The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria Part 13

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

[207] In Babylonian, _Kallat Eshara_, with another play upon her name.

See above, p. 173.

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

[209] Servant of Gula.

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

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

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

CHAPTER XI.

SURVIVALS OF ANIMISM IN THE BABYLONIAN RELIGION.

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

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

on which the owner of the field detailed his right to possession, through purchase or gift, as the case may be. This inscription closed with an appeal to various G.o.ds to strike with their curses any intruder upon the owner's rights. In addition to this, the stones are embellished with serpents, scorpions, unicorns, and various realistic or fantastic representations of animal forms. These, it would seem, symbolize the spirits, the sight of which, it was hoped, might act as a further and effectual warning against interference with the owner's rights.[214]

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

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

Anunnaki and Igigi.

Regarding these names it may be said that the former has not yet been satisfactorily interpreted. On the a.s.sumption that the union of the syllables A-nun-na-ki[216] represents a compound ideograph, the middle syllable _nun_ signifies 'strength,' whereas the first is the ordinary ideograph for 'water.' Hommel[217] proposed to interpret the name therefore as 'G.o.ds of the watery habitation.' The artificiality of this manner of writing points, as in several instances noted, to a mere 'play' upon the real name. _Anunna_ reminds one forcibly of the G.o.d _Anu_ and of the G.o.ddess _Anunit_, and the element _ak_ is quite a common afformative in Babylonian substantives, conveying a certain emphatic meaning to the word. If therefore we may compare Anun with the name of the G.o.d of heaven, the name _Anunnak_ embodying, as it does in this case, the idea of power, would be an appropriate designation for the spirits, or a group of spirits collectively. Be it understood that this explanation is offered merely as a conjecture, which, however, finds support in the meaning attached to the term 'Igigi.' This, as Halevy and Guyard have recognized, is a formation of a well-known stem occurring in Babylonian, as well as in other Semitic languages, that has the meaning 'strong.' The ideographic form of writing the name likewise designates the spirits as 'the great chiefs.' The 'Igigi,' therefore, are 'the strong ones,' and strength being the attribute most commonly a.s.signed to the Semitic deities,[218] there is a presumption, at least, in favor of interpreting Anunnak, or Anunnaki,[219] in the same way. The 'Igigi' are at times designated as the seven G.o.ds, but this number is simply an indication of their const.i.tuting a large group. Seven is a round number which marked a large quant.i.ty. At an earlier period five represented a numerical magnitude, and hence the Anunnaki are at times regarded as a group of five.[220] The Anunnaki and Igigi appear for the first time in an historical text in the inscription of the a.s.syrian king Ramman-nirari I., who includes them in his appeal to the great G.o.ds. He designates the Igigi as belonging to heaven, the Anunnaki as belonging to the earth. The manner in which he uses the names shows conclusively that, at this early period, the two groups comprehended the entire domain over which spirits, and for that matter also the G.o.ds, exercised their power. Indeed, it would appear that at one time the two names were used to include the G.o.ds as well as the spirits. At least this appears to be the case in a.s.syria, and the conclusion may be drawn, from the somewhat vague use of the terms, that the names belong to a very early period of the religion, when the distinction between G.o.ds and spirits was not yet clearly marked. However that may be, in Babylonian hymns and incantations the Igigi and Anunnaki play a very prominent part. Anu is represented as the father of both groups. But they are also at the service of other G.o.ds, notably of Bel, who is spoken of as their 'lord,'

of Ninib, of Marduk, of Ishtar, and of Nergal. They prostrate themselves before these superior masters, and the latter at times manifest their anger against the Igigi. They are sent out by the G.o.ds to do service.

Their character is, on the whole, severe and cruel. They are not favorable to man, but rather hostile to him. Their brilliancy consumes the land. Their power is feared, and a.s.syrian kings more particularly are fond of adding the Igigi and Anunnaki to the higher powers--the G.o.ds proper--when they wish to inspire a fear of their own majesty. At times the Igigi alone are mentioned, but generally the Igigi and Anunnaki appear in combination. To the latest period of Babylonian history these two groups continue to receive official recognition. Nebuchadnezzar II.[221] dedicates an altar, which he erects at the wall of the city of Babylon, to the Igigi and Anunnaki. The altar is called a structure of 'joy and rejoicing,' and on the festival of Marduk, who is the 'lord of the Anunnaki and Igigi,' sacrifices were offered at this altar. In the great temple of Marduk there was a fountain in which the G.o.ds and the Anunnaki, according to a Babylonian hymn, 'bathe their countenance'; and when to this notice it be added that another hymn praises them as the 'shining chiefs' of the ancient city of Eridu, it will be apparent that the conceptions attached to this group span the entire period of Babylonian-a.s.syrian history.

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

FOOTNOTES:

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

[214] The question has been raised (see Belser, _ib._ p. 111) by Pinches whether these representations are not the symbols of the zodiac, but, as Belser justly remarks, the attempt to interpret the pictures in this way has not been successful. It still seems most plausible to regard the pictures as symbols of spirits or demons. Such an interpretation is in accord with the Babylonian and general Semitic view of land ownership.

At the same time it must be confessed that we are still in the dark as to the motives underlying the choice of the animals portrayed. There may be some ultimate connection with _some_ of the signs of the zodiac,--so Hommel believes,--but such connection would have to be judged from the earlier forms that animism takes on, and not in the light of an advanced theology such as appears in the zodiacal system of the Babylonians.

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

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

[217] _Semitische Volker_, p. 369.

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

[219] The final vowel _i_ would, on the basis of the explanation offered, be paralleled by the _i_ of Igigi--an indication of the plural.

See Delitzsch, _a.s.syr. Gram._ -- 67, 1.

[220] The Igigi are designated ideographically as v plus ii, and Hommel (_Semitische Volker_, p. 491) properly suggests that this peculiar writing points to an earlier use of five as const.i.tuting the group.

Hommel, however, does not see that neither five nor seven are to be interpreted literally, but that both represent a large round number, and, therefore, also a holy one.

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

CHAPTER XII.

THE a.s.sYRIAN PANTHEON.

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

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

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

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

Ashur.

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

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

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

The rulers of a.s.syria, even after they a.s.sumed the t.i.tle of 'king' (_c._ 1500 B.C.), were still fond of calling themselves the 'priest' of the G.o.d Ashur, and frequently gave this t.i.tle the preference over others. In the fourteenth century the temple of Ashur seems to have suffered at the hands of the Ca.s.sites, who attempted to extend their power to the north.

This plan was, however, frustrated by Ramman-nirari I., who forces the Ca.s.sites to retreat, successfully opposes other enemies of a.s.syria, and restores the injured parts of Ashur's temple. From this time on, and for a period of several centuries, a.s.syria a.s.sumes an aggressive att.i.tude, and as a consequence the dependency upon the G.o.d is more keenly felt than before. The enemies against whom the kings proceed are called 'the enemies of Ashur,' the troops of the king are the troops of Ashur, and the weapons with which they fight are the weapons of Ashur. It is he who causes the arms of Tiglathpileser I. to strike down his foes. The nations cannot endure the awful sight of the G.o.d. His brilliancy--the reference being no doubt to the shining standard as it was carried into the fray--inspires on every side a terror that casts all enemies to the ground. All warfare is carried on in the name of Ashur. The statement may be taken literally, for an oracle was sought at critical moments to determine the course that was to be pursued. The fight itself takes place with the help of the G.o.d,--again to be taken literally, for the G.o.d, represented by his symbol, is present on the battlefield. The victory, accordingly, belongs to the G.o.d in the first instance, and only in a secondary degree to the king. The nations are vanquished by Ashur, the conquered cities become subject to Ashur, and when the tribute is brought by the conquered foe, it is to Ashur that it is offered by the kings. Proud and haughty as the latter were, and filled with greed for glory and power, they never hesitated to humble themselves before their G.o.d. They freely acknowledged that everything they possessed was due to Ashur's favor. It was he who called them to the throne, who gave them the sceptre and crown, and who firmly established their sovereignty.

Through Ashur, who gives the king his invincible weapon,--the mighty bow,--the kingdom is enlarged, until the kings feel justified in saying of themselves that, by the nomination of Ashur, they govern the four quarters of the world. Nay, the rulers go further and declare themselves to be the offspring of Ashur. It is not likely that they ever desired such an a.s.sertion also to be interpreted literally. The phrase is rather to be taken as the strongest possible indication of the attachment they felt for their chief G.o.d. Everything that they possessed coming directly from their G.o.d, how could this be better expressed than by making the G.o.d the source of their being? The phrase, at all events, is interesting as showing that the element of love was not absent in the emotions that the thought of Ashur aroused in the b.r.e.a.s.t.s of his subjects. The kings cannot find sufficient terms of glorification to bestow upon Ashur.

Tiglathpileser I. calls him 'the great lord ruling the a.s.sembly of G.o.ds,' and in similar style, Ashurnasirbal invokes him as 'the great G.o.d of all the G.o.ds.' For Ramman-nirari III., he is the king of the Igigi--the heavenly host of spirits. Sargon lovingly addresses him as the father of the G.o.ds. Sennacherib calls him the great mountain or rock,--a phrase that recalls a Biblical metaphor applied to the deity,--and Esarhaddon speaks of him as the 'king of G.o.ds.' Frequently Ashur is invoked together with other G.o.ds. He is 'the guide of the G.o.ds.' There is only one instance in which he does not occupy the first place. Ramman-nirari I., to whom reference has above been made, gives Anu the preference over Ashur in a list of G.o.ds,[244] to whom conjointly he ascribes his victories. We have already had occasion (see pp.

153-155) to note the antiquity of Anu worship in a.s.syria, the foundation of whose temple takes us beyond the period of Samsi-Ramman. Ashur's importance begins only with the moment that the rulers of his city enter upon their career of conquest. Before that, his power and fame were limited to the city over which he presided. Those G.o.ds who in the south occupied a superior rank were also acknowledged in the north. The religion of the a.s.syrians does not acquire traits that distinguish it from that of Babylonia till the rise of a distinct a.s.syrian empire.

Here, as in Babylonia, the religious conceptions, and in a measure the art, are shaped by the course of political events. Anu, accordingly, takes precedence to Ashur previous to the supremacy of the city of Ashur. This superior rank belongs to him as the supreme G.o.d of heaven.

Ramman-nirari's reign marks a turning-point in the history of a.s.syria.

The enemies of Ashur, who had succeeded for a time in obscuring the G.o.d's glory through the humiliation which his land endured, were driven back, but neither the people nor the rulers had as yet become conscious of the fact that it was solely to Ashur that the victory was due. Hence, other G.o.ds are a.s.sociated with Ashur by Ramman-nirari, and the old G.o.d Anu is accorded his proper rank. After the days of Ramman-nirari, however, Ashur's precedence over all other G.o.ds is established. Whether a.s.sociated with Bel or with Ramman, or with Shamash and Ramman, or with a larger representation of the pantheon, Ashur is invariably mentioned first.

From what has been said of the chief trait of a.s.syrian history, it follows, as a matter of course, that the popularity of Ashur is due to the military successes of the a.s.syrian armies; and it follows, with equal necessity, that Ashur, whatever he may originally have been, becomes purely a G.o.d of war, from the moment that a.s.syria enters upon what appeared to be her special mission. All the t.i.tles given to Ashur by the kings may be said to follow from his role as the G.o.d who presides over the fortunes of the wars. If he is the 'ruler of all the G.o.ds,' and their father, he is so simply by virtue of that same superior strength which makes him the 'law-giver' for mankind, and not because of any ancient traditions, nor as an expression of some nature-myth. He lords it over G.o.ds and spirits, but he lords it solely because of his warlike qualities. Ashur is the giver of crown and sceptre, and the kings of a.s.syria are the _patesis_ of the G.o.d, his lieutenants. He is the G.o.d that embodies the spirit of a.s.syrian history, and as such he is the most characteristic personage of the a.s.syrian pantheon--in a certain sense the only characteristic personage. So profound is his influence that almost all the other G.o.ds of the pantheon take on some of his character.

Whenever and wherever possible, those phases of the G.o.d's nature are emphasized which point to the possession of power over enemies. The G.o.ds of the a.s.syrian pantheon impress one as diminutive Ashurs by the side of the big one, and in proportion as they approach nearer to the character of Ashur himself, is their hold upon the royal favor strengthened.