The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria Part 37

If a colt has no right legs, the house[654] will be destroyed.

If a colt has no left legs, the days of the ruler will be long.

If a colt has no legs, the country will be destroyed.

If a colt has the right leg shortened,[655] ... his stall[4]

will be destroyed.

If a colt has the left leg shortened, the stall[656] will be destroyed

If a colt has no hoof on the right foreleg, the wife will cause trouble to her husband.

If a colt has no hoofs at all, there will be dissensions (?) within the country, and the enemy will enter the ruler's land.

In this way, twenty-one omens derived from as many varieties of strange formations in the legs of colts are enumerated. As in the case of lambkins, so for colts, the appearance of twins is endowed with a special significance.

If a mare gives birth to twins, male and female, and each has only one eye, the enemy triumphs and devastates Babylonia.

If the male or female colt has a mane like a lion, the country will be reduced.

If the male or female colt has a dog's hoof, the country will be reduced.

If the male or female colt has a lion's claw, the country will be enlarged.

If the male or female colt has a dog's head, the woman's[657]

life will be bad. The country will be reduced.

If the male or female colt has a lion's head, the ruler will be strong.

If both colts, the male and female, resemble lions, the ruler over his enemies prevails (?).

If both colts, male and female, resemble dogs, the ruler over his enemy's country prevails (?).

If either a male or female colt is born resembling a lion, the king will be strong.

If either a male or female colt resembles a dog, herds of cattle will die, and there will be famine.

If a colt is born without a head, its master will be strong.

If a colt is born without eyes, the G.o.d Bel will bring about a change of dynasty.

If a colt is born without feet, the king increases his army and a slaughter will ensue.

If a colt is born without ears, for three years the G.o.ds will reduce the land.

If a colt is born without a tail, the ruler will die.

In conclusion it may be observed that, apart from the unusual character of these freaks which would suffice to attribute a special import to them, the notions current among the Babylonians, as among so many people of a period when creatures existed, the various parts of which were compounded of different animals, may be regarded as an additional factor that served to add force to the cla.s.s of omens we are considering. The monsters guarding the approaches to temples and palaces[658] were but one form which this popular belief a.s.sumed, and when a colt was observed to have a lion's or a dog's claw, an ocular demonstration was afforded which at once strengthened and served to maintain a belief that at bottom is naught but a crude and primitive form of a theory of evolution. In a dim way man always felt the unity of the animal world.

Animals resembled one another, and man had some features in common with animals. What more natural than to conclude that at some period, the animals were composite creatures, and that even mankind and the animal world were once blended together.

The prevailing religious and semi-mythological ideas, accordingly, enter as factors in the significance that was attached to infants or to the young of animals, serving as ill.u.s.trations of 'hybrid' formations.

Omens from the Actions of Animals.

The same order of ideas, only still further extended, may be detected in the sacredness attached to certain animals by so many nations of antiquity. It is now generally admitted that this 'sacredness' has two sides. A sacred animal may be 'taboo,' that is, so sacred that it must not be touched, much less killed or eaten; and, on the other hand, its original sanct.i.ty may lead people to regard it as "unclean," something again to be avoided, because of the power to do evil involved in the primitive conception of 'sacredness.'[659]

The swine and the dog are ill.u.s.trations of this double nature of sanct.i.ty among the Semites. The former was sacred to some of the inhabitants of "Syria."[660] The Babylonians, as we have seen, abstained from eating it on certain days of the year, while the Hebrews and Arabs regarded it as an absolute 'taboo.'

The dog to this day is in the Orient an "unclean" animal, and yet it is forbidden to do dogs any injury. If, then, we find the Babylonians attaching significance to the movements of this animal, it is obvious that by them, too, the dog was regarded as, in some way, sacred. It was an 'animal of omen,' sometimes good, at other times bad. A tablet informs us[661] that:

If a yellow dog enters a palace, it is a sign of a distressful fate for the palace.

If a speckled dog enters a palace, the palace[662] will give peace to the enemy.

If a dog enters a palace and some one kills him, the peace of the palace will be disturbed.

If a dog enters a palace and crouches on the couch, no one will enjoy that palace in peace.

If a dog enters a palace and crouches on the throne, that palace will suffer a distressful fate.

If a dog enters a palace and lies on a large bowl, the palace will secure peace from the enemy.

There follow omens in case dogs enter a sacred edifice:

If a dog enters a temple, the G.o.ds will not enlarge the land.

If a white dog enters a temple, the foundation of that temple will be firm.

If a black dog enters a temple, the foundation of that temple will not be firm.

If a brown[663] dog enters a temple, that temple will witness justice.

If a yellow dog enters a temple, that temple will[664] witness justice.

If a speckled dog enters a temple, the G.o.ds will show favor to that temple.

If dogs gather together and enter a temple, the city's peace will be disturbed.

The juxtaposition of palace and temple is an indication that a large measure of sanct.i.ty was attached to the former as the dwelling-place of one who stood near to the G.o.ds. The omens, accordingly, in the case of both palace and temple are again concerned with public affairs. But from the same tablet we learn that an equal degree of significance was attached to the actions of dogs when they entered private dwellings.

Precautions must have been taken against the presence of dogs in that part of the house which was reserved for a man's family, for we are told:[665]

A dog entering a man's house was an omen that the ultimate fate of that house would be destruction by fire.

Care had to be taken lest dogs defiled a person or any part of the house. The omens varied again according to the color of the dog.