Produced by Paul Murray and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net. (This file was
produced from images generously made available by the
Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF/Gallica) at
http://gallica.bnf.fr)





[Transcriber's Note: This file was produced from images generously made
available by the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF/Gallica)
at http://gallica.bnf.fr.]

HANDBOOKS
ON THE
HISTORY OF RELIGIONS

EDITED BY
MORRIS JASTROW, Jr., PH.D.
_Professor of Semitic Languages in the University of Pennsylvania_

VOLUME II




THE RELIGION

OF

BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA

BY
MORRIS JASTROW, Jr., PH.D.
(LEIPZIG)
PROFESSOR OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES IN THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

GINN & COMPANY

BOSTON · NEW YORK · CHICAGO · LONDON

COPYRIGHT, 1893
By MORRIS JASTROW, Jr.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

35.11


The Athenæum Press
GINN & COMPANY · PROPRIETORS
BOSTON · USA




TO

H. B. J.

MY FAITHFUL COLLABORATOR




PREFACE.


It requires no profound knowledge to reach the conclusion that the time
has not yet come for an exhaustive treatise on the religion of Babylonia
and Assyria. But even if our knowledge of this religion were more
advanced than it is, the utility of an exhaustive treatment might still
be questioned. Exhaustive treatises are apt to be exhausting to both
reader and author; and however exhaustive (or exhausting) such a
treatise may be, it cannot be final except in the fond imagination of
the writer. For as long as activity prevails in any branch of science,
all results are provisional. Increasing knowledge leads necessarily to a
change of perspective and to a readjustment of views. The chief reason
for writing a book is to prepare the way for the next one on the same
subject.

In accordance with the general plan of this Series[1] of Handbooks, it
has been my chief aim to gather together in convenient arrangement and
readable form what is at present known about the religion of the
Babylonians and Assyrians. The investigations of scholars are scattered
through a large variety of periodicals and monographs. The time has come
for focusing the results reached, for sifting the certain from the
uncertain, and the uncertain from the false. This work of gathering the
_disjecta membra_ of Assyriological science is essential to future
progress. If I have succeeded in my chief aim, I shall feel amply repaid
for the labor involved.

In order that the book may serve as a guide to students, the names of
those to whose researches our present knowledge of the subject is due
have frequently been introduced, and it will be found, I trust, that I
have been fair to all.[2] At the same time, I have naturally not
hesitated to indicate my dissent from views advanced by this or that
scholar, and it will also be found, I trust, that in the course of my
studies I have advanced the interpretation of the general theme or of
specific facts at various points. While, therefore, the book is only in
a secondary degree sent forth as an original contribution, the
discussion of mooted points will enhance its value, I hope, for the
specialist, as well as for the general reader and student for whom, in
the first place, the volumes of this series are intended.

The disposition of the subject requires a word of explanation. After the
two introductory chapters (common to all the volumes of the series) I
have taken up the pantheon as the natural means to a survey of the
field. The pantheon is treated, on the basis of the historical texts, in
four sections: (1) the old Babylonian period, (2) the middle period, or
the pantheon in the days of Hammurabi, (3) the Assyrian pantheon, and
(4) the latest or neo-Babylonian period. The most difficult phase has
naturally been the old Babylonian pantheon. Much is uncertain here. Not
to speak of the chronology which is still to a large extent guesswork,
the identification of many of the gods occurring in the oldest
inscriptions, with their later equivalents, must be postponed till
future discoveries shall have cleared away the many obstacles which
beset the path of the scholar. The discoveries at Telloh and Nippur have
occasioned a recasting of our views, but new problems have arisen as
rapidly as old ones have been solved. I have been especially careful in
this section not to pass beyond the range of what is definitely _known_,
or, at the most, what may be regarded as tolerably certain. Throughout
the chapters on the pantheon, I have endeavored to preserve the attitude
of being 'open to conviction'--an attitude on which at present too much
stress can hardly be laid.

The second division of the subject is represented by the religious
literature. With this literature as a guide, the views held by the
Babylonians and Assyrians regarding magic and oracles, regarding the
relationship to the gods, the creation of the world, and the views of
life after death have been illustrated by copious translations, together
with discussions of the specimens chosen. The translations, I may add,
have been made direct from the original texts, and aim to be as literal
as is consonant with presentation in idiomatic English.

The religious architecture, the history of the temples, and the cult
form the subject of the third division. Here again there is much which
is still uncertain, and this uncertainty accounts for the unequal
subdivisions of the theme which will not escape the reader.

Following the general plan of the series, the last chapter of the book
is devoted to a general estimate and to a consideration of the influence
exerted by the religion of Babylonia and Assyria.

In the transliteration of proper names, I have followed conventional
methods for well-known names (like Nebuchadnezzar), and the general
usage of scholars in the case of others. In some cases I have furnished
a transliteration of my own; and for the famous Assyrian king, to whom
we owe so much of the material for the study of the Babylonian and
Assyrian religion, Ashurbanabal, I have retained the older usage of
writing it with a _b_, following in this respect Lehman, whose
arguments[3] in favor of this pronunciation for the last element in the
name I regard as on the whole acceptable.

I have reasons to regret the proportions to which the work has grown.
These proportions were entirely unforeseen when I began the book, and
have been occasioned mainly by the large amount of material that has
been made available by numerous important publications that appeared
after the actual writing of the book had begun. This constant increase
of material necessitated constant revision of chapters; and such
revision was inseparable from enlargement. I may conscientiously say
that I have studied these recent publications thoroughly as they
appeared, and have embodied at the proper place the results reached by
others and which appeared to me acceptable. The work, therefore, as now
given to the public may fairly be said to represent the state of present
knowledge.

In a science that grows so rapidly as Assyriology, to which more than to
many others the adage of _dies diem docet_ is applicable, there is great
danger of producing a piece of work that is antiquated before it leaves
the press. At times a publication appeared too late to be utilized. So
Delitzsch's important contribution to the origin of cuneiform writing[4]
was published long after the introductory chapters had been printed. In
this book he practically abandons his position on the Sumerian question
(as set forth on p. 22 of this volume) and once more joins the opposite
camp. As far as my own position is concerned, I do not feel called upon
to make any changes from the statements found in chapter i., even after
reading Weissbach's _Die Sumerische Frage_ (Leipzig, 1898),--the latest
contribution to the subject, which is valuable as a history of the
controversy, but offers little that is new. Delitzsch's name must now be
removed from the list of those who accept Halévy's thesis; but, on the
other hand, Halévy has gained a strong ally in F. Thureau-Dangin, whose
_special_ studies in the old Babylonian inscriptions lend great weight
to his utterances on the origin of the cuneiform script. Dr. Alfred
Jeremias, of Leipzig, is likewise to be added to the adherents of
Halévy. The Sumero-Akkadian controversy is not yet settled, and
meanwhile it is well to bear in mind that not _every_ Assyriologist is
qualified to pronounce an opinion on the subject. A special study is
required, and but few Assyriologists have made such a study. Accepting a
view or a tradition from one's teacher does not constitute a person an
authority, and one may be a very good Assyriologist without having views
on the controversy that are of any particular value.

Lastly, I desire to call attention to the Bibliography, on which much
time has been spent, and which will, I trust, be found satisfactory. In
a list of addenda at the end of the book, I have noted some errors that
slipped into the book, and I have also embodied a few additions. The
copious index is the work of my student, Dr. S. Koppe, and it gives me
pleasure to express my deep obligations to him for the able and
painstaking manner in which he has carried out the work so kindly
undertaken by him. The drawing for the map was made by Mr. J. Horace
Frank of Philadelphia.

       *       *       *       *       *

To my wife more thanks are due than I can convey in words for her share
in the work. She copied almost all of the manuscript, and in doing so
made many valuable suggestions. Without her constant aid and
encouragement I would have shrunk from a task which at times seemed too
formidable to be carried to a successful issue. As I lay down my pen
after several years of devotion to this book, my last thought is one of
gratitude to the beloved partner of my joys and sorrows.

MORRIS JASTROW, Jr.
University of Pennsylvania,
_June, 1898._

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Set forth in the announcement of the series at the back of the book
and in the Editor's Prefatory Note to Volume I.

[2] In the Index, however, names of scholars have only been introduced
where absolutely necessary to the subject.

[3] In his work, _Shamassum-ukin König von Babylonien_, pp. 16-21.
Hence, I also write Ashurnasirbal.

[4] _Die Entstehung des ältesten Schriftsystems_ (Leipzig, 1897).




CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS.

[Transcriber's Note: These changes and additions are printed only here;
the main text is as it was in the original.]


Page, Line.

22. See Preface.

35, 10. Isin or Nisin, see Lehmann's _Shamash-shumukin_, I. 77;
Meissner's _Beiträge zum altbabylonischen Privatrecht_, p. 122.

61. Bau also appears as Nin-din-dug, _i.e._, 'the lady who restores
life.' See Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, I. 2, Nos. 95, 106,
111.

74. On Ã, see Hommel, _Journal of Transactions of Victoria Institute_,
XXVIII. 35-36.

99, 24. Ur-shul-pa-uddu is a ruler of Kish.

102, 13. For Ku-anna, see IIIR. 67, 32 c-d.

102, 24. For another U-mu as a title of Adad, see Delitzsch, _Das
Babylonische Weltschöpfungsepos_, p. 125, note.

111, 2. Nisaba is mentioned in company with the great gods by
Nebopolassar (Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, I. 1. Pl. 32,
col. II. 15).

165. Note 2. On these proper names, see Delitzsch's "Assyriologische
Miscellen" (_Berichte der phil.-hist. Classe der kgl. sächs. Gesell. d.
Wiss._, 1893, pp. 183 seq.).

488. Note 1. See now Scheil's article "Recueil de Travaux," etc., XX.
55-59.

529. The form Di-ib-ba-ra has now been found. See Scheil's "Recueil de
Travaux," etc., XX. 57.

589. Note 3. See now Hommel, _Expository Times_, VIII. 472, and
Baudissin, _ib._ IX. 40-45.




CONTENTS.

CHAPTER PAGE

I. Introduction      1
II. The Land and the People      26
III. General Traits of the Old Babylonian Pantheon      48
IV. Babylonian Gods Prior to the Days of Hammurabi      51
V. The Consorts of the Gods      104
VI. Gudea's Pantheon      106
VII. Summary      112
VIII. The Pantheon in the Days of Hammurabi      116
IX. The Gods in the Temple Lists and in the Legal and Commercial
    Documents      165
X. The Minor Gods in the Period of Hammurabi      171
XI. Survivals of Animism in the Babylonian Religion      180
XII. The Assyrian Pantheon      188
XIII. The Triad and the Combined Invocation of Deities      235
XIV. The Neo-babylonian Period      239
XV. The Religious Literature of Babylonia      245
XVI. The Magical Texts      253
XVII. The Prayers and Hymns       294
XVIII. Penitential Psalms     312
XIX. Oracles and Omens      328
XX. Various Classes of Omens      352
XXI. The Cosmology of the Babylonians      407
XXII. The Zodiacal System of the Babylonians      454
XXIII.  The Gilgamesh Epic       467
XXIV.  Myths and Legends      518
XXV. The Views of Life After Death      556
XXVI. The Temples and the Cult      612
XXVII. Conclusion      690




[Illustration: MAP OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA.

(From a drawing by Mr. J. HORACE FRANK.)]




THE RELIGION OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA.

CHAPTER I.--INTRODUCTION.

SOURCES AND METHODS OF STUDY.

I.


Until about the middle of the 19th century, our knowledge of the
religion of the Babylonians and Assyrians was exceedingly scant. No
records existed that were contemporaneous with the period covered by
Babylonian-Assyrian history; no monuments of the past were preserved
that might, in default of records, throw light upon the religious ideas
and customs that once prevailed in Mesopotamia. The only sources at
command were the incidental notices--insufficient and fragmentary in
character--that occurred in the Old Testament, in Herodotus, in
Eusebius, Syncellus, and Diodorus. Of these, again, only the two
first-named, the Old Testament and Herodotus, can be termed direct
sources; the rest simply reproduce extracts from other works, notably
from Ctesias, the contemporary of Xenophon, from Berosus, a priest of
the temple of Bel in Babylonia, who lived about the time of Alexander
the Great, or shortly after, and from Apollodorus, Abydenus, Alexander
Polyhistor, and Nicolas of Damascus, all of whom being subsequent to
Berosus, either quote the latter or are dependent upon him.

Of all these sources it may be said, that what information they furnish
of Babylonia and Assyria bears largely upon the political history, and
only to a very small degree upon the religion. In the Old Testament, the
two empires appear only as they enter into relations with the Hebrews,
and since Hebrew history is not traced back beyond the appearance of the
clans of Terah in Palestine, there is found previous to this period,
barring the account of the migrations of the Terahites in Mesopotamia,
only the mention of the Tigris and Euphrates among the streams watering
the legendary Garden of Eden, the incidental reference to Nimrod and his
empire, which is made to include the capitol cities of the Northern and
Southern Mesopotamian districts, and the story of the founding of the
city of Babylon, followed by the dispersion of mankind from their
central habitation in the Euphrates Valley. The followers of Abram,
becoming involved in the attempts of Palestinian chieftains to throw off
the yoke of Babylonian supremacy, an occasion is found for introducing
Mesopotamia again, and so the family history of the Hebrew tribes
superinduces at odd times a reference to the old settlements on the
Euphrates, but it is not until the political struggles of the two Hebrew
kingdoms against the inevitable subjection to the superior force of
Assyrian arms, and upon the fall of Assyria, to the Babylonian power,
that Assyria and Babylonia engage the frequent attention of the
chronicler's pen and of the prophet's word. Here, too, the political
situation is always the chief factor, and it is only incidentally that
the religion comes into play,--as when it is said that Sennacherib, the
king of Assyria, was murdered while worshipping in the temple dedicated
to a deity, Nisroch; or when a prophet, to intensify the picture of the
degradation to which the proud king of Babylon is to be reduced,
introduces Babylonian conceptions of the nether world into his
discourse.[5] Little, too, is furnished by the Book of Daniel, despite
the fact that Babylon is the center of action, and what little there is
bearing on the religious status, such as the significance attached to
dreams, and the implied contrast between the religion of Daniel and his
companions, and that of Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians, loses some
of its force by the late origin of the book. The same applies, only in a
still stronger degree, to the Book of Judith, in which Nineveh is the
center of the incidents described.

The rabbinical literature produced in Palestine and Babylonia is far
richer in notices bearing on the religious practices of Mesopotamia,
than is the Old Testament. The large settlements of Jews in Babylonia,
which, beginning in the sixth century B.C., were constantly being
increased by fresh accessions from Palestine, brought the professors of
Judaism face to face with religious conditions abhorrent to their souls.
In the regulations of the Rabbis to guard their followers from the
influences surrounding them, there is frequent reference, open or
implied, to Babylonish practices, to the festivals of the Babylonians,
to the images of their gods, to their forms of incantations, and other
things besides; but these notices are rendered obscure by their indirect
character, and require a commentary that can only be furnished by that
knowledge of the times which they take for granted. To this difficulty,
there must be added the comparatively late date of the notices, which
demands an exercise of care before applying them to the very early
period to which the religion of the Babylonians may be traced.

Coming to Herodotus, it is a matter of great regret that the history of
Assyria, which he declares it was his intention to write,[6] was either
never produced, or if produced, lost. In accordance with the general
usage of his times, Herodotus included under Assyria the whole of
Mesopotamia, both Assyria proper in the north and Southern Mesopotamia.
His history would therefore have been of extraordinary value, and since
nothing escaped his observant eye and well-trained mind, the religious
customs of the country would have come in for their full share of
attention. As it is, we have only a few notices about Babylonia and
Assyria, incidental to his history of Persia.[7] Of these, the majority
are purely historical, chief among which is an epitome of the country's
past--a curious medley of fact and legend--and the famous account of the
capture of Babylon by Cyrus. Fortunately, however, there are four
notices that treat of the religion of the inhabitants: the first, a
description of an eight-storied tower, surmounted by a temple sacred to
the god Bel; a second furnishing a rather detailed account of another
temple, also sacred to Bel, and situated in the same precinct of the
city of Babylon; a third notice speaks, though with provoking brevity,
of the funeral customs of the Babylonians; while in a fourth he
describes the rites connected with the worship of the chief goddess of
the Babylonians, which impress Herodotus, who failed to appreciate their
mystic significance, as shameful. We have no reason to believe that
Ctesias' account of the Assyrian monarchy, under which he, like
Herodotus, included Babylonia, contained any reference to the religion
at all. What he says about Babylonia and Assyria served merely as an
introduction to Persian history--the real purpose of his work--and the
few fragments known chiefly through Diodorus and Eusebius, deal
altogether with the succession of dynasties. As is well known, the lists
of Ctesias have fallen into utter discredit by the side of the
ever-growing confidence in the native traditions as reported by Berosus.

The loss of the latter's history of Babylon is deplorable indeed; its
value would have been greater than the history of Herodotus, because it
was based, as we know, on the records and documents preserved in
Babylonian temples. How much of the history dealt with the religion of
the people, it is difficult to determine, but the extracts of it found
in various writers show that starting, like the Old Testament, with the
beginning of things, Berosus gave a full account of the cosmogony of the
Babylonians. Moreover, the early history of Babylonia being largely
legendary, as that of every other nation, tales of the relations
existing between the gods and mankind--relations that are always close
in the earlier stages of a nation's history--must have abounded in the
pages of Berosus, even if he did not include in his work a special
section devoted to an account of the religion that still was practiced
in his days. The quotations from Berosus in the works of Josephus are
all of a historical character; those in Eusebius and Syncellus, on the
contrary, deal with the religion and embrace the cosmogony of the
Babylonians, the account of a deluge brought on by the gods, and the
building of a tower. It is to be noted, moreover, that the quotations we
have from Berosus are not direct, for while it is possible, though not
at all certain, that Josephus was still able to consult the works of
Berosus, Eusebius and Syncellus refer to Apollodorus, Abydenus, and
Alexander Polyhistor as their authorities for the statements of Berosus.
Passing in this way through several hands, the authoritative value of
the comparatively paltry extracts preserved, is diminished, and a
certain amount of inaccuracy, especially in details and in the reading
of proper names,[8] becomes almost inevitable. Lastly, it is to be noted
that the list of Babylonian kings found in the famous astronomical work
of Claudius Ptolemaeus, valuable as it is for historical purposes, has
no connection with the religion of the Babylonians.


II.

The sum total of the information thus to be gleaned from ancient sources
for an elucidation of the Babylonian-Assyrian religion is exceedingly
meagre, sufficing scarcely for determining its most general traits.
Moreover, what there is, requires for the most part a control through
confirmatory evidence which we seek for in vain, in biblical or
classical literature.

This control has now been furnished by the remarkable discoveries made
beneath the soil of Mesopotamia since the year 1842. In that year the
French consul at Mosul, P. E. Botta, aided by a government grant, began
a series of excavations in the mounds that line the banks of the Tigris
opposite Mosul. The artificial character of these mounds had for some
time been recognized. Botta's first finds of a pronounced character were
made at a village known as Khorsabad, which stood on one of the mounds
in question. Here, at a short distance below the surface, he came across
the remains of what proved to be a palace of enormous extent. The
sculptures that were found in this palace--enormous bulls and lions
resting on backgrounds of limestone, and guarding the approaches to the
palace chambers, or long rows of carvings in high relief lining the
palace walls, and depicting war scenes, building operations, and
religious processions--left no doubt as to their belonging to an ancient
period of history. The written characters found on these monuments
substantiated the view that Botta had come across an edifice of the
Assyrian empire, while subsequent researches furnished the important
detail that the excavated edifice lay in a suburb of the ancient capitol
of Assyria, Nineveh, the exact site of which was directly opposite
Mosul. Botta's labors extended over a period of two years; by the end of
which time, having laid bare the greater part of the palace, he had
gathered a large mass of material including many smaller
objects--pottery, furniture, jewelry, and ornaments--that might serve
for the study of Assyrian art and of Assyrian antiquities, while the
written records accompanying the monuments placed for the first time an
equally considerable quantity of original material at the disposal of
scholars for the history of Assyria. All that could be transported was
sent to the Louvre, and this material was subsequently published. Botta
was followed by Austen Henry Layard, who, acting as the agent of the
British Museum, conducted excavations during the years 1845-52, first at
a mound Nimrud, some fifteen miles to the south of Khorsabad, and
afterwards on the site of Nineveh proper, the mound Koyunjik, opposite
Mosul, besides visiting and examining other mounds still further to the
south within the district of Babylonia proper.

The scope of Layard's excavations exceeded, therefore, those of Botta;
and to the one palace at Khorsabad, he added three at Nimrud and two at
Koyunjik, besides finding traces of a temple and other buildings. The
construction of these edifices was of the same order as the one
unearthed by Botta; and as at the latter, there was a large yield of
sculptures, inscriptions, and miscellaneous objects. A new feature,
however, of Layard's excavations was the finding of several rooms filled
with fragments of small and large clay tablets closely inscribed on both
sides in the cuneiform characters. These tablets, about 30,000 of which
found their way to the British Museum, proved to be the remains of a
royal library. Their contents ranged over all departments of
thought,--hymns, incantations, prayers, epics, history, legends,
mythology, mathematics, astronomy constituting some of the chief
divisions. In the corners of the palaces, the foundation records were
also found, containing in each case more or less extended annals of the
events that occurred during the reign of the monarch whose official
residence was thus brought to light. Through Layard, the foundations
were laid for the Assyrian and Babylonian collections of the British
Museum, the parts of which exhibited to the public now fill six large
halls. Fresh sources of a direct character were thus added for the
study, not only of the historical unfolding of the Assyrian empire, but
through the tablets of the royal library, for the religion of ancient
Mesopotamia as well.

The stimulus given by Botta and Layard to the recovery of the records
and monuments of antiquity that had been hidden from view for more than
two thousand years, led to a refreshing rivalry between England and
France in continuing a work that gave promise of still richer returns by
further efforts. Victor Place, a French architect of note, who succeeded
Botta as the French consul at Mosul, devoted his term of service, from
1851 to 1855, towards completing the excavations at Khorsabad. A large
aftermath rewarded his efforts. Thanks, too, to his technical knowledge
and that of his assistant, Felix Thomas, M. Place was enabled more
accurately to determine the architectural construction of the temples
and palaces of ancient Assyria. Within this same period (1852-1854)
another exploring expedition was sent out to Mesopotamia by the French
government, under the leadership of Fulgence Fresnel, in whose party
were the above-mentioned Thomas and the distinguished scholar Jules
Oppert. The objective point this time was Southern Mesopotamia, the
mounds of which had hitherto not been touched, many not even identified
as covering the remains of ancient cities. Much valuable work was done
by this expedition in its careful study of the site of the ancient
Babylon,--in the neighborhood of the modern village Hillah, some forty
miles south of Baghdad. Unfortunately, the antiquities recovered at this
place, and elsewhere, were lost through the sinking of the rafts as they
carried their precious burden down the Tigris. In the south again, the
English followed close upon the heels of the French. J. E. Taylor, in
1854, visited many of the huge mounds that were scattered throughout
Southern Mesopotamia in much larger numbers than in the north, while his
compatriot, William K. Loftus, a few years previous had begun
excavations, though on a small scale, at Warka, the site of the ancient
city of Erech. He also conducted some investigations at a mound Mugheir,
which acquired special interest as the supposed site of the famous
Ur,--the home of some of the Terahites before the migration to
Palestine. Of still greater significance were the examinations made by
Sir Henry Rawlinson, in 1854, of the only considerable ruins of ancient
Babylonia that remained above the surface,--the tower of Birs Nimrud,
which proved to be the famous seven-staged temple as described by
Herodotus. This temple was completed, as the foundation records showed,
by Nebuchadnezzar II., in the sixth century before this era; but the
beginnings of the structure belong to a much earlier period. Another
sanctuary erected by this same king was found near the tower. Subsequent
researches by Hormuzd Rassam made it certain that Borsippa, the ancient
name of the place where the tower and sanctuaries stood, was a suburb of
the great city of Babylon itself, which lay directly opposite on the
east side of the Euphrates. The scope of the excavations continued to
grow almost from year to year, and while new mounds were being attacked
in the south, those in the north, especially Koujunjik, continued to be
the subject of attention.

Rassam, who has just been mentioned, was in a favorable position,
through his long residence as English consul at Mosul, for extracting
new finds from the mounds in this vicinity. Besides adding more than a
thousand tablets from the royal library discovered by Layard, his most
noteworthy discoveries were the unearthing of a magnificent temple at
Nimrud, and the finding of a large bronze gate at Balawat, a few miles
to the northeast of Nimrud. Rassam and Rawlinson were afterwards joined
by George Smith of the British Museum, who, instituting a further search
through the ruins of Koujunjik, Nimrud, Kalah-Shergat, and elsewhere,
made many valuable additions to the English collections, until his
unfortunate death in 1876, during his third visit to the mounds, cut him
off in the prime of a brilliant and most useful career. The English
explorers extended their labors to the mounds in the south. Here it was,
principally at Abu-Habba, that they set their forces to work. The
finding of another temple dedicated to the sun-god rewarded their
efforts. The foundation records showed that the edifice was one of great
antiquity, which was permitted to fall into decay and was then restored
by a ruler whose date can be fixed at the middle of the ninth century
B.C. The ancient name of the place was shown to be Sippar, and the fame
of the temple was such, that subsequent monarchs vied with one another
in adding to its grandeur. It is estimated that the temple contained no
less than three hundred chambers and halls for the archives and for the
accommodation of the large body of priests attached to this temple. In
the archives many thousands of little clay tablets were again found,
not, however, of a literary, but of a legal character, containing
records of commercial transactions conducted in ancient Sippar, such as
sales of houses, of fields, of produce, of stuffs, money loans,
receipts, contracts for work, marriage settlements, and the like. The
execution of the laws being in the hands of priests in ancient
Mesopotamia, the temples were the natural depositories for the official
documents of the law courts. Similar collections to those of Sippar have
been found in almost every mound of Southern Mesopotamia that has been
opened since the days of Rassam. So at Djumdjuma, situated near the site
of the ancient city of Babylon, some three thousand were unearthed that
were added to the fast growing collections of the British Museum. At
Borsippa, likewise, Rawlinson and Rassam recovered a large number of
clay tablets, most of them legal but some of them of a literary
character, which proved to be in part duplicates of those in the royal
library of Ashurbanabal. In this way, the latter's statement, that he
sent his scribes to the large cities of the south for the purpose of
collecting and copying the literature that had its rise there, met with
a striking confirmation. Still further to the south, at a mound known as
Telloh, a representative of the French government, Ernest de Sarzec,
began a series of excavations in 1877, which, continued to the present
day, have brought to light remains of temples and palaces exceeding in
antiquity those hitherto discovered. Colossal statues of diorite,
covered with inscriptions, the pottery, tablets and ornaments, showed
that at a period as early as 3500 B.C. civilization in this region had
already reached a very advanced stage. The systematic and thorough
manner in which De Sarzec, with inexhaustible patience, explored the
ancient city, has resulted in largely extending our knowledge of the
most ancient period of Babylonian history as yet known to us. The Telloh
finds were forwarded to the Louvre, which in this way secured a
collection from the south that formed a worthy complement to the
Khorsabad antiquities.

Lastly, it is gratifying to note the share that our own country has
recently taken in the great work that has furnished the material needed
for following the history of the Mesopotamian states. In 1887, an
expedition was sent out under the auspices of the University of
Pennsylvania, to conduct excavations at Niffer,--a mound to the
southeast of Babylon, situated on a branch of the Euphrates, and which
was known to be the site of one of the most famous cities in this
region. The Rev. John P. Peters (now in New York), who was largely
instrumental in raising the funds for the purpose, was appointed
director of the expedition. Excavations were continued for two years
under Dr. Peters' personal supervision, and since then by Mr. John H.
Haynes, with most satisfactory success. A great temple dedicated to the
god Bel was discovered, and work has hitherto been confined chiefly to
laying bare the various parts of the edifice. The foundation of the
building goes back to an earlier period than the ruins of Telloh. It
survived the varying fortunes of the city in which it stood, and each
period of Babylonian history left its traces at Niffer through the
records of the many rulers who sought the favor of the god by enlarging
or beautifying his place of worship. The temple became a favorite spot
to which pilgrims came from all sides on the great festivals, to offer
homage at the sacred shrines. Votive offerings, in the shape of
inscribed clay cones, and little clay images of Bel and of his female
consort, were left in the temple as witnesses to the piety of the
visitors. The archives were found to be well stocked with the official
legal documents dating chiefly from the period of 1700 to 1200 B.C.,
when the city appears to have reached the climax of its glory. Other
parts of the mound were opened at different depths, and various layers
which followed the chronological development of the place were
determined.[9] After its destruction, the sanctity of the city was in a
measure continued by its becoming a burial-place. The fortunes of the
place can thus be followed down to the ninth or the tenth century of our
era, a period of more than four thousand years. Already more than 20,000
tablets have been received at the University of Pennsylvania, besides
many specimens of pottery, bowls, jars, cones, and images, as well as
gold, copper, and alabaster work.

From this survey of the work done in the last decades in exploring the
long lost and almost forgotten cities of the Tigris and of the Euphrates
Valley, it will be apparent that a large amount of material has been
made accessible for tracing the course of civilization in this region.
Restricting ourselves to that portion of it that bears on the religion
of ancient Mesopotamia, it may be grouped under two heads, (1) literary,
and (2) archaeological. The religious texts of Ashurbanabal's library
occupy the first place in the literary group. The incantations, the
prayers and hymns, lists of temples, of gods and their attributes,
traditions of the creation of the world, legends of the deities and of
their relations to men, are sources of the most direct character; and it
is fortunate that among the recovered portions of the library, such
texts are largely represented. Equally direct are the dedicatory
inscriptions set up by the kings in the temples erected to the honor of
some god, and of great importance are the references to the various
gods, their attributes, their powers, and their deeds, which are found
at every turn in the historical records which the kings left behind
them. Many of these records open or close with a long prayer to some
deity; in others, prayers are found interspersed, according to the
occasion on which they were offered up. Attributing the success of their
undertakings--whether it be a military campaign, or the construction of
some edifice, or a successful hunt--to the protection offered by the
gods, the kings do not tire of singing the praises of the deity or
deities as whose favorites they regarded themselves. The gods are
constantly at the monarch's side. Now we are told of a dream sent to
encourage the army on the approach of a battle, and again of some
portent which bade the king be of good cheer. To the gods, the appeal is
constantly made, and to them all good things are ascribed. From the
legal documents, likewise, much may be gathered bearing on the religion.
The protection of the gods is invoked or their curses called down; the
oath is taken in their name; while the manner in which the temples are
involved in the commercial life of ancient Babylonia renders these
tablets, which are chiefly valuable as affording us a remarkable insight
into the people's daily life, of importance also in illustrating certain
phases of the religious organization of the country. Most significant
for the position occupied by the priests, is the fact that the latter
are invariably the scribes who draw up the documents.

The archaeological material furnished by the excavations consists of the
temples of the gods, their interior arrangement, and provisions for the
various religious functions; secondly, the statues of the gods,
demigods, and the demons, the altars and the vessels; and thirdly, the
religious scenes,--the worship of some deity, the carrying of the gods
in procession, the pouring of libations, the performance of rites, or
the representation of some religious symbols sculptured on the palace
wall or on the foundation stone of a sacred building, or cut out on the
seal cylinders, used as signatures[10] and talismans.

Large as the material is, it is far from being exhausted, and, indeed,
far from sufficient for illustrating all the details of the religious
life. This will not appear surprising, if it be remembered that of the
more than one hundred mounds that have been identified in the region of
the Tigris and Euphrates as containing remains of buried cities, only a
small proportion have been explored, and of these scarcely more than a
half dozen with an approach to completeness. The soil of Mesopotamia
unquestionably holds still greater treasures than those which it has
already yielded. The links uniting the most ancient period--at present,
_c._ 4000 B.C.--to the final destruction of the Babylonian empire by
Cyrus, in the middle of the sixth century B.C., are far from being
complete. For entire centuries we are wholly in the dark, and for others
only a few skeleton facts are known; and until these gaps shall have
been filled, our knowledge of the religion of the Babylonians and
Assyrians must necessarily remain incomplete. Not as incomplete, indeed,
as their history, for religious rites are not subject to many changes,
and the progress of religious ideas does not keep pace with the constant
changes in the political kaleidoscope of a country; but, it is evident
that no exhaustive treatment of the religion can be given until the
material shall have become adequate to the subject.


III.

Before proceeding to the division of the subject in hand, some
explanation is called for of the method by which the literary material
found beneath the soil has been made intelligible.

The characters on the clay tablets and cylinders, on the limestone
slabs, on statues, on altars, on stone monuments, are generally known as
cuneiform, because of their wedge-shaped appearance, though it may be
noted at once that in their oldest form the characters are linear rather
than wedge-shaped, presenting the more or less clearly defined outlines
of objects from which they appear to be derived. At the time when these
cuneiform inscriptions began to be found in Mesopotamia, the language
which these characters expressed was still totally unknown. Long
previous to the beginning of Botta's labors, inscriptions also showing
the cuneiform characters had been found at Persepolis on various
monuments of the ruins and tombs still existing at that place. The first
notice of these inscriptions was brought to Europe by a famous Italian
traveler, Pietro della Valle, in the beginning of the seventeenth
century. For a long time it was doubted whether the characters
represented anything more than mere ornamentation, and it was not until
the close of the 18th century, after more accurate copies of the
Persepolitan characters had been furnished through Carsten Niebuhr, that
scholars began to apply themselves to their decipherment. Through the
efforts chiefly of Gerhard Tychsen, professor at Rostock, Frederick
Münter, a Danish scholar, and the distinguished Silvestre de Sacy of
Paris, the beginnings were made which finally led to the discovery of
the key to the mysterious writings, in 1802, by Georg Friedrich
Grotefend, a teacher at a public school in Göttingen. The observation
was made previous to the days of Grotefend that the inscriptions at
Persepolis invariably showed three styles of writing. While in all three
the characters were composed of wedges, yet the combination of wedges,
as well as their shape, differed sufficiently to make it evident, even
to the superficial observer, that there was as much difference between
them as, say, between the English and the German script. The conclusion
was drawn that the three styles represented three languages, and this
conclusion was strikingly confirmed when, upon the arrival of Botta's
finds in Europe, it was seen that one of the styles corresponded to the
inscriptions found at Khorsabad; and so in all subsequent discoveries in
Mesopotamia, this was found to be the case. One of the languages,
therefore, on the monuments of Persepolis was presumably identical with
the speech of ancient Mesopotamia. Grotefend's key to the reading of
that style of cuneiform writing which invariably occupied the first
place when the three styles were ranged one under the other, or occupied
the most prominent place when a different arrangement was adopted, met
with universal acceptance. He determined that the language of the style
which, for the sake of convenience, we may designate as No. 1, was Old
Persian,--the language spoken by the rulers, who, it was known through
tradition and notices in classical writers, had erected the series of
edifices at Persepolis, one of the capitols of the Old Persian or, as it
is also called, the Achaemenian empire. By the year 1840 the
decipherment of these Achaemenian inscriptions was practically complete,
the inscriptions had been read, the alphabet was definitely settled, and
the grammar, in all but minor points, known. It was possible, therefore,
in approaching the Mesopotamian style of cuneiform, which, as occupying
the third place, may be designated as No. 3, to use No. 1 as a guide,
since it was only legitimate to conclude that Nos. 2 and 3 represented
translations of No. 1 into two languages, which, by the side of Old
Persian, were spoken by the subjects of the Achaemenian kings. That one
of these languages should have been the current speech of Mesopotamia
was exactly what was to be expected, since Babylonia and Assyria formed
an essential part of the Persian empire.

The beginning was made with proper names, the sound of which would
necessarily be the same or very similar in both, or, for that matter, in
all the three languages of the Persepolitan inscriptions.[11] In this
way, by careful comparisons between the two styles, Nos. 1 and 3, it was
possible to pick out the signs in No. 3 that corresponded to those in
No. 1, and inasmuch as the same sign occurred in various names, it was,
furthermore, possible to assign, at least tentatively, certain values to
the signs in question. With the help of the signs thus determined, the
attempt was made to read other words in style No. 3, in which these
signs occurred, but it was some time before satisfactory results were
obtained. An important advance was made when it was once determined,
that the writing was a mixture of signs used both as words and as
syllables, and that the language on the Assyrian monuments belonged to
the group known as Semitic. The cognate languages--chiefly Hebrew and
Arabic--formed a help towards determining the meaning of the words read
and an explanation of the morphological features they presented. For all
that, the task was one of stupendous proportions, and many were the
obstacles that had to be overcome, before the principles underlying the
cuneiform writing were determined, and the decipherment placed on a firm
and scientific basis. This is not the place to enter upon a detailed
illustration of the method adopted by ingenious scholars,--notably
Edward Hincks, Isidor Löwenstern, Henry Rawlinson, Jules Oppert,--to
whose united efforts the solution of the great problems involved is
due;[12] and it would also take too much space, since in order to make
this method clear, it would be necessary to set forth the key discovered
by Grotefend for reading the Old Persian inscriptions. Suffice it to say
that the guarantee for the soundness of the conclusions reached by
scholars is furnished by the consideration, that it was from small and
most modest beginnings that the decipherment began. Step by step, the
problem was advanced by dint of a painstaking labor, the degree of which
cannot easily be exaggerated, until to-day the grammar of the
Babylonian-Assyrian language has been clearly set forth in all its
essential particulars: the substantive and verb formation is as
definitely known as that of any other Semitic language, the general
principles of the syntax, as well as many detailed points, have been
carefully investigated, and as for the reading of the cuneiform texts,
thanks to the various helps at our disposal, and the further elucidation
of the various principles that the Babylonians themselves adopted as a
guide, the instance is a rare one when scholars need to confess their
ignorance in this particular. At most there may be a halting between two
possibilities. The difficulties that still hinder the complete
understanding of passages in texts, arise in part from the mutilated
condition in which, unfortunately, so many of the tablets and cylinders
are found, and in part from a still imperfect knowledge of the
lexicography of the language. For many a word occurring only once or
twice, and for which neither text nor comparison with cognate languages
offers a satisfactory clue, ignorance must be confessed, or at best, a
conjecture hazarded, until its more frequent occurrence enables us to
settle the question at issue. Such settlements of disputed questions are
taking place all the time; and with the activity with which the study of
the language and antiquities of Mesopotamia is being pushed by scholars
in this country, in England, France, Austria, Germany, Italy, Norway,
and Holland, and with the constant accession of new material through
excavations and publications, there is no reason to despair of clearing
up the obscurities, still remaining in the precious texts that a
fortunate chance has preserved for us.


IV.

A question that still remains to be considered as to the origin of the
cuneiform writing of Mesopotamia, may properly be introduced in
connection with this account of the excavations and decipherment, though
it is needless to enter into it in detail.

The "Persian" style of wedge-writing is a direct derivative of the
Babylonian, introduced in the times of the Achaemenians, and it is
nothing but a simplification in form and principle of the more
cumbersome and complicated Babylonian. Instead of a combination of as
many as ten and fifteen wedges to make one sign, we have in the Persian
never more than five, and frequently only three; and instead of writing
words by syllables, sounds alone were employed, and the syllabary of
several hundred signs reduced to forty-two, while the ideographic style
was practically abolished.

The second style of cuneiform, generally known as Median or Susian,[13]
is again only a slight modification of the "Persian." Besides these
three, there is a fourth language (spoken in the northwestern district
of Mesopotamia between the Euphrates and the Orontes), known as
"Mitanni," the exact status of which has not been clearly ascertained,
but which has been adapted to cuneiform characters. A fifth variety,
found on tablets from Cappadocia, represents again a modification of the
ordinary writing met with in Babylonia. In the inscriptions of Mitanni,
the writing is a mixture of ideographs and syllables, just as in
Mesopotamia, while the so-called "Cappadocian" tablets are written in a
corrupt Babylonian, corresponding in degree to the "corrupt" forms that
the signs take on. In Mesopotamia itself, quite a number of styles
exist, some due to local influences, others the result of changes that
took place in the course of time. In the oldest period known, that is
from 4000 to 3000 B.C., the writing is linear rather than wedge-shaped.
The linear writing is the modification that the original pictures
underwent in being adapted for engraving on stone; the wedges are the
modification natural to the use of clay, though when once the wedges
became the standard method, the greater frequency with which clay as
against stone came to be used, led to an imitation of the wedges by
those who cut out the characters on stone. In consequence, there
developed two varieties of wedge-writing: the one that may be termed
lapidary, used for the stone inscriptions, the official historical
records, and such legal documents as were prepared with especial care;
the other cursive, occurring only on legal and commercial clay tablets,
and becoming more frequent as we approach the latest period of
Babylonian writing, which extends to within a few decades of our era. In
Assyria, finally, a special variety of cuneiform developed that is
easily distinguished from the Babylonian by its greater neatness and the
more vertical position of the wedges.

The origin of all the styles and varieties of cuneiform writing is,
therefore, to be sought in Mesopotamia; and within Mesopotamia, in that
part of it where culture begins--the extreme south; but beyond saying
that the writing is a direct development from picture writing, there is
little of any definite character that can be maintained. We do not know
when the writing originated, we only know that in the oldest
inscriptions it is already fully developed.

We do not know who originated it; nor can the question be as yet
definitely answered, whether those who originated it spoke the
Babylonian language, or whether they were Semites at all. Until about
fifteen years ago, it was generally supposed that the cuneiform writing
was without doubt the invention of a non-Semitic race inhabiting
Babylonia at an early age, from whom the Semitic Babylonians adopted it,
together with the culture that this non-Semitic race had produced. These
inventors, called Sumerians by some and Akkadians by others, and
Sumero-Akkadians by a third group of scholars, it was supposed, used the
"cuneiform" as a picture or 'ideographic' script exclusively; and the
language they spoke being agglutinative and largely monosyllabic in
character, it was possible for them to stop short at this point of
development. The Babylonians however, in order to adapt the writing to
their language, did not content themselves with the 'picture' method,
but using the non-Semitic equivalent for their own words, employed the
former as syllables, while retaining, at the same time, the sign as an
ideograph. To make this clearer by an example, the numeral '1' would
represent the word 'one' in their own language, while the non-Semitic
word for 'one,' which let us suppose was "_ash_," they used as the
phonetic value of the sign, in writing a word in which this sound
occurred, as _e.g._, _ash-es_. Since each sign, in Sumero-Akkadian as
well as in Babylonian, represented some general idea, it could stand for
an entire series of words, grouped about this idea and associated with
it, 'day,' for example, being used for 'light,' 'brilliancy,' 'pure,'
and so forth. The variety of syllabic and ideographic values which the
cuneiform characters show could thus be accounted for.

This theory, however, tempting as it is by its simplicity, cannot be
accepted in this unqualified form. Advancing knowledge has made it
certain that the ancient civilization, including the religion, is
Semitic in character. The assumption therefore of a purely non-Semitic
culture for southern Babylonia is untenable. Secondly, even in the
oldest inscriptions found, there occur Semitic words and Semitic
constructions which prove that the inscriptions were composed by
Semites. As long, therefore, as no traces of purely non-Semitic
inscription are found, we cannot go beyond the Semites in seeking for
the origin of the culture in this region. In view of this, the theory
first advanced by Prof. Joseph Halévy of Paris, and now supported by the
most eminent of German Assyriologists, Prof. Friedrich Delitzsch, which
claims that the cuneiform writing is Semitic in origin, needs to be most
carefully considered. There is much that speaks in favor of this theory,
much that may more easily be accounted for by it, than by the opposite
one, which was originally proposed by the distinguished Nestor of
cuneiform studies, Jules Oppert, and which is with some modifications
still held by the majority of scholars.[14] The question is one which
cannot be answered by an appeal to philology alone. This is the
fundamental error of the advocates of the Sumero-Akkadian theory, who
appear to overlook the fact that the testimony of archaeological and
anthropological research must be confirmatory of a philological
hypothesis before it can be accepted as an indisputable fact.[15] The
time however has not yet come for these two sciences to pronounce their
verdict definitely, though it may be added that the supposition of a
variety of races once inhabiting Southern Mesopotamia finds support in
what we know from the pre-historic researches of anthropologists.

Again, it is not to be denied that the theory of the Semitic origin of
the cuneiform writing encounters obstacles that cannot easily be set
aside. While it seeks to explain the syllabic values of the signs on the
general principle that they represent elements of Babylonian words,
truncated in this fashion in order to answer to the growing need for
phonetic writing of words for which no ideographs existed, it is
difficult to imagine, as Halévy's theory demands, that the "ideographic"
style, as found chiefly in religious texts, is the deliberate invention
of priests in their desire to produce a method of conveying their ideas
that would be regarded as a mystery by the laity, and be successfully
concealed from the latter. Here again the theory borders on the domain
of archaeology, and philology alone will not help us out of the
difficulty. An impartial verdict of the present state of the problem
might be summed up as follows:

1. It is generally admitted that all the literature of Babylonia,
including the oldest and even that written in the "ideographic" style,
whether we term it "Sumero-Akkadian" or "hieratic," is the work of the
Semitic settlers of Mesopotamia.

2. The culture, including the religion of Babylonia, is likewise a
Semitic production, and since Assyria received its culture from
Babylonia, the same remark holds good for entire Mesopotamia.

3. The cuneiform syllabary is largely Semitic in character. The ideas
expressed by the ideographic values of the signs give no evidence of
having been produced in non-Semitic surroundings; and, whatever the
origin of the system may be, it has been so shaped by the Babylonians,
so thoroughly adapted to their purposes, that it is to all practical
purposes Semitic.

4. Approached from the theoretical side, there remains, after making
full allowance for the Semitic elements in the system, a residuum that
has not yet found a satisfactory explanation, either by those who favor
the non-Semitic theory or by those who hold the opposite view.

5. Pending further light to be thrown upon this question, through the
expected additions to our knowledge of the archaeology and of the
anthropological conditions of ancient prehistoric Mesopotamia,
philological research must content itself with an acknowledgment of its
inability to reach a conclusion that will appeal so forcibly to all
minds, as to place the solution of the problem beyond dispute.

6. There is a presumption in favor of assuming a mixture of races in
Southern Mesopotamia at an early day, and a possibility, therefore, that
the earliest form of picture writing in this region, from which the
Babylonian cuneiform is derived, may have been _used_ by a non-Semitic
population, and that traces of this are still apparent in the developed
system after the important step had been taken, marked by the advance
from picture to phonetic writing.

The important consideration for our purpose is, that the religious
conceptions and practices as they are reflected in the literary sources
now at our command, are distinctly Babylonian. With this we may rest
content, and, leaving theories aside, there will be no necessity in an
exposition of the religion of the Babylonians and Assyrians to
differentiate or to attempt to differentiate between Semitic and
so-called non-Semitic elements. Local conditions and the long period
covered by the development and history of the religion in question, are
the factors that suffice to account for the mixed and in many respects
complicated phenomena which this religion presents.

Having set forth the sources at our command for the study of the
Babylonian-Assyrian religion, and having indicated the manner in which
these sources have been made available for our purposes, we are prepared
to take the next step that will fit us for an understanding of the
religious practices that prevailed in Mesopotamia,--a consideration of
the land and of its people, together with a general account of the
history of the latter.

FOOTNOTES:

[5] Isaiah, xlv. For the Babylonian views contained in this chapter, see
Alfred Jeremias, _Die Babylonisch-Assyrischen Vorstellungen vom Leben
nach dem Tode_, pp. 112-116.

[6] Book i. sec. 184.

[7] Book I. ("Clio"), secs. 95, 102, 178-200.

[8] An instructive instance is furnished by the mention of a mystic
personage, "Homoroka," which now turns out to be--as Professor J. H.
Wright has shown--a corruption of Marduk. (See _Zeitschrift für
Assyriologie_, x. 71-74.)

[9] The excavations are still being continued, thanks to the generosity
of some public-spirited citizens of Philadelphia.

[10] The parties concerned rolled their cylinders over the clay tablet
recording a legal or commercial transaction.

[11] Besides those at Persepolis, a large tri-lingual inscription was
found at Behistun, near the city of Kirmenshah, in Persia, which,
containing some ninety proper names, enabled Sir Henry Rawlinson
definitely to establish a basis for the decipherment of the Mesopotamian
inscriptions.

[12] The best account is to be found in Hommel's _Geschichte Babyloniens
und Assyriens_, pp. 58-134. A briefer statement was furnished by
Professor Fr. Delitzsch in his supplements to the German translation of
George Smith's _Chaldaean Genesis_ (_Chaldäische Genesis_, pp. 257-262).
A tolerably satisfactory account in English is furnished by B. T. A.
Evetts in his work, _New Light on the Bible and the Holy Land_, pp.
79-129. For a full account of the excavations and the decipherment,
together with a summary of results and specimens of the various branches
of the Babylonian-Assyrian literature, the reader may be referred to
Kaulen's _Assyrien und Babylonien nach den neuesten Entdeckungen_ (5th
edition).

[13] The most recent investigations show it to have been a 'Turanian'
language. See Weissbach, _Achämeniden Inschriften sweiter Art_, Leipzig,
1893.

[14] Besides Delitzsch, however, there are others, as Pognon, Jäger,
Guyard, McCurdy and Brinton, who side with Halévy.

[15] See now Dr. Brinton's paper, "The Protohistoric Ethnography of
Western Asia" (_Proceed. Amer. Philos. Soc._, 1895), especially pp.
18-22.




CHAPTER II.

THE LAND AND THE PEOPLE.

I.


The Babylonians and Assyrians with whom we are concerned in this volume
dwelt in the region embraced by the Euphrates and the Tigris,--the
Babylonians in the south, or the Euphrates Valley, the Assyrians to the
northeast, in the region extending from the Tigris into the Kurdish
Mountain districts; while the northwestern part of Mesopotamia--the
northern half of the Euphrates district--was the seat of various empires
that were alternately the rivals and the subjects of either Babylonia or
Assyria.

The entire length of Babylonia was about 300 miles; the greatest breadth
about 125 miles. The entire surface area was some 23,000 square miles,
or about the size of West Virginia. The area of Assyria, with a length
of 350 miles and a breadth varying from 170 to 300 miles, covered 75,000
square miles, which would make it somewhat smaller than the state of
Nebraska. In the strict sense, the term Mesopotamia should be limited to
the territory lying between the Euphrates and the Tigris above their
junction, in the neighborhood of Baghdad, and extending northwards to
the confines of the Taurus range; while the district to the south of
Baghdad, and reaching to the Persian Gulf, may more properly be spoken
of as the Euphrates Valley; and a third division is represented by the
territory to the east of the Tigris, from Baghdad, and up to the Kurdish
Mountains; but while this distinction is one that may be justly
maintained, in view of the different character that the southern valley
presents from the northern plain, it has become so customary, in popular
parlance, to think of the entire territory along and between the
Euphrates and Tigris as one country, that the term Mesopotamia in this
broad sense may be retained, with the division suggested by George
Rawlinson, into Upper and Lower Mesopotamia. The two streams, as they
form the salient traits of the region, are the factors that condition
the character of the inhabitants and the culture that once flourished
there. The Euphrates, or, to give the more correct pronunciation, Purat,
signifies the 'river' _par excellence_. It is a quiet stream, flowing
along in majestic dignity almost from its two sources, in the Armenian
mountains, not far from the town of Erzerum, until it is joined by the
Tigris in the extreme south. As the Shatt-el Arab, _i.e._, Arabic River,
the two reach the Persian Gulf. Receiving many tributaries as long as it
remains in the mountains, it flows first in a westerly direction, as
though making direct for the Mediterranean Sea, then, veering suddenly
to the southeast, it receives but few tributaries after it once passes
through the Taurus range into the plain,--on the right side, only the
Sadschur, on the left the Balichus and the Khabur. From this point on
for the remaining distance of 800 miles, so far from receiving fresh
accessions, it loses in quantity through the marsh beds that form on
both sides. When it reaches the alluvial soil of Babylonia proper, its
current and also its depth are considerably diminished through the
numerous canals that form an outlet for its waters. Of its entire
length, 1780 miles, it is navigable only for a small distance, cataracts
forming a hindrance in its northern course and sandbanks in the south.
In consequence, it never became at any time an important avenue for
commerce, and besides rafts, which could be floated down to a certain
distance, the only means of communication ever used were wicker baskets
coated within and without with bitumen, or some form of a primitive
ferry for passing from one shore to another.

An entirely different stream is the Tigris--a corrupted form of
'Idiklat.' It is only 1146 miles in length, and is marked, as the native
name indicates, by the 'swiftness' of its flow. Starting, like the
Euphrates, in the rugged regions of Armenia, it continues its course
through mountain clefts for a longer period, and joined at frequent
intervals by tributaries, both before it merges into the plain and after
doing so, the volume of its waters is steadily increased. Even when it
approaches the alluvial soil of the south, it does not lose its
character until well advanced in its course to the gulf. Advancing
towards the Euphrates and again receding from it, it at last joins the
latter at Korna, and together they pour their waters through the Persian
Gulf into the great ocean. It is navigable from Diabekr in the north,
for its entire length. Large rafts may be floated down from Mosul to
Baghdad and Basra, and even small steamers have ascended as far north as
Nimrud. The Tigris, then, in contrast to the Euphrates, is the avenue of
commerce for Mesopotamia, forming the connecting bond between it and the
rest of the ancient world,--Egypt, India, and the lands of the
Mediterranean. Owing, however, to the imperfect character of the means
of transportation in ancient and, for that matter, in modern times, the
voyage up the stream was impracticable. The rafts, resting on inflated
bags of goat or sheep skin, can make no headway against the rapid
stream, and so, upon reaching Baghdad or Basra, they are broken up, and
the bags sent back by the shore route to the north.

The contrast presented by the two rivers is paralleled by the traits
distinguishing Upper from Lower Mesopotamia. Shut off to the north and
northeast by the Armenian range, to the northwest by the Taurus, Upper
Mesopotamia retains, for a considerable extent, and especially on the
eastern side, a rugged aspect. The Kurdish mountains run close to the
Tigris' bed for some distance below Mosul, while between the Tigris and
the Euphrates proper, small ranges and promontories stretch as far as
the end of the Taurus chain, well on towards Mosul.

Below Mosul, the region begins to change its character. The mountains
cease, the plain begins, the soil becomes alluvial and through the
regular overflow of the two rivers in the rainy season, develops an
astounding fertility. This overflow begins, in the case of the Tigris,
early in March, reaches its height in May, and ceases about the middle
of June. The overflow of the Euphrates extends from the middle of March
till the beginning of June, but September is reached before the river
resumes its natural state. Not only does the overflow of the Euphrates
thus extend over a longer period, but it oversteps its banks with
greater violence than does the Tigris, so that as far north as the
juncture with the Khabur, and still more so in the south, the country to
both sides is flooded, until it assumes the appearance of a great sea.
Through the violence of these overflows, changes constantly occur in the
course that the river takes, so that places which in ancient times stood
on its banks are to-day removed from the main river-bed. Another
important change in Southern Babylonia is the constant accretion of
soil, due to the deposits from the Persian Gulf.

This increase proceeding on an average of about one mile in fifty years
has brought it about that the two rivers to-day, instead of passing
separately into the Gulf, unite at Korna--some distance still from the
entrance. The contrast of seasons is greater, as may be imagined, in
Upper Mesopotamia than in the south. The winters are cold, with
snowfalls that may last for several months, but with the beginning of
the dry season, in May, a tropical heat sets in which lasts until the
beginning of November, when the rain begins. Assyria proper, that is,
the eastern side of Mesopotamia, is more affected by the mountain ranges
than the west. In the Euphrates Valley, the heat during the dry season,
from about May till November, when for weeks, and even months, no cloud
is to be seen, beggars description; but strange enough, the Arabs who
dwell there at present, while enduring the heat without much discomfort,
are severely affected by a winter temperature that for Europeans and
Americans is exhilarating in its influence.

From what has been said, it will be clear that the Euphrates is, _par
excellence_, the river of Southern Mesopotamia or Babylonia, while the
Tigris may be regarded as the river of Assyria. It was the Euphrates
that made possible the high degree of culture, that was reached in the
south. Through the very intense heat of the dry season, the soil
developed a fertility that reduced human labor to a minimum. The return
for sowing of all kinds of grain, notably wheat, corn, barley, is
calculated, on an average, to be fifty to a hundred-fold, while the date
palm flourishes with scarcely any cultivation at all. Sustenance being
thus provided for with little effort, it needed only a certain care in
protecting oneself from damage through the too abundant overflow, to
enable the population to find that ease of existence, which is an
indispensable condition of culture. This was accomplished by the
erection of dikes, and by directing the waters through channels into the
fields.

Assyria, more rugged in character, did not enjoy the same advantages.
Its culture, therefore, not only arose at a later period than that of
Babylonia, but was a direct importation from the south. It was due to
the natural extension of the civilization that continued for the greater
part of the existence of the two empires to be central in the south. But
when once Assyria was included in the circle of Babylonian culture, the
greater effort required in forcing the natural resources of the soil,
produced a greater variety in the return. Besides corn, wheat and rice,
the olive, banana and fig tree, mulberry and vine were cultivated, while
the vicinity of the mountain ranges furnished an abundance of building
material--wood and limestone--that was lacking in the south. The
fertility of Assyria proper, again, not being dependent on the overflow
of the Tigris, proved to be of greater endurance. With the neglect of
the irrigation system, Babylonia became a mere waste, and the same river
that was the cause of its prosperity became the foe that, more
effectually than any human power, contributed to the ruin and the
general desolation that marks the greater part of the Euphrates Valley
at the present time. Assyria continued to play a part in history long
after its ancient glory had departed, and to this day enjoys a far
greater activity, and is of considerable more significance than the
south.


II.

In so far as natural surroundings affect the character of two peoples
belonging to the same race, the Assyrians present that contrast to the
Babylonians which one may expect from the differences, just set forth,
between the two districts. The former were rugged, more warlike, and
when they acquired power, used it in the perfection of their military
strength; the latter, while not lacking in the ambition to extend their
dominion, yet, on the whole, presented a more peaceful aspect that led
to the cultivation of commerce and industrial arts. Both, however, have
very many more traits in common than they have marks of distinction.
They both belong not only to the Semitic race, but to the same branch of
the race. Presenting the same physical features, the languages spoken by
them are identical, barring differences that do not always rise to the
degree of dialectical variations, and affect chiefly the pronunciation
of certain consonants. At what time the Babylonians and Assyrians
settled in the district in which we find them, whence they came, and
whether the Euphrates Valley or the northern Tigris district was the
first to be settled, are questions that cannot, in the present state of
knowledge, be answered. As to the time of their settlement, the high
degree of culture that the Euphrates Valley shows at the earliest period
known to us,--about 4000 B.C.,--and the indigenous character of this
culture, points to very old settlement, and makes it easier to err on
the side of not going back far enough, than on the side of going too
far. Again, while, as has been several times intimated, the culture in
the south is older than that of the north, it does not necessarily
follow that the settlement of Babylonia antedates that of Assyria. The
answer to this question would depend upon the answer to the question as
to the original home of the Semites.[16] The probabilities, however, are
in favor of assuming a movement of population, as of culture, from the
south to the north. At all events, the history of Babylonia and Assyria
begins with the former, and as a consequence we are justified also in
beginning with that phase of the religion for which we have the earliest
records--the Babylonian.


III.

At the very outset of a brief survey of the history of the Babylonians,
a problem confronts us of primary importance. Are there any traces of
other settlers besides the Semitic Babylonians in the earliest period of
the history of the Euphrates Valley? Those who cling to the theory of a
non-Semitic origin of the cuneiform syllabary will, of course, be ready
to answer in the affirmative. Sumerians and Akkadians are the names
given to these non-Semitic settlers who preceded the Babylonians in the
control of the Euphrates Valley. The names are derived from the terms
Sumer and Akkad, which are frequently found in Babylonian and Assyrian
inscriptions, in connection with the titles of the kings. Unfortunately,
scholars are not a unit in the exact location of the districts comprised
by these names, some declaring Sumer to be in the north and Akkad in the
south; others favoring the reverse position. The balance of proof rests
in favor of the former supposition; but however that may be, Sumer and
Akkad represent, from a certain period on, a general designation to
include the whole of Babylonia. Professor Hommel goes so far as to
declare that in the types found on statues and monuments of the oldest
period of Babylonian history--the monuments coming from the mound
Telloh--we have actual representations of these Sumerians, who are thus
made out to be a smooth-faced race with rather prominent cheek-bones,
round faces, and shaven heads.[17] He pronounces in favor of the
highlands lying to the east of Babylonia, as the home of the Sumerians,
whence they made their way into the Euphrates Valley. Unfortunately, the
noses on these old statues are mutilated, and with such an important
feature missing, anthropologists, at least, are unwilling to pronounce
definitely as to the type represented. Again, together with these
supposed non-Semitic types, other figures have been found which, as
Professor Hommel also admits, show the ordinary Semitic features. It
would seem, therefore, that even accepting the hypothesis of a
non-Semitic type existing in Babylonia at this time, the Semitic
settlers are just as old as the supposed Sumerians; and since it is
admitted that the language found on these statues and figures contains
Semitic constructions and Semitic words, it is, to say the least,
hazardous to give the Sumerians the preference over the Semites so far
as the period of settlement and origin of the Euphratean culture is
concerned. As a matter of fact, we are not warranted in going beyond the
statement that all evidence points in favor of a population of mixed
races in the Euphrates Valley from the earliest period known to us. No
positive proof is forthcoming that Sumer and Akkad were ever employed or
understood in any other sense than as geographical terms.

This one safe conclusion, however, that the Semitic settlers of
Babylonia were not the sole occupants, but by their side dwelt another
race, or possibly a variety of races, possessing entirely different
traits, is one of considerable importance. At various times the
non-Semitic hordes of Elam and the mountain districts to the east of
Babylonia swept over the valley, and succeeded, for a longer or shorter
period, in securing a firm foothold. The ease with which these
conquerors accommodated themselves to their surroundings, continuing the
form of government which they found there, making but slight changes in
the religious practices, can best be accounted for on the supposition
that the mixture of different races in the valley had brought about an
interchange and interlacing of traits which resulted in the approach of
one type to the other. Again, it has recently been made probable that as
early at least as 2000, or even 2500 B.C., Semitic invaders entering
Babylonia from the side of Arabia drove the native Babylonian rulers
from the throne;[18] and at a still earlier period intercourse between
Babylonia and distant nations to the northeast and northwest was
established, which left its traces on the political and social
conditions. At every point we come across evidence of this composite
character of Babylonian culture, and the question as to the origin of
the latter may, after all, resolve itself into the proposition that the
contact of different races gave the intellectual impetus which is the
first condition of a forward movement in civilization; and while it is
possible that, at one stage, the greater share in the movement falls to
the non-Semitic contingent, the Semites soon obtained the intellectual
ascendency, and so absorbed the non-Semitic elements as to give to the
culture resulting from the combination, the homogeneous character it
presents on the surface.


IV.

Our present knowledge of Babylonian history reaches back to the period
of about 4000 B.C. At that time we find the Euphrates Valley divided
into a series of states or principalities, parcelling North and South
Babylonia between them. These states group themselves around certain
cities. In fact, the Babylonian principalities arise from the extension
of the city's jurisdiction, just as the later Babylonian empire is
naught but the enlargement, on a greater scale, of the city of Babylon.

Of these old Babylonian cities the most noteworthy, in the south, are
Eridu, Lagash,[19] Ur, Larsa, Uruk, Isin; and in the north, Agade,
Sippar, Nippur, Kutha, and Babylon. The rulers of these cities call
themselves either 'king' (literally 'great man') or 'governor,'
according as the position is a purely independent one, or one of
subjection to a more powerful chieftain. Thus the earliest rulers of the
district of Lagash, of whom we have inscriptions (_c._ 3200 B.C.) have
the title of 'king,' but a few centuries later Lagash lost its
independent position and its rulers became 'patesis,' _i.e._, governors.
They are in a position of vassalage, as it would appear, to the
contemporaneous kings of Ur, though this does not hinder them from
engaging in military expeditions against Elam, and in extensive building
operations. The kings of Ur, in addition to their title as kings of Ur,
are styled kings of Sumer and Akkad. Whether at this time, Sumer and
Akkad included the whole of Babylonia, or, as seems more likely, only
the southern part, in either case, Lagash would fall under the
jurisdiction of these kings, if their title is to be regarded as more
than an empty boast. Again, the rulers of Uruk are known simply as kings
of that place, while those of Isin incorporate in their titles, kingship
over Ur as well as Sumer and Akkad.

For this early period, extending from about 4000 B.C. to 2300,
the chronology is as yet uncertain. Beyond the titles of the rulers
over Babylonian states, there are but few safe indications for
determining the succession of dynasties. So much, however, is now
certain,--that simultaneous with the governors of Lagash and the
older kings of Ur, there was an independent state in Northern Babylonia
with its seat at Agade. Indeed the history of this state can now be
traced back six centuries beyond that of Lagash. Two rulers of Agade,
Naram-Sin (_c._ 3800 B.C.) and Sargon (or to give his fuller name,
Shargani-shar-ali[20]), are the earliest rulers as yet known. These
kings of Agade extended their jurisdiction as far north, at least, as
Nippur on the one side and Sippar on the other. The city of Babylon
itself, if it existed at this period, was therefore included within the
territory of these kings; and it follows that if there existed rulers of
Babylon at this time, which is doubtful (since the city is not
mentioned), they were in the same position of dependency upon the rulers
of Agade as the 'governors' of Lagash were upon some greater power. It
is not until about the middle of the third millennium before this era,
that Babylon comes into prominence.

In the south, as already intimated, the rulers of Lagash and the dynasty
of Ur are the earliest of which we have any record. There is every
reason to believe that further excavations at Mugheir will bring to
light the names of older kings, and the presumption is in favor of
regarding the southern states, or at least some of them, earlier than
any in the north. The climax in the power of the kings of Ur, the period
when they exerted, in fact as well as in name, the sovereignty over all
Sumer and Akkad may be fixed approximately at 3000 B.C. How far we shall
be able to go beyond that, for the beginnings of this state, must, for
the present, remain doubtful, with the chances in favor of a
considerably earlier date; and it may be that prior to Ur and Lagash
there were dynasties established elsewhere,--at Eridu, perhaps,--the
existence of which will be revealed by future discoveries. An
independent state with its seat at Uruk follows upon the culminating
period of the glory of Ur, and may be regarded, indeed, as an indication
that the rulers of Ur had lost their control over the whole of Southern
Babylonia. Isin, whose site has not yet been determined, but which lay
probably to the north of Uruk, was another political center. Its rulers,
so far as we know them, curiously assign the fourth place to the title
'king of Isin,' giving precedence to their control over Nippur, Eridu,
and Uruk. We may conclude from this, that at the time when Isin extended
its supremacy, the greater luster attaching to the old towns of Nippur
and Uruk, was emphasized by the precedence given to these centers over
Isin, although the Isin kings are only 'shepherds' and 'merciful lords'
over Nippur and Uruk, and not kings.

At a subsequent period, the kings of Ur appear to have regained the
supremacy, which was wrested from them by Isin; and the rulers of the
latter acknowledge their dependence upon the kings of Ur. This so-called
second dynasty of Ur includes Nippur. The kings are proud of calling
themselves the guardians of the temple of Bel in Nippur, nominated to
the office by the god himself, and reviving an old title of the kings of
Agade, style themselves also 'king of the four regions.' Another change
in the political horoscope is reflected in the subjection of Ur to a
district whose center was Larsa, not far from Ur, and represented by the
mound Senkereh. There are two kings, Nur-Rammân (_i.e._, light of
Ramman) and Sin-iddina (_i.e._, Sin judges), who call themselves
guardians of Ur and kings of Larsa, showing that the center of this
principality was Larsa, with Ur as a dependent district. That these
rulers take up the dominion once held by the kings of Ur is further
manifest in the additional title that they give to themselves, as 'kings
of Sumer and Akkad,' whereas the omission of the title 'king of the four
regions' indicates apparently the exclusion of Agade and Nippur; and
with these, probably North Babylonia in general, from their supremacy.
The power of Larsa receives a fatal check through the invasion of
Babylonia by the Elamites (_c._ 2350 B.C.).

These variations in official titles are a reflection of the natural
rivalry existing between the various Babylonian states, which led to
frequent shiftings in the political situation. Beyond this, the
inscriptions of these old Babylonian rulers, being ordinarily
commemorative of the dedication to a deity, of some temple or other
construction--notably canals--or of some votive offering, a cone or
tablet, unfortunately tell us little of the events of the time. Pending
the discovery of more complete annals, we must content ourselves with
the general indications of the civilization that prevailed, and of the
relations in which the principalities stood to one another, and with
more or less doubtful reconstructions of the sequence in the dynasties.
In all of this period, however, the division between North and South
Babylonia was kept tolerably distinct, even though occasionally, and for
a certain period, a North Babylonian city, like that of Agade and
Nippur, extended its jurisdiction over a section bordering on the south
and _vice versa_. It remained for a great conqueror, Hammurabi, the
sixth king of a dynasty having its seat in the city of Babylon itself,
who about the year 2300 B.C. succeeded in uniting North and South
Babylonia under one rule. With him, therefore, a new epoch in the
history of the Euphrates Valley begins. Henceforth the supremacy of the
city of Babylon remains undisputed, and the other ancient centers,
losing their political importance, retain their significance only by
virtue of the sanctuaries existing there, to which pilgrimages continued
to be made, and through the commercial activity that, upon the union of
the various Babylonian districts, set in with increased vigor.

Attention was directed a few years ago by Pognon and Sayce to the fact
that the name of Hammurabi, as well as the names of four kings that
preceded him, and of a number that followed, are not Babylonian. Sayce
expressed the opinion that they were Arabic, and Professor Hommel has
recently reënforced the position of Sayce by showing the close
resemblance existing between these names and those found on the
monuments of Southern Arabia.[21] While no evidence has as yet been
found to warrant us in carrying back the existence of the Minean empire
in Southern Arabia beyond 1500 B.C., still since at this period, this
empire appears in a high state of culture, with commercial intercourse
established between it and Egypt, as well as Palestine, the conclusion
drawn by Hommel that Babylonia was invaded about 2500 B.C. by an
Arabic-speaking people is to be seriously considered. Elam, as we have
seen, was constantly threatening Babylonia from the East, and shortly
before Hammurabi's appearance, succeeded in putting an end to the
dynasty of Larsa. It now appears that the inhabitants of the Euphrates
Valley were also threatened by an enemy lodged somewhere in the
southwest. Though Hommel's hypothesis still needs confirmation, and may
perhaps be somewhat modified by future researches, still so much seems
certain: that the great union of the Babylonian states and the supremacy
of the city of Babylon itself was achieved not by Babylonians but by
foreigners who entered Babylonia from its western (or southwestern)
side. The dynasty of which Hammurabi is the chief representative comes
to an end _c._ 2100, and is followed by another known as Shish-Kha,[22]
whose rulers likewise appear to be foreigners; and when this dynasty
finally disappears after a rule of almost four centuries, Babylonia is
once more conquered by a people coming from the northern parts of Elam
and who are known as the Cassites.[23] These Cassites, of whose origin,
character, and language but little is known as yet, ruled over Babylonia
for a period of no less than 576 years; but adapting themselves to the
customs and religion of the country, their presence did not interfere
with the normal progress of culture in the Euphrates Valley. We may
therefore embrace the period of Hammurabi and his successors, down
through the rule of the Cassite kings, under one head. It is a period
marked by the steady growth of culture, manifesting itself in the
erection of temples, in the construction of canals, and in the expansion
of commerce. Active relationships were maintained between Babylonia and
distant Egypt.

This movement did not suffer an interruption through the invasion of the
Cassites. Though Nippur, rather than Babylon, appears to have been the
favorite city of the dynasty, the course of civilization flows on
uninterruptedly, and it is not until the growing complications between
Babylonia and Assyria, due to the steady encroachment on the part of the
latter, that decided changes begin to take place.

About 1500 B.C. the first traces of relationship between Babylonia and
the northern Mesopotamian power, Assyria, appear. These relations were
at first of a friendly character, but it is not long before the growing
strength of Assyria becomes a serious menace to Babylonia. In the middle
of the thirteenth century, Assyrian arms advance upon the city of
Babylon. For some decades, Babylon remains in subjection to Assyria, and
although she regains her independence once more, and even a fair measure
of her former glory, the power of the Cassites is broken. Internal
dissensions add to the difficulties of the situation and lead to the
overthrow of the Cassites (1151 B.C.). Native Babylonians once more
occupy the throne, who, although able to check the danger still
threatening from Elam, cannot resist the strong arms of Assyria. At the
close of the twelfth century Tiglathpileser I. secures a firm hold upon
Babylonia, which now sinks to the position of a dependency upon the
Assyrian kings.


V.

In contrast to Babylonia, which is from the start stamped as a
civilizing power, Assyria, from its rise till its fall, is essentially a
military empire, seeking the fulfillment of its mission in the
enlargement of power and in incessant warfare. Its history may be traced
back to about 1800 B.C., when its rulers, with their seat in the ancient
city of Ashur, first begin to make their presence felt. The extension of
their power proceeds, as in Babylonia, from the growing importance of
the central city, and soon embraces all of Assyria proper. They pass on
into the mountain regions to the east, and advancing to the west, they
encounter the vigorous forces of Egypt, whose Asiatic campaigns begin
about the same time as the rise of Assyria. The Egyptians, abetted by
the Hittites--the possessors of the strongholds on the Orontes--
successfully check the growth of Assyria on this side, at least for a
period of several centuries. In the meanwhile, the Assyrian king gathers
strength enough to make an attack upon Babylonia.

The conflict, once begun, continues, as has been indicated, with varying
fortunes. Occasional breathing spells are brought about by a temporary
agreement of peace between the two empires, until at the end of the
twelfth century, Assyria, under Tiglathpileser I., secures control over
the Babylonian empire. Her kings add to their long list of titles that
of 'ruler of Babylonia.' They either take the government of the south
into their hands or exercise the privilege of appointing a governor of
their choice to regulate the affairs of the Euphrates Valley. From this
time on, the history of Babylonia and Assyria may be viewed under a
single aspect. The third period of Babylonian history--the second of
Assyrian history--thus begins about 1100 B.C., and continues till the
fall of Assyria in the year 606 B.C. These five centuries represent the
most glorious epoch of the united Mesopotamian empire. During this time,
Assyria rises to the height of an all-embracing power. With far greater
success than Egypt, she securely established her sovereignty over the
lands bordering on the Mediterranean. After severe struggles, the
Hittites are overcome, the names of their strongholds on the Orontes
changed, in order to emphasize their complete possession by the
Assyrians, and the principalities of Northern Syria become tributary to
Assyria. Phoenicia and the kingdom of Israel are conquered, while the
southern kingdom of Judah purchases a mere shadow of independence by
complete submission to the conditions imposed by the great and
irresistible monarchy. Far to the northeast Assyria extends her sway,
while Babylonia, though occasionally aroused to a resistance of the
tyrannical bonds laid upon her, only to be still further weakened,
retains a distinctive existence chiefly in name. The culture of the
south is the heritage bequeathed by old Babylonia to the north.
Babylonian temples become the models for Assyrian architecture. The
literary treasures in the archives of the sacred cities of the south are
copied by the scribes of the Assyrian kings, and placed in the palaces
of the latter. Meanwhile, the capital of Assyria moves towards the
north. Ashur gives way under the glorious reign of Ashurnasirbal to
Calah, which becomes the capitol in the year 880 B.C.; and Calah, in
turn, yields to Nineveh, which becomes, from the time of Tiglathpileser
II., in the middle of the eighth century, the center of the great
kingdom. Under Ashurbanabal, who rules from 668 to 626 B.C., the climax
of Assyrian power is reached. He carries his arms to the banks of the
Nile, and succeeds in realizing the dreams of his ancestors of a direct
control over the affairs of Egypt. A patron of science and literature,
as so many great conquerors, Ashurbanabal succeeds in making Nineveh a
literary as well as a military center.

A vast collection of the cuneiform literature of Babylonia is gathered
by him for the benefit of his subjects, as he is at constant pains to
tell us. The city is further embellished with magnificent structures,
and on every side he establishes his sovereignty with such force, that
the might of Assyria appears invincible. The fatal blow, dealt with a
suddenness that remains a mystery, came from an unexpected quarter. A
great movement of wild northern hordes, rather vaguely known as the
Cimmerians and Scythians, and advancing towards the south, set in
shortly after the death of Ashurbanabal, and created great political
disturbances. The vast number of these hordes, their muscular strength,
and their unrestrained cruelty, made them a foe which Assyria found as
hard to withstand, as Rome the approach of the Vandals and Goths. The
sources for our knowledge of the last days of the Assyrian empire are
not sufficient to enable us to grasp the details, but it is certain that
the successful attempt of the Babylonians to throw off the Assyrian yoke
almost immediately after Ashurbanabal's death, was a symptom of the
ravages which the hordes made in reducing the vitality of the Assyrian
empire. Her foes gained fresh courage from the success that crowned the
revolt of Babylonia. The Medes, a formidable nation to the east of
Assyria, and which had often crossed arms with the Assyrians, entered
into combination with Babylonia, and the two making several united
assaults upon Nineveh, under the leadership of Kyaxares, at last
succeeded in effecting an entrance. The city was captured and burned to
the ground. With the fall of Assyria, a feeling of relief passed over
the entire eastern world. A great danger, threatening to extinguish the
independence of all of the then known nations of the globe, was averted.
The Hebrew prophets living at the time of this downfall, voice the
general rejoicing that ensued when they declared, that even the cedars
of Lebanon leaped for joy. The province of Assyria proper, fell into the
hands of the Medes, but Babylonia, with her independence established on
a firm footing, was the real heir of Assyria's spirit. Her most glorious
monarch, Nebuchadnezzar II. (604-561 B.C.), seems to have dreamed of
gaining for Babylon the position, once held by Nineveh, of mistress of
the world. Taking Ashurbanabal as his model, he carried his arms to the
west, subdued the kingdom of Judah, and, passing on to Egypt, strove to
secure for Babylon, the supremacy exercised there for a short time by
Assyrian monarchs. In addition to his military campaigns, however, he
also appears in the light of a great builder, enlarging and beautifying
the temples of Babylonia, erecting new ones in the various cities of his
realm, strengthening the walls of Babylon, adorning the capital with
embankment works and other improvements, that gave it a permanent place
in the traditions of the ancient world as one of the seven wonders of
the universe.

The glory of this second Babylonian empire was of short duration. Its
vaulting ambition appears to have overleaped itself. Realizing for a
time the Assyrian ideal of a world monarchy, the fall was as sudden as
its rise was unexpected. Internal dissensions gave the first indication
of the hollowness of the state. Nebuchadnezzar's son was murdered in 560
B.C., within two years after reaching the throne, by his own
brother-in-law, Neriglissar; and the latter dying after a reign of only
four years, his infant child was put out of the way and Nabonnedos, a
high officer of the state, but without royal prerogative, mounted the
throne. In the year 550 news reached Babylon that Cyrus, the king of
Anzan, had dealt a fatal blow to the Median empire, capturing its king,
Astyages, and joining Media to his own district. He founded what was
afterwards known as the Persian empire.

The overthrow of the Medes gave Cyrus control over Assyria, and it was
to be expected that his gaze should be turned in the direction of
Babylonia. Nabonnedos recognized the danger, but all his efforts to
strengthen the powers of resistance to the Persian arms were of no
avail. Civil disturbances divided the Babylonians. The cohesion between
the various districts was loosened, and within the city of Babylon
itself, a party arose antagonistic to Nabonnedos, who in their
short-sightedness hailed the advance of Cyrus. Under these
circumstances, Babylon fell an easy prey to the Persian conqueror. In
the autumn of the year 539 Cyrus entered the city in triumph, and was
received with such manifestations of joy by the populace, as to make one
almost forget that with his entrance, the end of a great empire had
come. Politically and religiously, the history of Babylonia and Assyria
terminates with the advent of Cyrus; and this despite the fact that it
was his policy to leave the state of affairs, including religious
observances, as far as possible, undisturbed. A new spirit had, however,
come into the land with him. The official religion of the state was that
practiced by Cyrus and his predecessors in their native land. The
essential doctrines of the religion, commonly known as Mazdeism or
Zoroastrianism, presented a sharp contrast to the beliefs that still
were current in Babylonia, and it was inevitable that with the influx of
new ideas, the further development of Babylonian worship was cut short.
The respect paid by Cyrus to the Babylonian gods was a mere matter of
policy. Still, the religious rites continued to be practiced as of old
in Babylonia and Assyria for a long time, and when the religion finally
disappeared, under the subsequent conquests of the Greeks, Romans, and
Arabs, it left its traces in the popular superstitions and in the
ineradicable traditions that survived. But so far as the _history_ of
this religion is concerned, it comes to an end with the downfall of the
second Babylonian empire.

       *       *       *       *       *

The period, then, to be covered by a treatment of the religion of the
Babylonians and Assyrians extends over the long interval between about
4000 B.C. and the middle of the sixth century. The development of this
religion follows closely the course of civilization and of history in
the territory under consideration. The twofold division, accordingly,
into Babylonia and Assyria, is the one that suggests itself also for the
religion. The beginning, as is evident from the historical sketch given,
must be made with Babylonia. It will be seen that, while the rites there
and in Assyria are much the same, the characters of the gods as they
developed in the south were quite different from those of the north;
and, again, it was inevitable that the Assyrian influence manifest in
the second Babylonian empire should give to the religion of the south at
this time, some aspects which were absent during the days of the old
Babylonian empire. In Babylonia, again, the political changes form the
basis for the transformation to be observed in the position occupied by
the deities at different periods; and the same general remark applies to
the deities peculiar to Assyria, who must be studied in connection with
the course pursued by the Assyrian empire.

The division of the subject which thus forces itself upon us is twofold,
(1) geographical, and (2) historical.

It will be necessary to treat first of the beliefs and pantheon
developed during the first two periods of Babylonian history, down to
the practical conquest of Babylonia by Assyria. Then, turning to
Assyria, the traits of the pantheon peculiar to Upper Mesopotamia will
be set forth. In the third place, the history of the religion will be
traced in Babylonia during the union of the Babylonian-Assyrian empire;
and, lastly, the new phases of that religion which appeared in the days
of the second Babylonian empire. Turning after this to other aspects of
the religion, it will be found that the religious rites were only to a
small degree influenced by political changes, while the literature and
religious art are almost exclusively products of Babylonia. In treating
of these subjects, accordingly, no geographical divisions are called
for, in setting forth their chief features.

The general estimate to be given at the close of the volume will furnish
an opportunity of making a comparison between the Babylonian-Assyrian
religion and other religions of the ancient world, with a view to
determining what foreign influences may be detected in it, as well as
ascertaining the influence it exerted upon others.

FOOTNOTES:

[16] I may be permitted to refer to a publication by Dr. Brinton and
myself, _The Cradle of the Semites_ (Philadelphia, 1889), in which the
various views as to this home are set forth.

[17] It has been suggested that since the statues of Telloh are those of
the priest-kings, only the priestly classes shaved their hair off.

[18] See an interesting discussion of the question by Professor Hommel,
"Arabia according to the Latest Discoveries and Researches."--_Sunday
School Times_, 1895, nos. 41 and 43.

[19] Also known as Shirpurla which Jensen (_Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, 5) thinks
was the later name.

[20] See Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, i. 16-18. Naram-Sin
signifies 'beloved of the god Sin' (the moon-god); Shargani-shar-ali--
'the legitimate king, king of the city.' The excavations of the
University of Pennsylvania have cast new light upon this most ancient
period of Babylonian history. It is now known that the temple of Bel at
Nippur antedates the reign of Naram-Sin, and in the further publications
of the University, we may look for material which will enable us to pass
beyond the period of Sargon.

[21] _Sunday School Times_, 1895, no. 41.

[22] For various views regarding the name and character of this dynasty
see Winckler, _Geschichte_, pp. 67, 68, 328; Hilprecht, _Assyriaca_, pp.
25-28, 102, 103; Winckler, _Altorientalische Forschungen_, I. 275-277,
and Rogers, _Outlines_, 32, note.

[23] See Delitzsch, _Die Sprache der Kossaer_.




CHAPTER III.

GENERAL TRAITS OF THE OLD BABYLONIAN PANTHEON.


The Babylonian religion in the oldest form known to us may best be
described as a mixture of local and nature cults. Starting with that
phase of religious beliefs known as Animism, which has been ascertained
to be practically universal in primitive society, the Babylonians, from
ascribing life to the phenomena of nature, to trees, stones, and plants,
as well as to such natural events, as storm, rain, and wind, and as a
matter of course to the great luminaries and to the stars--would, on the
one hand, be led to invoke an infinite number of spirits who were
supposed to be, in some way, the embodiment of the life that manifested
itself in such diverse manners; and yet, on the other hand, this
tendency would be restricted by the experience which would point to
certain spirits, as exercising a more decisive influence upon the
affairs of man than others. The result of this would be to give a
preponderance to the worship of the sun and moon and the water, and of
such natural phenomena as rain, wind, and storms, with their
accompaniment of thunder and lightning, as against the countless sprites
believed to be lurking everywhere. The latter, however, would not for
this reason be ignored altogether. Since everything was endowed with
life, there was not only a spirit of the tree which produced the fruit,
but there were spirits in every field. To them the ground belonged, and
upon their mercy depended the success or failure of the produce. To
secure the favor of the rain and the sun was not sufficient to the
agriculturist; he was obliged to obtain the protection of the guardian
spirits of the soil, in order to be sure of reaping the fruit of his
labors. Again, when through association, the group of arable plots grew
into a hamlet, and then through continued growth into a town, the
latter, regarded as a unit by virtue of its political organization under
a chief ruler, would necessarily be supposed to have some special power
presiding over its destinies, protecting it from danger, and ready to
defend the rights and privileges of those who stood immediately under
its jurisdiction. Each Babylonian city, large or small, would in this
way obtain a deity devoted to its welfare, and as the city grew in
extent, absorbing perhaps others lying about, and advancing in this way
to the dignity of a district, the city's god would correspondingly
increase his jurisdiction. As it encroached upon the domain of other
local deities, it would by conquest annihilate the latter, or reduce
them to a subservient position. The new regime would be expressed by
making the conquered deity, the servant of the victorious, or the two
might be viewed in the relation of father to son; and again, in the
event of a peaceful amalgamation of two cities or districts, the
protecting deities might join hands in a compact, mirroring the
partnership represented by the conjugal tie. In this way, there arose in
Babylon a selection, as it were, out of an infinite variety of
personified forces, manifest or concealed, that at one time may have
been objects of worship. The uniformity of the spirit world, which is
the characteristic trait of primitive Animism, gave way to a
differentiation regulated by the political development and the social
growth of Babylonia. The more important natural forces became gods, and
the inferior ones were, as a general thing, relegated to the secondary
position of mere sprites, like the _jinns_, in Arabic beliefs. Only in
the case of the guardian spirit of an entire city or district, would
there result--and even this not invariably--an elevation to the grade of
deity, in the proper sense of the word. In many cases, however, this
guardian deity might be a heavenly body, as the moon or sun or stars,
all of which were supposed to regulate the fate of mankind or some force
of nature, as the rain or the storm; and even if this were not
originally the case, the protecting deity might, in the course of time,
become identified with one of the forces of nature; and, if for no other
reason, simply because of the prominence which the worship of the force
in question acquired in the place. As a consequence, the mixture of
local and nature cults is so complete that it is often impossible to
distinguish the one from the other. It is hard in many cases to
determine whether the deity which is identified with a certain city was
originally a mere local spirit watching over a certain restricted
territory, or a personification of a natural force associated in some
way with a certain section of Babylonia.




CHAPTER IV.

BABYLONIAN GODS PRIOR TO THE DAYS OF HAMMURABI.


With these preliminary remarks, we may turn, as the first part of our
subject, to a consideration of the oldest of the Babylonian gods. Our
main sources are the inscriptions of the old Babylonian rulers, above
referred to. These are, in most cases, of a dedicatory character, being
inscribed on statues, cylinders, or tablets, placed in the temples or on
objects--cones, knobs, stones--presented as votive offerings to some
god. Besides the inscriptions of the rulers, we have those of officials
and others. Many of these are likewise connected directly or indirectly
with religious worship.

The advantage of the historical texts over the purely religious ones
consists in their being dated, either accurately or approximately. For
this reason, the former must be made the basis for a rational theory of
the development of the Babylonian pantheon through the various periods
above instanced. The data furnished by the religious texts can be
introduced only, as they accord with the facts revealed by the
historical inscriptions in each period.

Taking up the group of inscriptions prior to the union of the Babylonian
States under Hammurabi, _i.e._, prior to 2300 B.C., we find these gods
mentioned: Bel, Belit, Nin-khar-sag, Nin-girsu, also appearing as
Shul-gur, Bau, Ga-tum-dug, Ea, Nin-a-gal, Nergal, Shamash, under various
forms Â, who is the consort of Shamash, Nannar or Sin, Nanâ, Anunit,
Ishtar, Innanna or Ninni, Ninâ, Nin-mar, Dun-shagga, Gal-alim, Anu,
Nin-gish-zida, Nin-si-a, Nin-shakh, Dumu-zi, Lugal-banda and his consort
Nin-gul, Dumuzi-zu-aba, Nisaba, Ku(?)anna, Lugal-erima(?), Dagan, Ishum,
Umu, Pa-sag, Nin-e-gal, Nin-gal, Shul(or Dun)-pa-uddu, and
Nin-akha-kuddu.

Regarding these names, it may be said at once that the reading, in many
cases, is to be looked upon as merely provisional. Written, as they
usually are, in the ideographic "style," the phonetic reading can only
be determined when the deity in question can be identified with one,
whose name is written at some place phonetically, or when the ideographs
employed are so grouped as to place the phonetic reading beyond doubt.
The plan to be followed in this book will be to give the ideographic
reading[24] as provisional wherever the real pronunciation is unknown or
uncertain. The ideographic designation of a deity is of great value,
inasmuch as the ideographs themselves frequently reveal the character of
the god, though of course the additional advantage is obvious when the
name appears in both the ideographic and the phonetic writing. It will,
therefore, form part of a delineation of the Babylonian pantheon to
interpret the picture, as it were, under which each deity is viewed.


En-lil or Bel.

Taking up the gods in the order named, the first one, Bel, is also the
one who appears on the oldest monuments as yet unearthed--the
inscriptions of Nippur. His name is, at this time, written invariably as
En-lil. In the Babylonian theology, he is 'the lord of the lower world.'
He represents, as it were, the unification of the various forces whose
seat and sphere of action is among the inhabited parts of the globe,
both on the surface and beneath, for the term 'lower world' is here used
in contrast to the upper or heavenly world. Such a conception manifestly
belongs to the domain of abstract thought, and it may be concluded,
therefore, that either the deity belongs to an advanced stage of
Babylonian culture, or that the original view of the deity was different
from the one just mentioned. The latter is the case. Primarily, the
ideograph Lil is used to designate a 'demon' in general, and En-lil is
therefore the 'chief demon.' Primitive as such a conception is, it
points to some system of thought that transcends primitive Animism,
which is characterized rather by the equality accorded to all spirits.
The antiquity of the association of En-lil with Nippur justifies the
conclusion that we have before us a local deity who, originally the
protecting spirit merely, of a restricted territory, acquires the
position of 'chief demon' as the town of Nippur grows to be the capitol
of a large and powerful district. The fame and sanctity of Nippur
survives political vicissitudes; and, indeed, in proportion as Nippur
loses political prestige, the great deity of the place is released from
the limitations due to his local origin and rises to the still higher
dignity of a great power whose domain is the entire habitable universe.
As the 'lord of the lower world,' En-lil is contrasted to a god Anu, who
presides over the heavenly bodies. The age of Sargon (3800 B.C.), in
whose inscriptions En-lil already occurs, is one of considerable
culture, as is sufficiently evidenced by the flourishing condition of
art, and there can therefore be no objection against the assumption that
even at this early period, a theological system should have been evolved
which gave rise to beliefs in great powers whose dominion embraces the
'upper' and 'lower' worlds. It was because of this wide scope of his
power that he became known as Bel, _i.e._, the lord _par excellence_;
and it is equally natural to find his worship spread over the whole of
Babylonia. In the south, the patron deity of Lagash is designated by
Gudea as "the mighty warrior of Bel," showing the supremacy accorded to
the latter. A temple to En-lil at Lagash, and known as E-adda, 'house of
the father,' by virtue of the relationship existing between the god of
Nippur and Nin-girsu, is mentioned by Uru-kagina. The temple is
described as a lofty structure 'rising up to heaven.' In the north,
Nippur remains the place where his worship acquired the greatest
importance, so that Nippur was known as the "land of Bel." The temple
sacred to him at that place was a great edifice, famous throughout
Babylonian history as E-Kur, _i.e._, mountain house, in the construction
of which, a long line of Babylonian rulers took part. From Naram-Sin,
ruler of Agade, on through the period of Cassite rule, the kings of
Nippur proudly include in their titles that of 'builder of the Temple of
Bel at Nippur,' measuring their attachment to the deity by the additions
and repairs made to his sacred edifice.[25] Besides the kings of Agade,
the rulers of other places pay their devotions to Bel of Nippur. So, a
king of Kish, whose name is read Alu-usharshid by Professor
Hilprecht,[26] brings costly vases of marble and limestone from Elam and
offers them to Bel as a token of victory; and this at a period even
earlier than Sargon. Even when En-lil is obliged to yield a modicum of
his authority to the growing supremacy of the patron deity of the city
of Babylon, the highest tribute that can be paid to the latter, is to
combine with his real name, Marduk, the title of "Bel," which of right
belongs to En-lil. We shall see how this combination of En-lil, or Bel,
with Marduk reflects political changes that took place in the Euphrates
Valley; and it is a direct consequence of this later association of the
old Bel of Nippur with the chief god of Babylon, that the original
traits of the former become obscured in the historical and religious
texts. Dimmed popular traditions, which will be set forth in their
proper place, point to his having been at one time regarded as a
powerful chieftain armed with mighty weapons, but engaged in conflicts
for the ultimate benefit of mankind. On the whole, he is a beneficent
deity, though ready to inflict severe punishment for disobedience to his
commands. We must distinguish, then, in the case of En-lil, at least
four phases:

1. His original rôle as a local deity;

2. The extension of his power to the grade of a great 'lord' over a
large district;

3. Dissociation from local origins to become the supreme lord of the
lower world; and

4. The transfer of his name and powers as god of Nippur to Marduk, the
god of Babylon.

The last two phases can best be set forth when we come to the period,
marked by the political supremacy of the city of Babylon. It is
sufficient, at this point, to have made clear his position as god of
Nippur.


Nin-lil or Belit.

The consort of En-lil is Nin-Lil, the 'mistress of the lower world.' She
is known also as Belit, the feminine form to Bel, _i.e._, the lady _par
excellence_. She, too, had her temple at Nippur, the age of which goes
back, at least, to the first dynasty of Ur. But the glory of the goddess
pales by the side of her powerful lord. She is naught but a weak
reflection of Bel, as in general the consorts of the gods are. Another
title by which this same goddess was known is


Nin-khar-sag.[27]

which means the 'lady of the high or great mountain.' The title may have
some reference to the great mountain where the gods were supposed to
dwell, and which was known to Babylonians as the 'mountain of the
lands.' Bel, as the chief of the gods, is more particularly associated
with this mountain. Hence his temple is called the 'mountain house.'
From being regarded as the inhabitant of the mountain, he comes to be
identified with the mountain itself. Accordingly, he is sometimes
addressed as the "great mountain,"[28] and his consort would therefore
be appropriately termed 'the lady of the great mountain.' Besides the
temple at Nippur, Belit, as Nin-khar-sag, had a sanctuary at Girsu, one
of the quarters at Lagash (see under Nin-girsu), the earliest mention of
which occurs on an inscription of Ur-Bau. The latter calls the goddess
'the mother of the gods,' which further establishes her identity with
the consort of Bel. Entemena, another governor of Lagash, places his
domain under the protection of Nin-khar-sag. The worship at Nippur,
however, remained most prominent. The continued popularity of her cult
is attested by the fortress Dur-zakar, which a later king, Samsu-iluna
(_c._ 2200), erected in her honor.


Nin-girsu.

In the inscriptions of Gudea and of his time, the god most prominently
mentioned is the "Lord of Girsu." Girsu itself, as the inscriptions
show, is one of the four sections into which the capitol city of Lagash
was divided. It was there that the temple stood which was sacred to the
patron deity, and we may conclude from this that Girsu is the oldest
part of the city. Afterwards, Lagash became the general name for the
capitol through being the quarter where the great palace of the king was
erected. That Girsu was once quite distinct from Lagash is also evident
from the title of "king of Girsu," with which a certain Uru-kagina, who
is to be placed somewhat before Gudea, contents himself. The other three
quarters, all of which were originally independent cities, are
Uru-azagga, Ninâ, and apparently Gish-galla.[29]

Nin-girsu is frequently termed the warrior of Bel,--the one who in the
service of the 'lord of the lower world,' appears in the thick of the
fight, to aid the subjects of Bel. In this rôle, he is identical with a
solar deity who enjoys especial prominence among the warlike Assyrians,
whose name is provisionally read Nin-ib, but whose real name may turn
out to be Adar.[30] The rulers of Lagash declare themselves to have been
chosen for the high office by Nin-girsu, and as if to compensate
themselves for the degradation implied in being merely _patesis_, or
governors, serving under some powerful chief, they call themselves the
patesis of Nin-girsu, implying that the god was the master to whom they
owed allegiance. The temple sacred to him at Girsu was called E-ninnu,
and also by a longer name that described the god as the one 'who changes
darkness into light,'--the reference being to the solar character of the
god Nin-ib with whom Nin-girsu is identified. In this temple, Gudea and
other rulers place colossal statues of themselves, but temper the vanity
implied, by inscribing on the front and back of these statues, an
expression of their devotion to their god. To Nin-girsu, most of the
objects found at Tell-loh are dedicated; conspicuous among which are the
many clay cones, that became the conventional objects for votive
offerings. There was another side, however, to his nature, besides the
belligerent one. As the patron of Lagash, he also presided over the
agricultural prosperity of the district. In this rôle he is addressed as
Shul-gur or Shul-gur-an, _i.e._, the "god of the corn heaps"; Entemena
and his son Enanna-tuma in erecting a kind of storehouse which they
place under the protection of Nin-girsu, declare that their god is
Shul-gur;[31] and an old hymn[32] identifies him with Tammuz, the
personification of agricultural activity. Such a combination of
apparently opposing attributes is a natural consequence of the
transformation of what may originally have been the personification of
natural forces, into local deities. Each field had its protecting
spirit, but for the city as a whole, a local deity, whose rule mirrored
the control of the human chief over his subjects, alone was available.
To him who watched over all things pertaining to the welfare of the
territory coming under his jurisdiction, various attributes, as occasion
required, were ascribed, and quite apart from his original character,
the god could thus be regarded, as the warrior and the peaceful
husbandman at the same time.


Bau.

Perhaps the most prominent of the goddesses in the ancient Babylonian
period was Bau. One of the rulers of Lagash has embodied the name of the
goddess in his name, calling himself Ur-Bau. It is natural, therefore,
to find him more especially devoted to the worship of this deity. He
does not tire of singing her praises, and of speaking of the temple he
erected in her honor. Still, Ur-Bau does not stand alone in his
devotion; Uru-kagina, Gudea, and others refer to Bau frequently, while
in the incantation texts, she is invoked as the great mother, who gives
birth to mankind and restores the body to health. In the old Babylonian
inscriptions she is called the chief daughter of Anu, the god of heaven.
Among her titles, the one most frequently given is that of 'good lady.'
She is the 'mother' who fixes the destinies of men and provides
'abundance' for the tillers of the soil. Gudea calls her his mistress,
and declares that it is she who "fills him with speech,"--a phrase whose
meaning seems to be that to Bau he owes the power he wields. Locally,
she is identified with Uru-azagga (meaning 'brilliant town'), a quarter
of Lagash; and it was there that her temple stood. As a consequence, we
find her in close association with Nin-girsu, the god of Girsu. We may
indeed go further and assume that Girsu and Uru-azagga are the two
oldest quarters of the city, the combination of the two representing the
first natural steps in the development of the principality, afterwards
known as Lagash, through the addition of other quarters[33]. She is
indeed explicitly called the consort of Nin-girsu; and this relation is
implied also, in the interesting phrase used by Gudea, who presents
gifts to Bau in the name of Nin-girsu, and calls them 'marriage
gifts'.[34] It is interesting to find, at this early period, the
evidence for the custom that still prevails in the Orient, which makes
the gifts of the bridegroom to his chosen one, an indispensable
formality.[35] These gifts were offered on the New Year's Day, known as
Zag-muk, and the importance of the worship of Bau is evidenced by the
designation of this day, as the festival of Bau.

The offerings, themselves, consist of lambs, sheep, birds, fish, cream,
besides dates and various other fruits. When Uru-azagga becomes a part
of Lagash, Bau's dignity is heightened to that of 'mother of Lagash.' As
the consort of Ningirsu, she is identified with the goddess Gula, the
name more commonly applied to the 'princely mistress' of Nin-ib, whose
worship continues down to the days of the neo-Babylonian monarchy.

It is quite certain, however, that Bau is originally an independent
goddess, and that the association of Uru-azagga and Girsu[36] lead to
her identification with Gula. Regarding her original nature, a certain
index is her character as "daughter of Anu." Anu being the god of
heaven, Bau must be sought in the upper realm of personified forces,
rather than elsewhere; but exactly which one she is, it is difficult to
say. Hommel, indeed,[37] is of opinion that she is the personified
watery depth, the primitive chaos which has only the heavens above it;
but in giving this explanation, he is influenced by the desire to
connect the name of Bau with the famous term for chaos in Genesis,
_Tohu-wa-bohu_. There is, however, no proof whatsoever that Bau and Bohu
have anything to do with one another. A goddess who can hardly be
distinguished from Bau is


Ga-tum-dug.[38]

Indeed, from the fact that she is also the 'mother of Lagash,' it might
seem that this is but another name for Bau. However, elsewhere, in two
lists of deities invoked by Gudea (Inscr. B, col. ii. 17), Ga-tum-dug is
given a separate place by the side of Bau, once placed before and once
after the latter; and it is clear therefore that she was originally
distinct from Bau. For Gudea, Ga-tum-dug is the mother who produced him.
He is her servant and she is his mistress. Lagash is her beloved city,
and there he prepares for her a dwelling-place, which later rulers, like
Entena, embellish. She is called the 'brilliant' (_Azag_), but as this
title is merely a play upon the element found in the city, Uru-azagga,
sacred to Bau, not much stress is to be laid upon this designation.
Unfortunately, too, the elements composing her name are not clear,[39]
and it must be borne in mind that the reading is purely provisional. So
much, at least, seems certain: that Bau and Ga-tum-dug are two forms
under which one and the same natural element was personified. Bau is
called in the incantation texts, the mother of Ea. The latter being
distinctly a water god, we may conclude that in some way, Bau is to be
connected with water as a natural element. The conjecture may be
hazarded that she personifies originally the waters of the upper
realm--the clouds. Since Ea, who is her son, represents the waters of
the lower realm, the relation of mother and son reflects perhaps a
primitive conception of the origin of the deep, through the descent of
the upper waters. When we come to the cosmogony of the Babylonians, it
will be seen that this conception of a distinction between the two
realms of waters is a fundamental one. This character as a spirit of the
watery elements is shared by others of the goddesses appearing in the
old Babylonian inscriptions.[40]


En-ki or Ea.

This god, who, as we shall see, becomes most prominent in the developed
form of Babylonian theology, does not occupy the place one should expect
in the early Babylonian inscriptions. Ur-Bau erects a sanctuary to Ea,
at Girsu. Another of the governors of Lagash calls himself, priest of
Ea, describing the god as the "supreme councillor." From him, the king
receives "wisdom."[41] A ruler, Rim-Sin, of the dynasty of Larsa,
associates Ea with Bel, declaring that these "great gods" entrusted Uruk
into his hands with the injunction to rebuild the city that had fallen
in ruins. The ideograms, with which his name is written, En-ki,
designate him as god of that 'which is below,'--the earth in the first
place; but with a more precise differentiation of the functions of the
great gods, Ea becomes the god of the waters of the deep. When this
stage of belief is reached, Ea is frequently associated with Bel, who,
it will be recalled, is the 'god of the lower region,' but who becomes
the god of earth _par excellence_. When, therefore, Bel and Ea are
invoked, it is equivalent, in modern parlance, to calling upon earth and
water; and just as Bel is used to personify, as it were, the unification
of the earthly forces, so Ea becomes, in a comprehensive sense, the
watery deep. Ea and Bel assume therefore conspicuous proportions in the
developed Babylonian cosmogony and theology. In the cosmogony, Bel is
the creator and champion of mankind, and Ea is the subterranean deep
which surrounds the earth, the source of wisdom and culture; in the
theology, Ea and Bel are pictured in the relation of father and son,
who, in concert, are appealed to, when misfortune or disease overtakes
the sons of man; Ea, the father, being the personification of knowledge,
and Bel, the practical activity that 'emanates from wisdom,' as
Professor Sayce,[42] adopting the language of Gnosticism, aptly puts it;
only that, as already suggested, Marduk assumes the rôle of the older
Bel.

Confining ourselves here to the earlier phases of Ea, it seems probable
that he was originally regarded as the god of Eridu,--one of the most
ancient of the holy cities of Southern Babylonia, now represented by
Abu-Shahrein, and which once stood on the shores of the Persian Gulf.
Ur-Bau expressly calls the god the 'king of Eridu.' The sacredness of
the place is attested by Gudea, who boasts of having made the temple of
Nin-girsu as sacred as Eridu.[43] It is over this city that Ea watches.
The importance of the Persian Gulf to the growth of the city, would make
it natural to place the seat of the god in the waters themselves. The
cult of water-deities arises, naturally, at places which are situated on
large sheets of water; and in the attributes of wisdom which an older
age ascribed to Ea, there may be seen the embodiment of the tradition
that the course of civilization proceeds from the south. The superiority
of the Persian Gulf over the other waters of Babylon--over the two great
rivers with their tributary streams and canals--would be another factor
that would lead to the god of the Persian Gulf being regarded as the
personification of the watery element in general. For the Babylonians,
the Persian Gulf, stretching out indefinitely, and to all appearances
one with the great ocean whose ulterior shores could not be reached, was
the great 'Okeanos,' that flowed around the earth and on which the earth
rested. Ea, accordingly (somewhat like En-lil), was delocalized, as it
were, and his worship was maintained long after the recollection of his
connection with Eridu had all but disappeared. At the same time, for the
very reason that he was cut loose from local associations, no place
could lay claim to being the seat of the deity. Ur-Bau, when erecting a
sanctuary to Ea at Girsu, significantly calls the god 'the king of
Eridu.' The sanctuary is not, in this case, the dwelling-place of the
god.

We are justified, therefore, in going back many centuries, before
reaching the period when Ea was, merely, the local god of Eridu. Whether
Ea is to be regarded as the real name of the god, or is also an
ideograph like En-ki, is again open to doubt. If Ea is the real
pronunciation, then the writing of the name is a play upon the character
of the deity, for it is composed of two elements that signify 'house'
and 'water,'--the name thus suggesting the character and real seat of
the deity. A point in favor of regarding Ea as the real name, albeit not
decisive, is the frequent use of the unmistakable ideographic
description of the god as En-ki. The consort of Ea who is Dam-kina also
occurs in the historical texts of the first period.

The origin of Babylonian civilization at the Persian Gulf, together with
the dependence of Babylonia for her fertility upon the streams and
canals, account for the numerous water-deities to be found in the
ancient Babylonian pantheon, some of which have already been discussed.
We will meet with others further on. Every stream, large or small,
having its special protecting deity, the number of water-deities
naturally increases as the land becomes more and more dissected by the
canal system that conditioned the prosperity of the country.

Ea, as we shall see, appears under an unusually large number of
names.[44] One of these is


Nin-a-gal,

which, signifying 'god of great strength,' is given to him as the patron
of the smith's art.[45] A god of this name is mentioned by Ur-Bau,[46]
who speaks of a sanctuary erected in honor of this deity. But since the
king refers to Ea (as En-ki) a few lines previous, it would appear that
at this period Nin-agal is still an independent deity. The later
identification with Ea appears to be due to the idea of 'strength'
involved in the name of Nin-agal. In the same way, many of the names of
Ea were originally descriptive of independent gods who, because of the
similarity of their functions to those of the great Ea, were absorbed by
the latter. Their names transferred to Ea, are frequently the only trace
left of their original independent existence.


Nergal.

Nergal, the local deity of Cuthah (or Kutu), represented by the mound
Tell-Ibrahim, some distance to the east of Babylon, was of an entirely
different character from Ea, but his history in the development of the
Babylonian religion is hardly less interesting. The first mention of his
famous temple at Cuthah is found in an inscription of Dungi (to be read
Ba'u-ukin, according to Winckler[47]) who belongs to the second dynasty
of Ur (_c._ 2700 B.C.). Its origin, however, belongs to a still earlier
period. Such was the fame of the temple known as E-shid-lam, and the
closeness of the connection between the deity and his favorite seat,
that Nergal himself became known as shid-lam-ta-ud-du-a, _i.e._, the god
that rises up from E-shid-lam. It is by this epithet that the same Dungi
describes him in one of his inscriptions.[48] Down to the latest period
of Assyro-Babylonian history, Nergal remains identified with Kutu, being
known at all times as the god of Kutu.[49] When Sargon, the king of
Assyria, upon his conquest of the kingdom of Israel (_c._ 722 B.C.),
brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Ava, and so forth, across to the
lands of the Jordan to take the place of the deported Israelites, the
Hebrew narrator (II Kings, xvii. 24-35) tells us in an interesting
manner of the obnoxious foreign worship which these people brought to
the land, each division bringing the gods of their place with them. The
men of Cuthah, he adds (v. 30), made a statue of Nergal. Singamil, of
the dynasty, having its capital at Uruk (_c._ 2750 B.C.), likewise
testifies to his devotion to Nergal by busying himself with improvements
and additions to his temple at Cuthah. His worship, therefore, was not
confined to those who happened to reside at Cuthah; and closely as he is
identified with the place, the character of the god is a general and not
a special one. The full form of his name appears to have been
Ner-unu-gal, of which Nergal, furnished by the Old Testament passage
referred to, would then be a contraction or a somewhat corrupt form. The
three elements composing his name signify "the mighty one of the great
dwelling-place," but it is, again, an open question whether this is a
mere play upon the character of the god, as in the name of Ea (according
to one of the interpretations above suggested), or whether it is an
ideographic form of the name. The Old Testament shows, conclusively,
that the name had some such pronunciation as Nergal. Jensen, from other
evidences, inclines to the opinion that the writing Ner-unu-gal is the
result of a species of etymology, brought about by the prominence given
to Nergal as the god of the region of the dead. It is in this capacity
that he already appears in the inscription of Singamil, who calls him
'king of the nether world.' The "great dwelling-place," therefore, is
clearly the dominion over which Nergal rules, and when we come to the
cosmogony of the Babylonians,[50] it will be found that this epithet for
the nether world--the great dwelling-place--accords with their
conception of the life after death. But while Nergal, with a host of
lesser demons about him, appears as the Babylonian Pluto, particularly
in the religious texts, his functions are not limited to the control of
the dead. He is the personification of some of the evils that bring
death to mankind, particularly pestilence and war. The death that
follows in his path is a violent one, and his destructive force is one
that acts upon large masses rather than upon the individual. Hence, one
of the most common ideographs used to express his name is that which
signifies 'sword.'

War and pestilence are intimately associated in the mind of the
Babylonians. Among other nations, the sword is, similarly, the symbol of
the deity, as the plague-bringer as well as the warrior.

To this day, a pestilence is the general accompaniment of war in the
East, or follows in its wake. Different from Nin-ib, who is also a god
of war, Nergal symbolizes more particularly the _destruction_ which
accompanies war, and not the strong champion who aids his subjects in
the fight. Nergal is essentially a destroyer, and the various epithets
applied to him in the religious texts, show that he was viewed in this
light. He is at times the 'god of fire,' again 'the raging king,' 'the
violent one' 'the one who burns'; and finally identified with the
glowing heat of flame. Often, he is described by these attributes,
instead of being called by his real name.[51] Dr. Jensen has recently
shown in a satisfactory manner, that this phase of his character must be
the starting-point in tracing the order of his development. As the
'glowing flame,' Nergal is evidently a phase of the sun, and Jensen
proves that the functions and aspects of the sun at different periods
being differentiated among the Babylonians, Nergal is more especially
the hot sun of midsummer or midday, the destructive force of which was
the chief feature that distinguished it. The hot sun of Babylonia, that
burns with fierce intensity, brings pestilence and death, and carries on
a severe contest against man. From being the cause of death, it is but a
step, and a natural one, to make Nergal preside over the region,
prepared for those whom he has destroyed. The course taken by Babylonian
theology is responsible for the prominence given to the latter rôle of
Nergal, which finally overshadows his other phases to the extent of
suggesting the fanciful interpretation of his name as the 'ruler of the
great dwelling place for the dead.' In the light of the facts set forth,
another explanation for his name must be looked for that would connect
the god with solar functions. The name may in fact be divided into two
elements, the first having the force of chief or ruler, the second
'great.' The combination would be an appropriate designation for the
sun, in the rôle of a destructive power. But Nergal, after all,
represents only one phase of the sun-god. The god who was worshipped as
the personification of the sun _par excellence_ and the sun as a whole,
was


Shamash.

Written with an ideograph that describes him as the 'god of the day,'
there is no deity whose worship enjoys an equally continued popularity
in Babylonia and Assyria. Beginning at the earliest period of Babylonian
history, and reaching to the latest, his worship suffers no
interruption. Shamash, moreover, maintains his original character with
scarcely any modification throughout this long period. For all that, he
bears a name which signifies 'attendant' or 'servitor,' and which
sufficiently shows the subsidiary position that he occupied in the
Babylonian pantheon. One of the rulers belonging to the dynasty of Isin
calls the sun-god, the offspring of Nannar,--one of the names of the
moon-god,--and the last king of Babylonia, Nabonnedos, does the same. In
combination with the moon-god, the latter takes precedence of
Shamash,[52] and in the enumeration of the complete pantheon, in the
inscriptions of both Assyrian and Babylonian kings, the same order is
preserved. Other evidence that points to the superior rank accorded to
Sin, the moon-god over the sun deity in Babylonia, is the reckoning of
time by the moon phases. The day begins with the evening, and not with
sunrise. The moon, as the chief of the starry firmament, and controlling
the fate of mankind, was the main factor in giving to the orb of night,
this peculiar prominence. The 'service,' accordingly implied in the name
of Shamash appears to have been such as was demanded by his subsidiary
position to the moon-god. Beyond the general recognition, however, of
this relationship between the two, it does not appear that the worship
paid to Shamash, was at all affected by the secondary place, that he
continued to hold in the theoretically constructed pantheon. Less than
is the case with the other gods, is he identified with any particular
city, and we therefore find in the most ancient period, two centers of
Southern Babylonia claiming Shamash as their patron saint,--Larsa,
represented by the mound of Senkereh, and Sippar, occupying the site of
the modern Abu-Habba. It is difficult to say which of the two was the
older; the latter, in the course of time, overshadowed the fame of the
former, and its history can be traced back considerably beyond the
sun-worship at Larsa, the first mention of which occurs in the
inscriptions of rulers of the second dynasty of Ur (_c._ 2900 B.C.).
Since Ur, as we shall see, was sacred to the moon-god, it is hardly
likely that the Shamash cult was introduced at Larsa by the rulers of
Ur. The kings of Ur would not have forfeited the protection of Sin, by
any manifestation of preference for Shamash. When Ur-Gur, therefore,
tells us that he 'built' a temple to Shamash at Larsa, he must mean, as
Sin-iddina of the dynasty of Larsa does, in using the same phrase, that
he enlarged or improved the edifice. What makes it all the more likely
that Ur-Gur found sun-worship at Larsa in existence is, that in the
various places over which this ruler spread his building activity, he is
careful in each case to preserve the status of the presiding deity. So
at Nippur, he engages in work at the temples of En-lil and of Nin-lil;
while at Uruk he devotes himself to the temple of Nanâ. In thus
connecting their names with the various sacred edifices of Babylonia,
the rulers emphasized, on the one hand, their control of the territory
in which the building lay, and on the other, their allegiance to the
deity of the place, whose protection and favor they sought to gain.

The mention of a temple to Shamash at Sippar reverts to a still earlier
period than that of its rival. Nabonnedos tells us that it was founded
by Naram-Sin. Sargon has put his name on some object[53] that he
dedicates to the sun-god at Sippar. That there was an historical
connection between the two temples may be concluded from the fact that
the name of the sacred edifices was the same in both,--E-babbara,
signifying the 'house of lustre.' Such a similarity points to a
dependence of one upon the other, and the transfer or extension of the
worship directly from one place to the other; but, as intimated, we have
no certain means of determining which of the two is the older. In view
of the general observation to be made in what pertains to the religion
of the Babylonians, that fame and age go hand in hand, the balance is in
favor of Sippar, which became by far the more famous of the two,
received a greater share of popular affection, and retained its
prominence to the closing days of the neo-Babylonian monarchy. We shall
have occasion in a succeeding chapter to trace the history of the
sun-temple at Sippar so far as known. It is interesting to note that
Nabonnedos, feeling the end of his power to be near, undertakes, as one
of the last resorts, the restoration of this edifice, in the hope that
by thus turning once more to the powerful Shamash, he might secure his
protection, in addition to that of Marduk, the head of the later
Babylonian pantheon.

In Ur itself, Shamash was also worshipped in early days by the side of
the moon-god. Eannatum, of the dynasty of Isin (_c._ 2800 B.C.), tells
of two temples erected to him at that place; and still a third edifice,
sacred to both Nannar (the moon god) and Shamash at Ur, is referred to
by a king of the Larsa dynasty, Rim-Sin (_c._ 2300 B.C.). The titles
given to Shamash by the early rulers are sufficiently definite to show
in what relation he stood to his worshippers, and what the conceptions
were that were formed of him. He is, alternately, the king and the
shepherd. Since the kings also called themselves shepherds, no especial
endearment is conveyed by this designation. In the incantations, Shamash
is frequently appealed to, either alone, or when an entire group of
spirits and deities are enumerated. He is called upon to give life to
the sick man. To him the body of the one who is smitten with disease is
confided. As the god of light, he is appropriately called upon to banish
'darkness' from the house, darkness being synonymous with misfortune;
and the appeal is made to him more particularly as the 'king of
judgment.' From this, it is evident that the beneficent action of the
sun, was the phase associated with Shamash. He was hailed as the god
that gives light and life to all things, upon whose favor the prosperity
of the fields and the well-being of man depend. He creates the light and
secures its blessings for mankind. His favor produces order and
stability; his wrath brings discomfiture and ruin to the state and the
individual. But his power was, perhaps, best expressed by the title of
"judge"--the favorite one in the numerous hymns that were composed in
his honor. He was represented as seated on a throne in the chamber of
judgment, receiving the supplications of men, and according as he
manifested his favor or withdrew it, enacting the part of the decider of
fates. He loosens the bonds of the imprisoned, grants health to the
sick, and even revivifies the dead. On the other hand, he puts an end to
wickedness and destroys enemies. He makes the weak strong, and prevents
the strong from crushing the weak. From being the judge, and, moreover,
the supreme judge of the world, it was but natural that the conception
of justice was bound up with him. His light became symbolical of
righteousness, and the absence of it, or darkness, was viewed as
wickedness. Men and gods look expectantly for his light. He is the guide
of the gods, as well as the ruler of men.

While there are no direct indications in the historical texts known at
present, that this conception of the sun-god existed in all its details
before the days of Hammurabi, there is every reason to believe that this
was the case; the more so, in that it does not at all transcend the
range of religious ideas that we have met with in the case of the other
gods of this period. Nor does this conception in any way betray itself,
as being due to the changed political conditions that set in, with the
union of the states under Hammurabi. Still, the age of the religious
texts not being fixed, it is thus necessary to exercise some caution
before using them without the basis of an allusion in the historical
texts.


Utu.

It but remains, before passing on, to note that the same deity appears
under various names. Among these are Utu[54] and apparently also
Babbar[55] in the old Babylonian inscriptions. For the latter, a Semitic
etymology is forthcoming, and we may therefore regard it as representing
a real pronunciation, and not an ideographic writing. Babbar, a
contracted form from Barbar, is the reduplication of the same stem
_bar_[56] that we have already met with, in the name of the temple
sacred to Shamash. Like E-babbara, therefore, Babbar is the "brilliantly
shining one,"--a most appropriate name for the sun, and one frequently
applied to him in the religious texts. As to Utu, there is some doubt
whether it represents a real pronunciation or not. My own opinion is
that it does, and that the underlying stem is _atû_, which in Babylonian
has almost the same meaning as _bar_ or _barû_, viz., 'to see.' 'Utu'
would thus again designate the sun as 'that which shines forth.'

It will be recalled, that other instances have been noted of the same
god appearing under different names. The most natural explanation for
this phenomenon is, that the variation corresponds to the different
localities where the god was worshipped. The identification would not be
made until the union of the various Babylonian states had been achieved.
Such a union would be a potent factor in systematizing the pantheon.
When once it was recognized that the various names represented, in
reality, one and the same deity, it would not be long before the name,
peculiar to the place where the worship was most prominent, would set
the others aside or reduce them to mere epithets.

It may well be that Shamash was the name given to the god at Sippar,
whereas at Ur he may have been known as Utu. Ur-Bau (of the first Ur
dynasty) calls him Utu also, when speaking of the temple at Larsa, but
it would be natural for the kings of Ur to call the sun-god of Larsa by
the same name that he had in Ur. That Hammurabi, however, calls the
sun-god of Larsa, Utu, may be taken as an indication that, as such he
was known at that place, for since we have no record of a sun-temple at
Babylon in these days, there would be no motive that might induce him to
transfer a name, otherwise known to him, to another place. The testimony
of Hammurabi is therefore as direct as that of Sargon, who calls the
sun-god of Sippar, Shamash. It is not always possible to determine, with
as much show of probability, as in the case of the sun-god, the
distribution of the various names, but the general conclusion, for all
that, is warranted in every instance, that a variety of names refers,
originally, to an equal variety of places over which the worship was
spread,--only that care must be exercised to distinguish between
distinctive names and mere epithets.


Â.

A consort of the sun-deity, appearing frequently at his side in the
incantation texts, is Â. It is more particularly with the Shamash of
Sippar, that Â is associated. She is simply the 'beloved one' of the
sun-deity, with no special character of her own. In the historical
texts, her rôle is quite insignificant, and for the period with which we
are at present concerned she is only mentioned once by a North
Babylonian ruler, Ma-an-ish-tu-su,[57] who dedicates an object to her.
The reading of the ideogram Â, or Nin-Â (_i.e._, Lady Â), is doubtful.
Malkatu ("mistress" or "queen") is offered as a plausible
conjecture.[58] Lehman (_Keils Bibl._ iii. I, 202) suggests _A-Ja_, but
on insufficient grounds. In any case Â has the force of mistress, and
Nin-Â simply designates the goddess as the lady, mistress, or queen. It
is likely that Â was originally an independent deity, and one of the
names of the sun-god in a particular locality. It occurs in proper names
as a title of Shamash. Instead, however, of becoming identified with
Shamash, Â degenerated into a pale reflection of Shamash, pictured under
the relationship of consort to him. This may have been due to the union
of Shamash with the place where Â was worshipped. If, as seems likely,
that near Sippar, there was another city on the other side of the
Euphrates, forming a suburb to it (as Borsippa did to Babylon), the
conclusion is perhaps warranted that Â was originally the sun-god
worshipped at the place which afterwards became incorporated with
Sippar.[59] Such an amalgamation of two originally male deities into a
combination of male and female, strange as it may seem to us, is in
keeping with the lack of sharp distinction between male and female in
the oldest forms of Semitic religions. In the old cuneiform writing the
same sign is used to indicate "lord" or "lady" when attached to deities.
Ishtar appears among Semites both as a male[60] and as a female deity.
Sex was primarily a question of strength. The stronger god was viewed as
masculine; the weaker as feminine.


Nannar and Sin.

Nannar, a reduplicated form like Babbar, with the assimilation of the
first r to n (nar-nar = nannar), has very much the same meaning as
Babbar. The latter, as we have seen, is the "lustrous one," the former,
the "one that furnishes light." The similarity in meaning is in keeping
with the similarity of function of the two deities, thus named: Babbar
being the sun and Nannar, the moon. It was under the name of Nannar that
the moon-god was worshipped at Ur, the most famous and probably the
oldest of the cities over which the moon-god presided. The association
of Nannar with Ur is parallel to that of Shamash with Sippar,--not that
the moon-god's jurisdiction or worship was confined to that place, but
that the worship of the deity of that place eclipsed others, and the
fame and importance at Ur led to the overshadowing of the moon-worship
there, over the obeisance to him paid elsewhere.

What further motives led to the choice of the moon-god as the patron of
Ur, lies beyond the scope of our knowledge. Due allowance must be made
for that natural selection, which takes place in the realm of thought as
much as in the domain of nature. Attention has already been called to
the predominance given by the Babylonians to the moon over the sun. The
latter is expressly called the "offspring of the lord of brilliant
beginning," that is, the moon-god (Delitzsch, _Assyr. Hdw._, p. 234
_a_). It is needless, therefore, to do more, at this place, than to
emphasize the fact anew. The moon serving much more as a guide to man,
through the regular character of its constant changes, than the sun, was
connected in the religious system with both the heavenly and the
terrestrial forces. In view of Nannar's position in the heavens, he was
called the "heifer of Anu." Anu, it will be recalled, was the god of
heaven (and heaven itself), while the "heifer"[61] is here used
metaphorically for offspring, the picture being suggested probably by
the "horn" that the moon presents at a certain phase. This 'horn'
constitutes his crown, and he is frequently represented on seal
cylinders with a crescent over his head, and with a long flowing beard,
that is described as having the color of lapislazuli. A frequent title
is the 'lord of the crown.' On the other hand, by virtue of its
influence on the earth, regulating, as the ancients observed, the tides,
the moon was connected by the Babylonians with the reckoning of time.
Because of this connection with the 'lower world,' it seems, he was also
regarded as the first-born of Bel. His sacred edifice at Ur was one to
which all rulers of the place devoted themselves. Ur-Gur, Nur-Rammân,
Sin-iddina, and Kudur-mabuk tell of their embellishment of the temple,
each one appropriating to himself the title of 'builder,' in which they
gloried. So close, again, was the identification of the city with the
deity, that the latter was frequently known simply as the god of Ur, and
the former, as the city of Nannar.

Another name of the moon-god was Sin,--the meaning of which escapes us.
At the side of Ur, Harran is the place most celebrated by reason of its
moon-worship, and there is every reason to believe that the name Sin was
originally attached to Harran. The migrations of the ancient Hebrews
were connected as we now know with political movements in Babylonia.
They proceed from Ur--or Ur-Kasdim, _i.e._, Chaldean Ur--northward to
Harran, which, by virtue of its position, became a town of much
importance. This association of Ur with Harran furnishes an indication
for historical relations of some sort, existing between the two places.
It is therefore not accidental, that the patron deity of both places was
the same. As yet, no excavations have been made at Harran, and we are,
therefore, dependent upon incidental notices for our knowledge of its
history. These sufficiently show that the place continued through a long
period to preserve its sacred character. The old temple there, was one
of the many that stirred up the religious zeal of Nabonnedos; and
previous to this, we find several Assyrian kings occupied in
embellishing and restoring the structure. An interesting reference to
Harran, bearing witness to its ancient dignity, is found in an
inscription of Sargon II. of Assyria (722-706 B.C.), who enumerates
among his claims to the favor of the gods, that he restored the "laws
and customs of Harran," by which he evidently means that he was
instrumental in giving the place, the dignity it once enjoyed. A curious
feature connected with Sin, is the occurrence of the name in Mount
Sinai, in the wilderness of Sin, as well as in an inscription of
Southern Arabia. May not this be a further testimony to the association
of Harran with Sin, since it is from Harran that the departure of the
Hebrews for the west took place? What more natural than that in the
migrations which carried the Hebrews to the west, the worship of Sin
should have been transferred to Arabia?[62] Important as Ur and Harran
are as sacred towns, politically they do not retain their prominence
after the days of Hammurabi. The amalgamation of Nannar with Sin, and
the almost exclusive occurrence of the latter name in later times, does
not of necessity point to a preponderating influence of Harran over Ur,
but may be due to the greater fame which the former place acquired as
the goal of religious pilgrimages. The situation of Harran--the name
itself signifies 'road'--as the highway leading to the west, must have
been an important factor, in bringing this about. However this may be,
Sin and Nannar are as thoroughly identical in the period following
Hammurabi, as Babbar and Shamash. The attributes of the one are
transferred to the other so completely, that a separation of the two is
no longer possible.

The ideographs with which the name of Sin is written show him to have
been regarded as the god of wisdom, but while wisdom and light may be
connected, it is Nannar's character as the "illuminator" that becomes
the chief trait of the god. No doubt the preëminence of Ea in this
respect, who is the personification of wisdom, _par excellence_, made it
superfluous to have another deity possessing the same trait. It is,
accordingly, as the god of light, that Sin continues to be adored in the
Babylonian religion; and when he is referred to, in the historical texts
and hymns, this side of his nature is the one dwelt upon. Through his
light, the traps laid by the evil spirits, who are active at night, are
revealed. In later times, apparently through Assyrian influence, the
reckoning of time was altered to the extent of making the day begin with
sunrise, instead of with the approach of night; and this, together with
the accommodation of the lunar cycle to the movements of the sun,
brought about a partial change of the former conditions, and gave
somewhat greater prominence to Shamash. As a consequence, the rôle of
Sin is not as prominent in the hymns that belong to a later period as in
those of earlier days.

The oracles of the Assyrian kings are addressed to Shamash, and not to
Sin. Moreover, the personal factor in the case of Sin, if one may
express oneself thus, is not as strong as in that of some other gods.
His traits are of a more general kind. He is supreme; there is none like
him, and the spirits are subservient to his will. But terms of
endearment are few, while on the mythological side, comparatively little
is made of him. He is strong and he is holy. He is called upon to clothe
the evil-doer with leprosy, as with a dress. In a robe, befitting his
dignity, he stalks about. Without him, no city is founded, no district
restored to former glory. Sin is called the father of the gods, but in a
metaphorical rather than in a real sense. The only one of his children
who takes an important part in the later phases of Babylonian-Assyrian
worship is his daughter Ishtar. She seems to have taken to herself some
of the traits of right belonging to Sin, and the prominence of her
worship may be regarded as an additional factor in accounting for the
comparative obscurity to which Sin gradually is assigned. At all events,
Sin is a feature of the earlier period of the Babylonian religion rather
than of the later periods.


Innanna.

The secondary position held by the female deities in the Babylonian
pantheon has been repeatedly referred to. This trait of the religion
finds an illustration not only in the 'shadowy' character of the
consorts of the gods, but also in the manner in which goddesses,
originally distinct from one another and enjoying an existence
independent of any male consort, lose their individuality, as it were,
and become merely so many forms of one and the same deity. Indeed, as we
approach the moment when the gods of the Babylonian pantheon are ranged
into a system, the tendency becomes pronounced to recognize only _one_
goddess, representative of the principle of generation--one 'great
mother,' endowed with a variety of traits according to the political and
social conditions prevailing at different times in Babylonia and
Assyria. In the earliest period which we are now considering, we can
still distinguish a number of goddesses who afterwards became merged
into this one great goddess. These are Ninni (or Innanna), Nanâ, and
Anunit.

Ninni and Innanna are names that appear to have a common origin.[63]
Both embody the notion of 'ladyship.' The worship of this goddess
centers in the district of Lagash. Ur-Bau (c. 3000 B.C.), who addresses
her as 'glorious and supreme,' builds a temple in her honor at
Gishgalla, and Gudea refers to a temple known as E-anna, _i.e._,
heavenly house in Girsu.[64] For Gudea, Ninni is the "mistress of the
world." Another ruler of Lagash whose name is doubtfully read as
E-dingir-ra-na-gin,[65] but who is even earlier than Ur-Bau, declares
that he has been 'called' by Innanna to the throne. She is mentioned by
the side of Nin-khar-sag. We are still in the period where local
associations formed a controlling factor in ensuring the popularity of a
deity, and while the goddesses attached to the gods of the important
centers are still differentiated, the tendency already exists to
designate the female consorts simply as the 'goddess,'--to apply to all,
the traits that may once have been peculiar to one. As we pass from one
age to the other, there is an increasing difficulty in keeping the
various local 'goddesses' apart. Even the names become interchangeable;
and since these goddesses all represented essentially the same principle
of generation and fertility, it was natural that with the union of the
Babylonian states they should become merged into one great
mother-goddess. A 'local' goddess who retains rather more of her
individuality than others, is


Nanâ.

Her name is again playfully interpreted by the Babylonians--through
association with Nin--as 'the lady' _par excellence_. She was the chief
goddess of the city of Uruk. Her temple at Uruk is first mentioned by
Ur-Gur, of the second dynasty of Ur. It is restored and enlarged by
Dungi, the successor of Ur-Bau, and so thoroughly is she identified with
her edifice known as E-anna (again a play upon her name), that she
becomes known as the Lady of E-anna.[66] She appears to have had a
temple also at Ur, and it is to this edifice that later rulers of
Larsa--Kudur-Mabuk and Rim-Sin, as well as the kings of the Isin
dynasty, Gamil-Ninib, Libit-Ishtar, and Ishme-Dagan--refer in their
inscriptions.

The members of the Isin dynasty pride themselves upon their control over
Uruk, and naturally appear as special devotees to Nanâ, whose chosen
"consort" they declare themselves to be, wielding the sceptre, as it
were, in union with her. Already at this period, Nanâ is brought into
connection with the moon-god, being called by Kudur-Mabuk the daughter
of Sin. The relationship in this case indicates, primarily, the
supremacy exercised by Ur, and also a similarity in the traits of the
two deities. In the fully developed cosmology, Nanâ is the planet Venus,
whose various aspects, as morning and evening star, suggested an analogy
with the phases of the moon.

Venus, like the moon, served as a guide to man, while her inferiority in
size and importance to the former, would naturally come to be expressed
under the picture of father and daughter. In a certain sense, all the
planets appearing at the same time and in the same region with the moon
were the children of the latter. Sin, therefore, is appropriately called
the father of gods, just as Anu, the personification of the heaven
itself, is the supreme father of Sin and Shamash, and of all the
heavenly bodies. The metaphorical application of 'father' as 'source,'
throughout Oriental parlance, must be kept in mind in interpreting the
relationship between the gods. Still another name of the goddess is
Anunit, which appears to have been peculiar to the North Babylonian city
Agade, and emphasizes her descent from "Anu," the god of heaven. Her
temple at Agade, known as E-ul-mash, is the object of Sargon's devotion,
which makes her, with Bel and Shamash, the oldest triad of gods
mentioned in the Babylonian inscriptions. But the name which finally
displaces all others, is


Ishtar.

Where the name originated has not yet been ascertained, as little as its
etymology,[67] but it seems to belong to Northern Babylonia rather than
to the south.

In time, all the names that we have been considering--Innanna, Nanâ, and
Anunit--became merely so many designations of Ishtar. She absorbs the
titles and qualities of all, and the tendency which we have pointed out
finds its final outcome in the recognition of Ishtar as the one and only
goddess endowed with powers and an existence independent of association
with any male deity, though even this independence does not hinder her
from being named at times as the associate of the chief god of
Assyria--the all-powerful Ashur. The attempt has been made by Sayce and
others to divide the various names of Ishtar among the aspects of Venus
as morning and evening star, but there is no evidence to show that the
Babylonians distinguished the one from the other so sharply as to make
two goddesses of one and the same planet.

It is more in accord with what, as we have seen, has been the general
character of the Babylonian pantheon, to account for the identification
of Ninni, Nanâ, and Anunit with Ishtar on the supposition that the
different names belonged originally to different localities. Ishtar was
appropriately denominated the brilliant goddess. She is addressed as the
mother of gods, which signals her supreme position among the female
deities. 'The mistress of countries' alternating with 'the mistress of
mountains,'[68] is one of her common titles; and as the growing
uniqueness of her position is one of the features of the
Babylonian-Assyrian religion, it is natural that she should become
simply _the_ goddess. This was especially the case with the Assyrians,
to whom Ishtar became a goddess of war and battle, the consort, at
times, of the chief god of the Assyrian pantheon. At the same time it is
important to note that the warlike character of the goddess goes back to
the time of Hammurabi (_Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, 113), and is dwelt upon by
other Babylonian kings (_e.g._, Nebuchadnezzar I., c. 1130 B.C.) prior
to the rise of the Assyrian power. How Ishtar came to take on so violent
a character is not altogether clear. There are no indications of this
rôle in the incantation texts, where she is simply the kind mother who
is appealed to, to release the sufferer from the power of the
disease-bringing spirits. In the prayers, as will be shown in the proper
place, she becomes the vehicle for the expression of the highest
religious and ethical thought attained by the Babylonians. On the other
hand, in the great Babylonian epic,[69] dealing with the adventures of a
famous hero, Gilgamesh, Ishtar, who makes her appearance at the summer
solstice, is a raging goddess who smites those who disobey her commands
with wasting disease. Starting with this phase of the goddess'
character, one can at least understand the process of her further
development into a fierce deity presiding over the fortunes of war. The
epic just referred to belongs to the old Babylonian period. It embodies
ancient traditions of rivalry between the Babylonian principalities,
though there are traces of several recastings which the epic received.
The violent Ishtar, therefore, is a type going back to the same period
as the other side of her character that is emphasized elsewhere. Since,
moreover, the Ishtar in the Gilgamesh epic is none other than the chief
goddess of Uruk, all further doubt as to the union of such diverging
traits in one and the same personage falls to the ground. In this same
epic, Ishtar appears as sympathizing with the sufferings of mankind, and
bewailing the destruction that was at one time decreed by the gods. It
is noteworthy that the violent Ishtar appears in that portion of the
epic which, on the assumption of a zodiacal interpretation for the
composition, corresponds to the summer solstice, whereas, the
destruction which arouses her sympathy takes place in the eleventh
month. It is quite possible, therefore, that the two aspects of Venus,
as evening and morning stars, corresponding, as they do, to the summer
and winter seasons, are reflected in this double character of the
goddess. We are not justified, however, in going further and assuming
that her double rôle as daughter of Sin and daughter of Anu is to be
accounted for in the same manner. In the Gilgamesh epic, she is found in
association with Anu, and to the latter she appeals for protection as
her father, and yet it is as the daughter of Sin that she enters the
world of the dead to seek for the waters that may heal her bridegroom,
Tammuz.[70] Evidently, the distinction between Ishtar as the daughter of
Anu and as the daughter of Sin is not an important one, the term
daughter in both cases being a metaphor to express a relationship both
of physical nature and of a political character. Of the various forms
under which the goddess appears, that of Anunit--a feminine form
indicating descent from and appertaining to Anu--attaches itself most
clearly to the god of heaven, and it may be that it was not until the
assimilation of Anunit and Nanâ with Ishtar that the goddess is viewed
as at once the daughter of Anu and of Sin. If this be so, there is
surely nothing strange in the fact that a planet like Venus should be
regarded in one place as the daughter of heaven and in another brought
into relationship with the moon. She actually belongs to both.

Just as in Babylonia, so in Assyria, there were various Ishtars, or
rather various places where the goddess was worshipped as the guardian
spirit, but her rôle in the north is so peculiar that all further
consideration of it must be postponed until we come to consider, in due
time, the Assyrian pantheon. There will be occasion, too, when treating
of the Gilgamesh epic, to dwell still further on some of her traits. All
that need be said here is to emphasize the fact that the popularity of
the Babylonian Ishtar in Assyria, as manifested by Esarhaddon's zeal in
restoring her temple at Uruk, and Ashurbanabal's restoration of Nanâ's
statue (_c._ 635 B.C.) which had been captured by the Elamites 1635
years before Ashurbanabal's reign, is largely due to the effected
identity with the goddess who, for the Assyrians, was regarded chiefly
as the goddess of war and strife. In worshipping the southern Ishtars,
the Assyrian kings felt themselves to be showing their allegiance to the
same deity to whom, next to Ashur, most of their supplications were
addressed, and of whom as warriors they stood in dread.


Ninâ.

A goddess who, while sharing the fate of her sister goddesses in being
overshadowed by Ishtar, yet merits a special treatment, is one whose
name is plausibly conjectured to be read Ninâ. The compound ideogram
expressing the deity signifies 'house of the fish.' The word 'house' in
Semitic parlance is figuratively extended to convey the idea of
'possessing or harboring.' Applied to a settlement, the ideogram would
be the equivalent of our 'Fishtown.' It is with this same ideogram that
the famous capitol of Assyria, Nineveh, is written in the cuneiform
texts, and since the phonetic reading for the city, Ni-na-a, also
occurs, it is only legitimate to conclude that the latter is the correct
reading for the deity as well. As a matter of course, if the goddess
bears a name identical with that of a city, it cannot be the Assyrian
city which is meant in the old Babylonian inscriptions, but some other
place bearing the same name. Such a place actually occurs in the
inscriptions of Gudea. It is, in fact, one of the three towns that
combined with Shirpurla to create the great capitol bearing the latter
name; and Jensen[71] has called attention to a passage in one of Gudea's
inscriptions in which the goddess is brought into direct association
with the town, so that it would appear that Ninâ is the patron of Ninâ,
in the same way that Nin-girsu is the protector of Girsu. In keeping
with this we find the mention of the goddess limited to the rulers of
Lagash. Several of them--En-anna-tuma, Entemena, and Gudea--declare
themselves to have been chosen by her. She is said to regard Gudea with
special favor. She determines destinies. Another king, Ur-Ninâ, embodies
the name of the goddess in his own, and devotes himself to the
enlargement of her temple. From the manner in which she is associated
with Nin-girsu, aiding the latter in guarding his temple E-ninnu, and
uniting with the god in granting the sceptre to Gudea, one is tempted to
conclude that the two towns, Girsu and Ninâ, were amalgamated before
their absorption into Lagash, so that the god and goddess acquired the
relationship to one another of husband and consort. As for the
connection between this Babylonian Ninâ and the late Assyrian capital,
it is quite possible that the origin of the latter is to be traced to a
settlement made by inhabitants of the former, although it should be
added that there is no positive evidence that can be adduced in support
of this proposition. It accords, however, with the northward movement of
culture and civilization in Mesopotamia. If this connection between the
two Ninevehs be accepted, the question suggests itself whether, in time,
Ninâ did not become merely another form of Ishtar. The Assyrian capital
is frequently spoken of as the 'beloved city' of Ishtar, and unless it
be supposed that this epithet simply reflects the comparatively late
popularity of the distinctively Assyrian Ishtar, the most natural
explanation would be to propose the equation Ninâ = Ishtar.

In the incantation texts, Ninâ is frequently appealed to as the daughter
of Ea,--the god of the deep. This relationship, as well as the
interpretation of the ideogram above set forth, points to the original
character of the goddess as a water-deity. This goddess, therefore,
would be of an entirely different form from the ones discussed in the
previous paragraphs. Instead of being a member of the heavenly pantheon,
her place is with the kingdom over which Ea presides, and whose
dwelling-place is the watery deep. In any case, Ninâ is originally
distinct from Ishtar, Nanâ, and Anunit; and she retains an independent
existence to a later period than most of the other great goddesses that
have been discussed. In an inscription of the days of Belnâdinaplu (_c._
1100 B.C.), published by Hilprecht,[72] Ninâ appears as the patron deity
of Dêr,--a city of Southern Babylonia. There too she is called the
'daughter of Ea,' the creator of everything. She is 'the mistress of
goddesses.' Attached to her temple there are lands that having been
wrongfully wrested from the priests are returned upon royal command,
under solemn invocation of the goddess. How her worship came to be
transferred to Dêr we do not know. She appears in the inscription in
question by the side of a goddess who--following Hommel--is none other
than Bau. Dêr is called the city of the god Anu, and we can only suppose
that it must at one time have risen to sufficient importance to harbor
in its midst a number of deities. It is presumably[73] the place whence
Nebuchadnezzar I. sets out in the twelfth century to drive the Cassites
off the throne of Babylonia. May it be that, during the days of the
foreign rule, priests attached to the service of various of the old gods
and goddesses transferred the worship of these deities to places more
secure from interference?

Be this as it may, if our Ninâ has any connection with the goddess of
Nineveh, it is certain that Ishtar has retained none of Ninâ's traits.
The fusion in this case has been so complete that naught but the
faintest tradition of an original and independent Ninâ has survived in
the North.


Anu.

This god, who, from a theoretical point of view (as will be shown in a
subsequent chapter), was regarded as standing at the head of the
organized Babylonian pantheon, figures only incidentally in the
inscriptions prior to the days of Hammurabi. Ur-Gur of the second
dynasty of Ur, in invoking Nannar, calls the latter 'the powerful bull
of Anu.' The reference is interesting, for it shows that already in
these early days the position of Anu, as the god of the heavenly
expanse, was fixed. The moon appearing in the heavens, and the
resemblance of its crescent to a bull's horn,[74] are the two factors
that account for the expressive epithet used by Ur-Bau. That the worship
of the god of heaven _par excellence_ should not have enjoyed great
popularity in the early days of the Babylonian religion might seem
strange at first sight. A little reflection, however, will make this
clear. A god of the heavens is an abstract conception, and while it is
possible that even in an early age, such a conception may have arisen in
some minds, it is not of a character calculated to take a popular hold.
As we proceed in our attempt to trace the development of the Babylonian
religion, we will find the line of demarcation separating the
theological system, as evolved by the schoolmen, from the popular phases
of the religion, becoming more marked. In the inscriptions of the old
Babylonian rulers, comparatively little of the influence of the
Babylonian theologians is to be detected. Even the description of the
moon as the bull of heaven falls within the domain of popular fancy. It
is different in the days after Hammurabi, when political concentration
leads to the focussing of intellectual life in the Euphrates Valley,
with all the consequences that the establishment of a central
priesthood, with growing powers over ever-increasing territory,
involves. It is to be noted, moreover, that the manner in which in the
old Babylonian inscriptions _Anu_ is written,[75] indicates that the
abstraction involved in the conception of a god of heaven had not yet
been reached, though some measure of personification was of course
inevitable at a time when animistic notions still held sway. A direct
indication of this personification of heaven without the deification
appears in the epithet 'child of Anu,' bestowed upon the goddess Bau.
The reference to the heavens in this connection is an allusion to Bau's
position as the patroness of that quarter of Lagash known as the
'brilliant town,'[76] and where Bau's temple stood. The transference of
the quality of 'brilliancy' from the town to the goddess would be
expressed by calling the latter the offspring of that part of visible
nature which is associated in the mind with 'brilliancy.' Somewhat
mysterious, and still awaiting a satisfactory explanation, is the title
'sacrificer,' or 'priest of Anu,' which one of the rulers of Lagash,
Ur-Nin-girsu, assumes. It is scarcely possible that the god of heaven
can be meant; and, on the other hand, if we are to assume merely a
personification of heaven, we encounter fresh difficulties. It seems to
me that the use of Anu[77] here is purely metaphorical for 'high' or
'lofty,' and that the king merely wishes to emphasize the dignity of his
station by declaring himself to be the heavenly priest, somewhat as we
should say 'priest by divine grace,' or 'supreme priest.'


Nin-si[78]-a.

Ur-Bau and Gudea alone of the ancient rulers refer to this god. The
former erects a temple in honor of the god in some quarter of his
capitol city, while the latter emphasizes the strength that the god has
given him. These references, however, show that the god must have been
of considerable importance, and in this case, his disappearance from the
later pantheon is probably due to the absorption of his rôle by the
greater god of Lagash,--Nin-girsu. Like Nin-girsu, Nin-si-a was a god of
war, and his worship, imported perhaps from some ancient site to Lagash,
falls into desuetude, as the attribute accorded to him becomes the
distinguishing trait of the chief deity of the place.


Gal-alim.

Among the various deities to whom Gudea gives praise for the position
and glory which he attains is Gal-alim.[79] From him he has received
great rule and a lofty sceptre. The phrase is of a very general nature
and reveals nothing as to the special character of the god in question.
An earlier king, Uru-kagina, refers to the temple of the god at Lagash.
Gal-alim may have been again a merely local deity belonging to one of
the towns that fell under Gudea's rule, and whose attributes again were
so little marked that this god too disappeared under the overshadowing
importance of Nin-girsu. He and another god, Dun-shagga, are viewed as
the sons of Nin-girsu.

       *       *       *       *       *

Coming to some of the deities that we may designate as minor, it is to
be noted that in the case of certain ones, at least, it will be found
that they may be identified with others more prominent, and that what
seem to be distinct names are in reality descriptive epithets of gods
already met with. This remark applies more particularly to such names as
begin with the element Nin, signifying either 'lord' or 'lady,' and
which, when followed by the name of a place, always points to its being
a title, and, when followed by an ideographic compound, only diminishes
that probability to a slight degree. We have already come across several
instances; thus Nin-girsu, the lord of Girsu, has been shown to be a
form of Ninib, itself an ideogram, the reading of which, it will be
recalled, is still uncertain; and again, Nin-khar-sag has been referred
to, as one of the titles of the great goddess Belit. Similarly,
Nin-gish-zida, whose name signifies 'the lord of the right-hand (or
propitious) sceptre,' becomes a title and not a name, and when Gudea
speaks of this god as the one who leads him to battle, and calls him
'king,' he is simply describing the same god who is elsewhere spoken of
as Nin-girsu. By the side of Nin-girsu and Nin-gish-zida appears
Nin-shakh, who, as Oppert[80] has shown, is like Nin-girsu the prototype
of the well-known god of war, Ninib. However, Nin-shakh occupies, in
contradistinction to Nin-gish-zida and others, a position in the old
Babylonian pantheon of an independent character, so that it is hardly
justifiable, in such a case, to identify him completely with Ninib, and
place the name on a par with the epithets just referred to. The dividing
line between the mere title and an independent god thus becomes at times
very faint, and yet it is well to maintain it whenever called for. In
the following enumeration of the minor gods of the old Babylonian
pantheon, the attempt will be made to bring out this distinction in each
instance.

Beginning with


Nin-shakh

the element _Nin_, as has several times been mentioned, points to an
ideographic form. The second element signifies 'wild boar,' and from
other sources we know that this animal was a sacred one in Babylonia, as
among other Semitic nations.[81] Its flesh, on certain days of the
Babylonian calendar, was forbidden to be eaten, from which we are
permitted to conclude that these days were dedicated to the animal, and
the prohibition represents perhaps the traces of some old religious
festival. May Nin-shakh therefore have been a 'swine deity,' just as
Nergal is symbolized by the 'lion'? In both cases the animal would be a
symbol of the violent and destructive character of the god.

The ferocious character of the 'swine' would naturally result in
assigning to Nin-shakh warlike attributes; and as a matter of fact he is
identified at times with Ninib. His subordinate position, however, is
indicated by his being called the 'servant,' generally of En-lil,
occasionally also of Anu, and as such he bears the name of
Pap-sukal,[82] _i.e._, 'divine messenger.' Rim-Sin builds a temple to
Nin-shakh at Uruk, and from its designation as his 'favorite dwelling
place' we may conclude that Rim-Sin only restores or enlarges an ancient
temple of the deity. In the light of this, the relationship above set
forth between Nin-girsu, Nin-gish-zida, and Nin-shakh becomes somewhat
clearer. The former, the local deity of Girsu, would naturally be called
by the kings 'the lord of the true sceptre,' while the subordination of
Girsu as a quarter of Lagash finds its reflection in the relationship of
master and servant pictured as existing between En-lil and Nin-girsu.
Again, the warlike character of the patron deity of Girsu would lead to
an identification with Nin-shakh of Uruk, possessing the same traits;
and the incorporation of Uruk as a part of the same empire which
included Lagash and its quarters, would be the last link bringing about
the full equation between the three. With Ninib--the solar deity--coming
into prominence as the god of war, all three names, Nin-girsu,
Nin-gish-zida, and Nin-shakh, would be regarded by a later age as merely
descriptive of one and the same god.


Dun-shagga.

Gudea makes mention in one of his inscriptions, by the side of
Nin-gish-zida, of a god Dun-shagga,[83] whose name signifies the 'chief
hero,' but the phonetic reading of which it is impossible to
determine.[84] Like Nin-gish-zida, he is a warlike god, and from that
one might suppose that he too is only another form of Nin-girsu-Ninib.
At all events, he did not differ materially from the latter. It is from
him, that Gudea again declares his power to be derived, just as
elsewhere he accords to Nin-girsu this distinction. The element 'Dun,'
which is very much the same as 'Nin,' speaks in favor of regarding
Dun-shagga as a title; but, in default of positive evidence, it will not
be out of place to give him an independent position, and to regard his
identification with Nin-girsu as a later phase due to the extension of
Nin-girsu's jurisdiction and his corresponding absorption of a varying
number of minor gods. This tendency on the part of the greater gods to
absorb the minor ones is as distinctive a trait in the development of
the Babylonian religion, as is the subordination of one god to the
other, whether expressed by making the subordinate god the consort, the
chief, or the servant of a superior one. We have seen that such terms of
relationship correspond to certain degrees of political conditions
existing between the conquering and the conquered districts.
Amalgamation of two cities or districts is portrayed in the relation of
the two patron deities as husband and wife, the stronger of the two
being the former, the more subservient pictured as the latter. The more
pronounced superiority of the one place over the other finds expression
in the relation of father to child, while that of master and servant
emphasizes the complete control exercised by the one over the other.
Lastly, the absorption of one deity into another, is correlative either
with the most perfect form of conquest, or the complete disappearance of
the seat of his worship in consequence of the growing favor of one
possessing sufficiently similar qualities to warrant identification with
the other.


Lugal-banda.

Sin-gashid of the dynasty of Uruk makes mention of this deity at the
beginning of one of his inscriptions. To him and to his consort,
Nin-gul, a temple as 'the seat of their joy' at that place is devoted.
This association of the god with the town points again to a local deity,
but possessing a character which leads to the absorption of the god in
the solar god, Nergal, whom we have already encountered, and who will
occupy us a good deal when we come to the period after Hammurabi. The
identification of the two is already foreshadowed in an inscription of
another member of the same dynasty, Sin-gamil, who places the name of
Nergal exactly where his predecessor mentions Lugal-banda. The first
element in his name signifies 'king,' the second apparently 'strong,' so
that in this respect, too, the god comes close to Nergal, whose name
likewise indicates 'great lord.' The consort of Lugal-banda is


Nin-gul.

Her name signifies 'the destructive lady,'--an appropriate epithet for
the consort of a solar deity. It is Sin-gashid again who associates
Ningul with Lugal-banda, and emphasizes his affection for the goddess by
calling her his mother. In one inscription, moreover, Sin-gashid
addresses himself exclusively to the goddess, who had an equal share in
the temple at Uruk.


Dumuzi-zu-aba.

Among the deities appealed to by Ur-Bau appears one whose name is to be
interpreted as the 'unchangeable child of the watery deep.' The great
god of the deep we have seen is Ea. Dumuzi-zu-aba therefore belongs to
the water-deities, and one who, through his subordinate rank to Ea,
sinks to the level of a water-spirit. Ur-Bau declares himself to be the
darling of this deity, and in the town of Girsu he erects a temple to
him. Girsu, however, was not the patron city of the god, for Ur-Bau
gives Dumuzi-zu-aba, the appellation of 'the lord of Kinunira,'[85] a
place the actual situation of which is unknown. Dumuzi-zu-aba,
accordingly, is to be regarded as a local deity of a place which,
situated probably on an arm of the Euphrates, was the reason for the
watery attributes assigned to the god. The comparative insignificance of
the place is one of the factors that accounts for the minor importance
of the god, and the second factor is the popularity enjoyed by another
child of the great Ea, his child _par excellence_, Marduk, who is best
known as the patron god of the city of Babylon. By the side of Marduk,
the other children of Ea, the minor water-deities, disappear, so that to
a later generation Dumuzi-zu-aba appears merely as a form of Marduk.
With Dumuzi-zu-aba, we must be careful not to confuse


Dumu-zi,

who in the old Babylonian inscriptions is mentioned once by
Sin-iddina,[86] in connection with the sun-god. Dumu-zi, signifying
'child of life,' has a double aspect--an agricultural deity and at the
same time a god of the lower world. He plays an important part in the
eschatological literature of the Babylonians, but hardly none at all in
the historical and incantation texts. A fuller treatment may therefore
be reserved for a future chapter.


Lugal-erima.

A purely local deity, if the reading and interpretation offered by
Jensen, 'King of the city Erim,' is correct. The mention of the deity in
an inscription of Ur-Bau, who calls himself the 'beloved servant' of
this god, would be due to the circumstance that the district within
which the city in question lay was controlled by the rulers of Lagash.
To invoke as large a number of deities as possible was not only a means
of securing protection from many sides, but was already in the early
days of Babylonian history indulged in by rulers, as a means of
emphasizing the extent and manifold character of their jurisdiction.


Nin-e-gal and Ningal.

A temple was erected to Nin-e-gal by the wife of Rim-Sin, of the dynasty
ruling in Larsa. Her name as interpreted in the tablet dedicated to her,
signifies again, as in several cases already noted, 'great lady.' She
was probably therefore only the consort of some patron deity; and Nannar
being the most prominent god invoked by Rim-Sin, it would seem that the
goddess to whom the queen pays her respects is again one of the consorts
of the moon-god.[87] This conclusion is supported by the direct
association of Nannar of Ur and Ningal in an inscription emanating from
an earlier member of the same dynasty to which Rim-Sin belongs.
Nur-Rammân speaks of building temples to these deities in the city of
Ur. Hence the goddess is also represented as interceding with Sin on
behalf of those who appeal to her. The form Nin-e-gal is but a variant
of Nin-gal, so that the identification of the two lies beyond doubt, and
it may very well be that the temple erected by the consort of Rim-Sin is
the same as the one referred to by Nur-Rammân. In a land where polygamy
was a prevailing custom, the gods too might be represented as having a
number of consorts. There would of course be, just as in human
relations, one chief consort, but there might be others ranged at the
side of the latter.[88] Some of these may have been consorts of other
minor deities, worshipped in the same district, and who were given to
the more important divinity as he gradually overshadowed the others. In
this way, we may account for the large variety of 'ladies' and 'great
ladies' met with in the Babylonian pantheon, and who, being merely
'reflections' of male deities, with no sharply marked traits of their
own, would naturally come to be confused with one another, and finally
be regarded as various forms of one and the same goddess. A member of
the dynasty ruling in Isin, En-anna-tuma, earlier even than Nur-Rammân,
invokes Nin-gal in an inscription found in the ancient capital, Ur.
Here, too, the goddess appears in association with Nannar; but,
curiously enough, she is designated as the mother of Shamash. It will be
borne in mind that in the city of Ur, the sun-god occupied a secondary
place at the side of the moon-god. This relationship is probably
indicated by the epithet 'offspring of Nin-gal,' accorded to Shamash in
the inscription referred to. The moon being superior to the sun, the
consort of the moon-god becomes the mother of the sun-god.

Reference has several times been made to


Nin-gish-zida,

who, originally a distinct solar deity, becomes scarcely distinguishable
from Nin-girsu, and is eventually identified with the great Nin-ib.[89]
It is noticeable that these four deities, Nin-girsu, Nin-shakh,
Nin-gish-zida, and Nin-ib, who are thus associated together, all contain
the element _Nin_ in their names,--a factor that may turn out to be of
some importance when more abundant material shall be forthcoming for
tracing their development in detail. One of Gudea's inscriptions[90]
begins with the significant statement, 'Nin-gish-zida is the god of
Gudea'; and elsewhere when speaking of him, he is 'my god,' or 'his
god.' None of the ancient Babylonian rulers make mention of him except
Gudea, though in the incantation texts he is introduced and
significantly termed 'the throne-bearer' of the earth. The purely local
character of the deity is, furthermore, emphasized by the reference to
his temple in Girsu, on a brick and on a cone containing dedicatory
inscriptions, inscribed by Gudea in honor of the god.[91]


Shul (or Dun)-pa-uddu.

The wife of the famous Gudea, Gin-Shul-pa-uddu, bears a name in which
one of the elements is a deity, the phonetic reading of whose name is
still uncertain.[92] The elements comprising it, namely, 'lord' (?),
'sceptre,' and 'radiant,' leave little doubt as to the solar character
of the god. Besides Gudea's wife, a ruler, Ur-Shul-pa-uddu,[93]
belonging apparently to a somewhat earlier period, embodies this deity
in his name. The worship of the deity, therefore, belongs to a very
early epoch, and appears at one time to have enjoyed considerable
popularity within a certain district of Babylonia. To what region of
Babylonia he belongs has not yet been ascertained. Judging from
analogous instances, he represented some phase of the sun worshipped in
a particular locality, whose cult, with the disappearance of the place
from the surface of political affairs, yielded to the tendency to
concentrate sun-worship in two or three deities,--Shamash and Ninib more
especially. In the astronomy of the Babylonians the name survived as a
designation of Marduk-Jupiter.[94]


Nin-Mar.

A local deity, designated as the lady of Mar, is invoked by Ur-Bau, from
whom we learn that she was the daughter of Ninâ. _Mar_, with the
determinative for country, _Ki_, appears to have been the name of a
district extending to the Persian Gulf.[95] The capital of the district
is represented by the mound Tel-Id, not far from Warka. Her subsidiary
position is indicated in these words, and we may conclude that Nin-Mar
at an early period fell under the jurisdiction of the district in which
Ninâ was supreme. For all that, Nin-Mar, or the city in which her cult
was centralized, must have enjoyed considerable favor. Ur-Bau calls her
the 'gracious lady,' and erects a temple, the name of which,
Ish-gu-tur,[96] _i.e._, according to Jensen's plausible interpretation,
'the house that serves as a court for all persons,' points to Mar as a
place of pilgrimage to which people came from all sides. Gudea,
accordingly, does not omit to include 'the lady of Mar' in his list of
the chief deities to whom he pays his devotions; and on the assumption
of the general favor in which the city of Mar stood as a sacred town, we
may account for the fact that a much later ruler, Dungi, of the dynasty
of Ur,[97] erects a temple to her honor.


Pa-sag.

A deity, the phonetic reading of whose name is unknown, or at all events
uncertain,[98] is mentioned once by Gudea in the long list of deities
that has been several times referred to. The ideographs with which his
name is written designate him as a chief of some kind, and in accord
with this, Gudea calls him 'the leader of the land.' Pa-sag is mentioned
immediately after the sun-god Utu, and in view of the fact that another
solar deity, I-shum, whom we shall come across in a future chapter, is
designated by the same title[99] as Pa-sag, it seems safe to conclude
that the latter is likewise a solar deity, and in all probability, the
prototype of I-shum, if not indeed identical with him.


Nisaba (or Nidaba).

In a dream which the gods send to Gudea, he sees among other things, a
goddess, whose name may be read Nisaba or Nidaba.[100] Ninâ, who
interprets the dream to the ruler of Shirpurla, declares that Nisaba is
her sister. In a text belonging to a still earlier age, the deity is
mentioned as the begetter of a king whose name is read Lugal-zaggisi.[101]
From the manner in which the name of the goddess is written, as well as
from other sources, we know that Nisaba is an agricultural deity. In
historical texts she plays scarcely any rôle at all, but in incantations
she is often referred to; and from the fact that Nisaba is appealed to,
to break the power of the demons in conjunction with Ea, it would appear
that the position once occupied by her was no insignificant one.
Nin-girsu, it will be recalled, has also traits which connect him with
agricultural life, and Ninâ being the daughter of Nin-si-a, one of the
forms under which Ningirsu-Ninib appears, we may connect Nisaba directly
with the cults of which Lagash formed the center. Nisaba must have been
the consort of one of the agricultural gods, whose jurisdiction falls
within Gudea's empire. Lugal-zaggisi, as the king of Uruk, assigns to
the goddess a first place. Her origin must, therefore, be sought in this
region. In later days the name of the goddess is used to describe the
fertility of the soil in general. So Ashurbanabal, describing the
prosperity existing in his days, says that grain was abundant through
the 'increase of Nisaba.'[102]


KU(?)-Anna.

A goddess of this name--reading of the first sign doubtful--is mentioned
by Ur-Bau, who builds a temple to her in Girsu. If Amiaud is correct in
his reading of the first sign, the goddess was identified at one time by
the Babylonians with the consort of Ramman--the storm-god. This would
accord with the description that Ur-Bau gives of the goddess. She is the
one who deluges the land with water--belonging therefore to the same
order as Bau.

In a list of deities enumerated by a ruler of Erech, Lugal-zaggisi,[103]
are found (1) a local goddess,


Umu,

designated as the 'priestess of Uruk,'[104] and occupying an inferior
rank to (2) a goddess,


Nin-akha-kuddu,[105]

who is called 'the mistress of Uruk.' The importance of Erech in the
early history of Babylonia is emphasized by the inscriptions from
Nippur, recently published by Dr. Hilprecht. It is natural, therefore,
to find several deities of a purely local type commemorated by kings who
belong to this region. The goddess Umu is not heard of again. The great
goddess of Uruk, Nanâ, absorbs the smaller ones, and hence
Nin-akha-kuddu survives chiefly in incantation texts as 'the lady of
shining waters,' of 'purification,' and of 'incantations.'[106]

       *       *       *       *       *

Lastly, a passing reference may be made to several deities to whom
sanctuaries are erected by Uru-Kagina in the great temple of Bau at
Uru-azaga, and whom Amiaud regards as sons of Bau.

Uru-Kagina enumerates three, Za-za-uru, Im-pa-ud-du, and
Gim-nun-ta-ud-du-a.[107] The element _ud-du_ in the last two names
signifies 'radiant' or 'rising up'; while _pa-ud-du_ (like in
Shul-pa-ud-du, p. 99) means 'radiant sceptre.' If to this, we add that
_Im_ is 'storm,' it will appear plausible to see in the second name a
form of a raging solar deity and perhaps also in the third; _gim nun_ in
the latter name may mean 'creating lord.' To these Amiaud[108] adds from
other sources, Khi-gir-nunna, Khi-shaga, Gurmu, and Zarmu. He takes
these seven deities as sons of Bau, but he offers no conclusive evidence
for his theory. Some of these deities may turn out to be synonymous with
such as have already been met with.

FOOTNOTES:

[24] Indicated by separating the syllables composing the name.

[25] At the period when the kings of Ur extend their rule over Nippur,
they, too, do not omit to refer to the distinction of having been called
to the service of the great god at his temple.

[26] The name signifies, 'He has founded the city,' the subject of the
verb being some deity whose name is omitted.

[27] Jensen, _Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, p. 23, proposes to read Nin-Ur-sag, but
without sufficient reason, it seems to me. The writing being a purely
ideographic form, an _epitheton ornans_, the question of how the
ideographs are to be read is not of great moment.

[28] We may compare the poetic application 'rock' to Yahweh in the Old
Testament, _e.g._, Job 1. 12, and frequently in Psalms,--lxii. 3, 7;
xcii. 16, 18, etc.

[29] Reading doubtful. Jensen suggests Erim. Hommel (_Proc. Soc. Bibl.
Arch._ xv. 37 _seq._) endeavored to identify the place with Babylon, but
his views are untenable. If Gish-galla was not a part of Lagash, it
could not have been far removed from it. It was Amiaud who first
suggested that Shir-pur-la (or Lagash) was the general name for a city
that arose from an amalgamation of four originally distinct quarters.
("Sirpurla" in _Revue Archéologique_, 1888.) The suggestion has been
generally, though not universally accepted.

[30] That Ninib is only an ideographic form is sufficiently clear from
the element NIN-, lord. The proof, however, that Ninib is Adar, is still
wanting. See Jensen, _Kosmologie der Babylonier_, pp. 457, 458.

[31] From the context (De Sarzec, _Découvertes_, pl. 6, no. 4, ll.
13-21, and pl. 31, no. 3, col iii. ll. 2-6), there can be no doubt that
Shul-gur (or Shul-gur-ana) is an epithet of Nin-girsu. The ideographs
descriptive of the edifice suggest a corn magazine of some kind. One is
reminded of the storehouses for grain in Egypt. See Jensen's Notes,
_Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, pp. 15, 18, 73. A comparison of the two texts in
question makes it probable that Ab-gi and E-bi-gar are synonymous.

[32] Rawlinson, iv. 27, no. 6; 11, 45-46.

[33] It is noticeable that there is no mention made of a special god of
Lagash, which points to the later origin of the name.

[34] Inscr. D, col. li. 13; G, col. ii. ll. 1-8; iii. 4 _seq._

[35] See Gen. xxiv. 53. Burkhardt, _Notes on the Bedouins_, i. 109,
gives an example of the custom.

[36] The two names are used by Gudea (Inscr. G, col. iii. 12) in a way
to indicate that they embrace the whole district of Lagash.

[37] _Semit. Völker_, p. 382.

[38] See Jensen, _Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, 28, note 2.

[39] The first signifies 'to make,' the third means "good, favorable,"
but the second, upon which so much depends, is not clear. Amiaud reads
_tum_ instead of _sig_.

[40] _E.g._, Ninâ (see below).

[41] De Sarzec, pl. 7, col. i. 12.

[42] _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 104.

[43] Inscr. D, col. iv. ll. 7, 8.

[44] In Rawlinson, ii. 58, no. 6, there is a list of some seventy names.

[45] Rawlinson, ii. 58, no. 6, 58.

[46] De Sarzec, pl. 8, col v. ll. 4-6.

[47] _Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, 80, note 3.

[48] Rawlinson, iv. 35, no. 2, 1.

[49] See a syllabary giving lists of gods, Rawlinson, ii. 60, 12. Dungi,
indeed, calls Nergal once the king of lawful control over Lagash
(Rawlinson, iv. 35, no. 2, ll. 2, 3). The exact force of the title is
not clear, but in no case are we permitted to conclude as Amiaud does
(_Rec. of the Past_, N.S., i. 59) that Shid-lam-ta-udda is identical
with Nin-girsu.

[50] See Jensen, _Kosmologie der Babylonier_, pp. 476-87.

[51] See Jensen, _Kosmologie der Babylonier_, pp. 476-87.

[52] So in the inscription of Rim-Sin (_Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, p. 97).

[53] Perhaps the knob of a sceptre. _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._ viii. 68.

[54] _E.g._, Hammurabi (_Revue d'Assyriologie_, ii. col. i. 21); but
also Gudea and a still earlier king.

[55] So Amlaud; and there seems some reason to believe that the name was
used by the side of Utu, though perhaps only as an epithet.

[56] Compare _birbiru_, 'sheen,' and the stem _barû_, 'to see,' etc.

[57] See _Keils Bibl._ 3, I, 100. Reading of name uncertain.

[58] Suggested by Rawlinson, ii. 57, 10. See Schrader, _Zeits. f.
Assyr._ iii. 33 _seq._

[59] On Sippar, see Sayce, _Hibbert Lectures_, etc., 168-169, who finds
in the Old Testament form "Sepharvayim" a trace of this double Sippar.
Dr. Ward's suggestion, however, in regard to Anbar, as representing this
'second' Sippar, is erroneous.

[60] _E.g._, in Southern Arabia. See W. Robertson Smith, _The Religion
of the Semites_, I. 59.

[61] In Rabbinical literature, the moon is compared to a 'heifer'
(Talmud Babli Rosh-hashana 22 _b_).

[62] That the name of Sin should have been introduced into Mesopotamia
through the 'Arabic' dynasty (see above, p. 39) is less probable, though
not impossible in the light of recent discoveries.

[63] Innanna may be separated into _In_ = lord or lady, and _nanna_;
_in_ and _nanna_ would then be elements added to "lady," conveying
perhaps the idea of greatness. See Jensen's remarks, _Keils Bibl._ 3, I,
20, note 4.

[64] _Rec. of the Past_, N.S., ii. p. 104.

[65] _Keils Bibl._ 3, I, 16. See Jensen's note on the reading of the
name.

[66] The fame of this temple outlasts the political importance of the
place, and as late as the days of the Assyrian monarchy is an object of
fostering care on the part of the kings.

[67] That the name is Semitic is no longer seriously questioned by any
scholar. The underlying stem suggests etymological relationship with the
god Ashur. If this be so, Ishtar may mean 'the goddess that brings
blessing' to mankind, but all this is tentative, as are the numerous
other etymologies suggested.

[68] The ideographs for 'country' and 'mountain' are identical Assyrian.
The alternation in the title of Ishtar must not be taken to point to a
mountainous origin of the goddess.

[69] A full account of this epic will be given at its proper place.

[70] Again, in the incantation texts she appears only as the daughter of
Anu, coördinate with Sin and Shamash.

[71] _Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, 72, note. Some scholars, as Hommel (_Gesch. d.
alt. Morgenlandes_, p. 68), propose to identify this place with the
Assyrian Nineveh, but the conjecture lacks proof and is altogether
improbable.

[72] _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, I. pls. 30, 31. (See now Peiser,
_Keils Bibl._ 4, pp. 64-66.)

[73] Questioned by Peiser, _ib._

[74] Among many nations the moon is pictured as a horned animal. See
Robert Brown's interesting monograph on _The Unicorn_, pp. 27 _seq. et
passim_; also above, p. 76.

[75] Simply the sign AN (= god, heaven) and the phonetic complement
_na_.

[76] See above, p. 59.

[77] Written An-na, without the determinative for deity. De Sarzec,
_Découvertes en Chaldée_, pl. 37, no. 8.

[78] The second element may also be read _dar_. See Jensen, _Keils
Bibl._ 3, 1, p. 24, note 1.

[79] Inscription B, col. ii. 19.

[80] See Hommel, _Semitische Kulturen_, p. 389.

[81] For the sacred character of the swine among the Semites, see W.
Robertson Smith's _The Religion of the Semites_, pp. 201, 272, 332, 457.
Rawlinson, iii. 68, 22, occurs a deity, 'swine of the right hand,'
_i.e._, propitious.

[82] Rawlinson, ii. 59, 23. The second element in Pap-sukal is the
common Babylonian word for 'servant,' or 'messenger;' other deities
therefore standing in a subsidiary position are also called Pap-sukal.
So _e.g._, Nebo and Nusku. See further on and compare Hommel, _Semiten_,
pp. 479, 480.

[83] Inscription B, col iii. 2.

[84] Uru-kagina, earlier than Gudea (de Sarzec, pl. 32), appears to have
built a temple to Dun-shagga, but the passage is not altogether clear.
The element also appears in the name of the ruler of Ur, _Dungi_,
_i.e._, 'the legitimate hero,' as Sargon is the 'legitimate king.'

[85] Signifying, according to Jensen, _Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, p. 25,
'fighting-place'.

[86] Published by Delitzsch, _Beiträge zur Assyr._ I. 301-311.

[87] So also Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 14, note 3.

[88] So Anu appears to have concubines.

[89] See above, pp. 92, 93.

[90] Inscription C.

[91] De Sarzec, pl. 37, no. 5; _Trans. Soc. Bibl. Arch._ vi. 279.

[92] Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 127, proposes to read Umun-pauddu.

[93] Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, i. 2, no. 93. The name
also appears in syllabaries as Shul-pa-ud-du-a. For the element
_pa-udda_, see p. 103. In Nergal's name Shid-lam-ta-uddu-a (p. 65), the
same final elements are found which appear to be characteristic epithets
of solar deities. The first element in the name has also the value Dun
(as in Dun-gi).

[94] Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp. 125, 126.

[95] See _Journal Asiatique_, September-October, 1895, p. 393.

[96] De Sarzec, pl. 8, col. v. ll. 8-12.

[97] IR. pl. 2, no. 4.

[98] Jensen regards Pa-sag as a possible phonetic form, but his view is
hardly tenable.

[99] See Zimmern, _Busspsalmen_, pp. 60, 61.

[100] Cylinder A, cols. iv. and v. Amiaud read the name _Nirba_.

[101] Just published by Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, i. 2,
pls. 38-47. _Cf._ p. 52

[102] VR. col. i. 48.

[103] See at close of chapter vi.

[104] Hilprecht, _ib._ no. 87, col i. 30.

[105] _Ib._ i. 32. Hilprecht reads Nin-a-gid-kha-du, but this can hardly
be correct.

[106] The two ideas, 'water' and 'incantation,' are correlated. The
'waters' meant are those used for purification purposes in connection
with the magic formulas.

[107] De Sarzec, pl. 32, col. ii. 9-11.

[108] _Records of the Past_, N.S., i. 59. Amiaud reads the second name
Im-ghud-êna and the third Gim (or Ur)-nun-ta-êna. The publication in De
Sarzec favors my readings.




CHAPTER V.

THE CONSORTS OF THE GODS.


Attention has already been directed to the comparatively small number of
female deities that appear in the inscriptions of the first period of
Babylonian history. We must, however, not conclude from this, that such
deities did not exist in larger numbers. On the contrary, we may feel
certain that every god had his consort, and in some cases more than one.
Several instances of such consorts have been furnished in this chapter;
but if the consorts of the larger number of these gods are unknown, it
is because of the insignificant rôle that these consorts played. The
goddesses of Babylonia, with few exceptions, become mere shadowy
reflections of the gods, with but little independent power, and in some
cases none at all. They owe what popularity they enjoyed to their
association with their male companions. In consequence of this inferior
rôle played by the female deities, the tendency becomes more pronounced,
as we pass from the first to the second period of Babylonian history, to
reduce by assimilation the small number that have independent
attributes, until we reach a condition in which we have practically only
one goddess, appearing under many forms. It is only in the religious
texts, and in some phases of the popular beliefs, that goddesses retain
a certain degree of prominence. So, a goddess Allat, as we shall see,
plays an important part as the chief goddess of the subterranean cave
that houses the dead. Allat appears to have been originally a consort of
the famous Bel of Nippur, but through association with Nergal, who
becomes the chief god of the lower world, almost all traces of the
original character of the goddess disappear. Again, Gula, the consort of
Nin-ib, while occasionally mentioned in the historical texts of the
second and third period, and under the form Ma-ma, as an element in a
proper name belonging to the oldest period,[109] is more frequently
invoked in incantations as the healer of disease. The same is the case
with other goddesses; so that we may conclude that from the earliest
times, the Babylonian religion shared the trait so marked in all Semitic
cults, of a combination of the male and female principle in the
personification of the powers that controlled the fate of man. In part,
no doubt, the minor importance of women, so far as the outward aspects
of social and political life were concerned, is a factor in the
altogether secondary importance attaching to the consorts of the gods;
but we may feel certain that there was no god, however restricted in his
jurisdiction, or however limited in the number of his worshippers, who
had not associated with him a female companion, who follows him as the
shadow follows the substance.

FOOTNOTES:

[109] According to Hilprecht, _ib._ p. 48, note 6. For _Ma-ma_ and
_Me-me_, as names of Gula, see chapter viii.




CHAPTER VI.

GUDEA'S PANTHEON.


Gudea manifests a fondness for giving to his pantheon as large a compass
as possible. In this respect, he follows earlier examples, and also sets
an example which is followed by many of the rulers of Babylonia and
Assyria, who felt that the larger the number of gods invoked by them,
the more impressive would their own position appear in the eyes of their
subjects. Moreover, by incorporating in their pantheon the gods
associated with districts that they controlled, they would not only
secure the protection of these deities, but would emphasize their own
claim to an extended sovereignty. The beginning and the close of
dedicatory and commemorative inscriptions were the favorite
opportunities, seized upon by the kings, for parading the list of the
powers under whose patronage they wished to appear. These lists are both
interesting and valuable, as furnishing in a convenient form a summary
of the chief gods included in the Babylonian pantheon at the various
historical periods. At the close of one of his inscriptions,[110] Gudea
furnishes a list of no less than eighteen deities. In rapid succession
he enumerates Anu, En-lil (Bel), Nin-khar-sag, En-ki (Ea), En-zu (Sin),
Nin-girsu, Ninâ, Nin-si-a, Ga-tum-dug, Bau, Ninni, Utu (Shamash),
Pa-sag, Gal-alim, Dun-shagga, Nin-Mar, Dumuzi-zuaba, Nin-gish-zida.
These deities may be taken as indicative of the territorial extent of
Gudea's jurisdiction. They are called upon to punish him who attempts to
alter the decrees of the ruler, or to efface the memory of his deeds.
Again, at the beginning of one of his inscriptions, he appeals to
Nin-girsu, En-lil, Ninâ, Bau, Ga-tum-dug, Gal-alim, and Dun-shagga. He
recounts what he has done to promote the cults of these deities, and
upon his conduct he grounds his hope that they will aid him in his
undertakings. The lists, as will be observed, vary in the number and in
the order of the gods enumerated. In the second list, the position of
Nin-girsu at the head is due to the fact that the inscription
commemorates the dedication of a sanctuary to that god. But Nin-girsu,
despite his rank as the chief god of Lagash, belongs to a second class
of deities. Standing far above him is the triad, Anu, Bel, and Ea, the
gods that personify, as we have seen, the great divisions of the
universe,--heaven, earth, and water. These gods, accordingly, take
precedence of Nin-girsu in the first list. In a succeeding chapter, the
significance of this triad for the Babylonian religion will be fully set
forth. For the present, it is sufficient to note that the
systematization of popular beliefs, involved in the distinctions thus
emphasized in the groupings of deities into classes, begins at so early
a period. This systematization, however, has not yet assumed final
shape. True, the moon-god has already been given the place, immediately
following upon the triad, that he will hold in the developed form of
Babylonian theology; but while, as we have seen, Sin properly takes
precedence of the sun-god, the latter should follow in the wake of his
associate. Not only, however, does Nin-girsu precede, but two other
deities who are closely related in general character to the 'warrior
deity' of Gudea's dominion. Then, the two great goddesses, Bau and
Ninni, are introduced, and it is not until they are disposed of that the
sun-god, together again with Pa-sag as a kind of lieutenant,[111] is
invoked. In the arrangement of the five remaining deities, no special
principle can be recognized. They, evidently, occupy a minor rank. It is
possible, then, to distinguish no less than four classes in the old
Babylonian pantheon: (1) the great triad, Anu, Bel, and Ea; (2) a second
group, as yet incomplete, but which will eventually include Sin,
Shamash, and Ramman, representing the great powers of nature--moon, sun,
and storm; (3) the great gods, the patron deities of the more important
political centers of the country; and (4) the minor ones, representing
the local cults of less important places. Naturally, the dividing line
between the two last-named classes is not sharply marked, and in
accordance with the ever-varying political kaleidoscope, local deities
will rise from the rank of minor gods to a higher place in the pantheon;
while such as once enjoyed high esteem will, through decline in the
political fortunes of their worshippers, be brought down from the higher
to an inferior rank.[112] It is this constant interaction between the
political situation and the relationship of the gods to one another,
that constitutes one of the most striking features of the religion of
Babylonia and Assyria. In the course of time, as an organized pantheon
leads to greater stability in the domain of theological speculation, the
influence of the politics of the country on the religion becomes less
marked, without, however, disappearing altogether. The various classes
into which the gods are divided, are definitely fixed by the schools of
theology that, as we shall see, take their rise in the Euphrates Valley.
The rivalry, on the one hand, between the Babylonian empire united under
one head, and the Assyrian empire on the other, alone remains to bring
about an occasional exchange of places between the two gods who stand at
the head of the great gods of the Babylonian and Assyrian pantheon
respectively. The attempt has been made by Amiaud[113] to arrange the
pantheon of this oldest period in a genealogical order. In Gudea's long
list of deities, he detects three generations,--the three chief gods and
one goddess, as the progenitors of Sin, Shamash, Nin-girsu, Bau, and
others. The gods of this second division give rise to a third class,
viewed again as the offspring of the second. Professor Davis, taking up
this idea of Amiaud, has quite recently maintained[114] that the family
idea must form our starting-point for an understanding of the pantheon
of Lagash. The theory, however, does not admit of consistent
application. There are gods, as Amiaud recognized, who cannot be brought
under his scheme, so far at least as present testimony is concerned; and
others can only by an arbitrary assumption be forced into accord with
the theory. Moreover, we should expect to find traces of this family
idea in the later phases of the Assyro-Babylonian pantheon. Such,
however, is not the case. A more reasonable and natural explanation of
the relationship existing between many--not all--of the gods of Gudea's
pantheon has already been suggested. In part, we must look to the
development of a theological system of thought in the Euphrates Valley
to account for the superior position accorded to certain gods, and in
part, political conditions and political changes afford an explanation
for the union of certain deities into a family group. So far, indeed,
Amiaud is correct, that the relationship existing between the various
deities, was as a rule expressed in terms applicable to human society.
The secondary position occupied, _e.g._, by Sin when compared with a god
whose domain is the entire 'lower regions,' would be aptly expressed by
calling the moon-god the eldest son of En-lil or Bel; and, similarly, a
goddess like Bau would be called the daughter of Anu. It is a mistake,
however, to interpret the use of 'daughter' and 'son' literally. Such
terms are employed in all Semitic languages in a figurative sense, to
indicate a dependent position of some sort. Again, we have seen that the
union of a number of cities or states under one head would be followed
by a union of the deities proper to these cities or states. That union
would be expressed, according to circumstances, either by placing the
deities on a footing of equality--in which case they would be consorts,
or brothers and sisters, _offsprings_ therefore of one and the same
god--or, the superior rank of one patron god would be indicated by
assigning to the god of a conquered or subordinate territory the rank of
offspring or attendant.

In studying such a list as that presented by Gudea, we must, therefore,
make due allowance for what may be called local peculiarities and local
conditions. It is only by comparing his list with others that we can
differentiate between the general features of Babylonian cults and the
special features due to political and local associations. We are in a
position now to institute this comparison for a period which is
certainly some centuries earlier than Gudea. The date of the reign of
Lugal-zaggisi, king of Uruk, who has been several times referred to in a
previous chapter, is fixed by Hilprecht at _c._ 4500 B.C., but it is
doubtful whether so high an age will be accepted by scholars. The
chronology for the period beyond Gudea is still in a very uncertain
condition. Lugal-zaggisi, in a long list of deities at the beginning of
an important inscription, enumerates in succession Anu, the goddess
Nisaba, the gods En-lil (or Bel), En-ki (=Ea), En-zu (Sin), Utu (the
sun-god), the goddess Ninni (or Nanâ(?)), Nin-khar-sag, Umu, and
Nin-akha-kuddu. As for Anu, the king introduces the name, as Ur-Ningirsu
of Lagash does (see above, p. 90), in calling himself 'priest of Anu,'
and which, according to the explanation suggested, means simply 'divine
priest.'

Bel, Ea, Sin, and Shamash (or Utu) are common to Gudea and
Lugal-zaggisi. These constitute, then, the great gods whose worship is
no longer limited to any particular district. They have become common
property, in part through the sanctity attached to the places where the
gods were worshipped, in part through the antiquity of these places, and
in part, no doubt, as the result of a political development lying behind
the period under consideration. The prominence given by Lugal-zaggisi to
Nisaba is rather surprising. He calls himself and also his father,
'hero' of Nisaba. If, however, it be borne in mind that of the goddesses
at least two, Umu and Nin-akha-kuddu, are of a local character, the
conclusion appears justified that Nisaba was a goddess associated more
particularly with the district in which Uruk lay. The goddess Ninni
(written simply as 'the goddess') is no doubt identical with the great
Nanâ of Uruk, and Nin-khar-sag is introduced as the consort of En-lil.

As a result of this comparison, we may note the tendency towards a
general recognition of certain great gods, which is more fully developed
in the period of Hammurabi. At the same time, the loyalty of the rulers
to the gods, peculiar to their own district, is manifested by the
prominent place assigned in the several cases to gods who otherwise play
an insignificant rôle, and who eventually are absorbed by others; and
lastly, as between Lugal-zaggisi and Gudea, the observation may be made
of the disposition to emphasize local gods, less for their own sake,
than because of the éclat furnished by the enumeration of a large
pantheon, which shall be coequal in extent and dignity to the district
claimed by the rulers and to the rank assumed by them.

FOOTNOTES:

[110] Inscr. B, cols. viii. ix.

[111] See above, p. 101.

[112] See Winckler's excellent remarks on the relationship between the
city and the god in ancient Babylonia (_Altorientalische Forschungen_,
III. 232-235).

[113] _Records of the Past_, N.S., i. 57-59.

[114] In a paper on "The Gods of Shirpurla," read before the American
Oriental Society in April, 1895. (_Proceedings_, ccxiii-ccxviii.)




CHAPTER VII.

SUMMARY.


We have thus passed in review the old Babylonian pantheon, so far as the
discovered texts have revealed their names and epithets. The list does
not claim to be exhaustive. That future texts will add to its length, by
revealing the existence at this early period of many known to us at
present only from later texts or from the religious literature,[115] is
more than likely. The nature of the old Babylonian religion entails, as
a necessary consequence, an array of gods that might be termed endless.
Local cults would ever tend to increase with the rise of new towns, and
while the deities thus worshipped would not rise to any or much
importance, still their names would become known in larger circles, and
a ruler might, for the sake of increasing his own lustre, make mention
of one or more of them, honoring them at the same time by an epithet
which might or might not accurately define their character. As long as
the various districts of Babylonia were not formally united under one
head, various local cults might rise to equally large proportions, while
the gods worshipped as the special patrons of the great centers, as
Lagash, Ur, Uruk, Nippur, and the like, would retain their prominence,
even though the political status of the cities sacred to them suffered a
decline. The ruler of the district that claimed a supremacy over one
that formerly occupied an independent position, would hasten to
emphasize this control by proudly claiming the patron deity as part of
his pantheon. The popularity of Sin at Ur suffered no diminution because
the supremacy of Ur yielded to that of Uruk. On the contrary, the god
gained new friends who strove to rival the old ones in manifestations of
reverence; and when, as happened in several instances, the patron
deities were personifications of natural phenomena, whose worship
through various circumstances became associated with particular
localities, there was an additional reason for the survival, and,
indeed, growing importance of such local cults, quite independent of the
political fortunes that befell the cities in which the gods were
supposed to dwell.

As a consequence, there are a considerable number of deities who are met
with both at the beginning and at the end of the first period of
Babylonian history--a period, be it remembered, that, so far as known,
already covers a distance of 2,000 years. These are of two classes,
(_a_) deities of purely local origin, surviving through the historical
significance of the places where they were worshipped, and (_b_)
deities, at once local in so far as they are associated with a fixed
spot, but at the same time having a far more general character by virtue
of being personifications of the powers of nature. The jurisdiction of
both classes of deities might, through political vicissitudes, be
extended over a larger district than the one to which they were
originally confined, and in so far their local character would tend to
be obscured. It would depend, however, upon other factors, besides the
merely political ones, whether these cults would take a sufficiently
deep hold upon the people to lead to the evolution of deities, entirely
dissociated from fixed seats, who might be worshipped anywhere, and
whose attributes would tend to become more and more abstract in
character. Such a process, however, could not be completed by the silent
working of what, for want of a better name, we call the genius of the
people. It requires the assistance, conscious and in a measure pedantic,
of the thinkers and spiritual guides of a people. In other words, the
advance in religious conceptions from the point at which we find them
when the union of the Babylonian states takes place, is conditioned upon
the infusion of the theological spirit into the mass of beliefs that
constituted the ancient heritage of the people.

On the other hand, various circumstances have already been suggested
that coöperated, already prior to the days of Hammurabi, in weeding out
the superfluity of deities, at least so far as recognition of them in
the official inscriptions of the rulers were concerned. Deities,
attached to places of small and ever-diminishing importance would, after
being at first adopted into the pantheon by some ruler desirous of
emphasizing his control over the town in question, end in being entirely
absorbed by some more powerful god, whose attributes were similar to
those of his minor companion. Especially would this be the case with
deities conceived as granting assistance in warfare. The glory of the
smaller warrior gods would fade through the success achieved by a
Nin-girsu. The names and epithets would be transferred to the more
powerful god, and, beyond an occasional mention, the weaker would
entirely pass out of consideration. Again, the worship of the moon or of
the sun, or of certain aspects of the sun,--the morning sun, the noonday
sun, and the like,--at localities of minor importance, would yield to
the growing popularity of similar worship in important centers. As a
consequence, names that formerly designated distinct deities or
different phases of one and the same deity, would, by being transferred
to a single one, come to be mere epithets of this one. The various names
would be used interchangeably, without much regard to their original
force.

All the essential elements of the Babylonian religion are already to be
found in the conditions prevailing during the period that we have been
considering. Some new deities are met with in the periods that followed,
but there is no reason to believe that any profound changes in the
manner of worship, or in the conceptions regarding the gods, were
introduced. The relations, however, which the gods bear to one another
are considerably modified, their attributes become more sharply defined,
the duties and privileges pertaining to each are regulated. Hand in hand
with this systematization, the organization of the cult becomes more
perfect, the ritual enters upon further phases of development,
speculations regarding the unknown have their outcome in the
establishment of dogmas. Finally the past, with its traditions and
legends, is viewed under the aspect of later religious thought. The
products of popular fancy are reshaped, given a literary turn that was
originally foreign to them, and so combined and imbued with a meaning as
to reflect the thoughts and aspirations of a comparatively advanced age.
What may be called the flowering of the theological epoch in the history
of the Babylonian religion, viewed as a unit, is so directly dependent
upon the political union of the Babylonian states, brought about by
Hammurabi (_c._ 2300 B.C.), that it may be said to date from this event.

FOOTNOTES:

[115] Quite recently there have been found at Telloh some thirty
thousand clay tablets, chiefly lists of sacrifices, temple inventories,
and legal documents. These tablets will probably furnish additional
names of deities, and perhaps throw further light on those known.
Further excavations at Nippur will likewise add to the material. But
after all, for our main purpose in this chapter, which is the
illustration of the chief traits of the Babylonian pantheon in early
days, these expected additions to the pantheon will not be of paramount
significance.




CHAPTER VIII.

THE PANTHEON IN THE DAYS OF HAMMURABI.


Marduk.

The immediate result of Hammurabi's master-stroke in bringing the
various states of the Euphrates Valley under a single control, was the
supremacy secured for his capital, of the city of Babylon over all other
Babylonian cities, and with this supremacy, the superior position
henceforth assumed by the patron deity of the capital, Marduk.[116] It
is needless for our purposes to enter upon the question as to the age of
the city of Babylon,[117] nor as to its political fortunes prior to the
rise of the dynasty of which Hammurabi was the sixth member. That its
beginnings were modest, and that its importance, if not its origin, was
of recent date in comparison with such places as Eridu, Nippur, Lagash,
Ur, and the like, is proved by the absence of the god Marduk in any of
the inscriptions that we have been considering up to this point. The
first mention of the god occurs in the inscriptions of Hammurabi, where
he appears distinctly as the god of the city of Babylon. No doubt the
immediate predecessors of Hammurabi regarded Marduk in the same light as
the great conqueror, so that we are justified in applying the data,
furnished by the inscriptions of Hammurabi to such of his predecessors,
of whom records are still lacking. It is to Marduk, that Hammurabi
ascribes his success. The king regards himself as the beloved of Marduk.
The god rejoices his heart and gives him power and plenty. Even when
paying his homage at the shrines of other deities, he does not forget to
couple the name of Marduk with that of the deity whose protection he
invokes. So at Sippar, sacred to Shamash, and where the king deposits a
cylinder recording the improvements that he instigated in the city, he
associates the sun-god with Marduk, whereas in contradistinction to the
rulers of the old Babylonian cities or states, when addressing Marduk,
he does not find it necessary to make mention at the same time of an
entire pantheon. Marduk's protection suffices for all purposes. This, of
course, does not exclude the worship of other gods. A reference has
already been made to the king's care for the city of Shamash. In this
respect, he was but following the example of his predecessors, who,
while regarding Babylon as their capital, were zealous in doing honor to
ancient centers of worship. So one of these predecessors, Zabu, restores
the temple of Shamash at Sippar, and that of Anunit at Agade. Hammurabi,
besides his work at Sippar, builds a temple to Innanna at Hallabi.[118]
Babylon, however, is the beloved city of Marduk, and upon its
beautification and improvement Hammurabi expends his chief energy. Such
are the endearing terms in which he speaks of his god, as to give one
the impression that, when thinking of Marduk, the king for the moment
loses sight of the existence of other gods. The most striking tribute,
however, that is paid to Marduk in the period of Hammurabi is his
gradual assumption of the rôle played by the old En-lil or Bel of
Nippur, once the head of the Babylonian pantheon. This identification is
already foreshadowed in the title _bêlu rabu_, _i.e._, 'great lord,'
which Hammurabi is fond of bestowing upon Marduk. It is more clearly
indicated in an inscription of his son, Samsu-iluna, who represents Bel,
'the king of heaven and earth,' as transferring to Marduk, the
'first-born son of Ea,' rulership over 'the four regions,'--a phrase
that at this time had already assumed a much wider meaning than its
original portent. In the religious literature of this age, which
reflects the same tendency, Bel expressly transfers his title 'lord of
the lands'[119] to Marduk, while Ea likewise pays homage to his son,
declaring that the latter's 'name' shall also be Ea. The transference of
the name, according to Babylonian notions, is equivalent to a
transference of power. As a consequence, Bel and Marduk are blended into
one personage, Marduk becoming known as Bel-Marduk, and finally, the
first part of the compound sinking to the level of a mere adjective, the
god is addressed as 'lord Marduk,' or 'Marduk, the lord.' The old Bel is
entirely forgotten, or survives at best in conventional association with
Anu and Ea, as a member of the ancient triad.

It has been satisfactorily shown[120] that Marduk was originally a solar
deity. His association with Babylon, therefore, must be viewed in the
same light as the association of Sin, the moon-god, with the city of Ur,
and the association of Shamash, the sun-god, with Larsa and Sippar. Just
as in the latter places, other cults besides that of the patron deity
prevailed, so in Babylon it was merely the prominence which, for some
reason, the worship of the sun-god acquired, that led to the closer
identification of this particular deity with the city, until he became
viewed as the god _par excellence_ of the city, and the city itself as
his favorite residence. As long as Larsa and Sippar retained a
prominence overshadowing that of Babylon, the sun cult at the latter
place could attract but little attention. Only as Babylon began to
rival, and finally to supersede, other centers of sun-worship, could
Marduk be brought into the front rank of prevailing cults. It may appear
strange, in view of this original character of Marduk, that neither in
the inscriptions of Hammurabi, nor in those of his successors, is there
any direct reference to his qualities as a solar deity. However, in the
ideographs composing his name, which are to be interpreted as 'child of
the day,'[121] and in the zodiacal system, as perfected by the
Babylonian scholars, there lurk traces of the god's solar origin, and
beyond this, perhaps, in certain set phrases, surviving in prayers
addressed to him. The explanation for this absence of solar traits is to
be sought in the peculiar political conditions that resulted in bringing
Marduk into such prominence. Hammurabi was preëminently a conquering
king. He waged war on all sides, and carried on his campaigns for many
years. When he finally succeeded in bringing both North and South
Babylonia under his sway, it still required constant watching to keep
his empire together. His patron god, therefore, the protector of the
city, whose jurisdiction was thus spread over a larger extent of
territory than that of any other deity, must have appeared to Hammurabi
and his followers, as well as to those vanquished by him, essentially as
a warrior. It is he who hands over to kings the land and its
inhabitants. The fact that he was a solar deity would become obscured by
the side of the more potent fact that, as god of the city of Babylon,
his sway was supreme. He therefore became Marduk, the 'great lord.' The
epithets bestowed upon him naturally emphasized the manner in which he
manifested himself, and these epithets, therefore, referred to his
power, to his supremacy over other gods, to his favor shown to his
worshippers by granting them unprecedented glory; and since the
political supremacy remained undisputed for many centuries, no
opportunity was afforded for ever reverting to the attributes of the god
as a solar deity. He remained--if one may so express it--a political
deity. The political significance of Babylon permitted only one phase of
his nature to be brought forward.

In the religious texts, however, preserving as they do the more
primitive conceptions by the side of the most advanced ones, some traces
of other attributes besides prowess in war are found. By virtue of his
character as a solar deity, Marduk, like the orb personified through
him, is essentially a life-giving god. Whereas Shamash is viewed as the
'judge of mankind,' Marduk becomes the god who restores the dead to
life, though he shares this power with Shamash, Gula, Nebo, and Nergal.
But after all, even in the religious texts, his more prominent rôle is
that of a ruler,--a magnified king. He protects the weak, releases the
imprisoned, and makes great the small. He controls by his powerful hand
the mountains and rivers and fountains. He is the counsellor who guides
the decrees, even of the great gods, Anu and Bel. On his head rests a
crown with high horns, as the symbol of rulership. As the supreme ruler,
life and death are in his hands. Blessings flow from him; and of
awe-inspiring appearance, his wrath inflicts severe punishment on the
evil-doer.

It is a noteworthy circumstance, and characteristic of the phase of the
Babylonian religion which we are considering, that the extension of
Marduk's political sway did not lead to the establishment of Marduk
cults outside of Babylon. One reason for this was that, in accordance
with the political conceptions, dwelt upon in the introductory chapter,
the empire of Babylonia was regarded simply as an extension of the city
of Babylon. Babylonia, therefore, being identified in theory with the
city of Babylon, there was no need of emphasizing the power of Marduk by
establishing his cult elsewhere. Within the limits of Babylon, however,
there might be more than one shrine to Marduk, and accordingly, when the
city was extended so as to include the place known as Borsippa, a temple
to Marduk was also erected there. The temple on the east side of the
Euphrates, known as E-Sagila, 'the lofty house,' was the older, and
dates probably from the beginnings of Babylon itself; that in Borsippa,
known as E-Zida, 'the true house,' seems to have been founded by
Hammurabi.[122] While it was not in accord with the dignity attaching to
Marduk that his cult should be established outside of the precincts of
the city of Babylon, it would only add to his glory to have the worship
of other deities grouped around his own sanctuary. Such a course would
emphasize the central position of Marduk among the gods, and
accordingly, we find that the chief gods of Babylonia are represented by
shrines within the sacred precincts of his great temples at Babylon and
Borsippa. First among these shrines is that of Marduk's consort,


Sarpanitum.

Neither Hammurabi nor his immediate successor make mention of
Sarpanitum, and at no time does she appear independently of Marduk. The
glory of Marduk did not permit of any rival, and so his consort becomes
merely his shadow,--less significant than most of the consorts of the
male deities. Her name, signifying the 'silvery bright one,' evidently
stands in some connection with the solar character of her consort.
Popular etymology, by a play upon the name, made of Sarpanitum (as
though Zer-banit) the 'offspring-producing' goddess. She had her shrine
within the precincts of the great temple E-Sagila, but we are not told
of any special honors being paid her, nor do we find her invoked to any
extent in incantations or in votive inscriptions. Agumkakrimi, or Agum
(as he is also called), who rules about five centuries after Hammurabi,
speaks of having recovered the image of Sarpanitum, and that of Marduk,
out of the hands of a mountainous people living to the northwest of
Babylonia, in the district between the Bay of Iskenderun and the
Euphrates. The capture of the statues of the patron gods points to a
great humiliation which Babylon must have encountered. Upon receiving a
favorable omen from the sun-god, Agum undertakes the task of bringing
Marduk and Sarpanitum back to their seats. Their temples, too, at
Babylon appear to have suffered damage during the invasion of the city,
and accordingly the statues are placed in the temple of Shamash pending
the restoration of E-Sagila. Agum dwells at length upon the handsome
garments and head-dress, studded with precious stones, that he prepared
for the god and his consort. In all this description, one feels that it
is Marduk for whom the honors are intended, and that Sarpanitum is of
less than secondary importance,--shining merely by the reflected glory
of her great liege, whose presence in Babylon was essential to a
restoration of Babylon's position.

There are reasons for believing, however, that Sarpanitum once enjoyed
considerable importance of her own, that prior to the rise of Marduk to
his supreme position, a goddess was worshipped in Babylon, one of whose
special functions it was to protect the progeny while still in the
mother's womb. A late king of Babylon, the great Nebuchadnezzar, appeals
to this attribute of the goddess. To her was also attributed the
possession of knowledge concealed from men. Exactly to what class of
deities she belonged, we are no longer able to say, but it is certain
that at some time, probably about the time of Hammurabi, an amalgamation
took place between her and another goddess known as Erua,[123]--a name
that etymologically suggests the idea of 'begetting.'[124] She is
represented as dwelling in the temple of E-Zida at Borsippa, and was
originally the consort of Nabu, the chief god of this place.[125] A late
ruler of Babylon--Shamash-shumukin--calls her the queen of the gods, and
declares himself to have been nominated by her to lord it over men.

A factor in this amalgamation of Erua and Sarpanitum was the close
association brought about in Babylon between Marduk and a god whose seat
was originally at the Persian Gulf--Ea. The cult of this god, as we
shall see, survived in Babylonia through all political vicissitudes, and
so did that of some other minor water-deities that belong to this
region. Among these was Erua, whose worship centered in one of the
islands in or near the gulf. Wisdom and the life-giving principle were
two ideas associated in the Babylonian mind with water. As inferior in
power to Ea, Erua appears to have been regarded as the daughter of Ea,
and such was the sway exercised by Ea over men's minds, that even the
Babylonian schoolmen did not venture to place Marduk over Ea, but
pictured him as Ea's son. Erua, however, was not prominent enough to
become Marduk's mother, and so she was regarded as his consort. In this
capacity she was associated with Sarpanitum, and the two were merged
into one personality. It rarely happens that all the links in such a
process are preserved, but in this case, the epithets borne by
Sarpanitum-Erua, such as 'lady of the deep,' 'mistress of the place
where the fish dwell,' 'voice of the deep,' point the way towards the
solution of the problem involved in the amalgamation of Erua and
Sarpanitum.[126]


Nabu.

The god Nabu (or Nebo) enjoys a great popularity in the Babylonian cult,
but he owes his prestige to the accident that, as god of Borsippa, he
was associated with Marduk. Indeed, his case is a clear instance of the
manner in which Marduk overshadows all his fellows. Only as they are
brought into some manner of relationship with him do they secure a
position in the pantheon during this second period of Babylonian
history. Since Nabu's position in the pantheon, once established, incurs
but little change, it will be proper, in treating of him, to include the
testimony furnished by the historical records of the Assyrian kings. The
most prominent attribute of Nabu, at least in the later phases of the
Babylonian religion, is that of wisdom. He is the wise, the all-knowing.
He embodies in his person all the wisdom of the gods. To him the
Assyrian kings are particularly fond of ascribing, not merely the
understanding that they possess, but the thought of preserving the
wisdom of the past for future ages; and in doing this the Assyrians were
but guided by examples furnished by the south. Wisdom being associated,
in the minds of the Babylonians, with the watery deep, one is tempted to
seek an aqueous origin for Nabu. Such a supposition, although it cannot
be positively established, has much in its favor. It is not necessary,
in order to maintain this proposition, to remove Nabu from Borsippa. The
alluvial deposits made by the Euphrates yearly have already demonstrated
that Babylon lay much nearer at one time to the Persian Gulf than it
does at present. The original seat of Ea, whose worship continued
through all times to enjoy great popularity at Babylon, was at Eridu,
which, we know, once lay on the Persian Gulf, but does so no longer. The
similarity of the epithets bestowed in various texts upon Ea and Nabu
point most decidedly to a similar starting-point for both; and since in
a syllabary[127] we find the god actually identified with a deity of
Dilmun,--probably one of the islands near Bahrein,--there are grounds
for assuming that a tradition survived among the schoolmen, which
brought Nabu into some connection with the Persian Gulf. Sayce[128] has
already suggested that Borsippa may have originally stood on an inlet of
the Persian Gulf. Nabu is inferior to Ea, and were it not for the
priority of Marduk, he would have become in Babylonian theology, the son
of Ea. Since this distinction[129] is given to Marduk, no direct
indication of an original relationship to Ea has survived.

But besides being the god of wisdom and intelligence, Nabu is a patron
of agriculture, who causes the grain to sprout forth. In religious and
historical texts, he is lauded as the deity who opens up the
subterranean sources in order to irrigate the fields. He heaps up the
grain in the storehouses, and on the other hand, the withdrawal of his
favor is followed by famine and distress. Jensen[130] would conclude
from this that he was originally (like Marduk, therefore) a solar deity.
This, however, is hardly justified, since it is just as reasonable to
deduce his rôle as the producer of fertility from his powers as lord of
some body of water. However this may be, in the case of Nabu, there are
no grounds for supposing that he represents the combination of two
originally distinct deities. A later--chiefly theoretical--amalgamation
of Nabu with a god Nusku will be discussed in a subsequent chapter.[131]
Hammurabi and his immediate successors, it is noteworthy, do not make
mention of Nabu. A sufficient number of inscriptions of this period
exists to make it probable that this omission is not accidental. This
dynasty was chiefly concerned in firmly establishing the position of
Marduk. Other deities could, indeed, be tolerated at his side, provided
they were subservient to him; but Nabu, the god of a place so near
Babylon, might prove a dangerous rival because of this proximity. The
city on the west bank of the Euphrates was probably as old as that on
the east, if not, indeed, older. It did not seem consistent with this
devotion to Marduk that Hammurabi and his successors should also
recognize Nabu. Policy dictated that Nabu should be ignored, that the
attempt must be made to replace his worship, even in Borsippa, by that
of Marduk. Viewed in this light, Hammurabi's establishment of the Marduk
cult in Borsippa assumes a peculiar significance. It meant that Borsippa
was to be incorporated as part of Babylon, and that Marduk was
henceforth to take the place occupied by Nabu. In order to emphasize
this, Hammurabi actually transfers the name of Nabu's temple in
Borsippa, E-Zida, to the one erected by him at that place to Marduk. Did
he perhaps entirely suppress the worship of Nabu at Borsippa? It would
almost appear so from Agum's utter omission of Nabu. Only the statues of
Marduk and Sarpanitum seem to have been robbed by the Hani. Not a word
is said as to Nabu. Either there was no statue at the time at Borsippa,
or the cult was of such insignificance that the capture of the god was
not considered of sufficient moment to occupy the thoughts of the enemy,
as little as it did that of the rulers of Babylon at the time. In the
inscription in which Hammurabi recounts the building of E-Zida in
Borsippa, there are certain expressions which go to substantiate the
proposition that Nabu is intentionally ignored.[132] He calls Marduk the
lord of E-Sagila and of E-Zida; he speaks of Borsippa as the beloved
city of Marduk, just as though it were Babylon. Taking unto himself the
functions of Nabu, he even appears to play upon the name, which
signifies 'proclaimer,' and styles himself the _nabiu Anu_, 'the
proclaimer of Anu.' However this may be, the attempt to suppress Nabu
did not succeed,--a proof that in early times he had gained popular
favor. He had to be readmitted into the Babylonian pantheon, though in a
subordinate position to Marduk. He took his place in the theological
system as the son of Marduk, and on the great festival--the New Year's
day--celebrated in honor of the great god of Babylon, the son shared
some of the honors accorded to the father. In time, his sanctuary at
Borsippa was again recognized. The former rivalry gave way to a cordial
_entente_. Nabu was even granted a chapel in E-Sagila at Babylon, to
which likewise the name of E-Zida was given. Every New Year's day the
son paid a visit to his father, on which occasion the statue of Nabu was
carried in solemn procession from Borsippa across the river, and along
the main street of Babylon leading to the temple of Marduk; and in
return the father deity accompanied his son part way on the trip back to
E-Zida. In this way, due homage was accorded to Marduk, and at the same
time the close and cordial bonds of union between Babylon and Borsippa
found satisfactory illustration. E-Sagila and E-Zida become, and remain
throughout the duration of the Babylonian religion, the central
sanctuaries of the land around which the most precious recollections
cluster, as dear to the Assyrians as to the Babylonians. The kings of
the northern empire vie with their southern cousins in beautifying and
enlarging the structures sacred to Marduk and Nabu.

In view of the explanation offered for the silence maintained by
Hammurabi and his successors regarding Nabu, we are justified in
including Nabu in the Babylonian pantheon of those days. In later times,
among the Assyrians, the Nabu cult, as already intimated, grows in
popularity. The northern monarchs, in fact, seem to give Nabu the
preference over Marduk. They do not tire of proclaiming him as the
source of wisdom. The staff is his symbol, which is interpreted in a
double sense, as the writer's stylus and as the ruler's sceptre. He
becomes, also, the bestower of royal power upon his favorites. Without
his aid, order cannot be maintained in the land. Disobedience to him is
punished by the introduction of foreign rule. Political policy may have
had a share in this preference shown for the minor god of Babylon. The
Assyrian kings were always anxious to do homage to the gods of Babylon,
in order to indicate their control over the southern districts. They
were particularly proud of their title 'governor of Bel.'[133] On the
other hand, they were careful not to give offence to the chief of the
Assyrian pantheon,--the god Ashur,--by paying too much honor to Marduk,
who was in a measure Ashur's rival. In consequence, as Hammurabi and his
successors endeavored to ignore Nabu, the Assyrian rulers now turned the
tables by manifesting a preference for Nabu; and obliged as they were to
acknowledge that the intellectual impulses came from the south, they
could accept a southern god of wisdom without encroaching upon the
province of Ashur, whose claims to homage lay in the prowess he showed
in war. Marduk was too much like Ashur to find a place at his side. Nabu
was a totally different deity, and in worshipping him who was the son of
Marduk, the Assyrian kings felt that they were paying due regard to the
feelings of their Babylonian subjects. The cult of Nabu thus became
widely extended in Assyria. Statues of the god were erected and
deposited in shrines built for the purpose, although the fact was not
lost sight of that the real dwelling-place of the god was in Borsippa.
At the end of the ninth century B.C. this cult seems to have reached its
height. We learn of a temple at Calah, and of no less than eight statues
of the god being erected in the days of Ramman-nirari III., and the
terms in which the god is addressed might lead one to believe that an
attempt was made to concentrate the cult in Assyria on him.[134] This,
however, was an impossibility. As long as Assyria continued to play the
rôle of the subduer of nations, Ashur--the god of war _par
excellence_--necessarily retained his position at the head of the
Assyrian pantheon. The popularity of Nabu, which continued to the end of
the Assyrian empire, and gained a fresh impetus in the days of
Ashurbanabal, who, as a patron of literature, invokes Nabu on thousands
of the tablets of his library as 'the opener of ears to understanding,'
reacted on his position in the Babylonian cult. In the new Babylonian
empire, which continued to so large a degree the traditions of Assyria,
it is no accident that three of the kings--Nabupolassar, Nebuchadnezzar,
and Nabonnedos--bear names containing the deity as one of the elements.
While paying superior devotion to Marduk, who once more became the real
and not merely the nominal head of the pantheon, they must have held
Nabu in no small esteem; and indeed the last-named king was suspected of
trying actually to divert the homage of the people away from Marduk to
other gods, though he did not, as a matter of course, go so far as to
endeavor to usurp for the son, the position held by the father. It is
probably due to Assyrian influence that even in Babylonia, from the
eighth century on, Nabu is occasionally mentioned before Marduk. So
Marduk-baladan II. (721-710) calls himself the "worshipper of Nabu and
Marduk," and similarly others. In official letters likewise, and in
astronomical reports, Nabu is given precedence to Marduk, but this may
be due to Nabu's functions, as the god of writing and the patron of
science.

The Neo-Babylonian kings are not sparing in the epithets they bestow on
Nabu, though they emphasize more his qualities as holder of the
'sceptre' than as lord of the 'stylus.' So Nebuchadnezzar declares that
it is he 'who gives the sceptre of sovereignty to kings to rule over all
lands.' In this capacity he is 'the upholder of the world,' 'the general
overseer,' and his temple is called 'the house of the sceptre of the
world.'

His name signifies simply the 'proclaimer,' or herald, but we are left
in doubt as to what he proclaims,--whether wisdom or sovereignty.
Sometimes he appears as the 'herald' of the gods. In this rôle he
receives the name of Papsukal (_i.e._, supreme or sacred messenger), and
it may be that this function was a very old one. But, again, as god of
fertility he could also be appropriately termed the 'proclaimer.' The
question must, accordingly, be left open as to the precise force of the
attribute contained in his name. Finally, an interesting feature
connected with Nabu, that may be mentioned here, is that in the name
borne by a famous mountain in Moab, Nebo, where Moses--himself a
'proclaimer'[135]--died, there survives a testimony that the worship of
this popular deity extended beyond the Euphrates and the Tigris, to
Semites living considerably to the west. To Nabu, as to Marduk, a
consort was given. Her name was


Tashmitum.

The name Tashmitum appears for the first time in the days of Hammurabi.
Attention has already been called to the king's ignoring of the god of
Borsippa. While his attempt to suppress the cult of Nabu was not
successful, he did succeed in causing the old consort of Nabu to
disappear. This consort appears to have been no other than Erua. It will
be recalled that up to very late times the tradition survived that her
dwelling-place was Borsippa.[136] This is never said of Sarpanitum.
Despite, therefore, the amalgamation of Sarpanitum and Erua, the
association of the latter with Nabu's dwelling-place remains impressed
upon the memory of the Babylonian scholars, at least. Nabu's consort
having thus been transferred to Marduk, a new mate had to be found for
the former, when once his rivalry was no longer to be dreaded, and his
cult again rose to prominence. 'Tashmitum' is an abstract noun in
Assyrian, signifying 'revelation.' As such, it is bestowed in historical
texts upon Nabu himself, who is called _itu tashimêti_, 'god of
revelation.' Nabu is, above all, a 'revealing' god,--revealing
knowledge, the art of writing, and the method of ruling. The appellation
is therefore a most appropriate one, and there seems little reason to
question that Tashmitum was originally nothing but one of the terms by
which Nabu was designated, just as he was called Papsukal in his rôle as
'messenger' of the gods,--the messenger of his father Marduk and of his
grandfather Ea, in particular. But Tashmitum, being feminine in gender,
as an abstract noun, seemed appropriate as the designation of a goddess.
It would appear, then, that 'Revelation,' from being so constantly
associated with Nabu, was personified, dissociated from him, as it were,
through the conception of a distinct goddess bearing the name of
'Tashmitum.' This process of thought, in giving rise to a new goddess,
may have been, in part, a popular one. The translation of a metaphor
into reality is a phenomenon that may be observed in almost all
religions of antiquity. But the process, whatever its course in detail
may have been, was not uninfluenced by the theological dogma whereby a
god was supposed to have a 'reflection' who was pictured as his consort.
Through this conception, as we have already seen, many a goddess once
ruling in her own right, and enjoying an independent existence,
degenerated into a mere shadow of some male deity, though, on the other
hand, it must be borne in mind that these female deities would have
disappeared altogether but for the opportunity thus afforded them of
becoming 'attachées' to some male deity. This theory of the
_quasi_-artificial character and origin of Tashmit finds support in the
manner in which the mention of her name is entwined with that of Nabu.
Sarpanitum, bound up as the goddess is with Marduk, has at least a
shrine of her own, and occasionally she is spoken of in the texts
without her husband Marduk.[137] The mention of Tashmitum, however,
invariably follows that of Nabu. It is always 'Nabu and Tashmitum,' and
it is never Tashmitum without Nabu. While the creation of Tashmitum may
be a product of Babylonian religious thought, it is in Assyrian texts
that her name is chiefly found. The great Ashurbanabal, in the
conventional subscript attached to his tablet, is particularly fond of
coupling Tashmitum with Nabu, as the two deities who opened his ears to
understanding and prompted him to gather in his palace the literary
treasures produced by the culture that flourished in the south. Tashmit
has no shrine or temple, so far as known, either in Borsippa or in any
of the places whither the Nabu cult spread. She has no attributes other
than those that belong to Nabu, and, what is very remarkable, the later
Babylonian kings, such as Nebuchadnezzar II., when they deem it proper
to attach a consort to Nabu call her Nanâ,[138] _i.e._, simply the lady,
and not Tashmitum, a proof, how little hold the name had taken upon the
Babylonian populace. If to this it be added, that in by far the greater
number of instances, no reference whatsoever to a consort is made when
Nabu is spoken of, an additional reason is found for the unreal, the
shadowy character of this goddess.


Ea.

In treating of the position occupied by Ea in the oldest period of
Babylonian history (see above, pp. 61-64), it has already been mentioned
that he grows to much larger proportions under the influence of a more
fully developed theological system. Indeed, there is no god who shows
such profound traces of having been submitted to a theological
treatment, and indirectly, therefore, furnishes so distinct a proof of
the existence of theological schools in the ancient centers of
Babylonian culture, as Ea. The question may with propriety be here
discussed, to what period we are to attribute the completion of the
process, which, to summarize his position, made Ea the special god of
humanity, the father of Marduk, the third in a great triad, of which the
other two members were Anu, the god of heaven, and Bel, the god of
earth. Already, in the days preceding the union of the Babylonian states
under one head, we have had occasion to see traces of an attempt to
systematize the relations existing between the gods. A high degree of
culture, such as the existence of a perfected form of writing, an
advanced form of architecture, and commercial enterprise reflect, cannot
be dissociated from a high degree of activity in the domain of
philosophic or religious thought. Accordingly, we are in no danger of
attributing too great an antiquity to the beginnings of theological
speculation in Babylonia. Be it remembered that from the earliest to the
latest days, the priests were the scribes and that in their capacity as
writers of the texts, they would be enjoying the advantages of an
intellectual impulse. But they were also the composers of the texts, as
well as the writers, and the prominence given to the gods in texts of
whatever description, would inevitably lead their thoughts to
speculations regarding the attributes of the gods. The attempt would at
an early period be made to find some unifying principles in the tangled
mass of gods. By the time that Hammurabi appears on the scene, we have
every reason to believe that some of the ancient libraries of the south,
whither Ashurbanabal sent his scribes, were already well stocked, and
that a goodly portion of the Babylonian literature known to us already
existed. What these portions were, we will have occasion to point out
when we come to discuss the literature of Babylonia. On the other hand,
this literature would not only necessarily increase as long as any
degree of intellectual activity existed in the country, but this
activity would also manifest itself in transforming this literature, so
as to adapt it to the thoughts and aspirations of a later age.
Especially would this be the case in the purely religious divisions of
literature. The ancient traditions, legends, and myths, once committed
to writing, would serve as a point of departure for further
speculations. The existence of a text to which any measure of value is
attached, is bound to give rise to various attempts at interpretation,
and if this value be connected with the religion of a people, the result
is, invariably, that the ancient words are invested with a meaning
conformable to a later age. Each generation among a people characterized
by intellectual activity has a signature of its own, and it will seek to
give to the religious thoughts of the time its own particular impress.
Since, however, the material upon which any age works is not of its own
making, but is furnished by a preceding one, it follows that much of the
intellectual activity of an age manifests itself in a transformation of
its literary or speculative heritage. This process was constantly going
on in Babylonia, and had we more material--and older material--at our
disposal, we would be able to trace more clearly than we can at present,
the various stages that led to the system of theology, as embodied in
the best productions of the ancient Babylonian schoolmen.

The days of Hammurabi, as they were politically of great importance,
also appear to have ushered in a new era in the religious life of the
people. Stirring political events are always apt to bring in their wake
intellectual movements, and in a country like Babylonia, where politics
react so forcibly on religious conditions, the permanent establishment
of the supremacy of the city of Babylon would be fraught with important
consequences for the cult. The main change brought about by this new
epoch of Babylonian history was, as we have seen, the superior position
henceforth accorded in the pantheon to Marduk as the patron deity of
Babylon; but this change entailed so many others, that it almost merits
being termed a revolution. In order to ensure Marduk's place, the
relations of the other deities to him had to be regulated, the legends
and traditions of the past reshaped, so as to be brought into consistent
accord with the new order of things, and the cult likewise to be, at
least in part, remodelled, so as to emphasize the supremacy of Marduk.
This work, which was an inevitable one, was primarily of an intellectual
order. We are justified, then, in looking for traces of this activity in
the remains that have been recovered of ancient Babylonian literature.
We know from direct evidence that the commercial life of Babylonia had
already, in the period preceding Hammurabi, led to regulated legal forms
and practices for the purpose of carrying out obligations and of
settling commercial and legal difficulties. The proof has been furnished
by Dr. Meissner[139] that syllabaries prepared for the better
understanding of the formulas and words employed in preparing the legal
and commercial tablets, date, in part, from the period which we may
roughly designate as that of Hammurabi,--covering, say, the three
centuries 2300 to 2000 B.C. With this evidence for the existence of
pedagogues devoted to the training of novices in the art of reading and
writing, in order to fit them for their future tasks as official
scribes, we are safe in assuming that these same schoolmen were no less
active in other fields of literature. If, in addition to this, we find
that much of the religious literature, in the shape that we have it,
reflects the religious conditions such as they must have shaped
themselves in consequence of the promotion of Marduk to the head of the
pantheon, the conclusion is forced upon us that such literary
productions date from this same epoch of Hammurabi. This influence of
the schoolmen while centering, as repeatedly pointed out, around the
position of Marduk, manifests itself in a pronounced fashion, also, in
the changed position henceforth accorded to the god Ea. It will be
recalled that in the earliest period of Babylonian history, Ea does not
figure prominently. At the same time we must beware of laying too much
stress upon the negative testimony of the historical texts. Besides the
still limited material of this character at our disposal, the
non-mention of a deity may be due to a variety of circumstances, that
may properly be designated as accidental. The gods to whom the kings of
the ancient Babylonian states would be apt to appeal would be, in the
first instance, the local deities, patrons of the city that happened to
be the capital of the state; in the second instance, the gods of the
vanquished towns; and thirdly, some of the great deities worshipped at
the sacred centers of the Euphrates valley, and who constituted, as it
were, the common heritage of the past. Ea, as the god of the Persian
gulf, the region which forms the starting-point of Babylonian culture,
and around which some of the oldest and most precious recollections
center, would come within the radius of the third instance, since, in
the period we have in mind, Eridu no longer enjoyed any political
importance. We may be sure, then, despite the silence of the texts, that
Ea was always held in great esteem, and that even the absence of temples
in his honor, did not affect the reverence and awe that he inspired. As
for the epoch of Hammurabi, the historical spirit that is never absent
in a truly intellectual age would be certain to restore Ea to his proper
prestige, assuming that a previous age had permitted him to fall into
neglect. Next to Marduk, there is no deity who is given such distinction
in Babylonia, after the union of the Babylonian states, as Ea. In the
religious literature, moreover, as reshaped by the schoolmen of the
time, his rôle is even more prominent than that of Marduk. As a
water-god, and more particularly as the god to whom the largest body of
water known to the Babylonians was sacred, Ea was regarded as the source
and giver of wisdom. Fountains everywhere were sacred to him; and so he
becomes also the giver of fertility and plenty. Berosus tells us of a
mystic being, half man, half fish, who spent his nights in the waters of
the gulf, but who would come out of the waters during the day to give
instruction to the people, until that time steeped in ignorance and
barbarism. This 'Oannes,' as Berosus is said[140] to have called him,
was none other than Ea. As the great benefactor of mankind, it is
natural that Ea should have come to be viewed as the god whose special
function it is to protect the human race, to advance it in all its good
undertakings, to protect it against the evil designs of gods or demons.
In this rôle, he appears in the religious literature--in the epics, the
cosmogony, and the ritual--of Babylonia. There is no god conceived in so
universal a manner as Ea. All local connection with Eridu disappears. He
belongs to no particular district. His worship is not limited to any
particular spot. All of Babylonia lays claim to him. The ethical import
of such a conception is manifestly great, and traces of it are to be
found in the religious productions. It impressed upon the Babylonians
the common bond uniting all mankind. The cult of Ea must have engendered
humane feelings, softening the rivalry existing among the ancient
centers of Babylonian power, and leading the people a considerable
distance, on the road to the conception of a common humanity. When the
gods decide to destroy mankind, it is Ea who intercedes on behalf of
humanity; when the demon of disease has entered a human body, it is to
Ea that, in the last resort, the appeal is made to free the sufferer
from his pain. Ea is the god of the physicians. Nay, more, it is Ea who
presided at the birth of humanity, so that his protection reaches far
back, beyond even the beginnings of civilization, almost to the
beginning of things. Lastly, as the god of civilization, it is to him
that the great works of art are ascribed. He is the god of the smithy,
the patron of the gold and silversmiths, of workers in lapis-lazuli, and
all kinds of precious stones. He is the god of sculpture. The great
bulls and lions that guarded the approaches to the temple and palace
chambers, as well as the statues of the gods and kings, were the work of
his hands. Furthermore, he is the patron of weavers, as of other arts.
This conception may have been perfected in a general way, and in all
probability was perfected before the days of Hammurabi, though perhaps
not prominently brought forward; but important modifications were
introduced into it, through the compromise that had to be arranged
between the position of Ea and that of Marduk. Of course, neither the
rulers nor the priests of Babylon could have permitted the reverence for
Ea to have gone to the length of throwing Marduk into the shade. Many of
the functions assigned to Ea seemed to belong of right to Marduk, who,
as the patron of Babylon, presided over the destinies of what to the
Babylonians was the essential part of mankind,--namely, themselves.
Moreover, Babylon being the seat of culture as well as of power, in the
period following upon Hammurabi, Marduk was necessarily conceived as
possessing the same wisdom that distinguishes Ea. As a consequence, the
attributes of Ea were transferred in a body to Marduk. An amalgamation
of the two, however, such as took place in the case of other deities,
was neither possible, nor, indeed, desirable. It was not possible,
because of the antiquity of the Ea cult and the peculiar position that
he, as a common heirloom of all Babylonia, occupied; nor was it
desirable, for to do so would be to cut off completely the bond uniting
Babylon to its own past and to the rest of Babylonia. The solution of
the problem was found in making Ea, the father of Marduk--the loving and
proud father who willingly transfers all his powers and qualities to his
son, who rejoices in the triumph of his offspring, and who suffers no
pangs of jealousy when beholding the superior honors shown to Marduk,
both by the gods and by men.


Ea and Marduk.

The combination of the two gods is particularly frequent in the
so-called incantation texts. Marduk becomes the mediator between Ea and
mankind. The man smitten with disease, or otherwise in trouble, appeals
to Marduk for help, who promptly brings the petition to his father Ea.
The latter, after modestly declaring that there is nothing that he knows
which his son Marduk does not know, gives Marduk the necessary
instructions, which in turn are conveyed to the one crying for divine
succor. It is clear that these texts have been reshaped with the
intention of adding to the glory of Marduk. They must, therefore, have
been remodelled at a time when the Marduk cult was in the ascendancy.
This was after the days of Hammurabi, and before the subjugation of
Babylonia to Assyrian rule. The limits thus assigned are, to be sure,
broad, but from what has above been said as to the intellectual activity
reigning in the days of Hammurabi, we need not descend far below the
death of the great conqueror to find the starting-point for the
remodelling of the texts in question. Not all of them, of course, were
so reshaped. There are quite a number in which Ea is alone and directly
appealed to, and these form a welcome confirmation of the supposition
that those in which Ea is joined to Marduk have been reshaped with a
desire to make them conform to the position of Marduk in the Babylonian
pantheon. Again, there are incantations in which the name of Marduk
appears without Ea. Such are either productions of a later period, of
the time when Marduk had already assumed his superior position, or what
is also possible, though less probable, old compositions in which the
name of Ea has been simply replaced by that of Marduk. An especially
interesting example of the manner in which ancient productions have been
worked over by the Babylonian theologians, with a view to bringing their
favorite Marduk into greater prominence, appears in one of the episodes
of the Babylonian cosmogony. Prior to the creation of man a great
monster known as Tiâmat had to be subdued. The gods all shrink in terror
before her. Only one succeeds in conquering her. In the form of the
story, as we have it, this hero is Marduk, but it is quite evident[141]
that the honor originally belonged to an entirely different god, one who
is much older, and who stands much higher than the god of Babylon. This
was Bel,--the old god of Nippur who was conceived as the god of earth
_par excellence_, and to whom therefore the task of preparing the earth
for the habitation of mankind properly belonged. How do the Babylonian
theologians, who stand under the influence of the political conditions
prevailing in Babylonia after the union of the Babylonian states,
reconcile this older and true form of the episode with the form in which
they have recast it? The gods who are called the progenitors of Marduk
are represented as rejoicing upon seeing Marduk equipped for the fray.
In chorus they greet and bless him, "Marduk be king." They present him
with additional weapons, and encourage him for the contest. Upon hearing
of his success the gods vie with one another in conferring honors upon
Marduk. They bestow all manner of glorious epithets upon him; and, to
cap the climax, the old Bel, known as 'father Bel,' steps forward and
transfers to him his name, _bêl matâti_,[142] 'lord of lands.' To bestow
the name was equivalent to transferring Bel's powers to Marduk; and so
Marduk is henceforth known as _Bel_. But Ea must be introduced into the
episode. It is not sufficient that Bel, the original subduer of Tiâmat,
should pay homage to Marduk; Ea also greets his son, and bestows his
name upon him,[143]--that is, transfers his powers to his son. There is
a special reason for this. The overthrow of Tiâmat is followed by the
creation of man. This function properly belongs to Bel, both as the god
of earth and as the subduer of Tiâmat. According to one--and probably
the oldest--version of this part of the Babylonian cosmogony which was
embodied in the work of Berosus[144], it is Bel who creates mankind. The
substitution of Marduk for Bel necessitated the transference of the rôle
of creator to Marduk likewise, and yet the latter could not take this
upon himself without the consent of his father Ea, who had become the
god of humanity _par excellence_. Ea could interpose no objection
against Bel being replaced by Marduk in vanquishing the monster, but
when it came to drawing the conclusion and replacing Bel by Marduk also
in the creation of man, the case was different. If Bel was to be
replaced, Ea had a prior claim. Marduk could only take the new functions
upon himself after receiving the powers of Ea. That is the force of Ea's
saying that Marduk's name also shall be Ea just as his. This
transference of the name of Ea to Marduk is in itself an indication that
there must have existed a second version in Babylonia--probably of later
origin than the other--of the creation of man, according to which Ea,
and not Bel, was the creator. We shall have occasion to see, in a future
chapter, that there were at least two different versions current in
Babylonia of the creation of the gods and of the universe. The opening
chapters in Genesis form an interesting parallel to show the manner in
which two different versions of one and the same subject may be
combined. There is, therefore, nothing improbable in the supposition
that a later version, reflecting a period when Bel had sunk into
comparative insignificance, made Ea the creator of mankind instead of
Bel, and that still later a solution of the apparent inconsistency
involved in transferring only part of Bel's powers to Marduk was found
by securing Ea's consent to the acknowledgment of Marduk not merely as
creator of mankind but of the heavenly vault as well. Jensen[145] has
brought other evidence to show that Ea was once regarded as the creator
of mankind. One of his titles is that of 'potter,' and mankind,
according to Babylonian theories, was formed of 'clay.' Moreover, in a
Babylonian myth that will be set forth in its proper place, Ea expressly
figures in the rôle of creating a mysterious being, _Uddushu-na-mir_,
whose name signifies 'his light shines.' Such a proper name, too, as
"Ea-bani," _i.e._, 'Ea creates,' points in the same direction.

In other literary productions of Babylonia, such as, _e.g._, the
so-called Izdubar epic, Ea again appears without Marduk, showing that
this story has not been remodeled, or that the later version, in which
the traces of a recasting may have been seen, has not been discovered.
In the deluge story, which forms part of the Izdubar epic, Ea alone is
the hero. It is he who saves humanity from complete annihilation, and
who pacifies the angered Bel. Marduk's name does not appear in the
entire epic. We have found it necessary to dwell thus at length upon
these evidences of the recasting of the literary products of ancient
Babylonia under the influence of changed conceptions of the gods and of
their relations to one another, for upon the understanding of these
changes, our appreciation of the development of religious beliefs in
Babylonia, and all connected with these beliefs, hinges. The epoch of
Hammurabi was a crucial one for Babylonia from a religious as well as
from a political point of view.


Damkina.

The consort of Ea figures occasionally in the historical texts of
Hammurabi's successors. Agumkakrimi invokes Ea and Damkina, asking these
gods, who 'dwell in the great ocean' surrounding the earth, to grant him
long life. In addition to this, the antiquity of the literary
productions in which her name appears justifies us in reckoning her
among the gods of Babylonia of Hammurabi's time. Her name signifies
'lady of the earth,' and there is evidently a theoretical substratum to
this association of Ea, the water-god, with an earth-goddess. The one
forms the complement to the other; and Marduk, as the son of water and
earth, takes his place in the theory as the creator of the world. In
this form the 'natural philosophy' of Babylonia survived to a late
period. Nicolas of Damascus still knows (probably through Berosus) that
Ea and Damkina[146] had a son Bel (_i.e._, Marduk). The survival of the
name is a proof that, despite the silence of the historical texts, she
was a prominent personage in Babylonian mythology, even though she did
not figure largely in the cult. She appears in the magical texts quite
frequently at the side of Ea. In a hymn[147] where a description occurs
of the boat containing Ea, Damkina his wife, and Marduk their son,
together with the ferryman and some other personages sailing across the
ocean, we may see traces of the process of symbolization to which the
old figures of mythology were subjected.


Shamash.

Passing on, we find Hammurabi as strongly attached to the worship of the
old sun-god as any of his predecessors. Next to Babylon, he was much
concerned with making improvements in Sippar. The Temple of Shamash at
Larsa also was improved and enlarged by him. Hammurabi's example is
followed by his successors. Agumkakrimi invokes Shamash as 'warrior of
heaven and earth'; and it is likely that the precedent furnished by
these two kings, who considered it consistent with devotion to Marduk to
single out the places sacred to Shamash for special consideration, had
much to do in maintaining the popularity of sun-worship in Babylonia and
Assyria. Kara-indash, of the Cassite dynasty (_c._ 1450 B.C.), restores
the temple of Shamash at Larsa, and Mili-shikhu, two centuries later,
assigns to Shamash the second place in his pantheon, naming him before
Marduk. Foreign rulers were naturally not so deeply attached to Marduk
as were the natives of Babylon. In the Assyrian pantheon Shamash
occupies the third place, following immediately upon the two special
deities of Assyria. One of the greatest of the northern kings erects a
temple in honor of the god, and the later Babylonian kings vie with one
another in doing honor to the two oldest sanctuaries of Shamash, at
Sippar and Larsa. Perhaps the pristine affinity between Marduk, who, as
we saw, was originally a sun-deity, and Shamash, also had a share in
Hammurabi's fondness for coupling these two gods. When describing his
operations at Sippar he speaks of himself as 'doing good to the flesh of
Shamash and Marduk.' Hammurabi felt himself to be honoring Marduk,
through paying homage to a deity having affinity with the patron
protector of Babylon.


Innanna.

We have already come across a deity of this name in a previous
chapter.[148] Hammurabi tells us, in one of his inscriptions, that he
has restored the temple in honor of Innanna at Hallabi--a town near
Sippar.[149] Innanna, or Ninni, signifying merely 'lady,' or 'great
lady,' appears to have become a very general name for a goddess, hence
the addition 'of Hallabi,' which Hammurabi is careful to make. At the
same time the designation 'lady of Hallabi' points to her being a
consort of a male deity who was the patron of the place. May this have
been the moon-god again, as in the case of the other Innanna? Our
knowledge of this goddess is confined to what the king tells us about
her. For him she is the mistress whose glory fills heaven and earth, but
when he adds that she has placed in his hands the reins of government,
this only means that the goddess recognizes his right to supreme
authority over the Babylonian states--not that he owes his power to her.
It is after he has succeeded in making Babylon the capital of a great
kingdom that he proceeds to improve the temple of Innanna.


Bel and the Triad of Babylonian Theology.

Among the literary remains of Hammurabi's days we have a hymn in which
the chief gods worshipped by the king are enumerated in succession. The
list begins with Bel, and then mentions Sin, Ninib, Ishtar, Shamash, and
Ramman. We should expect to find at the head of the list Marduk. The
hymn may be older than Hammurabi, who, perhaps, is quoting or copying
it, and since the Bel who is here at the head of the pantheon is the god
of Nippur, the hymn may originally have belonged to the ritual of that
place. For Hammurabi the highest 'Bel,' or lord, is Marduk, and there is
hardly room for doubt that in using this hymn as a means of passing on
to singing his own praises, with which the inscription in question ends,
Hammurabi has in mind the patron god of Babylon when speaking of
Bel.[150] It is this amalgamation of the old Bel with Marduk that marks,
as we have seen, the transition to the use of Bel's name as a mere title
of Marduk. Elsewhere, however, Hammurabi uses Bel to designate the old
god. So when he calls himself the proclaimer of Anu and Bel[151] the
association with Anu makes it impossible that Marduk should be meant. At
times he appears to refer in the same inscription, now to the old Bel
and again to Bel-Marduk, under the same designation. When Kurigalzu, a
member of the Cassite dynasty (_c._ 1400 B.C.), speaks of 'Bel, the lord
of lands,' to whom he erects a temple in the new city, Dur-Kurigalzu--
some forty miles to the northeast of Babylon--it is the old Bel who is
again meant. While acknowledging Marduk as one of the chief gods, these
foreign rulers in Babylonia--the Cassites--did not feel the same
attachment to him as Hammurabi did. They gave the preference to the old
god of Nippur, and, indeed, succeeded in their attempt to give to the
old city of Nippur some of its pristine glory. They devoted themselves
assiduously to the care of the great temple at Nippur. There are some
indications of an attempt made by them to make Nippur the capital of
their empire. In the case of Hammurabi's immediate successor, as has
been pointed out, the equation Bel-Marduk is distinctly set down, but,
for all that, the double employment of the name continues even through
the period of the Assyrian supremacy over Babylonia. The northern rulers
now use Bel to designate the more ancient god, and, again, merely as a
designation of Marduk. Tiglathpileser I. (see note 1, below) expressly
adds 'the older' when speaking of Bel. When Sargon refers to Bel, 'the
lord of lands, who dwells on the sacred mountain of the gods,' or when
Tiglathpileser I. calls Bel 'the father of the gods,' 'the king of the
group of spirits' known as the Anunaki, it is of course only the old
Bel, the lord of the lower region, or of the earth, who can be meant;
but when, as is much more frequently the case, the kings of Assyria,
down to the fall of the empire, associate Bel with Nabu, speak of Bel
and the gods of Akkad (_i.e._, Babylonia), and use Bel, moreover, to
designate Babylonia,[152] it is equally clear that Marduk is meant. In
the Neo-Babylonian empire Marduk alone is used.

The continued existence of a god Bel in the Babylonian pantheon, despite
the amalgamation of Bel with Marduk, is a phenomenon that calls for some
comment. The explanation is to be found in the influence of the
theological system that must have been developed in part, at least, even
before the union of the Babylonian states.[153] Bel, as the god of
earth, was associated with Anu, as the god of heaven, and Ea, as the god
of the deep, to form a triad that embraced the entire universe. When,
therefore, Anu, Bel, and Ea were invoked, it was equivalent to naming
all the powers that influenced the fate of man. They embraced, as it
were, the three kingdoms of the gods, within which all the other gods
could be comprised. The systematization involved in the assumption of a
triad of gods controlling the entire pantheon can hardly be supposed to
have been a popular process. It betokens an amount of thought and
speculation, a comprehensive view of the powers of nature, that could
only have arisen in minds superior to the average intelligence. In other
words, the conception of the triad Anu, Bel, and Ea is again an evidence
of the existence of schoolmen and of schools of religious thought in the
days of the ancient empire. So far, however, as Hammurabi is concerned,
he only refers to a duality--Anu and Bel--which, for him, comprises all
the other gods. He is the 'proclaimer of Anu and Bel.' It is Anu and Bel
who give him sovereignty over the land. In the texts of the second
period the triad does not occur until we come to the reign of a king,
Mili-shikhu, who lives at least eight centuries after Hammurabi. Ea, in
fact, does not occur at all in those inscriptions of the king that have
as yet been discovered. If any conclusion is to be drawn from this
omission, it is certainly this,--that there are several stages in the
development of the ancient theological system of Babylonia. At first a
duality of kingdoms--the kingdom of what is above and below--was
conceived as comprising all the personified powers of nature, but this
duality was replaced by a triad through the addition of the god who
stands at the head of all water-deities. Of course the assumption of a
duality instead of a triad may have been due to a difference among
existing schools of thought. At all events, there seems to be no
political reason for the addition of Ea, and it is difficult to say,
therefore, how soon the conception of a triad standing at the head of
the pantheon arose. We have found it in Gudea's days, and it must,
therefore, have existed in the days of Hammurabi, without, perhaps,
being regarded as an essential dogma as yet. A direct and natural
consequence of Bel's position in the triad was that, by the side of
Bel-Marduk, the older Bel continued to be invoked in historical
inscriptions. Since Anu and Ea were appealed to by themselves, the
former occasionally, the latter more frequently, there was no reason why
a ruler should not at times be prompted to introduce an invocation to
Bel, without the direct association with Anu and Ea. The confusion that
thus ensues between the two Bels was not of serious moment, since from
the context one could without difficulty determine which of the two was
meant; and what we, with our limited knowledge of ancient Babylonia, are
able to do, must have been an easy task for the Babylonians
themselves.[154] It is tempting to suppose that the first command of the
Decalogue (Exodus, xx) contains an implied reference to the Babylonian
triad.


Anu, Bel, and Ea.

The theory of the triad succeeds in maintaining its hold upon Babylonian
minds from a certain period on, through all political and intellectual
vicissitudes. To invoke Anu, Bel, and Ea becomes a standing formula that
the rulers of Babylonia as well as of Assyria are fond of employing.
These three are the great gods _par excellence_. They occupy a place of
their own. The kings do not feel as close to them as to Marduk, or to
Ashur, or even to the sun-god, or to the moon-god. The invocation of the
triad partakes more of a formal character, as though in giving to these
three gods the first place, the writers felt that they were following an
ancient precedent that had more of a theoretical than a practical value
for their days. So among Assyrian rulers, Ashur-rish-ishi (_c._ 1150
B.C.) derives his right to the throne from the authority with which he
is invested by the triad. Again, in the formal curses which the kings
called down upon the destroyers of the inscriptions or statues that they
set up, the appeal to Anu, Bel, and Ea is made. Ashurnasirbal calls upon
the triad not to listen to the prayers of such as deface his monuments.
Sargon has an interesting statement in one of his inscriptions,
according to which the names of the months were fixed by Anu, Bel, and
Ea. This 'archaeological' theory illustrates very well the extraneous
position occupied by the triad. The months, as we shall see, are sacred,
each to a different god. The gods thus distinguished are the ones that
are directly concerned in the fortunes of the state,--Sin, Ashur,
Ishtar, and the like. Anu, Bel, and Ea are not in the list, and the
tradition, or rather the dogma according to which they assign the names
is evidently an attempt to make good this omission by placing them, as
it were, beyond the reach of the calendar. In short, so far as the
historical texts are concerned which reflect the popular beliefs, the
triad represents a theological doctrine rather than a living force. In
combination, Anu, Bel, and Ea did not mean as much, nor the same thing,
to a Babylonian or an Assyrian, as when he said Marduk, or Nabu, or
Ashur, or Sin, as the case might be. It was different when addressing
these gods individually, as was occasionally done. The Assyrians were
rather fond of introducing Anu by himself in their prayers, and the
Babylonians were prompted to a frequent mention of Ea by virtue of his
relationship to Marduk, but when this was done Anu and Ea meant
something different than when mentioned in one breath along with Bel.


Belit.

One might have supposed that when Bel became Marduk, the consort of Bel
would also become Marduk's consort. Such, however, does not appear to be
the case, at least so far as the epoch of Hammurabi is concerned. When
he calls himself 'the beloved shepherd of Belit,' it is the wife of the
old Bel that is meant, and so when Agumkakrimi mentions Bel and Belit
together, as the gods that decree his fate on earth, there is no doubt
as to what Belit is meant. In later days, however, and in Assyria more
particularly, there seems to be a tendency towards generalizing the name
(much as that of Bel) to the extent of applying it in the sense of
'mistress' to the consort of the chief god of the pantheon; and that
happening to be Ashur in Assyria accounts for the fact, which might
otherwise appear strange, that Tiglathpileser I. (_c._ 1140 B.C.) calls
Belit the 'lofty consort and beloved of Ashur.' Ashurbanabal (668-626
B.C.) does the same, and even goes further and declares himself to be
the offspring of Ashur and Belit. On the other hand, in the interval
between these two kings we find Shalmaneser II. (860-825 B.C.) calling
Belit 'the mother of the great gods' and 'the wife of Bel,' making it
evident that the old Belit of the south is meant, and since Ashurbanabal
on one occasion also calls the goddess 'the beloved of Bel,'[155] it
follows that in his days two Belits were still recognized, or perhaps it
would be more accurate to say two uses of the term,--one specifically
for the consort of the Babylonian Bel, the god of the earth, with his
ancient seat at Nippur; the other of a more general character, though
still limited as 'lady' to the consort of the _chief_ gods, just as
'Bel,' while acquiring the general sense of 'lord,' was restricted in
actual usage to the _greatest_ 'lords' only. An indication of this
distinction, somewhat parallel to the addition of Dagan to Bel, to
indicate that the old Bel was meant,[156] appears in the sobriquet 'of
Babylonia,'[157] which Ashurbanabal gives to the goddess in one place
where the old Belit is meant. Under the influence of this Assyrian
extension of the term, Nabopolassar, in the Neo-Babylonian period,
applies the title to the consort of Shamash at Sippar, but he is careful
to specify 'Belit of Sippar,' in order to avoid misunderstanding.
Besides being applied to the consorts of Ashur and of Shamash, 'Belit,'
in the general sense of 'mistress,' is applied only to another goddess,
the great Ishtar of the Assyrian pantheon--generally, however, as a
title, not as a name of the goddess. The important position she occupied
in the Assyrian pantheon seemed to justify this further modification and
extension in the use of the term. Occasionally, Ishtar is directly and
expressly called 'Belit.' So, Ashurbanabal speaks of a temple that he
has founded in Calah to 'Belit mâti,'[158] 'the Belit (or lady) of the
land,' where the context speaks in favor of identifying Belit with the
great goddess Ishtar. Again Ashurbanabal, in a dedicatory inscription
giving an account of improvements made in the temple of Ishtar,
addresses the goddess as Belit 'lady of lands, dwelling in
E-mash-mash.'[159]


Anu and Anatum.

In the second period of Babylonian history the worship of the supreme
god of heaven becomes even more closely bound up with Anu's position as
the first member of the inseparable triad than was the case in the first
period. For Hammurabi, as has been noted, Anu is only a half-real figure
who in association with Bel is represented as giving his endorsement to
the king's authority.[160] The manner in which Agumkakrimi introduces
Anu is no less characteristic for the age of Hammurabi and his
successors. At the beginning of his long inscription,[161] he enumerates
the chief gods under whose protection he places himself. As a Cassitic
ruler, he assigns the first place to the chief Cassite deity, Shukamuna,
a god of war whom the Babylonian scholars identified with their own
Nergal.[162] Shukamuna is followed by the triad Anu, Bel, and Ea. Marduk
occupies a fifth place, after which comes a second triad, Sin, Shamash
"the mighty hero," and Ishtar[163] "the strong one among the gods." The
inscription is devoted to the king's successful capture of the statues
of Marduk and Sarpanitum out of the hands of the Khani, and the
restoration of the shrines of these deities at Babylon. At the close,
the king Agumkakrimi appeals to Anu and his consort Anatum,[164] who are
asked to bless the king in heaven, to Bel and Belit who are asked to fix
his fate on earth, and to Ea and Damkina, inhabiting the deep,[165] who
are to grant him long life. As in the beginning of the inscription, the
thought of the triad--Anu, Bel, Ea--evidently underlies this interesting
invocation, but at the same time the association of a consort with Anu
brings the god into closer relationship with his fellows. He takes
on--if the contradiction in terms be permitted--a more human shape. His
consort bears a name that is simply the feminine form to Anu, just as
Belit is the feminine to Bel. 'Anu,' signifying 'the one on high,'--a
feminine to it was formed, manifestly under the influence of the notion
that every god must have a consort of some kind. After Agumkakrimi no
further mention of Anatum occurs, neither in the inscriptions of
Babylonian nor of Assyrian rulers. We are permitted to conclude,
therefore, that Anatum was a product of the schools, and one that never
took a strong hold on the popular mind. Among the Assyrian kings who in
other respects also show less dependence upon the doctrines evolved in
the Babylonian schools, and whose inscriptions reflect to a greater
degree the purely popular phases of the faith, we find Anu mentioned
with tolerable frequency, and in a manner that betrays less emphasis
upon the position of the god as a member of the triad. Still, it is
rather curious that he does not appear even in the inscriptions of the
Assyrian kings by himself, but in association with another god. Thus
Tiglathpileser I. (_c._ 1130 B.C.) gives an elaborate account of an old
temple to Anu and Ramman in the city of Ashur that he restores to more
than its former grandeur.[166] This dedication of a temple to two
deities is unusual. Ramman is the god of thunder and storms, whose seat
of course is in the heavens. He stands close, therefore, to Anu, the
supreme god of heaven. In the religious productions, this relationship
is expressed by making Ramman the son of Anu. From a passage descriptive
of this temple it would appear that the old temple founded by King
Samsi-Ramman, who lived several centuries before Tiglathpileser, was
dedicated to Ramman. It looks, therefore, as though the association of
Anu with Ramman was the work of the later king. What his motive was in
thus combining Anu with Ramman it is difficult to say, but in his
account of the restoration of the sanctuary, he so consistently mentions
Anu and Ramman together,[167] designating them unitedly as 'the great
gods my lords,' that one gains the impression that the two were
inseparable in his mind, Ramman being perhaps regarded simply as a
manifestation of Anu. The supposition finds some support in the closing
words of the inscription, where, in hurling the usual curses upon those
who should attempt to destroy his monuments, he invokes Ramman alone,
whom he asks to punish the offender by his darts, by hunger, by distress
of every kind, and by death.

Elsewhere Anu appears in association with Dagan, of whom we shall have
occasion to speak in the chapter on the Assyrian pantheon. Suffice it to
say here that Dagan in this connection is an equivalent of Bel. When,
therefore, Ashurbanabal and Sargon call themselves 'the favorite of Anu
and Dagan,' it is the same as though they spoke of Anu and Bel. Apart
from this, Anu only appears when a part or the whole of the Assyrian
pantheon is enumerated. Thus we come across Anu, Ramman, and Ishtar as
the chief gods of the city of Ashur,[168] and again Anu, Ashur, Shamash,
Ramman, and Ishtar.[169] Finally, Sargon who names the eight gates of
his palace after the chief gods of the land does not omit Anu, whom he
describes as the 'one who blesses his handiwork.' Otherwise we have Anu
only when the triad Anu, Bel, and Ea is invoked. Once Ramman-nirari I.
(_c._ 1325 B.C.) adds Ishtar to the triad. After Sargon we no longer
find Anu's name at all among the deities worshipped in Assyria. On the
whole, then, Anu's claim to reverence rests in Assyria as well as in
Babylonia upon his position in the triad, and while Assyria is less
influenced by the ancient system devised in Babylonia whereby Anu, Bel,
and Ea come to be the representatives of the three kingdoms among which
the gods are distributed, still Anu as a specific deity, ruling in his
own right, remains a rather shadowy figure. The only temple in his honor
is the one which he shares with Ramman, and which, as noted, appears to
have been originally devoted to the service of the latter. One other
factor that must be taken into account to explain the disappearance of
Anu is the gradual enforcement of Ashur's claim to the absolute headship
of the Assyrian pantheon. Either Anu or Ashur had to be assigned to this
place, and when circumstances decided the issue in favor of Ashur, there
was no place worthy of Anu as a specific deity. Ashur usurps in a
measure the rôle of Anu. So far as Babylonia was concerned, there was
still in the twelfth century B.C. a city 'Der' which is called the 'city
of Anu.' The city is probably of very ancient foundation, and its
continued association with Anu forms an interesting survival of a local
conception that appears to have been once current of the god.

In the religious literature, especially in that part of it which
furnishes us with the scholastic recastings of the popular traditions,
Anu is a much more prominent figure than in the historical texts. From
being merely the personification of the heavens, he is raised to the
still higher dignity of symbolizing, as Jensen puts it,[170] the
abstract principle of which both the heavens and earth are emanations.
All the earliest gods conceived of by popular tradition as existing from
the beginning of things are viewed as manifestations of Anu, or of Anu
and Anatum in combination. He gives ear to prayers, but he is not
approached directly. The gods are his messengers, who come and give him
report of what is going on.[171] He is a god for the gods rather than
for men. When his daughter Ishtar is insulted she appeals to her father
Anu; and when the gods are terrified they take refuge with Anu. Armed
with a mighty weapon whose assault nothing can withstand, Anu is
surrounded by a host of gods and powerful spirits who are ready to
follow his lead and to do his service.


Ramman.

With Ramman we reach a deity whose introduction into the Babylonian
pantheon and whose position therein appears to be entirely independent
of Marduk.

The reading of the name as Ramman (or Rammanu) is provisional. The
ideograph _Im_ with which the name is written designates the god as the
power presiding over storms; and while it is certain that, in Assyria at
least, the god was known as Ramman, which means 'the thunderer,' it is
possible that this was an epithet given to the god, and not his real or
his oldest name. It is significant that in the El-Amarna tablets (_c._
1500 B.C.), where the god _Im_ appears as an element in proper names,
the reading _Addu_ is vouched for, and this form has been justly brought
into connection with a very famous solar deity of Syria,--Hadad. The
worship of Hadad, we know, was widely spread in Palestine and Syria, and
there is conclusive evidence that Hadad (or Adad), as a name for the god
_Im_, was known in Babylonia. Professor Oppert is of the opinion that
Adad represents the oldest name of the god. Quite recently the
proposition has been made that the real name of the deity was
_Immeru_.[172] The ideograph in this case would arise through the
curtailment of the name (as is frequently the case in the cuneiform
syllabary), and the association of _Im_ with 'storm' and 'wind' would be
directly dependent upon the nature of the deity in question. The
material at hand is not sufficient for deciding the question. Besides
Immeru, Adad, and Ramman, the deity was also known as _Mer_--connected
apparently with Immeru.[173] So much is certain, that Ramman appears to
have been the name currently used in Assyria for this god. Adad may have
been employed occasionally in Babylonia, as was _Mer_ in proper names,
but that it was not the common designation is proved by a list of gods
(published by Bezold[174]) in which the _foreign_ equivalent for _Im_ is
set down as Adad. We may for the present, therefore, retain Ramman,
while bearing in mind that we have only proof of its being an epithet
applied to the god, not necessarily his real name and in all
probabilities not the oldest name.

We meet with the god for the first time in the hymn to which reference
has already been made,[175] and where the god is mentioned together with
Shamash. If the suggestion above thrown out is correct, that the hymn is
older than the days of Hammurabi, Ramman too would be older than his
first mention in historical texts. However, it is worthy of note that in
this hymn each of the other gods mentioned receives a line for himself,
and that Ramman is the only one who is tacked on to another deity. It is
not strange that in making copies of older texts, especially those of a
religious character, the scribes should have introduced certain
modifications. At all events, the god does not acquire any degree of
prominence until the days of Hammurabi; so that whatever his age and
origin, he belongs in a peculiar sense to the pantheon of Hammurabi
rather than to that of the old Babylonian period. The successor of
Hammurabi, Samsu-iluna, dedicates a fort, known as Dur-padda, to Ramman
whom he addresses as his 'helper', along with several other gods.
Despite this fact, his worship does not appear to have been very firmly
established in Babylonia, for Agumkakrimi, who follows upon Samsu-iluna,
does not make mention of Ramman. During the reign of the Cassite
dynasty, however, the worship of Ramman appears to have gained a
stronger foothold. Several kings of this dynasty have incorporated the
name of this deity into their own names, and in an inscription dealing
with events that transpired in the reign of one of these kings, Ramman
occupies a prominent place. Immediately after the great triad, Anu, Bel,
and Ea, there is enumerated a second, Sin, Shamash, and Ramman, and only
then there follows Marduk.[176] More than this, Ramman is introduced for
a second time in conjunction with Shamash, as in the hymn of Hammurabi.
The two are appealed to as 'the divine lords of justice.' The conqueror
of the Cassites, Nebuchadnezzar I., also holds Ramman in high esteem.
For him, Ramman is the god of battle who in companionship with Ishtar
abets the king in his great undertakings. He addresses Ramman as the
great lord of heaven, the lord of subterranean waters and of rain, whose
curse is invoked against the one who sets aside the decrees of
Nebuchadnezzar or who defaces the monument the king sets up. While
acknowledging the supremacy of Marduk, upon whose appeal he proceeds to
Babylonia to rid the country of its oppressors, Nebuchadnezzar
nevertheless shows remarkable partiality for Ramman, perhaps as a matter
of policy to offset the supposed preference shown by Ramman towards the
previous dynasty. Ramman with Nergal and Nanâ are also enumerated as the
special gods of Namar--a Babylonian district which caused the king
considerable annoyance, and which may have been one of the strongholds
whence the Cassitic kings continued their attacks upon Nebuchadnezzar.

In order to determine more precisely the nature of this deity, it is
necessary to turn to Assyria, where his worship dates from the very
earliest times, and where he appears consistently in a single
rôle,--that of the god of storms, more particularly of thunder and
lightning. The oldest Assyrian ruler known to us is Samsi-Ramman (_c._
1850 B.C.), whose name, containing the god as one of its elements,
points to the antiquity of the cult of Ramman in the north. Another king
who has frequently been mentioned, Ramman-nirari (_i.e._, Ramman is my
helper), bears evidence to the same effect, and Tiglathpileser I. speaks
of a temple to Ramman whose foundation carries us back several centuries
beyond the period of these two kings--almost to the days of Hammurabi.
The theory has accordingly been advanced that the worship of Ramman came
to Babylonia from the north, and since the cult of this same god is
found in Damascus and extended as far south as the plain of Jezreel, the
further conclusion has been drawn that the god is of Aramaic origin and
was brought to Assyria through Aramaic tribes who had settled in parts
of Assyria. The great antiquity of the Ramman cult in Assyria argues
against a foreign origin. It seems more plausible to regard the Ramman
cult as indigenous to Assyria; but reverting to a time when the
population of the north was still in the nomadic state of civilization,
the cult may have been carried to the west by some of the wandering
tribes who afterwards established themselves around Damascus. Up to a
late period Aramaic hordes appear from time to time in western Assyria;
and in a higher stage of culture, contact between Aramaeans and
Assyrians was maintained by commercial intercourse and by warfare. Since
the earliest mention of Ramman's cult is in the city of Ashur, it may be
that he was originally connected with that place. As already intimated,
he was essentially a storm-god, whose manifestation was seen in the
thunder and lightning, and the god was known not merely as 'the
thunderer,' but also as Barku, _i.e._, lightning. Perhaps it was because
of this that he was also brought into association with the great light
of heaven,--the sun-god. In many mythologies, the sun and lightning are
regarded as correlated forces. At all events, the frequent association
of Shamash and Ramman cannot have been accidental. This double nature of
Ramman--as a solar deity representing some particular phase of the sun
that escapes us and as a storm-god--still peers through the inscription
above noted from the Cassite period where Ramman is called 'the lord of
justice,'--an attribute peculiar to the sun-god; but in Assyria his rôle
as the thunder-and storm-god overshadows any other attributes that he
may have had.

There are two aspects to rainstorms in Babylonia. The flooding of the
fields while committing much havoc is essential to the fertility of the
soil. Ramman is therefore the carrier of blessings to the cities, the
one who supplies wells and fields with water; but the destructive
character of the rain and thunder and lightning are much more strongly
emphasized than their beneficent aspects. Even though the fields be
flooded, Ramman can cause thorns to grow instead of herbs. The same
ideograph _Im_ that signifies Ramman also means distress. When the
failure of the crops brings in its wake hunger and desolation, it is the
'god of the clouds,' the 'god of rain,' the 'god of the overflow,' whose
wrath has thus manifested itself. It is he who (as a hymn puts it) 'has
eaten the land.' No wonder that the 'roar' of the god is described as
'powerful,' and that he is asked to stand at the right side of the
petitioner and grant protection. When Ramman lets his voice resound,
misfortune is at hand. It was natural that he who thus presided over the
battle of the elements should come to be conceived essentially as a god
of war to a people whose chief occupation grew to be conquest. As such
he appears constantly in the inscriptions of Assyrian kings, and to such
a degree as to be a formidable rival, at times, to the head of the
Assyrian pantheon. The final victory of the Assyrian arms is generally
attributed to Ashur alone, but just before the battle and in the midst
of the fray, Ramman's presence is felt almost as forcibly as that of
Ashur. He shares with the latter the honor of invocations and sacrifices
at such critical moments. In this capacity Ramman is so essentially an
Assyrian god that it will be proper to dwell upon him again in the
following chapter, when the specially Assyrian phases of the religion we
are investigating will be taken up. The consort of Ramman also, the
goddess Shala, will best be treated of in connection with the Assyrian
phases of the Ramman cult.

Of the other gods whose names occur in the inscriptions of Hammurabi,
but little of a special character is to be noted. The attributes that he
gives them do not differ from those that we come across in the texts of
his predecessors. It is sufficient, therefore, to enumerate them. The
longest list is furnished by the hymn which has already been referred
to. The text is unfortunately fragmentary, and so we cannot be sure that
the names embrace the entire pantheon worshipped by him. The list opens
with Bel (who, as we have seen, is the old Bel of Nippur); then follow
Sin, Ninib, Ishtar, Shamash, Ramman. Here the break in the tablet begins
and, when the text again becomes intelligible, a deity is praised in
such extravagant terms that one is tempted to conclude that Hammurabi
has added to an old hymn a paean to his favorite Marduk[177]. To Bel is
given the honor of having granted royal dignity to the king. Sin has
given the king his princely glory; from Ninib, the king has received a
powerful weapon; Ishtar fixes the battle array, while Shamash and Ramman
hold themselves at the service of the king. With this list, however, we
are far from having exhausted the pantheon as it had developed in the
days of Hammurabi. From the inscriptions of his successors we are
permitted to add the following: Nin-khar-sag, Nergal, and Lugal-mit-tu,
furnished by Samsu-iluna; Shukamuna, by Agumkakrimi; and passing down to
the period of the Cassite dynasty, we have in addition Nin-dim-su,
Ba-kad, Pap-u, Belit-ekalli, Shumalia.[178]

During the Cassitic rule, Marduk does not play the prominent part that
he did under the native rulers, but he is restored to his position by
Nebuchadnezzar I., who, it will be recalled, succeeds in driving the
Cassites out of power. But besides Marduk, Nebuchadnezzar invokes a
large number of other deities. For purposes of comparison with the
pantheon of Hammurabi, and of his immediate successors, I give the
complete list and in the order mentioned by him in the only inscription
that we have of this king. They are Ninib, Gula, Ramman, Shumalia,
Nergal, Shir, Shubu, Sin, Belit of Akkad. Moreover, Anu is referred to
as the especial god of Der, and a goddess Eria[179] is worshipped in
Elam. Passing still further down, we obtain as additional names, Malik
and Bunene, from the inscription of Nabubaliddin (_c._ 883-852
B.C.).[180]

We may divide this long period from Hammurabi down to the time that the
governors of Babylonia became mere puppets of the Assyrian rulers into
three sections: (1) Hammurabi and his successors, (2) the Cassite
dynasty, (3) the restoration of native rulers to the throne. A
comparison of the names furnished by the inscriptions from these three
sections shows that the gods common to all are Marduk, Bel, Shamash,
Ramman. But, in addition, our investigations have shown that we are
justified in adding the following as forming part of the Babylonian
pantheon during this entire period: Sarpanitum, Belit, Tashmitum, Sin,
Ninib, Ishtar, Nergal, Nin-khar-sag, and the two other members of the
triad, Anu and Ea, with their consorts, Anatum and Damkina. All these
gods and goddesses are found in the texts from the first and third
section of the period, and the absence of some of them from texts of the
second section is simply due to the smaller amount of material that we
have for the history of the Cassite dynasty in Babylonia. Some of the
deities in this list, which is far from being exhaustive,[181] are
foreign, so _e.g._, Shukamuna and Shumalia, who belong to the Cassitic
pantheon; others are of purely local significance, as Shir and
Shubu.[182] As for Sin, Ninib, and Ishtar, the worship of none of these
deities assumes any great degree of prominence during this period. No
doubt the local cult was continued at the old centers much as before,
but except for an occasional invocation, especially in the closing
paragraphs of an inscription, where the writers were fond of grouping a
large array of deities so as to render more impressive the curses upon
enemies and vilifiers, with which the inscriptions usually terminated,
they do not figure in the official writings of the time. Of Sin, it is
of some importance to note that under the Cassite dynasty he stands
already at the head of a second class of triads which consists of Sin,
Shamash, and Ramman, or Ishtar (see note 3 on page 152), and that
through the inscription of Nebuchadnezzar I., we learn of an additional
district of Babylonia,--that of Bit-Khabban, where in association with
Belit of Akkad, the consort of the older Bel, he was worshipped as the
patron deity. Nebuchadnezzar himself does not enumerate Sin among the
chief gods. Ninib appears in the familiar rôle as a god of war. After
Hammurabi he is only mentioned once in inscriptions of the Cassitic
period and then again in the days of Nebuchadnezzar I., who assigns a
prominent place to him. It is Ninib who, with the title 'king of heaven
and earth,' leads off in the long list of gods whose curses are invoked
upon the king's opponents. Similarly, the belligerent character of
Ishtar is the only phase of the goddess dwelt upon during this period.
While for Agumkakrimi, she still occupies a comparatively inferior rank,
coming seventh in his list, Nebuchadnezzar places her immediately after
Anu and before Ramman and Marduk. This advance foreshadows the superior
rôle that she is destined to play in the pantheon during the period of
Assyrian supremacy. The cult of Nergal does not figure prominently
during this period. In fact, so far as the historical texts go, he
disappears from the scene till the time of Nebuchadnezzar I., when he is
incidentally invoked in a group with Ramman and Nanâ as the gods of a
district in Babylonia known as Namar. Exactly where Namar lay has not
yet been ascertained. Since Nergal, as was shown in the previous
chapter, was the local patron of Cuthah, it may be that the latter city
was included in the Namar district. At all events, we may conclude from
the silence of the texts as to Nergal, that Cuthah played no conspicuous
part in the empire formed of the Babylonian states, and that the cult of
Nergal, apart from the association of the deity in religious texts with
the lower world, did not during this entire period extend beyond local
proportions. Lastly, it is interesting to note that Samsu-iluna, the son
of Hammurabi, refers to Belit of Nippur as Nin-khar-sag, which we have
seen was one of her oldest titles.

FOOTNOTES:

[116] The name is also written Ma-ru-duk, which points to its having
been regarded (for which there is other evidence) as a compound of
_maru_, 'son,' and an element, _duk_(_u_), which in religious and other
texts designates the 'glorious chamber' in which the god determines the
fate of humanity. Such an 'etymology' is, however, merely a play upon
the name, similar to the plays upon proper names found in the Old
Testament. The real etymology is unknown. The form Marduk is Semitic,
and points to an underlying stem, _rdk_. Marduk appears under a variety
of names which will be taken up at their proper place. See Schrader's
_Assyrisch-Babyl. Keilschriften_, p. 129; and the same author's
_Cuneiform Inscrip. and the O. T._ (p. 422) for other etymologies.

[117] Hommel's view that Gish-galla, in Gudea's inscriptions, is Babylon
lacks convincing evidence, but the city may be as old as Gudea's days
for all that.

[118] Near Sippar.

[119] _Bêl matâti_.

[120] Sayce, _Religion of the Ancient Babylonians_, pp. 98 _seq._;
Jensen, _Kosmologie der Babylonier_, p. 88.

[121] So Delitzsch, _Beiträge sur Assyriologie_, ii. 623. The first part
of the name is also used to designate the 'young bullock,' and it is
possible, therefore, that the god was pictured in this way, as both Anu
and Sin are occasionally called 'bulls.'

[122] Louvre Inscription II, col ii. ll. 12-17.

[123] There is also a goddess _Eria_ worshipped in Elam, who may be
identical with Erua. The scribes in the days of Nebuchadnezzar (_c._
1140 B.C.), at least, appear to have thought so, for they associate her
with Bel, just as Sarpanitum is associated with Del-Marduk. (See the
Inscription VR. 57, col. ii. ll. 11, 12.)

[124] Whether, however, this was the real meaning of the name is
doubtful, for the name of the goddess is also written Aru and Arua,
which points to a different verbal stem.

[125] See below under Tashmitum.

[126] There are indications also of an arrested amalgamation of
Erua-Sarpanitum with Tashmitum, the wife of Nabu. (See Sayce, _Hibbert
Lectures_, p. 112.)

[127] Rawlinson, ii. 60, 30.

[128] _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 117.

[129] See further on, _sub_ Ea.

[130] _Kosmologie_, p. 239.

[131] _Sub_ Nusku, chapter xiii.

[132] Tiele, _Geschichte d. Religion i. Alterthum_, i. 171 and 188, is
of the opinion that Nabu is a late deity whose worship dates from a
period considerably subsequent to Hammurabi. This conclusion from the
non-occurrence of the god in early inscriptions is not justified. There
is no reason why Nabu should have been added as a deity in later times,
and in general we must be on our guard against assuming new deities
subsequent to Hammurabi. It is much more plausible to assume the
restored popularity of very old ones.

[133] Bel being Marduk, the title was equivalent to that of 'governor of
Babylonia.'

[134] So, Tiele, _Geschichte d. Religion i. Alterthum_, i. 191.

[135] The Hebrew word for prophet, _nabi_, is of the same stem as the
Assyrian Nabu, and the popular tradition is placing the last scene in
the life of Moses on Mt. Nebo is apparently influenced by the fact that
Moses was a _nabi_.

[136] See above, p. 123.

[137] So in the cylinder of Shamash-shum-ukin (Lehmann's publication,
pls. viii. _seq._).

[138] _E.g._, in the so-called Grotefend Cylinder, col. ii. 34.

[139] _Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde d. Morgenlandes_, iv. 301-307.

[140] We only know the name through Eusebius' extract from Alexander
Polyhistor's digest of Berosus. The form, therefore, cannot be vouched
for. The various modern attempts to explain the name have failed (see
_e.g._, Lenormant's _Magic und Wahrsagekunst der Chaldaer_, 2d German
edition, pp. 376-379). There may be some ultimate connection between
Oannes and Jonah (see Trumbull in _Journal of Bibl. Liter._ xl. 58,
note).

[141] For fuller proof, see the chapter on "The Cosmology of the
Babylonians."

[142] This, it will be remembered (see above, p. 118), is one of the
titles of Marduk in one of Hammurabi's inscriptions,--an important point
for the date of the episode in its present form.

[143] Literally, 'Ea shall be his name, his as mine.'

[144] According to Syncellus. In cuneiform texts the old Bel is at times
invoked as the creator of mankind.

[145] _Kosmologie_, pp. 293, 294.

[146] _Aos_ and _Dauke_.

[147] Rawlinson, iv. 25.

[148] See p. 79.

[149] See Jensen, _Keils Bibl._. 3, 1, p. 108, note 5. Tiele, _Gesch._
p. 126, apparently identifies Innanna of Hallabi with Tashmit, but, so
far as I can see, without sufficient reason.

[150] Here written En-lil, as the Bel of Nippur.

[151] Attached to the name here (Rawlinson, i. 4, no. xv-9), which is
written ideographically En-Lil, is the designation _da-gan-ni_, which
has occasioned considerable discussion. See Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp.
449-456. It seems to me that the addition which emphasizes this identity
of Bel with another god, Dagan, is to indicate that the Bel of the
triad, and not Bel-Marduk, is here meant. Somewhat in the same way
Tiglathpileser I. (Rawlinson, i. 14, vi. 87) distinguishes the older Bel
by calling him 'Bel latura,' _i.e._, 'Bel the older.'

[152] 'Governor of Bel' for governor of Babylonia, and 'subjects of Bel'
for subjects of Babylonia.

[153] See p. 89 and chapter vii.

[154] Occasionally a king (so _e.g._ Nabubaliddin, _c._ 883 B.C.)
associates Anu with Ea, and omits Bel (Rawlinson, v. 60, ii. 21), as
though with the intent of avoiding confusion.

[155] Rassam, Cylinder ix. 75.

[156] See chapter xii., "The Assyrian Pantheon," p. 208.

[157] Rassam, Cylinder viii. 98, 99. 'Belit of Babylonia, honored among
the great gods.'

[158] _Annals_, iii. 135.

[159] The name of the temple. See IIR. 66, ll. 1 and 10. The title
'belit matâti,' 'lady of the lands' is evidently introduced in imitation
of 'bel matâti,' 'lord of lands,' belonging to Bel and then to Marduk.

[160] Sayce's view (_Hibbert Lectures_, p. 186), according to which Anu
was originally the local god of Erech, is erroneous.

[161] VR. pl. 33.

[162] Delitzsch, _Die Kossaer_, pp. 25, 27.

[163] The omission of Ramman here, though invoked at the close of the
inscription, is noticeable. Ishtar takes the place that in the more
developed system belongs to the god of storms, who with the moon-god and
sun-god constitutes a second triad. See p. 163.

[164] Written with the sign _An_, and the feminine ending _tum_, but
probably pronounced Anatum. The form Anat (without the ending) is used
by many scholars, as Sarpanit and Tashmit are used instead of Sarpanitum
and Tashmitum. I prefer the fuller forms of these names. Anum similarly
is better than Anu, but the latter has become so common that it might as
well be retained.

[165] VR. 33, vii. 34-44.

[166] IR. pl. 15, col. vii. 71-pl. 16, col. viii. 88.

[167] No less than nine times.

[168] Tiglathpileser I.

[169] Ramman-nirari I.

[170] _Kosmologie_, p. 274.

[171] See the list IIIR. 68, 26 _seq._

[172] Thureau-Dangin, _Journal Asiatique_, 1895, pp. 385-393. The name
of this deity has been the subject of much discussion. For a full
discussion of the subject with an account of the recent literature, see
an article by the writer in _The American Journal of Semitic Languages
and Literatures_, xii. 159-162.

[173] Arising perhaps after _Im_ came into use as the ideographic form.

[174] _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._, xi. 173-174 and pl. 1, col. i. 7.

[175] See p. 145 and also p. 161.

[176] Belser in Haupt and Delitzsch, _Beiträge sur Assyriologie_, ii.
187 _seq._, col. vi. i. 3 _seq._

[177] The character of this part of the hymn is quite different from
that which precedes.

[178] For further notices of these gods, see chapter x.

[179] See above, p. 122.

[180] One might include in the list also Nin-igi-nangar-bu,
Gushgin-banda, Nin-kurra, Nin-zadim (from Nabubaliddin's Inscription),
but these are only so many epithets of Ea or various _forms_ under which
the god came to be worshipped. See p. 177.

[181] We may now look forward to finding many more gods in the rich
material for this period unearthed by the University of Pennsylvania
Expedition to Niffer.

[182] See chapter x.




CHAPTER IX.

THE GODS IN THE TEMPLE LISTS AND IN THE LEGAL AND COMMERCIAL DOCUMENTS.


Besides the historical texts in the proper sense, there is another
source for the study of the Babylonian pantheon.

Both for the first and for the second periods we now have a large number
of lists of offerings made to the temples of Babylonia and of thousands
of miscellaneous legal documents. De Sarzec found a number of such
documents at Telloh some years ago, and quite recently some thirty
thousand tablets of the temple archives have come to light.[183] At
Tell-Sifr, Abu-Habba, and elsewhere, many thousands also have been
found, belonging chiefly to the second period. A feature of these
documents is the invocation of the gods, introduced for various
purposes, at times in connection with oaths, at times as a guarantee
against the renewal of claims. Again, certain gods are appealed to as
witnesses to an act, and in the lists of temple offerings, gods are
constantly introduced. Since many of the commercial transactions
recorded in these documents, moreover, concern the temples of Babylonia,
further occasions were found for the mention of a god or gods. The
proper names occurring in these documents, compounded as these names in
most cases are with some deity,[184] furnish some additions to the
pantheon of Babylonia. Naturally, a distinction is to be made between
deities introduced in temple lists and in the course of legal
proceedings, and such as are merely known through forming an element in
proper names. The former constitute a part of what might be called the
'active' pantheon of the time. Deities that are actually invoked by
contracting parties for whatever purpose are such as are endowed with
real significance; and if any of these are not mentioned in the
historical texts proper, the omission is due to the lack of material.
The testimony of the legal documents in this respect is fully as valid
as is that of the historical texts. In proper names the case is
different. Custom being a prominent, if not a controlling, factor in the
giving of names, it may happen that the deity appearing as an element in
a name is one who, for various reasons, is no longer worshipped, or
whose worship has diminished in significance at the time we meet with
the name. Again, deities of very restricted local fame, deities that
occupy the inferior rank of mere spirits or demons in the theological
system of the Babylonians, may still be incorporated in proper names.
Lastly, in view of the descriptive epithets by which some deities are
often known, as much as by their real names, it frequently happens in
the case of proper names that a deity otherwise known is designated by
one of his attributes. Thus we find in legal documents of the second
period a goddess, Da-mu-gal, who is none other than the well-known Gula,
the great healing deity; Ud-zal, who is identical with Ninib, and so
written as the god of 'the rising sun';[185] and Mar-tu (lit., 'the west
god'), which is a designation of Ramman.[186] Bearing in mind all these
considerations, we find in the tablets of the first period, so far as
published,[187] the same deities that are met with in the historical
inscriptions: En-lil, Bau, En-zu (or Sin), Nin-girsu, Nin-gish-zida,
Nin-mar, Nanâ, Ninâ, Shul-pa-uddu, and others. No doubt a complete
publication of the Telloh archives will furnish some--not many--new
deities not occurring in the historical texts of this period. A rather
curious feature, illustrated by these temple archives, and one upon
which we shall have occasion to dwell, is the divine honors that appear
to have been paid towards the end of the first period of Babylonian
history to some of the earlier rulers, notably Gudea and Dungi.[188]
Alongside of wine, oil, wheat, sheep, etc., offered to Bau,
Nin-gish-zida, and Shul-pa-uddu, the great kings and _patesis_ of the
past are honored. More than this, sanctuaries sacred to these rulers are
erected, and in other respects they are placed on a footing of equality
with the great gods of the period. Passing on to the lists and the legal
documents of the second period,[189] we may note that the gods in whose
name the oath is taken are chiefly Marduk, Shamash,[190] Â, Ramman, and
Sin. Generally two or three are mentioned, and often the name of the
reigning king is added to lend further solemnity to the oath. Other gods
directly introduced are Nanâ, Ishtar, Nebo, Tashmitum, and Sarpanitum,
after whom the years are at times designated, probably in consequence of
some special honors accorded to the gods. The standing phrase is 'the
year of the throne,' or simply 'the year' of such and such a deity.
Nin-mar appears in the days of Hammurabi as the daughter of Marduk.
Among gods appearing for the first time are Khusha[191], Nun-gal, and
Zamama. Mentioned in connection with the gates of the temple where the
judges held court, the association of Khusha with Marduk, Shamash, Sin,
and Nin-mar points to a considerable degree of prominence enjoyed by
this deity. Of his nature and origin, however, we know nothing. Nun-gal
signifies the 'great chief.' His temple stood in Sippar,[192] and from
this we may conclude that he was one of the minor gods of the place
whose original significance becomes obscured by the side of the
all-powerful patron of Sippar--the sun-god. A syllabary describes the
god as a 'raging' deity, a description that suggests solar functions.
Nun-gal appears, therefore, to be the ideograph proper to a deity that
symbolized, like Nergal, Ninib, and Â, some phase of the sun. The
disappearance of the god would thus be naturally accounted for, in view
of the tendency that we have found characteristic of the religion,
whereby powerful gods absorb the functions of weaker ones whose
attributes resemble their own. But while the god disappears, the name
survives. Nun-gal with the plural sign attached becomes a collective
designation for a group of powerful demons.[193] In this survival and
use of the name we have an interesting example of the manner in which,
by a species of differentiation, local gods, unable to maintain
themselves by the side of more powerful rivals, sink to the lower grade
of demons, either beneficent or noxious. In this grade, too,
distinctions are made, as will be pointed out at the proper place. There
is a 'pantheon' of demons as well as of gods in the Babylonian theology.
Nun-gal accordingly recovers some of his lost dignity by becoming an
exceptionally powerful demon--so powerful as to confer his name upon an
entire class. The god Zamama appears in connection with a date attached
to a legal document of the days of Hammurabi. The building of a
sanctuary in honor of this deity and his consort was of sufficient
importance to make the year known by this event. Zamama is occasionally
mentioned in the religious hymns. He belongs to the deities that form a
kind of court around Marduk. From syllabaries, we learn that he was a
form of the sun-god, worshipped in the city of Kish in northern
Babylonia, and it also appears that he was identified at one period with
Ninib. The temple to Zamama--perhaps only a shrine--stood in the city of
Kish, which was remodeled by Hammurabi. The shrine, or temple, bore the
significant name 'house of the warrior's glory.' The warrior is of
course the god, and the name accordingly shows clearly the character of
the god in whose honor the sanctuary was built. Elsewhere, he is
explicitly called a 'god of battle.' Associated with Zamama of Kish was
his consort, who, however, is merely termed again in a general way,
'Ninni,' _i.e._, 'the lady.' In the case of such a deity as Zamama, it
is evident that the absence of the name in historical texts is
accidental, and that we may expect to come across it with the increase
of historical material. In the proper names, all of the prominent
deities discussed in this and the previous chapters are found, though
with some notable exceptions. Anu, _e.g._, is not met with as an element
in proper names, but among those occurring may be mentioned Shamash, Â,
Ishtar, Ramman (also under the forms Im-me-ru and Mar-tu), Marduk,
sometimes called Sag-ila after his temple in Babylon, Nabu, Ishum,
Shala, Bau, Nin-ib, Nin-girsu, Sin, Bunene, Annuit, and Ea. Among gods
appearing for the first time in connection with the names, it is
sufficient to record a goddess Shubula, who from other sources[194] we
know was the local patron of the city Shumdula, a goddess Bashtum,[195]
a goddess Mamu (a form of Gula), Am-na-na, Lugal-ki-mu-na, E-la-li
(perhaps an epithet for the fire-god Gibil), Ul-mash-shi-tum, and a
serpent god Sir. Most of these may be safely put down as of purely local
origin and jurisdiction, and it is hardly likely that any of them embody
an idea not already covered by those which we have discussed. From the
lists of gods prepared by the Babylonian scholars, it is clear that the
number of local deities whose names at least survived to a late period
was exceedingly large, ranging in the thousands; and since, as seems
likely, these lists were prepared (as so much of the lexicographical
literature) on the basis of the temple lists and of the commercial and
legal documents, we may conclude that all, or at any rate most, of these
deities were in use as elements in proper names, without, however,
having much importance beyond this incorporation.

FOOTNOTES:

[183] The museums of Europe and America have secured a large proportion
of these through purchase.

[184] The longer names consist of three elements: subject,
verb, and object. The deity is generally the subject; _e.g._,
Sinacherib=Sin-akhe-irba, _i.e._, may the god Sin increase the brothers.
But there are many variations. So the imperative of the verb is often
used, and in that case, the deity is in the vocative case. Instead of
three elements, there are frequently only two, a deity and a participle
or an adjective; _e.g._, Sin-magir, _i.e._, Sin is favorable, or a
person is called 'the son' or 'the servant' of a god. The name of the
deity alone may also constitute a proper name; and many names of course
do not contain the mention of a deity at all, though such names are
often abbreviations from longer ones in which some god was introduced.

[185] Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 458.

[186] Arnold, _Ancient Babylonian Temple Records_, p. 5, is of the
opinion that Id-nik-mar-tu is also a designation of Ramman. His view is
plausible, but it still remains to be proved.

[187] Scheil, "Le Culte de Gudea sous le II^e Dynastie d'Ur" (_Recueil
des Travaux, etc._ xviii. 64-74). W. R. Arnold, _Ancient Babylonian
Temple Records_ (New York, 1896). The Telloh tablets appear to be
largely lists of offerings made to the temples at Lagash, and temple
accounts. (See now Reisner, Tempelurkunden aus Telloh (Berlin, 1901).)

[188] See besides Scheil's article (above), Lehmann's note, _Zeits. für
Assyr._ x. 381.

[189] Our knowledge of the documents of this period is due chiefly to
Strassmaier and Meissner.

[190] At times under rather curious forms, _e.g._, Shush-sha;
Strassmaier, Warka, no. 30, l. 21. The form Sha-ash-sha also occurs in
nos. 43 and 105 (_cf._ Meissner's note, _Beiträge zum Altbabylonischen
Privatrecht_, p. 156).

[191] Meissner, no. 42. Also in a proper name, Khusha-ilu, _i.e._,
'Khusha is god.'

[192] Meissner, nos. 40 and 118.

[193] See chapter xi.

[194] IIR. 60, 18a. Pinches (_Journal Victoria Institute_, xxviii. 36
reads Shu-gid-la; Hommel, _ib._ 36, Shu-sil-la).

[195] For this deity, see a paper by the writer, "The Element _Bosheth_
in Hebrew Proper Names," in the _Journal of Bibl. Liter._ xiii. 20-30.




CHAPTER X.

THE MINOR GODS IN THE PERIOD OF HAMMURABI.


Coming back now to the historical texts and placing the minor deities
together that occur in the inscriptions of Hammurabi and his successors
down through the restoration of native rulers on the throne of
Babylonia, we obtain the following list: Zakar, Lugal-mit-tu (?),
Nin-dim-su, Ba-kad, Pap-u, Belit-ekalli, Shumalia, Shukamuna, Gula,
Shir, Shubu, Belit of Akkad, Malik, Bunene, Nin-igi-nangar-bu,
Gushgin-banda, Nin-kurra, Nin-zadim. In view of the limited amount of
historical material at our disposal for the second period of Babylonian
history, the list of course does not permit us to form a definite notion
of the total number of minor gods that were still occasionally invoked
by the side of the great gods. By comparison, however, with the pantheon
so far as ascertained of the first period, the conclusion is justified
that with the systematization of cults and beliefs characteristic of the
Hammurabi, a marked tendency appears towards a reduction of the
pantheon, a weeding out of the numerous local cults, their absorption by
the larger ones, and the relegation of the minor gods of only local
significance to a place among the spirits and demons of the Babylonian
religion. Brief statements of these minor gods will suffice to indicate
their general character. Of most of the gods in this list there is but
little we know as yet beyond the name. Some of them will occur again in
the Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian historical texts, others in the hymns
and incantations; some are only found in the period we are considering,
though with the material constantly increasing we must beware of drawing
any conclusions from the fact of a single mention. 'Zakar,' signifying,
probably, 'heroic,' appears to have been worshipped in Nippur, where a
wall known as the 'wall of Zakar' was built by Samsu-iluna. From the
fact that this wall was sacred to Nin-khar-sag or Belit, we may,
perhaps, be permitted to conclude that 'Zakar' stood in close
relationship to Bel and Belit of Nippur,--possibly a son,--or, at all
events, belonged to the inner circle of deities worshipped in the old
city sacred to the great Bel.

Another wall in Nippur was dedicated by this Samsu-iluna to a god whose
name is provisionally read by Winckler, Lugal-mit-tu.[196] Lugal,
signifying 'king,' is an element that enters as an ideograph in the
composition of the names of several deities. Thus we have Lugal-edinna,
'king of the field,' which is the equivalent of Nergal, and again for
the same god, the combination Lugal-gira, which is, as Jensen[197] has
shown, 'raging king,' and a title of Nergal in his character as the god
of pestilence and war. Nin-dim-su, Ba-kad, Pap-u, Belit-ekalli,
Shumalia, and Shukamuna occur at the close of the inscription of
Melishikhu, among the gods asked to curse the transgressors of the royal
decree.[198] That some of these are Cassite deities imported into
Babylonia, and whose position in the pantheon was therefore of a
temporary character, there seems little reason to question. Ba-kad may,
and Shumalia quite certainly does, belong to this class. As for
Shukamuna, the fact that Agumkakrimi, who places his title, 'king of
Cassite land,' before that of Akkad and Babylon, opens his inscription
with the declaration that he is the glorious offspring of Shukamuna,
fixes the character of this god beyond all doubt; and Delitzsch has
shown[199] that this god was regarded by the Babylonian schoolmen as the
equivalent of their own Nergal. Shukamuna, accordingly, was the Cassite
god of war, who, like Nergal, symbolized the mid-day sun,--that is, the
raging and destructive power. Shumalia is the consort of Shukamuna[200],
and is invoked as the 'lady of the shining mountains.' Nin-dim-su is a
title of Ea, as the patron of arts. Belit-ekalli--_i.e._, Belit of the
palace--appears as the consort of Ninib, the epithet 'ekalli' being
added to specify what Belit is meant, and to avoid confusion with the
consort of Bel. At the same time it must be confessed that the precise
force of the qualification of 'Belit of the palace' (or temple) escapes
us. Ninib's consort, as we know from other sources, was Gula.[201] This
name is in some way connected with an Assyrian stem signifying 'great,'
and it is at least worthy of note that the word for palace is written by
a species of punning etymology with two signs, e=house and gallu=large.
The question suggests itself whether the title 'Belit-ekalli' may not
have its rise in a further desire to play upon the goddess's name, just
as her title Kallat-Eshara (bride of Eshara, or earth) rests upon such a
play. Such plays on names are characteristic of the Semites, and indeed
in a measure are common to all ancient nations, to whom the name always
meant much more than to us. Every _nomen_, as constituting the essence
of an object, was always and above all an _omen_. It is, therefore,
plausible to suppose that titles of the gods should have been chosen in
part under the influence of this idea.[202] A further suggestion that I
would like to offer is that 'ekallu,' as temple or palace (lit., large
house), may be one of the numerous names of the nether world. A parallel
would be furnished by Ekur, which signifies both 'temple' and
'earth,'[203] and is also one of the names of the gathering-place of the
dead. Gula, being the goddess of the nether world who restores the dead
to life, would be appropriately called 'the lady of the nether world.'
One should like to know more of Pap-u (the phonetic reading unknown),
who is called the offspring of Eshara, and 'the lord of the boundary.'
Eshara, as Jensen has shown,[204] is a poetical name for earth. The god
Ninib, in his capacity as a god of agriculture, is called the 'product
of Eshara.'[205] Pap-u, therefore, must be a god somewhat of the same
character--a conclusion which is borne out by the description given of
him as the protector of the boundary. He is probably one of the numerous
forms of boundary gods that are met with among all nations. That we do
not encounter more in Babylonia is due to the decided tendency that has
been noted towards a centralization of power in a limited number of
deities. Instead of gods of boundaries, we have numerous demons and
spirits in the case of the developed Babylonian religion, into whose
hands the care of preserving the rights of owners to their lands is
entrusted. Symbols of these spirits--serpents, unicorns, scorpions, and
the like--are added on the monuments which were placed at the
boundaries, and on which the terms were specified that justified the
land tenure. To this class of monuments the name of 'Kudurru,' or
'boundary' stones, was given by the Babylonians themselves. The
inscription on which the name of Pap-u occurs belongs to this class; and
he is invoked, as already said, along with many other gods--in fact,
with the whole or a goodly portion of the pantheon. It would seem,
therefore, that we have in Pap-u a special boundary god who has survived
in that rôle from a more primitive period of Babylonian culture. He
occupies a place usually assigned to the powerful demons who are
regarded as the real owners of the soil.[206]

Perhaps the most interesting of the minor deities during this second
period is


Gula.

As has just been stated, she is the consort of Ninib. She is not
mentioned in any of the inscriptions of this period till we come to the
days of Nebuchadnezzar I., who invokes her as the bride of
Eshara,--_i.e._, of the earth.[207] We also meet with her name in that
of several individuals, Balatsu-Gula[208] and Arad-Gula,[209] and we
have seen that she is also known as _Damu_ and _Mamu_, or _Meme_. We
have a proof, therefore, of her cult being firmly established at an
early period of Babylonian history. Her rôle is that of a 'life-giver,'
in the widest sense of the word. She is called the 'great physician,'
who both preserves the body in health and who removes sickness and
disease by the 'touch of her hand.' Gula is the one who leads the dead
to a new life. She shares this power, however, with her husband Ninib.
Her power can be exerted for evil as well as for good. She is appealed
to, to strike the enemy with blindness; she can bring on the very
diseases that she is able to heal, and such is the stress laid upon
these qualities that she is even addressed as the 'creator of mankind.'
But although it is the 'second' birth of mankind over which she
presides, she does not belong to the class of deities whose concern is
with the dead rather than the living. The Babylonians, as we shall have
occasion to point out, early engaged in speculations regarding the life
after death, and, as a result, there was developed a special pantheon
for the nether world. Gula occupies a rather unique place intermediate,
as it were, between the gods of the living and the gods of the dead.

Of the other deities occurring in the inscription of this same
Nebuchadnezzar I. it is sufficient to note that two, Shir and Shubu, are
enumerated among the gods of Bit-Khabban. They were, therefore, local
deities of some towns that never rose to sufficient importance to insure
their patrons a permanent place in the Babylonian pantheon. 'Belit of
Akkad,' whom Nebuchadnezzar invokes, is none other than the great Belit,
the consort of Bel. 'Akkad' is here used for Babylonia, and the
qualification is added to distinguish her from other 'ladies,' as,
_e.g._, 'Belit-ekalli,' who, we have seen, was Gula.


Malik and Bunene.

Upon reaching so late a period as the days of Nabubaliddin (_c._ 850
B.C.), it becomes doubtful whether we are justified in including the
additional deities occurring in his inscription among the Babylonian
pantheon of the second period. The occurrence of some of these gods in
the religious literature is a presumption in favor of regarding them as
ancient creations, rather than due to later influences. Certainly this
appears to be the case with Malik and Bunene, who, with Shamash, form a
triad that constitutes the chief object of worship in the great temple
E-babbara at Sippar, to whose restored cult Nabubaliddin devotes
himself. Both names, moreover, occur as parts of proper names in the age
of Hammurabi. Malik--_i.e._, ruler--is one of the names frequently
assigned to Shamash, just as the god's consort was known as Malkatu, but
for all that Malik is not the same as Shamash. Accompanying the
inscription of Nabubaliddin is a design[210] representing the sun-god
seated in his shrine. Before him on a table rests a wheel, and attached
to the wheel are cords held by two figures, who are evidently directing
the course of the wheel. These two figures are Malik and Bunene, a
species of attendants, therefore, on the sun-god, who drive the fiery
chariot that symbolized the great orb. Bunene, through association with
Malik, becomes the latter's consort, and it is interesting to observe
the extent to which the tendency of the Babylonian religion to conceive
the gods in pairs goes. Bunene is not the only instance of an originally
male deity becoming through various circumstances the female consort to
another. Originally, Malik may have been a name under which the sun-god
was worshipped at some place, for the conception that makes him the
chariot-driver to Shamash appears to be late. The absorption by the
greater sun-cults (at Sippar and Larsa more particularly) of the lesser
ones leads to the complete transfer of the names of minor sun-deities to
the great Shamash, but in some instances the minor deities continue to
lead a shadowy existence in some rôle of service to the greater ones.


Nin-igi-nangar-bu, Gushgin-banda, Nin-kurra, and Nin-zadim.

We have seen that Ea, among other powers assigned to him, was regarded
as the god of fine arts,--in the first instance as the god of the
smithy, because of the antiquity and importance of the smith's art, and
then of art in general, including especially the production of great
statues. In accordance with this conception, Nabubaliddin declares that
it was through the wisdom of Ea that he succeeded in manufacturing the
great image of Shamash that was set up by him in the temple at Sippar.
But in the days of Nabubaliddin the arts had been differentiated into
various branches, and this differentiation was expressed by assigning to
each branch some patron god who presided over that section. In this way,
the old belief that art comes to men from the gods survived, while at
the same time it entered upon new phases.[211] Accordingly, Nabubaliddin
assigns several deities who act the part of assistants to Ea. The names
of these deities point to their functions. Nin-igi-nangar-bu is the
'lord who presides over metal-workers'; Gushgin-banda, 'brilliant
chief,' is evidently the patron of those skilled in the working of the
bright metals; Nin-kurra, 'lord of mountain,' the patron of those that
quarried the stones; while Nin-zadim is the patron of sculpture. Ea
stands above these as a general overseer, but the four classes of
laborers symbolized by gods indicate the manner of artistic construction
in the advanced state of Babylonian art, and of the various distinct
professions to which this art gave birth. In a certain sense, of course,
these four gods associated with Ea belong to the Babylonian pantheon,
but not in the same sense in which Ea, for example, or the other gods
discussed in this chapter, belong to it. They cannot even be said to be
gods of a minor order--they are hardly anything more than
personifications of certain phenomena that have their source in the
human intellect. In giving to these personified powers the determinative
indicative of deity, the Babylonian schoolmen were not conscious of
expressing anything more than their belief in the divine origin of the
power and skill exercised by man. To represent such power as a god was
the only way in which the personification could at all be effected under
the conditions presented by Babylonian beliefs. When, therefore, we meet
with such gods as Nin-zadim, 'lord of sculpture,' it is much the same as
when in the Old Testament we are told that Tubal-cain was the 'father'
of those that work in metals, and where similarly other arts are traced
back to a single source. 'Father' in Oriental hyperbole signifies
'source, originator, possessor, or patron,' and, indeed, includes all
these ideas. The Hebrew writer, rising to a higher level of belief,
conceives the arts to have originated through some single personage
endowed with divine powers;[212] the Babylonian, incapable as yet of
making this distinction, ascribes both the origin and execution of the
art directly to a god. In this way, new deities were apparently created
even at an advanced stage of the Babylonian religion, but deities that
differed totally from those that are characteristic of the earlier
periods. The differentiation of the arts, and the assignment of a patron
to each branch, reflect the thoughts and the aspirations of a later age.
These views must have arisen under an impulse to artistic creation that
was called forth by unusual circumstances, and I venture to think that
this impulse is to be traced to the influence of the Assyrian rulers,
whose greatest ambition, next to military glory, was to leave behind
them artistic monuments of themselves that might unfold to later ages a
tale of greatness and of power. Sculpture and works in metal were two
arts that flourished in a special degree in the days when Assyria was
approaching the zenith of her glory. Nabubaliddin's reign falls within
this period; and we must, therefore, look from this time on for traces
of Assyrian influence in the culture, the art, and also to some extent
in the religious beliefs of the southern district of Mesopotamia.

FOOTNOTES:

[196] The text is defective at the point where the god's name
is mentioned. See _Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, p. 133. King reads,
Lugal-diri-tu-gab.

[197] _Kosmologie_, pp. 481 _seq._

[198] Belser, _Beiträge zur Assyr._ ii. 203, col. vi.

[199] _Kossaer_, pp. 25-27.

[200] Delitzsch, _Kossaer_, p. 33.

[201] See above, p. 105.

[202] Examples of punning etymologies on names of gods are frequent. See
Jensen's discussion of Nergal for examples of various plays upon the
name of the god. _Kosmologie_, pp. 185 _seq._

[203] Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp. 185 _seq._ and p. 218.

[204] _Kosmologie_, p. 195.

[205] Rawlinson, i. 29, 16.

[206] This notion that the ground belongs to the gods, and that man is
only a tenant, survives to a late period in Semitic religions. The
belief underlies the Pentateuchal enactments regarding the holding of
the soil, which is only to be temporary. See W. R. Smith, _Religion of
the Semites_, pp. 91 _seq._

[207] In Babylonian, _Kallat Eshara_, with another play upon her name.
See above, p. 173.

[208] _I.e._, (Protect) his life, O Gula.

[209] Servant of Gula.

[210] See V.R. pl. 60.

[211] To this day in the Orient, fine productions of man's skill are
attributed to the influence of hidden spirits, good or bad, as the case
may be.

[212] This position does not, of course, exclude the fact that in the
original form of the tradition, Tubal-cain, Naamah, and other personages
in the fourth chapter of Genesis were deities.




CHAPTER XI.

SURVIVALS OF ANIMISM IN THE BABYLONIAN RELIGION.


The Assyrian influence however was only one factor, and a minor factor
at that, in maintaining the belief in countless spirits that occupied a
place of more or less importance by the side of the great and lesser
gods. That conservatism which is a distinguishing trait of the popular
forms of religion everywhere, served to keep alive the view that all the
acts of man, his moods, the accidents that befell him, were under the
control of visible or invisible powers. The development of a pantheon,
graded and more or less regulated under the guidance of the Babylonian
schoolmen, did not drive the old animistic views out of existence. In
the religious literature, and more especially in those parts of it which
reflect the popular forms of thought, the unorganized mass of spirits
maintain an undisputed sway. In the incantation texts, which will be
discussed at length in a subsequent chapter, as well as in other
sections of Babylonian literature embodying both the primitive and the
advanced views of the Babylonians regarding the origin of the universe,
its subdivisions, and its order of development, and, thirdly, in the
legends and epics, hundreds of spirits are introduced, to which some
definite function or functions were assigned. In many, indeed in the
majority of cases, the precise character of these functions still
escapes us. The material at our disposal is as yet inadequate for any
satisfactory treatment of this phase of Babylonian belief, and we must
content ourselves for the present with some generalizations, or at the
most with some broad classifications. Besides the texts themselves, we
have proper names containing a spirit as an element, and also lists of
those spirits prepared by the schoolmen on the basis of the texts. When,
as sometimes happens, these lists contain explanatory comments on the
spirits enumerated, we are able to take some steps forward in our
knowledge of the subject.

In the first place, then, it is important to bear in mind that the
numerous spirits, when introduced into the religious and other texts,
are almost invariably preceded by a sign--technically known as a
determinative--which stamps them as divine. This sign being the same as
the one placed before the names of the gods, it is not always possible
to distinguish between deities and spirits. The use of a common sign is
significant as pointing to the common origin of the two classes of
superior powers that thus continue to exist side by side. A god is
naught but a spirit writ large. As already intimated in a previous
chapter, a large part of the development of the Babylonian religion
consists in the differentiation between the gods and the spirits,--a
process that, beginning before the period of written records, steadily
went on, and in a certain sense was never completed. In the historical
texts, the gods alone, with certain exceptions, find official
recognition, and it is largely through these texts that we are enabled
to distinguish between the two classes of powers, the gods and the
spirits; but as a survival of a primitive animism, the demons, good,
bad, and indifferent, retain their place in the popular forms of
religion. Several hundred spirits occur in the incantation texts, and
almost as many more in other religious texts. We may distinguish several
classes. In the first place, there are the demons that cause disease and
all manner of physical annoyances. The chief of these will be considered
when we come to the analysis of the incantation texts. Against these
demons the sufferer seeks protection by means of formulas, the utterance
of which is invested with peculiar power, and again by means of certain
rites of an expiatory or purificatory character. Next, we have the
demons supposed to inhabit the fields, and to whom the ground is
supposed to belong. These were imaged under various animal forms,
serpents and scorpions being the favorite ones. When possession was
taken of the field, the spirits inhabiting it had to be propitiated. The
owner placed himself under their protection, and endeavored to insure
his rights against wrongful encroachment by calling upon the demons to
range themselves on his side. It was customary, especially in the case
of territory acquired by special grant of the monarch, or under
extraordinary circumstances, to set up a so-called boundary stone,[213]
on which the owner of the field detailed his right to possession,
through purchase or gift, as the case may be. This inscription closed
with an appeal to various gods to strike with their curses any intruder
upon the owner's rights. In addition to this, the stones are embellished
with serpents, scorpions, unicorns, and various realistic or fantastic
representations of animal forms. These, it would seem, symbolize the
spirits, the sight of which, it was hoped, might act as a further and
effectual warning against interference with the owner's rights.[214]

A special class of demons is formed by those which were supposed to
infest the resting-places of the dead, though they stand in a certain
relationship to the demons that plague the living. A remarkable monument
found a number of years ago, and which will be fully described in a
subsequent chapter, affords us a picture of some of these demons whose
sphere of action is more particularly in the subterranean cave that
forms the gathering-place of the dead. They are represented as half
human, half animal, with large grotesque and terror-inspiring
features.[215] Their power, however, is limited. They are subject to the
orders of the gods whose dominion is the lower world, more particularly
to Nergal and his consort Allatu. In the advanced eschatology of the
Babylonians the demons play a minor part. It is with the gods that the
dead man must make his peace. Their protection assured, he has little to
fear; but the demons of the lower world frequently ascend to the upper
regions to afflict the living. Against them precautions must be taken
similar to the means employed for ridding one's self of the baneful
influence of the disease-and pain-bringing spirits. Reference has
already been made to the spirits that belong to the higher phases of
Mesopotamian culture,--those that have a share in the production of
works of skill and art. We have seen that in accounting for these we are
justified in assuming a higher phase of religious belief. The dividing
line between god and spirit becomes faint, and the numerous protecting
patrons of the handicrafts that flourished in Babylonia and Assyria can
hardly be placed in the same category with those we have so far been
considering. Still, to the popular mind the achievements of the human
mind were regarded as due to the workings of hidden forces. Strange as
it may seem, there was an indisposition to ascribe everything to the
power of the gods. Ea and Nabu, although the general gods of wisdom, did
not concern themselves with details. These were left to the secondary
powers,--the spirits. Hence it happens that by the side of the great
gods, we have a large number of minor powers who preside over the
various branches of human handiwork and control the products of the
human mind.

Reserving further details regarding the several classes of demons and
spirits enumerated, it will suffice to say a few words about one
particular group of spirits whose rôle was peculiarly prominent in both
historical, liturgical, and general religious texts. The tendency to
systematize the beliefs in spirits manifests itself in Babylonia,
equally with the grouping of the gods into certain classes. In
consequence of this general tendency, the conception arose of a group of
spirits that comprised the associated secondary powers of earth and
heaven, somewhat as Anu, Bel, and Ea summed up the quintessence of the
higher powers or gods. This group was known as the


Anunnaki and Igigi.

Regarding these names it may be said that the former has not yet been
satisfactorily interpreted. On the assumption that the union of the
syllables A-nun-na-ki[216] represents a compound ideograph, the middle
syllable _nun_ signifies 'strength,' whereas the first is the ordinary
ideograph for 'water.' Hommel[217] proposed to interpret the name
therefore as 'gods of the watery habitation.' The artificiality of this
manner of writing points, as in several instances noted, to a mere
'play' upon the real name. _Anunna_ reminds one forcibly of the god
_Anu_ and of the goddess _Anunit_, and the element _ak_ is quite a
common afformative in Babylonian substantives, conveying a certain
emphatic meaning to the word. If therefore we may compare Anun with the
name of the god of heaven, the name _Anunnak_ embodying, as it does in
this case, the idea of power, would be an appropriate designation for
the spirits, or a group of spirits collectively. Be it understood that
this explanation is offered merely as a conjecture, which, however,
finds support in the meaning attached to the term 'Igigi.' This, as
Halévy and Guyard have recognized, is a formation of a well-known stem
occurring in Babylonian, as well as in other Semitic languages, that has
the meaning 'strong.' The ideographic form of writing the name likewise
designates the spirits as 'the great chiefs.' The 'Igigi,' therefore,
are 'the strong ones,' and strength being the attribute most commonly
assigned to the Semitic deities,[218] there is a presumption, at least,
in favor of interpreting Anunnak, or Anunnaki,[219] in the same way. The
'Igigi' are at times designated as the seven gods, but this number is
simply an indication of their constituting a large group. Seven is a
round number which marked a large quantity. At an earlier period five
represented a numerical magnitude, and hence the Anunnaki are at times
regarded as a group of five.[220] The Anunnaki and Igigi appear for the
first time in an historical text in the inscription of the Assyrian king
Ramman-nirari I., who includes them in his appeal to the great gods. He
designates the Igigi as belonging to heaven, the Anunnaki as belonging
to the earth. The manner in which he uses the names shows conclusively
that, at this early period, the two groups comprehended the entire
domain over which spirits, and for that matter also the gods, exercised
their power. Indeed, it would appear that at one time the two names were
used to include the gods as well as the spirits. At least this appears
to be the case in Assyria, and the conclusion may be drawn, from the
somewhat vague use of the terms, that the names belong to a very early
period of the religion, when the distinction between gods and spirits
was not yet clearly marked. However that may be, in Babylonian hymns and
incantations the Igigi and Anunnaki play a very prominent part. Anu is
represented as the father of both groups. But they are also at the
service of other gods, notably of Bel, who is spoken of as their 'lord,'
of Ninib, of Marduk, of Ishtar, and of Nergal. They prostrate themselves
before these superior masters, and the latter at times manifest their
anger against the Igigi. They are sent out by the gods to do service.
Their character is, on the whole, severe and cruel. They are not
favorable to man, but rather hostile to him. Their brilliancy consumes
the land. Their power is feared, and Assyrian kings more particularly
are fond of adding the Igigi and Anunnaki to the higher powers--the gods
proper--when they wish to inspire a fear of their own majesty. At times
the Igigi alone are mentioned, but generally the Igigi and Anunnaki
appear in combination. To the latest period of Babylonian history these
two groups continue to receive official recognition. Nebuchadnezzar
II.[221] dedicates an altar, which he erects at the wall of the city of
Babylon, to the Igigi and Anunnaki. The altar is called a structure of
'joy and rejoicing,' and on the festival of Marduk, who is the 'lord of
the Anunnaki and Igigi,' sacrifices were offered at this altar. In the
great temple of Marduk there was a fountain in which the gods and the
Anunnaki, according to a Babylonian hymn, 'bathe their countenance'; and
when to this notice it be added that another hymn praises them as the
'shining chiefs' of the ancient city of Eridu, it will be apparent that
the conceptions attached to this group span the entire period of
Babylonian-Assyrian history.

Besides the Igigi and Anunnaki there is still a third group of seven
spirits, generally designated as the 'evil demons,' who represent the
embodiment of all physical suffering to which man is subject. They
appear, however, only in the incantation texts, and we may, therefore,
postpone their consideration until that subject is reached. The point to
be borne in mind, and which I have attempted to emphasize in this place,
is the close relationship existing in the _popular_ forms of the
Babylonian religion between the gods and the spirits. The latter belong
to the pantheon as much as the former. Primitive animism continues to
enchain the minds of the people, despite the differentiation established
between the higher and the secondary powers, and despite the high point
of development reached by the schoolmen in their attempts to systematize
and, in a measure, to purify the ancient beliefs.

FOOTNOTES:

[213] The technical name for this class of monuments was _Kudurru_,
_i.e._, mark, and then used like the German word _Mark_ both for
boundary and for the territory included within the bounds. A notable
contribution to the interpretation of the Kudurru monuments was made by
Belser, in the _Beiträge zur Assyriologie_, ii. 111-203.

[214] The question has been raised (see Belser, _ib._ p. 111) by Pinches
whether these representations are not the symbols of the zodiac, but, as
Belser justly remarks, the attempt to interpret the pictures in this way
has not been successful. It still seems most plausible to regard the
pictures as symbols of spirits or demons. Such an interpretation is in
accord with the Babylonian and general Semitic view of land ownership.
At the same time it must be confessed that we are still in the dark as
to the motives underlying the choice of the animals portrayed. There may
be some ultimate connection with _some_ of the signs of the zodiac,--so
Hommel believes,--but such connection would have to be judged from the
earlier forms that animism takes on, and not in the light of an advanced
theology such as appears in the zodiacal system of the Babylonians.

[215] See Perrot and Chiplez, _History of Art in Chaldaea and Assyria_,
I. 351.

[216] The element _ki_ is sometimes omitted. The force of _na_ is not
clear, unless it be a phonetic complement merely.

[217] _Semitische Völker_, p. 369.

[218] Very many of the names of the Semitic gods and heroes signify
strong, _e.g._, _El_, _Adon_, _Baal_, _Etana_, _Kemosh_, etc.

[219] The final vowel _i_ would, on the basis of the explanation
offered, be paralleled by the _i_ of Igigi--an indication of the plural.
See Delitzsch, _Assyr. Gram._ § 67, 1.

[220] The Igigi are designated ideographically as v plus ii, and Hommel
(_Semitische Völker_, p. 491) properly suggests that this peculiar
writing points to an earlier use of five as constituting the group.
Hommel, however, does not see that neither five nor seven are to be
interpreted literally, but that both represent a large round number,
and, therefore, also a holy one.

[221] IR. 55, col. iv. ll. 7-13.




CHAPTER XII.

THE ASSYRIAN PANTHEON.


We have now reached a point where it will be proper to set forth the
phases that the Babylonian religion assumed during the days of Assyrian
supremacy.

An enumeration of the gods occurring in the inscriptions of the rulers
of Assyria from the earliest days to the close of the empire, so far as
published, will show better than any argument the points of similarity
between the Babylonian and the Assyrian pantheon. These gods are in
alphabetical order:[222] Anu, Ashur, Bel, Belit, Gaga, Gibil, Gamlat,
Gula, Dibbarra, Dagan, Damkina, Ea, Ishtar, Kadi, Khani, Marduk, Nabu,
Nanâ, Nin-gal, Nergal, Ninib, Nusku, Ramman, Sin, Shala, Shalman,
Shamash, Shanitka(?), Tashmitum. Of these quite a number are only
mentioned incidentally, and in a manner that indicates that they do not
belong to the pantheon in the strict sense. Others, like Khani[223] and
Gamlat,--_i.e._, 'the merciful one,'[224]--may turn out to be mere
epithets of deities otherwise known; and it would hardly be legitimate
to extend the list by including deities that have not yet been
identified,[225] and which may similarly be only variant forms,
descriptive of such as are already included. But however much this list
may be extended and modified by further publications and researches, the
historical material at hand for the Assyrian period of the religion is
sufficient to warrant us in setting up two classes of the pantheon,--one
class constituting the active pantheon, the other, deities introduced by
the kings merely for purposes of self-glorification, or to give greater
solemnity to the invocations and warnings that formed a feature of all
commemorative and dedicatory inscriptions, as well as of the annals
proper. The future additions to the list, it is safe to assert, will
increase the second class and only slightly modify, if at all, the first
class. Bearing in mind this distinction we may put down as active forces
in Assyria the following: Anu, Ashur, Bel, Belit, Gula, Dagan, Ea,
Khani, Ishtar, Marduk, Nabu, Nergal, Ninib, Nusku, Ramman, Sin, Shala,
Shamash, Tashmitum.

Comparing both the fuller and the restricted list with the Babylonian
pantheon during the two periods treated of in the preceding chapters, we
are struck by three facts: (1) the smaller compass of the Assyrian
pantheon; (2) the more restricted introduction of what, for want of a
better term, we may call minor deities; and (3) the small number of new
deities met with. To take up the latter point, the only gods in the
above list that are not found in Babylonian inscriptions are Ashur,
Gibil, Gamlat, Dibbarra, Kadi, Nusku, Shala, Shanitka. Of these it is
purely accidental that Gibil, Dibbarra, Nusku, and Shala are not
mentioned, for, except those that are foreign importations, they belong
to Babylonia as much as to Assyria and fall within the periods of the
Babylonian religion that have been treated of. Kadi is a foreign
deity.[226] Shanitka(?) may only be a title of some goddess, and Shalman
(or Shalmannu) occurs only in proper names, and may likewise be only a
title of some god.[227] There remains, as the only god peculiar to
Assyria, the god Ashur. But for this god, the Babylonian and the
Assyrian pantheon are identical. When we come, however, to the position
held by the gods in the pantheon, their relationship to one another, and
the traits which secured for them popular and royal favor, the
differences between the Babylonian and the Assyrian phases of the
religion will be found to be more accentuated.

As for the smaller compass of the Assyrian pantheon, we may recognize in
this a further advance of the tendency already noted in the second
period of the Babylonian religion. There, too, we found the minor local
cults yielding to the growing influence and favor of certain gods
associated with the great centers of Babylonian life, or possessing
attributes that accorded more with the new political order and the
general advance of culture. One of the chief factors in this tendency
towards centralization was, as we saw, the supremacy accorded to Marduk
in the new empire as the patron god of the capital, and that not only
led to his absorbing the rôle of other deities,[228] but resulted also
in strengthening the belief that there were only a limited number of
deities upon whose power and willingness to aid dependence could be
placed. This tendency was in a measure offset by the pride that the
rulers of the second Babylonian period still took in parading at times,
as large a number as possible of deities under whose protection they
claimed to stand. As we pass from one age to the other, the number of
minor deities thus invoked also tends to diminish, and the occasions
likewise when they are invoked become limited to the more solemn
invocations at the beginning and the close of inscriptions. Now, in
Assyria we have much the same political conditions as in Babylonia, only
intensified. Here, too, we have one god towering above the others, only
to a still greater degree even than Marduk in Babylonia. Marduk, while
absorbing the rôle of the old Bel, is still bound to acknowledge the
fathership of Ea. For a time he has to fear the rivalry of Nabu, and we
have seen that during the Cassitic rule, the glory of Marduk is somewhat
dimmed. The god who comes to stand at the head of the Assyrian
pantheon--Ashur--suffers from none of these restrictions. He is
independent of other gods and is under no obligations to any of his
fellows, and his rule once acknowledged remains supreme, with, perhaps,
one short period excepted,[229] throughout all the vicissitudes that the
empire undergoes. As a consequence of this unique position, Ashur is so
completely identified with Assyria, that with the fall of the empire he,
too, disappears,--whereas the Marduk cult survives the loss of
Babylonian independence, and is undisturbed even by the final absorption
of Babylonia into the empire of Cyrus. The tendency towards
centralization of the cult is even more pronounced, therefore, in
Assyria than in Babylonia. Marduk is a leader who has many gods as
followers, but all of whom have their distinct functions. Ashur is a
host in himself. He needs no attendants. His aid suffices for all
things, and such is the attachment of his subjects to him that it would
almost appear like an insult to his dignity to attach a long array of
minor gods to him. For the Assyrian kings the same motives did not exist
as for the Babylonians to emphasize their control over all parts of
their empire by adding the chief gods of these districts to the
pantheon. Assyria was never split up into independent states like
Babylonia before the days of Hammurabi. The capital, it is true, changed
with considerable frequency, but there was always only one great center
of political power. So far as Assyrian control over Babylonia was
concerned, it was sufficient for the purposes of the Assyrian rulers to
claim Marduk as their patron and protector, and, as we shall see, they
always made a point of emphasizing this claim. Hence we have only 'great
gods,'[230] and no minor deities, in the train of Ashur. These 'great
gods' could not be expunged from the pantheon without a complete
severance of the ties that bound the Assyrians to their past. Kings of
great empires seldom favor religious revolutions. But by the side of
Ashur these great gods pale, and in the course of time the tendency
becomes more marked to regard them merely as formal members of a little
court with few functions of their own, beyond that of adding by their
presence to the majesty and glory of Ashur. One receives the impression
that in Assyria only a few of the gods invoked by the kings at the side
of Ashur exert any real influence on the lives of the people; and such
as do, gain favor through possessing in some measure the chief attribute
that distinguished Ashur,--prowess in war. They are little Ashurs, as it
were, by the side of the great one. The position of Ashur in the
Assyrian pantheon accounts for the general tendencies manifested by the
religion of the northern empire, and upon a clear conception of the
character of Ashur depends our understanding of the special points that
distinguish the other gods from what we have learned of their character
and traits in the southern states. The beginning, therefore, of an
account of the Assyrian pantheon is properly to be made with Ashur.


Ashur.

The starting-point of the career of Ashur is the city of Ashur, situated
on the west bank of the Tigris, not far from the point where the lower
Zab flows into the Tigris. Ashur is therefore distinctly a local deity,
and so far as the testimony of the texts goes, he was never regarded in
early days in any other light than as the local patron of the city to
which he has given his name. He was never worshipped, so far as can be
ascertained, as a manifestation of any of the great powers of
nature,--the sun or the moon; though, if anything, he was originally a
solar deity.[231] Nor was he a symbol of any of the elements,--fire or
water. In this respect he differs from Sin, Shamash, Nusku,[232] and Ea,
whose worship was localized, without affecting the _quasi_-universal
character that these deities possessed. As a local deity his worship
must have been limited to the city over which he spread his protecting
arm; and if we find the god afterwards holding jurisdiction over a much
larger territory than the city of Ashur, it is because in the north, as
in the south, a distinct state or empire was simply regarded as the
extension of a city. Ashur became the god of Assyria as the rulers of
the city of Ashur grew in power,--in the same way that Marduk, upon the
union of the Babylonian states under the supremacy of the city of
Babylon, became the god of all Babylonia. But a difference between the
north and the south is to be noted. Whereas Marduk, although the god of
Babylonia, was worshipped only in the city of Babylon where he was
supposed to have his seat, temples to Ashur existed in various parts of
the Assyrian empire. The god accompanied the kings in their wars, and
wherever the rulers settled, there the god was worshipped. So in the
various changes of official residences that took place in the course of
Assyrian history from Ashur to Calah, and from Calah to Nineveh, and
from Nineveh to Khorsabad, the god took part, and his central seat of
worship depended upon the place that the kings chose for their official
residence. At the same time, while the cult in the various temples that
in the course of time were erected in his honor probably continued
without interruption, there was always one place--the official
residence--which formed the central spot of worship. There the god was
supposed to dwell for the time being. One factor, perhaps, that ought to
be taken into consideration in accounting for this movable disposition
of the god was that he was not symbolized exclusively by a statue, as
Marduk and the other great gods were. His chief symbol was a standard
that could be carried from place to place, and indeed was so made that
it could be carried into the thick of the fray, in order to assure the
army of the god's presence. The standard consisted of a pole surrounded
by a disc enclosed within two wings, while above the disc stood the
figure of a warrior in the act of shooting an arrow.[233] The statues of
the gods were deposited in shrines, and after being carried about, as
was done on festive days or other occasions, they would be replaced in
their shrines. The military standard, however, followed the camp
everywhere, and when the kings chose to fix upon a new place for their
military encampment--and such the official residences of the Assyrian
warrior-kings in large measure were--the standard would repose in the
place selected. How this standard came to be chosen, and when, is
another question, and one more difficult to answer. It may be that the
representation of the god by a standard was a consequence of the
fondness that the rulers of Ashur manifested for perpetual warfare; or,
in other words, that the god Ashur was represented by a standard so that
he might be carried into the battle and be moved from place to place. At
all events, the two things--the standard and the warlike character of
the subjects of Ashur--stood in close relationship to one another, and
the further conclusion is justified that when a military standard came
to be chosen as the symbol of Ashur, the god was recognized distinctly
as a god of war. The symbols accompanying the standard are of importance
as enabling us to determine something more regarding the character of
Ashur. In the first place, the fact that it contained a figure may be
taken as an indication that the god was at one time represented by a
statue,--as indeed we know from other evidence,[234]--and that the
change of his symbol from a statue to a standard is a result of the
military activity of the Assyrians. The winged disc is so general a
symbol of the sun in the religious system of various ancient
nations[235] that one cannot escape the conclusion that the symbol must
be similarly interpreted in the case before us. Is it possible,
therefore, that in a period lying beyond that revealed by the oldest
inscriptions at our disposal, Ashur was worshipped as a solar deity? One
is bound to confess that the evidence does not warrant us in regarding
Ashur as anything but the patron of the city of Ashur. Nowhere do we
find any allusion from which we are justified in concluding that he
originally represented some elemental power or phenomenon. Tiele[236] is
of the decided opinion that Ashur was at his origin a nature god of some
kind, and he goes so far as to suggest, though with due reserve, the
possible identification of Ashur with Sin. No doubt Tiele is prompted to
this view by the example of the great god of the south, Marduk, who is
originally a solar deity, and by all the other great gods who represent,
or represented, some power of nature. Analogy, however, is not a
sufficiently reliable guide to settle a question for the solution of
which historical material is lacking. So much, however, may be said,
that if we are to assume that Ashur personified originally some natural
power, the symbol of the winged disc lends a strong presumption in favor
of supposing him to have been some phase of the sun. So much, then, for
the general character of Ashur. Before passing on to a specification of
his rôle and his traits, as revealed by the historical texts, a word
remains to be said as to the etymology and form of the name. Ashur is
the only instance that we have of a god expressly giving his name to a
city, for the name of the city can only be derived from that of the god,
and not _vice versa_. The identification of the god with his favorite
town must have been so complete that the town, which probably had some
specific name of its own, became known simply as the 'city of the god
Ashur.' From such a designation it is but a small step to call the city
simply, Ashur. The difference between the god and the city would be
indicated by the determinative for deity, which was only attached to the
former, while the latter was written with the determinative attached to
towns. When this city of Ashur extended its bounds until it became
coequal with the domain of Assyria, the name of the god was transferred
to the entire northern district of Mesopotamia, which, as the country of
the god Ashur, was written with the determinative for country.[237] The
ideographs which the Assyrian scribes employed in writing the name of
the god reveal the meaning they attached to it. He is described
ideographically as the 'good god.' This interpretation accords admirably
with the general force of the verbal stem underlying the name. In both
Hebrew and Assyrian _a-sh-r_ signifies 'to be gracious, to grant
blessing, to cause to prosper.' Ashur, therefore, is the god that
blesses his subjects, and to the latter he would accordingly appear as
the 'good god' _par excellence_. If the tempting etymology of our own
word 'god,' which connects it with 'good,' be correct, 'god' would be
almost the perfect equivalent of Ashur. It is not necessary to conclude,
as Tiele does,[238] that Ashur, as the 'good one,' is an ethical
abstraction, but certainly a designation of a god as 'a good one' sounds
more like a descriptive epithet than like a name. The supposition that
Ashur was not, therefore, the original name of the god receives a
certain measure of force from this consideration. Moreover, there are
indications that there actually existed another form of his name,
namely, Anshar.[239] This form Anshar would, according to the phonetic
laws prevailing in Assyria, tend to become Ash-shar.[240] Ashur--the
'good one'--would thus turn out to be an epithet of the god, chosen as a
'play' suggested by Ash-shar, just as we found Gula called the lady of
_Ekalli_, and again _Kallat_ (bride).[241] The etymology of Anshar is as
obscure as that of most of the ancient gods of Babylonia,--as of Sin,
Marduk, Ishtar, and many more. But before leaving the subject, it will
be proper to call attention to the rôle that a god Anshar plays in the
Babylonian-Assyrian cosmological system. _Anshar_ and _Kishar_ are the
second pair of deities to be created, the first pair being _Lakhmu_ and
_Lakhamu_. In the great fight of the gods against the monster Tiâmat, it
would appear that, according to one version at least, Anshar sends Anu,
Ea, and finally Bel-Marduk, in turn to destroy the monster. He appears,
therefore, to have exercised a kind of supremacy over the gods. Assuming
the correctness of the deductions, according to which Ashur is an
epithet arising by a play upon Ash-shar (from an original Anshar), it is
hardly open to doubt that this Anshar is the same as the one who appears
in the cosmology. On the other hand, it is difficult to suppose that
Anshar should have played so significant a part in Babylonian traditions
and yet find no mention in the text of the rulers of Babylonia. Bearing
in mind what has been said as to the manner in which ancient traditions
and myths were remodeled by the schoolmen to conform to later ideas,--we
have seen how in this process the popularity of Marduk led to his
assuming the rôle originally played by Bel,--may not the recognition
given to Anshar be a concession, made at the time that Assyria had begun
her glorious career (_c._ 1400 B.C.), to the chief god of the northern
empire?

That such tendencies to glorify Ashur may justly be sought for in part
of the religious literature is proved by a version of one of the series
of tablets giving an account of the creation, and which assigns to
Anshar the work of building Esharra,--_i.e._, the earth,--that,
according to another version, belongs to Marduk.[242] Evidently, then,
just as the Babylonian theologians sought to glorify Marduk at the
expense of Bel, so Assyrian theologians, or such as stood under Assyrian
influences, did not hesitate to replace Marduk by their own favorite,
Anshar. In the chapter on the 'Cosmology' we will have occasion to come
back to this point. For present purposes it is sufficient to have shown
that the position of Anshar in the remodeled traditions is an argument
in favor of regarding Anshar as the real name of the god who stands at
the head of the Assyrian pantheon.

In the oldest Assyrian inscription known to us, the god Ashur is
mentioned. Samsi-Ramman, who does not yet assume the title of king, but
only _patesi_,--_i.e._, 'religious chief,'[243]--prides himself upon
being 'the builder of the temple of Ashur.' The phrase does not mean
that he founded the temple, but only that he undertook building
operations in connection with it. The date of this ruler may be fixed
roughly at 1850 B.C., and since the two inscribed bricks that we have of
Samsi-Ramman were found in the ruins of Kalah-Shergat,--the site of the
ancient city of Ashur,--there can, of course, be no doubt that the
temple at that place is referred to.

The rulers of Assyria, even after they assumed the title of 'king' (_c._
1500 B.C.), were still fond of calling themselves the 'priest' of the
god Ashur, and frequently gave this title the preference over others. In
the fourteenth century the temple of Ashur seems to have suffered at the
hands of the Cassites, who attempted to extend their power to the north.
This plan was, however, frustrated by Ramman-nirari I., who forces the
Cassites to retreat, successfully opposes other enemies of Assyria, and
restores the injured parts of Ashur's temple. From this time on, and for
a period of several centuries, Assyria assumes an aggressive attitude,
and as a consequence the dependency upon the god is more keenly felt
than before. The enemies against whom the kings proceed are called 'the
enemies of Ashur,' the troops of the king are the troops of Ashur, and
the weapons with which they fight are the weapons of Ashur. It is he who
causes the arms of Tiglathpileser I. to strike down his foes. The
nations cannot endure the awful sight of the god. His brilliancy--the
reference being no doubt to the shining standard as it was carried into
the fray--inspires on every side a terror that casts all enemies to the
ground. All warfare is carried on in the name of Ashur. The statement
may be taken literally, for an oracle was sought at critical moments to
determine the course that was to be pursued. The fight itself takes
place with the help of the god,--again to be taken literally, for the
god, represented by his symbol, is present on the battlefield. The
victory, accordingly, belongs to the god in the first instance, and only
in a secondary degree to the king. The nations are vanquished by Ashur,
the conquered cities become subject to Ashur, and when the tribute is
brought by the conquered foe, it is to Ashur that it is offered by the
kings. Proud and haughty as the latter were, and filled with greed for
glory and power, they never hesitated to humble themselves before their
god. They freely acknowledged that everything they possessed was due to
Ashur's favor. It was he who called them to the throne, who gave them
the sceptre and crown, and who firmly established their sovereignty.
Through Ashur, who gives the king his invincible weapon,--the mighty
bow,--the kingdom is enlarged, until the kings feel justified in saying
of themselves that, by the nomination of Ashur, they govern the four
quarters of the world. Nay, the rulers go further and declare themselves
to be the offspring of Ashur. It is not likely that they ever desired
such an assertion also to be interpreted literally. The phrase is rather
to be taken as the strongest possible indication of the attachment they
felt for their chief god. Everything that they possessed coming directly
from their god, how could this be better expressed than by making the
god the source of their being? The phrase, at all events, is interesting
as showing that the element of love was not absent in the emotions that
the thought of Ashur aroused in the breasts of his subjects. The kings
cannot find sufficient terms of glorification to bestow upon Ashur.
Tiglathpileser I. calls him 'the great lord ruling the assembly of
gods,' and in similar style, Ashurnasirbal invokes him as 'the great god
of all the gods.' For Ramman-nirari III., he is the king of the
Igigi--the heavenly host of spirits. Sargon lovingly addresses him as
the father of the gods. Sennacherib calls him the great mountain or
rock,--a phrase that recalls a Biblical metaphor applied to the
deity,--and Esarhaddon speaks of him as the 'king of gods.' Frequently
Ashur is invoked together with other gods. He is 'the guide of the
gods.' There is only one instance in which he does not occupy the first
place. Ramman-nirari I., to whom reference has above been made, gives
Anu the preference over Ashur in a list of gods,[244] to whom conjointly
he ascribes his victories. We have already had occasion (see pp.
153-155) to note the antiquity of Anu worship in Assyria, the foundation
of whose temple takes us beyond the period of Samsi-Ramman. Ashur's
importance begins only with the moment that the rulers of his city enter
upon their career of conquest. Before that, his power and fame were
limited to the city over which he presided. Those gods who in the south
occupied a superior rank were also acknowledged in the north. The
religion of the Assyrians does not acquire traits that distinguish it
from that of Babylonia till the rise of a distinct Assyrian empire.
Here, as in Babylonia, the religious conceptions, and in a measure the
art, are shaped by the course of political events. Anu, accordingly,
takes precedence to Ashur previous to the supremacy of the city of
Ashur. This superior rank belongs to him as the supreme god of heaven.
Ramman-nirari's reign marks a turning-point in the history of Assyria.
The enemies of Ashur, who had succeeded for a time in obscuring the
god's glory through the humiliation which his land endured, were driven
back, but neither the people nor the rulers had as yet become conscious
of the fact that it was solely to Ashur that the victory was due. Hence,
other gods are associated with Ashur by Ramman-nirari, and the old god
Anu is accorded his proper rank. After the days of Ramman-nirari,
however, Ashur's precedence over all other gods is established. Whether
associated with Bel or with Ramman, or with Shamash and Ramman, or with
a larger representation of the pantheon, Ashur is invariably mentioned
first.

From what has been said of the chief trait of Assyrian history, it
follows, as a matter of course, that the popularity of Ashur is due to
the military successes of the Assyrian armies; and it follows, with
equal necessity, that Ashur, whatever he may originally have been,
becomes purely a god of war, from the moment that Assyria enters upon
what appeared to be her special mission. All the titles given to Ashur
by the kings may be said to follow from his rôle as the god who presides
over the fortunes of the wars. If he is the 'ruler of all the gods,' and
their father, he is so simply by virtue of that same superior strength
which makes him the 'law-giver' for mankind, and not because of any
ancient traditions, nor as an expression of some nature-myth. He lords
it over gods and spirits, but he lords it solely because of his warlike
qualities. Ashur is the giver of crown and sceptre, and the kings of
Assyria are the _patesis_ of the god, his lieutenants. He is the god
that embodies the spirit of Assyrian history, and as such he is the most
characteristic personage of the Assyrian pantheon--in a certain sense
the only characteristic personage. So profound is his influence that
almost all the other gods of the pantheon take on some of his character.
Whenever and wherever possible, those phases of the god's nature are
emphasized which point to the possession of power over enemies. The gods
of the Assyrian pantheon impress one as diminutive Ashurs by the side of
the big one, and in proportion as they approach nearer to the character
of Ashur himself, is their hold upon the royal favor strengthened.


Ishtar.

Second in rank to Ashur during the most glorious part of Assyrian
history stands the great goddess Ishtar. That the Assyrian Ishtar is
identical with the great goddess of the Babylonian pantheon is beyond
reasonable doubt. She approaches closest to Nanâ,--the Ishtar of Erech;
but just as we found the Babylonian Ishtar appearing under various names
and forms, so there are no less than three Ishtars in Assyria,
distinguished in the texts as Ishtar of Nineveh, Ishtar of Arbela, and
Ishtar who presides over the temple known as Kidmuru and who for that
reason is generally called 'the queen of Kidmuru.' The seat of the
latter was in Nineveh, as was of course also the seat of Ishtar of
Nineveh. The third Ishtar had her cult at Arbela,[245] a town lying to
the east of Calah about midway between the upper and lower Zab. It is
not easy to determine which of these three Ishtars is the oldest. The
Assyrians themselves seem to have been aware of the Babylonian origin of
Ishtar, for Tiglathpileser I. is at pains to emphasize that the temple
he builds to Ishtar in his capital is dedicated to the 'Assyrian
Ishtar.'[246] This being the oldest mention of Ishtar in Assyrian texts,
we are perhaps warranted in concluding that the cult of the goddess was
transferred with the seat of government to Nineveh. This would not
necessarily make Ishtar of Nineveh the oldest of the three, but accounts
for the higher rank that was accorded to her, as against the other two.
Ishtar of Arbela and the queen of Kidmuru do not make their appearance
so far as the historical texts are concerned till the time of Esarhaddon
(681, B.C.)--a comparatively late date. Tiele[247] suggests that Arbela
became the seat of a school of prophets in the service of Ishtar. The
curious name of the place, the 'four-god' city, certainly speaks in
favor of supposing Arbela to have been a great religious center, but
until excavations shall have been conducted on the modern site of the
town, the problems connected with the worship of Ishtar of Arbela cannot
be solved. It is quite possible, if not probable, that the three Ishtars
are each of independent origin. The 'queen of Kidmuru,' indeed, I
venture to think, is the indigenous Ishtar of Nineveh, who is obliged to
yield her place to the so-called 'Assyrian Ishtar' upon the transfer of
the capitol of Assyria to Nineveh, and henceforth is known by one of her
epithets to distinguish her from her formidable rival. The cult of
Ishtar at Arbela is probably, too, of ancient date; but special
circumstances that escape us appear to have led to a revival of interest
in their cults during the period when Assyria reached the zenith of her
power. The important point for us to bear in mind is that no essential
distinctions between these three Ishtars were made by the Assyrians.
Their traits and epithets are similar, and for all practical purposes we
have only one Ishtar in the northern empire. Next to Ashur, or rather by
the side of Ashur, Ishtar was invoked as the great goddess of battle and
war. This trait, however, was not given to her by the Assyrians.
Hammurabi views the goddess in this light,[248] and in the Izdubar or
Gilgamesh epic, as already pointed out, she appears at times in the rôle
of a violent destroyer. The warlike phase of the goddess's nature is
largely accentuated in the Assyrian pantheon and dwelt upon to the
exclusion of that softer and milder side which we have seen
characterized her as 'the mother of mankind.' Her rôle as the goddess of
war grows in prominence as the Assyrian rulers proceed in their
triumphal careers. Ashurrishishi (_c_. 1150 B.C.) invokes her simply as
the superior goddess, but for Tiglathpileser I. and from his days on,
she is primarily the lady of war, who arranges the order of battle and
encourages her favorites to fight. She appears in dreams at critical
moments, and whispers words of cheer to King Ashurbanabal. When danger
threatens, it is to her that the great king spreads his hands in prayer.
She is not merely the goddess of the kings, but of the people as well.
The latter are instructed to honor her. No deity approaches her in
splendor. As Ashur rules the Igigi, so Ishtar is declared to be 'mighty
over the Anunnaki.' Her commands are not to be opposed. Her appearance
is that of a being clothed with fiery flames, and streams of fire are
sent down by her upon the enemies of Ashurbanabal--a description that
expresses admirably the conception formed by the Assyrians of a genuine
goddess of war. Like Ashur, she is given a supreme rank among the gods.
Shalmaneser II. calls her the first-born of heaven and earth, and for
Tiglathpileser I., she is the first among the gods. Her milder
attributes as the gracious mother of creation, the giver of plenty, and
the hearer of the supplications of the sinner, so prominent in the
religious literature,[249] are not dwelt upon in the historical texts.
Still, an element of love also enters into the relationship with her
subjects. Ashurnasirbal (885-860 B.C.) speaks of her as the lady who
'loves him and his priesthood.' Sennacherib similarly associates Ishtar
with Ashur as the lover of his priesthood. As a goddess of war she is of
course 'perfect in courage,' as Shalmaneser II. declares. Temples are
erected to her in the city of Ashur, in Nineveh and Arbela. Ashurbanabal
distinguishes carefully between the two Ishtars,--the one of Nineveh and
the one of Arbela; and, strange enough, while terming Nineveh the
favorite city of Ishtar, he seems to give the preference to Ishtar of
Arbela. It is to the latter[250] that when hard pressed by the Elamites
he addresses his prayer, calling her 'the lady of Arbela'; and it is
this Ishtar who appears to the royal troops in a dream. The month of
Ab--the fifth month of the Babylonian calendar--is sacred to Ishtar.
Ashurbanabal proceeds to Arbela for the purpose of worshipping her
during this sacred period. Something must have occurred during his
reign, to bring the goddess of Arbela into such remarkable prominence,
but even Ashurbanabal does not go so far as to place Ishtar of Arbela
before Ishtar of Nineveh, when enumerating the gods of the pantheon. One
point still remains to be mentioned before passing on. Ashurbanabal
calls Ishtar--he is speaking of Ishtar of Nineveh--the wife of Bel.[251]
Now Ishtar never appears in this capacity in the Babylonian
inscriptions. If there is one goddess with whom she has nothing in
common, it is Belit of Nippur. To account for this curious statement on
the part of the Assyrian scribes, it is only necessary to bear in mind
that the name Belit signifies 'lady,' and Ishtar is constantly spoken of
as the Belit or lady of battle. Much the same train of thought that led
to regarding Bel in the sense of 'lord,' merely as a title of Marduk,
gave rise to the use of 'Belit,' as the title of the great 'lady' of the
Assyrian pantheon.[252] From this it is but a small--but of course
erroneous--step, to speak of Belit-Ishtar as the consort of Bel. Whether
the error is due only to the scribe, or whether it actually made its way
into the Assyrian system of theology, it is difficult to say. Probably
the former; for the distinguishing feature of both the Babylonian and
the Assyrian Ishtar is her independent position. Though at times brought
into close association with Ashur, she is not regarded as the mere
consort of any god--no mere reflection of a male deity, but ruling in
her own right on a perfect par with the great gods of the pantheon. She
is coequal in rank and dignity with Ashur. Her name becomes synonymous
with goddess, as Marduk becomes the synonym for god. The female deities
both native and foreign come to be regarded as so many forms of Ishtar.
In a certain sense Ishtar is the only _real_ goddess of the later
Assyrian pantheon, the only one taking an active part in the religious
and political life of the people. At the same time it is to be noted
that by the side of the Assyrian Ishtar, the Babylonian Ishtar,
especially the one associated with Erech (or Warka) is also worshipped
by the monarchs of the north. Esarhaddon devotes himself to the
improvement of the old temple at Erech, and Ashurbanabal prides himself
upon having rescued out of the hands of the Elamites a statue of Ishtar
or Nanâ of Erech that had been captured 1635 years previous.[253]


Anu.

Reference has already been made to the antiquity of the Anu cult in
Assyria, and that prior to the time that the city of Ashur assumes the
rôle of mistress of the northern district, Anu stood at the head of the
pantheon, just as theoretically he continued to occupy this place in the
pantheon of the south. What is especially important, he had a temple in
the very city of Ashur, whose patron god succeeded in usurping the place
of the old 'god of heaven.' The character of Anu in the north differs in
no way from the traits assigned to him in the south. He is the king of
the Igigi and Anunnaki, that is, of all the heavenly and earthly
spirits, and he is this by virtue of being the supreme god of heaven.
His cult, however, appears to have suffered through the overshadowing
supremacy of Ashur. Even in his old temple at Ashur, which
Tiglathpileser I. on the occasion of his rebuilding it, tells us was
founded 641 years before this restoration,[254] he is no longer accorded
sole homage. Ramman, the god of thunder and of storms, because
correlated to Anu, is placed by the side of the latter and permitted to
share the honors with Anu.[255] Anu survives in the Assyrian as in the
Babylonian pantheon by virtue of being a member of the theological
triad, composed as we have seen of Anu, Bel, and Ea. Tiglathpileser I.
still invokes Anu as a deity of practical importance. He associates him
with Ramman and Ishtar as the great gods of the city of Ashur or with
Ramman alone, but beyond an incidental mention by Ashurnasirbal, who in
a long list of gods at the beginning of his annals emphasizes the fact
of his being the favorite of Anu, he appears only in combination with
Bel and Ea. The same degree of reverence, however, was shown to the old
triad in Assyria as in Babylonia. The three gods are asked not to listen
to the prayers of the one who destroys the monuments set up by the
kings. Sargon tells us that it is Anu, Bel, and Ea who fix the names of
the months,[256] and this same king when he comes to assign names to the
eight gates of his great palace, does not forget to include Anu in the
list of deities,[257] describing him as the god who blesses his
handiwork.


Dagan.

Coequal in antiquity with the cult of Anu in Assyria is that of Dagan.
Although occurring in Babylonia as early as the days of Hammurabi, and
indeed earlier,[258] it would appear that his worship was imported from
the north into the south.[259] At all events, it is in the north that
the cult of Dagan rises to prominence. The name of the god appears as an
element in the name of Ishme-Dagan (the father of Samsi-Ramman
II.),[260] whose date may be fixed at the close of the nineteenth
century B.C. The form Dagan is interesting as being almost identical
with the name of the chief god of the Philistines, Dagon,[261] who is
mentioned in the Book of Judges. The resemblance can hardly be entirely
accidental. From other sources we know that Dagan was worshipped in
Palestine as early as the fourteenth or fifteenth century, and the form
Dagan, if derived from _Dag_, contains an afformative element which
stamps the word as non-Assyrian. The proposition has much in its favor
which regards Dagan as a god whose worship was introduced into Assyria
at a very early period through the influence of Aramaean hordes, who
continue throughout Assyrian history to skirt the eastern shores of the
Tigris. Once introduced, however, into Assyria, Dagan assumes a
different form from the one that he receives among the Philistines. To
the latter he is the god of agriculture, while in Assyria he rises to
the rank of second in the pantheon, and becomes the associate of Anu.
The latter's dominion being the heavens, Dagan is conceived as the god
of earth. Hence, there results the fusion with the Babylonian Bel, which
has already been noted,[262] and it is due to this fusion that Dagan
disappears almost entirely from the Assyrian pantheon. Ashurnasirbal
invokes Dagan with Anu. Two centuries later, Sargon, whose scribes, as
Jensen has noticed, manifest an 'archaeological' fondness for the
earlier deities, repeats the phrase of Ashurnasirbal, and also calls his
subjects 'troops of Anu and Dagan'; but it is important to observe that
he does not include Dagan among the deities in whose honor he assigns
names to the gates of his palace. We may, therefore, fix upon the ninth
century as the terminus for the Dagan cult in Assyria. Proper names
compounded with Dagan do not occur after the days of Ashurnasirbal.[263]


Shamash.

Besides the testimony furnished by the name of the king, Samsi-Ramman,
we have a proof for the antiquity of the Shamash cult in Assyria in the
express statement of Pudilu (_c._ 1350 B.C.) that he built a temple to
the sun-god in the city of Ashur. He calls Shamash the 'protecting
deity,' but the protection vouchsafed by Shamash is to be understood in
a peculiar sense. Shamash does not work by caprice. He is, as we have
seen, preëminently a god of justice, whose favors are bestowed in
accordance with unchangeable principles. So far as Assyria is concerned,
the conceptions regarding Shamash reach a higher ethical level than
those connected with any other deity. Ashur and Ishtar are partial to
Assyria, and uphold her rulers at any cost, but the favors of Shamash
are bestowed upon the kings because of their righteousness, or, what is
the same thing, because of their claim to being righteous. For
Tiglathpileser I., great and ruthless warrior as he is, Shamash is the
judge of heaven and earth, who sees the wickedness of the king's
enemies, and shatters them because of their guilt. When the king
mercifully sets certain captives free, it is in the presence of Shamash
that he performs this act. It is, therefore, as the advocate of the
righteous cause that Tiglathpileser claims to have received the glorious
sceptre at the hands of Shamash; and so also for the successors of
Tiglathpileser, down to the days of Sargon, Shamash is above all and
first of all the judge, both of men and of the gods. There is, of
course, nothing new in this view of Shamash, which is precisely the one
developed in Babylonia; but in Assyria, perhaps for the reason that in
Shamash is concentrated almost all of the ethical instinct of the
northern people, the judicial traits of Shamash appear to be even more
strongly emphasized. Especially in the days of Ashurnasirbal and
Shalmaneser II.--the ninth century--does the sun-cult receive great
prominence. These kings call themselves the _sun_ of the world. The
phrase,[264] indeed, has so distinctly an Egyptian flavor, that, in
connection with other considerations, it seems quite plausible to assume
that the influence of Egyptian reverence for _Ra_ had much to do with
the popularity of the sun-cult about this time. Shalmaneser bestows
numerous epithets upon Shamash. He is the guide of everything, the
messenger of the gods, the hero, the judge of the world who guides
mankind aright, and, what is most significant, the lord of law. The word
used for law, _têrtu_, is identical with the Hebrew term _torâ_ that is
used to designate the Pentateuchal legislation. No better testimony
could be desired to show the nature of the conceptions that must have
been current of Shamash. Sargon, again, who is fond of emphasizing the
just principles that inspire his acts, goes to the length of building a
sanctuary[265] for Shamash far beyond the northern limits of Assyria.
But the kings, in thus placing themselves under the protection of the
great judge, were not oblivious to the fact that this protection was
particularly desired on the battlefield. War being uppermost in their
thoughts, the other side of Shamash's nature--his power and
violence--was not overlooked. Tiglathpileser invokes him also as the
warrior,--a title that is often given to Shamash in the religious
literature. There can be little doubt that a nation of warriors whose
chief deities were gods of war, was attracted to Shamash not merely
because he was the judge of all things, but also, and in a large degree,
because he possessed some of the traits that distinguished Ashur and
Ishtar.


Ramman.

The association of Ramman with Shamash in the name of the old ruler of
Assyria, Samsi-Ramman, is not accidental or due to mere caprice. Only
such deities are combined in proper names that are, or may be,
correlated to one another. Ramman, as the god of storms, is naturally
viewed as a power complementary to the great orb of light.[266] The two
in combination, viewed as the beneficent and the destructive power,
constitute the most powerful elements of nature, whose good will it was
most important, especially for a nation of warriors, to secure. Some
such thought surely underlies this association of Shamash with Ramman.
The Assyrian Ramman differs in no way from the Ramman of Babylonia, but
he is much more popular in the north than in the south. The popularity
of the god is but a reflection of the delight that the Assyrians took in
military pursuits. Ramman is hardly anything more than another Ashur.
Tiglathpileser I., who once calls the god Mar-tu, _i.e._, "the West
god,"[267] has left us an admirable description of him. He is the hero
who floods the lands and houses of the country's enemies. The approach
of the Assyrian troops is compared to an onslaught of Ramman. His curses
are the most dreadful that can befall a nation or an individual, for his
instruments of destruction are lightning, hunger, and death. Reference
has several times been made to the manner in which Tiglathpileser honors
Ramman by making him a partner of Anu in the great temple of the latter
at Ashur. But the successors of Tiglathpileser are no less zealous in
their reverence for Ramman. It is to Ramman that the kings offer
sacrifices during the campaign, and when they wish to depict in the
strongest terms the destruction that follows in the wake of an onslaught
of the Assyrian troops, they declare that they swept over everything
like Ramman. It is natural, in view of this, that Ramman should have
been to the Assyrians also the 'mightiest of the gods.'[268] Through the
Assyrian inscriptions we learn something of the consort of Ramman.


Shala.

Sennacherib tells us that in the course of his campaign against
Babylonia he removes out of the city of Babylon, and replaces in
Ekallâte[269] the statues of Ramman and Shala. This, he says, he did 418
years after the time that they had been carried captive from Ekallâte to
Babylon by Marduknadinakhi.[270] We know nothing more of this Ekallâte
except that it lay in Assyria,--probably in the southern half,--and that
Ramman and Shala are called the gods of the city. The name 'Shala'
appears to signify 'woman.' It reminds us, therefore, of 'lady' (Ninni,
Nanâ, etc.), which we have found to be the designation for several
distinct goddesses. It is possible that Shala, likewise, being a name of
so indefinite a character, was applied to other goddesses. A 'Shala of
the mountains,' who is stated to be the wife of Marduk, is mentioned in
a list of gods.[271] The wife of Bel, too, is once called Shala, though
in this case the confusion between Marduk and Bel may have led to
transferring the name from the consort of one to the consort of the
other. Too much importance must not be attached to the data furnished by
these lists of gods. They represent in many cases purely arbitrary
attempts to systematize the Babylonian and Assyrian pantheon, and in
other cases are valuable only as reflecting the views of the
theologians, or rather of certain schools of theological thought, in
Babylonia. In the religious hymns, too, the consort of Ramman finds
mention, and by a play upon her name is described as the 'merciful one.'
The attribute given to her there is the 'lady of the field,' which puts
her in contrast to Ramman, rather than in partnership with him. Since we
hear little of her worship in Assyria, beyond the notices of
Sennacherib, we may conclude that, like so many goddesses, Shala
dwindled to the insignificant proportions of a mere pale reflection of
the male deity.


Nin-ib.

Another god, who by virtue of his violent traits enjoys the favor of the
Assyrian rulers, is the old Babylonian deity whose name is provisionally
read Nin-ib. In the very first mention of him, in the inscription of
Ashurrishishi (_c._ 1150 B.C.), he is called the 'mighty one of the
gods.' Through the protection of Nin-ib, Ashurrishishi secures victory
over his enemies on all sides. Similarly, other of the Assyrian rulers
emphasize the strength of Nin-ib. Tiglathpileser I. calls him the
courageous one, whose special function is the destruction of the king's
enemies. In doing so he becomes the god 'who fulfills the heart's
desire.' The unmistakable character of the god as a god of war is also
shown by his association with Ashur.[272] If Ashur is the king of Igigi
and Anunnaki, Nin-ib is the hero of the heavenly and earthly spirits. To
him the rulers fly for help. Of all the kings, Ashurnasirbal seems to
have been especially devoted to the service of Nin-ib. The annals of
this king, instead of beginning, as is customary, with an invocation of
all or many of the gods, starts out with an address to Nin-ib, in which
the king fairly exhausts the vocabulary of the language in his desire to
secure the favor of this powerful deity. Almost all the attributes he
assigns to him have reference to the god's powers in war. Dwelling in
the capital Calah, he is 'the strong, the mighty, the supreme one,' the
perfect hero, who is invincible in battle, the 'destroyer of all
opposition, who holds the lock of heaven and earth, who opens the deep;
the strong one, endowed with youthful vigor, whose decree is
unchangeable, without whom no decision is made in heaven or on earth,
whose attack is like a flood, who sweeps away the land of his enemies,'
and so forth, through a bewildering array of epithets. The inscriptions
of the Assyrian kings, especially in the introductions, manifest little
originality. One king, or rather his scribe, frequently copies from
earlier productions, or imitates them. Hence, it happens that the
grandson of Ashurnasirbal, Shamshi-Ramman (_c._ 825-812 B.C.), furnishes
us with an almost equally long array of epithets, exalting the strength
and terror of Nin-ib. Like Ashurnasirbal, he declared himself to have
been chosen by this god to occupy the throne. A comparison of the two
lists makes it evident that the later one is modeled upon the earlier
production. The conclusion is justified that in the century covered by
the reigns of Ashurnasirbal[273] and Shamshi-Ramman, the cult of Nin-ib
must have acquired great popularity, though suffering, perhaps, an
interruption during the reign of Shalmaneser II.,--midway between these
two kings,--whose favorite we have seen was Shamash. The great temple of
Nin-ib stood in Calah, which Ashurnasirbal chose as his official
residence, and it was in this temple that the king deposited a long
inscription commemorating his deeds. In the temple, he also places a
colossal statue of the god. Upon the completion of the edifice, he
dedicates it with prayer and sacrifices. The special festivals of the
god are fixed for the months of Shabat and Ulul,--the eleventh and sixth
months,--and provision is made for the regular maintenance of the cult.
It must, of course, not be supposed that, because Nin-ib appears to be a
favorite of the king, the latter concentrates his attentions upon this
god. He appears to have been specially fond of temple building, and,
besides the one to Nin-ib, he tells us of sanctuaries to 'Belit of the
land,' _i.e._, Ishtar,[274] Sin, Gula, Ea, and Ramman,--that he erects
or improves. One might be led to regard it as strange that a god like
Nin-ib, or Shamash, should claim so large a share of the attention of
the Assyrian rulers, to the apparent neglect of Ashur, but it must be
borne in mind that the position of Ashur was so assured as to be beyond
the reach of rivalry. The fact also that Ashur's popular symbol was the
movable standard was no doubt a reason why so few temples were erected
to him. He did not stand in need of temples. For the very reason that
Ashur was the universally acknowledged master of everything, the kings
felt called upon to choose, by the side of Ashur, some additional
deity,--a patron under whose special protection they placed themselves.
The natural desire for novelty--together with other circumstances that
escape us--led one to choose Ramman, another Nin-ib, a third Shamash,
and a fourth, as we shall see, Nabu. In doing so they were not conscious
of any lack of respect towards Ashur, of whose good will they always
felt certain.

Besides the service rendered by Nin-ib in war, his aid was also invoked
by the kings in their recreations, which partook of the same violent
character as their vocation. Their favorite sport was hunting,
especially of lions, wild horses, elephants, stags, boars, and bulls.
They either proceeded to districts where these animals were to be found,
or they had large parks laid out near their residences, which were then
stocked with material for the chase. Ashurnasirbal does not shun a long
journey to distant mountainous regions to seek for sport, and it is
Nin-ib whom he invokes, together with Nergal. These two, he declares,
who, like Ashur and Ishtar, "love his priesthood," are the ones that
convey into his hands the hunting spoils. Tiglathpileser I. was
especially fond of lion and elephant hunting. He declares that on one
occasion he killed 10 elephants and 920 lions in various parts of
northwestern Mesopotamia; and he ascribes his success to Nin-ib, who
loves him, and who, again, in association with Nergal, and Ashur, has
placed in the king's hands the mighty weapons and the glorious bow.
After the days of Shamshi-Ramman we hear of Nin-ib chiefly in the formal
lists of gods which the later kings of Assyria, from Sargon[275] on, are
fond of placing at the beginning and end of their inscriptions. These
lists, again, copied the one from the other, are of value only as
indicating the chief gods of the pantheon, but warrant no conclusions as
to the activity reigning in the cults of the gods there mentioned.
Before leaving Nin-ib a few words need be said as to his relations to
the other gods. In the chapter on the pantheon before Hammurabi,[276]
the identity of Nin-ib with the chief god of Gudea's district,
Nin-girsu, has been pointed out. The solar character of the latter being
clear, it follows that Nin-ib, too, is originally a personification of
the sun, like Nin-gish-zida and Nin-shakh, whose rôles are absorbed by
Nin-ib.[277] This has long been recognized, but it is the merit of
Jensen[278] to have demonstrated that it is the east sun and the morning
sun which is more especially represented by Nin-ib. On this supposition,
some of the titles given to him in the inscriptions of Ashurnasirbal and
Shamshi-Ramman become perfectly clear. Like Marduk, who, it will be
remembered, is also originally a phase of the solar deity, Nin-ib is
called the first-born of Ea; and as the rising sun he is appropriately
called the offspring of Ekur,--_i.e._, the earth,--in allusion to his
apparent ascent from a place below the earth. Ekur and Eshara being
employed as synonyms, Shamshi-Ramman replaces Ekur by Eshara, and since
Bel is the lord of Ekur-Eshara, Nin-ib also becomes the first-born son
of Bel. Other epithets, such as 'the light of heaven and earth,' 'the
one who pursues his path over the wide world,'[279] are all in keeping
with the solar character of the deity, and date, therefore, from a
period when the more purely 'nature' phases of the god were dwelt upon.
But just as in the case of Shamash and Nergal (also, as we have seen, a
solar deity), so in that of Nin-ib, the violent, fiery, and destructive
character that the sun has in a climate like that of Babylonia brought
it about that Nin-ib was viewed as a destructive force, whose assistance
was of great value in military strife. He becomes the god of the cloud
storm, before whom, as he passes along, heaven and earth tremble. By his
strong weapon he humiliates the disobedient, destroys the enemies of the
kings, and grants all manner of protection to his favorites. Only in the
religious literature are other qualities dwelt upon, such as his
'holiness.'[280] For Hammurabi, it will be recalled, Nin-ib is already
the god of war, and it is natural that in a country like Assyria this
side of the god's nature should become accentuated to the point of
obscuring all others, until nothing more is left of his solar character
than is indicated by stray bits of mythological phrases, perhaps only
half understood, and introduced to add to the imposing array of epithets
that belong to the terrible god of war. As the consort of Nin-ib, the
Assyrians recognized


Gula.

She is only occasionally invoked by the Assyrian rulers. A sanctuary to
Gula, as the consort of Nin-ib, is erected by Ashurnasirbal, and a
festival in honor of the goddess is referred to by Ashurbanabal.


Nergal.

Nergal not only shares with Nin-ib, as already mentioned, the honor of
being the god under whose auspices the royal chase is carried on, but he
is also, like Nin-ib, invoked in that other sport of which the Assyrian
rulers were so fond,--war. He is scarcely differentiated from Nin-ib.
Like the latter he is the perfect king of battle, who marches before the
monarch together with Ashur, and he is pictured as carrying the mighty
weapons which Ashur has presented to the king. In an inscription of
Shalmaneser II.[281] there is an interesting reference to the city
sacred to Nergal--Cuthah. The king, who in the course of his campaign
against Babylonia reaches Cuthah, brings sacrifices to Nergal, whom he
speaks of as 'the hero of the gods, the supreme raging sun.' A later
king, Sargon, also honors the god by giving a fortress in the distant
land of Nairi, to the northeast of Assyria, the name of Kar[282]-Nergal.
It would seem as though, through the influence of Sargon, a revival of
the Nergal cult took place. His successor, Sennacherib, erects a temple
in honor of the god at Tarbisu, a suburb to the north of Nineveh proper,
and Ashurbanabal, who dwells at Tarbisu for a while, is engaged in
adding to the beauty of the edifice,--an indication of the honor in
which the god continued to be held. Nergal's consort is Laz, but she is
not referred to by the Assyrian rulers.


Sin.

The old Babylonian moon-god plays a comparatively insignificant rôle in
Assyria. Ashurnasirbal speaks of a temple that he founded in
Calah--perhaps only a chapel--in honor of Sin. It could not have been of
much importance, for we learn nothing further about it. Sargon, too, who
manifests a great fondness for reviving ancient cults, erects
sanctuaries to Sin along with a quantity of other gods in his official
residence at Khorsabad and beyond the northeastern confines of Assyria
at Magganubba. But when invoked by the kings, Sin shows traces of the
influence which the conceptions current about Ashur exerted upon his
fellow deities. He takes on, as other of the gods, the attributes of the
war-god. Instead of being merely the lord of the crescent, as in
Babylonia, and one of the sources of wisdom because of the connection of
astrology with lunar observations, he is pictured as capable of
inspiring terror. At the same time he is also the lord of plenty, and in
his capacity as the wise god he is regarded as the lord of decisions.
But by the side of new epithets that are attached to him in the Assyrian
inscriptions, there is one which, just as in the case of Nin-ib,
connects the Assyrian Sin cult with the oldest phase of moon-worship in
the south. It is one of the last kings of Assyria, Ashurbanabal, who
calls Sin 'the firstborn son of Bel.' He appears in this relationship to
Bel in the religious texts of Babylonia. The Bel here meant can only be
the great god of Nippur, and the title 'son of Bel' accordingly shows
that the moon-worship of Assyria is ultimately derived from that which
had its seat in the south. Sin's secondary position is indicated by
making him a son of Bel. The rise of the science of astronomy in
connection with astrology, was, as already suggested, an important
factor in spreading and maintaining the Sin cult in the south, while the
lack of intellectual originality in Assyria would equally account for
the comparatively subordinate position occupied by Sin in the Assyrian
pantheon.


Nusku.

That Nusku is a Babylonian god, meriting a place in the pantheon of
Hammurabi, if not of the days prior to the union of the Babylonian
states, is shown by the fact (1) that he had a shrine in the great
temple of Marduk at Babylon, along with Nebo, Tashmiyum, and Ea;[283]
and (2) that he appears in the religious texts. In view of this it might
appear strange that we find no reference to the god in historical texts
till we reach the Assyrian period. The reason, or at least one reason,
is that Nusku is on the one hand amalgamated with Gibil, the fire-god,
and on the other identified with Nabu. The compound ideogram with which
his name is written includes the same sign--the stylus or sceptre--that
is used to designate Nabu, the second part of the ideogram adding the
idea of 'force and strength.' Whether this graphical assimilation is to
be regarded as a factor in bringing about the identification of Nusku
and Nabu, or is due to an original similarity in the traits of the two
gods, it is difficult to say. Hardly the latter, for Nusku is a solar
deity, whereas, as we have tried to show, Nabu is originally a
water-deity.[284] But however we may choose to account for it, the
prominence of Nusku is obscured by Nabu. As a solar deity, it is easy to
see how he should have been regarded as a phase of the fire-god, and if
the various other solar deities were not so regarded, it is because in
the course of their development they were clothed with other attributes
that, while obscuring their origin, saved them from the loss of their
identity. Apart from the formal lists of gods drawn up by Sargon and his
successors, Shalmaneser II. and Ashurbanabal are the only kings who make
special mention of Nusku. The former calls him the bearer of the
brilliant sceptre, just as Nabu is so called; and again, just as Nabu,
he is termed the wise god. The two phases of the ideogram used in his
name--the sceptre and the stylus--are thus united in the personage of
Nusku precisely as in Nabu. On the other hand, the manner in which
Ashurbanabal speaks of him reflects the mythological aspect of Nusku. In
the religious literature Nusku is the messenger of Bel-Marduk, who
conveys the message of the latter to Ea. From being the messenger of
Bel, he comes to be viewed as the messenger of the gods in general, and
accordingly Ashurbanabal addresses him as 'the highly honored messenger
of the gods,' but, combining with the mythological the more realistic
aspect of Nusku, refers to him also as the one who glorifies sovereignty
and who, at the command of Ashur and Belit, stands at the king's side to
aid in bringing the enemies to fall. As for the fire-god Gibil, with
whom Nusku is identified, we have merely a reference to a month of the
year sacred to the servant of Gibil in a passage of the inscriptions of
Sargon.[285]


Bel-Marduk.

From the time that the Assyrian rulers claimed a greater or small
measure of control over the affairs of Babylonia, that is, therefore,
from about the twelfth century, they were anxious to make good their
claim by including in their pantheon the chief god of Babylonia. The
Assyrian inscriptions prove that, as early as the twelfth century, the
theoretical absorption on the part of Marduk, of the rôle taken by the
old god Bel of Nippur, which was enlarged upon in a preceding
chapter,[286] had already taken place. Marduk is not only frequently
known as Bel, but what is more, Babylonia is the country of Bel, or
simply Bel, and the Babylonians are referred to as 'the subjects of
Bel,' or the 'humanity of Bel.' There can be no doubt that in all these
cases Bel-Marduk is meant and not the older Bel. In the days of
Ashurrishishi we already come across the title 'governor of Bel,' that
to the latest days remains the official designation for political
control over the southern empire. So general is this use of Bel for
Marduk that the latter name does not occur until we reach Shalmaneser
II., _i.e._, the ninth century. There seems to be no reason to question,
therefore, that even when Tiglathpileser I. applies to Bel titles that
certainly belong to the older Bel, such as 'father of the gods,' 'king
of all the Anunnaki,' 'who fixes the decrees of heaven and earth,' he
means Marduk, a proof for which may be seen in the epithet _bêl matâti_,
'lord of lands,' which follows upon these designations and which, as we
saw, is a factor in the evolution of Marduk into Bel-Marduk.[287] The
importance that Tiglathpileser I., and therefore also his successors,
attached to their control over the old southern district, is shown by
his according to Bel the second place in the pantheon, invoking him at
the beginning of his inscriptions immediately after Ashur. The control
over Babylonia was an achievement that stirred the pride of the Assyrian
rulers to the highest degree. Its age and its past inspired respect.
Besides being the source of the culture that Assyria possessed,
Babylonia had sacred associations for the Assyrians, as the original
dwelling-places of most of the gods worshipped by them. The old sacred
centers like Ur, Nippur, Uruk, Sippar, with their great temples, their
elaborate cults, their great storehouses of religious literature, and
their great body of influential priests and theologians and astrologers
were as dear to the people of the north as to those of the south; and in
proportion as these old cities lost their political importance, their
rank as sacred centers to which pilgrimages were made on the occasion of
the festivals of the gods was correspondingly raised. Hence the value
that the Assyrian rulers attached to the possession of Babylonia. They
do not like to be reminded that they rule the south by force of arms.
They prefer, as Tiglathpileser I. declares, to consider themselves
'nominated by the gods to rule over the land of Bel.' They want to be
regarded as the favorites of Bel, and they ascribe to him the greatness
of their rule. It is he who fulfills the wishes of the kings; and when
the kings enter upon a campaign against Babylonia, as they frequently
did to quell the uprisings that were constantly occurring in the one or
the other of the southern districts, they emphasize, as Shalmaneser II.
does, that he enters upon this course at the command of Marduk. They set
themselves up as Marduk's defenders, and it must be said for the
Assyrian rulers that they were mild and sparing in their treatment of
their southern subjects. They do not practise those cruelties--burning
of cities, pillage, and promiscuous slaughter--that form the main
feature in their campaigns against the nations to the northeast and
northwest, and against Elam. They accord to the Babylonians as much of
the old independence as was consistent with an imperial policy. The
internal affairs continue for a long time to be regulated by rulers who
are natives of Babylonia, and it is not until a comparatively late
day--the time of Sennacherib--that in consequence of the endless trouble
that these native rulers gave the Assyrians through their constant
attempt to make themselves independent, it became customary for the
Assyrian kings to appoint a member of the royal house--a son or
brother--to the lieutenancy over Babylonia. As for the cult, the
Assyrian kings were at great pains to leave it undisturbed, or where it
had been interrupted to restore it, and thus secure the favor of the
southern gods. So Shalmaneser II. upon the completion of his campaign
enters Marduk's great temple at Babylon, E-sagila, and offers prayers
and sacrifices to Bel and Belit, _i.e._, Marduk and Sarpanitum. From
E-sagila he crosses over to Borsippa, and pays homage to Nabu and to
Nabu's consort, whom he calls Nanâ.[288] The kings are fond, especially
when speaking of the Babylonian campaigns, of slipping in the name of
Marduk after that of Ashur. With the help of Ashur and Marduk their
troops are victorious. Marduk shares Ashur's terrible majesty. At times
Shamash, or Shamash and Ramman, are added to form a little pantheon
whose assistance is invoked in the Babylonian wars. From being used in
restricted application to Babylonian affairs, Ashur and Marduk came to
be invoked in a general way. Esarhaddon expressly sets up the claim of
being the savior of Marduk's honor, as a kind of apology for proceeding
against Babylonia with his armies. Sargon, to emphasize his legitimate
control over Babylonia as well as Assyria, says that he has been called
to the throne by Ashur and Marduk, but Ashurbanabal goes further even
than his predecessors. He proceeds to Babylon on the occasion of the
formal installation of his brother Shamash-shumukin as viceroy of the
district, enters the temple of Marduk, whom he does not hesitate to call
'the lord of lords,' performs the customary rites, and closes the
ceremonies by a fervent prayer to Marduk for his continued good will and
blessing.[289] The great gods Nergal, Nabu, and Shamash come from their
respective shrines to do homage to Marduk. Ashurbanabal's brother
Shamash-shumukin, when he attempts as governor of Babylon to make
himself independent of his brother, endeavors by means of sacrifices and
other devices to secure the favor of Marduk, well aware that in this way
he will also gain the support of the Babylonians. On another occasion,
incidental to a northern campaign, Ashurbanabal mentions that the day on
which he broke up camp at Damascus was the festival of Marduk,--an
indication that the Babylonian god was in his thoughts, even when he
himself was far away from Babylonia. Esarhaddon and Ashurbanabal, when
approaching the sun-god to obtain an oracle, make mention of Marduk by
the side of Shamash. There are, however, a number of passages in the
Assyrian inscriptions in which when Bel is spoken of, not Marduk but the
old god Bel is meant.


Bel.

Tiglathpileser I. tells us that he rebuilt a temple to Bel in the city
of Ashur, and he qualifies the name of the god by adding the word 'old'
to it. In this way he evidently distinguished the god of Nippur from
Bel-Marduk, similarly as Hammurabi in one place adds Dagan to Bel,[290]
to make it perfectly clear what god he meant. Again, it is Sargon who in
consistent accord with his fondness for displaying his archaeological
tastes, introduces Bel, the 'great mountain,' 'the lord of countries,'
who dwells in E-khar-sag-kurkura, _i.e._, the sacred mountain on which
the gods are born, as participating in the festival that takes place
upon the dedication of the king's palace in Khorsabad. The titles used
by the king are applicable only to the old Bel, but whether he or his
scribes were fully conscious of a differentiation between Bel and
Bel-Marduk, it is difficult to say. Bel is introduced in the inscription
in question[291] immediately after Ashur, and one is therefore inclined
to suspect that Sargon's archaeological knowledge fails him at this
point in speaking of the old Bel, whereas he really meant to invoke the
protection of Bel-Marduk as the chief god of his most important
possession next to Assyria.[292] Besides this, the old Bel is of course
meant, when associated with Anu, as the powers that, together with
Belit, grant victory,[293] or as a member of the old triad, Anu, Bel,
and Ea, whose mention we have seen is as characteristic of the Assyrian
inscriptions as of the Babylonian. Lastly, Sargon calls one of the gates
of his palace after Bel, whom he designates as the one who lays the
foundation of all things. In this case, too, the old Bel is meant.


Belit.

In the case of Belit a curious species of confusion confronts us in the
Assyrian inscriptions. At times Belit appears as the wife of Bel, again
as the consort of Ashur, again as the consort of Ea, and again simply as
a designation of Ishtar.[294] To account for this we must bear in mind,
as has already been pointed out, that just as Bel in the sense of lord
came to be applied merely as a title of the chief god of Babylonia, so
Belit as 'lady' was used in Assyria to designate the chief goddess. This
was, as the case may be, either Ishtar or the pale 'reflection'
associated with Ashur as his consort. Now this Belit, as the wife of
Ashur, absorbs the qualities that distinguish Belit, the wife of
Bel-Marduk. The temple in the city of Ashur, which Tiglathpileser
I.[295] enriches with presents consisting of the images of the deities
vanquished by the king, may in reality have been sacred to the Belit of
Babylonia, but Tiglathpileser, for whom Bel becomes merely a designation
of Marduk, does not feel called upon to pay his devotions to the
Babylonian Sarpanitum, and so converts the old Belit into 'the lofty
wife, beloved of Ashur.' Sargon, on the other hand, who calls one of the
gates of his palace _Belit ilâni_ 'mistress of the gods,' seems to mean
by this, the consort of Ea.[296] Similarly, Ashurbanabal regards Belit
as the wife of Ashur, and himself as the offspring of Ashur and Belit.
At the same time he gives to this Belit the title of 'mother of great
gods,' which of right belongs to the consort of the Babylonian Bel. In
the full pantheon as enumerated by him, Belit occupies a place
immediately behind her consort Ashur. Ashurbanabal, however, goes still
further, and, influenced by the title of 'Belit' as applied to Ishtar,
makes the latter the consort of Ashur. This at least is the case in an
inscription from the temple of Belit at Nineveh,[297] known as
E-mash-mash, and in which Ashurbanabal alternately addresses the goddess
as Belit and as Ishtar, while elsewhere[298] this same Belit, whose seat
is in E-mash-mash, is termed the consort of Ashur. How Ashurbanabal or
his scribes came to this confusing identification we need not stop to
inquire. In part, no doubt, it was due to the general sense of
'goddess,' which Ishtar began to acquire in his days.[299] At all
events, Ashurbanabal's conception marks a contrast to the procedure of
Shalmaneser II., who correctly identifies the mother of the great gods
with the wife of Bel.[300] On the other hand, the confusion that took
place in Ashurbanabal's days is foreshadowed by the title of 'Bêlit
mâti,' _i.e._, 'mistress of the land,' by which Ashurbanabal appears to
designate some other than Ishtar.[301] Lastly, it is interesting to note
that Ashurbanabal recognizes by the side of Belit-Ishtar, the wife of
Ashur, the older Belit, the wife of the Bel of Nippur, to whom, in
association with Anu and Bel, he attributes his victory over the
Arabs.[302]


Sarpanitum.

The consort of Marduk is only incidentally referred to: once by
Sargon,[303] who groups Bel with Sarpanitum and Nabu and Tashmitum, at
the head of the gods of Babylonia; and similarly by Tiglathpileser III.,
on the occasion of his enumerating the chief gods of the Babylonian
pantheon.


Nabu.

The intimate association of Nabu with Marduk in the city of Babylon
leads as a natural consequence to a similar association in Assyria, when
once the Marduk cult had for political reasons become established in the
north. The kings invoke the favor of Bel (meaning Marduk) and Nabu,
especially when dealing with the affairs of Babylonia,[304] as they
invoke Ashur and Ishtar. Just as we have certain kings devoted to Nin-ib
and Shamash by the side of Ashur, so there are others whose special
favorite is Nabu. In the days of Ramman-nirari III. (812-783 B.C.) the
Nabu cult reached its highest point of popularity in Assyria. From the
manner in which the king speaks of the god, one might draw the
conclusion that he attempted to concentrate the whole Assyrian cult upon
that god alone. He erects a temple to the god at Calah, and overwhelms
the deity with a great array of titles. The dedicatory inscription which
the king places on a statue of Nebo closes with the significant words,
'O Posterity! trust in Nabu. Trust in no other god.'[305] Still we must
not press such phrases too hard. Ramman-nirari III. had no intention of
suppressing Ashur worship, for he mentions the god elsewhere, and
assigns to him the same rank as the other kings do, but so much we are
justified in concluding, that next to Ashur and Ishtar he feels most
strongly attached to Nabu. That the Babylonian Nabu is meant, is clear
from such designations as 'the offspring of E-sagila, the favorite of
Bel,' 'he who dwells at E-zida,' which appear among the epithets
bestowed upon the god; and the temple in Calah, which one of the last
kings of Assyria, Ashuretililani,[306] is engaged in improving, bears
the same name E-zida, as Nabu's great temple at Borsippa. We have
already set forth the reasons[307] for the popularity of the Nabu cult
in Assyria. Suffice it to recall that the peculiar character of the god
as the patron of wisdom placed him beyond the reach of any jealousy on
the part of the other members of the pantheon. So Ramman-nirari III.
extols Nabu as the protector of the arts, the all-wise who guides the
stylus of the scribe, and the possessor of wisdom in general. He is not
merely the originator of writing, but the source of all wisdom, and for
this reason he is spoken of as the son of Ea. Attributes of mere brutal
force are rarely assigned to Nabu, but as befits a god of wisdom, mercy,
nobility, and majesty constitute his chief attractions. By virtue of his
wisdom, Sargon calls him 'the clear seer who guides all the gods,' and
when the last king of Assyria--Saracus, as the Greek writers called
him--invokes Nabu as the 'leader of forces,' he appears to have in mind
the heavenly troops rather than earthly armies. Such patrons of learning
as Sargon and Ashurbanabal were naturally fond of parading their
devotion to Nabu. The former significantly calls him the 'writer of
everything,' and as for Ashurbanabal, almost every tablet in the great
literary collection that he made at Nineveh closes with a solemn
invocation to Nabu and his consort Tashmitum, to whom he offers thanks
for having opened his ears to receive wisdom, and who persuaded him to
make the vast literary treasures of the past accessible to his subjects.


Tashmitum.

The consort of Nabu was permitted to share the honors in the temple of
Nabu at Calah, but beyond this and Ashurbanabal's constant association
of Tashmitum with Nabu in the subscript to his tablets, she appears only
when the kings of Assyria coming to Babylonia as they were wont to
do,[308] in order to perform sacrifices, enumerate the chief gods of the
Babylonian pantheon.


Ea.

Ea takes his place in the Assyrian pantheon in the double capacity of
god of wisdom and as a member of the old triad. Ashurnasirbal makes
mention of a sanctuary erected to the honor of Ea in Ashur. A
recollection of the rôle that Ea plays in Babylonian mythology survives
in the titles of 'creator' and 'king of the ocean,' which Shalmaneser
gives him,[309] and of the 'one who opens the fountains' as Ashurbanabal
declares.[310] He is also, as in Babylonia, the one who determines the
fates of mankind. As the one who has a care for the arts, he is the wise
god, just as Nabu, and under various titles, as Nu-gim-mud,[311]
Nin-igi-azag, and Igi-dug-gu,[312] all emphasizing his skill, he is the
artificer who aids the kings in their building operations. The
similarity of the rôles of Nabu and Ea, as gods of wisdom and the arts,
might easily have led to a confusion. Fortunately, the grandiloquent and
all-embracing titles accorded to the former did not alter his character
as essentially the god who presides over the art of writing, while Ea
retains the control over the architectural achievements,--the great
colossi, in the first instance, that guarded the approach of palaces,
the images of the gods in the second, and the temples and palaces in
general as his third function.


Damkina.

Of the consort of Ea, it is sufficient to note that she is occasionally
referred to in the historical texts of the Assyrian period. In the
inscriptions of Sargon she appears under the rather strange title of
'Belit ilâni,' _i.e._, the mistress of the gods.[313] This 'mistress'
cannot be, as might at first blush appear, Ishtar or the old Belit, for
elsewhere[314] Ishtar, Belit, and Belit ilâni occur side by side. Sargon
declares that he owes his wisdom to Ea and Belit ilâni. In naming the
gates of his palace, he again associates Ea with 'the mistress of the
gods,' from which it is clear that the epithet is used of Ea's consort.


Nin-gal.

A sanctuary to the old Babylonian goddess Nin-gal is included by Sargon
among the holy edifices erected by him in his official residence.[315]


Dibharra.

We have pointed out in a previous chapter how faint the dividing line
sometimes becomes between gods and spirits. Among the minor deities,
ranking hardly above demons, is the plague-god, whose name may
provisionally be read Dibbarra.[316] The god plays a rôle in some of the
ancient legends of Babylonia. Remains have been found of a kind of epic
in which Dibbarra is the chief personage.[317] In the historical texts
he is once incidentally mentioned by Ashurbanabal, who in the course of
his campaign against Babylonia[318] describes how the corpses of those
killed by Dibbarra, _i.e._, through hunger and want, filled the streets
of the cities. Evidently Dibbarra here is a mere personification of the
dreadful demon of want that so often follows in the wake of a military
destruction. Still there can be no doubt that at one time he was
regarded as a real deity, and not merely a spirit or demon. Dibbarra is
identified in the theological system of Babylonia with Nergal.


Damku, Sharru-ilu, and Sha-nit(?)-ka.

In an interesting passage recounting the restoration of the city
Magganubba, Sargon[319] says that he prayed to Damku, _i.e._, 'grace,'
Sharru-ilu, _i.e._, 'king-god,' and Sha-nit(?)-ka. The two former he
calls the judges of mankind. That Damku and Sharru-ilu are titles and
not names is evident from the meaning of the words, but at present it
is impossible to say what gods are meant.[320] Perhaps that these are
the translations of names of the old deities of Magganubba. We have
at least one other example of a foreign deity introduced into the
Assyrian pantheon. At Dur-ilu, a town lying near the Elamitic
frontier, there flourished the cult of Ka-di,[321] evidently a god
imported into the Assyrian pantheon from Elam or some other eastern
district. Sargon's scribes are fond of translating foreign names and
words, and they may have done so in this case, and thus added two new
deities to the glorious pantheon protecting their royal chief. As for
Sha-nit(?)-ka,[322] were it not that she is called the mistress of
Nineveh, one would also put her down as a foreign goddess. In view of
this, however, it may be that Sha-nit(?)-ka is an ideographic
designation of Ishtar.

Before leaving the subject, a word needs to be said regarding the
relation between the active Assyrian pantheon and the long lists of
deities prepared by the schoolmen of Babylonia and Assyria. Reference
has already been made to these lists.[323] They vary in character. Some
of them furnish an index of the various names under which a god was
known,[324] or the titles assigned to him. These names and titles are
frequently indications that some great god has absorbed the attributes
of smaller ones, whose independence was in this way destroyed. Other
lists[325] are simple enumerations of local deities, and when to these
names some indications are added, as to the locality to which the gods
belong,[326] their importance is correspondingly increased. There can be
no doubt that most of these lists were prepared on the basis of the
occurrence of these gods in texts, and it seems most plausible to
conclude that the texts in question were of a religious character.
References to local cults are numerous in the incantations which form a
considerable proportion of the religious literature, while in hymns and
prayers, gods are often referred to by their titles instead of their
names. In some respects, however, these lists of gods are still obscure.
It is often difficult to determine whether we are dealing with gods or
spirits, and the origin and meaning of many of the names and epithets
assigned to gods are similarly involved in doubt. Use has been made of
these lists in determining the character of the gods included in this
survey of the Babylonian and Assyrian pantheon, but it would be
manifestly precarious to make additions to this pantheon on the basis of
the lists alone. Despite the tendency towards centralization of divine
power in a limited number of gods, local cults, no doubt, continued to
enjoy some importance in Assyria as well as Babylonia; but, in the
present stage of our knowledge, we have no means of determining either
the number or the character of these local cults. While, therefore, a
complete treatment of the pantheon of Babylonia and Assyria would
include all the minor local cults, we may feel quite certain that these
local cults furnish few, if any, additions to the concepts connected
with these gods which we have discussed. I have therefore contented
myself with some illustrations, in each of the three divisions under
which the pantheon has been surveyed, of some of the minor deities
chosen, such as actually occur in historical, commercial, or religious
texts. For the Assyrian pantheon, we may place Nin-gal and most of the
consorts of the gods among the minor gods, and also such deities as
Ka-di, Khani, Gaga, Dibbarra, Sherua, and Azag-sir, who are merely
incidentally referred to.[327] These illustrations suffice for placing
clearly before us the distinction to be made in the pantheon between
gods whose worship was actively carried on, and those who occupy more of
a theoretical position in the system perfected by the schoolmen,
standing under the political and social influences of their days. With
this distinction clearly impressed upon us, we will be prepared for such
modifications of our views of the Babylonian-Assyrian pantheon as
further researches and discoveries may render necessary.

FOOTNOTES:

[222] Semitic alphabet.

[223] A form of Nebo, according to Meissner-Rost, _Bauinschriften
Sanherib's_, p. 105.

[224] See Meissner-Rost, _ib._ p. 108.

[225] As _e.g._, En-e-in-pal (Meissner-Rost, _ib._ p. 76). Sherua and
Arag-sir (_ib._ p. 101). For further lists of deities, see pp. 234, 238.

[226] The Assyrian kings are fond of mentioning foreign deities, and of
adding them to their pantheon. In his annals (VR. col. vi. ll. 30-43)
Ashurbanabal gives a list of twenty Elamitic deities captured by him.

[227] Tiele (_Babyl.-Assyr. Geschichte_, p. 519) suggests Ea.

[228] An interesting example of this tendency is furnished by a tablet
published by T. G. Pinches (_Journal of the Victoria Institute_, xxviii.
8-10), in which the name Marduk is treated almost as a generic term for
deity. Nergal is called 'the Marduk of warfare'; Nebo, 'the Marduk of
earthly possessions'; Ninib, 'the Marduk of strength'; En-lil, 'the
Marduk of sovereignty'; and so on, in a long enumeration, the gods are
regarded as so many forms of Marduk. Pinches' conclusion that the list
points to monotheistic beliefs is, however, unwarranted. The list only
illustrates a tendency towards a centralization of divine powers in
Marduk, that accompanies the political centralization of the period.

[229] See below, pp. 228, 229.

[230] So the gods of the Assyrian pantheon are generally termed in the
inscriptions of the kings.

[231] See below, p. 195.

[232] See below, p. 220.

[233] A description of this symbol occurs in a text of Sennacherib
(Meissner-Rost, _Bauinschriften Sanherib's_, p. 94). The symbol itself
is found on sculptured slabs and on seal cylinders.

[234] So Sennacherib still speaks of Images of Ashur, and of the great
gods erected by him (Meissner-Rost, _Bauinschriften Sanherib's_, p. 94).

[235] See Stevenson, "The Feather and the Wing in Mythology," _Oriental
Studies of the Phila. Oriental Club_, pp. 236-239.

[236] _Babyl.-Assyr. Geschichte_, p. 533.

[237] For the sake of convenience it is customary to distinguish between
Ashur the god, and the country by writing the latter with a double
_sh_--Ashshur.

[238] _Geschichte_, p. 533.

[239] See Jensen _Zeits. für Assyr._ i. 1 _seq._ and Delitzsch, _Das
Babylonische Weltschöpfungsepos_, p. 94.

[240] By the assimilation of the _n_ to the following consonant.

[241] See above, pp. 173, 175.

[242] Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 275.

[243] The combination of religious supremacy with political power, which
characterizes the social state of ancient Babylonia and Assyria, gives
to the title _patesi_ a double significance. In Babylonia, moreover, it
acquires the force of vassal-king.

[244] The full list is Anu, Ashur, Shamash, Ramman, and Ishtar.

[245] More precisely Arba-ilu, signifying 'city of the fourfold
divinity' or 'four-god' city. _Cf._ the Palestinian form Kiryath-Arba,
"four city,"--originally perhaps, likewise, a city of four gods, rather
than four roads or four quarters, as commonly explained.

[246] IR. 14, l. 86.

[247] _Babyl.-Assyr. Geschichte_, p. 85.

[248] See above, p. 83.

[249] See above, pp. 83, 84.

[250] Cylinder B, col. v. ll. 30 _seq._; elsewhere (Rassam Cylinder,
col. ii. ll. 115 _seq._) he prays to Ashur and Ishtar.

[251] Rassam Cylinder, col. viii. l. 92. Elsewhere, Cylinder B, col. v.
17, Ishtar is called the daughter of Bel. This, however, must be an
error; either Sin must be read for Bel, or _khirat_ (consort) for
_marat_ (daughter).

[252] See above, p. 151.

[253] See Barton, "The Semitic Ishtar Cult" (_Hebraica_, x. 9-12).

[254] _I.e._, _c._ 1800 B.C.

[255] See p. 154.

[256] See above, p. 149.

[257] See below, p. 237.

[258] A king of Nippur (_c._ 2500 B.C.) bears the name Ishme-Dagan.

[259] See above, p. 154; Tiele, _Geschichte der Religion im Alterthum_,
i. 172.

[260] See Hommel, _Geschichte_, p. 490. How much earlier Samsi-Ramman I.
reigned is not known--perhaps only 40 or 50 years.

[261] The _d_ of Dagon would be represented by _d_ in cuneiform writing.

[262] See p. 154.

[263] An eponym in his days bears the name Daganbelusur.

[264] In the El-Amarna tablets (_c._ 1400 B.C.) the governors of the
Palestinian states generally address their Egyptian lord as 'my sun'.

[265] Exactly of what nature we do not know. The Assyrian word used,
Cylinder, l. 43, is obscure.

[266] See p. 160.

[267] IR. 8, col. i. 85. See above, p. 166.

[268] Ashurnasirbal calls him so in his annals, _e.g._, col. iii. 1.
130.

[269] Bavian Inscription, ll. 48-50. See also Meissner-Rost,
_Bauinschriften Sanherib's_, p. 102. The reading of the name of the city
is not certain. It signifies 'city of palaces.'

[270] _c._ 1120 B.C.

[271] II Rawlinson, 57, 33.

[272] So Tiglathpileser associates Ashur and Nin-ib, as those 'who
fulfill his desire.'

[273] Ashurnasirbal's father bears the name Tukulti-Ninib.

[274] See above, pp. 151, 206.

[275] One of the gates of Sargon's palace is called after Nin-ib.

[276] See above, p. 57.

[277] See above, pp. 92-94.

[278] _Kosmologie_, pp. 457-475.

[279] He is also called the offspring of a goddess, Ku-tu-shar, but this
reference is not clear. See Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 468, note 5.

[280] In a religious text he is addressed as 'holy, holy, holy.'

[281] Balawat, col. v. ll. 4, 5.

[282] Kar = fortress.

[283] See Sayce, _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 438, and Jensen's important
note, _Kosmologie_, pp. 492-494.

[284] See pp. 124, 125.

[285] Cylinder, l. 61.

[286] See pp. 117 _seq._

[287] We may therefore expect, some day, to come across the name Marduk
in Assyrian texts earlier than the ninth century.

[288] See p. 131.

[289] So also Shalmaneser II., Obelisk, l. 179, unless Marduk here is an
error for Ramman, _cf._ l. 175.

[290] See above, p. 146.

[291] The so-called _Prunkinschrift_, ll. 174 _seq._

[292] Note the frequent use of Ashur and Bel for Assyria and Babylonia.

[293] Ashurbanabal, Rassam Cylinder, col ix. ll. 76, 77.

[294] See above, p. 205.

[295] IR. II. col. iv. ll. 34, 35.

[296] See below, pp. 231, 237.

[297] Rawlinson, ii. 66.

[298] Rassam Cylinder, col. x. ll. 25-27.

[299] See Tiele, _Babyl. Assyr. Geschichte_, p. 127.

[300] Obelisk, l. 52.

[301] Annals, col. ii. l. 135.

[302] Rassam Cylinder, col. x. l. 75.

[303] _Prunkinschrift_, l. 143.

[304] Esarhaddon, IR. 46, col. ii. l. 48; Rawlinson, iii. 16, col. iii.
l. 24.

[305] IR. 35, no. 2, l. 12.

[306] IR. 8, no. 3, ll. 5 _seq._

[307] See above, p. 126.

[308] _E.g._, Tiglathpileser III., Nimrud inscription (Layard, pl. 17,
l. 12).

[309] Obelisk, l. 5.

[310] Rassam Cylinder, col. i. l. 45.

[311] Delitzsch (_Das Babylonische Weltschöpfungsepos_, p. 99) questions
whether Nu-gim-mud (or Nu-dim-mud) was originally a designation of Ea.
Nu-dim-mud being an epithet might, of course, be applied to other gods,
but there can be no doubt that it was used to designate more
particularly Ea as the artificer. See my remarks, pp. 138, 177 _seq._

[312] Meissner-Rost, _Bauinscriften Sanherib's_, p. 105.

[313] Cylinder, l. 48, ideographically as Nin-men-an-na, 'lady of the
heavenly crown.' In the parallel passage, however, as Lyon
(_Sargontexte_, p. 71) points out, _Belit ilâni_ is used.

[314] Cylinder, l. 70.

[315] Cylinder, l. 68.

[316] Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 445, reads the name _Gira_. See pp.
527-28.

[317] See the author's work on _A Fragment of the Dibbarra Epic_. (Ginn
& Co., Boston, 1891).

[318] Rassam Cylinder, col. lv. ll. 79 _seq._

[319] Cylinder, ll. 44-53.

[320] Delitzsch's supposition (see Lyon, _Sargontexte_, p. 71) that
Sharru-ilu is Izdubar is untenable.

[321] _Babyl. Chronicle_, col. iii. l. 44.

[322] May also be read Sha-ush-ka.

[323] See above, pp. 13, 170.

[324] _E.g._, IIR. 58, no. 5, titles of Ea; IIR. 60, no. 2, titles of
Nabu.

[325] _E.g._, IIR. 60, no. 1.

[326] _E.g._, IIIR. 66, lists of gods worshipped in various temples of
Assyria and also of Babylonia.

[327] See pp. 189, 238.




CHAPTER XIII.

THE TRIAD AND THE COMBINED INVOCATION OF DEITIES.


The Assyrian kings, in imitation of the example set by their Babylonian
predecessors, are fond of introducing into their inscriptions, a series
of gods under whose protection they place themselves. They do not do
this as the earlier Babylonian rulers did, to emphasize the extent of
their jurisdiction by adding to their pantheon the deities of towns or
districts vanquished by them. The day of independent states being over,
the importance of merely local deities had ceased. The theological
system evolved in Babylonia in combination with the popular instinct had
led to a selection out of the mass of deities of a limited number, each
with tolerably definite attributes, and who together embraced all the
forces under whose power mankind stood. Of these deities again, as we
have seen, some acquired greater favor in Assyria than others, but for
all that, the kings especially of the later period of Assyrian history
were fond of including in an enumeration of the pantheon, even those who
had no special significance. Policy and the meaningless imitation of
earlier examples played an equal part in thus giving to the lists an
aspect of formality that deprives them of the impression that they might
otherwise make.

The combined invocations are found usually at the beginning and at the
end of the inscriptions--at the beginning for invoking the aid of the
gods, at the close for invoking their curses upon those who would
attempt to destroy the ambitious monuments set up by the kings. Often,
however, the narrative is interrupted for the purpose of making
acknowledgment to a larger or smaller series of gods for victory,
granted or hoped for. In these combined references a separate place
belongs to the triad, Anu, Bel, and Ea. While not occupying the
prominent position they have in Babylonian inscriptions, still the kings
often mention Anu, Bel, and Ea separately, or Anu and Bel alone,
ascribing victory to them, putting them down as the originators of the
calendar system, and declaring themselves to have been nominated by them
to rule over Assyria. Sargon, with his antiquarian zeal, appears to have
made an effort to reinstate the triad as a special group in the
pantheon. In general, however, they take their place with other gods. So
Ramman-nirari I. invokes the curse of Ashur, Anu, Bel, Ea, and Ishtar,
together with the Igigi and Anunnaki; but, what is more important,
already at an early period the triad disappears altogether from the
pantheon, except for the artificial attempts of Sargon to revive
interest in them. In both the longer and shorter lists of gods
enumerated by the kings from the time of Tiglathpileser, the triad is
conspicuous for its absence.

As for the other gods, it is to some extent a matter of caprice which
ones happen to be invoked, though just as frequently we see the motive
for selecting certain ones of the pantheon. Thus, when proceeding to
Babylonia for war or sacrifices, the gods of Babylonia are invoked,
either Marduk and Nabu alone, as the chief gods, or Bel (_i.e._,
Marduk), Sarpanitum, Nabu, Tashmitum, Nanâ, Nergal, with Ashur, or Ashur
and Marduk, or Marduk and Nabu in combination with Ashur. At other times
it depends upon the gods to whom certain kings may be especially
attached, or with whom they may have special dealings in their
inscriptions. Thus Tiglathpileser I., when speaking of the temple of Anu
and Ramman, contents himself with invoking these two gods alone at the
close of his great inscription. Elsewhere, when referring to the special
gods of his city, he combines Anu and Ramman with Ishtar; but again, for
no special reason, his prayer is addressed to Ashur, Shamash, and
Ramman. The pantheon of Ramman-nirari I. consists either of the longer
one above enumerated, or of Anu, Ashur, Shamash, Ramman, and Ishtar. As
we proceed down the centuries, the formal lists at the beginning of
inscriptions have a tendency to grow larger. Ashurnasirbal's pantheon
consists of Bel and Nin-ib, Anu and Dagan, Sin, Anu, Ramman, and, of
course, Ashur, though on special occasions, as when speaking of his
achievements in the chase, he contents himself with a mention of Nin-ib
and Nergal. He loves, too, to vary the style of his inscriptions by
naming various groups of deities in pairs: now Ashur and Shamash, again
Ashur and Nin-ib, or Ashur and Bel; then Shamash and Ramman, or a group
of three deities, Ashur, Shamash, and Ramman, or Sin, Anu, and Ramman.
His successors imitate this example, though each one chooses his own
combinations. Shalmaneser II.'s pantheon embraces Ashur, Anu, Bel, Ea,
Sin, Shamash, Nin-ib, Nergal, Nusku, Belit, and Ishtar--eleven in all.
Sargon's practice varies. The best list is furnished by his account of
the eight gates of his palace and of two walls, which he names after the
gods in the following order:[328]

  Shamash, who grants victory.       } As the names for the
  Ramman, who brings superabundance. } eastern gates.
  Bel, who lays foundations.         } For the northern gates.
  Belit, who brings fertility.       }
  Anu, who blesses handiwork.                     } For the western
  Ishtar, who causes the inhabitants to flourish. } gates.
  Ea, who unlocks fountains.                      } For the southern
                                                  } gates.
  Belit ilâni,[329] who increases the offspring.  }
  Ashur, who permits the king to grow old, and protects the troops.--For
  the inner wall.
  Nin-ib, who lays the foundations of the city.--For the outer wall.

The order here is dictated by the directions of the gates. Elsewhere he
sets up the group Ea, Sin, Shamash, Nabu, Ramman, Nin-ib, and their
consorts.

Sennacherib's fuller group consists of Ashur, Sin, Shamash, Bel (_i.e._,
Marduk), Nabu, Nergal, Ishtar of Nineveh, and Ishtar of Arbela--only
eight. But at the close of one of his building inscriptions[330] he
invokes some twenty deities, adding to these eight, Nusku, Khani, Gaga,
Sherua, Nin-gal, a god Azag-sir, and Nin-ib under three different forms;
but it is evident that most of these are added to give effect and
solemnity. They do not form part of the active pantheon. His successor,
Esarhaddon, sets up various groups. At one time he enumerates Ashur,
Sin, Shamash, Nabu, Marduk, Ishtar of Nineveh, Ishtar of Arbela; at
another he prefers different combinations of these gods. Ashurbanabal is
more consistent than most of the Assyrian rulers, and furnishes at the
same time the best list. While he, too, frequently mentions only a few
deities, grouping three or four together, his longer series consists,
with but one or two exceptions, invariably of the following, and who
always occur in the same order: Ashur, Belit, Sin, Shamash, Ramman, Bel
(_i.e._, Marduk), Nabu, Ishtar of Nineveh, the queen of Kidmuru, Ishtar
of Arbela, Nin-ib, Nergal, and Nusku--thirteen in all. Of these, as we
have seen, only some were actively worshipped at all times in Assyria;
as for the others, the popularity of their cult varied from age to age,
now being actively carried on under the stimulus afforded by the
erection or improvement of an edifice sacred to the god, and again
falling into comparative insignificance; but formally, at least, all
these gods were regarded at all times as forming part of the pantheon of
the 'great gods.' The testimony of Ashurbanabal thus becomes valuable as
a proof that to the latest days of the Assyrian monarchy, the attachment
to these gods was still strong enough to merit the formal
acknowledgments of the king to them on all occasions, and that through
their combined aid the glorious achievements of the past and present
were attained.

FOOTNOTES:

[328] Cylinder, ll. 67-73.

[329] Ea's consort; see above, p. 231.

[330] Meissner-Rost, _Bauinschriften Sanherib's_, p. 99.




CHAPTER XIV.

THE NEO-BABYLONIAN PERIOD.


When upon the fall of the Assyrian empire, in 606 B.C., Babylonia
regained her full measure of independence, Marduk once more obtained
undisputed sway at the head of the pantheon. True, so far as Babylonia
was concerned, Marduk was always the acknowledged head, but during the
period that Assyria held Babylonia in a more or less rigid form of
subjection it was inevitable that Ashur should lower the prestige of
Marduk. When the kings of Assyria paid their respects to Marduk, it was
always as second in rank to Ashur; and, what is more, they claimed
Marduk and the other gods of Babylonia as their own, and as upholders of
their own sovereignty. When the kings feel impelled to invade the
southern districts, they not only claim to be under the protection of
the Babylonian gods, but they carry these gods with them into the land
to be invaded. 'Bel and the gods of Akkad leave Assyria and go to
Babylonia' is the official term in which a campaign against Babylonia is
described.[331] In the eyes of the Babylonians such a haughty assumption
on the part of the Assyrians must have been regarded as humiliating to
Marduk, Nabu, and their associates.

The state of affairs changed when Nebopolassar at the end of the seventh
century once more claimed independent control over Babylonia. Marduk
triumphs over Ashur. He is once more the great god, lord of gods,
supreme king of the Igigi, the father of the Anunnaki--all titles that
the Assyrians were fond of heaping upon Ashur. One feels the anxiety of
Nebopolassar to emphasize the new order of things by attributing once
more to Marduk what was formerly claimed for Ashur. The successor of
Nebopolassar, the great Nebuchadnezzar, continues the policy of his
father. He neglects no opportunity for exalting Marduk as the king, the
creator, the leader of the gods, the lord of everything, the merciful
one, the light of the gods, the all-wise. Nabu shares the honors with
Marduk. Nebopolassar, indeed, accords to Nabu an equal share, and he
does not hesitate at times to place the name Nabu before that of
Marduk.[332] He does not speak of Nabu as the son of Marduk, and seems
to be at particular pains to emphasize the equality of Nabu with Marduk.
In this respect Nebopolassar presents a contrast to Hammurabi, who, it
will be recalled, made an attempt to suppress the Nabu cult.[333]
Nebopolassar, however, does not go to the extent of endeavoring to make
Nabu supersede Marduk. He contents himself with manifesting his
partiality for the former, and it is probably no accident that both his
official name and that of his son contain the god Nabu as one of their
elements, and not Marduk. One is inclined to suspect that this
popularity of the Nabu cult is a trace of Assyrian influence. But
whatever may have been Nebopolassar's intention in exalting Nabu at the
cost of Marduk, Nebuchadnezzar restores the old relationship between the
two. For him Nabu is again merely the son of Marduk, and he honors Nabu
in this capacity. Like the Assyrian Nabu, the god places the sceptre in
the king's hands, but he is, after all, only the supreme messenger of
Marduk. In the closing days of the Babylonian monarchy a more serious
attempt, it would appear, was made to displace Marduk. Nabonnedos formed
the design of replacing both Marduk and Nabu by the cult of Shamash. He
incurs the ill-will of the priests by paying much more attention to the
restoration of the various Shamash temples in Babylonia than would
appear to be consistent with devotion to Marduk. Cyrus, therefore, in
his conquest of Babylonia, sets up the claim of being the savior of
Marduk's honor.[334]

The Neo-Babylonian period may properly be designated as a religious age.
The rulers, anxious to manifest their gratitude to the gods, and
prompted in part, no doubt, by the desire to emulate the glorious
architectural achievements of the Assyrian monarchs, devote themselves
assiduously to the improvement of the great temples of the city of
Babylon, and to the restoration or enlargement of those scattered
throughout the country. Nebopolassar sets the example in this respect,
which is considerably improved upon by Nebuchadnezzar. Over forty
temples and shrines are mentioned in the latter's inscriptions as having
been improved, enlarged, or restored by him; and the last king of
Babylonia, Nabonnedos, endeavors to continue this royal policy of
temple-building. In this respect the Neo-Babylonian rulers present a
contrast to the Assyrian rulers, who were much more concerned in rearing
grand edifices for themselves. While the gods were not neglected in
Assyria, one hears much more of the magnificent palaces erected by the
kings than of temples and shrines. In fact, as compared with Babylonia,
Assyria was poor in the number of her temples. The chief sanctuaries to
which the Neo-Babylonian kings devoted themselves were, in the first
instance, E-sagila of Babylon and E-zida of Borsippa. Nebopolassar and
his successors are fond of giving themselves the title of 'beautifier of
E-Sagila and E-zida.' In these great temples sacred to Marduk and Nebo,
there were shrines to Sarpanitum, Tashmitum, Nusku, Ea and others, which
also engaged the energies of the rulers.

After Babylon came the old sanctuaries in the ancient religious centers
of the south,--the temples to Shamash and his consort at Sippar and
Larsa, the temples to Sin at Ur and Harran, to the old Ishtar or Anunit
at Agade, to Nanâ in Erech. Thirdly, the cities of Babylon and Borsippa,
to which the kings, especially Nebuchadnezzar, are deeply attached, were
enriched with many sanctuaries more or less imposing, sacred to a
variety of deities. So Shamash, Sin, Nin-makh,--_i.e._, the great lady,
or Ishtar,--Nin-khar-shag, Gula, also appearing as Nin-Karrak,[335] have
their temples in Babylon, while Ramman has one in Borsippa, and Gula no
less than three sanctuaries--perhaps only small chapels--in Borsippa.
Fourthly, there are sanctuaries of minor importance in other quarters of
Babylonia. Among these we find mention of the improvement of sanctuaries
to the local deity of Marad, whom Nebuchadnezzar simply calls
Lugal-Marada, _i.e._, king of Marad, to Bel-sarbi, or Shar-sarbi, in
Baz,--perhaps a title of Nergal,--to Nin-ib in Dilbat, to Ramman in
Kumari(?).

Most of these sanctuaries are referred to in the inscriptions of
Nebuchadnezzar--a circumstance which, in connection with the many other
gods whom he invokes on various occasions, points to a great revival of
ancient cults in his days. Some of these cults had never reached any
degree of importance prior to his time. Hence it happens that we come
across deities in his inscriptions of whom no mention is found
elsewhere. It is probable that such gods were purely local deities, some
of them, if not many, being at the same time personifications of the
powers or phenomena of nature, while others may be familiar gods,
masquerading under strange attributes. Unfortunately most of these gods
are written in ideographic fashion, so that we cannot be certain of the
reading of their names. Among these are Nin-lil-anna, a goddess called
by Nebuchadnezzar 'the lady who loves me,'[336] and Tur-lil-en,[337] a
god who is described as 'breaking the weapons of enemies.' As for
Bel-sarbi, or Shar-sarbi, the god of Baz,[338] they appear to be titles
rather than names. Dibbarra, Nergal and his consort Laz, and Zamama are
also included in the pantheon of Nebuchadnezzar.

In regard to none of these deities do we find any conceptions different
from those developed in the period of Hammurabi, any more than in the
conceptions of those gods who occupy a more prominent place in the
pantheon. Shamash is the judge, Sin is the wise one, Ramman the
thunderer, and so on throughout the list. It was not a period favorable
to the production of new religious thought, but only to the more or less
artificial revival of old cults.

       *       *       *       *       *

With the conquest of Babylonia by Cyrus in 539 B.C., we reach the close
of the period to be embraced in a history of the Babylonian-Assyrian
religion. True, the Marduk and Nabu cults were upheld by the Persian
rulers, and the policy of the latter in not disturbing the religious
status was continued by the Greeks when they in turn succeeded the
Persians in their control of Babylonia, but the presence of strange
civilizations with totally different religious trains of thought was
bound to affect the character of the old faith, and in time to threaten
its existence. At all events, it ceases to have any interest for us.
There are no further lines of development upon which it enters. The
period of decay, of slow but sure decay, has set in. The cuneiform
writing continues to be used till almost the beginning of our era, and
so the religious cults draw out their existence to a late period; but as
the writing and the civilization yield before new forces that entirely
alter the character of Oriental culture, so also the religion, after
sinking ever lower into the bogs of superstition, disappears, much as
the canals and little streams of the Euphrates valley, through the
neglect which settled over the country, become lost in the
death-breeding swamps and marshes.

FOOTNOTES:

[331] Babylonian Chronicle B, col. iv. ll. 34, 35.

[332] _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, II. 72, col. i. ll. 2, 3.

[333] See above, p. 127.

[334] See a paper by Tiele, on "Cyrus and the Babylonian Religion," in
the _Proceedings of the Amsterdam Academy_, 1896.

[335] For the identity of Nin-Karrak and Gula, see the 'Shurpu'
Incantation Series, iv. l. 86 (ed. Zimmern), where the former is called
the 'great physician,'--the epithet peculiar to Gula.

[336] East India House Inscription, col. iv. l. 44.

[337] VR. 34, col. ii. l. 26, or simply Tur-lil (East India House
Inscription, col. iv. l. 49, not Tur-e, as Winckler, _Keils Bibl._ 3, 2,
18, reads).

[338] _I.e._, king or lord of Sarbi. Pognon (_Les Inscriptions
Babyloniennes de Wadl Brissa_), p. 46, is of the opinion that _sarbi_ is
the palm, but he fails to bring sufficient proof, and his theory is
improbable. The stem _sarabu_ means to burn, and the "fiery lord" is
certainly an epithet belonging to some solar deity.




CHAPTER XV.

THE RELIGIOUS LITERATURE OF BABYLONIA.


The pantheon of a religion presents us with the external phases of the
religion in question. In order to penetrate further towards the core of
the religion, and to see it at its best, the religious thought as
manifested in the national literature constitutes our most valuable
guide. The beginnings of Babylonian literature are enveloped in
obscurity. We have seen that we are justified in passing beyond the
period of Hammurabi[339] for these beginnings, but exactly when and
precisely how the literary spirit first manifested itself in Babylonia
will probably remain for a long time, if not for always, a matter of
conjecture. The great political and religious centers of Babylonia, such
as Ur, Sippar, Agade, Eridu, Nippur, Uruk, perhaps also Lagash, and
later on Babylon, formed the foci of literary activity, as they were the
starting-points of commercial enterprise. This intimate connection of
religion with literature left its impress upon all branches into which
the Babylonian literature was in the course of time differentiated. In a
certain sense all the literature of Babylonia is religious. Even the
legal formulas, as embodied in the so-called contract tablets, have a
religious tinge. The priests being the scribes, a contract of any kind
between two or more parties was a religious compact. The oath which
accompanied the compact involved an invocation of the gods. The decree
of the judges in a disputed suit was confirmed by an appeal to the gods.
The terms in which the parties bound themselves consisted largely of
religious phrases, and finally the dating of the tablet often contained
a reference to some religious festival or to some event of religious
import--such as the building of a sanctuary. Science, so far as it
existed in Babylonia, never loosened the leading-strings that bound it
to the prevailing religious thought. The observation of the stars was
carried on under the belief of the supposed influence exerted by the
heavenly bodies upon the fate of man; and surprising as we find the
development of astronomical calculations and forecasts to be,
mathematics does not pass beyond the limits of astrology. Medicine was
likewise the concern of the priests. Disease was a divine infliction
supposed to be due to the direct presence in the body, or to the hidden
influence, of some pernicious spirit. The cure was effected by the
exorcising of the troublesome spirit through prescribed formulas of
supposed power, accompanied by symbolical acts. There is indeed no
branch of human knowledge which so persistently retains its connection
with religious beliefs among all peoples of antiquity as the one which
to-day is regarded as resting solely upon a materialistic basis. As a
consequence the Babylonians, although they made some progress in
medicinal methods, and more especially in medical diagnosis, never
dissociated medicinal remedies from the appeal to the gods. The recital
of formulas was supposed to secure by their magic force the
effectiveness of the medical potions that were offered to the sufferer.

As for the historical texts, the preceding chapters have illustrated how
full they are of religious allusions, how at every turn we meet with the
influence exerted by the priests as the composers of these texts. Almost
all occurrences are given a religious coloring. That these texts furnish
us with such valuable material, and such a quantity of it, is indeed to
be traced directly to the fact that the historical literature is also
the direct production of the religious leaders and guides of the people,
acting at the command of rulers, who were desirous of emphasizing their
dependence upon the gods of the country, and who made this dependence
the basis of the authority they exerted.

Such being the general aspect of Babylonian literature, it is not always
possible to draw a sharp line separating religious productions from such
as may properly be termed secular. For example, the zodiacal system of
the Babylonians, which we shall have occasion to discuss, although
presenting a scientific aspect, is in reality an outcome of the
religious thought; and so at other points it is necessary to pass over
into the region of secular thought for illustrations of the religious
beliefs. Bearing this in mind, we may set up a fivefold division of the
religious literature of the Babylonians in the stricter sense: (1) the
magical texts, (2) the hymns and prayers, (3) omens and forecasts, (4)
the cosmology, (5) epics and legends. It will be apparent that the first
three divisions represent a practical part of the literature, while the
two latter are of a more purely literary character. The magical texts,
as well as the hymns and prayers and omens, we can well imagine were
produced as circumstances called them forth, and one can also understand
how they should, at an early age, have been committed to writing. The
incantations serving the practical purpose already referred to of
securing a control over the spirit, it will be readily seen that such as
had demonstrated their effectiveness would become popular. The desire
would arise to preserve them for future generations. With that natural
tendency of loose custom to become fixed law, these incantations would
come to be permanently associated with certain temples. Rituals would
thus arise. The incantation would be committed to writing so that one
generation of priests might be certain of furnishing orthodox
instruction to the other; and, once written, they would form part of the
temple archives, finding a place in these archives by the side of the
contract tablets, for which the sacred edifices of the country also
served as depositories. The large quantity of incantation texts that
have been found in Ashurbanabal's library,[340] as well as the
variations and contrasts they present when compared with one another,
are probably due to the various sources whence the scribes of the king,
who were sent to the libraries of the south, collected their material.
It is only reasonable to suppose that each great temple acquired in the
course of time a ritual of its own, which, while perhaps not differing
in any essential points from that introduced in another place, yet
deviated from it sufficiently to impart to it a character of its own. In
the case of some of the texts that have been preserved, it is still
possible to determine through certain traits that they exhibit in what
religious center they were produced. With considerable more guarantee of
accuracy can this be done in the case of the hymns and prayers.
Addressed as the latter were to certain deities, it stands to reason
that they were written for use in the temples sacred to those deities,
or, if not to be used, at least composed in honor of certain sanctuaries
that contained the images of the deities thus exalted. Again, in the
historical inscriptions of the Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods,
prayers are introduced, and we are as a general thing expressly told on
what occasion they were composed and in what sanctuary they were
uttered. We may therefore conclude that those which have been preserved
independently also served a practical purpose, and were written, not
merely for certain occasions, but for certain places. The practical
purpose served by texts containing omens and forecasts derived from the
observation of the planets and stars, from monstrosities--human and
animal--from strange occurrences, accidents, and the like, is too
obvious to require demonstration. But while duly emphasizing the
practical purpose that gave rise to the incantation texts, the hymns,
the prayers and omens, we must be careful not to press this point too
far. The rituals of the various temples once being fixed, the impulse to
literary composition would still go on in an age marked by intellectual
activity. The practical purpose would be followed by the pure love of
composition. The attachment to certain sanctuaries or certain deities
would inspire earnest and gifted priests to further efforts.
Accordingly, while we cannot be certain that among the actual remains of
magical texts and hymns we may not have specimens that belong to this
class, there is no reason to question that such must have been produced.
The guarantee for this hypothesis is furnished by the compositions that
reflect the cosmological beliefs, the epics and legends that form the
second half of the religious productions of Babylonia.

Speculation regarding the origin of the universe belongs to an early
period in the development of culture. There are few people, however
primitive their culture, who are not attracted by the spirit of
curiosity to seek for some solution of the mysteries which they daily
witness; but the systematization of these speculations does not take
place until a body of men arises among a people capable of giving to the
popular fancies a logical sequence, or the approach at least to a
rational interpretation. This process, which resulted in producing in
Babylonia compositions that unfold a system of creation, is one of long
duration. It proceeds under the influence of the intellectual movements
that manifest themselves from time to time with the attendant result
that, as the conceptions become more definite and more elaborate, they
reflect more accurately the aspirations of the various generations
engaged in bringing these conceptions to their final form. When finally
these beliefs and speculations are committed to writing, it is done in
part for the purpose of assuring them a greater degree of permanence,
and in part to establish more definitely the doctrines developed in the
schools--to define, as it were, the norm of theological and
philosophical thought.

In examining, therefore, the cosmological speculations of the
Babylonians as they appear in the literary productions, we must
carefully distinguish between those portions which are the productions
of popular fancy, and therefore old, and those parts which give evidence
of having been worked out in the schools. In a general way, also, we
must distinguish between the contents and the form given to the
speculations in question. We shall see in due time that a certain amount
of historical tradition, however dimmed, has entered into the views
evolved in Babylonia regarding the origin of things, inasmuch as the
science of origins included for the Babylonians the beginning, not
merely of gods, men, animals, and plants, but also of cities and of
civilization in general. Still more pronounced is the historical spirit
in the case of the epics and legends that here, as everywhere else, grew
to even larger proportions, and were modified even after they were
finally committed to writing. The great heroes of the past do not perish
from the memory of a people, nor does the recollection of great events
entirely pass away. In proportion as the traditions of the past become
dimmed, the more easily do they lend themselves to a blending with
popular myths regarding the phenomena of nature. To this material
popularly produced, a literary shape would be given through the same
medium that remodeled the popular cosmological speculations. The task
would have a more purely literary aspect than that of systematizing the
current views regarding the origin and order of things, since it would
be free from any doctrinal tendency. The chief motive that would prompt
the _literati_ to thus collect the stories of favorite heroes and the
traditions and the legends of the past would be--in addition, perhaps,
to the pure pleasure of composition--the desire to preserve the stories
for future generations, while a minor factor that may have entered into
consideration would be the pedagogical one of adding to the material for
study that might engage the attention and thoughts of the young
aspirants to sacred and secular lore. While the ultimate aim of learning
in Babylonia remained for all times a practical one, namely, the ability
to act as a scribe or to serve in the cult, to render judicial decisions
or to observe the movements of the stars, to interpret the signs of
nature and the like, it was inevitable that through the intellectual
activity thus evoked there would arise a spirit of a love of learning
for learning's sake, and at all events a fondness for literary pursuits
independent of any purely practical purposes served by such pursuits.

In this way we may account for the rise of the several divisions of the
religious literature of Babylonia. Before turning to a detailed
exposition of each of these divisions, it only remains to emphasize the
minor part taken in all these literary labors by the Assyrians. The
traditions embodied in the cosmological productions, the epics and
legends of Babylonia, are no doubt as much the property of the Assyrians
as of their southern cousins, just as the conceptions underlying the
incantation texts and the hymns and prayers and omens, though produced
in the south, are on the whole identical with those current in the
north. Whatever differences we have discovered between the phases of the
Babylonian-Assyrian religion, as manifested in the north and in the
south, are not of a character to affect the questions and views involved
in the religious literature. The stamp given to the literary products in
this field, taken as a whole, is distinctly Babylonian. It is the spirit
of the south that breathes through almost all the religious texts that
have as yet been discovered. Only in some of the prayers and oracles and
omens that are inserted in the historical inscriptions of Assyrian
kings, or have been transmitted independently, do we recognize the work
of Assyrian _literati_, imbued with a spirit peculiar to Assyria.
Perhaps, too, in the final shape given to the tales connected with the
creation of the gods and of men we may detect an Assyrian influence on
Babylonian thought, some concession made at a period of Assyrian
supremacy to certain religious conceptions peculiar to the north. But
such influences are of an indirect character, and we may accept the
statement of Ashurbanabal as literally true that the literature
collected by him is a copy of what was found in the great literary
archives of the south--and not only found, but produced there. In
imitation of the example set by the south, schools were of a certainty
established in Nineveh, Arbela, and elsewhere for the education of
priests, scribes, and judges; but we have no evidence to show that they
ever developed to the point of becoming intellectually independent of
Babylonian _models_, except perhaps in minor particulars that need not
enter into our calculations. This relationship between the intellectual
life of Babylonia and Assyria finds its illustration and proof, not
merely in the religious literature, but in the religious art and cult
which, as we shall see, like the literature, bear the distinct impress
of their southern origin, though modified in passing from the south to
the north.

FOOTNOTES:

[339] See above, pp. 72, 114, 133 _seq._

[340] See pp. 12-14.




CHAPTER XVI.

THE MAGICAL TEXTS.


Turning to the first subdivision of Babylonian religious literature, we
find remains sufficient to justify us in concluding that there must have
been produced a vast number of texts containing formulas and directions
for securing a control over the spirits which were supposed at all times
to be able to exercise a certain amount of power over men. By virtue of
the aim served by these productions we may group them under the head of
magical texts, or incantations. We have already indicated the manner in
which these incantations grew into more or less rigid temple rituals.
This growth accounts for the fact that the incantations generally framed
in by ceremonial directions, prayers, and reflections, were combined
into a continuous series (or volume, as we would say) of varying length,
covering nine, ten, a dozen, twenty tablets or more. It has been
generally assumed that these incantation texts constitute the oldest
division of the religious literature of the Babylonians. The assertion
in an unqualified form is hardly accurate, for the incantation texts,
such as they lie before us, give evidence of having been submitted to
the influences of an age much later than the one in which their
substance was produced. Conceptions have been carried into them that
were originally absent, and a form given to them that obliges us to
distinguish between the underlying concepts, and the manner in which
these concepts have been combined with views that reflect a later and,
in many respects, a more advanced period. The incantation texts are
certainly no older than texts furnishing omens. Some of the incantation
texts indeed may not be any older than portions of the creation epic,
and in the latter, as in other parts of the religious literature, there
are elements as ancient and as primitive as anything to be found in the
omens or incantations. So much, however, is true, that the incantations
represent the earliest ritual proper to the Babylonian cult, and that
the conceptions underlying this ritual are the emanation of popular
thought, or, if you choose, of popular fancy of a most primitive
character. It is also true that, on the whole, the incantation texts
retain more traces of primitive popular thought than other divisions of
the religious literature with the exception of the omens. The remodeling
to which they were subjected did not destroy their original character to
the extent that might have been expected--a circumstance due in the
first instance to the persistency of the beliefs that called these texts
forth.

Many of the texts containing incantations were found by the modern
explorers in so mutilated a condition, that one can hardly hazard any
generalizations as to the system followed in putting the incantations
together. From the fact, however, that in so many instances the
incantations form a series of longer or shorter extent, we may, for the
present at least, conclude that the serial form was the method generally
followed; and at all events, if not the general method, certainly a
favorite one. Deviating from the ordinary custom of calling the series
according to the opening line of the first tablet, the incantation texts
were given a distinct title, which was either descriptive or chosen with
reference to their general contents. So one series which covered at
least sixteen tablets was known by the very natural name of the 'evil
demon'; the incantations that it contained being intended as a
protection against various classes of demons. Another is known as the
series of 'head sickness,' and which deals, though not exclusively, with
various forms of derangements having their seat in the brain. It covered
no less than nine tablets. Two others bear names that are almost
synonymous,--"Shurpu" and "Maklu," both signifying 'burning,' and so
called from the chief topic dealt with in them, the burning of images of
the sorcerers, and the incantations to be recited in connection with
this symbolical act. The "Maklu" series embraced eight tablets and
contained, according to Tallqvist's calculations,[341] originally about
1,550 lines, or upwards of 9,000 words. The "Shurpu" series, although
embracing nine tablets, appears to have been somewhat shorter. In view
of the extensive character of these series we are justified in speaking
of incantation 'rituals.' The texts were evidently prepared with a
practical purpose in view. The efficacy of certain formulas having been
demonstrated, it was obviously of importance that their exact form
should be preserved for future reference. But a given formula was
effective only for a given case, or at most for certain correlated
cases, and accordingly it became necessary to collect as many formulas
as possible to cover all emergencies. The priests, acting as exorcisers,
would be the ones interested in making such collections, and we may
assume, as already suggested, that each temple would develop a
collection of its own,--an incantation code that served as a guide for
its priests. The natural tendency would be for these codes to increase
from generation to generation, perhaps not rapidly, but steadily. New
cases not as yet provided for would arise, and new formulas with new
instructions would be produced; or the exorcisers at a certain temple
would learn of remedies tried elsewhere, and would embody them in their
own special code. In short, the growth of these incantation 'rituals'
was probably similar to the manner in which, on the basis of actual
practice, religious codes grew up around the sanctuaries of ancient
Israel,--a process that terminated in the production of the various
codes and rituals constituting the legal documents embodied in the
Pentateuch.

The prominence given to Ea and to his favorite seat, the city of Eridu,
in the incantations suggests the theory that many of our texts are to be
ultimately traced to the temple of Ea, that once stood at Eridu. In that
case an additional proof would be furnished of the great antiquity of
the use of incantations in Babylonia. We must sharply distinguish
however, as already emphasized, between the origin and the present form
of the rituals. Again, those parts of a ritual in which Gibil, or Nusku,
appears prominently would most naturally be produced by priests
connected with a temple sacred to the one or the other of these gods.
The practice of incantation, however, being common to all parts of
Babylonia, we can hardly suppose that any temple should have existed
which did not have its exorcising formulas. In the combination of these
formulas into a ritual, due consideration would naturally be had to the
special gods invoked, the obvious result of which would be to produce
the long lists of deities that are often embodied in a single
incantation. The details of this process can of course no longer be
discerned, but the inevitable tendency would be towards increasing
complications. The effort would be made to collect everything, and from
all known quarters. Hence the heterogeneous elements to be detected in
the texts, and which, while adding to their interest, also increase the
difficulty of their interpretation. In consequence of the presence of
such heterogeneous elements, it is difficult to determine within an
incantation series any guiding principles that prompted the collectors.
Still we can often distinguish large groups in a series that belong
together. So we have whole series of addresses to the fire-god ending
with incantations, and again a series of descriptions of the group of
seven spirits serving a similar purpose as introductions to
incantations, but we cannot see on what grounds the transition from one
subject to the other takes place. Indeed the transitions are generally
marked by their abruptness.

The only legitimate inference is that the main purpose of the collectors
of incantation texts was to exhaust the subject so far as lay in their
power. They included in their codes as much as possible. The exorciser
would have no difficulty in threading his way through the complicated
mass. He would select the division appropriate to the case before him
without much concern of what preceded or followed in the text. Moreover,
these divisions in the texts were clearly marked by dividing lines,
still to be seen on the clay tablets. These divisions correspond so
completely to divisions in the subject-matter that the purely practical
purpose they served can hardly be called into question, while at the
same time they furnish additional proof for the compiled character of
the texts.

As for the date of the composition of the texts, the union of the
Babylonian states under Hammurabi, with its necessary result, the
supremacy of Marduk, that finds its reflection in the texts, furnishes
us with a terminus _a quo_ beyond which we need not proceed for _final_
editing. On the other hand, there are indications in the language which
warrant us in not passing below 2000 B.C. as the period when many of the
incantation texts received their present form, and the editions were
completed from which many centuries afterwards the Assyrian scribes
prepared their copies for their royal masters.

There is, of course, no reason for assuming that all our texts should be
of one age, or that the copying and, in part, the editing should not
have gone on continually. Necessity for further copies would arise with
the steady growth of the temples. Priests would be engaged in making
copies for themselves, either for their edification as a pious work, or
for real use; and accordingly, in fixing upon any date for the texts,
one can hardly do more than assign certain broad limits within which the
texts, so far as their present contents are concerned, may have been
completed. The _copies_ themselves may of course belong to a much later
period without, for that reason, being more recent productions.

Attention must also be directed to the so-called 'bilingual' form, in
which many of the incantation texts are edited; each line being first
written in the ideographic style, and then followed by a transliteration
into the phonetic style.[342] The use of the ideographic style is a
survival of the ancient period when all texts were written in this
manner, and the conservatism attaching to all things religious accounts
for the continuation of the ideographic style in the religious rituals
down to the latest period, beyond the time when even according to those
who see in the ideographic style a language distinct from Babylonian,
this supposed non-Semitic tongue was no longer spoken by the people, and
merely artificially maintained, like the Latin of the Middle Ages. The
frequent lack of correspondence in minor points between the ideographic
style and the phonetic transliteration shows that the latter was
intended merely as a version, as a guide and aid to the understanding of
the 'conservative' method of writing. It was not necessary for a
transliteration to be accurate, whereas, in the case of a translation,
the greatest care would naturally be taken to preserve the original
sacred text with all nicety and accuracy, since upon accuracy and nicety
the whole efficacy of the formulas rested. The redaction of the
incantation texts in the double style must not be regarded as a
necessary indication of high antiquity, but only as a proof that the
oldest incantation texts were written in the ideographic style, and that
for this reason the custom was continued down to the latest period. On
the other hand, the addition of the transliteration points to a period
when the old style could no longer be read by the priests with facility
without some guide, and incidentally proves again that the texts have
gone through an editing process. But in the course of time, additions to
the ritual were made, written in the phonetic style; and then it would
happen, as a concession to religious conservatism, that the text would
be translated back into the ideographic form. We would then have a
"bilingual" text, consisting of Babylonian and an artificial
"Sumero-Akkadian." That incantations were also composed in pure
Babylonian without reference to any "Sumero-Akkadian" original is
conclusively shown by the metrical traits frequently introduced. Many of
the sections--by no means all--can be divided into regular stanzas of
four, six, or eight lines, and frequently to the stanza is added a line
which forms what Professor D. H. Müller[343] calls the "response." The
same metrical traits being found in other parts of the Babylonian
literature,--so, _e.g._, in the creation epic,--their occurrence in the
incantation texts is of course not accidental. When, therefore, we come
across a ritual as the "Maklu" series, written exclusively in the
phonetic style, and giving evidence of being in part a metrical
composition, we are justified in assuming this to have been the original
form. Again, in the case of another series,--the "Shurpu," in part
Babylonian, in part bilingual,[344]--since the Babylonian section shows
the metrical form, it is likely that the ideographic style represents a
transliteration of a phonetic, or pure Babylonian, original.

The chief value of the incantation texts lies, naturally, in the insight
they afford into the popular beliefs. As among other nations, so among
the Babylonians, the use of certain formulas to secure release from
ills, pains, and evils of any kind, either actual or portending, rests
upon the theory that the accidents and misfortunes to which man is heir
are due largely to the influence of more or less powerful spirits or
demons, acting independently or at the command of higher powers,--the
gods.

Through the incantation rituals we are enabled to specify the traits
popularly ascribed to these demons and the means employed to rid oneself
of their baneful grasp.


Demons.

The demons were of various kinds and of various grades of power. The
names of many of them, as _utukku_, _shedu_, _alu_, _gallu_, point to
'strength' and 'greatness' as their main attribute; other names, as
_lilu_, 'night-spirit,' and the feminine form _lilitu_, are indicative
of the moment chosen by them for their work; while again, names like
_ekimmu_, the 'seizer,' _akhkhazu_, the 'capturer,' _rabisu_, 'the one
that lies in wait,' _labartu_, 'the oppressor,' and _labasu_, 'the
overthrower,' show the aim that the demons have in view. Putting these
names together, we may form a general idea of the conceptions connected
with the demons. They lurk in hidden or remote places, in graves, in the
shadow of ruins, on the tops of mountains, in the wilderness. Their
favorite time of activity is at dead of night. They glide noiselessly
like serpents, entering houses through holes and crevices. They are
powerful, but their power is directed solely towards evil. They take
firm hold of their victims and torture them mercilessly.

To these demons all manner of evil is ascribed. Their presence was felt
in the destructive winds that swept the land. The pestilent fevers that
rise out of the marshes of the Euphrates valley and the diseases bred by
the humid heat of summer were alike traced to demons lurking in the
soil. Some of these diseases, moreover, were personified, as _Namtar_,
the demon of 'plague,' and _Ashakku_, the demon of 'wasting disease.'
But the petty annoyances that disturb the peace of man--a sudden fall,
an unlucky word, a headache, petty quarrels, and the like--were also due
to the instigation of the demons; while insanity and the stirring up of
the passions--love, hatred, and jealousy--were in a special sense
indicative of the presence and power of the demons. Men and women stood
in constant danger of them. Even the animals were not safe from their
attacks. They drive the birds out of their nests, strike down lambs and
bulls. It was impossible to forestall their attacks. They enter a man's
dwelling, they wander through the streets, they make their way into food
and drink. There is no place, however small, which they cannot invade,
and none, however large, that they cannot fill. In a text which
furnishes the sacred formulas by means of which one can get rid of the
demoniac influence, a description is given of the demons which may serve
as an illustration of what has just been said. The incantation is
directed against a variety of the demons:[345]

  The _utukku_[346] of the field and the _utukku_ of the mountain,
  The _utukku_ of the sea and the one that lurks in graves,
  The evil _shedu_, the shining _alu_.
  The evil wind, the terrible wind,
  That sets one's hair on end.

Against these the spirits of heaven and earth are invoked. The text
proceeds:

  The _utukku_ that seizes hold of a man,
  The _ekimmu_ that seizes hold of a man,
  The _ekimmu_ that works evil,
  The _utukku_ that works evil.

And after invoking against these demons, likewise, the spirits of heaven
and earth, the text passes on to an enumeration of a long list of
physical ills: sickness of the entrails, of the heart, of the head, of
the stomach, of the kidneys, of the limbs and muscles, of the skin, and
of the senses, which are all ascribed to the influence of the demons.

Apart from the demons that are naught but the personification of certain
diseases, it does not appear that the demons were limited in their power
to one specific kind of action. In other words, sharp distinctions
between the demons do not appear to have been drawn. As appears from the
extracts above translated, the _utukku_, _shedu_, _alu_, and _ekimmu_
were grouped together, and hardly regarded as anything more than
descriptive epithets of a general class of demons. At the same time it
appears likely that at one time they were differentiated with a greater
degree of preciseness. So the _ekimmu_ appears to be the shadowy demon
that hovers around graves, a species of ghost or vampire that attacks
people in the dead of night and lays them prostrate. _Lilu_ and _lilitu_
are the spirits that flit by in the night. Of a specific character
likewise are the conceptions connected with a demon known as _ardat
lili_, 'maid of the night,' a strange female 'will-o'-the-wisp,' who
approaches men, arouses their passions, but does not permit a
satisfaction of them. Great importance being attached by the Babylonians
to dreams, the belief in a 'maid of the night' was probably due to the
unchecked play of the imagination during the hours of sleep. Bad dreams
came at the instigation of the demons, and such a demon as the _rabisu_
or the _labartu_ appears to have been especially associated with the
horrible sensations aroused by a 'nightmare.'[347] Again the _utukku_ is
represented at times as attacking the neck of man; the _gallu_ attacks
the hand, the _ekimmu_ the loins, the _alu_ the breast. But these
distinctions count for little in the texts. _Utukku_ becomes a general
name for demon, and _gallu_, _alu_, and _shedu_ are either used
synonymously with _utukku_ or thrown together with the latter in a
manner that clearly shows the general identity of the conceptions
ultimately connected with them. The same is the case with the _rabisu_
and _gallu_, with the _labartu_, _akhkhazu_, and _ekimmu_.

The demons were always given some shape, animal or human, for it was a
necessary corollary of the stage of religious thought to which the
belief in demons belongs, that the demon must not only be somewhere,
though invisible to mankind, but also _in_ something that manifests
life. Among animals, those calculated to inspire terror by their
mysterious movements were chosen, as serpents appearing and disappearing
with startling suddenness, or ugly scorpions, against whom it was
difficult to protect oneself, or the fabulous monsters with which graves
and pestiferous spots were peopled. Regions difficult of access--the
desert, the deep waters, the high mountains--were the favorite haunts of
the demons. Some of these demons were frequently pictured in the
boundary stones between fields, in order to emphasize the curses hurled
upon the head of him who should trespass on the lawful rights of the
owner of the land.[348] It is to such demons embodied in living form
that epithets such as the 'seizer,' the 'one that lurks,' and the like
apply with peculiar aptness. In a tablet belonging to a long series of
incantations,[349] we find references to various animals--the serpent,
the scorpion, monsters--that are regarded as the embodiment of demons.

In the distinctively religious art, the evil spirits are often pictured
as ugly monsters that were to inspire terror by their very aspect.
Depicted on the monuments, singly or in groups,[350] the shape of wild
animals was given to the head, while the remainder of the body was
suggestive of a human form. With gaping mouths and armed with some
weapon, they stand ready to make an attack. The Assyrian kings, up to
the latest period, acknowledged the power of the demons by making huge
representations of them, which they placed at the approaches, entrances,
and divisions of their temples and palaces, in the hope of thus securing
their protection. The great bulls and lions with human heads--so
familiar to every one--are but another form of the same idea. These
colossal statues were actually known by the name _shedu_, which we have
seen is one of the general terms for 'demon.' But as a general thing,
this personal phase of the demon's existence is lost sight of. Even
though embodied in animal form, the demons could make themselves
invisible to man; and since most of their actions were performed in
secret, so that people were totally at their mercy, the differentiation
of the demons became a factor of minor importance. With so large a
quantity of demons at command, it was difficult to hit upon the one who
was manifesting himself by some evil at any given moment. Accordingly,
instead of a single mention, a number or a group were enumerated, and
the magic formulas pronounced against them in concert. We have one such
group of seven to whom quite a number of references are found in the
incantation texts. A section in one of these texts gives a vivid
description of them:[351]

  Seven are they, they are seven,
  In the subterranean deep, they are seven,
  Perched (?) in the sky, they are seven,
  In a section of the subterranean deep they were reared,
  They are neither male nor are they female,
  They are destructive whirlwinds,
  They have no wife, nor do they beget offspring.
  Compassion and mercy they do not know,
  Prayer and supplication they do not hear,
  Horses bred on the mountains, are they
  Hostile to Ea[352] are they,
  Powerful ones among the gods are they.
  To work mischief in the street they settle themselves in the highway.
  Evil are they, they are evil,
  Seven are they, they are seven, seven, and again seven[353] are they.

These seven spirits, who are elsewhere compared to various animals, have
power even to bewitch the gods. The eclipse of the moon was attributed
to their baneful influence. The number seven is probably not to be taken
literally. As among so many nations,[354] seven had a sacred
significance for the Babylonians; but largely, if not solely, for the
reason, as I venture to think, because seven was a large number. In the
Old Testament seven is similarly used to designate a large number. A
group of seven spirits, accordingly, meant no more than a miscellaneous
mass of spirits, and we may therefore regard this 'song of the seven' as
a general characterization of the demons who, according to this view,
appear to move together in groups rather than singly. Elsewhere[355] we
are told of this same group of spirits 'that they were begotten in the
mountain of sunset,' _i.e._, in the west, 'and were reared in the
mountain of sunrise,' _i.e._, the east; 'that they dwell in the hollow
of the earth, and that they are proclaimed on the mountain tops.'
Evidently a description of this kind is intended to emphasize the
universal presence of the spirits. There is no place where they are not
found; and when we are furthermore told (apparently in contradiction to
what has just been said) 'that neither in heaven nor earth is their name
pronounced (_i.e._, are they known to be), that among the gods of the
earth (_i.e._, the pantheon) they are not recognized, that neither in
heaven nor earth do they exist,' this is but the reverse of the picture
intended to illustrate the capability of the spirits to disappear
without leaving any trace of their presence. They are everywhere and yet
invisible. They come and they go, and no one knows their place. Nothing
is proof against their approach. Of all the demons it is true, as of
this group, that they slip through bolts and doorposts and sockets,
gliding, as we are told, 'like snakes.' Such are the demons against whom
man must seek to protect himself.

The relationship of the demons or spirits to the gods of the pantheon
has been touched upon in a previous chapter.[356] It is sufficient here
to emphasize the fact that the dividing line between the two becomes at
times exceedingly faint. A deity, we have seen, is a spirit writ large;
but often the demon assumes dimensions and is clothed with power that
makes him 'little short of divine.' Strength is the attribute of the
demons as it is the chief feature of the gods. Both classes of powers
influence man's career. The names of the demons are preceded by the same
determinative that is used for the gods. As a matter of fact, many of
the spirits were originally worshipped as local deities in some
restricted territory, which, losing its importance, bequeaths the name
of its protective genius to posterity. In the realm of religious belief,
as in the domain of nature, absolute loss of something that once had
existence does not take place. Something remains. Hundreds of old local
gods of Babylonia thus survived in the literature as spirits or demons.
The tendency towards making a selection out of the great mass of gods
goes hand in hand with the multiplication of spirits that might, as
occasion presented itself, be invoked. In general, the larger affairs of
life were consigned into the hands of the gods; the petty
annoyances--accidents, pains, ill luck, and the like--were put down to
the account of the spirits. The gods were, on the whole, favorably
disposed towards man. They were angry at times, they sent punishments,
but they could be appeased. The spirits were, on the whole, hostile; and
although the Babylonians also invoked favorable and kind spirits, when a
spirit was hostile there was only one method of ridding oneself of the
pernicious influence,--to drive it out by means of formulas, and with
the help of a priest acting as exorciser.


Sorcerers and Sorceresses.

A widespread and apparently very ancient belief among the Babylonians
and Assyrians was that certain human beings possessed demoniac power,
and could exercise it for evil purposes over whomsoever they pleased.
This belief may have originated in the abnormal appearance presented by
certain individuals in consequence of physical deformities or
peculiarities. The uncanny impression made by dwarfs, persons with
misshapen limbs, with a strange look in their eyes, and, above all, the
insane would give rise to the view that some people, for the very reason
of their variation from the normal type, possessed peculiar powers. But
by the side of such as were distinguished by bodily defects, those who
outranked their fellows by virtue of their prowess or of natural gifts,
by keenness of intellect or cunning, would also be supposed to have
received their power through some demoniac source. With the giant and
the artificer there would thus be associated ideas of sorcery and
witchcraft, as with dwarfs, the deformed, and insane. The sorcerers
might be either male or female, but, for reasons which are hard to
fathom, the preference was given to females. Accordingly, it happens
that among the Babylonians, as in the Middle Ages, the witch appears
more frequently than the male sorcerer. The witches have all the powers
of the demons, and in the incantation texts the two are often thrown
together. Just as the demons, so the witches take away the breath of
man, defile his food and drink, or close up his mouth. They are able to
penetrate into the body of men, and thus produce similar physical and
mental disturbances as the animalic demons. In view of this close
relationship between witches and demons, we are justified in regarding
the two as varying aspects of one and the same belief. The witch appears
to be merely the person through whom the hitherto 'invisible' demon has
chosen to manifest itself. From being identical in character with the
demons, the witches reached a stage which made them superior to the
former. They could not only do everything that the demons did, but they
could also control the latter, whereas the demons had no power over
witches. Witches could invoke the demons at their will and bring such
persons as they chose within the demons' power. Various means were at
their disposal for bringing this about. The glance of a witch's 'evil
eye' was supposed to have great power.[357] Terrible were the sufferings
of the one on whom a witch threw the glance that kept the person under
her spell. The 'evil word,' as it was called, and by which the use of
certain magic formulas was meant, was another effective means at her
command for inflicting all manner of evil. Magical potions, too,
compounded of poisonous weeds, appear to have been prepared by them, and
which, entering the body of those whom they desired to punish, had a
disastrous effect. Such means might be denominated as direct. There were
others indirect which were even more effective, and which rested upon
the principle commonly known as 'sympathetic magic.'[358] Under the
notion that the symbolical acts of the sorcerers would have their effect
upon the one to be bewitched, the male sorcerer or the witch, as the
case might be, would tie knots in a rope. Repeating certain formulas
with each fresh knot, the witch would in this way symbolically strangle
the victim, seal his mouth, wrack his limbs, tear his entrails, and the
like.

Still more popular was the making of an image of the desired victim of
clay or pitch, honey, fat, or other soft material,[359] and either by
burning it inflict physical tortures upon the person represented, or by
undertaking various symbolical acts with it, such as burying it among
the dead, placing it in a coffin, casting it into a pit or into a
fountain, hiding it in an inaccessible place, placing it in spots that
had a peculiar significance, as the doorposts, the threshold, under the
arch of gates, would prognosticate in this way a fate corresponding to
one of these acts for the unfortunate victim.


The Exorcisers.

As a protection against the demons and witches, small images of some of
the protecting deities were placed at the entrances to houses, and
amulets of various kinds were carried about the person. Tablets, too,
were hung up in the house,--probably at the entrance,--on which extracts
from the religious texts were inscribed. These texts by virtue of their
sacred character assured protection against the entrance of demons.[360]
But when once a person had come under the baneful power of the demons,
recourse was had to a professional class of exorcisers, who acted as
mediators between the victims and the gods to whom the ultimate appeal
for help was made. These exorcisers were of course priests, and at an
early period of Babylonian culture it must have been one of the main
functions of priests to combat the influence of evil spirits. It was for
this purpose chiefly that the people came to the temples, and in so far
we are justified in regarding incantation formulas as belonging to the
oldest portion of the Babylonian temple rituals. In the course of time,
as the temples in the great religious centers developed into large
establishments, the priests were divided into classes, each with special
functions assigned to them. Some were concerned with the sacrifices,
others presided over the oracles, others were set aside for the night
and day watches which were observed in the temple, and it is likely that
the scribes formed a class by themselves. To this age of differentiation
in priestly functions belongs the special class who may be regarded as
the forerunners of the eastern _magi_ or magicians, and who by powers
and methods peculiar to them could ward off the dangerous attacks of the
demons and witches. The means employed by them may in general be
described as forming the complement to those used by the witches,--the
reverse side of the picture,--only that they were supposed to be
effective against sorcerers, witches, and demons alike. Against the
incantation formulas of the witches, incantations of superior force were
prescribed that might serve to overcome the baneful influence of the
former. The symbolical tying of knots was offset by symbolical
loosening, accompanied by formulas that might effect the gradual release
of the victim from the meshes of both the witches and the demons; or the
hoped-for release was symbolized by the peeling of the several skins of
an onion. Corresponding to the images made by the witches, the
exorcising priests advised the making of counter images of the witches,
and by a symbolical burning, accompanied by certain ceremonies and
conciliatory gifts to the gods, hoped to destroy the witches themselves.
Since, moreover, the favorite time chosen by the demons and witches for
their manifestations was the night, the three divisions of the
nights--evening, midnight, and dawn--that correspond to the temple
watches were frequently selected as the time for the incantations and
the symbolical acts. The address was often made to the gods of night. A
series of incantation formulas begins:

  I call upon you, gods of the night,
  With you I call upon the night, the veiled bride,[361]
  I call at evening, midnight, and at dawn.

The formulas themselves, as we shall see, are characterized by their
large number rather than by any elements that they have in common. At
times they constitute a direct appeal to some god or gods, to some
particular spirit, or to the associated spirits of heaven and earth,
together with a direct indication of what is desired. An incantation
addressed to Nusku, the god of fire, closes:

  Fire-god, mighty and lofty one of the gods,
  Who dost overpower the wicked and the hostile,
  Overpower them (the witches) so that I be not destroyed.
  Let me thy servant live, let me
  unharmed stand before thee,
  Thou art my god, thou art my lord,
  Thou art my judge, thou art my helper,
  Thou art my avenger.

Preceding the direct appeal, there is usually a recital more or less
detailed of the woes with which one is afflicted. The victim tells of
the pains which torture him. Says one bewitched:

  I stand upright, and cannot lie down,
  neither night nor day. The witches have filled my
  mouth with their knots.
  With the aid of _upuntu_ weed,[362]
  they have stuffed up my mouth.
  The water that I drink have they diminished,
  My joy is changed to pain, my pleasure to sorrow.

This recital, which is often wearisome by its length, may or may not end
in a direct appeal to some god or gods. The narrative of woes, however,
is merely introductory to the incantation itself. To prescribe the
formula to be used to the one appealing for help, is the special
function of the priest acting as exorciser. He recites the formula,
which is then repeated by the communicant.

Instead of an appeal to the gods for help, the incantation often
embodies threats hurled in the name of the gods at the demons or witches
in case they do not release their victim. Such incantations appear to
derive their power chiefly through the personage of the exorciser, who
believes himself to be able to control the evil spirits. So in one case,
after the sufferer has poured out his troubles, the exorciser replies,
threatening the witches with the same evils that they have
inflicted:[363]

  They have used all kinds of charms
  to entwine me as with ropes,
  to catch me as in a cage,
  to tie me as with cords,
  to overpower me as in a net,
  to twist me as with a sling,
  to tear me as a fabric,
  to fill me with dirty water as that which runs down a wall (?)
  to throw me down as a wall.

At this point the exorciser takes up the thread and declares:

  But I by command of Marduk, the lord of charms,
  by Marduk, the master of bewitchment,
  Both the male and female witch
  as with ropes I will entwine,
  as in a cage I will catch,
  as with cords I will tie,
  as in a net I will overpower,
  as in a sling I will twist,
  as a fabric I will tear,
  with dirty water as from a wall I will fill,
  as a wall throw them down.

Accompanying these threats, the actions indicated were symbolically
performed by the exorciser on effigies of the witches made, in this
case, of bitumen covered with pitch.

Corresponding again to the potions prepared by the witches, the priests
prepared draughts compounded of various weeds and herbs that were given
to the victim, or concoctions that were poured over his body. This
constituted the medicinal phase of the priest's labors, and marks the
connection between magic and medicine. Naturally such herbs and weeds
were chosen as through experience had proved effective.


The Gods of the Incantation Texts.

A feature of the incantation texts is the appeal to the gods, which is
seldom, if ever, wanting. Just as the kings sought, by the enumeration
of a large pantheon, to secure the protection of as large a number of
powers as possible, so the priests endeavored to strengthen their magic
formulas by including the mention of all the chief and a varying number
of the minor deities. This invocation of groups of deities, as the
invocation of groups of spirits, became more or less conventional, so
much so that, instead of mentioning the gods individually, the scribe
would content himself with an indication, at the proper point, of the
number of gods to be appealed to,--six, ten, fifteen, as the case may
be, to as many as fifty.[364] Precisely what gods he had in mind we are
no longer in a position to know, but no doubt the chief members of the
pantheon were included in the first place. Lists of these deities are
often added. The superior triad, Anu, Bel, and Ea, head the list, at
times accompanied by their consorts, at times standing alone. The second
class of triads, Sin, Shamash, and Ramman, follow, and then the other
great gods, Nin-ib, Marduk, Nergal, Nusku, and Gibil; and finally the
chief goddesses are added, notably Ishtar, Nin-karrak, or Gula, and Bau.

But besides the chief deities, an exceedingly large number of minor ones
are found interspersed through the incantation texts. Some are well
known, as Nin-girsu, Zamama, and Papsukal. Many of them are found in
other branches of the religious literature or in invocations attached to
historical texts, commemorative of some work undertaken and completed by
the kings; but a large proportion of these powers, not often
distinguishable from mere spirits, only appear once in the literary
remains of Babylonia. It is manifestly impossible, under such
circumstances, to specify their traits. In most cases, indeed, the
phonetic reading is unknown or uncertain. While a considerable
proportion may be put down as local gods, enjoying an independent,
albeit obscure, existence, at least an equal number will turn out to be
mere epithets of gods already known. In all cases where the god's name
actually appears as an epithet, we may be certain that such is the case.
So when a god is called simply _Dainu_, _i.e._, Judge, there can be
little doubt that Shamash, the sun-god, is meant; a god, 'great
mountain,' is none other than Bel; and similarly, such names as
'merciful,' 'hearer of prayer,' 'conqueror of enemy' are manifestly
titles belonging to certain well-known deities, and used much as among
the Greeks the gods were often referred to by the traits, physical or
moral, that distinguished them. As for the residue, who are independent
deities, while of course our knowledge of the Babylonian religion would
be increased did we know more of them than their names, it is not likely
that the worship of these gods, nor the conceptions connected with them,
involved any new principle. A mere enumeration would of course be of
little use. Moreover, such an enumeration would not be exhaustive, for
new deities are found in almost every additional text that is published.
Already this list counts considerably over two hundred. At most, such an
enumeration would merely illustrate what we already know,--the
exceedingly large number of local cults that once existed in Babylonia
and Assyria, and disappeared without leaving any trace but the more or
less accidental preservation of the name of the deity, who was once
regarded as the patron of the place. Lastly it is to be noted that,
besides gods, stars are invoked, as well as rivers, temples, and even
towns,--in short, anything that has sacred associations.

On a different level from the gods enumerated in groups stand those
deities who are introduced into the incantation texts at essential
points individually and for a special reason. Such deities are
comparatively few,--hardly more than half a dozen. These gods may be
called the gods of the incantation texts _par excellence_. Their help is
essential to ensure the effectiveness of the exorciser's task. They
stand in close and direct connection with the troubles from which relief
is prayed for. For physical ills, they act as healers. If the evil for
which the individual or the country suffers is due to some natural
phenomena,--an eclipse of the moon, of which people stood in great
terror, or a deluge or a famine,--the moon-god, the storm-god, some
phase of the sun-deity, or an agricultural god would naturally be
implored; while in a general way the heads of the pantheon, Marduk in
Babylonia and Ashur in Assyria, come in for a large share of attention.

As already intimated in a previous chapter,[365] the god who plays
perhaps the most prominent rôle in the incantation texts is Ea. He
occupies this rank primarily by virtue of his being the god of humanity;
but another factor which enters into consideration, though in an
indirect fashion, is his character as a water-god. Water, being one of
the means of purification frequently referred to in the texts, acquires
a symbolical significance among the Babylonians, as among so many other
nations. Ea, therefore, as the water-god of the ancient sacred town,
Eridu, acquires additional popularity through this circumstance. The
titles that he receives in the texts emphasize his power to heal and
protect. He is the great physician who knows all secret sources whence
healing can be obtained for the maladies and ills caused by the demons
and sorcerers. He is therefore in a peculiar sense 'the lord of the
fates' of mankind, the chief exorciser, the all-wise magician of the
gods, at whose command and under whose protection, the priest performs
his symbolical acts. Not only does humanity turn to Ea: the gods, too,
appeal to him in their distress. The eclipse of the moon was regarded by
the popular faith as a sort of bewitchment of the great orb through the
seven evil spirits. All the heavenly bodies are affected by such an
event. Anu is powerless. It is only through Ea that Sin is released,
just as though he were a human individual. But Ea is rarely approached
directly. At his side stands his son Marduk, who acts as a mediator.
Marduk listens to the petition addressed to him by the exorcising priest
on behalf of the victim, and carries the word to Father Ea. The latter,
after first declaring Marduk to be his equal in knowledge, proceeds to
dictate the cure. Marduk, accordingly, is given the same titles as his
father, Ea. He, too, is the lord of life, the master of the exorcising
art, the chief magician among the gods.

The importance thus given to Marduk is an indication of a later period,
and must be taken in connection with the supremacy accorded to the god
after the union of the Babylonian states. Originally, Ea is the god to
whom the direct appeal was made. Marduk is an afterthought that points
to the remodeling of the ancient texts after the period of Hammurabi.
Damkina, the consort of Ea, is occasionally invoked, but it is
significant that Sarpanitum, the consort of Marduk, is rarely mentioned.

The burning of images and witches, or of other objects, being so
frequently resorted to as a means of destroying baneful influences, the
god of fire occupies a rank hardly secondary to Ea. Here, too, the
mystical element involved in the use of fire adds to the effectiveness
of the method. Water and fire are the two great sources of symbolical
purification that we meet with in both primitive and advanced rituals of
the past.[366] The fire-god appears in the texts under the double form
of Gibil and Nusku. The former occurs with greater frequency than the
latter, but the two are used so interchangeably as to be in every
respect identical. The amalgamation of the two may indeed be due to the
growth of the incantation rituals of Babylon. In some districts Gibil
was worshipped as the special god of fire, in others Nusku, much as we
found the sun-god worshipped under the names of _Shamas_ and _Utu_, and
similarly in the case of other deities. On the supposition that the
incantation rituals are the result of a complicated literary process,
involving the collection of all known formulas, and the bringing of them
into some kind of connection with one another, this existence of a
twofold fire-god finds a ready explanation. At Babylon we know Nusku was
worshipped as the fire-god. Gibil belongs therefore to another section,
perhaps to one farther south. He is in all probability the older god of
the two, and the preponderating occurrence of his name in the texts may
be taken as a proof of the ancient origin of those parts in which it
occurs. There being no special motive why he should be supplanted by
Nusku, his preëminence was not interfered with through the remodeling to
which the texts were subjected. While bearing in mind that Gibil and
Nusku are two distinct deities, we may, for the sake of convenience,
treat them together under the double designation of Gibil-Nusku.

Gibil and Nusku are called 'sons of Anu'; Gibil, indeed, is spoken of as
the first-born of heaven, and the image of his father. The conception is
probably mythological, resting upon the belief in the heavenly origin of
fire held by all nations. Gibil-Nusku is exalted as the 'lofty one'
among the gods, whose command is supreme. He is at once the great
messenger of the gods and their chief counsellor. Clothed in splendor,
his light is unquenchable. A large variety of other attributes are
assigned to him, all emphasizing his strength, his majesty, his
brilliancy, and the terror that he is able to inspire. The importance of
fire to mankind made Gibil-Nusku the founder of cities, and in general
the god of civilization. As the fire-god, Gibil-Nusku is more especially
invoked at the symbolical burning of the images of the witches. With a
raised torch in one hand, the bewitched person repeats the incantation
recited by the exorciser. Frequently the instruction is added that the
incantation is to be recited in a whisper, corresponding to the soft
tones in which the demons, witches, and ghosts are supposed to convey
their messages. The incantations in which the fire-god is exalted in
grandiloquent terms belong to the finest productions of this branch of
the religious literature. The addresses to Gibil-Nusku are veritable
hymns that are worthy of better associations. One of these addresses
begins:

  Nusku, great god, counsellor of the great gods,[367]
  Guarding the sacrificial gifts[368] of all the heavenly spirits,
  Founder of cities, renewer of the sanctuaries,
  Glorious day, whose command is supreme,
  Messenger of Anu, carrying out the decrees of Bel,
  Obedient to Bel, counsellor, mountain[369] of the earthly spirits,
  Mighty in battle, whose attack is powerful,
  Without thee no table is spread in the temple.
  Without thee, Shamash, the judge executes no judgment.

  I, thy servant so and so, the son of so and so,[370]
  Whose god is so and so, and whose goddess so and so,[371]
  I turn to thee, I seek thee, I raise my hands to thee,
  I prostrate myself before thee.
  Burn the sorcerer and sorceress,
  May the life of my sorcerer and sorceress be destroyed.
  Let me live that I may exalt thee and proudly pay homage to thee.

This incantation, we are told, is to be recited in a whisper, in the
presence of an image of wax. The image is burnt as the words are spoken,
and as it is consumed the power of the witch is supposed to wane. The
reference to the indispensable presence of the fire-god in the temple is
rather interesting. Sacrifice always entailed the use of fire. To
whatever deity the offering was made, Gibil-Nusku could not in any case
be overlooked. The fire constituted the medium, as it were, between the
worshipper and the deity addressed. The fire-god is in truth the
messenger who carries the sacrifice into the presence of the god
worshipped. Even Shamash, though himself personifying fire, is forced to
acknowledge the power of Gibil-Nusku, who, we are told elsewhere, is
invoked, even when sacrifices are made to the sun-god.

Besides being the son of Anu, Gibil-Nusku is brought into association
with the two other members of the triad, Bel and Ea. He is the messenger
of Bel and the son of Ea. The former conception is again mythical. Fire
is also the instrument of the gods, and Nusku is particularly called the
messenger of Bel because Bel is one of the highest gods. In reality he
is the messenger of all the gods, and is frequently so designated. His
connection with Ea, on the other hand, seems to be the result of the
systematizing efforts of the schoolmen. Ea occupying the chief rank in
the incantations, the subsidiary rôle of Gibil-Nusku is indicated by
making him, just as Marduk, the son of Ea. In this way, too, the two
great means of purification--water and fire--are combined under a single
aspect. The combination was all the more appropriate since the fire-god,
as the promoter of culture, shared with Ea the protection of humanity.
Accordingly, all the titles of Ea are bestowed in one place or the other
upon Gibil-Nusku. But, after all, Gibil-Nusku is merely a phase of the
solar deity,[372] and hence by the side of this fire-god, Shamash and
the other solar deities, though in a measure subsidiary to Gibil-Nusku,
are frequently invoked. Shamash, as the great judge, was a personage
especially appropriate for occasions which involved a decision in favor
of the bewitched and against the witches or demons. Gibil-Nusku, like
Shamash, is exalted as the great judge who comes to the aid of the
oppressed. Similarly, the fire-god receives the attributes belonging to
Ninib, Nergal, and the various phases of the latter, such as
Lugal-edinna, Lugal-gira, and Alamu. These gods, then, and their
consorts, because of their relationship to the fire-god, are introduced
into the incantations, and what is more to the point, the various phases
of Nergal and Ninib are introduced without any trace of the distinctions
that originally differentiated them from one another.[373] Besides the
great solar deities, minor ones, as Nin-gish-zida[374] and I-shum, are
frequently added in long lists of protecting spirits to whom the appeal
for help is directed. The attempt is also made to illustrate their
relationship to the great fire-god. So I-shum becomes the messenger of
Nusku, while Nin-gish-zida (though in the days of Gudea a male
deity[375]) appears to be regarded, as Tallqvist has suggested, as the
consort of Nusku.

Night being a favorite time for the recital of the incantations, it was
natural that the orb of night, the god Sin, should be added to the
pantheon of the exorciser. Though playing a minor rôle, the moon-god is
never omitted when a long series of protecting spirits is invoked. But
there are occasions when Sin becomes the chief deity invoked. Reference
has already been made to the general terror that moon eclipses inspired.
The disappearance of the moon was looked upon as a sign of the god's
displeasure or as a defeat of the moon in a conflict with other planets.
Disaster of some kind--war, pestilence, internal disturbances--was sure
to follow upon an eclipse, unless the anger of the god could be appeased
or his weakness overcome. In the case of such general troubles affecting
the whole country, it is the kings themselves who seek out the priests.
Rituals were prepared to meet the various contingencies. The king begins
the ceremony by a prayer addressed to Sin. One of these prayers
begins:[376]

  O Sin, O Nannar! mighty one ...
  O Sin, thou who alone givest light,
  Extending light to mankind,
  Showing favor to the black-headed ones,[377]
  Thy light shines in heaven ...
  Thy torch is brilliant as fire;
  Thy light fills the broad earth.

  ...

  Thy light is glorious as the Sun ...
  Before thee the great gods lie prostrate;
  The fate of the world rests with thee.

An eclipse has taken place, portending evil to the country, and
libations have been poured out on days carefully selected as favorable
ones. The king continues:

  I have poured out to thee, with wailing,[378] a libation at night;
  I have offered thee a drink-offering with shouts;
  Prostrate and standing erect[379] I implore thee.

With the prayer to Sin, appeals to other gods and also goddesses are
frequently combined,--to Marduk, Ishtar, Tashmitum, Nabu, Ramman, and
the like. The incantations themselves, consisting of fervent appeals to
remove the evil, actual or portending, are preceded by certain
ceremonies,--the burning of incense, the pouring out of some drink, or
by symbolical acts, as the binding of cords; and the god is appealed to
once more to answer the prayer.

Again, just as Gibil-Nusku entails the invocation of a large variety of
solar deities, so Ea, as the water-god, leads to the introduction of
various water-gods and spirits. Perhaps the most prominent of these is
the god Nâru, whose name, signifying 'river,'[380] is clearly the
personification of the watery element, though of the minor bodies of
water. Next in order comes the goddess Nin-akha-kuddu.[381] She is
invoked as 'goddess of purification.' From her association in several
passages with the great deep, and with the city of Eridu--metaphorically
used for the great deep--one may be permitted to conclude that she, too,
was conceived of as a water-god or a water-spirit. She is 'the lady of
spells,' who is asked to take possession of the body of the sufferer,
and thus free him from the control of demons or witches. By the side of
this goddess, Gula, 'the great physician,' is often appealed to. Again,
the demons being in some cases the ghosts of the departed, or such as
hover around graves, Nin-kigal, or Allatu, the mistress of the lower
world, is an important ally, whose aid is desired in the struggle
against the evil spirits. Lastly, it is interesting to note that
Izdubar, or Gilgamesh, the famous hero of the great Babylonian epic,
occurs also in incantations[382]--a welcome indication of the antiquity
of the myth, and the proof, at the same time, that the epic is built on
a foundation of myth. From the mythological side, Gilgamesh appears to
be a solar deity. The connection of a solar god with fire would account
for his appearance in the magical texts. However obscure some of the
points connected with the gods of the incantation texts may be, so much
is certain, that the two factors of water and fire, and the part played
by these elements in the ceremonies, control and explain the choice of
most of the gods and goddesses introduced, though--be it expressly
noted--not of all occurring in the magical texts.


The Ritual and Formulas.

Coming to the incantations themselves, they can best be characterized as
appeals interspersed with words of a more or less mystic character. The
force and efficacy of the incantation lie not so much in the meaning of
the words uttered, as in the simple fact that they _are_ to be uttered.
These incantations were combined into a ritual, and indications were
given of the occasions on which the incantations were to be used. An
analysis of one of these rituals will serve to illustrate this branch of
the religious literature of the Babylonians. I choose for this purpose
the series known as Maklu, _i.e._, Burning,[383] the interpretation of
which has been so considerably advanced by Dr. Tallqvist's admirable
work. The first tablet of the series opens with an invocation to the
gods of night. After complaining of his sad condition, the bewitched
individual continues as follows:

  Arise ye great gods, hear my complaint;
  Grant me justice, take cognizance of my condition.
  I have made an image of my sorcerer and sorceress;
  I have humbled myself before you and bring to you my cause
  Because of the evil they (_i.e._, the witches) have done,
  Of the impure things which they have handled,[384]
  May she[385] die! Let me live!
  May her charm, her witchcraft, her sorcery (?) be broken.
  May the plucked sprig (?) of the _binu_ tree purify me.
  May it release me; may the evil odor[386] of my mouth be scattered to
    the winds.
  May the _mashtakal_ herb[387] which fills the earth cleanse me.
  Before you let me shine like the _kankal_ herb.
  Let me be as brilliant and pure as the _lardu_ herb.
  The charm of the sorceress is evil;
  May her words return to her mouth,[388] her tongue be cut off.
  Because of her witchcraft, may the gods of night smite her,
  The three watches of the night[389] break her evil charm.
  May her mouth be wax[390] (?), her tongue honey.
  May the word causing my misfortune that she has spoken dissolve like
    wax (?).
  May the charm that she has wound up melt like honey,
  So that her magic knot be cut in twain, her work destroyed,
  All her words scattered across the plains
  By the order that the gods have given.

The section closes with the ordinary request of the exorciser to the
victim: "Recite this incantation." It will be seen how closely the
principle of sympathetic magic is followed. The individual having been
bewitched by means of certain herbs concocted probably into potions,
other herbs are prepared by the exorciser as an antidote. The emphasis
laid upon purification, too, is noteworthy. There are numerous synonyms
employed for which it is difficult to find the adequate equivalent in
English. The terms reach out beyond the literal to the symbolical
purification. The victim wishes to become pure, cleansed of all
impurities, so that he may be resplendent as the gods are pure,
brilliant, and glorious, pure as the water, brilliant and glorious as
the fire.

The length of the formulas varies. Often they consist only of a few
lines. So the one immediately following appeals to Gilgamesh in these
words:

  Earth, Earth, Earth,
  Gilgamesh is the master of your witchcraft.
  What you have done, I know;
  What I do, you know not.
  All the mischief wrought by my sorceresses is destroyed, dissolved--
    is gone.

At times the conditions under which the witches are pictured as acting
are very elaborate. They are represented as dwelling in places with
which mythological conceptions are connected; they are ferried across
the river separating their city from human habitations; they are
protected against attacks by the walls which surround their habitations.
To effect a release, the exorcisers, it would appear, made
representations by means of drawings on clay of these habitations of the
witches. They thereupon symbolically cut off the approaches and laid
siege to the towns. This, at least, appears to be the meaning of an
incantation beginning:

  My city is Sappan,[391] my city is Sappan;
  The gates of my city Sappan are two,
  One towards sunrise, the other towards sunset.[392]
  I carry a box, a pot with _mashtakal_ herbs;
  To the gods of heaven I offer water;
  As I for you secure your purification,
  So do you purify me!

The victim imitates the conduct of the witch, goes about as she does,
with a pot in which the potions are made, performs the symbolical act
which should purify him of the evil that is in him, and hopes, in this
way, to obtain his own release. The description continues:

  I have kept back the ferry, have shut off the wall,[393]
  Have thus checked the enchantment from all quarters.
  Anu and Anatum have commissioned me.
  Whom shall I send to Belit of the field?[394]
  Into the mouth of the sorcerer and sorceress cast the lock.[395]
  Recite the incantation of the chief of gods, Marduk.[396]
  'Let them[397] call to thee but answer them not,
  Let them address thee, but hearken not to them.
  Let me call to thee, and do thou answer me,
  Let me address thee, and do thou hearken unto me.'
  By the command of Anu, Anatum, and Belit, recite the incantation.

The hymns to the fire-god, Nusku (or Girru), of which the 'Maklu' series
naturally furnishes many specimens,[398] are all pretty much alike. I
choose one which illustrates in greater detail the symbolical burning of
the image of the witch:[399]

  Nusku, great offspring of Anu,
  The likeness of his father, the first-born of Bel,
  The product of the deep, sprung from Ea,[400]
  I raise the torch to illumine thee, yea, thee.
  The sorcerer who has bewitched me,
  Through the witchcraft by means of which he has bewitched me, do thou
    bewitch him.
  The sorceress who has bewitched me,
  Through the witchcraft by means of which she has bewitched me, bewitch
    thou her.
  The charmer who has charmed me,
  Through the charm with which he has charmed me, charm thou him.
  The witch who has charmed me,
  Through the charm with which she has charmed me, charm thou her.
  Those who have made images of me, reproducing my features,
  Who have taken away my breath, torn my hairs,
  Who have rent my clothes, have hindered my feet from treading the
    dust,
  May the fire-god, the strong one, break their charm.

Just as the witches were burnt in effigy, so also the demons were
supposed to be similarly dispelled. Immediately following the
incantation comes one directed against the demons:

  I raise the torch, their images I burn,
    Of the _utukku_, the _shedu_, the _rabisu_, the _ekimmu_,
    The _labartu_, the _labasi_, the _akhkhasu_,
    Of _lilu_ and _lilitu_ and _ardat lili_,
    And every evil that seizes hold of men.
  Tremble, melt away, and disappear!
  May your smoke rise to heaven,
  May Shamash destroy your limbs,
  May the son of Ea [_i.e._, may the fire-god],
  The great magician, restrain your strength (?).

The witch who has caused the evil may be unknown. For such a case one of
the incantations runs:[401]

  Who art thou, sorceress, who bears her evil word within her heart,
  Through whose tongue my misfortune is produced,
  Through whose lips I have been poisoned,
  In whose footsteps death follows?
  Sorceress, I seize thy mouth, seize thy tongue,
  I seize thy searching eyes,
  I seize thy ever-moving feet,
  I seize thy knees ever active,
  I seize thy hands ever stretched out,
  I tie thy hands behind thee.
  May Sin ... destroy thy body,
  May he cast thee into an abyss of fire and water.
  Sorceress, as the circle of this seal-ring,[402]
  May thy face grow pale and wan.

Of the same character as this, are a variety of other incantations, all
applicable to cases in which the sorceress is unknown. As the last
specimen of the 'Maklu' series, I choose an incantation addressed to the
demons, which is interesting because of the direct character of the
commands it contains:

  Away, away, far away, far away,
  For shame, for shame, fly away, fly away,
  Round about face, go away, far away,
  Out of my body, away,
  Out of my body, far away,
  Out of my body, away for shame,
  Out of my body, fly away,
  Out of my body, round about face,
  Out of my body, go away,
  Into my body, come not back,
  Towards my body, do not approach,
  Towards my body, draw not nigh,
  My body torture not.
  By Shamash the mighty, be ye foresworn.
  By Ea, the lord of everything, be ye foresworn.
  By Marduk, the chief magician of the gods, be ye foresworn.
  By the fire-god, be ye foresworn.
  From my body be ye restrained!

Repetition and variation in the use of certain phrases make up, as will
be seen from the specimens given, a large part of the incantation. A
curious illustration of the importance attributed to such repetition is
furnished by the eighth and last tablet of the 'Maklu' series. It
consists of seven divisions, each beginning with a repetition of the
headlines of the various sections of the preceding seven tablets; and
only after the headlines of each of the tablets have been exhausted,
does the real incantation begin. This eighth tablet contains therefore a
kind of summary of all the others, the purpose of which is to gather
together all the power and influence of the seven others.

The 'Maklu' ritual deals so largely with the fire-god that a specimen
from another series, to illustrate the position of Ea and Marduk in the
incantations, seems called for. The 'Shurpu' series introduces Ea and
Marduk more particularly. The fifth tablet of this series begins:[403]

  The evil curse rests like a _gallu_ upon the man,
  The pain-giving voice[404] has settled upon him,
  The voice that is not good has settled upon him,
  The evil curse, the charm that produces insanity,
  The evil curse has killed that man as a sheep,
  His god has departed from his body,[405]
  His goddess has ... taken her place outside,[406]
  The pain-giving voice covers him as a garment and confuses him.
  Marduk sees him,
  And proceeds to the house of his father Ea and speaks:
  "My father, the evil curse as a demon has settled on the man."
  He says it for a second time.
  "What that man should do, I do not know; by what can he be cured?"
  Ea answers his son Marduk:
  "My son, can I add aught that thou dost not know?
  Marduk, what can I tell thee that thou dost not know?
  What I know, also thou knowest.
  My son Marduk, take him to the overseer of the house of perfect
    purification,
  Dissolve his spell, release him from the charm, and from the
    troublesome bodily disease.
  Whether it be the curse of his father,
  Or the curse of his mother,
  Or the curse of his brother,
  Or the curse of an unknown,[407]
  May the bewitchment through the charm of Ea be peeled off like an
    onion.
  May it be cut off like a date.
  May it be removed like a husk.
  O power of the spirit of heaven, be thou invoked!
  O spirit of earth, be thou invoked!"

The purification by water, which is here only incidentally referred to,
is more fully touched upon in other incantations, where Ea tells Marduk
that the victim must take

  Glittering water, pure water,
  Holy water, resplendent water,
  The water twice seven times may he bring,
  May he make pure, may he make resplendent.
  May the evil _rabisu_ depart,
  May he betake himself outside,
  May the protecting _shedu_, the protecting _lamassu_,
  Settle upon his body.
  Spirit of heaven, be thou invoked!
  Spirit of earth, be thou invoked![408]

Still other methods of magical cure besides the use of water and of
potions were in vogue. In a tablet of the same ritual to which the last
extract belongs, and which is especially concerned with certain classes
of diseases produced by the demons, the sick man is told to take

  White wool, which has been spun into thread,
  To attach it to his couch[409] in front and at the top,
  Black wool which has been spun into thread
  To bind at his left side.

Then follows the incantation which he is to recite:

  The evil _ulukku, alu, ekimmu_,
  The evil _gallu_, the evil god, _rabisu_,
  _Labartu, labasu, akhkhazu_,
  _Lilu_ and _lilit_ and _ardat lili_,
  Sorcery, charm, bewitchment,
  The sickness, the cruel artifice,
  Their head against his head,
  Their hand against his hand,
  Their foot against his foot,
  May they not place,
  May they never draw nigh.
  Spirit of heaven, be thou foresworn!
  Spirit of earth, be thou foresworn!

It is interesting to note the introduction of ethical ideas into these
texts, despite the primitive character of the beliefs upon which the
incantations repose. The possibility was considered that the attack of
the demons was a punishment sent in some way for committed sins. The
incantation series 'Shurpu' furnishes us with a long list of wrongs for
which a person may be held enthralled in the power of the demons or
sorcerers. The exorciser in petitioning that the ban may be relieved,
enumerates at length the various causes for which the evil may have been
sent:[410]

  Has he sinned against a god,
  Is his guilt against a goddess,
  Is it a wrongful deed against his master,
  Hatred towards his elder brother,
  Has he despised father or mother,
  Insulted his elder sister,
  Has he given too little,[411]
  Has he withheld too much,
  For "no" said "yes,"
  For "yes" said "no"?[412]

  ...

  Has he used false weights?

  ...

  Has he taken an incorrect amount,
  Not taken the correct sum,
  Has he fixed a false boundary,
  Not fixed a just boundary,
  Has he removed a boundary, a limit, or a territory,
  Has he possessed himself of his neighbor's house,
  Has he approached his neighbor's wife,
  Has he shed the blood of his neighbor,
  Robbed his neighbor's dress?

  ...

  Was he frank in speaking,
  But false in heart,
  Was it "yes" with his mouth,
  But "no" in his heart?[413]

In this way the exorciser proceeds to enumerate an exceedingly long list
of sins--no less than one hundred--most of which are ethical
misdemeanors, while others are merely ceremonial transgressions. In the
third tablet of this series[414] there is even a longer list of causes
for the ban which Marduk, the "chief exorciser" among the gods, is
called upon to loosen. Here again we find an equal proportion of moral
transgressions placed on a par with errors in performing religious rites
or unwillful offences in neglecting conventional methods of doing
things.

The ethical features of the texts can, without much question, be put
down as the work of the later editors. They belong to a period when
already an advanced conception not only of right and wrong, but also of
sin had arisen among the religious leaders of the people, and perhaps
had made its way already among the masses, without, however, disturbing
the confidence in the traditional superstitions. The strange combination
of primitive and advanced religious beliefs is characteristic, as we
shall have occasion to see, of various divisions of the Babylonian
religious literature. The lapse from the ethical strain to the
incantation refrain is as sudden as it is common. The priest having
exhausted the category of possible sins or mishaps that have caused the
suffering of the petitioner, proceeds to invoke the gods, goddesses, and
the powerful spirits to loosen the ban. There is no question of
retribution for actual acts of injustice or violence, any more than
there is a question of genuine contrition. The enumeration of the causes
for the suffering constitutes in fact a part of the incantation. The
mention of the real cause in the long list--and the list aims to be
exhaustive, so that the exorciser may strike the real cause--goes a long
way towards ensuring the departure of the evil spirit. And if, besides
striking the real cause, the exorciser is fortunate enough in his
enumeration of the various gods, goddesses, and spirits to call by name
upon the _right_ god or spirit, the one who has the power over the demon
in question, his object is achieved. Speaking the right words and
pronouncing the right name, constitute, together with the performance of
the correct ceremony and the bringing of the right sacrifice, the
conditions upon which depends the success of the priest in the
incantation ritual. Hence the striking features of these texts, the
enumeration of long lists of causes for misfortune, long lists of powers
invoked, and a variety of ceremonies prescribed, in the hope that the
priest will "hit it" at one time or the other.


Incantations and Prayers.

The incantations naturally shade off into prayers. Frequently they are
prayers pure and simple. Powerful as the sacred formulas were supposed
to be, the ultimate appeal of the sufferer is to the gods. Upon their
favor it ultimately depends whether the mystic power contained in the
sacred words uttered shall manifest itself to the benefit of the
supplicant or not. While it is proper, therefore, to distinguish
incantations from prayers, the combination of the two could scarcely be
avoided by the priests, who, rising in a measure superior to the popular
beliefs, felt it to be inconsistent with a proper regard for the gods
not to give them a superior place in the magical texts. The addition, to
the sacred formulas, of prayers directly addressed to certain gods may
be put down as due to the adaptation of ancient texts to the needs of a
later age; and, on the other hand, the addition of incantations to what
appear to have been originally prayers, pure and simple, is a concession
made to the persistent belief in the efficacy of certain formulas when
properly uttered. Such combinations of prayers and incantations
constituted, as would appear, a special class of religious texts; and,
in the course of further editing,[415] a number of prayers addressed to
various deities were combined and interspersed with incantation and
ceremonial directions which were to accompany the prayers.

The incantations accordingly lead us to the next division in the
religious literature of the Babylonians,--the prayers and hymns.

FOOTNOTES:

[341] _Die Assyrische Beschwörungsserie, Maqlû_, p. 14.

[342] There are some preserved solely in the ideographic style, and
others of which we have only the phonetic transliteration.

[343] _Die Propheten in ihrer ursprünglichen Form_, pp. 1, 6. This work
is a valuable investigation of the oldest form of the poetic
compositions of the Semites.

[344] The fifth and sixth tablets of the series. It is probable that
several editions were prepared,--some wholly Babylonian, others
bilingual.

[345] Haupt, _Akkadische und Sumerische Keilschrifttexte_, p. 83. col.
I. ll. 1-10.

[346] Wherever feasible, the Babylonian name of the demon will be used
in the translations.

[347] Our word 'nightmare' still embodies the same ancient view of the
cause of bad dreams as that found among the Babylonians.

[348] See above, p. 182.

[349] IV R. pl. 5.

[350] See Perrot and Chiplez, _History of Art in Chaldaea and Assyria_,
i. 61, 62; ii. 81 for illustrations.

[351] IV R. 2, col. v. ll. 30-60.

[352] The god of humanity. The phrase is equivalent to saying that the
spirits are hostile to mankind.

[353] Literally, 'to their second time,' _i.e._, repeat 'seven are
they.'

[354] See Hopkins, _The Holy Numbers in the Rig-Veda_ (Oriental
Studies), pp. 144-147.

[355] IV R. 15, col. ll. 21 _seq._

[356] See chapter xi.

[357] For the general views connected with the evil eye among all
nations, see Elworthy's recent volume, _The Evil Eye_. (London, 1896.)

[358] For illustrations taken from various nations, see Fraser, _The
Golden Bough_, ii. 9-12; ii. 85-89.

[359] See for illustrations of similar practices among Egyptians and
Greeks, Budge, _Life and Exploits of Alexander the Great_ (London,
1896), pp. xii-xvii.

[360] Mr. L. W. King describes (_Zeits. für Assyr._ xl. 50-62)
interesting fragments of the Dibbarra (or 'plague-god') legend found on
tablets which were evidently intended to be hung up. Mr. King suggests
that such tablets were hung up in the houses of the Babylonians whenever
a plague broke out. One is reminded of the _mezuzoth_, the metallic or
wooden cases, attached to the doorposts of their houses by the Jews, and
which originally served a similar purpose.

[361] Tallqvist, _Assyr. Beschwörungsserie Maklu_, p. 115, suggests that
the 'veiled bride' may be a name of some goddess of the night. This is
improbable. It sounds more like a direct personification of the night,
for which an epithet as 'veiled bride' seems appropriate. The name may
have arisen in consequence of mythological conceptions affecting the
relationship between day and night.

[362] A magic potion compounded of this plant. 'Maklu' series, i. ll.
8-12.

[363] 'Maklu' series, ii. ll. 148-168.

[364] See Relsner, _Sumerisch-Babylonische Hymnen_ (Berlin, 1896), p.
15.

[365] See p. 137.

[366] Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, p. 352. Grimm,
_Deutsche Mythologie_, i. 508-596. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii. 383
_seq._ See also the article "Hestia" in Roscher's _Ausführliches Lexikon
der Griechischen und Römischen Mythologie_.

[367] 'Maklu' series, ii. ll. 1-17.

[368] A reference to the sacred action of the fire in the burnt
offerings.

[369] A favorite title of several gods, Bel, Sin, etc., that emphasizes
their strength.

[370] Here the seeker for help inserts his name.

[371] Here the names of special deities are to be inserted.

[372] See above, Nusku, p. 220.

[373] See p. 67.

[374] A form of Nusku, according to Tallqvist, _Assyr. Beschwör._ p.
146. It would be more accurate to say a form of Ninib. See p. 92.

[375] See p. 91.

[376] King, _Babylonian Magic_, p. 3.

[377] Humanity.

[378] The reference is to the formal lamentations on the occasion of the
death of any one. The moon-god, having disappeared, is bewailed as
though dead.

[379] _I.e._, under all conditions and at all times.

[380] The reading Nâru is not altogether certain, but probable. See
Tallqvist, _Assyr. Beschwör._ pp. 131, 132, whose suggestion, however,
that Nâru may be a female deity, is not acceptable. _Elitti_ is probably
a scribal error.

[381] See above p. 103.

[382] Tallqvist, I. l. 38.

[383] See above, p. 254.

[384] To bewitch me.

[385] The witch.

[386] From which he suffers through the witches.

[387] The identification of the many herbs mentioned in the texts is as
yet impossible. The subject awaits investigation at the hands of one
versed in botanical lore.

[388] _I.e._, be ineffective.

[389] _I.e._, the gods presiding over the watches.

[390] Her words dissolve like wax and honey.

[391] Supposed to be situated at the northern point of the heavens.

[392] The vault of heaven was pictured as having two gates.

[393] So that the witch cannot leave her habitation.

[394] With the order 'to cast the lock,' etc.

[395] To prevent her from uttering her charms.

[396] The following four lines constitute the incantation.

[397] _I.e._, the witches.

[398] See above, p. 278, where one has been given.

[399] Maklu, I. 122-143.

[400] The fiery element belongs to all three divisions of the
universe,--to heaven, earth, and water.

[401] Maklu, III. ll. 89-103.

[402] Many of the seals used by the Babylonians were of white stone or
bone.

[403] Zimmern's edition, pp. 25-29.

[404] _I.e._, the evil word.

[405] His protecting deity has deserted him.

[406] Of his body.

[407] _I.e._, whoever may have invoked the evil demon to settle upon
him.

[408] The translation of these lines follows in all but some minor
passages the correct one given by Sayce, _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 446.

[409] Of the sick man.

[410] Zimmern, _Die Beschwörungstafeln Shurpu_, pp. 5, 6.

[411] In mercantile transactions.

[412] _I.e._, lied.

[413] _I.e._, did he say one thing, but mean the contrary?

[414] Zimmern, _ib._ pp. 13-20.

[415] For details as to the manner in which this editing was done, see
King's admirable remarks in the Introduction to his _Babylonian Magic
and Sorcery_, pp. xx-xxiv.




CHAPTER XVII.

THE PRAYERS AND HYMNS.


From what has just been said, it follows that the step from magical
formulas to prayers and hymns is but a small one, and does not, indeed,
carry with it the implication of changed or higher religious
conceptions. While the incantation texts in their entirety may be
regarded as the oldest _fixed_ ritual of the Babylonian-Assyrian
religion, there were occasions even in the oldest period of Babylonian
history when the gods were approached in prayer without the
accompaniment of magic formulas. Such occasions were the celebration of
festivals in honor of the gods, the dedication of temples or of sacred
statues, and the completion of such purely secular undertakings as the
building of a canal. Gudea, we are told, upon completing a statue to his
god Nin-girsu, prayed: 'O King, whose great strength the land cannot
endure (?); Nin-girsu! grant to Gudea, who has built this house, a good
fate.'[416] As in the earliest, so in the latest, period, the Babylonian
kings approach the gods in prayer upon completing their great sacred
edifices. The prayers of Nebuchadnezzar are particularly
fine--remarkable, indeed, for their diction and elevation of thought.
Upon completing the restoration of a temple to Nin-karrak or Gula in
Sippar, he prays:[417]

  Nin-karrak, lofty goddess, look with favor upon the work of my hands,
  Mercy towards me be the command of thy lips,
  Long life, abundance of strength,
  Health, and joy, grant to me as a gift.
  In the presence of Shamash and Marduk cause my deeds to be regarded
    with favor,
  Command grace for me.

A prayer of the same king addressed to Shamash, upon restoring the great
temple at Sippar, E-babbara, runs:[418]

  O Shamash, great lord, upon entering joyfully into thy glorious temple
    E-babbara,
  Look with favor upon my precious handiwork,
  Mercy towards me be thy command;
  Through thy righteous order, may I have abundance of strength.
  Long life, and a firm throne, grant to me.
  May my rule last forever!
  With a righteous sceptre of blissful rulership,
  With a legitimate staff, bringing salvation to mankind, adorn my
    sovereignty forever.
  With strong weapons for the fray, protect my soldiers;
  Then, O Shamash, by oracle and dream, answer me correctly!
  By thy supreme command, which is unchangeable,
  May my weapons advance, and strike and overthrow the weapons of the
    enemies.

Nebuchadnezzar's inscriptions are characterized by the prayer with which
they almost invariably close. Whether erecting a sanctuary or building a
canal or improving the walls of Babylon, he does not fail to add to the
description of his achievements a prayer to some deity, in which he asks
for divine grace and the blessings of long life and prosperity.

There were other occasions, too, in which, both in ancient times and in
more modern periods, prayers were sent up to the gods. Kudur-mabuk, of
the second dynasty of Ur, informs us that he built a temple, E-nun-makh,
to Sin in gratitude to the god for having hearkened to his prayer.

The Assyrian kings pray to Ashur or Ishtar before the battle, and offer
thanks after the victory has been gained. "O goddess of Arbela!" says
Ashurbanabal,[419] "I am Ashurbanabal, the king of Assyria, the product
of thy hands, created by thee in the house of my father. To renew the
sanctuaries of Assyria, and to enlarge the cities of Babylonia, ... have
I devoted myself to thy dwelling-places, and have steadfastly worshipped
thy sovereignty.... Hearken unto me! O thou mistress of mistresses,
supreme in battle, mistress of the fray, queen of the gods, ... who
speakest good things in the presence of Ashur, the father, that produced
thee. Teumman, king of Elam, has arrayed his army and fixed upon battle,
brandishes his weapons to proceed against Assyria. Do thou now, O
warrior, like ... drive him into the midst of the fray, pursue him with
a storm, with an evil wind." Ishtar, the narrative tells us, hearkened
to the fervent words of the king. "Be not afraid," says the goddess to
her royal subject. Elsewhere the same king prays more briefly to Ashur
and Ishtar. "May his corpse [viz., of a certain enemy] be cast before
his enemy [_i.e._, before Ashurbanabal], and his remains be carried
off."[420]

Upon ascending the throne, we find Nebuchadnezzar addressing a fervent
prayer to the great god Marduk:

  O Eternal Ruler! Lord of the Universe!
  Grant that the name[421] of the king whom thou lovest,
  Whose name thou hast mentioned,[422] may flourish as seems good to
    thee.
  Guide him on the right path.
  I am the ruler who obeys thee, the creation of thy hand.
  It is thou who hast created me,
  And thou hast entrusted to me sovereignty over mankind.
  According to thy mercy, O lord, which thou bestowest upon all,
  Cause me to love thy supreme rule.
  Implant the fear of thy divinity in my heart,
  Grant to me whatsoever may seem good before thee,
  Since it is thou that dost control my life.

The curses also with which so many of the historical texts of Babylonia
and Assyria close may be regarded as prayers. We are also justified in
assuming that the offering of sacrifices, which formed at all times an
essential feature of the cult, both in Babylonia and Assyria, was always
accompanied by some form of prayer addressed to some deity or to a group
of deities. In view of all this, no sharp chronological line, any more
than a logical one, can be drawn marking off the incantation formulas
from the hymns and prayers pure and simple. The conceptions formed of
the gods in the incantation texts are precisely those which we have
found to be characteristic of them in the period when this phase of the
religion reached its highest development. Ea is the protector of
humanity, Shamash the lord of justice; and, if certain ideas that in the
prayers are attached to the gods--as wisdom to Sin--are absent from the
incantations, it may be regarded rather as an accident than as an
indication of any difference of conception. The pantheon too, barring
the omission of certain gods, is the same that we find it to be in the
historical texts, and the order in which the gods are enumerated
corresponds quite closely with the rank accorded to them in the
inscriptions of the kings. What variations there are are not
sufficiently pronounced to warrant any conclusions. All this points, as
has been emphasized several times, to the subsequent remodeling of the
texts in question. It is true that we find more traces of earlier and
purely mythological notions in the incantations than in the hymns and
prayers, but such notions are by no means foreign to the latter. Even in
those religious productions of Babylonia which represent the flower of
religious thought, we meet with views that reflect a most primitive mode
of thought. The proper view, therefore, to take of the prayers and hymns
is to regard them as twin productions to the magical texts, due to the
same conceptions of the power of the gods, an emanation of the same
religious spirit, and produced at the same time that the incantation
rituals enjoyed popular favor and esteem, and without in any way
interfering with the practice of the rites that these rituals involved.

This position does not of course preclude that among the prayers and
hymns that have been preserved there are some betraying a loftier
spirit, a higher level of religious thought, and more pronounced ethical
tendencies than others. Indeed, the one important result of the
dissociation of the address to the gods from the purely practical magic
rites was to produce the conditions favorable to a development of higher
religious thought. An offering of praise to the gods, whether it was for
victory granted or for a favor shown, called forth the best and purest
sentiments of which the individual was capable. Freed from all lower
associations, such an act proved an incentive to view the deity
addressed from his most favorable side, to emphasize those phases which
illustrated his affection for his worshippers, his concern for their
needs, his discrimination, and not merely his power and strength. In
short, the softer and the more humane aspects of the religion would thus
be brought out. The individual would address his god in terms betraying
his affection, and would couple with him attributes that would reflect
the worshipper's rather than the god's view of the purpose and aim of
existence. Whatever powers of idealization there lay in the worshipper's
nature would be brought into the foreground by the intellectual effort
involved in giving expression to his best thoughts, when aiming to come
into close communion with a power upon which he felt himself dependent.
For an understanding, therefore, of the ethical tendencies of the
Babylonian religion, an appreciation of the prayers and hymns is of
prime importance; and we shall presently see that, as a matter of fact,
the highest level of ethical and religious thought is reached in some of
these hymns.

The prayers of Nebuchadnezzar represent, perhaps, the best that has been
attained in this branch of religious literature. Returning, for a
moment, to the dedication prayer to Marduk, addressed by the king on the
occasion of his mounting the throne,[423] one cannot fail to be struck
by the high sense of the importance of his station with which the king
is inspired. Sovereignty is not a right that he can claim--it is a trust
granted to him by Marduk. He holds his great office not for purposes of
self-glorification, but for the benefit of his subjects. In profound
humility he confesses that what he has he owes entirely to Marduk. He
asks to be guided so that he may follow the path of righteousness.
Neither riches nor power constitute his ambition, but to have the fear
of his lord in his heart. Such a plane of thought is never reached in
the incantation texts. For all that, the original dependence of the
prayers and hymns upon incantation formulas, tinges even the best
productions. Some of the finest hymns, in which elevated thoughts are
elaborated with considerable skill, reveal their origin by having
incantations attached to them. Again, others which are entirely
independent productions are full of allusions to sickness, demons, and
sorcerers, that show the outgrowth of the hymns from the incantations;
and none are entirely free from traces of the conceptions that are
characteristic of the incantation texts. The essential difference
between these two classes of closely related texts may be summed up in
the proposition that the religious thought which produced them both is
carried to a higher point of elaboration in the hymns. The prayers and
hymns represent the attempt of the Babylonian mind to free itself from a
superstitious view of the relationship of man to the powers around him;
an attempt, but--it must be added--an unsuccessful one.

It is rather unfortunate that many of the hymns found in the library of
Ashurbanabal are in so fragmentary a condition. As a consequence we are
frequently unable to determine more than their general contents. The
colophons generally are missing,--at least in those hymns hitherto
published,[424]--so that we are left in the dark as to the special
occasion for which the hymn was composed. Without this knowledge it is
quite impossible to assign to it any definite date except upon internal
evidence. In the course of time, the hymnal literature of the great
temples of Babylonia must have grown to large proportions, and, in
collecting them, some system was certainly followed by the priests
engaged in this work. There is evidence of a collection having been made
at some time of hymns addressed to Shamash. Some of these were intended
as a salute upon the sun's rising, others celebrated his setting. These
hymns convey the impression of having been composed for the worship of
the god in one of his great temples--perhaps in E-babbara, at Sippar. We
have several hymns also addressed to Marduk, and one can well suppose
that at the great temple E-sagila, in Babylon, a collection of Marduk
hymns must have been prepared, and so for others of the great gods. But,
again, many of the hymns convey the impression of being merely sporadic
productions--composed for certain occasions, and without any reference
to a possible position in a ritual.

Of the hymns so far published, those to Shamash are probably the finest.
The conception of the sun-god as the judge of mankind lent itself
readily to an ethical elaboration. Accordingly, we find in these hymns
justice and righteousness as the two prominent themes. A striking
passage in one of these hymns reads:[425]

  The law of mankind dost thou direct,
  Eternally just in the heavens art thou,
  Of faithful judgment towards all the world art thou.
  Thou knowest what is right, thou knowest what is wrong.
  O Shamash! Righteousness has lifted up its neck(?);
  O Shamash! Wrong like a ---- has been cut(?);
  O Shamash! The support of Anu and Bel art thou;
  O Shamash! Supreme judge of heaven and earth art thou.

After a break in the tablet, the hymn continues:

  O Shamash! Supreme judge, great lord of all the world art thou;
  Lord of creation, merciful one of the world art thou.

The following lines now reveal the purpose of the hymn. It is a prayer
for the life of the king:

  O Shamash! on this day purify and cleanse the king, the son of his
    god.
  Whatever is evil within him, let it be taken out.

The next few lines are a distinct echo of the incantation formulas, and
show how readily prayer passes from a higher to a lower stage of
thought:

  Cleanse him like a vessel ----[426]
  Illumine him like a vessel of ----[426]
  Like the copper of a polished tablet,[427] let him be bright.
  Release him from the ban.

The same incantation occurs at the close of another hymn to Shamash,
addressed to the sun upon his rising.[428] The colophon furnishes the
opening line of the next tablet, which also begins with an address to
Shamash. We have here a clear indication of a kind of Shamash ritual
extending, perhaps, over a number of tablets, and to which, in all
probability, the hymn just quoted also belongs.

The opening lines of the second hymn read:

  O Shamash! out of the horizon of heaven thou issuest forth,
  The bolt of the bright heavens thou openest,
  The door of heaven thou dost open.
  O Shamash! over the world dost thou raise thy head.
  O Shamash! with the glory of heaven thou coverest the world.

It would be difficult to believe, but for the express testimony
furnished by the hymn itself, that a production giving evidence of such
a lofty view of the sun-god should, after all, be no more than an
incantation. The same is the case, however, with all the Shamash hymns
so far published. They either expressly or by implication form part of
an incantation ritual. Evidently, then, such addresses to Shamash are to
be viewed in no other light than the exaltation of Nusku in the 'Maklu'
series,[429] and which we have found were in many cases elaborate,
beautiful in diction, and elevated in thought. So--to give one more
example--a hymn addressed to the sun-god at the setting, and which is
especially interesting because of the metaphors chosen to describe the
sun's course, is proved by the colophon to be again an incantation. It
belongs to a series--perhaps, indeed, to the same as the specimens
furnished:[430]

  O sun-god in the midst[431] of heaven at thy setting,
  May the enclosure of the pure heaven greet thee,[432]
  May the gate of heaven approach thee,
  May the directing god, the messenger who loves thee, direct thy way.
  In E-babbara, the seat of thy sovereignty, thy supremacy rises like
    the dawn.
  May Â, the wife whom thou lovest, come before thee with joy;
  May thy heart be at rest,[433]
  May the glory of thy divinity be established for thee.
  O Shamash! warrior hero, mayest thou be exalted;
  O lord of E-babbara, as thou marchest, may thy course be directed,
  Direct thy path, march along the path fixed for thy course (?).
  O Shamash! judge of the world, director of its laws art thou.

In the previous chapter, the hymns addressed to the moon-god in
connection with eclipses have been referred to and short specimens
given. A more elaborate hymn to Sin will further illustrate the
conceptions current about this deity:[434]

  O lord, chief of the gods, who on earth and in heaven alone is exalted.
  Father Nannar,[435] lord of increase, chief of the gods,
  Father Nannar, heavenly lord,
  Father Nannar, moon-god, chief of the gods,
  Father Nannar, lord of Ur, chief of the gods,
  Father Nannar, lord of E-gish-shir-gal,[436] chief of the gods,
  Father Nannar, lord of the brilliant crescent, chief of the gods,
  Father Nannar, whose sovereignty is brought to perfection, chief of
    the gods,
  Father Nannar, who passes along in great majesty,
  O strong Bull,[437] great of horns, perfect in form, with long flowing
    beard[438] of the color of lapus-lazuli.
  Powerful one, self-created, a product (?) beautiful to look upon,
    whose fullness has not been brought forth,[439]
  Merciful one, begetter of everything, who among living things occupies
    a lofty seat,
  Father, merciful one and restorer, whose weapon (?) maintains the life
    of the whole world.
  Lord, thy divinity, like the distant heaven and the wide ocean, is
    full (?) of fear.
  Ruler of the land, protector of sanctuaries, proclaimer of their name.
  Father, begetter of the gods and of men, establishing dwellings and
    granting gifts,
  Calling to sovereignty, giving the sceptre, who decreest destinies for
    distant days.
  Strong chief, whose wide heart embraces in mercy all that exists,
  ... beautiful, whose knees do not grow weary, who opens the road (?)
    for the gods, his brothers,
  ... who, from the foundation of heaven till the zenith,
  Passes along in brilliancy (?), opening the door of heaven,
  Preparing the fate (?) of humanity.
  Father, begetter of everything, ...
  Lord, proclaiming the decisions of heaven and earth,
  Whose command is not set aside,
  ... and granting water[440] for all that has life.
  No god reaches to thy fullness.
  In heaven who is exalted? Thou alone art exalted.
  On earth who is exalted? Thou alone art exalted.
  Thy strong command is proclaimed in heaven, and the Igigi prostrate
    themselves.
  Thy strong command is proclaimed on earth, and the Anunnaki kiss the
    ground.
  Thy strong command on high, like a storm in the darkness, passes
    along, and nourishment streams forth.
  When thy strong command is established on the earth, vegetation
    sprouts forth.
  Thy strong command stretches over meadows and heights, and life is
    increased.
  Thy strong command produces right and proclaims justice to mankind.
  Thy strong command, through the distant heavens and the wide earth,
    extends to whatever there is.
  Thy strong command, who can grasp it? Who can rival it?
  Lord, in heaven is [thy] sovereignty, on earth is thy sovereignty.
    Among the gods, thy brothers, there is none like thee.
  O King of Kings, who has no judge superior to him, whose divinity is
    not surpassed by any other![441]

A more perfect idealization of the mythological notions connected with
the moon-god can hardly be imagined. The old metaphors are retained, but
interpreted in a manner that reflects higher spiritual tendencies. The
moon is still figured as a bull, but it is the idea of strength that is
extracted from the picture and dwelt upon. The writer still thinks of
the moon as an old man with flowing beard, but he uses the figure to
convey the impression of the brilliancy of the great orb. The influence
of the moon upon the change of seasons, upon vegetation,--a belief which
the Babylonians shared with other nations,--leads the writer to extol
the benign feelings of the god towards mankind. The sun-god, through the
glowing heat that he develops, becomes, as we have seen, the warrior and
even the destroyer, the consuming force. The moon-god is the benefactor
of mankind who restores the energies of man weakened from the heat of
the day. Nannar-Sin becomes the giver of life, whose mercies are
extended to all. The gods and the spirits follow the example of mankind
in prostrating themselves before the great orb of night. The
independence of the course that he pursues in the heavens places him
beyond the control of the great judge of the world, the mighty Shamash.
There is no one superior to Sin, no one to whose command he must bend.
With all this, there is a total absence of any allusion to his power of
removing the influence of demons and witches. We have here a hymn
purified from all association with the incantation texts, and there is
every reason to believe that it was composed for use in the great temple
at Ur, which is mentioned in the opening lines.

In the alternating question and answer we have also a valuable
indication of the manner in which the hymn was to be recited or sung.
The whole production appears to be arranged in a dialogue form, the
lines to be alternately read by the reciting priest and the chorus of
priests or worshippers. The same method is followed in other
productions, while in some, as we shall see, the dialogue does not
proceed in alternate lines, but is distributed among a varying number of
sections. We may see in this style of composition one of the natural
outcomes of the method pursued in the incantation texts, where, as will
be remembered, the priest first recites the formulas, and then calls
upon the individual before him to repeat it once, twice, or oftener, as
the case may be. Such a custom leads to recital and responses in the
hymns.

Not many of the hymns rise to such a height as the one just quoted.
There were certain gods only, and after all not many, whose nature was
such as to make an ethical development of the conceptions formed of them
possible. Besides Shamash and Sin, Ea as the god of humanity and Nebo as
the god of wisdom belong to this class. Of Ea, however, no hymns have as
yet been found. This may of course be accidental, and still, if one
bears in mind that in the later periods of Babylonian history Ea enjoyed
a theoretical popularity rather than a practical one, the absence of Ea
hymns might be explained as due to the lack of a fixed ritual in the Ea
temples outside of the incantation texts.[442] Ea's position, like that
of Nusku, was too marked in the magical texts to encourage a conception
of them entirely independent of their power to release victims from the
grasp of the demons.

A hymn to Nebo, which unfortunately is preserved only in part,
illustrates the extent to which polytheistic conceptions may be
spiritualized:[443]

  ... Lord of Borsippa,
  ... son of E-sagila.[444]
  O Lord! To thy power there is no rival power,
  O Nebo! To thy power, there is no rival,
  To thy house, E-zida, there is no rival,
  To thy city, Borsippa, there is no rival,
  To thy district, Babylon, there is no rival.
  Thy weapon is U-sum-gallu,[445] from whose mouth the breath does not
    issue, blood does not flow.[446]
  Thy command is unchangeable like the heavens.
  In heaven thou art supreme.

There are still plenty of mythological allusions in this hymn that take
us back to a primitive period of thought, but it is a hymn prompted by
the love and reverence that Nebo inspired. Its direct connection with
the Nebo cult is shown again by the complementary character of each two
lines. The whole hymn was probably adapted in this way to public
worship.

Marduk, by virtue of his relationship to Ea, and by his independent
position as the supreme god of Babylon, occupies a middle ground between
Shamash, Ea, and Nusku on the one side, and such gods as Sin and Nebo on
the other. Some of the hymns addressed to him end in incantations;
others form part of the cult arranged for solemn occasions, when the
praises of the god were sung in connection with sacrificial offerings.

In confirmation of the theory as to the relationship between magical
texts and hymns above advanced, we find scarcely any difference in the
grade of religious thought between these two classes of Marduk hymns.
Both are equally distinguished by their fine diction. A hymn which
celebrates Marduk as the restorer of the dead to life, and yet forms
part of an incantation text, reads:[447]

  O merciful one among the gods!
  O merciful one who loveth to give life to the dead!
  Marduk, king of heaven and earth,
  King of Babylon, lord of E-sagila,
  King of E-zida, lord of E-makh-tila,
  Heaven and earth are thine.
  The whole of heaven and earth are thine,
  The spell affording life is thine,
  The breath of life is thine,
  The pure incantation of the ocean[448] is thine,
  Mankind, the black-headed race,[449]
  The living creatures, as many as there are, and exist on earth,
  As many as there are in the four quarters,
  The Igigi of the legions of heaven and earth,
  As many as there are,
  To thee do they incline (?).
  Thou art the _shedu_, thou art the _lamassu_.
  Thou restorest the dead to life, thou bringest things to
    completeness (?).
  O merciful one among the gods!

One scarcely detects any difference between such a hymn and those to Sin
and Nebo. The lines are adapted, like the other specimens, for
recitation by two parties. The last line forms a solemn close to a
section of this hymn. In the section that follows, the same character is
maintained till we approach the close, when the exorciser steps in and
asks Marduk to

  Expel the disease of the sick man,
  The plague, the wasting disease ...

and the various classes of demons, _utukku, alu,_ etc., are introduced.

Compare this now with some passages in a prayer addressed to
Marduk:[450]

  A resting-place for the lord (of E-sagila) is thy house.
  A resting-place for the lord of E-makh-tila is thy house.
  E-sagila, the house of thy sovereignty, is thy house.
  May the city speak 'rest'[451] to thee--thy house.
  May Babylon speak peace to thee[452]--thy house.
  May the great Anu, the father of the gods, tell thee when there will
    be rest.
  May the great mountain, the father of the gods,[453] tell thee when
    there will be rest.

  ...

  Look favorably upon thy house,
  Look favorably upon the city, O lord of rest!
  May he restore to his place the bolt Babylon, the enclosure E-sagila,
    the edifice E-zida,[454]
  May the gods of heaven and earth speak to thee, O lord of rest.

Here we have specific references to Marduk. Everything about the city of
Babylon is associated with the god. The great gods pay homage to Marduk.
The whole hymn, conceived as a royal prayer to the god, clearly formed
part of the ritual prepared for the great Marduk temple at Babylon. The
hymn closes, as so many others, with a prayer on behalf of the king. The
god is asked

  To establish firmly the foundation of the throne of his sovereignty,
  So that he may nourish (?) mankind to distant days.

'Rest,' in the liturgical language, implied cessation of anger. Marduk,
as the 'lord of rest,' was the pacified deity; and since it was a
necessary condition in obtaining an answer to petitions that the god
should be free from anger, the city, the temple, and the gods are
represented as unitedly speaking to him--appealing to him to be at
'rest.' The production might, therefore, be called a 'pacification
hymn.' The god has shown his anger by bringing on misfortune of some
shape. His divine associates are no less anxious than his human subjects
to pacify the mighty god.

Passing on to another god, a hymn to the storm-god, Ramman, enables us
to specify the great terror that the god, as the general source of
disturbances in the heavenly phenomena, inspired. The god is
addressed[455] as

  The lord who in his anger holds the heavens in his control,
  Ramman in his wrath the earth has shaken.
  The mighty mountain--thou dost overturn it.
  At his anger, at his wrath,
  The gods of heaven mount up to heaven,[456]
  The gods of earth enter the earth.
  Into the foundation of heaven Shamash[457] enters.

The illustrations adduced will suffice to show the manner in which the
Babylonians conceived the relationship between mankind and the gods. The
element of fear alternated with that of love, and no matter how near the
gods were felt to be, one was never certain of their good will.

Another feature of some of these hymns which calls for special mention
is the introduction of the deity as himself or herself taking part in
the dialogue. A hymn addressed to Ishtar, as the morning and evening
star,[458] belongs to this class.[459] It begins with a glorification of
the goddess as the source of light, of being, and of earthly blessings.
The worshipper speaks:

  O light of heaven who arises like fire over the earth, who art fixed
    in the earth,
  Thou art exalted in strength like the earth.
  As for thee, a just path be graciously granted to thee
  When thou enterest the house of man.
  A hyena on the hunt for a young lamb art thou,
  A restless lion art thou.
  A destructive handmaid, the beauty of heaven,
  A handmaid is Ishtar, the beauty of heaven,
  Who causest all being to emanate, O beauty of heaven,
  Associate (?) of the sun, O beauty of heaven!

At this point the goddess speaks, through the officiating priest, who
acts as the mediator:

  For determining oracles[460] I have been established, in perfection
    have I been established.
  For determining oracles of my father Sin, I have been established, in
    perfection have I been established.
  For determining oracles of my brother Shamash, I have been
    established, in perfection have I been established.
  Me has my father Sin fixed, to determine oracles I have been
    established,
  Shining anew in heaven, for determining oracles I have been
    established, in perfection have I been established.

From the regular repetition of the refrain at the end of each line, one
is tempted to conclude that these utterances of the goddess were to be
recited by an officiating priest with the assistance of a chorus of
priests, to whom the refrain was assigned, or it may be that the lines
were alternately recited by the priest and the chorus. In the section
that follows, this alternative character of the lines is more clearly
indicated:

  Full of delight is my majesty, full of delight is my supremacy,
  Full of delight do I as a goddess walk supreme.
  Ishtar, the goddess of morning am I,
  Ishtar, the goddess of evening am I,
  (I am) Ishtar,--to open the lock of heaven belongs to my supremacy.
  Heaven I destroy, earth I devastate,[461]--such is my supremacy.
  The destroyer of heaven, the devastator of the earth,--such is my
    majesty.
  To rise up out of the foundation of heaven,
  Whose fame shines among the habitation of men,--such is my supremacy.
  Queen of heaven that on high and below is invoked,--such is my
    supremacy.
  The mountain I sweep away altogether,--such is my supremacy.
  The destroyer of the mountain walls am I, their great foundation am
    I,--such is my supremacy.

The hymn closes with a prayer that the anger of the god be appeased:

  May thy heart be at rest, thy liver[462] be pacified.
  By the great lord Anu, may thy heart be at rest.
  By the lord, the great mountain Bel, may thy liver be pacified.
  O goddess, mistress of heaven, may thy heart be at rest.
  O supreme mistress of heaven, may thy liver be pacified.
  O supreme mistress of the E-anna,[463] may thy heart be at rest.
  O supreme mistress of the land of Erech, may thy liver be pacified.
  O supreme mistress of the shining Erech, may thy heart be at rest.
  O supreme mistress of the mountain of the universe, may thy liver be
    pacified.
  O supreme mistress, queen of E-tur-kalama,[464] may thy heart be at
    rest.
  O supreme mistress, queen of Babylon, may thy liver be pacified.
  O supreme mistress, whose name is Nanâ, may thy heart be at rest.
  O mistress of the house, lady of the gods, may thy liver be pacified.

FOOTNOTES:

[416] Inscription D, col. v. ll. 2-7.

[417] Abel-Winckler, _Keilschrifttexte_, p. 33, col. iii. ll. 52-58.

[418] Ball, _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._ xi. 124 _seq._

[419] _Annals_, Cylinder B, col. v. ll. 30-46.

[420] Without proper burial,--the greatest misfortune that could happen
to the dead.

[421] _I.e._, life.

[422] _I.e._, called to the throne.

[423] See p. 296.

[424] The prayers and hymns of the Babylonians are only beginning to
receive the attention they deserve at the hands of scholars. Sayce,
_e.g._, in the specimens attached to his _Hibbert Lectures_, pp.
479-520, does not even distinguish properly between pure hymns and mere
incantations. Now that Dr. Bezold's great catalogue of the Koujunjik
collection of the British Museum is completed, the opportunity is
favorable for some one to study the numerous unpublished fragments of
hymns in the British Museum, and produce in connection with those that
have been published a comprehensive work on the subject. Knudtzon's
_Assyrische Gebete an den Sonnengott_ may serve as a model for such a
work.

[425] IVR. 28, no. 1.

[426] Some specification of the kind of vessel meant.

[427] Inscriptions were written on various metals,--gold, silver,
antimony, lead, copper, etc.

[428] IVR. 20, no. 2.

[429] See above, p. 286.

[430] Published by Bertin in the _Revue d'Assyriologie_, no. 4, and
translated by Sayce, _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 573. I adopt Sayce's
translation, Bertin's publication being inaccessible to me.

[431] Probably 'horizon.'

[432] Lit., speak to thee of peace.

[433] _I.e._, may thy anger depart.

[434] IVR. 9.

[435] 'The illuminator,' one of the names of Sin. See above, p. 75.

[436] The name of Sin's temple at Ur.

[437] A metaphor descriptive of the moon, because of the resemblance of
the crescent to a horn.

[438] The moon-god is pictured with a long beard on the seal cylinders.
See p. 76.

[439] _I.e._, unlike other products, the moon's fullness is
self-created.

[440] A reference perhaps to the supposed influence of the moon on the
tides.

[441] The rest of the hymn--some dozen lines--is too fragmentary to
warrant translation.

[442] We have, however, a list (IIR. 58, no. 5) giving many titles and
names of Ea that must have been prepared on the basis of Ea hymns.

[443] IVR. 20, no. 3.

[444] _I.e._, of Marduk.

[445] This weapon plays a part in some of the Babylonian myths.

[446] The weapon is miraculous--It kills instantly, but without causing
blood to flow. The reference is to the lightning stroke.

[447] IVR. 29, no. 1.

[448] Perhaps a reference to Ea.

[449] Name for the inhabitants of Babylonla, and then used in general
for mankind. _Cf._ p. 281.

[450] IVR. 18, no. 2. Badly preserved.

[451] _I.e._, call upon thee to be pacified.

[452] _I.e._, salute thee.

[453] Bel.

[454] The strongly fortified city of Babylon is compared to a bolt and
the temple to an enclosure.

[455] IVR. 28, no. 2.

[456] _I.e._, fly to a safe place.

[457] _I.e._, the sun is obscured.

[458] See above, p. 84.

[459] Delitzsch, _Assyrische Lesestücke_ (3d edition), pp. 134-136.

[460] The portents taken through observation of the position of Ishtar
or Venus in the heavens were of especial value.

[461] Phrases introduced to illustrate the power, not the function, of
Ishtar.

[462] The liver as the seat of the emotions.

[463] _I.e._, house of heaven. Name of Ishtar's temple at Erech.

[464] _I.e._, court of the universe. Name of one of Ishtar's temples.




CHAPTER XVIII.

PENITENTIAL PSALMS.


It will be recalled that both in the Ishtar hymn and in the one to
Marduk above quoted, great stress is laid upon pacifying the deity
addressed. Starting from the primitive conception that misfortunes were
a manifestation of divine anger, the Babylonians never abandoned the
belief that transgressions could be atoned for only by appeasing the
anger of the deity. But within this limitation, an ethical spirit was
developed among the Babylonians that surprises us by its loftiness and
comparative purity. Instead of having recourse merely to incantation
formulas, the person smitten with disease or pursued by ill fortune
would turn in prayer to some god at whose instigation the evil has come
and appeal for the pacification of the divine wrath. But while the
origin of the so-called penitential psalms is thus closely bound up with
the same order of thought that gave rise to the incantation texts, no
less significant is the divorce between the two classes of compositions
that begins already at an early stage of the literary period. The
incantations, it is true, may be combined with compositions that belong
to a higher order of religious thought. We have seen that they have been
so combined, and yet the dividing line between the two is also sharply
marked. Zimmern, to whom, more than to any one else, the interpretation
of these penitential psalms is due, has suggested[465] that national
misfortunes rather than private grievances may have given an impetus to
this class of literary productions. It is true that historical
references are found in some of the hymns, and it is also significant
that not only do these psalms occasionally embody a prayer for the
king,--thus giving to them a national rather than a personal
character,--but the kings are called upon in times of distress to
accompany their libations to the gods with the recitation of a 'lament
to quiet the heart,'[466] as the Babylonians called this class of hymns.

One can easily see how such events as defeat in war would be ascribed to
divine wrath, and not to the workings of evil spirits or witches; and
while the personal tone that pervades most of the penitential psalms
makes them applicable to conditions affecting the individual as well as
the nation, the peculiar fitness of such psalms for occasions of
national importance was a powerful factor in bringing about their sharp
separation from the incantation formulas.

Just as in the hymns we found that the mere contemplation of the
attributes of the gods, apart from the manifestation of these attributes
in any particular instance, led to a loftier interpretation of the
relationship existing between the gods and mankind, so the thought that
evil was due in the last instance to the anger of some god led to
greater emphasis being laid upon this relationship. The anger of the god
prompted both the individual and the nation to greater zeal in securing
the deity's love. To an even greater extent than in the hymns is the
element of love introduced into the penitential psalms, and when not
directly expressed, is so clearly implied as to form the necessary
complement to the conception of the divine wrath. These psalms indeed
show the religious and ethical thought of Babylonia at its best. Their
ethical phase manifests itself more particularly in the conception of
sin which is unfolded in them. The misfortunes of life, more especially
those which could not so readily be ascribed to the presence of evil
spirits, filled the individual with his sense of guilt. In some way,
known or unknown to him, he must have offended the deity. The thought
whether the deity was justified in exercising his wrath did not trouble
him any more than the investigation of the question whether the
punishment was meted out in accordance with the extent of the wrong
committed. It was not necessary for the deity to be just; it was
sufficient that some god felt himself to be offended, whether through
the omission of certain rights or through an error in the performance of
rites or what not. The two facts which presented themselves with
overpowering force to the penitent were the anger of the deity and the
necessity of appeasing that anger. Beyond this conclusion the
Babylonians and Assyrians did not go, but this reasoning also sufficed
to bring the conviction home to him that his misfortunes were the result
of some offence. The man afflicted was a sinner, and the corollary to
this position was that misfortunes come in consequence of sin. Through
the evils alone which overtook one, it became clear to an individual
that he had sinned against the deity. Within this circle of ideas the
penitential psalms of Babylonia move. They do not pass wholly outside of
the general Semitic view that sin is a 'missing of the mark,'--a
failure, whether voluntary or involuntary, to comply with what was
demanded by the deity under whose protection one stood. But one became
conscious of having 'missed the mark' only when evil in some
form--disease, ill luck, deluge, drought, defeat, destruction, storms,
pecuniary losses, family discords, the death of dear ones--came to
remind the individual or the nation of the necessity of securing the
favor of the deity again. Still within this sphere there were great
possibilities of ethical progress, and some of the Babylonian psalms
breathe a spirit and are couched in a diction that have prompted a
comparison with the Biblical psalms.[467] Thrown, as the sinner felt
himself to be, upon the mercy of the angry deity, it mattered little
what had called forth this wrath or whether the deity was conceived as
acting in accordance with just ideas. The thought that would engage the
entire attention of the penitent would be the appeasement of his god. To
effect this, he would not stop short at exaggerating his own guilt. He
would manifest a contrition of spirit that would not be the less sincere
for being, perhaps, out of proportion to the character of his sin when
judged by our standards.

Corresponding to the humiliation of mind to which he would be brought,
his longing to be reconciled to the offended deity would be intensified.
He would address this deity in terms of strong endearment, magnify his
or her powers, as the case may be, and belittle himself and his own
worth. The result of such a mental discipline could not but react
healthfully on the mind of the penitent. The penitent would arise from
his prayer with a more spiritual conception of the relationship existing
between himself and his god. Not appealing for any material benefits for
the time being, but concerned only with appeasing the divine wrath, the
single burden of his prayer "that the heart of the offended god might be
'at rest'" would be marked by an intensity all the stronger for being at
least comparatively pure of grosser associations.

All these features combined serve to make the penitential psalms the
flower of the religious literature of Babylonia. The productions not
only represent the highest stage which religious thought reached in the
Euphrates Valley, but, in a certain sense, constitute the only
productions in cuneiform literature that have a permanent literary
value.

We find these compositions marked by a third feature which, however, as
we have already seen, is not peculiar to them,--the dialogue form. In
order to bring about a reconciliation with an angered god, three
personages were necessary in the drama,--the god, the penitent, and,
thirdly, the priest, acting as mediator between the sinner and his
deity. The deity, according to Babylonian notions, could not be
approached directly, but only through his chosen messengers,--the
priests. This idea of mediation, as against the immediate approach, was
so pronounced as to lead, as we have seen, to the frequent association
with a god of a second divine personage,--his son or his
servant,--through whom the petitions of mankind were brought to the
throne of grace.[468] The priest was similarly conceived as the
messenger of the god, and, by virtue of this office, endowed with a
certain measure, at least, of divine power. He was, in the full sense,
the god's vicar on earth,--his representative, who could, as we saw in
the Ishtar hymn, speak in the first person on behalf of the god.[469]
The more manifest mission of the priest, however, was to intercede on
behalf of the mass of mankind. Accepting the sacrifices offered by the
laity, it was he that secured their gracious acceptance on the part of
the deity. It was the priest, as we have seen, who instructed the
individual to pronounce the magic formulas that would be appropriate to
his case; and just as in the incantation texts the priest accompanied
the recitation of the formulas with an appeal of his own, so in the
penitential psalms, he stood at the penitent's side, instructing him
what to say, and emphasizing the confessions of the penitent by an
assurance to the deity of the sincerity of the penitent, coupled with a
fervent request that the prayer for 'appeasement,' which involved all
that we mean by forgiveness, be graciously answered.

It is unfortunate that the text of none of the penitential psalms is
perfectly preserved. We must, therefore, content ourselves in our
illustrations with more or less imperfect extracts. It is to be noted,
too, that often the exact meaning of the lines escapes us, owing to the
obscurity of terms employed or to the gaps in the texts themselves. With
few exceptions the psalms appear in the double style characteristic of
so large a section of the religious literature of the Babylonians, the
'ideographic' composition being accompanied by a phonetic
transliteration. The fact, however, that we have at least one text (IVR.
59, no. 2) in the phonetic style alone, is sufficient to show that no
_special_ weight is to be attached to the supposed 'bilingual' character
of the others. This double style is not a feature that need be taken
into account in determining the age of this class of compositions. The
historical references in some of them have prompted Zimmern to give his
partial assent to the opinion which would assign them, or some of them,
to the age of Hammurabi. Beyond such references, which are not as clear
as they might be, we have no data through which their age can be
determined; but so far as the ideas which they convey and the religious
spirit manifested in them are concerned, there is no reason why they
should not be assigned to as early a period as some of the incantation
texts. It is characteristic of the Babylonian, as, in a measure, of all
religions, that the old and the new go hand in hand; that more advanced
conceptions, so far from setting aside primitive ones, can live and
thrive in the same atmosphere with the latter. We may, therefore, assume
that penitential psalms existed as early as 2000 B.C. Whether any of
these that have been preserved go back to that period is another
question. One gains the impression from a careful study of them that
most of these, if not all, belong to a somewhat later period, nearer to
the first millennium than to the second millennium before our era. The
Assyrians adopted these psalms, as they did the other features of the
religious literature of the Babylonians, and enriched the collection by
productions of their own which, however, follow closely the Babylonian
models.

A particularly beautiful psalm, judging from the portion preserved,
represents the penitent addressing his goddess--probably Ishtar--as
follows:[470]

  I, thy servant, full of sighs, call upon thee;
  The fervent prayer of him who has sinned do thou accept.
  If thou lookest upon a man, that man lives.
  O all-powerful mistress of mankind,
  Merciful one, to whom it is good to turn, who hears[471] sighs!

At this point the priest takes up the thread to emphasize the appeal of
the penitent by adding to it his own. He prays to the goddess:

  His god and goddess being angry with him, he calls upon thee,
  Turn towards him thy countenance, take hold of his hand.

The penitent continues:

  Besides thee, there is no guiding deity.
  I implore thee to look upon me and hear my sighs.
  Proclaim pacification,[472] and may thy soul be appeased.
  How long, O my mistress, till thy countenance be turned towards me.
  Like doves, I lament, I satiate myself with sighs.

The priest once more sums up the penitent's prayer:

  With pain and ache, his soul is full of sighs;
  Tears he weeps, he pours forth lament (?).

A trait which appears in many of these psalms is the anonymity beneath
which the offended deity is veiled. His or her name is often not
mentioned, the deity being simply referred to as god or goddess, and at
times it is left doubtful whether the sinner has 'sinned' against the
demands of a god or a goddess, or against several deities. This feature
is not without significance. In some cases, no doubt, the name of the
specific deity was to be added by the penitent,[473] but in others this
does not appear to be indicated. The anonymity is the natural result of
the conception of sin involved in these productions. The sinner,
becoming conscious of his guilt only as a conclusion drawn from the fact
of his suffering from some misfortune, could only surmise, but never be
entirely certain, wherein his offence consisted or what deity he had
offended. In the case of the recital of incantation formulas, the
question as to the offended deity was a minor one, and may indeed, at an
earlier stage of thought, not have entered into consideration at all.
This anonymity, therefore, which characterized the penitential psalms
was not due to any advance in thought, but one can easily see how it led
to such an advance. What may be called the personal aspects of the gods
were less accentuated. The very fact that no particular god could in
many cases be specified entailed, as a consequence, that the views held
of the gods gained in abstractness. The general thought of one's
dependence upon these supernatural powers, without further
specification, superinduced a grouping of the gods under a common
aspect, as the directors of man's fate. In short, the notion of deity,
not indeed as a unit, but as a collective idea, begins to dawn in
Babylonia. At the same time we must beware of exaggerating the force
that this notion acquired. There is not the slightest trace of any
approach to real monotheism in Babylonia, nor can it even be said that
the penitential psalms constitute a bridge leading to such an approach.
The strong hold that astrology at all times, and up to the latest
periods, had upon both the popular and the educated mind was in itself
sufficient to prevent the Babylonians from passing, to any considerable
degree, beyond the stage in which the powers of nature were personified
and imbued with real life. The penitential psalms presuppose this belief
as much as any other branch of the religious literature; they merely
illustrate this belief in the purest form of which, in the course of its
development, it was capable.

A psalm in which this anonymity of the offended god is more strongly
brought out begins as follows.[474] The penitent prays:

  O that the wrath of my lord's heart return to its former
    condition,[475]
  O that the god who is unknown be pacified,
  O that the goddess unknown be pacified,
  O that the god known or unknown[476] be pacified,
  O that the goddess known or unknown be pacified,
  O that the heart of my god be pacified,
  O that the god or goddess known or unknown be pacified!

The penitent, it will be seen, does not know whether it is a god or a
goddess whom he has offended. He therefore appeals to both. He goes on
to say that he is not even aware of the sin that he has committed:

  The sin that I have committed I know not.

And yet he must have sinned or he would not suffer as he does. In
addition to his confession, he imposes the hardship of fasting upon
himself by way of penance:

  Food I have not eaten;
  Clear water I have not drunk.

The reference to fasting occurs so frequently in these psalms that one
is tempted to conclude that such a bodily castigation was demanded by
the ritual of the Babylonians:[477]

  An offence have I unwittingly committed against my god,
  A sin against my goddess unwillingly been guilty of,
  O lord, my sins are many, great are my transgressions,
  O my god, my sins are many, great are my transgressions,
  O my goddess, my sins are many, great are my transgressions,
  Known or unknown god, my sins are many, great are my transgressions.

Again the sinner protests his innocence of the wrong he has done. He
only knows that

  The lord has looked upon me in the rage of his heart,
  A god has visited me in his wrath,
  A goddess has become angry with me and brought me into pain,
  A known or unknown god has oppressed me,
  A known or unknown goddess has brought sorrow upon me.
  I seek for help, but no one takes my hand.
  I weep, but no one approaches me.
  I call aloud, but no one hears me.
  Full of woe, I grovel in the dust without looking up.
  To my merciful god I turn, speaking with sighs.
  The feet of my goddess I kiss imploringly (?).
  To the known or unknown god do I speak with sighs,
  To the known or unknown goddess do I speak with sighs.
  O lord, look upon me, accept my lament,
  O goddess, look upon me, accept my lament,
  O known or unknown goddess, look upon me, accept my lament!

In this strain he proceeds for some time, until he is interrupted by the
priest, who briefly adds:

  O lord, do not cast aside thy servant,
  Overflowing with tears,[478] take him by the hand!

The penitent closes the prayer by another and still more earnest appeal:

  The sin I have committed change to mercy,
  The wrong I have done, may the wind carry off.
  Tear asunder my many transgressions as a garment.
  My god, my sins are seven times seven,[479] forgive me my sins.
  My goddess, my sins are seven times seven, forgive me my sins,
  Known or unknown god, my sins are seven times seven, forgive me my
    sins.
  Known or unknown goddess, my sins are seven times seven, forgive me my
    sins.
  Forgive me my sins and I will humble myself before thee.
  May thy heart be glad[480] as the heart of the mother that has given
    birth,
  May thy heart be glad as that of a mother who has given birth, as
    that of a father who has begotten a child.

The proportions between the parts taken by the priest and penitent vary
considerably. In the one quoted, the priest is only incidentally
introduced; in others,[481] it is the penitent who plays the minor part.
The penitential ritual varied accordingly; but since we cannot discover
here, as we could in the case of the incantation texts, the special
occasions for the variations, except for those that contain historical
references, one must suppose that they could be used indifferently at
the choice of the penitent or the priest. It is probable that at one
time a large collection of such psalms was made in Babylonia, and that
those we have represent compositions made from the rituals of various
temples. In one psalm we have a distinct statement from which we may
conclude that it belonged to the E-sagila temple at Babylon. Only a
portion of it is preserved.[482] It is interesting, also, because of a
reference to a dream that it contains, and which the god of Babylon is
called upon to convert into a favorable sign for the petitioner. Zimmern
is of the opinion that the hymn may have been an evening prayer, but it
seems more satisfactory to place it merely in the general category of
penitential psalms, with a request for a sign that the deity has been
appeased. The sinner, after describing his woeful state,--

  Instead of food, I eat bitter tears,
  Instead of date-wine, I drink the waters of misery,
  For my drink I have bitter waters,
  Instead of clothes, I am enveloped in sin,[483]--

proceeds to a fervent appeal:

  O my god who art angry with me, accept my prayer,
  O my goddess who art wroth with me, accept my appeal,
  Accept my appeal, may thy liver be at rest!
  My lord in mercy and compassion [look upon me?]
  Who guides the span of life against the encroachments (?) of death,
    accept my prayer!
  O my goddess, look upon me, accept my appeal;
  May my sins be forgiven,[484] my transgressions be wiped out.
  May the ban be loosened, the chain broken,
  May the seven winds carry off my sighs.
  Let me tear away my iniquity, let the birds carry it to heaven,
  Let the fish take off my misfortune, the stream carry it off.
  May the beasts of the field take it away from me,
  The flowing waters of the stream wash me clean.
  Let me be pure like the sheen of gold.
  As a ring (?) of precious stone, may I be precious before thee.
  Remove my iniquity, save my soul.
  Thy [temple] court I will watch, thy image (?) I will set up.[485]
  Grant to me that I may see a favorable dream,
  The dream that I see, let it be favorable,
  The dream that I see, let it be unfailing,
  The dream that I see, turn it to a favorable [issue].
  The god Makhir (?), the god of dreams stand at my head.
  Let me enter into E-sagila, the temple of the gods, the house of life.
  Commend me to Marduk, the merciful one, for favor,
  I will be subservient to thy greatness, I will exalt thy divinity.

There follows a line from which one may further conclude that the psalm
is one composed for the royal chief of Babylonia. It is evidently only a
ruler who can assure the deity that

  The inhabitants of my city,[486] may they glorify thy power.

We know from the historical texts that previous to a military engagement
the kings were particularly desirous of some sign from the deity that
might serve to encourage the soldiery. Such a sign was ordinarily a
dream. The circumstances, therefore, seem to point to our psalm being a
royal prayer for forgiveness of transgressions, uttered before some
impending national crisis, in the hope of securing, with the divine
pardon, the protection of the deity who, up to this point in the
campaign, must have manifested his displeasure rather than his favor.
More distinct references to national events are found in another royal
penitential psalm:[487]

  How long, O my mistress, will the mighty foe oppress thy land,
  In thy great city Erech famine has settled,
  In E-ulbar, the house of thy oracle, blood is poured out like water,
  Throughout thy districts he has kindled conflagrations, and poured
    [fire] over them in columns (?).[488]
  O my mistress, I am abundantly yoked to misfortune,
  O my mistress, thou hast encompassed me, thou hast brought me into
    pain,
  The mighty foe has trodden me down as a reed,
  I have no judgment, I have no wisdom,
  Like a 'dry field' I am desolate night and day,
  I thy servant beseech thee,
  May thy heart be at rest, thy liver be pacified.

At times specific requests are inserted into these hymns, such as
release from physical ills. Sickness being, as any other evil, due to
divine anger, the sick man combines with his prayer for forgiveness of
the sin of which he is guilty, the hope that his disease, viewed as the
result of his sin, may be removed. A hymn addressed to Ishtar of Nineveh
by Ashurnasirbal, a king of Assyria,[489] is of this character. It
begins by an adoration of the goddess, who is addressed as

  The producer, the queen of heaven, the glorious lady,
  To the one who dwells in E-babbara ... who hath spread my fame,
  To the queen of the gods to whom has been entrusted the commands of
    the great gods,
  To the lady of Nineveh ...
  To the daughter of Sin, the twin-sister of Shamash, ruling over all
    kingdoms,
  Who issues decrees, the goddess of the universe,
  To the lady of heaven and earth, who receives prayer, who hearkens to
    the petition, who accepts beseeching,
  To the merciful goddess who loves righteousness.

The king calls upon Ishtar to listen to his prayers:

  Look upon me, O lady, so that through thy turning towards me the heart
    of thy servant may become strong.

Ashurnasirbal appeals to the goddess on the ground of what he has done
to promote the glory of the goddess in his land. He has devoted himself
to the service of the goddess. He has observed the festivals in her
honor. He has repaired her shrines. No less than fourteen images of the
goddess were set up by the king. Nay, more, he claims that before his
days Ishtar was not properly worshipped.

  I was without understanding, and did not pray to thy ladyship,
  The people of Assyria also lacked judgment, and did not approach thy
    divinity;
  But thou, O Ishtar, mighty weapon of the great gods,
  By thy grace[490] thou didst instruct me, and didst desire me to rule.

The statement that the Ishtar cult was introduced or even reinstated by
Ashurnasirbal can hardly be taken literally; but it distinctly points to
a movement in the days of the dynasty to which the king belonged, that
brought the worship of the goddess into great prominence.

In return for all that he has done to the house of Ishtar, the king
pleads:

  I, Ashurnasirbal, full of affliction, thy worshipper,
  Who takes hold of thy divine staff,
  Who prays to thy sovereignty,
  Look upon me and let me appeal to thy power!
  May thy liver be appeased for that which has aroused thy anger;
  Let thy whole heart be strong towards me.
  Make my disease come forth and remove my sin,
  Let thy mouth, O lady, proclaim forgiveness.
  The priestly vassal who worships thee without change,
  Grant him mercy and cut off his affliction.

The historical references found in the penitential psalms are valuable
indications, not only for determining the age of these compositions, but
for ascertaining the occasions on which they were employed. Neither the
Babylonian nor the Assyrian rulers ever reveal to us in their official
annals or dispatches any check that they may have encountered in their
careers or any misfortune that may have occurred to them or to the
state. These psalms tell their own story. They point to seasons of
distress, when recourse had to be taken to appeals to the gods,
accompanied by the confession of wrongs committed. As against the
incantations which are the outcome of the purely popular spirit, and
which are the _natural_ expression of popular beliefs, the penitential
psalms seem to represent a more official method of appealing to the
gods. The advance in religious thought which these productions signal
may, therefore, be due, in part at least, to a growing importance
attached to the relationship existing between the gods and the kingdom
as a whole, as against the purely private pact between a god and his
worshippers. The use of these psalms by Assyrian rulers, among whom the
idea of the kingdom assumes a greater significance than among the
Babylonians, points in this direction. It is significant, at all events,
that such psalms were also produced in Assyria; and while they are
entirely modeled upon the earlier Babylonian specimens, the contribution
to the religious literature thus made in the north must be regarded, not
as the outcome of the extension of the literary spirit prevailing in
Babylonia, but as prompted by a special significance attached to the
penitential ritual in removing the obstacles to the advancement of the
affairs of state.

Despite, therefore, the elevated thought and diction found in these
psalms, there is a close bond existing between them and the next branch
of the religious literature to be taken up,--the oracles and omens,
which similarly stand in close contact with affairs of state, and to
which, likewise, additions, and indeed, considerable additions, to the
stock received from Babylonia were made by the Assyrian _literati_.

FOOTNOTES:

[465] _Babylonische Busspsalmen_, pp. 1, 2.

[466] _I.e._, of the deity.

[467] See an article by Francis Brown, "The Religious Poetry of
Babylonia," _Presbyterian Review_, 1888.

[468] Compare the relationship existing between Ea and Marduk, noted
above, p. 276. Similarly, Nusku was the messenger to Bel. See p. 279.

[469] On the wider aspects of this conception of the priest among
ancient nations, see Frazer, _The Golden Bough_, passim.

[470] Zimmern, no. 1; IVR. 29, no. 5.

[471] Lit., 'accepts.'

[472] In the original appears a phrase which signifies literally 'when
at last,'--an abbreviation for 'when will there be rest,' and which has
become a kind of technical phrase to indicate, again, the hoped-for
pacification of the deity.

[473] The colophon to one of them (IVR. 10, Reverse 52) declares that
the production in question is a "penitential psalm for any god
whatsoever."

[474] IVR. 10. Zimmern, no. 4.

[475] _I.e._, be pacified.

[476] _I.e._, 'whoever he may be,' as we would say.

[477] Among many nations fasting is resorted to as a means of atonement.
It must have been common among the Hebrews during the period of the
Babylonian exile--perhaps through Babylonian influence. See Isaiah,
lviii. 3.

[478] Lit., rushing water.

[479] _I.e._, very numerous.

[480] Be pacified.

[481] _E.g._, IVR. 61.

[482] _Ib._ 59, no. 2.

[483] Delitzsch, _Assyr. Wörterbuch_, p. 378. In another psalm the
penitent says similarly, "Food I have not eaten, weeping is my
nourishment, water I have not drunk, tears are my drink."

[484] Lit., 'released.' The underlying metaphor represents the
individual held fast by sin, just as the demons seize hold of a man.

[485] A somewhat puzzling line, but which appears to convey the promise
on the part of the penitent that if forgiven he will observe the rites
demanded by the deity.

[486] Babylon.

[487] IVR 19, no. 3; Zimmern, no. 5.

[488] Like a column. The metaphor is the same as in the Biblical phrase,
"column of smoke."

[489] Published by Brünnow, _Zeits. f. Assyr._ v. 66 _seq._ The king
mentions his father, Shamshi-Ramman, in the hymn. If this is
Shamshi-Ramman III., the date of the hymn would be _c._ 1100 B.C.

[490] Lit., 'lifting up of thy eyes.'




CHAPTER XIX.

ORACLES AND OMENS.


A strong element of magic, we have seen, was always present in the hymns
and prayers of the Babylonians, and even in such as contained religious
sentiments of an elevated and pure character. The finest prayer has
almost invariably tacked on to it an incantation, or constitutes in
itself an incantation. Accompanying the prayer were offerings to the
deity addressed, or certain symbolical rites, or both, and the efficacy
of the prayer was supposed to reside partly in the accompanying acts and
partly in the mystic power of the _words_ of the prayer as such. In
large measure this indissoluble association of prayer and incantation is
due to the circumstance that both Babylonians and Assyrians addressed
their deities only when something was desired of the latter,--the
warding off of some evil or the expectation of some favor. Even in the
penitential psalms, that merit the term 'sublime,' the penitent pours
out his soul at the shrine of grace in order to be released from some
misfortune that has come over him or that is impending. Mere praise of
the gods without any ulterior motive finds no place in the Babylonian or
Assyrian ritual. The closest approach to this religious attitude may
perhaps be seen in the prayers attached by the kings to their
commemorative or dedicatory inscriptions. One feels that the rulers are
impelled to do this from a certain sense of love and devotion to their
protecting deities. Nebuchadnezzar's prayers form a conspicuous example
of the strength which pure love and attachment to the gods acquired in
Babylonia; but even in these specimens, a request of some kind--usually
for long life and prosperity--is made. The spiritualization of the
Babylonian religion has in this way most definite limitations imposed
upon it. There is a point beyond which it could not go without giving
rise to a totally changed conception of the gods and their relationship
to men. Prayer in its higher form, as the result of an irresistible
prompting of the emotions, without any other purpose than the longing to
come into closer communion with a superior Power, involves such a change
in religious conceptions, and hence is conspicuous in the Babylonian
ritual by its absence.

A request of some kind being thus the motive that lies behind the
Babylonian prayers, it follows that the means taken to ascertain the
will or intention of the gods with regard to that request formed an
essential feature of the ritual. Indeed, to ascertain the will of a
deity constituted one of the most important functions of the
priest--perhaps _the_ most important function. The prayer was of no use
unless it was answered, and the priest alone could tell whether the
answer was afforded. The efforts of the priest were accordingly directed
towards this end--the prognostication of the future. What was the
intention of the deity? Would the hoped-for deliverance from evil be
realized? Would the demon of disease leave the body? Would the
symbolical acts, burning of effigies, loosening of knots, and the like,
have the desired effect? Upon the success of the priest in performing
this function of prognostication everything depended, both for himself
and for the petitioner.

The natural and indeed necessary complement to the priest as exorciser
is the priest as the forecaster of the future. Since no one, not even
the king, could approach a deity directly, the mediation of the priest
was needed on every occasion of a religious import. The ordinary means
at the disposal of the priest for ascertaining the divine will or
caprice were twofold,--directly through oracles or indirectly by means
of omens derived from an examination of the sacrifices offered. A
complete Babylonian ritual therefore required, besides the appeal made
by the petitioner through the priests or with their assistance, an
incantation introduced in some form, an offering, certain symbolical
acts and omens. The offerings and the symbolical acts, as a matter of
fact, appear to have preceded[491] the prayer and the incantation, but
in the prayers they are referred to again, and generally just before the
interpretation of the omens. The omens constituted the ulterior end in
view. Because of the looked-for omens the offering was brought, the
symbolical acts performed, the incantations recited. All these rites
formed the preparation for the grand _finale_. The worshipper waited
anxiously for the decision of the priest. Attached, therefore, to the
prayers we frequently find directions intended for the priests as to the
signs to which his attention should be directed, certain peculiarities
exhibited in parts of the animal sacrificed from which certain
conclusions may be drawn. The observation of these signs grows to the
dimensions of a science equal in extent to the observation of the
heavenly bodies whose movements, as indeed the whole of the natural
world, were supposed to exert an influence over the fate of mankind.

It does not of course follow that in the case of every prayer an
elaborate ritual was observed. Many of the prayers to the gods in their
present form do not embody omens, as indeed many contain no reference to
offerings or symbolical acts. While no conclusion can be drawn from this
circumstance, since the omission may be due to the point of view from
which in a given case a collection of prayers was made by the priest,
still we may well believe that for the exorcising of evil spirits the
utterance of sacred formulas was often considered quite sufficient. In
the earlier stages of the Babylonian religion the priest's function may
have ended when he had exorcised the demons by means of magic words. The
demons were forced to yield. If they nevertheless held out, so much the
worse for them or--for the priest, who, it was concluded, must have lost
his power over the spirits through some error committed by him. The
resort to omens has wider aspects, as will presently be shown, than the
connection with prayers and offerings, and a most reasonable view is
that omens were first introduced into prayers on occasions when a
worshipper wished to ascertain the will of a deity for a certain
purpose, and to regulate his own conduct accordingly. In petitioning the
deity a sacrifice was naturally offered. Through the sacrifice, which
was rendered acceptable to the deity by the mediation of the priest, the
desired answer to a question was obtained. From being resorted to in
such instances, omens would naturally come to form part of the ritual
for almost any occasion when a deity was appealed to, both in connection
with incantations and symbolical acts when the omens would form a
supplement to the magic element in the ritual, as well as in cases where
no specific incantations are introduced. In both cases the omens would
constitute the means resorted to for ascertaining whether the petitioner
might look for a favorable reply to a request proffered or, in a more
general way, find out anything that it may be important for him to know.
The occasions for consulting the deity would be of a public or private
character. How far it became customary for the general public to secure
the mediation of a priest for securing aid from the gods in matters
appertaining to personal welfare we have no means of definitely
determining. We find, for example, a son consulting an oracle on behalf
of his father in order to ascertain what day would be favorable for
undertaking some building operation,[492] and he receives the answer
that the fourth of the month will be propitious; and so there are other
occasions on which private individuals consult the priests, but in
general it was only on occasions of real distress that an individual
would come to the sanctuary,--to seek relief from bodily ills, to ward
off blows of adversity, to pacify a deity who has manifested his or her
displeasure. The expense involved--for the worshipper was not to appear
empty-handed--would of itself act as a deterrent against too frequent
visits to a sanctuary.

The public welfare occupied a much larger share in the Babylonian
worship. In order to ensure the safety of the state, occasions
constantly arose when the deities had to be consulted. It is no accident
that so many of the prayers--the hymns and psalms--contain references to
kings and to events that transpired during their reigns. In these
references the occasions for the prayers are to be sought. Remarkable as
is the expression which the consciousness of individual guilt finds in
the religious literature of Babylonia, the anger of the deity against
his land is much more prominently dwelt upon than the manifestation of
his wrath towards an individual. It could not be otherwise, since the
welfare of the state conditioned to so large an extent the happiness of
the individual. The startling phenomena of nature, such as an eclipse, a
flood, a storm, while affecting individuals were not aimed directly at
them, but at the country viewed as the domain of a certain god or of
certain gods. Blighted crops, famine, and pestilence had likewise a
public as well as a private aspect. On all such occasions the rulers
would proceed to the sanctuaries in order, with the assistance of the
priests, to pacify the angered god. It was not sufficient at such times
to pronounce sacred formulas, to make fervent appeals, but some
assurances had to be given that the words and the symbolical acts would
have the desired effect. Omens were sought for from the animals offered.
There were other occasions besides those stated, when for the sake of
the public welfare oracles were sought at the sanctuaries. If a public
improvement was to be undertaken, such as the building of a palace, or
of a temple, of a canal, or a dam, it was of the utmost importance to
know whether the enterprise was acceptable to the deity. A day had to be
carefully chosen for laying the foundations, when the god would be
favorably disposed towards his subjects,--the kings under whose auspices
such work was carried on. Similar precautions had to be taken to select
a favorable day for the dedication. This again was determined by means
of omens either derived from offerings or in some other way. The
Babylonians and Assyrians believed, as did the Jews upon their return
from the Babylonian exile, that 'unless the lord assists, the builders
work in vain.' When we come to military campaigns where the individual
disappears altogether in the presence of the majestic figure of the
state, the will and disposition of the gods had to be consulted at every
step,--regarding the plans of the enemy, at the enemy's approach, before
the battle, in the midst of the fray, and at its termination.

The frequency with which the gods were approached in the interests of
the state and the public weal, plied with questions upon which the fate
of the land depended, is shown by the stereotyped form which such
official solicitations in the course of time acquired. Dating from the
reigns of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanabal we have an elaborate series of
prayers addressed to the sun-god, all dealing with questions of a
political import. These prayers, so admirably edited and analyzed by
Knudtzon,[493] are all arranged according to a single pattern. Each one
opens with a question or series of questions which Shamash, the sun-god,
is asked to answer. The god is then implored not to be angry, but to
lend his aid against any errors unwittingly committed in the sacrificial
rites. For a second time the same question is put in a somewhat varying
form. Another appeal is made, and the various omens derived from the
inspection of animals are interpreted as a guide to the priests.
According to the application of these omens to the sacrifice before the
priest, a decision is rendered. It will be sufficient for our purposes
to present a single specimen of such a fixed ritual.[494]

Esarhaddon, being hard pressed by a group of nations to the northeast of
Assyria, led by a certain Kashtariti, and among whose followers the
Gimirrites, the Medes, and Manneans are the most prominent, asks for an
oracle from Shamash as to the outcome of the situation. The priest,
acting as mediator, addresses[495] the god:

    O Shamash! great lord! As I ask thee, do thou in true mercy
    answer me.

    From this day, the 3d day of this month of Iyar[496] to the 11th
    day of the month of Ab[497] of this year, a period of one
    hundred days and one hundred nights is the proscribed term for
    the priestly activity.[498]

    Will within this period, Kashtariti, together with his soldiery,
    will the army of the Gimirrites, the army of the Medes, will the
    army of the Manneans, or will any enemy whatsoever succeed in
    carrying out their plan, whether by strategy (?) or by main
    force, whether by the force of weapons of war and fight or by
    the ax, whether by a breach made with machines of war and
    battering rams[499] or by hunger, whether by the power residing
    in the name of a god or goddess,[500] whether in a friendly way
    or by friendly grace,[501] or by any strategic device, will
    these aforementioned, as many as are required to take a city,
    actually capture the city Kishassu, penetrate into the interior
    of that same city Kishassu, will their hands lay hold of that
    same city Kishassu, so that it falls into their power? Thy great
    divine power knows it.[502]

    The capture of that same city, Kishassu, through any enemy
    whatsoever, within the specified period, is it definitely
    ordained by thy great and divine will, O Shamash! Will it
    actually come to pass?[503]

It will be observed that, much as in a legal document, all contingencies
are enumerated. In other prayers, still more are mentioned. A definite
answer is required, and care is taken not to leave any loophole open by
means of which the deity may escape from the obligation imposed upon him
to manifest his intention. Shamash might answer that the city will not
be captured, with the mental reservation that it will surrender, or he
might throw Esarhaddon off his guard by announcing that "not by might
nor by strength" will the city be taken, and the king may be surprised
some morning to learn that the catastrophe has been brought about
through the power residing in the 'word.' These precautions were taken,
not so much because it was supposed that the gods and priests were
tricky, but because all conditions had to be carefully fulfilled in
order to ensure an answer, and, if at all possible, of course a
favorable answer. To the same end, great care had to be taken that in
the preparation of the offering which accompanied the prayer no mistake
should be made. The sacrificial animal--in the case before us a
lamb--had to be guarded against all imperfections, impurities, and
contaminations. The priest had to be careful to put on the proper dress,
to speak the proper words, and to be himself free from any ritualistic
impurity. Before proceeding to the inspection of the animal, in order to
forecast the future, the priest had to take care that nothing might
happen to interfere with the proper observation of the rites. This
section of the prayer is characterized by the word "_ezib_" repeated at
the beginning of every line, and which conveys the appeal that what
follows may be precluded from happening.[504] The priest first prays to
Shamash:

  Preclude that after the specified period [the catastrophe may not come
    to pass],
  Preclude whatever they [_i.e._, the enemies] may plan may not be
    carried out (?),
  Preclude them from making a slaughter and from plundering....
  Whether the decision of this day be good or bad, ward off a stormy
    day with pouring rain.

This last phrase, which is somewhat obscure, seems to be a request made
in the contingency of an unfavorable omen being received. The sun-god is
asked, at all events, not to hide his countenance under clouds and rain
on the decisive day of battle. Coming after these preliminary requests
to the sacrifice, the priest continues:

  Prevent anything unclean from defiling the place of inspection,[505]
  Prevent the lamb of thy divinity, which is to be inspected, from being
    imperfect and unfit.
  Guard him who takes hold of the body of the lamb, who is clothed in
    the proper sacrificial dress, from having eaten, drunk, or handled
    anything unclean.

The priest thereupon repeats his question to the sun-god:

    I ask thee, O Shamash! great lord! whether from the 3d day of
    this month of Iyar, up to the 11th day of the month of Ab of
    this year, Kashtariti, with his soldiers, whether the
    Gimirrites, the Manneans, the Medes, or whether any enemy
    whatsoever will take the said city, Kishassu, enter that said
    city, Kishassu, seize said city, Kishassu, with their hands,
    obtain it in their power.

The various terms used in describing the taking of a city are once more
specified, so as to fulfill all the demands of definiteness in the
question.

The priest is now ready to proceed with an examination of the animal
before him. A varying list of omens are introduced into the prayers
under consideration. That they are so introduced is a proof of the
official character of these texts. The omens were not, of course,
intended to be recited. They are enumerated as a guide to the priests.
The various signs that may be looked for are noted, and according to
what the priest finds he renders his decision. Knudtzon has made the
observation[507] that in the prayers published by him, the signs found
on the animal are noted but not interpreted. This rather curious
omission is again naturally accounted for on the assumption that these
prayers in their present form are part of a ritual compiled solely for
the benefit of priests attached to a Shamash sanctuary. Full directions
were not required. All that the priest needed was to know what to look
for. For the rest, he depended upon tradition or his own knowledge or
judgment. The omens themselves, or rather the signs, refer to the
condition in which certain parts of the animal are found or to
peculiarities in the composition of the animal.

The priest is instructed to observe whether 'at the nape on the left
side' there is a slit; whether 'at the bottom on the left side of the
bladder' some peculiarity[508] is found or whether it is normal; whether
'the nape to the right side' is sunk and split or whether the viscera
are sound. The proportions, too, in the size of the various parts of the
body appear to have been of moment; and in this way, a large number of
points are given to which the priest is to direct his attention. From a
combination of all peculiarities and signs in a given instance, he
divines the disposition of the god addressed, whether it is favorable or
not. The whole ceremony is brought to a close by another appeal to the
god to send an answer to the question put to him. The priest prays:

    By virtue of this sacrificial lamb, arise and grant true mercy,
    favorable conditions of the parts of the animal, a declaration
    favorable and beneficial be ordained by thy great divinity.
    Grant that this may come to pass. To thy great divinity, O
    Shamash! great lord! may it[509] be pleasing,[510] and may an
    oracle be sent in answer!

In some of the prayers a second series of omen indications are given.
What the oracle announced we are, of course, not told. The ritual is not
concerned with results.

From the analysis just given it will be seen that the consultation of a
deity was often entailed with much ceremony. No doubt the priests did
all in their power to add to the solemnity of such an occasion. The
kings on their side showed their lavishness in furnishing victims for
the sacrifice. Again and again does Esarhaddon solicit Shamash to reveal
the outcome of the military campaigns in which the king was engaged. The
same individual, Kashtariti, and the Gimirrites, Medes, etc., are
mentioned in many other prayers prepared in the course of the campaign;
and elsewhere other campaigns are introduced. What Esarhaddon did, no
doubt his successors also did, as he himself followed the example set by
his predecessors. We are justified, then, in concluding that a regular
'oracle and omen ritual' was developed in Babylonia and Assyria--how
early it is of course impossible to say. There is every reason to
believe that in some form such a ritual existed in Babylonia before the
rise of Assyria, but it is also evident that in a military empire like
Assyria, there would be more frequent occasion for securing oracles than
in Babylonia. The ritual may therefore have been carried to a greater
degree of perfection in the north. The Assyrian conquerors, if we may
judge from examples, were fond of asking for an oracle at every turn in
the political situation. The king intends to send an official to a
foreign land, but he is uncertain as to the wisdom of his decision.
Accordingly, he puts the case before the god. If this decision is taken,
he asks, Will the envoy carry out the orders of the king?

  Thy great divinity knows it.
  Is it commanded and ordained by thy great divinity,
  O Shamash? Is it to come to pass?[511]

In a similar way, questions are asked with reference to the course of a
campaign. Will the Assyrian king encounter the king of Ethiopia, and
will the latter give battle? Will the king return alive from the
campaign? is a question frequently asked. Even for their quasi-private
affairs, the kings sought for an oracle. Before giving his daughter in
marriage to a foreign potentate, Esarhaddon desires to know whether the
one seeking this favor, Bartatua, the king of Ishkuza,[512]

    is to be trusted, will he fulfill his promises, will he observe
    the decrees of Esarhaddon, the king of Assyria, and execute them
    in good faith?

Again, when the king is about to associate his son with himself in the
government, he first inquires whether this is agreeable to the
deity.[513] The king fears lest his son may cause trouble, may provoke
dissensions. Past experience prompts him to be careful before following
his inclination.

    Is the entrance of Siniddinabal, the son of Esarhaddon, the king
    of Assyria, whose name is written on this tablet, into the
    government in accord with the command of thy great divinity? Is
    it to come to pass?

The reference to the writing of the name is interesting. It would appear
that the question is actually written by the priest and placed before
the deity. The Greeks similarly put their questions to the Delphian
oracle in writing. May it be that among the Babylonians the answer of
the god was at times also handed down on a tablet, as the Greek and
Roman oracles were communicated in writing on the leaves of a tree?

If sickness entered the royal house, an oracle was likewise sought. The
king is sick. Is it ordained that he will recover? We are told in one
case that[514]

    Nikâ, the mother of Esarhaddon, the king of Assyria, is sick.
    She sees the hand of the goddess Nanâ of Uruk laid heavily upon
    her.... Is it ordained that this hand will be lifted off from
    the sufferer?

The occasions, it is evident, were exceedingly numerous when the
Assyrian rulers appealed to the priests for oracles. Naturally, this
appeal was not in all cases made with the elaborate formality
illustrated by Esarhaddon's petitions to Shamash. At times the monarch,
as the individual, would content himself with sending to the priest for
an answer to a question, and the priest would reply in an equally simple
and direct manner. Quite a number of such messages, sent by priests to
their master, are included in the valuable publication of 'Assyrian
Letters,' begun by Professor R. F. Harper.[515] The king's son wishes to
set out on a journey. The father sends to the astrologers Balasi and
Nabu-akheirba, and receives the reply:[516]

    As for Ashur-mukinpalea, about whom the king, our lord, has sent
    to us, may Ashur, Bel, Nabu, Sin, Shamash, and Ramman bless him.
    May the king, our lord, witness his welfare (?). Conditions are
    favorable for the journey. The second day is favorable, the
    fourth day very favorable.

Similarly, the astrologers send reports regarding the appearance and
position of the moon and the stars, and of various phenomena that had to
be taken into account in moments where decisive action had to be taken.

Before leaving the subject, it may be of interest to point out that
among the literary remains of the Assyrian period there are "blank
formulas" for oracles, the names in each instance to be filled out by
the officiating priest. Such formulas were prepared, no doubt, for cases
of common occurrence. Thus Esarhaddon, before appointing a person to a
responsible position, took the precaution of ascertaining from some
deity whether the appointment was a wise one. The name of the individual
being written down, the priest asks the deity in a general way:[517]

    Will the man whose name appears on this tablet, and whom he [the
    king] is about to appoint to such and such a position, keep good
    faith, or will he manifest hostility towards the king, inciting
    to rebellion?

Esarhaddon may have had a special reason for using precautions against
his officials, and even his sons. He came to the throne during a
rebellion which involved the assassination of his father. Esarhaddon's
own brothers were the murderers. We may well suppose that he trembled at
every step he took, but his position is after all characteristic of the
Assyrian rulers in general, many of whom came to the throne by violence
and maintained themselves through force.

Other texts enable us to study the form of the oracles themselves. As
yet, no oracle texts have been found belonging to the older Babylonian
period, but we have again every reason to believe that what holds good
for the days of Assyrian power applies to a much earlier period, though
at the same time the greater frequency with which Assyrian rulers were
wont to ply their gods with questions would increase the number of those
whose special business it was to pronounce the oracles. The manifold
duties of the priesthood would tend towards a differentiation of the
priests into various classes. The priest, as exorciser, would become
distinct from the priest as the inspector of omens; and the latter
different again from the pronouncer of oracles. From the fact that
Marduk was regarded as the special god of oracles by the Assyrians as
well as the Babylonians,[518] we may conclude that this differentiation
of the priestly classes took place already in the south, or at all
events that oracle-giving as a distinct priestly function was recognized
in Babylonia and carried over to the northern empire. If we may draw a
general conclusion from the state of affairs in Esarhaddon's days, this
function was largely in the hands of women. We know from other evidence
that women were attached to the temple service from ancient times.[519]
As sorceresses, too, they occupied a quasi-priestly position, since
their help could be invoked in driving evil spirits into the person of
one's enemy. The oracle-giver and the sorcerer or sorceress are
correlated personages in religion. For various reasons--in part,
perhaps, because of her physical differences from man--woman was
invested with a certain mystery by ancient nations.[520] Hence the fact
that among so many nations witchcraft is associated with woman, and
similarly among many nations women perform the functions of the oracle.
In a series of eight oracles addressed to Esarhaddon,[521] six are given
forth by women. These oracles, it so happens, all issue from the goddess
Ishtar of Arbela. The cult of this goddess at Arbela stood in high favor
in the eighth century B.C. An influential body of priests congregated
there, and the eight oracles in question appear to be a part of a more
extensive collection made by the theologians of Arbela, of whose
intellectual activity there are other traces. Arbela appears to have
developed a special school of theology, marked by the attempt to accord
a superior position to the great goddess Ishtar.

The one who pronounces the oracle speaks on behalf of Ishtar, and
therefore employs the first person. The oracles all have reference to
political events. They cannot, of course, be the answers to the
questions asked in the prayers analyzed above, since these were
addressed to the sun-god; but we may feel certain that the oracles of
the Shamash priests or priestesses were much of the same order, varying
only in minor particulars. The goddess invariably encourages the king.
The priest, it would appear, hears the voice of the deity in the wind.

  Fear not! The wind which speaks to thee--
  Comes with speech from me, withholding nothing.[522]
  Thine enemies, like the ... of Siwan,[523]
  At thy feet will be poured out.
  The great mistress am I.
  I am Ishtar of Arbela, who forces thine enemies to submission.
  Is there any utterance of mine that I addressed to thee upon which
    thou couldst not rely?
  I am Ishtar of Arbela.
  Thine enemies, the Ukkites (?), I give to thee, even I, Ishtar of
    Arbela.
  In front and behind thee I march.
  Fear not!

This oracle, we are told in the subscript, was pronounced by a certain
Ishtar-la-tashiat, a son [_i.e._, a native] of Arbela. The dignity of
the diction is very marked. The very frequent assurance 'fear not' and
the solemn repetition of 'I am Ishtar' lend impressiveness to the
message. The oracle, it will be seen, deals in general phrases. This
indefiniteness characterizes most of them; and the more impressive the
diction, the greater vagueness in the statements made. So an oracle,
coming from Ishtar and Nabu and uttered by a woman Baya, a native of
Arbela, announces:

  Fear not, Esarhaddon,
  I, the lord, to thee do I speak.
  The beams of thy heart I strengthen as thy mother,[524]
  Who gave thee life.
  Sixty great gods are with me[525]
  Drawn up to protect thee.
  The god Sin is on thy right, Shamash on thy left.
  Sixty great gods are round about thee
  Drawn up in battle array in the center of the citadel.
  On men do not rely.
  Lift up thine eyes to me. Look up to me!
  I am Ishtar of Arbela.
  Ashur is gracious to thee.
  Thy weakness I will change to strength (?).
  Fear not! glorify me!
  Is not the enemy subdued
  Who has been handed over to thee?
  I proclaim it aloud,
  What has been will be.[526]
  I am Nabu, the lord of the willing tablet,
  Glorify me.

A message of this kind could hardly have been satisfactory except as a
general encouragement.

The popularity of the Nabu cult in Assyria, it will be recalled, is an
offset against the supremacy of Marduk in the south. The Assyrian kings
found it to their interest to incorporate as much of the Babylonian cult
as was possible into their own religious ritual. To Shamash they
assigned the rôle played by Marduk. There was no danger in paying homage
to Nabu, the son of Marduk. Ishtar they regarded as their own goddess
quite as much as Ashur. These four deities, therefore, Ishtar, Shamash,
Nabu, and Ashur, are the special gods of oracles recognized by the
Assyrian rulers. Marduk, who is the chief source of oracles in the
south, is more rarely appealed to in the north, though of course
recognized as powerful. He could not be expected to regard with favor an
empire that so seriously threatened his supremacy in the pantheon.

The occasion when an oracle was announced was often one of great
solemnity. Just as the prayers in which the questions of the kings were
embodied were carefully written out, so that the priest in reciting them
might not commit any mistakes, so the answer to the prayers were
transmitted to the king in writing. Among the oracles of the days of
Esarhaddon, there is one coming from Ashur in which the ceremonies
accompanying the deliverance are instanced.[527] The oracle deals with
the Gimirrites, the same people in regard to whom Esarhaddon so often
consults the sun-god. It is marked by the more definite character of its
announcements when compared with others. The text is in the form of a
communication made to the king, and, like other official documents, it
begins with a salutation. The gods give Esarhaddon greeting.[528]

  Ashur has given him the four ends of the earth.
  In the house where he shines and is great,[529] the king has no rival.
  Like the rising sun he shines.
  This is the greeting from Bel Tarbasi[530] and the assembled gods.

The god Ashur himself now addresses the king:

  As for those enemies that plot against thee, that force thee to march
    out,
  Thou didst open thy mouth [saying], "Verily I implore Ashur."
  I have heard thy cry.
  Out of the great gate of heaven I proclaim aloud,
  'Surely I will hasten to let fire devour them.
  Thou shall stand among them.
  In front of thee I shall rise up.[531]
  Up onto the mountain I bring them.
  There to rain down upon them destructive stones.
  Thine enemies I hew down,
  With their blood I fill the river.
  Let them behold and glorify me,
  For Ashur, the lord of gods, am I.'

This important and striking message, coming direct from Ashur we are
told, is to be formally presented and read in the presence of the king.
Instructions are added to the priests to pour out a libation of precious
oil. Sacrifices of animals and waving of incense are to accompany the
presentation.

The oracle, as the god's answer to the king's questions, thus gave rise
to a ritual as elaborate as the rites connected with the preparations
for the answer. The oracles were not always trustworthy, as we can well
believe, and often they were not definite enough. If we may judge from
an expression in one of the divine messages to Esarhaddon, the king
appears to have entered a complaint against a former oracle, which was
not to his liking. Ishtar accordingly sends the following message:[532]

  The former word which I spoke to thee,
  On it thou didst not rely.
  Now, then, in the later one you may have confidence.
  Glorify me!

Clearly, the Assyrian kings believed that the oracles existed to
announce what they wanted to hear. They probably did not hesitate to
follow their own judgment whenever they considered it superior to the
advice given to them by the gods. There would, of course, be no
difficulty in accounting for failures brought about through obedience to
the oracles. The priests, hemmed in on every side by minute ceremonial
observances, forfeited their power as mediators by the slightest failure
in the observance of these rites. An error or a mishap would entail most
serious consequences. A misleading oracle, therefore, and to a certain
extent, unfavorable omens, would be the fault of the priests. The deity
would send 'a lying message'[533] or bring about unfavorable omens as a
sign of his or her displeasure. On the other hand, the priests in turn
would not hesitate--speaking of course in the name of the gods--to
accuse the kings of neglecting Ishtar or Nabu or Shamash, as the case
may be. In an oracle addressed to Esarhaddon,[534] Ishtar of Arbela is
represented as complaining that the king has done nothing for her,
although she has done so much for him. Such a state of affairs cannot go
on.

  Since they do nothing for me,
  I will not give anything to thee.

The king promptly responds by copious offerings, and the goddess appears
to be pacified.

There is another feature connected with the oracles that must be touched
upon before passing on. The oracles stand obviously in close
relationship to the penitential psalms. It was, naturally, in times of
political distress that the kings would be particularly zealous in
maintaining themselves on good terms with the powerful gods. Without
their aid success could not be expected to crown any efforts. Guiding
their steps by frequent consultations of the priests, the appeals of the
kings would increase in earnestness and fervor as the campaign
progressed and assumed more serious aspects. When disaster stared them
in the face, they would be forced to conclude that the gods were
angered, and there was only one way left of averting the divine wrath--a
free confession of sins, accompanied, of course, by offerings and magic
rites. The Assyrian kings do not tell us in their annals of
discomfitures that they encountered. The penitential psalms supply this
omission. We have such a psalm written in the days of Ashurbanabal,[535]
in which that proud monarch humbles himself before the great god Nabu,
and has the satisfaction in return of receiving a reassuring oracle. He
prays:

  I confess to thee, Nabu, in the presence of the great gods,
  [Many[536] (?)] are my sins beyond endurance?[537]
  [Lord (?)] of Nineveh, I come before thee, the warrior among the gods,
    his brothers.
  [Prolong (?)] the life of Ashurbanabal for a long period.
  ... At the feet of Nabu I prostrate myself.

The god reassures the king:

  I will grant thee life, O Ashurbanabal, even I,
  Nabu, to the end of days
  Thy feet shall not grow weary, nor thy hands weak (?),
  These lips of thine shall not cease to approach me,
  Thy tongue shall not be removed from thy lips,
  For I give thee a favorable message.
  I will raise thy head, I will increase thy glory in the temple of
    E-babbara.[538]

The reference to the temple of Shamash at Sippar reveals the situation.
Babylonia was the cause of much trouble to Ashurbanabal, owing chiefly
to the intrigues of his treacherous brother Shamash-shumukin.[539]
Ashurbanabal at one time was not merely in danger of losing control over
the south, but of losing his life in the rebellion organized by his
'faithless brother.' A successful rebellion is a clear sign of a god's
displeasure. Marduk, as we have seen, was not often appealed to by the
Assyrian kings, but Nabu seemed always ready to help them. Hence the
king confesses his sins and makes an appeal to the great Babylonian god
and not to Ashur. He is encouraged by the promise that his life will be
spared, and that his supremacy will be recognized in Babylonia. The
great sanctuary of Sippar is here employed figuratively for the temples
of Babylonia in general. To be glorified in that famous temple was
equivalent to a recognition of royal authority.

That these oracles served a practical purpose is definitely proved by
the manner in which they are introduced by the kings in their annals.
Ashurbanabal tells us that in the course of one of his campaigns against
Elam, he addressed a fervent prayer to Ishtar of Arbela, and in reply
the message comes, as in the texts we have been considering, "Fear not";
and she adds, "Thy hands raised towards me, and thy eyes filled with
tears, I look upon with favor."[540]


Dreams.

It is, of course, not necessary to assume that the oracles of the gods
were always delivered in the same formal manner, accompanied by
elaborate ceremonies. The gods at times reveal themselves in a more
direct manner to their favorites. In visions of the night they appear to
encourage the Assyrian army by an oracle. On one occasion, when the army
of Ashurbanabal approached a rushing stream which they were afraid to
cross, Ishtar makes her appearance at night, and declares, "I walk in
front of Ashurbanabal, the king who is the creation of my hands."[541]
The army, thus reassured, crosses the river in safety. On another
occasion, Ashurbanabal, when threatened by the king of Elam, receives a
message from Ishtar revealed to a seer in a dream at night. The seer--no
doubt a priest--reports to the king:[542] 'Ishtar, dwelling in Arbela,
came with quivers hung on her right and left side, with a bow in her
hand, and girded (?) with a pointed, unsheathed sword. Before thee
[_i.e._, the king] she stood, and like the mother that bore thee.[543]
Ishtar, supreme among the gods, addressed thee, commanding: "Be
encouraged[544] for the fray. Wherever thou art, I am."'

In connection with the importance that the Babylonians and Assyrians, in
common with all ancient nations, attached to dreams, divine messages
thus revealed had a special significance fully on a par with the oracles
that were formally delivered with an accompaniment of elaborate rites. A
god appearing to one in a dream was a manifestation, the force of which
could not be disputed. It mattered little to whom the dream was sent.
Ashur, on one occasion, chose to reveal himself to an enemy of
Ashurbanabal with a message. He appears in a dream before Gyges, the
king of Lydia, and tells him,[545] "Pay homage to Ashurbanabal, the king
of Assyria, and by the power of his name conquer thine enemies." Gyges
obeys and sends a messenger to the Assyrian monarch to inform him of the
dream. Occasionally in this way a deity might appear to a king, but in
general it was to the professional 'dreamer' rather than to the laity to
whom oracles were thus sent. The message was not necessarily delivered
in person by the deity. Sin, the moon-god, on one occasion writes his
message on the moon's disc:

  Against all who have evil designs
  And hostile sentiments towards
  Ashurbanabal, the king of Assyria,
  Will I send a miserable death.[546]

Every dream was of course sent by some god, but the dreams of others
than those who acted as mediators between the gods and men were of a
different character. They were omens. The gods would reveal themselves
indirectly by means of pictures or symbols, and it would require the
services of a priest again to interpret such symbols or omens. The gods
were asked to send such dreams as might receive a favorable
interpretation,[547] and when a dream came unsolicited, the gods were
implored to convert the dream into a favorable omen.

In the case of dreams, it will be apparent, the dividing line between
oracles proper and omens becomes exceedingly faint and it is very
doubtful whether the Babylonians or Assyrians recognized any essential
difference between the two. The suggestion has already been thrown out
that there is a wider aspect to omens in the Babylonian religion than
their employment in connection with sacrificial offerings. We have
reached a point when it will be proper to take up this wider aspect.

FOOTNOTES:

[491] See King, _Babylonian Magic_, p. xxx.

[492] Harper's _Assyrian Letters_, no. 219.

[493] _Assyrische Gebete an den Sonnengott für Staat und Königliches
Haus_ (Leipzig, 1893, 2 vols.).

[494] Knudtzon, no. 1.

[495] That the priest recites the prayer and not the king is shown by
the frequent introduction of the king's name in the 3d person. See,
_e.g._, Knudtzon, nos. 40-47.

[496] 2d month.

[497] 5th month.

[498] _I.e._, the priest is only asked for an oracle regarding the
events of the next one hundred days.

[499] Various machines are mentioned. The precise meaning of the
technical terms employed is not known.

[500] By invoking the assistance of the gods.

[501] Peacefully, by mutual agreement and the promise of favors.

[502] One is reminded of the Arabic phrase "Allah alone knows it," so
frequently introduced in Mohammedan writings.

[503] Lit., 'Seen will it be seen, heard will it be heard?' The emphatic
construction is identical with the one frequently employed in Biblical
Hebrew.

[504] Knudtzon (p. 25) did not grasp the negative force of _ezib_. The
word is a request that something might _not_ happen.

[505] Where the animal is to be inspected, probably the altar itself.

[506] In the Jewish ritual and many others, stress is laid upon
pronouncing the words of a prayer clearly and deliberately, especially
such words as have a particularly sacred value.

[507] _Assyrische Gebete_, p. 50.

[508] Exactly of what nature cannot be ascertained. The text (Knudtzon,
no. 29, rev. 15) is defective at this point.

[509] The prayer or the lamb.

[510] Lit., 'proceed.'

[511] Knudtzon, no. 66. Other examples are furnished in George Smith's
_History of Ashurbanabal_, pp. 184, 185.

[512] A district to the northeast of Assyria; Knudtzon, no. 29.

[513] _Ib._ no. 107.

[514] _Ib._ no. 101.

[515] Four volumes comprising several hundred letters have already
appeared under the title, _Assyrian Letters of the K. Collection_
(London, 1896). For a good summary of the character of the Assyrian
epistolary literature, see Johnston's article in the _Journal of the
American Oriental Society_, xviii. 1, pp. 125-134.

[516] Harper, no. 77.

[517] _E.g._, Knudtzon, no. 124.

[518] Zimmern, _Busspsalmen_, p. 32. The popularity of the sun-cult in
Assyria in connection with omens and oracles is probably due also in
part to the influence of Marduk, who was, as we have seen, a solar
deity.

[519] Lehman, _Samassumukin_, p. 42.

[520] See Ploss, _Das Weib_, pp. 594-606; also above, p. 267.

[521] IVR. pl. 61.

[522] _I.e._, Ishtar sends the wind with a clear message.

[523] 3d month.

[524] Perhaps a proverbial phrase, having the force of 'I nurture thee
as thy own mother did.'

[525] Constituting the host of Ishtar, which is elsewhere referred to,
_e.g._, IVR. 2d Ed. pt. 61, col. i. 27.

[526] Lit., 'the future or later things like the former.'

[527] Published by S. A. Strong, _Beiträge zur Assyriologie_, ii.
627-33.

[528] The opening lines, containing a reference to the Gimirrites, are
imperfectly preserved.

[529] _I.e._, he is the greatest scion of the reigning dynasty.

[530] 'Lord of the court'--a title of Ashur.

[531] As a protection, just as Jahwe appears in a pillar of cloud to
protect his people.

[532] IVR. 2d Ed. 61, col. vi. 47-52.

[533] See I Kings, xxii. 23.

[534] Strong, _Beiträge zur Assyriologie_, ii. 628, 629.

[535] Published and translated by S. A. Strong, _Transactions of the
Ninth International Oriental Congress_ (1893), ii. 199-208.

[536] Supplied from the context, through comparison with similar
compositions.

[537] Lit., 'my soul cannot overcome.'

[538] The composition continues in this strain, Ashurbanabal and Nabu
speaking alternately.

[539] See Tiele, _Babyl.-Assyr. Geschichte_, pp. 371 _seq_.

[540] George Smith, _Annals of Ashurbanabal_, p. 121.

[541] Rassam Cylinder, VR. col. v. ll. 95-103.

[542] George Smith, _Annals of Ashurbanabal_, pp. 119-121.

[543] With maternal kindness.

[544] Lit., 'look up.'

[545] Rassam Cylinder, col ii. ll. 98 _seq._

[546] _Ib._ col. iii. ll. 122-124.

[547] _E.g._, IVR. 59, no. 2, 21b.




CHAPTER XX.

VARIOUS CLASSES OF OMENS.


There is a close connection between the various branches of the
religious literature of Babylonia and Assyria that we have hitherto been
considering. The magic incantations are, as we have seen, a form of
prayer. On the other hand, prayers, whether hymns or confessions of sin
with an appeal for relief from suffering or distress, or embodying the
petition for a divine response to some question or questions, are never
entirely dissociated from incantations, and are invariably based upon
the same beliefs that give to the element of magic such a prominent
place in the religion. The omens form part of this same order of
beliefs. The connecting link between incantations and omens is the sense
of mystery impressed upon man by two orders of phenomena--the phenomena
of his own life and the phenomena of the things about him. In his own
life, nothing was more mysterious to him than the power of speech. It is
doubtful whether he recognized that the animals communicated with one
another by means of the sounds that they emitted; but even if he did,
the great gap separating such means of communication from the power
residing in the combination of sounds, of which he could avail himself,
must have been all the more impressive. In view of this, it is not
difficult to understand that a magic force was attributed to words as
such. Of course, a somewhat advanced degree of culture must have been
reached before such a belief would be given a definite form of
expression; but even in the simplest form of social organization the
notion of _authority_ necessarily exists, and authority is inseparable
from words. The chief commands, and the conclusion is naturally drawn
that the words he utters are imbued with the power to force obedience.
These two factors--the mystery of speech and the practical demonstration
of the power residing in words--are sufficient to account for the part
played by incantations among all nations at a certain stage of their
religious development; and once introduced, the conservatism attaching
to religious rites would ensure their continuance even after the popular
religious beliefs had passed far beyond the stage in question. The
modifications introduced into the incantations would be nigh endless.
There would develop a tendency to greater complications in the
combination of words. At the same time their literary form would be
improved. Prayers and hymns reflecting advanced religious sentiments
would be produced, but the magic element connected with the words as
such would not for that reason be lost sight of. The efficacy of such
prayers would still depend upon their being uttered in the right manner
and--what is equally to the point--by the right person. Corresponding to
the chief in secular affairs--who alone can pronounce words that give
evidence of their power by the results produced--is the priest in
religious affairs to whom, as the mediator between the gods and men, the
secret is entrusted of uttering the right words in the right way, so as
to produce the desired results, to force, as it were, obedience from the
gods, as a chief forces obedience from his subjects. In a more advanced
stage of religious culture, the position of the priest is no less
powerful and important. When incantations yield to prayers in the proper
sense, or are combined with prayers, it is only the priests who can make
the prayers effective by their interceding in some way with the gods,
whether by adding their appeal to that of the supplicant, or by the
performance of the rites accompanying prayer, or by their aid in leading
the worshipper into the presence of the deity and standing with him
before the throne of grace.

When man turns from a contemplation of self to the things around him,
there is added to the sense of the mysterious which is aroused in him,
the feeling of his own weakness which is borne in upon him with
overpowering force. He cannot fail to realize how dependent he is upon
the sun, the moon, the rain, and the storm. At every step he takes
dangers beset his path. The animal world is at times hostile, at times
friendly; but whether the one or the other, it is essential for him to
carefully _note_ all that is going on around him. Every happening or
sight of an unusual character arouses now his sense of fear, and again
his hope. He learns to attach special importance to deviations from the
normal course of things. There must be a reason for the exception from
the rule. It betokens something, and, concerned as man primarily is for
his own welfare, he naturally comes to connect both the regular
phenomena of nature as well as the deviations, the normal traits and
habits of the animal world as well as peculiar features occasionally
occurring, with his own fate. To forestall the future was his only
safeguard against the dangers in store for him. It was of the utmost
importance to him to know what was coming or, at all events, to be on
the lookout for _something_, in order to be in a proper frame to receive
either the benefits or to meet the difficulties of the situation.

His powers of observation--upon which man in a primitive state depended
almost entirely for his sustenance--were thus further strengthened by
the necessity of protecting himself, so far as possible, against the
uncertainties of the future. Nothing would escape him. The movement of
the stars and planets, their position at different seasons and periods,
the appearance of the clouds, an eclipse, the conditions of the streams,
an earthquake, the direction of the winds, storms, the flight of birds,
the barking of dogs, the movements of snakes and serpents, peculiar
marks on the bodies of children, of adults and animals, monstrosities
among mankind or the brute creation, the meeting with certain persons or
animals, the rustling of leaves, the change of seasons, the lustre of
precious stones, all attracted man's attention. Whatever he saw might
portend something to him, in fact _did_ portend something; hence the one
great aim and ideal of his life was to _see_ everything. Seeing meant
foreseeing, and the man who could see everything--the _seer par
excellence_, who could also understand what he saw--held in his hands
the key that would unlock the secrets of the future. He possessed the
means of forecasting events.

Apart, then, from the interpretation of omens in connection with
sacrifices and incantations, the individual had to be on the outlook at
all times for signs and portents. To neglect them would entail serious
consequences.

This wider aspect of omens accounts for the extensive omen literature
that arose in Babylonia and Assyria. Fully one-fourth of the portion of
Ashurbanabal's library that has been discovered consists of omens,[548]
tablets of various size in which explanations are afforded of all
physical peculiarities to be observed in animals and men, of natural
phenomena, of the position and movements of the planets and stars, of
the incidents and accidents of public and private life,--in short, of
all possible occurrences and situations.

As yet but a small proportion of this literature has been published, and
a thorough understanding of it is impossible until systematic
publications shall have been issued. Meanwhile it is safe to assert
that, as in the case of incantations and prayers, the omens were
generally combined into series by the Babylonian and Assyrian scribes.


Omens From Planets and Stars.

Ihering observes[549] that the stars were observed by the Babylonians in
the interest of navigation. While this is true, yet the chief motive in
the development of astronomy in the Euphrates Valley was the belief that
the movements of the heavenly bodies portended something that was
important for man to know. That the stars served as guides to the
mariner was only an additional reason for attaching great importance to
the heavenly phenomena. Scientific observations were but means to an
end; and the end was invariably the derivation of omens from the
movements and position of the planets and stars. When, therefore, we
find the astronomers sending reports to their royal masters apparently
of a purely scientific character, we may be certain that although no
omens are mentioned, both parties had omens in mind. The astronomical
reports, of which quite a number have already been published,[550] may
therefore be reckoned as part of the omen literature. The vernal equinox
was a period of much significance. The astronomer royal accordingly
reports:[551]

  On the sixth day of Nisan,[552]
  Day and night were balanced.
  There were six double hours of day,
  Six double hours of night.
  May Nabu and Marduk
  Be gracious to the king, my lord.

On another occasion the equinox took place on the 15th of Nisan,[553]
and accordingly this is reported. Again, the appearance of the new moon
was anxiously looked for each month, and the king is informed whether or
not it was seen on the 29th or 30th day of the month.[554]

  A watch we kept
  On the twenty-ninth day,
  The moon we saw.
  May Nabu and Marduk
  Be gracious to the king, my lord.
  From Nabuâ of the city of Ashur.

An extraordinary event, such as an eclipse, is made the subject of a
more elaborate report. The Babylonian astronomers had developed their
scientific attainments to the point of calculating the time when an
eclipse of the sun or the moon would take place. As this period
approached, they watched for the eclipse. We have an interesting
specimen of a report in which the astronomer announces that an expected
eclipse for which a watch was kept for three days did not appear.[555]
Another addressed to an official reads:[556]

  To the Agriculturist,[557] my lord,
  Thy servant Nabushumiddin,
  An officer of Nineveh,
  May Nabu and Marduk be gracious
  To the Agriculturist, my lord.
  The fourteenth day we kept a watch for the moon.
  The moon suffered an eclipse.

The reports pass over into indications of omens with an ease which shows
that the observations of the astronomers were made with this ulterior
motive in view. A report which forms a supplement to one above
translated furnishes the interpretation given to the vernal
equinox:[558]

  The moon and sun are balanced,
  The subjects will be faithful,[559]
  The king of the land will reign for a long time.

The complement, then, to the purely scientific observations is furnished
by these official communications to the kings and others, setting forth
in response, no doubt, to commands or inquiries, the meaning of any
particular phenomenon, or of the position of the planets, or of any of
the stars at any time, or of their movements. Of such communications we
have a large number. They illustrate the great attention that was paid
to details in the observation of the heavenly bodies. The moon as the
basis of the calendrical system occupies the first place in these
reports. Its movements were more varied than those of the sun. Through
its phases, its appearance and disappearance at stated intervals, a safe
point of departure was obtained for time calculations. While the sun
through its daily course regulated the divisions of the day, the moon by
its phases fixed the division of weeks and months. The moon never
appeared quite the same on two successive nights nor in the same part of
the heavens. The more variety, the more significance--was a principle of
general application in the interpretation of omens. Whether the
Babylonians also recognized an influence of the moon on the tides, we
have no certain means of determining, but it is eminently likely that
trained as their astronomers were in careful observation, this was the
case. But apart from this, there were many events in public and private
affairs that appeared to them to stand in close connection with the
movements of the orb of night. Nothing that occurred being regarded as
accidental, the conclusion was forced upon the Babylonians that the time
when something was undertaken was of significance. The fact that certain
undertakings succeeded, while others failed, was most easily explained
upon the theory that there were periods favorable for the action
involved and periods unfavorable. The gathering of past experience thus
becomes a guiding principle in the interpretation of the movements of
the moon; and what applies to the moon applies, of course, to the other
planets and to the stars. No doubt other factors are involved, such as
association of ideas; but it is evident from a careful study of the omen
literature that conclusions drawn from what appears to us as the
accidental relation of past occurrences to the phenomena presented by
the planets and stars constituted fully three-fourths of the wisdom of
the Euphratean augurs. The same report, of which a portion has already
been quoted,[560] continues after interpreting the meaning of the
equinox with a diagnosis of other concurrent conditions:[561]

  Sun and moon are seen apart,[562]
  The king of the country will manifest wisdom.[563]
  On the fourteenth day sun and moon are seen together,
  There will be loyalty in the land,
  The gods of Babylonia are favorably inclined,
  The soldiery will be in accord with the king's desire,
  The cattle of Babylonia will pasture in safety.[564]
  From Ishtar-shumeresh.

The same conditions appearing on another day may portend precisely the
reverse. So another report informs the king:[565]

  On the fifteenth day the sun and moon are seen together,
  A powerful enemy raises his weapons against the land,
  The enemy will smash the great gate of the city,
  The star Anu appears bright,
  The enemy will devastate.

It is quite evident that such reports must have been sent in response to
royal orders asking for the meaning of existing conditions or of
conditions that may be observed on certain days. At times the
prognostications assume a remarkable degree of definiteness which forms
a striking contrast to the general vagueness of the oracles. An
official, Balasi, reports[566] on one occasion regarding the
significance of the moon appearing unexpectedly:

  The moon is seen out of season,
  Crops will be small.
  On the twelfth day the moon is seen together with the sun.[567]
  Contrary to the calculated time,
  The moon and sun appear together,
  A strong enemy will devastate the land.
  The king of Babylonia will be forced to submit to his enemy.
  On the twelfth day, the moon with the sun is seen,
  On the twelfth day is seen.
  Evil is in store for Babylonia.
  It is a favorable sign for Elam and the west land,
  But surely unfavorable for Babylonia.

The reports were not always concerned with political affairs. Frequently
there is a reference to lions and hyenas that might be expected to make
their appearance because of certain natural phenomena. Often crops are
referred to, and according as the conditions are favorable or not,
fertility or famine is predicted in the official reports. On other
occasions the astrologers venture the very safe prognostication that
male children will be born or that there will be miscarriages, though it
seems likely that in such cases the forecast is intended for the affairs
of the palace alone.

We have seen[568] what great importance was attached by the Babylonians
to eclipses. It will be appropriate, therefore, to give a specimen of an
astrologer's report in reference to such a phenomenon:[569]

  The moon disappeared,[570] evil will settle in the land.
  The moon, contrary to calculation, disappeared.
  An eclipse has taken place.
  On the twenty-ninth day the moon disappeared
  And the sun on the day of the eclipse entered the circle.[571]
  It is an eclipse of Elam.[572]
  If in the month of Kislev,[573] an eclipse is observed
  That encircles (?) the sun and the moon disappears,
  Upon the observation of the eclipse,
  Then may the king be exalted.
  May the heart of the king, my lord, rejoice.
  From Khushi-ilu, the servant of the king, the eponym.

Another report reads:[574]

  To the king, my lord,
  Thy servant Ishtar-iddinabal,
  The chief of the astronomers of Arbela.
  May Nabu, Marduk, Ishtar of Arbela
  Be gracious to the king, my lord,
  On the twenty-ninth day a watch we kept.
  At the observatory clouds,
  The moon we did not see.

This report was sent on the second day of the month of Shebat.[575] From
these specimens and others, it is evident that reports regarding the
appearance or non-appearance of the new moon were regularly sent. But in
addition to this, the kings sent to the observatory on numerous other
occasions for information with reference to the significance of certain
phenomena.

As in the case of the moon, so also for the sun and the stars, reports
were transmitted that served as guides in directing the kings in their
affairs. So on one occasion Nabu-mushesi forecasts that[576]

  If the 'great lion' star is dark,
  It is favorable for the country.
  If the 'king' star is dark,
  The chamberlain[577] (?) of the palace dies.

The official character of these reports is one of their significant
features. Their great variety is an indication of the frequent occasions
on which the kings consulted the astrologers. No important enterprise
was undertaken without first ascertaining what phenomena might be looked
for on the day fixed for any action, and what these phenomena portended.
In the case of the Assyrian reports, it is natural to find many
allusions to foreign nations, since war occupied so much of the time and
energies of the Assyrian rulers. But we have seen that for private
affairs the astrologers were also consulted, as well as for the internal
affairs of the country. The reports illustrate the practical application
of what became known in the ancient world as "Chaldaean wisdom." If,
however, we would know the source whence the astrologers derived the
knowledge which they furnished in their reports, we must turn to the
long lists prepared by the priests, in which all possible phenomena
connected with the planets and stars were noted and their meaning
indicated. These compilations constitute the 'Priestly Codes' of the
Babylonians, and, as already intimated, they were combined just as the
incantations and prayers, into series. Many such series must have
existed at one time in Babylonia. A great temple was incomplete without
its observatory, and we are warranted in concluding that every great
religious center of the Euphrates Valley had its collection of omen
tablets. The natural ambition of the priests was to make such a series
as complete as possible. The larger the number of observations it
contained, the greater the possibility of finding an answer to the
question put to them. To these lists additions would constantly be made,
and, if we may judge from the manner of literary composition that
prevailed among the ancient Hebrews and later among the Arabs, the work
of the compilers of omen series consisted essentially in combining
whatever material they could obtain, and adding such observations as
they themselves had made. While, therefore, the omen code of one place
might differ in details from that of another, not only would the
underlying principles be the same in all, but each series would
represent an aggregation of experiences and observations drawn from
various quarters.

A large omen series of which as yet only fragments have been
published[578] bears the title 'Illumination of Bel.' It is estimated
that this astrological code embraced more than one hundred tablets. From
the fragments published, the general method employed in the preparation
of the series can be gathered. To the moon and to the sun, to each of
the planets, and to the important stars a separate section was assigned.
In this section the peculiarities, regular and irregular, connected with
each of the bodies were noted, their appearance and disappearance, the
conditions prevailing at rising and at setting, the relationship of the
moon to the sun or to a star, of the stars to one another and to the
ecliptic, were set forth. Since, however, the time when a phenomenon
connected with a planet or star was as important as the phenomenon
itself, observations were entered for the various months of the year and
for various days in each month. The days were not arbitrarily chosen,
but, as there is every reason to believe, selected on the basis of past
experience. Similarly the interpretations of the phenomena were founded
on the actual occurrence of certain events at certain times when the
conditions indicated actually existed. A single occurrence might suffice
for predicating a connection between the event and the phenomenon. The
coincidence would constitute an observation, but the omen would
naturally gain additional force if it was based on a repeated
observation of the same phenomenon on the same day of the same month.
But such a case would be rare, and the effort of the astrologers would
be directed simply towards gathering as many observations of phenomena
as possible. They would rest content when they had found a single
connection between the phenomenon and the event. Their success in giving
an answer to a question put to them as to what might happen on a certain
day, fixed for battle or for laying the foundations of an edifice, or
for dedicating a temple, for setting out on an expedition, or for any
undertaking whatsoever, would depend on the completeness of their lists,
and correspondingly the interpretation of a phenomenon occurring on any
day would entail no difficulties if in their consultation lists the
phenomenon would be recorded.

The 22d tablet of the series 'Illumination of Bel' deals with the
important subject of eclipses. It contains 88 lines, and furnishes us
with a good specimen of the class of omens under consideration. It
begins[579] with eclipses that may take place during the first month,
and runs along through the twelve months of the year. The 14th, 15th,
16th, 20th, and 21st days of the month are those set down when eclipses
have been observed. The official character of the omens is indicated by
their repeated references to the nations with which Babylonia--and later
Assyria--came into contact, and to the fate in store for the rulers of
the country. For the third month, the tablet notes:

    In the month of Sivan, an eclipse happening on the 14th day,
    proceeding from east to west, beginning with the middle
    watch,[580] and ending with the morning watch, the shadow being
    seen in the east--the side of obscuration--furnishes an
    omen[581] for the king of Dilmun.[582] The king of Dilmun is
    slain.

    An eclipse happening on the 15th day, the king of Dilmun is
    slain, and some one seizes the throne.

    An eclipse happening on the 16th day, the king is deposed and
    slain, and a worthless person seizes the throne.

    An eclipse happening on the 20th day, rains descend from heaven,
    and the canals are flooded.

    An eclipse happening on the 21st day, sorrow and despair in the
    land. The land is full of corpses.

The eclipses for the fourth month furnish omens for the king of
Guti--another district with which Babylonia and Assyria had frequent
dealings.

    An eclipse happening in the month of Tammuz on the 14th day,
    proceeding from the west to the south, beginning with the first
    watch and ending with the middle watch, the shadow being seen in
    the west--the side of obscuration--furnishes an omen for the
    king of Guti. Overthrow of Guti by force, followed by complete
    submission.

    An eclipse happening on the 15th day[583], rains descend from
    heaven, floods come upon the land, famine in the land.

    An eclipse happening on the 16th day, women have miscarriages.

    An eclipse happening on the 20th day, storms set in and famine;
    afterwards for a year storms destroy property[584].

    An eclipse happening on the 21st day, the armies of the king
    revolt and deliver him into the hands of enemies.

The eclipses of the following month deal with several countries.

    An eclipse in the month of Ab[585] on the 14th day, proceeding
    from the south to the east, beginning with the first watch, or
    with the morning watch, and ending at sunrise, the shadow being
    seen in the south--the side of obscuration--furnishes an omen
    for the king of Umliash. The soldiery are engaged in severe
    conflicts for a year, and are slain by force of arms.

    An eclipse happening on the 15th day[586], the king dies, and
    rains descend from heaven, and floods fill the canals.

    An eclipse happening on the 16th day, the king of Babylonia
    dies. Pestilence[587] feeds upon the country.

    An eclipse happening on the 20th day, the king of the
    Hittites[588] in person (?) seizes the throne.

    An eclipse happening on the 21st day, a deity strikes (?) the
    king, and fire consumes king and land.

From these specimens, the general principle of the section is apparent.
Since eclipses portend public and political disasters of some kind, the
compiler has carefully gathered oracles given on previous occasions to
some ruler, or observations of the events that occurred at the time of
the recorded eclipses. The apparently restricted application of the
omens was no hindrance to their practical use. In the event of an
astrologer being consulted with regard to the significance of an eclipse
on a certain day, his list would furnish a safe basis for further
prognostications, suitable to the political conditions that prevailed.
But in order to meet all contingencies, other lists furnishing further
omens for eclipses were added. The 22d tablet of the 'Illumination of
Bel' series is followed by one[589] which, while dealing with the same
subject, approaches it somewhat differently, and is based on a different
principle. It begins again with the first month, and in twelve
paragraphs takes up in succession the months of the year. Choosing for
comparison the same three months, the third, fourth, and fifth, which we
selected in the case of the 22d tablet, it will be seen that, while the
references are again to public affairs, the prognostications are of a
more general character and of wider applicability.

    If in the 3d month an eclipse takes place on the 14th day, rains
    will descend and flood the canals. Storms will cause
    inundations. The soldiery of Babylonia will destroy the country.
    An eclipse on the 15th day indicates that king against king will
    send troops[590]. The king of legions dies. An eclipse on the
    16th day signifies that the king will be slain, and that some
    one will seize the throne.[591] An eclipse on the 20th day means
    that the king will hand his throne to his son. An eclipse
    happening on the 21st day portends rain,[592] and an invasion of
    the enemy's land.

    For the 4th month an eclipse on the 14th day portends that rains
    will descend and the canals will be flooded. Rains will cause
    inundations. There will be famine. A large country will be
    reduced to a small one. An eclipse on the 15th day portends that
    rains will descend, canals will be flooded, and there will be
    famine in the land. An eclipse on the 16th day portends famine
    for a year. An eclipse on the 20th day portends destruction of
    the king and his army. An eclipse happening on the 21st day
    indicates that there will be a strong wind that will destroy the
    riches of the sea.[593]

    For the 5th month an eclipse on the 14th day portends rains and
    flooding of canals. The crops will be good and king will send
    peace to king.[594] An eclipse on the 15th day portends
    destructive war. The land will be filled with corpses. An
    eclipse on the 16th day indicates that pregnant women will be
    happily delivered of their offspring. An eclipse on the 20th day
    portends that lions will cause terror and that reptiles will
    appear; an eclipse on the 21st day that destruction (?) will
    overtake the riches of the sea.[593]

The vagueness of many of the prognostications is in all probabilities
intentional, just as we found to be the case in most of the oracles
announced to the kings. To predict rains during the rainy months was
comparatively safe. The storms which visited Babylonia annually brought
with them destruction of cattle. They conditioned the fertility of the
country, but pestilence was often caused by the evaporation of the
waters. Again, military expeditions were usually undertaken in the
spring of the year before the great heat set in, and in a country like
Assyria, it was safe to hazard a vague prediction that hostilities would
ensue, and that some district would be diminished.

What may be called the 'eclectic' character of the omen series under
consideration thus becomes apparent. The lists consisted, on the one
hand, of omens obtained on certain occasions and with reference to some
specific circumstance, such as a campaign against some country, and, on
the other hand, of prognostications of a more general character, based
on the general climatic conditions of the country, and referring to
events of frequent occurrence. All that the scribes in preparing the
series were concerned with, was to collect as many omens as they could,
and to arrange them in some convenient order. Just as they prepared
lists referring to military events, so they put together others in which
some other theme was treated. The reports and omen tablets thus
complement one another. The latter are based on the former, and the
former were obtained by the interpretation of phenomena, furnished by
the tablets and applied to the particular case submitted to the priests.
We need not, of course, suppose that _all_ prognostications found in the
series, especially in those parts of it which are of a more general
character, were based upon reports actually made, any more than that the
official reports to the kings even in later days were always based upon
a consultation of some series of tablets. Individual judgment, both in
compiling a series and in interpreting phenomena, must at all times have
played some part. The reports and the series also embody to some extent
the results of experience not previously put to writing; but these
considerations do not alter the general proposition set forth in this
chapter as to the practical purpose served by the omen series as well as
by the reports, and the pragmatic origin of both.

The importance of eclipses gave to omens connected with such events a
special significance. Eclipses, however, were after all rare events, and
while because of their rarity they always portended something of great
moment, still the ordinary phenomena were the ones that had to be
studied by the astrologers with great care in order to obtain a rational
view of the relationship between the phenomena of nature and the fate of
the individual or of the state. Again, eclipses, as a general thing,
pointed to a public disaster of some kind, and this recognized belief
lightened the task of the priest considerably in this instance. In the
case of ordinary phenomena it was much more difficult to find the
connection between cause and effect; and in the vast majority of
instances when kings and individuals sought the temples for omens, the
heavens must have presented a normal and not an abnormal appearance.

What answers were the priests to give to the questions put to them? Was
it a favorable period for undertaking a military campaign? On what day
should the king set out? Was the day fixed on by the council of war
favorable for a battle? On what day should the foundation for the temple
or palace be laid? Will the sick person recover? Should one set out on a
proposed journey? Is the day fixed for a marriage auspicious?

Recognizing by experience that the same thing undertaken at different
times turned out differently, in the one case being brought to a
successful issue, in the other followed by misfortune, the conclusion
was forced upon the popular mind (as already set forth above) that the
day on which something was done or was to be done was of great moment.

But how did one day differ from the other? That was the question for the
priests to determine. During the hours that the sun was in control, the
clouds produced constant changes in the appearance of the heavens, but
because of their irregular character, these changes impressed the
Babylonians less forcibly than the striking changes that the nights
showed. The planets and stars never appeared alike on two successive
nights. There was always some change in the position of some of the
heavenly bodies. To these changes, then, the priests directed their
attention. In the variations presented by the heavens at night they saw
a potent reason for the varying results produced by the same act
undertaken at different times.

If it made a difference at what moment something was done, that
difference could only be determined by observing the variations that one
night presented from the other. The astrologers observed that many of
the stars were, or seemed to be, fixed in their orbits; others rose and
set like the sun and moon, and appeared in different parts of the
heavens at different seasons of the year. The regularity of these
changes made it possible to study the course of these stars, and as
knowledge progressed, to determine also in advance where a particular
body would be seen at a certain time.

The planets accordingly were the bodies to which the astrologers
especially directed their attention. It has been conjectured with some
show of probability that one of the purposes served by the lofty seven
staged towers,[595] which were attached to many of the great temples,
was for the better observation of the movements of the planets. The
official standing of the astrologers is indicated by the references in
texts to the 'court astrologer.'

However this may be, there is no doubt that at all the large temples and
at many of the smaller ones, observations of the planets were recorded.

The collection of these observations formed the manuals for the priests
in answering many of the questions put to them. Each of the great
planets was identified (by a process of thought that we will have
occasion to describe) with some deity, though this was not done until
the attempt was also made to gather the astrological knowledge of the
day into some kind of consistent system. Our own names of the planets,
as handed down to us through the Greeks and Romans, are but the
classical equivalents of the Babylonian deities.[596]

Jupiter is Marduk, the head of the Babylonian pantheon. Venus is the
Babylonian Ishtar. Mars is Nergal, the god of war and pestilence.
Mercury is Nabu, the god of wisdom and the messenger of the gods, and
Saturn is Ninib.

Among the astrological texts preserved, Ishtar-Venus figures more
prominently than the other planets. The appearance of Ishtar during each
month and for various days of the month was noted, and then interpreted,
partly on the basis of past experience, but also by other factors that
for the most part escape us. A tablet, furnishing omens derived from the
position of the planet Venus and which may belong to the series
'Illumination of Bel,' deals with the periods of the disappearance of
Venus as evening star, and her reappearance as morning star, and _vice
versa_[597].

    In the month of Tammuz (4th month) Venus disappeared on the 25th
    day at sunset, for seven days was hidden[598], and on the 2d day
    of Ab (5th month) was seen at sunrise. Rains in the land.
    Destruction of[599] ...

    In the month of Adar (12th month) Venus disappeared on the 25th
    day at sunrise. For a year (?) weapons are wielded[600] (?),
    gold[599] ...

    In the month of Marcheshwan (8th month), 10th day, Venus
    disappeared at sunrise, for two months and six days was hidden,
    and reappeared on the 16th day of Tebet (10th month). There will
    be abundant crops.

    In the month of Elul (6th month), 26th day, Venus disappeared at
    sunset, for eleven days was hidden, and in the second[601] Elul,
    on the 7th day, reappeared at sunset. The heart of the land is
    good.[6]

    In the month of Nisan (1st month), on the 9th day, Venus
    disappeared at sunsets[602] (?), and for five months and sixteen
    days was hidden, and reappeared in the month of Elul (6th
    month), on the 25th day, at sunset. The heart of the land is
    good.

    In the month of Ab (5th month), 10th day, Venus disappeared at
    sunset[603] (?), and for two[604] months and sixteen days was
    hidden, and reappeared on the 26th day of Marcheshwan (8th
    month). Rains in the land.

    In the month of Nisan, 2d day, Venus appeared at sunrise. There
    will be distress in the land.

    If Venus is stationary to the 6th day of Kislev (9th month) at
    sunrise, and then disappears on the 7th day of Kislev, and is
    hidden for three months to reappear on the 8th day of Adar (12th
    month) at sunset, it indicates that king against king will send
    hostility.

    In the month of Kislev (9th month), 10th day, Venus appeared at
    sunrise. Lack of corn and hay in the land. If she remains in
    position up to the 14th day of Ab (5th month) at sunrise, and
    then on the 15th day disappears, and for three months is hidden,
    and on the 15th day of Marcheshwan (8th month) rises at sunset,
    the crops of the land will be good.

A colophon informs us that the tablet in question embodies a series of
observations of the movements of Venus recorded by Babylonian scholars.
It was evidently the purpose of the compilers to commit to writing as
many variations in the appearance and disappearance of the planet as
possible. The omens must either have been furnished at one time or they
embody actual occurrences that were observed in connection with the
observation recorded. In either case the omens served as guides for the
priests in their replies to inquiries. An omen once furnished or an
event once observed as having taken place under given conditions of a
planet served for all times.

The omen lists for the other planets were arranged on the same principle
as the Venus list. The motions of the planets were carefully observed.
It was noted whether they rose brilliantly or with a pale color. Their
position towards other stars was determined, and much more the like.
Besides the planets, various stars that were distinguished by their
brilliancy, as Sirius, Antares, Regulus, and also comets, were included
in the sphere of astronomical calculations, and furnished omens to the
priests.

These omens, so far as we may judge from the texts at present published,
all hinge around the same series of events that are referred to in the
illustrations given,--rain, crops, war, distress, the country's
prosperity, the king's welfare or misfortune.

Another piece of evidence is thus furnished for the hypothesis that
these lists are based upon reports made to royal masters, and that the
reports again are obtained from the lists prepared for public and
political needs. We must not, however, conclude from this fact that the
observation of heavenly phenomena was of no significance at all for the
private individual, but only that the position of the king and the
general welfare of the country were regarded of larger moment.

Just as the gods were held responsible chiefly for the larger affairs of
this world, the trifles being relegated to the spirits and demons,[605]
so the planets and stars, as symbols of the gods, were regarded as
auguries for the chief of the country rather than for the miscellaneous
population, and more for the general welfare than for individual
prosperity. The individual shared in the omen furnished, in so far as
his well-being was dependent upon such important contingencies as
whether there was to be war or peace, good crops or bad. A population so
largely engaged in agriculture as the Babylonians were, would be
satisfied if they could be reassured as to the outcome of their work in
the fields. Ihering has properly emphasized the strong hold that the
conception of communal interests obtained in Babylonia.[606] This
conception is reflected in the prominence given to public and political
affairs in the omen lists and 'omen' reports. Agriculture was the primal
factor in producing this conception in the south; war which united the
population, even though military service was forced upon the people, was
the second factor; and in Assyria, where military expeditions occupied a
much larger share of public attention than in Babylonia, war became the
chief factor in keeping alive the thought of national solidarity.


Omen Calendars.

There was still another reason why the king and with him public affairs,
received such prominence in the omen texts. As the nation's ruler he was
not only an important personage by virtue of his power over his
subjects, but also by virtue of his close relationship to the gods. The
theory of the 'divine right of kings' was rigidly adhered to in
Babylonia and Assyria. When the monarchs speak of themselves as
nominated by this or that god to be the ruler of the country, this was
not a mere phrase. The king was the vicar of the deity on earth, his
representative who enjoyed divine favor and who was admitted into the
confidence of the gods. In earlier days priestly functions were
indissolubly associated with kingship. The oldest kings of Assyria call
themselves 'the priests of Ashur,' and it is only as with the growth of
political power a differentiation of functions takes place that the
priest, as the mediator between the deity and his subjects, becomes
distinct from the secular ruler.

The further development of this process led to the curious but perfectly
natural anomaly that the king, from being originally identical with the
priest, becomes in large measure dependent upon the latter in his
relations to the gods. In the more advanced stages of the religious
cult, the king requires the service of a priest to act as mediator
between himself and the gods, precisely as all of his subjects need this
mediatorship. The king cannot obtain an oracle directly. He must send to
the temple and inquire of the priests. The priest must intercede for the
king when he throws himself upon the mercy of an angered god or goddess.
The royal sacrifice is not acceptable unless the priest stands by the
side of the king.

Still there are traces left of the old direct relationship existing
between the king and his gods. A god sometimes reveals himself directly
to a ruler. Ishtar appears in a dream and gives him directions. Another
and more significant trace of this older relationship is to be found in
the importance assigned to the religious conduct of the king. If an
individual offends a deity, the individual alone suffers, or at the most
his family is involved in the punishment inflicted; but if the king
sins, the whole country suffers, and correspondingly the king's
atonement and reconciliation with the gods is essential for dispelling
some national calamity. Frazer has shown by his admirable
investigations[607] that this view of kingship is common to many nations
of antiquity. While it did not lead among the Babylonians and Assyrians
to that extreme which is best illustrated by Japan, where the Mikado, by
virtue of his divine right, is hedged in with prescribed formalities
that make him almost a prisoner, so closely is he watched by his
attendants lest any mistake be made by him which is certain to entail
serious consequences for the country, still the priests had to see to it
that the rulers performed their duties towards the gods in the
prescribed manner and with all possible accuracy.

The conduct of the king was of special significance at periods when for
some reason or other, the gods were not favorably disposed. Partly on
the basis of actual observation that eclipses (which were especially
feared) had occurred on certain days of the month, partly as a
consequence of the belief that the change in the moon's phase augured
something good or evil for humanity, and in part perhaps through the
coincidence that on a certain day of the month, mishaps of some kind had
occurred several times, certain months and certain days of each month
were regarded as favorable, while others were unfavorable. Some months
and some days were suitable for dedicating a building, others were not.
On some days an oracle might be sought, on others not. Some days were
days of rejoicing, on others again mourning was appropriate. Advantage
had to be taken of the favorable days to keep the deity in good humor,
and it was equally important on the unfavorable ones to exercise great
care not to do aught which might arouse the anger of a god, ready to be
incensed. It is the king who can best accomplish the one thing and avoid
the other. To him, as standing nearer the deity than any private
individual, the country looked for safety and protection. Calendars were
prepared for each month of the year, in which the peculiar character of
each day was noted and instructions added what was to be done on each
day. These instructions all have reference to the king and to the king
alone. A complete calendar for the intercalated month of Elul has been
preserved.[608] It may serve as an example of the branch of the omen
literature to which it belongs.

The thirty days of each month are taken up in succession. The deity to
which each day is sacred is indicated, and various sacrifices or
precautions prescribed.

A curious feature of this calendar was that, since it was the hope to
make every day 'favorable,' each day was called so, even when it is
evident that it was not.

    For the 1st day of Elul the second,[609] sacred to Anu and Bel,
    a favorable day. When the moon makes its appearance in this
    month, the king of many peoples brings his gift, a gazelle
    together with fruit, ... his gift to Shamash, lord of the
    countries, and to Sin, the great god, he gives. Sacrifices he
    offers, and his prayer to his god[610] is acceptable.

    On the 2d day sacred to goddesses, a favorable day. The king
    brings his gift to Shamash, the lord[611] of countries. To Sin,
    the great god, he offers sacrifices. His prayer to the god is
    acceptable.

    On the 3d day, a day of supplication to Marduk and Sarpanitum, a
    favorable day. At night, in the presence of Marduk and
    Ishtar,[612] the king brings his gift. Sacrifices he is to offer
    so that his prayer may be acceptable.

    On the 6th day, sacred to Ramman and Belit,[613] a favorable
    day. The king, with prayer and supplication (?), at night in the
    presence of Ramman, offers his gift. Sacrifices he is to bring
    so that his prayer may be acceptable.

    On the 7th day, supplication to Marduk and Sarpanitum, a
    favorable day (_sc._ may it be). An evil day. The shepherd of
    many nations is not to eat meat roasted by the fire, or any food
    prepared by the fire. The clothes of his body he is not to
    change, fine dress (?) he is not to put on. Sacrifices he is not
    to bring, nor is the king to ride in his chariot. He is not to
    hold court nor is the priest to seek an oracle for him in the
    holy of holies.[614] The physician is not to be brought to the
    sick room.[615] The day is not suitable for invoking
    curses.[616] At night, in the presence of Marduk and Ishtar, the
    king is to bring his gift. Then he is to offer sacrifices so
    that his prayer may be acceptable.

This 7th day, it will be observed, is expressly called an evil day. It
is evident, therefore, that the phrase 'favorable day' in the first line
expresses a hope and not a fact, or is added to indicate the manner in
which the day can be converted into a favorable one. Just as the 7th
day, so the 14th, 21st, and 28th are called evil days, and the same
ceremonies are prescribed for the king on these days. These days were
evidently chosen as corresponding to the phases of the moon. But besides
these four days, a fifth, namely, the 19th, is singled out in the same
fashion. The comparison with the Biblical Sabbath naturally suggests
itself. The choice of the 7th day and of the corresponding ones rests,
of course, in both instances upon the lunar calendar, and there is also
this similarity between the Sabbath of the Hebrews and the 'evil day' of
the Babylonians, that the precautions prescribed in the Pentateuchal
codes--against kindling fires, against leaving one's home, against any
productive labor--point to the Hebrew Sabbath as having been at its
origin an 'inauspicious day,' on which it was dangerous to show oneself
or to call the deity's attention to one's existence. Despite the
attempts made to change this day to one of 'joy,' as Isaiah would have
it,[617] the Hebrew Sabbath continued to retain for a long time as a
trace of its origin, a rather severe and sombre aspect.

A striking difference, however, between the Babylonian and the Hebrew
rites is the absence in the latter of the theory that the atonement of a
single individual suffices for the community. The precautions prescribed
for the Sabbath are binding upon every one. Emphasis is laid in the
Pentateuch upon the fact that the whole people is holy, whereas among
the Babylonians the king alone is holy. He alone is to abstain from his
ordinary acts, to conduct himself on the evil day with becoming
humility, to put on no fineries, not to indulge in dainty food,[618] not
to appear in royal state, neither to appeal to the gods (for they will
not hear them), nor even to interfere with their workings by calling in
human aid against the demon of disease, who may have been sent as the
messenger of one of the gods. It is only at the close of the day that he
can bring a sacrifice which will be acceptable. The king, by observing
these precautions, insures the welfare of his people. The gods cared
little for individual piety, but they kept a jealous eye on their
earthly representative. His appeals were heard if properly presented and
if presented at the right time, but woe to the people whose king has
aroused the divine anger. Just as his acts of penitence have a
representative character, so the gifts and sacrifices and supplications
mentioned in the calendar are offered by the king on behalf of the whole
people.

For the remaining days of Elul, the ordinances have much the same
character as those instanced. The variation consists chiefly in the god
or gods to whom the days are sacred. Now it is Nabu and his consort
Tashmitum--on the 4th, 8th, and 17th days--to whom gifts and prayers are
brought; again Ninib and his consort Gula, on the 9th,[619]--or Gula
alone, on the 19th. To Marduk and Sarpanitum the 16th day is assigned,
besides the 3d and 7th days as above set forth; to Ramman and his
consort the 6th, to the old Bel and Belit the 5th, the 12th, the 25th,
and to Nergal and Bau the 27th. At times two male deities are in
association. So Anu and Bel for the 1st and the 30th day, Ea and Nergal
for the 28th, Sin and Shamash for the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22d, or two
goddesses, as Tashmitum and Sarpanitum, or a god alone, as Ea for the
26th, or Sin alone for the 13th, and once--the 29th day--Sin and Shamash
are combined with the miscellaneous group of Igigi and Anunnaki. All the
great gods are thus represented in the calendar. The basis on which the
days are assigned still escapes us. It is hard to believe that any
strict uniformity existed in this respect in the cults attached to the
various Babylonian temples. Preference would be shown in each center to
the chief god worshipped there, while to others would be assigned a
position corresponding to some theological system devised by the
priests. Uniformity and consistency are two elements that must not be
looked for in the omen literature of any people. The very fact that
omens have some rational basis, namely, observation and experience, is
the very reason why the omen lists and omen calendars of one place
should differ from those of another, and precisely to the same degree
that observation and experience differ.

The intercalated months, by virtue of their extraordinary character, had
perhaps a special significance, but every day of the year had an
importance of some kind. This is shown by a Babylonian calendar,
fortunately preserved in great part,[620] in which every day of the year
is included, and either its character noted or some precautions
prescribed. The indications in this calendar are marked by their
brevity, and impress one as memoranda, intended as a guide to the
priests.

The calendar consists of twelve columns. At the head of each column
stands the name of one of the months. One or, at the most, two lines are
devoted to each day of the month, the days being ranged in succession
from one to thirty. For a series of days in the 2d month the indications
are:

  21st day, hostility.
  22d day, judgment favorable, invoking of curses.
  23d day, heart not good.
  24th day, gladness of heart.
  25th day, wife not to be approached, heart not good.
  26th day, secret.

Such indications it is evident are intelligible only to the initiated.
With the help of the more complete calendars, such as the one above
explained, we can in most cases determine what is meant by these
memoranda. A note like 'hostility' is an omen that the gods are
unfavorably inclined on that day. The 'judgment' referred to on the 22d
day is the oracle. The day in question is suitable for obtaining a
response to a question put to the deity, and a favorable occasion for
invoking curses upon the enemy. It will be recalled that the 7th day of
the second intercalated Elul is put down as one when it is not advisable
to secure the ill will of the god against the enemy. An expression like
'heart not good' is explained by the contrast 'heart glad.' The 23d day
of the month is a day of sorrow, the 24th one on which one may be
cheerful without arousing the jealousy of the gods or demons. The 25th
is again an unfavorable day in which, as a precaution, sexual
intercourse is prohibited. Lastly, the word rendered 'secret'[621] is
the same one that we came across in the precautions prescribed for the
7th day of the second Elul, where we are told that the priest is not to
enter the 'secret' place. This term appears to describe the 'holy of
holies' in the Babylonian temples where the oracles were obtained. The
single word 'secret' was a sufficient indication for the priest that on
the day in question he might enter the mysterious chamber of the temple
without trepidation.

Many of the days of the year are simply set down as 'favorable' or
'unfavorable,' while others were noted as days portending 'distress,'
'trouble,' 'tears,' 'injury,' 'everything favorable,' 'darkness,' 'moon
obscured,' and the like. Of special interest are the prohibitions
regarding food on certain days. On the 9th day of the 2d month "fish is
not to be eaten or sickness will ensue." Swine's meat is forbidden on
the 30th day of the 5th month, and in this case the particular kind of
sickness--disease of the joints--is specified that will ensue in case of
disobedience. On another day, the 25th of the 7th month, beef as well as
pork is forbidden, while on the 10th day of the 8th month and the 27th
day of the 6th month, dates are forbidden as a precaution against eye
disease. One is not to cross a stream[622] on the 20th day of the 5th
month; on certain days one is not to sell grain; other days are again
noted as specially favorable for military movements.

Some of the precautions prescribed in this calendar may have been meant
for the populace in general, such as the order not to cross a stream or
to strike a bargain. The belief in lucky and unlucky days has a distinct
popular flavor, but it is doubtful whether the ordinary public consulted
the priests, as a general thing, in order to find out what days were
lucky and what not. It is more plausible to assume that the priests
embodied in their official calendars some of the notions that arose
among the people, and gave to them an official sanction.

There are a considerable number of references to the king in the
complete calendar under consideration, and we are permitted to assume,
therefore, that the calendar served as a further guide for the priests
in their instructions to the king. The allusion to oracles, curses, and
weapons points in this same direction, and when, as in a number of
instances, a day is described as one on which Shamash or some other god
is 'angry,' it is in all probabilities against the ruler rather than
against private individuals that the god's displeasure has been
manifested. A similar official and public character is borne by another
calendar, where months alone are indicated and their significance
interpreted.[623] The twelve months are arranged in as many columns.
Under each column the indications 'favorable' or 'not' are entered,
while at the right end of the tablet the specifications are added for
what undertakings the month is, or is not, favorable. One of these
specifications is "the soldiery to make an attack upon a hostile city,"
and upon referring to the list of months, we learn that the 2d, 6th,
7th, 8th, and 12th months are favorable for such an undertaking, but the
others are 'not.' Again, the 1st, 3d, 4th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th
are 'favorable' for "the entrance of any army upon foreign soil," but
the remainder 'not.' The other specifications refer likewise to the
movements of the armies. Such a calendar was evidently drawn up on the
basis of omens, for a specific purpose, and, we may add, for some
specific expedition to serve as a guide to the military commander. In
the same way, calendars were drawn up devoted to indications regarding
crops and for other purposes of public interest. To a more limited
extent, private affairs are also touched upon.

To enter upon a further discussion of details is unnecessary at this
point, and would carry us too far from the main purpose of this chapter,
which is to point out the diverse ways in which the belief in omens is
illustrated by the religious literature of the Babylonians.

It is sufficient to have made clear that the oracles and dreams, the
lists of omens derived from eclipses, the works on the planets and stars
and the calendars, all have the same origin due to observation of
coincidences, to past experience, and to a variety of combinations, some
logical and some fanciful, of supposed relationships between cause and
effect; and not only the same origin, but the lists and calendars served
also the same main purpose of guides for the priests in replying to the
questions put to them by their royal masters and in forwarding
instructions to the ruler for the regulation of his own conduct so that
he and his people might enjoy the protection and good will of the gods.
But the observation of the phenomena of the heavens, while playing
perhaps the most prominent part in the derivation of omens, was not the
only resource at the command of the priests for prognosticating the
future. Almost daily, strange signs might be observed among men and
animals, and whatever was strange was of necessity fraught with some
meaning. It was the business of the priest to discover that meaning.


Omens From Terrestrial Phenomena.

Monstrosities, human and animal, and all species of malformations
aroused attention. The rarer their occurrence, the greater the
significance attached to them. In addition to this, the movements of
animals, the flight of birds, the appearance of snakes at certain
places, of locusts, lions, the actions of dogs, the direction of the
winds, the state of rivers, and all possible accidents and experiences
that men may encounter in their house, in the street, in crossing
streams, and in sleep were observed. Everything in any way unusual was
important, and even common occurrences were of some significance. The
extensive omen literature that was produced in Babylonia is an
indication of the extent to which men's lives were hedged in by the
belief in portents. Several thousand tablets in the portion of
Ashurbanabal's library that has been rescued from oblivion through
modern excavations, deal with omens of this general class. Several
distinct series, some embracing over one hundred tablets, have already
been distinguished. One of these series deals with all kinds of
peculiarities that occur in human infants and in the young of animals;
another with the things that may happen to a man; a third with the
movements of various animals, and more the like. As yet but a small
portion of these tablets have been published,[624] but thanks to the
indications given by Dr. Bezold in his great catalogue of the Kouyunjik
Collection, a fair idea of the general character of the Babylonian omen
literature may be formed. On what principle the omens were derived, it
is again difficult to determine in detail, but that some logical
principles controlled the interpretations cannot be doubted.

Jevons has shown[625] that in "sympathetic magic,"--of which the
interpretation of omens is an offshoot,--the same logical methods are
followed as in modern science. The famous 'Chaldean wisdom,' which is to
be looked for in this widespread omen literature, would not have created
so deep an impression on the ancient world, if the theologians of the
Euphrates Valley, in incorporating primitive magic in the official
religion, had not been successful in giving to their interpretations of
occurrences in nature and in the animal world, the appearance, at least,
of a consistent science.

Taking up as our first illustration the series devoted to birth
portents, it is interesting to observe the system followed in presenting
the various phases of the general subject. A broad distinction is drawn
between significant phenomena in the case of human infants and in the
case of the young of animals.

About a dozen tablets are taken up with an enumeration of omens
connected with new-born children, and one gains the impression from the
vast number of portents included in the lists that originally every
birth portended something. The fact that births were of daily occurrence
did not remove the sense of mystery aroused by this sudden appearance of
a new life. Every part of the body was embraced in the omens: the ears,
eyes, mouth, nose, lips, arms, hands, feet, fingers, toes, breast,
generatory organs. Attention was directed to the shapes of these various
members and organs. The ears of a child might suggest the ears of a dog
or of a lion or of a swine, and similarly the nose, mouth, lips, hands,
or feet might present a peculiar appearance. A single member or the
features in general might be small or abnormally large. All these
peculiarities meant something; and since few if any children are born
without presenting some peculiarities in some part of the body, it would
seem as though the intention of the compilers of the series was to
provide a complete handbook for the interpretation of signs connected
with the birth of children. Naturally the total absence of some member
of the body in case of the new-born or any malformation was a sign of
especial significance. Hence we are told what was portended by a child
born without hands or feet or ears or lips, or with only one of these
members, or with only one eye, or with no mouth or no tongue, or with
six fingers on one or on both hands, or six toes on one or on both feet,
or without generatory organs.[626]

The rarer the phenomenon, the greater the significance is, as we have
seen, a general principle in the science of augury. The birth of twins
accordingly plays an important rôle in the series. In fact, the opening
tablet is devoted in part to this phase of the subject. We are told, for
example, that[627]

    If a woman gives birth to twins, one male and one female, it is
    an unfavorable omen. The land is in favor[628], but that house
    (wherein the child was born) will be reduced.

And again,

    If a woman gives birth to twins, and both are brought out
    alive(?),[629] but the right hand of one is lacking, the ruler
    (?) will be killed by force, the land will be diminished....

    If a woman gives birth to twins, and both are brought out alive
    (?), but neither of them have right hands, the produce of the
    country will be consumed by the enemy.

    If a woman gives birth to twins, and both are brought out alive
    (?), but the right foot of one is missing, an enemy will for one
    year disturb the fixed order of the country.[630]

It will be observed that these omens bear on public as well as private
affairs. The part played by public matters in them varies, but that the
king and the country are so frequently introduced is an indication again
of the official character given to these omen tablets. Only priests
whose chief concern was with the court and the general welfare would
have been impelled to mingle in this curious way the fate of the
individual with that of the country at large. The birth of twins in
itself is an omen for the house where the event occurs; but twins that
are monstrosities, with a foot or a hand lacking, portend something of
import to the general welfare.

The tablet proceeds, after finishing one phase of the subject, with
omens to be derived from infants whose features resemble those of
certain animals. In this case again we will see that the mind of the
compiler is now directed towards the fate of the individual and again
toward the ruler or the country. In the 2d tablet of the series we read
that

    If a woman gives birth to a child with a lion's head,[631] a
    strong king will rule in the land.

    If a woman gives birth to a child with a dog's head, the city in
    his district[632] will be in distress, and evil will be in the
    country.

    ...

    If a woman gives birth to a child with a swine's head, offspring
    and possession (?) will increase in that house.

    ...

    If a woman gives birth to a child with a bird's head, that land
    will be destroyed.

    If a woman gives birth to a child with a serpent's head, for
    thirty days (?) Nin-Gishzida[633] will bring a famine in the
    land, and Gilgamesh[634] will rule as king in the land.

In the same tablet[635] such monstrosities are taken up as children born
with two heads, with a double pair of eyes, or with the eyes misplaced,
with two mouths or more than two lips. The two heads, strange enough,
generally portend good fortune, though not invariably. Thus an infant
with two heads is an omen of strength for the country; and again

    If a woman gives birth to a child with two heads, two mouths,
    but the regular number of eyes, hands, and feet[636], it is an
    omen of vigorous life [for the country, but the son] will seize
    the king his father and kill him.

But

    If a woman gives birth to a child with two heads and two mouths,
    and the two hands and two feet are between them[637], disease
    will settle upon that city (where the monstrosity was born).

If the deformity consists in the misplacement of certain organs, the
omen is invariably bad.

    If a woman gives birth to a child with two eyes on the left
    side, it is a sign that the gods are angry against the land, and
    the land will be destroyed.

And again,

    If a woman gives birth to a child with three eyes on the left
    side and one on the right, the gods will fill the land with
    corpses.

The third tablet proceeds with other parts of the body. It begins with a
list of peculiarities observed in regard to the ears. The resemblance of
certain features in children to the corresponding features of animals is
an observation made by many nations. In modern times Lavater, it will be
recalled, based his study of human physiognomy in part upon the
resemblance of the nose, eyes, mouth, and ears, and general shape of the
head to the features of such animals as the lion, jackass, dog, and
swine. We may well believe, therefore, that when the Babylonians refer
to a child with a lion's or a dog's ear, they had in mind merely a
resemblance, but did not mean that the child actually had the ear of a
lion or dog or the like.

At times the connection between the omen and its interpretation is quite
obvious. In a portion of this same series we are told that[638]

    If a woman gives birth to a child with a lion-like ear, a mighty
    king will arise in the land.

It will be recalled that a 'lion head' portends the same, and it is
evident that in both cases the lion suggests strength. We are in the
presence of the same order of ideas that controls the belief in
'sympathetic magic.' The corollary to 'like produces like' is 'like
means like.' In other cases, the logic underlying the interpretation of
the omen must be sought for in views connected with some accompanying
feature.

    If a woman gives birth to a child with the right ear missing,
    the days of the ruler will be long.

    If a woman gives birth to a child with the left ear missing,
    distress will enter the land and weaken it.

While in general the absence of any part of the body is a sign of
distress for the country and individual by a perfectly natural
association of ideas, yet this general principle is modified by the
further consideration that 'right' is a good omen and 'left' a bad one.
But this consideration which makes the absence of the 'right' ear a good
omen may again be offset by the entrance of a third factor. So we are
told that

    If a woman gives birth to a child with a small[639] right ear,
    the house of the man[640] will be destroyed.

The omen of misfortune in this case is the deformity in the organ, and
the fact that the more important right ear is deformed, so far from
mitigating the force of the omen, accentuates its consequences.

If a deformed right ear is disastrous, we are prepared to learn that

    If a woman gives birth to a child with both ears short, the
    house of the man will be utterly rooted out.

No less than eleven varieties of deformed ears are enumerated. It must
not be supposed, however, that the factors involved in this omen science
are always or even generally so simple. In most cases the connection
between the sign and the conclusion drawn, is not clear to us because of
the multiplicity of factors involved. Further publication and study of
omen texts will no doubt make some points clear which are now obscure,
but we cannot expect ever to find out all the factors that were taken
into account by the populace and the schoolmen, in proposing and
accepting certain interpretations of certain omens, any more than we can
fathom the reasons for the similar superstition found among other
nations[641] of antiquity and modern times. Recognizing certain
principles in some of the omens, we are justified in concluding that
whatever else determined the interpretation of omens, caprice did not
enter into consideration, but rather an association of ideas that
escapes us, simply because our logic differs from the logic of primitive
peoples in certain important particulars.

The list of peculiarities occurring in the case of babes continues as
follows:

    If a woman gives birth to a child whose mouth is shaped like a
    bird's, the country will be stirred up.

    If a woman gives birth to a child without any mouth, the
    mistress of the house will die.

    If a woman gives birth to a child with the right nostril
    lacking, misfortune is portending.

    If a woman gives birth to a child with both nostrils lacking,
    the land will witness distress, and disease will destroy the
    house of the man.

    If a woman gives birth to a child whose jaw is lacking, the days
    of the ruler will be long, but the house of the man will be
    destroyed.

    If a woman gives birth to a child whose lower jaw is lacking,
    the ground will not bear fruit during the year.

It will be observed that, while most of the portents are evil, the ruler
of the land is here generally vouchsafed immunity. The priests had to be
somewhat on their guard lest by the very terror that they aroused, the
hold of the rulers over the people might be loosened. Moreover, the
rulers were sufficiently hedged in by their positions, as we have seen,
and were in no danger of regarding themselves as safe from the anger of
the gods.

Still quite frequently even the king is involved in the evil prophecy.
The portion of the series dealing with portents derived from deformed
hands and feet contains instances of this kind.

    If a woman gives birth to a child with the right hand lacking,
    the land advances to destruction.

    If a woman gives birth to a child with both hands lacking, the
    city will witness no more births, and the land will be utterly
    destroyed.

    If a woman gives birth to a child with the fingers of the right
    hand lacking, the ruler will be captured by his enemy.

    If a woman gives birth to a child with six toes on the right
    foot, through distress (?), the house of the man will perish.

    If a woman gives birth to a child with six very small toes on
    the left foot, distress (?) will come to pass.

    If a woman gives birth to a child with six toes on the right
    foot, some disaster is portending.

Altogether no less than ninety kinds of human deformities in the various
parts of the body are enumerated and interpreted.

The significance of the portents is naturally increased if the woman who
gives birth to a monstrosity happens to belong to the royal house. In
such a case, the omen has direct bearings on national affairs. The good
or evil sign affects the country exclusively. From a tablet of this
nature,[642] belonging to a different series than the one we have been
considering, we learn that six toes on the right foot or six on the left
foot mean defeat, whereas six toes on both feet mean victory. Royal
twins were a good omen, and so also a royal child born with teeth or
with hair on its face or with unusually developed features.

The same desire to find some meaning in deviations from normal types led
to the careful observation of deformities or peculiarities in the case
of the young of domestic animals. In the fifth tablet of the series that
we have chosen as an illustration, the compiler passes from babes to the
offspring of domestic animals. From the opening line, which is all that
has been published as yet,[643] and which reads:

    If in the flock[644] a dog is born, weapons will destroy life
    and the king will not be triumphant

it would appear that the first subject taken up was the anomalous unions
among animals, which naturally aroused attention when they occurred.

A number of tablets--at least seven--follow in which monstrosities
occurring among the young of sheep are noted.

The series passes on to signs to be observed among colts. From this
point on, the series is too defective (so far as published) to warrant
any further deductions; but it is safe to suppose that, as the young of
ewes and mares were considered in special sections, so the young of
swine and of cows were taken up in succession. The whole series would
thus aim to cover that section of the animal kingdom that concerned man
most,--his own offspring, and the young of those animals by which he was
surrounded.

In these omens derived from the young of domestic animals, we are again
overwhelmed at the mass of contingencies included by the priests in
their compilations. Just as in the case of omens derived from infants,
so here the parts of the body are taken up one after the other. All
possible, and one is inclined to add various impossible, variations from
the normal types are noted. The omen varies as the female throws off
one, two, three, or whatever number of young ones up to ten. For
example:[645]

    If among the sheep, five young ones are born, it is a sign of
    devastation in the land. The owner of the sheep dies, and his
    house is destroyed.

This is the omen in the case that the litter consists of five young
ones, all normal. But if anomalies occur, as, _e.g._,

    If five young ones are born, one with a bull's head, one with a
    lion's head, one with a dog's head, and one with a sheep's head,
    there will be a series of devastations in the land.

Again,

    If seven young are thrown off, three male and four female, that
    man[646] will perish.

And so if eight are born, it is a bad sign for the king who, we are
told, "will be driven out of the country through sedition." The
variations are nigh endless.

    If in the flock, young ones are thrown off with five legs, it is
    a sign of distress in the land. The house of the man will perish
    and his stalls will be swept away.

    If the young ones have six legs, the population will decrease
    and devastation will settle over the country.

Having finished with litters, the series proceeds to peculiar marks
found on single specimens; lambs that have a head and tail shaped like a
lion or that have a lion's head and a mane like that of an ass, or a
head like a bird's, or like a swine, and so through a long and rather
tiresome list.

Malformations in the shape or position of members of the animal,
particularly the mouth, ears, tongue, tail, and eyes, or the absence of
any one or of several of these parts were fraught with an importance
corresponding to these symptoms among new-born babes.

    If a young one has its ears on one side, and its head is twisted
    (?), and it has no mouth, the ruler will cut off the supply of
    water from his enemy.

In this instance the 'twisting' and the absence of the mouth appear to
suggest the act of turning a canal into a different direction, so as to
isolate a besieged city. When the text goes on to declare that

    If the young one has its ears at its neck,[647] the ruler will
    be without judgment,

it is the association of ideas between 'ears' and 'judgment,'[648] that
supplies the link. A misplaced ear is equivalent to misdirected
judgment.

Consistent with this interpretation, the next line informs us that

    If the young one has its ears below the neck,[649] the union of
    the country is weakened.

Such glimpses into the peculiar thought controlling these omens are
perhaps all that we will be able to obtain at least for a long time to
come. For the rest, comparative studies with the omens of the other
nations will alone serve to determine the multitudinous factors involved
in the interpretations of the signs.

Before leaving the subject, however, a few more illustrations may be
offered. Another portion of the same tablet--the eleventh--continues the
omens derived from peculiarities in the ears of lambkins:

    If the young one has no right ear, the rule of the king will
    come to an end, his palace will be uprooted, and the population
    of the city will be swept away, the king will lose judgment, ...
    the produce of the country will be small, the enemy will cut off
    the supply of water.

    If the left ear of the young one is missing, the deity will hear
    the prayer of the king, the king will capture his enemy's land,
    and the palace of the enemy will be destroyed, the enemy will
    lack judgment, the produce of the enemy's land will be taken
    away and everything will be plundered (?).

    If the right ear of the young one falls off, the stall[650] will
    be destroyed.

    If the left ear of the young one falls off, the stall will be
    increased, the stall[651] of the enemy will be destroyed.

    If the right ear of the young one is split (?), that stall will
    be destroyed, the enemy (?) will advance against the city.

    If the left ear of the young one is split (?), that stall will
    be increased, the king[652] will advance against the enemy's
    land.

In all these cases it will be observed that a defect in the right ear or
an accident happening to it is an evil omen, whereas the same thing
occurring in the case of the left is a favorable indication. The greater
importance of the right side of anything evidently suggests in this case
the interpretation offered, and yet this principle, as we have seen, is
far from being of universal application. It depends upon _what_ happens
to the right ear. Above, we have seen that an unusually large ear
betokens some good fortune, and in the tablet under consideration,
illustrations are afforded of accidents to the right ear which furnish a
good omen, while the same accident in the case of the left ear is
regarded as a bad omen.

Our text continues:

    If the right ear of the young one is shrunk (?), the house of
    the owner will prosper.

    If the left ear is shrunk, the house of the owner will perish.

    If the right ear is torn off, the house of the owner will
    prosper.

    If the left ear is torn off, the house of the owner will perish.

But immediately following this we have again an evil omen for the right
ear and a favorable one for the left. Three more tablets are taken up
with omens associated with all manner of peculiarities in the formation
of the ears, head, lips, mouth, and feet of lambkins, and it is not
until the fifteenth tablet of the series is reached that another
subject, the young of mares, is introduced.

The prognostications in the case of colts have about the same character
as those in the case of lambkins. The same signs are singled out for
mention, and the omens are not only, just as in the illustrations
adduced, evenly divided between the fate of the country and its ruler,
and of the owner of the colt or mare, but we can also observe a
consistent application of the same principles, so far as these
principles may be detected. A few illustrations will make this
clear:[653]

    If a colt has no right legs, the house[654] will be destroyed.

    If a colt has no left legs, the days of the ruler will be long.

    If a colt has no legs, the country will be destroyed.

    If a colt has the right leg shortened,[655] ... his stall[4]
    will be destroyed.

    If a colt has the left leg shortened, the stall[656] will be
    destroyed

    ...

    If a colt has no hoof on the right foreleg, the wife will cause
    trouble to her husband.

    If a colt has no hoofs at all, there will be dissensions (?)
    within the country, and the enemy will enter the ruler's land.

In this way, twenty-one omens derived from as many varieties of strange
formations in the legs of colts are enumerated. As in the case of
lambkins, so for colts, the appearance of twins is endowed with a
special significance.

    If a mare gives birth to twins, male and female, and each has
    only one eye, the enemy triumphs and devastates Babylonia.

    If the male or female colt has a mane like a lion, the country
    will be reduced.

    If the male or female colt has a dog's hoof, the country will be
    reduced.

    If the male or female colt has a lion's claw, the country will
    be enlarged.

    If the male or female colt has a dog's head, the woman's[657]
    life will be bad. The country will be reduced.

    If the male or female colt has a lion's head, the ruler will be
    strong.

    If both colts, the male and female, resemble lions, the ruler
    over his enemies prevails (?).

    If both colts, male and female, resemble dogs, the ruler over
    his enemy's country prevails (?).

    If either a male or female colt is born resembling a lion, the
    king will be strong.

    If either a male or female colt resembles a dog, herds of cattle
    will die, and there will be famine.

    If a colt is born without a head, its master will be strong.

    If a colt is born without eyes, the god Bel will bring about a
    change of dynasty.

    If a colt is born without feet, the king increases his army and
    a slaughter will ensue.

    If a colt is born without ears, for three years the gods will
    reduce the land.

    If a colt is born without a tail, the ruler will die.

In conclusion it may be observed that, apart from the unusual character
of these freaks which would suffice to attribute a special import to
them, the notions current among the Babylonians, as among so many people
of a period when creatures existed, the various parts of which were
compounded of different animals, may be regarded as an additional factor
that served to add force to the class of omens we are considering. The
monsters guarding the approaches to temples and palaces[658] were but
one form which this popular belief assumed, and when a colt was observed
to have a lion's or a dog's claw, an ocular demonstration was afforded
which at once strengthened and served to maintain a belief that at
bottom is naught but a crude and primitive form of a theory of
evolution. In a dim way man always felt the unity of the animal world.
Animals resembled one another, and man had some features in common with
animals. What more natural than to conclude that at some period, the
animals were composite creatures, and that even mankind and the animal
world were once blended together.

The prevailing religious and semi-mythological ideas, accordingly, enter
as factors in the significance that was attached to infants or to the
young of animals, serving as illustrations of 'hybrid' formations.


Omens from the Actions of Animals.

The same order of ideas, only still further extended, may be detected in
the sacredness attached to certain animals by so many nations of
antiquity. It is now generally admitted that this 'sacredness' has two
sides. A sacred animal may be 'taboo,' that is, so sacred that it must
not be touched, much less killed or eaten; and, on the other hand, its
original sanctity may lead people to regard it as "unclean," something
again to be avoided, because of the power to do evil involved in the
primitive conception of 'sacredness.'[659]

The swine and the dog are illustrations of this double nature of
sanctity among the Semites. The former was sacred to some of the
inhabitants of "Syria."[660] The Babylonians, as we have seen, abstained
from eating it on certain days of the year, while the Hebrews and Arabs
regarded it as an absolute 'taboo.'

The dog to this day is in the Orient an "unclean" animal, and yet it is
forbidden to do dogs any injury. If, then, we find the Babylonians
attaching significance to the movements of this animal, it is obvious
that by them, too, the dog was regarded as, in some way, sacred. It was
an 'animal of omen,' sometimes good, at other times bad. A tablet
informs us[661] that:

    If a yellow dog enters a palace, it is a sign of a distressful
    fate for the palace.

    If a speckled dog enters a palace, the palace[662] will give
    peace to the enemy.

    If a dog enters a palace and some one kills him, the peace of
    the palace will be disturbed.

    If a dog enters a palace and crouches on the couch, no one will
    enjoy that palace in peace.

    If a dog enters a palace and crouches on the throne, that palace
    will suffer a distressful fate.

    If a dog enters a palace and lies on a large bowl, the palace
    will secure peace from the enemy.

There follow omens in case dogs enter a sacred edifice:

    If a dog enters a temple, the gods will not enlarge the land.

    If a white dog enters a temple, the foundation of that temple
    will be firm.

    If a black dog enters a temple, the foundation of that temple
    will not be firm.

    If a brown[663] dog enters a temple, that temple will witness
    justice.

    If a yellow dog enters a temple, that temple will[664] witness
    justice.

    If a speckled dog enters a temple, the gods will show favor to
    that temple.

    If dogs gather together and enter a temple, the city's peace
    will be disturbed.

The juxtaposition of palace and temple is an indication that a large
measure of sanctity was attached to the former as the dwelling-place of
one who stood near to the gods. The omens, accordingly, in the case of
both palace and temple are again concerned with public affairs. But from
the same tablet we learn that an equal degree of significance was
attached to the actions of dogs when they entered private dwellings.
Precautions must have been taken against the presence of dogs in that
part of the house which was reserved for a man's family, for we are
told:[665]

    A dog entering a man's house was an omen that the ultimate fate
    of that house would be destruction by fire.

Care had to be taken lest dogs defiled a person or any part of the
house. The omens varied again according to the color of the dog.

    If a white dog defiles[666] a man, destruction will seize him.

    If a black dog defiles a man, sickness will seize him.

    If a brown dog defiles a man, that man will perish.

    If a dog defiles a man's couch, a severe sickness will seize
    that man.

    If a dog defiles a man's chair, the man will not survive the
    year.

    If a dog defiles a man's bowl,[667] a deity will show anger
    towards the man.

On the other hand, dogs were not to be driven out of the streets. Their
presence in the roads was essential to the welfare of the place. Hence
an omen reads:

    If dogs do not enter the highway,[668] destruction from an enemy
    will visit the city.

Through Diodorus, Jamblichus, and other ancient writers we know that the
Babylonians and Assyrians attached importance to the movements of other
animals, notably serpents, birds, and certain insects. The symbols on
the boundary stones which have been referred to[669] are based on this
belief. The serpent figures prominently among these symbols. In the
Babylonian deluge story, the dove, raven, and swallow are introduced. Of
these, the swallow appears to be the bird whose flight was most
carefully observed. The sign which represents this bird in the cuneiform
syllabary also signifies 'fate.'[670] The mischief wrought by swarms of
insects, as grasshoppers and locusts, the danger lurking in the bites of
scorpions sufficiently explain the importance attached to the actions of
these animals. The mysterious appearance and disappearance of serpents
and their strange twistings added an element in their case that
increased the awe they inspired, while if Ihering be correct,[671] the
omens derived from the flight of birds are a survival of the migratory
period in the history of a nation, when birds served as a natural guide
in choosing the easiest course to pass from one place to another. A
large number of tablets in Ashurbanabal's library treat of the
significance attached to the action of these various animals, and it is
likely that these tablets form part of a large series, of which the
illustrations above adduced regarding the movements of dogs form a part.
In this series, the application of the omens to individuals is more
strongly emphasized than in the series of birth portents. Naturally so,
for it was the individual as a general thing who encountered the signs.
In the case of the appearance of a serpent or snake, for example, the
omen consisted in the fact that a certain person beheld it, and that
person was involved in the consequences. Fine distinctions are again
introduced that illustrate the intricacies of the system of
interpretation perfected in Babylonia. If a snake passes from the right
to the left side of a man, it means one thing; if from the left to the
right, another; if the man who sees a snake does not tread upon it, the
omen is different than in the case when he attempts to crush it. Again
the omen varies according to the occupation of the man who encountered a
snake. If he be a gardener, the appearance of the snake means something
different than in the case of his being a sailor.

The place where the animal appears is also of import, whether in the
street, the house, or the temple, and again, the time of its appearance,
in what month or on what day. In the same way, an endless variety of
omens are derived from the appearance of certain birds, the direction of
their flight, their fluttering around the head of a man or entering a
man's house. So, _e.g._,

    If a raven[672] enters a man's house, that man will secure
    whatever he desires.

And again:

    If a bird throws a bit of meat or anything into a man's house,
    that man will secure a large fortune.

The omens from the appearance of flocks of birds in a town bore, as
appears natural, upon public affairs rather than upon the fate of
individuals, and similarly the appearance of birds in a temple was an
omen for the whole country.

The public or private character of the omens was thus dependent in large
measure upon the question whether the phenomena appeared to an
individual directly or to the population of a place in general. Meeting
a snake or scorpion in the course of a walk through the fields was an
individual omen, and similarly the actions of sheep in a man's stall,
whereas, a mad bull rushing through the city was a general omen. So we
are told that

    If sheep in the stalls do not bleat (?), that stall will be
    destroyed.

Whereas[673]

    A bull crouching at the gate of a city is an omen that the enemy
    will capture that gate.

    A bull goring an ox in the city is an unfavorable omen for the
    city, but if the bull enters the precincts of an individual, it
    is favorable for the individual.

A series of omens derived from the appearance of locusts again
illustrates this principle. When the insects enter private precincts,
the individual and his immediate surroundings are affected.[674]

    If black and speckled locusts appear in a man's house, the
    master of the house will die.

    If black and yellow locusts appear in a man's house, the
    supports of that house will fall.

    If large white locusts appear in a man's house, that house will
    be destroyed and the owner will be in distress.

    If white and brown locusts appear in a man's house, that house
    will be destroyed.

    If small white and brown locusts appear in a man's house, the
    house will be destroyed and the owner will be in distress.

    If yellow locusts appear in a man's house, the supports of that
    house will fall and the owner of the house will be unlucky.

    If yellow-winged locusts appear in a man's house, the master of
    the house will die and that house will be overthrown.


Omens From Dreams.

It made little difference whether one encountered something while awake
or saw it in one's dream. In fact, what one saw while asleep had as a
general thing more importance. A special god of dreams, Makhir, is often
referred to in the religious texts, and this is but another way of
expressing the belief that the dreams were sent to a man as omens. An
unusually wide scope was afforded to the compilers of omen series in
their interpretations of dreams, for what might not a man see in visions
of the night? If a lion[675] appears to a man, it means that the man
will carry out his purpose; if a jackal, it signifies that he will
secure favor in the eyes of the gods; a dog portends sorrow; a mountain
goat, that the man's son will die of some disease; a stag, that his
daughter will die; and so through a long list.

Again we are told[676] that

    If (in a dream) a date appears on a man's head,[677] it means
    that that man will be in distress.

    If a fish appears on a man's head, that man will be powerful.

    If a mountain appears on a man's head, that man will be without
    a rival.

    If salt appears on a man's head, his house will be well
    protected (?).

Similarly, interpretations are offered for the apparition of the dead or
of demons, in dreams. The book of Daniel affords an illustration of the
importance attached to dreams in Babylonia, and of the science developed
out of the interpretations. The sarcastic touch introduced by the
compiler of the book,[678] who represents Nebuchadnezzar as demanding of
his priests not merely to interpret his dream, but to tell him what he
dreamed, is intended to illustrate the limitations of the far-famed
'Chaldean wisdom.' It is also interesting to note in connection with the
illustrations adduced, that the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar and
Belshazzar[679] in the book of Daniel are so largely concerned with
apparitions of animals.

The omens taken from dreams, together with the accidents that occurred
to an individual, or the phenomena occurring in a man's house, afford us
an insight into the purely popular phases of the science of augury.
While eclipses and the movements of planets bear chiefly and almost
exclusively on public affairs, and even birth portents frequently
portend something to the ruler or to the country, it was through such
omens as partook of a purely personal character that the intentions of
the gods towards the individual were made manifest. By means of omens,
the bond between the individual and the gods was not, indeed,
established, but in large measure maintained. Here was a phase of the
religion that touched each individual closely. What a person saw, what
he dreamed, what happened to him, what appeared in his house or among
the members of his household was of significance to him. To know what
every phenomenon portended was essential to his welfare; and we may feel
certain that the relations of the individual to the priests, so far as
these existed, consisted largely in obtaining from the latter the
interpretation of the omens that he encountered. On the other hand, the
power of the priests over the populace was due to the popular belief in
portents, and the attention given by the theologians to the collection
of exhaustive omen series is a proof that the priests knew how to use
their power.

These "Dream Books" must have been very numerous. The success of the
priests here depended even more than in other branches of the omen
literature upon exhausting, so far as possible, all contingencies. No
doubt they were guided here also by two factors: association of ideas,
and past experience through making of a single coincidence between a
dream and some occurrence, a principle of general application. Some of
the omens from dreams, however, appear to have themselves formed part of
a larger series dealing in general with


Omens From Individual Experiences.

If one may judge from the specimens furnished by Dr. Bezold in his
catalogue, this series was unusually extensive, embracing a large number
of subjects connected with human activity,--a man's work in the field,
his actions in commercial affairs, incidents of travel on sea or land,
his relations to his kindred--the dead as well as the living--disease
and death, down to such apparent trifles as the conditions of the walls
of his house. Cracks in the wall were an omen; meeting a snake in the
highway was an omen. A fall was an omen; dropping an instrument was an
omen; in short, it is difficult to say what was not an omen. The
character of the omens in this series does not differ in any essential
particulars from those of other series. The important feature of the
series is that it affords another and perhaps the most striking
illustration of that phase of the omen literature which concerns the
individual directly, and, it seems safe to add, exclusively.

Take, for example, omens connected with symptoms occurring in certain
diseases. We are told that

    If the right breast is brown, it is a fatal (?) sign.

    If both breasts are brown, there will be no recovery.

    If the left breast is green, the sickness will be severe.

The symptoms affect the individual alone. Through this series we are
thus enabled to determine more definitely the boundary line between
omens involving the affairs of the country and king, and those involving
the individual. A phenomenon affecting an individual, or appearing to
him alone, or brought about through some action of his of a purely
private character, carries in its train an omen of significance for
himself or his immediate surroundings; but the moment that these rather
narrow limits are transcended, the fate of the individual becomes more
or less closely bound up with the fortunes of the population and of the
ruler of the country in general. The series also illustrates, perhaps
better than any other, the control exercised by popular beliefs over the
acts of the individual. For we may conclude, that if work on certain
days or traveling at certain periods or the appearance of certain
animals indicated something unfavorable to a man, he would studiously
avoid bringing misfortune upon himself and observe the precautions
involved in the interpretation of the vast mass of the accidents and
incidents of existence. The task was a difficult one, indeed, impossible
of being carried out to perfection, but this would not hinder him from
making the attempt. He was satisfied if he warded off at least a fair
number of unfavorable omens. Correspondingly, he would endeavor to so
regulate his course as to encounter as large a number as possible of
omens that were favorable to him. In this way his life would be spent
with a constant thought of the gods and spirits, who controlled all
things in this world. The popular belief in omens made it incumbent upon
the individual not to lose sight at any time of his dependence upon
powers over which he had but a limited control.

A certain phase of his religion thus entered largely into his life. That
phase would occupy him by day and by night. It was a part of his
religion which literally engaged him "upon lying down at night, and upon
rising up, while sitting in the house, and while walking on the way."
If, despite all his efforts, misfortune came,--and misfortunes, of
course, came constantly,--there was no other recourse but to throw
himself upon the mercy of some god or gods. The gods, especially Marduk,
Ishtar, Shamash, and Ramman, by putting 'grace' into the omens, could at
any time change them into favorable indications.

FOOTNOTES:

[548] Illustrated by the four volumes of Bezold's _Catalogue of the
Koujunjik_, Collection of the British Museum (London, 1889-96).

[549] _Vorgeschichte der Indo-Europaer_, pp. 221 _seq_.

[550] _E.g._, IIIR. 51.

[551] _Ib._ no. 1.

[552] The 1st month of the year.

[553] IIIR. 51. no. 2.

[554] _Ib._ no. 3.

[555] IIIR. 51, no. 9.

[556] _Ib._ no. 7.

[557] What the station of this official was we are not told.

[558] IIIR. 58, no. 7.

[559] Lit., 'true speech in the mouth of the people,' _i.e._, there will
be no sedition.

[560] IIIR. 58, no. 7.

[561] _Ib._ no. 6.

[562] Are not seen at the same time.

[563] His decision will be wise.

[564] Safe from attacks.

[565] IIIR. 58, no. 13.

[566] _Ib._ no. 12.

[567] This appears to be the unusual occurrence involved.

[568] See above, pp. 281, 332.

[569] IIIR. 58, no. 14.

[570] _I.e._, contrary to calculation.

[571] The shadow.

[572] Favorable to Elam (so Oppert translates).

[573] 9th month.

[574] IIIR. 51, no. 5.

[575] 11th month.

[576] IIIR. 59, no. 13.

[577] Some palace official is mentioned.

[578] _E.g._, IIIR. 52, no. 2; 60 and 61. Professor Craig of the
University of Michigan is now preparing for publication all the
fragments of this series. (See his _Assyrian and Babylonian Religious
Texts_, ii. 7.)

[579] IIIR. 60. The first eleven lines are broken off.

[580] _I.e._, of the night. The night, it will be recalled, was divided
into three watches of four hours each.

[581] Lit., a 'divine decision (or oracle) is given.'

[582] An island near the head of the Persian Gulf, often referred to in
the historical texts. See Tiele, _Babyl.-Assyr. Gesch._ p. 88, etc.

[583] Under the same circumstances.

[584] Lit., 'cattle'; but cattle appears to be used for 'property' in
general, just as our English word 'chattel.'

[585] 5th month.

[586] Under the same circumstances.

[587] Lit., Nergal--the personification of pestilence and death.

[588] Repeated in the text by an error of the scribe.

[589] III R. 60, col. ii. 90 to col. iii. 24.

[590] _I.e._, there will be war. One is reminded of the modern
superstition which associates war with the 'northern light' in the
heavens.

[591] _I.e._, there will be sedition.

[592] So a variant text.

[593] _I.e._, will play havoc with the Inhabitants of the deep.

[594] _I.e._, there will be peace.

[595] See the chapter on "The Temples of Babylonia and Assyria."

[596] See Jensen, _Kosmologie der Babylonier_, pp. 134-139.

[597] IIIR. 63.

[598] Lit., "delayed in the heavens."

[599] Tablet defective.

[600] _I.e._, there is war.

[601] Intercalated month.

[602] _I.e._, it is a good sign.

[603] Tablet defective.

[604] Text erroneously 'one month.'

[605] See above, p. 183.

[606] See Ihering, _Vorgeschichte der Indo-Europaer_, pp. 182 _seq._

[607] See _The Golden Bough_, passim.

[608] IV Rawlinson, pls. 32, 33.

[609] _I.e._, the Intercalated Elul. After the 6th month (Elul) and
after the 12th (Adar), a month was intercalated at certain intervals in
order to bring the solar and lunar years into conjunction.

[610] Lit., 'raising of his hand to a god'--the attitude in prayer.

[611] Text erroneously 'mistress.'

[612] Here and elsewhere Ishtar is used in a generic sense for 'chief
goddess'; in the present case Sarpanitum. See above, pp. 82, 151, 206.

[613] 'Belit,' as 'mistress' in general.

[614] Lit., 'place of secrecy,' the reference being to that portion of
the temple where the god sat enthroned.

[615] _I.e._, of the palace.

[616] _I.e._, upon one's enemies.

[617] Isaiah, lviii. 13.

[618] Meat, just as wine, was considered at all times a symbol of joy in
the Orient.

[619] Perhaps also the 24th.

[620] V Rawlinson, pls. 48, 49.

[621] The plural is used, but in a collective sense.

[622] The Euphrates or Tigris is no doubt meant.

[623] IIIR. 52, no. 3, reverse.

[624] The most extensive publication of omens is Boissier's _Documents
Assyriens Relatifs aux Présages_, of which two volumes have appeared.
Boissier's method of publication is not altogether satisfactory.

[625] _Introduction to the History of Religions_, pp. 28-35.

[626] A particularly bad omen. See IIIR. 65, 22, obverse.

[627] Boissler, _Documents Assyriens Relatifs aux Présages_, pp. 110
_seq._ Boissier has published portions of some twenty tablets of the
series, _ib._ pp. 110-181.

[628] _I.e._, will not suffer.

[629] The phrase used is obscure. My translation is offered as a
conjecture.

[630] _I.e._, an enemy will keep the land in turmoil.

[631] _I.e._, like a lion. Elsewhere the preposition 'like' is used.

[632] Where the child is born.

[633] A solar deity; see above, p. 99. Reference to minor deities are
frequent in these omen texts.

[634] The reference appears to be to some misfortune that will be
brought about through the solar deity Gilgamesh.

[635] Boissier, _Documents, etc._, pp. 118-120.

[636] _I.e._, only two.

[637] Between the two heads, _I.e._, the hands and feet are misplaced.

[638] IIIR. 65, no. 1.

[639] Abnormally small.

[640] _I.e._, the father or master.

[641] The Egyptians carried the observation and interpretation of omens
to quite as high a degree as the Babylonians and Assyrians. See, _e.g._,
Chabas, _Mélanges Égyptologiques_, 3^e série, tome ii.; Wiedemann's
_Religion of Ancient Egypt_, p. 263.

[642] Lenormant, _Choix des Textes Cuneiformes_, no. 87.

[643] Occurring at the end of the fourth tablet, as an aid for the
correct arrangement of the series. IIIR 65, no. 1, reverse, l. 28.

[644] Lit., 'stall,' which includes sheep, oxen, and swine.

[645] Boissier, _Documents, etc._, pp. 132, 133.

[646] _I.e._, the owner of the stall. A variant reads 'king' instead of
'man.'

[647] _I.e._, misplaced.

[648] In Babylonian, 'ear' is a synonym of 'understanding.'

[649] Still further misplaced.

[650] Where the young one was born.

[651] _I.e._, the flocks.

[652] Boissler's text has 'man,'--probably in error for 'king.'

[653] IIIR. 65, no. 2, obverse.

[654] Of the master.

[655] Lit., 'cut off.'

[656] Of the owner.

[657] The wife of the owner of the mare appears to be meant.

[658] See above, p. 138.

[659] See Jevons, _Introduction to the History of Religion_, chapters
vi.-ix.

[660] Robertson Smith; _Religion of the Semites_, pp. 143, 273.

[661] Lenormant, _Choix des Textes Cuneiformes,_ no. 89; Boissier,
_Documents, etc._, p. 104.

[662] _I.e._, the ruler of the palace.

[663] Lit., 'dark colored.'

[664] 'Not,' perhaps omitted.

[665] Boissier, p. 103.

[666] By vomiting on him.

[667] Out of which one eats.

[668] _I.e._, keep away from it.

[669] See p. 182.

[670] According to Hilprecht (_Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, I. part 2,
p. 35), 'a goose or similar water-bird' was originally pictured by the
sign, though he admits that the picture was 'later' used for swallow.

[671] _Vorgeschichte der Indo-Europaer,_ pp. 451-55.

[672] The term used is _Unagga_, Bezold's _Catalogue of the Koujunjik
Collection_, p. 1841. See Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 153.

[673] Bezold, _Catalogue_, p. 1710.

[674] Boissier, _Documents, etc_., pp. 3, 4.

[675] Bezold, _Catalogue_, pp. 1437, 1438.

[676] Bezold, _ib._ p. 918.

[677] _I.e._, over him.

[678] Chapter ii. 4-6.

[679] Chapter ii. 31-35, and vii. 2-12.




CHAPTER XXI.

THE COSMOLOGY OF THE BABYLONIANS.


Various traditions were current in Babylonia regarding the manner in
which the universe came into existence. The labors of the theologians to
systematize these traditions did not succeed in bringing about their
unification. Somewhat like in the Book of Genesis, where two versions of
the creation story have been combined by some editor,[680] so portions
of what were clearly two independent versions have been found among the
remains of Babylonian literature. But whereas in the Old Testament the
two versions are presented in combination so as to form a harmonic
whole, the two Babylonian versions continued to exist side by side.
There is no reason to suppose that the versions were limited to two. In
fact, a variant to an important episode in the creation story has been
discovered which points to a third version.[681]

The suggestion has been thrown out that these various versions arose in
the various religious centers of the Euphrates Valley. So far as the
editing of the versions is concerned, the suggestion is worthy of
consideration, for it is hardly reasonable to suppose that the
theological schools of one and the same place should have developed more
than one cosmological system. The traditions themselves, however, apart
from the literary form which they eventually assumed, need not have been
limited to certain districts nor have been peculiar to the place where
the systematization took place. Nothing is more common than the
interchange of myths and popular traditions. They travel from one place
to the other, and contradictory accounts of one and the same event may
be circulated, and find credence in one and the same place.

The two distinct Babylonian versions of the creation of the world that
have up to the present time been found, have come to us in a fragmentary
form. Of the one, indeed, only some forty lines exist, and these are
introduced incidentally in an incantation text;[682] of the other
version, portions of six tablets[683] have been recovered; while of two
fragments it is doubtful[684] whether they belong to this same version
or represent a third version, as does certainly a fragment containing a
variant account of the episode described in the fourth tablet of the
larger group. The fragments of the longer version--in all 23--enable us
to form a tolerably complete picture of the Babylonian cosmology, and
with the help of numerous allusions in historical, religious and
astronomical texts and in classical writers, we can furthermore fill out
some of the gaps.

Taking up the longer version, which must for the present serve as our
chief source for the cosmology of the Babylonians, it is important to
note at the outset that the series constitutes, in reality, a grand hymn
in honor of Marduk. The account of the beginning of things and of the
order of creation is but incidental to an episode which is intended to
illustrate the greatness of Marduk, the head of the Babylonian pantheon.
This episode is the conquest of a great monster known as Tiâmat,--a
personification, as we shall see, of primaeval chaos. What follows upon
this episode, likewise turns upon the overshadowing personality of
Marduk. This prominence given to Marduk points of course to Babylon as
the place where the early traditions received their literary form.
Instead of designating the series as a 'Creation Epic' it would be quite
as appropriate to call it 'The Epic of Marduk.'

The god of Babylon is the hero of the story. To him the creation of the
heavenly bodies is ascribed. It is he who brings order and light into
the world. He supplants the rôles originally belonging to other gods.
Bel and Ea give way to him. Anu and the other great gods cheerfully
acknowledge Marduk's power. The early traditions have all been colored
by the endeavor to glorify Marduk; and since Marduk is one of the latest
of the gods to come into prominence, we must descend some centuries
below Hammurabi before reaching a period when Marduk's position was so
generally recognized as to lead to a transformation of popular
traditions at the hands of the theologians.

The evident purpose of the 'epic' to glorify Marduk also accounts for
the imperfect manner in which the creation of the universe is recounted.
Only the general points are touched upon. Many details are omitted which
in a cosmological epic, composed for the specific purpose of setting
forth the order of creation, would hardly have been wanting. In this
respect, the Babylonian version again resembles the Biblical account of
creation, which is similarly marked by its brevity, and is as
significant for its omissions as for what it contains.

It but remains before passing on to an analysis of the 'epic' to note
the great care bestowed upon its literary form. This is evidenced not
only by the poetic diction, but by its metrical form,--a point to which
Budge was the first to direct attention[685] and which Zimmern[686]
clearly established. Each line consists of two divisions, and as a
general thing four or eight lines constitute a stanza. The principle of
parallelism, so characteristic of Biblical poetry, is also introduced,
though not consistently carried out.

The epic was known from its opening words as the series 'when above.'
Through this name we are certain of possessing a portion of the first
tablet--but alas! only a portion. A fragment of fifteen lines and these
imperfectly preserved is all that has as yet been found. So far as
decipherable, it reads:

  There was a time when above the heaven was not named.[687]
  Below, the earth bore no name.
  Apsu was there, the original, their begettor,[2]
  Mummu [and] Tiâmat, the mother of them all.[688]
  But their waters[689] were gathered together in a mass.
  No field was marked off, no marsh[690] was seen.
  When none of the gods was as yet produced,
  No name mentioned, no fate determined,
  Then were created the gods in their totality.
  Lakhmu and Lakhamu, were created.
  Days went by[5] ...
  Anshar and Kishar were created.
  Many days elapsed[691] ...
  Anu [Bel and Ea were created].[692]
  Anshar, Anu (?) ...

At this point the fragment breaks off.

Brief as it is, it affords a clear view of the manner in which the
Babylonians regarded the beginning of things. Water was the primaeval
element. 'Apsu' is the personified great 'ocean'--the 'Deep' that covers
everything. With Apsu there is associated Tiâmat. Tiâmat is the
equivalent of the Hebrew T'hôm,[693] which occurs in the second verse of
the opening chapter of Genesis, and which is, like Apsu, the
personification of the 'watery deep.' Apsu and Tiâmat are, accordingly,
synonymous. The combination of the two may be regarded as due to the
introduction of the theological doctrine which we have seen plays so
prominent a part in the systematized pantheon, namely, the association
of the male and female principle in everything connected with activity
or with the life of the universe. Apsu represents the male and Tiâmat
the female principle of the primaeval universe. It does not follow from
this that the two conceptions are wholly dissociated from popular
traditions. Theological systems, it will be found, are always attached
at some point to popular and often to primitive beliefs.

Tiâmat was popularly pictured as a huge monster of a forbidding aspect.
Traces of a similar conception connected with T'hôm are to be met with
in the poetry of the Old and New Testament.[694] The 'Rahab' and
'Leviathan' and the 'Dragon' of the apocalypse belong to the same order
of ideas that produced Tiâmat. All these monsters represent a popular
attempt to picture the chaotic condition that prevailed before the great
gods obtained control and established the order of heavenly and
terrestrial phenomena. The belief that water was the original element
existing in the universe and the 'source' of everything, may also have
had its rise in the popular mind. It was suggested in the Euphrates
Valley, in part, by the long-continued rainy season, as a result of
which the entire region was annually flooded. The dry land and
vegetation appeared, only after the waters had receded. The yearly
phenomenon brought home to the minds of the Babylonians, a picture of
primaeval chaos.

In the schools of theology that arose with the advance of culture, these
two notions--water as the first element and a general conception of
chaos--were worked out with the result that Apsu and Tiâmat became
mythical beings whose dominion preceded that of the gods. Further than
this the questionings of the schoolmen did not go. They conceived of a
time when neither the upper firmament nor the dry land existed and when
the gods were not yet placed in control, but they could not conceive of
a time when there was 'nothing' at all. This cosmological theory which
we may deduce from the fragment of the first tablet of the creation
series is confirmed by the accounts that have come down to us--chiefly
through Damascius--of the treatment of the subject by Berosus.[695]
Damascius explicitly places the Babylonians among those nations who fail
to carry back the universe to an ultimate single source. There is
nothing earlier than the two beings--Apsu and Tiâmat.[696]

The massing together of the primaeval waters completes the picture of
chaos in the cuneiform account. From the popular side, the commingling
corresponds to the _Tôhû wa Bôhû_ of the Book of Genesis, but for the
Babylonian theologians, this embrace of Apsu and Tiâmat becomes a symbol
of 'sexual' union.[697] As the outcome of this union, the gods are
produced. This dependence of the gods upon Apsu and Tiâmat is but
vaguely indicated. Another theory appears to have existed according to
which the gods were contemporaneous with primaeval chaos. The vagueness
may therefore be the result of a compromise between conflicting schools
of thought. However this may be, the moment that the gods appear, a
conflict ensues between them and Apsu-Tiâmat. This conflict represents
the evolution from chaos to order. But before taking up this phase of
the epic, a few words must be said as to the names of the gods
mentioned, and as to the order in which they occur.

There are three classes of deities enumerated. The first two classes
consist, each, of a pair of deities while the third is the well-known
triad of the old Babylonian theology. Between the creation of each class
a long period elapses--a circumstance that may be regarded as an
evidence of the originally independent character of each class. Now it
has recently been shown[698] that Lakhamu is the feminine of Lakhmu. The
first class of deities is, therefore, an illustration again of the
conventional male and female principles introduced into the current
theology. While there are references to Lakhmu and Lakhamu in the
religious texts,[699] particularly in incantations, these two deities
play no part whatsoever in the active pantheon, as revealed by the
historical texts. In popular tradition,[700] Lakhmu survived as a name
of a mythical monster.

Alexander Polyhistor[701] quotes Berosus as saying in his book on
Babylonia that the first result of the mixture of water and
chaos--_i.e._, of Apsu and Tiâmat--was the production of monsters partly
human, partly bestial. The winged bulls and lions that guarded the
approaches to temples and palaces are illustrations of this old notion,
and it is to this class of mythical beings that Lakhmu belongs. The
schools of theology, seizing hold of this popular tradition, add again
to Lakhmu a female mate and convert the tradition into a symbol of the
first step in the evolution of order out of the original chaos. Lakhmu
and Lakhamu are made to stand for an entire class of beings that are the
offspring of Apsu and Tiâmat. This class does not differ essentially
from Apsu and Tiâmat, nor from the 'Leviathan,' the 'Dragon,' the winged
serpents, and the winged bulls that are all emanations of the same order
of ideas. Accordingly, we find Lakhmu and Lakhamu associated with Tiâmat
when the conflict with the gods begins. They are products of chaos and
yet at the same time contemporary with chaos,--monsters not so fierce as
Tiâmat, but withal monsters who had to be subdued before the planets and
the stars, vegetation and man could appear.

The introduction of Anshar and Kishar as intermediate between the
monsters and the triad of gods appears to be due entirely to the attempt
at theological systematization that clearly stamps the creation epic as
the conscious work of schoolmen, though shaped, as must always be borne
in mind, out of the material furnished by popular tradition. In
connection with the etymology and original form of the chief of the
Assyrian pantheon,[702] the suggestion was made that the introduction of
Anshar into the creation epic is a concession made to the prominence
that Ashur acquired in the north. We are now able to put this suggestion
in a more definite form. The pantheon of the north, as we have seen, was
derived from the south. Not that all the gods of the south are
worshipped in the north, but those that are worshipped in the north are
also found in the south, and originate there. The distinctive features
of Ashur are due to the political conditions that were developed in
Assyria, but the unfolding of the conceptions connected with this god
which make him the characteristic deity of Assyria, indeed, the only
distinctive Assyrian figure in the Assyrian pantheon, does not preclude
the possibility, of the southern origin of Ashur.

If, as has been made plausible by Hommel, Nineveh, the later capital of
the Assyrian empire, represents a settlement made by inhabitants of a
Nineveh situated in the south, there is no reason why a southern deity
bearing the name Anshar should not have been transferred from the south
to the north. The attempt has been made[703] to explain the change from
Anshar to Ashur. The later name Ashur, because of its ominous character,
effectually effaced the earlier one in popular thought. The introduction
of the older form Anshar, not merely in the first tablet of the creation
series, but, as we shall presently see, elsewhere, confirms the view of
a southern origin for Ashur, and also points to the great antiquity of
the Anshar-Ashur cult. It is not uncommon to find colonies more
conservative in matters of religious thought and custom than the
motherland, and there is nothing improbable in the interesting
conclusion thus reached that Ashur, the head of an empire, so much later
in point of time than Babylonia, should turn out to be an older deity
than the chief personage in the Babylonian pantheon after the days of
Hammurabi.

But while Anshar-Ashur under this view is a figure surviving from an
ancient period, he is transformed by association with a complementary
deity Kishar into a symbol, just as we have found to be the case with
Lakhmu. By a play upon his name, resting upon an arbitrary division of
Anshar into _An_ and _Shar_, the deity becomes the 'one that embraces
all that is above.' The element _An_ is the same that we have in _Anu_,
and is the 'ideographic'[704] form for 'high' and 'heaven.' _Shar_
signifies 'totality' and has some connection with a well-known
Babylonian word for 'king.' The natural consort to an all-embracing
upper power is a power that 'embraces all that is below'; and since _Ki_
is the ideographic form for 'earth,' it is evident that Ki-Shar is a
creation of the theologians, introduced in order to supply Anshar with
an appropriate associate. The two in combination represent a pair like
Lakhmu and Lakhamu. As the latter pair embrace the world of monsters, so
Anshar and Kishar stand in the theological system for the older order of
gods, a class of deities antecedent to the series of which Anu, Bel, and
Ea are the representatives. Besides the antiquity of Anshar and the
factor involved in the play upon the name, the prominence of the Ashur
cult in the north also entered into play (as already suggested) in
securing for Anshar-Ashur, a place in the systematized cosmology. The
Babylonian priests, while always emphasizing the predominance of Marduk,
could not entirely resist the influences that came to them from the
north. Ashur was not accorded a place in the Babylonian cult, but he
could not be ignored altogether. Moreover, Assyria had her priests and
schools, and we are permitted to see in the introduction of Anshar in
the creation epic, a concession that reflects the influence, no doubt
indirect, and in part perhaps unconscious, but for all that, the decided
influence of the north over the south. The part played by Anshar in the
most important episode of the creation epic will be found to further
strengthen this view.[705]

Kishar, at all events, forms no part of either the Babylonian or of the
active Assyrian pantheon. She does not occur in historical or religious
texts. Her existence is purely theoretical--a creation of the schools
without any warrant in popular tradition, so far as we can see. A tablet
is fortunately preserved[706] (though only in part) which enables us to
come a step nearer towards determining the character of the series of
powers regarded as antecedent to the well-known deities. In this tablet,
no less than ten pairs of deities are enumerated that are expressly
noted as 'Father-mother of Anu,' that is, as antecedent to Anu.[707]
Among these we find Anshar and Kishar, and by their side, such pairs as
Anshar-gal, _i.e._, 'great totality of what is on high,' and Kishar-gal,
_i.e._, 'great totality of what is below,' Enshar and Ninshar, _i.e._,
'lord' and 'mistress,' respectively, of 'all there is,' Du'ar and Da'ur,
forms of a stem which may signify 'perpetuity,' Alala, _i.e._,
'strength,' and a consort Belili. Lakhmu and Lakhamu are also found in
the list. While some of the names are quite obscure, and the composition
of the list is due to the scholastic spirit emanating from the schools
of theology, the fact that some of the deities, as Alala, Belili, Lakhmu
and Lakhamu, occur in incantations shows that the theologians were
guided in part by dimmed traditions of some deities that were worshipped
prior to the ones whose cult became prominent in historic times. Anshar,
Alala, Belili, Lakhmu, and Du'ar were such deities. To each of these an
associate was given, in accord with the established doctrine of
'duality' that characterizes the more advanced of the ancient Semitic
cults in general. Others, like Anshar-gal and Enshar, seem to be pure
abstractions--perhaps only 'variants' of Anshar, and the number ten may
have some mystical significance that escapes us. So much, at all events,
seems certain that even the old Babylonian pantheon, as revealed by the
oldest historical texts, represents a comparatively advanced stage of
the religion when some still older gods had already yielded to others
and a system was already in part produced which left out of
consideration these older deities. This is indicated by the occurrence
of the triad Anu, Bel, and Ea as early as the days of Gudea,[708] and it
is this triad which in the creation epic follows upon the older series
symbolized by Anshar and Kishar. The later 'theology' found a solution
of the problem by assuming four series of deities represented by Apsu
and Tiâmat, by Lakhmu and Lakhamu, by Anshar and Kishar, and by the
triad Anu, Bel, and Ea.

In a vague way, as we have seen, Apsu and Tiâmat are the progenitors of
Lakhmu and Lakhamu. The priority, again, of Lakhmu and Lakhamu, as well
as of Anshar and Kishar, is expressed by making them 'ancestors' of Anu,
Bel and Ea. While in the list above referred to, Lakhmu and Lakhamu are
put in a class with Anshar and Kishar, in the creation epic they form a
separate class, and Delitzsch has justly recognized,[709] in this
separation, the intention of the compilers to emphasize an advance in
the evolution of chaos to order, which is the keynote of the Babylonian
cosmology. Lakhmu and Lakhamu represent the 'monster' world where
creatures are produced in strange confusion, whereas Anshar and Kishar
indicate a division of the universe into two _distinct_ and sharply
defined parts. The splitting of 'chaos' is the first step towards its
final disappearance.

The creation of Anshar and Kishar marks indeed the beginning of a severe
conquest which ends in the overthrow of Tiâmat, and while in the present
form of the epic, the contest is not decided before Anu, Bel, and Ea and
the chief deities of the historic pantheon are created, one can see
traces of an earlier form of the tradition in which Anshar--perhaps with
some associates--is the chief figure in the strife.

Of the first tablet, we have two further fragments supplementing one
another, in which the beginnings of this terrible conflict are
described. With Apsu and Tiâmat there are associated a variety of
monsters who prepare themselves for the fray. The existence of these
associates shows that the 'epic' does not aim to account for the real
origin of things, but only for the origin of the _order_ of the
universe. At the beginning there was chaos, but 'chaos,' so far from
representing emptiness (as came to be the case under a monotheistic
conception of the universe) was on the contrary marked by a
superabundant fullness.

Through Alexander Polyhistor,[710] as already mentioned, we obtain a
satisfactory description of this period of chaos as furnished by
Berosus. At the time when all was darkness and water, there flourished
strange monsters, human beings with wings, beings with two heads, male
and female, hybrid formations, half-man, half-animal, with horns of rams
and horses' hoofs, bulls with human faces, dogs with fourfold bodies
ending in fish tails, horses with heads of dogs, and various other
monstrosities.

This account of Berosus is now confirmed by the cuneiform records. The
associates of Tiâmat are described in a manner that leaves no doubt as
to their being the monsters referred to. We are told that

  Ummu-Khubur,[711] the creator of everything, added
  Strong warriors, creating great serpents,
  Sharp of tooth, merciless in attack.
  With poison in place of blood, she filled their bodies.
  Furious vipers she clothed with terror,
  Fitted them out with awful splendor, made them high of stature(?)
  That their countenance might inspire terror and arouse horror,
  Their bodies inflated, their attack irresistible.
  She set up basilisks (?) great serpents and monsters[712]
  A great monster, a mad dog, a scorpion-man
  A raging monster, a fish-man, a great bull,
  Carrying merciless weapons, not dreading battle.

In all, eleven monstrous beings are created by Tiâmat for the great
conquest. At their head she places a being Kingu, whom she raises to the
dignity of a consort.

The formal installation of Kingu is described as follows:

  She raised Kingu among them to be their chief.
  To march at the head of the forces, to lead the assembly.
  To command the weapons to strike, to give the orders for the fray.
  To be the first in war, supreme in triumph.
  She ordained him and clothed him with authority (?).

Tiâmat then addresses Kingu directly:

  Through my word to thee, I have made thee the greatest among the gods.
  The rule over all the gods I have placed in thy hand.
  The greatest shalt thou be, thou, my consort, my only one.

Tiâmat thereupon

  Gives him the tablets of fate, hangs them on his breast, and
    dismisses him.
  'Thy command be invincible, thy order authoritative.'[713]

The plan of procedure, it would appear, is the result of a council of
war held by Apsu and Tiâmat, who feel themselves powerless to carry on
the contest by themselves. The portion of the tablet[714] in which this
council is recounted is in so bad a condition that but little can be
made out of it. Associated with Apsu and Tiâmat in council, is a being
Mummu, and since Damascius expressly notes on the direct authority of
Berosus that Apsu and Tiâmat produced a son Moumis,[715] there is every
reason to believe that Mummu represents this offspring. In the
subsequent narrative, however, neither Apsu nor Mummu play any part.
Tiâmat has transferred to Kingu and the eleven monsters all authority,
and it is only after they are defeated that Tiâmat--but Tiâmat
alone--enters the fray.

The rage of Tiâmat is directed against Anshar, Kishar, and their
offspring. Anu, Bel, and Ea, while standing at the head of the latter,
are not the only gods introduced. When the contest begins, all the great
gods and also the minor ones are in existence.

The cause of Tiâmat's rage is indicated, though vaguely, in the portions
preserved. In the opening lines of the epic there is a reference to the
time 'when fates were not yet decided.' The decision of fates is in the
Babylonian theology one of the chief functions of the gods. It
constitutes the mainspring of their power. To decide fates is
practically to control the arrangement of the universe--to establish
order. It is this function which arouses the natural opposition of
Tiâmat and her brood, for Tiâmat feels that once the gods are in
control, her sway must come to an end. On the part of the gods there is
great terror. They are anxious to conciliate Tiâmat and are not actuated
by any motives of rivalry. Order is not aggressive. It is chaos which
manifests opposition to 'order.' In the second tablet of the series,
Anshar sends his son Anu with a message to Tiâmat:

  Go and step before Tiâmat.
  May her liver be pacified, her heart softened.

Anu obeys, but at the sight of Tiâmat's awful visage takes flight. It is
unfortunate that the second tablet is so badly preserved. We are
dependent largely upon conjecture for what follows the failure of Anu's
mission. From references in subsequent tablets, it seems certain that
Anshar sends out Ea as a second messenger and that Ea also fails. Tiâmat
is determined upon destroying the gods, or at least upon keeping from
them the 'decision of fates.' Anshar, it will be seen, stands at the
head of the pantheon, and it seems natural that he, and not one of his
offspring, should be the final victor. This indeed appears to have been
the original form of the myth or at least one form of it. In a second
form it was Bel to whom the victory was ascribed, and this Bel of the
triad, we have seen, was En-lil, the chief god of Nippur; but both
Anshar and Bel must give way to the patron deity of the city of
Babylon--Marduk. Anshar-Ashur, the head of the Assyrian pantheon, could
not be tolerated by the Babylonian priests as a power superior to
Marduk. On the other hand, Anshar could not be set aside, for he
survived in popular tradition. The result is a compromise. Marduk gains
the victory over Tiâmat, but is commissioned to do so by the assembly of
the gods, including Anshar. As for the older Bel, he voluntarily
transfers to Marduk his name. In this way, the god Bel of the triad
becomes one with Marduk.

Perhaps in one religious center and at a time when Ea was the chief god,
still another version existed which assigned the triumph to Ea, for as
will be pointed out, traditions waver between assigning to Ea or to
Bel-Marduk so fundamental a function as the creation of mankind. In
short, the present form of the creation epic is 'eclectic' and embodies
what the Germans call a _tendenz_. To each of the great gods, Anshar,
Anu, Bel, and Ea, some part in the contest is assigned, but the greatest
rôle belongs to Marduk.

The second tablet closes with Anshar's decision to send his son Marduk
against Tiâmat:

  Marduk heard the word of his father.
  His heart rejoiced and to his father he spoke.

With joyous heart he is ready to proceed to the contest, but he at once
makes good his claim to supreme control in case he is victorious. He
addresses the assembled gods:

  When I shall have become your avenger,
  Binding Tiâmat and saving your life,
  Then come in a body,
  In Ubshu-kenna,[716] let yourselves down joyfully,
  My authority instead of yours will assume control,
  Unchangeable shall be whatever I do,
  Irrevocable and irresistible, be the command of my lips.

The declaration foreshadows the result.

The third tablet is taken up with the preliminaries for the great
contest, and is interesting chiefly because of the insight it affords us
into Babylonian methods of literary composition. Anshar sends Gaga[717]
to the hostile camp with the formal announcement of Marduk's readiness
to take up the cause of the gods. Gaga does not face Tiâmat directly,
but leaves the message with Lakhmu and Lakhamu:

  Go Gaga, messenger (?) joy of my liver,
  To Lakhmu and Lakhamu I will send thee.

The message proper begins as follows:

  Anshar your son has sent me,
  The desire of his heart he has entrusted to me.
  Tiâmat, our mother is full of hate towards us,
  With all her might she is bitterly enraged.

The eleven associates that Tiâmat has ranged on her side are again
enumerated, together with the appointment of Kingu as chief of the
terror-inspiring army. Gaga comes to Lakhmu and Lakhamu and delivers the
message verbatim, so that altogether this portion of the narrative is
repeated no less than four times.[718] The same tendency towards
repetition is met with in the Gilgamesh epic and in the best of the
literary productions of Babylonia. It may be ascribed to the influence
exerted by the religious hymns and incantations where repetition, as we
have seen, is also common, though serving a good purpose.

The message concludes:

  I sent Anu, he could not endure her[719] presence.
  Ea[720] was afraid and took to flight.
  Marduk has stepped forward, the chief of the gods, your son,
  To proceed against Tiâmat, he has set his mind.

Marduk's declaration is then repeated.

Upon hearing the message Lakhmu and Lakhamu and "all the Igigi"[721] are
distressed, but are powerless to avert the coming disaster. The formal
declaration of war having been sent, the followers of Anshar assemble at
a meal which is realistically described:

  They ate bread, they drank wine.
  The sweet wine took away their senses.
  They became drunk, and their bodies swelled up.

With this description the third tablet closes.

The meal symbolizes the solemn gathering of the gods. At its conclusion,
so it would seem, Marduk is formally installed as the leader to proceed
against Tiâmat. The gods vie with one another in showering honors upon
Marduk. They encourage him for the fight by praising his unique powers:

  Thou art honored among the great gods,
  Thy destiny is unique, thy command is Anu.[722]
  Marduk, thou art honored among the great gods,
  Thy destiny is unique, thy command is Anu,
  Henceforth thy order is absolute.
  To elevate and to lower is in thy hands,
  What issues from thee is fixed, thy order cannot be opposed,
  None among the gods may trespass upon thy dominion.

  ...

  Thy weapons will never be vanquished; they will shatter thy enemies.
  O lord! grant life to him who trusts in thee,
  But destroy the life of the god who plots evil.

As a proof of the power thus entrusted to Marduk, the gods give the
latter a 'sign.' Marduk performs a miracle. A garment is placed in the
midst of the gods.

  Command that the dress disappear!
  Then command that the dress return!

Marduk proceeds to the test.

  As he gave the command, the dress disappeared.
  He spoke again and the dress was there.

This 'sign,' which reminds one of Yahwe's signs to Moses as a proof of
the latter's power,[723] is to be regarded as an indication that
"destruction and creation" are in Marduk's hands. The gods rejoice at
the exhibition of Marduk's power. In chorus they exclaim, "Marduk is
king." The insignia of royalty, throne, sceptre, and authority are
conferred upon him.

  Now go against Tiâmat, cut off her life,
  Let the winds carry her blood to hidden regions.[724]

Marduk thereupon fashions his weapons for the fray. Myth and realism are
strangely intertwined in the description of these weapons. Bow and
quiver, the lance and club are mentioned, together with the storm and
the lightning flash. In addition to this he

  Constructs a net wherewith to enclose the life of Tiâmat.
  The four winds he grasped so that she could not escape.[725]
  The south and north winds, the east and west winds
  He brought to the net, which was the gift of his father Anu.

His outfit is not yet complete.

  He creates a destructive wind, a storm, a hurricane,
  Making of the four winds, seven[726] destructive and fatal ones;
  Then he let loose the winds he created, the seven,
  To destroy the life[727] of Tiâmat, they followed after him.

Marduk, taking his most powerful weapon in his hand,[728] mounts his
chariot, which is driven by fiery steeds. The picture thus furnished of
the god, standing upright in his chariot, with his weapons hung about
him and the seven winds following in his wake, is most impressive.

He makes straight for the hostile camp. The sight of the god inspires
terror on all sides.

  The lord comes nearer with his eye fixed upon Tiâmat,
  Piercing with his glance (?) Kingu her consort.

Kingu starts back in alarm. He cannot endure the 'majestic halo' which
surrounds Marduk. Kingu's associates--the monsters--are terrified at
their leader's discomfiture. Tiâmat alone does not lose her courage.

Marduk, brandishing his great weapon, addresses Tiâmat:

  Why hast thou set thy mind upon stirring up destructive contest?

He reproaches her for the hatred she has shown towards the gods, and
boldly calls her out to the contest:

  Stand up! I and thou, come let us fight.

Tiâmat's rage at this challenge is superbly pictured:

  When Tiâmat heard these words
  She acted as possessed, her senses left her;
  Tiâmat shrieked wild and loud,
  Trembling and shaking down to her foundations.
  She pronounced an incantation, uttered her sacred formula.

Marduk is undismayed:

  Then Tiâmat and Marduk, chief of the gods, advanced towards one
    another.
  They advanced to the contest, drew nigh for fight.

The fight and discomfiture of Tiâmat are next described:

  The lord spread out his net in order to enclose her.
  The destructive wind, which was behind him, he sent forth into her
    face.
  As Tiâmat opened her mouth full wide,
  He[729] drove in the destructive wind, so that she could not close
    her lips.
  The strong winds inflated her stomach.
  Her heart was beset,[730] she opened still wider her mouth,[731]
  He seized the spear and plunged it into her stomach,
  He pierced her entrails, he tore through her heart,
  He seized hold of her and put an end to her life,
  He threw down her carcass and stepped upon her.

The method employed by Marduk is so graphically described that no
comment is necessary. After having vanquished Tiâmat, the valiant Marduk
attacks her associates. They try to flee, but he captures them
all--including Kingu--without much difficulty and puts them into his
great net. Most important of all, he tears the tablets of fate from
Kingu and places them on his breast. This act marks the final victory.
Henceforth, the gods with Marduk--and no longer Tiâmat and her
brood--decree the fate of the universe. There is great rejoicing among
the gods, who heap presents and offerings upon Marduk. As the vanquisher
of chaos, Marduk is naturally singled out to be the establisher of the
fixed form and order of the universe. The close of the fourth tablet
describes this work of the god, and the subject is continued in the
following ones. Unfortunately, these tablets are badly preserved, so
that we are far from having a complete view of the various acts of
Marduk. He begins by taking the carcass of Tiâmat and cutting it in
half.

  He cuts her like one does a flattened fish into two halves.

Previous to this he had trampled upon her and smashed her skull, as we
are expressly told, so that the comparison of the monster, thus pressed
out, to a flattened fish is appropriate.

He splits her lengthwise.

  The one half he fashioned as a covering for the heavens,
  Attaching a bolt and placing there a guardian,
  With orders not to permit the waters to come out.

It is evident that the canopy of heaven is meant. Such is the enormous
size of Tiâmat that one-half of her body flattened out so as to serve as
a curtain, is stretched across the heavens to keep the 'upper
waters'--'the waters above the firmament' as the Book of Genesis puts
it--from coming down. To ensure the execution of this design, a bolt is
drawn in front of the canopy and a guardian placed there, like at a city
wall, to prevent any one or anything from coming out.

This act corresponds closely to the creation of a "firmament" in the
first chapter of Genesis. The interpretation is borne out by the
statement of Alexander Polyhistor who, quoting from Berosus, states that
out of one-half of Tiâmat the heavens were made.[732] The further
statement that out of the other half the earth was fashioned is not
definitely stated in our version of the creation. The narrative proceeds
as follows:

  He passed through the heavens, he inspected the expanse.[733]

To understand this phrase, we must consider the general character of the
"epic," which is, as we have already seen, a composite production,
formed of popular elements and of more advanced speculations. The
popular element is the interpretation of the storms and rains that
regularly visit the Euphrates Valley before the summer season sets in,
as a conflict between a monster and the solar deity Marduk. After a
struggle, winds at last drive the waters back; Tiâmat is vanquished by
the entrance of the 'bad wind' into her body. The sun appears in the
heavens and runs across the expanse, passing in his course over the
entire vault. The conflict, which in the scholastic system of the
theologians is placed at the beginning of things, is in reality a
phenomenon of annual occurrence. The endeavor to make Marduk more than
what he originally was--a solar deity--leads to the introduction of a
variety of episodes that properly belong to a different class of
deities. For all that, the original rôle of Marduk is not obscured.
Marduk's passage across the heavens is a trace of the popular phases of
the nature myth, and while in one sense, it is appropriately introduced
after the fashioning of the expanse, it more properly follows
immediately upon the conflict with Tiâmat. In short, we have reached a
point in the narrative where the nature myth symbolizing the annual
succession of the seasons blends with a cosmological system which is the
product of comparatively advanced schools of thought, in such a manner
as to render it difficult to draw the line where myth ends and
cosmological system begins. For the moment, the nature myth controls the
course of the narrative. The sun, upon running its course across the
heavens, appears to drop into the great ocean, which the Babylonians, in
common with many ancient nations, imagined to surround and to pass
underneath the earth.

Hence the next act undertaken by Marduk is the regulation of the course
of this subterranean sea. The name given to this sea was Apsu. Marduk
however does not create the Apsu. It is in existence at the beginning of
things, but he places it under the control of Ea.

  In front of Apsu, he prepared the dwelling of Nu-dimmud.[734]

This Apsu, as we learn from other sources,[735] flows on all sides of
the earth, and since it also fills the hollow under the earth, the
latter in reality rests upon the Apsu. Ea is frequently called "the lord
of Apsu," but the creation epic, in assigning to Marduk the privilege of
preparing the dwelling of Ea, reverses the true order of things, which
may still be seen in the common belief that made Marduk the son of Ea.
Marduk, the sun rising up out of the ocean, becomes the offspring of Ea,
and even the political supremacy of Marduk could not set aside the
prerogatives of Ea in the popular mind. In the cosmological system,
however, as developed in the schools, such an attempt was made. While
recognizing the 'deep' as the domain of Ea, the theologians saved
Marduk's honor by having him take a part in fixing Ea's dwelling and in
determining its limitations.

With the carcass of Tiâmat stretched across the upper firmament and
safely guarded, and with the Apsu under control, the way is clear for
the formation of the earth. This act in the drama of creation is
referred to in the following lines, though in a manner, that is not free
from obscurity. The earth is pictured as a great structure placed over
the Apsu and corresponding in dimension with it--at least in one
direction.

  The lord measured out the structure of Apsu.
  Corresponding to it, he fashioned a great structure[736] Esharra.

Esharra is a poetical designation of the earth and signifies, as Jensen
has satisfactorily shown, "house of fullness"[737] or "house of
fertility." The earth is regarded as a great structure, and placed as it
is over the Apsu, its size is dependent upon the latter. Its measurement
from one end to the other cannot exceed the width of the Apsu, nor can
it be any narrower. The ends of the earth span the great Apsu. The
following line specifies the shape given to Esharra:

  The great structure Esharra, which he made as a heavenly vault.

The earth is not a sphere according to Babylonian ideas, but a hollow
hemisphere having an appearance exactly like the vault of heaven, but
placed in position beneath the heavenly canopy. As a hemisphere it
suggests the picture of a mountain, rising at one end, mounting to a
culminating point, and descending at the other end. Hence by the side of
Esharra, another name by which the earth was known was Ekur, that is,
'the mountain house.'

Diodorus Seculus, in speaking of the Babylonian cosmology, employs a
happy illustration. He says that according to Babylonian notions the
world is a "boat turned upside down." The kind of boat meant is, as
Lenormant recognized,[738] the deep-bottomed round skiff with curved
edges that is still used for carrying loads across and along the
Euphrates and Tigris, the same kind of boat that the compilers of
Genesis had in view when describing Noah's Ark. The appearance in
outline thus presented by the three divisions of the universe--the
heavens, the earth, and the waters--would be that of two heavy rainbows,
one beneath the other at some distance apart, resting upon a large body
of water that flows around the horizons of both rainbows, and also fills
the hollow of the second one.[739] The upper 'rainbow' is formed by
one-half of the carcass of Tiâmat stretched across in semi-circular
shape; the lower one is the great structure Esharra made by Marduk,
while the Apsu underneath is the dwelling of Ea. The creation epic, it
may be noted once more, takes much for granted. Its chief aim being to
glorify Marduk, but little emphasis is laid upon details of interest to
us. The parcelling out of these three divisions among Anu, Bel, and Ea
is therefore merely alluded to in the closing line of the fourth tablet:

  He established the districts[740] of Anu, Bel, and Ea.

The narrative assumes what we know from other sources, that the heavens
constitute the domain of Anu, Esharra belongs to Bel, while Apsu belongs
to Ea.

The mention of the triad takes us away from popular myth to the
scholastic system as devised by the theologians. The establishment of
the triad in full control marks the introduction of fixed order into the
universe. All traces of Tiâmat have disappeared. Anu, Bel, and Ea
symbolize the eternal laws of the universe.

There are, as we have seen, two factors involved in the rôle assigned to
Marduk in the version of the creation epic under consideration,--one the
original character of the god as a solar deity, the other the later
position of the god as the head of the Babylonian pantheon. In the
'epic,' the fight of Marduk with Tiâmat belongs to Marduk as a solar
deity. The myth is based, as was above suggested,[741] upon the annual
phenomenon witnessed in Babylonia when the whole valley is flooded and
storms sweep across the plains. The sun is obscured. A conflict is going
on between the waters and storms, on the one hand, and the sun, on the
other hand. The latter finally is victorious. Marduk subdues Tiâmat,
fixes limitations to the 'upper and lower waters,' and triumphantly
marches across the heavens from one end to the other, as general
overseer.

This nature myth was admirably adapted to serve as the point of
departure for the enlargement of the rôle of Marduk, rendered necessary
by the advancement of the god to the head of the pantheon. Everything
had to be ascribed to Marduk. Not merely humanity, but the gods also had
to acknowledge, and acknowledge freely, the supremacy of Marduk.

The solar deity thus becomes a power at whose command the laws of the
universe are established, the earth created and all that is on it. In
thus making Marduk the single creator, the theologians were as much
under the influence of Marduk's political supremacy, as they helped to
confirm that supremacy by their system. With this object in view, the
annual phenomenon was transformed into an account of what happened 'once
upon a time.'

What impressed the thinkers most in the universe was the regular working
of the laws of nature. Ascribing these laws to Marduk, they naturally
pictured the beginnings of things as a lawless period. Into the old and
popular Marduk-Tiâmat nature myth, certain touches were thus introduced
that changed its entire character. This once done, it was a
comparatively simple matter to follow up the conflict of Marduk and
Tiâmat by a series of acts on Marduk's part, completing the work of
general creation. The old nature myth ended with the conquest of the
rains and storm and the establishment of the sun's regular course,
precisely as the deluge story in Genesis, which contains echoes of the
Marduk-Tiâmat myth, ends with the promulgation of the fixed laws of the
universe.[742]

What follows upon this episode in the Babylonian epic is the elaboration
of the central theme, worked out in the schools of Babylonian thought
and intended, on the one hand, to illustrate Marduk's position as
creator and, on the other, to formulate the details of the cosmological
system.

With the fifth tablet, therefore, we leave the domain of popular myth
completely and pass into the domain of cosmological speculation.
Fragmentary as the fifth tablet is, enough is preserved to show that it
assumes the perfection of the zodiacal system of the Babylonian schools
and the complete regulation[743] of the calendar. In this zodiacal
system, as has been intimated and as will be more fully set forth in a
special chapter, the planets and stars are identified with the gods. The
gods have their 'stations' and their 'pictures' in the starry sky. The
stars are the 'drawings' or 'designs of heaven.' It is Marduk again who
is represented as arranging these stations:

  He established the stations for the great gods.[744]
  The stars, their likeness,[745] he set up as constellations.[746]
  He fixed the year and marked the divisions.[747]
  The twelve months he divided among three stars.
  From the beginning of the year till the close (?)
  He established the station of Nibir[748] to indicate their boundary.
  So that there might be no deviation nor wandering away from the course
  He established with him,[749] the stations of Bel and Ea.

An epitome of the astronomical science of the Babylonians is comprised
in these lines. The gods being identified with stars and each of the
latter having its place in the heavens 'to establish the stations for
the great gods' is equivalent to putting the stars in position. The
regulation of the year forms part of the astronomical science. The three
stars that constitute 'divisions' to aid in marking off the months are
Nibir, Bel, and Ea. That the Babylonians had such a system as is here
outlined is confirmed by Diodorus Seculus.[750] The position of Nibir,
or Jupiter, whose course keeps closer to the ecliptic than that of any
other planet, served as an important guide in calendrical calculations.
The stars are represented as clinging to their course through
maintaining their relationship to Nibir, while at the side of Nibir and
as additional guides, Bel is identified with the north pole of the
equator and Ea with a star in the extreme southern heavens, to be sought
for, perhaps, in the constellation Argo. The description concludes:

  He attached large gates to both sides,
  Made the bolt secure to the left and right.

The heavens are thus made firm by two gates, fastened with bolts and
placed at either end. Through one of these gates the sun passes out in
the morning, and at evening enters into the other. But the most
important body in the heavens is the moon. Its functions are described
in an interesting way:

  In the midst[751] he made the zenith[752] (?)
  Nannar[753] he caused to go forth and handed over to him[5] the night.
  He fixed him[754] as the luminary of night to mark off the days.

The passage is made clear by a reference to the Book of Genesis, i. 16,
where we are told that the moon was created 'for the rule of night.' A
distinction between the Biblical and the cuneiform cosmology at this
point is no less significant. While according to Babylonian ideas, the
moon alone, or at most the moon with the stars, regulates the days, the
Hebrew version makes the moon and sun together the basis for the
regulation of the 'days and years.' The sun according to Babylonian
notions does not properly belong to the heavens, since it passes daily
beyond the limits of the latter. The sun, therefore, plays an
insignificant part in the calendrical system in comparison with the
moon.

Marduk addresses the moon, specifying its duties, what position it is to
occupy towards the sun at certain periods during the monthly course, and
the like. The tablet at this point becomes defective, and before the
address comes to an end, we are left entirely in the lurch. To speculate
as to the further contents of the fifth tablet and of the sixth (of
which nothing has as yet been found) seems idle. Zimmern supposes that
after the heavenly phenomena had been disposed of, the formation of the
dry land and of the seas was taken up, and Delitzsch is of the opinion
that in the sixth tablet the creation of plants and trees and animals
was also recounted. I venture to question whether the creation of the
'dry land and seas' was specifically mentioned. Esharra, the earth, is
in existence and the Apsu appears to include all waters, but that the
epic treated of the creation of plant and animal life and then of the
creation of man is eminently likely. We have indeed a fragment of a
tablet[755] in which the creation of the 'cattle of the field, beasts of
the field, and creeping things of the field' is referred to; but since
it is the 'gods who in unison' are there represented as having created
the animal kingdom, it is hardly likely that the fragment forms part of
our 'epic' in which all deeds are ascribed to Marduk. It belongs in all
probability to a different cosmological version, but so much can be
concluded from it, that the Babylonians ascribed the creation of animals
to some divine power or powers; and that therefore our 'epic' must have
contained a section in which this act was assigned to Marduk.

A similar variation exists with reference to the tradition of the
creation of mankind. There are distinct traces that the belief was
current in parts of Babylonia which made Ea the creation of
mankind.[756] Ea, it will be recalled, is the 'god of humanity' _par
excellence_, and yet in the seventh (and probably closing) tablet of the
series, Marduk is spoken of as the one "who created mankind."[757]

Variant traditions of this kind point to the existence of various
centers of culture and thought in rivalry with one another. The great
paean to Marduk would have been sadly incomplete had it not contained an
account of the creation of mankind--the crowning work of the
universe--by the head of the Babylonian pantheon. It is possible,
therefore, that a tablet containing the address of a deity to mankind
belongs to our series[758] and embodies orders and warnings given by
Marduk after the creation of man, just as he addresses the moon after
establishing it in the heavens. Purity of heart is enjoined as pleasing
to the deity. Prayer and supplication and prostration are also
commanded. It is said that

  Fear of god begets mercy,
  Sacrifice prolongs life,
  And prayer dissolves sin.

The tablet continues in this strain. It is perhaps not the kind of
address that we would expect Marduk to make after the act of creation,
but for the present we must content ourselves with this conjecture, as
also with the supposition that the creation of mankind constituted the
final act in the great drama in which Marduk is the hero.

When Marduk's work is finished, the Igigi gather around him in
adoration. This scene is described in a tablet which for the present we
may regard[759] as the close of the series. No less than fifty names are
bestowed upon him by the gods, the number fifty corresponding according
to some traditions to the number of the Igigi. Marduk accordingly
absorbs the qualities of all the gods. Such is the purpose of this
tablet. The diction is at times exceedingly impressive.

  God of pure life, they called [him] in the third place, the bearer of
    purification.
  God of favorable wind,[760] lord of response[761] and of mercy,
  Creator of abundance and fullness, granter of blessings,
  Who increases the things that were small,
  Whose favorable wind we experienced in sore distress.
  Thus let them[762] speak and glorify and be obedient to him.

The gods recall with gratitude Marduk's service in vanquishing Tiâmat.
Marduk is also praised for the mercy he showed towards the associates of
Tiâmat, whom he merely captured without putting them to death.

  As the god of the shining crown in the fourth place, let them
    [_i.e._, mankind] exalt him.
  The lord of cleansing incantation, the restorer of the dead to life,
  Who showed mercy towards the captured gods,
  Removed the yoke from the gods who were hostile to him.

A later fancy identified the 'captured gods' with eleven of the heavenly
constellations.[763]

Mankind is enjoined not to forget Marduk

  Who created mankind out of kindness towards them,
  The merciful one, with whom is the power of giving life.
  May his deeds remain and never be forgotten
  By humanity, created by his hands.

Among other names assigned to him are 'the one who knows the heart of
the gods,' 'who gathers the gods together,' 'who rules in truth and
justice.' In allusion again to his contest with Tiâmat, he is called
'the destroyer of the enemy and of all wicked ones,' 'who frustrates
their plans.'

With the help of a pun upon his having 'pierced' Tiâmat; he is called
Nibir, _i.e._, the planet Jupiter.[764]

  Nibir be his name, who took hold of the life of Tiâmat.
  The course of the stars of heaven may he direct.
  May he pasture all of the gods like sheep.[765]

But the climax is reached when, upon hearing what the Igigi have done,
the great gods, father Bel and father Ea cheerfully bestow their own
names upon Marduk.

  Because he created the heavens and formed the earth
  'Lord of Lands'[766] father Bel called his name.
  When he heard of all the names that the Igigi bestowed
  Ea's liver rejoiced
  That they had bestowed exalted names upon his son.
  "He as I--Ea be his name.
  The control of my commands be entrusted to him.
  To him my orders shall be transmitted."

The historical background to this transference of the name of Bel has
been dwelt upon in a previous chapter.[767] This "Marduk hymn" is to
justify the transference of the rôle of the older Bel of Nippur to the
younger god Marduk. Throughout, the tablet describing the contest of
Marduk with Tiâmat, Marduk is called Bel,[768] and while this name is
used in the generic sense of "lord," the transference of the name of Bel
to Marduk is evidently introduced to account for his assuming the
prerogatives belonging to another god. The original 'lord' was En-lil of
Nippur. The sacred significance of ancient Nippur made its patron deity
the most important rival of Marduk. Bel could not be disposed of as Ea,
who by virtue of his mythological relationships to Marduk--a solar
deity--could be retained as the father of Marduk. There was nothing left
but for Marduk to take the place of Bel. The constant introduction of
the epithet 'Bel' into the Tiâmat story points to an older version in
which Bel was the hero. In popular traditions, Bel continued to be
pictured as armed with mighty weapons,[769] and, though ready to inflict
severe punishment for disobedience to his commands, he engages in
contests for the benefit of mankind. The earth being his special sphere
of action, what more natural than that he should have had a prominent
share in adapting it as a habitation for mankind. He would be directly
interested in fighting the powers of darkness.

In the weapons that Marduk employs, particularly the lightning and the
winds which belong to an atmospheric god rather than a solar deity, we
may discern traces of the older narrative which has been combined with
the Marduk-Tiâmat nature myth.[770] It may be that Kingu represents
Bel's particular rival. In the narrative, it will be recalled, the
contest with Tiâmat is sharply separated from that with Kingu and his
associates. The division that thus suggests itself between Marduk and
Tiâmat, on the one hand, Bel and the monsters with Kingu at their head,
on the other, may certainly be termed a natural one. The solar deity
Marduk disposed of the storms and rains of the winter, whereas, a god of
"that which is below,"[771] _i.e._, the earth and the atmosphere
immediately above the earth, would appropriately be represented as
ridding the earth of the monsters in order to prepare it as a habitation
for mankind. Ea was not such a serious rival to Marduk as the older Bel.
Political rivalry between Nippur and Babylonia probably contributed
towards the disposition to have Marduk completely absorb the rôle of
Bel, whereas, this rivalry being absent in the case of Eridu (the
original seat of Ea worship) and Babylon, the mythological relations
between Ea and Marduk led, as already pointed out, in a perfectly
natural way to making Marduk the son of Ea. Still, while cheerfully
acknowledged by Ea as his equal, it is evident that in older traditions
Ea was far superior to Marduk, and the latter replaces Ea as he does
Bel. The real creator of mankind, according to certain traditions, is
Ea, just as in all probabilities a third tradition existed which arose
in Nippur giving to Bel that distinction. It is necessary, therefore,
for Ea to declare that Marduk's name (_i.e._, his power) is the same as
Ea. The alteration of the traditions is thus justified by a harmonistic
theology. Marduk has triumphed over Bel and Ea. The god of Babylon
reigns supreme, his sway acknowledged by those whom he supplants.
Marduk's declaration that in the event of his vanquishing Tiâmat he will
assume authority over all the gods is thus formally confirmed. The epic
closes grandiloquently:

  With fifty names, the great gods
  According to their fifty names, proclaimed the supremacy of his
    course.

The compiler has added to the epic what Delitzsch appropriately
designates an 'epilogue,'--a declaration of affection for Marduk. The
epilogue consists of three stanzas. All mankind--royalty and
subjects--are called upon to bear in mind Marduk's glorious deeds,
achieved for the benefit of the world.

  Let the wise and intelligent together ponder over it.
  Let the father relate it and teach it to his son.[772]
  To leader and shepherd[773] be it told.
  Let all rejoice in the lord of gods, Marduk
  That he may cause his land to prosper and grant it peace.
  His word is firm, his order irrevocable.
  What issues from his mouth, no god can alter.

Marduk's anger, the poet says in closing, terrifies even the gods, but
he is a god upon whose mercy one may rely, though he punishes the
evil-doer.

Bearing in mind the general nature of the creation epic we have
discussed, we must of course in our conclusions distinguish between
those elements in it which reflect the intent of the compiler or
compilers to glorify Marduk at the expense of other gods and such parts
as bear the stamp of being generally accepted beliefs. Setting aside,
therefore, the special rôle assigned to Marduk, we find that the
Babylonians never developed a theory of real beginnings. The _creatio ex
nihilo_ was a thought beyond the grasp even of the schools. There was
always _something_, and indeed there was always a _great deal_--as much
perhaps at the beginning of things as at any other time. But there was
no cosmic order. Instead of a doctrine of creation, we have a doctrine
of evolution from chaos to the imposition of eternal laws. The
manifestation of these laws was seen first of all in the movements of
the heavenly bodies. There was a great expanse, presenting the
appearance of a stretched-out curtain or a covering to which the stars
and moon were attached. Along this expanse the wandering stars moved
with a certain regularity. The moon, too, had its course mapped out and
the sun appeared in this expanse daily, as an overseer, passing along
the whole of it. This wonderful system was the first to be perfected,
and to the solar deity,[774] which seemed to control everything, was
ascribed the distinction of having introduced the heavenly order. This
notion we may well believe was of popular origin, though elaborated in
the schools to conform to a developed astrological science.

The stars and moon never passed beyond certain limits, and, accordingly,
the view was developed which gave to the canopy of heaven fixed
boundaries. At each end of the canopy was a great gate, properly
guarded. Through one of these the sun passed in rising out of the ocean,
through the other it passed out when it had run its course. Learned
speculation could not improve upon this popular fancy. As the heavens
had their limitations, so also the great bodies of water were kept in
check by laws, which, though eternal, were yet not quite as inexorable
as those controlling the heavenly bodies. The yearly overflow of the
Euphrates and Tigris was too serious a matter to be overlooked, and we
shall see in a following chapter[775] how this phenomenon was
interpreted as a rivalry between Bel and Ea, deliberately caused by the
former in anger toward mankind. Still, as a general thing, the 'deep,'
presided over by Ea, kept within the limits assigned to it. The waters
above the canopy were under rigid control, and the lower waters flowed
around the earth and underneath it, and bordered the canopy of heaven at
its two ends.

The earth itself was a vast hollow structure, erected as a "place of
fertility" under the canopy of heaven and resting on the great 'deep.'
Its vegetation was the gift of the gods. 'Fertility' summed up the law
fixed for the earth. Much as in the Book of Genesis, "to multiply and
increase" was the order proclaimed for the life with which the earth was
filled.

The creation of mankind was the last act in the great drama. Assigned in
some traditions to Ea, in others as it would seem to Bel, the transfer
of the traditions to Marduk is the deliberate work of the schools of
theological thought. The essential point for us is that mankind,
according to all traditions, is the product of the gods. In some form or
other, this belief was popularly held everywhere. Its original form,
however, is obscured beyond recognition by the theory which it is made
to serve.

A second version of the course of creation[776] agrees in the main with
the first one, but adds some points of interest. In this version,
likewise, Marduk is assigned the most important rôle--an evidence that
it was produced under similar influences as the larger epic. So far as
preserved, the second version differs from the first in its brevity and
in the prominence given to such themes as the development of animal life
and the growth of civilization. It fills out to a certain degree the
gaps in the first version, due to the fragmentary condition of the fifth
tablet and the loss of the sixth. The brevity of the second version is
due in part to the fact that it is introduced into an incantation text,
and, what is more, incidentally introduced.

It begins as does the larger epic with the statement regarding the
period when the present phenomena of the universe were not yet in
existence, but it specifies the period in a manner which gives a
somewhat more definite character to the conception of this ancient time.

  The bright house of the gods was not yet built on the bright place,
  No reed grew and no tree was formed,
  No brick was laid nor any brick edifice[777] reared,
  No house erected, no city built,
  No city reared, no conglomeration[778] formed.
  Nippur was not reared, E-Kur[779] not erected.
  Erech was not reared, E-Anna[780] not erected.
  The deep[781] not formed, Eridu[782] not reared.
  The bright house, the house of the gods not yet constructed as a
    dwelling.
  The world[783] was all a sea.

Again it will be observed that neither popular nor scholastic
speculation can picture the beginning of things in any other way than as
an absence of things characteristic of the _order_ of the universe.

The bright[784] house of the gods corresponds to Eshara and the canopy
of heaven in the first version. The gods are again identified with the
stars, and it is in the heavens--the bright place--that the gods
dwell.[785] The reference to the absence of vegetation agrees closely
with the corresponding passage in the larger creation epic. The
limitations of the cosmological speculations of the Babylonians find a
striking illustration in the manner in which the beginnings of human
culture are placed on a level with the beginnings of heavenly and
terrestrial phenomena. Nippur, Erech, and Eridu, which are thus shown to
be the oldest religious centers of the Euphrates Valley, were
indissolubly associated in the minds of the people with the beginning of
order in the universe. Such was the antiquity of those cities as seats
of the great gods, Bel, Ishtar, and Ea, that the time when they did not
exist was not differentiated from the creation of the heavens and of
plant life. This conception is more clearly emphasized by the
parallelism implied between Eridu and the 'deep.' The 'formation' of
Apsu corresponds to the 'structure' made by Marduk according to the
first version, as the seat of Ea. The waters were not created by Marduk,
but they were confined by him within a certain space. In a vague way,
the 'deep' itself rested in a vast tub. The waters flowed freely and yet
not without limitation.

The contest with Tiâmat is not referred to in this second version, and
this may be taken as an indication that the 'nature' myth was not an
ingredient part of cosmological speculations, but only introduced into
the first version because of its associations with Marduk.

The appearance of dry land is described somewhat vaguely as follows:

  There was a channel[786] within the sea.
  At that time Eridu was erected, E-Sagila[787] was built,
  E-Sagila in the midst of the 'deep,' where the god of the glorious
    abode[788] dwells.

The mention of the channel appears to imply that the waters were
permitted to flow off in a certain direction.

The conception would then be similar to the view expressed in Genesis,
where the dry land appears in consequence of the waters being 'gathered'
into one place.[789] The temple at Eridu is regarded as synonymous with
the city, as the temples E-Kur and E-Anna are synonymous with Nippur and
Erech respectively. Eridu at the head of the Persian Gulf, which for the
Babylonians was the beginning of the great 'Okeanos' surrounding the
world,[790] is the first dry land to appear and hence the oldest place
in the world. At this point in the narrative a line is interpolated
which clearly betrays the lateness of the version. The mention of
E-Sagila suggests to a Babylonian, naturally, the great temple of Marduk
in the city of Babylon--'the lofty house.' Local pride and the desire to
connect Babylon with the beginning of things leads to the insertion:

  Babylon was reared, E-Sagila built.

With this mention of Babylon, the connecting link is established which
leads easily to the glorification of Babylon and Marduk. The thought
once introduced is not abandoned. The rest of the narrative, so far as
preserved, is concerned with Marduk. Eridu alone is beyond his
jurisdiction. Everything else, vegetation, mankind, rivers, animals, and
all cities, including even Nippur and Erech, are Marduk's work.

  The Anunnaki[791] he[792] created together
  And bestowed glorious epithets upon the glorious city, the seat dear
    to their heart.

The 'glorious city' is Eridu, though the compiler would have us apply it
to Babylon.

With the founding of Eridu, a limit was fixed for the 'deep.' The rest
of the dry land is formed according to the theory of the writer by the
extension of this place.

  Marduk constructed an enclosure around the waters,
  He made dust and heaped it up within the enclosure.[793]

The _naïveté_ of the conception justifies us in regarding it as of
popular origin, incorporated by the theologians into their system.

But this land is created primarily for the benefit of the gods.

  That the gods might dwell in the place dear to their heart.

Naturally not all of the gods are meant,--perhaps only the
Anunnaki,--for the great gods dwell in heaven. The creation of mankind
is next described, and is boldly ascribed to Marduk.

  Mankind he created.[794]

In the following line, however, we come across a trace again of an older
tradition, which has been embodied in the narrative in a rather awkward
manner. Associated with Marduk in the creation of mankind is a goddess
Aruru.

  The goddess Aruru created the seed of men together with him.[795]

We encounter this goddess Aruru in the Gilgamesh epic,[796] where she is
represented as creating a human being,--Eabani; and, curiously enough,
she creates him in agreement with the Biblical tradition, out of a lump
of clay. It has already been pointed out that according to one tradition
Ea is the creator of mankind,[797] and the conjecture has also been
advanced that at Nippur, Bel was so regarded. In Aruru we have evidently
a figure to whom another tradition, that arose in some district,
ascribed the honor of having created mankind. The Gilgamesh story is
connected with the city of Erech, and it is probable that the tale--at
least in part--originated there. It becomes plausible, therefore, to
trace the tradition ascribing the creation of man to Aruru to the same
place. A passage in the Deluge story, which forms an episode of the
Gilgamesh epic, adds some force to this conjecture. After the dreadful
deluge has come, Ishtar breaks out in wild lament that mankind, her
offspring, has perished: "What I created, where is it?"[798] She is
called 'the mistress of the gods,'[799] and if Jensen is correct in an
ingenious restoration of a defective text,[800] Aruru is given the same
epithet in a lexicographical tablet. The Ishtar occurring in the
Gilgamesh story is the old Ishtar of Erech. I venture to suggest,
therefore, that Aruru and Ishtar of Erech are one and the same
personage. Ishtar is, of course, as has been pointed out, merely a
generic name[801] for the 'great goddess' worshipped under many forms.
The more specific name by which Ishtar of Erech was known was Nanâ, but
Nanâ again is nothing but an epithet, meaning, as the Babylonians
themselves interpreted it, the 'lady' _par excellence_. Have we perhaps
in Aruru the real name of the old goddess of Erech? At all events, the
occurrence of Aruru in this second 'creation' story points to her as
belonging to the district of which Erech was the center. In this way,
each one of the three most ancient sacred towns of Babylonia would have
its 'creator,'--Bel in Nippur, Ea in Eridu, and Aruru in Erech. The
chief deity of Erech, it will be recalled, was always a goddess,--a
circumstance that supports the association of Aruru with that place.
Aruru being a goddess, it was not so easy to have Marduk take up her
rôle, as he supplanted Bel. Again, Erech and Babylon were not political
rivals to the degree that Nippur and Babylon were. Accordingly a
compromise was effected, as in the case of Marduk and Ea. Aruru is
associated with Marduk. She creates mankind with Marduk, and it would
seem to be a consequence of this association that the name of Marduk's
real consort, Sarpanitum, is playfully but with intent interpreted by
the Babylonian pedants as 'seed-producing.'[802]

Our second version thus turns out to be, like the first, an adaptation
of old traditions to new conditions. Babylon and Marduk are designedly
introduced. In the original form Nippur, Eridu, and Erech alone figured,
and presumably, therefore, only the deities of these three places. Among
them the work of creation was in some way parceled out. This
distribution may itself have been the result of a combination of
independent traditions. In any early combination, however, we may feel
certain that Marduk was not introduced.

After this incidental mention of Aruru, the narrative passes back
undisturbed to Marduk.

  The animals of the field, the living creatures of the field he
    created,
  The Tigris and Euphrates he formed in their places, gave them good
    names,
  Soil (?), grass, the marsh, reed, and forest he created,
  The verdure of the field he produced,
  The lands, the marsh, and thicket,
  The wild cow with her young, the young wild ox,
  The ewe with her young, the sheep of the fold,
  Parks and forests,
  The goat and wild goat he brought forth.

The text at this point becomes defective, but we can still make out that
the clay as building material is created by Marduk, and that he
constructs houses and rears cities. Corresponding to the opening lines,
we may supply several lines as follows:

  Houses he erected, cities he built,
  Cities he built, dwellings he prepared,
  Nippur he built, E-Kur he erected,
  Erech he built, E-Anna he erected.

Here the break in the tablet begins.

The new points derived from this second version are, (_a_) the details
in the creation of the animal and plant world, (_b_) the mention of
Aruru as the mother of mankind, and (_c_) the inclusion of human culture
in the story of the 'beginnings.'

Before leaving the subject, a brief comparison of these two versions
with the opening chapters of Genesis is called for. That the Hebrew and
Babylonian traditions spring from a common source is so evident as to
require no further proof. The agreements are too close to be accidental.
At the same time, the variations in detail point to independent
elaboration of the traditions on the part of the Hebrews and
Babylonians.

A direct borrowing from the Babylonians has not taken place, and while
the Babylonian records are in all probabilities much older than the
Hebrew, the latter again contain elements, as Gunkel has shown, of a
more primitive character than the Babylonian production. This
relationship can only be satisfactorily explained on the assumption that
the Hebrews possessed the traditions upon which the Genesis narrative
rests long before the period of the Babylonian exile, when the story
appears, indeed, to have received its final and present shape. The
essential features of the Babylonian cosmology formed part of a stock of
traditions that Hebrews and Babylonians (and probably others) received
from some common source or, to put it more vaguely, held in common from
a period, the limits of which can no longer be determined. While the two
Babylonian versions agree in the main, embodying the same general
traditions regarding the creation of the heavenly bodies and containing
the same general conception of an evolution in the world from confusion
and caprice to order, and the establishment of law, the variations in
regard to the terrestrial phenomena must not be overlooked. According to
the first version, mankind appears as the last episode of creation; in
the second, mankind precedes vegetation and animal life.

If we now take up the two versions of creation found in Genesis, we will
see that the same differences may be observed. According to the first,
the so-called Elohistic version,[803] mankind is not created until the
last day of creation; according to the second,[804] the so-called
Yahwistic version, mankind is first created, then a garden is made and
trees are planted. After that, the beasts of the field and the birds of
heaven are called into existence.

The resemblance of the second Babylonian version to the Yahwistic
version extends even to certain phrases which they have in common. The
opening words of the Yahwist--

    And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of
    the field had yet sprung up--

might serve almost as a translation of the second line of the Babylonian
counterpart. The reference to the Tigris and Euphrates in the second
Babylonian version reminds one of the four streams mentioned in the
Yahwistic version, two of which are likewise the Tigris and Euphrates.
Again, Tiâmat is mentioned only in the first Babylonian version, and
T'hôm similarly only in the Elohistic version; while, on the other hand,
the building of cities is included in the Yahwistic version,[805] as it
forms part of the second Babylonian version. The points mentioned
suffice to show that the Elohistic version is closely related to the
larger creation epic of the Babylonians, while the Yahwistic
version--more concise, too, than the Elohistic--agrees to an astonishing
degree with the second and more concise Babylonian record.

The conclusion, therefore, is justified that the variations between the
Babylonian versions rest upon varying traditions that must have arisen
in different places. The attempt was made to combine these traditions by
the Babylonians, and among the Hebrews we may see the result of a
similar attempt in the first two or, more strictly speaking, in the
first three chapters of Genesis. At the same time, the manner in which
both traditions have been worked over by the Hebrew compilers of Genesis
precludes, as has been pointed out, the theory of a direct borrowing
from cuneiform documents. The climatic conditions involved in the Hebrew
versions are those peculiar to Babylonia. It is in Babylonia that the
thought would naturally arise of making the world begin with the close
of the storms and rains in the spring. The Terahites must therefore have
brought these cosmological traditions with them upon migrating from the
Euphrates Valley to the Jordan district.

The traditions retained their hold through all the vicissitudes that the
people underwent. The intercourse, political and commercial, between
Palestine and Mesopotamia was uninterrupted, as we now know, from at
least the fifteenth century before our era down to the taking of
Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and this constant intercourse was no doubt
an important factor in maintaining the life of the old traditions that
bound the two peoples together. The so-called Babylonian exile brought
Hebrews and Babylonians once more side by side. Under the stimulus of
this direct contact, the final shape was given by Hebrew writers to
their cosmological speculations. Yahwe is assigned the rôle of
Bel-Marduk, the division of the work of creation into six days is
definitely made,[806] and some further modifications introduced. While,
as emphasized, this final shape is due to the independent elaboration of
the common traditions, and, what is even more to the point, shows an
independent _interpretation_ of the traditions, it is by no means
impossible, but on the contrary quite probable, that the final compilers
of the Hebrew versions had before them the cuneiform tablets, embodying
the literary form given to the traditions by Babylonian writers.[807]
Such a circumstance, while not implying direct borrowing, would account
for the close parallels existing between the two Hebrew and the two
Babylonian versions, and would also furnish a motive to the Hebrew
writers for embodying _two_ versions in their narrative.

FOOTNOTES:

[680] The so-called Elohistic version, Gen. i. 1-ii. 4; the Yahwistic
version, Gen. ii. 5-24. Traces have been found in various portions of
the Old Testament of other popular versions regarding creation. See
Gunkel, _Schöpfung und Chaos_, pp. 29-114, 119-121.

[681] Gunkel, _ib._ pp. 28, 29. What Sayce (_e.g._, _Rec. of the Past_,
N. S., I. 147, 148) calls the 'Cuthaean legend of the creation'
contains, similarly, a variant description of Tiâmat and her brood.

[682] Published by Pinches, _Journal Royal Asiat. Soc._, 1891, pp.
393-408.

[683] Complete publication by Delitzsch, _Das Babylonische
Weltschöpfungsepos_ (Leipzig, 1896) with elaborate commentary.

[684] See Zimmern in Gunkel's _Schöpfung und Chaos_, pp. 415, 416, and
on the other side, Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschöpfungsepos_, p. 20.
Zimmern's doubts are justified.

[685] _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._ vi. 7.

[686] _Zeits. f. Assyr._ viii. 121-124. Delitzsch, in his _Babylonische
Weltschöpfungsepos_, pp. 61-68, has elaborately set forth the principles
of the poetic composition. See also D. H. Mueller, _Die Propheten in
ihrer ursprünglichen Form_, pp. 5-14.

[687] _I.e._, did not exist. To be 'called' or to 'bear a name' meant to
be called into existence.

[688] _I.e._, of the waters.

[689] _I.e._, of heaven and earth.

[690] The word used is obscure. Jensen and Zimmern render "reed."
Delitzsch, I think, comes nearer the real meaning with "marsh." See
Haupt's translation, _Proc. Amer. Oriental Soc._, 1896, p. 161.

[691] Delitzsch supplies a parallel phrase like "periods elapsed."

[692] Supplied from Damascius' extract of the work of Berosus on
Babylonia. See Cory, _Ancient Fragments_, p. 92; Delitzsch,
_Babylonische Weltschöpfungsepos_, p. 94.

[693] The _ô_ is represented in Babylonian by _â_, and the ending _at_
in Tiâmat is an affix which stamps the Babylonian name as feminine.
T'hôm in Hebrew is likewise a feminine noun, but it should be noted that
at a certain stage in the development of the Semitic languages, the
feminine is hardly distinguishable from the plural and collective.

[694] Gunkel, _Schöpfung und Chaos_, pp. 29-82, 379-398.

[695] For our purposes it is sufficient to refer for the relations
existing between Damascius and the cuneiform records to Smith's
_Chaldaeische Genesis_, pp. 63-66, to Lenormant's _Essai de Commentaire
sur les fragments Cosmogoniques de Berose_, pp. 67 _seq._, and to
Jensen's _Kosmologie der Babylonier_, pp. 270-272.

[696] The names are given by Damascius as _Apasôn_ and _Tauthe_.

[697] Suggested by Professor Haupt (Schrader, _Cuneiform Inscriptions
and the Old Testament_, p. 7).

[698] Hommel, _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._, xviii. 19.

[699] See Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp. 224, 225.

[700] Agumkakrimi Inscription (VR. 33, iv. 50); Nabonnedos (Cylinder,
VR. 64, ll. 16, 17).

[701] Cory's _Ancient Fragments_, p. 58.

[702] See above, pp. 198, 199.

[703] See above, pp. 198, 199.

[704] I avoid the term "Sumerian" here, because I feel convinced that
the play on Anshar is of an entirely artificial character and has no
philological basis.

[705] See below, pp. 421-423.

[706] IIR. 54, no. 3.

[707] For a different interpretation of the phrase, see Jensen,
_Kosmologie_, pp. 273, 274.

[708] See p. 107.

[709] _Babylonische Weltschöpfungsepos_, p. 94.

[710] Cory's _Ancient Fragments_, p. 58.

[711] An epithet descriptive of Tiâmat. "Ummu" is "mother" and "khubur"
signifies "hollow"; "mother of the hollow" would be a poetic expression
for "source of the deep," and an appropriate term to apply to Tiâmat. It
has nothing to do with Omoroka. The latter, as Wright has shown, is a
corruption of "O Marduk" (_Zeits. f. Assyr_. x. 71-74).

[712] The word used is Lakhami, the plural of Lakhamu.

[713] This scene, the description of the monsters and the installation
of Kingu, occurs four times in the 'Epic.' See p. 424.

[714] Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschöpfungsepos_, p. 25.

[715] Cory, _ib._ p. 92.

[716] "The chamber of fates" where Marduk sits on New Year's Day and
decides the fate of mankind for the ensuing year. Jensen and Zimmern
read _upshugina_, but see Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschöpfungsepos,_
p. 135.

[717] The deity is mentioned by Sennacherib (Meissner-Host,
_Bauinschriften_, p. 108). See above, p. 238.

[718] In the first tablet, in the second in connection with the mission
of Anu, and twice in the third in connection with Marduk's visit.

[719] Tiâmat's presence.

[720] Called Nudimmud. Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschöpfungsepos_, p.
99, questions the identity with Ea, but his skepticism is unwarranted,
though the title is also used of Bel.

[721] Here used to comprise the army of Tiâmat.

[722] _I.e._, thy power is equal to that of Anu.

[723] Exod. iv. 2-8; other parallels might be adduced.

[724] _I.e._, far off.

[725] _I.e._, that a wind might not carry her off.

[726] Adding three to the ordinary winds from the four directions.

[727] For the explanation of the term used in the
original--_kirbish_--see Delitzsch's excellent remarks, _Babylonische
Weltschöpfungsepos._ pp. 132-134.

[728] Lit., 'storm,'--perhaps the thunderbolt, as Delitzsch suggests.

[729] Marduk.

[730] She lost her reason.

[731] Gasping, as it were, for breath.

[732] Cory's _Ancient Fragments_, p. 49.

[733] Lit., 'places,' here used as a synonym for 'heavens,' as an
Assyrian commentator expressly states. See Delitzsch's remarks
(_Babylonische Weltschöpfungsepos_, p. 147) against Jensen's and
Zimmern's interpretation.

[734] _I.e._, Ea. See above, p. 424, note 3.

[735] The complete proof is brought by Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp.
246-253.

[736] To render the word used as "Palace" (so Delitzsch), while not
incorrect, is somewhat misleading.

[737] _Kosmologie_, p. 199.

[738] _Magie und Wahrsagekunst der Chaldaer_, p. 163.

[739] See the illustration in Jensen's _Kosmologie_, pl. 3.

[740] The word used also means "cities." A Babylonian district is naught
but an extended city.

[741] See p. 429.

[742] Gen. viii. 22.

[743] See above, p. 370, and chapter xxii.

[744] _I.e._, for each of the great gods.

[745] _I.e._, of the gods.

[746] A particular group of stars--the _mashi_ stars--is mentioned, but
the term seems to be used in a rather general sense. I cannot share
Delitzsch's extreme skepticism with regard to the interpretation of the
fifth tablet. Jensen seems to have solved the chief difficulties.

[747] Jensen and Zimmern interpret "he drew the pictures," referring the
phrase to the contours of the stars; but the parallelism speaks in favor
of connecting the words with the "year." The divisions of the year or
seasons seem to be meant.

[748] _I.e._, the planet Marduk, or Jupiter.

[749] _I.e._, with Nibir.

[750] See Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 354. George Smith already interpreted
the passage in this way.

[751] _I.e._, of the heavens. Delitzsch renders "Schwerpunkt."

[752] Text _elàti_. Jensen, Zimmern, and Halévy translate "zenith," but
Delitzsch questions this.

[753] The moon-god.

[754] _I.e._, the moon.

[755] Published by Delitzsch, _Assyrische Lesestücke_ (3d edition), p.
94.

[756] See the proof as put together by Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp. 293,
294.

[757] Line 15.

[758] So Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschöpfungsepos_, pp. 19, 20.

[759] Following Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschöpfungsepos_, pp. 20,
21. I pass over two fragments which Delitzsch adds to our 'epic.' They
are not sufficiently clear to be utilized for our purposes. Delitzsch
may be right with regard to no. 20, but if so, it forms part or another
version of the Marduk-Tiâmat episode. No. 19, treating of the bow of
Marduk (?), does not seem to belong to our series.

[760] A standing phrase for "favor" in general.

[761] To prayer.

[762] The gods or the Igigi.

[763] See p. 486 and Gunkel's note, _Schöpfung und Chaos_, p. 26.

[764] See above, p. 434. The play is between Nibir (as though from the
stem _ebêru_) and _itebbiru_ ("he pierced"), a form of _ebêru_, and
meaning 'to pass through.'

[765] This metaphor is carried over into astronomical science. The
planets are known as "wandering sheep." See p. 459.

[766] _Bêl matâte_.

[767] See p. 118.

[768] Similarly in another version of the contest published by
Delitzsch, _Assyr. Wörterbuch_, p. 390.

[769] See p. 54.

[770] Tiele (_Gesch. der Religion im Alterthum_, I. 176) assigns to
Marduk a double character, making him both a god of light and a god of
storms, but I venture to think that the latter attribute represents the
transference of En-lil's power to Marduk.

[771] So Bel is called in contrast to Anu. See p. 53.

[772] One is reminded of the Biblical injunction with regard to the Laws
of Yahwe, Deut. vi. 7: "Thou shall teach them to thy sons and speak
constantly of them."

[773] _I.e._, to the kings who are frequently called 'shepherds' in the
historical texts.

[774] Or, according to the earlier view, to an atmospheric god.

[775] "The Gilgamesh Epic."

[776] First published by Pinches, _Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society_, 1891, pp. 393-408.

[777] Clay, it will be recalled, was the building material in Babylonia.

[778] The word in the text is generally applied to "a mass" of animals,
but also to human productions. See Delitzsch, _Assyr. Handwörterbuch_,
p. 467.

[779] Bel's temple at Nippur.

[780] Temple of Ishtar at Erech or Uruk.

[781] _I.e._, Apsu.

[782] City sacred to Ea at the mouth of the Persian Gulf.

[783] Lit., 'totality of lands.'

[784] Zimmern's rendering (Gunkel, _Schöpfung und Chaos_, p. 419)
"sacred" (instead of 'bright') misses the point.

[785] _Cf._ S. A. Smith, Miscellaneous, K. 2866, l. 8, "the great gods
dwelling in the heaven of Anu." The reference, therefore, cannot be to
"the gathering place of the gods," where the fates of mankind are
decided.

[786] The original has _ratum_. Delitzsch, _Assyr. Handwörterbuch_, p.
663, compares Hebrew _rahat_, "trough." Zimmern (Gunkel, _Schöpfung und
Chaos_, p. 419) translates "Bewegung," but on what grounds I do not
know. The passage is obscure; the text possibly defective.

[787] If the reading E-Sagila is original. It is here used as the name
of Ea's temple in Eridu, but it is of course possible that E-Sagila has
been deliberately introduced to enhance the glory of Marduk's temple in
Babylon.

[788] Ea.

[789] Gen. i. 9.

[790] See Haupt, _Wo lag das Paradies_, p. 7 (_Ueber Land und Meer_,
1894-95, no. 15, Sonderabdruck), who furnishes numerous illustrations of
the indefinite geographical notions of the ancients.

[791] The group of celestial beings.

[792] _I.e._, Marduk.

[793] Read _a-ma-mi_.

[794] Zimmern purposes to connect this line with the preceding, but the
sense in that case is not at all clear.

[795] _I.e._, with Marduk.

[796] Haupt's edition, p. 8, l. 34.

[797] See above, p. 437.

[798] Haupt, _ib._ p. 139, l. 116.

[799] _Ib._ l. 111.

[800] _Kosmologie_, p. 294, note 1.

[801] See p. 82.

[802] _Zerbanitum_, as though compounded of _zer_ (seed), and _bani_
(create). See p. 121.

[803] Gen. i. 1-ii. 4, embodied in the "Priestly Code."

[804] Gen. ii. 4 and extending in reality as far as iv. 25.

[805] Gen. iii. 17.

[806] See Gunkel, _Schöpfung und Chaos_, p. 13.

[807] On the acquaintance of Hebrew writers of the Babylonian exile with
cuneiform literature and on the influence exercised by the latter, see
D. H. Mueller, _Ezechielstudien_.




CHAPTER XXII.

THE ZODIACAL SYSTEM OF THE BABYLONIANS.

Planets, Stars, and Calendar.


It will be appropriate at this point, to give a brief account of the
astronomical system as developed by the Babylonian scholars. The system
forms a part of the Babylonian cosmology. The 'creation' narratives we
have been considering are based upon the system, and the omen literature
is full of allusions to it. Moreover, the understanding of some of the
purely religious doctrines of the Babylonians is dependent upon a proper
conception of the curious astrological speculations which from Babylonia
made their way to the Greeks, and have left their traces in the
astronomy of the present time.

The stars were regarded by the Babylonians as pictorial designs on the
heavens. A conception of this kind is the outcome of popular fancy, and
has its parallel among other nations of antiquity. We pass beyond the
popular stage, however, when we find the stars described as the 'writing
of heaven.'[808] Such a term is the product of the schools, and finds a
ready explanation if we remember that the cuneiform script, like other
scripts, was in its first stages pictorial. The Babylonian scholars not
only knew this, but so well did they know it that writing continued to
be regarded by them as picture drawing. The characters used by them were
'likenesses'[809] long after they had passed beyond the stage when they
bore any resemblance to the pictures they originally represented. The
expression 'writing of heaven' was, therefore, equivalent to 'picture of
heaven.' The heavens themselves being regarded as a fixed vault, it
followed that the movements observed there were caused by the stars
changing their position; and the regular characters of these movements
within certain periods led to speaking of the movements of the heavenly
bodies as their 'courses.' It was furthermore apparent, even to a
superficial observer, that some of the stars seemed fixed to their
places, while others moved about. A distinction was thus drawn between
wandering stars or planets and fixed stars. Groups of stars, the single
members of which appeared in a constant relationship to one another,
were distinguished partly by natural observation and partly as a
convenient means of obtaining a general view of the starry canopy. It
was such a group that more particularly justified the view which
regarded the stars as pictorial designs. A line drawn so as to connect
the stars of the group turned out to be a design of some sort. On omen
tablets, geometrical figures are often found[810] and interpreted as
omens, and it is plausible to suppose that the outlines presented by the
stars of a group first suggested the idea of attaching significance to
combinations of lines and curves. To connect these outlines with the
pictures that formed the starting-point for the development of the
script was again a perfectly natural procedure, although a scholastic
one. The investigations of Delitzsch have shown that the more than four
hundred cuneiform characters in use can be reduced to a comparatively
small number of 'outlines' of pictures--to about forty-five. The
subjects of these 'outlines' are all familiar ones,--sun, moon, stars,
mountain, man, the parts of the human body, animals, plants, and
utensils.[811] Association of ideas led to giving to the outlines
presented by the groups of stars, a similar interpretation. The factor
of imagination, of course, entered into play, but it is also likely that
the comparison of these heavenly figures with the pictures of the script
was the controlling factor that led to identifying a certain group of
stars with a bull, another with a scorpion, a third with a ram, a fourth
with a fish, still another with a pig, and more the like. That animals
were chosen was due to the influence of animistic theories, and the
rather fantastic shape of the animals distinguished led to further
speculations. So, eleven constellations, that is to say, the entire
zodiac with the exception of the bull--the sign of Marduk--were
identified with the eleven monsters forming the host of Tiâmat. The
passage in the Marduk-Tiâmat myth[812] which speaks of the capture of
these monsters through Marduk appears to have suggested this
identification, which, fanciful though it is, has a scholastic rather
than a popular aspect. Jensen (to whom, together with Epping and
Strassmaier,[813] most of our knowledge of this subject is due) has
shown[814] that of the twelve constellations in our modern zodiac, the
greater number are identical with those distinguished by the
Babylonians; and while it is probable that two or three of our
constellations are of occidental origin, the zodiacal system as a whole
is the product of the Babylonian schools of astronomy. From Babylonia
the system made its way to the west and through western, more
particularly through Greek, influence back again to India and the
distant east. The number of constellations distinguished by the
Babylonian astronomers has not yet been definitely ascertained. They
certainly recognized more than twelve. Further investigations may show
that they knew of most of the forty-eight constellations enumerated by
Ptolemy.

The general regularity of the courses taken by the sun, moon, and
planets made it a comparatively simple matter to map out the limits
within which these bodies moved. These limits impressed the Babylonians,
as we have seen, with the thought of the eternal and unchangeable laws
under which the planets stood. The laws regulating terrestrial
phenomena, did not appear to be so rigid. There were symptoms of
caprice, so that the order of the earth has the appearance of being an
afterthought, suggested by the absolute order prevailing in the heavens.
Comets, meteors, and eclipses alone seemed to interrupt this absolute
order. As science advanced, it was found that even eclipses fell within
the province of law. The course of astronomical science was thus clearly
marked out--the determination of these laws.

The path taken by the sun served as a guide and as a means of
comparison. Anu being both the chief god of heaven and the
personification of heaven,[815] the sun's ecliptic became known as the
'way of Anu.' The division of this ecliptic into certain sections,
determined by the constellations within the belt of the ecliptic, was
the next step. The course of the moon and planets was determined with
reference to the sun's ecliptic, and gradually a zodiacal system was
evolved, the perfection of which is best exemplified by the fact that so
much of the astronomical language of the present time is the same as
that used by the ancient astronomers of the Euphrates Valley.

The sun and moon being regarded as deities, under the influence of
primitive animistic ideas,[816] the stars would also come to be looked
upon as divine. The ideograph designating a 'star' and which is prefixed
as a determinative to the names of stars, consists of the sign for god
repeated three times;[817] and in the case of those stars which are
identified with particular deities, the simple determinative for god is
employed. To regard the stars in general as gods is a consequence of
animistic notions; but the further steps in the process which led to
connecting the planets and certain other stars with particular deities
who originally had nothing to do with the stars, fall within the
province of scholastic theory.

As the jurisdiction of gods originally worshipped in a limited district
increased, a difficulty naturally arose among the more advanced minds as
to the exact place where the deity dwelt. This difficulty would be
accentuated in the case of a god like Marduk becoming the chief god of
the whole Babylonian Empire. His ardent worshippers would certainly not
content themselves with the notion that a single edifice, even though it
be his great temple at Babylon, could contain him. Again, the
development of a pantheon, systematized, and in which the various gods
worshipped in Babylonia came to occupy fixed relationships to one
another, would lead to the view of putting all the gods in one place.
The sun and moon being in the heavens, the most natural place to assign
to the gods as a dwelling-place was in the region where Shamash and Sin
(as every one could see for himself) had their seats. The doctrine thus
arose that the great gods dwell in the 'heaven of Anu.' A doctrine of
this kind would be intelligible to the general populace, but it is
doubtful whether a belief which involved the establishment of a direct
connection between the most prominent stars--the planets with the chief
gods--ever enjoyed popular favor in Babylonia. The association is marked
by an artificiality and a certain arbitrariness that stamps it not only
as the product of theological schools, but as a thought that would
remain confined to a limited circle of the population. Jensen
suggests[818] that the planets may at one time have been merely regarded
as standing under the influence of the great gods, and that a planet
from being regarded as the star _controlled_ by Marduk, became
identified with Marduk. It seems more plausible that the association
should have been direct. Even though the Babylonians may not have had
any knowledge of the relative mass of the planets, in some way Jupiter
must have appeared to them as the largest of the planets, and for this
reason was identified with the head of the Babylonian pantheon, Marduk.
In the creation epic, as we have seen, Jupiter-Marduk, under the name of
Nibir, is represented as exercising a control over all the stars.
Mythological associations appear to have played a part in identifying
the planet Venus with the goddess Ishtar. A widely spread nature
myth,[819] symbolizing the change of seasons, represents Ishtar, the
personification of fertility, the great mother of all that manifests
life, as proceeding to the region of darkness and remaining there for
some time. The disappearance of the planet Venus at certain seasons, as
morning star to reappear as evening star, suggested the identification
of this planet with Ishtar. From these two examples we may conclude that
the process which resulted in the identification of Saturn with Ninib,
Mars with Nergal, Mercury with Nabu rested similarly on an association
of ideas, derived from certain conceptions held of the gods involved. In
regard to Ninib and Nergal it is of some importance to bear in mind
that, like Marduk, they are at their origin solar deities, Ninib
representing in the perfected theological system the morning sun, Marduk
the sun of the early spring, and Nergal the mid-day sun and summer
solstice.[820] The position of the planets Saturn and Mars, accordingly,
with reference to the sun at certain periods of the year, may well have
been a factor in the association of ideas involved.

The position of the sun, as the general overseer of the planets, led to
the application of an interesting metaphor to express the relationship
between the sun and the planets. Just as the human chiefs or kings were
called 'shepherds,'--a metaphor suggested, no doubt, by agricultural
life,--so the planets were commonly known as 'sheep' or, as Jensen
suggests,[821] 'wandering sheep,' and it is rather curious that
Mars-Nergal should have been designated as the 'sheep'[822] _par
excellence_. The 'service' in which the planets stood to the sun is
exemplified by another term applied to them, which designates them as
the mediators carrying out the orders of their superior.

Lastly, it may be noted that each planet receives a variety of names and
epithets in the astronomical texts,--a circumstance that points to the
composite character of the developed planetary system of the
Babylonians. Some of these names are of so distinctive a character as to
justify the conclusion that they arose in the different centers where
astronomical schools existed.

The process involved in the development of the system is thus
complicated by factors introducing views originally confined to certain
districts, and it becomes doubtful whether we will ever be able to trace
all the steps involved in the process.

Corresponding to the unique position occupied by the superior triad Anu,
Bel, and Ea in the theological system, a special place was assigned to
them in the astronomical system. Anu is the pole star of the ecliptic,
Bel the pole star of the equator, while Ea in the southern heavens was
identified, according to Jensen,[823] with a star in the constellation
Argo. Anu, Bel, and Ea represented the three most prominent fixed stars,
but by the side of these a large number of other stars were
distinguished and many of them identified with some deity. For some of
these stars the modern equivalents have been ascertained through recent
researches;[824] others still remain to be determined.

The astronomical science of the Babylonians thus resolves itself into
these natural divisions:

  (1) the constellations, especially those of the zodiac,
  (2) the five great planets,
  (3) the fixed stars, Anu, Bel, and Ea,
  (4) miscellaneous stars, and
  (5) the sun and moon.

The rivalry between the two great luminaries ends in a superior rank
being accorded to the sun. Natural and indeed inevitable as this
conclusion was, the scientific theory in the Euphrates Valley was
presumably influenced to some extent by the circumstance that the head
of the pantheon was a solar deity. We have seen that the tradition of
this original character of Marduk survived in the popular mind.

Of the sun but little need be said here. As represented in the creation
story, he was freer in his movements than any of the planets. He passed
across the heavens daily as an overseer to see that everything was
maintained in good order. As in Greek mythology, the sun was represented
as riding in a chariot drawn by horses.[825] Scientific speculation
advanced but little upon these popular fancies. The course that the sun
took on the ecliptic was determined, and the ecliptic itself served as
the guide for determining the position and movements of the stars. Under
the growing influence of the Marduk cult and of such deities as Ninib,
Nergal, and Nabu, associated with Marduk mythologically or politically,
the old moon worship lost much of its prestige; but in astronomical
science, the former independent rank of the moon is still in large
measure preserved. In the enumeration of the planets the moon is
mentioned first.[826] The moon is not a 'sheep' belonging to the flock
of Shamash. The importance of the moon in the regulation of the calendar
saved her from this fate. The beginning of the calendrical system,
indeed, may well have been of popular origin. Ihering[827] is of the
opinion that agricultural occupations made the marking off of time a
popular necessity, and this view is borne out by the early epithets of
the months among the Babylonians,[828] which, as among the Hebrews, are
connected with agriculture and the life of the agriculturist. The later
names also bear traces of the same train of thoughts. Leaving aside
details into which it is needless to enter here, the part of the
calendar which touches upon the religion of the Babylonians is the
sacred character given to the months by making each one devoted to some
god or gods. In this association there may be observed the same curious
mixture of several factors that controlled the identification of the
planets with the gods. The theory underlying the pantheon and certain
mythological conceptions are two of the factors that can be clearly seen
at work. The triad Anu, Bel, and Ea are accorded the first rank.[829]

The first month, Nisan, is sacred to Anu and Bel.

The second, Iyar, is sacred to Ea as the "lord of humanity."

Then follows Sin to whom, as the first-born of Bel,[830] the third
month, Siwan, is devoted.

The four succeeding months are parceled out among deities closely
connected with one another,--Ninib, Nin-gishzida, Ishtar, and Shamash.
Of these, Ninib and Nin-gishzida are solar deities. Ninib, as the
morning sun, symbolizes the approach of the summer season, while
Nin-gishzida, another solar deity,[831] represents an advance in this
season. To them, therefore, the fourth and fifth months, Tammuz (or
Du'zu) and Ab respectively, are sacred. Ishtar is the goddess of
fertility, and the sixth month, which represents the culmination of the
summer season, is accordingly devoted to her. As the last of the group
comes Shamash himself, to whom the seventh month, Tishri (or Tashritum),
is sacred. Marduk and Nergal come next, the eighth month,
Marcheshwan,[832] being sacred to the former, the ninth Kislev to the
great warrior Nergal. The factors here involved are not clear, nor do we
know why the tenth month is sacred to Papsukal--perhaps here used as an
epithet of Nabu--to Anu, and to Ishtar. The eleventh month, the height
of the rainy season and known as the "month of the course of
rainstorms," is appropriately made sacred to Ramman, 'the god of
storms.' The last month, Adar, falling within the rainy season is
presided over by the seven evil spirits. Lastly, an interesting trace of
Assyrian influence is to be seen in devoting to Ashur, "the father of
the gods," the intercalated month, the second Adar. This introduction of
Ashur points to the late addition of this intercalated month, and makes
it probable also that the intercalation is the work of astronomers
standing under Assyrian authority. A second intercalated month is Elul
the second. This month is sacred to Anu and Bel, just like Nisan, the
first month. The list, therefore, begins anew with the intercalated
month. Such a procedure is natural, and one is inclined to conclude that
the intercalated Elul is of Babylonian origin and older than the
intercalated Adar.

It does not appear that the female consorts of the gods shared in the
honors thus bestowed upon the male deities. Variations from the list as
given also occur. So Ashurbanabal calls the seventh month, Elul, the
month of 'the king of gods Ashur,'[833] while Sargon[834] assigns the
fourth month to the 'servant of Gibil,' the fire-god, by which
Nin-gishzida is meant, and the third month he calls the month of "the
god of brick structures."[835]

In fact, the assigning of the months to the gods appears to partake more
or less of an arbitrary character. Absolute uniformity probably did not
prevail throughout Babylonia until a comparatively late period. Nor does
it appear that any popular significance was attached to the sacred
character thus given to the months. It was the work of the schools, as
are most of the features involved in the elaboration of the calendar.

In somewhat closer touch with popular notions and popular observances
were the names of the months. Confining ourselves to the later
names,--the forms in which they were transmitted during the period of
the Babylonian exile to the Jews,[836]--we find that the first month
which, as we shall see, was marked by sacred observances in the temples
of Marduk and Nabu at Babylon and Borsippa was designated
ideographically as 'the month of the sanctuary,' the third as the period
of 'brick-making,' the fifth as the 'fiery' month, the sixth as the
month of the 'mission of Ishtar'--a reference to the goddess' descent
into the region of darkness. Designations like 'taking (_i.e._,
scattering) seed' for the fourth month, 'copious fertility' for the
ninth month, 'grain-cutting' period for the twelfth, and 'opening of
dams'[837] for the eighth contain distinct references to agriculture.
The name 'destructive rain' for the eleventh month is suggested by
climatic conditions. Still obscure is the designation of the seventh
month as the month of the 'resplendent mound,'[838] and so also is the
designation of the second month.[839]

The calendar is thus shown to be the product of the same general order
of religious ideas that we have detected in the zodiacal and planetary
systems. Its growth must have been gradual, for its composite character
is one of its most striking features. The task was no easy one to bring
the lunar year into proper conjunction with the solar year, and there
are grounds for believing that prior to the division of the year into
twelve parts, there was a year of ten months corresponding to a simpler,
perhaps a decimal, system, which appears to have preceded the elaborate
sexagesimal system.[840]

However this may be, the point of importance for our purposes is to
detect the extension of religious ideas into the domain of science, and,
on the other hand, to note the reaction of scientific theories on the
development of religious thought. The cosmology of the Babylonians
results from the continued play of these two factors. Hence the strange
mixture of popular notions and fancies with comparatively advanced
theological speculations and still more advanced scientific theories
that is found in the cosmological system. Even mysticism is given a
scientific aspect in Babylonia. The identification of the gods with the
stars arises, as we have seen, from a scientific impulse, and it is a
scientific spirit again that leads to the introduction of the gods into
the mathematics of the day.[841] A number is assigned to each of the
chief gods. And, though such a procedure has its natural outcome in
Cabbalistic tendencies, we can still discern in the ideas that lead to
this association of numbers with gods, influences at work that emanated
from the astronomical schools. Thus the moon-god Sin is identified with
the number thirty, suggested by the days of the ordinary month. Ishtar,
the daughter of Sin, is number fifteen, the half of thirty. The unit in
the sexagesimal--the number sixty--is assigned to Anu, the chief of the
triad, while the other two members, Bel and Ea, follow as fifty and
forty respectively. The dependence of this species of identification
upon the calendrical system is made manifest by the inferior rank given
to the sun, which receives the number twenty, the decimal next to that
assigned to Sin, while Ramman, the third member of the second
triad,[842] is identified with ten.[843] Absolute consistency in this
process is, of course, as little to be expected as in other
semi-mystical aspects of the science of the Babylonians; nor is it
necessary for our purposes to enter upon the further consequences
resulting from this combination of gods with numbers. The association of
ideas involved in the combination furnishes another and rather striking
illustration of the close contact between science and religion in the
remarkable culture of the Euphrates Valley.

There was no conflict between science and religion in ancient Babylonia.
Each reacted on the other, but the two factors were at all times closely
united in perfect harmony,--a harmony so perfect, indeed, as to be
impressive despite its _naïveté_.

FOOTNOTES:

[808] _E.g._, IR. 52, no. 3, col. ii. l. 2; IIR. 38, 27b.

[809] The Greek name for the letters of the alphabet--_symbolon_,
_i.e._, a "likeness"--illustrates the same view of the pictorial origin
of writing.

[810] For illustrations, see Lenomant, _Magie und Wahrsagekunst der
Chaldaer_, pp. 520-523.

[811] See the summary on pp. 198, 199, of Delitzsch, _Ursprung der
Keilschriftzeichen._

[812] See p. 436.

[813] Epping and Strassmaier, _Astronomisches aus Babylon_ (Freiburg,
1889).

[814] _Kosmologie_, pp. 57-95. See especially the summary, pp. 82-84.

[815] See p. 89.

[816] See p. 48.

[817] On this ideograph, see Jensen, _Kosmologie_ pp. 43, 44.

[818] _Kosmologie_, p. 134.

[819] See the following chapter on "The Gilgamesh Epic," and chapter
xxv, "The Views of the Babylonians and Assyrians of the Life after
Death."

[820] Jensen, _ib._ p. 140. See above, p. 67.

[821] _bibbu._

[822] _Ib._ p. 99.

[823] _Ib._ p. 27.

[824] See especially Jensen's _Kosmologie_, pp. 46-57 and 144-160.

[825] Jensen, _ib._ pp. 108, 109.

[826] The constant order is moon, sun, Marduk, Ishtar, Ninib, Nergal,
Nabu. _E.g._, IIR. 48, 48-34a-b.

[827] _Vorgeschichte der Indo-Europaer_, pp. 151 _seq._

[828] On the older and later names of the Babylonians, see Meissner,
_Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes_, v. 180, 181, and on the
general subject of the Babylonian months, Muss-Arnolt's valuable
articles in the _Journal of Biblical Literature_, xi. 72-94 and 160-176.

[829] IVR. pl. 33.

[830] En-lil.

[831] See above, p. 99.

[832] Lit., 'Arakh-shamnu,' _i.e._, month eight.

[833] Rassam, Cylinder, col. lii. l. 32.

[834] Cylinder, Inscription l. 61.

[835] _Ib._ l. 58,--a rather curious title of Sin.

[836] The Talmud preserves the tradition of the Babylonian origin of the
Hebrew calendar (_Ierusalem Talmud Rosh-Hashshanâ_, l. 1).

[837] For the irrigation of the fields.

[838] In some way indicative of its sacred character. It is to be noted
that this month--Tishri--is the festival month among the Hebrews and
originally also among the Arabs. The 'mound' is a reference to the
temples which were erected on natural or artificial eminences.

[839] The latter is described by a series of ideographs, "herd" and "to
prosper." Is there perhaps a reference to cows giving birth to calves in
this month, the early spring? For another, but improbable, explanation,
see _Babylonian and Oriental Record_, iv. 37.

[840] Lehmann (_Actes du 8^eme Congrès Internationel des Orientalists_,
Leiden, 1891, i. 169, note) admits the probability of an earlier and
more natural system.

[841] Lotz, _Quaestiones de Historia Sabbati_, pp. 27-29.

[842] Sin, Shamash, and Ramman. See pp. 108, 163.

[843] See for other combinations Lotz _ib._, and compare, _e.g._, VR.
36, where the number ten is associated with a large number of
gods,--Anu, Anatum, Bel, Ishtar, etc.




CHAPTER XXIII.

THE GILGAMESH EPIC.


We have seen[844] that the religion of Babylonia permeates all branches
of literature, so that it is not always possible to draw a sharp
dividing line between sacred and secular productions.

To account for this, it is but necessary to bear in mind what the
previous chapters have aimed to make clear, that religion furnished the
stimulus for the unfolding of intellectual life, and that the literary
and scientific productions represent the work of men primarily
interested in religion. The significance attached as omens to heavenly
phenomena led by degrees to the elaborate astronomical system outlined
in the previous chapter. But the astronomers of Babylonia were priests,
and indeed the same priests who compiled the hymns and incantations.
What is true of astronomy applies to medicine, so far as medicine had an
existence independent of incantations, and also to law. The physician
was a priest, as was the judge and likewise the scribe.

It is natural, therefore, to find that what may be called the great
national epic of the Babylonians was of a religious character. The
interpretation given to the traditions of the past was religious. The
distant past blended with the phenomena of nature in such a way as to
form a strange combination of poetry and realism. But thanks to this
combination, which is essentially a process of the popular mind, the
production that we are about to consider brings us much closer to the
popular phases of the Babylonian religion than does the cosmology or the
zodiacal system.

After all, a nation is much more interested in its heroes and in its own
beginnings, than in the beginnings of things in general. Some
speculation regarding the origin of the universe is perhaps inevitable
the moment that the spirit of inquiry arises, but these speculations are
soon entrusted into the hands of a minority,--the thinkers, the priests,
the astronomers,--who elaborate a system that gradually separates itself
from popular thought and exercises little influence upon the development
of religious ideas among the masses.

The Book of Genesis passes rapidly over the creation of stars, plants,
and animals, as though anxious to reach the history of man, and when it
comes to the traditions regarding the ancestors of the Hebrews, the
details are dwelt upon at length and pictured with a loving hand.
Similarly among the Babylonians, there is a freshness about the story of
the adventures of a great hero of the past that presents a contrast to
the rather abstruse speculations embodied in the creation epic. In this
story, in which a variety of ancient traditions have been combined,
there is comparatively little trace of the scholastic spirit, and
although, as we shall see, the story has been given its final shape
under the same influences that determined the other branches of
religious literature, the form has not obscured the popular character of
the material out of which the story has been constructed.

The name of the hero of the story was for a long time a puzzle to
scholars. Written invariably in ideographic fashion, the provisional
reading Izdubar[845] was the only safe recourse until a few years ago,
when Pinches discovered in a lexicographical tablet the equation

    Izdubar = Gilgamesh.[846]

The equation proved that the Babylonians and Assyrians identified the
hero with a legendary king, Gilgamos, who is mentioned by Aelian.[847]
To be sure, what Aelian tells of this hero is not found in the Izdubar
epic, and appears to have originally been recounted of another legendary
personage, Etana.[848] There is therefore a reasonable doubt whether the
identification made by Babylonian scholars represents an old tradition
or is merely a late conjecture arising at a time when the traditions of
Izdubar were confused with those of Etana. Still, since Etana appears to
be a phonetic reading and can be explained etymologically in a
satisfactory manner, the presumption is in favor of connecting Gilgamesh
with the hero of the great epic. For the present, therefore, we may
accept the identification and assume that in Aelian, as well as in the
sources whence he drew his information, Izdubar-Gilgamesh has been
confused with Etana.[849]

The ideographic form of the name is preceded invariably by the
determinative for deity, but the three elements composing the name,
_iz_, _du_, and _bar_, are exceedingly obscure. The first element is a
very common determinative, preceding objects made of wood or any hard
substance. The word for weapon is always written with this
determinative; and since Izdubar is essentially a warrior, one should
expect _dubar_ to represent some kind of a weapon that he carries. On
seal cylinders Gilgamesh appears armed with a large lance.[850] However
this may be, Jeremias' proposition to render the name as "divine judge
of earthly affairs"[851] is untenable, and the same may be said of other
conjectures.

The fact that the name is written with the determinative for deity must
not lead us to a purely mythical interpretation of the epic. There was a
strong tendency in Babylonia to regard the early kings as gods. Dungi
and Gudea, who are far from being the earliest rulers in the Euphrates
Valley, appear in tablets with the determinative for deity attached to
their names,[852] and it would be natural, therefore, that a hero
belonging to a remote period should likewise be deified. There can be no
doubt that there is a historical background to the Gilgamesh epic, and
there is equally no reason to question the existence of an ancient king
or hero who bore the name Gilgamesh. The deification of the hero
superinduced the introduction of mythical elements. It was an easy
process also, that led to tales which arose as popular symbols of
occurrences in nature, being likewise brought into connection with a
hero, who was at the same time a god.

The Gilgamesh epic thus takes shape as a compound of faint historical
tradition and of nature myths. The deified hero becomes more
particularly a solar deity. The popularity of the hero-god is attested
by the introduction of his name in incantations,[853] and by special
hymns being composed in his honor. One of these hymns,[854] of a
penitential character, is interesting as illustrating the survival of
the recollection of his human origin. Gilgamesh is addressed by a
penitent, who seeks healing from disease:

  O Gilgamesh, great king, judge of the Anunnaki,
  Prince, great oracle[855] of mankind,
  Overseer of all regions, ruler of the world, lord of what is on earth,
  Thou dost judge and, like a god, thou givest decisions,[856]
  Thou art established on the earth, thou fulfillest judgment,
  Thy judgment is unchangeable, thy [command is not revoked],
  Thou dost inquire, thou commandest, thou judgest, thou seest, and
    thou directest.
  Shamash has entrusted into thy hand sceptre and decision.

It will be observed that Gilgamesh is appealed to as a 'king' and
'prince.' His dominion is the earth, and the emphasis placed upon this
circumstance is significant. In accord with this peculiar province of
the god, the hymn continues:

  Kings, chiefs, and princes bow before thee,
  Thou seest their laws, thou presidest over their decisions.

At the same time, his dependence upon Shamash is emphasized. As a minor
solar deity, he receives his powers from the great judge Shamash. This
double character of Gilgamesh furnishes the key to the interpretation of
the epic in which he is the central figure.

The poem in its final shape comprised twelve tablets of about three
thousand lines. Unfortunately only about half of the epic has been found
up to the present time. The numerous fragments represent at least four
distinct copies, all belonging to the library of Ashurbanabal. To
Professor Paul Haupt we are indebted for a practically complete
publication of the fragments of the epic;[857] and it is likewise owing,
chiefly, to Professor Haupt that the sequence in the incidents of the
epic as well as the general interpretation of the composition has been
established.[858]

The center of action in the first tablets of the series and in the
oldest portions of the epic is the ancient city Uruk, or Erech, in
southern Babylonia, invariably spoken of as _Uruk supûri_, that is, the
'walled' or fortified Uruk. A special significance attaches to this
epithet. It was the characteristic of every ancient town, for reasons
which Ihering has brilliantly set forth,[859] to be walled.[860] The
designation of Uruk as 'walled,' therefore, stamps it as a city, but
that the term was added, also points to the great antiquity of the
place,--to a period when towns as distinguished from mere agricultural
villages were sufficiently rare to warrant some special nomenclature.
From other sources the great age of Uruk is confirmed, and
Hilprecht[861] is of the opinion that it was the capitol of a kingdom
contemporaneous with the earliest period of Babylonian history. A
lexicographical tablet[862] informs us that Uruk was specially well
fortified. It was known as the place of seven walls and, in view of the
cosmic significance of the number seven among the Babylonians, Jensen
supposes[863] that the city's walls are an imitation of the seven
concentric zones into which the world was divided. However this may be,
a city so ancient and so well fortified must have played a most
important part in old Babylonian history, second only in importance, if
not equal, to Nippur. The continued influence of the Ishtar or Nanâ cult
of Erech also illustrates the significance of the place. It is natural,
therefore, to find traditions surviving of the history of the place.

The first tablet of the Gilgamesh epic contains such a reminiscence. The
city is hard pressed by an enemy. The misfortune appears to be sent as a
punishment for some offence.[864] Everything is in a state of confusion.
Asses and cows destroy their young. Men weep and women sigh. The gods
and spirits of "walled Uruk" have become hostile forces. For three years
the enemy lays siege to the place. The gates of the city remain closed.
Who the enemy is we are not told, and such is the fragmentary condition
of the tablet that we are left to conjecture the outcome of the city's
distress.

In the second tablet, Gilgamesh is introduced as a hero of superior
strength and in control of Uruk. Is he the savior of the city or its
conqueror? One is inclined to assume the latter, for the inhabitants of
Uruk are represented as complaining that Gilgamesh has taken away the
sons and daughters of the place. From a passage in a subsequent tablet
it appears that Uruk is not the native place of the hero, but
Marada.[865] Moreover, the name Gilgamesh is not Babylonian, so that the
present evidence speaks in favor of regarding the first episode in the
epic as a reminiscence of the extension of Gilgamesh's dominion by the
conquest of Uruk. When this event took place we have no means of
determining with even a remote degree of probability. The representation
of Gilgamesh on very ancient seal cylinders[866] warrants us in passing
beyond the third millennium, but more than this can hardly be said.

Gilgamesh is a hero of irresistible power. The inhabitants of Uruk
appeal for help to Aruru, who has created Gilgamesh:

  He has no rival....
  Thy inhabitants [appeal for aid?].
  Gilgamesh does not leave a son to his father.
  Day and night,...
  He, the ruler of walled Uruk,...
  He, their ruler,...
  The strong, the preëminent, the cunning,...
  Gilgamesh does not leave the virgin to [her mother],
  The daughter to her warrior, the wife to her husband.
  The gods [of heaven] hear their cry.
  They cry aloud to Aruru, "Thou hast created him,
  Now create a rival (?) to him, equal to taking up the fight against
    him (?)."

So much at least is clear from the badly mutilated lines that Gilgamesh
has played sad havoc with the inhabitants of Uruk. In personal combat,
as it would appear, he has triumphed over the warriors of the place. The
son is taken away from his father, the virgins are taken captive,
warriors and husbands are snatched from those dear to them. Aruru is
here appealed to as the creator of mankind.[867] She who has created the
hero is asked to produce some one who can successfully resist Gilgamesh.
Aruru proceeds to do so.

  Aruru, upon hearing this, forms a man of Anu.[868]
  Aruru washes her hands, takes a bit of clay, and throws it on the
    ground.
  She creates Eabani, a hero, a lofty offspring, the possession of
    Ninib.[869]

This creature Eabani is described as having a body covered with hair. He
has long flowing locks and lives with the animals about him.

  Eating herbs with gazelles,
  Drinking from a trough with cattle,
  Sporting with the creatures of the waters.

The description evidently recalls man living in a savage state, and, to
judge from illustrations of Eabani on seal cylinders, the mythological
fancy of the period when strange monsters existed of hybrid formation,
half-man, half-beast, has influenced the conception of this strange
creature who is to combat the invincible Gilgamesh. But Gilgamesh
frustrates the plan. He sends a messenger known as _Sâdu_, that is, 'the
hunter,' and described as a "wicked man," to ensnare Eabani.[870] For
three days in succession, the hunter sees Eabani drinking at the trough
with the cattle, but is unable to catch him. The sight of this 'wild man
of the woods' frightens the hunter. He returns to Gilgamesh for further
instructions.

Gilgamesh spoke to the hunter:

  Go, hunter mine, and take with thee Ukhat
  When the cattle comes to the trough,
  Let her tear off her dress and disclose her nakedness.
  He[871] will see her and approach her.
  His cattle, which grew up on his field, will forsake him.

_Ukhatu_ is a name for a harlot devoted to the worship of Ishtar. Other
names for such devotees are _Kharimtu_[872] and _Kizritu_.[873]
Elsewhere the city Uruk is called "the dwelling of Anu and Ishtar, the
city of the _Kizréti_, _Ukháti_, and _Kharimâti_"[874] and in a
subsequent tablet of the Gilgamesh epic[875] these three classes of
harlots are introduced as the attendants of Ishtar, obedient to her
call. The conclusion is therefore justified that Uruk was one of the
centers--perhaps the center--of the obscene rites to which
Herodotus[876] has several references. Several other incidental
allusions in cuneiform literature to the sacred prostitution carried on
at Babylonian temples confirm Herodotus' statement in general,[877]
although the rite never assumed the large proportions that he reports.

On the other hand, Herodotus does not appear to have understood the
religious significance of the custom that he designates as 'shameful.'
The name given to the harlot among Babylonians and Hebrews,[878]
_Kadishtu_ or _K'deshâ_, that is, 'the sacred one,' is sufficient
evidence that, at its origin, the rite was not the product of obscene
tendencies, but due to naïve conceptions connected with the worship of
Ishtar as the goddess of fertility.

The introduction of Ukhat, however, as an aid to carry out the designs
of Gilgamesh is devoid of religious significance, and one is inclined to
regard the Eabani episode, or at least certain portions of it, as having
had at one time an existence quite independent of Gilgamesh's
adventures. The description of Eabani is, as we have seen, based upon
mythological ideas. The creation of Eabani recalls the Biblical
tradition of the formation of the first man, and Ukhat appears to be the
Babylonian equivalent to the Biblical Eve, who through her charms
entices Eabani away from the gazelles and cattle,[879] and brings him to
Uruk, the symbol of civilized existence.

It is significant that in the Biblical narrative, the sexual instinct
and the beginnings of culture as symbolized by the tree of knowledge are
closely associated. According to rabbinical traditions, the serpent is
the symbol of the sexual passion.[880]

Eve obtains control of Adam with the aid of this passion. In the episode
of Eabani, Ukhat, and the hunter--who, be it noted, plays the part of
the tempter--we seem to have an ancient legend forming part of some
tradition regarding the beginnings of man's history, and which has been
brought into connection with the Gilgamesh epic,--when and how, it is
impossible, of course, to say.

The hunter follows the instructions of Gilgamesh. Eabani falls a victim
to Ukhat's attractions.

  Ukhat exposed her breast, revealed her nakedness, took off her
    clothing.
  Unabashed she enticed him.

The details of the meeting are described with a frank simplicity that
points again to the antiquity of the legend.

  For six days and seven nights Eabani enjoyed the love of Ukhat.
  After he had satiated himself with her charms,
  He turned his countenance to his cattle.
  The reposing gazelles saw Eabani,
  The cattle of the field turned away from him.
  Eabani was startled and grew faint,
  His limbs grew stiff as his cattle ran off.

But Ukhat has gained control of him. He gives up the thought of gazelles
and cattle, and returns to enjoy the love of Ukhat. His senses return,

  And he again turns in love, enthralled at the feet of the harlot,
  Looks up into her face and listens as the woman speaks to him.
  The woman[881] speaks to Eabani:
  "Lofty art thou, Eabani, like to a god.
  Why dost thou lie with the beasts?
  Come, I will bring thee to walled Uruk,
  To the glorious house,[882] the dwelling of Anu and Ishtar,
  To the seat of Gilgamesh, perfect in power,
  Surpassing men in strength, like a mountain bull."

It would appear from these lines that previous to the coming of Ukhat,
Eabani had satisfied his desire on the beasts. In Ukhat, however, he
found a worthier mate, and he accordingly abandons his former associates
to cling to her.

  He yields and obeys her command.
  In the wisdom of his heart he recognized a companion.[883]

In the continuation of the story Eabani becomes the companion of
Gilgamesh, but I venture to think that the title was transferred in the
development of the epic from Ukhat, to whom it originally belonged. It
is she who awakens in Eabani a sense of dignity which made him superior
to the animals. The word translated 'companion'[884] may be
appropriately applied to Ukhat. Eabani clings to her, as Adam does to
Eve after she 'is brought'[885] to him. Ukhat becomes Eabani's
'companion,' just as Eve becomes the 'helpmate' of Adam.

These considerations strengthen the supposition that the Eabani-Ukhat
episode is quite distinct from the career of Gilgamesh. Had the epic
originated in Babylon or Nippur, Eabani and Ukhat would have been
brought to Babylon or Nippur. As it is, Eabani asks Ukhat to conduct him

  To the glorious dwelling, the sacred seat of Anu and Ishtar,
  To the seat of Gilgamesh, perfect in power,
  Surpassing men in strength like a mountain bull.

Unfortunately, the tablet at this point is defective,[886] and the
following three tablets are represented by small fragments only, from
which it is exceedingly difficult to determine more than the general
course of the narrative.

Ukhat and Eabani proceed to Uruk. There is an interesting reference to
'a festival' and to festive garments,[887] but whether, as would appear,
Ukhat and Eabani are the ones who clothe themselves[888] upon reaching
Uruk or whether, as Jeremias believes, a festival was being celebrated
at the place it is impossible to say. Eabani is warned in a dream not to
undertake a test of strength with Gilgamesh,[889]

  Whose power is stronger than thine,
  Who rests not, ... neither by day or night.
  O Eabani, change thy ...
  Shamash loves Gilgamesh,
  Anu, Bel, and Ea have given him wisdom.
  Before thou comest from the mountain
  Gilgamesh in Uruk will see thy dream.[890]

Dreams play an important part in the epic. They constitute the regular
means of communication between man and the gods, so regular that at
times the compilers of the epic do not find it necessary to specify the
fact, but take it for granted. To Gilgamesh, Eabani's coming is revealed
and he asks his mother Aruru to interpret the dream.

The third and fourth tablets take us back to the history of Uruk.
Gilgamesh, aided by his patron Shamash, succeeds in gaining Eabani as a
'companion' in a contest that is to be waged against Khumbaba, who
threatens Uruk. The name of this enemy is Elamitic, and it has been
customary to refer the campaign against him to the tradition recorded by
Berosus of a native uprising against Elamitic rule, which took place
about 2400 B.C.[891] It must be said, however, that there is no
satisfactory evidence for this supposition. Elam, lying to the east of
the Euphrates, was at all times a serious menace to Babylonia.
Hostilities with Elam are frequent before and after the days of
Hammurabi. If Gilgamesh, as seems certain, is a Cassite,[892] the
conflict between him and Khumbaba would represent a rivalry among
Cassitic or Elamitic hordes for the possession of Uruk and of the
surrounding district. While the Cassites do not come to the front till
the eighteenth century, at which time the center of their kingdom is
Nippur, there is every reason to believe that they were settled in the
Euphrates Valley long before that period. The course of conquest--as of
civilization in Babylonia--being from the south to the north, we would
be justified in looking for the Cassites in Uruk before they extended
their dominion to Nippur. At all events, the conflict between Gilgamesh
and Khumbaba must be referred to a much more ancient period than the
rise of the city of Babylon as a political center.

Shamash and Gilgamesh promise Eabani royal honors if he will join
friendship with them.

  Come, and on a great couch,
  On a fine couch he[893] will place thee.
  He will give thee a seat to the left.
  The rulers of the earth will kiss thy feet.
  All the people of Uruk will crouch before thee.

Eabani consents, and in company with Gilgamesh proceeds to the fortress
of Khumbaba. It is a long and hard road that they have to travel. The
terror inspired by Khumbaba is compared to that aroused by a violent
storm, but Gilgamesh receives assurances, in no less than three dreams,
that he will come forth unharmed out of the ordeal.

The fortress of Khumbaba is situated in a grove of wonderful grandeur,
in the midst of which there is a large cedar, affording shade and
diffusing a sweet odor. The description reminds one forcibly of the
garden of Eden, and the question suggests itself whether in this episode
of the Gilgamesh epic, we have not again a composite production due to
the combination of Gilgamesh's adventures with the traditions regarding
Eabani. Unfortunately the description of the contest with Khumbaba is
missing. There is a reference to the tyrant's death,[894] but that is
all. In the sixth tablet, Gilgamesh is celebrated as the victor and not
Eabani. We may conclude, therefore, that the episode belongs originally
to Gilgamesh's career, and that Eabani has been introduced into it. On
the other hand, for Eabani to be placed in a beautiful garden would be a
natural consequence of his deserting the gazelles and cattle,--the
reward, as it were, of his clinging to Ukhat. Separating the composite
elements of the epic in this way, we have as distinct episodes in
Gilgamesh's career, the conquest of Uruk and of other places,[895] and
his successful campaign against Khumbaba. With this story there has been
combined a popular tradition of man's early savage state, his departure
from this condition through the sexual passion aroused by Ukhat, who
becomes his 'companion,' and with whom or through whom he is led to a
beautiful garden as a habitation.

The sixth tablet introduces a third element into the epic,--a
mythological one. The goddess Ishtar pleads for the love of Gilgamesh.
She is attracted to him by his achievements and his personality. The
tablet begins with a description of the celebration of Gilgamesh's
victory. The hero exchanges his blood-stained clothes for white
garments, polishes his weapons, and places a crown on his head.

  To secure the grace of Gilgamesh, the exalted Ishtar raises her eyes.
  Come, Gilgamesh, be my husband,
  Thy love[896] grant me as a gift,
  Be thou my husband and I will be thy wife
  I will place thee on a chariot of lapis lazuli and gold,
  With wheels of gold and horns of sapphire (?)
  Drawn by great ... steeds (?).
  With sweet odor of cedars enter our house.
  Upon entering our house,
  ... will kiss thy feet.
  Kings, lords, and princes will be submissive to thee,
  Products of mountain and land, they will bring as tribute to thee.

Ishtar appears here as the goddess of love and fertility. As such she
promises Gilgamesh also abundance of herds. But Gilgamesh rejects the
offer, giving as his reason the sad fate encountered by these who were
victims of Ishtar's love:

  Tammuz, the consort of thy youth (?),
  Thou causest to weep every year.
  The bright-colored _allallu_ bird thou didst love.
  Thou didst crush him and break his pinions.
  In the woods he stands and laments, "O my pinions!"
  Thou didst love a lion of perfect strength,
  Seven and seven times[897] thou didst bury him in the corners (?),
  Thou didst love a horse superior in the fray,
  With whip and spur[898] thou didst urge him on,
  Thou didst force him on for seven double hours,[899]
  Thou didst force him on when wearied and thirsty;
  His mother Silili thou madest weep.

In this way Gilgamesh proceeds to upbraid the goddess, instancing, in
addition, her cruel treatment of a shepherd, and apparently also of a
giant, whom she changed to a dwarf. The allusions, while obscure, are
all of a mythological character. The weeping of Tammuz symbolizes the
decay of vegetation after the summer season. The misfortunes that
afflict the bird, lion, and horse similarly indicate the loss of beauty
and strength, which is the universal fate of those who once enjoyed
those attributes. Ishtar, as the great mother, produces life and
strength, but she is unable to make life and strength permanent. Popular
belief makes her responsible for decay and death, since life and
fertility appear to be in her hand. Gilgamesh, as a popular hero, is
brought into association by popular traditions with Ishtar, as he is
brought into relationships with Eabani and Ukhat. A factor in this
association was the necessity of accounting for Gilgamesh's death. As a
hero, the favorite of the gods and invincible in battle, he ought to
enjoy the privilege of the gods--immortality. The question had to be
answered how he came to forego this distinction. The insult he offers to
Ishtar is the answer to this question. Knowing that Ishtar, although the
giver of life, does not grant a continuance of it, he who is produced by
Aruru will have nothing to do with the great goddess. But his refusal
leads to a dire punishment, more disastrous even than the alliance with
Ishtar, which would have culminated in his being eventually shorn of his
strength.

Ishtar, determined that Gilgamesh should not escape her, flies in rage
to her father Anu, the god of heaven, and tells of the manner in which
she has been treated. Anu comforts her. Yielding to Ishtar's request he
creates a divine bull, known as Alû, _i.e._, the strong or supreme
one,[900] who is to destroy Gilgamesh. At this point in the narrative
Eabani is again introduced. Gilgamesh and Eabani together proceed to the
contest with the bull, as they formerly proceeded against Khumbaba. On
seal cylinders this fight is frequently pictured.[901] In agreement with
the description in the narrative, Eabani takes hold of the tail of the
animal, while Gilgamesh despatches him by driving a spear into the
bull's heart. Ishtar's plan is thus frustrated.

  Ishtar mounts the wall of walled Uruk.
  In violent rage she pronounces a curse:
  "Cursed be Gilgamesh, who has enraged me,
  Who has killed the divine bull."

Eabani adds insult to injury by challenging the goddess.

  Eabani, upon hearing these words of Ishtar,
  Takes the carcass (?) of the divine bull and throws it into her face.
  Woe to thee! I will subdue thee,
  I will do to thee as I have done to him.[902]

The mythological motives that prompted the introduction of Ishtar into
this tablet now become apparent. The division of the epic into twelve
parts is due to scholastic influences. It is certainly not accidental
that the calendar also consists of twelve months. While it is by no
means the case that each tablet corresponds to some month, still in the
case of the sixth and, as we shall see, in the case of the seventh and
eleventh tablets, this correspondence is certain. The sixth month is
designated as the month of the "Mission of Ishtar." What this mission is
we shall see in a subsequent chapter.[903] In this month was celebrated
a festival to Tammuz, the young bridegroom of Ishtar, who is slain by
the goddess. The prophet Ezekiel gives us a picture of the weeping for
Tammuz,[904] which formed the chief ceremony of the day.

It is this character of the month that accounts not only for the
introduction of the Ishtar episode in the sixth tablet, but which finds
further illustrations in the mourning which Ishtar and her attendants
indulge in after the death of the divine bull.

  Ishtar assembled the Kizréti,
  Ukhâlti and Kharimâti.
  Over the carcass of Alû they raised a lamentation.

These three classes of sacred prostitutes have already been dwelt
upon.[905] With more material at our disposal regarding the cult of
Ishtar or Nanâ of Erech, we would be in a position to specify the
character of the rites performed at this temple. The statements of
Herodotus and of other writers suffice, however, to show that the three
terms represent classes of priestesses attached to the temple. In this
respect the Ishtar cult of Erech was not unique, for we have references
to priestesses elsewhere. However, the function of the priestess in
religious history differs materially from that of the priest. She is not
a mediator between the god and his subjects, nor is she a representative
of the deity. It is as a 'witch,' that by virtue of the association of
ideas above set forth,[906] she is able to determine the intentions of
the gods. Her power to do harm is supplemented by her ability to furnish
oracles. In this capacity we have already come across her,[907] and we
may assume that giving oracles constituted a chief function of the
priestess in Babylonia. It was furthermore natural to conclude that as a
'witch' and 'oracle-giver,' the priestess belonged to the deity from
whom she derived her power. When we come to the cult of a goddess like
Ishtar, who is the symbol of fertility, observances that illustrated
this central notion would naturally form an ingredient part of that
'sympathetic magic,'--the imitation of an action in order to produce the
reality--which dominates so large a proportion of early religious
ceremonialism. Among many nations the mysterious aspects of woman's
fertility lead to rites that by a perversion of their original import
appear to be obscene.[908] In the reference to the three classes of
sacred prostitutes, we have an evidence that the Babylonian worship
formed no exception to the rule. But with this proposition that the
prostitutes were priestesses attached to the Ishtar cult and who look
part in ceremonies intended to symbolize fertility, we must for the
present rest content.

Gilgamesh, secure in his victory, proceeds to offer the horns of the
divine bull to his patron Lugal-Marada, the 'king' of Marad, and who
appears to be identical with Shamash himself. The offering is
accompanied by gifts to the sanctuary of precious stones and oil. There
is general rejoicing.

The episode of Gilgamesh's contest with the bull also belongs to the
mythological phases of the epic. The bull is in Babylonian
mythology[909] as among other nations a symbol of the storm. It is in
his rôle as a solar deity that Gilgamesh triumphs over the storm sent by
Anu, that is, from on high. In the following chapter, we will come
across another form of this same myth suggested evidently, as was the
fight of Marduk with Tiâmat, by the annual storms raging in Babylonia.
Gilgamesh triumphs as does Marduk, but when once the summer solstice,
which represents the sun's triumph, is past, the decline of the sun's
strength begins to set in. This is indicated by the subsequent course of
the narrative.

The scene of rejoicing at Gilgamesh's triumph is changed to one of
sadness. Eabani is snatched away from Gilgamesh. The few fragments of
the seventh and eighth tablets do not suffice for determining exactly in
what way this happened, but Ishtar is evidently the cause of the
misfortune. A fatal illness, it would seem, seizes hold of
Eabani,--whether as the result of a further contest or directly sent, it
is impossible to say. For twelve days he lingers and then is taken away.
As usual, the catastrophe is foreseen in dreams. For a third time[910]
he sees a vision of fire and lightning, which forebodes the end.

The fragmentary condition of the epic at this point is particularly
unfortunate. There is a reference to Nippur,[911] of which it would be
important to know the purpose.

The relationship between Gilgamesh and Eabani would be much clearer if
the seventh and eighth tablets were preserved in good condition. The
disappearance of Eabani before the end of the epic confirms, however,
the view here maintained, that the career of Eabani was originally quite
independent of Gilgamesh's adventures. His death is as superfluous as is
his association with Eabani. In all critical moments Gilgamesh appears
to stand alone. He conquers Uruk, and it is he who celebrates the
victory of the divine bull. The subsequent course of the narrative after
Eabani's death, except for the frequent mention of Gilgamesh's lament
for his companion, proceeds undisturbed. Moreover, Eabani's punishment
appears to be identical with that meted out to Gilgamesh. The latter is
also stricken with disease, but in his case, the disease has a meaning
that fits in with the mythological phases of the epic. The seventh
month--the one following the summer solstice--marks the beginning of a
turning-point in the year. As the year advances, vegetation diminishes,
and the conclusion was naturally drawn that the sun upon whom vegetation
depended had lost some of his force. This loss of strength is pictured
as a disease with which the sun is afflicted. In this way, the seventh
tablet--and possibly also the eighth--continues the nature myth embodied
in the sixth.

Haupt has ingeniously conjectured that the sickness which affects
Gilgamesh is of a venereal character. The hero wanders about in search
of healing. His suffering is increased by his deep sorrow over the loss
of his 'companion.' The death of Eabani presages his own destruction,
and he dreads the dreary fate in store for him. The ninth tablet
introduces us to this situation.

  Gilgamesh weeps for his companion Eabani.
  In distress he is stretched out on the ground.[912]
  'I will not die like Eabani.
  Sorrow has entered my body.
  Through fear of death, I lie stretched out on the ground.'

He determines to seek out a mysterious personage, whom he calls
Parnapishtim,[913] the son of Kidin-Marduk.[914] This personage has in
some way escaped the fate of mankind and enjoys immortal life. He is
called the "distant one." His dwelling is far off, "at the confluence of
the streams." The road to the place is full of dangers, but Gilgamesh,
undaunted, undertakes the journey. The hero himself furnishes the
description.

  I came to a glen at night,
  Lions I saw and was afraid.
  I raised my head and prayed to Sin.
  To the leader (?) of the gods my prayer came.
  [He heard my prayer (?)], and was gracious to me.

On many seal cylinders and on monuments, Gilgamesh is pictured in the
act of fighting with or strangling a lion. In the preserved portions of
the epic no reference to this contest has been found.[915] We should
look for it at this point of the narrative. The following lines contain
a reference to weapons,--ax and sword,--and in so far justify the
supposition that some contest takes place. But the text is too mutilated
to warrant further conjectures. After escaping from the danger
occasioned by the lions, Gilgamesh comes to the mountain Mashu, which is
described as a place of terrors, the entrance to which is guarded by
'scorpion-men.'

  He reached the mountain Mashu,
  Whose exit is daily guarded, ...
  Whose back extends to the dam of heaven,
  And whose breast[916] reaches to Aralû;[917]
  Scorpion-men guard its gate,
  Of terror-inspiring aspect, whose appearance is deadly,
  Of awful splendor, shattering mountains.
  At sunrise and sunset they keep guard over the sun.

It will be recalled that the earth is pictured by the Babylonians as a
mountain. The description of Mashu is dependent upon this conception.
The mountain seems to be coextensive with the earth. The dam of heaven
is the point near which the sun rises, and if the scorpion-men guard the
sun at sunrise and sunset, the mountain must extend across to the gate
through which the sun passes at night to dip into the great _Apsu_.[918]

Aralû is situated under the earth, and Mashu, reaching down to Aralû,
must be again coextensive with the earth in this direction. The
description of Mashu accordingly is a reflex of the cosmological
conceptions developed in Babylonia. The scorpion-men pictured on seal
cylinders[919] belong to the mythical monsters, half-man, half-beast,
with which the world was peopled at the beginning of things. However,
there is also an historical background to the description. The name
Mashu appears in texts as the Arabian desert to the west and southwest
of the Euphrates Valley.[920] It is called a land of dryness, where
neither birds nor gazelles nor wild asses are found. Even the bold
Assyrian armies hesitated before passing through this region. In the
light of the early relationships between Babylonia and Arabia,[921] this
reference to Mashu may embody a tradition of some expedition to Southern
Arabia.[922] Beyond Mashu lay a great sea,--perhaps the Arabian
Sea,--which Gilgamesh is obliged to cross ere he reaches his goal.

Gilgamesh is terrified at the sight of these scorpion-men but the latter
have received notice of his coming and permit him to pass through the
gate.

  A scorpion-man addresses his wife:
  "He who comes to us is of divine appearance."

The wife of the scorpion-man agrees that Gilgamesh is in part divine,
but she adds that in part he is human. In further conversation, the
scorpion-man announces that it is by express command of the gods that
Gilgamesh has come to the mountain. Gilgamesh approaches and tells the
scorpion-man of his purpose. The hero, recovering his courage, is not
held back by the description that the scorpion-man gives him of the
dangers that beset the one who ventures to enter the dreadful district.
The gate is opened and the journey begins.

  He gropes his way for one double hour,
  With dense darkness enclosing him on all sides.
  He gropes his way for two double hours,
  With dense darkness enclosing him on all sides.

After traversing a distance of twenty-four hours' march, Gilgamesh
beholds a tree of splendid appearance, decorated with precious stones
and bearing beautiful fruit. Finally he reaches the sea, where the
maiden Sabitum has her palace and throne. Upon seeing the hero, the
maiden locks the gates of her palace and will not permit Gilgamesh to
pass across the sea. Gilgamesh pleads with Sabitum, tells of the loss of
his friend Eabani, 'who has become dust,'[923] and whose fate he does
not wish to share.

  Gilgamesh speaks to Sabitum:
  "[Now] Sabitum, which is the way to Parnapishtim?
  If it is possible, let me cross the ocean.
  If it is not possible, let me stretch myself on the ground."[924]
  Sabitum speaks to Gilgamesh:
  "O Gilgamesh! there has never been a ferry,
  And no one has ever crossed the ocean.
  Shamash, the hero, has crossed it, but except Shamash, who can cross
    it?
  Difficult is the passage, very difficult the path.
  Impassible (?) the waters of death that are guarded by a bolt.
  How canst thou, O Gilgamesh, traverse the ocean?
  And after thou hast crossed the waters of death, what wilt thou do?"

Sabitum then tells Gilgamesh that there is one possibility of his
accomplishing his task. If Ardi-Ea,[925] the ferryman[926] of
Parnapishtim, will take Gilgamesh across, well and good; if not, he must
abandon all hope.

The ocean, though not expressly called _Apsu_, is evidently identical
with the great body of waters supposed to both surround the earth and to
flow beneath it.[927] The reference to 'the waters of death' thus
becomes clear. The gathering-place of the dead being under the earth,
near to the _Apsu_, the great 'Okeanos' forms a means of approach to the
nether world. It is into this ocean, forming part of the _Apsu_, that
the sun dips at evening and through which it passes during the night.
The scene between Gilgamesh and Sabitum accordingly is suggested, in
part, by the same cosmological conceptions that condition the
description of the mountain Mashu.

Sabitum herself is a figure that still awaits satisfactory explanation.
She is called the goddess Siduri.[928] The name of this goddess is found
as an element in proper names, but of her traits we know nothing.
Sabitum appears originally to have been a term descriptive of her, and
Hommel[929] may be right in explaining the name as 'the one from
Sabu,'[930] and in taking the latter as the name of a district in
Arabia. It is tempting to think of the famous Saba in Southern Arabia.
Obedient to the advice of Sabitum, Gilgamesh tells Ardi-Ea his story and
also his desire.

  Now Ardi-Ea, which is the way to [Parnapishtim?].
  If it is possible, let me cross the ocean,
  And if not possible, let me lie outstretched on the ground.

Ardi-Ea consents, and tells Gilgamesh to take his ax, to go into the
woods, and to cut down a large pole that may serve as a rudder.

  Gilgamesh, upon hearing this,
  Takes an ax in his hand, ...
  Goes to the wood and makes a rudder five gar[931] long.
  Gilgamesh and Ardi-Ea mount the ship.

  ...

  The ship tosses from side to side.
  After a course of one month and fifteen days, on the third day[932]
  Ardi-Ea reaches the waters of death.

This appears to be the most dangerous part of the voyage. Ardi-Ea urges
Gilgamesh to cling to the rudder, and counts the strokes he is to
take.[933] The waters are not extensive, for only twelve strokes are
enumerated; but the current is so strong that it is with the utmost
difficulty that Gilgamesh succeeds in passing through them. At last,
Gilgamesh is face to face with Parnapishtim. The latter is astonished to
see a living person come across the waters. Gilgamesh addresses
Parnapishtim from the ship, recounts his deeds, among which we
distinguish[934] the killing of a panther, of Alû, of the divine bull,
and of Khumbaba. The death of Eabani is also dwelt upon, and then
Gilgamesh pleads with Parnapishtim, tells him of the long, difficult way
that he has traveled, and of all that he has encountered on the road.

  Difficult lands I passed through,
  All seas I crossed.

Parnapishtim expresses his sympathy:

  Gilgamesh has filled his heart with woe,
  But neither gods nor men [can help him (?)].

Parnapishtim thereupon addresses Gilgamesh, showing him how impossible
it is for any mortal to escape death. The inexorable law will prevail as
long as 'houses continue to be built,' as long as 'friendships' and
'hostilities' prevail, as long 'as the waters fill (?) the sea.' The
Anunnaki, the great gods, and the goddess Mammitum, the creators of
everything

  Determine death and life.
  No one knows the days of death.[935]

At this point Gilgamesh propounds a most natural question: How comes it,
if what Parnapishtim says is true, that the latter is alive, while
possessing all the traits of a human being? The eleventh tablet of the
epic begins:

  Gilgamesh speaks to him, to Parnapishtim, the far-removed:
  "I gaze at thee in amazement, Parnapishtim.
  Thy appearance is normal. As I am, so art thou.
  Thy entire nature[936] is normal. As I am, so art thou.
  Thou art completely equipped for the fray.[937]
  Armor[938] (?) thou hast placed upon thee.
  Tell me how thou didst come to obtain eternal life among the gods."

In reply, Parnapishtim tells the story of his escape from the common
fate of mankind. The story is a long one and has no connection with the
career of Gilgamesh. It embodies a recollection of a rain-storm that
once visited a city, causing a general destruction, but from which
Parnapishtim and his family miraculously escaped. The main purport of
the tale is not to emphasize this miracle, but the far greater one that,
after having been saved from the catastrophe, Parnapishtim should also
have been granted immortal life. The moral, however, is that the
exception proves the rule. With this tradition of the destruction of a
certain place, there has been combined a nature myth symbolizing the
annual overflow of the Euphrates, and the temporary disappearance of all
land that this inundation brought about, prior to the elaborate canal
system that was developed in the valley. It is the same myth that we
have come across in the creation epic and which, as we have seen, was
instrumental in moulding the advanced cosmological conceptions of the
Babylonians.

In Parnapishtim's tale, the myth is given a more popular form. There is
no attempt made to impart a scholastic interpretation to it. In keeping
with what we have seen to be the general character of the Gilgamesh
epic, the episode introduced at this point embodies popular traditions
and, on the whole, popular conceptions. The spirit of the whole epic is
the same that we find in the Thousand and One Nights or in the Arabian
romance of Antar.

The oriental love of story-telling has produced the Gilgamesh epic and,
like a true story, it grows in length, the oftener it is told. Gilgamesh
is merely a peg upon which various current traditions and myths are
hung. Hence the combination of Gilgamesh's adventures with those of
Eabani, and hence also the association of Gilgamesh with Parnapishtim. A
trace, perhaps, of scholastic influence may be seen in the purport of
Parnapishtim's narrative to prove the hopelessness of man's securing
immortality; and yet, while the theology of the schools may thus have
had some share in giving to the tale of Parnapishtim its present shape,
the problem presented by Gilgamesh's adventures is a popular rather than
a scholastic one. Even to the primitive mind, for whom life rather than
death constitutes the great mystery to be solved, the question would
suggest itself whether death is an absolutely necessary phase through
which man must pass. The sun, moon, and stars do not die, the streams
have perpetual life; and since all manifestations of life were looked at
from one point of view, why should not man also remain alive? Beyond
some touches in the narrative, we may, therefore, regard Parnapishtim's
story, together with the 'lesson' it teaches, as an interesting trace of
the early theology as it took shape in the popular mind. What adds
interest to the story that Parnapishtim tells, is its close resemblance
to the Biblical story of the Deluge. It also recalls the destruction of
Sodom, and we shall have occasion[939] to show the significance of these
points of contact. Bearing in mind the independent character of the
Parnapishtim episode, and the motives that led to its being incorporated
in the adventures of Gilgamesh, we may proceed with our analysis of this
interesting eleventh tablet. Thanks to the labors of Haupt, the numerous
fragments of it representing several copies, have been pieced together
so as to form an almost complete text.[940] In reply to Gilgamesh's
queries,

  Parnapishtim spoke to Gilgamesh:
  "I will tell thee, Gilgamesh, the secret story,
  And the secret of the gods I will tell thee.
  The city Shurippak, a city which, as thou knowest,
  Lies on the Euphrates,
  That city was old,[941] for the gods thereof,
  Decided to bring a rainstorm upon it.
  All of the great gods, Anu, their father,
  Their counsellor, the warrior Bel,
  The herald Ninib,
  Their leader En-nugi,
  The lord of unsearchable wisdom, Ea, was with them,
  To proclaim their resolve to the reed-huts.
  Reed-hut, reed-hut, wall, wall!
  Reed-hut, hear! Wall, give ear!"

The ordinary houses of Babylonia were constructed of reeds, while the
temples and palaces were built of hard-baked clay. "Reed-hut" and "clay
structure," thus embracing the architecture of the country, are
poetically used to designate the inhabitants of Shurippak. The address
to the huts and structures has been appropriately compared by Professor
Haupt to the opening words of Isaiah's prophecies.[942]

  Hear, Heavens! and give ear, Earth!

Ea's words are intended as a warning to the people of Shurippak. The
warning comes appropriately from Ea as the god of humanity, who
according to some traditions is also the creator of mankind, and who is
the teacher and protector of mankind. Opposed to Ea is Bel, the old Bel
of Nippur, who is represented as favoring the destruction of humanity.
The story in this way reflects a rivalry between the Ea and Bel cults.

Of Shurippak, against which the anger of the gods is enkindled, we
unfortunately know nothing,[943] but it is fair to assume that there was
an ancient city of that name, and which was destroyed by an overflow of
the Euphrates during the rainy season. The city need not necessarily
have been one of much importance. Its sad fate would naturally have
impressed itself upon the memory of the people, and given rise to
legends precisely as the disappearance of Sodom[944] or of the
destruction of the tribes of Ad and Thamud gave rise to fantastic
stories among Hebrews and Arabs respectively.[945]

Ea, not content with the general warning, sends a special message to
Parnapishtim, one of the inhabitants of Shurippak.

  O man of Shurippak, son of Kidin-Marduk![946]
  Erect a structure,[947] build a ship,
  Abandon your goods, look after the souls,[948]
  Throw aside your possessions, and save your life,
  Load the ship with all kinds of living things.

The god then tells Parnapishtim in what manner to build the ship. Its
dimensions should be carefully measured. Its breadth and depth should be
equal, and when it is finished, Parnapishtim is to float it. The warning
from Ea comes to him in a dream, as we learn from a subsequent part of
the story. Parnapishtim does not deem it necessary to dwell upon this,
for it is only through dreams that the gods communicate with kings and
heroes.

Parnapishtim declares his readiness to obey the orders of Ea, but like
Moses upon receiving the command of Yahwe, he asks what he should say
when people question him.

  What shall I answer the city, the people, and the elders?

Ea replies:

  Thus answer and speak to them:
  Bel has cast me out in his hatred,
  So that I can no longer dwell in your city.
  On Bel's territory I dare no longer show my face;
  Therefore, I go to the 'deep' to dwell with Ea my lord.

Bel's domain is the earth, while Ea controls the watery elements. Bel's
hostility to mankind is limited to the inhabitants of the dry land. The
moment that Parnapishtim enters Ea's domain he is safe. The answer thus
not only furnishes the real motive for the building of the ship, but
further illustrates the purport of the narrative in its present form. It
is a glorification of Ea at the expense of Bel, and it is not difficult
to detect the thought underlying the story that the evils afflicting
mankind on earth are due to the hostility of the 'chief demon,'[949] who
becomes the controller of the earth and of the atmosphere immediately
above the earth. Ea's answer is not intended to be equivocal, for he
further orders Parnapishtim to announce to his fellow-citizens the
coming destruction.

  Over you a rainstorm will come,
  Men, birds, and beasts will perish.

The following line[950] is defective, but it appears to except from the
general destruction the fish as the inhabitants of the domain controlled
by Ea. The time when the catastrophe is to take place is vaguely
indicated.

  When Shamash will bring on the time, then the lord of the whirlstorm
  Will cause destruction to rain upon you in the evening.

The 'lord of the whirlstorm' is Ramman, and the reference to this deity
specifies the manner in which the catastrophe will be brought about. As
in the Biblical story, 'the windows of heaven are to be opened,' the
rains will come down, driven by the winds that are to be let loose. It
has been supposed that because the ship of Parnapishtim drifts to the
north that the storm came from the south.[951] No stress, however, is
laid upon the question of direction in the Babylonian narrative. The
phenomenon of a whirlstorm with rain is of ordinary occurrence; its
violence alone makes it an exceptional event, but--be it noted--not a
miraculous one. Nor are we justified in attributing the deluge to the
rush of waters from the Persian Gulf, for this sheet of water is
particularly sacred to Ea as the beginning of the "great deep." It would
be an insult to Ea's dignity to suppose that he is unable to govern his
own territory. The catastrophe comes from above, from Ramman and his
associates who act at the instigation of the belligerent Bel.

Parnapishtim begins at once to build the ship. He gathers his material,
and on the fifth day is ready to construct the hull. The ship resembles
the ordinary craft still used on the Euphrates. It is a flat-bottomed
skiff with upturned edges. On this shell the real 'house'[952] of
Parnapishtim is placed. The structure is accurately described. Its
height is one hundred and twenty cubits, and its breadth is the same, in
accordance with the express orders given by Ea. No less than six floors
are erected, one above the other.

  Then I built six stories,[953]
  So that the whole consisted of seven apartments.
  The interior[954] I divided into nine parts.

The structure may properly be called a 'house boat,' and its elaborate
character appears from the fact that it contains no less than
sixty-three compartments. Parnapishtim carefully provides plugs to fill
out all crevices, and furthermore smears a large quantity of bitumen
without and within.

  I provided a pole,[955] and all that was necessary,
  Six _sar_[956] of bitumen[957] I smeared on the outside,[958]
  Three _sar_ of pitch [I smeared] on the inside.

He also has a large quantity of oil placed on the boat, oxen, jars
filled with mead[959] oil, and wine for a festival, which he institutes
at the completion of the structure. The preparations are on a large
scale, as for the great New Year's Day celebrated in Babylonia. The ship
is launched, and, if Professor Haupt is correct in his interpretation,
the ship took water to the extent of two-thirds of its height.

  The side of the ship dipped two-thirds into water.

Parnapishtim now proceeds to take his family and chattels on board.

  All that I had, I loaded on the ship.
  With all the silver that I had, I loaded it,
  With all the gold that I had, I loaded it,
  With living creatures of all kinds I loaded it.
  I brought on board my whole family and household,
  Cattle of the field, beasts of the field, workmen,--all this I took
    on board.

Parnapishtim is ready to enter the ship, but he waits until the time
fixed for the storm arrives.

  When the time came
  For the lord of the whirlstorm to rain down destruction,
  I gazed at the earth,
  I was terrified at its sight,
  I entered the ship, and closed the door.
  To the captain of the ship, to Puzur-Shadurabu,[960] the sailor,
  I entrusted the structure[961] with all its contents.

The description of the storm follows, in diction at once impressive and
forcible.

  Upon the first appearance of dawn,
  There arose from the horizon dark clouds,
  Within which Ramman caused his thunder to resound.
  Nabu and Sharru[962] marched at the front,
  The destroyers passed across mountains and land,
  Dibbarra[963] lets loose the....[964]
  Ninib advances in furious hostility.
  The Anunnaki raise torches,
  Whose sheen illumines the universe,
  As Ramman's whirlwind sweeps the heavens,
  And all light is changed to darkness.

The destructive elements, thunder, lightning, storm, rain, are thus let
loose. The dreadful storm lasts for seven days. The terror of men and
gods is splendidly portrayed.

  Brother does not look after brother,
  Men care not for another. In the heavens,
  Even the gods are terrified at the storm.
  They take refuge in the heaven of Anu.[965]
  The gods cowered like dogs at the edge of the heavens.

With this description the climax in the narrative is reached. The
reaction begins. Ishtar is the first to bewail the destruction that has
been brought about, and her example is followed by others of the gods.

  Ishtar groans like a woman in throes,
  The lofty goddess cries with loud voice,
  The world of old has become a mass of clay.[966]

Ishtar appears here in the rôle of the mother of mankind. She feels that
she has none but herself to blame for the catastrophe, for, as one of
the great gods, she must have been present at the council when the storm
was decided on, and must have countenanced it. She therefore reproaches
herself:

  That I should have assented[967] to this evil among the gods!
  That when I assented to this evil,
  I was for the destruction of my own creatures![968]
  What I created, where is it?
  Like so many fish, it[969] fills the sea.

From the words of Ishtar it would appear that the storm had assumed
larger dimensions than the gods, or at least than some of them, had
anticipated. At the beginning of the episode, Shurippak alone is
mentioned, and Ishtar apparently wishes to say that when she agreed to
the bringing on of the storm, she was not aware that she was decreeing
the destruction of all mankind. It is evident that two distinct
traditions have been welded together in the present form of the
Babylonian document, one recalling the destruction of a single city, the
other embodying in mythological form the destructive rains of Babylonia
that were wont to annually flood the entire country before the canal
system was perfected.

Some particularly destructive season may have formed an additional
factor in the combination of the traditions. At all events, the storm
appears to have got beyond the control of the gods, and none but Bel
approves of the widespread havoc that has been wrought. It is no unusual
phenomenon in ancient religions to find the gods powerless to control
occurrences that they themselves produced. The Anunnaki--even more
directly implicated than Ishtar in bringing on the catastrophe--join the
goddess in her lament at the complete destruction wrought.

  The gods, together with the Anunnaki, wept with her.
  The gods, in their depression, sat down to weep,
  Pressed their lips together, were overwhelmed with grief (?).
  The storm could no longer be quieted.
  For six days and nights
  Wind, rain-storm, hurricane swept along;
  When the seventh day arrived, the storm began to moderate,
  Which had waged a contest like a great host.
  The sea quieted down, wind and rain-storm ceased.

Parnapishtim then gazes at the destruction.

  Bitterly weeping I looked at the sea,
  For all mankind had been turned to clay.[970]
  In place of dams, everything had become a marsh.
  I opened a hole so as to let the light fall upon my face,
  And dumbfounded, I sat down and wept.
  Tears flowed down my face.
  I looked in all directions,--naught but sea.

But soon the waters began to diminish.

  After twelve double hours[971] an island appeared,
  The ship approached the mountain Nisir.

The name given to the first promontory to appear is significant. _Nisir_
signifies 'protection' or 'salvation.' The houseboat clings to this
spot.

  At this mountain, the mountain Nisir, the boat stuck fast.

For six days the boat remains in the same position. At the beginning of
the seventh day, Parnapishtim endeavors to ascertain whether the waters
have abated sufficiently to permit him to leave the boat.

  When the seventh day approached
  I sent forth a dove.
  The dove flew about
  But, finding no resting place, returned;
  Then I sent forth a swallow.
  The swallow flew about
  But, finding no resting place, returned;
  Then I sent forth a raven.
  The raven flew off, and, seeing that the waters had decreased,
  Cautiously[972] (?) waded in the mud, but did not return.

Parnapishtim is satisfied, leaves the ship, and brings a sacrifice to
the gods on the top of the mountain. In seven large bowls he places
calamus, cedarwood, and incense.

  The gods inhaled the odor,
  The gods inhaled the sweet odor,
  The gods gathered like flies around the sacrificer.

A solemn scene ensues. Ishtar, the 'mistress of the gods,' swears by the
necklace given to her by her father, Anu, that she will never forget
these days.

  Let the gods come to the sacrifice,[973]
  But Bel must not come to the sacrifice;
  Since, without consultation,[974] he caused the rain-storm,
  And handed over my creation[975] to destruction.

Bel thus appears to be the one who alone knew of the extent which the
destruction was destined to reach. The annihilation of all mankind was
his work, undertaken without consulting his associates. The latter were
aware only of the intended destruction of a single place,--Shurippak.

At this moment Bel approaches. He does not deny his deed, but is enraged
that the planned destruction should not have been complete, since
Parnapishtim and his household have escaped.

  As Bel approached
  And saw the ship, he was enraged,
  Filled with anger against the gods--the Igigi.
  'What person has escaped (?)?
  No one was to survive the destruction.'

Ninib reveals the fact of Ea's interference:

  Ninib opened his mouth and spoke, spoke to the belligerent Bel:
  "Who but Ea could have done this?
  For is it not Ea who knows all arts?"

Ea appeals to Bel:

  Ea opened his mouth and spoke, spoke to the belligerent Bel:
  "Thou art the belligerent leader of the gods,
  But why didst thou, without consultation, bring on the rainstorm?
  Punish the sinner for his sins,
  Punish the evil-doer for his evil deeds,
  But be merciful so as not to root out completely,
  Be considerate not to destroy everything."

The terrors inspired by the deluge are well portrayed in the
continuation of Ea's speech. He tells Bel that he should have brought on
anything but a deluge.

  Instead of bringing on a deluge,
  Let lions come and diminish mankind.[976]
  Instead of bringing on a deluge,
  Let tigers come and diminish mankind.
  Instead of bringing on a deluge,
  Let famine come and smite the land.
  Instead of bringing on a deluge,
  Let pestilence[977] come and waste the land.

Ea then confesses that through his instigation Parnapishtim was saved.

  While I did not reveal the decision of the great gods,
  I sent Adra-Khasis[978] a dream which told him of the decision of the
    gods.

It is a misconception to regard this answer of the god as equivocal. Ea
means to say that he did not interfere with the divine decree. He simply
told Parnapishtim to build a ship, leaving to the latter to divine the
reason. Ea, it is true, tells Parnapishtim of Bel's hatred, but he does
not reveal the secret of the gods. After Ea's effective speech Bel is
reconciled, and the scene closes dramatically, as follows:

  Bel came to his senses,
  Stepped on board of the ship,
  Took me by the hand and lifted me up,
  Brought up my wife, and caused her to kneel at my side,
  Turned towards us, stepped between us, and blessed us.
  'Hitherto Parnapishtim was human,[979]
  But now Parnapishtim and his wife shall be gods like us.[980]
  Parnapishtim shall dwell in the distance, at the confluence of the
    streams.'
  Then they took me and placed me in the distance, at the confluence of
    the streams.

The streams are, according to Haupt,[981] the four rivers--Euphrates,
Tigris, Karun, and Kercha, which at one time emptied their waters
independently into the Persian Gulf. Parnapishtim's dwelling-place is
identical with the traditional Paradise of the Babylonians and Hebrews.

It will be proper before leaving the subject, to dwell briefly upon the
points of contact between this Babylonian tale and the Biblical
narrative of the Deluge. The source of the tradition must be sought in
the Euphrates Valley. The ark of Noah can only be understood in the
light of methods of navigation prevailing in Babylonia; and it is in
Babylonia, and not Palestine, that the phenomenon was annually seen of
large portions of land disappearing from view.

The Babylonian tale is to be differentiated, as already suggested, into
two parts,--the destruction of Shurippak and the annual phenomenon of
the overflow of the Euphrates. The combination of these two elements
results in the impression conveyed by Parnapishtim's narrative that the
rain-storm took on larger dimensions than was originally anticipated by
the gods. The Biblical narrative is based upon this combination, but
discarding those portions of the tale which are of purely local interest
makes the story of a deluge, a medium for illustrating the favor shown
by Yahwe towards the righteous man, as represented by Noah. The Biblical
narrative ends, as does the Babylonian counterpart, with the assurance
that a deluge will not sweep over the earth again; but viewed from a
monotheistic aspect, this promise is interpreted as signifying the
establishment of eternal laws,--a thought that is wholly foreign to the
purpose of the Babylonian narrative.

The slight variations between the Biblical and Babylonian narratives,
and upon which it is needless to dwell, justify the conclusion that the
Hebrew story is not directly borrowed from the Babylonian version.[982]
The divergences are just of the character that will arise through the
independent development and the independent interpretation of a common
tradition. The destruction of Shurippak has a Biblical parallel in the
destruction of Sodom[983] and of the surrounding district. Sodom, like
Shurippak, is a city full of wickedness. Lot and his household are saved
through direct intervention, just as Parnapishtim and his family escape
through the intervention of Ea. Moreover, there are traces in the Sodom
narrative of a tradition which once gave a larger character to it,
involving the destruction of all mankind,[984] much as the destruction
of Shurippak is enlarged by Babylonian traditions into a general
annihilation of mankind. It is to be noted, too, that no emphasis is
laid upon Lot's piety, and in this respect, as in others, Parnapishtim
bears more resemblance to Lot than to Noah.

The hostility between Bel and Ea, which we have seen plays a part in the
Babylonian narrative, belongs to the larger mythological element in the
episode, not to the specific Shurippak incident. Bel, as the god whose
dominion includes the atmosphere above the earth, controls the 'upper
waters.' At his instigation these waters descend and bring destruction
with them. But Ea's dominion--the 'deep' and the streams--are beneficent
powers. The descent of the upper waters is in the nature of an attack
upon Ea's kingdom. It is through Ea that the mischief produced by Bel is
again made good. Such a conception falls within the domain of popular
mythology. An ancient rivalry between Nippur, the seat of Bel and Eridu
(or some other seat of Ea worship), may also have entered as a factor,
if not in giving rise to the story, at least in maintaining it. If this
be so, the story would belong to a period earlier than Hammurabi,[985]
since with the ascendancy of Babylon and of Marduk, the general tendency
of religious thought is towards imbuing the gods with a kindly spirit
towards one another, joining issues, as in the creation epic, for the
glorification of Marduk. The absence of Marduk from the deluge story is
another indication of the antiquity of the tradition.

Coming back now to the epic, Parnapishtim, whose sympathy has been
aroused by the sight of Gilgamesh, makes an attempt to heal the hero of
his illness.

  The life that thou seekest, thou wilt obtain. Now sleep!

Gilgamesh falls into a heavy stupor, and continues in this state for six
days and seven nights. An interesting dialogue ensues between
Parnapishtim and his wife.

  Parnapishtim says to his wife:
  "Look at the man whose desire is life.
  Sleep has fallen upon him like a storm."
  Says the wife to Parnapishtim:
  "Transform him, let the man eat of the charm-root,[986]
  Let him return, restored in health, on the road that he came.
  Through the gage let him pass out, back to his country."
  Parnapishtim says to his wife:
  "The torture of the man pains thee.
  Cook the food[987] for him and place it at his head."

It is interesting to note that the woman appears as the exorciser of the
disease. The wife of Parnapishtim--whose name is not mentioned as little
as is the wife of Noah or Lot--proceeds to prepare the magic food. A
plant of some kind is taken and elaborately treated.

  While he[988] slept on board of his ship,
  She cooked the food and placed it at his head.
  While he[988] slept on board of his vessel,
  Firstly, his food ... ;
  Secondly, it was peeled;
  Thirdly, moistened;
  Fourthly, his bowl (?) was cleansed;
  Fifthly, _Shiba_[989] was added;
  Sixthly, it was cooked;
  Seventhly, of a sudden the man was transformed and ate the magic
    food.[990]

Gilgamesh awakes and asks what has been done to him. Parnapishtim tells
him. But Gilgamesh is not completely healed. His body is still covered
with sores. The magic potion must be followed by immersion into the
fountain of life. Parnapishtim instructs Ardi-Ea to convey Gilgamesh to
this fountain. He speaks to the ferryman.

  The man whom thou hast brought is covered with sores.
  The eruption on his skin has destroyed the beauty of his body.
  Take him, O Ardi-Ea, to the place of purification,
  To wash his sores in the water, that he may become white as snow.
  Let the ocean carry off the eruption on his skin,
  That his body may become pure.[991]
  Let his turban be renewed and the garment that covers his nakedness.

Ardi-Ea carries out these instructions and Gilgamesh at last is healed.
The hero is now ready to return to his land. But though returning in
restored health, he is not proof against death. Parnapishtim, at the
suggestion of his wife, reveals the 'secret of life' to Gilgamesh just
before the latter's departure. The ship is brought nearer to the shore,
and Parnapishtim tells Gilgamesh of a plant that wounds as a thistle,
but which possesses wonderful power. Gilgamesh departs on the ship, and
with the help of Ardi-Ea finds this plant, which is called 'the
restoration of old age to youth.' It is a long journey to the place. The
plant grows at the side or at the bottom of a fountain. Gilgamesh
secures it, but scarcely have his hands grasped the plant when it slips
out of his hand and is snatched away by a demon that takes on the form
of a serpent. All is lost! Gilgamesh sits down and weeps bitter tears.
He pours out his woe to Ardi-Ea, but there is nothing left except to
return to Uruk. He reaches the city in safely. His mission--the search
for immortality--has failed. Though healed from his disease, the fate of
mankind--old age and death--is in store for him. With the return to Uruk
the eleventh tablet ends. It but remains, before passing on, to note
that the narrative of the deluge in this tablet is connected with the
character of the eleventh month, which is called the 'month of rain.' We
may conclude from this that the mythological element in the story--the
annual overflow--predominates the local incident of the destruction of
Shurippak. Gilgamesh, we must bear in mind, has nothing to do with
either the local tale or the myth, except to give to both an
interpretation that was originally foreign to the composite narrative.

In the twelfth tablet--which is in large part obscure--we find Gilgamesh
wandering from one temple to the other, from the temple of Bel to that
of Ea, lamenting for Eabani, and asking, again and again, what has
become of his companion. What has been his fate since he was taken away
from the land of the living? The hero, now convinced, as it seems, that
death will come to him, and reconciled in a measure to his fate, seeks
to learn another secret,--the secret of existence after death. He
appeals to the gods of the nether world to grant him at least a sight of
Eabani. Nergal, the chief of this pantheon, consents.

  ... he opened the earth,
  And the spirit[992] of Eabani
  He caused to rise up like a wind.

Gilgamesh puts his question to Eabani:

  Tell me, my companion, tell me, my companion,
  The nature of the land which thou hast experienced, oh! tell me.

Eabani replies:

  I cannot tell thee, my friend, I cannot tell thee!

He seems to feel that Gilgamesh could not endure the description. The
life after death, as will be shown in a subsequent chapter, is not
pictured by the Babylonians as joyous. Eabani reveals glimpses of the
sad conditions that prevail there. It is the domain of the terrible
Allatu, and Etana[993] is named among those who dwell in this region.
Eabani bewails his fate.[994] He curses Ukhat, whom, together with Sadu,
he holds responsible for having brought death upon him. In Genesis, it
will be recalled, death likewise is viewed as the consequence of Adam's
yielding to the allurements of Eve. Special significance, too, attaches
to the further parallel to be drawn between Adam's punishment and
Eabani's fate.

  Dust thou art, and unto dust shall thou return

applies to Eabani as well as to Adam. He was formed of clay, as we have
seen,[995] and when he dies he is 'turned to clay.'[996] Still the
fortunes awaiting those who die are not alike. Those who die in battle
seem to enjoy special privileges, provided, however, they are properly
buried and there is some one to make them comfortable in their last hour
and to look after them when dead. Such persons are happy in comparison
with the fate in store for those who are neglected by the living. The
one who is properly cared for, who

  On a soft couch rests,
  Drinking pure water,
  Who dies in battle, as you and I have seen,[997]
  His father and mother supporting his head,
  His wife[998] ... at his side,--

the spirit of such a one is at rest. The circumstances attending death
presage in a measure the individual's life after death.

  But he whose corpse remains in the field,
  As you and I have seen,
  His spirit[999] has no rest in the earth.
  The one whose spirit is not cared for by any one,
  As you and I have seen,
  He is consumed by gnawing hunger, by a longing for food.
  What is left on the street he is obliged to eat.[1000]

To be left unburied was the greatest misfortune that could happen to a
dead person.

With this sentiment the epic closes. Gilgamesh must rest content with
the unsatisfactory consolation that Eabani offers him. Man must die, and
Gilgamesh cannot escape the universal fate. Let him hope for and, if
possible, provide for proper burial when death does overtake him. He
will then, at least, not suffer the pangs of hunger in the world of
spirits to which he must go.

The twelfth tablet exhibits somewhat more traces of the theology of the
schools than the others. Eabani's speech, while conveying sentiments
that thoroughly represent the popular beliefs of Babylonia, is couched
in terms that give to the address the character of a formal declaration
of doctrines. The conjuring up of the spirit of Eabani is also a feature
that appears to be due to theological influences, and the whole episode
of Gilgamesh's wandering from place to place seeking for information
appears to be a 'doublet' suggested by the hero's wanderings, as
narrated in the ninth and tenth tablets.

The problem propounded in the earlier tablets--the search for
immortality--is, as has been shown, a perfectly natural one and of
popular origin, but the problem with which Gilgamesh wrestles in the
twelfth tablet,--the secret of the life after death,--while suggested by
the other, belongs rather to the domain of theological and mystic
speculation. This aspect of the twelfth tablet is borne out also by the
fact that the problem is not solved. The epic ends as unsatisfactorily
as the Book of Job or Ecclesiastes. There is a tone of despair in the
final speech of Eabani, which savors of the schools of advanced thought
in Babylonia. For the problem of immortality, a definite solution at
least is offered. Man can reach old age; he may be snatched for a time
from the grasp of death, as Gilgamesh was through the efforts of
Parnapishtim, but he only deludes himself by indulging in hopes of
immortal life. 'Man must die' is the refrain that rings in our ears. The
plant of 'eternal youth' slips out of one's hand at the very moment that
one believes to have secured it.

The Gilgamesh epic, as we have it, thus turns out to be a composite
production. Gilgamesh, a popular hero of antiquity, becomes a medium for
the perpetuation of various popular traditions and myths. The adventures
of his career are combined with the early history of man. Of actual
deeds performed by Gilgamesh, and which belong to Gilgamesh's career as
a hero, warrior, and ruler, we have only four,--the conquest of Erech,
his victory over Khumbaba, the killing of the divine bull, and the
strangling of the lion.[1001] The story of Eabani, Ukhat, and Sadu is
independent of Gilgamesh's career, and so also is the story of his
wanderings to Mashu and his encounter with Parnapishtim. Gilgamesh is
brought into association with Eabani by what may be called, a natural
process of assimilation. The life of the hero is placed back at the
beginning of things, and in this way Gilgamesh is brought into direct
contact with legends of man's early fortunes, with ancient historical
reminiscences, as well as with nature-myths that symbolize the change of
seasons and the annual inundations.

Popular philosophy also enters into the life of the hero. Regarded as a
god and yet of human origin, Gilgamesh becomes an appropriate
illustration for determining the line that marks off man's career from
the indefinite extension of activity that is a trait of the gods.
Gilgamesh revolts against the universal law of decay and is punished. He
is relieved from suffering, but cannot escape the doom of death. The
sixth tablet marks an important division in the epic. The Ishtar and
Sabitum episodes and the narrative of Parnapishtim--itself a compound of
two independent tales, one semi-historical, the other a
nature-myth--represent accretions that may refer to a time when
Gilgamesh had become little more than a name,--a type of mankind in
general. Finally, scholastic speculation takes hold of Gilgamesh, and
makes him the medium for illustrating another and more advanced problem
that is of intense interest to mankind,--the secret of death. Death is
inevitable, but what does death mean? The problem is not solved. The
close of the eleventh tablet suggests that Gilgamesh will die. The
twelfth tablet adds nothing to the situation--except a moral. Proper
burial is essential to the comparative well-being of the dead.

The fact that Gilgamesh is viewed as a type in the latter half of this
remarkable specimen of Babylonian literature justifies us in speaking of
it, under proper qualification, as a 'national epic.' But it must be
remembered that Gilgamesh himself belongs to a section of Babylonia
only, and not to the whole of it; and it is rather curious that one, of
whom it can be said with certainty that he is not even a native of
Babylonia, should become the personage to whom popular fancy was pleased
to attach traditions and myths that are distinctively Babylonian in
character and origin.

The story of Gilgamesh was carried beyond the confines of
Babylonia.[1002] Gilgamesh, to be sure, is not identical with the
Biblical Nimrod,[1003] but the Gilgamesh story has evidently influenced
the description given in the tenth chapter of Genesis of Nimrod, who is
viewed as the type of Babylonian power and of the extension of
Babylonian culture to the north.

The Gilgamesh epic is not a solar myth, as was once supposed,[1004] nor
is the Biblical story of Samson a pure myth, but Gilgamesh becomes a
solar deity, and it is hardly accidental that Samson, or to give the
Hebrew form of the name, Shimshon, is a variant form of
_Shamash_[1005]--the name of the sun in Babylonian and Hebrew. The
Biblical Samson appears to be modelled upon the character of Gilgamesh.
Both are heroes, both conquerors, both strangle a lion, and both are
wooed by a woman, the one by Delila, the other by Ishtar, and both
through a woman are shorn of their strength. The historical traits are
of course different. As for the relationships of the Gilgamesh epic to
the Hercules story, the authority of Wilamowitz-Möllendorf[1006] is
against an oriental origin of the Greek tale, and yet such parallels as
Hercules' fight with a lion, his conquest of death, his journey and
search for immortality (which in contrast to Gilgamesh he secures),
certainly point to an influence exercised by the oriental tale upon the
Greek story. It is not surprising that the elements contributed through
this influence have been so modified in the process of adaptation to the
purely Greek elements of the Hercules story, and, above all, to the
Greek spirit, as to obscure their eastern origin.[1007] Most curious as
illustrating the continued popularity of the Gilgamesh story in the
Orient is the incorporation of portions of the epic in the career of
Alexander the Great.[1008] In Greek, Syriac, and Rabbinical writings,
Alexander is depicted as wandering through a region[1009] of darkness
and terror in search of the 'water of life.' He encounters strange
beings, reaches the sea, but, like Gilgamesh, fails to secure
immortality. Such were the profound changes wrought by Alexander's
conquests that popular fancy, guided by a correct instinct of
appreciation of his career, converted the historical Alexander into a
legendary hero of vast dimensions.[1010] The process that produced the
Gilgamesh epic is repeated, only on a larger scale, in the case of
Alexander. Not one country, but the entire ancient culture
world,--Babylonia, Persia, Egypt, Arabia, Judea, and Syria,--combine to
form the legendary Alexander. Each country contributes its share of
popular legends, myths, and traditions. Babylonia offers as her tribute
the exploits of Gilgamesh, which it transfers in part to Alexander. The
national hero becomes the type of the 'great man,' and as with new
conditions, a new favorite, representative of the new era, arises to
take the place of an older one, the old is made to survive in the new.
Gilgamesh lives again in Alexander, just as traits of the legendary
Alexander pass down to subsequent heroes.

FOOTNOTES:

[844] See above, pp. 245-247.

[845] Or Gishdubar or Gishtubar.

[846] _Babylonian and Oriental Record_, iv. 264. For previous readings
of the name, see Jeremias' article on 'Izdubar' in Roscher's
_Ausführliches Lexicon der Griechischen und Römischen Mythologie_, ii.
col. 773, 774.

[847] _Historia Animalum_, xii. 21.

[848] See p. 524.

[849] In the Oriental legends of Alexander the Great, this confusion is
further illustrated. To Alexander are attached stories belonging to both
Izdubar and Etana. See Meissner's _Alexander and Gilgamos_, pp. 13-17
(Leipzig, 1894).

[850] See, _e.g._, Perrot and Chiplez, _History of Art in Babylonia and
Assyria_, i. 84.

[851] Article 'Izdubar,' col. 776; see Delitzsch, _Handwörterbuch_, p.
678. Hommel (_e.g._, _Altisraelitische Ueberlieferung_, p. 39) regards
Gilgamesh as a contraction from Gibil (the fire-god) and Gam (or Gab),
together with _ish_, an 'Elamitic' ending. If the name is Elamitic, one
should hardly expect a Babylonian deity entering as one of the elements.

[852] See above, p. 167.

[853] See above, p. 284.

[854] Haupt's _Das Babylonische Nimrodepos_, p. 93.

[855] Lit., 'he who is applied to for giving a decision.'

[856] _Ta-par-ra-as_.

[857] _Das Babylonische Nimrodepos_ (Leipzig, 1884-91). This edition
includes all but the twelfth tablet, which was published by Haupt in the
_Beiträge zur Assyriologie_, i. 48-79. For other publications of Haupt
on the Gilgamesh epic, see the Bibliography, § 6. The identification
with the Biblical Nimrod is now definitely abandoned by scholars, though
the picture drawn of Nimrod is influenced by the traditions regarding
Gilgamesh. See p. 515.

[858] The best general work on the epic (based on Haupt's edition) is A.
Jeremias' _Izdubar-Nimrod_ (Leipzig, 1891), a reprint with additions, of
his article on 'Izdubar' in Roscher's _Ausführliches Lexicon der
Griechischen und Römischen Mythologie_ ii.

[859] _Vorgeschichte der Indo-Europaer_, p. 112.

[860] The words for 'city' in the Semitic languages embody this idea.

[861] _Old Babylonian Inscription_, i. 2, p. 48.

[862] IIR. 50, 55-57; VR. 41, 17, 18. An interesting reference to the
wall of Frech occurs Hilprecht, _ib._ i. 1, no. 26.

[863] _Kosmologie_, p. 172.

[864] Jeremias' _Izdubar-Nimrod_, p. 15, conjectures that the death of
the king has evoked distress, but that is highly improbable. That the
fragment under consideration belongs to the beginning of the epic is
tolerably certain, though not absolutely so.

[865] Sixth tablet, l. 192. He brings offerings to Lugal-Marada, _i.e._,
the king of Marada--a solar deity. See p. 486.

[866] Heuzey, _Sceaux inédits des Rois d'Agade_ (_Revue d'Assyriologie_,
iv. 3, p. 9).

[867] See above, p. 448.

[868] _Anu_ here used in the generic sense of 'lofty,' 'divine.' The
phrase is equivalent to the Biblical 'image of God.'

[869] A phrase in some way again indicative of Eabani's likeness to a
deity.

[870] That Gilgamesh undertakes this, and not the gods acting in the
interest of Uruk (as Jeremias and others assume), follows from a passage
in Haupt's edition, pp. 10, 40.

[871] Eabani.

[872] Identical with our own word "harem."

[873] Perhaps "ensnarer."

[874] So in the "Dibbarra" legend. See p. 531 and Delitzsch,
_Handwörterbuch_, p. 41.

[875] Sixth tablet, ll. 184, 185.

[876] Book 1. §§ 181, 182, 199.

[877] See Jeremias' _Izdubar-Nimrod_, pp. 59, 60; Nikel, _Herodot und
die Keilschriftforschung_, pp. 84-86.

[878] The protest of the Pentateuch (Deut. xxiii. 18) against the
_K'deshâ_, as also against the 'male devotee' (_Kadesh_), shows the
continued popularity of the rites.

[879] It is to be noted that in the Yahwistic narrative, Adam is in
close communication with the animals about him (Gen. ii. 20). It is
tempting also to connect the Hebrew form of Eve, _Khauwâ_ (or _Khauwat_)
in some way with Ukhat, not etymologically of course, but as suggestive
of a dependence of one upon the other,--the Hebrew upon the Babylonian
term. Professor Stade (_Zeits. f. Alttest. Wiss._, 1897, p. 210)
commenting upon Gen. ii. 20, points out that Yahwe's motive for asking
Adam to name the animals was the hope that he would find a 'helpmate'
among them. In the light of the Babylonian story of Eabani living with
animals, Stade's suggestion receives a striking illustration.

[880] See Trumbull, _The Threshold Covenant_, p. 239.

[881] _Kharimtu_. In Arabic the word is likewise used for 'woman' in
general.

[882] The temple at Uruk is meant.

[883] Jeremias translates 'seeks a friend,' and refers the words to
Gilgamesh, but there is nothing in the narrative to justify us in
assuming that Eabani was thinking of the hero.

[884] It is used as a synonym of _tappu_ 'associate,' Delitzsch,
_Handwörterbuch_, p. 10. Ideographically, it is composed of two
elements, 'strength' and 'acquire.' 'Companion in arms' is the
fellowship originally meant.

[885] The Hebrew verb (Gen. ii. 22) expresses sexual union and precisely
the same verb is used in the cuneiform narrative when Eabani comes to
Ukhat (Haupt's edition, p. 11, l. 21).

[886] We can still distinguish (Haupt, 12, 47) 'I will fetch him.'
Jeremias' rendering, "I will fight with him," is erroneous.

[887] Haupt, 13, 7-8.

[888] Cf. Gen. iii. 5 and 21.

[889] The text of the following lines restored by combining Haupt, p.
13, with a supplementary fragment published by Jeremias'
_Izdubar-Nimrod_, pl. 3.

[890] _I.e._, he will be told about thy dream through the wisdom given
to him.

[891] See, _e.g._, Jeremias' _Izdubar-Nimrod_, p. 21.

[892] So, _e.g._, Hommel (_Altisraelitische Ueberlieferung_, p. 35). He
is certainly not a native of Babylonia.

[893] Gilgamesh.

[894] Haupt, p. 26.

[895] A city Ganganna is mentioned in the first tablet (Haupt, pp. 51,
6).

[896] So Haupt, _Beiträge zur Assyriologie_, i. 112.

[897] _I.e._, again and again.

[898] This is the general sense of the three terms used.

[899] _I.e._, an army's march of fourteen hours. See pp. 490, 503, 521.

[900] The same word appears in incantation texts as a term for a class
of demons.

[901] See, _e.g._, Jeremias' _Izdubar-Nimrod_, p. 26.

[902] _I.e._, to the bull.

[903] Chapter XXV.

[904] Ez. viii. 14.

[905] See above, p. 475.

[906] See p. 267.

[907] See above, p. 234.

[908] Trumbull, _The Threshold Covenant_, chapter vii.

[909] See p. 536.

[910] Or as a third dream. It will be recalled that in a previous
portion of the epic (p. 481), Gilgamesh has three dreams in succession.

[911] Haupt, pp. 45, 53.

[912] Attitude of despair.

[913] _I.e._, 'offspring of life.' I adopt Delitzsch's reading of the
name. Zimmern and Jensen prefer _Sitnapishtim_, but see Haupt's remarks
on the objections to this reading in Schrader, _Keilinschriften und das
Alte Testament_ (3d edition) _a. l._ At the recent Eleventh
International Congress of Orientalists, Scheil presented a tablet
dealing with the deluge narrative. If his reading is correct, the
evidence would be final for the form Pirnapishtim, formerly proposed by
Zimmern (_Babylonische Busspsalmen_, p. 26). See p. 507, note 1.

[914] "Client of Marduk." The name Marduk appears here under the
ideographic designation _Tutu_. The identification with Marduk may be
due to later traditions.

[915] Jeremias' suggestion (_Indubar-Nimrod_, p. 18) that the fight with
the lion belongs to the first tablet, where mention is made of a wild
animal of some kind, is not acceptable.

[916] _I.e._, inner side.

[917] The name of the cave underneath the earth where the dead dwell.

[918] See above, p. 443.

[919] See, _e.g._, Jeremias' _Izdubar-Nimrod_, p. 28.

[920] See the passages in Delitzsch, _Wo Lag das Paradies_, pp. 242,
243.

[921] See above, p. 39, and Hommel's full discussion, _Altisraelitische
Ueberlieferung_, chapter iii.

[922] Hommel (_Altisraelitische Ueberlieferung_, pp. 35, 37) suggests a
migration of Cassites from Elam to Eastern Africa.

[923] Haupt, pp. 12, 67.

[924] Attitude of despair.

[925] _I.e._ 'servant of Ea.' The reading Ardi-Ea is preferable to
Arad-Ea.

[926] Lit., 'sailor.'

[927] See above, p. 443.

[928] Haupt, pp. 64, 36; 65, 1.

[929] _Altisraelitische Ueberlieferung_, p. 35.

[930] _Tum_ is the feminine ending.

[931] A large measure.

[932] Of the week? Hommel and others interpret that Gilgamesh
accomplishes the 'forty-five days' journey' in three days.

[933] This I take to be the meaning of the numbers introduced at this
point.

[934] The text is badly mutilated.

[935] There is no limit to the rule of death. Death alone is 'immortal.'

[936] As Haupt correctly interprets.

[937] This appears to be the sense of this rather obscure line.

[938] Read [sir-la]-am?

[939] See below, p. 507.

[940] The restored text in Haupt's edition of the _Nimrodepos_, pp.
134-149.

[941] Zimmern ingeniously suggests _la bir_, "not pure," instead of the
rendering 'old.'

[942] Isaiah i. 1.

[943] See Jensen's remarks, _Kosmologie_, p. 387. There is no reference
to Shurippak in IIR. 46, 1, as Haupt has shown (see his note in the 3rd
edition of Schrader's _Keilinscriften und das Alte Testament_).

[944] Gen. xix.

[945] Hughes, _Dictionary of Islam_, _sub_ "Ad" and "Salih".

[946] See above, p. 488, note 2.

[947] Lit., 'construct a house'; house is used for any kind of structure
in general.

[948] _I.e._, let your property go and save your family.

[949] See above, p. 53.

[950] L. 45.

[951] Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 368; Jeremias, _Izdubar-Nimrod_, p. 37.

[952] See above, p. 496, note 6.

[953] Or decks (so Haupt).

[954] Of each story or deck.

[955] Poles are used to this day to propel the crafts on the Euphrates.

[956] The largest measure.

[957] The same word (_kupru_) is used as in Gen. vi. 14.

[958] Some part of the outside of the structure is designated.

[959] Haupt translates "Sesammeth."

[960] "Puzur" signifies 'hidden,' 'protected.' "Shadu rabu," _i.e._,
'great mountain,' is a title of Bel and of other gods (see above, pp. 56
and 278). Here, probably, Shamash is meant.

[961] Lit. 'great house' or 'palace.'

[962] _I.e._, 'king,' frequently found as a title of Marduk in
astronomical texts (Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 145).

[963] The god of war and pestilence.

[964] "Tar-gul-le," some mischievous forces.

[965] The highest part of heaven.

[966] _I.e._, has been destroyed.

[967] Lit., 'spoken' or 'ordered.'

[968] Lit., 'my mankind.'

[969] _I.e._, Mankind.

[970] From which they were made. See pp. 448 and 511.

[971] See p. 482, note 4.

[972] Haupt and Delitzsch render _ikkal_, 'ate,' as though from _akâlu_,
but this is hardly in place. I take the stem of the word to be _nakâlu_.

[973] To have a share in it.

[974] Jensen and Haupt translate "inconsiderately," but this rendering
misses the point.

[975] Lit., 'my humanity.'

[976] Not destroy it altogether.

[977] Lit. 'the god Dibbarra.'

[978] _I.e._, the 'very clever' or 'very pious,' an epithet given to
Parnapishtim. The inverted form, _Khasis-adra_, was distorted into
_Xisusthros_, which appears in the writers dependent upon Berosus as the
name of the hero of the Babylonian deluge. See, _e.g._, Cory's _Ancient
Fragments_, pp. 52, 54, 60, etc. The epithet appears also in the Legend
of Etana (pp. 523, 524), where it is applied to a 'wise' young eagle.

[979] _I.e._, mortal.

[980] _I.e._, immortal. _Cf._ Gen. iii. 22.

[981] _Wo Lag das Paradies_ (_Ueber Land und Meer_, 1894-95, no. 15).

[982] The Hebrew account, it must be remembered, consists of two
narratives dovetailed into one another. According to the one
version--the Yahwistic--the rainstorm continued for forty days and forty
nights; according to the other--the priestly narrative--one hundred and
fifty days pass before the waters began to diminish and a year elapses
before Noah leaves the ark. The Yahwistic narrative lays stress upon the
ritualistic distinction of clean and unclean animals, but on the whole,
the Yahwistic version approaches closer to the Babylonian tale. Evidence
has now been furnished that among the Babylonians, too, more than one
version of the tradition existed. At the Eleventh International Congress
of Orientalists (September, 1897), Scheil presented a tablet, dating
from the days of Hammurabi, in which the story of a deluge is narrated
in a manner quite different from the Gilgamesh epic. The tablet also
furnishes the phonetic reading _pï-ïr_, and Scheil is of the opinion
that these two syllables form the first element in the name of the hero.
Unfortunately, the tablet is badly mutilated at this point, so that the
question of the reading is not absolutely certain. See p. 488, note 2.
[The reading Ut-napishtim is now generally adopted.]

[983] Gen. xix.

[984] Note the phrase in Gen. xix. 31, "there is no one on earth," and
see Pietschman, _Geschichte der Phonizier_, p. 115.

[985] That the story was current as early as Hammurabi is now
established by Scheil's fragment (see note 2 on preceding page).

[986] The word used is _tû_ which means a charm or incantation in
general.

[987] Made of the charm root.

[988] Gilgamesh.

[989] _I.e._, 'old age,' the name given to some plant of magic power.

[990] _Tû._

[991] Lit., 'good.'

[992] _Utukku_--the name, it will be recalled, given to a class of
demons. See p. 260.

[993] See p. 518.

[994] Haupt, _Beiträge zur Assyriologie_, i. 318, 319, has made it
plausible that pp. 16-19 of his edition belong to the twelfth tablet of
the epic, though perhaps to a different edition of the epic, as Jeremias
suggests (_Izdubar-Nimrod_, p. 43).

[995] See above, p. 474.

[996] Haupt's edition, pp. 67, 12.

[997] Lit., 'thou hast seen it, I have seen it.'

[998] Text defective. Jeremias conjectures "kneeling."

[999] _Ekimmu_, another name for a class of demons. See p. 260.

[1000] The correct translation of these lines we owe to Haupt (_Beiträge
zur Assyriologie_, i. 69, 70).

[1001] The reference to the killing of a panther in the tenth tablet
(Haupt, p. 71, 6) is too obscure to be taken into consideration.
Gilgamesh's fight with a 'buffalo' (so Ward, "Babylonian Gods in
Babylonian Art," _Proc. Amer. Or. Soc._, May, 1890, p. xv) is pictured
on seal cylinders. No doubt, various deeds of Gilgamesh were recounted
in the missing portions of the epic, and it is also quite likely that
besides the stories in the epic, others were current of Gilgamesh to
which a literary form was never given.

[1002] The Parnapishtim episode passed on to the Arabs, where the hero
of the deluge appears under the name of Khadir--a corruption of
Adra-Khasis. See Lidzbarski, "Wer ist Chadir?" _Zeits. f. Assyr._ vii.
109-112, who also suggests that Ahasverus, 'the Wandering Jew,' is a
corruption of Adrakhasis.

[1003] It will be recalled that Nimrod is termed a 'mighty hunter'
(_säid_). This suggests a comparison with Sadu, 'the hunter,' in the
Gilgamesh epic. See above, p. 475.

[1004] Originally suggested by H. C. Rawlinson.

[1005] The ending _ôn_ is an emphatic affix--frequent in proper names.

[1006] _Euripides' Herakles_, Einleitung.

[1007] On this subject see the Introduction to Berard's _De l'origine
des cultes Arcadiens_, and for a further discussion of the relationships
between Izdubar and Hercules, see Jeremias' _Izdubar-Nimrod_, pp. 70-73,
or his article in Roscher's _Ausführliches Lexicon der Griechischen und
Römischen Mythologie_, ii. 821-823.

[1008] Meissner, _Alexander und Gilgamos_ (Leipzig, 1894), pp. 13-17.

[1009] In the Greek and other versions, the mountain Musas or Masis is
mentioned,--that is, _Mashu_, as in the Gilgamesh epic. See p. 488.

[1010] See especially Budge, _The Life and Exploits of Alexander the
Great_ (London, Introduction, 1896); Nöldeke, _Beiträge zur Geschichte
des Alexander-Romans_ (Vienna, 1890) and Gaster, _An Old Hebrew Romance
of Alexander_ (_Journal Royal Asiat. Soc._, 1897, pp. 485-498).




CHAPTER XXIV.

MYTHS AND LEGENDS.


Not many years ago the impression appeared to be well founded that the
Semites were poor in the production of myths and legends as compared,
for example, to the Hindus or Greeks. The religious literature of the
Babylonians, originating undoubtedly with the Semitic inhabitants of the
Euphrates Valley, reverses the impression. The 'creation' and
'Gilgamesh' epics suffice, not merely for what they contain, but for
what they imply, to accord to Babylonian mythology a high rank; but in
addition to these epics we have a large number of tales of gods,
demigods, demons, and spirits that illustrate the capacity of the
Babylonians for the production of myths. Indeed, there is no longer any
reason for doubting that the Babylonian mythology exercised considerable
influence upon that of the Greeks. Further discoveries and researches
may show that distant India also felt at an early period the
intellectual stimulus emanating from the Euphrates Valley. At all
events, many of the features found in Babylonian myths and legends bear
so striking a resemblance to those occurring in lands lying to the east
and west of Babylonia, that a study of Aryan mythology is sadly
deficient which does not take into account the material furnished by
cuneiform literature. How extensive the Babylonian mythology was must
remain for the present a matter of conjecture, but it is easier to err
on the side of underestimation than on the side of exaggeration. If it
be remembered that by far the smaller portion only of Ashurbanabal's
library has been recovered, and that of the various literary collections
that were gathered in the religious centers of the south, scarcely
anything has as yet been found, it is certainly remarkable that we
should be in possession of an elaborate tale of a demi-god, Etana, of an
extensive legend recounting the deeds of the war and plague-god
Dibbarra, and of two genuine storm myths, while the indications in Dr.
Bezold's catalogue of the Kouyunjik collection justify us in adding to
the list several other myths and legends, among the still unpublished
tablets of the British Museum.[1011] These myths and legends have a
twofold value for us, a direct value because of the popular religious
ideas contained in them, and an indirect value by virtue of the
interpretation given to these ideas by the compilers. In the literary
form that the popular productions received, the influence of those who
guided the religious thought into its proper channels is to be clearly
seen.


The Etana Legend.

It will be recalled that we came across a hero Etana in the Gilgamesh
epic.[1012] The name of the hero is Semitic, and signifies
'strong.'[1013] An identical name appears in the Old Testament,[1014]
and it is possible that the Babylonian Etana represents, like Gilgamesh,
some ancient historical person of whom a dim tradition has survived
among other nations besides the Babylonians. The deeds recounted of him,
however, place the hero entirely in the domain of myth. His patron is
Shamash, the sun-god, and in popular tradition he becomes a member of
the pantheon of the nether world.

In the portions of the Etana legend preserved,[1015] two episodes are
detailed in the hero's career, one regarding the birth of a son, the
other a miraculous journey. The former episode justifies the assumption
of a historical starting-point for the legend of Etana.[1016] Among many
nations the birth of a hero or of a hero's son is pictured as taking
place under great difficulties. Etana's wife is in distress because she
is unable to bring to the world a child which she has conceived. Etana
appeals to Shamash. Through the mediation of the priests he has offered
sacrifices, and he now prays to Shamash to show him the "plant of
birth."

  The oracles[1017] have completed my sacrifices,
  They have completed my free-will offerings to the gods.
  O Lord, let thy mouth command,
  And give me the plant of birth,
  Reveal to me the plant of birth,
  Bring forth the fruit, grant me an offspring.

Of Shamash's reply only one line is preserved intact, in which he tells
Etana:

  Take the road, ascend the mountain.

It is presumably upon the mountain that the plant grows whose magical
power will insure the happy delivery of the expected offspring. Harper
calls attention to a remarkable parallel to this incident which is found
in the Armenian and Mandaean legends of the birth of Rustem, the son of
Sal. The latter's wife is unable to deliver her child because of its
size. Sal, who was reared by an eagle, has in his possession a pinion of
the eagle, by means of which he can, when in distress, invoke the
presence of the bird. The father throws the pinion into the fire, and
the eagle appears. The latter gives the mother a medicinal potion, and
the child is cut out of the womb. Etana, like Rustem, is accompanied by
an eagle, and it would appear that the eagle aids Etana in obtaining the
plant.[1018] The eagle, in many mythologies, is a symbol of the sun, and
it is plausible to conclude that the bird is sent to Etana at the
instigation of Shamash. Who the son is that Etana expects we are not
told, and naturally from a single episode like this--and one so
fragmentarily preserved--no safe conclusions may be drawn. But the epic
(if we may apply this term) must have recounted some achievements of
Etana, and as the 'strong' one, his deeds must have borne some
resemblance to those of Gilgamesh. The birth of the son, it is
furthermore fair to presume, took place towards the end of Etana's
career, when his own life was drawing to a close. If a fragment[1019] of
the tale were only better preserved, we would have an episode of Etana's
earlier career. But such is the condition of this fragment that, at the
most, it can be said that Etana is engaged in some conflict against a
city, in which Ishtar, Bel, the Anunnaki, the Igigi, and some minor
gods, as En-ninna, Sibittum, are involved. The Etana series, as we learn
from the colophon to this fragment, was known by a designation in which
a city[1020] occurs, and it may be that this is the city against which
Etana, aided by the gods, proceeds. Leaving this aside, it is fortunate
that we have at least another episode in Etana's career which enables us
to establish the connecting link between the hero as an historical
personage and as a god or demi-god. As Gilgamesh offers an insult to
Ishtar, so Etana encounters the ill-will of the great goddess, though
through no direct offense. The eagle tempts Etana to mount with him into
the upper regions. Etana is represented as giving, in part, an account
of this adventure, in the first person. The gates of the upper regions
are opened, and Etana is terrified at the majestic sight which greets
him. He sees a throne, and throws himself on his countenance in terror.
The gates are significantly designated as the gate of Anu, Bel, and Ea,
and the gate of Sin, Shamash, Ramman, and Ishtar. The introduction of
the two classes of the theological triads[1021] reveals the influence of
a scholastic elaboration of some popular myth. The eagle reassures
Etana, and addresses him as follows:

  My friend lift up (?) [thy countenance],
  Come and let me carry thee to the heaven [of Anu].
  On my breast place thy breast,
  On my pinion place thy palms,
  On my side place thy side.

Etana obeys, and thus, securely attached to the eagle, begins the daring
journey. They fly for the space of a double hour,[1022] when

  The eagle addresses Etana:
  Look, my friend, how the earth appears;
  Look at the sea and at its side, the house of wisdom;[1023]
  The earth appears as a mountain, the sea has become a pool (?).
  A second double hour he (_i.e._, the eagle) carried him on high.
  The eagle spoke to Etana:
  Look, my friend, how the earth appears;
  The sea is a mere belt (?) around the earth.
  A third double hour he carried him on high.
  The eagle spoke to Etana:
  Look, my friend, how the earth appears;
  The sea is a mere gardener's ditch.[1024]

In this way they reach the gate of Anu, Bel, and Ea in safety, where
they take a rest. The eagle is not yet satisfied, and urges Etana to
follow him to the domain of Ishtar.

  Come, my friend [let me carry thee to Ishtar],
  With Ishtar, the mistress [of the gods, thou shall dwell],
  In the glory of Ishtar, the mistress of the gods, [thou shall sit?].
  On my side place thy side,
  On my pinion place thy palms.

The gods, it will be seen, dwell on high in accordance with the view
developed by astronomical speculations.[1025] Anu, Bel, and Ea are here
evidently identified with the fixed stars bearing their names,[1026]
while under Ishtar the planet Ishtar-Venus is meant. Etana yields to the
eagle's suggestion. They mount still higher. Earth and ocean grow still
smaller, the former appearing only as large as 'a garden bed,' the
latter like 'a courtyard.' For three double hours they fly. Etana
appears to warn the eagle to desist from his rash intention, but the
warning comes too late. Etana and the eagle are thrown down from the
lofty regions. With lightning speed the descent takes place, until the
two reach the ground. The further course of the narrative is obscure.
Was Etana punished by being sent to the nether world, where we find him
in the Gilgamesh epic?[1027] There is a reference, unfortunately quite
obscure, to the death of Etana, and perhaps to his shade,[1028] in a
portion of the tablet. One certainly expects both Etana and the eagle to
be punished for their rash act, but until we can determine with
certainty what became of both, and with what purport the tale is
introduced into the career of Etana, the question must be left open, as
also the possibility of a connection between this flight of Etana and
the similar Greek myth of Ganymede. The introduction of the eagle points
clearly to the mythological character of the tale, but flights of eagles
occur so frequently in the myths and legends of various nations that no
great stress is to be laid upon further parallels that might be
adduced.[1029] The story found in Aelian and which has already been
referred to[1030] alone calls for mention here. According to this story,
Gilgamesh, whose birth is feared by his cruel grandfather Sokkaros, king
of Babylonia, is thrown from the tower where his mother was imprisoned
and in which he was born, but in falling is caught by an eagle and taken
to a gardener who rears the child. The eagle being the associate of
Etana, the suspicion is justified that the child thus miraculously saved
is in reality Etana and not Gilgamesh. At all events, there must be some
connection between the story of Aelian and the Babylonian legend under
consideration. The fate of the eagle is recounted in another tablet of
the Etana series,[1031] which again furnishes an episode paralleled in
the mythologies of other nations.

The eagle has lost favor with Shamash. Enmity has arisen between the
eagle and the serpent, and, curiously enough, the latter stands under
the protection of the sun-god. What the cause of the enmity between
eagle and serpent was, may have been recounted in a missing portion of
the tablet. The eagle forms a plan of destroying the serpent's brood. He
is warned against this act by a young eagle, who is designated as a
'very clever young one.'

  Do not eat, O my father, the net of Shamash is laid (?);
  The trap, the ban of Shamash, will fall upon thee and catch thee.
  Who transgresses the law of Shamash, from him Shamash will exact
    revenge.

But the eagle, we are told, paid no heed to the warning.

  He descended and ate of the young of the serpent.

The serpent appeals to Shamash. He tells the sun-god of the cruel deed
of the eagle:

  See, O Shamash, the evil that he has done to me.
  Help (?), O Shamash, thy net is the broad earth.
  Thy trap is the distant heavens.
  Who can escape thy net?[1032]
  Zu,[1033] the worker of evil, the source of evil [did not
    escape?[1034]].

Shamash responds to the appeal:

  Upon his hearing the lament of the serpent,
  Shamash opened his mouth and spoke to the serpent:
  Go and ascend the mountain;
  The carcass of a wild ox make thy hiding-place.
  Open him, tear open his belly.
  Make a dwelling place [of his belly].
  All the birds of heaven will come down;
  The eagle with them will come down.

  ...

  Upon penetrating to the meat he will hastily proceed,
  Making for the hidden parts.[1035]
  As soon as he has reached the inside,[1036] seize him by his wing,
  Tear out his wing, his feather (?), his pinion,
  Tear him to pieces, and throw him into a corner,
  To die a death of hunger and thirst.

This devilish plan is successfully carried out. With considerable skill
the narrative describes how the eagle, suspecting some mischief, did not
join the other birds, but when he saw that they escaped without harm
felt reassured. He tells his brood:

    Come, let us go and let us also pounce down upon the carcass of
    the wild ox and eat, we too.

The eagle is again warned by his "very clever" offspring. The rest of
his brood join in the appeal, but

  He did not hearken to them, and obeyed not the advice of his brood,
  He swooped down and stood upon the wild ox.

Still, he is not entirely free from suspicion, and the narrative
continues:

  The eagle inspected the carcass, looking carefully to the front and
    behind him.
  He again inspected the carcass, looking carefully to the front and
    behind him.

Detecting nothing to justify his suspicions, he digs his beak into the
carcass, but scarcely has he done so when the serpent seizes hold of
him. The eagle cries for mercy, and promises the serpent a present of
whatever he desires. The serpent is relentless. To release the eagle
would be to play false to Shamash.

  If I release thee ...
  Thy punishment will be transferred to me.

Thus the serpent justifies what he is about to do. In accordance with
the instructions of the sun-god, the eagle is stripped of his wings and
feathers, and left to die a miserable death. In its present form this
tale of the eagle and serpent forms part of the Etana story.[1037]
Jeremias is right in questioning whether it originally had anything to
do with Etana.[1038] Two distinct stories have been combined, much as in
the Gilgamesh epic several tales have been thrown together. The
association of Etana with the eagle suggests the introduction of the
episode of the eagle's discomfiture. If one may judge of the two
episodes related of Etana, he is not a personage regarded with favor by
the compilers. In both episodes we find him in distress. His flight with
the eagle is regarded as a defiance of the gods, though more blame
attaches to the eagle than to him. Shamash can hardly have regarded with
favor the ambition of a human being to mount to the dwelling of the
gods. Gilgamesh makes no such attempt, and Parnapishtim is not carried
on high, but to "the confluence of the streams." Gilgamesh, it will also
be recalled, is unable to pass to the nether world where Eabani is
placed, and in the following chapter we will come across a tale intended
to illustrate the impossibility of any one ever returning from the
hollow under the earth where the dead dwell. The story of Etana appears,
therefore, to emphasize the equal impossibility for any mortal to ascend
to the dwelling of the gods. Etana is deified, but he belongs
permanently to the region where all mortals go after their career on
earth is ended,--the nether world. One gains the impression, therefore,
that Etana is a hero of antiquity who is not approved of by the
Babylonian priests. Similarly, the conflict between the eagle and the
serpent suggests an opposition to the view which makes the eagle the
symbol and messenger of Shamash. The eagle recalls the winged disc, the
symbol of Ashur,[1039] and the eagle occurs also as a standard among the
Hittites,[1040] with whom, as we know, the Babylonians came into
contact. The story of Shamash, himself, laying the trap for the eagle
looks like a myth produced with some specific intent, an illustration of
legitimate sun-worship against rival cults. As a matter of course, in
the case of such a myth, it is difficult to say where its popular
character ends and the speculative or scholastic theory begins. But
whatever may have been the original purport of the tale, for our
purposes its significance consists in the view unfolded of Shamash as
the one who wreaks vengeance on the evil-doer. Shamash appears in the
episode in the rôle of the just judge that characterizes him in the
hymns and incantations. Etana's reliance upon the eagle leads to
disgrace and defeat. In a representation of the hero's flight on a seal
cylinder,[1041] the disapproval of the act is indicated by the addition
of two dogs in a crouching position, their gaze directed towards the
bird. The dogs are a symbol of the solar-god Marduk.[1042]


The Legend of Dibbarra.

Of more direct religious import is a story recounted in a series
comprising five tablets of the deeds of the war and plague-god whose
name is provisionally read Dibbarra.[1043] He is a solar deity
identified in the theological system of the Babylonians with Nergal, but
originally distinct and in all probability one of the numerous local
solar deities of Babylonia like Nin-girsu and Nin-gishzida, Ishum and
others, whose rôles are absorbed by one or the other of the four great
solar deities,--Shamash, Marduk, Ninib, and Nergal. Nergal representing
the sun of midday and of the summer solstice, which brings in its wake
destruction of various kinds, it was appropriate that a god who came to
be specifically viewed as the god who causes disease should be regarded
as an aspect of the terrible Nergal. In the legend that we are about to
consider, Dibbarra appears as the god of war. He is designated as the
'warrior.' The name of the god is written ideographically with a sign
that has the meaning of 'servant' and 'man.' To this sign the phonetic
complement _ra_ is added. In view of a passage in a lexicographical
tablet, according to which the name of the god is designated as the
equivalent of the god Gir-ra, Jensen concluded that the name was to be
read Gira, and Delitzsch[1044] is inclined to follow him. A difficulty,
however, arises through the circumstance that the element _Gir_ in the
name Gir-ra is itself an ideograph. In any case, the designation of the
god as a 'servant' shows that he is described here by an epithet,[1045]
and not by his real name, which is to be sought rather in the sense of
'strong,' that is one of the meanings of the ideograph _gir_. The
epithet 'servant' belongs to the period when the god took his place in
the theological system as one of the attendants of the great Nergal,
just as the plague-god is himself accompanied by a god Ishum, who acts
as a kind of messenger or attendant to him. It should be added that what
little evidence there was for the conventional reading Dibbarra[1046]
has now been dispelled, so that but for the desire to avoid useless
additions to the nomenclature of the Babylonian deities, the form Gir-ra
would have been introduced here, as for the present preferable.

Where the cult of Dibbarra centered we do not know, but that he presided
over a district that must have played a prominent part at some period of
Babylonian history is shown by the elaborate legend of his deeds for
which, as in the case of Gilgamesh and Etana, we are justified in
assuming an historical background. In fact, the legend of Dibbarra is
naught but a poetic and semi-mythical disguise for severe conflicts
waged against certain Babylonian cities by some rival power that had its
seat likewise in the Euphrates Valley.

Of the five tablets, but four fragments have as yet been found in such a
condition as to be utilized. The longest of these contains an address to
Dibbarra by his faithful attendant Ishum, in which the power of the
war-god is praised and some of his deeds recounted.

  [The sons of] Babylon were (as) birds
  And thou their falconer.
  In a net thou didst catch them, enclose them, and destroy them,
  O! Warrior Dibbara,
  Leaving the city,[1047] thou didst pass to the outside,
  Taking on the form of a lion, thou didst enter the palace.
  The people saw thee and drew (?) their weapons.

The reference in these lines is to an attack upon the city of Babylon.
The war-god is pictured as striking out in all directions, imprisoning
the inhabitants of Babylon within the city walls, working havoc outside
of the city, and not stopping short at entering the palace. The metaphor
of the war-god taking on the form of a lion confirms the identification
of Dibbarra with Nergal, who is generally pictured as a lion.

In the following lines the enemy who makes this attack on Babylon is
introduced. He is designated as a 'governor,' and Dibbarra is
represented as giving him certain instructions to carry out. The title
'governor' given to this enemy may be taken as an indication that the
epic deals with the rivalry existing among the states of Babylonia, each
represented by its capital. Ishum continues his address to Dibbarra:

  The heart of the governor, intent upon taking vengeance on Babylon,
    was enraged,
  For capturing the possessions of the enemy, he sends out his army,
  Filled with enmity towards the people.

Dibbarra is represented as addressing this governor:

  In the city whither I send thee,
  Thou shall fear no one, nor have compassion.
  Kill the young and old alike,
  The tender suckling likewise--spare no one.
  The treasures of Babylon carry off as booty.

Ishum continues his narrative:

  The royal host was gathered together and entered the city.
  The bow was strung, the sword unsheathed.
  Thou didst blunt[1048] (?) the weapons of the soldiers,
  The servitors of Anu and Dagan.
  Their blood thou caused to flow like torrents of water through the
    city's highways.
  Thou didst tear open their intestines, and cause the stream to carry
    them off.

Dagan is here used for Bel,[1049] and the phrase 'servitors of Anu and
Dagan' embraces the inhabitants of Babylon. Marduk, the lord of Babylon,
is enraged at the sight, but apparently is powerless.

  The great lord Marduk saw it and cried "Alas!"
    His senses left him.
  A violent curse issued from his mouth.

At this point the tablet is defective, and when it again becomes
intelligible we find Ishum describing an attack of Dibbarra upon another
of the great centers of the Euphrates Valley--the city of Uruk. Uruk is
called the 'dwelling of Anu and Ishtar,' the city of the _Kizrêti_,
_Ukhâti_, and _Kharimâti_[1050]--the sacred harlots. Uruk suffers the
same fate as Babylon:

  A cruel and wicked governor thou didst place over them,
  Who brought misery upon them, broke down (?) their laws.
  Ishtar was enraged and filled with anger because of Uruk.

Her opposition, however, is as powerless to stem Dibbarra's attack as
was Marduk's grief at the onslaught on Babylon.

Dibbarra's greed is insatiable. Ishum continues his address to him:

  O warrior Dibbarra, thou dost dispatch the just,
  Thou dost dispatch the unjust,
  Who sins against thee, thou dost dispatch,
  And the one who does not sin against thee thou dost dispatch.

The following lines reveal the purpose of Ishum's long speech. A war
more terrible even than the conflicts recounted is planned by Ishum, one
that is to involve all creation and extend to the higher regions. Ishum
asks Dibbarra's consent to the fearful destruction held in view:

  The brightness of Shul-pauddu[1051] I will destroy.
  The root of the tree I will tear out
  That it no longer blossom;
  Against the dwelling of the king of gods, I will proceed....
  The warrior Dibbarra heard him.[1052]
  The speech of Ishum was pleasant to him as fine oil,
  And thus the warrior Dibbarra spoke:
  Sea-coast [against] sea-coast, Subartu against Subartu, Assyrian
    against Assyrian,
  Elamite against Elamite,
  Cassite against Cassite,
  Sutaean against Sutaean,
  Kuthaean against Kuthaean,
  Lullubite against Lullubite,
  Country against country, house against house, man against man.
  Brother is to show no mercy towards brother; they shall kill one
    another.

The lines remind one of the description in the Gilgamesh epic of the
terror aroused by the deluge,[1053] and one might be tempted to combine
Dibbarra's speech with the preceding words of Ishum, and interpret this
part of the Dibbarra legend as another phase of the same nature myth,
which enters as a factor in the narrative of the Deluge. However, the
continuation of Dibbarra's speech shows that a great military conflict
is foretold. The countries named are those adjacent to Babylonia, and
the intention of the writer is evidently to imply that the whole world
is to be stirred up. This fearful state of hostility is to continue
until

  After a time the Akkadian will come,
  Overthrow all and conquer all of them.

Akkad, it will be recalled, is a name for Babylonia. The triumph of
Babylon is foretold in these lines. The Akkadian is, therefore, none
other than Hammurabi, who succeeds in obtaining the supremacy over the
entire Euphrates Valley, and whose successors for many centuries claimed
control of the four quarters of the world.

It is evident from this 'prophecy' that the Dibbarra legend received its
final shape under influences emanating from Babylon, precisely as we
found to be the case in the 'creation' story and in the Gilgamesh epic.
The hostility that precedes the coming of Hammurabi points to the
violence of the conflicts in which that warrior was engaged, while the
exaggeration of this hostility shows how strong and permanent the
impression of Hammurabi's achievements must have been. The designation
of the conqueror as the Akkadian gives him to a certain extent the
character of a Messiah, who is to inaugurate an era of peace, and whose
coming will appease the grim Dibbarra. It is by no means impossible that
Hebrew and Christian conceptions of a general warfare which is to
precede the golden age of peace are influenced by the Babylonian legend
under consideration.

Dibbarra gives his consent to Ishum's plan:

  Go, Ishum, carry out the word thou hast spoken in accordance with thy
    desire.

Ishum proceeds to do so. The mountain Khi-khi is the first to be
attacked.

  Ishum directed his countenance to the mountain Khi-khi.
  The god Sibi,[1054] a warrior without rival,
  Stormed behind him.
  The warrior[1055] arrived at the mountain Khi-khi.
  He raised his hand, destroyed the mountain.
  He levelled the mountain Khi-khi to the ground.
  The vineyards in the forest of Khashur he destroyed.

In a geographical list[1056] a mountain Khi-khi, belonging to the
Amoritic country, is mentioned, and a mountain Khashur described as a
cedar district. There can be, therefore, no doubt that some military
expedition to western lands is recounted in our tablet. The continuation
of the narrative is lost, all but a small fragment,[1057] which tells of
the destruction of a city--otherwise unknown--called Inmarmaru. At the
instigation of Dibbarra, Ishum enters this city and destroys it. The
outrages committed are described at some length. Ea, the god of
humanity, hears of the havoc wrought. He is 'filled with wrath.'
Unfortunately, the fragment is too mutilated to permit us to ascertain
what steps Ea takes against Dibbarra. Marduk is also mentioned in this
connection. Under the circumstances, one can only conjecture that in the
missing portions of this tablet, and perhaps also in two others, the
wars preceding the advent of the Akkadian[1058] are recounted in poetic
and semi-mythical form. If this conjecture is justified, the main
purport at least of the Dibbarra legend becomes clear. It is a
collection of war-songs recalling the Hebrew anthology, "Battles of
Yahwe,"[1059] in which the military exploits of the Hebrews were
poetically set forth.

The closing tablet of the Dibbarra legend is preserved,[1060] though
only in part. It describes the appeasement of the dreadful war-god. All
the gods, together with the Igigi and Anunnaki, are gathered around
Dibbarra, who addresses them:

  Listen all of you to my words.
  Because of sin did I formerly plan evil,
  My heart was enraged and I swept peoples away.

He tells how he destroyed the flocks and devastated the fruits in the
fields, how he swept over the lands, punishing the just and the wicked
alike, and sparing no one. Ishum takes up the strain and urges Dibbarra
to desist from his wrath:

  Do thou appease the gods of the land, who were angry,
  May fruits (?) and corn[1061] flourish,
  May mountains and seas bring their produce.

The era of peace and prosperity is thus inaugurated, and the legend
closes with solemn assurances from Dibbarra that he will bless and
protect those who properly honor him.

  He who glorifies my name will rule the world.
  Who proclaims the glory of my power
  Will be without a rival.
  The singer who sings [of my deeds] will not die through pestilence.
  To kings and nobles his words will be pleasing.
  The writer who preserves them will escape from the grasp of the enemy.
  In the temple where the people proclaim my name
  I will open his ear;[1062]
  In the house where this tablet is set up, though war[1063] may rage,
  And god Sibi work havoc,
  Sword and pestilence will not touch him--he will dwell in safety.
  Let this song resound forever and endure for eternity.
  Let all lands hear it and proclaim my power.
  Let the inhabitants of all places learn to glorify my name.

This closing address represents a late addition to the poem that
somewhat modifies its original import. Wars did not cease with the
establishment of Babylon's control. Many conflicts arose, but on the
whole, Babylonia was an empire of peace. The people were inclined
towards a life of ease, and the development of commerce served as a
wholesome check against too frequent military disturbances. The
war-songs, as a glorification of the nation's past, retained their
popularity, but the lesson drawn from the songs was the great blessing
that peace and freedom from turmoil brought with them. For the warlike
Assyrians, Dibbarra enraged may have been a more popular figure, but to
the peace-loving Babylonian, the appeased Dibbarra appealed with greater
force. The story of Dibbarra's deeds became in this way in the course of
time an object lesson, a kind of religious allegory handed down from one
generation to the other as an illustration of the horrors of war and of
violence in general. With the tendency--so characteristic of the
Babylonian religion[1064]--for great gods to absorb the rôles of minor
ones, Nergal became the god of war _par excellence_, while Dibbarra,
Ishum, and Sibi were chiefly viewed as powers responsible for such forms
of violence as pestilence and distress. To ensure the favor of a god of
pestilence was of importance for every individual, and one of the safest
means of obtaining this favor was to sing his praises, to recall his
power,--to glorify him and thus to keep him, as it were, in good humor.
What better means of accomplishing this than to have the record of his
deeds constantly before one's eyes? The British Museum contains two
specimens of tablets on which a portion of the Dibbarra legend is
inscribed, and which are pierced with holes in a manner as to leave no
doubt[1065] that the tablets were intended to be hung up in houses with
a view of securing protection from Dibbarra and his associates. The
reference in the closing lines of the story:

  The house where this tablet is set up,

thus becomes clear. As the Hebrews were commanded, in order to secure
the protection of Yahwe, to write his law

  On the doorposts of the house,[1066]

so the Babylonians were instructed by their priests to hang tablets in
their homes--probably at the entrance--on which Dibbarra was glorified.
Naturally, it was impossible to inscribe the whole story on a little
tablet, just as it was impossible to place the entire law of Yahwe on
the doorposts. In both cases a significant extract served as a part,
representative of the whole. In the case of the Dibbarra legend, the
closing portion was selected, which emphasized the necessity of keeping
the deeds of Dibbarra and the greatness of his power in mind. Like the
Gilgamesh epic, so the Dibbarra legend was to be taught by the father to
his son. The scribes were enjoined to teach the story to the people. The
poets were to make it the subject of their songs, and kings and nobles
were not exempt from the obligation to listen to the tale.


The Myth of the Storm-God Zu.

Birds and bulls were to the Babylonians the symbols of storms and
clouds. In the Gilgamesh epic, it will be recalled, Anu sends a divine
bull to engage in a contest with Gilgamesh.[1067] The text of the epic
being unfortunately defective, we have no definite indication of the
character of the attack to be made upon the hero by the messenger from
the god of heaven; but since storms and disease are the two chief
weapons in the hands of the gods, and inasmuch as Gilgamesh in a later
section of the epic is struck down by disease, it is more than likely
that the bull represents a storm that is to sweep the hero and his
companion off the earth. The winged bulls placed at the entrance of
palaces embody the same idea, and in addition to the explanation for
these fantastic figures above[1068] suggested, it is noteworthy that the
two types of animals chosen for this symbolical decoration of edifices,
the bull and the lion, again illustrate the same two means at the
disposal of the gods for the punishment of man, the bull representing
the storms, and the lion being the symbol of Nergal, who is the god of
pestilence, as well as of war and of violent destruction in general.

A storm-god symbolized under the form of a bird is Zu. The underlying
stem of the word conveys the notion of strength and violence. How bulls
came to be chosen as symbols of storms is not altogether clear. Possibly
the element of "strength" formed the connecting link in the chain of the
association of ideas. In the case of birds, on the other hand, the
association is to be sought in the appearance of the clouds during a
storm moving across the heavens like a flock of birds. In the Etana
legend, a reference occurs to Zu, who, as it would appear, is unable to
escape from the control of the supreme judge Shamash.[1069] Zu is there
called the chief worker of evil--a kind of arch satan. A story has been
found which illustrates an attempt made by the bird Zu to break loose
from the control of the sun. A storm was viewed as a conflict between
the clouds and the sun, much as an eclipse symbolized a revolt in the
heavens. The myth represents the conflict as taking place between Zu and
En-lil, the Bel of Nippur. The latter holds in his possession the
tablets of fate, by means of which he enjoys supreme authority over men
and gods. Zu's jealousy is aroused, and he plans to tear these tablets
from En-lil. The tablets of fate, it will be recalled, play an important
part in the Marduk-Tiâmat episode.[1070] Kingu--the symbol of chaos,
like Tiâmat--wears them on his breast, but he is obliged to yield them
to the conqueror of Tiâmat and of her brood, who replaces 'chaos' by
'order.' This conqueror was originally Bel of Nippur, and the Zu myth in
representing En-lil as holding the tablets of fate confirms the view
above set forth,[1071] according to which the original Tiâmat tale has
been modified by the substitution of Marduk for the old Bel. But the
story, while thus admitting the legitimacy of En-lil's claim to supreme
power, is yet so constructed as to contribute to the glory of Marduk.
The attack of the Zu-bird was suggested--as the Tiâmat myth--by the
annual storms that work such havoc in Babylonia. The forces of 'chaos'
are let loose, and an attempt is made to overthrow the 'order' of the
world, symbolized by the tablets of fate which En-lil holds in his
possession. Whoever has these tablets is invincible. But En-lil is
unable to resist the attack of Zu. The tablets are taken away from him,
and it is left for Marduk to recapture them. The tablets once in
Marduk's possession, En-lil's supremacy comes to an end, and the triumph
of Marduk is complete. To substantiate this interpretation of the myth,
an analysis of the text is necessary. The beginning of the story is
unfortunately missing. It appears to have been devoted to a
glorification of the god who controls the fate of the universe. The
second column opens as follows:

    And the oracles of all the gods he determined.

From the context it is clear that Bel of Nippur is meant. Up to this
point, the myth reflects the old view according to which it was En-lil
who succeeded in overcoming Tiâmat or at any rate, in snatching the
tablets of fate from the breast of Kingu. Nippur's god lays claim to
being the one who established 'order' in the universe. His authority
could only be threatened if he were robbed of the tablets which
symbolize absolute control over the course of affairs. Zu boldly
attempts this:

  His eyes saw the mark of rulership,
  The crown of his[1072] sovereignty, the garment of his[1072] divinity.
  Zu saw the divine tablets of fate.
  He looked at the father of the gods, the god of Dur-an-ki,[1073]
  Desire for rulership seizes hold of his heart.[1074]
  'I will take the tablets of the gods
  And decree the decisions [of all the gods.]
  I will establish my throne, I will proclaim laws.
  I will give all orders to all the Igigi.'

Zu proceeds to the dwelling-place of En-lil and waits for a favorable
moment to make an attack.

  His heart was bent on the contest.
  With his gaze directed toward the entrance of the dwelling,[1075] he
    awaits for the beginning of day.
  As En-lil poured forth the brilliant waters,
  Took his seat on his throne and put on his crown,
  He[1076] snatched the tablets of fate out of his hands,
  Seized the authority--the promulgation of laws.
  Thereupon Zu flew off and hid himself in his mountain.

On seal cylinders a god is frequently pictured pouring forth streams of
water from jars placed on his shoulders. This is generally the sun-god,
but the symbol also seems to belong to other deities[1077] and is
appropriate to Bel of Nippur, who as the god of the atmosphere above the
earth, controls the upper waters. As long as these are poured out by
him, they are beneficent; but once beyond his control, the blessing of
rain is turned into the curse of a deluge and storm, flooding the fields
and sweeping away the habitations of men. This misfortune happens when
Zu robs En-lil of the tablets by means of which law and order are
established. En-lil is powerless. The bold act of Zu causes
consternation among the gods. Anu calls upon some one to pursue Zu and
capture him. The bird dwells in an inaccessible recess in the mountains,
and the gods are afraid to approach his nest. The scene that ensues
reminds us of the episode of the creation epic, where Anshar calls upon
Anu, Bel, and Ea in turn to subdue Tiâmat.

  Anu opens his mouth and speaks,
  Addressing the gods his children:
  'Who will force Zu to submit
  And thus make his name great among the inhabitants of the whole
    world?'

Ramman the storm-god _par excellence_ is first called upon by the
assembled gods:

  'Ramman the chief,' they cried, 'the son of Anu.'
  Anu communicated to him[1078] the order.[1079]
  'Go, my son Ramman, conqueror who yields to no one,
  Subdue Zu with thy weapon,[1080]
  That thy name be glorified in the assembly of the great gods.
  Thou shall be without a rival among the gods thy brothers.'

Anu furthermore promises Ramman that if he triumphs, lofty shrines will
be erected in his honor in many cities.

  'Temples will be built in thy honor,
  In all quarters of the world thy cities[1081] will be situated,
  Thy cities[1082] will reach up to Ekur.[1083]
  Show thyself strong among the gods, so that thy name be powerful.'

Ramman, however, is afraid of the contest.

  Ramman answered the speech,
  Addressing his father Anu:
  'My father, who can proceed to the inaccessible mountain?
  Who is there like Zu among the gods, thy children?'

He furthermore pleads that Zu, who has the tablets of fate in his hands,
is invincible. He has the power to decree the fates of the gods, and all
must bow to his will. At this point, unfortunately, the text becomes
defective. Anu calls upon two other gods to take up the contest with Zu.
The name of one of these is altogether lost; the second is called
Bar,[1084] and is designated as an offspring of Ishtar. Both these
deities decline, answering Anu in precisely the same manner as Ramman.
What finally happens we are left to conjecture. Harper[1085] supposes
that Shamash is finally called upon by Anu and accepts the challenge. He
bases this opinion upon the passage in the Dibbarra legend[1086] where
the serpent, appealing to Shamash, extols the sun-god's power by
declaring that even Zu could not escape the net of Shamash. There are,
however, grave objections to this view. In the first place, the passage
in question occurs in a defective part of the text, and Harper
himself[1087] is not certain of the restoration that he proposes.[1088]
Secondly, if Shamash conquers Zu, we should expect the sun-god to have
the tablets of fate in his possession. Such, however, is not the case,
and the only god besides En-lil who is represented in the religious
literature of the Babylonians as holding the tablets is Marduk.
Moreover, in a hymn to Marduk, which Harper himself quotes,[1089] the
bird Zu is referred to as among the evil forces captured by Marduk. In
view of this, there seems no reason to question that, in the present
form of the Zu myth, Marduk was introduced as the hero, precisely as, in
the present form of the Tiâmat episode, Marduk successfully carries out
a deed from which the other gods shrink in fear. The theological purport
of the myth thus becomes clear. It is to account for the fact that
Marduk holds the tablets which were originally in the hands of En-lil.
Marduk supplants the old Bel. In the Tiâmat episode his name is
substituted for that of En-lil, and the latter is represented as giving
his consent to the transfer of his name to the god of Babylon. In the Zu
myth, En-lil's claim to the supreme control of the laws and fate of the
universe is freely acknowledged, but, En-lil being unable to resist the
attack of Zu, it was left for Marduk to capture the bird and thus
acquire by his own efforts what the old Bel had lost through lack of
strength. Babylon replaces Nippur as the center of power in the
Euphrates Valley, and the god of Babylon, naturally, was imbued by his
worshippers with prerogatives that originally belonged to the rival god
of Nippur.[1090]

If this view is correct, Harper's interpretation must be abandoned. The
Zu myth does not represent, as he supposes, an attack upon Marduk as the
symbol of the early morning sun, but upon En-lil, the Bel of Nippur, as
the one who, by virtue of having the tablets of fate in his possession,
controls the laws of the universe and fixes the fate of the gods and of
mankind. The annual rain-storm passing apparently beyond the control of
the gods is viewed as a revolt against En-lil's authority. It is left
for Marduk to reëstablish order, and in return, he retains control of
the precious tablets. That the conception of Marduk as a solar deity
constitutes a factor in the myth is not, of course, to be denied,
precisely as in the Tiâmat myth, the solar character of Marduk plays an
important part. The sun triumphs over the storms. Rain and wind are
obliged at last to yield their authority to the former. But for the
theologians of Babylon, the position of Marduk as the head of the
pantheon was a much more important factor. The myth served to show how
Marduk came to supplant the rôle of the old Bel of Nippur.

Viewed in this light, the Zu myth appears in more senses than one as a
pendant to the Marduk-Tiâmat episode. Not only do both symbolize the
same natural phenomenon, but in both, Bel of Nippur was originally the
central figure of the pantheon, and in both Marduk replaces Bel. The Zu
myth is made to account in a somewhat more respectful, conciliatory
manner for the position of Marduk as the head of the pantheon. Instead
of setting aside En-lil altogether, as was done by the compilers of the
Tiâmat myth, Marduk conquers for himself the supremacy that his
followers claimed for him. The contradictions between the two myths need
not disturb us. As variant versions of a tale intended to account for
one and the same fact,--the supremacy of Marduk,--they may well have
arisen even in the same place. Such inconsistencies as the assumption,
in the Zu version of the nature myth, that En-lil is the original
establisher of order in the world, as against the Tiâmat version where
Marduk snatches the tablets of fate directly from Kingu, are inevitable
when stories that arose among the people are taken in hand by
theologians and modified and adapted to serve doctrines developed under
scholastic influences.


The Adapa Legend.

The myths and legends that we have so far considered--including the
creation and Gilgamesh epics--will have illustrated two important
points: firstly, the manner in which historical occurrences were clothed
in mythical form and interwoven with purely legendary tales, and,
secondly, the way in which nature myths were treated to teach certain
doctrines. The story of Gilgamesh is an illustration of the hopelessness
of a mortal's attempt to secure the kind of immortal life which is the
prerogative of the gods. Popular tales, illustrative of the climatic
conditions of Babylonia, serve as a means of unfolding a doctrine of
evolution and of impressing upon the people a theological system of
beliefs regarding the relationship of the gods to one another. A
collection of war-songs is given a semi-mythical form, and the original
purport of the collection is modified to serve as a talisman against
misfortunes. In the case of these legends it is necessary and, as we
have seen, also possible to distinguish between their original and
present form and to separate the story, as in the case of the Gilgamesh
epic, into its component parts.

The legend that we are about to consider proves that this process of the
adaptation of popular myths begins at a very early period. The text was
found on the cuneiform tablets discovered at El-Amarna in Egypt.[1091]
Since the El-Amarna tablets date from the fifteenth century B.C., we
have a proof of the compilation of the legend in question at this date.
The legend is again suggested by the storms which visited Babylonia, but
instead of a pure nature-myth, we have a tale which concerns the
relationship between the gods and mankind. In its present form, it is an
object lesson dealing with the same problem that we came across in the
Gilgamesh epic and that we will meet again in another form,--the problem
of immortality.

The beginning of the story, as in the case of the Zu myth, is missing,
but we are in a position to restore at least the general context. A
fisherman, Adapa, is engaged in plying his trade when a storm arises.
Adapa is designated as the son of Ea. The place where he is fishing is
spoken of as 'the sea.' The Persian Gulf is meant, and this body of
water (as the beginning of the great Okeanos) being sacred to Ea,[1092]
the description of Adapa as the son of Ea is a way of conveying the idea
that, like Parnapishtim, he stands under the protection of Ea. The
story, like most legends, assumes a period of close intercourse between
gods and men, a time when the relationship involved in being 'a son of a
god' had a literal force which was lost to a more advanced generation.
Adapa, accordingly, is portrayed as fishing for the 'house of his lord,'
_i.e._, for Ea. When the storm breaks loose the fisherman, though a
mortal, subdues the fierce element. The storm comes from the south, the
direction from which the most destructive winds came to Babylonia. The
south wind is pictured, as in the Zu myth, under the form of a bird. The
wind sweeps Adapa into the waters, but, since this element is controlled
by Adapa's father,--the god Ea,--Adapa succeeds in mastering the south
wind, and, as we learn from the course of the narrative, in breaking the
wings of the storm-bird. When the tablet becomes intelligible we find
Adapa engaged in this contest with the south wind.[1093]

    The south wind blew and drove him[1094] under the water. Into
    the dwelling-place[1095] [of the fish] it engulfs him. 'O south
    wind, thou hast overwhelmed me with thy cruelty (?). Thy wings I
    will break.'

Adapa's threat is carried out.

    Even as he spoke the wings of the south wind were broken. For
    seven days the south wind did not blow across the land.

Seven is to be interpreted as a round number, as in the Deluge story,
and indicates a rather long, though indefinite, period. Anu, the god of
heaven, is astonished at this long-continued disappearance of the south
wind, and asks a messenger of his, who is called the god Ilabrat, for
the cause. Anu inquires:

    "Why has the south wind not blown for seven days across the
    land?" His messenger Ilabrat answered him: "My lord! Adapa, the
    son of Ea, has broken the wings of the south wind."

Of this god Ilabrat nothing is known. The interpretation of his name is
doubtful.[1096] He probably is one of the numerous local gods who was
absorbed by some more powerful one and who thus came to have a position
of inferior rank in the pantheon.

Anu, upon hearing the news, is enraged, and cries for 'help' against an
interference in his domain. He denounces Adapa in solemn assembly, and
demands his presence of Ea, in whose domain Adapa has taken refuge. The
text at this point is defective, but one can gather that Ea, who
constitutes himself Adapa's protector, warns the latter, as he warned
Parnapishtim. He advises him to present himself at the throne of Anu for
trial, and to secure the intervention of two gods, Tammuz and Gishzida,
who are stationed at the gate of heaven, Anu's dwelling-place. To
accomplish this, Adapa is to clothe himself in garments of mourning, and
when the doorkeepers ask him the reason for his mourning, he is to
answer:

    ... Two gods have disappeared from our earth, therefore do I
    appear thus.

And when he is asked:

    "Who are the two gods who have disappeared from the earth?"

    Tammuz and Gishzida will look at one another; they will sigh and
    speak a favorable word before Anu, and the glorious countenance
    of Anu they will show thee.

Tammuz and Gishzida will know that they are meant. The mourning of Adapa
will be regarded as a sign of reverence for the two gods, whose sympathy
and good-will will thus be secured.

The introduction of Tammuz and Gishzida introduces a widely spread
nature-myth into the story. Gishzida is identical with Nin-gishzida, a
solar deity whom we came across in the old Babylonian pantheon.[1097]
Tammuz similarly is a solar deity. Both represent local solar cults. At
a later period, Nin-gishzida is entirely absorbed by Ninib, but the
Adapa legend affords us a glimpse of the god still occupying an
independent, though already inferior, position. The Babylonian
calendar[1098] designates the fifth month as sacred to Gishzida, while
the fourth month is named for Tammuz. The two deities, therefore, take
their place in the systematized pantheon as symbolical of the phases of
the sun peculiar to its approach to the summer solstice. The
disappearance of the two gods signifies the decline of the year after
the summer solstice. Of Tammuz, the popular myth related that it was
Ishtar,[1099] represented as his consort, who carried him off. Since the
disappearance of Gishzida embodies precisely the same idea as that of
Tammuz, it was natural that the story should in time have been told only
of the one. The annual mourning for Tammuz was maintained in Babylonia
to a very late period. The Adapa legend shows us that at one time the
festival was celebrated in honor of the two related deities. The Tammuz
festival was celebrated just before the summer solstice set in, so that
the mourning was followed immediately by rejoicing at the reappearance
of the god whose coming heralded the culmination of vegetation.

The destructive storms take place during the winter, when Tammuz and
Gishzida have disappeared. Adapa's mourning is thus an indication of the
season of the year when his encounter with the south wind took place.
Since Adapa succeeds in overcoming the destructive wind, the wintry
season has passed by. Summer is approaching. The time for celebrating
both the fast and the festival of the two solar deities has arrived.
Tammuz and Gishzida, the gods of spring, accordingly stand at Adapa's
side, ready to plead his cause before Anu. So much being clear, we may
advance a step further in the interpretation of the legend. By the side
of Tammuz and Gishzida, there is still a third solar deity who belongs
to the spring of the year,--Marduk, who, by virtue of his later position
as the head of the pantheon, sets aside his two fellows and becomes the
solar god of spring _par excellence_. Marduk, it will be recalled, is
commonly designated as the son of Ea,[1100] and we have seen that, apart
from political considerations, the sun rising out of the ocean--the
domain of Ea--was a factor in this association. Adapa dwells at the sea,
and is forced into the ocean by the south wind, in the same way that the
sun dips into the great 'Okeanos' every evening. The identification of
Adapa with Marduk[1101] thus becomes apparent, and as a matter of fact
the Babylonian scribes of later times[1102] accepted this
identification.

The basis of the Adapa legend is, therefore, the nature-myth of the
annual fight of the sun with the violent elements of nature. At the same
time, other ideas have been introduced into it, and Adapa himself, while
playing the rôle of Marduk, is yet not entirely confounded with this
god. His name is never written with the determinative for deity.
Moreover, the nature-myth is soon lost sight of, in order to make room
for an entirely different order of ideas. The real purport of the legend
in its present form is foreshadowed by the further advice that Ea offers
to Adapa:

    When thou comest before Anu they will offer thee food of death.
    Do not eat. They will offer thee waters of death. Do not drink.
    They will offer thee a garment. Put it on. They will offer thee
    oil. Anoint thyself. The order that I give thee do not neglect.
    The word that I speak to thee take to heart. The messenger of
    Anu approached.[1103] 'Adapa has broken the wings of the south
    wind. Deliver him into my hands....'

Ea obeys the order, delivers up Adapa, and everything happens as was
foretold.

    Upon mounting to heaven and on his approach to the gate of Anu,
    Tammuz and Gishzida were stationed at the gate of Anu. They saw
    Adapa and cried 'Help,[1104] Lord! Why art thou thus attired?
    For whom hast thou put on mourning?'[1105]

Adapa replies:

    'Two gods have disappeared from the earth, therefore do I wear a
    mourning garment.'

    'Who are the two gods who have disappeared from the earth?'

    Tammuz and Gishzida looked at one another, broke out in lament.
    'O Adapa! Step before King Anu.' As he approached, Anu saw him
    and cried out to him:

    'Come, Adapa, why hast thou broken the wings of the south wind?'

    Adapa answered Anu: 'My lord! For the house of my lord[1106] I
    was fishing in the midst of the sea. The waters lay still around
    me, when the south wind began to blow and forced me underneath.
    Into the dwelling of the fish it drove me. In the anger of my
    heart [I broke the wings of the south wind].'

Tammuz and Gishzida thereupon intercede with Anu on behalf of Adapa, and
succeed in appeasing the god's wrath. If the story ended here, we would
have a pure nature-myth--the same myth in a different form that we
encountered in the Creation epic, in the Deluge story, and in the Zu
legend. Adapa would be merely a designation of Marduk and nothing more.
The sun triumphs over the storms, and the only objectionable feature in
the tale--to a Babylonian--would be the degradation involved in obliging
Marduk to secure the intercession of other gods. But this feature of
itself suggests that the nature-myth has been embodied in the legend,
but does not constitute the whole of it. A second element and one
entirely independent in its character has been added to the myth.

Anu is appeased, but he is astonished at Ea's patronage of Adapa, as a
result of which a mortal has actually appeared in a place set aside for
the gods.

    Why did Ea permit an impure mortal to see the interior of heaven
    and earth? He made him great and gave him fame.[1107]

The privilege accorded to Adapa appears to alarm the gods. As among the
Greeks and other nations, so also the Babylonian deities were not free
from jealousy at the power and achievements of humanity. Adapa, having
viewed the secrets of heaven and earth, there was nothing left for the
gods but to admit him into their circle. The narrative accordingly
continues:

    'Now what shall we grant him? Offer him food of life, that he
    may eat of it.' They brought it to him, but he did not eat.
    Waters of life they brought him, but he did not drink. A garment
    they brought him. He put it on. Oil they brought him. He
    anointed himself.

Adapa follows the instructions of Ea, but the latter, it will be
recalled, tells Adapa that food and water of _death_ will be offered
him. It is Ea, therefore, who, although the god of humanity, and who,
moreover, according to the tradition involved in the Adapa legend, is
the creator of mankind, who prevents his creatures from gaining
immortality. The situation is very much the same that we find in the
third chapter of Genesis, when God, who creates man, takes precautions
lest mortals eat of the tree of life and 'live forever.' The problem
presented by the Hebrew and Babylonian stories is the same: why should
not man, who is descended from the gods, who is created in the likeness
of a god, who by virtue of his intellect can peer into the secrets of
heaven and earth, who stands superior to the rest of creation, who, to
use the psalmist's figure, is only 'a scale lower than god,' why should
he not be like the gods and live forever? The Hebrew legend solves the
problem in a franker way than does the Babylonian. God, while as anxious
as Ea to keep man from eating of the tree of life, cautions Adam against
the act, whereas Ea practises a deception in order to prevent man from
eating. That in both tales eternal life is contained in food points
again (as we have found to be the case with the Biblical narratives of
Creation and of the Deluge) to a common source for the two traditions.
Similarly the phrase 'waters of life' is a figure of speech of frequent
occurrence in Biblical literature in both the Old and the New
Testaments. It is no argument against a common source for the Hebrew and
Babylonian stories explaining how man came to forego immortality, that
the waters of life should be found in the one and not in the other. If
we assume with Gunkel[1108] that the stories embodied in the first
chapters of Genesis were long current among the Hebrews before they were
given a permanent form, the adaptation of old traditions to an entirely
new order of beliefs involves a casting aside of features that could not
be used and a discarding of such as seemed superfluous. The striking
departures in the case of the Hebrew legends from their Babylonian
counterparts are as full of significance as the striking agreements
between the two. The departures and agreements must both be accounted
for. For both there are reasons. So, to emphasize only one point, in a
monotheistic solution of the problem under consideration, there was no
place for any conflict among the gods. In Genesis God simply wills that
man should not eat of the tree of life. In the Adapa legend the gods,
including Anu, are willing to grant a mortal the food and water of life,
simply because they believe that Ea, the creator of man, wishes him to
have it. Accordingly, Anu and his associates are represented at the
close of the legend as being grieved that Adapa should have foregone the
privilege.

    Anu looked at him[1109] and lamented over him. 'Come, Adapa, why
    didst thou not eat and not drink? Now thou canst not live.'

Adapa replies, unconscious of the deception practised on him:

    'Ea, my lord, commanded me not to eat and not to drink.'

Adapa returns to the earth. What his subsequent fate is we do not know,
for the tablet here comes to an end. It is possible that he learns what
Ea has done, and that the god gives him the reason for the deception
practised. A scene of this kind could not find a place in the Hebrew
version that emphasizes the supreme authority of a power besides whom
none other was recognized. God acts alone.

Adam, it will be recalled, after eating of the fruit of the tree of
knowledge, makes a garment for himself. There can be no doubt that there
is a close connection between this tradition and the feature in the
Adapa legend, where Adapa, who has been shown the 'secrets of heaven and
earth,'--that is, has acquired knowledge,--is commanded by Ea to put on
the garment that is offered him. The anointing oneself with oil, though
an essential part of the toilet in the ancient and modern Orient, was
discarded in the Hebrew tale as a superfluous feature. The idea conveyed
by the use of oil was the same as the one indicated in clothing one's
nakedness. Both are symbols of civilization which man is permitted to
attain, but his development stops there. He cannot secure eternal life.

On the other hand, in comparing the Hebrew and Babylonian versions of
the problem of knowledge and immortality, one cannot help being struck
by the pessimistic tone of the former as against the more consolatory
spirit of the latter. God does not want man to attain even
knowledge.[1110] He secures it in disobedience to the divine will,
whereas Ea willingly grants him the knowledge of all there is in heaven
and earth. In this way the Hebrew and Babylonian mind, each developed
the common tradition in its own way.

Leaving the comparison aside and coming back for a moment to the Adapa
story, it is interesting to observe that as we have two tales, both
intended to explain the position of Marduk at the head of the pantheon,
the one by making him the conqueror of Tiâmat and forcing from Kingu the
tablets of fate, the other by representing him as recovering from Zu the
tablets which En-lil, who originally held them, could not protect
against the storm-bird, so we have two solutions offered for the problem
of immortality. The one in the Gilgamesh epic, where the hero is told of
the plant of life, succeeds in finding it, but as he is about to eat the
'food' loses his grasp upon it. The exertions of man are in vain. True,
there is Parnapishtim, a mortal who with his wife has obtained immortal
life. He is the exception that proves the rule. Moreover, it is Bel, and
not Ea, who places Parnapishtim 'at the confluence of streams,' there to
live forever, and Bel does this as a proof of his pacification, a kind
of indemnity offered to Ea for having destroyed the offspring of the god
of humanity. The Adapa legend attacks the problem more seriously. Ea,
the same god who has created man, endowed him with wisdom, bestowed all
manner of benefits upon him, Ea, who protects humanity against Anu,
against Bel, and other gods, Ea himself deceives man. Evidently the
lesson that the Babylonian theologians intended to teach through the
Adapa legend was, that it was not good for man to 'live forever.' Ea
himself prevents it. That is the point of the story. Anu and the other
gods are satisfied, but Ea does not desire it, and Ea's decision cannot
be to the disadvantage of mankind, so dearly beloved by him. With this
conclusion humanity must be content--and be resigned to the inevitable.

Of the various legends that we have been considering, the story of Adapa
is perhaps the most significant, and none the less so for the manner in
which a philosophical problem has been grafted on to a nature-myth.
Adapa is made to play the rôle of Marduk, and it is nothing short of
remarkable that at so early a period as the one to which the existence
of the story can be traced back, a nature-myth should have been diverted
from its original purpose and adapted to the end that the Adapa story
serves in its present form. The process involved in this adaptation is a
complicated one. The story serves as an evidence of the intellectual
activity displayed in the schools of theological thought that must have
flourished for many centuries before a story like that of Adapa could
have been produced out of a nature-myth. Hardly less remarkable is it
that the theologians and scribes of later times no longer understood the
story, for otherwise they would not have identified Adapa with Marduk
through the superficial circumstance that he is introduced into the
story instead of Marduk, or some other solar deity allied to Marduk.

The Adapa legend takes us back to the beginning of man's career--to the
time when, as in the early chapters of Genesis, man stood closer to the
gods than at a later time, the time when there was a constant
intercourse between man and the gods, and more especially between man
and his protector, Ea. The story forms part of a stock of traditions of
which we have another specimen in the Eabani-Ukhat episode, incorporated
in the Gilgamesh epic.[1111] No doubt when the treasures still existing
in the British Museum shall have been thoroughly examined and as
additional remains of the religious literature of the Babylonians will
be brought to light, we will find further traces of these early
traditions as well as of other myths. Those that we have discussed in
this and in the preceding chapters illustrate the system adopted by the
priests in elaborating these traditions and myths and in adapting them
to serve as illustrations of certain doctrines and beliefs. We may also
feel tolerably confident that the religious ideas conveyed through these
various epics and legends and myths fairly represent both the popular
and the advanced thought, as it unfolded itself in the course of time.
By the aid of these specimens of the religious literature, we have been
enabled to analyze the views of the Babylonians regarding the creation
of the world, its structure, and government. We have obtained an insight
into the problems of life and death which engaged the Babylonian
thinkers, and we have noted some of the solutions offered for these
problems. In a consideration of the views held by the Babylonians and
Assyrians of the life after death, to which we now turn, it will again
be a specimen of the religious literature that will serve as our main
guide.

FOOTNOTES:

[1011] Some of these were already indicated (but only indicated) by
George Smith in his _Chaldaeische Genesis_ (German translation), pp.
136-142. It is the merit of Dr. E. J. Harper to have prepared an
excellent publication of the material contained in Smith's work, pp.
103-120, under the title "Die Babylonischen Legenden von Etana, Zu,
Adapa und Dibbarra" (Delitzsch and Haupt's _Beiträge zur Assyriologie_,
ii. 390-521). Additional material is furnished by two publications of
mine: (_a_) a monograph, "A Fragment of the Dibbarra Epic" (Boston,
1891), and (_b_) "A New Fragment of the Babylonian Etana Legend"
(Delitzsch and Haupt's _Beiträge zur Assyriologie_, iii. 363-381). See
also Friedrich Jeremias in Chantepie de la Saussaye's _Lehrbuch der
Religionsgeschichte_ (2nd edition), i. 218-221.

[1012] See above, p. 511.

[1013] See my remarks in Delitzsch and Haupt's _Beiträge zur
Assyriologie_, iii. 376.

[1014] I Kings, v. 11.

[1015] Harper in Delitzsch and Haupt's _Beiträge zur Assyriologie_, ii.
391-408.

[1016] _Ib._ pp. 405 _seq._

[1017] Lit., 'the Inquirers,' a designation of the priests in their
capacity of oracle-seekers.

[1018] The matter is not certain because of the sad condition of the
fragments.

[1019] K. 2606, Harper, _ib._ pp. 399, 400.

[1020] Only a part of the name, _I-si_, is preserved.

[1021] See pp. 108, 163.

[1022] _I.e._, an army's march of two hours.

[1023] The dwelling of Ea. See Meissner, _Alexander and Gilgamos_, p.
17.

[1024] _I.e._, still smaller.

[1025] See above, p. 458.

[1026] See p. 460.

[1027] See p. 511.

[1028] Harper, _ib._. p. 404, note.

[1029] See Harper, _ib._. pp. 406, 407.

[1030] See above, p. 469.

[1031] Harper, pp. 392-394.

[1032] _I.e._, one cannot escape from Shamash, since he traverses all
space.

[1033] A personification of the storm. See below, pp. 537 _seq._ The
line is very obscure owing to the break in the tablet.

[1034] So Harper, but see pp. 541, 542.

[1035] _I.e._, he will dig his beak into the juicy part of the meat.

[1036] Of the carcass.

[1037] As shown by the colophon of K. 2606, and also by the fact that K.
1547, which contains on the obverse the tale, contains on the reverse
Etana's prayer to Shamash.

[1038] De la Saussaye's _Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte_ (2nd
edition), i. 218.

[1039] See above, p. 195.

[1040] Perrot and Chiplez, _History of Art in Sardinia, Phoenicia,
Judea, Syria, and Asia Minor_, ii. 176.

[1041] Pinches, _Babylonian and Assyrian Cylinders, etc., of Sir Henry
Peak_, no. 18. _Cf._ Harper, _ib._ p. 408.

[1042] A lexicographical tablet, IIR. 56, col. iii. 22-35, mentions four
dogs of Marduk.

[1043] See p. 232.

[1044] See Harper, _ib._ p. 426.

[1045] The _ra_ is either a phonetic complement to the ideograph or is
perhaps added to suggest to the reader the identification with Gir-ra.

[1046] Namely, the connection with Hebrew _deber_, 'pestilence.' _Cf._
Harper, _ib._ p. 426.

[1047] Babylon.

[1048] Text obscure. "Sharpen badly" seems to be the idiomatic phrase
used.

[1049] See above, p. 154.

[1050] See p. 475.

[1051] A solar deity. See p. 99.

[1052] Ishum.

[1053] See above, p. 501.

[1054] _I.e._, seven. A collective personification of the seven evil
spirits.

[1055] Ishum.

[1056] IIR. 51, 19c and 4a. Khashur is also used as a name for the
cedar. See Delitzsch, _Assyr. Handwörterbuch_, p. 295a.

[1057] The one published by the writer.

[1058] Hammurabi is the conqueror of Palestine mentioned in Gen. xlv.
under the name Amraphel. See, _e.g._, Hommel, _Altisraelitische
Ueberlieferung_, p. 106.

[1059] Num. xxi. 14. The 'song of Deborah' (Judges, v.) belongs to this
collection. For further specimens of Babylonian war-songs, see Hommel,
_ib._ pp. 180-190,--all dealing with the memorable Hammurabi period.

[1060] K. 1282, Harper, _ib._, pp. 432 _seq._, and King's fragment,
_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xl. 60, 61.

[1061] The gods of vegetation are mentioned.

[1062] _I.e._, give wisdom to the one who honors me.

[1063] Text 'Dibbarra.'

[1064] See above, p. 114.

[1065] As Mr. King has shown (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xi. 53).
See above, p. 269.

[1066] Deut. vi. 9.

[1067] See p. 483.

[1068] See p. 263.

[1069] See p. 525.

[1070] See p. 420, 428.

[1071] See pp. 439 _seq._

[1072] _I.e._, En-lil's.

[1073] _I.e._, 'the bond of heaven and earth,' the name probably of a
temple-tower in Nippur, sacred to En-lil.

[1074] Zu's heart. These two lines are repeated.

[1075] The word _Kissu_ applies more especially to the dwelling places
of the gods. Delitzsch, _Assyr. Handwörterbuch_, p. 349b.

[1076] Zu.

[1077] See _e.g._, Ward, _Seal Cylinders of the Metropolitan Museum of
Art_, p. 12.

[1078] Ramman.

[1079] These two lines are repeated.

[1080] The thunderbolt.

[1081] Cities sacred to thee.

[1082] _I.e._, the sacred edifices in these cities.

[1083] The lofty dwelling of the gods is here meant. See chapter xxvii.

[1084] Ideographic reading--the ideograph signifies 'shrine.' The verbal
stem _barâru_ means 'to shine.'

[1085] See p. 414.

[1086] See p. 525.

[1087] See p. 400.

[1088] It is quite possible that the line in question declares that Zu
is in collusion with the eagle, against whom the serpent seeks the
assistance of Shamash.

[1089] See p. 417.

[1090] It is hardly possible that the illustration on seal cylinders
mentioned by Ward, _ib._ pp. 13, 14, represents the Zu bird brought
before a deity for punishment; and certainly not before Shamash, who
only enters into the story in so far as Marduk is a solar deity.

[1091] Published by Winckler and Abel, _Der Thontafelfund von
El-Amarna_, iii. 166a, b; translated also by Harper, _ib._ pp. 420, 421.

[1092] See above, p. 63.

[1093] My rendering is given in continuous lines. The legend is in
narrative, not in poetic form.

[1094] Adapa.

[1095] Lit., 'house.'

[1096] Neither Delitzsch's suggestion 'god of dwellings' nor Harper's
'god thou art strong' is acceptable.

[1097] See p. 99.

[1098] See p. 462.

[1099] See the following chapter.

[1100] See pp. 139 _seq._

[1101] First suggested by Zimmern.

[1102] Of the eighth century. See Harper, _ib._ p. 424.

[1103] To Ea.

[1104] Anu, it will be recalled, utters the same cry. See p. 546.

[1105] Referring to his garments of mourning.

[1106] _I.e._, Ea.

[1107] I follow Zimmern's rendition of the line.

[1108] _Schöpfung und Chaos_, pp. 168 _seq._

[1109] Adapa.

[1110] The phrase 'knowledge of good and evil' (Gen. ii. 17) is simply
an expression equivalent to our 'everything,' or to the Babylonian
'secrets of heaven and earth.'

[1111] See pp. 476 _seq._ Sayce has even gone so far as to suggest an
identification of Adapa (by reading Adawa) with the Biblical Adam, but
this conjecture is untenable.




CHAPTER XXV.

THE VIEWS OF LIFE AFTER DEATH.


The problem of immortality, we have seen, engaged the serious attention
of the Babylonian theologians. While the solutions they had to offer
could hardly have been satisfactory either to themselves or to the
masses, it must not be supposed that the denial of immortality to man
involved the total extinction of conscious vitality. Neither the people
nor the leaders of religious thought ever faced the possibility of the
total annihilation of what once was called into existence. Death was a
passage to another kind of life, and the denial of immortality merely
emphasized the impossibility of escaping the change in existence brought
about by death. The gods alone do not pass from one phase of existence
to the other. Death was mysterious, but not more mysterious than life.
The Babylonian religion does not transcend the stage of belief,
characteristic of primitive culture everywhere, which cannot conceive of
the possibility of life coming to an absolute end. Life of some kind and
in some form was always presupposed. So far as man was concerned,
created by some god,--Bel, Ea, Aruru, or Ishtar, according to the
various traditions that were current,[1112]--no divine fiat could wipe
out what was endowed with life and the power of reproduction.

No doubt, the impossibility for the individual to conceive of himself as
forever deprived of consciousness, was at the bottom of the primitive
theory of the perpetuity of existence in some form. Among ancient
religions, Buddhism alone frees itself from this theory and unfolds a
bold doctrine of the possibility of a complete annihilation. The
question, however, whether the continuity of existence was a blessing or
a curse was raised by many ancient nations. The Babylonians are among
these who are inclined to take a gloomy view of the passage from this
world to the existence in store for humanity after death, and the
religious leaders were either powerless or disinclined to controvert
this view.


Location and Names of the Gathering Place of the Dead.

We have already had occasion[1113] to refer to the great cave underneath
the earth in which the dead were supposed to dwell, and since the earth
itself was regarded as a mountain, the cave is pictured as a hollow
within, or rather underneath, a mountain. A conception of this kind must
have arisen among a people that was once familiar with a mountainous
district. The settlers of the Euphrates Valley brought the belief with
them from an earlier mountain home. The cave, moreover, points to
cave-dwelling and to cave-burial as conditions that prevailed at one
time among the populace, precisely as the imitation of the mountain with
its caves in the case of the Egyptian pyramids, is due to similar
influences. To this cave various names are assigned in the literature of
the Babylonians,--some of popular origin, others reflecting scholastic
views. The most common name is Aralû.[1114] We also find the term 'house
of Aralû.'[1115] The etymology of the term is obscure. Aralû was
pictured as a vast place, dark and gloomy. It is sometimes called a
land, sometimes a great house. The approach to it was difficult. It lay
in the lowest part of the mountain that represented the earth, not far
from the hollow underneath the mountain into which the 'Apsu' flowed.
Surrounded by seven walls and strongly guarded, it was a place to which
no living person could go and from which no mortal could ever depart
after once entering it. To Aralû all went whose existence in this world
had come to an end. Another name which specifies the relationship of
Aralû to the world is Ekur or 'mountain house' of the dead. Ekur is one
of the names for the earth,[1116] but is applied more particularly to
that part of the mountain, also known as Kharsag[1117]-kurkura, _i.e._,
'the mountain of all lands' where the gods were born. Before the later
speculative view was developed, according to which the gods, or most of
them, have their seats in heaven,[1118] it was on this mountain also
that the gods were supposed to dwell. Hence Ekur became also one of the
names for temple,[1119] as the seat of a god. The dwelling of the dead
was regarded as a part of the 'great mountain.' It belonged to Ekur, and
the fact that it was designated simply as Ekur,[1120] is a valuable
indication that the dead were brought into close association with the
gods. This association is also indicated by the later use of Aralû as
the designation of the mountain within which the district of the dead,
Aralû proper, lay[1121]--synonymous, therefore, with Ekur. We shall see
in the course of this chapter that the dead are placed even more than
the living under the direct supervision of the gods.

A third name for the nether world which conveys an important addition to
the views held regarding the dead, was Shuâlu. Jensen, it is true,
following Bertin, questions the existence of this term in
Babylonian,[1122] but one does not see how the evidence of the passages
in the lexicographical tablets can be set aside in the way that he
proposes. Zimmern[1123] does not appear to be convinced by Jensen's
arguments and regards the question as an open one. Jensen's method of
disposing of Shuâlu, besides being open to serious objections, fails to
account for the fact that Shuâlu is brought into association with
various Babylonian terms and ideographs for the grave.[1124] This cannot
be accidental. That the term has hitherto been found only in
lexicographical tablets need not surprise us. Aralû, too, is of rare
occurrence in the religious texts. The priests appear to avoid the names
for the nether world, which were of ill omen, and preferred to describe
the place by some epithet, as 'land without return,' or 'dark dwelling,'
or 'great city,' and the like. Of such descriptive terms we have a large
number.[1125] The stem underlying Shuâlu signifies 'to ask.' Shuâlu is a
place of inquiry,[1126] and the inquiry meant is of the nature of a
religious oracle. The name, accordingly, is an indication of the power
accorded to the dead, to aid the living by furnishing them with answers
to questions, just as the gods furnish oracles through the mediation of
the priests.[1127] The Old Testament supplies us with an admirable
illustration of the method of obtaining oracles through the dead. Saul,
when he desires to know what the outcome of a battle is to be, seeks out
a sorceress, and through her calls up the dead Samuel[1128] and puts the
question to him. Similarly, in the Gilgamesh epic, the hero, with the
aid of Nergal, obtains a sight of Eabani[1129] and plies him with
questions. The belief, therefore, in this power of the dead was common
to Babylonians and Hebrews, and, no doubt, was shared by other branches
of the Semites. It is natural, therefore, to find the Babylonian term
Shuâlu paralleled by the Hebrew Sheôl, which is the common designation
in the Old Testament for the dwelling-place of the dead.[1130] How
widespread the custom was among Babylonians of inquiring 'through the
living of the dead'[1131] it is difficult, in default of satisfactory
evidence, to say. The growing power of the priests as mediators between
men and gods must have acted as a check to such practices. The priests,
as the inquirers,[1132] naturally proceeded direct to the particular god
whose representative they claimed to be, and the development of an
elaborate ceremonial in the temples in connection with the oracles[1133]
was a further factor that must have influenced the gradual abandonment
of the custom, at least as an element of the _official_ cult. Moreover,
the belief itself belongs in the domain of ancestor worship, and in
historical times we find but little trace of such worship among the
Babylonians. We may, therefore, associate the custom with the earliest
period of the Babylonian religion. This view carries with it the
antiquity of the term Shuâlu. Like Aralû and the designation Ekur, it
embodies the close association of the dead with the gods. The dead not
only dwell near the gods, but, like the gods, they can direct the
affairs of mankind. Their answers to questions put to them have divine
justification. From this view of the dead to the deification of the
latter is but a short step. It does not, of course, follow, from the
fact that Shuâlu or Sheôl is the place of 'oracles,' that all the dead
have the power to furnish oracles or can be invoked for this purpose.
Correspondingly, if we find that the Babylonians did deify their dead,
it does not mean that at one time all the dead were regarded as gods.
Popular legends are concerned only with the heroes, with the popular
favorites--not with the great masses. Eabani, who appears to Gilgamesh,
is a hero, and so is Samuel. As a matter of fact, we have so far only
found evidence that the ancient rulers whose memory lingered in the
minds of the people were regarded by later generations as gods. So the
names of Dungi and Gudea[1134] are written on tablets that belong to the
centuries immediately following their reign, with the determinative that
is placed before the names of gods. Festivals were celebrated in honor
of these kings, sacrifices were offered to them, and their images were
placed in temples.[1135] Again, Gimil-Sin (c. 2500 B.C.), of the second
dynasty of Ur, appears to have been deified during his lifetime, and
there was a temple in Lagash which was named after him.[1136] No doubt
other kings will be found who were similarly honored. We may expect to
come across a god Hammurabi some day. Gilgamesh is, as we have seen, a
historical personage whose career has been so thoroughly amalgamated
with nature-myths that he ends by becoming a solar deity who is invoked
in incantations.

The tendency to connect legendary and mythical incidents with ancient
rulers is part and parcel of this process of deification. Of an ancient
king, Sargon,[1137] a story was related how he was exposed in a boat,
and, 'knowing neither father nor mother,' was found by a ferryman. The
exploits of this king and of his successor, Naram-Sin, were incorporated
in an omen text[1138]--a circumstance that again illustrates how the
popular fancy connected the heroes of the past with its religious
interests. Still, there is no more reason to question the historical
reality of Sargon[1139] than to question the existence of Moses, because
a story of his early youth is narrated in Exodus[1140] which forms a
curious parallel to the Sargon legend, or to question the existence of a
personage by the name of Abraham, because an Abrahamitic cult arose that
continues to the present day.[1141]

This close association of the dead with the gods, upon which the
deification of the dead rests, may be regarded as a legacy of the
earliest period of the Babylonian religion, of the time when the
intercourse between the gods and the living was also direct. The belief
and rites connected with the dead constitute the most conservative
elements in the religion of a people. The organized cult affects the
living chiefly. So far as the latter are concerned, the rise of a
priesthood to whom the religious needs of the people are entrusted,
removes the living from that immediate contact with the gods which we
note in the traditions of every people regarding the beginnings of
mankind. The priests have no power over the dead. The dead require no
'mediator.' Hence, those who dwell in Aralû return to the early state of
mankind when gods and mankind 'walked together.'

Another name that is of frequent occurrence in religious texts is
Kigallu, which describes the nether world as a district of great extent,
situated within the earth.[1142] The chief goddess of the nether world
is commonly known as the 'queen of Kigallu.' Furthermore, Irkalla, which
was interpreted by the Babylonian theologians as 'great city' (or
'district'), is used both as a designation for the dwelling-place of the
dead and for the consort of the queen of Aralû.[1143]

Beside the names for the nether world above discussed, a large number of
epithets and metaphors are found in the religious texts. The place to
which the dead go is called the 'dark dwelling,' 'the land from which
there is no return,' 'house of death,' 'the great city,' 'the deep
land,' and, since Nergal, the ruler of the lower world, was the patron
of the city Cuthah[1144] (or Kutu), the name Cuthah was also used as a
designation for Aralû. Lastly, it is interesting to note that in
poetical usage the words for 'grave'[1145] were also employed to
describe the nether world. The question raised by this metaphor as to
the relationship between the grave and the lower world can best be
discussed when we come to consider the funeral rites.[1146]


The Condition of the Dead and the Impossibility of an Escape from Aralû.

Among the remains of Babylonian literature there is a remarkable
production, which furnishes us with an admirable view of the fate in
store for those who have left this world.[1147] The composition is based
upon a nature-myth, symbolizing the change of seasons. Ishtar, the great
mother goddess, the goddess of fertility who produces vegetation, is, as
we saw in the Gilgamesh epic,[1148] also the one who brings about the
decline of vegetation. The change in nature that takes place after the
summer solstice is passed and the crops have ripened was variously
interpreted. According to one, and, as it would seem, the favorite,
tradition, the goddess is represented as herself destroying the solar
deity, Tammuz, whom she had chosen as a consort. Repentant and weeping,
Ishtar passes to the lower world in search of her youthful husband,--the
symbol of the sun on its approach to the summer solstice. While Ishtar
is in the lower world, all fertility ceases, in the fields, as well as
in the animal kingdom. At last Ishtar reappears, and nature is joyous
once more. In the Semitic Orient there are only two seasons:[1149]
winter, or the rainy season, and summer, or the dry season. The myth
was, therefore, a symbol of the great contrast that the two seasons
presented to one another. Under various forms and numerous disguises, we
find the myth among several branches of the Semites, as well as in Egypt
and among Aryans who came into contact with Semitic ideas.[1150] A
festival celebrated in honor of Tammuz by the Babylonians is one
expression of many that the myth received. The designation of the sixth
month as "the mission of Ishtar"[1151] is another. This myth was adapted
by the theologians to illustrate the doctrines that were developed
regarding the kind of existence led by the dead. The literary method
adopted is the same that characterizes the elaboration of the Adapa myth
and of the myths incorporated into the Gilgamesh epic. The story forms
the point of departure, but its original purport is set aside to a
greater or less degree, necessary modifications are introduced, and the
moral or lesson is distinctly indicated. In the case of the production
that we are about to consider, the story of Ishtar's visit to the nether
world is told--perhaps by a priest--to a person who seeks consolation. A
dear relative has departed this life, and a survivor,--a brother,
apparently,--is anxious to know whether the dead will ever come back
again. The situation reminds one of Gilgamesh seeking out Eabani,[1152]
with this difference: that, whereas Gilgamesh, aided by Nergal, is
accorded a sight of his friend, the ordinary mourner must content
himself with the answer given to him. But what Gilgamesh is not
permitted to hear,[1153] the mourner is told. A description is given him
of how the dead fare in Aralû.

The problem, however, is somewhat different in the story of the descent
of Ishtar, from the one propounded in the twelfth tablet of the
Gilgamesh epic. The question uppermost in the mind of the mourner is
"Will the dead return?" The condition of the dead, which is most
prominent in Gilgamesh's mind, is secondary. Both questions, however,
are answered, and both answers are hopelessly sad. The nether world is
joyless. Even the goddess Ishtar is badly treated upon entering it. The
place is synonymous with inactivity and decay; and, though the goddess
returns, the conclusion drawn is that the exception proves the
inexorable rule. A goddess may escape, but mortals are doomed to
everlasting sojourn, or rather imprisonment, in the realm presided over
by Allatu and her consort Nergal. The tale begins with a description of
the land to which Ishtar proceeds:

  To the land whence there is no return, the land of darkness (?)[1154]
  Ishtar, the daughter of Sin, turned her mind,
  The daughter of Sin turned her mind;
  To the house of darkness, the dwelling of Irkalla,
  To the house whence no one issues who has once entered it.
  To the road from which there is no return, when once it has been
    trodden.
  To the house whose inhabitants[1155] are deprived of light.
  The place where dust is their[1156] nourishment, their food clay.
  They[1157] have no light, dwelling in dense darkness.
  And they are clothed like birds, in a garment of feathers;
  Where over gate and bolt, dust is scattered.

Ishtar, it will be observed, is here called the daughter of the
moon-god, whereas in the Gilgamesh epic she appears as the daughter of
Anu, the god of heaven. Both designations reflect the views developed in
the schools, and prove that the story has been produced under scholastic
influences. The goddess has her place in the heavens, in the planet
bearing her name, and the designation of this planet as the daughter of
Sin can only be understood in connection with the astronomical system,
in which the moon plays so prominent a rôle[1158] and becomes the father
of all the great gods (except Shamash) who constitute the lesser
luminaries of the night.

Irkalla is one of the names[1159] for a god of the nether world, who is
regarded as the associate of Allatu. The dwelling is elsewhere spoken of
as a 'great palace' in which Allatu and her consort Nergal have their
thrones. A gloomier place than the one described in these opening lines
of the story cannot well be imagined. The picture reflects the popular
views, and up to this point, the doctrines of the school are in
agreement with the early beliefs. The description of the lower world is
evidently suggested by the grave or the cave in which the dead were
laid. The reference to dust and clay as the food of the dead shows that
the doctrine taught in the Gilgamesh epic,[1160] of man's being formed
of clay and returning to clay, was the common one. This view helps us to
understand how the words for grave came to be used as synonyms for the
nether world. The dead being placed below the earth, they were actually
conveyed within the realm of which Aralû was a part, and since it became
customary for the Babylonians to bury their dead together, the cities of
the dead that thus arose could easily be imagined to constitute the
kingdom presided over by Allatu and Nergal. At this point, however, the
speculations of the schools begin to diverge from the popular notions.
We may well question whether the Babylonian populace ever attempted to
make clear to itself in what form the dead continued their existence. It
may be that the argument from dreams, as the basis for the primitive
belief in the continuation of life, in some form, after death has been
too hard pressed,[1161] but certainly the appearance of the dead in the
dreams of the living must have produced a profound impression, and since
the dead appeared in the same form that they had while alive, the
conclusion was natural that, even though the body decayed, a vague
outline remained that bore the same relation to the _corpus_ as the
shadow to the figure casting it. Two remarkable chapters in the Old
Testament[1162] illustrate this popular view prevailing in Babylonia, as
to the condition of the dead in the nether world. The prophets Isaiah
and Ezekiel both portray the dead as having the same form that they
possessed while alive. The kings have their crowns on their heads; the
warriors lie with their swords girded about them. The dead Eabani, it
will be recalled, appears to Gilgamesh and is at once recognized by the
latter. What distinguishes the dead from the living is their inactivity.
They lie in Aralû without doing anything. Everything there is in a state
of neglect and decay. The dead can speak, but the Babylonians probably
believed, like the Hebrews, that the dead talk in whispers, or chirp
like birds.[1163] The dead are weak,[1164] and, therefore, unless others
attend to their needs, they suffer pangs of hunger, or must content
themselves with 'dust and clay' as their food. Tender care during the
last moments of life was essential to comparative well-being in
Aralû.[1165] The person who goes to Aralû in sorrow and neglect will
continue sorrowful and neglected.

The theologians, while accepting these views in general, passed beyond
them in an important particular. They could not reconcile the evident
dissolution of the body with a continuation of even a shadowy outline.
When a man died, the 'spirit,' which, according to the animistic theory,
lodged somewhere within the body and produced the manifestations of
life, sought for refuge in some other substance. The ease with which
birds moved from one place to another suggested these beings as the ones
in which the dislodged spirit found a home. The Babylonian thinkers were
not alone in developing the view that the dead assumed the form of
birds. Parallels to the pictures of the dead in the story of Ishtar's
descent may be found in Egypt and elsewhere.[1166] But what is important
for our purposes is the consideration that, in Babylonia at least, the
view in question is not the popular one, but the result of speculations
about a problem that appeals only to those who make the attempt, at
least, to clarify their ideas regarding the mystery of death. The next
section of the story affords us a picture of the entrance to Aralû:

  When Ishtar arrived at the gate of the land without return,
  She spoke to the watchman of the gate:
  Ho! watchman--open thy gate.
  Open thy gate that I may enter.
  If thou dost not open the gate, if thou refusest me admission,
  I will smash the door, break the bolt.
  I will smash the threshold, force open the portals.
  I will raise up the dead to eat the living
  Until the dead outnumber the living.

The entrance to the nether world is strongly guarded. From other sources
we learn that there was a 'spy'--perhaps identical with the
watchman--stationed at the portal of the lower world, who reports all
happenings to the queen Allatu through Namtar, the god (or spirit) of
pestilence. The watchman is to prevent the living from entering, and
also the dead from escaping.

The violence of Ishtar is an interesting touch in the narrative. As a
goddess, she resents any opposition to her desires. Her anxiety to enter
Aralû indicates that the original form of the myth, which must have
represented the descent as forced and not voluntary, has been modified
by the introduction of a new factor,--the search for her dead consort,
Tammuz. The character of Ishtar as the goddess of war[1167] may also
have influenced this portrayal of her rage. In her violence, she
threatens a conflict between the dead and the living. The former will
destroy[1168] the latter, as a victorious army butchers the hostile
host. The watchman endeavors to pacify the enraged Ishtar:

  The watchman opened his mouth and spoke.
  Spoke to the great Ishtar:
  Hold, O mistress, do not destroy them.[1169]
  I will go and mention thy name to the queen Allatu.

Allatu is grieved upon hearing the news of Ishtar's arrival, for
Ishtar's disappearance from the world means death.

  I must weep for the masters who forsake their consorts.
  I must weep for the wives who are torn from their husbands' side.
  For the children I must weep who are snatched away (?) before their
    time.
  Go, watchman, open thy gate.
  Deal with her according to the ancient laws.

The scene that follows embodies, again, views of the nether world as
developed in the schools. Corresponding to the seven zones surrounding
the earth,[1170] the nether world is pictured as enclosed by seven
gates. Through these Ishtar must pass, before she is ushered into the
presence of Allatu.

  The watchman went and opened his gate.
  Enter, O mistress, welcome in Cuthah.[1171]
  The great house[1172] of the land without return greets thee.[1173]
  Through the first gate he led her, and boldly removed the great crown
    from her head.
  Why, O watchman, dost thou remove the great crown from my head?
  Enter, O mistress, such are the laws of Allatu.

At the second gate, he removes the earrings of the goddess; at the
third, her necklace is taken away, and, similarly, at each succeeding
gate, a portion of her dress, the ornaments on her breast, her belt of
precious stones, her bracelets, until, when the seventh gate is reached,
the covering over her loins is removed, and she stands naked before
Allatu. At each gate Ishtar asks the same question, why the watchman
strips her, and the same answer is given.

The removal of one ornament after the other symbolizes, evidently, the
gradual decay of vegetation, not, as has been supposed, that the dead
enter Aralû naked.

Allatu calls upon her messenger, Namtar, to strike the goddess with
disease in all parts of her body. The disease expresses the same idea as
the removal of the ornaments,--decay of strength. There follows a
description of the desolation on earth during Ishtar's sojourn with
Allatu. Productivity comes to a standstill.

  The ox does not mount the cow, the ass does not bend over the she-ass.

Among mankind, likewise, fertility ceases. The gods lament the absence
of Ishtar and the fate that overtook her. The astronomical conception of
Ishtar as the planet Venus, at this point, is apparent. The gods
complain.

  Ishtar has descended to the earth, and has not come up.

As a planet, Ishtar's seat is in the heavens. The disappearance of the
planet has been combined with the nature-myth of the decay of
vegetation. As the evening star, Venus dips down into the west, to
reappear after a long interval in the east. The astral character of
Ishtar dominates the latter half of the story in its present form. It is
not the goddess of love and fertility nor the goddess of war who is
rescued from her prison by Ea, but the planet Ishtar. Shamash is
informed of the disaster by his servant, Pap-sukal.[1174] The sun-god
proceeds for aid to Sin and Ea. The latter furnishes relief. The sun
enters Ea's domain every evening, and, since it is in the west that the
planet sinks like the sun, the association of ideas becomes apparent
which suggests Ea as the savior and the sun as the mediator.

  Ea created in his wisdom a male being.
  He formed Uddushu-namir, a divine servant.
  Go, Uddushu-namir, to the gate of the land without return, turn thy
    face.
  The seven gates of the land without return will be opened before thee.
  Allatu will see thee and welcome thee
  After her heart is pacified, her spirit[1175] brightened.
  Invoke against her the name of the great gods.
  Raise thy countenance, to Sukhal-ziku direct thy attention.
  Come, mistress, grant me Sukhal-ziku, that I may drink[1176]
    therefrom.

Ea appears here again in the rôle of Creator.[1177] The name of the
mysterious being created by Ea signifies 'renewal of light.' The
incident, it will be seen, is wholly symbolical. A touch of mysticism
has also been introduced. Sukhal-ziku is a compound of a word meaning
'to sprinkle' and another which may mean 'grotto.'[1178] Sukhal-ziku
appears, therefore, to be the name for a mysterious fountain, the waters
of which restore the dead to life.

Uddushu-namir having pronounced the name of the gods before Allatu, and
having thus secured their aid, his request is in the nature of an order.
But the request must not be interpreted literally, as though the waters
were intended for him. It is for the sake of Ishtar that he desires to
have the use of Sukhal-ziku. Allatu understands Uddushu-namir's speech
in this sense, and is enraged at the order to yield up Ishtar.

  Allalu, upon hearing this,
  Smote her sides and bit her finger.[1179]
  Thou hast demanded of me a request that should not be requested.
  Come, Uddushu-namir, I will curse thee with a terrible curse.
  Food from the gutters of the city be thy nourishment.
  The sewers (?) of the city be thy drink.
  The shadow of the wall be thy seat.
  The threshold be thy dwelling.
  Exile and banishment break thy strength.

The force of the curse lies in the closing words. Uddushu-namir is to be
an outcast. He will not be permitted to enter either city or house, but
must remain at the wall or stop at the threshold. Properly prepared food
and drink are to be denied him. He shall starve or perish miserably.

But the mission of Uddushu-namir has been accomplished. Allatu may curse
as she pleases; the order of Ea must be obeyed.

  The goddess Allalu opened her mouth and spoke.
  To Namtar, her messenger, she addressed an order:
  Go, Namtar, smash the true palace.[1180]
  Break down the threshold, destroy the door-posts (?).
  Bring out the Anunnaki and place them on golden thrones.
  Besprinkle Ishtar with the waters of life and take her from me.

Namtar obeys the order. Ishtar is led through the seven gates. At each
one, the articles taken from her on her entrance are returned: at the
first, the loin cloth; at the second, the bracelets and ankle rings, and
so on, until she emerges in her full beauty.

The close of the story thus brings to our gaze once more Ishtar as
goddess of fertility, who gradually brings vegetation, strength, and
productivity back again. This curious mixture in the story of the astral
Ishtar,--the creation of the astronomers,--and the popular Ishtar, is a
trait which shows how the old nature-myth has been elaborated in passing
through the hands of the _literati_. The various steps in the process
can still be seen. In the original form, the goddess must have been
forced into an exile to the nether world, the exile symbolizing the
wintry season when fertility and productivity[1181] come to an end.
Ishtar is stripped of her glory. She comes to Allatu, who grieves at her
approach, but imprisons her in the 'great house,' and refuses to yield
her up, until forced to do so by order of the gods. A similar story must
have been told of Tammuz, the sun-god, who is also the god of
vegetation. The two stories were combined. Ishtar marries Tammuz, and
then destroys him. The goddess produces fertility, but cannot maintain
it. Tammuz goes to the nether world. Ishtar repents, bewails her loss,
and goes to seek for her consort and to rescue him. In rage she advances
to Allatu, threatens to smash the door and break the lock unless
admitted. The story in this form must have ended in the restoration of
Tammuz. The identification of Ishtar with the planet Venus introduced a
new factor. The disappearance of the planet fitted in well with the
original nature-myth. The combination of the Ishtar-Tammuz story with
this factor resulted in the tale as we have it now. The enraged Ishtar
is the one who seeks for her consort. The Ishtar who is forced to give
up her ornaments is the old goddess who falls into the hands of Allatu.
During her absence, production comes to a standstill; decay sets in. The
Ishtar who is rescued by Ea through the mediation of the 'Renewal of
Light' is the astral Ishtar, as developed by the astronomers, and,
finally, the Ishtar who receives her ornaments back again and comes to
the upper world, is once more the goddess of vegetation, rescued from
her exile to new glory. Up to this point, Tammuz has not been mentioned
in the story. In the advice, however, that is given at the conclusion of
the tale to mourners, the consort of Ishtar is introduced.

  If she[1182] will not grant her redemption,[1183] turn to her[1184]
    [thy countenance?]
  To Tammuz, her youthful consort,
  Pour out pure waters, costly oil [offer him?].

The mourners are furthermore instructed to institute a formal
lamentation. The Ukhâti,[1185] the priestesses of Ishtar, are to sing
dirges; flutes are to accompany the song. The thought intended,
apparently, to be conveyed is that if Allatu will not give up the dead,
the surviving relatives should endeavor to secure the good grace of
Ishtar and Tammuz, who succeeded in subduing Allatu.

The closing lines are rendered obscure by a reference to the goddess
Belili, who appears to be the sister of Tammuz. The reference assumes
the knowledge of a tale in which the goddess was represented as breaking
a costly vessel adorned with precious stones, in sign of her grief for
the lost Tammuz. Suitable mourning for Tammuz, therefore, will secure
the sympathy of Belili also. The story thus ends with a warning to all
who mourn for their dead to remember Tammuz, to observe the rites set
aside for the festival celebrated in his honor.

Bearing in mind the tentative character of any interpretation for the
closing lines, we may mention Jeremias'[1186] supposition that it is a
deceased sister who addresses her sorrowing brother at the end of the
story.

  My only brother, let me not perish.
  On the day of Tammuz, play for me on the flute of lapis lazuli,
    together with the lyre[1187] of pearl play for me.
  Together let the professional dirge singers, male and female, play
    for me,
  That the dead may arise and inhale the incense of offerings.

The lines impress one as snatches from a dirge, sung or recited in
memory of the dead, and introduced here as an appropriate illustration
of the conclusion to be drawn from the tale. At all events, the
consolation that the mourner receives lies in this thought,--the dead
can hear the lamentation. The survivors are called upon not to forget
the dead. When the festival of Tammuz comes, let them combine with the
weeping for the god, a dirge in memory of the dead. Let them pray to
Ishtar and Tammuz. If remembered by the living, the dead will at least
enjoy the offerings made to them, regain, as it were, a temporary sense
of life; but more cannot with certainty be hoped for.

The outlook for the dead, it will be seen, is not hopeful. Their
condition is at best a tolerable one. What we may glean from other
sources but confirms the general impression, conveyed by the opening and
closing lines of the Ishtar story, or makes the picture a still gloomier
one. The day of death is a day of sorrow, 'the day without mercy.' The
word for corpse conveys the idea that things have 'come to an end.'
Whenever death is referred to in the literature, it is described as an
unmitigated evil. A dirge introduced into an impressive hymn to
Nergal[1188] laments the fate of him who

  ... has descended to the breast of the earth,
  Satiated,[1189] [he has gone] to the land of the dead.
  Full of lament on the day that he encountered sorrow,
  In the month which does not bring to completion the year,[1190]
  On the road of destruction for mankind,
  To the wailing-place (?),
  The hero [has gone], to the distant invisible land.

We must not be misled by an epithet bestowed upon several gods, Marduk,
Ninib, and Gula, of 'the restorer of the dead to life,' into the belief
that the dead could be brought back from Aralû. These epithets appear
chiefly in incantations and hymns addressed to the gods for some
specific purpose, such as deliverance of a sufferer from disease. The
gods are appealed to against the demons, whose grasp means death. Ninib
and Gula are viewed as gods of healing.[1191] To be cured through their
aid was to be snatched from the jaws of death. Moreover, Ninib and
Marduk, as solar deities, symbolize the sun of spring, which brings
about the revivification of nature. The return of vegetation suggests
the thought that Ninib and Marduk have filled with new life what
appeared to be dead. The trees that seemed entirely dead blossom forth;
the bare earth is covered with verdure. Similarly, the suffering
individual stricken with disease could be awakened to new life. It is
this 'restoration' which lies in the power of the gods, but once a man
has been carried off to Aralû, no god can bring him back to this earth.

An apparent exception to the rule, according to which all mankind
eventually comes to Aralû, is formed by Parnapishtim and his wife, who
dwell in a place vaguely described as 'distant,' situated at the
'confluence of the streams.' The place, as was pointed out in a previous
chapter,[1192] lies in the vicinity of the Persian Gulf, and, since it
can only be reached by water, the natural conclusion is that it is an
island. The temptation is strong to compare the dwelling of Parnapishtim
with the belief found among the Greeks and other nations, of 'an island
of the blessed.' This has been done by Jeremias[1193] and others.
However, we must bear in mind that the point in Parnapishtim's narrative
is that he and his wife do _not die_. They are removed to the distant
place by the gods and continue to live there. Again, we do not learn of
any other person who inhabits this island. If to these considerations we
add, that the name Parnapishtim signifies 'offspring of life,' that his
wife's name is not mentioned, that we are not told what becomes of his
family and servants, who are also saved from the deluge, it is evident
that the incident of Parnapishtim's escape is an allegory, introduced
into the story as a dramatic means of teaching the doctrine which we
have seen dominates the tale,--that man, ordinarily, cannot secure
immortal life.

If there is any connection between the island where Parnapishtim dwells
and the Greek conception of 'an island of the blessed,' it is a trace of
foreign influence in Babylonian mythology. There is nothing to show that
among the Babylonians, either among the populace or in the schools, a
belief arose in a 'paradise' whither privileged persons were transported
after death, nor is any distinction made by them between the good and
the bad, so far as the future habitation is concerned. All mankind,
kings and subjects, virtuous and wicked, go to Aralû. Those who have
obtained the good will of the gods receive their reward in this world,
by a life of happiness and of good health. The gods can ward off
disease, or, rather, since disease (as all ills and misfortunes) is a
punishment sent by some god or demon, forgiveness can be secured, the
proof of which will consist in the restoration of the sick to health,
but the moment that death ensues the control of the gods ends. To the
Babylonians, the words of the Psalmist,[1194] "who praises thee, O God,
in Sheol?" came home with terrible force. They expressed, admirably, the
Babylonian view of the limitations of divine power. The dead do not
praise the gods, simply because it would be useless. The concern of the
gods is with the living.

We are fortunate in possessing a pictorial representation of the nether
world that confirms the view to be derived from a study of the religious
literature. A number of years ago, Clermont-Ganneau directed attention
to a remarkable bronze tablet which was purchased at Hamath in northern
Syria.[1195] The art was clearly Babylonian, and there was no reason to
question the genuineness of the production. Quite recently a duplicate
has been found at Zurghul, in Babylonia,[1196] so that all suspicions
are removed. The bronze tablet contains on the one side, the figure of a
monster with a lion-like face and body, but provided with huge wings.
Standing erect, his head rises above the tablet, his fore legs rest on
the edge, and the demon is thus represented in the attitude of looking
over to the other side of the tablet. At the side of the monster, are
two heads of hideous appearance.

The illustrations on the reverse are devoted to a portrayal of a funeral
ceremony, and of the general aspects of the nether world. There are five
distinct divisions,[1197] marked off from one another by four heavy
lines drawn across the tablet. In the first division appear the symbols
of the chief gods of the Assyrian pantheon, Marduk, Nabu, Sin, Ishtar,
Shamash, Ramman, etc.[1198] These gods, as inhabiting the heaven, are
placed at the head of the tablet. Next come seven evil spirits figured
as various animals,[1199] who, as inferior to the gods, and perhaps also
as messengers of the latter, are assigned a place midway between heaven
and earth. In the third section, there is pictured the funeral ceremony
proper. A dead body lies on a couch. Two rather strange figures, but
apparently priests, have taken up a position, one at each end of the
funeral bier, performing some rite of purification. One of the priests
has a robe of fish scales and is bearded; the other is smooth-faced and
clothed in a long garment. Censers are placed near the priests. The
latter appear at the same time to be protecting the body against two
demons whose threatening gestures suggest that they are endeavoring to
secure possession of the dead.[1200] These demons may be the special
messengers of the gods of the nether world, who have brought about the
death of their victim. Below this scene, we come to a view of the nether
world. The division is much larger than any of the others. Two hideous
figures dominate the scene, both of fantastic shape, and evidently so
portrayed as to suggest the horror of the nether world. One of these
figures[1201] stands erect in a menacing attitude; the other is resting
in a kneeling position on a horse.[1202] The second figure is a
representation of the chief goddess of the nether world--Allatu. The
demon at her side would then be the special messenger of this goddess,
Namtar. The goddess has her two arms extended, in the act of strangling
a serpent. The act symbolizes her strength. Her face is that of a
lioness, and she is suckling two young lions at her breasts. If it be
recalled that Nergal, the chief god of the lower world, is also pictured
as a lion,[1203] it seems but natural to conclude that the monster
covering the one side of the tablet is none other than the consort of
Allatu, the heads on either side of him representing his attendants. At
the left side of Allatu are a series of objects,--a jar, bowl, an
arrowhead (?), a trident, which, as being buried with the dead, are
symbols of the grave. The goddess and the demon at her side direct their
gaze towards these objects.

The nether world reaches down to the Apsu,--the 'deep' that flows
underneath the earth. This is indicated in the design by placing the
horse, on which the goddess rests, in a bark. The bark, again, is of
fantastic shape, the one end terminating in the head of a serpent, the
other in that of some other animal,--perhaps a bull. The bark reaches
into the fifth division,[1204] which is a picture of flowing water with
fish swimming from the left to the right, as an indication of the
direction in which the water flows. At the verge of the water stand two
trees.[1205] What these trees symbolize is not known, and there are
other details in the third and fourth sections that still escape us. For
our purposes, it is sufficient to note: (_a_) that the sections
represent in a general way the divisions of the universe, the heavens,
the atmosphere, the earth, the nether world, and the deep;[1206] (_b_)
that the nether world is in the interior of the earth, reaching down to
Apsu; and (_c_) that this interior is pictured as a place full of
horrors, and is presided over by gods and demons of great strength and
fierceness.

Such being the view of the nether world, it is natural that the living
should regard with dread, not only the place but also its inhabitants.
The gloom that surrounded the latter reacted on their disposition. In
general, the dead were not favorably disposed towards the living, and
they were inclined to use what power they had to work evil rather than
for good. In this respect they resembled the demons, and it is
noticeable that an important class of demons was known by the name
_ekimmu_, which is one of the common terms for the shades of the dead.
This fear of the dead, which is the natural corollary to the reverence
felt for them, enters as an important factor in the honors paid by the
living to the memory of the deceased. To provide the dead with food and
drink, to recall their virtues in dirges, to bring sacrifices in their
honor,--such rites were practised, as much from a desire to secure the
favor of the dead and to ward off their evil designs as from motives of
piety, which, of course, were not absent. The dead who was not properly
cared for by his surviving relatives would take his revenge upon the
living by plaguing them as only a demon could. The demons that infested
graveyards were in some way identified with the 'spirits,' or perhaps
messengers, of the dead, who, in their anger towards the living, lay in
wait for an attack upon those against whom they had a grudge.


The Pantheon of Aralû.

We have seen how the mystery coupled with death led to the view which
brought the dead into more direct relationship with the gods. Closely
allied with this view is the power ascribed to the dead to work evil or
good and, like the gods, to furnish oracles. This power once
acknowledged, it was but a short step to the deification of the dead,
or, rather, of such personalities who in life exercised authority, by
virtue of their position or innate qualities. On the other hand, the
gloominess of the nether world, the sad condition of its inhabitants,
the impossibility of an escape or a return to this world, necessarily
suggested to the Babylonians that the gods worshipped by the living had
no control over the fate of the dead. The gods, to be sure, were at
times wrathful, but, on the whole, they were well disposed towards
mankind. When angry, they could be pacified, and it was impossible to
believe that they should deliberately consign their creatures to such a
sad lot as awaited those who went down to Aralû. The gods who ruled the
dead must be different from those who directed the fate of the living. A
special pantheon for the nether world was thus developed. Such deities
as Marduk, Ea, Nabu, Shamash, or Ashur, who acted, each in his way, as
protectors of mankind, could find no place in this pantheon; but a god
like Nergal, who symbolized the midday sun, and the sun of the summer
solstice that brought misery and fever to the inhabitants of the
Euphrates Valley; Nergal, who became the god of violent destruction in
general, and, more particularly, the god of war, the god whose emblem
was the lion, who was cruel and of forbidding aspect,--such a god was
admirably adapted to rule those who could only look forward to a
miserable imprisonment in a region filled with horror. Nergal,
therefore, became the chief god of the pantheon of the lower world.

In the religious texts, the cruel aspects of this god are almost
exclusively emphasized. He is the one god towards whom no love is felt,
for he is a god without mercy. The fierce aspects of the solar Nergal
are accentuated in Nergal, the chief of the pantheon of Aralû. He
becomes even more ferocious than he already was, as a god of war. His
battle is with all mankind. He is greedy for victims to be forever
enclosed in his great and gloomy domain. Destruction is his one and
single object; nothing can withstand his attack. Armed with a sword, his
favorite time for stalking about is at night, when he strikes his
unerring blows. Horrible demons of pestilence and of all manner of
disease constitute his train, who are sent out by him on missions of
death. The favorite titles by which he is known appear in a hymn[1207]
addressed to him, as god of the lower world. He is invoked as the

  Warrior, strong whirlwind, sweeping the hostile land,[1208]
  Warrior, ruler of Aralû.

Another hymn[1209] describes him as a

  Great warrior who is firm as the earth.
  Superior as heaven and earth art thou,

  ...

  What is there in the deep that thou dost not secure?
  What is there in the deep that thou dost not clutch?

While references to the local character of the god as patron of Cuthah
survive, the name Cuthah itself becomes synonymous with the nether
world. The old solar deity is completely overshadowed by the terrible
ruler of the lower world. It is due to this that the real consort of the
local Nergal, the goddess Laz, is rarely mentioned in the religious
literature. The priests, when they spoke of Nergal, had in mind always
the companionship with Allatu. But the association of ideas which thus
led to assigning a god who was originally a solar deity, a place in the
lower world bears the impress of the schools. The popular development of
Nergal ceased, when he became the local god of Cuthah. It is only as an
outgrowth of the systematized pantheon that we can understand the
transformation involved in making of a local deity, the head of a
pantheon that is itself an outcome of the later phases assumed by the
religion.

The problem suggested by this transformation was recognized by the
theologians. A curious tale was found among the El-Amarna tablets which
endeavors to account for Nergal's presence in the world of the dead.
Unfortunately, the tablet on which the story is inscribed is so badly
mutilated that we can hardly gather more than the general
outlines.[1210] A conflict has arisen between the gods on high and a
goddess who has her seat in the lower world. This goddess is none other
than Allatu. She is described as Eresh-Kigal,[1211] _i.e._, queen of
Kigal or of the nether world. The scene reminds us of the contest
between the gods and Tiâmat, as embodied in the creation epic. The gods
choose Nergal as their leader. Assisted by fourteen companions, whose
names--'fever,' 'fiery heart,' 'lightning sender'--remind us again of
the eleven monsters that constitute Tiâmat's assistants,[1212] Nergal
proceeds to the lower world, and knocks at the gate for admission.
Namtar, the plague-demon, acts as the messenger. He announces the
arrival of Nergal to Allatu. The latter is obliged to admit Nergal, just
as in the story of Ishtar's descent, she is forced to receive Ishtar.
Fourteen gates of the lower world are mentioned. At each one, Nergal
stations one of his companions and passes on to the house of Allatu. He
seizes the goddess, drags her from her throne, and is about to kill her
when she appeals for mercy. She breaks out in tears, offers herself in
marriage if Nergal will spare her.

  You shall be my husband and I will be your wife.
  The tablets of wisdom I will lay in your hands.
  You shall be master and I mistress.

Nergal accepts the condition, kisses Allatu, and wipes away her tears.

One cannot resist the conclusion that the tale is, as already suggested,
an imitation of the Marduk-Tiâmat episode. Allatu is a female like
Tiâmat. Nergal acts for the gods just as Marduk does. The attendants of
Nergal are suggested by the monsters accompanying Tiâmat; the tables of
wisdom which Nergal receives, correspond to the tablets of fate which
Marduk snatches from Kingu.[1213] But while the conflict between Marduk
and Tiâmat is an intelligible nature-myth, symbolizing the annual
rainstorms that sweep over Babylonia, there is no such interpretation
possible in the contest between Nergal and Allatu. The story is not even
a glorification of a local deity, for Nergal appears solely in the rôle
of a solar deity. The attendants given to him--heat, lightning, and
disease--are the popular traits in the story; but with the chief
characters in the old nature-myth changed,--Marduk or the original Bel
replaced by Nergal, and Tiâmat by Allatu,--the story loses its popular
aspect, and becomes a medium for illustrating a doctrine of the schools.
If this view of the tale be correct, we would incidentally have a proof
(for which there is other evidence) that as early as the fifteenth
century, the Marduk-Tiâmat story had already received a definite shape.
But the most valuable conclusion to be drawn from the Nergal-Allatu tale
is that, according to the popular conceptions, the real and older head
of the pantheon of the lower world was a goddess, and not a god.

Allatu takes precedence of Nergal. In the story of Ishtar's descent to
the lower world, a trace of the earlier view survives. Allatu is
introduced as the ruler of the lower world. Nergal plays no part. Viewed
in this light, the design of the tale we have just discussed becomes
still more evident. It was inconsistent with the prominence assigned to
male deities in the systematized pantheon, that the chief deity of the
lower world should be a female. Allatu could not be set aside, for the
belief in her power was too strongly imbedded in the popular mind; but a
male consort could be given her who might rule with her. Another factor
that may have entered into play in the adaptation of the Marduk-Tiâmat
story to Nergal and Allatu, and that gave to the adaptation more
plausibility, was the disappearance of the summer sun after he had done
his work. Nergal did not exert his power during the whole year, and even
as the sun of midday, he was not in control all day. When he
disappeared, there was only one place to which he could go.

As of Tarmmuz and of other solar deities,[1214] it was probably related
of Nergal, also, that he was carried to the lower world. This popular
basis for the presence of Nergal in the lower world may have served as a
point of departure for the scholastic development of Nergal. However,
the tale of Nergal and Allatu goes far beyond the length of popular
belief in making Nergal conquer Allatu, and force himself, in a measure,
into her place. Before Nergal appears on the scene, a god, Ninazu, was
regarded as the consort of Allatu.[1215]

The conception which gives the Babylonian Hades a queen as ruler is of
popular origin, in contrast to the scholastic aspect of Nergal as the
later king of the lower region. Jensen is of the opinion that the
feminine gender of the word for earth in Babylonian superinduced the
belief that the ruler of the kingdom situated within the earth was a
woman. Allatu would, according to this view, be a personification of the
'earth.' But a factor that also enters into play is the notion of
productivity and fertility which gave rise to the conception of the
great mother-goddess, Ishtar.[1216] Allatu is correlated to Ishtar. From
the earth comes vegetation. The origin of mankind, too, is traced to the
earth, and to the earth mankind ultimately returns.[1217] Hence, the
receiver of life is a goddess equally with the giver of life, and
indeed, Ishtar and Allatu are but the two aspects of one and the same
phenomenon.[1218] Allatu signifies 'strength.' The name is related to
the Arabic _Allah_ and the Hebrew _Eloah_ and _Elohim_. The same
meaning--strength, power, rule--attaches to many of the names of the
gods of the Semites: Adôn, Etana, Baal, El, and the like.[1219] It is
interesting to note that the chief goddess of Arabia is _Allat_[1220]--a
name identical with our Allatu.

The bronze relief above described furnished us with a picture of this
queen of the lower world. The gloom enveloping the region controls this
picture. Allatu is of as forbidding an aspect as Tiâmat. She is warlike
and ferocious. When enraged, her anger knows no bounds. Her chief
attendants are the terrible Namtar and a scribe--also a female--known as
Belit-seri. Of these two personages, Namtar, the personification of
disease, is a popular conception, whereas the addition of a scribe
points again to the influence of the schools. Marduk, the chief god of
the living, has a scribe who writes down, at the god's dictation, the
fate decreed for individuals. Corresponding to this, the ruler of the
lower world has a scribe who writes down on the tablets of wisdom the
decrees of the goddess, and, at a later stage, the decrees of Nergal as
well. Belit-seri, whose name signifies 'mistress of the field,' was
originally a goddess of vegetation, some local deity who has been
reduced to the rank of an attendant upon a greater one; and it is
significant that almost all the members of the nether-world pantheon are
in some way connected with vegetation.

Tammuz, of whose position in this pantheon we have already had occasion
to speak, is the god of spring vegetation. Another solar deity,
Nin-gishzida,[1221] who is associated in the Adapa legend with Tammuz,
is the deity who presides over the growth of trees. En-meshara, who also
belongs to the court of Nergal and Allatu, appears to represent
vegetation in general. To these may be added Girra (or Gira), who
originally, as it would appear, a god of vegetation, is eventually
identified with Dibbarra,[1222] Gil, whom Jensen[1223] regards as 'the
god of foliage,' and Belili, the sister of Tammuz.[1224] Of this group
of deities, Tammuz and Nin-gishzida are the most important. In the Adapa
legend, it will be recalled, they are stationed as guardians in heaven.
As solar deities, they properly belong there. Like Nergal, they have
been transferred to the nether world; and in the case of all three, the
process that led to the change appears to have been the same. The trees
blossom, bear fruit, and then decay; the fields are clothed in glory,
and then shorn of their strength. The decay of vegetation was popularly
figured as due to the weakness[1225] of the god who produced the
fertility. Tammuz has been deceived by Ishtar; Nin-gishzida has been
carried off to the lower world. In the month of Tebet,--the tenth
month,--there was celebrated a festival of mourning for the lost
En-meshara. It is the time of the winter solstice. A similar fate must
have overtaken Belit-seri, Girra, and Gil. For a time, at least, they
are hidden in the realm of Allatu. Of all these deities, stories were no
doubt current that formed so many variations of one and the same theme,
symbolizing their disappearance and the hoped-for return, the same story
that we encounter in the myth of Venus and Adonis, in the myth of
Osiris, and, in some guise or other, among many other nations of the
ancient world. Of Girra, it may be well to remember that he is viewed
merely as a form of Nergal in the later texts. Belili, it will be
recalled, is associated with Tammuz in the story of Ishtar's
journey.[1226] She is not, however, the consort of the god, but his
sister. The antiquity of her cult follows from the occurrence of her
name in the list of gods antecedent to Anu,[1227] and where Alala is
entered as her consort. Whatever else the relationship of 'sister' to
Tammuz means, it certainly indicates that Belili belongs to the deities
of vegetation, and it may be that she will turn out to be identical with
Belit-seri, which is merely the designation of some goddess, and not a
real name.[1228] One is inclined also to suspect some, albeit remote,
connection between Alala, the consort of Belili, and the Alallu bird who
is spoken of in the Gilgamesh epic as having been deprived of her
pinions by Ishtar.[1229] In the tale, Tammuz, the Alallu bird, a lion,
and a horse are successively introduced as those once loved and then
deceived by Ishtar. The lion is, as has been several times indicated,
the symbol of Nergal; the horse appears in the Hades relief above
described as the animal upon which Allatu is seated, and it seems
legitimate, therefore, to seek for Alallu also in the nether world.
While it may be that a long process intervened, before such a species of
symbolization was brought about as the representation of an ancient
deity in the guise of a bird, still, if it will be recalled that Zu is a
deity, pictured as a bird,[1230] there is every reason to interpret the
bird Alallu merely as the symbol of some deity, just as the lion is
certainly such a symbol.

Jensen would add Etana to the list of gods of vegetation who form part
of Allatu's court. While the etymology he proposes for the name is not
acceptable, there is no doubt that to Etana, like Gilgamesh, the
character of a solar deity has been imparted. His presence in the nether
world is due to the story of his flight with the eagle and the
fall.[1231] If he falls from heaven, he naturally enters the realm of
Allatu, and it is possible that the story in its original form was
suggested by a myth illustrating the change of seasons. The question,
however, must for the present remain an open one.

A god associated with the nether world who again appears to be a solar
deity is Nin-azu. His name points to his being 'the god of healing.' A
text states[1232] that Allatu is his consort. Such a relationship to the
chief goddess of the nether world may be regarded as a survival of the
period when Nergal had not yet been assigned to this place. The
introduction of a distinctly beneficent god into the pantheon of the
lower world, and as second in rank, shows also that the gloomy
conception of the lower world was one that developed gradually. Tammuz,
Nin-gishzida, and the like are held enthralled by Allatu, and remain in
the nether world against their will; but if Allatu chooses as her
consort a 'god of healing,' she must have been viewed as a goddess who
could at times, at least, be actuated by kindly motives. The phase of
the sun symbolized by Nin-azu is, as in the case of Tammuz and others,
the sun of the springtime and of the morning. If it be recalled that
Gula, the great goddess of healing, is the consort of Ninib,[1233] it
will be clear that Nin-azu must be closely related to Ninib--and is,
indeed, identified with the latter.[1234] With Nergal in control,
Nin-azu had to yield his privilege to be the husband of Allatu. The
substitute of the fierce sun of the summer solstice for the sun of
spring is a most interesting symptom of the direction taken by the
Babylonian beliefs, regarding the fate of the dead. It may be that in
the earlier period, when more optimistic views of Aralû were current,
Gula, who is called the one 'who restores the dead to life,' may have
had a place in the pantheon of the lower world; not that the Babylonians
at any time believed in the return of the dead, but because the living
could be saved from the clutches of death. Ninib and Gula, as gods of
spring, furnished the spectacle of such a miracle in the return of
vegetation. In this sense, we have seen that Marduk, the god of spring,
was also addressed as 'the restorer to life.' But while the
revivification of nature controls the conception of gods of healing,
like Nin-azu, Ninib, and Gula, the extension of the idea would lead,
naturally, to the association of these gods with the ruler of the nether
world, at a time when it was still believed that this ruler could be
moved by appeals to loosen her hold upon those whom she was about to
drag to her kingdom. But it is important always to bear in mind that
beyond this apparent restoration of the dead to life, the Babylonians at
no time went.

In the Ishtar story[1235] a god Irkalla is introduced. Jeremias[1236]
takes this as one of the names of Allatu, but this is unlikely.[1237]
From other sources[1238] we know that Irkalla is one of the names of the
nether world. It is in some way connected with Urugal,[1239] _i.e._,
'great city,' which is also a common designation for the dwelling-place
of the dead. Hence, Irkalla is an epithet describing a deity as 'the god
of the great city.' The Babylonian scholars, who were fond of plays upon
words, brought the name Nergal, as though compounded of Ne-uru-gal
(_i.e._, 'ruler of the great city'), into connection with Uru-gal, and
thus identified Irkalla with Nergal. But, originally, some other god
must have been meant, since Allatu appears as the sole ruler of the
lower world in the Ishtar story, unless, indeed, we are to assume that
the name has been introduced at a late period as a concession to Nergal.
It is more plausible that a god like Nin-azu was understood under 'the
god of the great city.' Besides these gods, there is another series of
beings who belong to Allatu's court,--the demons who are directly
responsible for death in the world. Of this series, Namtar is the chief
and the representative. As the one who gathers in the living to the dark
abode, it is natural that he should be pictured as guardian at the gates
of the great palace of Allatu. But by the side of Namtar stand a large
number of demons, whose task is similar to that of their chief. A
text[1240] calls the entire group of demons,--the demon of wasting
disease, the demon of fever, the demon of erysipelas,[1241] and the
like,--'the offspring of Aralû,' 'the sons and messengers of Namtar, the
bearers of destruction for Allatu.' These demons are sent out from Aralû
to plague the living, but once they have brought their victims to Aralû,
their task is done. They do not trouble the dead. The latter stand, as
we have seen, under the direct control of the gods.[1242]

The story of Ishtar's descent to the lower world[1243] shows us that the
group of spirits known as the Anunnaki, also, belong to the court of
Nergal and Allatu. Ramman-nirari I. already designates the Anunnaki as
belonging to the earth,[1244] though it is an indication of the
vagueness of the notions connected with the group that in hymns, both
the Anunnaki and the Igigi are designated as offspring of Anu,--the god
of heaven.[1245] They are not exclusively at the service of Nergal and
Allatu. Bel, Ninib, Marduk, and Ishtar also send them out on missions.
Evidently, the fact that their chief function was to injure mankind
suggested the doctrine which gave them a place in the lower world with
the demons. The distinction between Anunnaki and the Igigi is not
sharply maintained in the religious literature. Though Ramman-nirari
places the Igigi in heaven, it is not impossible that a later view
transferred them, like the Anunnaki, to the lower world. There were, of
course, some misfortunes that were sent against mankind from on
high--Ramman was a god who required such messengers as the Igigi, and
besides the Igigi, there were other spirits sent out from above. But, as
in the course of time the general doctrine was developed which made the
gods, on the whole, favorably inclined towards man, while the evil was
ascribed to the demons[1246]--as occupying the lower rank of divine
beings--we note the tendency also to ascribe the ills that humanity is
heir to, to the forces that dwell under the earth,--to Nergal and Allatu
and to those who did their bidding. Probably, Lakhmu and Lakhamu were
also regarded, at least by the theologians, as part of Allatu's court,
just as Alala and Belili[1247] were so regarded.

The confusion resulting from the double position of Nergal in the
religious literature, as the deity of the summer solstice and as the
chief of the nether-world pantheon, raises a doubt whether some gods who
are closely associated with Nergal are to be placed on high with the
gods or have their seats below with Nergal. Among these, three require
mention here: Dibbarra, Gibil, and Ishum. Of these, the first two are
directly identified with Nergal in the systematized pantheon[1248],
while Ishum is closely associated with Nergal, or appears as the
attendant of Dibbarra[1249]. These gods, symbolizing violent destruction
through war and fire, are evidently related to the Nergal of the upper
world,--to Nergal, the solar deity; but in the later stages of the
religion, the Nergal of the lower world almost completely sets aside the
earlier conception. It is, therefore, likely that deities who stand so
close to the terrible god as those under consideration, were also
regarded as having a position near his throne in the lower world.

The pantheon of Aralû thus assumes considerable dimensions. At the same
time, we observe the same tendency towards concentration of power in
this pantheon as we have seen was the case in the pantheon of the upper
world[1250]. As in Babylonia there are practically only a few
gods,--Marduk, Nabu, Ishtar, Shamash, and Sin,--who exercised
considerable control; and, as in Assyria we find this tendency still
more accentuated in the supreme rank accorded to Ashur, so in the lower
world Nergal and Allatu are the real rulers. The other gods, and,
naturally, also the demons, occupy inferior positions. As messengers,
guardians, spies, or attendants, they group themselves around the throne
of the two rulers. A noticeable feature, however, in the pantheon of the
lower world consists in the high position held by the consort of the
head of the pantheon. Allatu does not sink to the insignificant rank of
being merely a pale reflection of Nergal, as do the consorts of Marduk,
Shamash, Ashur, and the like[1251]. As a trace of the earlier supreme
control exercised by her, she continues to reign with her husband. In
the popular mind, indeed, despite the influence of theological
doctrines, Allatu continues to be more prominent than Nergal. Nergal is
obliged to abide by the compact he made with Allatu. He rules _with_
her, but not over her. The theology of the schools did not venture to
set Allatu aside altogether; and this limitation in the development of
the doctrine that elsewhere gave the male principle the supremacy over
the female, may be taken as a valuable indication of the
counter-influence, exercised by deeply rooted popular beliefs, over the
theoretical elaboration of the religion at the hands of the religious
guides.


The Tombs and the Burial Customs.

Our knowledge of the customs observed by the Babylonians and Assyrians
in disposing of their dead leaves much to be desired. Most of the graves
discovered in the ruins of Babylonian cities belong to the Persian or to
the Greek period. In some cases,[1252] where we have reason to believe
that older graves have been found, it is almost impossible to estimate
their age. Recently, the expedition of the University of Pennsylvania to
Nippur has unearthed remains that appear to belong to an older period,
though nothing can be dated with any degree of certainty earlier than
2500 B.C.[1253] Still, with proper caution, even the material belonging
to a later period may be used for the older periods. Burial customs, as
has already been emphasized, constitute the most conservative elements
in a religion. Such rites are much less liable to change than the cult
of the gods. Foreign invasion would not affect the funeral rites, even
where other religious customs are altered. Even so violent a change as
that produced by the introduction of Mohammedanism into Mesopotamia has
not removed traces of the old Babylonian religion. Dr. Peters has shown
that the district in the Euphrates Valley selected by the modern Arabs
and Persians for the interment of their dead[1254] derives its sanctity
from the days of the old Babylonian kingdom, and many of the customs
observed by the modern Moslems tally with the funeral rites of ancient
Babylonia.[1255] That the dead were always buried, and that cremation
was practically unknown, may now be regarded as certain. The conception
of Aralû, which, we have seen, belongs to the most ancient period of
religion, is only intelligible upon the assumption that burial was the
prevailing custom. On one of the oldest monuments of Babylonian
art,--the stele of vultures,--earth-burial is represented.[1256] A few
years ago, some German scholars[1257] claimed to have furnished the
proof that the Babylonians cremated their dead. But, in the first place,
the age of the tombs found by them was not clearly established; and,
secondly, it was not certain whether the charred remains of human bodies
were due to intentional burning or accidental destruction by fire, at
the time that the city explored by the German scholars was destroyed.
The fact that, as the explorers themselves observed, the bodies were not
completely burned argues in favor of the latter supposition. The
explanation offered by Koldewey[1258] for this peculiar condition of the
remains--that the burning was symbolical, and, therefore, not
complete--is unsatisfactory in every particular. There can be no doubt
that some, at least, of the tombs discovered at Warka by Loftus[1259]
belong to the period before the conquest of the country by Cyrus, and
this is certainly the case with many of the tombs discovered at Nippur.
Nowhere do we find traces of burning of bodies.[1260] If it should turn
out that cremation prevailed for a certain period, the fashion, we may
feel certain, was due to foreign influences, but it is more than
questionable whether it was ever introduced at all. Certainly,
earth-burial is the characteristically Babylonian (and general Semitic)
method of disposing of the dead.

The characteristic feature of the Babylonian tombs is their simplicity.
The dead body, which was often covered with palm woods, was placed
generally on the side--though occasionally on the back--on a board of
wood, or wrapped in a mat of reeds or palm fibers, and covered with a
tub-shaped clay dish. On the dish there was frequently an ornamental
design, but beyond this, there was no attempt at decoration. The body
was frequently pressed together in order to be brought within the
compass of the dish. Sometimes, the knees were pulled up or the body
placed in a semi-sitting posture, and there are indications that the
bodies were often divided into two or three parts prior to burial. On
the stele of vultures,[1261] representing the triumph of Eannatum over
his enemies, attendants are seen building a mound over the symmetrically
arranged bodies of the king's soldiers slain in battle. The monument
belongs to the most ancient period of Babylonian history, and we are
justified, therefore, in regarding this method of earth-burial as the
oldest in vogue. The dead, it would seem, are placed on the ground, or
near the surface, and covered with a mound. This custom would account
for the use of a dish to cover the body after it became customary to
place the dead in small houses or vaults built for the purpose. The
shape of the dish, or tub, recalls the earth-mound over the dead, and
the tenacity of conventional methods is apparent in the modern custom,
even among Western nations, of raising a mound over the grave, even
though the body is placed at a depth of six feet and more below the
surface. A modification of the form of coffin was the jar into which the
body was forced. To do this, still greater violence had to be employed.
Instead of one jar, two were also used, the body placed partly in one,
partly in the other, and the two were then joined with bitumen. In the
Persian period, a slipper-shaped coffin was used, into which the body
was inserted through an aperture at one end; but there is no evidence
that the Babylonians employed this method. With the bodies, various
objects were interred, many of which had a special significance. Except,
perhaps, at a very early period[1262] the dead were not buried naked,
but covered with a garment. The seal cylinder, which, as Herodotus tells
us,[1263] every person of position carried about his person, and which,
when impressed on a clay tablet, served as his signature, was buried
with the dead as an ornament that had a personal value. The staff which
the man was in the habit of carrying is found in the grave, and also
such weapons as arrowheads and spears. Various ornaments of copper,
iron, gold, and stone, rings, necklaces or bands of gold were probably
placed with the dead as a sign of affection, not because of any belief
that the deceased needed these objects. Toys, too, are found in the
graves, and we may assume that these were placed in the tombs of
children. The frequent presence of shells in the tombs is still
unexplained. On the other hand, remains of food, dates, grain, poultry,
and fish, that have been found in graves belonging to various periods,
may be regarded as a proof for the existence of the belief that the dead
could suffer pangs of hunger. The closing lines of the Gilgamesh
epic,[1264] where the fate of the neglected dead is portrayed, confirms
this view. But such remains are more frequent in the early graves than
in those of a later time. Animal sacrifices at the grave appear to be
very old.[1265] Offerings of food and water were made to the dead, not
only at the time of the burial, but afterwards by surviving relatives.
The son performs the office of pouring out water to the memory of his
father.[1266] The close of the legend of Ishtar's journey suggests that
the festival of Tammuz was selected as an 'All-Souls' day. The weeping
for the lost Tammuz served as an appropriate link for combining with the
mourning for the god the lament for the dead. The water jar is never
absent in the old Babylonian tombs, and by the side of the jar the bowl
of clay or bronze is found, and which probably served the same purpose
as a drinking utensil for the dead. How early it became customary to
bury the dead together we do not know. It may be that at one time they
were buried beneath the dwellings that they occupied when alive, under
the threshold or in the walls;[1267] but the conception of Aralû as a
great gathering-place of the dead would hardly have arisen, unless the
'city of the dead' by the side of the 'city of the living' had become an
established custom. We are, therefore, justified in assuming that as the
villages grew into towns, the huddling together of the living suggested
placing the dead together in a portion of the town set aside for the
purpose. In comparison with the elaborate constructions in the Egyptian
cities of the dead, the Babylonian necropolis was a shabby affair.
Vaults, rarely more than five feet high, served as the place where the
dead were deposited. These vaults were constructed of bricks, and an
extended series of them gave to the necropolis the appearance of little
houses, suggestive of primitive mud huts. This simplicity, due in the
first instance to the lack of stone as building material in Babylonia,
corresponded to the very simple character which the dwelling-house
retained. The one-story type of dwelling, with simple partitions,
prevailed to the latest period. It was only in the temples and palaces
that architectural skill was developed. In Assyria, although soft stone
was accessible, the example of Babylonia was slavishly followed. It is
due to this that so few traces of private houses have been found in the
Mesopotamian explorations,[1268] and the almost primitive character of
the graves--more primitive, by virtue of the strength of the
conservative instinct in everything connected with the dead, than the
dwellings of the living--readily accounts for their nearly complete
destruction. Simple as the houses of the dead were, they were yet
carefully guarded against the invasion of air and dust; and even after
centuries of neglect the contents are found to be perfectly dry.

The explorations at Nippur show that the tub and bowl forms of the
coffin continued to be used during the period extending from Hammurabi
to Nabonnedos. In later times, it would appear, the custom of placing
food and drink with the dead fell into disuse.[1269] We may perhaps find
that, as was the case in Egypt, symbolical representations of food--a
clay plate with the food modeled in clay--took the place of the old
custom. Fewer utensils, too, are found in the graves of the later
period; but, on the other hand, ornaments increase, until, when we reach
the Persian and Greek periods, mirrors are quite common, and golden
veils are placed over the dead, while handsome earrings, breastpins, and
necklaces indicate the growth of this luxurious display. The clay
coffins, too, are beautifully glazed and ornamented with elaborate
designs. A trace of foreign--perhaps Graeco-Egyptian--influence may be
seen in the human head modeled on the coffin. Naturally, at all times
the different ranks occupied by the dead involved more or less
modifications of the prevailing customs. The rich were placed in more
carefully built vaults than the poor. The coverings and ornaments varied
with the station of the deceased; but in general it may be said that,
during the earlier periods of Babylonian-Assyrian history, simplicity
was the rule, and the objects placed in the tombs were more carefully
chosen with reference to the needs of the dead and the career that he
led while living, while the tendency in later times was away from the
religious beliefs that gave rise to the funeral customs, and in the
direction of luxury and display. This development, however, is
independent of _proper_ burial, upon which, as we have already had
occasion to see, great stress was at all times laid. The greatest
misfortune that could happen to a dead person was for his body to remain
overground, or to be removed from the tomb and exposed to the light of
day. In the early monument of Babylonian art,--the 'stele of
vultures,'[1270]--already referred to, the dead foes are punished by
being stripped of their clothing and exposed to the attack of vultures,
who are seen carrying off human heads, legs, and arms. To emphasize the
contrast, the king's soldiers are portrayed as being buried in
symmetrical rows, the head of each body being covered by the feet of the
body in the row above. When the Babylonian and Assyrian kings wish to
curse the one who might venture to destroy the monuments set up by them,
they know of nothing stronger than to express the hope

  That his body may be cast aside,
  No grave be his lot.[1271]

The kings punished their enemies by leaving their bodies to rot in the
sun, or they exposed them on poles as a warning to rebels. Ashurbanabal
on one occasion speaks of having scattered the corpses of the enemy's
host 'like thorns and thistles' over the battlefield.[1272] The corpses
of the Babylonians who had aided in the rebellion against the king were
given 'to dogs, swine, to the birds of heaven, to the fish of the sea'
as food.[1273] The same king takes pleasure in relating that he
destroyed the graves of Elamitic kings and dragged the bodies from their
resting-place[1274] to Assyria. Their shades, he adds, were thus
unprotected. No food could be tendered them and no sacrifices offered in
their honor. Sennacherib, after he has crushed a rebellion that broke
out in Babylonia, takes a terrible revenge upon the instigator of the
opposition, Mardukbaliddin, by removing the bodies of the latter's
ancestors from the vaults wherein they were deposited. The bones of an
enemy are enumerated by Ashurbanabal among the spoil secured by
him.[1275] The mutilation of the dead body was also a terrible
punishment to the dead,[1276] and we are told that the person who
disturbed a grave is not to be permitted to enter the temple. The
desecration of the grave affected not only the individual whose rest was
thus disturbed, and who, in consequence, suffered pangs of hunger and
other miseries, but reached the survivors as well. The unburied or
disentombed shade assumed the form of a demon,[1277] and afflicted the
living.

Of the ceremonies incidental to burial, the bronze tablet above
described affords us at least a glimpse. The dead were placed on a bier
and wrapped in some kind of a cover. Priests were called in to perform
rites of purification. One of the priests, it will be recalled,[1278] is
clad in a fish costume. The fish is the symbol of Ea, the god of the
deep, who becomes the chief deity appealed to in incantations involving
the use of water. The priest assumes the rôle of Ea, as it were, by the
symbolical dress that he puts on. The rites appear to consist of the
burning of incense and the sprinkling of water. It does not of course
follow that everywhere the same custom was observed, but we may at least
be certain that the priest played an important part in the last honors
paid to the dead. The purification was intended to protect the dead from
the evil spirits that infest the grave. The demons of disease, it is
true, could no longer trouble him. They had done their work as
messengers of Allatu. But there were other demons who were greedy for
the blood and flesh of the dead. Though the dead had passed out of the
control of the gods, the latter had at least the power to restrain the
demons from disturbing the peace of the grave.

In the earlier days, when the bodies were placed on the ground or only a
short distance below it, the building of the grave-mound was a ceremony
to which importance was attached. In the stele of vultures, attendants
are portrayed--perhaps priests--with baskets on their heads, containing
the earth to be placed over the fallen soldiers.[1279] These attendants
are bare to the waist. The removal of the garments is probably a sign of
mourning, just as among the Hebrews and other Semites it was customary
to put on the primitive loin-cloth[1280] as a sign of grief. In somewhat
later times, we find sorrowing relatives tearing their clothing[1281]--
originally tearing off their clothing--and cutting their hair as signs
of mourning.

The formal lament for the dead was another ceremony upon which stress
was laid. It lasted from three to seven days.[1282] The professional
wailers, male and female, can be traced back to the earliest days of
Babylonian history. Gudea speaks of them.[1283] It would appear that at
this early period persons were engaged, as is the case to this day in
the Orient, to sing dirges in memory of the dead.[1284] The function is
one that belongs naturally to priests and priestesses; and, while in the
course of time, the connection with the temple of those who acted as
wailers became less formal, it is doubtful whether that connection was
ever entirely cut off. The 'dirge singers, male and female,' referred to
in the story of Ishtar's journey[1285] were in the service of some
temple. The hymns to Nergal[1286] may be taken as samples of the
Babylonian dirges.

The praise of Nergal and Allatu was combined with the lament for the sad
fate of the dead. Gilgamesh weeping for his friend Eabani[1287]
furnishes an illustration. Gilgamesh is described as stretched out on
the ground. The same custom is referred to in the inscriptions of
Cyrus,[1288] and it is interesting to note that a similar mode of
manifesting grief still prevails in the modern Orient. In the Babylonian
dirges, it would seem, the references to the virtues of the deceased
(which are prominently introduced into the dirges of the present day)
were few. The refrain forms a regular feature of these dirges,--an
indication that, as is still the case in the Orient, there was a leader
who sang the dirge, while the chorus chimed in at the proper moment. The
principle of the stanza of two lines, one long and one short, that, as
Budde has shown,[1289] controls the wailing songs in the Old Testament
(including the Book of Lamentations, which is based upon this very
custom of lamenting the dead), may be detected in the Babylonian
compositions. The accompaniment of musical instruments to the dirges
also appears to be a very old custom in Babylonia. In the story of
Ishtar's journey the wailers are called upon to strike their
instruments. What kind of instruments were used in ancient times we do
not know. In the Assyrian period, the harp and flute appear to be the
most common.[1290]

At the time that food and drink were placed with the dead in the grave,
some arrangements must have been made for renewing the nourishment.
Entrances to tombs have been found,[1291] and Koldewey[1292] is of the
opinion that the clay drains found in quantities in the tombs, served as
well to secure a supply of fresh water for the dead. The wailing for the
dead took place not only immediately after death, but subsequently.
Ashurbanabal speaks of visiting the graves of his ancestors. He appears
at the tomb with rent garments, pours out a libation to the memory of
the dead, and offers up a prayer addressed to them. We have every reason
to believe that the graves were frequently visited by the survivors. The
festival of Tammuz became an occasion[1293] when the memory of those who
had entered Aralû was recalled.

While there are many details connected with the ceremonies for the dead
still to be determined, what has been ascertained illustrates how
closely and consistently these ceremonies followed the views held by the
Babylonians and Assyrians regarding the life after death. Everything
connected with death is gloomy. The grave is as dark as Aralû; the
funeral rites consist of dirges that lament not so much the loss
sustained by the living as the sad fate in store for the dead. Not a ray
of sunshine illumines the darkness that surrounds these rites. All that
is hoped for is to protect the dead against the attack of demons greedy
for human flesh, to secure rest for the body, and to guard the dead
against hunger and thirst.

It is almost startling to note, to what a degree the views embodied in
Old Testament writings regarding the fate of the dead, coincide with
Babylonian conceptions. The descriptions of Sheol found in Job, in the
Psalms, in Isaiah, Ezekiel, and elsewhere are hardly to be distinguished
from those that we have encountered in Babylonian literature. For
Job,[1294] Sheol is

  The land of darkness and deep shadows.
  The land of densest gloom and not of light.
  Even where there is a gleam, there it is as dark night.[1295]

The description might serve as a paraphrase of the opening lines in the
story of Ishtar's journey. The Hebrew Sheol is situated, like the
Babylonian Aralû, deep down in the earth.[1296] It is pictured as a
cavern. The entrance to it is through gates that are provided with
bolts. Sheol is described as a land filled with dust. Silence reigns
supreme. It is the gathering-place of all the living, without exception.
He who sinks into Sheol does not rise up again.

  He does not return to his house.
  His place knows him no more.[1297]

It is, clearly, 'a land without return,' as the Babylonians conceived
it. The condition of the dead in Sheol is sad, precisely as the
Babylonians pictured the life in Aralû. The dead are designated by a
name[1298] that indicates their weak condition. They can only talk in
whispers or they chirp like birds. Their gait is unsteady. In general,
they are pictured as lying quiet, doomed to inactivity. Death is
lamented as an evil. The dead have passed out of the control of Yahwe,
whose concern is with the living. Yahwe's blessings are meted out in
this world, but not in Sheol. These blessings consist chiefly of long
life and plenty of offspring. The dead need not praise Yahwe.
Ecclesiastes--although a late composition--expresses the old popular
view in the summary of the fate of the dead,[1299] when it is said that
the dead know nothing of what is going on. Their memory is gone; they
neither love nor hate, and they are devoid of any ambition. There is no
planning, no wisdom, no judgment in Sheol.

Like the Babylonians, the Hebrews also believed that the condition of
the individual at the time of death was an index of the condition in
store for him in Sheol. He who goes to Sheol in sorrow is pursued by
sorrow after death. Jacob does not want to go down to Sheol in
sorrow,[1300] because he knows that in that case sorrow will be his fate
after death. To die neglected by one's family was fatal to one's
well-being in Sheol. Life in Sheol was a continuation, in a measure, of
the earthly existence. Hence, the warrior is buried with his weapons;
the prophet is recognized by his cloak; the kings wear their crowns; the
people of various lands are known by their dress.[1301] Even
deformities, as lameness, follow the individual into the grave. On the
other hand, while the dead were weak and generally inactive, although
capable of suffering, they were also regarded by the Hebrews as
possessing powers superior to those of the living. As among the
Babylonians, the dead stand so close to the higher powers as to be
themselves possessed of divine qualities. Schwally aptly characterizes
this apparent contradiction by saying 'that the dead are _Refâ'îm_
(weak), but, at the same time, _Elohîm_, _i.e._ divine beings.'[1302]
Yahwe has no power over the dead, but they receive some of his
qualities. They are invoked by the living. The dead can furnish oracles,
precisely as Yahwe can. They not only appear to the living in dreams,
but their shades can be raised up from Sheol. A certain amount of
worship was certainly paid to the dead by the ancient Hebrews.

Naturally, these popular views were subjected to considerable
modification with the development of the religion of the Hebrews. While
many features remained, as is shown by the occurrence of the primitive
conception of Sheol in comparatively late productions, in one important
particular, more especially, did the spread of an advanced ethical
monotheism lead to a complete departure from the Babylonian conceptions.
While, in the popular mind, the belief that there was no escape from
Sheol continued for a long time, this belief was inconsistent with the
conception of a Divine Being, who, as creator and sole ruler of the
universe, had control of the dead as well as the living. As long as
Yahwe was merely one god among many, no exception was made of the rule
that the concern of the gods was with the living; but Yahwe as the one
and only god, could not be pictured as limited in his scope. He was a
god for the dead, as well as for the living. The so-called song of
Hannah[1303] expresses the new view when it praises Yahwe as the one
'who kills and restores to life, who leads to Sheol, and who can lead
out of it.' Such a description of Yahwe is totally different from the
Babylonians' praise of Ninib, Gula, or Marduk as the 'restorer of the
dead to life,' which simply meant that these gods could restrain Allatu.
The power to snatch the individual from the grasp of Sheol was also
ascribed to the national god, Yahwe. Elijah's restoration of the widow's
child[1304] to life is an instance of this power, and Jonah,[1305] who
praises Yahwe for having delivered him when the gates of Sheol already
seemed bolted, may not have had anything more in mind than what the
Babylonians meant; but when the Psalmist, to indicate the universal rule
of Yahwe, exclaims

  If I mount to heaven, thou art there,
  If I make Sheol my couch, thou art there,[1306]

the departure from the old Hebrew and Babylonian views of the limitation
of divine power is clearly marked. The inconsistency between the view
held of Yahwe and the limitation of his power was not, however, always
recognized. Hence, even in late portions of the Old Testament, we find
views of the life after death that are closely allied to the popular
notions prevailing in the earlier productions. It is not, indeed, till
we reach a period bordering close on our era that the conflict between
the old and the new is brought to a decided issue in the disputes of the
sects that arose in Palestine.[1307] The doctrines of retribution and of
the resurrection of the dead are the inevitable consequences of the
later ethical faith and finally triumph; but the old views, which bring
the ancient Hebrews into such close connection with the Babylonians,
left their impress in the vagueness that for a long time characterized
these doctrines, even after their promulgation. The persistency of the
old beliefs is a proof of the strong hold that they acquired, as also of
the close bond uniting, at one time and for a long period, Hebrews and
Babylonians. What applies to the beliefs regarding the dead holds good
also for the rites. Many a modern Jewish custom[1308] still bears
witness to the original identity of the Hebrew and Babylonian methods of
disposing of and caring for the dead.

There is but one explanation for this close agreement,--the same
explanation that was given for the identity of traditions regarding the
creation of the world, and for the various other points of contact
between the two peoples that we have met with. When the Hebrew clans
left their homes in the Euphrates Valley, they carried with them the
traditions, beliefs, and customs that were current in that district, and
which they shared with the Babylonians. Under new surroundings, some new
features were added to the traditions and beliefs, but the additions did
not obscure the distinctive character impressed upon them by Babylonian
contact. We now know that relations with Babylonia were never entirely
broken off by the Hebrews. The old traditions survived all vicissitudes.
They were adapted to totally changed phases of belief, but the kernel
still remained Babylonian. Beliefs were modified, new doctrines arose;
but, with a happy inconsistency, the old was embodied in the new. Hence
it happens, that in order to understand the Hebrews, their religion,
their customs, and even their manner of thought, we must turn to
Babylonia.

Further discoveries beneath the mounds of Mesopotamia and further
researches in Babylonian literature will add more evidence to the
indebtedness of the Hebrews to Babylonia. It will be found that in the
sacrificial ordinances of the Pentateuch, in the legal regulations, in
methods of justice and punishment, Babylonian models were largely
followed, or, what is an equal testimony to Babylonian influence, an
opposition to Babylonian methods was dominant. It is not strange that
when by a curious fate, the Hebrews were once more carried back to the
'great river of Babylon,'[1309] the people felt so thoroughly at home
there. It was only the poets and some ardent patriots who hung their
harps on the willows and sighed for a return to Zion. The Jewish
population steadily increased in Babylonia, and soon also the
intellectual activity of Babylonian Jews outstripped that of
Palestine.[1310] The finishing touches to the structure of Judaism were
given in Babylonia--on the soil where the foundations were laid.

FOOTNOTES:

[1112] See above, p. 448.

[1113] See pp. 487, 489, 511, 512.

[1114] Or Arallu.

[1115] IIR. 61, 18. Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 220, takes this as the name
of a temple; but, since Aralû was pictured as a 'great house,' there is
no reason why the designation should not refer to the nether world.

[1116] See the admirable argument in Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp. 185-195.

[1117] Or, more fully, Kharsag-gal-kurkura, 'great mountain of all
lands.'

[1118] See above, p. 458.

[1119] See the following chapter.

[1120] See the passages in Jeremias' _Die Babylonisch-Assyrischen
Vorstellungen vom Leben nach dem Tode_, p. 62.

[1121] Sargon Annals, I. 156. Jensen's interpretation of the passage
(_Kosmologie_, p. 231) is forced, as is also his explanation of IIR. 51,
11a, where a mountain Aralû is clearly designated.

[1122] _Kosmologie_, pp. 222-224.

[1123] Gunkel's _Schöpfung und Chaos_, p. 154, note 5.

[1124] In an article on 'Shuâlu' published in the _American Journal of
Semitic Languages_ (xiv.), I have set forth my reasons for accepting
this word as a Babylonian term for the nether world.

[1125] In the later portions of the Old Testament, the use of Sheol is
also avoided. See the passages in Schwally, _Das Leben nach dem Tode
nach den Vorstellungen des Alten Israels_, pp. 59, 60.

[1126] Not 'Ort der Entscheidung,' as Jeremias, _ib._ p. 109, proposes.

[1127] See above, p. 329.

[1128] I Sam. xxviii. 11.

[1129] See p. 511.

[1130] See Schwally, _ib._ pp. 59-63.

[1131] Isaiah, viii. 19.

[1132] One of the names for the priest in Babylonia is Shâ'ilu, _i.e._,
'inquirer,' and the corresponding Hebrew word Shô'êl is similarly used
in a few passages of the Old Testament; _e.g._, Deut. xviii. 11; Micah,
vii. 3. See an article by the writer on "The Stem Shâ'al and the Name of
Samuel," in a forthcoming number of the _Journal of the Society of
Biblical Literature_.

[1133] See above, pp. 333 _seq._

[1134] See p. 167.

[1135] See above, p. 167, and Scheit, _Le Culte de Gudea_, etc.
(_Recueil des Travaux_, xviii. 64 _seq._)

[1136] Thureau-Dangin, _Le Culte des Rois dans la periode
Prebabylonienne_ (_Recueil des Travaux_, etc., xix. 486).

[1137] See above, p. 36. The text is published IIIR. pl. 4, no. 7.
Recently, Mr. Pinches has published a variant version of this story
(_Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._ xviii. 257, 258).

[1138] IVR. 34.

[1139] In view of recent discussions of the subject, it is important to
note that Tiele already fifteen years ago recognized that Sargon was a
historical personage. See his remarks, _Babyl. Assyr. Gesch._, p. 112.

[1140] Chapter ii.

[1141] See Winterbotham, "The Cult of Father Abraham," in the
_Expositor_, 1897, pp. 177-186.

[1142] See Jensen's _Kosmologie_, p. 215, and Meissner,
_Altbabylonisches Privatrecht_, p. 21. The word is used for the
foundation of a building, and is an indication, therefore, of the great
depth at which the nether world was placed.

[1143] See below, p. 567, and Jensen's _Kosmologie_, p. 259.

[1144] See pp. 65, 66.

[1145] _Kabru_ and _Gegunu_ ('dark place').

[1146] See also below, pp. 566, 567.

[1147] Published IV Rawlinson (2nd edition), pl. 31.

[1148] See p. 483.

[1149] The Old Testament recognizes only two seasons, summer and winter.
See, _e.g._, Gen. viii. 22.

[1150] See the discussion in Robertson Smith's _Religions of the
Semites_, pp. 391-394; and also Farnall, _The Cults of the Greek
States_, ii. 644-649.

[1151] See above, p. 484.

[1152] See above, p. 510.

[1153] _I.e._, according to one version (p. 511). Another version of
this part of the Gilgamesh epic, which, however, is influenced by the
tale of Ishtar's visit, is published in Haupt's _Nimrodepos_, pp. 16-19.
In this version Eabani gives Gilgamesh a description of Aralû, which
tallies with the one found in the Ishtar tale.

[1154] Text defective. Jeremias' suggestion, "the land that thou
knowest," misses the point. The person addressed does not know the land.
'Decay' is Schrader's conjecture (_Die Höllenfahrt der Istar_, p. 24).
See Haupt's _Nimrodepos_, pp. 17, 40, and Delitzsch's _Assyr.
Wörterbuch_, p. 321, note.

[1155] Lit., 'the one who has entered it.'

[1156] _I.e._, of the inhabitants.

[1157] The inhabitants.

[1158] See p. 461.

[1159] See below, p. 591.

[1160] See pp. 502, 511.

[1161] Particularly by Herbert Spencer and his followers.

[1162] Isaiah, xiv 9-20, and Ezekiel, xxxii. 18-31. In Isaiah, the
Babylonian Aralû is specifically described, while Ezekiel writes under
the influence of Babylonian ideas.

[1163] Isaiah, viii. 19.

[1164] The Hebrew word for 'the dead,' _refâim_, conveys this idea.

[1165] See p. 512.

[1166] See Sara Y. Stevenson, "On Certain Symbols used in the Decoration
of Some Potsherds from Daphne and Naukratis" (Philadelphia, 1892), p. 8.

[1167] See above, p. 83.

[1168] 'Eating' appears to be a metaphor for destruction in general.

[1169] The portals (?).

[1170] Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp. 173 _seq_.

[1171] Here used as an epithet of the nether world. See above, p. 563.

[1172] Or 'palace.' The lower world, it will be recalled, is pictured as
a house or a country. Here the two terms are combined. See Delitzsch,
_Assyr. Wörterbuch_, p. 341.

[1173] The phrases used are the ordinary terms of greeting. See, _e.g._,
VR. 65, 17b.

[1174] Gibil-Nusku may be meant. See the hymn, p. 278. Pap-sukal is a
title of Nabu (p. 130), but also of other gods.

[1175] Lit., 'liver.'

[1176] For the translation of these lines see Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p.
233.

[1177] See above, p. 441.

[1178] So Jeremias' _Vorstellungen_, etc.; see p. 39. _Zikutu_ from the
same stem means a 'drinking bowl.'

[1179] A biting of the lips is elsewhere introduced as a figure. See the
author's monograph, "A Fragment of the Babylonian Dibbarra Epic," p. 14.

[1180] See Delitzsch, _Assyr. Wörterbuch_, p. 341.

[1181] So far as the domestic animals are concerned, it is true that
they throw off their young in the spring. The reference to a similar
interruption in the case of mankind (see above, p. 571) may embody the
recollection of a period when a regular pairing season and breeding time
existed among mankind. See Westermarck, _The History of Human Marriage_,
pp. 27 _seq._

[1182] Allatu.

[1183] _I.e._, of the dead person.

[1184] Ishtar.

[1185] See p. 475.

[1186] _Vorstellungen_, pp. 6-8.

[1187] Some instrument is mentioned.

[1188] IVR. 30, no. 3, obverse 23-35.

[1189] The word is explained by a gloss, 'Shamash has made him great.'

[1190] _I.e._, the month in which one dies.

[1191] See p. 175.

[1192] See pp. 505, 506.

[1193] _Vorstellungen_, p. 81.

[1194] Psalms, vi. 6.

[1195] _L'Enfer Assyrien_ (_Revue Archaeologique_, 1879, pp. 337-349).
See also Perrot and Chiplez, _History of Art in Chaldaea and Assyria_,
I. 349 _seq._

[1196] Described by Schell in the _Recucil de Travaux_, etc., xx. nos. 1
and 2. Schell regards the Zurghul duplicate as older than the other.

[1197] Only four on the Zurghul duplicate.

[1198] For the interpretation of these symbols, see Luschan,
_Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, pp. 17-27, and Scheil's article. On the
Zurghul tablet there are eight symbols, while the other contains nine.

[1199] See pp. 263, 264. A text IVR. 5, col. i. compares each of the
seven spirits to some animal. On the duplicate six demons are placed in
the second division and the seventh in the third.

[1200] On the duplicate those two demons do not occur.

[1201] Schell thinks that the face is that of a dog.

[1202] On the Zurghul duplicate the horse is not pictured.

[1203] See p. 529.

[1204] This division is not marked in the duplicate from Zurghul.

[1205] Not occurring on the duplicate.

[1206] Scheil questions whether the divisions have this purpose. While
perhaps not much stress is laid by the artist upon this symbolism, its
existence can hardly be questioned. Note the five divisions of the
universe in Smith's _Miscellaneous Texts_, p. 16. The water certainly
represents the Apsu. Allatu rests upon the bark. We do not find among
the Babylonians (as Scheil supposes) the view that the dead are conveyed
across a sheet of water to the nether world. The dead are buried, and by
virtue of this fact enter Aralû, which is in the earth. Egyptian
influence is possible, but unlikely.

[1207] IVR. 26, no. 1.

[1208] _I.e._, the nether world.

[1209] IVR. 30, no. 1; obverse 5, 14.

[1210] See Jensen's valuable articles, "The Queen in the Babylonian
Hades and her Consort," in the _Sunday School Times_, March 13 and 20,
1897. The text is published, Winckler and Abel, _Der Thontafelfund von
El-Amarna,_ iii. 164, 165.

[1211] Written phonetically _e-ri-ish_. The word is entered as a synonym
of _sharratum_, 'queen,' VR. 28, no. 2; obverse 31. This phonetic
writing furnishes the reading for _Nin_ in Nin-Klgal.

[1212] See pp. 418, 419.

[1213] See p. 428.

[1214] See below, p. 588 _seq._

[1215] See below, p. 590.

[1216] See above, p. 79.

[1217] See pp. 448, 511.

[1218] See Farnell, _The Cults of the Greek States_, ii. 627.

[1219] See the reference in note 3 to p. 519.

[1220] Wellhausen, _Reste Arabischen Heidenthums_, pp. 28, 29. That the
Syro-Arabian _Allat_ resembles Ishtar rather than Allatu, points again
to the original identity of the two goddesses.

[1221] See p. 546 _seq._

[1222] See below, p. 594, note 1, and Jensen's _Kosmologie_, pp. 145,
480, 483, 487.

[1223] _Sunday School Times_, 1897, p. 139.

[1224] See p. 574.

[1225] See Frazer, _The Golden Bough_, i. 240 _seq._ and 274, 275.

[1226] See p. 574.

[1227] See p. 417.

[1228] Cheyne (_Expository Times_, 1897, pp. 423, 424) ingeniously
regards _Belili_ as the source of the Hebrew word _Beliyaal_ or
_Belial_, which, by a species of popular etymology, is written by the
ancient Hebrew scholars as though compounded of two Hebrew words
signifying 'without return.' The popular etymology is valuable as
confirming the proposition to place Belili in the pantheon of the lower
world. From its original meaning, the word became a poetical term in
Hebrew for 'worthless,' 'useless,' and the like, _e.g._, in the
well-known phrase "Sons of Belial."

[1229] See p. 482.

[1230] See p. 537.

[1231] See above, p. 523.

[1232] IIR. 59; reverse 33-35.

[1233] See above, p. 175.

[1234] IIR. 57, 51a, a star, Nin-azu, is entered as one of the names of
the planet Ninib.

[1235] See above, p. 565. The name occurs also in Haupt's _Nimrodepos_,
pp. 19, 29.

[1236] _Vorstellungen_, p. 68.

[1237] The name of the goddess is written throughout the story
Nin-Kigal; _i.e._, 'queen of the nether world.' Nin-Eresh. See p. 584,
note 2.

[1238] Smith, _Miscellaneous Texts_, p. 16.

[1239] Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 259, note.

[1240] IVR. 1, col. i. 12; col iii. 8-10.

[1241] _Te'û_. See IVR. 22, 512, and Bartels, _Zeitschrift für
Assyriologie_, viii. 179-184.

[1242] See above, pp. 183, 560.

[1243] Obverse ll. 33, 37.

[1244] See above, p. 185.

[1245] See p. 186.

[1246] See p. 183.

[1247] See pp. 417, 598.

[1248] Jensen's _Kosmologie_, pp. 483, 484. In the new fragment of the
Deluge story discovered by Scheil (referred to above, p. 507, and now
published in the _Recueil de Travaux_, xix. no. 3) the word
_di-ib-ba-ra_ occurs, and the context shows that it means 'destruction.'
In view of this, the question is again opened as to the reading of the
name of the god of war and pestilence. The identification of this god
with Girra (pp. 528, 588) may belong to a late period.

[1249] See p. 529.

[1250] See pp. 111, 171, 190.

[1251] See chapter v.

[1252] So at Zurghul (or Zerghul) and el-Hibba. See Koldewey in
_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, ii. 403-430.

[1253] See the valuable chapter in Peters' work on _Nippur_, ii.
214-234.

[1254] _Proceedings of the American Oriental Society_, 1896, p. 166. The
dead are often conveyed hundreds of miles to be interred in Nejef and
Kerbela.

[1255] Peters' _Nippur_, ii. 325, 326.

[1256] See below, p. 597.

[1257] Koldewey, _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, ii. 406 _seq._

[1258] _Ib._

[1259] _Travels and Researches in Chaldaea and Susiana_, chapter xviii.

[1260] Peters' _Nippur_, ii. 234. Other mounds examined by Peters
between Warka and Nippur bear out the conclusion.

[1261] De Sarzec, _Découvertes en Chaldée_, pl. 3.

[1262] On the stele of vultures, the dead are naked.

[1263] Book I, § 195.

[1264] See p. 512.

[1265] Such sacrifices are pictured on the stele of vultures.

[1266] IIIR. 43, col. iv. l. 20; Belser, _Beiträge zur Assyriologie_,
ll. 175, 18; Pinches, _Babylonian Texts_, p. 18.

[1267] For this custom see Trumbull, _The Threshold Covenant_, p. 25;
Peters' _Nippur_, ii. 202, 203.

[1268] Recently, Scheil has discovered some private dwellings at
Abu-Habba, which will be described in his forthcoming volume on his
explorations at that place. See also Peters' _Nippur_, ii. 200, 201.

[1269] Peters' _Nippur_, ii. 220.

[1270] See p. 597. The date of the monument is prior to Sargon; _i.e._,
earlier than 3800 B.C.

[1271] VR. 61, col. vi. ll. 54, 55.

[1272] Rassam Cylinder, col. iii. l. 40.

[1273] Rassam Cylinder, col. iv. ll. 74-76.

[1274] _Ib._ col. vi. ll. 70-76.

[1275] Rassam Cylinder, col. iii. l. 64. The favorite mutilation was the
cutting off of the head. On one of the sculptured slabs from the palace
of Ashurbanabal, a pyramid of heads is portrayed. The cutting off of the
hands, the lips, the nose, and the male organ, as well as the flaying of
the skin, were also practised. (See Sennacherib's account IR. 42, col.
vi. ll. 1-6; Rassam Cylinder (Ashurbanabal), ii. 4 and iv. 136.)

[1276] Rassam Cylinder, col. vii. ll. 46-48.

[1277] _ekimmu_. See p. 580.

[1278] See p. 578.

[1279] Heuzey offers another explanation of the scene which is less
plausible. (See De Sarzec, _Découvertes en Chaldée_, p. 98.)

[1280] Hebrew word _Sak_. The other rite of mourning among the Hebrews,
the putting of earth on the head (_e.g._, I Sam. iv. 12; II Sam. i. 2
and xv. 32; Neh. ix. 1), is a survival of the method of burial as
portrayed in the 'stele of vultures.' The earth was originally placed in
a basket on the head and used to cover the dead body.

[1281] The mourning garb mentioned in the Adapa legend (p. 546) is
probably a 'torn' garment.

[1282] Hagen, _Cyrus-Texte_ (_Beiträge zur Assyriologie_, ii. 219, 223).

[1283] Inscription B, col. v. ll. 3-5.

[1284] Lane, _Modern Egyptians_, ll. 286.

[1285] See p. 575.

[1286] _Ib._

[1287] See p. 487.

[1288] Hagen, _Cyrus-Texte_, _ib._ and p. 248.

[1289] "The Folk-Song of Israel," _The New World_, ii. 35; also his
article "Das Hebräische Klagelied," _Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft_, ii. 1-52.

[1290] In Egypt at present the tambourine is used to accompany the
dirges (Lane, _ib._ p. 278).

[1291] Peter's _Nippur_, ii. 173, and elsewhere.

[1292] _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, ii. 414.

[1293] See above, p. 575.

[1294] Job, x. 21, 22.

[1295] _I.e._, the darkness is so dense that no light can remove it.

[1296] See the references in Schwally, _Das Leben nach dem Tode nach den
Vorstellungen des Alten Israels_, pp. 59-68, and Jeremias'
_Vorstellungen_, pp. 106-116.

[1297] Job, vii. 10.

[1298] _Refâ'îm_.

[1299] Chapter ix. 5-10.

[1300] Gen. xlii. 38.

[1301] Incidentally, a proof that the dead were not buried naked.

[1302] _Das Leben nach dem Tode_, etc, p. 67.

[1303] I Sam. ii. Recognized by the critics as an insertion. See Budde,
_Die Bücher Richter und Samuel_, p. 197.

[1304] I Kings, xvii. 21, 22.

[1305] Chapter ii. 7.

[1306] Psalms, cxxxix. 8; a very late production.

[1307] Schürer, _A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus
Christ_, vol. II. Division li. pp. 38, 39, 179-181.

[1308] _E.g._, the custom still in vogue among Orthodox Jews of placing
the body wrapped in a shroud upon a board, instead of in a coffin.

[1309] Professor Haupt has recently shown (in a paper read before the
American Oriental Society, April, 1897, and before the Eleventh
International Congress of Orientalists, September, 1897) that such is
the meaning of the phrase, Psalms, cxxxvii. 1, which is ordinarily
translated 'rivers of Babylon.'

[1310] The Talmud of Babylonia, and not the Talmud of Palestine, became
the authoritative work in the Jewish Church.




CHAPTER XXVI.

THE TEMPLES AND THE CULT.


The religious architecture of Babylonia and Assyria is of interest
chiefly as an expression of the religious earnestness of rulers and
people, and only in a minor degree as a manifestation of artistic
instincts. The lack of a picturesque building material in the Euphrates
Valley was sufficient to check the development of such instincts.
Important as the adaptation of the clay soil of Babylonia for simple
construction was for the growth of Babylonian culture, the limitations
to the employment of bricks as a building material are no less
significant. Ihering has endeavored to show[1311] by an argument that is
certainly brilliant and almost convincing, that the settlement of
Semites in a district, the soil of which could be so readily used to
replace the primitive habitations of man by solid structures, made the
Semites the teachers of the Aryans in almost everything that pertains to
civilization. House-building produced the art of measuring, led to more
elaborate furnishings of the habitation, created various trades,
introduced social distinctions, necessitated divisions of time, and gave
the stimulus to commercial intercourse. But, on the other hand, the
artistic possibilities of brick structures were soon exhausted. The
house could be indefinitely extended in length and even height, but such
an extension only added to the monotonous effect. With clay as a
building material, so readily moulded into any desired shape, and that
could be baked, if need be, by the action of the sun without the use of
fire, it was almost as easy to build a large house as a small one. But
the addition of rooms and wings and stories which differentiated the
house from the palace and the palace from the temple, served to make
hugeness the index of grandeur. The best specimens of the religious
architecture of Babylonia and Assyria are characterized by such
hugeness. A proportionate increase of external beauty could only be
secured by a modification of architectural style; but the conservative
instincts of the people discouraged any deviation from the conventional
shapes of the temples, which appear indeed to have been firmly
established long before the days of Hammurabi. The influence of
conventionality finds a striking illustration in the manner in which the
temples of Assyria follow Babylonian models. Soft and hard stone
suitable for permanent structures was easily procured in the mountainous
district adjacent to Assyria. The Assyrians used this material for
statues, altars, and for the slabs with which they decorated the
exterior and interior walls of their great edifices. Had they also
employed it as a building material, we should have had the development
of new architectural styles; but the Assyrians, so dependent in
everything pertaining to culture upon the south, could not cut
themselves loose from ancient traditions, and continued to erect huge
piles of brick, as the homage most pleasing in the eyes of their gods.
The Book of Genesis characterized the central idea of the Babylonian and
Assyrian temples when it represented the people gathered in the valley
of Shinar--that is, Babylonia--as saying: 'Come, let us build a city and
a tower that shall reach up to heaven.'[1312] The Babylonian and
Assyrian kings pride themselves upon the height of their temples.
Employing, indeed, almost the very same phrase that we find in the Old
Testament, they boast of having made the tops of their sacred edifices
as high as 'heaven.'[1313] The temple was to be in the literal sense of
the word a 'high place.' But, apart from the factor of natural growth,
there was a special reason why the Babylonians aimed to make their
sacred edifices high. The oldest temple of Babylonia at the present time
known to us, the temple of Bel at Nippur, bears the characteristic name
of E-Kur, 'mountain house.' The name is more than a metaphor. The sacred
edifices of Babylonia were intended as a matter of fact to be imitations
of mountains. It is Jensen's merit to have suggested the explanation for
this rather surprising ideal of the Babylonian temple.[1314] According
to Babylonian notions, it will be recalled, the earth is pictured as a
huge mountain. Among other names, the earth is called E-Kur, 'mountain
house.' The popular and early theology conceived the gods as sprung from
the earth. They are born in Kharsag-kurkura,[1315] 'the mountain of all
lands,' which is again naught but a designation for the earth, though at
a later period some particular part of the earth, some mountain peak,
may have been pictured as the birthplace of the gods, much as among the
Indians, Persians, and Greeks we find a particular mountain singled out
as the one on which the gods dwell. The transfer of the gods or of some
of them to places in the heavens was, as we saw,[1316] a scholastic
theory, and not a popular belief. It was a natural association of ideas,
accordingly, that led the Babylonians to give to their temples the form
of the dwelling which they ascribed to their gods. The temple, in so far
as it was erected to serve as a habitation for the god and an homage to
him, was to be the reproduction of the cosmic E-Kur,--'a mountain house'
on a small scale, a miniature Kharsag-kurkura. In confirmation of this
view, it is sufficient to point out that E-Kur is not merely the name of
the temple to Bel at Nippur, but is frequently used as a designation for
temple in general; and, moreover, a plural is formed of the word which
is used for divinities.[1317] In Assyria we find one of the oldest
temples bearing the name E-kharsag-kurkura,[1318] that stamps the
edifice as the reproduction of the 'mountain of all lands'; and there
are other temples that likewise bear names[1319] in which the idea of a
mountain is introduced.

To produce the mountain effect, a mound of earth was piled up and on
this mound a terrace was formed that served as the foundation plane for
the temple proper, but it was perfectly natural also that instead of
making the edifice consist of one story, a second was superimposed on
the first so as to heighten the resemblance to a mountain. The outcome
of this ideal was the so-called staged tower, known as the _zikkurat_.
The name signifies simply a 'high' edifice, and embodies the same idea
that led the Canaanites and Hebrews to call their temples 'high
places.'[1320]

The oldest zikkurat as yet found is the one excavated by Drs. Peters and
Haynes at Nippur,[1321] the age of which can be traced back to the
second dynasty of Ur--about 2700 B.C. This appears to have consisted of
three stages, one superimposed on the other. There is a reference to a
zikkurat in the inscriptions of Gudea that may be several centuries
older; but since beneath the zikkurat at Nippur remains of an earlier
building were found, it is a question whether the staged tower
represents the oldest type of a Babylonian temple. At no time does any
special stress appear to have been laid upon the number of stories of
which the zikkurat was to consist. It is not until a comparatively late
period that rivalry among the rulers and natural ambition led to the
increase of the superimposed stages until the number seven was reached.
The older zikkurats were imposing chiefly because of the elevation of
the terrace on which they were erected, and inasmuch as the ideal of the
temple is realized to all practical purposes by the erection of a high
edifice on an elevated mound, the chief stress was laid upon the height
of the terrace. The terrace, in a certain sense, is the original
zikkurat--the real 'high place'--and the temple of one story naturally
precedes the staged tower, and may have remained the type for some time
before the more elaborate structure was evolved. However this may be, we
are justified in associating the mountain _motif_ with the beginnings of
religious architecture in the Euphrates Valley, precisely as the
underlying cosmic notions belong to the earliest period of which we have
any knowledge. That the staged tower when once evolved was regarded as
the most satisfactory expression of the religious ideas follows from the
fact that all the large centers of Babylonia had a zikkurat of some kind
dedicated to the patron deity, and probably many of the smaller places
likewise. A list of zikkurats[1322] furnishes the names of no less than
twenty; and while all of the important places are included, there are
others which do not appear to have played an important part in either
the religious or political history of the country, and which
nevertheless had their zikkurat. To judge from the fact that in this
list several names of zikkurat are connected with one and the same
place, more than one zikkurat, indeed, could be found in a large
religious center.[1323]


The Construction and Character of the Zikkurats.

The zikkurat was quadrangular in shape. The orientation of the four
corners towards the four cardinal points was only approximate.[1324]
Inasmuch as the rulers of Babylonia from a very early period call
themselves 'king of the four regions,'[1325] it has been supposed that
the quadrangular shape was chosen designedly; but there is no proof that
any stress was laid upon symbolism of this kind, or upon the orientation
of the corners of the sacred edifices. More attention was bestowed upon
making the brick structure huge and massive.

The height of the zikkurats varied. Those at Nippur and Ur[1326] appear
to have been about 90 feet high, while the tower at Borsippa which Sir
Henry Rawlinson carefully examined[1327] attained a height of 140 feet.
The base of this zikkurat, which may be regarded as a specimen of the
tower in its most elaborate form, was a quadrangular mass 272 feet
square and 26 feet high. The second and third stories were of equal
height, but the square mass diminished with each story by 42 feet. The
height of the four upper stories was 15 feet each. At the same time, the
mass diminished steadily at the rate of 42 feet, so that the seventh
story consisted of a mass of only 20 feet square. Sargon's zikkurat at
Khorsabad (the suburb of Nineveh) was about the same height.

The average number of stages of the zikkurat appears to have been three,
as at Nippur and Ur, or four, as at Larsa.[1328] In the pictorial
representations of the towers,[1329] we similarly find either three or
four. In these smaller zikkurats, the height of each tower, as in the
first three stories of the tower at Borsippa, appears to have been
alike; but the mass diminished in proportion in order to secure a space
for a staircase leading from one story to the other. This method of
ascent was older than the winding balustrade, which was better adapted
to the more elaborate structures of later times. No doubt, as the towers
increased in height, other variations were introduced--as, _e.g._, in
the proportions of the stories--without interfering with the essential
principle of the zikkurat.

The ungainly appearance presented by the huge towers was somewhat
relieved by decorations of the friezes and by the judicious use of
color. Enameled bricks of bright hues, such as yellow and blue,[1330]
became common, and in the case of some of the towers it would appear
that a different color was chosen for each story. Whether all the bricks
in each story were colored or only those at the edge, or, perhaps, some
rows, it is impossible to say. From Herodotus' description of the seven
concentric walls of Ecbatana,[1331] in which each wall was distinguished
by a certain color, the conclusion has been drawn that the same
colors--white, black, scarlet, blue, orange, silver, and gold--were
employed by the Babylonians for the stages of their towers; but there is
no satisfactory evidence that this was the case. That these colors were
brought into connection with the planets, as some scholars have
supposed, is highly improbable.

As already pointed out, no special stress seems to have been laid upon
the number of stories of which the zikkurat consisted, but the natural
result of ambition and rivalry among builders tended towards an increase
of the height, and this end could be most readily attained by adding to
the number of stories. Still, there may have been some symbolism which
led to the choice of three, four, or seven stories, inasmuch as these
numbers have a sacred import among so many nations.[1332] For the number
seven, the influence of cosmological associations is quite clear. The
two most famous of the zikkurats of seven stages were those in Babylon
and in Borsippa, opposite Babylon. The latter bears the significant name
E-ur-imin-an-ki,[1333] _i.e._, 'the house of the seven directions of
heaven and earth.' The 'seven directions' were interpreted by the
Babylonian theologians as a reference to the seven great celestial
bodies,--the sun and moon and the five planets Ishtar, Marduk, Ninib,
Nergal, and Nabu.[1334] To each of these gods one story was supposed to
be dedicated, and the tower thus became a cosmological symbol,
elaborating in theological fashion the fundamental idea of the zikkurat
as a reproduction of the dwelling-place of the gods. The identification
of the five gods with the planets is a proof of the scholastic character
of the interpretation, and hence of its comparatively late origin. This
interpretation of the number seven, however, was not the only one
proposed in the Babylonian schools. Two much older towers than those of
Babylon and Borsippa bear names in which 'seven' is introduced. One of
these is the zikkurat to Nin-girsu at Lagash, which Gudea[1335]
describes as 'the house of seven divisions of the world'; the other, the
tower at Uruk,[1336] which bore the name 'house of seven zones.' The
reference in both cases is, as Jensen has shown,[1337] to the seven
concentric zones into which the earth was divided by the Babylonians. It
is a conception that we encounter in India and Persia, and that survives
in the seven 'climates' into which the world was divided by Greek and
Arabic geographers. It seems clear that this interpretation of the
number seven is older than the one which identified each story with one
of the planets.[1338] Both interpretations have a scholastic aspect,
however, and the very fact that there are two interpretations, justifies
the suspicion that neither furnishes the _real_ explanation why the
number seven was chosen.

It by no means follows from the names borne by the zikkurats at Lagash
and Uruk that they actually consisted of seven stories. The 'seven
divisions' and the 'seven zones' are merely terms equivalent to
'universe.' The names given to the towers would have been equally
appropriate if they consisted--as they probably did--of fewer stories
than seven. But, on the other hand, the introduction of the number seven
into the names may be regarded as a factor which influenced ambitious
builders to make the number of stories seven. Over and above this,
however, seven was chosen, primarily, because it was a large number,
and, secondly, because it was a sacred number,--sacred in part because
large, since 'largeness' and 'sacredness' are correlated ideas in the
popular phases of early religious thought. In the same way, it is
because seven was popularly sacred that the world was divided into seven
zones and that the planets were fixed at seven, not _vice versa_.

The opinion of some scholars[1339] that the zikkurats were used for
astronomical observations remains a pure conjecture, of which it cannot
even be said that it has probability in its favor. It is certain that
the astronomical observations, since they were conducted by the priests,
were made in the temple precincts; but a small room at the top of a
pyramid difficult of access seems hardly a spot adapted for the purpose.
Moreover, the sacred character of the zikkurat speaks against the
supposition that it should have been put to such constant use, and for
purposes not directly connected with the cult. In the numerous
astronomical reports that we have, there is not a single reference from
which one could conclude that the observations reported were made from
the top of a zikkurat.

But, on the other hand, it would appear that as the zikkurat developed
from a one-story edifice into a tower, and as the number of the stages
increased, the zikkurat assumed more of an ornamental character. While
the ascent of the tower continued to be regarded to the latest days as a
sacred duty, pleasing in the eyes of the deity, for the ordinary and
more practical purposes of the cult, other buildings were erected near
the tower. Within the temple area and bordering on it there were smaller
shrines, while in front of the zikkurat there was a large open place,
where the pilgrims who flocked to the sacred city, congregated. The
sacrifices which formed the essential feature of worship were brought,
not at the top of the zikkurat, but on altars that were erected at the
base.

The ideographic designation of the zikkurat as a 'conspicuous
house,'[1340] which accords admirably with the motive ascribed in the
eleventh chapter of Genesis to the builders of a zikkurat to erect an
edifice that "could be seen," supports the view here taken of the more
decorative position which the staged tower came to occupy,--an homage to
the gods rather than a place where they were to be worshipped, something
that suggested the dwelling-place of a god, to be visited only
occasionally by the worshipper--in short, a monument forming part of a
religious sanctuary, but not coextensive with the sanctuary. The
differentiation that thus arose between the dwelling-place of the god
and the place where he was to be worshipped is a perfectly natural one.
To emphasize the fact that the zikkurat was the temple for the god, a
small room was built at the top of the zikkurat,[1341] and it was a
direct consequence of this same distinction between a temple for the
gods and a temple for actual worship that led to assigning to zikkurats
special names, and such as differed from the designation of the sacred
quarter of which the zikkurat formed the most conspicuous feature.

Thus the name E-Kur, 'mountain house,' though evidently an appropriate
designation for the zikkurat, becomes the term for the sacred area which
included in time a large series of buildings used for the cult, whereas
the zikkurat itself receives the special name of 'house of
oracle';[1342] and similarly in the case of the various other religious
centers of Babylonia, the name of the zikkurat is distinct from that of
the sacred quarter--the temple in the broader sense.

The special position which the zikkurat thus came to occupy is, of
course, merely an outcome of the growth of the religious centers of the
country, and involves no departure from the religious ideals of earlier
days. The distinction is much of the same order as we find in the case
of the Hebrew temple at Jerusalem, where the court in which the
worshippers gathered was distinct from the 'holy of holies,' which was
originally regarded as the dwelling of Yahwe, and in later times was
viewed as the spot where he manifested himself. The name 'house of
oracle' given to the zikkurat at Nippur is a valuable indication of the
special sanctity that continued to be attached to the staged tower.


The Temple and the Sacred Quarter.

But the zikkurat, while the most characteristic expression of the
religious spirit of Babylonia, was by no means the only kind of sacred
edifice that prevailed.

The excavations at Nippur have afforded us for the first time a general
view of a sacred quarter in an ancient Babylonian city. The extent of
the quarter was considerable. Dr. Peters' estimate is eight areas for
the zikkurat and surrounding structures, and to this we may add several
acres more, since beyond the limits of the great terrace there were
buildings to the southeast and southwest, used for religious purposes.
It is likely that the extent of E-Sagila at Babylon was even greater.
Outside of the temple area at Nippur, Peters[1343] and Haynes unearthed
a court of considerable size, lined with brick columns. The court was
open to the sky, but the columns supported a roof which was apparently
of wood. Similar courts have been found elsewhere, so that we are
justified in regarding the Nippur structure as characteristic of the
architecture of Babylonia. The court was attached to an edifice of
considerable size, which contained among other things rooms in which the
temple records were kept. The entrance to the court was by a large
gateway, supported on each side by a brick column, double the diameter
of those that surrounded the court. While the nature of the building is
not perfectly clear, still the presence of the temple archives and the
gateway make it probable that the structure was used in connection with
the cult of some deity worshipped at Nippur. Lending weight to this
supposition are the points of resemblance between this structure and the
sacred edifices of the ancient Hebrews and Arabs. A court of sixty
columns--made of wood, quadrangular in shape, with the supports and tops
of metal--was the characteristic feature of the tabernacle.[1344] Within
this court, open to the sky, the people gathered for worship. The altar
and the basin for ablutions stood in the court, while the holy tent
containing the ark was set up near the eastern end of the place.
Similarly at Mecca,[1345] the Kaaba, the pulpit, and the sacred fountain
are grouped within a space enclosed on all sides by colonnades. Again,
surrounding the Solomonic temple on three sides was a spacious court.
This court was enclosed with colonnades.[1346] It may well be,
therefore, that the edifice around or near the fine court of columns at
Nippur was a sacred structure, erected in honor of some deity. The two
large brick columns at the entrance to the Nippur court are paralleled
in the case of the Solomonic temple by the two large columns, known as
Yakhin and Boaz, that stood at the gateway. These names are as yet
unexplained. Their symbolic character, apart from other evidence, may be
concluded from the circumstance that, as Schick has shown,[1347] the
columns stood free, and did not serve as a support for any part of the
gateway.[1348] There is no need, therefore, for any hesitation in
comparing these two columns, whose presence in the Solomonic structure
is certainly due to foreign influence, to those found at Nippur.[1349]

That the columns at Nippur were erected in accordance with recognized
custom follows from De Sarzec's discovery of two enormous round columns
within the sacred quarter of Lagash.[1350] In the light of Peters'
excavations, the significance of the columns at Lagash becomes clear.
Unfortunately, De Sarzec's excavations at Lagash at the point of the
mound in question were interrupted, but he gives reasons for believing
that other columns existed near the two large ones found by him.[1351]
There is, therefore, every reason to conclude that at Lagash, as at
Nippur and no doubt elsewhere, the two columns belonged to a great
gateway leading into a large court of columns. That these columns served
a symbolic purpose in the Babylonian temple as they did at Jerusalem,
cannot be maintained with certainty, but is eminently likely.

The court of columns was surrounded by a series of rooms. If the view
taken of the building is correct, these rooms were used for the temple
administration. However this may be, there can be no doubt that the
structures of various size found around the zikkurat at Nippur served as
dwellings for the priests and the temple attendants, as stalls for the
temple cattle, as shops for the manufacture and sale of votive objects,
and the like. Within the temple area proper were the schools where young
priests were trained to be scribes, and received instructions in the
doctrines and rites. The astronomical observatories, too, were situated
near the temple. The schools served, as they still do in the orient, as
the gathering-place of the mature scholars. The systematized pantheon,
and the cosmological and astronomical systems represent the outcome of
the intellectual activity that manifested itself within the sacred
quarters of the cities of Babylonia. The execution of justice being in
the hands of the priests, the sacred area also contained the rooms where
the judges sat. It is interesting to note that Gudea mentions a hall of
judgment in the temple to Nin-girsu at Lagash. The number of such
buildings attached to the temple precinct varied, of course, according
to the needs and growth of each place. In Nippur, the numbers appear to
have been very large. We may assume, likewise, that at Sippar, Uruk, Ur,
and Larsa the zikkurat was the center of a considerable group of
buildings, while at Babylon in the days of her greatest power, the
temple area of E-Sagila must have presented the appearance of a little
city by itself, shut off from the rest of the town by a wall which
invariably enclosed the sacred quarter. Within this large wall there
were smaller ones, marking the several divisions of the temple
buildings. The construction of the smaller edifices does not appear to
have varied from the ordinary form chosen for the one-story
dwelling-houses in the city proper. The material used for all
structures--the large and the small ones--was brick. In earlier times
the bricks were merely dried in the sun. The buildings, as a
consequence, suffered much from the influence of the heat and rain, and
required frequent repairs. Often the tower would crumble away, and an
entirely new edifice would have to be erected. The later custom of
kiln-dried bricks was an improvement, and still more solidity was
insured when the exterior series of brick was glazed. In the older
buildings, the bricks were merely piled together, without cement.
Afterwards straw was mixed with the clay, but as early as Gudea's days
the bitumen, abounding in the valley, became the common cement employed
in all edifices of importance. Wood was used in the case of smaller
sanctuaries (as also in palaces) for the roof, and the kings often refer
with pride to the efforts they made to obtain the precious cedars of the
Lebanon forests for their building enterprises. The decoration was
confined largely to the façades, the doors, and the floors. A pleasing
effect also was produced by the judicious distribution of glazed and
enameled bricks in the walls. Colors were used with still greater
lavishness in the decorations of the interior. The brilliancy was
heightened by the use of precious stones and gold and silver for the
walls and floors and ceilings. The aim of the builders was, as they
constantly tell us, to make the buildings as brilliant as the sunlight.
The decorations of the brick walls and floors suggest textile patterns,
and to account for this, some scholars have supposed that prior to the
use of colored bricks, it was customary to cover the walls and floors of
temples and palaces with draperies and rugs. The suggestion lacks proof,
but has much in its favor. In exterior architecture no profound changes
were ever introduced, but within the prescribed limits, the builders did
their utmost to make their edifices testimonials of their zeal and
power. They imported gold, copper, and diorite from the Sinai peninsula
and Arabia, precious stones from Armenia and the Upper Euphrates, wood
from Bahrein and from various parts of the Amanus range, and so all
quarters of the ancient world of culture were ransacked for
contributions to add to the splendor of the Babylonian and Assyrian
cities. Much care was bestowed in the course of time upon the portals.
The wooden gates were covered with bronze, in which art of decoration
great skill was developed.[1352] The columns of stone appear only in
Assyrian edifices as decorations in the front of palaces, supporting a
portal or portico that projects from the temple proper.[1353] The
introduction appears to be due to foreign influence, perhaps
Hittite.[1354]

To determine the interior arrangement of a sacred structure, we have two
small Assyrian temples, excavated by Layard at Nimrod, to serve as our
guide.[1355] A long hall constituted the chief feature. At the extreme
end of this hall was a small room, in which stood a statue of the god to
whom the temple was dedicated. This room, known as the _papakhu_ or
_parakku_, was the most sacred part of the temple, and it is doubtful
whether any but the king or the highest officials had access to it.
Certainly, no one could approach the presence of the deity without the
mediation of a priest. Both terms for this room convey the idea of its
being "shut off"[1356] from the rest of the building, precisely as the
holy of holies in the temple of Jerusalem containing the ark, was
separated from the central hall. Gudea[1357] describes the papakhu as
the "dark" (or inner) chamber.

We are fortunate in having a pictorial representation of such a papakhu.
A stone tablet found at Sippar[1358] represents Shamash seated in the
"holy of holies" of the temple E-Babbara. The god sits on a low throne.
In front of him is an altar table on which rests a wheel with radiant
spokes,--a symbol of the sun-god. Into this sanctuary the worshipper,
who is none other than the king Nabubaliddin, is led by a priest. The
king is at pains to tell us in the inscription attached to the design,
that he was careful to restore the image of Shamash after an ancient
model, and his motive in adding an illustration to this tablet is that
future builders may have no excuse for not being equally careful. We
may, therefore, take the illustration as a sample of the general
character of the sacred chambers in the Babylonian and Assyrian temples
in the great centers. The papakhu was decorated with great lavishness.
The floors and walls and also the ceiling were studded with precious
stones. We may believe Herodotus[1359] when he tells us that the statue
of Marduk in his temple at Babylon and the table in front of it was of
gold. It was to the papakhu that the priests retired when they desired
to obtain an oracle direct from the god; and as in the course of time
the sanctity of the spot increased, we may well suppose that the
occasions when the deity was directly approached in his papakhu became
rarer. Through the influence of the schools attached to the Marduk cult
at Babylon, the New Year's Festival--the character of which we will have
occasion to explain later on--came to be regarded as the season most
appropriate for approaching the oracular chamber. During this festival,
Marduk was supposed to decide the fate of mankind for the whole year,
and the intercession of the priests on the occasion was fraught with
great importance.

A special significance, moreover, came to be attached to the sacred
chamber in the Marduk temple. Complementing in a measure, the
cosmological associations that have been noted in connection with the
zikkurat, the papakhu of Marduk was regarded as an imitation of a
cosmical 'sacred chamber.' As the zikkurat represented the mountain on
which the gods were born and where they were once supposed to dwell, so
the sacred room was regarded as the reproduction of a portion of the
great mountain where the gods assembled in solemn council. This council
chamber was situated at the eastern end of the great mountain, and was
known as Du-azagga, that is, 'brilliant chamber.' The chamber itself
constituted the innermost recess of the eastern limit of the mountain,
and the special part of the mountain in which it lay was known as
Ubshu-kenna, written with the ideographic equivalents to 'assembly
room.' It will be apparent that such a view of the papakhu is the result
of theological speculation, and is not due, as is the conception of the
zikkurat, to popular beliefs.

The assembly of the gods presupposes a systematization of the pantheon,
and the fact that it is only the papakhu in Marduk's temple which is
known as Du-azagga[1360] is a sufficient indication of the influences at
work which produced this conception. In the creation epic, there is a
reference to the Ubshu-kenna[1361] which shows the main purpose of a
divine assembly in the eyes of the priests of Babylon. The gods meet
there in order to do homage to Marduk. They gather around the victorious
vanquisher of Tiâmat, as the princes gather round the throne of the
supreme ruler,--the king of Babylon and of Babylonia.

One can see, however, that, as is generally the case with theological
doctrines, there is a popular starting-point from which these views were
developed. The Du-azagga is older than the Ubshu-kenna. Situated in the
extreme east, the 'brilliant chamber' is evidently the place whence the
sun rises in the morning. A hymn to Shamash[1362] expressly speaks of
the sun rising out of the Du-azagga, and, since the sun also appears to
rise up out of the ocean, the Du-azagga is placed at a point close to
the great Apsu, which flows underneath the mountain. In confirmation of
this view, a syllabary[1363] identifies the Du-azagga with the Apsu.
Marduk, by virtue of his original quality as a solar deity, would
naturally be pictured as coming forth from Du-azagga. In this sense the
title Mar-Du-azaga,[1364] 'son of Du-azagga,' is applied to him, just as
he is called Mar-Apsi, the son of Apsu. But the same conception would
hold good of Shamash, of Ninib, and of some other solar deities, though
not of all. That Du-azagga came to be especially associated with Marduk
is due simply to the preëminent rank that he came to occupy. Whether
there was also a popular basis for the conception of an Ubshu-kenna, an
'assembly room' of the gods, is a question more difficult to answer.
Certainly, the view that the gods gathered together in one place belongs
to an age which attempted to fix, at least in some measure, the
relationship of the divine beings to one another. The popular phase of
the conception of a general assembly house could, in any case, hardly
have proceeded further than the assumption of some particular part of
the great mountain, where the gods were wont to come together. The
connection of this assembly place with the Du-azagga is distinctly the
work of the theologians of Babylon. In their desire to make Marduk the
central figure of the pantheon, they bring all the gods to his side. The
Ubshu-kenna is thus transferred to the region whence the sun issues on
his daily journey. The 'chamber' of Marduk becomes the most sacred spot
in this region, and the Ubshu-kenna the general name for the region
itself. As Marduk in Babylon was surrounded by his court, so in
Ubshu-kenna the gods assemble to pay homage to the one freely
acknowledged by them as the greatest, and who is pictured as sitting on
his throne in Du-azagga. The further speculation which brought the gods
together yearly on the occasion of the great Marduk festival belongs
likewise, and as a matter of course, to the period when Marduk's sway
was undisputed.

The ideas that were thus attached to the papakhu in E-Sagila are a
valuable indication of the sanctity attached to that part of the temple
where the god sat enthroned. In a general way, what holds good of
Marduk's papakhu applies to every sacred chamber in a temple, and no
doubt views were once current of the papakhu of Bel at Nippur and of the
'holy of holies' in E-Babbara[1365] and elsewhere that formed in some
measure, a parallel to what the Marduk priests told of their favorite
sanctuary.

Coming back now to the large hall which led into the papakhu, the
absence of bas-reliefs in this hall in the case of the Assyrian temples
excavated by Layard, suggests that the walls of this hall were not lined
with sculptured slabs, as was the case in the large rooms of the
palaces; and we may conclude that in Babylonian temples, likewise, the
decoration of the walls was confined as a general thing to enameled
bricks, interspersed, perhaps, with metallic panels, and that
mythological scenes--such as the contest with Tiâmat or Gilgamesh's
adventures--were only occasionally portrayed. An aim which, as the
rulers themselves tell us in their inscriptions, they always kept in
view was to make both the exterior and interior of the temples
resplendent with brilliant coloring--"brilliant as the sun." At the
entrances to the Assyrian temples stood lions, chiseled out of soft
limestone or the harder alabaster. At Telloh various fragments of large
lion heads were found,[1366] so that there is every reason not only to
trace this custom to Babylonia, but to carry it back to a very early
period. Besides the lion, a favorite religious symbol, as we have
seen,[1367] was the bull, and, since Nebuchadnezzar speaks of retaining
the "bull" statue of the old temple to Nanâ (or Ishtar) at Erech, we may
suppose that the representation of colossal bulls at the entrances to
the temples also belongs to the characteristic features of Babylonian
religious architecture. The lion, it will be recalled, is more
particularly the symbol of Nergal, but he appears originally, like the
bull, to have been a symbol of other gods as well--perhaps, indeed, of
the gods in general. Similarly, the eagle, which becomes the special
symbol of Ashur, appears prominently on the monuments of Entemena[1368]
and other ancient rulers, centuries before the Ashur cult comes into
prominence.

In the large court in front of the zikkurats there stood the jars used
in connection with the cult, and the presence of these jars furthermore
suggests that there was an altar in the great court, precisely as in the
case of the Solomonic temple.[1369] In the larger of the temples found
by Layard, there was a smaller hall in front of the large one. We may
assume that the same was the case with the larger temples of Babylonia,
and this three-fold division of the interior,--the vestibule, or
_pronaos_, the main hall, or _naos_, and the papakhu,--further warrants
the comparison of a Babylonian sacred edifice with the Solomonic
temple,[1370] where likewise we have the vestibule, the hall known as
the 'holy' part, and the 'holy of holies,' the one leading into the
other. As to the further disposition of the rooms in the main temple, we
must be content to wait for further excavations. What we know is
sufficient to warrant the supposition that there was practical
uniformity in the interior arrangement of the Babylonian and Assyrian
temples. What variation there existed was probably confined to the
decoration of the walls, doorways, and to the façades. Meanwhile, it is
something to have reached general results. The zikkurat was surrounded
by a varying number of shrines that were used as places of assembly for
worshippers. The latter gathered also in the large court in front of the
zikkurat, where the chief altar probably stood.[1371] In the large halls
of the shrines, there were in all probabilities likewise altars. It
seems natural to suppose that the hall of judgment, mentioned already in
Gudea's inscription,[1372] was attached to some shrine. Besides the
zikkurats and shrines, there were smaller structures used as dwellings
for the priests and temple officials, for storehouses, for the archives,
and as stalls for the animals to be used in the sacrifices. At Nippur a
smithy was found near the temple precinct. There were workshops near the
temple where the furnishings for the temple, such as the curtains and
the utensils, were made, and there were magazines where votive tablets
and offerings were manufactured and sold. The number of these structures
varied, naturally, in each religious center, and increased in proportion
to the growth of the center. The zikkurat, the great court, the shrines,
and the smaller structures formed a sacred precinct, and it was this
precinct as a whole that constituted the temple in the larger sense, and
received some appropriate name. Thus E-Kur at Nippur, E-Sagila at
Babylon, E-Zida at Borsippa are used to denote the entire sacred
precinct in these cities, and not merely the chief structure. The
zikkurat always had a special name of its own.

A factor that contributed largely to the growth of the sacred precinct
in the large centers was the circumstance that the political importance
of such centers as Nippur, Lagash, Ur, Babylon, and Nineveh led the
rulers to group around the worship of the chief deity, the cult of the
minor ones who constituted the family or the court of the chief god. The
kings measured their importance by the number of the gods upon whose
assistance they could rely. The priests came to the assistance of the
kings in connecting the gods of the royal pantheon in such a way, as to
satisfy the pride of both their royal and divine masters.[1373] The
ambition of the kings, more especially of the Assyrian empire, led also
to the addition of foreign deities to the pantheon. For these also
shrines were built within or near the sacred precinct.

Gudea sets the example for his successors by parading a large pantheon
at the close of his inscriptions,[1374] and a list of temples in Lagash,
recently published by Scheil,[1375] shows that most, if not all, of the
gods invoked by the ruler had a sanctuary erected in his or her honor.
There were, as we have seen, several quarters in Lagash, and therefore
several sacred precincts, so that we cannot be certain that all of these
sanctuaries stood in one and the same quarter. But, since the list in
question furnishes the name of no less than thirteen sacred edifices, we
are certain that as many as four or five smaller chapels surrounded the
precinct in which stood the great temple E-Ninnu, sacred to Gudea's
chief god Ningirsu-Ninib.

The list is headed by the sanctuary to Nin-girsu. There follow temples
to Bau, to Nin-gishzida, Nin-mar, Ninâ, Dumuzi-zu-aba, Nin-si-a,
Ga-tum-dug known to us from the inscriptions of Gudea, besides others,
like Shabra (?), Nin-sun, Nin-tu, that appear here for the first time.
In Nippur, we find traces of the worship of Belit (or Nin-lil), of
Ninib, and of Nusku, though with the exception of the first named, the
worship of these gods has not been traced back further than the days of
the Cassite dynasty. Subsequent excavations may, of course, change the
present aspect; but one gains the impression from the most ancient
inscriptions found at Nippur that at an early period Bel was a god much
like the Hebrew Yahwe, "jealous" of having others at his side. Such a
conception would help to account for the title 'lord' being applied to
him above all others, and also aids us in understanding the lasting
impression he made upon the people of Babylonia,--an impression so
profound that when the time came for En-lil to yield his supremacy to
Marduk, no better means could be found of emphasizing the latter's
authority, than by transferring to him the names and titles of the older
Bel.[1376] In this respect, however, Nippur was an exception, and in
later times the Bel cult was affected by the same influences that led
Gudea to group around the sanctuary to Nin-girsu, edifices sacred to
other gods and goddesses. Lugalzaggisi[1377] of Erech enumerates an
extensive pantheon,[1378] which contains most of the chief deities, and
from which we may conclude that the temple of Nanâ was similarly the
center of a large precinct in which the cult of other deities was
carried on. When we come to the cult of Marduk at Babylon and of Nabu at
Borsippa, the inscriptions, chiefly those of Nebuchadnezzar, come to our
aid in showing us the arrangement of the various chapels that were
comprised within the sacred precincts of E-Sagila and E-Zida,
respectively. In the first place, the close relationship between Marduk
and Nabu was emphasized by placing a papakhu to Nabu in the precinct of
E-Sagila, which--built in imitation of E-Zida at Borsippa--was called by
the same name.[1379] This papakhu, it would seem, was independent of a
special temple to Nabu known as E-Makh-tila, and which lay in Borsippa.
The consort of Marduk, Sarpanitum, likewise had her temple in Babylon,
and naturally close to the chief sanctuary of Marduk.[1380] Ea, the
father of Marduk, had a small sanctuary known as E-kar-zaginna in the
sacred precinct.[1381] It does not follow, of course, that all the
temples in a center like Babylon or Borsippa were concentrated in one
place. Indeed, when Nebuchadnezzar speaks of three temples to Gula being
erected in Borsippa,[1382] it is certain that they could not have been
within the precinct of E-Zida, and so the temples to Shamash and Ramman,
Sin and Ishtar, as well as to Nabu in Babylon, had an independent
position; but we are at least warranted in concluding that they were not
far removed from E-Sagila, and so, likewise, the numerous temples
enumerated by Nebuchadnezzar as erected or improved by him in Borsippa
were not far distant from Nabu's sanctuary,--the famous E-Zida. The
palaces of the kings were also erected near the temples. In Babylon, we
know that before Nebuchadnezzar's days, the palace stood so close to
E-Sagila that an enlargement of it was impossible without encroaching on
the sacred quarter.[1383] The tendency to combine with the worship of
the chief god, the cult of others is as characteristic of Assyrian
rulers as of their Babylonian predecessors. We are fortunate in
possessing an extensive list,[1384] enumerating the various deities
worshipped in the temples of Assyria, and the occasions on which they
are to be invoked. The information to be gained from this list is all
the more welcome since the Assyrian kings are chiefly interested in
transmitting an account of their military expeditions, and tell us
comparatively little of the religious edifices in their capitols. From
this list we learn that in the old temple sacred to Anu and
Ramman,[1385] in the city of Ashur--the oldest Assyrian temple known to
us,[1386]--some twenty deities were worshipped. Images at least of these
deities must have stood in the temple;[1387] but, since there is a
distinct reference _zikkurats_[1388] in the list, for some of them
special sanctuaries of some kind must have been erected within the
precinct. From the same list we learn that there was a temple to
Marduk[1389] in Ashur in which the cult of the Shamash, Sarpanitum,
Ramman, Ninib, Anunit was also carried on; similarly, in the temples of
Ashur, of Gula, and of Ninib, other gods were worshipped. Provisions of
some kind for the cult of these deities must have been made, and one
cannot escape the conclusion that in the Assyrian capitols, the sacred
precincts likewise covered considerable territory, and that the tendency
existed towards a steady increase of the structures erected in
connection with the cult of the patron deity. Sennacherib proudly
describes Nineveh as the city which contained the shrines of all gods
and goddesses.[1390]


The Names of the Zikkurats and Temples.

We have seen that every sacred edifice had a special name by which it
was known. This custom belongs to the oldest period of Babylonian
history, and continues to the latest. Through these names, to which, no
doubt, considerable significance was attached, we obtain a valuable
insight into the religious spirit of the Babylonians; but it is
important to note that the custom does not appear to have been as
general[1391] in Assyria, where the temples are simply known as the
house of this or that god or goddess. Of special interest are those
names which were suggested by the original design of the temples. Such
are E-Kur, 'the mountain house' at Nippur, E-kharsag-kurkura, 'the house
of the mountain of all lands,' the name of several temples.[1392] The
same idea finds expression also in such names as E-kharsag-ella, or
'house of the glorious mountain,' the name of a temple to Gula in
Babylon; E-kharsag, 'the mountain house,' a temple in Ur;[1393]
E-khur-makh, 'the house of the great mountain,' which a text[1394]
declares to be equivalent to E-kharsag-kalama. Closely allied with these
names are those indicating in one way or the other, the height or
greatness of the buildings, as the general aim of the builders.
Prominent among such names are E-Sagila, 'the lofty house,' the famous
temple and temple area at Babylon; E-makh, 'the great house,' a chapel
to Nin-kharsag, situated perhaps within E-Sagila; E-gal-makh, 'the great
palace,' an old temple in Ur; E-anna, 'the heavenly house,' that is, the
house reaching up to heaven, which is the name of the temple of Ishtar
or Nanâ at Erech; E-lgi-e-nir-kidur-makh,[1395] 'the tower of the great
dwelling' sacred to Ninni at Kish. To the same class belong such
designations as E-dur-an-ki, 'the link of heaven and earth,'[1396] the
name of a zikkurat at Larsa; E-an-dadia, 'the house reaching to heaven,'
the zikkurat at Agade; E-pa, 'the summit house,' the zikkurat to
Nin-girsu at Lagash; E-gubba-an-ki, 'the point of heaven and earth,' one
of the names of the zikkurat in Dilbat; E-dim-anna, 'the house of
heavenly construction,' the chapel to Sin within the precinct of E-Zida
at Borsippa,--a name that again conveys the notion of an edifice
reaching up to heaven. The names of the zikkurats at Erech and Borsippa,
'the house of seven zones' and 'the house of the seven divisions of
heaven and earth,' respectively, while conveying, as we saw,[1397]
cosmological conceptions of a more specific character, may still be
reckoned in the class of names that embody the leading purpose of the
tower in Babylonia, as may also a name like E-temen-an-ki, 'the
foundation stone of heaven and earth,' assigned to the zikkurat to
Marduk in Babylonia.

The sacred edifice, as the dwelling of the god to whom it is dedicated,
leads to such names as E-Zida, 'the true house or fixed house,'[1398]
the famous temple to Nabu in Borsippa; E-dur-gina,[1399] 'the house of
the established seat,' a temple of Bel-sarbi[1400] in Baz;
E-ki-dur[1401]-garza, 'the sacred dwelling,' a temple to Nin-lil-anna in
Babylon; E-kua, 'the dwelling-house,' the name of the papakhu of Marduk
in E-Sagila; E-gi-umunna, 'the permanent dwelling'; E-esh[1402]-gi, a
shrine to Nin-girsu at Lagash with the same meaning, 'permanent house.'

Another class is formed by such names as are suggested by the attributes
of the deity to whom the edifices are dedicated. Such are E-babbara,
'the brilliant house,' which, as the name of the temples to Shamash at
Sippar and Larsa, recalls at once the character of the sun-god.
Similarly, E-gish-shir-gal, 'the house of the great luminary,' was an
appropriate name for the temple to the moon-god at Ur. The staff or
sceptre being the symbol of the god Nabu, suggests as the name of a
sanctuary to him in Babylonia, the name E-pad-kalama-suma, 'the house of
him who gives the sceptre of the world,' while the character of Shamash
as the god of justice finds an expression in the name E-ditar-kalama,
'the house of the universal judge,' given to his temple or chapel in
Babylon. The association of the number fifty with Ningirsu-Ninib leads
to the name E-ninnu, 'house of fifty,'[1403] for his temple in Lagash.
Again, the position of Anu in the pantheon accounts for the name E-adda,
'house of the father,' given to his temple, just as E-nin-makh, 'the
house of the great lady,' the name of a chapel in Babylon, at once
recalls a goddess like Ishtar. Other names that describe a temple by
epithets of the gods to whom they are sacred, are E-nun-makh, 'the house
of the great lord,' descriptive of Sin; E-me-te-ur-sagga, 'the house of
the glory of the warrior,' a temple sacred to Zamama-Ninib; E-U-gal,
'the house of the great lord,' a temple to En-lil. A name like E-edinna,
'house of the field,' a temple to the consort of Shamash at Sippar, may
also have been suggested by some attribute of the goddess.[1404]

Lastly, we have a class of names that might be described as purely
ornamental, or as embodying a pious wish. Of such we have a large
number. Examples of this class are E-tila, 'house of life.' Names
extolling the glory and splendor of the temples are common. In a list of
temples[1405] we find such designations as 'house of light,' 'house of
the brilliant precinct,' 'great place,' 'lofty and brilliant
wall,'[1406] 'house of great splendor,' 'the splendor of heaven and
earth,' 'house without a rival,' 'light of Shamash.' The seat of
Sarpanitum in E-Sagila, is known as 'the gate of widespread splendor';
E-salgisa, 'the treasury,' as the name of a temple in Girsu, may belong
here. A temple to Gula in Sippar was called E-ulla; that is, 'the
beautiful house.' The old temple to Sin at Harran bore the significant
name E-khulkhul, 'house of joys,' while the pious wish of the worshipper
is again expressed in the name 'threshold of long life,' given to the
zikkurat in Sippar.[1407] Among a series of names,[1408] illustrating
the religious sentiments of the people are the following: 'the heart of
Shamash,' 'the house of hearkening to prayers,'[1409] 'the house full of
joy,' 'the brilliant house,' 'the life of the world,' 'the place of
fates,' and the like.

These various classes of names are a valuable index of the varied and
often remarkable conceptions held of the gods. To call a temple, for
example, 'court of the world'[1410] may have been due originally to a
haughty presumption on the part of some one deeply attached to some god;
but such a name must also have led to regarding the god as not limited
in his affections to a particular district. Whatever tendencies existed
in Babylonia and Assyria towards universalistic conceptions of the
divine beings were brought out in the temple names, and in part may have
been advanced by these names. The custom still surviving in the Jewish
Church of giving names to synagogues may be traced back to a Babylonian
prototype.[1411]


The History of the Temples.

The history of the temples takes us back to the earliest period of
Babylonian history, and the temples of Assyria likewise date from the
small beginnings of the Assyrian power. The oldest inscriptions of
Mesopotamian rulers commemorate their services as builders of temples.
Naram-Sin and Sargon glory in the title 'builder of the temple of En-lil
in Nippur.' Of the rulers of the first period of Babylonian history, it
so happens that we know more of Gudea than of any other. We may feel
certain that he but follows the example of his predecessors, in devoting
so large a share of his energies to temple building. Hammurabi is an
active builder of sanctuaries, and so on, through the period of Assyrian
supremacy down to the closing days of the Babylonian monarchy, the
thoughts of the rulers were directed towards honoring the gods by
improving, restoring, rebuilding, or enlarging the sanctuaries, as well
as by endowing them with rich gifts and votive offerings. The Assyrian
kings, though perhaps more concerned with embellishing their palaces, do
not neglect the seats of the gods. Anxious to maintain the connection
between their kingdom and the old cities of the south, the Assyrian
monarchs were fond of paying homage to the time-honored sanctuaries of
Babylonia. This feeling, which is of course shared by the Babylonian
rulers, results in bringing about the continuity of the Babylonian and
Assyrian religion. If, despite the changes that the religious doctrines
underwent, despite the new interpretations given to old myths and
legends, despite the profound changes introduced into the relationship
of the gods to one another through the systematization of the pantheon,
if, despite all this, the Babylonians and Assyrians--leaders and
people--continued to feel that they were following the religion of their
forefathers, it was due to the maintenance of the old sanctuaries. We
can actually trace the history of some of these sanctuaries for a period
of over 3000 years. In their restorations, the later builders were
careful not to offend the memory of their predecessors. They sought out
the old dedicatory inscriptions, and took steps to preserve them. They
rejoiced when they came upon the old foundation stones. In their
restorations they were careful to follow original designs; and likewise
in the cult, so far from deviating from established custom, they
strongly emphasized their desire to restore the cult to its original
character, wherever an interruption for one reason or the other had
taken place. In all this, the rulers were acting in accord with the
popular instincts, for the masses clung tenaciously to the old
sanctuaries, as affording an unfailing means of protection against the
ills and accidents of life.

To enumerate all the temples of Babylonia and Assyria would be both an
impossible and a useless task. Besides those mentioned in the historical
texts and in the legal literature, we have long lists of temples
prepared by the pedagogues. Some of these lists have been
published;[1412] others are to be found among the unpublished material
in the British Museum collections.[1413] It is doubtful whether even
these catalogues were exhaustive, or aimed at being so; moreover, a
large number of gods are known to us only from the lists of the
pedagogues.[1414] So, to mention some, taken from a valuable list[1415]
which gives chiefly the names of foreign gods, together with the places
where they were worshipped, we learn of such gods as Lagamal, Magarida,
Lasimu, A-ishtu, Bulala, Katnu, Kannu, Kishshat, Kanishurra, Khiraitum.
Knowing, as we do, that at various periods foreign deities were
introduced into Babylonia and Assyria,[1416] it was necessary to make
some provision for their cult; and, while no doubt most of these minor
deities and foreign gods were represented only by statues placed in some
temple or temple precinct, it is equally certain that some had a shrine
or sanctuary of some kind specially erected in their honor. In hymns,
too, deities are mentioned that are otherwise unknown. So in a litany,
published by Craig,[1417] a long series of gods is introduced. Some are
identical with those included in the list just referred to,[1418] others
appear here for the first time, as Mishiru, Kilili Ishi-milku. Epithets
also occur in lists and hymns, that appear to belong to deities
otherwise unknown. We are safe, therefore, in estimating the number of
temples, zikkurats, and smaller shrines in Babylonia and Assyria to have
reached high into the hundreds. Sanctuaries must have covered the
Euphrates Valley like a network. By virtue of the older culture of the
south and the greater importance that Babylonia always enjoyed from a
religious point of view, the sanctuaries of the south were much more
numerous than those of the north. For our purposes, it is sufficient to
indicate some of the most important of the temples of the south and
north. The oldest known to us at present is the frequently mentioned
temple of E-Kur at Nippur, sacred to En-lil or the older Bel. Its
history can be carried back to a period beyond 4000 B.C.; how far beyond
cannot be determined until the early chronology is better known than at
present. We know, however, that from the time of Sargon[1419] and
probably even much earlier, the rulers who had control of Nippur devoted
themselves to the embellishment of the temple area. Climatic conditions
necessitated frequent repairs. The temple also suffered occasionally
through political tumults, but with each century the religious
importance of E-Kur was increased. Ur-Bau, we have seen, about 2700
B.C., erected a zikkurat in the temple area. Some centuries later we
find Bur-Sin repairing the zikkurat and adding a shrine near the main
structure. As the political fortunes of Nippur varied, so E-Kur had its
ups and downs. Under the Cassitic rule, an attempt was made to recover
for Nippur the position which it formerly occupied, but which had now
passed over to Babylon. It was of little avail. Bel had to yield to
Marduk, and yet, despite the means that the priests of Marduk took to
transfer Bel's prerogatives to the new head of the pantheon, the rulers
would not risk the anger of Bel by a neglect of E-Kur. Kurigalzu, a king
of the Cassite dynasty (_c._ 1400 B.C.) brings back from Elam[1420] a
votive object which, originally deposited by Dungi in the Ishtar temple
at Erech, was carried to Susa by an Elamitic conqueror about 900 years
before Kurigalzu. The latter deposits this object not in Marduk's temple
at Babylon, but in Bel's sanctuary at Nippur. During the entire Cassitic
period, the kings continued to build or make repairs in the temple
precinct, and almost every ruler is represented by more or less costly
votive offerings made to Bel's sanctuary. In this way, we can follow the
history of the temple down to the Assyrian period. In the twelfth
century the religious supremacy of E-Kur yields permanently to E-Sagila.
The temple is sacked, part of it is destroyed, and it was left to rulers
of the north like Esarhaddon and Ashurbanabal to once more restore E-Kur
and its dependencies to its former proportions. These kings, especially
the latter, devote much time and energy in rebuilding the zikkurat and
in erecting various buildings connected with the temple administration.
Under the new Babylonian dynasty, however, E-Kur was again destroyed,
and this time by the ruthless hands of southern rulers. Nebuchadnezzar,
so devoted to Marduk and Nabu, appears to have regarded E-Kur as a
serious rival to E-Sagila and E-Zida. Some traces of building operations
at E-Kur appear to date from the Persian period, but, practically, the
history of E-Kur comes to an end at the close of the seventh century.
The sanctity of the place, however, remained; a portion of the old city
becomes a favorite burial site, while other parts continue to be
inhabited till the twelfth century of our era. The city of Bel becomes
the seat of a Christian bishop, and Jewish schools take the place once
occupied by the "star-gazers of Chaldea."

The history of E-Kur, so intimately bound up with political events, may
be taken as an index of the fortunes that befell the other prominent
sanctuaries of Babylonia.

The foundation of the Shamash temple at Sippar, and known as E-Babbara,
'the brilliant house,' can likewise be traced as far back as the days of
Naram-Sin. At that time there was already a sanctuary to Anunit within
the precincts of E-Babbara. Members of the Cassite dynasty devote
themselves to the restoration of this sanctuary. Through a subsequent
invasion of the nomads, the cult was interrupted and the great statue of
Shamash destroyed. Several attempts are made to reorganize the cult, but
it was left for Nabubaliddin in the tenth century to restore E-Babbara
to its former prestige. Esarhaddon and Ashurbanabal, who pay homage to
the old Bel at Nippur, also devote themselves to Shamash at Sippar. They
restore such portions of it as had suffered from the lapse of time and
from other causes. Nebuchadnezzar is obliged to rebuild parts of
E-Babbara, and the last king of Babylonia, Nabonnedos, is so active in
his building operations at Sippar that he arouses the anger of the
priests of Babylon, who feel that their ruler is neglecting the
sanctuaries of Marduk and Nabu. It is through Nabonnedos[1421] and
Nabubaliddin,[1422] chiefly, that we learn many of the details of the
history of E-Babbara during this long period.

Of the other important temples that date from the early period of
Babylonian history, we must content ourselves with brief indications.

The temple to Shamash at Larsa, while not quite as old as that of
Sippar, was quite as famous. Its name was likewise E-Babbara. It is
first mentioned in the inscriptions of Ur-Bau (_c._ 2700 B.C.), and it
continues to enjoy the favor of the rulers till the Persian
conquest.[1423]

The two chief places for the moon-cult were Ur and Harran. The name of
Sin's temple[1424] at the former place was E-Gish-shir-gal, 'the house
of the great light'; at the latter, E-khulklul, 'the house of joys.'
Around both sanctuaries, but particularly around the former, cluster
sacred traditions. We have seen that the moon-cult at an early period
enjoyed greater importance than sun-worship. The temples of Sin were
centers of intellectual activity. It is in these places that we may
expect some day to find elaborate astronomical and astrological records.
Harran, indeed, does not appear at any time to have played any political
rôle[1425] (though it was overrun occasionally by nomads), so that the
significance of the place is due almost entirely to the presence of the
great temple at the place. It is Nabonnedos,[1426] again, who endeavors
to restore the ancient prestige of the sanctuary at Harran. E-anna, 'the
lofty house,' was the name of Ishtar's famous temple at Erech. The
mention of this temple in one of the creation narratives[1427] and the
part played by Ishtar of Erech in the Gilgamesh epic are sufficient
indications of the significance of this structure. Historical
inscriptions from the earliest period to the days of Ashurbanabal and
Nebuchadnezzar come to our further aid in illustrating the continued
popularity of the Ishtar cult in E-anna. The Ishtar who survives in
Babylonia and Assyria is practically the Ishtar of Erech,--that is,
Nanâ.[1428]

Passing by such sanctuaries as E-shid-lam, sacred to Nergal at Cuthah,
and coming to E-Sagila and E-Zida, the two great temples of Babylon and
Borsippa, respectively, it is of course evident from the close
connection between political development and religious supremacy, that
Marduk's seat of worship occupies a unique position from the days of
Hammurabi to the downfall of Babylonia. While the history of E-Sagila
and E-Zida cannot be traced back further than the reign of Hammurabi,
the temples themselves are considerably older. Previous to the rise of
the city of Babylon as the political center, the Nabu cult in E-Zida
must have been more prominent than the worship of Marduk in E-Sagila.
Marduk was merely one solar deity among several, and a minor one at
that, whereas the attributes of wisdom given to Nabu point to the
intellectual importance that Borsippa had acquired. The Nabu cult was
combined with the worship of Marduk simply because it could not be
suppressed. At various times, as we have seen,[1429] Nabu formed a
serious rival to Marduk, and it will be recalled that up to a late
period we find Nabu given the preference to Marduk in official
documents.[1430] The inseparable association of E-Sagila and E-Zida is a
tribute to Nabu which, we may feel certain, the priests of Marduk did
not offer willingly. But this association becomes the leading feature in
the history of the two temples. To pay homage to Marduk and Nabu meant
something quite different from making a pilgrimage to the seat of Bel or
presenting a gift to the Shamash sanctuary at Sippar. It was an
acknowledgment of Babylonia's prestige. The Assyrian rulers regarded it
as both a privilege and a solemn duty to come to Babylon and invoke the
protection of Marduk and Nabu. In E-Sagila the installation of the
rulers over Babylonia took place, and a visit to Marduk's temple was
incomplete without a pilgrimage across the river to E-Zida. The
influence exerted by these two temples upon the whole course of
Babylonian history from the third millennium on, can hardly be
overestimated. From the schools grouped around E-Sagila and E-Zida, went
forth the decrees that shaped the doctrinal development of the religion
of Babylonia and Assyria. In these schools, the ancient wisdom was
molded into the shape in which we find it in the literary remains of the
Euphrates Valley. Here the past was interpreted and the intellectual
future of the country projected. The thought of E-Sagila and E-Zida must
have stored up emotions in the breast of a Babylonian and Assyrian, that
can only be compared to a pious Mohammedan's enthusiasm for Mecca, or
the longing of an ardent Hebrew for Jerusalem. The hymns to Marduk and
Nabu voice this emotion. There is a fervency in the prayers of
Nebuchadnezzar which marks them off from the somewhat perfunctory
invocations of the Assyrian kings to Ashur and Ishtar. An appreciation
of the position of E-Sagila and E-Zida in Babylonian history is an
essential condition to an understanding of the Babylonian-Assyrian
religion. The priests of Marduk could view with equanimity the rise and
growth of Assyria's power. The influence of E-Sagila and E-Zida was not
affected by such a shifting of the political kaleidoscope. Babylon
remained the religious center of the country. When one day, a Persian
conqueror--Cyrus--entered the precincts of E-Sagila, his first step was
to acknowledge Marduk and Nabu as the supreme powers in the world; and
the successors of Alexander continue to glory in the title 'adorner of
E-Sagila and E-Zida.'[1431] With the same zeal that distinguishes a good
Babylonian, Antiochus Soter hastens to connect his reign with the two
temples by busying himself with their enlargement and beautification.
There was no better way in which he could indicate, at the same time,
his political control over the country.

One more factor contributing to the general influence of the Babylonian
temples remains to be noted. In the course of time, all the great
temples in the large centers became large financial establishments. The
sources whence the temples derived their wealth were various. The kings
both of Babylonia and Assyria took frequent occasions to endow the
sanctuaries with lands or other gifts. At times, the endowment took the
form of certain quantities of wine, corn, oil, fruits, and the like, for
which annual provision is made; at times, the harvest derived from a
piece of property is set aside for the benefit of the temple. In other
ways, too, the temples acquired large holdings, through purchases of
land made from the income accruing to it, and from the tithes which it
became customary to collect. This property was either farmed through the
authorities of the temple for the direct benefit of the sanctuary, or
was rented out to private parties under favorable conditions. We learn
of large bodies of laborers indentured to temples, as well as of slaves
owned or controlled by the temples. These workmen were engaged for
various purposes,--for building operations, for service in the fields,
for working raw material, such as wool, into finished products, and much
more the like. But, more than this, the temples engaged directly in
commercial affairs, lending sums of money and receiving interest. In
some sanctuaries, a thriving business of barter and exchange was carried
on. Crops are sold, houses are rented by the temple agents, and there
was scarcely an avenue of commerce into which the temples did not enter.
An active business was also carried on in the manufacture and sale of
idols, votive offerings, amulets, and the like. A very large number of
the legal documents found in the Babylonian mounds deal with the
business affairs of the temples.[1432] Such a state of affairs naturally
contributed towards making the temples important establishments and
towards increasing the influence of the priests over the people.

The temples of Assyria play a minor part in the religious life of rulers
and people. True, grand structures were reared in Ashur, Calah, Nineveh,
and Arbela, and no important step was taken by the kings without
consulting Ashur, Ishtar, or Ramman through the mediation of the
priests. The great cities of Assyria also become intellectual centers.
The priests of Arbela created a school of theological thought, but all
these efforts were but weak imitations of the example furnished by the
temples of the south. Even Ashurbanabal, whose ambition was to make
Nineveh the center of religious and intellectual progress, failed of his
purpose. His empire soon fell to decay, and with that decay Nineveh
disappears from the stage of history. Babylon and Borsippa, however,
remain, and continue to hand down to succeeding generations, the wisdom
of the past.


The Sacred Objects in the Temples,--Altars, Vases, Images, Basins,
Ships.

The earliest altars were made of the same material as the zikkurats and
sanctuaries. One found at Nippur at an exceedingly low level was of
sun-dried bricks.[1433] How early this material was replaced by stone,
we are not in a position to say. Gudea, who imports diorite from the
Sinai Peninsula to make statues[1434] of himself, presumably uses a
similar material for the sacred furnishings of his temples, though
custom and conventionality may have maintained the use of the older clay
material for some time. In Assyria, altars of limestone and alabaster
became the prevailing types. The shape and size of the altars varied
considerably. The oldest known to us, the one found at Nippur, was about
twelve feet long and half as wide. The upper surface was surrounded by a
rim of bitumen.[1435] Assyrian altars now in the British museum are from
two to three feet high. The ornamentation of the corners of the rim of
the altar led to giving the altar the appearance of horns.[1436] The
base of the altar was either a solid piece with a circular or oblong
plate resting on it, or the table rested on a tripod.[1437] The latter
species was well adapted for being transported from place to place by
the Assyrian kings, who naturally were anxious to maintain the worship
of Ashur and of other gods while on their military expeditions. Much
care was spent upon the ornamentation of the altars, and, if we may
believe Herodotus, the great altars at Babylon were made of gold.[1438]
In front of the altars stood large vases or jars of terra cotta, used
for ablutions and other purposes in connection with the sacrifices. Two
such jars, one behind the other, were found at Nippur. They were
ornamented with rope patterns, and the depth at which they were found is
an indication of the antiquity and stability of the forms of worship in
the Babylonian temples. It may be proper to recall that in the Solomonic
temple, likewise, there were a series of jars that stood near the great
altar in the large court.[1439]

A piece of furniture to which great religious importance was attached
was a great basin known as 'apsu,'--the name, it will be recalled, for
'the deep.' The name indicates that it was a symbolical representation
of the domain of Ea. In Gudea's days the symbol is already known,[1440]
and it continues in use to the end of the Babylonian empire. The
zikkurat itself being, as we saw, an attempt to reproduce the shape of
the earth, the representation of the 'apsu' would suggest itself as a
natural accessory to the temple. The zikkurat and the basin together
would thus become living symbols of the current cosmological
conceptions. Gudea already regards the zikkurat as a symbol. To make the
ascent is a virtuous deed.[1441] The thought of adding a symbol of the
apsu belongs, accordingly, to the period when this view of the zikkurat
was generally recognized. The shape of the 'sea' was oblong or round. It
was cut of large blocks of stone and was elaborately decorated. One of
the oldest[1442] has a frieze of female figures on it, holding in their
outstretched hands flagons from which they pour water. In Marduk's
temple we learn that there were two basins,--a larger and a smaller one.
The comparison with the great 'sea' that stood in the court of Solomon's
temple naturally suggests itself, and there can be little doubt that the
latter is an imitation of a Babylonian model.

Another sacred object in the construction of which much care was taken
was the ship in which the deity was carried in solemn procession. It is
again in the inscriptions of Gudea[1443] that we come across the first
mention of this ship. This ruler tells us that he built the 'beloved
ship' for Nin-girsu, and gave it the name Kar-nuna-ta-uddua, the ship of
'the one that rises up out of the dam of the deep.' The ship of Nabu is
of considerable size, and is fitted out with a captain and crew, has
masts and compartments.[1444] The ship resembled a moon's crescent, not
differing much, therefore, from the ordinary flatbottomed Babylonian
boat with upturned edges. Through Nebuchadnezzar[1445] we learn that
these ships were brilliantly studded with precious stones, their
compartments handsomely fitted out, and that in them the gods were
carried in solemn procession on the festivals celebrated in their
honor.[1446] A long list[1447] of such ships shows that it was a symbol
that belonged to all the great gods. The ships of Nin-lil, Ea, Marduk,
Sin, Shamash, Nabu, Ninib, Bau, Nin-gal, and of others are specially
mentioned. A custom of this kind of carrying the gods in ships must have
originated, of course, among a maritime people. We may trace it back,
therefore, to the very early period when the sacred cities of Babylonia
lay on the Persian Gulf. The use of the ships also suggests, that the
solemn procession of the gods was originally on water and not on land,
and it is likely that this excursion of the gods symbolized some homage
to the chief water-deity, Ea. However this may be, the early
significance became lost, but the custom survived in Babylonia of
carrying the gods about in this way. In Assyria, less wedded to ancient
tradition, we find statues of the gods seated on thrones or standing
upright, carried directly on the shoulders of men.[1448] In Egypt sacred
ships are very common, and it is interesting to note as a survival of
the old Babylonian and Egyptian custom that an annual gift sent by the
khedive of Egypt to Mecca consists of a tabernacle, known as Mahmal,
that presents the outlines of a ship.[1449] The ark of the Hebrews
appears, similarly, to have been originally a ship of some kind.

The ships of the Babylonian gods had names given to them, just as the
towers and sanctuaries had their names. The name of Nin-girsu's ship has
already been mentioned. Marduk's ship was appropriately known as
Ma-ku-a, 'the ship of the dwelling.'[1450] Similarly, a ship of the god
Sin was called 'ship of light,' reminding one of the name of the great
temple to the moon-god at Ur, 'the house of the great luminary.' The
ship of Nin-gal, the consort of Sin, was called 'the lesser light.'
Bau's ship was described by an epithet of the goddess as 'the ship of
the brilliant offspring,' the reference being to the descent of the
goddess from father Anu.[1451] These illustrations will suffice to show
the dependence of the names of the ships upon the names of the temples,
with this important difference, however, that the names of the ships are
chosen from a closer association with the gods to whom they belong. So a
ship of En-lil was known simply as 'the ship of Bel,' and the ship of
Naru,[1452] the river-god, was called 'the ship of the Malku (or royal)
canal'[1453]--an indication, at the same time, of the place where the
cult of Naru was carried on.


The Priests and Priestesses.

At a certain stage in the religious development of a people, the
priesthood is closely linked to political leadership. The earliest form
of government in the Euphrates Valley is theocratic, and we can still
discern some of the steps in the process that led to the differentiation
of the priest from the secular ruler. To the latest times, the kings
retain among their titles some[1454] which have reference to the
religious functions once exercised by them. The king who continued to be
regarded as the representative of a god, nominated by some deity to a
lofty position of trust and power, stood nearer to the gods than his
subjects. In a certain sense, the king remained the priest _par
excellence_. Hence the prominent part played by the ruler in the
religious literature of the country. A large proportion of the hymns
were composed for royalty. The most elaborate ritual dealt with the
endeavor to secure oracles that might serve as a guide for the rulers.
Astronomical reports were made and long series of omen tablets prepared
for the use of the royal household. The calendars furnished regulations
for the conduct of the kings. A ceremonial error, an offence against the
gods on the part of the kings, was certain of being followed by
disastrous consequences for the whole country.

But even the smallest sanctuaries required some service, and it was not
long before the religious interests were entrusted into the hands of
those who devoted themselves to administering the affairs of the
temples. The guardians of the shrines became the priests in fact, long
before the priesthood of the rulers became little more than a theory;
and as the temples grew to larger proportions, the service was divided
up among various classes of priests.

The general name for priests was _shangû_, which, by a plausible
etymology suggested by Jensen,[1455] indicates the function of the
priest as the one who presides over the sacrifices. But this function
represents only one phase of the priestly office in Babylonia, and not
the most important one, by any means. For the people, the priest was
primarily the one who could drive evil demons out of the body of the
person smitten with disease, who could thwart the power of wizards and
witches, who could ward off the attacks of mischievous spirits, or who
could prognosticate the future and determine the intention or the will
of the gods. The offering of sacrifices was one of the means to
accomplish this end, but it is significant that many of the names used
to designate the priestly classes have reference to the priest's
position as the exorciser of evil spirits or his power to secure a
divine oracle or to foretell the future, and not to his function as
sacrificer. Such names are _mashmashu_, the general term for 'the
charmer'; _kalû_, so called, perhaps, as the 'restrainer' of the demons,
the one who keeps them in check; _lagaru_, a synonym of kalu; _makhkhû_,
'soothsayer'; _surrû_, a term which is still obscure; _shâilu_, the
'inquirer,' who obtains an oracle through the dead or through the gods;
_mushêlu_, 'necromancer'; _âshipu_ or _ishippu_, 'sorcerer.'[1456] These
names probably do not exhaust the various kinds of 'magicians' that were
to be found among the Babylonian priests. In the eighteenth chapter of
Deuteronomy, no less than eleven classes of magic workers are
enumerated, and there can be little doubt but that the Pentateuchal
opposition against the necromancers, sorcerers, soothsayers, and the
like is aimed chiefly against Babylonish customs. We have seen in
previous chapters how largely the element of magic enters into the
religious rites and literature of the Babylonian-Assyrian religion and
how persistent an element it is. For the masses, the priest remained
essentially a _mashmashu_. But we have also names like _ramku_ and
_nisakku_, 'libation pourer,' which emphasize the sacrificial functions
of the priest; and in an interesting list of temple servitors,[1457]
'the dirge singers' are introduced as a special class, and appropriately
designated as _munambû_, 'wailer,' and _lallaru_, 'howler.' Of some
terms in this list, like _asinnu_, it is doubtful whether they indicate
a special class of priests or are terms for servitors in general,
attached to a temple; in the case of others, like _nâsh pilakki_, 'ax
carrier,' we do not know exactly of what nature the service was.[1458]
Lastly, priests in their capacity as scribes[1459] and as judges[1460]
formed another distinct class, though it should be noted that in Assyria
we meet with scribes occasionally who are not priests.[1461]

The range thus covered by the temple service,--magic, oracles,
sacrifices, the lament for the dead, and the judiciary,--is exceedingly
large. The subdivisions, no doubt, varied in each center. In the smaller
sanctuaries, those who offered the sacrifices may also have served as
soothsayers and dirge singers, and the judicial functions may likewise
have been in the same hands as those who performed other services. On
the other hand, in a temple like E-Sagila the classes and subclasses
must have been very numerous. Of the details of the organization we as
yet know very little. There was a high priest, known as the
_shangam-makhû_,[1462] and from the existence of a title like
_sur-makhû_,--that is, the chief _surrû_,[1463]--we may conclude that
each class of priests had its chief likewise. With the natural tendency
in ancient civilizations for professions to become vested in families,
the priests in the course of time became a caste; but there is no reason
to believe that entrance into this caste was only possible through the
accident of birth. That instruction in the reading and writing of the
cuneiform characters, and hence the introduction into the literature,
was open to others than the scions of priests is shown by the presence
in the legal literature of formal contracts for instruction between
teachers and pupils who belong to the 'laity.' These pupils could become
scribes and judges, and their standing as 'priests' represented merely
the Babylonian equivalent to a modern university degree. For such
service as the bewailing of the dead and as musicians, persons were
initiated who were taken from various classes and likewise for the
menial duties of the temples, and it is only when we come to the more
distinctive priestly functions, like the exorcising of evil spirits,
securing an oracle, or performing sacrifices, that the rules limiting
these privileges to certain families were iron bound. As among the
Hebrews and other nations, stress was laid also upon freedom from
physical blemishes in the case of the priests. The leper, we learn, was
not fit for the priesthood.[1464] In the astronomical reports that were
spoken of in a previous chapter,[1465] there are references to the
'watches' kept by the astronomers. These watches, however, were probably
not observed for astronomical purposes alone, but represent the time
division, as among the Hebrews, for the temple service. There were three
night watches among the Babylonians,[1466] and, in all probability,
therefore, three day watches likewise. Relays of priests were appointed
in the large sanctuaries for service during the continuance of each
watch, and we may some day find that the Hebrews obtained their number
of twenty-four priests for each 'watch' from a custom prevailing in some
Babylonian temple.

An interesting feature of the Babylonian priesthood is the position
occupied by the woman. In the historical texts from the days of
Hammurabi onward, the references to women attached to the service of
temples are not infrequent. Gudea expressly mentions the 'wailing
women,' and there is every reason to believe that the female wailers,
like the male ones, belong to some priestly class. Again, examples of
women as exorcisers and as furnishing oracles[1467] may be instanced in
Babylonia as well as in Assyria, and we have also references to female
musicians as late as the days of Ashurbanabal. A specially significant
rôle was played by the priestesses in Ishtar's temple at Erech, and
probably at other places where the cult of the great mother goddess was
carried on. The Ishtar priestess was known by the general term of
Kadishtu,--that is, 'the holy one,'--or Ishtaritum, 'devoted to Ishtar';
but, from the various other names for the sacred harlot that we come
across,[1468] it would appear that the priestesses were divided into
various classes, precisely like the priests. That in the ceremonies of
initiation at Erech, and perhaps elsewhere, some rites were observed
that on the surface appeared obscene is eminently likely; but there is
no evidence that obscene rites, as instanced by Herodotus, formed part
of the _regular_ cult of the goddess. Except in the case of the Ishtar
worship, the general observation may be made that the position of the
priestess is more prominent in the early period of Babylonian history
than in the days when the culture and power of Babylonia and Assyria
reached its zenith.


Sacrifices and Votive Offerings.

The researches of Robertson Smith[1469] and of others have shown that
the oldest Semitic view of sacrifice was that of a meal, shared by the
worshipper with the deity to be honored or propitiated. Dependent as we
are in the case of the Babylonian-Assyrian religion for our knowledge of
sacrifices upon incidental references in historical or religious texts,
it is not possible to say how far the Semitic dwellers of the Euphrates
Valley were influenced by the primitive conception of sacrifice.
Historical and votive inscriptions and a religious literature
belong to a comparatively advanced stage of culture, and earlier views
of sacrifice that may have existed were necessarily modified in the
process of adaptation to later conditions. The organization of an
elaborate cult with priests and numerous temple servitors changes the
sacrifices into a means of income for the temple. The deity's
representatives receive the share originally intended for the deity
himself; and, instead of sanctifying the offering to a god by contact
with the sacred element fire, the temple accepts the offering for its
own use. It is likely, however, that among the Babylonians, as among the
Hebrews, certain parts of the animal which were not fit to eat[1470]
were burned as a symbolical homage to a god. No references have as yet
been found pointing to any special sanctity that was attached to the
blood; but it is eminently likely that the blood was regarded at all
times as the special property of the gods, and was poured on the altar.
The two kinds of sacrifice--animals and vegetable products--date from
the earliest period of the Babylonian religion of which we have any
knowledge. In a long list of offerings, Gudea[1471] includes oxen,
sheep, goats, lambs, fish, birds (as eagles, cranes,[1472] etc.), and
also such products as dates, milk, and greens. From other sources we may
add gazelles, date wine, butter, cream, honey, garlic, corn, herbs, oil,
spices, and incense. Stress is laid upon the quality of the
sacrifice.[1473] The animals must be without blemish, and if well
nurtured, they would be all the more pleasing in the sight of the gods.
The omission of dogs and swine is not accidental. Under that double
aspect of sanctity which we find among the Babylonians as among so many
nations, certain animals were too sacred to be offered, and, on the
other hand, they were regarded as unclean.[1474] In treating of the omen
texts we already had occasion to speak of the peculiar ideas attached to
the dog by the Babylonians,[1475] and there is sufficient evidence to
show that the boar likewise was viewed as a sacred animal, at least in
certain parts of Babylonia.[1476] No certain traces of human sacrifices
have been found, either in Babylonian literature or in artistic
representations.[1477] If the rite was ever practised among the
Babylonians or Assyrians it must have been at a very early
period--earlier than any of which we as yet have any knowledge. On the
other hand, a trace of some primitive form of tree worship may be
recognized in the representation, so frequent on seal cylinders and
monuments, of curious figures, in part human, in part animal, standing
in front of the palm tree.[1478] The symbol belongs to Assyria as well
as to Babylonia. In some of the designs the figures--human heads and
bodies but furnished with large wings--appear to be in the act of
artificially fertilizing the palm tree by scattering the male blossom
over the female palm. This plausible interpretation first suggested by
E. B. Tylor[1479] carries with it the conclusion that the importance of
palm culture in the Euphrates Valley not only gave the palm the
character of a sacred tree, but lent to the symbol a wider significance
to a more advanced age, as illustrating fertility and blessings in
general. The scene, reproduced in almost endless variations in which
both trees and figures become conventionalized, came to be regarded as a
symbol of adoration and worship in general. As such, it survived in
religious art and continued to be pictured on seal cylinders to a late
age.

The occasions on which sacrifices were brought were frequent. If the
gods were to be consulted for the purpose of obtaining an oracle,
elaborate offerings formed a necessary preliminary. In this case, the
animals presented at the altar served a double purpose.[1480] They
constituted a means of propitiating the god in favor of the petitioner,
and at the same time the inspection of certain parts of the animal
served as an omen in determining what was the will of the god appealed
to. When the foundations were to be laid for a temple or a palace, it
was especially important to secure the favor of the gods by suitable
offerings, and, similarly, when a canal was to be built or any other
work of a public character undertaken. Again, upon the dedication of a
sacred edifice or of a palace, or upon completing the work of
restoration of a temple, sheep and oxen in abundance were offered to the
gods, as well as various kinds of birds and the produce of the orchards
and fields. The Babylonian rulers appear to have accompanied their
sacrifices on such occasions with prayers, and in a previous chapter we
had occasion to discuss some of these dedicatory invocations.[1481] In
the Assyrian inscriptions, prayers are specifically referred to only as
being offered before setting out on an expedition, before a battle, or
when the kings find themselves in distress,[1482] so that if the
Babylonian custom likewise prevailed in Assyria, it did not form a
necessary part of the sacrificial ritual. The sacrifice as a pure homage
is illustrated by the zeal which the Assyrian kings manifest towards
honoring the great temples of the south. The northern rulers were
anxious at all times to reconcile the southern population to Assyrian
control, and it was no doubt gratifying to the south to find
Tiglathpileser II.,[1483] upon entering the ancient centers like Sippar,
Nippur, Babylon, Borsippa, Cuthah, Kish, Dilbat, and Erech, proceeding
to the temples in those places in order to offer his sacrifices. The
example of Tiglathpileser is followed by his successors down through the
time of Ashurbanabal. As often as the Assyrian monarchs may have had
occasion to proceed to Babylonia--and the occasions were frequent, owing
to the constant disposition of the south to throw off the hated
yoke--they emphasized their devotion to Marduk, Nabu, En-lil, Shamash,
and the other gods who had their seats in the south. Sargon[1484] goes
so far in this homage as to pose as the reorganizer of the cults of
Sippar, Nippur, Borsippa, and Babylon, and of restoring the income to
temples in other places.[1485] But there was another side to this homage
that must not be overlooked. By sacrificing in the Babylonian temples,
the Assyrian rulers indicated their political control over the south.
Such homage as they manifested was the exclusive privilege of legitimate
rulers, and it was important for the Assyrians to legitimize their
control over the south.

A phase of sacrifice is represented by the libations of oil and wine to
which frequent references are found in the historical texts. It appears
to have been customary to anoint the foundation stones of temples and
palaces with oil and wine. Over the thresholds, too, and over the
stones--bearing commemorative or votive inscriptions--libations of oil,
honey, and wine were poured.

Nebopolassar[1486] speaks of placing sweet herbs under the walls, and
Nabonnedos[1487] pours oil over the bolts and doors, as well as on the
thresholds of the Shamash temple at Sippar, and fills the temple with
the aroma of frankincense. Much importance was attached to this rite,
and the kings take frequent occasion to adjure their successors who may
in the course of restoring edifices come across stones bearing the
record of former builders, to anoint these stones with oil and offer
sacrifices.[1488] Thus, Nabonnedos,[1489] when he finds the inscription
of Ashurbanabal in the Shamash temple at Sippar, carefully obeys the
injunction. The rite bears all the marks of great antiquity. The
instances of its occurrence in the Old Testament--notably in the case of
Jacob's act of pouring oil over the holy stone at Bethel[1490]--confirm
this view; and the interpretation for the rite suggested by Robertson
Smith[1491] that the oil was originally the fat of the sacrificed animal
smeared over an object or a person, as a means of investing them with
sanctity, accounts satisfactorily for the invariable juxtaposition in
the cuneiform texts of sacrificial offerings with the anointing of the
inscribed stones.

We have no evidence that the rulers of Babylonia and Assyria were
anointed with oil on their installation, though it is not improbable
that such was the case. The use of the oil in this case is but a
modification of the same rite, which, it is to be noted, loses some of
its ancient force by the spread of the custom in the Orient of unguents
as a part of the toilet.[1492] The use of odorous herbs, which, we have
seen, were placed under the walls, and of honey and wine, which were
poured over bolts,[1493] is also directly connected with the sacrificial
cult.

The libation in its purer form appears in the custom of the Assyrian
kings of pouring wine over the animal slain by them in the hunt. The act
is intended to secure divine favor towards a deed which involved the
destruction of something that by all ancient nations was held sacred,
namely, life. Even a despot of Assyria felt that to wantonly destroy
life could not be safely undertaken without making sure of the consent
of the gods. Significantly enough, Ashurbanabal offers his libations
after the lion or bull hunts to Ishtar as the "goddess of battle."[1494]
The animal is sanctified by being devoted to a goddess, just as the
victims in a battle constitute the conqueror's homage offered to the
gods who came to his assistance.

Sacrifices with libations are so frequently represented on the seal
cylinder that this testimony alone would suffice to vouch for the
importance attached to this rite in the cult. One of the most archaic
specimens of Babylonian art[1495] represents a worshipper, entirely
naked, pouring a libation into a large cup which stands on an altar.
Behind the altar sits a goddess who is probably Â or Malkâtu, the
consort of the sun-god. The naked worshipper is by no means an uncommon
figure in the early Babylonian art,[1496] and it would appear that at
one time it was customary to remove one's garments preliminary to
stepping into the god's presence, just as among the Arabs the cult of
the Caaba in Mecca was conducted by the worshippers at an early period
without their clothes.[1497] The custom so frequently referred to in the
Old Testament to remove one's shoes upon entering sacred territory,--a
custom still observed by the modern Muslim, who leaves his shoes outside
of the Mosque,--may be regarded as an indication that at an earlier
period people removed their garments as well as the sandals. It may be
that the order to take off the sandal alone, as recorded in the Old
Testament, is nothing but a euphemistic phrase (suggested by a more
refined age) to strip oneself. Certainly, when we find that in the days
of Saul, the seers went about naked, there can no longer be any doubt
that there was a time when the Hebrews, too, like the Arabs and
Babylonians, entered the holy presence naked.

The institution of daily sacrifices is vouched for in the case of the
larger religious centers like Babylonia, Borsippa, Sippar, Cuthah, as
well as Nineveh for the late periods. Nebuchadnezzar, for example, tells
us[1498] that he provided for a sacrifice of six lambs daily in the
temple E-shidlam at Cuthah, sacred to Nergal and Laz; while for Nabu's
temple at Borsippa, the daily sacrifices were arranged on a still larger
scale, and included two fattened bulls of perfect form, sixteen smaller
animals, besides offerings of fish, birds, leek, various kinds of wine,
honey, cream, and the finest oil,--all intended, as the king tells us,
for the table of Nabu and his consort. No doubt the daily official
sacrifices at Marduk's temple were even more elaborate. The custom of
regular sacrifices in the larger temples may be traced back to an early
period. The technical terms for such sacrifices are _sattûku_ and
_ginû_. Both terms convey the idea of being "fixed," perpetual,[1499]
and suggest a comparison with the Pentateuchal institution of the
_tamîd_,[1500] _i.e._, the daily sacrifice. Whenever the kings in their
inscriptions mention the regular sacrifices, it is in almost all cases
with reference to their reinstitution of an old custom that had been
allowed to fall into neglect (owing to political disturbances which
always affected the temples), and not as an innovation. Innovations were
limited to increasing the amounts of these regular sacrifices. So, for
example, Nabubaliddin restores and increases the _ginê_ of the great
temple E-babbara at Sippar.[1501] But regular sacrifices do not
necessarily involve daily offerings. The same terms, _ginû_ and
_sattûku_, are applied frequently to monthly offerings, and except in
the large religious centers, regular sacrifices were in all
probabilities brought on certain days of each month, and not daily. The
days thus singled out, as will be shown further on, differed for various
sanctuaries. It would be important if we could determine the share in
these regular sacrifices taken by the people at large, but the material
at hand does not suffice for settling the question. There are frequent
references to tithes in the clay tablets forming part of the archives of
temples, and monthly tributes are also mentioned. We certainly may
conclude from these references that the people were taxed in some way
for the support of the temples. Ashurbanabal in one place speaks of
reimposing upon the population of the south the provision for the
_sattûku_ and _ginû_ due to Ashur and Belit[1502] and the gods of
Assyria; but, for all that, it is not certain that the regular
sacrifices at the temples partook of a popular character. One gains the
impression that, except on the occasions when the people came to the
sanctuaries for individual purposes, the masses as such had but
comparatively little share in it. In this respect the cult of the
Hebrews, which has so many points in common with the Babylonian ritual
as to justify the hypothesis that the details of sacrificial regulations
in the priestly code are largely derived from practices in Babylonian
temples, was more democratic. Closely attached as the Babylonians were
to their sanctuaries, the regular sacrifices do not appear to have been
an active factor in maintaining this attachment. A more decidedly
popular character is apparent in the votive offerings made to the
temples. These offerings cover a wide range. Rulers and people alike
felt prompted to make gifts to the sanctuaries on special occasions,
either as a direct homage to the gods or with the avowed purpose and
hope of securing divine favor or divine intercession.

The statues of themselves which the rulers from the days of Gudea[1503]
on were fond of erecting were dedicated by them as offerings to the
gods, and this avowed aim tempers, in a measure, the vanity which no
doubt was the mainspring of their action. The statues were placed in the
temples, and from Gudea[1504] we learn of the elaborate ceremonies
connected with the dedication of one of the king's colossal blocks of
diorite. For seven days all manual labor was interrupted in Lagash.
Masters and slaves shared in the festivities. The temple of Nin-girsu is
sanctified anew by purification rites, and the statue is formally
presented to the god amidst sacrifices and offerings of rich gifts. The
account given in the Book of Daniel[1505] of the dedication of
Nebuchadnezzar's statue may be regarded as an equally authentic picture
of a custom that survived to the closing days of the Babylonian
monarchy, except that we have no proof that divine honors were paid to
these statues.[1506] The front, sides, and back of Gudea's images were
covered with inscriptions, partly of a commemorative character, but in
part, also, conveying a dedication to Nin-girsu. Similarly, the steles
of the Assyrian kings, set up by them either in the temples or on the
highways beyond the confines of Assyria, and which had images of the
rulers sculptured on them in high relief, were covered with
inscriptions, devoted primarily to celebrating the deeds of the kings;
but, since the victories of the armies were ascribed to the assistance
furnished by the gods, an homage to Ashur or some other deity was
involved in the recital. That the gods were accorded a minor share of
the glory was but in keeping with the pride of the Assyrian rulers, who
were less affected than the rulers of the south by the votive character
of the statues.

Both Babylonians and Assyrians, however, unite in making images of the
gods as a distinct homage, and in giving elaborate presents of gold,
silver, precious stones, costly woods, and garments to the sanctuaries
as votive offerings to the gods. These presents were used in the
decoration of temples and shrines, as well as of the statues of the gods
or as direct contributions to the temple treasury. Celebrations of
victories were chosen as particularly appropriate occasions for making
such votive offerings. So Agumkakrimi, upon bringing back to E-Sagila
the statues of Marduk and Sarpanitum that had been taken away by
ruthless hands, bestows rich gifts upon the temples and describes[1507]
at great length the costly garments embroidered with gold and studded
with precious stones that were hung on Marduk and his consort. Equally
vivid is the description of the high, conical-shaped caps, made of lapis
lazuli and gold, and decorated, furthermore, with various kinds of
stones, that were placed on the heads of the deities. Garments for the
statues of the gods appear to have been favorite votive offerings at all
times. Nabubaliddin, in restoring the cult of Shamash at Sippar, makes
provisions for an elaborate outfit of garments,[1508] specifying
different garments for various periods of the year. It would appear from
this that for the various festive occasions of the year, the garments of
the gods were changed, much as in other religions--including the
Catholic Church--the officiating priests are robed in different garments
on the various festive or solemn occasions.

Votive tablets or discs of lapis lazuli, agate, turquoise, gold, silver,
copper, antimony, and other metals with dedicatory inscriptions were
deposited in the temples. What particular purpose they served we do not
know. As a specimen of the more common formula on these tablets, a lapis
lazuli tablet of Nippur may be chosen. It is offered by a Cassite king,
and reads[1509] as follows:

  To Bel
  His lord
  Kadashman-Turgu
  For his life
  Presented.

A knob-shaped object[1510] of fine limestone contains a dedication in
similar phrases to Marduk. It is offered by Bel-epush, who is probably
identical with a Babylonian ruler of this name in the seventh
century,--a contemporary of Sennacherib:[1511]

  To Marduk, his lord
  Bel-epush for the preservation of his life
  Made and presented.

Kings, however, do not appear to be the only ones for whom these votive
offerings were prepared. A dedication to a personage otherwise unknown
and to all appearances a layman reads:[1512]

  To Ea,[1513] his lord, Bel-zir,
  Son of Ea-Bân,
  For the preservation of his life
  Made and presented.

The formulas are thus seen to be conventional ones, though occasionally
the inscription is somewhat longer. So, for example, Nazi-Maruttash,
another Cassite king, puts a little prayer on a votive offering:

  [To Bel, his lord]
  Nazi-Maruttash,
  Son of Kurigalzu,
  To hearken to his supplication,
  To be favorable to his prayer,
  To accept his entreaty,
  To lengthen his days,
  [He made and presented].

This inscription appears, as Dr. Hilprecht informs us,[1514] on an ax
made of imitation lapis lazuli.[1515] Other votive inscriptions are
found on rings and on knobs of ivory or magnesite.[1516] These various
designs no doubt all had some symbolical significance. The ring suggests
some ultimate connection between votive offerings and amulets. The seal
cylinders, we know, although put to practical use in impressing the
design on a clay tablet as a substitute for a personal signature, were
also regarded as amulets, and this accounts for the frequency with which
scenes of religious worship were introduced as designs on the cylinders.
The ring is distinctly an amulet in Babylonia as elsewhere, and hence it
is by no means improbable that the custom of carrying little inscribed
tablets, discs, or knobs about the person as a protection against
mischances preceded the use of such tablets as votive offerings to be
placed in a temple.

A very common votive object in Babylonia, especially in the earlier
period, was the clay cone. Such cones were found in large numbers at
Lagash, while at Nippur Peters came across what may be safely regarded
as a magazine where such cones (and other votive objects) were
manufactured in large numbers.[1517] The cones of Gudea bear
conventional inscriptions of a votive character addressed to Nin-girsu.
In other temples, other gods were similarly remembered. It has been
customary to regard these cones as phallic symbols;[1518] but it should
be noted that not only is the evidence for this lacking, but that what
we know of the popular practices of the Babylonians does not warrant us
in assuming any widespread phallic symbolism. The point of the cones
suggests rather that the objects were intended to be stuck into the
ground or into walls. At Lagash De Sarzec found, besides cones, a large
number of copper statuettes[1519] of gods and goddesses and of
animals,--chiefly bulls,--all terminating in a sharp point or attached
to a cone-shaped object. Others again are clearly human figures, either
male personages holding the cone in their hands,[1520] or females
holding baskets on their heads,--the customary attitude of making an
offering. These curious statuettes frequently bear inscriptions of a
votive character, and there can be no doubt that they were used to be
stuck into some substance. At one place, De Sarzec found a series set up
in concentric circles[1521] in the corners of an edifice and under the
floor. Heuzey is of the opinion that these statuettes thus arranged were
to serve as a warning for the demons, but it is more in keeping with the
general character of the Babylonian religion to look upon these objects
simply as votive offerings placed at various parts of a building as a
means of securing the favor of the gods. The cone, I venture to think,
is merely the conventionalized shape of a votive object originally
intended to be stuck into some part of a sacred building. The large
quantity of cones that have been found at Lagash, Nippur, and elsewhere
is an indication of their popular use. It is not improbable that at one
time, and, at all events, in certain temples, the cones and statuettes
represented the common votive offerings with which worshippers provided
themselves upon entering the sacred precinct. To facilitate the
reproduction of the statuettes, moulds were used,--another indication of
the widespread use of these objects. Clay figures of gods and goddesses
were also made in moulds or modelled by hand and served as votive
offerings. At Nippur, the images represent chiefly Bel and Belit,[1522]
either separately or in combination; but figurines of Ishtar have also
been found.[1523] In some the goddess is represented as suckling a
child. Often she is pictured as naked, clasping her breasts or her womb.
The attitude which was suggested by the character of the goddess as the
promoter of fertility appears to have been too obscene to a more refined
age, and, accordingly, we find in later times the sexual parts
suppressed or the figure properly clothed. The character of these
figurines varied naturally with each religious center, and even in the
same center modifications were introduced.

Whether these clay figurines, cones, and metallic statuettes were also
placed by individuals in their dwellings, like the "plague"
tablets,[1524] we cannot as yet definitely say, but it is more than
likely that such was the case. The _teraphim_ familiar to us from the
references in the Old Testament,[1525] and evidently used as talismans,
belong to the class of votive offerings under consideration. The
figurines and cones, and also (though to a smaller degree) the copper
statuettes, thus introduce us to the popular phases of the cult. As
symbols of homage they appear to have survived to a late period, and
their use as talismans did not materially affect their character as
offerings, made by the people upon seeking the sanctuaries. The more
costly objects, as vases,[1526] artistically worked weapons, handsome
"seas" bowls, altars, and statues of the gods and other furniture for
the temples were left to the rulers. Such offerings were made with great
pomp. They were formally dedicated by large processions of priests, with
the accompaniment of hymns and music. The kings of Assyria presented the
captured gods as votive gifts pleasing to their deity.[1527] They bring
back with them from their campaigns the beams of the edifices that they
destroyed and offer them to Ishtar.[1528] Upon coming to Babylonia, they
do not fail to bring presents of gold, silver, precious stones, copper,
iron, purple, precious garments, and scented woods to Marduk and
Sarpanitum, to Nabu and Tashmitum, and the other great gods.[1529] The
first fruits of extensive groves are offered by Ashurnasirbal to Ashur
and the temples of his land.[1530] The rulers of Assyria vie with the
kings of Babylonia in presenting gardens[1531] and lands to the gods as
votive offerings; but for all that, in ancient Babylonia and Assyria, as
among other peoples of antiquity, the more fervent religious spirit was
manifested in the small tokens of the masses, whose attachment to the
temples was of a different order from that which prompted the rulers of
the north and south to a display, in which vanity and the desire to
manifest their power play a larger part as one generation succeeds the
other.


Festivals.

We have seen[1532] that in the developed system of the Babylonian
religion, every day of the year had some significance, and that certain
days in each month--so, _e.g._, the 7th, 14th, 19th, 21st, and 28th--had
a special significance. It has also been pointed out that in different
religious centers, the days singled out for special significance
differed. In view of this, we must be prepared to find that the festival
days were not the same in all parts of Babylonia, nor necessarily
identical in the various periods of Babylonian and Assyrian history.

The common name for festival was _isinnu_. If we may judge from the use
of _assinnu_ as a general name for priest,[1533]--a servant of a
deity,--the underlying stem appears to signify simply 'to serve.'
Another name that reveals more as to the character of the Babylonian
festivals is _tashiltu_, which is used as a synonym for 'joy, delight.'
The festivals were indeed joyous occasions, marked by abundance of
offerings and merry-making, though, as we shall see, the somber note in
the rejoicings was not absent. The kings dedicate their temples and
palaces amidst manifestation of rejoicing. They pray that the gods may
occupy the dwellings prepared for them "in joy and jubilance,"[1534] and
the reference to festivals in the historical texts are all of such a
character as to make us feel that the Babylonian could appreciate the
Biblical injunction to "rejoice"[1535] in the divine presence, on the
occasions set apart as, in a peculiar sense, sacred.

Defective as our knowledge of the ancient Babylonian festivals still is,
the material at our disposal shows that at a comparatively early period,
there was one day in the year on which a festival was celebrated in
honor of a god or goddess that had a more important character than any
other. In the developed zodiacal system of Babylonia each month is
sacred to a deity.[1536] This system was perfected under the direct
influence of the theological schools of Babylonia, but so much of it, at
all events, rests upon ancient traditions which assigns a month to each
god; and since Marduk is not accorded the first place, but takes his
position in a group of solar deities, and since, moreover, these solar
deities have a position in the calendar which accords with their
specific solar character,[1537] we may proceed a step further and assume
with some confidence that the Babylonian scholars were guided--in large
part, at least--by ancient traditions in parceling out the months as
they did. Anu, Bel, and Ea, it is true, may have been assigned to the
first three months because of the preëminent position of these three
gods as a special triad; but even here the antiquity of the triad
furnishes a guarantee that the association of some month with some deity
belongs to a very ancient period of Babylonian history. This being the
case, it would be natural that the first day of the month sacred to a
deity would be regarded as his or her festival _par excellence_, and in
the case of the cult of a deity spreading beyond its original limits,
this festival would assume a more general character. On this day the
people would come from all parts of the district within which the cult
was carried on, to pay their homage to the god or goddess. In the days
of Gudea, we find Bau occupying this superior rank. Her festival had
assumed such importance as to serve for reckoning the commencement of
the year.

Hence it became known simply as the day of zag-muku,[1538] that is, the
New Year's Day.[1539] Whether this festival of Bau was recognized as the
New Year's Day throughout Babylonia, we do not know, but it must have
been observed in a considerably extensive district, or Gudea would have
made the attempt to give some festival connected with his favorite deity
Nin-girsu this character. As it is, he can only combine Bau's festival
with the cult of Nin-girsu, by making the New Year's Day the occasion of
a symbolical marriage between the god and the goddess. Nin-girsu is
represented as offering marriage gifts to Bau,[1540] on the Zagmuku. How
early Bau came to occupy so significant a rank has not been ascertained.
It is her quality as the 'great mother,' as the goddess of fertility and
abundance,[1541] rather than any political supremacy of the district in
which she was worshipped, that constitutes the chief factor in giving
Bau this preëminence, just as we have found in the case of the other
great goddesses of Babylonia,--Ninâ, Nanâ, Ishtar,--specific traits and
not political importance lending them the significance they acquired.

At one time we may well suppose that the festival of En-lil at Nippur,
which brought worshippers from all parts of Babylonia, was recognized as
a 'New Year's Day,' and we may some day find evidence that at a still
earlier period the first day of a month sacred to some other god,--Sin
or Shamash or Nanâ-Ishtar of Erech,--was recognized in some districts as
the starting-point for the year; but to an agricultural community, the
spring, when the seeds are sown, or the fall, after the harvest has been
gathered, are the two most natural periods for reckoning the beginning
of the year. Since we know that at the time when Babylon acquired her
supremacy the year began in the spring, the conservatism attaching to
religious observances makes it more than probable that Bau's festival
also fell in the spring.

After the ancient religious and political centers of the south yielded
their privileges to Babylon, it was natural for the priests of Marduk to
covet the honor of the New Year's festival for the new head of the
pantheon. Accordingly, we find the Zagmuku transformed into a Marduk
festival. That it did not originally belong to Marduk follows from the
fact that it was celebrated in the month of Nisan,--the first
month,--whereas the month sacred to Marduk was Arakh-shamna (or
Marcheshwan),--the eighth month. The deliberate transfer of the Zagmuku
to Marduk is also indicated by the fact that the festival of Nisan has
another name by which it is more commonly designated,--Akitu.[1542] The
name seems to have been originally a general term for a festival, and it
is natural that Marduk's festival should have come to be known as _the_
festival, just as among the Hebrews the annual fall pilgrimage to the
sanctuary at Jerusalem became known as _the_ Hag,--the pilgrimage _par
excellence_. To distinguish it from other festivals, Marduk's festival
is sometimes spoken of as the "great" or the "lofty" Akitu. The first
day was properly the Zagmuku, whereas the Akitu itself extended at
least over the first eleven days of Nisan[1543] and may indeed have
lasted the entire month; but Zagmuku was also used for the festival
period. The New Year's Day was marked by a solemn procession. The
union of Nabu and Marduk was symbolized by a visit which the former
paid to his father, the chief of the Babylonian pantheon. In his ship,
magnificently fitted out,[1544] Nabu was carried along the street known
as Ai-ibur-shabû,[1545] leading from Borsippa across the Euphrates to
Babylon.

The street was handsomely paved,[1546] and everything was done to
heighten the impressiveness of the ceremony. The visit of Nabu marked
the homage of the gods to Marduk; and Nabu set the example for other
gods, who were all supposed to assemble in E-Sagila during the great
festival. We have already pointed out that the cult of Nabu at Borsippa
at one time was regarded with greater sanctity than the Marduk worship
in Babylon. As a concession to the former supremacy of Nabu, the priests
of E-Sagila, carrying the statue of Marduk, escorted Nabu back to
Borsippa. The return visit raises the suspicion that it was originally
Marduk who was obliged to pay an annual homage to Nabu.

However this may be, the double ceremony became to such an extent the
noteworthy feature of the Zagmuku or Akitu that when the chroniclers
wish to indicate that, because of political disturbances, the festival
was not celebrated, they use the simple formula:

  Nabu did not come to Babylon.
  Bel [_i.e._, Marduk] did not march out.[1547]

The Akitu festival brought worshippers from all parts of Babylonia and
Assyria to the capitol. Kings and subjects alike paid their devotions to
Marduk. The former approached the divine presence directly, and, seizing
hold of the hands of Marduk's statue, were admitted into a kind of
covenant with the god. The ceremony became the formal rite of royal
installation in Babylonia. "To seize the hands of Bel" was equivalent to
legitimizing one's claim to the throne of Babylonia, and the chroniclers
of the south consistently decline to recognize Assyrian rulers as kings
of Babylonia until they have come to Babylon and "seized the hands of
Bel."[1548] That this ceremony was annually performed by the kings of
Babylonia after the union of the southern states is quite certain. It
marked a renewal of the pledge between the king and his god. The
Assyrian kings, however, contented themselves with a single visit. Of
Tiglathpileser II.[1549] and Sargon,[1550] we know that they came to
Babylonia for the purpose of performing the old ceremony; and others did
the same.

The eighth and eleventh days of the festival month were invested with
special sanctity. On these days all the gods were brought together in
the "chamber of fates" of Marduk's temple. In symbolical imitation of
the assembly of the gods in Ubshu-kenna,[1551] Marduk sits on his throne
and the gods are represented as standing in humble submission before
him, while he decrees the fates of mankind for the coming year. The
Zagmuku festival in its developed form has striking points of
resemblance to the Jewish New Year's Day. On this day, according to the
popular Jewish tradition, God sits in judgment with a book before Him in
which He inscribes the fate of mankind. Nine days of probation are
allowed, and on the tenth day--the Day of Atonement--the fates are
sealed. The Jewish New Year is known as Rôsh-hash-shanâ,[1552] which is
an exact equivalent of the Babylonian _rêsh shatti_ (or zag-muku). A
difference, however, between the Babylonian and the Jewish festival is
that the latter is celebrated in the seventh month. It is not correct,
therefore, to assume that the Hebrews borrowed their Rôsh-hash-shanâ
from the Babylonians. Even after they adopted the Babylonian
calendar,[1553] they continued to regard the seventh month--the harvest
month--as the beginning of the year. That among the Babylonians the
seventh month also had a sacred character may be concluded from the
meaning of the ideographs with which the name is written.[1554] The
question may, therefore, be raised whether at an earlier period and in
some religious center--Nippur, Sippar, or perhaps Ur--the seventh month
may not have been celebrated as the Zagmuku. At all events, we must for
the present assume that the Hebrews developed their New Year's Day,
which they may have originally received from Babylonia, independently of
Marduk's festival, though, since the Rôsh-hash-shanâ does not come into
prominence among the Jews until the period of the so-called Babylonian
exile, the possibility of a direct Babylonian influence in the _later_
conceptions connected with the day cannot be denied.[1555]

Of the other festivals of the Babylonians and Assyrians but few details
are known. Several references have already been made to the Tammuz
festival.[1556] Originally a solar festival, celebrated in the fourth
month at the approach of the summer solstice, it became through the
association of ideas suggested by the mourning of Ishtar for her lost
consort Tammuz a kind of 'All Souls' Day,' on which the people
remembered their dead. Dirges were sung by the wailing women to the
accompaniment of musical instruments; offerings were made to the dead,
and it is plausible to assume that visits were paid to the graves. The
mourning was followed by a festival of rejoicing, symbolizing the return
of the solar-god. The Tammuz festival appears to have had a strong hold
upon the masses, by reason of the popularity of the Tammuz myth; nor was
it limited to the Babylonians. Among the Phoenicians the cult of Tammuz,
known by his title Adôn (whence Adonis), was maintained to a late
period, and the Hebrews, likewise, as late as the days of Ezekiel,[1557]
commemorated with rites of mourning the lost Tammuz. The calendar of the
Jewish Church still marks the 17th day of Tammuz as a fast, and Houtsma
has shown[1558] that the association of the day with the capture of
Jerusalem by the Romans represents merely the attempt to give an ancient
festival a worthier interpretation. The day was originally connected
with the Tammuz cult. Eerdmans[1559] has recently endeavored to show
that the festival of Hosein, celebrated by the Shiitic sect of
Mohammedanism in memory of the tragic death of the son of Ali, is in
reality a survival of the Babylonian-Phoenician Tammuz festival. The
spread of the Tammuz-Adonis myth and cult to the Greeks[1560] is but
another indication of the popularity of this ancient Semitic festival.

The old Zagmuku festival in honor of Bau and the Tammuz festival,
celebrated in spring and summer, respectively, are also closely
associated with agricultural life. The spring as the seedtime is, as we
have seen, a natural period for beginning the calculation of the New
Year, while a first harvest of the wheat and barley is reaped in
Babylonia at the time of the summer solstice. We should expect,
therefore, to find a third festival in the fall, at the close of the
harvest and just before the winter rains set in. The seventh
month--Tishri--was a sacred month among the ancient Hebrews as well as
among the Babylonians, but up to the present no distinct traces of a
festival period in Tishri have been found in Babylonian texts. We must
content ourselves, therefore, with the conjecture, above thrown out,
that an Akitu was originally celebrated in this month at some ancient
religious center of the Euphrates Valley. Further publications of
cuneiform texts may throw light upon this point. The unpublished
material in European and American museums harbors many surprises.

In Ashurbanabal's annals[1561] there is an interesting reference to a
festival celebrated in honor of the goddess Gula, the goddess of
healing,[1562] on the twelfth day of Iyyar, the second month. The
festival is described ideographically as Si-gar,[1563] but from the fact
that the same ideographs are used elsewhere to describe a day sacred to
Sin and Shamash,[1564] it would appear that Si-gar is not a specific
appellation, but a general name again for festival. This month Iyyar and
this particular day, as a "favorable one," is chosen by Ashurbanabal for
his installation as king of Assyria. The same month is selected for a
formal pilgrimage to Babylonia for the purpose of restoring to E-Sagila
a statue of Marduk that a previous Assyrian king had taken from its
place,[1565] and Lehmann is probably correct in concluding[1566] that
this month of Iyyar was a particularly sacred one in Assyria, emphasized
with intent perhaps by the kings, as an offset against the sacredness of
Nisan in Babylonia.

Festivals in honor of Ninib were celebrated in Calah in the months of
Elul--the sixth month--and Shabat--the eleventh month.[1567] The sixth
month, it will be recalled, is sacred to Ishtar.[1568] Ninib being a
solar deity, his festival in Elul was evidently of a solar character.
From Ashurbanabal,[1569] again, we learn that the 25th day of Siwan--the
third month--was sacred to Belit of Babylon, and on that day a
procession took place in her honor. The Belit meant is Sarpanitum in her
original and independent rôle as a goddess of fertility. The statue of
the goddess, carried about, presumably in her ship, formed the chief
feature of the procession. Ashurbanabal chooses this "favorable" day as
the one on which to break up camp in the course of one of his military
expeditions. We would naturally expect to find a festival month devoted
to the god Ashur in Assyria. This month was Elul--the sixth month.[1570]
The choice of this month lends weight to the supposition that Ashur was
originally a solar deity.[1571] The honors once paid to Ninib in Calah
in this month could thus easily be transferred to the head of the
Assyrian pantheon. Although in the calendar the sixth month is sacred to
Ishtar, her festival was celebrated in the fifth month, known as
Ab.[1572] This lack of correspondence between the calendar and the
festivals is an indication of the greater antiquity of the latter.

In the great temple to Shamash at Sippar, there appear to have been
several days that were marked by religious observances.
Nabubaliddin[1573] (ninth century) emphasizes that he presented rich
garments to the temple for use on six days of the year,--the 7th day of
Nisan (first month), 10th of Iyyar (second month), 3rd of Elul (sixth
month), 7th of Tishri (seventh month), 15th of Arakh-shamna (or
Marcheshwan, eighth month), and the 15th of Adar (twelfth month). These
garments are given to Shamash, to his consort Malkatu, and to
Bunene.[1574] Since from a passage in a Babylonian chronicle[1575] it
appears that it was customary for Shamash on his festival to leave his
temple, we may conclude that the garments were put on Shamash and his
associates, for the solemn procession on the six days in question.

The festivals in Nisan and Elul are distinctly of a solar character. The
choice of two other months immediately following Nisan and Elul cannot
be accidental. The interval of thirty-three days between the Nisan and
Iyyar festivals and thirty-four days between the Elul and Tishri
festivals may represent a sacred period.[1576] Tishri, moreover, as has
been pointed out, is a sacred month in a peculiar sense. Marcheshwan, it
may be well to bear in mind, is sacred to Marduk,--a solar deity,--while
the 15th of Adar, curiously enough, is an old solar festival that,
modified and connected with historical reminiscences, became popular
among the Jews of Persia and Babylonia during the Persian supremacy in
the Semitic Orient, and survives to this day under the name of the Purim
festival.[1577] At all events, the six days may be safely regarded as
connected in some way, direct or indirect, with solar worships, and it
is natural to find that in so prominent a center of sun-worship as
Sippar, _all_ the solar festivals were properly and solemnly observed.

It is disappointing that up to the present so little has been
ascertained of the details of the moon-cult--the great rival to Shamash
worship--in the old cities of Ur and Harran. In the Babylonian calendar,
the third month--Siwan--is sacred to Sin, but since, as we have found,
the festivals in honor of the gods do not always correspond to the
assignment of the months, we cannot be certain that in this month a
special festival in honor of Sin was observed. Lastly, besides the
regular and fixed festivals, the kings, and more especially the Assyrian
rulers, did not hesitate to institute special festivals in memory of
some event that contributed to their glory. Agumkakrimi[1578] instituted
a festival upon restoring the statues of Marduk and Sarpanitum to
Babylon, and Sargon does the same upon restoring the palace at
Calah.[1579] Dedications of temples and palaces were in general marked
by festivities, and so when the kings return in triumph from their wars,
laden with spoils and captives, popular rejoicings were instituted. But
such festivals were merely sporadic, and, while marked by religious
ceremonies, were chiefly occasions of general jollification combined
with homage to the rulers. Such a festival was not called an _isinnu_,
but a _nigatu_,[1580]--a 'merrymaking.'[1581] More directly connected
with the cult was a ceremony observed in Assyria upon the installation
of an official, known as the _limmu_, who during his year of service
enjoyed the privilege of having official documents dated with his
name.[1582] The ceremony involved a running[1583] of some kind, and
reminds one of the running between the two hills Marwa and Safa in Mekka
that forms part of the religious observances in connection with a visit
to the Kaaba.[1584] The name of the ceremony appears to have been puru
(or buru). To connect this word with the Jewish festival of Purim, as
Sayce proposes,[1585] is wholly unwarranted. The character of the Puru
ceremony points to its being an ancient custom, the real significance of
which in the course of time became lost. Fast days instituted for
periods of distress might also be added to the cult, but these, too,
like the special festivals, were not permanent institutions. For such
occasions many of the penitential psalms which were discussed in a
previous chapter[1586] were composed. To conciliate angered gods whose
temples had been devastated in days of turmoil, atonement and
purification rites were observed. So Ashurbanabal[1587] upon his
conquest of Babylonian cities tells us that he pacified the gods of the
south with penitential psalms and purified the temples by magic rites;
and Nabubaliddin,[1588] incidental to his restoration of the Shamash
cult at Sippar, refers to an interesting ceremony of purification, which
consisted in his taking water and washing his mouth according to the
purification ritual of Ea and Marduk,[1589] preliminary to bringing
sacrifices to Shamash in his shrine. Sippar had been overrun by
nomads,[1590] the temple had been defiled, and before sacrifices could
again be offered, the sacred edifice and sacred quarter had to be
purified. The king's action was a symbol of this purification. Many such
customs must have been in vogue in Babylonia and Assyria. Some--and
these were the oldest--were of popular origin. On the seal cylinders
there is frequently represented a pole or a conventionalized form of a
tree, generally in connection with a design illustrating the worship of
a deity.[1591] This symbol is clearly a survival of some tree
worship[1592] that was once popular. The comparison with the _ashera_ or
pole worship among Phoenicians and Hebrews[1593] is fully justified, and
is a proof of the great antiquity of the symbol, which, without becoming
a formal part of the later cult, retained in some measure a hold upon
the popular mind. Other symbols and customs were introduced under the
influence of the doctrines unfolded in the schools of thought in the
various intellectual centers, and as an expression of the teachings of
the priests. The cult of Babylonia, even more so than the literature, is
a compound of these two factors,--popular beliefs and the theological
elaboration and systematization of these beliefs. In the course of this
elaboration, many new ideas and new rites were introduced. The official
cult passed in some important particulars far beyond popular practices.

FOOTNOTES:

[1311] _Vorgeschichte der Indo-Europaer_, pp. 126-141.

[1312] Gen. xi. 4.

[1313] _E.g._, Tiglathpileser I., col. vii. ll. 102, 103; Meissner,
_Altbabylonisches Privatrecht_, no. 46; Nebopolassar Cylinder
(Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, i. 1, pls. 32, 33), col. i.
l. 38. Or 'as high as mountains'; _e.g._, Nebuchadnezzar II., IR. 58,
col. viii. ll. 61-63; and so frequently the Neo-Babylonian kings.

[1314] _Kosmologie_, pp. 185-195.

[1315] Or _Kharsag-gal-kurkura_; see p. 558.

[1316] See p. 458.

[1317] _Ekurrâti_; Delitzsch, _Assyr. Handwörterbuch_, p. 718b.

[1318] IR. 35, no. 3, 22.

[1319] See below.

[1320] Hebrew _Bamôth_. Through the opposition of the Hebrew prophets,
the term acquires distasteful associations that were originally foreign
to it.

[1321] See Peters' _Nippur_, ii. 124 _seq._

[1322] IIR. 50, obverse.

[1323] Perhaps, however, these several names all designate a single
zikkurat.

[1324] Peters' _Nippur_, i. 246; ii. 120.

[1325] For the meaning of this phrase, see Winckler's _Altorientalische
Forschungen_, iii. 208-222, and Jensen's _Kosmologie_, p. 167.

[1326] From Heuzey's note in De Sarzec, _Décourveries en Chaldée_, p.
31, it would appear that at Lagash there was a zikkurat of modest
proportions, but Dr. Peters informs me that from his observations at
Telloh, he questions whether the building in question represents a
zikkurat at all, though, as we know from other sources, a zikkurat
existed there in the days of Gudea.

[1327] _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_, xviii.

[1328] Of Sargon's zikkurat at Khorsabad, also, only four stories have
been found. Perrot and Chiplez (_History of Art in Chaldaea and
Assyria_, i. 388) suppose that there may have been seven.

[1329] _E.g._ Perrot and Chiplez, _ib._ p. 128. Hommel, _Geschichte
Babyloniens und Assyriens_, p. 19.

[1330] Peters (_Nippur_, i. 214) found many yellow-colored bricks at
Borsippa.

[1331] Book I, § 98.

[1332] See a paper by E. W. Hopkins on _The Holy Numbers of the
Rig-Veda_ (Oriental Studies, Boston, 1894, pp. 141-147).

[1333] Written ideographically, as the names of the zikkurats and of all
sacred edifices invariably are.

[1334] See above, p. 459.

[1335] Inscription G, col. i. l. 14; D, col. ii. l. 11.

[1336] IIR. 50; obverse 20. See p. 472.

[1337] _Kosmologie_, pp. 171-174.

[1338] The suggestion is worthy of consideration whether the name 'seven
directions of heaven and earth' may not also point to a conception of
seven zones dividing the _heavens_ as well as the earth. One is reminded
of the 'seven' heavens of Arabic theology.

[1339] So _e.g._, Kaulen, _Assyrien und Babylonien_ (3d edition), p. 58;
Vigouroux, _La Bible et les Découvertes Modernes_ (4th edition), i. 358.

[1340] Lit., 'house to be seen,' _Igi-e-nir_. See, _e.g._, VR. 29, no.
4, 40, and Delitzsch, _Assyr. Handwörterbuch_, p. 262.

[1341] So at Babylon, at least, according to Herodotus. Traces of such a
room were also found in connection with the zikkurat at Nippur (Peters,
_Nippur_, ii. 122.)

[1342] _Bit pirishti_. IIR. 50, obverse, 6. Another name (or perhaps the
name of a second zikkurat at Nippur; see p. 616, note 2) is
_Im-kharsag_, _i.e._, 'mountain of awe.' Peters' rendering (_Nippur_,
ii. 122) of the names is inaccurate.

[1343] Peters' _Nippur_, ii. chapter vi.

[1344] Schick, _Die Stiftschütte, der Tempel, und der Tempelplatz der
Jetztzeit_, pp. 8, 9.

[1345] Snouck-Hurgronje _Mekka_ (Atlas, pl. 1). The present structure,
though comparatively modern, is built after ancient models.

[1346] Schick, _ib._ pp. 125-131.

[1347] _Die Stiftshütte, der Tempel, und der Tempelplatz der Jeiztzeit_,
p. 82.

[1348] On the significance of the gate in sacred edifices, see Trumbull,
_The Threshold Covenant_, pp. 102-108.

[1349] Dr. Peters is of the opinion that at the entrance to the temple
area proper at Nippur there also stood two large columns.

[1350] _Découvertes en Chaldée_, pp. 62-64. Heuzey, in a valuable note,
already suggests the comparison with the two columns of Solomon's which
is here maintained on the basis of the excavations at Nippur.

[1351] _Ib._ p. 64.

[1352] The best example for Assyria is furnished by the magnificent
bronze gates of Balawat, now in The British Museum. See Birch and
Pinches, _The Bronze Ornaments of the Palace Gates of Balawat_ (London,
1881).

[1353] See the illustrations in Perrot and Chiplez, _History of Art in
Chaldea and Assyria_, i. 142, 143.

[1354] So Puchstein and Friedrich, but see Meissner-Rost, _Noch einmal
das Bithillâni und die Assyrische Säule_ (Leipzig, 1893).

[1355] _Discoveries among the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon_, plan 2.

[1356] Papakhu for Pakhpakhu, from the stem _pakhû_, "to close."
Parakku, from Parâku, "to shut off, to lock."

[1357] Inscription D, col. ii. l. 9.

[1358] V. Rawlinson, pl. 60.

[1359] Book i. sec. 183.

[1360] See the chief passage, IR. 54, col. ii, ll. 54-65; another name
is E-Kua, 'dwelling.'

[1361] See p. 423.

[1362] VR. 50, col. i. l. 5.

[1363] VR. 41, No. 1, Rev. 18.

[1364] IVR. 57, 24a. Jensen's suggestion (_Kosmologie_, p. 242) to read
Mar-duku is out of the question.

[1365] What Jensen says (_Kosmologie_, p. 10) of the temple at Sippar
would apply to the papakhu in the temple, rather than to the whole
structure.

[1366] De Sarzec, _Découvertes en Chaldée_, pls. 24, 25 _bis_, etc.

[1367] See p. 537.

[1368] De Sarzec, _Découvertes en Chaldée_, pls. 4, 4 _bis_ and 43
_bis_. On the latter, bulls, lions, and eagle in combination.

[1369] See p. 653.

[1370] See the plan in Schick, _Die Stiftshütte_, pl. 5. Layard
(_Discoveries among the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon_, pp. 642-648)
points out some analogies between the constructions at Nimrod and
Solomon's buildings, but what he says applies chiefly to the palaces.

[1371] Herodotus, book i. sec. 183, speaks of two altars outside of the
temple of Marduk in Babylon. In the case of so important a structure,
the number of altars was naturally more numerous.

[1372] See Heuzey's note in De Sarzec's _Découvertes en Chaldée_, p. 65.

[1373] See pp. 109 _seq._

[1374] See p. 106.

[1375] _Recueil des Travaux_, etc., xvii. 39.

[1376] See pp. 140 _seq._

[1377] The date of this king has recently been pushed down by
Thureau-Dangin, considerably later than the date assigned to him by
Hilprecht (_Revue Semitique_, v. 265-269).

[1378] See p. 110.

[1379] Nebuchadnezzar, IR. 65, col. i. ll. 34, 35.

[1380] This is to be concluded from Nebuchadnezzar, ib. l. 32.

[1381] See Tiele's note, _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, ii. 184, note.

[1382] IR. 55, col. iv. ll. 54-57.

[1383] See Tiele, _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, ii. 190.

[1384] III Rawlinson, pl. 66. The list also contains objects in the
temples used for the cult.

[1385] IIIR. 66. obverse, col. ii. ll. 2-25.

[1386] See p. 207.

[1387] The sign for image occurs in connection with some of the gods.

[1388] The term can hardly be used here in the strict sense of 'towers,'
but appears to have become a general word for a sacred structure.

[1389] _Ib._ col. iii. ll. 22-34.

[1390] Meissner-Rost, _Bauinschriften Sanherib's_, p. 7.

[1391] See, _e.g._, the list IIIR. 66. An exception is formed by the
temple to Ramman in the city of Asshur, which has a special name. See
the following note.

[1392] Including the one to Ramman in Asshur.

[1393] IR. 2. nos. 11, 2.

[1394] IIR, 50, obverse 13.

[1395] Lge-e-nir = zikkurat; Kidur = shubtu (dwelling); Makh = rabu
(great).

[1396] The name approaches closely to the conception of a zikkurat in
the Book of Genesis, as a 'ladder' connecting heaven and earth. Gen.
xxviii. 12.

[1397] See above, p. 619.

[1398] The ideas 'true, fixed, established, eternal' are all expressed
by the element _Zida_.

[1399] I adopt this reading as the one generally used.

[1400] See above, p. 242.

[1401] Or _tush_. Cf. Brünnow, Sign List, no. 10523.

[1402] Or _ab_. See Jensen, _Keils Bibl._ 3, i. pp. 15, 173.

[1403] See above, p. 57.

[1404] Compare the name 'Belit-seri,' 'mistress of the fields,' as the
name of a goddess who belongs to the pantheon of the lower world. See p.
588.

[1405] IIR. 61, nos. 1, 2, 6.

[1406] Text, _Kar_, _i.e._, 'dam,' 'wall,' or 'quay.'

[1407] IIR. 50, l. 8.

[1408] Bezold Catalogue, etc., p. 1776.

[1409] One is reminded of Isaiah's sentiment (lvi. 7) regarding the
temple of Yahwe, which is to be called 'a house of prayer for the
world.'

[1410] Lit., 'enclosure.'

[1411] The synagogue is called a 'house' just as the Babylonian temple
is, and among names of synagogues (or of congregations) in modern times
that form close parallels to the names of Babylonian temples may be
instanced 'house of prayer,' 'glory of Israel,' 'tree of life.' The
custom of naming Christian churches after the apostles represents a
further development along the order of ideas current in Babylonia.

[1412] _E.g._, IIR. 50 (zikkurats); IIR. 61; IIIR. 66.

[1413] See Bezold Catalogue, etc., p. 1776 and elsewhere.

[1414] _E.g._, IIR. 54-60; IIIR. 67-69; VR. 43, 46.

[1415] IIR. 60, no. 1, obverse.

[1416] See p. 172. Some of the gods invoked by Sennacherib (see p. 238),
as Gaga, Sherua, and perhaps also Khani, are foreign deities.

[1417] Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts, i. 56-59.

[1418] As Lagamal, Kanishurra.

[1419] See Peters' _Nippur_, ii. chapter x, "The History of Nippur."

[1420] _Ib._ ll. 260. (Published in Hilprecht's _Old Babylonian
Inscriptions_, I. 1. pl. 21, no. 43. See also pl. 8, no. 15.)

[1421] VR. 63.

[1422] VR. pls. 60, 61.

[1423] So, _e.g._, as late as the days of Nebopolassar (Scheil, _Recueil
des Travaux_, xviii. 16).

[1424] Besides this temple, there were two others, perhaps only chapels,
dedicated to Sin at Ur: (_a_) E-te-im-ila (mentioned first by Ur-Bau,
IR. pl. 1, no. 4), and (_b_) E-Kharsag (mentioned first by Dungi, IR. 2,
II. no. 2). The zikkurat at Ur had, of course, a special name (IIR. 50,
obverse 18).

[1425] See Nöldeke, _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xi. 107-109.
Hilprecht's theory (_Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, i. 2, 55) has not
been accepted by scholars.

[1426] VR. 64, col. i. 3-9; col. ii. 46.

[1427] See p. 444.

[1428] See p. 81.

[1429] See pp. 126 _seq._

[1430] See p. 129.

[1431] So Antiochus Soter, VR. 66, col. i. l. 3.

[1432] For a further account of the financial side of the temple
establishments, see Peiser's excellent remarks in his _Babylonische
Verträge des Berliner Museums_, pp. xvii-xxix.

[1433] Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, i. 2, p. 24.

[1434] Nine magnificent diorite statues of Gudea were found by De Sarzec
at Telloh.

[1435] Ashes--the trace of sacrifices--were also found on the altar.

[1436] See the illustrations in Perrot and Chiplez, _History of Art in
Chaldea_, etc., i. 143, 255. Similar horns existed on the Hebrew and
Ph[oe]nician altars.

[1437] See the illustrations in Perrot and Chiplez, _ib._, i. 194, 256,
257. On seal cylinders altar titles are frequently represented.

[1438] Book i. sec. 183.

[1439] See Schick, _Die Stiftshütte_, etc., pp. 119 _seq._

[1440] _Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, p. 13; see also p. 89.

[1441] Inscription G, col 1. ll. 15-17. See p. 621.

[1442] Described in De Sarzec's _Découvertes en Chaldée_, pp. 216, 217.
For other specimens, see _ib._ pp. 106, 171; and see also Hilprecht,
_Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, i. 2. p. 39, note.

[1443] Inscription D, col. iii, 1-12.

[1444] See Winckler's note, _Keils Bibl._ 3, 2, p. 16.

[1445] IR. 54, col. iii. l. 10.

[1446] _Ib._ 55, col. iv. l. 1, 2.

[1447] IIR. 61. no. 2, obverse.

[1448] See Perrot and Chiplez, _History of Art in Chaldea and Assyria_,
i. 75, 76.

[1449] See the illustration in Snouck-Hurgronje _Mekka_, pl. V.

[1450] _I.e._, of the god, E-Kua being the name of the sacred chamber in
Marduk's temple at Babylon. See p. 629, note 1.

[1451] See p. 60.

[1452] See p. 282.

[1453] The largest canal in Babylonia.

[1454] _E.g._, _ishakku_.

[1455] _Sha_ and _nakû_, _i.e._, 'the one over the sacrifice.'
_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, vii., 174, note.

[1456] That these terms represent classes of priests is indicated by the
fact that the abstract derivatives shangûtu, kalûtu, ishippûtu, and also
ramkûtu (see below) are used as general terms for priesthood.

[1457] IIR. 32, no. 3.

[1458] 'A spear carrier of Marduk' occurs in contract tablets.

[1459] _Dupsharru_.

[1460] _Daianu_.

[1461] _E.g._, IIIR. 48, no. 6, ll. 26, 27.

[1462] _Shangu_ = priest; _makhu_ = great.

[1463] See above, p. 657.

[1464] Delitzsch, _Assyr. Handwörterbuch_, p. 149b.

[1465] See pp. 356 _seq._

[1466] On these night watches, see Delitzsch's article in the
_Zeitschrift für Keilschriftforschung_, ll. 284-294.

[1467] See above, pp. 267, 343.

[1468] _Kharimtu_, _Kisritu_, _Ukhatu_, _Shamuktu_. See IIR, 32, no. 2,
ll. 31-36, and above, pp. 475, 484.

[1469] See his article on "Sacrifice" in the 9th edition of the
_Encyclopaedia Britannica_ and his _Religion of the Semites_, Lectures
VI-XI.

[1470] So in the regulations of the priestly code (Lev. iii. 14-17).

[1471] Inscription G, cols, iii-vi.

[1472] Hardly 'roosters,' as Jensen (_Kosmologie_, p. 517) proposes.

[1473] See, _e.g._, Gudea, Inscription F, cols. iii, iv.

[1474] See on this general subject Marillier's admirable articles, "La
Place du Totemisme dans l'evolution religieuse" (_Revue de l'Histoire
des Religions_, xxxvi).

[1475] See pp. 397, 398.

[1476] See Peters' _Nippur_, ll. 131, and Hilprecht, _Cuneiform Texts_,
ix. pl. xiii.

[1477] See Ward, "On Some Babylonian Cylinders supposed to represent
Human Sacrifices" (_Proc. Amer. Oriental Soc._ May, 1888, pp.
xxvlii-xxx).

[1478] See, _e.g._, Layard, _Monuments of Nineveh_, 1st series, pls. 7,
23; Place, _Nineve et l'Assyrie_, pl. 46, etc.

[1479] "The Winged Figures of the Assyrian and Other Ancient Monuments,"
_Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._ xii. 383-393; see also Bonavia, "The Sacred
Trees of the Assyrian Monuments," _Babylonian and Oriental Record_,
vols. iii, iv, whose conclusions, however, are not always acceptable.

[1480] See chapter xix, "Oracles and Omens."

[1481] See pp. 295-299.

[1482] See, _e.g._, Sennacherib, IR. 47, col. v. ll. 50-54;
Ashurbanabal, Rassam Cylinder, col. ii. l. 116, and col. iv. l. 9.

[1483] IIR. 67, 11, 12.

[1484] Cylinder, l. 4.

[1485] Winckler, _Die Keilschrifttexte Sargon's Prunkinschrift_, ll.
134, 135.

[1486] Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, i. 1, pl. 33, col. ii.
ll. 54-56.

[1487] VR. 65, col. ii. l. 13.

[1488] See, _e.g._, Tiglathpileser I., IR. 16, col. viii. ll. 56, 57;
Sennacherib, IR. 47, col. vi. l. 67-71.

[1489] VR. 64, col. ii. ll. 43-45.

[1490] Gen. xxviii. 18.

[1491] _Religion of the Semites_, p. 364.

[1492] See Robertson Smith, ib. p. 215.

[1493] VR. 61, col. iv. ll. 33, 34.

[1494] IR. 7, no. ix.

[1495] Heuzey in De Sarzec's _Découvertes en Chaldée_, p. 209.

[1496] Several examples occur in De Sarzec's _Découvertes en Chaldée_.
See also Ward, _Proc. Amer. Oriental Soc._, May, 1888, p. xxix, and
Peters' _Nippur_, ii. pl. 2.

[1497] Wellhausen, _Reste Arabischen Heidenthums_, p. 106.

[1498] Grotefend Cylinder, col. li. ll. 36-39.

[1499] They are also used in the sense of any permanent provision for a
temple through an endowment.

[1500] Lit., 'the steady' sacrifice. See the technical employment, Dan.
viii. 11.

[1501] VR. 61, col. iv. l. 48-col v. l. 6; see also Ashurbanabal, Rassam
Cylinder, col. iv. l. 90.

[1502] Belit here used for Ashur's consort; see p. 226.

[1503] See p. 652.

[1504] Inscription B, cols. vii-viii.

[1505] Chapter iii. 1-7.

[1506] This touch appears to have been added by the Hebrew writer.
Nebuchadnezzar is but a disguise for Antiochus Epiphanes.

[1507] VR. 33, col. ii. l. 22-col. iii. l. 12.

[1508] VR. 61, col. vi. ll. 1-13.

[1509] Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, i. 1, pl. 23, no. 62.

[1510] In the museum at Copenhagen. Described by Knudtzon in the _Zeits.
f. Assyr._, xil. 255.

[1511] Tiele, _Babylonisch-Assyrische Geschichte_, p. 287.

[1512] In the Berlin Museum (Knudtzon, _ib._). It is also on a knob
which contains remains of an iron stick, to which, evidently, the knob
was fastened.

[1513] Written A-e.

[1514] Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, i. 1, p. 58.

[1515] In reality, glass colored with cobalt. On this production of
false lapis lazuli, see Peters' _Nippur_, ii. 134.

[1516] For examples, see Hilprecht, _ib._, pl. 18, no. 34; pl. 23, nos.
56, 57; pl. 25, nos. 66, 69; pl. 26, no. 70.

[1517] Peters' _Nippur_, ii. 77, 133.

[1518] So, _e.g._, Peters' _Nippur_, ii. 237, 238, 378, 379.

[1519] De Sarzec, _Découvertes en Chaldée_, pls. 1 bis and 28.

[1520] The opinion has been advanced that the personage who holds the
cone-shaped object is the fire-god turning the fire drill, but this is
highly improbable.

[1521] _Découvertes en Chaldée_, p. 239.

[1522] Peters' _Nippur_ ii. 376, and Hilprecht, _Cuneiform Texts_, ix.
pl. 12.

[1523] Peters _ib._ pp. 374, 375.

[1524] See p. 536.

[1525] _E.g._, Gen. xxxi. 19.

[1526] See the specimens and descriptions in _Découvertes en Chaldée_,
pl. 44 and p. 234.

[1527] Tiglathpileser I. (IR. 12, col. iv. l. 23) presents twenty-five
gods of the land of Sugi.

[1528] Ashurnasirbal, IR. 25, col. iii. ll. 91, 92.

[1529] Winckler, _Die Keilschrifttexte Sargon's Prunkinschrift_, ll.
141-143.

[1530] IR. 27, 8-10.

[1531] VR. 60, col. ii. ll. 11-16.

[1532] See pp. 373-383.

[1533] See above, p. 658.

[1534] This is a standing phrase in the inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar,
as well as of other kings. See Delitzsch, _Assyr. Handwörterbuch_, p.
270b.

[1535] Deut. xii. 18; xvi. 14, etc.

[1536] See pp. 462, 463.

[1537] See _ib._

[1538] Or zag-mu. Gudea, Inscription G, col. iii. In the later
inscriptions we find zag-mu-ku. The _k_ or _ku_ appears to be an
afformative. See Amlaud, _Zeits. f. Assyr._ iii. 41. The reading
za-am-mu-ku is found, IR. 67, col. i. l. 34.

[1539] _rêsh shatti_. See p. 681.

[1540] Inscription G, _ib._, and Inscription D, col. ii. ll. 1-9. See
also p. 59.

[1541] See above, _ib._

[1542] See, _e.g._, Pognon Wadi Brissa, col. ix. ll. 12-18.

[1543] This follows from a passage in Nebuchadnezzar's Inscription, IR.
54, col. ii. l. 57.

[1544] See p. 654.

[1545] Signifying 'may the enemy not wax strong.'

[1546] See Nebuchadnezzar's Inscription, IR. 56, col v. ll. 38-54.

[1547] So, _e.g._ during the closing years of Nabonnedos' reign.
Winckler, _Untersuchungen zur Altorient. Gesch._ i. 154; obv. 6 (7th
year); 11 (9th year); 20 (10th year); 24 (11th year).

[1548] On the meaning and importance of the rite, see Winckler, _Zeits.
f. Assyr._ ii. 302-304, and Lehmann's _Shamash-shumukin_, pp. 44-53.

[1549] Eponym List, IIR. 52, no. 1 obv. 45.

[1550] Winckler, _Die Keilschrifttexte Sargon's_, pp. 52, 124; of
Ashurbanabal, the chronicler tells us that he proceeded to Babylonia in
the month of Iyyar, but, this not being the proper month, he did not
"seize the hands of Bel." See also Winckler, _ib._ p. xxxvi, note.

[1551] See pp. 423 and 629 _seq._

[1552] _I.e._, 'The beginning of the year.' See on this subject Karppe's
article, _Revue Semitique_, ii. 146-151.

[1553] See p. 464.

[1554] See _ib._, note 3.

[1555] The opinion of many scholars that the Rôsh hash-shanâ dates from
the Babylonian exile because not referred to in the Book of Deuteronomy
is open to serious objections. The festival has traces of antiquity
(like the Day of Atonement), and appears to have been _revived_ during
the captivity, under Babylonian influence.

[1556] See especially pp. 484 and 575.

[1557] Ezekiel, viii. 14. There is probably a reference also to the
Tammuz festival in Zech, xii. 10, 11. The interpretation offered by
Robertson Smith (_Religion of the Semites_, p. 392, note) for the
mourning rites appears strained.

[1558] _Over de Israelietische Vastendagen_ (Amsterdam, 1897, pp. 4-6;
12-17).

[1559] _Zeits. f. Assyr._ ix. 290 _seq._

[1560] See Farnell, _The Cults of the Greek States_, ii. 648 _seq._

[1561] Rassam Cylinder, col. i. ll. 11, 12.

[1562] See pp. 105 and 173 _seq._

[1563] The readings Suni-gar and Shum-gar (so Jensen, _Keils Bibl._ ii.
155) are also possible.

[1564] IVR. 32, 49b, where the 20th day of the intercalated Elul is so
designated. An official--'the great Si-gar'--is mentioned in a
list,--IIR. 31, no. 5, 33a.

[1565] See the discussion (and passages) in Lehmann's
_Shamash-shumukin_, pp. 43 _seq._ One is tempted to conclude that
Marduk's statue was removed to Nineveh, not in a spirit of vandalism,
but in order to enable Assyrian kings to 'seize the hands of Bel'
without proceeding to E-Sagila. The Babylonians, no doubt, were offended
by such an act, and in order to conciliate them, Ashurbanabal, who
pursues a mild policy towards the south, orders the statue to be
restored at the time that he appoints his brother Shamash-shumukin as
governor of the southern provinces.

[1566] _Ib._ p. 53, note.

[1567] Ashurnasirbal's Inscription, IR. 23, col. ii. l. 134.

[1568] See above, p. 462.

[1569] Rassam Cylinder, col. viii. ll. 96-100.

[1570] George Smith, _The History of Ashurbanipal_, p. 126 (Cylinder B,
col. v. l. 77). See also Rassam Cylinder, col. iii. l. 32.

[1571] See above, pp. 195, 196.

[1572] See Ashurbanabal Cylinder B, col. v. l. 16 (_Keils Bibl._ ii.
248; also Meissner, _Beiträge zum Altbabylonischen Privatrecht_, no. 14,
p. 23).

[1573] VR. 61. col. v. l. 51-vi. l. 8.

[1574] See above, pp. 74 and 176.

[1575] Winckler, _Zeits. f. Assyr._ ii. 155 (col. ii. l. 41).

[1576] One is reminded of the sanctity attaching in the Jewish ritual to
the "counting" of the seven weeks intervening between Passover (the old
Nisan festival) and Pentecost (an old summer festival). See Deut. xvi.
9. The 33d day of this period has a special significance in the Jewish
Church.

[1577] The non-Jewish origin of the Purim festival is generally accepted
by critical scholars. Lagarde (_Purim--Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der
Religions_) endeavors to trace it back to a Persian fire festival;
Zimmern (_Zeits. f. Alt. Wiss._, 1891, pp. 160 _seq._) connects it with
the Babylonian Zagmuku. Sayce's supposition (_Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._
xix. 280, 281) is not to be taken seriously. The origin of the Jewish
feast and fast of Purim is still obscure. The fact that there is both a
fast (14th Adar) and a festival (15th Adar) is a safe indication of
antiquity. Zimmern's view of a possible relationship between Purim and
Zagmuku is untenable, but that there is a connection between Purim and
_some_ Babylonian festival follows from the fact that the two chief
personages in the Book of Esther--namely, Mordecai and Esther--bear
names identical with the two Babylonian deities, Marduk and Ishtar. This
cannot be an accident. On the other hand, Haman and Vashti, according to
Jensen (_Wiener Zeits. f.d. Kunde des Morgenlandes_, vi. 70), are
Elamitic names of deities corresponding to the Babylonian Marduk and
Ishtar. The case for Vashti is not clearly made out by Jensen, but, for
all that, it is certain that the Babylonian elements in the institution
have been combined with some bits of Persian mythology. The historical
setting is the work of the Jewish compiler of the tale, that has of
course some historical basis. See now Toy, _Esther as a Babylonian
Goddess_ (_The New World_, vi. 130-145).

[1578] VR. 33, col. v. l. 40.

[1579] Winckler, _Die Keilschrifttexte Sargon's_, p. 172 and p. xxvi,
note.

[1580] _E.g._, Sargon's _Annals_, l. 179; Cylinder, l. 20, VR. 33, col.
v. l. 40 (_nigatu_).

[1581] Not necessarily 'music festival,' as Delitzsch proposes (_Assyr.
Handw._, p. 447a).

[1582] For examples, see the Assyrian contract tablets translated by
Peiser, _Keils Bibl._ iv. 98 and _passim._

[1583] See the passage Shalmanaser obelisk, ll. 174, 175, and Peiser's
comment, _Keils Bibl._ iv. 106, note.

[1584] Burton, _A Pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina_, iii. chapter vii.

[1585] See above, p. 686.

[1586] Chapter xviii.

[1587] Rassam Cylinder, col. iv. ll. 86-89.

[1588] VR. 61, col. ii. ll. 22-27.

[1589] Ea and Marduk, it will be recalled, are the chief gods invoked in
magic rites involving purification. See pp. 275, 276.

[1590] See p. 646.

[1591] See numerous examples in Menant's _Collection de Clercq_ (Paris,
1888).

[1592] See above, p. 662.

[1593] Stade, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, i. 458 seq.




CHAPTER XXVII.

CONCLUSION.

General Estimate and Influence.


In forming a general estimate of a religion, one's verdict will largely
depend upon the point of view from which the religion in question is
regarded. It is manifestly unjust and illogical to apply modern
standards to an ancient religion, not that such a religion would
necessarily suffer by the comparison involved, but because of the
totally different conditions under which religion developed in antiquity
from those prevailing in modern times. The close association, nay, the
inseparable bond, between religion and the state is only one of several
determining factors that might be adduced, while the small scope
permitted to individualism in matters of religious belief and practice
in a country like Babylonia or Assyria was fraught with such peculiar
results that all comparisons, even with other religions of antiquity,
could only obscure and not illumine our judgment.

There are manifestly three phases of the religion of Babylonia and
Assyria that need to be considered in reaching some general conclusions
as to the character and rank to be accorded to it,--the doctrines, the
rites, and the ethics. So far as the pantheon is concerned, the
limitations in the development of doctrines connected with it were
reached when the union of the several Euphratean states was permanently
effected under Hammurabi. Marduk, a solar deity, takes his place as the
head of the pantheon by virtue of the preëminent place occupied by his
patron city,--Babylon. The other great gods, each representing some
religious center that at one time or the other rose to importance,
grouped themselves around Marduk, as the princes and nobles gather
around a supreme monarch. A certain measure of independence was reserved
for the great mother goddess Ishtar, who, worshipped under various names
as the symbol of fertility, plenty, and strength, is not so decidedly
affected by the change as deities like En-lil, Shamash, Sin, and Ea, who
could at any time become rivals of Marduk. As the position of Marduk,
however, became more and more assured without danger of being shaken,
the feeling of rivalry in his relations to the other gods began to
disappear. Marduk's supremacy no longer being questioned, there was no
necessity to curtail the homage paid to Shamash at Sippar or to En-lil
at Nippur; hence the religious importance of the old centers is not
diminished by the surpassing glory of Babylon. There was room for all.
Marduk's toleration is the best evidence of his unquestioned headship.

The centralization of political power and of religious supremacy is
concomitant with the focussing of intellectual life in Babylon. The
priests of Marduk set the fashion in theological thought. So far as
possible, the ancient traditions and myths were reshaped so as to
contribute to the glory of Marduk. The chief part in the work of
creation is assigned to him. The storm-god En-lil is set aside to make
room for the solar deity Marduk. But, despite such efforts, the old
tales, once committed to writing on the practically imperishable clay,
survived, if not in the minds of the people, at least in the archives of
the ancient temples.

The antiquity of literature in Babylonia was the factor that prevented
the cult from acquiring a uniform character in the various parts of the
empire. The priests of Nippur, of Sippar, of Eridu, of Erech, Cuthah,
Ur, and other places began long before the period of Hammurabi to
compile, on the basis of past experience and as a guide for future
needs, omen lists, incantation formulas, and sacrificial rituals. These
collections created orthodox standards, and these standards, once
acknowledged, the natural conservatism attaching to religious customs
was sufficient to maintain their continuance. The uniformity of doctrine
was thus offset by variations in the cult; and the policy adopted by
both Babylonian and Assyrian rulers, in permitting each center to remain
undisturbed, and in freely recognizing the religious independence of
each, prevented the Babylonian and Assyrian religion from falling into
the state of stagnation which would otherwise have been its fate.

In the views taken of the relationship between the gods and men, no
notable advances were made when once the ethical spirit was infused into
the religious beliefs. The problem of good and evil was solved in a
simple fashion. By the side of the great gods there existed a large,
almost infinite number of spirits and demons, who were generally held
responsible for the evils affecting mankind.[1594] These demons and
spirits were in many cases gods 'fallen from grace,'--minor local
deities who, unable to maintain themselves in the face of the growing
popularity of the great gods, sank to an inferior position as
messengers, forced to do the will of their masters and who could be
controlled by the latter. But the intercession of the priests was
essential to obtaining divine help against the mischievous workings of
the spirits. Even the kings, though originally standing very close to
the gods, could not dispense with the services of the priests, and by
virtue of their conspicuous position had to exercise greater precautions
than the masses not to offend the gods, by errors of commission or
omission in the cult. The priests held the secret that could secure
freedom from ills and promote the comparative well-being of rulers and
subjects. They alone knew what incantations to use for each case that
was brought before them, in what way the sacrifices were to be brought,
when the deity should be approached, and why divine anger had manifested
itself. The intellectual leadership thus acquired by the priests, in
addition to their control of religious affairs, was an additional factor
in maintaining orthodox standards of belief when once they had become
fixed. In the doctrines of life after death, this influence of the
priesthood is distinctly seen. The popular notions were systematized,
but the priests, true to their rule as conservators, did not pass beyond
primitive conceptions. Some weak attempts at a philosophical view of the
problem of death are attempted in the Gilgamesh epic as finally put
together under the influence of the Babylonian schools of thought,[1595]
but the leaders shared with the people the sense of hopelessness when
picturing the life in the great hollow Aralû. It is in the hymns and
prayers, rather than in the cosmology and eschatology, that the
spiritual aspirations of the priests (and to a limited degree of the
masses) manifest themselves. In these productions, whether existing
independently or incorporated into incantation rituals, we see the
religion of Babylonia at its best. A strong emphasis is placed upon the
doctrine that misfortunes and ills come as a punishment for sins of
commission or omission. It is true that no distinction is drawn between
ceremonial errors and real misdeeds, but the sense of guilt is aroused
by the priests in the minds of those who come to the temples, seeking
relief from the attacks of the evil spirits, or the bewitchment of
sorcerers.

It is in this doctrine of guilt, as revealed through the magical texts,
that we must seek both for the starting-point of the development of an
ethical system (so far as such a system existed among the Babylonians),
and also for the limitations of this system. The aim of the priests to
observe the right ceremonies, to pronounce the right words in order to
accomplish their aim, reacted on rulers and subjects, and led them to
make the pleasure of the gods the goal of life. With fear of the gods,
upon which stress is always laid,[1596] there is thus associated an
equally strong love[1597] of the divine powers. Obedience to the gods is
primarily inculcated as a means of securing their protection and
blessing; but the fear of the gods, we are told, is the cause of
joy;[1598] and the Babylonians passed far beyond the stage of making the
satisfaction of one's own desires the standard of right and wrong. A
penitential psalm declares[1599] that what is pleasing to oneself may be
sinful in the eyes of a god.

The kings pride themselves upon being the promoters of justice. Even the
Assyrian rulers, who impress one while conducting their wars as bereft
of all softer emotions, declare that their highest aim is to spread
plenty and happiness.[1600] Sennacherib calls himself a king who 'loves
righteousness,'[1601] and he, as well as his predecessors and
successors, busies himself with actually restoring the rights of those
of his subjects who have been wrongfully deprived of their possessions.

The standard of private morality was high both in Babylonia and Assyria.
The legal and commercial tablets reveal that proper consideration was
given to the treatment of woman--a most satisfactory index of ethical
conditions.[1602] She could hold property and dispose of it. Before the
courts, her status did not differ materially from that of the male
population. The husband could not divorce his wife without sufficient
cause, and children owed obedience to the mother as well as to the
father.[1603] Polygamy, as a matter of course, prevailed, but it is an
error to suppose that polygamy is inconsistent with high ideals of
family life, even though it does not lead to the highest ideals.

Hatred, lying, cheating, using false measures, removing boundaries,
adultery, insincerity are denounced in the incantation texts,[1604] and
in accord with this standard, we see in the records of lawsuits and
agreements between parties[1605] clear indications of the stringent laws
that prevailed in order to protect citizens against infringement of
their rights. It comes as a surprise, but also as a welcome testimony to
the efficacy of justice in Assyria, to find Ashurbanabal emphasizing the
fact that he established ordinances so that the strong should do no harm
to the weak.[1606]

The institution of slavery flourished in Babylonia and Assyria
throughout all periods of their history,[1607] but there were various
grades of slaves. Some classes differed but little from that of
servants, indentured for a longer or shorter period for certain
services. The temple slaves appear to have largely belonged to this
class. Mild treatment of slaves is enjoined and was the rule. The slaves
are often the confidential agents of their masters who attend to the
business affairs of the latter. We find slaves holding property in their
own right. Contracts entered into by them are legal and binding.
Injuries inflicted upon them by their masters are punished, and they are
protected against losses and mishaps encountered while in service. While
we have no evidence to show that the laws of Assyria were on a lower
ethical plane than those of Babylonia, still, as the pupils and
imitators of the Babylonians in almost everything pertaining to culture
and religion, the general tone of life in Assyria was hardly as high as
in the south. The warlike spirit of the rulers is but a symptom of the
fiercer character of the people.

The tendency towards monotheism in the religion of Babylonia and Assyria
has been referred to. We must remember that it was only a tendency. No
decided steps in this direction were ever taken. Both in the south and
in the north, this tendency is but the expression of the preëminent rank
accorded to Marduk and Ashur, respectively. The independent existence of
two heads in the combined pantheon was sufficient to prevent the
infusion of an ethical spirit into this monotheistic tendency; and
unless a monotheistic conception of the universe is interpreted in an
ethical sense, monotheism (or monolatry) has no great superiority,
either religiously or philosophically, over polytheism.

From the standpoint of religious doctrine, accordingly, the religion of
Babylonia and Assyria does not occupy a unique position. In this
respect, the Egyptian religion reaches a higher level. For all that, the
influence exerted by the religion that developed in the Euphrates Valley
was profound and lasting. We have had occasion in various chapters of
this work to point out the close analogies existing between the
thoughts, tradition, and practices of the Hebrews and the
Babylonians.[1608] A proper study of the Hebrew religion is closely
bound up with an investigation of the religious antiquities of
Babylonia; and as our knowledge of these antiquities increases, it will
be found that not only are Hebrews and Babylonians equipped with many
common possessions when starting out upon their intellectual careers,
but that, at different times and in diverse ways, the stimulus to
religious advance came to the Hebrews from the ancient centers of
thought and worship in the Euphrates Valley. This influence was
particularly strong during the period of Jewish history known as
Babylonian exile. The finishing touches to the structure of
Judaism--given on Babylonian soil[1609]--reveal the Babylonian
trademark. Ezekiel, in many respects the most characteristic Jewish
figure of the exile, is steeped in Babylonian theology and mysticism;
and the profound influence of Ezekiel is recognized by modern
scholarship in the religious spirit that characterizes the Jews upon the
reorganization of their commonwealth.

It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that what Babylonia gave to
others was always the best she had to offer. Degrading tendencies, too,
found an entrance into post-exilic Judaism through Babylonian influence.
Close contact of Jews with Babylonians served to make the former more
accessible to the popular beliefs in incantations and in the power of
demons than they would otherwise have been. Not that the Jews (as little
as any other people) were ever entirely free from superstitious
practices; but, living in an atmosphere charged, so to speak, with magic
and astrology, it was inevitable that even the best among them should be
infected by customs that they daily witnessed. In the Babylonian Talmud,
the references to evil spirits are numerous. Specific incantations are
introduced, and an elaborate system of angelology and demonology forms a
feature of Talmudical Judaism in which, by the side of Persian
influences,[1610] we may detect equally strong traces of Babylonian
ideas. In the upper strata of the ruins of Nippur, hundreds of clay
bowls were found, inscribed with Jewish inscriptions, in the Aramaic
dialect that was spoken by the Babylonian Jews.[1611] Similar bowls were
found elsewhere in the mounds of the Euphrates Valley.[1612] These bowls
indicate the presence of Jews in various parts of the country.[1613]
Placed in the graves as a protection for the dead against evil spirits,
the inscriptions contain formulas of denunciation against the demons
that constitute a striking parallel to the incantation texts of ancient
Babylonia. Some of the demons are identical with those occurring in
these texts, and by the side of the inscriptions, there are
illustrations[1614] and magical designs to which parallels exist on the
Babylonian tablets.

This custom of endeavoring to secure protection for the dead through the
power of the curses and propitiatory phrases inscribed on bowls
continued in vogue as late as the ninth century at the least, and
perhaps considerably later. There are indications also that Babylonian
ideas found an entrance into the Jewish Kabbala,--the strange mystic
system of the middle ages, the sources of which are to be sought in the
apocalyptic chapters of Ezekiel and Daniel.

Christianity as well as Judaism felt the fascination of the mystic lore
of Babylonia. Gunkel[1615] has demonstrated the Babylonian origin of the
myth embodied in the twelfth chapter of Revelations. This myth is but
another form of the Marduk-Tiâmat contest, which, it will be recalled,
is the chief episode in the Babylonian creation 'epic.'[1616] More
significant is the influence exerted by the religious ideas of Babylonia
upon the various Gnostic sects that arose within the Christian Church.
That the source of Gnosticism was to be sought in Mesopotamia was always
recognized by scholars, but until the discovery of Babylonian
literature, it was customary to seek for Jewish influences in the
formation of the various Gnostic sects. Kessler[1617] was the first to
demonstrate clearly the dependence of the leading ideas of Gnosticism
upon the Babylonian cosmology and the conceptions developed with
reference to the gods. More recently, Anz[1618] has undertaken a renewed
investigation of the subject, and, approaching the theme from various
points of view, reaches conclusions confirmatory of Kessler's thesis.
All of the Gnostic sects have certain fundamental doctrines in common,
such as the dwelling of God in the abyss,[1619] the migration of the
soul after death through seven zones, the emanation of aeons from a
supreme aeon.[1620] All these doctrines exhibit such close affinities
with Babylonian ideas as to warrant the assertion that the religion of
Babylonia survives in Gnosticism; and since, as we know, Babylonian
culture and customs maintained an undisturbed existence almost to the
threshold of our era, there is no need to go back to the older periods
of the Babylonian religion to find the connecting link, uniting
Gnosticism with the Babylonian religion. The spread and influence of the
Gnostic sects was notoriously wide. It is sufficient to recall the chief
centers of Gnostic schools of thought in Antioch, Edessa, and Alexandria
and the various branches of the powerful sect of the Ophites. The
influence of these schools extended into Greece and Rome. While the
Gnostic sects disappear in the sixth century, the influence of
Gnosticism can be followed down to the twelfth century,--a significant
testimony to the enduring qualities of Babylonian doctrines.

In the ancient world, prior to the rise of Christianity, Egypt, Persia,
and Greece felt the influence of the Babylonian religion. Budge[1621] is
of the opinion that many of the magic practices carried on in the
Egyptian temples are to be traced back to the incantation rituals
perfected by the Babylonian priests. In view of the early contact
between Egypt and Babylonia, as revealed by the El-Amarna tablets, there
were certainly abundant opportunities for the infusion of Babylonian
views and customs into Egyptian cults. In Persia, the Mithra cult
reveals the unmistakable influence of Babylonian conceptions;[1622] and
if it be recalled what a degree of importance the mysteries connected
with this cult acquired among the Romans, another link will be added
connecting the ramifications of ancient culture with the civilization of
the Euphrates Valley. The strong admixture of Semitic elements both in
early Greek mythology and in Grecian cults is now so generally admitted
by scholars as to require no further comment.[1623] These Semitic
elements are to a large extent more specifically Babylonian. The spread
of the Gilgamesh epic and of the Ishtar cult into Asia Minor and Greece
may be instanced as illustrations of Babylonian influence; and granting
that the Phoenicians acted largely as the mediators in carrying these
ideas to the Greek settlements, still there must have been influences at
work long before this direct contact with Semitic culture that prepared
the way for the ready acceptance which Semitic conceptions and Semitic
practices found. The time has not yet come for pronouncing an opinion as
to the influence exerted by Babylonia upon lands in the distant East.
The theory of DeLacouperie[1624] and Ball, which proposes to trace the
Chinese script to the hieroglyphic system of Babylonia, is still to be
tested. Early commercial contact between the Euphrates Valley and India
is maintained as a probable theory by several scholars,[1625] and the
possibility, therefore, of the spread of the religious ideas of
Babylonia to the distant East is not to be rejected. Patient research
and the additional discoveries (which are constantly being made) will
alone place us in a position some day to give a definite answer to the
question. Whatever that answer may be, the verdict as to the high
quality and profound influence of the religion that arose in the valley
of the Euphrates and that flourished for several millenniums will not be
altered.

To show the general indebtedness of Grecian, Roman, mediaeval, and even
modern civilization to Babylonian culture lies beyond the range of this
work, but the profound impression made upon the ancient world by the
remarkable manifestations of religious thought in Babylonia and by the
religious activity that prevailed in that region is but an index of the
influence that must have been exerted in other directions by the varied
intellectual activity that converted a district, exposed to the by no
means tender mercies of the elements, into one of the most notable
illustrations of the power and achievements of man.

FOOTNOTES:

[1594] See above, pp. 183, 266.

[1595] See pp. 513 _seq._

[1596] Babylonian and Assyrian kings alike speak constantly of their
fear of the gods. See the passages in Delitzsch's _Assyrisches
Handwörterbuch_, pp. 526, 527, to which many more could be added.

[1597] See, _e.g._, Nebuchadnezzar, IR. 53, col. i, l. 31.

[1598] IVR. 60, B obv. 25.

[1599] IVR. 60, C obv. 14.

[1600] So Sargon cylinder, ll. 34-42.

[1601] IR. 37, col. i. l. 4.

[1602] See the writer's remarks in _Oriental Studies of the Oriental
Club of Philadelphia_, pp. 119-121.

[1603] See the so-called family laws (as early as the days of Hammurabi)
in Meissner's _Beiträge zum Altbabylonischen Privatrecht_, p. 15, where
the punishment in the case of the son who casts aside his mother is
specifically referred to.

[1604] See, _e.g._ p. 291.

[1605] See the admirable discussions on Babylonian jurisprudence in
Kohler and Pelser's _Aus dem Babylonischen Rechtsleben_ (parts i.-iii.,
Leipzig, 1890-97).

[1606] S. A. Strong in _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_, 1891, p.
460.

[1607] See on this subject Meissner, _De Servitute Babylonico-Assyriaca_
pp. 3, 4, 40-49.

[1608] See especially chapters xxi., xxv., and xxvi.

[1609] See p. 611.

[1610] See Kohut, _Die Jûdische Angelologie und Dämanologie in ihrer
Abhängigkeit vom Parsismus_ (Leipzig, 1866).

[1611] Peters' _Nippur_, pp. 182, 395.

[1612] See, _e.g._, Layard, _Nineveh and Babylon_ (New York edition,
1853), p. 509.

[1613] On the extent of the settlements of Jews in Nippur, see
Hilprecht, _Cuneiform Texts_, ix. 27, 28.

[1614] So, _e.g._, on some of the bowls in the University of
Pennsylvania collection, crude pictures of Bel-Marduk and Ishtar are
portrayed.

[1615] _Schöpfung und Chaos_, pp. 381-397.

[1616] See pp. 432 _seq._

[1617] "Ueber Gnosis und die Altbabylonlsche Religion," _Verhandlungen
des fünften Orientalisten Congress_, 1881, ii. 288-305.

[1618] _Zur Frage nach dem Ursprung des Gnostizismus_ (Leipzig, 1897).

[1619] _I.e._, Ea dwelling in the Apsu. See p. 430.

[1620] Anu, the source of all gods. See p. 417.

[1621] _The Life and Exploits of Alexander the Great_, pp. xii. _seq_.

[1622] See Anz, as above, pp. 78-85.

[1623] R. Brown, _Semitic Influence in Hellenic Mythology_ (London,
1898).

[1624] _Western Origin of the Early Chinese Civilization_ (London,
1894).

[1625] A paper on this subject was announced by Jas. Kennedy at the
Eleventh International Congress of Orientalists.




BIBLIOGRAPHY.

NOTE.


The bibliography is arranged in nine sections, the order adopted
corresponding to the broad subdivisions of the book. The beginning is
therefore made:

(1) With references to the most important or most useful publications,
dealing with the excavations conducted in Babylonia and Assyria, the
method of decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions, the general
history of Babylonia and Assyria, and the general aspects of the
Babylonian-Assyrian culture. This section corresponds to the first two
chapters of the book.

(2) The second section is devoted to books, monographs, articles, and
chapters in books, dealing with the general subject of the
Babylonian-Assyrian religion.

In neither of these two sections have I aimed at being exhaustive,
though the second will be found, I think, to include almost everything
of any value.

The detailed bibliography begins with the following section.
Corresponding again to the treatment of the subject in the book, I take
up in succession:

(3) The Pantheon.

(4) Religious Texts.

(5) Cosmology.

(6) Gilgamesh Epic (including the Deluge episode).

(7) Beliefs and Customs (Views of Life after Death, Funeral Rites,
Legends, Ethics, etc.).

(8) Temples and Cult.

(9) Bearings of the Babylonian-Assyrian Religion on the Old Testament,
and General Influence Exerted by the Religion.

Of these seven sections, all but the last aim at being exhaustive. It
was not always easy to decide into what division a particular reference
belonged, but I have been generally guided by the needs of students for
whom this portion of the bibliography is particularly intended.

The fifth and sixth sections should be taken together; and similarly the
seventh and eighth, while the fourth section should of course be
consulted in connection with the third, fifth, sixth, seventh, and
eighth.

Under each section the authors named are arranged in alphabetical order.
Occasionally, I have added some comments to the reference given, as a
guide or a warning to students. In a subject like Assyriology, where new
discoveries are constantly being made and progress in the interpretation
of texts is steadily going on, it is inevitable that views and
translations should be subject to modification--sometimes slight, but
frequently significant. I have endeavored to avoid repetition of
references. In a few cases this was unavoidable. In the second section
portions of books are referred to, which by virtue of their character as
very general works had to be assigned a place also in the first section.
Two or three of the references in the fourth section had to be repeated
elsewhere; and I should also add that there are a few references which I
have been unable to verify.


BIBLIOGRAPHY.


The following abbreviations are employed:

AB = Assyriologische Bibliothek, ed. by Friedrich Delitzsch and Paul
    Haupt.
AD = Andover Review.
AI = Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres.
AJP = American Journal of Philology.
AJT = American Journal of Theology.
AJSL = American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures.
AL = Delitzsch's Assyrische Lesestücke (3d ed.)
APC = Annales de Philosophie Chrétienne.
BA = Beiträge zur Assyriologie.
BAZ = Beilage zur Allgemeinen Zeitung (Munich).
BOR = Babylonian and Oriental Record.
BW = Biblical World.
CR = Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres.
DR = Deutsche Rundschau.
DRe = Deutsche Revue.
ET = Expository Times.
FLJ = Folk Lore Journal.
H = Hebraica.
IAQR = Imperial and Asiatic Quarterly Review.
ICO = International Congress of Orientalists.
JA = Journal Asiatique.
JAOS = Journal of the American Oriental Society.
JHUC = Johns Hopkins University Circulars.
JRAS = Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.
JTVI = Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute.
KAA = Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen (Amsterdam).
KAW = Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin.
M = Museon.
MVG = Miltheilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft.
OTS = Old Testament Student.
PAOS = Proceedings of the American Oriental Society.
PR = Presbyterian Review.
PSBA = Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology.
R = Rawlinson's 'Selection from the miscellaneous Inscriptions of
    Western Asia.' (London 1861-1891.) 5 vols.
RA = Revue d'Assyriologie et d'Archéologie Orientale.
RAr = Revue Archéologique.
RB = Revue Biblique.
RC = Revue Critique.
RHR = Revue de l'Histoire des Religions.
RIA = Royal Irish Academy.
RP = Records of the Past.
RR = Revue des Religions.
RS = Revue Semitique.
RT = Recueil de Travaux relatifs à la Philologie et à l'Archéologie
     Egyptiennes et Assyriennes.
SST = Sunday School Times.
TSBA = Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology.
TZ = Theologische Zeitblätter.
WZKM = Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes.
ZA = Zeitschrift für Assyriologie.
ZATW = Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft.
ZDMG = Zeitschrift der Deutsch-Morgenländischen Gesellschaft.
ZK = Zeitschrift für Keilschriftforschung.

Periodicals, the volumes of which correspond to years, are quoted by the
years; others, by the volumes, or by series, or by series and volumes.

Roman numerals indicate volumes, except in the case of PAOS, where they
indicate pages; Arabic numerals indicate pages or plates.


I.

Excavations.--Method of Decipherment.--History of Babylonia and
Assyria.--Origin and General Aspects of Babylonian And Assyrian
Culture.--General Bibliography.


(_a_) _Excavations and Decipherment._

Kaulen, Fr.--Assyrien und Babylonien nach den neuesten Entdeckungen.
(4th ed. Freiburg 1891.)

    [Popular account of excavations, method of decipherment,
    Babylonian literature and architecture. A work in English of
    this character is much to be desired. See also Hommel,
    F.--Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens. Berlin 1885. pp.
    30-134; Evetts, B. A.--New Light on the Holy Land. London 1891.
    pp. 79-129.]


(_b_) _History._

Duncker, Max.--Geschichte des Alterthums. Vols. I. and II, (5th ed.
Berlin 1878.)

    [Also English translation of earlier edition.]

Hommel, F.--Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens. (Berlin 1885.)

---- Geschichte des alten Morgenlandes. (Stuttgart 1895.)

    [Chapters I., IV.-VIII.]

Lenormant, François [and Ernest Babelon].--Histoire ancienne de
l'Orient. Vol. IV. (9th ed. Paris 1885.)

Maspero, G.--The Dawn of Civilization: Egypt and Chaldaea. (London
1894.)

---- The Struggle of the Nations: Egypt, Syria, and Assyria. (London
1896.)

    [Replacing earlier historical works of this author.]

Meyer, Ed.--Geschichte des Alterthums. Vol. 1. (Stuttgart 1884.)

Muerdter und Delitzsch.--Kurzgefasste Geschichte Babyloniens und
Assyriens. (2d ed. Stuttgart 1891.)

Ragozin, Z.--(1) The Story of Chaldea. (2) The Story of Assyria. (New
York 1886-1887.)

Rawlinson, George.--The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern
World. Vols. I.-III. (4th ed. London 1879.)

    [Antiquated, but still of some use.]

Rogers, R. W.--Outlines of the History of Early Babylonia. (Leipzig
1895.)

Schmidt, Valdemar.--Assyriens og Aegyptens gamle Historie. (Copenhagen
1872-1877.)

    [pp. 347-461]

Tiele, C. P.--Babylonisch-Assyrische Geschichte. (Gotha 1886.)

    [The best history that has as yet been published.]

Wachsmuth, Curt.--Einleitung in das Studium der alten Geschichte.
(Leipzig 1895.)

    [pp. 365-403 "Babylonier und Assyrier,"--indication of ancient
    and modern sources for the study.]

Winckler, Hugo.--Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens. (Leipzig 1892.)


(_c_) _Origin and General Aspects of Babylonian-Assyrian Culture._

Baumstark, A.--Babylon and Babylonia.

    [In Pauly-Wissowa's Real Encyclopaedie, II. cols. 2667-2718.]

Bezold, C.--Assyria.

    [_Ib._ II. cols. 1751-1771.]

Hommel, F.--Der Babylonische Ursprung der Aegyptischen Kultur. (Munich
1892.)

Ihering, Rudolph Von.--Vorgeschichte der Indo-Europäer. (Leipzig 1894.)
2tes Buch, 'Arier und Semiten,' pp. 93-305.

    [A most suggestive sketch of the development and influence of
    Babylonian culture; also in English translation, 'The Evolution
    of the Aryan.' New York 1897.]

Nikel, Johannes.--Herodot und die Keilschriftforschung. (Paderborn
1896.)

Peiser, F. E.--Skizze der Babylonischen Gesellschaft. (Berlin 1896.)

    [Brief but capital sketch of Babylonian culture and social
    life.]


(_d_) _Bibliography._

Bezold, C.--Kurzgefasster Ueberblick über die Babylonisch-Assyrische
Literatur. (Leipzig 1886.)

    [A new edition is needed of this most valuable work.]

Delitzsch, Friedrich.--'Litteratura' in the appendix to his 'Assyrian
Grammar.' (London 1889.) pp. 55-78.

Kaulen, Fr.--Assyrien und Babylonien (as above), pp. 248-266.

Lincke, A.--Bericht über die Fortschritte der Assyriologie in den Jahren
1886-1893. (Leipzig 1894.)

Full bibliographical reports are given in:

(1) The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures
(University of Chicago; quarterly).

(2) Jahrbücher für Geschichte, ed. by I. Jastrow and E. Berner (Berlin;
annual).

(3) Orientalische Bibliographie, ed. by Lucian Scherman (Berlin;
semi-annual).

(4) Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, ed. by C. Bezold (Munich; quarterly).

(5) Revue d'Assyriologie et d'Archéologie Orientale, ed. by J. Oppert
and E. Ledrain (Paris; published at irregular intervals).


II.

General Works and Articles on the Religion of Babylonia and Assyria.


Berger, P.--'Assyrie' in Lichtenberger's 'Encyclopédie des Sciences
Religieuses.'

Boscawen, W. St. Chad.--Lectures on the Religion of Babylonia [abstract]
BOR III. 118-120, 150-163.

---- The Religion of Babylonia in 'Religious Systems of the World.'
(Swan Sonnenschein & Co. 1896. pp. 15-25.)

Delitzsch, Friedrich.--The Religion of the Kassites. H 1885. 189-191.

    [From Delitzsch's 'Sprache der Kossaer.' Leipzig 1884. pp.
    51-54.]

Eerdmans, B. D.--Babylonian-Assyrian Religion.

    [In 'Progress,' a publication issued by the University
    Association, Chicago, Ill. 3d series, No. 6 (1897), pp.
    403-415.]

Finzi, Felice.--Ricerche per lo Studio dell' Antichita Assira. (Rome
1872.) Libro Secondo. Mitologia, pp. 433-554.

    [General sketch of the religion, more particularly of the
    pantheon and legends of Babylonia and Assyria.]

Guyard, S.--Bulletin de la Religion Assyro-Babylonienne. RHR I. 327-345;
V. 253-278.

Halévy, Joseph.--La Religion des Anciens Babyloniens et son plus recent
historien M. Sayce. RHR XVII. 169-218.

    [Elaborate review of Sayce's work on the 'Religion of the
    Babylonians,' with summary of Halévy's own views.]

Heuzey, Leon.--Description of Monuments in De Sarzec's 'Découvertes en
Chaldée.' (Paris 1889-1891.) pp. 77-240.

    [Contains much valuable information on religious art, votive
    objects, representations of religious ceremonies. The
    publication is not yet complete.]

Hewitt, J. F.--Early History of Northern India, Part III. JRAS, 1889,
527-583.

    [An attempt to trace the origin of Indian civilization to
    emigrants from southern Babylonia. The investigation has little
    value.]

Hincks, Edward.--On the Assyrian Mythology. RIA Transactions XXII.
Polite Literature, 1854, 405-422.

Hommel, F.--Die Semitischen Völker und Sprachen. (Leipzig 1883.) pp.
356-396. Die Religion der alten Babylonier, pp. 266-356. Sprache und
Literatur der Sumero-Akkadier.

    [Specimens of hymns and incantations.]

Jeremias, Friedrich.--'Die Babylonier und Assyrier' in Chantepie de la
Saussaye's 'Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte.' (2d ed. Freiburg 1897.)
I. 163-221.

    [An excellent sketch of the Babylonian-Assyrian religion.]

Lenormant, François.--Les Sciences Occultes en Asie. I. La Magie chez
les Chaldéens et les Origines Accadiennes. II. La Divination et la
Science des Présages chez les Chaldéens. (Paris 1874-1875.)

    [Also in English translation (in part) under the title
    'Chaldaean Magic.' London 1877.]

Loisy, A.--Études sur la Religion Chaldéo-Assyrienne. (RR, 1890-1892.)

    [Seven articles.]

Meyer, Ed.--Geschichte des Alterthums. I. 174-183. (Stuttgart 1884.)

Mürdter und Delitzsch.--Kurzgefasste Geschichte Babyloniens und
Assyriens. (2d ed. Stuttgart 1891.) pp. 23-53.

Oppert, J.--'Babylone et Chaldée' in Lichtenberger's 'Encyclopedie des
Sciences Religieuses.'

Pinches, T. G.--The Religious Ideas of the Babylonians. JTVI XXVIII.
1-22.

Pressensè, E. de.--La Religion Chaldéo-Assyrienne. RHR XIV. 73-94.

Rawlinson, George.--The Religions of the Ancient World. (New York 1883.)

    [Chapter II.--The Religion of the Assyrians and Babylonians.]

---- The Religion of Assyria in 'Religious Systems of the World.' (Swan
Sonnenschein & Co. London 1896.) pp. 26-41.

Rawlinson, H. C.--The Religion of the Babylonians and Assyrians.

    [In George Rawlinson's 'The History of Herodotus.' London 1859.
    Vol. I. Essay X.]

Sayce, A. H.--The Origin and Growth of Religion as Illustrated by the
Religion of the Ancient Babylonians. (London 1887.)

    [Brilliant and suggestive, but unreliable in details. The
    translations attached to the volume are to be accepted with
    caution. See Halévy's elaborate review, RHR XVII. 169-218.]

Strong, S. A.--Die Religion der Babylonier.

    [Announced to appear.]

Schwally, F.--'Die Religion der Babylonier und Assyrier,' in Friedrich
von Hellwald's 'Kulturgeschichte in ihrer natürlichen Entwicklung bis
zur Gegenwart.' (4th ed. Leipzig 1896.) I. 423-433.

Tiele, C. P.--Babylonisch-Assyrische Geschichte. (1886.) pp. 515-557.
Religion: Die Mythologie und Glaubenslehre.

---- Vergelijkende Geschiedenis der Aegyptische en Mesopotamische
Godsdiensten. (Amsterdam 1869.) pp. 282-413. De Godsdienst van Babel en
Assur.

    [French translation (abridged) by G. Collins, 'Histoire Comparée
    des Anciennes Religions de l'Egypte et des Peuples Semitiques.'
    Paris 1882, pp. 145-255. La Religion de Babylonie et de
    l'Assyrie. Also English translation by J. Ballingue. 1882.]

---- Geschichte der Religion im Alterthum bis auf Alexander den Grossen.
(Gotha 1895.) I. 127-216. Die Religion in Babylonien und Assyrien.

    [Also in Dutch. Amsterdam 1893.]


III.

Pantheon, Gods, Spirits, Heroes.


Ball, C. J.--Tammuz, the Swine-god. PSBA XVI. 195-200.

Barton, G. A.--The Semitic Ishtar Cult. H IX. 131-165; X. 1-73.

---- Was Ilu Ever a Distinct Deity in Babylonia? H X. 206, 207.

Bezold, C.--A Cuneiform List of Gods. PSBA XI. 173, 174; see also IX.
377.

---- Note on the god Addu or Daddu. _Ib._ p. 377.

---- Ueber Keilinschriftliche Babylonisch-Assyrische Göttertypen. ZA IX.
114-125, 405-409.

Chwolson, D. A.--Ueber Tammûz und die Menschenverehrung bei den alten
Babyloniern. (St. Petersburg 1860.)

De Cara, Caesare.--Identificazione d'Iside e d'Osiride con Ishtar ed
Ashur. 8th ICO, Section Semitique 2^me Fasc, 275-278.

Delitzche, Friedrich.--Article on 'Thammuz' in 'Calwer, Bibellexikon.'
(Calw und Stuttgart 1885.)

---- Articles on Dagon, Merodach, Nebo, Nergal, Nisroch, Rimmon. _Ib._

Eerdmans, B.--Goddess Â (or Malkatu) in 'Melekdienst en Vereering von
Hemellichamen in Israel's Assyrische Periode.' (Leiden 1891.) pp. 73-82.

Guyard, S.--Le Dieu Assyrien Ninib. RC, 1879, 1^er Mars.

Hoffmann, G.--Neue und Alte Götter (Nin-gal, Nusku, Ea, Nabu, Gibil,
Ninib, Nergal, Sin). ZA XI. 258-292.

    [Chiefly discussions of symbols of these deities found upon seal
    cylinders.]

Hommell, Fritz.--Die Identität der ältesten Babylonischen und
Aegyptischen Göttergenealogie und der Babylonische Ursprung der
Aegyptischen Kultur. 9th ICO II. 218-244.

---- Note on Ninib. PSBA XIX. 312-314.

Jastrow, Morris, Jr.--On the Assyrian Kuduru and the Ring of the Sun-god
in the Abu-Habba Tablet. PAOS, Oct. 1888. XCV.-XCVIII.

Jensen, P.--Ueber einige Sumero-Akkadische und Babylonisch-Assyrische
Götternamen. ZA, 1886. I. 1-24.

    [Anshar, Ashur, Igigi, Dûzu, or Tammuz. _Cf._ Schrader's
    remarks, _ib._ pp. 209-217.]

---- Die Götter Amurru und Ashratu. ZA XI. 302-305.

---- Nik(k)al-Sharratu; Sharratu in Harran. ZA XI. 293-301.

Jeremias, A.--Articles on Ashur, Marduk, Nebo, Nergal, Shamash, Sin,
Tammuz in Roscher's 'Ausführliches Lexikon der Griechischen und
Römischen Mythologie.'

    [Articles on Adar, Anu, Anunnaki, Ea, Etana announced to appear
    in the supplement to Roscher's 'Ausführliches Lexikon,' etc.]

Lenormant, François.--Il mito di Adone-Tammuz nei documenti cuneiformi.
4th ICO, 1878. I. 143-173.

---- Sur le nom de Tammuz. 1st ICO II. 149-165.

---- Les Dieux de Babylone et de l'Assyrie. (Paris 1877.)

Luzzato, P.--L'Existence d'un Dieu Assyrien nommé Semiramis. JA, 4th
Series, XVII. 465-480.

Lyon, D. G.--Was there at the Head of the Babylonian Pantheon a Deity
bearing the Name El? PAOS, May 1883, clxiv.-clxviii.

---- The Pantheon of Assurbanipal. PAOS, Oct. 1888, xciv., xcv.

Menant, J.--Le Mythe de Dagon. RHR XI. 295-301.

    [Also in 'Les Pierres Gravées de la Haute Asie. Recherches de la
    Glyptique Orientale.' Paris 1883.]

---- Le Panthéon Assyro-Chaldéen. Les Beltis. RHR VIII. 489-519.

    [The representation of goddesses engraved on seal cylinders. See
    also 'Les Pierres Gravées de la Haute Asie,' etc., as above.]

Meyer, Eduard.--Articles Baal and Astarte (with references to Bel and
Ishtar) in Roscher's 'Ausführliches Lexikon der Griechischen und
Römischen Mythologie.'

Nicolsky, M. V.--La Déesse des Cylindres et des Statuettes
Babyloniennes. RAr, 3^me série, XX. 36-43.

Offord, J.--The Nude Goddess in Assyro-Babylonian Art. PSPA XVIII. 156,
157.

Oppert, Jules.--La Vraie Assimilation de la Divinité de Tello. CR, 1884,
231-233.

---- Le Dieu de Sirtella [_i.e._, Lagash]. ZK II. 261, 262.

    [M. Oppert accepts the reading Nin-girsu first proposed by
    Arthur Amlaud. Ib. pp. 151, 152.]

---- Adad. ZA IX. 310-314.

    [Discussion of pronunciation. See also Hilprecht, 'Assyriaca,'
    pp. 76-78, and Jastrow, AJSL XII. 143.]

Pinches, Theo. G.--Note upon the divine name Â. PSBA XIII. 25-27, 42-56.

---- Was Ninib the Most High God of Salem? Ib. XVI. 225-229.

---- The Pronunciation of the Name of the Plague-god, Urra not Dibbarra.
BOR I. 207, 208.

    [See Scheil, RT. XX. 57.]

---- A Bilingual List of Assyrian Gods. Academy, 1887, No. 816.

    [See Evetts, _ib._ No. 819.]

Rawlinson, H. C.--Notes on Captain Durand's Report upon the Islands of
Bahrein. JRAS, 1880, 201-227.

    [Contains important remarks on the origin of Ea worship at the
    Persian Gulf, pp. 202-208.]

Reisner, George.--The Different Classes of Babylonian Spirits. PAOS,
April 1892, cxcv., cxcvi.

Revillout, E. and V.--Istar Taribi. BOR II. 57-59.

Robiou, F. A.--A Study on Egyptian and Babylonian Triads. IAQR, 1894.

Sayce, A. H.--Who was Dagon? SST, 1893, No. 21.

---- The God Ramman. ZA II. 331, 332.

Scheil, Fr. V.--Le Dieu-roi Bur-Sin Planète. ZA XII. 265, 266.

---- Ishtar sous la symbole de la vache. RT XX. 62.

---- Le Culte de Gudea. RT XVIII. 64-74.

Schrader, E.--Die Göttin Ishtar als Malkatu und Sharratu. ZA III.
353-364; IV. 74, 75

---- Die Malkat hash-Shamayim und ihr Aramäisch-Assyrisches Aequivalent.
KAW Sitzungsberichte, 1886, 477-491.

    [See also Stade in ZATW VI. 123-132; 289-339; and Kuenen KAA
    Afdeeling 'Letterkunde,' 1888, 157-189.]

Talbot, H. Fox.--The Legend of Ishtar Descending to Hades. TSBA II.
179-212. See also RPI, 141-149.

Thureau-Daugin, Fr.--La Lecture de l'Idéogramme AN-IM (Ramman). JA, 9th
Series, II. 385-393.

    [See also Oppert, _ib._ pp. 393-396.]

Tiele, C. P.--- La Déesse Ishtar surtout dans le mythe Babylonien. 6th
ICO, Part II. Section I. 493-506.

    [See also discussion in the Comptes Rendus of the Congress, pp.
    87-91.]

---- Die Beteekenis van Ea en zijn verkoudung tot Marduk en Nabû. KAA
Verslagen en Mededeelingen 'Letterkunde,' 1887, 67-81.

Ward, W. H.--The Babylonian Gods in Babylonian Art. PAOS, May 1890,
xv.-xviii.

---- Was there a Babylonian Gate-god? Academy, 1888, No. 847.

Winckler, H.--Die Istar von Nineve in Egypten. MVG I. 286-289.

Witte, J. de.--Sur le nom de Thamouz attribué à Adonis. M, 1887, 81
_seq._

Zehnpfund, R.--Altbabylonische Götter und Heldensagen. BAZ, 1891, Nos.
39, 40, 52, 56, 63.


IV.

Religious Texts.

_Hymns, Incantations, Omens, Oracles, Prayers, Legends, Myths, Votive
Texts._

Ball, C. J.--A Bilingual Hymn (IVR 46, 5-19) PSBA XV. 51-54.

---- A Babylonian Ritual Text. JRAS, 1892, 841-853.

Banks, E. J.--Sumerisch-Babylonische Hymnen der von George Reisner
herausgegebenen Sammlung, umschrieben, übersetzt und erklärt. (Breslau
1897.)

Barton, G. A.--Esarhaddon's Account of the Restoration of Ishtar's
Temple at Erech. PAOS, May 1891, cxxx.-cxxxii.

Bertin, G.--Akkadian Hymn to the Setting Sun. RP, new series, II.
190-193.

Bezold, C.--Remarks on Some Unpublished Cuneiform Syllabaries with
Respect to Prayers and Incantations written in Interlinear Form. PSBA X.
418-423.

---- Translation and Analysis of a Hymn to the Sun-god (Sp III.). RA I.
157-161.

Boissier, Alfred.--Deux Documents Assyriens relatifs aux Présages. RS I.
63-70, 168-172.

---- Documents Assyriens relatifs aux Présages.

    [Vols. I. and II., Paris 1894-1897. Vol. III. announced.]

---- Notes d'Assyriologie. RS VI. 143-151.

    [Two texts--a Prayer and an Incantation.]

Boscawen, W. St. Chad.--The Babylonian Legend of the Serpent Tempter.
BOR IV. 251-255.

---- Babylonian Teraphim. BOR I. 39, 40.

---- The Legend of the Tower of Babel. RP III. 129-132; also in the TSBA
V. 303-312.

    [The interpretation is erroneous.]

Brünnow, R.--Assyrian Hymns. ZA IV. 1-40, 225-258; V. 55-80.

   [Hymns to Shamash, Marduk, and Ishtar.]

Budge, Ernest A.--Assyrian Incantations to Fire and Water. RP XI.
133-138; also in TSBA VI. 420-435.

Craig, Jas. A.--Prayer of the Assyrian King Ashurbanipal. H X. 75-87.

---- Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts, Vols. I. and II. (Leipzig
1895-1897.) AB XIII.

    [Announces also volumes of texts (1) Prayers to Shamash and
    Ramman, and (2) Series 'Illumination of Bel.']

---- K 69 (a hymn). ZA XI. 276.

---- An Assyrian Incantation to the God Sin, cir. 650 B.C. H XI.
101-109.

Delattre, A. J.--The Oracles Given in Favor of Esarhaddon. RP, new
series, III. 25-31; see also BOR III. 25-31.

Delitzsch, Friedrich.--Babylonisch-Assyrisches Psalmbuch.

    [Announced to appear in the 'Abhandlungen der königlichen
    Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig.']

---- Assyrische Lesestücke. (Leipzig 1885. 3d ed.)

    [Contains a selection of religious texts as follows: pp. 93-99,
    Creation tablets; 99-104, Deluge episode; 117, 118, Oracle to
    Esarhaddon; 130-132, Incantations; 134-136, Hymn to Ishtar.]

Evetts, B. T. A.--An Assyrian Religious Text. PSBA X. 478, 479 and two
plates.

    [Apparently a royal prayer.]

Halévy, J.--Assyrian Fragments. RP XI. 157-162.

    [Part of a hymn, of a penitential psalm, etc.]

---- Documents religieux de l'Assyrie et de la Babylonie. (Paris 1882.)

---- Textes religieux Babyloniens en double Redaction. RS IV. 150-160,
245-251, 344-348.

---- 'Les Inscriptions peints de Citium' in 'Mélanges de Critique et
d'Histoire,' pp. 165-196.

    [Translation in large part and discussion of Ishtar's descent
    into the nether world.]

Harper, Edward T.--Die Babylonischen Legenden von Etana, Zu, Adapa und
Dibbarra. BA II. 390-521.

    [See also Academy 1891, No. 976.]

Haupt, Paul.--Akkadische und Sumerische Keilschrifttexte. (Leipzig
1881-1882.)

    [Contains pp. 75-79, 82-106 Incantations; 79, 115-131 Hymns and
    Psalms.]

Jastrow, Morris, Jr.--A fragment of the Babylonian "Dibbarra" Epic.
Publications of the University of Pennsylvania. Series in Philology,
Literature, and Archaeology, Vol. 1., No. 2. (Boston 1891.)

---- A new Fragment of the Babylonian Etana Legend. BA III. 363-384.

Jensen, P.--De Incantamentorum Sumerico-Assyrorum seriei quae dicitur
"surbu" Tabula VI. ZK I. 279-322; II. 15-61; also 306-311, 416-425.

    [Appeared as a revised and separate publication under same title
    with the addition of the words "commentatio Philologica."
    Munich, Straub, 1885.]

---- Hymnen auf das Wiedererscheinen der drei grossen Lichtgötter. ZA
II. 76-94, 191-204.

    [Hymns to Sin, Shamash, and Ishtar. A volume by Jensen,
    embodying translation of religious texts is in course of
    preparation for Schrader's 'Keitschriftliche Bibliothek.']

Jeremias, A.--Die Höllenfahrt der Ishtar. Eine altbabylonische
Beschwörungslegende. (Munich 1886.)

King, L. W.--Babylonian Magic and Sorcery, being 'the Prayers of the
Lifting of the Hand.' (London 1896.)

---- New Fragments of the Dibbarra Legend. ZA XI. 50-62.

Knudtzon, J. A.--Assyrische Gebete an den Sonnengott für Staat und
königliches Haus aus der Zeit Asarhaddons und Assurbanipals. Band I.
Autographierte Texte; Band II. Einleitung, Umschrift und Erklärung
Verzeichnisse. (Leipzig 1893.)

Lenormant, François.--Chaldaean Hymns to the Sun. RP X. 119-128.

---- Hymne au Soleil. Texte primitif Accadien. JA, 7^th Series, XII.
378; XIII. 1-98; postscriptum _ib_. XIV. 264, 265.

---- Une Incantation Magique Chaldéenne. RAr, 2^d Series, XXXIV.
254-262.

---- Lettres Assyriologiques. 2^me Série Études Accadiennes, Vols. II.
and III. (Paris 1874-1879.)

    [Contains numerous hymns and incantations accompanied by a
    French translation.]

---- Translations of religious texts in 'Les Origines de l'Histoire
d'après la Bible et les Traditions des Peuples orientaux.' (Paris
1880-1882.) 2 vols.

Lyon, D. G.--Assyrian and Babylonian Royal Prayers. PAOS, October 1888.
XCIII., XCIV.

---- On a Sacrificial Tablet from Sippar. PAOS, May 1886, xxx.

Messerschmidt, L.--Tabula VA. Th. 246, Babylonica Museï Berolinensis
primum editur commentarioque instruitur. (Kirchhain 1896.)

    [A hymn.]

Oppert, J.--'Chants et Invocations' in Eichoff and David 'Chef
d'[oe]uvres litteraires de l'Inde, de la Perse, de l'Egypte et de la
Chine.' (Paris.) II. 211-219.

    [Translations of selected prayers, hymns, and incantations.]

---- Fragments Mythologiques. (Paris 1882.)

    [Reprints of several articles.]

---- Translation of III. Rawlinson, pl. 65, in JA, 6^th Series, XVIII.
449-453.

---- Hymnes en Sumerien et en Accadien ou Assyrien, 1st ICO. II.
217-224.

    [A hymn to Ishtar in dialogue form.]

---- Le Champ Sacré de la Déesse Ninâ. CR, 1893, 326-344. See also ZA
VII. 360-374.

    [Contains important remarks about the goddess Ninâ, in
    connection with the text published by Hilprecht, 'Old Babylonian
    Inscriptions', I. 1, pls. 30, 31.]

---- Traduction de Quelques Textes Assyriens.... Louange du Dieu Nibir
et de ses sept Attributions. 4th ICO I. 233-235.

---- L'Immortalité de l'âme chez les Chaldéens. (Paris 1875.)

    [Legend of Ishtar's descent to the lower world.]

---- Chant en Sumerien et en Assyrien sur une épidémie. JA, 7^th Series,
I. 289-293.

    [Translation of tablet K 1284 (incantation against Namtar) and
    of IIR 19.]

---- Notice sur d'anciennes formules d'Incantation et autres dans une
langue antérieure au Babylonien. JA, 7^th Series, I. 113-122.

    [Translation of II Rawl. 17, 18.]

---- Babylonian legends found at Khorsabad. RP XI. 41-44.

    [See also translations of various religious texts in 'Expedition
    Scientifique en Mesopotamie,' pp. 328-350.]

Peiser, F. E.--Ein Satz in den Beschwörungsformeln. ZA II. 102, 103.

Pinches, T. G.--An Erechite's Lament. RP, new series, I. 84, 85.

    [A penitential psalm with historical references; see also BOR I,
    21-23.]

---- The Oracle of Ishtar of Arbela. RP XI. 59-72; also RP, new series,
V. 129-140.

---- Sin-Gashid's Gift to the Temple Ê-Ana. BOR I. 8-11. See also RP,
new series, I. 78-83.

---- and E. A. W. Budge.--Some New Texts in the Babylonian Character,
relating Principally to the Restoration of Temples. PSBA, 1884. pp.
179-182.

Rawlinson, H. C.--A Selection from the Miscellaneous Inscriptions of
Western Asia. Vol. IV. 2d ed. revised (and with additions) by T. G.
Pinches. (London 1891.)

    [This fourth volume of the publications of tablets in the
    British Museum is almost exclusively devoted to religious texts.
    In the other volumes some texts of this character will be found
    as follows: Vol. II. pls. 17-19, incantations; 51-61, names and
    titles of gods and temples; miscellaneous. Vol. III. pls. 61-65,
    astronomical and astrological reports, omen tablets and
    portents; 66-69, lists and titles of gods and temples;
    miscellaneous. Vol. V. pl. 31, omen tablets (with explanations);
    43, titles of Nebo, etc.; 46, No. 2, lists of gods and their
    epithets; 47, prayer (with commentary); 48, 49, religious
    calendar; 50, 51, hymn to Shamash. Note also that many of the
    historical tests in Vols. I.-V. contain invocations to gods.]

Reisner, George.--Sumerisch-Babylonische Hymnen nach Thontafeln
Griechischer Zeit. (Berlin 1896.) Königliche Museen zu Berlin.
Mittheilungen aus den Orientalischen Sammlungen No. X.

Sayce, A. H.--Accadian Hymn to Istar. RP I. 155-160.

---- Accadian Poem on the Seven Evil Spirits. _Ib._ IX. 144-148.

---- An Accadian Liturgy. _Ib._ III. 125-130.

---- An Accadian Penitential Hymn. _Ib._ VII. 151-156.

---- Ancient Babylonian Charms. _Ib._ III. 145-154.

    [Shurpu Series, 6th Tablet.]

---- An Assyrian Talismanic Tablet. BOR III. 17, 18.

---- Babylonian Augury by means of Geometrical Figures. TSBA IV.
302-314.

---- Fragment of an Assyrian Prayer after a Bad Dream. RP IX. 149-152.

Sayce, A. H.--Babylonian Exorcisms. _Ib._ I. 131-135.

---- Tables of Omens Furnished by Dogs and Births. _Ib._ V. 167-176.

---- The Dedication of three Babylonians to the service of the Sun-god
at Sippara. RP, new series, IV. 109-113.

    [Interpretation false.]

---- The Overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah (Accadian Account). RP XI.
115-118.

    [Title, translation, and Interpretation alike fanciful.]

---- Two Accadian Hymns. _Ib._ XI. 129-132.

---- Two Hymns to the Sun-god [in preface, pp. ix.-x., to RP, new
series, IV., 1890].

    [Copious translations of magical texts, hymns, legends, etc., by
    Sayce in Hibbert Lectures on 'The Religion of the Ancient
    Babylonians.' London 1887. See especially pp. 441-540.]

Scheil, F. V.--Psaume de Pénitence Chaldéen inedit, RB, 1896, 75-78.

---- Legende Chaldéenne trouvée à El-Amarna [Adapa]. RR Mars-Avril 1891.

---- Choix des Textes Religieux Assyriens. RHR XXXVI. 197-207.

---- Fragments de Poésie lyrique Babylonienne. RB VI. 28-30.

---- Fragment mythologique avec mention de Uddushu-namir patesi. RT XX.
62, 63.

---- Hymne Babylonien avec metre appartent. ZA XI. 291-298.

Schrader, E.--Die Höllenfahrt der Ishtar. Ein Altbabylonisches Epos.
(Giessen 1874.)

Smith, S. A.--Miscellaneous Texts. (Leipzig 1887.) pp. 1-5, 8-10.

    [Portions of the Creation Series.]

Strong, S. Arthur.--A Prayer of Assurbanipal. RP, new series, VI.
102-106; also 9th ICO II. 199-208.

---- Note on a Fragment of the Adapa Legend. PSBA XX. 274-279.

---- On Some Oracles to Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. BA II. 627-645.

---- Votive Inscriptions. RP, new series, IV. 90-95.

---- A Hymn to Nebuchadnezzar. PSBA XX. 154-162.

Talbot, H. Fox.--A Prayer and a Vision. TSBA I. 346-348 and RP VII.
65-68.

    [Ashurbanabal's prayer to Ishtar and dream sent by the goddess.]

---- Assyrian Sacred Poetry. RP III. 131-138.

    [Prayers and incantations.]

---- Assyrian Talismans and Exorcisms. _Ib._ III. 139-144.

---- War of the Seven Evil Spirits Against Heaven. _Ib._ V. 161-166.

    [Incantation text]

Tallquist, K. L.--Die Assyrische Beschwörungsserie Maqlû. (Leipzig
1894.)

Weissbach, F. H.--Ueber die ersten Tafeln im IV. Bande Rawlinsons.

    [Announced.]

---- Eine Sumerisch-Assyrische Beschwörungsformel IV. Rawl. 16, No. 1 in
'Melanges Charles de Harlez.' (Leiden 1896.) pp. 360-371.

Winckler, H. and Abel Ludwig.--Thontafelfund von El-Amarna. (Berlin
1891.)

    [Vol III. pp. 166, _a_ and _b_. Legend of Adapa; see Erman In
    KAW Sitzungsberichte XXIII. 585; Lehmann, ZA III. 380; other
    mythological fragments, pp. 164-165.]

Zimmern, Heinrich.--Babylonische Busspsalmen, umschrieben, übersetzt und
erklärt. (Leipzig 1885.) BA VI.

    [Also published in part as a thesis.]

---- Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Babylonischen Religion. Erste Lieferung.
Die Beschwörungslafeln Shurpu. (Leipzig 1896.) AB XII.

---- Zusatzbemerkungen zur Legende von Adapa. BA II. 437, 438.

---- Hexenbeschwörungen bei den Babyloniern. BAZ, 1891, No. 337.

---- An Old Babylonian Legend from Egypt [Adapa]. SST, 1892, No. 25.


V.

Cosmology.


Barton, G. A.--Tiâmat. JAOS XV. 1-28; also PAOS, May 1890, xiii.-xv.

Brunengo, Giuseppe.--L'Impero di Babilonia e di Ninive. (2 vols. Prato
1885.) Capo I. La Cosmogonia de Caldei comparata alla Mosaica, pp.
67-85. Capo II. La Ribellione degli Angeli e la Caduta del Uomo,
(_i.e._, Marduk and Tiâmat story), pp. 86-108. Capo IV. La Storia del
Diluvio, pp. 124-140.

Budge, E. A. W.--The Fourth Tablet of the Creation Series, relating to
the fight between Marduk and Tiâmat. PSBA VI. 5-11.

---- Fourth Tablet of the Creation Series. PSBA X. 86 and six pls.

Delitzsch, Friedrich.--Texte zur Weltschöpfung und zur Auflehnung und
Bekämpfung der Schlange Tiâmat. AL, 3d ed., 1885. pp. 93-99.

---- Das Babylonische Weltschöpfungsepos. (Leipzig 1896.)

Engel, Moritz.--Die Lösung der Paradiesfrage. (Leipzig 1885.)

Halévy, J.--La Cosmologie Babylonienne d'après M. Jensen. RHR XXII.
180-208.

    [Summary and critique of Jensen's 'Kosmologie der Babylonier.']

---- Recherches Bibliques--L'Histoire des Origines d'après la Genèse.
Texte, Traduction et Commentaire. Tome I. Genèse I.-XXV. (Paris 1895.)

    [Contains translations of the Babylonian Cosmological Texts, and
    discusses their bearings on the O. T. narrative. A most
    suggestive work.]

---- Recherches Bibliques--Chapter 28, La Création et les Vicissitudes
du Premier Homme. RS I. 101-117, 193-202.

    [Transliteration, translation, and discussion of the Babylonian
    Creation Tablets.]

Hommel, F.--Eine Neugefundene Weltschöpfungslegende. DR, 1892, 105-114;
see also Neue Kirchliche Zeitung, I. 393 _seq._, II. 89 _seq._

---- The Oldest Cosmogony. SST, 1891, No. 7.

Jensen, P.--Die Kosmologie der Babylonier. Studien und Materialien.
(Strassburg 1890.)

Jensen, P.--Ursprung und Geschichte des Tierkreises. DR, 1890, 112-116.

Lajard, F.--Fragments d'un Mémoire sur le Système théogonique et
cosmogonique des Assyriens ou des Chaldéens d'Assyrie. JA, 2^d Series,
XIV. 114-143.

Laurie, Thomas.--Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Deluge. Bibliotheca
Sacra, XLII. 165-168.

Lenormant, F.--Essai de Commentaire sur les Fragments cosmogoniques de
Berose. (Paris 1871.)

    [An elaborate treatise on the traditions of Berosus in
    connection with the cuneiform account of creation.]

Loisy, A.--Les Mythes Chaldéens de la Création et du Déluge. (Amiens
1892.) RR, 1896.

    [From RR, 1890-1891. See §I.]

Lukas, FR.--Die Grundbegriffe in den Kosmogonieen der Alten Völker.
1893. pp. 1-46.

    [Translations by Jensen, pp. 1-14. Die Kosmogonie der Babylonler
    und der Genesis.]

Müller, D. H.--Die Propheten in ihrer Ursprünglichen Form. (Wien 1895.)
pp. 6-13.

    [Translation of considerable portions of the Babylonian creation
    narratives. Follows Zimmern.]

Muss-Arnolt, W.--The Cuneiform Account of the Creation. Revised
translation. BW III. 17-27.

---- A Comparative Study of the Translations of the Babylonian Creation
Tablets, with special reference to Jensen's 'Kosmologie' and Barton's
'Tiâmat.' H IX. 6-23.

Oppert, J.--Fragments Cosmogoniques in Ledrain's 'Histoire d'Israel.'
(Paris 1882.) pp. 411-422.

    [Translation of Creation Series of tablets of deluge.]

---- Le Poème Chaldéen du Déluge. (Paris 1885.)

---- Die Fragmente der Epopöen welche die Schöpfung und Sintfluth nach
babylonischer Auffassung betreffen. Verhandlungen Deutscher Philologen
und Schulmänner, XXXIV. 128, 129.

---- Traductions de quelques textes Assyriens.--Fragments des Récits de
la Création.--Guerre de Merodach et Tiâmat. 4th ICO, 229-238.

Pinches, T. G.--A Babylonian Duplicate of Tablets I. and II. of the
Creation Series. BOR IV. 25-33.

---- The New Version of the Creation Story. 9th ICO, 1892. II. 190-198;
also JRAS, 1891, 393-408; and Academy, 1890, Nos. 968, 974, and the
Times, 1889, Dec. 16.

---- The Non-Semitic Version of the Creation Story. RP, new series, VI.
107-114.

Sayce, H.--The Assyrian Story of the Creation. RP, new series, I.
122-146.

---- Babylonian Legend of the Creation RP XI. 109-114.

---- The Babylonian Story of the Creation according to the Tradition of
Cutha. RP, new series, I. 147-153.

Schrader, E.--Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament. (London
1885.) I. 1-22.

    [Translation of portions of the Creation Series with comments;
    third German edition announced.]

Smith, George.--The Chaldaean Account of Genesis. (2d ed. London 1881.)
German trans, ed. by Friedrich Delitzsch (Leipzig 1876), under the title
'Chaldaeische Genesis.'

---- On Some Fragments of the Chaldaean Account of the Creation. TSBA
IV. 363, 364.

Stucken, Ed.--Astralmythen der Hebraer, Babylonier und Aegypter. I. und
II. Theil. (Leipzig 1896-1897.)

    [Rather fanciful.]

Talbot, H. Fox.--The Fight between Bel and the Dragon. RP IX. 135-140.

    [Portion of the Creation Series.]

---- The Fight between Bel and the Dragon and the Flaming Sword which
turned every way. TSBA V. 1-21.

---- The Chaldaean Account of the Creation. RP IX. 115-118; also TSBA V.
426-440.

---- The Revolt in Heaven, from a Chaldaean Tablet. TSBA IV. 349-362.

    [Portions of the Creation Series.]

Warren, W. F.--Paradise Found. 10 ed. (Boston 1893.) Part IV. chapter 6.
The Cradle of the Race in Akkadian, Assyrian, and Babylonian Thought.

    [Discussion in connection with a general theory of the site of
    paradise.]

Ward, W. Hayes.--Contest between Bel-Merodach and the Dragon. PAOS, May
1879. X.

---- Dragon and Serpent in Chaldaean Mythology. PAOS, Oct. 1879, xvii.

---- Bel and the Dragon. AJSL XIV. 94-105.

---- The Dragon Tiâmat in Babylonian and Assyrian Art. PAOS, Oct. 1889,
clxviii-clxix.

Zimmern, H.--Translations of the Babylonian Creation and Deluge Stories
in Gunkel's 'Schöpfung und Chaos,' pp. 401-428.

---- 'König Tukulli bëi nisi und die Kuthaische Schöpfungslegende.' ZA
XII. 317-330.

    [Translation of the Cuthaean Version of the Creation Story.]


VI.

The Gilgamesh Epic

(_including the Deluge Story._)


Adler, C.--The Legends of Semiramis and the Nimrod Epic. JHUC, No. 55.

Boscawen, W. St. Chad.--Hymn to Gilgames. BOR VII. 121-125.

---- The Twelfth Izdubar Legend. RP IX. 131-134.

Casanowicz, I. M.--Professor Haupt's Nimrod Epic. JHUC, No. 98.

Cheyne, T. K.--Nimrod, a Kassite King. Academy, 1895, No. 47.

De Lacouperie, Terrien.--The Deluge Tradition and its Remains in Ancient
Chaldaea. BOR pp. 15-24, 49-55, 79-88, 102-111.

Delitzsch, Friedrich.--Article 'Nimrod' in 'Calwer Bibellexikon.'

---- Die Sintflutherzählung oder die elfte Tafel des Nimrod Epos. AL.
(3d ed. Leipzig 1885.) 99-109.

Dryoff, K.--Wer ist Chadir? ZA XII. 319-327.

Grivel, Josef.--Nimrod et les Ecritures Cunéiformes. TSBA III, 136-144.

    [Proposed identification of Nimrod and Marduk. See also Sayce,
    below.]

Hamilton, L. le Cenci.--Ishtar and Izdubar, the Epic of Babylon.
Restored in modern verse. Vol. I. Illustrated. (London 1884.)

Harper, E. T.--The Legend of Etana, Gilgamos and his Kindred in
Folklore. Academy, 1891, No. 995; see also Nos. 985, 987, 988.

Haupt, Paul.--The Cuneiform Account of the Deluge. OTS, 1883, 77-85.

---- Das babylonische Nimrodepos. Keilschrifttext der sogenannten
Izdubarlegenden mit dem Keilinschriftlichen Sintfluthberichte, nach den
Originalen im Britischen Museum copiert und herausgegeben. (Leipzig
1884-1891.) 2 vols. AB III.

---- Die zwölfte Tafel des Babylonischen Nimrodepos. BA I. 48-79.

---- On Two Passages in the Chaldaean Flood Tablet. PAOS, March 1894,
CV.-CXI.

---- On Some Passages in the Cuneiform Account of the Deluge, with
special reference to the first column of the tablet. JHUC, No. 69.

---- Ergebnisse einer neuen Collation der Izubar Legenden. BA I. 94-152.
See Halévy ZA IV. 61.

---- On the Dimensions of the Babylonian Ark. PAOS, Oct. 1888,
lxxxix.-xc.; see also AJP IX. 419-424.

---- Der Keilinschriftliche Sintfluthbericht. Eine Episode des
babylonischen Nimrodepos. (Leipzig 1881.)

---- Der Keilinschriftliche Sintfluthbericht. Umschrift, Uebersetzung,
und Erläuterungen in Schrader's 'Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament,' 3d ed., 1898.

    [Latest and most satisfactory translation.]

Hoffmann, G.--Die Dubar-Sage und der Keilinschriftliche
Sintfluthbericht. Die Grenzboten, Jahrgang 47.

Hommel, F.--Gis-dubarra, Gibilgamish, Nimrod. PSBA XV. 291-300; XVI.
13-15.

Heuzey, L.--La Lance Colossale d'Izbubar et les Nouvelles Formeles de M.
de Sarzec. AI. Bulletin 1893, 305.

Jastrow, Morris, Jr.--The New Version of the Babylonian Account of the
Deluge. The Independent, Feb. 10, 17, 1898.

Jensen, P.--Gishgimash (=Gilgamish) ein Kossaer? ZA VI. 340-342.

Jeremias, A.--Article 'Izdubar' in Roscher's 'Ausführliches Lexikon der
Griechischen und Römischen Mythologie.' Vol. II. cols. 773-823.

---- Izdubar-Nimrod. Eine Altbabylonische Heldensage nach den
Keilschriftfragmenten dargestellt. (Leipzig 1891.) See also article by
Quentin in RHR XXXI. 162-177.

Lenormant, F.--Le Déluge et l'Épopée Babylonienne. (Paris 1873.)

Lidzbarski.--Zu den Arabischen Alexandergeschichten. ZA VIII. 263-312.
See also _ib_., 317-319.

---- Wer ist Chadhir? ZA VII. 104-116.

Meissner, Bruno.--Alexander und Gilgamos. (Leipzig 1894.)

---- Einige Bemerkungen zur Erklärung des Sintfluthberichtes. ZA III.
417-421.

Menant, J.--Le Déluge. Noé dans l'arche. (Paris 1880.)

Moor, Fl.--De la Geste de Gilgames confrontée avec la Bible et avec les
Documents Historiques indigènes. M, June 1897.

Muss-Arnolt, W.--The Chaldaean Account of the Deluge. A revised
translation. BW III. 109-118.

---- Remarks Introductory to a Comparative Study on the Translations of
the Deluge Tablets. PAOS, April 1892, cxc.-cxcv.; also JHUC, No. 98.

Offord, J.--A New Fragment of the Babylonian Deluge Story. PSBA XX. 53,
54.

    [Scheil's tablet from Sippara.]

Oppert, J.--The Chaldaean Perseus. BOR V. 1, 2; also CR, 1890, 464, 465.

    [Identification of Izdubar-Gilgamesh with Gilgamos in Aelian's
    zoölogical work 'De Natura Animalium,' XII. 21. See also Sayce
    in the Academy, 1890, No. 966; Ward, _ib_., No. 971; and Kohler,
    _ib_., 1891, No. 985.]

---- Nimrod. Bulletin de l'Athenée Orientale, 1873, Jan.-Feb.

Oppert, J.--Le Poème Chaldéen du Déluge. Traduit de l'Assyrien. (Paris
1885.)

Pinches, T. G.--Exit Gishtubar. BOR IV, 264.

    [Proposal to read the name of the Babylonian hero Gilgamesh.
    _Cf._ Sayce in Academy, 1890, No. 966, and Ward, _ib._, No.
    971.]

Rawlinson, H. C.--The Izdubar Legends. Athenaeum, 1872, No. 2354.

Rochette, Raoul.--Mémoire sur l'Hercule Assyrien et Phenicien. AI
Mémoires, 2^me Partie, XVII. 9-374.

Sauveplane, F.--Une Épopée Babylonienne. Ishtubar-Gilgames. (Paris
1894.)

Sayce, A. H.--On Nimrod and the Assyrian Inscription. TSBA II. 248, 249;
see also Academy, 1893, No. 1054.

    [Proposed identification of Nimrod with Amar-ud = Marduk, the
    head of the Babylonian Pantheon.]

---- The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments. (London
1894.) pp. 97-119.

Scheil, F. V.--Notes d'Epigraphie et d'Archéologie Assyrienne. XXX. Un
Fragment d'un Nouveau Récit du Déluge de l'Époque du Roi Ammizaduga. RT
XX. 55-59; see also RB, 1898, 5-9.

---- The New Babylonian Account of the Deluge. The Independent, Jan. 20,
1898.

Smith, George.--The Chaldaean Account of the Deluge. TSBA II. 203-234.

---- The Eleventh Tablet of the Izdubar Legends. The Chaldaean Account
of the Deluge. TSBA III. 530-596; also RP VII. 133.

Suess, Ed.--Die Sintfluth in 'Das Antlitz der Erde.' (Leipzig 1883.) pp.
25-98.

    [Discussion of the Babylonian tale with notes by Prof. Paul
    Haupt.]

Talbot, H. Fox.--Ishtar and Izdubar, being the 6th Tablet of the Izdubar
Series. Translated from the Cuneiform. TSBA V. 97-121; also RP IX.
119-128.

---- Commentary on the Deluge Tablet. TSBA IV. 49-83.

---- Tablet in the British Museum Relating Apparently to the Deluge.
TSBA IV. 129-131.

    [Talbot's supposition is erroneous.]


VII.

Beliefs, Legends, Ethics, and Special Phrases of the Religion.


Ader, Cyrus.--The Views of the Babylonians Concerning Life after Death.
AR, 1888, 92-101; see also PAOS, Oct. 1887, ccxxxviii.-ccxliii.

Ball, C. J.--Glimpses of Babylonian Religion. I. Human Sacrifices. II.
The Gods and Their Images. PSBA XIV. 149-162.

Bonavia, E.--The Sacred Trees of the Assyrian Monuments. BOR III. 7-12,
35-40, 56-61; see also IV. 95, 96.

---- The Sacred Trees of Assyria. 9th ICO, pp. 245-257.

    [Arguments not conclusive.]

Boscawen, W. St. Chad.--Notes on the Religion and Mythology of the
Assyrians. TSBA IV. 267-301.

---- Texts Bearing on the Belief in Immortality. (1) 12^th Izdubar
Tablet. (2) Descent of Ishtar. (3) 7^th Izdubar Tablet. (4) Hymn to
Marduk. BOR IV. 251-254.

---- Babylonian Witchcraft. ET, 1898, 228-230.

---- Notes on Assyrian Religion and Mythology. TSBA VI. 535-542.

    [Translations of some religious texts. General remarks.]

---- Babylonian Teraphim. BOR I. 39, 40.

---- The Babylonian Legend of the Serpent Tempter. BOR IV. 251-255.

---- Oriental Eschatology (Egypt and Chaldaea). BOR VI. 38-42.

---- The Plague Legends of Chaldaea. BOR I. 11-14.

Clermont-Ganneau.--L'Enfer Assyrien. RAr, 2d Series, XXXVIII. 337-349.

Craig, James A.--The Babylonian Ishtar Epic. OTS VIII. 249-256.

Goessling, E.--Die Hölle nach Babylonisch-Assyrischer Anschauung. TZ,
1895, No. 3.

Halévy, J.--L'Immortalité de l'Âme chez les Peuples Semitiques. RAr, 2d
Series, XLIV. 44-53.

    [Translation and discussion of Ishtar's descent into the nether
    world.]

Halévy, J.--Le Rapt de Perséphoné ou Proserpine par Pluton chez les
Babyloniens. RS I. 372-376.

Haug, M.--Die Unsterblichkeit der Seele bei den Chaldäern. BAZ, 1875,
Nos. 70, 71.

Heuzey, L.--Mythes Chaldéens. RA, 3d Series, XXVI. 295-308.

Hilprecht, H. V.--Serpent and Tree in Babylonian Records. SST, 1893, No.
52.

Hincks, Edward.--On the Assyrian Mythology. RIA Memoirs, 1854, 405-422.

Hommel, F.--Hexenverbrennungen im alten Babylonien. Münchener Neueste
Nachrichten, 1896, No. 415.

Jastrow, Morris, Jr.--The Ethics of the Babylonians and Assyrians. ER.
III. 65-77.

---- The Babylonian Term Shu'âlu. AJSL XIV. 165-170.

Jensen, Peter.--The Queen in the Babylonian Hades and Her Consort. SST,
1897, Nos. 11, 12.

---- The Supposed Babylonian Origin of the Week and the Sabbath. SST,
1892, No. 3.

Jeremias, A.--Die Babylonisch-Assyrischen Vorstellungen vom Leben nach
dem Tode. (Leipzig 1897.)

---- Articles 'Arallu' and 'Etana.'

    [Announced to appear in the supplement to Roscher's
    'Ausführliches Lexikon der Griechischen und Römischen
    Mythologie.']

Kiesewetter, Carl.--Der Occultismus des Alterthums. (Leipzig 1896.) Book
I. 364 _seq._, 'Der Occultismus bei den Akkadern, Babyloniern, Chaldäern
und Assyriern.'

    [Based largely upon Lenormant's 'Chaldaean Magic.']

Laurent, A.--La Magie et la Divination chez les Chaldéo-Assyriens.
(Paris 1894.)

Lenormant, F.--La Legende de Semiramis. (Paris 1872.)

    [A transformed Ishtar legend.]

Oppert, J.--L'Immortalité de l'Âme chez les Chaldéens. (Paris 1875.)

    [Translation of Ishtar's descent into the nether world.]

Pinches, T. G.--The Messianic Idea among the Early Babylonians and
Assyrians. Academy, 1887, Nos. 816, 818, 820.

Ravenshaw, E. C.--On the Winged Bulls, Lions, and Other Symbolical
Figures from Nineveh. JRAS, 1854, 93-117.

    [Contains some interesting suggestions on Babylonian mythology,
    but the paper as a whole is antiquated.]

Sayce, A. H.--Ancient Babylonian Moral and Political Precepts. RP VII.
119-122.

---- The Babylonian Legend of the Creation of Man. Academy, 1893, No.
1055.

---- Babylonian Folk-Lore. FLJ I. 16-22.

Scheil, Fr. V.--Relief Ciselé représentant une Scène Funéraire
Babylonienne. RT XX. 59-62.

---- Le Culte de Gudéa. RT XVIII. 64-74.

Talbot, H. Fox.--On the Religious Belief of the Assyrians. Nos. I., II.,
III., IV. TSBA I. 106-115; II. 29-79, 346-352.

    [No. I. contains text and translation of two prayers; Nos. II
    and III., Incantation Texts; No. IV., Future Punishment of the
    Wicked.]

---- Legend of the Descent of Ishtar. RP I. 141-149.

---- Revised Translation of the Descent of Ishtar with a Further
Commentary. TSBA III. 118-135. Addenda pp. 357-360.

Thureau-Daugin, F.--Le Culte des Rois dans la Période Prébabylonienne.
RT XIX. 185-187.

Tiele, C. P.--Cyrus de Groote en de Godsdienst van Babel in 'Melanges,
Charles de Harlez' (Leiden 1896), 307-312.

Tyler, Thomas.--The Babylonian Idea of a Disembodied Soul. BOR I. 55-57.

Tylor, Edward B.--The Winged Figures of the Assyrians and Other Ancient
Monuments. PSBA XII. 383-393; see also RHR XXII. 209-220.

    [Explanation of the symbols on Assyrian sculptures.]

Ward, W. H.--On the Representation of the Solar Disk. AJT II. 115-118.

Warren, W. F.--Gates of Sunrise in Ancient Babylonian Art. BOR III.
241-244.

Zimmern, H.--Vater, Sohn und Fürsprecher in der Babylonischen
Gottesvorstellung. (Leipzig 1896.)

    [See review by Jastrow, AJT I. 468-474.]


VIII.

Temples and Cult.


Ball, C. J.--Glimpses of Babylonian Religion. I. Human Sacrifices. II.
The Gods and Their Images. PSBA XIV. 149-162.

Boscawen, W. St. Chad.--The Babylonian and Jewish Festivals. BOR IV.
34-38.

D'Alviella, Goblet.--Des Symboles qui ont influencé la Représentation
figurée des Pierres Comiques chez les Semites. RHR XX. 135-150.

Jeremias, Johann.--Die Cultustafel von Sippar. BA I. 267-92.

    [An important archive of the Sharmash temple at Sippar,
    illustrative of the cult.]

Karppe, S.--Mélanges de Critique Biblique et d'Assyriologie. RS II.
146-151.

    [The Babylonian festival Zagmuk und the Biblical New Year.]

Koldewey, Robert.--Die altbabylonischen Gräber in Surghul und El Hibba.
ZA II. 403-430.

    [Funeral customs.]

Kohut, A.--The Talmudic Records of the Persian and Babylonian Festivals
critically illustrated. AJSL XIV. 182-194. See also REJ XXIV. 256-271.

    [Insufficient discussion.]

Menant.--Les Sacrifices sur les Cylindres Chaldéens. Gazette
Archeologique, 1883, Nos. 7-9.

Perrot & Chiplez.--A History of Art in Chaldaea and Assyria. (London
1884.) Eng. trans. Vol. I. chapters III., IV.

    [Temples and Tombs.]

Peters, J. P.--Nippur. Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates.
Vol. II. chapter V., The Oldest Temple in the World. Chapter VIII.,
Coffins and Burial Customs.

Pinches, T. G.--Sin-Gashid's Endowment of the Temple Ê-ana. RP, new
series, I. 78-83. See also BOR I. 8-11.

---- A Fragment of a Babylonian Tithe List. _Ib._ I. 76-78.

---- Gifts to a Babylonian Bitili or Bethel. _Ib._ II. 142-145.

Rawlinson, H. C.--On the Birs Nimrud, or the Great Temple of Borsippa.
JRAS, 1861, 1-24.

Reber, F.--Ueber altchaldäische Kunst ... Der Tempelbau. ZA I. 149-164.

Sayce, A. H.--A Babylonian Saint's Cylinder. RP VII. 157-170.

    [Days sacred, and otherwise, of the month of Elul, with
    directions for religious ceremonies to be observed.]

---- On Human Sacrifice among the Babylonians. TSBA IV. 25-31.

Tiele, C. P.--De Hoofdtempel van Babel en die van Borsippa. KAW
Afdeeling 'Letterkunde' (1886) 3^de Reeks Deel III; also in German ZA
II. 179-190.

Tristram, H. B.--Sacrifices in Babylonia and Phoenicia. SST, 1894, No.
1.

Ward, W. H.--On Some Babylonian Cylinders, supposed to Represent Human
Sacrifices. PAOS, May 1888, xxviii.-xxx.


IX.

Bearings on the Old Testament; General Influence.


Anz, Wilhelm.--Zur Frage nach dem Ursprung des Gnostizismus. (Leipzig
1897.) pp. 58-112, Die Herkunft ... aus Babylonien.

Ball, C. J.--The First Chapter of Genesis and the Babylonian
Cosmogonies. PSBA XVIII.

Bonnett, E.--Les Découvertes Assyriennes et le Livre de la Genèse.
(Paris 1884.)

Boscawen, W. St. Chad.--The Bible and the Monuments. (London 1895.)

Brandt, W.--Die Assyrisch-Babylonische Keilschriftliteratur und das Alte
Testament. Deutsch-evang. Blätter, 1884. Heft 3. pp. 164-187.

Brown, Francis.--Critical review with valuable comments of E. Schrader's
'Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament.' AJP IV. 338-343.

---- The Sabbath in the Cuneiform Records. PR, 1882, 688-700.

---- Assyriology: Its Use and Abuse in Old Testament Study. (New York
1885.)

Brown, Robert, Jr.--Semitic Influence in Hellenic Mythology. (London
1898.)

    [Part III. discusses Babylonian Influence.]

Buddensieg, R.--Die Assyrischen Ausgrabungen und das Alte Testament.
(Heilbronn 1880.)

Delitzsch, Friedrich.--Wo Lag das Paradies? Eine
Biblisch-Assyriologische Studie. (Leipzig 1881.)

    [See Francis Brown. OTS IV. 1-12.]

Evetts, B. A.--New Light on the Bible and the Holy Land. (London 1892.)

Gruppe, O.--Die Griechischen Kulte und Mythen in ihren Beziehungen zu
den Orientalischen Religionen. (Leipzig 1887.)

Gunkel, H.--Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit. (Göttingen 1895.)

    [A most important discussion of the relationship of the Biblical
    creation narratives to the Babylonian cosmology.]

Halévy, J.--Recherches Bibliques. (Paris 1896.)

Haupt, Paul.--Wo Lag das Paradies? Ueber Land und Meer, 1894-1895, No.
15.

    [Also syllabus of lectures before the Gratz College of
    Philadelphia, Dec 10, 1895, on 'The Site of Paradise and the
    Nimrod Epic.']

Jastrow, Morris, Jr.--The Bible and the Assyrian Monuments. The Century
Magazine, XLVII. 395-411.

    [Translated into French by E. Lacordaire in Revue des Revues,
    1894 227-235.]

---- The Original Character of the Hebrew Sabbath. AJT II. 312-352.

    [Relationship between Hebrew and Babylonian Sabbath.]

---- Adam and Eve in Babylonian Literature.

    [Announced.]

Jensen, P.--The Cult of Ashera and the Cult of Mary.

    [Announced to appear in the Sunday School Times, 1898.]

Kessler, K.--Ueber Gnosis und Altbabylonische Religion. 5^th ICO, II.
Part I. 288-305.

Kellner, M. L.--The Deluge in the Izdubar Epic and the Old Testament.

    [Reprinted from the Church Review, November, 1888.]

Lacouperie, T. de.--Origin from Babylonia and Elam of the Early Chinese
Civilization. Series of articles in the BOR III-VIII.

    [Also in book form under the title, 'Origin of Early Chinese
    Civilization and its Western Sources.' (London 1894.)
    Lacouperie's method is unsatisfactory. The theory, however,
    merits farther investigation.]

Lotz, W.--Quaestiones de Historia Sabbati. (Leipzig 1883.)

Lyon, D. G.--Assyrian Study: Its Bearing on the Old Testament. The
Christian Register, 1885, Nos. 15, 16.

Menant, J.--Remarques sur un Cylindre du Musée Britannique. La Bible et
les Cylindres Chaldéens. CR, 1879, 270-286.

    [Discussion of a scene on a cylinder supposed to represent the
    first human pair and the serpent.]

Meyer, Ed.--Der Babylonische Einfluss auf Judenthum und Christenthum.
BAZ, 1894, No. 344.

Oppert, J.--Origines Communes de la Chronologie Cosmogonique des
Chaldéens el des Dates de la Genèse. APC, 6th series, XIII. 237-240.

Palmer, A. S.--Babylonian Influence on the Bible and Popular Beliefs.
Têhôm and Tiâmat, Hades and Satan: a Comparative Study of Genesis, i.,
ii. (London 1897.)

Robiou, F.--L'État Religieux de la Grèce et de l'Orient au Siècle
d'Alexandre ... II. Les Regions Syro-Babyloniens et l'Eran. (Paris
1896.)

    [Unsatisfactory, and not based on independent researches.]

Sayce, A. H.--The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments.
(London 1894.)

    [Suggestive, but unreliable. Full of inaccuracies.]

---- Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments. (2d ed. London 1886.)

Schleussner.--Die Bedeutung der Ausgrabungen in dem Euphrat und
Tigris-Gebiet für das Alte Testament. (Wittenberg 1892.)

Schrader, E.--Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament. 3d ed.
(Announced for 1898.)

    [English translation of the 2d German ed., 'The Cuneiform
    Inscriptions and the Old Testament.' London 1885-1889.]

Sillem, C. H. W.--Das Alte Testament im Lichte der Assyrischen
Forschungen und ihrer Ergebnisse. (Hamburg 1877.)

Simpson, William.--The Tower of Babel and the Birs Nimroud. TSBA IX.
307-332.

Stucken, Edward.--Astralmythen der Hebraer, Babylonier und Aegypter.
Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, Parts I., II. (Leipzig
1896-1897.)

    [Rather fanciful.]

Tallquist, K. L.--Altbabylonischer Aberglauben in den Abendländern. [In
Norwegian]; Valvoja, Helsingfors, 1896, 498-520.

---- Fornbabyloniska och hebräiska psalmer. Finisk Tidskrift, Mars 1892.

Tiele, C. P..--Die Assyriologie und ihre Ergebnisse für die
Religionsgeschichte.

    [German translation by Friederick. Leipzig 1878.]

Toy, C. H.--Esther as a Babylonian Goddess. The New World, VI. 130-145.

Vigouroux, F.--Le Bible et les Découvertes Modernes en Palestine, en
Egypte et en Assyrie. 4 vols. (Paris 1884-1885.)

    [Written from a Catholic standpoint, but comprehensive and
    accurate.]

Wahrmund.--Babylonierthum, Judenthum und Christentum. (Leipzig 1882.)

Ward, W. H.--Light on Scriptural Texts from Recent Discoveries, Hebrew
and Babylonian Poetry. The Homiletic Review, 1895, 408.

Zehnpfund, R.--Einige zeitgemässe Bemerkungen über den Wert der
Assyriologie für die alttestamentliche Litteraturkritik. (Ernste
Allotria. Dessau 1896.)

Zimmern, H.--Die Assyriologie als Hülfswissenschaft für das Studium des
Alten Testaments und des Klassischen Alterthums. (Königsberg 1889.)

---- Zur Frage nach dem Ursprung des Purimfestes. (Zeits. f. alttest.
Wiss., XI. 157-169.)

Zschokke, Hermann.--Ueber die Wichtigkeit der Assyriologischen
Forschungen, insbesondere für das Alttestamentliche Bibelstudium.
(Vienna 1884.)




INDEX.


_Â_, or _Malkatu_,
  her names and their explanation, 74;
  position and relationship to Shamash, 74-5, 176, 685;
  temples of Â and Shamash in Larsa and Borsippa, 70, 241;
  temple E-edinna in Sippar, 640.

_Ab_, 5th month, sacred to Nin-gish-zida, 462, 547;
  "the mission of Ishtar," 564;
  festival of Ishtar, 685.

_Abram_ and _Abraham_, followers of,
  in fight with Babylon, 2;
  cult of Father Abraham, 562.

_Abu-Habba_, excavations, 10;
  see also _Sippar_;
  temple records and legal documents, 165.

_Abu-Shahrein_=Eridu.

_Abydenus_, source for B. A. religion, 1, 5.

_Achaemenian inscriptions_, 16.

_Ad_, Arabic tribe, 496.

_Adad_=Ramman, 157;
  solar deity of Syria, 156.

_Adam_, parallelism betw. A. and Eabani, 511;
  parallelism betw. A. and Adapa, 552.

_Adapa Legend_, a nature myth, 548, 644 ff.;
  found on El-Amarna tablets, 544;
  Adapa, son of Ea, 545;
  A. fighting the south wind, 545 ff.;
  seconded by Tammuz and Gish-zida, 548-9;
  identified with Marduk, 548;
  Adapa myth compared with 3d chapter of Genesis, 551.

_Adar_, 12th month, sacred to the Seven Evil Spirits, 463;
  15th day, sacred to Shamash, Malkatu, and Bunene, 685;
  compared with Purim, 636.

_Adar, 2d_ (intercalated), sacred to Ashur, 463.

_Addu_, equivalent of Ramman, 156.

_Adón_, Phoenician equivalent for Tammuz;
  see _Tammuz_.

_Adra-Khasis_, epithet of Parnapishtim, 505.

_Aelian_, historian, mentions Gilgamesh, 469, 524.

_Agade_, ancient center, 35, 245;
  rulers, 36;
  temple E-ul-mash of Nanâ, 82;
  temple of Anunit-Ishtar, 117, 242;
  zikkurat E-an-dadia, 639.

_Agriculture_, A. and calendar, 462.

_Agum_, see _Agumkakrimi_.

_Agumkakrimi_, king of Babylon, recovers the statues of Marduk and
    Sarpanitum, 122, 152, 670, 687;
  cult of Shamash, 144;
  cult of Shukamuna, 162;
  institutes special festival for Marduk and Sarpanitum, 687.

_Ahasverus_, the wandering Jew, =Parnapishtim, 515.

_Ai-ibur-shabû_, name of street in Babylon, 679.

_Airu_, 2d month, sacred to Ea, 462, 677;
  12th day of A., sacred to Gula, 683;
  installation of king Ashurbanabal, 684;
  sacred in Assyria, 684;
  10th day of A., sacred to Shamash, Malkatu, and Bunene, 685.

_A-ishtu_, a foreign god, 644.

_Akitu_, see _Zag-muk_; festival, 679.

_Akkad_, see also _Sumer_ and _Akkad_;
  =Babylonia, 176, 532.

_Akkadian_=Sumerian.

_Alala_,
  deity, 417;
  in incantations, 417;
  in Allatu's court, 593;
  consort of Belili, 589;
  connection with Alallu, 589.

_Alallu_, a bird;
  relations to Ishtar, 482, 589;
  connection with deity Alala, 589.

_Alamu_, phase of Nergal, 280.

_Alexander Polyhistor_, source for B.-A. religion, 1, 5, 413.

_Alexander the Great_, probably contemporary of Berosus, 1;
  A. and Gilgamos, 469, 516.

_Alexandria_, gnostic center, 699.

_Allatu_, goddess, 1st Bab. period, originally associated with Bel, 104;
  associated with Nin-azu, 586, 590;
  associated with Nergal, 104, 183, 565, 580, 583, 593;
  goddess of subterranean cave, 104, 282, 511, 565, 580;
  in incantations, 282;
  =Nin-ki-gal, 282, cf. 584;
  Namtar, her messenger, 570, 580, 587, 592;
  Bêlit-seri, her scribe, 587;
  pictured as a lion, 580;
  Allatu's court, 587, 592;
  authoress of evil and disease, 593;
  called Eresh-kigal, 584 (_cf._ 282);
  vanquished by Nergal, 584-5;
  imitation of Tiâmat-Marduk episode, 585;
  correlated to Ishtar, goddess of fertility, 587;
  explanation of name, 587.

_All-Souls' Day_, see under _Tammuz_ and _Dead_, 599, 605, 682.

_Altar_, description of, 651;
  the "horns" of the altar compared with those of Hebrew and Phoenician
    altars, 652.

_Alu-usharshid_, king of Kish, 54.

_Amalgamation of divinities_, cause, features, and results, 74-5, 94-5.

_Amanus_, district famous for its wood, 627.

_Amiand_, his attempt at a genealogical arrangement of Old Bab.
    pantheon, 108.

_Am-na-na_, in proper names of the 2d Bab. period, 169.

_Amraphel_=Hammurabi, 534.

_Amulets_, see _Talisman_, _Teraphim_, 672, 674.

_Anatum_, goddess, consort of Anu, 153.

_Animism_, starting-point of religious belief, 48;
  survivals of, 180 ff., 457;
  popular rather than theological, 187.

_Anshar_, god, in the cosmology, 197, 410, 417;
  =Ashur, 197, 414-5;
  A. and Kishar created, 197, 410;
  builds Esharra, 198;
  A. and Kishar intermediate betw. the monsters and the gods in
    cosmology, 414, 416;
  Anshar and Kishar in the creation epic and their meaning, 418;
  conquers Tiâmat (one version), 422.

_Anshar-gal_, cosmological deity, 417.

_Antar_, Arabian romance of A., 494.

_Antares_, observations of, 372.

_Antioch_, gnostic center, 699.

_Antiochus Soter_, cult of Marduk and Nabu, 650.

_Anu_, god, 51;
  relationship to Ishtar, 84-5;
  Dêr, city of Anu, 88, 155, 162;
  god of heavenly expanse, 89, 147, 207, 432;
  abstract conception, 89;
  priest of Anu, 90;
  Anu as term for 'lofty,' 90;
  member of the great triad, 107, 152, 155, 207, 677;
  in Lugalraggisi's pantheon, 110;
  artificial character in Hammurabi's pantheon, 152;
  position in Agum's pantheon, 152;
  dwells in Uruk, 153;
  Anatum, his consort, 153;
  in Ass. pantheon, 153-5, 201, 207;
  associated with Ramman, 154, 207, 212;
  associated with Dagan, 154, 209;
  disappears after Sargon, 155;
  in religious texts, 156;
  in Nebuchadnezzar's I. pantheon, 162;
  father of Anunnaki and Igigi, 186, 207, 593;
  fighting Tiâmat, 197;
  temple in Lagash, 53, 640;
  temple at Ashur, 207;
  succeeded by Ashur, 207;
  associated with Ishtar, 207;
  blesses handiwork, 208, 237;
  associated with Bel and Belit, 226-7;
  Anu and Ishtar, names of the west gates of Sargon's II. palace, 237;
  associated with Nusku, 277, 286;
  made god of heavenly expanse, 432;
  "Way of Anu"=ecliptic of sun, 457;
  pole star of the ecliptic, 460;
  Nisan, sacred to A. and Bel, 462, 677;
  Tebet, sacred to A., Papsukal, and Ishtar, 463;
  2d Ululu, sacred to Anu and Bel, 463;
  in the Adapa myth, 546 ff.

_Anunit_, goddess, 51;
  a variant of Ishtar, 82, 85, 242;
  in proper names of 2d Bab. period, 169;
  worshipped at Agade, 117, 242;
  shrine in E-babbara at Sippar, 646.

_Anunnaki_, explanation of name, 184;
  number of, and its explanation, 185;
  spirits of earth, 185, 593;
  gods in whose service the A. are, 186;
  their character, 186;
  associated with Igigi, 186, 593;
  altar of A. and Igigi, 186;
  shining chiefs of Eridu, 186;
  ruled by Ishtar, 204 (_cf._ 502);
  Anu, their chief, 186, 207, 593;
  Bel, king of all the A., 222;
  associated with the great triad, 236;
  created by Marduk, 447;
  offspring of Anu, 593;
  A. and Mammitum determine death and life, 493;
  in the deluge story, 500, 502 (_cf._ 204);
  in Allatu's court, 593.

_Apollodorus_, source for B.-A. religion, 1, 5.

_Apotheosis_, see _Deification_.

_Apsu_, the deep, personified ocean, 411, 443, 489, 580;
  synonymous with Tiâmat, 411;
  male principle, 411;
  dominion of A. and Tiâmat precedes that of the gods, 412;
  gods, product of the union of A. and Tiâmat, 413;
  mythical monsters, product of the union of A. and Tiâmat, 414;
  basin, a sacred object and symbol, 653; comparison with the "sea" in
    Solomon's temple, 653.

_Arabia_, metals and stone exported, 627.

_Arabians_ invade Mesopotamia, 34, 39.

_Arakh-shamnu_, 8th month, sacred to Marduk, 463, 678, 686;
  15^th day, sacred to Shamash, Malkatu, and Bunene, 685.

_Aralû_, the nether-world, 489, 557;
  called E-kur or mountain house, 558;
  distinction betw. Aralû, the mountain (= earth), and Aralû, the
    district of the dead proper, 558;
  names and epithets of A., 563, 592;
  pictorial representation of, 579 ff.;
  pantheon of, 582 ff.

_Arbela_, temple of Ishtar, 202-3, 205, 651;
  meaning of name, 203;
  theological center, 342, 651.

_Archaeological religious monuments_, 14.

_Architecture_, reed and clay materials for building, 495-6;
  see _Temple_.

_Ardi-Ea_, ferryman of Parnapishtim, 491;
  takes Gilgamesh to the fountain of life, 509.

_Ark_, see _Ship_.

_Ark of the covenant_ compared with the Babylonian ship for the gods,
    655.

_Armenia_, legend of Rustem parallel to Etana legend, 520 ff.;
  exports precious stones, 627.

_Arts_, patron gods, 177-8.

_Aruru_, goddess, creates mankind, together with Marduk, 448, 474;
  creates Eabani, 448, 474;
  = Ishtar, 448-9;
  creates Gilgamesh, 473-4.

_Ashera_ compared with tree worship in Babylonia, 689.

_Ashur_, capital of Assyria, 42, 193, 651;
  modern name Kalah-Shergat, 198;
  temple to Ashur, 198, 651;
  temple to Ishtar, 205;
  temple to Anu, 207;
  temple to Shamash, 209;
  temple to Bel, 225;
  temple to Ea, 230;
  intellectual center, 651.

_Ashur_, god, consort of Belit, 150, 226, 668;
  rivaled by Ramman, 161;
  in Ass. pantheon, 189;
  head of Ass. pantheon, 191, 200;
  his unique position, 191-2, 215;
  local deity, 193;
  symbol, 194, 632;
  interpretation of symbol, 195-6, 685;
  general character of Ashur, 195;
  etymology of name, 196;
  Anshar another form of A., 197, 414;
  god of battle, 195, 199, 201;
  chief of pantheon and epithets, 200-2;
  king of the Igigi, 200;
  associated with Ninib, 214;
  his temples few, 215;
  associated with Ninib and Nergal, 216, 218;
  associated with Marduk, 224;
  associated with the great triad, 236;
  name of inner wall of Sargon's II. palace, 237;
  permits the king to grow old and protects the troop, 237;
  superiority to Marduk, 239;
  god of oracles, 344;
  Bel Tarbasi or lord of the court, 345;
  2d Adar, sacred to A., 463;
  Ululu, sacred to A., 463, 685.

_Ashurbanabal_, library, 13;
  patron of science and art, 43, 229;
  rule, 44;
  recaptures Nanâ's statue, 85, 206;
  gives prominence to Nabu cult, 129;
  celebrates festival in honor of Gula, 218, 683;
  embellishes temple of Nergal at Tarbisu, 219;
  his pantheon, 238;
  sacrifices in Babylonia, 664;
  restores temple E-kur at Nippur, 645;
  Shamash cult in Sippar, 646;
  Ishtar cult in Uruk, 648.

_Ashuretililani_, king of Assyria, improves Nabu's temple at Calah, 229.

_Ashurnasirbal_, king of Assyria, 205;
  gives prominence to Ninib cult, 214;
  Calah, his capital, 215;
  builds sanctuaries to Ishtar, Sin, Gula, Ea, Ramman, 215;
  as a hunter, 216;
  builds sanctuary to Gula, 218;
  builds sanctuary to Sin at Calah, 219;
  his pantheon, 237;
  gives prominence to Ishtar cult, 325.

_Ashur-rish-ishi_, king of Assyria, 149, 204, 213.

_Assyria_, military superiority, 2;
  history by Herodotus, 3;
  art and antiquities, 7;
  character of country and culture, 30-1;
  character of people, 31;
  comparison with Babylonia, 31;
  architecture, 42;
  history, 41-4;
  conquest of, 44;
  sun worship, 78;
  Assyrian Ishtar cult as distinguished from Bab., 83, 85;
  Ass. Nabu cult as against Bab. Marduk cult, 128;
  religious beliefs more popular than Bab., 153;
  influence upon Bab. culture and religion, 179;
  pantheon, 188;
  divisions of Ass. pantheon, 188-9;
  comparison of Ass. and Bab. pantheons, 189, 201;
  attacked by Cassites, 199;
  A. god of oracles, 344;
  continuity of Ass. and Bab. religion owing to Ass. worship of Bab.
    deities, 642;
  Airu, sacred month in Ass., 684.

_Assyrians_, see _Assyria_.

_Astrology_, lunar worship influenced by A., 219-20;
  bar to monotheistic development, 319;
  observation of the planets, 370;
  questions put to the astrologer, 369.

_Astronomy_, factor in spreading lunar worship, 220, 245;
  mixture of astronomy and astrology in the observation of eclipses,
    357;
  in the observation of the planets, 370;
  forms part of cosmology, 454;
  the determination of the laws under which the stars stood, 457;
  composite character of A. science, 460;
  divisions of, 460-1;
  moon and sun in, 461.

_Azag-sir,_ minor deity in Ass. pantheon, 234.


_Babbar_, surname of Shamash, 72;
  etymology, 72.

_Babylon_, founded, 2;
  supremacy, 2;
  capture of, 4, 45;
  ancient center, 35;
  capital of Babylonia, 39, 116;
  Marduk, deity of, 54, 117-8, 531;
  E-sagila, temple of Marduk, 121, 241, 639;
  temple of Shamash, 242, 640;
  temple of Sin, 242;
  temple of Nin-makh, 242, 640;
  temple of Nin-khar-sag, 242;
  temple of Gula, 242, 638;
  attacked by Dibbarra, 531;
  zikkurat at Bab., 619, 639;
  temple to Nin-lil-anna (242), 640;
  religious center of the country, 649-50.

_Babylonia_, conceptions of netherworld, 2;
  notices in rabbinical literature, 3;
  extent, 26;
  character of country, 30;
  character of people, 31;
  character of culture, 34;
  Babylonian states and their history, 35 ff.;
  dynasties of, 39-41, 44-5, 489;
  united under Hammurabi, 116;
  Bab. and Ass. Ishtar cult, 83, 85;
  Bab. and Ass. Marduk cult, 128;
  Bab. beliefs less popular than Ass., 153;
  periods of Bab. religion, 162;
  gods common to all three periods of Bab. religion, 163;
  Bab. culture and beliefs influenced by Assyria, 179;
  comparison of Bab. and Ass. pantheons, 189, 201;
  country of Bel, 222;
  under Ass. rule, 223;
  source of Ass. culture, 222;
  independent of Assyria, 239;
  political and religious centers, 245;
  replaces Nippur, 542;
  sanctuary of Nabu, 640;
  sacrificial acts in Bab. and their meaning, 664;
  Nisan, the sacred month in Bab., 684;
  continuity of Bab. and Ass. belief owing to Ass.
  worship of Bab. gods, 642.

_Babylonians_, see also _Babylonia_;
  subjects of Bel, 222;
  humanity of Bel, 222.

_Babylonian-Assyrian religion_, 1;
  phases of, 46-7;
  age of essentials of religion, 114;
  gods of the B.-A. pantheon, 189;
  continuity of B.-A. religion, 642;
  see _Assyria_ and _Babylonia_.

_Bahrein_, exports wood, 627.

_Ba-kad_, in the Cassite pantheon, 162, 172.

_Balasi_, astrologer, 340.

_Balawat_, explorations, 9;
  portals of palace at B., 627.

_Bar_, offspring of Ishtar declines to fight Zu, 541.

_Bashtum_, goddess in proper names of the 2d Bab. period, 169.

_Battles of Yahwe_, recalls Dibbarra epic, 534.

_Bau_, goddess, 51;
  her attributes, 59-60, 90, 678;
  temple in Uruazagga, 59, 103;
  Zag-muk, her festival, 59, 677;
  consort of Nin-girsu, 59, 677;
  identification with Gula, 60;
  her sphere, 60;
  daughter of Anu, 59-60;
  mother of Ea and water-deity, 61;
  common features with Ga-sig(?)-dug, 61;
  Bau not Hebr. bohu, 60;
  her sons (Amiaud), 103;
  in Gudea's pantheon, 106;
  in incantations, 273;
  Bau's ship, 655.

_Ba'u-ukin_ = Dungi (Winckler), 65.

_Baz_, city in Babylonia, temple of Bel-sarbi, 242, 639.

_Bel_, see also _Marduk_ and _Bel-Marduk_;
  god, temple of, 4;
  temple at Nippur, 11, 37, 69, 51, 54, 151, 642, 644;
  position in the Babylonian theology, 52;
  oldest spelling and meaning of name, 52;
  temple in Lagash, 53;
  growth of his cult, 53;
  blending with Marduk, 54, 145, 146, 148, 222;
  phases of cult, 55;
  associations and relations with Ea, 62;
  associated with Allat, 104;
  in Lugalzaggisi's and Gudea's pantheon, 110;
  subordination to Marduk, 118;
  transfers his name to Marduk, 140, 222, 439, 635;
  god of earth _par excellence_, 140, 147, 432, 440, 497;
  creator of mankind, 141, 441;
  in the deluge story, 142, 497, 502, 504;
  Bel and the triad, 107, 145-9, 207, 677;
  Bel in Hammurabi's pantheon, 145-6, 162;
  in Cassite period, 146;
  temple at Dur-Kurigalzu, 146;
  in the Assyrian pantheon, 146-7, 225-6;
  in the neo-Bab. pantheon, 147;
  epithets, 146, 222, 225, 227, 274;
  relationship to the other members of the triad, 147, 226;
  Bel (and Belit) decree fates, 150, 153, 538;
  Dagan = Bel, 151, 154, 209, 225;
  relationship to Zakar, 172;
  lord of Annunaki and Igigi, 186;
  husband of Ishtar, 205;
  confused with Dagan, 151, 154, 209;
  Ninib, first-born of Bel, 217;
  Sin, first-born of Bel, 219, 462;
  Nusku, messenger of, 221;
  temple at Ashur, 225;
  dwells in E-khar-sag-kurkura, 225;
  associated with Anu and Belit, 226-8;
  consort of Ishtar, 205;
  of Belit, 226;
  B. and Belit, names of the northern gates of Sargon's II. palace, 237;
  lays foundations, 237 (_cf. Ninib_);
  associated with fire-god, 279, 286;
  Bel made lord of the earth by Marduk, 432;
  in the zodiacal system in conjunction with Nibir and Ea marks the
    three divisions of the year, 434-5;
  identified with north polar-star, 435, 460;
  Nisan, sacred to Anu and B., 462, 677;
  2nd Elul, sacred to Anu and B., 463;
  Bel in 11th tablet of Gilgamesh epic, 496;
  rivalry with Ea, 497, 507 ff.;
  god of Dur-an-ki, 539;
  on seal cylinders, 540;
  robbed of tablets of fate by Zu, 540;
  temple E-U-gal, 640;
  figurines of Bel, 674;
  Zagmuk, festival of, 678.

_Bêl-epush_, Babylonian prince, votive object, 671.

_Bel-Marduk_, see _Bel_ and _Marduk_.

_Belili_, deity, 417;
  in incantations, 417;
  sister of Tammuz, 575, 588;
  in Allatu's court, 588, 593;
  consort of Alallu, 589.

_Belit_, goddess, 51;
  place of cult, 55, 635;
  titles and their meanings, 55-6, 227;
  sanctuaries, 56;
  in Lugalzaggisi's pantheon, 110;
  consort of En-lil, 111, 150, 151;
  consort of Ashur, 150, 226, 668;
  uses of "Belit," 151;
  Bel and Belit decree the fate, 150, 153;
  relationship to Zakar, 172;
  associated with Anu and Bel, 226-8;
  confusion in Ass. pantheon, 226-7;
  consort of Bel, 226;
  consort of Ea, 226-7, 231, 237;
  = Ishtar, 226-7;
  = Sarpanitum, wife of Bel-Marduk, 226, 684;
  E-mash-mash, her temple at Nineveh, 227;
  B. and Bel, names of the northern gates of Sargon's II. palace, 237;
  brings fertility, 237;
  temple at Babylon (see _Nin-khar-sag_), 242;
  = Nin-lil, 635;
  figurines of, 674.

_Belit of Akkad_ = Belit, 162, 176.

_Belit-ekalli,_ in the Cassite pantheon, 162;
  consort of Ninib, l73;
  = Gula, 173, 176;
  meaning, 173.

_Belit-ilâni,_ consort of Ea, 226, 231, 237;
  B. and Ea, names of southern gates of Sargon's II. palace, 237;
  increases offspring, 237.

_Belit mati_ = Belit of the land = Ishtar, 151, 206, 215;
  perhaps=Belit, 227.

_Belit-seri_, scribe of Allatu, 587.

_Bel-sarbi_,
  god, his temple at Daz, 242, 639;
  perhaps=Nergal, 242.

_Bel-zir_, a layman, offers a votive object, 671.

_Berosus_, source B.-A. religion, 1, 4, 412.

_Birs Nimrud_, explored, 9.

_Bit-Khabban_, town in Babylonia; its patron gods, 176.

_Bit-Khabban_, district of Babylonia, sacred to Sin, 163.

_Blood_, sanctity of, 661.

_Boaz_, name of column in Solomon's temple, 624.

_Borsippa_,
  explorations, 9;
  temple of Nabu, 121, 229, 241, 639;
  its situation, 124, 125;
  beloved city of Marduk, 126;
  temple of Ramman, 242;
  3 sanctuaries of Gula, 242, 636 (E-ul-la), 641;
  zikkurat at B., 617, 619, 639;
  E-makhtila shrine in E-zida to Nabu at Borsippa, 307, 606, 636.

_Botta, P. E._, excavations, 6.

_Buddhism_, doctrine of annihilation, 556-7.

_Bulala_, a foreign god, 644.

_Bunene_,
  in Nabubaliddin's pantheon, 162;
  in proper names of the 2d Bab. period, 169, 176;
  associated with Shamash and Malik, 176.

_Bunene_ and _Malik_,
  attendants of Shamash, 177;
  consort of Malik, 177;
  associated with Shamash and Malkatu, 685.

_Burial_, see _Dead_.

_Bur-Sin_, repairs zikkurat and builds shrine in Nippur, 645.

_Calah_,
  capital of Assyria, 42, 193, 651;
  temple of Nabu, 128, 228;
  temple of Belit mâti, 151;
  temple of Ninib, 214;
  capital of Ashur-nasirbal, 215;
  sanctuary of Sin, 219;
  intellectual center, 651;
  worship of Ninib, 215, 684;
  palace of Sargon II., 687.

_Calendar_,
  fixed by Marduk, 434;
  importance of moon for c., 436, 461;
  agriculture and c., 462;
  growth and character, 465;
  adopted by Hebrews, 464, 681.

_Cappadocian_ wedge writings, 20.

_Cassites_,
  dynasty, 40-1, 480;
  cult of Bel of Nippur, 146, 645;
  cult of Shamash, 144, 646;
  cult of Ramman, 158;
  cult of Shukamuna, 152, 162;
  cult of Nin-dim-su, Bakad, Pap-u, Belit-ekalli, Shumalia, 162, 172;
  attack upon Assyria, 199.

_Chaldaean Wisdom_, 362, 384, 403.

_Chaos_,
  attempts at picturing c., 411, 419;
  gods contemporaneous with the primeval c., 413.

_Christianity_, influenced by Ass.-Bab. religion, 698.

_Claudius Ptolemaeus'_ astronomy, 5.

_Commercial literature_ in syllabaries, 135.

_Cosmology_, 247, 407 ff.;
  the Tiâmat episode, 140;
  two or more versions of creation, 141-2, 407-8;
  literary-religious character of, 247;
  rise and development of cosmological speculations, 249;
  distinction between popular and scholastic c., 249-50, 442-3;
  distinction as to contents and form, 250;
  historical kernel, 250;
  c. deities antecedent to the known gods of the B.-A. pantheon, 417;
  not _creatio ex nihilo_, but evolution of chaos to order, the keynote
    of c, 418, 442;
  similarities with Biblical account, 409, 433, 435, 451;
  creation of heaven, 435, 443;
  of sun, 435;
  of moon, 436;
  of earth, 443;
  of mankind, 443;
  second version, its similarities with and dissimilarities from the
    first version, 444 ff.;
  the gods of Nippur, Erech, Eridu, the original creators of the
    universe, Marduk a later introduction, 449-50;
  the mountain Mashu and the cosmological conceptions, 489;
  see _Creation epic_.

_Court of the World_, name of temple, 641.

_Creation epic_,
  purpose of, 409;
  similarity with the Biblical account, 409, 433;
  literary form, 409 ff.;
  a nature myth, 432-3;
  representation of sun, 461;
  see _Cosmology_.

_Ctesias_, source for B.-A. religion, 1, 4.

_Cult and worship_, cf. _Festivals_ and _Rituals_;
  organization, 115, 133, 234;
  gods in cult and in invocations, 238;
  revival of old c. in Neo-Bab. period, 242-3;
  tree-worship, 688-9;
  compounded of popular belief and theology, 689.

_Cuneiform_, see _Wedge writing_.

_Cuthah_, ancient center, 35;
  = Tell-Ibrahim, 65;
  cult and temple Nergal (see _Laz_), 65, 164, 218, 563, 583, 648, 667;
  a designation for the nether-world, 563, 570;
  synonymous with netherworld, 583.

_Cuthaeans_, 532.

_Cyrus_, captures Babylon, 4, 45;
  adopts Babylonian religion, 45, 650.


_Dagan_, god, 51;
  confusion with Bel, 151, 154, 209, 225;
  associated with Anu, 154, 209;
  chiefly in Assyria, 208;
  comparison with Dagon, 208;
  probably Aramaic origin, 208;
  god of earth, 209.

_Damascius_ (or Damascenus), see _Nicolas of Damascus_.

_Damascus_, in Syria, cult of Ramman, 159.

_Damkina_,
  consort of Ea, 64, 143, 231;
  meaning of name, 143;
  relationship to Ea and Marduk, 143;
  in magical texts, 143;
  Ea and Damkina grant long life, 153;
  title Belit-ilâni, 231;
  occasionally invoked in incantations, 276.

_Damku_,
  god, associated with Sharru-ilu and Sha-nit(?)-ka, 232;
  meaning of name, 232;
  evidently a title, 232;
  perhaps foreign deity, 232;
  worshipped at Magganubba, 232.

_Damu_ and _Damu-gal_, epithets of Gula, 166, 175.

_Daniel_, book of;
  bearing upon B.-A. religion, 2, 3;
  Daniel and Bab. religion, 3 (_cf._ 668);
  illustrative of Babylonian dream lore, 403;
  authentic description of dedication of statue, 669.

_Dead_,
  universal, 556;
  location and names of the gathering place of the dead, 557 ff. (cf.
    _Netherworld_);
  All-Souls' Day, 599, 605, 682;
  under the special protection of the gods, 183, 558, 552, 592;
  furnish oracles to the living, 559, 560, 582, 657;
  deification of dead, 561, 582;
  condition of dead, 563 ff.;
  purified, 578, 602;
  can hear lamentations, 575, 577;
  cannot be brought back from Aralû, 576, 582;
  suffer hunger, 598-9;
  tombs and burial, 595 ff.

_Death and burial_, life after death, 512, 514, 556 ff.;
  cave burial, 557;
  pyramid burial, 557.

_Deborah_, song of, among the "Battles of Yahwe," 534.

_Deification_ (Parnapishtim and Etana), 470, 527;
  of dead, 561, 582;
  of Gudea and Dungi, 167, 470, 561;
  of Gimil-Sin, 561;
  of Gilgamesh, 282, 284, 470, 561.

_Delila,_ parallelism with Ishtar, 516.

_Delitzsch, Friedrich_, Sumerian question, 22; see Preface.

_della Valle, Pietro_, traveler, 15.

_Deluge_, in Gilgamesh epic and O. T., 495;
  place of origin of deluge, 498;
  embodying two distinct traditions, 502, 506;
  points of contact with Biblical narrative, 506 ff.;
  antiquity of the tradition, 508.

_Demons_, see also _Animism_ and _Spirits_;
  chief demon, 57, 497;
  in incantations, 287;
  how exorcised, 330;
  when not to be exorcised, 378;
  messenger of god, 378;
  _Targul-le_, in the deluge story let loose by Dibbarra, 500;
  the Utukku, 260 (_cf._ 511);
  the Ekimmu, 260 (_cf._ 512);
  authors of evil and disease, 183, 593, 306, 692.

_Der_, center of worship of Ninâ, 88;
  city of Anu, 88, 155.

_de Sacy, Silvestre_, decipherment of wedge writing, 15.

_de Sarzec, Ernest_, explorer, 11.

_Dibbarra_, in Ass. pantheon, 189;
  plague-god, 232, 505, 528;
  a spirit, 232;
  identified with Nergal, 232, 528-9, 594;
  minor god, 234;
  in the deluge story, 500 (_cf._ 505);
  solar deity, 528;
  god of war, "the warrior," 528-9;
  attendant of Nergal, 529, 588;
  attended by Ishum, 529;
  D.'s attack upon Babylon, 530-1;
  D.'s attack upon Uruk, 531;
  general war among mankind, 531 ff.;
  Dibbarra enraged and appeased, 535;
  identified with Girra, 588.

_Dibbarra epic_, see _Dibbarra_, 232, 528 ff.;
  recalls the "Battles of Yahwe," 534.

_Dilbat_, city in Babylonia;
  temple of Ninib, 242;
  zikkurat E-gubba-an-ki, 639.

_Dilmun_, island, 125.

_Diodorus_, source for B.-A. religion, 1, 4, 399, 435.

_Dirges_, sung by priests and priestesses, 604, 658;
  by priestesses, 660.

_Divine names_, variety of names of individual divinities and local uses
    thereof, 73;
  transference of name and its meaning, 118, 140-1;
  in proper names, 165-6, 169;
  obscurity of, 233.

_Djumdjuma_, 10.

_Dogma_, establishment of, 115, 133, 247, 690 ff.

_Dreams_, importance of, 322-3;
  on par with oracles, 350, 479;
  treated as omens, 350, 403 ff.;
  in the Gilgamesh epic, 481, 486, 497.

_Du'ar_, _Da'ur_, cosmological deity, 417.

_Du-azagga_, council chamber of the gods, 629;
  = Apsu, 630;
  place where the sun rises, 630.

_Dumu-zi_, god;
  his double aspect, 96-7;
  worship at Lagash, 635.

_Dumuzi-zu-aba_, god, 51;
  interpretation of name, 96;
  functions and character, 96;
  places of worship, 96;
  in Gudea's pantheon, 106.

_Dungi_, of Ur, builds temple of Nergal at Cuthah, 65;
  builds temple of Nanâ in Uruk, 81;
  builds temple to Nin-Mar, 100;
  deified, 167, 470, 561.

_Dun-shagga_, 51;
  son of Nin-girsu, 91;
  meaning of name, 94;
  in Gudea's pantheon, 106.

_Dur-an-ki_, name of a temple tower in Nippur, 539.

_Dur-ilu_, Ass. city near Elamitic frontier;
  cult of Kadi, 232.

_Dur-Kurigalzu_, temple of Bel, 146.

_Dur-padda_, a fort sacred to Ramman, 158.

_Dur-zakar_, sanctuary of Belit, 56.

_Du'zu_, see _Tammuz_.


_Ea_, god, 51;
  functions, 62, 78, 230;
  epithets, 62, 142, 173, 230;
  associations and relations with Bel, 62;
  king of Eridu, 62-3, 275;
  sanctuary in Girsu, 61;
  god of the water, 63, 147, 237, 275, 430, 699;
  explanation of name, 64;
  identification with Nin-a-gal and other deities, 64;
  member of the great triad, 107, 148, 207, 230, 677;
  in Lugalzaggisi's and Gudea's pantheon, 111;
  survival of his cult, 123-4, 136;
  change of position since Hammurabi, 136;
  non-mention in historical texts, 136;
  prominence in religious texts, 136;
  Ea and Marduk in incantation texts, 139-40;
  transfers his name to Marduk, 118, 141, 439;
  god of humanity _par excellence_, 141 (cf. 264, 275, 297, 437, 441,
    462, 497);
  formed of clay, 142;
  Ea in the deluge story, 142, 497, 504;
  Ea and Damkina grant long life, 153;
  god of fine arts, 177;
  fighting Tiâmat, 197, 422;
  Ninib, first-born of Ea, 217;
  shrine in E-Sagila, 220, 241;
  Belit, consort of, 226, 231, 237;
  Nabu, son of, 229;
  in the Ass. pantheon, 230;
  sanctuary at Ashur, 230;
  titles emphasizing his skill, 230;
  house of wisdom, 522;
  similarity and difference between Ea and Nabu, 230-1;
  Ea and Belitilâni, names of southern gates of Sargon's palace, 237;
  unlocks fountains, 237;
  shrine in E-Zida, 241;
  prominent in incantations, 137, 256, 275;
  the spirits hostile to, 264 (cf. 141);
  as a healer, 275;
  overcomes eclipse of moon, 276;
  associated with fire-god, 279, 286;
  in the Shurpu series, 288;
  conquers Tiâmat, 422;
  in the zodiac in conjunction with Nibir and Bel, 434-5;
  identified with some star in southern heaven, 435, 460;
  Iyar, his sacred month, 462, 677;
  Ea in the 11th tablet of the Gilgamesh epic, 496;
  rivalry with Bel, 497, 507 ff.;
  Persian Gulf, sacred to Ea, 498, 545;
  father of Adapa, 545;
  Ea in Ishtar's descent, 571;
  Ea's sanctuary E-karzaginna, 636.

_Eabani_, created by Aruru, 448, 474;
  E. and Ishtar, 484, 486;
  parallelism betw. Adam and E., 511;
  E.'s spirit conjured up by Nergal, 511 ff., 560, 565.

_E-adda_, temple of Anu, 53, 640;
  meaning of name, 640.

_E-an-dadia_, name of zikkurat at Agade, 639;
  meaning of name, 639.

_E-anna_, temple of Ninni in Girsu, 80;
  temple of Nanâ or Ishtar in Uruk, 81, 242, 311, 331, 639, 648;
  meaning of name, 639.

_Eannatum_, burial costumes, 597.

_E-babbara_, name of the temples of Shamash in Larsa and Sippar, 70,
    628, 640;
  worship of Shamash, Malik, Bunene in E. at Sippar, 176, 628;
  meaning of name, 640;
  history of Ebabbara in Sippar, 646 ff.;
  with shrine of Anunit, 646;
  history of Ebabbara in Larsa, 647.

_Ecbatana_, concentric walls, 618.

_Ecclesiastes_, unsatisfactory ending like 12th tablet of Gilgamesh
    epic, 513.

_Eclipses_, e. of moon removed by Ea, 276;
  cause of e., 264, 276, 280;
  calculation of time of occurrence of e., 357;
  indication of omens the ulterior motive of observations of, 357, 368;
  omens gathered from observation of e. in the "Illumination of Bel"
    series, 364 ff.;
  eclipses portend public disaster, 366, 369;
  importance of omens deduced from observations of e., 368;
  e. of sun called the "way of Anu," 457.

_Eden_, Garden of, legendary, 2;
  identical with the confluence of streams, 506.

_Edessa_, gnostic center, 699.

_E-dim-anna_, chapel of Sin in E-Zida, 639;
  meaning of name, 639.

_E-dingiranagin_, see _E-anna-tuma_.

_E-ditar-kalama_, sanctuary of Shamash in Babylon, 242, 640;
  meaning of name, 640.

_E-dur-an-ki_, zikkurat at Larsa, 639;
  meaning of name, 639.

_E-dur-gi-na_, temple of Belsarbi, 242, 639;
  meaning of name, 639.

_E-edinna_, temple of Shamash's consort, 640;
  meaning of name, 640.

_E-esh-gi_, shrine of Nin-girsu at Lagash, 640.

_E-gal-makh_, temple in Ur, 639.

_E-gish-shir-gal_, temple of Sin at Ur, 76, 241, 295, 640, 647;
  meaning of name, 640.

_E-gi-umunna_, a sanctuary, 640;
  meaning of name, 640.

_E-gubba-an-ki_, zikkurat at Dilbat, 639;
  meaning of name, 639.

_E-igi-e-nir-kidur-makh_, temple to Ninni at Kish, 639;
  meaning of name, 639.

_Ekallâte_, name of city in Assyria, cult of Ramman and Shala, 212.

_E-karzaginna_, sanctuary of Ea in E-Sagila, 636.

_E-kharsag_, temple in Ur, 638.

_E-kharsag-ella_, temple of Gula in Babylon, meaning of name, 638.

_E-kharsag-kalama_, name of temple, 638;
  E-kur-makh, 638.

_E-kharsag-kurkura_, dwelling of Bel, 225;
  temple in Assyria, 615;
  meaning of name, 638.

_E-khulkhul_, temple of Sin in Harran, 76, 241, 641, 647;
  meaning of name, 641.

_E-ki-dur-garza_, temple to Nin-lil-anna in Babylon, 640;
  meaning of name, 640.

_Ekimmu_, a class of spirits, 260 (_cf._ 512, 581, 602).

_E-kua_, papakhu of Marduk in E-Sagila, 640;
  meaning of name, 640.

_E-kur_, temple of Bel, 11, 37, 51, 54, 69, 151, 642, 644;
  meaning of E-kur, 173, 217, 614, 638;
  = Eshara, 217;
  history of the temple, 644 ff.;
  = Kharsag(-gal)-kurkura, 558;
  lofty dwelling of gods, 541;
  designation for the nether-world, 558;
  = temple, 558, 614 (cf. 622);
  = earth, 614;
  in plural = divinities, 615.

_E-kur-makh_, name of temple, 638;
  = E-kharsag-kalama, 638.

_Elali_, in proper names of the 2nd Bab. period, 170;
  epithet of Gibil, 170.

_Elam_, 35;
  Elamites invade Babylonia, 38, 480;
  capture Nanâ's statue, 85;
  Elamitic deities: Eria, 122, 162;
  Kadi, 188, 232, 234.

_El-Amarna_, tablets of, containing the Adapa legend, 544;
  contains legend of Nergal conquering and wedding Allatu, 584-5.

_Elul_, see _Ululu_.

_E-makh_, chapel to Nin-kharsag, 639.

_E-makh-tila_, shrine to Nabu at Borsippa, 307, 606, 636.

_E-mash-mash_, temple of Ishtar, 152;
  of Belit, 227.

_E-me-te-ur-sagga_, temple of Zamama-Ninib, 640;
  meaning of name, 640.

_En-anna-tuma_, patesi of Lagash, constructs storehouse to Nin-girsu,
    58.

_En-anna-tuma_ II., 2nd dynasty of Ur, devotee of Nin-gal, 98.

_E-nin-makh_, chapel of Ishtar in Babylon, 242, 640;
  meaning of name, 640.

_E-ninnu_, temple of Nin-girsu, 57, 87, 635, 640.

_En-ki_, see _Ea_.

_En-lil_, see _Bel_.

_En-meshara_, attendant of Allatu, god of vegetation, 588;
  festival of E. in the 10th month, 588.

_Ennanna_ = Ninni, 51.

_En-ninna_, a minor deity in the Etana legend, 521.

_En-nugi_, leader of the gods, 495.

_En-temena_, patesi of Lagash, 56;
  constructs storehouse to Nin-girsu, 58.

_En-tena_, see _En-temena_ (better reading).

_E-nun-makh_, temple of Sin at Ur, 295, 640;
  meaning of name, 640.

_Enshar_, cosmological deity, 417.

_En-zu_, see _Sin_.

_E-pa_, zikkurat at Lagash, 639;
  meaning of name, 639.

_E-pad-kalama-suma_, sanctuary of Nabu in Babylonia, 640;
  meaning of name, 640.

_Epics and legends_, literary-religious character of, 247;
  historical spirit of, 250;
  nature myths, 250.

_Erech_ = Warka = Uruk; see _Uruk_.

_Eresh-Kigal_ = Allatu, 584.

_Eria_, Elamitic goddess, possibly identical with Erua, 122, 162.

_Eridu_, ancient center, 35, 245, 445;
  sanctuary of Ea, 62, 124, 445;
  lost her political prestige, 136;
  cult of Anunnaki and Igigi, 186;
  prominent in incantations, 256.

_Erua_, the "begetting" goddess, 123;
  amalgamation with Sarpanitum, 122-3, 130;
  dwelling in E-Zida, 123;
  consort of Nabu, 123;
  possibly identical with Eria, 122;
  water deity, 123;
  cult suppressed by Hammurabi, 130;
  place of worship, 130.

_E-Sagila_, temple of Marduk in Babylon, 121, 636;
  with a shrine of Sarpanitum, 121, 241, 636, 641;
  with shrine of Nusku, 220, 241;
  with shrine of Nabu, 127, 220, 636;
  with shrine of Ea, 220, 241;
  with shrine of Tashmitum, 220, 241;
  with shrine of Nin-kharsag, 639;
  sanctuary E-karzaginna of Ea, 636;
  meaning of name, 639;
  with papakhu of Marduk, 640;
  takes the place of E-kur, 645;
  history of E-Sagila, 648 ff.;
  place of installation of rulers, 649;
  influence of E-Sagila and E-Zida, 649.

_E-Sagila_, temple of Ea, 446.

_E-salgisa_, temple in Girsu, 641;
  meaning of name, 641.

_Esarhaddon_, king of Assyria, 200;
  restores temple of Nanâ-Ishtar at Erech, 85, 206;
  his pantheon, 238;
  restores Ekur, 645;
  Shamash cult in Sippar, 646.

_Eschatological literature_, gods and demons in e., 183.

_E-shara_, meaning, 173, 175, 198;
  offsprings of, 174;
  bride of E., 173, 175;
  built by Anshar, 198;
  built by Marduk, 198, 431
  = Ekur, 217;
  placed by Marduk under control of Bel, 432.

_E-shid-lam_, temple of Nergal and Laz at Cuthah, 65, 648, 667.

_Etana_, legendary personage, 468, 505, 519 ff.;
  dwells in the netherworld, 511, 520, 523, 527, 590;
  E.'s patron, Shamash, 520;
  name occurs in O. T., 519;
  traditions among other nations, 519-21;
  E. and Ganymede, 523;
  deified, 527, 590;
  god of vegetation, 590.

_E-temen-an-ki_, zikkurat to Marduk at Babylon, 619, 639;
  meaning of name, 639.

_Ethics_, B.-A. religion, 291, 312, 692;
  belong to advanced period, 292, 304-5;
  in prayers, 298-9;
  gods whose nature create e. notions, 306, 692;
  in penitential psalms, 312 ff.;
  private morality, 694 ff.

_E-tila_, name of a temple, and meaning of name, 641.

_E-tur-kalama_, temple of Ishtar, 311.

_E-u-gal_, temple to En-lil, 640;
  meaning of name, 640.

_E-ulla_, temple to Gula in Sippar, 641;
  meaning of name, 641.

_E-ul-mash_, temple of Nanâ in Agade, 82.

_Euphrates_, stream of Garden of Eden, 2 (_cf._ 506);
  E. valley, central habitation of mankind, 2;
  old settlements of Hebrews, 2;
  course of, 27;
  comparison with Tigris, 30;
  one of the four streams forming the confluence of streams, 506 (_cf._
    2).

_E-ur-imin-an-ki_, zikkurat at Babylon, 619.

_Eusebius_, source for B.-A. religion, 1, 4, 5.

_Eve_, parallelism with Ukhat, 511.

_Excavations_, 6-15.

_Exorcism_, see _Incantations_.

_E-Zida_, temple of Nabu at Borsippa, 121, 229, 241, 639;
  with shrine of Erua, 123;
  with shrine of Sarpanitum, 241;
  with shrine of Tashmitum, 241;
  with shrine of Nusku, 241;
  with shrine of Ea, 241;
  with shrine of Sin, 639;
  history of E-Zida, 648 ff.;
  influence of E-Zida and E-Sagila, 649.

_E-Zida_, shrine of Nabu in E-Sagila, 127, 220, 229, 636.


_Family_, systematization of O. B. pantheon according to Davis, 109.

_Fast days_, special occasions, 688.

_Fate tablets_, tablets of fate in the hands of Bel, 538 (_cf._ 150,
    153);
  in the Tiâmat story, 420, 428, 538;
  robbed by Zu, 540;
  compared with the tablets of wisdom, 585.

_Festivals_, zag-muk, 59, 127, 631, 677, 678;
  significance of every day, 675;
  special significance of special days, 675, 677, 680-1, 683-5;
  words for f. in Assyrian, 676, 687;
  each month sacred to a deity, 462-3, 676, 683-4;
  festivals and months sacred to divinities not always corresponding,
    687;
  special festivals, 687-8;
  the puru ceremony, 688;
  fast days and rites, 688.

_Fire_, see _Water_ (cf. Gibil-Nusku in incantations, 277);
  means of purification, 276, 279;
  belongs to all three divisions of the universe, 286.

_Foreign gods_ in B.-A. religion (see also _Cassites_), 142, 644;
  Adad = Ramman, 156;
  Kadi, 188, 232, 234;
  Damku, 232;
  Eria, 122, 162 (Elamitic).

_Fresnel, Fulgente_, expedition, 8.


_Gaga_, Assyrian pantheon, 188;
  minor god, 234;
  Anshar's messenger to Tiâmat, 423;
  a foreign deity, 238, 644.

_Gal-alim_, 51;
  center of worship, 91;
  son of Nin-girsu, 91;
  in Gudea's pantheon, 106.

_Gamlat_, in Ass. pantheon, 188.

_Ganymede and Etana_, 523.

_Ga-tum-dug_, goddess, 51;
  similar to Bau, 61;
  worship at Lagash, 61, 635;
  in Gudea's pantheon, 106, 635.

_Gate of Widespread Splendor_, seat of Sarpanitum in E-Sagila, 121, 241,
    636, 641.

_Gegunu_, epithet of Aralû, 563.

_Genealogical_ systematization of Old Bab. pantheon according to Amiaud,
    109.

_Genesis_, see _Cosmology_.

_Gibil_, fire-god, E-la-li, perhaps an epithet, 170;
  in Ass. pantheon, 189;
  amalgamated with Nusku, 220, 227;
  in incantations, 273, 277;
  older than Nusku, 277;
  epithets, 277, 280;
  a mythological conception, 277, 279;
  G.-Nusku, god of civilization, 278;
  medium betw. worshipper and deity, 279;
  associated with Anu, 277;
  associated with Bel and Ea, 279;
  associated with Nin-gish-zida, 463;
  identified with Nergal, 594.

_Gil_, attendant of Nergal and Allatu, 588;
  god of foliage, 588.

_Gilgamesh_, hero of the Bab. epic, 83, 468 ff.;
  in incantations, 282, 284, 470;
  mythological explanation of, 282, 486-7;
  with omens, 387;
  solar deity, 470-1, 515;
  king of the earth, 471;
  born in Marada, 473;
  conquers Uruk, 473, 513;
  created by Aruru, 473-4;
  Shamash (see _Lugal-Marada_), his patron, 471, 479;
  love affair with Ishtar, 481 ff.;
  Lugal-Marada, his patron (see _Shamash_), 486;
  conquers Khumbaba, 480, 514;
  G.'s contest with the bull, 486, 514, 537;
  contest with lion, 488, 514;
  Gilgamesh half divine, half human, 490, 514;
  G. and Sabitum, 490-1;
  G. and Parnapishtim, 492 ff.;
  points of contact with O. T., 495, 515-6;
  G. and Eabani, 510, 565;
  seeking immortality and the secret of life after death, 513;
  parallelism with Samson, 516;
  parallelism with Hercules, 516;
  Gilgamesh and Alexander the Great, 469, 516;
  G. in Aelian, 469, 524;
  G.'s grandfather Sokkaros, 524.

_Gimil-Sin_, deified, 561;
  temple at Lagash, 561.

_Gim-nun-ta-ud-du-a_, son of Bau, 103;
  explanation of name, 103;
  probable functions, 103.

_Gin-shul-pa-uddu_, wife of Gudea, 99.

_Girra_, attendant of Nergal and Allatu, 588;
  identified with Dibbarra, 588;
  a form of Nergal in later texts, 589.

_Girsu_, see _Lagash_.

_Gish-galla_ (?), quarter of Lagash, 57;
  temple of Ninni, 80.

_Gish-zida_, identical with solar deity Nin-gish-zida, 547;
  G. and Tammuz, doorkeepers of heaven, 546;
  5th month sacred to G., 547;
  intercedes for Adapa with Anu, 548-9.

_Gnosticism_, influenced by B.-A. religion, 698.

_Great Place_, name of temple, 641.

_Grotefend, Georg Friedrich_, decipherment of wedge writing, 16.

_Gudea_ statues, 57, 652;
  his pantheon, 106 ff., 635;
  number of deities indicative of the extent of his sovereignty, 106;
  principle of order, 107;
  gods common to Gudea's and Lugalzaggisi's pantheon, 110;
  deified, 167, 470, 561;
  his zikkurat, 615, 619;
  builder of temples, 642;
  imports diorite from Sinai peninsula, 627, 651;
  Gudea's apsu, 653;
  Gudea's ship for Ningirsu, 654;
  G.'s votive objects and inscription, 57, 668-9, 672.

_Gula_, identified with Bau, 60;
  associated with Ninib, 105 (_cf._ 576);
  goddess of healing, 105, 166, 175, 282 (_cf._ 576, 683);
  in Nebuchadnezzar's I. pantheon, 162, 175;
  epithets, 166, 173, 175, 576;
  goddess of nether-world, 174-5;
  position intermediate betw. gods of the living and gods of the dead,
    175 (_cf._ 576);
  creator of mankind, 175;
  her sanctuary erected by Ashurnasirbal, 218;
  her festival celebrated by Ashurbanabal, 218, 683;
  = Nin-Karrak, 242;
  temple at Babylon (see _Nin-Karrak_), 242, 638;
  three sanctuaries at Borsippa, 242, 636 (E-ulla), 641;
  in incantations, 273, 282;
  12th day of Iyar sacred to G., 683.

_Gurmu_, son of Bau, 103.

_Gushgin-banda_, 171;
  "brilliant chief," patron of metal-workers, 178.


_Halévy, J._, Sumerian question, 22-4.

_Hallabi_, city near Sippar, temple of Ninni, 117, 144.

_Hamath_, city in N. Syria, 578.

_Hammurabi_, king of Babylon, secures the hegemony in Babylonia, 116,
    532;
  Marduk, the chief of his pantheon, 117;
  builds temples, 642;
  builds temple to Ninni at Hallabi, 117;
  builds E-Zida, 121;
  ignores cult of Nabu, 128;
  suppresses cult of Erua, 130;
  care of temple of Shamash at Larsa, 143-4;
  Shamash cult, 117, 143-4;
  at Sippar, 117, 143;
  at Larsa, 143;
  Ninni cult at Hallabi, 144-5;
  "proclaimer of Anu and Bel," 146-7;
  beloved shepherd of Belit, 150;
  list of names of gods in H.'s pantheon, 161-2;
  "The Akkadian," 532;
  H.'s character as a Messiah, 533;
  = Amraphel, 534.

_Harran_, city in Mesopotamia, sacred to Sin, 76, 241, 641, 647;
  its importance and political decline, 77;
  meaning of its name, 78;
  associations with Ur, 77;
  enjoys the patronage of Sargon II., 77;
  temple of Sin, 76, 241, 641;
  patronized by Nabonnedos, 77, 242.

_Haynes, John H._, excavations, 11.

_Heart of Shamash_, name of a temple, 641.

_Hebrews_, see _Old Testament_.

_Hercules_, parallelism with Gilgamesh, 516.

_Herodotus_, source for B.-A. religion, 1;
  history of Assyria, 3;
  history of Persia, 4;
  notices on B.-A. religion, 4;
  notices on Ishtar cult in Erech, 485.

_Hillah_, village, site of, 8.

_Historical texts_, value as source for religion, 51, 166, 246, 661;
  pantheon in h. t. compared with that in incantation texts, 297;
  source for knowledge of sacrifices, 661.

_Hittites_, eagle standard among the H., 527;
  influence on Assyrian architecture, 627.

_Hommel, Fritz_, Sumerian question, 21.

_Homoroka_ = Marduk, 5.

_House Full of Joy_, name of temple, 641.

_House of Fifty_, see _E-ninnu_.

_House of Great Splendor_, name of temple, 641.

_House of Hearkening to Prayers_, name of temple, 641.

_House of Light_, name of temple, 641.

_House of the Brilliant Precinct_, name of temple, 641.

_House of the Seven Divisions of Heaven and Earth_, name of zikkurat at
    Borsippa, 639.

_House of the Seven Zones_, name of zikkurat at Uruk, 639.

_House Without Rival_, name of temple, 641.

_Hymns and prayers_, division of religious literature, 247, 293;
  where composed, 248;
  in connection with incantations, 293, 301;
  h. to Shamash, 300 ff.;
  to Sin, 303-4;
  dialogue style of composition, 305;
  to Nebo, 306;
  no difference in thought betw. h. and incantation, 301, 307;
  illustrating relationship betw. man and gods, 309;
  deity as person of dialogue in, 310;
  see also _Prayers_.


_Iamblichus_, source of B.-A. religion, 399.

_Idiklat_ = Tigris, 28.

_Igi-dug-ga_, title of Ea, 230.

_Igigi_, explanation of name, 185;
  number of, and explanation, 185;
  spirits of heaven, 185, 200;
  gods in whose service the I. are, 186;
  their character, 186;
  associated with Anunnaki, 186, 593;
  altar of I. and Anunnaki, 186;
  chiefs of Eridu, 186;
  Ashur, king of, 200;
  Anu, their chief, 186, 207, 593;
  associated with the great triad, 236.

_Ilabrat_, minor god, in the Adapa legend, 546.

_Illumination of Bel_, name of an omen series, 363.

_Im_ = Ramman, 156.

_Immeru_ = Ramman, 157.

_Immortality_, see _Dead_.

_Im-pa-ud-du_, son of Bau, 103;
  explanation of name, 103;
  function, 103.

_Incantations_, see also _Magical Texts_;
  in therapeutics, 246;
  means and methods of, 270-3;
  gods invoked in, 273;
  sacred objects invoked, 274;
  gods in incantations _par excellence_, 275;
  the fire-god in, 277;
  favorite time of, 280-1;
  i. services, 281, 283 ff.;
  principle of sympathetic magic, 284;
  mixed with ethical conceptions, 292;
  in connection with prayers, 293, 301;
  the oldest fixed ritual, 294;
  no line of demarcation betw. prayers and i., 297, 307;
  points in common with and differences from penitential psalms, 312;
  the natural expression of popular beliefs, 326;
  demons exorcised by i., 330;
  connecting link betw. omens and i., 352.

_Inmarmaru_, city in Dibbarra epic, 533.

_Invocations_, 165;
  in records of the 2nd Bab. period, 167;
  combined invocations, 235;
  where found, 235, 245;
  motive and manner of, 236 ff.;
  Tiglathpileser I., 236;
  Ramman-nirari I., 237;
  Ashurnasirbal, 237;
  Shalmaneser II., 237;
  Sargon II., 237;
  Sennacherib, 238;
  Esarhaddon, 238;
  Ashurbanabal, 238;
  gods in invocation and in actual worship, 238.

_Irkalla_, a designation of the netherworld, 563, 566;
  name of the consort of the queen of Aralû, 563, 591;
  identified with Nergal, 592.

_Isaiah_, prophet, 2.

_Ish-gu-tur_, temple of Nin-Mar in Mar, 100.

_Ishi-milku_, a foreign deity, 644.

_Ishme-Dagan_, king of Assyria, evidence of age of Dagan cult, 208.

_Ishtar_, goddess Nanâ, 82, 85, 202, 311, 643;
  absorbs other deities, 82;
  epithets, 83, 151-2, 204, 237;
  functions in B.-A., 83, 459;
  functions in A., 83-5;
  in Gilgamesh epic, 84-5, 482, 501, 563-4;
  zodiacal interpr., 82-4, 310-1;
  relationship to Sin, 79, 84, 163, 565, 571;
  relationship to Anu, 84-5, 566;
  significance of these relationships, 85;
  variants, 82, 85, 202, 242;
  temple at Agade, 117, 242;
  temple at Calah, 151;
  temple E-mash-mash, 152, 205, 227;
  relationship to Sin and Shamash, 163, 571;
  goddess of war, 83, 164, 204;
  during Cassite and Nebuchadnezzar's I. reign, 164, 645;
  variants of Assyrian Ishtar, 202;
  mighty over the Anunnaki, 204;
  milder nature in religious texts, 205;
  mother of mankind, 204-5, 237;
  relationship to her devotees, 205;
  temple Kidmuru, 202;
  temples at Arbela, Nineveh, and Ashur, 205;
  I. of Nineveh and I. of Arbela distinguished, 205;
  Ab her sacred month, 205, 462, 685;
  wife of Bel, 205;
  Belit of the land (151, 206), 215, = Belit, 226;
  temple in Uruk, 81, 242, 311, 531, 639;
  worship in Uruk, 103, 242, 472, 475, 531 (see _Nanâ_);
  wife of Ashur, 227;
  associated with the great triad, 236;
  Ishtar and Anu, names of west. gates of Sargon's II. palace, 237;
  causes the inhabitants to flourish, 237 (_cf._ 204);
  temple at Babylon, 242 (_cf. Ninmakh_), 640;
  in incantations, 273;
  in hymns, 310;
  temple E-tur-kalama, 311;
  in a penitential psalm, 318;
  prominence of cult of I. under Ashurnasirbal and before, 325, 342;
  in oracles and omens, 343-4;
  = Venus as name of planet, 370, 458-9, 571;
  importance of Ishtar-Venus in omen literature, 371-2;
  I. appears in a dream to the king, 374;
  personification of fertility, 459, 462, 482, 563, 587;
  causes decline, 483, 563;
  10th month sacred to I., Papsukal, and Anu, 463;
  the Kizrêti, Ukhâti, and Kharimâti of I. in Uruk, 475, 485, 660;
  relationship to Tammuz, 84, 482, 484, 547, 564, 574;
  Ishtar's love fatal to her lovers, 482, 516;
  I. and Eabani, 484, 486;
  in the deluge, 501, 503-4;
  parallelism with Delila, 516;
  I. in the lower world, 564;
  the 6th month "the mission of Ishtar," 564, 684;
  festival celebrated in Ab, 685;
  correlated to Allatu, 587;
  I. cult under Ashurbanabal, 85, 206, 238, 648;
  cult under Nebuchadnezzar II., 648;
  figurines of, 674.

_Ishtaritu_, general designation of Ishtar priestess, 660.

_Ishum, god_, 51;
  identity with Pa-sag, 101;
  in proper names of, 2nd Bab. period, 169;
  messenger of Nusku, 280;
  solar deity, 528;
  local deity, 528;
  attendant of Dibbarra, 529, 594;
  describes Dibbarra's deeds, 530 ff.;
  his wars, 533 ff.;
  associated with Sibi, 533;
  "the warrior," 533;
  associated with Nergal, 594.

_Isin_, ancient center, 35;
  kings, 37;
  Isin dynasty as "builders" of temple of Nanâ in Ur, 81.

_Iskenderun_, bay of, 122.

_Iyar_, see _Airu_.

_Izdubar_ = Gilgamesh.


_Jezreel plain_, cult of Ramman, 159.

_Job_, book of, unsatisfactory ending like 12th tablet of Gilgamesh
    epic, 513.

_Josephus_, historical references to B.-A., 5.

_Judges_ = priests, 625, 658.

_Judith_, book of, bearing upon B.-A. religion, 3.

_Jupiter_ = Marduk, name of planet, 370, 434, 458-9, 676-7;
  see _Marduk_.


_Kaaba_, at Mecca, 624.

_Kabru_, epithet for Aralû, 563.

_Kadashman-Turgu_, Cassite king, votive tablet, 671.

_Kadi_, in Ass. pantheon, 188;
  Elamitic god, 232;
  worshipped in Dur-ilu, 232;
  minor god, 234.

_Kadishtu_, general designation of Ishtar priestess, 660.

_Kalah-Shergat_, excavations, 10;
  site of city of Ashur, 198.

_Kallat-Eshara_, epithet of Gula, 173.

_Kanishurra_, a foreign god, 644.

_Kara-indash_, king of Babylon, restores Shamash temple at Larsa, 144

_Kar-nuna-ta-uddua_, ship of Ningirsu, 654;
  meaning of name, 654.

_Karun_, one of the four streams forming the confluence of streams, 506.

_Katnu_, a foreign god, 644.

_Kercha_, one of the four streams forming the confluence of streams,
    506.

_Khadir_ = Parnapishtim, 515.

_Khani_, tribe hostile to Babylon, 152.

_Khani_, god, in Ass. pantheon, 188;
  a form of Nebo, 188;
  minor god, 234;
  a foreign deity, 644.

_Kharimâti_, sacred harlots of Uruk, 475, 531, 660.

_Kharsag(-gal)-kurkura_, "the (great) mountain of the earth," 558;
  native place of the gods, 558, 614;
  = Ekur, 558.

_Khashur_, mountain destroyed by Ishum, 533.

_Khasis-Adra_, see _Adra-khasis_, 505.

_Khi-gir-nun-na_, son of Bau, 103.

_Khi-khi_, mountain attacked by Ishum, 533.

_Khiraitum_, a foreign deity, 644.

_Khi-shaga_, a son of Bau, 103.

_Khorsabad_, unearthed, 6, 8;
  capital of Assyria, 193;
  sanctuary of Sin, 219;
  palace of Sargon, 225;
  names of its gates and walls, 237;
  sanctuary of Nin-Gal, 231;
  zikkurat at K., 617.

_Khumbaba_ attacks Uruk, 480;
  conquered by Gilgamesh, 514.

_Khusha_, god of the 2nd Bab. period, 168.

_Kidin-Marduk_, father of Parnapishtim, 488, 496.

_Kidmuru_ temple of Ishtar in Nineveh, 202.

_Kigallu_, a designation of the netherworld, 562.

_Kilili_, a foreign deity, 644.

_Kingship_, differentiation of kingly and priestly functions late, 374;
   traces of direct relationship betw. gods and king, 374-5.

_Kingu_, consort of Tiâmat, 420;
  symbol of chaos, 538;
  deprived of the tablets of fate by Marduk, 428.

_Kinunira_, city on the Euphrates (?), sanctuary of Dumuzi-zu-aba, 96.

_Kish_, city in Babylonia, 54;
  temple of Zamama, 169;
  temple of Ninni, 639.

_Kishar,_ god, K. and Anshar created, 197, 410;
  K. and Anshar intermediate betw. the monsters and the gods in
    creation, 414, 416-7;
  creation of theologians, 416;
  Anshar and Kishar in the creation epic and their meaning, 418.

_Kishar-gal_, cosmological deity, 417.

_Kishshat_, a foreign god, 644.

_Kislev_, 9th month, sacred to Nergal, 463.

_Kizrêti_, Ukhâti, and Kharimâti, the harlots of Uruk, 475, 531, 660.

_Koyunjik_, mound, unearthed, 7, 9.

_Ku(?)-anna_, 51;
  place of worship, 102;
  functions, 102;
  consort of Ramman (?), 102.

_Kudur-mabuk_, 2d dynasty of Ur, "builder" of temple of Sin in Ur, 76,
    295;
  of temple of Nanâ in Ur, 81.

_Kumari_, city in Babylonia, temple of Ramman, 242.

_Kurigalzu_, Cassite, king of Babylon, cult of Bel of Nippur, 147, 645.

_Kutu_, see _Cuthah_.


_Lagamal_, a foreign god, 644.

_Lagash_, governors, 36;
  temple of Anu, 53, 640;
  temple of Belit, 56;
  temple of Bau, 635;
  quarters of, 56-7;
  temple of Ningirsu-Ninib, 57, 87, 635, 640;
  center of worship of Ninni, 80;
  ancient center, 35, 245;
  temple of Dumu-zi-zu-aba, 96;
  Dumuzi, temple of Ninmar, 635;
  temple of Nin-gish-zida, 99, 635;
  temple of Ninâ, 635;
  temple of Ku(?)-an-na, 152;
  temple of Gimil-Sin, 561;
  shrine of Nin-girsu, 640;
  zikkurat of Nin-girsu, 619, 635, 639;
  temple of E-salgisa, 641;
  temple of Nin-si-a, 635;
  temple of Shabra, 635;
  temple of Nin-sun, 635;
  temple of Nin-tu, 635;
  votive objects, 673.

_Lakhamu_, L. and Lakhmu cosmological, 197, 410, 417;
  a monster, 414, 418;
  in incantations, 417;
  in Allatu's court, 593.

_Larsa_, ancient center, 35;
  rulers, 37-8;
  dynasty, 39;
  center of worship of Shamash, 69, 143-4, 241, 628, 640, 646;
  zikkurats at L., 617, 639.

_Lasimu_, a foreign god, 644.

_Layard, Austen Henry_, excavations, 7.

_Laz_, consort of Nergal, 219, 243;
  not mentioned in Ass. texts, 219;
  not mentioned in religious texts, 583.

_Lebanon_, cedar forests, 626.

_Legal literature_, see also _Literature_;
  source for study of religion, 166;
  religious character of, 245.

_Libations_, 664, 666;
  in Old Testament and in A.-B., 665.

_Libit-Ishtar_, 2d dynasty of Ur, builds temple of Nanâ in Ur, 81.

_Life of the World_, name of temple, 641.

_Light of Shamash_, name of temple, 641.

_Lists of gods_, 213, 216;
  character of, 233;
  prepared on the basis of religious texts, 233.

_Literature_, Ashurbanabal's library, 132;
  syllabaries, 135;
  religious l., 12, 13, 213, 216, 233, 245, 247, 690-1;
  temple records, 165;
  legal documents, 165-6;
  connection betw. religion and literature, 245, 691;
  historical texts, 246;
  uncertain demarcation betw. religious and secular l., 247;
  epics, see _Gilgamesh_, _Eabani_, _Adapa_;
  compound of popular belief and of theology, 689.

_Local cults_, origin of, 49;
  confusion with nature cult, 49-50;
  growth of, 49;
  policy of preservation of local cults by foreign conquerors, 69-70,
    106, 111;
  confusion of (female) local cults, 80;
  prominence given to local gods as compared with others, 111;
  local cult features and general cult features compared, 110;
  survival of local cults, 113;
  factors obscuring local cults, 113-5;
  political factors, 113;
  popular factors, 114;
  theological factors, 114;
  absorption, 114, 168, 171;
  number of, 170, 234, 274;
  in lists, 233;
  of the Ass. pantheon, 234;
  importance diminishes, 235.

_Loftus, William K._, excavations, 9.

_Lofty and Brilliant Wall_, name of temple, 641.

_Lot_, bears more resemblance to Parnapishtim than Noah, 507.

_Lugal-banda_, god, 51;
  temple at Uruk, 95;
  local character, 95;
  identification with Nergal, 95;
  signification of name, 95.

_Lugal-edinna_, epithet of Nergal, 172, 280.

_Lugal-erima (?)_, god, 51;
  his local character, 97;
  interpretation of name, 97.

_Lugal-gira_, epithet of Nergal, 172, 280.

_Lugal-ki-mu-na_, in proper names of the 2d Bab. period, 169.

_Lugal-Marada_, god, temple at Marad, 242;
  a solar deity, 473;
  patron of Gilgamesh, identical with Shamash, 486.

_Lugal-mit-tu_, in Samsu-iluna's pantheon, 162;
  wall of L., 172;
  meaning of name, 172.

_Lugal-zaggisi_, old Babylonian king of Uruk, 101;
  his pantheon and its age, 110, 636;
  gods common to Lugal-zaggisi's and Gudea's pantheon, 110;
  priest of Anu, 110.

_Lulubite_, name of people, 532.

_Lunar cycle and sun calendar_, 78.


_Ma-an-ish-tu-su_, servitor of Â, 74.

_Magarida_, a foreign god, 644.

_Magganubba_, city in n.-e. Assyria, sanctuary of Sin, 219;
  restored by Sargon II., 232;
  cult of Damku, Sharru-ilu, Sha-nit(?)-ka, 232.

_Magical texts_, subdivision of religious literature, 247;
  practical purposes, 246, 255;
  beginning of rituals, 247, 253-4, 269;
  number of, 247;
  comparative age of, 253, 256;
  primitive popular thought, 254, 292;
  method of composition, 254;
  titles of, 254-5;
  incantation rituals and their growth, 255, 283 ff.;
  Ea and Eridu prominent in, 256;
  compiled character, 256-7;
  date of composition, 257;
  bilingual redaction, 258;
  metrical traits, 259;
  source of study of popular beliefs, 259;
  occurrence of Gibil evidence of ancient age of, 277;
  pantheon in m. t. compared with that in historical texts, 297.

_Mahmal_, tabernacle, compared with the Bab. ship for the gods, 655.

_Makhir_, god of dreams, 323, 402.

_Maklu series_, 286 ff., 302.

_Ma-ku-a_, name of Marduk's ship, 655.

_Malik_, god, in Nabubaliddin's pantheon, 162, 176;
  associated with Shamash and Bunene, 176;
  in proper names of the time of Hammurabi, 176;
  often used as epithet of Shamash, 176;
  meaning of name, 176;
  Malik and Bunene, attendants of Shamash, 177;
  consort of Bunene, 177.

_Malkatu_ = Â.

_Malku_, name of canal, 655;
  name of Naru's ship, 655.

_Ma-ma_, variant for Gula, 105.

_Mammitu_, goddess; M. and Anunnaki determine death and life, 493.

_Mamu_, a form of Gula in proper names of the 2d Bab. period, 169.

_Mandacan_, legend of Rustem parallel to Etana legend, 520 ff.

_Mar_, district in southern Babylonia, sacred to Nin-Mar, 100;
  temple Ish-gu-tur of Nin-Mar, 100.

_Marad_, city in Babylonia, temple of Lugal-Marada, 242;
  native place of Gilgamesh, 473.

_Marcheshwan_, see _Arakh-shamnu_.

_Marduk_, 2d Bab. period, deity of Babylon, 54, 96;
  child _par excellence_ of Ea, 96, 548;
  prominence of his cult since Hammurabi, 116, 134-5, 690-1;
  his titles, 118, 126, 239, 240, 276, 500, 576, 630;
  identification with Bel and Ea, 118;
  solar deity, 118, 119, 528, 576, 690;
  his warlike traits, 119;
  in religious texts, 120;
  temples in Babylon (E-Sagila) and Borsippa, 121, 241, 636, 639;
  his papakhu, 640;
  his consort, 121-4, 228;
  statue brought from Nineveh to E-Sagila, 684;
  his statue recovered by Agum, 122, 152, 670, 687;
  lord of E-Sagila and E-Zida, 126;
  New Year's Day his festival, 127, 631, 678, 681;
  mediator betw. Ea and mankind, 139, 276;
  Marduk and Ea in incantation texts, 139-40;
  conquers Tiâmat, 140, 197, 408, 422;
  rivaled by Ramman, 158;
  during the Cassite period, 162;
  called Sag-ila, 169;
  lord of Anunnaki and Igigi, 186, 239;
  absorbs the rôle of other gods, 190, 409;
  builds Eshara, 198;
  blended with Bel, 54, 145-6, 148, 222, 542;
  Bel's titles applied to, 222, 409, 542, 635;
  position in the Assyrian pantheon, 224-5, 239;
  associated with Ashur, 224;
  associated with Ashur, Shamash, and Ramman, 224;
  second to Ashur, 239;
  prominence of his cult in the neo-B. period, 239-40;
  rivaled by Nabu in the pantheon of Nebopolassar, 240, 679;
  also in old Bab period, 648;
  in incantations, 272-3, 276;
  in the Shurpu series, 288;
  in hymns, 307 ff.;
  lord of rest, 309;
  god of oracles, esp. in the south, 342, 345;
  zodiacal interpretation, 370, 434, 458-9, 676-7;
  his double aspect in the creation epic, 409, 432, 450;
  takes the tablets of fate from Kingu, 428 (_cf._ 542, 681);
  creates the universe, 428 ff., 447;
  establishes the districts of Anu, Bel, and Ea, 432;
  arranges the stations of the gods in the zodiacal system, 434;
  creates man, 437 (_cf._ _Ea_, _Bel_, 443, 448);
  the fifty names (of the Igigi) are bestowed upon M., 438;
  creates the Anunnaki, 447;
  = Nibir, _i.e._, Jupiter, exercises control over all the stars, 434,
    458-9;
  8th month sacred to M., 463, 678, 686;
  Marduk as Sharru in the deluge story, 500;
  absent in the deluge story, 508;
  dogs symbol of the solar god Marduk, 528;
  conquers Zu, 542;
  identified with Adapa, 548;
  temple at Ashur, 637;
  zikkurat at Babylon, 639;
  ship of Marduk, 655;
  procession on New Year, 679;
  spec. festival instituted by Agum, 687.

_Marduk-baladan_, of Babylon, 129.

_Marduk-nadin-akhe_, king of Babylon, carried statues of Ramman and
    Shala to Babylon, 212.

_Marriage offerings_, time of, 59;
  to Bau, 59.

_Mars_ = Nergal, name of planet, 370, 459;
  the "sheep" _par excellence_, 459.

_Mar-tu_ = Ramman, 166, 212.

_Marwa_, hill in Mecca, 687.

_Mashu_, mythical mountain, 488-9;
  = Musas or Masis, 516.

_Masis_, or Musas, = Mashu, 515.

_Mecca_, 623.

_Medes_, 44-5.

_Median wedge writing_, 19.

_Meme_, variant of Gula, 175.

_Mer_ = Ramman, 157.

_Mercury_ = Nabu, planet, 371, 459.

_Mesopotamia_, religious ideas and customs, 1, 3;
  seat of Terahites, 2;
  empire of Nimrod, 2;
  geography, 26, 27;
  character of, 28 ff.

_Messiah_, Hammurabi and the Hebr.-Christian notion of Messianic time,
    533.

_Mili-shikhu_, king of Babylon, his cult of Shamash, 144;
  minor gods worshipped, 172.

_Minor gods_, 2d Bab. period, 171-2;
  by Mili-shikhu, 172;
  some Cassite deities, 172;
  in Ass. texts, 171;
  in neo-B. period, 171, 242-3;
  absorbed by greater gods, 111, 147, 171, 177, 190, 233;
  patron-gods of arts, 178;
  as personifications, 179;
  dividing line betw. spirits and m. g., 183, 233.

_Mishiru_, a foreign deity, 644.

_Mitanni wedge writings_, 20.

_Months_, connected with gods, 462 ff., 676;
  names of the months, 464;
  m. sacred to gods and their festivals not always corresponding, 687.

_Monumental finds_, 7.

_Moon_, importance of m. as omen giver, 358;
  manifold relations between man and m., 358;
  importance of m. for calendar, 436, 461;
  moon and sun in religion and astronomy, 461.

_Moon-god_, see _Sin_.

_Moses_, 130;
  parallelism with Sargon I., 562.

_Mosul_, excavations near, 5.

_Mugheir_, mound, excavated, 9;
  see also _Ur_.

_Mummu_, associated with Apsu and Tiâmat, 420-1.

_Münter, Frederick_, decipherment of wedge writing, 15.

_Musas_, or Masis, = Mashu, 516.

_Mythology_, see also _Nature_;
  extent and influence of Bab. m., 518 ff.


_Nabonnedos_, of Babylon, restores temple of Shamash in Sippar, 70, 647;
  last king of Babylonia, 45;
  restores temple of Sin in Harran, 77, 646;
  gives prominence to Shamash cult, 240-1.

_Nabu_, god, 2d B. period, 127;
  most prominent trait, 124;
  probable aqueous origin, 124-5, 220;
  rank as compared with that of Ea and Marduk, 125, 648;
  agricultural deity, 125;
  suppression of cult by Hammurabi and his successors, 126;
  becomes son of Marduk, 127, 240 (_cf._ 648-9);
  his shrine in E-Sagila, 127, 220-9, 636;
  prominence during the Assyrian period, 128-9, 228;
  his symbol, 128;
  temple at Calah, 128, 228-9;
  prominence during the neo-Bab. period, 129, 240;
  his epithets, 129-31, 229;
  meaning of name, 130;
  his functions, 130, 240;
  his cult with other Semites, 130;
  identified with Nusku, 220;
  his consort Tashmitum, 130, 228-9;
  his consort Nanâ, 224;
  favorite of Ramman-nirari III., 128, 228;
  temple E-Zida in Borsippa, 121, 229, 241, 639, 648;
  god of wisdom, 129, 229;
  son of Ea, 229;
  in the subscript to Ashurbanabal's tablets, 229-30;
  similarity and difference betw. N. and Ea, 230-1;
  in hymn, 306;
  shrine E-makh-tila in Borsippa, 307, 636;
  god of oracles in Assyria, 344, 348;
  = Mercury, name of planet, 371, 459;
  in the deluge, 500;
  sanctuary E-pad-kalama-suma, 640;
  Nabu's ship and procession, 654, 679.

_Nabu-akhe-irba_, astrologer, 340.

_Nabu-bal-iddin_, king of Babylon, 162, 685;
  restores cult of Sippar, 176, 628, 645, 670;
  votive offerings, 670.

_Nabupelassar_, see _Nebopolassar_.

_Namar_, district in Babylonia, sacred to Kamman, Nergal, and Nanâ, 159,
    164.

_Names_, transference of name and interpretation of this act, 118,
    140-1;
  composition of proper names, 165;
  Bab. etymologies of names, 173.

_Namtar_, god of pestilence, 569;
  strikes Ishtar with disease, 570;
  messenger of Allatu, 570, 580.

_Nanâ_, goddess, 51;
  titles, 81;
  center of worship, 81;
  position in the pantheon proper and in the cosmology, 81;
  her temples, E-anna in Uruk, 81, 242, 311, 531, 639;
  E-ul-mash in Agade, 82;
  in Ur, 81-2, 85, 202, 311, 639, 678;
  statue captured by Elamites and recaptured by Ashurbanabal, 85, 206;
  absorbs inferior local deities, 103;
  associated with Nergal and Ramman, 159, 164;
  worshipped by Assyr. kings, 206;
  consort of Nabu, 224;
  Zag-muk of Nanâ, 678.

_Nannar_ = Sin, etymology of N., 75;
  N. attached to Ur, 75;
  Sin to Harran, 76;
  his position, 76;
  his representation, 76;
  his functions, 76, 78;
  his epithets, 76, 79, 89;
  relationship to Ningal, 97.

_Naram-Sin_, founds temple of Shamash in Sippar, 70, 646;
  his exploits incorporated in omen text, 562;
  builder of the temple of En-lil in Nippur, 642.

_Nâru_, rivergod in incantations, 282;
  ship of Nâru, 655;
  place of worship, 655.

_Nature_, worship, 48;
  confusion with local cults, 49-50;
  nature myth, 432-3, 487, 494.

_Nazi-Maruttash_, Cassite king, votive objects, 671-2.

_Nebo_, mount in Moab, place of death of Moses, 130.

_Nebopolassar_, king of Babylon, 129;
  makes Babylon independent, 239;
  makes cult of Marduk prominent, 239;
  makes cult of Nabu prominent, 240;
  Shamash cult at Larsa, 647, note 3.

_Nebuchadnezzar I._, expels the Cassites, 88, 158;
  cult of Marduk and Ramman, 158, 162;
  his pantheon, 162.

_Nebuchadnezzar II._, religion of N. and Daniel, 3;
  builder of Birs Nimrud, 9;
  rule, 44;
  worships Sarpanitum as the begetting deity, 122;
  makes cult of Marduk prominent, 240, 646;
  revives ancient cults, 242-3;
  restores temple of Nin-karrak at Sippar, 294;
  his prayers exemplification of ethical tendencies, 299;
  opposed to Bel cult in Nippur, 646;
  restores Shamash temple in Sippar, 646;
  Ishtar cult in Uruk, 648.

_Nergal_, god, 51;
  local cult and temple in Cuthah, 65, 164, 218, 563, 583, 648;
  worship in Palestine, 65;
  in Uruk, 66;
  his names and their meanings, 66;
  functions, 66-7, 537;
  development of his attributes, 67-8, 582, 593;
  identification with Lugal-banda, 95;
  with Irkalla, 592;
  associated with Allat, 104, 183, 565, 580, 593;
  associated with Ramman and Nanâ, 159, 164;
  Nergal in Samsu-iluna's pantheon, 162;
  in Nebuchadnezzar's I. pantheon, 162;
  epithets, 172;
  chief of nether-world and subterranean demons, 183 (_cf._ 260), 511,
    563, 582;
  associated with Ninib as god of the chase, 216, 218, 237;
  with Ninib and Ashur, 216, 218;
  god of war, 218, 582;
  Cuthah his sacred city, 164, 218, 563, 583;
  Kar-Nergal named in his honor, 219;
  temple at Tarbisu, 219;
  Laz his consort, 219, 243, 583;
  identified with Dibbarra, 232, 528-9, 594;
  perhaps = Bel-sarbi, 242;
  in incantations, 273, 280;
  phases of, 280, 459;
  = Mars as name of planet, 370, 459;
  9th month sacred to N., 463;
  sun of midday and summer solstice, 528, 582;
  pictured as a lion, 530;
  the lion a symbol of Nergal, 537, 580, 582;
  identified with Gibil, 594;
  associated with Allatu, 104, 183, 565, 580, 583, 593;
  Nergal conquers and weds Allatu, 584-5;
  imitation of Tiâmat-Marduk fight, 585.

_Nether-world_, names of: Aralû, 557;
  Ekur, 558;
  Shuâlu, 558;
  Kigallu, 562;
  Irkalla, 563;
  Kutu or Cuthah, 563;
  epithets for n., 559, 563;
  Nergal, lord of the n., 563;
  the older head of the lower world a goddess, Allatu, not a god, 585.

_New Year's Festival_, see _Zag-muk_.

_Nibir_ = planet Marduk or Jupiter, in the zodiac in conjunction with
    Bel and Ea, 434-5;
  exercises control over all the stars, 458.

_Nicolas of Damascus_, source B.-A. religion, 1, 412.

_Niebuhr, Carsten_, 15.

_Niffer_, excavations, 11;
  see _Nippur_.

_Nika_, mother of Esarhaddon, 340.

_Nimrod_, incidental biblical reference to, 2;
  not = Gilgamesh, 514.

_Nimrud_ (mound), unearthed, 7;
  temple, 9, 627.

_Ninâ_, quarter in Lagash, 57, 86;
  explanation of name, 86.

_Ninâ_, goddess, 51;
  explanation of name, 86;
  centers of worship, 86-8, 635;
  associations with Nin-girsu, 87, 635;
  relations to Ea, 87-8;
  fusion with Ishtar of Nineveh, 88;
  interprets a dream, 101;
  a daughter of Nin-si-a, 102;
  in Gudea's pantheon, 106, 635.

_Nin-a-gal_, god, 51;
  meaning of name, 64;
  function, 64;
  identification with Ea, 64.

_Nin-akha-kuddu_, goddess, 51;
  her titles in incantation texts, 103, 282;
  in Lugalzaggisi's pantheon, 110;
  goddess of purification, 282;
  mistress of Uruk, 103, 282;
  water deity, 282;
  lady of spells, 282.

_Nin-azu_, "god of the great city," 592;
  associated with Allatu, 586, 590;
  god of healing, 590;
  identified with Ninib, 591.

_Nin-dara_, see _Nin-si-a_.

_Nin-dim-su_, god, in the Cassite pantheon, 162, 172;
  epithet of Ea, 173.

_Nin-din-dug_, name of Bau. (See Corrections.)

_Nin-e-gal_, variant of Nin-gal, 98.

_Nineveh_, center of action in book of Judith, 3;
  site of, 6;
  capital of Assyria, 46, 193, 651;
  cult of Ishtar, 152, 202-3;
  temple E-mash-mash of Ishtar, 152;
  resp. of Belit, 227;
  Sha-nit(?)-ka, mistress of, 233;
  worship of all gods and goddesses, 638;
  intellectual center, 651.

_Nin-gal_, god, 51;
  center of worship, 97;
  relationship to Nannar, 97;
  sanctuary at Khorsabad, 231;
  Nin-gal's ship, 655.

_Nin-girsu_, solar deity, 51;
  subordinate to Bel, 53, 57;
  identity with Ninib, 57, 217 (_cf._ 528);
  temple E-Ninnu in Girsu, 57, 87, 634-5, 640;
  votive offerings, 57;
  agricultural deity = Shulgur, 58;
  identity with Tammuz, 58;
  relations to Nin-shakh, 93;
  in Gudea's pantheon, 106;
  in incantations, 273;
  zikkurat in Lagash or Girsu, 619, 635, 639;
  shrine in Lagash, 640;
  his ship, 654;
  consort of Bau, 59, 677.

_Nin-gish-zida_, solar deity, 51;
  a form of Nin-girsu, 92;
  meaning of name, 92;
  identified with Ninib, Nin-girsu, Nin-shakh, 99, 217, 528, 547;
  local character, 99, 528;
  temple in Girsu, 99, 635;
  in Gudea's inscriptions and incantation texts, 99, 106, 280;
  consort of Nusku, 280;
  brings famine in the land, 387;
  5th month sacred to N., 462, 547;
  servant of Gibil, 463;
  4th month sacred to, 463;
  identical with Gish-zida, 547;
  associated with Tammuz, 546, 588;
  presides over the growth of trees, 588.

_Nin-gul_, 51;
  consort of Lugal-banda, 95;
  interpretation of name, 95;
  place of worship, 96.

_Ninib_, see _Nin-girsu_, solar deity, 57, 217, 459, 462, 576, 684;
  consort of Gula, 105 (_cf._ 576, 591);
  of Belitekalli, 173;
  in Hammurabi's pantheon, 162;
  in Nebuchadnezzar's I. pantheon, 162, 164;
  god of war, 164, 214, 218;
  = Ud-zal, 166;
  associated with Ashur, 214;
  epithets, 213-4, 217;
  temple in Calah, 214-5 (_cf._ 684);
  favorite of Ashurnasirbal and Shamshi-Ramman, 214;
  god of the chase in association with Nergal, 216, 218, 237;
  hero of the heavenly and earthly spirits, 214;
  in association with Nergal and Ashur, 216;
  identical with Nin-girsu, 57, 217;
  with Nin-azu, 591;
  absorbs Nin-gish-zida and Nin-shakh, 217 (_cf._ 547);
  represents east sun and morning sun, 217;
  first-born of Ea, 217;
  offspring of Ekur, 217;
  first-born of Bel, 217;
  god of destructive cloud storm, 217, 500;
  other qualities in religious literature, 218, 576;
  name of outer wall of Sargon's II. palace, 237;
  lays the foundations of cities, 237;
  three forms, 238;
  temple in Dilbat, 242;
  in incantations, 273, 280;
  = Saturn, name of planet, 371, 459;
  6th and 11th months sacred, 215, 684;
  4th month sacred to N., 462;
  in the deluge story, 500 (_cf._ 217), 504;
  worshipped at Nippur, 635;
  temple of Zamama-Ninib, 640.

_Nin-igi-azag_, title of Ea, 230.

_Nin-igi-nangar-bu_, 171;
  presides over metal workers, 178.

_Nin-Karrak_ = goddess Gula, 242;
  temple at Babylon (see _Gula_), 242;
  in incantations, 273;
  temple at Sippar, 294;
  in a prayer of Nebuchadnezzar, 294.

_Nin-khar-sag_ = goddess Belit, 164;
  in Samsu-iluna's pantheon, 162, 164;
  sanctuary at Babylon (see _Belit_), 242, 639.

_Nin-kigal_ = Allatu, 282.

_Nin-kurra_, 171;
  lord of mountain, patron of stone workers, 178.

_Nin-lil_, see _Belit_.

_Nin-lil-anna_, in Nebuchadnezzar's II. pantheon, 242;
  temple in Babylon, 640.

_Nin-makh_ = Ishtar, 242;
  temple at Babylon, 242.

_Nin-mar_, goddess, 51;
  center of worship, 100;
  her temples in Mar, 100;
  daughter of Ninâ, 100;
  popularity of cult, 100;
  in Gudea's pantheon, 106, 635;
  daughter of Marduk, 168;
  temple at Lagash, 635.

_Ninni_, goddess, = Enanna, 51;
  titles, 80;
  center of worship, 80;
  variant of Ishtar, 82;
  in Lugal-zaggisi's and Gudea's panthea, 110;
  identical with Nanâ of Uruk, 111;
  temple at Hallabi, 117;
  her cult by Hammurabi, 144-5;
  "Ninni," consort of Zamama, 169;
  temple in Kish, 639.

_Nin-shakh_, god, 51;
  his character and functions, 93;
  identified with Ninib, 93, 217;
  relations to Nin-girsu and Nin-gishzida, 92-3;
  temple at Uruk, 93.

_Ninshar_, cosmological deity, 417.

_Nin-si-a_, god, 51;
  or Nin-dar-a, 90;
  center of worship, 91, 635;
  absorbed by Nin-girsu, 91;
  in Gudea's pantheon, 106, 635.

_Nin-sun_, god, temple of N. at Lagash, 635.

_Nin-tu_, god, temple of N. at Lagash, 635.

_Nin-zadim,_ god, 171; patron of sculpture, 178.

_Nippur_, rulers, 37;
  temple of Bel, 11, 37, 69, 51, 54, 151, 642, 644;
  temple of Belit, 55, 635;
  inscriptions from Nippur, 103;
  prominence during Cassite period, 40, 146, 480;
  wall of Zakar, 172;
  wall of Lugal-mittu, 172;
  ancient center, 245, 445;
  chief god Del, or En-lil, 445, 542;
  reference to N. in Gilgamesh epic, 486;
  rivalry betw. Nippur and Eridu, 508;
  replaced by Babylon, 542;
  zikkurat at N., 617;
  worship of Ninib, 635;
  worship of Nusku, 635;
  votive objects, 671-3.

_Nisaba_, goddess, 51;
  agricultural deity, 101;
  traits in common with Ea, 101;
  sister of Ninâ, 101;
  centers of cult, 102;
  in Gudea's pantheon, 111;
  probably local in Uruk, 111.

_Nisan_, sacred to Anu and Bel, 462, 677;
  sacred in Babylonia, 684;
  7th day sacred to Shamash, Malkatu, and Bunene, 685.

_Nisir_, mount on which the ship alights, 503.

_Nisroch_, Assyrian deity, 2.

_Noah_, resemblance to Parnapishtim less than is the case with Lot, 507.

_Nu-gim-mud_, title of Ea, 230.

_Nun-gal_, god of the 2d Bab. period, 168;
  temple in Sippar, 168;
  meaning of name, 168;
  solar deity, 168;
  becomes a demon, 168.

_Nur-Rammân_, of Ur, builder of Sin's temple in Ur, 76;
  builder of temples to Nin-gal and Nannar at Ur, 97.

_Nusku_, fire-god, in Ass. pantheon, 188, 220-1;
  in Bab. pantheon, 220;
  amalgamated with Gibil, 220, 277;
  identified with Nabu, 220-1;
  ideographic writing of name and its explanation, 220;
  solar deity, 220-1, 279;
  shrine in E-Sagila, 220, 241;
  epithets, 221, 277, 280;
  functions, 221;
  shrine in E-Zida, 241;
  in incantations, 271-3, 277, 286;
  younger than Gibil, 277;
  a mythological conception, 277, 279;
  Gibil-N, god of civilization, 278;
  medium betw. worshipper and deity, 279;
  associated with Anu, 277, 286;
  associated with Bel and Ea, 279, 286;
  Ishum, messenger of, 280;
  worship at Nippur, 635;
  see _Gibil_.


_Oktanos_, see under _Ea_, 63.

_Old Testament_, source for B.-A. religion, 1, 669 (_cf._ 696);
  relations betw. the Hebrews and B.-A., 2, 611, 697-8;
  contrast betw. Hebr. and B.-A. religion, 3, 668;
  O. T. points of contact with Gilgamesh epic, 495;
  with deluge story, 506 ff.;
  parallels betw. Adam and Eabani, Eve and Ukhat, 511;
  betw. Samson and Gilgamesh stories, 515-6;
  3d chapter Genesis compared with Adapa legend, 551;
  Hebr. Sheôl || Bab. Shuâlu, 560;
  Hebr. Shôel || Bab. Shâ'ilu, 560;
  Hebr.-Bab. custom of inquiring of the dead, 560;
  parallelism betw. Sargon I. and Moses, 562;
  conceptions of nether-world in O. T. and in Bab., 606;
  parallels betw. temple of Solomon and Bab. temple, 623, 632, 652-3,
    655;
  libation of oil in O. T. and in Ass.-Bab., 665;
  sacrifices in O. T. compared with Ass.-Bab., 667-8;
  teraphim and Ass.-Bab. amulets, 674;
  Hebr. and Bab. New Years, 681;
  Purim compared with Bab. 15th Adar festival, 686;
  Ashera and tree worship in Babylonia, 689.

_Omens_, division of religious literature, 247;
  purposes of, 248, 331;
  comparative age of, 253-4;
  an indirect means of forecasting the future, 329;
  directions for the priest in recognizing o., 330;
  relationship betw. o. and prayers, 331;
  part of magic element in the ritual, 331;
  occasions for seeking an o., 331 ff.;
  derived from offered animals, 332;
  of a public character, 332 ff., 362, 364, 374, 401;
  questions of an omen seeker, 333 ff., 369;
  list of, 337, 362;
  their relation to reports, 368, 372;
  o. ritual, 338;
  connecting link betw. incantations and o., 352;
  variety of o. literature, 355, 362;
  o. from stars, 356;
  the more variety, the more significance--a principle of general
    application in interpretation of o., 358;
  other guiding principles, 358 ff., 388, 401;
  private o., 362, 403, 405;
  o. series and mode of their composition, 363;
  omens deduced from observations of eclipses, 357, 364;
  restricted application of o. no hindrance to their practical use, 366,
    372;
  vagueness of o. intentional, 367;
  interrelation betw. reports and o., 368, 372-3;
  importance of o. deduced from eclipses and more ordinary phenomena,
    368-9;
  omens deduced from observations of planets, esp. Ishtar, and of other
    heavenly bodies, 371-3;
  omen calendars, 375, 382;
  omens from terrestrial phenomena, 383 ff.;
  logical principle controlling the interpretation, 384;
  offshoot of sympathetic magic, 384;
  birth omens, 384;
  partly public, partly private character, 386;
  the rarer the phenomena, the greater the significance, 385;
  ideas of sympathetic magic in the interpretation of o., 388;
  omens from offsprings of animals, 391 ff.;
  omens from the actions of animals, 397-402;
  omens from dreams, 402-4;
  o. of a private character, 403;
  popular phase of augury, 403;
  omens from individual experiences, 404;
  dividing line betw. omens of individual and of public character, 405;
  the practical working of the omen belief, 406.

_Ophites_, a gnostic sect, 699.

_Oppert, Jules_, expedition to Babylonia, 8.

_Oracles_, see also _Omens_ and _Witchcraft_, direct means of
    forecasting the future, 329;
  occasions for asking o., 338 ff.;
  blank forms for o., 341;
  form of, 341 ff.;
  Marduk, god of, 342;
  asked of the sun-god, 334 ff.;
  of Ishtar of Arbela, 342;
  ceremonies accompanying o., 345;
  relationship to penitential psalms, 347;
  practical purpose of, 349;
  by means of dreams, 349 ff.;
  generally vague language, 344;
  occasionally definite language, 360;
  objects with which o. are concerned, 360;
  given by priestesses, 485, or priests, 329, 560, 657-8;
  asked of the dead, 559-60, 657;
  asked on the New Year's festival, 628-9.


_Pantheon_, divisions and development, 48-50;
  sources, 51;
  comparison betw. p. in historical and in incantation texts, 297;
  comparison betw. B. and A. pantheon, 189, 201.

_Papakhu_, chamber of the god, 627;
  cosmological significance, 629.

_Pap-sukal_, _i.e._, divine messenger, epithet of Nin-shakh, Nebo, and
    Nusku, 93 (cf. 463, 571);
  in incantations, 273;
  10th month sacred to P., Ishtar, and Anu, 463.

_Pap-u_, god, in the Cassite pantheon, 162, 172;
  offspring of E-sharra, 174;
  function, 174.

_Paradise_, belief in, among Babylonians, 578.

_Parakku_, chamber of the god, 627.

_Parnapishtim_, immortal, 488, 577;
  P. and Gilgamesh, 492 ff.;
  son of Kidin-Marduk, 488, 496;
  born in Shurippak, 496;
  his epithet Adra-Khasis, 505;
  bears more resemblance to Lot than to Noah, 507.

_Pa-sag_, god, 51;
  "the leader of the land," 101;
  identity with Ishum, 101;
  lieutenant of Shamash, 107;
  in Gudea's pantheon, 106.

_Patesi_, 198.

_Patron gods_, of persons, 216, 235;
  Nabu, patron of Ramman-nirari III., 228;
  of places, 49, 69-70, 106, 111.

_Penitential psalms_, points in common with and differences from
    incantations, 312;
  national origin of, 312;
  marks relationship betw. god and man, 313;
  purpose to appease the anger of the gods, 315, 688;
  advanced religious conceptions, 314-5, 326;
  dialogue form, 315;
  language, 316-7;
  age, 317;
  anonymity of the deity addressed, 318;
  p. for specific purposes, 324, 688;
  relationship to oracles, 347.

_Persepolis_, wedge writings, 16.

_Persian Gulf_, sacred to Ea, 497;
  not the source of the deluge, 497;
  confluence of the streams, 577.

_Persian wedge writing_, 19.

_Personifications of human arts_, 178.

_Peters, John P._, explorer, 11.

_Pilgrimage_, 684.

_Place, Victor_, excavations, 8.

_Place of Fates_, name of temple, 641.

_Planets_, observations of, 370;
  identifications of p. with deities, 370, 459 (_cf._ 619);
  prominence of Ishtar-Venus, in astrological texts, 371;
  regarded as auguries for the chiefs and the general welfare, 373;
  planets and zikkurats, 619.

_Politics_, affecting religion and literature, 108, 110-1, 134-5, 201,
    239, 690-1.

_Popular Belief_, see _Theology and Popular Belief_.

_Prayers_, see also _Hymns_, occasions, 663;
  in connection with incantations, 293, 299;
  without accompaniment of incantations, 294;
  curses regarded as p., 296;
  no line of demarcation betw. incantations and p., 297, 299, 307;
  ethics in, 298;
  power of words, 328;
  no p. in its highest form, 329;
  relationship betw. prayers and omen, 330;
  efficacy dependent on their being uttered in the right manner and by
    the right person, 353.

_Priestly codes_, 362.

_Priests and priestesses_, divisions of, 269, 241-2, 657-8;
  p. as exorciser and his function, 271-2, 330, 657-8;
  mediator betw. man and god, 315, 331, 353, 374, 560, 627, 692;
  prognostication of future, 329, 560, 657;
  importance of, 353;
  "Priests of Ashur," association of priestly functions with early
    kingship, 374;
  priests and priestesses in their functions, 485, 655 ff., 692;
  priests purifying the dead, 578, 602;
  general name for priest, 657-8, 676;
  priestesses as dirge singers, 604, 658;
  as judges, 625, 658;
  intellectual leaders, 693;
  as sacrificers, 657-8;
  eligibility to priesthood, 658-9;
  women priests, 485, 659-60.

_Proper names_, see also _Names_, composition of, 165;
  source of study of divinities, 166;
  evidence of age of cult of gods (Ishme-Dagan), 208;
  Samsi-Ramman, 209.

_Psalms_, see _Penitential Psalms_; also _Hymns_, _Prayers_.

_Ptolemy_, see _Claudius Ptolemaeus_.

_Pudilu_, builds temple of Shamash at Ashur, 209.

_Purat_ = Euphrates, 27.

_Purification_, see _Rituals_.

_Purim_, compared with the Bab. solar festival, 15th of Adar, 686;
  not to be compared with Puru, 688.

_Puru_, a festival ceremony, 688.

_Puzur-Shadu-Rabû_, captain of the ship of Parnapishtim, 500.


_Ra_, Egyptian sun-god, 210.

_Rabbinical literature_, bearing upon B.-A. religion, 3, 697.

_Races_, of Mesopotamia, 24, 33.

_Ramman_, god, Shala his consort, 102, 161, 212;
  associated with Anu, 154, 207, 212;
  associated with Shamash, 145, 157-8, 160, 211;
  associated with Sin and Shamash, 158, 163;
  associated with Nergal and Nanâ, 159, 164;
  rivals of Marduk, 158;
  ideographic and other readings of the name, 156-7;
  meaning of name, 156-7;
  extent of his cult, 159;
  cult by Aramaeans, 159;
  indigenous to Assyria, 159;
  rival of Ashur, 161;
  his two aspects as storm-god, 160;
  epithets, 156, 158, 160, 212, 498;
  in Hammurabi's pantheon, 162;
  in Nebuchadnezzar's I. pantheon, 162;
  = Martu, 166, 212;
  popular in Assyria, 211;
  his instruments of destruction, 212;
  "the mightiest of the gods," 212;
  name of one of the eastern gates of Sargon's II. palace, 237;
  brings abundance, 237;
  temple at Borsippa, 242;
  temple at Kumari, 242;
  11th month sacred to R., 463;
  R. in the deluge, 500;
  declines to fight Zu, 541.

_Ramman-nirari I._, king of Assyria, 155;
  cult of Ramman, 159;
  of Anunnaki and Igigi as spirits of earth and heaven resp., 185;
  repels the Cassites, 199;
  his pantheon, 237, 593.

_Ramman-nirari III._, king of Assyria, gives prominence to Nabu cult in
    Assyria, 128, 228;
  erects temple to Nabu at Calab, 228;
  Nabu his patron god, 228.

_Rassam_, Hormuzd researches, 9.

_Rawlinson, Henry_, explorations, 9.

_Regulus_, observations, 372.

_Religion_, unity of church and state, 690;
  influence upon Hebrews, see _Old Testament_;
  upon Christianity, 698;
  upon Egypt, Persia, and Greece, 699-701.

_Religious texts_, 12-3, 467;
  sources for religion, 51, 661;
  in Bab. theological schools, 134;
  reshaping of r. t. during Hammurabi's time, 140-2;
  divisions, 247-51;
  age, 691;
  comparison betw. Ass. and Bab. r. t., 251-2;
  their value as source for knowledge of sacrifices, 661;
  votive inscriptions on statues, 669;
  on other objects, 671-2;
  worn as amulets, 672;
  plague tablets, 536, 674.

_Rim-Sin_, of 2d dynasty of Ur, "called" by Bel and Ea, 62;
  cult of moon and sun-god in Ur, 70;
  of Nanâ in Ur, 81;
  builds temple of Nin-shakh at Uruk, 93;
  his wife builds temple to Nin-gal at Ur, 97.

_Rituals_, establishment of, 115;
  and incantations, 247-8, 253-4, 283;
  manner of growth, 255;
  purification, 284, 688;
  incantations the oldest fixed r., 294;
  penitential psalms, 312 ff., 688;
  bodily castigation, 320, 688;
  offerings, 328;
  prayers, 293 ff.;
  never without ulterior motive, 328;
  oracles and omens, 328 ff.;
  composition and growth, 329-30;
  strictness in observation of, 347.

_Rustem_, son of Sal in Armen. and Mandaean legend, parallel to Etana,
    520.


_Saba_, district in southern Arabia, 491.

_Sabitum_, maiden in Gilgamesh epic, 490-1;
  the goddess of Siduri, 491.

_Sacred objects_, 651.

_Sacred period_, 686.

_Sacred quarter_, 622 ff.

_Sacredness of animals_, meaning of, 397-8, 662;
  of trees, 662-3.

_Sacrifices_, when not to be offered, 378;
  when offered, 663, 667-8;
  offered by priests, 657-8;
  Semitic view of, 660;
  comparison with Hebrew, 667-8;
  as determined from religious and historical literature, 661;
  development of, 661;
  two kinds of, 661;
  connected with prayers, 663;
  use of oil and wine, 664, 666;
  daily, 667;
  monthly, 668.

_Sâdu_, the hunter in the service of Gilgamesh, 475;
  associated with Ukhat, 511.

_Safa_, hill in Mecca, 687.

_Sag-ila_ = Marduk, in proper names of the 2d Bab. period, 169.

_Sal_, father of Rustem, 520.

_Samsi-Ramman,_ king of Assyria, builds temple to Ramman, 154, 159;
  builds temple to Ashur in Ashur, 198;
  his name as evidence of age of Shamash cult, 209.

_Samson_, parallelism with Gilgamesh, 515 ff.

_Samsu-iluna_, king of Babylon, 56;
  builds sanctuary of Belit, 56;
  builds Dur-padda, sacred to Ramman, 158;
  his pantheon, 162;
  builds wall of Zakar in Nippur, 172;
  builds wall of Lugal-mittu in Nippur, 172.

_Samuel_, prophet, his spirit called up, 559.

_Saracus_, last king of Assyria, 229.

_Sargon I._, "builds" temple E-ulmash of Nanâ in Agade, 82;
  myth of Sargon I. related to an incident in Moses' life, 562;
  his exploits incorporated in a religious text, 562;
  "builder" of temple of En-lil in Nippur, 642, 645.

_Sargon II._, of Assyria, restores "laws and customs of Harran," 77;
  builds sanctuary to Shamash, 211;
  names Kar-Nergal in honor of Nergal, 219;
  builds sanctuary to Sin at Khorsabad and Magganubba, 219;
  patron of learning, 229;
  prominence of Nabu cult, 229;
  erects sanctuary to Nin-gal at Khorsabad, 231;
  restores Magganubba, 232;
  revives the triad, 236;
  his pantheon, 237;
  his palace at Khorsabad, 225, 237;
  his zikkurat at Khorsabad, 617;
  sacrifices in Babylonia, 664;
  institutes special festival, 687.

_Sarpanitum_, consort of Marduk, 121, 224, 228, 636;
  interpretation of name, 121, 449;
  shrine in E-Sagila, 121, 241, 636, 641;
  her statue recovered by Agum, 122, 152, 670, 687;
  her subordinate position, 121-2;
  goddess of matrimonial fertility, 122, 684;
  of secret knowledge, 122;
  amalgamation with Erua, 122;
  epithets of Sarpanitum-Erua, 123;
  called Belit, 224, 684;
  shrine in E-Zida, 241;
  rarely in incantations, 276;
  25th day of Siwan her festival, 684;
  festival instituted by Agum, 687.

_Saturn_ = Ninib, planet, 371, 459.

_Saul_, king of Israel, and the witch, 559.

_Semites and non-Semites_ in Babylonia, 21-2, 32-4.

_Sendschirli_, excavations in, 579.

_Senkereh_ = Larsa.

_Sennacherib_, king of Assyria, 200;
  takes statues of Ramman and Shala back from Babylon, 212;
  erects temple to Nergal at Tarbisu, 219;
  his pantheon, 238, 644, note 2.

_Seven spirits_, cause eclipse of moon, 264, 276;
  12th month sacred to them, 463;
  Sibi, collective personification of the s. p. associated in war with
    Ishum, 533.

_Sex_, inferiority of female to male in the B.-A. pantheon, 75, 79, 104;
  confusion of female cults, 80;
  variety of "ladies" in pantheon, 98, 104;
  position of female deities as consorts of male deities, 104, 586, 594;
  male deities becoming female and consorts of male deities, 177, 280;
  association of sexes in cosmology, 411;
  association of sexes in the creation of the gods, 413;
  female deities and the months, 463;
  sex in witchcraft, 267, 342, 660;
  sex in priesthood, 485, 659-60;
  sex in furnishing oracles, 485, 660;
  sex among musicians and dirge singers, 660 (see _Dirge_);
  position of woman, 694.

_Shabat_, 11th month, sacred to Ramman, 463;
  sacred to Ninib, 215, 684.

_Shabra_, god, temple at Lagash, 635.

_Shàilu_, a designation for priest, 560;
  || Hebr. Shôel, 560.

_Shala_, consort of Ramman, 161, 212;
  in proper names of 2d Bab. period, 169;
  in Ass. pantheon, 189;
  meaning of name, 213;
  other applications of the name, 213;
  epithets, 213.

_Shalman_, god, in Ass. pantheon, 188.

_Shalmaneser II._, king of Assyria, gives prominence to Shamash cult,
    205, 215;
  his pantheon, 237.

_Shamash_, or Utu, 51, 277;
  signification of name, 68;
  relations to the moon-god, 68-70, 98, 305;
  centers of worship, Sippar and Larsa, 69, 117, 143, 176, 241, 628,
    640, 646;
  relative age of the centers, 70;
  temple Ebabbara, 70, 628, 640, 645;
  attributes and functions, 71, 120, 210;
  in incantations, 71, 211;
  probable age of these conceptions, 72;
  his other names and their meaning, 72-4, 176;
  local uses thereof, 73;
  Malkatu his consort, 74-5, 176, 241-685;
  offspring of Nin-gal, 98;
  in Lugalzaggisi's and Gudea's pantheon, 110;
  in Hammurabi's pantheon, 162;
  warrior of heaven and earth, 144, 211;
  mighty hero, 152;
  position in Bab. pantheon during and after Hammurabi, 144;
  position in Ass. pantheon, 144, 209-11;
  associated with Ramman, 145, 157-8, 160, 211;
  associated with Sin and Ramman, 158, 163;
  associated with Ishtar, 163, 511;
  associated with Malik and Bunene, 176;
  often called Malik, 176;
  symbol of Shamash, 176-7;
  temple at Ashur, 209;
  protecting deity, 209;
  ethical level in Ass. pantheon, 209-10;
  judge of heaven and earth, 210, 274, 279, 297, 527 (_cf._ 640);
  prominence of sun cult during reign of Ashurnasirbal and Shalmaneser
    II., 210, 646;
  under Esarhaddon, 646;
  sanctuary by Sargon II., 211;
  cult influenced by that of Egyptian Ra, 210 (_cf._ 699);
  name of one of the eastern gates of Sargon's II. palace, 237;
  grants victory, 237;
  Nebuchadnezzar II. and Shamash cult, 646;
  Nabonnedos gives prominence to Sh. cult, 240-1, 647;
  temple in Babylon, 242, 640;
  Sh. in incantations, 280;
  in hymns, 300 ff.;
  in omens and oracles, 334, 344;
  Shamash and Sin, 305, 647;
  7th month sacred to Sh., 463, 685;
  patron of Gilgamesh, 471, 479;
  identical with Lugal-Marada, 486;
  patron of Etana, 520;
  controls Zu, 538;
  on seal cylinders, 540;
  Si-gar, a festival of, 684;
  festival days, 685.

_Shamshi-Ramman_, king of Assyria, gives prominence to Ninib cult, 214.

_Shamuktu_, a class of priestesses of Ishtar, 660.

_Sha-nit(?)-ka_, goddess, in Ass. pantheon, 188;
  associated with Damku and Sharru-ilu, 232;
  mistress of Nineveh, 233;
  = Ishtar, 233.

_Sharru_, title of Marduk, in the deluge story, 500.

_Sharru-ilu_, god, associated with Damku and Sha-nit(?)-ka, 232;
  meaning of name, 232;
  evidently a title, 232;
  perhaps a foreign god, 232;
  worshipped at Magganubba, 232.

_Shar-sarbi_ = Belsarbi, 242.

_Sherua_, minor god in Ass. pantheon, 234;
  foreign deity, 644.

_Sheôl_, 560;
  O. T. conceptions of Sheôl || to Babylonian conceptions, 606 ff.;
  see also _Shuâlu_, _Dead._.

_Shinar_ = Babylonia, 613.

_Ship_, construction of, 498-9;
  Puzur-shadu-rabu, captain of ark, 500;
  a sacred object, 653-4;
  its uses and significance, 654;
  compared with the Mahmal and the ark, 655.

"_Ship of Light_," name of Sin's ship, 655.

"_Ship of Malku_," name of the ship of Nâru, 655.

"_Ship of the Brilliant Offspring_," name of Bau's ship, 655.

_Shir_, god, in Nebuchadnezzar's I. pantheon, 162;
  local god, 163;
  patron of Bit-Khabban, 176.

_Shirpurla_, see _Lagash_.

_Shuâlu_, designation of the district of the dead, 560 ff.;
  meaning, 559;
  || to Hebr. Sheôl, 560.

_Shubu_, in Nebuchadnezzar's I. pantheon, 162;
  local character, 163;
  patron god of Bit-Khabban, 176.

_Shu-bu-la_, god, in proper names of the 2d Bab. period, 169;
  patron of Shumdula, 169.

_Shu-gid-la_, see _Shu-bu-la_, 169.

_Shukamuna_, Cassite god, identical with Nergal, 152, 163, 172;
  head of Agum's pantheon, 152, 172;
  consort of Shumalia, 173.

_Shul-gur_ = Nin-girsu, 51.

_Shul-pa-uddu_, god, 51;
  meaning of name, 99;
  age and extension of cult, 99;
  decline of cult in favor of Shamash and Ninib, 100;
  position in Babylonian astronomy, 100;
  solar deity, 99, 531.

_Shumalia_, in the Cassite pantheon, 162-3, 172;
  in Nebuchadnezzar's I. pantheon, 162;
  consort of Shukamuna, 173;
  epithet, 173.

_Shumdula_, city in Babylonia, cult of Shubula, 169.

_Shum-gar_, see _Si-gar_.

_Shurippak_, city on Euphrates, destroyed by rainstorm, 495;
  comparison with Sodom, 496, 507.

_Shurpu series_, 290.

_Shu-sil-la_, see _Shubula_, 169.

_Sibi_, collective personification of the seven evil spirits associated
    with Ishum, 533.

_Sibittum_, minor deity in the Etana legend, 521.

_Siduri_, Sabitum, the goddess of Siduri, 491.

_Si-gar_, festival of Gula, 683;
  festival of Sin, 684;
  festival of Shamash, 684;
  meaning, 684;
  date of installation of Ashurbanabal, 684.

_Silili_, mother of one of Ishtar's associates, 482.

_Sin_, god, see also _Nannar_; worshipped in Harran, 76, 241, 641, 647;
  temple at Ur, 76, 241, 295, 640, 644, 687;
  occurrence of the name elsewhere, 77;
  amalgamation with Nannar, 78;
  chief trait, 78;
  lunar cycle and sun calendar, 78;
  epithets and functions, 76, 78-9, 219, 462;
  gradual decrease of Sin cult, 78-9;
  in Lugalzaggisi's and Gudea's pantheon, 110;
  associated with Shamash and Ramman, 158, 163;
  in Hammurabi's pantheon, 162;
  patron of Bit-Khabban, 163;
  head of 2d triad, 163;
  associated with Ishtar, 163, 571;
  father of Ishtar, 565;
  temple at Calah, 219;
  sanctuary at Khorsabad, 219;
  sanctuary at Magganubba, 219;
  god of wisdom, 78, 219;
  god of water in Ass. pantheon, 219;
  first-born son of Bel, 76, 219;
  subordinate position in Ass. pantheon, 219-20;
  Sin and astronomy, resp. astrology, 219-20;
  temple at Babylon, 242;
  in incantations, 280;
  in hymn, 303-4;
  Sin and Shamash, 305, 647;
  first-born of Bel, 219, 462;
  Siwan, 3d month, sacred to Sin 462;
  chapel in E-Zida, 639;
  Sin cult under Nabonnedos, 77, 648;
  Sin's ship, 655;
  zagmuk of, 678;
  Si-gar, festival of, 684.

_Sinai_, a peninsula (metals and stone), 627, 652.

_Sin-gamil_, of Uruk, builds sanctuaries to Nergal at Cuthah, 66.

_Sin-gashid_, of Uruk, servitor of Lugal-banda and Nin-gul, 95-6.

_Sin-iddina_, of Larsa, builds sanctuary to Shamash in Larsa, 69;
  builds temple of Sin in Ur, 76.

_Sippar_, temple and archives, 10;
  ancient center, 35, 245;
  center of worship of Shamash, 69, 117, 143-4, 241, 628, 640, 646;
  temple of Nun-gal, 168;
  worship of Shamash, Malik, and Bunene, 176;
  temple of Nin-karrak, 294;
  temple of Malkalu or Â, 640;
  zikkurat, "Threshold of Long Life," 641.

_Sir_, serpent god, in proper names of the 2d Bab. period, 170.

_Sirius_, observations of, 372.

_Siwan_, 3d month, sacred to Sin, 462, 687;
  sacred to the god of brick structures, 463;
  25th day of Siwan sacred to Belit of Babylon, 684.

_Slaves_, standing of slaves a measure of social ethics, 695.

_Smith, George_, explorations, 9.

_Sodom_, destruction of, point of contact with Gilgamesh epic, 495-6,
    507.

_Sokkaros_, grandfather of Gilgamesh (Aelian), 524.

_Solomonic_ temple and the sacred quarter in Nippur, 623-4;
  horns of altar compared with Bab. custom, 652;
  "sea" compared with Apsu, 653;
  ark compared with the Bab. ship, 655.

_Sorcer_, _Sorceress_, see also _Witchcraft_;
  relationship betw. s. and oracle-giver, 342.

_Spirits_, in proper names, 166, 180;
  Nun-gal-e-ne, a class of, 168 (cf. 184);
  their symbols, 174, 182;
  functions, 174;
  lists of, 180;
  classification of, 181 ff.;
  of disease, 181, 186, 246;
  of the field, 182;
  of the nether-world, 183;
  dividing line betw. gods and spirits, 181, 183, 231, 266, 274;
  of evil, 260, 264;
  activity of, 260-1;
  representations of, 263;
  habitations of, 260, 263;
  the seven spirits, 264;
  strength attribute of, 266;
  relationship betw. demons and witchcraft, 267;
  differentiation of demons, 262.

_Spiritualization of mythology_, 304, 306;
  characteristic of later times, 297;
  in penitential psalms, 313, 319.

_Splendor of Heaven and Earth_, name of temple, 641.

_Stars_, writing of heaven, 454;
  division of, 455.

_Storm_, symbols of storm (birds and bulls), 537 ff.

_Subartu_, name of country, 532.

_Sugi_, name of country, 675.

_Sukhaul-ziku_, name of mythical fountain, 572.

_Sumer and Akkad_, ethnological-geographical, 32-3;
  S.-A. language in incantations, 259.

_Sumerian question_, 21-4, 32-4.

_Sun_, see _Shamash_;
  gates of s., 435, 443;
  representation of sun in creation story, 461;
  sun and moon in astronomy and religion, 461.

_Susian wedge writing_, 19.

_Syllabaries_, 135.

_Syncellus_, source for B.-A. religion, 1, 5.

_Systematized religion_, see _Theology_.


_Taboo_, meaning of, 397.

_Talisman_, see _Amulet_, _Teraphim_.

_Tammuz_, agricultural deity, 58, 588;
  relations to Ishtar, 84, 482, 484, 547, 564, 574;
  T. and Gish-zida doorkeepers of heaven, 546;
  solar deity, 547;
  4th month named for T., 547, 682;
  intercedes for Adapa with Anu, 548-9;
  brother of Belili, 575;
  T.'s day = All-Souls' Day, 599, 605, 682;
  identified with Nin-girsu, 58;
  associated with Nin-gish-zida, 546, 588.

_Tammuz_, 4th month, sacred to Ninib, 462;
  named for god Tammuz, 547, 682;
  sacred to the servant of Gibil, 463.

_Tarbisu_, city north of Nineveh; temple of Nergal, 219.

_Tar-gul-le_, names of some demons let loose by Dibbarra in the deluge
    story, 500.

_Tashmitum_, goddess in pantheon of Hammurabi, 130;
  a new creation, 131-2;
  consort of Nabu, 130-1, 228-9;
  meaning of name, 131;
  her quasi-artificial character, 131-2;
  called Nanâ, 132;
  shrine in E-Sagila, 220, 241;
  in the subscript to Ashurbanabal's tablets, 229-30;
  shrine in E-Zida, 241.

_Tashritu_, see _Tishri_.

_Taylor, J. E._, excavations, 8.

_Tebet_, 10th month, sacred to Papsukal, Ishtar, and Anu, 463;
  festival of En-meshara, 588.

_Tel-Id_, mound near Warka, site of ancient capital of Mar, 100.

_Tell-el-amarna_, see _El-amarna_.

_Tell-Ibrahim_ = Cuthah.

_Telloh_, excavations, 11;
  temple records and legal documents, 165.

_Tell-Sifr_, temple records and legal documents, 165.

_Temple records_, see also _Literature_;
  source of study of the deities, 167.

_Temples_, 612 ff.;
  names of t., 638 ff.;
  history of t., 642 ff.;
  as financial establishments, 650;
  minor part played by the temples in Assyria, 659.

_Terah_, _Terahites_, appearance in Palestine, 2;
  migrations, 2;
  home of, 9.

_Teraphim_, talismans parallel to Ass.-Bab. statuettes of gods, 674.

_Teumman_, king of Elam, 296.

_Thamud_, Arabic tribe destroyed, 496.

_The Brilliant House_, name of temple, 641.

"_The Lesser Light_," name of Ningal's ship, 655.

_Theology and popular belief_, 89, 114, 131, 180, 235, 249, 411, 414,
    416, 458, 494, 527, 584, 614, 619, 629-30, 689;
  Gudea's system, 108;
  interaction betw. political fortunes and positions of divinities, 108,
    110-11, 134-5, 201, 234, 235;
  genealogical arrangement according to Amiaud, 108;
  family theory according to Davis, 109;
  its value, 109;
  tendency towards recognition of certain great gods, 111, 147, 171,
    190, 234-5, 696;
  organization of cult and ritual, establishment of dogmas, 115, 133,
    247, 690;
  pedagogical activity, 135;
  formation of the great triad, 147;
  re-systematization of gods by Hammurabi, 171, 276;
  systematization of spirits, 184;
  attempts to systematize series of gods, 213, 216, 233;
  theology in cosmology, 412 ff., 418, 443;
  in the 12th tablet of the Gilgamesh epic, 512-3;
  in the Etana legend, 527;
  theology in the Zu epic, 542.

_Thomas, Felix_, excavations, 8.

_Thousand and One Nights_, 494.

_Threshold of Long Life_, name of zikkurat in Sippar, 641.

_Tiâmat_, mythical monster, conquered by Marduk, 140, 197, 408;
  fought by Anu, Ea, 197;
  synonymous with Apsu, 411;
  female principle, 411;
  personified chaos, 411, 414;
  dominion of T. and Apsu precedes that of the gods, 412;
  gods product of the union of T. and Apsu, 413;
  mythical monsters product of the union of T. and Apsu, 414;
  associates of T., 419;
  Ummu-Khubur, epithet of T., 419;
  Kingu her consort, 420;
  Tiâmat epic compared with Zu myth, 543;
  comparison with Nergal-Allat fight, 585.

_Tiglathpileser I._, king of Assyria, nomenclature of Bel, 146;
  dedicates temple to Anu and Ramman, 154, 159;
  as a hunter, 216;
  rebuilds temple of Bel at Ashur, 225;
  pantheon, 236;
  dedicates captured gods, 675.

_Tiglathpileser II._, sacrifices in Babylonia, 664.

_Tigris_, course of, 28-9;
  comparison with Euphrates, 30;
  in garden of Eden, 2 (_cf._ 506);
  one of the four streams forming the confluence of streams, 506 (_cf._
    2).

_Tishri_, 7th month, sacred to Shamash, 462 (_cf._ 681, 685);
  7th day sacred to Shamash, Malkatu, and Bunene, 685.

_Tombs_, see _Dead_.

_Triad_, the great, Anu, Bel, Ea, 107;
  relationship of the members, 147;
  product of theology, 147, 149;
  development of, 148;
  extraneous position, 149;
  representative of the three kingdoms, 155;
  punish the violator of monuments, 207;
  fix the name of the months, 208, 236;
  general position in Ass. pantheon, 236;
  give victory, 236;
  grant rule, 236;
  associated with Ashur, Ishtar, and Igigi, and Anunnaki, 236;
  in incantations, 273;
  associated with fire-god, 279;
  in Gudea, 418;
  in the cosmology, 418;
  ancestors of the triad, 418;
  symbolizes the eternal laws of the universe, 432.

_Triad_, second, Sin, Shamash, Ramman, 163;
  in incantations, 273.

_Tubal-cain_, biblical father of metal workers, 178.

_Tur-lil-en_, in Nebuchadnezzar's II. pantheon, 242.

_Tychsen, Gerhard_, decipherment of wedge writing, 15.


_Ubshu-kenna_, council chamber of the gods, 423, 629, 687.

_Uddushu-Namir_, a divine servant, created by Ea, 571.

_Ud-zal_ = Nimib, 166.

_Ukhat_, in the Gilgamesh epic, 475, 476 ff.;
  parallelism betw. U. and Eve, 511.

_Ukhâti_, sacred harlots of Uruk, 475, 531, 660.

_Ul-mash-shi-tum_, in proper names of the 2d Bab. period, 170.

_Ululu_, 6th month, sacred to Ishtar, 462, 684;
  sacred to Ashur, 463, 685;
  sacred to Ninib, 215, 684;
  3d day of U. sacred to Shamash, Malkatu, and Bunene, 685.

_Ululu 2d_ (intercalated), sacred to Anu and Bel, 463.

_Umu_, goddess, 51;
  priestess of Uruk, 102;
  in Lugalzaggisi's pantheon, 110.

_Umun-pa-uddu_ = Shul-pa-uddu, 99.

_Ur_, city, home of Terahites, 9;
  dynasties, 36-7;
  sacred to Sin or Nannar, 69-70, 75, 242, 640, 647;
  sanctuary of Shamash, 70;
  starting point of Hebrew migrations, 77;
  association with Harran, 77;
  temple of Nanâ, 81;
  temple of Nin-gal, 97;
  temple of Sin, 70, 242, 295, 640;
  literary center, 245;
  zikkurat at Ur, 617;
  temple E-kharsag, 638;
  temple E-gal-makh, 639.

_Ur-Bau_, patesi of Lagash,
  builds sanctuary of Belit, 56;
  builds sanctuary to Ea in Girsu, 61-3;
  builds temple of Ninni in Gishgalla, 80;
  builds temple to Nin-Mar in Mar, 100;
  builds temple to Ku(?)-anna in Girsu, 102;
  erects a zikkurat in Nippier, 645.

_Ur-Gur_, 2d dynasty of Ur,
  builds sanctuary to Shamash in Larsa, 69;
  preserves local cults in Larsa, Nippur, Uruk, 69;
  builds temple to Sin in Ur, 76;
  builds temple to Nanâ in Uruk, 81.

_Ur-Kasdim_ = Ur.

_Ur-Nin-Girsu_, of Lagash, priest of Anu, 90.

_Ur-Shul-pa-uddu_, ruler of Kish, 99.

_Uru-azagga_, quarter of Lagash, 57;
  temple of Bau, 59, 103.

_Uru-gal_, "great city,"
  designation of nether-world, 592;
  Nin-azu, god of U., 592.

_Uruk_, ancient center, 9, 35, 245, 445, 472;
  excavated, 9;
  rulers, 37;
  temple of Nin-shakh, 93;
  temple of Lugal-banda, 95;
  temple of Nin-gul, 96;
  origin of cult of Nisaba, 102;
  Nanâ, or Ishtar, the great goddess of Uruk, 81, 84, 103, 242, 311,
    445, 473, 475, 645, 648;
  importance of Uruk in Nippur inscriptions, 103;
  worship of Nisaba, 111;
  temple of Nanâ or Ishtar, 81, 242, 311, 531, 639;
  Uruk supûri, 472;
  city of the Kizrêti, Ukhâti, and Kharimâti, 475, 531;
  conquered by Gilgamesh, 473, 513;
  attacked by Khumbaba, 430;
  Uruk under Cassites (?), 480;
  attacked by Dibbarra, 531;
  dwelling of Anu and Ishtar, 531;
  zikkurat at U., 619, 639.

_Uru-kagina_, patesi of Lagash, 53;
  king of Girsu, 56;
  erects temple of Bau at Uru-azagga, 103.

_Utu_, surname of Shamash, 72;
  etymology, 73.

_Utukku_, a class of spirits, 260 (_cf._ 511).


_Vases_, sacred objects, 652, 674-5
  comparison with vases in the Solomonic temple, 653.

_Venus_ = Ishtar, name of planet, 370.

_Votive inscriptions_, see _Religious Texts_.

_Votive offerings_, 51, 57, 660 ff.;
  lists of, 165;
  popular character, 668-9;
  statues of kings votive offerings, 669;
  occasions for, 670;
  offered by kings and laymen, 671, 675;
  various objects, 671, 675;
  captured gods as offerings, 675.


_Warka_, see _Uruk_.

_Water_, see _Fire_ and _Ea_;
  means of purification, 276, 279, 282, 289.

_Wedge writing_, styles and varieties, 19, 20;
  origin, 21 ff., 454, 455.

_Witchcraft_, origin of belief in, 267;
  relationship betw. w. and demons, 267;
  the sex in w., 267, 342, 485;
  means of w., 268;
  protection against, 269;
  release from, 285, 657;
  causes of punishment by, 291.

_Worship_, tree worship compared with Hebrew-Phoenician Ashera cult,
    689;
  symbolical in Bab., 689.


_Xenophon_, contemporary of Ctesias, 1.

_Xisuthras_, 505;
  see _Adra-Khasis_.


_Yakhin_, name of column in Solomon's temple, 624.


_Zab_, lower, tributary of Tigris, 192.

_Zabu_, king of Babylon, restores Shamash temple at Sippar, 117;
  restores Anunit temple at Agade, 117.

_Zag-muk_, festival of Bau, 59, 677;
  festival of Marduk, 127, 631, 678-9;
  festival of En-lil, 678;
  festival of Sin, 678;
  festival of Nanâ, 678;
  propitious time for asking oracles, 628-9;
  spring and fall the time of the z., 678;
  compared with Jewish New Year, 687.

_Zakar_, god, meaning of name, 172;
  place of worship, 172;
  "wall of Zakar," 172;
  relationship to Bel and Belit, 172.

_Zamama_, god of the 2d Bab. period, 168;
  sanctuary to Z. in Kish, 169;
  god of battle (identified with Ninib, 640), 169;
  Ninni his consort, 169;
  in incantations, 273;
  temple of Zamama-Ninib, 640.

_Zarmu_, son of Bau, 103.

_Za-za-uru_, son of Bau, 103.

_Zikkurat_, staged tower, 615;
  imitation of mountain, 615;
  house of oracle, 622;
  names of zikkurats, 638 ff.

_Zodiac_, z. system outcome of religious thought, 247, 434;
  zodiacal interpretation of the gods, 82, 310-1, 434, 462-3, 676;
  almost the entire zodiac known to the Babylonians, 456.

_Zoroastrianism_, 45.

_Zu_, personification of storm, 525, 537;
  myth of Zu, 537 ff.;
  compared with Tiâmat epic, 543;
  explanation of name, 537;
  the chief worker of evil, 538;
  under the control of Shamash, 538;
  robs the tablets of fate, 540;
  conquered by Marduk, 542.

_Zurghul_, city in Babylonia, 578.




ANNOUNCEMENTS




HANDBOOKS ON THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS

Edited by Morris Jastrow, Jr., Professor of Semitic Languages in the
University of Pennsylvania

The distinguishing features of this series will be: first, each volume
will deal with the history of a special religion, which is to be
intrusted to the hands of a competent specialist; second, the treatment
of the subject in the various volumes will follow so far as possible a
uniform order; a third division will embody a full exposition of the
beliefs and rites, the religious art and literature; a fourth division
will give the history of the religion and set forth its relation to
others. Three volumes are now ready.


NOW READY

I. THE RELIGIONS OF INDIA

By Edward Washburn Hopkins, Professor of Sanskrit and Comparative
Philology in Yale University. 8vo. Cloth. xviii + 612 pages. List price,
$2.00; mailing price, $2.20.

II. THE RELIGION OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA

By Morris Jastrow, Jr., Professor of Semitic Languages in the University
of Pennsylvania. 8vo. Cloth. xiv + 780 pages. List price, $3.00; mailing
price, $3.25.

III. THE RELIGION OF THE TEUTONS

By P. D. Chantepie de la Saussaye, Professor in the University of
Leiden. Translated by B. J. Vos, Associate Professor of German in the
Johns Hopkins University. 8vo. Cloth. viii + 504 pages. List price,
$2.50; mailing price, $2.70.


IN PREPARATION

IV. THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL

By the Rev. Professor John P. Peters, New York.

V. THE RELIGION OF PERSIA

By Professor A. V. Williams Jackson of Columbia University.

VI. INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS

By Professor C. H. Toy of Harvard University.

VII. THE RELIGION OF ISLAM

By Professor Morris Jastrow, Jr., of the University of Pennsylvania.

VIII. THE RELIGION OF THE ROMANS

By Professor Jesse Benedict Carter of Princeton University.


GINN & COMPANY Publishers