{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_20758/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_20758","id":"gutenberg_20758","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20758","summary":null,"tags":["Assyro-Babylonian religion","Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Cults -- Assyro-Babylonian","Omens"],"text":"Produced by Paul Murray and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net. (This file was\nproduced from images generously made available by the\nBibliotheque nationale de France (BnF/Gallica) at\nhttp://gallica.bnf.fr)\n\n\n\n\n\n[Transcriber's Note: This file was produced from images generously made\navailable by the Bibliotheque nationale de France (BnF/Gallica)\nat http://gallica.bnf.fr.]\n\nHANDBOOKS\nON THE\nHISTORY OF RELIGIONS\n\nEDITED BY\nMORRIS JASTROW, Jr., PH.D.\n_Professor of Semitic Languages in the University of Pennsylvania_\n\nVOLUME II\n\n\n\n\nTHE RELIGION\n\nOF\n\nBABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA\n\nBY\nMORRIS JASTROW, Jr., PH.D.\n(LEIPZIG)\nPROFESSOR OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES IN THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\nGINN & COMPANY\n\nBOSTON . NEW YORK . CHICAGO . LONDON\n\nCOPYRIGHT, 1893\nBy MORRIS JASTROW, Jr.\n\nALL RIGHTS RESERVED\n\n35.11\n\n\nThe Athenaeum Press\nGINN & COMPANY . PROPRIETORS\nBOSTON . USA\n\n\n\n\nTO\n\nH. B. J.\n\nMY FAITHFUL COLLABORATOR\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nIt requires no profound knowledge to reach the conclusion that the time\nhas not yet come for an exhaustive treatise on the religion of Babylonia\nand Assyria. But even if our knowledge of this religion were more\nadvanced than it is, the utility of an exhaustive treatment might still\nbe questioned. Exhaustive treatises are apt to be exhausting to both\nreader and author; and however exhaustive (or exhausting) such a\ntreatise may be, it cannot be final except in the fond imagination of\nthe writer. For as long as activity prevails in any branch of science,\nall results are provisional. Increasing knowledge leads necessarily to a\nchange of perspective and to a readjustment of views. The chief reason\nfor writing a book is to prepare the way for the next one on the same\nsubject.\n\nIn accordance with the general plan of this Series[1] of Handbooks, it\nhas been my chief aim to gather together in convenient arrangement and\nreadable form what is at present known about the religion of the\nBabylonians and Assyrians. The investigations of scholars are scattered\nthrough a large variety of periodicals and monographs. The time has come\nfor focusing the results reached, for sifting the certain from the\nuncertain, and the uncertain from the false. This work of gathering the\n_disjecta membra_ of Assyriological science is essential to future\nprogress. If I have succeeded in my chief aim, I shall feel amply repaid\nfor the labor involved.\n\nIn order that the book may serve as a guide to students, the names of\nthose to whose researches our present knowledge of the subject is due\nhave frequently been introduced, and it will be found, I trust, that I\nhave been fair to all.[2] At the same time, I have naturally not\nhesitated to indicate my dissent from views advanced by this or that\nscholar, and it will also be found, I trust, that in the course of my\nstudies I have advanced the interpretation of the general theme or of\nspecific facts at various points. While, therefore, the book is only in\na secondary degree sent forth as an original contribution, the\ndiscussion of mooted points will enhance its value, I hope, for the\nspecialist, as well as for the general reader and student for whom, in\nthe first place, the volumes of this series are intended.\n\nThe disposition of the subject requires a word of explanation. After the\ntwo introductory chapters (common to all the volumes of the series) I\nhave taken up the pantheon as the natural means to a survey of the\nfield. The pantheon is treated, on the basis of the historical texts, in\nfour sections: (1) the old Babylonian period, (2) the middle period, or\nthe pantheon in the days of Hammurabi, (3) the Assyrian pantheon, and\n(4) the latest or neo-Babylonian period. The most difficult phase has\nnaturally been the old Babylonian pantheon. Much is uncertain here. Not\nto speak of the chronology which is still to a large extent guesswork,\nthe identification of many of the gods occurring in the oldest\ninscriptions, with their later equivalents, must be postponed till\nfuture discoveries shall have cleared away the many obstacles which\nbeset the path of the scholar. The discoveries at Telloh and Nippur have\noccasioned a recasting of our views, but new problems have arisen as\nrapidly as old ones have been solved. I have been especially careful in\nthis section not to pass beyond the range of what is definitely _known_,\nor, at the most, what may be regarded as tolerably certain. Throughout\nthe chapters on the pantheon, I have endeavored to preserve the attitude\nof being 'open to conviction'--an attitude on which at present too much\nstress can hardly be laid.\n\nThe second division of the subject is represented by the religious\nliterature. With this literature as a guide, the views held by the\nBabylonians and Assyrians regarding magic and oracles, regarding the\nrelationship to the gods, the creation of the world, and the views of\nlife after death have been illustrated by copious translations, together\nwith discussions of the specimens chosen. The translations, I may add,\nhave been made direct from the original texts, and aim to be as literal\nas is consonant with presentation in idiomatic English.\n\nThe religious architecture, the history of the temples, and the cult\nform the subject of the third division. Here again there is much which\nis still uncertain, and this uncertainty accounts for the unequal\nsubdivisions of the theme which will not escape the reader.\n\nFollowing the general plan of the series, the last chapter of the book\nis devoted to a general estimate and to a consideration of the influence\nexerted by the religion of Babylonia and Assyria.\n\nIn the transliteration of proper names, I have followed conventional\nmethods for well-known names (like Nebuchadnezzar), and the general\nusage of scholars in the case of others. In some cases I have furnished\na transliteration of my own; and for the famous Assyrian king, to whom\nwe owe so much of the material for the study of the Babylonian and\nAssyrian religion, Ashurbanabal, I have retained the older usage of\nwriting it with a _b_, following in this respect Lehman, whose\narguments[3] in favor of this pronunciation for the last element in the\nname I regard as on the whole acceptable.\n\nI have reasons to regret the proportions to which the work has grown.\nThese proportions were entirely unforeseen when I began the book, and\nhave been occasioned mainly by the large amount of material that has\nbeen made available by numerous important publications that appeared\nafter the actual writing of the book had begun. This constant increase\nof material necessitated constant revision of chapters; and such\nrevision was inseparable from enlargement. I may conscientiously say\nthat I have studied these recent publications thoroughly as they\nappeared, and have embodied at the proper place the results reached by\nothers and which appeared to me acceptable. The work, therefore, as now\ngiven to the public may fairly be said to represent the state of present\nknowledge.\n\nIn a science that grows so rapidly as Assyriology, to which more than to\nmany others the adage of _dies diem docet_ is applicable, there is great\ndanger of producing a piece of work that is antiquated before it leaves\nthe press. At times a publication appeared too late to be utilized. So\nDelitzsch's important contribution to the origin of cuneiform writing[4]\nwas published long after the introductory chapters had been printed. In\nthis book he practically abandons his position on the Sumerian question\n(as set forth on p. 22 of this volume) and once more joins the opposite\ncamp. As far as my own position is concerned, I do not feel called upon\nto make any changes from the statements found in chapter i., even after\nreading Weissbach's _Die Sumerische Frage_ (Leipzig, 1898),--the latest\ncontribution to the subject, which is valuable as a history of the\ncontroversy, but offers little that is new. Delitzsch's name must now be\nremoved from the list of those who accept Halevy's thesis; but, on the\nother hand, Halevy has gained a strong ally in F. Thureau-Dangin, whose\n_special_ studies in the old Babylonian inscriptions lend great weight\nto his utterances on the origin of the cuneiform script. Dr. Alfred\nJeremias, of Leipzig, is likewise to be added to the adherents of\nHalevy. The Sumero-Akkadian controversy is not yet settled, and\nmeanwhile it is well to bear in mind that not _every_ Assyriologist is\nqualified to pronounce an opinion on the subject. A special study is\nrequired, and but few Assyriologists have made such a study. Accepting a\nview or a tradition from one's teacher does not constitute a person an\nauthority, and one may be a very good Assyriologist without having views\non the controversy that are of any particular value.\n\nLastly, I desire to call attention to the Bibliography, on which much\ntime has been spent, and which will, I trust, be found satisfactory. In\na list of addenda at the end of the book, I have noted some errors that\nslipped into the book, and I have also embodied a few additions. The\ncopious index is the work of my student, Dr. S. Koppe, and it gives me\npleasure to express my deep obligations to him for the able and\npainstaking manner in which he has carried out the work so kindly\nundertaken by him. The drawing for the map was made by Mr. J. Horace\nFrank of Philadelphia.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTo my wife more thanks are due than I can convey in words for her share\nin the work. She copied almost all of the manuscript, and in doing so\nmade many valuable suggestions. Without her constant aid and\nencouragement I would have shrunk from a task which at times seemed too\nformidable to be carried to a successful issue. As I lay down my pen\nafter several years of devotion to this book, my last thought is one of\ngratitude to the beloved partner of my joys and sorrows.\n\nMORRIS JASTROW, Jr.\nUniversity of Pennsylvania,\n_June, 1898._\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Set forth in the announcement of the series at the back of the book\nand in the Editor's Prefatory Note to Volume I.\n\n[2] In the Index, however, names of scholars have only been introduced\nwhere absolutely necessary to the subject.\n\n[3] In his work, _Shamassum-ukin Koenig von Babylonien_, pp. 16-21.\nHence, I also write Ashurnasirbal.\n\n[4] _Die Entstehung des aeltesten Schriftsystems_ (Leipzig, 1897).\n\n\n\n\nCORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS.\n\n[Transcriber's Note: These changes and additions are printed only here;\nthe main text is as it was in the original.]\n\n\nPage, Line.\n\n22. See Preface.\n\n35, 10. Isin or Nisin, see Lehmann's _Shamash-shumukin_, I. 77;\nMeissner's _Beitraege zum altbabylonischen Privatrecht_, p. 122.\n\n61. Bau also appears as Nin-din-dug, _i.e._, 'the lady who restores\nlife.' See Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, I. 2, Nos. 95, 106,\n111.\n\n74. On A, see Hommel, _Journal of Transactions of Victoria Institute_,\nXXVIII. 35-36.\n\n99, 24. Ur-shul-pa-uddu is a ruler of Kish.\n\n102, 13. For Ku-anna, see IIIR. 67, 32 c-d.\n\n102, 24. For another U-mu as a title of Adad, see Delitzsch, _Das\nBabylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p. 125, note.\n\n111, 2. Nisaba is mentioned in company with the great gods by\nNebopolassar (Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, I. 1. Pl. 32,\ncol. II. 15).\n\n165. Note 2. On these proper names, see Delitzsch's \"Assyriologische\nMiscellen\" (_Berichte der phil.-hist. Classe der kgl. saechs. Gesell. d.\nWiss._, 1893, pp. 183 seq.).\n\n488. Note 1. See now Scheil's article \"Recueil de Travaux,\" etc., XX.\n55-59.\n\n529. The form Di-ib-ba-ra has now been found. See Scheil's \"Recueil de\nTravaux,\" etc., XX. 57.\n\n589. Note 3. See now Hommel, _Expository Times_, VIII. 472, and\nBaudissin, _ib._ IX. 40-45.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\nCHAPTER PAGE\n\nI. Introduction      1\nII. The Land and the People      26\nIII. General Traits of the Old Babylonian Pantheon      48\nIV. Babylonian Gods Prior to the Days of Hammurabi      51\nV. The Consorts of the Gods      104\nVI. Gudea's Pantheon      106\nVII. Summary      112\nVIII. The Pantheon in the Days of Hammurabi      116\nIX. The Gods in the Temple Lists and in the Legal and Commercial\n    Documents      165\nX. The Minor Gods in the Period of Hammurabi      171\nXI. Survivals of Animism in the Babylonian Religion      180\nXII. The Assyrian Pantheon      188\nXIII. The Triad and the Combined Invocation of Deities      235\nXIV. The Neo-babylonian Period      239\nXV. The Religious Literature of Babylonia      245\nXVI. The Magical Texts      253\nXVII. The Prayers and Hymns       294\nXVIII. Penitential Psalms     312\nXIX. Oracles and Omens      328\nXX. Various Classes of Omens      352\nXXI. The Cosmology of the Babylonians      407\nXXII. The Zodiacal System of the Babylonians      454\nXXIII.  The Gilgamesh Epic       467\nXXIV.  Myths and Legends      518\nXXV. The Views of Life After Death      556\nXXVI. The Temples and the Cult      612\nXXVII. Conclusion      690\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: MAP OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA.\n\n(From a drawing by Mr. J. HORACE FRANK.)]\n\n\n\n\nTHE RELIGION OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA.\n\nCHAPTER I.--INTRODUCTION.\n\nSOURCES AND METHODS OF STUDY.\n\nI.\n\n\nUntil about the middle of the 19th century, our knowledge of the\nreligion of the Babylonians and Assyrians was exceedingly scant. No\nrecords existed that were contemporaneous with the period covered by\nBabylonian-Assyrian history; no monuments of the past were preserved\nthat might, in default of records, throw light upon the religious ideas\nand customs that once prevailed in Mesopotamia. The only sources at\ncommand were the incidental notices--insufficient and fragmentary in\ncharacter--that occurred in the Old Testament, in Herodotus, in\nEusebius, Syncellus, and Diodorus. Of these, again, only the two\nfirst-named, the Old Testament and Herodotus, can be termed direct\nsources; the rest simply reproduce extracts from other works, notably\nfrom Ctesias, the contemporary of Xenophon, from Berosus, a priest of\nthe temple of Bel in Babylonia, who lived about the time of Alexander\nthe Great, or shortly after, and from Apollodorus, Abydenus, Alexander\nPolyhistor, and Nicolas of Damascus, all of whom being subsequent to\nBerosus, either quote the latter or are dependent upon him.\n\nOf all these sources it may be said, that what information they furnish\nof Babylonia and Assyria bears largely upon the political history, and\nonly to a very small degree upon the religion. In the Old Testament, the\ntwo empires appear only as they enter into relations with the Hebrews,\nand since Hebrew history is not traced back beyond the appearance of the\nclans of Terah in Palestine, there is found previous to this period,\nbarring the account of the migrations of the Terahites in Mesopotamia,\nonly the mention of the Tigris and Euphrates among the streams watering\nthe legendary Garden of Eden, the incidental reference to Nimrod and his\nempire, which is made to include the capitol cities of the Northern and\nSouthern Mesopotamian districts, and the story of the founding of the\ncity of Babylon, followed by the dispersion of mankind from their\ncentral habitation in the Euphrates Valley. The followers of Abram,\nbecoming involved in the attempts of Palestinian chieftains to throw off\nthe yoke of Babylonian supremacy, an occasion is found for introducing\nMesopotamia again, and so the family history of the Hebrew tribes\nsuperinduces at odd times a reference to the old settlements on the\nEuphrates, but it is not until the political struggles of the two Hebrew\nkingdoms against the inevitable subjection to the superior force of\nAssyrian arms, and upon the fall of Assyria, to the Babylonian power,\nthat Assyria and Babylonia engage the frequent attention of the\nchronicler's pen and of the prophet's word. Here, too, the political\nsituation is always the chief factor, and it is only incidentally that\nthe religion comes into play,--as when it is said that Sennacherib, the\nking of Assyria, was murdered while worshipping in the temple dedicated\nto a deity, Nisroch; or when a prophet, to intensify the picture of the\ndegradation to which the proud king of Babylon is to be reduced,\nintroduces Babylonian conceptions of the nether world into his\ndiscourse.[5] Little, too, is furnished by the Book of Daniel, despite\nthe fact that Babylon is the center of action, and what little there is\nbearing on the religious status, such as the significance attached to\ndreams, and the implied contrast between the religion of Daniel and his\ncompanions, and that of Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians, loses some\nof its force by the late origin of the book. The same applies, only in a\nstill stronger degree, to the Book of Judith, in which Nineveh is the\ncenter of the incidents described.\n\nThe rabbinical literature produced in Palestine and Babylonia is far\nricher in notices bearing on the religious practices of Mesopotamia,\nthan is the Old Testament. The large settlements of Jews in Babylonia,\nwhich, beginning in the sixth century B.C., were constantly being\nincreased by fresh accessions from Palestine, brought the professors of\nJudaism face to face with religious conditions abhorrent to their souls.\nIn the regulations of the Rabbis to guard their followers from the\ninfluences surrounding them, there is frequent reference, open or\nimplied, to Babylonish practices, to the festivals of the Babylonians,\nto the images of their gods, to their forms of incantations, and other\nthings besides; but these notices are rendered obscure by their indirect\ncharacter, and require a commentary that can only be furnished by that\nknowledge of the times which they take for granted. To this difficulty,\nthere must be added the comparatively late date of the notices, which\ndemands an exercise of care before applying them to the very early\nperiod to which the religion of the Babylonians may be traced.\n\nComing to Herodotus, it is a matter of great regret that the history of\nAssyria, which he declares it was his intention to write,[6] was either\nnever produced, or if produced, lost. In accordance with the general\nusage of his times, Herodotus included under Assyria the whole of\nMesopotamia, both Assyria proper in the north and Southern Mesopotamia.\nHis history would therefore have been of extraordinary value, and since\nnothing escaped his observant eye and well-trained mind, the religious\ncustoms of the country would have come in for their full share of\nattention. As it is, we have only a few notices about Babylonia and\nAssyria, incidental to his history of Persia.[7] Of these, the majority\nare purely historical, chief among which is an epitome of the country's\npast--a curious medley of fact and legend--and the famous account of the\ncapture of Babylon by Cyrus. Fortunately, however, there are four\nnotices that treat of the religion of the inhabitants: the first, a\ndescription of an eight-storied tower, surmounted by a temple sacred to\nthe god Bel; a second furnishing a rather detailed account of another\ntemple, also sacred to Bel, and situated in the same precinct of the\ncity of Babylon; a third notice speaks, though with provoking brevity,\nof the funeral customs of the Babylonians; while in a fourth he\ndescribes the rites connected with the worship of the chief goddess of\nthe Babylonians, which impress Herodotus, who failed to appreciate their\nmystic significance, as shameful. We have no reason to believe that\nCtesias' account of the Assyrian monarchy, under which he, like\nHerodotus, included Babylonia, contained any reference to the religion\nat all. What he says about Babylonia and Assyria served merely as an\nintroduction to Persian history--the real purpose of his work--and the\nfew fragments known chiefly through Diodorus and Eusebius, deal\naltogether with the succession of dynasties. As is well known, the lists\nof Ctesias have fallen into utter discredit by the side of the\never-growing confidence in the native traditions as reported by Berosus.\n\nThe loss of the latter's history of Babylon is deplorable indeed; its\nvalue would have been greater than the history of Herodotus, because it\nwas based, as we know, on the records and documents preserved in\nBabylonian temples. How much of the history dealt with the religion of\nthe people, it is difficult to determine, but the extracts of it found\nin various writers show that starting, like the Old Testament, with the\nbeginning of things, Berosus gave a full account of the cosmogony of the\nBabylonians. Moreover, the early history of Babylonia being largely\nlegendary, as that of every other nation, tales of the relations\nexisting between the gods and mankind--relations that are always close\nin the earlier stages of a nation's history--must have abounded in the\npages of Berosus, even if he did not include in his work a special\nsection devoted to an account of the religion that still was practiced\nin his days. The quotations from Berosus in the works of Josephus are\nall of a historical character; those in Eusebius and Syncellus, on the\ncontrary, deal with the religion and embrace the cosmogony of the\nBabylonians, the account of a deluge brought on by the gods, and the\nbuilding of a tower. It is to be noted, moreover, that the quotations we\nhave from Berosus are not direct, for while it is possible, though not\nat all certain, that Josephus was still able to consult the works of\nBerosus, Eusebius and Syncellus refer to Apollodorus, Abydenus, and\nAlexander Polyhistor as their authorities for the statements of Berosus.\nPassing in this way through several hands, the authoritative value of\nthe comparatively paltry extracts preserved, is diminished, and a\ncertain amount of inaccuracy, especially in details and in the reading\nof proper names,[8] becomes almost inevitable. Lastly, it is to be noted\nthat the list of Babylonian kings found in the famous astronomical work\nof Claudius Ptolemaeus, valuable as it is for historical purposes, has\nno connection with the religion of the Babylonians.\n\n\nII.\n\nThe sum total of the information thus to be gleaned from ancient sources\nfor an elucidation of the Babylonian-Assyrian religion is exceedingly\nmeagre, sufficing scarcely for determining its most general traits.\nMoreover, what there is, requires for the most part a control through\nconfirmatory evidence which we seek for in vain, in biblical or\nclassical literature.\n\nThis control has now been furnished by the remarkable discoveries made\nbeneath the soil of Mesopotamia since the year 1842. In that year the\nFrench consul at Mosul, P. E. Botta, aided by a government grant, began\na series of excavations in the mounds that line the banks of the Tigris\nopposite Mosul. The artificial character of these mounds had for some\ntime been recognized. Botta's first finds of a pronounced character were\nmade at a village known as Khorsabad, which stood on one of the mounds\nin question. Here, at a short distance below the surface, he came across\nthe remains of what proved to be a palace of enormous extent. The\nsculptures that were found in this palace--enormous bulls and lions\nresting on backgrounds of limestone, and guarding the approaches to the\npalace chambers, or long rows of carvings in high relief lining the\npalace walls, and depicting war scenes, building operations, and\nreligious processions--left no doubt as to their belonging to an ancient\nperiod of history. The written characters found on these monuments\nsubstantiated the view that Botta had come across an edifice of the\nAssyrian empire, while subsequent researches furnished the important\ndetail that the excavated edifice lay in a suburb of the ancient capitol\nof Assyria, Nineveh, the exact site of which was directly opposite\nMosul. Botta's labors extended over a period of two years; by the end of\nwhich time, having laid bare the greater part of the palace, he had\ngathered a large mass of material including many smaller\nobjects--pottery, furniture, jewelry, and ornaments--that might serve\nfor the study of Assyrian art and of Assyrian antiquities, while the\nwritten records accompanying the monuments placed for the first time an\nequally considerable quantity of original material at the disposal of\nscholars for the history of Assyria. All that could be transported was\nsent to the Louvre, and this material was subsequently published. Botta\nwas followed by Austen Henry Layard, who, acting as the agent of the\nBritish Museum, conducted excavations during the years 1845-52, first at\na mound Nimrud, some fifteen miles to the south of Khorsabad, and\nafterwards on the site of Nineveh proper, the mound Koyunjik, opposite\nMosul, besides visiting and examining other mounds still further to the\nsouth within the district of Babylonia proper.\n\nThe scope of Layard's excavations exceeded, therefore, those of Botta;\nand to the one palace at Khorsabad, he added three at Nimrud and two at\nKoyunjik, besides finding traces of a temple and other buildings. The\nconstruction of these edifices was of the same order as the one\nunearthed by Botta; and as at the latter, there was a large yield of\nsculptures, inscriptions, and miscellaneous objects. A new feature,\nhowever, of Layard's excavations was the finding of several rooms filled\nwith fragments of small and large clay tablets closely inscribed on both\nsides in the cuneiform characters. These tablets, about 30,000 of which\nfound their way to the British Museum, proved to be the remains of a\nroyal library. Their contents ranged over all departments of\nthought,--hymns, incantations, prayers, epics, history, legends,\nmythology, mathematics, astronomy constituting some of the chief\ndivisions. In the corners of the palaces, the foundation records were\nalso found, containing in each case more or less extended annals of the\nevents that occurred during the reign of the monarch whose official\nresidence was thus brought to light. Through Layard, the foundations\nwere laid for the Assyrian and Babylonian collections of the British\nMuseum, the parts of which exhibited to the public now fill six large\nhalls. Fresh sources of a direct character were thus added for the\nstudy, not only of the historical unfolding of the Assyrian empire, but\nthrough the tablets of the royal library, for the religion of ancient\nMesopotamia as well.\n\nThe stimulus given by Botta and Layard to the recovery of the records\nand monuments of antiquity that had been hidden from view for more than\ntwo thousand years, led to a refreshing rivalry between England and\nFrance in continuing a work that gave promise of still richer returns by\nfurther efforts. Victor Place, a French architect of note, who succeeded\nBotta as the French consul at Mosul, devoted his term of service, from\n1851 to 1855, towards completing the excavations at Khorsabad. A large\naftermath rewarded his efforts. Thanks, too, to his technical knowledge\nand that of his assistant, Felix Thomas, M. Place was enabled more\naccurately to determine the architectural construction of the temples\nand palaces of ancient Assyria. Within this same period (1852-1854)\nanother exploring expedition was sent out to Mesopotamia by the French\ngovernment, under the leadership of Fulgence Fresnel, in whose party\nwere the above-mentioned Thomas and the distinguished scholar Jules\nOppert. The objective point this time was Southern Mesopotamia, the\nmounds of which had hitherto not been touched, many not even identified\nas covering the remains of ancient cities. Much valuable work was done\nby this expedition in its careful study of the site of the ancient\nBabylon,--in the neighborhood of the modern village Hillah, some forty\nmiles south of Baghdad. Unfortunately, the antiquities recovered at this\nplace, and elsewhere, were lost through the sinking of the rafts as they\ncarried their precious burden down the Tigris. In the south again, the\nEnglish followed close upon the heels of the French. J. E. Taylor, in\n1854, visited many of the huge mounds that were scattered throughout\nSouthern Mesopotamia in much larger numbers than in the north, while his\ncompatriot, William K. Loftus, a few years previous had begun\nexcavations, though on a small scale, at Warka, the site of the ancient\ncity of Erech. He also conducted some investigations at a mound Mugheir,\nwhich acquired special interest as the supposed site of the famous\nUr,--the home of some of the Terahites before the migration to\nPalestine. Of still greater significance were the examinations made by\nSir Henry Rawlinson, in 1854, of the only considerable ruins of ancient\nBabylonia that remained above the surface,--the tower of Birs Nimrud,\nwhich proved to be the famous seven-staged temple as described by\nHerodotus. This temple was completed, as the foundation records showed,\nby Nebuchadnezzar II., in the sixth century before this era; but the\nbeginnings of the structure belong to a much earlier period. Another\nsanctuary erected by this same king was found near the tower. Subsequent\nresearches by Hormuzd Rassam made it certain that Borsippa, the ancient\nname of the place where the tower and sanctuaries stood, was a suburb of\nthe great city of Babylon itself, which lay directly opposite on the\neast side of the Euphrates. The scope of the excavations continued to\ngrow almost from year to year, and while new mounds were being attacked\nin the south, those in the north, especially Koujunjik, continued to be\nthe subject of attention.\n\nRassam, who has just been mentioned, was in a favorable position,\nthrough his long residence as English consul at Mosul, for extracting\nnew finds from the mounds in this vicinity. Besides adding more than a\nthousand tablets from the royal library discovered by Layard, his most\nnoteworthy discoveries were the unearthing of a magnificent temple at\nNimrud, and the finding of a large bronze gate at Balawat, a few miles\nto the northeast of Nimrud. Rassam and Rawlinson were afterwards joined\nby George Smith of the British Museum, who, instituting a further search\nthrough the ruins of Koujunjik, Nimrud, Kalah-Shergat, and elsewhere,\nmade many valuable additions to the English collections, until his\nunfortunate death in 1876, during his third visit to the mounds, cut him\noff in the prime of a brilliant and most useful career. The English\nexplorers extended their labors to the mounds in the south. Here it was,\nprincipally at Abu-Habba, that they set their forces to work. The\nfinding of another temple dedicated to the sun-god rewarded their\nefforts. The foundation records showed that the edifice was one of great\nantiquity, which was permitted to fall into decay and was then restored\nby a ruler whose date can be fixed at the middle of the ninth century\nB.C. The ancient name of the place was shown to be Sippar, and the fame\nof the temple was such, that subsequent monarchs vied with one another\nin adding to its grandeur. It is estimated that the temple contained no\nless than three hundred chambers and halls for the archives and for the\naccommodation of the large body of priests attached to this temple. In\nthe archives many thousands of little clay tablets were again found,\nnot, however, of a literary, but of a legal character, containing\nrecords of commercial transactions conducted in ancient Sippar, such as\nsales of houses, of fields, of produce, of stuffs, money loans,\nreceipts, contracts for work, marriage settlements, and the like. The\nexecution of the laws being in the hands of priests in ancient\nMesopotamia, the temples were the natural depositories for the official\ndocuments of the law courts. Similar collections to those of Sippar have\nbeen found in almost every mound of Southern Mesopotamia that has been\nopened since the days of Rassam. So at Djumdjuma, situated near the site\nof the ancient city of Babylon, some three thousand were unearthed that\nwere added to the fast growing collections of the British Museum. At\nBorsippa, likewise, Rawlinson and Rassam recovered a large number of\nclay tablets, most of them legal but some of them of a literary\ncharacter, which proved to be in part duplicates of those in the royal\nlibrary of Ashurbanabal. In this way, the latter's statement, that he\nsent his scribes to the large cities of the south for the purpose of\ncollecting and copying the literature that had its rise there, met with\na striking confirmation. Still further to the south, at a mound known as\nTelloh, a representative of the French government, Ernest de Sarzec,\nbegan a series of excavations in 1877, which, continued to the present\nday, have brought to light remains of temples and palaces exceeding in\nantiquity those hitherto discovered. Colossal statues of diorite,\ncovered with inscriptions, the pottery, tablets and ornaments, showed\nthat at a period as early as 3500 B.C. civilization in this region had\nalready reached a very advanced stage. The systematic and thorough\nmanner in which De Sarzec, with inexhaustible patience, explored the\nancient city, has resulted in largely extending our knowledge of the\nmost ancient period of Babylonian history as yet known to us. The Telloh\nfinds were forwarded to the Louvre, which in this way secured a\ncollection from the south that formed a worthy complement to the\nKhorsabad antiquities.\n\nLastly, it is gratifying to note the share that our own country has\nrecently taken in the great work that has furnished the material needed\nfor following the history of the Mesopotamian states. In 1887, an\nexpedition was sent out under the auspices of the University of\nPennsylvania, to conduct excavations at Niffer,--a mound to the\nsoutheast of Babylon, situated on a branch of the Euphrates, and which\nwas known to be the site of one of the most famous cities in this\nregion. The Rev. John P. Peters (now in New York), who was largely\ninstrumental in raising the funds for the purpose, was appointed\ndirector of the expedition. Excavations were continued for two years\nunder Dr. Peters' personal supervision, and since then by Mr. John H.\nHaynes, with most satisfactory success. A great temple dedicated to the\ngod Bel was discovered, and work has hitherto been confined chiefly to\nlaying bare the various parts of the edifice. The foundation of the\nbuilding goes back to an earlier period than the ruins of Telloh. It\nsurvived the varying fortunes of the city in which it stood, and each\nperiod of Babylonian history left its traces at Niffer through the\nrecords of the many rulers who sought the favor of the god by enlarging\nor beautifying his place of worship. The temple became a favorite spot\nto which pilgrims came from all sides on the great festivals, to offer\nhomage at the sacred shrines. Votive offerings, in the shape of\ninscribed clay cones, and little clay images of Bel and of his female\nconsort, were left in the temple as witnesses to the piety of the\nvisitors. The archives were found to be well stocked with the official\nlegal documents dating chiefly from the period of 1700 to 1200 B.C.,\nwhen the city appears to have reached the climax of its glory. Other\nparts of the mound were opened at different depths, and various layers\nwhich followed the chronological development of the place were\ndetermined.[9] After its destruction, the sanctity of the city was in a\nmeasure continued by its becoming a burial-place. The fortunes of the\nplace can thus be followed down to the ninth or the tenth century of our\nera, a period of more than four thousand years. Already more than 20,000\ntablets have been received at the University of Pennsylvania, besides\nmany specimens of pottery, bowls, jars, cones, and images, as well as\ngold, copper, and alabaster work.\n\nFrom this survey of the work done in the last decades in exploring the\nlong lost and almost forgotten cities of the Tigris and of the Euphrates\nValley, it will be apparent that a large amount of material has been\nmade accessible for tracing the course of civilization in this region.\nRestricting ourselves to that portion of it that bears on the religion\nof ancient Mesopotamia, it may be grouped under two heads, (1) literary,\nand (2) archaeological. The religious texts of Ashurbanabal's library\noccupy the first place in the literary group. The incantations, the\nprayers and hymns, lists of temples, of gods and their attributes,\ntraditions of the creation of the world, legends of the deities and of\ntheir relations to men, are sources of the most direct character; and it\nis fortunate that among the recovered portions of the library, such\ntexts are largely represented. Equally direct are the dedicatory\ninscriptions set up by the kings in the temples erected to the honor of\nsome god, and of great importance are the references to the various\ngods, their attributes, their powers, and their deeds, which are found\nat every turn in the historical records which the kings left behind\nthem. Many of these records open or close with a long prayer to some\ndeity; in others, prayers are found interspersed, according to the\noccasion on which they were offered up. Attributing the success of their\nundertakings--whether it be a military campaign, or the construction of\nsome edifice, or a successful hunt--to the protection offered by the\ngods, the kings do not tire of singing the praises of the deity or\ndeities as whose favorites they regarded themselves. The gods are\nconstantly at the monarch's side. Now we are told of a dream sent to\nencourage the army on the approach of a battle, and again of some\nportent which bade the king be of good cheer. To the gods, the appeal is\nconstantly made, and to them all good things are ascribed. From the\nlegal documents, likewise, much may be gathered bearing on the religion.\nThe protection of the gods is invoked or their curses called down; the\noath is taken in their name; while the manner in which the temples are\ninvolved in the commercial life of ancient Babylonia renders these\ntablets, which are chiefly valuable as affording us a remarkable insight\ninto the people's daily life, of importance also in illustrating certain\nphases of the religious organization of the country. Most significant\nfor the position occupied by the priests, is the fact that the latter\nare invariably the scribes who draw up the documents.\n\nThe archaeological material furnished by the excavations consists of the\ntemples of the gods, their interior arrangement, and provisions for the\nvarious religious functions; secondly, the statues of the gods,\ndemigods, and the demons, the altars and the vessels; and thirdly, the\nreligious scenes,--the worship of some deity, the carrying of the gods\nin procession, the pouring of libations, the performance of rites, or\nthe representation of some religious symbols sculptured on the palace\nwall or on the foundation stone of a sacred building, or cut out on the\nseal cylinders, used as signatures[10] and talismans.\n\nLarge as the material is, it is far from being exhausted, and, indeed,\nfar from sufficient for illustrating all the details of the religious\nlife. This will not appear surprising, if it be remembered that of the\nmore than one hundred mounds that have been identified in the region of\nthe Tigris and Euphrates as containing remains of buried cities, only a\nsmall proportion have been explored, and of these scarcely more than a\nhalf dozen with an approach to completeness. The soil of Mesopotamia\nunquestionably holds still greater treasures than those which it has\nalready yielded. The links uniting the most ancient period--at present,\n_c._ 4000 B.C.--to the final destruction of the Babylonian empire by\nCyrus, in the middle of the sixth century B.C., are far from being\ncomplete. For entire centuries we are wholly in the dark, and for others\nonly a few skeleton facts are known; and until these gaps shall have\nbeen filled, our knowledge of the religion of the Babylonians and\nAssyrians must necessarily remain incomplete. Not as incomplete, indeed,\nas their history, for religious rites are not subject to many changes,\nand the progress of religious ideas does not keep pace with the constant\nchanges in the political kaleidoscope of a country; but, it is evident\nthat no exhaustive treatment of the religion can be given until the\nmaterial shall have become adequate to the subject.\n\n\nIII.\n\nBefore proceeding to the division of the subject in hand, some\nexplanation is called for of the method by which the literary material\nfound beneath the soil has been made intelligible.\n\nThe characters on the clay tablets and cylinders, on the limestone\nslabs, on statues, on altars, on stone monuments, are generally known as\ncuneiform, because of their wedge-shaped appearance, though it may be\nnoted at once that in their oldest form the characters are linear rather\nthan wedge-shaped, presenting the more or less clearly defined outlines\nof objects from which they appear to be derived. At the time when these\ncuneiform inscriptions began to be found in Mesopotamia, the language\nwhich these characters expressed was still totally unknown. Long\nprevious to the beginning of Botta's labors, inscriptions also showing\nthe cuneiform characters had been found at Persepolis on various\nmonuments of the ruins and tombs still existing at that place. The first\nnotice of these inscriptions was brought to Europe by a famous Italian\ntraveler, Pietro della Valle, in the beginning of the seventeenth\ncentury. For a long time it was doubted whether the characters\nrepresented anything more than mere ornamentation, and it was not until\nthe close of the 18th century, after more accurate copies of the\nPersepolitan characters had been furnished through Carsten Niebuhr, that\nscholars began to apply themselves to their decipherment. Through the\nefforts chiefly of Gerhard Tychsen, professor at Rostock, Frederick\nMuenter, a Danish scholar, and the distinguished Silvestre de Sacy of\nParis, the beginnings were made which finally led to the discovery of\nthe key to the mysterious writings, in 1802, by Georg Friedrich\nGrotefend, a teacher at a public school in Goettingen. The observation\nwas made previous to the days of Grotefend that the inscriptions at\nPersepolis invariably showed three styles of writing. While in all three\nthe characters were composed of wedges, yet the combination of wedges,\nas well as their shape, differed sufficiently to make it evident, even\nto the superficial observer, that there was as much difference between\nthem as, say, between the English and the German script. The conclusion\nwas drawn that the three styles represented three languages, and this\nconclusion was strikingly confirmed when, upon the arrival of Botta's\nfinds in Europe, it was seen that one of the styles corresponded to the\ninscriptions found at Khorsabad; and so in all subsequent discoveries in\nMesopotamia, this was found to be the case. One of the languages,\ntherefore, on the monuments of Persepolis was presumably identical with\nthe speech of ancient Mesopotamia. Grotefend's key to the reading of\nthat style of cuneiform writing which invariably occupied the first\nplace when the three styles were ranged one under the other, or occupied\nthe most prominent place when a different arrangement was adopted, met\nwith universal acceptance. He determined that the language of the style\nwhich, for the sake of convenience, we may designate as No. 1, was Old\nPersian,--the language spoken by the rulers, who, it was known through\ntradition and notices in classical writers, had erected the series of\nedifices at Persepolis, one of the capitols of the Old Persian or, as it\nis also called, the Achaemenian empire. By the year 1840 the\ndecipherment of these Achaemenian inscriptions was practically complete,\nthe inscriptions had been read, the alphabet was definitely settled, and\nthe grammar, in all but minor points, known. It was possible, therefore,\nin approaching the Mesopotamian style of cuneiform, which, as occupying\nthe third place, may be designated as No. 3, to use No. 1 as a guide,\nsince it was only legitimate to conclude that Nos. 2 and 3 represented\ntranslations of No. 1 into two languages, which, by the side of Old\nPersian, were spoken by the subjects of the Achaemenian kings. That one\nof these languages should have been the current speech of Mesopotamia\nwas exactly what was to be expected, since Babylonia and Assyria formed\nan essential part of the Persian empire.\n\nThe beginning was made with proper names, the sound of which would\nnecessarily be the same or very similar in both, or, for that matter, in\nall the three languages of the Persepolitan inscriptions.[11] In this\nway, by careful comparisons between the two styles, Nos. 1 and 3, it was\npossible to pick out the signs in No. 3 that corresponded to those in\nNo. 1, and inasmuch as the same sign occurred in various names, it was,\nfurthermore, possible to assign, at least tentatively, certain values to\nthe signs in question. With the help of the signs thus determined, the\nattempt was made to read other words in style No. 3, in which these\nsigns occurred, but it was some time before satisfactory results were\nobtained. An important advance was made when it was once determined,\nthat the writing was a mixture of signs used both as words and as\nsyllables, and that the language on the Assyrian monuments belonged to\nthe group known as Semitic. The cognate languages--chiefly Hebrew and\nArabic--formed a help towards determining the meaning of the words read\nand an explanation of the morphological features they presented. For all\nthat, the task was one of stupendous proportions, and many were the\nobstacles that had to be overcome, before the principles underlying the\ncuneiform writing were determined, and the decipherment placed on a firm\nand scientific basis. This is not the place to enter upon a detailed\nillustration of the method adopted by ingenious scholars,--notably\nEdward Hincks, Isidor Loewenstern, Henry Rawlinson, Jules Oppert,--to\nwhose united efforts the solution of the great problems involved is\ndue;[12] and it would also take too much space, since in order to make\nthis method clear, it would be necessary to set forth the key discovered\nby Grotefend for reading the Old Persian inscriptions. Suffice it to say\nthat the guarantee for the soundness of the conclusions reached by\nscholars is furnished by the consideration, that it was from small and\nmost modest beginnings that the decipherment began. Step by step, the\nproblem was advanced by dint of a painstaking labor, the degree of which\ncannot easily be exaggerated, until to-day the grammar of the\nBabylonian-Assyrian language has been clearly set forth in all its\nessential particulars: the substantive and verb formation is as\ndefinitely known as that of any other Semitic language, the general\nprinciples of the syntax, as well as many detailed points, have been\ncarefully investigated, and as for the reading of the cuneiform texts,\nthanks to the various helps at our disposal, and the further elucidation\nof the various principles that the Babylonians themselves adopted as a\nguide, the instance is a rare one when scholars need to confess their\nignorance in this particular. At most there may be a halting between two\npossibilities. The difficulties that still hinder the complete\nunderstanding of passages in texts, arise in part from the mutilated\ncondition in which, unfortunately, so many of the tablets and cylinders\nare found, and in part from a still imperfect knowledge of the\nlexicography of the language. For many a word occurring only once or\ntwice, and for which neither text nor comparison with cognate languages\noffers a satisfactory clue, ignorance must be confessed, or at best, a\nconjecture hazarded, until its more frequent occurrence enables us to\nsettle the question at issue. Such settlements of disputed questions are\ntaking place all the time; and with the activity with which the study of\nthe language and antiquities of Mesopotamia is being pushed by scholars\nin this country, in England, France, Austria, Germany, Italy, Norway,\nand Holland, and with the constant accession of new material through\nexcavations and publications, there is no reason to despair of clearing\nup the obscurities, still remaining in the precious texts that a\nfortunate chance has preserved for us.\n\n\nIV.\n\nA question that still remains to be considered as to the origin of the\ncuneiform writing of Mesopotamia, may properly be introduced in\nconnection with this account of the excavations and decipherment, though\nit is needless to enter into it in detail.\n\nThe \"Persian\" style of wedge-writing is a direct derivative of the\nBabylonian, introduced in the times of the Achaemenians, and it is\nnothing but a simplification in form and principle of the more\ncumbersome and complicated Babylonian. Instead of a combination of as\nmany as ten and fifteen wedges to make one sign, we have in the Persian\nnever more than five, and frequently only three; and instead of writing\nwords by syllables, sounds alone were employed, and the syllabary of\nseveral hundred signs reduced to forty-two, while the ideographic style\nwas practically abolished.\n\nThe second style of cuneiform, generally known as Median or Susian,[13]\nis again only a slight modification of the \"Persian.\" Besides these\nthree, there is a fourth language (spoken in the northwestern district\nof Mesopotamia between the Euphrates and the Orontes), known as\n\"Mitanni,\" the exact status of which has not been clearly ascertained,\nbut which has been adapted to cuneiform characters. A fifth variety,\nfound on tablets from Cappadocia, represents again a modification of the\nordinary writing met with in Babylonia. In the inscriptions of Mitanni,\nthe writing is a mixture of ideographs and syllables, just as in\nMesopotamia, while the so-called \"Cappadocian\" tablets are written in a\ncorrupt Babylonian, corresponding in degree to the \"corrupt\" forms that\nthe signs take on. In Mesopotamia itself, quite a number of styles\nexist, some due to local influences, others the result of changes that\ntook place in the course of time. In the oldest period known, that is\nfrom 4000 to 3000 B.C., the writing is linear rather than wedge-shaped.\nThe linear writing is the modification that the original pictures\nunderwent in being adapted for engraving on stone; the wedges are the\nmodification natural to the use of clay, though when once the wedges\nbecame the standard method, the greater frequency with which clay as\nagainst stone came to be used, led to an imitation of the wedges by\nthose who cut out the characters on stone. In consequence, there\ndeveloped two varieties of wedge-writing: the one that may be termed\nlapidary, used for the stone inscriptions, the official historical\nrecords, and such legal documents as were prepared with especial care;\nthe other cursive, occurring only on legal and commercial clay tablets,\nand becoming more frequent as we approach the latest period of\nBabylonian writing, which extends to within a few decades of our era. In\nAssyria, finally, a special variety of cuneiform developed that is\neasily distinguished from the Babylonian by its greater neatness and the\nmore vertical position of the wedges.\n\nThe origin of all the styles and varieties of cuneiform writing is,\ntherefore, to be sought in Mesopotamia; and within Mesopotamia, in that\npart of it where culture begins--the extreme south; but beyond saying\nthat the writing is a direct development from picture writing, there is\nlittle of any definite character that can be maintained. We do not know\nwhen the writing originated, we only know that in the oldest\ninscriptions it is already fully developed.\n\nWe do not know who originated it; nor can the question be as yet\ndefinitely answered, whether those who originated it spoke the\nBabylonian language, or whether they were Semites at all. Until about\nfifteen years ago, it was generally supposed that the cuneiform writing\nwas without doubt the invention of a non-Semitic race inhabiting\nBabylonia at an early age, from whom the Semitic Babylonians adopted it,\ntogether with the culture that this non-Semitic race had produced. These\ninventors, called Sumerians by some and Akkadians by others, and\nSumero-Akkadians by a third group of scholars, it was supposed, used the\n\"cuneiform\" as a picture or 'ideographic' script exclusively; and the\nlanguage they spoke being agglutinative and largely monosyllabic in\ncharacter, it was possible for them to stop short at this point of\ndevelopment. The Babylonians however, in order to adapt the writing to\ntheir language, did not content themselves with the 'picture' method,\nbut using the non-Semitic equivalent for their own words, employed the\nformer as syllables, while retaining, at the same time, the sign as an\nideograph. To make this clearer by an example, the numeral '1' would\nrepresent the word 'one' in their own language, while the non-Semitic\nword for 'one,' which let us suppose was \"_ash_,\" they used as the\nphonetic value of the sign, in writing a word in which this sound\noccurred, as _e.g._, _ash-es_. Since each sign, in Sumero-Akkadian as\nwell as in Babylonian, represented some general idea, it could stand for\nan entire series of words, grouped about this idea and associated with\nit, 'day,' for example, being used for 'light,' 'brilliancy,' 'pure,'\nand so forth. The variety of syllabic and ideographic values which the\ncuneiform characters show could thus be accounted for.\n\nThis theory, however, tempting as it is by its simplicity, cannot be\naccepted in this unqualified form. Advancing knowledge has made it\ncertain that the ancient civilization, including the religion, is\nSemitic in character. The assumption therefore of a purely non-Semitic\nculture for southern Babylonia is untenable. Secondly, even in the\noldest inscriptions found, there occur Semitic words and Semitic\nconstructions which prove that the inscriptions were composed by\nSemites. As long, therefore, as no traces of purely non-Semitic\ninscription are found, we cannot go beyond the Semites in seeking for\nthe origin of the culture in this region. In view of this, the theory\nfirst advanced by Prof. Joseph Halevy of Paris, and now supported by the\nmost eminent of German Assyriologists, Prof. Friedrich Delitzsch, which\nclaims that the cuneiform writing is Semitic in origin, needs to be most\ncarefully considered. There is much that speaks in favor of this theory,\nmuch that may more easily be accounted for by it, than by the opposite\none, which was originally proposed by the distinguished Nestor of\ncuneiform studies, Jules Oppert, and which is with some modifications\nstill held by the majority of scholars.[14] The question is one which\ncannot be answered by an appeal to philology alone. This is the\nfundamental error of the advocates of the Sumero-Akkadian theory, who\nappear to overlook the fact that the testimony of archaeological and\nanthropological research must be confirmatory of a philological\nhypothesis before it can be accepted as an indisputable fact.[15] The\ntime however has not yet come for these two sciences to pronounce their\nverdict definitely, though it may be added that the supposition of a\nvariety of races once inhabiting Southern Mesopotamia finds support in\nwhat we know from the pre-historic researches of anthropologists.\n\nAgain, it is not to be denied that the theory of the Semitic origin of\nthe cuneiform writing encounters obstacles that cannot easily be set\naside. While it seeks to explain the syllabic values of the signs on the\ngeneral principle that they represent elements of Babylonian words,\ntruncated in this fashion in order to answer to the growing need for\nphonetic writing of words for which no ideographs existed, it is\ndifficult to imagine, as Halevy's theory demands, that the \"ideographic\"\nstyle, as found chiefly in religious texts, is the deliberate invention\nof priests in their desire to produce a method of conveying their ideas\nthat would be regarded as a mystery by the laity, and be successfully\nconcealed from the latter. Here again the theory borders on the domain\nof archaeology, and philology alone will not help us out of the\ndifficulty. An impartial verdict of the present state of the problem\nmight be summed up as follows:\n\n1. It is generally admitted that all the literature of Babylonia,\nincluding the oldest and even that written in the \"ideographic\" style,\nwhether we term it \"Sumero-Akkadian\" or \"hieratic,\" is the work of the\nSemitic settlers of Mesopotamia.\n\n2. The culture, including the religion of Babylonia, is likewise a\nSemitic production, and since Assyria received its culture from\nBabylonia, the same remark holds good for entire Mesopotamia.\n\n3. The cuneiform syllabary is largely Semitic in character. The ideas\nexpressed by the ideographic values of the signs give no evidence of\nhaving been produced in non-Semitic surroundings; and, whatever the\norigin of the system may be, it has been so shaped by the Babylonians,\nso thoroughly adapted to their purposes, that it is to all practical\npurposes Semitic.\n\n4. Approached from the theoretical side, there remains, after making\nfull allowance for the Semitic elements in the system, a residuum that\nhas not yet found a satisfactory explanation, either by those who favor\nthe non-Semitic theory or by those who hold the opposite view.\n\n5. Pending further light to be thrown upon this question, through the\nexpected additions to our knowledge of the archaeology and of the\nanthropological conditions of ancient prehistoric Mesopotamia,\nphilological research must content itself with an acknowledgment of its\ninability to reach a conclusion that will appeal so forcibly to all\nminds, as to place the solution of the problem beyond dispute.\n\n6. There is a presumption in favor of assuming a mixture of races in\nSouthern Mesopotamia at an early day, and a possibility, therefore, that\nthe earliest form of picture writing in this region, from which the\nBabylonian cuneiform is derived, may have been _used_ by a non-Semitic\npopulation, and that traces of this are still apparent in the developed\nsystem after the important step had been taken, marked by the advance\nfrom picture to phonetic writing.\n\nThe important consideration for our purpose is, that the religious\nconceptions and practices as they are reflected in the literary sources\nnow at our command, are distinctly Babylonian. With this we may rest\ncontent, and, leaving theories aside, there will be no necessity in an\nexposition of the religion of the Babylonians and Assyrians to\ndifferentiate or to attempt to differentiate between Semitic and\nso-called non-Semitic elements. Local conditions and the long period\ncovered by the development and history of the religion in question, are\nthe factors that suffice to account for the mixed and in many respects\ncomplicated phenomena which this religion presents.\n\nHaving set forth the sources at our command for the study of the\nBabylonian-Assyrian religion, and having indicated the manner in which\nthese sources have been made available for our purposes, we are prepared\nto take the next step that will fit us for an understanding of the\nreligious practices that prevailed in Mesopotamia,--a consideration of\nthe land and of its people, together with a general account of the\nhistory of the latter.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[5] Isaiah, xlv. For the Babylonian views contained in this chapter, see\nAlfred Jeremias, _Die Babylonisch-Assyrischen Vorstellungen vom Leben\nnach dem Tode_, pp. 112-116.\n\n[6] Book i. sec. 184.\n\n[7] Book I. (\"Clio\"), secs. 95, 102, 178-200.\n\n[8] An instructive instance is furnished by the mention of a mystic\npersonage, \"Homoroka,\" which now turns out to be--as Professor J. H.\nWright has shown--a corruption of Marduk. (See _Zeitschrift fuer\nAssyriologie_, x. 71-74.)\n\n[9] The excavations are still being continued, thanks to the generosity\nof some public-spirited citizens of Philadelphia.\n\n[10] The parties concerned rolled their cylinders over the clay tablet\nrecording a legal or commercial transaction.\n\n[11] Besides those at Persepolis, a large tri-lingual inscription was\nfound at Behistun, near the city of Kirmenshah, in Persia, which,\ncontaining some ninety proper names, enabled Sir Henry Rawlinson\ndefinitely to establish a basis for the decipherment of the Mesopotamian\ninscriptions.\n\n[12] The best account is to be found in Hommel's _Geschichte Babyloniens\nund Assyriens_, pp. 58-134. A briefer statement was furnished by\nProfessor Fr. Delitzsch in his supplements to the German translation of\nGeorge Smith's _Chaldaean Genesis_ (_Chaldaeische Genesis_, pp. 257-262).\nA tolerably satisfactory account in English is furnished by B. T. A.\nEvetts in his work, _New Light on the Bible and the Holy Land_, pp.\n79-129. For a full account of the excavations and the decipherment,\ntogether with a summary of results and specimens of the various branches\nof the Babylonian-Assyrian literature, the reader may be referred to\nKaulen's _Assyrien und Babylonien nach den neuesten Entdeckungen_ (5th\nedition).\n\n[13] The most recent investigations show it to have been a 'Turanian'\nlanguage. See Weissbach, _Achaemeniden Inschriften sweiter Art_, Leipzig,\n1893.\n\n[14] Besides Delitzsch, however, there are others, as Pognon, Jaeger,\nGuyard, McCurdy and Brinton, who side with Halevy.\n\n[15] See now Dr. Brinton's paper, \"The Protohistoric Ethnography of\nWestern Asia\" (_Proceed. Amer. Philos. Soc._, 1895), especially pp.\n18-22.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE LAND AND THE PEOPLE.\n\nI.\n\n\nThe Babylonians and Assyrians with whom we are concerned in this volume\ndwelt in the region embraced by the Euphrates and the Tigris,--the\nBabylonians in the south, or the Euphrates Valley, the Assyrians to the\nnortheast, in the region extending from the Tigris into the Kurdish\nMountain districts; while the northwestern part of Mesopotamia--the\nnorthern half of the Euphrates district--was the seat of various empires\nthat were alternately the rivals and the subjects of either Babylonia or\nAssyria.\n\nThe entire length of Babylonia was about 300 miles; the greatest breadth\nabout 125 miles. The entire surface area was some 23,000 square miles,\nor about the size of West Virginia. The area of Assyria, with a length\nof 350 miles and a breadth varying from 170 to 300 miles, covered 75,000\nsquare miles, which would make it somewhat smaller than the state of\nNebraska. In the strict sense, the term Mesopotamia should be limited to\nthe territory lying between the Euphrates and the Tigris above their\njunction, in the neighborhood of Baghdad, and extending northwards to\nthe confines of the Taurus range; while the district to the south of\nBaghdad, and reaching to the Persian Gulf, may more properly be spoken\nof as the Euphrates Valley; and a third division is represented by the\nterritory to the east of the Tigris, from Baghdad, and up to the Kurdish\nMountains; but while this distinction is one that may be justly\nmaintained, in view of the different character that the southern valley\npresents from the northern plain, it has become so customary, in popular\nparlance, to think of the entire territory along and between the\nEuphrates and Tigris as one country, that the term Mesopotamia in this\nbroad sense may be retained, with the division suggested by George\nRawlinson, into Upper and Lower Mesopotamia. The two streams, as they\nform the salient traits of the region, are the factors that condition\nthe character of the inhabitants and the culture that once flourished\nthere. The Euphrates, or, to give the more correct pronunciation, Purat,\nsignifies the 'river' _par excellence_. It is a quiet stream, flowing\nalong in majestic dignity almost from its two sources, in the Armenian\nmountains, not far from the town of Erzerum, until it is joined by the\nTigris in the extreme south. As the Shatt-el Arab, _i.e._, Arabic River,\nthe two reach the Persian Gulf. Receiving many tributaries as long as it\nremains in the mountains, it flows first in a westerly direction, as\nthough making direct for the Mediterranean Sea, then, veering suddenly\nto the southeast, it receives but few tributaries after it once passes\nthrough the Taurus range into the plain,--on the right side, only the\nSadschur, on the left the Balichus and the Khabur. From this point on\nfor the remaining distance of 800 miles, so far from receiving fresh\naccessions, it loses in quantity through the marsh beds that form on\nboth sides. When it reaches the alluvial soil of Babylonia proper, its\ncurrent and also its depth are considerably diminished through the\nnumerous canals that form an outlet for its waters. Of its entire\nlength, 1780 miles, it is navigable only for a small distance, cataracts\nforming a hindrance in its northern course and sandbanks in the south.\nIn consequence, it never became at any time an important avenue for\ncommerce, and besides rafts, which could be floated down to a certain\ndistance, the only means of communication ever used were wicker baskets\ncoated within and without with bitumen, or some form of a primitive\nferry for passing from one shore to another.\n\nAn entirely different stream is the Tigris--a corrupted form of\n'Idiklat.' It is only 1146 miles in length, and is marked, as the native\nname indicates, by the 'swiftness' of its flow. Starting, like the\nEuphrates, in the rugged regions of Armenia, it continues its course\nthrough mountain clefts for a longer period, and joined at frequent\nintervals by tributaries, both before it merges into the plain and after\ndoing so, the volume of its waters is steadily increased. Even when it\napproaches the alluvial soil of the south, it does not lose its\ncharacter until well advanced in its course to the gulf. Advancing\ntowards the Euphrates and again receding from it, it at last joins the\nlatter at Korna, and together they pour their waters through the Persian\nGulf into the great ocean. It is navigable from Diabekr in the north,\nfor its entire length. Large rafts may be floated down from Mosul to\nBaghdad and Basra, and even small steamers have ascended as far north as\nNimrud. The Tigris, then, in contrast to the Euphrates, is the avenue of\ncommerce for Mesopotamia, forming the connecting bond between it and the\nrest of the ancient world,--Egypt, India, and the lands of the\nMediterranean. Owing, however, to the imperfect character of the means\nof transportation in ancient and, for that matter, in modern times, the\nvoyage up the stream was impracticable. The rafts, resting on inflated\nbags of goat or sheep skin, can make no headway against the rapid\nstream, and so, upon reaching Baghdad or Basra, they are broken up, and\nthe bags sent back by the shore route to the north.\n\nThe contrast presented by the two rivers is paralleled by the traits\ndistinguishing Upper from Lower Mesopotamia. Shut off to the north and\nnortheast by the Armenian range, to the northwest by the Taurus, Upper\nMesopotamia retains, for a considerable extent, and especially on the\neastern side, a rugged aspect. The Kurdish mountains run close to the\nTigris' bed for some distance below Mosul, while between the Tigris and\nthe Euphrates proper, small ranges and promontories stretch as far as\nthe end of the Taurus chain, well on towards Mosul.\n\nBelow Mosul, the region begins to change its character. The mountains\ncease, the plain begins, the soil becomes alluvial and through the\nregular overflow of the two rivers in the rainy season, develops an\nastounding fertility. This overflow begins, in the case of the Tigris,\nearly in March, reaches its height in May, and ceases about the middle\nof June. The overflow of the Euphrates extends from the middle of March\ntill the beginning of June, but September is reached before the river\nresumes its natural state. Not only does the overflow of the Euphrates\nthus extend over a longer period, but it oversteps its banks with\ngreater violence than does the Tigris, so that as far north as the\njuncture with the Khabur, and still more so in the south, the country to\nboth sides is flooded, until it assumes the appearance of a great sea.\nThrough the violence of these overflows, changes constantly occur in the\ncourse that the river takes, so that places which in ancient times stood\non its banks are to-day removed from the main river-bed. Another\nimportant change in Southern Babylonia is the constant accretion of\nsoil, due to the deposits from the Persian Gulf.\n\nThis increase proceeding on an average of about one mile in fifty years\nhas brought it about that the two rivers to-day, instead of passing\nseparately into the Gulf, unite at Korna--some distance still from the\nentrance. The contrast of seasons is greater, as may be imagined, in\nUpper Mesopotamia than in the south. The winters are cold, with\nsnowfalls that may last for several months, but with the beginning of\nthe dry season, in May, a tropical heat sets in which lasts until the\nbeginning of November, when the rain begins. Assyria proper, that is,\nthe eastern side of Mesopotamia, is more affected by the mountain ranges\nthan the west. In the Euphrates Valley, the heat during the dry season,\nfrom about May till November, when for weeks, and even months, no cloud\nis to be seen, beggars description; but strange enough, the Arabs who\ndwell there at present, while enduring the heat without much discomfort,\nare severely affected by a winter temperature that for Europeans and\nAmericans is exhilarating in its influence.\n\nFrom what has been said, it will be clear that the Euphrates is, _par\nexcellence_, the river of Southern Mesopotamia or Babylonia, while the\nTigris may be regarded as the river of Assyria. It was the Euphrates\nthat made possible the high degree of culture, that was reached in the\nsouth. Through the very intense heat of the dry season, the soil\ndeveloped a fertility that reduced human labor to a minimum. The return\nfor sowing of all kinds of grain, notably wheat, corn, barley, is\ncalculated, on an average, to be fifty to a hundred-fold, while the date\npalm flourishes with scarcely any cultivation at all. Sustenance being\nthus provided for with little effort, it needed only a certain care in\nprotecting oneself from damage through the too abundant overflow, to\nenable the population to find that ease of existence, which is an\nindispensable condition of culture. This was accomplished by the\nerection of dikes, and by directing the waters through channels into the\nfields.\n\nAssyria, more rugged in character, did not enjoy the same advantages.\nIts culture, therefore, not only arose at a later period than that of\nBabylonia, but was a direct importation from the south. It was due to\nthe natural extension of the civilization that continued for the greater\npart of the existence of the two empires to be central in the south. But\nwhen once Assyria was included in the circle of Babylonian culture, the\ngreater effort required in forcing the natural resources of the soil,\nproduced a greater variety in the return. Besides corn, wheat and rice,\nthe olive, banana and fig tree, mulberry and vine were cultivated, while\nthe vicinity of the mountain ranges furnished an abundance of building\nmaterial--wood and limestone--that was lacking in the south. The\nfertility of Assyria proper, again, not being dependent on the overflow\nof the Tigris, proved to be of greater endurance. With the neglect of\nthe irrigation system, Babylonia became a mere waste, and the same river\nthat was the cause of its prosperity became the foe that, more\neffectually than any human power, contributed to the ruin and the\ngeneral desolation that marks the greater part of the Euphrates Valley\nat the present time. Assyria continued to play a part in history long\nafter its ancient glory had departed, and to this day enjoys a far\ngreater activity, and is of considerable more significance than the\nsouth.\n\n\nII.\n\nIn so far as natural surroundings affect the character of two peoples\nbelonging to the same race, the Assyrians present that contrast to the\nBabylonians which one may expect from the differences, just set forth,\nbetween the two districts. The former were rugged, more warlike, and\nwhen they acquired power, used it in the perfection of their military\nstrength; the latter, while not lacking in the ambition to extend their\ndominion, yet, on the whole, presented a more peaceful aspect that led\nto the cultivation of commerce and industrial arts. Both, however, have\nvery many more traits in common than they have marks of distinction.\nThey both belong not only to the Semitic race, but to the same branch of\nthe race. Presenting the same physical features, the languages spoken by\nthem are identical, barring differences that do not always rise to the\ndegree of dialectical variations, and affect chiefly the pronunciation\nof certain consonants. At what time the Babylonians and Assyrians\nsettled in the district in which we find them, whence they came, and\nwhether the Euphrates Valley or the northern Tigris district was the\nfirst to be settled, are questions that cannot, in the present state of\nknowledge, be answered. As to the time of their settlement, the high\ndegree of culture that the Euphrates Valley shows at the earliest period\nknown to us,--about 4000 B.C.,--and the indigenous character of this\nculture, points to very old settlement, and makes it easier to err on\nthe side of not going back far enough, than on the side of going too\nfar. Again, while, as has been several times intimated, the culture in\nthe south is older than that of the north, it does not necessarily\nfollow that the settlement of Babylonia antedates that of Assyria. The\nanswer to this question would depend upon the answer to the question as\nto the original home of the Semites.[16] The probabilities, however, are\nin favor of assuming a movement of population, as of culture, from the\nsouth to the north. At all events, the history of Babylonia and Assyria\nbegins with the former, and as a consequence we are justified also in\nbeginning with that phase of the religion for which we have the earliest\nrecords--the Babylonian.\n\n\nIII.\n\nAt the very outset of a brief survey of the history of the Babylonians,\na problem confronts us of primary importance. Are there any traces of\nother settlers besides the Semitic Babylonians in the earliest period of\nthe history of the Euphrates Valley? Those who cling to the theory of a\nnon-Semitic origin of the cuneiform syllabary will, of course, be ready\nto answer in the affirmative. Sumerians and Akkadians are the names\ngiven to these non-Semitic settlers who preceded the Babylonians in the\ncontrol of the Euphrates Valley. The names are derived from the terms\nSumer and Akkad, which are frequently found in Babylonian and Assyrian\ninscriptions, in connection with the titles of the kings. Unfortunately,\nscholars are not a unit in the exact location of the districts comprised\nby these names, some declaring Sumer to be in the north and Akkad in the\nsouth; others favoring the reverse position. The balance of proof rests\nin favor of the former supposition; but however that may be, Sumer and\nAkkad represent, from a certain period on, a general designation to\ninclude the whole of Babylonia. Professor Hommel goes so far as to\ndeclare that in the types found on statues and monuments of the oldest\nperiod of Babylonian history--the monuments coming from the mound\nTelloh--we have actual representations of these Sumerians, who are thus\nmade out to be a smooth-faced race with rather prominent cheek-bones,\nround faces, and shaven heads.[17] He pronounces in favor of the\nhighlands lying to the east of Babylonia, as the home of the Sumerians,\nwhence they made their way into the Euphrates Valley. Unfortunately, the\nnoses on these old statues are mutilated, and with such an important\nfeature missing, anthropologists, at least, are unwilling to pronounce\ndefinitely as to the type represented. Again, together with these\nsupposed non-Semitic types, other figures have been found which, as\nProfessor Hommel also admits, show the ordinary Semitic features. It\nwould seem, therefore, that even accepting the hypothesis of a\nnon-Semitic type existing in Babylonia at this time, the Semitic\nsettlers are just as old as the supposed Sumerians; and since it is\nadmitted that the language found on these statues and figures contains\nSemitic constructions and Semitic words, it is, to say the least,\nhazardous to give the Sumerians the preference over the Semites so far\nas the period of settlement and origin of the Euphratean culture is\nconcerned. As a matter of fact, we are not warranted in going beyond the\nstatement that all evidence points in favor of a population of mixed\nraces in the Euphrates Valley from the earliest period known to us. No\npositive proof is forthcoming that Sumer and Akkad were ever employed or\nunderstood in any other sense than as geographical terms.\n\nThis one safe conclusion, however, that the Semitic settlers of\nBabylonia were not the sole occupants, but by their side dwelt another\nrace, or possibly a variety of races, possessing entirely different\ntraits, is one of considerable importance. At various times the\nnon-Semitic hordes of Elam and the mountain districts to the east of\nBabylonia swept over the valley, and succeeded, for a longer or shorter\nperiod, in securing a firm foothold. The ease with which these\nconquerors accommodated themselves to their surroundings, continuing the\nform of government which they found there, making but slight changes in\nthe religious practices, can best be accounted for on the supposition\nthat the mixture of different races in the valley had brought about an\ninterchange and interlacing of traits which resulted in the approach of\none type to the other. Again, it has recently been made probable that as\nearly at least as 2000, or even 2500 B.C., Semitic invaders entering\nBabylonia from the side of Arabia drove the native Babylonian rulers\nfrom the throne;[18] and at a still earlier period intercourse between\nBabylonia and distant nations to the northeast and northwest was\nestablished, which left its traces on the political and social\nconditions. At every point we come across evidence of this composite\ncharacter of Babylonian culture, and the question as to the origin of\nthe latter may, after all, resolve itself into the proposition that the\ncontact of different races gave the intellectual impetus which is the\nfirst condition of a forward movement in civilization; and while it is\npossible that, at one stage, the greater share in the movement falls to\nthe non-Semitic contingent, the Semites soon obtained the intellectual\nascendency, and so absorbed the non-Semitic elements as to give to the\nculture resulting from the combination, the homogeneous character it\npresents on the surface.\n\n\nIV.\n\nOur present knowledge of Babylonian history reaches back to the period\nof about 4000 B.C. At that time we find the Euphrates Valley divided\ninto a series of states or principalities, parcelling North and South\nBabylonia between them. These states group themselves around certain\ncities. In fact, the Babylonian principalities arise from the extension\nof the city's jurisdiction, just as the later Babylonian empire is\nnaught but the enlargement, on a greater scale, of the city of Babylon.\n\nOf these old Babylonian cities the most noteworthy, in the south, are\nEridu, Lagash,[19] Ur, Larsa, Uruk, Isin; and in the north, Agade,\nSippar, Nippur, Kutha, and Babylon. The rulers of these cities call\nthemselves either 'king' (literally 'great man') or 'governor,'\naccording as the position is a purely independent one, or one of\nsubjection to a more powerful chieftain. Thus the earliest rulers of the\ndistrict of Lagash, of whom we have inscriptions (_c._ 3200 B.C.) have\nthe title of 'king,' but a few centuries later Lagash lost its\nindependent position and its rulers became 'patesis,' _i.e._, governors.\nThey are in a position of vassalage, as it would appear, to the\ncontemporaneous kings of Ur, though this does not hinder them from\nengaging in military expeditions against Elam, and in extensive building\noperations. The kings of Ur, in addition to their title as kings of Ur,\nare styled kings of Sumer and Akkad. Whether at this time, Sumer and\nAkkad included the whole of Babylonia, or, as seems more likely, only\nthe southern part, in either case, Lagash would fall under the\njurisdiction of these kings, if their title is to be regarded as more\nthan an empty boast. Again, the rulers of Uruk are known simply as kings\nof that place, while those of Isin incorporate in their titles, kingship\nover Ur as well as Sumer and Akkad.\n\nFor this early period, extending from about 4000 B.C. to 2300,\nthe chronology is as yet uncertain. Beyond the titles of the rulers\nover Babylonian states, there are but few safe indications for\ndetermining the succession of dynasties. So much, however, is now\ncertain,--that simultaneous with the governors of Lagash and the\nolder kings of Ur, there was an independent state in Northern Babylonia\nwith its seat at Agade. Indeed the history of this state can now be\ntraced back six centuries beyond that of Lagash. Two rulers of Agade,\nNaram-Sin (_c._ 3800 B.C.) and Sargon (or to give his fuller name,\nShargani-shar-ali[20]), are the earliest rulers as yet known. These\nkings of Agade extended their jurisdiction as far north, at least, as\nNippur on the one side and Sippar on the other. The city of Babylon\nitself, if it existed at this period, was therefore included within the\nterritory of these kings; and it follows that if there existed rulers of\nBabylon at this time, which is doubtful (since the city is not\nmentioned), they were in the same position of dependency upon the rulers\nof Agade as the 'governors' of Lagash were upon some greater power. It\nis not until about the middle of the third millennium before this era,\nthat Babylon comes into prominence.\n\nIn the south, as already intimated, the rulers of Lagash and the dynasty\nof Ur are the earliest of which we have any record. There is every\nreason to believe that further excavations at Mugheir will bring to\nlight the names of older kings, and the presumption is in favor of\nregarding the southern states, or at least some of them, earlier than\nany in the north. The climax in the power of the kings of Ur, the period\nwhen they exerted, in fact as well as in name, the sovereignty over all\nSumer and Akkad may be fixed approximately at 3000 B.C. How far we shall\nbe able to go beyond that, for the beginnings of this state, must, for\nthe present, remain doubtful, with the chances in favor of a\nconsiderably earlier date; and it may be that prior to Ur and Lagash\nthere were dynasties established elsewhere,--at Eridu, perhaps,--the\nexistence of which will be revealed by future discoveries. An\nindependent state with its seat at Uruk follows upon the culminating\nperiod of the glory of Ur, and may be regarded, indeed, as an indication\nthat the rulers of Ur had lost their control over the whole of Southern\nBabylonia. Isin, whose site has not yet been determined, but which lay\nprobably to the north of Uruk, was another political center. Its rulers,\nso far as we know them, curiously assign the fourth place to the title\n'king of Isin,' giving precedence to their control over Nippur, Eridu,\nand Uruk. We may conclude from this, that at the time when Isin extended\nits supremacy, the greater luster attaching to the old towns of Nippur\nand Uruk, was emphasized by the precedence given to these centers over\nIsin, although the Isin kings are only 'shepherds' and 'merciful lords'\nover Nippur and Uruk, and not kings.\n\nAt a subsequent period, the kings of Ur appear to have regained the\nsupremacy, which was wrested from them by Isin; and the rulers of the\nlatter acknowledge their dependence upon the kings of Ur. This so-called\nsecond dynasty of Ur includes Nippur. The kings are proud of calling\nthemselves the guardians of the temple of Bel in Nippur, nominated to\nthe office by the god himself, and reviving an old title of the kings of\nAgade, style themselves also 'king of the four regions.' Another change\nin the political horoscope is reflected in the subjection of Ur to a\ndistrict whose center was Larsa, not far from Ur, and represented by the\nmound Senkereh. There are two kings, Nur-Ramman (_i.e._, light of\nRamman) and Sin-iddina (_i.e._, Sin judges), who call themselves\nguardians of Ur and kings of Larsa, showing that the center of this\nprincipality was Larsa, with Ur as a dependent district. That these\nrulers take up the dominion once held by the kings of Ur is further\nmanifest in the additional title that they give to themselves, as 'kings\nof Sumer and Akkad,' whereas the omission of the title 'king of the four\nregions' indicates apparently the exclusion of Agade and Nippur; and\nwith these, probably North Babylonia in general, from their supremacy.\nThe power of Larsa receives a fatal check through the invasion of\nBabylonia by the Elamites (_c._ 2350 B.C.).\n\nThese variations in official titles are a reflection of the natural\nrivalry existing between the various Babylonian states, which led to\nfrequent shiftings in the political situation. Beyond this, the\ninscriptions of these old Babylonian rulers, being ordinarily\ncommemorative of the dedication to a deity, of some temple or other\nconstruction--notably canals--or of some votive offering, a cone or\ntablet, unfortunately tell us little of the events of the time. Pending\nthe discovery of more complete annals, we must content ourselves with\nthe general indications of the civilization that prevailed, and of the\nrelations in which the principalities stood to one another, and with\nmore or less doubtful reconstructions of the sequence in the dynasties.\nIn all of this period, however, the division between North and South\nBabylonia was kept tolerably distinct, even though occasionally, and for\na certain period, a North Babylonian city, like that of Agade and\nNippur, extended its jurisdiction over a section bordering on the south\nand _vice versa_. It remained for a great conqueror, Hammurabi, the\nsixth king of a dynasty having its seat in the city of Babylon itself,\nwho about the year 2300 B.C. succeeded in uniting North and South\nBabylonia under one rule. With him, therefore, a new epoch in the\nhistory of the Euphrates Valley begins. Henceforth the supremacy of the\ncity of Babylon remains undisputed, and the other ancient centers,\nlosing their political importance, retain their significance only by\nvirtue of the sanctuaries existing there, to which pilgrimages continued\nto be made, and through the commercial activity that, upon the union of\nthe various Babylonian districts, set in with increased vigor.\n\nAttention was directed a few years ago by Pognon and Sayce to the fact\nthat the name of Hammurabi, as well as the names of four kings that\npreceded him, and of a number that followed, are not Babylonian. Sayce\nexpressed the opinion that they were Arabic, and Professor Hommel has\nrecently reenforced the position of Sayce by showing the close\nresemblance existing between these names and those found on the\nmonuments of Southern Arabia.[21] While no evidence has as yet been\nfound to warrant us in carrying back the existence of the Minean empire\nin Southern Arabia beyond 1500 B.C., still since at this period, this\nempire appears in a high state of culture, with commercial intercourse\nestablished between it and Egypt, as well as Palestine, the conclusion\ndrawn by Hommel that Babylonia was invaded about 2500 B.C. by an\nArabic-speaking people is to be seriously considered. Elam, as we have\nseen, was constantly threatening Babylonia from the East, and shortly\nbefore Hammurabi's appearance, succeeded in putting an end to the\ndynasty of Larsa. It now appears that the inhabitants of the Euphrates\nValley were also threatened by an enemy lodged somewhere in the\nsouthwest. Though Hommel's hypothesis still needs confirmation, and may\nperhaps be somewhat modified by future researches, still so much seems\ncertain: that the great union of the Babylonian states and the supremacy\nof the city of Babylon itself was achieved not by Babylonians but by\nforeigners who entered Babylonia from its western (or southwestern)\nside. The dynasty of which Hammurabi is the chief representative comes\nto an end _c._ 2100, and is followed by another known as Shish-Kha,[22]\nwhose rulers likewise appear to be foreigners; and when this dynasty\nfinally disappears after a rule of almost four centuries, Babylonia is\nonce more conquered by a people coming from the northern parts of Elam\nand who are known as the Cassites.[23] These Cassites, of whose origin,\ncharacter, and language but little is known as yet, ruled over Babylonia\nfor a period of no less than 576 years; but adapting themselves to the\ncustoms and religion of the country, their presence did not interfere\nwith the normal progress of culture in the Euphrates Valley. We may\ntherefore embrace the period of Hammurabi and his successors, down\nthrough the rule of the Cassite kings, under one head. It is a period\nmarked by the steady growth of culture, manifesting itself in the\nerection of temples, in the construction of canals, and in the expansion\nof commerce. Active relationships were maintained between Babylonia and\ndistant Egypt.\n\nThis movement did not suffer an interruption through the invasion of the\nCassites. Though Nippur, rather than Babylon, appears to have been the\nfavorite city of the dynasty, the course of civilization flows on\nuninterruptedly, and it is not until the growing complications between\nBabylonia and Assyria, due to the steady encroachment on the part of the\nlatter, that decided changes begin to take place.\n\nAbout 1500 B.C. the first traces of relationship between Babylonia and\nthe northern Mesopotamian power, Assyria, appear. These relations were\nat first of a friendly character, but it is not long before the growing\nstrength of Assyria becomes a serious menace to Babylonia. In the middle\nof the thirteenth century, Assyrian arms advance upon the city of\nBabylon. For some decades, Babylon remains in subjection to Assyria, and\nalthough she regains her independence once more, and even a fair measure\nof her former glory, the power of the Cassites is broken. Internal\ndissensions add to the difficulties of the situation and lead to the\noverthrow of the Cassites (1151 B.C.). Native Babylonians once more\noccupy the throne, who, although able to check the danger still\nthreatening from Elam, cannot resist the strong arms of Assyria. At the\nclose of the twelfth century Tiglathpileser I. secures a firm hold upon\nBabylonia, which now sinks to the position of a dependency upon the\nAssyrian kings.\n\n\nV.\n\nIn contrast to Babylonia, which is from the start stamped as a\ncivilizing power, Assyria, from its rise till its fall, is essentially a\nmilitary empire, seeking the fulfillment of its mission in the\nenlargement of power and in incessant warfare. Its history may be traced\nback to about 1800 B.C., when its rulers, with their seat in the ancient\ncity of Ashur, first begin to make their presence felt. The extension of\ntheir power proceeds, as in Babylonia, from the growing importance of\nthe central city, and soon embraces all of Assyria proper. They pass on\ninto the mountain regions to the east, and advancing to the west, they\nencounter the vigorous forces of Egypt, whose Asiatic campaigns begin\nabout the same time as the rise of Assyria. The Egyptians, abetted by\nthe Hittites--the possessors of the strongholds on the Orontes--\nsuccessfully check the growth of Assyria on this side, at least for a\nperiod of several centuries. In the meanwhile, the Assyrian king gathers\nstrength enough to make an attack upon Babylonia.\n\nThe conflict, once begun, continues, as has been indicated, with varying\nfortunes. Occasional breathing spells are brought about by a temporary\nagreement of peace between the two empires, until at the end of the\ntwelfth century, Assyria, under Tiglathpileser I., secures control over\nthe Babylonian empire. Her kings add to their long list of titles that\nof 'ruler of Babylonia.' They either take the government of the south\ninto their hands or exercise the privilege of appointing a governor of\ntheir choice to regulate the affairs of the Euphrates Valley. From this\ntime on, the history of Babylonia and Assyria may be viewed under a\nsingle aspect. The third period of Babylonian history--the second of\nAssyrian history--thus begins about 1100 B.C., and continues till the\nfall of Assyria in the year 606 B.C. These five centuries represent the\nmost glorious epoch of the united Mesopotamian empire. During this time,\nAssyria rises to the height of an all-embracing power. With far greater\nsuccess than Egypt, she securely established her sovereignty over the\nlands bordering on the Mediterranean. After severe struggles, the\nHittites are overcome, the names of their strongholds on the Orontes\nchanged, in order to emphasize their complete possession by the\nAssyrians, and the principalities of Northern Syria become tributary to\nAssyria. Phoenicia and the kingdom of Israel are conquered, while the\nsouthern kingdom of Judah purchases a mere shadow of independence by\ncomplete submission to the conditions imposed by the great and\nirresistible monarchy. Far to the northeast Assyria extends her sway,\nwhile Babylonia, though occasionally aroused to a resistance of the\ntyrannical bonds laid upon her, only to be still further weakened,\nretains a distinctive existence chiefly in name. The culture of the\nsouth is the heritage bequeathed by old Babylonia to the north.\nBabylonian temples become the models for Assyrian architecture. The\nliterary treasures in the archives of the sacred cities of the south are\ncopied by the scribes of the Assyrian kings, and placed in the palaces\nof the latter. Meanwhile, the capital of Assyria moves towards the\nnorth. Ashur gives way under the glorious reign of Ashurnasirbal to\nCalah, which becomes the capitol in the year 880 B.C.; and Calah, in\nturn, yields to Nineveh, which becomes, from the time of Tiglathpileser\nII., in the middle of the eighth century, the center of the great\nkingdom. Under Ashurbanabal, who rules from 668 to 626 B.C., the climax\nof Assyrian power is reached. He carries his arms to the banks of the\nNile, and succeeds in realizing the dreams of his ancestors of a direct\ncontrol over the affairs of Egypt. A patron of science and literature,\nas so many great conquerors, Ashurbanabal succeeds in making Nineveh a\nliterary as well as a military center.\n\nA vast collection of the cuneiform literature of Babylonia is gathered\nby him for the benefit of his subjects, as he is at constant pains to\ntell us. The city is further embellished with magnificent structures,\nand on every side he establishes his sovereignty with such force, that\nthe might of Assyria appears invincible. The fatal blow, dealt with a\nsuddenness that remains a mystery, came from an unexpected quarter. A\ngreat movement of wild northern hordes, rather vaguely known as the\nCimmerians and Scythians, and advancing towards the south, set in\nshortly after the death of Ashurbanabal, and created great political\ndisturbances. The vast number of these hordes, their muscular strength,\nand their unrestrained cruelty, made them a foe which Assyria found as\nhard to withstand, as Rome the approach of the Vandals and Goths. The\nsources for our knowledge of the last days of the Assyrian empire are\nnot sufficient to enable us to grasp the details, but it is certain that\nthe successful attempt of the Babylonians to throw off the Assyrian yoke\nalmost immediately after Ashurbanabal's death, was a symptom of the\nravages which the hordes made in reducing the vitality of the Assyrian\nempire. Her foes gained fresh courage from the success that crowned the\nrevolt of Babylonia. The Medes, a formidable nation to the east of\nAssyria, and which had often crossed arms with the Assyrians, entered\ninto combination with Babylonia, and the two making several united\nassaults upon Nineveh, under the leadership of Kyaxares, at last\nsucceeded in effecting an entrance. The city was captured and burned to\nthe ground. With the fall of Assyria, a feeling of relief passed over\nthe entire eastern world. A great danger, threatening to extinguish the\nindependence of all of the then known nations of the globe, was averted.\nThe Hebrew prophets living at the time of this downfall, voice the\ngeneral rejoicing that ensued when they declared, that even the cedars\nof Lebanon leaped for joy. The province of Assyria proper, fell into the\nhands of the Medes, but Babylonia, with her independence established on\na firm footing, was the real heir of Assyria's spirit. Her most glorious\nmonarch, Nebuchadnezzar II. (604-561 B.C.), seems to have dreamed of\ngaining for Babylon the position, once held by Nineveh, of mistress of\nthe world. Taking Ashurbanabal as his model, he carried his arms to the\nwest, subdued the kingdom of Judah, and, passing on to Egypt, strove to\nsecure for Babylon, the supremacy exercised there for a short time by\nAssyrian monarchs. In addition to his military campaigns, however, he\nalso appears in the light of a great builder, enlarging and beautifying\nthe temples of Babylonia, erecting new ones in the various cities of his\nrealm, strengthening the walls of Babylon, adorning the capital with\nembankment works and other improvements, that gave it a permanent place\nin the traditions of the ancient world as one of the seven wonders of\nthe universe.\n\nThe glory of this second Babylonian empire was of short duration. Its\nvaulting ambition appears to have overleaped itself. Realizing for a\ntime the Assyrian ideal of a world monarchy, the fall was as sudden as\nits rise was unexpected. Internal dissensions gave the first indication\nof the hollowness of the state. Nebuchadnezzar's son was murdered in 560\nB.C., within two years after reaching the throne, by his own\nbrother-in-law, Neriglissar; and the latter dying after a reign of only\nfour years, his infant child was put out of the way and Nabonnedos, a\nhigh officer of the state, but without royal prerogative, mounted the\nthrone. In the year 550 news reached Babylon that Cyrus, the king of\nAnzan, had dealt a fatal blow to the Median empire, capturing its king,\nAstyages, and joining Media to his own district. He founded what was\nafterwards known as the Persian empire.\n\nThe overthrow of the Medes gave Cyrus control over Assyria, and it was\nto be expected that his gaze should be turned in the direction of\nBabylonia. Nabonnedos recognized the danger, but all his efforts to\nstrengthen the powers of resistance to the Persian arms were of no\navail. Civil disturbances divided the Babylonians. The cohesion between\nthe various districts was loosened, and within the city of Babylon\nitself, a party arose antagonistic to Nabonnedos, who in their\nshort-sightedness hailed the advance of Cyrus. Under these\ncircumstances, Babylon fell an easy prey to the Persian conqueror. In\nthe autumn of the year 539 Cyrus entered the city in triumph, and was\nreceived with such manifestations of joy by the populace, as to make one\nalmost forget that with his entrance, the end of a great empire had\ncome. Politically and religiously, the history of Babylonia and Assyria\nterminates with the advent of Cyrus; and this despite the fact that it\nwas his policy to leave the state of affairs, including religious\nobservances, as far as possible, undisturbed. A new spirit had, however,\ncome into the land with him. The official religion of the state was that\npracticed by Cyrus and his predecessors in their native land. The\nessential doctrines of the religion, commonly known as Mazdeism or\nZoroastrianism, presented a sharp contrast to the beliefs that still\nwere current in Babylonia, and it was inevitable that with the influx of\nnew ideas, the further development of Babylonian worship was cut short.\nThe respect paid by Cyrus to the Babylonian gods was a mere matter of\npolicy. Still, the religious rites continued to be practiced as of old\nin Babylonia and Assyria for a long time, and when the religion finally\ndisappeared, under the subsequent conquests of the Greeks, Romans, and\nArabs, it left its traces in the popular superstitions and in the\nineradicable traditions that survived. But so far as the _history_ of\nthis religion is concerned, it comes to an end with the downfall of the\nsecond Babylonian empire.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe period, then, to be covered by a treatment of the religion of the\nBabylonians and Assyrians extends over the long interval between about\n4000 B.C. and the middle of the sixth century. The development of this\nreligion follows closely the course of civilization and of history in\nthe territory under consideration. The twofold division, accordingly,\ninto Babylonia and Assyria, is the one that suggests itself also for the\nreligion. The beginning, as is evident from the historical sketch given,\nmust be made with Babylonia. It will be seen that, while the rites there\nand in Assyria are much the same, the characters of the gods as they\ndeveloped in the south were quite different from those of the north;\nand, again, it was inevitable that the Assyrian influence manifest in\nthe second Babylonian empire should give to the religion of the south at\nthis time, some aspects which were absent during the days of the old\nBabylonian empire. In Babylonia, again, the political changes form the\nbasis for the transformation to be observed in the position occupied by\nthe deities at different periods; and the same general remark applies to\nthe deities peculiar to Assyria, who must be studied in connection with\nthe course pursued by the Assyrian empire.\n\nThe division of the subject which thus forces itself upon us is twofold,\n(1) geographical, and (2) historical.\n\nIt will be necessary to treat first of the beliefs and pantheon\ndeveloped during the first two periods of Babylonian history, down to\nthe practical conquest of Babylonia by Assyria. Then, turning to\nAssyria, the traits of the pantheon peculiar to Upper Mesopotamia will\nbe set forth. In the third place, the history of the religion will be\ntraced in Babylonia during the union of the Babylonian-Assyrian empire;\nand, lastly, the new phases of that religion which appeared in the days\nof the second Babylonian empire. Turning after this to other aspects of\nthe religion, it will be found that the religious rites were only to a\nsmall degree influenced by political changes, while the literature and\nreligious art are almost exclusively products of Babylonia. In treating\nof these subjects, accordingly, no geographical divisions are called\nfor, in setting forth their chief features.\n\nThe general estimate to be given at the close of the volume will furnish\nan opportunity of making a comparison between the Babylonian-Assyrian\nreligion and other religions of the ancient world, with a view to\ndetermining what foreign influences may be detected in it, as well as\nascertaining the influence it exerted upon others.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[16] I may be permitted to refer to a publication by Dr. Brinton and\nmyself, _The Cradle of the Semites_ (Philadelphia, 1889), in which the\nvarious views as to this home are set forth.\n\n[17] It has been suggested that since the statues of Telloh are those of\nthe priest-kings, only the priestly classes shaved their hair off.\n\n[18] See an interesting discussion of the question by Professor Hommel,\n\"Arabia according to the Latest Discoveries and Researches.\"--_Sunday\nSchool Times_, 1895, nos. 41 and 43.\n\n[19] Also known as Shirpurla which Jensen (_Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, 5) thinks\nwas the later name.\n\n[20] See Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, i. 16-18. Naram-Sin\nsignifies 'beloved of the god Sin' (the moon-god); Shargani-shar-ali--\n'the legitimate king, king of the city.' The excavations of the\nUniversity of Pennsylvania have cast new light upon this most ancient\nperiod of Babylonian history. It is now known that the temple of Bel at\nNippur antedates the reign of Naram-Sin, and in the further publications\nof the University, we may look for material which will enable us to pass\nbeyond the period of Sargon.\n\n[21] _Sunday School Times_, 1895, no. 41.\n\n[22] For various views regarding the name and character of this dynasty\nsee Winckler, _Geschichte_, pp. 67, 68, 328; Hilprecht, _Assyriaca_, pp.\n25-28, 102, 103; Winckler, _Altorientalische Forschungen_, I. 275-277,\nand Rogers, _Outlines_, 32, note.\n\n[23] See Delitzsch, _Die Sprache der Kossaer_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nGENERAL TRAITS OF THE OLD BABYLONIAN PANTHEON.\n\n\nThe Babylonian religion in the oldest form known to us may best be\ndescribed as a mixture of local and nature cults. Starting with that\nphase of religious beliefs known as Animism, which has been ascertained\nto be practically universal in primitive society, the Babylonians, from\nascribing life to the phenomena of nature, to trees, stones, and plants,\nas well as to such natural events, as storm, rain, and wind, and as a\nmatter of course to the great luminaries and to the stars--would, on the\none hand, be led to invoke an infinite number of spirits who were\nsupposed to be, in some way, the embodiment of the life that manifested\nitself in such diverse manners; and yet, on the other hand, this\ntendency would be restricted by the experience which would point to\ncertain spirits, as exercising a more decisive influence upon the\naffairs of man than others. The result of this would be to give a\npreponderance to the worship of the sun and moon and the water, and of\nsuch natural phenomena as rain, wind, and storms, with their\naccompaniment of thunder and lightning, as against the countless sprites\nbelieved to be lurking everywhere. The latter, however, would not for\nthis reason be ignored altogether. Since everything was endowed with\nlife, there was not only a spirit of the tree which produced the fruit,\nbut there were spirits in every field. To them the ground belonged, and\nupon their mercy depended the success or failure of the produce. To\nsecure the favor of the rain and the sun was not sufficient to the\nagriculturist; he was obliged to obtain the protection of the guardian\nspirits of the soil, in order to be sure of reaping the fruit of his\nlabors. Again, when through association, the group of arable plots grew\ninto a hamlet, and then through continued growth into a town, the\nlatter, regarded as a unit by virtue of its political organization under\na chief ruler, would necessarily be supposed to have some special power\npresiding over its destinies, protecting it from danger, and ready to\ndefend the rights and privileges of those who stood immediately under\nits jurisdiction. Each Babylonian city, large or small, would in this\nway obtain a deity devoted to its welfare, and as the city grew in\nextent, absorbing perhaps others lying about, and advancing in this way\nto the dignity of a district, the city's god would correspondingly\nincrease his jurisdiction. As it encroached upon the domain of other\nlocal deities, it would by conquest annihilate the latter, or reduce\nthem to a subservient position. The new regime would be expressed by\nmaking the conquered deity, the servant of the victorious, or the two\nmight be viewed in the relation of father to son; and again, in the\nevent of a peaceful amalgamation of two cities or districts, the\nprotecting deities might join hands in a compact, mirroring the\npartnership represented by the conjugal tie. In this way, there arose in\nBabylon a selection, as it were, out of an infinite variety of\npersonified forces, manifest or concealed, that at one time may have\nbeen objects of worship. The uniformity of the spirit world, which is\nthe characteristic trait of primitive Animism, gave way to a\ndifferentiation regulated by the political development and the social\ngrowth of Babylonia. The more important natural forces became gods, and\nthe inferior ones were, as a general thing, relegated to the secondary\nposition of mere sprites, like the _jinns_, in Arabic beliefs. Only in\nthe case of the guardian spirit of an entire city or district, would\nthere result--and even this not invariably--an elevation to the grade of\ndeity, in the proper sense of the word. In many cases, however, this\nguardian deity might be a heavenly body, as the moon or sun or stars,\nall of which were supposed to regulate the fate of mankind or some force\nof nature, as the rain or the storm; and even if this were not\noriginally the case, the protecting deity might, in the course of time,\nbecome identified with one of the forces of nature; and, if for no other\nreason, simply because of the prominence which the worship of the force\nin question acquired in the place. As a consequence, the mixture of\nlocal and nature cults is so complete that it is often impossible to\ndistinguish the one from the other. It is hard in many cases to\ndetermine whether the deity which is identified with a certain city was\noriginally a mere local spirit watching over a certain restricted\nterritory, or a personification of a natural force associated in some\nway with a certain section of Babylonia.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nBABYLONIAN GODS PRIOR TO THE DAYS OF HAMMURABI.\n\n\nWith these preliminary remarks, we may turn, as the first part of our\nsubject, to a consideration of the oldest of the Babylonian gods. Our\nmain sources are the inscriptions of the old Babylonian rulers, above\nreferred to. These are, in most cases, of a dedicatory character, being\ninscribed on statues, cylinders, or tablets, placed in the temples or on\nobjects--cones, knobs, stones--presented as votive offerings to some\ngod. Besides the inscriptions of the rulers, we have those of officials\nand others. Many of these are likewise connected directly or indirectly\nwith religious worship.\n\nThe advantage of the historical texts over the purely religious ones\nconsists in their being dated, either accurately or approximately. For\nthis reason, the former must be made the basis for a rational theory of\nthe development of the Babylonian pantheon through the various periods\nabove instanced. The data furnished by the religious texts can be\nintroduced only, as they accord with the facts revealed by the\nhistorical inscriptions in each period.\n\nTaking up the group of inscriptions prior to the union of the Babylonian\nStates under Hammurabi, _i.e._, prior to 2300 B.C., we find these gods\nmentioned: Bel, Belit, Nin-khar-sag, Nin-girsu, also appearing as\nShul-gur, Bau, Ga-tum-dug, Ea, Nin-a-gal, Nergal, Shamash, under various\nforms A, who is the consort of Shamash, Nannar or Sin, Nana, Anunit,\nIshtar, Innanna or Ninni, Nina, Nin-mar, Dun-shagga, Gal-alim, Anu,\nNin-gish-zida, Nin-si-a, Nin-shakh, Dumu-zi, Lugal-banda and his consort\nNin-gul, Dumuzi-zu-aba, Nisaba, Ku(?)anna, Lugal-erima(?), Dagan, Ishum,\nUmu, Pa-sag, Nin-e-gal, Nin-gal, Shul(or Dun)-pa-uddu, and\nNin-akha-kuddu.\n\nRegarding these names, it may be said at once that the reading, in many\ncases, is to be looked upon as merely provisional. Written, as they\nusually are, in the ideographic \"style,\" the phonetic reading can only\nbe determined when the deity in question can be identified with one,\nwhose name is written at some place phonetically, or when the ideographs\nemployed are so grouped as to place the phonetic reading beyond doubt.\nThe plan to be followed in this book will be to give the ideographic\nreading[24] as provisional wherever the real pronunciation is unknown or\nuncertain. The ideographic designation of a deity is of great value,\ninasmuch as the ideographs themselves frequently reveal the character of\nthe god, though of course the additional advantage is obvious when the\nname appears in both the ideographic and the phonetic writing. It will,\ntherefore, form part of a delineation of the Babylonian pantheon to\ninterpret the picture, as it were, under which each deity is viewed.\n\n\nEn-lil or Bel.\n\nTaking up the gods in the order named, the first one, Bel, is also the\none who appears on the oldest monuments as yet unearthed--the\ninscriptions of Nippur. His name is, at this time, written invariably as\nEn-lil. In the Babylonian theology, he is 'the lord of the lower world.'\nHe represents, as it were, the unification of the various forces whose\nseat and sphere of action is among the inhabited parts of the globe,\nboth on the surface and beneath, for the term 'lower world' is here used\nin contrast to the upper or heavenly world. Such a conception manifestly\nbelongs to the domain of abstract thought, and it may be concluded,\ntherefore, that either the deity belongs to an advanced stage of\nBabylonian culture, or that the original view of the deity was different\nfrom the one just mentioned. The latter is the case. Primarily, the\nideograph Lil is used to designate a 'demon' in general, and En-lil is\ntherefore the 'chief demon.' Primitive as such a conception is, it\npoints to some system of thought that transcends primitive Animism,\nwhich is characterized rather by the equality accorded to all spirits.\nThe antiquity of the association of En-lil with Nippur justifies the\nconclusion that we have before us a local deity who, originally the\nprotecting spirit merely, of a restricted territory, acquires the\nposition of 'chief demon' as the town of Nippur grows to be the capitol\nof a large and powerful district. The fame and sanctity of Nippur\nsurvives political vicissitudes; and, indeed, in proportion as Nippur\nloses political prestige, the great deity of the place is released from\nthe limitations due to his local origin and rises to the still higher\ndignity of a great power whose domain is the entire habitable universe.\nAs the 'lord of the lower world,' En-lil is contrasted to a god Anu, who\npresides over the heavenly bodies. The age of Sargon (3800 B.C.), in\nwhose inscriptions En-lil already occurs, is one of considerable\nculture, as is sufficiently evidenced by the flourishing condition of\nart, and there can therefore be no objection against the assumption that\neven at this early period, a theological system should have been evolved\nwhich gave rise to beliefs in great powers whose dominion embraces the\n'upper' and 'lower' worlds. It was because of this wide scope of his\npower that he became known as Bel, _i.e._, the lord _par excellence_;\nand it is equally natural to find his worship spread over the whole of\nBabylonia. In the south, the patron deity of Lagash is designated by\nGudea as \"the mighty warrior of Bel,\" showing the supremacy accorded to\nthe latter. A temple to En-lil at Lagash, and known as E-adda, 'house of\nthe father,' by virtue of the relationship existing between the god of\nNippur and Nin-girsu, is mentioned by Uru-kagina. The temple is\ndescribed as a lofty structure 'rising up to heaven.' In the north,\nNippur remains the place where his worship acquired the greatest\nimportance, so that Nippur was known as the \"land of Bel.\" The temple\nsacred to him at that place was a great edifice, famous throughout\nBabylonian history as E-Kur, _i.e._, mountain house, in the construction\nof which, a long line of Babylonian rulers took part. From Naram-Sin,\nruler of Agade, on through the period of Cassite rule, the kings of\nNippur proudly include in their titles that of 'builder of the Temple of\nBel at Nippur,' measuring their attachment to the deity by the additions\nand repairs made to his sacred edifice.[25] Besides the kings of Agade,\nthe rulers of other places pay their devotions to Bel of Nippur. So, a\nking of Kish, whose name is read Alu-usharshid by Professor\nHilprecht,[26] brings costly vases of marble and limestone from Elam and\noffers them to Bel as a token of victory; and this at a period even\nearlier than Sargon. Even when En-lil is obliged to yield a modicum of\nhis authority to the growing supremacy of the patron deity of the city\nof Babylon, the highest tribute that can be paid to the latter, is to\ncombine with his real name, Marduk, the title of \"Bel,\" which of right\nbelongs to En-lil. We shall see how this combination of En-lil, or Bel,\nwith Marduk reflects political changes that took place in the Euphrates\nValley; and it is a direct consequence of this later association of the\nold Bel of Nippur with the chief god of Babylon, that the original\ntraits of the former become obscured in the historical and religious\ntexts. Dimmed popular traditions, which will be set forth in their\nproper place, point to his having been at one time regarded as a\npowerful chieftain armed with mighty weapons, but engaged in conflicts\nfor the ultimate benefit of mankind. On the whole, he is a beneficent\ndeity, though ready to inflict severe punishment for disobedience to his\ncommands. We must distinguish, then, in the case of En-lil, at least\nfour phases:\n\n1. His original role as a local deity;\n\n2. The extension of his power to the grade of a great 'lord' over a\nlarge district;\n\n3. Dissociation from local origins to become the supreme lord of the\nlower world; and\n\n4. The transfer of his name and powers as god of Nippur to Marduk, the\ngod of Babylon.\n\nThe last two phases can best be set forth when we come to the period,\nmarked by the political supremacy of the city of Babylon. It is\nsufficient, at this point, to have made clear his position as god of\nNippur.\n\n\nNin-lil or Belit.\n\nThe consort of En-lil is Nin-Lil, the 'mistress of the lower world.' She\nis known also as Belit, the feminine form to Bel, _i.e._, the lady _par\nexcellence_. She, too, had her temple at Nippur, the age of which goes\nback, at least, to the first dynasty of Ur. But the glory of the goddess\npales by the side of her powerful lord. She is naught but a weak\nreflection of Bel, as in general the consorts of the gods are. Another\ntitle by which this same goddess was known is\n\n\nNin-khar-sag.[27]\n\nwhich means the 'lady of the high or great mountain.' The title may have\nsome reference to the great mountain where the gods were supposed to\ndwell, and which was known to Babylonians as the 'mountain of the\nlands.' Bel, as the chief of the gods, is more particularly associated\nwith this mountain. Hence his temple is called the 'mountain house.'\nFrom being regarded as the inhabitant of the mountain, he comes to be\nidentified with the mountain itself. Accordingly, he is sometimes\naddressed as the \"great mountain,\"[28] and his consort would therefore\nbe appropriately termed 'the lady of the great mountain.' Besides the\ntemple at Nippur, Belit, as Nin-khar-sag, had a sanctuary at Girsu, one\nof the quarters at Lagash (see under Nin-girsu), the earliest mention of\nwhich occurs on an inscription of Ur-Bau. The latter calls the goddess\n'the mother of the gods,' which further establishes her identity with\nthe consort of Bel. Entemena, another governor of Lagash, places his\ndomain under the protection of Nin-khar-sag. The worship at Nippur,\nhowever, remained most prominent. The continued popularity of her cult\nis attested by the fortress Dur-zakar, which a later king, Samsu-iluna\n(_c._ 2200), erected in her honor.\n\n\nNin-girsu.\n\nIn the inscriptions of Gudea and of his time, the god most prominently\nmentioned is the \"Lord of Girsu.\" Girsu itself, as the inscriptions\nshow, is one of the four sections into which the capitol city of Lagash\nwas divided. It was there that the temple stood which was sacred to the\npatron deity, and we may conclude from this that Girsu is the oldest\npart of the city. Afterwards, Lagash became the general name for the\ncapitol through being the quarter where the great palace of the king was\nerected. That Girsu was once quite distinct from Lagash is also evident\nfrom the title of \"king of Girsu,\" with which a certain Uru-kagina, who\nis to be placed somewhat before Gudea, contents himself. The other three\nquarters, all of which were originally independent cities, are\nUru-azagga, Nina, and apparently Gish-galla.[29]\n\nNin-girsu is frequently termed the warrior of Bel,--the one who in the\nservice of the 'lord of the lower world,' appears in the thick of the\nfight, to aid the subjects of Bel. In this role, he is identical with a\nsolar deity who enjoys especial prominence among the warlike Assyrians,\nwhose name is provisionally read Nin-ib, but whose real name may turn\nout to be Adar.[30] The rulers of Lagash declare themselves to have been\nchosen for the high office by Nin-girsu, and as if to compensate\nthemselves for the degradation implied in being merely _patesis_, or\ngovernors, serving under some powerful chief, they call themselves the\npatesis of Nin-girsu, implying that the god was the master to whom they\nowed allegiance. The temple sacred to him at Girsu was called E-ninnu,\nand also by a longer name that described the god as the one 'who changes\ndarkness into light,'--the reference being to the solar character of the\ngod Nin-ib with whom Nin-girsu is identified. In this temple, Gudea and\nother rulers place colossal statues of themselves, but temper the vanity\nimplied, by inscribing on the front and back of these statues, an\nexpression of their devotion to their god. To Nin-girsu, most of the\nobjects found at Tell-loh are dedicated; conspicuous among which are the\nmany clay cones, that became the conventional objects for votive\nofferings. There was another side, however, to his nature, besides the\nbelligerent one. As the patron of Lagash, he also presided over the\nagricultural prosperity of the district. In this role he is addressed as\nShul-gur or Shul-gur-an, _i.e._, the \"god of the corn heaps\"; Entemena\nand his son Enanna-tuma in erecting a kind of storehouse which they\nplace under the protection of Nin-girsu, declare that their god is\nShul-gur;[31] and an old hymn[32] identifies him with Tammuz, the\npersonification of agricultural activity. Such a combination of\napparently opposing attributes is a natural consequence of the\ntransformation of what may originally have been the personification of\nnatural forces, into local deities. Each field had its protecting\nspirit, but for the city as a whole, a local deity, whose rule mirrored\nthe control of the human chief over his subjects, alone was available.\nTo him who watched over all things pertaining to the welfare of the\nterritory coming under his jurisdiction, various attributes, as occasion\nrequired, were ascribed, and quite apart from his original character,\nthe god could thus be regarded, as the warrior and the peaceful\nhusbandman at the same time.\n\n\nBau.\n\nPerhaps the most prominent of the goddesses in the ancient Babylonian\nperiod was Bau. One of the rulers of Lagash has embodied the name of the\ngoddess in his name, calling himself Ur-Bau. It is natural, therefore,\nto find him more especially devoted to the worship of this deity. He\ndoes not tire of singing her praises, and of speaking of the temple he\nerected in her honor. Still, Ur-Bau does not stand alone in his\ndevotion; Uru-kagina, Gudea, and others refer to Bau frequently, while\nin the incantation texts, she is invoked as the great mother, who gives\nbirth to mankind and restores the body to health. In the old Babylonian\ninscriptions she is called the chief daughter of Anu, the god of heaven.\nAmong her titles, the one most frequently given is that of 'good lady.'\nShe is the 'mother' who fixes the destinies of men and provides\n'abundance' for the tillers of the soil. Gudea calls her his mistress,\nand declares that it is she who \"fills him with speech,\"--a phrase whose\nmeaning seems to be that to Bau he owes the power he wields. Locally,\nshe is identified with Uru-azagga (meaning 'brilliant town'), a quarter\nof Lagash; and it was there that her temple stood. As a consequence, we\nfind her in close association with Nin-girsu, the god of Girsu. We may\nindeed go further and assume that Girsu and Uru-azagga are the two\noldest quarters of the city, the combination of the two representing the\nfirst natural steps in the development of the principality, afterwards\nknown as Lagash, through the addition of other quarters[33]. She is\nindeed explicitly called the consort of Nin-girsu; and this relation is\nimplied also, in the interesting phrase used by Gudea, who presents\ngifts to Bau in the name of Nin-girsu, and calls them 'marriage\ngifts'.[34] It is interesting to find, at this early period, the\nevidence for the custom that still prevails in the Orient, which makes\nthe gifts of the bridegroom to his chosen one, an indispensable\nformality.[35] These gifts were offered on the New Year's Day, known as\nZag-muk, and the importance of the worship of Bau is evidenced by the\ndesignation of this day, as the festival of Bau.\n\nThe offerings, themselves, consist of lambs, sheep, birds, fish, cream,\nbesides dates and various other fruits. When Uru-azagga becomes a part\nof Lagash, Bau's dignity is heightened to that of 'mother of Lagash.' As\nthe consort of Ningirsu, she is identified with the goddess Gula, the\nname more commonly applied to the 'princely mistress' of Nin-ib, whose\nworship continues down to the days of the neo-Babylonian monarchy.\n\nIt is quite certain, however, that Bau is originally an independent\ngoddess, and that the association of Uru-azagga and Girsu[36] lead to\nher identification with Gula. Regarding her original nature, a certain\nindex is her character as \"daughter of Anu.\" Anu being the god of\nheaven, Bau must be sought in the upper realm of personified forces,\nrather than elsewhere; but exactly which one she is, it is difficult to\nsay. Hommel, indeed,[37] is of opinion that she is the personified\nwatery depth, the primitive chaos which has only the heavens above it;\nbut in giving this explanation, he is influenced by the desire to\nconnect the name of Bau with the famous term for chaos in Genesis,\n_Tohu-wa-bohu_. There is, however, no proof whatsoever that Bau and Bohu\nhave anything to do with one another. A goddess who can hardly be\ndistinguished from Bau is\n\n\nGa-tum-dug.[38]\n\nIndeed, from the fact that she is also the 'mother of Lagash,' it might\nseem that this is but another name for Bau. However, elsewhere, in two\nlists of deities invoked by Gudea (Inscr. B, col. ii. 17), Ga-tum-dug is\ngiven a separate place by the side of Bau, once placed before and once\nafter the latter; and it is clear therefore that she was originally\ndistinct from Bau. For Gudea, Ga-tum-dug is the mother who produced him.\nHe is her servant and she is his mistress. Lagash is her beloved city,\nand there he prepares for her a dwelling-place, which later rulers, like\nEntena, embellish. She is called the 'brilliant' (_Azag_), but as this\ntitle is merely a play upon the element found in the city, Uru-azagga,\nsacred to Bau, not much stress is to be laid upon this designation.\nUnfortunately, too, the elements composing her name are not clear,[39]\nand it must be borne in mind that the reading is purely provisional. So\nmuch, at least, seems certain: that Bau and Ga-tum-dug are two forms\nunder which one and the same natural element was personified. Bau is\ncalled in the incantation texts, the mother of Ea. The latter being\ndistinctly a water god, we may conclude that in some way, Bau is to be\nconnected with water as a natural element. The conjecture may be\nhazarded that she personifies originally the waters of the upper\nrealm--the clouds. Since Ea, who is her son, represents the waters of\nthe lower realm, the relation of mother and son reflects perhaps a\nprimitive conception of the origin of the deep, through the descent of\nthe upper waters. When we come to the cosmogony of the Babylonians, it\nwill be seen that this conception of a distinction between the two\nrealms of waters is a fundamental one. This character as a spirit of the\nwatery elements is shared by others of the goddesses appearing in the\nold Babylonian inscriptions.[40]\n\n\nEn-ki or Ea.\n\nThis god, who, as we shall see, becomes most prominent in the developed\nform of Babylonian theology, does not occupy the place one should expect\nin the early Babylonian inscriptions. Ur-Bau erects a sanctuary to Ea,\nat Girsu. Another of the governors of Lagash calls himself, priest of\nEa, describing the god as the \"supreme councillor.\" From him, the king\nreceives \"wisdom.\"[41] A ruler, Rim-Sin, of the dynasty of Larsa,\nassociates Ea with Bel, declaring that these \"great gods\" entrusted Uruk\ninto his hands with the injunction to rebuild the city that had fallen\nin ruins. The ideograms, with which his name is written, En-ki,\ndesignate him as god of that 'which is below,'--the earth in the first\nplace; but with a more precise differentiation of the functions of the\ngreat gods, Ea becomes the god of the waters of the deep. When this\nstage of belief is reached, Ea is frequently associated with Bel, who,\nit will be recalled, is the 'god of the lower region,' but who becomes\nthe god of earth _par excellence_. When, therefore, Bel and Ea are\ninvoked, it is equivalent, in modern parlance, to calling upon earth and\nwater; and just as Bel is used to personify, as it were, the unification\nof the earthly forces, so Ea becomes, in a comprehensive sense, the\nwatery deep. Ea and Bel assume therefore conspicuous proportions in the\ndeveloped Babylonian cosmogony and theology. In the cosmogony, Bel is\nthe creator and champion of mankind, and Ea is the subterranean deep\nwhich surrounds the earth, the source of wisdom and culture; in the\ntheology, Ea and Bel are pictured in the relation of father and son,\nwho, in concert, are appealed to, when misfortune or disease overtakes\nthe sons of man; Ea, the father, being the personification of knowledge,\nand Bel, the practical activity that 'emanates from wisdom,' as\nProfessor Sayce,[42] adopting the language of Gnosticism, aptly puts it;\nonly that, as already suggested, Marduk assumes the role of the older\nBel.\n\nConfining ourselves here to the earlier phases of Ea, it seems probable\nthat he was originally regarded as the god of Eridu,--one of the most\nancient of the holy cities of Southern Babylonia, now represented by\nAbu-Shahrein, and which once stood on the shores of the Persian Gulf.\nUr-Bau expressly calls the god the 'king of Eridu.' The sacredness of\nthe place is attested by Gudea, who boasts of having made the temple of\nNin-girsu as sacred as Eridu.[43] It is over this city that Ea watches.\nThe importance of the Persian Gulf to the growth of the city, would make\nit natural to place the seat of the god in the waters themselves. The\ncult of water-deities arises, naturally, at places which are situated on\nlarge sheets of water; and in the attributes of wisdom which an older\nage ascribed to Ea, there may be seen the embodiment of the tradition\nthat the course of civilization proceeds from the south. The superiority\nof the Persian Gulf over the other waters of Babylon--over the two great\nrivers with their tributary streams and canals--would be another factor\nthat would lead to the god of the Persian Gulf being regarded as the\npersonification of the watery element in general. For the Babylonians,\nthe Persian Gulf, stretching out indefinitely, and to all appearances\none with the great ocean whose ulterior shores could not be reached, was\nthe great 'Okeanos,' that flowed around the earth and on which the earth\nrested. Ea, accordingly (somewhat like En-lil), was delocalized, as it\nwere, and his worship was maintained long after the recollection of his\nconnection with Eridu had all but disappeared. At the same time, for the\nvery reason that he was cut loose from local associations, no place\ncould lay claim to being the seat of the deity. Ur-Bau, when erecting a\nsanctuary to Ea at Girsu, significantly calls the god 'the king of\nEridu.' The sanctuary is not, in this case, the dwelling-place of the\ngod.\n\nWe are justified, therefore, in going back many centuries, before\nreaching the period when Ea was, merely, the local god of Eridu. Whether\nEa is to be regarded as the real name of the god, or is also an\nideograph like En-ki, is again open to doubt. If Ea is the real\npronunciation, then the writing of the name is a play upon the character\nof the deity, for it is composed of two elements that signify 'house'\nand 'water,'--the name thus suggesting the character and real seat of\nthe deity. A point in favor of regarding Ea as the real name, albeit not\ndecisive, is the frequent use of the unmistakable ideographic\ndescription of the god as En-ki. The consort of Ea who is Dam-kina also\noccurs in the historical texts of the first period.\n\nThe origin of Babylonian civilization at the Persian Gulf, together with\nthe dependence of Babylonia for her fertility upon the streams and\ncanals, account for the numerous water-deities to be found in the\nancient Babylonian pantheon, some of which have already been discussed.\nWe will meet with others further on. Every stream, large or small,\nhaving its special protecting deity, the number of water-deities\nnaturally increases as the land becomes more and more dissected by the\ncanal system that conditioned the prosperity of the country.\n\nEa, as we shall see, appears under an unusually large number of\nnames.[44] One of these is\n\n\nNin-a-gal,\n\nwhich, signifying 'god of great strength,' is given to him as the patron\nof the smith's art.[45] A god of this name is mentioned by Ur-Bau,[46]\nwho speaks of a sanctuary erected in honor of this deity. But since the\nking refers to Ea (as En-ki) a few lines previous, it would appear that\nat this period Nin-agal is still an independent deity. The later\nidentification with Ea appears to be due to the idea of 'strength'\ninvolved in the name of Nin-agal. In the same way, many of the names of\nEa were originally descriptive of independent gods who, because of the\nsimilarity of their functions to those of the great Ea, were absorbed by\nthe latter. Their names transferred to Ea, are frequently the only trace\nleft of their original independent existence.\n\n\nNergal.\n\nNergal, the local deity of Cuthah (or Kutu), represented by the mound\nTell-Ibrahim, some distance to the east of Babylon, was of an entirely\ndifferent character from Ea, but his history in the development of the\nBabylonian religion is hardly less interesting. The first mention of his\nfamous temple at Cuthah is found in an inscription of Dungi (to be read\nBa'u-ukin, according to Winckler[47]) who belongs to the second dynasty\nof Ur (_c._ 2700 B.C.). Its origin, however, belongs to a still earlier\nperiod. Such was the fame of the temple known as E-shid-lam, and the\ncloseness of the connection between the deity and his favorite seat,\nthat Nergal himself became known as shid-lam-ta-ud-du-a, _i.e._, the god\nthat rises up from E-shid-lam. It is by this epithet that the same Dungi\ndescribes him in one of his inscriptions.[48] Down to the latest period\nof Assyro-Babylonian history, Nergal remains identified with Kutu, being\nknown at all times as the god of Kutu.[49] When Sargon, the king of\nAssyria, upon his conquest of the kingdom of Israel (_c._ 722 B.C.),\nbrought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Ava, and so forth, across to the\nlands of the Jordan to take the place of the deported Israelites, the\nHebrew narrator (II Kings, xvii. 24-35) tells us in an interesting\nmanner of the obnoxious foreign worship which these people brought to\nthe land, each division bringing the gods of their place with them. The\nmen of Cuthah, he adds (v. 30), made a statue of Nergal. Singamil, of\nthe dynasty, having its capital at Uruk (_c._ 2750 B.C.), likewise\ntestifies to his devotion to Nergal by busying himself with improvements\nand additions to his temple at Cuthah. His worship, therefore, was not\nconfined to those who happened to reside at Cuthah; and closely as he is\nidentified with the place, the character of the god is a general and not\na special one. The full form of his name appears to have been\nNer-unu-gal, of which Nergal, furnished by the Old Testament passage\nreferred to, would then be a contraction or a somewhat corrupt form. The\nthree elements composing his name signify \"the mighty one of the great\ndwelling-place,\" but it is, again, an open question whether this is a\nmere play upon the character of the god, as in the name of Ea (according\nto one of the interpretations above suggested), or whether it is an\nideographic form of the name. The Old Testament shows, conclusively,\nthat the name had some such pronunciation as Nergal. Jensen, from other\nevidences, inclines to the opinion that the writing Ner-unu-gal is the\nresult of a species of etymology, brought about by the prominence given\nto Nergal as the god of the region of the dead. It is in this capacity\nthat he already appears in the inscription of Singamil, who calls him\n'king of the nether world.' The \"great dwelling-place,\" therefore, is\nclearly the dominion over which Nergal rules, and when we come to the\ncosmogony of the Babylonians,[50] it will be found that this epithet for\nthe nether world--the great dwelling-place--accords with their\nconception of the life after death. But while Nergal, with a host of\nlesser demons about him, appears as the Babylonian Pluto, particularly\nin the religious texts, his functions are not limited to the control of\nthe dead. He is the personification of some of the evils that bring\ndeath to mankind, particularly pestilence and war. The death that\nfollows in his path is a violent one, and his destructive force is one\nthat acts upon large masses rather than upon the individual. Hence, one\nof the most common ideographs used to express his name is that which\nsignifies 'sword.'\n\nWar and pestilence are intimately associated in the mind of the\nBabylonians. Among other nations, the sword is, similarly, the symbol of\nthe deity, as the plague-bringer as well as the warrior.\n\nTo this day, a pestilence is the general accompaniment of war in the\nEast, or follows in its wake. Different from Nin-ib, who is also a god\nof war, Nergal symbolizes more particularly the _destruction_ which\naccompanies war, and not the strong champion who aids his subjects in\nthe fight. Nergal is essentially a destroyer, and the various epithets\napplied to him in the religious texts, show that he was viewed in this\nlight. He is at times the 'god of fire,' again 'the raging king,' 'the\nviolent one' 'the one who burns'; and finally identified with the\nglowing heat of flame. Often, he is described by these attributes,\ninstead of being called by his real name.[51] Dr. Jensen has recently\nshown in a satisfactory manner, that this phase of his character must be\nthe starting-point in tracing the order of his development. As the\n'glowing flame,' Nergal is evidently a phase of the sun, and Jensen\nproves that the functions and aspects of the sun at different periods\nbeing differentiated among the Babylonians, Nergal is more especially\nthe hot sun of midsummer or midday, the destructive force of which was\nthe chief feature that distinguished it. The hot sun of Babylonia, that\nburns with fierce intensity, brings pestilence and death, and carries on\na severe contest against man. From being the cause of death, it is but a\nstep, and a natural one, to make Nergal preside over the region,\nprepared for those whom he has destroyed. The course taken by Babylonian\ntheology is responsible for the prominence given to the latter role of\nNergal, which finally overshadows his other phases to the extent of\nsuggesting the fanciful interpretation of his name as the 'ruler of the\ngreat dwelling place for the dead.' In the light of the facts set forth,\nanother explanation for his name must be looked for that would connect\nthe god with solar functions. The name may in fact be divided into two\nelements, the first having the force of chief or ruler, the second\n'great.' The combination would be an appropriate designation for the\nsun, in the role of a destructive power. But Nergal, after all,\nrepresents only one phase of the sun-god. The god who was worshipped as\nthe personification of the sun _par excellence_ and the sun as a whole,\nwas\n\n\nShamash.\n\nWritten with an ideograph that describes him as the 'god of the day,'\nthere is no deity whose worship enjoys an equally continued popularity\nin Babylonia and Assyria. Beginning at the earliest period of Babylonian\nhistory, and reaching to the latest, his worship suffers no\ninterruption. Shamash, moreover, maintains his original character with\nscarcely any modification throughout this long period. For all that, he\nbears a name which signifies 'attendant' or 'servitor,' and which\nsufficiently shows the subsidiary position that he occupied in the\nBabylonian pantheon. One of the rulers belonging to the dynasty of Isin\ncalls the sun-god, the offspring of Nannar,--one of the names of the\nmoon-god,--and the last king of Babylonia, Nabonnedos, does the same. In\ncombination with the moon-god, the latter takes precedence of\nShamash,[52] and in the enumeration of the complete pantheon, in the\ninscriptions of both Assyrian and Babylonian kings, the same order is\npreserved. Other evidence that points to the superior rank accorded to\nSin, the moon-god over the sun deity in Babylonia, is the reckoning of\ntime by the moon phases. The day begins with the evening, and not with\nsunrise. The moon, as the chief of the starry firmament, and controlling\nthe fate of mankind, was the main factor in giving to the orb of night,\nthis peculiar prominence. The 'service,' accordingly implied in the name\nof Shamash appears to have been such as was demanded by his subsidiary\nposition to the moon-god. Beyond the general recognition, however, of\nthis relationship between the two, it does not appear that the worship\npaid to Shamash, was at all affected by the secondary place, that he\ncontinued to hold in the theoretically constructed pantheon. Less than\nis the case with the other gods, is he identified with any particular\ncity, and we therefore find in the most ancient period, two centers of\nSouthern Babylonia claiming Shamash as their patron saint,--Larsa,\nrepresented by the mound of Senkereh, and Sippar, occupying the site of\nthe modern Abu-Habba. It is difficult to say which of the two was the\nolder; the latter, in the course of time, overshadowed the fame of the\nformer, and its history can be traced back considerably beyond the\nsun-worship at Larsa, the first mention of which occurs in the\ninscriptions of rulers of the second dynasty of Ur (_c._ 2900 B.C.).\nSince Ur, as we shall see, was sacred to the moon-god, it is hardly\nlikely that the Shamash cult was introduced at Larsa by the rulers of\nUr. The kings of Ur would not have forfeited the protection of Sin, by\nany manifestation of preference for Shamash. When Ur-Gur, therefore,\ntells us that he 'built' a temple to Shamash at Larsa, he must mean, as\nSin-iddina of the dynasty of Larsa does, in using the same phrase, that\nhe enlarged or improved the edifice. What makes it all the more likely\nthat Ur-Gur found sun-worship at Larsa in existence is, that in the\nvarious places over which this ruler spread his building activity, he is\ncareful in each case to preserve the status of the presiding deity. So\nat Nippur, he engages in work at the temples of En-lil and of Nin-lil;\nwhile at Uruk he devotes himself to the temple of Nana. In thus\nconnecting their names with the various sacred edifices of Babylonia,\nthe rulers emphasized, on the one hand, their control of the territory\nin which the building lay, and on the other, their allegiance to the\ndeity of the place, whose protection and favor they sought to gain.\n\nThe mention of a temple to Shamash at Sippar reverts to a still earlier\nperiod than that of its rival. Nabonnedos tells us that it was founded\nby Naram-Sin. Sargon has put his name on some object[53] that he\ndedicates to the sun-god at Sippar. That there was an historical\nconnection between the two temples may be concluded from the fact that\nthe name of the sacred edifices was the same in both,--E-babbara,\nsignifying the 'house of lustre.' Such a similarity points to a\ndependence of one upon the other, and the transfer or extension of the\nworship directly from one place to the other; but, as intimated, we have\nno certain means of determining which of the two is the older. In view\nof the general observation to be made in what pertains to the religion\nof the Babylonians, that fame and age go hand in hand, the balance is in\nfavor of Sippar, which became by far the more famous of the two,\nreceived a greater share of popular affection, and retained its\nprominence to the closing days of the neo-Babylonian monarchy. We shall\nhave occasion in a succeeding chapter to trace the history of the\nsun-temple at Sippar so far as known. It is interesting to note that\nNabonnedos, feeling the end of his power to be near, undertakes, as one\nof the last resorts, the restoration of this edifice, in the hope that\nby thus turning once more to the powerful Shamash, he might secure his\nprotection, in addition to that of Marduk, the head of the later\nBabylonian pantheon.\n\nIn Ur itself, Shamash was also worshipped in early days by the side of\nthe moon-god. Eannatum, of the dynasty of Isin (_c._ 2800 B.C.), tells\nof two temples erected to him at that place; and still a third edifice,\nsacred to both Nannar (the moon god) and Shamash at Ur, is referred to\nby a king of the Larsa dynasty, Rim-Sin (_c._ 2300 B.C.). The titles\ngiven to Shamash by the early rulers are sufficiently definite to show\nin what relation he stood to his worshippers, and what the conceptions\nwere that were formed of him. He is, alternately, the king and the\nshepherd. Since the kings also called themselves shepherds, no especial\nendearment is conveyed by this designation. In the incantations, Shamash\nis frequently appealed to, either alone, or when an entire group of\nspirits and deities are enumerated. He is called upon to give life to\nthe sick man. To him the body of the one who is smitten with disease is\nconfided. As the god of light, he is appropriately called upon to banish\n'darkness' from the house, darkness being synonymous with misfortune;\nand the appeal is made to him more particularly as the 'king of\njudgment.' From this, it is evident that the beneficent action of the\nsun, was the phase associated with Shamash. He was hailed as the god\nthat gives light and life to all things, upon whose favor the prosperity\nof the fields and the well-being of man depend. He creates the light and\nsecures its blessings for mankind. His favor produces order and\nstability; his wrath brings discomfiture and ruin to the state and the\nindividual. But his power was, perhaps, best expressed by the title of\n\"judge\"--the favorite one in the numerous hymns that were composed in\nhis honor. He was represented as seated on a throne in the chamber of\njudgment, receiving the supplications of men, and according as he\nmanifested his favor or withdrew it, enacting the part of the decider of\nfates. He loosens the bonds of the imprisoned, grants health to the\nsick, and even revivifies the dead. On the other hand, he puts an end to\nwickedness and destroys enemies. He makes the weak strong, and prevents\nthe strong from crushing the weak. From being the judge, and, moreover,\nthe supreme judge of the world, it was but natural that the conception\nof justice was bound up with him. His light became symbolical of\nrighteousness, and the absence of it, or darkness, was viewed as\nwickedness. Men and gods look expectantly for his light. He is the guide\nof the gods, as well as the ruler of men.\n\nWhile there are no direct indications in the historical texts known at\npresent, that this conception of the sun-god existed in all its details\nbefore the days of Hammurabi, there is every reason to believe that this\nwas the case; the more so, in that it does not at all transcend the\nrange of religious ideas that we have met with in the case of the other\ngods of this period. Nor does this conception in any way betray itself,\nas being due to the changed political conditions that set in, with the\nunion of the states under Hammurabi. Still, the age of the religious\ntexts not being fixed, it is thus necessary to exercise some caution\nbefore using them without the basis of an allusion in the historical\ntexts.\n\n\nUtu.\n\nIt but remains, before passing on, to note that the same deity appears\nunder various names. Among these are Utu[54] and apparently also\nBabbar[55] in the old Babylonian inscriptions. For the latter, a Semitic\netymology is forthcoming, and we may therefore regard it as representing\na real pronunciation, and not an ideographic writing. Babbar, a\ncontracted form from Barbar, is the reduplication of the same stem\n_bar_[56] that we have already met with, in the name of the temple\nsacred to Shamash. Like E-babbara, therefore, Babbar is the \"brilliantly\nshining one,\"--a most appropriate name for the sun, and one frequently\napplied to him in the religious texts. As to Utu, there is some doubt\nwhether it represents a real pronunciation or not. My own opinion is\nthat it does, and that the underlying stem is _atu_, which in Babylonian\nhas almost the same meaning as _bar_ or _baru_, viz., 'to see.' 'Utu'\nwould thus again designate the sun as 'that which shines forth.'\n\nIt will be recalled, that other instances have been noted of the same\ngod appearing under different names. The most natural explanation for\nthis phenomenon is, that the variation corresponds to the different\nlocalities where the god was worshipped. The identification would not be\nmade until the union of the various Babylonian states had been achieved.\nSuch a union would be a potent factor in systematizing the pantheon.\nWhen once it was recognized that the various names represented, in\nreality, one and the same deity, it would not be long before the name,\npeculiar to the place where the worship was most prominent, would set\nthe others aside or reduce them to mere epithets.\n\nIt may well be that Shamash was the name given to the god at Sippar,\nwhereas at Ur he may have been known as Utu. Ur-Bau (of the first Ur\ndynasty) calls him Utu also, when speaking of the temple at Larsa, but\nit would be natural for the kings of Ur to call the sun-god of Larsa by\nthe same name that he had in Ur. That Hammurabi, however, calls the\nsun-god of Larsa, Utu, may be taken as an indication that, as such he\nwas known at that place, for since we have no record of a sun-temple at\nBabylon in these days, there would be no motive that might induce him to\ntransfer a name, otherwise known to him, to another place. The testimony\nof Hammurabi is therefore as direct as that of Sargon, who calls the\nsun-god of Sippar, Shamash. It is not always possible to determine, with\nas much show of probability, as in the case of the sun-god, the\ndistribution of the various names, but the general conclusion, for all\nthat, is warranted in every instance, that a variety of names refers,\noriginally, to an equal variety of places over which the worship was\nspread,--only that care must be exercised to distinguish between\ndistinctive names and mere epithets.\n\n\nA.\n\nA consort of the sun-deity, appearing frequently at his side in the\nincantation texts, is A. It is more particularly with the Shamash of\nSippar, that A is associated. She is simply the 'beloved one' of the\nsun-deity, with no special character of her own. In the historical\ntexts, her role is quite insignificant, and for the period with which we\nare at present concerned she is only mentioned once by a North\nBabylonian ruler, Ma-an-ish-tu-su,[57] who dedicates an object to her.\nThe reading of the ideogram A, or Nin-A (_i.e._, Lady A), is doubtful.\nMalkatu (\"mistress\" or \"queen\") is offered as a plausible\nconjecture.[58] Lehman (_Keils Bibl._ iii. I, 202) suggests _A-Ja_, but\non insufficient grounds. In any case A has the force of mistress, and\nNin-A simply designates the goddess as the lady, mistress, or queen. It\nis likely that A was originally an independent deity, and one of the\nnames of the sun-god in a particular locality. It occurs in proper names\nas a title of Shamash. Instead, however, of becoming identified with\nShamash, A degenerated into a pale reflection of Shamash, pictured under\nthe relationship of consort to him. This may have been due to the union\nof Shamash with the place where A was worshipped. If, as seems likely,\nthat near Sippar, there was another city on the other side of the\nEuphrates, forming a suburb to it (as Borsippa did to Babylon), the\nconclusion is perhaps warranted that A was originally the sun-god\nworshipped at the place which afterwards became incorporated with\nSippar.[59] Such an amalgamation of two originally male deities into a\ncombination of male and female, strange as it may seem to us, is in\nkeeping with the lack of sharp distinction between male and female in\nthe oldest forms of Semitic religions. In the old cuneiform writing the\nsame sign is used to indicate \"lord\" or \"lady\" when attached to deities.\nIshtar appears among Semites both as a male[60] and as a female deity.\nSex was primarily a question of strength. The stronger god was viewed as\nmasculine; the weaker as feminine.\n\n\nNannar and Sin.\n\nNannar, a reduplicated form like Babbar, with the assimilation of the\nfirst r to n (nar-nar = nannar), has very much the same meaning as\nBabbar. The latter, as we have seen, is the \"lustrous one,\" the former,\nthe \"one that furnishes light.\" The similarity in meaning is in keeping\nwith the similarity of function of the two deities, thus named: Babbar\nbeing the sun and Nannar, the moon. It was under the name of Nannar that\nthe moon-god was worshipped at Ur, the most famous and probably the\noldest of the cities over which the moon-god presided. The association\nof Nannar with Ur is parallel to that of Shamash with Sippar,--not that\nthe moon-god's jurisdiction or worship was confined to that place, but\nthat the worship of the deity of that place eclipsed others, and the\nfame and importance at Ur led to the overshadowing of the moon-worship\nthere, over the obeisance to him paid elsewhere.\n\nWhat further motives led to the choice of the moon-god as the patron of\nUr, lies beyond the scope of our knowledge. Due allowance must be made\nfor that natural selection, which takes place in the realm of thought as\nmuch as in the domain of nature. Attention has already been called to\nthe predominance given by the Babylonians to the moon over the sun. The\nlatter is expressly called the \"offspring of the lord of brilliant\nbeginning,\" that is, the moon-god (Delitzsch, _Assyr. Hdw._, p. 234\n_a_). It is needless, therefore, to do more, at this place, than to\nemphasize the fact anew. The moon serving much more as a guide to man,\nthrough the regular character of its constant changes, than the sun, was\nconnected in the religious system with both the heavenly and the\nterrestrial forces. In view of Nannar's position in the heavens, he was\ncalled the \"heifer of Anu.\" Anu, it will be recalled, was the god of\nheaven (and heaven itself), while the \"heifer\"[61] is here used\nmetaphorically for offspring, the picture being suggested probably by\nthe \"horn\" that the moon presents at a certain phase. This 'horn'\nconstitutes his crown, and he is frequently represented on seal\ncylinders with a crescent over his head, and with a long flowing beard,\nthat is described as having the color of lapislazuli. A frequent title\nis the 'lord of the crown.' On the other hand, by virtue of its\ninfluence on the earth, regulating, as the ancients observed, the tides,\nthe moon was connected by the Babylonians with the reckoning of time.\nBecause of this connection with the 'lower world,' it seems, he was also\nregarded as the first-born of Bel. His sacred edifice at Ur was one to\nwhich all rulers of the place devoted themselves. Ur-Gur, Nur-Ramman,\nSin-iddina, and Kudur-mabuk tell of their embellishment of the temple,\neach one appropriating to himself the title of 'builder,' in which they\ngloried. So close, again, was the identification of the city with the\ndeity, that the latter was frequently known simply as the god of Ur, and\nthe former, as the city of Nannar.\n\nAnother name of the moon-god was Sin,--the meaning of which escapes us.\nAt the side of Ur, Harran is the place most celebrated by reason of its\nmoon-worship, and there is every reason to believe that the name Sin was\noriginally attached to Harran. The migrations of the ancient Hebrews\nwere connected as we now know with political movements in Babylonia.\nThey proceed from Ur--or Ur-Kasdim, _i.e._, Chaldean Ur--northward to\nHarran, which, by virtue of its position, became a town of much\nimportance. This association of Ur with Harran furnishes an indication\nfor historical relations of some sort, existing between the two places.\nIt is therefore not accidental, that the patron deity of both places was\nthe same. As yet, no excavations have been made at Harran, and we are,\ntherefore, dependent upon incidental notices for our knowledge of its\nhistory. These sufficiently show that the place continued through a long\nperiod to preserve its sacred character. The old temple there, was one\nof the many that stirred up the religious zeal of Nabonnedos; and\nprevious to this, we find several Assyrian kings occupied in\nembellishing and restoring the structure. An interesting reference to\nHarran, bearing witness to its ancient dignity, is found in an\ninscription of Sargon II. of Assyria (722-706 B.C.), who enumerates\namong his claims to the favor of the gods, that he restored the \"laws\nand customs of Harran,\" by which he evidently means that he was\ninstrumental in giving the place, the dignity it once enjoyed. A curious\nfeature connected with Sin, is the occurrence of the name in Mount\nSinai, in the wilderness of Sin, as well as in an inscription of\nSouthern Arabia. May not this be a further testimony to the association\nof Harran with Sin, since it is from Harran that the departure of the\nHebrews for the west took place? What more natural than that in the\nmigrations which carried the Hebrews to the west, the worship of Sin\nshould have been transferred to Arabia?[62] Important as Ur and Harran\nare as sacred towns, politically they do not retain their prominence\nafter the days of Hammurabi. The amalgamation of Nannar with Sin, and\nthe almost exclusive occurrence of the latter name in later times, does\nnot of necessity point to a preponderating influence of Harran over Ur,\nbut may be due to the greater fame which the former place acquired as\nthe goal of religious pilgrimages. The situation of Harran--the name\nitself signifies 'road'--as the highway leading to the west, must have\nbeen an important factor, in bringing this about. However this may be,\nSin and Nannar are as thoroughly identical in the period following\nHammurabi, as Babbar and Shamash. The attributes of the one are\ntransferred to the other so completely, that a separation of the two is\nno longer possible.\n\nThe ideographs with which the name of Sin is written show him to have\nbeen regarded as the god of wisdom, but while wisdom and light may be\nconnected, it is Nannar's character as the \"illuminator\" that becomes\nthe chief trait of the god. No doubt the preeminence of Ea in this\nrespect, who is the personification of wisdom, _par excellence_, made it\nsuperfluous to have another deity possessing the same trait. It is,\naccordingly, as the god of light, that Sin continues to be adored in the\nBabylonian religion; and when he is referred to, in the historical texts\nand hymns, this side of his nature is the one dwelt upon. Through his\nlight, the traps laid by the evil spirits, who are active at night, are\nrevealed. In later times, apparently through Assyrian influence, the\nreckoning of time was altered to the extent of making the day begin with\nsunrise, instead of with the approach of night; and this, together with\nthe accommodation of the lunar cycle to the movements of the sun,\nbrought about a partial change of the former conditions, and gave\nsomewhat greater prominence to Shamash. As a consequence, the role of\nSin is not as prominent in the hymns that belong to a later period as in\nthose of earlier days.\n\nThe oracles of the Assyrian kings are addressed to Shamash, and not to\nSin. Moreover, the personal factor in the case of Sin, if one may\nexpress oneself thus, is not as strong as in that of some other gods.\nHis traits are of a more general kind. He is supreme; there is none like\nhim, and the spirits are subservient to his will. But terms of\nendearment are few, while on the mythological side, comparatively little\nis made of him. He is strong and he is holy. He is called upon to clothe\nthe evil-doer with leprosy, as with a dress. In a robe, befitting his\ndignity, he stalks about. Without him, no city is founded, no district\nrestored to former glory. Sin is called the father of the gods, but in a\nmetaphorical rather than in a real sense. The only one of his children\nwho takes an important part in the later phases of Babylonian-Assyrian\nworship is his daughter Ishtar. She seems to have taken to herself some\nof the traits of right belonging to Sin, and the prominence of her\nworship may be regarded as an additional factor in accounting for the\ncomparative obscurity to which Sin gradually is assigned. At all events,\nSin is a feature of the earlier period of the Babylonian religion rather\nthan of the later periods.\n\n\nInnanna.\n\nThe secondary position held by the female deities in the Babylonian\npantheon has been repeatedly referred to. This trait of the religion\nfinds an illustration not only in the 'shadowy' character of the\nconsorts of the gods, but also in the manner in which goddesses,\noriginally distinct from one another and enjoying an existence\nindependent of any male consort, lose their individuality, as it were,\nand become merely so many forms of one and the same deity. Indeed, as we\napproach the moment when the gods of the Babylonian pantheon are ranged\ninto a system, the tendency becomes pronounced to recognize only _one_\ngoddess, representative of the principle of generation--one 'great\nmother,' endowed with a variety of traits according to the political and\nsocial conditions prevailing at different times in Babylonia and\nAssyria. In the earliest period which we are now considering, we can\nstill distinguish a number of goddesses who afterwards became merged\ninto this one great goddess. These are Ninni (or Innanna), Nana, and\nAnunit.\n\nNinni and Innanna are names that appear to have a common origin.[63]\nBoth embody the notion of 'ladyship.' The worship of this goddess\ncenters in the district of Lagash. Ur-Bau (c. 3000 B.C.), who addresses\nher as 'glorious and supreme,' builds a temple in her honor at\nGishgalla, and Gudea refers to a temple known as E-anna, _i.e._,\nheavenly house in Girsu.[64] For Gudea, Ninni is the \"mistress of the\nworld.\" Another ruler of Lagash whose name is doubtfully read as\nE-dingir-ra-na-gin,[65] but who is even earlier than Ur-Bau, declares\nthat he has been 'called' by Innanna to the throne. She is mentioned by\nthe side of Nin-khar-sag. We are still in the period where local\nassociations formed a controlling factor in ensuring the popularity of a\ndeity, and while the goddesses attached to the gods of the important\ncenters are still differentiated, the tendency already exists to\ndesignate the female consorts simply as the 'goddess,'--to apply to all,\nthe traits that may once have been peculiar to one. As we pass from one\nage to the other, there is an increasing difficulty in keeping the\nvarious local 'goddesses' apart. Even the names become interchangeable;\nand since these goddesses all represented essentially the same principle\nof generation and fertility, it was natural that with the union of the\nBabylonian states they should become merged into one great\nmother-goddess. A 'local' goddess who retains rather more of her\nindividuality than others, is\n\n\nNana.\n\nHer name is again playfully interpreted by the Babylonians--through\nassociation with Nin--as 'the lady' _par excellence_. She was the chief\ngoddess of the city of Uruk. Her temple at Uruk is first mentioned by\nUr-Gur, of the second dynasty of Ur. It is restored and enlarged by\nDungi, the successor of Ur-Bau, and so thoroughly is she identified with\nher edifice known as E-anna (again a play upon her name), that she\nbecomes known as the Lady of E-anna.[66] She appears to have had a\ntemple also at Ur, and it is to this edifice that later rulers of\nLarsa--Kudur-Mabuk and Rim-Sin, as well as the kings of the Isin\ndynasty, Gamil-Ninib, Libit-Ishtar, and Ishme-Dagan--refer in their\ninscriptions.\n\nThe members of the Isin dynasty pride themselves upon their control over\nUruk, and naturally appear as special devotees to Nana, whose chosen\n\"consort\" they declare themselves to be, wielding the sceptre, as it\nwere, in union with her. Already at this period, Nana is brought into\nconnection with the moon-god, being called by Kudur-Mabuk the daughter\nof Sin. The relationship in this case indicates, primarily, the\nsupremacy exercised by Ur, and also a similarity in the traits of the\ntwo deities. In the fully developed cosmology, Nana is the planet Venus,\nwhose various aspects, as morning and evening star, suggested an analogy\nwith the phases of the moon.\n\nVenus, like the moon, served as a guide to man, while her inferiority in\nsize and importance to the former, would naturally come to be expressed\nunder the picture of father and daughter. In a certain sense, all the\nplanets appearing at the same time and in the same region with the moon\nwere the children of the latter. Sin, therefore, is appropriately called\nthe father of gods, just as Anu, the personification of the heaven\nitself, is the supreme father of Sin and Shamash, and of all the\nheavenly bodies. The metaphorical application of 'father' as 'source,'\nthroughout Oriental parlance, must be kept in mind in interpreting the\nrelationship between the gods. Still another name of the goddess is\nAnunit, which appears to have been peculiar to the North Babylonian city\nAgade, and emphasizes her descent from \"Anu,\" the god of heaven. Her\ntemple at Agade, known as E-ul-mash, is the object of Sargon's devotion,\nwhich makes her, with Bel and Shamash, the oldest triad of gods\nmentioned in the Babylonian inscriptions. But the name which finally\ndisplaces all others, is\n\n\nIshtar.\n\nWhere the name originated has not yet been ascertained, as little as its\netymology,[67] but it seems to belong to Northern Babylonia rather than\nto the south.\n\nIn time, all the names that we have been considering--Innanna, Nana, and\nAnunit--became merely so many designations of Ishtar. She absorbs the\ntitles and qualities of all, and the tendency which we have pointed out\nfinds its final outcome in the recognition of Ishtar as the one and only\ngoddess endowed with powers and an existence independent of association\nwith any male deity, though even this independence does not hinder her\nfrom being named at times as the associate of the chief god of\nAssyria--the all-powerful Ashur. The attempt has been made by Sayce and\nothers to divide the various names of Ishtar among the aspects of Venus\nas morning and evening star, but there is no evidence to show that the\nBabylonians distinguished the one from the other so sharply as to make\ntwo goddesses of one and the same planet.\n\nIt is more in accord with what, as we have seen, has been the general\ncharacter of the Babylonian pantheon, to account for the identification\nof Ninni, Nana, and Anunit with Ishtar on the supposition that the\ndifferent names belonged originally to different localities. Ishtar was\nappropriately denominated the brilliant goddess. She is addressed as the\nmother of gods, which signals her supreme position among the female\ndeities. 'The mistress of countries' alternating with 'the mistress of\nmountains,'[68] is one of her common titles; and as the growing\nuniqueness of her position is one of the features of the\nBabylonian-Assyrian religion, it is natural that she should become\nsimply _the_ goddess. This was especially the case with the Assyrians,\nto whom Ishtar became a goddess of war and battle, the consort, at\ntimes, of the chief god of the Assyrian pantheon. At the same time it is\nimportant to note that the warlike character of the goddess goes back to\nthe time of Hammurabi (_Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, 113), and is dwelt upon by\nother Babylonian kings (_e.g._, Nebuchadnezzar I., c. 1130 B.C.) prior\nto the rise of the Assyrian power. How Ishtar came to take on so violent\na character is not altogether clear. There are no indications of this\nrole in the incantation texts, where she is simply the kind mother who\nis appealed to, to release the sufferer from the power of the\ndisease-bringing spirits. In the prayers, as will be shown in the proper\nplace, she becomes the vehicle for the expression of the highest\nreligious and ethical thought attained by the Babylonians. On the other\nhand, in the great Babylonian epic,[69] dealing with the adventures of a\nfamous hero, Gilgamesh, Ishtar, who makes her appearance at the summer\nsolstice, is a raging goddess who smites those who disobey her commands\nwith wasting disease. Starting with this phase of the goddess'\ncharacter, one can at least understand the process of her further\ndevelopment into a fierce deity presiding over the fortunes of war. The\nepic just referred to belongs to the old Babylonian period. It embodies\nancient traditions of rivalry between the Babylonian principalities,\nthough there are traces of several recastings which the epic received.\nThe violent Ishtar, therefore, is a type going back to the same period\nas the other side of her character that is emphasized elsewhere. Since,\nmoreover, the Ishtar in the Gilgamesh epic is none other than the chief\ngoddess of Uruk, all further doubt as to the union of such diverging\ntraits in one and the same personage falls to the ground. In this same\nepic, Ishtar appears as sympathizing with the sufferings of mankind, and\nbewailing the destruction that was at one time decreed by the gods. It\nis noteworthy that the violent Ishtar appears in that portion of the\nepic which, on the assumption of a zodiacal interpretation for the\ncomposition, corresponds to the summer solstice, whereas, the\ndestruction which arouses her sympathy takes place in the eleventh\nmonth. It is quite possible, therefore, that the two aspects of Venus,\nas evening and morning stars, corresponding, as they do, to the summer\nand winter seasons, are reflected in this double character of the\ngoddess. We are not justified, however, in going further and assuming\nthat her double role as daughter of Sin and daughter of Anu is to be\naccounted for in the same manner. In the Gilgamesh epic, she is found in\nassociation with Anu, and to the latter she appeals for protection as\nher father, and yet it is as the daughter of Sin that she enters the\nworld of the dead to seek for the waters that may heal her bridegroom,\nTammuz.[70] Evidently, the distinction between Ishtar as the daughter of\nAnu and as the daughter of Sin is not an important one, the term\ndaughter in both cases being a metaphor to express a relationship both\nof physical nature and of a political character. Of the various forms\nunder which the goddess appears, that of Anunit--a feminine form\nindicating descent from and appertaining to Anu--attaches itself most\nclearly to the god of heaven, and it may be that it was not until the\nassimilation of Anunit and Nana with Ishtar that the goddess is viewed\nas at once the daughter of Anu and of Sin. If this be so, there is\nsurely nothing strange in the fact that a planet like Venus should be\nregarded in one place as the daughter of heaven and in another brought\ninto relationship with the moon. She actually belongs to both.\n\nJust as in Babylonia, so in Assyria, there were various Ishtars, or\nrather various places where the goddess was worshipped as the guardian\nspirit, but her role in the north is so peculiar that all further\nconsideration of it must be postponed until we come to consider, in due\ntime, the Assyrian pantheon. There will be occasion, too, when treating\nof the Gilgamesh epic, to dwell still further on some of her traits. All\nthat need be said here is to emphasize the fact that the popularity of\nthe Babylonian Ishtar in Assyria, as manifested by Esarhaddon's zeal in\nrestoring her temple at Uruk, and Ashurbanabal's restoration of Nana's\nstatue (_c._ 635 B.C.) which had been captured by the Elamites 1635\nyears before Ashurbanabal's reign, is largely due to the effected\nidentity with the goddess who, for the Assyrians, was regarded chiefly\nas the goddess of war and strife. In worshipping the southern Ishtars,\nthe Assyrian kings felt themselves to be showing their allegiance to the\nsame deity to whom, next to Ashur, most of their supplications were\naddressed, and of whom as warriors they stood in dread.\n\n\nNina.\n\nA goddess who, while sharing the fate of her sister goddesses in being\novershadowed by Ishtar, yet merits a special treatment, is one whose\nname is plausibly conjectured to be read Nina. The compound ideogram\nexpressing the deity signifies 'house of the fish.' The word 'house' in\nSemitic parlance is figuratively extended to convey the idea of\n'possessing or harboring.' Applied to a settlement, the ideogram would\nbe the equivalent of our 'Fishtown.' It is with this same ideogram that\nthe famous capitol of Assyria, Nineveh, is written in the cuneiform\ntexts, and since the phonetic reading for the city, Ni-na-a, also\noccurs, it is only legitimate to conclude that the latter is the correct\nreading for the deity as well. As a matter of course, if the goddess\nbears a name identical with that of a city, it cannot be the Assyrian\ncity which is meant in the old Babylonian inscriptions, but some other\nplace bearing the same name. Such a place actually occurs in the\ninscriptions of Gudea. It is, in fact, one of the three towns that\ncombined with Shirpurla to create the great capitol bearing the latter\nname; and Jensen[71] has called attention to a passage in one of Gudea's\ninscriptions in which the goddess is brought into direct association\nwith the town, so that it would appear that Nina is the patron of Nina,\nin the same way that Nin-girsu is the protector of Girsu. In keeping\nwith this we find the mention of the goddess limited to the rulers of\nLagash. Several of them--En-anna-tuma, Entemena, and Gudea--declare\nthemselves to have been chosen by her. She is said to regard Gudea with\nspecial favor. She determines destinies. Another king, Ur-Nina, embodies\nthe name of the goddess in his own, and devotes himself to the\nenlargement of her temple. From the manner in which she is associated\nwith Nin-girsu, aiding the latter in guarding his temple E-ninnu, and\nuniting with the god in granting the sceptre to Gudea, one is tempted to\nconclude that the two towns, Girsu and Nina, were amalgamated before\ntheir absorption into Lagash, so that the god and goddess acquired the\nrelationship to one another of husband and consort. As for the\nconnection between this Babylonian Nina and the late Assyrian capital,\nit is quite possible that the origin of the latter is to be traced to a\nsettlement made by inhabitants of the former, although it should be\nadded that there is no positive evidence that can be adduced in support\nof this proposition. It accords, however, with the northward movement of\nculture and civilization in Mesopotamia. If this connection between the\ntwo Ninevehs be accepted, the question suggests itself whether, in time,\nNina did not become merely another form of Ishtar. The Assyrian capital\nis frequently spoken of as the 'beloved city' of Ishtar, and unless it\nbe supposed that this epithet simply reflects the comparatively late\npopularity of the distinctively Assyrian Ishtar, the most natural\nexplanation would be to propose the equation Nina = Ishtar.\n\nIn the incantation texts, Nina is frequently appealed to as the daughter\nof Ea,--the god of the deep. This relationship, as well as the\ninterpretation of the ideogram above set forth, points to the original\ncharacter of the goddess as a water-deity. This goddess, therefore,\nwould be of an entirely different form from the ones discussed in the\nprevious paragraphs. Instead of being a member of the heavenly pantheon,\nher place is with the kingdom over which Ea presides, and whose\ndwelling-place is the watery deep. In any case, Nina is originally\ndistinct from Ishtar, Nana, and Anunit; and she retains an independent\nexistence to a later period than most of the other great goddesses that\nhave been discussed. In an inscription of the days of Belnadinaplu (_c._\n1100 B.C.), published by Hilprecht,[72] Nina appears as the patron deity\nof Der,--a city of Southern Babylonia. There too she is called the\n'daughter of Ea,' the creator of everything. She is 'the mistress of\ngoddesses.' Attached to her temple there are lands that having been\nwrongfully wrested from the priests are returned upon royal command,\nunder solemn invocation of the goddess. How her worship came to be\ntransferred to Der we do not know. She appears in the inscription in\nquestion by the side of a goddess who--following Hommel--is none other\nthan Bau. Der is called the city of the god Anu, and we can only suppose\nthat it must at one time have risen to sufficient importance to harbor\nin its midst a number of deities. It is presumably[73] the place whence\nNebuchadnezzar I. sets out in the twelfth century to drive the Cassites\noff the throne of Babylonia. May it be that, during the days of the\nforeign rule, priests attached to the service of various of the old gods\nand goddesses transferred the worship of these deities to places more\nsecure from interference?\n\nBe this as it may, if our Nina has any connection with the goddess of\nNineveh, it is certain that Ishtar has retained none of Nina's traits.\nThe fusion in this case has been so complete that naught but the\nfaintest tradition of an original and independent Nina has survived in\nthe North.\n\n\nAnu.\n\nThis god, who, from a theoretical point of view (as will be shown in a\nsubsequent chapter), was regarded as standing at the head of the\norganized Babylonian pantheon, figures only incidentally in the\ninscriptions prior to the days of Hammurabi. Ur-Gur of the second\ndynasty of Ur, in invoking Nannar, calls the latter 'the powerful bull\nof Anu.' The reference is interesting, for it shows that already in\nthese early days the position of Anu, as the god of the heavenly\nexpanse, was fixed. The moon appearing in the heavens, and the\nresemblance of its crescent to a bull's horn,[74] are the two factors\nthat account for the expressive epithet used by Ur-Bau. That the worship\nof the god of heaven _par excellence_ should not have enjoyed great\npopularity in the early days of the Babylonian religion might seem\nstrange at first sight. A little reflection, however, will make this\nclear. A god of the heavens is an abstract conception, and while it is\npossible that even in an early age, such a conception may have arisen in\nsome minds, it is not of a character calculated to take a popular hold.\nAs we proceed in our attempt to trace the development of the Babylonian\nreligion, we will find the line of demarcation separating the\ntheological system, as evolved by the schoolmen, from the popular phases\nof the religion, becoming more marked. In the inscriptions of the old\nBabylonian rulers, comparatively little of the influence of the\nBabylonian theologians is to be detected. Even the description of the\nmoon as the bull of heaven falls within the domain of popular fancy. It\nis different in the days after Hammurabi, when political concentration\nleads to the focussing of intellectual life in the Euphrates Valley,\nwith all the consequences that the establishment of a central\npriesthood, with growing powers over ever-increasing territory,\ninvolves. It is to be noted, moreover, that the manner in which in the\nold Babylonian inscriptions _Anu_ is written,[75] indicates that the\nabstraction involved in the conception of a god of heaven had not yet\nbeen reached, though some measure of personification was of course\ninevitable at a time when animistic notions still held sway. A direct\nindication of this personification of heaven without the deification\nappears in the epithet 'child of Anu,' bestowed upon the goddess Bau.\nThe reference to the heavens in this connection is an allusion to Bau's\nposition as the patroness of that quarter of Lagash known as the\n'brilliant town,'[76] and where Bau's temple stood. The transference of\nthe quality of 'brilliancy' from the town to the goddess would be\nexpressed by calling the latter the offspring of that part of visible\nnature which is associated in the mind with 'brilliancy.' Somewhat\nmysterious, and still awaiting a satisfactory explanation, is the title\n'sacrificer,' or 'priest of Anu,' which one of the rulers of Lagash,\nUr-Nin-girsu, assumes. It is scarcely possible that the god of heaven\ncan be meant; and, on the other hand, if we are to assume merely a\npersonification of heaven, we encounter fresh difficulties. It seems to\nme that the use of Anu[77] here is purely metaphorical for 'high' or\n'lofty,' and that the king merely wishes to emphasize the dignity of his\nstation by declaring himself to be the heavenly priest, somewhat as we\nshould say 'priest by divine grace,' or 'supreme priest.'\n\n\nNin-si[78]-a.\n\nUr-Bau and Gudea alone of the ancient rulers refer to this god. The\nformer erects a temple in honor of the god in some quarter of his\ncapitol city, while the latter emphasizes the strength that the god has\ngiven him. These references, however, show that the god must have been\nof considerable importance, and in this case, his disappearance from the\nlater pantheon is probably due to the absorption of his role by the\ngreater god of Lagash,--Nin-girsu. Like Nin-girsu, Nin-si-a was a god of\nwar, and his worship, imported perhaps from some ancient site to Lagash,\nfalls into desuetude, as the attribute accorded to him becomes the\ndistinguishing trait of the chief deity of the place.\n\n\nGal-alim.\n\nAmong the various deities to whom Gudea gives praise for the position\nand glory which he attains is Gal-alim.[79] From him he has received\ngreat rule and a lofty sceptre. The phrase is of a very general nature\nand reveals nothing as to the special character of the god in question.\nAn earlier king, Uru-kagina, refers to the temple of the god at Lagash.\nGal-alim may have been again a merely local deity belonging to one of\nthe towns that fell under Gudea's rule, and whose attributes again were\nso little marked that this god too disappeared under the overshadowing\nimportance of Nin-girsu. He and another god, Dun-shagga, are viewed as\nthe sons of Nin-girsu.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nComing to some of the deities that we may designate as minor, it is to\nbe noted that in the case of certain ones, at least, it will be found\nthat they may be identified with others more prominent, and that what\nseem to be distinct names are in reality descriptive epithets of gods\nalready met with. This remark applies more particularly to such names as\nbegin with the element Nin, signifying either 'lord' or 'lady,' and\nwhich, when followed by the name of a place, always points to its being\na title, and, when followed by an ideographic compound, only diminishes\nthat probability to a slight degree. We have already come across several\ninstances; thus Nin-girsu, the lord of Girsu, has been shown to be a\nform of Ninib, itself an ideogram, the reading of which, it will be\nrecalled, is still uncertain; and again, Nin-khar-sag has been referred\nto, as one of the titles of the great goddess Belit. Similarly,\nNin-gish-zida, whose name signifies 'the lord of the right-hand (or\npropitious) sceptre,' becomes a title and not a name, and when Gudea\nspeaks of this god as the one who leads him to battle, and calls him\n'king,' he is simply describing the same god who is elsewhere spoken of\nas Nin-girsu. By the side of Nin-girsu and Nin-gish-zida appears\nNin-shakh, who, as Oppert[80] has shown, is like Nin-girsu the prototype\nof the well-known god of war, Ninib. However, Nin-shakh occupies, in\ncontradistinction to Nin-gish-zida and others, a position in the old\nBabylonian pantheon of an independent character, so that it is hardly\njustifiable, in such a case, to identify him completely with Ninib, and\nplace the name on a par with the epithets just referred to. The dividing\nline between the mere title and an independent god thus becomes at times\nvery faint, and yet it is well to maintain it whenever called for. In\nthe following enumeration of the minor gods of the old Babylonian\npantheon, the attempt will be made to bring out this distinction in each\ninstance.\n\nBeginning with\n\n\nNin-shakh\n\nthe element _Nin_, as has several times been mentioned, points to an\nideographic form. The second element signifies 'wild boar,' and from\nother sources we know that this animal was a sacred one in Babylonia, as\namong other Semitic nations.[81] Its flesh, on certain days of the\nBabylonian calendar, was forbidden to be eaten, from which we are\npermitted to conclude that these days were dedicated to the animal, and\nthe prohibition represents perhaps the traces of some old religious\nfestival. May Nin-shakh therefore have been a 'swine deity,' just as\nNergal is symbolized by the 'lion'? In both cases the animal would be a\nsymbol of the violent and destructive character of the god.\n\nThe ferocious character of the 'swine' would naturally result in\nassigning to Nin-shakh warlike attributes; and as a matter of fact he is\nidentified at times with Ninib. His subordinate position, however, is\nindicated by his being called the 'servant,' generally of En-lil,\noccasionally also of Anu, and as such he bears the name of\nPap-sukal,[82] _i.e._, 'divine messenger.' Rim-Sin builds a temple to\nNin-shakh at Uruk, and from its designation as his 'favorite dwelling\nplace' we may conclude that Rim-Sin only restores or enlarges an ancient\ntemple of the deity. In the light of this, the relationship above set\nforth between Nin-girsu, Nin-gish-zida, and Nin-shakh becomes somewhat\nclearer. The former, the local deity of Girsu, would naturally be called\nby the kings 'the lord of the true sceptre,' while the subordination of\nGirsu as a quarter of Lagash finds its reflection in the relationship of\nmaster and servant pictured as existing between En-lil and Nin-girsu.\nAgain, the warlike character of the patron deity of Girsu would lead to\nan identification with Nin-shakh of Uruk, possessing the same traits;\nand the incorporation of Uruk as a part of the same empire which\nincluded Lagash and its quarters, would be the last link bringing about\nthe full equation between the three. With Ninib--the solar deity--coming\ninto prominence as the god of war, all three names, Nin-girsu,\nNin-gish-zida, and Nin-shakh, would be regarded by a later age as merely\ndescriptive of one and the same god.\n\n\nDun-shagga.\n\nGudea makes mention in one of his inscriptions, by the side of\nNin-gish-zida, of a god Dun-shagga,[83] whose name signifies the 'chief\nhero,' but the phonetic reading of which it is impossible to\ndetermine.[84] Like Nin-gish-zida, he is a warlike god, and from that\none might suppose that he too is only another form of Nin-girsu-Ninib.\nAt all events, he did not differ materially from the latter. It is from\nhim, that Gudea again declares his power to be derived, just as\nelsewhere he accords to Nin-girsu this distinction. The element 'Dun,'\nwhich is very much the same as 'Nin,' speaks in favor of regarding\nDun-shagga as a title; but, in default of positive evidence, it will not\nbe out of place to give him an independent position, and to regard his\nidentification with Nin-girsu as a later phase due to the extension of\nNin-girsu's jurisdiction and his corresponding absorption of a varying\nnumber of minor gods. This tendency on the part of the greater gods to\nabsorb the minor ones is as distinctive a trait in the development of\nthe Babylonian religion, as is the subordination of one god to the\nother, whether expressed by making the subordinate god the consort, the\nchief, or the servant of a superior one. We have seen that such terms of\nrelationship correspond to certain degrees of political conditions\nexisting between the conquering and the conquered districts.\nAmalgamation of two cities or districts is portrayed in the relation of\nthe two patron deities as husband and wife, the stronger of the two\nbeing the former, the more subservient pictured as the latter. The more\npronounced superiority of the one place over the other finds expression\nin the relation of father to child, while that of master and servant\nemphasizes the complete control exercised by the one over the other.\nLastly, the absorption of one deity into another, is correlative either\nwith the most perfect form of conquest, or the complete disappearance of\nthe seat of his worship in consequence of the growing favor of one\npossessing sufficiently similar qualities to warrant identification with\nthe other.\n\n\nLugal-banda.\n\nSin-gashid of the dynasty of Uruk makes mention of this deity at the\nbeginning of one of his inscriptions. To him and to his consort,\nNin-gul, a temple as 'the seat of their joy' at that place is devoted.\nThis association of the god with the town points again to a local deity,\nbut possessing a character which leads to the absorption of the god in\nthe solar god, Nergal, whom we have already encountered, and who will\noccupy us a good deal when we come to the period after Hammurabi. The\nidentification of the two is already foreshadowed in an inscription of\nanother member of the same dynasty, Sin-gamil, who places the name of\nNergal exactly where his predecessor mentions Lugal-banda. The first\nelement in his name signifies 'king,' the second apparently 'strong,' so\nthat in this respect, too, the god comes close to Nergal, whose name\nlikewise indicates 'great lord.' The consort of Lugal-banda is\n\n\nNin-gul.\n\nHer name signifies 'the destructive lady,'--an appropriate epithet for\nthe consort of a solar deity. It is Sin-gashid again who associates\nNingul with Lugal-banda, and emphasizes his affection for the goddess by\ncalling her his mother. In one inscription, moreover, Sin-gashid\naddresses himself exclusively to the goddess, who had an equal share in\nthe temple at Uruk.\n\n\nDumuzi-zu-aba.\n\nAmong the deities appealed to by Ur-Bau appears one whose name is to be\ninterpreted as the 'unchangeable child of the watery deep.' The great\ngod of the deep we have seen is Ea. Dumuzi-zu-aba therefore belongs to\nthe water-deities, and one who, through his subordinate rank to Ea,\nsinks to the level of a water-spirit. Ur-Bau declares himself to be the\ndarling of this deity, and in the town of Girsu he erects a temple to\nhim. Girsu, however, was not the patron city of the god, for Ur-Bau\ngives Dumuzi-zu-aba, the appellation of 'the lord of Kinunira,'[85] a\nplace the actual situation of which is unknown. Dumuzi-zu-aba,\naccordingly, is to be regarded as a local deity of a place which,\nsituated probably on an arm of the Euphrates, was the reason for the\nwatery attributes assigned to the god. The comparative insignificance of\nthe place is one of the factors that accounts for the minor importance\nof the god, and the second factor is the popularity enjoyed by another\nchild of the great Ea, his child _par excellence_, Marduk, who is best\nknown as the patron god of the city of Babylon. By the side of Marduk,\nthe other children of Ea, the minor water-deities, disappear, so that to\na later generation Dumuzi-zu-aba appears merely as a form of Marduk.\nWith Dumuzi-zu-aba, we must be careful not to confuse\n\n\nDumu-zi,\n\nwho in the old Babylonian inscriptions is mentioned once by\nSin-iddina,[86] in connection with the sun-god. Dumu-zi, signifying\n'child of life,' has a double aspect--an agricultural deity and at the\nsame time a god of the lower world. He plays an important part in the\neschatological literature of the Babylonians, but hardly none at all in\nthe historical and incantation texts. A fuller treatment may therefore\nbe reserved for a future chapter.\n\n\nLugal-erima.\n\nA purely local deity, if the reading and interpretation offered by\nJensen, 'King of the city Erim,' is correct. The mention of the deity in\nan inscription of Ur-Bau, who calls himself the 'beloved servant' of\nthis god, would be due to the circumstance that the district within\nwhich the city in question lay was controlled by the rulers of Lagash.\nTo invoke as large a number of deities as possible was not only a means\nof securing protection from many sides, but was already in the early\ndays of Babylonian history indulged in by rulers, as a means of\nemphasizing the extent and manifold character of their jurisdiction.\n\n\nNin-e-gal and Ningal.\n\nA temple was erected to Nin-e-gal by the wife of Rim-Sin, of the dynasty\nruling in Larsa. Her name as interpreted in the tablet dedicated to her,\nsignifies again, as in several cases already noted, 'great lady.' She\nwas probably therefore only the consort of some patron deity; and Nannar\nbeing the most prominent god invoked by Rim-Sin, it would seem that the\ngoddess to whom the queen pays her respects is again one of the consorts\nof the moon-god.[87] This conclusion is supported by the direct\nassociation of Nannar of Ur and Ningal in an inscription emanating from\nan earlier member of the same dynasty to which Rim-Sin belongs.\nNur-Ramman speaks of building temples to these deities in the city of\nUr. Hence the goddess is also represented as interceding with Sin on\nbehalf of those who appeal to her. The form Nin-e-gal is but a variant\nof Nin-gal, so that the identification of the two lies beyond doubt, and\nit may very well be that the temple erected by the consort of Rim-Sin is\nthe same as the one referred to by Nur-Ramman. In a land where polygamy\nwas a prevailing custom, the gods too might be represented as having a\nnumber of consorts. There would of course be, just as in human\nrelations, one chief consort, but there might be others ranged at the\nside of the latter.[88] Some of these may have been consorts of other\nminor deities, worshipped in the same district, and who were given to\nthe more important divinity as he gradually overshadowed the others. In\nthis way, we may account for the large variety of 'ladies' and 'great\nladies' met with in the Babylonian pantheon, and who, being merely\n'reflections' of male deities, with no sharply marked traits of their\nown, would naturally come to be confused with one another, and finally\nbe regarded as various forms of one and the same goddess. A member of\nthe dynasty ruling in Isin, En-anna-tuma, earlier even than Nur-Ramman,\ninvokes Nin-gal in an inscription found in the ancient capital, Ur.\nHere, too, the goddess appears in association with Nannar; but,\ncuriously enough, she is designated as the mother of Shamash. It will be\nborne in mind that in the city of Ur, the sun-god occupied a secondary\nplace at the side of the moon-god. This relationship is probably\nindicated by the epithet 'offspring of Nin-gal,' accorded to Shamash in\nthe inscription referred to. The moon being superior to the sun, the\nconsort of the moon-god becomes the mother of the sun-god.\n\nReference has several times been made to\n\n\nNin-gish-zida,\n\nwho, originally a distinct solar deity, becomes scarcely distinguishable\nfrom Nin-girsu, and is eventually identified with the great Nin-ib.[89]\nIt is noticeable that these four deities, Nin-girsu, Nin-shakh,\nNin-gish-zida, and Nin-ib, who are thus associated together, all contain\nthe element _Nin_ in their names,--a factor that may turn out to be of\nsome importance when more abundant material shall be forthcoming for\ntracing their development in detail. One of Gudea's inscriptions[90]\nbegins with the significant statement, 'Nin-gish-zida is the god of\nGudea'; and elsewhere when speaking of him, he is 'my god,' or 'his\ngod.' None of the ancient Babylonian rulers make mention of him except\nGudea, though in the incantation texts he is introduced and\nsignificantly termed 'the throne-bearer' of the earth. The purely local\ncharacter of the deity is, furthermore, emphasized by the reference to\nhis temple in Girsu, on a brick and on a cone containing dedicatory\ninscriptions, inscribed by Gudea in honor of the god.[91]\n\n\nShul (or Dun)-pa-uddu.\n\nThe wife of the famous Gudea, Gin-Shul-pa-uddu, bears a name in which\none of the elements is a deity, the phonetic reading of whose name is\nstill uncertain.[92] The elements comprising it, namely, 'lord' (?),\n'sceptre,' and 'radiant,' leave little doubt as to the solar character\nof the god. Besides Gudea's wife, a ruler, Ur-Shul-pa-uddu,[93]\nbelonging apparently to a somewhat earlier period, embodies this deity\nin his name. The worship of the deity, therefore, belongs to a very\nearly epoch, and appears at one time to have enjoyed considerable\npopularity within a certain district of Babylonia. To what region of\nBabylonia he belongs has not yet been ascertained. Judging from\nanalogous instances, he represented some phase of the sun worshipped in\na particular locality, whose cult, with the disappearance of the place\nfrom the surface of political affairs, yielded to the tendency to\nconcentrate sun-worship in two or three deities,--Shamash and Ninib more\nespecially. In the astronomy of the Babylonians the name survived as a\ndesignation of Marduk-Jupiter.[94]\n\n\nNin-Mar.\n\nA local deity, designated as the lady of Mar, is invoked by Ur-Bau, from\nwhom we learn that she was the daughter of Nina. _Mar_, with the\ndeterminative for country, _Ki_, appears to have been the name of a\ndistrict extending to the Persian Gulf.[95] The capital of the district\nis represented by the mound Tel-Id, not far from Warka. Her subsidiary\nposition is indicated in these words, and we may conclude that Nin-Mar\nat an early period fell under the jurisdiction of the district in which\nNina was supreme. For all that, Nin-Mar, or the city in which her cult\nwas centralized, must have enjoyed considerable favor. Ur-Bau calls her\nthe 'gracious lady,' and erects a temple, the name of which,\nIsh-gu-tur,[96] _i.e._, according to Jensen's plausible interpretation,\n'the house that serves as a court for all persons,' points to Mar as a\nplace of pilgrimage to which people came from all sides. Gudea,\naccordingly, does not omit to include 'the lady of Mar' in his list of\nthe chief deities to whom he pays his devotions; and on the assumption\nof the general favor in which the city of Mar stood as a sacred town, we\nmay account for the fact that a much later ruler, Dungi, of the dynasty\nof Ur,[97] erects a temple to her honor.\n\n\nPa-sag.\n\nA deity, the phonetic reading of whose name is unknown, or at all events\nuncertain,[98] is mentioned once by Gudea in the long list of deities\nthat has been several times referred to. The ideographs with which his\nname is written designate him as a chief of some kind, and in accord\nwith this, Gudea calls him 'the leader of the land.' Pa-sag is mentioned\nimmediately after the sun-god Utu, and in view of the fact that another\nsolar deity, I-shum, whom we shall come across in a future chapter, is\ndesignated by the same title[99] as Pa-sag, it seems safe to conclude\nthat the latter is likewise a solar deity, and in all probability, the\nprototype of I-shum, if not indeed identical with him.\n\n\nNisaba (or Nidaba).\n\nIn a dream which the gods send to Gudea, he sees among other things, a\ngoddess, whose name may be read Nisaba or Nidaba.[100] Nina, who\ninterprets the dream to the ruler of Shirpurla, declares that Nisaba is\nher sister. In a text belonging to a still earlier age, the deity is\nmentioned as the begetter of a king whose name is read Lugal-zaggisi.[101]\nFrom the manner in which the name of the goddess is written, as well as\nfrom other sources, we know that Nisaba is an agricultural deity. In\nhistorical texts she plays scarcely any role at all, but in incantations\nshe is often referred to; and from the fact that Nisaba is appealed to,\nto break the power of the demons in conjunction with Ea, it would appear\nthat the position once occupied by her was no insignificant one.\nNin-girsu, it will be recalled, has also traits which connect him with\nagricultural life, and Nina being the daughter of Nin-si-a, one of the\nforms under which Ningirsu-Ninib appears, we may connect Nisaba directly\nwith the cults of which Lagash formed the center. Nisaba must have been\nthe consort of one of the agricultural gods, whose jurisdiction falls\nwithin Gudea's empire. Lugal-zaggisi, as the king of Uruk, assigns to\nthe goddess a first place. Her origin must, therefore, be sought in this\nregion. In later days the name of the goddess is used to describe the\nfertility of the soil in general. So Ashurbanabal, describing the\nprosperity existing in his days, says that grain was abundant through\nthe 'increase of Nisaba.'[102]\n\n\nKU(?)-Anna.\n\nA goddess of this name--reading of the first sign doubtful--is mentioned\nby Ur-Bau, who builds a temple to her in Girsu. If Amiaud is correct in\nhis reading of the first sign, the goddess was identified at one time by\nthe Babylonians with the consort of Ramman--the storm-god. This would\naccord with the description that Ur-Bau gives of the goddess. She is the\none who deluges the land with water--belonging therefore to the same\norder as Bau.\n\nIn a list of deities enumerated by a ruler of Erech, Lugal-zaggisi,[103]\nare found (1) a local goddess,\n\n\nUmu,\n\ndesignated as the 'priestess of Uruk,'[104] and occupying an inferior\nrank to (2) a goddess,\n\n\nNin-akha-kuddu,[105]\n\nwho is called 'the mistress of Uruk.' The importance of Erech in the\nearly history of Babylonia is emphasized by the inscriptions from\nNippur, recently published by Dr. Hilprecht. It is natural, therefore,\nto find several deities of a purely local type commemorated by kings who\nbelong to this region. The goddess Umu is not heard of again. The great\ngoddess of Uruk, Nana, absorbs the smaller ones, and hence\nNin-akha-kuddu survives chiefly in incantation texts as 'the lady of\nshining waters,' of 'purification,' and of 'incantations.'[106]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLastly, a passing reference may be made to several deities to whom\nsanctuaries are erected by Uru-Kagina in the great temple of Bau at\nUru-azaga, and whom Amiaud regards as sons of Bau.\n\nUru-Kagina enumerates three, Za-za-uru, Im-pa-ud-du, and\nGim-nun-ta-ud-du-a.[107] The element _ud-du_ in the last two names\nsignifies 'radiant' or 'rising up'; while _pa-ud-du_ (like in\nShul-pa-ud-du, p. 99) means 'radiant sceptre.' If to this, we add that\n_Im_ is 'storm,' it will appear plausible to see in the second name a\nform of a raging solar deity and perhaps also in the third; _gim nun_ in\nthe latter name may mean 'creating lord.' To these Amiaud[108] adds from\nother sources, Khi-gir-nunna, Khi-shaga, Gurmu, and Zarmu. He takes\nthese seven deities as sons of Bau, but he offers no conclusive evidence\nfor his theory. Some of these deities may turn out to be synonymous with\nsuch as have already been met with.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[24] Indicated by separating the syllables composing the name.\n\n[25] At the period when the kings of Ur extend their rule over Nippur,\nthey, too, do not omit to refer to the distinction of having been called\nto the service of the great god at his temple.\n\n[26] The name signifies, 'He has founded the city,' the subject of the\nverb being some deity whose name is omitted.\n\n[27] Jensen, _Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, p. 23, proposes to read Nin-Ur-sag, but\nwithout sufficient reason, it seems to me. The writing being a purely\nideographic form, an _epitheton ornans_, the question of how the\nideographs are to be read is not of great moment.\n\n[28] We may compare the poetic application 'rock' to Yahweh in the Old\nTestament, _e.g._, Job 1. 12, and frequently in Psalms,--lxii. 3, 7;\nxcii. 16, 18, etc.\n\n[29] Reading doubtful. Jensen suggests Erim. Hommel (_Proc. Soc. Bibl.\nArch._ xv. 37 _seq._) endeavored to identify the place with Babylon, but\nhis views are untenable. If Gish-galla was not a part of Lagash, it\ncould not have been far removed from it. It was Amiaud who first\nsuggested that Shir-pur-la (or Lagash) was the general name for a city\nthat arose from an amalgamation of four originally distinct quarters.\n(\"Sirpurla\" in _Revue Archeologique_, 1888.) The suggestion has been\ngenerally, though not universally accepted.\n\n[30] That Ninib is only an ideographic form is sufficiently clear from\nthe element NIN-, lord. The proof, however, that Ninib is Adar, is still\nwanting. See Jensen, _Kosmologie der Babylonier_, pp. 457, 458.\n\n[31] From the context (De Sarzec, _Decouvertes_, pl. 6, no. 4, ll.\n13-21, and pl. 31, no. 3, col iii. ll. 2-6), there can be no doubt that\nShul-gur (or Shul-gur-ana) is an epithet of Nin-girsu. The ideographs\ndescriptive of the edifice suggest a corn magazine of some kind. One is\nreminded of the storehouses for grain in Egypt. See Jensen's Notes,\n_Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, pp. 15, 18, 73. A comparison of the two texts in\nquestion makes it probable that Ab-gi and E-bi-gar are synonymous.\n\n[32] Rawlinson, iv. 27, no. 6; 11, 45-46.\n\n[33] It is noticeable that there is no mention made of a special god of\nLagash, which points to the later origin of the name.\n\n[34] Inscr. D, col. li. 13; G, col. ii. ll. 1-8; iii. 4 _seq._\n\n[35] See Gen. xxiv. 53. Burkhardt, _Notes on the Bedouins_, i. 109,\ngives an example of the custom.\n\n[36] The two names are used by Gudea (Inscr. G, col. iii. 12) in a way\nto indicate that they embrace the whole district of Lagash.\n\n[37] _Semit. Voelker_, p. 382.\n\n[38] See Jensen, _Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, 28, note 2.\n\n[39] The first signifies 'to make,' the third means \"good, favorable,\"\nbut the second, upon which so much depends, is not clear. Amiaud reads\n_tum_ instead of _sig_.\n\n[40] _E.g._, Nina (see below).\n\n[41] De Sarzec, pl. 7, col. i. 12.\n\n[42] _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 104.\n\n[43] Inscr. D, col. iv. ll. 7, 8.\n\n[44] In Rawlinson, ii. 58, no. 6, there is a list of some seventy names.\n\n[45] Rawlinson, ii. 58, no. 6, 58.\n\n[46] De Sarzec, pl. 8, col v. ll. 4-6.\n\n[47] _Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, 80, note 3.\n\n[48] Rawlinson, iv. 35, no. 2, 1.\n\n[49] See a syllabary giving lists of gods, Rawlinson, ii. 60, 12. Dungi,\nindeed, calls Nergal once the king of lawful control over Lagash\n(Rawlinson, iv. 35, no. 2, ll. 2, 3). The exact force of the title is\nnot clear, but in no case are we permitted to conclude as Amiaud does\n(_Rec. of the Past_, N.S., i. 59) that Shid-lam-ta-udda is identical\nwith Nin-girsu.\n\n[50] See Jensen, _Kosmologie der Babylonier_, pp. 476-87.\n\n[51] See Jensen, _Kosmologie der Babylonier_, pp. 476-87.\n\n[52] So in the inscription of Rim-Sin (_Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, p. 97).\n\n[53] Perhaps the knob of a sceptre. _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._ viii. 68.\n\n[54] _E.g._, Hammurabi (_Revue d'Assyriologie_, ii. col. i. 21); but\nalso Gudea and a still earlier king.\n\n[55] So Amlaud; and there seems some reason to believe that the name was\nused by the side of Utu, though perhaps only as an epithet.\n\n[56] Compare _birbiru_, 'sheen,' and the stem _baru_, 'to see,' etc.\n\n[57] See _Keils Bibl._ 3, I, 100. Reading of name uncertain.\n\n[58] Suggested by Rawlinson, ii. 57, 10. See Schrader, _Zeits. f.\nAssyr._ iii. 33 _seq._\n\n[59] On Sippar, see Sayce, _Hibbert Lectures_, etc., 168-169, who finds\nin the Old Testament form \"Sepharvayim\" a trace of this double Sippar.\nDr. Ward's suggestion, however, in regard to Anbar, as representing this\n'second' Sippar, is erroneous.\n\n[60] _E.g._, in Southern Arabia. See W. Robertson Smith, _The Religion\nof the Semites_, I. 59.\n\n[61] In Rabbinical literature, the moon is compared to a 'heifer'\n(Talmud Babli Rosh-hashana 22 _b_).\n\n[62] That the name of Sin should have been introduced into Mesopotamia\nthrough the 'Arabic' dynasty (see above, p. 39) is less probable, though\nnot impossible in the light of recent discoveries.\n\n[63] Innanna may be separated into _In_ = lord or lady, and _nanna_;\n_in_ and _nanna_ would then be elements added to \"lady,\" conveying\nperhaps the idea of greatness. See Jensen's remarks, _Keils Bibl._ 3, I,\n20, note 4.\n\n[64] _Rec. of the Past_, N.S., ii. p. 104.\n\n[65] _Keils Bibl._ 3, I, 16. See Jensen's note on the reading of the\nname.\n\n[66] The fame of this temple outlasts the political importance of the\nplace, and as late as the days of the Assyrian monarchy is an object of\nfostering care on the part of the kings.\n\n[67] That the name is Semitic is no longer seriously questioned by any\nscholar. The underlying stem suggests etymological relationship with the\ngod Ashur. If this be so, Ishtar may mean 'the goddess that brings\nblessing' to mankind, but all this is tentative, as are the numerous\nother etymologies suggested.\n\n[68] The ideographs for 'country' and 'mountain' are identical Assyrian.\nThe alternation in the title of Ishtar must not be taken to point to a\nmountainous origin of the goddess.\n\n[69] A full account of this epic will be given at its proper place.\n\n[70] Again, in the incantation texts she appears only as the daughter of\nAnu, cooerdinate with Sin and Shamash.\n\n[71] _Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, 72, note. Some scholars, as Hommel (_Gesch. d.\nalt. Morgenlandes_, p. 68), propose to identify this place with the\nAssyrian Nineveh, but the conjecture lacks proof and is altogether\nimprobable.\n\n[72] _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, I. pls. 30, 31. (See now Peiser,\n_Keils Bibl._ 4, pp. 64-66.)\n\n[73] Questioned by Peiser, _ib._\n\n[74] Among many nations the moon is pictured as a horned animal. See\nRobert Brown's interesting monograph on _The Unicorn_, pp. 27 _seq. et\npassim_; also above, p. 76.\n\n[75] Simply the sign AN (= god, heaven) and the phonetic complement\n_na_.\n\n[76] See above, p. 59.\n\n[77] Written An-na, without the determinative for deity. De Sarzec,\n_Decouvertes en Chaldee_, pl. 37, no. 8.\n\n[78] The second element may also be read _dar_. See Jensen, _Keils\nBibl._ 3, 1, p. 24, note 1.\n\n[79] Inscription B, col. ii. 19.\n\n[80] See Hommel, _Semitische Kulturen_, p. 389.\n\n[81] For the sacred character of the swine among the Semites, see W.\nRobertson Smith's _The Religion of the Semites_, pp. 201, 272, 332, 457.\nRawlinson, iii. 68, 22, occurs a deity, 'swine of the right hand,'\n_i.e._, propitious.\n\n[82] Rawlinson, ii. 59, 23. The second element in Pap-sukal is the\ncommon Babylonian word for 'servant,' or 'messenger;' other deities\ntherefore standing in a subsidiary position are also called Pap-sukal.\nSo _e.g._, Nebo and Nusku. See further on and compare Hommel, _Semiten_,\npp. 479, 480.\n\n[83] Inscription B, col iii. 2.\n\n[84] Uru-kagina, earlier than Gudea (de Sarzec, pl. 32), appears to have\nbuilt a temple to Dun-shagga, but the passage is not altogether clear.\nThe element also appears in the name of the ruler of Ur, _Dungi_,\n_i.e._, 'the legitimate hero,' as Sargon is the 'legitimate king.'\n\n[85] Signifying, according to Jensen, _Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, p. 25,\n'fighting-place'.\n\n[86] Published by Delitzsch, _Beitraege zur Assyr._ I. 301-311.\n\n[87] So also Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 14, note 3.\n\n[88] So Anu appears to have concubines.\n\n[89] See above, pp. 92, 93.\n\n[90] Inscription C.\n\n[91] De Sarzec, pl. 37, no. 5; _Trans. Soc. Bibl. Arch._ vi. 279.\n\n[92] Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 127, proposes to read Umun-pauddu.\n\n[93] Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, i. 2, no. 93. The name\nalso appears in syllabaries as Shul-pa-ud-du-a. For the element\n_pa-udda_, see p. 103. In Nergal's name Shid-lam-ta-uddu-a (p. 65), the\nsame final elements are found which appear to be characteristic epithets\nof solar deities. The first element in the name has also the value Dun\n(as in Dun-gi).\n\n[94] Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp. 125, 126.\n\n[95] See _Journal Asiatique_, September-October, 1895, p. 393.\n\n[96] De Sarzec, pl. 8, col. v. ll. 8-12.\n\n[97] IR. pl. 2, no. 4.\n\n[98] Jensen regards Pa-sag as a possible phonetic form, but his view is\nhardly tenable.\n\n[99] See Zimmern, _Busspsalmen_, pp. 60, 61.\n\n[100] Cylinder A, cols. iv. and v. Amiaud read the name _Nirba_.\n\n[101] Just published by Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, i. 2,\npls. 38-47. _Cf._ p. 52\n\n[102] VR. col. i. 48.\n\n[103] See at close of chapter vi.\n\n[104] Hilprecht, _ib._ no. 87, col i. 30.\n\n[105] _Ib._ i. 32. Hilprecht reads Nin-a-gid-kha-du, but this can hardly\nbe correct.\n\n[106] The two ideas, 'water' and 'incantation,' are correlated. The\n'waters' meant are those used for purification purposes in connection\nwith the magic formulas.\n\n[107] De Sarzec, pl. 32, col. ii. 9-11.\n\n[108] _Records of the Past_, N.S., i. 59. Amiaud reads the second name\nIm-ghud-ena and the third Gim (or Ur)-nun-ta-ena. The publication in De\nSarzec favors my readings.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE CONSORTS OF THE GODS.\n\n\nAttention has already been directed to the comparatively small number of\nfemale deities that appear in the inscriptions of the first period of\nBabylonian history. We must, however, not conclude from this, that such\ndeities did not exist in larger numbers. On the contrary, we may feel\ncertain that every god had his consort, and in some cases more than one.\nSeveral instances of such consorts have been furnished in this chapter;\nbut if the consorts of the larger number of these gods are unknown, it\nis because of the insignificant role that these consorts played. The\ngoddesses of Babylonia, with few exceptions, become mere shadowy\nreflections of the gods, with but little independent power, and in some\ncases none at all. They owe what popularity they enjoyed to their\nassociation with their male companions. In consequence of this inferior\nrole played by the female deities, the tendency becomes more pronounced,\nas we pass from the first to the second period of Babylonian history, to\nreduce by assimilation the small number that have independent\nattributes, until we reach a condition in which we have practically only\none goddess, appearing under many forms. It is only in the religious\ntexts, and in some phases of the popular beliefs, that goddesses retain\na certain degree of prominence. So, a goddess Allat, as we shall see,\nplays an important part as the chief goddess of the subterranean cave\nthat houses the dead. Allat appears to have been originally a consort of\nthe famous Bel of Nippur, but through association with Nergal, who\nbecomes the chief god of the lower world, almost all traces of the\noriginal character of the goddess disappear. Again, Gula, the consort of\nNin-ib, while occasionally mentioned in the historical texts of the\nsecond and third period, and under the form Ma-ma, as an element in a\nproper name belonging to the oldest period,[109] is more frequently\ninvoked in incantations as the healer of disease. The same is the case\nwith other goddesses; so that we may conclude that from the earliest\ntimes, the Babylonian religion shared the trait so marked in all Semitic\ncults, of a combination of the male and female principle in the\npersonification of the powers that controlled the fate of man. In part,\nno doubt, the minor importance of women, so far as the outward aspects\nof social and political life were concerned, is a factor in the\naltogether secondary importance attaching to the consorts of the gods;\nbut we may feel certain that there was no god, however restricted in his\njurisdiction, or however limited in the number of his worshippers, who\nhad not associated with him a female companion, who follows him as the\nshadow follows the substance.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[109] According to Hilprecht, _ib._ p. 48, note 6. For _Ma-ma_ and\n_Me-me_, as names of Gula, see chapter viii.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nGUDEA'S PANTHEON.\n\n\nGudea manifests a fondness for giving to his pantheon as large a compass\nas possible. In this respect, he follows earlier examples, and also sets\nan example which is followed by many of the rulers of Babylonia and\nAssyria, who felt that the larger the number of gods invoked by them,\nthe more impressive would their own position appear in the eyes of their\nsubjects. Moreover, by incorporating in their pantheon the gods\nassociated with districts that they controlled, they would not only\nsecure the protection of these deities, but would emphasize their own\nclaim to an extended sovereignty. The beginning and the close of\ndedicatory and commemorative inscriptions were the favorite\nopportunities, seized upon by the kings, for parading the list of the\npowers under whose patronage they wished to appear. These lists are both\ninteresting and valuable, as furnishing in a convenient form a summary\nof the chief gods included in the Babylonian pantheon at the various\nhistorical periods. At the close of one of his inscriptions,[110] Gudea\nfurnishes a list of no less than eighteen deities. In rapid succession\nhe enumerates Anu, En-lil (Bel), Nin-khar-sag, En-ki (Ea), En-zu (Sin),\nNin-girsu, Nina, Nin-si-a, Ga-tum-dug, Bau, Ninni, Utu (Shamash),\nPa-sag, Gal-alim, Dun-shagga, Nin-Mar, Dumuzi-zuaba, Nin-gish-zida.\nThese deities may be taken as indicative of the territorial extent of\nGudea's jurisdiction. They are called upon to punish him who attempts to\nalter the decrees of the ruler, or to efface the memory of his deeds.\nAgain, at the beginning of one of his inscriptions, he appeals to\nNin-girsu, En-lil, Nina, Bau, Ga-tum-dug, Gal-alim, and Dun-shagga. He\nrecounts what he has done to promote the cults of these deities, and\nupon his conduct he grounds his hope that they will aid him in his\nundertakings. The lists, as will be observed, vary in the number and in\nthe order of the gods enumerated. In the second list, the position of\nNin-girsu at the head is due to the fact that the inscription\ncommemorates the dedication of a sanctuary to that god. But Nin-girsu,\ndespite his rank as the chief god of Lagash, belongs to a second class\nof deities. Standing far above him is the triad, Anu, Bel, and Ea, the\ngods that personify, as we have seen, the great divisions of the\nuniverse,--heaven, earth, and water. These gods, accordingly, take\nprecedence of Nin-girsu in the first list. In a succeeding chapter, the\nsignificance of this triad for the Babylonian religion will be fully set\nforth. For the present, it is sufficient to note that the\nsystematization of popular beliefs, involved in the distinctions thus\nemphasized in the groupings of deities into classes, begins at so early\na period. This systematization, however, has not yet assumed final\nshape. True, the moon-god has already been given the place, immediately\nfollowing upon the triad, that he will hold in the developed form of\nBabylonian theology; but while, as we have seen, Sin properly takes\nprecedence of the sun-god, the latter should follow in the wake of his\nassociate. Not only, however, does Nin-girsu precede, but two other\ndeities who are closely related in general character to the 'warrior\ndeity' of Gudea's dominion. Then, the two great goddesses, Bau and\nNinni, are introduced, and it is not until they are disposed of that the\nsun-god, together again with Pa-sag as a kind of lieutenant,[111] is\ninvoked. In the arrangement of the five remaining deities, no special\nprinciple can be recognized. They, evidently, occupy a minor rank. It is\npossible, then, to distinguish no less than four classes in the old\nBabylonian pantheon: (1) the great triad, Anu, Bel, and Ea; (2) a second\ngroup, as yet incomplete, but which will eventually include Sin,\nShamash, and Ramman, representing the great powers of nature--moon, sun,\nand storm; (3) the great gods, the patron deities of the more important\npolitical centers of the country; and (4) the minor ones, representing\nthe local cults of less important places. Naturally, the dividing line\nbetween the two last-named classes is not sharply marked, and in\naccordance with the ever-varying political kaleidoscope, local deities\nwill rise from the rank of minor gods to a higher place in the pantheon;\nwhile such as once enjoyed high esteem will, through decline in the\npolitical fortunes of their worshippers, be brought down from the higher\nto an inferior rank.[112] It is this constant interaction between the\npolitical situation and the relationship of the gods to one another,\nthat constitutes one of the most striking features of the religion of\nBabylonia and Assyria. In the course of time, as an organized pantheon\nleads to greater stability in the domain of theological speculation, the\ninfluence of the politics of the country on the religion becomes less\nmarked, without, however, disappearing altogether. The various classes\ninto which the gods are divided, are definitely fixed by the schools of\ntheology that, as we shall see, take their rise in the Euphrates Valley.\nThe rivalry, on the one hand, between the Babylonian empire united under\none head, and the Assyrian empire on the other, alone remains to bring\nabout an occasional exchange of places between the two gods who stand at\nthe head of the great gods of the Babylonian and Assyrian pantheon\nrespectively. The attempt has been made by Amiaud[113] to arrange the\npantheon of this oldest period in a genealogical order. In Gudea's long\nlist of deities, he detects three generations,--the three chief gods and\none goddess, as the progenitors of Sin, Shamash, Nin-girsu, Bau, and\nothers. The gods of this second division give rise to a third class,\nviewed again as the offspring of the second. Professor Davis, taking up\nthis idea of Amiaud, has quite recently maintained[114] that the family\nidea must form our starting-point for an understanding of the pantheon\nof Lagash. The theory, however, does not admit of consistent\napplication. There are gods, as Amiaud recognized, who cannot be brought\nunder his scheme, so far at least as present testimony is concerned; and\nothers can only by an arbitrary assumption be forced into accord with\nthe theory. Moreover, we should expect to find traces of this family\nidea in the later phases of the Assyro-Babylonian pantheon. Such,\nhowever, is not the case. A more reasonable and natural explanation of\nthe relationship existing between many--not all--of the gods of Gudea's\npantheon has already been suggested. In part, we must look to the\ndevelopment of a theological system of thought in the Euphrates Valley\nto account for the superior position accorded to certain gods, and in\npart, political conditions and political changes afford an explanation\nfor the union of certain deities into a family group. So far, indeed,\nAmiaud is correct, that the relationship existing between the various\ndeities, was as a rule expressed in terms applicable to human society.\nThe secondary position occupied, _e.g._, by Sin when compared with a god\nwhose domain is the entire 'lower regions,' would be aptly expressed by\ncalling the moon-god the eldest son of En-lil or Bel; and, similarly, a\ngoddess like Bau would be called the daughter of Anu. It is a mistake,\nhowever, to interpret the use of 'daughter' and 'son' literally. Such\nterms are employed in all Semitic languages in a figurative sense, to\nindicate a dependent position of some sort. Again, we have seen that the\nunion of a number of cities or states under one head would be followed\nby a union of the deities proper to these cities or states. That union\nwould be expressed, according to circumstances, either by placing the\ndeities on a footing of equality--in which case they would be consorts,\nor brothers and sisters, _offsprings_ therefore of one and the same\ngod--or, the superior rank of one patron god would be indicated by\nassigning to the god of a conquered or subordinate territory the rank of\noffspring or attendant.\n\nIn studying such a list as that presented by Gudea, we must, therefore,\nmake due allowance for what may be called local peculiarities and local\nconditions. It is only by comparing his list with others that we can\ndifferentiate between the general features of Babylonian cults and the\nspecial features due to political and local associations. We are in a\nposition now to institute this comparison for a period which is\ncertainly some centuries earlier than Gudea. The date of the reign of\nLugal-zaggisi, king of Uruk, who has been several times referred to in a\nprevious chapter, is fixed by Hilprecht at _c._ 4500 B.C., but it is\ndoubtful whether so high an age will be accepted by scholars. The\nchronology for the period beyond Gudea is still in a very uncertain\ncondition. Lugal-zaggisi, in a long list of deities at the beginning of\nan important inscription, enumerates in succession Anu, the goddess\nNisaba, the gods En-lil (or Bel), En-ki (=Ea), En-zu (Sin), Utu (the\nsun-god), the goddess Ninni (or Nana(?)), Nin-khar-sag, Umu, and\nNin-akha-kuddu. As for Anu, the king introduces the name, as Ur-Ningirsu\nof Lagash does (see above, p. 90), in calling himself 'priest of Anu,'\nand which, according to the explanation suggested, means simply 'divine\npriest.'\n\nBel, Ea, Sin, and Shamash (or Utu) are common to Gudea and\nLugal-zaggisi. These constitute, then, the great gods whose worship is\nno longer limited to any particular district. They have become common\nproperty, in part through the sanctity attached to the places where the\ngods were worshipped, in part through the antiquity of these places, and\nin part, no doubt, as the result of a political development lying behind\nthe period under consideration. The prominence given by Lugal-zaggisi to\nNisaba is rather surprising. He calls himself and also his father,\n'hero' of Nisaba. If, however, it be borne in mind that of the goddesses\nat least two, Umu and Nin-akha-kuddu, are of a local character, the\nconclusion appears justified that Nisaba was a goddess associated more\nparticularly with the district in which Uruk lay. The goddess Ninni\n(written simply as 'the goddess') is no doubt identical with the great\nNana of Uruk, and Nin-khar-sag is introduced as the consort of En-lil.\n\nAs a result of this comparison, we may note the tendency towards a\ngeneral recognition of certain great gods, which is more fully developed\nin the period of Hammurabi. At the same time, the loyalty of the rulers\nto the gods, peculiar to their own district, is manifested by the\nprominent place assigned in the several cases to gods who otherwise play\nan insignificant role, and who eventually are absorbed by others; and\nlastly, as between Lugal-zaggisi and Gudea, the observation may be made\nof the disposition to emphasize local gods, less for their own sake,\nthan because of the eclat furnished by the enumeration of a large\npantheon, which shall be coequal in extent and dignity to the district\nclaimed by the rulers and to the rank assumed by them.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[110] Inscr. B, cols. viii. ix.\n\n[111] See above, p. 101.\n\n[112] See Winckler's excellent remarks on the relationship between the\ncity and the god in ancient Babylonia (_Altorientalische Forschungen_,\nIII. 232-235).\n\n[113] _Records of the Past_, N.S., i. 57-59.\n\n[114] In a paper on \"The Gods of Shirpurla,\" read before the American\nOriental Society in April, 1895. (_Proceedings_, ccxiii-ccxviii.)\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nSUMMARY.\n\n\nWe have thus passed in review the old Babylonian pantheon, so far as the\ndiscovered texts have revealed their names and epithets. The list does\nnot claim to be exhaustive. That future texts will add to its length, by\nrevealing the existence at this early period of many known to us at\npresent only from later texts or from the religious literature,[115] is\nmore than likely. The nature of the old Babylonian religion entails, as\na necessary consequence, an array of gods that might be termed endless.\nLocal cults would ever tend to increase with the rise of new towns, and\nwhile the deities thus worshipped would not rise to any or much\nimportance, still their names would become known in larger circles, and\na ruler might, for the sake of increasing his own lustre, make mention\nof one or more of them, honoring them at the same time by an epithet\nwhich might or might not accurately define their character. As long as\nthe various districts of Babylonia were not formally united under one\nhead, various local cults might rise to equally large proportions, while\nthe gods worshipped as the special patrons of the great centers, as\nLagash, Ur, Uruk, Nippur, and the like, would retain their prominence,\neven though the political status of the cities sacred to them suffered a\ndecline. The ruler of the district that claimed a supremacy over one\nthat formerly occupied an independent position, would hasten to\nemphasize this control by proudly claiming the patron deity as part of\nhis pantheon. The popularity of Sin at Ur suffered no diminution because\nthe supremacy of Ur yielded to that of Uruk. On the contrary, the god\ngained new friends who strove to rival the old ones in manifestations of\nreverence; and when, as happened in several instances, the patron\ndeities were personifications of natural phenomena, whose worship\nthrough various circumstances became associated with particular\nlocalities, there was an additional reason for the survival, and,\nindeed, growing importance of such local cults, quite independent of the\npolitical fortunes that befell the cities in which the gods were\nsupposed to dwell.\n\nAs a consequence, there are a considerable number of deities who are met\nwith both at the beginning and at the end of the first period of\nBabylonian history--a period, be it remembered, that, so far as known,\nalready covers a distance of 2,000 years. These are of two classes,\n(_a_) deities of purely local origin, surviving through the historical\nsignificance of the places where they were worshipped, and (_b_)\ndeities, at once local in so far as they are associated with a fixed\nspot, but at the same time having a far more general character by virtue\nof being personifications of the powers of nature. The jurisdiction of\nboth classes of deities might, through political vicissitudes, be\nextended over a larger district than the one to which they were\noriginally confined, and in so far their local character would tend to\nbe obscured. It would depend, however, upon other factors, besides the\nmerely political ones, whether these cults would take a sufficiently\ndeep hold upon the people to lead to the evolution of deities, entirely\ndissociated from fixed seats, who might be worshipped anywhere, and\nwhose attributes would tend to become more and more abstract in\ncharacter. Such a process, however, could not be completed by the silent\nworking of what, for want of a better name, we call the genius of the\npeople. It requires the assistance, conscious and in a measure pedantic,\nof the thinkers and spiritual guides of a people. In other words, the\nadvance in religious conceptions from the point at which we find them\nwhen the union of the Babylonian states takes place, is conditioned upon\nthe infusion of the theological spirit into the mass of beliefs that\nconstituted the ancient heritage of the people.\n\nOn the other hand, various circumstances have already been suggested\nthat cooeperated, already prior to the days of Hammurabi, in weeding out\nthe superfluity of deities, at least so far as recognition of them in\nthe official inscriptions of the rulers were concerned. Deities,\nattached to places of small and ever-diminishing importance would, after\nbeing at first adopted into the pantheon by some ruler desirous of\nemphasizing his control over the town in question, end in being entirely\nabsorbed by some more powerful god, whose attributes were similar to\nthose of his minor companion. Especially would this be the case with\ndeities conceived as granting assistance in warfare. The glory of the\nsmaller warrior gods would fade through the success achieved by a\nNin-girsu. The names and epithets would be transferred to the more\npowerful god, and, beyond an occasional mention, the weaker would\nentirely pass out of consideration. Again, the worship of the moon or of\nthe sun, or of certain aspects of the sun,--the morning sun, the noonday\nsun, and the like,--at localities of minor importance, would yield to\nthe growing popularity of similar worship in important centers. As a\nconsequence, names that formerly designated distinct deities or\ndifferent phases of one and the same deity, would, by being transferred\nto a single one, come to be mere epithets of this one. The various names\nwould be used interchangeably, without much regard to their original\nforce.\n\nAll the essential elements of the Babylonian religion are already to be\nfound in the conditions prevailing during the period that we have been\nconsidering. Some new deities are met with in the periods that followed,\nbut there is no reason to believe that any profound changes in the\nmanner of worship, or in the conceptions regarding the gods, were\nintroduced. The relations, however, which the gods bear to one another\nare considerably modified, their attributes become more sharply defined,\nthe duties and privileges pertaining to each are regulated. Hand in hand\nwith this systematization, the organization of the cult becomes more\nperfect, the ritual enters upon further phases of development,\nspeculations regarding the unknown have their outcome in the\nestablishment of dogmas. Finally the past, with its traditions and\nlegends, is viewed under the aspect of later religious thought. The\nproducts of popular fancy are reshaped, given a literary turn that was\noriginally foreign to them, and so combined and imbued with a meaning as\nto reflect the thoughts and aspirations of a comparatively advanced age.\nWhat may be called the flowering of the theological epoch in the history\nof the Babylonian religion, viewed as a unit, is so directly dependent\nupon the political union of the Babylonian states, brought about by\nHammurabi (_c._ 2300 B.C.), that it may be said to date from this event.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[115] Quite recently there have been found at Telloh some thirty\nthousand clay tablets, chiefly lists of sacrifices, temple inventories,\nand legal documents. These tablets will probably furnish additional\nnames of deities, and perhaps throw further light on those known.\nFurther excavations at Nippur will likewise add to the material. But\nafter all, for our main purpose in this chapter, which is the\nillustration of the chief traits of the Babylonian pantheon in early\ndays, these expected additions to the pantheon will not be of paramount\nsignificance.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nTHE PANTHEON IN THE DAYS OF HAMMURABI.\n\n\nMarduk.\n\nThe immediate result of Hammurabi's master-stroke in bringing the\nvarious states of the Euphrates Valley under a single control, was the\nsupremacy secured for his capital, of the city of Babylon over all other\nBabylonian cities, and with this supremacy, the superior position\nhenceforth assumed by the patron deity of the capital, Marduk.[116] It\nis needless for our purposes to enter upon the question as to the age of\nthe city of Babylon,[117] nor as to its political fortunes prior to the\nrise of the dynasty of which Hammurabi was the sixth member. That its\nbeginnings were modest, and that its importance, if not its origin, was\nof recent date in comparison with such places as Eridu, Nippur, Lagash,\nUr, and the like, is proved by the absence of the god Marduk in any of\nthe inscriptions that we have been considering up to this point. The\nfirst mention of the god occurs in the inscriptions of Hammurabi, where\nhe appears distinctly as the god of the city of Babylon. No doubt the\nimmediate predecessors of Hammurabi regarded Marduk in the same light as\nthe great conqueror, so that we are justified in applying the data,\nfurnished by the inscriptions of Hammurabi to such of his predecessors,\nof whom records are still lacking. It is to Marduk, that Hammurabi\nascribes his success. The king regards himself as the beloved of Marduk.\nThe god rejoices his heart and gives him power and plenty. Even when\npaying his homage at the shrines of other deities, he does not forget to\ncouple the name of Marduk with that of the deity whose protection he\ninvokes. So at Sippar, sacred to Shamash, and where the king deposits a\ncylinder recording the improvements that he instigated in the city, he\nassociates the sun-god with Marduk, whereas in contradistinction to the\nrulers of the old Babylonian cities or states, when addressing Marduk,\nhe does not find it necessary to make mention at the same time of an\nentire pantheon. Marduk's protection suffices for all purposes. This, of\ncourse, does not exclude the worship of other gods. A reference has\nalready been made to the king's care for the city of Shamash. In this\nrespect, he was but following the example of his predecessors, who,\nwhile regarding Babylon as their capital, were zealous in doing honor to\nancient centers of worship. So one of these predecessors, Zabu, restores\nthe temple of Shamash at Sippar, and that of Anunit at Agade. Hammurabi,\nbesides his work at Sippar, builds a temple to Innanna at Hallabi.[118]\nBabylon, however, is the beloved city of Marduk, and upon its\nbeautification and improvement Hammurabi expends his chief energy. Such\nare the endearing terms in which he speaks of his god, as to give one\nthe impression that, when thinking of Marduk, the king for the moment\nloses sight of the existence of other gods. The most striking tribute,\nhowever, that is paid to Marduk in the period of Hammurabi is his\ngradual assumption of the role played by the old En-lil or Bel of\nNippur, once the head of the Babylonian pantheon. This identification is\nalready foreshadowed in the title _belu rabu_, _i.e._, 'great lord,'\nwhich Hammurabi is fond of bestowing upon Marduk. It is more clearly\nindicated in an inscription of his son, Samsu-iluna, who represents Bel,\n'the king of heaven and earth,' as transferring to Marduk, the\n'first-born son of Ea,' rulership over 'the four regions,'--a phrase\nthat at this time had already assumed a much wider meaning than its\noriginal portent. In the religious literature of this age, which\nreflects the same tendency, Bel expressly transfers his title 'lord of\nthe lands'[119] to Marduk, while Ea likewise pays homage to his son,\ndeclaring that the latter's 'name' shall also be Ea. The transference of\nthe name, according to Babylonian notions, is equivalent to a\ntransference of power. As a consequence, Bel and Marduk are blended into\none personage, Marduk becoming known as Bel-Marduk, and finally, the\nfirst part of the compound sinking to the level of a mere adjective, the\ngod is addressed as 'lord Marduk,' or 'Marduk, the lord.' The old Bel is\nentirely forgotten, or survives at best in conventional association with\nAnu and Ea, as a member of the ancient triad.\n\nIt has been satisfactorily shown[120] that Marduk was originally a solar\ndeity. His association with Babylon, therefore, must be viewed in the\nsame light as the association of Sin, the moon-god, with the city of Ur,\nand the association of Shamash, the sun-god, with Larsa and Sippar. Just\nas in the latter places, other cults besides that of the patron deity\nprevailed, so in Babylon it was merely the prominence which, for some\nreason, the worship of the sun-god acquired, that led to the closer\nidentification of this particular deity with the city, until he became\nviewed as the god _par excellence_ of the city, and the city itself as\nhis favorite residence. As long as Larsa and Sippar retained a\nprominence overshadowing that of Babylon, the sun cult at the latter\nplace could attract but little attention. Only as Babylon began to\nrival, and finally to supersede, other centers of sun-worship, could\nMarduk be brought into the front rank of prevailing cults. It may appear\nstrange, in view of this original character of Marduk, that neither in\nthe inscriptions of Hammurabi, nor in those of his successors, is there\nany direct reference to his qualities as a solar deity. However, in the\nideographs composing his name, which are to be interpreted as 'child of\nthe day,'[121] and in the zodiacal system, as perfected by the\nBabylonian scholars, there lurk traces of the god's solar origin, and\nbeyond this, perhaps, in certain set phrases, surviving in prayers\naddressed to him. The explanation for this absence of solar traits is to\nbe sought in the peculiar political conditions that resulted in bringing\nMarduk into such prominence. Hammurabi was preeminently a conquering\nking. He waged war on all sides, and carried on his campaigns for many\nyears. When he finally succeeded in bringing both North and South\nBabylonia under his sway, it still required constant watching to keep\nhis empire together. His patron god, therefore, the protector of the\ncity, whose jurisdiction was thus spread over a larger extent of\nterritory than that of any other deity, must have appeared to Hammurabi\nand his followers, as well as to those vanquished by him, essentially as\na warrior. It is he who hands over to kings the land and its\ninhabitants. The fact that he was a solar deity would become obscured by\nthe side of the more potent fact that, as god of the city of Babylon,\nhis sway was supreme. He therefore became Marduk, the 'great lord.' The\nepithets bestowed upon him naturally emphasized the manner in which he\nmanifested himself, and these epithets, therefore, referred to his\npower, to his supremacy over other gods, to his favor shown to his\nworshippers by granting them unprecedented glory; and since the\npolitical supremacy remained undisputed for many centuries, no\nopportunity was afforded for ever reverting to the attributes of the god\nas a solar deity. He remained--if one may so express it--a political\ndeity. The political significance of Babylon permitted only one phase of\nhis nature to be brought forward.\n\nIn the religious texts, however, preserving as they do the more\nprimitive conceptions by the side of the most advanced ones, some traces\nof other attributes besides prowess in war are found. By virtue of his\ncharacter as a solar deity, Marduk, like the orb personified through\nhim, is essentially a life-giving god. Whereas Shamash is viewed as the\n'judge of mankind,' Marduk becomes the god who restores the dead to\nlife, though he shares this power with Shamash, Gula, Nebo, and Nergal.\nBut after all, even in the religious texts, his more prominent role is\nthat of a ruler,--a magnified king. He protects the weak, releases the\nimprisoned, and makes great the small. He controls by his powerful hand\nthe mountains and rivers and fountains. He is the counsellor who guides\nthe decrees, even of the great gods, Anu and Bel. On his head rests a\ncrown with high horns, as the symbol of rulership. As the supreme ruler,\nlife and death are in his hands. Blessings flow from him; and of\nawe-inspiring appearance, his wrath inflicts severe punishment on the\nevil-doer.\n\nIt is a noteworthy circumstance, and characteristic of the phase of the\nBabylonian religion which we are considering, that the extension of\nMarduk's political sway did not lead to the establishment of Marduk\ncults outside of Babylon. One reason for this was that, in accordance\nwith the political conceptions, dwelt upon in the introductory chapter,\nthe empire of Babylonia was regarded simply as an extension of the city\nof Babylon. Babylonia, therefore, being identified in theory with the\ncity of Babylon, there was no need of emphasizing the power of Marduk by\nestablishing his cult elsewhere. Within the limits of Babylon, however,\nthere might be more than one shrine to Marduk, and accordingly, when the\ncity was extended so as to include the place known as Borsippa, a temple\nto Marduk was also erected there. The temple on the east side of the\nEuphrates, known as E-Sagila, 'the lofty house,' was the older, and\ndates probably from the beginnings of Babylon itself; that in Borsippa,\nknown as E-Zida, 'the true house,' seems to have been founded by\nHammurabi.[122] While it was not in accord with the dignity attaching to\nMarduk that his cult should be established outside of the precincts of\nthe city of Babylon, it would only add to his glory to have the worship\nof other deities grouped around his own sanctuary. Such a course would\nemphasize the central position of Marduk among the gods, and\naccordingly, we find that the chief gods of Babylonia are represented by\nshrines within the sacred precincts of his great temples at Babylon and\nBorsippa. First among these shrines is that of Marduk's consort,\n\n\nSarpanitum.\n\nNeither Hammurabi nor his immediate successor make mention of\nSarpanitum, and at no time does she appear independently of Marduk. The\nglory of Marduk did not permit of any rival, and so his consort becomes\nmerely his shadow,--less significant than most of the consorts of the\nmale deities. Her name, signifying the 'silvery bright one,' evidently\nstands in some connection with the solar character of her consort.\nPopular etymology, by a play upon the name, made of Sarpanitum (as\nthough Zer-banit) the 'offspring-producing' goddess. She had her shrine\nwithin the precincts of the great temple E-Sagila, but we are not told\nof any special honors being paid her, nor do we find her invoked to any\nextent in incantations or in votive inscriptions. Agumkakrimi, or Agum\n(as he is also called), who rules about five centuries after Hammurabi,\nspeaks of having recovered the image of Sarpanitum, and that of Marduk,\nout of the hands of a mountainous people living to the northwest of\nBabylonia, in the district between the Bay of Iskenderun and the\nEuphrates. The capture of the statues of the patron gods points to a\ngreat humiliation which Babylon must have encountered. Upon receiving a\nfavorable omen from the sun-god, Agum undertakes the task of bringing\nMarduk and Sarpanitum back to their seats. Their temples, too, at\nBabylon appear to have suffered damage during the invasion of the city,\nand accordingly the statues are placed in the temple of Shamash pending\nthe restoration of E-Sagila. Agum dwells at length upon the handsome\ngarments and head-dress, studded with precious stones, that he prepared\nfor the god and his consort. In all this description, one feels that it\nis Marduk for whom the honors are intended, and that Sarpanitum is of\nless than secondary importance,--shining merely by the reflected glory\nof her great liege, whose presence in Babylon was essential to a\nrestoration of Babylon's position.\n\nThere are reasons for believing, however, that Sarpanitum once enjoyed\nconsiderable importance of her own, that prior to the rise of Marduk to\nhis supreme position, a goddess was worshipped in Babylon, one of whose\nspecial functions it was to protect the progeny while still in the\nmother's womb. A late king of Babylon, the great Nebuchadnezzar, appeals\nto this attribute of the goddess. To her was also attributed the\npossession of knowledge concealed from men. Exactly to what class of\ndeities she belonged, we are no longer able to say, but it is certain\nthat at some time, probably about the time of Hammurabi, an amalgamation\ntook place between her and another goddess known as Erua,[123]--a name\nthat etymologically suggests the idea of 'begetting.'[124] She is\nrepresented as dwelling in the temple of E-Zida at Borsippa, and was\noriginally the consort of Nabu, the chief god of this place.[125] A late\nruler of Babylon--Shamash-shumukin--calls her the queen of the gods, and\ndeclares himself to have been nominated by her to lord it over men.\n\nA factor in this amalgamation of Erua and Sarpanitum was the close\nassociation brought about in Babylon between Marduk and a god whose seat\nwas originally at the Persian Gulf--Ea. The cult of this god, as we\nshall see, survived in Babylonia through all political vicissitudes, and\nso did that of some other minor water-deities that belong to this\nregion. Among these was Erua, whose worship centered in one of the\nislands in or near the gulf. Wisdom and the life-giving principle were\ntwo ideas associated in the Babylonian mind with water. As inferior in\npower to Ea, Erua appears to have been regarded as the daughter of Ea,\nand such was the sway exercised by Ea over men's minds, that even the\nBabylonian schoolmen did not venture to place Marduk over Ea, but\npictured him as Ea's son. Erua, however, was not prominent enough to\nbecome Marduk's mother, and so she was regarded as his consort. In this\ncapacity she was associated with Sarpanitum, and the two were merged\ninto one personality. It rarely happens that all the links in such a\nprocess are preserved, but in this case, the epithets borne by\nSarpanitum-Erua, such as 'lady of the deep,' 'mistress of the place\nwhere the fish dwell,' 'voice of the deep,' point the way towards the\nsolution of the problem involved in the amalgamation of Erua and\nSarpanitum.[126]\n\n\nNabu.\n\nThe god Nabu (or Nebo) enjoys a great popularity in the Babylonian cult,\nbut he owes his prestige to the accident that, as god of Borsippa, he\nwas associated with Marduk. Indeed, his case is a clear instance of the\nmanner in which Marduk overshadows all his fellows. Only as they are\nbrought into some manner of relationship with him do they secure a\nposition in the pantheon during this second period of Babylonian\nhistory. Since Nabu's position in the pantheon, once established, incurs\nbut little change, it will be proper, in treating of him, to include the\ntestimony furnished by the historical records of the Assyrian kings. The\nmost prominent attribute of Nabu, at least in the later phases of the\nBabylonian religion, is that of wisdom. He is the wise, the all-knowing.\nHe embodies in his person all the wisdom of the gods. To him the\nAssyrian kings are particularly fond of ascribing, not merely the\nunderstanding that they possess, but the thought of preserving the\nwisdom of the past for future ages; and in doing this the Assyrians were\nbut guided by examples furnished by the south. Wisdom being associated,\nin the minds of the Babylonians, with the watery deep, one is tempted to\nseek an aqueous origin for Nabu. Such a supposition, although it cannot\nbe positively established, has much in its favor. It is not necessary,\nin order to maintain this proposition, to remove Nabu from Borsippa. The\nalluvial deposits made by the Euphrates yearly have already demonstrated\nthat Babylon lay much nearer at one time to the Persian Gulf than it\ndoes at present. The original seat of Ea, whose worship continued\nthrough all times to enjoy great popularity at Babylon, was at Eridu,\nwhich, we know, once lay on the Persian Gulf, but does so no longer. The\nsimilarity of the epithets bestowed in various texts upon Ea and Nabu\npoint most decidedly to a similar starting-point for both; and since in\na syllabary[127] we find the god actually identified with a deity of\nDilmun,--probably one of the islands near Bahrein,--there are grounds\nfor assuming that a tradition survived among the schoolmen, which\nbrought Nabu into some connection with the Persian Gulf. Sayce[128] has\nalready suggested that Borsippa may have originally stood on an inlet of\nthe Persian Gulf. Nabu is inferior to Ea, and were it not for the\npriority of Marduk, he would have become in Babylonian theology, the son\nof Ea. Since this distinction[129] is given to Marduk, no direct\nindication of an original relationship to Ea has survived.\n\nBut besides being the god of wisdom and intelligence, Nabu is a patron\nof agriculture, who causes the grain to sprout forth. In religious and\nhistorical texts, he is lauded as the deity who opens up the\nsubterranean sources in order to irrigate the fields. He heaps up the\ngrain in the storehouses, and on the other hand, the withdrawal of his\nfavor is followed by famine and distress. Jensen[130] would conclude\nfrom this that he was originally (like Marduk, therefore) a solar deity.\nThis, however, is hardly justified, since it is just as reasonable to\ndeduce his role as the producer of fertility from his powers as lord of\nsome body of water. However this may be, in the case of Nabu, there are\nno grounds for supposing that he represents the combination of two\noriginally distinct deities. A later--chiefly theoretical--amalgamation\nof Nabu with a god Nusku will be discussed in a subsequent chapter.[131]\nHammurabi and his immediate successors, it is noteworthy, do not make\nmention of Nabu. A sufficient number of inscriptions of this period\nexists to make it probable that this omission is not accidental. This\ndynasty was chiefly concerned in firmly establishing the position of\nMarduk. Other deities could, indeed, be tolerated at his side, provided\nthey were subservient to him; but Nabu, the god of a place so near\nBabylon, might prove a dangerous rival because of this proximity. The\ncity on the west bank of the Euphrates was probably as old as that on\nthe east, if not, indeed, older. It did not seem consistent with this\ndevotion to Marduk that Hammurabi and his successors should also\nrecognize Nabu. Policy dictated that Nabu should be ignored, that the\nattempt must be made to replace his worship, even in Borsippa, by that\nof Marduk. Viewed in this light, Hammurabi's establishment of the Marduk\ncult in Borsippa assumes a peculiar significance. It meant that Borsippa\nwas to be incorporated as part of Babylon, and that Marduk was\nhenceforth to take the place occupied by Nabu. In order to emphasize\nthis, Hammurabi actually transfers the name of Nabu's temple in\nBorsippa, E-Zida, to the one erected by him at that place to Marduk. Did\nhe perhaps entirely suppress the worship of Nabu at Borsippa? It would\nalmost appear so from Agum's utter omission of Nabu. Only the statues of\nMarduk and Sarpanitum seem to have been robbed by the Hani. Not a word\nis said as to Nabu. Either there was no statue at the time at Borsippa,\nor the cult was of such insignificance that the capture of the god was\nnot considered of sufficient moment to occupy the thoughts of the enemy,\nas little as it did that of the rulers of Babylon at the time. In the\ninscription in which Hammurabi recounts the building of E-Zida in\nBorsippa, there are certain expressions which go to substantiate the\nproposition that Nabu is intentionally ignored.[132] He calls Marduk the\nlord of E-Sagila and of E-Zida; he speaks of Borsippa as the beloved\ncity of Marduk, just as though it were Babylon. Taking unto himself the\nfunctions of Nabu, he even appears to play upon the name, which\nsignifies 'proclaimer,' and styles himself the _nabiu Anu_, 'the\nproclaimer of Anu.' However this may be, the attempt to suppress Nabu\ndid not succeed,--a proof that in early times he had gained popular\nfavor. He had to be readmitted into the Babylonian pantheon, though in a\nsubordinate position to Marduk. He took his place in the theological\nsystem as the son of Marduk, and on the great festival--the New Year's\nday--celebrated in honor of the great god of Babylon, the son shared\nsome of the honors accorded to the father. In time, his sanctuary at\nBorsippa was again recognized. The former rivalry gave way to a cordial\n_entente_. Nabu was even granted a chapel in E-Sagila at Babylon, to\nwhich likewise the name of E-Zida was given. Every New Year's day the\nson paid a visit to his father, on which occasion the statue of Nabu was\ncarried in solemn procession from Borsippa across the river, and along\nthe main street of Babylon leading to the temple of Marduk; and in\nreturn the father deity accompanied his son part way on the trip back to\nE-Zida. In this way, due homage was accorded to Marduk, and at the same\ntime the close and cordial bonds of union between Babylon and Borsippa\nfound satisfactory illustration. E-Sagila and E-Zida become, and remain\nthroughout the duration of the Babylonian religion, the central\nsanctuaries of the land around which the most precious recollections\ncluster, as dear to the Assyrians as to the Babylonians. The kings of\nthe northern empire vie with their southern cousins in beautifying and\nenlarging the structures sacred to Marduk and Nabu.\n\nIn view of the explanation offered for the silence maintained by\nHammurabi and his successors regarding Nabu, we are justified in\nincluding Nabu in the Babylonian pantheon of those days. In later times,\namong the Assyrians, the Nabu cult, as already intimated, grows in\npopularity. The northern monarchs, in fact, seem to give Nabu the\npreference over Marduk. They do not tire of proclaiming him as the\nsource of wisdom. The staff is his symbol, which is interpreted in a\ndouble sense, as the writer's stylus and as the ruler's sceptre. He\nbecomes, also, the bestower of royal power upon his favorites. Without\nhis aid, order cannot be maintained in the land. Disobedience to him is\npunished by the introduction of foreign rule. Political policy may have\nhad a share in this preference shown for the minor god of Babylon. The\nAssyrian kings were always anxious to do homage to the gods of Babylon,\nin order to indicate their control over the southern districts. They\nwere particularly proud of their title 'governor of Bel.'[133] On the\nother hand, they were careful not to give offence to the chief of the\nAssyrian pantheon,--the god Ashur,--by paying too much honor to Marduk,\nwho was in a measure Ashur's rival. In consequence, as Hammurabi and his\nsuccessors endeavored to ignore Nabu, the Assyrian rulers now turned the\ntables by manifesting a preference for Nabu; and obliged as they were to\nacknowledge that the intellectual impulses came from the south, they\ncould accept a southern god of wisdom without encroaching upon the\nprovince of Ashur, whose claims to homage lay in the prowess he showed\nin war. Marduk was too much like Ashur to find a place at his side. Nabu\nwas a totally different deity, and in worshipping him who was the son of\nMarduk, the Assyrian kings felt that they were paying due regard to the\nfeelings of their Babylonian subjects. The cult of Nabu thus became\nwidely extended in Assyria. Statues of the god were erected and\ndeposited in shrines built for the purpose, although the fact was not\nlost sight of that the real dwelling-place of the god was in Borsippa.\nAt the end of the ninth century B.C. this cult seems to have reached its\nheight. We learn of a temple at Calah, and of no less than eight statues\nof the god being erected in the days of Ramman-nirari III., and the\nterms in which the god is addressed might lead one to believe that an\nattempt was made to concentrate the cult in Assyria on him.[134] This,\nhowever, was an impossibility. As long as Assyria continued to play the\nrole of the subduer of nations, Ashur--the god of war _par\nexcellence_--necessarily retained his position at the head of the\nAssyrian pantheon. The popularity of Nabu, which continued to the end of\nthe Assyrian empire, and gained a fresh impetus in the days of\nAshurbanabal, who, as a patron of literature, invokes Nabu on thousands\nof the tablets of his library as 'the opener of ears to understanding,'\nreacted on his position in the Babylonian cult. In the new Babylonian\nempire, which continued to so large a degree the traditions of Assyria,\nit is no accident that three of the kings--Nabupolassar, Nebuchadnezzar,\nand Nabonnedos--bear names containing the deity as one of the elements.\nWhile paying superior devotion to Marduk, who once more became the real\nand not merely the nominal head of the pantheon, they must have held\nNabu in no small esteem; and indeed the last-named king was suspected of\ntrying actually to divert the homage of the people away from Marduk to\nother gods, though he did not, as a matter of course, go so far as to\nendeavor to usurp for the son, the position held by the father. It is\nprobably due to Assyrian influence that even in Babylonia, from the\neighth century on, Nabu is occasionally mentioned before Marduk. So\nMarduk-baladan II. (721-710) calls himself the \"worshipper of Nabu and\nMarduk,\" and similarly others. In official letters likewise, and in\nastronomical reports, Nabu is given precedence to Marduk, but this may\nbe due to Nabu's functions, as the god of writing and the patron of\nscience.\n\nThe Neo-Babylonian kings are not sparing in the epithets they bestow on\nNabu, though they emphasize more his qualities as holder of the\n'sceptre' than as lord of the 'stylus.' So Nebuchadnezzar declares that\nit is he 'who gives the sceptre of sovereignty to kings to rule over all\nlands.' In this capacity he is 'the upholder of the world,' 'the general\noverseer,' and his temple is called 'the house of the sceptre of the\nworld.'\n\nHis name signifies simply the 'proclaimer,' or herald, but we are left\nin doubt as to what he proclaims,--whether wisdom or sovereignty.\nSometimes he appears as the 'herald' of the gods. In this role he\nreceives the name of Papsukal (_i.e._, supreme or sacred messenger), and\nit may be that this function was a very old one. But, again, as god of\nfertility he could also be appropriately termed the 'proclaimer.' The\nquestion must, accordingly, be left open as to the precise force of the\nattribute contained in his name. Finally, an interesting feature\nconnected with Nabu, that may be mentioned here, is that in the name\nborne by a famous mountain in Moab, Nebo, where Moses--himself a\n'proclaimer'[135]--died, there survives a testimony that the worship of\nthis popular deity extended beyond the Euphrates and the Tigris, to\nSemites living considerably to the west. To Nabu, as to Marduk, a\nconsort was given. Her name was\n\n\nTashmitum.\n\nThe name Tashmitum appears for the first time in the days of Hammurabi.\nAttention has already been called to the king's ignoring of the god of\nBorsippa. While his attempt to suppress the cult of Nabu was not\nsuccessful, he did succeed in causing the old consort of Nabu to\ndisappear. This consort appears to have been no other than Erua. It will\nbe recalled that up to very late times the tradition survived that her\ndwelling-place was Borsippa.[136] This is never said of Sarpanitum.\nDespite, therefore, the amalgamation of Sarpanitum and Erua, the\nassociation of the latter with Nabu's dwelling-place remains impressed\nupon the memory of the Babylonian scholars, at least. Nabu's consort\nhaving thus been transferred to Marduk, a new mate had to be found for\nthe former, when once his rivalry was no longer to be dreaded, and his\ncult again rose to prominence. 'Tashmitum' is an abstract noun in\nAssyrian, signifying 'revelation.' As such, it is bestowed in historical\ntexts upon Nabu himself, who is called _itu tashimeti_, 'god of\nrevelation.' Nabu is, above all, a 'revealing' god,--revealing\nknowledge, the art of writing, and the method of ruling. The appellation\nis therefore a most appropriate one, and there seems little reason to\nquestion that Tashmitum was originally nothing but one of the terms by\nwhich Nabu was designated, just as he was called Papsukal in his role as\n'messenger' of the gods,--the messenger of his father Marduk and of his\ngrandfather Ea, in particular. But Tashmitum, being feminine in gender,\nas an abstract noun, seemed appropriate as the designation of a goddess.\nIt would appear, then, that 'Revelation,' from being so constantly\nassociated with Nabu, was personified, dissociated from him, as it were,\nthrough the conception of a distinct goddess bearing the name of\n'Tashmitum.' This process of thought, in giving rise to a new goddess,\nmay have been, in part, a popular one. The translation of a metaphor\ninto reality is a phenomenon that may be observed in almost all\nreligions of antiquity. But the process, whatever its course in detail\nmay have been, was not uninfluenced by the theological dogma whereby a\ngod was supposed to have a 'reflection' who was pictured as his consort.\nThrough this conception, as we have already seen, many a goddess once\nruling in her own right, and enjoying an independent existence,\ndegenerated into a mere shadow of some male deity, though, on the other\nhand, it must be borne in mind that these female deities would have\ndisappeared altogether but for the opportunity thus afforded them of\nbecoming 'attachees' to some male deity. This theory of the\n_quasi_-artificial character and origin of Tashmit finds support in the\nmanner in which the mention of her name is entwined with that of Nabu.\nSarpanitum, bound up as the goddess is with Marduk, has at least a\nshrine of her own, and occasionally she is spoken of in the texts\nwithout her husband Marduk.[137] The mention of Tashmitum, however,\ninvariably follows that of Nabu. It is always 'Nabu and Tashmitum,' and\nit is never Tashmitum without Nabu. While the creation of Tashmitum may\nbe a product of Babylonian religious thought, it is in Assyrian texts\nthat her name is chiefly found. The great Ashurbanabal, in the\nconventional subscript attached to his tablet, is particularly fond of\ncoupling Tashmitum with Nabu, as the two deities who opened his ears to\nunderstanding and prompted him to gather in his palace the literary\ntreasures produced by the culture that flourished in the south. Tashmit\nhas no shrine or temple, so far as known, either in Borsippa or in any\nof the places whither the Nabu cult spread. She has no attributes other\nthan those that belong to Nabu, and, what is very remarkable, the later\nBabylonian kings, such as Nebuchadnezzar II., when they deem it proper\nto attach a consort to Nabu call her Nana,[138] _i.e._, simply the lady,\nand not Tashmitum, a proof, how little hold the name had taken upon the\nBabylonian populace. If to this it be added, that in by far the greater\nnumber of instances, no reference whatsoever to a consort is made when\nNabu is spoken of, an additional reason is found for the unreal, the\nshadowy character of this goddess.\n\n\nEa.\n\nIn treating of the position occupied by Ea in the oldest period of\nBabylonian history (see above, pp. 61-64), it has already been mentioned\nthat he grows to much larger proportions under the influence of a more\nfully developed theological system. Indeed, there is no god who shows\nsuch profound traces of having been submitted to a theological\ntreatment, and indirectly, therefore, furnishes so distinct a proof of\nthe existence of theological schools in the ancient centers of\nBabylonian culture, as Ea. The question may with propriety be here\ndiscussed, to what period we are to attribute the completion of the\nprocess, which, to summarize his position, made Ea the special god of\nhumanity, the father of Marduk, the third in a great triad, of which the\nother two members were Anu, the god of heaven, and Bel, the god of\nearth. Already, in the days preceding the union of the Babylonian states\nunder one head, we have had occasion to see traces of an attempt to\nsystematize the relations existing between the gods. A high degree of\nculture, such as the existence of a perfected form of writing, an\nadvanced form of architecture, and commercial enterprise reflect, cannot\nbe dissociated from a high degree of activity in the domain of\nphilosophic or religious thought. Accordingly, we are in no danger of\nattributing too great an antiquity to the beginnings of theological\nspeculation in Babylonia. Be it remembered that from the earliest to the\nlatest days, the priests were the scribes and that in their capacity as\nwriters of the texts, they would be enjoying the advantages of an\nintellectual impulse. But they were also the composers of the texts, as\nwell as the writers, and the prominence given to the gods in texts of\nwhatever description, would inevitably lead their thoughts to\nspeculations regarding the attributes of the gods. The attempt would at\nan early period be made to find some unifying principles in the tangled\nmass of gods. By the time that Hammurabi appears on the scene, we have\nevery reason to believe that some of the ancient libraries of the south,\nwhither Ashurbanabal sent his scribes, were already well stocked, and\nthat a goodly portion of the Babylonian literature known to us already\nexisted. What these portions were, we will have occasion to point out\nwhen we come to discuss the literature of Babylonia. On the other hand,\nthis literature would not only necessarily increase as long as any\ndegree of intellectual activity existed in the country, but this\nactivity would also manifest itself in transforming this literature, so\nas to adapt it to the thoughts and aspirations of a later age.\nEspecially would this be the case in the purely religious divisions of\nliterature. The ancient traditions, legends, and myths, once committed\nto writing, would serve as a point of departure for further\nspeculations. The existence of a text to which any measure of value is\nattached, is bound to give rise to various attempts at interpretation,\nand if this value be connected with the religion of a people, the result\nis, invariably, that the ancient words are invested with a meaning\nconformable to a later age. Each generation among a people characterized\nby intellectual activity has a signature of its own, and it will seek to\ngive to the religious thoughts of the time its own particular impress.\nSince, however, the material upon which any age works is not of its own\nmaking, but is furnished by a preceding one, it follows that much of the\nintellectual activity of an age manifests itself in a transformation of\nits literary or speculative heritage. This process was constantly going\non in Babylonia, and had we more material--and older material--at our\ndisposal, we would be able to trace more clearly than we can at present,\nthe various stages that led to the system of theology, as embodied in\nthe best productions of the ancient Babylonian schoolmen.\n\nThe days of Hammurabi, as they were politically of great importance,\nalso appear to have ushered in a new era in the religious life of the\npeople. Stirring political events are always apt to bring in their wake\nintellectual movements, and in a country like Babylonia, where politics\nreact so forcibly on religious conditions, the permanent establishment\nof the supremacy of the city of Babylon would be fraught with important\nconsequences for the cult. The main change brought about by this new\nepoch of Babylonian history was, as we have seen, the superior position\nhenceforth accorded in the pantheon to Marduk as the patron deity of\nBabylon; but this change entailed so many others, that it almost merits\nbeing termed a revolution. In order to ensure Marduk's place, the\nrelations of the other deities to him had to be regulated, the legends\nand traditions of the past reshaped, so as to be brought into consistent\naccord with the new order of things, and the cult likewise to be, at\nleast in part, remodelled, so as to emphasize the supremacy of Marduk.\nThis work, which was an inevitable one, was primarily of an intellectual\norder. We are justified, then, in looking for traces of this activity in\nthe remains that have been recovered of ancient Babylonian literature.\nWe know from direct evidence that the commercial life of Babylonia had\nalready, in the period preceding Hammurabi, led to regulated legal forms\nand practices for the purpose of carrying out obligations and of\nsettling commercial and legal difficulties. The proof has been furnished\nby Dr. Meissner[139] that syllabaries prepared for the better\nunderstanding of the formulas and words employed in preparing the legal\nand commercial tablets, date, in part, from the period which we may\nroughly designate as that of Hammurabi,--covering, say, the three\ncenturies 2300 to 2000 B.C. With this evidence for the existence of\npedagogues devoted to the training of novices in the art of reading and\nwriting, in order to fit them for their future tasks as official\nscribes, we are safe in assuming that these same schoolmen were no less\nactive in other fields of literature. If, in addition to this, we find\nthat much of the religious literature, in the shape that we have it,\nreflects the religious conditions such as they must have shaped\nthemselves in consequence of the promotion of Marduk to the head of the\npantheon, the conclusion is forced upon us that such literary\nproductions date from this same epoch of Hammurabi. This influence of\nthe schoolmen while centering, as repeatedly pointed out, around the\nposition of Marduk, manifests itself in a pronounced fashion, also, in\nthe changed position henceforth accorded to the god Ea. It will be\nrecalled that in the earliest period of Babylonian history, Ea does not\nfigure prominently. At the same time we must beware of laying too much\nstress upon the negative testimony of the historical texts. Besides the\nstill limited material of this character at our disposal, the\nnon-mention of a deity may be due to a variety of circumstances, that\nmay properly be designated as accidental. The gods to whom the kings of\nthe ancient Babylonian states would be apt to appeal would be, in the\nfirst instance, the local deities, patrons of the city that happened to\nbe the capital of the state; in the second instance, the gods of the\nvanquished towns; and thirdly, some of the great deities worshipped at\nthe sacred centers of the Euphrates valley, and who constituted, as it\nwere, the common heritage of the past. Ea, as the god of the Persian\ngulf, the region which forms the starting-point of Babylonian culture,\nand around which some of the oldest and most precious recollections\ncenter, would come within the radius of the third instance, since, in\nthe period we have in mind, Eridu no longer enjoyed any political\nimportance. We may be sure, then, despite the silence of the texts, that\nEa was always held in great esteem, and that even the absence of temples\nin his honor, did not affect the reverence and awe that he inspired. As\nfor the epoch of Hammurabi, the historical spirit that is never absent\nin a truly intellectual age would be certain to restore Ea to his proper\nprestige, assuming that a previous age had permitted him to fall into\nneglect. Next to Marduk, there is no deity who is given such distinction\nin Babylonia, after the union of the Babylonian states, as Ea. In the\nreligious literature, moreover, as reshaped by the schoolmen of the\ntime, his role is even more prominent than that of Marduk. As a\nwater-god, and more particularly as the god to whom the largest body of\nwater known to the Babylonians was sacred, Ea was regarded as the source\nand giver of wisdom. Fountains everywhere were sacred to him; and so he\nbecomes also the giver of fertility and plenty. Berosus tells us of a\nmystic being, half man, half fish, who spent his nights in the waters of\nthe gulf, but who would come out of the waters during the day to give\ninstruction to the people, until that time steeped in ignorance and\nbarbarism. This 'Oannes,' as Berosus is said[140] to have called him,\nwas none other than Ea. As the great benefactor of mankind, it is\nnatural that Ea should have come to be viewed as the god whose special\nfunction it is to protect the human race, to advance it in all its good\nundertakings, to protect it against the evil designs of gods or demons.\nIn this role, he appears in the religious literature--in the epics, the\ncosmogony, and the ritual--of Babylonia. There is no god conceived in so\nuniversal a manner as Ea. All local connection with Eridu disappears. He\nbelongs to no particular district. His worship is not limited to any\nparticular spot. All of Babylonia lays claim to him. The ethical import\nof such a conception is manifestly great, and traces of it are to be\nfound in the religious productions. It impressed upon the Babylonians\nthe common bond uniting all mankind. The cult of Ea must have engendered\nhumane feelings, softening the rivalry existing among the ancient\ncenters of Babylonian power, and leading the people a considerable\ndistance, on the road to the conception of a common humanity. When the\ngods decide to destroy mankind, it is Ea who intercedes on behalf of\nhumanity; when the demon of disease has entered a human body, it is to\nEa that, in the last resort, the appeal is made to free the sufferer\nfrom his pain. Ea is the god of the physicians. Nay, more, it is Ea who\npresided at the birth of humanity, so that his protection reaches far\nback, beyond even the beginnings of civilization, almost to the\nbeginning of things. Lastly, as the god of civilization, it is to him\nthat the great works of art are ascribed. He is the god of the smithy,\nthe patron of the gold and silversmiths, of workers in lapis-lazuli, and\nall kinds of precious stones. He is the god of sculpture. The great\nbulls and lions that guarded the approaches to the temple and palace\nchambers, as well as the statues of the gods and kings, were the work of\nhis hands. Furthermore, he is the patron of weavers, as of other arts.\nThis conception may have been perfected in a general way, and in all\nprobability was perfected before the days of Hammurabi, though perhaps\nnot prominently brought forward; but important modifications were\nintroduced into it, through the compromise that had to be arranged\nbetween the position of Ea and that of Marduk. Of course, neither the\nrulers nor the priests of Babylon could have permitted the reverence for\nEa to have gone to the length of throwing Marduk into the shade. Many of\nthe functions assigned to Ea seemed to belong of right to Marduk, who,\nas the patron of Babylon, presided over the destinies of what to the\nBabylonians was the essential part of mankind,--namely, themselves.\nMoreover, Babylon being the seat of culture as well as of power, in the\nperiod following upon Hammurabi, Marduk was necessarily conceived as\npossessing the same wisdom that distinguishes Ea. As a consequence, the\nattributes of Ea were transferred in a body to Marduk. An amalgamation\nof the two, however, such as took place in the case of other deities,\nwas neither possible, nor, indeed, desirable. It was not possible,\nbecause of the antiquity of the Ea cult and the peculiar position that\nhe, as a common heirloom of all Babylonia, occupied; nor was it\ndesirable, for to do so would be to cut off completely the bond uniting\nBabylon to its own past and to the rest of Babylonia. The solution of\nthe problem was found in making Ea, the father of Marduk--the loving and\nproud father who willingly transfers all his powers and qualities to his\nson, who rejoices in the triumph of his offspring, and who suffers no\npangs of jealousy when beholding the superior honors shown to Marduk,\nboth by the gods and by men.\n\n\nEa and Marduk.\n\nThe combination of the two gods is particularly frequent in the\nso-called incantation texts. Marduk becomes the mediator between Ea and\nmankind. The man smitten with disease, or otherwise in trouble, appeals\nto Marduk for help, who promptly brings the petition to his father Ea.\nThe latter, after modestly declaring that there is nothing that he knows\nwhich his son Marduk does not know, gives Marduk the necessary\ninstructions, which in turn are conveyed to the one crying for divine\nsuccor. It is clear that these texts have been reshaped with the\nintention of adding to the glory of Marduk. They must, therefore, have\nbeen remodelled at a time when the Marduk cult was in the ascendancy.\nThis was after the days of Hammurabi, and before the subjugation of\nBabylonia to Assyrian rule. The limits thus assigned are, to be sure,\nbroad, but from what has above been said as to the intellectual activity\nreigning in the days of Hammurabi, we need not descend far below the\ndeath of the great conqueror to find the starting-point for the\nremodelling of the texts in question. Not all of them, of course, were\nso reshaped. There are quite a number in which Ea is alone and directly\nappealed to, and these form a welcome confirmation of the supposition\nthat those in which Ea is joined to Marduk have been reshaped with a\ndesire to make them conform to the position of Marduk in the Babylonian\npantheon. Again, there are incantations in which the name of Marduk\nappears without Ea. Such are either productions of a later period, of\nthe time when Marduk had already assumed his superior position, or what\nis also possible, though less probable, old compositions in which the\nname of Ea has been simply replaced by that of Marduk. An especially\ninteresting example of the manner in which ancient productions have been\nworked over by the Babylonian theologians, with a view to bringing their\nfavorite Marduk into greater prominence, appears in one of the episodes\nof the Babylonian cosmogony. Prior to the creation of man a great\nmonster known as Tiamat had to be subdued. The gods all shrink in terror\nbefore her. Only one succeeds in conquering her. In the form of the\nstory, as we have it, this hero is Marduk, but it is quite evident[141]\nthat the honor originally belonged to an entirely different god, one who\nis much older, and who stands much higher than the god of Babylon. This\nwas Bel,--the old god of Nippur who was conceived as the god of earth\n_par excellence_, and to whom therefore the task of preparing the earth\nfor the habitation of mankind properly belonged. How do the Babylonian\ntheologians, who stand under the influence of the political conditions\nprevailing in Babylonia after the union of the Babylonian states,\nreconcile this older and true form of the episode with the form in which\nthey have recast it? The gods who are called the progenitors of Marduk\nare represented as rejoicing upon seeing Marduk equipped for the fray.\nIn chorus they greet and bless him, \"Marduk be king.\" They present him\nwith additional weapons, and encourage him for the contest. Upon hearing\nof his success the gods vie with one another in conferring honors upon\nMarduk. They bestow all manner of glorious epithets upon him; and, to\ncap the climax, the old Bel, known as 'father Bel,' steps forward and\ntransfers to him his name, _bel matati_,[142] 'lord of lands.' To bestow\nthe name was equivalent to transferring Bel's powers to Marduk; and so\nMarduk is henceforth known as _Bel_. But Ea must be introduced into the\nepisode. It is not sufficient that Bel, the original subduer of Tiamat,\nshould pay homage to Marduk; Ea also greets his son, and bestows his\nname upon him,[143]--that is, transfers his powers to his son. There is\na special reason for this. The overthrow of Tiamat is followed by the\ncreation of man. This function properly belongs to Bel, both as the god\nof earth and as the subduer of Tiamat. According to one--and probably\nthe oldest--version of this part of the Babylonian cosmogony which was\nembodied in the work of Berosus[144], it is Bel who creates mankind. The\nsubstitution of Marduk for Bel necessitated the transference of the role\nof creator to Marduk likewise, and yet the latter could not take this\nupon himself without the consent of his father Ea, who had become the\ngod of humanity _par excellence_. Ea could interpose no objection\nagainst Bel being replaced by Marduk in vanquishing the monster, but\nwhen it came to drawing the conclusion and replacing Bel by Marduk also\nin the creation of man, the case was different. If Bel was to be\nreplaced, Ea had a prior claim. Marduk could only take the new functions\nupon himself after receiving the powers of Ea. That is the force of Ea's\nsaying that Marduk's name also shall be Ea just as his. This\ntransference of the name of Ea to Marduk is in itself an indication that\nthere must have existed a second version in Babylonia--probably of later\norigin than the other--of the creation of man, according to which Ea,\nand not Bel, was the creator. We shall have occasion to see, in a future\nchapter, that there were at least two different versions current in\nBabylonia of the creation of the gods and of the universe. The opening\nchapters in Genesis form an interesting parallel to show the manner in\nwhich two different versions of one and the same subject may be\ncombined. There is, therefore, nothing improbable in the supposition\nthat a later version, reflecting a period when Bel had sunk into\ncomparative insignificance, made Ea the creator of mankind instead of\nBel, and that still later a solution of the apparent inconsistency\ninvolved in transferring only part of Bel's powers to Marduk was found\nby securing Ea's consent to the acknowledgment of Marduk not merely as\ncreator of mankind but of the heavenly vault as well. Jensen[145] has\nbrought other evidence to show that Ea was once regarded as the creator\nof mankind. One of his titles is that of 'potter,' and mankind,\naccording to Babylonian theories, was formed of 'clay.' Moreover, in a\nBabylonian myth that will be set forth in its proper place, Ea expressly\nfigures in the role of creating a mysterious being, _Uddushu-na-mir_,\nwhose name signifies 'his light shines.' Such a proper name, too, as\n\"Ea-bani,\" _i.e._, 'Ea creates,' points in the same direction.\n\nIn other literary productions of Babylonia, such as, _e.g._, the\nso-called Izdubar epic, Ea again appears without Marduk, showing that\nthis story has not been remodeled, or that the later version, in which\nthe traces of a recasting may have been seen, has not been discovered.\nIn the deluge story, which forms part of the Izdubar epic, Ea alone is\nthe hero. It is he who saves humanity from complete annihilation, and\nwho pacifies the angered Bel. Marduk's name does not appear in the\nentire epic. We have found it necessary to dwell thus at length upon\nthese evidences of the recasting of the literary products of ancient\nBabylonia under the influence of changed conceptions of the gods and of\ntheir relations to one another, for upon the understanding of these\nchanges, our appreciation of the development of religious beliefs in\nBabylonia, and all connected with these beliefs, hinges. The epoch of\nHammurabi was a crucial one for Babylonia from a religious as well as\nfrom a political point of view.\n\n\nDamkina.\n\nThe consort of Ea figures occasionally in the historical texts of\nHammurabi's successors. Agumkakrimi invokes Ea and Damkina, asking these\ngods, who 'dwell in the great ocean' surrounding the earth, to grant him\nlong life. In addition to this, the antiquity of the literary\nproductions in which her name appears justifies us in reckoning her\namong the gods of Babylonia of Hammurabi's time. Her name signifies\n'lady of the earth,' and there is evidently a theoretical substratum to\nthis association of Ea, the water-god, with an earth-goddess. The one\nforms the complement to the other; and Marduk, as the son of water and\nearth, takes his place in the theory as the creator of the world. In\nthis form the 'natural philosophy' of Babylonia survived to a late\nperiod. Nicolas of Damascus still knows (probably through Berosus) that\nEa and Damkina[146] had a son Bel (_i.e._, Marduk). The survival of the\nname is a proof that, despite the silence of the historical texts, she\nwas a prominent personage in Babylonian mythology, even though she did\nnot figure largely in the cult. She appears in the magical texts quite\nfrequently at the side of Ea. In a hymn[147] where a description occurs\nof the boat containing Ea, Damkina his wife, and Marduk their son,\ntogether with the ferryman and some other personages sailing across the\nocean, we may see traces of the process of symbolization to which the\nold figures of mythology were subjected.\n\n\nShamash.\n\nPassing on, we find Hammurabi as strongly attached to the worship of the\nold sun-god as any of his predecessors. Next to Babylon, he was much\nconcerned with making improvements in Sippar. The Temple of Shamash at\nLarsa also was improved and enlarged by him. Hammurabi's example is\nfollowed by his successors. Agumkakrimi invokes Shamash as 'warrior of\nheaven and earth'; and it is likely that the precedent furnished by\nthese two kings, who considered it consistent with devotion to Marduk to\nsingle out the places sacred to Shamash for special consideration, had\nmuch to do in maintaining the popularity of sun-worship in Babylonia and\nAssyria. Kara-indash, of the Cassite dynasty (_c._ 1450 B.C.), restores\nthe temple of Shamash at Larsa, and Mili-shikhu, two centuries later,\nassigns to Shamash the second place in his pantheon, naming him before\nMarduk. Foreign rulers were naturally not so deeply attached to Marduk\nas were the natives of Babylon. In the Assyrian pantheon Shamash\noccupies the third place, following immediately upon the two special\ndeities of Assyria. One of the greatest of the northern kings erects a\ntemple in honor of the god, and the later Babylonian kings vie with one\nanother in doing honor to the two oldest sanctuaries of Shamash, at\nSippar and Larsa. Perhaps the pristine affinity between Marduk, who, as\nwe saw, was originally a sun-deity, and Shamash, also had a share in\nHammurabi's fondness for coupling these two gods. When describing his\noperations at Sippar he speaks of himself as 'doing good to the flesh of\nShamash and Marduk.' Hammurabi felt himself to be honoring Marduk,\nthrough paying homage to a deity having affinity with the patron\nprotector of Babylon.\n\n\nInnanna.\n\nWe have already come across a deity of this name in a previous\nchapter.[148] Hammurabi tells us, in one of his inscriptions, that he\nhas restored the temple in honor of Innanna at Hallabi--a town near\nSippar.[149] Innanna, or Ninni, signifying merely 'lady,' or 'great\nlady,' appears to have become a very general name for a goddess, hence\nthe addition 'of Hallabi,' which Hammurabi is careful to make. At the\nsame time the designation 'lady of Hallabi' points to her being a\nconsort of a male deity who was the patron of the place. May this have\nbeen the moon-god again, as in the case of the other Innanna? Our\nknowledge of this goddess is confined to what the king tells us about\nher. For him she is the mistress whose glory fills heaven and earth, but\nwhen he adds that she has placed in his hands the reins of government,\nthis only means that the goddess recognizes his right to supreme\nauthority over the Babylonian states--not that he owes his power to her.\nIt is after he has succeeded in making Babylon the capital of a great\nkingdom that he proceeds to improve the temple of Innanna.\n\n\nBel and the Triad of Babylonian Theology.\n\nAmong the literary remains of Hammurabi's days we have a hymn in which\nthe chief gods worshipped by the king are enumerated in succession. The\nlist begins with Bel, and then mentions Sin, Ninib, Ishtar, Shamash, and\nRamman. We should expect to find at the head of the list Marduk. The\nhymn may be older than Hammurabi, who, perhaps, is quoting or copying\nit, and since the Bel who is here at the head of the pantheon is the god\nof Nippur, the hymn may originally have belonged to the ritual of that\nplace. For Hammurabi the highest 'Bel,' or lord, is Marduk, and there is\nhardly room for doubt that in using this hymn as a means of passing on\nto singing his own praises, with which the inscription in question ends,\nHammurabi has in mind the patron god of Babylon when speaking of\nBel.[150] It is this amalgamation of the old Bel with Marduk that marks,\nas we have seen, the transition to the use of Bel's name as a mere title\nof Marduk. Elsewhere, however, Hammurabi uses Bel to designate the old\ngod. So when he calls himself the proclaimer of Anu and Bel[151] the\nassociation with Anu makes it impossible that Marduk should be meant. At\ntimes he appears to refer in the same inscription, now to the old Bel\nand again to Bel-Marduk, under the same designation. When Kurigalzu, a\nmember of the Cassite dynasty (_c._ 1400 B.C.), speaks of 'Bel, the lord\nof lands,' to whom he erects a temple in the new city, Dur-Kurigalzu--\nsome forty miles to the northeast of Babylon--it is the old Bel who is\nagain meant. While acknowledging Marduk as one of the chief gods, these\nforeign rulers in Babylonia--the Cassites--did not feel the same\nattachment to him as Hammurabi did. They gave the preference to the old\ngod of Nippur, and, indeed, succeeded in their attempt to give to the\nold city of Nippur some of its pristine glory. They devoted themselves\nassiduously to the care of the great temple at Nippur. There are some\nindications of an attempt made by them to make Nippur the capital of\ntheir empire. In the case of Hammurabi's immediate successor, as has\nbeen pointed out, the equation Bel-Marduk is distinctly set down, but,\nfor all that, the double employment of the name continues even through\nthe period of the Assyrian supremacy over Babylonia. The northern rulers\nnow use Bel to designate the more ancient god, and, again, merely as a\ndesignation of Marduk. Tiglathpileser I. (see note 1, below) expressly\nadds 'the older' when speaking of Bel. When Sargon refers to Bel, 'the\nlord of lands, who dwells on the sacred mountain of the gods,' or when\nTiglathpileser I. calls Bel 'the father of the gods,' 'the king of the\ngroup of spirits' known as the Anunaki, it is of course only the old\nBel, the lord of the lower region, or of the earth, who can be meant;\nbut when, as is much more frequently the case, the kings of Assyria,\ndown to the fall of the empire, associate Bel with Nabu, speak of Bel\nand the gods of Akkad (_i.e._, Babylonia), and use Bel, moreover, to\ndesignate Babylonia,[152] it is equally clear that Marduk is meant. In\nthe Neo-Babylonian empire Marduk alone is used.\n\nThe continued existence of a god Bel in the Babylonian pantheon, despite\nthe amalgamation of Bel with Marduk, is a phenomenon that calls for some\ncomment. The explanation is to be found in the influence of the\ntheological system that must have been developed in part, at least, even\nbefore the union of the Babylonian states.[153] Bel, as the god of\nearth, was associated with Anu, as the god of heaven, and Ea, as the god\nof the deep, to form a triad that embraced the entire universe. When,\ntherefore, Anu, Bel, and Ea were invoked, it was equivalent to naming\nall the powers that influenced the fate of man. They embraced, as it\nwere, the three kingdoms of the gods, within which all the other gods\ncould be comprised. The systematization involved in the assumption of a\ntriad of gods controlling the entire pantheon can hardly be supposed to\nhave been a popular process. It betokens an amount of thought and\nspeculation, a comprehensive view of the powers of nature, that could\nonly have arisen in minds superior to the average intelligence. In other\nwords, the conception of the triad Anu, Bel, and Ea is again an evidence\nof the existence of schoolmen and of schools of religious thought in the\ndays of the ancient empire. So far, however, as Hammurabi is concerned,\nhe only refers to a duality--Anu and Bel--which, for him, comprises all\nthe other gods. He is the 'proclaimer of Anu and Bel.' It is Anu and Bel\nwho give him sovereignty over the land. In the texts of the second\nperiod the triad does not occur until we come to the reign of a king,\nMili-shikhu, who lives at least eight centuries after Hammurabi. Ea, in\nfact, does not occur at all in those inscriptions of the king that have\nas yet been discovered. If any conclusion is to be drawn from this\nomission, it is certainly this,--that there are several stages in the\ndevelopment of the ancient theological system of Babylonia. At first a\nduality of kingdoms--the kingdom of what is above and below--was\nconceived as comprising all the personified powers of nature, but this\nduality was replaced by a triad through the addition of the god who\nstands at the head of all water-deities. Of course the assumption of a\nduality instead of a triad may have been due to a difference among\nexisting schools of thought. At all events, there seems to be no\npolitical reason for the addition of Ea, and it is difficult to say,\ntherefore, how soon the conception of a triad standing at the head of\nthe pantheon arose. We have found it in Gudea's days, and it must,\ntherefore, have existed in the days of Hammurabi, without, perhaps,\nbeing regarded as an essential dogma as yet. A direct and natural\nconsequence of Bel's position in the triad was that, by the side of\nBel-Marduk, the older Bel continued to be invoked in historical\ninscriptions. Since Anu and Ea were appealed to by themselves, the\nformer occasionally, the latter more frequently, there was no reason why\na ruler should not at times be prompted to introduce an invocation to\nBel, without the direct association with Anu and Ea. The confusion that\nthus ensues between the two Bels was not of serious moment, since from\nthe context one could without difficulty determine which of the two was\nmeant; and what we, with our limited knowledge of ancient Babylonia, are\nable to do, must have been an easy task for the Babylonians\nthemselves.[154] It is tempting to suppose that the first command of the\nDecalogue (Exodus, xx) contains an implied reference to the Babylonian\ntriad.\n\n\nAnu, Bel, and Ea.\n\nThe theory of the triad succeeds in maintaining its hold upon Babylonian\nminds from a certain period on, through all political and intellectual\nvicissitudes. To invoke Anu, Bel, and Ea becomes a standing formula that\nthe rulers of Babylonia as well as of Assyria are fond of employing.\nThese three are the great gods _par excellence_. They occupy a place of\ntheir own. The kings do not feel as close to them as to Marduk, or to\nAshur, or even to the sun-god, or to the moon-god. The invocation of the\ntriad partakes more of a formal character, as though in giving to these\nthree gods the first place, the writers felt that they were following an\nancient precedent that had more of a theoretical than a practical value\nfor their days. So among Assyrian rulers, Ashur-rish-ishi (_c._ 1150\nB.C.) derives his right to the throne from the authority with which he\nis invested by the triad. Again, in the formal curses which the kings\ncalled down upon the destroyers of the inscriptions or statues that they\nset up, the appeal to Anu, Bel, and Ea is made. Ashurnasirbal calls upon\nthe triad not to listen to the prayers of such as deface his monuments.\nSargon has an interesting statement in one of his inscriptions,\naccording to which the names of the months were fixed by Anu, Bel, and\nEa. This 'archaeological' theory illustrates very well the extraneous\nposition occupied by the triad. The months, as we shall see, are sacred,\neach to a different god. The gods thus distinguished are the ones that\nare directly concerned in the fortunes of the state,--Sin, Ashur,\nIshtar, and the like. Anu, Bel, and Ea are not in the list, and the\ntradition, or rather the dogma according to which they assign the names\nis evidently an attempt to make good this omission by placing them, as\nit were, beyond the reach of the calendar. In short, so far as the\nhistorical texts are concerned which reflect the popular beliefs, the\ntriad represents a theological doctrine rather than a living force. In\ncombination, Anu, Bel, and Ea did not mean as much, nor the same thing,\nto a Babylonian or an Assyrian, as when he said Marduk, or Nabu, or\nAshur, or Sin, as the case might be. It was different when addressing\nthese gods individually, as was occasionally done. The Assyrians were\nrather fond of introducing Anu by himself in their prayers, and the\nBabylonians were prompted to a frequent mention of Ea by virtue of his\nrelationship to Marduk, but when this was done Anu and Ea meant\nsomething different than when mentioned in one breath along with Bel.\n\n\nBelit.\n\nOne might have supposed that when Bel became Marduk, the consort of Bel\nwould also become Marduk's consort. Such, however, does not appear to be\nthe case, at least so far as the epoch of Hammurabi is concerned. When\nhe calls himself 'the beloved shepherd of Belit,' it is the wife of the\nold Bel that is meant, and so when Agumkakrimi mentions Bel and Belit\ntogether, as the gods that decree his fate on earth, there is no doubt\nas to what Belit is meant. In later days, however, and in Assyria more\nparticularly, there seems to be a tendency towards generalizing the name\n(much as that of Bel) to the extent of applying it in the sense of\n'mistress' to the consort of the chief god of the pantheon; and that\nhappening to be Ashur in Assyria accounts for the fact, which might\notherwise appear strange, that Tiglathpileser I. (_c._ 1140 B.C.) calls\nBelit the 'lofty consort and beloved of Ashur.' Ashurbanabal (668-626\nB.C.) does the same, and even goes further and declares himself to be\nthe offspring of Ashur and Belit. On the other hand, in the interval\nbetween these two kings we find Shalmaneser II. (860-825 B.C.) calling\nBelit 'the mother of the great gods' and 'the wife of Bel,' making it\nevident that the old Belit of the south is meant, and since Ashurbanabal\non one occasion also calls the goddess 'the beloved of Bel,'[155] it\nfollows that in his days two Belits were still recognized, or perhaps it\nwould be more accurate to say two uses of the term,--one specifically\nfor the consort of the Babylonian Bel, the god of the earth, with his\nancient seat at Nippur; the other of a more general character, though\nstill limited as 'lady' to the consort of the _chief_ gods, just as\n'Bel,' while acquiring the general sense of 'lord,' was restricted in\nactual usage to the _greatest_ 'lords' only. An indication of this\ndistinction, somewhat parallel to the addition of Dagan to Bel, to\nindicate that the old Bel was meant,[156] appears in the sobriquet 'of\nBabylonia,'[157] which Ashurbanabal gives to the goddess in one place\nwhere the old Belit is meant. Under the influence of this Assyrian\nextension of the term, Nabopolassar, in the Neo-Babylonian period,\napplies the title to the consort of Shamash at Sippar, but he is careful\nto specify 'Belit of Sippar,' in order to avoid misunderstanding.\nBesides being applied to the consorts of Ashur and of Shamash, 'Belit,'\nin the general sense of 'mistress,' is applied only to another goddess,\nthe great Ishtar of the Assyrian pantheon--generally, however, as a\ntitle, not as a name of the goddess. The important position she occupied\nin the Assyrian pantheon seemed to justify this further modification and\nextension in the use of the term. Occasionally, Ishtar is directly and\nexpressly called 'Belit.' So, Ashurbanabal speaks of a temple that he\nhas founded in Calah to 'Belit mati,'[158] 'the Belit (or lady) of the\nland,' where the context speaks in favor of identifying Belit with the\ngreat goddess Ishtar. Again Ashurbanabal, in a dedicatory inscription\ngiving an account of improvements made in the temple of Ishtar,\naddresses the goddess as Belit 'lady of lands, dwelling in\nE-mash-mash.'[159]\n\n\nAnu and Anatum.\n\nIn the second period of Babylonian history the worship of the supreme\ngod of heaven becomes even more closely bound up with Anu's position as\nthe first member of the inseparable triad than was the case in the first\nperiod. For Hammurabi, as has been noted, Anu is only a half-real figure\nwho in association with Bel is represented as giving his endorsement to\nthe king's authority.[160] The manner in which Agumkakrimi introduces\nAnu is no less characteristic for the age of Hammurabi and his\nsuccessors. At the beginning of his long inscription,[161] he enumerates\nthe chief gods under whose protection he places himself. As a Cassitic\nruler, he assigns the first place to the chief Cassite deity, Shukamuna,\na god of war whom the Babylonian scholars identified with their own\nNergal.[162] Shukamuna is followed by the triad Anu, Bel, and Ea. Marduk\noccupies a fifth place, after which comes a second triad, Sin, Shamash\n\"the mighty hero,\" and Ishtar[163] \"the strong one among the gods.\" The\ninscription is devoted to the king's successful capture of the statues\nof Marduk and Sarpanitum out of the hands of the Khani, and the\nrestoration of the shrines of these deities at Babylon. At the close,\nthe king Agumkakrimi appeals to Anu and his consort Anatum,[164] who are\nasked to bless the king in heaven, to Bel and Belit who are asked to fix\nhis fate on earth, and to Ea and Damkina, inhabiting the deep,[165] who\nare to grant him long life. As in the beginning of the inscription, the\nthought of the triad--Anu, Bel, Ea--evidently underlies this interesting\ninvocation, but at the same time the association of a consort with Anu\nbrings the god into closer relationship with his fellows. He takes\non--if the contradiction in terms be permitted--a more human shape. His\nconsort bears a name that is simply the feminine form to Anu, just as\nBelit is the feminine to Bel. 'Anu,' signifying 'the one on high,'--a\nfeminine to it was formed, manifestly under the influence of the notion\nthat every god must have a consort of some kind. After Agumkakrimi no\nfurther mention of Anatum occurs, neither in the inscriptions of\nBabylonian nor of Assyrian rulers. We are permitted to conclude,\ntherefore, that Anatum was a product of the schools, and one that never\ntook a strong hold on the popular mind. Among the Assyrian kings who in\nother respects also show less dependence upon the doctrines evolved in\nthe Babylonian schools, and whose inscriptions reflect to a greater\ndegree the purely popular phases of the faith, we find Anu mentioned\nwith tolerable frequency, and in a manner that betrays less emphasis\nupon the position of the god as a member of the triad. Still, it is\nrather curious that he does not appear even in the inscriptions of the\nAssyrian kings by himself, but in association with another god. Thus\nTiglathpileser I. (_c._ 1130 B.C.) gives an elaborate account of an old\ntemple to Anu and Ramman in the city of Ashur that he restores to more\nthan its former grandeur.[166] This dedication of a temple to two\ndeities is unusual. Ramman is the god of thunder and storms, whose seat\nof course is in the heavens. He stands close, therefore, to Anu, the\nsupreme god of heaven. In the religious productions, this relationship\nis expressed by making Ramman the son of Anu. From a passage descriptive\nof this temple it would appear that the old temple founded by King\nSamsi-Ramman, who lived several centuries before Tiglathpileser, was\ndedicated to Ramman. It looks, therefore, as though the association of\nAnu with Ramman was the work of the later king. What his motive was in\nthus combining Anu with Ramman it is difficult to say, but in his\naccount of the restoration of the sanctuary, he so consistently mentions\nAnu and Ramman together,[167] designating them unitedly as 'the great\ngods my lords,' that one gains the impression that the two were\ninseparable in his mind, Ramman being perhaps regarded simply as a\nmanifestation of Anu. The supposition finds some support in the closing\nwords of the inscription, where, in hurling the usual curses upon those\nwho should attempt to destroy his monuments, he invokes Ramman alone,\nwhom he asks to punish the offender by his darts, by hunger, by distress\nof every kind, and by death.\n\nElsewhere Anu appears in association with Dagan, of whom we shall have\noccasion to speak in the chapter on the Assyrian pantheon. Suffice it to\nsay here that Dagan in this connection is an equivalent of Bel. When,\ntherefore, Ashurbanabal and Sargon call themselves 'the favorite of Anu\nand Dagan,' it is the same as though they spoke of Anu and Bel. Apart\nfrom this, Anu only appears when a part or the whole of the Assyrian\npantheon is enumerated. Thus we come across Anu, Ramman, and Ishtar as\nthe chief gods of the city of Ashur,[168] and again Anu, Ashur, Shamash,\nRamman, and Ishtar.[169] Finally, Sargon who names the eight gates of\nhis palace after the chief gods of the land does not omit Anu, whom he\ndescribes as the 'one who blesses his handiwork.' Otherwise we have Anu\nonly when the triad Anu, Bel, and Ea is invoked. Once Ramman-nirari I.\n(_c._ 1325 B.C.) adds Ishtar to the triad. After Sargon we no longer\nfind Anu's name at all among the deities worshipped in Assyria. On the\nwhole, then, Anu's claim to reverence rests in Assyria as well as in\nBabylonia upon his position in the triad, and while Assyria is less\ninfluenced by the ancient system devised in Babylonia whereby Anu, Bel,\nand Ea come to be the representatives of the three kingdoms among which\nthe gods are distributed, still Anu as a specific deity, ruling in his\nown right, remains a rather shadowy figure. The only temple in his honor\nis the one which he shares with Ramman, and which, as noted, appears to\nhave been originally devoted to the service of the latter. One other\nfactor that must be taken into account to explain the disappearance of\nAnu is the gradual enforcement of Ashur's claim to the absolute headship\nof the Assyrian pantheon. Either Anu or Ashur had to be assigned to this\nplace, and when circumstances decided the issue in favor of Ashur, there\nwas no place worthy of Anu as a specific deity. Ashur usurps in a\nmeasure the role of Anu. So far as Babylonia was concerned, there was\nstill in the twelfth century B.C. a city 'Der' which is called the 'city\nof Anu.' The city is probably of very ancient foundation, and its\ncontinued association with Anu forms an interesting survival of a local\nconception that appears to have been once current of the god.\n\nIn the religious literature, especially in that part of it which\nfurnishes us with the scholastic recastings of the popular traditions,\nAnu is a much more prominent figure than in the historical texts. From\nbeing merely the personification of the heavens, he is raised to the\nstill higher dignity of symbolizing, as Jensen puts it,[170] the\nabstract principle of which both the heavens and earth are emanations.\nAll the earliest gods conceived of by popular tradition as existing from\nthe beginning of things are viewed as manifestations of Anu, or of Anu\nand Anatum in combination. He gives ear to prayers, but he is not\napproached directly. The gods are his messengers, who come and give him\nreport of what is going on.[171] He is a god for the gods rather than\nfor men. When his daughter Ishtar is insulted she appeals to her father\nAnu; and when the gods are terrified they take refuge with Anu. Armed\nwith a mighty weapon whose assault nothing can withstand, Anu is\nsurrounded by a host of gods and powerful spirits who are ready to\nfollow his lead and to do his service.\n\n\nRamman.\n\nWith Ramman we reach a deity whose introduction into the Babylonian\npantheon and whose position therein appears to be entirely independent\nof Marduk.\n\nThe reading of the name as Ramman (or Rammanu) is provisional. The\nideograph _Im_ with which the name is written designates the god as the\npower presiding over storms; and while it is certain that, in Assyria at\nleast, the god was known as Ramman, which means 'the thunderer,' it is\npossible that this was an epithet given to the god, and not his real or\nhis oldest name. It is significant that in the El-Amarna tablets (_c._\n1500 B.C.), where the god _Im_ appears as an element in proper names,\nthe reading _Addu_ is vouched for, and this form has been justly brought\ninto connection with a very famous solar deity of Syria,--Hadad. The\nworship of Hadad, we know, was widely spread in Palestine and Syria, and\nthere is conclusive evidence that Hadad (or Adad), as a name for the god\n_Im_, was known in Babylonia. Professor Oppert is of the opinion that\nAdad represents the oldest name of the god. Quite recently the\nproposition has been made that the real name of the deity was\n_Immeru_.[172] The ideograph in this case would arise through the\ncurtailment of the name (as is frequently the case in the cuneiform\nsyllabary), and the association of _Im_ with 'storm' and 'wind' would be\ndirectly dependent upon the nature of the deity in question. The\nmaterial at hand is not sufficient for deciding the question. Besides\nImmeru, Adad, and Ramman, the deity was also known as _Mer_--connected\napparently with Immeru.[173] So much is certain, that Ramman appears to\nhave been the name currently used in Assyria for this god. Adad may have\nbeen employed occasionally in Babylonia, as was _Mer_ in proper names,\nbut that it was not the common designation is proved by a list of gods\n(published by Bezold[174]) in which the _foreign_ equivalent for _Im_ is\nset down as Adad. We may for the present, therefore, retain Ramman,\nwhile bearing in mind that we have only proof of its being an epithet\napplied to the god, not necessarily his real name and in all\nprobabilities not the oldest name.\n\nWe meet with the god for the first time in the hymn to which reference\nhas already been made,[175] and where the god is mentioned together with\nShamash. If the suggestion above thrown out is correct, that the hymn is\nolder than the days of Hammurabi, Ramman too would be older than his\nfirst mention in historical texts. However, it is worthy of note that in\nthis hymn each of the other gods mentioned receives a line for himself,\nand that Ramman is the only one who is tacked on to another deity. It is\nnot strange that in making copies of older texts, especially those of a\nreligious character, the scribes should have introduced certain\nmodifications. At all events, the god does not acquire any degree of\nprominence until the days of Hammurabi; so that whatever his age and\norigin, he belongs in a peculiar sense to the pantheon of Hammurabi\nrather than to that of the old Babylonian period. The successor of\nHammurabi, Samsu-iluna, dedicates a fort, known as Dur-padda, to Ramman\nwhom he addresses as his 'helper', along with several other gods.\nDespite this fact, his worship does not appear to have been very firmly\nestablished in Babylonia, for Agumkakrimi, who follows upon Samsu-iluna,\ndoes not make mention of Ramman. During the reign of the Cassite\ndynasty, however, the worship of Ramman appears to have gained a\nstronger foothold. Several kings of this dynasty have incorporated the\nname of this deity into their own names, and in an inscription dealing\nwith events that transpired in the reign of one of these kings, Ramman\noccupies a prominent place. Immediately after the great triad, Anu, Bel,\nand Ea, there is enumerated a second, Sin, Shamash, and Ramman, and only\nthen there follows Marduk.[176] More than this, Ramman is introduced for\na second time in conjunction with Shamash, as in the hymn of Hammurabi.\nThe two are appealed to as 'the divine lords of justice.' The conqueror\nof the Cassites, Nebuchadnezzar I., also holds Ramman in high esteem.\nFor him, Ramman is the god of battle who in companionship with Ishtar\nabets the king in his great undertakings. He addresses Ramman as the\ngreat lord of heaven, the lord of subterranean waters and of rain, whose\ncurse is invoked against the one who sets aside the decrees of\nNebuchadnezzar or who defaces the monument the king sets up. While\nacknowledging the supremacy of Marduk, upon whose appeal he proceeds to\nBabylonia to rid the country of its oppressors, Nebuchadnezzar\nnevertheless shows remarkable partiality for Ramman, perhaps as a matter\nof policy to offset the supposed preference shown by Ramman towards the\nprevious dynasty. Ramman with Nergal and Nana are also enumerated as the\nspecial gods of Namar--a Babylonian district which caused the king\nconsiderable annoyance, and which may have been one of the strongholds\nwhence the Cassitic kings continued their attacks upon Nebuchadnezzar.\n\nIn order to determine more precisely the nature of this deity, it is\nnecessary to turn to Assyria, where his worship dates from the very\nearliest times, and where he appears consistently in a single\nrole,--that of the god of storms, more particularly of thunder and\nlightning. The oldest Assyrian ruler known to us is Samsi-Ramman (_c._\n1850 B.C.), whose name, containing the god as one of its elements,\npoints to the antiquity of the cult of Ramman in the north. Another king\nwho has frequently been mentioned, Ramman-nirari (_i.e._, Ramman is my\nhelper), bears evidence to the same effect, and Tiglathpileser I. speaks\nof a temple to Ramman whose foundation carries us back several centuries\nbeyond the period of these two kings--almost to the days of Hammurabi.\nThe theory has accordingly been advanced that the worship of Ramman came\nto Babylonia from the north, and since the cult of this same god is\nfound in Damascus and extended as far south as the plain of Jezreel, the\nfurther conclusion has been drawn that the god is of Aramaic origin and\nwas brought to Assyria through Aramaic tribes who had settled in parts\nof Assyria. The great antiquity of the Ramman cult in Assyria argues\nagainst a foreign origin. It seems more plausible to regard the Ramman\ncult as indigenous to Assyria; but reverting to a time when the\npopulation of the north was still in the nomadic state of civilization,\nthe cult may have been carried to the west by some of the wandering\ntribes who afterwards established themselves around Damascus. Up to a\nlate period Aramaic hordes appear from time to time in western Assyria;\nand in a higher stage of culture, contact between Aramaeans and\nAssyrians was maintained by commercial intercourse and by warfare. Since\nthe earliest mention of Ramman's cult is in the city of Ashur, it may be\nthat he was originally connected with that place. As already intimated,\nhe was essentially a storm-god, whose manifestation was seen in the\nthunder and lightning, and the god was known not merely as 'the\nthunderer,' but also as Barku, _i.e._, lightning. Perhaps it was because\nof this that he was also brought into association with the great light\nof heaven,--the sun-god. In many mythologies, the sun and lightning are\nregarded as correlated forces. At all events, the frequent association\nof Shamash and Ramman cannot have been accidental. This double nature of\nRamman--as a solar deity representing some particular phase of the sun\nthat escapes us and as a storm-god--still peers through the inscription\nabove noted from the Cassite period where Ramman is called 'the lord of\njustice,'--an attribute peculiar to the sun-god; but in Assyria his role\nas the thunder-and storm-god overshadows any other attributes that he\nmay have had.\n\nThere are two aspects to rainstorms in Babylonia. The flooding of the\nfields while committing much havoc is essential to the fertility of the\nsoil. Ramman is therefore the carrier of blessings to the cities, the\none who supplies wells and fields with water; but the destructive\ncharacter of the rain and thunder and lightning are much more strongly\nemphasized than their beneficent aspects. Even though the fields be\nflooded, Ramman can cause thorns to grow instead of herbs. The same\nideograph _Im_ that signifies Ramman also means distress. When the\nfailure of the crops brings in its wake hunger and desolation, it is the\n'god of the clouds,' the 'god of rain,' the 'god of the overflow,' whose\nwrath has thus manifested itself. It is he who (as a hymn puts it) 'has\neaten the land.' No wonder that the 'roar' of the god is described as\n'powerful,' and that he is asked to stand at the right side of the\npetitioner and grant protection. When Ramman lets his voice resound,\nmisfortune is at hand. It was natural that he who thus presided over the\nbattle of the elements should come to be conceived essentially as a god\nof war to a people whose chief occupation grew to be conquest. As such\nhe appears constantly in the inscriptions of Assyrian kings, and to such\na degree as to be a formidable rival, at times, to the head of the\nAssyrian pantheon. The final victory of the Assyrian arms is generally\nattributed to Ashur alone, but just before the battle and in the midst\nof the fray, Ramman's presence is felt almost as forcibly as that of\nAshur. He shares with the latter the honor of invocations and sacrifices\nat such critical moments. In this capacity Ramman is so essentially an\nAssyrian god that it will be proper to dwell upon him again in the\nfollowing chapter, when the specially Assyrian phases of the religion we\nare investigating will be taken up. The consort of Ramman also, the\ngoddess Shala, will best be treated of in connection with the Assyrian\nphases of the Ramman cult.\n\nOf the other gods whose names occur in the inscriptions of Hammurabi,\nbut little of a special character is to be noted. The attributes that he\ngives them do not differ from those that we come across in the texts of\nhis predecessors. It is sufficient, therefore, to enumerate them. The\nlongest list is furnished by the hymn which has already been referred\nto. The text is unfortunately fragmentary, and so we cannot be sure that\nthe names embrace the entire pantheon worshipped by him. The list opens\nwith Bel (who, as we have seen, is the old Bel of Nippur); then follow\nSin, Ninib, Ishtar, Shamash, Ramman. Here the break in the tablet begins\nand, when the text again becomes intelligible, a deity is praised in\nsuch extravagant terms that one is tempted to conclude that Hammurabi\nhas added to an old hymn a paean to his favorite Marduk[177]. To Bel is\ngiven the honor of having granted royal dignity to the king. Sin has\ngiven the king his princely glory; from Ninib, the king has received a\npowerful weapon; Ishtar fixes the battle array, while Shamash and Ramman\nhold themselves at the service of the king. With this list, however, we\nare far from having exhausted the pantheon as it had developed in the\ndays of Hammurabi. From the inscriptions of his successors we are\npermitted to add the following: Nin-khar-sag, Nergal, and Lugal-mit-tu,\nfurnished by Samsu-iluna; Shukamuna, by Agumkakrimi; and passing down to\nthe period of the Cassite dynasty, we have in addition Nin-dim-su,\nBa-kad, Pap-u, Belit-ekalli, Shumalia.[178]\n\nDuring the Cassitic rule, Marduk does not play the prominent part that\nhe did under the native rulers, but he is restored to his position by\nNebuchadnezzar I., who, it will be recalled, succeeds in driving the\nCassites out of power. But besides Marduk, Nebuchadnezzar invokes a\nlarge number of other deities. For purposes of comparison with the\npantheon of Hammurabi, and of his immediate successors, I give the\ncomplete list and in the order mentioned by him in the only inscription\nthat we have of this king. They are Ninib, Gula, Ramman, Shumalia,\nNergal, Shir, Shubu, Sin, Belit of Akkad. Moreover, Anu is referred to\nas the especial god of Der, and a goddess Eria[179] is worshipped in\nElam. Passing still further down, we obtain as additional names, Malik\nand Bunene, from the inscription of Nabubaliddin (_c._ 883-852\nB.C.).[180]\n\nWe may divide this long period from Hammurabi down to the time that the\ngovernors of Babylonia became mere puppets of the Assyrian rulers into\nthree sections: (1) Hammurabi and his successors, (2) the Cassite\ndynasty, (3) the restoration of native rulers to the throne. A\ncomparison of the names furnished by the inscriptions from these three\nsections shows that the gods common to all are Marduk, Bel, Shamash,\nRamman. But, in addition, our investigations have shown that we are\njustified in adding the following as forming part of the Babylonian\npantheon during this entire period: Sarpanitum, Belit, Tashmitum, Sin,\nNinib, Ishtar, Nergal, Nin-khar-sag, and the two other members of the\ntriad, Anu and Ea, with their consorts, Anatum and Damkina. All these\ngods and goddesses are found in the texts from the first and third\nsection of the period, and the absence of some of them from texts of the\nsecond section is simply due to the smaller amount of material that we\nhave for the history of the Cassite dynasty in Babylonia. Some of the\ndeities in this list, which is far from being exhaustive,[181] are\nforeign, so _e.g._, Shukamuna and Shumalia, who belong to the Cassitic\npantheon; others are of purely local significance, as Shir and\nShubu.[182] As for Sin, Ninib, and Ishtar, the worship of none of these\ndeities assumes any great degree of prominence during this period. No\ndoubt the local cult was continued at the old centers much as before,\nbut except for an occasional invocation, especially in the closing\nparagraphs of an inscription, where the writers were fond of grouping a\nlarge array of deities so as to render more impressive the curses upon\nenemies and vilifiers, with which the inscriptions usually terminated,\nthey do not figure in the official writings of the time. Of Sin, it is\nof some importance to note that under the Cassite dynasty he stands\nalready at the head of a second class of triads which consists of Sin,\nShamash, and Ramman, or Ishtar (see note 3 on page 152), and that\nthrough the inscription of Nebuchadnezzar I., we learn of an additional\ndistrict of Babylonia,--that of Bit-Khabban, where in association with\nBelit of Akkad, the consort of the older Bel, he was worshipped as the\npatron deity. Nebuchadnezzar himself does not enumerate Sin among the\nchief gods. Ninib appears in the familiar role as a god of war. After\nHammurabi he is only mentioned once in inscriptions of the Cassitic\nperiod and then again in the days of Nebuchadnezzar I., who assigns a\nprominent place to him. It is Ninib who, with the title 'king of heaven\nand earth,' leads off in the long list of gods whose curses are invoked\nupon the king's opponents. Similarly, the belligerent character of\nIshtar is the only phase of the goddess dwelt upon during this period.\nWhile for Agumkakrimi, she still occupies a comparatively inferior rank,\ncoming seventh in his list, Nebuchadnezzar places her immediately after\nAnu and before Ramman and Marduk. This advance foreshadows the superior\nrole that she is destined to play in the pantheon during the period of\nAssyrian supremacy. The cult of Nergal does not figure prominently\nduring this period. In fact, so far as the historical texts go, he\ndisappears from the scene till the time of Nebuchadnezzar I., when he is\nincidentally invoked in a group with Ramman and Nana as the gods of a\ndistrict in Babylonia known as Namar. Exactly where Namar lay has not\nyet been ascertained. Since Nergal, as was shown in the previous\nchapter, was the local patron of Cuthah, it may be that the latter city\nwas included in the Namar district. At all events, we may conclude from\nthe silence of the texts as to Nergal, that Cuthah played no conspicuous\npart in the empire formed of the Babylonian states, and that the cult of\nNergal, apart from the association of the deity in religious texts with\nthe lower world, did not during this entire period extend beyond local\nproportions. Lastly, it is interesting to note that Samsu-iluna, the son\nof Hammurabi, refers to Belit of Nippur as Nin-khar-sag, which we have\nseen was one of her oldest titles.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[116] The name is also written Ma-ru-duk, which points to its having\nbeen regarded (for which there is other evidence) as a compound of\n_maru_, 'son,' and an element, _duk_(_u_), which in religious and other\ntexts designates the 'glorious chamber' in which the god determines the\nfate of humanity. Such an 'etymology' is, however, merely a play upon\nthe name, similar to the plays upon proper names found in the Old\nTestament. The real etymology is unknown. The form Marduk is Semitic,\nand points to an underlying stem, _rdk_. Marduk appears under a variety\nof names which will be taken up at their proper place. See Schrader's\n_Assyrisch-Babyl. Keilschriften_, p. 129; and the same author's\n_Cuneiform Inscrip. and the O. T._ (p. 422) for other etymologies.\n\n[117] Hommel's view that Gish-galla, in Gudea's inscriptions, is Babylon\nlacks convincing evidence, but the city may be as old as Gudea's days\nfor all that.\n\n[118] Near Sippar.\n\n[119] _Bel matati_.\n\n[120] Sayce, _Religion of the Ancient Babylonians_, pp. 98 _seq._;\nJensen, _Kosmologie der Babylonier_, p. 88.\n\n[121] So Delitzsch, _Beitraege sur Assyriologie_, ii. 623. The first part\nof the name is also used to designate the 'young bullock,' and it is\npossible, therefore, that the god was pictured in this way, as both Anu\nand Sin are occasionally called 'bulls.'\n\n[122] Louvre Inscription II, col ii. ll. 12-17.\n\n[123] There is also a goddess _Eria_ worshipped in Elam, who may be\nidentical with Erua. The scribes in the days of Nebuchadnezzar (_c._\n1140 B.C.), at least, appear to have thought so, for they associate her\nwith Bel, just as Sarpanitum is associated with Del-Marduk. (See the\nInscription VR. 57, col. ii. ll. 11, 12.)\n\n[124] Whether, however, this was the real meaning of the name is\ndoubtful, for the name of the goddess is also written Aru and Arua,\nwhich points to a different verbal stem.\n\n[125] See below under Tashmitum.\n\n[126] There are indications also of an arrested amalgamation of\nErua-Sarpanitum with Tashmitum, the wife of Nabu. (See Sayce, _Hibbert\nLectures_, p. 112.)\n\n[127] Rawlinson, ii. 60, 30.\n\n[128] _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 117.\n\n[129] See further on, _sub_ Ea.\n\n[130] _Kosmologie_, p. 239.\n\n[131] _Sub_ Nusku, chapter xiii.\n\n[132] Tiele, _Geschichte d. Religion i. Alterthum_, i. 171 and 188, is\nof the opinion that Nabu is a late deity whose worship dates from a\nperiod considerably subsequent to Hammurabi. This conclusion from the\nnon-occurrence of the god in early inscriptions is not justified. There\nis no reason why Nabu should have been added as a deity in later times,\nand in general we must be on our guard against assuming new deities\nsubsequent to Hammurabi. It is much more plausible to assume the\nrestored popularity of very old ones.\n\n[133] Bel being Marduk, the title was equivalent to that of 'governor of\nBabylonia.'\n\n[134] So, Tiele, _Geschichte d. Religion i. Alterthum_, i. 191.\n\n[135] The Hebrew word for prophet, _nabi_, is of the same stem as the\nAssyrian Nabu, and the popular tradition is placing the last scene in\nthe life of Moses on Mt. Nebo is apparently influenced by the fact that\nMoses was a _nabi_.\n\n[136] See above, p. 123.\n\n[137] So in the cylinder of Shamash-shum-ukin (Lehmann's publication,\npls. viii. _seq._).\n\n[138] _E.g._, in the so-called Grotefend Cylinder, col. ii. 34.\n\n[139] _Wiener Zeitschrift fuer die Kunde d. Morgenlandes_, iv. 301-307.\n\n[140] We only know the name through Eusebius' extract from Alexander\nPolyhistor's digest of Berosus. The form, therefore, cannot be vouched\nfor. The various modern attempts to explain the name have failed (see\n_e.g._, Lenormant's _Magic und Wahrsagekunst der Chaldaer_, 2d German\nedition, pp. 376-379). There may be some ultimate connection between\nOannes and Jonah (see Trumbull in _Journal of Bibl. Liter._ xl. 58,\nnote).\n\n[141] For fuller proof, see the chapter on \"The Cosmology of the\nBabylonians.\"\n\n[142] This, it will be remembered (see above, p. 118), is one of the\ntitles of Marduk in one of Hammurabi's inscriptions,--an important point\nfor the date of the episode in its present form.\n\n[143] Literally, 'Ea shall be his name, his as mine.'\n\n[144] According to Syncellus. In cuneiform texts the old Bel is at times\ninvoked as the creator of mankind.\n\n[145] _Kosmologie_, pp. 293, 294.\n\n[146] _Aos_ and _Dauke_.\n\n[147] Rawlinson, iv. 25.\n\n[148] See p. 79.\n\n[149] See Jensen, _Keils Bibl._. 3, 1, p. 108, note 5. Tiele, _Gesch._\np. 126, apparently identifies Innanna of Hallabi with Tashmit, but, so\nfar as I can see, without sufficient reason.\n\n[150] Here written En-lil, as the Bel of Nippur.\n\n[151] Attached to the name here (Rawlinson, i. 4, no. xv-9), which is\nwritten ideographically En-Lil, is the designation _da-gan-ni_, which\nhas occasioned considerable discussion. See Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp.\n449-456. It seems to me that the addition which emphasizes this identity\nof Bel with another god, Dagan, is to indicate that the Bel of the\ntriad, and not Bel-Marduk, is here meant. Somewhat in the same way\nTiglathpileser I. (Rawlinson, i. 14, vi. 87) distinguishes the older Bel\nby calling him 'Bel latura,' _i.e._, 'Bel the older.'\n\n[152] 'Governor of Bel' for governor of Babylonia, and 'subjects of Bel'\nfor subjects of Babylonia.\n\n[153] See p. 89 and chapter vii.\n\n[154] Occasionally a king (so _e.g._ Nabubaliddin, _c._ 883 B.C.)\nassociates Anu with Ea, and omits Bel (Rawlinson, v. 60, ii. 21), as\nthough with the intent of avoiding confusion.\n\n[155] Rassam, Cylinder ix. 75.\n\n[156] See chapter xii., \"The Assyrian Pantheon,\" p. 208.\n\n[157] Rassam, Cylinder viii. 98, 99. 'Belit of Babylonia, honored among\nthe great gods.'\n\n[158] _Annals_, iii. 135.\n\n[159] The name of the temple. See IIR. 66, ll. 1 and 10. The title\n'belit matati,' 'lady of the lands' is evidently introduced in imitation\nof 'bel matati,' 'lord of lands,' belonging to Bel and then to Marduk.\n\n[160] Sayce's view (_Hibbert Lectures_, p. 186), according to which Anu\nwas originally the local god of Erech, is erroneous.\n\n[161] VR. pl. 33.\n\n[162] Delitzsch, _Die Kossaer_, pp. 25, 27.\n\n[163] The omission of Ramman here, though invoked at the close of the\ninscription, is noticeable. Ishtar takes the place that in the more\ndeveloped system belongs to the god of storms, who with the moon-god and\nsun-god constitutes a second triad. See p. 163.\n\n[164] Written with the sign _An_, and the feminine ending _tum_, but\nprobably pronounced Anatum. The form Anat (without the ending) is used\nby many scholars, as Sarpanit and Tashmit are used instead of Sarpanitum\nand Tashmitum. I prefer the fuller forms of these names. Anum similarly\nis better than Anu, but the latter has become so common that it might as\nwell be retained.\n\n[165] VR. 33, vii. 34-44.\n\n[166] IR. pl. 15, col. vii. 71-pl. 16, col. viii. 88.\n\n[167] No less than nine times.\n\n[168] Tiglathpileser I.\n\n[169] Ramman-nirari I.\n\n[170] _Kosmologie_, p. 274.\n\n[171] See the list IIIR. 68, 26 _seq._\n\n[172] Thureau-Dangin, _Journal Asiatique_, 1895, pp. 385-393. The name\nof this deity has been the subject of much discussion. For a full\ndiscussion of the subject with an account of the recent literature, see\nan article by the writer in _The American Journal of Semitic Languages\nand Literatures_, xii. 159-162.\n\n[173] Arising perhaps after _Im_ came into use as the ideographic form.\n\n[174] _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._, xi. 173-174 and pl. 1, col. i. 7.\n\n[175] See p. 145 and also p. 161.\n\n[176] Belser in Haupt and Delitzsch, _Beitraege sur Assyriologie_, ii.\n187 _seq._, col. vi. i. 3 _seq._\n\n[177] The character of this part of the hymn is quite different from\nthat which precedes.\n\n[178] For further notices of these gods, see chapter x.\n\n[179] See above, p. 122.\n\n[180] One might include in the list also Nin-igi-nangar-bu,\nGushgin-banda, Nin-kurra, Nin-zadim (from Nabubaliddin's Inscription),\nbut these are only so many epithets of Ea or various _forms_ under which\nthe god came to be worshipped. See p. 177.\n\n[181] We may now look forward to finding many more gods in the rich\nmaterial for this period unearthed by the University of Pennsylvania\nExpedition to Niffer.\n\n[182] See chapter x.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nTHE GODS IN THE TEMPLE LISTS AND IN THE LEGAL AND COMMERCIAL DOCUMENTS.\n\n\nBesides the historical texts in the proper sense, there is another\nsource for the study of the Babylonian pantheon.\n\nBoth for the first and for the second periods we now have a large number\nof lists of offerings made to the temples of Babylonia and of thousands\nof miscellaneous legal documents. De Sarzec found a number of such\ndocuments at Telloh some years ago, and quite recently some thirty\nthousand tablets of the temple archives have come to light.[183] At\nTell-Sifr, Abu-Habba, and elsewhere, many thousands also have been\nfound, belonging chiefly to the second period. A feature of these\ndocuments is the invocation of the gods, introduced for various\npurposes, at times in connection with oaths, at times as a guarantee\nagainst the renewal of claims. Again, certain gods are appealed to as\nwitnesses to an act, and in the lists of temple offerings, gods are\nconstantly introduced. Since many of the commercial transactions\nrecorded in these documents, moreover, concern the temples of Babylonia,\nfurther occasions were found for the mention of a god or gods. The\nproper names occurring in these documents, compounded as these names in\nmost cases are with some deity,[184] furnish some additions to the\npantheon of Babylonia. Naturally, a distinction is to be made between\ndeities introduced in temple lists and in the course of legal\nproceedings, and such as are merely known through forming an element in\nproper names. The former constitute a part of what might be called the\n'active' pantheon of the time. Deities that are actually invoked by\ncontracting parties for whatever purpose are such as are endowed with\nreal significance; and if any of these are not mentioned in the\nhistorical texts proper, the omission is due to the lack of material.\nThe testimony of the legal documents in this respect is fully as valid\nas is that of the historical texts. In proper names the case is\ndifferent. Custom being a prominent, if not a controlling, factor in the\ngiving of names, it may happen that the deity appearing as an element in\na name is one who, for various reasons, is no longer worshipped, or\nwhose worship has diminished in significance at the time we meet with\nthe name. Again, deities of very restricted local fame, deities that\noccupy the inferior rank of mere spirits or demons in the theological\nsystem of the Babylonians, may still be incorporated in proper names.\nLastly, in view of the descriptive epithets by which some deities are\noften known, as much as by their real names, it frequently happens in\nthe case of proper names that a deity otherwise known is designated by\none of his attributes. Thus we find in legal documents of the second\nperiod a goddess, Da-mu-gal, who is none other than the well-known Gula,\nthe great healing deity; Ud-zal, who is identical with Ninib, and so\nwritten as the god of 'the rising sun';[185] and Mar-tu (lit., 'the west\ngod'), which is a designation of Ramman.[186] Bearing in mind all these\nconsiderations, we find in the tablets of the first period, so far as\npublished,[187] the same deities that are met with in the historical\ninscriptions: En-lil, Bau, En-zu (or Sin), Nin-girsu, Nin-gish-zida,\nNin-mar, Nana, Nina, Shul-pa-uddu, and others. No doubt a complete\npublication of the Telloh archives will furnish some--not many--new\ndeities not occurring in the historical texts of this period. A rather\ncurious feature, illustrated by these temple archives, and one upon\nwhich we shall have occasion to dwell, is the divine honors that appear\nto have been paid towards the end of the first period of Babylonian\nhistory to some of the earlier rulers, notably Gudea and Dungi.[188]\nAlongside of wine, oil, wheat, sheep, etc., offered to Bau,\nNin-gish-zida, and Shul-pa-uddu, the great kings and _patesis_ of the\npast are honored. More than this, sanctuaries sacred to these rulers are\nerected, and in other respects they are placed on a footing of equality\nwith the great gods of the period. Passing on to the lists and the legal\ndocuments of the second period,[189] we may note that the gods in whose\nname the oath is taken are chiefly Marduk, Shamash,[190] A, Ramman, and\nSin. Generally two or three are mentioned, and often the name of the\nreigning king is added to lend further solemnity to the oath. Other gods\ndirectly introduced are Nana, Ishtar, Nebo, Tashmitum, and Sarpanitum,\nafter whom the years are at times designated, probably in consequence of\nsome special honors accorded to the gods. The standing phrase is 'the\nyear of the throne,' or simply 'the year' of such and such a deity.\nNin-mar appears in the days of Hammurabi as the daughter of Marduk.\nAmong gods appearing for the first time are Khusha[191], Nun-gal, and\nZamama. Mentioned in connection with the gates of the temple where the\njudges held court, the association of Khusha with Marduk, Shamash, Sin,\nand Nin-mar points to a considerable degree of prominence enjoyed by\nthis deity. Of his nature and origin, however, we know nothing. Nun-gal\nsignifies the 'great chief.' His temple stood in Sippar,[192] and from\nthis we may conclude that he was one of the minor gods of the place\nwhose original significance becomes obscured by the side of the\nall-powerful patron of Sippar--the sun-god. A syllabary describes the\ngod as a 'raging' deity, a description that suggests solar functions.\nNun-gal appears, therefore, to be the ideograph proper to a deity that\nsymbolized, like Nergal, Ninib, and A, some phase of the sun. The\ndisappearance of the god would thus be naturally accounted for, in view\nof the tendency that we have found characteristic of the religion,\nwhereby powerful gods absorb the functions of weaker ones whose\nattributes resemble their own. But while the god disappears, the name\nsurvives. Nun-gal with the plural sign attached becomes a collective\ndesignation for a group of powerful demons.[193] In this survival and\nuse of the name we have an interesting example of the manner in which,\nby a species of differentiation, local gods, unable to maintain\nthemselves by the side of more powerful rivals, sink to the lower grade\nof demons, either beneficent or noxious. In this grade, too,\ndistinctions are made, as will be pointed out at the proper place. There\nis a 'pantheon' of demons as well as of gods in the Babylonian theology.\nNun-gal accordingly recovers some of his lost dignity by becoming an\nexceptionally powerful demon--so powerful as to confer his name upon an\nentire class. The god Zamama appears in connection with a date attached\nto a legal document of the days of Hammurabi. The building of a\nsanctuary in honor of this deity and his consort was of sufficient\nimportance to make the year known by this event. Zamama is occasionally\nmentioned in the religious hymns. He belongs to the deities that form a\nkind of court around Marduk. From syllabaries, we learn that he was a\nform of the sun-god, worshipped in the city of Kish in northern\nBabylonia, and it also appears that he was identified at one period with\nNinib. The temple to Zamama--perhaps only a shrine--stood in the city of\nKish, which was remodeled by Hammurabi. The shrine, or temple, bore the\nsignificant name 'house of the warrior's glory.' The warrior is of\ncourse the god, and the name accordingly shows clearly the character of\nthe god in whose honor the sanctuary was built. Elsewhere, he is\nexplicitly called a 'god of battle.' Associated with Zamama of Kish was\nhis consort, who, however, is merely termed again in a general way,\n'Ninni,' _i.e._, 'the lady.' In the case of such a deity as Zamama, it\nis evident that the absence of the name in historical texts is\naccidental, and that we may expect to come across it with the increase\nof historical material. In the proper names, all of the prominent\ndeities discussed in this and the previous chapters are found, though\nwith some notable exceptions. Anu, _e.g._, is not met with as an element\nin proper names, but among those occurring may be mentioned Shamash, A,\nIshtar, Ramman (also under the forms Im-me-ru and Mar-tu), Marduk,\nsometimes called Sag-ila after his temple in Babylon, Nabu, Ishum,\nShala, Bau, Nin-ib, Nin-girsu, Sin, Bunene, Annuit, and Ea. Among gods\nappearing for the first time in connection with the names, it is\nsufficient to record a goddess Shubula, who from other sources[194] we\nknow was the local patron of the city Shumdula, a goddess Bashtum,[195]\na goddess Mamu (a form of Gula), Am-na-na, Lugal-ki-mu-na, E-la-li\n(perhaps an epithet for the fire-god Gibil), Ul-mash-shi-tum, and a\nserpent god Sir. Most of these may be safely put down as of purely local\norigin and jurisdiction, and it is hardly likely that any of them embody\nan idea not already covered by those which we have discussed. From the\nlists of gods prepared by the Babylonian scholars, it is clear that the\nnumber of local deities whose names at least survived to a late period\nwas exceedingly large, ranging in the thousands; and since, as seems\nlikely, these lists were prepared (as so much of the lexicographical\nliterature) on the basis of the temple lists and of the commercial and\nlegal documents, we may conclude that all, or at any rate most, of these\ndeities were in use as elements in proper names, without, however,\nhaving much importance beyond this incorporation.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[183] The museums of Europe and America have secured a large proportion\nof these through purchase.\n\n[184] The longer names consist of three elements: subject,\nverb, and object. The deity is generally the subject; _e.g._,\nSinacherib=Sin-akhe-irba, _i.e._, may the god Sin increase the brothers.\nBut there are many variations. So the imperative of the verb is often\nused, and in that case, the deity is in the vocative case. Instead of\nthree elements, there are frequently only two, a deity and a participle\nor an adjective; _e.g._, Sin-magir, _i.e._, Sin is favorable, or a\nperson is called 'the son' or 'the servant' of a god. The name of the\ndeity alone may also constitute a proper name; and many names of course\ndo not contain the mention of a deity at all, though such names are\noften abbreviations from longer ones in which some god was introduced.\n\n[185] Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 458.\n\n[186] Arnold, _Ancient Babylonian Temple Records_, p. 5, is of the\nopinion that Id-nik-mar-tu is also a designation of Ramman. His view is\nplausible, but it still remains to be proved.\n\n[187] Scheil, \"Le Culte de Gudea sous le II^e Dynastie d'Ur\" (_Recueil\ndes Travaux, etc._ xviii. 64-74). W. R. Arnold, _Ancient Babylonian\nTemple Records_ (New York, 1896). The Telloh tablets appear to be\nlargely lists of offerings made to the temples at Lagash, and temple\naccounts. (See now Reisner, Tempelurkunden aus Telloh (Berlin, 1901).)\n\n[188] See besides Scheil's article (above), Lehmann's note, _Zeits. fuer\nAssyr._ x. 381.\n\n[189] Our knowledge of the documents of this period is due chiefly to\nStrassmaier and Meissner.\n\n[190] At times under rather curious forms, _e.g._, Shush-sha;\nStrassmaier, Warka, no. 30, l. 21. The form Sha-ash-sha also occurs in\nnos. 43 and 105 (_cf._ Meissner's note, _Beitraege zum Altbabylonischen\nPrivatrecht_, p. 156).\n\n[191] Meissner, no. 42. Also in a proper name, Khusha-ilu, _i.e._,\n'Khusha is god.'\n\n[192] Meissner, nos. 40 and 118.\n\n[193] See chapter xi.\n\n[194] IIR. 60, 18a. Pinches (_Journal Victoria Institute_, xxviii. 36\nreads Shu-gid-la; Hommel, _ib._ 36, Shu-sil-la).\n\n[195] For this deity, see a paper by the writer, \"The Element _Bosheth_\nin Hebrew Proper Names,\" in the _Journal of Bibl. Liter._ xiii. 20-30.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nTHE MINOR GODS IN THE PERIOD OF HAMMURABI.\n\n\nComing back now to the historical texts and placing the minor deities\ntogether that occur in the inscriptions of Hammurabi and his successors\ndown through the restoration of native rulers on the throne of\nBabylonia, we obtain the following list: Zakar, Lugal-mit-tu (?),\nNin-dim-su, Ba-kad, Pap-u, Belit-ekalli, Shumalia, Shukamuna, Gula,\nShir, Shubu, Belit of Akkad, Malik, Bunene, Nin-igi-nangar-bu,\nGushgin-banda, Nin-kurra, Nin-zadim. In view of the limited amount of\nhistorical material at our disposal for the second period of Babylonian\nhistory, the list of course does not permit us to form a definite notion\nof the total number of minor gods that were still occasionally invoked\nby the side of the great gods. By comparison, however, with the pantheon\nso far as ascertained of the first period, the conclusion is justified\nthat with the systematization of cults and beliefs characteristic of the\nHammurabi, a marked tendency appears towards a reduction of the\npantheon, a weeding out of the numerous local cults, their absorption by\nthe larger ones, and the relegation of the minor gods of only local\nsignificance to a place among the spirits and demons of the Babylonian\nreligion. Brief statements of these minor gods will suffice to indicate\ntheir general character. Of most of the gods in this list there is but\nlittle we know as yet beyond the name. Some of them will occur again in\nthe Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian historical texts, others in the hymns\nand incantations; some are only found in the period we are considering,\nthough with the material constantly increasing we must beware of drawing\nany conclusions from the fact of a single mention. 'Zakar,' signifying,\nprobably, 'heroic,' appears to have been worshipped in Nippur, where a\nwall known as the 'wall of Zakar' was built by Samsu-iluna. From the\nfact that this wall was sacred to Nin-khar-sag or Belit, we may,\nperhaps, be permitted to conclude that 'Zakar' stood in close\nrelationship to Bel and Belit of Nippur,--possibly a son,--or, at all\nevents, belonged to the inner circle of deities worshipped in the old\ncity sacred to the great Bel.\n\nAnother wall in Nippur was dedicated by this Samsu-iluna to a god whose\nname is provisionally read by Winckler, Lugal-mit-tu.[196] Lugal,\nsignifying 'king,' is an element that enters as an ideograph in the\ncomposition of the names of several deities. Thus we have Lugal-edinna,\n'king of the field,' which is the equivalent of Nergal, and again for\nthe same god, the combination Lugal-gira, which is, as Jensen[197] has\nshown, 'raging king,' and a title of Nergal in his character as the god\nof pestilence and war. Nin-dim-su, Ba-kad, Pap-u, Belit-ekalli,\nShumalia, and Shukamuna occur at the close of the inscription of\nMelishikhu, among the gods asked to curse the transgressors of the royal\ndecree.[198] That some of these are Cassite deities imported into\nBabylonia, and whose position in the pantheon was therefore of a\ntemporary character, there seems little reason to question. Ba-kad may,\nand Shumalia quite certainly does, belong to this class. As for\nShukamuna, the fact that Agumkakrimi, who places his title, 'king of\nCassite land,' before that of Akkad and Babylon, opens his inscription\nwith the declaration that he is the glorious offspring of Shukamuna,\nfixes the character of this god beyond all doubt; and Delitzsch has\nshown[199] that this god was regarded by the Babylonian schoolmen as the\nequivalent of their own Nergal. Shukamuna, accordingly, was the Cassite\ngod of war, who, like Nergal, symbolized the mid-day sun,--that is, the\nraging and destructive power. Shumalia is the consort of Shukamuna[200],\nand is invoked as the 'lady of the shining mountains.' Nin-dim-su is a\ntitle of Ea, as the patron of arts. Belit-ekalli--_i.e._, Belit of the\npalace--appears as the consort of Ninib, the epithet 'ekalli' being\nadded to specify what Belit is meant, and to avoid confusion with the\nconsort of Bel. At the same time it must be confessed that the precise\nforce of the qualification of 'Belit of the palace' (or temple) escapes\nus. Ninib's consort, as we know from other sources, was Gula.[201] This\nname is in some way connected with an Assyrian stem signifying 'great,'\nand it is at least worthy of note that the word for palace is written by\na species of punning etymology with two signs, e=house and gallu=large.\nThe question suggests itself whether the title 'Belit-ekalli' may not\nhave its rise in a further desire to play upon the goddess's name, just\nas her title Kallat-Eshara (bride of Eshara, or earth) rests upon such a\nplay. Such plays on names are characteristic of the Semites, and indeed\nin a measure are common to all ancient nations, to whom the name always\nmeant much more than to us. Every _nomen_, as constituting the essence\nof an object, was always and above all an _omen_. It is, therefore,\nplausible to suppose that titles of the gods should have been chosen in\npart under the influence of this idea.[202] A further suggestion that I\nwould like to offer is that 'ekallu,' as temple or palace (lit., large\nhouse), may be one of the numerous names of the nether world. A parallel\nwould be furnished by Ekur, which signifies both 'temple' and\n'earth,'[203] and is also one of the names of the gathering-place of the\ndead. Gula, being the goddess of the nether world who restores the dead\nto life, would be appropriately called 'the lady of the nether world.'\nOne should like to know more of Pap-u (the phonetic reading unknown),\nwho is called the offspring of Eshara, and 'the lord of the boundary.'\nEshara, as Jensen has shown,[204] is a poetical name for earth. The god\nNinib, in his capacity as a god of agriculture, is called the 'product\nof Eshara.'[205] Pap-u, therefore, must be a god somewhat of the same\ncharacter--a conclusion which is borne out by the description given of\nhim as the protector of the boundary. He is probably one of the numerous\nforms of boundary gods that are met with among all nations. That we do\nnot encounter more in Babylonia is due to the decided tendency that has\nbeen noted towards a centralization of power in a limited number of\ndeities. Instead of gods of boundaries, we have numerous demons and\nspirits in the case of the developed Babylonian religion, into whose\nhands the care of preserving the rights of owners to their lands is\nentrusted. Symbols of these spirits--serpents, unicorns, scorpions, and\nthe like--are added on the monuments which were placed at the\nboundaries, and on which the terms were specified that justified the\nland tenure. To this class of monuments the name of 'Kudurru,' or\n'boundary' stones, was given by the Babylonians themselves. The\ninscription on which the name of Pap-u occurs belongs to this class; and\nhe is invoked, as already said, along with many other gods--in fact,\nwith the whole or a goodly portion of the pantheon. It would seem,\ntherefore, that we have in Pap-u a special boundary god who has survived\nin that role from a more primitive period of Babylonian culture. He\noccupies a place usually assigned to the powerful demons who are\nregarded as the real owners of the soil.[206]\n\nPerhaps the most interesting of the minor deities during this second\nperiod is\n\n\nGula.\n\nAs has just been stated, she is the consort of Ninib. She is not\nmentioned in any of the inscriptions of this period till we come to the\ndays of Nebuchadnezzar I., who invokes her as the bride of\nEshara,--_i.e._, of the earth.[207] We also meet with her name in that\nof several individuals, Balatsu-Gula[208] and Arad-Gula,[209] and we\nhave seen that she is also known as _Damu_ and _Mamu_, or _Meme_. We\nhave a proof, therefore, of her cult being firmly established at an\nearly period of Babylonian history. Her role is that of a 'life-giver,'\nin the widest sense of the word. She is called the 'great physician,'\nwho both preserves the body in health and who removes sickness and\ndisease by the 'touch of her hand.' Gula is the one who leads the dead\nto a new life. She shares this power, however, with her husband Ninib.\nHer power can be exerted for evil as well as for good. She is appealed\nto, to strike the enemy with blindness; she can bring on the very\ndiseases that she is able to heal, and such is the stress laid upon\nthese qualities that she is even addressed as the 'creator of mankind.'\nBut although it is the 'second' birth of mankind over which she\npresides, she does not belong to the class of deities whose concern is\nwith the dead rather than the living. The Babylonians, as we shall have\noccasion to point out, early engaged in speculations regarding the life\nafter death, and, as a result, there was developed a special pantheon\nfor the nether world. Gula occupies a rather unique place intermediate,\nas it were, between the gods of the living and the gods of the dead.\n\nOf the other deities occurring in the inscription of this same\nNebuchadnezzar I. it is sufficient to note that two, Shir and Shubu, are\nenumerated among the gods of Bit-Khabban. They were, therefore, local\ndeities of some towns that never rose to sufficient importance to insure\ntheir patrons a permanent place in the Babylonian pantheon. 'Belit of\nAkkad,' whom Nebuchadnezzar invokes, is none other than the great Belit,\nthe consort of Bel. 'Akkad' is here used for Babylonia, and the\nqualification is added to distinguish her from other 'ladies,' as,\n_e.g._, 'Belit-ekalli,' who, we have seen, was Gula.\n\n\nMalik and Bunene.\n\nUpon reaching so late a period as the days of Nabubaliddin (_c._ 850\nB.C.), it becomes doubtful whether we are justified in including the\nadditional deities occurring in his inscription among the Babylonian\npantheon of the second period. The occurrence of some of these gods in\nthe religious literature is a presumption in favor of regarding them as\nancient creations, rather than due to later influences. Certainly this\nappears to be the case with Malik and Bunene, who, with Shamash, form a\ntriad that constitutes the chief object of worship in the great temple\nE-babbara at Sippar, to whose restored cult Nabubaliddin devotes\nhimself. Both names, moreover, occur as parts of proper names in the age\nof Hammurabi. Malik--_i.e._, ruler--is one of the names frequently\nassigned to Shamash, just as the god's consort was known as Malkatu, but\nfor all that Malik is not the same as Shamash. Accompanying the\ninscription of Nabubaliddin is a design[210] representing the sun-god\nseated in his shrine. Before him on a table rests a wheel, and attached\nto the wheel are cords held by two figures, who are evidently directing\nthe course of the wheel. These two figures are Malik and Bunene, a\nspecies of attendants, therefore, on the sun-god, who drive the fiery\nchariot that symbolized the great orb. Bunene, through association with\nMalik, becomes the latter's consort, and it is interesting to observe\nthe extent to which the tendency of the Babylonian religion to conceive\nthe gods in pairs goes. Bunene is not the only instance of an originally\nmale deity becoming through various circumstances the female consort to\nanother. Originally, Malik may have been a name under which the sun-god\nwas worshipped at some place, for the conception that makes him the\nchariot-driver to Shamash appears to be late. The absorption by the\ngreater sun-cults (at Sippar and Larsa more particularly) of the lesser\nones leads to the complete transfer of the names of minor sun-deities to\nthe great Shamash, but in some instances the minor deities continue to\nlead a shadowy existence in some role of service to the greater ones.\n\n\nNin-igi-nangar-bu, Gushgin-banda, Nin-kurra, and Nin-zadim.\n\nWe have seen that Ea, among other powers assigned to him, was regarded\nas the god of fine arts,--in the first instance as the god of the\nsmithy, because of the antiquity and importance of the smith's art, and\nthen of art in general, including especially the production of great\nstatues. In accordance with this conception, Nabubaliddin declares that\nit was through the wisdom of Ea that he succeeded in manufacturing the\ngreat image of Shamash that was set up by him in the temple at Sippar.\nBut in the days of Nabubaliddin the arts had been differentiated into\nvarious branches, and this differentiation was expressed by assigning to\neach branch some patron god who presided over that section. In this way,\nthe old belief that art comes to men from the gods survived, while at\nthe same time it entered upon new phases.[211] Accordingly, Nabubaliddin\nassigns several deities who act the part of assistants to Ea. The names\nof these deities point to their functions. Nin-igi-nangar-bu is the\n'lord who presides over metal-workers'; Gushgin-banda, 'brilliant\nchief,' is evidently the patron of those skilled in the working of the\nbright metals; Nin-kurra, 'lord of mountain,' the patron of those that\nquarried the stones; while Nin-zadim is the patron of sculpture. Ea\nstands above these as a general overseer, but the four classes of\nlaborers symbolized by gods indicate the manner of artistic construction\nin the advanced state of Babylonian art, and of the various distinct\nprofessions to which this art gave birth. In a certain sense, of course,\nthese four gods associated with Ea belong to the Babylonian pantheon,\nbut not in the same sense in which Ea, for example, or the other gods\ndiscussed in this chapter, belong to it. They cannot even be said to be\ngods of a minor order--they are hardly anything more than\npersonifications of certain phenomena that have their source in the\nhuman intellect. In giving to these personified powers the determinative\nindicative of deity, the Babylonian schoolmen were not conscious of\nexpressing anything more than their belief in the divine origin of the\npower and skill exercised by man. To represent such power as a god was\nthe only way in which the personification could at all be effected under\nthe conditions presented by Babylonian beliefs. When, therefore, we meet\nwith such gods as Nin-zadim, 'lord of sculpture,' it is much the same as\nwhen in the Old Testament we are told that Tubal-cain was the 'father'\nof those that work in metals, and where similarly other arts are traced\nback to a single source. 'Father' in Oriental hyperbole signifies\n'source, originator, possessor, or patron,' and, indeed, includes all\nthese ideas. The Hebrew writer, rising to a higher level of belief,\nconceives the arts to have originated through some single personage\nendowed with divine powers;[212] the Babylonian, incapable as yet of\nmaking this distinction, ascribes both the origin and execution of the\nart directly to a god. In this way, new deities were apparently created\neven at an advanced stage of the Babylonian religion, but deities that\ndiffered totally from those that are characteristic of the earlier\nperiods. The differentiation of the arts, and the assignment of a patron\nto each branch, reflect the thoughts and the aspirations of a later age.\nThese views must have arisen under an impulse to artistic creation that\nwas called forth by unusual circumstances, and I venture to think that\nthis impulse is to be traced to the influence of the Assyrian rulers,\nwhose greatest ambition, next to military glory, was to leave behind\nthem artistic monuments of themselves that might unfold to later ages a\ntale of greatness and of power. Sculpture and works in metal were two\narts that flourished in a special degree in the days when Assyria was\napproaching the zenith of her glory. Nabubaliddin's reign falls within\nthis period; and we must, therefore, look from this time on for traces\nof Assyrian influence in the culture, the art, and also to some extent\nin the religious beliefs of the southern district of Mesopotamia.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[196] The text is defective at the point where the god's name\nis mentioned. See _Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, p. 133. King reads,\nLugal-diri-tu-gab.\n\n[197] _Kosmologie_, pp. 481 _seq._\n\n[198] Belser, _Beitraege zur Assyr._ ii. 203, col. vi.\n\n[199] _Kossaer_, pp. 25-27.\n\n[200] Delitzsch, _Kossaer_, p. 33.\n\n[201] See above, p. 105.\n\n[202] Examples of punning etymologies on names of gods are frequent. See\nJensen's discussion of Nergal for examples of various plays upon the\nname of the god. _Kosmologie_, pp. 185 _seq._\n\n[203] Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp. 185 _seq._ and p. 218.\n\n[204] _Kosmologie_, p. 195.\n\n[205] Rawlinson, i. 29, 16.\n\n[206] This notion that the ground belongs to the gods, and that man is\nonly a tenant, survives to a late period in Semitic religions. The\nbelief underlies the Pentateuchal enactments regarding the holding of\nthe soil, which is only to be temporary. See W. R. Smith, _Religion of\nthe Semites_, pp. 91 _seq._\n\n[207] In Babylonian, _Kallat Eshara_, with another play upon her name.\nSee above, p. 173.\n\n[208] _I.e._, (Protect) his life, O Gula.\n\n[209] Servant of Gula.\n\n[210] See V.R. pl. 60.\n\n[211] To this day in the Orient, fine productions of man's skill are\nattributed to the influence of hidden spirits, good or bad, as the case\nmay be.\n\n[212] This position does not, of course, exclude the fact that in the\noriginal form of the tradition, Tubal-cain, Naamah, and other personages\nin the fourth chapter of Genesis were deities.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nSURVIVALS OF ANIMISM IN THE BABYLONIAN RELIGION.\n\n\nThe Assyrian influence however was only one factor, and a minor factor\nat that, in maintaining the belief in countless spirits that occupied a\nplace of more or less importance by the side of the great and lesser\ngods. That conservatism which is a distinguishing trait of the popular\nforms of religion everywhere, served to keep alive the view that all the\nacts of man, his moods, the accidents that befell him, were under the\ncontrol of visible or invisible powers. The development of a pantheon,\ngraded and more or less regulated under the guidance of the Babylonian\nschoolmen, did not drive the old animistic views out of existence. In\nthe religious literature, and more especially in those parts of it which\nreflect the popular forms of thought, the unorganized mass of spirits\nmaintain an undisputed sway. In the incantation texts, which will be\ndiscussed at length in a subsequent chapter, as well as in other\nsections of Babylonian literature embodying both the primitive and the\nadvanced views of the Babylonians regarding the origin of the universe,\nits subdivisions, and its order of development, and, thirdly, in the\nlegends and epics, hundreds of spirits are introduced, to which some\ndefinite function or functions were assigned. In many, indeed in the\nmajority of cases, the precise character of these functions still\nescapes us. The material at our disposal is as yet inadequate for any\nsatisfactory treatment of this phase of Babylonian belief, and we must\ncontent ourselves for the present with some generalizations, or at the\nmost with some broad classifications. Besides the texts themselves, we\nhave proper names containing a spirit as an element, and also lists of\nthose spirits prepared by the schoolmen on the basis of the texts. When,\nas sometimes happens, these lists contain explanatory comments on the\nspirits enumerated, we are able to take some steps forward in our\nknowledge of the subject.\n\nIn the first place, then, it is important to bear in mind that the\nnumerous spirits, when introduced into the religious and other texts,\nare almost invariably preceded by a sign--technically known as a\ndeterminative--which stamps them as divine. This sign being the same as\nthe one placed before the names of the gods, it is not always possible\nto distinguish between deities and spirits. The use of a common sign is\nsignificant as pointing to the common origin of the two classes of\nsuperior powers that thus continue to exist side by side. A god is\nnaught but a spirit writ large. As already intimated in a previous\nchapter, a large part of the development of the Babylonian religion\nconsists in the differentiation between the gods and the spirits,--a\nprocess that, beginning before the period of written records, steadily\nwent on, and in a certain sense was never completed. In the historical\ntexts, the gods alone, with certain exceptions, find official\nrecognition, and it is largely through these texts that we are enabled\nto distinguish between the two classes of powers, the gods and the\nspirits; but as a survival of a primitive animism, the demons, good,\nbad, and indifferent, retain their place in the popular forms of\nreligion. Several hundred spirits occur in the incantation texts, and\nalmost as many more in other religious texts. We may distinguish several\nclasses. In the first place, there are the demons that cause disease and\nall manner of physical annoyances. The chief of these will be considered\nwhen we come to the analysis of the incantation texts. Against these\ndemons the sufferer seeks protection by means of formulas, the utterance\nof which is invested with peculiar power, and again by means of certain\nrites of an expiatory or purificatory character. Next, we have the\ndemons supposed to inhabit the fields, and to whom the ground is\nsupposed to belong. These were imaged under various animal forms,\nserpents and scorpions being the favorite ones. When possession was\ntaken of the field, the spirits inhabiting it had to be propitiated. The\nowner placed himself under their protection, and endeavored to insure\nhis rights against wrongful encroachment by calling upon the demons to\nrange themselves on his side. It was customary, especially in the case\nof territory acquired by special grant of the monarch, or under\nextraordinary circumstances, to set up a so-called boundary stone,[213]\non which the owner of the field detailed his right to possession,\nthrough purchase or gift, as the case may be. This inscription closed\nwith an appeal to various gods to strike with their curses any intruder\nupon the owner's rights. In addition to this, the stones are embellished\nwith serpents, scorpions, unicorns, and various realistic or fantastic\nrepresentations of animal forms. These, it would seem, symbolize the\nspirits, the sight of which, it was hoped, might act as a further and\neffectual warning against interference with the owner's rights.[214]\n\nA special class of demons is formed by those which were supposed to\ninfest the resting-places of the dead, though they stand in a certain\nrelationship to the demons that plague the living. A remarkable monument\nfound a number of years ago, and which will be fully described in a\nsubsequent chapter, affords us a picture of some of these demons whose\nsphere of action is more particularly in the subterranean cave that\nforms the gathering-place of the dead. They are represented as half\nhuman, half animal, with large grotesque and terror-inspiring\nfeatures.[215] Their power, however, is limited. They are subject to the\norders of the gods whose dominion is the lower world, more particularly\nto Nergal and his consort Allatu. In the advanced eschatology of the\nBabylonians the demons play a minor part. It is with the gods that the\ndead man must make his peace. Their protection assured, he has little to\nfear; but the demons of the lower world frequently ascend to the upper\nregions to afflict the living. Against them precautions must be taken\nsimilar to the means employed for ridding one's self of the baneful\ninfluence of the disease-and pain-bringing spirits. Reference has\nalready been made to the spirits that belong to the higher phases of\nMesopotamian culture,--those that have a share in the production of\nworks of skill and art. We have seen that in accounting for these we are\njustified in assuming a higher phase of religious belief. The dividing\nline between god and spirit becomes faint, and the numerous protecting\npatrons of the handicrafts that flourished in Babylonia and Assyria can\nhardly be placed in the same category with those we have so far been\nconsidering. Still, to the popular mind the achievements of the human\nmind were regarded as due to the workings of hidden forces. Strange as\nit may seem, there was an indisposition to ascribe everything to the\npower of the gods. Ea and Nabu, although the general gods of wisdom, did\nnot concern themselves with details. These were left to the secondary\npowers,--the spirits. Hence it happens that by the side of the great\ngods, we have a large number of minor powers who preside over the\nvarious branches of human handiwork and control the products of the\nhuman mind.\n\nReserving further details regarding the several classes of demons and\nspirits enumerated, it will suffice to say a few words about one\nparticular group of spirits whose role was peculiarly prominent in both\nhistorical, liturgical, and general religious texts. The tendency to\nsystematize the beliefs in spirits manifests itself in Babylonia,\nequally with the grouping of the gods into certain classes. In\nconsequence of this general tendency, the conception arose of a group of\nspirits that comprised the associated secondary powers of earth and\nheaven, somewhat as Anu, Bel, and Ea summed up the quintessence of the\nhigher powers or gods. This group was known as the\n\n\nAnunnaki and Igigi.\n\nRegarding these names it may be said that the former has not yet been\nsatisfactorily interpreted. On the assumption that the union of the\nsyllables A-nun-na-ki[216] represents a compound ideograph, the middle\nsyllable _nun_ signifies 'strength,' whereas the first is the ordinary\nideograph for 'water.' Hommel[217] proposed to interpret the name\ntherefore as 'gods of the watery habitation.' The artificiality of this\nmanner of writing points, as in several instances noted, to a mere\n'play' upon the real name. _Anunna_ reminds one forcibly of the god\n_Anu_ and of the goddess _Anunit_, and the element _ak_ is quite a\ncommon afformative in Babylonian substantives, conveying a certain\nemphatic meaning to the word. If therefore we may compare Anun with the\nname of the god of heaven, the name _Anunnak_ embodying, as it does in\nthis case, the idea of power, would be an appropriate designation for\nthe spirits, or a group of spirits collectively. Be it understood that\nthis explanation is offered merely as a conjecture, which, however,\nfinds support in the meaning attached to the term 'Igigi.' This, as\nHalevy and Guyard have recognized, is a formation of a well-known stem\noccurring in Babylonian, as well as in other Semitic languages, that has\nthe meaning 'strong.' The ideographic form of writing the name likewise\ndesignates the spirits as 'the great chiefs.' The 'Igigi,' therefore,\nare 'the strong ones,' and strength being the attribute most commonly\nassigned to the Semitic deities,[218] there is a presumption, at least,\nin favor of interpreting Anunnak, or Anunnaki,[219] in the same way. The\n'Igigi' are at times designated as the seven gods, but this number is\nsimply an indication of their constituting a large group. Seven is a\nround number which marked a large quantity. At an earlier period five\nrepresented a numerical magnitude, and hence the Anunnaki are at times\nregarded as a group of five.[220] The Anunnaki and Igigi appear for the\nfirst time in an historical text in the inscription of the Assyrian king\nRamman-nirari I., who includes them in his appeal to the great gods. He\ndesignates the Igigi as belonging to heaven, the Anunnaki as belonging\nto the earth. The manner in which he uses the names shows conclusively\nthat, at this early period, the two groups comprehended the entire\ndomain over which spirits, and for that matter also the gods, exercised\ntheir power. Indeed, it would appear that at one time the two names were\nused to include the gods as well as the spirits. At least this appears\nto be the case in Assyria, and the conclusion may be drawn, from the\nsomewhat vague use of the terms, that the names belong to a very early\nperiod of the religion, when the distinction between gods and spirits\nwas not yet clearly marked. However that may be, in Babylonian hymns and\nincantations the Igigi and Anunnaki play a very prominent part. Anu is\nrepresented as the father of both groups. But they are also at the\nservice of other gods, notably of Bel, who is spoken of as their 'lord,'\nof Ninib, of Marduk, of Ishtar, and of Nergal. They prostrate themselves\nbefore these superior masters, and the latter at times manifest their\nanger against the Igigi. They are sent out by the gods to do service.\nTheir character is, on the whole, severe and cruel. They are not\nfavorable to man, but rather hostile to him. Their brilliancy consumes\nthe land. Their power is feared, and Assyrian kings more particularly\nare fond of adding the Igigi and Anunnaki to the higher powers--the gods\nproper--when they wish to inspire a fear of their own majesty. At times\nthe Igigi alone are mentioned, but generally the Igigi and Anunnaki\nappear in combination. To the latest period of Babylonian history these\ntwo groups continue to receive official recognition. Nebuchadnezzar\nII.[221] dedicates an altar, which he erects at the wall of the city of\nBabylon, to the Igigi and Anunnaki. The altar is called a structure of\n'joy and rejoicing,' and on the festival of Marduk, who is the 'lord of\nthe Anunnaki and Igigi,' sacrifices were offered at this altar. In the\ngreat temple of Marduk there was a fountain in which the gods and the\nAnunnaki, according to a Babylonian hymn, 'bathe their countenance'; and\nwhen to this notice it be added that another hymn praises them as the\n'shining chiefs' of the ancient city of Eridu, it will be apparent that\nthe conceptions attached to this group span the entire period of\nBabylonian-Assyrian history.\n\nBesides the Igigi and Anunnaki there is still a third group of seven\nspirits, generally designated as the 'evil demons,' who represent the\nembodiment of all physical suffering to which man is subject. They\nappear, however, only in the incantation texts, and we may, therefore,\npostpone their consideration until that subject is reached. The point to\nbe borne in mind, and which I have attempted to emphasize in this place,\nis the close relationship existing in the _popular_ forms of the\nBabylonian religion between the gods and the spirits. The latter belong\nto the pantheon as much as the former. Primitive animism continues to\nenchain the minds of the people, despite the differentiation established\nbetween the higher and the secondary powers, and despite the high point\nof development reached by the schoolmen in their attempts to systematize\nand, in a measure, to purify the ancient beliefs.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[213] The technical name for this class of monuments was _Kudurru_,\n_i.e._, mark, and then used like the German word _Mark_ both for\nboundary and for the territory included within the bounds. A notable\ncontribution to the interpretation of the Kudurru monuments was made by\nBelser, in the _Beitraege zur Assyriologie_, ii. 111-203.\n\n[214] The question has been raised (see Belser, _ib._ p. 111) by Pinches\nwhether these representations are not the symbols of the zodiac, but, as\nBelser justly remarks, the attempt to interpret the pictures in this way\nhas not been successful. It still seems most plausible to regard the\npictures as symbols of spirits or demons. Such an interpretation is in\naccord with the Babylonian and general Semitic view of land ownership.\nAt the same time it must be confessed that we are still in the dark as\nto the motives underlying the choice of the animals portrayed. There may\nbe some ultimate connection with _some_ of the signs of the zodiac,--so\nHommel believes,--but such connection would have to be judged from the\nearlier forms that animism takes on, and not in the light of an advanced\ntheology such as appears in the zodiacal system of the Babylonians.\n\n[215] See Perrot and Chiplez, _History of Art in Chaldaea and Assyria_,\nI. 351.\n\n[216] The element _ki_ is sometimes omitted. The force of _na_ is not\nclear, unless it be a phonetic complement merely.\n\n[217] _Semitische Voelker_, p. 369.\n\n[218] Very many of the names of the Semitic gods and heroes signify\nstrong, _e.g._, _El_, _Adon_, _Baal_, _Etana_, _Kemosh_, etc.\n\n[219] The final vowel _i_ would, on the basis of the explanation\noffered, be paralleled by the _i_ of Igigi--an indication of the plural.\nSee Delitzsch, _Assyr. Gram._ Sec. 67, 1.\n\n[220] The Igigi are designated ideographically as v plus ii, and Hommel\n(_Semitische Voelker_, p. 491) properly suggests that this peculiar\nwriting points to an earlier use of five as constituting the group.\nHommel, however, does not see that neither five nor seven are to be\ninterpreted literally, but that both represent a large round number,\nand, therefore, also a holy one.\n\n[221] IR. 55, col. iv. ll. 7-13.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nTHE ASSYRIAN PANTHEON.\n\n\nWe have now reached a point where it will be proper to set forth the\nphases that the Babylonian religion assumed during the days of Assyrian\nsupremacy.\n\nAn enumeration of the gods occurring in the inscriptions of the rulers\nof Assyria from the earliest days to the close of the empire, so far as\npublished, will show better than any argument the points of similarity\nbetween the Babylonian and the Assyrian pantheon. These gods are in\nalphabetical order:[222] Anu, Ashur, Bel, Belit, Gaga, Gibil, Gamlat,\nGula, Dibbarra, Dagan, Damkina, Ea, Ishtar, Kadi, Khani, Marduk, Nabu,\nNana, Nin-gal, Nergal, Ninib, Nusku, Ramman, Sin, Shala, Shalman,\nShamash, Shanitka(?), Tashmitum. Of these quite a number are only\nmentioned incidentally, and in a manner that indicates that they do not\nbelong to the pantheon in the strict sense. Others, like Khani[223] and\nGamlat,--_i.e._, 'the merciful one,'[224]--may turn out to be mere\nepithets of deities otherwise known; and it would hardly be legitimate\nto extend the list by including deities that have not yet been\nidentified,[225] and which may similarly be only variant forms,\ndescriptive of such as are already included. But however much this list\nmay be extended and modified by further publications and researches, the\nhistorical material at hand for the Assyrian period of the religion is\nsufficient to warrant us in setting up two classes of the pantheon,--one\nclass constituting the active pantheon, the other, deities introduced by\nthe kings merely for purposes of self-glorification, or to give greater\nsolemnity to the invocations and warnings that formed a feature of all\ncommemorative and dedicatory inscriptions, as well as of the annals\nproper. The future additions to the list, it is safe to assert, will\nincrease the second class and only slightly modify, if at all, the first\nclass. Bearing in mind this distinction we may put down as active forces\nin Assyria the following: Anu, Ashur, Bel, Belit, Gula, Dagan, Ea,\nKhani, Ishtar, Marduk, Nabu, Nergal, Ninib, Nusku, Ramman, Sin, Shala,\nShamash, Tashmitum.\n\nComparing both the fuller and the restricted list with the Babylonian\npantheon during the two periods treated of in the preceding chapters, we\nare struck by three facts: (1) the smaller compass of the Assyrian\npantheon; (2) the more restricted introduction of what, for want of a\nbetter term, we may call minor deities; and (3) the small number of new\ndeities met with. To take up the latter point, the only gods in the\nabove list that are not found in Babylonian inscriptions are Ashur,\nGibil, Gamlat, Dibbarra, Kadi, Nusku, Shala, Shanitka. Of these it is\npurely accidental that Gibil, Dibbarra, Nusku, and Shala are not\nmentioned, for, except those that are foreign importations, they belong\nto Babylonia as much as to Assyria and fall within the periods of the\nBabylonian religion that have been treated of. Kadi is a foreign\ndeity.[226] Shanitka(?) may only be a title of some goddess, and Shalman\n(or Shalmannu) occurs only in proper names, and may likewise be only a\ntitle of some god.[227] There remains, as the only god peculiar to\nAssyria, the god Ashur. But for this god, the Babylonian and the\nAssyrian pantheon are identical. When we come, however, to the position\nheld by the gods in the pantheon, their relationship to one another, and\nthe traits which secured for them popular and royal favor, the\ndifferences between the Babylonian and the Assyrian phases of the\nreligion will be found to be more accentuated.\n\nAs for the smaller compass of the Assyrian pantheon, we may recognize in\nthis a further advance of the tendency already noted in the second\nperiod of the Babylonian religion. There, too, we found the minor local\ncults yielding to the growing influence and favor of certain gods\nassociated with the great centers of Babylonian life, or possessing\nattributes that accorded more with the new political order and the\ngeneral advance of culture. One of the chief factors in this tendency\ntowards centralization was, as we saw, the supremacy accorded to Marduk\nin the new empire as the patron god of the capital, and that not only\nled to his absorbing the role of other deities,[228] but resulted also\nin strengthening the belief that there were only a limited number of\ndeities upon whose power and willingness to aid dependence could be\nplaced. This tendency was in a measure offset by the pride that the\nrulers of the second Babylonian period still took in parading at times,\nas large a number as possible of deities under whose protection they\nclaimed to stand. As we pass from one age to the other, the number of\nminor deities thus invoked also tends to diminish, and the occasions\nlikewise when they are invoked become limited to the more solemn\ninvocations at the beginning and the close of inscriptions. Now, in\nAssyria we have much the same political conditions as in Babylonia, only\nintensified. Here, too, we have one god towering above the others, only\nto a still greater degree even than Marduk in Babylonia. Marduk, while\nabsorbing the role of the old Bel, is still bound to acknowledge the\nfathership of Ea. For a time he has to fear the rivalry of Nabu, and we\nhave seen that during the Cassitic rule, the glory of Marduk is somewhat\ndimmed. The god who comes to stand at the head of the Assyrian\npantheon--Ashur--suffers from none of these restrictions. He is\nindependent of other gods and is under no obligations to any of his\nfellows, and his rule once acknowledged remains supreme, with, perhaps,\none short period excepted,[229] throughout all the vicissitudes that the\nempire undergoes. As a consequence of this unique position, Ashur is so\ncompletely identified with Assyria, that with the fall of the empire he,\ntoo, disappears,--whereas the Marduk cult survives the loss of\nBabylonian independence, and is undisturbed even by the final absorption\nof Babylonia into the empire of Cyrus. The tendency towards\ncentralization of the cult is even more pronounced, therefore, in\nAssyria than in Babylonia. Marduk is a leader who has many gods as\nfollowers, but all of whom have their distinct functions. Ashur is a\nhost in himself. He needs no attendants. His aid suffices for all\nthings, and such is the attachment of his subjects to him that it would\nalmost appear like an insult to his dignity to attach a long array of\nminor gods to him. For the Assyrian kings the same motives did not exist\nas for the Babylonians to emphasize their control over all parts of\ntheir empire by adding the chief gods of these districts to the\npantheon. Assyria was never split up into independent states like\nBabylonia before the days of Hammurabi. The capital, it is true, changed\nwith considerable frequency, but there was always only one great center\nof political power. So far as Assyrian control over Babylonia was\nconcerned, it was sufficient for the purposes of the Assyrian rulers to\nclaim Marduk as their patron and protector, and, as we shall see, they\nalways made a point of emphasizing this claim. Hence we have only 'great\ngods,'[230] and no minor deities, in the train of Ashur. These 'great\ngods' could not be expunged from the pantheon without a complete\nseverance of the ties that bound the Assyrians to their past. Kings of\ngreat empires seldom favor religious revolutions. But by the side of\nAshur these great gods pale, and in the course of time the tendency\nbecomes more marked to regard them merely as formal members of a little\ncourt with few functions of their own, beyond that of adding by their\npresence to the majesty and glory of Ashur. One receives the impression\nthat in Assyria only a few of the gods invoked by the kings at the side\nof Ashur exert any real influence on the lives of the people; and such\nas do, gain favor through possessing in some measure the chief attribute\nthat distinguished Ashur,--prowess in war. They are little Ashurs, as it\nwere, by the side of the great one. The position of Ashur in the\nAssyrian pantheon accounts for the general tendencies manifested by the\nreligion of the northern empire, and upon a clear conception of the\ncharacter of Ashur depends our understanding of the special points that\ndistinguish the other gods from what we have learned of their character\nand traits in the southern states. The beginning, therefore, of an\naccount of the Assyrian pantheon is properly to be made with Ashur.\n\n\nAshur.\n\nThe starting-point of the career of Ashur is the city of Ashur, situated\non the west bank of the Tigris, not far from the point where the lower\nZab flows into the Tigris. Ashur is therefore distinctly a local deity,\nand so far as the testimony of the texts goes, he was never regarded in\nearly days in any other light than as the local patron of the city to\nwhich he has given his name. He was never worshipped, so far as can be\nascertained, as a manifestation of any of the great powers of\nnature,--the sun or the moon; though, if anything, he was originally a\nsolar deity.[231] Nor was he a symbol of any of the elements,--fire or\nwater. In this respect he differs from Sin, Shamash, Nusku,[232] and Ea,\nwhose worship was localized, without affecting the _quasi_-universal\ncharacter that these deities possessed. As a local deity his worship\nmust have been limited to the city over which he spread his protecting\narm; and if we find the god afterwards holding jurisdiction over a much\nlarger territory than the city of Ashur, it is because in the north, as\nin the south, a distinct state or empire was simply regarded as the\nextension of a city. Ashur became the god of Assyria as the rulers of\nthe city of Ashur grew in power,--in the same way that Marduk, upon the\nunion of the Babylonian states under the supremacy of the city of\nBabylon, became the god of all Babylonia. But a difference between the\nnorth and the south is to be noted. Whereas Marduk, although the god of\nBabylonia, was worshipped only in the city of Babylon where he was\nsupposed to have his seat, temples to Ashur existed in various parts of\nthe Assyrian empire. The god accompanied the kings in their wars, and\nwherever the rulers settled, there the god was worshipped. So in the\nvarious changes of official residences that took place in the course of\nAssyrian history from Ashur to Calah, and from Calah to Nineveh, and\nfrom Nineveh to Khorsabad, the god took part, and his central seat of\nworship depended upon the place that the kings chose for their official\nresidence. At the same time, while the cult in the various temples that\nin the course of time were erected in his honor probably continued\nwithout interruption, there was always one place--the official\nresidence--which formed the central spot of worship. There the god was\nsupposed to dwell for the time being. One factor, perhaps, that ought to\nbe taken into consideration in accounting for this movable disposition\nof the god was that he was not symbolized exclusively by a statue, as\nMarduk and the other great gods were. His chief symbol was a standard\nthat could be carried from place to place, and indeed was so made that\nit could be carried into the thick of the fray, in order to assure the\narmy of the god's presence. The standard consisted of a pole surrounded\nby a disc enclosed within two wings, while above the disc stood the\nfigure of a warrior in the act of shooting an arrow.[233] The statues of\nthe gods were deposited in shrines, and after being carried about, as\nwas done on festive days or other occasions, they would be replaced in\ntheir shrines. The military standard, however, followed the camp\neverywhere, and when the kings chose to fix upon a new place for their\nmilitary encampment--and such the official residences of the Assyrian\nwarrior-kings in large measure were--the standard would repose in the\nplace selected. How this standard came to be chosen, and when, is\nanother question, and one more difficult to answer. It may be that the\nrepresentation of the god by a standard was a consequence of the\nfondness that the rulers of Ashur manifested for perpetual warfare; or,\nin other words, that the god Ashur was represented by a standard so that\nhe might be carried into the battle and be moved from place to place. At\nall events, the two things--the standard and the warlike character of\nthe subjects of Ashur--stood in close relationship to one another, and\nthe further conclusion is justified that when a military standard came\nto be chosen as the symbol of Ashur, the god was recognized distinctly\nas a god of war. The symbols accompanying the standard are of importance\nas enabling us to determine something more regarding the character of\nAshur. In the first place, the fact that it contained a figure may be\ntaken as an indication that the god was at one time represented by a\nstatue,--as indeed we know from other evidence,[234]--and that the\nchange of his symbol from a statue to a standard is a result of the\nmilitary activity of the Assyrians. The winged disc is so general a\nsymbol of the sun in the religious system of various ancient\nnations[235] that one cannot escape the conclusion that the symbol must\nbe similarly interpreted in the case before us. Is it possible,\ntherefore, that in a period lying beyond that revealed by the oldest\ninscriptions at our disposal, Ashur was worshipped as a solar deity? One\nis bound to confess that the evidence does not warrant us in regarding\nAshur as anything but the patron of the city of Ashur. Nowhere do we\nfind any allusion from which we are justified in concluding that he\noriginally represented some elemental power or phenomenon. Tiele[236] is\nof the decided opinion that Ashur was at his origin a nature god of some\nkind, and he goes so far as to suggest, though with due reserve, the\npossible identification of Ashur with Sin. No doubt Tiele is prompted to\nthis view by the example of the great god of the south, Marduk, who is\noriginally a solar deity, and by all the other great gods who represent,\nor represented, some power of nature. Analogy, however, is not a\nsufficiently reliable guide to settle a question for the solution of\nwhich historical material is lacking. So much, however, may be said,\nthat if we are to assume that Ashur personified originally some natural\npower, the symbol of the winged disc lends a strong presumption in favor\nof supposing him to have been some phase of the sun. So much, then, for\nthe general character of Ashur. Before passing on to a specification of\nhis role and his traits, as revealed by the historical texts, a word\nremains to be said as to the etymology and form of the name. Ashur is\nthe only instance that we have of a god expressly giving his name to a\ncity, for the name of the city can only be derived from that of the god,\nand not _vice versa_. The identification of the god with his favorite\ntown must have been so complete that the town, which probably had some\nspecific name of its own, became known simply as the 'city of the god\nAshur.' From such a designation it is but a small step to call the city\nsimply, Ashur. The difference between the god and the city would be\nindicated by the determinative for deity, which was only attached to the\nformer, while the latter was written with the determinative attached to\ntowns. When this city of Ashur extended its bounds until it became\ncoequal with the domain of Assyria, the name of the god was transferred\nto the entire northern district of Mesopotamia, which, as the country of\nthe god Ashur, was written with the determinative for country.[237] The\nideographs which the Assyrian scribes employed in writing the name of\nthe god reveal the meaning they attached to it. He is described\nideographically as the 'good god.' This interpretation accords admirably\nwith the general force of the verbal stem underlying the name. In both\nHebrew and Assyrian _a-sh-r_ signifies 'to be gracious, to grant\nblessing, to cause to prosper.' Ashur, therefore, is the god that\nblesses his subjects, and to the latter he would accordingly appear as\nthe 'good god' _par excellence_. If the tempting etymology of our own\nword 'god,' which connects it with 'good,' be correct, 'god' would be\nalmost the perfect equivalent of Ashur. It is not necessary to conclude,\nas Tiele does,[238] that Ashur, as the 'good one,' is an ethical\nabstraction, but certainly a designation of a god as 'a good one' sounds\nmore like a descriptive epithet than like a name. The supposition that\nAshur was not, therefore, the original name of the god receives a\ncertain measure of force from this consideration. Moreover, there are\nindications that there actually existed another form of his name,\nnamely, Anshar.[239] This form Anshar would, according to the phonetic\nlaws prevailing in Assyria, tend to become Ash-shar.[240] Ashur--the\n'good one'--would thus turn out to be an epithet of the god, chosen as a\n'play' suggested by Ash-shar, just as we found Gula called the lady of\n_Ekalli_, and again _Kallat_ (bride).[241] The etymology of Anshar is as\nobscure as that of most of the ancient gods of Babylonia,--as of Sin,\nMarduk, Ishtar, and many more. But before leaving the subject, it will\nbe proper to call attention to the role that a god Anshar plays in the\nBabylonian-Assyrian cosmological system. _Anshar_ and _Kishar_ are the\nsecond pair of deities to be created, the first pair being _Lakhmu_ and\n_Lakhamu_. In the great fight of the gods against the monster Tiamat, it\nwould appear that, according to one version at least, Anshar sends Anu,\nEa, and finally Bel-Marduk, in turn to destroy the monster. He appears,\ntherefore, to have exercised a kind of supremacy over the gods. Assuming\nthe correctness of the deductions, according to which Ashur is an\nepithet arising by a play upon Ash-shar (from an original Anshar), it is\nhardly open to doubt that this Anshar is the same as the one who appears\nin the cosmology. On the other hand, it is difficult to suppose that\nAnshar should have played so significant a part in Babylonian traditions\nand yet find no mention in the text of the rulers of Babylonia. Bearing\nin mind what has been said as to the manner in which ancient traditions\nand myths were remodeled by the schoolmen to conform to later ideas,--we\nhave seen how in this process the popularity of Marduk led to his\nassuming the role originally played by Bel,--may not the recognition\ngiven to Anshar be a concession, made at the time that Assyria had begun\nher glorious career (_c._ 1400 B.C.), to the chief god of the northern\nempire?\n\nThat such tendencies to glorify Ashur may justly be sought for in part\nof the religious literature is proved by a version of one of the series\nof tablets giving an account of the creation, and which assigns to\nAnshar the work of building Esharra,--_i.e._, the earth,--that,\naccording to another version, belongs to Marduk.[242] Evidently, then,\njust as the Babylonian theologians sought to glorify Marduk at the\nexpense of Bel, so Assyrian theologians, or such as stood under Assyrian\ninfluences, did not hesitate to replace Marduk by their own favorite,\nAnshar. In the chapter on the 'Cosmology' we will have occasion to come\nback to this point. For present purposes it is sufficient to have shown\nthat the position of Anshar in the remodeled traditions is an argument\nin favor of regarding Anshar as the real name of the god who stands at\nthe head of the Assyrian pantheon.\n\nIn the oldest Assyrian inscription known to us, the god Ashur is\nmentioned. Samsi-Ramman, who does not yet assume the title of king, but\nonly _patesi_,--_i.e._, 'religious chief,'[243]--prides himself upon\nbeing 'the builder of the temple of Ashur.' The phrase does not mean\nthat he founded the temple, but only that he undertook building\noperations in connection with it. The date of this ruler may be fixed\nroughly at 1850 B.C., and since the two inscribed bricks that we have of\nSamsi-Ramman were found in the ruins of Kalah-Shergat,--the site of the\nancient city of Ashur,--there can, of course, be no doubt that the\ntemple at that place is referred to.\n\nThe rulers of Assyria, even after they assumed the title of 'king' (_c._\n1500 B.C.), were still fond of calling themselves the 'priest' of the\ngod Ashur, and frequently gave this title the preference over others. In\nthe fourteenth century the temple of Ashur seems to have suffered at the\nhands of the Cassites, who attempted to extend their power to the north.\nThis plan was, however, frustrated by Ramman-nirari I., who forces the\nCassites to retreat, successfully opposes other enemies of Assyria, and\nrestores the injured parts of Ashur's temple. From this time on, and for\na period of several centuries, Assyria assumes an aggressive attitude,\nand as a consequence the dependency upon the god is more keenly felt\nthan before. The enemies against whom the kings proceed are called 'the\nenemies of Ashur,' the troops of the king are the troops of Ashur, and\nthe weapons with which they fight are the weapons of Ashur. It is he who\ncauses the arms of Tiglathpileser I. to strike down his foes. The\nnations cannot endure the awful sight of the god. His brilliancy--the\nreference being no doubt to the shining standard as it was carried into\nthe fray--inspires on every side a terror that casts all enemies to the\nground. All warfare is carried on in the name of Ashur. The statement\nmay be taken literally, for an oracle was sought at critical moments to\ndetermine the course that was to be pursued. The fight itself takes\nplace with the help of the god,--again to be taken literally, for the\ngod, represented by his symbol, is present on the battlefield. The\nvictory, accordingly, belongs to the god in the first instance, and only\nin a secondary degree to the king. The nations are vanquished by Ashur,\nthe conquered cities become subject to Ashur, and when the tribute is\nbrought by the conquered foe, it is to Ashur that it is offered by the\nkings. Proud and haughty as the latter were, and filled with greed for\nglory and power, they never hesitated to humble themselves before their\ngod. They freely acknowledged that everything they possessed was due to\nAshur's favor. It was he who called them to the throne, who gave them\nthe sceptre and crown, and who firmly established their sovereignty.\nThrough Ashur, who gives the king his invincible weapon,--the mighty\nbow,--the kingdom is enlarged, until the kings feel justified in saying\nof themselves that, by the nomination of Ashur, they govern the four\nquarters of the world. Nay, the rulers go further and declare themselves\nto be the offspring of Ashur. It is not likely that they ever desired\nsuch an assertion also to be interpreted literally. The phrase is rather\nto be taken as the strongest possible indication of the attachment they\nfelt for their chief god. Everything that they possessed coming directly\nfrom their god, how could this be better expressed than by making the\ngod the source of their being? The phrase, at all events, is interesting\nas showing that the element of love was not absent in the emotions that\nthe thought of Ashur aroused in the breasts of his subjects. The kings\ncannot find sufficient terms of glorification to bestow upon Ashur.\nTiglathpileser I. calls him 'the great lord ruling the assembly of\ngods,' and in similar style, Ashurnasirbal invokes him as 'the great god\nof all the gods.' For Ramman-nirari III., he is the king of the\nIgigi--the heavenly host of spirits. Sargon lovingly addresses him as\nthe father of the gods. Sennacherib calls him the great mountain or\nrock,--a phrase that recalls a Biblical metaphor applied to the\ndeity,--and Esarhaddon speaks of him as the 'king of gods.' Frequently\nAshur is invoked together with other gods. He is 'the guide of the\ngods.' There is only one instance in which he does not occupy the first\nplace. Ramman-nirari I., to whom reference has above been made, gives\nAnu the preference over Ashur in a list of gods,[244] to whom conjointly\nhe ascribes his victories. We have already had occasion (see pp.\n153-155) to note the antiquity of Anu worship in Assyria, the foundation\nof whose temple takes us beyond the period of Samsi-Ramman. Ashur's\nimportance begins only with the moment that the rulers of his city enter\nupon their career of conquest. Before that, his power and fame were\nlimited to the city over which he presided. Those gods who in the south\noccupied a superior rank were also acknowledged in the north. The\nreligion of the Assyrians does not acquire traits that distinguish it\nfrom that of Babylonia till the rise of a distinct Assyrian empire.\nHere, as in Babylonia, the religious conceptions, and in a measure the\nart, are shaped by the course of political events. Anu, accordingly,\ntakes precedence to Ashur previous to the supremacy of the city of\nAshur. This superior rank belongs to him as the supreme god of heaven.\nRamman-nirari's reign marks a turning-point in the history of Assyria.\nThe enemies of Ashur, who had succeeded for a time in obscuring the\ngod's glory through the humiliation which his land endured, were driven\nback, but neither the people nor the rulers had as yet become conscious\nof the fact that it was solely to Ashur that the victory was due. Hence,\nother gods are associated with Ashur by Ramman-nirari, and the old god\nAnu is accorded his proper rank. After the days of Ramman-nirari,\nhowever, Ashur's precedence over all other gods is established. Whether\nassociated with Bel or with Ramman, or with Shamash and Ramman, or with\na larger representation of the pantheon, Ashur is invariably mentioned\nfirst.\n\nFrom what has been said of the chief trait of Assyrian history, it\nfollows, as a matter of course, that the popularity of Ashur is due to\nthe military successes of the Assyrian armies; and it follows, with\nequal necessity, that Ashur, whatever he may originally have been,\nbecomes purely a god of war, from the moment that Assyria enters upon\nwhat appeared to be her special mission. All the titles given to Ashur\nby the kings may be said to follow from his role as the god who presides\nover the fortunes of the wars. If he is the 'ruler of all the gods,' and\ntheir father, he is so simply by virtue of that same superior strength\nwhich makes him the 'law-giver' for mankind, and not because of any\nancient traditions, nor as an expression of some nature-myth. He lords\nit over gods and spirits, but he lords it solely because of his warlike\nqualities. Ashur is the giver of crown and sceptre, and the kings of\nAssyria are the _patesis_ of the god, his lieutenants. He is the god\nthat embodies the spirit of Assyrian history, and as such he is the most\ncharacteristic personage of the Assyrian pantheon--in a certain sense\nthe only characteristic personage. So profound is his influence that\nalmost all the other gods of the pantheon take on some of his character.\nWhenever and wherever possible, those phases of the god's nature are\nemphasized which point to the possession of power over enemies. The gods\nof the Assyrian pantheon impress one as diminutive Ashurs by the side of\nthe big one, and in proportion as they approach nearer to the character\nof Ashur himself, is their hold upon the royal favor strengthened.\n\n\nIshtar.\n\nSecond in rank to Ashur during the most glorious part of Assyrian\nhistory stands the great goddess Ishtar. That the Assyrian Ishtar is\nidentical with the great goddess of the Babylonian pantheon is beyond\nreasonable doubt. She approaches closest to Nana,--the Ishtar of Erech;\nbut just as we found the Babylonian Ishtar appearing under various names\nand forms, so there are no less than three Ishtars in Assyria,\ndistinguished in the texts as Ishtar of Nineveh, Ishtar of Arbela, and\nIshtar who presides over the temple known as Kidmuru and who for that\nreason is generally called 'the queen of Kidmuru.' The seat of the\nlatter was in Nineveh, as was of course also the seat of Ishtar of\nNineveh. The third Ishtar had her cult at Arbela,[245] a town lying to\nthe east of Calah about midway between the upper and lower Zab. It is\nnot easy to determine which of these three Ishtars is the oldest. The\nAssyrians themselves seem to have been aware of the Babylonian origin of\nIshtar, for Tiglathpileser I. is at pains to emphasize that the temple\nhe builds to Ishtar in his capital is dedicated to the 'Assyrian\nIshtar.'[246] This being the oldest mention of Ishtar in Assyrian texts,\nwe are perhaps warranted in concluding that the cult of the goddess was\ntransferred with the seat of government to Nineveh. This would not\nnecessarily make Ishtar of Nineveh the oldest of the three, but accounts\nfor the higher rank that was accorded to her, as against the other two.\nIshtar of Arbela and the queen of Kidmuru do not make their appearance\nso far as the historical texts are concerned till the time of Esarhaddon\n(681, B.C.)--a comparatively late date. Tiele[247] suggests that Arbela\nbecame the seat of a school of prophets in the service of Ishtar. The\ncurious name of the place, the 'four-god' city, certainly speaks in\nfavor of supposing Arbela to have been a great religious center, but\nuntil excavations shall have been conducted on the modern site of the\ntown, the problems connected with the worship of Ishtar of Arbela cannot\nbe solved. It is quite possible, if not probable, that the three Ishtars\nare each of independent origin. The 'queen of Kidmuru,' indeed, I\nventure to think, is the indigenous Ishtar of Nineveh, who is obliged to\nyield her place to the so-called 'Assyrian Ishtar' upon the transfer of\nthe capitol of Assyria to Nineveh, and henceforth is known by one of her\nepithets to distinguish her from her formidable rival. The cult of\nIshtar at Arbela is probably, too, of ancient date; but special\ncircumstances that escape us appear to have led to a revival of interest\nin their cults during the period when Assyria reached the zenith of her\npower. The important point for us to bear in mind is that no essential\ndistinctions between these three Ishtars were made by the Assyrians.\nTheir traits and epithets are similar, and for all practical purposes we\nhave only one Ishtar in the northern empire. Next to Ashur, or rather by\nthe side of Ashur, Ishtar was invoked as the great goddess of battle and\nwar. This trait, however, was not given to her by the Assyrians.\nHammurabi views the goddess in this light,[248] and in the Izdubar or\nGilgamesh epic, as already pointed out, she appears at times in the role\nof a violent destroyer. The warlike phase of the goddess's nature is\nlargely accentuated in the Assyrian pantheon and dwelt upon to the\nexclusion of that softer and milder side which we have seen\ncharacterized her as 'the mother of mankind.' Her role as the goddess of\nwar grows in prominence as the Assyrian rulers proceed in their\ntriumphal careers. Ashurrishishi (_c_. 1150 B.C.) invokes her simply as\nthe superior goddess, but for Tiglathpileser I. and from his days on,\nshe is primarily the lady of war, who arranges the order of battle and\nencourages her favorites to fight. She appears in dreams at critical\nmoments, and whispers words of cheer to King Ashurbanabal. When danger\nthreatens, it is to her that the great king spreads his hands in prayer.\nShe is not merely the goddess of the kings, but of the people as well.\nThe latter are instructed to honor her. No deity approaches her in\nsplendor. As Ashur rules the Igigi, so Ishtar is declared to be 'mighty\nover the Anunnaki.' Her commands are not to be opposed. Her appearance\nis that of a being clothed with fiery flames, and streams of fire are\nsent down by her upon the enemies of Ashurbanabal--a description that\nexpresses admirably the conception formed by the Assyrians of a genuine\ngoddess of war. Like Ashur, she is given a supreme rank among the gods.\nShalmaneser II. calls her the first-born of heaven and earth, and for\nTiglathpileser I., she is the first among the gods. Her milder\nattributes as the gracious mother of creation, the giver of plenty, and\nthe hearer of the supplications of the sinner, so prominent in the\nreligious literature,[249] are not dwelt upon in the historical texts.\nStill, an element of love also enters into the relationship with her\nsubjects. Ashurnasirbal (885-860 B.C.) speaks of her as the lady who\n'loves him and his priesthood.' Sennacherib similarly associates Ishtar\nwith Ashur as the lover of his priesthood. As a goddess of war she is of\ncourse 'perfect in courage,' as Shalmaneser II. declares. Temples are\nerected to her in the city of Ashur, in Nineveh and Arbela. Ashurbanabal\ndistinguishes carefully between the two Ishtars,--the one of Nineveh and\nthe one of Arbela; and, strange enough, while terming Nineveh the\nfavorite city of Ishtar, he seems to give the preference to Ishtar of\nArbela. It is to the latter[250] that when hard pressed by the Elamites\nhe addresses his prayer, calling her 'the lady of Arbela'; and it is\nthis Ishtar who appears to the royal troops in a dream. The month of\nAb--the fifth month of the Babylonian calendar--is sacred to Ishtar.\nAshurbanabal proceeds to Arbela for the purpose of worshipping her\nduring this sacred period. Something must have occurred during his\nreign, to bring the goddess of Arbela into such remarkable prominence,\nbut even Ashurbanabal does not go so far as to place Ishtar of Arbela\nbefore Ishtar of Nineveh, when enumerating the gods of the pantheon. One\npoint still remains to be mentioned before passing on. Ashurbanabal\ncalls Ishtar--he is speaking of Ishtar of Nineveh--the wife of Bel.[251]\nNow Ishtar never appears in this capacity in the Babylonian\ninscriptions. If there is one goddess with whom she has nothing in\ncommon, it is Belit of Nippur. To account for this curious statement on\nthe part of the Assyrian scribes, it is only necessary to bear in mind\nthat the name Belit signifies 'lady,' and Ishtar is constantly spoken of\nas the Belit or lady of battle. Much the same train of thought that led\nto regarding Bel in the sense of 'lord,' merely as a title of Marduk,\ngave rise to the use of 'Belit,' as the title of the great 'lady' of the\nAssyrian pantheon.[252] From this it is but a small--but of course\nerroneous--step, to speak of Belit-Ishtar as the consort of Bel. Whether\nthe error is due only to the scribe, or whether it actually made its way\ninto the Assyrian system of theology, it is difficult to say. Probably\nthe former; for the distinguishing feature of both the Babylonian and\nthe Assyrian Ishtar is her independent position. Though at times brought\ninto close association with Ashur, she is not regarded as the mere\nconsort of any god--no mere reflection of a male deity, but ruling in\nher own right on a perfect par with the great gods of the pantheon. She\nis coequal in rank and dignity with Ashur. Her name becomes synonymous\nwith goddess, as Marduk becomes the synonym for god. The female deities\nboth native and foreign come to be regarded as so many forms of Ishtar.\nIn a certain sense Ishtar is the only _real_ goddess of the later\nAssyrian pantheon, the only one taking an active part in the religious\nand political life of the people. At the same time it is to be noted\nthat by the side of the Assyrian Ishtar, the Babylonian Ishtar,\nespecially the one associated with Erech (or Warka) is also worshipped\nby the monarchs of the north. Esarhaddon devotes himself to the\nimprovement of the old temple at Erech, and Ashurbanabal prides himself\nupon having rescued out of the hands of the Elamites a statue of Ishtar\nor Nana of Erech that had been captured 1635 years previous.[253]\n\n\nAnu.\n\nReference has already been made to the antiquity of the Anu cult in\nAssyria, and that prior to the time that the city of Ashur assumes the\nrole of mistress of the northern district, Anu stood at the head of the\npantheon, just as theoretically he continued to occupy this place in the\npantheon of the south. What is especially important, he had a temple in\nthe very city of Ashur, whose patron god succeeded in usurping the place\nof the old 'god of heaven.' The character of Anu in the north differs in\nno way from the traits assigned to him in the south. He is the king of\nthe Igigi and Anunnaki, that is, of all the heavenly and earthly\nspirits, and he is this by virtue of being the supreme god of heaven.\nHis cult, however, appears to have suffered through the overshadowing\nsupremacy of Ashur. Even in his old temple at Ashur, which\nTiglathpileser I. on the occasion of his rebuilding it, tells us was\nfounded 641 years before this restoration,[254] he is no longer accorded\nsole homage. Ramman, the god of thunder and of storms, because\ncorrelated to Anu, is placed by the side of the latter and permitted to\nshare the honors with Anu.[255] Anu survives in the Assyrian as in the\nBabylonian pantheon by virtue of being a member of the theological\ntriad, composed as we have seen of Anu, Bel, and Ea. Tiglathpileser I.\nstill invokes Anu as a deity of practical importance. He associates him\nwith Ramman and Ishtar as the great gods of the city of Ashur or with\nRamman alone, but beyond an incidental mention by Ashurnasirbal, who in\na long list of gods at the beginning of his annals emphasizes the fact\nof his being the favorite of Anu, he appears only in combination with\nBel and Ea. The same degree of reverence, however, was shown to the old\ntriad in Assyria as in Babylonia. The three gods are asked not to listen\nto the prayers of the one who destroys the monuments set up by the\nkings. Sargon tells us that it is Anu, Bel, and Ea who fix the names of\nthe months,[256] and this same king when he comes to assign names to the\neight gates of his great palace, does not forget to include Anu in the\nlist of deities,[257] describing him as the god who blesses his\nhandiwork.\n\n\nDagan.\n\nCoequal in antiquity with the cult of Anu in Assyria is that of Dagan.\nAlthough occurring in Babylonia as early as the days of Hammurabi, and\nindeed earlier,[258] it would appear that his worship was imported from\nthe north into the south.[259] At all events, it is in the north that\nthe cult of Dagan rises to prominence. The name of the god appears as an\nelement in the name of Ishme-Dagan (the father of Samsi-Ramman\nII.),[260] whose date may be fixed at the close of the nineteenth\ncentury B.C. The form Dagan is interesting as being almost identical\nwith the name of the chief god of the Philistines, Dagon,[261] who is\nmentioned in the Book of Judges. The resemblance can hardly be entirely\naccidental. From other sources we know that Dagan was worshipped in\nPalestine as early as the fourteenth or fifteenth century, and the form\nDagan, if derived from _Dag_, contains an afformative element which\nstamps the word as non-Assyrian. The proposition has much in its favor\nwhich regards Dagan as a god whose worship was introduced into Assyria\nat a very early period through the influence of Aramaean hordes, who\ncontinue throughout Assyrian history to skirt the eastern shores of the\nTigris. Once introduced, however, into Assyria, Dagan assumes a\ndifferent form from the one that he receives among the Philistines. To\nthe latter he is the god of agriculture, while in Assyria he rises to\nthe rank of second in the pantheon, and becomes the associate of Anu.\nThe latter's dominion being the heavens, Dagan is conceived as the god\nof earth. Hence, there results the fusion with the Babylonian Bel, which\nhas already been noted,[262] and it is due to this fusion that Dagan\ndisappears almost entirely from the Assyrian pantheon. Ashurnasirbal\ninvokes Dagan with Anu. Two centuries later, Sargon, whose scribes, as\nJensen has noticed, manifest an 'archaeological' fondness for the\nearlier deities, repeats the phrase of Ashurnasirbal, and also calls his\nsubjects 'troops of Anu and Dagan'; but it is important to observe that\nhe does not include Dagan among the deities in whose honor he assigns\nnames to the gates of his palace. We may, therefore, fix upon the ninth\ncentury as the terminus for the Dagan cult in Assyria. Proper names\ncompounded with Dagan do not occur after the days of Ashurnasirbal.[263]\n\n\nShamash.\n\nBesides the testimony furnished by the name of the king, Samsi-Ramman,\nwe have a proof for the antiquity of the Shamash cult in Assyria in the\nexpress statement of Pudilu (_c._ 1350 B.C.) that he built a temple to\nthe sun-god in the city of Ashur. He calls Shamash the 'protecting\ndeity,' but the protection vouchsafed by Shamash is to be understood in\na peculiar sense. Shamash does not work by caprice. He is, as we have\nseen, preeminently a god of justice, whose favors are bestowed in\naccordance with unchangeable principles. So far as Assyria is concerned,\nthe conceptions regarding Shamash reach a higher ethical level than\nthose connected with any other deity. Ashur and Ishtar are partial to\nAssyria, and uphold her rulers at any cost, but the favors of Shamash\nare bestowed upon the kings because of their righteousness, or, what is\nthe same thing, because of their claim to being righteous. For\nTiglathpileser I., great and ruthless warrior as he is, Shamash is the\njudge of heaven and earth, who sees the wickedness of the king's\nenemies, and shatters them because of their guilt. When the king\nmercifully sets certain captives free, it is in the presence of Shamash\nthat he performs this act. It is, therefore, as the advocate of the\nrighteous cause that Tiglathpileser claims to have received the glorious\nsceptre at the hands of Shamash; and so also for the successors of\nTiglathpileser, down to the days of Sargon, Shamash is above all and\nfirst of all the judge, both of men and of the gods. There is, of\ncourse, nothing new in this view of Shamash, which is precisely the one\ndeveloped in Babylonia; but in Assyria, perhaps for the reason that in\nShamash is concentrated almost all of the ethical instinct of the\nnorthern people, the judicial traits of Shamash appear to be even more\nstrongly emphasized. Especially in the days of Ashurnasirbal and\nShalmaneser II.--the ninth century--does the sun-cult receive great\nprominence. These kings call themselves the _sun_ of the world. The\nphrase,[264] indeed, has so distinctly an Egyptian flavor, that, in\nconnection with other considerations, it seems quite plausible to assume\nthat the influence of Egyptian reverence for _Ra_ had much to do with\nthe popularity of the sun-cult about this time. Shalmaneser bestows\nnumerous epithets upon Shamash. He is the guide of everything, the\nmessenger of the gods, the hero, the judge of the world who guides\nmankind aright, and, what is most significant, the lord of law. The word\nused for law, _tertu_, is identical with the Hebrew term _tora_ that is\nused to designate the Pentateuchal legislation. No better testimony\ncould be desired to show the nature of the conceptions that must have\nbeen current of Shamash. Sargon, again, who is fond of emphasizing the\njust principles that inspire his acts, goes to the length of building a\nsanctuary[265] for Shamash far beyond the northern limits of Assyria.\nBut the kings, in thus placing themselves under the protection of the\ngreat judge, were not oblivious to the fact that this protection was\nparticularly desired on the battlefield. War being uppermost in their\nthoughts, the other side of Shamash's nature--his power and\nviolence--was not overlooked. Tiglathpileser invokes him also as the\nwarrior,--a title that is often given to Shamash in the religious\nliterature. There can be little doubt that a nation of warriors whose\nchief deities were gods of war, was attracted to Shamash not merely\nbecause he was the judge of all things, but also, and in a large degree,\nbecause he possessed some of the traits that distinguished Ashur and\nIshtar.\n\n\nRamman.\n\nThe association of Ramman with Shamash in the name of the old ruler of\nAssyria, Samsi-Ramman, is not accidental or due to mere caprice. Only\nsuch deities are combined in proper names that are, or may be,\ncorrelated to one another. Ramman, as the god of storms, is naturally\nviewed as a power complementary to the great orb of light.[266] The two\nin combination, viewed as the beneficent and the destructive power,\nconstitute the most powerful elements of nature, whose good will it was\nmost important, especially for a nation of warriors, to secure. Some\nsuch thought surely underlies this association of Shamash with Ramman.\nThe Assyrian Ramman differs in no way from the Ramman of Babylonia, but\nhe is much more popular in the north than in the south. The popularity\nof the god is but a reflection of the delight that the Assyrians took in\nmilitary pursuits. Ramman is hardly anything more than another Ashur.\nTiglathpileser I., who once calls the god Mar-tu, _i.e._, \"the West\ngod,\"[267] has left us an admirable description of him. He is the hero\nwho floods the lands and houses of the country's enemies. The approach\nof the Assyrian troops is compared to an onslaught of Ramman. His curses\nare the most dreadful that can befall a nation or an individual, for his\ninstruments of destruction are lightning, hunger, and death. Reference\nhas several times been made to the manner in which Tiglathpileser honors\nRamman by making him a partner of Anu in the great temple of the latter\nat Ashur. But the successors of Tiglathpileser are no less zealous in\ntheir reverence for Ramman. It is to Ramman that the kings offer\nsacrifices during the campaign, and when they wish to depict in the\nstrongest terms the destruction that follows in the wake of an onslaught\nof the Assyrian troops, they declare that they swept over everything\nlike Ramman. It is natural, in view of this, that Ramman should have\nbeen to the Assyrians also the 'mightiest of the gods.'[268] Through the\nAssyrian inscriptions we learn something of the consort of Ramman.\n\n\nShala.\n\nSennacherib tells us that in the course of his campaign against\nBabylonia he removes out of the city of Babylon, and replaces in\nEkallate[269] the statues of Ramman and Shala. This, he says, he did 418\nyears after the time that they had been carried captive from Ekallate to\nBabylon by Marduknadinakhi.[270] We know nothing more of this Ekallate\nexcept that it lay in Assyria,--probably in the southern half,--and that\nRamman and Shala are called the gods of the city. The name 'Shala'\nappears to signify 'woman.' It reminds us, therefore, of 'lady' (Ninni,\nNana, etc.), which we have found to be the designation for several\ndistinct goddesses. It is possible that Shala, likewise, being a name of\nso indefinite a character, was applied to other goddesses. A 'Shala of\nthe mountains,' who is stated to be the wife of Marduk, is mentioned in\na list of gods.[271] The wife of Bel, too, is once called Shala, though\nin this case the confusion between Marduk and Bel may have led to\ntransferring the name from the consort of one to the consort of the\nother. Too much importance must not be attached to the data furnished by\nthese lists of gods. They represent in many cases purely arbitrary\nattempts to systematize the Babylonian and Assyrian pantheon, and in\nother cases are valuable only as reflecting the views of the\ntheologians, or rather of certain schools of theological thought, in\nBabylonia. In the religious hymns, too, the consort of Ramman finds\nmention, and by a play upon her name is described as the 'merciful one.'\nThe attribute given to her there is the 'lady of the field,' which puts\nher in contrast to Ramman, rather than in partnership with him. Since we\nhear little of her worship in Assyria, beyond the notices of\nSennacherib, we may conclude that, like so many goddesses, Shala\ndwindled to the insignificant proportions of a mere pale reflection of\nthe male deity.\n\n\nNin-ib.\n\nAnother god, who by virtue of his violent traits enjoys the favor of the\nAssyrian rulers, is the old Babylonian deity whose name is provisionally\nread Nin-ib. In the very first mention of him, in the inscription of\nAshurrishishi (_c._ 1150 B.C.), he is called the 'mighty one of the\ngods.' Through the protection of Nin-ib, Ashurrishishi secures victory\nover his enemies on all sides. Similarly, other of the Assyrian rulers\nemphasize the strength of Nin-ib. Tiglathpileser I. calls him the\ncourageous one, whose special function is the destruction of the king's\nenemies. In doing so he becomes the god 'who fulfills the heart's\ndesire.' The unmistakable character of the god as a god of war is also\nshown by his association with Ashur.[272] If Ashur is the king of Igigi\nand Anunnaki, Nin-ib is the hero of the heavenly and earthly spirits. To\nhim the rulers fly for help. Of all the kings, Ashurnasirbal seems to\nhave been especially devoted to the service of Nin-ib. The annals of\nthis king, instead of beginning, as is customary, with an invocation of\nall or many of the gods, starts out with an address to Nin-ib, in which\nthe king fairly exhausts the vocabulary of the language in his desire to\nsecure the favor of this powerful deity. Almost all the attributes he\nassigns to him have reference to the god's powers in war. Dwelling in\nthe capital Calah, he is 'the strong, the mighty, the supreme one,' the\nperfect hero, who is invincible in battle, the 'destroyer of all\nopposition, who holds the lock of heaven and earth, who opens the deep;\nthe strong one, endowed with youthful vigor, whose decree is\nunchangeable, without whom no decision is made in heaven or on earth,\nwhose attack is like a flood, who sweeps away the land of his enemies,'\nand so forth, through a bewildering array of epithets. The inscriptions\nof the Assyrian kings, especially in the introductions, manifest little\noriginality. One king, or rather his scribe, frequently copies from\nearlier productions, or imitates them. Hence, it happens that the\ngrandson of Ashurnasirbal, Shamshi-Ramman (_c._ 825-812 B.C.), furnishes\nus with an almost equally long array of epithets, exalting the strength\nand terror of Nin-ib. Like Ashurnasirbal, he declared himself to have\nbeen chosen by this god to occupy the throne. A comparison of the two\nlists makes it evident that the later one is modeled upon the earlier\nproduction. The conclusion is justified that in the century covered by\nthe reigns of Ashurnasirbal[273] and Shamshi-Ramman, the cult of Nin-ib\nmust have acquired great popularity, though suffering, perhaps, an\ninterruption during the reign of Shalmaneser II.,--midway between these\ntwo kings,--whose favorite we have seen was Shamash. The great temple of\nNin-ib stood in Calah, which Ashurnasirbal chose as his official\nresidence, and it was in this temple that the king deposited a long\ninscription commemorating his deeds. In the temple, he also places a\ncolossal statue of the god. Upon the completion of the edifice, he\ndedicates it with prayer and sacrifices. The special festivals of the\ngod are fixed for the months of Shabat and Ulul,--the eleventh and sixth\nmonths,--and provision is made for the regular maintenance of the cult.\nIt must, of course, not be supposed that, because Nin-ib appears to be a\nfavorite of the king, the latter concentrates his attentions upon this\ngod. He appears to have been specially fond of temple building, and,\nbesides the one to Nin-ib, he tells us of sanctuaries to 'Belit of the\nland,' _i.e._, Ishtar,[274] Sin, Gula, Ea, and Ramman,--that he erects\nor improves. One might be led to regard it as strange that a god like\nNin-ib, or Shamash, should claim so large a share of the attention of\nthe Assyrian rulers, to the apparent neglect of Ashur, but it must be\nborne in mind that the position of Ashur was so assured as to be beyond\nthe reach of rivalry. The fact also that Ashur's popular symbol was the\nmovable standard was no doubt a reason why so few temples were erected\nto him. He did not stand in need of temples. For the very reason that\nAshur was the universally acknowledged master of everything, the kings\nfelt called upon to choose, by the side of Ashur, some additional\ndeity,--a patron under whose special protection they placed themselves.\nThe natural desire for novelty--together with other circumstances that\nescape us--led one to choose Ramman, another Nin-ib, a third Shamash,\nand a fourth, as we shall see, Nabu. In doing so they were not conscious\nof any lack of respect towards Ashur, of whose good will they always\nfelt certain.\n\nBesides the service rendered by Nin-ib in war, his aid was also invoked\nby the kings in their recreations, which partook of the same violent\ncharacter as their vocation. Their favorite sport was hunting,\nespecially of lions, wild horses, elephants, stags, boars, and bulls.\nThey either proceeded to districts where these animals were to be found,\nor they had large parks laid out near their residences, which were then\nstocked with material for the chase. Ashurnasirbal does not shun a long\njourney to distant mountainous regions to seek for sport, and it is\nNin-ib whom he invokes, together with Nergal. These two, he declares,\nwho, like Ashur and Ishtar, \"love his priesthood,\" are the ones that\nconvey into his hands the hunting spoils. Tiglathpileser I. was\nespecially fond of lion and elephant hunting. He declares that on one\noccasion he killed 10 elephants and 920 lions in various parts of\nnorthwestern Mesopotamia; and he ascribes his success to Nin-ib, who\nloves him, and who, again, in association with Nergal, and Ashur, has\nplaced in the king's hands the mighty weapons and the glorious bow.\nAfter the days of Shamshi-Ramman we hear of Nin-ib chiefly in the formal\nlists of gods which the later kings of Assyria, from Sargon[275] on, are\nfond of placing at the beginning and end of their inscriptions. These\nlists, again, copied the one from the other, are of value only as\nindicating the chief gods of the pantheon, but warrant no conclusions as\nto the activity reigning in the cults of the gods there mentioned.\nBefore leaving Nin-ib a few words need be said as to his relations to\nthe other gods. In the chapter on the pantheon before Hammurabi,[276]\nthe identity of Nin-ib with the chief god of Gudea's district,\nNin-girsu, has been pointed out. The solar character of the latter being\nclear, it follows that Nin-ib, too, is originally a personification of\nthe sun, like Nin-gish-zida and Nin-shakh, whose roles are absorbed by\nNin-ib.[277] This has long been recognized, but it is the merit of\nJensen[278] to have demonstrated that it is the east sun and the morning\nsun which is more especially represented by Nin-ib. On this supposition,\nsome of the titles given to him in the inscriptions of Ashurnasirbal and\nShamshi-Ramman become perfectly clear. Like Marduk, who, it will be\nremembered, is also originally a phase of the solar deity, Nin-ib is\ncalled the first-born of Ea; and as the rising sun he is appropriately\ncalled the offspring of Ekur,--_i.e._, the earth,--in allusion to his\napparent ascent from a place below the earth. Ekur and Eshara being\nemployed as synonyms, Shamshi-Ramman replaces Ekur by Eshara, and since\nBel is the lord of Ekur-Eshara, Nin-ib also becomes the first-born son\nof Bel. Other epithets, such as 'the light of heaven and earth,' 'the\none who pursues his path over the wide world,'[279] are all in keeping\nwith the solar character of the deity, and date, therefore, from a\nperiod when the more purely 'nature' phases of the god were dwelt upon.\nBut just as in the case of Shamash and Nergal (also, as we have seen, a\nsolar deity), so in that of Nin-ib, the violent, fiery, and destructive\ncharacter that the sun has in a climate like that of Babylonia brought\nit about that Nin-ib was viewed as a destructive force, whose assistance\nwas of great value in military strife. He becomes the god of the cloud\nstorm, before whom, as he passes along, heaven and earth tremble. By his\nstrong weapon he humiliates the disobedient, destroys the enemies of the\nkings, and grants all manner of protection to his favorites. Only in the\nreligious literature are other qualities dwelt upon, such as his\n'holiness.'[280] For Hammurabi, it will be recalled, Nin-ib is already\nthe god of war, and it is natural that in a country like Assyria this\nside of the god's nature should become accentuated to the point of\nobscuring all others, until nothing more is left of his solar character\nthan is indicated by stray bits of mythological phrases, perhaps only\nhalf understood, and introduced to add to the imposing array of epithets\nthat belong to the terrible god of war. As the consort of Nin-ib, the\nAssyrians recognized\n\n\nGula.\n\nShe is only occasionally invoked by the Assyrian rulers. A sanctuary to\nGula, as the consort of Nin-ib, is erected by Ashurnasirbal, and a\nfestival in honor of the goddess is referred to by Ashurbanabal.\n\n\nNergal.\n\nNergal not only shares with Nin-ib, as already mentioned, the honor of\nbeing the god under whose auspices the royal chase is carried on, but he\nis also, like Nin-ib, invoked in that other sport of which the Assyrian\nrulers were so fond,--war. He is scarcely differentiated from Nin-ib.\nLike the latter he is the perfect king of battle, who marches before the\nmonarch together with Ashur, and he is pictured as carrying the mighty\nweapons which Ashur has presented to the king. In an inscription of\nShalmaneser II.[281] there is an interesting reference to the city\nsacred to Nergal--Cuthah. The king, who in the course of his campaign\nagainst Babylonia reaches Cuthah, brings sacrifices to Nergal, whom he\nspeaks of as 'the hero of the gods, the supreme raging sun.' A later\nking, Sargon, also honors the god by giving a fortress in the distant\nland of Nairi, to the northeast of Assyria, the name of Kar[282]-Nergal.\nIt would seem as though, through the influence of Sargon, a revival of\nthe Nergal cult took place. His successor, Sennacherib, erects a temple\nin honor of the god at Tarbisu, a suburb to the north of Nineveh proper,\nand Ashurbanabal, who dwells at Tarbisu for a while, is engaged in\nadding to the beauty of the edifice,--an indication of the honor in\nwhich the god continued to be held. Nergal's consort is Laz, but she is\nnot referred to by the Assyrian rulers.\n\n\nSin.\n\nThe old Babylonian moon-god plays a comparatively insignificant role in\nAssyria. Ashurnasirbal speaks of a temple that he founded in\nCalah--perhaps only a chapel--in honor of Sin. It could not have been of\nmuch importance, for we learn nothing further about it. Sargon, too, who\nmanifests a great fondness for reviving ancient cults, erects\nsanctuaries to Sin along with a quantity of other gods in his official\nresidence at Khorsabad and beyond the northeastern confines of Assyria\nat Magganubba. But when invoked by the kings, Sin shows traces of the\ninfluence which the conceptions current about Ashur exerted upon his\nfellow deities. He takes on, as other of the gods, the attributes of the\nwar-god. Instead of being merely the lord of the crescent, as in\nBabylonia, and one of the sources of wisdom because of the connection of\nastrology with lunar observations, he is pictured as capable of\ninspiring terror. At the same time he is also the lord of plenty, and in\nhis capacity as the wise god he is regarded as the lord of decisions.\nBut by the side of new epithets that are attached to him in the Assyrian\ninscriptions, there is one which, just as in the case of Nin-ib,\nconnects the Assyrian Sin cult with the oldest phase of moon-worship in\nthe south. It is one of the last kings of Assyria, Ashurbanabal, who\ncalls Sin 'the firstborn son of Bel.' He appears in this relationship to\nBel in the religious texts of Babylonia. The Bel here meant can only be\nthe great god of Nippur, and the title 'son of Bel' accordingly shows\nthat the moon-worship of Assyria is ultimately derived from that which\nhad its seat in the south. Sin's secondary position is indicated by\nmaking him a son of Bel. The rise of the science of astronomy in\nconnection with astrology, was, as already suggested, an important\nfactor in spreading and maintaining the Sin cult in the south, while the\nlack of intellectual originality in Assyria would equally account for\nthe comparatively subordinate position occupied by Sin in the Assyrian\npantheon.\n\n\nNusku.\n\nThat Nusku is a Babylonian god, meriting a place in the pantheon of\nHammurabi, if not of the days prior to the union of the Babylonian\nstates, is shown by the fact (1) that he had a shrine in the great\ntemple of Marduk at Babylon, along with Nebo, Tashmiyum, and Ea;[283]\nand (2) that he appears in the religious texts. In view of this it might\nappear strange that we find no reference to the god in historical texts\ntill we reach the Assyrian period. The reason, or at least one reason,\nis that Nusku is on the one hand amalgamated with Gibil, the fire-god,\nand on the other identified with Nabu. The compound ideogram with which\nhis name is written includes the same sign--the stylus or sceptre--that\nis used to designate Nabu, the second part of the ideogram adding the\nidea of 'force and strength.' Whether this graphical assimilation is to\nbe regarded as a factor in bringing about the identification of Nusku\nand Nabu, or is due to an original similarity in the traits of the two\ngods, it is difficult to say. Hardly the latter, for Nusku is a solar\ndeity, whereas, as we have tried to show, Nabu is originally a\nwater-deity.[284] But however we may choose to account for it, the\nprominence of Nusku is obscured by Nabu. As a solar deity, it is easy to\nsee how he should have been regarded as a phase of the fire-god, and if\nthe various other solar deities were not so regarded, it is because in\nthe course of their development they were clothed with other attributes\nthat, while obscuring their origin, saved them from the loss of their\nidentity. Apart from the formal lists of gods drawn up by Sargon and his\nsuccessors, Shalmaneser II. and Ashurbanabal are the only kings who make\nspecial mention of Nusku. The former calls him the bearer of the\nbrilliant sceptre, just as Nabu is so called; and again, just as Nabu,\nhe is termed the wise god. The two phases of the ideogram used in his\nname--the sceptre and the stylus--are thus united in the personage of\nNusku precisely as in Nabu. On the other hand, the manner in which\nAshurbanabal speaks of him reflects the mythological aspect of Nusku. In\nthe religious literature Nusku is the messenger of Bel-Marduk, who\nconveys the message of the latter to Ea. From being the messenger of\nBel, he comes to be viewed as the messenger of the gods in general, and\naccordingly Ashurbanabal addresses him as 'the highly honored messenger\nof the gods,' but, combining with the mythological the more realistic\naspect of Nusku, refers to him also as the one who glorifies sovereignty\nand who, at the command of Ashur and Belit, stands at the king's side to\naid in bringing the enemies to fall. As for the fire-god Gibil, with\nwhom Nusku is identified, we have merely a reference to a month of the\nyear sacred to the servant of Gibil in a passage of the inscriptions of\nSargon.[285]\n\n\nBel-Marduk.\n\nFrom the time that the Assyrian rulers claimed a greater or small\nmeasure of control over the affairs of Babylonia, that is, therefore,\nfrom about the twelfth century, they were anxious to make good their\nclaim by including in their pantheon the chief god of Babylonia. The\nAssyrian inscriptions prove that, as early as the twelfth century, the\ntheoretical absorption on the part of Marduk, of the role taken by the\nold god Bel of Nippur, which was enlarged upon in a preceding\nchapter,[286] had already taken place. Marduk is not only frequently\nknown as Bel, but what is more, Babylonia is the country of Bel, or\nsimply Bel, and the Babylonians are referred to as 'the subjects of\nBel,' or the 'humanity of Bel.' There can be no doubt that in all these\ncases Bel-Marduk is meant and not the older Bel. In the days of\nAshurrishishi we already come across the title 'governor of Bel,' that\nto the latest days remains the official designation for political\ncontrol over the southern empire. So general is this use of Bel for\nMarduk that the latter name does not occur until we reach Shalmaneser\nII., _i.e._, the ninth century. There seems to be no reason to question,\ntherefore, that even when Tiglathpileser I. applies to Bel titles that\ncertainly belong to the older Bel, such as 'father of the gods,' 'king\nof all the Anunnaki,' 'who fixes the decrees of heaven and earth,' he\nmeans Marduk, a proof for which may be seen in the epithet _bel matati_,\n'lord of lands,' which follows upon these designations and which, as we\nsaw, is a factor in the evolution of Marduk into Bel-Marduk.[287] The\nimportance that Tiglathpileser I., and therefore also his successors,\nattached to their control over the old southern district, is shown by\nhis according to Bel the second place in the pantheon, invoking him at\nthe beginning of his inscriptions immediately after Ashur. The control\nover Babylonia was an achievement that stirred the pride of the Assyrian\nrulers to the highest degree. Its age and its past inspired respect.\nBesides being the source of the culture that Assyria possessed,\nBabylonia had sacred associations for the Assyrians, as the original\ndwelling-places of most of the gods worshipped by them. The old sacred\ncenters like Ur, Nippur, Uruk, Sippar, with their great temples, their\nelaborate cults, their great storehouses of religious literature, and\ntheir great body of influential priests and theologians and astrologers\nwere as dear to the people of the north as to those of the south; and in\nproportion as these old cities lost their political importance, their\nrank as sacred centers to which pilgrimages were made on the occasion of\nthe festivals of the gods was correspondingly raised. Hence the value\nthat the Assyrian rulers attached to the possession of Babylonia. They\ndo not like to be reminded that they rule the south by force of arms.\nThey prefer, as Tiglathpileser I. declares, to consider themselves\n'nominated by the gods to rule over the land of Bel.' They want to be\nregarded as the favorites of Bel, and they ascribe to him the greatness\nof their rule. It is he who fulfills the wishes of the kings; and when\nthe kings enter upon a campaign against Babylonia, as they frequently\ndid to quell the uprisings that were constantly occurring in the one or\nthe other of the southern districts, they emphasize, as Shalmaneser II.\ndoes, that he enters upon this course at the command of Marduk. They set\nthemselves up as Marduk's defenders, and it must be said for the\nAssyrian rulers that they were mild and sparing in their treatment of\ntheir southern subjects. They do not practise those cruelties--burning\nof cities, pillage, and promiscuous slaughter--that form the main\nfeature in their campaigns against the nations to the northeast and\nnorthwest, and against Elam. They accord to the Babylonians as much of\nthe old independence as was consistent with an imperial policy. The\ninternal affairs continue for a long time to be regulated by rulers who\nare natives of Babylonia, and it is not until a comparatively late\nday--the time of Sennacherib--that in consequence of the endless trouble\nthat these native rulers gave the Assyrians through their constant\nattempt to make themselves independent, it became customary for the\nAssyrian kings to appoint a member of the royal house--a son or\nbrother--to the lieutenancy over Babylonia. As for the cult, the\nAssyrian kings were at great pains to leave it undisturbed, or where it\nhad been interrupted to restore it, and thus secure the favor of the\nsouthern gods. So Shalmaneser II. upon the completion of his campaign\nenters Marduk's great temple at Babylon, E-sagila, and offers prayers\nand sacrifices to Bel and Belit, _i.e._, Marduk and Sarpanitum. From\nE-sagila he crosses over to Borsippa, and pays homage to Nabu and to\nNabu's consort, whom he calls Nana.[288] The kings are fond, especially\nwhen speaking of the Babylonian campaigns, of slipping in the name of\nMarduk after that of Ashur. With the help of Ashur and Marduk their\ntroops are victorious. Marduk shares Ashur's terrible majesty. At times\nShamash, or Shamash and Ramman, are added to form a little pantheon\nwhose assistance is invoked in the Babylonian wars. From being used in\nrestricted application to Babylonian affairs, Ashur and Marduk came to\nbe invoked in a general way. Esarhaddon expressly sets up the claim of\nbeing the savior of Marduk's honor, as a kind of apology for proceeding\nagainst Babylonia with his armies. Sargon, to emphasize his legitimate\ncontrol over Babylonia as well as Assyria, says that he has been called\nto the throne by Ashur and Marduk, but Ashurbanabal goes further even\nthan his predecessors. He proceeds to Babylon on the occasion of the\nformal installation of his brother Shamash-shumukin as viceroy of the\ndistrict, enters the temple of Marduk, whom he does not hesitate to call\n'the lord of lords,' performs the customary rites, and closes the\nceremonies by a fervent prayer to Marduk for his continued good will and\nblessing.[289] The great gods Nergal, Nabu, and Shamash come from their\nrespective shrines to do homage to Marduk. Ashurbanabal's brother\nShamash-shumukin, when he attempts as governor of Babylon to make\nhimself independent of his brother, endeavors by means of sacrifices and\nother devices to secure the favor of Marduk, well aware that in this way\nhe will also gain the support of the Babylonians. On another occasion,\nincidental to a northern campaign, Ashurbanabal mentions that the day on\nwhich he broke up camp at Damascus was the festival of Marduk,--an\nindication that the Babylonian god was in his thoughts, even when he\nhimself was far away from Babylonia. Esarhaddon and Ashurbanabal, when\napproaching the sun-god to obtain an oracle, make mention of Marduk by\nthe side of Shamash. There are, however, a number of passages in the\nAssyrian inscriptions in which when Bel is spoken of, not Marduk but the\nold god Bel is meant.\n\n\nBel.\n\nTiglathpileser I. tells us that he rebuilt a temple to Bel in the city\nof Ashur, and he qualifies the name of the god by adding the word 'old'\nto it. In this way he evidently distinguished the god of Nippur from\nBel-Marduk, similarly as Hammurabi in one place adds Dagan to Bel,[290]\nto make it perfectly clear what god he meant. Again, it is Sargon who in\nconsistent accord with his fondness for displaying his archaeological\ntastes, introduces Bel, the 'great mountain,' 'the lord of countries,'\nwho dwells in E-khar-sag-kurkura, _i.e._, the sacred mountain on which\nthe gods are born, as participating in the festival that takes place\nupon the dedication of the king's palace in Khorsabad. The titles used\nby the king are applicable only to the old Bel, but whether he or his\nscribes were fully conscious of a differentiation between Bel and\nBel-Marduk, it is difficult to say. Bel is introduced in the inscription\nin question[291] immediately after Ashur, and one is therefore inclined\nto suspect that Sargon's archaeological knowledge fails him at this\npoint in speaking of the old Bel, whereas he really meant to invoke the\nprotection of Bel-Marduk as the chief god of his most important\npossession next to Assyria.[292] Besides this, the old Bel is of course\nmeant, when associated with Anu, as the powers that, together with\nBelit, grant victory,[293] or as a member of the old triad, Anu, Bel,\nand Ea, whose mention we have seen is as characteristic of the Assyrian\ninscriptions as of the Babylonian. Lastly, Sargon calls one of the gates\nof his palace after Bel, whom he designates as the one who lays the\nfoundation of all things. In this case, too, the old Bel is meant.\n\n\nBelit.\n\nIn the case of Belit a curious species of confusion confronts us in the\nAssyrian inscriptions. At times Belit appears as the wife of Bel, again\nas the consort of Ashur, again as the consort of Ea, and again simply as\na designation of Ishtar.[294] To account for this we must bear in mind,\nas has already been pointed out, that just as Bel in the sense of lord\ncame to be applied merely as a title of the chief god of Babylonia, so\nBelit as 'lady' was used in Assyria to designate the chief goddess. This\nwas, as the case may be, either Ishtar or the pale 'reflection'\nassociated with Ashur as his consort. Now this Belit, as the wife of\nAshur, absorbs the qualities that distinguish Belit, the wife of\nBel-Marduk. The temple in the city of Ashur, which Tiglathpileser\nI.[295] enriches with presents consisting of the images of the deities\nvanquished by the king, may in reality have been sacred to the Belit of\nBabylonia, but Tiglathpileser, for whom Bel becomes merely a designation\nof Marduk, does not feel called upon to pay his devotions to the\nBabylonian Sarpanitum, and so converts the old Belit into 'the lofty\nwife, beloved of Ashur.' Sargon, on the other hand, who calls one of the\ngates of his palace _Belit ilani_ 'mistress of the gods,' seems to mean\nby this, the consort of Ea.[296] Similarly, Ashurbanabal regards Belit\nas the wife of Ashur, and himself as the offspring of Ashur and Belit.\nAt the same time he gives to this Belit the title of 'mother of great\ngods,' which of right belongs to the consort of the Babylonian Bel. In\nthe full pantheon as enumerated by him, Belit occupies a place\nimmediately behind her consort Ashur. Ashurbanabal, however, goes still\nfurther, and, influenced by the title of 'Belit' as applied to Ishtar,\nmakes the latter the consort of Ashur. This at least is the case in an\ninscription from the temple of Belit at Nineveh,[297] known as\nE-mash-mash, and in which Ashurbanabal alternately addresses the goddess\nas Belit and as Ishtar, while elsewhere[298] this same Belit, whose seat\nis in E-mash-mash, is termed the consort of Ashur. How Ashurbanabal or\nhis scribes came to this confusing identification we need not stop to\ninquire. In part, no doubt, it was due to the general sense of\n'goddess,' which Ishtar began to acquire in his days.[299] At all\nevents, Ashurbanabal's conception marks a contrast to the procedure of\nShalmaneser II., who correctly identifies the mother of the great gods\nwith the wife of Bel.[300] On the other hand, the confusion that took\nplace in Ashurbanabal's days is foreshadowed by the title of 'Belit\nmati,' _i.e._, 'mistress of the land,' by which Ashurbanabal appears to\ndesignate some other than Ishtar.[301] Lastly, it is interesting to note\nthat Ashurbanabal recognizes by the side of Belit-Ishtar, the wife of\nAshur, the older Belit, the wife of the Bel of Nippur, to whom, in\nassociation with Anu and Bel, he attributes his victory over the\nArabs.[302]\n\n\nSarpanitum.\n\nThe consort of Marduk is only incidentally referred to: once by\nSargon,[303] who groups Bel with Sarpanitum and Nabu and Tashmitum, at\nthe head of the gods of Babylonia; and similarly by Tiglathpileser III.,\non the occasion of his enumerating the chief gods of the Babylonian\npantheon.\n\n\nNabu.\n\nThe intimate association of Nabu with Marduk in the city of Babylon\nleads as a natural consequence to a similar association in Assyria, when\nonce the Marduk cult had for political reasons become established in the\nnorth. The kings invoke the favor of Bel (meaning Marduk) and Nabu,\nespecially when dealing with the affairs of Babylonia,[304] as they\ninvoke Ashur and Ishtar. Just as we have certain kings devoted to Nin-ib\nand Shamash by the side of Ashur, so there are others whose special\nfavorite is Nabu. In the days of Ramman-nirari III. (812-783 B.C.) the\nNabu cult reached its highest point of popularity in Assyria. From the\nmanner in which the king speaks of the god, one might draw the\nconclusion that he attempted to concentrate the whole Assyrian cult upon\nthat god alone. He erects a temple to the god at Calah, and overwhelms\nthe deity with a great array of titles. The dedicatory inscription which\nthe king places on a statue of Nebo closes with the significant words,\n'O Posterity! trust in Nabu. Trust in no other god.'[305] Still we must\nnot press such phrases too hard. Ramman-nirari III. had no intention of\nsuppressing Ashur worship, for he mentions the god elsewhere, and\nassigns to him the same rank as the other kings do, but so much we are\njustified in concluding, that next to Ashur and Ishtar he feels most\nstrongly attached to Nabu. That the Babylonian Nabu is meant, is clear\nfrom such designations as 'the offspring of E-sagila, the favorite of\nBel,' 'he who dwells at E-zida,' which appear among the epithets\nbestowed upon the god; and the temple in Calah, which one of the last\nkings of Assyria, Ashuretililani,[306] is engaged in improving, bears\nthe same name E-zida, as Nabu's great temple at Borsippa. We have\nalready set forth the reasons[307] for the popularity of the Nabu cult\nin Assyria. Suffice it to recall that the peculiar character of the god\nas the patron of wisdom placed him beyond the reach of any jealousy on\nthe part of the other members of the pantheon. So Ramman-nirari III.\nextols Nabu as the protector of the arts, the all-wise who guides the\nstylus of the scribe, and the possessor of wisdom in general. He is not\nmerely the originator of writing, but the source of all wisdom, and for\nthis reason he is spoken of as the son of Ea. Attributes of mere brutal\nforce are rarely assigned to Nabu, but as befits a god of wisdom, mercy,\nnobility, and majesty constitute his chief attractions. By virtue of his\nwisdom, Sargon calls him 'the clear seer who guides all the gods,' and\nwhen the last king of Assyria--Saracus, as the Greek writers called\nhim--invokes Nabu as the 'leader of forces,' he appears to have in mind\nthe heavenly troops rather than earthly armies. Such patrons of learning\nas Sargon and Ashurbanabal were naturally fond of parading their\ndevotion to Nabu. The former significantly calls him the 'writer of\neverything,' and as for Ashurbanabal, almost every tablet in the great\nliterary collection that he made at Nineveh closes with a solemn\ninvocation to Nabu and his consort Tashmitum, to whom he offers thanks\nfor having opened his ears to receive wisdom, and who persuaded him to\nmake the vast literary treasures of the past accessible to his subjects.\n\n\nTashmitum.\n\nThe consort of Nabu was permitted to share the honors in the temple of\nNabu at Calah, but beyond this and Ashurbanabal's constant association\nof Tashmitum with Nabu in the subscript to his tablets, she appears only\nwhen the kings of Assyria coming to Babylonia as they were wont to\ndo,[308] in order to perform sacrifices, enumerate the chief gods of the\nBabylonian pantheon.\n\n\nEa.\n\nEa takes his place in the Assyrian pantheon in the double capacity of\ngod of wisdom and as a member of the old triad. Ashurnasirbal makes\nmention of a sanctuary erected to the honor of Ea in Ashur. A\nrecollection of the role that Ea plays in Babylonian mythology survives\nin the titles of 'creator' and 'king of the ocean,' which Shalmaneser\ngives him,[309] and of the 'one who opens the fountains' as Ashurbanabal\ndeclares.[310] He is also, as in Babylonia, the one who determines the\nfates of mankind. As the one who has a care for the arts, he is the wise\ngod, just as Nabu, and under various titles, as Nu-gim-mud,[311]\nNin-igi-azag, and Igi-dug-gu,[312] all emphasizing his skill, he is the\nartificer who aids the kings in their building operations. The\nsimilarity of the roles of Nabu and Ea, as gods of wisdom and the arts,\nmight easily have led to a confusion. Fortunately, the grandiloquent and\nall-embracing titles accorded to the former did not alter his character\nas essentially the god who presides over the art of writing, while Ea\nretains the control over the architectural achievements,--the great\ncolossi, in the first instance, that guarded the approach of palaces,\nthe images of the gods in the second, and the temples and palaces in\ngeneral as his third function.\n\n\nDamkina.\n\nOf the consort of Ea, it is sufficient to note that she is occasionally\nreferred to in the historical texts of the Assyrian period. In the\ninscriptions of Sargon she appears under the rather strange title of\n'Belit ilani,' _i.e._, the mistress of the gods.[313] This 'mistress'\ncannot be, as might at first blush appear, Ishtar or the old Belit, for\nelsewhere[314] Ishtar, Belit, and Belit ilani occur side by side. Sargon\ndeclares that he owes his wisdom to Ea and Belit ilani. In naming the\ngates of his palace, he again associates Ea with 'the mistress of the\ngods,' from which it is clear that the epithet is used of Ea's consort.\n\n\nNin-gal.\n\nA sanctuary to the old Babylonian goddess Nin-gal is included by Sargon\namong the holy edifices erected by him in his official residence.[315]\n\n\nDibharra.\n\nWe have pointed out in a previous chapter how faint the dividing line\nsometimes becomes between gods and spirits. Among the minor deities,\nranking hardly above demons, is the plague-god, whose name may\nprovisionally be read Dibbarra.[316] The god plays a role in some of the\nancient legends of Babylonia. Remains have been found of a kind of epic\nin which Dibbarra is the chief personage.[317] In the historical texts\nhe is once incidentally mentioned by Ashurbanabal, who in the course of\nhis campaign against Babylonia[318] describes how the corpses of those\nkilled by Dibbarra, _i.e._, through hunger and want, filled the streets\nof the cities. Evidently Dibbarra here is a mere personification of the\ndreadful demon of want that so often follows in the wake of a military\ndestruction. Still there can be no doubt that at one time he was\nregarded as a real deity, and not merely a spirit or demon. Dibbarra is\nidentified in the theological system of Babylonia with Nergal.\n\n\nDamku, Sharru-ilu, and Sha-nit(?)-ka.\n\nIn an interesting passage recounting the restoration of the city\nMagganubba, Sargon[319] says that he prayed to Damku, _i.e._, 'grace,'\nSharru-ilu, _i.e._, 'king-god,' and Sha-nit(?)-ka. The two former he\ncalls the judges of mankind. That Damku and Sharru-ilu are titles and\nnot names is evident from the meaning of the words, but at present it\nis impossible to say what gods are meant.[320] Perhaps that these are\nthe translations of names of the old deities of Magganubba. We have\nat least one other example of a foreign deity introduced into the\nAssyrian pantheon. At Dur-ilu, a town lying near the Elamitic\nfrontier, there flourished the cult of Ka-di,[321] evidently a god\nimported into the Assyrian pantheon from Elam or some other eastern\ndistrict. Sargon's scribes are fond of translating foreign names and\nwords, and they may have done so in this case, and thus added two new\ndeities to the glorious pantheon protecting their royal chief. As for\nSha-nit(?)-ka,[322] were it not that she is called the mistress of\nNineveh, one would also put her down as a foreign goddess. In view of\nthis, however, it may be that Sha-nit(?)-ka is an ideographic\ndesignation of Ishtar.\n\nBefore leaving the subject, a word needs to be said regarding the\nrelation between the active Assyrian pantheon and the long lists of\ndeities prepared by the schoolmen of Babylonia and Assyria. Reference\nhas already been made to these lists.[323] They vary in character. Some\nof them furnish an index of the various names under which a god was\nknown,[324] or the titles assigned to him. These names and titles are\nfrequently indications that some great god has absorbed the attributes\nof smaller ones, whose independence was in this way destroyed. Other\nlists[325] are simple enumerations of local deities, and when to these\nnames some indications are added, as to the locality to which the gods\nbelong,[326] their importance is correspondingly increased. There can be\nno doubt that most of these lists were prepared on the basis of the\noccurrence of these gods in texts, and it seems most plausible to\nconclude that the texts in question were of a religious character.\nReferences to local cults are numerous in the incantations which form a\nconsiderable proportion of the religious literature, while in hymns and\nprayers, gods are often referred to by their titles instead of their\nnames. In some respects, however, these lists of gods are still obscure.\nIt is often difficult to determine whether we are dealing with gods or\nspirits, and the origin and meaning of many of the names and epithets\nassigned to gods are similarly involved in doubt. Use has been made of\nthese lists in determining the character of the gods included in this\nsurvey of the Babylonian and Assyrian pantheon, but it would be\nmanifestly precarious to make additions to this pantheon on the basis of\nthe lists alone. Despite the tendency towards centralization of divine\npower in a limited number of gods, local cults, no doubt, continued to\nenjoy some importance in Assyria as well as Babylonia; but, in the\npresent stage of our knowledge, we have no means of determining either\nthe number or the character of these local cults. While, therefore, a\ncomplete treatment of the pantheon of Babylonia and Assyria would\ninclude all the minor local cults, we may feel quite certain that these\nlocal cults furnish few, if any, additions to the concepts connected\nwith these gods which we have discussed. I have therefore contented\nmyself with some illustrations, in each of the three divisions under\nwhich the pantheon has been surveyed, of some of the minor deities\nchosen, such as actually occur in historical, commercial, or religious\ntexts. For the Assyrian pantheon, we may place Nin-gal and most of the\nconsorts of the gods among the minor gods, and also such deities as\nKa-di, Khani, Gaga, Dibbarra, Sherua, and Azag-sir, who are merely\nincidentally referred to.[327] These illustrations suffice for placing\nclearly before us the distinction to be made in the pantheon between\ngods whose worship was actively carried on, and those who occupy more of\na theoretical position in the system perfected by the schoolmen,\nstanding under the political and social influences of their days. With\nthis distinction clearly impressed upon us, we will be prepared for such\nmodifications of our views of the Babylonian-Assyrian pantheon as\nfurther researches and discoveries may render necessary.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[222] Semitic alphabet.\n\n[223] A form of Nebo, according to Meissner-Rost, _Bauinschriften\nSanherib's_, p. 105.\n\n[224] See Meissner-Rost, _ib._ p. 108.\n\n[225] As _e.g._, En-e-in-pal (Meissner-Rost, _ib._ p. 76). Sherua and\nArag-sir (_ib._ p. 101). For further lists of deities, see pp. 234, 238.\n\n[226] The Assyrian kings are fond of mentioning foreign deities, and of\nadding them to their pantheon. In his annals (VR. col. vi. ll. 30-43)\nAshurbanabal gives a list of twenty Elamitic deities captured by him.\n\n[227] Tiele (_Babyl.-Assyr. Geschichte_, p. 519) suggests Ea.\n\n[228] An interesting example of this tendency is furnished by a tablet\npublished by T. G. Pinches (_Journal of the Victoria Institute_, xxviii.\n8-10), in which the name Marduk is treated almost as a generic term for\ndeity. Nergal is called 'the Marduk of warfare'; Nebo, 'the Marduk of\nearthly possessions'; Ninib, 'the Marduk of strength'; En-lil, 'the\nMarduk of sovereignty'; and so on, in a long enumeration, the gods are\nregarded as so many forms of Marduk. Pinches' conclusion that the list\npoints to monotheistic beliefs is, however, unwarranted. The list only\nillustrates a tendency towards a centralization of divine powers in\nMarduk, that accompanies the political centralization of the period.\n\n[229] See below, pp. 228, 229.\n\n[230] So the gods of the Assyrian pantheon are generally termed in the\ninscriptions of the kings.\n\n[231] See below, p. 195.\n\n[232] See below, p. 220.\n\n[233] A description of this symbol occurs in a text of Sennacherib\n(Meissner-Rost, _Bauinschriften Sanherib's_, p. 94). The symbol itself\nis found on sculptured slabs and on seal cylinders.\n\n[234] So Sennacherib still speaks of Images of Ashur, and of the great\ngods erected by him (Meissner-Rost, _Bauinschriften Sanherib's_, p. 94).\n\n[235] See Stevenson, \"The Feather and the Wing in Mythology,\" _Oriental\nStudies of the Phila. Oriental Club_, pp. 236-239.\n\n[236] _Babyl.-Assyr. Geschichte_, p. 533.\n\n[237] For the sake of convenience it is customary to distinguish between\nAshur the god, and the country by writing the latter with a double\n_sh_--Ashshur.\n\n[238] _Geschichte_, p. 533.\n\n[239] See Jensen _Zeits. fuer Assyr._ i. 1 _seq._ and Delitzsch, _Das\nBabylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p. 94.\n\n[240] By the assimilation of the _n_ to the following consonant.\n\n[241] See above, pp. 173, 175.\n\n[242] Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 275.\n\n[243] The combination of religious supremacy with political power, which\ncharacterizes the social state of ancient Babylonia and Assyria, gives\nto the title _patesi_ a double significance. In Babylonia, moreover, it\nacquires the force of vassal-king.\n\n[244] The full list is Anu, Ashur, Shamash, Ramman, and Ishtar.\n\n[245] More precisely Arba-ilu, signifying 'city of the fourfold\ndivinity' or 'four-god' city. _Cf._ the Palestinian form Kiryath-Arba,\n\"four city,\"--originally perhaps, likewise, a city of four gods, rather\nthan four roads or four quarters, as commonly explained.\n\n[246] IR. 14, l. 86.\n\n[247] _Babyl.-Assyr. Geschichte_, p. 85.\n\n[248] See above, p. 83.\n\n[249] See above, pp. 83, 84.\n\n[250] Cylinder B, col. v. ll. 30 _seq._; elsewhere (Rassam Cylinder,\ncol. ii. ll. 115 _seq._) he prays to Ashur and Ishtar.\n\n[251] Rassam Cylinder, col. viii. l. 92. Elsewhere, Cylinder B, col. v.\n17, Ishtar is called the daughter of Bel. This, however, must be an\nerror; either Sin must be read for Bel, or _khirat_ (consort) for\n_marat_ (daughter).\n\n[252] See above, p. 151.\n\n[253] See Barton, \"The Semitic Ishtar Cult\" (_Hebraica_, x. 9-12).\n\n[254] _I.e._, _c._ 1800 B.C.\n\n[255] See p. 154.\n\n[256] See above, p. 149.\n\n[257] See below, p. 237.\n\n[258] A king of Nippur (_c._ 2500 B.C.) bears the name Ishme-Dagan.\n\n[259] See above, p. 154; Tiele, _Geschichte der Religion im Alterthum_,\ni. 172.\n\n[260] See Hommel, _Geschichte_, p. 490. How much earlier Samsi-Ramman I.\nreigned is not known--perhaps only 40 or 50 years.\n\n[261] The _d_ of Dagon would be represented by _d_ in cuneiform writing.\n\n[262] See p. 154.\n\n[263] An eponym in his days bears the name Daganbelusur.\n\n[264] In the El-Amarna tablets (_c._ 1400 B.C.) the governors of the\nPalestinian states generally address their Egyptian lord as 'my sun'.\n\n[265] Exactly of what nature we do not know. The Assyrian word used,\nCylinder, l. 43, is obscure.\n\n[266] See p. 160.\n\n[267] IR. 8, col. i. 85. See above, p. 166.\n\n[268] Ashurnasirbal calls him so in his annals, _e.g._, col. iii. 1.\n130.\n\n[269] Bavian Inscription, ll. 48-50. See also Meissner-Rost,\n_Bauinschriften Sanherib's_, p. 102. The reading of the name of the city\nis not certain. It signifies 'city of palaces.'\n\n[270] _c._ 1120 B.C.\n\n[271] II Rawlinson, 57, 33.\n\n[272] So Tiglathpileser associates Ashur and Nin-ib, as those 'who\nfulfill his desire.'\n\n[273] Ashurnasirbal's father bears the name Tukulti-Ninib.\n\n[274] See above, pp. 151, 206.\n\n[275] One of the gates of Sargon's palace is called after Nin-ib.\n\n[276] See above, p. 57.\n\n[277] See above, pp. 92-94.\n\n[278] _Kosmologie_, pp. 457-475.\n\n[279] He is also called the offspring of a goddess, Ku-tu-shar, but this\nreference is not clear. See Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 468, note 5.\n\n[280] In a religious text he is addressed as 'holy, holy, holy.'\n\n[281] Balawat, col. v. ll. 4, 5.\n\n[282] Kar = fortress.\n\n[283] See Sayce, _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 438, and Jensen's important\nnote, _Kosmologie_, pp. 492-494.\n\n[284] See pp. 124, 125.\n\n[285] Cylinder, l. 61.\n\n[286] See pp. 117 _seq._\n\n[287] We may therefore expect, some day, to come across the name Marduk\nin Assyrian texts earlier than the ninth century.\n\n[288] See p. 131.\n\n[289] So also Shalmaneser II., Obelisk, l. 179, unless Marduk here is an\nerror for Ramman, _cf._ l. 175.\n\n[290] See above, p. 146.\n\n[291] The so-called _Prunkinschrift_, ll. 174 _seq._\n\n[292] Note the frequent use of Ashur and Bel for Assyria and Babylonia.\n\n[293] Ashurbanabal, Rassam Cylinder, col ix. ll. 76, 77.\n\n[294] See above, p. 205.\n\n[295] IR. II. col. iv. ll. 34, 35.\n\n[296] See below, pp. 231, 237.\n\n[297] Rawlinson, ii. 66.\n\n[298] Rassam Cylinder, col. x. ll. 25-27.\n\n[299] See Tiele, _Babyl. Assyr. Geschichte_, p. 127.\n\n[300] Obelisk, l. 52.\n\n[301] Annals, col. ii. l. 135.\n\n[302] Rassam Cylinder, col. x. l. 75.\n\n[303] _Prunkinschrift_, l. 143.\n\n[304] Esarhaddon, IR. 46, col. ii. l. 48; Rawlinson, iii. 16, col. iii.\nl. 24.\n\n[305] IR. 35, no. 2, l. 12.\n\n[306] IR. 8, no. 3, ll. 5 _seq._\n\n[307] See above, p. 126.\n\n[308] _E.g._, Tiglathpileser III., Nimrud inscription (Layard, pl. 17,\nl. 12).\n\n[309] Obelisk, l. 5.\n\n[310] Rassam Cylinder, col. i. l. 45.\n\n[311] Delitzsch (_Das Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p. 99) questions\nwhether Nu-gim-mud (or Nu-dim-mud) was originally a designation of Ea.\nNu-dim-mud being an epithet might, of course, be applied to other gods,\nbut there can be no doubt that it was used to designate more\nparticularly Ea as the artificer. See my remarks, pp. 138, 177 _seq._\n\n[312] Meissner-Rost, _Bauinscriften Sanherib's_, p. 105.\n\n[313] Cylinder, l. 48, ideographically as Nin-men-an-na, 'lady of the\nheavenly crown.' In the parallel passage, however, as Lyon\n(_Sargontexte_, p. 71) points out, _Belit ilani_ is used.\n\n[314] Cylinder, l. 70.\n\n[315] Cylinder, l. 68.\n\n[316] Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 445, reads the name _Gira_. See pp.\n527-28.\n\n[317] See the author's work on _A Fragment of the Dibbarra Epic_. (Ginn\n& Co., Boston, 1891).\n\n[318] Rassam Cylinder, col. lv. ll. 79 _seq._\n\n[319] Cylinder, ll. 44-53.\n\n[320] Delitzsch's supposition (see Lyon, _Sargontexte_, p. 71) that\nSharru-ilu is Izdubar is untenable.\n\n[321] _Babyl. Chronicle_, col. iii. l. 44.\n\n[322] May also be read Sha-ush-ka.\n\n[323] See above, pp. 13, 170.\n\n[324] _E.g._, IIR. 58, no. 5, titles of Ea; IIR. 60, no. 2, titles of\nNabu.\n\n[325] _E.g._, IIR. 60, no. 1.\n\n[326] _E.g._, IIIR. 66, lists of gods worshipped in various temples of\nAssyria and also of Babylonia.\n\n[327] See pp. 189, 238.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nTHE TRIAD AND THE COMBINED INVOCATION OF DEITIES.\n\n\nThe Assyrian kings, in imitation of the example set by their Babylonian\npredecessors, are fond of introducing into their inscriptions, a series\nof gods under whose protection they place themselves. They do not do\nthis as the earlier Babylonian rulers did, to emphasize the extent of\ntheir jurisdiction by adding to their pantheon the deities of towns or\ndistricts vanquished by them. The day of independent states being over,\nthe importance of merely local deities had ceased. The theological\nsystem evolved in Babylonia in combination with the popular instinct had\nled to a selection out of the mass of deities of a limited number, each\nwith tolerably definite attributes, and who together embraced all the\nforces under whose power mankind stood. Of these deities again, as we\nhave seen, some acquired greater favor in Assyria than others, but for\nall that, the kings especially of the later period of Assyrian history\nwere fond of including in an enumeration of the pantheon, even those who\nhad no special significance. Policy and the meaningless imitation of\nearlier examples played an equal part in thus giving to the lists an\naspect of formality that deprives them of the impression that they might\notherwise make.\n\nThe combined invocations are found usually at the beginning and at the\nend of the inscriptions--at the beginning for invoking the aid of the\ngods, at the close for invoking their curses upon those who would\nattempt to destroy the ambitious monuments set up by the kings. Often,\nhowever, the narrative is interrupted for the purpose of making\nacknowledgment to a larger or smaller series of gods for victory,\ngranted or hoped for. In these combined references a separate place\nbelongs to the triad, Anu, Bel, and Ea. While not occupying the\nprominent position they have in Babylonian inscriptions, still the kings\noften mention Anu, Bel, and Ea separately, or Anu and Bel alone,\nascribing victory to them, putting them down as the originators of the\ncalendar system, and declaring themselves to have been nominated by them\nto rule over Assyria. Sargon, with his antiquarian zeal, appears to have\nmade an effort to reinstate the triad as a special group in the\npantheon. In general, however, they take their place with other gods. So\nRamman-nirari I. invokes the curse of Ashur, Anu, Bel, Ea, and Ishtar,\ntogether with the Igigi and Anunnaki; but, what is more important,\nalready at an early period the triad disappears altogether from the\npantheon, except for the artificial attempts of Sargon to revive\ninterest in them. In both the longer and shorter lists of gods\nenumerated by the kings from the time of Tiglathpileser, the triad is\nconspicuous for its absence.\n\nAs for the other gods, it is to some extent a matter of caprice which\nones happen to be invoked, though just as frequently we see the motive\nfor selecting certain ones of the pantheon. Thus, when proceeding to\nBabylonia for war or sacrifices, the gods of Babylonia are invoked,\neither Marduk and Nabu alone, as the chief gods, or Bel (_i.e._,\nMarduk), Sarpanitum, Nabu, Tashmitum, Nana, Nergal, with Ashur, or Ashur\nand Marduk, or Marduk and Nabu in combination with Ashur. At other times\nit depends upon the gods to whom certain kings may be especially\nattached, or with whom they may have special dealings in their\ninscriptions. Thus Tiglathpileser I., when speaking of the temple of Anu\nand Ramman, contents himself with invoking these two gods alone at the\nclose of his great inscription. Elsewhere, when referring to the special\ngods of his city, he combines Anu and Ramman with Ishtar; but again, for\nno special reason, his prayer is addressed to Ashur, Shamash, and\nRamman. The pantheon of Ramman-nirari I. consists either of the longer\none above enumerated, or of Anu, Ashur, Shamash, Ramman, and Ishtar. As\nwe proceed down the centuries, the formal lists at the beginning of\ninscriptions have a tendency to grow larger. Ashurnasirbal's pantheon\nconsists of Bel and Nin-ib, Anu and Dagan, Sin, Anu, Ramman, and, of\ncourse, Ashur, though on special occasions, as when speaking of his\nachievements in the chase, he contents himself with a mention of Nin-ib\nand Nergal. He loves, too, to vary the style of his inscriptions by\nnaming various groups of deities in pairs: now Ashur and Shamash, again\nAshur and Nin-ib, or Ashur and Bel; then Shamash and Ramman, or a group\nof three deities, Ashur, Shamash, and Ramman, or Sin, Anu, and Ramman.\nHis successors imitate this example, though each one chooses his own\ncombinations. Shalmaneser II.'s pantheon embraces Ashur, Anu, Bel, Ea,\nSin, Shamash, Nin-ib, Nergal, Nusku, Belit, and Ishtar--eleven in all.\nSargon's practice varies. The best list is furnished by his account of\nthe eight gates of his palace and of two walls, which he names after the\ngods in the following order:[328]\n\n  Shamash, who grants victory.       } As the names for the\n  Ramman, who brings superabundance. } eastern gates.\n  Bel, who lays foundations.         } For the northern gates.\n  Belit, who brings fertility.       }\n  Anu, who blesses handiwork.                     } For the western\n  Ishtar, who causes the inhabitants to flourish. } gates.\n  Ea, who unlocks fountains.                      } For the southern\n                                                  } gates.\n  Belit ilani,[329] who increases the offspring.  }\n  Ashur, who permits the king to grow old, and protects the troops.--For\n  the inner wall.\n  Nin-ib, who lays the foundations of the city.--For the outer wall.\n\nThe order here is dictated by the directions of the gates. Elsewhere he\nsets up the group Ea, Sin, Shamash, Nabu, Ramman, Nin-ib, and their\nconsorts.\n\nSennacherib's fuller group consists of Ashur, Sin, Shamash, Bel (_i.e._,\nMarduk), Nabu, Nergal, Ishtar of Nineveh, and Ishtar of Arbela--only\neight. But at the close of one of his building inscriptions[330] he\ninvokes some twenty deities, adding to these eight, Nusku, Khani, Gaga,\nSherua, Nin-gal, a god Azag-sir, and Nin-ib under three different forms;\nbut it is evident that most of these are added to give effect and\nsolemnity. They do not form part of the active pantheon. His successor,\nEsarhaddon, sets up various groups. At one time he enumerates Ashur,\nSin, Shamash, Nabu, Marduk, Ishtar of Nineveh, Ishtar of Arbela; at\nanother he prefers different combinations of these gods. Ashurbanabal is\nmore consistent than most of the Assyrian rulers, and furnishes at the\nsame time the best list. While he, too, frequently mentions only a few\ndeities, grouping three or four together, his longer series consists,\nwith but one or two exceptions, invariably of the following, and who\nalways occur in the same order: Ashur, Belit, Sin, Shamash, Ramman, Bel\n(_i.e._, Marduk), Nabu, Ishtar of Nineveh, the queen of Kidmuru, Ishtar\nof Arbela, Nin-ib, Nergal, and Nusku--thirteen in all. Of these, as we\nhave seen, only some were actively worshipped at all times in Assyria;\nas for the others, the popularity of their cult varied from age to age,\nnow being actively carried on under the stimulus afforded by the\nerection or improvement of an edifice sacred to the god, and again\nfalling into comparative insignificance; but formally, at least, all\nthese gods were regarded at all times as forming part of the pantheon of\nthe 'great gods.' The testimony of Ashurbanabal thus becomes valuable as\na proof that to the latest days of the Assyrian monarchy, the attachment\nto these gods was still strong enough to merit the formal\nacknowledgments of the king to them on all occasions, and that through\ntheir combined aid the glorious achievements of the past and present\nwere attained.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[328] Cylinder, ll. 67-73.\n\n[329] Ea's consort; see above, p. 231.\n\n[330] Meissner-Rost, _Bauinschriften Sanherib's_, p. 99.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nTHE NEO-BABYLONIAN PERIOD.\n\n\nWhen upon the fall of the Assyrian empire, in 606 B.C., Babylonia\nregained her full measure of independence, Marduk once more obtained\nundisputed sway at the head of the pantheon. True, so far as Babylonia\nwas concerned, Marduk was always the acknowledged head, but during the\nperiod that Assyria held Babylonia in a more or less rigid form of\nsubjection it was inevitable that Ashur should lower the prestige of\nMarduk. When the kings of Assyria paid their respects to Marduk, it was\nalways as second in rank to Ashur; and, what is more, they claimed\nMarduk and the other gods of Babylonia as their own, and as upholders of\ntheir own sovereignty. When the kings feel impelled to invade the\nsouthern districts, they not only claim to be under the protection of\nthe Babylonian gods, but they carry these gods with them into the land\nto be invaded. 'Bel and the gods of Akkad leave Assyria and go to\nBabylonia' is the official term in which a campaign against Babylonia is\ndescribed.[331] In the eyes of the Babylonians such a haughty assumption\non the part of the Assyrians must have been regarded as humiliating to\nMarduk, Nabu, and their associates.\n\nThe state of affairs changed when Nebopolassar at the end of the seventh\ncentury once more claimed independent control over Babylonia. Marduk\ntriumphs over Ashur. He is once more the great god, lord of gods,\nsupreme king of the Igigi, the father of the Anunnaki--all titles that\nthe Assyrians were fond of heaping upon Ashur. One feels the anxiety of\nNebopolassar to emphasize the new order of things by attributing once\nmore to Marduk what was formerly claimed for Ashur. The successor of\nNebopolassar, the great Nebuchadnezzar, continues the policy of his\nfather. He neglects no opportunity for exalting Marduk as the king, the\ncreator, the leader of the gods, the lord of everything, the merciful\none, the light of the gods, the all-wise. Nabu shares the honors with\nMarduk. Nebopolassar, indeed, accords to Nabu an equal share, and he\ndoes not hesitate at times to place the name Nabu before that of\nMarduk.[332] He does not speak of Nabu as the son of Marduk, and seems\nto be at particular pains to emphasize the equality of Nabu with Marduk.\nIn this respect Nebopolassar presents a contrast to Hammurabi, who, it\nwill be recalled, made an attempt to suppress the Nabu cult.[333]\nNebopolassar, however, does not go to the extent of endeavoring to make\nNabu supersede Marduk. He contents himself with manifesting his\npartiality for the former, and it is probably no accident that both his\nofficial name and that of his son contain the god Nabu as one of their\nelements, and not Marduk. One is inclined to suspect that this\npopularity of the Nabu cult is a trace of Assyrian influence. But\nwhatever may have been Nebopolassar's intention in exalting Nabu at the\ncost of Marduk, Nebuchadnezzar restores the old relationship between the\ntwo. For him Nabu is again merely the son of Marduk, and he honors Nabu\nin this capacity. Like the Assyrian Nabu, the god places the sceptre in\nthe king's hands, but he is, after all, only the supreme messenger of\nMarduk. In the closing days of the Babylonian monarchy a more serious\nattempt, it would appear, was made to displace Marduk. Nabonnedos formed\nthe design of replacing both Marduk and Nabu by the cult of Shamash. He\nincurs the ill-will of the priests by paying much more attention to the\nrestoration of the various Shamash temples in Babylonia than would\nappear to be consistent with devotion to Marduk. Cyrus, therefore, in\nhis conquest of Babylonia, sets up the claim of being the savior of\nMarduk's honor.[334]\n\nThe Neo-Babylonian period may properly be designated as a religious age.\nThe rulers, anxious to manifest their gratitude to the gods, and\nprompted in part, no doubt, by the desire to emulate the glorious\narchitectural achievements of the Assyrian monarchs, devote themselves\nassiduously to the improvement of the great temples of the city of\nBabylon, and to the restoration or enlargement of those scattered\nthroughout the country. Nebopolassar sets the example in this respect,\nwhich is considerably improved upon by Nebuchadnezzar. Over forty\ntemples and shrines are mentioned in the latter's inscriptions as having\nbeen improved, enlarged, or restored by him; and the last king of\nBabylonia, Nabonnedos, endeavors to continue this royal policy of\ntemple-building. In this respect the Neo-Babylonian rulers present a\ncontrast to the Assyrian rulers, who were much more concerned in rearing\ngrand edifices for themselves. While the gods were not neglected in\nAssyria, one hears much more of the magnificent palaces erected by the\nkings than of temples and shrines. In fact, as compared with Babylonia,\nAssyria was poor in the number of her temples. The chief sanctuaries to\nwhich the Neo-Babylonian kings devoted themselves were, in the first\ninstance, E-sagila of Babylon and E-zida of Borsippa. Nebopolassar and\nhis successors are fond of giving themselves the title of 'beautifier of\nE-Sagila and E-zida.' In these great temples sacred to Marduk and Nebo,\nthere were shrines to Sarpanitum, Tashmitum, Nusku, Ea and others, which\nalso engaged the energies of the rulers.\n\nAfter Babylon came the old sanctuaries in the ancient religious centers\nof the south,--the temples to Shamash and his consort at Sippar and\nLarsa, the temples to Sin at Ur and Harran, to the old Ishtar or Anunit\nat Agade, to Nana in Erech. Thirdly, the cities of Babylon and Borsippa,\nto which the kings, especially Nebuchadnezzar, are deeply attached, were\nenriched with many sanctuaries more or less imposing, sacred to a\nvariety of deities. So Shamash, Sin, Nin-makh,--_i.e._, the great lady,\nor Ishtar,--Nin-khar-shag, Gula, also appearing as Nin-Karrak,[335] have\ntheir temples in Babylon, while Ramman has one in Borsippa, and Gula no\nless than three sanctuaries--perhaps only small chapels--in Borsippa.\nFourthly, there are sanctuaries of minor importance in other quarters of\nBabylonia. Among these we find mention of the improvement of sanctuaries\nto the local deity of Marad, whom Nebuchadnezzar simply calls\nLugal-Marada, _i.e._, king of Marad, to Bel-sarbi, or Shar-sarbi, in\nBaz,--perhaps a title of Nergal,--to Nin-ib in Dilbat, to Ramman in\nKumari(?).\n\nMost of these sanctuaries are referred to in the inscriptions of\nNebuchadnezzar--a circumstance which, in connection with the many other\ngods whom he invokes on various occasions, points to a great revival of\nancient cults in his days. Some of these cults had never reached any\ndegree of importance prior to his time. Hence it happens that we come\nacross deities in his inscriptions of whom no mention is found\nelsewhere. It is probable that such gods were purely local deities, some\nof them, if not many, being at the same time personifications of the\npowers or phenomena of nature, while others may be familiar gods,\nmasquerading under strange attributes. Unfortunately most of these gods\nare written in ideographic fashion, so that we cannot be certain of the\nreading of their names. Among these are Nin-lil-anna, a goddess called\nby Nebuchadnezzar 'the lady who loves me,'[336] and Tur-lil-en,[337] a\ngod who is described as 'breaking the weapons of enemies.' As for\nBel-sarbi, or Shar-sarbi, the god of Baz,[338] they appear to be titles\nrather than names. Dibbarra, Nergal and his consort Laz, and Zamama are\nalso included in the pantheon of Nebuchadnezzar.\n\nIn regard to none of these deities do we find any conceptions different\nfrom those developed in the period of Hammurabi, any more than in the\nconceptions of those gods who occupy a more prominent place in the\npantheon. Shamash is the judge, Sin is the wise one, Ramman the\nthunderer, and so on throughout the list. It was not a period favorable\nto the production of new religious thought, but only to the more or less\nartificial revival of old cults.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWith the conquest of Babylonia by Cyrus in 539 B.C., we reach the close\nof the period to be embraced in a history of the Babylonian-Assyrian\nreligion. True, the Marduk and Nabu cults were upheld by the Persian\nrulers, and the policy of the latter in not disturbing the religious\nstatus was continued by the Greeks when they in turn succeeded the\nPersians in their control of Babylonia, but the presence of strange\ncivilizations with totally different religious trains of thought was\nbound to affect the character of the old faith, and in time to threaten\nits existence. At all events, it ceases to have any interest for us.\nThere are no further lines of development upon which it enters. The\nperiod of decay, of slow but sure decay, has set in. The cuneiform\nwriting continues to be used till almost the beginning of our era, and\nso the religious cults draw out their existence to a late period; but as\nthe writing and the civilization yield before new forces that entirely\nalter the character of Oriental culture, so also the religion, after\nsinking ever lower into the bogs of superstition, disappears, much as\nthe canals and little streams of the Euphrates valley, through the\nneglect which settled over the country, become lost in the\ndeath-breeding swamps and marshes.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[331] Babylonian Chronicle B, col. iv. ll. 34, 35.\n\n[332] _Zeitschrift fuer Assyriologie_, II. 72, col. i. ll. 2, 3.\n\n[333] See above, p. 127.\n\n[334] See a paper by Tiele, on \"Cyrus and the Babylonian Religion,\" in\nthe _Proceedings of the Amsterdam Academy_, 1896.\n\n[335] For the identity of Nin-Karrak and Gula, see the 'Shurpu'\nIncantation Series, iv. l. 86 (ed. Zimmern), where the former is called\nthe 'great physician,'--the epithet peculiar to Gula.\n\n[336] East India House Inscription, col. iv. l. 44.\n\n[337] VR. 34, col. ii. l. 26, or simply Tur-lil (East India House\nInscription, col. iv. l. 49, not Tur-e, as Winckler, _Keils Bibl._ 3, 2,\n18, reads).\n\n[338] _I.e._, king or lord of Sarbi. Pognon (_Les Inscriptions\nBabyloniennes de Wadl Brissa_), p. 46, is of the opinion that _sarbi_ is\nthe palm, but he fails to bring sufficient proof, and his theory is\nimprobable. The stem _sarabu_ means to burn, and the \"fiery lord\" is\ncertainly an epithet belonging to some solar deity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nTHE RELIGIOUS LITERATURE OF BABYLONIA.\n\n\nThe pantheon of a religion presents us with the external phases of the\nreligion in question. In order to penetrate further towards the core of\nthe religion, and to see it at its best, the religious thought as\nmanifested in the national literature constitutes our most valuable\nguide. The beginnings of Babylonian literature are enveloped in\nobscurity. We have seen that we are justified in passing beyond the\nperiod of Hammurabi[339] for these beginnings, but exactly when and\nprecisely how the literary spirit first manifested itself in Babylonia\nwill probably remain for a long time, if not for always, a matter of\nconjecture. The great political and religious centers of Babylonia, such\nas Ur, Sippar, Agade, Eridu, Nippur, Uruk, perhaps also Lagash, and\nlater on Babylon, formed the foci of literary activity, as they were the\nstarting-points of commercial enterprise. This intimate connection of\nreligion with literature left its impress upon all branches into which\nthe Babylonian literature was in the course of time differentiated. In a\ncertain sense all the literature of Babylonia is religious. Even the\nlegal formulas, as embodied in the so-called contract tablets, have a\nreligious tinge. The priests being the scribes, a contract of any kind\nbetween two or more parties was a religious compact. The oath which\naccompanied the compact involved an invocation of the gods. The decree\nof the judges in a disputed suit was confirmed by an appeal to the gods.\nThe terms in which the parties bound themselves consisted largely of\nreligious phrases, and finally the dating of the tablet often contained\na reference to some religious festival or to some event of religious\nimport--such as the building of a sanctuary. Science, so far as it\nexisted in Babylonia, never loosened the leading-strings that bound it\nto the prevailing religious thought. The observation of the stars was\ncarried on under the belief of the supposed influence exerted by the\nheavenly bodies upon the fate of man; and surprising as we find the\ndevelopment of astronomical calculations and forecasts to be,\nmathematics does not pass beyond the limits of astrology. Medicine was\nlikewise the concern of the priests. Disease was a divine infliction\nsupposed to be due to the direct presence in the body, or to the hidden\ninfluence, of some pernicious spirit. The cure was effected by the\nexorcising of the troublesome spirit through prescribed formulas of\nsupposed power, accompanied by symbolical acts. There is indeed no\nbranch of human knowledge which so persistently retains its connection\nwith religious beliefs among all peoples of antiquity as the one which\nto-day is regarded as resting solely upon a materialistic basis. As a\nconsequence the Babylonians, although they made some progress in\nmedicinal methods, and more especially in medical diagnosis, never\ndissociated medicinal remedies from the appeal to the gods. The recital\nof formulas was supposed to secure by their magic force the\neffectiveness of the medical potions that were offered to the sufferer.\n\nAs for the historical texts, the preceding chapters have illustrated how\nfull they are of religious allusions, how at every turn we meet with the\ninfluence exerted by the priests as the composers of these texts. Almost\nall occurrences are given a religious coloring. That these texts furnish\nus with such valuable material, and such a quantity of it, is indeed to\nbe traced directly to the fact that the historical literature is also\nthe direct production of the religious leaders and guides of the people,\nacting at the command of rulers, who were desirous of emphasizing their\ndependence upon the gods of the country, and who made this dependence\nthe basis of the authority they exerted.\n\nSuch being the general aspect of Babylonian literature, it is not always\npossible to draw a sharp line separating religious productions from such\nas may properly be termed secular. For example, the zodiacal system of\nthe Babylonians, which we shall have occasion to discuss, although\npresenting a scientific aspect, is in reality an outcome of the\nreligious thought; and so at other points it is necessary to pass over\ninto the region of secular thought for illustrations of the religious\nbeliefs. Bearing this in mind, we may set up a fivefold division of the\nreligious literature of the Babylonians in the stricter sense: (1) the\nmagical texts, (2) the hymns and prayers, (3) omens and forecasts, (4)\nthe cosmology, (5) epics and legends. It will be apparent that the first\nthree divisions represent a practical part of the literature, while the\ntwo latter are of a more purely literary character. The magical texts,\nas well as the hymns and prayers and omens, we can well imagine were\nproduced as circumstances called them forth, and one can also understand\nhow they should, at an early age, have been committed to writing. The\nincantations serving the practical purpose already referred to of\nsecuring a control over the spirit, it will be readily seen that such as\nhad demonstrated their effectiveness would become popular. The desire\nwould arise to preserve them for future generations. With that natural\ntendency of loose custom to become fixed law, these incantations would\ncome to be permanently associated with certain temples. Rituals would\nthus arise. The incantation would be committed to writing so that one\ngeneration of priests might be certain of furnishing orthodox\ninstruction to the other; and, once written, they would form part of the\ntemple archives, finding a place in these archives by the side of the\ncontract tablets, for which the sacred edifices of the country also\nserved as depositories. The large quantity of incantation texts that\nhave been found in Ashurbanabal's library,[340] as well as the\nvariations and contrasts they present when compared with one another,\nare probably due to the various sources whence the scribes of the king,\nwho were sent to the libraries of the south, collected their material.\nIt is only reasonable to suppose that each great temple acquired in the\ncourse of time a ritual of its own, which, while perhaps not differing\nin any essential points from that introduced in another place, yet\ndeviated from it sufficiently to impart to it a character of its own. In\nthe case of some of the texts that have been preserved, it is still\npossible to determine through certain traits that they exhibit in what\nreligious center they were produced. With considerable more guarantee of\naccuracy can this be done in the case of the hymns and prayers.\nAddressed as the latter were to certain deities, it stands to reason\nthat they were written for use in the temples sacred to those deities,\nor, if not to be used, at least composed in honor of certain sanctuaries\nthat contained the images of the deities thus exalted. Again, in the\nhistorical inscriptions of the Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods,\nprayers are introduced, and we are as a general thing expressly told on\nwhat occasion they were composed and in what sanctuary they were\nuttered. We may therefore conclude that those which have been preserved\nindependently also served a practical purpose, and were written, not\nmerely for certain occasions, but for certain places. The practical\npurpose served by texts containing omens and forecasts derived from the\nobservation of the planets and stars, from monstrosities--human and\nanimal--from strange occurrences, accidents, and the like, is too\nobvious to require demonstration. But while duly emphasizing the\npractical purpose that gave rise to the incantation texts, the hymns,\nthe prayers and omens, we must be careful not to press this point too\nfar. The rituals of the various temples once being fixed, the impulse to\nliterary composition would still go on in an age marked by intellectual\nactivity. The practical purpose would be followed by the pure love of\ncomposition. The attachment to certain sanctuaries or certain deities\nwould inspire earnest and gifted priests to further efforts.\nAccordingly, while we cannot be certain that among the actual remains of\nmagical texts and hymns we may not have specimens that belong to this\nclass, there is no reason to question that such must have been produced.\nThe guarantee for this hypothesis is furnished by the compositions that\nreflect the cosmological beliefs, the epics and legends that form the\nsecond half of the religious productions of Babylonia.\n\nSpeculation regarding the origin of the universe belongs to an early\nperiod in the development of culture. There are few people, however\nprimitive their culture, who are not attracted by the spirit of\ncuriosity to seek for some solution of the mysteries which they daily\nwitness; but the systematization of these speculations does not take\nplace until a body of men arises among a people capable of giving to the\npopular fancies a logical sequence, or the approach at least to a\nrational interpretation. This process, which resulted in producing in\nBabylonia compositions that unfold a system of creation, is one of long\nduration. It proceeds under the influence of the intellectual movements\nthat manifest themselves from time to time with the attendant result\nthat, as the conceptions become more definite and more elaborate, they\nreflect more accurately the aspirations of the various generations\nengaged in bringing these conceptions to their final form. When finally\nthese beliefs and speculations are committed to writing, it is done in\npart for the purpose of assuring them a greater degree of permanence,\nand in part to establish more definitely the doctrines developed in the\nschools--to define, as it were, the norm of theological and\nphilosophical thought.\n\nIn examining, therefore, the cosmological speculations of the\nBabylonians as they appear in the literary productions, we must\ncarefully distinguish between those portions which are the productions\nof popular fancy, and therefore old, and those parts which give evidence\nof having been worked out in the schools. In a general way, also, we\nmust distinguish between the contents and the form given to the\nspeculations in question. We shall see in due time that a certain amount\nof historical tradition, however dimmed, has entered into the views\nevolved in Babylonia regarding the origin of things, inasmuch as the\nscience of origins included for the Babylonians the beginning, not\nmerely of gods, men, animals, and plants, but also of cities and of\ncivilization in general. Still more pronounced is the historical spirit\nin the case of the epics and legends that here, as everywhere else, grew\nto even larger proportions, and were modified even after they were\nfinally committed to writing. The great heroes of the past do not perish\nfrom the memory of a people, nor does the recollection of great events\nentirely pass away. In proportion as the traditions of the past become\ndimmed, the more easily do they lend themselves to a blending with\npopular myths regarding the phenomena of nature. To this material\npopularly produced, a literary shape would be given through the same\nmedium that remodeled the popular cosmological speculations. The task\nwould have a more purely literary aspect than that of systematizing the\ncurrent views regarding the origin and order of things, since it would\nbe free from any doctrinal tendency. The chief motive that would prompt\nthe _literati_ to thus collect the stories of favorite heroes and the\ntraditions and the legends of the past would be--in addition, perhaps,\nto the pure pleasure of composition--the desire to preserve the stories\nfor future generations, while a minor factor that may have entered into\nconsideration would be the pedagogical one of adding to the material for\nstudy that might engage the attention and thoughts of the young\naspirants to sacred and secular lore. While the ultimate aim of learning\nin Babylonia remained for all times a practical one, namely, the ability\nto act as a scribe or to serve in the cult, to render judicial decisions\nor to observe the movements of the stars, to interpret the signs of\nnature and the like, it was inevitable that through the intellectual\nactivity thus evoked there would arise a spirit of a love of learning\nfor learning's sake, and at all events a fondness for literary pursuits\nindependent of any purely practical purposes served by such pursuits.\n\nIn this way we may account for the rise of the several divisions of the\nreligious literature of Babylonia. Before turning to a detailed\nexposition of each of these divisions, it only remains to emphasize the\nminor part taken in all these literary labors by the Assyrians. The\ntraditions embodied in the cosmological productions, the epics and\nlegends of Babylonia, are no doubt as much the property of the Assyrians\nas of their southern cousins, just as the conceptions underlying the\nincantation texts and the hymns and prayers and omens, though produced\nin the south, are on the whole identical with those current in the\nnorth. Whatever differences we have discovered between the phases of the\nBabylonian-Assyrian religion, as manifested in the north and in the\nsouth, are not of a character to affect the questions and views involved\nin the religious literature. The stamp given to the literary products in\nthis field, taken as a whole, is distinctly Babylonian. It is the spirit\nof the south that breathes through almost all the religious texts that\nhave as yet been discovered. Only in some of the prayers and oracles and\nomens that are inserted in the historical inscriptions of Assyrian\nkings, or have been transmitted independently, do we recognize the work\nof Assyrian _literati_, imbued with a spirit peculiar to Assyria.\nPerhaps, too, in the final shape given to the tales connected with the\ncreation of the gods and of men we may detect an Assyrian influence on\nBabylonian thought, some concession made at a period of Assyrian\nsupremacy to certain religious conceptions peculiar to the north. But\nsuch influences are of an indirect character, and we may accept the\nstatement of Ashurbanabal as literally true that the literature\ncollected by him is a copy of what was found in the great literary\narchives of the south--and not only found, but produced there. In\nimitation of the example set by the south, schools were of a certainty\nestablished in Nineveh, Arbela, and elsewhere for the education of\npriests, scribes, and judges; but we have no evidence to show that they\never developed to the point of becoming intellectually independent of\nBabylonian _models_, except perhaps in minor particulars that need not\nenter into our calculations. This relationship between the intellectual\nlife of Babylonia and Assyria finds its illustration and proof, not\nmerely in the religious literature, but in the religious art and cult\nwhich, as we shall see, like the literature, bear the distinct impress\nof their southern origin, though modified in passing from the south to\nthe north.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[339] See above, pp. 72, 114, 133 _seq._\n\n[340] See pp. 12-14.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nTHE MAGICAL TEXTS.\n\n\nTurning to the first subdivision of Babylonian religious literature, we\nfind remains sufficient to justify us in concluding that there must have\nbeen produced a vast number of texts containing formulas and directions\nfor securing a control over the spirits which were supposed at all times\nto be able to exercise a certain amount of power over men. By virtue of\nthe aim served by these productions we may group them under the head of\nmagical texts, or incantations. We have already indicated the manner in\nwhich these incantations grew into more or less rigid temple rituals.\nThis growth accounts for the fact that the incantations generally framed\nin by ceremonial directions, prayers, and reflections, were combined\ninto a continuous series (or volume, as we would say) of varying length,\ncovering nine, ten, a dozen, twenty tablets or more. It has been\ngenerally assumed that these incantation texts constitute the oldest\ndivision of the religious literature of the Babylonians. The assertion\nin an unqualified form is hardly accurate, for the incantation texts,\nsuch as they lie before us, give evidence of having been submitted to\nthe influences of an age much later than the one in which their\nsubstance was produced. Conceptions have been carried into them that\nwere originally absent, and a form given to them that obliges us to\ndistinguish between the underlying concepts, and the manner in which\nthese concepts have been combined with views that reflect a later and,\nin many respects, a more advanced period. The incantation texts are\ncertainly no older than texts furnishing omens. Some of the incantation\ntexts indeed may not be any older than portions of the creation epic,\nand in the latter, as in other parts of the religious literature, there\nare elements as ancient and as primitive as anything to be found in the\nomens or incantations. So much, however, is true, that the incantations\nrepresent the earliest ritual proper to the Babylonian cult, and that\nthe conceptions underlying this ritual are the emanation of popular\nthought, or, if you choose, of popular fancy of a most primitive\ncharacter. It is also true that, on the whole, the incantation texts\nretain more traces of primitive popular thought than other divisions of\nthe religious literature with the exception of the omens. The remodeling\nto which they were subjected did not destroy their original character to\nthe extent that might have been expected--a circumstance due in the\nfirst instance to the persistency of the beliefs that called these texts\nforth.\n\nMany of the texts containing incantations were found by the modern\nexplorers in so mutilated a condition, that one can hardly hazard any\ngeneralizations as to the system followed in putting the incantations\ntogether. From the fact, however, that in so many instances the\nincantations form a series of longer or shorter extent, we may, for the\npresent at least, conclude that the serial form was the method generally\nfollowed; and at all events, if not the general method, certainly a\nfavorite one. Deviating from the ordinary custom of calling the series\naccording to the opening line of the first tablet, the incantation texts\nwere given a distinct title, which was either descriptive or chosen with\nreference to their general contents. So one series which covered at\nleast sixteen tablets was known by the very natural name of the 'evil\ndemon'; the incantations that it contained being intended as a\nprotection against various classes of demons. Another is known as the\nseries of 'head sickness,' and which deals, though not exclusively, with\nvarious forms of derangements having their seat in the brain. It covered\nno less than nine tablets. Two others bear names that are almost\nsynonymous,--\"Shurpu\" and \"Maklu,\" both signifying 'burning,' and so\ncalled from the chief topic dealt with in them, the burning of images of\nthe sorcerers, and the incantations to be recited in connection with\nthis symbolical act. The \"Maklu\" series embraced eight tablets and\ncontained, according to Tallqvist's calculations,[341] originally about\n1,550 lines, or upwards of 9,000 words. The \"Shurpu\" series, although\nembracing nine tablets, appears to have been somewhat shorter. In view\nof the extensive character of these series we are justified in speaking\nof incantation 'rituals.' The texts were evidently prepared with a\npractical purpose in view. The efficacy of certain formulas having been\ndemonstrated, it was obviously of importance that their exact form\nshould be preserved for future reference. But a given formula was\neffective only for a given case, or at most for certain correlated\ncases, and accordingly it became necessary to collect as many formulas\nas possible to cover all emergencies. The priests, acting as exorcisers,\nwould be the ones interested in making such collections, and we may\nassume, as already suggested, that each temple would develop a\ncollection of its own,--an incantation code that served as a guide for\nits priests. The natural tendency would be for these codes to increase\nfrom generation to generation, perhaps not rapidly, but steadily. New\ncases not as yet provided for would arise, and new formulas with new\ninstructions would be produced; or the exorcisers at a certain temple\nwould learn of remedies tried elsewhere, and would embody them in their\nown special code. In short, the growth of these incantation 'rituals'\nwas probably similar to the manner in which, on the basis of actual\npractice, religious codes grew up around the sanctuaries of ancient\nIsrael,--a process that terminated in the production of the various\ncodes and rituals constituting the legal documents embodied in the\nPentateuch.\n\nThe prominence given to Ea and to his favorite seat, the city of Eridu,\nin the incantations suggests the theory that many of our texts are to be\nultimately traced to the temple of Ea, that once stood at Eridu. In that\ncase an additional proof would be furnished of the great antiquity of\nthe use of incantations in Babylonia. We must sharply distinguish\nhowever, as already emphasized, between the origin and the present form\nof the rituals. Again, those parts of a ritual in which Gibil, or Nusku,\nappears prominently would most naturally be produced by priests\nconnected with a temple sacred to the one or the other of these gods.\nThe practice of incantation, however, being common to all parts of\nBabylonia, we can hardly suppose that any temple should have existed\nwhich did not have its exorcising formulas. In the combination of these\nformulas into a ritual, due consideration would naturally be had to the\nspecial gods invoked, the obvious result of which would be to produce\nthe long lists of deities that are often embodied in a single\nincantation. The details of this process can of course no longer be\ndiscerned, but the inevitable tendency would be towards increasing\ncomplications. The effort would be made to collect everything, and from\nall known quarters. Hence the heterogeneous elements to be detected in\nthe texts, and which, while adding to their interest, also increase the\ndifficulty of their interpretation. In consequence of the presence of\nsuch heterogeneous elements, it is difficult to determine within an\nincantation series any guiding principles that prompted the collectors.\nStill we can often distinguish large groups in a series that belong\ntogether. So we have whole series of addresses to the fire-god ending\nwith incantations, and again a series of descriptions of the group of\nseven spirits serving a similar purpose as introductions to\nincantations, but we cannot see on what grounds the transition from one\nsubject to the other takes place. Indeed the transitions are generally\nmarked by their abruptness.\n\nThe only legitimate inference is that the main purpose of the collectors\nof incantation texts was to exhaust the subject so far as lay in their\npower. They included in their codes as much as possible. The exorciser\nwould have no difficulty in threading his way through the complicated\nmass. He would select the division appropriate to the case before him\nwithout much concern of what preceded or followed in the text. Moreover,\nthese divisions in the texts were clearly marked by dividing lines,\nstill to be seen on the clay tablets. These divisions correspond so\ncompletely to divisions in the subject-matter that the purely practical\npurpose they served can hardly be called into question, while at the\nsame time they furnish additional proof for the compiled character of\nthe texts.\n\nAs for the date of the composition of the texts, the union of the\nBabylonian states under Hammurabi, with its necessary result, the\nsupremacy of Marduk, that finds its reflection in the texts, furnishes\nus with a terminus _a quo_ beyond which we need not proceed for _final_\nediting. On the other hand, there are indications in the language which\nwarrant us in not passing below 2000 B.C. as the period when many of the\nincantation texts received their present form, and the editions were\ncompleted from which many centuries afterwards the Assyrian scribes\nprepared their copies for their royal masters.\n\nThere is, of course, no reason for assuming that all our texts should be\nof one age, or that the copying and, in part, the editing should not\nhave gone on continually. Necessity for further copies would arise with\nthe steady growth of the temples. Priests would be engaged in making\ncopies for themselves, either for their edification as a pious work, or\nfor real use; and accordingly, in fixing upon any date for the texts,\none can hardly do more than assign certain broad limits within which the\ntexts, so far as their present contents are concerned, may have been\ncompleted. The _copies_ themselves may of course belong to a much later\nperiod without, for that reason, being more recent productions.\n\nAttention must also be directed to the so-called 'bilingual' form, in\nwhich many of the incantation texts are edited; each line being first\nwritten in the ideographic style, and then followed by a transliteration\ninto the phonetic style.[342] The use of the ideographic style is a\nsurvival of the ancient period when all texts were written in this\nmanner, and the conservatism attaching to all things religious accounts\nfor the continuation of the ideographic style in the religious rituals\ndown to the latest period, beyond the time when even according to those\nwho see in the ideographic style a language distinct from Babylonian,\nthis supposed non-Semitic tongue was no longer spoken by the people, and\nmerely artificially maintained, like the Latin of the Middle Ages. The\nfrequent lack of correspondence in minor points between the ideographic\nstyle and the phonetic transliteration shows that the latter was\nintended merely as a version, as a guide and aid to the understanding of\nthe 'conservative' method of writing. It was not necessary for a\ntransliteration to be accurate, whereas, in the case of a translation,\nthe greatest care would naturally be taken to preserve the original\nsacred text with all nicety and accuracy, since upon accuracy and nicety\nthe whole efficacy of the formulas rested. The redaction of the\nincantation texts in the double style must not be regarded as a\nnecessary indication of high antiquity, but only as a proof that the\noldest incantation texts were written in the ideographic style, and that\nfor this reason the custom was continued down to the latest period. On\nthe other hand, the addition of the transliteration points to a period\nwhen the old style could no longer be read by the priests with facility\nwithout some guide, and incidentally proves again that the texts have\ngone through an editing process. But in the course of time, additions to\nthe ritual were made, written in the phonetic style; and then it would\nhappen, as a concession to religious conservatism, that the text would\nbe translated back into the ideographic form. We would then have a\n\"bilingual\" text, consisting of Babylonian and an artificial\n\"Sumero-Akkadian.\" That incantations were also composed in pure\nBabylonian without reference to any \"Sumero-Akkadian\" original is\nconclusively shown by the metrical traits frequently introduced. Many of\nthe sections--by no means all--can be divided into regular stanzas of\nfour, six, or eight lines, and frequently to the stanza is added a line\nwhich forms what Professor D. H. Mueller[343] calls the \"response.\" The\nsame metrical traits being found in other parts of the Babylonian\nliterature,--so, _e.g._, in the creation epic,--their occurrence in the\nincantation texts is of course not accidental. When, therefore, we come\nacross a ritual as the \"Maklu\" series, written exclusively in the\nphonetic style, and giving evidence of being in part a metrical\ncomposition, we are justified in assuming this to have been the original\nform. Again, in the case of another series,--the \"Shurpu,\" in part\nBabylonian, in part bilingual,[344]--since the Babylonian section shows\nthe metrical form, it is likely that the ideographic style represents a\ntransliteration of a phonetic, or pure Babylonian, original.\n\nThe chief value of the incantation texts lies, naturally, in the insight\nthey afford into the popular beliefs. As among other nations, so among\nthe Babylonians, the use of certain formulas to secure release from\nills, pains, and evils of any kind, either actual or portending, rests\nupon the theory that the accidents and misfortunes to which man is heir\nare due largely to the influence of more or less powerful spirits or\ndemons, acting independently or at the command of higher powers,--the\ngods.\n\nThrough the incantation rituals we are enabled to specify the traits\npopularly ascribed to these demons and the means employed to rid oneself\nof their baneful grasp.\n\n\nDemons.\n\nThe demons were of various kinds and of various grades of power. The\nnames of many of them, as _utukku_, _shedu_, _alu_, _gallu_, point to\n'strength' and 'greatness' as their main attribute; other names, as\n_lilu_, 'night-spirit,' and the feminine form _lilitu_, are indicative\nof the moment chosen by them for their work; while again, names like\n_ekimmu_, the 'seizer,' _akhkhazu_, the 'capturer,' _rabisu_, 'the one\nthat lies in wait,' _labartu_, 'the oppressor,' and _labasu_, 'the\noverthrower,' show the aim that the demons have in view. Putting these\nnames together, we may form a general idea of the conceptions connected\nwith the demons. They lurk in hidden or remote places, in graves, in the\nshadow of ruins, on the tops of mountains, in the wilderness. Their\nfavorite time of activity is at dead of night. They glide noiselessly\nlike serpents, entering houses through holes and crevices. They are\npowerful, but their power is directed solely towards evil. They take\nfirm hold of their victims and torture them mercilessly.\n\nTo these demons all manner of evil is ascribed. Their presence was felt\nin the destructive winds that swept the land. The pestilent fevers that\nrise out of the marshes of the Euphrates valley and the diseases bred by\nthe humid heat of summer were alike traced to demons lurking in the\nsoil. Some of these diseases, moreover, were personified, as _Namtar_,\nthe demon of 'plague,' and _Ashakku_, the demon of 'wasting disease.'\nBut the petty annoyances that disturb the peace of man--a sudden fall,\nan unlucky word, a headache, petty quarrels, and the like--were also due\nto the instigation of the demons; while insanity and the stirring up of\nthe passions--love, hatred, and jealousy--were in a special sense\nindicative of the presence and power of the demons. Men and women stood\nin constant danger of them. Even the animals were not safe from their\nattacks. They drive the birds out of their nests, strike down lambs and\nbulls. It was impossible to forestall their attacks. They enter a man's\ndwelling, they wander through the streets, they make their way into food\nand drink. There is no place, however small, which they cannot invade,\nand none, however large, that they cannot fill. In a text which\nfurnishes the sacred formulas by means of which one can get rid of the\ndemoniac influence, a description is given of the demons which may serve\nas an illustration of what has just been said. The incantation is\ndirected against a variety of the demons:[345]\n\n  The _utukku_[346] of the field and the _utukku_ of the mountain,\n  The _utukku_ of the sea and the one that lurks in graves,\n  The evil _shedu_, the shining _alu_.\n  The evil wind, the terrible wind,\n  That sets one's hair on end.\n\nAgainst these the spirits of heaven and earth are invoked. The text\nproceeds:\n\n  The _utukku_ that seizes hold of a man,\n  The _ekimmu_ that seizes hold of a man,\n  The _ekimmu_ that works evil,\n  The _utukku_ that works evil.\n\nAnd after invoking against these demons, likewise, the spirits of heaven\nand earth, the text passes on to an enumeration of a long list of\nphysical ills: sickness of the entrails, of the heart, of the head, of\nthe stomach, of the kidneys, of the limbs and muscles, of the skin, and\nof the senses, which are all ascribed to the influence of the demons.\n\nApart from the demons that are naught but the personification of certain\ndiseases, it does not appear that the demons were limited in their power\nto one specific kind of action. In other words, sharp distinctions\nbetween the demons do not appear to have been drawn. As appears from the\nextracts above translated, the _utukku_, _shedu_, _alu_, and _ekimmu_\nwere grouped together, and hardly regarded as anything more than\ndescriptive epithets of a general class of demons. At the same time it\nappears likely that at one time they were differentiated with a greater\ndegree of preciseness. So the _ekimmu_ appears to be the shadowy demon\nthat hovers around graves, a species of ghost or vampire that attacks\npeople in the dead of night and lays them prostrate. _Lilu_ and _lilitu_\nare the spirits that flit by in the night. Of a specific character\nlikewise are the conceptions connected with a demon known as _ardat\nlili_, 'maid of the night,' a strange female 'will-o'-the-wisp,' who\napproaches men, arouses their passions, but does not permit a\nsatisfaction of them. Great importance being attached by the Babylonians\nto dreams, the belief in a 'maid of the night' was probably due to the\nunchecked play of the imagination during the hours of sleep. Bad dreams\ncame at the instigation of the demons, and such a demon as the _rabisu_\nor the _labartu_ appears to have been especially associated with the\nhorrible sensations aroused by a 'nightmare.'[347] Again the _utukku_ is\nrepresented at times as attacking the neck of man; the _gallu_ attacks\nthe hand, the _ekimmu_ the loins, the _alu_ the breast. But these\ndistinctions count for little in the texts. _Utukku_ becomes a general\nname for demon, and _gallu_, _alu_, and _shedu_ are either used\nsynonymously with _utukku_ or thrown together with the latter in a\nmanner that clearly shows the general identity of the conceptions\nultimately connected with them. The same is the case with the _rabisu_\nand _gallu_, with the _labartu_, _akhkhazu_, and _ekimmu_.\n\nThe demons were always given some shape, animal or human, for it was a\nnecessary corollary of the stage of religious thought to which the\nbelief in demons belongs, that the demon must not only be somewhere,\nthough invisible to mankind, but also _in_ something that manifests\nlife. Among animals, those calculated to inspire terror by their\nmysterious movements were chosen, as serpents appearing and disappearing\nwith startling suddenness, or ugly scorpions, against whom it was\ndifficult to protect oneself, or the fabulous monsters with which graves\nand pestiferous spots were peopled. Regions difficult of access--the\ndesert, the deep waters, the high mountains--were the favorite haunts of\nthe demons. Some of these demons were frequently pictured in the\nboundary stones between fields, in order to emphasize the curses hurled\nupon the head of him who should trespass on the lawful rights of the\nowner of the land.[348] It is to such demons embodied in living form\nthat epithets such as the 'seizer,' the 'one that lurks,' and the like\napply with peculiar aptness. In a tablet belonging to a long series of\nincantations,[349] we find references to various animals--the serpent,\nthe scorpion, monsters--that are regarded as the embodiment of demons.\n\nIn the distinctively religious art, the evil spirits are often pictured\nas ugly monsters that were to inspire terror by their very aspect.\nDepicted on the monuments, singly or in groups,[350] the shape of wild\nanimals was given to the head, while the remainder of the body was\nsuggestive of a human form. With gaping mouths and armed with some\nweapon, they stand ready to make an attack. The Assyrian kings, up to\nthe latest period, acknowledged the power of the demons by making huge\nrepresentations of them, which they placed at the approaches, entrances,\nand divisions of their temples and palaces, in the hope of thus securing\ntheir protection. The great bulls and lions with human heads--so\nfamiliar to every one--are but another form of the same idea. These\ncolossal statues were actually known by the name _shedu_, which we have\nseen is one of the general terms for 'demon.' But as a general thing,\nthis personal phase of the demon's existence is lost sight of. Even\nthough embodied in animal form, the demons could make themselves\ninvisible to man; and since most of their actions were performed in\nsecret, so that people were totally at their mercy, the differentiation\nof the demons became a factor of minor importance. With so large a\nquantity of demons at command, it was difficult to hit upon the one who\nwas manifesting himself by some evil at any given moment. Accordingly,\ninstead of a single mention, a number or a group were enumerated, and\nthe magic formulas pronounced against them in concert. We have one such\ngroup of seven to whom quite a number of references are found in the\nincantation texts. A section in one of these texts gives a vivid\ndescription of them:[351]\n\n  Seven are they, they are seven,\n  In the subterranean deep, they are seven,\n  Perched (?) in the sky, they are seven,\n  In a section of the subterranean deep they were reared,\n  They are neither male nor are they female,\n  They are destructive whirlwinds,\n  They have no wife, nor do they beget offspring.\n  Compassion and mercy they do not know,\n  Prayer and supplication they do not hear,\n  Horses bred on the mountains, are they\n  Hostile to Ea[352] are they,\n  Powerful ones among the gods are they.\n  To work mischief in the street they settle themselves in the highway.\n  Evil are they, they are evil,\n  Seven are they, they are seven, seven, and again seven[353] are they.\n\nThese seven spirits, who are elsewhere compared to various animals, have\npower even to bewitch the gods. The eclipse of the moon was attributed\nto their baneful influence. The number seven is probably not to be taken\nliterally. As among so many nations,[354] seven had a sacred\nsignificance for the Babylonians; but largely, if not solely, for the\nreason, as I venture to think, because seven was a large number. In the\nOld Testament seven is similarly used to designate a large number. A\ngroup of seven spirits, accordingly, meant no more than a miscellaneous\nmass of spirits, and we may therefore regard this 'song of the seven' as\na general characterization of the demons who, according to this view,\nappear to move together in groups rather than singly. Elsewhere[355] we\nare told of this same group of spirits 'that they were begotten in the\nmountain of sunset,' _i.e._, in the west, 'and were reared in the\nmountain of sunrise,' _i.e._, the east; 'that they dwell in the hollow\nof the earth, and that they are proclaimed on the mountain tops.'\nEvidently a description of this kind is intended to emphasize the\nuniversal presence of the spirits. There is no place where they are not\nfound; and when we are furthermore told (apparently in contradiction to\nwhat has just been said) 'that neither in heaven nor earth is their name\npronounced (_i.e._, are they known to be), that among the gods of the\nearth (_i.e._, the pantheon) they are not recognized, that neither in\nheaven nor earth do they exist,' this is but the reverse of the picture\nintended to illustrate the capability of the spirits to disappear\nwithout leaving any trace of their presence. They are everywhere and yet\ninvisible. They come and they go, and no one knows their place. Nothing\nis proof against their approach. Of all the demons it is true, as of\nthis group, that they slip through bolts and doorposts and sockets,\ngliding, as we are told, 'like snakes.' Such are the demons against whom\nman must seek to protect himself.\n\nThe relationship of the demons or spirits to the gods of the pantheon\nhas been touched upon in a previous chapter.[356] It is sufficient here\nto emphasize the fact that the dividing line between the two becomes at\ntimes exceedingly faint. A deity, we have seen, is a spirit writ large;\nbut often the demon assumes dimensions and is clothed with power that\nmakes him 'little short of divine.' Strength is the attribute of the\ndemons as it is the chief feature of the gods. Both classes of powers\ninfluence man's career. The names of the demons are preceded by the same\ndeterminative that is used for the gods. As a matter of fact, many of\nthe spirits were originally worshipped as local deities in some\nrestricted territory, which, losing its importance, bequeaths the name\nof its protective genius to posterity. In the realm of religious belief,\nas in the domain of nature, absolute loss of something that once had\nexistence does not take place. Something remains. Hundreds of old local\ngods of Babylonia thus survived in the literature as spirits or demons.\nThe tendency towards making a selection out of the great mass of gods\ngoes hand in hand with the multiplication of spirits that might, as\noccasion presented itself, be invoked. In general, the larger affairs of\nlife were consigned into the hands of the gods; the petty\nannoyances--accidents, pains, ill luck, and the like--were put down to\nthe account of the spirits. The gods were, on the whole, favorably\ndisposed towards man. They were angry at times, they sent punishments,\nbut they could be appeased. The spirits were, on the whole, hostile; and\nalthough the Babylonians also invoked favorable and kind spirits, when a\nspirit was hostile there was only one method of ridding oneself of the\npernicious influence,--to drive it out by means of formulas, and with\nthe help of a priest acting as exorciser.\n\n\nSorcerers and Sorceresses.\n\nA widespread and apparently very ancient belief among the Babylonians\nand Assyrians was that certain human beings possessed demoniac power,\nand could exercise it for evil purposes over whomsoever they pleased.\nThis belief may have originated in the abnormal appearance presented by\ncertain individuals in consequence of physical deformities or\npeculiarities. The uncanny impression made by dwarfs, persons with\nmisshapen limbs, with a strange look in their eyes, and, above all, the\ninsane would give rise to the view that some people, for the very reason\nof their variation from the normal type, possessed peculiar powers. But\nby the side of such as were distinguished by bodily defects, those who\noutranked their fellows by virtue of their prowess or of natural gifts,\nby keenness of intellect or cunning, would also be supposed to have\nreceived their power through some demoniac source. With the giant and\nthe artificer there would thus be associated ideas of sorcery and\nwitchcraft, as with dwarfs, the deformed, and insane. The sorcerers\nmight be either male or female, but, for reasons which are hard to\nfathom, the preference was given to females. Accordingly, it happens\nthat among the Babylonians, as in the Middle Ages, the witch appears\nmore frequently than the male sorcerer. The witches have all the powers\nof the demons, and in the incantation texts the two are often thrown\ntogether. Just as the demons, so the witches take away the breath of\nman, defile his food and drink, or close up his mouth. They are able to\npenetrate into the body of men, and thus produce similar physical and\nmental disturbances as the animalic demons. In view of this close\nrelationship between witches and demons, we are justified in regarding\nthe two as varying aspects of one and the same belief. The witch appears\nto be merely the person through whom the hitherto 'invisible' demon has\nchosen to manifest itself. From being identical in character with the\ndemons, the witches reached a stage which made them superior to the\nformer. They could not only do everything that the demons did, but they\ncould also control the latter, whereas the demons had no power over\nwitches. Witches could invoke the demons at their will and bring such\npersons as they chose within the demons' power. Various means were at\ntheir disposal for bringing this about. The glance of a witch's 'evil\neye' was supposed to have great power.[357] Terrible were the sufferings\nof the one on whom a witch threw the glance that kept the person under\nher spell. The 'evil word,' as it was called, and by which the use of\ncertain magic formulas was meant, was another effective means at her\ncommand for inflicting all manner of evil. Magical potions, too,\ncompounded of poisonous weeds, appear to have been prepared by them, and\nwhich, entering the body of those whom they desired to punish, had a\ndisastrous effect. Such means might be denominated as direct. There were\nothers indirect which were even more effective, and which rested upon\nthe principle commonly known as 'sympathetic magic.'[358] Under the\nnotion that the symbolical acts of the sorcerers would have their effect\nupon the one to be bewitched, the male sorcerer or the witch, as the\ncase might be, would tie knots in a rope. Repeating certain formulas\nwith each fresh knot, the witch would in this way symbolically strangle\nthe victim, seal his mouth, wrack his limbs, tear his entrails, and the\nlike.\n\nStill more popular was the making of an image of the desired victim of\nclay or pitch, honey, fat, or other soft material,[359] and either by\nburning it inflict physical tortures upon the person represented, or by\nundertaking various symbolical acts with it, such as burying it among\nthe dead, placing it in a coffin, casting it into a pit or into a\nfountain, hiding it in an inaccessible place, placing it in spots that\nhad a peculiar significance, as the doorposts, the threshold, under the\narch of gates, would prognosticate in this way a fate corresponding to\none of these acts for the unfortunate victim.\n\n\nThe Exorcisers.\n\nAs a protection against the demons and witches, small images of some of\nthe protecting deities were placed at the entrances to houses, and\namulets of various kinds were carried about the person. Tablets, too,\nwere hung up in the house,--probably at the entrance,--on which extracts\nfrom the religious texts were inscribed. These texts by virtue of their\nsacred character assured protection against the entrance of demons.[360]\nBut when once a person had come under the baneful power of the demons,\nrecourse was had to a professional class of exorcisers, who acted as\nmediators between the victims and the gods to whom the ultimate appeal\nfor help was made. These exorcisers were of course priests, and at an\nearly period of Babylonian culture it must have been one of the main\nfunctions of priests to combat the influence of evil spirits. It was for\nthis purpose chiefly that the people came to the temples, and in so far\nwe are justified in regarding incantation formulas as belonging to the\noldest portion of the Babylonian temple rituals. In the course of time,\nas the temples in the great religious centers developed into large\nestablishments, the priests were divided into classes, each with special\nfunctions assigned to them. Some were concerned with the sacrifices,\nothers presided over the oracles, others were set aside for the night\nand day watches which were observed in the temple, and it is likely that\nthe scribes formed a class by themselves. To this age of differentiation\nin priestly functions belongs the special class who may be regarded as\nthe forerunners of the eastern _magi_ or magicians, and who by powers\nand methods peculiar to them could ward off the dangerous attacks of the\ndemons and witches. The means employed by them may in general be\ndescribed as forming the complement to those used by the witches,--the\nreverse side of the picture,--only that they were supposed to be\neffective against sorcerers, witches, and demons alike. Against the\nincantation formulas of the witches, incantations of superior force were\nprescribed that might serve to overcome the baneful influence of the\nformer. The symbolical tying of knots was offset by symbolical\nloosening, accompanied by formulas that might effect the gradual release\nof the victim from the meshes of both the witches and the demons; or the\nhoped-for release was symbolized by the peeling of the several skins of\nan onion. Corresponding to the images made by the witches, the\nexorcising priests advised the making of counter images of the witches,\nand by a symbolical burning, accompanied by certain ceremonies and\nconciliatory gifts to the gods, hoped to destroy the witches themselves.\nSince, moreover, the favorite time chosen by the demons and witches for\ntheir manifestations was the night, the three divisions of the\nnights--evening, midnight, and dawn--that correspond to the temple\nwatches were frequently selected as the time for the incantations and\nthe symbolical acts. The address was often made to the gods of night. A\nseries of incantation formulas begins:\n\n  I call upon you, gods of the night,\n  With you I call upon the night, the veiled bride,[361]\n  I call at evening, midnight, and at dawn.\n\nThe formulas themselves, as we shall see, are characterized by their\nlarge number rather than by any elements that they have in common. At\ntimes they constitute a direct appeal to some god or gods, to some\nparticular spirit, or to the associated spirits of heaven and earth,\ntogether with a direct indication of what is desired. An incantation\naddressed to Nusku, the god of fire, closes:\n\n  Fire-god, mighty and lofty one of the gods,\n  Who dost overpower the wicked and the hostile,\n  Overpower them (the witches) so that I be not destroyed.\n  Let me thy servant live, let me\n  unharmed stand before thee,\n  Thou art my god, thou art my lord,\n  Thou art my judge, thou art my helper,\n  Thou art my avenger.\n\nPreceding the direct appeal, there is usually a recital more or less\ndetailed of the woes with which one is afflicted. The victim tells of\nthe pains which torture him. Says one bewitched:\n\n  I stand upright, and cannot lie down,\n  neither night nor day. The witches have filled my\n  mouth with their knots.\n  With the aid of _upuntu_ weed,[362]\n  they have stuffed up my mouth.\n  The water that I drink have they diminished,\n  My joy is changed to pain, my pleasure to sorrow.\n\nThis recital, which is often wearisome by its length, may or may not end\nin a direct appeal to some god or gods. The narrative of woes, however,\nis merely introductory to the incantation itself. To prescribe the\nformula to be used to the one appealing for help, is the special\nfunction of the priest acting as exorciser. He recites the formula,\nwhich is then repeated by the communicant.\n\nInstead of an appeal to the gods for help, the incantation often\nembodies threats hurled in the name of the gods at the demons or witches\nin case they do not release their victim. Such incantations appear to\nderive their power chiefly through the personage of the exorciser, who\nbelieves himself to be able to control the evil spirits. So in one case,\nafter the sufferer has poured out his troubles, the exorciser replies,\nthreatening the witches with the same evils that they have\ninflicted:[363]\n\n  They have used all kinds of charms\n  to entwine me as with ropes,\n  to catch me as in a cage,\n  to tie me as with cords,\n  to overpower me as in a net,\n  to twist me as with a sling,\n  to tear me as a fabric,\n  to fill me with dirty water as that which runs down a wall (?)\n  to throw me down as a wall.\n\nAt this point the exorciser takes up the thread and declares:\n\n  But I by command of Marduk, the lord of charms,\n  by Marduk, the master of bewitchment,\n  Both the male and female witch\n  as with ropes I will entwine,\n  as in a cage I will catch,\n  as with cords I will tie,\n  as in a net I will overpower,\n  as in a sling I will twist,\n  as a fabric I will tear,\n  with dirty water as from a wall I will fill,\n  as a wall throw them down.\n\nAccompanying these threats, the actions indicated were symbolically\nperformed by the exorciser on effigies of the witches made, in this\ncase, of bitumen covered with pitch.\n\nCorresponding again to the potions prepared by the witches, the priests\nprepared draughts compounded of various weeds and herbs that were given\nto the victim, or concoctions that were poured over his body. This\nconstituted the medicinal phase of the priest's labors, and marks the\nconnection between magic and medicine. Naturally such herbs and weeds\nwere chosen as through experience had proved effective.\n\n\nThe Gods of the Incantation Texts.\n\nA feature of the incantation texts is the appeal to the gods, which is\nseldom, if ever, wanting. Just as the kings sought, by the enumeration\nof a large pantheon, to secure the protection of as large a number of\npowers as possible, so the priests endeavored to strengthen their magic\nformulas by including the mention of all the chief and a varying number\nof the minor deities. This invocation of groups of deities, as the\ninvocation of groups of spirits, became more or less conventional, so\nmuch so that, instead of mentioning the gods individually, the scribe\nwould content himself with an indication, at the proper point, of the\nnumber of gods to be appealed to,--six, ten, fifteen, as the case may\nbe, to as many as fifty.[364] Precisely what gods he had in mind we are\nno longer in a position to know, but no doubt the chief members of the\npantheon were included in the first place. Lists of these deities are\noften added. The superior triad, Anu, Bel, and Ea, head the list, at\ntimes accompanied by their consorts, at times standing alone. The second\nclass of triads, Sin, Shamash, and Ramman, follow, and then the other\ngreat gods, Nin-ib, Marduk, Nergal, Nusku, and Gibil; and finally the\nchief goddesses are added, notably Ishtar, Nin-karrak, or Gula, and Bau.\n\nBut besides the chief deities, an exceedingly large number of minor ones\nare found interspersed through the incantation texts. Some are well\nknown, as Nin-girsu, Zamama, and Papsukal. Many of them are found in\nother branches of the religious literature or in invocations attached to\nhistorical texts, commemorative of some work undertaken and completed by\nthe kings; but a large proportion of these powers, not often\ndistinguishable from mere spirits, only appear once in the literary\nremains of Babylonia. It is manifestly impossible, under such\ncircumstances, to specify their traits. In most cases, indeed, the\nphonetic reading is unknown or uncertain. While a considerable\nproportion may be put down as local gods, enjoying an independent,\nalbeit obscure, existence, at least an equal number will turn out to be\nmere epithets of gods already known. In all cases where the god's name\nactually appears as an epithet, we may be certain that such is the case.\nSo when a god is called simply _Dainu_, _i.e._, Judge, there can be\nlittle doubt that Shamash, the sun-god, is meant; a god, 'great\nmountain,' is none other than Bel; and similarly, such names as\n'merciful,' 'hearer of prayer,' 'conqueror of enemy' are manifestly\ntitles belonging to certain well-known deities, and used much as among\nthe Greeks the gods were often referred to by the traits, physical or\nmoral, that distinguished them. As for the residue, who are independent\ndeities, while of course our knowledge of the Babylonian religion would\nbe increased did we know more of them than their names, it is not likely\nthat the worship of these gods, nor the conceptions connected with them,\ninvolved any new principle. A mere enumeration would of course be of\nlittle use. Moreover, such an enumeration would not be exhaustive, for\nnew deities are found in almost every additional text that is published.\nAlready this list counts considerably over two hundred. At most, such an\nenumeration would merely illustrate what we already know,--the\nexceedingly large number of local cults that once existed in Babylonia\nand Assyria, and disappeared without leaving any trace but the more or\nless accidental preservation of the name of the deity, who was once\nregarded as the patron of the place. Lastly it is to be noted that,\nbesides gods, stars are invoked, as well as rivers, temples, and even\ntowns,--in short, anything that has sacred associations.\n\nOn a different level from the gods enumerated in groups stand those\ndeities who are introduced into the incantation texts at essential\npoints individually and for a special reason. Such deities are\ncomparatively few,--hardly more than half a dozen. These gods may be\ncalled the gods of the incantation texts _par excellence_. Their help is\nessential to ensure the effectiveness of the exorciser's task. They\nstand in close and direct connection with the troubles from which relief\nis prayed for. For physical ills, they act as healers. If the evil for\nwhich the individual or the country suffers is due to some natural\nphenomena,--an eclipse of the moon, of which people stood in great\nterror, or a deluge or a famine,--the moon-god, the storm-god, some\nphase of the sun-deity, or an agricultural god would naturally be\nimplored; while in a general way the heads of the pantheon, Marduk in\nBabylonia and Ashur in Assyria, come in for a large share of attention.\n\nAs already intimated in a previous chapter,[365] the god who plays\nperhaps the most prominent role in the incantation texts is Ea. He\noccupies this rank primarily by virtue of his being the god of humanity;\nbut another factor which enters into consideration, though in an\nindirect fashion, is his character as a water-god. Water, being one of\nthe means of purification frequently referred to in the texts, acquires\na symbolical significance among the Babylonians, as among so many other\nnations. Ea, therefore, as the water-god of the ancient sacred town,\nEridu, acquires additional popularity through this circumstance. The\ntitles that he receives in the texts emphasize his power to heal and\nprotect. He is the great physician who knows all secret sources whence\nhealing can be obtained for the maladies and ills caused by the demons\nand sorcerers. He is therefore in a peculiar sense 'the lord of the\nfates' of mankind, the chief exorciser, the all-wise magician of the\ngods, at whose command and under whose protection, the priest performs\nhis symbolical acts. Not only does humanity turn to Ea: the gods, too,\nappeal to him in their distress. The eclipse of the moon was regarded by\nthe popular faith as a sort of bewitchment of the great orb through the\nseven evil spirits. All the heavenly bodies are affected by such an\nevent. Anu is powerless. It is only through Ea that Sin is released,\njust as though he were a human individual. But Ea is rarely approached\ndirectly. At his side stands his son Marduk, who acts as a mediator.\nMarduk listens to the petition addressed to him by the exorcising priest\non behalf of the victim, and carries the word to Father Ea. The latter,\nafter first declaring Marduk to be his equal in knowledge, proceeds to\ndictate the cure. Marduk, accordingly, is given the same titles as his\nfather, Ea. He, too, is the lord of life, the master of the exorcising\nart, the chief magician among the gods.\n\nThe importance thus given to Marduk is an indication of a later period,\nand must be taken in connection with the supremacy accorded to the god\nafter the union of the Babylonian states. Originally, Ea is the god to\nwhom the direct appeal was made. Marduk is an afterthought that points\nto the remodeling of the ancient texts after the period of Hammurabi.\nDamkina, the consort of Ea, is occasionally invoked, but it is\nsignificant that Sarpanitum, the consort of Marduk, is rarely mentioned.\n\nThe burning of images and witches, or of other objects, being so\nfrequently resorted to as a means of destroying baneful influences, the\ngod of fire occupies a rank hardly secondary to Ea. Here, too, the\nmystical element involved in the use of fire adds to the effectiveness\nof the method. Water and fire are the two great sources of symbolical\npurification that we meet with in both primitive and advanced rituals of\nthe past.[366] The fire-god appears in the texts under the double form\nof Gibil and Nusku. The former occurs with greater frequency than the\nlatter, but the two are used so interchangeably as to be in every\nrespect identical. The amalgamation of the two may indeed be due to the\ngrowth of the incantation rituals of Babylon. In some districts Gibil\nwas worshipped as the special god of fire, in others Nusku, much as we\nfound the sun-god worshipped under the names of _Shamas_ and _Utu_, and\nsimilarly in the case of other deities. On the supposition that the\nincantation rituals are the result of a complicated literary process,\ninvolving the collection of all known formulas, and the bringing of them\ninto some kind of connection with one another, this existence of a\ntwofold fire-god finds a ready explanation. At Babylon we know Nusku was\nworshipped as the fire-god. Gibil belongs therefore to another section,\nperhaps to one farther south. He is in all probability the older god of\nthe two, and the preponderating occurrence of his name in the texts may\nbe taken as a proof of the ancient origin of those parts in which it\noccurs. There being no special motive why he should be supplanted by\nNusku, his preeminence was not interfered with through the remodeling to\nwhich the texts were subjected. While bearing in mind that Gibil and\nNusku are two distinct deities, we may, for the sake of convenience,\ntreat them together under the double designation of Gibil-Nusku.\n\nGibil and Nusku are called 'sons of Anu'; Gibil, indeed, is spoken of as\nthe first-born of heaven, and the image of his father. The conception is\nprobably mythological, resting upon the belief in the heavenly origin of\nfire held by all nations. Gibil-Nusku is exalted as the 'lofty one'\namong the gods, whose command is supreme. He is at once the great\nmessenger of the gods and their chief counsellor. Clothed in splendor,\nhis light is unquenchable. A large variety of other attributes are\nassigned to him, all emphasizing his strength, his majesty, his\nbrilliancy, and the terror that he is able to inspire. The importance of\nfire to mankind made Gibil-Nusku the founder of cities, and in general\nthe god of civilization. As the fire-god, Gibil-Nusku is more especially\ninvoked at the symbolical burning of the images of the witches. With a\nraised torch in one hand, the bewitched person repeats the incantation\nrecited by the exorciser. Frequently the instruction is added that the\nincantation is to be recited in a whisper, corresponding to the soft\ntones in which the demons, witches, and ghosts are supposed to convey\ntheir messages. The incantations in which the fire-god is exalted in\ngrandiloquent terms belong to the finest productions of this branch of\nthe religious literature. The addresses to Gibil-Nusku are veritable\nhymns that are worthy of better associations. One of these addresses\nbegins:\n\n  Nusku, great god, counsellor of the great gods,[367]\n  Guarding the sacrificial gifts[368] of all the heavenly spirits,\n  Founder of cities, renewer of the sanctuaries,\n  Glorious day, whose command is supreme,\n  Messenger of Anu, carrying out the decrees of Bel,\n  Obedient to Bel, counsellor, mountain[369] of the earthly spirits,\n  Mighty in battle, whose attack is powerful,\n  Without thee no table is spread in the temple.\n  Without thee, Shamash, the judge executes no judgment.\n\n  I, thy servant so and so, the son of so and so,[370]\n  Whose god is so and so, and whose goddess so and so,[371]\n  I turn to thee, I seek thee, I raise my hands to thee,\n  I prostrate myself before thee.\n  Burn the sorcerer and sorceress,\n  May the life of my sorcerer and sorceress be destroyed.\n  Let me live that I may exalt thee and proudly pay homage to thee.\n\nThis incantation, we are told, is to be recited in a whisper, in the\npresence of an image of wax. The image is burnt as the words are spoken,\nand as it is consumed the power of the witch is supposed to wane. The\nreference to the indispensable presence of the fire-god in the temple is\nrather interesting. Sacrifice always entailed the use of fire. To\nwhatever deity the offering was made, Gibil-Nusku could not in any case\nbe overlooked. The fire constituted the medium, as it were, between the\nworshipper and the deity addressed. The fire-god is in truth the\nmessenger who carries the sacrifice into the presence of the god\nworshipped. Even Shamash, though himself personifying fire, is forced to\nacknowledge the power of Gibil-Nusku, who, we are told elsewhere, is\ninvoked, even when sacrifices are made to the sun-god.\n\nBesides being the son of Anu, Gibil-Nusku is brought into association\nwith the two other members of the triad, Bel and Ea. He is the messenger\nof Bel and the son of Ea. The former conception is again mythical. Fire\nis also the instrument of the gods, and Nusku is particularly called the\nmessenger of Bel because Bel is one of the highest gods. In reality he\nis the messenger of all the gods, and is frequently so designated. His\nconnection with Ea, on the other hand, seems to be the result of the\nsystematizing efforts of the schoolmen. Ea occupying the chief rank in\nthe incantations, the subsidiary role of Gibil-Nusku is indicated by\nmaking him, just as Marduk, the son of Ea. In this way, too, the two\ngreat means of purification--water and fire--are combined under a single\naspect. The combination was all the more appropriate since the fire-god,\nas the promoter of culture, shared with Ea the protection of humanity.\nAccordingly, all the titles of Ea are bestowed in one place or the other\nupon Gibil-Nusku. But, after all, Gibil-Nusku is merely a phase of the\nsolar deity,[372] and hence by the side of this fire-god, Shamash and\nthe other solar deities, though in a measure subsidiary to Gibil-Nusku,\nare frequently invoked. Shamash, as the great judge, was a personage\nespecially appropriate for occasions which involved a decision in favor\nof the bewitched and against the witches or demons. Gibil-Nusku, like\nShamash, is exalted as the great judge who comes to the aid of the\noppressed. Similarly, the fire-god receives the attributes belonging to\nNinib, Nergal, and the various phases of the latter, such as\nLugal-edinna, Lugal-gira, and Alamu. These gods, then, and their\nconsorts, because of their relationship to the fire-god, are introduced\ninto the incantations, and what is more to the point, the various phases\nof Nergal and Ninib are introduced without any trace of the distinctions\nthat originally differentiated them from one another.[373] Besides the\ngreat solar deities, minor ones, as Nin-gish-zida[374] and I-shum, are\nfrequently added in long lists of protecting spirits to whom the appeal\nfor help is directed. The attempt is also made to illustrate their\nrelationship to the great fire-god. So I-shum becomes the messenger of\nNusku, while Nin-gish-zida (though in the days of Gudea a male\ndeity[375]) appears to be regarded, as Tallqvist has suggested, as the\nconsort of Nusku.\n\nNight being a favorite time for the recital of the incantations, it was\nnatural that the orb of night, the god Sin, should be added to the\npantheon of the exorciser. Though playing a minor role, the moon-god is\nnever omitted when a long series of protecting spirits is invoked. But\nthere are occasions when Sin becomes the chief deity invoked. Reference\nhas already been made to the general terror that moon eclipses inspired.\nThe disappearance of the moon was looked upon as a sign of the god's\ndispleasure or as a defeat of the moon in a conflict with other planets.\nDisaster of some kind--war, pestilence, internal disturbances--was sure\nto follow upon an eclipse, unless the anger of the god could be appeased\nor his weakness overcome. In the case of such general troubles affecting\nthe whole country, it is the kings themselves who seek out the priests.\nRituals were prepared to meet the various contingencies. The king begins\nthe ceremony by a prayer addressed to Sin. One of these prayers\nbegins:[376]\n\n  O Sin, O Nannar! mighty one ...\n  O Sin, thou who alone givest light,\n  Extending light to mankind,\n  Showing favor to the black-headed ones,[377]\n  Thy light shines in heaven ...\n  Thy torch is brilliant as fire;\n  Thy light fills the broad earth.\n\n  ...\n\n  Thy light is glorious as the Sun ...\n  Before thee the great gods lie prostrate;\n  The fate of the world rests with thee.\n\nAn eclipse has taken place, portending evil to the country, and\nlibations have been poured out on days carefully selected as favorable\nones. The king continues:\n\n  I have poured out to thee, with wailing,[378] a libation at night;\n  I have offered thee a drink-offering with shouts;\n  Prostrate and standing erect[379] I implore thee.\n\nWith the prayer to Sin, appeals to other gods and also goddesses are\nfrequently combined,--to Marduk, Ishtar, Tashmitum, Nabu, Ramman, and\nthe like. The incantations themselves, consisting of fervent appeals to\nremove the evil, actual or portending, are preceded by certain\nceremonies,--the burning of incense, the pouring out of some drink, or\nby symbolical acts, as the binding of cords; and the god is appealed to\nonce more to answer the prayer.\n\nAgain, just as Gibil-Nusku entails the invocation of a large variety of\nsolar deities, so Ea, as the water-god, leads to the introduction of\nvarious water-gods and spirits. Perhaps the most prominent of these is\nthe god Naru, whose name, signifying 'river,'[380] is clearly the\npersonification of the watery element, though of the minor bodies of\nwater. Next in order comes the goddess Nin-akha-kuddu.[381] She is\ninvoked as 'goddess of purification.' From her association in several\npassages with the great deep, and with the city of Eridu--metaphorically\nused for the great deep--one may be permitted to conclude that she, too,\nwas conceived of as a water-god or a water-spirit. She is 'the lady of\nspells,' who is asked to take possession of the body of the sufferer,\nand thus free him from the control of demons or witches. By the side of\nthis goddess, Gula, 'the great physician,' is often appealed to. Again,\nthe demons being in some cases the ghosts of the departed, or such as\nhover around graves, Nin-kigal, or Allatu, the mistress of the lower\nworld, is an important ally, whose aid is desired in the struggle\nagainst the evil spirits. Lastly, it is interesting to note that\nIzdubar, or Gilgamesh, the famous hero of the great Babylonian epic,\noccurs also in incantations[382]--a welcome indication of the antiquity\nof the myth, and the proof, at the same time, that the epic is built on\na foundation of myth. From the mythological side, Gilgamesh appears to\nbe a solar deity. The connection of a solar god with fire would account\nfor his appearance in the magical texts. However obscure some of the\npoints connected with the gods of the incantation texts may be, so much\nis certain, that the two factors of water and fire, and the part played\nby these elements in the ceremonies, control and explain the choice of\nmost of the gods and goddesses introduced, though--be it expressly\nnoted--not of all occurring in the magical texts.\n\n\nThe Ritual and Formulas.\n\nComing to the incantations themselves, they can best be characterized as\nappeals interspersed with words of a more or less mystic character. The\nforce and efficacy of the incantation lie not so much in the meaning of\nthe words uttered, as in the simple fact that they _are_ to be uttered.\nThese incantations were combined into a ritual, and indications were\ngiven of the occasions on which the incantations were to be used. An\nanalysis of one of these rituals will serve to illustrate this branch of\nthe religious literature of the Babylonians. I choose for this purpose\nthe series known as Maklu, _i.e._, Burning,[383] the interpretation of\nwhich has been so considerably advanced by Dr. Tallqvist's admirable\nwork. The first tablet of the series opens with an invocation to the\ngods of night. After complaining of his sad condition, the bewitched\nindividual continues as follows:\n\n  Arise ye great gods, hear my complaint;\n  Grant me justice, take cognizance of my condition.\n  I have made an image of my sorcerer and sorceress;\n  I have humbled myself before you and bring to you my cause\n  Because of the evil they (_i.e._, the witches) have done,\n  Of the impure things which they have handled,[384]\n  May she[385] die! Let me live!\n  May her charm, her witchcraft, her sorcery (?) be broken.\n  May the plucked sprig (?) of the _binu_ tree purify me.\n  May it release me; may the evil odor[386] of my mouth be scattered to\n    the winds.\n  May the _mashtakal_ herb[387] which fills the earth cleanse me.\n  Before you let me shine like the _kankal_ herb.\n  Let me be as brilliant and pure as the _lardu_ herb.\n  The charm of the sorceress is evil;\n  May her words return to her mouth,[388] her tongue be cut off.\n  Because of her witchcraft, may the gods of night smite her,\n  The three watches of the night[389] break her evil charm.\n  May her mouth be wax[390] (?), her tongue honey.\n  May the word causing my misfortune that she has spoken dissolve like\n    wax (?).\n  May the charm that she has wound up melt like honey,\n  So that her magic knot be cut in twain, her work destroyed,\n  All her words scattered across the plains\n  By the order that the gods have given.\n\nThe section closes with the ordinary request of the exorciser to the\nvictim: \"Recite this incantation.\" It will be seen how closely the\nprinciple of sympathetic magic is followed. The individual having been\nbewitched by means of certain herbs concocted probably into potions,\nother herbs are prepared by the exorciser as an antidote. The emphasis\nlaid upon purification, too, is noteworthy. There are numerous synonyms\nemployed for which it is difficult to find the adequate equivalent in\nEnglish. The terms reach out beyond the literal to the symbolical\npurification. The victim wishes to become pure, cleansed of all\nimpurities, so that he may be resplendent as the gods are pure,\nbrilliant, and glorious, pure as the water, brilliant and glorious as\nthe fire.\n\nThe length of the formulas varies. Often they consist only of a few\nlines. So the one immediately following appeals to Gilgamesh in these\nwords:\n\n  Earth, Earth, Earth,\n  Gilgamesh is the master of your witchcraft.\n  What you have done, I know;\n  What I do, you know not.\n  All the mischief wrought by my sorceresses is destroyed, dissolved--\n    is gone.\n\nAt times the conditions under which the witches are pictured as acting\nare very elaborate. They are represented as dwelling in places with\nwhich mythological conceptions are connected; they are ferried across\nthe river separating their city from human habitations; they are\nprotected against attacks by the walls which surround their habitations.\nTo effect a release, the exorcisers, it would appear, made\nrepresentations by means of drawings on clay of these habitations of the\nwitches. They thereupon symbolically cut off the approaches and laid\nsiege to the towns. This, at least, appears to be the meaning of an\nincantation beginning:\n\n  My city is Sappan,[391] my city is Sappan;\n  The gates of my city Sappan are two,\n  One towards sunrise, the other towards sunset.[392]\n  I carry a box, a pot with _mashtakal_ herbs;\n  To the gods of heaven I offer water;\n  As I for you secure your purification,\n  So do you purify me!\n\nThe victim imitates the conduct of the witch, goes about as she does,\nwith a pot in which the potions are made, performs the symbolical act\nwhich should purify him of the evil that is in him, and hopes, in this\nway, to obtain his own release. The description continues:\n\n  I have kept back the ferry, have shut off the wall,[393]\n  Have thus checked the enchantment from all quarters.\n  Anu and Anatum have commissioned me.\n  Whom shall I send to Belit of the field?[394]\n  Into the mouth of the sorcerer and sorceress cast the lock.[395]\n  Recite the incantation of the chief of gods, Marduk.[396]\n  'Let them[397] call to thee but answer them not,\n  Let them address thee, but hearken not to them.\n  Let me call to thee, and do thou answer me,\n  Let me address thee, and do thou hearken unto me.'\n  By the command of Anu, Anatum, and Belit, recite the incantation.\n\nThe hymns to the fire-god, Nusku (or Girru), of which the 'Maklu' series\nnaturally furnishes many specimens,[398] are all pretty much alike. I\nchoose one which illustrates in greater detail the symbolical burning of\nthe image of the witch:[399]\n\n  Nusku, great offspring of Anu,\n  The likeness of his father, the first-born of Bel,\n  The product of the deep, sprung from Ea,[400]\n  I raise the torch to illumine thee, yea, thee.\n  The sorcerer who has bewitched me,\n  Through the witchcraft by means of which he has bewitched me, do thou\n    bewitch him.\n  The sorceress who has bewitched me,\n  Through the witchcraft by means of which she has bewitched me, bewitch\n    thou her.\n  The charmer who has charmed me,\n  Through the charm with which he has charmed me, charm thou him.\n  The witch who has charmed me,\n  Through the charm with which she has charmed me, charm thou her.\n  Those who have made images of me, reproducing my features,\n  Who have taken away my breath, torn my hairs,\n  Who have rent my clothes, have hindered my feet from treading the\n    dust,\n  May the fire-god, the strong one, break their charm.\n\nJust as the witches were burnt in effigy, so also the demons were\nsupposed to be similarly dispelled. Immediately following the\nincantation comes one directed against the demons:\n\n  I raise the torch, their images I burn,\n    Of the _utukku_, the _shedu_, the _rabisu_, the _ekimmu_,\n    The _labartu_, the _labasi_, the _akhkhasu_,\n    Of _lilu_ and _lilitu_ and _ardat lili_,\n    And every evil that seizes hold of men.\n  Tremble, melt away, and disappear!\n  May your smoke rise to heaven,\n  May Shamash destroy your limbs,\n  May the son of Ea [_i.e._, may the fire-god],\n  The great magician, restrain your strength (?).\n\nThe witch who has caused the evil may be unknown. For such a case one of\nthe incantations runs:[401]\n\n  Who art thou, sorceress, who bears her evil word within her heart,\n  Through whose tongue my misfortune is produced,\n  Through whose lips I have been poisoned,\n  In whose footsteps death follows?\n  Sorceress, I seize thy mouth, seize thy tongue,\n  I seize thy searching eyes,\n  I seize thy ever-moving feet,\n  I seize thy knees ever active,\n  I seize thy hands ever stretched out,\n  I tie thy hands behind thee.\n  May Sin ... destroy thy body,\n  May he cast thee into an abyss of fire and water.\n  Sorceress, as the circle of this seal-ring,[402]\n  May thy face grow pale and wan.\n\nOf the same character as this, are a variety of other incantations, all\napplicable to cases in which the sorceress is unknown. As the last\nspecimen of the 'Maklu' series, I choose an incantation addressed to the\ndemons, which is interesting because of the direct character of the\ncommands it contains:\n\n  Away, away, far away, far away,\n  For shame, for shame, fly away, fly away,\n  Round about face, go away, far away,\n  Out of my body, away,\n  Out of my body, far away,\n  Out of my body, away for shame,\n  Out of my body, fly away,\n  Out of my body, round about face,\n  Out of my body, go away,\n  Into my body, come not back,\n  Towards my body, do not approach,\n  Towards my body, draw not nigh,\n  My body torture not.\n  By Shamash the mighty, be ye foresworn.\n  By Ea, the lord of everything, be ye foresworn.\n  By Marduk, the chief magician of the gods, be ye foresworn.\n  By the fire-god, be ye foresworn.\n  From my body be ye restrained!\n\nRepetition and variation in the use of certain phrases make up, as will\nbe seen from the specimens given, a large part of the incantation. A\ncurious illustration of the importance attributed to such repetition is\nfurnished by the eighth and last tablet of the 'Maklu' series. It\nconsists of seven divisions, each beginning with a repetition of the\nheadlines of the various sections of the preceding seven tablets; and\nonly after the headlines of each of the tablets have been exhausted,\ndoes the real incantation begin. This eighth tablet contains therefore a\nkind of summary of all the others, the purpose of which is to gather\ntogether all the power and influence of the seven others.\n\nThe 'Maklu' ritual deals so largely with the fire-god that a specimen\nfrom another series, to illustrate the position of Ea and Marduk in the\nincantations, seems called for. The 'Shurpu' series introduces Ea and\nMarduk more particularly. The fifth tablet of this series begins:[403]\n\n  The evil curse rests like a _gallu_ upon the man,\n  The pain-giving voice[404] has settled upon him,\n  The voice that is not good has settled upon him,\n  The evil curse, the charm that produces insanity,\n  The evil curse has killed that man as a sheep,\n  His god has departed from his body,[405]\n  His goddess has ... taken her place outside,[406]\n  The pain-giving voice covers him as a garment and confuses him.\n  Marduk sees him,\n  And proceeds to the house of his father Ea and speaks:\n  \"My father, the evil curse as a demon has settled on the man.\"\n  He says it for a second time.\n  \"What that man should do, I do not know; by what can he be cured?\"\n  Ea answers his son Marduk:\n  \"My son, can I add aught that thou dost not know?\n  Marduk, what can I tell thee that thou dost not know?\n  What I know, also thou knowest.\n  My son Marduk, take him to the overseer of the house of perfect\n    purification,\n  Dissolve his spell, release him from the charm, and from the\n    troublesome bodily disease.\n  Whether it be the curse of his father,\n  Or the curse of his mother,\n  Or the curse of his brother,\n  Or the curse of an unknown,[407]\n  May the bewitchment through the charm of Ea be peeled off like an\n    onion.\n  May it be cut off like a date.\n  May it be removed like a husk.\n  O power of the spirit of heaven, be thou invoked!\n  O spirit of earth, be thou invoked!\"\n\nThe purification by water, which is here only incidentally referred to,\nis more fully touched upon in other incantations, where Ea tells Marduk\nthat the victim must take\n\n  Glittering water, pure water,\n  Holy water, resplendent water,\n  The water twice seven times may he bring,\n  May he make pure, may he make resplendent.\n  May the evil _rabisu_ depart,\n  May he betake himself outside,\n  May the protecting _shedu_, the protecting _lamassu_,\n  Settle upon his body.\n  Spirit of heaven, be thou invoked!\n  Spirit of earth, be thou invoked![408]\n\nStill other methods of magical cure besides the use of water and of\npotions were in vogue. In a tablet of the same ritual to which the last\nextract belongs, and which is especially concerned with certain classes\nof diseases produced by the demons, the sick man is told to take\n\n  White wool, which has been spun into thread,\n  To attach it to his couch[409] in front and at the top,\n  Black wool which has been spun into thread\n  To bind at his left side.\n\nThen follows the incantation which he is to recite:\n\n  The evil _ulukku, alu, ekimmu_,\n  The evil _gallu_, the evil god, _rabisu_,\n  _Labartu, labasu, akhkhazu_,\n  _Lilu_ and _lilit_ and _ardat lili_,\n  Sorcery, charm, bewitchment,\n  The sickness, the cruel artifice,\n  Their head against his head,\n  Their hand against his hand,\n  Their foot against his foot,\n  May they not place,\n  May they never draw nigh.\n  Spirit of heaven, be thou foresworn!\n  Spirit of earth, be thou foresworn!\n\nIt is interesting to note the introduction of ethical ideas into these\ntexts, despite the primitive character of the beliefs upon which the\nincantations repose. The possibility was considered that the attack of\nthe demons was a punishment sent in some way for committed sins. The\nincantation series 'Shurpu' furnishes us with a long list of wrongs for\nwhich a person may be held enthralled in the power of the demons or\nsorcerers. The exorciser in petitioning that the ban may be relieved,\nenumerates at length the various causes for which the evil may have been\nsent:[410]\n\n  Has he sinned against a god,\n  Is his guilt against a goddess,\n  Is it a wrongful deed against his master,\n  Hatred towards his elder brother,\n  Has he despised father or mother,\n  Insulted his elder sister,\n  Has he given too little,[411]\n  Has he withheld too much,\n  For \"no\" said \"yes,\"\n  For \"yes\" said \"no\"?[412]\n\n  ...\n\n  Has he used false weights?\n\n  ...\n\n  Has he taken an incorrect amount,\n  Not taken the correct sum,\n  Has he fixed a false boundary,\n  Not fixed a just boundary,\n  Has he removed a boundary, a limit, or a territory,\n  Has he possessed himself of his neighbor's house,\n  Has he approached his neighbor's wife,\n  Has he shed the blood of his neighbor,\n  Robbed his neighbor's dress?\n\n  ...\n\n  Was he frank in speaking,\n  But false in heart,\n  Was it \"yes\" with his mouth,\n  But \"no\" in his heart?[413]\n\nIn this way the exorciser proceeds to enumerate an exceedingly long list\nof sins--no less than one hundred--most of which are ethical\nmisdemeanors, while others are merely ceremonial transgressions. In the\nthird tablet of this series[414] there is even a longer list of causes\nfor the ban which Marduk, the \"chief exorciser\" among the gods, is\ncalled upon to loosen. Here again we find an equal proportion of moral\ntransgressions placed on a par with errors in performing religious rites\nor unwillful offences in neglecting conventional methods of doing\nthings.\n\nThe ethical features of the texts can, without much question, be put\ndown as the work of the later editors. They belong to a period when\nalready an advanced conception not only of right and wrong, but also of\nsin had arisen among the religious leaders of the people, and perhaps\nhad made its way already among the masses, without, however, disturbing\nthe confidence in the traditional superstitions. The strange combination\nof primitive and advanced religious beliefs is characteristic, as we\nshall have occasion to see, of various divisions of the Babylonian\nreligious literature. The lapse from the ethical strain to the\nincantation refrain is as sudden as it is common. The priest having\nexhausted the category of possible sins or mishaps that have caused the\nsuffering of the petitioner, proceeds to invoke the gods, goddesses, and\nthe powerful spirits to loosen the ban. There is no question of\nretribution for actual acts of injustice or violence, any more than\nthere is a question of genuine contrition. The enumeration of the causes\nfor the suffering constitutes in fact a part of the incantation. The\nmention of the real cause in the long list--and the list aims to be\nexhaustive, so that the exorciser may strike the real cause--goes a long\nway towards ensuring the departure of the evil spirit. And if, besides\nstriking the real cause, the exorciser is fortunate enough in his\nenumeration of the various gods, goddesses, and spirits to call by name\nupon the _right_ god or spirit, the one who has the power over the demon\nin question, his object is achieved. Speaking the right words and\npronouncing the right name, constitute, together with the performance of\nthe correct ceremony and the bringing of the right sacrifice, the\nconditions upon which depends the success of the priest in the\nincantation ritual. Hence the striking features of these texts, the\nenumeration of long lists of causes for misfortune, long lists of powers\ninvoked, and a variety of ceremonies prescribed, in the hope that the\npriest will \"hit it\" at one time or the other.\n\n\nIncantations and Prayers.\n\nThe incantations naturally shade off into prayers. Frequently they are\nprayers pure and simple. Powerful as the sacred formulas were supposed\nto be, the ultimate appeal of the sufferer is to the gods. Upon their\nfavor it ultimately depends whether the mystic power contained in the\nsacred words uttered shall manifest itself to the benefit of the\nsupplicant or not. While it is proper, therefore, to distinguish\nincantations from prayers, the combination of the two could scarcely be\navoided by the priests, who, rising in a measure superior to the popular\nbeliefs, felt it to be inconsistent with a proper regard for the gods\nnot to give them a superior place in the magical texts. The addition, to\nthe sacred formulas, of prayers directly addressed to certain gods may\nbe put down as due to the adaptation of ancient texts to the needs of a\nlater age; and, on the other hand, the addition of incantations to what\nappear to have been originally prayers, pure and simple, is a concession\nmade to the persistent belief in the efficacy of certain formulas when\nproperly uttered. Such combinations of prayers and incantations\nconstituted, as would appear, a special class of religious texts; and,\nin the course of further editing,[415] a number of prayers addressed to\nvarious deities were combined and interspersed with incantation and\nceremonial directions which were to accompany the prayers.\n\nThe incantations accordingly lead us to the next division in the\nreligious literature of the Babylonians,--the prayers and hymns.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[341] _Die Assyrische Beschwoerungsserie, Maqlu_, p. 14.\n\n[342] There are some preserved solely in the ideographic style, and\nothers of which we have only the phonetic transliteration.\n\n[343] _Die Propheten in ihrer urspruenglichen Form_, pp. 1, 6. This work\nis a valuable investigation of the oldest form of the poetic\ncompositions of the Semites.\n\n[344] The fifth and sixth tablets of the series. It is probable that\nseveral editions were prepared,--some wholly Babylonian, others\nbilingual.\n\n[345] Haupt, _Akkadische und Sumerische Keilschrifttexte_, p. 83. col.\nI. ll. 1-10.\n\n[346] Wherever feasible, the Babylonian name of the demon will be used\nin the translations.\n\n[347] Our word 'nightmare' still embodies the same ancient view of the\ncause of bad dreams as that found among the Babylonians.\n\n[348] See above, p. 182.\n\n[349] IV R. pl. 5.\n\n[350] See Perrot and Chiplez, _History of Art in Chaldaea and Assyria_,\ni. 61, 62; ii. 81 for illustrations.\n\n[351] IV R. 2, col. v. ll. 30-60.\n\n[352] The god of humanity. The phrase is equivalent to saying that the\nspirits are hostile to mankind.\n\n[353] Literally, 'to their second time,' _i.e._, repeat 'seven are\nthey.'\n\n[354] See Hopkins, _The Holy Numbers in the Rig-Veda_ (Oriental\nStudies), pp. 144-147.\n\n[355] IV R. 15, col. ll. 21 _seq._\n\n[356] See chapter xi.\n\n[357] For the general views connected with the evil eye among all\nnations, see Elworthy's recent volume, _The Evil Eye_. (London, 1896.)\n\n[358] For illustrations taken from various nations, see Fraser, _The\nGolden Bough_, ii. 9-12; ii. 85-89.\n\n[359] See for illustrations of similar practices among Egyptians and\nGreeks, Budge, _Life and Exploits of Alexander the Great_ (London,\n1896), pp. xii-xvii.\n\n[360] Mr. L. W. King describes (_Zeits. fuer Assyr._ xl. 50-62)\ninteresting fragments of the Dibbarra (or 'plague-god') legend found on\ntablets which were evidently intended to be hung up. Mr. King suggests\nthat such tablets were hung up in the houses of the Babylonians whenever\na plague broke out. One is reminded of the _mezuzoth_, the metallic or\nwooden cases, attached to the doorposts of their houses by the Jews, and\nwhich originally served a similar purpose.\n\n[361] Tallqvist, _Assyr. Beschwoerungsserie Maklu_, p. 115, suggests that\nthe 'veiled bride' may be a name of some goddess of the night. This is\nimprobable. It sounds more like a direct personification of the night,\nfor which an epithet as 'veiled bride' seems appropriate. The name may\nhave arisen in consequence of mythological conceptions affecting the\nrelationship between day and night.\n\n[362] A magic potion compounded of this plant. 'Maklu' series, i. ll.\n8-12.\n\n[363] 'Maklu' series, ii. ll. 148-168.\n\n[364] See Relsner, _Sumerisch-Babylonische Hymnen_ (Berlin, 1896), p.\n15.\n\n[365] See p. 137.\n\n[366] Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, p. 352. Grimm,\n_Deutsche Mythologie_, i. 508-596. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii. 383\n_seq._ See also the article \"Hestia\" in Roscher's _Ausfuehrliches Lexikon\nder Griechischen und Roemischen Mythologie_.\n\n[367] 'Maklu' series, ii. ll. 1-17.\n\n[368] A reference to the sacred action of the fire in the burnt\nofferings.\n\n[369] A favorite title of several gods, Bel, Sin, etc., that emphasizes\ntheir strength.\n\n[370] Here the seeker for help inserts his name.\n\n[371] Here the names of special deities are to be inserted.\n\n[372] See above, Nusku, p. 220.\n\n[373] See p. 67.\n\n[374] A form of Nusku, according to Tallqvist, _Assyr. Beschwoer._ p.\n146. It would be more accurate to say a form of Ninib. See p. 92.\n\n[375] See p. 91.\n\n[376] King, _Babylonian Magic_, p. 3.\n\n[377] Humanity.\n\n[378] The reference is to the formal lamentations on the occasion of the\ndeath of any one. The moon-god, having disappeared, is bewailed as\nthough dead.\n\n[379] _I.e._, under all conditions and at all times.\n\n[380] The reading Naru is not altogether certain, but probable. See\nTallqvist, _Assyr. Beschwoer._ pp. 131, 132, whose suggestion, however,\nthat Naru may be a female deity, is not acceptable. _Elitti_ is probably\na scribal error.\n\n[381] See above p. 103.\n\n[382] Tallqvist, I. l. 38.\n\n[383] See above, p. 254.\n\n[384] To bewitch me.\n\n[385] The witch.\n\n[386] From which he suffers through the witches.\n\n[387] The identification of the many herbs mentioned in the texts is as\nyet impossible. The subject awaits investigation at the hands of one\nversed in botanical lore.\n\n[388] _I.e._, be ineffective.\n\n[389] _I.e._, the gods presiding over the watches.\n\n[390] Her words dissolve like wax and honey.\n\n[391] Supposed to be situated at the northern point of the heavens.\n\n[392] The vault of heaven was pictured as having two gates.\n\n[393] So that the witch cannot leave her habitation.\n\n[394] With the order 'to cast the lock,' etc.\n\n[395] To prevent her from uttering her charms.\n\n[396] The following four lines constitute the incantation.\n\n[397] _I.e._, the witches.\n\n[398] See above, p. 278, where one has been given.\n\n[399] Maklu, I. 122-143.\n\n[400] The fiery element belongs to all three divisions of the\nuniverse,--to heaven, earth, and water.\n\n[401] Maklu, III. ll. 89-103.\n\n[402] Many of the seals used by the Babylonians were of white stone or\nbone.\n\n[403] Zimmern's edition, pp. 25-29.\n\n[404] _I.e._, the evil word.\n\n[405] His protecting deity has deserted him.\n\n[406] Of his body.\n\n[407] _I.e._, whoever may have invoked the evil demon to settle upon\nhim.\n\n[408] The translation of these lines follows in all but some minor\npassages the correct one given by Sayce, _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 446.\n\n[409] Of the sick man.\n\n[410] Zimmern, _Die Beschwoerungstafeln Shurpu_, pp. 5, 6.\n\n[411] In mercantile transactions.\n\n[412] _I.e._, lied.\n\n[413] _I.e._, did he say one thing, but mean the contrary?\n\n[414] Zimmern, _ib._ pp. 13-20.\n\n[415] For details as to the manner in which this editing was done, see\nKing's admirable remarks in the Introduction to his _Babylonian Magic\nand Sorcery_, pp. xx-xxiv.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nTHE PRAYERS AND HYMNS.\n\n\nFrom what has just been said, it follows that the step from magical\nformulas to prayers and hymns is but a small one, and does not, indeed,\ncarry with it the implication of changed or higher religious\nconceptions. While the incantation texts in their entirety may be\nregarded as the oldest _fixed_ ritual of the Babylonian-Assyrian\nreligion, there were occasions even in the oldest period of Babylonian\nhistory when the gods were approached in prayer without the\naccompaniment of magic formulas. Such occasions were the celebration of\nfestivals in honor of the gods, the dedication of temples or of sacred\nstatues, and the completion of such purely secular undertakings as the\nbuilding of a canal. Gudea, we are told, upon completing a statue to his\ngod Nin-girsu, prayed: 'O King, whose great strength the land cannot\nendure (?); Nin-girsu! grant to Gudea, who has built this house, a good\nfate.'[416] As in the earliest, so in the latest, period, the Babylonian\nkings approach the gods in prayer upon completing their great sacred\nedifices. The prayers of Nebuchadnezzar are particularly\nfine--remarkable, indeed, for their diction and elevation of thought.\nUpon completing the restoration of a temple to Nin-karrak or Gula in\nSippar, he prays:[417]\n\n  Nin-karrak, lofty goddess, look with favor upon the work of my hands,\n  Mercy towards me be the command of thy lips,\n  Long life, abundance of strength,\n  Health, and joy, grant to me as a gift.\n  In the presence of Shamash and Marduk cause my deeds to be regarded\n    with favor,\n  Command grace for me.\n\nA prayer of the same king addressed to Shamash, upon restoring the great\ntemple at Sippar, E-babbara, runs:[418]\n\n  O Shamash, great lord, upon entering joyfully into thy glorious temple\n    E-babbara,\n  Look with favor upon my precious handiwork,\n  Mercy towards me be thy command;\n  Through thy righteous order, may I have abundance of strength.\n  Long life, and a firm throne, grant to me.\n  May my rule last forever!\n  With a righteous sceptre of blissful rulership,\n  With a legitimate staff, bringing salvation to mankind, adorn my\n    sovereignty forever.\n  With strong weapons for the fray, protect my soldiers;\n  Then, O Shamash, by oracle and dream, answer me correctly!\n  By thy supreme command, which is unchangeable,\n  May my weapons advance, and strike and overthrow the weapons of the\n    enemies.\n\nNebuchadnezzar's inscriptions are characterized by the prayer with which\nthey almost invariably close. Whether erecting a sanctuary or building a\ncanal or improving the walls of Babylon, he does not fail to add to the\ndescription of his achievements a prayer to some deity, in which he asks\nfor divine grace and the blessings of long life and prosperity.\n\nThere were other occasions, too, in which, both in ancient times and in\nmore modern periods, prayers were sent up to the gods. Kudur-mabuk, of\nthe second dynasty of Ur, informs us that he built a temple, E-nun-makh,\nto Sin in gratitude to the god for having hearkened to his prayer.\n\nThe Assyrian kings pray to Ashur or Ishtar before the battle, and offer\nthanks after the victory has been gained. \"O goddess of Arbela!\" says\nAshurbanabal,[419] \"I am Ashurbanabal, the king of Assyria, the product\nof thy hands, created by thee in the house of my father. To renew the\nsanctuaries of Assyria, and to enlarge the cities of Babylonia, ... have\nI devoted myself to thy dwelling-places, and have steadfastly worshipped\nthy sovereignty.... Hearken unto me! O thou mistress of mistresses,\nsupreme in battle, mistress of the fray, queen of the gods, ... who\nspeakest good things in the presence of Ashur, the father, that produced\nthee. Teumman, king of Elam, has arrayed his army and fixed upon battle,\nbrandishes his weapons to proceed against Assyria. Do thou now, O\nwarrior, like ... drive him into the midst of the fray, pursue him with\na storm, with an evil wind.\" Ishtar, the narrative tells us, hearkened\nto the fervent words of the king. \"Be not afraid,\" says the goddess to\nher royal subject. Elsewhere the same king prays more briefly to Ashur\nand Ishtar. \"May his corpse [viz., of a certain enemy] be cast before\nhis enemy [_i.e._, before Ashurbanabal], and his remains be carried\noff.\"[420]\n\nUpon ascending the throne, we find Nebuchadnezzar addressing a fervent\nprayer to the great god Marduk:\n\n  O Eternal Ruler! Lord of the Universe!\n  Grant that the name[421] of the king whom thou lovest,\n  Whose name thou hast mentioned,[422] may flourish as seems good to\n    thee.\n  Guide him on the right path.\n  I am the ruler who obeys thee, the creation of thy hand.\n  It is thou who hast created me,\n  And thou hast entrusted to me sovereignty over mankind.\n  According to thy mercy, O lord, which thou bestowest upon all,\n  Cause me to love thy supreme rule.\n  Implant the fear of thy divinity in my heart,\n  Grant to me whatsoever may seem good before thee,\n  Since it is thou that dost control my life.\n\nThe curses also with which so many of the historical texts of Babylonia\nand Assyria close may be regarded as prayers. We are also justified in\nassuming that the offering of sacrifices, which formed at all times an\nessential feature of the cult, both in Babylonia and Assyria, was always\naccompanied by some form of prayer addressed to some deity or to a group\nof deities. In view of all this, no sharp chronological line, any more\nthan a logical one, can be drawn marking off the incantation formulas\nfrom the hymns and prayers pure and simple. The conceptions formed of\nthe gods in the incantation texts are precisely those which we have\nfound to be characteristic of them in the period when this phase of the\nreligion reached its highest development. Ea is the protector of\nhumanity, Shamash the lord of justice; and, if certain ideas that in the\nprayers are attached to the gods--as wisdom to Sin--are absent from the\nincantations, it may be regarded rather as an accident than as an\nindication of any difference of conception. The pantheon too, barring\nthe omission of certain gods, is the same that we find it to be in the\nhistorical texts, and the order in which the gods are enumerated\ncorresponds quite closely with the rank accorded to them in the\ninscriptions of the kings. What variations there are are not\nsufficiently pronounced to warrant any conclusions. All this points, as\nhas been emphasized several times, to the subsequent remodeling of the\ntexts in question. It is true that we find more traces of earlier and\npurely mythological notions in the incantations than in the hymns and\nprayers, but such notions are by no means foreign to the latter. Even in\nthose religious productions of Babylonia which represent the flower of\nreligious thought, we meet with views that reflect a most primitive mode\nof thought. The proper view, therefore, to take of the prayers and hymns\nis to regard them as twin productions to the magical texts, due to the\nsame conceptions of the power of the gods, an emanation of the same\nreligious spirit, and produced at the same time that the incantation\nrituals enjoyed popular favor and esteem, and without in any way\ninterfering with the practice of the rites that these rituals involved.\n\nThis position does not of course preclude that among the prayers and\nhymns that have been preserved there are some betraying a loftier\nspirit, a higher level of religious thought, and more pronounced ethical\ntendencies than others. Indeed, the one important result of the\ndissociation of the address to the gods from the purely practical magic\nrites was to produce the conditions favorable to a development of higher\nreligious thought. An offering of praise to the gods, whether it was for\nvictory granted or for a favor shown, called forth the best and purest\nsentiments of which the individual was capable. Freed from all lower\nassociations, such an act proved an incentive to view the deity\naddressed from his most favorable side, to emphasize those phases which\nillustrated his affection for his worshippers, his concern for their\nneeds, his discrimination, and not merely his power and strength. In\nshort, the softer and the more humane aspects of the religion would thus\nbe brought out. The individual would address his god in terms betraying\nhis affection, and would couple with him attributes that would reflect\nthe worshipper's rather than the god's view of the purpose and aim of\nexistence. Whatever powers of idealization there lay in the worshipper's\nnature would be brought into the foreground by the intellectual effort\ninvolved in giving expression to his best thoughts, when aiming to come\ninto close communion with a power upon which he felt himself dependent.\nFor an understanding, therefore, of the ethical tendencies of the\nBabylonian religion, an appreciation of the prayers and hymns is of\nprime importance; and we shall presently see that, as a matter of fact,\nthe highest level of ethical and religious thought is reached in some of\nthese hymns.\n\nThe prayers of Nebuchadnezzar represent, perhaps, the best that has been\nattained in this branch of religious literature. Returning, for a\nmoment, to the dedication prayer to Marduk, addressed by the king on the\noccasion of his mounting the throne,[423] one cannot fail to be struck\nby the high sense of the importance of his station with which the king\nis inspired. Sovereignty is not a right that he can claim--it is a trust\ngranted to him by Marduk. He holds his great office not for purposes of\nself-glorification, but for the benefit of his subjects. In profound\nhumility he confesses that what he has he owes entirely to Marduk. He\nasks to be guided so that he may follow the path of righteousness.\nNeither riches nor power constitute his ambition, but to have the fear\nof his lord in his heart. Such a plane of thought is never reached in\nthe incantation texts. For all that, the original dependence of the\nprayers and hymns upon incantation formulas, tinges even the best\nproductions. Some of the finest hymns, in which elevated thoughts are\nelaborated with considerable skill, reveal their origin by having\nincantations attached to them. Again, others which are entirely\nindependent productions are full of allusions to sickness, demons, and\nsorcerers, that show the outgrowth of the hymns from the incantations;\nand none are entirely free from traces of the conceptions that are\ncharacteristic of the incantation texts. The essential difference\nbetween these two classes of closely related texts may be summed up in\nthe proposition that the religious thought which produced them both is\ncarried to a higher point of elaboration in the hymns. The prayers and\nhymns represent the attempt of the Babylonian mind to free itself from a\nsuperstitious view of the relationship of man to the powers around him;\nan attempt, but--it must be added--an unsuccessful one.\n\nIt is rather unfortunate that many of the hymns found in the library of\nAshurbanabal are in so fragmentary a condition. As a consequence we are\nfrequently unable to determine more than their general contents. The\ncolophons generally are missing,--at least in those hymns hitherto\npublished,[424]--so that we are left in the dark as to the special\noccasion for which the hymn was composed. Without this knowledge it is\nquite impossible to assign to it any definite date except upon internal\nevidence. In the course of time, the hymnal literature of the great\ntemples of Babylonia must have grown to large proportions, and, in\ncollecting them, some system was certainly followed by the priests\nengaged in this work. There is evidence of a collection having been made\nat some time of hymns addressed to Shamash. Some of these were intended\nas a salute upon the sun's rising, others celebrated his setting. These\nhymns convey the impression of having been composed for the worship of\nthe god in one of his great temples--perhaps in E-babbara, at Sippar. We\nhave several hymns also addressed to Marduk, and one can well suppose\nthat at the great temple E-sagila, in Babylon, a collection of Marduk\nhymns must have been prepared, and so for others of the great gods. But,\nagain, many of the hymns convey the impression of being merely sporadic\nproductions--composed for certain occasions, and without any reference\nto a possible position in a ritual.\n\nOf the hymns so far published, those to Shamash are probably the finest.\nThe conception of the sun-god as the judge of mankind lent itself\nreadily to an ethical elaboration. Accordingly, we find in these hymns\njustice and righteousness as the two prominent themes. A striking\npassage in one of these hymns reads:[425]\n\n  The law of mankind dost thou direct,\n  Eternally just in the heavens art thou,\n  Of faithful judgment towards all the world art thou.\n  Thou knowest what is right, thou knowest what is wrong.\n  O Shamash! Righteousness has lifted up its neck(?);\n  O Shamash! Wrong like a ---- has been cut(?);\n  O Shamash! The support of Anu and Bel art thou;\n  O Shamash! Supreme judge of heaven and earth art thou.\n\nAfter a break in the tablet, the hymn continues:\n\n  O Shamash! Supreme judge, great lord of all the world art thou;\n  Lord of creation, merciful one of the world art thou.\n\nThe following lines now reveal the purpose of the hymn. It is a prayer\nfor the life of the king:\n\n  O Shamash! on this day purify and cleanse the king, the son of his\n    god.\n  Whatever is evil within him, let it be taken out.\n\nThe next few lines are a distinct echo of the incantation formulas, and\nshow how readily prayer passes from a higher to a lower stage of\nthought:\n\n  Cleanse him like a vessel ----[426]\n  Illumine him like a vessel of ----[426]\n  Like the copper of a polished tablet,[427] let him be bright.\n  Release him from the ban.\n\nThe same incantation occurs at the close of another hymn to Shamash,\naddressed to the sun upon his rising.[428] The colophon furnishes the\nopening line of the next tablet, which also begins with an address to\nShamash. We have here a clear indication of a kind of Shamash ritual\nextending, perhaps, over a number of tablets, and to which, in all\nprobability, the hymn just quoted also belongs.\n\nThe opening lines of the second hymn read:\n\n  O Shamash! out of the horizon of heaven thou issuest forth,\n  The bolt of the bright heavens thou openest,\n  The door of heaven thou dost open.\n  O Shamash! over the world dost thou raise thy head.\n  O Shamash! with the glory of heaven thou coverest the world.\n\nIt would be difficult to believe, but for the express testimony\nfurnished by the hymn itself, that a production giving evidence of such\na lofty view of the sun-god should, after all, be no more than an\nincantation. The same is the case, however, with all the Shamash hymns\nso far published. They either expressly or by implication form part of\nan incantation ritual. Evidently, then, such addresses to Shamash are to\nbe viewed in no other light than the exaltation of Nusku in the 'Maklu'\nseries,[429] and which we have found were in many cases elaborate,\nbeautiful in diction, and elevated in thought. So--to give one more\nexample--a hymn addressed to the sun-god at the setting, and which is\nespecially interesting because of the metaphors chosen to describe the\nsun's course, is proved by the colophon to be again an incantation. It\nbelongs to a series--perhaps, indeed, to the same as the specimens\nfurnished:[430]\n\n  O sun-god in the midst[431] of heaven at thy setting,\n  May the enclosure of the pure heaven greet thee,[432]\n  May the gate of heaven approach thee,\n  May the directing god, the messenger who loves thee, direct thy way.\n  In E-babbara, the seat of thy sovereignty, thy supremacy rises like\n    the dawn.\n  May A, the wife whom thou lovest, come before thee with joy;\n  May thy heart be at rest,[433]\n  May the glory of thy divinity be established for thee.\n  O Shamash! warrior hero, mayest thou be exalted;\n  O lord of E-babbara, as thou marchest, may thy course be directed,\n  Direct thy path, march along the path fixed for thy course (?).\n  O Shamash! judge of the world, director of its laws art thou.\n\nIn the previous chapter, the hymns addressed to the moon-god in\nconnection with eclipses have been referred to and short specimens\ngiven. A more elaborate hymn to Sin will further illustrate the\nconceptions current about this deity:[434]\n\n  O lord, chief of the gods, who on earth and in heaven alone is exalted.\n  Father Nannar,[435] lord of increase, chief of the gods,\n  Father Nannar, heavenly lord,\n  Father Nannar, moon-god, chief of the gods,\n  Father Nannar, lord of Ur, chief of the gods,\n  Father Nannar, lord of E-gish-shir-gal,[436] chief of the gods,\n  Father Nannar, lord of the brilliant crescent, chief of the gods,\n  Father Nannar, whose sovereignty is brought to perfection, chief of\n    the gods,\n  Father Nannar, who passes along in great majesty,\n  O strong Bull,[437] great of horns, perfect in form, with long flowing\n    beard[438] of the color of lapus-lazuli.\n  Powerful one, self-created, a product (?) beautiful to look upon,\n    whose fullness has not been brought forth,[439]\n  Merciful one, begetter of everything, who among living things occupies\n    a lofty seat,\n  Father, merciful one and restorer, whose weapon (?) maintains the life\n    of the whole world.\n  Lord, thy divinity, like the distant heaven and the wide ocean, is\n    full (?) of fear.\n  Ruler of the land, protector of sanctuaries, proclaimer of their name.\n  Father, begetter of the gods and of men, establishing dwellings and\n    granting gifts,\n  Calling to sovereignty, giving the sceptre, who decreest destinies for\n    distant days.\n  Strong chief, whose wide heart embraces in mercy all that exists,\n  ... beautiful, whose knees do not grow weary, who opens the road (?)\n    for the gods, his brothers,\n  ... who, from the foundation of heaven till the zenith,\n  Passes along in brilliancy (?), opening the door of heaven,\n  Preparing the fate (?) of humanity.\n  Father, begetter of everything, ...\n  Lord, proclaiming the decisions of heaven and earth,\n  Whose command is not set aside,\n  ... and granting water[440] for all that has life.\n  No god reaches to thy fullness.\n  In heaven who is exalted? Thou alone art exalted.\n  On earth who is exalted? Thou alone art exalted.\n  Thy strong command is proclaimed in heaven, and the Igigi prostrate\n    themselves.\n  Thy strong command is proclaimed on earth, and the Anunnaki kiss the\n    ground.\n  Thy strong command on high, like a storm in the darkness, passes\n    along, and nourishment streams forth.\n  When thy strong command is established on the earth, vegetation\n    sprouts forth.\n  Thy strong command stretches over meadows and heights, and life is\n    increased.\n  Thy strong command produces right and proclaims justice to mankind.\n  Thy strong command, through the distant heavens and the wide earth,\n    extends to whatever there is.\n  Thy strong command, who can grasp it? Who can rival it?\n  Lord, in heaven is [thy] sovereignty, on earth is thy sovereignty.\n    Among the gods, thy brothers, there is none like thee.\n  O King of Kings, who has no judge superior to him, whose divinity is\n    not surpassed by any other![441]\n\nA more perfect idealization of the mythological notions connected with\nthe moon-god can hardly be imagined. The old metaphors are retained, but\ninterpreted in a manner that reflects higher spiritual tendencies. The\nmoon is still figured as a bull, but it is the idea of strength that is\nextracted from the picture and dwelt upon. The writer still thinks of\nthe moon as an old man with flowing beard, but he uses the figure to\nconvey the impression of the brilliancy of the great orb. The influence\nof the moon upon the change of seasons, upon vegetation,--a belief which\nthe Babylonians shared with other nations,--leads the writer to extol\nthe benign feelings of the god towards mankind. The sun-god, through the\nglowing heat that he develops, becomes, as we have seen, the warrior and\neven the destroyer, the consuming force. The moon-god is the benefactor\nof mankind who restores the energies of man weakened from the heat of\nthe day. Nannar-Sin becomes the giver of life, whose mercies are\nextended to all. The gods and the spirits follow the example of mankind\nin prostrating themselves before the great orb of night. The\nindependence of the course that he pursues in the heavens places him\nbeyond the control of the great judge of the world, the mighty Shamash.\nThere is no one superior to Sin, no one to whose command he must bend.\nWith all this, there is a total absence of any allusion to his power of\nremoving the influence of demons and witches. We have here a hymn\npurified from all association with the incantation texts, and there is\nevery reason to believe that it was composed for use in the great temple\nat Ur, which is mentioned in the opening lines.\n\nIn the alternating question and answer we have also a valuable\nindication of the manner in which the hymn was to be recited or sung.\nThe whole production appears to be arranged in a dialogue form, the\nlines to be alternately read by the reciting priest and the chorus of\npriests or worshippers. The same method is followed in other\nproductions, while in some, as we shall see, the dialogue does not\nproceed in alternate lines, but is distributed among a varying number of\nsections. We may see in this style of composition one of the natural\noutcomes of the method pursued in the incantation texts, where, as will\nbe remembered, the priest first recites the formulas, and then calls\nupon the individual before him to repeat it once, twice, or oftener, as\nthe case may be. Such a custom leads to recital and responses in the\nhymns.\n\nNot many of the hymns rise to such a height as the one just quoted.\nThere were certain gods only, and after all not many, whose nature was\nsuch as to make an ethical development of the conceptions formed of them\npossible. Besides Shamash and Sin, Ea as the god of humanity and Nebo as\nthe god of wisdom belong to this class. Of Ea, however, no hymns have as\nyet been found. This may of course be accidental, and still, if one\nbears in mind that in the later periods of Babylonian history Ea enjoyed\na theoretical popularity rather than a practical one, the absence of Ea\nhymns might be explained as due to the lack of a fixed ritual in the Ea\ntemples outside of the incantation texts.[442] Ea's position, like that\nof Nusku, was too marked in the magical texts to encourage a conception\nof them entirely independent of their power to release victims from the\ngrasp of the demons.\n\nA hymn to Nebo, which unfortunately is preserved only in part,\nillustrates the extent to which polytheistic conceptions may be\nspiritualized:[443]\n\n  ... Lord of Borsippa,\n  ... son of E-sagila.[444]\n  O Lord! To thy power there is no rival power,\n  O Nebo! To thy power, there is no rival,\n  To thy house, E-zida, there is no rival,\n  To thy city, Borsippa, there is no rival,\n  To thy district, Babylon, there is no rival.\n  Thy weapon is U-sum-gallu,[445] from whose mouth the breath does not\n    issue, blood does not flow.[446]\n  Thy command is unchangeable like the heavens.\n  In heaven thou art supreme.\n\nThere are still plenty of mythological allusions in this hymn that take\nus back to a primitive period of thought, but it is a hymn prompted by\nthe love and reverence that Nebo inspired. Its direct connection with\nthe Nebo cult is shown again by the complementary character of each two\nlines. The whole hymn was probably adapted in this way to public\nworship.\n\nMarduk, by virtue of his relationship to Ea, and by his independent\nposition as the supreme god of Babylon, occupies a middle ground between\nShamash, Ea, and Nusku on the one side, and such gods as Sin and Nebo on\nthe other. Some of the hymns addressed to him end in incantations;\nothers form part of the cult arranged for solemn occasions, when the\npraises of the god were sung in connection with sacrificial offerings.\n\nIn confirmation of the theory as to the relationship between magical\ntexts and hymns above advanced, we find scarcely any difference in the\ngrade of religious thought between these two classes of Marduk hymns.\nBoth are equally distinguished by their fine diction. A hymn which\ncelebrates Marduk as the restorer of the dead to life, and yet forms\npart of an incantation text, reads:[447]\n\n  O merciful one among the gods!\n  O merciful one who loveth to give life to the dead!\n  Marduk, king of heaven and earth,\n  King of Babylon, lord of E-sagila,\n  King of E-zida, lord of E-makh-tila,\n  Heaven and earth are thine.\n  The whole of heaven and earth are thine,\n  The spell affording life is thine,\n  The breath of life is thine,\n  The pure incantation of the ocean[448] is thine,\n  Mankind, the black-headed race,[449]\n  The living creatures, as many as there are, and exist on earth,\n  As many as there are in the four quarters,\n  The Igigi of the legions of heaven and earth,\n  As many as there are,\n  To thee do they incline (?).\n  Thou art the _shedu_, thou art the _lamassu_.\n  Thou restorest the dead to life, thou bringest things to\n    completeness (?).\n  O merciful one among the gods!\n\nOne scarcely detects any difference between such a hymn and those to Sin\nand Nebo. The lines are adapted, like the other specimens, for\nrecitation by two parties. The last line forms a solemn close to a\nsection of this hymn. In the section that follows, the same character is\nmaintained till we approach the close, when the exorciser steps in and\nasks Marduk to\n\n  Expel the disease of the sick man,\n  The plague, the wasting disease ...\n\nand the various classes of demons, _utukku, alu,_ etc., are introduced.\n\nCompare this now with some passages in a prayer addressed to\nMarduk:[450]\n\n  A resting-place for the lord (of E-sagila) is thy house.\n  A resting-place for the lord of E-makh-tila is thy house.\n  E-sagila, the house of thy sovereignty, is thy house.\n  May the city speak 'rest'[451] to thee--thy house.\n  May Babylon speak peace to thee[452]--thy house.\n  May the great Anu, the father of the gods, tell thee when there will\n    be rest.\n  May the great mountain, the father of the gods,[453] tell thee when\n    there will be rest.\n\n  ...\n\n  Look favorably upon thy house,\n  Look favorably upon the city, O lord of rest!\n  May he restore to his place the bolt Babylon, the enclosure E-sagila,\n    the edifice E-zida,[454]\n  May the gods of heaven and earth speak to thee, O lord of rest.\n\nHere we have specific references to Marduk. Everything about the city of\nBabylon is associated with the god. The great gods pay homage to Marduk.\nThe whole hymn, conceived as a royal prayer to the god, clearly formed\npart of the ritual prepared for the great Marduk temple at Babylon. The\nhymn closes, as so many others, with a prayer on behalf of the king. The\ngod is asked\n\n  To establish firmly the foundation of the throne of his sovereignty,\n  So that he may nourish (?) mankind to distant days.\n\n'Rest,' in the liturgical language, implied cessation of anger. Marduk,\nas the 'lord of rest,' was the pacified deity; and since it was a\nnecessary condition in obtaining an answer to petitions that the god\nshould be free from anger, the city, the temple, and the gods are\nrepresented as unitedly speaking to him--appealing to him to be at\n'rest.' The production might, therefore, be called a 'pacification\nhymn.' The god has shown his anger by bringing on misfortune of some\nshape. His divine associates are no less anxious than his human subjects\nto pacify the mighty god.\n\nPassing on to another god, a hymn to the storm-god, Ramman, enables us\nto specify the great terror that the god, as the general source of\ndisturbances in the heavenly phenomena, inspired. The god is\naddressed[455] as\n\n  The lord who in his anger holds the heavens in his control,\n  Ramman in his wrath the earth has shaken.\n  The mighty mountain--thou dost overturn it.\n  At his anger, at his wrath,\n  The gods of heaven mount up to heaven,[456]\n  The gods of earth enter the earth.\n  Into the foundation of heaven Shamash[457] enters.\n\nThe illustrations adduced will suffice to show the manner in which the\nBabylonians conceived the relationship between mankind and the gods. The\nelement of fear alternated with that of love, and no matter how near the\ngods were felt to be, one was never certain of their good will.\n\nAnother feature of some of these hymns which calls for special mention\nis the introduction of the deity as himself or herself taking part in\nthe dialogue. A hymn addressed to Ishtar, as the morning and evening\nstar,[458] belongs to this class.[459] It begins with a glorification of\nthe goddess as the source of light, of being, and of earthly blessings.\nThe worshipper speaks:\n\n  O light of heaven who arises like fire over the earth, who art fixed\n    in the earth,\n  Thou art exalted in strength like the earth.\n  As for thee, a just path be graciously granted to thee\n  When thou enterest the house of man.\n  A hyena on the hunt for a young lamb art thou,\n  A restless lion art thou.\n  A destructive handmaid, the beauty of heaven,\n  A handmaid is Ishtar, the beauty of heaven,\n  Who causest all being to emanate, O beauty of heaven,\n  Associate (?) of the sun, O beauty of heaven!\n\nAt this point the goddess speaks, through the officiating priest, who\nacts as the mediator:\n\n  For determining oracles[460] I have been established, in perfection\n    have I been established.\n  For determining oracles of my father Sin, I have been established, in\n    perfection have I been established.\n  For determining oracles of my brother Shamash, I have been\n    established, in perfection have I been established.\n  Me has my father Sin fixed, to determine oracles I have been\n    established,\n  Shining anew in heaven, for determining oracles I have been\n    established, in perfection have I been established.\n\nFrom the regular repetition of the refrain at the end of each line, one\nis tempted to conclude that these utterances of the goddess were to be\nrecited by an officiating priest with the assistance of a chorus of\npriests, to whom the refrain was assigned, or it may be that the lines\nwere alternately recited by the priest and the chorus. In the section\nthat follows, this alternative character of the lines is more clearly\nindicated:\n\n  Full of delight is my majesty, full of delight is my supremacy,\n  Full of delight do I as a goddess walk supreme.\n  Ishtar, the goddess of morning am I,\n  Ishtar, the goddess of evening am I,\n  (I am) Ishtar,--to open the lock of heaven belongs to my supremacy.\n  Heaven I destroy, earth I devastate,[461]--such is my supremacy.\n  The destroyer of heaven, the devastator of the earth,--such is my\n    majesty.\n  To rise up out of the foundation of heaven,\n  Whose fame shines among the habitation of men,--such is my supremacy.\n  Queen of heaven that on high and below is invoked,--such is my\n    supremacy.\n  The mountain I sweep away altogether,--such is my supremacy.\n  The destroyer of the mountain walls am I, their great foundation am\n    I,--such is my supremacy.\n\nThe hymn closes with a prayer that the anger of the god be appeased:\n\n  May thy heart be at rest, thy liver[462] be pacified.\n  By the great lord Anu, may thy heart be at rest.\n  By the lord, the great mountain Bel, may thy liver be pacified.\n  O goddess, mistress of heaven, may thy heart be at rest.\n  O supreme mistress of heaven, may thy liver be pacified.\n  O supreme mistress of the E-anna,[463] may thy heart be at rest.\n  O supreme mistress of the land of Erech, may thy liver be pacified.\n  O supreme mistress of the shining Erech, may thy heart be at rest.\n  O supreme mistress of the mountain of the universe, may thy liver be\n    pacified.\n  O supreme mistress, queen of E-tur-kalama,[464] may thy heart be at\n    rest.\n  O supreme mistress, queen of Babylon, may thy liver be pacified.\n  O supreme mistress, whose name is Nana, may thy heart be at rest.\n  O mistress of the house, lady of the gods, may thy liver be pacified.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[416] Inscription D, col. v. ll. 2-7.\n\n[417] Abel-Winckler, _Keilschrifttexte_, p. 33, col. iii. ll. 52-58.\n\n[418] Ball, _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._ xi. 124 _seq._\n\n[419] _Annals_, Cylinder B, col. v. ll. 30-46.\n\n[420] Without proper burial,--the greatest misfortune that could happen\nto the dead.\n\n[421] _I.e._, life.\n\n[422] _I.e._, called to the throne.\n\n[423] See p. 296.\n\n[424] The prayers and hymns of the Babylonians are only beginning to\nreceive the attention they deserve at the hands of scholars. Sayce,\n_e.g._, in the specimens attached to his _Hibbert Lectures_, pp.\n479-520, does not even distinguish properly between pure hymns and mere\nincantations. Now that Dr. Bezold's great catalogue of the Koujunjik\ncollection of the British Museum is completed, the opportunity is\nfavorable for some one to study the numerous unpublished fragments of\nhymns in the British Museum, and produce in connection with those that\nhave been published a comprehensive work on the subject. Knudtzon's\n_Assyrische Gebete an den Sonnengott_ may serve as a model for such a\nwork.\n\n[425] IVR. 28, no. 1.\n\n[426] Some specification of the kind of vessel meant.\n\n[427] Inscriptions were written on various metals,--gold, silver,\nantimony, lead, copper, etc.\n\n[428] IVR. 20, no. 2.\n\n[429] See above, p. 286.\n\n[430] Published by Bertin in the _Revue d'Assyriologie_, no. 4, and\ntranslated by Sayce, _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 573. I adopt Sayce's\ntranslation, Bertin's publication being inaccessible to me.\n\n[431] Probably 'horizon.'\n\n[432] Lit., speak to thee of peace.\n\n[433] _I.e._, may thy anger depart.\n\n[434] IVR. 9.\n\n[435] 'The illuminator,' one of the names of Sin. See above, p. 75.\n\n[436] The name of Sin's temple at Ur.\n\n[437] A metaphor descriptive of the moon, because of the resemblance of\nthe crescent to a horn.\n\n[438] The moon-god is pictured with a long beard on the seal cylinders.\nSee p. 76.\n\n[439] _I.e._, unlike other products, the moon's fullness is\nself-created.\n\n[440] A reference perhaps to the supposed influence of the moon on the\ntides.\n\n[441] The rest of the hymn--some dozen lines--is too fragmentary to\nwarrant translation.\n\n[442] We have, however, a list (IIR. 58, no. 5) giving many titles and\nnames of Ea that must have been prepared on the basis of Ea hymns.\n\n[443] IVR. 20, no. 3.\n\n[444] _I.e._, of Marduk.\n\n[445] This weapon plays a part in some of the Babylonian myths.\n\n[446] The weapon is miraculous--It kills instantly, but without causing\nblood to flow. The reference is to the lightning stroke.\n\n[447] IVR. 29, no. 1.\n\n[448] Perhaps a reference to Ea.\n\n[449] Name for the inhabitants of Babylonla, and then used in general\nfor mankind. _Cf._ p. 281.\n\n[450] IVR. 18, no. 2. Badly preserved.\n\n[451] _I.e._, call upon thee to be pacified.\n\n[452] _I.e._, salute thee.\n\n[453] Bel.\n\n[454] The strongly fortified city of Babylon is compared to a bolt and\nthe temple to an enclosure.\n\n[455] IVR. 28, no. 2.\n\n[456] _I.e._, fly to a safe place.\n\n[457] _I.e._, the sun is obscured.\n\n[458] See above, p. 84.\n\n[459] Delitzsch, _Assyrische Lesestuecke_ (3d edition), pp. 134-136.\n\n[460] The portents taken through observation of the position of Ishtar\nor Venus in the heavens were of especial value.\n\n[461] Phrases introduced to illustrate the power, not the function, of\nIshtar.\n\n[462] The liver as the seat of the emotions.\n\n[463] _I.e._, house of heaven. Name of Ishtar's temple at Erech.\n\n[464] _I.e._, court of the universe. Name of one of Ishtar's temples.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nPENITENTIAL PSALMS.\n\n\nIt will be recalled that both in the Ishtar hymn and in the one to\nMarduk above quoted, great stress is laid upon pacifying the deity\naddressed. Starting from the primitive conception that misfortunes were\na manifestation of divine anger, the Babylonians never abandoned the\nbelief that transgressions could be atoned for only by appeasing the\nanger of the deity. But within this limitation, an ethical spirit was\ndeveloped among the Babylonians that surprises us by its loftiness and\ncomparative purity. Instead of having recourse merely to incantation\nformulas, the person smitten with disease or pursued by ill fortune\nwould turn in prayer to some god at whose instigation the evil has come\nand appeal for the pacification of the divine wrath. But while the\norigin of the so-called penitential psalms is thus closely bound up with\nthe same order of thought that gave rise to the incantation texts, no\nless significant is the divorce between the two classes of compositions\nthat begins already at an early stage of the literary period. The\nincantations, it is true, may be combined with compositions that belong\nto a higher order of religious thought. We have seen that they have been\nso combined, and yet the dividing line between the two is also sharply\nmarked. Zimmern, to whom, more than to any one else, the interpretation\nof these penitential psalms is due, has suggested[465] that national\nmisfortunes rather than private grievances may have given an impetus to\nthis class of literary productions. It is true that historical\nreferences are found in some of the hymns, and it is also significant\nthat not only do these psalms occasionally embody a prayer for the\nking,--thus giving to them a national rather than a personal\ncharacter,--but the kings are called upon in times of distress to\naccompany their libations to the gods with the recitation of a 'lament\nto quiet the heart,'[466] as the Babylonians called this class of hymns.\n\nOne can easily see how such events as defeat in war would be ascribed to\ndivine wrath, and not to the workings of evil spirits or witches; and\nwhile the personal tone that pervades most of the penitential psalms\nmakes them applicable to conditions affecting the individual as well as\nthe nation, the peculiar fitness of such psalms for occasions of\nnational importance was a powerful factor in bringing about their sharp\nseparation from the incantation formulas.\n\nJust as in the hymns we found that the mere contemplation of the\nattributes of the gods, apart from the manifestation of these attributes\nin any particular instance, led to a loftier interpretation of the\nrelationship existing between the gods and mankind, so the thought that\nevil was due in the last instance to the anger of some god led to\ngreater emphasis being laid upon this relationship. The anger of the god\nprompted both the individual and the nation to greater zeal in securing\nthe deity's love. To an even greater extent than in the hymns is the\nelement of love introduced into the penitential psalms, and when not\ndirectly expressed, is so clearly implied as to form the necessary\ncomplement to the conception of the divine wrath. These psalms indeed\nshow the religious and ethical thought of Babylonia at its best. Their\nethical phase manifests itself more particularly in the conception of\nsin which is unfolded in them. The misfortunes of life, more especially\nthose which could not so readily be ascribed to the presence of evil\nspirits, filled the individual with his sense of guilt. In some way,\nknown or unknown to him, he must have offended the deity. The thought\nwhether the deity was justified in exercising his wrath did not trouble\nhim any more than the investigation of the question whether the\npunishment was meted out in accordance with the extent of the wrong\ncommitted. It was not necessary for the deity to be just; it was\nsufficient that some god felt himself to be offended, whether through\nthe omission of certain rights or through an error in the performance of\nrites or what not. The two facts which presented themselves with\noverpowering force to the penitent were the anger of the deity and the\nnecessity of appeasing that anger. Beyond this conclusion the\nBabylonians and Assyrians did not go, but this reasoning also sufficed\nto bring the conviction home to him that his misfortunes were the result\nof some offence. The man afflicted was a sinner, and the corollary to\nthis position was that misfortunes come in consequence of sin. Through\nthe evils alone which overtook one, it became clear to an individual\nthat he had sinned against the deity. Within this circle of ideas the\npenitential psalms of Babylonia move. They do not pass wholly outside of\nthe general Semitic view that sin is a 'missing of the mark,'--a\nfailure, whether voluntary or involuntary, to comply with what was\ndemanded by the deity under whose protection one stood. But one became\nconscious of having 'missed the mark' only when evil in some\nform--disease, ill luck, deluge, drought, defeat, destruction, storms,\npecuniary losses, family discords, the death of dear ones--came to\nremind the individual or the nation of the necessity of securing the\nfavor of the deity again. Still within this sphere there were great\npossibilities of ethical progress, and some of the Babylonian psalms\nbreathe a spirit and are couched in a diction that have prompted a\ncomparison with the Biblical psalms.[467] Thrown, as the sinner felt\nhimself to be, upon the mercy of the angry deity, it mattered little\nwhat had called forth this wrath or whether the deity was conceived as\nacting in accordance with just ideas. The thought that would engage the\nentire attention of the penitent would be the appeasement of his god. To\neffect this, he would not stop short at exaggerating his own guilt. He\nwould manifest a contrition of spirit that would not be the less sincere\nfor being, perhaps, out of proportion to the character of his sin when\njudged by our standards.\n\nCorresponding to the humiliation of mind to which he would be brought,\nhis longing to be reconciled to the offended deity would be intensified.\nHe would address this deity in terms of strong endearment, magnify his\nor her powers, as the case may be, and belittle himself and his own\nworth. The result of such a mental discipline could not but react\nhealthfully on the mind of the penitent. The penitent would arise from\nhis prayer with a more spiritual conception of the relationship existing\nbetween himself and his god. Not appealing for any material benefits for\nthe time being, but concerned only with appeasing the divine wrath, the\nsingle burden of his prayer \"that the heart of the offended god might be\n'at rest'\" would be marked by an intensity all the stronger for being at\nleast comparatively pure of grosser associations.\n\nAll these features combined serve to make the penitential psalms the\nflower of the religious literature of Babylonia. The productions not\nonly represent the highest stage which religious thought reached in the\nEuphrates Valley, but, in a certain sense, constitute the only\nproductions in cuneiform literature that have a permanent literary\nvalue.\n\nWe find these compositions marked by a third feature which, however, as\nwe have already seen, is not peculiar to them,--the dialogue form. In\norder to bring about a reconciliation with an angered god, three\npersonages were necessary in the drama,--the god, the penitent, and,\nthirdly, the priest, acting as mediator between the sinner and his\ndeity. The deity, according to Babylonian notions, could not be\napproached directly, but only through his chosen messengers,--the\npriests. This idea of mediation, as against the immediate approach, was\nso pronounced as to lead, as we have seen, to the frequent association\nwith a god of a second divine personage,--his son or his\nservant,--through whom the petitions of mankind were brought to the\nthrone of grace.[468] The priest was similarly conceived as the\nmessenger of the god, and, by virtue of this office, endowed with a\ncertain measure, at least, of divine power. He was, in the full sense,\nthe god's vicar on earth,--his representative, who could, as we saw in\nthe Ishtar hymn, speak in the first person on behalf of the god.[469]\nThe more manifest mission of the priest, however, was to intercede on\nbehalf of the mass of mankind. Accepting the sacrifices offered by the\nlaity, it was he that secured their gracious acceptance on the part of\nthe deity. It was the priest, as we have seen, who instructed the\nindividual to pronounce the magic formulas that would be appropriate to\nhis case; and just as in the incantation texts the priest accompanied\nthe recitation of the formulas with an appeal of his own, so in the\npenitential psalms, he stood at the penitent's side, instructing him\nwhat to say, and emphasizing the confessions of the penitent by an\nassurance to the deity of the sincerity of the penitent, coupled with a\nfervent request that the prayer for 'appeasement,' which involved all\nthat we mean by forgiveness, be graciously answered.\n\nIt is unfortunate that the text of none of the penitential psalms is\nperfectly preserved. We must, therefore, content ourselves in our\nillustrations with more or less imperfect extracts. It is to be noted,\ntoo, that often the exact meaning of the lines escapes us, owing to the\nobscurity of terms employed or to the gaps in the texts themselves. With\nfew exceptions the psalms appear in the double style characteristic of\nso large a section of the religious literature of the Babylonians, the\n'ideographic' composition being accompanied by a phonetic\ntransliteration. The fact, however, that we have at least one text (IVR.\n59, no. 2) in the phonetic style alone, is sufficient to show that no\n_special_ weight is to be attached to the supposed 'bilingual' character\nof the others. This double style is not a feature that need be taken\ninto account in determining the age of this class of compositions. The\nhistorical references in some of them have prompted Zimmern to give his\npartial assent to the opinion which would assign them, or some of them,\nto the age of Hammurabi. Beyond such references, which are not as clear\nas they might be, we have no data through which their age can be\ndetermined; but so far as the ideas which they convey and the religious\nspirit manifested in them are concerned, there is no reason why they\nshould not be assigned to as early a period as some of the incantation\ntexts. It is characteristic of the Babylonian, as, in a measure, of all\nreligions, that the old and the new go hand in hand; that more advanced\nconceptions, so far from setting aside primitive ones, can live and\nthrive in the same atmosphere with the latter. We may, therefore, assume\nthat penitential psalms existed as early as 2000 B.C. Whether any of\nthese that have been preserved go back to that period is another\nquestion. One gains the impression from a careful study of them that\nmost of these, if not all, belong to a somewhat later period, nearer to\nthe first millennium than to the second millennium before our era. The\nAssyrians adopted these psalms, as they did the other features of the\nreligious literature of the Babylonians, and enriched the collection by\nproductions of their own which, however, follow closely the Babylonian\nmodels.\n\nA particularly beautiful psalm, judging from the portion preserved,\nrepresents the penitent addressing his goddess--probably Ishtar--as\nfollows:[470]\n\n  I, thy servant, full of sighs, call upon thee;\n  The fervent prayer of him who has sinned do thou accept.\n  If thou lookest upon a man, that man lives.\n  O all-powerful mistress of mankind,\n  Merciful one, to whom it is good to turn, who hears[471] sighs!\n\nAt this point the priest takes up the thread to emphasize the appeal of\nthe penitent by adding to it his own. He prays to the goddess:\n\n  His god and goddess being angry with him, he calls upon thee,\n  Turn towards him thy countenance, take hold of his hand.\n\nThe penitent continues:\n\n  Besides thee, there is no guiding deity.\n  I implore thee to look upon me and hear my sighs.\n  Proclaim pacification,[472] and may thy soul be appeased.\n  How long, O my mistress, till thy countenance be turned towards me.\n  Like doves, I lament, I satiate myself with sighs.\n\nThe priest once more sums up the penitent's prayer:\n\n  With pain and ache, his soul is full of sighs;\n  Tears he weeps, he pours forth lament (?).\n\nA trait which appears in many of these psalms is the anonymity beneath\nwhich the offended deity is veiled. His or her name is often not\nmentioned, the deity being simply referred to as god or goddess, and at\ntimes it is left doubtful whether the sinner has 'sinned' against the\ndemands of a god or a goddess, or against several deities. This feature\nis not without significance. In some cases, no doubt, the name of the\nspecific deity was to be added by the penitent,[473] but in others this\ndoes not appear to be indicated. The anonymity is the natural result of\nthe conception of sin involved in these productions. The sinner,\nbecoming conscious of his guilt only as a conclusion drawn from the fact\nof his suffering from some misfortune, could only surmise, but never be\nentirely certain, wherein his offence consisted or what deity he had\noffended. In the case of the recital of incantation formulas, the\nquestion as to the offended deity was a minor one, and may indeed, at an\nearlier stage of thought, not have entered into consideration at all.\nThis anonymity, therefore, which characterized the penitential psalms\nwas not due to any advance in thought, but one can easily see how it led\nto such an advance. What may be called the personal aspects of the gods\nwere less accentuated. The very fact that no particular god could in\nmany cases be specified entailed, as a consequence, that the views held\nof the gods gained in abstractness. The general thought of one's\ndependence upon these supernatural powers, without further\nspecification, superinduced a grouping of the gods under a common\naspect, as the directors of man's fate. In short, the notion of deity,\nnot indeed as a unit, but as a collective idea, begins to dawn in\nBabylonia. At the same time we must beware of exaggerating the force\nthat this notion acquired. There is not the slightest trace of any\napproach to real monotheism in Babylonia, nor can it even be said that\nthe penitential psalms constitute a bridge leading to such an approach.\nThe strong hold that astrology at all times, and up to the latest\nperiods, had upon both the popular and the educated mind was in itself\nsufficient to prevent the Babylonians from passing, to any considerable\ndegree, beyond the stage in which the powers of nature were personified\nand imbued with real life. The penitential psalms presuppose this belief\nas much as any other branch of the religious literature; they merely\nillustrate this belief in the purest form of which, in the course of its\ndevelopment, it was capable.\n\nA psalm in which this anonymity of the offended god is more strongly\nbrought out begins as follows.[474] The penitent prays:\n\n  O that the wrath of my lord's heart return to its former\n    condition,[475]\n  O that the god who is unknown be pacified,\n  O that the goddess unknown be pacified,\n  O that the god known or unknown[476] be pacified,\n  O that the goddess known or unknown be pacified,\n  O that the heart of my god be pacified,\n  O that the god or goddess known or unknown be pacified!\n\nThe penitent, it will be seen, does not know whether it is a god or a\ngoddess whom he has offended. He therefore appeals to both. He goes on\nto say that he is not even aware of the sin that he has committed:\n\n  The sin that I have committed I know not.\n\nAnd yet he must have sinned or he would not suffer as he does. In\naddition to his confession, he imposes the hardship of fasting upon\nhimself by way of penance:\n\n  Food I have not eaten;\n  Clear water I have not drunk.\n\nThe reference to fasting occurs so frequently in these psalms that one\nis tempted to conclude that such a bodily castigation was demanded by\nthe ritual of the Babylonians:[477]\n\n  An offence have I unwittingly committed against my god,\n  A sin against my goddess unwillingly been guilty of,\n  O lord, my sins are many, great are my transgressions,\n  O my god, my sins are many, great are my transgressions,\n  O my goddess, my sins are many, great are my transgressions,\n  Known or unknown god, my sins are many, great are my transgressions.\n\nAgain the sinner protests his innocence of the wrong he has done. He\nonly knows that\n\n  The lord has looked upon me in the rage of his heart,\n  A god has visited me in his wrath,\n  A goddess has become angry with me and brought me into pain,\n  A known or unknown god has oppressed me,\n  A known or unknown goddess has brought sorrow upon me.\n  I seek for help, but no one takes my hand.\n  I weep, but no one approaches me.\n  I call aloud, but no one hears me.\n  Full of woe, I grovel in the dust without looking up.\n  To my merciful god I turn, speaking with sighs.\n  The feet of my goddess I kiss imploringly (?).\n  To the known or unknown god do I speak with sighs,\n  To the known or unknown goddess do I speak with sighs.\n  O lord, look upon me, accept my lament,\n  O goddess, look upon me, accept my lament,\n  O known or unknown goddess, look upon me, accept my lament!\n\nIn this strain he proceeds for some time, until he is interrupted by the\npriest, who briefly adds:\n\n  O lord, do not cast aside thy servant,\n  Overflowing with tears,[478] take him by the hand!\n\nThe penitent closes the prayer by another and still more earnest appeal:\n\n  The sin I have committed change to mercy,\n  The wrong I have done, may the wind carry off.\n  Tear asunder my many transgressions as a garment.\n  My god, my sins are seven times seven,[479] forgive me my sins.\n  My goddess, my sins are seven times seven, forgive me my sins,\n  Known or unknown god, my sins are seven times seven, forgive me my\n    sins.\n  Known or unknown goddess, my sins are seven times seven, forgive me my\n    sins.\n  Forgive me my sins and I will humble myself before thee.\n  May thy heart be glad[480] as the heart of the mother that has given\n    birth,\n  May thy heart be glad as that of a mother who has given birth, as\n    that of a father who has begotten a child.\n\nThe proportions between the parts taken by the priest and penitent vary\nconsiderably. In the one quoted, the priest is only incidentally\nintroduced; in others,[481] it is the penitent who plays the minor part.\nThe penitential ritual varied accordingly; but since we cannot discover\nhere, as we could in the case of the incantation texts, the special\noccasions for the variations, except for those that contain historical\nreferences, one must suppose that they could be used indifferently at\nthe choice of the penitent or the priest. It is probable that at one\ntime a large collection of such psalms was made in Babylonia, and that\nthose we have represent compositions made from the rituals of various\ntemples. In one psalm we have a distinct statement from which we may\nconclude that it belonged to the E-sagila temple at Babylon. Only a\nportion of it is preserved.[482] It is interesting, also, because of a\nreference to a dream that it contains, and which the god of Babylon is\ncalled upon to convert into a favorable sign for the petitioner. Zimmern\nis of the opinion that the hymn may have been an evening prayer, but it\nseems more satisfactory to place it merely in the general category of\npenitential psalms, with a request for a sign that the deity has been\nappeased. The sinner, after describing his woeful state,--\n\n  Instead of food, I eat bitter tears,\n  Instead of date-wine, I drink the waters of misery,\n  For my drink I have bitter waters,\n  Instead of clothes, I am enveloped in sin,[483]--\n\nproceeds to a fervent appeal:\n\n  O my god who art angry with me, accept my prayer,\n  O my goddess who art wroth with me, accept my appeal,\n  Accept my appeal, may thy liver be at rest!\n  My lord in mercy and compassion [look upon me?]\n  Who guides the span of life against the encroachments (?) of death,\n    accept my prayer!\n  O my goddess, look upon me, accept my appeal;\n  May my sins be forgiven,[484] my transgressions be wiped out.\n  May the ban be loosened, the chain broken,\n  May the seven winds carry off my sighs.\n  Let me tear away my iniquity, let the birds carry it to heaven,\n  Let the fish take off my misfortune, the stream carry it off.\n  May the beasts of the field take it away from me,\n  The flowing waters of the stream wash me clean.\n  Let me be pure like the sheen of gold.\n  As a ring (?) of precious stone, may I be precious before thee.\n  Remove my iniquity, save my soul.\n  Thy [temple] court I will watch, thy image (?) I will set up.[485]\n  Grant to me that I may see a favorable dream,\n  The dream that I see, let it be favorable,\n  The dream that I see, let it be unfailing,\n  The dream that I see, turn it to a favorable [issue].\n  The god Makhir (?), the god of dreams stand at my head.\n  Let me enter into E-sagila, the temple of the gods, the house of life.\n  Commend me to Marduk, the merciful one, for favor,\n  I will be subservient to thy greatness, I will exalt thy divinity.\n\nThere follows a line from which one may further conclude that the psalm\nis one composed for the royal chief of Babylonia. It is evidently only a\nruler who can assure the deity that\n\n  The inhabitants of my city,[486] may they glorify thy power.\n\nWe know from the historical texts that previous to a military engagement\nthe kings were particularly desirous of some sign from the deity that\nmight serve to encourage the soldiery. Such a sign was ordinarily a\ndream. The circumstances, therefore, seem to point to our psalm being a\nroyal prayer for forgiveness of transgressions, uttered before some\nimpending national crisis, in the hope of securing, with the divine\npardon, the protection of the deity who, up to this point in the\ncampaign, must have manifested his displeasure rather than his favor.\nMore distinct references to national events are found in another royal\npenitential psalm:[487]\n\n  How long, O my mistress, will the mighty foe oppress thy land,\n  In thy great city Erech famine has settled,\n  In E-ulbar, the house of thy oracle, blood is poured out like water,\n  Throughout thy districts he has kindled conflagrations, and poured\n    [fire] over them in columns (?).[488]\n  O my mistress, I am abundantly yoked to misfortune,\n  O my mistress, thou hast encompassed me, thou hast brought me into\n    pain,\n  The mighty foe has trodden me down as a reed,\n  I have no judgment, I have no wisdom,\n  Like a 'dry field' I am desolate night and day,\n  I thy servant beseech thee,\n  May thy heart be at rest, thy liver be pacified.\n\nAt times specific requests are inserted into these hymns, such as\nrelease from physical ills. Sickness being, as any other evil, due to\ndivine anger, the sick man combines with his prayer for forgiveness of\nthe sin of which he is guilty, the hope that his disease, viewed as the\nresult of his sin, may be removed. A hymn addressed to Ishtar of Nineveh\nby Ashurnasirbal, a king of Assyria,[489] is of this character. It\nbegins by an adoration of the goddess, who is addressed as\n\n  The producer, the queen of heaven, the glorious lady,\n  To the one who dwells in E-babbara ... who hath spread my fame,\n  To the queen of the gods to whom has been entrusted the commands of\n    the great gods,\n  To the lady of Nineveh ...\n  To the daughter of Sin, the twin-sister of Shamash, ruling over all\n    kingdoms,\n  Who issues decrees, the goddess of the universe,\n  To the lady of heaven and earth, who receives prayer, who hearkens to\n    the petition, who accepts beseeching,\n  To the merciful goddess who loves righteousness.\n\nThe king calls upon Ishtar to listen to his prayers:\n\n  Look upon me, O lady, so that through thy turning towards me the heart\n    of thy servant may become strong.\n\nAshurnasirbal appeals to the goddess on the ground of what he has done\nto promote the glory of the goddess in his land. He has devoted himself\nto the service of the goddess. He has observed the festivals in her\nhonor. He has repaired her shrines. No less than fourteen images of the\ngoddess were set up by the king. Nay, more, he claims that before his\ndays Ishtar was not properly worshipped.\n\n  I was without understanding, and did not pray to thy ladyship,\n  The people of Assyria also lacked judgment, and did not approach thy\n    divinity;\n  But thou, O Ishtar, mighty weapon of the great gods,\n  By thy grace[490] thou didst instruct me, and didst desire me to rule.\n\nThe statement that the Ishtar cult was introduced or even reinstated by\nAshurnasirbal can hardly be taken literally; but it distinctly points to\na movement in the days of the dynasty to which the king belonged, that\nbrought the worship of the goddess into great prominence.\n\nIn return for all that he has done to the house of Ishtar, the king\npleads:\n\n  I, Ashurnasirbal, full of affliction, thy worshipper,\n  Who takes hold of thy divine staff,\n  Who prays to thy sovereignty,\n  Look upon me and let me appeal to thy power!\n  May thy liver be appeased for that which has aroused thy anger;\n  Let thy whole heart be strong towards me.\n  Make my disease come forth and remove my sin,\n  Let thy mouth, O lady, proclaim forgiveness.\n  The priestly vassal who worships thee without change,\n  Grant him mercy and cut off his affliction.\n\nThe historical references found in the penitential psalms are valuable\nindications, not only for determining the age of these compositions, but\nfor ascertaining the occasions on which they were employed. Neither the\nBabylonian nor the Assyrian rulers ever reveal to us in their official\nannals or dispatches any check that they may have encountered in their\ncareers or any misfortune that may have occurred to them or to the\nstate. These psalms tell their own story. They point to seasons of\ndistress, when recourse had to be taken to appeals to the gods,\naccompanied by the confession of wrongs committed. As against the\nincantations which are the outcome of the purely popular spirit, and\nwhich are the _natural_ expression of popular beliefs, the penitential\npsalms seem to represent a more official method of appealing to the\ngods. The advance in religious thought which these productions signal\nmay, therefore, be due, in part at least, to a growing importance\nattached to the relationship existing between the gods and the kingdom\nas a whole, as against the purely private pact between a god and his\nworshippers. The use of these psalms by Assyrian rulers, among whom the\nidea of the kingdom assumes a greater significance than among the\nBabylonians, points in this direction. It is significant, at all events,\nthat such psalms were also produced in Assyria; and while they are\nentirely modeled upon the earlier Babylonian specimens, the contribution\nto the religious literature thus made in the north must be regarded, not\nas the outcome of the extension of the literary spirit prevailing in\nBabylonia, but as prompted by a special significance attached to the\npenitential ritual in removing the obstacles to the advancement of the\naffairs of state.\n\nDespite, therefore, the elevated thought and diction found in these\npsalms, there is a close bond existing between them and the next branch\nof the religious literature to be taken up,--the oracles and omens,\nwhich similarly stand in close contact with affairs of state, and to\nwhich, likewise, additions, and indeed, considerable additions, to the\nstock received from Babylonia were made by the Assyrian _literati_.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[465] _Babylonische Busspsalmen_, pp. 1, 2.\n\n[466] _I.e._, of the deity.\n\n[467] See an article by Francis Brown, \"The Religious Poetry of\nBabylonia,\" _Presbyterian Review_, 1888.\n\n[468] Compare the relationship existing between Ea and Marduk, noted\nabove, p. 276. Similarly, Nusku was the messenger to Bel. See p. 279.\n\n[469] On the wider aspects of this conception of the priest among\nancient nations, see Frazer, _The Golden Bough_, passim.\n\n[470] Zimmern, no. 1; IVR. 29, no. 5.\n\n[471] Lit., 'accepts.'\n\n[472] In the original appears a phrase which signifies literally 'when\nat last,'--an abbreviation for 'when will there be rest,' and which has\nbecome a kind of technical phrase to indicate, again, the hoped-for\npacification of the deity.\n\n[473] The colophon to one of them (IVR. 10, Reverse 52) declares that\nthe production in question is a \"penitential psalm for any god\nwhatsoever.\"\n\n[474] IVR. 10. Zimmern, no. 4.\n\n[475] _I.e._, be pacified.\n\n[476] _I.e._, 'whoever he may be,' as we would say.\n\n[477] Among many nations fasting is resorted to as a means of atonement.\nIt must have been common among the Hebrews during the period of the\nBabylonian exile--perhaps through Babylonian influence. See Isaiah,\nlviii. 3.\n\n[478] Lit., rushing water.\n\n[479] _I.e._, very numerous.\n\n[480] Be pacified.\n\n[481] _E.g._, IVR. 61.\n\n[482] _Ib._ 59, no. 2.\n\n[483] Delitzsch, _Assyr. Woerterbuch_, p. 378. In another psalm the\npenitent says similarly, \"Food I have not eaten, weeping is my\nnourishment, water I have not drunk, tears are my drink.\"\n\n[484] Lit., 'released.' The underlying metaphor represents the\nindividual held fast by sin, just as the demons seize hold of a man.\n\n[485] A somewhat puzzling line, but which appears to convey the promise\non the part of the penitent that if forgiven he will observe the rites\ndemanded by the deity.\n\n[486] Babylon.\n\n[487] IVR 19, no. 3; Zimmern, no. 5.\n\n[488] Like a column. The metaphor is the same as in the Biblical phrase,\n\"column of smoke.\"\n\n[489] Published by Bruennow, _Zeits. f. Assyr._ v. 66 _seq._ The king\nmentions his father, Shamshi-Ramman, in the hymn. If this is\nShamshi-Ramman III., the date of the hymn would be _c._ 1100 B.C.\n\n[490] Lit., 'lifting up of thy eyes.'\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nORACLES AND OMENS.\n\n\nA strong element of magic, we have seen, was always present in the hymns\nand prayers of the Babylonians, and even in such as contained religious\nsentiments of an elevated and pure character. The finest prayer has\nalmost invariably tacked on to it an incantation, or constitutes in\nitself an incantation. Accompanying the prayer were offerings to the\ndeity addressed, or certain symbolical rites, or both, and the efficacy\nof the prayer was supposed to reside partly in the accompanying acts and\npartly in the mystic power of the _words_ of the prayer as such. In\nlarge measure this indissoluble association of prayer and incantation is\ndue to the circumstance that both Babylonians and Assyrians addressed\ntheir deities only when something was desired of the latter,--the\nwarding off of some evil or the expectation of some favor. Even in the\npenitential psalms, that merit the term 'sublime,' the penitent pours\nout his soul at the shrine of grace in order to be released from some\nmisfortune that has come over him or that is impending. Mere praise of\nthe gods without any ulterior motive finds no place in the Babylonian or\nAssyrian ritual. The closest approach to this religious attitude may\nperhaps be seen in the prayers attached by the kings to their\ncommemorative or dedicatory inscriptions. One feels that the rulers are\nimpelled to do this from a certain sense of love and devotion to their\nprotecting deities. Nebuchadnezzar's prayers form a conspicuous example\nof the strength which pure love and attachment to the gods acquired in\nBabylonia; but even in these specimens, a request of some kind--usually\nfor long life and prosperity--is made. The spiritualization of the\nBabylonian religion has in this way most definite limitations imposed\nupon it. There is a point beyond which it could not go without giving\nrise to a totally changed conception of the gods and their relationship\nto men. Prayer in its higher form, as the result of an irresistible\nprompting of the emotions, without any other purpose than the longing to\ncome into closer communion with a superior Power, involves such a change\nin religious conceptions, and hence is conspicuous in the Babylonian\nritual by its absence.\n\nA request of some kind being thus the motive that lies behind the\nBabylonian prayers, it follows that the means taken to ascertain the\nwill or intention of the gods with regard to that request formed an\nessential feature of the ritual. Indeed, to ascertain the will of a\ndeity constituted one of the most important functions of the\npriest--perhaps _the_ most important function. The prayer was of no use\nunless it was answered, and the priest alone could tell whether the\nanswer was afforded. The efforts of the priest were accordingly directed\ntowards this end--the prognostication of the future. What was the\nintention of the deity? Would the hoped-for deliverance from evil be\nrealized? Would the demon of disease leave the body? Would the\nsymbolical acts, burning of effigies, loosening of knots, and the like,\nhave the desired effect? Upon the success of the priest in performing\nthis function of prognostication everything depended, both for himself\nand for the petitioner.\n\nThe natural and indeed necessary complement to the priest as exorciser\nis the priest as the forecaster of the future. Since no one, not even\nthe king, could approach a deity directly, the mediation of the priest\nwas needed on every occasion of a religious import. The ordinary means\nat the disposal of the priest for ascertaining the divine will or\ncaprice were twofold,--directly through oracles or indirectly by means\nof omens derived from an examination of the sacrifices offered. A\ncomplete Babylonian ritual therefore required, besides the appeal made\nby the petitioner through the priests or with their assistance, an\nincantation introduced in some form, an offering, certain symbolical\nacts and omens. The offerings and the symbolical acts, as a matter of\nfact, appear to have preceded[491] the prayer and the incantation, but\nin the prayers they are referred to again, and generally just before the\ninterpretation of the omens. The omens constituted the ulterior end in\nview. Because of the looked-for omens the offering was brought, the\nsymbolical acts performed, the incantations recited. All these rites\nformed the preparation for the grand _finale_. The worshipper waited\nanxiously for the decision of the priest. Attached, therefore, to the\nprayers we frequently find directions intended for the priests as to the\nsigns to which his attention should be directed, certain peculiarities\nexhibited in parts of the animal sacrificed from which certain\nconclusions may be drawn. The observation of these signs grows to the\ndimensions of a science equal in extent to the observation of the\nheavenly bodies whose movements, as indeed the whole of the natural\nworld, were supposed to exert an influence over the fate of mankind.\n\nIt does not of course follow that in the case of every prayer an\nelaborate ritual was observed. Many of the prayers to the gods in their\npresent form do not embody omens, as indeed many contain no reference to\nofferings or symbolical acts. While no conclusion can be drawn from this\ncircumstance, since the omission may be due to the point of view from\nwhich in a given case a collection of prayers was made by the priest,\nstill we may well believe that for the exorcising of evil spirits the\nutterance of sacred formulas was often considered quite sufficient. In\nthe earlier stages of the Babylonian religion the priest's function may\nhave ended when he had exorcised the demons by means of magic words. The\ndemons were forced to yield. If they nevertheless held out, so much the\nworse for them or--for the priest, who, it was concluded, must have lost\nhis power over the spirits through some error committed by him. The\nresort to omens has wider aspects, as will presently be shown, than the\nconnection with prayers and offerings, and a most reasonable view is\nthat omens were first introduced into prayers on occasions when a\nworshipper wished to ascertain the will of a deity for a certain\npurpose, and to regulate his own conduct accordingly. In petitioning the\ndeity a sacrifice was naturally offered. Through the sacrifice, which\nwas rendered acceptable to the deity by the mediation of the priest, the\ndesired answer to a question was obtained. From being resorted to in\nsuch instances, omens would naturally come to form part of the ritual\nfor almost any occasion when a deity was appealed to, both in connection\nwith incantations and symbolical acts when the omens would form a\nsupplement to the magic element in the ritual, as well as in cases where\nno specific incantations are introduced. In both cases the omens would\nconstitute the means resorted to for ascertaining whether the petitioner\nmight look for a favorable reply to a request proffered or, in a more\ngeneral way, find out anything that it may be important for him to know.\nThe occasions for consulting the deity would be of a public or private\ncharacter. How far it became customary for the general public to secure\nthe mediation of a priest for securing aid from the gods in matters\nappertaining to personal welfare we have no means of definitely\ndetermining. We find, for example, a son consulting an oracle on behalf\nof his father in order to ascertain what day would be favorable for\nundertaking some building operation,[492] and he receives the answer\nthat the fourth of the month will be propitious; and so there are other\noccasions on which private individuals consult the priests, but in\ngeneral it was only on occasions of real distress that an individual\nwould come to the sanctuary,--to seek relief from bodily ills, to ward\noff blows of adversity, to pacify a deity who has manifested his or her\ndispleasure. The expense involved--for the worshipper was not to appear\nempty-handed--would of itself act as a deterrent against too frequent\nvisits to a sanctuary.\n\nThe public welfare occupied a much larger share in the Babylonian\nworship. In order to ensure the safety of the state, occasions\nconstantly arose when the deities had to be consulted. It is no accident\nthat so many of the prayers--the hymns and psalms--contain references to\nkings and to events that transpired during their reigns. In these\nreferences the occasions for the prayers are to be sought. Remarkable as\nis the expression which the consciousness of individual guilt finds in\nthe religious literature of Babylonia, the anger of the deity against\nhis land is much more prominently dwelt upon than the manifestation of\nhis wrath towards an individual. It could not be otherwise, since the\nwelfare of the state conditioned to so large an extent the happiness of\nthe individual. The startling phenomena of nature, such as an eclipse, a\nflood, a storm, while affecting individuals were not aimed directly at\nthem, but at the country viewed as the domain of a certain god or of\ncertain gods. Blighted crops, famine, and pestilence had likewise a\npublic as well as a private aspect. On all such occasions the rulers\nwould proceed to the sanctuaries in order, with the assistance of the\npriests, to pacify the angered god. It was not sufficient at such times\nto pronounce sacred formulas, to make fervent appeals, but some\nassurances had to be given that the words and the symbolical acts would\nhave the desired effect. Omens were sought for from the animals offered.\nThere were other occasions besides those stated, when for the sake of\nthe public welfare oracles were sought at the sanctuaries. If a public\nimprovement was to be undertaken, such as the building of a palace, or\nof a temple, of a canal, or a dam, it was of the utmost importance to\nknow whether the enterprise was acceptable to the deity. A day had to be\ncarefully chosen for laying the foundations, when the god would be\nfavorably disposed towards his subjects,--the kings under whose auspices\nsuch work was carried on. Similar precautions had to be taken to select\na favorable day for the dedication. This again was determined by means\nof omens either derived from offerings or in some other way. The\nBabylonians and Assyrians believed, as did the Jews upon their return\nfrom the Babylonian exile, that 'unless the lord assists, the builders\nwork in vain.' When we come to military campaigns where the individual\ndisappears altogether in the presence of the majestic figure of the\nstate, the will and disposition of the gods had to be consulted at every\nstep,--regarding the plans of the enemy, at the enemy's approach, before\nthe battle, in the midst of the fray, and at its termination.\n\nThe frequency with which the gods were approached in the interests of\nthe state and the public weal, plied with questions upon which the fate\nof the land depended, is shown by the stereotyped form which such\nofficial solicitations in the course of time acquired. Dating from the\nreigns of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanabal we have an elaborate series of\nprayers addressed to the sun-god, all dealing with questions of a\npolitical import. These prayers, so admirably edited and analyzed by\nKnudtzon,[493] are all arranged according to a single pattern. Each one\nopens with a question or series of questions which Shamash, the sun-god,\nis asked to answer. The god is then implored not to be angry, but to\nlend his aid against any errors unwittingly committed in the sacrificial\nrites. For a second time the same question is put in a somewhat varying\nform. Another appeal is made, and the various omens derived from the\ninspection of animals are interpreted as a guide to the priests.\nAccording to the application of these omens to the sacrifice before the\npriest, a decision is rendered. It will be sufficient for our purposes\nto present a single specimen of such a fixed ritual.[494]\n\nEsarhaddon, being hard pressed by a group of nations to the northeast of\nAssyria, led by a certain Kashtariti, and among whose followers the\nGimirrites, the Medes, and Manneans are the most prominent, asks for an\noracle from Shamash as to the outcome of the situation. The priest,\nacting as mediator, addresses[495] the god:\n\n    O Shamash! great lord! As I ask thee, do thou in true mercy\n    answer me.\n\n    From this day, the 3d day of this month of Iyar[496] to the 11th\n    day of the month of Ab[497] of this year, a period of one\n    hundred days and one hundred nights is the proscribed term for\n    the priestly activity.[498]\n\n    Will within this period, Kashtariti, together with his soldiery,\n    will the army of the Gimirrites, the army of the Medes, will the\n    army of the Manneans, or will any enemy whatsoever succeed in\n    carrying out their plan, whether by strategy (?) or by main\n    force, whether by the force of weapons of war and fight or by\n    the ax, whether by a breach made with machines of war and\n    battering rams[499] or by hunger, whether by the power residing\n    in the name of a god or goddess,[500] whether in a friendly way\n    or by friendly grace,[501] or by any strategic device, will\n    these aforementioned, as many as are required to take a city,\n    actually capture the city Kishassu, penetrate into the interior\n    of that same city Kishassu, will their hands lay hold of that\n    same city Kishassu, so that it falls into their power? Thy great\n    divine power knows it.[502]\n\n    The capture of that same city, Kishassu, through any enemy\n    whatsoever, within the specified period, is it definitely\n    ordained by thy great and divine will, O Shamash! Will it\n    actually come to pass?[503]\n\nIt will be observed that, much as in a legal document, all contingencies\nare enumerated. In other prayers, still more are mentioned. A definite\nanswer is required, and care is taken not to leave any loophole open by\nmeans of which the deity may escape from the obligation imposed upon him\nto manifest his intention. Shamash might answer that the city will not\nbe captured, with the mental reservation that it will surrender, or he\nmight throw Esarhaddon off his guard by announcing that \"not by might\nnor by strength\" will the city be taken, and the king may be surprised\nsome morning to learn that the catastrophe has been brought about\nthrough the power residing in the 'word.' These precautions were taken,\nnot so much because it was supposed that the gods and priests were\ntricky, but because all conditions had to be carefully fulfilled in\norder to ensure an answer, and, if at all possible, of course a\nfavorable answer. To the same end, great care had to be taken that in\nthe preparation of the offering which accompanied the prayer no mistake\nshould be made. The sacrificial animal--in the case before us a\nlamb--had to be guarded against all imperfections, impurities, and\ncontaminations. The priest had to be careful to put on the proper dress,\nto speak the proper words, and to be himself free from any ritualistic\nimpurity. Before proceeding to the inspection of the animal, in order to\nforecast the future, the priest had to take care that nothing might\nhappen to interfere with the proper observation of the rites. This\nsection of the prayer is characterized by the word \"_ezib_\" repeated at\nthe beginning of every line, and which conveys the appeal that what\nfollows may be precluded from happening.[504] The priest first prays to\nShamash:\n\n  Preclude that after the specified period [the catastrophe may not come\n    to pass],\n  Preclude whatever they [_i.e._, the enemies] may plan may not be\n    carried out (?),\n  Preclude them from making a slaughter and from plundering....\n  Whether the decision of this day be good or bad, ward off a stormy\n    day with pouring rain.\n\nThis last phrase, which is somewhat obscure, seems to be a request made\nin the contingency of an unfavorable omen being received. The sun-god is\nasked, at all events, not to hide his countenance under clouds and rain\non the decisive day of battle. Coming after these preliminary requests\nto the sacrifice, the priest continues:\n\n  Prevent anything unclean from defiling the place of inspection,[505]\n  Prevent the lamb of thy divinity, which is to be inspected, from being\n    imperfect and unfit.\n  Guard him who takes hold of the body of the lamb, who is clothed in\n    the proper sacrificial dress, from having eaten, drunk, or handled\n    anything unclean.\n\nThe priest thereupon repeats his question to the sun-god:\n\n    I ask thee, O Shamash! great lord! whether from the 3d day of\n    this month of Iyar, up to the 11th day of the month of Ab of\n    this year, Kashtariti, with his soldiers, whether the\n    Gimirrites, the Manneans, the Medes, or whether any enemy\n    whatsoever will take the said city, Kishassu, enter that said\n    city, Kishassu, seize said city, Kishassu, with their hands,\n    obtain it in their power.\n\nThe various terms used in describing the taking of a city are once more\nspecified, so as to fulfill all the demands of definiteness in the\nquestion.\n\nThe priest is now ready to proceed with an examination of the animal\nbefore him. A varying list of omens are introduced into the prayers\nunder consideration. That they are so introduced is a proof of the\nofficial character of these texts. The omens were not, of course,\nintended to be recited. They are enumerated as a guide to the priests.\nThe various signs that may be looked for are noted, and according to\nwhat the priest finds he renders his decision. Knudtzon has made the\nobservation[507] that in the prayers published by him, the signs found\non the animal are noted but not interpreted. This rather curious\nomission is again naturally accounted for on the assumption that these\nprayers in their present form are part of a ritual compiled solely for\nthe benefit of priests attached to a Shamash sanctuary. Full directions\nwere not required. All that the priest needed was to know what to look\nfor. For the rest, he depended upon tradition or his own knowledge or\njudgment. The omens themselves, or rather the signs, refer to the\ncondition in which certain parts of the animal are found or to\npeculiarities in the composition of the animal.\n\nThe priest is instructed to observe whether 'at the nape on the left\nside' there is a slit; whether 'at the bottom on the left side of the\nbladder' some peculiarity[508] is found or whether it is normal; whether\n'the nape to the right side' is sunk and split or whether the viscera\nare sound. The proportions, too, in the size of the various parts of the\nbody appear to have been of moment; and in this way, a large number of\npoints are given to which the priest is to direct his attention. From a\ncombination of all peculiarities and signs in a given instance, he\ndivines the disposition of the god addressed, whether it is favorable or\nnot. The whole ceremony is brought to a close by another appeal to the\ngod to send an answer to the question put to him. The priest prays:\n\n    By virtue of this sacrificial lamb, arise and grant true mercy,\n    favorable conditions of the parts of the animal, a declaration\n    favorable and beneficial be ordained by thy great divinity.\n    Grant that this may come to pass. To thy great divinity, O\n    Shamash! great lord! may it[509] be pleasing,[510] and may an\n    oracle be sent in answer!\n\nIn some of the prayers a second series of omen indications are given.\nWhat the oracle announced we are, of course, not told. The ritual is not\nconcerned with results.\n\nFrom the analysis just given it will be seen that the consultation of a\ndeity was often entailed with much ceremony. No doubt the priests did\nall in their power to add to the solemnity of such an occasion. The\nkings on their side showed their lavishness in furnishing victims for\nthe sacrifice. Again and again does Esarhaddon solicit Shamash to reveal\nthe outcome of the military campaigns in which the king was engaged. The\nsame individual, Kashtariti, and the Gimirrites, Medes, etc., are\nmentioned in many other prayers prepared in the course of the campaign;\nand elsewhere other campaigns are introduced. What Esarhaddon did, no\ndoubt his successors also did, as he himself followed the example set by\nhis predecessors. We are justified, then, in concluding that a regular\n'oracle and omen ritual' was developed in Babylonia and Assyria--how\nearly it is of course impossible to say. There is every reason to\nbelieve that in some form such a ritual existed in Babylonia before the\nrise of Assyria, but it is also evident that in a military empire like\nAssyria, there would be more frequent occasion for securing oracles than\nin Babylonia. The ritual may therefore have been carried to a greater\ndegree of perfection in the north. The Assyrian conquerors, if we may\njudge from examples, were fond of asking for an oracle at every turn in\nthe political situation. The king intends to send an official to a\nforeign land, but he is uncertain as to the wisdom of his decision.\nAccordingly, he puts the case before the god. If this decision is taken,\nhe asks, Will the envoy carry out the orders of the king?\n\n  Thy great divinity knows it.\n  Is it commanded and ordained by thy great divinity,\n  O Shamash? Is it to come to pass?[511]\n\nIn a similar way, questions are asked with reference to the course of a\ncampaign. Will the Assyrian king encounter the king of Ethiopia, and\nwill the latter give battle? Will the king return alive from the\ncampaign? is a question frequently asked. Even for their quasi-private\naffairs, the kings sought for an oracle. Before giving his daughter in\nmarriage to a foreign potentate, Esarhaddon desires to know whether the\none seeking this favor, Bartatua, the king of Ishkuza,[512]\n\n    is to be trusted, will he fulfill his promises, will he observe\n    the decrees of Esarhaddon, the king of Assyria, and execute them\n    in good faith?\n\nAgain, when the king is about to associate his son with himself in the\ngovernment, he first inquires whether this is agreeable to the\ndeity.[513] The king fears lest his son may cause trouble, may provoke\ndissensions. Past experience prompts him to be careful before following\nhis inclination.\n\n    Is the entrance of Siniddinabal, the son of Esarhaddon, the king\n    of Assyria, whose name is written on this tablet, into the\n    government in accord with the command of thy great divinity? Is\n    it to come to pass?\n\nThe reference to the writing of the name is interesting. It would appear\nthat the question is actually written by the priest and placed before\nthe deity. The Greeks similarly put their questions to the Delphian\noracle in writing. May it be that among the Babylonians the answer of\nthe god was at times also handed down on a tablet, as the Greek and\nRoman oracles were communicated in writing on the leaves of a tree?\n\nIf sickness entered the royal house, an oracle was likewise sought. The\nking is sick. Is it ordained that he will recover? We are told in one\ncase that[514]\n\n    Nika, the mother of Esarhaddon, the king of Assyria, is sick.\n    She sees the hand of the goddess Nana of Uruk laid heavily upon\n    her.... Is it ordained that this hand will be lifted off from\n    the sufferer?\n\nThe occasions, it is evident, were exceedingly numerous when the\nAssyrian rulers appealed to the priests for oracles. Naturally, this\nappeal was not in all cases made with the elaborate formality\nillustrated by Esarhaddon's petitions to Shamash. At times the monarch,\nas the individual, would content himself with sending to the priest for\nan answer to a question, and the priest would reply in an equally simple\nand direct manner. Quite a number of such messages, sent by priests to\ntheir master, are included in the valuable publication of 'Assyrian\nLetters,' begun by Professor R. F. Harper.[515] The king's son wishes to\nset out on a journey. The father sends to the astrologers Balasi and\nNabu-akheirba, and receives the reply:[516]\n\n    As for Ashur-mukinpalea, about whom the king, our lord, has sent\n    to us, may Ashur, Bel, Nabu, Sin, Shamash, and Ramman bless him.\n    May the king, our lord, witness his welfare (?). Conditions are\n    favorable for the journey. The second day is favorable, the\n    fourth day very favorable.\n\nSimilarly, the astrologers send reports regarding the appearance and\nposition of the moon and the stars, and of various phenomena that had to\nbe taken into account in moments where decisive action had to be taken.\n\nBefore leaving the subject, it may be of interest to point out that\namong the literary remains of the Assyrian period there are \"blank\nformulas\" for oracles, the names in each instance to be filled out by\nthe officiating priest. Such formulas were prepared, no doubt, for cases\nof common occurrence. Thus Esarhaddon, before appointing a person to a\nresponsible position, took the precaution of ascertaining from some\ndeity whether the appointment was a wise one. The name of the individual\nbeing written down, the priest asks the deity in a general way:[517]\n\n    Will the man whose name appears on this tablet, and whom he [the\n    king] is about to appoint to such and such a position, keep good\n    faith, or will he manifest hostility towards the king, inciting\n    to rebellion?\n\nEsarhaddon may have had a special reason for using precautions against\nhis officials, and even his sons. He came to the throne during a\nrebellion which involved the assassination of his father. Esarhaddon's\nown brothers were the murderers. We may well suppose that he trembled at\nevery step he took, but his position is after all characteristic of the\nAssyrian rulers in general, many of whom came to the throne by violence\nand maintained themselves through force.\n\nOther texts enable us to study the form of the oracles themselves. As\nyet, no oracle texts have been found belonging to the older Babylonian\nperiod, but we have again every reason to believe that what holds good\nfor the days of Assyrian power applies to a much earlier period, though\nat the same time the greater frequency with which Assyrian rulers were\nwont to ply their gods with questions would increase the number of those\nwhose special business it was to pronounce the oracles. The manifold\nduties of the priesthood would tend towards a differentiation of the\npriests into various classes. The priest, as exorciser, would become\ndistinct from the priest as the inspector of omens; and the latter\ndifferent again from the pronouncer of oracles. From the fact that\nMarduk was regarded as the special god of oracles by the Assyrians as\nwell as the Babylonians,[518] we may conclude that this differentiation\nof the priestly classes took place already in the south, or at all\nevents that oracle-giving as a distinct priestly function was recognized\nin Babylonia and carried over to the northern empire. If we may draw a\ngeneral conclusion from the state of affairs in Esarhaddon's days, this\nfunction was largely in the hands of women. We know from other evidence\nthat women were attached to the temple service from ancient times.[519]\nAs sorceresses, too, they occupied a quasi-priestly position, since\ntheir help could be invoked in driving evil spirits into the person of\none's enemy. The oracle-giver and the sorcerer or sorceress are\ncorrelated personages in religion. For various reasons--in part,\nperhaps, because of her physical differences from man--woman was\ninvested with a certain mystery by ancient nations.[520] Hence the fact\nthat among so many nations witchcraft is associated with woman, and\nsimilarly among many nations women perform the functions of the oracle.\nIn a series of eight oracles addressed to Esarhaddon,[521] six are given\nforth by women. These oracles, it so happens, all issue from the goddess\nIshtar of Arbela. The cult of this goddess at Arbela stood in high favor\nin the eighth century B.C. An influential body of priests congregated\nthere, and the eight oracles in question appear to be a part of a more\nextensive collection made by the theologians of Arbela, of whose\nintellectual activity there are other traces. Arbela appears to have\ndeveloped a special school of theology, marked by the attempt to accord\na superior position to the great goddess Ishtar.\n\nThe one who pronounces the oracle speaks on behalf of Ishtar, and\ntherefore employs the first person. The oracles all have reference to\npolitical events. They cannot, of course, be the answers to the\nquestions asked in the prayers analyzed above, since these were\naddressed to the sun-god; but we may feel certain that the oracles of\nthe Shamash priests or priestesses were much of the same order, varying\nonly in minor particulars. The goddess invariably encourages the king.\nThe priest, it would appear, hears the voice of the deity in the wind.\n\n  Fear not! The wind which speaks to thee--\n  Comes with speech from me, withholding nothing.[522]\n  Thine enemies, like the ... of Siwan,[523]\n  At thy feet will be poured out.\n  The great mistress am I.\n  I am Ishtar of Arbela, who forces thine enemies to submission.\n  Is there any utterance of mine that I addressed to thee upon which\n    thou couldst not rely?\n  I am Ishtar of Arbela.\n  Thine enemies, the Ukkites (?), I give to thee, even I, Ishtar of\n    Arbela.\n  In front and behind thee I march.\n  Fear not!\n\nThis oracle, we are told in the subscript, was pronounced by a certain\nIshtar-la-tashiat, a son [_i.e._, a native] of Arbela. The dignity of\nthe diction is very marked. The very frequent assurance 'fear not' and\nthe solemn repetition of 'I am Ishtar' lend impressiveness to the\nmessage. The oracle, it will be seen, deals in general phrases. This\nindefiniteness characterizes most of them; and the more impressive the\ndiction, the greater vagueness in the statements made. So an oracle,\ncoming from Ishtar and Nabu and uttered by a woman Baya, a native of\nArbela, announces:\n\n  Fear not, Esarhaddon,\n  I, the lord, to thee do I speak.\n  The beams of thy heart I strengthen as thy mother,[524]\n  Who gave thee life.\n  Sixty great gods are with me[525]\n  Drawn up to protect thee.\n  The god Sin is on thy right, Shamash on thy left.\n  Sixty great gods are round about thee\n  Drawn up in battle array in the center of the citadel.\n  On men do not rely.\n  Lift up thine eyes to me. Look up to me!\n  I am Ishtar of Arbela.\n  Ashur is gracious to thee.\n  Thy weakness I will change to strength (?).\n  Fear not! glorify me!\n  Is not the enemy subdued\n  Who has been handed over to thee?\n  I proclaim it aloud,\n  What has been will be.[526]\n  I am Nabu, the lord of the willing tablet,\n  Glorify me.\n\nA message of this kind could hardly have been satisfactory except as a\ngeneral encouragement.\n\nThe popularity of the Nabu cult in Assyria, it will be recalled, is an\noffset against the supremacy of Marduk in the south. The Assyrian kings\nfound it to their interest to incorporate as much of the Babylonian cult\nas was possible into their own religious ritual. To Shamash they\nassigned the role played by Marduk. There was no danger in paying homage\nto Nabu, the son of Marduk. Ishtar they regarded as their own goddess\nquite as much as Ashur. These four deities, therefore, Ishtar, Shamash,\nNabu, and Ashur, are the special gods of oracles recognized by the\nAssyrian rulers. Marduk, who is the chief source of oracles in the\nsouth, is more rarely appealed to in the north, though of course\nrecognized as powerful. He could not be expected to regard with favor an\nempire that so seriously threatened his supremacy in the pantheon.\n\nThe occasion when an oracle was announced was often one of great\nsolemnity. Just as the prayers in which the questions of the kings were\nembodied were carefully written out, so that the priest in reciting them\nmight not commit any mistakes, so the answer to the prayers were\ntransmitted to the king in writing. Among the oracles of the days of\nEsarhaddon, there is one coming from Ashur in which the ceremonies\naccompanying the deliverance are instanced.[527] The oracle deals with\nthe Gimirrites, the same people in regard to whom Esarhaddon so often\nconsults the sun-god. It is marked by the more definite character of its\nannouncements when compared with others. The text is in the form of a\ncommunication made to the king, and, like other official documents, it\nbegins with a salutation. The gods give Esarhaddon greeting.[528]\n\n  Ashur has given him the four ends of the earth.\n  In the house where he shines and is great,[529] the king has no rival.\n  Like the rising sun he shines.\n  This is the greeting from Bel Tarbasi[530] and the assembled gods.\n\nThe god Ashur himself now addresses the king:\n\n  As for those enemies that plot against thee, that force thee to march\n    out,\n  Thou didst open thy mouth [saying], \"Verily I implore Ashur.\"\n  I have heard thy cry.\n  Out of the great gate of heaven I proclaim aloud,\n  'Surely I will hasten to let fire devour them.\n  Thou shall stand among them.\n  In front of thee I shall rise up.[531]\n  Up onto the mountain I bring them.\n  There to rain down upon them destructive stones.\n  Thine enemies I hew down,\n  With their blood I fill the river.\n  Let them behold and glorify me,\n  For Ashur, the lord of gods, am I.'\n\nThis important and striking message, coming direct from Ashur we are\ntold, is to be formally presented and read in the presence of the king.\nInstructions are added to the priests to pour out a libation of precious\noil. Sacrifices of animals and waving of incense are to accompany the\npresentation.\n\nThe oracle, as the god's answer to the king's questions, thus gave rise\nto a ritual as elaborate as the rites connected with the preparations\nfor the answer. The oracles were not always trustworthy, as we can well\nbelieve, and often they were not definite enough. If we may judge from\nan expression in one of the divine messages to Esarhaddon, the king\nappears to have entered a complaint against a former oracle, which was\nnot to his liking. Ishtar accordingly sends the following message:[532]\n\n  The former word which I spoke to thee,\n  On it thou didst not rely.\n  Now, then, in the later one you may have confidence.\n  Glorify me!\n\nClearly, the Assyrian kings believed that the oracles existed to\nannounce what they wanted to hear. They probably did not hesitate to\nfollow their own judgment whenever they considered it superior to the\nadvice given to them by the gods. There would, of course, be no\ndifficulty in accounting for failures brought about through obedience to\nthe oracles. The priests, hemmed in on every side by minute ceremonial\nobservances, forfeited their power as mediators by the slightest failure\nin the observance of these rites. An error or a mishap would entail most\nserious consequences. A misleading oracle, therefore, and to a certain\nextent, unfavorable omens, would be the fault of the priests. The deity\nwould send 'a lying message'[533] or bring about unfavorable omens as a\nsign of his or her displeasure. On the other hand, the priests in turn\nwould not hesitate--speaking of course in the name of the gods--to\naccuse the kings of neglecting Ishtar or Nabu or Shamash, as the case\nmay be. In an oracle addressed to Esarhaddon,[534] Ishtar of Arbela is\nrepresented as complaining that the king has done nothing for her,\nalthough she has done so much for him. Such a state of affairs cannot go\non.\n\n  Since they do nothing for me,\n  I will not give anything to thee.\n\nThe king promptly responds by copious offerings, and the goddess appears\nto be pacified.\n\nThere is another feature connected with the oracles that must be touched\nupon before passing on. The oracles stand obviously in close\nrelationship to the penitential psalms. It was, naturally, in times of\npolitical distress that the kings would be particularly zealous in\nmaintaining themselves on good terms with the powerful gods. Without\ntheir aid success could not be expected to crown any efforts. Guiding\ntheir steps by frequent consultations of the priests, the appeals of the\nkings would increase in earnestness and fervor as the campaign\nprogressed and assumed more serious aspects. When disaster stared them\nin the face, they would be forced to conclude that the gods were\nangered, and there was only one way left of averting the divine wrath--a\nfree confession of sins, accompanied, of course, by offerings and magic\nrites. The Assyrian kings do not tell us in their annals of\ndiscomfitures that they encountered. The penitential psalms supply this\nomission. We have such a psalm written in the days of Ashurbanabal,[535]\nin which that proud monarch humbles himself before the great god Nabu,\nand has the satisfaction in return of receiving a reassuring oracle. He\nprays:\n\n  I confess to thee, Nabu, in the presence of the great gods,\n  [Many[536] (?)] are my sins beyond endurance?[537]\n  [Lord (?)] of Nineveh, I come before thee, the warrior among the gods,\n    his brothers.\n  [Prolong (?)] the life of Ashurbanabal for a long period.\n  ... At the feet of Nabu I prostrate myself.\n\nThe god reassures the king:\n\n  I will grant thee life, O Ashurbanabal, even I,\n  Nabu, to the end of days\n  Thy feet shall not grow weary, nor thy hands weak (?),\n  These lips of thine shall not cease to approach me,\n  Thy tongue shall not be removed from thy lips,\n  For I give thee a favorable message.\n  I will raise thy head, I will increase thy glory in the temple of\n    E-babbara.[538]\n\nThe reference to the temple of Shamash at Sippar reveals the situation.\nBabylonia was the cause of much trouble to Ashurbanabal, owing chiefly\nto the intrigues of his treacherous brother Shamash-shumukin.[539]\nAshurbanabal at one time was not merely in danger of losing control over\nthe south, but of losing his life in the rebellion organized by his\n'faithless brother.' A successful rebellion is a clear sign of a god's\ndispleasure. Marduk, as we have seen, was not often appealed to by the\nAssyrian kings, but Nabu seemed always ready to help them. Hence the\nking confesses his sins and makes an appeal to the great Babylonian god\nand not to Ashur. He is encouraged by the promise that his life will be\nspared, and that his supremacy will be recognized in Babylonia. The\ngreat sanctuary of Sippar is here employed figuratively for the temples\nof Babylonia in general. To be glorified in that famous temple was\nequivalent to a recognition of royal authority.\n\nThat these oracles served a practical purpose is definitely proved by\nthe manner in which they are introduced by the kings in their annals.\nAshurbanabal tells us that in the course of one of his campaigns against\nElam, he addressed a fervent prayer to Ishtar of Arbela, and in reply\nthe message comes, as in the texts we have been considering, \"Fear not\";\nand she adds, \"Thy hands raised towards me, and thy eyes filled with\ntears, I look upon with favor.\"[540]\n\n\nDreams.\n\nIt is, of course, not necessary to assume that the oracles of the gods\nwere always delivered in the same formal manner, accompanied by\nelaborate ceremonies. The gods at times reveal themselves in a more\ndirect manner to their favorites. In visions of the night they appear to\nencourage the Assyrian army by an oracle. On one occasion, when the army\nof Ashurbanabal approached a rushing stream which they were afraid to\ncross, Ishtar makes her appearance at night, and declares, \"I walk in\nfront of Ashurbanabal, the king who is the creation of my hands.\"[541]\nThe army, thus reassured, crosses the river in safety. On another\noccasion, Ashurbanabal, when threatened by the king of Elam, receives a\nmessage from Ishtar revealed to a seer in a dream at night. The seer--no\ndoubt a priest--reports to the king:[542] 'Ishtar, dwelling in Arbela,\ncame with quivers hung on her right and left side, with a bow in her\nhand, and girded (?) with a pointed, unsheathed sword. Before thee\n[_i.e._, the king] she stood, and like the mother that bore thee.[543]\nIshtar, supreme among the gods, addressed thee, commanding: \"Be\nencouraged[544] for the fray. Wherever thou art, I am.\"'\n\nIn connection with the importance that the Babylonians and Assyrians, in\ncommon with all ancient nations, attached to dreams, divine messages\nthus revealed had a special significance fully on a par with the oracles\nthat were formally delivered with an accompaniment of elaborate rites. A\ngod appearing to one in a dream was a manifestation, the force of which\ncould not be disputed. It mattered little to whom the dream was sent.\nAshur, on one occasion, chose to reveal himself to an enemy of\nAshurbanabal with a message. He appears in a dream before Gyges, the\nking of Lydia, and tells him,[545] \"Pay homage to Ashurbanabal, the king\nof Assyria, and by the power of his name conquer thine enemies.\" Gyges\nobeys and sends a messenger to the Assyrian monarch to inform him of the\ndream. Occasionally in this way a deity might appear to a king, but in\ngeneral it was to the professional 'dreamer' rather than to the laity to\nwhom oracles were thus sent. The message was not necessarily delivered\nin person by the deity. Sin, the moon-god, on one occasion writes his\nmessage on the moon's disc:\n\n  Against all who have evil designs\n  And hostile sentiments towards\n  Ashurbanabal, the king of Assyria,\n  Will I send a miserable death.[546]\n\nEvery dream was of course sent by some god, but the dreams of others\nthan those who acted as mediators between the gods and men were of a\ndifferent character. They were omens. The gods would reveal themselves\nindirectly by means of pictures or symbols, and it would require the\nservices of a priest again to interpret such symbols or omens. The gods\nwere asked to send such dreams as might receive a favorable\ninterpretation,[547] and when a dream came unsolicited, the gods were\nimplored to convert the dream into a favorable omen.\n\nIn the case of dreams, it will be apparent, the dividing line between\noracles proper and omens becomes exceedingly faint and it is very\ndoubtful whether the Babylonians or Assyrians recognized any essential\ndifference between the two. The suggestion has already been thrown out\nthat there is a wider aspect to omens in the Babylonian religion than\ntheir employment in connection with sacrificial offerings. We have\nreached a point when it will be proper to take up this wider aspect.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[491] See King, _Babylonian Magic_, p. xxx.\n\n[492] Harper's _Assyrian Letters_, no. 219.\n\n[493] _Assyrische Gebete an den Sonnengott fuer Staat und Koenigliches\nHaus_ (Leipzig, 1893, 2 vols.).\n\n[494] Knudtzon, no. 1.\n\n[495] That the priest recites the prayer and not the king is shown by\nthe frequent introduction of the king's name in the 3d person. See,\n_e.g._, Knudtzon, nos. 40-47.\n\n[496] 2d month.\n\n[497] 5th month.\n\n[498] _I.e._, the priest is only asked for an oracle regarding the\nevents of the next one hundred days.\n\n[499] Various machines are mentioned. The precise meaning of the\ntechnical terms employed is not known.\n\n[500] By invoking the assistance of the gods.\n\n[501] Peacefully, by mutual agreement and the promise of favors.\n\n[502] One is reminded of the Arabic phrase \"Allah alone knows it,\" so\nfrequently introduced in Mohammedan writings.\n\n[503] Lit., 'Seen will it be seen, heard will it be heard?' The emphatic\nconstruction is identical with the one frequently employed in Biblical\nHebrew.\n\n[504] Knudtzon (p. 25) did not grasp the negative force of _ezib_. The\nword is a request that something might _not_ happen.\n\n[505] Where the animal is to be inspected, probably the altar itself.\n\n[506] In the Jewish ritual and many others, stress is laid upon\npronouncing the words of a prayer clearly and deliberately, especially\nsuch words as have a particularly sacred value.\n\n[507] _Assyrische Gebete_, p. 50.\n\n[508] Exactly of what nature cannot be ascertained. The text (Knudtzon,\nno. 29, rev. 15) is defective at this point.\n\n[509] The prayer or the lamb.\n\n[510] Lit., 'proceed.'\n\n[511] Knudtzon, no. 66. Other examples are furnished in George Smith's\n_History of Ashurbanabal_, pp. 184, 185.\n\n[512] A district to the northeast of Assyria; Knudtzon, no. 29.\n\n[513] _Ib._ no. 107.\n\n[514] _Ib._ no. 101.\n\n[515] Four volumes comprising several hundred letters have already\nappeared under the title, _Assyrian Letters of the K. Collection_\n(London, 1896). For a good summary of the character of the Assyrian\nepistolary literature, see Johnston's article in the _Journal of the\nAmerican Oriental Society_, xviii. 1, pp. 125-134.\n\n[516] Harper, no. 77.\n\n[517] _E.g._, Knudtzon, no. 124.\n\n[518] Zimmern, _Busspsalmen_, p. 32. The popularity of the sun-cult in\nAssyria in connection with omens and oracles is probably due also in\npart to the influence of Marduk, who was, as we have seen, a solar\ndeity.\n\n[519] Lehman, _Samassumukin_, p. 42.\n\n[520] See Ploss, _Das Weib_, pp. 594-606; also above, p. 267.\n\n[521] IVR. pl. 61.\n\n[522] _I.e._, Ishtar sends the wind with a clear message.\n\n[523] 3d month.\n\n[524] Perhaps a proverbial phrase, having the force of 'I nurture thee\nas thy own mother did.'\n\n[525] Constituting the host of Ishtar, which is elsewhere referred to,\n_e.g._, IVR. 2d Ed. pt. 61, col. i. 27.\n\n[526] Lit., 'the future or later things like the former.'\n\n[527] Published by S. A. Strong, _Beitraege zur Assyriologie_, ii.\n627-33.\n\n[528] The opening lines, containing a reference to the Gimirrites, are\nimperfectly preserved.\n\n[529] _I.e._, he is the greatest scion of the reigning dynasty.\n\n[530] 'Lord of the court'--a title of Ashur.\n\n[531] As a protection, just as Jahwe appears in a pillar of cloud to\nprotect his people.\n\n[532] IVR. 2d Ed. 61, col. vi. 47-52.\n\n[533] See I Kings, xxii. 23.\n\n[534] Strong, _Beitraege zur Assyriologie_, ii. 628, 629.\n\n[535] Published and translated by S. A. Strong, _Transactions of the\nNinth International Oriental Congress_ (1893), ii. 199-208.\n\n[536] Supplied from the context, through comparison with similar\ncompositions.\n\n[537] Lit., 'my soul cannot overcome.'\n\n[538] The composition continues in this strain, Ashurbanabal and Nabu\nspeaking alternately.\n\n[539] See Tiele, _Babyl.-Assyr. Geschichte_, pp. 371 _seq_.\n\n[540] George Smith, _Annals of Ashurbanabal_, p. 121.\n\n[541] Rassam Cylinder, VR. col. v. ll. 95-103.\n\n[542] George Smith, _Annals of Ashurbanabal_, pp. 119-121.\n\n[543] With maternal kindness.\n\n[544] Lit., 'look up.'\n\n[545] Rassam Cylinder, col ii. ll. 98 _seq._\n\n[546] _Ib._ col. iii. ll. 122-124.\n\n[547] _E.g._, IVR. 59, no. 2, 21b.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\nVARIOUS CLASSES OF OMENS.\n\n\nThere is a close connection between the various branches of the\nreligious literature of Babylonia and Assyria that we have hitherto been\nconsidering. The magic incantations are, as we have seen, a form of\nprayer. On the other hand, prayers, whether hymns or confessions of sin\nwith an appeal for relief from suffering or distress, or embodying the\npetition for a divine response to some question or questions, are never\nentirely dissociated from incantations, and are invariably based upon\nthe same beliefs that give to the element of magic such a prominent\nplace in the religion. The omens form part of this same order of\nbeliefs. The connecting link between incantations and omens is the sense\nof mystery impressed upon man by two orders of phenomena--the phenomena\nof his own life and the phenomena of the things about him. In his own\nlife, nothing was more mysterious to him than the power of speech. It is\ndoubtful whether he recognized that the animals communicated with one\nanother by means of the sounds that they emitted; but even if he did,\nthe great gap separating such means of communication from the power\nresiding in the combination of sounds, of which he could avail himself,\nmust have been all the more impressive. In view of this, it is not\ndifficult to understand that a magic force was attributed to words as\nsuch. Of course, a somewhat advanced degree of culture must have been\nreached before such a belief would be given a definite form of\nexpression; but even in the simplest form of social organization the\nnotion of _authority_ necessarily exists, and authority is inseparable\nfrom words. The chief commands, and the conclusion is naturally drawn\nthat the words he utters are imbued with the power to force obedience.\nThese two factors--the mystery of speech and the practical demonstration\nof the power residing in words--are sufficient to account for the part\nplayed by incantations among all nations at a certain stage of their\nreligious development; and once introduced, the conservatism attaching\nto religious rites would ensure their continuance even after the popular\nreligious beliefs had passed far beyond the stage in question. The\nmodifications introduced into the incantations would be nigh endless.\nThere would develop a tendency to greater complications in the\ncombination of words. At the same time their literary form would be\nimproved. Prayers and hymns reflecting advanced religious sentiments\nwould be produced, but the magic element connected with the words as\nsuch would not for that reason be lost sight of. The efficacy of such\nprayers would still depend upon their being uttered in the right manner\nand--what is equally to the point--by the right person. Corresponding to\nthe chief in secular affairs--who alone can pronounce words that give\nevidence of their power by the results produced--is the priest in\nreligious affairs to whom, as the mediator between the gods and men, the\nsecret is entrusted of uttering the right words in the right way, so as\nto produce the desired results, to force, as it were, obedience from the\ngods, as a chief forces obedience from his subjects. In a more advanced\nstage of religious culture, the position of the priest is no less\npowerful and important. When incantations yield to prayers in the proper\nsense, or are combined with prayers, it is only the priests who can make\nthe prayers effective by their interceding in some way with the gods,\nwhether by adding their appeal to that of the supplicant, or by the\nperformance of the rites accompanying prayer, or by their aid in leading\nthe worshipper into the presence of the deity and standing with him\nbefore the throne of grace.\n\nWhen man turns from a contemplation of self to the things around him,\nthere is added to the sense of the mysterious which is aroused in him,\nthe feeling of his own weakness which is borne in upon him with\noverpowering force. He cannot fail to realize how dependent he is upon\nthe sun, the moon, the rain, and the storm. At every step he takes\ndangers beset his path. The animal world is at times hostile, at times\nfriendly; but whether the one or the other, it is essential for him to\ncarefully _note_ all that is going on around him. Every happening or\nsight of an unusual character arouses now his sense of fear, and again\nhis hope. He learns to attach special importance to deviations from the\nnormal course of things. There must be a reason for the exception from\nthe rule. It betokens something, and, concerned as man primarily is for\nhis own welfare, he naturally comes to connect both the regular\nphenomena of nature as well as the deviations, the normal traits and\nhabits of the animal world as well as peculiar features occasionally\noccurring, with his own fate. To forestall the future was his only\nsafeguard against the dangers in store for him. It was of the utmost\nimportance to him to know what was coming or, at all events, to be on\nthe lookout for _something_, in order to be in a proper frame to receive\neither the benefits or to meet the difficulties of the situation.\n\nHis powers of observation--upon which man in a primitive state depended\nalmost entirely for his sustenance--were thus further strengthened by\nthe necessity of protecting himself, so far as possible, against the\nuncertainties of the future. Nothing would escape him. The movement of\nthe stars and planets, their position at different seasons and periods,\nthe appearance of the clouds, an eclipse, the conditions of the streams,\nan earthquake, the direction of the winds, storms, the flight of birds,\nthe barking of dogs, the movements of snakes and serpents, peculiar\nmarks on the bodies of children, of adults and animals, monstrosities\namong mankind or the brute creation, the meeting with certain persons or\nanimals, the rustling of leaves, the change of seasons, the lustre of\nprecious stones, all attracted man's attention. Whatever he saw might\nportend something to him, in fact _did_ portend something; hence the one\ngreat aim and ideal of his life was to _see_ everything. Seeing meant\nforeseeing, and the man who could see everything--the _seer par\nexcellence_, who could also understand what he saw--held in his hands\nthe key that would unlock the secrets of the future. He possessed the\nmeans of forecasting events.\n\nApart, then, from the interpretation of omens in connection with\nsacrifices and incantations, the individual had to be on the outlook at\nall times for signs and portents. To neglect them would entail serious\nconsequences.\n\nThis wider aspect of omens accounts for the extensive omen literature\nthat arose in Babylonia and Assyria. Fully one-fourth of the portion of\nAshurbanabal's library that has been discovered consists of omens,[548]\ntablets of various size in which explanations are afforded of all\nphysical peculiarities to be observed in animals and men, of natural\nphenomena, of the position and movements of the planets and stars, of\nthe incidents and accidents of public and private life,--in short, of\nall possible occurrences and situations.\n\nAs yet but a small proportion of this literature has been published, and\na thorough understanding of it is impossible until systematic\npublications shall have been issued. Meanwhile it is safe to assert\nthat, as in the case of incantations and prayers, the omens were\ngenerally combined into series by the Babylonian and Assyrian scribes.\n\n\nOmens From Planets and Stars.\n\nIhering observes[549] that the stars were observed by the Babylonians in\nthe interest of navigation. While this is true, yet the chief motive in\nthe development of astronomy in the Euphrates Valley was the belief that\nthe movements of the heavenly bodies portended something that was\nimportant for man to know. That the stars served as guides to the\nmariner was only an additional reason for attaching great importance to\nthe heavenly phenomena. Scientific observations were but means to an\nend; and the end was invariably the derivation of omens from the\nmovements and position of the planets and stars. When, therefore, we\nfind the astronomers sending reports to their royal masters apparently\nof a purely scientific character, we may be certain that although no\nomens are mentioned, both parties had omens in mind. The astronomical\nreports, of which quite a number have already been published,[550] may\ntherefore be reckoned as part of the omen literature. The vernal equinox\nwas a period of much significance. The astronomer royal accordingly\nreports:[551]\n\n  On the sixth day of Nisan,[552]\n  Day and night were balanced.\n  There were six double hours of day,\n  Six double hours of night.\n  May Nabu and Marduk\n  Be gracious to the king, my lord.\n\nOn another occasion the equinox took place on the 15th of Nisan,[553]\nand accordingly this is reported. Again, the appearance of the new moon\nwas anxiously looked for each month, and the king is informed whether or\nnot it was seen on the 29th or 30th day of the month.[554]\n\n  A watch we kept\n  On the twenty-ninth day,\n  The moon we saw.\n  May Nabu and Marduk\n  Be gracious to the king, my lord.\n  From Nabua of the city of Ashur.\n\nAn extraordinary event, such as an eclipse, is made the subject of a\nmore elaborate report. The Babylonian astronomers had developed their\nscientific attainments to the point of calculating the time when an\neclipse of the sun or the moon would take place. As this period\napproached, they watched for the eclipse. We have an interesting\nspecimen of a report in which the astronomer announces that an expected\neclipse for which a watch was kept for three days did not appear.[555]\nAnother addressed to an official reads:[556]\n\n  To the Agriculturist,[557] my lord,\n  Thy servant Nabushumiddin,\n  An officer of Nineveh,\n  May Nabu and Marduk be gracious\n  To the Agriculturist, my lord.\n  The fourteenth day we kept a watch for the moon.\n  The moon suffered an eclipse.\n\nThe reports pass over into indications of omens with an ease which shows\nthat the observations of the astronomers were made with this ulterior\nmotive in view. A report which forms a supplement to one above\ntranslated furnishes the interpretation given to the vernal\nequinox:[558]\n\n  The moon and sun are balanced,\n  The subjects will be faithful,[559]\n  The king of the land will reign for a long time.\n\nThe complement, then, to the purely scientific observations is furnished\nby these official communications to the kings and others, setting forth\nin response, no doubt, to commands or inquiries, the meaning of any\nparticular phenomenon, or of the position of the planets, or of any of\nthe stars at any time, or of their movements. Of such communications we\nhave a large number. They illustrate the great attention that was paid\nto details in the observation of the heavenly bodies. The moon as the\nbasis of the calendrical system occupies the first place in these\nreports. Its movements were more varied than those of the sun. Through\nits phases, its appearance and disappearance at stated intervals, a safe\npoint of departure was obtained for time calculations. While the sun\nthrough its daily course regulated the divisions of the day, the moon by\nits phases fixed the division of weeks and months. The moon never\nappeared quite the same on two successive nights nor in the same part of\nthe heavens. The more variety, the more significance--was a principle of\ngeneral application in the interpretation of omens. Whether the\nBabylonians also recognized an influence of the moon on the tides, we\nhave no certain means of determining, but it is eminently likely that\ntrained as their astronomers were in careful observation, this was the\ncase. But apart from this, there were many events in public and private\naffairs that appeared to them to stand in close connection with the\nmovements of the orb of night. Nothing that occurred being regarded as\naccidental, the conclusion was forced upon the Babylonians that the time\nwhen something was undertaken was of significance. The fact that certain\nundertakings succeeded, while others failed, was most easily explained\nupon the theory that there were periods favorable for the action\ninvolved and periods unfavorable. The gathering of past experience thus\nbecomes a guiding principle in the interpretation of the movements of\nthe moon; and what applies to the moon applies, of course, to the other\nplanets and to the stars. No doubt other factors are involved, such as\nassociation of ideas; but it is evident from a careful study of the omen\nliterature that conclusions drawn from what appears to us as the\naccidental relation of past occurrences to the phenomena presented by\nthe planets and stars constituted fully three-fourths of the wisdom of\nthe Euphratean augurs. The same report, of which a portion has already\nbeen quoted,[560] continues after interpreting the meaning of the\nequinox with a diagnosis of other concurrent conditions:[561]\n\n  Sun and moon are seen apart,[562]\n  The king of the country will manifest wisdom.[563]\n  On the fourteenth day sun and moon are seen together,\n  There will be loyalty in the land,\n  The gods of Babylonia are favorably inclined,\n  The soldiery will be in accord with the king's desire,\n  The cattle of Babylonia will pasture in safety.[564]\n  From Ishtar-shumeresh.\n\nThe same conditions appearing on another day may portend precisely the\nreverse. So another report informs the king:[565]\n\n  On the fifteenth day the sun and moon are seen together,\n  A powerful enemy raises his weapons against the land,\n  The enemy will smash the great gate of the city,\n  The star Anu appears bright,\n  The enemy will devastate.\n\nIt is quite evident that such reports must have been sent in response to\nroyal orders asking for the meaning of existing conditions or of\nconditions that may be observed on certain days. At times the\nprognostications assume a remarkable degree of definiteness which forms\na striking contrast to the general vagueness of the oracles. An\nofficial, Balasi, reports[566] on one occasion regarding the\nsignificance of the moon appearing unexpectedly:\n\n  The moon is seen out of season,\n  Crops will be small.\n  On the twelfth day the moon is seen together with the sun.[567]\n  Contrary to the calculated time,\n  The moon and sun appear together,\n  A strong enemy will devastate the land.\n  The king of Babylonia will be forced to submit to his enemy.\n  On the twelfth day, the moon with the sun is seen,\n  On the twelfth day is seen.\n  Evil is in store for Babylonia.\n  It is a favorable sign for Elam and the west land,\n  But surely unfavorable for Babylonia.\n\nThe reports were not always concerned with political affairs. Frequently\nthere is a reference to lions and hyenas that might be expected to make\ntheir appearance because of certain natural phenomena. Often crops are\nreferred to, and according as the conditions are favorable or not,\nfertility or famine is predicted in the official reports. On other\noccasions the astrologers venture the very safe prognostication that\nmale children will be born or that there will be miscarriages, though it\nseems likely that in such cases the forecast is intended for the affairs\nof the palace alone.\n\nWe have seen[568] what great importance was attached by the Babylonians\nto eclipses. It will be appropriate, therefore, to give a specimen of an\nastrologer's report in reference to such a phenomenon:[569]\n\n  The moon disappeared,[570] evil will settle in the land.\n  The moon, contrary to calculation, disappeared.\n  An eclipse has taken place.\n  On the twenty-ninth day the moon disappeared\n  And the sun on the day of the eclipse entered the circle.[571]\n  It is an eclipse of Elam.[572]\n  If in the month of Kislev,[573] an eclipse is observed\n  That encircles (?) the sun and the moon disappears,\n  Upon the observation of the eclipse,\n  Then may the king be exalted.\n  May the heart of the king, my lord, rejoice.\n  From Khushi-ilu, the servant of the king, the eponym.\n\nAnother report reads:[574]\n\n  To the king, my lord,\n  Thy servant Ishtar-iddinabal,\n  The chief of the astronomers of Arbela.\n  May Nabu, Marduk, Ishtar of Arbela\n  Be gracious to the king, my lord,\n  On the twenty-ninth day a watch we kept.\n  At the observatory clouds,\n  The moon we did not see.\n\nThis report was sent on the second day of the month of Shebat.[575] From\nthese specimens and others, it is evident that reports regarding the\nappearance or non-appearance of the new moon were regularly sent. But in\naddition to this, the kings sent to the observatory on numerous other\noccasions for information with reference to the significance of certain\nphenomena.\n\nAs in the case of the moon, so also for the sun and the stars, reports\nwere transmitted that served as guides in directing the kings in their\naffairs. So on one occasion Nabu-mushesi forecasts that[576]\n\n  If the 'great lion' star is dark,\n  It is favorable for the country.\n  If the 'king' star is dark,\n  The chamberlain[577] (?) of the palace dies.\n\nThe official character of these reports is one of their significant\nfeatures. Their great variety is an indication of the frequent occasions\non which the kings consulted the astrologers. No important enterprise\nwas undertaken without first ascertaining what phenomena might be looked\nfor on the day fixed for any action, and what these phenomena portended.\nIn the case of the Assyrian reports, it is natural to find many\nallusions to foreign nations, since war occupied so much of the time and\nenergies of the Assyrian rulers. But we have seen that for private\naffairs the astrologers were also consulted, as well as for the internal\naffairs of the country. The reports illustrate the practical application\nof what became known in the ancient world as \"Chaldaean wisdom.\" If,\nhowever, we would know the source whence the astrologers derived the\nknowledge which they furnished in their reports, we must turn to the\nlong lists prepared by the priests, in which all possible phenomena\nconnected with the planets and stars were noted and their meaning\nindicated. These compilations constitute the 'Priestly Codes' of the\nBabylonians, and, as already intimated, they were combined just as the\nincantations and prayers, into series. Many such series must have\nexisted at one time in Babylonia. A great temple was incomplete without\nits observatory, and we are warranted in concluding that every great\nreligious center of the Euphrates Valley had its collection of omen\ntablets. The natural ambition of the priests was to make such a series\nas complete as possible. The larger the number of observations it\ncontained, the greater the possibility of finding an answer to the\nquestion put to them. To these lists additions would constantly be made,\nand, if we may judge from the manner of literary composition that\nprevailed among the ancient Hebrews and later among the Arabs, the work\nof the compilers of omen series consisted essentially in combining\nwhatever material they could obtain, and adding such observations as\nthey themselves had made. While, therefore, the omen code of one place\nmight differ in details from that of another, not only would the\nunderlying principles be the same in all, but each series would\nrepresent an aggregation of experiences and observations drawn from\nvarious quarters.\n\nA large omen series of which as yet only fragments have been\npublished[578] bears the title 'Illumination of Bel.' It is estimated\nthat this astrological code embraced more than one hundred tablets. From\nthe fragments published, the general method employed in the preparation\nof the series can be gathered. To the moon and to the sun, to each of\nthe planets, and to the important stars a separate section was assigned.\nIn this section the peculiarities, regular and irregular, connected with\neach of the bodies were noted, their appearance and disappearance, the\nconditions prevailing at rising and at setting, the relationship of the\nmoon to the sun or to a star, of the stars to one another and to the\necliptic, were set forth. Since, however, the time when a phenomenon\nconnected with a planet or star was as important as the phenomenon\nitself, observations were entered for the various months of the year and\nfor various days in each month. The days were not arbitrarily chosen,\nbut, as there is every reason to believe, selected on the basis of past\nexperience. Similarly the interpretations of the phenomena were founded\non the actual occurrence of certain events at certain times when the\nconditions indicated actually existed. A single occurrence might suffice\nfor predicating a connection between the event and the phenomenon. The\ncoincidence would constitute an observation, but the omen would\nnaturally gain additional force if it was based on a repeated\nobservation of the same phenomenon on the same day of the same month.\nBut such a case would be rare, and the effort of the astrologers would\nbe directed simply towards gathering as many observations of phenomena\nas possible. They would rest content when they had found a single\nconnection between the phenomenon and the event. Their success in giving\nan answer to a question put to them as to what might happen on a certain\nday, fixed for battle or for laying the foundations of an edifice, or\nfor dedicating a temple, for setting out on an expedition, or for any\nundertaking whatsoever, would depend on the completeness of their lists,\nand correspondingly the interpretation of a phenomenon occurring on any\nday would entail no difficulties if in their consultation lists the\nphenomenon would be recorded.\n\nThe 22d tablet of the series 'Illumination of Bel' deals with the\nimportant subject of eclipses. It contains 88 lines, and furnishes us\nwith a good specimen of the class of omens under consideration. It\nbegins[579] with eclipses that may take place during the first month,\nand runs along through the twelve months of the year. The 14th, 15th,\n16th, 20th, and 21st days of the month are those set down when eclipses\nhave been observed. The official character of the omens is indicated by\ntheir repeated references to the nations with which Babylonia--and later\nAssyria--came into contact, and to the fate in store for the rulers of\nthe country. For the third month, the tablet notes:\n\n    In the month of Sivan, an eclipse happening on the 14th day,\n    proceeding from east to west, beginning with the middle\n    watch,[580] and ending with the morning watch, the shadow being\n    seen in the east--the side of obscuration--furnishes an\n    omen[581] for the king of Dilmun.[582] The king of Dilmun is\n    slain.\n\n    An eclipse happening on the 15th day, the king of Dilmun is\n    slain, and some one seizes the throne.\n\n    An eclipse happening on the 16th day, the king is deposed and\n    slain, and a worthless person seizes the throne.\n\n    An eclipse happening on the 20th day, rains descend from heaven,\n    and the canals are flooded.\n\n    An eclipse happening on the 21st day, sorrow and despair in the\n    land. The land is full of corpses.\n\nThe eclipses for the fourth month furnish omens for the king of\nGuti--another district with which Babylonia and Assyria had frequent\ndealings.\n\n    An eclipse happening in the month of Tammuz on the 14th day,\n    proceeding from the west to the south, beginning with the first\n    watch and ending with the middle watch, the shadow being seen in\n    the west--the side of obscuration--furnishes an omen for the\n    king of Guti. Overthrow of Guti by force, followed by complete\n    submission.\n\n    An eclipse happening on the 15th day[583], rains descend from\n    heaven, floods come upon the land, famine in the land.\n\n    An eclipse happening on the 16th day, women have miscarriages.\n\n    An eclipse happening on the 20th day, storms set in and famine;\n    afterwards for a year storms destroy property[584].\n\n    An eclipse happening on the 21st day, the armies of the king\n    revolt and deliver him into the hands of enemies.\n\nThe eclipses of the following month deal with several countries.\n\n    An eclipse in the month of Ab[585] on the 14th day, proceeding\n    from the south to the east, beginning with the first watch, or\n    with the morning watch, and ending at sunrise, the shadow being\n    seen in the south--the side of obscuration--furnishes an omen\n    for the king of Umliash. The soldiery are engaged in severe\n    conflicts for a year, and are slain by force of arms.\n\n    An eclipse happening on the 15th day[586], the king dies, and\n    rains descend from heaven, and floods fill the canals.\n\n    An eclipse happening on the 16th day, the king of Babylonia\n    dies. Pestilence[587] feeds upon the country.\n\n    An eclipse happening on the 20th day, the king of the\n    Hittites[588] in person (?) seizes the throne.\n\n    An eclipse happening on the 21st day, a deity strikes (?) the\n    king, and fire consumes king and land.\n\nFrom these specimens, the general principle of the section is apparent.\nSince eclipses portend public and political disasters of some kind, the\ncompiler has carefully gathered oracles given on previous occasions to\nsome ruler, or observations of the events that occurred at the time of\nthe recorded eclipses. The apparently restricted application of the\nomens was no hindrance to their practical use. In the event of an\nastrologer being consulted with regard to the significance of an eclipse\non a certain day, his list would furnish a safe basis for further\nprognostications, suitable to the political conditions that prevailed.\nBut in order to meet all contingencies, other lists furnishing further\nomens for eclipses were added. The 22d tablet of the 'Illumination of\nBel' series is followed by one[589] which, while dealing with the same\nsubject, approaches it somewhat differently, and is based on a different\nprinciple. It begins again with the first month, and in twelve\nparagraphs takes up in succession the months of the year. Choosing for\ncomparison the same three months, the third, fourth, and fifth, which we\nselected in the case of the 22d tablet, it will be seen that, while the\nreferences are again to public affairs, the prognostications are of a\nmore general character and of wider applicability.\n\n    If in the 3d month an eclipse takes place on the 14th day, rains\n    will descend and flood the canals. Storms will cause\n    inundations. The soldiery of Babylonia will destroy the country.\n    An eclipse on the 15th day indicates that king against king will\n    send troops[590]. The king of legions dies. An eclipse on the\n    16th day signifies that the king will be slain, and that some\n    one will seize the throne.[591] An eclipse on the 20th day means\n    that the king will hand his throne to his son. An eclipse\n    happening on the 21st day portends rain,[592] and an invasion of\n    the enemy's land.\n\n    For the 4th month an eclipse on the 14th day portends that rains\n    will descend and the canals will be flooded. Rains will cause\n    inundations. There will be famine. A large country will be\n    reduced to a small one. An eclipse on the 15th day portends that\n    rains will descend, canals will be flooded, and there will be\n    famine in the land. An eclipse on the 16th day portends famine\n    for a year. An eclipse on the 20th day portends destruction of\n    the king and his army. An eclipse happening on the 21st day\n    indicates that there will be a strong wind that will destroy the\n    riches of the sea.[593]\n\n    For the 5th month an eclipse on the 14th day portends rains and\n    flooding of canals. The crops will be good and king will send\n    peace to king.[594] An eclipse on the 15th day portends\n    destructive war. The land will be filled with corpses. An\n    eclipse on the 16th day indicates that pregnant women will be\n    happily delivered of their offspring. An eclipse on the 20th day\n    portends that lions will cause terror and that reptiles will\n    appear; an eclipse on the 21st day that destruction (?) will\n    overtake the riches of the sea.[593]\n\nThe vagueness of many of the prognostications is in all probabilities\nintentional, just as we found to be the case in most of the oracles\nannounced to the kings. To predict rains during the rainy months was\ncomparatively safe. The storms which visited Babylonia annually brought\nwith them destruction of cattle. They conditioned the fertility of the\ncountry, but pestilence was often caused by the evaporation of the\nwaters. Again, military expeditions were usually undertaken in the\nspring of the year before the great heat set in, and in a country like\nAssyria, it was safe to hazard a vague prediction that hostilities would\nensue, and that some district would be diminished.\n\nWhat may be called the 'eclectic' character of the omen series under\nconsideration thus becomes apparent. The lists consisted, on the one\nhand, of omens obtained on certain occasions and with reference to some\nspecific circumstance, such as a campaign against some country, and, on\nthe other hand, of prognostications of a more general character, based\non the general climatic conditions of the country, and referring to\nevents of frequent occurrence. All that the scribes in preparing the\nseries were concerned with, was to collect as many omens as they could,\nand to arrange them in some convenient order. Just as they prepared\nlists referring to military events, so they put together others in which\nsome other theme was treated. The reports and omen tablets thus\ncomplement one another. The latter are based on the former, and the\nformer were obtained by the interpretation of phenomena, furnished by\nthe tablets and applied to the particular case submitted to the priests.\nWe need not, of course, suppose that _all_ prognostications found in the\nseries, especially in those parts of it which are of a more general\ncharacter, were based upon reports actually made, any more than that the\nofficial reports to the kings even in later days were always based upon\na consultation of some series of tablets. Individual judgment, both in\ncompiling a series and in interpreting phenomena, must at all times have\nplayed some part. The reports and the series also embody to some extent\nthe results of experience not previously put to writing; but these\nconsiderations do not alter the general proposition set forth in this\nchapter as to the practical purpose served by the omen series as well as\nby the reports, and the pragmatic origin of both.\n\nThe importance of eclipses gave to omens connected with such events a\nspecial significance. Eclipses, however, were after all rare events, and\nwhile because of their rarity they always portended something of great\nmoment, still the ordinary phenomena were the ones that had to be\nstudied by the astrologers with great care in order to obtain a rational\nview of the relationship between the phenomena of nature and the fate of\nthe individual or of the state. Again, eclipses, as a general thing,\npointed to a public disaster of some kind, and this recognized belief\nlightened the task of the priest considerably in this instance. In the\ncase of ordinary phenomena it was much more difficult to find the\nconnection between cause and effect; and in the vast majority of\ninstances when kings and individuals sought the temples for omens, the\nheavens must have presented a normal and not an abnormal appearance.\n\nWhat answers were the priests to give to the questions put to them? Was\nit a favorable period for undertaking a military campaign? On what day\nshould the king set out? Was the day fixed on by the council of war\nfavorable for a battle? On what day should the foundation for the temple\nor palace be laid? Will the sick person recover? Should one set out on a\nproposed journey? Is the day fixed for a marriage auspicious?\n\nRecognizing by experience that the same thing undertaken at different\ntimes turned out differently, in the one case being brought to a\nsuccessful issue, in the other followed by misfortune, the conclusion\nwas forced upon the popular mind (as already set forth above) that the\nday on which something was done or was to be done was of great moment.\n\nBut how did one day differ from the other? That was the question for the\npriests to determine. During the hours that the sun was in control, the\nclouds produced constant changes in the appearance of the heavens, but\nbecause of their irregular character, these changes impressed the\nBabylonians less forcibly than the striking changes that the nights\nshowed. The planets and stars never appeared alike on two successive\nnights. There was always some change in the position of some of the\nheavenly bodies. To these changes, then, the priests directed their\nattention. In the variations presented by the heavens at night they saw\na potent reason for the varying results produced by the same act\nundertaken at different times.\n\nIf it made a difference at what moment something was done, that\ndifference could only be determined by observing the variations that one\nnight presented from the other. The astrologers observed that many of\nthe stars were, or seemed to be, fixed in their orbits; others rose and\nset like the sun and moon, and appeared in different parts of the\nheavens at different seasons of the year. The regularity of these\nchanges made it possible to study the course of these stars, and as\nknowledge progressed, to determine also in advance where a particular\nbody would be seen at a certain time.\n\nThe planets accordingly were the bodies to which the astrologers\nespecially directed their attention. It has been conjectured with some\nshow of probability that one of the purposes served by the lofty seven\nstaged towers,[595] which were attached to many of the great temples,\nwas for the better observation of the movements of the planets. The\nofficial standing of the astrologers is indicated by the references in\ntexts to the 'court astrologer.'\n\nHowever this may be, there is no doubt that at all the large temples and\nat many of the smaller ones, observations of the planets were recorded.\n\nThe collection of these observations formed the manuals for the priests\nin answering many of the questions put to them. Each of the great\nplanets was identified (by a process of thought that we will have\noccasion to describe) with some deity, though this was not done until\nthe attempt was also made to gather the astrological knowledge of the\nday into some kind of consistent system. Our own names of the planets,\nas handed down to us through the Greeks and Romans, are but the\nclassical equivalents of the Babylonian deities.[596]\n\nJupiter is Marduk, the head of the Babylonian pantheon. Venus is the\nBabylonian Ishtar. Mars is Nergal, the god of war and pestilence.\nMercury is Nabu, the god of wisdom and the messenger of the gods, and\nSaturn is Ninib.\n\nAmong the astrological texts preserved, Ishtar-Venus figures more\nprominently than the other planets. The appearance of Ishtar during each\nmonth and for various days of the month was noted, and then interpreted,\npartly on the basis of past experience, but also by other factors that\nfor the most part escape us. A tablet, furnishing omens derived from the\nposition of the planet Venus and which may belong to the series\n'Illumination of Bel,' deals with the periods of the disappearance of\nVenus as evening star, and her reappearance as morning star, and _vice\nversa_[597].\n\n    In the month of Tammuz (4th month) Venus disappeared on the 25th\n    day at sunset, for seven days was hidden[598], and on the 2d day\n    of Ab (5th month) was seen at sunrise. Rains in the land.\n    Destruction of[599] ...\n\n    In the month of Adar (12th month) Venus disappeared on the 25th\n    day at sunrise. For a year (?) weapons are wielded[600] (?),\n    gold[599] ...\n\n    In the month of Marcheshwan (8th month), 10th day, Venus\n    disappeared at sunrise, for two months and six days was hidden,\n    and reappeared on the 16th day of Tebet (10th month). There will\n    be abundant crops.\n\n    In the month of Elul (6th month), 26th day, Venus disappeared at\n    sunset, for eleven days was hidden, and in the second[601] Elul,\n    on the 7th day, reappeared at sunset. The heart of the land is\n    good.[6]\n\n    In the month of Nisan (1st month), on the 9th day, Venus\n    disappeared at sunsets[602] (?), and for five months and sixteen\n    days was hidden, and reappeared in the month of Elul (6th\n    month), on the 25th day, at sunset. The heart of the land is\n    good.\n\n    In the month of Ab (5th month), 10th day, Venus disappeared at\n    sunset[603] (?), and for two[604] months and sixteen days was\n    hidden, and reappeared on the 26th day of Marcheshwan (8th\n    month). Rains in the land.\n\n    In the month of Nisan, 2d day, Venus appeared at sunrise. There\n    will be distress in the land.\n\n    If Venus is stationary to the 6th day of Kislev (9th month) at\n    sunrise, and then disappears on the 7th day of Kislev, and is\n    hidden for three months to reappear on the 8th day of Adar (12th\n    month) at sunset, it indicates that king against king will send\n    hostility.\n\n    In the month of Kislev (9th month), 10th day, Venus appeared at\n    sunrise. Lack of corn and hay in the land. If she remains in\n    position up to the 14th day of Ab (5th month) at sunrise, and\n    then on the 15th day disappears, and for three months is hidden,\n    and on the 15th day of Marcheshwan (8th month) rises at sunset,\n    the crops of the land will be good.\n\nA colophon informs us that the tablet in question embodies a series of\nobservations of the movements of Venus recorded by Babylonian scholars.\nIt was evidently the purpose of the compilers to commit to writing as\nmany variations in the appearance and disappearance of the planet as\npossible. The omens must either have been furnished at one time or they\nembody actual occurrences that were observed in connection with the\nobservation recorded. In either case the omens served as guides for the\npriests in their replies to inquiries. An omen once furnished or an\nevent once observed as having taken place under given conditions of a\nplanet served for all times.\n\nThe omen lists for the other planets were arranged on the same principle\nas the Venus list. The motions of the planets were carefully observed.\nIt was noted whether they rose brilliantly or with a pale color. Their\nposition towards other stars was determined, and much more the like.\nBesides the planets, various stars that were distinguished by their\nbrilliancy, as Sirius, Antares, Regulus, and also comets, were included\nin the sphere of astronomical calculations, and furnished omens to the\npriests.\n\nThese omens, so far as we may judge from the texts at present published,\nall hinge around the same series of events that are referred to in the\nillustrations given,--rain, crops, war, distress, the country's\nprosperity, the king's welfare or misfortune.\n\nAnother piece of evidence is thus furnished for the hypothesis that\nthese lists are based upon reports made to royal masters, and that the\nreports again are obtained from the lists prepared for public and\npolitical needs. We must not, however, conclude from this fact that the\nobservation of heavenly phenomena was of no significance at all for the\nprivate individual, but only that the position of the king and the\ngeneral welfare of the country were regarded of larger moment.\n\nJust as the gods were held responsible chiefly for the larger affairs of\nthis world, the trifles being relegated to the spirits and demons,[605]\nso the planets and stars, as symbols of the gods, were regarded as\nauguries for the chief of the country rather than for the miscellaneous\npopulation, and more for the general welfare than for individual\nprosperity. The individual shared in the omen furnished, in so far as\nhis well-being was dependent upon such important contingencies as\nwhether there was to be war or peace, good crops or bad. A population so\nlargely engaged in agriculture as the Babylonians were, would be\nsatisfied if they could be reassured as to the outcome of their work in\nthe fields. Ihering has properly emphasized the strong hold that the\nconception of communal interests obtained in Babylonia.[606] This\nconception is reflected in the prominence given to public and political\naffairs in the omen lists and 'omen' reports. Agriculture was the primal\nfactor in producing this conception in the south; war which united the\npopulation, even though military service was forced upon the people, was\nthe second factor; and in Assyria, where military expeditions occupied a\nmuch larger share of public attention than in Babylonia, war became the\nchief factor in keeping alive the thought of national solidarity.\n\n\nOmen Calendars.\n\nThere was still another reason why the king and with him public affairs,\nreceived such prominence in the omen texts. As the nation's ruler he was\nnot only an important personage by virtue of his power over his\nsubjects, but also by virtue of his close relationship to the gods. The\ntheory of the 'divine right of kings' was rigidly adhered to in\nBabylonia and Assyria. When the monarchs speak of themselves as\nnominated by this or that god to be the ruler of the country, this was\nnot a mere phrase. The king was the vicar of the deity on earth, his\nrepresentative who enjoyed divine favor and who was admitted into the\nconfidence of the gods. In earlier days priestly functions were\nindissolubly associated with kingship. The oldest kings of Assyria call\nthemselves 'the priests of Ashur,' and it is only as with the growth of\npolitical power a differentiation of functions takes place that the\npriest, as the mediator between the deity and his subjects, becomes\ndistinct from the secular ruler.\n\nThe further development of this process led to the curious but perfectly\nnatural anomaly that the king, from being originally identical with the\npriest, becomes in large measure dependent upon the latter in his\nrelations to the gods. In the more advanced stages of the religious\ncult, the king requires the service of a priest to act as mediator\nbetween himself and the gods, precisely as all of his subjects need this\nmediatorship. The king cannot obtain an oracle directly. He must send to\nthe temple and inquire of the priests. The priest must intercede for the\nking when he throws himself upon the mercy of an angered god or goddess.\nThe royal sacrifice is not acceptable unless the priest stands by the\nside of the king.\n\nStill there are traces left of the old direct relationship existing\nbetween the king and his gods. A god sometimes reveals himself directly\nto a ruler. Ishtar appears in a dream and gives him directions. Another\nand more significant trace of this older relationship is to be found in\nthe importance assigned to the religious conduct of the king. If an\nindividual offends a deity, the individual alone suffers, or at the most\nhis family is involved in the punishment inflicted; but if the king\nsins, the whole country suffers, and correspondingly the king's\natonement and reconciliation with the gods is essential for dispelling\nsome national calamity. Frazer has shown by his admirable\ninvestigations[607] that this view of kingship is common to many nations\nof antiquity. While it did not lead among the Babylonians and Assyrians\nto that extreme which is best illustrated by Japan, where the Mikado, by\nvirtue of his divine right, is hedged in with prescribed formalities\nthat make him almost a prisoner, so closely is he watched by his\nattendants lest any mistake be made by him which is certain to entail\nserious consequences for the country, still the priests had to see to it\nthat the rulers performed their duties towards the gods in the\nprescribed manner and with all possible accuracy.\n\nThe conduct of the king was of special significance at periods when for\nsome reason or other, the gods were not favorably disposed. Partly on\nthe basis of actual observation that eclipses (which were especially\nfeared) had occurred on certain days of the month, partly as a\nconsequence of the belief that the change in the moon's phase augured\nsomething good or evil for humanity, and in part perhaps through the\ncoincidence that on a certain day of the month, mishaps of some kind had\noccurred several times, certain months and certain days of each month\nwere regarded as favorable, while others were unfavorable. Some months\nand some days were suitable for dedicating a building, others were not.\nOn some days an oracle might be sought, on others not. Some days were\ndays of rejoicing, on others again mourning was appropriate. Advantage\nhad to be taken of the favorable days to keep the deity in good humor,\nand it was equally important on the unfavorable ones to exercise great\ncare not to do aught which might arouse the anger of a god, ready to be\nincensed. It is the king who can best accomplish the one thing and avoid\nthe other. To him, as standing nearer the deity than any private\nindividual, the country looked for safety and protection. Calendars were\nprepared for each month of the year, in which the peculiar character of\neach day was noted and instructions added what was to be done on each\nday. These instructions all have reference to the king and to the king\nalone. A complete calendar for the intercalated month of Elul has been\npreserved.[608] It may serve as an example of the branch of the omen\nliterature to which it belongs.\n\nThe thirty days of each month are taken up in succession. The deity to\nwhich each day is sacred is indicated, and various sacrifices or\nprecautions prescribed.\n\nA curious feature of this calendar was that, since it was the hope to\nmake every day 'favorable,' each day was called so, even when it is\nevident that it was not.\n\n    For the 1st day of Elul the second,[609] sacred to Anu and Bel,\n    a favorable day. When the moon makes its appearance in this\n    month, the king of many peoples brings his gift, a gazelle\n    together with fruit, ... his gift to Shamash, lord of the\n    countries, and to Sin, the great god, he gives. Sacrifices he\n    offers, and his prayer to his god[610] is acceptable.\n\n    On the 2d day sacred to goddesses, a favorable day. The king\n    brings his gift to Shamash, the lord[611] of countries. To Sin,\n    the great god, he offers sacrifices. His prayer to the god is\n    acceptable.\n\n    On the 3d day, a day of supplication to Marduk and Sarpanitum, a\n    favorable day. At night, in the presence of Marduk and\n    Ishtar,[612] the king brings his gift. Sacrifices he is to offer\n    so that his prayer may be acceptable.\n\n    On the 6th day, sacred to Ramman and Belit,[613] a favorable\n    day. The king, with prayer and supplication (?), at night in the\n    presence of Ramman, offers his gift. Sacrifices he is to bring\n    so that his prayer may be acceptable.\n\n    On the 7th day, supplication to Marduk and Sarpanitum, a\n    favorable day (_sc._ may it be). An evil day. The shepherd of\n    many nations is not to eat meat roasted by the fire, or any food\n    prepared by the fire. The clothes of his body he is not to\n    change, fine dress (?) he is not to put on. Sacrifices he is not\n    to bring, nor is the king to ride in his chariot. He is not to\n    hold court nor is the priest to seek an oracle for him in the\n    holy of holies.[614] The physician is not to be brought to the\n    sick room.[615] The day is not suitable for invoking\n    curses.[616] At night, in the presence of Marduk and Ishtar, the\n    king is to bring his gift. Then he is to offer sacrifices so\n    that his prayer may be acceptable.\n\nThis 7th day, it will be observed, is expressly called an evil day. It\nis evident, therefore, that the phrase 'favorable day' in the first line\nexpresses a hope and not a fact, or is added to indicate the manner in\nwhich the day can be converted into a favorable one. Just as the 7th\nday, so the 14th, 21st, and 28th are called evil days, and the same\nceremonies are prescribed for the king on these days. These days were\nevidently chosen as corresponding to the phases of the moon. But besides\nthese four days, a fifth, namely, the 19th, is singled out in the same\nfashion. The comparison with the Biblical Sabbath naturally suggests\nitself. The choice of the 7th day and of the corresponding ones rests,\nof course, in both instances upon the lunar calendar, and there is also\nthis similarity between the Sabbath of the Hebrews and the 'evil day' of\nthe Babylonians, that the precautions prescribed in the Pentateuchal\ncodes--against kindling fires, against leaving one's home, against any\nproductive labor--point to the Hebrew Sabbath as having been at its\norigin an 'inauspicious day,' on which it was dangerous to show oneself\nor to call the deity's attention to one's existence. Despite the\nattempts made to change this day to one of 'joy,' as Isaiah would have\nit,[617] the Hebrew Sabbath continued to retain for a long time as a\ntrace of its origin, a rather severe and sombre aspect.\n\nA striking difference, however, between the Babylonian and the Hebrew\nrites is the absence in the latter of the theory that the atonement of a\nsingle individual suffices for the community. The precautions prescribed\nfor the Sabbath are binding upon every one. Emphasis is laid in the\nPentateuch upon the fact that the whole people is holy, whereas among\nthe Babylonians the king alone is holy. He alone is to abstain from his\nordinary acts, to conduct himself on the evil day with becoming\nhumility, to put on no fineries, not to indulge in dainty food,[618] not\nto appear in royal state, neither to appeal to the gods (for they will\nnot hear them), nor even to interfere with their workings by calling in\nhuman aid against the demon of disease, who may have been sent as the\nmessenger of one of the gods. It is only at the close of the day that he\ncan bring a sacrifice which will be acceptable. The king, by observing\nthese precautions, insures the welfare of his people. The gods cared\nlittle for individual piety, but they kept a jealous eye on their\nearthly representative. His appeals were heard if properly presented and\nif presented at the right time, but woe to the people whose king has\naroused the divine anger. Just as his acts of penitence have a\nrepresentative character, so the gifts and sacrifices and supplications\nmentioned in the calendar are offered by the king on behalf of the whole\npeople.\n\nFor the remaining days of Elul, the ordinances have much the same\ncharacter as those instanced. The variation consists chiefly in the god\nor gods to whom the days are sacred. Now it is Nabu and his consort\nTashmitum--on the 4th, 8th, and 17th days--to whom gifts and prayers are\nbrought; again Ninib and his consort Gula, on the 9th,[619]--or Gula\nalone, on the 19th. To Marduk and Sarpanitum the 16th day is assigned,\nbesides the 3d and 7th days as above set forth; to Ramman and his\nconsort the 6th, to the old Bel and Belit the 5th, the 12th, the 25th,\nand to Nergal and Bau the 27th. At times two male deities are in\nassociation. So Anu and Bel for the 1st and the 30th day, Ea and Nergal\nfor the 28th, Sin and Shamash for the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22d, or two\ngoddesses, as Tashmitum and Sarpanitum, or a god alone, as Ea for the\n26th, or Sin alone for the 13th, and once--the 29th day--Sin and Shamash\nare combined with the miscellaneous group of Igigi and Anunnaki. All the\ngreat gods are thus represented in the calendar. The basis on which the\ndays are assigned still escapes us. It is hard to believe that any\nstrict uniformity existed in this respect in the cults attached to the\nvarious Babylonian temples. Preference would be shown in each center to\nthe chief god worshipped there, while to others would be assigned a\nposition corresponding to some theological system devised by the\npriests. Uniformity and consistency are two elements that must not be\nlooked for in the omen literature of any people. The very fact that\nomens have some rational basis, namely, observation and experience, is\nthe very reason why the omen lists and omen calendars of one place\nshould differ from those of another, and precisely to the same degree\nthat observation and experience differ.\n\nThe intercalated months, by virtue of their extraordinary character, had\nperhaps a special significance, but every day of the year had an\nimportance of some kind. This is shown by a Babylonian calendar,\nfortunately preserved in great part,[620] in which every day of the year\nis included, and either its character noted or some precautions\nprescribed. The indications in this calendar are marked by their\nbrevity, and impress one as memoranda, intended as a guide to the\npriests.\n\nThe calendar consists of twelve columns. At the head of each column\nstands the name of one of the months. One or, at the most, two lines are\ndevoted to each day of the month, the days being ranged in succession\nfrom one to thirty. For a series of days in the 2d month the indications\nare:\n\n  21st day, hostility.\n  22d day, judgment favorable, invoking of curses.\n  23d day, heart not good.\n  24th day, gladness of heart.\n  25th day, wife not to be approached, heart not good.\n  26th day, secret.\n\nSuch indications it is evident are intelligible only to the initiated.\nWith the help of the more complete calendars, such as the one above\nexplained, we can in most cases determine what is meant by these\nmemoranda. A note like 'hostility' is an omen that the gods are\nunfavorably inclined on that day. The 'judgment' referred to on the 22d\nday is the oracle. The day in question is suitable for obtaining a\nresponse to a question put to the deity, and a favorable occasion for\ninvoking curses upon the enemy. It will be recalled that the 7th day of\nthe second intercalated Elul is put down as one when it is not advisable\nto secure the ill will of the god against the enemy. An expression like\n'heart not good' is explained by the contrast 'heart glad.' The 23d day\nof the month is a day of sorrow, the 24th one on which one may be\ncheerful without arousing the jealousy of the gods or demons. The 25th\nis again an unfavorable day in which, as a precaution, sexual\nintercourse is prohibited. Lastly, the word rendered 'secret'[621] is\nthe same one that we came across in the precautions prescribed for the\n7th day of the second Elul, where we are told that the priest is not to\nenter the 'secret' place. This term appears to describe the 'holy of\nholies' in the Babylonian temples where the oracles were obtained. The\nsingle word 'secret' was a sufficient indication for the priest that on\nthe day in question he might enter the mysterious chamber of the temple\nwithout trepidation.\n\nMany of the days of the year are simply set down as 'favorable' or\n'unfavorable,' while others were noted as days portending 'distress,'\n'trouble,' 'tears,' 'injury,' 'everything favorable,' 'darkness,' 'moon\nobscured,' and the like. Of special interest are the prohibitions\nregarding food on certain days. On the 9th day of the 2d month \"fish is\nnot to be eaten or sickness will ensue.\" Swine's meat is forbidden on\nthe 30th day of the 5th month, and in this case the particular kind of\nsickness--disease of the joints--is specified that will ensue in case of\ndisobedience. On another day, the 25th of the 7th month, beef as well as\npork is forbidden, while on the 10th day of the 8th month and the 27th\nday of the 6th month, dates are forbidden as a precaution against eye\ndisease. One is not to cross a stream[622] on the 20th day of the 5th\nmonth; on certain days one is not to sell grain; other days are again\nnoted as specially favorable for military movements.\n\nSome of the precautions prescribed in this calendar may have been meant\nfor the populace in general, such as the order not to cross a stream or\nto strike a bargain. The belief in lucky and unlucky days has a distinct\npopular flavor, but it is doubtful whether the ordinary public consulted\nthe priests, as a general thing, in order to find out what days were\nlucky and what not. It is more plausible to assume that the priests\nembodied in their official calendars some of the notions that arose\namong the people, and gave to them an official sanction.\n\nThere are a considerable number of references to the king in the\ncomplete calendar under consideration, and we are permitted to assume,\ntherefore, that the calendar served as a further guide for the priests\nin their instructions to the king. The allusion to oracles, curses, and\nweapons points in this same direction, and when, as in a number of\ninstances, a day is described as one on which Shamash or some other god\nis 'angry,' it is in all probabilities against the ruler rather than\nagainst private individuals that the god's displeasure has been\nmanifested. A similar official and public character is borne by another\ncalendar, where months alone are indicated and their significance\ninterpreted.[623] The twelve months are arranged in as many columns.\nUnder each column the indications 'favorable' or 'not' are entered,\nwhile at the right end of the tablet the specifications are added for\nwhat undertakings the month is, or is not, favorable. One of these\nspecifications is \"the soldiery to make an attack upon a hostile city,\"\nand upon referring to the list of months, we learn that the 2d, 6th,\n7th, 8th, and 12th months are favorable for such an undertaking, but the\nothers are 'not.' Again, the 1st, 3d, 4th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th\nare 'favorable' for \"the entrance of any army upon foreign soil,\" but\nthe remainder 'not.' The other specifications refer likewise to the\nmovements of the armies. Such a calendar was evidently drawn up on the\nbasis of omens, for a specific purpose, and, we may add, for some\nspecific expedition to serve as a guide to the military commander. In\nthe same way, calendars were drawn up devoted to indications regarding\ncrops and for other purposes of public interest. To a more limited\nextent, private affairs are also touched upon.\n\nTo enter upon a further discussion of details is unnecessary at this\npoint, and would carry us too far from the main purpose of this chapter,\nwhich is to point out the diverse ways in which the belief in omens is\nillustrated by the religious literature of the Babylonians.\n\nIt is sufficient to have made clear that the oracles and dreams, the\nlists of omens derived from eclipses, the works on the planets and stars\nand the calendars, all have the same origin due to observation of\ncoincidences, to past experience, and to a variety of combinations, some\nlogical and some fanciful, of supposed relationships between cause and\neffect; and not only the same origin, but the lists and calendars served\nalso the same main purpose of guides for the priests in replying to the\nquestions put to them by their royal masters and in forwarding\ninstructions to the ruler for the regulation of his own conduct so that\nhe and his people might enjoy the protection and good will of the gods.\nBut the observation of the phenomena of the heavens, while playing\nperhaps the most prominent part in the derivation of omens, was not the\nonly resource at the command of the priests for prognosticating the\nfuture. Almost daily, strange signs might be observed among men and\nanimals, and whatever was strange was of necessity fraught with some\nmeaning. It was the business of the priest to discover that meaning.\n\n\nOmens From Terrestrial Phenomena.\n\nMonstrosities, human and animal, and all species of malformations\naroused attention. The rarer their occurrence, the greater the\nsignificance attached to them. In addition to this, the movements of\nanimals, the flight of birds, the appearance of snakes at certain\nplaces, of locusts, lions, the actions of dogs, the direction of the\nwinds, the state of rivers, and all possible accidents and experiences\nthat men may encounter in their house, in the street, in crossing\nstreams, and in sleep were observed. Everything in any way unusual was\nimportant, and even common occurrences were of some significance. The\nextensive omen literature that was produced in Babylonia is an\nindication of the extent to which men's lives were hedged in by the\nbelief in portents. Several thousand tablets in the portion of\nAshurbanabal's library that has been rescued from oblivion through\nmodern excavations, deal with omens of this general class. Several\ndistinct series, some embracing over one hundred tablets, have already\nbeen distinguished. One of these series deals with all kinds of\npeculiarities that occur in human infants and in the young of animals;\nanother with the things that may happen to a man; a third with the\nmovements of various animals, and more the like. As yet but a small\nportion of these tablets have been published,[624] but thanks to the\nindications given by Dr. Bezold in his great catalogue of the Kouyunjik\nCollection, a fair idea of the general character of the Babylonian omen\nliterature may be formed. On what principle the omens were derived, it\nis again difficult to determine in detail, but that some logical\nprinciples controlled the interpretations cannot be doubted.\n\nJevons has shown[625] that in \"sympathetic magic,\"--of which the\ninterpretation of omens is an offshoot,--the same logical methods are\nfollowed as in modern science. The famous 'Chaldean wisdom,' which is to\nbe looked for in this widespread omen literature, would not have created\nso deep an impression on the ancient world, if the theologians of the\nEuphrates Valley, in incorporating primitive magic in the official\nreligion, had not been successful in giving to their interpretations of\noccurrences in nature and in the animal world, the appearance, at least,\nof a consistent science.\n\nTaking up as our first illustration the series devoted to birth\nportents, it is interesting to observe the system followed in presenting\nthe various phases of the general subject. A broad distinction is drawn\nbetween significant phenomena in the case of human infants and in the\ncase of the young of animals.\n\nAbout a dozen tablets are taken up with an enumeration of omens\nconnected with new-born children, and one gains the impression from the\nvast number of portents included in the lists that originally every\nbirth portended something. The fact that births were of daily occurrence\ndid not remove the sense of mystery aroused by this sudden appearance of\na new life. Every part of the body was embraced in the omens: the ears,\neyes, mouth, nose, lips, arms, hands, feet, fingers, toes, breast,\ngeneratory organs. Attention was directed to the shapes of these various\nmembers and organs. The ears of a child might suggest the ears of a dog\nor of a lion or of a swine, and similarly the nose, mouth, lips, hands,\nor feet might present a peculiar appearance. A single member or the\nfeatures in general might be small or abnormally large. All these\npeculiarities meant something; and since few if any children are born\nwithout presenting some peculiarities in some part of the body, it would\nseem as though the intention of the compilers of the series was to\nprovide a complete handbook for the interpretation of signs connected\nwith the birth of children. Naturally the total absence of some member\nof the body in case of the new-born or any malformation was a sign of\nespecial significance. Hence we are told what was portended by a child\nborn without hands or feet or ears or lips, or with only one of these\nmembers, or with only one eye, or with no mouth or no tongue, or with\nsix fingers on one or on both hands, or six toes on one or on both feet,\nor without generatory organs.[626]\n\nThe rarer the phenomenon, the greater the significance is, as we have\nseen, a general principle in the science of augury. The birth of twins\naccordingly plays an important role in the series. In fact, the opening\ntablet is devoted in part to this phase of the subject. We are told, for\nexample, that[627]\n\n    If a woman gives birth to twins, one male and one female, it is\n    an unfavorable omen. The land is in favor[628], but that house\n    (wherein the child was born) will be reduced.\n\nAnd again,\n\n    If a woman gives birth to twins, and both are brought out\n    alive(?),[629] but the right hand of one is lacking, the ruler\n    (?) will be killed by force, the land will be diminished....\n\n    If a woman gives birth to twins, and both are brought out alive\n    (?), but neither of them have right hands, the produce of the\n    country will be consumed by the enemy.\n\n    If a woman gives birth to twins, and both are brought out alive\n    (?), but the right foot of one is missing, an enemy will for one\n    year disturb the fixed order of the country.[630]\n\nIt will be observed that these omens bear on public as well as private\naffairs. The part played by public matters in them varies, but that the\nking and the country are so frequently introduced is an indication again\nof the official character given to these omen tablets. Only priests\nwhose chief concern was with the court and the general welfare would\nhave been impelled to mingle in this curious way the fate of the\nindividual with that of the country at large. The birth of twins in\nitself is an omen for the house where the event occurs; but twins that\nare monstrosities, with a foot or a hand lacking, portend something of\nimport to the general welfare.\n\nThe tablet proceeds, after finishing one phase of the subject, with\nomens to be derived from infants whose features resemble those of\ncertain animals. In this case again we will see that the mind of the\ncompiler is now directed towards the fate of the individual and again\ntoward the ruler or the country. In the 2d tablet of the series we read\nthat\n\n    If a woman gives birth to a child with a lion's head,[631] a\n    strong king will rule in the land.\n\n    If a woman gives birth to a child with a dog's head, the city in\n    his district[632] will be in distress, and evil will be in the\n    country.\n\n    ...\n\n    If a woman gives birth to a child with a swine's head, offspring\n    and possession (?) will increase in that house.\n\n    ...\n\n    If a woman gives birth to a child with a bird's head, that land\n    will be destroyed.\n\n    If a woman gives birth to a child with a serpent's head, for\n    thirty days (?) Nin-Gishzida[633] will bring a famine in the\n    land, and Gilgamesh[634] will rule as king in the land.\n\nIn the same tablet[635] such monstrosities are taken up as children born\nwith two heads, with a double pair of eyes, or with the eyes misplaced,\nwith two mouths or more than two lips. The two heads, strange enough,\ngenerally portend good fortune, though not invariably. Thus an infant\nwith two heads is an omen of strength for the country; and again\n\n    If a woman gives birth to a child with two heads, two mouths,\n    but the regular number of eyes, hands, and feet[636], it is an\n    omen of vigorous life [for the country, but the son] will seize\n    the king his father and kill him.\n\nBut\n\n    If a woman gives birth to a child with two heads and two mouths,\n    and the two hands and two feet are between them[637], disease\n    will settle upon that city (where the monstrosity was born).\n\nIf the deformity consists in the misplacement of certain organs, the\nomen is invariably bad.\n\n    If a woman gives birth to a child with two eyes on the left\n    side, it is a sign that the gods are angry against the land, and\n    the land will be destroyed.\n\nAnd again,\n\n    If a woman gives birth to a child with three eyes on the left\n    side and one on the right, the gods will fill the land with\n    corpses.\n\nThe third tablet proceeds with other parts of the body. It begins with a\nlist of peculiarities observed in regard to the ears. The resemblance of\ncertain features in children to the corresponding features of animals is\nan observation made by many nations. In modern times Lavater, it will be\nrecalled, based his study of human physiognomy in part upon the\nresemblance of the nose, eyes, mouth, and ears, and general shape of the\nhead to the features of such animals as the lion, jackass, dog, and\nswine. We may well believe, therefore, that when the Babylonians refer\nto a child with a lion's or a dog's ear, they had in mind merely a\nresemblance, but did not mean that the child actually had the ear of a\nlion or dog or the like.\n\nAt times the connection between the omen and its interpretation is quite\nobvious. In a portion of this same series we are told that[638]\n\n    If a woman gives birth to a child with a lion-like ear, a mighty\n    king will arise in the land.\n\nIt will be recalled that a 'lion head' portends the same, and it is\nevident that in both cases the lion suggests strength. We are in the\npresence of the same order of ideas that controls the belief in\n'sympathetic magic.' The corollary to 'like produces like' is 'like\nmeans like.' In other cases, the logic underlying the interpretation of\nthe omen must be sought for in views connected with some accompanying\nfeature.\n\n    If a woman gives birth to a child with the right ear missing,\n    the days of the ruler will be long.\n\n    If a woman gives birth to a child with the left ear missing,\n    distress will enter the land and weaken it.\n\nWhile in general the absence of any part of the body is a sign of\ndistress for the country and individual by a perfectly natural\nassociation of ideas, yet this general principle is modified by the\nfurther consideration that 'right' is a good omen and 'left' a bad one.\nBut this consideration which makes the absence of the 'right' ear a good\nomen may again be offset by the entrance of a third factor. So we are\ntold that\n\n    If a woman gives birth to a child with a small[639] right ear,\n    the house of the man[640] will be destroyed.\n\nThe omen of misfortune in this case is the deformity in the organ, and\nthe fact that the more important right ear is deformed, so far from\nmitigating the force of the omen, accentuates its consequences.\n\nIf a deformed right ear is disastrous, we are prepared to learn that\n\n    If a woman gives birth to a child with both ears short, the\n    house of the man will be utterly rooted out.\n\nNo less than eleven varieties of deformed ears are enumerated. It must\nnot be supposed, however, that the factors involved in this omen science\nare always or even generally so simple. In most cases the connection\nbetween the sign and the conclusion drawn, is not clear to us because of\nthe multiplicity of factors involved. Further publication and study of\nomen texts will no doubt make some points clear which are now obscure,\nbut we cannot expect ever to find out all the factors that were taken\ninto account by the populace and the schoolmen, in proposing and\naccepting certain interpretations of certain omens, any more than we can\nfathom the reasons for the similar superstition found among other\nnations[641] of antiquity and modern times. Recognizing certain\nprinciples in some of the omens, we are justified in concluding that\nwhatever else determined the interpretation of omens, caprice did not\nenter into consideration, but rather an association of ideas that\nescapes us, simply because our logic differs from the logic of primitive\npeoples in certain important particulars.\n\nThe list of peculiarities occurring in the case of babes continues as\nfollows:\n\n    If a woman gives birth to a child whose mouth is shaped like a\n    bird's, the country will be stirred up.\n\n    If a woman gives birth to a child without any mouth, the\n    mistress of the house will die.\n\n    If a woman gives birth to a child with the right nostril\n    lacking, misfortune is portending.\n\n    If a woman gives birth to a child with both nostrils lacking,\n    the land will witness distress, and disease will destroy the\n    house of the man.\n\n    If a woman gives birth to a child whose jaw is lacking, the days\n    of the ruler will be long, but the house of the man will be\n    destroyed.\n\n    If a woman gives birth to a child whose lower jaw is lacking,\n    the ground will not bear fruit during the year.\n\nIt will be observed that, while most of the portents are evil, the ruler\nof the land is here generally vouchsafed immunity. The priests had to be\nsomewhat on their guard lest by the very terror that they aroused, the\nhold of the rulers over the people might be loosened. Moreover, the\nrulers were sufficiently hedged in by their positions, as we have seen,\nand were in no danger of regarding themselves as safe from the anger of\nthe gods.\n\nStill quite frequently even the king is involved in the evil prophecy.\nThe portion of the series dealing with portents derived from deformed\nhands and feet contains instances of this kind.\n\n    If a woman gives birth to a child with the right hand lacking,\n    the land advances to destruction.\n\n    If a woman gives birth to a child with both hands lacking, the\n    city will witness no more births, and the land will be utterly\n    destroyed.\n\n    If a woman gives birth to a child with the fingers of the right\n    hand lacking, the ruler will be captured by his enemy.\n\n    If a woman gives birth to a child with six toes on the right\n    foot, through distress (?), the house of the man will perish.\n\n    If a woman gives birth to a child with six very small toes on\n    the left foot, distress (?) will come to pass.\n\n    If a woman gives birth to a child with six toes on the right\n    foot, some disaster is portending.\n\nAltogether no less than ninety kinds of human deformities in the various\nparts of the body are enumerated and interpreted.\n\nThe significance of the portents is naturally increased if the woman who\ngives birth to a monstrosity happens to belong to the royal house. In\nsuch a case, the omen has direct bearings on national affairs. The good\nor evil sign affects the country exclusively. From a tablet of this\nnature,[642] belonging to a different series than the one we have been\nconsidering, we learn that six toes on the right foot or six on the left\nfoot mean defeat, whereas six toes on both feet mean victory. Royal\ntwins were a good omen, and so also a royal child born with teeth or\nwith hair on its face or with unusually developed features.\n\nThe same desire to find some meaning in deviations from normal types led\nto the careful observation of deformities or peculiarities in the case\nof the young of domestic animals. In the fifth tablet of the series that\nwe have chosen as an illustration, the compiler passes from babes to the\noffspring of domestic animals. From the opening line, which is all that\nhas been published as yet,[643] and which reads:\n\n    If in the flock[644] a dog is born, weapons will destroy life\n    and the king will not be triumphant\n\nit would appear that the first subject taken up was the anomalous unions\namong animals, which naturally aroused attention when they occurred.\n\nA number of tablets--at least seven--follow in which monstrosities\noccurring among the young of sheep are noted.\n\nThe series passes on to signs to be observed among colts. From this\npoint on, the series is too defective (so far as published) to warrant\nany further deductions; but it is safe to suppose that, as the young of\newes and mares were considered in special sections, so the young of\nswine and of cows were taken up in succession. The whole series would\nthus aim to cover that section of the animal kingdom that concerned man\nmost,--his own offspring, and the young of those animals by which he was\nsurrounded.\n\nIn these omens derived from the young of domestic animals, we are again\noverwhelmed at the mass of contingencies included by the priests in\ntheir compilations. Just as in the case of omens derived from infants,\nso here the parts of the body are taken up one after the other. All\npossible, and one is inclined to add various impossible, variations from\nthe normal types are noted. The omen varies as the female throws off\none, two, three, or whatever number of young ones up to ten. For\nexample:[645]\n\n    If among the sheep, five young ones are born, it is a sign of\n    devastation in the land. The owner of the sheep dies, and his\n    house is destroyed.\n\nThis is the omen in the case that the litter consists of five young\nones, all normal. But if anomalies occur, as, _e.g._,\n\n    If five young ones are born, one with a bull's head, one with a\n    lion's head, one with a dog's head, and one with a sheep's head,\n    there will be a series of devastations in the land.\n\nAgain,\n\n    If seven young are thrown off, three male and four female, that\n    man[646] will perish.\n\nAnd so if eight are born, it is a bad sign for the king who, we are\ntold, \"will be driven out of the country through sedition.\" The\nvariations are nigh endless.\n\n    If in the flock, young ones are thrown off with five legs, it is\n    a sign of distress in the land. The house of the man will perish\n    and his stalls will be swept away.\n\n    If the young ones have six legs, the population will decrease\n    and devastation will settle over the country.\n\nHaving finished with litters, the series proceeds to peculiar marks\nfound on single specimens; lambs that have a head and tail shaped like a\nlion or that have a lion's head and a mane like that of an ass, or a\nhead like a bird's, or like a swine, and so through a long and rather\ntiresome list.\n\nMalformations in the shape or position of members of the animal,\nparticularly the mouth, ears, tongue, tail, and eyes, or the absence of\nany one or of several of these parts were fraught with an importance\ncorresponding to these symptoms among new-born babes.\n\n    If a young one has its ears on one side, and its head is twisted\n    (?), and it has no mouth, the ruler will cut off the supply of\n    water from his enemy.\n\nIn this instance the 'twisting' and the absence of the mouth appear to\nsuggest the act of turning a canal into a different direction, so as to\nisolate a besieged city. When the text goes on to declare that\n\n    If the young one has its ears at its neck,[647] the ruler will\n    be without judgment,\n\nit is the association of ideas between 'ears' and 'judgment,'[648] that\nsupplies the link. A misplaced ear is equivalent to misdirected\njudgment.\n\nConsistent with this interpretation, the next line informs us that\n\n    If the young one has its ears below the neck,[649] the union of\n    the country is weakened.\n\nSuch glimpses into the peculiar thought controlling these omens are\nperhaps all that we will be able to obtain at least for a long time to\ncome. For the rest, comparative studies with the omens of the other\nnations will alone serve to determine the multitudinous factors involved\nin the interpretations of the signs.\n\nBefore leaving the subject, however, a few more illustrations may be\noffered. Another portion of the same tablet--the eleventh--continues the\nomens derived from peculiarities in the ears of lambkins:\n\n    If the young one has no right ear, the rule of the king will\n    come to an end, his palace will be uprooted, and the population\n    of the city will be swept away, the king will lose judgment, ...\n    the produce of the country will be small, the enemy will cut off\n    the supply of water.\n\n    If the left ear of the young one is missing, the deity will hear\n    the prayer of the king, the king will capture his enemy's land,\n    and the palace of the enemy will be destroyed, the enemy will\n    lack judgment, the produce of the enemy's land will be taken\n    away and everything will be plundered (?).\n\n    If the right ear of the young one falls off, the stall[650] will\n    be destroyed.\n\n    If the left ear of the young one falls off, the stall will be\n    increased, the stall[651] of the enemy will be destroyed.\n\n    If the right ear of the young one is split (?), that stall will\n    be destroyed, the enemy (?) will advance against the city.\n\n    If the left ear of the young one is split (?), that stall will\n    be increased, the king[652] will advance against the enemy's\n    land.\n\nIn all these cases it will be observed that a defect in the right ear or\nan accident happening to it is an evil omen, whereas the same thing\noccurring in the case of the left is a favorable indication. The greater\nimportance of the right side of anything evidently suggests in this case\nthe interpretation offered, and yet this principle, as we have seen, is\nfar from being of universal application. It depends upon _what_ happens\nto the right ear. Above, we have seen that an unusually large ear\nbetokens some good fortune, and in the tablet under consideration,\nillustrations are afforded of accidents to the right ear which furnish a\ngood omen, while the same accident in the case of the left ear is\nregarded as a bad omen.\n\nOur text continues:\n\n    If the right ear of the young one is shrunk (?), the house of\n    the owner will prosper.\n\n    If the left ear is shrunk, the house of the owner will perish.\n\n    If the right ear is torn off, the house of the owner will\n    prosper.\n\n    If the left ear is torn off, the house of the owner will perish.\n\nBut immediately following this we have again an evil omen for the right\near and a favorable one for the left. Three more tablets are taken up\nwith omens associated with all manner of peculiarities in the formation\nof the ears, head, lips, mouth, and feet of lambkins, and it is not\nuntil the fifteenth tablet of the series is reached that another\nsubject, the young of mares, is introduced.\n\nThe prognostications in the case of colts have about the same character\nas those in the case of lambkins. The same signs are singled out for\nmention, and the omens are not only, just as in the illustrations\nadduced, evenly divided between the fate of the country and its ruler,\nand of the owner of the colt or mare, but we can also observe a\nconsistent application of the same principles, so far as these\nprinciples may be detected. A few illustrations will make this\nclear:[653]\n\n    If a colt has no right legs, the house[654] will be destroyed.\n\n    If a colt has no left legs, the days of the ruler will be long.\n\n    If a colt has no legs, the country will be destroyed.\n\n    If a colt has the right leg shortened,[655] ... his stall[4]\n    will be destroyed.\n\n    If a colt has the left leg shortened, the stall[656] will be\n    destroyed\n\n    ...\n\n    If a colt has no hoof on the right foreleg, the wife will cause\n    trouble to her husband.\n\n    If a colt has no hoofs at all, there will be dissensions (?)\n    within the country, and the enemy will enter the ruler's land.\n\nIn this way, twenty-one omens derived from as many varieties of strange\nformations in the legs of colts are enumerated. As in the case of\nlambkins, so for colts, the appearance of twins is endowed with a\nspecial significance.\n\n    If a mare gives birth to twins, male and female, and each has\n    only one eye, the enemy triumphs and devastates Babylonia.\n\n    If the male or female colt has a mane like a lion, the country\n    will be reduced.\n\n    If the male or female colt has a dog's hoof, the country will be\n    reduced.\n\n    If the male or female colt has a lion's claw, the country will\n    be enlarged.\n\n    If the male or female colt has a dog's head, the woman's[657]\n    life will be bad. The country will be reduced.\n\n    If the male or female colt has a lion's head, the ruler will be\n    strong.\n\n    If both colts, the male and female, resemble lions, the ruler\n    over his enemies prevails (?).\n\n    If both colts, male and female, resemble dogs, the ruler over\n    his enemy's country prevails (?).\n\n    If either a male or female colt is born resembling a lion, the\n    king will be strong.\n\n    If either a male or female colt resembles a dog, herds of cattle\n    will die, and there will be famine.\n\n    If a colt is born without a head, its master will be strong.\n\n    If a colt is born without eyes, the god Bel will bring about a\n    change of dynasty.\n\n    If a colt is born without feet, the king increases his army and\n    a slaughter will ensue.\n\n    If a colt is born without ears, for three years the gods will\n    reduce the land.\n\n    If a colt is born without a tail, the ruler will die.\n\nIn conclusion it may be observed that, apart from the unusual character\nof these freaks which would suffice to attribute a special import to\nthem, the notions current among the Babylonians, as among so many people\nof a period when creatures existed, the various parts of which were\ncompounded of different animals, may be regarded as an additional factor\nthat served to add force to the class of omens we are considering. The\nmonsters guarding the approaches to temples and palaces[658] were but\none form which this popular belief assumed, and when a colt was observed\nto have a lion's or a dog's claw, an ocular demonstration was afforded\nwhich at once strengthened and served to maintain a belief that at\nbottom is naught but a crude and primitive form of a theory of\nevolution. In a dim way man always felt the unity of the animal world.\nAnimals resembled one another, and man had some features in common with\nanimals. What more natural than to conclude that at some period, the\nanimals were composite creatures, and that even mankind and the animal\nworld were once blended together.\n\nThe prevailing religious and semi-mythological ideas, accordingly, enter\nas factors in the significance that was attached to infants or to the\nyoung of animals, serving as illustrations of 'hybrid' formations.\n\n\nOmens from the Actions of Animals.\n\nThe same order of ideas, only still further extended, may be detected in\nthe sacredness attached to certain animals by so many nations of\nantiquity. It is now generally admitted that this 'sacredness' has two\nsides. A sacred animal may be 'taboo,' that is, so sacred that it must\nnot be touched, much less killed or eaten; and, on the other hand, its\noriginal sanctity may lead people to regard it as \"unclean,\" something\nagain to be avoided, because of the power to do evil involved in the\nprimitive conception of 'sacredness.'[659]\n\nThe swine and the dog are illustrations of this double nature of\nsanctity among the Semites. The former was sacred to some of the\ninhabitants of \"Syria.\"[660] The Babylonians, as we have seen, abstained\nfrom eating it on certain days of the year, while the Hebrews and Arabs\nregarded it as an absolute 'taboo.'\n\nThe dog to this day is in the Orient an \"unclean\" animal, and yet it is\nforbidden to do dogs any injury. If, then, we find the Babylonians\nattaching significance to the movements of this animal, it is obvious\nthat by them, too, the dog was regarded as, in some way, sacred. It was\nan 'animal of omen,' sometimes good, at other times bad. A tablet\ninforms us[661] that:\n\n    If a yellow dog enters a palace, it is a sign of a distressful\n    fate for the palace.\n\n    If a speckled dog enters a palace, the palace[662] will give\n    peace to the enemy.\n\n    If a dog enters a palace and some one kills him, the peace of\n    the palace will be disturbed.\n\n    If a dog enters a palace and crouches on the couch, no one will\n    enjoy that palace in peace.\n\n    If a dog enters a palace and crouches on the throne, that palace\n    will suffer a distressful fate.\n\n    If a dog enters a palace and lies on a large bowl, the palace\n    will secure peace from the enemy.\n\nThere follow omens in case dogs enter a sacred edifice:\n\n    If a dog enters a temple, the gods will not enlarge the land.\n\n    If a white dog enters a temple, the foundation of that temple\n    will be firm.\n\n    If a black dog enters a temple, the foundation of that temple\n    will not be firm.\n\n    If a brown[663] dog enters a temple, that temple will witness\n    justice.\n\n    If a yellow dog enters a temple, that temple will[664] witness\n    justice.\n\n    If a speckled dog enters a temple, the gods will show favor to\n    that temple.\n\n    If dogs gather together and enter a temple, the city's peace\n    will be disturbed.\n\nThe juxtaposition of palace and temple is an indication that a large\nmeasure of sanctity was attached to the former as the dwelling-place of\none who stood near to the gods. The omens, accordingly, in the case of\nboth palace and temple are again concerned with public affairs. But from\nthe same tablet we learn that an equal degree of significance was\nattached to the actions of dogs when they entered private dwellings.\nPrecautions must have been taken against the presence of dogs in that\npart of the house which was reserved for a man's family, for we are\ntold:[665]\n\n    A dog entering a man's house was an omen that the ultimate fate\n    of that house would be destruction by fire.\n\nCare had to be taken lest dogs defiled a person or any part of the\nhouse. The omens varied again according to the color of the dog.\n\n    If a white dog defiles[666] a man, destruction will seize him.\n\n    If a black dog defiles a man, sickness will seize him.\n\n    If a brown dog defiles a man, that man will perish.\n\n    If a dog defiles a man's couch, a severe sickness will seize\n    that man.\n\n    If a dog defiles a man's chair, the man will not survive the\n    year.\n\n    If a dog defiles a man's bowl,[667] a deity will show anger\n    towards the man.\n\nOn the other hand, dogs were not to be driven out of the streets. Their\npresence in the roads was essential to the welfare of the place. Hence\nan omen reads:\n\n    If dogs do not enter the highway,[668] destruction from an enemy\n    will visit the city.\n\nThrough Diodorus, Jamblichus, and other ancient writers we know that the\nBabylonians and Assyrians attached importance to the movements of other\nanimals, notably serpents, birds, and certain insects. The symbols on\nthe boundary stones which have been referred to[669] are based on this\nbelief. The serpent figures prominently among these symbols. In the\nBabylonian deluge story, the dove, raven, and swallow are introduced. Of\nthese, the swallow appears to be the bird whose flight was most\ncarefully observed. The sign which represents this bird in the cuneiform\nsyllabary also signifies 'fate.'[670] The mischief wrought by swarms of\ninsects, as grasshoppers and locusts, the danger lurking in the bites of\nscorpions sufficiently explain the importance attached to the actions of\nthese animals. The mysterious appearance and disappearance of serpents\nand their strange twistings added an element in their case that\nincreased the awe they inspired, while if Ihering be correct,[671] the\nomens derived from the flight of birds are a survival of the migratory\nperiod in the history of a nation, when birds served as a natural guide\nin choosing the easiest course to pass from one place to another. A\nlarge number of tablets in Ashurbanabal's library treat of the\nsignificance attached to the action of these various animals, and it is\nlikely that these tablets form part of a large series, of which the\nillustrations above adduced regarding the movements of dogs form a part.\nIn this series, the application of the omens to individuals is more\nstrongly emphasized than in the series of birth portents. Naturally so,\nfor it was the individual as a general thing who encountered the signs.\nIn the case of the appearance of a serpent or snake, for example, the\nomen consisted in the fact that a certain person beheld it, and that\nperson was involved in the consequences. Fine distinctions are again\nintroduced that illustrate the intricacies of the system of\ninterpretation perfected in Babylonia. If a snake passes from the right\nto the left side of a man, it means one thing; if from the left to the\nright, another; if the man who sees a snake does not tread upon it, the\nomen is different than in the case when he attempts to crush it. Again\nthe omen varies according to the occupation of the man who encountered a\nsnake. If he be a gardener, the appearance of the snake means something\ndifferent than in the case of his being a sailor.\n\nThe place where the animal appears is also of import, whether in the\nstreet, the house, or the temple, and again, the time of its appearance,\nin what month or on what day. In the same way, an endless variety of\nomens are derived from the appearance of certain birds, the direction of\ntheir flight, their fluttering around the head of a man or entering a\nman's house. So, _e.g._,\n\n    If a raven[672] enters a man's house, that man will secure\n    whatever he desires.\n\nAnd again:\n\n    If a bird throws a bit of meat or anything into a man's house,\n    that man will secure a large fortune.\n\nThe omens from the appearance of flocks of birds in a town bore, as\nappears natural, upon public affairs rather than upon the fate of\nindividuals, and similarly the appearance of birds in a temple was an\nomen for the whole country.\n\nThe public or private character of the omens was thus dependent in large\nmeasure upon the question whether the phenomena appeared to an\nindividual directly or to the population of a place in general. Meeting\na snake or scorpion in the course of a walk through the fields was an\nindividual omen, and similarly the actions of sheep in a man's stall,\nwhereas, a mad bull rushing through the city was a general omen. So we\nare told that\n\n    If sheep in the stalls do not bleat (?), that stall will be\n    destroyed.\n\nWhereas[673]\n\n    A bull crouching at the gate of a city is an omen that the enemy\n    will capture that gate.\n\n    A bull goring an ox in the city is an unfavorable omen for the\n    city, but if the bull enters the precincts of an individual, it\n    is favorable for the individual.\n\nA series of omens derived from the appearance of locusts again\nillustrates this principle. When the insects enter private precincts,\nthe individual and his immediate surroundings are affected.[674]\n\n    If black and speckled locusts appear in a man's house, the\n    master of the house will die.\n\n    If black and yellow locusts appear in a man's house, the\n    supports of that house will fall.\n\n    If large white locusts appear in a man's house, that house will\n    be destroyed and the owner will be in distress.\n\n    If white and brown locusts appear in a man's house, that house\n    will be destroyed.\n\n    If small white and brown locusts appear in a man's house, the\n    house will be destroyed and the owner will be in distress.\n\n    If yellow locusts appear in a man's house, the supports of that\n    house will fall and the owner of the house will be unlucky.\n\n    If yellow-winged locusts appear in a man's house, the master of\n    the house will die and that house will be overthrown.\n\n\nOmens From Dreams.\n\nIt made little difference whether one encountered something while awake\nor saw it in one's dream. In fact, what one saw while asleep had as a\ngeneral thing more importance. A special god of dreams, Makhir, is often\nreferred to in the religious texts, and this is but another way of\nexpressing the belief that the dreams were sent to a man as omens. An\nunusually wide scope was afforded to the compilers of omen series in\ntheir interpretations of dreams, for what might not a man see in visions\nof the night? If a lion[675] appears to a man, it means that the man\nwill carry out his purpose; if a jackal, it signifies that he will\nsecure favor in the eyes of the gods; a dog portends sorrow; a mountain\ngoat, that the man's son will die of some disease; a stag, that his\ndaughter will die; and so through a long list.\n\nAgain we are told[676] that\n\n    If (in a dream) a date appears on a man's head,[677] it means\n    that that man will be in distress.\n\n    If a fish appears on a man's head, that man will be powerful.\n\n    If a mountain appears on a man's head, that man will be without\n    a rival.\n\n    If salt appears on a man's head, his house will be well\n    protected (?).\n\nSimilarly, interpretations are offered for the apparition of the dead or\nof demons, in dreams. The book of Daniel affords an illustration of the\nimportance attached to dreams in Babylonia, and of the science developed\nout of the interpretations. The sarcastic touch introduced by the\ncompiler of the book,[678] who represents Nebuchadnezzar as demanding of\nhis priests not merely to interpret his dream, but to tell him what he\ndreamed, is intended to illustrate the limitations of the far-famed\n'Chaldean wisdom.' It is also interesting to note in connection with the\nillustrations adduced, that the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar and\nBelshazzar[679] in the book of Daniel are so largely concerned with\napparitions of animals.\n\nThe omens taken from dreams, together with the accidents that occurred\nto an individual, or the phenomena occurring in a man's house, afford us\nan insight into the purely popular phases of the science of augury.\nWhile eclipses and the movements of planets bear chiefly and almost\nexclusively on public affairs, and even birth portents frequently\nportend something to the ruler or to the country, it was through such\nomens as partook of a purely personal character that the intentions of\nthe gods towards the individual were made manifest. By means of omens,\nthe bond between the individual and the gods was not, indeed,\nestablished, but in large measure maintained. Here was a phase of the\nreligion that touched each individual closely. What a person saw, what\nhe dreamed, what happened to him, what appeared in his house or among\nthe members of his household was of significance to him. To know what\nevery phenomenon portended was essential to his welfare; and we may feel\ncertain that the relations of the individual to the priests, so far as\nthese existed, consisted largely in obtaining from the latter the\ninterpretation of the omens that he encountered. On the other hand, the\npower of the priests over the populace was due to the popular belief in\nportents, and the attention given by the theologians to the collection\nof exhaustive omen series is a proof that the priests knew how to use\ntheir power.\n\nThese \"Dream Books\" must have been very numerous. The success of the\npriests here depended even more than in other branches of the omen\nliterature upon exhausting, so far as possible, all contingencies. No\ndoubt they were guided here also by two factors: association of ideas,\nand past experience through making of a single coincidence between a\ndream and some occurrence, a principle of general application. Some of\nthe omens from dreams, however, appear to have themselves formed part of\na larger series dealing in general with\n\n\nOmens From Individual Experiences.\n\nIf one may judge from the specimens furnished by Dr. Bezold in his\ncatalogue, this series was unusually extensive, embracing a large number\nof subjects connected with human activity,--a man's work in the field,\nhis actions in commercial affairs, incidents of travel on sea or land,\nhis relations to his kindred--the dead as well as the living--disease\nand death, down to such apparent trifles as the conditions of the walls\nof his house. Cracks in the wall were an omen; meeting a snake in the\nhighway was an omen. A fall was an omen; dropping an instrument was an\nomen; in short, it is difficult to say what was not an omen. The\ncharacter of the omens in this series does not differ in any essential\nparticulars from those of other series. The important feature of the\nseries is that it affords another and perhaps the most striking\nillustration of that phase of the omen literature which concerns the\nindividual directly, and, it seems safe to add, exclusively.\n\nTake, for example, omens connected with symptoms occurring in certain\ndiseases. We are told that\n\n    If the right breast is brown, it is a fatal (?) sign.\n\n    If both breasts are brown, there will be no recovery.\n\n    If the left breast is green, the sickness will be severe.\n\nThe symptoms affect the individual alone. Through this series we are\nthus enabled to determine more definitely the boundary line between\nomens involving the affairs of the country and king, and those involving\nthe individual. A phenomenon affecting an individual, or appearing to\nhim alone, or brought about through some action of his of a purely\nprivate character, carries in its train an omen of significance for\nhimself or his immediate surroundings; but the moment that these rather\nnarrow limits are transcended, the fate of the individual becomes more\nor less closely bound up with the fortunes of the population and of the\nruler of the country in general. The series also illustrates, perhaps\nbetter than any other, the control exercised by popular beliefs over the\nacts of the individual. For we may conclude, that if work on certain\ndays or traveling at certain periods or the appearance of certain\nanimals indicated something unfavorable to a man, he would studiously\navoid bringing misfortune upon himself and observe the precautions\ninvolved in the interpretation of the vast mass of the accidents and\nincidents of existence. The task was a difficult one, indeed, impossible\nof being carried out to perfection, but this would not hinder him from\nmaking the attempt. He was satisfied if he warded off at least a fair\nnumber of unfavorable omens. Correspondingly, he would endeavor to so\nregulate his course as to encounter as large a number as possible of\nomens that were favorable to him. In this way his life would be spent\nwith a constant thought of the gods and spirits, who controlled all\nthings in this world. The popular belief in omens made it incumbent upon\nthe individual not to lose sight at any time of his dependence upon\npowers over which he had but a limited control.\n\nA certain phase of his religion thus entered largely into his life. That\nphase would occupy him by day and by night. It was a part of his\nreligion which literally engaged him \"upon lying down at night, and upon\nrising up, while sitting in the house, and while walking on the way.\"\nIf, despite all his efforts, misfortune came,--and misfortunes, of\ncourse, came constantly,--there was no other recourse but to throw\nhimself upon the mercy of some god or gods. The gods, especially Marduk,\nIshtar, Shamash, and Ramman, by putting 'grace' into the omens, could at\nany time change them into favorable indications.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[548] Illustrated by the four volumes of Bezold's _Catalogue of the\nKoujunjik_, Collection of the British Museum (London, 1889-96).\n\n[549] _Vorgeschichte der Indo-Europaer_, pp. 221 _seq_.\n\n[550] _E.g._, IIIR. 51.\n\n[551] _Ib._ no. 1.\n\n[552] The 1st month of the year.\n\n[553] IIIR. 51. no. 2.\n\n[554] _Ib._ no. 3.\n\n[555] IIIR. 51, no. 9.\n\n[556] _Ib._ no. 7.\n\n[557] What the station of this official was we are not told.\n\n[558] IIIR. 58, no. 7.\n\n[559] Lit., 'true speech in the mouth of the people,' _i.e._, there will\nbe no sedition.\n\n[560] IIIR. 58, no. 7.\n\n[561] _Ib._ no. 6.\n\n[562] Are not seen at the same time.\n\n[563] His decision will be wise.\n\n[564] Safe from attacks.\n\n[565] IIIR. 58, no. 13.\n\n[566] _Ib._ no. 12.\n\n[567] This appears to be the unusual occurrence involved.\n\n[568] See above, pp. 281, 332.\n\n[569] IIIR. 58, no. 14.\n\n[570] _I.e._, contrary to calculation.\n\n[571] The shadow.\n\n[572] Favorable to Elam (so Oppert translates).\n\n[573] 9th month.\n\n[574] IIIR. 51, no. 5.\n\n[575] 11th month.\n\n[576] IIIR. 59, no. 13.\n\n[577] Some palace official is mentioned.\n\n[578] _E.g._, IIIR. 52, no. 2; 60 and 61. Professor Craig of the\nUniversity of Michigan is now preparing for publication all the\nfragments of this series. (See his _Assyrian and Babylonian Religious\nTexts_, ii. 7.)\n\n[579] IIIR. 60. The first eleven lines are broken off.\n\n[580] _I.e._, of the night. The night, it will be recalled, was divided\ninto three watches of four hours each.\n\n[581] Lit., a 'divine decision (or oracle) is given.'\n\n[582] An island near the head of the Persian Gulf, often referred to in\nthe historical texts. See Tiele, _Babyl.-Assyr. Gesch._ p. 88, etc.\n\n[583] Under the same circumstances.\n\n[584] Lit., 'cattle'; but cattle appears to be used for 'property' in\ngeneral, just as our English word 'chattel.'\n\n[585] 5th month.\n\n[586] Under the same circumstances.\n\n[587] Lit., Nergal--the personification of pestilence and death.\n\n[588] Repeated in the text by an error of the scribe.\n\n[589] III R. 60, col. ii. 90 to col. iii. 24.\n\n[590] _I.e._, there will be war. One is reminded of the modern\nsuperstition which associates war with the 'northern light' in the\nheavens.\n\n[591] _I.e._, there will be sedition.\n\n[592] So a variant text.\n\n[593] _I.e._, will play havoc with the Inhabitants of the deep.\n\n[594] _I.e._, there will be peace.\n\n[595] See the chapter on \"The Temples of Babylonia and Assyria.\"\n\n[596] See Jensen, _Kosmologie der Babylonier_, pp. 134-139.\n\n[597] IIIR. 63.\n\n[598] Lit., \"delayed in the heavens.\"\n\n[599] Tablet defective.\n\n[600] _I.e._, there is war.\n\n[601] Intercalated month.\n\n[602] _I.e._, it is a good sign.\n\n[603] Tablet defective.\n\n[604] Text erroneously 'one month.'\n\n[605] See above, p. 183.\n\n[606] See Ihering, _Vorgeschichte der Indo-Europaer_, pp. 182 _seq._\n\n[607] See _The Golden Bough_, passim.\n\n[608] IV Rawlinson, pls. 32, 33.\n\n[609] _I.e._, the Intercalated Elul. After the 6th month (Elul) and\nafter the 12th (Adar), a month was intercalated at certain intervals in\norder to bring the solar and lunar years into conjunction.\n\n[610] Lit., 'raising of his hand to a god'--the attitude in prayer.\n\n[611] Text erroneously 'mistress.'\n\n[612] Here and elsewhere Ishtar is used in a generic sense for 'chief\ngoddess'; in the present case Sarpanitum. See above, pp. 82, 151, 206.\n\n[613] 'Belit,' as 'mistress' in general.\n\n[614] Lit., 'place of secrecy,' the reference being to that portion of\nthe temple where the god sat enthroned.\n\n[615] _I.e._, of the palace.\n\n[616] _I.e._, upon one's enemies.\n\n[617] Isaiah, lviii. 13.\n\n[618] Meat, just as wine, was considered at all times a symbol of joy in\nthe Orient.\n\n[619] Perhaps also the 24th.\n\n[620] V Rawlinson, pls. 48, 49.\n\n[621] The plural is used, but in a collective sense.\n\n[622] The Euphrates or Tigris is no doubt meant.\n\n[623] IIIR. 52, no. 3, reverse.\n\n[624] The most extensive publication of omens is Boissier's _Documents\nAssyriens Relatifs aux Presages_, of which two volumes have appeared.\nBoissier's method of publication is not altogether satisfactory.\n\n[625] _Introduction to the History of Religions_, pp. 28-35.\n\n[626] A particularly bad omen. See IIIR. 65, 22, obverse.\n\n[627] Boissler, _Documents Assyriens Relatifs aux Presages_, pp. 110\n_seq._ Boissier has published portions of some twenty tablets of the\nseries, _ib._ pp. 110-181.\n\n[628] _I.e._, will not suffer.\n\n[629] The phrase used is obscure. My translation is offered as a\nconjecture.\n\n[630] _I.e._, an enemy will keep the land in turmoil.\n\n[631] _I.e._, like a lion. Elsewhere the preposition 'like' is used.\n\n[632] Where the child is born.\n\n[633] A solar deity; see above, p. 99. Reference to minor deities are\nfrequent in these omen texts.\n\n[634] The reference appears to be to some misfortune that will be\nbrought about through the solar deity Gilgamesh.\n\n[635] Boissier, _Documents, etc._, pp. 118-120.\n\n[636] _I.e._, only two.\n\n[637] Between the two heads, _I.e._, the hands and feet are misplaced.\n\n[638] IIIR. 65, no. 1.\n\n[639] Abnormally small.\n\n[640] _I.e._, the father or master.\n\n[641] The Egyptians carried the observation and interpretation of omens\nto quite as high a degree as the Babylonians and Assyrians. See, _e.g._,\nChabas, _Melanges Egyptologiques_, 3^e serie, tome ii.; Wiedemann's\n_Religion of Ancient Egypt_, p. 263.\n\n[642] Lenormant, _Choix des Textes Cuneiformes_, no. 87.\n\n[643] Occurring at the end of the fourth tablet, as an aid for the\ncorrect arrangement of the series. IIIR 65, no. 1, reverse, l. 28.\n\n[644] Lit., 'stall,' which includes sheep, oxen, and swine.\n\n[645] Boissier, _Documents, etc._, pp. 132, 133.\n\n[646] _I.e._, the owner of the stall. A variant reads 'king' instead of\n'man.'\n\n[647] _I.e._, misplaced.\n\n[648] In Babylonian, 'ear' is a synonym of 'understanding.'\n\n[649] Still further misplaced.\n\n[650] Where the young one was born.\n\n[651] _I.e._, the flocks.\n\n[652] Boissler's text has 'man,'--probably in error for 'king.'\n\n[653] IIIR. 65, no. 2, obverse.\n\n[654] Of the master.\n\n[655] Lit., 'cut off.'\n\n[656] Of the owner.\n\n[657] The wife of the owner of the mare appears to be meant.\n\n[658] See above, p. 138.\n\n[659] See Jevons, _Introduction to the History of Religion_, chapters\nvi.-ix.\n\n[660] Robertson Smith; _Religion of the Semites_, pp. 143, 273.\n\n[661] Lenormant, _Choix des Textes Cuneiformes,_ no. 89; Boissier,\n_Documents, etc._, p. 104.\n\n[662] _I.e._, the ruler of the palace.\n\n[663] Lit., 'dark colored.'\n\n[664] 'Not,' perhaps omitted.\n\n[665] Boissier, p. 103.\n\n[666] By vomiting on him.\n\n[667] Out of which one eats.\n\n[668] _I.e._, keep away from it.\n\n[669] See p. 182.\n\n[670] According to Hilprecht (_Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, I. part 2,\np. 35), 'a goose or similar water-bird' was originally pictured by the\nsign, though he admits that the picture was 'later' used for swallow.\n\n[671] _Vorgeschichte der Indo-Europaer,_ pp. 451-55.\n\n[672] The term used is _Unagga_, Bezold's _Catalogue of the Koujunjik\nCollection_, p. 1841. See Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 153.\n\n[673] Bezold, _Catalogue_, p. 1710.\n\n[674] Boissier, _Documents, etc_., pp. 3, 4.\n\n[675] Bezold, _Catalogue_, pp. 1437, 1438.\n\n[676] Bezold, _ib._ p. 918.\n\n[677] _I.e._, over him.\n\n[678] Chapter ii. 4-6.\n\n[679] Chapter ii. 31-35, and vii. 2-12.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\nTHE COSMOLOGY OF THE BABYLONIANS.\n\n\nVarious traditions were current in Babylonia regarding the manner in\nwhich the universe came into existence. The labors of the theologians to\nsystematize these traditions did not succeed in bringing about their\nunification. Somewhat like in the Book of Genesis, where two versions of\nthe creation story have been combined by some editor,[680] so portions\nof what were clearly two independent versions have been found among the\nremains of Babylonian literature. But whereas in the Old Testament the\ntwo versions are presented in combination so as to form a harmonic\nwhole, the two Babylonian versions continued to exist side by side.\nThere is no reason to suppose that the versions were limited to two. In\nfact, a variant to an important episode in the creation story has been\ndiscovered which points to a third version.[681]\n\nThe suggestion has been thrown out that these various versions arose in\nthe various religious centers of the Euphrates Valley. So far as the\nediting of the versions is concerned, the suggestion is worthy of\nconsideration, for it is hardly reasonable to suppose that the\ntheological schools of one and the same place should have developed more\nthan one cosmological system. The traditions themselves, however, apart\nfrom the literary form which they eventually assumed, need not have been\nlimited to certain districts nor have been peculiar to the place where\nthe systematization took place. Nothing is more common than the\ninterchange of myths and popular traditions. They travel from one place\nto the other, and contradictory accounts of one and the same event may\nbe circulated, and find credence in one and the same place.\n\nThe two distinct Babylonian versions of the creation of the world that\nhave up to the present time been found, have come to us in a fragmentary\nform. Of the one, indeed, only some forty lines exist, and these are\nintroduced incidentally in an incantation text;[682] of the other\nversion, portions of six tablets[683] have been recovered; while of two\nfragments it is doubtful[684] whether they belong to this same version\nor represent a third version, as does certainly a fragment containing a\nvariant account of the episode described in the fourth tablet of the\nlarger group. The fragments of the longer version--in all 23--enable us\nto form a tolerably complete picture of the Babylonian cosmology, and\nwith the help of numerous allusions in historical, religious and\nastronomical texts and in classical writers, we can furthermore fill out\nsome of the gaps.\n\nTaking up the longer version, which must for the present serve as our\nchief source for the cosmology of the Babylonians, it is important to\nnote at the outset that the series constitutes, in reality, a grand hymn\nin honor of Marduk. The account of the beginning of things and of the\norder of creation is but incidental to an episode which is intended to\nillustrate the greatness of Marduk, the head of the Babylonian pantheon.\nThis episode is the conquest of a great monster known as Tiamat,--a\npersonification, as we shall see, of primaeval chaos. What follows upon\nthis episode, likewise turns upon the overshadowing personality of\nMarduk. This prominence given to Marduk points of course to Babylon as\nthe place where the early traditions received their literary form.\nInstead of designating the series as a 'Creation Epic' it would be quite\nas appropriate to call it 'The Epic of Marduk.'\n\nThe god of Babylon is the hero of the story. To him the creation of the\nheavenly bodies is ascribed. It is he who brings order and light into\nthe world. He supplants the roles originally belonging to other gods.\nBel and Ea give way to him. Anu and the other great gods cheerfully\nacknowledge Marduk's power. The early traditions have all been colored\nby the endeavor to glorify Marduk; and since Marduk is one of the latest\nof the gods to come into prominence, we must descend some centuries\nbelow Hammurabi before reaching a period when Marduk's position was so\ngenerally recognized as to lead to a transformation of popular\ntraditions at the hands of the theologians.\n\nThe evident purpose of the 'epic' to glorify Marduk also accounts for\nthe imperfect manner in which the creation of the universe is recounted.\nOnly the general points are touched upon. Many details are omitted which\nin a cosmological epic, composed for the specific purpose of setting\nforth the order of creation, would hardly have been wanting. In this\nrespect, the Babylonian version again resembles the Biblical account of\ncreation, which is similarly marked by its brevity, and is as\nsignificant for its omissions as for what it contains.\n\nIt but remains before passing on to an analysis of the 'epic' to note\nthe great care bestowed upon its literary form. This is evidenced not\nonly by the poetic diction, but by its metrical form,--a point to which\nBudge was the first to direct attention[685] and which Zimmern[686]\nclearly established. Each line consists of two divisions, and as a\ngeneral thing four or eight lines constitute a stanza. The principle of\nparallelism, so characteristic of Biblical poetry, is also introduced,\nthough not consistently carried out.\n\nThe epic was known from its opening words as the series 'when above.'\nThrough this name we are certain of possessing a portion of the first\ntablet--but alas! only a portion. A fragment of fifteen lines and these\nimperfectly preserved is all that has as yet been found. So far as\ndecipherable, it reads:\n\n  There was a time when above the heaven was not named.[687]\n  Below, the earth bore no name.\n  Apsu was there, the original, their begettor,[2]\n  Mummu [and] Tiamat, the mother of them all.[688]\n  But their waters[689] were gathered together in a mass.\n  No field was marked off, no marsh[690] was seen.\n  When none of the gods was as yet produced,\n  No name mentioned, no fate determined,\n  Then were created the gods in their totality.\n  Lakhmu and Lakhamu, were created.\n  Days went by[5] ...\n  Anshar and Kishar were created.\n  Many days elapsed[691] ...\n  Anu [Bel and Ea were created].[692]\n  Anshar, Anu (?) ...\n\nAt this point the fragment breaks off.\n\nBrief as it is, it affords a clear view of the manner in which the\nBabylonians regarded the beginning of things. Water was the primaeval\nelement. 'Apsu' is the personified great 'ocean'--the 'Deep' that covers\neverything. With Apsu there is associated Tiamat. Tiamat is the\nequivalent of the Hebrew T'hom,[693] which occurs in the second verse of\nthe opening chapter of Genesis, and which is, like Apsu, the\npersonification of the 'watery deep.' Apsu and Tiamat are, accordingly,\nsynonymous. The combination of the two may be regarded as due to the\nintroduction of the theological doctrine which we have seen plays so\nprominent a part in the systematized pantheon, namely, the association\nof the male and female principle in everything connected with activity\nor with the life of the universe. Apsu represents the male and Tiamat\nthe female principle of the primaeval universe. It does not follow from\nthis that the two conceptions are wholly dissociated from popular\ntraditions. Theological systems, it will be found, are always attached\nat some point to popular and often to primitive beliefs.\n\nTiamat was popularly pictured as a huge monster of a forbidding aspect.\nTraces of a similar conception connected with T'hom are to be met with\nin the poetry of the Old and New Testament.[694] The 'Rahab' and\n'Leviathan' and the 'Dragon' of the apocalypse belong to the same order\nof ideas that produced Tiamat. All these monsters represent a popular\nattempt to picture the chaotic condition that prevailed before the great\ngods obtained control and established the order of heavenly and\nterrestrial phenomena. The belief that water was the original element\nexisting in the universe and the 'source' of everything, may also have\nhad its rise in the popular mind. It was suggested in the Euphrates\nValley, in part, by the long-continued rainy season, as a result of\nwhich the entire region was annually flooded. The dry land and\nvegetation appeared, only after the waters had receded. The yearly\nphenomenon brought home to the minds of the Babylonians, a picture of\nprimaeval chaos.\n\nIn the schools of theology that arose with the advance of culture, these\ntwo notions--water as the first element and a general conception of\nchaos--were worked out with the result that Apsu and Tiamat became\nmythical beings whose dominion preceded that of the gods. Further than\nthis the questionings of the schoolmen did not go. They conceived of a\ntime when neither the upper firmament nor the dry land existed and when\nthe gods were not yet placed in control, but they could not conceive of\na time when there was 'nothing' at all. This cosmological theory which\nwe may deduce from the fragment of the first tablet of the creation\nseries is confirmed by the accounts that have come down to us--chiefly\nthrough Damascius--of the treatment of the subject by Berosus.[695]\nDamascius explicitly places the Babylonians among those nations who fail\nto carry back the universe to an ultimate single source. There is\nnothing earlier than the two beings--Apsu and Tiamat.[696]\n\nThe massing together of the primaeval waters completes the picture of\nchaos in the cuneiform account. From the popular side, the commingling\ncorresponds to the _Tohu wa Bohu_ of the Book of Genesis, but for the\nBabylonian theologians, this embrace of Apsu and Tiamat becomes a symbol\nof 'sexual' union.[697] As the outcome of this union, the gods are\nproduced. This dependence of the gods upon Apsu and Tiamat is but\nvaguely indicated. Another theory appears to have existed according to\nwhich the gods were contemporaneous with primaeval chaos. The vagueness\nmay therefore be the result of a compromise between conflicting schools\nof thought. However this may be, the moment that the gods appear, a\nconflict ensues between them and Apsu-Tiamat. This conflict represents\nthe evolution from chaos to order. But before taking up this phase of\nthe epic, a few words must be said as to the names of the gods\nmentioned, and as to the order in which they occur.\n\nThere are three classes of deities enumerated. The first two classes\nconsist, each, of a pair of deities while the third is the well-known\ntriad of the old Babylonian theology. Between the creation of each class\na long period elapses--a circumstance that may be regarded as an\nevidence of the originally independent character of each class. Now it\nhas recently been shown[698] that Lakhamu is the feminine of Lakhmu. The\nfirst class of deities is, therefore, an illustration again of the\nconventional male and female principles introduced into the current\ntheology. While there are references to Lakhmu and Lakhamu in the\nreligious texts,[699] particularly in incantations, these two deities\nplay no part whatsoever in the active pantheon, as revealed by the\nhistorical texts. In popular tradition,[700] Lakhmu survived as a name\nof a mythical monster.\n\nAlexander Polyhistor[701] quotes Berosus as saying in his book on\nBabylonia that the first result of the mixture of water and\nchaos--_i.e._, of Apsu and Tiamat--was the production of monsters partly\nhuman, partly bestial. The winged bulls and lions that guarded the\napproaches to temples and palaces are illustrations of this old notion,\nand it is to this class of mythical beings that Lakhmu belongs. The\nschools of theology, seizing hold of this popular tradition, add again\nto Lakhmu a female mate and convert the tradition into a symbol of the\nfirst step in the evolution of order out of the original chaos. Lakhmu\nand Lakhamu are made to stand for an entire class of beings that are the\noffspring of Apsu and Tiamat. This class does not differ essentially\nfrom Apsu and Tiamat, nor from the 'Leviathan,' the 'Dragon,' the winged\nserpents, and the winged bulls that are all emanations of the same order\nof ideas. Accordingly, we find Lakhmu and Lakhamu associated with Tiamat\nwhen the conflict with the gods begins. They are products of chaos and\nyet at the same time contemporary with chaos,--monsters not so fierce as\nTiamat, but withal monsters who had to be subdued before the planets and\nthe stars, vegetation and man could appear.\n\nThe introduction of Anshar and Kishar as intermediate between the\nmonsters and the triad of gods appears to be due entirely to the attempt\nat theological systematization that clearly stamps the creation epic as\nthe conscious work of schoolmen, though shaped, as must always be borne\nin mind, out of the material furnished by popular tradition. In\nconnection with the etymology and original form of the chief of the\nAssyrian pantheon,[702] the suggestion was made that the introduction of\nAnshar into the creation epic is a concession made to the prominence\nthat Ashur acquired in the north. We are now able to put this suggestion\nin a more definite form. The pantheon of the north, as we have seen, was\nderived from the south. Not that all the gods of the south are\nworshipped in the north, but those that are worshipped in the north are\nalso found in the south, and originate there. The distinctive features\nof Ashur are due to the political conditions that were developed in\nAssyria, but the unfolding of the conceptions connected with this god\nwhich make him the characteristic deity of Assyria, indeed, the only\ndistinctive Assyrian figure in the Assyrian pantheon, does not preclude\nthe possibility, of the southern origin of Ashur.\n\nIf, as has been made plausible by Hommel, Nineveh, the later capital of\nthe Assyrian empire, represents a settlement made by inhabitants of a\nNineveh situated in the south, there is no reason why a southern deity\nbearing the name Anshar should not have been transferred from the south\nto the north. The attempt has been made[703] to explain the change from\nAnshar to Ashur. The later name Ashur, because of its ominous character,\neffectually effaced the earlier one in popular thought. The introduction\nof the older form Anshar, not merely in the first tablet of the creation\nseries, but, as we shall presently see, elsewhere, confirms the view of\na southern origin for Ashur, and also points to the great antiquity of\nthe Anshar-Ashur cult. It is not uncommon to find colonies more\nconservative in matters of religious thought and custom than the\nmotherland, and there is nothing improbable in the interesting\nconclusion thus reached that Ashur, the head of an empire, so much later\nin point of time than Babylonia, should turn out to be an older deity\nthan the chief personage in the Babylonian pantheon after the days of\nHammurabi.\n\nBut while Anshar-Ashur under this view is a figure surviving from an\nancient period, he is transformed by association with a complementary\ndeity Kishar into a symbol, just as we have found to be the case with\nLakhmu. By a play upon his name, resting upon an arbitrary division of\nAnshar into _An_ and _Shar_, the deity becomes the 'one that embraces\nall that is above.' The element _An_ is the same that we have in _Anu_,\nand is the 'ideographic'[704] form for 'high' and 'heaven.' _Shar_\nsignifies 'totality' and has some connection with a well-known\nBabylonian word for 'king.' The natural consort to an all-embracing\nupper power is a power that 'embraces all that is below'; and since _Ki_\nis the ideographic form for 'earth,' it is evident that Ki-Shar is a\ncreation of the theologians, introduced in order to supply Anshar with\nan appropriate associate. The two in combination represent a pair like\nLakhmu and Lakhamu. As the latter pair embrace the world of monsters, so\nAnshar and Kishar stand in the theological system for the older order of\ngods, a class of deities antecedent to the series of which Anu, Bel, and\nEa are the representatives. Besides the antiquity of Anshar and the\nfactor involved in the play upon the name, the prominence of the Ashur\ncult in the north also entered into play (as already suggested) in\nsecuring for Anshar-Ashur, a place in the systematized cosmology. The\nBabylonian priests, while always emphasizing the predominance of Marduk,\ncould not entirely resist the influences that came to them from the\nnorth. Ashur was not accorded a place in the Babylonian cult, but he\ncould not be ignored altogether. Moreover, Assyria had her priests and\nschools, and we are permitted to see in the introduction of Anshar in\nthe creation epic, a concession that reflects the influence, no doubt\nindirect, and in part perhaps unconscious, but for all that, the decided\ninfluence of the north over the south. The part played by Anshar in the\nmost important episode of the creation epic will be found to further\nstrengthen this view.[705]\n\nKishar, at all events, forms no part of either the Babylonian or of the\nactive Assyrian pantheon. She does not occur in historical or religious\ntexts. Her existence is purely theoretical--a creation of the schools\nwithout any warrant in popular tradition, so far as we can see. A tablet\nis fortunately preserved[706] (though only in part) which enables us to\ncome a step nearer towards determining the character of the series of\npowers regarded as antecedent to the well-known deities. In this tablet,\nno less than ten pairs of deities are enumerated that are expressly\nnoted as 'Father-mother of Anu,' that is, as antecedent to Anu.[707]\nAmong these we find Anshar and Kishar, and by their side, such pairs as\nAnshar-gal, _i.e._, 'great totality of what is on high,' and Kishar-gal,\n_i.e._, 'great totality of what is below,' Enshar and Ninshar, _i.e._,\n'lord' and 'mistress,' respectively, of 'all there is,' Du'ar and Da'ur,\nforms of a stem which may signify 'perpetuity,' Alala, _i.e._,\n'strength,' and a consort Belili. Lakhmu and Lakhamu are also found in\nthe list. While some of the names are quite obscure, and the composition\nof the list is due to the scholastic spirit emanating from the schools\nof theology, the fact that some of the deities, as Alala, Belili, Lakhmu\nand Lakhamu, occur in incantations shows that the theologians were\nguided in part by dimmed traditions of some deities that were worshipped\nprior to the ones whose cult became prominent in historic times. Anshar,\nAlala, Belili, Lakhmu, and Du'ar were such deities. To each of these an\nassociate was given, in accord with the established doctrine of\n'duality' that characterizes the more advanced of the ancient Semitic\ncults in general. Others, like Anshar-gal and Enshar, seem to be pure\nabstractions--perhaps only 'variants' of Anshar, and the number ten may\nhave some mystical significance that escapes us. So much, at all events,\nseems certain that even the old Babylonian pantheon, as revealed by the\noldest historical texts, represents a comparatively advanced stage of\nthe religion when some still older gods had already yielded to others\nand a system was already in part produced which left out of\nconsideration these older deities. This is indicated by the occurrence\nof the triad Anu, Bel, and Ea as early as the days of Gudea,[708] and it\nis this triad which in the creation epic follows upon the older series\nsymbolized by Anshar and Kishar. The later 'theology' found a solution\nof the problem by assuming four series of deities represented by Apsu\nand Tiamat, by Lakhmu and Lakhamu, by Anshar and Kishar, and by the\ntriad Anu, Bel, and Ea.\n\nIn a vague way, as we have seen, Apsu and Tiamat are the progenitors of\nLakhmu and Lakhamu. The priority, again, of Lakhmu and Lakhamu, as well\nas of Anshar and Kishar, is expressed by making them 'ancestors' of Anu,\nBel and Ea. While in the list above referred to, Lakhmu and Lakhamu are\nput in a class with Anshar and Kishar, in the creation epic they form a\nseparate class, and Delitzsch has justly recognized,[709] in this\nseparation, the intention of the compilers to emphasize an advance in\nthe evolution of chaos to order, which is the keynote of the Babylonian\ncosmology. Lakhmu and Lakhamu represent the 'monster' world where\ncreatures are produced in strange confusion, whereas Anshar and Kishar\nindicate a division of the universe into two _distinct_ and sharply\ndefined parts. The splitting of 'chaos' is the first step towards its\nfinal disappearance.\n\nThe creation of Anshar and Kishar marks indeed the beginning of a severe\nconquest which ends in the overthrow of Tiamat, and while in the present\nform of the epic, the contest is not decided before Anu, Bel, and Ea and\nthe chief deities of the historic pantheon are created, one can see\ntraces of an earlier form of the tradition in which Anshar--perhaps with\nsome associates--is the chief figure in the strife.\n\nOf the first tablet, we have two further fragments supplementing one\nanother, in which the beginnings of this terrible conflict are\ndescribed. With Apsu and Tiamat there are associated a variety of\nmonsters who prepare themselves for the fray. The existence of these\nassociates shows that the 'epic' does not aim to account for the real\norigin of things, but only for the origin of the _order_ of the\nuniverse. At the beginning there was chaos, but 'chaos,' so far from\nrepresenting emptiness (as came to be the case under a monotheistic\nconception of the universe) was on the contrary marked by a\nsuperabundant fullness.\n\nThrough Alexander Polyhistor,[710] as already mentioned, we obtain a\nsatisfactory description of this period of chaos as furnished by\nBerosus. At the time when all was darkness and water, there flourished\nstrange monsters, human beings with wings, beings with two heads, male\nand female, hybrid formations, half-man, half-animal, with horns of rams\nand horses' hoofs, bulls with human faces, dogs with fourfold bodies\nending in fish tails, horses with heads of dogs, and various other\nmonstrosities.\n\nThis account of Berosus is now confirmed by the cuneiform records. The\nassociates of Tiamat are described in a manner that leaves no doubt as\nto their being the monsters referred to. We are told that\n\n  Ummu-Khubur,[711] the creator of everything, added\n  Strong warriors, creating great serpents,\n  Sharp of tooth, merciless in attack.\n  With poison in place of blood, she filled their bodies.\n  Furious vipers she clothed with terror,\n  Fitted them out with awful splendor, made them high of stature(?)\n  That their countenance might inspire terror and arouse horror,\n  Their bodies inflated, their attack irresistible.\n  She set up basilisks (?) great serpents and monsters[712]\n  A great monster, a mad dog, a scorpion-man\n  A raging monster, a fish-man, a great bull,\n  Carrying merciless weapons, not dreading battle.\n\nIn all, eleven monstrous beings are created by Tiamat for the great\nconquest. At their head she places a being Kingu, whom she raises to the\ndignity of a consort.\n\nThe formal installation of Kingu is described as follows:\n\n  She raised Kingu among them to be their chief.\n  To march at the head of the forces, to lead the assembly.\n  To command the weapons to strike, to give the orders for the fray.\n  To be the first in war, supreme in triumph.\n  She ordained him and clothed him with authority (?).\n\nTiamat then addresses Kingu directly:\n\n  Through my word to thee, I have made thee the greatest among the gods.\n  The rule over all the gods I have placed in thy hand.\n  The greatest shalt thou be, thou, my consort, my only one.\n\nTiamat thereupon\n\n  Gives him the tablets of fate, hangs them on his breast, and\n    dismisses him.\n  'Thy command be invincible, thy order authoritative.'[713]\n\nThe plan of procedure, it would appear, is the result of a council of\nwar held by Apsu and Tiamat, who feel themselves powerless to carry on\nthe contest by themselves. The portion of the tablet[714] in which this\ncouncil is recounted is in so bad a condition that but little can be\nmade out of it. Associated with Apsu and Tiamat in council, is a being\nMummu, and since Damascius expressly notes on the direct authority of\nBerosus that Apsu and Tiamat produced a son Moumis,[715] there is every\nreason to believe that Mummu represents this offspring. In the\nsubsequent narrative, however, neither Apsu nor Mummu play any part.\nTiamat has transferred to Kingu and the eleven monsters all authority,\nand it is only after they are defeated that Tiamat--but Tiamat\nalone--enters the fray.\n\nThe rage of Tiamat is directed against Anshar, Kishar, and their\noffspring. Anu, Bel, and Ea, while standing at the head of the latter,\nare not the only gods introduced. When the contest begins, all the great\ngods and also the minor ones are in existence.\n\nThe cause of Tiamat's rage is indicated, though vaguely, in the portions\npreserved. In the opening lines of the epic there is a reference to the\ntime 'when fates were not yet decided.' The decision of fates is in the\nBabylonian theology one of the chief functions of the gods. It\nconstitutes the mainspring of their power. To decide fates is\npractically to control the arrangement of the universe--to establish\norder. It is this function which arouses the natural opposition of\nTiamat and her brood, for Tiamat feels that once the gods are in\ncontrol, her sway must come to an end. On the part of the gods there is\ngreat terror. They are anxious to conciliate Tiamat and are not actuated\nby any motives of rivalry. Order is not aggressive. It is chaos which\nmanifests opposition to 'order.' In the second tablet of the series,\nAnshar sends his son Anu with a message to Tiamat:\n\n  Go and step before Tiamat.\n  May her liver be pacified, her heart softened.\n\nAnu obeys, but at the sight of Tiamat's awful visage takes flight. It is\nunfortunate that the second tablet is so badly preserved. We are\ndependent largely upon conjecture for what follows the failure of Anu's\nmission. From references in subsequent tablets, it seems certain that\nAnshar sends out Ea as a second messenger and that Ea also fails. Tiamat\nis determined upon destroying the gods, or at least upon keeping from\nthem the 'decision of fates.' Anshar, it will be seen, stands at the\nhead of the pantheon, and it seems natural that he, and not one of his\noffspring, should be the final victor. This indeed appears to have been\nthe original form of the myth or at least one form of it. In a second\nform it was Bel to whom the victory was ascribed, and this Bel of the\ntriad, we have seen, was En-lil, the chief god of Nippur; but both\nAnshar and Bel must give way to the patron deity of the city of\nBabylon--Marduk. Anshar-Ashur, the head of the Assyrian pantheon, could\nnot be tolerated by the Babylonian priests as a power superior to\nMarduk. On the other hand, Anshar could not be set aside, for he\nsurvived in popular tradition. The result is a compromise. Marduk gains\nthe victory over Tiamat, but is commissioned to do so by the assembly of\nthe gods, including Anshar. As for the older Bel, he voluntarily\ntransfers to Marduk his name. In this way, the god Bel of the triad\nbecomes one with Marduk.\n\nPerhaps in one religious center and at a time when Ea was the chief god,\nstill another version existed which assigned the triumph to Ea, for as\nwill be pointed out, traditions waver between assigning to Ea or to\nBel-Marduk so fundamental a function as the creation of mankind. In\nshort, the present form of the creation epic is 'eclectic' and embodies\nwhat the Germans call a _tendenz_. To each of the great gods, Anshar,\nAnu, Bel, and Ea, some part in the contest is assigned, but the greatest\nrole belongs to Marduk.\n\nThe second tablet closes with Anshar's decision to send his son Marduk\nagainst Tiamat:\n\n  Marduk heard the word of his father.\n  His heart rejoiced and to his father he spoke.\n\nWith joyous heart he is ready to proceed to the contest, but he at once\nmakes good his claim to supreme control in case he is victorious. He\naddresses the assembled gods:\n\n  When I shall have become your avenger,\n  Binding Tiamat and saving your life,\n  Then come in a body,\n  In Ubshu-kenna,[716] let yourselves down joyfully,\n  My authority instead of yours will assume control,\n  Unchangeable shall be whatever I do,\n  Irrevocable and irresistible, be the command of my lips.\n\nThe declaration foreshadows the result.\n\nThe third tablet is taken up with the preliminaries for the great\ncontest, and is interesting chiefly because of the insight it affords us\ninto Babylonian methods of literary composition. Anshar sends Gaga[717]\nto the hostile camp with the formal announcement of Marduk's readiness\nto take up the cause of the gods. Gaga does not face Tiamat directly,\nbut leaves the message with Lakhmu and Lakhamu:\n\n  Go Gaga, messenger (?) joy of my liver,\n  To Lakhmu and Lakhamu I will send thee.\n\nThe message proper begins as follows:\n\n  Anshar your son has sent me,\n  The desire of his heart he has entrusted to me.\n  Tiamat, our mother is full of hate towards us,\n  With all her might she is bitterly enraged.\n\nThe eleven associates that Tiamat has ranged on her side are again\nenumerated, together with the appointment of Kingu as chief of the\nterror-inspiring army. Gaga comes to Lakhmu and Lakhamu and delivers the\nmessage verbatim, so that altogether this portion of the narrative is\nrepeated no less than four times.[718] The same tendency towards\nrepetition is met with in the Gilgamesh epic and in the best of the\nliterary productions of Babylonia. It may be ascribed to the influence\nexerted by the religious hymns and incantations where repetition, as we\nhave seen, is also common, though serving a good purpose.\n\nThe message concludes:\n\n  I sent Anu, he could not endure her[719] presence.\n  Ea[720] was afraid and took to flight.\n  Marduk has stepped forward, the chief of the gods, your son,\n  To proceed against Tiamat, he has set his mind.\n\nMarduk's declaration is then repeated.\n\nUpon hearing the message Lakhmu and Lakhamu and \"all the Igigi\"[721] are\ndistressed, but are powerless to avert the coming disaster. The formal\ndeclaration of war having been sent, the followers of Anshar assemble at\na meal which is realistically described:\n\n  They ate bread, they drank wine.\n  The sweet wine took away their senses.\n  They became drunk, and their bodies swelled up.\n\nWith this description the third tablet closes.\n\nThe meal symbolizes the solemn gathering of the gods. At its conclusion,\nso it would seem, Marduk is formally installed as the leader to proceed\nagainst Tiamat. The gods vie with one another in showering honors upon\nMarduk. They encourage him for the fight by praising his unique powers:\n\n  Thou art honored among the great gods,\n  Thy destiny is unique, thy command is Anu.[722]\n  Marduk, thou art honored among the great gods,\n  Thy destiny is unique, thy command is Anu,\n  Henceforth thy order is absolute.\n  To elevate and to lower is in thy hands,\n  What issues from thee is fixed, thy order cannot be opposed,\n  None among the gods may trespass upon thy dominion.\n\n  ...\n\n  Thy weapons will never be vanquished; they will shatter thy enemies.\n  O lord! grant life to him who trusts in thee,\n  But destroy the life of the god who plots evil.\n\nAs a proof of the power thus entrusted to Marduk, the gods give the\nlatter a 'sign.' Marduk performs a miracle. A garment is placed in the\nmidst of the gods.\n\n  Command that the dress disappear!\n  Then command that the dress return!\n\nMarduk proceeds to the test.\n\n  As he gave the command, the dress disappeared.\n  He spoke again and the dress was there.\n\nThis 'sign,' which reminds one of Yahwe's signs to Moses as a proof of\nthe latter's power,[723] is to be regarded as an indication that\n\"destruction and creation\" are in Marduk's hands. The gods rejoice at\nthe exhibition of Marduk's power. In chorus they exclaim, \"Marduk is\nking.\" The insignia of royalty, throne, sceptre, and authority are\nconferred upon him.\n\n  Now go against Tiamat, cut off her life,\n  Let the winds carry her blood to hidden regions.[724]\n\nMarduk thereupon fashions his weapons for the fray. Myth and realism are\nstrangely intertwined in the description of these weapons. Bow and\nquiver, the lance and club are mentioned, together with the storm and\nthe lightning flash. In addition to this he\n\n  Constructs a net wherewith to enclose the life of Tiamat.\n  The four winds he grasped so that she could not escape.[725]\n  The south and north winds, the east and west winds\n  He brought to the net, which was the gift of his father Anu.\n\nHis outfit is not yet complete.\n\n  He creates a destructive wind, a storm, a hurricane,\n  Making of the four winds, seven[726] destructive and fatal ones;\n  Then he let loose the winds he created, the seven,\n  To destroy the life[727] of Tiamat, they followed after him.\n\nMarduk, taking his most powerful weapon in his hand,[728] mounts his\nchariot, which is driven by fiery steeds. The picture thus furnished of\nthe god, standing upright in his chariot, with his weapons hung about\nhim and the seven winds following in his wake, is most impressive.\n\nHe makes straight for the hostile camp. The sight of the god inspires\nterror on all sides.\n\n  The lord comes nearer with his eye fixed upon Tiamat,\n  Piercing with his glance (?) Kingu her consort.\n\nKingu starts back in alarm. He cannot endure the 'majestic halo' which\nsurrounds Marduk. Kingu's associates--the monsters--are terrified at\ntheir leader's discomfiture. Tiamat alone does not lose her courage.\n\nMarduk, brandishing his great weapon, addresses Tiamat:\n\n  Why hast thou set thy mind upon stirring up destructive contest?\n\nHe reproaches her for the hatred she has shown towards the gods, and\nboldly calls her out to the contest:\n\n  Stand up! I and thou, come let us fight.\n\nTiamat's rage at this challenge is superbly pictured:\n\n  When Tiamat heard these words\n  She acted as possessed, her senses left her;\n  Tiamat shrieked wild and loud,\n  Trembling and shaking down to her foundations.\n  She pronounced an incantation, uttered her sacred formula.\n\nMarduk is undismayed:\n\n  Then Tiamat and Marduk, chief of the gods, advanced towards one\n    another.\n  They advanced to the contest, drew nigh for fight.\n\nThe fight and discomfiture of Tiamat are next described:\n\n  The lord spread out his net in order to enclose her.\n  The destructive wind, which was behind him, he sent forth into her\n    face.\n  As Tiamat opened her mouth full wide,\n  He[729] drove in the destructive wind, so that she could not close\n    her lips.\n  The strong winds inflated her stomach.\n  Her heart was beset,[730] she opened still wider her mouth,[731]\n  He seized the spear and plunged it into her stomach,\n  He pierced her entrails, he tore through her heart,\n  He seized hold of her and put an end to her life,\n  He threw down her carcass and stepped upon her.\n\nThe method employed by Marduk is so graphically described that no\ncomment is necessary. After having vanquished Tiamat, the valiant Marduk\nattacks her associates. They try to flee, but he captures them\nall--including Kingu--without much difficulty and puts them into his\ngreat net. Most important of all, he tears the tablets of fate from\nKingu and places them on his breast. This act marks the final victory.\nHenceforth, the gods with Marduk--and no longer Tiamat and her\nbrood--decree the fate of the universe. There is great rejoicing among\nthe gods, who heap presents and offerings upon Marduk. As the vanquisher\nof chaos, Marduk is naturally singled out to be the establisher of the\nfixed form and order of the universe. The close of the fourth tablet\ndescribes this work of the god, and the subject is continued in the\nfollowing ones. Unfortunately, these tablets are badly preserved, so\nthat we are far from having a complete view of the various acts of\nMarduk. He begins by taking the carcass of Tiamat and cutting it in\nhalf.\n\n  He cuts her like one does a flattened fish into two halves.\n\nPrevious to this he had trampled upon her and smashed her skull, as we\nare expressly told, so that the comparison of the monster, thus pressed\nout, to a flattened fish is appropriate.\n\nHe splits her lengthwise.\n\n  The one half he fashioned as a covering for the heavens,\n  Attaching a bolt and placing there a guardian,\n  With orders not to permit the waters to come out.\n\nIt is evident that the canopy of heaven is meant. Such is the enormous\nsize of Tiamat that one-half of her body flattened out so as to serve as\na curtain, is stretched across the heavens to keep the 'upper\nwaters'--'the waters above the firmament' as the Book of Genesis puts\nit--from coming down. To ensure the execution of this design, a bolt is\ndrawn in front of the canopy and a guardian placed there, like at a city\nwall, to prevent any one or anything from coming out.\n\nThis act corresponds closely to the creation of a \"firmament\" in the\nfirst chapter of Genesis. The interpretation is borne out by the\nstatement of Alexander Polyhistor who, quoting from Berosus, states that\nout of one-half of Tiamat the heavens were made.[732] The further\nstatement that out of the other half the earth was fashioned is not\ndefinitely stated in our version of the creation. The narrative proceeds\nas follows:\n\n  He passed through the heavens, he inspected the expanse.[733]\n\nTo understand this phrase, we must consider the general character of the\n\"epic,\" which is, as we have already seen, a composite production,\nformed of popular elements and of more advanced speculations. The\npopular element is the interpretation of the storms and rains that\nregularly visit the Euphrates Valley before the summer season sets in,\nas a conflict between a monster and the solar deity Marduk. After a\nstruggle, winds at last drive the waters back; Tiamat is vanquished by\nthe entrance of the 'bad wind' into her body. The sun appears in the\nheavens and runs across the expanse, passing in his course over the\nentire vault. The conflict, which in the scholastic system of the\ntheologians is placed at the beginning of things, is in reality a\nphenomenon of annual occurrence. The endeavor to make Marduk more than\nwhat he originally was--a solar deity--leads to the introduction of a\nvariety of episodes that properly belong to a different class of\ndeities. For all that, the original role of Marduk is not obscured.\nMarduk's passage across the heavens is a trace of the popular phases of\nthe nature myth, and while in one sense, it is appropriately introduced\nafter the fashioning of the expanse, it more properly follows\nimmediately upon the conflict with Tiamat. In short, we have reached a\npoint in the narrative where the nature myth symbolizing the annual\nsuccession of the seasons blends with a cosmological system which is the\nproduct of comparatively advanced schools of thought, in such a manner\nas to render it difficult to draw the line where myth ends and\ncosmological system begins. For the moment, the nature myth controls the\ncourse of the narrative. The sun, upon running its course across the\nheavens, appears to drop into the great ocean, which the Babylonians, in\ncommon with many ancient nations, imagined to surround and to pass\nunderneath the earth.\n\nHence the next act undertaken by Marduk is the regulation of the course\nof this subterranean sea. The name given to this sea was Apsu. Marduk\nhowever does not create the Apsu. It is in existence at the beginning of\nthings, but he places it under the control of Ea.\n\n  In front of Apsu, he prepared the dwelling of Nu-dimmud.[734]\n\nThis Apsu, as we learn from other sources,[735] flows on all sides of\nthe earth, and since it also fills the hollow under the earth, the\nlatter in reality rests upon the Apsu. Ea is frequently called \"the lord\nof Apsu,\" but the creation epic, in assigning to Marduk the privilege of\npreparing the dwelling of Ea, reverses the true order of things, which\nmay still be seen in the common belief that made Marduk the son of Ea.\nMarduk, the sun rising up out of the ocean, becomes the offspring of Ea,\nand even the political supremacy of Marduk could not set aside the\nprerogatives of Ea in the popular mind. In the cosmological system,\nhowever, as developed in the schools, such an attempt was made. While\nrecognizing the 'deep' as the domain of Ea, the theologians saved\nMarduk's honor by having him take a part in fixing Ea's dwelling and in\ndetermining its limitations.\n\nWith the carcass of Tiamat stretched across the upper firmament and\nsafely guarded, and with the Apsu under control, the way is clear for\nthe formation of the earth. This act in the drama of creation is\nreferred to in the following lines, though in a manner, that is not free\nfrom obscurity. The earth is pictured as a great structure placed over\nthe Apsu and corresponding in dimension with it--at least in one\ndirection.\n\n  The lord measured out the structure of Apsu.\n  Corresponding to it, he fashioned a great structure[736] Esharra.\n\nEsharra is a poetical designation of the earth and signifies, as Jensen\nhas satisfactorily shown, \"house of fullness\"[737] or \"house of\nfertility.\" The earth is regarded as a great structure, and placed as it\nis over the Apsu, its size is dependent upon the latter. Its measurement\nfrom one end to the other cannot exceed the width of the Apsu, nor can\nit be any narrower. The ends of the earth span the great Apsu. The\nfollowing line specifies the shape given to Esharra:\n\n  The great structure Esharra, which he made as a heavenly vault.\n\nThe earth is not a sphere according to Babylonian ideas, but a hollow\nhemisphere having an appearance exactly like the vault of heaven, but\nplaced in position beneath the heavenly canopy. As a hemisphere it\nsuggests the picture of a mountain, rising at one end, mounting to a\nculminating point, and descending at the other end. Hence by the side of\nEsharra, another name by which the earth was known was Ekur, that is,\n'the mountain house.'\n\nDiodorus Seculus, in speaking of the Babylonian cosmology, employs a\nhappy illustration. He says that according to Babylonian notions the\nworld is a \"boat turned upside down.\" The kind of boat meant is, as\nLenormant recognized,[738] the deep-bottomed round skiff with curved\nedges that is still used for carrying loads across and along the\nEuphrates and Tigris, the same kind of boat that the compilers of\nGenesis had in view when describing Noah's Ark. The appearance in\noutline thus presented by the three divisions of the universe--the\nheavens, the earth, and the waters--would be that of two heavy rainbows,\none beneath the other at some distance apart, resting upon a large body\nof water that flows around the horizons of both rainbows, and also fills\nthe hollow of the second one.[739] The upper 'rainbow' is formed by\none-half of the carcass of Tiamat stretched across in semi-circular\nshape; the lower one is the great structure Esharra made by Marduk,\nwhile the Apsu underneath is the dwelling of Ea. The creation epic, it\nmay be noted once more, takes much for granted. Its chief aim being to\nglorify Marduk, but little emphasis is laid upon details of interest to\nus. The parcelling out of these three divisions among Anu, Bel, and Ea\nis therefore merely alluded to in the closing line of the fourth tablet:\n\n  He established the districts[740] of Anu, Bel, and Ea.\n\nThe narrative assumes what we know from other sources, that the heavens\nconstitute the domain of Anu, Esharra belongs to Bel, while Apsu belongs\nto Ea.\n\nThe mention of the triad takes us away from popular myth to the\nscholastic system as devised by the theologians. The establishment of\nthe triad in full control marks the introduction of fixed order into the\nuniverse. All traces of Tiamat have disappeared. Anu, Bel, and Ea\nsymbolize the eternal laws of the universe.\n\nThere are, as we have seen, two factors involved in the role assigned to\nMarduk in the version of the creation epic under consideration,--one the\noriginal character of the god as a solar deity, the other the later\nposition of the god as the head of the Babylonian pantheon. In the\n'epic,' the fight of Marduk with Tiamat belongs to Marduk as a solar\ndeity. The myth is based, as was above suggested,[741] upon the annual\nphenomenon witnessed in Babylonia when the whole valley is flooded and\nstorms sweep across the plains. The sun is obscured. A conflict is going\non between the waters and storms, on the one hand, and the sun, on the\nother hand. The latter finally is victorious. Marduk subdues Tiamat,\nfixes limitations to the 'upper and lower waters,' and triumphantly\nmarches across the heavens from one end to the other, as general\noverseer.\n\nThis nature myth was admirably adapted to serve as the point of\ndeparture for the enlargement of the role of Marduk, rendered necessary\nby the advancement of the god to the head of the pantheon. Everything\nhad to be ascribed to Marduk. Not merely humanity, but the gods also had\nto acknowledge, and acknowledge freely, the supremacy of Marduk.\n\nThe solar deity thus becomes a power at whose command the laws of the\nuniverse are established, the earth created and all that is on it. In\nthus making Marduk the single creator, the theologians were as much\nunder the influence of Marduk's political supremacy, as they helped to\nconfirm that supremacy by their system. With this object in view, the\nannual phenomenon was transformed into an account of what happened 'once\nupon a time.'\n\nWhat impressed the thinkers most in the universe was the regular working\nof the laws of nature. Ascribing these laws to Marduk, they naturally\npictured the beginnings of things as a lawless period. Into the old and\npopular Marduk-Tiamat nature myth, certain touches were thus introduced\nthat changed its entire character. This once done, it was a\ncomparatively simple matter to follow up the conflict of Marduk and\nTiamat by a series of acts on Marduk's part, completing the work of\ngeneral creation. The old nature myth ended with the conquest of the\nrains and storm and the establishment of the sun's regular course,\nprecisely as the deluge story in Genesis, which contains echoes of the\nMarduk-Tiamat myth, ends with the promulgation of the fixed laws of the\nuniverse.[742]\n\nWhat follows upon this episode in the Babylonian epic is the elaboration\nof the central theme, worked out in the schools of Babylonian thought\nand intended, on the one hand, to illustrate Marduk's position as\ncreator and, on the other, to formulate the details of the cosmological\nsystem.\n\nWith the fifth tablet, therefore, we leave the domain of popular myth\ncompletely and pass into the domain of cosmological speculation.\nFragmentary as the fifth tablet is, enough is preserved to show that it\nassumes the perfection of the zodiacal system of the Babylonian schools\nand the complete regulation[743] of the calendar. In this zodiacal\nsystem, as has been intimated and as will be more fully set forth in a\nspecial chapter, the planets and stars are identified with the gods. The\ngods have their 'stations' and their 'pictures' in the starry sky. The\nstars are the 'drawings' or 'designs of heaven.' It is Marduk again who\nis represented as arranging these stations:\n\n  He established the stations for the great gods.[744]\n  The stars, their likeness,[745] he set up as constellations.[746]\n  He fixed the year and marked the divisions.[747]\n  The twelve months he divided among three stars.\n  From the beginning of the year till the close (?)\n  He established the station of Nibir[748] to indicate their boundary.\n  So that there might be no deviation nor wandering away from the course\n  He established with him,[749] the stations of Bel and Ea.\n\nAn epitome of the astronomical science of the Babylonians is comprised\nin these lines. The gods being identified with stars and each of the\nlatter having its place in the heavens 'to establish the stations for\nthe great gods' is equivalent to putting the stars in position. The\nregulation of the year forms part of the astronomical science. The three\nstars that constitute 'divisions' to aid in marking off the months are\nNibir, Bel, and Ea. That the Babylonians had such a system as is here\noutlined is confirmed by Diodorus Seculus.[750] The position of Nibir,\nor Jupiter, whose course keeps closer to the ecliptic than that of any\nother planet, served as an important guide in calendrical calculations.\nThe stars are represented as clinging to their course through\nmaintaining their relationship to Nibir, while at the side of Nibir and\nas additional guides, Bel is identified with the north pole of the\nequator and Ea with a star in the extreme southern heavens, to be sought\nfor, perhaps, in the constellation Argo. The description concludes:\n\n  He attached large gates to both sides,\n  Made the bolt secure to the left and right.\n\nThe heavens are thus made firm by two gates, fastened with bolts and\nplaced at either end. Through one of these gates the sun passes out in\nthe morning, and at evening enters into the other. But the most\nimportant body in the heavens is the moon. Its functions are described\nin an interesting way:\n\n  In the midst[751] he made the zenith[752] (?)\n  Nannar[753] he caused to go forth and handed over to him[5] the night.\n  He fixed him[754] as the luminary of night to mark off the days.\n\nThe passage is made clear by a reference to the Book of Genesis, i. 16,\nwhere we are told that the moon was created 'for the rule of night.' A\ndistinction between the Biblical and the cuneiform cosmology at this\npoint is no less significant. While according to Babylonian ideas, the\nmoon alone, or at most the moon with the stars, regulates the days, the\nHebrew version makes the moon and sun together the basis for the\nregulation of the 'days and years.' The sun according to Babylonian\nnotions does not properly belong to the heavens, since it passes daily\nbeyond the limits of the latter. The sun, therefore, plays an\ninsignificant part in the calendrical system in comparison with the\nmoon.\n\nMarduk addresses the moon, specifying its duties, what position it is to\noccupy towards the sun at certain periods during the monthly course, and\nthe like. The tablet at this point becomes defective, and before the\naddress comes to an end, we are left entirely in the lurch. To speculate\nas to the further contents of the fifth tablet and of the sixth (of\nwhich nothing has as yet been found) seems idle. Zimmern supposes that\nafter the heavenly phenomena had been disposed of, the formation of the\ndry land and of the seas was taken up, and Delitzsch is of the opinion\nthat in the sixth tablet the creation of plants and trees and animals\nwas also recounted. I venture to question whether the creation of the\n'dry land and seas' was specifically mentioned. Esharra, the earth, is\nin existence and the Apsu appears to include all waters, but that the\nepic treated of the creation of plant and animal life and then of the\ncreation of man is eminently likely. We have indeed a fragment of a\ntablet[755] in which the creation of the 'cattle of the field, beasts of\nthe field, and creeping things of the field' is referred to; but since\nit is the 'gods who in unison' are there represented as having created\nthe animal kingdom, it is hardly likely that the fragment forms part of\nour 'epic' in which all deeds are ascribed to Marduk. It belongs in all\nprobability to a different cosmological version, but so much can be\nconcluded from it, that the Babylonians ascribed the creation of animals\nto some divine power or powers; and that therefore our 'epic' must have\ncontained a section in which this act was assigned to Marduk.\n\nA similar variation exists with reference to the tradition of the\ncreation of mankind. There are distinct traces that the belief was\ncurrent in parts of Babylonia which made Ea the creation of\nmankind.[756] Ea, it will be recalled, is the 'god of humanity' _par\nexcellence_, and yet in the seventh (and probably closing) tablet of the\nseries, Marduk is spoken of as the one \"who created mankind.\"[757]\n\nVariant traditions of this kind point to the existence of various\ncenters of culture and thought in rivalry with one another. The great\npaean to Marduk would have been sadly incomplete had it not contained an\naccount of the creation of mankind--the crowning work of the\nuniverse--by the head of the Babylonian pantheon. It is possible,\ntherefore, that a tablet containing the address of a deity to mankind\nbelongs to our series[758] and embodies orders and warnings given by\nMarduk after the creation of man, just as he addresses the moon after\nestablishing it in the heavens. Purity of heart is enjoined as pleasing\nto the deity. Prayer and supplication and prostration are also\ncommanded. It is said that\n\n  Fear of god begets mercy,\n  Sacrifice prolongs life,\n  And prayer dissolves sin.\n\nThe tablet continues in this strain. It is perhaps not the kind of\naddress that we would expect Marduk to make after the act of creation,\nbut for the present we must content ourselves with this conjecture, as\nalso with the supposition that the creation of mankind constituted the\nfinal act in the great drama in which Marduk is the hero.\n\nWhen Marduk's work is finished, the Igigi gather around him in\nadoration. This scene is described in a tablet which for the present we\nmay regard[759] as the close of the series. No less than fifty names are\nbestowed upon him by the gods, the number fifty corresponding according\nto some traditions to the number of the Igigi. Marduk accordingly\nabsorbs the qualities of all the gods. Such is the purpose of this\ntablet. The diction is at times exceedingly impressive.\n\n  God of pure life, they called [him] in the third place, the bearer of\n    purification.\n  God of favorable wind,[760] lord of response[761] and of mercy,\n  Creator of abundance and fullness, granter of blessings,\n  Who increases the things that were small,\n  Whose favorable wind we experienced in sore distress.\n  Thus let them[762] speak and glorify and be obedient to him.\n\nThe gods recall with gratitude Marduk's service in vanquishing Tiamat.\nMarduk is also praised for the mercy he showed towards the associates of\nTiamat, whom he merely captured without putting them to death.\n\n  As the god of the shining crown in the fourth place, let them\n    [_i.e._, mankind] exalt him.\n  The lord of cleansing incantation, the restorer of the dead to life,\n  Who showed mercy towards the captured gods,\n  Removed the yoke from the gods who were hostile to him.\n\nA later fancy identified the 'captured gods' with eleven of the heavenly\nconstellations.[763]\n\nMankind is enjoined not to forget Marduk\n\n  Who created mankind out of kindness towards them,\n  The merciful one, with whom is the power of giving life.\n  May his deeds remain and never be forgotten\n  By humanity, created by his hands.\n\nAmong other names assigned to him are 'the one who knows the heart of\nthe gods,' 'who gathers the gods together,' 'who rules in truth and\njustice.' In allusion again to his contest with Tiamat, he is called\n'the destroyer of the enemy and of all wicked ones,' 'who frustrates\ntheir plans.'\n\nWith the help of a pun upon his having 'pierced' Tiamat; he is called\nNibir, _i.e._, the planet Jupiter.[764]\n\n  Nibir be his name, who took hold of the life of Tiamat.\n  The course of the stars of heaven may he direct.\n  May he pasture all of the gods like sheep.[765]\n\nBut the climax is reached when, upon hearing what the Igigi have done,\nthe great gods, father Bel and father Ea cheerfully bestow their own\nnames upon Marduk.\n\n  Because he created the heavens and formed the earth\n  'Lord of Lands'[766] father Bel called his name.\n  When he heard of all the names that the Igigi bestowed\n  Ea's liver rejoiced\n  That they had bestowed exalted names upon his son.\n  \"He as I--Ea be his name.\n  The control of my commands be entrusted to him.\n  To him my orders shall be transmitted.\"\n\nThe historical background to this transference of the name of Bel has\nbeen dwelt upon in a previous chapter.[767] This \"Marduk hymn\" is to\njustify the transference of the role of the older Bel of Nippur to the\nyounger god Marduk. Throughout, the tablet describing the contest of\nMarduk with Tiamat, Marduk is called Bel,[768] and while this name is\nused in the generic sense of \"lord,\" the transference of the name of Bel\nto Marduk is evidently introduced to account for his assuming the\nprerogatives belonging to another god. The original 'lord' was En-lil of\nNippur. The sacred significance of ancient Nippur made its patron deity\nthe most important rival of Marduk. Bel could not be disposed of as Ea,\nwho by virtue of his mythological relationships to Marduk--a solar\ndeity--could be retained as the father of Marduk. There was nothing left\nbut for Marduk to take the place of Bel. The constant introduction of\nthe epithet 'Bel' into the Tiamat story points to an older version in\nwhich Bel was the hero. In popular traditions, Bel continued to be\npictured as armed with mighty weapons,[769] and, though ready to inflict\nsevere punishment for disobedience to his commands, he engages in\ncontests for the benefit of mankind. The earth being his special sphere\nof action, what more natural than that he should have had a prominent\nshare in adapting it as a habitation for mankind. He would be directly\ninterested in fighting the powers of darkness.\n\nIn the weapons that Marduk employs, particularly the lightning and the\nwinds which belong to an atmospheric god rather than a solar deity, we\nmay discern traces of the older narrative which has been combined with\nthe Marduk-Tiamat nature myth.[770] It may be that Kingu represents\nBel's particular rival. In the narrative, it will be recalled, the\ncontest with Tiamat is sharply separated from that with Kingu and his\nassociates. The division that thus suggests itself between Marduk and\nTiamat, on the one hand, Bel and the monsters with Kingu at their head,\non the other, may certainly be termed a natural one. The solar deity\nMarduk disposed of the storms and rains of the winter, whereas, a god of\n\"that which is below,\"[771] _i.e._, the earth and the atmosphere\nimmediately above the earth, would appropriately be represented as\nridding the earth of the monsters in order to prepare it as a habitation\nfor mankind. Ea was not such a serious rival to Marduk as the older Bel.\nPolitical rivalry between Nippur and Babylonia probably contributed\ntowards the disposition to have Marduk completely absorb the role of\nBel, whereas, this rivalry being absent in the case of Eridu (the\noriginal seat of Ea worship) and Babylon, the mythological relations\nbetween Ea and Marduk led, as already pointed out, in a perfectly\nnatural way to making Marduk the son of Ea. Still, while cheerfully\nacknowledged by Ea as his equal, it is evident that in older traditions\nEa was far superior to Marduk, and the latter replaces Ea as he does\nBel. The real creator of mankind, according to certain traditions, is\nEa, just as in all probabilities a third tradition existed which arose\nin Nippur giving to Bel that distinction. It is necessary, therefore,\nfor Ea to declare that Marduk's name (_i.e._, his power) is the same as\nEa. The alteration of the traditions is thus justified by a harmonistic\ntheology. Marduk has triumphed over Bel and Ea. The god of Babylon\nreigns supreme, his sway acknowledged by those whom he supplants.\nMarduk's declaration that in the event of his vanquishing Tiamat he will\nassume authority over all the gods is thus formally confirmed. The epic\ncloses grandiloquently:\n\n  With fifty names, the great gods\n  According to their fifty names, proclaimed the supremacy of his\n    course.\n\nThe compiler has added to the epic what Delitzsch appropriately\ndesignates an 'epilogue,'--a declaration of affection for Marduk. The\nepilogue consists of three stanzas. All mankind--royalty and\nsubjects--are called upon to bear in mind Marduk's glorious deeds,\nachieved for the benefit of the world.\n\n  Let the wise and intelligent together ponder over it.\n  Let the father relate it and teach it to his son.[772]\n  To leader and shepherd[773] be it told.\n  Let all rejoice in the lord of gods, Marduk\n  That he may cause his land to prosper and grant it peace.\n  His word is firm, his order irrevocable.\n  What issues from his mouth, no god can alter.\n\nMarduk's anger, the poet says in closing, terrifies even the gods, but\nhe is a god upon whose mercy one may rely, though he punishes the\nevil-doer.\n\nBearing in mind the general nature of the creation epic we have\ndiscussed, we must of course in our conclusions distinguish between\nthose elements in it which reflect the intent of the compiler or\ncompilers to glorify Marduk at the expense of other gods and such parts\nas bear the stamp of being generally accepted beliefs. Setting aside,\ntherefore, the special role assigned to Marduk, we find that the\nBabylonians never developed a theory of real beginnings. The _creatio ex\nnihilo_ was a thought beyond the grasp even of the schools. There was\nalways _something_, and indeed there was always a _great deal_--as much\nperhaps at the beginning of things as at any other time. But there was\nno cosmic order. Instead of a doctrine of creation, we have a doctrine\nof evolution from chaos to the imposition of eternal laws. The\nmanifestation of these laws was seen first of all in the movements of\nthe heavenly bodies. There was a great expanse, presenting the\nappearance of a stretched-out curtain or a covering to which the stars\nand moon were attached. Along this expanse the wandering stars moved\nwith a certain regularity. The moon, too, had its course mapped out and\nthe sun appeared in this expanse daily, as an overseer, passing along\nthe whole of it. This wonderful system was the first to be perfected,\nand to the solar deity,[774] which seemed to control everything, was\nascribed the distinction of having introduced the heavenly order. This\nnotion we may well believe was of popular origin, though elaborated in\nthe schools to conform to a developed astrological science.\n\nThe stars and moon never passed beyond certain limits, and, accordingly,\nthe view was developed which gave to the canopy of heaven fixed\nboundaries. At each end of the canopy was a great gate, properly\nguarded. Through one of these the sun passed in rising out of the ocean,\nthrough the other it passed out when it had run its course. Learned\nspeculation could not improve upon this popular fancy. As the heavens\nhad their limitations, so also the great bodies of water were kept in\ncheck by laws, which, though eternal, were yet not quite as inexorable\nas those controlling the heavenly bodies. The yearly overflow of the\nEuphrates and Tigris was too serious a matter to be overlooked, and we\nshall see in a following chapter[775] how this phenomenon was\ninterpreted as a rivalry between Bel and Ea, deliberately caused by the\nformer in anger toward mankind. Still, as a general thing, the 'deep,'\npresided over by Ea, kept within the limits assigned to it. The waters\nabove the canopy were under rigid control, and the lower waters flowed\naround the earth and underneath it, and bordered the canopy of heaven at\nits two ends.\n\nThe earth itself was a vast hollow structure, erected as a \"place of\nfertility\" under the canopy of heaven and resting on the great 'deep.'\nIts vegetation was the gift of the gods. 'Fertility' summed up the law\nfixed for the earth. Much as in the Book of Genesis, \"to multiply and\nincrease\" was the order proclaimed for the life with which the earth was\nfilled.\n\nThe creation of mankind was the last act in the great drama. Assigned in\nsome traditions to Ea, in others as it would seem to Bel, the transfer\nof the traditions to Marduk is the deliberate work of the schools of\ntheological thought. The essential point for us is that mankind,\naccording to all traditions, is the product of the gods. In some form or\nother, this belief was popularly held everywhere. Its original form,\nhowever, is obscured beyond recognition by the theory which it is made\nto serve.\n\nA second version of the course of creation[776] agrees in the main with\nthe first one, but adds some points of interest. In this version,\nlikewise, Marduk is assigned the most important role--an evidence that\nit was produced under similar influences as the larger epic. So far as\npreserved, the second version differs from the first in its brevity and\nin the prominence given to such themes as the development of animal life\nand the growth of civilization. It fills out to a certain degree the\ngaps in the first version, due to the fragmentary condition of the fifth\ntablet and the loss of the sixth. The brevity of the second version is\ndue in part to the fact that it is introduced into an incantation text,\nand, what is more, incidentally introduced.\n\nIt begins as does the larger epic with the statement regarding the\nperiod when the present phenomena of the universe were not yet in\nexistence, but it specifies the period in a manner which gives a\nsomewhat more definite character to the conception of this ancient time.\n\n  The bright house of the gods was not yet built on the bright place,\n  No reed grew and no tree was formed,\n  No brick was laid nor any brick edifice[777] reared,\n  No house erected, no city built,\n  No city reared, no conglomeration[778] formed.\n  Nippur was not reared, E-Kur[779] not erected.\n  Erech was not reared, E-Anna[780] not erected.\n  The deep[781] not formed, Eridu[782] not reared.\n  The bright house, the house of the gods not yet constructed as a\n    dwelling.\n  The world[783] was all a sea.\n\nAgain it will be observed that neither popular nor scholastic\nspeculation can picture the beginning of things in any other way than as\nan absence of things characteristic of the _order_ of the universe.\n\nThe bright[784] house of the gods corresponds to Eshara and the canopy\nof heaven in the first version. The gods are again identified with the\nstars, and it is in the heavens--the bright place--that the gods\ndwell.[785] The reference to the absence of vegetation agrees closely\nwith the corresponding passage in the larger creation epic. The\nlimitations of the cosmological speculations of the Babylonians find a\nstriking illustration in the manner in which the beginnings of human\nculture are placed on a level with the beginnings of heavenly and\nterrestrial phenomena. Nippur, Erech, and Eridu, which are thus shown to\nbe the oldest religious centers of the Euphrates Valley, were\nindissolubly associated in the minds of the people with the beginning of\norder in the universe. Such was the antiquity of those cities as seats\nof the great gods, Bel, Ishtar, and Ea, that the time when they did not\nexist was not differentiated from the creation of the heavens and of\nplant life. This conception is more clearly emphasized by the\nparallelism implied between Eridu and the 'deep.' The 'formation' of\nApsu corresponds to the 'structure' made by Marduk according to the\nfirst version, as the seat of Ea. The waters were not created by Marduk,\nbut they were confined by him within a certain space. In a vague way,\nthe 'deep' itself rested in a vast tub. The waters flowed freely and yet\nnot without limitation.\n\nThe contest with Tiamat is not referred to in this second version, and\nthis may be taken as an indication that the 'nature' myth was not an\ningredient part of cosmological speculations, but only introduced into\nthe first version because of its associations with Marduk.\n\nThe appearance of dry land is described somewhat vaguely as follows:\n\n  There was a channel[786] within the sea.\n  At that time Eridu was erected, E-Sagila[787] was built,\n  E-Sagila in the midst of the 'deep,' where the god of the glorious\n    abode[788] dwells.\n\nThe mention of the channel appears to imply that the waters were\npermitted to flow off in a certain direction.\n\nThe conception would then be similar to the view expressed in Genesis,\nwhere the dry land appears in consequence of the waters being 'gathered'\ninto one place.[789] The temple at Eridu is regarded as synonymous with\nthe city, as the temples E-Kur and E-Anna are synonymous with Nippur and\nErech respectively. Eridu at the head of the Persian Gulf, which for the\nBabylonians was the beginning of the great 'Okeanos' surrounding the\nworld,[790] is the first dry land to appear and hence the oldest place\nin the world. At this point in the narrative a line is interpolated\nwhich clearly betrays the lateness of the version. The mention of\nE-Sagila suggests to a Babylonian, naturally, the great temple of Marduk\nin the city of Babylon--'the lofty house.' Local pride and the desire to\nconnect Babylon with the beginning of things leads to the insertion:\n\n  Babylon was reared, E-Sagila built.\n\nWith this mention of Babylon, the connecting link is established which\nleads easily to the glorification of Babylon and Marduk. The thought\nonce introduced is not abandoned. The rest of the narrative, so far as\npreserved, is concerned with Marduk. Eridu alone is beyond his\njurisdiction. Everything else, vegetation, mankind, rivers, animals, and\nall cities, including even Nippur and Erech, are Marduk's work.\n\n  The Anunnaki[791] he[792] created together\n  And bestowed glorious epithets upon the glorious city, the seat dear\n    to their heart.\n\nThe 'glorious city' is Eridu, though the compiler would have us apply it\nto Babylon.\n\nWith the founding of Eridu, a limit was fixed for the 'deep.' The rest\nof the dry land is formed according to the theory of the writer by the\nextension of this place.\n\n  Marduk constructed an enclosure around the waters,\n  He made dust and heaped it up within the enclosure.[793]\n\nThe _naivete_ of the conception justifies us in regarding it as of\npopular origin, incorporated by the theologians into their system.\n\nBut this land is created primarily for the benefit of the gods.\n\n  That the gods might dwell in the place dear to their heart.\n\nNaturally not all of the gods are meant,--perhaps only the\nAnunnaki,--for the great gods dwell in heaven. The creation of mankind\nis next described, and is boldly ascribed to Marduk.\n\n  Mankind he created.[794]\n\nIn the following line, however, we come across a trace again of an older\ntradition, which has been embodied in the narrative in a rather awkward\nmanner. Associated with Marduk in the creation of mankind is a goddess\nAruru.\n\n  The goddess Aruru created the seed of men together with him.[795]\n\nWe encounter this goddess Aruru in the Gilgamesh epic,[796] where she is\nrepresented as creating a human being,--Eabani; and, curiously enough,\nshe creates him in agreement with the Biblical tradition, out of a lump\nof clay. It has already been pointed out that according to one tradition\nEa is the creator of mankind,[797] and the conjecture has also been\nadvanced that at Nippur, Bel was so regarded. In Aruru we have evidently\na figure to whom another tradition, that arose in some district,\nascribed the honor of having created mankind. The Gilgamesh story is\nconnected with the city of Erech, and it is probable that the tale--at\nleast in part--originated there. It becomes plausible, therefore, to\ntrace the tradition ascribing the creation of man to Aruru to the same\nplace. A passage in the Deluge story, which forms an episode of the\nGilgamesh epic, adds some force to this conjecture. After the dreadful\ndeluge has come, Ishtar breaks out in wild lament that mankind, her\noffspring, has perished: \"What I created, where is it?\"[798] She is\ncalled 'the mistress of the gods,'[799] and if Jensen is correct in an\ningenious restoration of a defective text,[800] Aruru is given the same\nepithet in a lexicographical tablet. The Ishtar occurring in the\nGilgamesh story is the old Ishtar of Erech. I venture to suggest,\ntherefore, that Aruru and Ishtar of Erech are one and the same\npersonage. Ishtar is, of course, as has been pointed out, merely a\ngeneric name[801] for the 'great goddess' worshipped under many forms.\nThe more specific name by which Ishtar of Erech was known was Nana, but\nNana again is nothing but an epithet, meaning, as the Babylonians\nthemselves interpreted it, the 'lady' _par excellence_. Have we perhaps\nin Aruru the real name of the old goddess of Erech? At all events, the\noccurrence of Aruru in this second 'creation' story points to her as\nbelonging to the district of which Erech was the center. In this way,\neach one of the three most ancient sacred towns of Babylonia would have\nits 'creator,'--Bel in Nippur, Ea in Eridu, and Aruru in Erech. The\nchief deity of Erech, it will be recalled, was always a goddess,--a\ncircumstance that supports the association of Aruru with that place.\nAruru being a goddess, it was not so easy to have Marduk take up her\nrole, as he supplanted Bel. Again, Erech and Babylon were not political\nrivals to the degree that Nippur and Babylon were. Accordingly a\ncompromise was effected, as in the case of Marduk and Ea. Aruru is\nassociated with Marduk. She creates mankind with Marduk, and it would\nseem to be a consequence of this association that the name of Marduk's\nreal consort, Sarpanitum, is playfully but with intent interpreted by\nthe Babylonian pedants as 'seed-producing.'[802]\n\nOur second version thus turns out to be, like the first, an adaptation\nof old traditions to new conditions. Babylon and Marduk are designedly\nintroduced. In the original form Nippur, Eridu, and Erech alone figured,\nand presumably, therefore, only the deities of these three places. Among\nthem the work of creation was in some way parceled out. This\ndistribution may itself have been the result of a combination of\nindependent traditions. In any early combination, however, we may feel\ncertain that Marduk was not introduced.\n\nAfter this incidental mention of Aruru, the narrative passes back\nundisturbed to Marduk.\n\n  The animals of the field, the living creatures of the field he\n    created,\n  The Tigris and Euphrates he formed in their places, gave them good\n    names,\n  Soil (?), grass, the marsh, reed, and forest he created,\n  The verdure of the field he produced,\n  The lands, the marsh, and thicket,\n  The wild cow with her young, the young wild ox,\n  The ewe with her young, the sheep of the fold,\n  Parks and forests,\n  The goat and wild goat he brought forth.\n\nThe text at this point becomes defective, but we can still make out that\nthe clay as building material is created by Marduk, and that he\nconstructs houses and rears cities. Corresponding to the opening lines,\nwe may supply several lines as follows:\n\n  Houses he erected, cities he built,\n  Cities he built, dwellings he prepared,\n  Nippur he built, E-Kur he erected,\n  Erech he built, E-Anna he erected.\n\nHere the break in the tablet begins.\n\nThe new points derived from this second version are, (_a_) the details\nin the creation of the animal and plant world, (_b_) the mention of\nAruru as the mother of mankind, and (_c_) the inclusion of human culture\nin the story of the 'beginnings.'\n\nBefore leaving the subject, a brief comparison of these two versions\nwith the opening chapters of Genesis is called for. That the Hebrew and\nBabylonian traditions spring from a common source is so evident as to\nrequire no further proof. The agreements are too close to be accidental.\nAt the same time, the variations in detail point to independent\nelaboration of the traditions on the part of the Hebrews and\nBabylonians.\n\nA direct borrowing from the Babylonians has not taken place, and while\nthe Babylonian records are in all probabilities much older than the\nHebrew, the latter again contain elements, as Gunkel has shown, of a\nmore primitive character than the Babylonian production. This\nrelationship can only be satisfactorily explained on the assumption that\nthe Hebrews possessed the traditions upon which the Genesis narrative\nrests long before the period of the Babylonian exile, when the story\nappears, indeed, to have received its final and present shape. The\nessential features of the Babylonian cosmology formed part of a stock of\ntraditions that Hebrews and Babylonians (and probably others) received\nfrom some common source or, to put it more vaguely, held in common from\na period, the limits of which can no longer be determined. While the two\nBabylonian versions agree in the main, embodying the same general\ntraditions regarding the creation of the heavenly bodies and containing\nthe same general conception of an evolution in the world from confusion\nand caprice to order, and the establishment of law, the variations in\nregard to the terrestrial phenomena must not be overlooked. According to\nthe first version, mankind appears as the last episode of creation; in\nthe second, mankind precedes vegetation and animal life.\n\nIf we now take up the two versions of creation found in Genesis, we will\nsee that the same differences may be observed. According to the first,\nthe so-called Elohistic version,[803] mankind is not created until the\nlast day of creation; according to the second,[804] the so-called\nYahwistic version, mankind is first created, then a garden is made and\ntrees are planted. After that, the beasts of the field and the birds of\nheaven are called into existence.\n\nThe resemblance of the second Babylonian version to the Yahwistic\nversion extends even to certain phrases which they have in common. The\nopening words of the Yahwist--\n\n    And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of\n    the field had yet sprung up--\n\nmight serve almost as a translation of the second line of the Babylonian\ncounterpart. The reference to the Tigris and Euphrates in the second\nBabylonian version reminds one of the four streams mentioned in the\nYahwistic version, two of which are likewise the Tigris and Euphrates.\nAgain, Tiamat is mentioned only in the first Babylonian version, and\nT'hom similarly only in the Elohistic version; while, on the other hand,\nthe building of cities is included in the Yahwistic version,[805] as it\nforms part of the second Babylonian version. The points mentioned\nsuffice to show that the Elohistic version is closely related to the\nlarger creation epic of the Babylonians, while the Yahwistic\nversion--more concise, too, than the Elohistic--agrees to an astonishing\ndegree with the second and more concise Babylonian record.\n\nThe conclusion, therefore, is justified that the variations between the\nBabylonian versions rest upon varying traditions that must have arisen\nin different places. The attempt was made to combine these traditions by\nthe Babylonians, and among the Hebrews we may see the result of a\nsimilar attempt in the first two or, more strictly speaking, in the\nfirst three chapters of Genesis. At the same time, the manner in which\nboth traditions have been worked over by the Hebrew compilers of Genesis\nprecludes, as has been pointed out, the theory of a direct borrowing\nfrom cuneiform documents. The climatic conditions involved in the Hebrew\nversions are those peculiar to Babylonia. It is in Babylonia that the\nthought would naturally arise of making the world begin with the close\nof the storms and rains in the spring. The Terahites must therefore have\nbrought these cosmological traditions with them upon migrating from the\nEuphrates Valley to the Jordan district.\n\nThe traditions retained their hold through all the vicissitudes that the\npeople underwent. The intercourse, political and commercial, between\nPalestine and Mesopotamia was uninterrupted, as we now know, from at\nleast the fifteenth century before our era down to the taking of\nJerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and this constant intercourse was no doubt\nan important factor in maintaining the life of the old traditions that\nbound the two peoples together. The so-called Babylonian exile brought\nHebrews and Babylonians once more side by side. Under the stimulus of\nthis direct contact, the final shape was given by Hebrew writers to\ntheir cosmological speculations. Yahwe is assigned the role of\nBel-Marduk, the division of the work of creation into six days is\ndefinitely made,[806] and some further modifications introduced. While,\nas emphasized, this final shape is due to the independent elaboration of\nthe common traditions, and, what is even more to the point, shows an\nindependent _interpretation_ of the traditions, it is by no means\nimpossible, but on the contrary quite probable, that the final compilers\nof the Hebrew versions had before them the cuneiform tablets, embodying\nthe literary form given to the traditions by Babylonian writers.[807]\nSuch a circumstance, while not implying direct borrowing, would account\nfor the close parallels existing between the two Hebrew and the two\nBabylonian versions, and would also furnish a motive to the Hebrew\nwriters for embodying _two_ versions in their narrative.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[680] The so-called Elohistic version, Gen. i. 1-ii. 4; the Yahwistic\nversion, Gen. ii. 5-24. Traces have been found in various portions of\nthe Old Testament of other popular versions regarding creation. See\nGunkel, _Schoepfung und Chaos_, pp. 29-114, 119-121.\n\n[681] Gunkel, _ib._ pp. 28, 29. What Sayce (_e.g._, _Rec. of the Past_,\nN. S., I. 147, 148) calls the 'Cuthaean legend of the creation'\ncontains, similarly, a variant description of Tiamat and her brood.\n\n[682] Published by Pinches, _Journal Royal Asiat. Soc._, 1891, pp.\n393-408.\n\n[683] Complete publication by Delitzsch, _Das Babylonische\nWeltschoepfungsepos_ (Leipzig, 1896) with elaborate commentary.\n\n[684] See Zimmern in Gunkel's _Schoepfung und Chaos_, pp. 415, 416, and\non the other side, Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p. 20.\nZimmern's doubts are justified.\n\n[685] _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._ vi. 7.\n\n[686] _Zeits. f. Assyr._ viii. 121-124. Delitzsch, in his _Babylonische\nWeltschoepfungsepos_, pp. 61-68, has elaborately set forth the principles\nof the poetic composition. See also D. H. Mueller, _Die Propheten in\nihrer urspruenglichen Form_, pp. 5-14.\n\n[687] _I.e._, did not exist. To be 'called' or to 'bear a name' meant to\nbe called into existence.\n\n[688] _I.e._, of the waters.\n\n[689] _I.e._, of heaven and earth.\n\n[690] The word used is obscure. Jensen and Zimmern render \"reed.\"\nDelitzsch, I think, comes nearer the real meaning with \"marsh.\" See\nHaupt's translation, _Proc. Amer. Oriental Soc._, 1896, p. 161.\n\n[691] Delitzsch supplies a parallel phrase like \"periods elapsed.\"\n\n[692] Supplied from Damascius' extract of the work of Berosus on\nBabylonia. See Cory, _Ancient Fragments_, p. 92; Delitzsch,\n_Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p. 94.\n\n[693] The _o_ is represented in Babylonian by _a_, and the ending _at_\nin Tiamat is an affix which stamps the Babylonian name as feminine.\nT'hom in Hebrew is likewise a feminine noun, but it should be noted that\nat a certain stage in the development of the Semitic languages, the\nfeminine is hardly distinguishable from the plural and collective.\n\n[694] Gunkel, _Schoepfung und Chaos_, pp. 29-82, 379-398.\n\n[695] For our purposes it is sufficient to refer for the relations\nexisting between Damascius and the cuneiform records to Smith's\n_Chaldaeische Genesis_, pp. 63-66, to Lenormant's _Essai de Commentaire\nsur les fragments Cosmogoniques de Berose_, pp. 67 _seq._, and to\nJensen's _Kosmologie der Babylonier_, pp. 270-272.\n\n[696] The names are given by Damascius as _Apason_ and _Tauthe_.\n\n[697] Suggested by Professor Haupt (Schrader, _Cuneiform Inscriptions\nand the Old Testament_, p. 7).\n\n[698] Hommel, _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._, xviii. 19.\n\n[699] See Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp. 224, 225.\n\n[700] Agumkakrimi Inscription (VR. 33, iv. 50); Nabonnedos (Cylinder,\nVR. 64, ll. 16, 17).\n\n[701] Cory's _Ancient Fragments_, p. 58.\n\n[702] See above, pp. 198, 199.\n\n[703] See above, pp. 198, 199.\n\n[704] I avoid the term \"Sumerian\" here, because I feel convinced that\nthe play on Anshar is of an entirely artificial character and has no\nphilological basis.\n\n[705] See below, pp. 421-423.\n\n[706] IIR. 54, no. 3.\n\n[707] For a different interpretation of the phrase, see Jensen,\n_Kosmologie_, pp. 273, 274.\n\n[708] See p. 107.\n\n[709] _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p. 94.\n\n[710] Cory's _Ancient Fragments_, p. 58.\n\n[711] An epithet descriptive of Tiamat. \"Ummu\" is \"mother\" and \"khubur\"\nsignifies \"hollow\"; \"mother of the hollow\" would be a poetic expression\nfor \"source of the deep,\" and an appropriate term to apply to Tiamat. It\nhas nothing to do with Omoroka. The latter, as Wright has shown, is a\ncorruption of \"O Marduk\" (_Zeits. f. Assyr_. x. 71-74).\n\n[712] The word used is Lakhami, the plural of Lakhamu.\n\n[713] This scene, the description of the monsters and the installation\nof Kingu, occurs four times in the 'Epic.' See p. 424.\n\n[714] Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p. 25.\n\n[715] Cory, _ib._ p. 92.\n\n[716] \"The chamber of fates\" where Marduk sits on New Year's Day and\ndecides the fate of mankind for the ensuing year. Jensen and Zimmern\nread _upshugina_, but see Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos,_\np. 135.\n\n[717] The deity is mentioned by Sennacherib (Meissner-Host,\n_Bauinschriften_, p. 108). See above, p. 238.\n\n[718] In the first tablet, in the second in connection with the mission\nof Anu, and twice in the third in connection with Marduk's visit.\n\n[719] Tiamat's presence.\n\n[720] Called Nudimmud. Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p.\n99, questions the identity with Ea, but his skepticism is unwarranted,\nthough the title is also used of Bel.\n\n[721] Here used to comprise the army of Tiamat.\n\n[722] _I.e._, thy power is equal to that of Anu.\n\n[723] Exod. iv. 2-8; other parallels might be adduced.\n\n[724] _I.e._, far off.\n\n[725] _I.e._, that a wind might not carry her off.\n\n[726] Adding three to the ordinary winds from the four directions.\n\n[727] For the explanation of the term used in the\noriginal--_kirbish_--see Delitzsch's excellent remarks, _Babylonische\nWeltschoepfungsepos._ pp. 132-134.\n\n[728] Lit., 'storm,'--perhaps the thunderbolt, as Delitzsch suggests.\n\n[729] Marduk.\n\n[730] She lost her reason.\n\n[731] Gasping, as it were, for breath.\n\n[732] Cory's _Ancient Fragments_, p. 49.\n\n[733] Lit., 'places,' here used as a synonym for 'heavens,' as an\nAssyrian commentator expressly states. See Delitzsch's remarks\n(_Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p. 147) against Jensen's and\nZimmern's interpretation.\n\n[734] _I.e._, Ea. See above, p. 424, note 3.\n\n[735] The complete proof is brought by Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp.\n246-253.\n\n[736] To render the word used as \"Palace\" (so Delitzsch), while not\nincorrect, is somewhat misleading.\n\n[737] _Kosmologie_, p. 199.\n\n[738] _Magie und Wahrsagekunst der Chaldaer_, p. 163.\n\n[739] See the illustration in Jensen's _Kosmologie_, pl. 3.\n\n[740] The word used also means \"cities.\" A Babylonian district is naught\nbut an extended city.\n\n[741] See p. 429.\n\n[742] Gen. viii. 22.\n\n[743] See above, p. 370, and chapter xxii.\n\n[744] _I.e._, for each of the great gods.\n\n[745] _I.e._, of the gods.\n\n[746] A particular group of stars--the _mashi_ stars--is mentioned, but\nthe term seems to be used in a rather general sense. I cannot share\nDelitzsch's extreme skepticism with regard to the interpretation of the\nfifth tablet. Jensen seems to have solved the chief difficulties.\n\n[747] Jensen and Zimmern interpret \"he drew the pictures,\" referring the\nphrase to the contours of the stars; but the parallelism speaks in favor\nof connecting the words with the \"year.\" The divisions of the year or\nseasons seem to be meant.\n\n[748] _I.e._, the planet Marduk, or Jupiter.\n\n[749] _I.e._, with Nibir.\n\n[750] See Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 354. George Smith already interpreted\nthe passage in this way.\n\n[751] _I.e._, of the heavens. Delitzsch renders \"Schwerpunkt.\"\n\n[752] Text _elati_. Jensen, Zimmern, and Halevy translate \"zenith,\" but\nDelitzsch questions this.\n\n[753] The moon-god.\n\n[754] _I.e._, the moon.\n\n[755] Published by Delitzsch, _Assyrische Lesestuecke_ (3d edition), p.\n94.\n\n[756] See the proof as put together by Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp. 293,\n294.\n\n[757] Line 15.\n\n[758] So Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, pp. 19, 20.\n\n[759] Following Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, pp. 20,\n21. I pass over two fragments which Delitzsch adds to our 'epic.' They\nare not sufficiently clear to be utilized for our purposes. Delitzsch\nmay be right with regard to no. 20, but if so, it forms part or another\nversion of the Marduk-Tiamat episode. No. 19, treating of the bow of\nMarduk (?), does not seem to belong to our series.\n\n[760] A standing phrase for \"favor\" in general.\n\n[761] To prayer.\n\n[762] The gods or the Igigi.\n\n[763] See p. 486 and Gunkel's note, _Schoepfung und Chaos_, p. 26.\n\n[764] See above, p. 434. The play is between Nibir (as though from the\nstem _eberu_) and _itebbiru_ (\"he pierced\"), a form of _eberu_, and\nmeaning 'to pass through.'\n\n[765] This metaphor is carried over into astronomical science. The\nplanets are known as \"wandering sheep.\" See p. 459.\n\n[766] _Bel matate_.\n\n[767] See p. 118.\n\n[768] Similarly in another version of the contest published by\nDelitzsch, _Assyr. Woerterbuch_, p. 390.\n\n[769] See p. 54.\n\n[770] Tiele (_Gesch. der Religion im Alterthum_, I. 176) assigns to\nMarduk a double character, making him both a god of light and a god of\nstorms, but I venture to think that the latter attribute represents the\ntransference of En-lil's power to Marduk.\n\n[771] So Bel is called in contrast to Anu. See p. 53.\n\n[772] One is reminded of the Biblical injunction with regard to the Laws\nof Yahwe, Deut. vi. 7: \"Thou shall teach them to thy sons and speak\nconstantly of them.\"\n\n[773] _I.e._, to the kings who are frequently called 'shepherds' in the\nhistorical texts.\n\n[774] Or, according to the earlier view, to an atmospheric god.\n\n[775] \"The Gilgamesh Epic.\"\n\n[776] First published by Pinches, _Journal of the Royal Asiatic\nSociety_, 1891, pp. 393-408.\n\n[777] Clay, it will be recalled, was the building material in Babylonia.\n\n[778] The word in the text is generally applied to \"a mass\" of animals,\nbut also to human productions. See Delitzsch, _Assyr. Handwoerterbuch_,\np. 467.\n\n[779] Bel's temple at Nippur.\n\n[780] Temple of Ishtar at Erech or Uruk.\n\n[781] _I.e._, Apsu.\n\n[782] City sacred to Ea at the mouth of the Persian Gulf.\n\n[783] Lit., 'totality of lands.'\n\n[784] Zimmern's rendering (Gunkel, _Schoepfung und Chaos_, p. 419)\n\"sacred\" (instead of 'bright') misses the point.\n\n[785] _Cf._ S. A. Smith, Miscellaneous, K. 2866, l. 8, \"the great gods\ndwelling in the heaven of Anu.\" The reference, therefore, cannot be to\n\"the gathering place of the gods,\" where the fates of mankind are\ndecided.\n\n[786] The original has _ratum_. Delitzsch, _Assyr. Handwoerterbuch_, p.\n663, compares Hebrew _rahat_, \"trough.\" Zimmern (Gunkel, _Schoepfung und\nChaos_, p. 419) translates \"Bewegung,\" but on what grounds I do not\nknow. The passage is obscure; the text possibly defective.\n\n[787] If the reading E-Sagila is original. It is here used as the name\nof Ea's temple in Eridu, but it is of course possible that E-Sagila has\nbeen deliberately introduced to enhance the glory of Marduk's temple in\nBabylon.\n\n[788] Ea.\n\n[789] Gen. i. 9.\n\n[790] See Haupt, _Wo lag das Paradies_, p. 7 (_Ueber Land und Meer_,\n1894-95, no. 15, Sonderabdruck), who furnishes numerous illustrations of\nthe indefinite geographical notions of the ancients.\n\n[791] The group of celestial beings.\n\n[792] _I.e._, Marduk.\n\n[793] Read _a-ma-mi_.\n\n[794] Zimmern purposes to connect this line with the preceding, but the\nsense in that case is not at all clear.\n\n[795] _I.e._, with Marduk.\n\n[796] Haupt's edition, p. 8, l. 34.\n\n[797] See above, p. 437.\n\n[798] Haupt, _ib._ p. 139, l. 116.\n\n[799] _Ib._ l. 111.\n\n[800] _Kosmologie_, p. 294, note 1.\n\n[801] See p. 82.\n\n[802] _Zerbanitum_, as though compounded of _zer_ (seed), and _bani_\n(create). See p. 121.\n\n[803] Gen. i. 1-ii. 4, embodied in the \"Priestly Code.\"\n\n[804] Gen. ii. 4 and extending in reality as far as iv. 25.\n\n[805] Gen. iii. 17.\n\n[806] See Gunkel, _Schoepfung und Chaos_, p. 13.\n\n[807] On the acquaintance of Hebrew writers of the Babylonian exile with\ncuneiform literature and on the influence exercised by the latter, see\nD. H. Mueller, _Ezechielstudien_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\nTHE ZODIACAL SYSTEM OF THE BABYLONIANS.\n\nPlanets, Stars, and Calendar.\n\n\nIt will be appropriate at this point, to give a brief account of the\nastronomical system as developed by the Babylonian scholars. The system\nforms a part of the Babylonian cosmology. The 'creation' narratives we\nhave been considering are based upon the system, and the omen literature\nis full of allusions to it. Moreover, the understanding of some of the\npurely religious doctrines of the Babylonians is dependent upon a proper\nconception of the curious astrological speculations which from Babylonia\nmade their way to the Greeks, and have left their traces in the\nastronomy of the present time.\n\nThe stars were regarded by the Babylonians as pictorial designs on the\nheavens. A conception of this kind is the outcome of popular fancy, and\nhas its parallel among other nations of antiquity. We pass beyond the\npopular stage, however, when we find the stars described as the 'writing\nof heaven.'[808] Such a term is the product of the schools, and finds a\nready explanation if we remember that the cuneiform script, like other\nscripts, was in its first stages pictorial. The Babylonian scholars not\nonly knew this, but so well did they know it that writing continued to\nbe regarded by them as picture drawing. The characters used by them were\n'likenesses'[809] long after they had passed beyond the stage when they\nbore any resemblance to the pictures they originally represented. The\nexpression 'writing of heaven' was, therefore, equivalent to 'picture of\nheaven.' The heavens themselves being regarded as a fixed vault, it\nfollowed that the movements observed there were caused by the stars\nchanging their position; and the regular characters of these movements\nwithin certain periods led to speaking of the movements of the heavenly\nbodies as their 'courses.' It was furthermore apparent, even to a\nsuperficial observer, that some of the stars seemed fixed to their\nplaces, while others moved about. A distinction was thus drawn between\nwandering stars or planets and fixed stars. Groups of stars, the single\nmembers of which appeared in a constant relationship to one another,\nwere distinguished partly by natural observation and partly as a\nconvenient means of obtaining a general view of the starry canopy. It\nwas such a group that more particularly justified the view which\nregarded the stars as pictorial designs. A line drawn so as to connect\nthe stars of the group turned out to be a design of some sort. On omen\ntablets, geometrical figures are often found[810] and interpreted as\nomens, and it is plausible to suppose that the outlines presented by the\nstars of a group first suggested the idea of attaching significance to\ncombinations of lines and curves. To connect these outlines with the\npictures that formed the starting-point for the development of the\nscript was again a perfectly natural procedure, although a scholastic\none. The investigations of Delitzsch have shown that the more than four\nhundred cuneiform characters in use can be reduced to a comparatively\nsmall number of 'outlines' of pictures--to about forty-five. The\nsubjects of these 'outlines' are all familiar ones,--sun, moon, stars,\nmountain, man, the parts of the human body, animals, plants, and\nutensils.[811] Association of ideas led to giving to the outlines\npresented by the groups of stars, a similar interpretation. The factor\nof imagination, of course, entered into play, but it is also likely that\nthe comparison of these heavenly figures with the pictures of the script\nwas the controlling factor that led to identifying a certain group of\nstars with a bull, another with a scorpion, a third with a ram, a fourth\nwith a fish, still another with a pig, and more the like. That animals\nwere chosen was due to the influence of animistic theories, and the\nrather fantastic shape of the animals distinguished led to further\nspeculations. So, eleven constellations, that is to say, the entire\nzodiac with the exception of the bull--the sign of Marduk--were\nidentified with the eleven monsters forming the host of Tiamat. The\npassage in the Marduk-Tiamat myth[812] which speaks of the capture of\nthese monsters through Marduk appears to have suggested this\nidentification, which, fanciful though it is, has a scholastic rather\nthan a popular aspect. Jensen (to whom, together with Epping and\nStrassmaier,[813] most of our knowledge of this subject is due) has\nshown[814] that of the twelve constellations in our modern zodiac, the\ngreater number are identical with those distinguished by the\nBabylonians; and while it is probable that two or three of our\nconstellations are of occidental origin, the zodiacal system as a whole\nis the product of the Babylonian schools of astronomy. From Babylonia\nthe system made its way to the west and through western, more\nparticularly through Greek, influence back again to India and the\ndistant east. The number of constellations distinguished by the\nBabylonian astronomers has not yet been definitely ascertained. They\ncertainly recognized more than twelve. Further investigations may show\nthat they knew of most of the forty-eight constellations enumerated by\nPtolemy.\n\nThe general regularity of the courses taken by the sun, moon, and\nplanets made it a comparatively simple matter to map out the limits\nwithin which these bodies moved. These limits impressed the Babylonians,\nas we have seen, with the thought of the eternal and unchangeable laws\nunder which the planets stood. The laws regulating terrestrial\nphenomena, did not appear to be so rigid. There were symptoms of\ncaprice, so that the order of the earth has the appearance of being an\nafterthought, suggested by the absolute order prevailing in the heavens.\nComets, meteors, and eclipses alone seemed to interrupt this absolute\norder. As science advanced, it was found that even eclipses fell within\nthe province of law. The course of astronomical science was thus clearly\nmarked out--the determination of these laws.\n\nThe path taken by the sun served as a guide and as a means of\ncomparison. Anu being both the chief god of heaven and the\npersonification of heaven,[815] the sun's ecliptic became known as the\n'way of Anu.' The division of this ecliptic into certain sections,\ndetermined by the constellations within the belt of the ecliptic, was\nthe next step. The course of the moon and planets was determined with\nreference to the sun's ecliptic, and gradually a zodiacal system was\nevolved, the perfection of which is best exemplified by the fact that so\nmuch of the astronomical language of the present time is the same as\nthat used by the ancient astronomers of the Euphrates Valley.\n\nThe sun and moon being regarded as deities, under the influence of\nprimitive animistic ideas,[816] the stars would also come to be looked\nupon as divine. The ideograph designating a 'star' and which is prefixed\nas a determinative to the names of stars, consists of the sign for god\nrepeated three times;[817] and in the case of those stars which are\nidentified with particular deities, the simple determinative for god is\nemployed. To regard the stars in general as gods is a consequence of\nanimistic notions; but the further steps in the process which led to\nconnecting the planets and certain other stars with particular deities\nwho originally had nothing to do with the stars, fall within the\nprovince of scholastic theory.\n\nAs the jurisdiction of gods originally worshipped in a limited district\nincreased, a difficulty naturally arose among the more advanced minds as\nto the exact place where the deity dwelt. This difficulty would be\naccentuated in the case of a god like Marduk becoming the chief god of\nthe whole Babylonian Empire. His ardent worshippers would certainly not\ncontent themselves with the notion that a single edifice, even though it\nbe his great temple at Babylon, could contain him. Again, the\ndevelopment of a pantheon, systematized, and in which the various gods\nworshipped in Babylonia came to occupy fixed relationships to one\nanother, would lead to the view of putting all the gods in one place.\nThe sun and moon being in the heavens, the most natural place to assign\nto the gods as a dwelling-place was in the region where Shamash and Sin\n(as every one could see for himself) had their seats. The doctrine thus\narose that the great gods dwell in the 'heaven of Anu.' A doctrine of\nthis kind would be intelligible to the general populace, but it is\ndoubtful whether a belief which involved the establishment of a direct\nconnection between the most prominent stars--the planets with the chief\ngods--ever enjoyed popular favor in Babylonia. The association is marked\nby an artificiality and a certain arbitrariness that stamps it not only\nas the product of theological schools, but as a thought that would\nremain confined to a limited circle of the population. Jensen\nsuggests[818] that the planets may at one time have been merely regarded\nas standing under the influence of the great gods, and that a planet\nfrom being regarded as the star _controlled_ by Marduk, became\nidentified with Marduk. It seems more plausible that the association\nshould have been direct. Even though the Babylonians may not have had\nany knowledge of the relative mass of the planets, in some way Jupiter\nmust have appeared to them as the largest of the planets, and for this\nreason was identified with the head of the Babylonian pantheon, Marduk.\nIn the creation epic, as we have seen, Jupiter-Marduk, under the name of\nNibir, is represented as exercising a control over all the stars.\nMythological associations appear to have played a part in identifying\nthe planet Venus with the goddess Ishtar. A widely spread nature\nmyth,[819] symbolizing the change of seasons, represents Ishtar, the\npersonification of fertility, the great mother of all that manifests\nlife, as proceeding to the region of darkness and remaining there for\nsome time. The disappearance of the planet Venus at certain seasons, as\nmorning star to reappear as evening star, suggested the identification\nof this planet with Ishtar. From these two examples we may conclude that\nthe process which resulted in the identification of Saturn with Ninib,\nMars with Nergal, Mercury with Nabu rested similarly on an association\nof ideas, derived from certain conceptions held of the gods involved. In\nregard to Ninib and Nergal it is of some importance to bear in mind\nthat, like Marduk, they are at their origin solar deities, Ninib\nrepresenting in the perfected theological system the morning sun, Marduk\nthe sun of the early spring, and Nergal the mid-day sun and summer\nsolstice.[820] The position of the planets Saturn and Mars, accordingly,\nwith reference to the sun at certain periods of the year, may well have\nbeen a factor in the association of ideas involved.\n\nThe position of the sun, as the general overseer of the planets, led to\nthe application of an interesting metaphor to express the relationship\nbetween the sun and the planets. Just as the human chiefs or kings were\ncalled 'shepherds,'--a metaphor suggested, no doubt, by agricultural\nlife,--so the planets were commonly known as 'sheep' or, as Jensen\nsuggests,[821] 'wandering sheep,' and it is rather curious that\nMars-Nergal should have been designated as the 'sheep'[822] _par\nexcellence_. The 'service' in which the planets stood to the sun is\nexemplified by another term applied to them, which designates them as\nthe mediators carrying out the orders of their superior.\n\nLastly, it may be noted that each planet receives a variety of names and\nepithets in the astronomical texts,--a circumstance that points to the\ncomposite character of the developed planetary system of the\nBabylonians. Some of these names are of so distinctive a character as to\njustify the conclusion that they arose in the different centers where\nastronomical schools existed.\n\nThe process involved in the development of the system is thus\ncomplicated by factors introducing views originally confined to certain\ndistricts, and it becomes doubtful whether we will ever be able to trace\nall the steps involved in the process.\n\nCorresponding to the unique position occupied by the superior triad Anu,\nBel, and Ea in the theological system, a special place was assigned to\nthem in the astronomical system. Anu is the pole star of the ecliptic,\nBel the pole star of the equator, while Ea in the southern heavens was\nidentified, according to Jensen,[823] with a star in the constellation\nArgo. Anu, Bel, and Ea represented the three most prominent fixed stars,\nbut by the side of these a large number of other stars were\ndistinguished and many of them identified with some deity. For some of\nthese stars the modern equivalents have been ascertained through recent\nresearches;[824] others still remain to be determined.\n\nThe astronomical science of the Babylonians thus resolves itself into\nthese natural divisions:\n\n  (1) the constellations, especially those of the zodiac,\n  (2) the five great planets,\n  (3) the fixed stars, Anu, Bel, and Ea,\n  (4) miscellaneous stars, and\n  (5) the sun and moon.\n\nThe rivalry between the two great luminaries ends in a superior rank\nbeing accorded to the sun. Natural and indeed inevitable as this\nconclusion was, the scientific theory in the Euphrates Valley was\npresumably influenced to some extent by the circumstance that the head\nof the pantheon was a solar deity. We have seen that the tradition of\nthis original character of Marduk survived in the popular mind.\n\nOf the sun but little need be said here. As represented in the creation\nstory, he was freer in his movements than any of the planets. He passed\nacross the heavens daily as an overseer to see that everything was\nmaintained in good order. As in Greek mythology, the sun was represented\nas riding in a chariot drawn by horses.[825] Scientific speculation\nadvanced but little upon these popular fancies. The course that the sun\ntook on the ecliptic was determined, and the ecliptic itself served as\nthe guide for determining the position and movements of the stars. Under\nthe growing influence of the Marduk cult and of such deities as Ninib,\nNergal, and Nabu, associated with Marduk mythologically or politically,\nthe old moon worship lost much of its prestige; but in astronomical\nscience, the former independent rank of the moon is still in large\nmeasure preserved. In the enumeration of the planets the moon is\nmentioned first.[826] The moon is not a 'sheep' belonging to the flock\nof Shamash. The importance of the moon in the regulation of the calendar\nsaved her from this fate. The beginning of the calendrical system,\nindeed, may well have been of popular origin. Ihering[827] is of the\nopinion that agricultural occupations made the marking off of time a\npopular necessity, and this view is borne out by the early epithets of\nthe months among the Babylonians,[828] which, as among the Hebrews, are\nconnected with agriculture and the life of the agriculturist. The later\nnames also bear traces of the same train of thoughts. Leaving aside\ndetails into which it is needless to enter here, the part of the\ncalendar which touches upon the religion of the Babylonians is the\nsacred character given to the months by making each one devoted to some\ngod or gods. In this association there may be observed the same curious\nmixture of several factors that controlled the identification of the\nplanets with the gods. The theory underlying the pantheon and certain\nmythological conceptions are two of the factors that can be clearly seen\nat work. The triad Anu, Bel, and Ea are accorded the first rank.[829]\n\nThe first month, Nisan, is sacred to Anu and Bel.\n\nThe second, Iyar, is sacred to Ea as the \"lord of humanity.\"\n\nThen follows Sin to whom, as the first-born of Bel,[830] the third\nmonth, Siwan, is devoted.\n\nThe four succeeding months are parceled out among deities closely\nconnected with one another,--Ninib, Nin-gishzida, Ishtar, and Shamash.\nOf these, Ninib and Nin-gishzida are solar deities. Ninib, as the\nmorning sun, symbolizes the approach of the summer season, while\nNin-gishzida, another solar deity,[831] represents an advance in this\nseason. To them, therefore, the fourth and fifth months, Tammuz (or\nDu'zu) and Ab respectively, are sacred. Ishtar is the goddess of\nfertility, and the sixth month, which represents the culmination of the\nsummer season, is accordingly devoted to her. As the last of the group\ncomes Shamash himself, to whom the seventh month, Tishri (or Tashritum),\nis sacred. Marduk and Nergal come next, the eighth month,\nMarcheshwan,[832] being sacred to the former, the ninth Kislev to the\ngreat warrior Nergal. The factors here involved are not clear, nor do we\nknow why the tenth month is sacred to Papsukal--perhaps here used as an\nepithet of Nabu--to Anu, and to Ishtar. The eleventh month, the height\nof the rainy season and known as the \"month of the course of\nrainstorms,\" is appropriately made sacred to Ramman, 'the god of\nstorms.' The last month, Adar, falling within the rainy season is\npresided over by the seven evil spirits. Lastly, an interesting trace of\nAssyrian influence is to be seen in devoting to Ashur, \"the father of\nthe gods,\" the intercalated month, the second Adar. This introduction of\nAshur points to the late addition of this intercalated month, and makes\nit probable also that the intercalation is the work of astronomers\nstanding under Assyrian authority. A second intercalated month is Elul\nthe second. This month is sacred to Anu and Bel, just like Nisan, the\nfirst month. The list, therefore, begins anew with the intercalated\nmonth. Such a procedure is natural, and one is inclined to conclude that\nthe intercalated Elul is of Babylonian origin and older than the\nintercalated Adar.\n\nIt does not appear that the female consorts of the gods shared in the\nhonors thus bestowed upon the male deities. Variations from the list as\ngiven also occur. So Ashurbanabal calls the seventh month, Elul, the\nmonth of 'the king of gods Ashur,'[833] while Sargon[834] assigns the\nfourth month to the 'servant of Gibil,' the fire-god, by which\nNin-gishzida is meant, and the third month he calls the month of \"the\ngod of brick structures.\"[835]\n\nIn fact, the assigning of the months to the gods appears to partake more\nor less of an arbitrary character. Absolute uniformity probably did not\nprevail throughout Babylonia until a comparatively late period. Nor does\nit appear that any popular significance was attached to the sacred\ncharacter thus given to the months. It was the work of the schools, as\nare most of the features involved in the elaboration of the calendar.\n\nIn somewhat closer touch with popular notions and popular observances\nwere the names of the months. Confining ourselves to the later\nnames,--the forms in which they were transmitted during the period of\nthe Babylonian exile to the Jews,[836]--we find that the first month\nwhich, as we shall see, was marked by sacred observances in the temples\nof Marduk and Nabu at Babylon and Borsippa was designated\nideographically as 'the month of the sanctuary,' the third as the period\nof 'brick-making,' the fifth as the 'fiery' month, the sixth as the\nmonth of the 'mission of Ishtar'--a reference to the goddess' descent\ninto the region of darkness. Designations like 'taking (_i.e._,\nscattering) seed' for the fourth month, 'copious fertility' for the\nninth month, 'grain-cutting' period for the twelfth, and 'opening of\ndams'[837] for the eighth contain distinct references to agriculture.\nThe name 'destructive rain' for the eleventh month is suggested by\nclimatic conditions. Still obscure is the designation of the seventh\nmonth as the month of the 'resplendent mound,'[838] and so also is the\ndesignation of the second month.[839]\n\nThe calendar is thus shown to be the product of the same general order\nof religious ideas that we have detected in the zodiacal and planetary\nsystems. Its growth must have been gradual, for its composite character\nis one of its most striking features. The task was no easy one to bring\nthe lunar year into proper conjunction with the solar year, and there\nare grounds for believing that prior to the division of the year into\ntwelve parts, there was a year of ten months corresponding to a simpler,\nperhaps a decimal, system, which appears to have preceded the elaborate\nsexagesimal system.[840]\n\nHowever this may be, the point of importance for our purposes is to\ndetect the extension of religious ideas into the domain of science, and,\non the other hand, to note the reaction of scientific theories on the\ndevelopment of religious thought. The cosmology of the Babylonians\nresults from the continued play of these two factors. Hence the strange\nmixture of popular notions and fancies with comparatively advanced\ntheological speculations and still more advanced scientific theories\nthat is found in the cosmological system. Even mysticism is given a\nscientific aspect in Babylonia. The identification of the gods with the\nstars arises, as we have seen, from a scientific impulse, and it is a\nscientific spirit again that leads to the introduction of the gods into\nthe mathematics of the day.[841] A number is assigned to each of the\nchief gods. And, though such a procedure has its natural outcome in\nCabbalistic tendencies, we can still discern in the ideas that lead to\nthis association of numbers with gods, influences at work that emanated\nfrom the astronomical schools. Thus the moon-god Sin is identified with\nthe number thirty, suggested by the days of the ordinary month. Ishtar,\nthe daughter of Sin, is number fifteen, the half of thirty. The unit in\nthe sexagesimal--the number sixty--is assigned to Anu, the chief of the\ntriad, while the other two members, Bel and Ea, follow as fifty and\nforty respectively. The dependence of this species of identification\nupon the calendrical system is made manifest by the inferior rank given\nto the sun, which receives the number twenty, the decimal next to that\nassigned to Sin, while Ramman, the third member of the second\ntriad,[842] is identified with ten.[843] Absolute consistency in this\nprocess is, of course, as little to be expected as in other\nsemi-mystical aspects of the science of the Babylonians; nor is it\nnecessary for our purposes to enter upon the further consequences\nresulting from this combination of gods with numbers. The association of\nideas involved in the combination furnishes another and rather striking\nillustration of the close contact between science and religion in the\nremarkable culture of the Euphrates Valley.\n\nThere was no conflict between science and religion in ancient Babylonia.\nEach reacted on the other, but the two factors were at all times closely\nunited in perfect harmony,--a harmony so perfect, indeed, as to be\nimpressive despite its _naivete_.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[808] _E.g._, IR. 52, no. 3, col. ii. l. 2; IIR. 38, 27b.\n\n[809] The Greek name for the letters of the alphabet--_symbolon_,\n_i.e._, a \"likeness\"--illustrates the same view of the pictorial origin\nof writing.\n\n[810] For illustrations, see Lenomant, _Magie und Wahrsagekunst der\nChaldaer_, pp. 520-523.\n\n[811] See the summary on pp. 198, 199, of Delitzsch, _Ursprung der\nKeilschriftzeichen._\n\n[812] See p. 436.\n\n[813] Epping and Strassmaier, _Astronomisches aus Babylon_ (Freiburg,\n1889).\n\n[814] _Kosmologie_, pp. 57-95. See especially the summary, pp. 82-84.\n\n[815] See p. 89.\n\n[816] See p. 48.\n\n[817] On this ideograph, see Jensen, _Kosmologie_ pp. 43, 44.\n\n[818] _Kosmologie_, p. 134.\n\n[819] See the following chapter on \"The Gilgamesh Epic,\" and chapter\nxxv, \"The Views of the Babylonians and Assyrians of the Life after\nDeath.\"\n\n[820] Jensen, _ib._ p. 140. See above, p. 67.\n\n[821] _bibbu._\n\n[822] _Ib._ p. 99.\n\n[823] _Ib._ p. 27.\n\n[824] See especially Jensen's _Kosmologie_, pp. 46-57 and 144-160.\n\n[825] Jensen, _ib._ pp. 108, 109.\n\n[826] The constant order is moon, sun, Marduk, Ishtar, Ninib, Nergal,\nNabu. _E.g._, IIR. 48, 48-34a-b.\n\n[827] _Vorgeschichte der Indo-Europaer_, pp. 151 _seq._\n\n[828] On the older and later names of the Babylonians, see Meissner,\n_Zeitschrift fuer die Kunde des Morgenlandes_, v. 180, 181, and on the\ngeneral subject of the Babylonian months, Muss-Arnolt's valuable\narticles in the _Journal of Biblical Literature_, xi. 72-94 and 160-176.\n\n[829] IVR. pl. 33.\n\n[830] En-lil.\n\n[831] See above, p. 99.\n\n[832] Lit., 'Arakh-shamnu,' _i.e._, month eight.\n\n[833] Rassam, Cylinder, col. lii. l. 32.\n\n[834] Cylinder, Inscription l. 61.\n\n[835] _Ib._ l. 58,--a rather curious title of Sin.\n\n[836] The Talmud preserves the tradition of the Babylonian origin of the\nHebrew calendar (_Ierusalem Talmud Rosh-Hashshana_, l. 1).\n\n[837] For the irrigation of the fields.\n\n[838] In some way indicative of its sacred character. It is to be noted\nthat this month--Tishri--is the festival month among the Hebrews and\noriginally also among the Arabs. The 'mound' is a reference to the\ntemples which were erected on natural or artificial eminences.\n\n[839] The latter is described by a series of ideographs, \"herd\" and \"to\nprosper.\" Is there perhaps a reference to cows giving birth to calves in\nthis month, the early spring? For another, but improbable, explanation,\nsee _Babylonian and Oriental Record_, iv. 37.\n\n[840] Lehmann (_Actes du 8^eme Congres Internationel des Orientalists_,\nLeiden, 1891, i. 169, note) admits the probability of an earlier and\nmore natural system.\n\n[841] Lotz, _Quaestiones de Historia Sabbati_, pp. 27-29.\n\n[842] Sin, Shamash, and Ramman. See pp. 108, 163.\n\n[843] See for other combinations Lotz _ib._, and compare, _e.g._, VR.\n36, where the number ten is associated with a large number of\ngods,--Anu, Anatum, Bel, Ishtar, etc.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII.\n\nTHE GILGAMESH EPIC.\n\n\nWe have seen[844] that the religion of Babylonia permeates all branches\nof literature, so that it is not always possible to draw a sharp\ndividing line between sacred and secular productions.\n\nTo account for this, it is but necessary to bear in mind what the\nprevious chapters have aimed to make clear, that religion furnished the\nstimulus for the unfolding of intellectual life, and that the literary\nand scientific productions represent the work of men primarily\ninterested in religion. The significance attached as omens to heavenly\nphenomena led by degrees to the elaborate astronomical system outlined\nin the previous chapter. But the astronomers of Babylonia were priests,\nand indeed the same priests who compiled the hymns and incantations.\nWhat is true of astronomy applies to medicine, so far as medicine had an\nexistence independent of incantations, and also to law. The physician\nwas a priest, as was the judge and likewise the scribe.\n\nIt is natural, therefore, to find that what may be called the great\nnational epic of the Babylonians was of a religious character. The\ninterpretation given to the traditions of the past was religious. The\ndistant past blended with the phenomena of nature in such a way as to\nform a strange combination of poetry and realism. But thanks to this\ncombination, which is essentially a process of the popular mind, the\nproduction that we are about to consider brings us much closer to the\npopular phases of the Babylonian religion than does the cosmology or the\nzodiacal system.\n\nAfter all, a nation is much more interested in its heroes and in its own\nbeginnings, than in the beginnings of things in general. Some\nspeculation regarding the origin of the universe is perhaps inevitable\nthe moment that the spirit of inquiry arises, but these speculations are\nsoon entrusted into the hands of a minority,--the thinkers, the priests,\nthe astronomers,--who elaborate a system that gradually separates itself\nfrom popular thought and exercises little influence upon the development\nof religious ideas among the masses.\n\nThe Book of Genesis passes rapidly over the creation of stars, plants,\nand animals, as though anxious to reach the history of man, and when it\ncomes to the traditions regarding the ancestors of the Hebrews, the\ndetails are dwelt upon at length and pictured with a loving hand.\nSimilarly among the Babylonians, there is a freshness about the story of\nthe adventures of a great hero of the past that presents a contrast to\nthe rather abstruse speculations embodied in the creation epic. In this\nstory, in which a variety of ancient traditions have been combined,\nthere is comparatively little trace of the scholastic spirit, and\nalthough, as we shall see, the story has been given its final shape\nunder the same influences that determined the other branches of\nreligious literature, the form has not obscured the popular character of\nthe material out of which the story has been constructed.\n\nThe name of the hero of the story was for a long time a puzzle to\nscholars. Written invariably in ideographic fashion, the provisional\nreading Izdubar[845] was the only safe recourse until a few years ago,\nwhen Pinches discovered in a lexicographical tablet the equation\n\n    Izdubar = Gilgamesh.[846]\n\nThe equation proved that the Babylonians and Assyrians identified the\nhero with a legendary king, Gilgamos, who is mentioned by Aelian.[847]\nTo be sure, what Aelian tells of this hero is not found in the Izdubar\nepic, and appears to have originally been recounted of another legendary\npersonage, Etana.[848] There is therefore a reasonable doubt whether the\nidentification made by Babylonian scholars represents an old tradition\nor is merely a late conjecture arising at a time when the traditions of\nIzdubar were confused with those of Etana. Still, since Etana appears to\nbe a phonetic reading and can be explained etymologically in a\nsatisfactory manner, the presumption is in favor of connecting Gilgamesh\nwith the hero of the great epic. For the present, therefore, we may\naccept the identification and assume that in Aelian, as well as in the\nsources whence he drew his information, Izdubar-Gilgamesh has been\nconfused with Etana.[849]\n\nThe ideographic form of the name is preceded invariably by the\ndeterminative for deity, but the three elements composing the name,\n_iz_, _du_, and _bar_, are exceedingly obscure. The first element is a\nvery common determinative, preceding objects made of wood or any hard\nsubstance. The word for weapon is always written with this\ndeterminative; and since Izdubar is essentially a warrior, one should\nexpect _dubar_ to represent some kind of a weapon that he carries. On\nseal cylinders Gilgamesh appears armed with a large lance.[850] However\nthis may be, Jeremias' proposition to render the name as \"divine judge\nof earthly affairs\"[851] is untenable, and the same may be said of other\nconjectures.\n\nThe fact that the name is written with the determinative for deity must\nnot lead us to a purely mythical interpretation of the epic. There was a\nstrong tendency in Babylonia to regard the early kings as gods. Dungi\nand Gudea, who are far from being the earliest rulers in the Euphrates\nValley, appear in tablets with the determinative for deity attached to\ntheir names,[852] and it would be natural, therefore, that a hero\nbelonging to a remote period should likewise be deified. There can be no\ndoubt that there is a historical background to the Gilgamesh epic, and\nthere is equally no reason to question the existence of an ancient king\nor hero who bore the name Gilgamesh. The deification of the hero\nsuperinduced the introduction of mythical elements. It was an easy\nprocess also, that led to tales which arose as popular symbols of\noccurrences in nature, being likewise brought into connection with a\nhero, who was at the same time a god.\n\nThe Gilgamesh epic thus takes shape as a compound of faint historical\ntradition and of nature myths. The deified hero becomes more\nparticularly a solar deity. The popularity of the hero-god is attested\nby the introduction of his name in incantations,[853] and by special\nhymns being composed in his honor. One of these hymns,[854] of a\npenitential character, is interesting as illustrating the survival of\nthe recollection of his human origin. Gilgamesh is addressed by a\npenitent, who seeks healing from disease:\n\n  O Gilgamesh, great king, judge of the Anunnaki,\n  Prince, great oracle[855] of mankind,\n  Overseer of all regions, ruler of the world, lord of what is on earth,\n  Thou dost judge and, like a god, thou givest decisions,[856]\n  Thou art established on the earth, thou fulfillest judgment,\n  Thy judgment is unchangeable, thy [command is not revoked],\n  Thou dost inquire, thou commandest, thou judgest, thou seest, and\n    thou directest.\n  Shamash has entrusted into thy hand sceptre and decision.\n\nIt will be observed that Gilgamesh is appealed to as a 'king' and\n'prince.' His dominion is the earth, and the emphasis placed upon this\ncircumstance is significant. In accord with this peculiar province of\nthe god, the hymn continues:\n\n  Kings, chiefs, and princes bow before thee,\n  Thou seest their laws, thou presidest over their decisions.\n\nAt the same time, his dependence upon Shamash is emphasized. As a minor\nsolar deity, he receives his powers from the great judge Shamash. This\ndouble character of Gilgamesh furnishes the key to the interpretation of\nthe epic in which he is the central figure.\n\nThe poem in its final shape comprised twelve tablets of about three\nthousand lines. Unfortunately only about half of the epic has been found\nup to the present time. The numerous fragments represent at least four\ndistinct copies, all belonging to the library of Ashurbanabal. To\nProfessor Paul Haupt we are indebted for a practically complete\npublication of the fragments of the epic;[857] and it is likewise owing,\nchiefly, to Professor Haupt that the sequence in the incidents of the\nepic as well as the general interpretation of the composition has been\nestablished.[858]\n\nThe center of action in the first tablets of the series and in the\noldest portions of the epic is the ancient city Uruk, or Erech, in\nsouthern Babylonia, invariably spoken of as _Uruk supuri_, that is, the\n'walled' or fortified Uruk. A special significance attaches to this\nepithet. It was the characteristic of every ancient town, for reasons\nwhich Ihering has brilliantly set forth,[859] to be walled.[860] The\ndesignation of Uruk as 'walled,' therefore, stamps it as a city, but\nthat the term was added, also points to the great antiquity of the\nplace,--to a period when towns as distinguished from mere agricultural\nvillages were sufficiently rare to warrant some special nomenclature.\nFrom other sources the great age of Uruk is confirmed, and\nHilprecht[861] is of the opinion that it was the capitol of a kingdom\ncontemporaneous with the earliest period of Babylonian history. A\nlexicographical tablet[862] informs us that Uruk was specially well\nfortified. It was known as the place of seven walls and, in view of the\ncosmic significance of the number seven among the Babylonians, Jensen\nsupposes[863] that the city's walls are an imitation of the seven\nconcentric zones into which the world was divided. However this may be,\na city so ancient and so well fortified must have played a most\nimportant part in old Babylonian history, second only in importance, if\nnot equal, to Nippur. The continued influence of the Ishtar or Nana cult\nof Erech also illustrates the significance of the place. It is natural,\ntherefore, to find traditions surviving of the history of the place.\n\nThe first tablet of the Gilgamesh epic contains such a reminiscence. The\ncity is hard pressed by an enemy. The misfortune appears to be sent as a\npunishment for some offence.[864] Everything is in a state of confusion.\nAsses and cows destroy their young. Men weep and women sigh. The gods\nand spirits of \"walled Uruk\" have become hostile forces. For three years\nthe enemy lays siege to the place. The gates of the city remain closed.\nWho the enemy is we are not told, and such is the fragmentary condition\nof the tablet that we are left to conjecture the outcome of the city's\ndistress.\n\nIn the second tablet, Gilgamesh is introduced as a hero of superior\nstrength and in control of Uruk. Is he the savior of the city or its\nconqueror? One is inclined to assume the latter, for the inhabitants of\nUruk are represented as complaining that Gilgamesh has taken away the\nsons and daughters of the place. From a passage in a subsequent tablet\nit appears that Uruk is not the native place of the hero, but\nMarada.[865] Moreover, the name Gilgamesh is not Babylonian, so that the\npresent evidence speaks in favor of regarding the first episode in the\nepic as a reminiscence of the extension of Gilgamesh's dominion by the\nconquest of Uruk. When this event took place we have no means of\ndetermining with even a remote degree of probability. The representation\nof Gilgamesh on very ancient seal cylinders[866] warrants us in passing\nbeyond the third millennium, but more than this can hardly be said.\n\nGilgamesh is a hero of irresistible power. The inhabitants of Uruk\nappeal for help to Aruru, who has created Gilgamesh:\n\n  He has no rival....\n  Thy inhabitants [appeal for aid?].\n  Gilgamesh does not leave a son to his father.\n  Day and night,...\n  He, the ruler of walled Uruk,...\n  He, their ruler,...\n  The strong, the preeminent, the cunning,...\n  Gilgamesh does not leave the virgin to [her mother],\n  The daughter to her warrior, the wife to her husband.\n  The gods [of heaven] hear their cry.\n  They cry aloud to Aruru, \"Thou hast created him,\n  Now create a rival (?) to him, equal to taking up the fight against\n    him (?).\"\n\nSo much at least is clear from the badly mutilated lines that Gilgamesh\nhas played sad havoc with the inhabitants of Uruk. In personal combat,\nas it would appear, he has triumphed over the warriors of the place. The\nson is taken away from his father, the virgins are taken captive,\nwarriors and husbands are snatched from those dear to them. Aruru is\nhere appealed to as the creator of mankind.[867] She who has created the\nhero is asked to produce some one who can successfully resist Gilgamesh.\nAruru proceeds to do so.\n\n  Aruru, upon hearing this, forms a man of Anu.[868]\n  Aruru washes her hands, takes a bit of clay, and throws it on the\n    ground.\n  She creates Eabani, a hero, a lofty offspring, the possession of\n    Ninib.[869]\n\nThis creature Eabani is described as having a body covered with hair. He\nhas long flowing locks and lives with the animals about him.\n\n  Eating herbs with gazelles,\n  Drinking from a trough with cattle,\n  Sporting with the creatures of the waters.\n\nThe description evidently recalls man living in a savage state, and, to\njudge from illustrations of Eabani on seal cylinders, the mythological\nfancy of the period when strange monsters existed of hybrid formation,\nhalf-man, half-beast, has influenced the conception of this strange\ncreature who is to combat the invincible Gilgamesh. But Gilgamesh\nfrustrates the plan. He sends a messenger known as _Sadu_, that is, 'the\nhunter,' and described as a \"wicked man,\" to ensnare Eabani.[870] For\nthree days in succession, the hunter sees Eabani drinking at the trough\nwith the cattle, but is unable to catch him. The sight of this 'wild man\nof the woods' frightens the hunter. He returns to Gilgamesh for further\ninstructions.\n\nGilgamesh spoke to the hunter:\n\n  Go, hunter mine, and take with thee Ukhat\n  When the cattle comes to the trough,\n  Let her tear off her dress and disclose her nakedness.\n  He[871] will see her and approach her.\n  His cattle, which grew up on his field, will forsake him.\n\n_Ukhatu_ is a name for a harlot devoted to the worship of Ishtar. Other\nnames for such devotees are _Kharimtu_[872] and _Kizritu_.[873]\nElsewhere the city Uruk is called \"the dwelling of Anu and Ishtar, the\ncity of the _Kizreti_, _Ukhati_, and _Kharimati_\"[874] and in a\nsubsequent tablet of the Gilgamesh epic[875] these three classes of\nharlots are introduced as the attendants of Ishtar, obedient to her\ncall. The conclusion is therefore justified that Uruk was one of the\ncenters--perhaps the center--of the obscene rites to which\nHerodotus[876] has several references. Several other incidental\nallusions in cuneiform literature to the sacred prostitution carried on\nat Babylonian temples confirm Herodotus' statement in general,[877]\nalthough the rite never assumed the large proportions that he reports.\n\nOn the other hand, Herodotus does not appear to have understood the\nreligious significance of the custom that he designates as 'shameful.'\nThe name given to the harlot among Babylonians and Hebrews,[878]\n_Kadishtu_ or _K'desha_, that is, 'the sacred one,' is sufficient\nevidence that, at its origin, the rite was not the product of obscene\ntendencies, but due to naive conceptions connected with the worship of\nIshtar as the goddess of fertility.\n\nThe introduction of Ukhat, however, as an aid to carry out the designs\nof Gilgamesh is devoid of religious significance, and one is inclined to\nregard the Eabani episode, or at least certain portions of it, as having\nhad at one time an existence quite independent of Gilgamesh's\nadventures. The description of Eabani is, as we have seen, based upon\nmythological ideas. The creation of Eabani recalls the Biblical\ntradition of the formation of the first man, and Ukhat appears to be the\nBabylonian equivalent to the Biblical Eve, who through her charms\nentices Eabani away from the gazelles and cattle,[879] and brings him to\nUruk, the symbol of civilized existence.\n\nIt is significant that in the Biblical narrative, the sexual instinct\nand the beginnings of culture as symbolized by the tree of knowledge are\nclosely associated. According to rabbinical traditions, the serpent is\nthe symbol of the sexual passion.[880]\n\nEve obtains control of Adam with the aid of this passion. In the episode\nof Eabani, Ukhat, and the hunter--who, be it noted, plays the part of\nthe tempter--we seem to have an ancient legend forming part of some\ntradition regarding the beginnings of man's history, and which has been\nbrought into connection with the Gilgamesh epic,--when and how, it is\nimpossible, of course, to say.\n\nThe hunter follows the instructions of Gilgamesh. Eabani falls a victim\nto Ukhat's attractions.\n\n  Ukhat exposed her breast, revealed her nakedness, took off her\n    clothing.\n  Unabashed she enticed him.\n\nThe details of the meeting are described with a frank simplicity that\npoints again to the antiquity of the legend.\n\n  For six days and seven nights Eabani enjoyed the love of Ukhat.\n  After he had satiated himself with her charms,\n  He turned his countenance to his cattle.\n  The reposing gazelles saw Eabani,\n  The cattle of the field turned away from him.\n  Eabani was startled and grew faint,\n  His limbs grew stiff as his cattle ran off.\n\nBut Ukhat has gained control of him. He gives up the thought of gazelles\nand cattle, and returns to enjoy the love of Ukhat. His senses return,\n\n  And he again turns in love, enthralled at the feet of the harlot,\n  Looks up into her face and listens as the woman speaks to him.\n  The woman[881] speaks to Eabani:\n  \"Lofty art thou, Eabani, like to a god.\n  Why dost thou lie with the beasts?\n  Come, I will bring thee to walled Uruk,\n  To the glorious house,[882] the dwelling of Anu and Ishtar,\n  To the seat of Gilgamesh, perfect in power,\n  Surpassing men in strength, like a mountain bull.\"\n\nIt would appear from these lines that previous to the coming of Ukhat,\nEabani had satisfied his desire on the beasts. In Ukhat, however, he\nfound a worthier mate, and he accordingly abandons his former associates\nto cling to her.\n\n  He yields and obeys her command.\n  In the wisdom of his heart he recognized a companion.[883]\n\nIn the continuation of the story Eabani becomes the companion of\nGilgamesh, but I venture to think that the title was transferred in the\ndevelopment of the epic from Ukhat, to whom it originally belonged. It\nis she who awakens in Eabani a sense of dignity which made him superior\nto the animals. The word translated 'companion'[884] may be\nappropriately applied to Ukhat. Eabani clings to her, as Adam does to\nEve after she 'is brought'[885] to him. Ukhat becomes Eabani's\n'companion,' just as Eve becomes the 'helpmate' of Adam.\n\nThese considerations strengthen the supposition that the Eabani-Ukhat\nepisode is quite distinct from the career of Gilgamesh. Had the epic\noriginated in Babylon or Nippur, Eabani and Ukhat would have been\nbrought to Babylon or Nippur. As it is, Eabani asks Ukhat to conduct him\n\n  To the glorious dwelling, the sacred seat of Anu and Ishtar,\n  To the seat of Gilgamesh, perfect in power,\n  Surpassing men in strength like a mountain bull.\n\nUnfortunately, the tablet at this point is defective,[886] and the\nfollowing three tablets are represented by small fragments only, from\nwhich it is exceedingly difficult to determine more than the general\ncourse of the narrative.\n\nUkhat and Eabani proceed to Uruk. There is an interesting reference to\n'a festival' and to festive garments,[887] but whether, as would appear,\nUkhat and Eabani are the ones who clothe themselves[888] upon reaching\nUruk or whether, as Jeremias believes, a festival was being celebrated\nat the place it is impossible to say. Eabani is warned in a dream not to\nundertake a test of strength with Gilgamesh,[889]\n\n  Whose power is stronger than thine,\n  Who rests not, ... neither by day or night.\n  O Eabani, change thy ...\n  Shamash loves Gilgamesh,\n  Anu, Bel, and Ea have given him wisdom.\n  Before thou comest from the mountain\n  Gilgamesh in Uruk will see thy dream.[890]\n\nDreams play an important part in the epic. They constitute the regular\nmeans of communication between man and the gods, so regular that at\ntimes the compilers of the epic do not find it necessary to specify the\nfact, but take it for granted. To Gilgamesh, Eabani's coming is revealed\nand he asks his mother Aruru to interpret the dream.\n\nThe third and fourth tablets take us back to the history of Uruk.\nGilgamesh, aided by his patron Shamash, succeeds in gaining Eabani as a\n'companion' in a contest that is to be waged against Khumbaba, who\nthreatens Uruk. The name of this enemy is Elamitic, and it has been\ncustomary to refer the campaign against him to the tradition recorded by\nBerosus of a native uprising against Elamitic rule, which took place\nabout 2400 B.C.[891] It must be said, however, that there is no\nsatisfactory evidence for this supposition. Elam, lying to the east of\nthe Euphrates, was at all times a serious menace to Babylonia.\nHostilities with Elam are frequent before and after the days of\nHammurabi. If Gilgamesh, as seems certain, is a Cassite,[892] the\nconflict between him and Khumbaba would represent a rivalry among\nCassitic or Elamitic hordes for the possession of Uruk and of the\nsurrounding district. While the Cassites do not come to the front till\nthe eighteenth century, at which time the center of their kingdom is\nNippur, there is every reason to believe that they were settled in the\nEuphrates Valley long before that period. The course of conquest--as of\ncivilization in Babylonia--being from the south to the north, we would\nbe justified in looking for the Cassites in Uruk before they extended\ntheir dominion to Nippur. At all events, the conflict between Gilgamesh\nand Khumbaba must be referred to a much more ancient period than the\nrise of the city of Babylon as a political center.\n\nShamash and Gilgamesh promise Eabani royal honors if he will join\nfriendship with them.\n\n  Come, and on a great couch,\n  On a fine couch he[893] will place thee.\n  He will give thee a seat to the left.\n  The rulers of the earth will kiss thy feet.\n  All the people of Uruk will crouch before thee.\n\nEabani consents, and in company with Gilgamesh proceeds to the fortress\nof Khumbaba. It is a long and hard road that they have to travel. The\nterror inspired by Khumbaba is compared to that aroused by a violent\nstorm, but Gilgamesh receives assurances, in no less than three dreams,\nthat he will come forth unharmed out of the ordeal.\n\nThe fortress of Khumbaba is situated in a grove of wonderful grandeur,\nin the midst of which there is a large cedar, affording shade and\ndiffusing a sweet odor. The description reminds one forcibly of the\ngarden of Eden, and the question suggests itself whether in this episode\nof the Gilgamesh epic, we have not again a composite production due to\nthe combination of Gilgamesh's adventures with the traditions regarding\nEabani. Unfortunately the description of the contest with Khumbaba is\nmissing. There is a reference to the tyrant's death,[894] but that is\nall. In the sixth tablet, Gilgamesh is celebrated as the victor and not\nEabani. We may conclude, therefore, that the episode belongs originally\nto Gilgamesh's career, and that Eabani has been introduced into it. On\nthe other hand, for Eabani to be placed in a beautiful garden would be a\nnatural consequence of his deserting the gazelles and cattle,--the\nreward, as it were, of his clinging to Ukhat. Separating the composite\nelements of the epic in this way, we have as distinct episodes in\nGilgamesh's career, the conquest of Uruk and of other places,[895] and\nhis successful campaign against Khumbaba. With this story there has been\ncombined a popular tradition of man's early savage state, his departure\nfrom this condition through the sexual passion aroused by Ukhat, who\nbecomes his 'companion,' and with whom or through whom he is led to a\nbeautiful garden as a habitation.\n\nThe sixth tablet introduces a third element into the epic,--a\nmythological one. The goddess Ishtar pleads for the love of Gilgamesh.\nShe is attracted to him by his achievements and his personality. The\ntablet begins with a description of the celebration of Gilgamesh's\nvictory. The hero exchanges his blood-stained clothes for white\ngarments, polishes his weapons, and places a crown on his head.\n\n  To secure the grace of Gilgamesh, the exalted Ishtar raises her eyes.\n  Come, Gilgamesh, be my husband,\n  Thy love[896] grant me as a gift,\n  Be thou my husband and I will be thy wife\n  I will place thee on a chariot of lapis lazuli and gold,\n  With wheels of gold and horns of sapphire (?)\n  Drawn by great ... steeds (?).\n  With sweet odor of cedars enter our house.\n  Upon entering our house,\n  ... will kiss thy feet.\n  Kings, lords, and princes will be submissive to thee,\n  Products of mountain and land, they will bring as tribute to thee.\n\nIshtar appears here as the goddess of love and fertility. As such she\npromises Gilgamesh also abundance of herds. But Gilgamesh rejects the\noffer, giving as his reason the sad fate encountered by these who were\nvictims of Ishtar's love:\n\n  Tammuz, the consort of thy youth (?),\n  Thou causest to weep every year.\n  The bright-colored _allallu_ bird thou didst love.\n  Thou didst crush him and break his pinions.\n  In the woods he stands and laments, \"O my pinions!\"\n  Thou didst love a lion of perfect strength,\n  Seven and seven times[897] thou didst bury him in the corners (?),\n  Thou didst love a horse superior in the fray,\n  With whip and spur[898] thou didst urge him on,\n  Thou didst force him on for seven double hours,[899]\n  Thou didst force him on when wearied and thirsty;\n  His mother Silili thou madest weep.\n\nIn this way Gilgamesh proceeds to upbraid the goddess, instancing, in\naddition, her cruel treatment of a shepherd, and apparently also of a\ngiant, whom she changed to a dwarf. The allusions, while obscure, are\nall of a mythological character. The weeping of Tammuz symbolizes the\ndecay of vegetation after the summer season. The misfortunes that\nafflict the bird, lion, and horse similarly indicate the loss of beauty\nand strength, which is the universal fate of those who once enjoyed\nthose attributes. Ishtar, as the great mother, produces life and\nstrength, but she is unable to make life and strength permanent. Popular\nbelief makes her responsible for decay and death, since life and\nfertility appear to be in her hand. Gilgamesh, as a popular hero, is\nbrought into association by popular traditions with Ishtar, as he is\nbrought into relationships with Eabani and Ukhat. A factor in this\nassociation was the necessity of accounting for Gilgamesh's death. As a\nhero, the favorite of the gods and invincible in battle, he ought to\nenjoy the privilege of the gods--immortality. The question had to be\nanswered how he came to forego this distinction. The insult he offers to\nIshtar is the answer to this question. Knowing that Ishtar, although the\ngiver of life, does not grant a continuance of it, he who is produced by\nAruru will have nothing to do with the great goddess. But his refusal\nleads to a dire punishment, more disastrous even than the alliance with\nIshtar, which would have culminated in his being eventually shorn of his\nstrength.\n\nIshtar, determined that Gilgamesh should not escape her, flies in rage\nto her father Anu, the god of heaven, and tells of the manner in which\nshe has been treated. Anu comforts her. Yielding to Ishtar's request he\ncreates a divine bull, known as Alu, _i.e._, the strong or supreme\none,[900] who is to destroy Gilgamesh. At this point in the narrative\nEabani is again introduced. Gilgamesh and Eabani together proceed to the\ncontest with the bull, as they formerly proceeded against Khumbaba. On\nseal cylinders this fight is frequently pictured.[901] In agreement with\nthe description in the narrative, Eabani takes hold of the tail of the\nanimal, while Gilgamesh despatches him by driving a spear into the\nbull's heart. Ishtar's plan is thus frustrated.\n\n  Ishtar mounts the wall of walled Uruk.\n  In violent rage she pronounces a curse:\n  \"Cursed be Gilgamesh, who has enraged me,\n  Who has killed the divine bull.\"\n\nEabani adds insult to injury by challenging the goddess.\n\n  Eabani, upon hearing these words of Ishtar,\n  Takes the carcass (?) of the divine bull and throws it into her face.\n  Woe to thee! I will subdue thee,\n  I will do to thee as I have done to him.[902]\n\nThe mythological motives that prompted the introduction of Ishtar into\nthis tablet now become apparent. The division of the epic into twelve\nparts is due to scholastic influences. It is certainly not accidental\nthat the calendar also consists of twelve months. While it is by no\nmeans the case that each tablet corresponds to some month, still in the\ncase of the sixth and, as we shall see, in the case of the seventh and\neleventh tablets, this correspondence is certain. The sixth month is\ndesignated as the month of the \"Mission of Ishtar.\" What this mission is\nwe shall see in a subsequent chapter.[903] In this month was celebrated\na festival to Tammuz, the young bridegroom of Ishtar, who is slain by\nthe goddess. The prophet Ezekiel gives us a picture of the weeping for\nTammuz,[904] which formed the chief ceremony of the day.\n\nIt is this character of the month that accounts not only for the\nintroduction of the Ishtar episode in the sixth tablet, but which finds\nfurther illustrations in the mourning which Ishtar and her attendants\nindulge in after the death of the divine bull.\n\n  Ishtar assembled the Kizreti,\n  Ukhalti and Kharimati.\n  Over the carcass of Alu they raised a lamentation.\n\nThese three classes of sacred prostitutes have already been dwelt\nupon.[905] With more material at our disposal regarding the cult of\nIshtar or Nana of Erech, we would be in a position to specify the\ncharacter of the rites performed at this temple. The statements of\nHerodotus and of other writers suffice, however, to show that the three\nterms represent classes of priestesses attached to the temple. In this\nrespect the Ishtar cult of Erech was not unique, for we have references\nto priestesses elsewhere. However, the function of the priestess in\nreligious history differs materially from that of the priest. She is not\na mediator between the god and his subjects, nor is she a representative\nof the deity. It is as a 'witch,' that by virtue of the association of\nideas above set forth,[906] she is able to determine the intentions of\nthe gods. Her power to do harm is supplemented by her ability to furnish\noracles. In this capacity we have already come across her,[907] and we\nmay assume that giving oracles constituted a chief function of the\npriestess in Babylonia. It was furthermore natural to conclude that as a\n'witch' and 'oracle-giver,' the priestess belonged to the deity from\nwhom she derived her power. When we come to the cult of a goddess like\nIshtar, who is the symbol of fertility, observances that illustrated\nthis central notion would naturally form an ingredient part of that\n'sympathetic magic,'--the imitation of an action in order to produce the\nreality--which dominates so large a proportion of early religious\nceremonialism. Among many nations the mysterious aspects of woman's\nfertility lead to rites that by a perversion of their original import\nappear to be obscene.[908] In the reference to the three classes of\nsacred prostitutes, we have an evidence that the Babylonian worship\nformed no exception to the rule. But with this proposition that the\nprostitutes were priestesses attached to the Ishtar cult and who look\npart in ceremonies intended to symbolize fertility, we must for the\npresent rest content.\n\nGilgamesh, secure in his victory, proceeds to offer the horns of the\ndivine bull to his patron Lugal-Marada, the 'king' of Marad, and who\nappears to be identical with Shamash himself. The offering is\naccompanied by gifts to the sanctuary of precious stones and oil. There\nis general rejoicing.\n\nThe episode of Gilgamesh's contest with the bull also belongs to the\nmythological phases of the epic. The bull is in Babylonian\nmythology[909] as among other nations a symbol of the storm. It is in\nhis role as a solar deity that Gilgamesh triumphs over the storm sent by\nAnu, that is, from on high. In the following chapter, we will come\nacross another form of this same myth suggested evidently, as was the\nfight of Marduk with Tiamat, by the annual storms raging in Babylonia.\nGilgamesh triumphs as does Marduk, but when once the summer solstice,\nwhich represents the sun's triumph, is past, the decline of the sun's\nstrength begins to set in. This is indicated by the subsequent course of\nthe narrative.\n\nThe scene of rejoicing at Gilgamesh's triumph is changed to one of\nsadness. Eabani is snatched away from Gilgamesh. The few fragments of\nthe seventh and eighth tablets do not suffice for determining exactly in\nwhat way this happened, but Ishtar is evidently the cause of the\nmisfortune. A fatal illness, it would seem, seizes hold of\nEabani,--whether as the result of a further contest or directly sent, it\nis impossible to say. For twelve days he lingers and then is taken away.\nAs usual, the catastrophe is foreseen in dreams. For a third time[910]\nhe sees a vision of fire and lightning, which forebodes the end.\n\nThe fragmentary condition of the epic at this point is particularly\nunfortunate. There is a reference to Nippur,[911] of which it would be\nimportant to know the purpose.\n\nThe relationship between Gilgamesh and Eabani would be much clearer if\nthe seventh and eighth tablets were preserved in good condition. The\ndisappearance of Eabani before the end of the epic confirms, however,\nthe view here maintained, that the career of Eabani was originally quite\nindependent of Gilgamesh's adventures. His death is as superfluous as is\nhis association with Eabani. In all critical moments Gilgamesh appears\nto stand alone. He conquers Uruk, and it is he who celebrates the\nvictory of the divine bull. The subsequent course of the narrative after\nEabani's death, except for the frequent mention of Gilgamesh's lament\nfor his companion, proceeds undisturbed. Moreover, Eabani's punishment\nappears to be identical with that meted out to Gilgamesh. The latter is\nalso stricken with disease, but in his case, the disease has a meaning\nthat fits in with the mythological phases of the epic. The seventh\nmonth--the one following the summer solstice--marks the beginning of a\nturning-point in the year. As the year advances, vegetation diminishes,\nand the conclusion was naturally drawn that the sun upon whom vegetation\ndepended had lost some of his force. This loss of strength is pictured\nas a disease with which the sun is afflicted. In this way, the seventh\ntablet--and possibly also the eighth--continues the nature myth embodied\nin the sixth.\n\nHaupt has ingeniously conjectured that the sickness which affects\nGilgamesh is of a venereal character. The hero wanders about in search\nof healing. His suffering is increased by his deep sorrow over the loss\nof his 'companion.' The death of Eabani presages his own destruction,\nand he dreads the dreary fate in store for him. The ninth tablet\nintroduces us to this situation.\n\n  Gilgamesh weeps for his companion Eabani.\n  In distress he is stretched out on the ground.[912]\n  'I will not die like Eabani.\n  Sorrow has entered my body.\n  Through fear of death, I lie stretched out on the ground.'\n\nHe determines to seek out a mysterious personage, whom he calls\nParnapishtim,[913] the son of Kidin-Marduk.[914] This personage has in\nsome way escaped the fate of mankind and enjoys immortal life. He is\ncalled the \"distant one.\" His dwelling is far off, \"at the confluence of\nthe streams.\" The road to the place is full of dangers, but Gilgamesh,\nundaunted, undertakes the journey. The hero himself furnishes the\ndescription.\n\n  I came to a glen at night,\n  Lions I saw and was afraid.\n  I raised my head and prayed to Sin.\n  To the leader (?) of the gods my prayer came.\n  [He heard my prayer (?)], and was gracious to me.\n\nOn many seal cylinders and on monuments, Gilgamesh is pictured in the\nact of fighting with or strangling a lion. In the preserved portions of\nthe epic no reference to this contest has been found.[915] We should\nlook for it at this point of the narrative. The following lines contain\na reference to weapons,--ax and sword,--and in so far justify the\nsupposition that some contest takes place. But the text is too mutilated\nto warrant further conjectures. After escaping from the danger\noccasioned by the lions, Gilgamesh comes to the mountain Mashu, which is\ndescribed as a place of terrors, the entrance to which is guarded by\n'scorpion-men.'\n\n  He reached the mountain Mashu,\n  Whose exit is daily guarded, ...\n  Whose back extends to the dam of heaven,\n  And whose breast[916] reaches to Aralu;[917]\n  Scorpion-men guard its gate,\n  Of terror-inspiring aspect, whose appearance is deadly,\n  Of awful splendor, shattering mountains.\n  At sunrise and sunset they keep guard over the sun.\n\nIt will be recalled that the earth is pictured by the Babylonians as a\nmountain. The description of Mashu is dependent upon this conception.\nThe mountain seems to be coextensive with the earth. The dam of heaven\nis the point near which the sun rises, and if the scorpion-men guard the\nsun at sunrise and sunset, the mountain must extend across to the gate\nthrough which the sun passes at night to dip into the great _Apsu_.[918]\n\nAralu is situated under the earth, and Mashu, reaching down to Aralu,\nmust be again coextensive with the earth in this direction. The\ndescription of Mashu accordingly is a reflex of the cosmological\nconceptions developed in Babylonia. The scorpion-men pictured on seal\ncylinders[919] belong to the mythical monsters, half-man, half-beast,\nwith which the world was peopled at the beginning of things. However,\nthere is also an historical background to the description. The name\nMashu appears in texts as the Arabian desert to the west and southwest\nof the Euphrates Valley.[920] It is called a land of dryness, where\nneither birds nor gazelles nor wild asses are found. Even the bold\nAssyrian armies hesitated before passing through this region. In the\nlight of the early relationships between Babylonia and Arabia,[921] this\nreference to Mashu may embody a tradition of some expedition to Southern\nArabia.[922] Beyond Mashu lay a great sea,--perhaps the Arabian\nSea,--which Gilgamesh is obliged to cross ere he reaches his goal.\n\nGilgamesh is terrified at the sight of these scorpion-men but the latter\nhave received notice of his coming and permit him to pass through the\ngate.\n\n  A scorpion-man addresses his wife:\n  \"He who comes to us is of divine appearance.\"\n\nThe wife of the scorpion-man agrees that Gilgamesh is in part divine,\nbut she adds that in part he is human. In further conversation, the\nscorpion-man announces that it is by express command of the gods that\nGilgamesh has come to the mountain. Gilgamesh approaches and tells the\nscorpion-man of his purpose. The hero, recovering his courage, is not\nheld back by the description that the scorpion-man gives him of the\ndangers that beset the one who ventures to enter the dreadful district.\nThe gate is opened and the journey begins.\n\n  He gropes his way for one double hour,\n  With dense darkness enclosing him on all sides.\n  He gropes his way for two double hours,\n  With dense darkness enclosing him on all sides.\n\nAfter traversing a distance of twenty-four hours' march, Gilgamesh\nbeholds a tree of splendid appearance, decorated with precious stones\nand bearing beautiful fruit. Finally he reaches the sea, where the\nmaiden Sabitum has her palace and throne. Upon seeing the hero, the\nmaiden locks the gates of her palace and will not permit Gilgamesh to\npass across the sea. Gilgamesh pleads with Sabitum, tells of the loss of\nhis friend Eabani, 'who has become dust,'[923] and whose fate he does\nnot wish to share.\n\n  Gilgamesh speaks to Sabitum:\n  \"[Now] Sabitum, which is the way to Parnapishtim?\n  If it is possible, let me cross the ocean.\n  If it is not possible, let me stretch myself on the ground.\"[924]\n  Sabitum speaks to Gilgamesh:\n  \"O Gilgamesh! there has never been a ferry,\n  And no one has ever crossed the ocean.\n  Shamash, the hero, has crossed it, but except Shamash, who can cross\n    it?\n  Difficult is the passage, very difficult the path.\n  Impassible (?) the waters of death that are guarded by a bolt.\n  How canst thou, O Gilgamesh, traverse the ocean?\n  And after thou hast crossed the waters of death, what wilt thou do?\"\n\nSabitum then tells Gilgamesh that there is one possibility of his\naccomplishing his task. If Ardi-Ea,[925] the ferryman[926] of\nParnapishtim, will take Gilgamesh across, well and good; if not, he must\nabandon all hope.\n\nThe ocean, though not expressly called _Apsu_, is evidently identical\nwith the great body of waters supposed to both surround the earth and to\nflow beneath it.[927] The reference to 'the waters of death' thus\nbecomes clear. The gathering-place of the dead being under the earth,\nnear to the _Apsu_, the great 'Okeanos' forms a means of approach to the\nnether world. It is into this ocean, forming part of the _Apsu_, that\nthe sun dips at evening and through which it passes during the night.\nThe scene between Gilgamesh and Sabitum accordingly is suggested, in\npart, by the same cosmological conceptions that condition the\ndescription of the mountain Mashu.\n\nSabitum herself is a figure that still awaits satisfactory explanation.\nShe is called the goddess Siduri.[928] The name of this goddess is found\nas an element in proper names, but of her traits we know nothing.\nSabitum appears originally to have been a term descriptive of her, and\nHommel[929] may be right in explaining the name as 'the one from\nSabu,'[930] and in taking the latter as the name of a district in\nArabia. It is tempting to think of the famous Saba in Southern Arabia.\nObedient to the advice of Sabitum, Gilgamesh tells Ardi-Ea his story and\nalso his desire.\n\n  Now Ardi-Ea, which is the way to [Parnapishtim?].\n  If it is possible, let me cross the ocean,\n  And if not possible, let me lie outstretched on the ground.\n\nArdi-Ea consents, and tells Gilgamesh to take his ax, to go into the\nwoods, and to cut down a large pole that may serve as a rudder.\n\n  Gilgamesh, upon hearing this,\n  Takes an ax in his hand, ...\n  Goes to the wood and makes a rudder five gar[931] long.\n  Gilgamesh and Ardi-Ea mount the ship.\n\n  ...\n\n  The ship tosses from side to side.\n  After a course of one month and fifteen days, on the third day[932]\n  Ardi-Ea reaches the waters of death.\n\nThis appears to be the most dangerous part of the voyage. Ardi-Ea urges\nGilgamesh to cling to the rudder, and counts the strokes he is to\ntake.[933] The waters are not extensive, for only twelve strokes are\nenumerated; but the current is so strong that it is with the utmost\ndifficulty that Gilgamesh succeeds in passing through them. At last,\nGilgamesh is face to face with Parnapishtim. The latter is astonished to\nsee a living person come across the waters. Gilgamesh addresses\nParnapishtim from the ship, recounts his deeds, among which we\ndistinguish[934] the killing of a panther, of Alu, of the divine bull,\nand of Khumbaba. The death of Eabani is also dwelt upon, and then\nGilgamesh pleads with Parnapishtim, tells him of the long, difficult way\nthat he has traveled, and of all that he has encountered on the road.\n\n  Difficult lands I passed through,\n  All seas I crossed.\n\nParnapishtim expresses his sympathy:\n\n  Gilgamesh has filled his heart with woe,\n  But neither gods nor men [can help him (?)].\n\nParnapishtim thereupon addresses Gilgamesh, showing him how impossible\nit is for any mortal to escape death. The inexorable law will prevail as\nlong as 'houses continue to be built,' as long as 'friendships' and\n'hostilities' prevail, as long 'as the waters fill (?) the sea.' The\nAnunnaki, the great gods, and the goddess Mammitum, the creators of\neverything\n\n  Determine death and life.\n  No one knows the days of death.[935]\n\nAt this point Gilgamesh propounds a most natural question: How comes it,\nif what Parnapishtim says is true, that the latter is alive, while\npossessing all the traits of a human being? The eleventh tablet of the\nepic begins:\n\n  Gilgamesh speaks to him, to Parnapishtim, the far-removed:\n  \"I gaze at thee in amazement, Parnapishtim.\n  Thy appearance is normal. As I am, so art thou.\n  Thy entire nature[936] is normal. As I am, so art thou.\n  Thou art completely equipped for the fray.[937]\n  Armor[938] (?) thou hast placed upon thee.\n  Tell me how thou didst come to obtain eternal life among the gods.\"\n\nIn reply, Parnapishtim tells the story of his escape from the common\nfate of mankind. The story is a long one and has no connection with the\ncareer of Gilgamesh. It embodies a recollection of a rain-storm that\nonce visited a city, causing a general destruction, but from which\nParnapishtim and his family miraculously escaped. The main purport of\nthe tale is not to emphasize this miracle, but the far greater one that,\nafter having been saved from the catastrophe, Parnapishtim should also\nhave been granted immortal life. The moral, however, is that the\nexception proves the rule. With this tradition of the destruction of a\ncertain place, there has been combined a nature myth symbolizing the\nannual overflow of the Euphrates, and the temporary disappearance of all\nland that this inundation brought about, prior to the elaborate canal\nsystem that was developed in the valley. It is the same myth that we\nhave come across in the creation epic and which, as we have seen, was\ninstrumental in moulding the advanced cosmological conceptions of the\nBabylonians.\n\nIn Parnapishtim's tale, the myth is given a more popular form. There is\nno attempt made to impart a scholastic interpretation to it. In keeping\nwith what we have seen to be the general character of the Gilgamesh\nepic, the episode introduced at this point embodies popular traditions\nand, on the whole, popular conceptions. The spirit of the whole epic is\nthe same that we find in the Thousand and One Nights or in the Arabian\nromance of Antar.\n\nThe oriental love of story-telling has produced the Gilgamesh epic and,\nlike a true story, it grows in length, the oftener it is told. Gilgamesh\nis merely a peg upon which various current traditions and myths are\nhung. Hence the combination of Gilgamesh's adventures with those of\nEabani, and hence also the association of Gilgamesh with Parnapishtim. A\ntrace, perhaps, of scholastic influence may be seen in the purport of\nParnapishtim's narrative to prove the hopelessness of man's securing\nimmortality; and yet, while the theology of the schools may thus have\nhad some share in giving to the tale of Parnapishtim its present shape,\nthe problem presented by Gilgamesh's adventures is a popular rather than\na scholastic one. Even to the primitive mind, for whom life rather than\ndeath constitutes the great mystery to be solved, the question would\nsuggest itself whether death is an absolutely necessary phase through\nwhich man must pass. The sun, moon, and stars do not die, the streams\nhave perpetual life; and since all manifestations of life were looked at\nfrom one point of view, why should not man also remain alive? Beyond\nsome touches in the narrative, we may, therefore, regard Parnapishtim's\nstory, together with the 'lesson' it teaches, as an interesting trace of\nthe early theology as it took shape in the popular mind. What adds\ninterest to the story that Parnapishtim tells, is its close resemblance\nto the Biblical story of the Deluge. It also recalls the destruction of\nSodom, and we shall have occasion[939] to show the significance of these\npoints of contact. Bearing in mind the independent character of the\nParnapishtim episode, and the motives that led to its being incorporated\nin the adventures of Gilgamesh, we may proceed with our analysis of this\ninteresting eleventh tablet. Thanks to the labors of Haupt, the numerous\nfragments of it representing several copies, have been pieced together\nso as to form an almost complete text.[940] In reply to Gilgamesh's\nqueries,\n\n  Parnapishtim spoke to Gilgamesh:\n  \"I will tell thee, Gilgamesh, the secret story,\n  And the secret of the gods I will tell thee.\n  The city Shurippak, a city which, as thou knowest,\n  Lies on the Euphrates,\n  That city was old,[941] for the gods thereof,\n  Decided to bring a rainstorm upon it.\n  All of the great gods, Anu, their father,\n  Their counsellor, the warrior Bel,\n  The herald Ninib,\n  Their leader En-nugi,\n  The lord of unsearchable wisdom, Ea, was with them,\n  To proclaim their resolve to the reed-huts.\n  Reed-hut, reed-hut, wall, wall!\n  Reed-hut, hear! Wall, give ear!\"\n\nThe ordinary houses of Babylonia were constructed of reeds, while the\ntemples and palaces were built of hard-baked clay. \"Reed-hut\" and \"clay\nstructure,\" thus embracing the architecture of the country, are\npoetically used to designate the inhabitants of Shurippak. The address\nto the huts and structures has been appropriately compared by Professor\nHaupt to the opening words of Isaiah's prophecies.[942]\n\n  Hear, Heavens! and give ear, Earth!\n\nEa's words are intended as a warning to the people of Shurippak. The\nwarning comes appropriately from Ea as the god of humanity, who\naccording to some traditions is also the creator of mankind, and who is\nthe teacher and protector of mankind. Opposed to Ea is Bel, the old Bel\nof Nippur, who is represented as favoring the destruction of humanity.\nThe story in this way reflects a rivalry between the Ea and Bel cults.\n\nOf Shurippak, against which the anger of the gods is enkindled, we\nunfortunately know nothing,[943] but it is fair to assume that there was\nan ancient city of that name, and which was destroyed by an overflow of\nthe Euphrates during the rainy season. The city need not necessarily\nhave been one of much importance. Its sad fate would naturally have\nimpressed itself upon the memory of the people, and given rise to\nlegends precisely as the disappearance of Sodom[944] or of the\ndestruction of the tribes of Ad and Thamud gave rise to fantastic\nstories among Hebrews and Arabs respectively.[945]\n\nEa, not content with the general warning, sends a special message to\nParnapishtim, one of the inhabitants of Shurippak.\n\n  O man of Shurippak, son of Kidin-Marduk![946]\n  Erect a structure,[947] build a ship,\n  Abandon your goods, look after the souls,[948]\n  Throw aside your possessions, and save your life,\n  Load the ship with all kinds of living things.\n\nThe god then tells Parnapishtim in what manner to build the ship. Its\ndimensions should be carefully measured. Its breadth and depth should be\nequal, and when it is finished, Parnapishtim is to float it. The warning\nfrom Ea comes to him in a dream, as we learn from a subsequent part of\nthe story. Parnapishtim does not deem it necessary to dwell upon this,\nfor it is only through dreams that the gods communicate with kings and\nheroes.\n\nParnapishtim declares his readiness to obey the orders of Ea, but like\nMoses upon receiving the command of Yahwe, he asks what he should say\nwhen people question him.\n\n  What shall I answer the city, the people, and the elders?\n\nEa replies:\n\n  Thus answer and speak to them:\n  Bel has cast me out in his hatred,\n  So that I can no longer dwell in your city.\n  On Bel's territory I dare no longer show my face;\n  Therefore, I go to the 'deep' to dwell with Ea my lord.\n\nBel's domain is the earth, while Ea controls the watery elements. Bel's\nhostility to mankind is limited to the inhabitants of the dry land. The\nmoment that Parnapishtim enters Ea's domain he is safe. The answer thus\nnot only furnishes the real motive for the building of the ship, but\nfurther illustrates the purport of the narrative in its present form. It\nis a glorification of Ea at the expense of Bel, and it is not difficult\nto detect the thought underlying the story that the evils afflicting\nmankind on earth are due to the hostility of the 'chief demon,'[949] who\nbecomes the controller of the earth and of the atmosphere immediately\nabove the earth. Ea's answer is not intended to be equivocal, for he\nfurther orders Parnapishtim to announce to his fellow-citizens the\ncoming destruction.\n\n  Over you a rainstorm will come,\n  Men, birds, and beasts will perish.\n\nThe following line[950] is defective, but it appears to except from the\ngeneral destruction the fish as the inhabitants of the domain controlled\nby Ea. The time when the catastrophe is to take place is vaguely\nindicated.\n\n  When Shamash will bring on the time, then the lord of the whirlstorm\n  Will cause destruction to rain upon you in the evening.\n\nThe 'lord of the whirlstorm' is Ramman, and the reference to this deity\nspecifies the manner in which the catastrophe will be brought about. As\nin the Biblical story, 'the windows of heaven are to be opened,' the\nrains will come down, driven by the winds that are to be let loose. It\nhas been supposed that because the ship of Parnapishtim drifts to the\nnorth that the storm came from the south.[951] No stress, however, is\nlaid upon the question of direction in the Babylonian narrative. The\nphenomenon of a whirlstorm with rain is of ordinary occurrence; its\nviolence alone makes it an exceptional event, but--be it noted--not a\nmiraculous one. Nor are we justified in attributing the deluge to the\nrush of waters from the Persian Gulf, for this sheet of water is\nparticularly sacred to Ea as the beginning of the \"great deep.\" It would\nbe an insult to Ea's dignity to suppose that he is unable to govern his\nown territory. The catastrophe comes from above, from Ramman and his\nassociates who act at the instigation of the belligerent Bel.\n\nParnapishtim begins at once to build the ship. He gathers his material,\nand on the fifth day is ready to construct the hull. The ship resembles\nthe ordinary craft still used on the Euphrates. It is a flat-bottomed\nskiff with upturned edges. On this shell the real 'house'[952] of\nParnapishtim is placed. The structure is accurately described. Its\nheight is one hundred and twenty cubits, and its breadth is the same, in\naccordance with the express orders given by Ea. No less than six floors\nare erected, one above the other.\n\n  Then I built six stories,[953]\n  So that the whole consisted of seven apartments.\n  The interior[954] I divided into nine parts.\n\nThe structure may properly be called a 'house boat,' and its elaborate\ncharacter appears from the fact that it contains no less than\nsixty-three compartments. Parnapishtim carefully provides plugs to fill\nout all crevices, and furthermore smears a large quantity of bitumen\nwithout and within.\n\n  I provided a pole,[955] and all that was necessary,\n  Six _sar_[956] of bitumen[957] I smeared on the outside,[958]\n  Three _sar_ of pitch [I smeared] on the inside.\n\nHe also has a large quantity of oil placed on the boat, oxen, jars\nfilled with mead[959] oil, and wine for a festival, which he institutes\nat the completion of the structure. The preparations are on a large\nscale, as for the great New Year's Day celebrated in Babylonia. The ship\nis launched, and, if Professor Haupt is correct in his interpretation,\nthe ship took water to the extent of two-thirds of its height.\n\n  The side of the ship dipped two-thirds into water.\n\nParnapishtim now proceeds to take his family and chattels on board.\n\n  All that I had, I loaded on the ship.\n  With all the silver that I had, I loaded it,\n  With all the gold that I had, I loaded it,\n  With living creatures of all kinds I loaded it.\n  I brought on board my whole family and household,\n  Cattle of the field, beasts of the field, workmen,--all this I took\n    on board.\n\nParnapishtim is ready to enter the ship, but he waits until the time\nfixed for the storm arrives.\n\n  When the time came\n  For the lord of the whirlstorm to rain down destruction,\n  I gazed at the earth,\n  I was terrified at its sight,\n  I entered the ship, and closed the door.\n  To the captain of the ship, to Puzur-Shadurabu,[960] the sailor,\n  I entrusted the structure[961] with all its contents.\n\nThe description of the storm follows, in diction at once impressive and\nforcible.\n\n  Upon the first appearance of dawn,\n  There arose from the horizon dark clouds,\n  Within which Ramman caused his thunder to resound.\n  Nabu and Sharru[962] marched at the front,\n  The destroyers passed across mountains and land,\n  Dibbarra[963] lets loose the....[964]\n  Ninib advances in furious hostility.\n  The Anunnaki raise torches,\n  Whose sheen illumines the universe,\n  As Ramman's whirlwind sweeps the heavens,\n  And all light is changed to darkness.\n\nThe destructive elements, thunder, lightning, storm, rain, are thus let\nloose. The dreadful storm lasts for seven days. The terror of men and\ngods is splendidly portrayed.\n\n  Brother does not look after brother,\n  Men care not for another. In the heavens,\n  Even the gods are terrified at the storm.\n  They take refuge in the heaven of Anu.[965]\n  The gods cowered like dogs at the edge of the heavens.\n\nWith this description the climax in the narrative is reached. The\nreaction begins. Ishtar is the first to bewail the destruction that has\nbeen brought about, and her example is followed by others of the gods.\n\n  Ishtar groans like a woman in throes,\n  The lofty goddess cries with loud voice,\n  The world of old has become a mass of clay.[966]\n\nIshtar appears here in the role of the mother of mankind. She feels that\nshe has none but herself to blame for the catastrophe, for, as one of\nthe great gods, she must have been present at the council when the storm\nwas decided on, and must have countenanced it. She therefore reproaches\nherself:\n\n  That I should have assented[967] to this evil among the gods!\n  That when I assented to this evil,\n  I was for the destruction of my own creatures![968]\n  What I created, where is it?\n  Like so many fish, it[969] fills the sea.\n\nFrom the words of Ishtar it would appear that the storm had assumed\nlarger dimensions than the gods, or at least than some of them, had\nanticipated. At the beginning of the episode, Shurippak alone is\nmentioned, and Ishtar apparently wishes to say that when she agreed to\nthe bringing on of the storm, she was not aware that she was decreeing\nthe destruction of all mankind. It is evident that two distinct\ntraditions have been welded together in the present form of the\nBabylonian document, one recalling the destruction of a single city, the\nother embodying in mythological form the destructive rains of Babylonia\nthat were wont to annually flood the entire country before the canal\nsystem was perfected.\n\nSome particularly destructive season may have formed an additional\nfactor in the combination of the traditions. At all events, the storm\nappears to have got beyond the control of the gods, and none but Bel\napproves of the widespread havoc that has been wrought. It is no unusual\nphenomenon in ancient religions to find the gods powerless to control\noccurrences that they themselves produced. The Anunnaki--even more\ndirectly implicated than Ishtar in bringing on the catastrophe--join the\ngoddess in her lament at the complete destruction wrought.\n\n  The gods, together with the Anunnaki, wept with her.\n  The gods, in their depression, sat down to weep,\n  Pressed their lips together, were overwhelmed with grief (?).\n  The storm could no longer be quieted.\n  For six days and nights\n  Wind, rain-storm, hurricane swept along;\n  When the seventh day arrived, the storm began to moderate,\n  Which had waged a contest like a great host.\n  The sea quieted down, wind and rain-storm ceased.\n\nParnapishtim then gazes at the destruction.\n\n  Bitterly weeping I looked at the sea,\n  For all mankind had been turned to clay.[970]\n  In place of dams, everything had become a marsh.\n  I opened a hole so as to let the light fall upon my face,\n  And dumbfounded, I sat down and wept.\n  Tears flowed down my face.\n  I looked in all directions,--naught but sea.\n\nBut soon the waters began to diminish.\n\n  After twelve double hours[971] an island appeared,\n  The ship approached the mountain Nisir.\n\nThe name given to the first promontory to appear is significant. _Nisir_\nsignifies 'protection' or 'salvation.' The houseboat clings to this\nspot.\n\n  At this mountain, the mountain Nisir, the boat stuck fast.\n\nFor six days the boat remains in the same position. At the beginning of\nthe seventh day, Parnapishtim endeavors to ascertain whether the waters\nhave abated sufficiently to permit him to leave the boat.\n\n  When the seventh day approached\n  I sent forth a dove.\n  The dove flew about\n  But, finding no resting place, returned;\n  Then I sent forth a swallow.\n  The swallow flew about\n  But, finding no resting place, returned;\n  Then I sent forth a raven.\n  The raven flew off, and, seeing that the waters had decreased,\n  Cautiously[972] (?) waded in the mud, but did not return.\n\nParnapishtim is satisfied, leaves the ship, and brings a sacrifice to\nthe gods on the top of the mountain. In seven large bowls he places\ncalamus, cedarwood, and incense.\n\n  The gods inhaled the odor,\n  The gods inhaled the sweet odor,\n  The gods gathered like flies around the sacrificer.\n\nA solemn scene ensues. Ishtar, the 'mistress of the gods,' swears by the\nnecklace given to her by her father, Anu, that she will never forget\nthese days.\n\n  Let the gods come to the sacrifice,[973]\n  But Bel must not come to the sacrifice;\n  Since, without consultation,[974] he caused the rain-storm,\n  And handed over my creation[975] to destruction.\n\nBel thus appears to be the one who alone knew of the extent which the\ndestruction was destined to reach. The annihilation of all mankind was\nhis work, undertaken without consulting his associates. The latter were\naware only of the intended destruction of a single place,--Shurippak.\n\nAt this moment Bel approaches. He does not deny his deed, but is enraged\nthat the planned destruction should not have been complete, since\nParnapishtim and his household have escaped.\n\n  As Bel approached\n  And saw the ship, he was enraged,\n  Filled with anger against the gods--the Igigi.\n  'What person has escaped (?)?\n  No one was to survive the destruction.'\n\nNinib reveals the fact of Ea's interference:\n\n  Ninib opened his mouth and spoke, spoke to the belligerent Bel:\n  \"Who but Ea could have done this?\n  For is it not Ea who knows all arts?\"\n\nEa appeals to Bel:\n\n  Ea opened his mouth and spoke, spoke to the belligerent Bel:\n  \"Thou art the belligerent leader of the gods,\n  But why didst thou, without consultation, bring on the rainstorm?\n  Punish the sinner for his sins,\n  Punish the evil-doer for his evil deeds,\n  But be merciful so as not to root out completely,\n  Be considerate not to destroy everything.\"\n\nThe terrors inspired by the deluge are well portrayed in the\ncontinuation of Ea's speech. He tells Bel that he should have brought on\nanything but a deluge.\n\n  Instead of bringing on a deluge,\n  Let lions come and diminish mankind.[976]\n  Instead of bringing on a deluge,\n  Let tigers come and diminish mankind.\n  Instead of bringing on a deluge,\n  Let famine come and smite the land.\n  Instead of bringing on a deluge,\n  Let pestilence[977] come and waste the land.\n\nEa then confesses that through his instigation Parnapishtim was saved.\n\n  While I did not reveal the decision of the great gods,\n  I sent Adra-Khasis[978] a dream which told him of the decision of the\n    gods.\n\nIt is a misconception to regard this answer of the god as equivocal. Ea\nmeans to say that he did not interfere with the divine decree. He simply\ntold Parnapishtim to build a ship, leaving to the latter to divine the\nreason. Ea, it is true, tells Parnapishtim of Bel's hatred, but he does\nnot reveal the secret of the gods. After Ea's effective speech Bel is\nreconciled, and the scene closes dramatically, as follows:\n\n  Bel came to his senses,\n  Stepped on board of the ship,\n  Took me by the hand and lifted me up,\n  Brought up my wife, and caused her to kneel at my side,\n  Turned towards us, stepped between us, and blessed us.\n  'Hitherto Parnapishtim was human,[979]\n  But now Parnapishtim and his wife shall be gods like us.[980]\n  Parnapishtim shall dwell in the distance, at the confluence of the\n    streams.'\n  Then they took me and placed me in the distance, at the confluence of\n    the streams.\n\nThe streams are, according to Haupt,[981] the four rivers--Euphrates,\nTigris, Karun, and Kercha, which at one time emptied their waters\nindependently into the Persian Gulf. Parnapishtim's dwelling-place is\nidentical with the traditional Paradise of the Babylonians and Hebrews.\n\nIt will be proper before leaving the subject, to dwell briefly upon the\npoints of contact between this Babylonian tale and the Biblical\nnarrative of the Deluge. The source of the tradition must be sought in\nthe Euphrates Valley. The ark of Noah can only be understood in the\nlight of methods of navigation prevailing in Babylonia; and it is in\nBabylonia, and not Palestine, that the phenomenon was annually seen of\nlarge portions of land disappearing from view.\n\nThe Babylonian tale is to be differentiated, as already suggested, into\ntwo parts,--the destruction of Shurippak and the annual phenomenon of\nthe overflow of the Euphrates. The combination of these two elements\nresults in the impression conveyed by Parnapishtim's narrative that the\nrain-storm took on larger dimensions than was originally anticipated by\nthe gods. The Biblical narrative is based upon this combination, but\ndiscarding those portions of the tale which are of purely local interest\nmakes the story of a deluge, a medium for illustrating the favor shown\nby Yahwe towards the righteous man, as represented by Noah. The Biblical\nnarrative ends, as does the Babylonian counterpart, with the assurance\nthat a deluge will not sweep over the earth again; but viewed from a\nmonotheistic aspect, this promise is interpreted as signifying the\nestablishment of eternal laws,--a thought that is wholly foreign to the\npurpose of the Babylonian narrative.\n\nThe slight variations between the Biblical and Babylonian narratives,\nand upon which it is needless to dwell, justify the conclusion that the\nHebrew story is not directly borrowed from the Babylonian version.[982]\nThe divergences are just of the character that will arise through the\nindependent development and the independent interpretation of a common\ntradition. The destruction of Shurippak has a Biblical parallel in the\ndestruction of Sodom[983] and of the surrounding district. Sodom, like\nShurippak, is a city full of wickedness. Lot and his household are saved\nthrough direct intervention, just as Parnapishtim and his family escape\nthrough the intervention of Ea. Moreover, there are traces in the Sodom\nnarrative of a tradition which once gave a larger character to it,\ninvolving the destruction of all mankind,[984] much as the destruction\nof Shurippak is enlarged by Babylonian traditions into a general\nannihilation of mankind. It is to be noted, too, that no emphasis is\nlaid upon Lot's piety, and in this respect, as in others, Parnapishtim\nbears more resemblance to Lot than to Noah.\n\nThe hostility between Bel and Ea, which we have seen plays a part in the\nBabylonian narrative, belongs to the larger mythological element in the\nepisode, not to the specific Shurippak incident. Bel, as the god whose\ndominion includes the atmosphere above the earth, controls the 'upper\nwaters.' At his instigation these waters descend and bring destruction\nwith them. But Ea's dominion--the 'deep' and the streams--are beneficent\npowers. The descent of the upper waters is in the nature of an attack\nupon Ea's kingdom. It is through Ea that the mischief produced by Bel is\nagain made good. Such a conception falls within the domain of popular\nmythology. An ancient rivalry between Nippur, the seat of Bel and Eridu\n(or some other seat of Ea worship), may also have entered as a factor,\nif not in giving rise to the story, at least in maintaining it. If this\nbe so, the story would belong to a period earlier than Hammurabi,[985]\nsince with the ascendancy of Babylon and of Marduk, the general tendency\nof religious thought is towards imbuing the gods with a kindly spirit\ntowards one another, joining issues, as in the creation epic, for the\nglorification of Marduk. The absence of Marduk from the deluge story is\nanother indication of the antiquity of the tradition.\n\nComing back now to the epic, Parnapishtim, whose sympathy has been\naroused by the sight of Gilgamesh, makes an attempt to heal the hero of\nhis illness.\n\n  The life that thou seekest, thou wilt obtain. Now sleep!\n\nGilgamesh falls into a heavy stupor, and continues in this state for six\ndays and seven nights. An interesting dialogue ensues between\nParnapishtim and his wife.\n\n  Parnapishtim says to his wife:\n  \"Look at the man whose desire is life.\n  Sleep has fallen upon him like a storm.\"\n  Says the wife to Parnapishtim:\n  \"Transform him, let the man eat of the charm-root,[986]\n  Let him return, restored in health, on the road that he came.\n  Through the gage let him pass out, back to his country.\"\n  Parnapishtim says to his wife:\n  \"The torture of the man pains thee.\n  Cook the food[987] for him and place it at his head.\"\n\nIt is interesting to note that the woman appears as the exorciser of the\ndisease. The wife of Parnapishtim--whose name is not mentioned as little\nas is the wife of Noah or Lot--proceeds to prepare the magic food. A\nplant of some kind is taken and elaborately treated.\n\n  While he[988] slept on board of his ship,\n  She cooked the food and placed it at his head.\n  While he[988] slept on board of his vessel,\n  Firstly, his food ... ;\n  Secondly, it was peeled;\n  Thirdly, moistened;\n  Fourthly, his bowl (?) was cleansed;\n  Fifthly, _Shiba_[989] was added;\n  Sixthly, it was cooked;\n  Seventhly, of a sudden the man was transformed and ate the magic\n    food.[990]\n\nGilgamesh awakes and asks what has been done to him. Parnapishtim tells\nhim. But Gilgamesh is not completely healed. His body is still covered\nwith sores. The magic potion must be followed by immersion into the\nfountain of life. Parnapishtim instructs Ardi-Ea to convey Gilgamesh to\nthis fountain. He speaks to the ferryman.\n\n  The man whom thou hast brought is covered with sores.\n  The eruption on his skin has destroyed the beauty of his body.\n  Take him, O Ardi-Ea, to the place of purification,\n  To wash his sores in the water, that he may become white as snow.\n  Let the ocean carry off the eruption on his skin,\n  That his body may become pure.[991]\n  Let his turban be renewed and the garment that covers his nakedness.\n\nArdi-Ea carries out these instructions and Gilgamesh at last is healed.\nThe hero is now ready to return to his land. But though returning in\nrestored health, he is not proof against death. Parnapishtim, at the\nsuggestion of his wife, reveals the 'secret of life' to Gilgamesh just\nbefore the latter's departure. The ship is brought nearer to the shore,\nand Parnapishtim tells Gilgamesh of a plant that wounds as a thistle,\nbut which possesses wonderful power. Gilgamesh departs on the ship, and\nwith the help of Ardi-Ea finds this plant, which is called 'the\nrestoration of old age to youth.' It is a long journey to the place. The\nplant grows at the side or at the bottom of a fountain. Gilgamesh\nsecures it, but scarcely have his hands grasped the plant when it slips\nout of his hand and is snatched away by a demon that takes on the form\nof a serpent. All is lost! Gilgamesh sits down and weeps bitter tears.\nHe pours out his woe to Ardi-Ea, but there is nothing left except to\nreturn to Uruk. He reaches the city in safely. His mission--the search\nfor immortality--has failed. Though healed from his disease, the fate of\nmankind--old age and death--is in store for him. With the return to Uruk\nthe eleventh tablet ends. It but remains, before passing on, to note\nthat the narrative of the deluge in this tablet is connected with the\ncharacter of the eleventh month, which is called the 'month of rain.' We\nmay conclude from this that the mythological element in the story--the\nannual overflow--predominates the local incident of the destruction of\nShurippak. Gilgamesh, we must bear in mind, has nothing to do with\neither the local tale or the myth, except to give to both an\ninterpretation that was originally foreign to the composite narrative.\n\nIn the twelfth tablet--which is in large part obscure--we find Gilgamesh\nwandering from one temple to the other, from the temple of Bel to that\nof Ea, lamenting for Eabani, and asking, again and again, what has\nbecome of his companion. What has been his fate since he was taken away\nfrom the land of the living? The hero, now convinced, as it seems, that\ndeath will come to him, and reconciled in a measure to his fate, seeks\nto learn another secret,--the secret of existence after death. He\nappeals to the gods of the nether world to grant him at least a sight of\nEabani. Nergal, the chief of this pantheon, consents.\n\n  ... he opened the earth,\n  And the spirit[992] of Eabani\n  He caused to rise up like a wind.\n\nGilgamesh puts his question to Eabani:\n\n  Tell me, my companion, tell me, my companion,\n  The nature of the land which thou hast experienced, oh! tell me.\n\nEabani replies:\n\n  I cannot tell thee, my friend, I cannot tell thee!\n\nHe seems to feel that Gilgamesh could not endure the description. The\nlife after death, as will be shown in a subsequent chapter, is not\npictured by the Babylonians as joyous. Eabani reveals glimpses of the\nsad conditions that prevail there. It is the domain of the terrible\nAllatu, and Etana[993] is named among those who dwell in this region.\nEabani bewails his fate.[994] He curses Ukhat, whom, together with Sadu,\nhe holds responsible for having brought death upon him. In Genesis, it\nwill be recalled, death likewise is viewed as the consequence of Adam's\nyielding to the allurements of Eve. Special significance, too, attaches\nto the further parallel to be drawn between Adam's punishment and\nEabani's fate.\n\n  Dust thou art, and unto dust shall thou return\n\napplies to Eabani as well as to Adam. He was formed of clay, as we have\nseen,[995] and when he dies he is 'turned to clay.'[996] Still the\nfortunes awaiting those who die are not alike. Those who die in battle\nseem to enjoy special privileges, provided, however, they are properly\nburied and there is some one to make them comfortable in their last hour\nand to look after them when dead. Such persons are happy in comparison\nwith the fate in store for those who are neglected by the living. The\none who is properly cared for, who\n\n  On a soft couch rests,\n  Drinking pure water,\n  Who dies in battle, as you and I have seen,[997]\n  His father and mother supporting his head,\n  His wife[998] ... at his side,--\n\nthe spirit of such a one is at rest. The circumstances attending death\npresage in a measure the individual's life after death.\n\n  But he whose corpse remains in the field,\n  As you and I have seen,\n  His spirit[999] has no rest in the earth.\n  The one whose spirit is not cared for by any one,\n  As you and I have seen,\n  He is consumed by gnawing hunger, by a longing for food.\n  What is left on the street he is obliged to eat.[1000]\n\nTo be left unburied was the greatest misfortune that could happen to a\ndead person.\n\nWith this sentiment the epic closes. Gilgamesh must rest content with\nthe unsatisfactory consolation that Eabani offers him. Man must die, and\nGilgamesh cannot escape the universal fate. Let him hope for and, if\npossible, provide for proper burial when death does overtake him. He\nwill then, at least, not suffer the pangs of hunger in the world of\nspirits to which he must go.\n\nThe twelfth tablet exhibits somewhat more traces of the theology of the\nschools than the others. Eabani's speech, while conveying sentiments\nthat thoroughly represent the popular beliefs of Babylonia, is couched\nin terms that give to the address the character of a formal declaration\nof doctrines. The conjuring up of the spirit of Eabani is also a feature\nthat appears to be due to theological influences, and the whole episode\nof Gilgamesh's wandering from place to place seeking for information\nappears to be a 'doublet' suggested by the hero's wanderings, as\nnarrated in the ninth and tenth tablets.\n\nThe problem propounded in the earlier tablets--the search for\nimmortality--is, as has been shown, a perfectly natural one and of\npopular origin, but the problem with which Gilgamesh wrestles in the\ntwelfth tablet,--the secret of the life after death,--while suggested by\nthe other, belongs rather to the domain of theological and mystic\nspeculation. This aspect of the twelfth tablet is borne out also by the\nfact that the problem is not solved. The epic ends as unsatisfactorily\nas the Book of Job or Ecclesiastes. There is a tone of despair in the\nfinal speech of Eabani, which savors of the schools of advanced thought\nin Babylonia. For the problem of immortality, a definite solution at\nleast is offered. Man can reach old age; he may be snatched for a time\nfrom the grasp of death, as Gilgamesh was through the efforts of\nParnapishtim, but he only deludes himself by indulging in hopes of\nimmortal life. 'Man must die' is the refrain that rings in our ears. The\nplant of 'eternal youth' slips out of one's hand at the very moment that\none believes to have secured it.\n\nThe Gilgamesh epic, as we have it, thus turns out to be a composite\nproduction. Gilgamesh, a popular hero of antiquity, becomes a medium for\nthe perpetuation of various popular traditions and myths. The adventures\nof his career are combined with the early history of man. Of actual\ndeeds performed by Gilgamesh, and which belong to Gilgamesh's career as\na hero, warrior, and ruler, we have only four,--the conquest of Erech,\nhis victory over Khumbaba, the killing of the divine bull, and the\nstrangling of the lion.[1001] The story of Eabani, Ukhat, and Sadu is\nindependent of Gilgamesh's career, and so also is the story of his\nwanderings to Mashu and his encounter with Parnapishtim. Gilgamesh is\nbrought into association with Eabani by what may be called, a natural\nprocess of assimilation. The life of the hero is placed back at the\nbeginning of things, and in this way Gilgamesh is brought into direct\ncontact with legends of man's early fortunes, with ancient historical\nreminiscences, as well as with nature-myths that symbolize the change of\nseasons and the annual inundations.\n\nPopular philosophy also enters into the life of the hero. Regarded as a\ngod and yet of human origin, Gilgamesh becomes an appropriate\nillustration for determining the line that marks off man's career from\nthe indefinite extension of activity that is a trait of the gods.\nGilgamesh revolts against the universal law of decay and is punished. He\nis relieved from suffering, but cannot escape the doom of death. The\nsixth tablet marks an important division in the epic. The Ishtar and\nSabitum episodes and the narrative of Parnapishtim--itself a compound of\ntwo independent tales, one semi-historical, the other a\nnature-myth--represent accretions that may refer to a time when\nGilgamesh had become little more than a name,--a type of mankind in\ngeneral. Finally, scholastic speculation takes hold of Gilgamesh, and\nmakes him the medium for illustrating another and more advanced problem\nthat is of intense interest to mankind,--the secret of death. Death is\ninevitable, but what does death mean? The problem is not solved. The\nclose of the eleventh tablet suggests that Gilgamesh will die. The\ntwelfth tablet adds nothing to the situation--except a moral. Proper\nburial is essential to the comparative well-being of the dead.\n\nThe fact that Gilgamesh is viewed as a type in the latter half of this\nremarkable specimen of Babylonian literature justifies us in speaking of\nit, under proper qualification, as a 'national epic.' But it must be\nremembered that Gilgamesh himself belongs to a section of Babylonia\nonly, and not to the whole of it; and it is rather curious that one, of\nwhom it can be said with certainty that he is not even a native of\nBabylonia, should become the personage to whom popular fancy was pleased\nto attach traditions and myths that are distinctively Babylonian in\ncharacter and origin.\n\nThe story of Gilgamesh was carried beyond the confines of\nBabylonia.[1002] Gilgamesh, to be sure, is not identical with the\nBiblical Nimrod,[1003] but the Gilgamesh story has evidently influenced\nthe description given in the tenth chapter of Genesis of Nimrod, who is\nviewed as the type of Babylonian power and of the extension of\nBabylonian culture to the north.\n\nThe Gilgamesh epic is not a solar myth, as was once supposed,[1004] nor\nis the Biblical story of Samson a pure myth, but Gilgamesh becomes a\nsolar deity, and it is hardly accidental that Samson, or to give the\nHebrew form of the name, Shimshon, is a variant form of\n_Shamash_[1005]--the name of the sun in Babylonian and Hebrew. The\nBiblical Samson appears to be modelled upon the character of Gilgamesh.\nBoth are heroes, both conquerors, both strangle a lion, and both are\nwooed by a woman, the one by Delila, the other by Ishtar, and both\nthrough a woman are shorn of their strength. The historical traits are\nof course different. As for the relationships of the Gilgamesh epic to\nthe Hercules story, the authority of Wilamowitz-Moellendorf[1006] is\nagainst an oriental origin of the Greek tale, and yet such parallels as\nHercules' fight with a lion, his conquest of death, his journey and\nsearch for immortality (which in contrast to Gilgamesh he secures),\ncertainly point to an influence exercised by the oriental tale upon the\nGreek story. It is not surprising that the elements contributed through\nthis influence have been so modified in the process of adaptation to the\npurely Greek elements of the Hercules story, and, above all, to the\nGreek spirit, as to obscure their eastern origin.[1007] Most curious as\nillustrating the continued popularity of the Gilgamesh story in the\nOrient is the incorporation of portions of the epic in the career of\nAlexander the Great.[1008] In Greek, Syriac, and Rabbinical writings,\nAlexander is depicted as wandering through a region[1009] of darkness\nand terror in search of the 'water of life.' He encounters strange\nbeings, reaches the sea, but, like Gilgamesh, fails to secure\nimmortality. Such were the profound changes wrought by Alexander's\nconquests that popular fancy, guided by a correct instinct of\nappreciation of his career, converted the historical Alexander into a\nlegendary hero of vast dimensions.[1010] The process that produced the\nGilgamesh epic is repeated, only on a larger scale, in the case of\nAlexander. Not one country, but the entire ancient culture\nworld,--Babylonia, Persia, Egypt, Arabia, Judea, and Syria,--combine to\nform the legendary Alexander. Each country contributes its share of\npopular legends, myths, and traditions. Babylonia offers as her tribute\nthe exploits of Gilgamesh, which it transfers in part to Alexander. The\nnational hero becomes the type of the 'great man,' and as with new\nconditions, a new favorite, representative of the new era, arises to\ntake the place of an older one, the old is made to survive in the new.\nGilgamesh lives again in Alexander, just as traits of the legendary\nAlexander pass down to subsequent heroes.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[844] See above, pp. 245-247.\n\n[845] Or Gishdubar or Gishtubar.\n\n[846] _Babylonian and Oriental Record_, iv. 264. For previous readings\nof the name, see Jeremias' article on 'Izdubar' in Roscher's\n_Ausfuehrliches Lexicon der Griechischen und Roemischen Mythologie_, ii.\ncol. 773, 774.\n\n[847] _Historia Animalum_, xii. 21.\n\n[848] See p. 524.\n\n[849] In the Oriental legends of Alexander the Great, this confusion is\nfurther illustrated. To Alexander are attached stories belonging to both\nIzdubar and Etana. See Meissner's _Alexander and Gilgamos_, pp. 13-17\n(Leipzig, 1894).\n\n[850] See, _e.g._, Perrot and Chiplez, _History of Art in Babylonia and\nAssyria_, i. 84.\n\n[851] Article 'Izdubar,' col. 776; see Delitzsch, _Handwoerterbuch_, p.\n678. Hommel (_e.g._, _Altisraelitische Ueberlieferung_, p. 39) regards\nGilgamesh as a contraction from Gibil (the fire-god) and Gam (or Gab),\ntogether with _ish_, an 'Elamitic' ending. If the name is Elamitic, one\nshould hardly expect a Babylonian deity entering as one of the elements.\n\n[852] See above, p. 167.\n\n[853] See above, p. 284.\n\n[854] Haupt's _Das Babylonische Nimrodepos_, p. 93.\n\n[855] Lit., 'he who is applied to for giving a decision.'\n\n[856] _Ta-par-ra-as_.\n\n[857] _Das Babylonische Nimrodepos_ (Leipzig, 1884-91). This edition\nincludes all but the twelfth tablet, which was published by Haupt in the\n_Beitraege zur Assyriologie_, i. 48-79. For other publications of Haupt\non the Gilgamesh epic, see the Bibliography, Sec. 6. The identification\nwith the Biblical Nimrod is now definitely abandoned by scholars, though\nthe picture drawn of Nimrod is influenced by the traditions regarding\nGilgamesh. See p. 515.\n\n[858] The best general work on the epic (based on Haupt's edition) is A.\nJeremias' _Izdubar-Nimrod_ (Leipzig, 1891), a reprint with additions, of\nhis article on 'Izdubar' in Roscher's _Ausfuehrliches Lexicon der\nGriechischen und Roemischen Mythologie_ ii.\n\n[859] _Vorgeschichte der Indo-Europaer_, p. 112.\n\n[860] The words for 'city' in the Semitic languages embody this idea.\n\n[861] _Old Babylonian Inscription_, i. 2, p. 48.\n\n[862] IIR. 50, 55-57; VR. 41, 17, 18. An interesting reference to the\nwall of Frech occurs Hilprecht, _ib._ i. 1, no. 26.\n\n[863] _Kosmologie_, p. 172.\n\n[864] Jeremias' _Izdubar-Nimrod_, p. 15, conjectures that the death of\nthe king has evoked distress, but that is highly improbable. That the\nfragment under consideration belongs to the beginning of the epic is\ntolerably certain, though not absolutely so.\n\n[865] Sixth tablet, l. 192. He brings offerings to Lugal-Marada, _i.e._,\nthe king of Marada--a solar deity. See p. 486.\n\n[866] Heuzey, _Sceaux inedits des Rois d'Agade_ (_Revue d'Assyriologie_,\niv. 3, p. 9).\n\n[867] See above, p. 448.\n\n[868] _Anu_ here used in the generic sense of 'lofty,' 'divine.' The\nphrase is equivalent to the Biblical 'image of God.'\n\n[869] A phrase in some way again indicative of Eabani's likeness to a\ndeity.\n\n[870] That Gilgamesh undertakes this, and not the gods acting in the\ninterest of Uruk (as Jeremias and others assume), follows from a passage\nin Haupt's edition, pp. 10, 40.\n\n[871] Eabani.\n\n[872] Identical with our own word \"harem.\"\n\n[873] Perhaps \"ensnarer.\"\n\n[874] So in the \"Dibbarra\" legend. See p. 531 and Delitzsch,\n_Handwoerterbuch_, p. 41.\n\n[875] Sixth tablet, ll. 184, 185.\n\n[876] Book 1. Sec.Sec. 181, 182, 199.\n\n[877] See Jeremias' _Izdubar-Nimrod_, pp. 59, 60; Nikel, _Herodot und\ndie Keilschriftforschung_, pp. 84-86.\n\n[878] The protest of the Pentateuch (Deut. xxiii. 18) against the\n_K'desha_, as also against the 'male devotee' (_Kadesh_), shows the\ncontinued popularity of the rites.\n\n[879] It is to be noted that in the Yahwistic narrative, Adam is in\nclose communication with the animals about him (Gen. ii. 20). It is\ntempting also to connect the Hebrew form of Eve, _Khauwa_ (or _Khauwat_)\nin some way with Ukhat, not etymologically of course, but as suggestive\nof a dependence of one upon the other,--the Hebrew upon the Babylonian\nterm. Professor Stade (_Zeits. f. Alttest. Wiss._, 1897, p. 210)\ncommenting upon Gen. ii. 20, points out that Yahwe's motive for asking\nAdam to name the animals was the hope that he would find a 'helpmate'\namong them. In the light of the Babylonian story of Eabani living with\nanimals, Stade's suggestion receives a striking illustration.\n\n[880] See Trumbull, _The Threshold Covenant_, p. 239.\n\n[881] _Kharimtu_. In Arabic the word is likewise used for 'woman' in\ngeneral.\n\n[882] The temple at Uruk is meant.\n\n[883] Jeremias translates 'seeks a friend,' and refers the words to\nGilgamesh, but there is nothing in the narrative to justify us in\nassuming that Eabani was thinking of the hero.\n\n[884] It is used as a synonym of _tappu_ 'associate,' Delitzsch,\n_Handwoerterbuch_, p. 10. Ideographically, it is composed of two\nelements, 'strength' and 'acquire.' 'Companion in arms' is the\nfellowship originally meant.\n\n[885] The Hebrew verb (Gen. ii. 22) expresses sexual union and precisely\nthe same verb is used in the cuneiform narrative when Eabani comes to\nUkhat (Haupt's edition, p. 11, l. 21).\n\n[886] We can still distinguish (Haupt, 12, 47) 'I will fetch him.'\nJeremias' rendering, \"I will fight with him,\" is erroneous.\n\n[887] Haupt, 13, 7-8.\n\n[888] Cf. Gen. iii. 5 and 21.\n\n[889] The text of the following lines restored by combining Haupt, p.\n13, with a supplementary fragment published by Jeremias'\n_Izdubar-Nimrod_, pl. 3.\n\n[890] _I.e._, he will be told about thy dream through the wisdom given\nto him.\n\n[891] See, _e.g._, Jeremias' _Izdubar-Nimrod_, p. 21.\n\n[892] So, _e.g._, Hommel (_Altisraelitische Ueberlieferung_, p. 35). He\nis certainly not a native of Babylonia.\n\n[893] Gilgamesh.\n\n[894] Haupt, p. 26.\n\n[895] A city Ganganna is mentioned in the first tablet (Haupt, pp. 51,\n6).\n\n[896] So Haupt, _Beitraege zur Assyriologie_, i. 112.\n\n[897] _I.e._, again and again.\n\n[898] This is the general sense of the three terms used.\n\n[899] _I.e._, an army's march of fourteen hours. See pp. 490, 503, 521.\n\n[900] The same word appears in incantation texts as a term for a class\nof demons.\n\n[901] See, _e.g._, Jeremias' _Izdubar-Nimrod_, p. 26.\n\n[902] _I.e._, to the bull.\n\n[903] Chapter XXV.\n\n[904] Ez. viii. 14.\n\n[905] See above, p. 475.\n\n[906] See p. 267.\n\n[907] See above, p. 234.\n\n[908] Trumbull, _The Threshold Covenant_, chapter vii.\n\n[909] See p. 536.\n\n[910] Or as a third dream. It will be recalled that in a previous\nportion of the epic (p. 481), Gilgamesh has three dreams in succession.\n\n[911] Haupt, pp. 45, 53.\n\n[912] Attitude of despair.\n\n[913] _I.e._, 'offspring of life.' I adopt Delitzsch's reading of the\nname. Zimmern and Jensen prefer _Sitnapishtim_, but see Haupt's remarks\non the objections to this reading in Schrader, _Keilinschriften und das\nAlte Testament_ (3d edition) _a. l._ At the recent Eleventh\nInternational Congress of Orientalists, Scheil presented a tablet\ndealing with the deluge narrative. If his reading is correct, the\nevidence would be final for the form Pirnapishtim, formerly proposed by\nZimmern (_Babylonische Busspsalmen_, p. 26). See p. 507, note 1.\n\n[914] \"Client of Marduk.\" The name Marduk appears here under the\nideographic designation _Tutu_. The identification with Marduk may be\ndue to later traditions.\n\n[915] Jeremias' suggestion (_Indubar-Nimrod_, p. 18) that the fight with\nthe lion belongs to the first tablet, where mention is made of a wild\nanimal of some kind, is not acceptable.\n\n[916] _I.e._, inner side.\n\n[917] The name of the cave underneath the earth where the dead dwell.\n\n[918] See above, p. 443.\n\n[919] See, _e.g._, Jeremias' _Izdubar-Nimrod_, p. 28.\n\n[920] See the passages in Delitzsch, _Wo Lag das Paradies_, pp. 242,\n243.\n\n[921] See above, p. 39, and Hommel's full discussion, _Altisraelitische\nUeberlieferung_, chapter iii.\n\n[922] Hommel (_Altisraelitische Ueberlieferung_, pp. 35, 37) suggests a\nmigration of Cassites from Elam to Eastern Africa.\n\n[923] Haupt, pp. 12, 67.\n\n[924] Attitude of despair.\n\n[925] _I.e._ 'servant of Ea.' The reading Ardi-Ea is preferable to\nArad-Ea.\n\n[926] Lit., 'sailor.'\n\n[927] See above, p. 443.\n\n[928] Haupt, pp. 64, 36; 65, 1.\n\n[929] _Altisraelitische Ueberlieferung_, p. 35.\n\n[930] _Tum_ is the feminine ending.\n\n[931] A large measure.\n\n[932] Of the week? Hommel and others interpret that Gilgamesh\naccomplishes the 'forty-five days' journey' in three days.\n\n[933] This I take to be the meaning of the numbers introduced at this\npoint.\n\n[934] The text is badly mutilated.\n\n[935] There is no limit to the rule of death. Death alone is 'immortal.'\n\n[936] As Haupt correctly interprets.\n\n[937] This appears to be the sense of this rather obscure line.\n\n[938] Read [sir-la]-am?\n\n[939] See below, p. 507.\n\n[940] The restored text in Haupt's edition of the _Nimrodepos_, pp.\n134-149.\n\n[941] Zimmern ingeniously suggests _la bir_, \"not pure,\" instead of the\nrendering 'old.'\n\n[942] Isaiah i. 1.\n\n[943] See Jensen's remarks, _Kosmologie_, p. 387. There is no reference\nto Shurippak in IIR. 46, 1, as Haupt has shown (see his note in the 3rd\nedition of Schrader's _Keilinscriften und das Alte Testament_).\n\n[944] Gen. xix.\n\n[945] Hughes, _Dictionary of Islam_, _sub_ \"Ad\" and \"Salih\".\n\n[946] See above, p. 488, note 2.\n\n[947] Lit., 'construct a house'; house is used for any kind of structure\nin general.\n\n[948] _I.e._, let your property go and save your family.\n\n[949] See above, p. 53.\n\n[950] L. 45.\n\n[951] Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 368; Jeremias, _Izdubar-Nimrod_, p. 37.\n\n[952] See above, p. 496, note 6.\n\n[953] Or decks (so Haupt).\n\n[954] Of each story or deck.\n\n[955] Poles are used to this day to propel the crafts on the Euphrates.\n\n[956] The largest measure.\n\n[957] The same word (_kupru_) is used as in Gen. vi. 14.\n\n[958] Some part of the outside of the structure is designated.\n\n[959] Haupt translates \"Sesammeth.\"\n\n[960] \"Puzur\" signifies 'hidden,' 'protected.' \"Shadu rabu,\" _i.e._,\n'great mountain,' is a title of Bel and of other gods (see above, pp. 56\nand 278). Here, probably, Shamash is meant.\n\n[961] Lit. 'great house' or 'palace.'\n\n[962] _I.e._, 'king,' frequently found as a title of Marduk in\nastronomical texts (Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 145).\n\n[963] The god of war and pestilence.\n\n[964] \"Tar-gul-le,\" some mischievous forces.\n\n[965] The highest part of heaven.\n\n[966] _I.e._, has been destroyed.\n\n[967] Lit., 'spoken' or 'ordered.'\n\n[968] Lit., 'my mankind.'\n\n[969] _I.e._, Mankind.\n\n[970] From which they were made. See pp. 448 and 511.\n\n[971] See p. 482, note 4.\n\n[972] Haupt and Delitzsch render _ikkal_, 'ate,' as though from _akalu_,\nbut this is hardly in place. I take the stem of the word to be _nakalu_.\n\n[973] To have a share in it.\n\n[974] Jensen and Haupt translate \"inconsiderately,\" but this rendering\nmisses the point.\n\n[975] Lit., 'my humanity.'\n\n[976] Not destroy it altogether.\n\n[977] Lit. 'the god Dibbarra.'\n\n[978] _I.e._, the 'very clever' or 'very pious,' an epithet given to\nParnapishtim. The inverted form, _Khasis-adra_, was distorted into\n_Xisusthros_, which appears in the writers dependent upon Berosus as the\nname of the hero of the Babylonian deluge. See, _e.g._, Cory's _Ancient\nFragments_, pp. 52, 54, 60, etc. The epithet appears also in the Legend\nof Etana (pp. 523, 524), where it is applied to a 'wise' young eagle.\n\n[979] _I.e._, mortal.\n\n[980] _I.e._, immortal. _Cf._ Gen. iii. 22.\n\n[981] _Wo Lag das Paradies_ (_Ueber Land und Meer_, 1894-95, no. 15).\n\n[982] The Hebrew account, it must be remembered, consists of two\nnarratives dovetailed into one another. According to the one\nversion--the Yahwistic--the rainstorm continued for forty days and forty\nnights; according to the other--the priestly narrative--one hundred and\nfifty days pass before the waters began to diminish and a year elapses\nbefore Noah leaves the ark. The Yahwistic narrative lays stress upon the\nritualistic distinction of clean and unclean animals, but on the whole,\nthe Yahwistic version approaches closer to the Babylonian tale. Evidence\nhas now been furnished that among the Babylonians, too, more than one\nversion of the tradition existed. At the Eleventh International Congress\nof Orientalists (September, 1897), Scheil presented a tablet, dating\nfrom the days of Hammurabi, in which the story of a deluge is narrated\nin a manner quite different from the Gilgamesh epic. The tablet also\nfurnishes the phonetic reading _pi-ir_, and Scheil is of the opinion\nthat these two syllables form the first element in the name of the hero.\nUnfortunately, the tablet is badly mutilated at this point, so that the\nquestion of the reading is not absolutely certain. See p. 488, note 2.\n[The reading Ut-napishtim is now generally adopted.]\n\n[983] Gen. xix.\n\n[984] Note the phrase in Gen. xix. 31, \"there is no one on earth,\" and\nsee Pietschman, _Geschichte der Phonizier_, p. 115.\n\n[985] That the story was current as early as Hammurabi is now\nestablished by Scheil's fragment (see note 2 on preceding page).\n\n[986] The word used is _tu_ which means a charm or incantation in\ngeneral.\n\n[987] Made of the charm root.\n\n[988] Gilgamesh.\n\n[989] _I.e._, 'old age,' the name given to some plant of magic power.\n\n[990] _Tu._\n\n[991] Lit., 'good.'\n\n[992] _Utukku_--the name, it will be recalled, given to a class of\ndemons. See p. 260.\n\n[993] See p. 518.\n\n[994] Haupt, _Beitraege zur Assyriologie_, i. 318, 319, has made it\nplausible that pp. 16-19 of his edition belong to the twelfth tablet of\nthe epic, though perhaps to a different edition of the epic, as Jeremias\nsuggests (_Izdubar-Nimrod_, p. 43).\n\n[995] See above, p. 474.\n\n[996] Haupt's edition, pp. 67, 12.\n\n[997] Lit., 'thou hast seen it, I have seen it.'\n\n[998] Text defective. Jeremias conjectures \"kneeling.\"\n\n[999] _Ekimmu_, another name for a class of demons. See p. 260.\n\n[1000] The correct translation of these lines we owe to Haupt (_Beitraege\nzur Assyriologie_, i. 69, 70).\n\n[1001] The reference to the killing of a panther in the tenth tablet\n(Haupt, p. 71, 6) is too obscure to be taken into consideration.\nGilgamesh's fight with a 'buffalo' (so Ward, \"Babylonian Gods in\nBabylonian Art,\" _Proc. Amer. Or. Soc._, May, 1890, p. xv) is pictured\non seal cylinders. No doubt, various deeds of Gilgamesh were recounted\nin the missing portions of the epic, and it is also quite likely that\nbesides the stories in the epic, others were current of Gilgamesh to\nwhich a literary form was never given.\n\n[1002] The Parnapishtim episode passed on to the Arabs, where the hero\nof the deluge appears under the name of Khadir--a corruption of\nAdra-Khasis. See Lidzbarski, \"Wer ist Chadir?\" _Zeits. f. Assyr._ vii.\n109-112, who also suggests that Ahasverus, 'the Wandering Jew,' is a\ncorruption of Adrakhasis.\n\n[1003] It will be recalled that Nimrod is termed a 'mighty hunter'\n(_saeid_). This suggests a comparison with Sadu, 'the hunter,' in the\nGilgamesh epic. See above, p. 475.\n\n[1004] Originally suggested by H. C. Rawlinson.\n\n[1005] The ending _on_ is an emphatic affix--frequent in proper names.\n\n[1006] _Euripides' Herakles_, Einleitung.\n\n[1007] On this subject see the Introduction to Berard's _De l'origine\ndes cultes Arcadiens_, and for a further discussion of the relationships\nbetween Izdubar and Hercules, see Jeremias' _Izdubar-Nimrod_, pp. 70-73,\nor his article in Roscher's _Ausfuehrliches Lexicon der Griechischen und\nRoemischen Mythologie_, ii. 821-823.\n\n[1008] Meissner, _Alexander und Gilgamos_ (Leipzig, 1894), pp. 13-17.\n\n[1009] In the Greek and other versions, the mountain Musas or Masis is\nmentioned,--that is, _Mashu_, as in the Gilgamesh epic. See p. 488.\n\n[1010] See especially Budge, _The Life and Exploits of Alexander the\nGreat_ (London, Introduction, 1896); Noeldeke, _Beitraege zur Geschichte\ndes Alexander-Romans_ (Vienna, 1890) and Gaster, _An Old Hebrew Romance\nof Alexander_ (_Journal Royal Asiat. Soc._, 1897, pp. 485-498).\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV.\n\nMYTHS AND LEGENDS.\n\n\nNot many years ago the impression appeared to be well founded that the\nSemites were poor in the production of myths and legends as compared,\nfor example, to the Hindus or Greeks. The religious literature of the\nBabylonians, originating undoubtedly with the Semitic inhabitants of the\nEuphrates Valley, reverses the impression. The 'creation' and\n'Gilgamesh' epics suffice, not merely for what they contain, but for\nwhat they imply, to accord to Babylonian mythology a high rank; but in\naddition to these epics we have a large number of tales of gods,\ndemigods, demons, and spirits that illustrate the capacity of the\nBabylonians for the production of myths. Indeed, there is no longer any\nreason for doubting that the Babylonian mythology exercised considerable\ninfluence upon that of the Greeks. Further discoveries and researches\nmay show that distant India also felt at an early period the\nintellectual stimulus emanating from the Euphrates Valley. At all\nevents, many of the features found in Babylonian myths and legends bear\nso striking a resemblance to those occurring in lands lying to the east\nand west of Babylonia, that a study of Aryan mythology is sadly\ndeficient which does not take into account the material furnished by\ncuneiform literature. How extensive the Babylonian mythology was must\nremain for the present a matter of conjecture, but it is easier to err\non the side of underestimation than on the side of exaggeration. If it\nbe remembered that by far the smaller portion only of Ashurbanabal's\nlibrary has been recovered, and that of the various literary collections\nthat were gathered in the religious centers of the south, scarcely\nanything has as yet been found, it is certainly remarkable that we\nshould be in possession of an elaborate tale of a demi-god, Etana, of an\nextensive legend recounting the deeds of the war and plague-god\nDibbarra, and of two genuine storm myths, while the indications in Dr.\nBezold's catalogue of the Kouyunjik collection justify us in adding to\nthe list several other myths and legends, among the still unpublished\ntablets of the British Museum.[1011] These myths and legends have a\ntwofold value for us, a direct value because of the popular religious\nideas contained in them, and an indirect value by virtue of the\ninterpretation given to these ideas by the compilers. In the literary\nform that the popular productions received, the influence of those who\nguided the religious thought into its proper channels is to be clearly\nseen.\n\n\nThe Etana Legend.\n\nIt will be recalled that we came across a hero Etana in the Gilgamesh\nepic.[1012] The name of the hero is Semitic, and signifies\n'strong.'[1013] An identical name appears in the Old Testament,[1014]\nand it is possible that the Babylonian Etana represents, like Gilgamesh,\nsome ancient historical person of whom a dim tradition has survived\namong other nations besides the Babylonians. The deeds recounted of him,\nhowever, place the hero entirely in the domain of myth. His patron is\nShamash, the sun-god, and in popular tradition he becomes a member of\nthe pantheon of the nether world.\n\nIn the portions of the Etana legend preserved,[1015] two episodes are\ndetailed in the hero's career, one regarding the birth of a son, the\nother a miraculous journey. The former episode justifies the assumption\nof a historical starting-point for the legend of Etana.[1016] Among many\nnations the birth of a hero or of a hero's son is pictured as taking\nplace under great difficulties. Etana's wife is in distress because she\nis unable to bring to the world a child which she has conceived. Etana\nappeals to Shamash. Through the mediation of the priests he has offered\nsacrifices, and he now prays to Shamash to show him the \"plant of\nbirth.\"\n\n  The oracles[1017] have completed my sacrifices,\n  They have completed my free-will offerings to the gods.\n  O Lord, let thy mouth command,\n  And give me the plant of birth,\n  Reveal to me the plant of birth,\n  Bring forth the fruit, grant me an offspring.\n\nOf Shamash's reply only one line is preserved intact, in which he tells\nEtana:\n\n  Take the road, ascend the mountain.\n\nIt is presumably upon the mountain that the plant grows whose magical\npower will insure the happy delivery of the expected offspring. Harper\ncalls attention to a remarkable parallel to this incident which is found\nin the Armenian and Mandaean legends of the birth of Rustem, the son of\nSal. The latter's wife is unable to deliver her child because of its\nsize. Sal, who was reared by an eagle, has in his possession a pinion of\nthe eagle, by means of which he can, when in distress, invoke the\npresence of the bird. The father throws the pinion into the fire, and\nthe eagle appears. The latter gives the mother a medicinal potion, and\nthe child is cut out of the womb. Etana, like Rustem, is accompanied by\nan eagle, and it would appear that the eagle aids Etana in obtaining the\nplant.[1018] The eagle, in many mythologies, is a symbol of the sun, and\nit is plausible to conclude that the bird is sent to Etana at the\ninstigation of Shamash. Who the son is that Etana expects we are not\ntold, and naturally from a single episode like this--and one so\nfragmentarily preserved--no safe conclusions may be drawn. But the epic\n(if we may apply this term) must have recounted some achievements of\nEtana, and as the 'strong' one, his deeds must have borne some\nresemblance to those of Gilgamesh. The birth of the son, it is\nfurthermore fair to presume, took place towards the end of Etana's\ncareer, when his own life was drawing to a close. If a fragment[1019] of\nthe tale were only better preserved, we would have an episode of Etana's\nearlier career. But such is the condition of this fragment that, at the\nmost, it can be said that Etana is engaged in some conflict against a\ncity, in which Ishtar, Bel, the Anunnaki, the Igigi, and some minor\ngods, as En-ninna, Sibittum, are involved. The Etana series, as we learn\nfrom the colophon to this fragment, was known by a designation in which\na city[1020] occurs, and it may be that this is the city against which\nEtana, aided by the gods, proceeds. Leaving this aside, it is fortunate\nthat we have at least another episode in Etana's career which enables us\nto establish the connecting link between the hero as an historical\npersonage and as a god or demi-god. As Gilgamesh offers an insult to\nIshtar, so Etana encounters the ill-will of the great goddess, though\nthrough no direct offense. The eagle tempts Etana to mount with him into\nthe upper regions. Etana is represented as giving, in part, an account\nof this adventure, in the first person. The gates of the upper regions\nare opened, and Etana is terrified at the majestic sight which greets\nhim. He sees a throne, and throws himself on his countenance in terror.\nThe gates are significantly designated as the gate of Anu, Bel, and Ea,\nand the gate of Sin, Shamash, Ramman, and Ishtar. The introduction of\nthe two classes of the theological triads[1021] reveals the influence of\na scholastic elaboration of some popular myth. The eagle reassures\nEtana, and addresses him as follows:\n\n  My friend lift up (?) [thy countenance],\n  Come and let me carry thee to the heaven [of Anu].\n  On my breast place thy breast,\n  On my pinion place thy palms,\n  On my side place thy side.\n\nEtana obeys, and thus, securely attached to the eagle, begins the daring\njourney. They fly for the space of a double hour,[1022] when\n\n  The eagle addresses Etana:\n  Look, my friend, how the earth appears;\n  Look at the sea and at its side, the house of wisdom;[1023]\n  The earth appears as a mountain, the sea has become a pool (?).\n  A second double hour he (_i.e._, the eagle) carried him on high.\n  The eagle spoke to Etana:\n  Look, my friend, how the earth appears;\n  The sea is a mere belt (?) around the earth.\n  A third double hour he carried him on high.\n  The eagle spoke to Etana:\n  Look, my friend, how the earth appears;\n  The sea is a mere gardener's ditch.[1024]\n\nIn this way they reach the gate of Anu, Bel, and Ea in safety, where\nthey take a rest. The eagle is not yet satisfied, and urges Etana to\nfollow him to the domain of Ishtar.\n\n  Come, my friend [let me carry thee to Ishtar],\n  With Ishtar, the mistress [of the gods, thou shall dwell],\n  In the glory of Ishtar, the mistress of the gods, [thou shall sit?].\n  On my side place thy side,\n  On my pinion place thy palms.\n\nThe gods, it will be seen, dwell on high in accordance with the view\ndeveloped by astronomical speculations.[1025] Anu, Bel, and Ea are here\nevidently identified with the fixed stars bearing their names,[1026]\nwhile under Ishtar the planet Ishtar-Venus is meant. Etana yields to the\neagle's suggestion. They mount still higher. Earth and ocean grow still\nsmaller, the former appearing only as large as 'a garden bed,' the\nlatter like 'a courtyard.' For three double hours they fly. Etana\nappears to warn the eagle to desist from his rash intention, but the\nwarning comes too late. Etana and the eagle are thrown down from the\nlofty regions. With lightning speed the descent takes place, until the\ntwo reach the ground. The further course of the narrative is obscure.\nWas Etana punished by being sent to the nether world, where we find him\nin the Gilgamesh epic?[1027] There is a reference, unfortunately quite\nobscure, to the death of Etana, and perhaps to his shade,[1028] in a\nportion of the tablet. One certainly expects both Etana and the eagle to\nbe punished for their rash act, but until we can determine with\ncertainty what became of both, and with what purport the tale is\nintroduced into the career of Etana, the question must be left open, as\nalso the possibility of a connection between this flight of Etana and\nthe similar Greek myth of Ganymede. The introduction of the eagle points\nclearly to the mythological character of the tale, but flights of eagles\noccur so frequently in the myths and legends of various nations that no\ngreat stress is to be laid upon further parallels that might be\nadduced.[1029] The story found in Aelian and which has already been\nreferred to[1030] alone calls for mention here. According to this story,\nGilgamesh, whose birth is feared by his cruel grandfather Sokkaros, king\nof Babylonia, is thrown from the tower where his mother was imprisoned\nand in which he was born, but in falling is caught by an eagle and taken\nto a gardener who rears the child. The eagle being the associate of\nEtana, the suspicion is justified that the child thus miraculously saved\nis in reality Etana and not Gilgamesh. At all events, there must be some\nconnection between the story of Aelian and the Babylonian legend under\nconsideration. The fate of the eagle is recounted in another tablet of\nthe Etana series,[1031] which again furnishes an episode paralleled in\nthe mythologies of other nations.\n\nThe eagle has lost favor with Shamash. Enmity has arisen between the\neagle and the serpent, and, curiously enough, the latter stands under\nthe protection of the sun-god. What the cause of the enmity between\neagle and serpent was, may have been recounted in a missing portion of\nthe tablet. The eagle forms a plan of destroying the serpent's brood. He\nis warned against this act by a young eagle, who is designated as a\n'very clever young one.'\n\n  Do not eat, O my father, the net of Shamash is laid (?);\n  The trap, the ban of Shamash, will fall upon thee and catch thee.\n  Who transgresses the law of Shamash, from him Shamash will exact\n    revenge.\n\nBut the eagle, we are told, paid no heed to the warning.\n\n  He descended and ate of the young of the serpent.\n\nThe serpent appeals to Shamash. He tells the sun-god of the cruel deed\nof the eagle:\n\n  See, O Shamash, the evil that he has done to me.\n  Help (?), O Shamash, thy net is the broad earth.\n  Thy trap is the distant heavens.\n  Who can escape thy net?[1032]\n  Zu,[1033] the worker of evil, the source of evil [did not\n    escape?[1034]].\n\nShamash responds to the appeal:\n\n  Upon his hearing the lament of the serpent,\n  Shamash opened his mouth and spoke to the serpent:\n  Go and ascend the mountain;\n  The carcass of a wild ox make thy hiding-place.\n  Open him, tear open his belly.\n  Make a dwelling place [of his belly].\n  All the birds of heaven will come down;\n  The eagle with them will come down.\n\n  ...\n\n  Upon penetrating to the meat he will hastily proceed,\n  Making for the hidden parts.[1035]\n  As soon as he has reached the inside,[1036] seize him by his wing,\n  Tear out his wing, his feather (?), his pinion,\n  Tear him to pieces, and throw him into a corner,\n  To die a death of hunger and thirst.\n\nThis devilish plan is successfully carried out. With considerable skill\nthe narrative describes how the eagle, suspecting some mischief, did not\njoin the other birds, but when he saw that they escaped without harm\nfelt reassured. He tells his brood:\n\n    Come, let us go and let us also pounce down upon the carcass of\n    the wild ox and eat, we too.\n\nThe eagle is again warned by his \"very clever\" offspring. The rest of\nhis brood join in the appeal, but\n\n  He did not hearken to them, and obeyed not the advice of his brood,\n  He swooped down and stood upon the wild ox.\n\nStill, he is not entirely free from suspicion, and the narrative\ncontinues:\n\n  The eagle inspected the carcass, looking carefully to the front and\n    behind him.\n  He again inspected the carcass, looking carefully to the front and\n    behind him.\n\nDetecting nothing to justify his suspicions, he digs his beak into the\ncarcass, but scarcely has he done so when the serpent seizes hold of\nhim. The eagle cries for mercy, and promises the serpent a present of\nwhatever he desires. The serpent is relentless. To release the eagle\nwould be to play false to Shamash.\n\n  If I release thee ...\n  Thy punishment will be transferred to me.\n\nThus the serpent justifies what he is about to do. In accordance with\nthe instructions of the sun-god, the eagle is stripped of his wings and\nfeathers, and left to die a miserable death. In its present form this\ntale of the eagle and serpent forms part of the Etana story.[1037]\nJeremias is right in questioning whether it originally had anything to\ndo with Etana.[1038] Two distinct stories have been combined, much as in\nthe Gilgamesh epic several tales have been thrown together. The\nassociation of Etana with the eagle suggests the introduction of the\nepisode of the eagle's discomfiture. If one may judge of the two\nepisodes related of Etana, he is not a personage regarded with favor by\nthe compilers. In both episodes we find him in distress. His flight with\nthe eagle is regarded as a defiance of the gods, though more blame\nattaches to the eagle than to him. Shamash can hardly have regarded with\nfavor the ambition of a human being to mount to the dwelling of the\ngods. Gilgamesh makes no such attempt, and Parnapishtim is not carried\non high, but to \"the confluence of the streams.\" Gilgamesh, it will also\nbe recalled, is unable to pass to the nether world where Eabani is\nplaced, and in the following chapter we will come across a tale intended\nto illustrate the impossibility of any one ever returning from the\nhollow under the earth where the dead dwell. The story of Etana appears,\ntherefore, to emphasize the equal impossibility for any mortal to ascend\nto the dwelling of the gods. Etana is deified, but he belongs\npermanently to the region where all mortals go after their career on\nearth is ended,--the nether world. One gains the impression, therefore,\nthat Etana is a hero of antiquity who is not approved of by the\nBabylonian priests. Similarly, the conflict between the eagle and the\nserpent suggests an opposition to the view which makes the eagle the\nsymbol and messenger of Shamash. The eagle recalls the winged disc, the\nsymbol of Ashur,[1039] and the eagle occurs also as a standard among the\nHittites,[1040] with whom, as we know, the Babylonians came into\ncontact. The story of Shamash, himself, laying the trap for the eagle\nlooks like a myth produced with some specific intent, an illustration of\nlegitimate sun-worship against rival cults. As a matter of course, in\nthe case of such a myth, it is difficult to say where its popular\ncharacter ends and the speculative or scholastic theory begins. But\nwhatever may have been the original purport of the tale, for our\npurposes its significance consists in the view unfolded of Shamash as\nthe one who wreaks vengeance on the evil-doer. Shamash appears in the\nepisode in the role of the just judge that characterizes him in the\nhymns and incantations. Etana's reliance upon the eagle leads to\ndisgrace and defeat. In a representation of the hero's flight on a seal\ncylinder,[1041] the disapproval of the act is indicated by the addition\nof two dogs in a crouching position, their gaze directed towards the\nbird. The dogs are a symbol of the solar-god Marduk.[1042]\n\n\nThe Legend of Dibbarra.\n\nOf more direct religious import is a story recounted in a series\ncomprising five tablets of the deeds of the war and plague-god whose\nname is provisionally read Dibbarra.[1043] He is a solar deity\nidentified in the theological system of the Babylonians with Nergal, but\noriginally distinct and in all probability one of the numerous local\nsolar deities of Babylonia like Nin-girsu and Nin-gishzida, Ishum and\nothers, whose roles are absorbed by one or the other of the four great\nsolar deities,--Shamash, Marduk, Ninib, and Nergal. Nergal representing\nthe sun of midday and of the summer solstice, which brings in its wake\ndestruction of various kinds, it was appropriate that a god who came to\nbe specifically viewed as the god who causes disease should be regarded\nas an aspect of the terrible Nergal. In the legend that we are about to\nconsider, Dibbarra appears as the god of war. He is designated as the\n'warrior.' The name of the god is written ideographically with a sign\nthat has the meaning of 'servant' and 'man.' To this sign the phonetic\ncomplement _ra_ is added. In view of a passage in a lexicographical\ntablet, according to which the name of the god is designated as the\nequivalent of the god Gir-ra, Jensen concluded that the name was to be\nread Gira, and Delitzsch[1044] is inclined to follow him. A difficulty,\nhowever, arises through the circumstance that the element _Gir_ in the\nname Gir-ra is itself an ideograph. In any case, the designation of the\ngod as a 'servant' shows that he is described here by an epithet,[1045]\nand not by his real name, which is to be sought rather in the sense of\n'strong,' that is one of the meanings of the ideograph _gir_. The\nepithet 'servant' belongs to the period when the god took his place in\nthe theological system as one of the attendants of the great Nergal,\njust as the plague-god is himself accompanied by a god Ishum, who acts\nas a kind of messenger or attendant to him. It should be added that what\nlittle evidence there was for the conventional reading Dibbarra[1046]\nhas now been dispelled, so that but for the desire to avoid useless\nadditions to the nomenclature of the Babylonian deities, the form Gir-ra\nwould have been introduced here, as for the present preferable.\n\nWhere the cult of Dibbarra centered we do not know, but that he presided\nover a district that must have played a prominent part at some period of\nBabylonian history is shown by the elaborate legend of his deeds for\nwhich, as in the case of Gilgamesh and Etana, we are justified in\nassuming an historical background. In fact, the legend of Dibbarra is\nnaught but a poetic and semi-mythical disguise for severe conflicts\nwaged against certain Babylonian cities by some rival power that had its\nseat likewise in the Euphrates Valley.\n\nOf the five tablets, but four fragments have as yet been found in such a\ncondition as to be utilized. The longest of these contains an address to\nDibbarra by his faithful attendant Ishum, in which the power of the\nwar-god is praised and some of his deeds recounted.\n\n  [The sons of] Babylon were (as) birds\n  And thou their falconer.\n  In a net thou didst catch them, enclose them, and destroy them,\n  O! Warrior Dibbara,\n  Leaving the city,[1047] thou didst pass to the outside,\n  Taking on the form of a lion, thou didst enter the palace.\n  The people saw thee and drew (?) their weapons.\n\nThe reference in these lines is to an attack upon the city of Babylon.\nThe war-god is pictured as striking out in all directions, imprisoning\nthe inhabitants of Babylon within the city walls, working havoc outside\nof the city, and not stopping short at entering the palace. The metaphor\nof the war-god taking on the form of a lion confirms the identification\nof Dibbarra with Nergal, who is generally pictured as a lion.\n\nIn the following lines the enemy who makes this attack on Babylon is\nintroduced. He is designated as a 'governor,' and Dibbarra is\nrepresented as giving him certain instructions to carry out. The title\n'governor' given to this enemy may be taken as an indication that the\nepic deals with the rivalry existing among the states of Babylonia, each\nrepresented by its capital. Ishum continues his address to Dibbarra:\n\n  The heart of the governor, intent upon taking vengeance on Babylon,\n    was enraged,\n  For capturing the possessions of the enemy, he sends out his army,\n  Filled with enmity towards the people.\n\nDibbarra is represented as addressing this governor:\n\n  In the city whither I send thee,\n  Thou shall fear no one, nor have compassion.\n  Kill the young and old alike,\n  The tender suckling likewise--spare no one.\n  The treasures of Babylon carry off as booty.\n\nIshum continues his narrative:\n\n  The royal host was gathered together and entered the city.\n  The bow was strung, the sword unsheathed.\n  Thou didst blunt[1048] (?) the weapons of the soldiers,\n  The servitors of Anu and Dagan.\n  Their blood thou caused to flow like torrents of water through the\n    city's highways.\n  Thou didst tear open their intestines, and cause the stream to carry\n    them off.\n\nDagan is here used for Bel,[1049] and the phrase 'servitors of Anu and\nDagan' embraces the inhabitants of Babylon. Marduk, the lord of Babylon,\nis enraged at the sight, but apparently is powerless.\n\n  The great lord Marduk saw it and cried \"Alas!\"\n    His senses left him.\n  A violent curse issued from his mouth.\n\nAt this point the tablet is defective, and when it again becomes\nintelligible we find Ishum describing an attack of Dibbarra upon another\nof the great centers of the Euphrates Valley--the city of Uruk. Uruk is\ncalled the 'dwelling of Anu and Ishtar,' the city of the _Kizreti_,\n_Ukhati_, and _Kharimati_[1050]--the sacred harlots. Uruk suffers the\nsame fate as Babylon:\n\n  A cruel and wicked governor thou didst place over them,\n  Who brought misery upon them, broke down (?) their laws.\n  Ishtar was enraged and filled with anger because of Uruk.\n\nHer opposition, however, is as powerless to stem Dibbarra's attack as\nwas Marduk's grief at the onslaught on Babylon.\n\nDibbarra's greed is insatiable. Ishum continues his address to him:\n\n  O warrior Dibbarra, thou dost dispatch the just,\n  Thou dost dispatch the unjust,\n  Who sins against thee, thou dost dispatch,\n  And the one who does not sin against thee thou dost dispatch.\n\nThe following lines reveal the purpose of Ishum's long speech. A war\nmore terrible even than the conflicts recounted is planned by Ishum, one\nthat is to involve all creation and extend to the higher regions. Ishum\nasks Dibbarra's consent to the fearful destruction held in view:\n\n  The brightness of Shul-pauddu[1051] I will destroy.\n  The root of the tree I will tear out\n  That it no longer blossom;\n  Against the dwelling of the king of gods, I will proceed....\n  The warrior Dibbarra heard him.[1052]\n  The speech of Ishum was pleasant to him as fine oil,\n  And thus the warrior Dibbarra spoke:\n  Sea-coast [against] sea-coast, Subartu against Subartu, Assyrian\n    against Assyrian,\n  Elamite against Elamite,\n  Cassite against Cassite,\n  Sutaean against Sutaean,\n  Kuthaean against Kuthaean,\n  Lullubite against Lullubite,\n  Country against country, house against house, man against man.\n  Brother is to show no mercy towards brother; they shall kill one\n    another.\n\nThe lines remind one of the description in the Gilgamesh epic of the\nterror aroused by the deluge,[1053] and one might be tempted to combine\nDibbarra's speech with the preceding words of Ishum, and interpret this\npart of the Dibbarra legend as another phase of the same nature myth,\nwhich enters as a factor in the narrative of the Deluge. However, the\ncontinuation of Dibbarra's speech shows that a great military conflict\nis foretold. The countries named are those adjacent to Babylonia, and\nthe intention of the writer is evidently to imply that the whole world\nis to be stirred up. This fearful state of hostility is to continue\nuntil\n\n  After a time the Akkadian will come,\n  Overthrow all and conquer all of them.\n\nAkkad, it will be recalled, is a name for Babylonia. The triumph of\nBabylon is foretold in these lines. The Akkadian is, therefore, none\nother than Hammurabi, who succeeds in obtaining the supremacy over the\nentire Euphrates Valley, and whose successors for many centuries claimed\ncontrol of the four quarters of the world.\n\nIt is evident from this 'prophecy' that the Dibbarra legend received its\nfinal shape under influences emanating from Babylon, precisely as we\nfound to be the case in the 'creation' story and in the Gilgamesh epic.\nThe hostility that precedes the coming of Hammurabi points to the\nviolence of the conflicts in which that warrior was engaged, while the\nexaggeration of this hostility shows how strong and permanent the\nimpression of Hammurabi's achievements must have been. The designation\nof the conqueror as the Akkadian gives him to a certain extent the\ncharacter of a Messiah, who is to inaugurate an era of peace, and whose\ncoming will appease the grim Dibbarra. It is by no means impossible that\nHebrew and Christian conceptions of a general warfare which is to\nprecede the golden age of peace are influenced by the Babylonian legend\nunder consideration.\n\nDibbarra gives his consent to Ishum's plan:\n\n  Go, Ishum, carry out the word thou hast spoken in accordance with thy\n    desire.\n\nIshum proceeds to do so. The mountain Khi-khi is the first to be\nattacked.\n\n  Ishum directed his countenance to the mountain Khi-khi.\n  The god Sibi,[1054] a warrior without rival,\n  Stormed behind him.\n  The warrior[1055] arrived at the mountain Khi-khi.\n  He raised his hand, destroyed the mountain.\n  He levelled the mountain Khi-khi to the ground.\n  The vineyards in the forest of Khashur he destroyed.\n\nIn a geographical list[1056] a mountain Khi-khi, belonging to the\nAmoritic country, is mentioned, and a mountain Khashur described as a\ncedar district. There can be, therefore, no doubt that some military\nexpedition to western lands is recounted in our tablet. The continuation\nof the narrative is lost, all but a small fragment,[1057] which tells of\nthe destruction of a city--otherwise unknown--called Inmarmaru. At the\ninstigation of Dibbarra, Ishum enters this city and destroys it. The\noutrages committed are described at some length. Ea, the god of\nhumanity, hears of the havoc wrought. He is 'filled with wrath.'\nUnfortunately, the fragment is too mutilated to permit us to ascertain\nwhat steps Ea takes against Dibbarra. Marduk is also mentioned in this\nconnection. Under the circumstances, one can only conjecture that in the\nmissing portions of this tablet, and perhaps also in two others, the\nwars preceding the advent of the Akkadian[1058] are recounted in poetic\nand semi-mythical form. If this conjecture is justified, the main\npurport at least of the Dibbarra legend becomes clear. It is a\ncollection of war-songs recalling the Hebrew anthology, \"Battles of\nYahwe,\"[1059] in which the military exploits of the Hebrews were\npoetically set forth.\n\nThe closing tablet of the Dibbarra legend is preserved,[1060] though\nonly in part. It describes the appeasement of the dreadful war-god. All\nthe gods, together with the Igigi and Anunnaki, are gathered around\nDibbarra, who addresses them:\n\n  Listen all of you to my words.\n  Because of sin did I formerly plan evil,\n  My heart was enraged and I swept peoples away.\n\nHe tells how he destroyed the flocks and devastated the fruits in the\nfields, how he swept over the lands, punishing the just and the wicked\nalike, and sparing no one. Ishum takes up the strain and urges Dibbarra\nto desist from his wrath:\n\n  Do thou appease the gods of the land, who were angry,\n  May fruits (?) and corn[1061] flourish,\n  May mountains and seas bring their produce.\n\nThe era of peace and prosperity is thus inaugurated, and the legend\ncloses with solemn assurances from Dibbarra that he will bless and\nprotect those who properly honor him.\n\n  He who glorifies my name will rule the world.\n  Who proclaims the glory of my power\n  Will be without a rival.\n  The singer who sings [of my deeds] will not die through pestilence.\n  To kings and nobles his words will be pleasing.\n  The writer who preserves them will escape from the grasp of the enemy.\n  In the temple where the people proclaim my name\n  I will open his ear;[1062]\n  In the house where this tablet is set up, though war[1063] may rage,\n  And god Sibi work havoc,\n  Sword and pestilence will not touch him--he will dwell in safety.\n  Let this song resound forever and endure for eternity.\n  Let all lands hear it and proclaim my power.\n  Let the inhabitants of all places learn to glorify my name.\n\nThis closing address represents a late addition to the poem that\nsomewhat modifies its original import. Wars did not cease with the\nestablishment of Babylon's control. Many conflicts arose, but on the\nwhole, Babylonia was an empire of peace. The people were inclined\ntowards a life of ease, and the development of commerce served as a\nwholesome check against too frequent military disturbances. The\nwar-songs, as a glorification of the nation's past, retained their\npopularity, but the lesson drawn from the songs was the great blessing\nthat peace and freedom from turmoil brought with them. For the warlike\nAssyrians, Dibbarra enraged may have been a more popular figure, but to\nthe peace-loving Babylonian, the appeased Dibbarra appealed with greater\nforce. The story of Dibbarra's deeds became in this way in the course of\ntime an object lesson, a kind of religious allegory handed down from one\ngeneration to the other as an illustration of the horrors of war and of\nviolence in general. With the tendency--so characteristic of the\nBabylonian religion[1064]--for great gods to absorb the roles of minor\nones, Nergal became the god of war _par excellence_, while Dibbarra,\nIshum, and Sibi were chiefly viewed as powers responsible for such forms\nof violence as pestilence and distress. To ensure the favor of a god of\npestilence was of importance for every individual, and one of the safest\nmeans of obtaining this favor was to sing his praises, to recall his\npower,--to glorify him and thus to keep him, as it were, in good humor.\nWhat better means of accomplishing this than to have the record of his\ndeeds constantly before one's eyes? The British Museum contains two\nspecimens of tablets on which a portion of the Dibbarra legend is\ninscribed, and which are pierced with holes in a manner as to leave no\ndoubt[1065] that the tablets were intended to be hung up in houses with\na view of securing protection from Dibbarra and his associates. The\nreference in the closing lines of the story:\n\n  The house where this tablet is set up,\n\nthus becomes clear. As the Hebrews were commanded, in order to secure\nthe protection of Yahwe, to write his law\n\n  On the doorposts of the house,[1066]\n\nso the Babylonians were instructed by their priests to hang tablets in\ntheir homes--probably at the entrance--on which Dibbarra was glorified.\nNaturally, it was impossible to inscribe the whole story on a little\ntablet, just as it was impossible to place the entire law of Yahwe on\nthe doorposts. In both cases a significant extract served as a part,\nrepresentative of the whole. In the case of the Dibbarra legend, the\nclosing portion was selected, which emphasized the necessity of keeping\nthe deeds of Dibbarra and the greatness of his power in mind. Like the\nGilgamesh epic, so the Dibbarra legend was to be taught by the father to\nhis son. The scribes were enjoined to teach the story to the people. The\npoets were to make it the subject of their songs, and kings and nobles\nwere not exempt from the obligation to listen to the tale.\n\n\nThe Myth of the Storm-God Zu.\n\nBirds and bulls were to the Babylonians the symbols of storms and\nclouds. In the Gilgamesh epic, it will be recalled, Anu sends a divine\nbull to engage in a contest with Gilgamesh.[1067] The text of the epic\nbeing unfortunately defective, we have no definite indication of the\ncharacter of the attack to be made upon the hero by the messenger from\nthe god of heaven; but since storms and disease are the two chief\nweapons in the hands of the gods, and inasmuch as Gilgamesh in a later\nsection of the epic is struck down by disease, it is more than likely\nthat the bull represents a storm that is to sweep the hero and his\ncompanion off the earth. The winged bulls placed at the entrance of\npalaces embody the same idea, and in addition to the explanation for\nthese fantastic figures above[1068] suggested, it is noteworthy that the\ntwo types of animals chosen for this symbolical decoration of edifices,\nthe bull and the lion, again illustrate the same two means at the\ndisposal of the gods for the punishment of man, the bull representing\nthe storms, and the lion being the symbol of Nergal, who is the god of\npestilence, as well as of war and of violent destruction in general.\n\nA storm-god symbolized under the form of a bird is Zu. The underlying\nstem of the word conveys the notion of strength and violence. How bulls\ncame to be chosen as symbols of storms is not altogether clear. Possibly\nthe element of \"strength\" formed the connecting link in the chain of the\nassociation of ideas. In the case of birds, on the other hand, the\nassociation is to be sought in the appearance of the clouds during a\nstorm moving across the heavens like a flock of birds. In the Etana\nlegend, a reference occurs to Zu, who, as it would appear, is unable to\nescape from the control of the supreme judge Shamash.[1069] Zu is there\ncalled the chief worker of evil--a kind of arch satan. A story has been\nfound which illustrates an attempt made by the bird Zu to break loose\nfrom the control of the sun. A storm was viewed as a conflict between\nthe clouds and the sun, much as an eclipse symbolized a revolt in the\nheavens. The myth represents the conflict as taking place between Zu and\nEn-lil, the Bel of Nippur. The latter holds in his possession the\ntablets of fate, by means of which he enjoys supreme authority over men\nand gods. Zu's jealousy is aroused, and he plans to tear these tablets\nfrom En-lil. The tablets of fate, it will be recalled, play an important\npart in the Marduk-Tiamat episode.[1070] Kingu--the symbol of chaos,\nlike Tiamat--wears them on his breast, but he is obliged to yield them\nto the conqueror of Tiamat and of her brood, who replaces 'chaos' by\n'order.' This conqueror was originally Bel of Nippur, and the Zu myth in\nrepresenting En-lil as holding the tablets of fate confirms the view\nabove set forth,[1071] according to which the original Tiamat tale has\nbeen modified by the substitution of Marduk for the old Bel. But the\nstory, while thus admitting the legitimacy of En-lil's claim to supreme\npower, is yet so constructed as to contribute to the glory of Marduk.\nThe attack of the Zu-bird was suggested--as the Tiamat myth--by the\nannual storms that work such havoc in Babylonia. The forces of 'chaos'\nare let loose, and an attempt is made to overthrow the 'order' of the\nworld, symbolized by the tablets of fate which En-lil holds in his\npossession. Whoever has these tablets is invincible. But En-lil is\nunable to resist the attack of Zu. The tablets are taken away from him,\nand it is left for Marduk to recapture them. The tablets once in\nMarduk's possession, En-lil's supremacy comes to an end, and the triumph\nof Marduk is complete. To substantiate this interpretation of the myth,\nan analysis of the text is necessary. The beginning of the story is\nunfortunately missing. It appears to have been devoted to a\nglorification of the god who controls the fate of the universe. The\nsecond column opens as follows:\n\n    And the oracles of all the gods he determined.\n\nFrom the context it is clear that Bel of Nippur is meant. Up to this\npoint, the myth reflects the old view according to which it was En-lil\nwho succeeded in overcoming Tiamat or at any rate, in snatching the\ntablets of fate from the breast of Kingu. Nippur's god lays claim to\nbeing the one who established 'order' in the universe. His authority\ncould only be threatened if he were robbed of the tablets which\nsymbolize absolute control over the course of affairs. Zu boldly\nattempts this:\n\n  His eyes saw the mark of rulership,\n  The crown of his[1072] sovereignty, the garment of his[1072] divinity.\n  Zu saw the divine tablets of fate.\n  He looked at the father of the gods, the god of Dur-an-ki,[1073]\n  Desire for rulership seizes hold of his heart.[1074]\n  'I will take the tablets of the gods\n  And decree the decisions [of all the gods.]\n  I will establish my throne, I will proclaim laws.\n  I will give all orders to all the Igigi.'\n\nZu proceeds to the dwelling-place of En-lil and waits for a favorable\nmoment to make an attack.\n\n  His heart was bent on the contest.\n  With his gaze directed toward the entrance of the dwelling,[1075] he\n    awaits for the beginning of day.\n  As En-lil poured forth the brilliant waters,\n  Took his seat on his throne and put on his crown,\n  He[1076] snatched the tablets of fate out of his hands,\n  Seized the authority--the promulgation of laws.\n  Thereupon Zu flew off and hid himself in his mountain.\n\nOn seal cylinders a god is frequently pictured pouring forth streams of\nwater from jars placed on his shoulders. This is generally the sun-god,\nbut the symbol also seems to belong to other deities[1077] and is\nappropriate to Bel of Nippur, who as the god of the atmosphere above the\nearth, controls the upper waters. As long as these are poured out by\nhim, they are beneficent; but once beyond his control, the blessing of\nrain is turned into the curse of a deluge and storm, flooding the fields\nand sweeping away the habitations of men. This misfortune happens when\nZu robs En-lil of the tablets by means of which law and order are\nestablished. En-lil is powerless. The bold act of Zu causes\nconsternation among the gods. Anu calls upon some one to pursue Zu and\ncapture him. The bird dwells in an inaccessible recess in the mountains,\nand the gods are afraid to approach his nest. The scene that ensues\nreminds us of the episode of the creation epic, where Anshar calls upon\nAnu, Bel, and Ea in turn to subdue Tiamat.\n\n  Anu opens his mouth and speaks,\n  Addressing the gods his children:\n  'Who will force Zu to submit\n  And thus make his name great among the inhabitants of the whole\n    world?'\n\nRamman the storm-god _par excellence_ is first called upon by the\nassembled gods:\n\n  'Ramman the chief,' they cried, 'the son of Anu.'\n  Anu communicated to him[1078] the order.[1079]\n  'Go, my son Ramman, conqueror who yields to no one,\n  Subdue Zu with thy weapon,[1080]\n  That thy name be glorified in the assembly of the great gods.\n  Thou shall be without a rival among the gods thy brothers.'\n\nAnu furthermore promises Ramman that if he triumphs, lofty shrines will\nbe erected in his honor in many cities.\n\n  'Temples will be built in thy honor,\n  In all quarters of the world thy cities[1081] will be situated,\n  Thy cities[1082] will reach up to Ekur.[1083]\n  Show thyself strong among the gods, so that thy name be powerful.'\n\nRamman, however, is afraid of the contest.\n\n  Ramman answered the speech,\n  Addressing his father Anu:\n  'My father, who can proceed to the inaccessible mountain?\n  Who is there like Zu among the gods, thy children?'\n\nHe furthermore pleads that Zu, who has the tablets of fate in his hands,\nis invincible. He has the power to decree the fates of the gods, and all\nmust bow to his will. At this point, unfortunately, the text becomes\ndefective. Anu calls upon two other gods to take up the contest with Zu.\nThe name of one of these is altogether lost; the second is called\nBar,[1084] and is designated as an offspring of Ishtar. Both these\ndeities decline, answering Anu in precisely the same manner as Ramman.\nWhat finally happens we are left to conjecture. Harper[1085] supposes\nthat Shamash is finally called upon by Anu and accepts the challenge. He\nbases this opinion upon the passage in the Dibbarra legend[1086] where\nthe serpent, appealing to Shamash, extols the sun-god's power by\ndeclaring that even Zu could not escape the net of Shamash. There are,\nhowever, grave objections to this view. In the first place, the passage\nin question occurs in a defective part of the text, and Harper\nhimself[1087] is not certain of the restoration that he proposes.[1088]\nSecondly, if Shamash conquers Zu, we should expect the sun-god to have\nthe tablets of fate in his possession. Such, however, is not the case,\nand the only god besides En-lil who is represented in the religious\nliterature of the Babylonians as holding the tablets is Marduk.\nMoreover, in a hymn to Marduk, which Harper himself quotes,[1089] the\nbird Zu is referred to as among the evil forces captured by Marduk. In\nview of this, there seems no reason to question that, in the present\nform of the Zu myth, Marduk was introduced as the hero, precisely as, in\nthe present form of the Tiamat episode, Marduk successfully carries out\na deed from which the other gods shrink in fear. The theological purport\nof the myth thus becomes clear. It is to account for the fact that\nMarduk holds the tablets which were originally in the hands of En-lil.\nMarduk supplants the old Bel. In the Tiamat episode his name is\nsubstituted for that of En-lil, and the latter is represented as giving\nhis consent to the transfer of his name to the god of Babylon. In the Zu\nmyth, En-lil's claim to the supreme control of the laws and fate of the\nuniverse is freely acknowledged, but, En-lil being unable to resist the\nattack of Zu, it was left for Marduk to capture the bird and thus\nacquire by his own efforts what the old Bel had lost through lack of\nstrength. Babylon replaces Nippur as the center of power in the\nEuphrates Valley, and the god of Babylon, naturally, was imbued by his\nworshippers with prerogatives that originally belonged to the rival god\nof Nippur.[1090]\n\nIf this view is correct, Harper's interpretation must be abandoned. The\nZu myth does not represent, as he supposes, an attack upon Marduk as the\nsymbol of the early morning sun, but upon En-lil, the Bel of Nippur, as\nthe one who, by virtue of having the tablets of fate in his possession,\ncontrols the laws of the universe and fixes the fate of the gods and of\nmankind. The annual rain-storm passing apparently beyond the control of\nthe gods is viewed as a revolt against En-lil's authority. It is left\nfor Marduk to reestablish order, and in return, he retains control of\nthe precious tablets. That the conception of Marduk as a solar deity\nconstitutes a factor in the myth is not, of course, to be denied,\nprecisely as in the Tiamat myth, the solar character of Marduk plays an\nimportant part. The sun triumphs over the storms. Rain and wind are\nobliged at last to yield their authority to the former. But for the\ntheologians of Babylon, the position of Marduk as the head of the\npantheon was a much more important factor. The myth served to show how\nMarduk came to supplant the role of the old Bel of Nippur.\n\nViewed in this light, the Zu myth appears in more senses than one as a\npendant to the Marduk-Tiamat episode. Not only do both symbolize the\nsame natural phenomenon, but in both, Bel of Nippur was originally the\ncentral figure of the pantheon, and in both Marduk replaces Bel. The Zu\nmyth is made to account in a somewhat more respectful, conciliatory\nmanner for the position of Marduk as the head of the pantheon. Instead\nof setting aside En-lil altogether, as was done by the compilers of the\nTiamat myth, Marduk conquers for himself the supremacy that his\nfollowers claimed for him. The contradictions between the two myths need\nnot disturb us. As variant versions of a tale intended to account for\none and the same fact,--the supremacy of Marduk,--they may well have\narisen even in the same place. Such inconsistencies as the assumption,\nin the Zu version of the nature myth, that En-lil is the original\nestablisher of order in the world, as against the Tiamat version where\nMarduk snatches the tablets of fate directly from Kingu, are inevitable\nwhen stories that arose among the people are taken in hand by\ntheologians and modified and adapted to serve doctrines developed under\nscholastic influences.\n\n\nThe Adapa Legend.\n\nThe myths and legends that we have so far considered--including the\ncreation and Gilgamesh epics--will have illustrated two important\npoints: firstly, the manner in which historical occurrences were clothed\nin mythical form and interwoven with purely legendary tales, and,\nsecondly, the way in which nature myths were treated to teach certain\ndoctrines. The story of Gilgamesh is an illustration of the hopelessness\nof a mortal's attempt to secure the kind of immortal life which is the\nprerogative of the gods. Popular tales, illustrative of the climatic\nconditions of Babylonia, serve as a means of unfolding a doctrine of\nevolution and of impressing upon the people a theological system of\nbeliefs regarding the relationship of the gods to one another. A\ncollection of war-songs is given a semi-mythical form, and the original\npurport of the collection is modified to serve as a talisman against\nmisfortunes. In the case of these legends it is necessary and, as we\nhave seen, also possible to distinguish between their original and\npresent form and to separate the story, as in the case of the Gilgamesh\nepic, into its component parts.\n\nThe legend that we are about to consider proves that this process of the\nadaptation of popular myths begins at a very early period. The text was\nfound on the cuneiform tablets discovered at El-Amarna in Egypt.[1091]\nSince the El-Amarna tablets date from the fifteenth century B.C., we\nhave a proof of the compilation of the legend in question at this date.\nThe legend is again suggested by the storms which visited Babylonia, but\ninstead of a pure nature-myth, we have a tale which concerns the\nrelationship between the gods and mankind. In its present form, it is an\nobject lesson dealing with the same problem that we came across in the\nGilgamesh epic and that we will meet again in another form,--the problem\nof immortality.\n\nThe beginning of the story, as in the case of the Zu myth, is missing,\nbut we are in a position to restore at least the general context. A\nfisherman, Adapa, is engaged in plying his trade when a storm arises.\nAdapa is designated as the son of Ea. The place where he is fishing is\nspoken of as 'the sea.' The Persian Gulf is meant, and this body of\nwater (as the beginning of the great Okeanos) being sacred to Ea,[1092]\nthe description of Adapa as the son of Ea is a way of conveying the idea\nthat, like Parnapishtim, he stands under the protection of Ea. The\nstory, like most legends, assumes a period of close intercourse between\ngods and men, a time when the relationship involved in being 'a son of a\ngod' had a literal force which was lost to a more advanced generation.\nAdapa, accordingly, is portrayed as fishing for the 'house of his lord,'\n_i.e._, for Ea. When the storm breaks loose the fisherman, though a\nmortal, subdues the fierce element. The storm comes from the south, the\ndirection from which the most destructive winds came to Babylonia. The\nsouth wind is pictured, as in the Zu myth, under the form of a bird. The\nwind sweeps Adapa into the waters, but, since this element is controlled\nby Adapa's father,--the god Ea,--Adapa succeeds in mastering the south\nwind, and, as we learn from the course of the narrative, in breaking the\nwings of the storm-bird. When the tablet becomes intelligible we find\nAdapa engaged in this contest with the south wind.[1093]\n\n    The south wind blew and drove him[1094] under the water. Into\n    the dwelling-place[1095] [of the fish] it engulfs him. 'O south\n    wind, thou hast overwhelmed me with thy cruelty (?). Thy wings I\n    will break.'\n\nAdapa's threat is carried out.\n\n    Even as he spoke the wings of the south wind were broken. For\n    seven days the south wind did not blow across the land.\n\nSeven is to be interpreted as a round number, as in the Deluge story,\nand indicates a rather long, though indefinite, period. Anu, the god of\nheaven, is astonished at this long-continued disappearance of the south\nwind, and asks a messenger of his, who is called the god Ilabrat, for\nthe cause. Anu inquires:\n\n    \"Why has the south wind not blown for seven days across the\n    land?\" His messenger Ilabrat answered him: \"My lord! Adapa, the\n    son of Ea, has broken the wings of the south wind.\"\n\nOf this god Ilabrat nothing is known. The interpretation of his name is\ndoubtful.[1096] He probably is one of the numerous local gods who was\nabsorbed by some more powerful one and who thus came to have a position\nof inferior rank in the pantheon.\n\nAnu, upon hearing the news, is enraged, and cries for 'help' against an\ninterference in his domain. He denounces Adapa in solemn assembly, and\ndemands his presence of Ea, in whose domain Adapa has taken refuge. The\ntext at this point is defective, but one can gather that Ea, who\nconstitutes himself Adapa's protector, warns the latter, as he warned\nParnapishtim. He advises him to present himself at the throne of Anu for\ntrial, and to secure the intervention of two gods, Tammuz and Gishzida,\nwho are stationed at the gate of heaven, Anu's dwelling-place. To\naccomplish this, Adapa is to clothe himself in garments of mourning, and\nwhen the doorkeepers ask him the reason for his mourning, he is to\nanswer:\n\n    ... Two gods have disappeared from our earth, therefore do I\n    appear thus.\n\nAnd when he is asked:\n\n    \"Who are the two gods who have disappeared from the earth?\"\n\n    Tammuz and Gishzida will look at one another; they will sigh and\n    speak a favorable word before Anu, and the glorious countenance\n    of Anu they will show thee.\n\nTammuz and Gishzida will know that they are meant. The mourning of Adapa\nwill be regarded as a sign of reverence for the two gods, whose sympathy\nand good-will will thus be secured.\n\nThe introduction of Tammuz and Gishzida introduces a widely spread\nnature-myth into the story. Gishzida is identical with Nin-gishzida, a\nsolar deity whom we came across in the old Babylonian pantheon.[1097]\nTammuz similarly is a solar deity. Both represent local solar cults. At\na later period, Nin-gishzida is entirely absorbed by Ninib, but the\nAdapa legend affords us a glimpse of the god still occupying an\nindependent, though already inferior, position. The Babylonian\ncalendar[1098] designates the fifth month as sacred to Gishzida, while\nthe fourth month is named for Tammuz. The two deities, therefore, take\ntheir place in the systematized pantheon as symbolical of the phases of\nthe sun peculiar to its approach to the summer solstice. The\ndisappearance of the two gods signifies the decline of the year after\nthe summer solstice. Of Tammuz, the popular myth related that it was\nIshtar,[1099] represented as his consort, who carried him off. Since the\ndisappearance of Gishzida embodies precisely the same idea as that of\nTammuz, it was natural that the story should in time have been told only\nof the one. The annual mourning for Tammuz was maintained in Babylonia\nto a very late period. The Adapa legend shows us that at one time the\nfestival was celebrated in honor of the two related deities. The Tammuz\nfestival was celebrated just before the summer solstice set in, so that\nthe mourning was followed immediately by rejoicing at the reappearance\nof the god whose coming heralded the culmination of vegetation.\n\nThe destructive storms take place during the winter, when Tammuz and\nGishzida have disappeared. Adapa's mourning is thus an indication of the\nseason of the year when his encounter with the south wind took place.\nSince Adapa succeeds in overcoming the destructive wind, the wintry\nseason has passed by. Summer is approaching. The time for celebrating\nboth the fast and the festival of the two solar deities has arrived.\nTammuz and Gishzida, the gods of spring, accordingly stand at Adapa's\nside, ready to plead his cause before Anu. So much being clear, we may\nadvance a step further in the interpretation of the legend. By the side\nof Tammuz and Gishzida, there is still a third solar deity who belongs\nto the spring of the year,--Marduk, who, by virtue of his later position\nas the head of the pantheon, sets aside his two fellows and becomes the\nsolar god of spring _par excellence_. Marduk, it will be recalled, is\ncommonly designated as the son of Ea,[1100] and we have seen that, apart\nfrom political considerations, the sun rising out of the ocean--the\ndomain of Ea--was a factor in this association. Adapa dwells at the sea,\nand is forced into the ocean by the south wind, in the same way that the\nsun dips into the great 'Okeanos' every evening. The identification of\nAdapa with Marduk[1101] thus becomes apparent, and as a matter of fact\nthe Babylonian scribes of later times[1102] accepted this\nidentification.\n\nThe basis of the Adapa legend is, therefore, the nature-myth of the\nannual fight of the sun with the violent elements of nature. At the same\ntime, other ideas have been introduced into it, and Adapa himself, while\nplaying the role of Marduk, is yet not entirely confounded with this\ngod. His name is never written with the determinative for deity.\nMoreover, the nature-myth is soon lost sight of, in order to make room\nfor an entirely different order of ideas. The real purport of the legend\nin its present form is foreshadowed by the further advice that Ea offers\nto Adapa:\n\n    When thou comest before Anu they will offer thee food of death.\n    Do not eat. They will offer thee waters of death. Do not drink.\n    They will offer thee a garment. Put it on. They will offer thee\n    oil. Anoint thyself. The order that I give thee do not neglect.\n    The word that I speak to thee take to heart. The messenger of\n    Anu approached.[1103] 'Adapa has broken the wings of the south\n    wind. Deliver him into my hands....'\n\nEa obeys the order, delivers up Adapa, and everything happens as was\nforetold.\n\n    Upon mounting to heaven and on his approach to the gate of Anu,\n    Tammuz and Gishzida were stationed at the gate of Anu. They saw\n    Adapa and cried 'Help,[1104] Lord! Why art thou thus attired?\n    For whom hast thou put on mourning?'[1105]\n\nAdapa replies:\n\n    'Two gods have disappeared from the earth, therefore do I wear a\n    mourning garment.'\n\n    'Who are the two gods who have disappeared from the earth?'\n\n    Tammuz and Gishzida looked at one another, broke out in lament.\n    'O Adapa! Step before King Anu.' As he approached, Anu saw him\n    and cried out to him:\n\n    'Come, Adapa, why hast thou broken the wings of the south wind?'\n\n    Adapa answered Anu: 'My lord! For the house of my lord[1106] I\n    was fishing in the midst of the sea. The waters lay still around\n    me, when the south wind began to blow and forced me underneath.\n    Into the dwelling of the fish it drove me. In the anger of my\n    heart [I broke the wings of the south wind].'\n\nTammuz and Gishzida thereupon intercede with Anu on behalf of Adapa, and\nsucceed in appeasing the god's wrath. If the story ended here, we would\nhave a pure nature-myth--the same myth in a different form that we\nencountered in the Creation epic, in the Deluge story, and in the Zu\nlegend. Adapa would be merely a designation of Marduk and nothing more.\nThe sun triumphs over the storms, and the only objectionable feature in\nthe tale--to a Babylonian--would be the degradation involved in obliging\nMarduk to secure the intercession of other gods. But this feature of\nitself suggests that the nature-myth has been embodied in the legend,\nbut does not constitute the whole of it. A second element and one\nentirely independent in its character has been added to the myth.\n\nAnu is appeased, but he is astonished at Ea's patronage of Adapa, as a\nresult of which a mortal has actually appeared in a place set aside for\nthe gods.\n\n    Why did Ea permit an impure mortal to see the interior of heaven\n    and earth? He made him great and gave him fame.[1107]\n\nThe privilege accorded to Adapa appears to alarm the gods. As among the\nGreeks and other nations, so also the Babylonian deities were not free\nfrom jealousy at the power and achievements of humanity. Adapa, having\nviewed the secrets of heaven and earth, there was nothing left for the\ngods but to admit him into their circle. The narrative accordingly\ncontinues:\n\n    'Now what shall we grant him? Offer him food of life, that he\n    may eat of it.' They brought it to him, but he did not eat.\n    Waters of life they brought him, but he did not drink. A garment\n    they brought him. He put it on. Oil they brought him. He\n    anointed himself.\n\nAdapa follows the instructions of Ea, but the latter, it will be\nrecalled, tells Adapa that food and water of _death_ will be offered\nhim. It is Ea, therefore, who, although the god of humanity, and who,\nmoreover, according to the tradition involved in the Adapa legend, is\nthe creator of mankind, who prevents his creatures from gaining\nimmortality. The situation is very much the same that we find in the\nthird chapter of Genesis, when God, who creates man, takes precautions\nlest mortals eat of the tree of life and 'live forever.' The problem\npresented by the Hebrew and Babylonian stories is the same: why should\nnot man, who is descended from the gods, who is created in the likeness\nof a god, who by virtue of his intellect can peer into the secrets of\nheaven and earth, who stands superior to the rest of creation, who, to\nuse the psalmist's figure, is only 'a scale lower than god,' why should\nhe not be like the gods and live forever? The Hebrew legend solves the\nproblem in a franker way than does the Babylonian. God, while as anxious\nas Ea to keep man from eating of the tree of life, cautions Adam against\nthe act, whereas Ea practises a deception in order to prevent man from\neating. That in both tales eternal life is contained in food points\nagain (as we have found to be the case with the Biblical narratives of\nCreation and of the Deluge) to a common source for the two traditions.\nSimilarly the phrase 'waters of life' is a figure of speech of frequent\noccurrence in Biblical literature in both the Old and the New\nTestaments. It is no argument against a common source for the Hebrew and\nBabylonian stories explaining how man came to forego immortality, that\nthe waters of life should be found in the one and not in the other. If\nwe assume with Gunkel[1108] that the stories embodied in the first\nchapters of Genesis were long current among the Hebrews before they were\ngiven a permanent form, the adaptation of old traditions to an entirely\nnew order of beliefs involves a casting aside of features that could not\nbe used and a discarding of such as seemed superfluous. The striking\ndepartures in the case of the Hebrew legends from their Babylonian\ncounterparts are as full of significance as the striking agreements\nbetween the two. The departures and agreements must both be accounted\nfor. For both there are reasons. So, to emphasize only one point, in a\nmonotheistic solution of the problem under consideration, there was no\nplace for any conflict among the gods. In Genesis God simply wills that\nman should not eat of the tree of life. In the Adapa legend the gods,\nincluding Anu, are willing to grant a mortal the food and water of life,\nsimply because they believe that Ea, the creator of man, wishes him to\nhave it. Accordingly, Anu and his associates are represented at the\nclose of the legend as being grieved that Adapa should have foregone the\nprivilege.\n\n    Anu looked at him[1109] and lamented over him. 'Come, Adapa, why\n    didst thou not eat and not drink? Now thou canst not live.'\n\nAdapa replies, unconscious of the deception practised on him:\n\n    'Ea, my lord, commanded me not to eat and not to drink.'\n\nAdapa returns to the earth. What his subsequent fate is we do not know,\nfor the tablet here comes to an end. It is possible that he learns what\nEa has done, and that the god gives him the reason for the deception\npractised. A scene of this kind could not find a place in the Hebrew\nversion that emphasizes the supreme authority of a power besides whom\nnone other was recognized. God acts alone.\n\nAdam, it will be recalled, after eating of the fruit of the tree of\nknowledge, makes a garment for himself. There can be no doubt that there\nis a close connection between this tradition and the feature in the\nAdapa legend, where Adapa, who has been shown the 'secrets of heaven and\nearth,'--that is, has acquired knowledge,--is commanded by Ea to put on\nthe garment that is offered him. The anointing oneself with oil, though\nan essential part of the toilet in the ancient and modern Orient, was\ndiscarded in the Hebrew tale as a superfluous feature. The idea conveyed\nby the use of oil was the same as the one indicated in clothing one's\nnakedness. Both are symbols of civilization which man is permitted to\nattain, but his development stops there. He cannot secure eternal life.\n\nOn the other hand, in comparing the Hebrew and Babylonian versions of\nthe problem of knowledge and immortality, one cannot help being struck\nby the pessimistic tone of the former as against the more consolatory\nspirit of the latter. God does not want man to attain even\nknowledge.[1110] He secures it in disobedience to the divine will,\nwhereas Ea willingly grants him the knowledge of all there is in heaven\nand earth. In this way the Hebrew and Babylonian mind, each developed\nthe common tradition in its own way.\n\nLeaving the comparison aside and coming back for a moment to the Adapa\nstory, it is interesting to observe that as we have two tales, both\nintended to explain the position of Marduk at the head of the pantheon,\nthe one by making him the conqueror of Tiamat and forcing from Kingu the\ntablets of fate, the other by representing him as recovering from Zu the\ntablets which En-lil, who originally held them, could not protect\nagainst the storm-bird, so we have two solutions offered for the problem\nof immortality. The one in the Gilgamesh epic, where the hero is told of\nthe plant of life, succeeds in finding it, but as he is about to eat the\n'food' loses his grasp upon it. The exertions of man are in vain. True,\nthere is Parnapishtim, a mortal who with his wife has obtained immortal\nlife. He is the exception that proves the rule. Moreover, it is Bel, and\nnot Ea, who places Parnapishtim 'at the confluence of streams,' there to\nlive forever, and Bel does this as a proof of his pacification, a kind\nof indemnity offered to Ea for having destroyed the offspring of the god\nof humanity. The Adapa legend attacks the problem more seriously. Ea,\nthe same god who has created man, endowed him with wisdom, bestowed all\nmanner of benefits upon him, Ea, who protects humanity against Anu,\nagainst Bel, and other gods, Ea himself deceives man. Evidently the\nlesson that the Babylonian theologians intended to teach through the\nAdapa legend was, that it was not good for man to 'live forever.' Ea\nhimself prevents it. That is the point of the story. Anu and the other\ngods are satisfied, but Ea does not desire it, and Ea's decision cannot\nbe to the disadvantage of mankind, so dearly beloved by him. With this\nconclusion humanity must be content--and be resigned to the inevitable.\n\nOf the various legends that we have been considering, the story of Adapa\nis perhaps the most significant, and none the less so for the manner in\nwhich a philosophical problem has been grafted on to a nature-myth.\nAdapa is made to play the role of Marduk, and it is nothing short of\nremarkable that at so early a period as the one to which the existence\nof the story can be traced back, a nature-myth should have been diverted\nfrom its original purpose and adapted to the end that the Adapa story\nserves in its present form. The process involved in this adaptation is a\ncomplicated one. The story serves as an evidence of the intellectual\nactivity displayed in the schools of theological thought that must have\nflourished for many centuries before a story like that of Adapa could\nhave been produced out of a nature-myth. Hardly less remarkable is it\nthat the theologians and scribes of later times no longer understood the\nstory, for otherwise they would not have identified Adapa with Marduk\nthrough the superficial circumstance that he is introduced into the\nstory instead of Marduk, or some other solar deity allied to Marduk.\n\nThe Adapa legend takes us back to the beginning of man's career--to the\ntime when, as in the early chapters of Genesis, man stood closer to the\ngods than at a later time, the time when there was a constant\nintercourse between man and the gods, and more especially between man\nand his protector, Ea. The story forms part of a stock of traditions of\nwhich we have another specimen in the Eabani-Ukhat episode, incorporated\nin the Gilgamesh epic.[1111] No doubt when the treasures still existing\nin the British Museum shall have been thoroughly examined and as\nadditional remains of the religious literature of the Babylonians will\nbe brought to light, we will find further traces of these early\ntraditions as well as of other myths. Those that we have discussed in\nthis and in the preceding chapters illustrate the system adopted by the\npriests in elaborating these traditions and myths and in adapting them\nto serve as illustrations of certain doctrines and beliefs. We may also\nfeel tolerably confident that the religious ideas conveyed through these\nvarious epics and legends and myths fairly represent both the popular\nand the advanced thought, as it unfolded itself in the course of time.\nBy the aid of these specimens of the religious literature, we have been\nenabled to analyze the views of the Babylonians regarding the creation\nof the world, its structure, and government. We have obtained an insight\ninto the problems of life and death which engaged the Babylonian\nthinkers, and we have noted some of the solutions offered for these\nproblems. In a consideration of the views held by the Babylonians and\nAssyrians of the life after death, to which we now turn, it will again\nbe a specimen of the religious literature that will serve as our main\nguide.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1011] Some of these were already indicated (but only indicated) by\nGeorge Smith in his _Chaldaeische Genesis_ (German translation), pp.\n136-142. It is the merit of Dr. E. J. Harper to have prepared an\nexcellent publication of the material contained in Smith's work, pp.\n103-120, under the title \"Die Babylonischen Legenden von Etana, Zu,\nAdapa und Dibbarra\" (Delitzsch and Haupt's _Beitraege zur Assyriologie_,\nii. 390-521). Additional material is furnished by two publications of\nmine: (_a_) a monograph, \"A Fragment of the Dibbarra Epic\" (Boston,\n1891), and (_b_) \"A New Fragment of the Babylonian Etana Legend\"\n(Delitzsch and Haupt's _Beitraege zur Assyriologie_, iii. 363-381). See\nalso Friedrich Jeremias in Chantepie de la Saussaye's _Lehrbuch der\nReligionsgeschichte_ (2nd edition), i. 218-221.\n\n[1012] See above, p. 511.\n\n[1013] See my remarks in Delitzsch and Haupt's _Beitraege zur\nAssyriologie_, iii. 376.\n\n[1014] I Kings, v. 11.\n\n[1015] Harper in Delitzsch and Haupt's _Beitraege zur Assyriologie_, ii.\n391-408.\n\n[1016] _Ib._ pp. 405 _seq._\n\n[1017] Lit., 'the Inquirers,' a designation of the priests in their\ncapacity of oracle-seekers.\n\n[1018] The matter is not certain because of the sad condition of the\nfragments.\n\n[1019] K. 2606, Harper, _ib._ pp. 399, 400.\n\n[1020] Only a part of the name, _I-si_, is preserved.\n\n[1021] See pp. 108, 163.\n\n[1022] _I.e._, an army's march of two hours.\n\n[1023] The dwelling of Ea. See Meissner, _Alexander and Gilgamos_, p.\n17.\n\n[1024] _I.e._, still smaller.\n\n[1025] See above, p. 458.\n\n[1026] See p. 460.\n\n[1027] See p. 511.\n\n[1028] Harper, _ib._. p. 404, note.\n\n[1029] See Harper, _ib._. pp. 406, 407.\n\n[1030] See above, p. 469.\n\n[1031] Harper, pp. 392-394.\n\n[1032] _I.e._, one cannot escape from Shamash, since he traverses all\nspace.\n\n[1033] A personification of the storm. See below, pp. 537 _seq._ The\nline is very obscure owing to the break in the tablet.\n\n[1034] So Harper, but see pp. 541, 542.\n\n[1035] _I.e._, he will dig his beak into the juicy part of the meat.\n\n[1036] Of the carcass.\n\n[1037] As shown by the colophon of K. 2606, and also by the fact that K.\n1547, which contains on the obverse the tale, contains on the reverse\nEtana's prayer to Shamash.\n\n[1038] De la Saussaye's _Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte_ (2nd\nedition), i. 218.\n\n[1039] See above, p. 195.\n\n[1040] Perrot and Chiplez, _History of Art in Sardinia, Phoenicia,\nJudea, Syria, and Asia Minor_, ii. 176.\n\n[1041] Pinches, _Babylonian and Assyrian Cylinders, etc., of Sir Henry\nPeak_, no. 18. _Cf._ Harper, _ib._ p. 408.\n\n[1042] A lexicographical tablet, IIR. 56, col. iii. 22-35, mentions four\ndogs of Marduk.\n\n[1043] See p. 232.\n\n[1044] See Harper, _ib._ p. 426.\n\n[1045] The _ra_ is either a phonetic complement to the ideograph or is\nperhaps added to suggest to the reader the identification with Gir-ra.\n\n[1046] Namely, the connection with Hebrew _deber_, 'pestilence.' _Cf._\nHarper, _ib._ p. 426.\n\n[1047] Babylon.\n\n[1048] Text obscure. \"Sharpen badly\" seems to be the idiomatic phrase\nused.\n\n[1049] See above, p. 154.\n\n[1050] See p. 475.\n\n[1051] A solar deity. See p. 99.\n\n[1052] Ishum.\n\n[1053] See above, p. 501.\n\n[1054] _I.e._, seven. A collective personification of the seven evil\nspirits.\n\n[1055] Ishum.\n\n[1056] IIR. 51, 19c and 4a. Khashur is also used as a name for the\ncedar. See Delitzsch, _Assyr. Handwoerterbuch_, p. 295a.\n\n[1057] The one published by the writer.\n\n[1058] Hammurabi is the conqueror of Palestine mentioned in Gen. xlv.\nunder the name Amraphel. See, _e.g._, Hommel, _Altisraelitische\nUeberlieferung_, p. 106.\n\n[1059] Num. xxi. 14. The 'song of Deborah' (Judges, v.) belongs to this\ncollection. For further specimens of Babylonian war-songs, see Hommel,\n_ib._ pp. 180-190,--all dealing with the memorable Hammurabi period.\n\n[1060] K. 1282, Harper, _ib._, pp. 432 _seq._, and King's fragment,\n_Zeitschrift fuer Assyriologie_, xl. 60, 61.\n\n[1061] The gods of vegetation are mentioned.\n\n[1062] _I.e._, give wisdom to the one who honors me.\n\n[1063] Text 'Dibbarra.'\n\n[1064] See above, p. 114.\n\n[1065] As Mr. King has shown (_Zeitschrift fuer Assyriologie_, xi. 53).\nSee above, p. 269.\n\n[1066] Deut. vi. 9.\n\n[1067] See p. 483.\n\n[1068] See p. 263.\n\n[1069] See p. 525.\n\n[1070] See p. 420, 428.\n\n[1071] See pp. 439 _seq._\n\n[1072] _I.e._, En-lil's.\n\n[1073] _I.e._, 'the bond of heaven and earth,' the name probably of a\ntemple-tower in Nippur, sacred to En-lil.\n\n[1074] Zu's heart. These two lines are repeated.\n\n[1075] The word _Kissu_ applies more especially to the dwelling places\nof the gods. Delitzsch, _Assyr. Handwoerterbuch_, p. 349b.\n\n[1076] Zu.\n\n[1077] See _e.g._, Ward, _Seal Cylinders of the Metropolitan Museum of\nArt_, p. 12.\n\n[1078] Ramman.\n\n[1079] These two lines are repeated.\n\n[1080] The thunderbolt.\n\n[1081] Cities sacred to thee.\n\n[1082] _I.e._, the sacred edifices in these cities.\n\n[1083] The lofty dwelling of the gods is here meant. See chapter xxvii.\n\n[1084] Ideographic reading--the ideograph signifies 'shrine.' The verbal\nstem _bararu_ means 'to shine.'\n\n[1085] See p. 414.\n\n[1086] See p. 525.\n\n[1087] See p. 400.\n\n[1088] It is quite possible that the line in question declares that Zu\nis in collusion with the eagle, against whom the serpent seeks the\nassistance of Shamash.\n\n[1089] See p. 417.\n\n[1090] It is hardly possible that the illustration on seal cylinders\nmentioned by Ward, _ib._ pp. 13, 14, represents the Zu bird brought\nbefore a deity for punishment; and certainly not before Shamash, who\nonly enters into the story in so far as Marduk is a solar deity.\n\n[1091] Published by Winckler and Abel, _Der Thontafelfund von\nEl-Amarna_, iii. 166a, b; translated also by Harper, _ib._ pp. 420, 421.\n\n[1092] See above, p. 63.\n\n[1093] My rendering is given in continuous lines. The legend is in\nnarrative, not in poetic form.\n\n[1094] Adapa.\n\n[1095] Lit., 'house.'\n\n[1096] Neither Delitzsch's suggestion 'god of dwellings' nor Harper's\n'god thou art strong' is acceptable.\n\n[1097] See p. 99.\n\n[1098] See p. 462.\n\n[1099] See the following chapter.\n\n[1100] See pp. 139 _seq._\n\n[1101] First suggested by Zimmern.\n\n[1102] Of the eighth century. See Harper, _ib._ p. 424.\n\n[1103] To Ea.\n\n[1104] Anu, it will be recalled, utters the same cry. See p. 546.\n\n[1105] Referring to his garments of mourning.\n\n[1106] _I.e._, Ea.\n\n[1107] I follow Zimmern's rendition of the line.\n\n[1108] _Schoepfung und Chaos_, pp. 168 _seq._\n\n[1109] Adapa.\n\n[1110] The phrase 'knowledge of good and evil' (Gen. ii. 17) is simply\nan expression equivalent to our 'everything,' or to the Babylonian\n'secrets of heaven and earth.'\n\n[1111] See pp. 476 _seq._ Sayce has even gone so far as to suggest an\nidentification of Adapa (by reading Adawa) with the Biblical Adam, but\nthis conjecture is untenable.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV.\n\nTHE VIEWS OF LIFE AFTER DEATH.\n\n\nThe problem of immortality, we have seen, engaged the serious attention\nof the Babylonian theologians. While the solutions they had to offer\ncould hardly have been satisfactory either to themselves or to the\nmasses, it must not be supposed that the denial of immortality to man\ninvolved the total extinction of conscious vitality. Neither the people\nnor the leaders of religious thought ever faced the possibility of the\ntotal annihilation of what once was called into existence. Death was a\npassage to another kind of life, and the denial of immortality merely\nemphasized the impossibility of escaping the change in existence brought\nabout by death. The gods alone do not pass from one phase of existence\nto the other. Death was mysterious, but not more mysterious than life.\nThe Babylonian religion does not transcend the stage of belief,\ncharacteristic of primitive culture everywhere, which cannot conceive of\nthe possibility of life coming to an absolute end. Life of some kind and\nin some form was always presupposed. So far as man was concerned,\ncreated by some god,--Bel, Ea, Aruru, or Ishtar, according to the\nvarious traditions that were current,[1112]--no divine fiat could wipe\nout what was endowed with life and the power of reproduction.\n\nNo doubt, the impossibility for the individual to conceive of himself as\nforever deprived of consciousness, was at the bottom of the primitive\ntheory of the perpetuity of existence in some form. Among ancient\nreligions, Buddhism alone frees itself from this theory and unfolds a\nbold doctrine of the possibility of a complete annihilation. The\nquestion, however, whether the continuity of existence was a blessing or\na curse was raised by many ancient nations. The Babylonians are among\nthese who are inclined to take a gloomy view of the passage from this\nworld to the existence in store for humanity after death, and the\nreligious leaders were either powerless or disinclined to controvert\nthis view.\n\n\nLocation and Names of the Gathering Place of the Dead.\n\nWe have already had occasion[1113] to refer to the great cave underneath\nthe earth in which the dead were supposed to dwell, and since the earth\nitself was regarded as a mountain, the cave is pictured as a hollow\nwithin, or rather underneath, a mountain. A conception of this kind must\nhave arisen among a people that was once familiar with a mountainous\ndistrict. The settlers of the Euphrates Valley brought the belief with\nthem from an earlier mountain home. The cave, moreover, points to\ncave-dwelling and to cave-burial as conditions that prevailed at one\ntime among the populace, precisely as the imitation of the mountain with\nits caves in the case of the Egyptian pyramids, is due to similar\ninfluences. To this cave various names are assigned in the literature of\nthe Babylonians,--some of popular origin, others reflecting scholastic\nviews. The most common name is Aralu.[1114] We also find the term 'house\nof Aralu.'[1115] The etymology of the term is obscure. Aralu was\npictured as a vast place, dark and gloomy. It is sometimes called a\nland, sometimes a great house. The approach to it was difficult. It lay\nin the lowest part of the mountain that represented the earth, not far\nfrom the hollow underneath the mountain into which the 'Apsu' flowed.\nSurrounded by seven walls and strongly guarded, it was a place to which\nno living person could go and from which no mortal could ever depart\nafter once entering it. To Aralu all went whose existence in this world\nhad come to an end. Another name which specifies the relationship of\nAralu to the world is Ekur or 'mountain house' of the dead. Ekur is one\nof the names for the earth,[1116] but is applied more particularly to\nthat part of the mountain, also known as Kharsag[1117]-kurkura, _i.e._,\n'the mountain of all lands' where the gods were born. Before the later\nspeculative view was developed, according to which the gods, or most of\nthem, have their seats in heaven,[1118] it was on this mountain also\nthat the gods were supposed to dwell. Hence Ekur became also one of the\nnames for temple,[1119] as the seat of a god. The dwelling of the dead\nwas regarded as a part of the 'great mountain.' It belonged to Ekur, and\nthe fact that it was designated simply as Ekur,[1120] is a valuable\nindication that the dead were brought into close association with the\ngods. This association is also indicated by the later use of Aralu as\nthe designation of the mountain within which the district of the dead,\nAralu proper, lay[1121]--synonymous, therefore, with Ekur. We shall see\nin the course of this chapter that the dead are placed even more than\nthe living under the direct supervision of the gods.\n\nA third name for the nether world which conveys an important addition to\nthe views held regarding the dead, was Shualu. Jensen, it is true,\nfollowing Bertin, questions the existence of this term in\nBabylonian,[1122] but one does not see how the evidence of the passages\nin the lexicographical tablets can be set aside in the way that he\nproposes. Zimmern[1123] does not appear to be convinced by Jensen's\narguments and regards the question as an open one. Jensen's method of\ndisposing of Shualu, besides being open to serious objections, fails to\naccount for the fact that Shualu is brought into association with\nvarious Babylonian terms and ideographs for the grave.[1124] This cannot\nbe accidental. That the term has hitherto been found only in\nlexicographical tablets need not surprise us. Aralu, too, is of rare\noccurrence in the religious texts. The priests appear to avoid the names\nfor the nether world, which were of ill omen, and preferred to describe\nthe place by some epithet, as 'land without return,' or 'dark dwelling,'\nor 'great city,' and the like. Of such descriptive terms we have a large\nnumber.[1125] The stem underlying Shualu signifies 'to ask.' Shualu is a\nplace of inquiry,[1126] and the inquiry meant is of the nature of a\nreligious oracle. The name, accordingly, is an indication of the power\naccorded to the dead, to aid the living by furnishing them with answers\nto questions, just as the gods furnish oracles through the mediation of\nthe priests.[1127] The Old Testament supplies us with an admirable\nillustration of the method of obtaining oracles through the dead. Saul,\nwhen he desires to know what the outcome of a battle is to be, seeks out\na sorceress, and through her calls up the dead Samuel[1128] and puts the\nquestion to him. Similarly, in the Gilgamesh epic, the hero, with the\naid of Nergal, obtains a sight of Eabani[1129] and plies him with\nquestions. The belief, therefore, in this power of the dead was common\nto Babylonians and Hebrews, and, no doubt, was shared by other branches\nof the Semites. It is natural, therefore, to find the Babylonian term\nShualu paralleled by the Hebrew Sheol, which is the common designation\nin the Old Testament for the dwelling-place of the dead.[1130] How\nwidespread the custom was among Babylonians of inquiring 'through the\nliving of the dead'[1131] it is difficult, in default of satisfactory\nevidence, to say. The growing power of the priests as mediators between\nmen and gods must have acted as a check to such practices. The priests,\nas the inquirers,[1132] naturally proceeded direct to the particular god\nwhose representative they claimed to be, and the development of an\nelaborate ceremonial in the temples in connection with the oracles[1133]\nwas a further factor that must have influenced the gradual abandonment\nof the custom, at least as an element of the _official_ cult. Moreover,\nthe belief itself belongs in the domain of ancestor worship, and in\nhistorical times we find but little trace of such worship among the\nBabylonians. We may, therefore, associate the custom with the earliest\nperiod of the Babylonian religion. This view carries with it the\nantiquity of the term Shualu. Like Aralu and the designation Ekur, it\nembodies the close association of the dead with the gods. The dead not\nonly dwell near the gods, but, like the gods, they can direct the\naffairs of mankind. Their answers to questions put to them have divine\njustification. From this view of the dead to the deification of the\nlatter is but a short step. It does not, of course, follow, from the\nfact that Shualu or Sheol is the place of 'oracles,' that all the dead\nhave the power to furnish oracles or can be invoked for this purpose.\nCorrespondingly, if we find that the Babylonians did deify their dead,\nit does not mean that at one time all the dead were regarded as gods.\nPopular legends are concerned only with the heroes, with the popular\nfavorites--not with the great masses. Eabani, who appears to Gilgamesh,\nis a hero, and so is Samuel. As a matter of fact, we have so far only\nfound evidence that the ancient rulers whose memory lingered in the\nminds of the people were regarded by later generations as gods. So the\nnames of Dungi and Gudea[1134] are written on tablets that belong to the\ncenturies immediately following their reign, with the determinative that\nis placed before the names of gods. Festivals were celebrated in honor\nof these kings, sacrifices were offered to them, and their images were\nplaced in temples.[1135] Again, Gimil-Sin (c. 2500 B.C.), of the second\ndynasty of Ur, appears to have been deified during his lifetime, and\nthere was a temple in Lagash which was named after him.[1136] No doubt\nother kings will be found who were similarly honored. We may expect to\ncome across a god Hammurabi some day. Gilgamesh is, as we have seen, a\nhistorical personage whose career has been so thoroughly amalgamated\nwith nature-myths that he ends by becoming a solar deity who is invoked\nin incantations.\n\nThe tendency to connect legendary and mythical incidents with ancient\nrulers is part and parcel of this process of deification. Of an ancient\nking, Sargon,[1137] a story was related how he was exposed in a boat,\nand, 'knowing neither father nor mother,' was found by a ferryman. The\nexploits of this king and of his successor, Naram-Sin, were incorporated\nin an omen text[1138]--a circumstance that again illustrates how the\npopular fancy connected the heroes of the past with its religious\ninterests. Still, there is no more reason to question the historical\nreality of Sargon[1139] than to question the existence of Moses, because\na story of his early youth is narrated in Exodus[1140] which forms a\ncurious parallel to the Sargon legend, or to question the existence of a\npersonage by the name of Abraham, because an Abrahamitic cult arose that\ncontinues to the present day.[1141]\n\nThis close association of the dead with the gods, upon which the\ndeification of the dead rests, may be regarded as a legacy of the\nearliest period of the Babylonian religion, of the time when the\nintercourse between the gods and the living was also direct. The belief\nand rites connected with the dead constitute the most conservative\nelements in the religion of a people. The organized cult affects the\nliving chiefly. So far as the latter are concerned, the rise of a\npriesthood to whom the religious needs of the people are entrusted,\nremoves the living from that immediate contact with the gods which we\nnote in the traditions of every people regarding the beginnings of\nmankind. The priests have no power over the dead. The dead require no\n'mediator.' Hence, those who dwell in Aralu return to the early state of\nmankind when gods and mankind 'walked together.'\n\nAnother name that is of frequent occurrence in religious texts is\nKigallu, which describes the nether world as a district of great extent,\nsituated within the earth.[1142] The chief goddess of the nether world\nis commonly known as the 'queen of Kigallu.' Furthermore, Irkalla, which\nwas interpreted by the Babylonian theologians as 'great city' (or\n'district'), is used both as a designation for the dwelling-place of the\ndead and for the consort of the queen of Aralu.[1143]\n\nBeside the names for the nether world above discussed, a large number of\nepithets and metaphors are found in the religious texts. The place to\nwhich the dead go is called the 'dark dwelling,' 'the land from which\nthere is no return,' 'house of death,' 'the great city,' 'the deep\nland,' and, since Nergal, the ruler of the lower world, was the patron\nof the city Cuthah[1144] (or Kutu), the name Cuthah was also used as a\ndesignation for Aralu. Lastly, it is interesting to note that in\npoetical usage the words for 'grave'[1145] were also employed to\ndescribe the nether world. The question raised by this metaphor as to\nthe relationship between the grave and the lower world can best be\ndiscussed when we come to consider the funeral rites.[1146]\n\n\nThe Condition of the Dead and the Impossibility of an Escape from Aralu.\n\nAmong the remains of Babylonian literature there is a remarkable\nproduction, which furnishes us with an admirable view of the fate in\nstore for those who have left this world.[1147] The composition is based\nupon a nature-myth, symbolizing the change of seasons. Ishtar, the great\nmother goddess, the goddess of fertility who produces vegetation, is, as\nwe saw in the Gilgamesh epic,[1148] also the one who brings about the\ndecline of vegetation. The change in nature that takes place after the\nsummer solstice is passed and the crops have ripened was variously\ninterpreted. According to one, and, as it would seem, the favorite,\ntradition, the goddess is represented as herself destroying the solar\ndeity, Tammuz, whom she had chosen as a consort. Repentant and weeping,\nIshtar passes to the lower world in search of her youthful husband,--the\nsymbol of the sun on its approach to the summer solstice. While Ishtar\nis in the lower world, all fertility ceases, in the fields, as well as\nin the animal kingdom. At last Ishtar reappears, and nature is joyous\nonce more. In the Semitic Orient there are only two seasons:[1149]\nwinter, or the rainy season, and summer, or the dry season. The myth\nwas, therefore, a symbol of the great contrast that the two seasons\npresented to one another. Under various forms and numerous disguises, we\nfind the myth among several branches of the Semites, as well as in Egypt\nand among Aryans who came into contact with Semitic ideas.[1150] A\nfestival celebrated in honor of Tammuz by the Babylonians is one\nexpression of many that the myth received. The designation of the sixth\nmonth as \"the mission of Ishtar\"[1151] is another. This myth was adapted\nby the theologians to illustrate the doctrines that were developed\nregarding the kind of existence led by the dead. The literary method\nadopted is the same that characterizes the elaboration of the Adapa myth\nand of the myths incorporated into the Gilgamesh epic. The story forms\nthe point of departure, but its original purport is set aside to a\ngreater or less degree, necessary modifications are introduced, and the\nmoral or lesson is distinctly indicated. In the case of the production\nthat we are about to consider, the story of Ishtar's visit to the nether\nworld is told--perhaps by a priest--to a person who seeks consolation. A\ndear relative has departed this life, and a survivor,--a brother,\napparently,--is anxious to know whether the dead will ever come back\nagain. The situation reminds one of Gilgamesh seeking out Eabani,[1152]\nwith this difference: that, whereas Gilgamesh, aided by Nergal, is\naccorded a sight of his friend, the ordinary mourner must content\nhimself with the answer given to him. But what Gilgamesh is not\npermitted to hear,[1153] the mourner is told. A description is given him\nof how the dead fare in Aralu.\n\nThe problem, however, is somewhat different in the story of the descent\nof Ishtar, from the one propounded in the twelfth tablet of the\nGilgamesh epic. The question uppermost in the mind of the mourner is\n\"Will the dead return?\" The condition of the dead, which is most\nprominent in Gilgamesh's mind, is secondary. Both questions, however,\nare answered, and both answers are hopelessly sad. The nether world is\njoyless. Even the goddess Ishtar is badly treated upon entering it. The\nplace is synonymous with inactivity and decay; and, though the goddess\nreturns, the conclusion drawn is that the exception proves the\ninexorable rule. A goddess may escape, but mortals are doomed to\neverlasting sojourn, or rather imprisonment, in the realm presided over\nby Allatu and her consort Nergal. The tale begins with a description of\nthe land to which Ishtar proceeds:\n\n  To the land whence there is no return, the land of darkness (?)[1154]\n  Ishtar, the daughter of Sin, turned her mind,\n  The daughter of Sin turned her mind;\n  To the house of darkness, the dwelling of Irkalla,\n  To the house whence no one issues who has once entered it.\n  To the road from which there is no return, when once it has been\n    trodden.\n  To the house whose inhabitants[1155] are deprived of light.\n  The place where dust is their[1156] nourishment, their food clay.\n  They[1157] have no light, dwelling in dense darkness.\n  And they are clothed like birds, in a garment of feathers;\n  Where over gate and bolt, dust is scattered.\n\nIshtar, it will be observed, is here called the daughter of the\nmoon-god, whereas in the Gilgamesh epic she appears as the daughter of\nAnu, the god of heaven. Both designations reflect the views developed in\nthe schools, and prove that the story has been produced under scholastic\ninfluences. The goddess has her place in the heavens, in the planet\nbearing her name, and the designation of this planet as the daughter of\nSin can only be understood in connection with the astronomical system,\nin which the moon plays so prominent a role[1158] and becomes the father\nof all the great gods (except Shamash) who constitute the lesser\nluminaries of the night.\n\nIrkalla is one of the names[1159] for a god of the nether world, who is\nregarded as the associate of Allatu. The dwelling is elsewhere spoken of\nas a 'great palace' in which Allatu and her consort Nergal have their\nthrones. A gloomier place than the one described in these opening lines\nof the story cannot well be imagined. The picture reflects the popular\nviews, and up to this point, the doctrines of the school are in\nagreement with the early beliefs. The description of the lower world is\nevidently suggested by the grave or the cave in which the dead were\nlaid. The reference to dust and clay as the food of the dead shows that\nthe doctrine taught in the Gilgamesh epic,[1160] of man's being formed\nof clay and returning to clay, was the common one. This view helps us to\nunderstand how the words for grave came to be used as synonyms for the\nnether world. The dead being placed below the earth, they were actually\nconveyed within the realm of which Aralu was a part, and since it became\ncustomary for the Babylonians to bury their dead together, the cities of\nthe dead that thus arose could easily be imagined to constitute the\nkingdom presided over by Allatu and Nergal. At this point, however, the\nspeculations of the schools begin to diverge from the popular notions.\nWe may well question whether the Babylonian populace ever attempted to\nmake clear to itself in what form the dead continued their existence. It\nmay be that the argument from dreams, as the basis for the primitive\nbelief in the continuation of life, in some form, after death has been\ntoo hard pressed,[1161] but certainly the appearance of the dead in the\ndreams of the living must have produced a profound impression, and since\nthe dead appeared in the same form that they had while alive, the\nconclusion was natural that, even though the body decayed, a vague\noutline remained that bore the same relation to the _corpus_ as the\nshadow to the figure casting it. Two remarkable chapters in the Old\nTestament[1162] illustrate this popular view prevailing in Babylonia, as\nto the condition of the dead in the nether world. The prophets Isaiah\nand Ezekiel both portray the dead as having the same form that they\npossessed while alive. The kings have their crowns on their heads; the\nwarriors lie with their swords girded about them. The dead Eabani, it\nwill be recalled, appears to Gilgamesh and is at once recognized by the\nlatter. What distinguishes the dead from the living is their inactivity.\nThey lie in Aralu without doing anything. Everything there is in a state\nof neglect and decay. The dead can speak, but the Babylonians probably\nbelieved, like the Hebrews, that the dead talk in whispers, or chirp\nlike birds.[1163] The dead are weak,[1164] and, therefore, unless others\nattend to their needs, they suffer pangs of hunger, or must content\nthemselves with 'dust and clay' as their food. Tender care during the\nlast moments of life was essential to comparative well-being in\nAralu.[1165] The person who goes to Aralu in sorrow and neglect will\ncontinue sorrowful and neglected.\n\nThe theologians, while accepting these views in general, passed beyond\nthem in an important particular. They could not reconcile the evident\ndissolution of the body with a continuation of even a shadowy outline.\nWhen a man died, the 'spirit,' which, according to the animistic theory,\nlodged somewhere within the body and produced the manifestations of\nlife, sought for refuge in some other substance. The ease with which\nbirds moved from one place to another suggested these beings as the ones\nin which the dislodged spirit found a home. The Babylonian thinkers were\nnot alone in developing the view that the dead assumed the form of\nbirds. Parallels to the pictures of the dead in the story of Ishtar's\ndescent may be found in Egypt and elsewhere.[1166] But what is important\nfor our purposes is the consideration that, in Babylonia at least, the\nview in question is not the popular one, but the result of speculations\nabout a problem that appeals only to those who make the attempt, at\nleast, to clarify their ideas regarding the mystery of death. The next\nsection of the story affords us a picture of the entrance to Aralu:\n\n  When Ishtar arrived at the gate of the land without return,\n  She spoke to the watchman of the gate:\n  Ho! watchman--open thy gate.\n  Open thy gate that I may enter.\n  If thou dost not open the gate, if thou refusest me admission,\n  I will smash the door, break the bolt.\n  I will smash the threshold, force open the portals.\n  I will raise up the dead to eat the living\n  Until the dead outnumber the living.\n\nThe entrance to the nether world is strongly guarded. From other sources\nwe learn that there was a 'spy'--perhaps identical with the\nwatchman--stationed at the portal of the lower world, who reports all\nhappenings to the queen Allatu through Namtar, the god (or spirit) of\npestilence. The watchman is to prevent the living from entering, and\nalso the dead from escaping.\n\nThe violence of Ishtar is an interesting touch in the narrative. As a\ngoddess, she resents any opposition to her desires. Her anxiety to enter\nAralu indicates that the original form of the myth, which must have\nrepresented the descent as forced and not voluntary, has been modified\nby the introduction of a new factor,--the search for her dead consort,\nTammuz. The character of Ishtar as the goddess of war[1167] may also\nhave influenced this portrayal of her rage. In her violence, she\nthreatens a conflict between the dead and the living. The former will\ndestroy[1168] the latter, as a victorious army butchers the hostile\nhost. The watchman endeavors to pacify the enraged Ishtar:\n\n  The watchman opened his mouth and spoke.\n  Spoke to the great Ishtar:\n  Hold, O mistress, do not destroy them.[1169]\n  I will go and mention thy name to the queen Allatu.\n\nAllatu is grieved upon hearing the news of Ishtar's arrival, for\nIshtar's disappearance from the world means death.\n\n  I must weep for the masters who forsake their consorts.\n  I must weep for the wives who are torn from their husbands' side.\n  For the children I must weep who are snatched away (?) before their\n    time.\n  Go, watchman, open thy gate.\n  Deal with her according to the ancient laws.\n\nThe scene that follows embodies, again, views of the nether world as\ndeveloped in the schools. Corresponding to the seven zones surrounding\nthe earth,[1170] the nether world is pictured as enclosed by seven\ngates. Through these Ishtar must pass, before she is ushered into the\npresence of Allatu.\n\n  The watchman went and opened his gate.\n  Enter, O mistress, welcome in Cuthah.[1171]\n  The great house[1172] of the land without return greets thee.[1173]\n  Through the first gate he led her, and boldly removed the great crown\n    from her head.\n  Why, O watchman, dost thou remove the great crown from my head?\n  Enter, O mistress, such are the laws of Allatu.\n\nAt the second gate, he removes the earrings of the goddess; at the\nthird, her necklace is taken away, and, similarly, at each succeeding\ngate, a portion of her dress, the ornaments on her breast, her belt of\nprecious stones, her bracelets, until, when the seventh gate is reached,\nthe covering over her loins is removed, and she stands naked before\nAllatu. At each gate Ishtar asks the same question, why the watchman\nstrips her, and the same answer is given.\n\nThe removal of one ornament after the other symbolizes, evidently, the\ngradual decay of vegetation, not, as has been supposed, that the dead\nenter Aralu naked.\n\nAllatu calls upon her messenger, Namtar, to strike the goddess with\ndisease in all parts of her body. The disease expresses the same idea as\nthe removal of the ornaments,--decay of strength. There follows a\ndescription of the desolation on earth during Ishtar's sojourn with\nAllatu. Productivity comes to a standstill.\n\n  The ox does not mount the cow, the ass does not bend over the she-ass.\n\nAmong mankind, likewise, fertility ceases. The gods lament the absence\nof Ishtar and the fate that overtook her. The astronomical conception of\nIshtar as the planet Venus, at this point, is apparent. The gods\ncomplain.\n\n  Ishtar has descended to the earth, and has not come up.\n\nAs a planet, Ishtar's seat is in the heavens. The disappearance of the\nplanet has been combined with the nature-myth of the decay of\nvegetation. As the evening star, Venus dips down into the west, to\nreappear after a long interval in the east. The astral character of\nIshtar dominates the latter half of the story in its present form. It is\nnot the goddess of love and fertility nor the goddess of war who is\nrescued from her prison by Ea, but the planet Ishtar. Shamash is\ninformed of the disaster by his servant, Pap-sukal.[1174] The sun-god\nproceeds for aid to Sin and Ea. The latter furnishes relief. The sun\nenters Ea's domain every evening, and, since it is in the west that the\nplanet sinks like the sun, the association of ideas becomes apparent\nwhich suggests Ea as the savior and the sun as the mediator.\n\n  Ea created in his wisdom a male being.\n  He formed Uddushu-namir, a divine servant.\n  Go, Uddushu-namir, to the gate of the land without return, turn thy\n    face.\n  The seven gates of the land without return will be opened before thee.\n  Allatu will see thee and welcome thee\n  After her heart is pacified, her spirit[1175] brightened.\n  Invoke against her the name of the great gods.\n  Raise thy countenance, to Sukhal-ziku direct thy attention.\n  Come, mistress, grant me Sukhal-ziku, that I may drink[1176]\n    therefrom.\n\nEa appears here again in the role of Creator.[1177] The name of the\nmysterious being created by Ea signifies 'renewal of light.' The\nincident, it will be seen, is wholly symbolical. A touch of mysticism\nhas also been introduced. Sukhal-ziku is a compound of a word meaning\n'to sprinkle' and another which may mean 'grotto.'[1178] Sukhal-ziku\nappears, therefore, to be the name for a mysterious fountain, the waters\nof which restore the dead to life.\n\nUddushu-namir having pronounced the name of the gods before Allatu, and\nhaving thus secured their aid, his request is in the nature of an order.\nBut the request must not be interpreted literally, as though the waters\nwere intended for him. It is for the sake of Ishtar that he desires to\nhave the use of Sukhal-ziku. Allatu understands Uddushu-namir's speech\nin this sense, and is enraged at the order to yield up Ishtar.\n\n  Allalu, upon hearing this,\n  Smote her sides and bit her finger.[1179]\n  Thou hast demanded of me a request that should not be requested.\n  Come, Uddushu-namir, I will curse thee with a terrible curse.\n  Food from the gutters of the city be thy nourishment.\n  The sewers (?) of the city be thy drink.\n  The shadow of the wall be thy seat.\n  The threshold be thy dwelling.\n  Exile and banishment break thy strength.\n\nThe force of the curse lies in the closing words. Uddushu-namir is to be\nan outcast. He will not be permitted to enter either city or house, but\nmust remain at the wall or stop at the threshold. Properly prepared food\nand drink are to be denied him. He shall starve or perish miserably.\n\nBut the mission of Uddushu-namir has been accomplished. Allatu may curse\nas she pleases; the order of Ea must be obeyed.\n\n  The goddess Allalu opened her mouth and spoke.\n  To Namtar, her messenger, she addressed an order:\n  Go, Namtar, smash the true palace.[1180]\n  Break down the threshold, destroy the door-posts (?).\n  Bring out the Anunnaki and place them on golden thrones.\n  Besprinkle Ishtar with the waters of life and take her from me.\n\nNamtar obeys the order. Ishtar is led through the seven gates. At each\none, the articles taken from her on her entrance are returned: at the\nfirst, the loin cloth; at the second, the bracelets and ankle rings, and\nso on, until she emerges in her full beauty.\n\nThe close of the story thus brings to our gaze once more Ishtar as\ngoddess of fertility, who gradually brings vegetation, strength, and\nproductivity back again. This curious mixture in the story of the astral\nIshtar,--the creation of the astronomers,--and the popular Ishtar, is a\ntrait which shows how the old nature-myth has been elaborated in passing\nthrough the hands of the _literati_. The various steps in the process\ncan still be seen. In the original form, the goddess must have been\nforced into an exile to the nether world, the exile symbolizing the\nwintry season when fertility and productivity[1181] come to an end.\nIshtar is stripped of her glory. She comes to Allatu, who grieves at her\napproach, but imprisons her in the 'great house,' and refuses to yield\nher up, until forced to do so by order of the gods. A similar story must\nhave been told of Tammuz, the sun-god, who is also the god of\nvegetation. The two stories were combined. Ishtar marries Tammuz, and\nthen destroys him. The goddess produces fertility, but cannot maintain\nit. Tammuz goes to the nether world. Ishtar repents, bewails her loss,\nand goes to seek for her consort and to rescue him. In rage she advances\nto Allatu, threatens to smash the door and break the lock unless\nadmitted. The story in this form must have ended in the restoration of\nTammuz. The identification of Ishtar with the planet Venus introduced a\nnew factor. The disappearance of the planet fitted in well with the\noriginal nature-myth. The combination of the Ishtar-Tammuz story with\nthis factor resulted in the tale as we have it now. The enraged Ishtar\nis the one who seeks for her consort. The Ishtar who is forced to give\nup her ornaments is the old goddess who falls into the hands of Allatu.\nDuring her absence, production comes to a standstill; decay sets in. The\nIshtar who is rescued by Ea through the mediation of the 'Renewal of\nLight' is the astral Ishtar, as developed by the astronomers, and,\nfinally, the Ishtar who receives her ornaments back again and comes to\nthe upper world, is once more the goddess of vegetation, rescued from\nher exile to new glory. Up to this point, Tammuz has not been mentioned\nin the story. In the advice, however, that is given at the conclusion of\nthe tale to mourners, the consort of Ishtar is introduced.\n\n  If she[1182] will not grant her redemption,[1183] turn to her[1184]\n    [thy countenance?]\n  To Tammuz, her youthful consort,\n  Pour out pure waters, costly oil [offer him?].\n\nThe mourners are furthermore instructed to institute a formal\nlamentation. The Ukhati,[1185] the priestesses of Ishtar, are to sing\ndirges; flutes are to accompany the song. The thought intended,\napparently, to be conveyed is that if Allatu will not give up the dead,\nthe surviving relatives should endeavor to secure the good grace of\nIshtar and Tammuz, who succeeded in subduing Allatu.\n\nThe closing lines are rendered obscure by a reference to the goddess\nBelili, who appears to be the sister of Tammuz. The reference assumes\nthe knowledge of a tale in which the goddess was represented as breaking\na costly vessel adorned with precious stones, in sign of her grief for\nthe lost Tammuz. Suitable mourning for Tammuz, therefore, will secure\nthe sympathy of Belili also. The story thus ends with a warning to all\nwho mourn for their dead to remember Tammuz, to observe the rites set\naside for the festival celebrated in his honor.\n\nBearing in mind the tentative character of any interpretation for the\nclosing lines, we may mention Jeremias'[1186] supposition that it is a\ndeceased sister who addresses her sorrowing brother at the end of the\nstory.\n\n  My only brother, let me not perish.\n  On the day of Tammuz, play for me on the flute of lapis lazuli,\n    together with the lyre[1187] of pearl play for me.\n  Together let the professional dirge singers, male and female, play\n    for me,\n  That the dead may arise and inhale the incense of offerings.\n\nThe lines impress one as snatches from a dirge, sung or recited in\nmemory of the dead, and introduced here as an appropriate illustration\nof the conclusion to be drawn from the tale. At all events, the\nconsolation that the mourner receives lies in this thought,--the dead\ncan hear the lamentation. The survivors are called upon not to forget\nthe dead. When the festival of Tammuz comes, let them combine with the\nweeping for the god, a dirge in memory of the dead. Let them pray to\nIshtar and Tammuz. If remembered by the living, the dead will at least\nenjoy the offerings made to them, regain, as it were, a temporary sense\nof life; but more cannot with certainty be hoped for.\n\nThe outlook for the dead, it will be seen, is not hopeful. Their\ncondition is at best a tolerable one. What we may glean from other\nsources but confirms the general impression, conveyed by the opening and\nclosing lines of the Ishtar story, or makes the picture a still gloomier\none. The day of death is a day of sorrow, 'the day without mercy.' The\nword for corpse conveys the idea that things have 'come to an end.'\nWhenever death is referred to in the literature, it is described as an\nunmitigated evil. A dirge introduced into an impressive hymn to\nNergal[1188] laments the fate of him who\n\n  ... has descended to the breast of the earth,\n  Satiated,[1189] [he has gone] to the land of the dead.\n  Full of lament on the day that he encountered sorrow,\n  In the month which does not bring to completion the year,[1190]\n  On the road of destruction for mankind,\n  To the wailing-place (?),\n  The hero [has gone], to the distant invisible land.\n\nWe must not be misled by an epithet bestowed upon several gods, Marduk,\nNinib, and Gula, of 'the restorer of the dead to life,' into the belief\nthat the dead could be brought back from Aralu. These epithets appear\nchiefly in incantations and hymns addressed to the gods for some\nspecific purpose, such as deliverance of a sufferer from disease. The\ngods are appealed to against the demons, whose grasp means death. Ninib\nand Gula are viewed as gods of healing.[1191] To be cured through their\naid was to be snatched from the jaws of death. Moreover, Ninib and\nMarduk, as solar deities, symbolize the sun of spring, which brings\nabout the revivification of nature. The return of vegetation suggests\nthe thought that Ninib and Marduk have filled with new life what\nappeared to be dead. The trees that seemed entirely dead blossom forth;\nthe bare earth is covered with verdure. Similarly, the suffering\nindividual stricken with disease could be awakened to new life. It is\nthis 'restoration' which lies in the power of the gods, but once a man\nhas been carried off to Aralu, no god can bring him back to this earth.\n\nAn apparent exception to the rule, according to which all mankind\neventually comes to Aralu, is formed by Parnapishtim and his wife, who\ndwell in a place vaguely described as 'distant,' situated at the\n'confluence of the streams.' The place, as was pointed out in a previous\nchapter,[1192] lies in the vicinity of the Persian Gulf, and, since it\ncan only be reached by water, the natural conclusion is that it is an\nisland. The temptation is strong to compare the dwelling of Parnapishtim\nwith the belief found among the Greeks and other nations, of 'an island\nof the blessed.' This has been done by Jeremias[1193] and others.\nHowever, we must bear in mind that the point in Parnapishtim's narrative\nis that he and his wife do _not die_. They are removed to the distant\nplace by the gods and continue to live there. Again, we do not learn of\nany other person who inhabits this island. If to these considerations we\nadd, that the name Parnapishtim signifies 'offspring of life,' that his\nwife's name is not mentioned, that we are not told what becomes of his\nfamily and servants, who are also saved from the deluge, it is evident\nthat the incident of Parnapishtim's escape is an allegory, introduced\ninto the story as a dramatic means of teaching the doctrine which we\nhave seen dominates the tale,--that man, ordinarily, cannot secure\nimmortal life.\n\nIf there is any connection between the island where Parnapishtim dwells\nand the Greek conception of 'an island of the blessed,' it is a trace of\nforeign influence in Babylonian mythology. There is nothing to show that\namong the Babylonians, either among the populace or in the schools, a\nbelief arose in a 'paradise' whither privileged persons were transported\nafter death, nor is any distinction made by them between the good and\nthe bad, so far as the future habitation is concerned. All mankind,\nkings and subjects, virtuous and wicked, go to Aralu. Those who have\nobtained the good will of the gods receive their reward in this world,\nby a life of happiness and of good health. The gods can ward off\ndisease, or, rather, since disease (as all ills and misfortunes) is a\npunishment sent by some god or demon, forgiveness can be secured, the\nproof of which will consist in the restoration of the sick to health,\nbut the moment that death ensues the control of the gods ends. To the\nBabylonians, the words of the Psalmist,[1194] \"who praises thee, O God,\nin Sheol?\" came home with terrible force. They expressed, admirably, the\nBabylonian view of the limitations of divine power. The dead do not\npraise the gods, simply because it would be useless. The concern of the\ngods is with the living.\n\nWe are fortunate in possessing a pictorial representation of the nether\nworld that confirms the view to be derived from a study of the religious\nliterature. A number of years ago, Clermont-Ganneau directed attention\nto a remarkable bronze tablet which was purchased at Hamath in northern\nSyria.[1195] The art was clearly Babylonian, and there was no reason to\nquestion the genuineness of the production. Quite recently a duplicate\nhas been found at Zurghul, in Babylonia,[1196] so that all suspicions\nare removed. The bronze tablet contains on the one side, the figure of a\nmonster with a lion-like face and body, but provided with huge wings.\nStanding erect, his head rises above the tablet, his fore legs rest on\nthe edge, and the demon is thus represented in the attitude of looking\nover to the other side of the tablet. At the side of the monster, are\ntwo heads of hideous appearance.\n\nThe illustrations on the reverse are devoted to a portrayal of a funeral\nceremony, and of the general aspects of the nether world. There are five\ndistinct divisions,[1197] marked off from one another by four heavy\nlines drawn across the tablet. In the first division appear the symbols\nof the chief gods of the Assyrian pantheon, Marduk, Nabu, Sin, Ishtar,\nShamash, Ramman, etc.[1198] These gods, as inhabiting the heaven, are\nplaced at the head of the tablet. Next come seven evil spirits figured\nas various animals,[1199] who, as inferior to the gods, and perhaps also\nas messengers of the latter, are assigned a place midway between heaven\nand earth. In the third section, there is pictured the funeral ceremony\nproper. A dead body lies on a couch. Two rather strange figures, but\napparently priests, have taken up a position, one at each end of the\nfuneral bier, performing some rite of purification. One of the priests\nhas a robe of fish scales and is bearded; the other is smooth-faced and\nclothed in a long garment. Censers are placed near the priests. The\nlatter appear at the same time to be protecting the body against two\ndemons whose threatening gestures suggest that they are endeavoring to\nsecure possession of the dead.[1200] These demons may be the special\nmessengers of the gods of the nether world, who have brought about the\ndeath of their victim. Below this scene, we come to a view of the nether\nworld. The division is much larger than any of the others. Two hideous\nfigures dominate the scene, both of fantastic shape, and evidently so\nportrayed as to suggest the horror of the nether world. One of these\nfigures[1201] stands erect in a menacing attitude; the other is resting\nin a kneeling position on a horse.[1202] The second figure is a\nrepresentation of the chief goddess of the nether world--Allatu. The\ndemon at her side would then be the special messenger of this goddess,\nNamtar. The goddess has her two arms extended, in the act of strangling\na serpent. The act symbolizes her strength. Her face is that of a\nlioness, and she is suckling two young lions at her breasts. If it be\nrecalled that Nergal, the chief god of the lower world, is also pictured\nas a lion,[1203] it seems but natural to conclude that the monster\ncovering the one side of the tablet is none other than the consort of\nAllatu, the heads on either side of him representing his attendants. At\nthe left side of Allatu are a series of objects,--a jar, bowl, an\narrowhead (?), a trident, which, as being buried with the dead, are\nsymbols of the grave. The goddess and the demon at her side direct their\ngaze towards these objects.\n\nThe nether world reaches down to the Apsu,--the 'deep' that flows\nunderneath the earth. This is indicated in the design by placing the\nhorse, on which the goddess rests, in a bark. The bark, again, is of\nfantastic shape, the one end terminating in the head of a serpent, the\nother in that of some other animal,--perhaps a bull. The bark reaches\ninto the fifth division,[1204] which is a picture of flowing water with\nfish swimming from the left to the right, as an indication of the\ndirection in which the water flows. At the verge of the water stand two\ntrees.[1205] What these trees symbolize is not known, and there are\nother details in the third and fourth sections that still escape us. For\nour purposes, it is sufficient to note: (_a_) that the sections\nrepresent in a general way the divisions of the universe, the heavens,\nthe atmosphere, the earth, the nether world, and the deep;[1206] (_b_)\nthat the nether world is in the interior of the earth, reaching down to\nApsu; and (_c_) that this interior is pictured as a place full of\nhorrors, and is presided over by gods and demons of great strength and\nfierceness.\n\nSuch being the view of the nether world, it is natural that the living\nshould regard with dread, not only the place but also its inhabitants.\nThe gloom that surrounded the latter reacted on their disposition. In\ngeneral, the dead were not favorably disposed towards the living, and\nthey were inclined to use what power they had to work evil rather than\nfor good. In this respect they resembled the demons, and it is\nnoticeable that an important class of demons was known by the name\n_ekimmu_, which is one of the common terms for the shades of the dead.\nThis fear of the dead, which is the natural corollary to the reverence\nfelt for them, enters as an important factor in the honors paid by the\nliving to the memory of the deceased. To provide the dead with food and\ndrink, to recall their virtues in dirges, to bring sacrifices in their\nhonor,--such rites were practised, as much from a desire to secure the\nfavor of the dead and to ward off their evil designs as from motives of\npiety, which, of course, were not absent. The dead who was not properly\ncared for by his surviving relatives would take his revenge upon the\nliving by plaguing them as only a demon could. The demons that infested\ngraveyards were in some way identified with the 'spirits,' or perhaps\nmessengers, of the dead, who, in their anger towards the living, lay in\nwait for an attack upon those against whom they had a grudge.\n\n\nThe Pantheon of Aralu.\n\nWe have seen how the mystery coupled with death led to the view which\nbrought the dead into more direct relationship with the gods. Closely\nallied with this view is the power ascribed to the dead to work evil or\ngood and, like the gods, to furnish oracles. This power once\nacknowledged, it was but a short step to the deification of the dead,\nor, rather, of such personalities who in life exercised authority, by\nvirtue of their position or innate qualities. On the other hand, the\ngloominess of the nether world, the sad condition of its inhabitants,\nthe impossibility of an escape or a return to this world, necessarily\nsuggested to the Babylonians that the gods worshipped by the living had\nno control over the fate of the dead. The gods, to be sure, were at\ntimes wrathful, but, on the whole, they were well disposed towards\nmankind. When angry, they could be pacified, and it was impossible to\nbelieve that they should deliberately consign their creatures to such a\nsad lot as awaited those who went down to Aralu. The gods who ruled the\ndead must be different from those who directed the fate of the living. A\nspecial pantheon for the nether world was thus developed. Such deities\nas Marduk, Ea, Nabu, Shamash, or Ashur, who acted, each in his way, as\nprotectors of mankind, could find no place in this pantheon; but a god\nlike Nergal, who symbolized the midday sun, and the sun of the summer\nsolstice that brought misery and fever to the inhabitants of the\nEuphrates Valley; Nergal, who became the god of violent destruction in\ngeneral, and, more particularly, the god of war, the god whose emblem\nwas the lion, who was cruel and of forbidding aspect,--such a god was\nadmirably adapted to rule those who could only look forward to a\nmiserable imprisonment in a region filled with horror. Nergal,\ntherefore, became the chief god of the pantheon of the lower world.\n\nIn the religious texts, the cruel aspects of this god are almost\nexclusively emphasized. He is the one god towards whom no love is felt,\nfor he is a god without mercy. The fierce aspects of the solar Nergal\nare accentuated in Nergal, the chief of the pantheon of Aralu. He\nbecomes even more ferocious than he already was, as a god of war. His\nbattle is with all mankind. He is greedy for victims to be forever\nenclosed in his great and gloomy domain. Destruction is his one and\nsingle object; nothing can withstand his attack. Armed with a sword, his\nfavorite time for stalking about is at night, when he strikes his\nunerring blows. Horrible demons of pestilence and of all manner of\ndisease constitute his train, who are sent out by him on missions of\ndeath. The favorite titles by which he is known appear in a hymn[1207]\naddressed to him, as god of the lower world. He is invoked as the\n\n  Warrior, strong whirlwind, sweeping the hostile land,[1208]\n  Warrior, ruler of Aralu.\n\nAnother hymn[1209] describes him as a\n\n  Great warrior who is firm as the earth.\n  Superior as heaven and earth art thou,\n\n  ...\n\n  What is there in the deep that thou dost not secure?\n  What is there in the deep that thou dost not clutch?\n\nWhile references to the local character of the god as patron of Cuthah\nsurvive, the name Cuthah itself becomes synonymous with the nether\nworld. The old solar deity is completely overshadowed by the terrible\nruler of the lower world. It is due to this that the real consort of the\nlocal Nergal, the goddess Laz, is rarely mentioned in the religious\nliterature. The priests, when they spoke of Nergal, had in mind always\nthe companionship with Allatu. But the association of ideas which thus\nled to assigning a god who was originally a solar deity, a place in the\nlower world bears the impress of the schools. The popular development of\nNergal ceased, when he became the local god of Cuthah. It is only as an\noutgrowth of the systematized pantheon that we can understand the\ntransformation involved in making of a local deity, the head of a\npantheon that is itself an outcome of the later phases assumed by the\nreligion.\n\nThe problem suggested by this transformation was recognized by the\ntheologians. A curious tale was found among the El-Amarna tablets which\nendeavors to account for Nergal's presence in the world of the dead.\nUnfortunately, the tablet on which the story is inscribed is so badly\nmutilated that we can hardly gather more than the general\noutlines.[1210] A conflict has arisen between the gods on high and a\ngoddess who has her seat in the lower world. This goddess is none other\nthan Allatu. She is described as Eresh-Kigal,[1211] _i.e._, queen of\nKigal or of the nether world. The scene reminds us of the contest\nbetween the gods and Tiamat, as embodied in the creation epic. The gods\nchoose Nergal as their leader. Assisted by fourteen companions, whose\nnames--'fever,' 'fiery heart,' 'lightning sender'--remind us again of\nthe eleven monsters that constitute Tiamat's assistants,[1212] Nergal\nproceeds to the lower world, and knocks at the gate for admission.\nNamtar, the plague-demon, acts as the messenger. He announces the\narrival of Nergal to Allatu. The latter is obliged to admit Nergal, just\nas in the story of Ishtar's descent, she is forced to receive Ishtar.\nFourteen gates of the lower world are mentioned. At each one, Nergal\nstations one of his companions and passes on to the house of Allatu. He\nseizes the goddess, drags her from her throne, and is about to kill her\nwhen she appeals for mercy. She breaks out in tears, offers herself in\nmarriage if Nergal will spare her.\n\n  You shall be my husband and I will be your wife.\n  The tablets of wisdom I will lay in your hands.\n  You shall be master and I mistress.\n\nNergal accepts the condition, kisses Allatu, and wipes away her tears.\n\nOne cannot resist the conclusion that the tale is, as already suggested,\nan imitation of the Marduk-Tiamat episode. Allatu is a female like\nTiamat. Nergal acts for the gods just as Marduk does. The attendants of\nNergal are suggested by the monsters accompanying Tiamat; the tables of\nwisdom which Nergal receives, correspond to the tablets of fate which\nMarduk snatches from Kingu.[1213] But while the conflict between Marduk\nand Tiamat is an intelligible nature-myth, symbolizing the annual\nrainstorms that sweep over Babylonia, there is no such interpretation\npossible in the contest between Nergal and Allatu. The story is not even\na glorification of a local deity, for Nergal appears solely in the role\nof a solar deity. The attendants given to him--heat, lightning, and\ndisease--are the popular traits in the story; but with the chief\ncharacters in the old nature-myth changed,--Marduk or the original Bel\nreplaced by Nergal, and Tiamat by Allatu,--the story loses its popular\naspect, and becomes a medium for illustrating a doctrine of the schools.\nIf this view of the tale be correct, we would incidentally have a proof\n(for which there is other evidence) that as early as the fifteenth\ncentury, the Marduk-Tiamat story had already received a definite shape.\nBut the most valuable conclusion to be drawn from the Nergal-Allatu tale\nis that, according to the popular conceptions, the real and older head\nof the pantheon of the lower world was a goddess, and not a god.\n\nAllatu takes precedence of Nergal. In the story of Ishtar's descent to\nthe lower world, a trace of the earlier view survives. Allatu is\nintroduced as the ruler of the lower world. Nergal plays no part. Viewed\nin this light, the design of the tale we have just discussed becomes\nstill more evident. It was inconsistent with the prominence assigned to\nmale deities in the systematized pantheon, that the chief deity of the\nlower world should be a female. Allatu could not be set aside, for the\nbelief in her power was too strongly imbedded in the popular mind; but a\nmale consort could be given her who might rule with her. Another factor\nthat may have entered into play in the adaptation of the Marduk-Tiamat\nstory to Nergal and Allatu, and that gave to the adaptation more\nplausibility, was the disappearance of the summer sun after he had done\nhis work. Nergal did not exert his power during the whole year, and even\nas the sun of midday, he was not in control all day. When he\ndisappeared, there was only one place to which he could go.\n\nAs of Tarmmuz and of other solar deities,[1214] it was probably related\nof Nergal, also, that he was carried to the lower world. This popular\nbasis for the presence of Nergal in the lower world may have served as a\npoint of departure for the scholastic development of Nergal. However,\nthe tale of Nergal and Allatu goes far beyond the length of popular\nbelief in making Nergal conquer Allatu, and force himself, in a measure,\ninto her place. Before Nergal appears on the scene, a god, Ninazu, was\nregarded as the consort of Allatu.[1215]\n\nThe conception which gives the Babylonian Hades a queen as ruler is of\npopular origin, in contrast to the scholastic aspect of Nergal as the\nlater king of the lower region. Jensen is of the opinion that the\nfeminine gender of the word for earth in Babylonian superinduced the\nbelief that the ruler of the kingdom situated within the earth was a\nwoman. Allatu would, according to this view, be a personification of the\n'earth.' But a factor that also enters into play is the notion of\nproductivity and fertility which gave rise to the conception of the\ngreat mother-goddess, Ishtar.[1216] Allatu is correlated to Ishtar. From\nthe earth comes vegetation. The origin of mankind, too, is traced to the\nearth, and to the earth mankind ultimately returns.[1217] Hence, the\nreceiver of life is a goddess equally with the giver of life, and\nindeed, Ishtar and Allatu are but the two aspects of one and the same\nphenomenon.[1218] Allatu signifies 'strength.' The name is related to\nthe Arabic _Allah_ and the Hebrew _Eloah_ and _Elohim_. The same\nmeaning--strength, power, rule--attaches to many of the names of the\ngods of the Semites: Adon, Etana, Baal, El, and the like.[1219] It is\ninteresting to note that the chief goddess of Arabia is _Allat_[1220]--a\nname identical with our Allatu.\n\nThe bronze relief above described furnished us with a picture of this\nqueen of the lower world. The gloom enveloping the region controls this\npicture. Allatu is of as forbidding an aspect as Tiamat. She is warlike\nand ferocious. When enraged, her anger knows no bounds. Her chief\nattendants are the terrible Namtar and a scribe--also a female--known as\nBelit-seri. Of these two personages, Namtar, the personification of\ndisease, is a popular conception, whereas the addition of a scribe\npoints again to the influence of the schools. Marduk, the chief god of\nthe living, has a scribe who writes down, at the god's dictation, the\nfate decreed for individuals. Corresponding to this, the ruler of the\nlower world has a scribe who writes down on the tablets of wisdom the\ndecrees of the goddess, and, at a later stage, the decrees of Nergal as\nwell. Belit-seri, whose name signifies 'mistress of the field,' was\noriginally a goddess of vegetation, some local deity who has been\nreduced to the rank of an attendant upon a greater one; and it is\nsignificant that almost all the members of the nether-world pantheon are\nin some way connected with vegetation.\n\nTammuz, of whose position in this pantheon we have already had occasion\nto speak, is the god of spring vegetation. Another solar deity,\nNin-gishzida,[1221] who is associated in the Adapa legend with Tammuz,\nis the deity who presides over the growth of trees. En-meshara, who also\nbelongs to the court of Nergal and Allatu, appears to represent\nvegetation in general. To these may be added Girra (or Gira), who\noriginally, as it would appear, a god of vegetation, is eventually\nidentified with Dibbarra,[1222] Gil, whom Jensen[1223] regards as 'the\ngod of foliage,' and Belili, the sister of Tammuz.[1224] Of this group\nof deities, Tammuz and Nin-gishzida are the most important. In the Adapa\nlegend, it will be recalled, they are stationed as guardians in heaven.\nAs solar deities, they properly belong there. Like Nergal, they have\nbeen transferred to the nether world; and in the case of all three, the\nprocess that led to the change appears to have been the same. The trees\nblossom, bear fruit, and then decay; the fields are clothed in glory,\nand then shorn of their strength. The decay of vegetation was popularly\nfigured as due to the weakness[1225] of the god who produced the\nfertility. Tammuz has been deceived by Ishtar; Nin-gishzida has been\ncarried off to the lower world. In the month of Tebet,--the tenth\nmonth,--there was celebrated a festival of mourning for the lost\nEn-meshara. It is the time of the winter solstice. A similar fate must\nhave overtaken Belit-seri, Girra, and Gil. For a time, at least, they\nare hidden in the realm of Allatu. Of all these deities, stories were no\ndoubt current that formed so many variations of one and the same theme,\nsymbolizing their disappearance and the hoped-for return, the same story\nthat we encounter in the myth of Venus and Adonis, in the myth of\nOsiris, and, in some guise or other, among many other nations of the\nancient world. Of Girra, it may be well to remember that he is viewed\nmerely as a form of Nergal in the later texts. Belili, it will be\nrecalled, is associated with Tammuz in the story of Ishtar's\njourney.[1226] She is not, however, the consort of the god, but his\nsister. The antiquity of her cult follows from the occurrence of her\nname in the list of gods antecedent to Anu,[1227] and where Alala is\nentered as her consort. Whatever else the relationship of 'sister' to\nTammuz means, it certainly indicates that Belili belongs to the deities\nof vegetation, and it may be that she will turn out to be identical with\nBelit-seri, which is merely the designation of some goddess, and not a\nreal name.[1228] One is inclined also to suspect some, albeit remote,\nconnection between Alala, the consort of Belili, and the Alallu bird who\nis spoken of in the Gilgamesh epic as having been deprived of her\npinions by Ishtar.[1229] In the tale, Tammuz, the Alallu bird, a lion,\nand a horse are successively introduced as those once loved and then\ndeceived by Ishtar. The lion is, as has been several times indicated,\nthe symbol of Nergal; the horse appears in the Hades relief above\ndescribed as the animal upon which Allatu is seated, and it seems\nlegitimate, therefore, to seek for Alallu also in the nether world.\nWhile it may be that a long process intervened, before such a species of\nsymbolization was brought about as the representation of an ancient\ndeity in the guise of a bird, still, if it will be recalled that Zu is a\ndeity, pictured as a bird,[1230] there is every reason to interpret the\nbird Alallu merely as the symbol of some deity, just as the lion is\ncertainly such a symbol.\n\nJensen would add Etana to the list of gods of vegetation who form part\nof Allatu's court. While the etymology he proposes for the name is not\nacceptable, there is no doubt that to Etana, like Gilgamesh, the\ncharacter of a solar deity has been imparted. His presence in the nether\nworld is due to the story of his flight with the eagle and the\nfall.[1231] If he falls from heaven, he naturally enters the realm of\nAllatu, and it is possible that the story in its original form was\nsuggested by a myth illustrating the change of seasons. The question,\nhowever, must for the present remain an open one.\n\nA god associated with the nether world who again appears to be a solar\ndeity is Nin-azu. His name points to his being 'the god of healing.' A\ntext states[1232] that Allatu is his consort. Such a relationship to the\nchief goddess of the nether world may be regarded as a survival of the\nperiod when Nergal had not yet been assigned to this place. The\nintroduction of a distinctly beneficent god into the pantheon of the\nlower world, and as second in rank, shows also that the gloomy\nconception of the lower world was one that developed gradually. Tammuz,\nNin-gishzida, and the like are held enthralled by Allatu, and remain in\nthe nether world against their will; but if Allatu chooses as her\nconsort a 'god of healing,' she must have been viewed as a goddess who\ncould at times, at least, be actuated by kindly motives. The phase of\nthe sun symbolized by Nin-azu is, as in the case of Tammuz and others,\nthe sun of the springtime and of the morning. If it be recalled that\nGula, the great goddess of healing, is the consort of Ninib,[1233] it\nwill be clear that Nin-azu must be closely related to Ninib--and is,\nindeed, identified with the latter.[1234] With Nergal in control,\nNin-azu had to yield his privilege to be the husband of Allatu. The\nsubstitute of the fierce sun of the summer solstice for the sun of\nspring is a most interesting symptom of the direction taken by the\nBabylonian beliefs, regarding the fate of the dead. It may be that in\nthe earlier period, when more optimistic views of Aralu were current,\nGula, who is called the one 'who restores the dead to life,' may have\nhad a place in the pantheon of the lower world; not that the Babylonians\nat any time believed in the return of the dead, but because the living\ncould be saved from the clutches of death. Ninib and Gula, as gods of\nspring, furnished the spectacle of such a miracle in the return of\nvegetation. In this sense, we have seen that Marduk, the god of spring,\nwas also addressed as 'the restorer to life.' But while the\nrevivification of nature controls the conception of gods of healing,\nlike Nin-azu, Ninib, and Gula, the extension of the idea would lead,\nnaturally, to the association of these gods with the ruler of the nether\nworld, at a time when it was still believed that this ruler could be\nmoved by appeals to loosen her hold upon those whom she was about to\ndrag to her kingdom. But it is important always to bear in mind that\nbeyond this apparent restoration of the dead to life, the Babylonians at\nno time went.\n\nIn the Ishtar story[1235] a god Irkalla is introduced. Jeremias[1236]\ntakes this as one of the names of Allatu, but this is unlikely.[1237]\nFrom other sources[1238] we know that Irkalla is one of the names of the\nnether world. It is in some way connected with Urugal,[1239] _i.e._,\n'great city,' which is also a common designation for the dwelling-place\nof the dead. Hence, Irkalla is an epithet describing a deity as 'the god\nof the great city.' The Babylonian scholars, who were fond of plays upon\nwords, brought the name Nergal, as though compounded of Ne-uru-gal\n(_i.e._, 'ruler of the great city'), into connection with Uru-gal, and\nthus identified Irkalla with Nergal. But, originally, some other god\nmust have been meant, since Allatu appears as the sole ruler of the\nlower world in the Ishtar story, unless, indeed, we are to assume that\nthe name has been introduced at a late period as a concession to Nergal.\nIt is more plausible that a god like Nin-azu was understood under 'the\ngod of the great city.' Besides these gods, there is another series of\nbeings who belong to Allatu's court,--the demons who are directly\nresponsible for death in the world. Of this series, Namtar is the chief\nand the representative. As the one who gathers in the living to the dark\nabode, it is natural that he should be pictured as guardian at the gates\nof the great palace of Allatu. But by the side of Namtar stand a large\nnumber of demons, whose task is similar to that of their chief. A\ntext[1240] calls the entire group of demons,--the demon of wasting\ndisease, the demon of fever, the demon of erysipelas,[1241] and the\nlike,--'the offspring of Aralu,' 'the sons and messengers of Namtar, the\nbearers of destruction for Allatu.' These demons are sent out from Aralu\nto plague the living, but once they have brought their victims to Aralu,\ntheir task is done. They do not trouble the dead. The latter stand, as\nwe have seen, under the direct control of the gods.[1242]\n\nThe story of Ishtar's descent to the lower world[1243] shows us that the\ngroup of spirits known as the Anunnaki, also, belong to the court of\nNergal and Allatu. Ramman-nirari I. already designates the Anunnaki as\nbelonging to the earth,[1244] though it is an indication of the\nvagueness of the notions connected with the group that in hymns, both\nthe Anunnaki and the Igigi are designated as offspring of Anu,--the god\nof heaven.[1245] They are not exclusively at the service of Nergal and\nAllatu. Bel, Ninib, Marduk, and Ishtar also send them out on missions.\nEvidently, the fact that their chief function was to injure mankind\nsuggested the doctrine which gave them a place in the lower world with\nthe demons. The distinction between Anunnaki and the Igigi is not\nsharply maintained in the religious literature. Though Ramman-nirari\nplaces the Igigi in heaven, it is not impossible that a later view\ntransferred them, like the Anunnaki, to the lower world. There were, of\ncourse, some misfortunes that were sent against mankind from on\nhigh--Ramman was a god who required such messengers as the Igigi, and\nbesides the Igigi, there were other spirits sent out from above. But, as\nin the course of time the general doctrine was developed which made the\ngods, on the whole, favorably inclined towards man, while the evil was\nascribed to the demons[1246]--as occupying the lower rank of divine\nbeings--we note the tendency also to ascribe the ills that humanity is\nheir to, to the forces that dwell under the earth,--to Nergal and Allatu\nand to those who did their bidding. Probably, Lakhmu and Lakhamu were\nalso regarded, at least by the theologians, as part of Allatu's court,\njust as Alala and Belili[1247] were so regarded.\n\nThe confusion resulting from the double position of Nergal in the\nreligious literature, as the deity of the summer solstice and as the\nchief of the nether-world pantheon, raises a doubt whether some gods who\nare closely associated with Nergal are to be placed on high with the\ngods or have their seats below with Nergal. Among these, three require\nmention here: Dibbarra, Gibil, and Ishum. Of these, the first two are\ndirectly identified with Nergal in the systematized pantheon[1248],\nwhile Ishum is closely associated with Nergal, or appears as the\nattendant of Dibbarra[1249]. These gods, symbolizing violent destruction\nthrough war and fire, are evidently related to the Nergal of the upper\nworld,--to Nergal, the solar deity; but in the later stages of the\nreligion, the Nergal of the lower world almost completely sets aside the\nearlier conception. It is, therefore, likely that deities who stand so\nclose to the terrible god as those under consideration, were also\nregarded as having a position near his throne in the lower world.\n\nThe pantheon of Aralu thus assumes considerable dimensions. At the same\ntime, we observe the same tendency towards concentration of power in\nthis pantheon as we have seen was the case in the pantheon of the upper\nworld[1250]. As in Babylonia there are practically only a few\ngods,--Marduk, Nabu, Ishtar, Shamash, and Sin,--who exercised\nconsiderable control; and, as in Assyria we find this tendency still\nmore accentuated in the supreme rank accorded to Ashur, so in the lower\nworld Nergal and Allatu are the real rulers. The other gods, and,\nnaturally, also the demons, occupy inferior positions. As messengers,\nguardians, spies, or attendants, they group themselves around the throne\nof the two rulers. A noticeable feature, however, in the pantheon of the\nlower world consists in the high position held by the consort of the\nhead of the pantheon. Allatu does not sink to the insignificant rank of\nbeing merely a pale reflection of Nergal, as do the consorts of Marduk,\nShamash, Ashur, and the like[1251]. As a trace of the earlier supreme\ncontrol exercised by her, she continues to reign with her husband. In\nthe popular mind, indeed, despite the influence of theological\ndoctrines, Allatu continues to be more prominent than Nergal. Nergal is\nobliged to abide by the compact he made with Allatu. He rules _with_\nher, but not over her. The theology of the schools did not venture to\nset Allatu aside altogether; and this limitation in the development of\nthe doctrine that elsewhere gave the male principle the supremacy over\nthe female, may be taken as a valuable indication of the\ncounter-influence, exercised by deeply rooted popular beliefs, over the\ntheoretical elaboration of the religion at the hands of the religious\nguides.\n\n\nThe Tombs and the Burial Customs.\n\nOur knowledge of the customs observed by the Babylonians and Assyrians\nin disposing of their dead leaves much to be desired. Most of the graves\ndiscovered in the ruins of Babylonian cities belong to the Persian or to\nthe Greek period. In some cases,[1252] where we have reason to believe\nthat older graves have been found, it is almost impossible to estimate\ntheir age. Recently, the expedition of the University of Pennsylvania to\nNippur has unearthed remains that appear to belong to an older period,\nthough nothing can be dated with any degree of certainty earlier than\n2500 B.C.[1253] Still, with proper caution, even the material belonging\nto a later period may be used for the older periods. Burial customs, as\nhas already been emphasized, constitute the most conservative elements\nin a religion. Such rites are much less liable to change than the cult\nof the gods. Foreign invasion would not affect the funeral rites, even\nwhere other religious customs are altered. Even so violent a change as\nthat produced by the introduction of Mohammedanism into Mesopotamia has\nnot removed traces of the old Babylonian religion. Dr. Peters has shown\nthat the district in the Euphrates Valley selected by the modern Arabs\nand Persians for the interment of their dead[1254] derives its sanctity\nfrom the days of the old Babylonian kingdom, and many of the customs\nobserved by the modern Moslems tally with the funeral rites of ancient\nBabylonia.[1255] That the dead were always buried, and that cremation\nwas practically unknown, may now be regarded as certain. The conception\nof Aralu, which, we have seen, belongs to the most ancient period of\nreligion, is only intelligible upon the assumption that burial was the\nprevailing custom. On one of the oldest monuments of Babylonian\nart,--the stele of vultures,--earth-burial is represented.[1256] A few\nyears ago, some German scholars[1257] claimed to have furnished the\nproof that the Babylonians cremated their dead. But, in the first place,\nthe age of the tombs found by them was not clearly established; and,\nsecondly, it was not certain whether the charred remains of human bodies\nwere due to intentional burning or accidental destruction by fire, at\nthe time that the city explored by the German scholars was destroyed.\nThe fact that, as the explorers themselves observed, the bodies were not\ncompletely burned argues in favor of the latter supposition. The\nexplanation offered by Koldewey[1258] for this peculiar condition of the\nremains--that the burning was symbolical, and, therefore, not\ncomplete--is unsatisfactory in every particular. There can be no doubt\nthat some, at least, of the tombs discovered at Warka by Loftus[1259]\nbelong to the period before the conquest of the country by Cyrus, and\nthis is certainly the case with many of the tombs discovered at Nippur.\nNowhere do we find traces of burning of bodies.[1260] If it should turn\nout that cremation prevailed for a certain period, the fashion, we may\nfeel certain, was due to foreign influences, but it is more than\nquestionable whether it was ever introduced at all. Certainly,\nearth-burial is the characteristically Babylonian (and general Semitic)\nmethod of disposing of the dead.\n\nThe characteristic feature of the Babylonian tombs is their simplicity.\nThe dead body, which was often covered with palm woods, was placed\ngenerally on the side--though occasionally on the back--on a board of\nwood, or wrapped in a mat of reeds or palm fibers, and covered with a\ntub-shaped clay dish. On the dish there was frequently an ornamental\ndesign, but beyond this, there was no attempt at decoration. The body\nwas frequently pressed together in order to be brought within the\ncompass of the dish. Sometimes, the knees were pulled up or the body\nplaced in a semi-sitting posture, and there are indications that the\nbodies were often divided into two or three parts prior to burial. On\nthe stele of vultures,[1261] representing the triumph of Eannatum over\nhis enemies, attendants are seen building a mound over the symmetrically\narranged bodies of the king's soldiers slain in battle. The monument\nbelongs to the most ancient period of Babylonian history, and we are\njustified, therefore, in regarding this method of earth-burial as the\noldest in vogue. The dead, it would seem, are placed on the ground, or\nnear the surface, and covered with a mound. This custom would account\nfor the use of a dish to cover the body after it became customary to\nplace the dead in small houses or vaults built for the purpose. The\nshape of the dish, or tub, recalls the earth-mound over the dead, and\nthe tenacity of conventional methods is apparent in the modern custom,\neven among Western nations, of raising a mound over the grave, even\nthough the body is placed at a depth of six feet and more below the\nsurface. A modification of the form of coffin was the jar into which the\nbody was forced. To do this, still greater violence had to be employed.\nInstead of one jar, two were also used, the body placed partly in one,\npartly in the other, and the two were then joined with bitumen. In the\nPersian period, a slipper-shaped coffin was used, into which the body\nwas inserted through an aperture at one end; but there is no evidence\nthat the Babylonians employed this method. With the bodies, various\nobjects were interred, many of which had a special significance. Except,\nperhaps, at a very early period[1262] the dead were not buried naked,\nbut covered with a garment. The seal cylinder, which, as Herodotus tells\nus,[1263] every person of position carried about his person, and which,\nwhen impressed on a clay tablet, served as his signature, was buried\nwith the dead as an ornament that had a personal value. The staff which\nthe man was in the habit of carrying is found in the grave, and also\nsuch weapons as arrowheads and spears. Various ornaments of copper,\niron, gold, and stone, rings, necklaces or bands of gold were probably\nplaced with the dead as a sign of affection, not because of any belief\nthat the deceased needed these objects. Toys, too, are found in the\ngraves, and we may assume that these were placed in the tombs of\nchildren. The frequent presence of shells in the tombs is still\nunexplained. On the other hand, remains of food, dates, grain, poultry,\nand fish, that have been found in graves belonging to various periods,\nmay be regarded as a proof for the existence of the belief that the dead\ncould suffer pangs of hunger. The closing lines of the Gilgamesh\nepic,[1264] where the fate of the neglected dead is portrayed, confirms\nthis view. But such remains are more frequent in the early graves than\nin those of a later time. Animal sacrifices at the grave appear to be\nvery old.[1265] Offerings of food and water were made to the dead, not\nonly at the time of the burial, but afterwards by surviving relatives.\nThe son performs the office of pouring out water to the memory of his\nfather.[1266] The close of the legend of Ishtar's journey suggests that\nthe festival of Tammuz was selected as an 'All-Souls' day. The weeping\nfor the lost Tammuz served as an appropriate link for combining with the\nmourning for the god the lament for the dead. The water jar is never\nabsent in the old Babylonian tombs, and by the side of the jar the bowl\nof clay or bronze is found, and which probably served the same purpose\nas a drinking utensil for the dead. How early it became customary to\nbury the dead together we do not know. It may be that at one time they\nwere buried beneath the dwellings that they occupied when alive, under\nthe threshold or in the walls;[1267] but the conception of Aralu as a\ngreat gathering-place of the dead would hardly have arisen, unless the\n'city of the dead' by the side of the 'city of the living' had become an\nestablished custom. We are, therefore, justified in assuming that as the\nvillages grew into towns, the huddling together of the living suggested\nplacing the dead together in a portion of the town set aside for the\npurpose. In comparison with the elaborate constructions in the Egyptian\ncities of the dead, the Babylonian necropolis was a shabby affair.\nVaults, rarely more than five feet high, served as the place where the\ndead were deposited. These vaults were constructed of bricks, and an\nextended series of them gave to the necropolis the appearance of little\nhouses, suggestive of primitive mud huts. This simplicity, due in the\nfirst instance to the lack of stone as building material in Babylonia,\ncorresponded to the very simple character which the dwelling-house\nretained. The one-story type of dwelling, with simple partitions,\nprevailed to the latest period. It was only in the temples and palaces\nthat architectural skill was developed. In Assyria, although soft stone\nwas accessible, the example of Babylonia was slavishly followed. It is\ndue to this that so few traces of private houses have been found in the\nMesopotamian explorations,[1268] and the almost primitive character of\nthe graves--more primitive, by virtue of the strength of the\nconservative instinct in everything connected with the dead, than the\ndwellings of the living--readily accounts for their nearly complete\ndestruction. Simple as the houses of the dead were, they were yet\ncarefully guarded against the invasion of air and dust; and even after\ncenturies of neglect the contents are found to be perfectly dry.\n\nThe explorations at Nippur show that the tub and bowl forms of the\ncoffin continued to be used during the period extending from Hammurabi\nto Nabonnedos. In later times, it would appear, the custom of placing\nfood and drink with the dead fell into disuse.[1269] We may perhaps find\nthat, as was the case in Egypt, symbolical representations of food--a\nclay plate with the food modeled in clay--took the place of the old\ncustom. Fewer utensils, too, are found in the graves of the later\nperiod; but, on the other hand, ornaments increase, until, when we reach\nthe Persian and Greek periods, mirrors are quite common, and golden\nveils are placed over the dead, while handsome earrings, breastpins, and\nnecklaces indicate the growth of this luxurious display. The clay\ncoffins, too, are beautifully glazed and ornamented with elaborate\ndesigns. A trace of foreign--perhaps Graeco-Egyptian--influence may be\nseen in the human head modeled on the coffin. Naturally, at all times\nthe different ranks occupied by the dead involved more or less\nmodifications of the prevailing customs. The rich were placed in more\ncarefully built vaults than the poor. The coverings and ornaments varied\nwith the station of the deceased; but in general it may be said that,\nduring the earlier periods of Babylonian-Assyrian history, simplicity\nwas the rule, and the objects placed in the tombs were more carefully\nchosen with reference to the needs of the dead and the career that he\nled while living, while the tendency in later times was away from the\nreligious beliefs that gave rise to the funeral customs, and in the\ndirection of luxury and display. This development, however, is\nindependent of _proper_ burial, upon which, as we have already had\noccasion to see, great stress was at all times laid. The greatest\nmisfortune that could happen to a dead person was for his body to remain\noverground, or to be removed from the tomb and exposed to the light of\nday. In the early monument of Babylonian art,--the 'stele of\nvultures,'[1270]--already referred to, the dead foes are punished by\nbeing stripped of their clothing and exposed to the attack of vultures,\nwho are seen carrying off human heads, legs, and arms. To emphasize the\ncontrast, the king's soldiers are portrayed as being buried in\nsymmetrical rows, the head of each body being covered by the feet of the\nbody in the row above. When the Babylonian and Assyrian kings wish to\ncurse the one who might venture to destroy the monuments set up by them,\nthey know of nothing stronger than to express the hope\n\n  That his body may be cast aside,\n  No grave be his lot.[1271]\n\nThe kings punished their enemies by leaving their bodies to rot in the\nsun, or they exposed them on poles as a warning to rebels. Ashurbanabal\non one occasion speaks of having scattered the corpses of the enemy's\nhost 'like thorns and thistles' over the battlefield.[1272] The corpses\nof the Babylonians who had aided in the rebellion against the king were\ngiven 'to dogs, swine, to the birds of heaven, to the fish of the sea'\nas food.[1273] The same king takes pleasure in relating that he\ndestroyed the graves of Elamitic kings and dragged the bodies from their\nresting-place[1274] to Assyria. Their shades, he adds, were thus\nunprotected. No food could be tendered them and no sacrifices offered in\ntheir honor. Sennacherib, after he has crushed a rebellion that broke\nout in Babylonia, takes a terrible revenge upon the instigator of the\nopposition, Mardukbaliddin, by removing the bodies of the latter's\nancestors from the vaults wherein they were deposited. The bones of an\nenemy are enumerated by Ashurbanabal among the spoil secured by\nhim.[1275] The mutilation of the dead body was also a terrible\npunishment to the dead,[1276] and we are told that the person who\ndisturbed a grave is not to be permitted to enter the temple. The\ndesecration of the grave affected not only the individual whose rest was\nthus disturbed, and who, in consequence, suffered pangs of hunger and\nother miseries, but reached the survivors as well. The unburied or\ndisentombed shade assumed the form of a demon,[1277] and afflicted the\nliving.\n\nOf the ceremonies incidental to burial, the bronze tablet above\ndescribed affords us at least a glimpse. The dead were placed on a bier\nand wrapped in some kind of a cover. Priests were called in to perform\nrites of purification. One of the priests, it will be recalled,[1278] is\nclad in a fish costume. The fish is the symbol of Ea, the god of the\ndeep, who becomes the chief deity appealed to in incantations involving\nthe use of water. The priest assumes the role of Ea, as it were, by the\nsymbolical dress that he puts on. The rites appear to consist of the\nburning of incense and the sprinkling of water. It does not of course\nfollow that everywhere the same custom was observed, but we may at least\nbe certain that the priest played an important part in the last honors\npaid to the dead. The purification was intended to protect the dead from\nthe evil spirits that infest the grave. The demons of disease, it is\ntrue, could no longer trouble him. They had done their work as\nmessengers of Allatu. But there were other demons who were greedy for\nthe blood and flesh of the dead. Though the dead had passed out of the\ncontrol of the gods, the latter had at least the power to restrain the\ndemons from disturbing the peace of the grave.\n\nIn the earlier days, when the bodies were placed on the ground or only a\nshort distance below it, the building of the grave-mound was a ceremony\nto which importance was attached. In the stele of vultures, attendants\nare portrayed--perhaps priests--with baskets on their heads, containing\nthe earth to be placed over the fallen soldiers.[1279] These attendants\nare bare to the waist. The removal of the garments is probably a sign of\nmourning, just as among the Hebrews and other Semites it was customary\nto put on the primitive loin-cloth[1280] as a sign of grief. In somewhat\nlater times, we find sorrowing relatives tearing their clothing[1281]--\noriginally tearing off their clothing--and cutting their hair as signs\nof mourning.\n\nThe formal lament for the dead was another ceremony upon which stress\nwas laid. It lasted from three to seven days.[1282] The professional\nwailers, male and female, can be traced back to the earliest days of\nBabylonian history. Gudea speaks of them.[1283] It would appear that at\nthis early period persons were engaged, as is the case to this day in\nthe Orient, to sing dirges in memory of the dead.[1284] The function is\none that belongs naturally to priests and priestesses; and, while in the\ncourse of time, the connection with the temple of those who acted as\nwailers became less formal, it is doubtful whether that connection was\never entirely cut off. The 'dirge singers, male and female,' referred to\nin the story of Ishtar's journey[1285] were in the service of some\ntemple. The hymns to Nergal[1286] may be taken as samples of the\nBabylonian dirges.\n\nThe praise of Nergal and Allatu was combined with the lament for the sad\nfate of the dead. Gilgamesh weeping for his friend Eabani[1287]\nfurnishes an illustration. Gilgamesh is described as stretched out on\nthe ground. The same custom is referred to in the inscriptions of\nCyrus,[1288] and it is interesting to note that a similar mode of\nmanifesting grief still prevails in the modern Orient. In the Babylonian\ndirges, it would seem, the references to the virtues of the deceased\n(which are prominently introduced into the dirges of the present day)\nwere few. The refrain forms a regular feature of these dirges,--an\nindication that, as is still the case in the Orient, there was a leader\nwho sang the dirge, while the chorus chimed in at the proper moment. The\nprinciple of the stanza of two lines, one long and one short, that, as\nBudde has shown,[1289] controls the wailing songs in the Old Testament\n(including the Book of Lamentations, which is based upon this very\ncustom of lamenting the dead), may be detected in the Babylonian\ncompositions. The accompaniment of musical instruments to the dirges\nalso appears to be a very old custom in Babylonia. In the story of\nIshtar's journey the wailers are called upon to strike their\ninstruments. What kind of instruments were used in ancient times we do\nnot know. In the Assyrian period, the harp and flute appear to be the\nmost common.[1290]\n\nAt the time that food and drink were placed with the dead in the grave,\nsome arrangements must have been made for renewing the nourishment.\nEntrances to tombs have been found,[1291] and Koldewey[1292] is of the\nopinion that the clay drains found in quantities in the tombs, served as\nwell to secure a supply of fresh water for the dead. The wailing for the\ndead took place not only immediately after death, but subsequently.\nAshurbanabal speaks of visiting the graves of his ancestors. He appears\nat the tomb with rent garments, pours out a libation to the memory of\nthe dead, and offers up a prayer addressed to them. We have every reason\nto believe that the graves were frequently visited by the survivors. The\nfestival of Tammuz became an occasion[1293] when the memory of those who\nhad entered Aralu was recalled.\n\nWhile there are many details connected with the ceremonies for the dead\nstill to be determined, what has been ascertained illustrates how\nclosely and consistently these ceremonies followed the views held by the\nBabylonians and Assyrians regarding the life after death. Everything\nconnected with death is gloomy. The grave is as dark as Aralu; the\nfuneral rites consist of dirges that lament not so much the loss\nsustained by the living as the sad fate in store for the dead. Not a ray\nof sunshine illumines the darkness that surrounds these rites. All that\nis hoped for is to protect the dead against the attack of demons greedy\nfor human flesh, to secure rest for the body, and to guard the dead\nagainst hunger and thirst.\n\nIt is almost startling to note, to what a degree the views embodied in\nOld Testament writings regarding the fate of the dead, coincide with\nBabylonian conceptions. The descriptions of Sheol found in Job, in the\nPsalms, in Isaiah, Ezekiel, and elsewhere are hardly to be distinguished\nfrom those that we have encountered in Babylonian literature. For\nJob,[1294] Sheol is\n\n  The land of darkness and deep shadows.\n  The land of densest gloom and not of light.\n  Even where there is a gleam, there it is as dark night.[1295]\n\nThe description might serve as a paraphrase of the opening lines in the\nstory of Ishtar's journey. The Hebrew Sheol is situated, like the\nBabylonian Aralu, deep down in the earth.[1296] It is pictured as a\ncavern. The entrance to it is through gates that are provided with\nbolts. Sheol is described as a land filled with dust. Silence reigns\nsupreme. It is the gathering-place of all the living, without exception.\nHe who sinks into Sheol does not rise up again.\n\n  He does not return to his house.\n  His place knows him no more.[1297]\n\nIt is, clearly, 'a land without return,' as the Babylonians conceived\nit. The condition of the dead in Sheol is sad, precisely as the\nBabylonians pictured the life in Aralu. The dead are designated by a\nname[1298] that indicates their weak condition. They can only talk in\nwhispers or they chirp like birds. Their gait is unsteady. In general,\nthey are pictured as lying quiet, doomed to inactivity. Death is\nlamented as an evil. The dead have passed out of the control of Yahwe,\nwhose concern is with the living. Yahwe's blessings are meted out in\nthis world, but not in Sheol. These blessings consist chiefly of long\nlife and plenty of offspring. The dead need not praise Yahwe.\nEcclesiastes--although a late composition--expresses the old popular\nview in the summary of the fate of the dead,[1299] when it is said that\nthe dead know nothing of what is going on. Their memory is gone; they\nneither love nor hate, and they are devoid of any ambition. There is no\nplanning, no wisdom, no judgment in Sheol.\n\nLike the Babylonians, the Hebrews also believed that the condition of\nthe individual at the time of death was an index of the condition in\nstore for him in Sheol. He who goes to Sheol in sorrow is pursued by\nsorrow after death. Jacob does not want to go down to Sheol in\nsorrow,[1300] because he knows that in that case sorrow will be his fate\nafter death. To die neglected by one's family was fatal to one's\nwell-being in Sheol. Life in Sheol was a continuation, in a measure, of\nthe earthly existence. Hence, the warrior is buried with his weapons;\nthe prophet is recognized by his cloak; the kings wear their crowns; the\npeople of various lands are known by their dress.[1301] Even\ndeformities, as lameness, follow the individual into the grave. On the\nother hand, while the dead were weak and generally inactive, although\ncapable of suffering, they were also regarded by the Hebrews as\npossessing powers superior to those of the living. As among the\nBabylonians, the dead stand so close to the higher powers as to be\nthemselves possessed of divine qualities. Schwally aptly characterizes\nthis apparent contradiction by saying 'that the dead are _Refa'im_\n(weak), but, at the same time, _Elohim_, _i.e._ divine beings.'[1302]\nYahwe has no power over the dead, but they receive some of his\nqualities. They are invoked by the living. The dead can furnish oracles,\nprecisely as Yahwe can. They not only appear to the living in dreams,\nbut their shades can be raised up from Sheol. A certain amount of\nworship was certainly paid to the dead by the ancient Hebrews.\n\nNaturally, these popular views were subjected to considerable\nmodification with the development of the religion of the Hebrews. While\nmany features remained, as is shown by the occurrence of the primitive\nconception of Sheol in comparatively late productions, in one important\nparticular, more especially, did the spread of an advanced ethical\nmonotheism lead to a complete departure from the Babylonian conceptions.\nWhile, in the popular mind, the belief that there was no escape from\nSheol continued for a long time, this belief was inconsistent with the\nconception of a Divine Being, who, as creator and sole ruler of the\nuniverse, had control of the dead as well as the living. As long as\nYahwe was merely one god among many, no exception was made of the rule\nthat the concern of the gods was with the living; but Yahwe as the one\nand only god, could not be pictured as limited in his scope. He was a\ngod for the dead, as well as for the living. The so-called song of\nHannah[1303] expresses the new view when it praises Yahwe as the one\n'who kills and restores to life, who leads to Sheol, and who can lead\nout of it.' Such a description of Yahwe is totally different from the\nBabylonians' praise of Ninib, Gula, or Marduk as the 'restorer of the\ndead to life,' which simply meant that these gods could restrain Allatu.\nThe power to snatch the individual from the grasp of Sheol was also\nascribed to the national god, Yahwe. Elijah's restoration of the widow's\nchild[1304] to life is an instance of this power, and Jonah,[1305] who\npraises Yahwe for having delivered him when the gates of Sheol already\nseemed bolted, may not have had anything more in mind than what the\nBabylonians meant; but when the Psalmist, to indicate the universal rule\nof Yahwe, exclaims\n\n  If I mount to heaven, thou art there,\n  If I make Sheol my couch, thou art there,[1306]\n\nthe departure from the old Hebrew and Babylonian views of the limitation\nof divine power is clearly marked. The inconsistency between the view\nheld of Yahwe and the limitation of his power was not, however, always\nrecognized. Hence, even in late portions of the Old Testament, we find\nviews of the life after death that are closely allied to the popular\nnotions prevailing in the earlier productions. It is not, indeed, till\nwe reach a period bordering close on our era that the conflict between\nthe old and the new is brought to a decided issue in the disputes of the\nsects that arose in Palestine.[1307] The doctrines of retribution and of\nthe resurrection of the dead are the inevitable consequences of the\nlater ethical faith and finally triumph; but the old views, which bring\nthe ancient Hebrews into such close connection with the Babylonians,\nleft their impress in the vagueness that for a long time characterized\nthese doctrines, even after their promulgation. The persistency of the\nold beliefs is a proof of the strong hold that they acquired, as also of\nthe close bond uniting, at one time and for a long period, Hebrews and\nBabylonians. What applies to the beliefs regarding the dead holds good\nalso for the rites. Many a modern Jewish custom[1308] still bears\nwitness to the original identity of the Hebrew and Babylonian methods of\ndisposing of and caring for the dead.\n\nThere is but one explanation for this close agreement,--the same\nexplanation that was given for the identity of traditions regarding the\ncreation of the world, and for the various other points of contact\nbetween the two peoples that we have met with. When the Hebrew clans\nleft their homes in the Euphrates Valley, they carried with them the\ntraditions, beliefs, and customs that were current in that district, and\nwhich they shared with the Babylonians. Under new surroundings, some new\nfeatures were added to the traditions and beliefs, but the additions did\nnot obscure the distinctive character impressed upon them by Babylonian\ncontact. We now know that relations with Babylonia were never entirely\nbroken off by the Hebrews. The old traditions survived all vicissitudes.\nThey were adapted to totally changed phases of belief, but the kernel\nstill remained Babylonian. Beliefs were modified, new doctrines arose;\nbut, with a happy inconsistency, the old was embodied in the new. Hence\nit happens, that in order to understand the Hebrews, their religion,\ntheir customs, and even their manner of thought, we must turn to\nBabylonia.\n\nFurther discoveries beneath the mounds of Mesopotamia and further\nresearches in Babylonian literature will add more evidence to the\nindebtedness of the Hebrews to Babylonia. It will be found that in the\nsacrificial ordinances of the Pentateuch, in the legal regulations, in\nmethods of justice and punishment, Babylonian models were largely\nfollowed, or, what is an equal testimony to Babylonian influence, an\nopposition to Babylonian methods was dominant. It is not strange that\nwhen by a curious fate, the Hebrews were once more carried back to the\n'great river of Babylon,'[1309] the people felt so thoroughly at home\nthere. It was only the poets and some ardent patriots who hung their\nharps on the willows and sighed for a return to Zion. The Jewish\npopulation steadily increased in Babylonia, and soon also the\nintellectual activity of Babylonian Jews outstripped that of\nPalestine.[1310] The finishing touches to the structure of Judaism were\ngiven in Babylonia--on the soil where the foundations were laid.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1112] See above, p. 448.\n\n[1113] See pp. 487, 489, 511, 512.\n\n[1114] Or Arallu.\n\n[1115] IIR. 61, 18. Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 220, takes this as the name\nof a temple; but, since Aralu was pictured as a 'great house,' there is\nno reason why the designation should not refer to the nether world.\n\n[1116] See the admirable argument in Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp. 185-195.\n\n[1117] Or, more fully, Kharsag-gal-kurkura, 'great mountain of all\nlands.'\n\n[1118] See above, p. 458.\n\n[1119] See the following chapter.\n\n[1120] See the passages in Jeremias' _Die Babylonisch-Assyrischen\nVorstellungen vom Leben nach dem Tode_, p. 62.\n\n[1121] Sargon Annals, I. 156. Jensen's interpretation of the passage\n(_Kosmologie_, p. 231) is forced, as is also his explanation of IIR. 51,\n11a, where a mountain Aralu is clearly designated.\n\n[1122] _Kosmologie_, pp. 222-224.\n\n[1123] Gunkel's _Schoepfung und Chaos_, p. 154, note 5.\n\n[1124] In an article on 'Shualu' published in the _American Journal of\nSemitic Languages_ (xiv.), I have set forth my reasons for accepting\nthis word as a Babylonian term for the nether world.\n\n[1125] In the later portions of the Old Testament, the use of Sheol is\nalso avoided. See the passages in Schwally, _Das Leben nach dem Tode\nnach den Vorstellungen des Alten Israels_, pp. 59, 60.\n\n[1126] Not 'Ort der Entscheidung,' as Jeremias, _ib._ p. 109, proposes.\n\n[1127] See above, p. 329.\n\n[1128] I Sam. xxviii. 11.\n\n[1129] See p. 511.\n\n[1130] See Schwally, _ib._ pp. 59-63.\n\n[1131] Isaiah, viii. 19.\n\n[1132] One of the names for the priest in Babylonia is Sha'ilu, _i.e._,\n'inquirer,' and the corresponding Hebrew word Sho'el is similarly used\nin a few passages of the Old Testament; _e.g._, Deut. xviii. 11; Micah,\nvii. 3. See an article by the writer on \"The Stem Sha'al and the Name of\nSamuel,\" in a forthcoming number of the _Journal of the Society of\nBiblical Literature_.\n\n[1133] See above, pp. 333 _seq._\n\n[1134] See p. 167.\n\n[1135] See above, p. 167, and Scheit, _Le Culte de Gudea_, etc.\n(_Recueil des Travaux_, xviii. 64 _seq._)\n\n[1136] Thureau-Dangin, _Le Culte des Rois dans la periode\nPrebabylonienne_ (_Recueil des Travaux_, etc., xix. 486).\n\n[1137] See above, p. 36. The text is published IIIR. pl. 4, no. 7.\nRecently, Mr. Pinches has published a variant version of this story\n(_Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._ xviii. 257, 258).\n\n[1138] IVR. 34.\n\n[1139] In view of recent discussions of the subject, it is important to\nnote that Tiele already fifteen years ago recognized that Sargon was a\nhistorical personage. See his remarks, _Babyl. Assyr. Gesch._, p. 112.\n\n[1140] Chapter ii.\n\n[1141] See Winterbotham, \"The Cult of Father Abraham,\" in the\n_Expositor_, 1897, pp. 177-186.\n\n[1142] See Jensen's _Kosmologie_, p. 215, and Meissner,\n_Altbabylonisches Privatrecht_, p. 21. The word is used for the\nfoundation of a building, and is an indication, therefore, of the great\ndepth at which the nether world was placed.\n\n[1143] See below, p. 567, and Jensen's _Kosmologie_, p. 259.\n\n[1144] See pp. 65, 66.\n\n[1145] _Kabru_ and _Gegunu_ ('dark place').\n\n[1146] See also below, pp. 566, 567.\n\n[1147] Published IV Rawlinson (2nd edition), pl. 31.\n\n[1148] See p. 483.\n\n[1149] The Old Testament recognizes only two seasons, summer and winter.\nSee, _e.g._, Gen. viii. 22.\n\n[1150] See the discussion in Robertson Smith's _Religions of the\nSemites_, pp. 391-394; and also Farnall, _The Cults of the Greek\nStates_, ii. 644-649.\n\n[1151] See above, p. 484.\n\n[1152] See above, p. 510.\n\n[1153] _I.e._, according to one version (p. 511). Another version of\nthis part of the Gilgamesh epic, which, however, is influenced by the\ntale of Ishtar's visit, is published in Haupt's _Nimrodepos_, pp. 16-19.\nIn this version Eabani gives Gilgamesh a description of Aralu, which\ntallies with the one found in the Ishtar tale.\n\n[1154] Text defective. Jeremias' suggestion, \"the land that thou\nknowest,\" misses the point. The person addressed does not know the land.\n'Decay' is Schrader's conjecture (_Die Hoellenfahrt der Istar_, p. 24).\nSee Haupt's _Nimrodepos_, pp. 17, 40, and Delitzsch's _Assyr.\nWoerterbuch_, p. 321, note.\n\n[1155] Lit., 'the one who has entered it.'\n\n[1156] _I.e._, of the inhabitants.\n\n[1157] The inhabitants.\n\n[1158] See p. 461.\n\n[1159] See below, p. 591.\n\n[1160] See pp. 502, 511.\n\n[1161] Particularly by Herbert Spencer and his followers.\n\n[1162] Isaiah, xiv 9-20, and Ezekiel, xxxii. 18-31. In Isaiah, the\nBabylonian Aralu is specifically described, while Ezekiel writes under\nthe influence of Babylonian ideas.\n\n[1163] Isaiah, viii. 19.\n\n[1164] The Hebrew word for 'the dead,' _refaim_, conveys this idea.\n\n[1165] See p. 512.\n\n[1166] See Sara Y. Stevenson, \"On Certain Symbols used in the Decoration\nof Some Potsherds from Daphne and Naukratis\" (Philadelphia, 1892), p. 8.\n\n[1167] See above, p. 83.\n\n[1168] 'Eating' appears to be a metaphor for destruction in general.\n\n[1169] The portals (?).\n\n[1170] Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp. 173 _seq_.\n\n[1171] Here used as an epithet of the nether world. See above, p. 563.\n\n[1172] Or 'palace.' The lower world, it will be recalled, is pictured as\na house or a country. Here the two terms are combined. See Delitzsch,\n_Assyr. Woerterbuch_, p. 341.\n\n[1173] The phrases used are the ordinary terms of greeting. See, _e.g._,\nVR. 65, 17b.\n\n[1174] Gibil-Nusku may be meant. See the hymn, p. 278. Pap-sukal is a\ntitle of Nabu (p. 130), but also of other gods.\n\n[1175] Lit., 'liver.'\n\n[1176] For the translation of these lines see Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p.\n233.\n\n[1177] See above, p. 441.\n\n[1178] So Jeremias' _Vorstellungen_, etc.; see p. 39. _Zikutu_ from the\nsame stem means a 'drinking bowl.'\n\n[1179] A biting of the lips is elsewhere introduced as a figure. See the\nauthor's monograph, \"A Fragment of the Babylonian Dibbarra Epic,\" p. 14.\n\n[1180] See Delitzsch, _Assyr. Woerterbuch_, p. 341.\n\n[1181] So far as the domestic animals are concerned, it is true that\nthey throw off their young in the spring. The reference to a similar\ninterruption in the case of mankind (see above, p. 571) may embody the\nrecollection of a period when a regular pairing season and breeding time\nexisted among mankind. See Westermarck, _The History of Human Marriage_,\npp. 27 _seq._\n\n[1182] Allatu.\n\n[1183] _I.e._, of the dead person.\n\n[1184] Ishtar.\n\n[1185] See p. 475.\n\n[1186] _Vorstellungen_, pp. 6-8.\n\n[1187] Some instrument is mentioned.\n\n[1188] IVR. 30, no. 3, obverse 23-35.\n\n[1189] The word is explained by a gloss, 'Shamash has made him great.'\n\n[1190] _I.e._, the month in which one dies.\n\n[1191] See p. 175.\n\n[1192] See pp. 505, 506.\n\n[1193] _Vorstellungen_, p. 81.\n\n[1194] Psalms, vi. 6.\n\n[1195] _L'Enfer Assyrien_ (_Revue Archaeologique_, 1879, pp. 337-349).\nSee also Perrot and Chiplez, _History of Art in Chaldaea and Assyria_,\nI. 349 _seq._\n\n[1196] Described by Schell in the _Recucil de Travaux_, etc., xx. nos. 1\nand 2. Schell regards the Zurghul duplicate as older than the other.\n\n[1197] Only four on the Zurghul duplicate.\n\n[1198] For the interpretation of these symbols, see Luschan,\n_Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, pp. 17-27, and Scheil's article. On the\nZurghul tablet there are eight symbols, while the other contains nine.\n\n[1199] See pp. 263, 264. A text IVR. 5, col. i. compares each of the\nseven spirits to some animal. On the duplicate six demons are placed in\nthe second division and the seventh in the third.\n\n[1200] On the duplicate those two demons do not occur.\n\n[1201] Schell thinks that the face is that of a dog.\n\n[1202] On the Zurghul duplicate the horse is not pictured.\n\n[1203] See p. 529.\n\n[1204] This division is not marked in the duplicate from Zurghul.\n\n[1205] Not occurring on the duplicate.\n\n[1206] Scheil questions whether the divisions have this purpose. While\nperhaps not much stress is laid by the artist upon this symbolism, its\nexistence can hardly be questioned. Note the five divisions of the\nuniverse in Smith's _Miscellaneous Texts_, p. 16. The water certainly\nrepresents the Apsu. Allatu rests upon the bark. We do not find among\nthe Babylonians (as Scheil supposes) the view that the dead are conveyed\nacross a sheet of water to the nether world. The dead are buried, and by\nvirtue of this fact enter Aralu, which is in the earth. Egyptian\ninfluence is possible, but unlikely.\n\n[1207] IVR. 26, no. 1.\n\n[1208] _I.e._, the nether world.\n\n[1209] IVR. 30, no. 1; obverse 5, 14.\n\n[1210] See Jensen's valuable articles, \"The Queen in the Babylonian\nHades and her Consort,\" in the _Sunday School Times_, March 13 and 20,\n1897. The text is published, Winckler and Abel, _Der Thontafelfund von\nEl-Amarna,_ iii. 164, 165.\n\n[1211] Written phonetically _e-ri-ish_. The word is entered as a synonym\nof _sharratum_, 'queen,' VR. 28, no. 2; obverse 31. This phonetic\nwriting furnishes the reading for _Nin_ in Nin-Klgal.\n\n[1212] See pp. 418, 419.\n\n[1213] See p. 428.\n\n[1214] See below, p. 588 _seq._\n\n[1215] See below, p. 590.\n\n[1216] See above, p. 79.\n\n[1217] See pp. 448, 511.\n\n[1218] See Farnell, _The Cults of the Greek States_, ii. 627.\n\n[1219] See the reference in note 3 to p. 519.\n\n[1220] Wellhausen, _Reste Arabischen Heidenthums_, pp. 28, 29. That the\nSyro-Arabian _Allat_ resembles Ishtar rather than Allatu, points again\nto the original identity of the two goddesses.\n\n[1221] See p. 546 _seq._\n\n[1222] See below, p. 594, note 1, and Jensen's _Kosmologie_, pp. 145,\n480, 483, 487.\n\n[1223] _Sunday School Times_, 1897, p. 139.\n\n[1224] See p. 574.\n\n[1225] See Frazer, _The Golden Bough_, i. 240 _seq._ and 274, 275.\n\n[1226] See p. 574.\n\n[1227] See p. 417.\n\n[1228] Cheyne (_Expository Times_, 1897, pp. 423, 424) ingeniously\nregards _Belili_ as the source of the Hebrew word _Beliyaal_ or\n_Belial_, which, by a species of popular etymology, is written by the\nancient Hebrew scholars as though compounded of two Hebrew words\nsignifying 'without return.' The popular etymology is valuable as\nconfirming the proposition to place Belili in the pantheon of the lower\nworld. From its original meaning, the word became a poetical term in\nHebrew for 'worthless,' 'useless,' and the like, _e.g._, in the\nwell-known phrase \"Sons of Belial.\"\n\n[1229] See p. 482.\n\n[1230] See p. 537.\n\n[1231] See above, p. 523.\n\n[1232] IIR. 59; reverse 33-35.\n\n[1233] See above, p. 175.\n\n[1234] IIR. 57, 51a, a star, Nin-azu, is entered as one of the names of\nthe planet Ninib.\n\n[1235] See above, p. 565. The name occurs also in Haupt's _Nimrodepos_,\npp. 19, 29.\n\n[1236] _Vorstellungen_, p. 68.\n\n[1237] The name of the goddess is written throughout the story\nNin-Kigal; _i.e._, 'queen of the nether world.' Nin-Eresh. See p. 584,\nnote 2.\n\n[1238] Smith, _Miscellaneous Texts_, p. 16.\n\n[1239] Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 259, note.\n\n[1240] IVR. 1, col. i. 12; col iii. 8-10.\n\n[1241] _Te'u_. See IVR. 22, 512, and Bartels, _Zeitschrift fuer\nAssyriologie_, viii. 179-184.\n\n[1242] See above, pp. 183, 560.\n\n[1243] Obverse ll. 33, 37.\n\n[1244] See above, p. 185.\n\n[1245] See p. 186.\n\n[1246] See p. 183.\n\n[1247] See pp. 417, 598.\n\n[1248] Jensen's _Kosmologie_, pp. 483, 484. In the new fragment of the\nDeluge story discovered by Scheil (referred to above, p. 507, and now\npublished in the _Recueil de Travaux_, xix. no. 3) the word\n_di-ib-ba-ra_ occurs, and the context shows that it means 'destruction.'\nIn view of this, the question is again opened as to the reading of the\nname of the god of war and pestilence. The identification of this god\nwith Girra (pp. 528, 588) may belong to a late period.\n\n[1249] See p. 529.\n\n[1250] See pp. 111, 171, 190.\n\n[1251] See chapter v.\n\n[1252] So at Zurghul (or Zerghul) and el-Hibba. See Koldewey in\n_Zeitschrift fuer Assyriologie_, ii. 403-430.\n\n[1253] See the valuable chapter in Peters' work on _Nippur_, ii.\n214-234.\n\n[1254] _Proceedings of the American Oriental Society_, 1896, p. 166. The\ndead are often conveyed hundreds of miles to be interred in Nejef and\nKerbela.\n\n[1255] Peters' _Nippur_, ii. 325, 326.\n\n[1256] See below, p. 597.\n\n[1257] Koldewey, _Zeitschrift fuer Assyriologie_, ii. 406 _seq._\n\n[1258] _Ib._\n\n[1259] _Travels and Researches in Chaldaea and Susiana_, chapter xviii.\n\n[1260] Peters' _Nippur_, ii. 234. Other mounds examined by Peters\nbetween Warka and Nippur bear out the conclusion.\n\n[1261] De Sarzec, _Decouvertes en Chaldee_, pl. 3.\n\n[1262] On the stele of vultures, the dead are naked.\n\n[1263] Book I, Sec. 195.\n\n[1264] See p. 512.\n\n[1265] Such sacrifices are pictured on the stele of vultures.\n\n[1266] IIIR. 43, col. iv. l. 20; Belser, _Beitraege zur Assyriologie_,\nll. 175, 18; Pinches, _Babylonian Texts_, p. 18.\n\n[1267] For this custom see Trumbull, _The Threshold Covenant_, p. 25;\nPeters' _Nippur_, ii. 202, 203.\n\n[1268] Recently, Scheil has discovered some private dwellings at\nAbu-Habba, which will be described in his forthcoming volume on his\nexplorations at that place. See also Peters' _Nippur_, ii. 200, 201.\n\n[1269] Peters' _Nippur_, ii. 220.\n\n[1270] See p. 597. The date of the monument is prior to Sargon; _i.e._,\nearlier than 3800 B.C.\n\n[1271] VR. 61, col. vi. ll. 54, 55.\n\n[1272] Rassam Cylinder, col. iii. l. 40.\n\n[1273] Rassam Cylinder, col. iv. ll. 74-76.\n\n[1274] _Ib._ col. vi. ll. 70-76.\n\n[1275] Rassam Cylinder, col. iii. l. 64. The favorite mutilation was the\ncutting off of the head. On one of the sculptured slabs from the palace\nof Ashurbanabal, a pyramid of heads is portrayed. The cutting off of the\nhands, the lips, the nose, and the male organ, as well as the flaying of\nthe skin, were also practised. (See Sennacherib's account IR. 42, col.\nvi. ll. 1-6; Rassam Cylinder (Ashurbanabal), ii. 4 and iv. 136.)\n\n[1276] Rassam Cylinder, col. vii. ll. 46-48.\n\n[1277] _ekimmu_. See p. 580.\n\n[1278] See p. 578.\n\n[1279] Heuzey offers another explanation of the scene which is less\nplausible. (See De Sarzec, _Decouvertes en Chaldee_, p. 98.)\n\n[1280] Hebrew word _Sak_. The other rite of mourning among the Hebrews,\nthe putting of earth on the head (_e.g._, I Sam. iv. 12; II Sam. i. 2\nand xv. 32; Neh. ix. 1), is a survival of the method of burial as\nportrayed in the 'stele of vultures.' The earth was originally placed in\na basket on the head and used to cover the dead body.\n\n[1281] The mourning garb mentioned in the Adapa legend (p. 546) is\nprobably a 'torn' garment.\n\n[1282] Hagen, _Cyrus-Texte_ (_Beitraege zur Assyriologie_, ii. 219, 223).\n\n[1283] Inscription B, col. v. ll. 3-5.\n\n[1284] Lane, _Modern Egyptians_, ll. 286.\n\n[1285] See p. 575.\n\n[1286] _Ib._\n\n[1287] See p. 487.\n\n[1288] Hagen, _Cyrus-Texte_, _ib._ and p. 248.\n\n[1289] \"The Folk-Song of Israel,\" _The New World_, ii. 35; also his\narticle \"Das Hebraeische Klagelied,\" _Zeitschrift fuer Alttestamentliche\nWissenschaft_, ii. 1-52.\n\n[1290] In Egypt at present the tambourine is used to accompany the\ndirges (Lane, _ib._ p. 278).\n\n[1291] Peter's _Nippur_, ii. 173, and elsewhere.\n\n[1292] _Zeitschrift fuer Assyriologie_, ii. 414.\n\n[1293] See above, p. 575.\n\n[1294] Job, x. 21, 22.\n\n[1295] _I.e._, the darkness is so dense that no light can remove it.\n\n[1296] See the references in Schwally, _Das Leben nach dem Tode nach den\nVorstellungen des Alten Israels_, pp. 59-68, and Jeremias'\n_Vorstellungen_, pp. 106-116.\n\n[1297] Job, vii. 10.\n\n[1298] _Refa'im_.\n\n[1299] Chapter ix. 5-10.\n\n[1300] Gen. xlii. 38.\n\n[1301] Incidentally, a proof that the dead were not buried naked.\n\n[1302] _Das Leben nach dem Tode_, etc, p. 67.\n\n[1303] I Sam. ii. Recognized by the critics as an insertion. See Budde,\n_Die Buecher Richter und Samuel_, p. 197.\n\n[1304] I Kings, xvii. 21, 22.\n\n[1305] Chapter ii. 7.\n\n[1306] Psalms, cxxxix. 8; a very late production.\n\n[1307] Schuerer, _A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus\nChrist_, vol. II. Division li. pp. 38, 39, 179-181.\n\n[1308] _E.g._, the custom still in vogue among Orthodox Jews of placing\nthe body wrapped in a shroud upon a board, instead of in a coffin.\n\n[1309] Professor Haupt has recently shown (in a paper read before the\nAmerican Oriental Society, April, 1897, and before the Eleventh\nInternational Congress of Orientalists, September, 1897) that such is\nthe meaning of the phrase, Psalms, cxxxvii. 1, which is ordinarily\ntranslated 'rivers of Babylon.'\n\n[1310] The Talmud of Babylonia, and not the Talmud of Palestine, became\nthe authoritative work in the Jewish Church.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVI.\n\nTHE TEMPLES AND THE CULT.\n\n\nThe religious architecture of Babylonia and Assyria is of interest\nchiefly as an expression of the religious earnestness of rulers and\npeople, and only in a minor degree as a manifestation of artistic\ninstincts. The lack of a picturesque building material in the Euphrates\nValley was sufficient to check the development of such instincts.\nImportant as the adaptation of the clay soil of Babylonia for simple\nconstruction was for the growth of Babylonian culture, the limitations\nto the employment of bricks as a building material are no less\nsignificant. Ihering has endeavored to show[1311] by an argument that is\ncertainly brilliant and almost convincing, that the settlement of\nSemites in a district, the soil of which could be so readily used to\nreplace the primitive habitations of man by solid structures, made the\nSemites the teachers of the Aryans in almost everything that pertains to\ncivilization. House-building produced the art of measuring, led to more\nelaborate furnishings of the habitation, created various trades,\nintroduced social distinctions, necessitated divisions of time, and gave\nthe stimulus to commercial intercourse. But, on the other hand, the\nartistic possibilities of brick structures were soon exhausted. The\nhouse could be indefinitely extended in length and even height, but such\nan extension only added to the monotonous effect. With clay as a\nbuilding material, so readily moulded into any desired shape, and that\ncould be baked, if need be, by the action of the sun without the use of\nfire, it was almost as easy to build a large house as a small one. But\nthe addition of rooms and wings and stories which differentiated the\nhouse from the palace and the palace from the temple, served to make\nhugeness the index of grandeur. The best specimens of the religious\narchitecture of Babylonia and Assyria are characterized by such\nhugeness. A proportionate increase of external beauty could only be\nsecured by a modification of architectural style; but the conservative\ninstincts of the people discouraged any deviation from the conventional\nshapes of the temples, which appear indeed to have been firmly\nestablished long before the days of Hammurabi. The influence of\nconventionality finds a striking illustration in the manner in which the\ntemples of Assyria follow Babylonian models. Soft and hard stone\nsuitable for permanent structures was easily procured in the mountainous\ndistrict adjacent to Assyria. The Assyrians used this material for\nstatues, altars, and for the slabs with which they decorated the\nexterior and interior walls of their great edifices. Had they also\nemployed it as a building material, we should have had the development\nof new architectural styles; but the Assyrians, so dependent in\neverything pertaining to culture upon the south, could not cut\nthemselves loose from ancient traditions, and continued to erect huge\npiles of brick, as the homage most pleasing in the eyes of their gods.\nThe Book of Genesis characterized the central idea of the Babylonian and\nAssyrian temples when it represented the people gathered in the valley\nof Shinar--that is, Babylonia--as saying: 'Come, let us build a city and\na tower that shall reach up to heaven.'[1312] The Babylonian and\nAssyrian kings pride themselves upon the height of their temples.\nEmploying, indeed, almost the very same phrase that we find in the Old\nTestament, they boast of having made the tops of their sacred edifices\nas high as 'heaven.'[1313] The temple was to be in the literal sense of\nthe word a 'high place.' But, apart from the factor of natural growth,\nthere was a special reason why the Babylonians aimed to make their\nsacred edifices high. The oldest temple of Babylonia at the present time\nknown to us, the temple of Bel at Nippur, bears the characteristic name\nof E-Kur, 'mountain house.' The name is more than a metaphor. The sacred\nedifices of Babylonia were intended as a matter of fact to be imitations\nof mountains. It is Jensen's merit to have suggested the explanation for\nthis rather surprising ideal of the Babylonian temple.[1314] According\nto Babylonian notions, it will be recalled, the earth is pictured as a\nhuge mountain. Among other names, the earth is called E-Kur, 'mountain\nhouse.' The popular and early theology conceived the gods as sprung from\nthe earth. They are born in Kharsag-kurkura,[1315] 'the mountain of all\nlands,' which is again naught but a designation for the earth, though at\na later period some particular part of the earth, some mountain peak,\nmay have been pictured as the birthplace of the gods, much as among the\nIndians, Persians, and Greeks we find a particular mountain singled out\nas the one on which the gods dwell. The transfer of the gods or of some\nof them to places in the heavens was, as we saw,[1316] a scholastic\ntheory, and not a popular belief. It was a natural association of ideas,\naccordingly, that led the Babylonians to give to their temples the form\nof the dwelling which they ascribed to their gods. The temple, in so far\nas it was erected to serve as a habitation for the god and an homage to\nhim, was to be the reproduction of the cosmic E-Kur,--'a mountain house'\non a small scale, a miniature Kharsag-kurkura. In confirmation of this\nview, it is sufficient to point out that E-Kur is not merely the name of\nthe temple to Bel at Nippur, but is frequently used as a designation for\ntemple in general; and, moreover, a plural is formed of the word which\nis used for divinities.[1317] In Assyria we find one of the oldest\ntemples bearing the name E-kharsag-kurkura,[1318] that stamps the\nedifice as the reproduction of the 'mountain of all lands'; and there\nare other temples that likewise bear names[1319] in which the idea of a\nmountain is introduced.\n\nTo produce the mountain effect, a mound of earth was piled up and on\nthis mound a terrace was formed that served as the foundation plane for\nthe temple proper, but it was perfectly natural also that instead of\nmaking the edifice consist of one story, a second was superimposed on\nthe first so as to heighten the resemblance to a mountain. The outcome\nof this ideal was the so-called staged tower, known as the _zikkurat_.\nThe name signifies simply a 'high' edifice, and embodies the same idea\nthat led the Canaanites and Hebrews to call their temples 'high\nplaces.'[1320]\n\nThe oldest zikkurat as yet found is the one excavated by Drs. Peters and\nHaynes at Nippur,[1321] the age of which can be traced back to the\nsecond dynasty of Ur--about 2700 B.C. This appears to have consisted of\nthree stages, one superimposed on the other. There is a reference to a\nzikkurat in the inscriptions of Gudea that may be several centuries\nolder; but since beneath the zikkurat at Nippur remains of an earlier\nbuilding were found, it is a question whether the staged tower\nrepresents the oldest type of a Babylonian temple. At no time does any\nspecial stress appear to have been laid upon the number of stories of\nwhich the zikkurat was to consist. It is not until a comparatively late\nperiod that rivalry among the rulers and natural ambition led to the\nincrease of the superimposed stages until the number seven was reached.\nThe older zikkurats were imposing chiefly because of the elevation of\nthe terrace on which they were erected, and inasmuch as the ideal of the\ntemple is realized to all practical purposes by the erection of a high\nedifice on an elevated mound, the chief stress was laid upon the height\nof the terrace. The terrace, in a certain sense, is the original\nzikkurat--the real 'high place'--and the temple of one story naturally\nprecedes the staged tower, and may have remained the type for some time\nbefore the more elaborate structure was evolved. However this may be, we\nare justified in associating the mountain _motif_ with the beginnings of\nreligious architecture in the Euphrates Valley, precisely as the\nunderlying cosmic notions belong to the earliest period of which we have\nany knowledge. That the staged tower when once evolved was regarded as\nthe most satisfactory expression of the religious ideas follows from the\nfact that all the large centers of Babylonia had a zikkurat of some kind\ndedicated to the patron deity, and probably many of the smaller places\nlikewise. A list of zikkurats[1322] furnishes the names of no less than\ntwenty; and while all of the important places are included, there are\nothers which do not appear to have played an important part in either\nthe religious or political history of the country, and which\nnevertheless had their zikkurat. To judge from the fact that in this\nlist several names of zikkurat are connected with one and the same\nplace, more than one zikkurat, indeed, could be found in a large\nreligious center.[1323]\n\n\nThe Construction and Character of the Zikkurats.\n\nThe zikkurat was quadrangular in shape. The orientation of the four\ncorners towards the four cardinal points was only approximate.[1324]\nInasmuch as the rulers of Babylonia from a very early period call\nthemselves 'king of the four regions,'[1325] it has been supposed that\nthe quadrangular shape was chosen designedly; but there is no proof that\nany stress was laid upon symbolism of this kind, or upon the orientation\nof the corners of the sacred edifices. More attention was bestowed upon\nmaking the brick structure huge and massive.\n\nThe height of the zikkurats varied. Those at Nippur and Ur[1326] appear\nto have been about 90 feet high, while the tower at Borsippa which Sir\nHenry Rawlinson carefully examined[1327] attained a height of 140 feet.\nThe base of this zikkurat, which may be regarded as a specimen of the\ntower in its most elaborate form, was a quadrangular mass 272 feet\nsquare and 26 feet high. The second and third stories were of equal\nheight, but the square mass diminished with each story by 42 feet. The\nheight of the four upper stories was 15 feet each. At the same time, the\nmass diminished steadily at the rate of 42 feet, so that the seventh\nstory consisted of a mass of only 20 feet square. Sargon's zikkurat at\nKhorsabad (the suburb of Nineveh) was about the same height.\n\nThe average number of stages of the zikkurat appears to have been three,\nas at Nippur and Ur, or four, as at Larsa.[1328] In the pictorial\nrepresentations of the towers,[1329] we similarly find either three or\nfour. In these smaller zikkurats, the height of each tower, as in the\nfirst three stories of the tower at Borsippa, appears to have been\nalike; but the mass diminished in proportion in order to secure a space\nfor a staircase leading from one story to the other. This method of\nascent was older than the winding balustrade, which was better adapted\nto the more elaborate structures of later times. No doubt, as the towers\nincreased in height, other variations were introduced--as, _e.g._, in\nthe proportions of the stories--without interfering with the essential\nprinciple of the zikkurat.\n\nThe ungainly appearance presented by the huge towers was somewhat\nrelieved by decorations of the friezes and by the judicious use of\ncolor. Enameled bricks of bright hues, such as yellow and blue,[1330]\nbecame common, and in the case of some of the towers it would appear\nthat a different color was chosen for each story. Whether all the bricks\nin each story were colored or only those at the edge, or, perhaps, some\nrows, it is impossible to say. From Herodotus' description of the seven\nconcentric walls of Ecbatana,[1331] in which each wall was distinguished\nby a certain color, the conclusion has been drawn that the same\ncolors--white, black, scarlet, blue, orange, silver, and gold--were\nemployed by the Babylonians for the stages of their towers; but there is\nno satisfactory evidence that this was the case. That these colors were\nbrought into connection with the planets, as some scholars have\nsupposed, is highly improbable.\n\nAs already pointed out, no special stress seems to have been laid upon\nthe number of stories of which the zikkurat consisted, but the natural\nresult of ambition and rivalry among builders tended towards an increase\nof the height, and this end could be most readily attained by adding to\nthe number of stories. Still, there may have been some symbolism which\nled to the choice of three, four, or seven stories, inasmuch as these\nnumbers have a sacred import among so many nations.[1332] For the number\nseven, the influence of cosmological associations is quite clear. The\ntwo most famous of the zikkurats of seven stages were those in Babylon\nand in Borsippa, opposite Babylon. The latter bears the significant name\nE-ur-imin-an-ki,[1333] _i.e._, 'the house of the seven directions of\nheaven and earth.' The 'seven directions' were interpreted by the\nBabylonian theologians as a reference to the seven great celestial\nbodies,--the sun and moon and the five planets Ishtar, Marduk, Ninib,\nNergal, and Nabu.[1334] To each of these gods one story was supposed to\nbe dedicated, and the tower thus became a cosmological symbol,\nelaborating in theological fashion the fundamental idea of the zikkurat\nas a reproduction of the dwelling-place of the gods. The identification\nof the five gods with the planets is a proof of the scholastic character\nof the interpretation, and hence of its comparatively late origin. This\ninterpretation of the number seven, however, was not the only one\nproposed in the Babylonian schools. Two much older towers than those of\nBabylon and Borsippa bear names in which 'seven' is introduced. One of\nthese is the zikkurat to Nin-girsu at Lagash, which Gudea[1335]\ndescribes as 'the house of seven divisions of the world'; the other, the\ntower at Uruk,[1336] which bore the name 'house of seven zones.' The\nreference in both cases is, as Jensen has shown,[1337] to the seven\nconcentric zones into which the earth was divided by the Babylonians. It\nis a conception that we encounter in India and Persia, and that survives\nin the seven 'climates' into which the world was divided by Greek and\nArabic geographers. It seems clear that this interpretation of the\nnumber seven is older than the one which identified each story with one\nof the planets.[1338] Both interpretations have a scholastic aspect,\nhowever, and the very fact that there are two interpretations, justifies\nthe suspicion that neither furnishes the _real_ explanation why the\nnumber seven was chosen.\n\nIt by no means follows from the names borne by the zikkurats at Lagash\nand Uruk that they actually consisted of seven stories. The 'seven\ndivisions' and the 'seven zones' are merely terms equivalent to\n'universe.' The names given to the towers would have been equally\nappropriate if they consisted--as they probably did--of fewer stories\nthan seven. But, on the other hand, the introduction of the number seven\ninto the names may be regarded as a factor which influenced ambitious\nbuilders to make the number of stories seven. Over and above this,\nhowever, seven was chosen, primarily, because it was a large number,\nand, secondly, because it was a sacred number,--sacred in part because\nlarge, since 'largeness' and 'sacredness' are correlated ideas in the\npopular phases of early religious thought. In the same way, it is\nbecause seven was popularly sacred that the world was divided into seven\nzones and that the planets were fixed at seven, not _vice versa_.\n\nThe opinion of some scholars[1339] that the zikkurats were used for\nastronomical observations remains a pure conjecture, of which it cannot\neven be said that it has probability in its favor. It is certain that\nthe astronomical observations, since they were conducted by the priests,\nwere made in the temple precincts; but a small room at the top of a\npyramid difficult of access seems hardly a spot adapted for the purpose.\nMoreover, the sacred character of the zikkurat speaks against the\nsupposition that it should have been put to such constant use, and for\npurposes not directly connected with the cult. In the numerous\nastronomical reports that we have, there is not a single reference from\nwhich one could conclude that the observations reported were made from\nthe top of a zikkurat.\n\nBut, on the other hand, it would appear that as the zikkurat developed\nfrom a one-story edifice into a tower, and as the number of the stages\nincreased, the zikkurat assumed more of an ornamental character. While\nthe ascent of the tower continued to be regarded to the latest days as a\nsacred duty, pleasing in the eyes of the deity, for the ordinary and\nmore practical purposes of the cult, other buildings were erected near\nthe tower. Within the temple area and bordering on it there were smaller\nshrines, while in front of the zikkurat there was a large open place,\nwhere the pilgrims who flocked to the sacred city, congregated. The\nsacrifices which formed the essential feature of worship were brought,\nnot at the top of the zikkurat, but on altars that were erected at the\nbase.\n\nThe ideographic designation of the zikkurat as a 'conspicuous\nhouse,'[1340] which accords admirably with the motive ascribed in the\neleventh chapter of Genesis to the builders of a zikkurat to erect an\nedifice that \"could be seen,\" supports the view here taken of the more\ndecorative position which the staged tower came to occupy,--an homage to\nthe gods rather than a place where they were to be worshipped, something\nthat suggested the dwelling-place of a god, to be visited only\noccasionally by the worshipper--in short, a monument forming part of a\nreligious sanctuary, but not coextensive with the sanctuary. The\ndifferentiation that thus arose between the dwelling-place of the god\nand the place where he was to be worshipped is a perfectly natural one.\nTo emphasize the fact that the zikkurat was the temple for the god, a\nsmall room was built at the top of the zikkurat,[1341] and it was a\ndirect consequence of this same distinction between a temple for the\ngods and a temple for actual worship that led to assigning to zikkurats\nspecial names, and such as differed from the designation of the sacred\nquarter of which the zikkurat formed the most conspicuous feature.\n\nThus the name E-Kur, 'mountain house,' though evidently an appropriate\ndesignation for the zikkurat, becomes the term for the sacred area which\nincluded in time a large series of buildings used for the cult, whereas\nthe zikkurat itself receives the special name of 'house of\noracle';[1342] and similarly in the case of the various other religious\ncenters of Babylonia, the name of the zikkurat is distinct from that of\nthe sacred quarter--the temple in the broader sense.\n\nThe special position which the zikkurat thus came to occupy is, of\ncourse, merely an outcome of the growth of the religious centers of the\ncountry, and involves no departure from the religious ideals of earlier\ndays. The distinction is much of the same order as we find in the case\nof the Hebrew temple at Jerusalem, where the court in which the\nworshippers gathered was distinct from the 'holy of holies,' which was\noriginally regarded as the dwelling of Yahwe, and in later times was\nviewed as the spot where he manifested himself. The name 'house of\noracle' given to the zikkurat at Nippur is a valuable indication of the\nspecial sanctity that continued to be attached to the staged tower.\n\n\nThe Temple and the Sacred Quarter.\n\nBut the zikkurat, while the most characteristic expression of the\nreligious spirit of Babylonia, was by no means the only kind of sacred\nedifice that prevailed.\n\nThe excavations at Nippur have afforded us for the first time a general\nview of a sacred quarter in an ancient Babylonian city. The extent of\nthe quarter was considerable. Dr. Peters' estimate is eight areas for\nthe zikkurat and surrounding structures, and to this we may add several\nacres more, since beyond the limits of the great terrace there were\nbuildings to the southeast and southwest, used for religious purposes.\nIt is likely that the extent of E-Sagila at Babylon was even greater.\nOutside of the temple area at Nippur, Peters[1343] and Haynes unearthed\na court of considerable size, lined with brick columns. The court was\nopen to the sky, but the columns supported a roof which was apparently\nof wood. Similar courts have been found elsewhere, so that we are\njustified in regarding the Nippur structure as characteristic of the\narchitecture of Babylonia. The court was attached to an edifice of\nconsiderable size, which contained among other things rooms in which the\ntemple records were kept. The entrance to the court was by a large\ngateway, supported on each side by a brick column, double the diameter\nof those that surrounded the court. While the nature of the building is\nnot perfectly clear, still the presence of the temple archives and the\ngateway make it probable that the structure was used in connection with\nthe cult of some deity worshipped at Nippur. Lending weight to this\nsupposition are the points of resemblance between this structure and the\nsacred edifices of the ancient Hebrews and Arabs. A court of sixty\ncolumns--made of wood, quadrangular in shape, with the supports and tops\nof metal--was the characteristic feature of the tabernacle.[1344] Within\nthis court, open to the sky, the people gathered for worship. The altar\nand the basin for ablutions stood in the court, while the holy tent\ncontaining the ark was set up near the eastern end of the place.\nSimilarly at Mecca,[1345] the Kaaba, the pulpit, and the sacred fountain\nare grouped within a space enclosed on all sides by colonnades. Again,\nsurrounding the Solomonic temple on three sides was a spacious court.\nThis court was enclosed with colonnades.[1346] It may well be,\ntherefore, that the edifice around or near the fine court of columns at\nNippur was a sacred structure, erected in honor of some deity. The two\nlarge brick columns at the entrance to the Nippur court are paralleled\nin the case of the Solomonic temple by the two large columns, known as\nYakhin and Boaz, that stood at the gateway. These names are as yet\nunexplained. Their symbolic character, apart from other evidence, may be\nconcluded from the circumstance that, as Schick has shown,[1347] the\ncolumns stood free, and did not serve as a support for any part of the\ngateway.[1348] There is no need, therefore, for any hesitation in\ncomparing these two columns, whose presence in the Solomonic structure\nis certainly due to foreign influence, to those found at Nippur.[1349]\n\nThat the columns at Nippur were erected in accordance with recognized\ncustom follows from De Sarzec's discovery of two enormous round columns\nwithin the sacred quarter of Lagash.[1350] In the light of Peters'\nexcavations, the significance of the columns at Lagash becomes clear.\nUnfortunately, De Sarzec's excavations at Lagash at the point of the\nmound in question were interrupted, but he gives reasons for believing\nthat other columns existed near the two large ones found by him.[1351]\nThere is, therefore, every reason to conclude that at Lagash, as at\nNippur and no doubt elsewhere, the two columns belonged to a great\ngateway leading into a large court of columns. That these columns served\na symbolic purpose in the Babylonian temple as they did at Jerusalem,\ncannot be maintained with certainty, but is eminently likely.\n\nThe court of columns was surrounded by a series of rooms. If the view\ntaken of the building is correct, these rooms were used for the temple\nadministration. However this may be, there can be no doubt that the\nstructures of various size found around the zikkurat at Nippur served as\ndwellings for the priests and the temple attendants, as stalls for the\ntemple cattle, as shops for the manufacture and sale of votive objects,\nand the like. Within the temple area proper were the schools where young\npriests were trained to be scribes, and received instructions in the\ndoctrines and rites. The astronomical observatories, too, were situated\nnear the temple. The schools served, as they still do in the orient, as\nthe gathering-place of the mature scholars. The systematized pantheon,\nand the cosmological and astronomical systems represent the outcome of\nthe intellectual activity that manifested itself within the sacred\nquarters of the cities of Babylonia. The execution of justice being in\nthe hands of the priests, the sacred area also contained the rooms where\nthe judges sat. It is interesting to note that Gudea mentions a hall of\njudgment in the temple to Nin-girsu at Lagash. The number of such\nbuildings attached to the temple precinct varied, of course, according\nto the needs and growth of each place. In Nippur, the numbers appear to\nhave been very large. We may assume, likewise, that at Sippar, Uruk, Ur,\nand Larsa the zikkurat was the center of a considerable group of\nbuildings, while at Babylon in the days of her greatest power, the\ntemple area of E-Sagila must have presented the appearance of a little\ncity by itself, shut off from the rest of the town by a wall which\ninvariably enclosed the sacred quarter. Within this large wall there\nwere smaller ones, marking the several divisions of the temple\nbuildings. The construction of the smaller edifices does not appear to\nhave varied from the ordinary form chosen for the one-story\ndwelling-houses in the city proper. The material used for all\nstructures--the large and the small ones--was brick. In earlier times\nthe bricks were merely dried in the sun. The buildings, as a\nconsequence, suffered much from the influence of the heat and rain, and\nrequired frequent repairs. Often the tower would crumble away, and an\nentirely new edifice would have to be erected. The later custom of\nkiln-dried bricks was an improvement, and still more solidity was\ninsured when the exterior series of brick was glazed. In the older\nbuildings, the bricks were merely piled together, without cement.\nAfterwards straw was mixed with the clay, but as early as Gudea's days\nthe bitumen, abounding in the valley, became the common cement employed\nin all edifices of importance. Wood was used in the case of smaller\nsanctuaries (as also in palaces) for the roof, and the kings often refer\nwith pride to the efforts they made to obtain the precious cedars of the\nLebanon forests for their building enterprises. The decoration was\nconfined largely to the facades, the doors, and the floors. A pleasing\neffect also was produced by the judicious distribution of glazed and\nenameled bricks in the walls. Colors were used with still greater\nlavishness in the decorations of the interior. The brilliancy was\nheightened by the use of precious stones and gold and silver for the\nwalls and floors and ceilings. The aim of the builders was, as they\nconstantly tell us, to make the buildings as brilliant as the sunlight.\nThe decorations of the brick walls and floors suggest textile patterns,\nand to account for this, some scholars have supposed that prior to the\nuse of colored bricks, it was customary to cover the walls and floors of\ntemples and palaces with draperies and rugs. The suggestion lacks proof,\nbut has much in its favor. In exterior architecture no profound changes\nwere ever introduced, but within the prescribed limits, the builders did\ntheir utmost to make their edifices testimonials of their zeal and\npower. They imported gold, copper, and diorite from the Sinai peninsula\nand Arabia, precious stones from Armenia and the Upper Euphrates, wood\nfrom Bahrein and from various parts of the Amanus range, and so all\nquarters of the ancient world of culture were ransacked for\ncontributions to add to the splendor of the Babylonian and Assyrian\ncities. Much care was bestowed in the course of time upon the portals.\nThe wooden gates were covered with bronze, in which art of decoration\ngreat skill was developed.[1352] The columns of stone appear only in\nAssyrian edifices as decorations in the front of palaces, supporting a\nportal or portico that projects from the temple proper.[1353] The\nintroduction appears to be due to foreign influence, perhaps\nHittite.[1354]\n\nTo determine the interior arrangement of a sacred structure, we have two\nsmall Assyrian temples, excavated by Layard at Nimrod, to serve as our\nguide.[1355] A long hall constituted the chief feature. At the extreme\nend of this hall was a small room, in which stood a statue of the god to\nwhom the temple was dedicated. This room, known as the _papakhu_ or\n_parakku_, was the most sacred part of the temple, and it is doubtful\nwhether any but the king or the highest officials had access to it.\nCertainly, no one could approach the presence of the deity without the\nmediation of a priest. Both terms for this room convey the idea of its\nbeing \"shut off\"[1356] from the rest of the building, precisely as the\nholy of holies in the temple of Jerusalem containing the ark, was\nseparated from the central hall. Gudea[1357] describes the papakhu as\nthe \"dark\" (or inner) chamber.\n\nWe are fortunate in having a pictorial representation of such a papakhu.\nA stone tablet found at Sippar[1358] represents Shamash seated in the\n\"holy of holies\" of the temple E-Babbara. The god sits on a low throne.\nIn front of him is an altar table on which rests a wheel with radiant\nspokes,--a symbol of the sun-god. Into this sanctuary the worshipper,\nwho is none other than the king Nabubaliddin, is led by a priest. The\nking is at pains to tell us in the inscription attached to the design,\nthat he was careful to restore the image of Shamash after an ancient\nmodel, and his motive in adding an illustration to this tablet is that\nfuture builders may have no excuse for not being equally careful. We\nmay, therefore, take the illustration as a sample of the general\ncharacter of the sacred chambers in the Babylonian and Assyrian temples\nin the great centers. The papakhu was decorated with great lavishness.\nThe floors and walls and also the ceiling were studded with precious\nstones. We may believe Herodotus[1359] when he tells us that the statue\nof Marduk in his temple at Babylon and the table in front of it was of\ngold. It was to the papakhu that the priests retired when they desired\nto obtain an oracle direct from the god; and as in the course of time\nthe sanctity of the spot increased, we may well suppose that the\noccasions when the deity was directly approached in his papakhu became\nrarer. Through the influence of the schools attached to the Marduk cult\nat Babylon, the New Year's Festival--the character of which we will have\noccasion to explain later on--came to be regarded as the season most\nappropriate for approaching the oracular chamber. During this festival,\nMarduk was supposed to decide the fate of mankind for the whole year,\nand the intercession of the priests on the occasion was fraught with\ngreat importance.\n\nA special significance, moreover, came to be attached to the sacred\nchamber in the Marduk temple. Complementing in a measure, the\ncosmological associations that have been noted in connection with the\nzikkurat, the papakhu of Marduk was regarded as an imitation of a\ncosmical 'sacred chamber.' As the zikkurat represented the mountain on\nwhich the gods were born and where they were once supposed to dwell, so\nthe sacred room was regarded as the reproduction of a portion of the\ngreat mountain where the gods assembled in solemn council. This council\nchamber was situated at the eastern end of the great mountain, and was\nknown as Du-azagga, that is, 'brilliant chamber.' The chamber itself\nconstituted the innermost recess of the eastern limit of the mountain,\nand the special part of the mountain in which it lay was known as\nUbshu-kenna, written with the ideographic equivalents to 'assembly\nroom.' It will be apparent that such a view of the papakhu is the result\nof theological speculation, and is not due, as is the conception of the\nzikkurat, to popular beliefs.\n\nThe assembly of the gods presupposes a systematization of the pantheon,\nand the fact that it is only the papakhu in Marduk's temple which is\nknown as Du-azagga[1360] is a sufficient indication of the influences at\nwork which produced this conception. In the creation epic, there is a\nreference to the Ubshu-kenna[1361] which shows the main purpose of a\ndivine assembly in the eyes of the priests of Babylon. The gods meet\nthere in order to do homage to Marduk. They gather around the victorious\nvanquisher of Tiamat, as the princes gather round the throne of the\nsupreme ruler,--the king of Babylon and of Babylonia.\n\nOne can see, however, that, as is generally the case with theological\ndoctrines, there is a popular starting-point from which these views were\ndeveloped. The Du-azagga is older than the Ubshu-kenna. Situated in the\nextreme east, the 'brilliant chamber' is evidently the place whence the\nsun rises in the morning. A hymn to Shamash[1362] expressly speaks of\nthe sun rising out of the Du-azagga, and, since the sun also appears to\nrise up out of the ocean, the Du-azagga is placed at a point close to\nthe great Apsu, which flows underneath the mountain. In confirmation of\nthis view, a syllabary[1363] identifies the Du-azagga with the Apsu.\nMarduk, by virtue of his original quality as a solar deity, would\nnaturally be pictured as coming forth from Du-azagga. In this sense the\ntitle Mar-Du-azaga,[1364] 'son of Du-azagga,' is applied to him, just as\nhe is called Mar-Apsi, the son of Apsu. But the same conception would\nhold good of Shamash, of Ninib, and of some other solar deities, though\nnot of all. That Du-azagga came to be especially associated with Marduk\nis due simply to the preeminent rank that he came to occupy. Whether\nthere was also a popular basis for the conception of an Ubshu-kenna, an\n'assembly room' of the gods, is a question more difficult to answer.\nCertainly, the view that the gods gathered together in one place belongs\nto an age which attempted to fix, at least in some measure, the\nrelationship of the divine beings to one another. The popular phase of\nthe conception of a general assembly house could, in any case, hardly\nhave proceeded further than the assumption of some particular part of\nthe great mountain, where the gods were wont to come together. The\nconnection of this assembly place with the Du-azagga is distinctly the\nwork of the theologians of Babylon. In their desire to make Marduk the\ncentral figure of the pantheon, they bring all the gods to his side. The\nUbshu-kenna is thus transferred to the region whence the sun issues on\nhis daily journey. The 'chamber' of Marduk becomes the most sacred spot\nin this region, and the Ubshu-kenna the general name for the region\nitself. As Marduk in Babylon was surrounded by his court, so in\nUbshu-kenna the gods assemble to pay homage to the one freely\nacknowledged by them as the greatest, and who is pictured as sitting on\nhis throne in Du-azagga. The further speculation which brought the gods\ntogether yearly on the occasion of the great Marduk festival belongs\nlikewise, and as a matter of course, to the period when Marduk's sway\nwas undisputed.\n\nThe ideas that were thus attached to the papakhu in E-Sagila are a\nvaluable indication of the sanctity attached to that part of the temple\nwhere the god sat enthroned. In a general way, what holds good of\nMarduk's papakhu applies to every sacred chamber in a temple, and no\ndoubt views were once current of the papakhu of Bel at Nippur and of the\n'holy of holies' in E-Babbara[1365] and elsewhere that formed in some\nmeasure, a parallel to what the Marduk priests told of their favorite\nsanctuary.\n\nComing back now to the large hall which led into the papakhu, the\nabsence of bas-reliefs in this hall in the case of the Assyrian temples\nexcavated by Layard, suggests that the walls of this hall were not lined\nwith sculptured slabs, as was the case in the large rooms of the\npalaces; and we may conclude that in Babylonian temples, likewise, the\ndecoration of the walls was confined as a general thing to enameled\nbricks, interspersed, perhaps, with metallic panels, and that\nmythological scenes--such as the contest with Tiamat or Gilgamesh's\nadventures--were only occasionally portrayed. An aim which, as the\nrulers themselves tell us in their inscriptions, they always kept in\nview was to make both the exterior and interior of the temples\nresplendent with brilliant coloring--\"brilliant as the sun.\" At the\nentrances to the Assyrian temples stood lions, chiseled out of soft\nlimestone or the harder alabaster. At Telloh various fragments of large\nlion heads were found,[1366] so that there is every reason not only to\ntrace this custom to Babylonia, but to carry it back to a very early\nperiod. Besides the lion, a favorite religious symbol, as we have\nseen,[1367] was the bull, and, since Nebuchadnezzar speaks of retaining\nthe \"bull\" statue of the old temple to Nana (or Ishtar) at Erech, we may\nsuppose that the representation of colossal bulls at the entrances to\nthe temples also belongs to the characteristic features of Babylonian\nreligious architecture. The lion, it will be recalled, is more\nparticularly the symbol of Nergal, but he appears originally, like the\nbull, to have been a symbol of other gods as well--perhaps, indeed, of\nthe gods in general. Similarly, the eagle, which becomes the special\nsymbol of Ashur, appears prominently on the monuments of Entemena[1368]\nand other ancient rulers, centuries before the Ashur cult comes into\nprominence.\n\nIn the large court in front of the zikkurats there stood the jars used\nin connection with the cult, and the presence of these jars furthermore\nsuggests that there was an altar in the great court, precisely as in the\ncase of the Solomonic temple.[1369] In the larger of the temples found\nby Layard, there was a smaller hall in front of the large one. We may\nassume that the same was the case with the larger temples of Babylonia,\nand this three-fold division of the interior,--the vestibule, or\n_pronaos_, the main hall, or _naos_, and the papakhu,--further warrants\nthe comparison of a Babylonian sacred edifice with the Solomonic\ntemple,[1370] where likewise we have the vestibule, the hall known as\nthe 'holy' part, and the 'holy of holies,' the one leading into the\nother. As to the further disposition of the rooms in the main temple, we\nmust be content to wait for further excavations. What we know is\nsufficient to warrant the supposition that there was practical\nuniformity in the interior arrangement of the Babylonian and Assyrian\ntemples. What variation there existed was probably confined to the\ndecoration of the walls, doorways, and to the facades. Meanwhile, it is\nsomething to have reached general results. The zikkurat was surrounded\nby a varying number of shrines that were used as places of assembly for\nworshippers. The latter gathered also in the large court in front of the\nzikkurat, where the chief altar probably stood.[1371] In the large halls\nof the shrines, there were in all probabilities likewise altars. It\nseems natural to suppose that the hall of judgment, mentioned already in\nGudea's inscription,[1372] was attached to some shrine. Besides the\nzikkurats and shrines, there were smaller structures used as dwellings\nfor the priests and temple officials, for storehouses, for the archives,\nand as stalls for the animals to be used in the sacrifices. At Nippur a\nsmithy was found near the temple precinct. There were workshops near the\ntemple where the furnishings for the temple, such as the curtains and\nthe utensils, were made, and there were magazines where votive tablets\nand offerings were manufactured and sold. The number of these structures\nvaried, naturally, in each religious center, and increased in proportion\nto the growth of the center. The zikkurat, the great court, the shrines,\nand the smaller structures formed a sacred precinct, and it was this\nprecinct as a whole that constituted the temple in the larger sense, and\nreceived some appropriate name. Thus E-Kur at Nippur, E-Sagila at\nBabylon, E-Zida at Borsippa are used to denote the entire sacred\nprecinct in these cities, and not merely the chief structure. The\nzikkurat always had a special name of its own.\n\nA factor that contributed largely to the growth of the sacred precinct\nin the large centers was the circumstance that the political importance\nof such centers as Nippur, Lagash, Ur, Babylon, and Nineveh led the\nrulers to group around the worship of the chief deity, the cult of the\nminor ones who constituted the family or the court of the chief god. The\nkings measured their importance by the number of the gods upon whose\nassistance they could rely. The priests came to the assistance of the\nkings in connecting the gods of the royal pantheon in such a way, as to\nsatisfy the pride of both their royal and divine masters.[1373] The\nambition of the kings, more especially of the Assyrian empire, led also\nto the addition of foreign deities to the pantheon. For these also\nshrines were built within or near the sacred precinct.\n\nGudea sets the example for his successors by parading a large pantheon\nat the close of his inscriptions,[1374] and a list of temples in Lagash,\nrecently published by Scheil,[1375] shows that most, if not all, of the\ngods invoked by the ruler had a sanctuary erected in his or her honor.\nThere were, as we have seen, several quarters in Lagash, and therefore\nseveral sacred precincts, so that we cannot be certain that all of these\nsanctuaries stood in one and the same quarter. But, since the list in\nquestion furnishes the name of no less than thirteen sacred edifices, we\nare certain that as many as four or five smaller chapels surrounded the\nprecinct in which stood the great temple E-Ninnu, sacred to Gudea's\nchief god Ningirsu-Ninib.\n\nThe list is headed by the sanctuary to Nin-girsu. There follow temples\nto Bau, to Nin-gishzida, Nin-mar, Nina, Dumuzi-zu-aba, Nin-si-a,\nGa-tum-dug known to us from the inscriptions of Gudea, besides others,\nlike Shabra (?), Nin-sun, Nin-tu, that appear here for the first time.\nIn Nippur, we find traces of the worship of Belit (or Nin-lil), of\nNinib, and of Nusku, though with the exception of the first named, the\nworship of these gods has not been traced back further than the days of\nthe Cassite dynasty. Subsequent excavations may, of course, change the\npresent aspect; but one gains the impression from the most ancient\ninscriptions found at Nippur that at an early period Bel was a god much\nlike the Hebrew Yahwe, \"jealous\" of having others at his side. Such a\nconception would help to account for the title 'lord' being applied to\nhim above all others, and also aids us in understanding the lasting\nimpression he made upon the people of Babylonia,--an impression so\nprofound that when the time came for En-lil to yield his supremacy to\nMarduk, no better means could be found of emphasizing the latter's\nauthority, than by transferring to him the names and titles of the older\nBel.[1376] In this respect, however, Nippur was an exception, and in\nlater times the Bel cult was affected by the same influences that led\nGudea to group around the sanctuary to Nin-girsu, edifices sacred to\nother gods and goddesses. Lugalzaggisi[1377] of Erech enumerates an\nextensive pantheon,[1378] which contains most of the chief deities, and\nfrom which we may conclude that the temple of Nana was similarly the\ncenter of a large precinct in which the cult of other deities was\ncarried on. When we come to the cult of Marduk at Babylon and of Nabu at\nBorsippa, the inscriptions, chiefly those of Nebuchadnezzar, come to our\naid in showing us the arrangement of the various chapels that were\ncomprised within the sacred precincts of E-Sagila and E-Zida,\nrespectively. In the first place, the close relationship between Marduk\nand Nabu was emphasized by placing a papakhu to Nabu in the precinct of\nE-Sagila, which--built in imitation of E-Zida at Borsippa--was called by\nthe same name.[1379] This papakhu, it would seem, was independent of a\nspecial temple to Nabu known as E-Makh-tila, and which lay in Borsippa.\nThe consort of Marduk, Sarpanitum, likewise had her temple in Babylon,\nand naturally close to the chief sanctuary of Marduk.[1380] Ea, the\nfather of Marduk, had a small sanctuary known as E-kar-zaginna in the\nsacred precinct.[1381] It does not follow, of course, that all the\ntemples in a center like Babylon or Borsippa were concentrated in one\nplace. Indeed, when Nebuchadnezzar speaks of three temples to Gula being\nerected in Borsippa,[1382] it is certain that they could not have been\nwithin the precinct of E-Zida, and so the temples to Shamash and Ramman,\nSin and Ishtar, as well as to Nabu in Babylon, had an independent\nposition; but we are at least warranted in concluding that they were not\nfar removed from E-Sagila, and so, likewise, the numerous temples\nenumerated by Nebuchadnezzar as erected or improved by him in Borsippa\nwere not far distant from Nabu's sanctuary,--the famous E-Zida. The\npalaces of the kings were also erected near the temples. In Babylon, we\nknow that before Nebuchadnezzar's days, the palace stood so close to\nE-Sagila that an enlargement of it was impossible without encroaching on\nthe sacred quarter.[1383] The tendency to combine with the worship of\nthe chief god, the cult of others is as characteristic of Assyrian\nrulers as of their Babylonian predecessors. We are fortunate in\npossessing an extensive list,[1384] enumerating the various deities\nworshipped in the temples of Assyria, and the occasions on which they\nare to be invoked. The information to be gained from this list is all\nthe more welcome since the Assyrian kings are chiefly interested in\ntransmitting an account of their military expeditions, and tell us\ncomparatively little of the religious edifices in their capitols. From\nthis list we learn that in the old temple sacred to Anu and\nRamman,[1385] in the city of Ashur--the oldest Assyrian temple known to\nus,[1386]--some twenty deities were worshipped. Images at least of these\ndeities must have stood in the temple;[1387] but, since there is a\ndistinct reference _zikkurats_[1388] in the list, for some of them\nspecial sanctuaries of some kind must have been erected within the\nprecinct. From the same list we learn that there was a temple to\nMarduk[1389] in Ashur in which the cult of the Shamash, Sarpanitum,\nRamman, Ninib, Anunit was also carried on; similarly, in the temples of\nAshur, of Gula, and of Ninib, other gods were worshipped. Provisions of\nsome kind for the cult of these deities must have been made, and one\ncannot escape the conclusion that in the Assyrian capitols, the sacred\nprecincts likewise covered considerable territory, and that the tendency\nexisted towards a steady increase of the structures erected in\nconnection with the cult of the patron deity. Sennacherib proudly\ndescribes Nineveh as the city which contained the shrines of all gods\nand goddesses.[1390]\n\n\nThe Names of the Zikkurats and Temples.\n\nWe have seen that every sacred edifice had a special name by which it\nwas known. This custom belongs to the oldest period of Babylonian\nhistory, and continues to the latest. Through these names, to which, no\ndoubt, considerable significance was attached, we obtain a valuable\ninsight into the religious spirit of the Babylonians; but it is\nimportant to note that the custom does not appear to have been as\ngeneral[1391] in Assyria, where the temples are simply known as the\nhouse of this or that god or goddess. Of special interest are those\nnames which were suggested by the original design of the temples. Such\nare E-Kur, 'the mountain house' at Nippur, E-kharsag-kurkura, 'the house\nof the mountain of all lands,' the name of several temples.[1392] The\nsame idea finds expression also in such names as E-kharsag-ella, or\n'house of the glorious mountain,' the name of a temple to Gula in\nBabylon; E-kharsag, 'the mountain house,' a temple in Ur;[1393]\nE-khur-makh, 'the house of the great mountain,' which a text[1394]\ndeclares to be equivalent to E-kharsag-kalama. Closely allied with these\nnames are those indicating in one way or the other, the height or\ngreatness of the buildings, as the general aim of the builders.\nProminent among such names are E-Sagila, 'the lofty house,' the famous\ntemple and temple area at Babylon; E-makh, 'the great house,' a chapel\nto Nin-kharsag, situated perhaps within E-Sagila; E-gal-makh, 'the great\npalace,' an old temple in Ur; E-anna, 'the heavenly house,' that is, the\nhouse reaching up to heaven, which is the name of the temple of Ishtar\nor Nana at Erech; E-lgi-e-nir-kidur-makh,[1395] 'the tower of the great\ndwelling' sacred to Ninni at Kish. To the same class belong such\ndesignations as E-dur-an-ki, 'the link of heaven and earth,'[1396] the\nname of a zikkurat at Larsa; E-an-dadia, 'the house reaching to heaven,'\nthe zikkurat at Agade; E-pa, 'the summit house,' the zikkurat to\nNin-girsu at Lagash; E-gubba-an-ki, 'the point of heaven and earth,' one\nof the names of the zikkurat in Dilbat; E-dim-anna, 'the house of\nheavenly construction,' the chapel to Sin within the precinct of E-Zida\nat Borsippa,--a name that again conveys the notion of an edifice\nreaching up to heaven. The names of the zikkurats at Erech and Borsippa,\n'the house of seven zones' and 'the house of the seven divisions of\nheaven and earth,' respectively, while conveying, as we saw,[1397]\ncosmological conceptions of a more specific character, may still be\nreckoned in the class of names that embody the leading purpose of the\ntower in Babylonia, as may also a name like E-temen-an-ki, 'the\nfoundation stone of heaven and earth,' assigned to the zikkurat to\nMarduk in Babylonia.\n\nThe sacred edifice, as the dwelling of the god to whom it is dedicated,\nleads to such names as E-Zida, 'the true house or fixed house,'[1398]\nthe famous temple to Nabu in Borsippa; E-dur-gina,[1399] 'the house of\nthe established seat,' a temple of Bel-sarbi[1400] in Baz;\nE-ki-dur[1401]-garza, 'the sacred dwelling,' a temple to Nin-lil-anna in\nBabylon; E-kua, 'the dwelling-house,' the name of the papakhu of Marduk\nin E-Sagila; E-gi-umunna, 'the permanent dwelling'; E-esh[1402]-gi, a\nshrine to Nin-girsu at Lagash with the same meaning, 'permanent house.'\n\nAnother class is formed by such names as are suggested by the attributes\nof the deity to whom the edifices are dedicated. Such are E-babbara,\n'the brilliant house,' which, as the name of the temples to Shamash at\nSippar and Larsa, recalls at once the character of the sun-god.\nSimilarly, E-gish-shir-gal, 'the house of the great luminary,' was an\nappropriate name for the temple to the moon-god at Ur. The staff or\nsceptre being the symbol of the god Nabu, suggests as the name of a\nsanctuary to him in Babylonia, the name E-pad-kalama-suma, 'the house of\nhim who gives the sceptre of the world,' while the character of Shamash\nas the god of justice finds an expression in the name E-ditar-kalama,\n'the house of the universal judge,' given to his temple or chapel in\nBabylon. The association of the number fifty with Ningirsu-Ninib leads\nto the name E-ninnu, 'house of fifty,'[1403] for his temple in Lagash.\nAgain, the position of Anu in the pantheon accounts for the name E-adda,\n'house of the father,' given to his temple, just as E-nin-makh, 'the\nhouse of the great lady,' the name of a chapel in Babylon, at once\nrecalls a goddess like Ishtar. Other names that describe a temple by\nepithets of the gods to whom they are sacred, are E-nun-makh, 'the house\nof the great lord,' descriptive of Sin; E-me-te-ur-sagga, 'the house of\nthe glory of the warrior,' a temple sacred to Zamama-Ninib; E-U-gal,\n'the house of the great lord,' a temple to En-lil. A name like E-edinna,\n'house of the field,' a temple to the consort of Shamash at Sippar, may\nalso have been suggested by some attribute of the goddess.[1404]\n\nLastly, we have a class of names that might be described as purely\nornamental, or as embodying a pious wish. Of such we have a large\nnumber. Examples of this class are E-tila, 'house of life.' Names\nextolling the glory and splendor of the temples are common. In a list of\ntemples[1405] we find such designations as 'house of light,' 'house of\nthe brilliant precinct,' 'great place,' 'lofty and brilliant\nwall,'[1406] 'house of great splendor,' 'the splendor of heaven and\nearth,' 'house without a rival,' 'light of Shamash.' The seat of\nSarpanitum in E-Sagila, is known as 'the gate of widespread splendor';\nE-salgisa, 'the treasury,' as the name of a temple in Girsu, may belong\nhere. A temple to Gula in Sippar was called E-ulla; that is, 'the\nbeautiful house.' The old temple to Sin at Harran bore the significant\nname E-khulkhul, 'house of joys,' while the pious wish of the worshipper\nis again expressed in the name 'threshold of long life,' given to the\nzikkurat in Sippar.[1407] Among a series of names,[1408] illustrating\nthe religious sentiments of the people are the following: 'the heart of\nShamash,' 'the house of hearkening to prayers,'[1409] 'the house full of\njoy,' 'the brilliant house,' 'the life of the world,' 'the place of\nfates,' and the like.\n\nThese various classes of names are a valuable index of the varied and\noften remarkable conceptions held of the gods. To call a temple, for\nexample, 'court of the world'[1410] may have been due originally to a\nhaughty presumption on the part of some one deeply attached to some god;\nbut such a name must also have led to regarding the god as not limited\nin his affections to a particular district. Whatever tendencies existed\nin Babylonia and Assyria towards universalistic conceptions of the\ndivine beings were brought out in the temple names, and in part may have\nbeen advanced by these names. The custom still surviving in the Jewish\nChurch of giving names to synagogues may be traced back to a Babylonian\nprototype.[1411]\n\n\nThe History of the Temples.\n\nThe history of the temples takes us back to the earliest period of\nBabylonian history, and the temples of Assyria likewise date from the\nsmall beginnings of the Assyrian power. The oldest inscriptions of\nMesopotamian rulers commemorate their services as builders of temples.\nNaram-Sin and Sargon glory in the title 'builder of the temple of En-lil\nin Nippur.' Of the rulers of the first period of Babylonian history, it\nso happens that we know more of Gudea than of any other. We may feel\ncertain that he but follows the example of his predecessors, in devoting\nso large a share of his energies to temple building. Hammurabi is an\nactive builder of sanctuaries, and so on, through the period of Assyrian\nsupremacy down to the closing days of the Babylonian monarchy, the\nthoughts of the rulers were directed towards honoring the gods by\nimproving, restoring, rebuilding, or enlarging the sanctuaries, as well\nas by endowing them with rich gifts and votive offerings. The Assyrian\nkings, though perhaps more concerned with embellishing their palaces, do\nnot neglect the seats of the gods. Anxious to maintain the connection\nbetween their kingdom and the old cities of the south, the Assyrian\nmonarchs were fond of paying homage to the time-honored sanctuaries of\nBabylonia. This feeling, which is of course shared by the Babylonian\nrulers, results in bringing about the continuity of the Babylonian and\nAssyrian religion. If, despite the changes that the religious doctrines\nunderwent, despite the new interpretations given to old myths and\nlegends, despite the profound changes introduced into the relationship\nof the gods to one another through the systematization of the pantheon,\nif, despite all this, the Babylonians and Assyrians--leaders and\npeople--continued to feel that they were following the religion of their\nforefathers, it was due to the maintenance of the old sanctuaries. We\ncan actually trace the history of some of these sanctuaries for a period\nof over 3000 years. In their restorations, the later builders were\ncareful not to offend the memory of their predecessors. They sought out\nthe old dedicatory inscriptions, and took steps to preserve them. They\nrejoiced when they came upon the old foundation stones. In their\nrestorations they were careful to follow original designs; and likewise\nin the cult, so far from deviating from established custom, they\nstrongly emphasized their desire to restore the cult to its original\ncharacter, wherever an interruption for one reason or the other had\ntaken place. In all this, the rulers were acting in accord with the\npopular instincts, for the masses clung tenaciously to the old\nsanctuaries, as affording an unfailing means of protection against the\nills and accidents of life.\n\nTo enumerate all the temples of Babylonia and Assyria would be both an\nimpossible and a useless task. Besides those mentioned in the historical\ntexts and in the legal literature, we have long lists of temples\nprepared by the pedagogues. Some of these lists have been\npublished;[1412] others are to be found among the unpublished material\nin the British Museum collections.[1413] It is doubtful whether even\nthese catalogues were exhaustive, or aimed at being so; moreover, a\nlarge number of gods are known to us only from the lists of the\npedagogues.[1414] So, to mention some, taken from a valuable list[1415]\nwhich gives chiefly the names of foreign gods, together with the places\nwhere they were worshipped, we learn of such gods as Lagamal, Magarida,\nLasimu, A-ishtu, Bulala, Katnu, Kannu, Kishshat, Kanishurra, Khiraitum.\nKnowing, as we do, that at various periods foreign deities were\nintroduced into Babylonia and Assyria,[1416] it was necessary to make\nsome provision for their cult; and, while no doubt most of these minor\ndeities and foreign gods were represented only by statues placed in some\ntemple or temple precinct, it is equally certain that some had a shrine\nor sanctuary of some kind specially erected in their honor. In hymns,\ntoo, deities are mentioned that are otherwise unknown. So in a litany,\npublished by Craig,[1417] a long series of gods is introduced. Some are\nidentical with those included in the list just referred to,[1418] others\nappear here for the first time, as Mishiru, Kilili Ishi-milku. Epithets\nalso occur in lists and hymns, that appear to belong to deities\notherwise unknown. We are safe, therefore, in estimating the number of\ntemples, zikkurats, and smaller shrines in Babylonia and Assyria to have\nreached high into the hundreds. Sanctuaries must have covered the\nEuphrates Valley like a network. By virtue of the older culture of the\nsouth and the greater importance that Babylonia always enjoyed from a\nreligious point of view, the sanctuaries of the south were much more\nnumerous than those of the north. For our purposes, it is sufficient to\nindicate some of the most important of the temples of the south and\nnorth. The oldest known to us at present is the frequently mentioned\ntemple of E-Kur at Nippur, sacred to En-lil or the older Bel. Its\nhistory can be carried back to a period beyond 4000 B.C.; how far beyond\ncannot be determined until the early chronology is better known than at\npresent. We know, however, that from the time of Sargon[1419] and\nprobably even much earlier, the rulers who had control of Nippur devoted\nthemselves to the embellishment of the temple area. Climatic conditions\nnecessitated frequent repairs. The temple also suffered occasionally\nthrough political tumults, but with each century the religious\nimportance of E-Kur was increased. Ur-Bau, we have seen, about 2700\nB.C., erected a zikkurat in the temple area. Some centuries later we\nfind Bur-Sin repairing the zikkurat and adding a shrine near the main\nstructure. As the political fortunes of Nippur varied, so E-Kur had its\nups and downs. Under the Cassitic rule, an attempt was made to recover\nfor Nippur the position which it formerly occupied, but which had now\npassed over to Babylon. It was of little avail. Bel had to yield to\nMarduk, and yet, despite the means that the priests of Marduk took to\ntransfer Bel's prerogatives to the new head of the pantheon, the rulers\nwould not risk the anger of Bel by a neglect of E-Kur. Kurigalzu, a king\nof the Cassite dynasty (_c._ 1400 B.C.) brings back from Elam[1420] a\nvotive object which, originally deposited by Dungi in the Ishtar temple\nat Erech, was carried to Susa by an Elamitic conqueror about 900 years\nbefore Kurigalzu. The latter deposits this object not in Marduk's temple\nat Babylon, but in Bel's sanctuary at Nippur. During the entire Cassitic\nperiod, the kings continued to build or make repairs in the temple\nprecinct, and almost every ruler is represented by more or less costly\nvotive offerings made to Bel's sanctuary. In this way, we can follow the\nhistory of the temple down to the Assyrian period. In the twelfth\ncentury the religious supremacy of E-Kur yields permanently to E-Sagila.\nThe temple is sacked, part of it is destroyed, and it was left to rulers\nof the north like Esarhaddon and Ashurbanabal to once more restore E-Kur\nand its dependencies to its former proportions. These kings, especially\nthe latter, devote much time and energy in rebuilding the zikkurat and\nin erecting various buildings connected with the temple administration.\nUnder the new Babylonian dynasty, however, E-Kur was again destroyed,\nand this time by the ruthless hands of southern rulers. Nebuchadnezzar,\nso devoted to Marduk and Nabu, appears to have regarded E-Kur as a\nserious rival to E-Sagila and E-Zida. Some traces of building operations\nat E-Kur appear to date from the Persian period, but, practically, the\nhistory of E-Kur comes to an end at the close of the seventh century.\nThe sanctity of the place, however, remained; a portion of the old city\nbecomes a favorite burial site, while other parts continue to be\ninhabited till the twelfth century of our era. The city of Bel becomes\nthe seat of a Christian bishop, and Jewish schools take the place once\noccupied by the \"star-gazers of Chaldea.\"\n\nThe history of E-Kur, so intimately bound up with political events, may\nbe taken as an index of the fortunes that befell the other prominent\nsanctuaries of Babylonia.\n\nThe foundation of the Shamash temple at Sippar, and known as E-Babbara,\n'the brilliant house,' can likewise be traced as far back as the days of\nNaram-Sin. At that time there was already a sanctuary to Anunit within\nthe precincts of E-Babbara. Members of the Cassite dynasty devote\nthemselves to the restoration of this sanctuary. Through a subsequent\ninvasion of the nomads, the cult was interrupted and the great statue of\nShamash destroyed. Several attempts are made to reorganize the cult, but\nit was left for Nabubaliddin in the tenth century to restore E-Babbara\nto its former prestige. Esarhaddon and Ashurbanabal, who pay homage to\nthe old Bel at Nippur, also devote themselves to Shamash at Sippar. They\nrestore such portions of it as had suffered from the lapse of time and\nfrom other causes. Nebuchadnezzar is obliged to rebuild parts of\nE-Babbara, and the last king of Babylonia, Nabonnedos, is so active in\nhis building operations at Sippar that he arouses the anger of the\npriests of Babylon, who feel that their ruler is neglecting the\nsanctuaries of Marduk and Nabu. It is through Nabonnedos[1421] and\nNabubaliddin,[1422] chiefly, that we learn many of the details of the\nhistory of E-Babbara during this long period.\n\nOf the other important temples that date from the early period of\nBabylonian history, we must content ourselves with brief indications.\n\nThe temple to Shamash at Larsa, while not quite as old as that of\nSippar, was quite as famous. Its name was likewise E-Babbara. It is\nfirst mentioned in the inscriptions of Ur-Bau (_c._ 2700 B.C.), and it\ncontinues to enjoy the favor of the rulers till the Persian\nconquest.[1423]\n\nThe two chief places for the moon-cult were Ur and Harran. The name of\nSin's temple[1424] at the former place was E-Gish-shir-gal, 'the house\nof the great light'; at the latter, E-khulklul, 'the house of joys.'\nAround both sanctuaries, but particularly around the former, cluster\nsacred traditions. We have seen that the moon-cult at an early period\nenjoyed greater importance than sun-worship. The temples of Sin were\ncenters of intellectual activity. It is in these places that we may\nexpect some day to find elaborate astronomical and astrological records.\nHarran, indeed, does not appear at any time to have played any political\nrole[1425] (though it was overrun occasionally by nomads), so that the\nsignificance of the place is due almost entirely to the presence of the\ngreat temple at the place. It is Nabonnedos,[1426] again, who endeavors\nto restore the ancient prestige of the sanctuary at Harran. E-anna, 'the\nlofty house,' was the name of Ishtar's famous temple at Erech. The\nmention of this temple in one of the creation narratives[1427] and the\npart played by Ishtar of Erech in the Gilgamesh epic are sufficient\nindications of the significance of this structure. Historical\ninscriptions from the earliest period to the days of Ashurbanabal and\nNebuchadnezzar come to our further aid in illustrating the continued\npopularity of the Ishtar cult in E-anna. The Ishtar who survives in\nBabylonia and Assyria is practically the Ishtar of Erech,--that is,\nNana.[1428]\n\nPassing by such sanctuaries as E-shid-lam, sacred to Nergal at Cuthah,\nand coming to E-Sagila and E-Zida, the two great temples of Babylon and\nBorsippa, respectively, it is of course evident from the close\nconnection between political development and religious supremacy, that\nMarduk's seat of worship occupies a unique position from the days of\nHammurabi to the downfall of Babylonia. While the history of E-Sagila\nand E-Zida cannot be traced back further than the reign of Hammurabi,\nthe temples themselves are considerably older. Previous to the rise of\nthe city of Babylon as the political center, the Nabu cult in E-Zida\nmust have been more prominent than the worship of Marduk in E-Sagila.\nMarduk was merely one solar deity among several, and a minor one at\nthat, whereas the attributes of wisdom given to Nabu point to the\nintellectual importance that Borsippa had acquired. The Nabu cult was\ncombined with the worship of Marduk simply because it could not be\nsuppressed. At various times, as we have seen,[1429] Nabu formed a\nserious rival to Marduk, and it will be recalled that up to a late\nperiod we find Nabu given the preference to Marduk in official\ndocuments.[1430] The inseparable association of E-Sagila and E-Zida is a\ntribute to Nabu which, we may feel certain, the priests of Marduk did\nnot offer willingly. But this association becomes the leading feature in\nthe history of the two temples. To pay homage to Marduk and Nabu meant\nsomething quite different from making a pilgrimage to the seat of Bel or\npresenting a gift to the Shamash sanctuary at Sippar. It was an\nacknowledgment of Babylonia's prestige. The Assyrian rulers regarded it\nas both a privilege and a solemn duty to come to Babylon and invoke the\nprotection of Marduk and Nabu. In E-Sagila the installation of the\nrulers over Babylonia took place, and a visit to Marduk's temple was\nincomplete without a pilgrimage across the river to E-Zida. The\ninfluence exerted by these two temples upon the whole course of\nBabylonian history from the third millennium on, can hardly be\noverestimated. From the schools grouped around E-Sagila and E-Zida, went\nforth the decrees that shaped the doctrinal development of the religion\nof Babylonia and Assyria. In these schools, the ancient wisdom was\nmolded into the shape in which we find it in the literary remains of the\nEuphrates Valley. Here the past was interpreted and the intellectual\nfuture of the country projected. The thought of E-Sagila and E-Zida must\nhave stored up emotions in the breast of a Babylonian and Assyrian, that\ncan only be compared to a pious Mohammedan's enthusiasm for Mecca, or\nthe longing of an ardent Hebrew for Jerusalem. The hymns to Marduk and\nNabu voice this emotion. There is a fervency in the prayers of\nNebuchadnezzar which marks them off from the somewhat perfunctory\ninvocations of the Assyrian kings to Ashur and Ishtar. An appreciation\nof the position of E-Sagila and E-Zida in Babylonian history is an\nessential condition to an understanding of the Babylonian-Assyrian\nreligion. The priests of Marduk could view with equanimity the rise and\ngrowth of Assyria's power. The influence of E-Sagila and E-Zida was not\naffected by such a shifting of the political kaleidoscope. Babylon\nremained the religious center of the country. When one day, a Persian\nconqueror--Cyrus--entered the precincts of E-Sagila, his first step was\nto acknowledge Marduk and Nabu as the supreme powers in the world; and\nthe successors of Alexander continue to glory in the title 'adorner of\nE-Sagila and E-Zida.'[1431] With the same zeal that distinguishes a good\nBabylonian, Antiochus Soter hastens to connect his reign with the two\ntemples by busying himself with their enlargement and beautification.\nThere was no better way in which he could indicate, at the same time,\nhis political control over the country.\n\nOne more factor contributing to the general influence of the Babylonian\ntemples remains to be noted. In the course of time, all the great\ntemples in the large centers became large financial establishments. The\nsources whence the temples derived their wealth were various. The kings\nboth of Babylonia and Assyria took frequent occasions to endow the\nsanctuaries with lands or other gifts. At times, the endowment took the\nform of certain quantities of wine, corn, oil, fruits, and the like, for\nwhich annual provision is made; at times, the harvest derived from a\npiece of property is set aside for the benefit of the temple. In other\nways, too, the temples acquired large holdings, through purchases of\nland made from the income accruing to it, and from the tithes which it\nbecame customary to collect. This property was either farmed through the\nauthorities of the temple for the direct benefit of the sanctuary, or\nwas rented out to private parties under favorable conditions. We learn\nof large bodies of laborers indentured to temples, as well as of slaves\nowned or controlled by the temples. These workmen were engaged for\nvarious purposes,--for building operations, for service in the fields,\nfor working raw material, such as wool, into finished products, and much\nmore the like. But, more than this, the temples engaged directly in\ncommercial affairs, lending sums of money and receiving interest. In\nsome sanctuaries, a thriving business of barter and exchange was carried\non. Crops are sold, houses are rented by the temple agents, and there\nwas scarcely an avenue of commerce into which the temples did not enter.\nAn active business was also carried on in the manufacture and sale of\nidols, votive offerings, amulets, and the like. A very large number of\nthe legal documents found in the Babylonian mounds deal with the\nbusiness affairs of the temples.[1432] Such a state of affairs naturally\ncontributed towards making the temples important establishments and\ntowards increasing the influence of the priests over the people.\n\nThe temples of Assyria play a minor part in the religious life of rulers\nand people. True, grand structures were reared in Ashur, Calah, Nineveh,\nand Arbela, and no important step was taken by the kings without\nconsulting Ashur, Ishtar, or Ramman through the mediation of the\npriests. The great cities of Assyria also become intellectual centers.\nThe priests of Arbela created a school of theological thought, but all\nthese efforts were but weak imitations of the example furnished by the\ntemples of the south. Even Ashurbanabal, whose ambition was to make\nNineveh the center of religious and intellectual progress, failed of his\npurpose. His empire soon fell to decay, and with that decay Nineveh\ndisappears from the stage of history. Babylon and Borsippa, however,\nremain, and continue to hand down to succeeding generations, the wisdom\nof the past.\n\n\nThe Sacred Objects in the Temples,--Altars, Vases, Images, Basins,\nShips.\n\nThe earliest altars were made of the same material as the zikkurats and\nsanctuaries. One found at Nippur at an exceedingly low level was of\nsun-dried bricks.[1433] How early this material was replaced by stone,\nwe are not in a position to say. Gudea, who imports diorite from the\nSinai Peninsula to make statues[1434] of himself, presumably uses a\nsimilar material for the sacred furnishings of his temples, though\ncustom and conventionality may have maintained the use of the older clay\nmaterial for some time. In Assyria, altars of limestone and alabaster\nbecame the prevailing types. The shape and size of the altars varied\nconsiderably. The oldest known to us, the one found at Nippur, was about\ntwelve feet long and half as wide. The upper surface was surrounded by a\nrim of bitumen.[1435] Assyrian altars now in the British museum are from\ntwo to three feet high. The ornamentation of the corners of the rim of\nthe altar led to giving the altar the appearance of horns.[1436] The\nbase of the altar was either a solid piece with a circular or oblong\nplate resting on it, or the table rested on a tripod.[1437] The latter\nspecies was well adapted for being transported from place to place by\nthe Assyrian kings, who naturally were anxious to maintain the worship\nof Ashur and of other gods while on their military expeditions. Much\ncare was spent upon the ornamentation of the altars, and, if we may\nbelieve Herodotus, the great altars at Babylon were made of gold.[1438]\nIn front of the altars stood large vases or jars of terra cotta, used\nfor ablutions and other purposes in connection with the sacrifices. Two\nsuch jars, one behind the other, were found at Nippur. They were\nornamented with rope patterns, and the depth at which they were found is\nan indication of the antiquity and stability of the forms of worship in\nthe Babylonian temples. It may be proper to recall that in the Solomonic\ntemple, likewise, there were a series of jars that stood near the great\naltar in the large court.[1439]\n\nA piece of furniture to which great religious importance was attached\nwas a great basin known as 'apsu,'--the name, it will be recalled, for\n'the deep.' The name indicates that it was a symbolical representation\nof the domain of Ea. In Gudea's days the symbol is already known,[1440]\nand it continues in use to the end of the Babylonian empire. The\nzikkurat itself being, as we saw, an attempt to reproduce the shape of\nthe earth, the representation of the 'apsu' would suggest itself as a\nnatural accessory to the temple. The zikkurat and the basin together\nwould thus become living symbols of the current cosmological\nconceptions. Gudea already regards the zikkurat as a symbol. To make the\nascent is a virtuous deed.[1441] The thought of adding a symbol of the\napsu belongs, accordingly, to the period when this view of the zikkurat\nwas generally recognized. The shape of the 'sea' was oblong or round. It\nwas cut of large blocks of stone and was elaborately decorated. One of\nthe oldest[1442] has a frieze of female figures on it, holding in their\noutstretched hands flagons from which they pour water. In Marduk's\ntemple we learn that there were two basins,--a larger and a smaller one.\nThe comparison with the great 'sea' that stood in the court of Solomon's\ntemple naturally suggests itself, and there can be little doubt that the\nlatter is an imitation of a Babylonian model.\n\nAnother sacred object in the construction of which much care was taken\nwas the ship in which the deity was carried in solemn procession. It is\nagain in the inscriptions of Gudea[1443] that we come across the first\nmention of this ship. This ruler tells us that he built the 'beloved\nship' for Nin-girsu, and gave it the name Kar-nuna-ta-uddua, the ship of\n'the one that rises up out of the dam of the deep.' The ship of Nabu is\nof considerable size, and is fitted out with a captain and crew, has\nmasts and compartments.[1444] The ship resembled a moon's crescent, not\ndiffering much, therefore, from the ordinary flatbottomed Babylonian\nboat with upturned edges. Through Nebuchadnezzar[1445] we learn that\nthese ships were brilliantly studded with precious stones, their\ncompartments handsomely fitted out, and that in them the gods were\ncarried in solemn procession on the festivals celebrated in their\nhonor.[1446] A long list[1447] of such ships shows that it was a symbol\nthat belonged to all the great gods. The ships of Nin-lil, Ea, Marduk,\nSin, Shamash, Nabu, Ninib, Bau, Nin-gal, and of others are specially\nmentioned. A custom of this kind of carrying the gods in ships must have\noriginated, of course, among a maritime people. We may trace it back,\ntherefore, to the very early period when the sacred cities of Babylonia\nlay on the Persian Gulf. The use of the ships also suggests, that the\nsolemn procession of the gods was originally on water and not on land,\nand it is likely that this excursion of the gods symbolized some homage\nto the chief water-deity, Ea. However this may be, the early\nsignificance became lost, but the custom survived in Babylonia of\ncarrying the gods about in this way. In Assyria, less wedded to ancient\ntradition, we find statues of the gods seated on thrones or standing\nupright, carried directly on the shoulders of men.[1448] In Egypt sacred\nships are very common, and it is interesting to note as a survival of\nthe old Babylonian and Egyptian custom that an annual gift sent by the\nkhedive of Egypt to Mecca consists of a tabernacle, known as Mahmal,\nthat presents the outlines of a ship.[1449] The ark of the Hebrews\nappears, similarly, to have been originally a ship of some kind.\n\nThe ships of the Babylonian gods had names given to them, just as the\ntowers and sanctuaries had their names. The name of Nin-girsu's ship has\nalready been mentioned. Marduk's ship was appropriately known as\nMa-ku-a, 'the ship of the dwelling.'[1450] Similarly, a ship of the god\nSin was called 'ship of light,' reminding one of the name of the great\ntemple to the moon-god at Ur, 'the house of the great luminary.' The\nship of Nin-gal, the consort of Sin, was called 'the lesser light.'\nBau's ship was described by an epithet of the goddess as 'the ship of\nthe brilliant offspring,' the reference being to the descent of the\ngoddess from father Anu.[1451] These illustrations will suffice to show\nthe dependence of the names of the ships upon the names of the temples,\nwith this important difference, however, that the names of the ships are\nchosen from a closer association with the gods to whom they belong. So a\nship of En-lil was known simply as 'the ship of Bel,' and the ship of\nNaru,[1452] the river-god, was called 'the ship of the Malku (or royal)\ncanal'[1453]--an indication, at the same time, of the place where the\ncult of Naru was carried on.\n\n\nThe Priests and Priestesses.\n\nAt a certain stage in the religious development of a people, the\npriesthood is closely linked to political leadership. The earliest form\nof government in the Euphrates Valley is theocratic, and we can still\ndiscern some of the steps in the process that led to the differentiation\nof the priest from the secular ruler. To the latest times, the kings\nretain among their titles some[1454] which have reference to the\nreligious functions once exercised by them. The king who continued to be\nregarded as the representative of a god, nominated by some deity to a\nlofty position of trust and power, stood nearer to the gods than his\nsubjects. In a certain sense, the king remained the priest _par\nexcellence_. Hence the prominent part played by the ruler in the\nreligious literature of the country. A large proportion of the hymns\nwere composed for royalty. The most elaborate ritual dealt with the\nendeavor to secure oracles that might serve as a guide for the rulers.\nAstronomical reports were made and long series of omen tablets prepared\nfor the use of the royal household. The calendars furnished regulations\nfor the conduct of the kings. A ceremonial error, an offence against the\ngods on the part of the kings, was certain of being followed by\ndisastrous consequences for the whole country.\n\nBut even the smallest sanctuaries required some service, and it was not\nlong before the religious interests were entrusted into the hands of\nthose who devoted themselves to administering the affairs of the\ntemples. The guardians of the shrines became the priests in fact, long\nbefore the priesthood of the rulers became little more than a theory;\nand as the temples grew to larger proportions, the service was divided\nup among various classes of priests.\n\nThe general name for priests was _shangu_, which, by a plausible\netymology suggested by Jensen,[1455] indicates the function of the\npriest as the one who presides over the sacrifices. But this function\nrepresents only one phase of the priestly office in Babylonia, and not\nthe most important one, by any means. For the people, the priest was\nprimarily the one who could drive evil demons out of the body of the\nperson smitten with disease, who could thwart the power of wizards and\nwitches, who could ward off the attacks of mischievous spirits, or who\ncould prognosticate the future and determine the intention or the will\nof the gods. The offering of sacrifices was one of the means to\naccomplish this end, but it is significant that many of the names used\nto designate the priestly classes have reference to the priest's\nposition as the exorciser of evil spirits or his power to secure a\ndivine oracle or to foretell the future, and not to his function as\nsacrificer. Such names are _mashmashu_, the general term for 'the\ncharmer'; _kalu_, so called, perhaps, as the 'restrainer' of the demons,\nthe one who keeps them in check; _lagaru_, a synonym of kalu; _makhkhu_,\n'soothsayer'; _surru_, a term which is still obscure; _shailu_, the\n'inquirer,' who obtains an oracle through the dead or through the gods;\n_mushelu_, 'necromancer'; _ashipu_ or _ishippu_, 'sorcerer.'[1456] These\nnames probably do not exhaust the various kinds of 'magicians' that were\nto be found among the Babylonian priests. In the eighteenth chapter of\nDeuteronomy, no less than eleven classes of magic workers are\nenumerated, and there can be little doubt but that the Pentateuchal\nopposition against the necromancers, sorcerers, soothsayers, and the\nlike is aimed chiefly against Babylonish customs. We have seen in\nprevious chapters how largely the element of magic enters into the\nreligious rites and literature of the Babylonian-Assyrian religion and\nhow persistent an element it is. For the masses, the priest remained\nessentially a _mashmashu_. But we have also names like _ramku_ and\n_nisakku_, 'libation pourer,' which emphasize the sacrificial functions\nof the priest; and in an interesting list of temple servitors,[1457]\n'the dirge singers' are introduced as a special class, and appropriately\ndesignated as _munambu_, 'wailer,' and _lallaru_, 'howler.' Of some\nterms in this list, like _asinnu_, it is doubtful whether they indicate\na special class of priests or are terms for servitors in general,\nattached to a temple; in the case of others, like _nash pilakki_, 'ax\ncarrier,' we do not know exactly of what nature the service was.[1458]\nLastly, priests in their capacity as scribes[1459] and as judges[1460]\nformed another distinct class, though it should be noted that in Assyria\nwe meet with scribes occasionally who are not priests.[1461]\n\nThe range thus covered by the temple service,--magic, oracles,\nsacrifices, the lament for the dead, and the judiciary,--is exceedingly\nlarge. The subdivisions, no doubt, varied in each center. In the smaller\nsanctuaries, those who offered the sacrifices may also have served as\nsoothsayers and dirge singers, and the judicial functions may likewise\nhave been in the same hands as those who performed other services. On\nthe other hand, in a temple like E-Sagila the classes and subclasses\nmust have been very numerous. Of the details of the organization we as\nyet know very little. There was a high priest, known as the\n_shangam-makhu_,[1462] and from the existence of a title like\n_sur-makhu_,--that is, the chief _surru_,[1463]--we may conclude that\neach class of priests had its chief likewise. With the natural tendency\nin ancient civilizations for professions to become vested in families,\nthe priests in the course of time became a caste; but there is no reason\nto believe that entrance into this caste was only possible through the\naccident of birth. That instruction in the reading and writing of the\ncuneiform characters, and hence the introduction into the literature,\nwas open to others than the scions of priests is shown by the presence\nin the legal literature of formal contracts for instruction between\nteachers and pupils who belong to the 'laity.' These pupils could become\nscribes and judges, and their standing as 'priests' represented merely\nthe Babylonian equivalent to a modern university degree. For such\nservice as the bewailing of the dead and as musicians, persons were\ninitiated who were taken from various classes and likewise for the\nmenial duties of the temples, and it is only when we come to the more\ndistinctive priestly functions, like the exorcising of evil spirits,\nsecuring an oracle, or performing sacrifices, that the rules limiting\nthese privileges to certain families were iron bound. As among the\nHebrews and other nations, stress was laid also upon freedom from\nphysical blemishes in the case of the priests. The leper, we learn, was\nnot fit for the priesthood.[1464] In the astronomical reports that were\nspoken of in a previous chapter,[1465] there are references to the\n'watches' kept by the astronomers. These watches, however, were probably\nnot observed for astronomical purposes alone, but represent the time\ndivision, as among the Hebrews, for the temple service. There were three\nnight watches among the Babylonians,[1466] and, in all probability,\ntherefore, three day watches likewise. Relays of priests were appointed\nin the large sanctuaries for service during the continuance of each\nwatch, and we may some day find that the Hebrews obtained their number\nof twenty-four priests for each 'watch' from a custom prevailing in some\nBabylonian temple.\n\nAn interesting feature of the Babylonian priesthood is the position\noccupied by the woman. In the historical texts from the days of\nHammurabi onward, the references to women attached to the service of\ntemples are not infrequent. Gudea expressly mentions the 'wailing\nwomen,' and there is every reason to believe that the female wailers,\nlike the male ones, belong to some priestly class. Again, examples of\nwomen as exorcisers and as furnishing oracles[1467] may be instanced in\nBabylonia as well as in Assyria, and we have also references to female\nmusicians as late as the days of Ashurbanabal. A specially significant\nrole was played by the priestesses in Ishtar's temple at Erech, and\nprobably at other places where the cult of the great mother goddess was\ncarried on. The Ishtar priestess was known by the general term of\nKadishtu,--that is, 'the holy one,'--or Ishtaritum, 'devoted to Ishtar';\nbut, from the various other names for the sacred harlot that we come\nacross,[1468] it would appear that the priestesses were divided into\nvarious classes, precisely like the priests. That in the ceremonies of\ninitiation at Erech, and perhaps elsewhere, some rites were observed\nthat on the surface appeared obscene is eminently likely; but there is\nno evidence that obscene rites, as instanced by Herodotus, formed part\nof the _regular_ cult of the goddess. Except in the case of the Ishtar\nworship, the general observation may be made that the position of the\npriestess is more prominent in the early period of Babylonian history\nthan in the days when the culture and power of Babylonia and Assyria\nreached its zenith.\n\n\nSacrifices and Votive Offerings.\n\nThe researches of Robertson Smith[1469] and of others have shown that\nthe oldest Semitic view of sacrifice was that of a meal, shared by the\nworshipper with the deity to be honored or propitiated. Dependent as we\nare in the case of the Babylonian-Assyrian religion for our knowledge of\nsacrifices upon incidental references in historical or religious texts,\nit is not possible to say how far the Semitic dwellers of the Euphrates\nValley were influenced by the primitive conception of sacrifice.\nHistorical and votive inscriptions and a religious literature\nbelong to a comparatively advanced stage of culture, and earlier views\nof sacrifice that may have existed were necessarily modified in the\nprocess of adaptation to later conditions. The organization of an\nelaborate cult with priests and numerous temple servitors changes the\nsacrifices into a means of income for the temple. The deity's\nrepresentatives receive the share originally intended for the deity\nhimself; and, instead of sanctifying the offering to a god by contact\nwith the sacred element fire, the temple accepts the offering for its\nown use. It is likely, however, that among the Babylonians, as among the\nHebrews, certain parts of the animal which were not fit to eat[1470]\nwere burned as a symbolical homage to a god. No references have as yet\nbeen found pointing to any special sanctity that was attached to the\nblood; but it is eminently likely that the blood was regarded at all\ntimes as the special property of the gods, and was poured on the altar.\nThe two kinds of sacrifice--animals and vegetable products--date from\nthe earliest period of the Babylonian religion of which we have any\nknowledge. In a long list of offerings, Gudea[1471] includes oxen,\nsheep, goats, lambs, fish, birds (as eagles, cranes,[1472] etc.), and\nalso such products as dates, milk, and greens. From other sources we may\nadd gazelles, date wine, butter, cream, honey, garlic, corn, herbs, oil,\nspices, and incense. Stress is laid upon the quality of the\nsacrifice.[1473] The animals must be without blemish, and if well\nnurtured, they would be all the more pleasing in the sight of the gods.\nThe omission of dogs and swine is not accidental. Under that double\naspect of sanctity which we find among the Babylonians as among so many\nnations, certain animals were too sacred to be offered, and, on the\nother hand, they were regarded as unclean.[1474] In treating of the omen\ntexts we already had occasion to speak of the peculiar ideas attached to\nthe dog by the Babylonians,[1475] and there is sufficient evidence to\nshow that the boar likewise was viewed as a sacred animal, at least in\ncertain parts of Babylonia.[1476] No certain traces of human sacrifices\nhave been found, either in Babylonian literature or in artistic\nrepresentations.[1477] If the rite was ever practised among the\nBabylonians or Assyrians it must have been at a very early\nperiod--earlier than any of which we as yet have any knowledge. On the\nother hand, a trace of some primitive form of tree worship may be\nrecognized in the representation, so frequent on seal cylinders and\nmonuments, of curious figures, in part human, in part animal, standing\nin front of the palm tree.[1478] The symbol belongs to Assyria as well\nas to Babylonia. In some of the designs the figures--human heads and\nbodies but furnished with large wings--appear to be in the act of\nartificially fertilizing the palm tree by scattering the male blossom\nover the female palm. This plausible interpretation first suggested by\nE. B. Tylor[1479] carries with it the conclusion that the importance of\npalm culture in the Euphrates Valley not only gave the palm the\ncharacter of a sacred tree, but lent to the symbol a wider significance\nto a more advanced age, as illustrating fertility and blessings in\ngeneral. The scene, reproduced in almost endless variations in which\nboth trees and figures become conventionalized, came to be regarded as a\nsymbol of adoration and worship in general. As such, it survived in\nreligious art and continued to be pictured on seal cylinders to a late\nage.\n\nThe occasions on which sacrifices were brought were frequent. If the\ngods were to be consulted for the purpose of obtaining an oracle,\nelaborate offerings formed a necessary preliminary. In this case, the\nanimals presented at the altar served a double purpose.[1480] They\nconstituted a means of propitiating the god in favor of the petitioner,\nand at the same time the inspection of certain parts of the animal\nserved as an omen in determining what was the will of the god appealed\nto. When the foundations were to be laid for a temple or a palace, it\nwas especially important to secure the favor of the gods by suitable\nofferings, and, similarly, when a canal was to be built or any other\nwork of a public character undertaken. Again, upon the dedication of a\nsacred edifice or of a palace, or upon completing the work of\nrestoration of a temple, sheep and oxen in abundance were offered to the\ngods, as well as various kinds of birds and the produce of the orchards\nand fields. The Babylonian rulers appear to have accompanied their\nsacrifices on such occasions with prayers, and in a previous chapter we\nhad occasion to discuss some of these dedicatory invocations.[1481] In\nthe Assyrian inscriptions, prayers are specifically referred to only as\nbeing offered before setting out on an expedition, before a battle, or\nwhen the kings find themselves in distress,[1482] so that if the\nBabylonian custom likewise prevailed in Assyria, it did not form a\nnecessary part of the sacrificial ritual. The sacrifice as a pure homage\nis illustrated by the zeal which the Assyrian kings manifest towards\nhonoring the great temples of the south. The northern rulers were\nanxious at all times to reconcile the southern population to Assyrian\ncontrol, and it was no doubt gratifying to the south to find\nTiglathpileser II.,[1483] upon entering the ancient centers like Sippar,\nNippur, Babylon, Borsippa, Cuthah, Kish, Dilbat, and Erech, proceeding\nto the temples in those places in order to offer his sacrifices. The\nexample of Tiglathpileser is followed by his successors down through the\ntime of Ashurbanabal. As often as the Assyrian monarchs may have had\noccasion to proceed to Babylonia--and the occasions were frequent, owing\nto the constant disposition of the south to throw off the hated\nyoke--they emphasized their devotion to Marduk, Nabu, En-lil, Shamash,\nand the other gods who had their seats in the south. Sargon[1484] goes\nso far in this homage as to pose as the reorganizer of the cults of\nSippar, Nippur, Borsippa, and Babylon, and of restoring the income to\ntemples in other places.[1485] But there was another side to this homage\nthat must not be overlooked. By sacrificing in the Babylonian temples,\nthe Assyrian rulers indicated their political control over the south.\nSuch homage as they manifested was the exclusive privilege of legitimate\nrulers, and it was important for the Assyrians to legitimize their\ncontrol over the south.\n\nA phase of sacrifice is represented by the libations of oil and wine to\nwhich frequent references are found in the historical texts. It appears\nto have been customary to anoint the foundation stones of temples and\npalaces with oil and wine. Over the thresholds, too, and over the\nstones--bearing commemorative or votive inscriptions--libations of oil,\nhoney, and wine were poured.\n\nNebopolassar[1486] speaks of placing sweet herbs under the walls, and\nNabonnedos[1487] pours oil over the bolts and doors, as well as on the\nthresholds of the Shamash temple at Sippar, and fills the temple with\nthe aroma of frankincense. Much importance was attached to this rite,\nand the kings take frequent occasion to adjure their successors who may\nin the course of restoring edifices come across stones bearing the\nrecord of former builders, to anoint these stones with oil and offer\nsacrifices.[1488] Thus, Nabonnedos,[1489] when he finds the inscription\nof Ashurbanabal in the Shamash temple at Sippar, carefully obeys the\ninjunction. The rite bears all the marks of great antiquity. The\ninstances of its occurrence in the Old Testament--notably in the case of\nJacob's act of pouring oil over the holy stone at Bethel[1490]--confirm\nthis view; and the interpretation for the rite suggested by Robertson\nSmith[1491] that the oil was originally the fat of the sacrificed animal\nsmeared over an object or a person, as a means of investing them with\nsanctity, accounts satisfactorily for the invariable juxtaposition in\nthe cuneiform texts of sacrificial offerings with the anointing of the\ninscribed stones.\n\nWe have no evidence that the rulers of Babylonia and Assyria were\nanointed with oil on their installation, though it is not improbable\nthat such was the case. The use of the oil in this case is but a\nmodification of the same rite, which, it is to be noted, loses some of\nits ancient force by the spread of the custom in the Orient of unguents\nas a part of the toilet.[1492] The use of odorous herbs, which, we have\nseen, were placed under the walls, and of honey and wine, which were\npoured over bolts,[1493] is also directly connected with the sacrificial\ncult.\n\nThe libation in its purer form appears in the custom of the Assyrian\nkings of pouring wine over the animal slain by them in the hunt. The act\nis intended to secure divine favor towards a deed which involved the\ndestruction of something that by all ancient nations was held sacred,\nnamely, life. Even a despot of Assyria felt that to wantonly destroy\nlife could not be safely undertaken without making sure of the consent\nof the gods. Significantly enough, Ashurbanabal offers his libations\nafter the lion or bull hunts to Ishtar as the \"goddess of battle.\"[1494]\nThe animal is sanctified by being devoted to a goddess, just as the\nvictims in a battle constitute the conqueror's homage offered to the\ngods who came to his assistance.\n\nSacrifices with libations are so frequently represented on the seal\ncylinder that this testimony alone would suffice to vouch for the\nimportance attached to this rite in the cult. One of the most archaic\nspecimens of Babylonian art[1495] represents a worshipper, entirely\nnaked, pouring a libation into a large cup which stands on an altar.\nBehind the altar sits a goddess who is probably A or Malkatu, the\nconsort of the sun-god. The naked worshipper is by no means an uncommon\nfigure in the early Babylonian art,[1496] and it would appear that at\none time it was customary to remove one's garments preliminary to\nstepping into the god's presence, just as among the Arabs the cult of\nthe Caaba in Mecca was conducted by the worshippers at an early period\nwithout their clothes.[1497] The custom so frequently referred to in the\nOld Testament to remove one's shoes upon entering sacred territory,--a\ncustom still observed by the modern Muslim, who leaves his shoes outside\nof the Mosque,--may be regarded as an indication that at an earlier\nperiod people removed their garments as well as the sandals. It may be\nthat the order to take off the sandal alone, as recorded in the Old\nTestament, is nothing but a euphemistic phrase (suggested by a more\nrefined age) to strip oneself. Certainly, when we find that in the days\nof Saul, the seers went about naked, there can no longer be any doubt\nthat there was a time when the Hebrews, too, like the Arabs and\nBabylonians, entered the holy presence naked.\n\nThe institution of daily sacrifices is vouched for in the case of the\nlarger religious centers like Babylonia, Borsippa, Sippar, Cuthah, as\nwell as Nineveh for the late periods. Nebuchadnezzar, for example, tells\nus[1498] that he provided for a sacrifice of six lambs daily in the\ntemple E-shidlam at Cuthah, sacred to Nergal and Laz; while for Nabu's\ntemple at Borsippa, the daily sacrifices were arranged on a still larger\nscale, and included two fattened bulls of perfect form, sixteen smaller\nanimals, besides offerings of fish, birds, leek, various kinds of wine,\nhoney, cream, and the finest oil,--all intended, as the king tells us,\nfor the table of Nabu and his consort. No doubt the daily official\nsacrifices at Marduk's temple were even more elaborate. The custom of\nregular sacrifices in the larger temples may be traced back to an early\nperiod. The technical terms for such sacrifices are _sattuku_ and\n_ginu_. Both terms convey the idea of being \"fixed,\" perpetual,[1499]\nand suggest a comparison with the Pentateuchal institution of the\n_tamid_,[1500] _i.e._, the daily sacrifice. Whenever the kings in their\ninscriptions mention the regular sacrifices, it is in almost all cases\nwith reference to their reinstitution of an old custom that had been\nallowed to fall into neglect (owing to political disturbances which\nalways affected the temples), and not as an innovation. Innovations were\nlimited to increasing the amounts of these regular sacrifices. So, for\nexample, Nabubaliddin restores and increases the _gine_ of the great\ntemple E-babbara at Sippar.[1501] But regular sacrifices do not\nnecessarily involve daily offerings. The same terms, _ginu_ and\n_sattuku_, are applied frequently to monthly offerings, and except in\nthe large religious centers, regular sacrifices were in all\nprobabilities brought on certain days of each month, and not daily. The\ndays thus singled out, as will be shown further on, differed for various\nsanctuaries. It would be important if we could determine the share in\nthese regular sacrifices taken by the people at large, but the material\nat hand does not suffice for settling the question. There are frequent\nreferences to tithes in the clay tablets forming part of the archives of\ntemples, and monthly tributes are also mentioned. We certainly may\nconclude from these references that the people were taxed in some way\nfor the support of the temples. Ashurbanabal in one place speaks of\nreimposing upon the population of the south the provision for the\n_sattuku_ and _ginu_ due to Ashur and Belit[1502] and the gods of\nAssyria; but, for all that, it is not certain that the regular\nsacrifices at the temples partook of a popular character. One gains the\nimpression that, except on the occasions when the people came to the\nsanctuaries for individual purposes, the masses as such had but\ncomparatively little share in it. In this respect the cult of the\nHebrews, which has so many points in common with the Babylonian ritual\nas to justify the hypothesis that the details of sacrificial regulations\nin the priestly code are largely derived from practices in Babylonian\ntemples, was more democratic. Closely attached as the Babylonians were\nto their sanctuaries, the regular sacrifices do not appear to have been\nan active factor in maintaining this attachment. A more decidedly\npopular character is apparent in the votive offerings made to the\ntemples. These offerings cover a wide range. Rulers and people alike\nfelt prompted to make gifts to the sanctuaries on special occasions,\neither as a direct homage to the gods or with the avowed purpose and\nhope of securing divine favor or divine intercession.\n\nThe statues of themselves which the rulers from the days of Gudea[1503]\non were fond of erecting were dedicated by them as offerings to the\ngods, and this avowed aim tempers, in a measure, the vanity which no\ndoubt was the mainspring of their action. The statues were placed in the\ntemples, and from Gudea[1504] we learn of the elaborate ceremonies\nconnected with the dedication of one of the king's colossal blocks of\ndiorite. For seven days all manual labor was interrupted in Lagash.\nMasters and slaves shared in the festivities. The temple of Nin-girsu is\nsanctified anew by purification rites, and the statue is formally\npresented to the god amidst sacrifices and offerings of rich gifts. The\naccount given in the Book of Daniel[1505] of the dedication of\nNebuchadnezzar's statue may be regarded as an equally authentic picture\nof a custom that survived to the closing days of the Babylonian\nmonarchy, except that we have no proof that divine honors were paid to\nthese statues.[1506] The front, sides, and back of Gudea's images were\ncovered with inscriptions, partly of a commemorative character, but in\npart, also, conveying a dedication to Nin-girsu. Similarly, the steles\nof the Assyrian kings, set up by them either in the temples or on the\nhighways beyond the confines of Assyria, and which had images of the\nrulers sculptured on them in high relief, were covered with\ninscriptions, devoted primarily to celebrating the deeds of the kings;\nbut, since the victories of the armies were ascribed to the assistance\nfurnished by the gods, an homage to Ashur or some other deity was\ninvolved in the recital. That the gods were accorded a minor share of\nthe glory was but in keeping with the pride of the Assyrian rulers, who\nwere less affected than the rulers of the south by the votive character\nof the statues.\n\nBoth Babylonians and Assyrians, however, unite in making images of the\ngods as a distinct homage, and in giving elaborate presents of gold,\nsilver, precious stones, costly woods, and garments to the sanctuaries\nas votive offerings to the gods. These presents were used in the\ndecoration of temples and shrines, as well as of the statues of the gods\nor as direct contributions to the temple treasury. Celebrations of\nvictories were chosen as particularly appropriate occasions for making\nsuch votive offerings. So Agumkakrimi, upon bringing back to E-Sagila\nthe statues of Marduk and Sarpanitum that had been taken away by\nruthless hands, bestows rich gifts upon the temples and describes[1507]\nat great length the costly garments embroidered with gold and studded\nwith precious stones that were hung on Marduk and his consort. Equally\nvivid is the description of the high, conical-shaped caps, made of lapis\nlazuli and gold, and decorated, furthermore, with various kinds of\nstones, that were placed on the heads of the deities. Garments for the\nstatues of the gods appear to have been favorite votive offerings at all\ntimes. Nabubaliddin, in restoring the cult of Shamash at Sippar, makes\nprovisions for an elaborate outfit of garments,[1508] specifying\ndifferent garments for various periods of the year. It would appear from\nthis that for the various festive occasions of the year, the garments of\nthe gods were changed, much as in other religions--including the\nCatholic Church--the officiating priests are robed in different garments\non the various festive or solemn occasions.\n\nVotive tablets or discs of lapis lazuli, agate, turquoise, gold, silver,\ncopper, antimony, and other metals with dedicatory inscriptions were\ndeposited in the temples. What particular purpose they served we do not\nknow. As a specimen of the more common formula on these tablets, a lapis\nlazuli tablet of Nippur may be chosen. It is offered by a Cassite king,\nand reads[1509] as follows:\n\n  To Bel\n  His lord\n  Kadashman-Turgu\n  For his life\n  Presented.\n\nA knob-shaped object[1510] of fine limestone contains a dedication in\nsimilar phrases to Marduk. It is offered by Bel-epush, who is probably\nidentical with a Babylonian ruler of this name in the seventh\ncentury,--a contemporary of Sennacherib:[1511]\n\n  To Marduk, his lord\n  Bel-epush for the preservation of his life\n  Made and presented.\n\nKings, however, do not appear to be the only ones for whom these votive\nofferings were prepared. A dedication to a personage otherwise unknown\nand to all appearances a layman reads:[1512]\n\n  To Ea,[1513] his lord, Bel-zir,\n  Son of Ea-Ban,\n  For the preservation of his life\n  Made and presented.\n\nThe formulas are thus seen to be conventional ones, though occasionally\nthe inscription is somewhat longer. So, for example, Nazi-Maruttash,\nanother Cassite king, puts a little prayer on a votive offering:\n\n  [To Bel, his lord]\n  Nazi-Maruttash,\n  Son of Kurigalzu,\n  To hearken to his supplication,\n  To be favorable to his prayer,\n  To accept his entreaty,\n  To lengthen his days,\n  [He made and presented].\n\nThis inscription appears, as Dr. Hilprecht informs us,[1514] on an ax\nmade of imitation lapis lazuli.[1515] Other votive inscriptions are\nfound on rings and on knobs of ivory or magnesite.[1516] These various\ndesigns no doubt all had some symbolical significance. The ring suggests\nsome ultimate connection between votive offerings and amulets. The seal\ncylinders, we know, although put to practical use in impressing the\ndesign on a clay tablet as a substitute for a personal signature, were\nalso regarded as amulets, and this accounts for the frequency with which\nscenes of religious worship were introduced as designs on the cylinders.\nThe ring is distinctly an amulet in Babylonia as elsewhere, and hence it\nis by no means improbable that the custom of carrying little inscribed\ntablets, discs, or knobs about the person as a protection against\nmischances preceded the use of such tablets as votive offerings to be\nplaced in a temple.\n\nA very common votive object in Babylonia, especially in the earlier\nperiod, was the clay cone. Such cones were found in large numbers at\nLagash, while at Nippur Peters came across what may be safely regarded\nas a magazine where such cones (and other votive objects) were\nmanufactured in large numbers.[1517] The cones of Gudea bear\nconventional inscriptions of a votive character addressed to Nin-girsu.\nIn other temples, other gods were similarly remembered. It has been\ncustomary to regard these cones as phallic symbols;[1518] but it should\nbe noted that not only is the evidence for this lacking, but that what\nwe know of the popular practices of the Babylonians does not warrant us\nin assuming any widespread phallic symbolism. The point of the cones\nsuggests rather that the objects were intended to be stuck into the\nground or into walls. At Lagash De Sarzec found, besides cones, a large\nnumber of copper statuettes[1519] of gods and goddesses and of\nanimals,--chiefly bulls,--all terminating in a sharp point or attached\nto a cone-shaped object. Others again are clearly human figures, either\nmale personages holding the cone in their hands,[1520] or females\nholding baskets on their heads,--the customary attitude of making an\noffering. These curious statuettes frequently bear inscriptions of a\nvotive character, and there can be no doubt that they were used to be\nstuck into some substance. At one place, De Sarzec found a series set up\nin concentric circles[1521] in the corners of an edifice and under the\nfloor. Heuzey is of the opinion that these statuettes thus arranged were\nto serve as a warning for the demons, but it is more in keeping with the\ngeneral character of the Babylonian religion to look upon these objects\nsimply as votive offerings placed at various parts of a building as a\nmeans of securing the favor of the gods. The cone, I venture to think,\nis merely the conventionalized shape of a votive object originally\nintended to be stuck into some part of a sacred building. The large\nquantity of cones that have been found at Lagash, Nippur, and elsewhere\nis an indication of their popular use. It is not improbable that at one\ntime, and, at all events, in certain temples, the cones and statuettes\nrepresented the common votive offerings with which worshippers provided\nthemselves upon entering the sacred precinct. To facilitate the\nreproduction of the statuettes, moulds were used,--another indication of\nthe widespread use of these objects. Clay figures of gods and goddesses\nwere also made in moulds or modelled by hand and served as votive\nofferings. At Nippur, the images represent chiefly Bel and Belit,[1522]\neither separately or in combination; but figurines of Ishtar have also\nbeen found.[1523] In some the goddess is represented as suckling a\nchild. Often she is pictured as naked, clasping her breasts or her womb.\nThe attitude which was suggested by the character of the goddess as the\npromoter of fertility appears to have been too obscene to a more refined\nage, and, accordingly, we find in later times the sexual parts\nsuppressed or the figure properly clothed. The character of these\nfigurines varied naturally with each religious center, and even in the\nsame center modifications were introduced.\n\nWhether these clay figurines, cones, and metallic statuettes were also\nplaced by individuals in their dwellings, like the \"plague\"\ntablets,[1524] we cannot as yet definitely say, but it is more than\nlikely that such was the case. The _teraphim_ familiar to us from the\nreferences in the Old Testament,[1525] and evidently used as talismans,\nbelong to the class of votive offerings under consideration. The\nfigurines and cones, and also (though to a smaller degree) the copper\nstatuettes, thus introduce us to the popular phases of the cult. As\nsymbols of homage they appear to have survived to a late period, and\ntheir use as talismans did not materially affect their character as\nofferings, made by the people upon seeking the sanctuaries. The more\ncostly objects, as vases,[1526] artistically worked weapons, handsome\n\"seas\" bowls, altars, and statues of the gods and other furniture for\nthe temples were left to the rulers. Such offerings were made with great\npomp. They were formally dedicated by large processions of priests, with\nthe accompaniment of hymns and music. The kings of Assyria presented the\ncaptured gods as votive gifts pleasing to their deity.[1527] They bring\nback with them from their campaigns the beams of the edifices that they\ndestroyed and offer them to Ishtar.[1528] Upon coming to Babylonia, they\ndo not fail to bring presents of gold, silver, precious stones, copper,\niron, purple, precious garments, and scented woods to Marduk and\nSarpanitum, to Nabu and Tashmitum, and the other great gods.[1529] The\nfirst fruits of extensive groves are offered by Ashurnasirbal to Ashur\nand the temples of his land.[1530] The rulers of Assyria vie with the\nkings of Babylonia in presenting gardens[1531] and lands to the gods as\nvotive offerings; but for all that, in ancient Babylonia and Assyria, as\namong other peoples of antiquity, the more fervent religious spirit was\nmanifested in the small tokens of the masses, whose attachment to the\ntemples was of a different order from that which prompted the rulers of\nthe north and south to a display, in which vanity and the desire to\nmanifest their power play a larger part as one generation succeeds the\nother.\n\n\nFestivals.\n\nWe have seen[1532] that in the developed system of the Babylonian\nreligion, every day of the year had some significance, and that certain\ndays in each month--so, _e.g._, the 7th, 14th, 19th, 21st, and 28th--had\na special significance. It has also been pointed out that in different\nreligious centers, the days singled out for special significance\ndiffered. In view of this, we must be prepared to find that the festival\ndays were not the same in all parts of Babylonia, nor necessarily\nidentical in the various periods of Babylonian and Assyrian history.\n\nThe common name for festival was _isinnu_. If we may judge from the use\nof _assinnu_ as a general name for priest,[1533]--a servant of a\ndeity,--the underlying stem appears to signify simply 'to serve.'\nAnother name that reveals more as to the character of the Babylonian\nfestivals is _tashiltu_, which is used as a synonym for 'joy, delight.'\nThe festivals were indeed joyous occasions, marked by abundance of\nofferings and merry-making, though, as we shall see, the somber note in\nthe rejoicings was not absent. The kings dedicate their temples and\npalaces amidst manifestation of rejoicing. They pray that the gods may\noccupy the dwellings prepared for them \"in joy and jubilance,\"[1534] and\nthe reference to festivals in the historical texts are all of such a\ncharacter as to make us feel that the Babylonian could appreciate the\nBiblical injunction to \"rejoice\"[1535] in the divine presence, on the\noccasions set apart as, in a peculiar sense, sacred.\n\nDefective as our knowledge of the ancient Babylonian festivals still is,\nthe material at our disposal shows that at a comparatively early period,\nthere was one day in the year on which a festival was celebrated in\nhonor of a god or goddess that had a more important character than any\nother. In the developed zodiacal system of Babylonia each month is\nsacred to a deity.[1536] This system was perfected under the direct\ninfluence of the theological schools of Babylonia, but so much of it, at\nall events, rests upon ancient traditions which assigns a month to each\ngod; and since Marduk is not accorded the first place, but takes his\nposition in a group of solar deities, and since, moreover, these solar\ndeities have a position in the calendar which accords with their\nspecific solar character,[1537] we may proceed a step further and assume\nwith some confidence that the Babylonian scholars were guided--in large\npart, at least--by ancient traditions in parceling out the months as\nthey did. Anu, Bel, and Ea, it is true, may have been assigned to the\nfirst three months because of the preeminent position of these three\ngods as a special triad; but even here the antiquity of the triad\nfurnishes a guarantee that the association of some month with some deity\nbelongs to a very ancient period of Babylonian history. This being the\ncase, it would be natural that the first day of the month sacred to a\ndeity would be regarded as his or her festival _par excellence_, and in\nthe case of the cult of a deity spreading beyond its original limits,\nthis festival would assume a more general character. On this day the\npeople would come from all parts of the district within which the cult\nwas carried on, to pay their homage to the god or goddess. In the days\nof Gudea, we find Bau occupying this superior rank. Her festival had\nassumed such importance as to serve for reckoning the commencement of\nthe year.\n\nHence it became known simply as the day of zag-muku,[1538] that is, the\nNew Year's Day.[1539] Whether this festival of Bau was recognized as the\nNew Year's Day throughout Babylonia, we do not know, but it must have\nbeen observed in a considerably extensive district, or Gudea would have\nmade the attempt to give some festival connected with his favorite deity\nNin-girsu this character. As it is, he can only combine Bau's festival\nwith the cult of Nin-girsu, by making the New Year's Day the occasion of\na symbolical marriage between the god and the goddess. Nin-girsu is\nrepresented as offering marriage gifts to Bau,[1540] on the Zagmuku. How\nearly Bau came to occupy so significant a rank has not been ascertained.\nIt is her quality as the 'great mother,' as the goddess of fertility and\nabundance,[1541] rather than any political supremacy of the district in\nwhich she was worshipped, that constitutes the chief factor in giving\nBau this preeminence, just as we have found in the case of the other\ngreat goddesses of Babylonia,--Nina, Nana, Ishtar,--specific traits and\nnot political importance lending them the significance they acquired.\n\nAt one time we may well suppose that the festival of En-lil at Nippur,\nwhich brought worshippers from all parts of Babylonia, was recognized as\na 'New Year's Day,' and we may some day find evidence that at a still\nearlier period the first day of a month sacred to some other god,--Sin\nor Shamash or Nana-Ishtar of Erech,--was recognized in some districts as\nthe starting-point for the year; but to an agricultural community, the\nspring, when the seeds are sown, or the fall, after the harvest has been\ngathered, are the two most natural periods for reckoning the beginning\nof the year. Since we know that at the time when Babylon acquired her\nsupremacy the year began in the spring, the conservatism attaching to\nreligious observances makes it more than probable that Bau's festival\nalso fell in the spring.\n\nAfter the ancient religious and political centers of the south yielded\ntheir privileges to Babylon, it was natural for the priests of Marduk to\ncovet the honor of the New Year's festival for the new head of the\npantheon. Accordingly, we find the Zagmuku transformed into a Marduk\nfestival. That it did not originally belong to Marduk follows from the\nfact that it was celebrated in the month of Nisan,--the first\nmonth,--whereas the month sacred to Marduk was Arakh-shamna (or\nMarcheshwan),--the eighth month. The deliberate transfer of the Zagmuku\nto Marduk is also indicated by the fact that the festival of Nisan has\nanother name by which it is more commonly designated,--Akitu.[1542] The\nname seems to have been originally a general term for a festival, and it\nis natural that Marduk's festival should have come to be known as _the_\nfestival, just as among the Hebrews the annual fall pilgrimage to the\nsanctuary at Jerusalem became known as _the_ Hag,--the pilgrimage _par\nexcellence_. To distinguish it from other festivals, Marduk's festival\nis sometimes spoken of as the \"great\" or the \"lofty\" Akitu. The first\nday was properly the Zagmuku, whereas the Akitu itself extended at\nleast over the first eleven days of Nisan[1543] and may indeed have\nlasted the entire month; but Zagmuku was also used for the festival\nperiod. The New Year's Day was marked by a solemn procession. The\nunion of Nabu and Marduk was symbolized by a visit which the former\npaid to his father, the chief of the Babylonian pantheon. In his ship,\nmagnificently fitted out,[1544] Nabu was carried along the street known\nas Ai-ibur-shabu,[1545] leading from Borsippa across the Euphrates to\nBabylon.\n\nThe street was handsomely paved,[1546] and everything was done to\nheighten the impressiveness of the ceremony. The visit of Nabu marked\nthe homage of the gods to Marduk; and Nabu set the example for other\ngods, who were all supposed to assemble in E-Sagila during the great\nfestival. We have already pointed out that the cult of Nabu at Borsippa\nat one time was regarded with greater sanctity than the Marduk worship\nin Babylon. As a concession to the former supremacy of Nabu, the priests\nof E-Sagila, carrying the statue of Marduk, escorted Nabu back to\nBorsippa. The return visit raises the suspicion that it was originally\nMarduk who was obliged to pay an annual homage to Nabu.\n\nHowever this may be, the double ceremony became to such an extent the\nnoteworthy feature of the Zagmuku or Akitu that when the chroniclers\nwish to indicate that, because of political disturbances, the festival\nwas not celebrated, they use the simple formula:\n\n  Nabu did not come to Babylon.\n  Bel [_i.e._, Marduk] did not march out.[1547]\n\nThe Akitu festival brought worshippers from all parts of Babylonia and\nAssyria to the capitol. Kings and subjects alike paid their devotions to\nMarduk. The former approached the divine presence directly, and, seizing\nhold of the hands of Marduk's statue, were admitted into a kind of\ncovenant with the god. The ceremony became the formal rite of royal\ninstallation in Babylonia. \"To seize the hands of Bel\" was equivalent to\nlegitimizing one's claim to the throne of Babylonia, and the chroniclers\nof the south consistently decline to recognize Assyrian rulers as kings\nof Babylonia until they have come to Babylon and \"seized the hands of\nBel.\"[1548] That this ceremony was annually performed by the kings of\nBabylonia after the union of the southern states is quite certain. It\nmarked a renewal of the pledge between the king and his god. The\nAssyrian kings, however, contented themselves with a single visit. Of\nTiglathpileser II.[1549] and Sargon,[1550] we know that they came to\nBabylonia for the purpose of performing the old ceremony; and others did\nthe same.\n\nThe eighth and eleventh days of the festival month were invested with\nspecial sanctity. On these days all the gods were brought together in\nthe \"chamber of fates\" of Marduk's temple. In symbolical imitation of\nthe assembly of the gods in Ubshu-kenna,[1551] Marduk sits on his throne\nand the gods are represented as standing in humble submission before\nhim, while he decrees the fates of mankind for the coming year. The\nZagmuku festival in its developed form has striking points of\nresemblance to the Jewish New Year's Day. On this day, according to the\npopular Jewish tradition, God sits in judgment with a book before Him in\nwhich He inscribes the fate of mankind. Nine days of probation are\nallowed, and on the tenth day--the Day of Atonement--the fates are\nsealed. The Jewish New Year is known as Rosh-hash-shana,[1552] which is\nan exact equivalent of the Babylonian _resh shatti_ (or zag-muku). A\ndifference, however, between the Babylonian and the Jewish festival is\nthat the latter is celebrated in the seventh month. It is not correct,\ntherefore, to assume that the Hebrews borrowed their Rosh-hash-shana\nfrom the Babylonians. Even after they adopted the Babylonian\ncalendar,[1553] they continued to regard the seventh month--the harvest\nmonth--as the beginning of the year. That among the Babylonians the\nseventh month also had a sacred character may be concluded from the\nmeaning of the ideographs with which the name is written.[1554] The\nquestion may, therefore, be raised whether at an earlier period and in\nsome religious center--Nippur, Sippar, or perhaps Ur--the seventh month\nmay not have been celebrated as the Zagmuku. At all events, we must for\nthe present assume that the Hebrews developed their New Year's Day,\nwhich they may have originally received from Babylonia, independently of\nMarduk's festival, though, since the Rosh-hash-shana does not come into\nprominence among the Jews until the period of the so-called Babylonian\nexile, the possibility of a direct Babylonian influence in the _later_\nconceptions connected with the day cannot be denied.[1555]\n\nOf the other festivals of the Babylonians and Assyrians but few details\nare known. Several references have already been made to the Tammuz\nfestival.[1556] Originally a solar festival, celebrated in the fourth\nmonth at the approach of the summer solstice, it became through the\nassociation of ideas suggested by the mourning of Ishtar for her lost\nconsort Tammuz a kind of 'All Souls' Day,' on which the people\nremembered their dead. Dirges were sung by the wailing women to the\naccompaniment of musical instruments; offerings were made to the dead,\nand it is plausible to assume that visits were paid to the graves. The\nmourning was followed by a festival of rejoicing, symbolizing the return\nof the solar-god. The Tammuz festival appears to have had a strong hold\nupon the masses, by reason of the popularity of the Tammuz myth; nor was\nit limited to the Babylonians. Among the Phoenicians the cult of Tammuz,\nknown by his title Adon (whence Adonis), was maintained to a late\nperiod, and the Hebrews, likewise, as late as the days of Ezekiel,[1557]\ncommemorated with rites of mourning the lost Tammuz. The calendar of the\nJewish Church still marks the 17th day of Tammuz as a fast, and Houtsma\nhas shown[1558] that the association of the day with the capture of\nJerusalem by the Romans represents merely the attempt to give an ancient\nfestival a worthier interpretation. The day was originally connected\nwith the Tammuz cult. Eerdmans[1559] has recently endeavored to show\nthat the festival of Hosein, celebrated by the Shiitic sect of\nMohammedanism in memory of the tragic death of the son of Ali, is in\nreality a survival of the Babylonian-Phoenician Tammuz festival. The\nspread of the Tammuz-Adonis myth and cult to the Greeks[1560] is but\nanother indication of the popularity of this ancient Semitic festival.\n\nThe old Zagmuku festival in honor of Bau and the Tammuz festival,\ncelebrated in spring and summer, respectively, are also closely\nassociated with agricultural life. The spring as the seedtime is, as we\nhave seen, a natural period for beginning the calculation of the New\nYear, while a first harvest of the wheat and barley is reaped in\nBabylonia at the time of the summer solstice. We should expect,\ntherefore, to find a third festival in the fall, at the close of the\nharvest and just before the winter rains set in. The seventh\nmonth--Tishri--was a sacred month among the ancient Hebrews as well as\namong the Babylonians, but up to the present no distinct traces of a\nfestival period in Tishri have been found in Babylonian texts. We must\ncontent ourselves, therefore, with the conjecture, above thrown out,\nthat an Akitu was originally celebrated in this month at some ancient\nreligious center of the Euphrates Valley. Further publications of\ncuneiform texts may throw light upon this point. The unpublished\nmaterial in European and American museums harbors many surprises.\n\nIn Ashurbanabal's annals[1561] there is an interesting reference to a\nfestival celebrated in honor of the goddess Gula, the goddess of\nhealing,[1562] on the twelfth day of Iyyar, the second month. The\nfestival is described ideographically as Si-gar,[1563] but from the fact\nthat the same ideographs are used elsewhere to describe a day sacred to\nSin and Shamash,[1564] it would appear that Si-gar is not a specific\nappellation, but a general name again for festival. This month Iyyar and\nthis particular day, as a \"favorable one,\" is chosen by Ashurbanabal for\nhis installation as king of Assyria. The same month is selected for a\nformal pilgrimage to Babylonia for the purpose of restoring to E-Sagila\na statue of Marduk that a previous Assyrian king had taken from its\nplace,[1565] and Lehmann is probably correct in concluding[1566] that\nthis month of Iyyar was a particularly sacred one in Assyria, emphasized\nwith intent perhaps by the kings, as an offset against the sacredness of\nNisan in Babylonia.\n\nFestivals in honor of Ninib were celebrated in Calah in the months of\nElul--the sixth month--and Shabat--the eleventh month.[1567] The sixth\nmonth, it will be recalled, is sacred to Ishtar.[1568] Ninib being a\nsolar deity, his festival in Elul was evidently of a solar character.\nFrom Ashurbanabal,[1569] again, we learn that the 25th day of Siwan--the\nthird month--was sacred to Belit of Babylon, and on that day a\nprocession took place in her honor. The Belit meant is Sarpanitum in her\noriginal and independent role as a goddess of fertility. The statue of\nthe goddess, carried about, presumably in her ship, formed the chief\nfeature of the procession. Ashurbanabal chooses this \"favorable\" day as\nthe one on which to break up camp in the course of one of his military\nexpeditions. We would naturally expect to find a festival month devoted\nto the god Ashur in Assyria. This month was Elul--the sixth month.[1570]\nThe choice of this month lends weight to the supposition that Ashur was\noriginally a solar deity.[1571] The honors once paid to Ninib in Calah\nin this month could thus easily be transferred to the head of the\nAssyrian pantheon. Although in the calendar the sixth month is sacred to\nIshtar, her festival was celebrated in the fifth month, known as\nAb.[1572] This lack of correspondence between the calendar and the\nfestivals is an indication of the greater antiquity of the latter.\n\nIn the great temple to Shamash at Sippar, there appear to have been\nseveral days that were marked by religious observances.\nNabubaliddin[1573] (ninth century) emphasizes that he presented rich\ngarments to the temple for use on six days of the year,--the 7th day of\nNisan (first month), 10th of Iyyar (second month), 3rd of Elul (sixth\nmonth), 7th of Tishri (seventh month), 15th of Arakh-shamna (or\nMarcheshwan, eighth month), and the 15th of Adar (twelfth month). These\ngarments are given to Shamash, to his consort Malkatu, and to\nBunene.[1574] Since from a passage in a Babylonian chronicle[1575] it\nappears that it was customary for Shamash on his festival to leave his\ntemple, we may conclude that the garments were put on Shamash and his\nassociates, for the solemn procession on the six days in question.\n\nThe festivals in Nisan and Elul are distinctly of a solar character. The\nchoice of two other months immediately following Nisan and Elul cannot\nbe accidental. The interval of thirty-three days between the Nisan and\nIyyar festivals and thirty-four days between the Elul and Tishri\nfestivals may represent a sacred period.[1576] Tishri, moreover, as has\nbeen pointed out, is a sacred month in a peculiar sense. Marcheshwan, it\nmay be well to bear in mind, is sacred to Marduk,--a solar deity,--while\nthe 15th of Adar, curiously enough, is an old solar festival that,\nmodified and connected with historical reminiscences, became popular\namong the Jews of Persia and Babylonia during the Persian supremacy in\nthe Semitic Orient, and survives to this day under the name of the Purim\nfestival.[1577] At all events, the six days may be safely regarded as\nconnected in some way, direct or indirect, with solar worships, and it\nis natural to find that in so prominent a center of sun-worship as\nSippar, _all_ the solar festivals were properly and solemnly observed.\n\nIt is disappointing that up to the present so little has been\nascertained of the details of the moon-cult--the great rival to Shamash\nworship--in the old cities of Ur and Harran. In the Babylonian calendar,\nthe third month--Siwan--is sacred to Sin, but since, as we have found,\nthe festivals in honor of the gods do not always correspond to the\nassignment of the months, we cannot be certain that in this month a\nspecial festival in honor of Sin was observed. Lastly, besides the\nregular and fixed festivals, the kings, and more especially the Assyrian\nrulers, did not hesitate to institute special festivals in memory of\nsome event that contributed to their glory. Agumkakrimi[1578] instituted\na festival upon restoring the statues of Marduk and Sarpanitum to\nBabylon, and Sargon does the same upon restoring the palace at\nCalah.[1579] Dedications of temples and palaces were in general marked\nby festivities, and so when the kings return in triumph from their wars,\nladen with spoils and captives, popular rejoicings were instituted. But\nsuch festivals were merely sporadic, and, while marked by religious\nceremonies, were chiefly occasions of general jollification combined\nwith homage to the rulers. Such a festival was not called an _isinnu_,\nbut a _nigatu_,[1580]--a 'merrymaking.'[1581] More directly connected\nwith the cult was a ceremony observed in Assyria upon the installation\nof an official, known as the _limmu_, who during his year of service\nenjoyed the privilege of having official documents dated with his\nname.[1582] The ceremony involved a running[1583] of some kind, and\nreminds one of the running between the two hills Marwa and Safa in Mekka\nthat forms part of the religious observances in connection with a visit\nto the Kaaba.[1584] The name of the ceremony appears to have been puru\n(or buru). To connect this word with the Jewish festival of Purim, as\nSayce proposes,[1585] is wholly unwarranted. The character of the Puru\nceremony points to its being an ancient custom, the real significance of\nwhich in the course of time became lost. Fast days instituted for\nperiods of distress might also be added to the cult, but these, too,\nlike the special festivals, were not permanent institutions. For such\noccasions many of the penitential psalms which were discussed in a\nprevious chapter[1586] were composed. To conciliate angered gods whose\ntemples had been devastated in days of turmoil, atonement and\npurification rites were observed. So Ashurbanabal[1587] upon his\nconquest of Babylonian cities tells us that he pacified the gods of the\nsouth with penitential psalms and purified the temples by magic rites;\nand Nabubaliddin,[1588] incidental to his restoration of the Shamash\ncult at Sippar, refers to an interesting ceremony of purification, which\nconsisted in his taking water and washing his mouth according to the\npurification ritual of Ea and Marduk,[1589] preliminary to bringing\nsacrifices to Shamash in his shrine. Sippar had been overrun by\nnomads,[1590] the temple had been defiled, and before sacrifices could\nagain be offered, the sacred edifice and sacred quarter had to be\npurified. The king's action was a symbol of this purification. Many such\ncustoms must have been in vogue in Babylonia and Assyria. Some--and\nthese were the oldest--were of popular origin. On the seal cylinders\nthere is frequently represented a pole or a conventionalized form of a\ntree, generally in connection with a design illustrating the worship of\na deity.[1591] This symbol is clearly a survival of some tree\nworship[1592] that was once popular. The comparison with the _ashera_ or\npole worship among Phoenicians and Hebrews[1593] is fully justified, and\nis a proof of the great antiquity of the symbol, which, without becoming\na formal part of the later cult, retained in some measure a hold upon\nthe popular mind. Other symbols and customs were introduced under the\ninfluence of the doctrines unfolded in the schools of thought in the\nvarious intellectual centers, and as an expression of the teachings of\nthe priests. The cult of Babylonia, even more so than the literature, is\na compound of these two factors,--popular beliefs and the theological\nelaboration and systematization of these beliefs. In the course of this\nelaboration, many new ideas and new rites were introduced. The official\ncult passed in some important particulars far beyond popular practices.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1311] _Vorgeschichte der Indo-Europaer_, pp. 126-141.\n\n[1312] Gen. xi. 4.\n\n[1313] _E.g._, Tiglathpileser I., col. vii. ll. 102, 103; Meissner,\n_Altbabylonisches Privatrecht_, no. 46; Nebopolassar Cylinder\n(Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, i. 1, pls. 32, 33), col. i.\nl. 38. Or 'as high as mountains'; _e.g._, Nebuchadnezzar II., IR. 58,\ncol. viii. ll. 61-63; and so frequently the Neo-Babylonian kings.\n\n[1314] _Kosmologie_, pp. 185-195.\n\n[1315] Or _Kharsag-gal-kurkura_; see p. 558.\n\n[1316] See p. 458.\n\n[1317] _Ekurrati_; Delitzsch, _Assyr. Handwoerterbuch_, p. 718b.\n\n[1318] IR. 35, no. 3, 22.\n\n[1319] See below.\n\n[1320] Hebrew _Bamoth_. Through the opposition of the Hebrew prophets,\nthe term acquires distasteful associations that were originally foreign\nto it.\n\n[1321] See Peters' _Nippur_, ii. 124 _seq._\n\n[1322] IIR. 50, obverse.\n\n[1323] Perhaps, however, these several names all designate a single\nzikkurat.\n\n[1324] Peters' _Nippur_, i. 246; ii. 120.\n\n[1325] For the meaning of this phrase, see Winckler's _Altorientalische\nForschungen_, iii. 208-222, and Jensen's _Kosmologie_, p. 167.\n\n[1326] From Heuzey's note in De Sarzec, _Decourveries en Chaldee_, p.\n31, it would appear that at Lagash there was a zikkurat of modest\nproportions, but Dr. Peters informs me that from his observations at\nTelloh, he questions whether the building in question represents a\nzikkurat at all, though, as we know from other sources, a zikkurat\nexisted there in the days of Gudea.\n\n[1327] _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_, xviii.\n\n[1328] Of Sargon's zikkurat at Khorsabad, also, only four stories have\nbeen found. Perrot and Chiplez (_History of Art in Chaldaea and\nAssyria_, i. 388) suppose that there may have been seven.\n\n[1329] _E.g._ Perrot and Chiplez, _ib._ p. 128. Hommel, _Geschichte\nBabyloniens und Assyriens_, p. 19.\n\n[1330] Peters (_Nippur_, i. 214) found many yellow-colored bricks at\nBorsippa.\n\n[1331] Book I, Sec. 98.\n\n[1332] See a paper by E. W. Hopkins on _The Holy Numbers of the\nRig-Veda_ (Oriental Studies, Boston, 1894, pp. 141-147).\n\n[1333] Written ideographically, as the names of the zikkurats and of all\nsacred edifices invariably are.\n\n[1334] See above, p. 459.\n\n[1335] Inscription G, col. i. l. 14; D, col. ii. l. 11.\n\n[1336] IIR. 50; obverse 20. See p. 472.\n\n[1337] _Kosmologie_, pp. 171-174.\n\n[1338] The suggestion is worthy of consideration whether the name 'seven\ndirections of heaven and earth' may not also point to a conception of\nseven zones dividing the _heavens_ as well as the earth. One is reminded\nof the 'seven' heavens of Arabic theology.\n\n[1339] So _e.g._, Kaulen, _Assyrien und Babylonien_ (3d edition), p. 58;\nVigouroux, _La Bible et les Decouvertes Modernes_ (4th edition), i. 358.\n\n[1340] Lit., 'house to be seen,' _Igi-e-nir_. See, _e.g._, VR. 29, no.\n4, 40, and Delitzsch, _Assyr. Handwoerterbuch_, p. 262.\n\n[1341] So at Babylon, at least, according to Herodotus. Traces of such a\nroom were also found in connection with the zikkurat at Nippur (Peters,\n_Nippur_, ii. 122.)\n\n[1342] _Bit pirishti_. IIR. 50, obverse, 6. Another name (or perhaps the\nname of a second zikkurat at Nippur; see p. 616, note 2) is\n_Im-kharsag_, _i.e._, 'mountain of awe.' Peters' rendering (_Nippur_,\nii. 122) of the names is inaccurate.\n\n[1343] Peters' _Nippur_, ii. chapter vi.\n\n[1344] Schick, _Die Stiftschuette, der Tempel, und der Tempelplatz der\nJetztzeit_, pp. 8, 9.\n\n[1345] Snouck-Hurgronje _Mekka_ (Atlas, pl. 1). The present structure,\nthough comparatively modern, is built after ancient models.\n\n[1346] Schick, _ib._ pp. 125-131.\n\n[1347] _Die Stiftshuette, der Tempel, und der Tempelplatz der Jeiztzeit_,\np. 82.\n\n[1348] On the significance of the gate in sacred edifices, see Trumbull,\n_The Threshold Covenant_, pp. 102-108.\n\n[1349] Dr. Peters is of the opinion that at the entrance to the temple\narea proper at Nippur there also stood two large columns.\n\n[1350] _Decouvertes en Chaldee_, pp. 62-64. Heuzey, in a valuable note,\nalready suggests the comparison with the two columns of Solomon's which\nis here maintained on the basis of the excavations at Nippur.\n\n[1351] _Ib._ p. 64.\n\n[1352] The best example for Assyria is furnished by the magnificent\nbronze gates of Balawat, now in The British Museum. See Birch and\nPinches, _The Bronze Ornaments of the Palace Gates of Balawat_ (London,\n1881).\n\n[1353] See the illustrations in Perrot and Chiplez, _History of Art in\nChaldea and Assyria_, i. 142, 143.\n\n[1354] So Puchstein and Friedrich, but see Meissner-Rost, _Noch einmal\ndas Bithillani und die Assyrische Saeule_ (Leipzig, 1893).\n\n[1355] _Discoveries among the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon_, plan 2.\n\n[1356] Papakhu for Pakhpakhu, from the stem _pakhu_, \"to close.\"\nParakku, from Paraku, \"to shut off, to lock.\"\n\n[1357] Inscription D, col. ii. l. 9.\n\n[1358] V. Rawlinson, pl. 60.\n\n[1359] Book i. sec. 183.\n\n[1360] See the chief passage, IR. 54, col. ii, ll. 54-65; another name\nis E-Kua, 'dwelling.'\n\n[1361] See p. 423.\n\n[1362] VR. 50, col. i. l. 5.\n\n[1363] VR. 41, No. 1, Rev. 18.\n\n[1364] IVR. 57, 24a. Jensen's suggestion (_Kosmologie_, p. 242) to read\nMar-duku is out of the question.\n\n[1365] What Jensen says (_Kosmologie_, p. 10) of the temple at Sippar\nwould apply to the papakhu in the temple, rather than to the whole\nstructure.\n\n[1366] De Sarzec, _Decouvertes en Chaldee_, pls. 24, 25 _bis_, etc.\n\n[1367] See p. 537.\n\n[1368] De Sarzec, _Decouvertes en Chaldee_, pls. 4, 4 _bis_ and 43\n_bis_. On the latter, bulls, lions, and eagle in combination.\n\n[1369] See p. 653.\n\n[1370] See the plan in Schick, _Die Stiftshuette_, pl. 5. Layard\n(_Discoveries among the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon_, pp. 642-648)\npoints out some analogies between the constructions at Nimrod and\nSolomon's buildings, but what he says applies chiefly to the palaces.\n\n[1371] Herodotus, book i. sec. 183, speaks of two altars outside of the\ntemple of Marduk in Babylon. In the case of so important a structure,\nthe number of altars was naturally more numerous.\n\n[1372] See Heuzey's note in De Sarzec's _Decouvertes en Chaldee_, p. 65.\n\n[1373] See pp. 109 _seq._\n\n[1374] See p. 106.\n\n[1375] _Recueil des Travaux_, etc., xvii. 39.\n\n[1376] See pp. 140 _seq._\n\n[1377] The date of this king has recently been pushed down by\nThureau-Dangin, considerably later than the date assigned to him by\nHilprecht (_Revue Semitique_, v. 265-269).\n\n[1378] See p. 110.\n\n[1379] Nebuchadnezzar, IR. 65, col. i. ll. 34, 35.\n\n[1380] This is to be concluded from Nebuchadnezzar, ib. l. 32.\n\n[1381] See Tiele's note, _Zeitschrift fuer Assyriologie_, ii. 184, note.\n\n[1382] IR. 55, col. iv. ll. 54-57.\n\n[1383] See Tiele, _Zeitschrift fuer Assyriologie_, ii. 190.\n\n[1384] III Rawlinson, pl. 66. The list also contains objects in the\ntemples used for the cult.\n\n[1385] IIIR. 66. obverse, col. ii. ll. 2-25.\n\n[1386] See p. 207.\n\n[1387] The sign for image occurs in connection with some of the gods.\n\n[1388] The term can hardly be used here in the strict sense of 'towers,'\nbut appears to have become a general word for a sacred structure.\n\n[1389] _Ib._ col. iii. ll. 22-34.\n\n[1390] Meissner-Rost, _Bauinschriften Sanherib's_, p. 7.\n\n[1391] See, _e.g._, the list IIIR. 66. An exception is formed by the\ntemple to Ramman in the city of Asshur, which has a special name. See\nthe following note.\n\n[1392] Including the one to Ramman in Asshur.\n\n[1393] IR. 2. nos. 11, 2.\n\n[1394] IIR, 50, obverse 13.\n\n[1395] Lge-e-nir = zikkurat; Kidur = shubtu (dwelling); Makh = rabu\n(great).\n\n[1396] The name approaches closely to the conception of a zikkurat in\nthe Book of Genesis, as a 'ladder' connecting heaven and earth. Gen.\nxxviii. 12.\n\n[1397] See above, p. 619.\n\n[1398] The ideas 'true, fixed, established, eternal' are all expressed\nby the element _Zida_.\n\n[1399] I adopt this reading as the one generally used.\n\n[1400] See above, p. 242.\n\n[1401] Or _tush_. Cf. Bruennow, Sign List, no. 10523.\n\n[1402] Or _ab_. See Jensen, _Keils Bibl._ 3, i. pp. 15, 173.\n\n[1403] See above, p. 57.\n\n[1404] Compare the name 'Belit-seri,' 'mistress of the fields,' as the\nname of a goddess who belongs to the pantheon of the lower world. See p.\n588.\n\n[1405] IIR. 61, nos. 1, 2, 6.\n\n[1406] Text, _Kar_, _i.e._, 'dam,' 'wall,' or 'quay.'\n\n[1407] IIR. 50, l. 8.\n\n[1408] Bezold Catalogue, etc., p. 1776.\n\n[1409] One is reminded of Isaiah's sentiment (lvi. 7) regarding the\ntemple of Yahwe, which is to be called 'a house of prayer for the\nworld.'\n\n[1410] Lit., 'enclosure.'\n\n[1411] The synagogue is called a 'house' just as the Babylonian temple\nis, and among names of synagogues (or of congregations) in modern times\nthat form close parallels to the names of Babylonian temples may be\ninstanced 'house of prayer,' 'glory of Israel,' 'tree of life.' The\ncustom of naming Christian churches after the apostles represents a\nfurther development along the order of ideas current in Babylonia.\n\n[1412] _E.g._, IIR. 50 (zikkurats); IIR. 61; IIIR. 66.\n\n[1413] See Bezold Catalogue, etc., p. 1776 and elsewhere.\n\n[1414] _E.g._, IIR. 54-60; IIIR. 67-69; VR. 43, 46.\n\n[1415] IIR. 60, no. 1, obverse.\n\n[1416] See p. 172. Some of the gods invoked by Sennacherib (see p. 238),\nas Gaga, Sherua, and perhaps also Khani, are foreign deities.\n\n[1417] Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts, i. 56-59.\n\n[1418] As Lagamal, Kanishurra.\n\n[1419] See Peters' _Nippur_, ii. chapter x, \"The History of Nippur.\"\n\n[1420] _Ib._ ll. 260. (Published in Hilprecht's _Old Babylonian\nInscriptions_, I. 1. pl. 21, no. 43. See also pl. 8, no. 15.)\n\n[1421] VR. 63.\n\n[1422] VR. pls. 60, 61.\n\n[1423] So, _e.g._, as late as the days of Nebopolassar (Scheil, _Recueil\ndes Travaux_, xviii. 16).\n\n[1424] Besides this temple, there were two others, perhaps only chapels,\ndedicated to Sin at Ur: (_a_) E-te-im-ila (mentioned first by Ur-Bau,\nIR. pl. 1, no. 4), and (_b_) E-Kharsag (mentioned first by Dungi, IR. 2,\nII. no. 2). The zikkurat at Ur had, of course, a special name (IIR. 50,\nobverse 18).\n\n[1425] See Noeldeke, _Zeitschrift fuer Assyriologie_, xi. 107-109.\nHilprecht's theory (_Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, i. 2, 55) has not\nbeen accepted by scholars.\n\n[1426] VR. 64, col. i. 3-9; col. ii. 46.\n\n[1427] See p. 444.\n\n[1428] See p. 81.\n\n[1429] See pp. 126 _seq._\n\n[1430] See p. 129.\n\n[1431] So Antiochus Soter, VR. 66, col. i. l. 3.\n\n[1432] For a further account of the financial side of the temple\nestablishments, see Peiser's excellent remarks in his _Babylonische\nVertraege des Berliner Museums_, pp. xvii-xxix.\n\n[1433] Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, i. 2, p. 24.\n\n[1434] Nine magnificent diorite statues of Gudea were found by De Sarzec\nat Telloh.\n\n[1435] Ashes--the trace of sacrifices--were also found on the altar.\n\n[1436] See the illustrations in Perrot and Chiplez, _History of Art in\nChaldea_, etc., i. 143, 255. Similar horns existed on the Hebrew and\nPh[oe]nician altars.\n\n[1437] See the illustrations in Perrot and Chiplez, _ib._, i. 194, 256,\n257. On seal cylinders altar titles are frequently represented.\n\n[1438] Book i. sec. 183.\n\n[1439] See Schick, _Die Stiftshuette_, etc., pp. 119 _seq._\n\n[1440] _Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, p. 13; see also p. 89.\n\n[1441] Inscription G, col 1. ll. 15-17. See p. 621.\n\n[1442] Described in De Sarzec's _Decouvertes en Chaldee_, pp. 216, 217.\nFor other specimens, see _ib._ pp. 106, 171; and see also Hilprecht,\n_Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, i. 2. p. 39, note.\n\n[1443] Inscription D, col. iii, 1-12.\n\n[1444] See Winckler's note, _Keils Bibl._ 3, 2, p. 16.\n\n[1445] IR. 54, col. iii. l. 10.\n\n[1446] _Ib._ 55, col. iv. l. 1, 2.\n\n[1447] IIR. 61. no. 2, obverse.\n\n[1448] See Perrot and Chiplez, _History of Art in Chaldea and Assyria_,\ni. 75, 76.\n\n[1449] See the illustration in Snouck-Hurgronje _Mekka_, pl. V.\n\n[1450] _I.e._, of the god, E-Kua being the name of the sacred chamber in\nMarduk's temple at Babylon. See p. 629, note 1.\n\n[1451] See p. 60.\n\n[1452] See p. 282.\n\n[1453] The largest canal in Babylonia.\n\n[1454] _E.g._, _ishakku_.\n\n[1455] _Sha_ and _naku_, _i.e._, 'the one over the sacrifice.'\n_Zeitschrift fuer Assyriologie_, vii., 174, note.\n\n[1456] That these terms represent classes of priests is indicated by the\nfact that the abstract derivatives shangutu, kalutu, ishipputu, and also\nramkutu (see below) are used as general terms for priesthood.\n\n[1457] IIR. 32, no. 3.\n\n[1458] 'A spear carrier of Marduk' occurs in contract tablets.\n\n[1459] _Dupsharru_.\n\n[1460] _Daianu_.\n\n[1461] _E.g._, IIIR. 48, no. 6, ll. 26, 27.\n\n[1462] _Shangu_ = priest; _makhu_ = great.\n\n[1463] See above, p. 657.\n\n[1464] Delitzsch, _Assyr. Handwoerterbuch_, p. 149b.\n\n[1465] See pp. 356 _seq._\n\n[1466] On these night watches, see Delitzsch's article in the\n_Zeitschrift fuer Keilschriftforschung_, ll. 284-294.\n\n[1467] See above, pp. 267, 343.\n\n[1468] _Kharimtu_, _Kisritu_, _Ukhatu_, _Shamuktu_. See IIR, 32, no. 2,\nll. 31-36, and above, pp. 475, 484.\n\n[1469] See his article on \"Sacrifice\" in the 9th edition of the\n_Encyclopaedia Britannica_ and his _Religion of the Semites_, Lectures\nVI-XI.\n\n[1470] So in the regulations of the priestly code (Lev. iii. 14-17).\n\n[1471] Inscription G, cols, iii-vi.\n\n[1472] Hardly 'roosters,' as Jensen (_Kosmologie_, p. 517) proposes.\n\n[1473] See, _e.g._, Gudea, Inscription F, cols. iii, iv.\n\n[1474] See on this general subject Marillier's admirable articles, \"La\nPlace du Totemisme dans l'evolution religieuse\" (_Revue de l'Histoire\ndes Religions_, xxxvi).\n\n[1475] See pp. 397, 398.\n\n[1476] See Peters' _Nippur_, ll. 131, and Hilprecht, _Cuneiform Texts_,\nix. pl. xiii.\n\n[1477] See Ward, \"On Some Babylonian Cylinders supposed to represent\nHuman Sacrifices\" (_Proc. Amer. Oriental Soc._ May, 1888, pp.\nxxvlii-xxx).\n\n[1478] See, _e.g._, Layard, _Monuments of Nineveh_, 1st series, pls. 7,\n23; Place, _Nineve et l'Assyrie_, pl. 46, etc.\n\n[1479] \"The Winged Figures of the Assyrian and Other Ancient Monuments,\"\n_Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._ xii. 383-393; see also Bonavia, \"The Sacred\nTrees of the Assyrian Monuments,\" _Babylonian and Oriental Record_,\nvols. iii, iv, whose conclusions, however, are not always acceptable.\n\n[1480] See chapter xix, \"Oracles and Omens.\"\n\n[1481] See pp. 295-299.\n\n[1482] See, _e.g._, Sennacherib, IR. 47, col. v. ll. 50-54;\nAshurbanabal, Rassam Cylinder, col. ii. l. 116, and col. iv. l. 9.\n\n[1483] IIR. 67, 11, 12.\n\n[1484] Cylinder, l. 4.\n\n[1485] Winckler, _Die Keilschrifttexte Sargon's Prunkinschrift_, ll.\n134, 135.\n\n[1486] Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, i. 1, pl. 33, col. ii.\nll. 54-56.\n\n[1487] VR. 65, col. ii. l. 13.\n\n[1488] See, _e.g._, Tiglathpileser I., IR. 16, col. viii. ll. 56, 57;\nSennacherib, IR. 47, col. vi. l. 67-71.\n\n[1489] VR. 64, col. ii. ll. 43-45.\n\n[1490] Gen. xxviii. 18.\n\n[1491] _Religion of the Semites_, p. 364.\n\n[1492] See Robertson Smith, ib. p. 215.\n\n[1493] VR. 61, col. iv. ll. 33, 34.\n\n[1494] IR. 7, no. ix.\n\n[1495] Heuzey in De Sarzec's _Decouvertes en Chaldee_, p. 209.\n\n[1496] Several examples occur in De Sarzec's _Decouvertes en Chaldee_.\nSee also Ward, _Proc. Amer. Oriental Soc._, May, 1888, p. xxix, and\nPeters' _Nippur_, ii. pl. 2.\n\n[1497] Wellhausen, _Reste Arabischen Heidenthums_, p. 106.\n\n[1498] Grotefend Cylinder, col. li. ll. 36-39.\n\n[1499] They are also used in the sense of any permanent provision for a\ntemple through an endowment.\n\n[1500] Lit., 'the steady' sacrifice. See the technical employment, Dan.\nviii. 11.\n\n[1501] VR. 61, col. iv. l. 48-col v. l. 6; see also Ashurbanabal, Rassam\nCylinder, col. iv. l. 90.\n\n[1502] Belit here used for Ashur's consort; see p. 226.\n\n[1503] See p. 652.\n\n[1504] Inscription B, cols. vii-viii.\n\n[1505] Chapter iii. 1-7.\n\n[1506] This touch appears to have been added by the Hebrew writer.\nNebuchadnezzar is but a disguise for Antiochus Epiphanes.\n\n[1507] VR. 33, col. ii. l. 22-col. iii. l. 12.\n\n[1508] VR. 61, col. vi. ll. 1-13.\n\n[1509] Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, i. 1, pl. 23, no. 62.\n\n[1510] In the museum at Copenhagen. Described by Knudtzon in the _Zeits.\nf. Assyr._, xil. 255.\n\n[1511] Tiele, _Babylonisch-Assyrische Geschichte_, p. 287.\n\n[1512] In the Berlin Museum (Knudtzon, _ib._). It is also on a knob\nwhich contains remains of an iron stick, to which, evidently, the knob\nwas fastened.\n\n[1513] Written A-e.\n\n[1514] Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, i. 1, p. 58.\n\n[1515] In reality, glass colored with cobalt. On this production of\nfalse lapis lazuli, see Peters' _Nippur_, ii. 134.\n\n[1516] For examples, see Hilprecht, _ib._, pl. 18, no. 34; pl. 23, nos.\n56, 57; pl. 25, nos. 66, 69; pl. 26, no. 70.\n\n[1517] Peters' _Nippur_, ii. 77, 133.\n\n[1518] So, _e.g._, Peters' _Nippur_, ii. 237, 238, 378, 379.\n\n[1519] De Sarzec, _Decouvertes en Chaldee_, pls. 1 bis and 28.\n\n[1520] The opinion has been advanced that the personage who holds the\ncone-shaped object is the fire-god turning the fire drill, but this is\nhighly improbable.\n\n[1521] _Decouvertes en Chaldee_, p. 239.\n\n[1522] Peters' _Nippur_ ii. 376, and Hilprecht, _Cuneiform Texts_, ix.\npl. 12.\n\n[1523] Peters _ib._ pp. 374, 375.\n\n[1524] See p. 536.\n\n[1525] _E.g._, Gen. xxxi. 19.\n\n[1526] See the specimens and descriptions in _Decouvertes en Chaldee_,\npl. 44 and p. 234.\n\n[1527] Tiglathpileser I. (IR. 12, col. iv. l. 23) presents twenty-five\ngods of the land of Sugi.\n\n[1528] Ashurnasirbal, IR. 25, col. iii. ll. 91, 92.\n\n[1529] Winckler, _Die Keilschrifttexte Sargon's Prunkinschrift_, ll.\n141-143.\n\n[1530] IR. 27, 8-10.\n\n[1531] VR. 60, col. ii. ll. 11-16.\n\n[1532] See pp. 373-383.\n\n[1533] See above, p. 658.\n\n[1534] This is a standing phrase in the inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar,\nas well as of other kings. See Delitzsch, _Assyr. Handwoerterbuch_, p.\n270b.\n\n[1535] Deut. xii. 18; xvi. 14, etc.\n\n[1536] See pp. 462, 463.\n\n[1537] See _ib._\n\n[1538] Or zag-mu. Gudea, Inscription G, col. iii. In the later\ninscriptions we find zag-mu-ku. The _k_ or _ku_ appears to be an\nafformative. See Amlaud, _Zeits. f. Assyr._ iii. 41. The reading\nza-am-mu-ku is found, IR. 67, col. i. l. 34.\n\n[1539] _resh shatti_. See p. 681.\n\n[1540] Inscription G, _ib._, and Inscription D, col. ii. ll. 1-9. See\nalso p. 59.\n\n[1541] See above, _ib._\n\n[1542] See, _e.g._, Pognon Wadi Brissa, col. ix. ll. 12-18.\n\n[1543] This follows from a passage in Nebuchadnezzar's Inscription, IR.\n54, col. ii. l. 57.\n\n[1544] See p. 654.\n\n[1545] Signifying 'may the enemy not wax strong.'\n\n[1546] See Nebuchadnezzar's Inscription, IR. 56, col v. ll. 38-54.\n\n[1547] So, _e.g._ during the closing years of Nabonnedos' reign.\nWinckler, _Untersuchungen zur Altorient. Gesch._ i. 154; obv. 6 (7th\nyear); 11 (9th year); 20 (10th year); 24 (11th year).\n\n[1548] On the meaning and importance of the rite, see Winckler, _Zeits.\nf. Assyr._ ii. 302-304, and Lehmann's _Shamash-shumukin_, pp. 44-53.\n\n[1549] Eponym List, IIR. 52, no. 1 obv. 45.\n\n[1550] Winckler, _Die Keilschrifttexte Sargon's_, pp. 52, 124; of\nAshurbanabal, the chronicler tells us that he proceeded to Babylonia in\nthe month of Iyyar, but, this not being the proper month, he did not\n\"seize the hands of Bel.\" See also Winckler, _ib._ p. xxxvi, note.\n\n[1551] See pp. 423 and 629 _seq._\n\n[1552] _I.e._, 'The beginning of the year.' See on this subject Karppe's\narticle, _Revue Semitique_, ii. 146-151.\n\n[1553] See p. 464.\n\n[1554] See _ib._, note 3.\n\n[1555] The opinion of many scholars that the Rosh hash-shana dates from\nthe Babylonian exile because not referred to in the Book of Deuteronomy\nis open to serious objections. The festival has traces of antiquity\n(like the Day of Atonement), and appears to have been _revived_ during\nthe captivity, under Babylonian influence.\n\n[1556] See especially pp. 484 and 575.\n\n[1557] Ezekiel, viii. 14. There is probably a reference also to the\nTammuz festival in Zech, xii. 10, 11. The interpretation offered by\nRobertson Smith (_Religion of the Semites_, p. 392, note) for the\nmourning rites appears strained.\n\n[1558] _Over de Israelietische Vastendagen_ (Amsterdam, 1897, pp. 4-6;\n12-17).\n\n[1559] _Zeits. f. Assyr._ ix. 290 _seq._\n\n[1560] See Farnell, _The Cults of the Greek States_, ii. 648 _seq._\n\n[1561] Rassam Cylinder, col. i. ll. 11, 12.\n\n[1562] See pp. 105 and 173 _seq._\n\n[1563] The readings Suni-gar and Shum-gar (so Jensen, _Keils Bibl._ ii.\n155) are also possible.\n\n[1564] IVR. 32, 49b, where the 20th day of the intercalated Elul is so\ndesignated. An official--'the great Si-gar'--is mentioned in a\nlist,--IIR. 31, no. 5, 33a.\n\n[1565] See the discussion (and passages) in Lehmann's\n_Shamash-shumukin_, pp. 43 _seq._ One is tempted to conclude that\nMarduk's statue was removed to Nineveh, not in a spirit of vandalism,\nbut in order to enable Assyrian kings to 'seize the hands of Bel'\nwithout proceeding to E-Sagila. The Babylonians, no doubt, were offended\nby such an act, and in order to conciliate them, Ashurbanabal, who\npursues a mild policy towards the south, orders the statue to be\nrestored at the time that he appoints his brother Shamash-shumukin as\ngovernor of the southern provinces.\n\n[1566] _Ib._ p. 53, note.\n\n[1567] Ashurnasirbal's Inscription, IR. 23, col. ii. l. 134.\n\n[1568] See above, p. 462.\n\n[1569] Rassam Cylinder, col. viii. ll. 96-100.\n\n[1570] George Smith, _The History of Ashurbanipal_, p. 126 (Cylinder B,\ncol. v. l. 77). See also Rassam Cylinder, col. iii. l. 32.\n\n[1571] See above, pp. 195, 196.\n\n[1572] See Ashurbanabal Cylinder B, col. v. l. 16 (_Keils Bibl._ ii.\n248; also Meissner, _Beitraege zum Altbabylonischen Privatrecht_, no. 14,\np. 23).\n\n[1573] VR. 61. col. v. l. 51-vi. l. 8.\n\n[1574] See above, pp. 74 and 176.\n\n[1575] Winckler, _Zeits. f. Assyr._ ii. 155 (col. ii. l. 41).\n\n[1576] One is reminded of the sanctity attaching in the Jewish ritual to\nthe \"counting\" of the seven weeks intervening between Passover (the old\nNisan festival) and Pentecost (an old summer festival). See Deut. xvi.\n9. The 33d day of this period has a special significance in the Jewish\nChurch.\n\n[1577] The non-Jewish origin of the Purim festival is generally accepted\nby critical scholars. Lagarde (_Purim--Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der\nReligions_) endeavors to trace it back to a Persian fire festival;\nZimmern (_Zeits. f. Alt. Wiss._, 1891, pp. 160 _seq._) connects it with\nthe Babylonian Zagmuku. Sayce's supposition (_Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._\nxix. 280, 281) is not to be taken seriously. The origin of the Jewish\nfeast and fast of Purim is still obscure. The fact that there is both a\nfast (14th Adar) and a festival (15th Adar) is a safe indication of\nantiquity. Zimmern's view of a possible relationship between Purim and\nZagmuku is untenable, but that there is a connection between Purim and\n_some_ Babylonian festival follows from the fact that the two chief\npersonages in the Book of Esther--namely, Mordecai and Esther--bear\nnames identical with the two Babylonian deities, Marduk and Ishtar. This\ncannot be an accident. On the other hand, Haman and Vashti, according to\nJensen (_Wiener Zeits. f.d. Kunde des Morgenlandes_, vi. 70), are\nElamitic names of deities corresponding to the Babylonian Marduk and\nIshtar. The case for Vashti is not clearly made out by Jensen, but, for\nall that, it is certain that the Babylonian elements in the institution\nhave been combined with some bits of Persian mythology. The historical\nsetting is the work of the Jewish compiler of the tale, that has of\ncourse some historical basis. See now Toy, _Esther as a Babylonian\nGoddess_ (_The New World_, vi. 130-145).\n\n[1578] VR. 33, col. v. l. 40.\n\n[1579] Winckler, _Die Keilschrifttexte Sargon's_, p. 172 and p. xxvi,\nnote.\n\n[1580] _E.g._, Sargon's _Annals_, l. 179; Cylinder, l. 20, VR. 33, col.\nv. l. 40 (_nigatu_).\n\n[1581] Not necessarily 'music festival,' as Delitzsch proposes (_Assyr.\nHandw._, p. 447a).\n\n[1582] For examples, see the Assyrian contract tablets translated by\nPeiser, _Keils Bibl._ iv. 98 and _passim._\n\n[1583] See the passage Shalmanaser obelisk, ll. 174, 175, and Peiser's\ncomment, _Keils Bibl._ iv. 106, note.\n\n[1584] Burton, _A Pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina_, iii. chapter vii.\n\n[1585] See above, p. 686.\n\n[1586] Chapter xviii.\n\n[1587] Rassam Cylinder, col. iv. ll. 86-89.\n\n[1588] VR. 61, col. ii. ll. 22-27.\n\n[1589] Ea and Marduk, it will be recalled, are the chief gods invoked in\nmagic rites involving purification. See pp. 275, 276.\n\n[1590] See p. 646.\n\n[1591] See numerous examples in Menant's _Collection de Clercq_ (Paris,\n1888).\n\n[1592] See above, p. 662.\n\n[1593] Stade, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, i. 458 seq.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVII.\n\nCONCLUSION.\n\nGeneral Estimate and Influence.\n\n\nIn forming a general estimate of a religion, one's verdict will largely\ndepend upon the point of view from which the religion in question is\nregarded. It is manifestly unjust and illogical to apply modern\nstandards to an ancient religion, not that such a religion would\nnecessarily suffer by the comparison involved, but because of the\ntotally different conditions under which religion developed in antiquity\nfrom those prevailing in modern times. The close association, nay, the\ninseparable bond, between religion and the state is only one of several\ndetermining factors that might be adduced, while the small scope\npermitted to individualism in matters of religious belief and practice\nin a country like Babylonia or Assyria was fraught with such peculiar\nresults that all comparisons, even with other religions of antiquity,\ncould only obscure and not illumine our judgment.\n\nThere are manifestly three phases of the religion of Babylonia and\nAssyria that need to be considered in reaching some general conclusions\nas to the character and rank to be accorded to it,--the doctrines, the\nrites, and the ethics. So far as the pantheon is concerned, the\nlimitations in the development of doctrines connected with it were\nreached when the union of the several Euphratean states was permanently\neffected under Hammurabi. Marduk, a solar deity, takes his place as the\nhead of the pantheon by virtue of the preeminent place occupied by his\npatron city,--Babylon. The other great gods, each representing some\nreligious center that at one time or the other rose to importance,\ngrouped themselves around Marduk, as the princes and nobles gather\naround a supreme monarch. A certain measure of independence was reserved\nfor the great mother goddess Ishtar, who, worshipped under various names\nas the symbol of fertility, plenty, and strength, is not so decidedly\naffected by the change as deities like En-lil, Shamash, Sin, and Ea, who\ncould at any time become rivals of Marduk. As the position of Marduk,\nhowever, became more and more assured without danger of being shaken,\nthe feeling of rivalry in his relations to the other gods began to\ndisappear. Marduk's supremacy no longer being questioned, there was no\nnecessity to curtail the homage paid to Shamash at Sippar or to En-lil\nat Nippur; hence the religious importance of the old centers is not\ndiminished by the surpassing glory of Babylon. There was room for all.\nMarduk's toleration is the best evidence of his unquestioned headship.\n\nThe centralization of political power and of religious supremacy is\nconcomitant with the focussing of intellectual life in Babylon. The\npriests of Marduk set the fashion in theological thought. So far as\npossible, the ancient traditions and myths were reshaped so as to\ncontribute to the glory of Marduk. The chief part in the work of\ncreation is assigned to him. The storm-god En-lil is set aside to make\nroom for the solar deity Marduk. But, despite such efforts, the old\ntales, once committed to writing on the practically imperishable clay,\nsurvived, if not in the minds of the people, at least in the archives of\nthe ancient temples.\n\nThe antiquity of literature in Babylonia was the factor that prevented\nthe cult from acquiring a uniform character in the various parts of the\nempire. The priests of Nippur, of Sippar, of Eridu, of Erech, Cuthah,\nUr, and other places began long before the period of Hammurabi to\ncompile, on the basis of past experience and as a guide for future\nneeds, omen lists, incantation formulas, and sacrificial rituals. These\ncollections created orthodox standards, and these standards, once\nacknowledged, the natural conservatism attaching to religious customs\nwas sufficient to maintain their continuance. The uniformity of doctrine\nwas thus offset by variations in the cult; and the policy adopted by\nboth Babylonian and Assyrian rulers, in permitting each center to remain\nundisturbed, and in freely recognizing the religious independence of\neach, prevented the Babylonian and Assyrian religion from falling into\nthe state of stagnation which would otherwise have been its fate.\n\nIn the views taken of the relationship between the gods and men, no\nnotable advances were made when once the ethical spirit was infused into\nthe religious beliefs. The problem of good and evil was solved in a\nsimple fashion. By the side of the great gods there existed a large,\nalmost infinite number of spirits and demons, who were generally held\nresponsible for the evils affecting mankind.[1594] These demons and\nspirits were in many cases gods 'fallen from grace,'--minor local\ndeities who, unable to maintain themselves in the face of the growing\npopularity of the great gods, sank to an inferior position as\nmessengers, forced to do the will of their masters and who could be\ncontrolled by the latter. But the intercession of the priests was\nessential to obtaining divine help against the mischievous workings of\nthe spirits. Even the kings, though originally standing very close to\nthe gods, could not dispense with the services of the priests, and by\nvirtue of their conspicuous position had to exercise greater precautions\nthan the masses not to offend the gods, by errors of commission or\nomission in the cult. The priests held the secret that could secure\nfreedom from ills and promote the comparative well-being of rulers and\nsubjects. They alone knew what incantations to use for each case that\nwas brought before them, in what way the sacrifices were to be brought,\nwhen the deity should be approached, and why divine anger had manifested\nitself. The intellectual leadership thus acquired by the priests, in\naddition to their control of religious affairs, was an additional factor\nin maintaining orthodox standards of belief when once they had become\nfixed. In the doctrines of life after death, this influence of the\npriesthood is distinctly seen. The popular notions were systematized,\nbut the priests, true to their rule as conservators, did not pass beyond\nprimitive conceptions. Some weak attempts at a philosophical view of the\nproblem of death are attempted in the Gilgamesh epic as finally put\ntogether under the influence of the Babylonian schools of thought,[1595]\nbut the leaders shared with the people the sense of hopelessness when\npicturing the life in the great hollow Aralu. It is in the hymns and\nprayers, rather than in the cosmology and eschatology, that the\nspiritual aspirations of the priests (and to a limited degree of the\nmasses) manifest themselves. In these productions, whether existing\nindependently or incorporated into incantation rituals, we see the\nreligion of Babylonia at its best. A strong emphasis is placed upon the\ndoctrine that misfortunes and ills come as a punishment for sins of\ncommission or omission. It is true that no distinction is drawn between\nceremonial errors and real misdeeds, but the sense of guilt is aroused\nby the priests in the minds of those who come to the temples, seeking\nrelief from the attacks of the evil spirits, or the bewitchment of\nsorcerers.\n\nIt is in this doctrine of guilt, as revealed through the magical texts,\nthat we must seek both for the starting-point of the development of an\nethical system (so far as such a system existed among the Babylonians),\nand also for the limitations of this system. The aim of the priests to\nobserve the right ceremonies, to pronounce the right words in order to\naccomplish their aim, reacted on rulers and subjects, and led them to\nmake the pleasure of the gods the goal of life. With fear of the gods,\nupon which stress is always laid,[1596] there is thus associated an\nequally strong love[1597] of the divine powers. Obedience to the gods is\nprimarily inculcated as a means of securing their protection and\nblessing; but the fear of the gods, we are told, is the cause of\njoy;[1598] and the Babylonians passed far beyond the stage of making the\nsatisfaction of one's own desires the standard of right and wrong. A\npenitential psalm declares[1599] that what is pleasing to oneself may be\nsinful in the eyes of a god.\n\nThe kings pride themselves upon being the promoters of justice. Even the\nAssyrian rulers, who impress one while conducting their wars as bereft\nof all softer emotions, declare that their highest aim is to spread\nplenty and happiness.[1600] Sennacherib calls himself a king who 'loves\nrighteousness,'[1601] and he, as well as his predecessors and\nsuccessors, busies himself with actually restoring the rights of those\nof his subjects who have been wrongfully deprived of their possessions.\n\nThe standard of private morality was high both in Babylonia and Assyria.\nThe legal and commercial tablets reveal that proper consideration was\ngiven to the treatment of woman--a most satisfactory index of ethical\nconditions.[1602] She could hold property and dispose of it. Before the\ncourts, her status did not differ materially from that of the male\npopulation. The husband could not divorce his wife without sufficient\ncause, and children owed obedience to the mother as well as to the\nfather.[1603] Polygamy, as a matter of course, prevailed, but it is an\nerror to suppose that polygamy is inconsistent with high ideals of\nfamily life, even though it does not lead to the highest ideals.\n\nHatred, lying, cheating, using false measures, removing boundaries,\nadultery, insincerity are denounced in the incantation texts,[1604] and\nin accord with this standard, we see in the records of lawsuits and\nagreements between parties[1605] clear indications of the stringent laws\nthat prevailed in order to protect citizens against infringement of\ntheir rights. It comes as a surprise, but also as a welcome testimony to\nthe efficacy of justice in Assyria, to find Ashurbanabal emphasizing the\nfact that he established ordinances so that the strong should do no harm\nto the weak.[1606]\n\nThe institution of slavery flourished in Babylonia and Assyria\nthroughout all periods of their history,[1607] but there were various\ngrades of slaves. Some classes differed but little from that of\nservants, indentured for a longer or shorter period for certain\nservices. The temple slaves appear to have largely belonged to this\nclass. Mild treatment of slaves is enjoined and was the rule. The slaves\nare often the confidential agents of their masters who attend to the\nbusiness affairs of the latter. We find slaves holding property in their\nown right. Contracts entered into by them are legal and binding.\nInjuries inflicted upon them by their masters are punished, and they are\nprotected against losses and mishaps encountered while in service. While\nwe have no evidence to show that the laws of Assyria were on a lower\nethical plane than those of Babylonia, still, as the pupils and\nimitators of the Babylonians in almost everything pertaining to culture\nand religion, the general tone of life in Assyria was hardly as high as\nin the south. The warlike spirit of the rulers is but a symptom of the\nfiercer character of the people.\n\nThe tendency towards monotheism in the religion of Babylonia and Assyria\nhas been referred to. We must remember that it was only a tendency. No\ndecided steps in this direction were ever taken. Both in the south and\nin the north, this tendency is but the expression of the preeminent rank\naccorded to Marduk and Ashur, respectively. The independent existence of\ntwo heads in the combined pantheon was sufficient to prevent the\ninfusion of an ethical spirit into this monotheistic tendency; and\nunless a monotheistic conception of the universe is interpreted in an\nethical sense, monotheism (or monolatry) has no great superiority,\neither religiously or philosophically, over polytheism.\n\nFrom the standpoint of religious doctrine, accordingly, the religion of\nBabylonia and Assyria does not occupy a unique position. In this\nrespect, the Egyptian religion reaches a higher level. For all that, the\ninfluence exerted by the religion that developed in the Euphrates Valley\nwas profound and lasting. We have had occasion in various chapters of\nthis work to point out the close analogies existing between the\nthoughts, tradition, and practices of the Hebrews and the\nBabylonians.[1608] A proper study of the Hebrew religion is closely\nbound up with an investigation of the religious antiquities of\nBabylonia; and as our knowledge of these antiquities increases, it will\nbe found that not only are Hebrews and Babylonians equipped with many\ncommon possessions when starting out upon their intellectual careers,\nbut that, at different times and in diverse ways, the stimulus to\nreligious advance came to the Hebrews from the ancient centers of\nthought and worship in the Euphrates Valley. This influence was\nparticularly strong during the period of Jewish history known as\nBabylonian exile. The finishing touches to the structure of\nJudaism--given on Babylonian soil[1609]--reveal the Babylonian\ntrademark. Ezekiel, in many respects the most characteristic Jewish\nfigure of the exile, is steeped in Babylonian theology and mysticism;\nand the profound influence of Ezekiel is recognized by modern\nscholarship in the religious spirit that characterizes the Jews upon the\nreorganization of their commonwealth.\n\nIt would be a mistake, however, to suppose that what Babylonia gave to\nothers was always the best she had to offer. Degrading tendencies, too,\nfound an entrance into post-exilic Judaism through Babylonian influence.\nClose contact of Jews with Babylonians served to make the former more\naccessible to the popular beliefs in incantations and in the power of\ndemons than they would otherwise have been. Not that the Jews (as little\nas any other people) were ever entirely free from superstitious\npractices; but, living in an atmosphere charged, so to speak, with magic\nand astrology, it was inevitable that even the best among them should be\ninfected by customs that they daily witnessed. In the Babylonian Talmud,\nthe references to evil spirits are numerous. Specific incantations are\nintroduced, and an elaborate system of angelology and demonology forms a\nfeature of Talmudical Judaism in which, by the side of Persian\ninfluences,[1610] we may detect equally strong traces of Babylonian\nideas. In the upper strata of the ruins of Nippur, hundreds of clay\nbowls were found, inscribed with Jewish inscriptions, in the Aramaic\ndialect that was spoken by the Babylonian Jews.[1611] Similar bowls were\nfound elsewhere in the mounds of the Euphrates Valley.[1612] These bowls\nindicate the presence of Jews in various parts of the country.[1613]\nPlaced in the graves as a protection for the dead against evil spirits,\nthe inscriptions contain formulas of denunciation against the demons\nthat constitute a striking parallel to the incantation texts of ancient\nBabylonia. Some of the demons are identical with those occurring in\nthese texts, and by the side of the inscriptions, there are\nillustrations[1614] and magical designs to which parallels exist on the\nBabylonian tablets.\n\nThis custom of endeavoring to secure protection for the dead through the\npower of the curses and propitiatory phrases inscribed on bowls\ncontinued in vogue as late as the ninth century at the least, and\nperhaps considerably later. There are indications also that Babylonian\nideas found an entrance into the Jewish Kabbala,--the strange mystic\nsystem of the middle ages, the sources of which are to be sought in the\napocalyptic chapters of Ezekiel and Daniel.\n\nChristianity as well as Judaism felt the fascination of the mystic lore\nof Babylonia. Gunkel[1615] has demonstrated the Babylonian origin of the\nmyth embodied in the twelfth chapter of Revelations. This myth is but\nanother form of the Marduk-Tiamat contest, which, it will be recalled,\nis the chief episode in the Babylonian creation 'epic.'[1616] More\nsignificant is the influence exerted by the religious ideas of Babylonia\nupon the various Gnostic sects that arose within the Christian Church.\nThat the source of Gnosticism was to be sought in Mesopotamia was always\nrecognized by scholars, but until the discovery of Babylonian\nliterature, it was customary to seek for Jewish influences in the\nformation of the various Gnostic sects. Kessler[1617] was the first to\ndemonstrate clearly the dependence of the leading ideas of Gnosticism\nupon the Babylonian cosmology and the conceptions developed with\nreference to the gods. More recently, Anz[1618] has undertaken a renewed\ninvestigation of the subject, and, approaching the theme from various\npoints of view, reaches conclusions confirmatory of Kessler's thesis.\nAll of the Gnostic sects have certain fundamental doctrines in common,\nsuch as the dwelling of God in the abyss,[1619] the migration of the\nsoul after death through seven zones, the emanation of aeons from a\nsupreme aeon.[1620] All these doctrines exhibit such close affinities\nwith Babylonian ideas as to warrant the assertion that the religion of\nBabylonia survives in Gnosticism; and since, as we know, Babylonian\nculture and customs maintained an undisturbed existence almost to the\nthreshold of our era, there is no need to go back to the older periods\nof the Babylonian religion to find the connecting link, uniting\nGnosticism with the Babylonian religion. The spread and influence of the\nGnostic sects was notoriously wide. It is sufficient to recall the chief\ncenters of Gnostic schools of thought in Antioch, Edessa, and Alexandria\nand the various branches of the powerful sect of the Ophites. The\ninfluence of these schools extended into Greece and Rome. While the\nGnostic sects disappear in the sixth century, the influence of\nGnosticism can be followed down to the twelfth century,--a significant\ntestimony to the enduring qualities of Babylonian doctrines.\n\nIn the ancient world, prior to the rise of Christianity, Egypt, Persia,\nand Greece felt the influence of the Babylonian religion. Budge[1621] is\nof the opinion that many of the magic practices carried on in the\nEgyptian temples are to be traced back to the incantation rituals\nperfected by the Babylonian priests. In view of the early contact\nbetween Egypt and Babylonia, as revealed by the El-Amarna tablets, there\nwere certainly abundant opportunities for the infusion of Babylonian\nviews and customs into Egyptian cults. In Persia, the Mithra cult\nreveals the unmistakable influence of Babylonian conceptions;[1622] and\nif it be recalled what a degree of importance the mysteries connected\nwith this cult acquired among the Romans, another link will be added\nconnecting the ramifications of ancient culture with the civilization of\nthe Euphrates Valley. The strong admixture of Semitic elements both in\nearly Greek mythology and in Grecian cults is now so generally admitted\nby scholars as to require no further comment.[1623] These Semitic\nelements are to a large extent more specifically Babylonian. The spread\nof the Gilgamesh epic and of the Ishtar cult into Asia Minor and Greece\nmay be instanced as illustrations of Babylonian influence; and granting\nthat the Phoenicians acted largely as the mediators in carrying these\nideas to the Greek settlements, still there must have been influences at\nwork long before this direct contact with Semitic culture that prepared\nthe way for the ready acceptance which Semitic conceptions and Semitic\npractices found. The time has not yet come for pronouncing an opinion as\nto the influence exerted by Babylonia upon lands in the distant East.\nThe theory of DeLacouperie[1624] and Ball, which proposes to trace the\nChinese script to the hieroglyphic system of Babylonia, is still to be\ntested. Early commercial contact between the Euphrates Valley and India\nis maintained as a probable theory by several scholars,[1625] and the\npossibility, therefore, of the spread of the religious ideas of\nBabylonia to the distant East is not to be rejected. Patient research\nand the additional discoveries (which are constantly being made) will\nalone place us in a position some day to give a definite answer to the\nquestion. Whatever that answer may be, the verdict as to the high\nquality and profound influence of the religion that arose in the valley\nof the Euphrates and that flourished for several millenniums will not be\naltered.\n\nTo show the general indebtedness of Grecian, Roman, mediaeval, and even\nmodern civilization to Babylonian culture lies beyond the range of this\nwork, but the profound impression made upon the ancient world by the\nremarkable manifestations of religious thought in Babylonia and by the\nreligious activity that prevailed in that region is but an index of the\ninfluence that must have been exerted in other directions by the varied\nintellectual activity that converted a district, exposed to the by no\nmeans tender mercies of the elements, into one of the most notable\nillustrations of the power and achievements of man.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1594] See above, pp. 183, 266.\n\n[1595] See pp. 513 _seq._\n\n[1596] Babylonian and Assyrian kings alike speak constantly of their\nfear of the gods. See the passages in Delitzsch's _Assyrisches\nHandwoerterbuch_, pp. 526, 527, to which many more could be added.\n\n[1597] See, _e.g._, Nebuchadnezzar, IR. 53, col. i, l. 31.\n\n[1598] IVR. 60, B obv. 25.\n\n[1599] IVR. 60, C obv. 14.\n\n[1600] So Sargon cylinder, ll. 34-42.\n\n[1601] IR. 37, col. i. l. 4.\n\n[1602] See the writer's remarks in _Oriental Studies of the Oriental\nClub of Philadelphia_, pp. 119-121.\n\n[1603] See the so-called family laws (as early as the days of Hammurabi)\nin Meissner's _Beitraege zum Altbabylonischen Privatrecht_, p. 15, where\nthe punishment in the case of the son who casts aside his mother is\nspecifically referred to.\n\n[1604] See, _e.g._ p. 291.\n\n[1605] See the admirable discussions on Babylonian jurisprudence in\nKohler and Pelser's _Aus dem Babylonischen Rechtsleben_ (parts i.-iii.,\nLeipzig, 1890-97).\n\n[1606] S. A. Strong in _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_, 1891, p.\n460.\n\n[1607] See on this subject Meissner, _De Servitute Babylonico-Assyriaca_\npp. 3, 4, 40-49.\n\n[1608] See especially chapters xxi., xxv., and xxvi.\n\n[1609] See p. 611.\n\n[1610] See Kohut, _Die Judische Angelologie und Daemanologie in ihrer\nAbhaengigkeit vom Parsismus_ (Leipzig, 1866).\n\n[1611] Peters' _Nippur_, pp. 182, 395.\n\n[1612] See, _e.g._, Layard, _Nineveh and Babylon_ (New York edition,\n1853), p. 509.\n\n[1613] On the extent of the settlements of Jews in Nippur, see\nHilprecht, _Cuneiform Texts_, ix. 27, 28.\n\n[1614] So, _e.g._, on some of the bowls in the University of\nPennsylvania collection, crude pictures of Bel-Marduk and Ishtar are\nportrayed.\n\n[1615] _Schoepfung und Chaos_, pp. 381-397.\n\n[1616] See pp. 432 _seq._\n\n[1617] \"Ueber Gnosis und die Altbabylonlsche Religion,\" _Verhandlungen\ndes fuenften Orientalisten Congress_, 1881, ii. 288-305.\n\n[1618] _Zur Frage nach dem Ursprung des Gnostizismus_ (Leipzig, 1897).\n\n[1619] _I.e._, Ea dwelling in the Apsu. See p. 430.\n\n[1620] Anu, the source of all gods. See p. 417.\n\n[1621] _The Life and Exploits of Alexander the Great_, pp. xii. _seq_.\n\n[1622] See Anz, as above, pp. 78-85.\n\n[1623] R. Brown, _Semitic Influence in Hellenic Mythology_ (London,\n1898).\n\n[1624] _Western Origin of the Early Chinese Civilization_ (London,\n1894).\n\n[1625] A paper on this subject was announced by Jas. Kennedy at the\nEleventh International Congress of Orientalists.\n\n\n\n\nBIBLIOGRAPHY.\n\nNOTE.\n\n\nThe bibliography is arranged in nine sections, the order adopted\ncorresponding to the broad subdivisions of the book. The beginning is\ntherefore made:\n\n(1) With references to the most important or most useful publications,\ndealing with the excavations conducted in Babylonia and Assyria, the\nmethod of decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions, the general\nhistory of Babylonia and Assyria, and the general aspects of the\nBabylonian-Assyrian culture. This section corresponds to the first two\nchapters of the book.\n\n(2) The second section is devoted to books, monographs, articles, and\nchapters in books, dealing with the general subject of the\nBabylonian-Assyrian religion.\n\nIn neither of these two sections have I aimed at being exhaustive,\nthough the second will be found, I think, to include almost everything\nof any value.\n\nThe detailed bibliography begins with the following section.\nCorresponding again to the treatment of the subject in the book, I take\nup in succession:\n\n(3) The Pantheon.\n\n(4) Religious Texts.\n\n(5) Cosmology.\n\n(6) Gilgamesh Epic (including the Deluge episode).\n\n(7) Beliefs and Customs (Views of Life after Death, Funeral Rites,\nLegends, Ethics, etc.).\n\n(8) Temples and Cult.\n\n(9) Bearings of the Babylonian-Assyrian Religion on the Old Testament,\nand General Influence Exerted by the Religion.\n\nOf these seven sections, all but the last aim at being exhaustive. It\nwas not always easy to decide into what division a particular reference\nbelonged, but I have been generally guided by the needs of students for\nwhom this portion of the bibliography is particularly intended.\n\nThe fifth and sixth sections should be taken together; and similarly the\nseventh and eighth, while the fourth section should of course be\nconsulted in connection with the third, fifth, sixth, seventh, and\neighth.\n\nUnder each section the authors named are arranged in alphabetical order.\nOccasionally, I have added some comments to the reference given, as a\nguide or a warning to students. In a subject like Assyriology, where new\ndiscoveries are constantly being made and progress in the interpretation\nof texts is steadily going on, it is inevitable that views and\ntranslations should be subject to modification--sometimes slight, but\nfrequently significant. I have endeavored to avoid repetition of\nreferences. In a few cases this was unavoidable. In the second section\nportions of books are referred to, which by virtue of their character as\nvery general works had to be assigned a place also in the first section.\nTwo or three of the references in the fourth section had to be repeated\nelsewhere; and I should also add that there are a few references which I\nhave been unable to verify.\n\n\nBIBLIOGRAPHY.\n\n\nThe following abbreviations are employed:\n\nAB = Assyriologische Bibliothek, ed. by Friedrich Delitzsch and Paul\n    Haupt.\nAD = Andover Review.\nAI = Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres.\nAJP = American Journal of Philology.\nAJT = American Journal of Theology.\nAJSL = American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures.\nAL = Delitzsch's Assyrische Lesestuecke (3d ed.)\nAPC = Annales de Philosophie Chretienne.\nBA = Beitraege zur Assyriologie.\nBAZ = Beilage zur Allgemeinen Zeitung (Munich).\nBOR = Babylonian and Oriental Record.\nBW = Biblical World.\nCR = Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres.\nDR = Deutsche Rundschau.\nDRe = Deutsche Revue.\nET = Expository Times.\nFLJ = Folk Lore Journal.\nH = Hebraica.\nIAQR = Imperial and Asiatic Quarterly Review.\nICO = International Congress of Orientalists.\nJA = Journal Asiatique.\nJAOS = Journal of the American Oriental Society.\nJHUC = Johns Hopkins University Circulars.\nJRAS = Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.\nJTVI = Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute.\nKAA = Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen (Amsterdam).\nKAW = Koenigliche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin.\nM = Museon.\nMVG = Miltheilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft.\nOTS = Old Testament Student.\nPAOS = Proceedings of the American Oriental Society.\nPR = Presbyterian Review.\nPSBA = Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology.\nR = Rawlinson's 'Selection from the miscellaneous Inscriptions of\n    Western Asia.' (London 1861-1891.) 5 vols.\nRA = Revue d'Assyriologie et d'Archeologie Orientale.\nRAr = Revue Archeologique.\nRB = Revue Biblique.\nRC = Revue Critique.\nRHR = Revue de l'Histoire des Religions.\nRIA = Royal Irish Academy.\nRP = Records of the Past.\nRR = Revue des Religions.\nRS = Revue Semitique.\nRT = Recueil de Travaux relatifs a la Philologie et a l'Archeologie\n     Egyptiennes et Assyriennes.\nSST = Sunday School Times.\nTSBA = Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology.\nTZ = Theologische Zeitblaetter.\nWZKM = Wiener Zeitschrift fuer die Kunde des Morgenlandes.\nZA = Zeitschrift fuer Assyriologie.\nZATW = Zeitschrift fuer die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft.\nZDMG = Zeitschrift der Deutsch-Morgenlaendischen Gesellschaft.\nZK = Zeitschrift fuer Keilschriftforschung.\n\nPeriodicals, the volumes of which correspond to years, are quoted by the\nyears; others, by the volumes, or by series, or by series and volumes.\n\nRoman numerals indicate volumes, except in the case of PAOS, where they\nindicate pages; Arabic numerals indicate pages or plates.\n\n\nI.\n\nExcavations.--Method of Decipherment.--History of Babylonia and\nAssyria.--Origin and General Aspects of Babylonian And Assyrian\nCulture.--General Bibliography.\n\n\n(_a_) _Excavations and Decipherment._\n\nKaulen, Fr.--Assyrien und Babylonien nach den neuesten Entdeckungen.\n(4th ed. Freiburg 1891.)\n\n    [Popular account of excavations, method of decipherment,\n    Babylonian literature and architecture. A work in English of\n    this character is much to be desired. See also Hommel,\n    F.--Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens. Berlin 1885. pp.\n    30-134; Evetts, B. A.--New Light on the Holy Land. London 1891.\n    pp. 79-129.]\n\n\n(_b_) _History._\n\nDuncker, Max.--Geschichte des Alterthums. Vols. I. and II, (5th ed.\nBerlin 1878.)\n\n    [Also English translation of earlier edition.]\n\nHommel, F.--Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens. (Berlin 1885.)\n\n---- Geschichte des alten Morgenlandes. (Stuttgart 1895.)\n\n    [Chapters I., IV.-VIII.]\n\nLenormant, Francois [and Ernest Babelon].--Histoire ancienne de\nl'Orient. Vol. IV. (9th ed. Paris 1885.)\n\nMaspero, G.--The Dawn of Civilization: Egypt and Chaldaea. (London\n1894.)\n\n---- The Struggle of the Nations: Egypt, Syria, and Assyria. (London\n1896.)\n\n    [Replacing earlier historical works of this author.]\n\nMeyer, Ed.--Geschichte des Alterthums. Vol. 1. (Stuttgart 1884.)\n\nMuerdter und Delitzsch.--Kurzgefasste Geschichte Babyloniens und\nAssyriens. (2d ed. Stuttgart 1891.)\n\nRagozin, Z.--(1) The Story of Chaldea. (2) The Story of Assyria. (New\nYork 1886-1887.)\n\nRawlinson, George.--The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern\nWorld. Vols. I.-III. (4th ed. London 1879.)\n\n    [Antiquated, but still of some use.]\n\nRogers, R. W.--Outlines of the History of Early Babylonia. (Leipzig\n1895.)\n\nSchmidt, Valdemar.--Assyriens og Aegyptens gamle Historie. (Copenhagen\n1872-1877.)\n\n    [pp. 347-461]\n\nTiele, C. P.--Babylonisch-Assyrische Geschichte. (Gotha 1886.)\n\n    [The best history that has as yet been published.]\n\nWachsmuth, Curt.--Einleitung in das Studium der alten Geschichte.\n(Leipzig 1895.)\n\n    [pp. 365-403 \"Babylonier und Assyrier,\"--indication of ancient\n    and modern sources for the study.]\n\nWinckler, Hugo.--Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens. (Leipzig 1892.)\n\n\n(_c_) _Origin and General Aspects of Babylonian-Assyrian Culture._\n\nBaumstark, A.--Babylon and Babylonia.\n\n    [In Pauly-Wissowa's Real Encyclopaedie, II. cols. 2667-2718.]\n\nBezold, C.--Assyria.\n\n    [_Ib._ II. cols. 1751-1771.]\n\nHommel, F.--Der Babylonische Ursprung der Aegyptischen Kultur. (Munich\n1892.)\n\nIhering, Rudolph Von.--Vorgeschichte der Indo-Europaeer. (Leipzig 1894.)\n2tes Buch, 'Arier und Semiten,' pp. 93-305.\n\n    [A most suggestive sketch of the development and influence of\n    Babylonian culture; also in English translation, 'The Evolution\n    of the Aryan.' New York 1897.]\n\nNikel, Johannes.--Herodot und die Keilschriftforschung. (Paderborn\n1896.)\n\nPeiser, F. E.--Skizze der Babylonischen Gesellschaft. (Berlin 1896.)\n\n    [Brief but capital sketch of Babylonian culture and social\n    life.]\n\n\n(_d_) _Bibliography._\n\nBezold, C.--Kurzgefasster Ueberblick ueber die Babylonisch-Assyrische\nLiteratur. (Leipzig 1886.)\n\n    [A new edition is needed of this most valuable work.]\n\nDelitzsch, Friedrich.--'Litteratura' in the appendix to his 'Assyrian\nGrammar.' (London 1889.) pp. 55-78.\n\nKaulen, Fr.--Assyrien und Babylonien (as above), pp. 248-266.\n\nLincke, A.--Bericht ueber die Fortschritte der Assyriologie in den Jahren\n1886-1893. (Leipzig 1894.)\n\nFull bibliographical reports are given in:\n\n(1) The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures\n(University of Chicago; quarterly).\n\n(2) Jahrbuecher fuer Geschichte, ed. by I. Jastrow and E. Berner (Berlin;\nannual).\n\n(3) Orientalische Bibliographie, ed. by Lucian Scherman (Berlin;\nsemi-annual).\n\n(4) Zeitschrift fuer Assyriologie, ed. by C. Bezold (Munich; quarterly).\n\n(5) Revue d'Assyriologie et d'Archeologie Orientale, ed. by J. Oppert\nand E. Ledrain (Paris; published at irregular intervals).\n\n\nII.\n\nGeneral Works and Articles on the Religion of Babylonia and Assyria.\n\n\nBerger, P.--'Assyrie' in Lichtenberger's 'Encyclopedie des Sciences\nReligieuses.'\n\nBoscawen, W. St. Chad.--Lectures on the Religion of Babylonia [abstract]\nBOR III. 118-120, 150-163.\n\n---- The Religion of Babylonia in 'Religious Systems of the World.'\n(Swan Sonnenschein & Co. 1896. pp. 15-25.)\n\nDelitzsch, Friedrich.--The Religion of the Kassites. H 1885. 189-191.\n\n    [From Delitzsch's 'Sprache der Kossaer.' Leipzig 1884. pp.\n    51-54.]\n\nEerdmans, B. D.--Babylonian-Assyrian Religion.\n\n    [In 'Progress,' a publication issued by the University\n    Association, Chicago, Ill. 3d series, No. 6 (1897), pp.\n    403-415.]\n\nFinzi, Felice.--Ricerche per lo Studio dell' Antichita Assira. (Rome\n1872.) Libro Secondo. Mitologia, pp. 433-554.\n\n    [General sketch of the religion, more particularly of the\n    pantheon and legends of Babylonia and Assyria.]\n\nGuyard, S.--Bulletin de la Religion Assyro-Babylonienne. RHR I. 327-345;\nV. 253-278.\n\nHalevy, Joseph.--La Religion des Anciens Babyloniens et son plus recent\nhistorien M. Sayce. RHR XVII. 169-218.\n\n    [Elaborate review of Sayce's work on the 'Religion of the\n    Babylonians,' with summary of Halevy's own views.]\n\nHeuzey, Leon.--Description of Monuments in De Sarzec's 'Decouvertes en\nChaldee.' (Paris 1889-1891.) pp. 77-240.\n\n    [Contains much valuable information on religious art, votive\n    objects, representations of religious ceremonies. The\n    publication is not yet complete.]\n\nHewitt, J. F.--Early History of Northern India, Part III. JRAS, 1889,\n527-583.\n\n    [An attempt to trace the origin of Indian civilization to\n    emigrants from southern Babylonia. The investigation has little\n    value.]\n\nHincks, Edward.--On the Assyrian Mythology. RIA Transactions XXII.\nPolite Literature, 1854, 405-422.\n\nHommel, F.--Die Semitischen Voelker und Sprachen. (Leipzig 1883.) pp.\n356-396. Die Religion der alten Babylonier, pp. 266-356. Sprache und\nLiteratur der Sumero-Akkadier.\n\n    [Specimens of hymns and incantations.]\n\nJeremias, Friedrich.--'Die Babylonier und Assyrier' in Chantepie de la\nSaussaye's 'Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte.' (2d ed. Freiburg 1897.)\nI. 163-221.\n\n    [An excellent sketch of the Babylonian-Assyrian religion.]\n\nLenormant, Francois.--Les Sciences Occultes en Asie. I. La Magie chez\nles Chaldeens et les Origines Accadiennes. II. La Divination et la\nScience des Presages chez les Chaldeens. (Paris 1874-1875.)\n\n    [Also in English translation (in part) under the title\n    'Chaldaean Magic.' London 1877.]\n\nLoisy, A.--Etudes sur la Religion Chaldeo-Assyrienne. (RR, 1890-1892.)\n\n    [Seven articles.]\n\nMeyer, Ed.--Geschichte des Alterthums. I. 174-183. (Stuttgart 1884.)\n\nMuerdter und Delitzsch.--Kurzgefasste Geschichte Babyloniens und\nAssyriens. (2d ed. Stuttgart 1891.) pp. 23-53.\n\nOppert, J.--'Babylone et Chaldee' in Lichtenberger's 'Encyclopedie des\nSciences Religieuses.'\n\nPinches, T. G.--The Religious Ideas of the Babylonians. JTVI XXVIII.\n1-22.\n\nPressense, E. de.--La Religion Chaldeo-Assyrienne. RHR XIV. 73-94.\n\nRawlinson, George.--The Religions of the Ancient World. (New York 1883.)\n\n    [Chapter II.--The Religion of the Assyrians and Babylonians.]\n\n---- The Religion of Assyria in 'Religious Systems of the World.' (Swan\nSonnenschein & Co. London 1896.) pp. 26-41.\n\nRawlinson, H. C.--The Religion of the Babylonians and Assyrians.\n\n    [In George Rawlinson's 'The History of Herodotus.' London 1859.\n    Vol. I. Essay X.]\n\nSayce, A. H.--The Origin and Growth of Religion as Illustrated by the\nReligion of the Ancient Babylonians. (London 1887.)\n\n    [Brilliant and suggestive, but unreliable in details. The\n    translations attached to the volume are to be accepted with\n    caution. See Halevy's elaborate review, RHR XVII. 169-218.]\n\nStrong, S. A.--Die Religion der Babylonier.\n\n    [Announced to appear.]\n\nSchwally, F.--'Die Religion der Babylonier und Assyrier,' in Friedrich\nvon Hellwald's 'Kulturgeschichte in ihrer natuerlichen Entwicklung bis\nzur Gegenwart.' (4th ed. Leipzig 1896.) I. 423-433.\n\nTiele, C. P.--Babylonisch-Assyrische Geschichte. (1886.) pp. 515-557.\nReligion: Die Mythologie und Glaubenslehre.\n\n---- Vergelijkende Geschiedenis der Aegyptische en Mesopotamische\nGodsdiensten. (Amsterdam 1869.) pp. 282-413. De Godsdienst van Babel en\nAssur.\n\n    [French translation (abridged) by G. Collins, 'Histoire Comparee\n    des Anciennes Religions de l'Egypte et des Peuples Semitiques.'\n    Paris 1882, pp. 145-255. La Religion de Babylonie et de\n    l'Assyrie. Also English translation by J. Ballingue. 1882.]\n\n---- Geschichte der Religion im Alterthum bis auf Alexander den Grossen.\n(Gotha 1895.) I. 127-216. Die Religion in Babylonien und Assyrien.\n\n    [Also in Dutch. Amsterdam 1893.]\n\n\nIII.\n\nPantheon, Gods, Spirits, Heroes.\n\n\nBall, C. J.--Tammuz, the Swine-god. PSBA XVI. 195-200.\n\nBarton, G. A.--The Semitic Ishtar Cult. H IX. 131-165; X. 1-73.\n\n---- Was Ilu Ever a Distinct Deity in Babylonia? H X. 206, 207.\n\nBezold, C.--A Cuneiform List of Gods. PSBA XI. 173, 174; see also IX.\n377.\n\n---- Note on the god Addu or Daddu. _Ib._ p. 377.\n\n---- Ueber Keilinschriftliche Babylonisch-Assyrische Goettertypen. ZA IX.\n114-125, 405-409.\n\nChwolson, D. A.--Ueber Tammuz und die Menschenverehrung bei den alten\nBabyloniern. (St. Petersburg 1860.)\n\nDe Cara, Caesare.--Identificazione d'Iside e d'Osiride con Ishtar ed\nAshur. 8th ICO, Section Semitique 2^me Fasc, 275-278.\n\nDelitzche, Friedrich.--Article on 'Thammuz' in 'Calwer, Bibellexikon.'\n(Calw und Stuttgart 1885.)\n\n---- Articles on Dagon, Merodach, Nebo, Nergal, Nisroch, Rimmon. _Ib._\n\nEerdmans, B.--Goddess A (or Malkatu) in 'Melekdienst en Vereering von\nHemellichamen in Israel's Assyrische Periode.' (Leiden 1891.) pp. 73-82.\n\nGuyard, S.--Le Dieu Assyrien Ninib. RC, 1879, 1^er Mars.\n\nHoffmann, G.--Neue und Alte Goetter (Nin-gal, Nusku, Ea, Nabu, Gibil,\nNinib, Nergal, Sin). ZA XI. 258-292.\n\n    [Chiefly discussions of symbols of these deities found upon seal\n    cylinders.]\n\nHommell, Fritz.--Die Identitaet der aeltesten Babylonischen und\nAegyptischen Goettergenealogie und der Babylonische Ursprung der\nAegyptischen Kultur. 9th ICO II. 218-244.\n\n---- Note on Ninib. PSBA XIX. 312-314.\n\nJastrow, Morris, Jr.--On the Assyrian Kuduru and the Ring of the Sun-god\nin the Abu-Habba Tablet. PAOS, Oct. 1888. XCV.-XCVIII.\n\nJensen, P.--Ueber einige Sumero-Akkadische und Babylonisch-Assyrische\nGoetternamen. ZA, 1886. I. 1-24.\n\n    [Anshar, Ashur, Igigi, Duzu, or Tammuz. _Cf._ Schrader's\n    remarks, _ib._ pp. 209-217.]\n\n---- Die Goetter Amurru und Ashratu. ZA XI. 302-305.\n\n---- Nik(k)al-Sharratu; Sharratu in Harran. ZA XI. 293-301.\n\nJeremias, A.--Articles on Ashur, Marduk, Nebo, Nergal, Shamash, Sin,\nTammuz in Roscher's 'Ausfuehrliches Lexikon der Griechischen und\nRoemischen Mythologie.'\n\n    [Articles on Adar, Anu, Anunnaki, Ea, Etana announced to appear\n    in the supplement to Roscher's 'Ausfuehrliches Lexikon,' etc.]\n\nLenormant, Francois.--Il mito di Adone-Tammuz nei documenti cuneiformi.\n4th ICO, 1878. I. 143-173.\n\n---- Sur le nom de Tammuz. 1st ICO II. 149-165.\n\n---- Les Dieux de Babylone et de l'Assyrie. (Paris 1877.)\n\nLuzzato, P.--L'Existence d'un Dieu Assyrien nomme Semiramis. JA, 4th\nSeries, XVII. 465-480.\n\nLyon, D. G.--Was there at the Head of the Babylonian Pantheon a Deity\nbearing the Name El? PAOS, May 1883, clxiv.-clxviii.\n\n---- The Pantheon of Assurbanipal. PAOS, Oct. 1888, xciv., xcv.\n\nMenant, J.--Le Mythe de Dagon. RHR XI. 295-301.\n\n    [Also in 'Les Pierres Gravees de la Haute Asie. Recherches de la\n    Glyptique Orientale.' Paris 1883.]\n\n---- Le Pantheon Assyro-Chaldeen. Les Beltis. RHR VIII. 489-519.\n\n    [The representation of goddesses engraved on seal cylinders. See\n    also 'Les Pierres Gravees de la Haute Asie,' etc., as above.]\n\nMeyer, Eduard.--Articles Baal and Astarte (with references to Bel and\nIshtar) in Roscher's 'Ausfuehrliches Lexikon der Griechischen und\nRoemischen Mythologie.'\n\nNicolsky, M. V.--La Deesse des Cylindres et des Statuettes\nBabyloniennes. RAr, 3^me serie, XX. 36-43.\n\nOfford, J.--The Nude Goddess in Assyro-Babylonian Art. PSPA XVIII. 156,\n157.\n\nOppert, Jules.--La Vraie Assimilation de la Divinite de Tello. CR, 1884,\n231-233.\n\n---- Le Dieu de Sirtella [_i.e._, Lagash]. ZK II. 261, 262.\n\n    [M. Oppert accepts the reading Nin-girsu first proposed by\n    Arthur Amlaud. Ib. pp. 151, 152.]\n\n---- Adad. ZA IX. 310-314.\n\n    [Discussion of pronunciation. See also Hilprecht, 'Assyriaca,'\n    pp. 76-78, and Jastrow, AJSL XII. 143.]\n\nPinches, Theo. G.--Note upon the divine name A. PSBA XIII. 25-27, 42-56.\n\n---- Was Ninib the Most High God of Salem? Ib. XVI. 225-229.\n\n---- The Pronunciation of the Name of the Plague-god, Urra not Dibbarra.\nBOR I. 207, 208.\n\n    [See Scheil, RT. XX. 57.]\n\n---- A Bilingual List of Assyrian Gods. Academy, 1887, No. 816.\n\n    [See Evetts, _ib._ No. 819.]\n\nRawlinson, H. C.--Notes on Captain Durand's Report upon the Islands of\nBahrein. JRAS, 1880, 201-227.\n\n    [Contains important remarks on the origin of Ea worship at the\n    Persian Gulf, pp. 202-208.]\n\nReisner, George.--The Different Classes of Babylonian Spirits. PAOS,\nApril 1892, cxcv., cxcvi.\n\nRevillout, E. and V.--Istar Taribi. BOR II. 57-59.\n\nRobiou, F. A.--A Study on Egyptian and Babylonian Triads. IAQR, 1894.\n\nSayce, A. H.--Who was Dagon? SST, 1893, No. 21.\n\n---- The God Ramman. ZA II. 331, 332.\n\nScheil, Fr. V.--Le Dieu-roi Bur-Sin Planete. ZA XII. 265, 266.\n\n---- Ishtar sous la symbole de la vache. RT XX. 62.\n\n---- Le Culte de Gudea. RT XVIII. 64-74.\n\nSchrader, E.--Die Goettin Ishtar als Malkatu und Sharratu. ZA III.\n353-364; IV. 74, 75\n\n---- Die Malkat hash-Shamayim und ihr Aramaeisch-Assyrisches Aequivalent.\nKAW Sitzungsberichte, 1886, 477-491.\n\n    [See also Stade in ZATW VI. 123-132; 289-339; and Kuenen KAA\n    Afdeeling 'Letterkunde,' 1888, 157-189.]\n\nTalbot, H. Fox.--The Legend of Ishtar Descending to Hades. TSBA II.\n179-212. See also RPI, 141-149.\n\nThureau-Daugin, Fr.--La Lecture de l'Ideogramme AN-IM (Ramman). JA, 9th\nSeries, II. 385-393.\n\n    [See also Oppert, _ib._ pp. 393-396.]\n\nTiele, C. P.--- La Deesse Ishtar surtout dans le mythe Babylonien. 6th\nICO, Part II. Section I. 493-506.\n\n    [See also discussion in the Comptes Rendus of the Congress, pp.\n    87-91.]\n\n---- Die Beteekenis van Ea en zijn verkoudung tot Marduk en Nabu. KAA\nVerslagen en Mededeelingen 'Letterkunde,' 1887, 67-81.\n\nWard, W. H.--The Babylonian Gods in Babylonian Art. PAOS, May 1890,\nxv.-xviii.\n\n---- Was there a Babylonian Gate-god? Academy, 1888, No. 847.\n\nWinckler, H.--Die Istar von Nineve in Egypten. MVG I. 286-289.\n\nWitte, J. de.--Sur le nom de Thamouz attribue a Adonis. M, 1887, 81\n_seq._\n\nZehnpfund, R.--Altbabylonische Goetter und Heldensagen. BAZ, 1891, Nos.\n39, 40, 52, 56, 63.\n\n\nIV.\n\nReligious Texts.\n\n_Hymns, Incantations, Omens, Oracles, Prayers, Legends, Myths, Votive\nTexts._\n\nBall, C. J.--A Bilingual Hymn (IVR 46, 5-19) PSBA XV. 51-54.\n\n---- A Babylonian Ritual Text. JRAS, 1892, 841-853.\n\nBanks, E. J.--Sumerisch-Babylonische Hymnen der von George Reisner\nherausgegebenen Sammlung, umschrieben, uebersetzt und erklaert. (Breslau\n1897.)\n\nBarton, G. A.--Esarhaddon's Account of the Restoration of Ishtar's\nTemple at Erech. PAOS, May 1891, cxxx.-cxxxii.\n\nBertin, G.--Akkadian Hymn to the Setting Sun. RP, new series, II.\n190-193.\n\nBezold, C.--Remarks on Some Unpublished Cuneiform Syllabaries with\nRespect to Prayers and Incantations written in Interlinear Form. PSBA X.\n418-423.\n\n---- Translation and Analysis of a Hymn to the Sun-god (Sp III.). RA I.\n157-161.\n\nBoissier, Alfred.--Deux Documents Assyriens relatifs aux Presages. RS I.\n63-70, 168-172.\n\n---- Documents Assyriens relatifs aux Presages.\n\n    [Vols. I. and II., Paris 1894-1897. Vol. III. announced.]\n\n---- Notes d'Assyriologie. RS VI. 143-151.\n\n    [Two texts--a Prayer and an Incantation.]\n\nBoscawen, W. St. Chad.--The Babylonian Legend of the Serpent Tempter.\nBOR IV. 251-255.\n\n---- Babylonian Teraphim. BOR I. 39, 40.\n\n---- The Legend of the Tower of Babel. RP III. 129-132; also in the TSBA\nV. 303-312.\n\n    [The interpretation is erroneous.]\n\nBruennow, R.--Assyrian Hymns. ZA IV. 1-40, 225-258; V. 55-80.\n\n   [Hymns to Shamash, Marduk, and Ishtar.]\n\nBudge, Ernest A.--Assyrian Incantations to Fire and Water. RP XI.\n133-138; also in TSBA VI. 420-435.\n\nCraig, Jas. A.--Prayer of the Assyrian King Ashurbanipal. H X. 75-87.\n\n---- Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts, Vols. I. and II. (Leipzig\n1895-1897.) AB XIII.\n\n    [Announces also volumes of texts (1) Prayers to Shamash and\n    Ramman, and (2) Series 'Illumination of Bel.']\n\n---- K 69 (a hymn). ZA XI. 276.\n\n---- An Assyrian Incantation to the God Sin, cir. 650 B.C. H XI.\n101-109.\n\nDelattre, A. J.--The Oracles Given in Favor of Esarhaddon. RP, new\nseries, III. 25-31; see also BOR III. 25-31.\n\nDelitzsch, Friedrich.--Babylonisch-Assyrisches Psalmbuch.\n\n    [Announced to appear in the 'Abhandlungen der koeniglichen\n    Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig.']\n\n---- Assyrische Lesestuecke. (Leipzig 1885. 3d ed.)\n\n    [Contains a selection of religious texts as follows: pp. 93-99,\n    Creation tablets; 99-104, Deluge episode; 117, 118, Oracle to\n    Esarhaddon; 130-132, Incantations; 134-136, Hymn to Ishtar.]\n\nEvetts, B. T. A.--An Assyrian Religious Text. PSBA X. 478, 479 and two\nplates.\n\n    [Apparently a royal prayer.]\n\nHalevy, J.--Assyrian Fragments. RP XI. 157-162.\n\n    [Part of a hymn, of a penitential psalm, etc.]\n\n---- Documents religieux de l'Assyrie et de la Babylonie. (Paris 1882.)\n\n---- Textes religieux Babyloniens en double Redaction. RS IV. 150-160,\n245-251, 344-348.\n\n---- 'Les Inscriptions peints de Citium' in 'Melanges de Critique et\nd'Histoire,' pp. 165-196.\n\n    [Translation in large part and discussion of Ishtar's descent\n    into the nether world.]\n\nHarper, Edward T.--Die Babylonischen Legenden von Etana, Zu, Adapa und\nDibbarra. BA II. 390-521.\n\n    [See also Academy 1891, No. 976.]\n\nHaupt, Paul.--Akkadische und Sumerische Keilschrifttexte. (Leipzig\n1881-1882.)\n\n    [Contains pp. 75-79, 82-106 Incantations; 79, 115-131 Hymns and\n    Psalms.]\n\nJastrow, Morris, Jr.--A fragment of the Babylonian \"Dibbarra\" Epic.\nPublications of the University of Pennsylvania. Series in Philology,\nLiterature, and Archaeology, Vol. 1., No. 2. (Boston 1891.)\n\n---- A new Fragment of the Babylonian Etana Legend. BA III. 363-384.\n\nJensen, P.--De Incantamentorum Sumerico-Assyrorum seriei quae dicitur\n\"surbu\" Tabula VI. ZK I. 279-322; II. 15-61; also 306-311, 416-425.\n\n    [Appeared as a revised and separate publication under same title\n    with the addition of the words \"commentatio Philologica.\"\n    Munich, Straub, 1885.]\n\n---- Hymnen auf das Wiedererscheinen der drei grossen Lichtgoetter. ZA\nII. 76-94, 191-204.\n\n    [Hymns to Sin, Shamash, and Ishtar. A volume by Jensen,\n    embodying translation of religious texts is in course of\n    preparation for Schrader's 'Keitschriftliche Bibliothek.']\n\nJeremias, A.--Die Hoellenfahrt der Ishtar. Eine altbabylonische\nBeschwoerungslegende. (Munich 1886.)\n\nKing, L. W.--Babylonian Magic and Sorcery, being 'the Prayers of the\nLifting of the Hand.' (London 1896.)\n\n---- New Fragments of the Dibbarra Legend. ZA XI. 50-62.\n\nKnudtzon, J. A.--Assyrische Gebete an den Sonnengott fuer Staat und\nkoenigliches Haus aus der Zeit Asarhaddons und Assurbanipals. Band I.\nAutographierte Texte; Band II. Einleitung, Umschrift und Erklaerung\nVerzeichnisse. (Leipzig 1893.)\n\nLenormant, Francois.--Chaldaean Hymns to the Sun. RP X. 119-128.\n\n---- Hymne au Soleil. Texte primitif Accadien. JA, 7^th Series, XII.\n378; XIII. 1-98; postscriptum _ib_. XIV. 264, 265.\n\n---- Une Incantation Magique Chaldeenne. RAr, 2^d Series, XXXIV.\n254-262.\n\n---- Lettres Assyriologiques. 2^me Serie Etudes Accadiennes, Vols. II.\nand III. (Paris 1874-1879.)\n\n    [Contains numerous hymns and incantations accompanied by a\n    French translation.]\n\n---- Translations of religious texts in 'Les Origines de l'Histoire\nd'apres la Bible et les Traditions des Peuples orientaux.' (Paris\n1880-1882.) 2 vols.\n\nLyon, D. G.--Assyrian and Babylonian Royal Prayers. PAOS, October 1888.\nXCIII., XCIV.\n\n---- On a Sacrificial Tablet from Sippar. PAOS, May 1886, xxx.\n\nMesserschmidt, L.--Tabula VA. Th. 246, Babylonica Musei Berolinensis\nprimum editur commentarioque instruitur. (Kirchhain 1896.)\n\n    [A hymn.]\n\nOppert, J.--'Chants et Invocations' in Eichoff and David 'Chef\nd'[oe]uvres litteraires de l'Inde, de la Perse, de l'Egypte et de la\nChine.' (Paris.) II. 211-219.\n\n    [Translations of selected prayers, hymns, and incantations.]\n\n---- Fragments Mythologiques. (Paris 1882.)\n\n    [Reprints of several articles.]\n\n---- Translation of III. Rawlinson, pl. 65, in JA, 6^th Series, XVIII.\n449-453.\n\n---- Hymnes en Sumerien et en Accadien ou Assyrien, 1st ICO. II.\n217-224.\n\n    [A hymn to Ishtar in dialogue form.]\n\n---- Le Champ Sacre de la Deesse Nina. CR, 1893, 326-344. See also ZA\nVII. 360-374.\n\n    [Contains important remarks about the goddess Nina, in\n    connection with the text published by Hilprecht, 'Old Babylonian\n    Inscriptions', I. 1, pls. 30, 31.]\n\n---- Traduction de Quelques Textes Assyriens.... Louange du Dieu Nibir\net de ses sept Attributions. 4th ICO I. 233-235.\n\n---- L'Immortalite de l'ame chez les Chaldeens. (Paris 1875.)\n\n    [Legend of Ishtar's descent to the lower world.]\n\n---- Chant en Sumerien et en Assyrien sur une epidemie. JA, 7^th Series,\nI. 289-293.\n\n    [Translation of tablet K 1284 (incantation against Namtar) and\n    of IIR 19.]\n\n---- Notice sur d'anciennes formules d'Incantation et autres dans une\nlangue anterieure au Babylonien. JA, 7^th Series, I. 113-122.\n\n    [Translation of II Rawl. 17, 18.]\n\n---- Babylonian legends found at Khorsabad. RP XI. 41-44.\n\n    [See also translations of various religious texts in 'Expedition\n    Scientifique en Mesopotamie,' pp. 328-350.]\n\nPeiser, F. E.--Ein Satz in den Beschwoerungsformeln. ZA II. 102, 103.\n\nPinches, T. G.--An Erechite's Lament. RP, new series, I. 84, 85.\n\n    [A penitential psalm with historical references; see also BOR I,\n    21-23.]\n\n---- The Oracle of Ishtar of Arbela. RP XI. 59-72; also RP, new series,\nV. 129-140.\n\n---- Sin-Gashid's Gift to the Temple E-Ana. BOR I. 8-11. See also RP,\nnew series, I. 78-83.\n\n---- and E. A. W. Budge.--Some New Texts in the Babylonian Character,\nrelating Principally to the Restoration of Temples. PSBA, 1884. pp.\n179-182.\n\nRawlinson, H. C.--A Selection from the Miscellaneous Inscriptions of\nWestern Asia. Vol. IV. 2d ed. revised (and with additions) by T. G.\nPinches. (London 1891.)\n\n    [This fourth volume of the publications of tablets in the\n    British Museum is almost exclusively devoted to religious texts.\n    In the other volumes some texts of this character will be found\n    as follows: Vol. II. pls. 17-19, incantations; 51-61, names and\n    titles of gods and temples; miscellaneous. Vol. III. pls. 61-65,\n    astronomical and astrological reports, omen tablets and\n    portents; 66-69, lists and titles of gods and temples;\n    miscellaneous. Vol. V. pl. 31, omen tablets (with explanations);\n    43, titles of Nebo, etc.; 46, No. 2, lists of gods and their\n    epithets; 47, prayer (with commentary); 48, 49, religious\n    calendar; 50, 51, hymn to Shamash. Note also that many of the\n    historical tests in Vols. I.-V. contain invocations to gods.]\n\nReisner, George.--Sumerisch-Babylonische Hymnen nach Thontafeln\nGriechischer Zeit. (Berlin 1896.) Koenigliche Museen zu Berlin.\nMittheilungen aus den Orientalischen Sammlungen No. X.\n\nSayce, A. H.--Accadian Hymn to Istar. RP I. 155-160.\n\n---- Accadian Poem on the Seven Evil Spirits. _Ib._ IX. 144-148.\n\n---- An Accadian Liturgy. _Ib._ III. 125-130.\n\n---- An Accadian Penitential Hymn. _Ib._ VII. 151-156.\n\n---- Ancient Babylonian Charms. _Ib._ III. 145-154.\n\n    [Shurpu Series, 6th Tablet.]\n\n---- An Assyrian Talismanic Tablet. BOR III. 17, 18.\n\n---- Babylonian Augury by means of Geometrical Figures. TSBA IV.\n302-314.\n\n---- Fragment of an Assyrian Prayer after a Bad Dream. RP IX. 149-152.\n\nSayce, A. H.--Babylonian Exorcisms. _Ib._ I. 131-135.\n\n---- Tables of Omens Furnished by Dogs and Births. _Ib._ V. 167-176.\n\n---- The Dedication of three Babylonians to the service of the Sun-god\nat Sippara. RP, new series, IV. 109-113.\n\n    [Interpretation false.]\n\n---- The Overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah (Accadian Account). RP XI.\n115-118.\n\n    [Title, translation, and Interpretation alike fanciful.]\n\n---- Two Accadian Hymns. _Ib._ XI. 129-132.\n\n---- Two Hymns to the Sun-god [in preface, pp. ix.-x., to RP, new\nseries, IV., 1890].\n\n    [Copious translations of magical texts, hymns, legends, etc., by\n    Sayce in Hibbert Lectures on 'The Religion of the Ancient\n    Babylonians.' London 1887. See especially pp. 441-540.]\n\nScheil, F. V.--Psaume de Penitence Chaldeen inedit, RB, 1896, 75-78.\n\n---- Legende Chaldeenne trouvee a El-Amarna [Adapa]. RR Mars-Avril 1891.\n\n---- Choix des Textes Religieux Assyriens. RHR XXXVI. 197-207.\n\n---- Fragments de Poesie lyrique Babylonienne. RB VI. 28-30.\n\n---- Fragment mythologique avec mention de Uddushu-namir patesi. RT XX.\n62, 63.\n\n---- Hymne Babylonien avec metre appartent. ZA XI. 291-298.\n\nSchrader, E.--Die Hoellenfahrt der Ishtar. Ein Altbabylonisches Epos.\n(Giessen 1874.)\n\nSmith, S. A.--Miscellaneous Texts. (Leipzig 1887.) pp. 1-5, 8-10.\n\n    [Portions of the Creation Series.]\n\nStrong, S. Arthur.--A Prayer of Assurbanipal. RP, new series, VI.\n102-106; also 9th ICO II. 199-208.\n\n---- Note on a Fragment of the Adapa Legend. PSBA XX. 274-279.\n\n---- On Some Oracles to Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. BA II. 627-645.\n\n---- Votive Inscriptions. RP, new series, IV. 90-95.\n\n---- A Hymn to Nebuchadnezzar. PSBA XX. 154-162.\n\nTalbot, H. Fox.--A Prayer and a Vision. TSBA I. 346-348 and RP VII.\n65-68.\n\n    [Ashurbanabal's prayer to Ishtar and dream sent by the goddess.]\n\n---- Assyrian Sacred Poetry. RP III. 131-138.\n\n    [Prayers and incantations.]\n\n---- Assyrian Talismans and Exorcisms. _Ib._ III. 139-144.\n\n---- War of the Seven Evil Spirits Against Heaven. _Ib._ V. 161-166.\n\n    [Incantation text]\n\nTallquist, K. L.--Die Assyrische Beschwoerungsserie Maqlu. (Leipzig\n1894.)\n\nWeissbach, F. H.--Ueber die ersten Tafeln im IV. Bande Rawlinsons.\n\n    [Announced.]\n\n---- Eine Sumerisch-Assyrische Beschwoerungsformel IV. Rawl. 16, No. 1 in\n'Melanges Charles de Harlez.' (Leiden 1896.) pp. 360-371.\n\nWinckler, H. and Abel Ludwig.--Thontafelfund von El-Amarna. (Berlin\n1891.)\n\n    [Vol III. pp. 166, _a_ and _b_. Legend of Adapa; see Erman In\n    KAW Sitzungsberichte XXIII. 585; Lehmann, ZA III. 380; other\n    mythological fragments, pp. 164-165.]\n\nZimmern, Heinrich.--Babylonische Busspsalmen, umschrieben, uebersetzt und\nerklaert. (Leipzig 1885.) BA VI.\n\n    [Also published in part as a thesis.]\n\n---- Beitraege zur Kenntniss der Babylonischen Religion. Erste Lieferung.\nDie Beschwoerungslafeln Shurpu. (Leipzig 1896.) AB XII.\n\n---- Zusatzbemerkungen zur Legende von Adapa. BA II. 437, 438.\n\n---- Hexenbeschwoerungen bei den Babyloniern. BAZ, 1891, No. 337.\n\n---- An Old Babylonian Legend from Egypt [Adapa]. SST, 1892, No. 25.\n\n\nV.\n\nCosmology.\n\n\nBarton, G. A.--Tiamat. JAOS XV. 1-28; also PAOS, May 1890, xiii.-xv.\n\nBrunengo, Giuseppe.--L'Impero di Babilonia e di Ninive. (2 vols. Prato\n1885.) Capo I. La Cosmogonia de Caldei comparata alla Mosaica, pp.\n67-85. Capo II. La Ribellione degli Angeli e la Caduta del Uomo,\n(_i.e._, Marduk and Tiamat story), pp. 86-108. Capo IV. La Storia del\nDiluvio, pp. 124-140.\n\nBudge, E. A. W.--The Fourth Tablet of the Creation Series, relating to\nthe fight between Marduk and Tiamat. PSBA VI. 5-11.\n\n---- Fourth Tablet of the Creation Series. PSBA X. 86 and six pls.\n\nDelitzsch, Friedrich.--Texte zur Weltschoepfung und zur Auflehnung und\nBekaempfung der Schlange Tiamat. AL, 3d ed., 1885. pp. 93-99.\n\n---- Das Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos. (Leipzig 1896.)\n\nEngel, Moritz.--Die Loesung der Paradiesfrage. (Leipzig 1885.)\n\nHalevy, J.--La Cosmologie Babylonienne d'apres M. Jensen. RHR XXII.\n180-208.\n\n    [Summary and critique of Jensen's 'Kosmologie der Babylonier.']\n\n---- Recherches Bibliques--L'Histoire des Origines d'apres la Genese.\nTexte, Traduction et Commentaire. Tome I. Genese I.-XXV. (Paris 1895.)\n\n    [Contains translations of the Babylonian Cosmological Texts, and\n    discusses their bearings on the O. T. narrative. A most\n    suggestive work.]\n\n---- Recherches Bibliques--Chapter 28, La Creation et les Vicissitudes\ndu Premier Homme. RS I. 101-117, 193-202.\n\n    [Transliteration, translation, and discussion of the Babylonian\n    Creation Tablets.]\n\nHommel, F.--Eine Neugefundene Weltschoepfungslegende. DR, 1892, 105-114;\nsee also Neue Kirchliche Zeitung, I. 393 _seq._, II. 89 _seq._\n\n---- The Oldest Cosmogony. SST, 1891, No. 7.\n\nJensen, P.--Die Kosmologie der Babylonier. Studien und Materialien.\n(Strassburg 1890.)\n\nJensen, P.--Ursprung und Geschichte des Tierkreises. DR, 1890, 112-116.\n\nLajard, F.--Fragments d'un Memoire sur le Systeme theogonique et\ncosmogonique des Assyriens ou des Chaldeens d'Assyrie. JA, 2^d Series,\nXIV. 114-143.\n\nLaurie, Thomas.--Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Deluge. Bibliotheca\nSacra, XLII. 165-168.\n\nLenormant, F.--Essai de Commentaire sur les Fragments cosmogoniques de\nBerose. (Paris 1871.)\n\n    [An elaborate treatise on the traditions of Berosus in\n    connection with the cuneiform account of creation.]\n\nLoisy, A.--Les Mythes Chaldeens de la Creation et du Deluge. (Amiens\n1892.) RR, 1896.\n\n    [From RR, 1890-1891. See Sec.I.]\n\nLukas, FR.--Die Grundbegriffe in den Kosmogonieen der Alten Voelker.\n1893. pp. 1-46.\n\n    [Translations by Jensen, pp. 1-14. Die Kosmogonie der Babylonler\n    und der Genesis.]\n\nMueller, D. H.--Die Propheten in ihrer Urspruenglichen Form. (Wien 1895.)\npp. 6-13.\n\n    [Translation of considerable portions of the Babylonian creation\n    narratives. Follows Zimmern.]\n\nMuss-Arnolt, W.--The Cuneiform Account of the Creation. Revised\ntranslation. BW III. 17-27.\n\n---- A Comparative Study of the Translations of the Babylonian Creation\nTablets, with special reference to Jensen's 'Kosmologie' and Barton's\n'Tiamat.' H IX. 6-23.\n\nOppert, J.--Fragments Cosmogoniques in Ledrain's 'Histoire d'Israel.'\n(Paris 1882.) pp. 411-422.\n\n    [Translation of Creation Series of tablets of deluge.]\n\n---- Le Poeme Chaldeen du Deluge. (Paris 1885.)\n\n---- Die Fragmente der Epopoeen welche die Schoepfung und Sintfluth nach\nbabylonischer Auffassung betreffen. Verhandlungen Deutscher Philologen\nund Schulmaenner, XXXIV. 128, 129.\n\n---- Traductions de quelques textes Assyriens.--Fragments des Recits de\nla Creation.--Guerre de Merodach et Tiamat. 4th ICO, 229-238.\n\nPinches, T. G.--A Babylonian Duplicate of Tablets I. and II. of the\nCreation Series. BOR IV. 25-33.\n\n---- The New Version of the Creation Story. 9th ICO, 1892. II. 190-198;\nalso JRAS, 1891, 393-408; and Academy, 1890, Nos. 968, 974, and the\nTimes, 1889, Dec. 16.\n\n---- The Non-Semitic Version of the Creation Story. RP, new series, VI.\n107-114.\n\nSayce, H.--The Assyrian Story of the Creation. RP, new series, I.\n122-146.\n\n---- Babylonian Legend of the Creation RP XI. 109-114.\n\n---- The Babylonian Story of the Creation according to the Tradition of\nCutha. RP, new series, I. 147-153.\n\nSchrader, E.--Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament. (London\n1885.) I. 1-22.\n\n    [Translation of portions of the Creation Series with comments;\n    third German edition announced.]\n\nSmith, George.--The Chaldaean Account of Genesis. (2d ed. London 1881.)\nGerman trans, ed. by Friedrich Delitzsch (Leipzig 1876), under the title\n'Chaldaeische Genesis.'\n\n---- On Some Fragments of the Chaldaean Account of the Creation. TSBA\nIV. 363, 364.\n\nStucken, Ed.--Astralmythen der Hebraer, Babylonier und Aegypter. I. und\nII. Theil. (Leipzig 1896-1897.)\n\n    [Rather fanciful.]\n\nTalbot, H. Fox.--The Fight between Bel and the Dragon. RP IX. 135-140.\n\n    [Portion of the Creation Series.]\n\n---- The Fight between Bel and the Dragon and the Flaming Sword which\nturned every way. TSBA V. 1-21.\n\n---- The Chaldaean Account of the Creation. RP IX. 115-118; also TSBA V.\n426-440.\n\n---- The Revolt in Heaven, from a Chaldaean Tablet. TSBA IV. 349-362.\n\n    [Portions of the Creation Series.]\n\nWarren, W. F.--Paradise Found. 10 ed. (Boston 1893.) Part IV. chapter 6.\nThe Cradle of the Race in Akkadian, Assyrian, and Babylonian Thought.\n\n    [Discussion in connection with a general theory of the site of\n    paradise.]\n\nWard, W. Hayes.--Contest between Bel-Merodach and the Dragon. PAOS, May\n1879. X.\n\n---- Dragon and Serpent in Chaldaean Mythology. PAOS, Oct. 1879, xvii.\n\n---- Bel and the Dragon. AJSL XIV. 94-105.\n\n---- The Dragon Tiamat in Babylonian and Assyrian Art. PAOS, Oct. 1889,\nclxviii-clxix.\n\nZimmern, H.--Translations of the Babylonian Creation and Deluge Stories\nin Gunkel's 'Schoepfung und Chaos,' pp. 401-428.\n\n---- 'Koenig Tukulli bei nisi und die Kuthaische Schoepfungslegende.' ZA\nXII. 317-330.\n\n    [Translation of the Cuthaean Version of the Creation Story.]\n\n\nVI.\n\nThe Gilgamesh Epic\n\n(_including the Deluge Story._)\n\n\nAdler, C.--The Legends of Semiramis and the Nimrod Epic. JHUC, No. 55.\n\nBoscawen, W. St. Chad.--Hymn to Gilgames. BOR VII. 121-125.\n\n---- The Twelfth Izdubar Legend. RP IX. 131-134.\n\nCasanowicz, I. M.--Professor Haupt's Nimrod Epic. JHUC, No. 98.\n\nCheyne, T. K.--Nimrod, a Kassite King. Academy, 1895, No. 47.\n\nDe Lacouperie, Terrien.--The Deluge Tradition and its Remains in Ancient\nChaldaea. BOR pp. 15-24, 49-55, 79-88, 102-111.\n\nDelitzsch, Friedrich.--Article 'Nimrod' in 'Calwer Bibellexikon.'\n\n---- Die Sintflutherzaehlung oder die elfte Tafel des Nimrod Epos. AL.\n(3d ed. Leipzig 1885.) 99-109.\n\nDryoff, K.--Wer ist Chadir? ZA XII. 319-327.\n\nGrivel, Josef.--Nimrod et les Ecritures Cuneiformes. TSBA III, 136-144.\n\n    [Proposed identification of Nimrod and Marduk. See also Sayce,\n    below.]\n\nHamilton, L. le Cenci.--Ishtar and Izdubar, the Epic of Babylon.\nRestored in modern verse. Vol. I. Illustrated. (London 1884.)\n\nHarper, E. T.--The Legend of Etana, Gilgamos and his Kindred in\nFolklore. Academy, 1891, No. 995; see also Nos. 985, 987, 988.\n\nHaupt, Paul.--The Cuneiform Account of the Deluge. OTS, 1883, 77-85.\n\n---- Das babylonische Nimrodepos. Keilschrifttext der sogenannten\nIzdubarlegenden mit dem Keilinschriftlichen Sintfluthberichte, nach den\nOriginalen im Britischen Museum copiert und herausgegeben. (Leipzig\n1884-1891.) 2 vols. AB III.\n\n---- Die zwoelfte Tafel des Babylonischen Nimrodepos. BA I. 48-79.\n\n---- On Two Passages in the Chaldaean Flood Tablet. PAOS, March 1894,\nCV.-CXI.\n\n---- On Some Passages in the Cuneiform Account of the Deluge, with\nspecial reference to the first column of the tablet. JHUC, No. 69.\n\n---- Ergebnisse einer neuen Collation der Izubar Legenden. BA I. 94-152.\nSee Halevy ZA IV. 61.\n\n---- On the Dimensions of the Babylonian Ark. PAOS, Oct. 1888,\nlxxxix.-xc.; see also AJP IX. 419-424.\n\n---- Der Keilinschriftliche Sintfluthbericht. Eine Episode des\nbabylonischen Nimrodepos. (Leipzig 1881.)\n\n---- Der Keilinschriftliche Sintfluthbericht. Umschrift, Uebersetzung,\nund Erlaeuterungen in Schrader's 'Die Keilinschriften und das Alte\nTestament,' 3d ed., 1898.\n\n    [Latest and most satisfactory translation.]\n\nHoffmann, G.--Die Dubar-Sage und der Keilinschriftliche\nSintfluthbericht. Die Grenzboten, Jahrgang 47.\n\nHommel, F.--Gis-dubarra, Gibilgamish, Nimrod. PSBA XV. 291-300; XVI.\n13-15.\n\nHeuzey, L.--La Lance Colossale d'Izbubar et les Nouvelles Formeles de M.\nde Sarzec. AI. Bulletin 1893, 305.\n\nJastrow, Morris, Jr.--The New Version of the Babylonian Account of the\nDeluge. The Independent, Feb. 10, 17, 1898.\n\nJensen, P.--Gishgimash (=Gilgamish) ein Kossaer? ZA VI. 340-342.\n\nJeremias, A.--Article 'Izdubar' in Roscher's 'Ausfuehrliches Lexikon der\nGriechischen und Roemischen Mythologie.' Vol. II. cols. 773-823.\n\n---- Izdubar-Nimrod. Eine Altbabylonische Heldensage nach den\nKeilschriftfragmenten dargestellt. (Leipzig 1891.) See also article by\nQuentin in RHR XXXI. 162-177.\n\nLenormant, F.--Le Deluge et l'Epopee Babylonienne. (Paris 1873.)\n\nLidzbarski.--Zu den Arabischen Alexandergeschichten. ZA VIII. 263-312.\nSee also _ib_., 317-319.\n\n---- Wer ist Chadhir? ZA VII. 104-116.\n\nMeissner, Bruno.--Alexander und Gilgamos. (Leipzig 1894.)\n\n---- Einige Bemerkungen zur Erklaerung des Sintfluthberichtes. ZA III.\n417-421.\n\nMenant, J.--Le Deluge. Noe dans l'arche. (Paris 1880.)\n\nMoor, Fl.--De la Geste de Gilgames confrontee avec la Bible et avec les\nDocuments Historiques indigenes. M, June 1897.\n\nMuss-Arnolt, W.--The Chaldaean Account of the Deluge. A revised\ntranslation. BW III. 109-118.\n\n---- Remarks Introductory to a Comparative Study on the Translations of\nthe Deluge Tablets. PAOS, April 1892, cxc.-cxcv.; also JHUC, No. 98.\n\nOfford, J.--A New Fragment of the Babylonian Deluge Story. PSBA XX. 53,\n54.\n\n    [Scheil's tablet from Sippara.]\n\nOppert, J.--The Chaldaean Perseus. BOR V. 1, 2; also CR, 1890, 464, 465.\n\n    [Identification of Izdubar-Gilgamesh with Gilgamos in Aelian's\n    zooelogical work 'De Natura Animalium,' XII. 21. See also Sayce\n    in the Academy, 1890, No. 966; Ward, _ib_., No. 971; and Kohler,\n    _ib_., 1891, No. 985.]\n\n---- Nimrod. Bulletin de l'Athenee Orientale, 1873, Jan.-Feb.\n\nOppert, J.--Le Poeme Chaldeen du Deluge. Traduit de l'Assyrien. (Paris\n1885.)\n\nPinches, T. G.--Exit Gishtubar. BOR IV, 264.\n\n    [Proposal to read the name of the Babylonian hero Gilgamesh.\n    _Cf._ Sayce in Academy, 1890, No. 966, and Ward, _ib._, No.\n    971.]\n\nRawlinson, H. C.--The Izdubar Legends. Athenaeum, 1872, No. 2354.\n\nRochette, Raoul.--Memoire sur l'Hercule Assyrien et Phenicien. AI\nMemoires, 2^me Partie, XVII. 9-374.\n\nSauveplane, F.--Une Epopee Babylonienne. Ishtubar-Gilgames. (Paris\n1894.)\n\nSayce, A. H.--On Nimrod and the Assyrian Inscription. TSBA II. 248, 249;\nsee also Academy, 1893, No. 1054.\n\n    [Proposed identification of Nimrod with Amar-ud = Marduk, the\n    head of the Babylonian Pantheon.]\n\n---- The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments. (London\n1894.) pp. 97-119.\n\nScheil, F. V.--Notes d'Epigraphie et d'Archeologie Assyrienne. XXX. Un\nFragment d'un Nouveau Recit du Deluge de l'Epoque du Roi Ammizaduga. RT\nXX. 55-59; see also RB, 1898, 5-9.\n\n---- The New Babylonian Account of the Deluge. The Independent, Jan. 20,\n1898.\n\nSmith, George.--The Chaldaean Account of the Deluge. TSBA II. 203-234.\n\n---- The Eleventh Tablet of the Izdubar Legends. The Chaldaean Account\nof the Deluge. TSBA III. 530-596; also RP VII. 133.\n\nSuess, Ed.--Die Sintfluth in 'Das Antlitz der Erde.' (Leipzig 1883.) pp.\n25-98.\n\n    [Discussion of the Babylonian tale with notes by Prof. Paul\n    Haupt.]\n\nTalbot, H. Fox.--Ishtar and Izdubar, being the 6th Tablet of the Izdubar\nSeries. Translated from the Cuneiform. TSBA V. 97-121; also RP IX.\n119-128.\n\n---- Commentary on the Deluge Tablet. TSBA IV. 49-83.\n\n---- Tablet in the British Museum Relating Apparently to the Deluge.\nTSBA IV. 129-131.\n\n    [Talbot's supposition is erroneous.]\n\n\nVII.\n\nBeliefs, Legends, Ethics, and Special Phrases of the Religion.\n\n\nAder, Cyrus.--The Views of the Babylonians Concerning Life after Death.\nAR, 1888, 92-101; see also PAOS, Oct. 1887, ccxxxviii.-ccxliii.\n\nBall, C. J.--Glimpses of Babylonian Religion. I. Human Sacrifices. II.\nThe Gods and Their Images. PSBA XIV. 149-162.\n\nBonavia, E.--The Sacred Trees of the Assyrian Monuments. BOR III. 7-12,\n35-40, 56-61; see also IV. 95, 96.\n\n---- The Sacred Trees of Assyria. 9th ICO, pp. 245-257.\n\n    [Arguments not conclusive.]\n\nBoscawen, W. St. Chad.--Notes on the Religion and Mythology of the\nAssyrians. TSBA IV. 267-301.\n\n---- Texts Bearing on the Belief in Immortality. (1) 12^th Izdubar\nTablet. (2) Descent of Ishtar. (3) 7^th Izdubar Tablet. (4) Hymn to\nMarduk. BOR IV. 251-254.\n\n---- Babylonian Witchcraft. ET, 1898, 228-230.\n\n---- Notes on Assyrian Religion and Mythology. TSBA VI. 535-542.\n\n    [Translations of some religious texts. General remarks.]\n\n---- Babylonian Teraphim. BOR I. 39, 40.\n\n---- The Babylonian Legend of the Serpent Tempter. BOR IV. 251-255.\n\n---- Oriental Eschatology (Egypt and Chaldaea). BOR VI. 38-42.\n\n---- The Plague Legends of Chaldaea. BOR I. 11-14.\n\nClermont-Ganneau.--L'Enfer Assyrien. RAr, 2d Series, XXXVIII. 337-349.\n\nCraig, James A.--The Babylonian Ishtar Epic. OTS VIII. 249-256.\n\nGoessling, E.--Die Hoelle nach Babylonisch-Assyrischer Anschauung. TZ,\n1895, No. 3.\n\nHalevy, J.--L'Immortalite de l'Ame chez les Peuples Semitiques. RAr, 2d\nSeries, XLIV. 44-53.\n\n    [Translation and discussion of Ishtar's descent into the nether\n    world.]\n\nHalevy, J.--Le Rapt de Persephone ou Proserpine par Pluton chez les\nBabyloniens. RS I. 372-376.\n\nHaug, M.--Die Unsterblichkeit der Seele bei den Chaldaeern. BAZ, 1875,\nNos. 70, 71.\n\nHeuzey, L.--Mythes Chaldeens. RA, 3d Series, XXVI. 295-308.\n\nHilprecht, H. V.--Serpent and Tree in Babylonian Records. SST, 1893, No.\n52.\n\nHincks, Edward.--On the Assyrian Mythology. RIA Memoirs, 1854, 405-422.\n\nHommel, F.--Hexenverbrennungen im alten Babylonien. Muenchener Neueste\nNachrichten, 1896, No. 415.\n\nJastrow, Morris, Jr.--The Ethics of the Babylonians and Assyrians. ER.\nIII. 65-77.\n\n---- The Babylonian Term Shu'alu. AJSL XIV. 165-170.\n\nJensen, Peter.--The Queen in the Babylonian Hades and Her Consort. SST,\n1897, Nos. 11, 12.\n\n---- The Supposed Babylonian Origin of the Week and the Sabbath. SST,\n1892, No. 3.\n\nJeremias, A.--Die Babylonisch-Assyrischen Vorstellungen vom Leben nach\ndem Tode. (Leipzig 1897.)\n\n---- Articles 'Arallu' and 'Etana.'\n\n    [Announced to appear in the supplement to Roscher's\n    'Ausfuehrliches Lexikon der Griechischen und Roemischen\n    Mythologie.']\n\nKiesewetter, Carl.--Der Occultismus des Alterthums. (Leipzig 1896.) Book\nI. 364 _seq._, 'Der Occultismus bei den Akkadern, Babyloniern, Chaldaeern\nund Assyriern.'\n\n    [Based largely upon Lenormant's 'Chaldaean Magic.']\n\nLaurent, A.--La Magie et la Divination chez les Chaldeo-Assyriens.\n(Paris 1894.)\n\nLenormant, F.--La Legende de Semiramis. (Paris 1872.)\n\n    [A transformed Ishtar legend.]\n\nOppert, J.--L'Immortalite de l'Ame chez les Chaldeens. (Paris 1875.)\n\n    [Translation of Ishtar's descent into the nether world.]\n\nPinches, T. G.--The Messianic Idea among the Early Babylonians and\nAssyrians. Academy, 1887, Nos. 816, 818, 820.\n\nRavenshaw, E. C.--On the Winged Bulls, Lions, and Other Symbolical\nFigures from Nineveh. JRAS, 1854, 93-117.\n\n    [Contains some interesting suggestions on Babylonian mythology,\n    but the paper as a whole is antiquated.]\n\nSayce, A. H.--Ancient Babylonian Moral and Political Precepts. RP VII.\n119-122.\n\n---- The Babylonian Legend of the Creation of Man. Academy, 1893, No.\n1055.\n\n---- Babylonian Folk-Lore. FLJ I. 16-22.\n\nScheil, Fr. V.--Relief Cisele representant une Scene Funeraire\nBabylonienne. RT XX. 59-62.\n\n---- Le Culte de Gudea. RT XVIII. 64-74.\n\nTalbot, H. Fox.--On the Religious Belief of the Assyrians. Nos. I., II.,\nIII., IV. TSBA I. 106-115; II. 29-79, 346-352.\n\n    [No. I. contains text and translation of two prayers; Nos. II\n    and III., Incantation Texts; No. IV., Future Punishment of the\n    Wicked.]\n\n---- Legend of the Descent of Ishtar. RP I. 141-149.\n\n---- Revised Translation of the Descent of Ishtar with a Further\nCommentary. TSBA III. 118-135. Addenda pp. 357-360.\n\nThureau-Daugin, F.--Le Culte des Rois dans la Periode Prebabylonienne.\nRT XIX. 185-187.\n\nTiele, C. P.--Cyrus de Groote en de Godsdienst van Babel in 'Melanges,\nCharles de Harlez' (Leiden 1896), 307-312.\n\nTyler, Thomas.--The Babylonian Idea of a Disembodied Soul. BOR I. 55-57.\n\nTylor, Edward B.--The Winged Figures of the Assyrians and Other Ancient\nMonuments. PSBA XII. 383-393; see also RHR XXII. 209-220.\n\n    [Explanation of the symbols on Assyrian sculptures.]\n\nWard, W. H.--On the Representation of the Solar Disk. AJT II. 115-118.\n\nWarren, W. F.--Gates of Sunrise in Ancient Babylonian Art. BOR III.\n241-244.\n\nZimmern, H.--Vater, Sohn und Fuersprecher in der Babylonischen\nGottesvorstellung. (Leipzig 1896.)\n\n    [See review by Jastrow, AJT I. 468-474.]\n\n\nVIII.\n\nTemples and Cult.\n\n\nBall, C. J.--Glimpses of Babylonian Religion. I. Human Sacrifices. II.\nThe Gods and Their Images. PSBA XIV. 149-162.\n\nBoscawen, W. St. Chad.--The Babylonian and Jewish Festivals. BOR IV.\n34-38.\n\nD'Alviella, Goblet.--Des Symboles qui ont influence la Representation\nfiguree des Pierres Comiques chez les Semites. RHR XX. 135-150.\n\nJeremias, Johann.--Die Cultustafel von Sippar. BA I. 267-92.\n\n    [An important archive of the Sharmash temple at Sippar,\n    illustrative of the cult.]\n\nKarppe, S.--Melanges de Critique Biblique et d'Assyriologie. RS II.\n146-151.\n\n    [The Babylonian festival Zagmuk und the Biblical New Year.]\n\nKoldewey, Robert.--Die altbabylonischen Graeber in Surghul und El Hibba.\nZA II. 403-430.\n\n    [Funeral customs.]\n\nKohut, A.--The Talmudic Records of the Persian and Babylonian Festivals\ncritically illustrated. AJSL XIV. 182-194. See also REJ XXIV. 256-271.\n\n    [Insufficient discussion.]\n\nMenant.--Les Sacrifices sur les Cylindres Chaldeens. Gazette\nArcheologique, 1883, Nos. 7-9.\n\nPerrot & Chiplez.--A History of Art in Chaldaea and Assyria. (London\n1884.) Eng. trans. Vol. I. chapters III., IV.\n\n    [Temples and Tombs.]\n\nPeters, J. P.--Nippur. Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates.\nVol. II. chapter V., The Oldest Temple in the World. Chapter VIII.,\nCoffins and Burial Customs.\n\nPinches, T. G.--Sin-Gashid's Endowment of the Temple E-ana. RP, new\nseries, I. 78-83. See also BOR I. 8-11.\n\n---- A Fragment of a Babylonian Tithe List. _Ib._ I. 76-78.\n\n---- Gifts to a Babylonian Bitili or Bethel. _Ib._ II. 142-145.\n\nRawlinson, H. C.--On the Birs Nimrud, or the Great Temple of Borsippa.\nJRAS, 1861, 1-24.\n\nReber, F.--Ueber altchaldaeische Kunst ... Der Tempelbau. ZA I. 149-164.\n\nSayce, A. H.--A Babylonian Saint's Cylinder. RP VII. 157-170.\n\n    [Days sacred, and otherwise, of the month of Elul, with\n    directions for religious ceremonies to be observed.]\n\n---- On Human Sacrifice among the Babylonians. TSBA IV. 25-31.\n\nTiele, C. P.--De Hoofdtempel van Babel en die van Borsippa. KAW\nAfdeeling 'Letterkunde' (1886) 3^de Reeks Deel III; also in German ZA\nII. 179-190.\n\nTristram, H. B.--Sacrifices in Babylonia and Phoenicia. SST, 1894, No.\n1.\n\nWard, W. H.--On Some Babylonian Cylinders, supposed to Represent Human\nSacrifices. PAOS, May 1888, xxviii.-xxx.\n\n\nIX.\n\nBearings on the Old Testament; General Influence.\n\n\nAnz, Wilhelm.--Zur Frage nach dem Ursprung des Gnostizismus. (Leipzig\n1897.) pp. 58-112, Die Herkunft ... aus Babylonien.\n\nBall, C. J.--The First Chapter of Genesis and the Babylonian\nCosmogonies. PSBA XVIII.\n\nBonnett, E.--Les Decouvertes Assyriennes et le Livre de la Genese.\n(Paris 1884.)\n\nBoscawen, W. St. Chad.--The Bible and the Monuments. (London 1895.)\n\nBrandt, W.--Die Assyrisch-Babylonische Keilschriftliteratur und das Alte\nTestament. Deutsch-evang. Blaetter, 1884. Heft 3. pp. 164-187.\n\nBrown, Francis.--Critical review with valuable comments of E. Schrader's\n'Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament.' AJP IV. 338-343.\n\n---- The Sabbath in the Cuneiform Records. PR, 1882, 688-700.\n\n---- Assyriology: Its Use and Abuse in Old Testament Study. (New York\n1885.)\n\nBrown, Robert, Jr.--Semitic Influence in Hellenic Mythology. (London\n1898.)\n\n    [Part III. discusses Babylonian Influence.]\n\nBuddensieg, R.--Die Assyrischen Ausgrabungen und das Alte Testament.\n(Heilbronn 1880.)\n\nDelitzsch, Friedrich.--Wo Lag das Paradies? Eine\nBiblisch-Assyriologische Studie. (Leipzig 1881.)\n\n    [See Francis Brown. OTS IV. 1-12.]\n\nEvetts, B. A.--New Light on the Bible and the Holy Land. (London 1892.)\n\nGruppe, O.--Die Griechischen Kulte und Mythen in ihren Beziehungen zu\nden Orientalischen Religionen. (Leipzig 1887.)\n\nGunkel, H.--Schoepfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit. (Goettingen 1895.)\n\n    [A most important discussion of the relationship of the Biblical\n    creation narratives to the Babylonian cosmology.]\n\nHalevy, J.--Recherches Bibliques. (Paris 1896.)\n\nHaupt, Paul.--Wo Lag das Paradies? Ueber Land und Meer, 1894-1895, No.\n15.\n\n    [Also syllabus of lectures before the Gratz College of\n    Philadelphia, Dec 10, 1895, on 'The Site of Paradise and the\n    Nimrod Epic.']\n\nJastrow, Morris, Jr.--The Bible and the Assyrian Monuments. The Century\nMagazine, XLVII. 395-411.\n\n    [Translated into French by E. Lacordaire in Revue des Revues,\n    1894 227-235.]\n\n---- The Original Character of the Hebrew Sabbath. AJT II. 312-352.\n\n    [Relationship between Hebrew and Babylonian Sabbath.]\n\n---- Adam and Eve in Babylonian Literature.\n\n    [Announced.]\n\nJensen, P.--The Cult of Ashera and the Cult of Mary.\n\n    [Announced to appear in the Sunday School Times, 1898.]\n\nKessler, K.--Ueber Gnosis und Altbabylonische Religion. 5^th ICO, II.\nPart I. 288-305.\n\nKellner, M. L.--The Deluge in the Izdubar Epic and the Old Testament.\n\n    [Reprinted from the Church Review, November, 1888.]\n\nLacouperie, T. de.--Origin from Babylonia and Elam of the Early Chinese\nCivilization. Series of articles in the BOR III-VIII.\n\n    [Also in book form under the title, 'Origin of Early Chinese\n    Civilization and its Western Sources.' (London 1894.)\n    Lacouperie's method is unsatisfactory. The theory, however,\n    merits farther investigation.]\n\nLotz, W.--Quaestiones de Historia Sabbati. (Leipzig 1883.)\n\nLyon, D. G.--Assyrian Study: Its Bearing on the Old Testament. The\nChristian Register, 1885, Nos. 15, 16.\n\nMenant, J.--Remarques sur un Cylindre du Musee Britannique. La Bible et\nles Cylindres Chaldeens. CR, 1879, 270-286.\n\n    [Discussion of a scene on a cylinder supposed to represent the\n    first human pair and the serpent.]\n\nMeyer, Ed.--Der Babylonische Einfluss auf Judenthum und Christenthum.\nBAZ, 1894, No. 344.\n\nOppert, J.--Origines Communes de la Chronologie Cosmogonique des\nChaldeens el des Dates de la Genese. APC, 6th series, XIII. 237-240.\n\nPalmer, A. S.--Babylonian Influence on the Bible and Popular Beliefs.\nTehom and Tiamat, Hades and Satan: a Comparative Study of Genesis, i.,\nii. (London 1897.)\n\nRobiou, F.--L'Etat Religieux de la Grece et de l'Orient au Siecle\nd'Alexandre ... II. Les Regions Syro-Babyloniens et l'Eran. (Paris\n1896.)\n\n    [Unsatisfactory, and not based on independent researches.]\n\nSayce, A. H.--The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments.\n(London 1894.)\n\n    [Suggestive, but unreliable. Full of inaccuracies.]\n\n---- Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments. (2d ed. London 1886.)\n\nSchleussner.--Die Bedeutung der Ausgrabungen in dem Euphrat und\nTigris-Gebiet fuer das Alte Testament. (Wittenberg 1892.)\n\nSchrader, E.--Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament. 3d ed.\n(Announced for 1898.)\n\n    [English translation of the 2d German ed., 'The Cuneiform\n    Inscriptions and the Old Testament.' London 1885-1889.]\n\nSillem, C. H. W.--Das Alte Testament im Lichte der Assyrischen\nForschungen und ihrer Ergebnisse. (Hamburg 1877.)\n\nSimpson, William.--The Tower of Babel and the Birs Nimroud. TSBA IX.\n307-332.\n\nStucken, Edward.--Astralmythen der Hebraer, Babylonier und Aegypter.\nReligionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, Parts I., II. (Leipzig\n1896-1897.)\n\n    [Rather fanciful.]\n\nTallquist, K. L.--Altbabylonischer Aberglauben in den Abendlaendern. [In\nNorwegian]; Valvoja, Helsingfors, 1896, 498-520.\n\n---- Fornbabyloniska och hebraeiska psalmer. Finisk Tidskrift, Mars 1892.\n\nTiele, C. P..--Die Assyriologie und ihre Ergebnisse fuer die\nReligionsgeschichte.\n\n    [German translation by Friederick. Leipzig 1878.]\n\nToy, C. H.--Esther as a Babylonian Goddess. The New World, VI. 130-145.\n\nVigouroux, F.--Le Bible et les Decouvertes Modernes en Palestine, en\nEgypte et en Assyrie. 4 vols. (Paris 1884-1885.)\n\n    [Written from a Catholic standpoint, but comprehensive and\n    accurate.]\n\nWahrmund.--Babylonierthum, Judenthum und Christentum. (Leipzig 1882.)\n\nWard, W. H.--Light on Scriptural Texts from Recent Discoveries, Hebrew\nand Babylonian Poetry. The Homiletic Review, 1895, 408.\n\nZehnpfund, R.--Einige zeitgemaesse Bemerkungen ueber den Wert der\nAssyriologie fuer die alttestamentliche Litteraturkritik. (Ernste\nAllotria. Dessau 1896.)\n\nZimmern, H.--Die Assyriologie als Huelfswissenschaft fuer das Studium des\nAlten Testaments und des Klassischen Alterthums. (Koenigsberg 1889.)\n\n---- Zur Frage nach dem Ursprung des Purimfestes. (Zeits. f. alttest.\nWiss., XI. 157-169.)\n\nZschokke, Hermann.--Ueber die Wichtigkeit der Assyriologischen\nForschungen, insbesondere fuer das Alttestamentliche Bibelstudium.\n(Vienna 1884.)\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\n_A_, or _Malkatu_,\n  her names and their explanation, 74;\n  position and relationship to Shamash, 74-5, 176, 685;\n  temples of A and Shamash in Larsa and Borsippa, 70, 241;\n  temple E-edinna in Sippar, 640.\n\n_Ab_, 5th month, sacred to Nin-gish-zida, 462, 547;\n  \"the mission of Ishtar,\" 564;\n  festival of Ishtar, 685.\n\n_Abram_ and _Abraham_, followers of,\n  in fight with Babylon, 2;\n  cult of Father Abraham, 562.\n\n_Abu-Habba_, excavations, 10;\n  see also _Sippar_;\n  temple records and legal documents, 165.\n\n_Abu-Shahrein_=Eridu.\n\n_Abydenus_, source for B. A. religion, 1, 5.\n\n_Achaemenian inscriptions_, 16.\n\n_Ad_, Arabic tribe, 496.\n\n_Adad_=Ramman, 157;\n  solar deity of Syria, 156.\n\n_Adam_, parallelism betw. A. and Eabani, 511;\n  parallelism betw. A. and Adapa, 552.\n\n_Adapa Legend_, a nature myth, 548, 644 ff.;\n  found on El-Amarna tablets, 544;\n  Adapa, son of Ea, 545;\n  A. fighting the south wind, 545 ff.;\n  seconded by Tammuz and Gish-zida, 548-9;\n  identified with Marduk, 548;\n  Adapa myth compared with 3d chapter of Genesis, 551.\n\n_Adar_, 12th month, sacred to the Seven Evil Spirits, 463;\n  15th day, sacred to Shamash, Malkatu, and Bunene, 685;\n  compared with Purim, 636.\n\n_Adar, 2d_ (intercalated), sacred to Ashur, 463.\n\n_Addu_, equivalent of Ramman, 156.\n\n_Adon_, Phoenician equivalent for Tammuz;\n  see _Tammuz_.\n\n_Adra-Khasis_, epithet of Parnapishtim, 505.\n\n_Aelian_, historian, mentions Gilgamesh, 469, 524.\n\n_Agade_, ancient center, 35, 245;\n  rulers, 36;\n  temple E-ul-mash of Nana, 82;\n  temple of Anunit-Ishtar, 117, 242;\n  zikkurat E-an-dadia, 639.\n\n_Agriculture_, A. and calendar, 462.\n\n_Agum_, see _Agumkakrimi_.\n\n_Agumkakrimi_, king of Babylon, recovers the statues of Marduk and\n    Sarpanitum, 122, 152, 670, 687;\n  cult of Shamash, 144;\n  cult of Shukamuna, 162;\n  institutes special festival for Marduk and Sarpanitum, 687.\n\n_Ahasverus_, the wandering Jew, =Parnapishtim, 515.\n\n_Ai-ibur-shabu_, name of street in Babylon, 679.\n\n_Airu_, 2d month, sacred to Ea, 462, 677;\n  12th day of A., sacred to Gula, 683;\n  installation of king Ashurbanabal, 684;\n  sacred in Assyria, 684;\n  10th day of A., sacred to Shamash, Malkatu, and Bunene, 685.\n\n_A-ishtu_, a foreign god, 644.\n\n_Akitu_, see _Zag-muk_; festival, 679.\n\n_Akkad_, see also _Sumer_ and _Akkad_;\n  =Babylonia, 176, 532.\n\n_Akkadian_=Sumerian.\n\n_Alala_,\n  deity, 417;\n  in incantations, 417;\n  in Allatu's court, 593;\n  consort of Belili, 589;\n  connection with Alallu, 589.\n\n_Alallu_, a bird;\n  relations to Ishtar, 482, 589;\n  connection with deity Alala, 589.\n\n_Alamu_, phase of Nergal, 280.\n\n_Alexander Polyhistor_, source for B.-A. religion, 1, 5, 413.\n\n_Alexander the Great_, probably contemporary of Berosus, 1;\n  A. and Gilgamos, 469, 516.\n\n_Alexandria_, gnostic center, 699.\n\n_Allatu_, goddess, 1st Bab. period, originally associated with Bel, 104;\n  associated with Nin-azu, 586, 590;\n  associated with Nergal, 104, 183, 565, 580, 583, 593;\n  goddess of subterranean cave, 104, 282, 511, 565, 580;\n  in incantations, 282;\n  =Nin-ki-gal, 282, cf. 584;\n  Namtar, her messenger, 570, 580, 587, 592;\n  Belit-seri, her scribe, 587;\n  pictured as a lion, 580;\n  Allatu's court, 587, 592;\n  authoress of evil and disease, 593;\n  called Eresh-kigal, 584 (_cf._ 282);\n  vanquished by Nergal, 584-5;\n  imitation of Tiamat-Marduk episode, 585;\n  correlated to Ishtar, goddess of fertility, 587;\n  explanation of name, 587.\n\n_All-Souls' Day_, see under _Tammuz_ and _Dead_, 599, 605, 682.\n\n_Altar_, description of, 651;\n  the \"horns\" of the altar compared with those of Hebrew and Phoenician\n    altars, 652.\n\n_Alu-usharshid_, king of Kish, 54.\n\n_Amalgamation of divinities_, cause, features, and results, 74-5, 94-5.\n\n_Amanus_, district famous for its wood, 627.\n\n_Amiand_, his attempt at a genealogical arrangement of Old Bab.\n    pantheon, 108.\n\n_Am-na-na_, in proper names of the 2d Bab. period, 169.\n\n_Amraphel_=Hammurabi, 534.\n\n_Amulets_, see _Talisman_, _Teraphim_, 672, 674.\n\n_Anatum_, goddess, consort of Anu, 153.\n\n_Animism_, starting-point of religious belief, 48;\n  survivals of, 180 ff., 457;\n  popular rather than theological, 187.\n\n_Anshar_, god, in the cosmology, 197, 410, 417;\n  =Ashur, 197, 414-5;\n  A. and Kishar created, 197, 410;\n  builds Esharra, 198;\n  A. and Kishar intermediate betw. the monsters and the gods in\n    cosmology, 414, 416;\n  Anshar and Kishar in the creation epic and their meaning, 418;\n  conquers Tiamat (one version), 422.\n\n_Anshar-gal_, cosmological deity, 417.\n\n_Antar_, Arabian romance of A., 494.\n\n_Antares_, observations of, 372.\n\n_Antioch_, gnostic center, 699.\n\n_Antiochus Soter_, cult of Marduk and Nabu, 650.\n\n_Anu_, god, 51;\n  relationship to Ishtar, 84-5;\n  Der, city of Anu, 88, 155, 162;\n  god of heavenly expanse, 89, 147, 207, 432;\n  abstract conception, 89;\n  priest of Anu, 90;\n  Anu as term for 'lofty,' 90;\n  member of the great triad, 107, 152, 155, 207, 677;\n  in Lugalraggisi's pantheon, 110;\n  artificial character in Hammurabi's pantheon, 152;\n  position in Agum's pantheon, 152;\n  dwells in Uruk, 153;\n  Anatum, his consort, 153;\n  in Ass. pantheon, 153-5, 201, 207;\n  associated with Ramman, 154, 207, 212;\n  associated with Dagan, 154, 209;\n  disappears after Sargon, 155;\n  in religious texts, 156;\n  in Nebuchadnezzar's I. pantheon, 162;\n  father of Anunnaki and Igigi, 186, 207, 593;\n  fighting Tiamat, 197;\n  temple in Lagash, 53, 640;\n  temple at Ashur, 207;\n  succeeded by Ashur, 207;\n  associated with Ishtar, 207;\n  blesses handiwork, 208, 237;\n  associated with Bel and Belit, 226-7;\n  Anu and Ishtar, names of the west gates of Sargon's II. palace, 237;\n  associated with Nusku, 277, 286;\n  made god of heavenly expanse, 432;\n  \"Way of Anu\"=ecliptic of sun, 457;\n  pole star of the ecliptic, 460;\n  Nisan, sacred to A. and Bel, 462, 677;\n  Tebet, sacred to A., Papsukal, and Ishtar, 463;\n  2d Ululu, sacred to Anu and Bel, 463;\n  in the Adapa myth, 546 ff.\n\n_Anunit_, goddess, 51;\n  a variant of Ishtar, 82, 85, 242;\n  in proper names of 2d Bab. period, 169;\n  worshipped at Agade, 117, 242;\n  shrine in E-babbara at Sippar, 646.\n\n_Anunnaki_, explanation of name, 184;\n  number of, and its explanation, 185;\n  spirits of earth, 185, 593;\n  gods in whose service the A. are, 186;\n  their character, 186;\n  associated with Igigi, 186, 593;\n  altar of A. and Igigi, 186;\n  shining chiefs of Eridu, 186;\n  ruled by Ishtar, 204 (_cf._ 502);\n  Anu, their chief, 186, 207, 593;\n  Bel, king of all the A., 222;\n  associated with the great triad, 236;\n  created by Marduk, 447;\n  offspring of Anu, 593;\n  A. and Mammitum determine death and life, 493;\n  in the deluge story, 500, 502 (_cf._ 204);\n  in Allatu's court, 593.\n\n_Apollodorus_, source for B.-A. religion, 1, 5.\n\n_Apotheosis_, see _Deification_.\n\n_Apsu_, the deep, personified ocean, 411, 443, 489, 580;\n  synonymous with Tiamat, 411;\n  male principle, 411;\n  dominion of A. and Tiamat precedes that of the gods, 412;\n  gods, product of the union of A. and Tiamat, 413;\n  mythical monsters, product of the union of A. and Tiamat, 414;\n  basin, a sacred object and symbol, 653; comparison with the \"sea\" in\n    Solomon's temple, 653.\n\n_Arabia_, metals and stone exported, 627.\n\n_Arabians_ invade Mesopotamia, 34, 39.\n\n_Arakh-shamnu_, 8th month, sacred to Marduk, 463, 678, 686;\n  15^th day, sacred to Shamash, Malkatu, and Bunene, 685.\n\n_Aralu_, the nether-world, 489, 557;\n  called E-kur or mountain house, 558;\n  distinction betw. Aralu, the mountain (= earth), and Aralu, the\n    district of the dead proper, 558;\n  names and epithets of A., 563, 592;\n  pictorial representation of, 579 ff.;\n  pantheon of, 582 ff.\n\n_Arbela_, temple of Ishtar, 202-3, 205, 651;\n  meaning of name, 203;\n  theological center, 342, 651.\n\n_Archaeological religious monuments_, 14.\n\n_Architecture_, reed and clay materials for building, 495-6;\n  see _Temple_.\n\n_Ardi-Ea_, ferryman of Parnapishtim, 491;\n  takes Gilgamesh to the fountain of life, 509.\n\n_Ark_, see _Ship_.\n\n_Ark of the covenant_ compared with the Babylonian ship for the gods,\n    655.\n\n_Armenia_, legend of Rustem parallel to Etana legend, 520 ff.;\n  exports precious stones, 627.\n\n_Arts_, patron gods, 177-8.\n\n_Aruru_, goddess, creates mankind, together with Marduk, 448, 474;\n  creates Eabani, 448, 474;\n  = Ishtar, 448-9;\n  creates Gilgamesh, 473-4.\n\n_Ashera_ compared with tree worship in Babylonia, 689.\n\n_Ashur_, capital of Assyria, 42, 193, 651;\n  modern name Kalah-Shergat, 198;\n  temple to Ashur, 198, 651;\n  temple to Ishtar, 205;\n  temple to Anu, 207;\n  temple to Shamash, 209;\n  temple to Bel, 225;\n  temple to Ea, 230;\n  intellectual center, 651.\n\n_Ashur_, god, consort of Belit, 150, 226, 668;\n  rivaled by Ramman, 161;\n  in Ass. pantheon, 189;\n  head of Ass. pantheon, 191, 200;\n  his unique position, 191-2, 215;\n  local deity, 193;\n  symbol, 194, 632;\n  interpretation of symbol, 195-6, 685;\n  general character of Ashur, 195;\n  etymology of name, 196;\n  Anshar another form of A., 197, 414;\n  god of battle, 195, 199, 201;\n  chief of pantheon and epithets, 200-2;\n  king of the Igigi, 200;\n  associated with Ninib, 214;\n  his temples few, 215;\n  associated with Ninib and Nergal, 216, 218;\n  associated with Marduk, 224;\n  associated with the great triad, 236;\n  name of inner wall of Sargon's II. palace, 237;\n  permits the king to grow old and protects the troop, 237;\n  superiority to Marduk, 239;\n  god of oracles, 344;\n  Bel Tarbasi or lord of the court, 345;\n  2d Adar, sacred to A., 463;\n  Ululu, sacred to A., 463, 685.\n\n_Ashurbanabal_, library, 13;\n  patron of science and art, 43, 229;\n  rule, 44;\n  recaptures Nana's statue, 85, 206;\n  gives prominence to Nabu cult, 129;\n  celebrates festival in honor of Gula, 218, 683;\n  embellishes temple of Nergal at Tarbisu, 219;\n  his pantheon, 238;\n  sacrifices in Babylonia, 664;\n  restores temple E-kur at Nippur, 645;\n  Shamash cult in Sippar, 646;\n  Ishtar cult in Uruk, 648.\n\n_Ashuretililani_, king of Assyria, improves Nabu's temple at Calah, 229.\n\n_Ashurnasirbal_, king of Assyria, 205;\n  gives prominence to Ninib cult, 214;\n  Calah, his capital, 215;\n  builds sanctuaries to Ishtar, Sin, Gula, Ea, Ramman, 215;\n  as a hunter, 216;\n  builds sanctuary to Gula, 218;\n  builds sanctuary to Sin at Calah, 219;\n  his pantheon, 237;\n  gives prominence to Ishtar cult, 325.\n\n_Ashur-rish-ishi_, king of Assyria, 149, 204, 213.\n\n_Assyria_, military superiority, 2;\n  history by Herodotus, 3;\n  art and antiquities, 7;\n  character of country and culture, 30-1;\n  character of people, 31;\n  comparison with Babylonia, 31;\n  architecture, 42;\n  history, 41-4;\n  conquest of, 44;\n  sun worship, 78;\n  Assyrian Ishtar cult as distinguished from Bab., 83, 85;\n  Ass. Nabu cult as against Bab. Marduk cult, 128;\n  religious beliefs more popular than Bab., 153;\n  influence upon Bab. culture and religion, 179;\n  pantheon, 188;\n  divisions of Ass. pantheon, 188-9;\n  comparison of Ass. and Bab. pantheons, 189, 201;\n  attacked by Cassites, 199;\n  A. god of oracles, 344;\n  continuity of Ass. and Bab. religion owing to Ass. worship of Bab.\n    deities, 642;\n  Airu, sacred month in Ass., 684.\n\n_Assyrians_, see _Assyria_.\n\n_Astrology_, lunar worship influenced by A., 219-20;\n  bar to monotheistic development, 319;\n  observation of the planets, 370;\n  questions put to the astrologer, 369.\n\n_Astronomy_, factor in spreading lunar worship, 220, 245;\n  mixture of astronomy and astrology in the observation of eclipses,\n    357;\n  in the observation of the planets, 370;\n  forms part of cosmology, 454;\n  the determination of the laws under which the stars stood, 457;\n  composite character of A. science, 460;\n  divisions of, 460-1;\n  moon and sun in, 461.\n\n_Azag-sir,_ minor deity in Ass. pantheon, 234.\n\n\n_Babbar_, surname of Shamash, 72;\n  etymology, 72.\n\n_Babylon_, founded, 2;\n  supremacy, 2;\n  capture of, 4, 45;\n  ancient center, 35;\n  capital of Babylonia, 39, 116;\n  Marduk, deity of, 54, 117-8, 531;\n  E-sagila, temple of Marduk, 121, 241, 639;\n  temple of Shamash, 242, 640;\n  temple of Sin, 242;\n  temple of Nin-makh, 242, 640;\n  temple of Nin-khar-sag, 242;\n  temple of Gula, 242, 638;\n  attacked by Dibbarra, 531;\n  zikkurat at Bab., 619, 639;\n  temple to Nin-lil-anna (242), 640;\n  religious center of the country, 649-50.\n\n_Babylonia_, conceptions of netherworld, 2;\n  notices in rabbinical literature, 3;\n  extent, 26;\n  character of country, 30;\n  character of people, 31;\n  character of culture, 34;\n  Babylonian states and their history, 35 ff.;\n  dynasties of, 39-41, 44-5, 489;\n  united under Hammurabi, 116;\n  Bab. and Ass. Ishtar cult, 83, 85;\n  Bab. and Ass. Marduk cult, 128;\n  Bab. beliefs less popular than Ass., 153;\n  periods of Bab. religion, 162;\n  gods common to all three periods of Bab. religion, 163;\n  Bab. culture and beliefs influenced by Assyria, 179;\n  comparison of Bab. and Ass. pantheons, 189, 201;\n  country of Bel, 222;\n  under Ass. rule, 223;\n  source of Ass. culture, 222;\n  independent of Assyria, 239;\n  political and religious centers, 245;\n  replaces Nippur, 542;\n  sanctuary of Nabu, 640;\n  sacrificial acts in Bab. and their meaning, 664;\n  Nisan, the sacred month in Bab., 684;\n  continuity of Bab. and Ass. belief owing to Ass.\n  worship of Bab. gods, 642.\n\n_Babylonians_, see also _Babylonia_;\n  subjects of Bel, 222;\n  humanity of Bel, 222.\n\n_Babylonian-Assyrian religion_, 1;\n  phases of, 46-7;\n  age of essentials of religion, 114;\n  gods of the B.-A. pantheon, 189;\n  continuity of B.-A. religion, 642;\n  see _Assyria_ and _Babylonia_.\n\n_Bahrein_, exports wood, 627.\n\n_Ba-kad_, in the Cassite pantheon, 162, 172.\n\n_Balasi_, astrologer, 340.\n\n_Balawat_, explorations, 9;\n  portals of palace at B., 627.\n\n_Bar_, offspring of Ishtar declines to fight Zu, 541.\n\n_Bashtum_, goddess in proper names of the 2d Bab. period, 169.\n\n_Battles of Yahwe_, recalls Dibbarra epic, 534.\n\n_Bau_, goddess, 51;\n  her attributes, 59-60, 90, 678;\n  temple in Uruazagga, 59, 103;\n  Zag-muk, her festival, 59, 677;\n  consort of Nin-girsu, 59, 677;\n  identification with Gula, 60;\n  her sphere, 60;\n  daughter of Anu, 59-60;\n  mother of Ea and water-deity, 61;\n  common features with Ga-sig(?)-dug, 61;\n  Bau not Hebr. bohu, 60;\n  her sons (Amiaud), 103;\n  in Gudea's pantheon, 106;\n  in incantations, 273;\n  Bau's ship, 655.\n\n_Ba'u-ukin_ = Dungi (Winckler), 65.\n\n_Baz_, city in Babylonia, temple of Bel-sarbi, 242, 639.\n\n_Bel_, see also _Marduk_ and _Bel-Marduk_;\n  god, temple of, 4;\n  temple at Nippur, 11, 37, 69, 51, 54, 151, 642, 644;\n  position in the Babylonian theology, 52;\n  oldest spelling and meaning of name, 52;\n  temple in Lagash, 53;\n  growth of his cult, 53;\n  blending with Marduk, 54, 145, 146, 148, 222;\n  phases of cult, 55;\n  associations and relations with Ea, 62;\n  associated with Allat, 104;\n  in Lugalzaggisi's and Gudea's pantheon, 110;\n  subordination to Marduk, 118;\n  transfers his name to Marduk, 140, 222, 439, 635;\n  god of earth _par excellence_, 140, 147, 432, 440, 497;\n  creator of mankind, 141, 441;\n  in the deluge story, 142, 497, 502, 504;\n  Bel and the triad, 107, 145-9, 207, 677;\n  Bel in Hammurabi's pantheon, 145-6, 162;\n  in Cassite period, 146;\n  temple at Dur-Kurigalzu, 146;\n  in the Assyrian pantheon, 146-7, 225-6;\n  in the neo-Bab. pantheon, 147;\n  epithets, 146, 222, 225, 227, 274;\n  relationship to the other members of the triad, 147, 226;\n  Bel (and Belit) decree fates, 150, 153, 538;\n  Dagan = Bel, 151, 154, 209, 225;\n  relationship to Zakar, 172;\n  lord of Annunaki and Igigi, 186;\n  husband of Ishtar, 205;\n  confused with Dagan, 151, 154, 209;\n  Ninib, first-born of Bel, 217;\n  Sin, first-born of Bel, 219, 462;\n  Nusku, messenger of, 221;\n  temple at Ashur, 225;\n  dwells in E-khar-sag-kurkura, 225;\n  associated with Anu and Belit, 226-8;\n  consort of Ishtar, 205;\n  of Belit, 226;\n  B. and Belit, names of the northern gates of Sargon's II. palace, 237;\n  lays foundations, 237 (_cf. Ninib_);\n  associated with fire-god, 279, 286;\n  Bel made lord of the earth by Marduk, 432;\n  in the zodiacal system in conjunction with Nibir and Ea marks the\n    three divisions of the year, 434-5;\n  identified with north polar-star, 435, 460;\n  Nisan, sacred to Anu and B., 462, 677;\n  2nd Elul, sacred to Anu and B., 463;\n  Bel in 11th tablet of Gilgamesh epic, 496;\n  rivalry with Ea, 497, 507 ff.;\n  god of Dur-an-ki, 539;\n  on seal cylinders, 540;\n  robbed of tablets of fate by Zu, 540;\n  temple E-U-gal, 640;\n  figurines of Bel, 674;\n  Zagmuk, festival of, 678.\n\n_Bel-epush_, Babylonian prince, votive object, 671.\n\n_Bel-Marduk_, see _Bel_ and _Marduk_.\n\n_Belili_, deity, 417;\n  in incantations, 417;\n  sister of Tammuz, 575, 588;\n  in Allatu's court, 588, 593;\n  consort of Alallu, 589.\n\n_Belit_, goddess, 51;\n  place of cult, 55, 635;\n  titles and their meanings, 55-6, 227;\n  sanctuaries, 56;\n  in Lugalzaggisi's pantheon, 110;\n  consort of En-lil, 111, 150, 151;\n  consort of Ashur, 150, 226, 668;\n  uses of \"Belit,\" 151;\n  Bel and Belit decree the fate, 150, 153;\n  relationship to Zakar, 172;\n  associated with Anu and Bel, 226-8;\n  confusion in Ass. pantheon, 226-7;\n  consort of Bel, 226;\n  consort of Ea, 226-7, 231, 237;\n  = Ishtar, 226-7;\n  = Sarpanitum, wife of Bel-Marduk, 226, 684;\n  E-mash-mash, her temple at Nineveh, 227;\n  B. and Bel, names of the northern gates of Sargon's II. palace, 237;\n  brings fertility, 237;\n  temple at Babylon (see _Nin-khar-sag_), 242;\n  = Nin-lil, 635;\n  figurines of, 674.\n\n_Belit of Akkad_ = Belit, 162, 176.\n\n_Belit-ekalli,_ in the Cassite pantheon, 162;\n  consort of Ninib, l73;\n  = Gula, 173, 176;\n  meaning, 173.\n\n_Belit-ilani,_ consort of Ea, 226, 231, 237;\n  B. and Ea, names of southern gates of Sargon's II. palace, 237;\n  increases offspring, 237.\n\n_Belit mati_ = Belit of the land = Ishtar, 151, 206, 215;\n  perhaps=Belit, 227.\n\n_Belit-seri_, scribe of Allatu, 587.\n\n_Bel-sarbi_,\n  god, his temple at Daz, 242, 639;\n  perhaps=Nergal, 242.\n\n_Bel-zir_, a layman, offers a votive object, 671.\n\n_Berosus_, source B.-A. religion, 1, 4, 412.\n\n_Birs Nimrud_, explored, 9.\n\n_Bit-Khabban_, town in Babylonia; its patron gods, 176.\n\n_Bit-Khabban_, district of Babylonia, sacred to Sin, 163.\n\n_Blood_, sanctity of, 661.\n\n_Boaz_, name of column in Solomon's temple, 624.\n\n_Borsippa_,\n  explorations, 9;\n  temple of Nabu, 121, 229, 241, 639;\n  its situation, 124, 125;\n  beloved city of Marduk, 126;\n  temple of Ramman, 242;\n  3 sanctuaries of Gula, 242, 636 (E-ul-la), 641;\n  zikkurat at B., 617, 619, 639;\n  E-makhtila shrine in E-zida to Nabu at Borsippa, 307, 606, 636.\n\n_Botta, P. E._, excavations, 6.\n\n_Buddhism_, doctrine of annihilation, 556-7.\n\n_Bulala_, a foreign god, 644.\n\n_Bunene_,\n  in Nabubaliddin's pantheon, 162;\n  in proper names of the 2d Bab. period, 169, 176;\n  associated with Shamash and Malik, 176.\n\n_Bunene_ and _Malik_,\n  attendants of Shamash, 177;\n  consort of Malik, 177;\n  associated with Shamash and Malkatu, 685.\n\n_Burial_, see _Dead_.\n\n_Bur-Sin_, repairs zikkurat and builds shrine in Nippur, 645.\n\n_Calah_,\n  capital of Assyria, 42, 193, 651;\n  temple of Nabu, 128, 228;\n  temple of Belit mati, 151;\n  temple of Ninib, 214;\n  capital of Ashur-nasirbal, 215;\n  sanctuary of Sin, 219;\n  intellectual center, 651;\n  worship of Ninib, 215, 684;\n  palace of Sargon II., 687.\n\n_Calendar_,\n  fixed by Marduk, 434;\n  importance of moon for c., 436, 461;\n  agriculture and c., 462;\n  growth and character, 465;\n  adopted by Hebrews, 464, 681.\n\n_Cappadocian_ wedge writings, 20.\n\n_Cassites_,\n  dynasty, 40-1, 480;\n  cult of Bel of Nippur, 146, 645;\n  cult of Shamash, 144, 646;\n  cult of Ramman, 158;\n  cult of Shukamuna, 152, 162;\n  cult of Nin-dim-su, Bakad, Pap-u, Belit-ekalli, Shumalia, 162, 172;\n  attack upon Assyria, 199.\n\n_Chaldaean Wisdom_, 362, 384, 403.\n\n_Chaos_,\n  attempts at picturing c., 411, 419;\n  gods contemporaneous with the primeval c., 413.\n\n_Christianity_, influenced by Ass.-Bab. religion, 698.\n\n_Claudius Ptolemaeus'_ astronomy, 5.\n\n_Commercial literature_ in syllabaries, 135.\n\n_Cosmology_, 247, 407 ff.;\n  the Tiamat episode, 140;\n  two or more versions of creation, 141-2, 407-8;\n  literary-religious character of, 247;\n  rise and development of cosmological speculations, 249;\n  distinction between popular and scholastic c., 249-50, 442-3;\n  distinction as to contents and form, 250;\n  historical kernel, 250;\n  c. deities antecedent to the known gods of the B.-A. pantheon, 417;\n  not _creatio ex nihilo_, but evolution of chaos to order, the keynote\n    of c, 418, 442;\n  similarities with Biblical account, 409, 433, 435, 451;\n  creation of heaven, 435, 443;\n  of sun, 435;\n  of moon, 436;\n  of earth, 443;\n  of mankind, 443;\n  second version, its similarities with and dissimilarities from the\n    first version, 444 ff.;\n  the gods of Nippur, Erech, Eridu, the original creators of the\n    universe, Marduk a later introduction, 449-50;\n  the mountain Mashu and the cosmological conceptions, 489;\n  see _Creation epic_.\n\n_Court of the World_, name of temple, 641.\n\n_Creation epic_,\n  purpose of, 409;\n  similarity with the Biblical account, 409, 433;\n  literary form, 409 ff.;\n  a nature myth, 432-3;\n  representation of sun, 461;\n  see _Cosmology_.\n\n_Ctesias_, source for B.-A. religion, 1, 4.\n\n_Cult and worship_, cf. _Festivals_ and _Rituals_;\n  organization, 115, 133, 234;\n  gods in cult and in invocations, 238;\n  revival of old c. in Neo-Bab. period, 242-3;\n  tree-worship, 688-9;\n  compounded of popular belief and theology, 689.\n\n_Cuneiform_, see _Wedge writing_.\n\n_Cuthah_, ancient center, 35;\n  = Tell-Ibrahim, 65;\n  cult and temple Nergal (see _Laz_), 65, 164, 218, 563, 583, 648, 667;\n  a designation for the nether-world, 563, 570;\n  synonymous with netherworld, 583.\n\n_Cuthaeans_, 532.\n\n_Cyrus_, captures Babylon, 4, 45;\n  adopts Babylonian religion, 45, 650.\n\n\n_Dagan_, god, 51;\n  confusion with Bel, 151, 154, 209, 225;\n  associated with Anu, 154, 209;\n  chiefly in Assyria, 208;\n  comparison with Dagon, 208;\n  probably Aramaic origin, 208;\n  god of earth, 209.\n\n_Damascius_ (or Damascenus), see _Nicolas of Damascus_.\n\n_Damascus_, in Syria, cult of Ramman, 159.\n\n_Damkina_,\n  consort of Ea, 64, 143, 231;\n  meaning of name, 143;\n  relationship to Ea and Marduk, 143;\n  in magical texts, 143;\n  Ea and Damkina grant long life, 153;\n  title Belit-ilani, 231;\n  occasionally invoked in incantations, 276.\n\n_Damku_,\n  god, associated with Sharru-ilu and Sha-nit(?)-ka, 232;\n  meaning of name, 232;\n  evidently a title, 232;\n  perhaps foreign deity, 232;\n  worshipped at Magganubba, 232.\n\n_Damu_ and _Damu-gal_, epithets of Gula, 166, 175.\n\n_Daniel_, book of;\n  bearing upon B.-A. religion, 2, 3;\n  Daniel and Bab. religion, 3 (_cf._ 668);\n  illustrative of Babylonian dream lore, 403;\n  authentic description of dedication of statue, 669.\n\n_Dead_,\n  universal, 556;\n  location and names of the gathering place of the dead, 557 ff. (cf.\n    _Netherworld_);\n  All-Souls' Day, 599, 605, 682;\n  under the special protection of the gods, 183, 558, 552, 592;\n  furnish oracles to the living, 559, 560, 582, 657;\n  deification of dead, 561, 582;\n  condition of dead, 563 ff.;\n  purified, 578, 602;\n  can hear lamentations, 575, 577;\n  cannot be brought back from Aralu, 576, 582;\n  suffer hunger, 598-9;\n  tombs and burial, 595 ff.\n\n_Death and burial_, life after death, 512, 514, 556 ff.;\n  cave burial, 557;\n  pyramid burial, 557.\n\n_Deborah_, song of, among the \"Battles of Yahwe,\" 534.\n\n_Deification_ (Parnapishtim and Etana), 470, 527;\n  of dead, 561, 582;\n  of Gudea and Dungi, 167, 470, 561;\n  of Gimil-Sin, 561;\n  of Gilgamesh, 282, 284, 470, 561.\n\n_Delila,_ parallelism with Ishtar, 516.\n\n_Delitzsch, Friedrich_, Sumerian question, 22; see Preface.\n\n_della Valle, Pietro_, traveler, 15.\n\n_Deluge_, in Gilgamesh epic and O. T., 495;\n  place of origin of deluge, 498;\n  embodying two distinct traditions, 502, 506;\n  points of contact with Biblical narrative, 506 ff.;\n  antiquity of the tradition, 508.\n\n_Demons_, see also _Animism_ and _Spirits_;\n  chief demon, 57, 497;\n  in incantations, 287;\n  how exorcised, 330;\n  when not to be exorcised, 378;\n  messenger of god, 378;\n  _Targul-le_, in the deluge story let loose by Dibbarra, 500;\n  the Utukku, 260 (_cf._ 511);\n  the Ekimmu, 260 (_cf._ 512);\n  authors of evil and disease, 183, 593, 306, 692.\n\n_Der_, center of worship of Nina, 88;\n  city of Anu, 88, 155.\n\n_de Sacy, Silvestre_, decipherment of wedge writing, 15.\n\n_de Sarzec, Ernest_, explorer, 11.\n\n_Dibbarra_, in Ass. pantheon, 189;\n  plague-god, 232, 505, 528;\n  a spirit, 232;\n  identified with Nergal, 232, 528-9, 594;\n  minor god, 234;\n  in the deluge story, 500 (_cf._ 505);\n  solar deity, 528;\n  god of war, \"the warrior,\" 528-9;\n  attendant of Nergal, 529, 588;\n  attended by Ishum, 529;\n  D.'s attack upon Babylon, 530-1;\n  D.'s attack upon Uruk, 531;\n  general war among mankind, 531 ff.;\n  Dibbarra enraged and appeased, 535;\n  identified with Girra, 588.\n\n_Dibbarra epic_, see _Dibbarra_, 232, 528 ff.;\n  recalls the \"Battles of Yahwe,\" 534.\n\n_Dilbat_, city in Babylonia;\n  temple of Ninib, 242;\n  zikkurat E-gubba-an-ki, 639.\n\n_Dilmun_, island, 125.\n\n_Diodorus_, source for B.-A. religion, 1, 4, 399, 435.\n\n_Dirges_, sung by priests and priestesses, 604, 658;\n  by priestesses, 660.\n\n_Divine names_, variety of names of individual divinities and local uses\n    thereof, 73;\n  transference of name and its meaning, 118, 140-1;\n  in proper names, 165-6, 169;\n  obscurity of, 233.\n\n_Djumdjuma_, 10.\n\n_Dogma_, establishment of, 115, 133, 247, 690 ff.\n\n_Dreams_, importance of, 322-3;\n  on par with oracles, 350, 479;\n  treated as omens, 350, 403 ff.;\n  in the Gilgamesh epic, 481, 486, 497.\n\n_Du'ar_, _Da'ur_, cosmological deity, 417.\n\n_Du-azagga_, council chamber of the gods, 629;\n  = Apsu, 630;\n  place where the sun rises, 630.\n\n_Dumu-zi_, god;\n  his double aspect, 96-7;\n  worship at Lagash, 635.\n\n_Dumuzi-zu-aba_, god, 51;\n  interpretation of name, 96;\n  functions and character, 96;\n  places of worship, 96;\n  in Gudea's pantheon, 106.\n\n_Dungi_, of Ur, builds temple of Nergal at Cuthah, 65;\n  builds temple of Nana in Uruk, 81;\n  builds temple to Nin-Mar, 100;\n  deified, 167, 470, 561.\n\n_Dun-shagga_, 51;\n  son of Nin-girsu, 91;\n  meaning of name, 94;\n  in Gudea's pantheon, 106.\n\n_Dur-an-ki_, name of a temple tower in Nippur, 539.\n\n_Dur-ilu_, Ass. city near Elamitic frontier;\n  cult of Kadi, 232.\n\n_Dur-Kurigalzu_, temple of Bel, 146.\n\n_Dur-padda_, a fort sacred to Ramman, 158.\n\n_Dur-zakar_, sanctuary of Belit, 56.\n\n_Du'zu_, see _Tammuz_.\n\n\n_Ea_, god, 51;\n  functions, 62, 78, 230;\n  epithets, 62, 142, 173, 230;\n  associations and relations with Bel, 62;\n  king of Eridu, 62-3, 275;\n  sanctuary in Girsu, 61;\n  god of the water, 63, 147, 237, 275, 430, 699;\n  explanation of name, 64;\n  identification with Nin-a-gal and other deities, 64;\n  member of the great triad, 107, 148, 207, 230, 677;\n  in Lugalzaggisi's and Gudea's pantheon, 111;\n  survival of his cult, 123-4, 136;\n  change of position since Hammurabi, 136;\n  non-mention in historical texts, 136;\n  prominence in religious texts, 136;\n  Ea and Marduk in incantation texts, 139-40;\n  transfers his name to Marduk, 118, 141, 439;\n  god of humanity _par excellence_, 141 (cf. 264, 275, 297, 437, 441,\n    462, 497);\n  formed of clay, 142;\n  Ea in the deluge story, 142, 497, 504;\n  Ea and Damkina grant long life, 153;\n  god of fine arts, 177;\n  fighting Tiamat, 197, 422;\n  Ninib, first-born of Ea, 217;\n  shrine in E-Sagila, 220, 241;\n  Belit, consort of, 226, 231, 237;\n  Nabu, son of, 229;\n  in the Ass. pantheon, 230;\n  sanctuary at Ashur, 230;\n  titles emphasizing his skill, 230;\n  house of wisdom, 522;\n  similarity and difference between Ea and Nabu, 230-1;\n  Ea and Belitilani, names of southern gates of Sargon's palace, 237;\n  unlocks fountains, 237;\n  shrine in E-Zida, 241;\n  prominent in incantations, 137, 256, 275;\n  the spirits hostile to, 264 (cf. 141);\n  as a healer, 275;\n  overcomes eclipse of moon, 276;\n  associated with fire-god, 279, 286;\n  in the Shurpu series, 288;\n  conquers Tiamat, 422;\n  in the zodiac in conjunction with Nibir and Bel, 434-5;\n  identified with some star in southern heaven, 435, 460;\n  Iyar, his sacred month, 462, 677;\n  Ea in the 11th tablet of the Gilgamesh epic, 496;\n  rivalry with Bel, 497, 507 ff.;\n  Persian Gulf, sacred to Ea, 498, 545;\n  father of Adapa, 545;\n  Ea in Ishtar's descent, 571;\n  Ea's sanctuary E-karzaginna, 636.\n\n_Eabani_, created by Aruru, 448, 474;\n  E. and Ishtar, 484, 486;\n  parallelism betw. Adam and E., 511;\n  E.'s spirit conjured up by Nergal, 511 ff., 560, 565.\n\n_E-adda_, temple of Anu, 53, 640;\n  meaning of name, 640.\n\n_E-an-dadia_, name of zikkurat at Agade, 639;\n  meaning of name, 639.\n\n_E-anna_, temple of Ninni in Girsu, 80;\n  temple of Nana or Ishtar in Uruk, 81, 242, 311, 331, 639, 648;\n  meaning of name, 639.\n\n_Eannatum_, burial costumes, 597.\n\n_E-babbara_, name of the temples of Shamash in Larsa and Sippar, 70,\n    628, 640;\n  worship of Shamash, Malik, Bunene in E. at Sippar, 176, 628;\n  meaning of name, 640;\n  history of Ebabbara in Sippar, 646 ff.;\n  with shrine of Anunit, 646;\n  history of Ebabbara in Larsa, 647.\n\n_Ecbatana_, concentric walls, 618.\n\n_Ecclesiastes_, unsatisfactory ending like 12th tablet of Gilgamesh\n    epic, 513.\n\n_Eclipses_, e. of moon removed by Ea, 276;\n  cause of e., 264, 276, 280;\n  calculation of time of occurrence of e., 357;\n  indication of omens the ulterior motive of observations of, 357, 368;\n  omens gathered from observation of e. in the \"Illumination of Bel\"\n    series, 364 ff.;\n  eclipses portend public disaster, 366, 369;\n  importance of omens deduced from observations of e., 368;\n  e. of sun called the \"way of Anu,\" 457.\n\n_Eden_, Garden of, legendary, 2;\n  identical with the confluence of streams, 506.\n\n_Edessa_, gnostic center, 699.\n\n_E-dim-anna_, chapel of Sin in E-Zida, 639;\n  meaning of name, 639.\n\n_E-dingiranagin_, see _E-anna-tuma_.\n\n_E-ditar-kalama_, sanctuary of Shamash in Babylon, 242, 640;\n  meaning of name, 640.\n\n_E-dur-an-ki_, zikkurat at Larsa, 639;\n  meaning of name, 639.\n\n_E-dur-gi-na_, temple of Belsarbi, 242, 639;\n  meaning of name, 639.\n\n_E-edinna_, temple of Shamash's consort, 640;\n  meaning of name, 640.\n\n_E-esh-gi_, shrine of Nin-girsu at Lagash, 640.\n\n_E-gal-makh_, temple in Ur, 639.\n\n_E-gish-shir-gal_, temple of Sin at Ur, 76, 241, 295, 640, 647;\n  meaning of name, 640.\n\n_E-gi-umunna_, a sanctuary, 640;\n  meaning of name, 640.\n\n_E-gubba-an-ki_, zikkurat at Dilbat, 639;\n  meaning of name, 639.\n\n_E-igi-e-nir-kidur-makh_, temple to Ninni at Kish, 639;\n  meaning of name, 639.\n\n_Ekallate_, name of city in Assyria, cult of Ramman and Shala, 212.\n\n_E-karzaginna_, sanctuary of Ea in E-Sagila, 636.\n\n_E-kharsag_, temple in Ur, 638.\n\n_E-kharsag-ella_, temple of Gula in Babylon, meaning of name, 638.\n\n_E-kharsag-kalama_, name of temple, 638;\n  E-kur-makh, 638.\n\n_E-kharsag-kurkura_, dwelling of Bel, 225;\n  temple in Assyria, 615;\n  meaning of name, 638.\n\n_E-khulkhul_, temple of Sin in Harran, 76, 241, 641, 647;\n  meaning of name, 641.\n\n_E-ki-dur-garza_, temple to Nin-lil-anna in Babylon, 640;\n  meaning of name, 640.\n\n_Ekimmu_, a class of spirits, 260 (_cf._ 512, 581, 602).\n\n_E-kua_, papakhu of Marduk in E-Sagila, 640;\n  meaning of name, 640.\n\n_E-kur_, temple of Bel, 11, 37, 51, 54, 69, 151, 642, 644;\n  meaning of E-kur, 173, 217, 614, 638;\n  = Eshara, 217;\n  history of the temple, 644 ff.;\n  = Kharsag(-gal)-kurkura, 558;\n  lofty dwelling of gods, 541;\n  designation for the nether-world, 558;\n  = temple, 558, 614 (cf. 622);\n  = earth, 614;\n  in plural = divinities, 615.\n\n_E-kur-makh_, name of temple, 638;\n  = E-kharsag-kalama, 638.\n\n_Elali_, in proper names of the 2nd Bab. period, 170;\n  epithet of Gibil, 170.\n\n_Elam_, 35;\n  Elamites invade Babylonia, 38, 480;\n  capture Nana's statue, 85;\n  Elamitic deities: Eria, 122, 162;\n  Kadi, 188, 232, 234.\n\n_El-Amarna_, tablets of, containing the Adapa legend, 544;\n  contains legend of Nergal conquering and wedding Allatu, 584-5.\n\n_Elul_, see _Ululu_.\n\n_E-makh_, chapel to Nin-kharsag, 639.\n\n_E-makh-tila_, shrine to Nabu at Borsippa, 307, 606, 636.\n\n_E-mash-mash_, temple of Ishtar, 152;\n  of Belit, 227.\n\n_E-me-te-ur-sagga_, temple of Zamama-Ninib, 640;\n  meaning of name, 640.\n\n_En-anna-tuma_, patesi of Lagash, constructs storehouse to Nin-girsu,\n    58.\n\n_En-anna-tuma_ II., 2nd dynasty of Ur, devotee of Nin-gal, 98.\n\n_E-nin-makh_, chapel of Ishtar in Babylon, 242, 640;\n  meaning of name, 640.\n\n_E-ninnu_, temple of Nin-girsu, 57, 87, 635, 640.\n\n_En-ki_, see _Ea_.\n\n_En-lil_, see _Bel_.\n\n_En-meshara_, attendant of Allatu, god of vegetation, 588;\n  festival of E. in the 10th month, 588.\n\n_Ennanna_ = Ninni, 51.\n\n_En-ninna_, a minor deity in the Etana legend, 521.\n\n_En-nugi_, leader of the gods, 495.\n\n_En-temena_, patesi of Lagash, 56;\n  constructs storehouse to Nin-girsu, 58.\n\n_En-tena_, see _En-temena_ (better reading).\n\n_E-nun-makh_, temple of Sin at Ur, 295, 640;\n  meaning of name, 640.\n\n_Enshar_, cosmological deity, 417.\n\n_En-zu_, see _Sin_.\n\n_E-pa_, zikkurat at Lagash, 639;\n  meaning of name, 639.\n\n_E-pad-kalama-suma_, sanctuary of Nabu in Babylonia, 640;\n  meaning of name, 640.\n\n_Epics and legends_, literary-religious character of, 247;\n  historical spirit of, 250;\n  nature myths, 250.\n\n_Erech_ = Warka = Uruk; see _Uruk_.\n\n_Eresh-Kigal_ = Allatu, 584.\n\n_Eria_, Elamitic goddess, possibly identical with Erua, 122, 162.\n\n_Eridu_, ancient center, 35, 245, 445;\n  sanctuary of Ea, 62, 124, 445;\n  lost her political prestige, 136;\n  cult of Anunnaki and Igigi, 186;\n  prominent in incantations, 256.\n\n_Erua_, the \"begetting\" goddess, 123;\n  amalgamation with Sarpanitum, 122-3, 130;\n  dwelling in E-Zida, 123;\n  consort of Nabu, 123;\n  possibly identical with Eria, 122;\n  water deity, 123;\n  cult suppressed by Hammurabi, 130;\n  place of worship, 130.\n\n_E-Sagila_, temple of Marduk in Babylon, 121, 636;\n  with a shrine of Sarpanitum, 121, 241, 636, 641;\n  with shrine of Nusku, 220, 241;\n  with shrine of Nabu, 127, 220, 636;\n  with shrine of Ea, 220, 241;\n  with shrine of Tashmitum, 220, 241;\n  with shrine of Nin-kharsag, 639;\n  sanctuary E-karzaginna of Ea, 636;\n  meaning of name, 639;\n  with papakhu of Marduk, 640;\n  takes the place of E-kur, 645;\n  history of E-Sagila, 648 ff.;\n  place of installation of rulers, 649;\n  influence of E-Sagila and E-Zida, 649.\n\n_E-Sagila_, temple of Ea, 446.\n\n_E-salgisa_, temple in Girsu, 641;\n  meaning of name, 641.\n\n_Esarhaddon_, king of Assyria, 200;\n  restores temple of Nana-Ishtar at Erech, 85, 206;\n  his pantheon, 238;\n  restores Ekur, 645;\n  Shamash cult in Sippar, 646.\n\n_Eschatological literature_, gods and demons in e., 183.\n\n_E-shara_, meaning, 173, 175, 198;\n  offsprings of, 174;\n  bride of E., 173, 175;\n  built by Anshar, 198;\n  built by Marduk, 198, 431\n  = Ekur, 217;\n  placed by Marduk under control of Bel, 432.\n\n_E-shid-lam_, temple of Nergal and Laz at Cuthah, 65, 648, 667.\n\n_Etana_, legendary personage, 468, 505, 519 ff.;\n  dwells in the netherworld, 511, 520, 523, 527, 590;\n  E.'s patron, Shamash, 520;\n  name occurs in O. T., 519;\n  traditions among other nations, 519-21;\n  E. and Ganymede, 523;\n  deified, 527, 590;\n  god of vegetation, 590.\n\n_E-temen-an-ki_, zikkurat to Marduk at Babylon, 619, 639;\n  meaning of name, 639.\n\n_Ethics_, B.-A. religion, 291, 312, 692;\n  belong to advanced period, 292, 304-5;\n  in prayers, 298-9;\n  gods whose nature create e. notions, 306, 692;\n  in penitential psalms, 312 ff.;\n  private morality, 694 ff.\n\n_E-tila_, name of a temple, and meaning of name, 641.\n\n_E-tur-kalama_, temple of Ishtar, 311.\n\n_E-u-gal_, temple to En-lil, 640;\n  meaning of name, 640.\n\n_E-ulla_, temple to Gula in Sippar, 641;\n  meaning of name, 641.\n\n_E-ul-mash_, temple of Nana in Agade, 82.\n\n_Euphrates_, stream of Garden of Eden, 2 (_cf._ 506);\n  E. valley, central habitation of mankind, 2;\n  old settlements of Hebrews, 2;\n  course of, 27;\n  comparison with Tigris, 30;\n  one of the four streams forming the confluence of streams, 506 (_cf._\n    2).\n\n_E-ur-imin-an-ki_, zikkurat at Babylon, 619.\n\n_Eusebius_, source for B.-A. religion, 1, 4, 5.\n\n_Eve_, parallelism with Ukhat, 511.\n\n_Excavations_, 6-15.\n\n_Exorcism_, see _Incantations_.\n\n_E-Zida_, temple of Nabu at Borsippa, 121, 229, 241, 639;\n  with shrine of Erua, 123;\n  with shrine of Sarpanitum, 241;\n  with shrine of Tashmitum, 241;\n  with shrine of Nusku, 241;\n  with shrine of Ea, 241;\n  with shrine of Sin, 639;\n  history of E-Zida, 648 ff.;\n  influence of E-Zida and E-Sagila, 649.\n\n_E-Zida_, shrine of Nabu in E-Sagila, 127, 220, 229, 636.\n\n\n_Family_, systematization of O. B. pantheon according to Davis, 109.\n\n_Fast days_, special occasions, 688.\n\n_Fate tablets_, tablets of fate in the hands of Bel, 538 (_cf._ 150,\n    153);\n  in the Tiamat story, 420, 428, 538;\n  robbed by Zu, 540;\n  compared with the tablets of wisdom, 585.\n\n_Festivals_, zag-muk, 59, 127, 631, 677, 678;\n  significance of every day, 675;\n  special significance of special days, 675, 677, 680-1, 683-5;\n  words for f. in Assyrian, 676, 687;\n  each month sacred to a deity, 462-3, 676, 683-4;\n  festivals and months sacred to divinities not always corresponding,\n    687;\n  special festivals, 687-8;\n  the puru ceremony, 688;\n  fast days and rites, 688.\n\n_Fire_, see _Water_ (cf. Gibil-Nusku in incantations, 277);\n  means of purification, 276, 279;\n  belongs to all three divisions of the universe, 286.\n\n_Foreign gods_ in B.-A. religion (see also _Cassites_), 142, 644;\n  Adad = Ramman, 156;\n  Kadi, 188, 232, 234;\n  Damku, 232;\n  Eria, 122, 162 (Elamitic).\n\n_Fresnel, Fulgente_, expedition, 8.\n\n\n_Gaga_, Assyrian pantheon, 188;\n  minor god, 234;\n  Anshar's messenger to Tiamat, 423;\n  a foreign deity, 238, 644.\n\n_Gal-alim_, 51;\n  center of worship, 91;\n  son of Nin-girsu, 91;\n  in Gudea's pantheon, 106.\n\n_Gamlat_, in Ass. pantheon, 188.\n\n_Ganymede and Etana_, 523.\n\n_Ga-tum-dug_, goddess, 51;\n  similar to Bau, 61;\n  worship at Lagash, 61, 635;\n  in Gudea's pantheon, 106, 635.\n\n_Gate of Widespread Splendor_, seat of Sarpanitum in E-Sagila, 121, 241,\n    636, 641.\n\n_Gegunu_, epithet of Aralu, 563.\n\n_Genealogical_ systematization of Old Bab. pantheon according to Amiaud,\n    109.\n\n_Genesis_, see _Cosmology_.\n\n_Gibil_, fire-god, E-la-li, perhaps an epithet, 170;\n  in Ass. pantheon, 189;\n  amalgamated with Nusku, 220, 227;\n  in incantations, 273, 277;\n  older than Nusku, 277;\n  epithets, 277, 280;\n  a mythological conception, 277, 279;\n  G.-Nusku, god of civilization, 278;\n  medium betw. worshipper and deity, 279;\n  associated with Anu, 277;\n  associated with Bel and Ea, 279;\n  associated with Nin-gish-zida, 463;\n  identified with Nergal, 594.\n\n_Gil_, attendant of Nergal and Allatu, 588;\n  god of foliage, 588.\n\n_Gilgamesh_, hero of the Bab. epic, 83, 468 ff.;\n  in incantations, 282, 284, 470;\n  mythological explanation of, 282, 486-7;\n  with omens, 387;\n  solar deity, 470-1, 515;\n  king of the earth, 471;\n  born in Marada, 473;\n  conquers Uruk, 473, 513;\n  created by Aruru, 473-4;\n  Shamash (see _Lugal-Marada_), his patron, 471, 479;\n  love affair with Ishtar, 481 ff.;\n  Lugal-Marada, his patron (see _Shamash_), 486;\n  conquers Khumbaba, 480, 514;\n  G.'s contest with the bull, 486, 514, 537;\n  contest with lion, 488, 514;\n  Gilgamesh half divine, half human, 490, 514;\n  G. and Sabitum, 490-1;\n  G. and Parnapishtim, 492 ff.;\n  points of contact with O. T., 495, 515-6;\n  G. and Eabani, 510, 565;\n  seeking immortality and the secret of life after death, 513;\n  parallelism with Samson, 516;\n  parallelism with Hercules, 516;\n  Gilgamesh and Alexander the Great, 469, 516;\n  G. in Aelian, 469, 524;\n  G.'s grandfather Sokkaros, 524.\n\n_Gimil-Sin_, deified, 561;\n  temple at Lagash, 561.\n\n_Gim-nun-ta-ud-du-a_, son of Bau, 103;\n  explanation of name, 103;\n  probable functions, 103.\n\n_Gin-shul-pa-uddu_, wife of Gudea, 99.\n\n_Girra_, attendant of Nergal and Allatu, 588;\n  identified with Dibbarra, 588;\n  a form of Nergal in later texts, 589.\n\n_Girsu_, see _Lagash_.\n\n_Gish-galla_ (?), quarter of Lagash, 57;\n  temple of Ninni, 80.\n\n_Gish-zida_, identical with solar deity Nin-gish-zida, 547;\n  G. and Tammuz, doorkeepers of heaven, 546;\n  5th month sacred to G., 547;\n  intercedes for Adapa with Anu, 548-9.\n\n_Gnosticism_, influenced by B.-A. religion, 698.\n\n_Great Place_, name of temple, 641.\n\n_Grotefend, Georg Friedrich_, decipherment of wedge writing, 16.\n\n_Gudea_ statues, 57, 652;\n  his pantheon, 106 ff., 635;\n  number of deities indicative of the extent of his sovereignty, 106;\n  principle of order, 107;\n  gods common to Gudea's and Lugalzaggisi's pantheon, 110;\n  deified, 167, 470, 561;\n  his zikkurat, 615, 619;\n  builder of temples, 642;\n  imports diorite from Sinai peninsula, 627, 651;\n  Gudea's apsu, 653;\n  Gudea's ship for Ningirsu, 654;\n  G.'s votive objects and inscription, 57, 668-9, 672.\n\n_Gula_, identified with Bau, 60;\n  associated with Ninib, 105 (_cf._ 576);\n  goddess of healing, 105, 166, 175, 282 (_cf._ 576, 683);\n  in Nebuchadnezzar's I. pantheon, 162, 175;\n  epithets, 166, 173, 175, 576;\n  goddess of nether-world, 174-5;\n  position intermediate betw. gods of the living and gods of the dead,\n    175 (_cf._ 576);\n  creator of mankind, 175;\n  her sanctuary erected by Ashurnasirbal, 218;\n  her festival celebrated by Ashurbanabal, 218, 683;\n  = Nin-Karrak, 242;\n  temple at Babylon (see _Nin-Karrak_), 242, 638;\n  three sanctuaries at Borsippa, 242, 636 (E-ulla), 641;\n  in incantations, 273, 282;\n  12th day of Iyar sacred to G., 683.\n\n_Gurmu_, son of Bau, 103.\n\n_Gushgin-banda_, 171;\n  \"brilliant chief,\" patron of metal-workers, 178.\n\n\n_Halevy, J._, Sumerian question, 22-4.\n\n_Hallabi_, city near Sippar, temple of Ninni, 117, 144.\n\n_Hamath_, city in N. Syria, 578.\n\n_Hammurabi_, king of Babylon, secures the hegemony in Babylonia, 116,\n    532;\n  Marduk, the chief of his pantheon, 117;\n  builds temples, 642;\n  builds temple to Ninni at Hallabi, 117;\n  builds E-Zida, 121;\n  ignores cult of Nabu, 128;\n  suppresses cult of Erua, 130;\n  care of temple of Shamash at Larsa, 143-4;\n  Shamash cult, 117, 143-4;\n  at Sippar, 117, 143;\n  at Larsa, 143;\n  Ninni cult at Hallabi, 144-5;\n  \"proclaimer of Anu and Bel,\" 146-7;\n  beloved shepherd of Belit, 150;\n  list of names of gods in H.'s pantheon, 161-2;\n  \"The Akkadian,\" 532;\n  H.'s character as a Messiah, 533;\n  = Amraphel, 534.\n\n_Harran_, city in Mesopotamia, sacred to Sin, 76, 241, 641, 647;\n  its importance and political decline, 77;\n  meaning of its name, 78;\n  associations with Ur, 77;\n  enjoys the patronage of Sargon II., 77;\n  temple of Sin, 76, 241, 641;\n  patronized by Nabonnedos, 77, 242.\n\n_Haynes, John H._, excavations, 11.\n\n_Heart of Shamash_, name of a temple, 641.\n\n_Hebrews_, see _Old Testament_.\n\n_Hercules_, parallelism with Gilgamesh, 516.\n\n_Herodotus_, source for B.-A. religion, 1;\n  history of Assyria, 3;\n  history of Persia, 4;\n  notices on B.-A. religion, 4;\n  notices on Ishtar cult in Erech, 485.\n\n_Hillah_, village, site of, 8.\n\n_Historical texts_, value as source for religion, 51, 166, 246, 661;\n  pantheon in h. t. compared with that in incantation texts, 297;\n  source for knowledge of sacrifices, 661.\n\n_Hittites_, eagle standard among the H., 527;\n  influence on Assyrian architecture, 627.\n\n_Hommel, Fritz_, Sumerian question, 21.\n\n_Homoroka_ = Marduk, 5.\n\n_House Full of Joy_, name of temple, 641.\n\n_House of Fifty_, see _E-ninnu_.\n\n_House of Great Splendor_, name of temple, 641.\n\n_House of Hearkening to Prayers_, name of temple, 641.\n\n_House of Light_, name of temple, 641.\n\n_House of the Brilliant Precinct_, name of temple, 641.\n\n_House of the Seven Divisions of Heaven and Earth_, name of zikkurat at\n    Borsippa, 639.\n\n_House of the Seven Zones_, name of zikkurat at Uruk, 639.\n\n_House Without Rival_, name of temple, 641.\n\n_Hymns and prayers_, division of religious literature, 247, 293;\n  where composed, 248;\n  in connection with incantations, 293, 301;\n  h. to Shamash, 300 ff.;\n  to Sin, 303-4;\n  dialogue style of composition, 305;\n  to Nebo, 306;\n  no difference in thought betw. h. and incantation, 301, 307;\n  illustrating relationship betw. man and gods, 309;\n  deity as person of dialogue in, 310;\n  see also _Prayers_.\n\n\n_Iamblichus_, source of B.-A. religion, 399.\n\n_Idiklat_ = Tigris, 28.\n\n_Igi-dug-ga_, title of Ea, 230.\n\n_Igigi_, explanation of name, 185;\n  number of, and explanation, 185;\n  spirits of heaven, 185, 200;\n  gods in whose service the I. are, 186;\n  their character, 186;\n  associated with Anunnaki, 186, 593;\n  altar of I. and Anunnaki, 186;\n  chiefs of Eridu, 186;\n  Ashur, king of, 200;\n  Anu, their chief, 186, 207, 593;\n  associated with the great triad, 236.\n\n_Ilabrat_, minor god, in the Adapa legend, 546.\n\n_Illumination of Bel_, name of an omen series, 363.\n\n_Im_ = Ramman, 156.\n\n_Immeru_ = Ramman, 157.\n\n_Immortality_, see _Dead_.\n\n_Im-pa-ud-du_, son of Bau, 103;\n  explanation of name, 103;\n  function, 103.\n\n_Incantations_, see also _Magical Texts_;\n  in therapeutics, 246;\n  means and methods of, 270-3;\n  gods invoked in, 273;\n  sacred objects invoked, 274;\n  gods in incantations _par excellence_, 275;\n  the fire-god in, 277;\n  favorite time of, 280-1;\n  i. services, 281, 283 ff.;\n  principle of sympathetic magic, 284;\n  mixed with ethical conceptions, 292;\n  in connection with prayers, 293, 301;\n  the oldest fixed ritual, 294;\n  no line of demarcation betw. prayers and i., 297, 307;\n  points in common with and differences from penitential psalms, 312;\n  the natural expression of popular beliefs, 326;\n  demons exorcised by i., 330;\n  connecting link betw. omens and i., 352.\n\n_Inmarmaru_, city in Dibbarra epic, 533.\n\n_Invocations_, 165;\n  in records of the 2nd Bab. period, 167;\n  combined invocations, 235;\n  where found, 235, 245;\n  motive and manner of, 236 ff.;\n  Tiglathpileser I., 236;\n  Ramman-nirari I., 237;\n  Ashurnasirbal, 237;\n  Shalmaneser II., 237;\n  Sargon II., 237;\n  Sennacherib, 238;\n  Esarhaddon, 238;\n  Ashurbanabal, 238;\n  gods in invocation and in actual worship, 238.\n\n_Irkalla_, a designation of the netherworld, 563, 566;\n  name of the consort of the queen of Aralu, 563, 591;\n  identified with Nergal, 592.\n\n_Isaiah_, prophet, 2.\n\n_Ish-gu-tur_, temple of Nin-Mar in Mar, 100.\n\n_Ishi-milku_, a foreign deity, 644.\n\n_Ishme-Dagan_, king of Assyria, evidence of age of Dagan cult, 208.\n\n_Ishtar_, goddess Nana, 82, 85, 202, 311, 643;\n  absorbs other deities, 82;\n  epithets, 83, 151-2, 204, 237;\n  functions in B.-A., 83, 459;\n  functions in A., 83-5;\n  in Gilgamesh epic, 84-5, 482, 501, 563-4;\n  zodiacal interpr., 82-4, 310-1;\n  relationship to Sin, 79, 84, 163, 565, 571;\n  relationship to Anu, 84-5, 566;\n  significance of these relationships, 85;\n  variants, 82, 85, 202, 242;\n  temple at Agade, 117, 242;\n  temple at Calah, 151;\n  temple E-mash-mash, 152, 205, 227;\n  relationship to Sin and Shamash, 163, 571;\n  goddess of war, 83, 164, 204;\n  during Cassite and Nebuchadnezzar's I. reign, 164, 645;\n  variants of Assyrian Ishtar, 202;\n  mighty over the Anunnaki, 204;\n  milder nature in religious texts, 205;\n  mother of mankind, 204-5, 237;\n  relationship to her devotees, 205;\n  temple Kidmuru, 202;\n  temples at Arbela, Nineveh, and Ashur, 205;\n  I. of Nineveh and I. of Arbela distinguished, 205;\n  Ab her sacred month, 205, 462, 685;\n  wife of Bel, 205;\n  Belit of the land (151, 206), 215, = Belit, 226;\n  temple in Uruk, 81, 242, 311, 531, 639;\n  worship in Uruk, 103, 242, 472, 475, 531 (see _Nana_);\n  wife of Ashur, 227;\n  associated with the great triad, 236;\n  Ishtar and Anu, names of west. gates of Sargon's II. palace, 237;\n  causes the inhabitants to flourish, 237 (_cf._ 204);\n  temple at Babylon, 242 (_cf. Ninmakh_), 640;\n  in incantations, 273;\n  in hymns, 310;\n  temple E-tur-kalama, 311;\n  in a penitential psalm, 318;\n  prominence of cult of I. under Ashurnasirbal and before, 325, 342;\n  in oracles and omens, 343-4;\n  = Venus as name of planet, 370, 458-9, 571;\n  importance of Ishtar-Venus in omen literature, 371-2;\n  I. appears in a dream to the king, 374;\n  personification of fertility, 459, 462, 482, 563, 587;\n  causes decline, 483, 563;\n  10th month sacred to I., Papsukal, and Anu, 463;\n  the Kizreti, Ukhati, and Kharimati of I. in Uruk, 475, 485, 660;\n  relationship to Tammuz, 84, 482, 484, 547, 564, 574;\n  Ishtar's love fatal to her lovers, 482, 516;\n  I. and Eabani, 484, 486;\n  in the deluge, 501, 503-4;\n  parallelism with Delila, 516;\n  I. in the lower world, 564;\n  the 6th month \"the mission of Ishtar,\" 564, 684;\n  festival celebrated in Ab, 685;\n  correlated to Allatu, 587;\n  I. cult under Ashurbanabal, 85, 206, 238, 648;\n  cult under Nebuchadnezzar II., 648;\n  figurines of, 674.\n\n_Ishtaritu_, general designation of Ishtar priestess, 660.\n\n_Ishum, god_, 51;\n  identity with Pa-sag, 101;\n  in proper names of, 2nd Bab. period, 169;\n  messenger of Nusku, 280;\n  solar deity, 528;\n  local deity, 528;\n  attendant of Dibbarra, 529, 594;\n  describes Dibbarra's deeds, 530 ff.;\n  his wars, 533 ff.;\n  associated with Sibi, 533;\n  \"the warrior,\" 533;\n  associated with Nergal, 594.\n\n_Isin_, ancient center, 35;\n  kings, 37;\n  Isin dynasty as \"builders\" of temple of Nana in Ur, 81.\n\n_Iskenderun_, bay of, 122.\n\n_Iyar_, see _Airu_.\n\n_Izdubar_ = Gilgamesh.\n\n\n_Jezreel plain_, cult of Ramman, 159.\n\n_Job_, book of, unsatisfactory ending like 12th tablet of Gilgamesh\n    epic, 513.\n\n_Josephus_, historical references to B.-A., 5.\n\n_Judges_ = priests, 625, 658.\n\n_Judith_, book of, bearing upon B.-A. religion, 3.\n\n_Jupiter_ = Marduk, name of planet, 370, 434, 458-9, 676-7;\n  see _Marduk_.\n\n\n_Kaaba_, at Mecca, 624.\n\n_Kabru_, epithet for Aralu, 563.\n\n_Kadashman-Turgu_, Cassite king, votive tablet, 671.\n\n_Kadi_, in Ass. pantheon, 188;\n  Elamitic god, 232;\n  worshipped in Dur-ilu, 232;\n  minor god, 234.\n\n_Kadishtu_, general designation of Ishtar priestess, 660.\n\n_Kalah-Shergat_, excavations, 10;\n  site of city of Ashur, 198.\n\n_Kallat-Eshara_, epithet of Gula, 173.\n\n_Kanishurra_, a foreign god, 644.\n\n_Kara-indash_, king of Babylon, restores Shamash temple at Larsa, 144\n\n_Kar-nuna-ta-uddua_, ship of Ningirsu, 654;\n  meaning of name, 654.\n\n_Karun_, one of the four streams forming the confluence of streams, 506.\n\n_Katnu_, a foreign god, 644.\n\n_Kercha_, one of the four streams forming the confluence of streams,\n    506.\n\n_Khadir_ = Parnapishtim, 515.\n\n_Khani_, tribe hostile to Babylon, 152.\n\n_Khani_, god, in Ass. pantheon, 188;\n  a form of Nebo, 188;\n  minor god, 234;\n  a foreign deity, 644.\n\n_Kharimati_, sacred harlots of Uruk, 475, 531, 660.\n\n_Kharsag(-gal)-kurkura_, \"the (great) mountain of the earth,\" 558;\n  native place of the gods, 558, 614;\n  = Ekur, 558.\n\n_Khashur_, mountain destroyed by Ishum, 533.\n\n_Khasis-Adra_, see _Adra-khasis_, 505.\n\n_Khi-gir-nun-na_, son of Bau, 103.\n\n_Khi-khi_, mountain attacked by Ishum, 533.\n\n_Khiraitum_, a foreign deity, 644.\n\n_Khi-shaga_, a son of Bau, 103.\n\n_Khorsabad_, unearthed, 6, 8;\n  capital of Assyria, 193;\n  sanctuary of Sin, 219;\n  palace of Sargon, 225;\n  names of its gates and walls, 237;\n  sanctuary of Nin-Gal, 231;\n  zikkurat at K., 617.\n\n_Khumbaba_ attacks Uruk, 480;\n  conquered by Gilgamesh, 514.\n\n_Khusha_, god of the 2nd Bab. period, 168.\n\n_Kidin-Marduk_, father of Parnapishtim, 488, 496.\n\n_Kidmuru_ temple of Ishtar in Nineveh, 202.\n\n_Kigallu_, a designation of the netherworld, 562.\n\n_Kilili_, a foreign deity, 644.\n\n_Kingship_, differentiation of kingly and priestly functions late, 374;\n   traces of direct relationship betw. gods and king, 374-5.\n\n_Kingu_, consort of Tiamat, 420;\n  symbol of chaos, 538;\n  deprived of the tablets of fate by Marduk, 428.\n\n_Kinunira_, city on the Euphrates (?), sanctuary of Dumuzi-zu-aba, 96.\n\n_Kish_, city in Babylonia, 54;\n  temple of Zamama, 169;\n  temple of Ninni, 639.\n\n_Kishar,_ god, K. and Anshar created, 197, 410;\n  K. and Anshar intermediate betw. the monsters and the gods in\n    creation, 414, 416-7;\n  creation of theologians, 416;\n  Anshar and Kishar in the creation epic and their meaning, 418.\n\n_Kishar-gal_, cosmological deity, 417.\n\n_Kishshat_, a foreign god, 644.\n\n_Kislev_, 9th month, sacred to Nergal, 463.\n\n_Kizreti_, Ukhati, and Kharimati, the harlots of Uruk, 475, 531, 660.\n\n_Koyunjik_, mound, unearthed, 7, 9.\n\n_Ku(?)-anna_, 51;\n  place of worship, 102;\n  functions, 102;\n  consort of Ramman (?), 102.\n\n_Kudur-mabuk_, 2d dynasty of Ur, \"builder\" of temple of Sin in Ur, 76,\n    295;\n  of temple of Nana in Ur, 81.\n\n_Kumari_, city in Babylonia, temple of Ramman, 242.\n\n_Kurigalzu_, Cassite, king of Babylon, cult of Bel of Nippur, 147, 645.\n\n_Kutu_, see _Cuthah_.\n\n\n_Lagamal_, a foreign god, 644.\n\n_Lagash_, governors, 36;\n  temple of Anu, 53, 640;\n  temple of Belit, 56;\n  temple of Bau, 635;\n  quarters of, 56-7;\n  temple of Ningirsu-Ninib, 57, 87, 635, 640;\n  center of worship of Ninni, 80;\n  ancient center, 35, 245;\n  temple of Dumu-zi-zu-aba, 96;\n  Dumuzi, temple of Ninmar, 635;\n  temple of Nin-gish-zida, 99, 635;\n  temple of Nina, 635;\n  temple of Ku(?)-an-na, 152;\n  temple of Gimil-Sin, 561;\n  shrine of Nin-girsu, 640;\n  zikkurat of Nin-girsu, 619, 635, 639;\n  temple of E-salgisa, 641;\n  temple of Nin-si-a, 635;\n  temple of Shabra, 635;\n  temple of Nin-sun, 635;\n  temple of Nin-tu, 635;\n  votive objects, 673.\n\n_Lakhamu_, L. and Lakhmu cosmological, 197, 410, 417;\n  a monster, 414, 418;\n  in incantations, 417;\n  in Allatu's court, 593.\n\n_Larsa_, ancient center, 35;\n  rulers, 37-8;\n  dynasty, 39;\n  center of worship of Shamash, 69, 143-4, 241, 628, 640, 646;\n  zikkurats at L., 617, 639.\n\n_Lasimu_, a foreign god, 644.\n\n_Layard, Austen Henry_, excavations, 7.\n\n_Laz_, consort of Nergal, 219, 243;\n  not mentioned in Ass. texts, 219;\n  not mentioned in religious texts, 583.\n\n_Lebanon_, cedar forests, 626.\n\n_Legal literature_, see also _Literature_;\n  source for study of religion, 166;\n  religious character of, 245.\n\n_Libations_, 664, 666;\n  in Old Testament and in A.-B., 665.\n\n_Libit-Ishtar_, 2d dynasty of Ur, builds temple of Nana in Ur, 81.\n\n_Life of the World_, name of temple, 641.\n\n_Light of Shamash_, name of temple, 641.\n\n_Lists of gods_, 213, 216;\n  character of, 233;\n  prepared on the basis of religious texts, 233.\n\n_Literature_, Ashurbanabal's library, 132;\n  syllabaries, 135;\n  religious l., 12, 13, 213, 216, 233, 245, 247, 690-1;\n  temple records, 165;\n  legal documents, 165-6;\n  connection betw. religion and literature, 245, 691;\n  historical texts, 246;\n  uncertain demarcation betw. religious and secular l., 247;\n  epics, see _Gilgamesh_, _Eabani_, _Adapa_;\n  compound of popular belief and of theology, 689.\n\n_Local cults_, origin of, 49;\n  confusion with nature cult, 49-50;\n  growth of, 49;\n  policy of preservation of local cults by foreign conquerors, 69-70,\n    106, 111;\n  confusion of (female) local cults, 80;\n  prominence given to local gods as compared with others, 111;\n  local cult features and general cult features compared, 110;\n  survival of local cults, 113;\n  factors obscuring local cults, 113-5;\n  political factors, 113;\n  popular factors, 114;\n  theological factors, 114;\n  absorption, 114, 168, 171;\n  number of, 170, 234, 274;\n  in lists, 233;\n  of the Ass. pantheon, 234;\n  importance diminishes, 235.\n\n_Loftus, William K._, excavations, 9.\n\n_Lofty and Brilliant Wall_, name of temple, 641.\n\n_Lot_, bears more resemblance to Parnapishtim than Noah, 507.\n\n_Lugal-banda_, god, 51;\n  temple at Uruk, 95;\n  local character, 95;\n  identification with Nergal, 95;\n  signification of name, 95.\n\n_Lugal-edinna_, epithet of Nergal, 172, 280.\n\n_Lugal-erima (?)_, god, 51;\n  his local character, 97;\n  interpretation of name, 97.\n\n_Lugal-gira_, epithet of Nergal, 172, 280.\n\n_Lugal-ki-mu-na_, in proper names of the 2d Bab. period, 169.\n\n_Lugal-Marada_, god, temple at Marad, 242;\n  a solar deity, 473;\n  patron of Gilgamesh, identical with Shamash, 486.\n\n_Lugal-mit-tu_, in Samsu-iluna's pantheon, 162;\n  wall of L., 172;\n  meaning of name, 172.\n\n_Lugal-zaggisi_, old Babylonian king of Uruk, 101;\n  his pantheon and its age, 110, 636;\n  gods common to Lugal-zaggisi's and Gudea's pantheon, 110;\n  priest of Anu, 110.\n\n_Lulubite_, name of people, 532.\n\n_Lunar cycle and sun calendar_, 78.\n\n\n_Ma-an-ish-tu-su_, servitor of A, 74.\n\n_Magarida_, a foreign god, 644.\n\n_Magganubba_, city in n.-e. Assyria, sanctuary of Sin, 219;\n  restored by Sargon II., 232;\n  cult of Damku, Sharru-ilu, Sha-nit(?)-ka, 232.\n\n_Magical texts_, subdivision of religious literature, 247;\n  practical purposes, 246, 255;\n  beginning of rituals, 247, 253-4, 269;\n  number of, 247;\n  comparative age of, 253, 256;\n  primitive popular thought, 254, 292;\n  method of composition, 254;\n  titles of, 254-5;\n  incantation rituals and their growth, 255, 283 ff.;\n  Ea and Eridu prominent in, 256;\n  compiled character, 256-7;\n  date of composition, 257;\n  bilingual redaction, 258;\n  metrical traits, 259;\n  source of study of popular beliefs, 259;\n  occurrence of Gibil evidence of ancient age of, 277;\n  pantheon in m. t. compared with that in historical texts, 297.\n\n_Mahmal_, tabernacle, compared with the Bab. ship for the gods, 655.\n\n_Makhir_, god of dreams, 323, 402.\n\n_Maklu series_, 286 ff., 302.\n\n_Ma-ku-a_, name of Marduk's ship, 655.\n\n_Malik_, god, in Nabubaliddin's pantheon, 162, 176;\n  associated with Shamash and Bunene, 176;\n  in proper names of the time of Hammurabi, 176;\n  often used as epithet of Shamash, 176;\n  meaning of name, 176;\n  Malik and Bunene, attendants of Shamash, 177;\n  consort of Bunene, 177.\n\n_Malkatu_ = A.\n\n_Malku_, name of canal, 655;\n  name of Naru's ship, 655.\n\n_Ma-ma_, variant for Gula, 105.\n\n_Mammitu_, goddess; M. and Anunnaki determine death and life, 493.\n\n_Mamu_, a form of Gula in proper names of the 2d Bab. period, 169.\n\n_Mandacan_, legend of Rustem parallel to Etana legend, 520 ff.\n\n_Mar_, district in southern Babylonia, sacred to Nin-Mar, 100;\n  temple Ish-gu-tur of Nin-Mar, 100.\n\n_Marad_, city in Babylonia, temple of Lugal-Marada, 242;\n  native place of Gilgamesh, 473.\n\n_Marcheshwan_, see _Arakh-shamnu_.\n\n_Marduk_, 2d Bab. period, deity of Babylon, 54, 96;\n  child _par excellence_ of Ea, 96, 548;\n  prominence of his cult since Hammurabi, 116, 134-5, 690-1;\n  his titles, 118, 126, 239, 240, 276, 500, 576, 630;\n  identification with Bel and Ea, 118;\n  solar deity, 118, 119, 528, 576, 690;\n  his warlike traits, 119;\n  in religious texts, 120;\n  temples in Babylon (E-Sagila) and Borsippa, 121, 241, 636, 639;\n  his papakhu, 640;\n  his consort, 121-4, 228;\n  statue brought from Nineveh to E-Sagila, 684;\n  his statue recovered by Agum, 122, 152, 670, 687;\n  lord of E-Sagila and E-Zida, 126;\n  New Year's Day his festival, 127, 631, 678, 681;\n  mediator betw. Ea and mankind, 139, 276;\n  Marduk and Ea in incantation texts, 139-40;\n  conquers Tiamat, 140, 197, 408, 422;\n  rivaled by Ramman, 158;\n  during the Cassite period, 162;\n  called Sag-ila, 169;\n  lord of Anunnaki and Igigi, 186, 239;\n  absorbs the role of other gods, 190, 409;\n  builds Eshara, 198;\n  blended with Bel, 54, 145-6, 148, 222, 542;\n  Bel's titles applied to, 222, 409, 542, 635;\n  position in the Assyrian pantheon, 224-5, 239;\n  associated with Ashur, 224;\n  associated with Ashur, Shamash, and Ramman, 224;\n  second to Ashur, 239;\n  prominence of his cult in the neo-B. period, 239-40;\n  rivaled by Nabu in the pantheon of Nebopolassar, 240, 679;\n  also in old Bab period, 648;\n  in incantations, 272-3, 276;\n  in the Shurpu series, 288;\n  in hymns, 307 ff.;\n  lord of rest, 309;\n  god of oracles, esp. in the south, 342, 345;\n  zodiacal interpretation, 370, 434, 458-9, 676-7;\n  his double aspect in the creation epic, 409, 432, 450;\n  takes the tablets of fate from Kingu, 428 (_cf._ 542, 681);\n  creates the universe, 428 ff., 447;\n  establishes the districts of Anu, Bel, and Ea, 432;\n  arranges the stations of the gods in the zodiacal system, 434;\n  creates man, 437 (_cf._ _Ea_, _Bel_, 443, 448);\n  the fifty names (of the Igigi) are bestowed upon M., 438;\n  creates the Anunnaki, 447;\n  = Nibir, _i.e._, Jupiter, exercises control over all the stars, 434,\n    458-9;\n  8th month sacred to M., 463, 678, 686;\n  Marduk as Sharru in the deluge story, 500;\n  absent in the deluge story, 508;\n  dogs symbol of the solar god Marduk, 528;\n  conquers Zu, 542;\n  identified with Adapa, 548;\n  temple at Ashur, 637;\n  zikkurat at Babylon, 639;\n  ship of Marduk, 655;\n  procession on New Year, 679;\n  spec. festival instituted by Agum, 687.\n\n_Marduk-baladan_, of Babylon, 129.\n\n_Marduk-nadin-akhe_, king of Babylon, carried statues of Ramman and\n    Shala to Babylon, 212.\n\n_Marriage offerings_, time of, 59;\n  to Bau, 59.\n\n_Mars_ = Nergal, name of planet, 370, 459;\n  the \"sheep\" _par excellence_, 459.\n\n_Mar-tu_ = Ramman, 166, 212.\n\n_Marwa_, hill in Mecca, 687.\n\n_Mashu_, mythical mountain, 488-9;\n  = Musas or Masis, 516.\n\n_Masis_, or Musas, = Mashu, 515.\n\n_Mecca_, 623.\n\n_Medes_, 44-5.\n\n_Median wedge writing_, 19.\n\n_Meme_, variant of Gula, 175.\n\n_Mer_ = Ramman, 157.\n\n_Mercury_ = Nabu, planet, 371, 459.\n\n_Mesopotamia_, religious ideas and customs, 1, 3;\n  seat of Terahites, 2;\n  empire of Nimrod, 2;\n  geography, 26, 27;\n  character of, 28 ff.\n\n_Messiah_, Hammurabi and the Hebr.-Christian notion of Messianic time,\n    533.\n\n_Mili-shikhu_, king of Babylon, his cult of Shamash, 144;\n  minor gods worshipped, 172.\n\n_Minor gods_, 2d Bab. period, 171-2;\n  by Mili-shikhu, 172;\n  some Cassite deities, 172;\n  in Ass. texts, 171;\n  in neo-B. period, 171, 242-3;\n  absorbed by greater gods, 111, 147, 171, 177, 190, 233;\n  patron-gods of arts, 178;\n  as personifications, 179;\n  dividing line betw. spirits and m. g., 183, 233.\n\n_Mishiru_, a foreign deity, 644.\n\n_Mitanni wedge writings_, 20.\n\n_Months_, connected with gods, 462 ff., 676;\n  names of the months, 464;\n  m. sacred to gods and their festivals not always corresponding, 687.\n\n_Monumental finds_, 7.\n\n_Moon_, importance of m. as omen giver, 358;\n  manifold relations between man and m., 358;\n  importance of m. for calendar, 436, 461;\n  moon and sun in religion and astronomy, 461.\n\n_Moon-god_, see _Sin_.\n\n_Moses_, 130;\n  parallelism with Sargon I., 562.\n\n_Mosul_, excavations near, 5.\n\n_Mugheir_, mound, excavated, 9;\n  see also _Ur_.\n\n_Mummu_, associated with Apsu and Tiamat, 420-1.\n\n_Muenter, Frederick_, decipherment of wedge writing, 15.\n\n_Musas_, or Masis, = Mashu, 516.\n\n_Mythology_, see also _Nature_;\n  extent and influence of Bab. m., 518 ff.\n\n\n_Nabonnedos_, of Babylon, restores temple of Shamash in Sippar, 70, 647;\n  last king of Babylonia, 45;\n  restores temple of Sin in Harran, 77, 646;\n  gives prominence to Shamash cult, 240-1.\n\n_Nabu_, god, 2d B. period, 127;\n  most prominent trait, 124;\n  probable aqueous origin, 124-5, 220;\n  rank as compared with that of Ea and Marduk, 125, 648;\n  agricultural deity, 125;\n  suppression of cult by Hammurabi and his successors, 126;\n  becomes son of Marduk, 127, 240 (_cf._ 648-9);\n  his shrine in E-Sagila, 127, 220-9, 636;\n  prominence during the Assyrian period, 128-9, 228;\n  his symbol, 128;\n  temple at Calah, 128, 228-9;\n  prominence during the neo-Bab. period, 129, 240;\n  his epithets, 129-31, 229;\n  meaning of name, 130;\n  his functions, 130, 240;\n  his cult with other Semites, 130;\n  identified with Nusku, 220;\n  his consort Tashmitum, 130, 228-9;\n  his consort Nana, 224;\n  favorite of Ramman-nirari III., 128, 228;\n  temple E-Zida in Borsippa, 121, 229, 241, 639, 648;\n  god of wisdom, 129, 229;\n  son of Ea, 229;\n  in the subscript to Ashurbanabal's tablets, 229-30;\n  similarity and difference betw. N. and Ea, 230-1;\n  in hymn, 306;\n  shrine E-makh-tila in Borsippa, 307, 636;\n  god of oracles in Assyria, 344, 348;\n  = Mercury, name of planet, 371, 459;\n  in the deluge, 500;\n  sanctuary E-pad-kalama-suma, 640;\n  Nabu's ship and procession, 654, 679.\n\n_Nabu-akhe-irba_, astrologer, 340.\n\n_Nabu-bal-iddin_, king of Babylon, 162, 685;\n  restores cult of Sippar, 176, 628, 645, 670;\n  votive offerings, 670.\n\n_Nabupelassar_, see _Nebopolassar_.\n\n_Namar_, district in Babylonia, sacred to Kamman, Nergal, and Nana, 159,\n    164.\n\n_Names_, transference of name and interpretation of this act, 118,\n    140-1;\n  composition of proper names, 165;\n  Bab. etymologies of names, 173.\n\n_Namtar_, god of pestilence, 569;\n  strikes Ishtar with disease, 570;\n  messenger of Allatu, 570, 580.\n\n_Nana_, goddess, 51;\n  titles, 81;\n  center of worship, 81;\n  position in the pantheon proper and in the cosmology, 81;\n  her temples, E-anna in Uruk, 81, 242, 311, 531, 639;\n  E-ul-mash in Agade, 82;\n  in Ur, 81-2, 85, 202, 311, 639, 678;\n  statue captured by Elamites and recaptured by Ashurbanabal, 85, 206;\n  absorbs inferior local deities, 103;\n  associated with Nergal and Ramman, 159, 164;\n  worshipped by Assyr. kings, 206;\n  consort of Nabu, 224;\n  Zag-muk of Nana, 678.\n\n_Nannar_ = Sin, etymology of N., 75;\n  N. attached to Ur, 75;\n  Sin to Harran, 76;\n  his position, 76;\n  his representation, 76;\n  his functions, 76, 78;\n  his epithets, 76, 79, 89;\n  relationship to Ningal, 97.\n\n_Naram-Sin_, founds temple of Shamash in Sippar, 70, 646;\n  his exploits incorporated in omen text, 562;\n  builder of the temple of En-lil in Nippur, 642.\n\n_Naru_, rivergod in incantations, 282;\n  ship of Naru, 655;\n  place of worship, 655.\n\n_Nature_, worship, 48;\n  confusion with local cults, 49-50;\n  nature myth, 432-3, 487, 494.\n\n_Nazi-Maruttash_, Cassite king, votive objects, 671-2.\n\n_Nebo_, mount in Moab, place of death of Moses, 130.\n\n_Nebopolassar_, king of Babylon, 129;\n  makes Babylon independent, 239;\n  makes cult of Marduk prominent, 239;\n  makes cult of Nabu prominent, 240;\n  Shamash cult at Larsa, 647, note 3.\n\n_Nebuchadnezzar I._, expels the Cassites, 88, 158;\n  cult of Marduk and Ramman, 158, 162;\n  his pantheon, 162.\n\n_Nebuchadnezzar II._, religion of N. and Daniel, 3;\n  builder of Birs Nimrud, 9;\n  rule, 44;\n  worships Sarpanitum as the begetting deity, 122;\n  makes cult of Marduk prominent, 240, 646;\n  revives ancient cults, 242-3;\n  restores temple of Nin-karrak at Sippar, 294;\n  his prayers exemplification of ethical tendencies, 299;\n  opposed to Bel cult in Nippur, 646;\n  restores Shamash temple in Sippar, 646;\n  Ishtar cult in Uruk, 648.\n\n_Nergal_, god, 51;\n  local cult and temple in Cuthah, 65, 164, 218, 563, 583, 648;\n  worship in Palestine, 65;\n  in Uruk, 66;\n  his names and their meanings, 66;\n  functions, 66-7, 537;\n  development of his attributes, 67-8, 582, 593;\n  identification with Lugal-banda, 95;\n  with Irkalla, 592;\n  associated with Allat, 104, 183, 565, 580, 593;\n  associated with Ramman and Nana, 159, 164;\n  Nergal in Samsu-iluna's pantheon, 162;\n  in Nebuchadnezzar's I. pantheon, 162;\n  epithets, 172;\n  chief of nether-world and subterranean demons, 183 (_cf._ 260), 511,\n    563, 582;\n  associated with Ninib as god of the chase, 216, 218, 237;\n  with Ninib and Ashur, 216, 218;\n  god of war, 218, 582;\n  Cuthah his sacred city, 164, 218, 563, 583;\n  Kar-Nergal named in his honor, 219;\n  temple at Tarbisu, 219;\n  Laz his consort, 219, 243, 583;\n  identified with Dibbarra, 232, 528-9, 594;\n  perhaps = Bel-sarbi, 242;\n  in incantations, 273, 280;\n  phases of, 280, 459;\n  = Mars as name of planet, 370, 459;\n  9th month sacred to N., 463;\n  sun of midday and summer solstice, 528, 582;\n  pictured as a lion, 530;\n  the lion a symbol of Nergal, 537, 580, 582;\n  identified with Gibil, 594;\n  associated with Allatu, 104, 183, 565, 580, 583, 593;\n  Nergal conquers and weds Allatu, 584-5;\n  imitation of Tiamat-Marduk fight, 585.\n\n_Nether-world_, names of: Aralu, 557;\n  Ekur, 558;\n  Shualu, 558;\n  Kigallu, 562;\n  Irkalla, 563;\n  Kutu or Cuthah, 563;\n  epithets for n., 559, 563;\n  Nergal, lord of the n., 563;\n  the older head of the lower world a goddess, Allatu, not a god, 585.\n\n_New Year's Festival_, see _Zag-muk_.\n\n_Nibir_ = planet Marduk or Jupiter, in the zodiac in conjunction with\n    Bel and Ea, 434-5;\n  exercises control over all the stars, 458.\n\n_Nicolas of Damascus_, source B.-A. religion, 1, 412.\n\n_Niebuhr, Carsten_, 15.\n\n_Niffer_, excavations, 11;\n  see _Nippur_.\n\n_Nika_, mother of Esarhaddon, 340.\n\n_Nimrod_, incidental biblical reference to, 2;\n  not = Gilgamesh, 514.\n\n_Nimrud_ (mound), unearthed, 7;\n  temple, 9, 627.\n\n_Nina_, quarter in Lagash, 57, 86;\n  explanation of name, 86.\n\n_Nina_, goddess, 51;\n  explanation of name, 86;\n  centers of worship, 86-8, 635;\n  associations with Nin-girsu, 87, 635;\n  relations to Ea, 87-8;\n  fusion with Ishtar of Nineveh, 88;\n  interprets a dream, 101;\n  a daughter of Nin-si-a, 102;\n  in Gudea's pantheon, 106, 635.\n\n_Nin-a-gal_, god, 51;\n  meaning of name, 64;\n  function, 64;\n  identification with Ea, 64.\n\n_Nin-akha-kuddu_, goddess, 51;\n  her titles in incantation texts, 103, 282;\n  in Lugalzaggisi's pantheon, 110;\n  goddess of purification, 282;\n  mistress of Uruk, 103, 282;\n  water deity, 282;\n  lady of spells, 282.\n\n_Nin-azu_, \"god of the great city,\" 592;\n  associated with Allatu, 586, 590;\n  god of healing, 590;\n  identified with Ninib, 591.\n\n_Nin-dara_, see _Nin-si-a_.\n\n_Nin-dim-su_, god, in the Cassite pantheon, 162, 172;\n  epithet of Ea, 173.\n\n_Nin-din-dug_, name of Bau. (See Corrections.)\n\n_Nin-e-gal_, variant of Nin-gal, 98.\n\n_Nineveh_, center of action in book of Judith, 3;\n  site of, 6;\n  capital of Assyria, 46, 193, 651;\n  cult of Ishtar, 152, 202-3;\n  temple E-mash-mash of Ishtar, 152;\n  resp. of Belit, 227;\n  Sha-nit(?)-ka, mistress of, 233;\n  worship of all gods and goddesses, 638;\n  intellectual center, 651.\n\n_Nin-gal_, god, 51;\n  center of worship, 97;\n  relationship to Nannar, 97;\n  sanctuary at Khorsabad, 231;\n  Nin-gal's ship, 655.\n\n_Nin-girsu_, solar deity, 51;\n  subordinate to Bel, 53, 57;\n  identity with Ninib, 57, 217 (_cf._ 528);\n  temple E-Ninnu in Girsu, 57, 87, 634-5, 640;\n  votive offerings, 57;\n  agricultural deity = Shulgur, 58;\n  identity with Tammuz, 58;\n  relations to Nin-shakh, 93;\n  in Gudea's pantheon, 106;\n  in incantations, 273;\n  zikkurat in Lagash or Girsu, 619, 635, 639;\n  shrine in Lagash, 640;\n  his ship, 654;\n  consort of Bau, 59, 677.\n\n_Nin-gish-zida_, solar deity, 51;\n  a form of Nin-girsu, 92;\n  meaning of name, 92;\n  identified with Ninib, Nin-girsu, Nin-shakh, 99, 217, 528, 547;\n  local character, 99, 528;\n  temple in Girsu, 99, 635;\n  in Gudea's inscriptions and incantation texts, 99, 106, 280;\n  consort of Nusku, 280;\n  brings famine in the land, 387;\n  5th month sacred to N., 462, 547;\n  servant of Gibil, 463;\n  4th month sacred to, 463;\n  identical with Gish-zida, 547;\n  associated with Tammuz, 546, 588;\n  presides over the growth of trees, 588.\n\n_Nin-gul_, 51;\n  consort of Lugal-banda, 95;\n  interpretation of name, 95;\n  place of worship, 96.\n\n_Ninib_, see _Nin-girsu_, solar deity, 57, 217, 459, 462, 576, 684;\n  consort of Gula, 105 (_cf._ 576, 591);\n  of Belitekalli, 173;\n  in Hammurabi's pantheon, 162;\n  in Nebuchadnezzar's I. pantheon, 162, 164;\n  god of war, 164, 214, 218;\n  = Ud-zal, 166;\n  associated with Ashur, 214;\n  epithets, 213-4, 217;\n  temple in Calah, 214-5 (_cf._ 684);\n  favorite of Ashurnasirbal and Shamshi-Ramman, 214;\n  god of the chase in association with Nergal, 216, 218, 237;\n  hero of the heavenly and earthly spirits, 214;\n  in association with Nergal and Ashur, 216;\n  identical with Nin-girsu, 57, 217;\n  with Nin-azu, 591;\n  absorbs Nin-gish-zida and Nin-shakh, 217 (_cf._ 547);\n  represents east sun and morning sun, 217;\n  first-born of Ea, 217;\n  offspring of Ekur, 217;\n  first-born of Bel, 217;\n  god of destructive cloud storm, 217, 500;\n  other qualities in religious literature, 218, 576;\n  name of outer wall of Sargon's II. palace, 237;\n  lays the foundations of cities, 237;\n  three forms, 238;\n  temple in Dilbat, 242;\n  in incantations, 273, 280;\n  = Saturn, name of planet, 371, 459;\n  6th and 11th months sacred, 215, 684;\n  4th month sacred to N., 462;\n  in the deluge story, 500 (_cf._ 217), 504;\n  worshipped at Nippur, 635;\n  temple of Zamama-Ninib, 640.\n\n_Nin-igi-azag_, title of Ea, 230.\n\n_Nin-igi-nangar-bu_, 171;\n  presides over metal workers, 178.\n\n_Nin-Karrak_ = goddess Gula, 242;\n  temple at Babylon (see _Gula_), 242;\n  in incantations, 273;\n  temple at Sippar, 294;\n  in a prayer of Nebuchadnezzar, 294.\n\n_Nin-khar-sag_ = goddess Belit, 164;\n  in Samsu-iluna's pantheon, 162, 164;\n  sanctuary at Babylon (see _Belit_), 242, 639.\n\n_Nin-kigal_ = Allatu, 282.\n\n_Nin-kurra_, 171;\n  lord of mountain, patron of stone workers, 178.\n\n_Nin-lil_, see _Belit_.\n\n_Nin-lil-anna_, in Nebuchadnezzar's II. pantheon, 242;\n  temple in Babylon, 640.\n\n_Nin-makh_ = Ishtar, 242;\n  temple at Babylon, 242.\n\n_Nin-mar_, goddess, 51;\n  center of worship, 100;\n  her temples in Mar, 100;\n  daughter of Nina, 100;\n  popularity of cult, 100;\n  in Gudea's pantheon, 106, 635;\n  daughter of Marduk, 168;\n  temple at Lagash, 635.\n\n_Ninni_, goddess, = Enanna, 51;\n  titles, 80;\n  center of worship, 80;\n  variant of Ishtar, 82;\n  in Lugal-zaggisi's and Gudea's panthea, 110;\n  identical with Nana of Uruk, 111;\n  temple at Hallabi, 117;\n  her cult by Hammurabi, 144-5;\n  \"Ninni,\" consort of Zamama, 169;\n  temple in Kish, 639.\n\n_Nin-shakh_, god, 51;\n  his character and functions, 93;\n  identified with Ninib, 93, 217;\n  relations to Nin-girsu and Nin-gishzida, 92-3;\n  temple at Uruk, 93.\n\n_Ninshar_, cosmological deity, 417.\n\n_Nin-si-a_, god, 51;\n  or Nin-dar-a, 90;\n  center of worship, 91, 635;\n  absorbed by Nin-girsu, 91;\n  in Gudea's pantheon, 106, 635.\n\n_Nin-sun_, god, temple of N. at Lagash, 635.\n\n_Nin-tu_, god, temple of N. at Lagash, 635.\n\n_Nin-zadim,_ god, 171; patron of sculpture, 178.\n\n_Nippur_, rulers, 37;\n  temple of Bel, 11, 37, 69, 51, 54, 151, 642, 644;\n  temple of Belit, 55, 635;\n  inscriptions from Nippur, 103;\n  prominence during Cassite period, 40, 146, 480;\n  wall of Zakar, 172;\n  wall of Lugal-mittu, 172;\n  ancient center, 245, 445;\n  chief god Del, or En-lil, 445, 542;\n  reference to N. in Gilgamesh epic, 486;\n  rivalry betw. Nippur and Eridu, 508;\n  replaced by Babylon, 542;\n  zikkurat at N., 617;\n  worship of Ninib, 635;\n  worship of Nusku, 635;\n  votive objects, 671-3.\n\n_Nisaba_, goddess, 51;\n  agricultural deity, 101;\n  traits in common with Ea, 101;\n  sister of Nina, 101;\n  centers of cult, 102;\n  in Gudea's pantheon, 111;\n  probably local in Uruk, 111.\n\n_Nisan_, sacred to Anu and Bel, 462, 677;\n  sacred in Babylonia, 684;\n  7th day sacred to Shamash, Malkatu, and Bunene, 685.\n\n_Nisir_, mount on which the ship alights, 503.\n\n_Nisroch_, Assyrian deity, 2.\n\n_Noah_, resemblance to Parnapishtim less than is the case with Lot, 507.\n\n_Nu-gim-mud_, title of Ea, 230.\n\n_Nun-gal_, god of the 2d Bab. period, 168;\n  temple in Sippar, 168;\n  meaning of name, 168;\n  solar deity, 168;\n  becomes a demon, 168.\n\n_Nur-Ramman_, of Ur, builder of Sin's temple in Ur, 76;\n  builder of temples to Nin-gal and Nannar at Ur, 97.\n\n_Nusku_, fire-god, in Ass. pantheon, 188, 220-1;\n  in Bab. pantheon, 220;\n  amalgamated with Gibil, 220, 277;\n  identified with Nabu, 220-1;\n  ideographic writing of name and its explanation, 220;\n  solar deity, 220-1, 279;\n  shrine in E-Sagila, 220, 241;\n  epithets, 221, 277, 280;\n  functions, 221;\n  shrine in E-Zida, 241;\n  in incantations, 271-3, 277, 286;\n  younger than Gibil, 277;\n  a mythological conception, 277, 279;\n  Gibil-N, god of civilization, 278;\n  medium betw. worshipper and deity, 279;\n  associated with Anu, 277, 286;\n  associated with Bel and Ea, 279, 286;\n  Ishum, messenger of, 280;\n  worship at Nippur, 635;\n  see _Gibil_.\n\n\n_Oktanos_, see under _Ea_, 63.\n\n_Old Testament_, source for B.-A. religion, 1, 669 (_cf._ 696);\n  relations betw. the Hebrews and B.-A., 2, 611, 697-8;\n  contrast betw. Hebr. and B.-A. religion, 3, 668;\n  O. T. points of contact with Gilgamesh epic, 495;\n  with deluge story, 506 ff.;\n  parallels betw. Adam and Eabani, Eve and Ukhat, 511;\n  betw. Samson and Gilgamesh stories, 515-6;\n  3d chapter Genesis compared with Adapa legend, 551;\n  Hebr. Sheol || Bab. Shualu, 560;\n  Hebr. Shoel || Bab. Sha'ilu, 560;\n  Hebr.-Bab. custom of inquiring of the dead, 560;\n  parallelism betw. Sargon I. and Moses, 562;\n  conceptions of nether-world in O. T. and in Bab., 606;\n  parallels betw. temple of Solomon and Bab. temple, 623, 632, 652-3,\n    655;\n  libation of oil in O. T. and in Ass.-Bab., 665;\n  sacrifices in O. T. compared with Ass.-Bab., 667-8;\n  teraphim and Ass.-Bab. amulets, 674;\n  Hebr. and Bab. New Years, 681;\n  Purim compared with Bab. 15th Adar festival, 686;\n  Ashera and tree worship in Babylonia, 689.\n\n_Omens_, division of religious literature, 247;\n  purposes of, 248, 331;\n  comparative age of, 253-4;\n  an indirect means of forecasting the future, 329;\n  directions for the priest in recognizing o., 330;\n  relationship betw. o. and prayers, 331;\n  part of magic element in the ritual, 331;\n  occasions for seeking an o., 331 ff.;\n  derived from offered animals, 332;\n  of a public character, 332 ff., 362, 364, 374, 401;\n  questions of an omen seeker, 333 ff., 369;\n  list of, 337, 362;\n  their relation to reports, 368, 372;\n  o. ritual, 338;\n  connecting link betw. incantations and o., 352;\n  variety of o. literature, 355, 362;\n  o. from stars, 356;\n  the more variety, the more significance--a principle of general\n    application in interpretation of o., 358;\n  other guiding principles, 358 ff., 388, 401;\n  private o., 362, 403, 405;\n  o. series and mode of their composition, 363;\n  omens deduced from observations of eclipses, 357, 364;\n  restricted application of o. no hindrance to their practical use, 366,\n    372;\n  vagueness of o. intentional, 367;\n  interrelation betw. reports and o., 368, 372-3;\n  importance of o. deduced from eclipses and more ordinary phenomena,\n    368-9;\n  omens deduced from observations of planets, esp. Ishtar, and of other\n    heavenly bodies, 371-3;\n  omen calendars, 375, 382;\n  omens from terrestrial phenomena, 383 ff.;\n  logical principle controlling the interpretation, 384;\n  offshoot of sympathetic magic, 384;\n  birth omens, 384;\n  partly public, partly private character, 386;\n  the rarer the phenomena, the greater the significance, 385;\n  ideas of sympathetic magic in the interpretation of o., 388;\n  omens from offsprings of animals, 391 ff.;\n  omens from the actions of animals, 397-402;\n  omens from dreams, 402-4;\n  o. of a private character, 403;\n  popular phase of augury, 403;\n  omens from individual experiences, 404;\n  dividing line betw. omens of individual and of public character, 405;\n  the practical working of the omen belief, 406.\n\n_Ophites_, a gnostic sect, 699.\n\n_Oppert, Jules_, expedition to Babylonia, 8.\n\n_Oracles_, see also _Omens_ and _Witchcraft_, direct means of\n    forecasting the future, 329;\n  occasions for asking o., 338 ff.;\n  blank forms for o., 341;\n  form of, 341 ff.;\n  Marduk, god of, 342;\n  asked of the sun-god, 334 ff.;\n  of Ishtar of Arbela, 342;\n  ceremonies accompanying o., 345;\n  relationship to penitential psalms, 347;\n  practical purpose of, 349;\n  by means of dreams, 349 ff.;\n  generally vague language, 344;\n  occasionally definite language, 360;\n  objects with which o. are concerned, 360;\n  given by priestesses, 485, or priests, 329, 560, 657-8;\n  asked of the dead, 559-60, 657;\n  asked on the New Year's festival, 628-9.\n\n\n_Pantheon_, divisions and development, 48-50;\n  sources, 51;\n  comparison betw. p. in historical and in incantation texts, 297;\n  comparison betw. B. and A. pantheon, 189, 201.\n\n_Papakhu_, chamber of the god, 627;\n  cosmological significance, 629.\n\n_Pap-sukal_, _i.e._, divine messenger, epithet of Nin-shakh, Nebo, and\n    Nusku, 93 (cf. 463, 571);\n  in incantations, 273;\n  10th month sacred to P., Ishtar, and Anu, 463.\n\n_Pap-u_, god, in the Cassite pantheon, 162, 172;\n  offspring of E-sharra, 174;\n  function, 174.\n\n_Paradise_, belief in, among Babylonians, 578.\n\n_Parakku_, chamber of the god, 627.\n\n_Parnapishtim_, immortal, 488, 577;\n  P. and Gilgamesh, 492 ff.;\n  son of Kidin-Marduk, 488, 496;\n  born in Shurippak, 496;\n  his epithet Adra-Khasis, 505;\n  bears more resemblance to Lot than to Noah, 507.\n\n_Pa-sag_, god, 51;\n  \"the leader of the land,\" 101;\n  identity with Ishum, 101;\n  lieutenant of Shamash, 107;\n  in Gudea's pantheon, 106.\n\n_Patesi_, 198.\n\n_Patron gods_, of persons, 216, 235;\n  Nabu, patron of Ramman-nirari III., 228;\n  of places, 49, 69-70, 106, 111.\n\n_Penitential psalms_, points in common with and differences from\n    incantations, 312;\n  national origin of, 312;\n  marks relationship betw. god and man, 313;\n  purpose to appease the anger of the gods, 315, 688;\n  advanced religious conceptions, 314-5, 326;\n  dialogue form, 315;\n  language, 316-7;\n  age, 317;\n  anonymity of the deity addressed, 318;\n  p. for specific purposes, 324, 688;\n  relationship to oracles, 347.\n\n_Persepolis_, wedge writings, 16.\n\n_Persian Gulf_, sacred to Ea, 497;\n  not the source of the deluge, 497;\n  confluence of the streams, 577.\n\n_Persian wedge writing_, 19.\n\n_Personifications of human arts_, 178.\n\n_Peters, John P._, explorer, 11.\n\n_Pilgrimage_, 684.\n\n_Place, Victor_, excavations, 8.\n\n_Place of Fates_, name of temple, 641.\n\n_Planets_, observations of, 370;\n  identifications of p. with deities, 370, 459 (_cf._ 619);\n  prominence of Ishtar-Venus, in astrological texts, 371;\n  regarded as auguries for the chiefs and the general welfare, 373;\n  planets and zikkurats, 619.\n\n_Politics_, affecting religion and literature, 108, 110-1, 134-5, 201,\n    239, 690-1.\n\n_Popular Belief_, see _Theology and Popular Belief_.\n\n_Prayers_, see also _Hymns_, occasions, 663;\n  in connection with incantations, 293, 299;\n  without accompaniment of incantations, 294;\n  curses regarded as p., 296;\n  no line of demarcation betw. incantations and p., 297, 299, 307;\n  ethics in, 298;\n  power of words, 328;\n  no p. in its highest form, 329;\n  relationship betw. prayers and omen, 330;\n  efficacy dependent on their being uttered in the right manner and by\n    the right person, 353.\n\n_Priestly codes_, 362.\n\n_Priests and priestesses_, divisions of, 269, 241-2, 657-8;\n  p. as exorciser and his function, 271-2, 330, 657-8;\n  mediator betw. man and god, 315, 331, 353, 374, 560, 627, 692;\n  prognostication of future, 329, 560, 657;\n  importance of, 353;\n  \"Priests of Ashur,\" association of priestly functions with early\n    kingship, 374;\n  priests and priestesses in their functions, 485, 655 ff., 692;\n  priests purifying the dead, 578, 602;\n  general name for priest, 657-8, 676;\n  priestesses as dirge singers, 604, 658;\n  as judges, 625, 658;\n  intellectual leaders, 693;\n  as sacrificers, 657-8;\n  eligibility to priesthood, 658-9;\n  women priests, 485, 659-60.\n\n_Proper names_, see also _Names_, composition of, 165;\n  source of study of divinities, 166;\n  evidence of age of cult of gods (Ishme-Dagan), 208;\n  Samsi-Ramman, 209.\n\n_Psalms_, see _Penitential Psalms_; also _Hymns_, _Prayers_.\n\n_Ptolemy_, see _Claudius Ptolemaeus_.\n\n_Pudilu_, builds temple of Shamash at Ashur, 209.\n\n_Purat_ = Euphrates, 27.\n\n_Purification_, see _Rituals_.\n\n_Purim_, compared with the Bab. solar festival, 15th of Adar, 686;\n  not to be compared with Puru, 688.\n\n_Puru_, a festival ceremony, 688.\n\n_Puzur-Shadu-Rabu_, captain of the ship of Parnapishtim, 500.\n\n\n_Ra_, Egyptian sun-god, 210.\n\n_Rabbinical literature_, bearing upon B.-A. religion, 3, 697.\n\n_Races_, of Mesopotamia, 24, 33.\n\n_Ramman_, god, Shala his consort, 102, 161, 212;\n  associated with Anu, 154, 207, 212;\n  associated with Shamash, 145, 157-8, 160, 211;\n  associated with Sin and Shamash, 158, 163;\n  associated with Nergal and Nana, 159, 164;\n  rivals of Marduk, 158;\n  ideographic and other readings of the name, 156-7;\n  meaning of name, 156-7;\n  extent of his cult, 159;\n  cult by Aramaeans, 159;\n  indigenous to Assyria, 159;\n  rival of Ashur, 161;\n  his two aspects as storm-god, 160;\n  epithets, 156, 158, 160, 212, 498;\n  in Hammurabi's pantheon, 162;\n  in Nebuchadnezzar's I. pantheon, 162;\n  = Martu, 166, 212;\n  popular in Assyria, 211;\n  his instruments of destruction, 212;\n  \"the mightiest of the gods,\" 212;\n  name of one of the eastern gates of Sargon's II. palace, 237;\n  brings abundance, 237;\n  temple at Borsippa, 242;\n  temple at Kumari, 242;\n  11th month sacred to R., 463;\n  R. in the deluge, 500;\n  declines to fight Zu, 541.\n\n_Ramman-nirari I._, king of Assyria, 155;\n  cult of Ramman, 159;\n  of Anunnaki and Igigi as spirits of earth and heaven resp., 185;\n  repels the Cassites, 199;\n  his pantheon, 237, 593.\n\n_Ramman-nirari III._, king of Assyria, gives prominence to Nabu cult in\n    Assyria, 128, 228;\n  erects temple to Nabu at Calab, 228;\n  Nabu his patron god, 228.\n\n_Rassam_, Hormuzd researches, 9.\n\n_Rawlinson, Henry_, explorations, 9.\n\n_Regulus_, observations, 372.\n\n_Religion_, unity of church and state, 690;\n  influence upon Hebrews, see _Old Testament_;\n  upon Christianity, 698;\n  upon Egypt, Persia, and Greece, 699-701.\n\n_Religious texts_, 12-3, 467;\n  sources for religion, 51, 661;\n  in Bab. theological schools, 134;\n  reshaping of r. t. during Hammurabi's time, 140-2;\n  divisions, 247-51;\n  age, 691;\n  comparison betw. Ass. and Bab. r. t., 251-2;\n  their value as source for knowledge of sacrifices, 661;\n  votive inscriptions on statues, 669;\n  on other objects, 671-2;\n  worn as amulets, 672;\n  plague tablets, 536, 674.\n\n_Rim-Sin_, of 2d dynasty of Ur, \"called\" by Bel and Ea, 62;\n  cult of moon and sun-god in Ur, 70;\n  of Nana in Ur, 81;\n  builds temple of Nin-shakh at Uruk, 93;\n  his wife builds temple to Nin-gal at Ur, 97.\n\n_Rituals_, establishment of, 115;\n  and incantations, 247-8, 253-4, 283;\n  manner of growth, 255;\n  purification, 284, 688;\n  incantations the oldest fixed r., 294;\n  penitential psalms, 312 ff., 688;\n  bodily castigation, 320, 688;\n  offerings, 328;\n  prayers, 293 ff.;\n  never without ulterior motive, 328;\n  oracles and omens, 328 ff.;\n  composition and growth, 329-30;\n  strictness in observation of, 347.\n\n_Rustem_, son of Sal in Armen. and Mandaean legend, parallel to Etana,\n    520.\n\n\n_Saba_, district in southern Arabia, 491.\n\n_Sabitum_, maiden in Gilgamesh epic, 490-1;\n  the goddess of Siduri, 491.\n\n_Sacred objects_, 651.\n\n_Sacred period_, 686.\n\n_Sacred quarter_, 622 ff.\n\n_Sacredness of animals_, meaning of, 397-8, 662;\n  of trees, 662-3.\n\n_Sacrifices_, when not to be offered, 378;\n  when offered, 663, 667-8;\n  offered by priests, 657-8;\n  Semitic view of, 660;\n  comparison with Hebrew, 667-8;\n  as determined from religious and historical literature, 661;\n  development of, 661;\n  two kinds of, 661;\n  connected with prayers, 663;\n  use of oil and wine, 664, 666;\n  daily, 667;\n  monthly, 668.\n\n_Sadu_, the hunter in the service of Gilgamesh, 475;\n  associated with Ukhat, 511.\n\n_Safa_, hill in Mecca, 687.\n\n_Sag-ila_ = Marduk, in proper names of the 2d Bab. period, 169.\n\n_Sal_, father of Rustem, 520.\n\n_Samsi-Ramman,_ king of Assyria, builds temple to Ramman, 154, 159;\n  builds temple to Ashur in Ashur, 198;\n  his name as evidence of age of Shamash cult, 209.\n\n_Samson_, parallelism with Gilgamesh, 515 ff.\n\n_Samsu-iluna_, king of Babylon, 56;\n  builds sanctuary of Belit, 56;\n  builds Dur-padda, sacred to Ramman, 158;\n  his pantheon, 162;\n  builds wall of Zakar in Nippur, 172;\n  builds wall of Lugal-mittu in Nippur, 172.\n\n_Samuel_, prophet, his spirit called up, 559.\n\n_Saracus_, last king of Assyria, 229.\n\n_Sargon I._, \"builds\" temple E-ulmash of Nana in Agade, 82;\n  myth of Sargon I. related to an incident in Moses' life, 562;\n  his exploits incorporated in a religious text, 562;\n  \"builder\" of temple of En-lil in Nippur, 642, 645.\n\n_Sargon II._, of Assyria, restores \"laws and customs of Harran,\" 77;\n  builds sanctuary to Shamash, 211;\n  names Kar-Nergal in honor of Nergal, 219;\n  builds sanctuary to Sin at Khorsabad and Magganubba, 219;\n  patron of learning, 229;\n  prominence of Nabu cult, 229;\n  erects sanctuary to Nin-gal at Khorsabad, 231;\n  restores Magganubba, 232;\n  revives the triad, 236;\n  his pantheon, 237;\n  his palace at Khorsabad, 225, 237;\n  his zikkurat at Khorsabad, 617;\n  sacrifices in Babylonia, 664;\n  institutes special festival, 687.\n\n_Sarpanitum_, consort of Marduk, 121, 224, 228, 636;\n  interpretation of name, 121, 449;\n  shrine in E-Sagila, 121, 241, 636, 641;\n  her statue recovered by Agum, 122, 152, 670, 687;\n  her subordinate position, 121-2;\n  goddess of matrimonial fertility, 122, 684;\n  of secret knowledge, 122;\n  amalgamation with Erua, 122;\n  epithets of Sarpanitum-Erua, 123;\n  called Belit, 224, 684;\n  shrine in E-Zida, 241;\n  rarely in incantations, 276;\n  25th day of Siwan her festival, 684;\n  festival instituted by Agum, 687.\n\n_Saturn_ = Ninib, planet, 371, 459.\n\n_Saul_, king of Israel, and the witch, 559.\n\n_Semites and non-Semites_ in Babylonia, 21-2, 32-4.\n\n_Sendschirli_, excavations in, 579.\n\n_Senkereh_ = Larsa.\n\n_Sennacherib_, king of Assyria, 200;\n  takes statues of Ramman and Shala back from Babylon, 212;\n  erects temple to Nergal at Tarbisu, 219;\n  his pantheon, 238, 644, note 2.\n\n_Seven spirits_, cause eclipse of moon, 264, 276;\n  12th month sacred to them, 463;\n  Sibi, collective personification of the s. p. associated in war with\n    Ishum, 533.\n\n_Sex_, inferiority of female to male in the B.-A. pantheon, 75, 79, 104;\n  confusion of female cults, 80;\n  variety of \"ladies\" in pantheon, 98, 104;\n  position of female deities as consorts of male deities, 104, 586, 594;\n  male deities becoming female and consorts of male deities, 177, 280;\n  association of sexes in cosmology, 411;\n  association of sexes in the creation of the gods, 413;\n  female deities and the months, 463;\n  sex in witchcraft, 267, 342, 660;\n  sex in priesthood, 485, 659-60;\n  sex in furnishing oracles, 485, 660;\n  sex among musicians and dirge singers, 660 (see _Dirge_);\n  position of woman, 694.\n\n_Shabat_, 11th month, sacred to Ramman, 463;\n  sacred to Ninib, 215, 684.\n\n_Shabra_, god, temple at Lagash, 635.\n\n_Shailu_, a designation for priest, 560;\n  || Hebr. Shoel, 560.\n\n_Shala_, consort of Ramman, 161, 212;\n  in proper names of 2d Bab. period, 169;\n  in Ass. pantheon, 189;\n  meaning of name, 213;\n  other applications of the name, 213;\n  epithets, 213.\n\n_Shalman_, god, in Ass. pantheon, 188.\n\n_Shalmaneser II._, king of Assyria, gives prominence to Shamash cult,\n    205, 215;\n  his pantheon, 237.\n\n_Shamash_, or Utu, 51, 277;\n  signification of name, 68;\n  relations to the moon-god, 68-70, 98, 305;\n  centers of worship, Sippar and Larsa, 69, 117, 143, 176, 241, 628,\n    640, 646;\n  relative age of the centers, 70;\n  temple Ebabbara, 70, 628, 640, 645;\n  attributes and functions, 71, 120, 210;\n  in incantations, 71, 211;\n  probable age of these conceptions, 72;\n  his other names and their meaning, 72-4, 176;\n  local uses thereof, 73;\n  Malkatu his consort, 74-5, 176, 241-685;\n  offspring of Nin-gal, 98;\n  in Lugalzaggisi's and Gudea's pantheon, 110;\n  in Hammurabi's pantheon, 162;\n  warrior of heaven and earth, 144, 211;\n  mighty hero, 152;\n  position in Bab. pantheon during and after Hammurabi, 144;\n  position in Ass. pantheon, 144, 209-11;\n  associated with Ramman, 145, 157-8, 160, 211;\n  associated with Sin and Ramman, 158, 163;\n  associated with Ishtar, 163, 511;\n  associated with Malik and Bunene, 176;\n  often called Malik, 176;\n  symbol of Shamash, 176-7;\n  temple at Ashur, 209;\n  protecting deity, 209;\n  ethical level in Ass. pantheon, 209-10;\n  judge of heaven and earth, 210, 274, 279, 297, 527 (_cf._ 640);\n  prominence of sun cult during reign of Ashurnasirbal and Shalmaneser\n    II., 210, 646;\n  under Esarhaddon, 646;\n  sanctuary by Sargon II., 211;\n  cult influenced by that of Egyptian Ra, 210 (_cf._ 699);\n  name of one of the eastern gates of Sargon's II. palace, 237;\n  grants victory, 237;\n  Nebuchadnezzar II. and Shamash cult, 646;\n  Nabonnedos gives prominence to Sh. cult, 240-1, 647;\n  temple in Babylon, 242, 640;\n  Sh. in incantations, 280;\n  in hymns, 300 ff.;\n  in omens and oracles, 334, 344;\n  Shamash and Sin, 305, 647;\n  7th month sacred to Sh., 463, 685;\n  patron of Gilgamesh, 471, 479;\n  identical with Lugal-Marada, 486;\n  patron of Etana, 520;\n  controls Zu, 538;\n  on seal cylinders, 540;\n  Si-gar, a festival of, 684;\n  festival days, 685.\n\n_Shamshi-Ramman_, king of Assyria, gives prominence to Ninib cult, 214.\n\n_Shamuktu_, a class of priestesses of Ishtar, 660.\n\n_Sha-nit(?)-ka_, goddess, in Ass. pantheon, 188;\n  associated with Damku and Sharru-ilu, 232;\n  mistress of Nineveh, 233;\n  = Ishtar, 233.\n\n_Sharru_, title of Marduk, in the deluge story, 500.\n\n_Sharru-ilu_, god, associated with Damku and Sha-nit(?)-ka, 232;\n  meaning of name, 232;\n  evidently a title, 232;\n  perhaps a foreign god, 232;\n  worshipped at Magganubba, 232.\n\n_Shar-sarbi_ = Belsarbi, 242.\n\n_Sherua_, minor god in Ass. pantheon, 234;\n  foreign deity, 644.\n\n_Sheol_, 560;\n  O. T. conceptions of Sheol || to Babylonian conceptions, 606 ff.;\n  see also _Shualu_, _Dead._.\n\n_Shinar_ = Babylonia, 613.\n\n_Ship_, construction of, 498-9;\n  Puzur-shadu-rabu, captain of ark, 500;\n  a sacred object, 653-4;\n  its uses and significance, 654;\n  compared with the Mahmal and the ark, 655.\n\n\"_Ship of Light_,\" name of Sin's ship, 655.\n\n\"_Ship of Malku_,\" name of the ship of Naru, 655.\n\n\"_Ship of the Brilliant Offspring_,\" name of Bau's ship, 655.\n\n_Shir_, god, in Nebuchadnezzar's I. pantheon, 162;\n  local god, 163;\n  patron of Bit-Khabban, 176.\n\n_Shirpurla_, see _Lagash_.\n\n_Shualu_, designation of the district of the dead, 560 ff.;\n  meaning, 559;\n  || to Hebr. Sheol, 560.\n\n_Shubu_, in Nebuchadnezzar's I. pantheon, 162;\n  local character, 163;\n  patron god of Bit-Khabban, 176.\n\n_Shu-bu-la_, god, in proper names of the 2d Bab. period, 169;\n  patron of Shumdula, 169.\n\n_Shu-gid-la_, see _Shu-bu-la_, 169.\n\n_Shukamuna_, Cassite god, identical with Nergal, 152, 163, 172;\n  head of Agum's pantheon, 152, 172;\n  consort of Shumalia, 173.\n\n_Shul-gur_ = Nin-girsu, 51.\n\n_Shul-pa-uddu_, god, 51;\n  meaning of name, 99;\n  age and extension of cult, 99;\n  decline of cult in favor of Shamash and Ninib, 100;\n  position in Babylonian astronomy, 100;\n  solar deity, 99, 531.\n\n_Shumalia_, in the Cassite pantheon, 162-3, 172;\n  in Nebuchadnezzar's I. pantheon, 162;\n  consort of Shukamuna, 173;\n  epithet, 173.\n\n_Shumdula_, city in Babylonia, cult of Shubula, 169.\n\n_Shum-gar_, see _Si-gar_.\n\n_Shurippak_, city on Euphrates, destroyed by rainstorm, 495;\n  comparison with Sodom, 496, 507.\n\n_Shurpu series_, 290.\n\n_Shu-sil-la_, see _Shubula_, 169.\n\n_Sibi_, collective personification of the seven evil spirits associated\n    with Ishum, 533.\n\n_Sibittum_, minor deity in the Etana legend, 521.\n\n_Siduri_, Sabitum, the goddess of Siduri, 491.\n\n_Si-gar_, festival of Gula, 683;\n  festival of Sin, 684;\n  festival of Shamash, 684;\n  meaning, 684;\n  date of installation of Ashurbanabal, 684.\n\n_Silili_, mother of one of Ishtar's associates, 482.\n\n_Sin_, god, see also _Nannar_; worshipped in Harran, 76, 241, 641, 647;\n  temple at Ur, 76, 241, 295, 640, 644, 687;\n  occurrence of the name elsewhere, 77;\n  amalgamation with Nannar, 78;\n  chief trait, 78;\n  lunar cycle and sun calendar, 78;\n  epithets and functions, 76, 78-9, 219, 462;\n  gradual decrease of Sin cult, 78-9;\n  in Lugalzaggisi's and Gudea's pantheon, 110;\n  associated with Shamash and Ramman, 158, 163;\n  in Hammurabi's pantheon, 162;\n  patron of Bit-Khabban, 163;\n  head of 2d triad, 163;\n  associated with Ishtar, 163, 571;\n  father of Ishtar, 565;\n  temple at Calah, 219;\n  sanctuary at Khorsabad, 219;\n  sanctuary at Magganubba, 219;\n  god of wisdom, 78, 219;\n  god of water in Ass. pantheon, 219;\n  first-born son of Bel, 76, 219;\n  subordinate position in Ass. pantheon, 219-20;\n  Sin and astronomy, resp. astrology, 219-20;\n  temple at Babylon, 242;\n  in incantations, 280;\n  in hymn, 303-4;\n  Sin and Shamash, 305, 647;\n  first-born of Bel, 219, 462;\n  Siwan, 3d month, sacred to Sin 462;\n  chapel in E-Zida, 639;\n  Sin cult under Nabonnedos, 77, 648;\n  Sin's ship, 655;\n  zagmuk of, 678;\n  Si-gar, festival of, 684.\n\n_Sinai_, a peninsula (metals and stone), 627, 652.\n\n_Sin-gamil_, of Uruk, builds sanctuaries to Nergal at Cuthah, 66.\n\n_Sin-gashid_, of Uruk, servitor of Lugal-banda and Nin-gul, 95-6.\n\n_Sin-iddina_, of Larsa, builds sanctuary to Shamash in Larsa, 69;\n  builds temple of Sin in Ur, 76.\n\n_Sippar_, temple and archives, 10;\n  ancient center, 35, 245;\n  center of worship of Shamash, 69, 117, 143-4, 241, 628, 640, 646;\n  temple of Nun-gal, 168;\n  worship of Shamash, Malik, and Bunene, 176;\n  temple of Nin-karrak, 294;\n  temple of Malkalu or A, 640;\n  zikkurat, \"Threshold of Long Life,\" 641.\n\n_Sir_, serpent god, in proper names of the 2d Bab. period, 170.\n\n_Sirius_, observations of, 372.\n\n_Siwan_, 3d month, sacred to Sin, 462, 687;\n  sacred to the god of brick structures, 463;\n  25th day of Siwan sacred to Belit of Babylon, 684.\n\n_Slaves_, standing of slaves a measure of social ethics, 695.\n\n_Smith, George_, explorations, 9.\n\n_Sodom_, destruction of, point of contact with Gilgamesh epic, 495-6,\n    507.\n\n_Sokkaros_, grandfather of Gilgamesh (Aelian), 524.\n\n_Solomonic_ temple and the sacred quarter in Nippur, 623-4;\n  horns of altar compared with Bab. custom, 652;\n  \"sea\" compared with Apsu, 653;\n  ark compared with the Bab. ship, 655.\n\n_Sorcer_, _Sorceress_, see also _Witchcraft_;\n  relationship betw. s. and oracle-giver, 342.\n\n_Spirits_, in proper names, 166, 180;\n  Nun-gal-e-ne, a class of, 168 (cf. 184);\n  their symbols, 174, 182;\n  functions, 174;\n  lists of, 180;\n  classification of, 181 ff.;\n  of disease, 181, 186, 246;\n  of the field, 182;\n  of the nether-world, 183;\n  dividing line betw. gods and spirits, 181, 183, 231, 266, 274;\n  of evil, 260, 264;\n  activity of, 260-1;\n  representations of, 263;\n  habitations of, 260, 263;\n  the seven spirits, 264;\n  strength attribute of, 266;\n  relationship betw. demons and witchcraft, 267;\n  differentiation of demons, 262.\n\n_Spiritualization of mythology_, 304, 306;\n  characteristic of later times, 297;\n  in penitential psalms, 313, 319.\n\n_Splendor of Heaven and Earth_, name of temple, 641.\n\n_Stars_, writing of heaven, 454;\n  division of, 455.\n\n_Storm_, symbols of storm (birds and bulls), 537 ff.\n\n_Subartu_, name of country, 532.\n\n_Sugi_, name of country, 675.\n\n_Sukhaul-ziku_, name of mythical fountain, 572.\n\n_Sumer and Akkad_, ethnological-geographical, 32-3;\n  S.-A. language in incantations, 259.\n\n_Sumerian question_, 21-4, 32-4.\n\n_Sun_, see _Shamash_;\n  gates of s., 435, 443;\n  representation of sun in creation story, 461;\n  sun and moon in astronomy and religion, 461.\n\n_Susian wedge writing_, 19.\n\n_Syllabaries_, 135.\n\n_Syncellus_, source for B.-A. religion, 1, 5.\n\n_Systematized religion_, see _Theology_.\n\n\n_Taboo_, meaning of, 397.\n\n_Talisman_, see _Amulet_, _Teraphim_.\n\n_Tammuz_, agricultural deity, 58, 588;\n  relations to Ishtar, 84, 482, 484, 547, 564, 574;\n  T. and Gish-zida doorkeepers of heaven, 546;\n  solar deity, 547;\n  4th month named for T., 547, 682;\n  intercedes for Adapa with Anu, 548-9;\n  brother of Belili, 575;\n  T.'s day = All-Souls' Day, 599, 605, 682;\n  identified with Nin-girsu, 58;\n  associated with Nin-gish-zida, 546, 588.\n\n_Tammuz_, 4th month, sacred to Ninib, 462;\n  named for god Tammuz, 547, 682;\n  sacred to the servant of Gibil, 463.\n\n_Tarbisu_, city north of Nineveh; temple of Nergal, 219.\n\n_Tar-gul-le_, names of some demons let loose by Dibbarra in the deluge\n    story, 500.\n\n_Tashmitum_, goddess in pantheon of Hammurabi, 130;\n  a new creation, 131-2;\n  consort of Nabu, 130-1, 228-9;\n  meaning of name, 131;\n  her quasi-artificial character, 131-2;\n  called Nana, 132;\n  shrine in E-Sagila, 220, 241;\n  in the subscript to Ashurbanabal's tablets, 229-30;\n  shrine in E-Zida, 241.\n\n_Tashritu_, see _Tishri_.\n\n_Taylor, J. E._, excavations, 8.\n\n_Tebet_, 10th month, sacred to Papsukal, Ishtar, and Anu, 463;\n  festival of En-meshara, 588.\n\n_Tel-Id_, mound near Warka, site of ancient capital of Mar, 100.\n\n_Tell-el-amarna_, see _El-amarna_.\n\n_Tell-Ibrahim_ = Cuthah.\n\n_Telloh_, excavations, 11;\n  temple records and legal documents, 165.\n\n_Tell-Sifr_, temple records and legal documents, 165.\n\n_Temple records_, see also _Literature_;\n  source of study of the deities, 167.\n\n_Temples_, 612 ff.;\n  names of t., 638 ff.;\n  history of t., 642 ff.;\n  as financial establishments, 650;\n  minor part played by the temples in Assyria, 659.\n\n_Terah_, _Terahites_, appearance in Palestine, 2;\n  migrations, 2;\n  home of, 9.\n\n_Teraphim_, talismans parallel to Ass.-Bab. statuettes of gods, 674.\n\n_Teumman_, king of Elam, 296.\n\n_Thamud_, Arabic tribe destroyed, 496.\n\n_The Brilliant House_, name of temple, 641.\n\n\"_The Lesser Light_,\" name of Ningal's ship, 655.\n\n_Theology and popular belief_, 89, 114, 131, 180, 235, 249, 411, 414,\n    416, 458, 494, 527, 584, 614, 619, 629-30, 689;\n  Gudea's system, 108;\n  interaction betw. political fortunes and positions of divinities, 108,\n    110-11, 134-5, 201, 234, 235;\n  genealogical arrangement according to Amiaud, 108;\n  family theory according to Davis, 109;\n  its value, 109;\n  tendency towards recognition of certain great gods, 111, 147, 171,\n    190, 234-5, 696;\n  organization of cult and ritual, establishment of dogmas, 115, 133,\n    247, 690;\n  pedagogical activity, 135;\n  formation of the great triad, 147;\n  re-systematization of gods by Hammurabi, 171, 276;\n  systematization of spirits, 184;\n  attempts to systematize series of gods, 213, 216, 233;\n  theology in cosmology, 412 ff., 418, 443;\n  in the 12th tablet of the Gilgamesh epic, 512-3;\n  in the Etana legend, 527;\n  theology in the Zu epic, 542.\n\n_Thomas, Felix_, excavations, 8.\n\n_Thousand and One Nights_, 494.\n\n_Threshold of Long Life_, name of zikkurat in Sippar, 641.\n\n_Tiamat_, mythical monster, conquered by Marduk, 140, 197, 408;\n  fought by Anu, Ea, 197;\n  synonymous with Apsu, 411;\n  female principle, 411;\n  personified chaos, 411, 414;\n  dominion of T. and Apsu precedes that of the gods, 412;\n  gods product of the union of T. and Apsu, 413;\n  mythical monsters product of the union of T. and Apsu, 414;\n  associates of T., 419;\n  Ummu-Khubur, epithet of T., 419;\n  Kingu her consort, 420;\n  Tiamat epic compared with Zu myth, 543;\n  comparison with Nergal-Allat fight, 585.\n\n_Tiglathpileser I._, king of Assyria, nomenclature of Bel, 146;\n  dedicates temple to Anu and Ramman, 154, 159;\n  as a hunter, 216;\n  rebuilds temple of Bel at Ashur, 225;\n  pantheon, 236;\n  dedicates captured gods, 675.\n\n_Tiglathpileser II._, sacrifices in Babylonia, 664.\n\n_Tigris_, course of, 28-9;\n  comparison with Euphrates, 30;\n  in garden of Eden, 2 (_cf._ 506);\n  one of the four streams forming the confluence of streams, 506 (_cf._\n    2).\n\n_Tishri_, 7th month, sacred to Shamash, 462 (_cf._ 681, 685);\n  7th day sacred to Shamash, Malkatu, and Bunene, 685.\n\n_Tombs_, see _Dead_.\n\n_Triad_, the great, Anu, Bel, Ea, 107;\n  relationship of the members, 147;\n  product of theology, 147, 149;\n  development of, 148;\n  extraneous position, 149;\n  representative of the three kingdoms, 155;\n  punish the violator of monuments, 207;\n  fix the name of the months, 208, 236;\n  general position in Ass. pantheon, 236;\n  give victory, 236;\n  grant rule, 236;\n  associated with Ashur, Ishtar, and Igigi, and Anunnaki, 236;\n  in incantations, 273;\n  associated with fire-god, 279;\n  in Gudea, 418;\n  in the cosmology, 418;\n  ancestors of the triad, 418;\n  symbolizes the eternal laws of the universe, 432.\n\n_Triad_, second, Sin, Shamash, Ramman, 163;\n  in incantations, 273.\n\n_Tubal-cain_, biblical father of metal workers, 178.\n\n_Tur-lil-en_, in Nebuchadnezzar's II. pantheon, 242.\n\n_Tychsen, Gerhard_, decipherment of wedge writing, 15.\n\n\n_Ubshu-kenna_, council chamber of the gods, 423, 629, 687.\n\n_Uddushu-Namir_, a divine servant, created by Ea, 571.\n\n_Ud-zal_ = Nimib, 166.\n\n_Ukhat_, in the Gilgamesh epic, 475, 476 ff.;\n  parallelism betw. U. and Eve, 511.\n\n_Ukhati_, sacred harlots of Uruk, 475, 531, 660.\n\n_Ul-mash-shi-tum_, in proper names of the 2d Bab. period, 170.\n\n_Ululu_, 6th month, sacred to Ishtar, 462, 684;\n  sacred to Ashur, 463, 685;\n  sacred to Ninib, 215, 684;\n  3d day of U. sacred to Shamash, Malkatu, and Bunene, 685.\n\n_Ululu 2d_ (intercalated), sacred to Anu and Bel, 463.\n\n_Umu_, goddess, 51;\n  priestess of Uruk, 102;\n  in Lugalzaggisi's pantheon, 110.\n\n_Umun-pa-uddu_ = Shul-pa-uddu, 99.\n\n_Ur_, city, home of Terahites, 9;\n  dynasties, 36-7;\n  sacred to Sin or Nannar, 69-70, 75, 242, 640, 647;\n  sanctuary of Shamash, 70;\n  starting point of Hebrew migrations, 77;\n  association with Harran, 77;\n  temple of Nana, 81;\n  temple of Nin-gal, 97;\n  temple of Sin, 70, 242, 295, 640;\n  literary center, 245;\n  zikkurat at Ur, 617;\n  temple E-kharsag, 638;\n  temple E-gal-makh, 639.\n\n_Ur-Bau_, patesi of Lagash,\n  builds sanctuary of Belit, 56;\n  builds sanctuary to Ea in Girsu, 61-3;\n  builds temple of Ninni in Gishgalla, 80;\n  builds temple to Nin-Mar in Mar, 100;\n  builds temple to Ku(?)-anna in Girsu, 102;\n  erects a zikkurat in Nippier, 645.\n\n_Ur-Gur_, 2d dynasty of Ur,\n  builds sanctuary to Shamash in Larsa, 69;\n  preserves local cults in Larsa, Nippur, Uruk, 69;\n  builds temple to Sin in Ur, 76;\n  builds temple to Nana in Uruk, 81.\n\n_Ur-Kasdim_ = Ur.\n\n_Ur-Nin-Girsu_, of Lagash, priest of Anu, 90.\n\n_Ur-Shul-pa-uddu_, ruler of Kish, 99.\n\n_Uru-azagga_, quarter of Lagash, 57;\n  temple of Bau, 59, 103.\n\n_Uru-gal_, \"great city,\"\n  designation of nether-world, 592;\n  Nin-azu, god of U., 592.\n\n_Uruk_, ancient center, 9, 35, 245, 445, 472;\n  excavated, 9;\n  rulers, 37;\n  temple of Nin-shakh, 93;\n  temple of Lugal-banda, 95;\n  temple of Nin-gul, 96;\n  origin of cult of Nisaba, 102;\n  Nana, or Ishtar, the great goddess of Uruk, 81, 84, 103, 242, 311,\n    445, 473, 475, 645, 648;\n  importance of Uruk in Nippur inscriptions, 103;\n  worship of Nisaba, 111;\n  temple of Nana or Ishtar, 81, 242, 311, 531, 639;\n  Uruk supuri, 472;\n  city of the Kizreti, Ukhati, and Kharimati, 475, 531;\n  conquered by Gilgamesh, 473, 513;\n  attacked by Khumbaba, 430;\n  Uruk under Cassites (?), 480;\n  attacked by Dibbarra, 531;\n  dwelling of Anu and Ishtar, 531;\n  zikkurat at U., 619, 639.\n\n_Uru-kagina_, patesi of Lagash, 53;\n  king of Girsu, 56;\n  erects temple of Bau at Uru-azagga, 103.\n\n_Utu_, surname of Shamash, 72;\n  etymology, 73.\n\n_Utukku_, a class of spirits, 260 (_cf._ 511).\n\n\n_Vases_, sacred objects, 652, 674-5\n  comparison with vases in the Solomonic temple, 653.\n\n_Venus_ = Ishtar, name of planet, 370.\n\n_Votive inscriptions_, see _Religious Texts_.\n\n_Votive offerings_, 51, 57, 660 ff.;\n  lists of, 165;\n  popular character, 668-9;\n  statues of kings votive offerings, 669;\n  occasions for, 670;\n  offered by kings and laymen, 671, 675;\n  various objects, 671, 675;\n  captured gods as offerings, 675.\n\n\n_Warka_, see _Uruk_.\n\n_Water_, see _Fire_ and _Ea_;\n  means of purification, 276, 279, 282, 289.\n\n_Wedge writing_, styles and varieties, 19, 20;\n  origin, 21 ff., 454, 455.\n\n_Witchcraft_, origin of belief in, 267;\n  relationship betw. w. and demons, 267;\n  the sex in w., 267, 342, 485;\n  means of w., 268;\n  protection against, 269;\n  release from, 285, 657;\n  causes of punishment by, 291.\n\n_Worship_, tree worship compared with Hebrew-Phoenician Ashera cult,\n    689;\n  symbolical in Bab., 689.\n\n\n_Xenophon_, contemporary of Ctesias, 1.\n\n_Xisuthras_, 505;\n  see _Adra-Khasis_.\n\n\n_Yakhin_, name of column in Solomon's temple, 624.\n\n\n_Zab_, lower, tributary of Tigris, 192.\n\n_Zabu_, king of Babylon, restores Shamash temple at Sippar, 117;\n  restores Anunit temple at Agade, 117.\n\n_Zag-muk_, festival of Bau, 59, 677;\n  festival of Marduk, 127, 631, 678-9;\n  festival of En-lil, 678;\n  festival of Sin, 678;\n  festival of Nana, 678;\n  propitious time for asking oracles, 628-9;\n  spring and fall the time of the z., 678;\n  compared with Jewish New Year, 687.\n\n_Zakar_, god, meaning of name, 172;\n  place of worship, 172;\n  \"wall of Zakar,\" 172;\n  relationship to Bel and Belit, 172.\n\n_Zamama_, god of the 2d Bab. period, 168;\n  sanctuary to Z. in Kish, 169;\n  god of battle (identified with Ninib, 640), 169;\n  Ninni his consort, 169;\n  in incantations, 273;\n  temple of Zamama-Ninib, 640.\n\n_Zarmu_, son of Bau, 103.\n\n_Za-za-uru_, son of Bau, 103.\n\n_Zikkurat_, staged tower, 615;\n  imitation of mountain, 615;\n  house of oracle, 622;\n  names of zikkurats, 638 ff.\n\n_Zodiac_, z. system outcome of religious thought, 247, 434;\n  zodiacal interpretation of the gods, 82, 310-1, 434, 462-3, 676;\n  almost the entire zodiac known to the Babylonians, 456.\n\n_Zoroastrianism_, 45.\n\n_Zu_, personification of storm, 525, 537;\n  myth of Zu, 537 ff.;\n  compared with Tiamat epic, 543;\n  explanation of name, 537;\n  the chief worker of evil, 538;\n  under the control of Shamash, 538;\n  robs the tablets of fate, 540;\n  conquered by Marduk, 542.\n\n_Zurghul_, city in Babylonia, 578.\n\n\n\n\nANNOUNCEMENTS\n\n\n\n\nHANDBOOKS ON THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS\n\nEdited by Morris Jastrow, Jr., Professor of Semitic Languages in the\nUniversity of Pennsylvania\n\nThe distinguishing features of this series will be: first, each volume\nwill deal with the history of a special religion, which is to be\nintrusted to the hands of a competent specialist; second, the treatment\nof the subject in the various volumes will follow so far as possible a\nuniform order; a third division will embody a full exposition of the\nbeliefs and rites, the religious art and literature; a fourth division\nwill give the history of the religion and set forth its relation to\nothers. Three volumes are now ready.\n\n\nNOW READY\n\nI. THE RELIGIONS OF INDIA\n\nBy Edward Washburn Hopkins, Professor of Sanskrit and Comparative\nPhilology in Yale University. 8vo. Cloth. xviii + 612 pages. List price,\n$2.00; mailing price, $2.20.\n\nII. THE RELIGION OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA\n\nBy Morris Jastrow, Jr., Professor of Semitic Languages in the University\nof Pennsylvania. 8vo. Cloth. xiv + 780 pages. List price, $3.00; mailing\nprice, $3.25.\n\nIII. THE RELIGION OF THE TEUTONS\n\nBy P. D. Chantepie de la Saussaye, Professor in the University of\nLeiden. Translated by B. J. Vos, Associate Professor of German in the\nJohns Hopkins University. 8vo. Cloth. viii + 504 pages. List price,\n$2.50; mailing price, $2.70.\n\n\nIN PREPARATION\n\nIV. THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL\n\nBy the Rev. Professor John P. Peters, New York.\n\nV. THE RELIGION OF PERSIA\n\nBy Professor A. V. Williams Jackson of Columbia University.\n\nVI. INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS\n\nBy Professor C. H. Toy of Harvard University.\n\nVII. THE RELIGION OF ISLAM\n\nBy Professor Morris Jastrow, Jr., of the University of Pennsylvania.\n\nVIII. THE RELIGION OF THE ROMANS\n\nBy Professor Jesse Benedict Carter of Princeton University.\n\n\nGINN & COMPANY Publishers","title":"The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":259609}