CHAPTER XXI.

Various traditions were current in Babylonia regarding the manner in which the universe came into existence. The labors of the theologians to systematize these traditions did not succeed in bringing about their unification. Somewhat like in the Book of Genesis, where two versions of the creation story have been combined by some editor,[680] so portions of what were clearly two independent versions have been found among the remains of Babylonian literature. But whereas in the Old Testament the two versions are presented in combination so as to form a harmonic whole, the two Babylonian versions continued to exist side by side. There is no reason to suppose that the versions were limited to two. In fact, a variant to an important episode in the creation story has been discovered which points to a third version.[681]

The suggestion has been thrown out that these various versions arose in the various religious centers of the Euphrates Valley. So far as the editing of the versions is concerned, the suggestion is worthy of consideration, for it is hardly reasonable to suppose that the theological schools of one and the same place should have developed more than one cosmological system. The traditions themselves, however, apart from the literary form which they eventually assumed, need not have been limited to certain districts nor have been peculiar to the place where the systematization took place. Nothing is more common than the interchange of myths and popular traditions. They travel from one place to the other, and contradictory accounts of one and the same event may be circulated, and find credence in one and the same place.

The two distinct Babylonian versions of the creation of the world that have up to the present time been found, have come to us in a fragmentary form. Of the one, indeed, only some forty lines exist, and these are introduced incidentally in an incantation text;[682] of the other version, portions of six tablets[683] have been recovered; while of two fragments it is doubtful[684] whether they belong to this same version or represent a third version, as does certainly a fragment containing a variant account of the episode described in the fourth tablet of the larger group. The fragments of the longer version—in all 23—enable us to form a tolerably complete picture of the Babylonian cosmology, and with the help of numerous allusions in historical, religious and astronomical texts and in classical writers, we can furthermore fill out some of the gaps.

Taking up the longer version, which must for the present serve as our chief source for the cosmology of the Babylonians, it is important to note at the outset that the series constitutes, in reality, a grand hymn in honor of Marduk. The account of the beginning of things and of the order of creation is but incidental to an episode which is intended to illustrate the greatness of Marduk, the head of the Babylonian pantheon. This episode is the conquest of a great monster known as Tiâmat,—a personification, as we shall see, of primaeval chaos. What follows upon this episode, likewise turns upon the overshadowing personality of Marduk. This prominence given to Marduk points of course to Babylon as the place where the early traditions received their literary form. Instead of designating the series as a 'Creation Epic' it would be quite as appropriate to call it 'The Epic of Marduk.'

The god of Babylon is the hero of the story. To him the creation of the heavenly bodies is ascribed. It is he who brings order and light into the world. He supplants the rôles originally belonging to other gods. Bel and Ea give way to him. Anu and the other great gods cheerfully acknowledge Marduk's power. The early traditions have all been colored by the endeavor to glorify Marduk; and since Marduk is one of the latest of the gods to come into prominence, we must descend some centuries below Hammurabi before reaching a period when Marduk's position was so generally recognized as to lead to a transformation of popular traditions at the hands of the theologians.

The evident purpose of the 'epic' to glorify Marduk also accounts for the imperfect manner in which the creation of the universe is recounted. Only the general points are touched upon. Many details are omitted which in a cosmological epic, composed for the specific purpose of setting forth the order of creation, would hardly have been wanting. In this respect, the Babylonian version again resembles the Biblical account of creation, which is similarly marked by its brevity, and is as significant for its omissions as for what it contains.

It but remains before passing on to an analysis of the 'epic' to note the great care bestowed upon its literary form. This is evidenced not only by the poetic diction, but by its metrical form,—a point to which Budge was the first to direct attention[685] and which Zimmern[686] clearly established. Each line consists of two divisions, and as a general thing four or eight lines constitute a stanza. The principle of parallelism, so characteristic of Biblical poetry, is also introduced, though not consistently carried out.

The epic was known from its opening words as the series 'when above.' Through this name we are certain of possessing a portion of the first tablet—but alas! only a portion. A fragment of fifteen lines and these imperfectly preserved is all that has as yet been found. So far as decipherable, it reads:

At this point the fragment breaks off.

Brief as it is, it affords a clear view of the manner in which the Babylonians regarded the beginning of things. Water was the primaeval element. 'Apsu' is the personified great 'ocean'—the 'Deep' that covers everything. With Apsu there is associated Tiâmat. Tiâmat is the equivalent of the Hebrew T'hôm,[693] which occurs in the second verse of the opening chapter of Genesis, and which is, like Apsu, the personification of the 'watery deep.' Apsu and Tiâmat are, accordingly, synonymous. The combination of the two may be regarded as due to the introduction of the theological doctrine which we have seen plays so prominent a part in the systematized pantheon, namely, the association of the male and female principle in everything connected with activity or with the life of the universe. Apsu represents the male and Tiâmat the female principle of the primaeval universe. It does not follow from this that the two conceptions are wholly dissociated from popular traditions. Theological systems, it will be found, are always attached at some point to popular and often to primitive beliefs.

Tiâmat was popularly pictured as a huge monster of a forbidding aspect. Traces of a similar conception connected with T'hôm are to be met with in the poetry of the Old and New Testament.[694] The 'Rahab' and 'Leviathan' and the 'Dragon' of the apocalypse belong to the same order of ideas that produced Tiâmat. All these monsters represent a popular attempt to picture the chaotic condition that prevailed before the great gods obtained control and established the order of heavenly and terrestrial phenomena. The belief that water was the original element existing in the universe and the 'source' of everything, may also have had its rise in the popular mind. It was suggested in the Euphrates Valley, in part, by the long-continued rainy season, as a result of which the entire region was annually flooded. The dry land and vegetation appeared, only after the waters had receded. The yearly phenomenon brought home to the minds of the Babylonians, a picture of primaeval chaos.

In the schools of theology that arose with the advance of culture, these two notions—water as the first element and a general conception of chaos—were worked out with the result that Apsu and Tiâmat became mythical beings whose dominion preceded that of the gods. Further than this the questionings of the schoolmen did not go. They conceived of a time when neither the upper firmament nor the dry land existed and when the gods were not yet placed in control, but they could not conceive of a time when there was 'nothing' at all. This cosmological theory which we may deduce from the fragment of the first tablet of the creation series is confirmed by the accounts that have come down to us—chiefly through Damascius—of the treatment of the subject by Berosus.[695] Damascius explicitly places the Babylonians among those nations who fail to carry back the universe to an ultimate single source. There is nothing earlier than the two beings—Apsu and Tiâmat.[696]

The massing together of the primaeval waters completes the picture of chaos in the cuneiform account. From the popular side, the commingling corresponds to the Tôhû wa Bôhû of the Book of Genesis, but for the Babylonian theologians, this embrace of Apsu and Tiâmat becomes a symbol of 'sexual' union.[697] As the outcome of this union, the gods are produced. This dependence of the gods upon Apsu and Tiâmat is but vaguely indicated. Another theory appears to have existed according to which the gods were contemporaneous with primaeval chaos. The vagueness may therefore be the result of a compromise between conflicting schools of thought. However this may be, the moment that the gods appear, a conflict ensues between them and Apsu-Tiâmat. This conflict represents the evolution from chaos to order. But before taking up this phase of the epic, a few words must be said as to the names of the gods mentioned, and as to the order in which they occur.

There are three classes of deities enumerated. The first two classes consist, each, of a pair of deities while the third is the well-known triad of the old Babylonian theology. Between the creation of each class a long period elapses—a circumstance that may be regarded as an evidence of the originally independent character of each class. Now it has recently been shown[698] that Lakhamu is the feminine of Lakhmu. The first class of deities is, therefore, an illustration again of the conventional male and female principles introduced into the current theology. While there are references to Lakhmu and Lakhamu in the religious texts,[699] particularly in incantations, these two deities play no part whatsoever in the active pantheon, as revealed by the historical texts. In popular tradition,[700] Lakhmu survived as a name of a mythical monster.

Alexander Polyhistor[701] quotes Berosus as saying in his book on Babylonia that the first result of the mixture of water and chaos—i.e., of Apsu and Tiâmat—was the production of monsters partly human, partly bestial. The winged bulls and lions that guarded the approaches to temples and palaces are illustrations of this old notion, and it is to this class of mythical beings that Lakhmu belongs. The schools of theology, seizing hold of this popular tradition, add again to Lakhmu a female mate and convert the tradition into a symbol of the first step in the evolution of order out of the original chaos. Lakhmu and Lakhamu are made to stand for an entire class of beings that are the offspring of Apsu and Tiâmat. This class does not differ essentially from Apsu and Tiâmat, nor from the 'Leviathan,' the 'Dragon,' the winged serpents, and the winged bulls that are all emanations of the same order of ideas. Accordingly, we find Lakhmu and Lakhamu associated with Tiâmat when the conflict with the gods begins. They are products of chaos and yet at the same time contemporary with chaos,—monsters not so fierce as Tiâmat, but withal monsters who had to be subdued before the planets and the stars, vegetation and man could appear.

The introduction of Anshar and Kishar as intermediate between the monsters and the triad of gods appears to be due entirely to the attempt at theological systematization that clearly stamps the creation epic as the conscious work of schoolmen, though shaped, as must always be borne in mind, out of the material furnished by popular tradition. In connection with the etymology and original form of the chief of the Assyrian pantheon,[702] the suggestion was made that the introduction of Anshar into the creation epic is a concession made to the prominence that Ashur acquired in the north. We are now able to put this suggestion in a more definite form. The pantheon of the north, as we have seen, was derived from the south. Not that all the gods of the south are worshipped in the north, but those that are worshipped in the north are also found in the south, and originate there. The distinctive features of Ashur are due to the political conditions that were developed in Assyria, but the unfolding of the conceptions connected with this god which make him the characteristic deity of Assyria, indeed, the only distinctive Assyrian figure in the Assyrian pantheon, does not preclude the possibility, of the southern origin of Ashur.

If, as has been made plausible by Hommel, Nineveh, the later capital of the Assyrian empire, represents a settlement made by inhabitants of a Nineveh situated in the south, there is no reason why a southern deity bearing the name Anshar should not have been transferred from the south to the north. The attempt has been made[703] to explain the change from Anshar to Ashur. The later name Ashur, because of its ominous character, effectually effaced the earlier one in popular thought. The introduction of the older form Anshar, not merely in the first tablet of the creation series, but, as we shall presently see, elsewhere, confirms the view of a southern origin for Ashur, and also points to the great antiquity of the Anshar-Ashur cult. It is not uncommon to find colonies more conservative in matters of religious thought and custom than the motherland, and there is nothing improbable in the interesting conclusion thus reached that Ashur, the head of an empire, so much later in point of time than Babylonia, should turn out to be an older deity than the chief personage in the Babylonian pantheon after the days of Hammurabi.

But while Anshar-Ashur under this view is a figure surviving from an ancient period, he is transformed by association with a complementary deity Kishar into a symbol, just as we have found to be the case with Lakhmu. By a play upon his name, resting upon an arbitrary division of Anshar into An and Shar, the deity becomes the 'one that embraces all that is above.' The element An is the same that we have in Anu, and is the 'ideographic'[704] form for 'high' and 'heaven.' Shar signifies 'totality' and has some connection with a well-known Babylonian word for 'king.' The natural consort to an all-embracing upper power is a power that 'embraces all that is below'; and since Ki is the ideographic form for 'earth,' it is evident that Ki-Shar is a creation of the theologians, introduced in order to supply Anshar with an appropriate associate. The two in combination represent a pair like Lakhmu and Lakhamu. As the latter pair embrace the world of monsters, so Anshar and Kishar stand in the theological system for the older order of gods, a class of deities antecedent to the series of which Anu, Bel, and Ea are the representatives. Besides the antiquity of Anshar and the factor involved in the play upon the name, the prominence of the Ashur cult in the north also entered into play (as already suggested) in securing for Anshar-Ashur, a place in the systematized cosmology. The Babylonian priests, while always emphasizing the predominance of Marduk, could not entirely resist the influences that came to them from the north. Ashur was not accorded a place in the Babylonian cult, but he could not be ignored altogether. Moreover, Assyria had her priests and schools, and we are permitted to see in the introduction of Anshar in the creation epic, a concession that reflects the influence, no doubt indirect, and in part perhaps unconscious, but for all that, the decided influence of the north over the south. The part played by Anshar in the most important episode of the creation epic will be found to further strengthen this view.[705]

Kishar, at all events, forms no part of either the Babylonian or of the active Assyrian pantheon. She does not occur in historical or religious texts. Her existence is purely theoretical—a creation of the schools without any warrant in popular tradition, so far as we can see. A tablet is fortunately preserved[706] (though only in part) which enables us to come a step nearer towards determining the character of the series of powers regarded as antecedent to the well-known deities. In this tablet, no less than ten pairs of deities are enumerated that are expressly noted as 'Father-mother of Anu,' that is, as antecedent to Anu.[707] Among these we find Anshar and Kishar, and by their side, such pairs as Anshar-gal, i.e., 'great totality of what is on high,' and Kishar-gal, i.e., 'great totality of what is below,' Enshar and Ninshar, i.e., 'lord' and 'mistress,' respectively, of 'all there is,' Du'ar and Da'ur, forms of a stem which may signify 'perpetuity,' Alala, i.e., 'strength,' and a consort Belili. Lakhmu and Lakhamu are also found in the list. While some of the names are quite obscure, and the composition of the list is due to the scholastic spirit emanating from the schools of theology, the fact that some of the deities, as Alala, Belili, Lakhmu and Lakhamu, occur in incantations shows that the theologians were guided in part by dimmed traditions of some deities that were worshipped prior to the ones whose cult became prominent in historic times. Anshar, Alala, Belili, Lakhmu, and Du'ar were such deities. To each of these an associate was given, in accord with the established doctrine of 'duality' that characterizes the more advanced of the ancient Semitic cults in general. Others, like Anshar-gal and Enshar, seem to be pure abstractions—perhaps only 'variants' of Anshar, and the number ten may have some mystical significance that escapes us. So much, at all events, seems certain that even the old Babylonian pantheon, as revealed by the oldest historical texts, represents a comparatively advanced stage of the religion when some still older gods had already yielded to others and a system was already in part produced which left out of consideration these older deities. This is indicated by the occurrence of the triad Anu, Bel, and Ea as early as the days of Gudea,[708] and it is this triad which in the creation epic follows upon the older series symbolized by Anshar and Kishar. The later 'theology' found a solution of the problem by assuming four series of deities represented by Apsu and Tiâmat, by Lakhmu and Lakhamu, by Anshar and Kishar, and by the triad Anu, Bel, and Ea.

In a vague way, as we have seen, Apsu and Tiâmat are the progenitors of Lakhmu and Lakhamu. The priority, again, of Lakhmu and Lakhamu, as well as of Anshar and Kishar, is expressed by making them 'ancestors' of Anu, Bel and Ea. While in the list above referred to, Lakhmu and Lakhamu are put in a class with Anshar and Kishar, in the creation epic they form a separate class, and Delitzsch has justly recognized,[709] in this separation, the intention of the compilers to emphasize an advance in the evolution of chaos to order, which is the keynote of the Babylonian cosmology. Lakhmu and Lakhamu represent the 'monster' world where creatures are produced in strange confusion, whereas Anshar and Kishar indicate a division of the universe into two distinct and sharply defined parts. The splitting of 'chaos' is the first step towards its final disappearance.

The creation of Anshar and Kishar marks indeed the beginning of a severe conquest which ends in the overthrow of Tiâmat, and while in the present form of the epic, the contest is not decided before Anu, Bel, and Ea and the chief deities of the historic pantheon are created, one can see traces of an earlier form of the tradition in which Anshar—perhaps with some associates—is the chief figure in the strife.

Of the first tablet, we have two further fragments supplementing one another, in which the beginnings of this terrible conflict are described. With Apsu and Tiâmat there are associated a variety of monsters who prepare themselves for the fray. The existence of these associates shows that the 'epic' does not aim to account for the real origin of things, but only for the origin of the order of the universe. At the beginning there was chaos, but 'chaos,' so far from representing emptiness (as came to be the case under a monotheistic conception of the universe) was on the contrary marked by a superabundant fullness.

Through Alexander Polyhistor,[710] as already mentioned, we obtain a satisfactory description of this period of chaos as furnished by Berosus. At the time when all was darkness and water, there flourished strange monsters, human beings with wings, beings with two heads, male and female, hybrid formations, half-man, half-animal, with horns of rams and horses' hoofs, bulls with human faces, dogs with fourfold bodies ending in fish tails, horses with heads of dogs, and various other monstrosities.

This account of Berosus is now confirmed by the cuneiform records. The associates of Tiâmat are described in a manner that leaves no doubt as to their being the monsters referred to. We are told that

In all, eleven monstrous beings are created by Tiâmat for the great conquest. At their head she places a being Kingu, whom she raises to the dignity of a consort.

The formal installation of Kingu is described as follows:

Tiâmat then addresses Kingu directly:

Tiâmat thereupon

The plan of procedure, it would appear, is the result of a council of war held by Apsu and Tiâmat, who feel themselves powerless to carry on the contest by themselves. The portion of the tablet[714] in which this council is recounted is in so bad a condition that but little can be made out of it. Associated with Apsu and Tiâmat in council, is a being Mummu, and since Damascius expressly notes on the direct authority of Berosus that Apsu and Tiâmat produced a son Moumis,[715] there is every reason to believe that Mummu represents this offspring. In the subsequent narrative, however, neither Apsu nor Mummu play any part. Tiâmat has transferred to Kingu and the eleven monsters all authority, and it is only after they are defeated that Tiâmat—but Tiâmat alone—enters the fray.

The rage of Tiâmat is directed against Anshar, Kishar, and their offspring. Anu, Bel, and Ea, while standing at the head of the latter, are not the only gods introduced. When the contest begins, all the great gods and also the minor ones are in existence.

The cause of Tiâmat's rage is indicated, though vaguely, in the portions preserved. In the opening lines of the epic there is a reference to the time 'when fates were not yet decided.' The decision of fates is in the Babylonian theology one of the chief functions of the gods. It constitutes the mainspring of their power. To decide fates is practically to control the arrangement of the universe—to establish order. It is this function which arouses the natural opposition of Tiâmat and her brood, for Tiâmat feels that once the gods are in control, her sway must come to an end. On the part of the gods there is great terror. They are anxious to conciliate Tiâmat and are not actuated by any motives of rivalry. Order is not aggressive. It is chaos which manifests opposition to 'order.' In the second tablet of the series, Anshar sends his son Anu with a message to Tiâmat:

Anu obeys, but at the sight of Tiâmat's awful visage takes flight. It is unfortunate that the second tablet is so badly preserved. We are dependent largely upon conjecture for what follows the failure of Anu's mission. From references in subsequent tablets, it seems certain that Anshar sends out Ea as a second messenger and that Ea also fails. Tiâmat is determined upon destroying the gods, or at least upon keeping from them the 'decision of fates.' Anshar, it will be seen, stands at the head of the pantheon, and it seems natural that he, and not one of his offspring, should be the final victor. This indeed appears to have been the original form of the myth or at least one form of it. In a second form it was Bel to whom the victory was ascribed, and this Bel of the triad, we have seen, was En-lil, the chief god of Nippur; but both Anshar and Bel must give way to the patron deity of the city of Babylon—Marduk. Anshar-Ashur, the head of the Assyrian pantheon, could not be tolerated by the Babylonian priests as a power superior to Marduk. On the other hand, Anshar could not be set aside, for he survived in popular tradition. The result is a compromise. Marduk gains the victory over Tiâmat, but is commissioned to do so by the assembly of the gods, including Anshar. As for the older Bel, he voluntarily transfers to Marduk his name. In this way, the god Bel of the triad becomes one with Marduk.

Perhaps in one religious center and at a time when Ea was the chief god, still another version existed which assigned the triumph to Ea, for as will be pointed out, traditions waver between assigning to Ea or to Bel-Marduk so fundamental a function as the creation of mankind. In short, the present form of the creation epic is 'eclectic' and embodies what the Germans call a tendenz. To each of the great gods, Anshar, Anu, Bel, and Ea, some part in the contest is assigned, but the greatest rôle belongs to Marduk.

The second tablet closes with Anshar's decision to send his son Marduk against Tiâmat:

With joyous heart he is ready to proceed to the contest, but he at once makes good his claim to supreme control in case he is victorious. He addresses the assembled gods:

The declaration foreshadows the result.

The third tablet is taken up with the preliminaries for the great contest, and is interesting chiefly because of the insight it affords us into Babylonian methods of literary composition. Anshar sends Gaga[717] to the hostile camp with the formal announcement of Marduk's readiness to take up the cause of the gods. Gaga does not face Tiâmat directly, but leaves the message with Lakhmu and Lakhamu:

The message proper begins as follows:

The eleven associates that Tiâmat has ranged on her side are again enumerated, together with the appointment of Kingu as chief of the terror-inspiring army. Gaga comes to Lakhmu and Lakhamu and delivers the message verbatim, so that altogether this portion of the narrative is repeated no less than four times.[718] The same tendency towards repetition is met with in the Gilgamesh epic and in the best of the literary productions of Babylonia. It may be ascribed to the influence exerted by the religious hymns and incantations where repetition, as we have seen, is also common, though serving a good purpose.

The message concludes:

Marduk's declaration is then repeated.

Upon hearing the message Lakhmu and Lakhamu and "all the Igigi"[721] are distressed, but are powerless to avert the coming disaster. The formal declaration of war having been sent, the followers of Anshar assemble at a meal which is realistically described: