[101] Just published by Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, i. 2, pls. 38-47. _Cf._ p. 52
[102] VR. col. i. 48.
[103] See at close of chapter vi.
[104] Hilprecht, _ib._ no. 87, col i. 30.
[105] _Ib._ i. 32. Hilprecht reads Nin-a-gid-kha-du, but this can hardly be correct.
[106] The two ideas, "water" and "incantation," are correlated. The "waters" meant are those used for purification purposes in connection with the magic formulas.
[107] De Sarzec, pl. 32, col. ii. 9-11.
[108] _Records of the Past_, N.S., i. 59. Amiaud reads the second name Im-ghud-ena and the third Gim (or Ur)-nun-ta-ena. The publication in De Sarzec favors my readings.
CHAPTER V.
THE CONSORTS OF THE G.o.dS.
Attention has already been directed to the comparatively small number of female deities that appear in the inscriptions of the first period of Babylonian history. We must, however, not conclude from this, that such deities did not exist in larger numbers. On the contrary, we may feel certain that every G.o.d had his consort, and in some cases more than one.
Several instances of such consorts have been furnished in this chapter; but if the consorts of the larger number of these G.o.ds are unknown, it is because of the insignificant role that these consorts played. The G.o.ddesses of Babylonia, with few exceptions, become mere shadowy reflections of the G.o.ds, with but little independent power, and in some cases none at all. They owe what popularity they enjoyed to their a.s.sociation with their male companions. In consequence of this inferior role played by the female deities, the tendency becomes more p.r.o.nounced, as we pa.s.s from the first to the second period of Babylonian history, to reduce by a.s.similation the small number that have independent attributes, until we reach a condition in which we have practically only one G.o.ddess, appearing under many forms. It is only in the religious texts, and in some phases of the popular beliefs, that G.o.ddesses retain a certain degree of prominence. So, a G.o.ddess Allat, as we shall see, plays an important part as the chief G.o.ddess of the subterranean cave that houses the dead. Allat appears to have been originally a consort of the famous Bel of Nippur, but through a.s.sociation with Nergal, who becomes the chief G.o.d of the lower world, almost all traces of the original character of the G.o.ddess disappear. Again, Gula, the consort of Nin-ib, while occasionally mentioned in the historical texts of the second and third period, and under the form Ma-ma, as an element in a proper name belonging to the oldest period,[109] is more frequently invoked in incantations as the healer of disease. The same is the case with other G.o.ddesses; so that we may conclude that from the earliest times, the Babylonian religion shared the trait so marked in all Semitic cults, of a combination of the male and female principle in the personification of the powers that controlled the fate of man. In part, no doubt, the minor importance of women, so far as the outward aspects of social and political life were concerned, is a factor in the altogether secondary importance attaching to the consorts of the G.o.ds; but we may feel certain that there was no G.o.d, however restricted in his jurisdiction, or however limited in the number of his worshippers, who had not a.s.sociated with him a female companion, who follows him as the shadow follows the substance.
FOOTNOTES:
[109] According to Hilprecht, _ib._ p. 48, note 6. For _Ma-ma_ and _Me-me_, as names of Gula, see chapter viii.
CHAPTER VI.
GUDEA"S PANTHEON.
Gudea manifests a fondness for giving to his pantheon as large a compa.s.s as possible. In this respect, he follows earlier examples, and also sets an example which is followed by many of the rulers of Babylonia and a.s.syria, who felt that the larger the number of G.o.ds invoked by them, the more impressive would their own position appear in the eyes of their subjects. Moreover, by incorporating in their pantheon the G.o.ds a.s.sociated with districts that they controlled, they would not only secure the protection of these deities, but would emphasize their own claim to an extended sovereignty. The beginning and the close of dedicatory and commemorative inscriptions were the favorite opportunities, seized upon by the kings, for parading the list of the powers under whose patronage they wished to appear. These lists are both interesting and valuable, as furnishing in a convenient form a summary of the chief G.o.ds included in the Babylonian pantheon at the various historical periods. At the close of one of his inscriptions,[110] Gudea furnishes a list of no less than eighteen deities. In rapid succession he enumerates Anu, En-lil (Bel), Nin-khar-sag, En-ki (Ea), En-zu (Sin), Nin-girsu, Nina, Nin-si-a, Ga-tum-dug, Bau, Ninni, Utu (Shamash), Pa-sag, Gal-alim, Dun-s.h.a.gga, Nin-Mar, Dumuzi-zuaba, Nin-gish-zida.
These deities may be taken as indicative of the territorial extent of Gudea"s jurisdiction. They are called upon to punish him who attempts to alter the decrees of the ruler, or to efface the memory of his deeds.
Again, at the beginning of one of his inscriptions, he appeals to Nin-girsu, En-lil, Nina, Bau, Ga-tum-dug, Gal-alim, and Dun-s.h.a.gga. He recounts what he has done to promote the cults of these deities, and upon his conduct he grounds his hope that they will aid him in his undertakings. The lists, as will be observed, vary in the number and in the order of the G.o.ds enumerated. In the second list, the position of Nin-girsu at the head is due to the fact that the inscription commemorates the dedication of a sanctuary to that G.o.d. But Nin-girsu, despite his rank as the chief G.o.d of Lagash, belongs to a second cla.s.s of deities. Standing far above him is the triad, Anu, Bel, and Ea, the G.o.ds that personify, as we have seen, the great divisions of the universe,--heaven, earth, and water. These G.o.ds, accordingly, take precedence of Nin-girsu in the first list. In a succeeding chapter, the significance of this triad for the Babylonian religion will be fully set forth. For the present, it is sufficient to note that the systematization of popular beliefs, involved in the distinctions thus emphasized in the groupings of deities into cla.s.ses, begins at so early a period. This systematization, however, has not yet a.s.sumed final shape. True, the moon-G.o.d has already been given the place, immediately following upon the triad, that he will hold in the developed form of Babylonian theology; but while, as we have seen, Sin properly takes precedence of the sun-G.o.d, the latter should follow in the wake of his a.s.sociate. Not only, however, does Nin-girsu precede, but two other deities who are closely related in general character to the "warrior deity" of Gudea"s dominion. Then, the two great G.o.ddesses, Bau and Ninni, are introduced, and it is not until they are disposed of that the sun-G.o.d, together again with Pa-sag as a kind of lieutenant,[111] is invoked. In the arrangement of the five remaining deities, no special principle can be recognized. They, evidently, occupy a minor rank. It is possible, then, to distinguish no less than four cla.s.ses in the old Babylonian pantheon: (1) the great triad, Anu, Bel, and Ea; (2) a second group, as yet incomplete, but which will eventually include Sin, Shamash, and Ramman, representing the great powers of nature--moon, sun, and storm; (3) the great G.o.ds, the patron deities of the more important political centers of the country; and (4) the minor ones, representing the local cults of less important places. Naturally, the dividing line between the two last-named cla.s.ses is not sharply marked, and in accordance with the ever-varying political kaleidoscope, local deities will rise from the rank of minor G.o.ds to a higher place in the pantheon; while such as once enjoyed high esteem will, through decline in the political fortunes of their worshippers, be brought down from the higher to an inferior rank.[112] It is this constant interaction between the political situation and the relationship of the G.o.ds to one another, that const.i.tutes one of the most striking features of the religion of Babylonia and a.s.syria. In the course of time, as an organized pantheon leads to greater stability in the domain of theological speculation, the influence of the politics of the country on the religion becomes less marked, without, however, disappearing altogether. The various cla.s.ses into which the G.o.ds are divided, are definitely fixed by the schools of theology that, as we shall see, take their rise in the Euphrates Valley.
The rivalry, on the one hand, between the Babylonian empire united under one head, and the a.s.syrian empire on the other, alone remains to bring about an occasional exchange of places between the two G.o.ds who stand at the head of the great G.o.ds of the Babylonian and a.s.syrian pantheon respectively. The attempt has been made by Amiaud[113] to arrange the pantheon of this oldest period in a genealogical order. In Gudea"s long list of deities, he detects three generations,--the three chief G.o.ds and one G.o.ddess, as the progenitors of Sin, Shamash, Nin-girsu, Bau, and others. The G.o.ds of this second division give rise to a third cla.s.s, viewed again as the offspring of the second. Professor Davis, taking up this idea of Amiaud, has quite recently maintained[114] that the family idea must form our starting-point for an understanding of the pantheon of Lagash. The theory, however, does not admit of consistent application. There are G.o.ds, as Amiaud recognized, who cannot be brought under his scheme, so far at least as present testimony is concerned; and others can only by an arbitrary a.s.sumption be forced into accord with the theory. Moreover, we should expect to find traces of this family idea in the later phases of the a.s.syro-Babylonian pantheon. Such, however, is not the case. A more reasonable and natural explanation of the relationship existing between many--not all--of the G.o.ds of Gudea"s pantheon has already been suggested. In part, we must look to the development of a theological system of thought in the Euphrates Valley to account for the superior position accorded to certain G.o.ds, and in part, political conditions and political changes afford an explanation for the union of certain deities into a family group. So far, indeed, Amiaud is correct, that the relationship existing between the various deities, was as a rule expressed in terms applicable to human society.
The secondary position occupied, _e.g._, by Sin when compared with a G.o.d whose domain is the entire "lower regions," would be aptly expressed by calling the moon-G.o.d the eldest son of En-lil or Bel; and, similarly, a G.o.ddess like Bau would be called the daughter of Anu. It is a mistake, however, to interpret the use of "daughter" and "son" literally. Such terms are employed in all Semitic languages in a figurative sense, to indicate a dependent position of some sort. Again, we have seen that the union of a number of cities or states under one head would be followed by a union of the deities proper to these cities or states. That union would be expressed, according to circ.u.mstances, either by placing the deities on a footing of equality--in which case they would be consorts, or brothers and sisters, _offsprings_ therefore of one and the same G.o.d--or, the superior rank of one patron G.o.d would be indicated by a.s.signing to the G.o.d of a conquered or subordinate territory the rank of offspring or attendant.
In studying such a list as that presented by Gudea, we must, therefore, make due allowance for what may be called local peculiarities and local conditions. It is only by comparing his list with others that we can differentiate between the general features of Babylonian cults and the special features due to political and local a.s.sociations. We are in a position now to inst.i.tute this comparison for a period which is certainly some centuries earlier than Gudea. The date of the reign of Lugal-zaggisi, king of Uruk, who has been several times referred to in a previous chapter, is fixed by Hilprecht at _c._ 4500 B.C., but it is doubtful whether so high an age will be accepted by scholars. The chronology for the period beyond Gudea is still in a very uncertain condition. Lugal-zaggisi, in a long list of deities at the beginning of an important inscription, enumerates in succession Anu, the G.o.ddess Nisaba, the G.o.ds En-lil (or Bel), En-ki (=Ea), En-zu (Sin), Utu (the sun-G.o.d), the G.o.ddess Ninni (or Nana(?)), Nin-khar-sag, Umu, and Nin-akha-kuddu. As for Anu, the king introduces the name, as Ur-Ningirsu of Lagash does (see above, p. 90), in calling himself "priest of Anu,"
and which, according to the explanation suggested, means simply "divine priest."
Bel, Ea, Sin, and Shamash (or Utu) are common to Gudea and Lugal-zaggisi. These const.i.tute, then, the great G.o.ds whose worship is no longer limited to any particular district. They have become common property, in part through the sanct.i.ty attached to the places where the G.o.ds were worshipped, in part through the antiquity of these places, and in part, no doubt, as the result of a political development lying behind the period under consideration. The prominence given by Lugal-zaggisi to Nisaba is rather surprising. He calls himself and also his father, "hero" of Nisaba. If, however, it be borne in mind that of the G.o.ddesses at least two, Umu and Nin-akha-kuddu, are of a local character, the conclusion appears justified that Nisaba was a G.o.ddess a.s.sociated more particularly with the district in which Uruk lay. The G.o.ddess Ninni (written simply as "the G.o.ddess") is no doubt identical with the great Nana of Uruk, and Nin-khar-sag is introduced as the consort of En-lil.
As a result of this comparison, we may note the tendency towards a general recognition of certain great G.o.ds, which is more fully developed in the period of Hammurabi. At the same time, the loyalty of the rulers to the G.o.ds, peculiar to their own district, is manifested by the prominent place a.s.signed in the several cases to G.o.ds who otherwise play an insignificant role, and who eventually are absorbed by others; and lastly, as between Lugal-zaggisi and Gudea, the observation may be made of the disposition to emphasize local G.o.ds, less for their own sake, than because of the eclat furnished by the enumeration of a large pantheon, which shall be coequal in extent and dignity to the district claimed by the rulers and to the rank a.s.sumed by them.
FOOTNOTES:
[110] Inscr. B, cols. viii. ix.
[111] See above, p. 101.
[112] See Winckler"s excellent remarks on the relationship between the city and the G.o.d in ancient Babylonia (_Altorientalische Forschungen_, III. 232-235).
[113] _Records of the Past_, N.S., i. 57-59.
[114] In a paper on "The G.o.ds of Shirpurla," read before the American Oriental Society in April, 1895. (_Proceedings_, ccxiii-ccxviii.)
CHAPTER VII.
SUMMARY.
We have thus pa.s.sed in review the old Babylonian pantheon, so far as the discovered texts have revealed their names and epithets. The list does not claim to be exhaustive. That future texts will add to its length, by revealing the existence at this early period of many known to us at present only from later texts or from the religious literature,[115] is more than likely. The nature of the old Babylonian religion entails, as a necessary consequence, an array of G.o.ds that might be termed endless.
Local cults would ever tend to increase with the rise of new towns, and while the deities thus worshipped would not rise to any or much importance, still their names would become known in larger circles, and a ruler might, for the sake of increasing his own l.u.s.tre, make mention of one or more of them, honoring them at the same time by an epithet which might or might not accurately define their character. As long as the various districts of Babylonia were not formally united under one head, various local cults might rise to equally large proportions, while the G.o.ds worshipped as the special patrons of the great centers, as Lagash, Ur, Uruk, Nippur, and the like, would retain their prominence, even though the political status of the cities sacred to them suffered a decline. The ruler of the district that claimed a supremacy over one that formerly occupied an independent position, would hasten to emphasize this control by proudly claiming the patron deity as part of his pantheon. The popularity of Sin at Ur suffered no diminution because the supremacy of Ur yielded to that of Uruk. On the contrary, the G.o.d gained new friends who strove to rival the old ones in manifestations of reverence; and when, as happened in several instances, the patron deities were personifications of natural phenomena, whose worship through various circ.u.mstances became a.s.sociated with particular localities, there was an additional reason for the survival, and, indeed, growing importance of such local cults, quite independent of the political fortunes that befell the cities in which the G.o.ds were supposed to dwell.
As a consequence, there are a considerable number of deities who are met with both at the beginning and at the end of the first period of Babylonian history--a period, be it remembered, that, so far as known, already covers a distance of 2,000 years. These are of two cla.s.ses, (_a_) deities of purely local origin, surviving through the historical significance of the places where they were worshipped, and (_b_) deities, at once local in so far as they are a.s.sociated with a fixed spot, but at the same time having a far more general character by virtue of being personifications of the powers of nature. The jurisdiction of both cla.s.ses of deities might, through political vicissitudes, be extended over a larger district than the one to which they were originally confined, and in so far their local character would tend to be obscured. It would depend, however, upon other factors, besides the merely political ones, whether these cults would take a sufficiently deep hold upon the people to lead to the evolution of deities, entirely dissociated from fixed seats, who might be worshipped anywhere, and whose attributes would tend to become more and more abstract in character. Such a process, however, could not be completed by the silent working of what, for want of a better name, we call the genius of the people. It requires the a.s.sistance, conscious and in a measure pedantic, of the thinkers and spiritual guides of a people. In other words, the advance in religious conceptions from the point at which we find them when the union of the Babylonian states takes place, is conditioned upon the infusion of the theological spirit into the ma.s.s of beliefs that const.i.tuted the ancient heritage of the people.
On the other hand, various circ.u.mstances have already been suggested that cooperated, already prior to the days of Hammurabi, in weeding out the superfluity of deities, at least so far as recognition of them in the official inscriptions of the rulers were concerned. Deities, attached to places of small and ever-diminishing importance would, after being at first adopted into the pantheon by some ruler desirous of emphasizing his control over the town in question, end in being entirely absorbed by some more powerful G.o.d, whose attributes were similar to those of his minor companion. Especially would this be the case with deities conceived as granting a.s.sistance in warfare. The glory of the smaller warrior G.o.ds would fade through the success achieved by a Nin-girsu. The names and epithets would be transferred to the more powerful G.o.d, and, beyond an occasional mention, the weaker would entirely pa.s.s out of consideration. Again, the worship of the moon or of the sun, or of certain aspects of the sun,--the morning sun, the noonday sun, and the like,--at localities of minor importance, would yield to the growing popularity of similar worship in important centers. As a consequence, names that formerly designated distinct deities or different phases of one and the same deity, would, by being transferred to a single one, come to be mere epithets of this one. The various names would be used interchangeably, without much regard to their original force.
All the essential elements of the Babylonian religion are already to be found in the conditions prevailing during the period that we have been considering. Some new deities are met with in the periods that followed, but there is no reason to believe that any profound changes in the manner of worship, or in the conceptions regarding the G.o.ds, were introduced. The relations, however, which the G.o.ds bear to one another are considerably modified, their attributes become more sharply defined, the duties and privileges pertaining to each are regulated. Hand in hand with this systematization, the organization of the cult becomes more perfect, the ritual enters upon further phases of development, speculations regarding the unknown have their outcome in the establishment of dogmas. Finally the past, with its traditions and legends, is viewed under the aspect of later religious thought. The products of popular fancy are reshaped, given a literary turn that was originally foreign to them, and so combined and imbued with a meaning as to reflect the thoughts and aspirations of a comparatively advanced age.
What may be called the flowering of the theological epoch in the history of the Babylonian religion, viewed as a unit, is so directly dependent upon the political union of the Babylonian states, brought about by Hammurabi (_c._ 2300 B.C.), that it may be said to date from this event.
FOOTNOTES:
[115] Quite recently there have been found at Telloh some thirty thousand clay tablets, chiefly lists of sacrifices, temple inventories, and legal doc.u.ments. These tablets will probably furnish additional names of deities, and perhaps throw further light on those known.
Further excavations at Nippur will likewise add to the material. But after all, for our main purpose in this chapter, which is the ill.u.s.tration of the chief traits of the Babylonian pantheon in early days, these expected additions to the pantheon will not be of paramount significance.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE PANTHEON IN THE DAYS OF HAMMURABI.
Marduk.
The immediate result of Hammurabi"s master-stroke in bringing the various states of the Euphrates Valley under a single control, was the supremacy secured for his capital, of the city of Babylon over all other Babylonian cities, and with this supremacy, the superior position henceforth a.s.sumed by the patron deity of the capital, Marduk.[116] It is needless for our purposes to enter upon the question as to the age of the city of Babylon,[117] nor as to its political fortunes prior to the rise of the dynasty of which Hammurabi was the sixth member. That its beginnings were modest, and that its importance, if not its origin, was of recent date in comparison with such places as Eridu, Nippur, Lagash, Ur, and the like, is proved by the absence of the G.o.d Marduk in any of the inscriptions that we have been considering up to this point. The first mention of the G.o.d occurs in the inscriptions of Hammurabi, where he appears distinctly as the G.o.d of the city of Babylon. No doubt the immediate predecessors of Hammurabi regarded Marduk in the same light as the great conqueror, so that we are justified in applying the data, furnished by the inscriptions of Hammurabi to such of his predecessors, of whom records are still lacking. It is to Marduk, that Hammurabi ascribes his success. The king regards himself as the beloved of Marduk.
The G.o.d rejoices his heart and gives him power and plenty. Even when paying his homage at the shrines of other deities, he does not forget to couple the name of Marduk with that of the deity whose protection he invokes. So at Sippar, sacred to Shamash, and where the king deposits a cylinder recording the improvements that he instigated in the city, he a.s.sociates the sun-G.o.d with Marduk, whereas in contradistinction to the rulers of the old Babylonian cities or states, when addressing Marduk, he does not find it necessary to make mention at the same time of an entire pantheon. Marduk"s protection suffices for all purposes. This, of course, does not exclude the worship of other G.o.ds. A reference has already been made to the king"s care for the city of Shamash. In this respect, he was but following the example of his predecessors, who, while regarding Babylon as their capital, were zealous in doing honor to ancient centers of worship. So one of these predecessors, Zabu, restores the temple of Shamash at Sippar, and that of Anunit at Agade. Hammurabi, besides his work at Sippar, builds a temple to Innanna at Hallabi.[118]