entitled _On the Birs Nimroud;

or, The Great Temple of Borsippa_ (_Journal of the Royal Asiatic

Society_, vol. xviii. p. 1–32). Paragraphs 1 and 2 give an account

of the excavations, and we regret that we wrote of the religious

architecture of Chaldæa before having read them. Not that they contain

anything to cause us to change our conceptions of the staged towers.

The excavations seem to have been carried on with great care, but they

hardly gave results as complete as they might have done had they been

directed by a thoroughly-trained architect.

VOL. II.

P. 48.--Upon Arvil, the ancient Arbela, and the likelihood of great

discoveries in the mound which there rises 150 feet above the plain,

see a contribution from Sir H. RAWLINSON to the _Journal of

the Royal Asiatic Society_, vol. i. new series, 1865, pp. 190–197.

The mound is at present crowned by a Turkish fort.

P. 176.--Herr FRITZ HOMMEL, one of the few non-French students

of the remains from Tello, is no more inclined than we are to allow

that the igneous rocks from which they are cut were brought from

Egypt. He believes they were won from much nearer quarries, viz., on

the borders of the Arabian plateau (_Die Vorsemitische Kulturen in

Egypten und Babylonien_, pp. 211–223).

Pp. 188–190.--In enumerating the few monuments of Chaldæan sculpture

that we possess over and above those brought home by M. de Sarzec, we

forgot to mention a small Babylonian head in hard alabaster, now in the

Louvre (Fig. 262). Its workmanship resembles that of the two heads from

Tello (Plate VII.), and some of the small heads from the same place. It

is conspicuous for the same frank and decided modelling, but it belongs

to the period when long beards were worn.

P. 202.--To the list of Chaldæan sculptures we should, perhaps, add

the rock-cut relief found by Sir H. RAWLINSON in the district

of Zohab, about fifty leagues from the left bank of the Tigris, and to

the north-west of Bagdad, near the village of Sheikhan. This district

forms a part of the Persian province of Kirmanchah (_Journal of the

Geographical Society_, vol. ix. p. 31). The relief occurs, it seems,

on the high road between Babylon and Ecbatana, in the defile which is

now called _Tak-i-Girrah_, one of the passes leading up through

Mount Zagros to the plateau of Iran. There is a sketch of the relief

from the pencil of Sir H. Rawlinson in the _Five Great Monarchies_

of his brother (vol. iii. p. 7). The king stands with his foot on the

body of a conquered enemy. An individual, probably the royal general,

presents two kneeling captives, who are held by a cord attached to

rings put through their noses. More captives with ropes about their

necks are carved on the kind of plinth upon which the main group is

supported. The whole picture is about two feet wide and five high.

Near it there is an apparently unfinished inscription in Babylonish

cuneiform characters. The Chaldæan origin of the work is confirmed by

the flounces on the general’s robe. In the same neighbourhood there are

ruins which appear to date from a very early period.

[Illustration: FIG. 262.--Fragment of a Chaldæan

statuette. Louvre.]

P. 219.--We have here omitted to draw attention to one of the

differences between the art of the Sargonids and that of the preceding

dynasty. In the figures from Tello and in the bas-reliefs of the time

of Assurnazirpal the sculptor has left the eyeballs smooth (Plate VII.;

Vol. I. Fig. 15; Vol. II, Figs. 43, 64, 113). In the sculptures of the

time of Sargon and his successors, on the other hand, the cornea is

indicated in the figures both of men and animals, by a clearly traced

circle (Vol. I, Figs. 22 and 25; Vol. II. Fig. 118 and Plate X.). It

was, no doubt, the desire to give a more lifelike expression to the

physiognomy that led the artist thus to modify his proceeding. There

are a few figures in which the desire for imitative truth is pushed

even farther. In a bas-relief in the Louvre there is an eagle-headed

deity in which not only the cornea but the pupil also is marked by a

smaller circle within the first. See the _De l’Expression des Yeux dans

la Statuaire_ of Doctor DEBROU (_Correspondant_, April 10th, 1883). His

special knowledge has enabled him to make more than one remark upon the

representation of the eye in ancient and modern sculpture, to which

writers upon art would do well to pay attention.

P. 398.--On the subject of the female divinity whose worship was so

widely spread over the whole East and over the Mediterranean coasts,

the dissertation of Herr GELZER, _Zum Cultus der Assyrischen

Aphrodite_ (Lepsius’s _Zeitschrift_, 1875, p. 127) may be

consulted with profit.

* * * * *

We received the admirable _Guide to the Kuyundjik Gallery_,

published by the authorities of the British Museum, too late to make

use of it for our work. It joins to an exhaustive account of the

bas-reliefs of Sennacherib and Assurbanipal a description of the

smaller objects contained in the glass cases of the same gallery. Many

of these objects date from a very early period, and many were found

in Chaldæa. Some of the more interesting texts are translated by Mr.

Pinches; of others he gives a summary. The body of the work is preceded

by an introduction giving such details of Assyrian history, religion

and manners as are required by the general student. When a similar

_brochure_ is forthcoming for the Nimroud gallery--and the energy

of the English officials is a guarantee that we shall not have to wait

long for it--visitors to the museum will be in possession of all that

is necessary to enable them to profit to the fullest extent by its

superb collection.

[Illustration]

INDEX.

A

Abd-al-Medjid, Sultan, ii. 39.

Abdul-Hamid, ii. 76.

Abou-Abba (or Sippara), i. 200.

Abou-Sharein, i. 157, 190, 262; ii. 34.

Abraham, i. 15, 199.

Abydenus, i. 51;

spoken of by Eusebius, 57.

Abydos, on the Hellespont, ii. 220.

Accad, i. 14, 21, 59.

Acheron, i. 354.

Adar (Saturn?), i. 73.

Adrammelech, i. 103.

Agbatana, _see_ Ecbatana.

Ahmes II., ii. 339.

Ahura-Mazda, i. 88.

Alabaster, found near Mossoul, i. 120;

its distribution, 121;

its constitution, 121;

its characteristics as a material for the sculptor, ii. 110.

Alabastron, ii. 301.

Alexander the Great, i. 54; ii. 382.

Alexander Polyhistor, i. 51.

Allat, i. 83, 345.

Alphabet, invention of, i. 22.

Altaï, i. 21.

Altars, their characteristic forms, i. 236;

with battlements, 255;

circular, 256;

sarcophagus-shaped, 256.

Amanus, ii. 340.

Amber, its absence from Mesopotamian remains, ii. 362.

Amen, i. 78, 79.

_Ament_, the Assyrian, i. 345.

Amiaud, M., i. 361.

Amoor, i. 19.

Amphora, ii. 300.

Amraphel, i. 36.

Amulets, ii. 251.

_Anabasis_ quoted, i. 361.

Anaïtis, _see_ Oannes.

Animals, grotesque and fantastic, in Assyrian Art, ii. 167–173;

on the seals, ii. 279.

Anthemius, i. 172.

Antioch, ii. 286.

Antiochus-Epiphanes, i. 33.

Aphrodite, ii. 398.

_Apollonius of Tyana_, i. 299.

Apsou (or Apason), i. 83.

Arade, ii. 265.

Aramaic, or Aramæan, came into common use with the second Chaldæan

Empire, i. 18.

Aram-Naharaim, i. 3.

Arbeles, Arvil (or Ervil), i. 6; ii. 48.

Arch, frequent use of, i. 132, 221;

invented in Chaldæa, 222;

at Mugheir, 222;

in the hanging gardens at Babylon, 223;

in Sargon’s gateways, 224;

in the sewers of the palaces, 227.

Archivolt, enamelled, at Khorsabad, i. 290.

Arioch, i. 36.

Aristophanes, ii. 397.

Aristotle, i. 71;

his _Politics_ quoted in reference to the size of Babylon,

ii. 56.

Arithmetic, Chaldæan, i. 68;

origin of the sexagesimal system, 68.

Armenia, annexed by Assyria, i. 7.

Arms, ii. 343.

Arrian, his Indian history, i. 57.

Artaxerxes Mnemon, i. 90.

Artists, their social position in Mesopotamia, ii. 394.

Aryans, said to compose part of the early Chaldæan population,

i. 18.

Aryballos, ii. 306.

Asia Minor, ii. 172.

Ass, the wild, in Assyrian sculpture, ii. 150.

Asshur, the builder of Nineveh, i. 14.

Assur, i. 83;

the Assyrian god _par excellence_, 84;

fell with Nineveh, 88.

Assurbanipal, i. 36, 44;

receives the homage of Gyges, king of Lydia, 44;

his cruelty, 47;

patron of literature and the arts, 47;

his library, 47;

numerous remains of sculpture dating from his reign, ii. 236.

Assurbilkala, ii. 101, 203, 289.

Assuredilani, i. 51.

Assurnazirpal, i. 42;

his statue in the round, ii. 126.

Assyria, its true boundaries, i. 7;

its successive capitals, 7;

its size, 7;

consolidation of its supremacy, 41;

first A. empire, 41;

second A. empire, 41;

expeditions into Armenia, Cappadocia, and Syria, 41;

strictly a military monarchy, 96;

its _régime_, 103;

Assyrian monarchy, solidity of the succession, 103;

characteristics of the Assyrian race, 105;

cruelty of the Assyrian kings, 105–7;

luxury of _do._, 105–7;

constitution of the Assyrian nation, 111;

comparative insignificance of civilian element, 112.

Assyro-Chaldæan language, the, i. 53.

Astarte, i. 345.

Astragali, i. 206.

Astrology, i. 65;

the forerunner of real astronomy, 67.

_Athenæum_ quoted, i. 317.

Aturia, a variant of Assyria, i. 6.

Auben (or Auben-Ra), ii. 120.

Augustus, ii. 382.

B

Baal worshipped in Judah and Israel as well as Tyre and Sidon,

i. 16.

_Baalazar_, ii. 336.

Babel, i. 14, 53.

_Bab-i-Houmaioun_, ii. 72.

Babil, i. 130, 154;

its identity discussed, 384; ii. 35.

_Babooshes_, i. 238.

Babylon, age of its premiership, i. 38;

more tenacious of life than Nineveh, 54;

etymology of the name, 86;

natural elements of its prosperity, 92;

superiority of its situation over that of Nineveh, 93;

an “eternal city,” ii. 53;

its defences, 53;

incomplete nature of the explorations that have been carried out

on its site, 55;

its size discussed, 56–59;

the stone bridge, 57;

height of the walls, 63.

Bactriana, metals brought from, i. 125.

Bagdad, i. 40, 54.

Bahr-ul-nejef, ii. 176.

Bakhenkhonsou, ii. 394.

Balawat, gates of, i. 194;

steles figured on, 196;

standards figured on, 195;

their discovery by Mr. Rassam, 242; ii. 51, 73, 118, 210.

Baldricks, how coloured in the reliefs, ii. 247.

_Baruch_ quoted, ii. 89.

Bas-reliefs, defective methods of fixing them, i. 265.

Bassorah, i. 8, 38.

Battering-ram, used by the Assyrians, ii. 64.

Battlements, i. 248;

coloured ornament upon them, 254;

their effect against an Eastern sky, 254.

Bavian, carved rocks at, i. 263;

sculptures at, ii. 225;

description of the valley, 226.

Beards, their significance, ii. 136.

Beauchamp, de, his account of a room in the Kasr, i. 281.

_Beharel_, ii. 336.

Behistan, i. 88.

Bel, i. 78, 83;

supreme in Chaldæa, 86;

temple of, at Babylon, ii. 201.

Bell, artist, drowned at Bavian, ii. 230.

Bellino, cylinder of, ii. 61.

Bel-Merodach, his sepulchral chamber, i. 379.

Beltis (_see_ Istar), i. 78.

Beni-Hassan, i. 208.

Benndorf quoted, i. 357.

Berosus quoted by LENORMANT, i. 2;

quoted by RAWLINSON, 4, 15;

his _Medic_ dynasty, 36;

native Chaldæan dynasty, 36;

his “Arab Kings,” 41, 57, 64;

the decorations of the Temple of Bel, 287;

his account of the origin of things quoted, ii. 270.

Beyrout, ii. 231.

Birch, Dr., quoted, ii. 120, 306, 311;

his opinion on the ivories from Assyria, 320, 339.

Birs-Nimroud, i. 130;

its identity discussed, 384; ii. 35.

_Bit-Saggatou_, i. 379.

Bitumen, its use as mortar, i. 155;

where found, 155;

used to attach glazed bricks to the surface of the walls, 285.

Black stone, Lord Aberdeen’s, i. 211.

Boaz, ii. 70.

Bœckh, ii. 397.

Borsip (or Borsippa), i. 38, 53.

Boscawen, ii. 232, 345.

Botta quoted, i. 157, 175;

his opinion as to the use of columns, 179, 244, 259;

glazed bricks, 294;

his opinion as to Assyrian use of colour, ii. 245.

Brandis, ii. 397.

Bréal, Michel, quoted, i. 32.

Brewster, Sir D., ii. 306, 308.

Bricks, process of manufacture of, i. 115;

system of construction in, 116;

made in Chaldæa at a very early period, 117;

their shape, 117;

their size, 117;

their inscriptions, 118;

convex-sided B. at Abou-Sharein, 118;

dangers of crude B. as a building material, 156;

always clothed in some other material in the palaces, 271;

quantity of enamelled B. to be found in Babylonia, 281;

enamelled B. of Assyria inferior to those of Chaldæa, 281;

glazed B. in the British Museum, 281;

enamelled B. found by George Smith at Nimroud, 293.

Bridge, at Babylon, ii. 57.

Bronze, its use in the palaces of the king of Babylon, according

to Philostratus, i. 299.

Broussa, i. 289.

Balls, winged, ii. 81.

Battons, or walking-sticks, ii. 357.

Bracelets, ii. 356.

Bumados, ii. 225.

Buvariia, i. 156, 371.

Byblos, i. 56.

C

Cabul, ii. 374.

_Caillou Michaux_, the, i. 30; ii. 4, 197–8.

Cairo compared to Babylon, ii. 59.

Calah, i. 14, 42;

to be identified with Nimroud, 314.

Callisthenes, i. 71.

Calneh, i. 14.

Campania, engraved bowls found there, ii. 339.

Candolle, A. de, ii. 399.

_Canephoros_ found near Bagdad, ii. 116.

Capitals, i. 205.

Cappadocia, annexed by Assyria, i. 7; ii. 236.

Carpets, probable identity of the patterns on modern Kurdish

carpets with those made in antiquity, i. 289; ii. 293.

Cartoons, used by the designers of the glazed brick decorations,

i. 285.

Caucasus, metals brought from the, i. 125.

Causeways, paved, ii. 74.

Cavaniol, H., quoted, i. 151.

Cedars from Lebanon, used by Assyria, i. 123.

Cemeteries, drainage of the C. in Lower Chaldæa, i. 341;

their contents, 342.

Ceramics, etymology of the word, i. 115.

Chabouillet, his _Catalogue des Camées_ quoted, ii. 90.

Chafing-dishes, ii. 323.

Chaldæa, primitive civilisation, i. 1;

its size, 7;

ethnic elements of primitive C., 16;

its early population, 17–21;

second C. empire, 52;

sudden storms, 74;

archaic period of its art, ii. 187;

its classic age, 192.

Chaldæan religion, i. 55;

more obscure than that of Egypt, 55;

its derivation from fetishism, 59;

origin of the composite forms of gods, 60;

astronomy compared with that of Egypt, 72;

origin of its idols, 76;

difficulty of establishing a Mesopotamian pantheon, 78;

the composite figures of Egypt and Mesopotamia compared, 79;

anthropomorphism of the Chaldæans franker then than that of the

Egyptians, 80;

premiership of successive gods, 84.

Chaldæans (the priestly sect), described by Diodorus, i. 90;

their archimagus, 91.

Chalybes, ii. 312.

Chamanism, i. 59.

Chariots, war-, ii. 74;

their construction, 75.

Chariot-poles, ii. 344.

Chastity, sacrifice of, at Babylon, i. 89.

Chatra (or shatra), ii. 174.

Chedorlaomer, i. 36.

Chedornakhounta, i. 36.

China, its civilisation compared with those of Egypt and Chaldæa,

ii. 378–380.

Chipiez quoted, i. 220.

Chronology, Chaldæan and Assyrian, i. 36–41.

Choisy, Aug., quoted, i. 172.

Chosroes, i. 171, 185.

Cicero quoted, i. 66, 71.

Cimmerians, i. 44.

Clermont-Ganneau quoted, i. 348; ii. 342.

_Cloaca Maxima_, i. 233.

Cloisonné shapes, ii. 202.

Coffered ceilings, i. 294–304.

Coffins, from Warka and Niffer, ii. 306.

Colour, the use of, in decoration, i. 272;

the use of in the human figures in the reliefs, i. 277.

Columns, their restricted use, i. 132;

their rarity due to want of stone, 200;

their occurrence in the Sippara tablet, 202;

sheathed in bronze, 205;

bases, 214–217;

figured upon gems, ivories, and bronzes, 220.

Commerce, ii. 372.

Composite forms of Assyro-Chaldæan gods, i. 63.

Cones, coloured, used for wall-decoration in Chaldæa, i. 279;

bronze, at Tello, 318;

superseded cylinders as seals, ii. 276.

Confucius, ii. 378.

Corneto, i. 180.

Corundum, ii. 260.

Costume, Chaldæo-Assyrian, ii. 94.

_Courban-Bairam_, feast of, ii. 38.

Courtyards, at Khorsabad, ii. 16, 29.

Cow, the, in Assyrian sculpture, ii. 143.

Creil, ii. 381.

Crenellations, i. 248;

Place’s theory of their origin, 252;

note by editor, 253;

coloured ornament upon them, 254.

Crete, ii. 51.

_Crux Ansata_, ii. 120.

Crystals, used for decorating furniture, ii. 323.

Ctesias, i. 52;

speaks of the Χαλδαίοι, 90;

his account of the walls of Babylon, 282;

his statements as to the size of Babylon, ii. 59;

his statements as to the size of Nineveh, 59;

on the bronze figures of the gods, 202;

his description of the figures on the walls of Babylon, 296.

Ctesiphon, i. 54;

never seems to have been a seat of learning, 57, 93, 223.

Cunaxa, i. 113.

Cuneiform characters, i. 14.

Cush, i. 14.

Cutha, ii. 57.

Cyaxares, i. 50.

Cybele, ii. 398.

Cylinder, commemorative, its discovery at the Birs-Nimroud by Sir

H. Rawlinson, i. 317;

the Phillips C., 317.

Cylinders (seals), i. 56;

their universal use in Babylonia, ii. 251;

collections of, in our Museums, 251;

method of mounting, 255;

of carrying, 256;

their supercession by cones, 276;

rarity of metal cylinders, 280.

Cypriots, their indebtedness to Babylonia for their written

characters, i. 32.

Cyprus, engraved bowls found there, ii. 339.

Cyrus, i. 54.

D

Dado, coloured, at Khorsabad, i. 273.

Dagon, _see_ Oannes.

_Daily Telegraph_, the, its subsidies to Mr. George Smith’s

exploration, ii. 7.

Damascening, ii. 345.

Damascius, i. 58, 83.

Damascus, ii. 231.

Darius, ii. 201, 275.

Decoration, i. 260;

the colours of the painted D., 272;

motives of the coloured D., 274;

colours used at Babylon, 283;

cuneiform characters used decoratively, 284;

use of animal forms in D., 307.

Deecke quoted, i. 32.

Delaporte, bricks brought to Europe by, i. 284.

Deuteronomy quoted, i. 151.

Diamond dust, its use by gem engravers, ii. 260.

Diarbekir, ii. 203.

Diodorus, i. 5, 120;

his vague statements as to height of Babylonian temples, 129;

statement as to destruction of the temple of Bel, 137;

his description of the palaces of Semiramis quoted, ii. 34;

λίθιναι δοκοί, 35;

his statements as to the size of Babylon, 55;

his statement, after Ctesias, as to the size of Nineveh, 60;

his mention of the statue of Bel, ii. 202.

Dionysius Periegetes quoted, i. 299.

Diorite, used by the Chaldæan sculptors, i. 141;

statues from Tello, ii. 175;

fragments found at Tello, 190.

Dioscorides (or Dioscurides), ii. 263.

Disk, the winged, its significance, i. 87.

Dog, the, in Assyrian sculpture, ii. 143.

Dolerite, ii. 175.

Domes, _see_ Vaults.

Domestic architecture, ii. 51.

Doors, their forms, i. 236.

Doorways, importance of, i. 244.

Dour-Saryoukin (or Khorsabad), i. 43, 227;

plan of, 313.

Dowels, metal, used to fix the carved slabs, i. 265.

Drainage, system of, in palaces, i. 227.

Drainpipes in the Chaldæan mounds, i. 158.

Drapery, its effect upon Assyrian sculpture, ii. 286.

Dromedary, the, in Assyrian sculpture, ii. 152.

Dumouzi, i. 83.

Dungi, ii. 259, 266.

E

Earrings, how coloured in the reliefs, ii. 247, 354;

in the form of nude children, ii. 362.

Ecbatana, i. 52;

the colours of its walls, 273.

_Ekimmou_, i. 345.

Elam, i. 35.

Ellasar, i. 36, 39.

_Elselah_, ii. 336.

Embroidery, on the robe of Assurnazirpal, i. 307;

use of animal forms in, 308; ii. 364.

Ephron the Hittite, ii. 70.

Epigenes, i. 71.

Epithets given to the gods, i. 347.

Erech, i. 14, 24; ii. 265.

Esarhaddon, i. 44, 103; ii. 8;

unfinished state of his palace at Nimroud, 8, 40;

his image in the pass of the Lycos, 231;

rarity of sculptures dating from his reign, 236.

“E-schakil,” i. 261.

Esther quoted, ii. 71.

Etana, i. 346.

Etruria, engraved bowls found there, ii. 339.

Euphrates, its inundations, i. 9.

Eusebius, i. 51, 57.

Ezekiel quoted, i. 286; ii. 372, 374.

F

Fergusson, James, defects of his restorations, i. 277.

Finnish compared to the language of early Chaldæa, i. 19.

Firouz-Abad, i. 169.

Flandin, Eugène, his opinion on the roofing question, i. 163;

his opinion as to the polychromy of the Assyrians, ii. 245.

Fly-flappers, ii. 203;

how coloured in the reliefs, 247.

Forks, ii. 351.

Foundation ceremonies, i. 311.

Fountains, at Bavian, ii. 229;

in Asia Minor, their decoration, i. 262.

Fox-Talbot quoted, ii. 159.

Fresnel, ii. 58.

Frieze, of enamelled brick at Khorsabad, i. 283;

of the Parthenon, ii. 106.

Fringes, how represented and coloured, ii. 247.

Furniture, ii. 313;

its magnificence in Assyria, 313;

thrones, 314;

decorative motives, 314–324;

Ivory ornament used upon it, 319;

remains from Van, 319.

Fustel de Coulanges quoted, i. 345.

G

Gailhabaud, i. 180.

Gates, discovered at Nineveh by Layard, ii. 62;

at Khorsabad by Place, 62;

discovery of the Balawat gates by Mr. Rassam, i. 242;

gates at Khorsabad described, ii. 65–72;

use of gates in the East, 69.

Gems, ii. 251;

engraving upon oyster shells and other comparatively soft

materials, 258;

cylinders, 251–280.

Genesis quoted, i. 14, 15, 117, 155, 199; ii. 70.

Ghazir, ii. 225.

Ghunduk, ii. 232.

Glass, the earliest known example of transparent glass, ii. 306;

its early use in Mesopotamia, 306.

Globe, the winged, its significance, i. 87.

Glyptic art, ii. 251–280.

Gobineau, de, ii. 253.

Gold, i. 299;

used for decorating domes, 379.

Gomel, ii. 225.

Goun-goun, i. 39.

Graphic processes, i. 327;

plan from Tello, 327;

disproportion between figures and buildings, 333.

Greeks, the, as travellers and observers, i. 56.

Gudea, bronzes inscribed with his name, ii. 116, 180, 188.

Guillaume, E., quoted, ii. 128.

Guyard, Stanislas, his agreements with M. Halévy on the origin of

the Chaldæans, i. 19.

Gyges, king of Lydia, his homage to Assurbanipal, i. 44.

H

Hades, the Assyrian, i. 345.

Halévy, J., his disbelief in Turanian element in primitive Chaldæa,

i. 19;

quoted, 21;

his dissent from the reading _Gudea_ or _Goudea_, 328;

translation of a text relating to a posthumous life, 344.

Haldia, i. 394.

Ham, i. 15.

Hama, i. 349.

Haman, i. 131; ii. 71.

Hammourabi, i. 35;

contracts from the time of, ii. 277.

Hands, treatment of, in Chaldæan statues, ii. 183.

Hanging gardens, the, at Babylon, i. 223; ii. 30;

their position, 35.

Harem, at Khorsabad, ii. 20.

Harness, how ornamented, ii. 357.

Hathor, i. 78.

Havet, M. Ernest, i. 15.

Hea-bani, ii. 86, 263, 269.

Hedjra, ii. 176.

Helbig, ii. 302.

Heliopolis, i. 56.

Hematite, ii. 252.

Hera, i. 374.

Herat, ii. 374.

Herodotus, considers Babylonia a mere district of Assyria, i. 5;

quoted, 8, 9, 12;

his Ἀσσύριοι λόγοι, 50, 120;

the vagueness of his statement as to the height of the temple of

Bel, 129, 155;

the ramparts of Ecbatana, 273;

his scanty allusions to burial in Mesopotamia, 340;

his reference to Nineveh, ii. 59;

his statement as to the height of the walls of Babylon, 63;

and as to their width, 64;

quoted, 94;

his description of the temple of Bel or Belus, 201;

quoted, 257.

Hesiod, ii. 397.

Heuzey quoted, i. 63; ii. 177, 184.

Hierapolis, i. 56.

Hillah, i. 27, 38;

mentioned by George Smith, 153; ii. 195.

Hinges, bronze, i. 243.

Hipparchus, ii. 398.

_Hisr-Sargon_ (or _Dour-Saryoukin_), _see_ Khorsabad.

Hit, i. 4.

Hoefer, Ferd., quoted, ii. 5.

Hoffmann quoted, i. 337.

Horse, the, in Assyrian sculpture, ii. 149.

Horus, i. 78.

Household, arrangement of the royal H. in Assyria, i. 96.

Humboldt quoted by RAWLINSON, i. 3.

Hyksos, ii. 378.

Hypogea, at Bavian, ii. 227.

I

Ibex, occurs on the summits of shafts, i. 209;

in Assyrian sculpture, ii. 150.

Iconography, was there an Assyrian? ii. 138.

Ilou, i. 78.

India, metals brought from, i. 125.

Inscriptions, funerary, their absence i. 55.

Iran, ii. 236.

Isaiah, ii. 372.

Isidore, i. 172.

Isis, i. 78.

Ismi-Dagan, i. 39.

Ispahan, i. 289.

Istar (Venus), i. 73, 78;

how figured, 80;

her relationship to male deities, 83;

her descent into hades, 344;

her arrival at the gate of Hades, 345; ii. 89, 92, 193, 289.

Ivories, ii. 118–125;

Egyptian character of many ivories, 320;

how they have acquired their present colour, 322.

Ivory, its use in decoration, i. 300;

panels in the British Museum, 301;

used for the decoration of furniture, ii. 319;

means by which the demand for ivory was supplied, 320.

Izdubar, the Assyrian Hercules, i. 346; ii. 86, 263, 269.

J

Jambs, the bronze jambs of the gates of Babylon, i. 241.

Janus, ii. 91.

Jewelry, ii. 349.

Jezireh, El-, i. 3; ii. 61.

Jigan, ii. 304.

Jonah, character of the book of, ii. 61.

Joshua quoted, ii. 363.

Judæa, ii. 172.

K

Kasr, i. 261;

its identity discussed, i. 384; ii. 35.

Kaleh-Shergat (or Ellasar), i. 7, 39; ii. 51;

basalt statue found at, 110.

Karamles, ii. 51.

Karigalzu, i. 315; ii. 259.

Karkhemish, ii. 374.

_Keleks_, i. 323.

Kerman, i. 2.

Ker Porter, i. 40.

Khabour, i. 305; ii. 51.

Khasdim, i. 6.

Khausser, ii. 9.

_Khesbet_, ii. 293.

Khetas, ii. 284.

Khorassan, i. 289.

Khorsabad, i. 7;

plan of Sargon’s city, 313;

its discovery by M. Botta, ii. 4;

compared with Versailles, 11;

its extent, 11;

the arrangement of its plan, 13;

the _seraglio_, 11–16;

the _harem_, 20;

courtyards, 16, 29;

the offices, 27;

size of the city of K., 62.

Khouzistan, i. 17.

Kings quoted, i. 302.

_Kislar aga_, compared to the _Tartan_, i. 96.

Knife-handles, ii. 348.

“Knop and flower” pattern, i. 240, 302.

Koran, i. 287.

Korkhar, ii. 203, 231.

Kouffa, i. 93.

Kouti, i. 53.

Kourdourmapouk, ii. 194.

Kouyundjik, i. 7, 44; ii. 44;

arrangement of the ruins on the mound, 47.

_Kunuku_, ii. 255.

Kurdistan, i. 289.

Kushites, their relationship with the Shemites, i. 16, 17.

L

Lachish, siege of, figured in the reliefs, ii. 103, 319.

Lantern or “Louvre,” i. 183.

Laplace, his _Histoire de l’Astronomie_ quoted, i. 68.

Larissa, i. 112;

its supposed identity with Mespila, 152;

Xenophon’s description discussed, 385.

Larnaca, ii. 219.

Larsam, i. 1, 38.

Latium, engraved bowls found there, ii. 339.

Layard, Sir A. H., quoted, i. 7, 10–12, 27, 30, 40, 51;

speaks of fetishism among the Kurds, 61, 74, 116, 119, 120, 138,

155;

his opinion as to the forms of roof, 160–1;

his discovery of wood ashes in the palaces, 176, 183;

found upper chambers at Nimroud, 189, 193, 199, 207, 211, 213;

discovery of sphinxes in south-western edifice at Nimroud, 214;

his discovery of limestone bases in Sennacherib’s palace, 219,

230, 243, 261, 277;

colours used in decoration, 280, 392;

his opinions as to the size of Nineveh quoted, ii. 61;

his discovery of one of the gates of Nineveh, 62;

quoted, 106, 152, 226, 236;

his opinion upon Assyrian polychromy, 247.

Le Blant, E., quoted, i. 339.

Ledrain quoted, i. 317.

Lenormant, F., i. 17;

quoted, i. 22, 30, 34, 37, 39;

his _Magie chez les Chaldéens_ quoted, 59, 69, 261; ii. 90, 252.

Lens found at Nimroud, ii. 308.

Letronne, i. 177.

Lighting, methods of, i. 180;

cylinders found by Place, 184;

by the doors, 186.

Likbagas, ii. 180.

Lintel, stone, from Kouyundjik, i. 237.

Lion, the, in Assyrian sculpture, ii. 154;

its frequent occurrence as a decorative motive, i. 219.

Loftus, W. K., quoted, i. 8, 24, 92, 118, 156;

his opinion as to the forms of roofs, 161, 245;

his explanation of the semi-circular pilasters, 245, 262, 278;

his opinion as to the casing of Assyrian walls, 282;

his opinion on the cemetery at Warka, 339;

his explorations at Mugheir, 371;

his explorations, ii. 7, 33;

coffins brought home by him, ii. 306.

Longpérier, de, quoted, i. 116, 281; ii. 187;

his erroneous impression as to the cylinders, 255.

Lapis-lazuli, ii. 294.

Lortet, Prof., ii. 232.

Lot, i. 199.

Lotus-flower, used as an ornamental motive, i. 303.

Lycos, ii. 231.

Lysippus, ii. 286.

Lucian, “the Syrian goddess,” i. 58.

Lucretius, ii. 364.

M

Madaktu, its capture figured, i. 331.

Magnifying-glass found at Nimroud, ii. 308.

Malthaï, rock sculptures at, ii. 232, 319.

Manchester, ii. 381.

Manetho, i. 15.

Marduk, _see_ Merodach.

Martial, ii. 364.

Martin, T. H., quoted, i. 71.

Masius, Mt., i. 6.

Maspero, quoted, i. 8, 17, 20, 34, 44, 53.

Mastabas, compared with the cemeteries of lower Chaldæa, i. 343.

Materials, inferiority of those used by the Mesopotamian artist,

i. 94;

Assyria better provided than Chaldæa, 123;

M. used by the sculptor, ii. 109.

Mechanical contrivances, i. 322;

transport of a winged bull, 323;

the lever, 326.

_Meched-Ali_, mosque of, at Nedjef, i. 340.

Medes, extent of their empire before 625 B.C., i. 52.

Memphis, i. 44.

Ménant, J., i. 40, 48, 95; ii. 90, 184, 253.

Merodach (Jupiter?), i. 73, 75, 83, 347; ii. 89.

Merodach-idin-akhi, stele of, ii. 93, 194.

Mesopotamia, formation of its soil, i. 8;

fertilisation of its basin, 8;

absence of rain in Chaldæa, 8;

spring in M., 11;

formation of the alluvial plain, 14;

climate, 196.

Mesopotamian architecture, its general forms, i. 126;

their cause, 126;

the mounds, 226;

their universal employment for monumental buildings, 129;

restricted use of piers and columns, 132;

the absence of _orders_, 132;

bad effect of rainstorms upon buildings, 133;

thickness of palace walls at Nineveh, 138;

the column, 141;

capitals, 141;

important part played by the arch, 141;

its early invention, 143;

frequent use of the vault, 144;

total absence of structures in dressed stone from Chaldæa, 146;

methods of bonding stone in Assyria, 147;

absence of mortar from Assyrian buildings, 154;

provision for drainage in mounds, 158;

absence of direct evidence as to common forms of roof, 160;

size of rooms, 179;

methods of lighting, 180;

size of doorways, 186;

pavilions and other light structures, 192;

column often used in them, 196;

orientation, 311;

plans, their peculiarities, 327.

Metal dishes, ii. 324;

engraved bowls or cups, 326;

their quasi-Egyptian character, 330;

their true origin, 336.

Metallurgy, ii. 308;

metals used in Mesopotamia, 308;

the metal district of Western Asia, 312.

Metrical system of Chaldæa-Assyria, i. 69.

Michel, Charles, his account of the discovery of Nineveh, ii. 9.

_Milliarium_, i. 257.

Mines, military, employed by the Assyrians, ii. 64.

Models for the sculptor, i. 215.

Moloch, worshipped in Judah and Israel as well as Tyre and Sidon,

i. 16.

Montefik Arabs, i. 38.

Monoliths, i. 258.

Moon, Chaldæan observations of, i. 70.

Mordecai, ii. 71.

Mortar, its absence from Assyrian buildings, i. 154.

Mosaics, quasi-M. at Warka, i. 278.

Mossoul, yearly _villegiatura_ of its inhabitants, i. 199.

Mouldings, i. 236, 245.

Moulds for jewellers, ii. 356.

Mountains, how indicated in the reliefs, ii. 207.

Mousasir, i. 394.

Mousta, church at, i. 168.

_Mudjelibeh_, see _Kasr_.

Mugheir, i. 38, 159;

arches at, 222;

plan of temple at, 312; ii. 34, 256, 308.

Müller, Ch., i. 16.

Müller, Max. quoted, i. 20.

Müller, Ottfried, i. 233.

Müntz, Eugène, ii. 364.

Musesinip, cylinder of, ii. 273.

Mylitta, _see_ Istar.

Myrrh, brought from Arabia, ii. 373.

N

Nabonassar, i. 71.

Nabopolassar, i. 50, 92;

his restoration of Babylon, 134; ii. 200.

Nabou, i. 83.

Nabounid, his discovery of the angle stone of the temple of Ulbar,

i. 315; ii. 58.

Nahar-Hammourabi, i. 40.

Nahar-Malcha, i. 40.

_Nahr-el-Kelb_, ii. 231.

Nahum quoted, i. 51; ii. 313, 372.

Nana, i. 83.

Nebbi-Younas, i. 7, 47;

palace built by Assurbanipal still hidden there, 48; ii. 44.

Nebo (Mercury?) i. 73;

description of his statues, 80;

his place of repose decorated by Nebuchadnezzar, 299;

statue, ii. 126;

statue of, from the time of Vulush III., 217.

Nebuchadnezzar, i. 27, 35;

comparison with Rameses II., 53; ii. 200.

Necklaces, ii. 355.

Ner, i. 346.

Nergal (Mars?), i. 73, 345.

Nestorians, i. 140.

Nicæa, i. 289.

Niebuhr quoted, i. 157;

his opinion as to the possibilities of Assyrian exploration

quoted, ii. 4.

Niffer, ii. 306.

Nimrod, his genealogy, i. 15, 17; ii. 269.

Nimroud, i. 7;

to be identified with Calah, 314;

general arrangement of buildings at, 314;

its first exploration by Layard, ii. 5;

arrangement of buildings at, 39;

the _central palace_, 40;

upper chambers found by Layard, 43;

probably distinct from Nineveh, 60.

Nineveh, its Greek name, i. 7;

changes in historical theory brought about by its exploration,

34;

its destruction, 50;

difficulty of ascertaining the relative ages of the ruins,

ii. 36;

its size discussed, 59;

Layard’s opinion as to its size, 61;

a town gate discovered by Layard, 62.

Ninus, i. 7, 33;

represented on the walls of Babylon according to Ctesias, 283;

buried within the palace at Babylon (Diodorus), 361;

extravagant statements of Diodorus as to the size and height of

his tomb, 362; ii. 218.

Nipour (or Niffer), i. 38.

Nisroch, i. 78.

Nitocris, ii. 218.

Nœldeke, Th., quoted, i. 34; ii. 61.

Norris, Edwin, quoted, i. 22.

Noushirwan, i. 185.

Nude, the, in Chaldæo-Assyrian sculpture, ii. 92;

the absence of nude figures from the reliefs, 98.

O

Oannes, i. 1, 36, 64, 83;

on Péretié’s plaque, 352; ii. 261, 266.

Obelisks, unsuitableness of the name, i. 257;

their forms, i. 236;

of Shalmaneser II., 258.

_Observatory_, the Khorsabad, i. 247, 374;

described, 386;

the colours of its stages, 386;

their number, 386;

its awkward position, 391;

suggested use (note by editor), 391.

Oppert, his ethnical theories, i. 19;

quoted, 21, 22, 28, 30, 119;

his estimate of height of temple of Bel, 130, 201;

his mention of colours used on buildings, 280;

decorative painting in Babylonia, 284.

Orders, the, their practical absence from Mesopotamian

architecture, i. 132.

Orientation of buildings, i. 311.

Osiris, i. 78, 79.

Ourbaou, ii. 180.

Ourdeys, ii. 73.

Ourkam, i. 35;

the Menes of Chaldæa, 38; ii. 259, 266.

Oysters, carvings upon their shells, ii. 118.

P

Painting, ii. 292;

pigments used, 294.

Palette of the Mesopotamian decorator, i. 283.

Pallacopas, Lake, i. 53.

Palm-bark, represented by Ninevite sculptors, i. 202.

Palmyra, i. 349; ii. 374.

Pamir, i. 21.

Paradise (or Park), ii. 51.

Parasol, ii. 203.

Parthians, succeeded by the Sassanids, i. 57.

Paving, three systems of, i. 238.

Pediment, i. 394.

Péretié, his bronze plaque, i. 349.

Percy, Dr., ii. 312.

Pergamus, ii. 286.

Pericles, ii. 382.

Περὶ φύσεως, the Greek philosophic poems of the sixth century,

ii. 397.

Perrot and Chipiez, _Art in Ancient Egypt_ quoted, i. 13, 23, 61,

86, 208, 213, 222, 234, 246, 248, 268, 322; ii. 131–135.

Persepolis, i. 88.

Phidias, i. 58; ii. 286.

Philostratus quoted, i. 299, 379.

Phœnicia, ii. 172.

Phœnicians, their invention of the alphabet, i. 23.

Pictography, i. 31.

Piers, their restricted use, i. 132.

Pigments, ii. 294.

Pilasters, i. 216.

Pinches, T. G., i. 195;

quoted, ii. 213.

Pivots (door-pivots), i. 240.

Place, Victor, quoted, i. 116, 118, 138;

his discovery of a cedar beam at Khorsabad, 140, 148;

his opinion on the roofing question, 163;

statement as to the timber found in the excavations, 164;

his discovery of fragmentary vaulted ceilings among the ruins,

165, 173, 183, 186–189, 191, 192, 202, 208, 224, 243, 248, 266;

loss of his collections in the Tigris, 285;

on the plan of Sargon’s palace at Khorsabad, ii. 32;

his description of the French consulate at Mossoul, ii. 71;

his opinion as to the use of colour in Assyrian architecture,

246.

Planisphere, fragments found at Kouyundjik, i. 72.

Plans, peculiarities of Mesopotamian, i. 328.

Plato, ii. 397.

Plautus, ii. 364.

Plinth, painted black at Khorsabad, i. 272, 291.

Pliny, quoted by RAWLINSON, i. 4;

calls the whole of Mesopotamia Assyria, 5, 71;

quoted, ii. 364.

Plutarch (pseudo), treatise on Isis and Osiris, i. 58.

Polychromy, ii. 243;

traces of colour still perceptible on the sculptures in the

Louvre and the British Museum, 248;

“natural polychromy,” 249.

Polydemonism, i. 62.

Polytheism, a development from the worship of stars and planets,

i. 75.

Pompeii, i. 139.

Pongnon, ii. 61, 226.

Population, elements of the P. in Mesopotamia, i. 13.

Porches, i. 218.

Porphyrius, i. 71.

_Portes ornées_, Khorsabad, i. 217, 227.

Pottery, ii. 298.

Praxiteles, i. 58; ii. 286.

Prisse d’Avennes quoted, i. 305.

Proportions of early Assyrian figures, ii. 203.

Prostitutions, religious, at Babylon, i. 89, 377.

Ptah, i. 78, 79.

Ptolemy, quoted by RAWLINSON, i. 4;

his astronomical canon, i. 71.

Pyrgoteles, ii. 263.

R

Racine, ii. 71.

Raman, i. 75; ii. 89.

Rassam, H., his discovery of a metal threshold at Borsippa, i. 241,

256;

his explorations under Sir H. Rawlinson’s surveillance, ii. 7;

excavations at Kouyundjik, 48, 118.

Rawlinson, Prof., his description of the physical characteristics

of Chaldæa, i. 2, 47, 71, 80, 211, 277;

quoted, ii. 1;

quoted in connection with Semiramis, and her possible

identification with Sammouramit, 218;

on the question of polychromy, 247.

Rawlinson, Sir Henry, quoted, i. 22, 156;

his explorations, ii. 7.

Rehoboth, i. 14.

Rennell, his _Herodotus_ quoted, i. 281.

_Repoussé_ work, ii. 116.

Resen, i. 14, 122.

Rhea, i. 374.

Rhind, H., i. 279.

Rhodes, ii. 286.

Rich, his observations, on the construction of vaults by the native

builders of Mesopotamia, i. 167, 261;

colours used in decoration, 280.

Roads, for military purposes, ii. 74;

used by Mesopotamian commerce, 374.

Rollin, i. 33.

Rome, ii. 286.

Roofs, discussion as to how Mesopotamian buildings were roofed,

i. 160.

Ross, his geological explorations, i. 4, _n_^2.

Rouet, M., ii. 225.

Ruelle, Ch. E., i. 58.

Ruth quoted, ii. 70.

S

Sacred tree, i. 212.

Sacrifices, human, asserted allusions to them on the cylinders,

ii. 268.