CHAPTER XI.

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

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

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

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

Anunnaki and Igigi.

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

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

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER XII.

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

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

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

Ashur.

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

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

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

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

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

Ishtar.

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

Anu.

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

Dagan.

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

Shamash.

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