THE PEOPLE.
“The Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon, fair of branches, and with a
shadowing shroud, and of high stature; and his top was among the thick
boughs. . . . Nor was any tree in the garden of God like unto him in his
beauty.”--EZEK. xxxi. 3 and 8.
The ethnic character of the ancient Assyrians, like that of the
Chaldaeans, was in former times a matter of controversy. When nothing
was known of the original language of the people beyond the names of
certain kings, princes, and generals, believed to have belonged to the
race, it was difficult to arrive at any determinate conclusion on the
subject. The ingenuity of etymologists displayed itself in suggesting
derivations for the words in question, which were sometimes absurd,
sometimes plausible, but never more than very doubtful conjectures. No
sound historical critic could be content to base a positive view on any
such unstable foundation, and nothing remained but to decide the
controversy on other than linguistic considerations.
Various grounds existed on which it was felt that a conclusion could be
drawn. The Scriptural genealogies connected Asshur with Aran, Pier, and
Joktan, the allowed progenitors of the Armaeians or Syrians, the
Israelites or Hebrews, and the northern or Joktanian Arabs. The
languages, physical type, and moral characteristics of these races were
well known: they all belonged evidently to a single family the family
known to ethnologists as the Semitic. Again, the manners and customs,
especially the religious customs, of the Assyrians connected then
plainly with the Syrians and Phoenicians, with whose practices they were
closely allied. Further it was observed that the modern Chaldaeans of
Kurdistan, who regard themselves as descendants of the ancient
inhabitants of the neighboring Assyria, still speak a Semitic dialect.
These three distinct and convergent lines of testimony were sufficient
to justify historians in the conclusion, which they commonly drew, that
the ancient Assyrians belonged to the Semitic family, and were more or
less closely connected with the Syrians, the (later) Babylonians, the
Phoenicians, the Israelites, and the Arabs of the northern portion of
the peninsula.
Recent linguistic discoveries have entirely confirmed the conclusion
thus, arrived at. We now possess in the engraved slabs, the clay
tablets, the cylinders, and the bricks, exhumed from the ruins of the
great Assyrian cities, copious documentary evidence of the character of
the Assyrian language, and (so far as language is a proof) of the ethnic
character of the race. It appears to be doubted by none who have
examined the evidence, that the language of these records is Semitic.
However imperfect the acquaintance which our best Oriental
archaeologists have as yet obtained with this ancient and difficult form
of speech, its connection with the Syriac, the later Babylonian, the
Hebrew, and the Arabic does not seem to admit of a doubt.
Another curious confirmation of the ordinary belief is to be found in
the physical characteristics of the people, as revealed to us by the
sculptures. Few persons in any way familiar with these works of art can
have failed to remark the striking resemblance to the Jewish physiognomy
which is presented by the sculptured effigies of the Assyrians. The
forehead straight but not high, the full brow, the eye large and
almond-shaped, the aquiline nose, a little coarse at the end, and unduly
depressed, the strong, firm mouth, with lips somewhat over thick, the
well-formed chin--best seen in the representation of eunuchs--the
abundant hair and ample beard, both colored as black--all these recall
the chief peculiarities of the Jew more especially as he appears in
southern countries. [PLATE XXXIII., Fig. 3.] They are less like the
traits of the Arab, though to them also they bear a considerable
resemblance. Chateaubriand’s description of the Bedouin--“_la tete
ovale, le front haut et argue, le nez aquilia, les yeux grandes et coupe
en amandes, le regard humide et singulierement doux_” would serve in
many respects equally well for a description of the physiognomy of the
Assyrians, as they appear upon the monuments. The traits, in fact, are
for the most part common to the Semitic race generally, and not
distinctive of any particular subdivision of it. They are seen now alike
in the Arab, the Jew, and the Chalaedeans of Kurdistan, while anciently
they not only characterized the Assyrians, but probably belonged also to
the Phoenicians, the Syrians, and other minor Semetic races. It is
evident, even from the mannered and conventional sculptures of Egypt,
that the physiognomy was regarded as characteristic of the western
Asiatic races. Three captives on the monuments of Amenophis III.,
represented as belonging to the Patana (people of Bashan?), the Asuru
(Assyrians), and the Karukamishi (people of Carchemish), present to us
the sane style of face, only slightly modified by Egyptian ideas.
[PLATE. XXXIV., Fig. 1.]
[Illustration: PLATE 34]
White in face the Assyrians appear thus to have borne a most close
resemblance to the Jews, in shape and make they are perhaps more nearly
represented by their descendants, the Chaldaeans of Kurdistan. While the
Oriental Jew has a spare form and a weak muscular development, the
Assyrian, like the modern Chaldaean, is robust, broad-shouldered, and
large-limbed. Nowhere have we a race represented to us monumentally of a
stronger or more muscular type than the ancient Assyrian. The great
brawny limbs are too large for beauty; but they indicate a physical
power which we may well believe to have belonged to this nation--the
Romans of Asia--the resolute and sturdy people which succeeded in
imposing its yoke upon all its neighbors. [PLATE XXXIV., Fig, 2.]
If from physical we proceed to mental characteristics, we seem again to
have in the Jewish character the best and closest analogy to the
Assyrian. In the first place, there is observable in each a strong and
marked prominency of the religious principle. Inscriptions of Assyrian
kings begin and end, almost without exception, with praises,
invocations, and prayers to the principal objects of their adoration.
All the monarch’s successes, all his conquests and victories, and even
his good fortune in the chase, are ascribed continually to the
protection and favor of guardian deities. Wherever he goes, he takes
care to “set up the emblems of Asshur,” or of “the great gods;” and
forces the vanquished to do them homage. The choicest of the spoil is
dedicated as a thank-offering in the temples. The temples themselves are
adorned, repaired, beautified, enlarged, increased in manner, by almost,
every monarch. The kings worship them in person, and offer sacrifices.
They embellish their palaces, not only with representations of their own
victories and hunting expeditions, but also with religious figures--the
emblems of some of the principal deities, and with scenes in which are
portrayed acts of adoration. Their signets, and indeed those of the
Assyrians generally, have a religious character. In every way religion
seems to hold a marked and prominent place in the thoughts of the
people, who fight more for the honor of their gods than even of their
king, and aim at extending their belief as much as their dominion.
Again, combined with this prominency of the religious principle, is a
sensuousness--such as we observe in Judaism continually struggling
against a higher and purer element--but which in this less favored
branch of the Semitic family reigns uncontrolled, and gives to its
religion a gross, material, and even voluptuous character. The ideal and
the spiritual find little favor with this practical people, which, not
content with symbols, must have gods of wood and stone whereto to pray,
and which in its complicated mythological system, its priestly
hierarchy, its gorgeous ceremonial, and finally in its lascivious
ceremonies, is a counterpart to that Egypt, from which the Jew was
privileged to make his escape.
The Assyrians are characterized in Scripture as “a fierce people.” Their
victories seem to have been owing to their combining individual bravery
and hardihood with a skill and proficiency in the arts of war not
possessed by their more uncivilized neighbors. This bravery and
hardihood were kept up, partly (like that of the Romans) by their
perpetual wars, partly by the training afforded to their manly qualities
by the pursuit and destruction of wild animals. The lion--the king of
beasts--abounded in their country, together with many other dangerous
and ferocious animals. Unlike the ordinary Asiatic, who trembles before
the great beasts of prey and avoids a collision by flight if possible,
the ancient Assyrian sought out the strongest and fiercest of the
animals, provoked them to the encounter, and engaged with them in
hand-to-hand combats. The spirit of Nimrod, the “mighty hunter before
the Lord,” not only animated his own people, but spread on from them to
their northern neighbors; and, as far as we can judge by the monuments,
prevailed even more in Assyria than in Chaldaea itself. The favorite
objects of chase with the Assyrians seem to have been the lion and the
wild bull, both beasts of vast strength and courage, which could not be
attacked without great danger to the bold assailant.
No doubt the courage of the Assyrians was tinged with ferocity. The
nation was “a mighty and strong one, which, as a tempest of hail and a
destroying storm, as a flood of mighty waters overflowing, cast down to
the earth with the hand.” Its capital might well deserve to be called “a
bloody city,” or “a city of bloods.” Few conquering races have been
tender-hearted, or much inclined to spare; and undoubtedly carnage,
ruin, and desolation followed upon the track of an Assyrian army, and
raised feelings of fear and hatred among their adversaries. But we have
no reason to believe that the nation was especially bloodthirsty or
unfeeling. The mutilation of the slain--not by way of insult, but in
proof of their slayer’s prowess was indeed practised among them; but
otherwise there is little indication of any barbarous, much less of any
really cruel, usages. The Assyrian listens to the enemy who asks for
quarter; he prefers making prisoners to slaying; he is very terrible in
the battle and the assault, but afterwards he forgives, and spares. Of
course in some cases he makes exceptions. When a town has rebelled and
been subdued, he impales some of the most guilty [PLATE XXXV., Fig. 1];
and in two or three instances prisoners are represented as led before
the king by a rope fastened to a ring which passes through the under
lip, while now and then one appears in the act of being flayed with it
knife [PLATE XXXV., Fig. 2.] But, generally, captives are either
released, or else transferred, without unnecessary suffering, from their
own country to some other portion of the empire. There seems even to be
something of real tenderness in the treatment of captured women, who are
never manacled, and are often allowed to ride on mules, or in carts.
[PLATE XXXVI., Fig. 1.]
[Illustration: PLATE 35]
[Illustration: PLATE 36]
The worst feature in the character of the Assyrians was their treachery.
“Woe to thee that spoilest, though thou wast not spoiled, and dealest
treacherously, though they dealt not treacherously with thee!” is the
denunciation of the evangelical prophet. And in the same spirit the
author of “The Burthen of Nineveh” declares that city to be “full of
lies and robbery”--or, more correctly, full of lying and violence.
Falsehood and treachery are commonly regarded as the vices of the weak,
who are driven to defend themselves against superior strength by the
weapon of cunning; but they are perhaps quite as often employed by the
strong as furnishing short cuts to success, and even where the moral
standard is low, as being in themselves creditable. It certainly was not
necessity which made the Assyrians covenant-breakers; it seems to have
been in part the wantonness of power--because they “despised the cities
and regarded no man;” perhaps it was in part also their imperfect moral
perception, which may have failed to draw the proper distinction between
craft and cleverness.
Another unpleasant feature in the Assyrian character--but one at which
we can feel no surprise--was their pride. This is the quality which
draws forth the sternest denunciations of Scripture, and is expressly
declared to have called down the Divine judgments upon the race. Isaiah,
Ezekiel, and Zephaniah alike dwell upon it. It pervades the
inscriptions. Without being so rampant or offensive as the pride of some
Orientals--as, for instance, the Chinese, it is of a marked and decided
color: the Assyrian feels himself infinitely superior to all the nations
with whom he is brought into contact; he alone enjoys the favor of the
gods; he alone is either truly wise or truly valiant; the armies of his
enemies are driven like chaff before him; he sweeps them away, like
heaps of stubble; either they fear to fight, or they are at once
defeated; he carries his victorious arms just as far as it pleases him,
and never under any circumstances admits that he has suffered a reverse.
The only merit that he allows to foreigners is some skill in the
mechanical and mimetic arts, and his acknowledgment of this is tacit
rather than express, being chiefly known from the recorded fact that he
employs foreign artists to ornament his edifices.
According to the notions which the Greeks derived from Ctesias, and
passed on to the Romans, and through them to the moderns generally, the
greatest defect in the Assyrian character--the besetting sin of their
leading men--was luxuriousness of living and sensuality. From Ninyas to
Sardanapalus--from the commencement to the close of the Empire--a line
of voluptuaries, according to Ctesias and his followers, held possession
of the throne; and the principle was established from the first, that
happiness consisted in freedom from all cares or troubles, and unchecked
indulgence in every species of sensual pleasure. This account,
intrinsically suspicious, is now directly contradicted by the authentic
records which we possess of the warlike character and manly pursuits of
so many of the kings. It probably, however, contains a germ of truth. In
a flourishing kingdom like Assyria, luxury must have gradually advanced;
and when the empire fell under the combined attack of its two most
powerful neighbors, no doubt it had lost much of its pristine vigor. The
monuments lend some support to the view that luxury was among the causes
which produced the fall of Assyria; although it may be questioned
whether, even to the last, the predominant spirit was not warlike and
manly, or even fierce and violent. Among the many denunciations of
Assyria in Scripture, there is only one which can even be thought to
point to luxury as a cause of her downfall; and that is a passage of
very doubtful interpretation. In general it is her violence, her
treachery, and her pride that are denounced. When Nineveh repented in
the time of Jonah, it was by each man “turning from his evil way and
from the violence which was in their hands.” When Nahum announces the
final destruction, it is on “the bloody city, full of lies and robbery.”
In the emblematic language of prophecy, the _lion_ is taken as the
fittest among animals to symbolize Assyria, even at this late period of
her history. She is still “the lion that did tear in pieces enough for
his whelps, and strangled for his lioness, and filled his holes with
prey, and his dens with ravin.” The favorite national emblem, if it may
be so called, is accepted as the true type of the people; and blood,
ravin, and robbery are their characteristics in the mind of the Hebrew
prophet.
In mental power the Assyrians certainly deserve to be considered as
among the foremost of the Asiatic races. They had not perhaps so much
originality as the Chaldaeans, from whom they appear to have derived the
greater part of their civilization; but in many respects it is clear
that they surpassed their instructors, and introduced improvements which
gave a greatly increased value and almost a new character to arts
previously discovered. The genius of the people will best be seen from
the accounts hereafter to be given of their language, their arts, and
their system of government. If it must be allowed that these have all a
certain smack of rudeness and primitive simplicity, still they are
advances upon aught that had previously existed--not only in
Mesopotamia--but in the world. Fully to appreciate the Assyrians, we
should compare them with the much-lauded Egyptians, who in all important
points are very decidedly their inferiors. The spirit and progressive
character of their art offers the strongest contrast to the stiff,
lifeless, and unchanging conventionalism of the dwellers on the Nile.
Their language and alphabet are confessedly in advance of the Egyptian.
Their religion is more earnest and less degraded. In courage and
military genius their superiority is very striking; for the Egyptians
are essentially an unwarlike people. The one point of advantage to which
Egypt may fairly lay claim is the grandeur and durability of her
architecture. The Assyrian palaces, magnificent, as they undoubtedly
were, must yield the palm to the vast structures of Egyptian Thebes. No
nation, not even Rome, has equalled Egypt in the size and solemn
grandeur of its buildings. But, except in this one respect, the great
African kingdom must be regarded as inferior to her Asiatic rival--which
was indeed “a cedar in Lebanon, exalted above all the trees of the
field--fair in greatness and in the length of his branches--so that all
the trees that were in the garden of God envied him, and not one was
like unto him in his beauty.”