The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria Part 4

War and pestilence are intimately a.s.sociated in the mind of the Babylonians. Among other nations, the sword is, similarly, the symbol of the deity, as the plague-bringer as well as the warrior.

To this day, a pestilence is the general accompaniment of war in the East, or follows in its wake. Different from Nin-ib, who is also a G.o.d of war, Nergal symbolizes more particularly the _destruction_ which accompanies war, and not the strong champion who aids his subjects in the fight. Nergal is essentially a destroyer, and the various epithets applied to him in the religious texts, show that he was viewed in this light. He is at times the 'G.o.d of fire,' again 'the raging king,' 'the violent one' 'the one who burns'; and finally identified with the glowing heat of flame. Often, he is described by these attributes, instead of being called by his real name.[51] Dr. Jensen has recently shown in a satisfactory manner, that this phase of his character must be the starting-point in tracing the order of his development. As the 'glowing flame,' Nergal is evidently a phase of the sun, and Jensen proves that the functions and aspects of the sun at different periods being differentiated among the Babylonians, Nergal is more especially the hot sun of midsummer or midday, the destructive force of which was the chief feature that distinguished it. The hot sun of Babylonia, that burns with fierce intensity, brings pestilence and death, and carries on a severe contest against man. From being the cause of death, it is but a step, and a natural one, to make Nergal preside over the region, prepared for those whom he has destroyed. The course taken by Babylonian theology is responsible for the prominence given to the latter role of Nergal, which finally overshadows his other phases to the extent of suggesting the fanciful interpretation of his name as the 'ruler of the great dwelling place for the dead.' In the light of the facts set forth, another explanation for his name must be looked for that would connect the G.o.d with solar functions. The name may in fact be divided into two elements, the first having the force of chief or ruler, the second 'great.' The combination would be an appropriate designation for the sun, in the role of a destructive power. But Nergal, after all, represents only one phase of the sun-G.o.d. The G.o.d who was wors.h.i.+pped as the personification of the sun _par excellence_ and the sun as a whole, was

Shamash.

Written with an ideograph that describes him as the 'G.o.d of the day,'

there is no deity whose wors.h.i.+p enjoys an equally continued popularity in Babylonia and a.s.syria. Beginning at the earliest period of Babylonian history, and reaching to the latest, his wors.h.i.+p suffers no interruption. Shamash, moreover, maintains his original character with scarcely any modification throughout this long period. For all that, he bears a name which signifies 'attendant' or 'servitor,' and which sufficiently shows the subsidiary position that he occupied in the Babylonian pantheon. One of the rulers belonging to the dynasty of Isin calls the sun-G.o.d, the offspring of Nannar,--one of the names of the moon-G.o.d,--and the last king of Babylonia, Nabonnedos, does the same. In combination with the moon-G.o.d, the latter takes precedence of Shamash,[52] and in the enumeration of the complete pantheon, in the inscriptions of both a.s.syrian and Babylonian kings, the same order is preserved. Other evidence that points to the superior rank accorded to Sin, the moon-G.o.d over the sun deity in Babylonia, is the reckoning of time by the moon phases. The day begins with the evening, and not with sunrise. The moon, as the chief of the starry firmament, and controlling the fate of mankind, was the main factor in giving to the orb of night, this peculiar prominence. The 'service,' accordingly implied in the name of Shamash appears to have been such as was demanded by his subsidiary position to the moon-G.o.d. Beyond the general recognition, however, of this relations.h.i.+p between the two, it does not appear that the wors.h.i.+p paid to Shamash, was at all affected by the secondary place, that he continued to hold in the theoretically constructed pantheon. Less than is the case with the other G.o.ds, is he identified with any particular city, and we therefore find in the most ancient period, two centers of Southern Babylonia claiming Shamash as their patron saint,--Larsa, represented by the mound of Senkereh, and Sippar, occupying the site of the modern Abu-Habba. It is difficult to say which of the two was the older; the latter, in the course of time, overshadowed the fame of the former, and its history can be traced back considerably beyond the sun-wors.h.i.+p at Larsa, the first mention of which occurs in the inscriptions of rulers of the second dynasty of Ur (_c._ 2900 B.C.).

Since Ur, as we shall see, was sacred to the moon-G.o.d, it is hardly likely that the Shamash cult was introduced at Larsa by the rulers of Ur. The kings of Ur would not have forfeited the protection of Sin, by any manifestation of preference for Shamash. When Ur-Gur, therefore, tells us that he 'built' a temple to Shamash at Larsa, he must mean, as Sin-iddina of the dynasty of Larsa does, in using the same phrase, that he enlarged or improved the edifice. What makes it all the more likely that Ur-Gur found sun-wors.h.i.+p at Larsa in existence is, that in the various places over which this ruler spread his building activity, he is careful in each case to preserve the status of the presiding deity. So at Nippur, he engages in work at the temples of En-lil and of Nin-lil; while at Uruk he devotes himself to the temple of Nana. In thus connecting their names with the various sacred edifices of Babylonia, the rulers emphasized, on the one hand, their control of the territory in which the building lay, and on the other, their allegiance to the deity of the place, whose protection and favor they sought to gain.

The mention of a temple to Shamash at Sippar reverts to a still earlier period than that of its rival. Nabonnedos tells us that it was founded by Naram-Sin. Sargon has put his name on some object[53] that he dedicates to the sun-G.o.d at Sippar. That there was an historical connection between the two temples may be concluded from the fact that the name of the sacred edifices was the same in both,--E-babbara, signifying the 'house of l.u.s.tre.' Such a similarity points to a dependence of one upon the other, and the transfer or extension of the wors.h.i.+p directly from one place to the other; but, as intimated, we have no certain means of determining which of the two is the older. In view of the general observation to be made in what pertains to the religion of the Babylonians, that fame and age go hand in hand, the balance is in favor of Sippar, which became by far the more famous of the two, received a greater share of popular affection, and retained its prominence to the closing days of the neo-Babylonian monarchy. We shall have occasion in a succeeding chapter to trace the history of the sun-temple at Sippar so far as known. It is interesting to note that Nabonnedos, feeling the end of his power to be near, undertakes, as one of the last resorts, the restoration of this edifice, in the hope that by thus turning once more to the powerful Shamash, he might secure his protection, in addition to that of Marduk, the head of the later Babylonian pantheon.

In Ur itself, Shamash was also wors.h.i.+pped in early days by the side of the moon-G.o.d. Eannatum, of the dynasty of Isin (_c._ 2800 B.C.), tells of two temples erected to him at that place; and still a third edifice, sacred to both Nannar (the moon G.o.d) and Shamash at Ur, is referred to by a king of the Larsa dynasty, Rim-Sin (_c._ 2300 B.C.). The t.i.tles given to Shamash by the early rulers are sufficiently definite to show in what relation he stood to his wors.h.i.+ppers, and what the conceptions were that were formed of him. He is, alternately, the king and the shepherd. Since the kings also called themselves shepherds, no especial endearment is conveyed by this designation. In the incantations, Shamash is frequently appealed to, either alone, or when an entire group of spirits and deities are enumerated. He is called upon to give life to the sick man. To him the body of the one who is smitten with disease is confided. As the G.o.d of light, he is appropriately called upon to banish 'darkness' from the house, darkness being synonymous with misfortune; and the appeal is made to him more particularly as the 'king of judgment.' From this, it is evident that the beneficent action of the sun, was the phase a.s.sociated with Shamash. He was hailed as the G.o.d that gives light and life to all things, upon whose favor the prosperity of the fields and the well-being of man depend. He creates the light and secures its blessings for mankind. His favor produces order and stability; his wrath brings discomfiture and ruin to the state and the individual. But his power was, perhaps, best expressed by the t.i.tle of "judge"--the favorite one in the numerous hymns that were composed in his honor. He was represented as seated on a throne in the chamber of judgment, receiving the supplications of men, and according as he manifested his favor or withdrew it, enacting the part of the decider of fates. He loosens the bonds of the imprisoned, grants health to the sick, and even revivifies the dead. On the other hand, he puts an end to wickedness and destroys enemies. He makes the weak strong, and prevents the strong from crus.h.i.+ng the weak. From being the judge, and, moreover, the supreme judge of the world, it was but natural that the conception of justice was bound up with him. His light became symbolical of righteousness, and the absence of it, or darkness, was viewed as wickedness. Men and G.o.ds look expectantly for his light. He is the guide of the G.o.ds, as well as the ruler of men.

While there are no direct indications in the historical texts known at present, that this conception of the sun-G.o.d existed in all its details before the days of Hammurabi, there is every reason to believe that this was the case; the more so, in that it does not at all transcend the range of religious ideas that we have met with in the case of the other G.o.ds of this period. Nor does this conception in any way betray itself, as being due to the changed political conditions that set in, with the union of the states under Hammurabi. Still, the age of the religious texts not being fixed, it is thus necessary to exercise some caution before using them without the basis of an allusion in the historical texts.

Utu.

It but remains, before pa.s.sing on, to note that the same deity appears under various names. Among these are Utu[54] and apparently also Babbar[55] in the old Babylonian inscriptions. For the latter, a Semitic etymology is forthcoming, and we may therefore regard it as representing a real p.r.o.nunciation, and not an ideographic writing. Babbar, a contracted form from Barbar, is the reduplication of the same stem _bar_[56] that we have already met with, in the name of the temple sacred to Shamash. Like E-babbara, therefore, Babbar is the "brilliantly s.h.i.+ning one,"--a most appropriate name for the sun, and one frequently applied to him in the religious texts. As to Utu, there is some doubt whether it represents a real p.r.o.nunciation or not. My own opinion is that it does, and that the underlying stem is _atu_, which in Babylonian has almost the same meaning as _bar_ or _baru_, viz., 'to see.' 'Utu'

would thus again designate the sun as 'that which s.h.i.+nes forth.'

It will be recalled, that other instances have been noted of the same G.o.d appearing under different names. The most natural explanation for this phenomenon is, that the variation corresponds to the different localities where the G.o.d was wors.h.i.+pped. The identification would not be made until the union of the various Babylonian states had been achieved.

Such a union would be a potent factor in systematizing the pantheon.

When once it was recognized that the various names represented, in reality, one and the same deity, it would not be long before the name, peculiar to the place where the wors.h.i.+p was most prominent, would set the others aside or reduce them to mere epithets.

It may well be that Shamash was the name given to the G.o.d at Sippar, whereas at Ur he may have been known as Utu. Ur-Bau (of the first Ur dynasty) calls him Utu also, when speaking of the temple at Larsa, but it would be natural for the kings of Ur to call the sun-G.o.d of Larsa by the same name that he had in Ur. That Hammurabi, however, calls the sun-G.o.d of Larsa, Utu, may be taken as an indication that, as such he was known at that place, for since we have no record of a sun-temple at Babylon in these days, there would be no motive that might induce him to transfer a name, otherwise known to him, to another place. The testimony of Hammurabi is therefore as direct as that of Sargon, who calls the sun-G.o.d of Sippar, Shamash. It is not always possible to determine, with as much show of probability, as in the case of the sun-G.o.d, the distribution of the various names, but the general conclusion, for all that, is warranted in every instance, that a variety of names refers, originally, to an equal variety of places over which the wors.h.i.+p was spread,--only that care must be exercised to distinguish between distinctive names and mere epithets.

a.

A consort of the sun-deity, appearing frequently at his side in the incantation texts, is a. It is more particularly with the Shamash of Sippar, that a is a.s.sociated. She is simply the 'beloved one' of the sun-deity, with no special character of her own. In the historical texts, her role is quite insignificant, and for the period with which we are at present concerned she is only mentioned once by a North Babylonian ruler, Ma-an-ish-tu-su,[57] who dedicates an object to her.

The reading of the ideogram a, or Nin-a (_i.e._, Lady a), is doubtful.

Malkatu ("mistress" or "queen") is offered as a plausible conjecture.[58] Lehman (_Keils Bibl._ iii. I, 202) suggests _A-Ja_, but on insufficient grounds. In any case a has the force of mistress, and Nin-a simply designates the G.o.ddess as the lady, mistress, or queen. It is likely that a was originally an independent deity, and one of the names of the sun-G.o.d in a particular locality. It occurs in proper names as a t.i.tle of Shamash. Instead, however, of becoming identified with Shamash, a degenerated into a pale reflection of Shamash, pictured under the relations.h.i.+p of consort to him. This may have been due to the union of Shamash with the place where a was wors.h.i.+pped. If, as seems likely, that near Sippar, there was another city on the other side of the Euphrates, forming a suburb to it (as Borsippa did to Babylon), the conclusion is perhaps warranted that a was originally the sun-G.o.d wors.h.i.+pped at the place which afterwards became incorporated with Sippar.[59] Such an amalgamation of two originally male deities into a combination of male and female, strange as it may seem to us, is in keeping with the lack of sharp distinction between male and female in the oldest forms of Semitic religions. In the old cuneiform writing the same sign is used to indicate "lord" or "lady" when attached to deities.

Ishtar appears among Semites both as a male[60] and as a female deity.

s.e.x was primarily a question of strength. The stronger G.o.d was viewed as masculine; the weaker as feminine.

Nannar and Sin.

Nannar, a reduplicated form like Babbar, with the a.s.similation of the first r to n (nar-nar = nannar), has very much the same meaning as Babbar. The latter, as we have seen, is the "l.u.s.trous one," the former, the "one that furnishes light." The similarity in meaning is in keeping with the similarity of function of the two deities, thus named: Babbar being the sun and Nannar, the moon. It was under the name of Nannar that the moon-G.o.d was wors.h.i.+pped at Ur, the most famous and probably the oldest of the cities over which the moon-G.o.d presided. The a.s.sociation of Nannar with Ur is parallel to that of Shamash with Sippar,--not that the moon-G.o.d's jurisdiction or wors.h.i.+p was confined to that place, but that the wors.h.i.+p of the deity of that place eclipsed others, and the fame and importance at Ur led to the overshadowing of the moon-wors.h.i.+p there, over the obeisance to him paid elsewhere.

What further motives led to the choice of the moon-G.o.d as the patron of Ur, lies beyond the scope of our knowledge. Due allowance must be made for that natural selection, which takes place in the realm of thought as much as in the domain of nature. Attention has already been called to the predominance given by the Babylonians to the moon over the sun. The latter is expressly called the "offspring of the lord of brilliant beginning," that is, the moon-G.o.d (Delitzsch, _a.s.syr. Hdw._, p. 234 _a_). It is needless, therefore, to do more, at this place, than to emphasize the fact anew. The moon serving much more as a guide to man, through the regular character of its constant changes, than the sun, was connected in the religious system with both the heavenly and the terrestrial forces. In view of Nannar's position in the heavens, he was called the "heifer of Anu." Anu, it will be recalled, was the G.o.d of heaven (and heaven itself), while the "heifer"[61] is here used metaphorically for offspring, the picture being suggested probably by the "horn" that the moon presents at a certain phase. This 'horn'

const.i.tutes his crown, and he is frequently represented on seal cylinders with a crescent over his head, and with a long flowing beard, that is described as having the color of lapislazuli. A frequent t.i.tle is the 'lord of the crown.' On the other hand, by virtue of its influence on the earth, regulating, as the ancients observed, the tides, the moon was connected by the Babylonians with the reckoning of time.

Because of this connection with the 'lower world,' it seems, he was also regarded as the first-born of Bel. His sacred edifice at Ur was one to which all rulers of the place devoted themselves. Ur-Gur, Nur-Ramman, Sin-iddina, and Kudur-mabuk tell of their embellishment of the temple, each one appropriating to himself the t.i.tle of 'builder,' in which they gloried. So close, again, was the identification of the city with the deity, that the latter was frequently known simply as the G.o.d of Ur, and the former, as the city of Nannar.

Another name of the moon-G.o.d was Sin,--the meaning of which escapes us.

At the side of Ur, Harran is the place most celebrated by reason of its moon-wors.h.i.+p, and there is every reason to believe that the name Sin was originally attached to Harran. The migrations of the ancient Hebrews were connected as we now know with political movements in Babylonia.

They proceed from Ur--or Ur-Kasdim, _i.e._, Chaldean Ur--northward to Harran, which, by virtue of its position, became a town of much importance. This a.s.sociation of Ur with Harran furnishes an indication for historical relations of some sort, existing between the two places.

It is therefore not accidental, that the patron deity of both places was the same. As yet, no excavations have been made at Harran, and we are, therefore, dependent upon incidental notices for our knowledge of its history. These sufficiently show that the place continued through a long period to preserve its sacred character. The old temple there, was one of the many that stirred up the religious zeal of Nabonnedos; and previous to this, we find several a.s.syrian kings occupied in embellis.h.i.+ng and restoring the structure. An interesting reference to Harran, bearing witness to its ancient dignity, is found in an inscription of Sargon II. of a.s.syria (722-706 B.C.), who enumerates among his claims to the favor of the G.o.ds, that he restored the "laws and customs of Harran," by which he evidently means that he was instrumental in giving the place, the dignity it once enjoyed. A curious feature connected with Sin, is the occurrence of the name in Mount Sinai, in the wilderness of Sin, as well as in an inscription of Southern Arabia. May not this be a further testimony to the a.s.sociation of Harran with Sin, since it is from Harran that the departure of the Hebrews for the west took place? What more natural than that in the migrations which carried the Hebrews to the west, the wors.h.i.+p of Sin should have been transferred to Arabia?[62] Important as Ur and Harran are as sacred towns, politically they do not retain their prominence after the days of Hammurabi. The amalgamation of Nannar with Sin, and the almost exclusive occurrence of the latter name in later times, does not of necessity point to a preponderating influence of Harran over Ur, but may be due to the greater fame which the former place acquired as the goal of religious pilgrimages. The situation of Harran--the name itself signifies 'road'--as the highway leading to the west, must have been an important factor, in bringing this about. However this may be, Sin and Nannar are as thoroughly identical in the period following Hammurabi, as Babbar and Shamash. The attributes of the one are transferred to the other so completely, that a separation of the two is no longer possible.

The ideographs with which the name of Sin is written show him to have been regarded as the G.o.d of wisdom, but while wisdom and light may be connected, it is Nannar's character as the "illuminator" that becomes the chief trait of the G.o.d. No doubt the preeminence of Ea in this respect, who is the personification of wisdom, _par excellence_, made it superfluous to have another deity possessing the same trait. It is, accordingly, as the G.o.d of light, that Sin continues to be adored in the Babylonian religion; and when he is referred to, in the historical texts and hymns, this side of his nature is the one dwelt upon. Through his light, the traps laid by the evil spirits, who are active at night, are revealed. In later times, apparently through a.s.syrian influence, the reckoning of time was altered to the extent of making the day begin with sunrise, instead of with the approach of night; and this, together with the accommodation of the lunar cycle to the movements of the sun, brought about a partial change of the former conditions, and gave somewhat greater prominence to Shamash. As a consequence, the role of Sin is not as prominent in the hymns that belong to a later period as in those of earlier days.

The oracles of the a.s.syrian kings are addressed to Shamash, and not to Sin. Moreover, the personal factor in the case of Sin, if one may express oneself thus, is not as strong as in that of some other G.o.ds.

His traits are of a more general kind. He is supreme; there is none like him, and the spirits are subservient to his will. But terms of endearment are few, while on the mythological side, comparatively little is made of him. He is strong and he is holy. He is called upon to clothe the evil-doer with leprosy, as with a dress. In a robe, befitting his dignity, he stalks about. Without him, no city is founded, no district restored to former glory. Sin is called the father of the G.o.ds, but in a metaphorical rather than in a real sense. The only one of his children who takes an important part in the later phases of Babylonian-a.s.syrian wors.h.i.+p is his daughter Ishtar. She seems to have taken to herself some of the traits of right belonging to Sin, and the prominence of her wors.h.i.+p may be regarded as an additional factor in accounting for the comparative obscurity to which Sin gradually is a.s.signed. At all events, Sin is a feature of the earlier period of the Babylonian religion rather than of the later periods.

Innanna.

The secondary position held by the female deities in the Babylonian pantheon has been repeatedly referred to. This trait of the religion finds an ill.u.s.tration not only in the 'shadowy' character of the consorts of the G.o.ds, but also in the manner in which G.o.ddesses, originally distinct from one another and enjoying an existence independent of any male consort, lose their individuality, as it were, and become merely so many forms of one and the same deity. Indeed, as we approach the moment when the G.o.ds of the Babylonian pantheon are ranged into a system, the tendency becomes p.r.o.nounced to recognize only _one_ G.o.ddess, representative of the principle of generation--one 'great mother,' endowed with a variety of traits according to the political and social conditions prevailing at different times in Babylonia and a.s.syria. In the earliest period which we are now considering, we can still distinguish a number of G.o.ddesses who afterwards became merged into this one great G.o.ddess. These are Ninni (or Innanna), Nana, and Anunit.

Ninni and Innanna are names that appear to have a common origin.[63]

Both embody the notion of 'ladys.h.i.+p.' The wors.h.i.+p of this G.o.ddess centers in the district of Lagash. Ur-Bau (c. 3000 B.C.), who addresses her as 'glorious and supreme,' builds a temple in her honor at Gishgalla, and Gudea refers to a temple known as E-anna, _i.e._, heavenly house in Girsu.[64] For Gudea, Ninni is the "mistress of the world." Another ruler of Lagash whose name is doubtfully read as E-dingir-ra-na-gin,[65] but who is even earlier than Ur-Bau, declares that he has been 'called' by Innanna to the throne. She is mentioned by the side of Nin-khar-sag. We are still in the period where local a.s.sociations formed a controlling factor in ensuring the popularity of a deity, and while the G.o.ddesses attached to the G.o.ds of the important centers are still differentiated, the tendency already exists to designate the female consorts simply as the 'G.o.ddess,'--to apply to all, the traits that may once have been peculiar to one. As we pa.s.s from one age to the other, there is an increasing difficulty in keeping the various local 'G.o.ddesses' apart. Even the names become interchangeable; and since these G.o.ddesses all represented essentially the same principle of generation and fertility, it was natural that with the union of the Babylonian states they should become merged into one great mother-G.o.ddess. A 'local' G.o.ddess who retains rather more of her individuality than others, is

Nana.

Her name is again playfully interpreted by the Babylonians--through a.s.sociation with Nin--as 'the lady' _par excellence_. She was the chief G.o.ddess of the city of Uruk. Her temple at Uruk is first mentioned by Ur-Gur, of the second dynasty of Ur. It is restored and enlarged by Dungi, the successor of Ur-Bau, and so thoroughly is she identified with her edifice known as E-anna (again a play upon her name), that she becomes known as the Lady of E-anna.[66] She appears to have had a temple also at Ur, and it is to this edifice that later rulers of Larsa--Kudur-Mabuk and Rim-Sin, as well as the kings of the Isin dynasty, Gamil-Ninib, Libit-Ishtar, and Ishme-Dagan--refer in their inscriptions.

The members of the Isin dynasty pride themselves upon their control over Uruk, and naturally appear as special devotees to Nana, whose chosen "consort" they declare themselves to be, wielding the sceptre, as it were, in union with her. Already at this period, Nana is brought into connection with the moon-G.o.d, being called by Kudur-Mabuk the daughter of Sin. The relations.h.i.+p in this case indicates, primarily, the supremacy exercised by Ur, and also a similarity in the traits of the two deities. In the fully developed cosmology, Nana is the planet Venus, whose various aspects, as morning and evening star, suggested an a.n.a.logy with the phases of the moon.

Venus, like the moon, served as a guide to man, while her inferiority in size and importance to the former, would naturally come to be expressed under the picture of father and daughter. In a certain sense, all the planets appearing at the same time and in the same region with the moon were the children of the latter. Sin, therefore, is appropriately called the father of G.o.ds, just as Anu, the personification of the heaven itself, is the supreme father of Sin and Shamash, and of all the heavenly bodies. The metaphorical application of 'father' as 'source,'

throughout Oriental parlance, must be kept in mind in interpreting the relations.h.i.+p between the G.o.ds. Still another name of the G.o.ddess is Anunit, which appears to have been peculiar to the North Babylonian city Agade, and emphasizes her descent from "Anu," the G.o.d of heaven. Her temple at Agade, known as E-ul-mash, is the object of Sargon's devotion, which makes her, with Bel and Shamash, the oldest triad of G.o.ds mentioned in the Babylonian inscriptions. But the name which finally displaces all others, is

Ishtar.

Where the name originated has not yet been ascertained, as little as its etymology,[67] but it seems to belong to Northern Babylonia rather than to the south.

In time, all the names that we have been considering--Innanna, Nana, and Anunit--became merely so many designations of Ishtar. She absorbs the t.i.tles and qualities of all, and the tendency which we have pointed out finds its final outcome in the recognition of Ishtar as the one and only G.o.ddess endowed with powers and an existence independent of a.s.sociation with any male deity, though even this independence does not hinder her from being named at times as the a.s.sociate of the chief G.o.d of a.s.syria--the all-powerful Ashur. The attempt has been made by Sayce and others to divide the various names of Ishtar among the aspects of Venus as morning and evening star, but there is no evidence to show that the Babylonians distinguished the one from the other so sharply as to make two G.o.ddesses of one and the same planet.

It is more in accord with what, as we have seen, has been the general character of the Babylonian pantheon, to account for the identification of Ninni, Nana, and Anunit with Ishtar on the supposition that the different names belonged originally to different localities. Ishtar was appropriately denominated the brilliant G.o.ddess. She is addressed as the mother of G.o.ds, which signals her supreme position among the female deities. 'The mistress of countries' alternating with 'the mistress of mountains,'[68] is one of her common t.i.tles; and as the growing uniqueness of her position is one of the features of the Babylonian-a.s.syrian religion, it is natural that she should become simply _the_ G.o.ddess. This was especially the case with the a.s.syrians, to whom Ishtar became a G.o.ddess of war and battle, the consort, at times, of the chief G.o.d of the a.s.syrian pantheon. At the same time it is important to note that the warlike character of the G.o.ddess goes back to the time of Hammurabi (_Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, 113), and is dwelt upon by other Babylonian kings (_e.g._, Nebuchadnezzar I., c. 1130 B.C.) prior to the rise of the a.s.syrian power. How Ishtar came to take on so violent a character is not altogether clear. There are no indications of this role in the incantation texts, where she is simply the kind mother who is appealed to, to release the sufferer from the power of the disease-bringing spirits. In the prayers, as will be shown in the proper place, she becomes the vehicle for the expression of the highest religious and ethical thought attained by the Babylonians. On the other hand, in the great Babylonian epic,[69] dealing with the adventures of a famous hero, Gilgamesh, Ishtar, who makes her appearance at the summer solstice, is a raging G.o.ddess who smites those who disobey her commands with wasting disease. Starting with this phase of the G.o.ddess'

character, one can at least understand the process of her further development into a fierce deity presiding over the fortunes of war. The epic just referred to belongs to the old Babylonian period. It embodies ancient traditions of rivalry between the Babylonian princ.i.p.alities, though there are traces of several recastings which the epic received.

The violent Ishtar, therefore, is a type going back to the same period as the other side of her character that is emphasized elsewhere. Since, moreover, the Ishtar in the Gilgamesh epic is none other than the chief G.o.ddess of Uruk, all further doubt as to the union of such diverging traits in one and the same personage falls to the ground. In this same epic, Ishtar appears as sympathizing with the sufferings of mankind, and bewailing the destruction that was at one time decreed by the G.o.ds. It is noteworthy that the violent Ishtar appears in that portion of the epic which, on the a.s.sumption of a zodiacal interpretation for the composition, corresponds to the summer solstice, whereas, the destruction which arouses her sympathy takes place in the eleventh month. It is quite possible, therefore, that the two aspects of Venus, as evening and morning stars, corresponding, as they do, to the summer and winter seasons, are reflected in this double character of the G.o.ddess. We are not justified, however, in going further and a.s.suming that her double role as daughter of Sin and daughter of Anu is to be accounted for in the same manner. In the Gilgamesh epic, she is found in a.s.sociation with Anu, and to the latter she appeals for protection as her father, and yet it is as the daughter of Sin that she enters the world of the dead to seek for the waters that may heal her bridegroom, Tammuz.[70] Evidently, the distinction between Ishtar as the daughter of Anu and as the daughter of Sin is not an important one, the term daughter in both cases being a metaphor to express a relations.h.i.+p both of physical nature and of a political character. Of the various forms under which the G.o.ddess appears, that of Anunit--a feminine form indicating descent from and appertaining to Anu--attaches itself most clearly to the G.o.d of heaven, and it may be that it was not until the a.s.similation of Anunit and Nana with Ishtar that the G.o.ddess is viewed as at once the daughter of Anu and of Sin. If this be so, there is surely nothing strange in the fact that a planet like Venus should be regarded in one place as the daughter of heaven and in another brought into relations.h.i.+p with the moon. She actually belongs to both.

Just as in Babylonia, so in a.s.syria, there were various Ishtars, or rather various places where the G.o.ddess was wors.h.i.+pped as the guardian spirit, but her role in the north is so peculiar that all further consideration of it must be postponed until we come to consider, in due time, the a.s.syrian pantheon. There will be occasion, too, when treating of the Gilgamesh epic, to dwell still further on some of her traits. All that need be said here is to emphasize the fact that the popularity of the Babylonian Ishtar in a.s.syria, as manifested by Esarhaddon's zeal in restoring her temple at Uruk, and Ashurbanabal's restoration of Nana's statue (_c._ 635 B.C.) which had been captured by the Elamites 1635 years before Ashurbanabal's reign, is largely due to the effected ident.i.ty with the G.o.ddess who, for the a.s.syrians, was regarded chiefly as the G.o.ddess of war and strife. In wors.h.i.+pping the southern Ishtars, the a.s.syrian kings felt themselves to be showing their allegiance to the same deity to whom, next to Ashur, most of their supplications were addressed, and of whom as warriors they stood in dread.

Nina.

A G.o.ddess who, while sharing the fate of her sister G.o.ddesses in being overshadowed by Ishtar, yet merits a special treatment, is one whose name is plausibly conjectured to be read Nina. The compound ideogram expressing the deity signifies 'house of the fish.' The word 'house' in Semitic parlance is figuratively extended to convey the idea of 'possessing or harboring.' Applied to a settlement, the ideogram would be the equivalent of our 'Fishtown.' It is with this same ideogram that the famous capitol of a.s.syria, Nineveh, is written in the cuneiform texts, and since the phonetic reading for the city, Ni-na-a, also occurs, it is only legitimate to conclude that the latter is the correct reading for the deity as well. As a matter of course, if the G.o.ddess bears a name identical with that of a city, it cannot be the a.s.syrian city which is meant in the old Babylonian inscriptions, but some other place bearing the same name. Such a place actually occurs in the inscriptions of Gudea. It is, in fact, one of the three towns that combined with s.h.i.+rpurla to create the great capitol bearing the latter name; and Jensen[71] has called attention to a pa.s.sage in one of Gudea's inscriptions in which the G.o.ddess is brought into direct a.s.sociation with the town, so that it would appear that Nina is the patron of Nina, in the same way that Nin-girsu is the protector of Girsu. In keeping with this we find the mention of the G.o.ddess limited to the rulers of Lagash. Several of them--En-anna-tuma, Entemena, and Gudea--declare themselves to have been chosen by her. She is said to regard Gudea with special favor. She determines destinies. Another king, Ur-Nina, embodies the name of the G.o.ddess in his own, and devotes himself to the enlargement of her temple. From the manner in which she is a.s.sociated with Nin-girsu, aiding the latter in guarding his temple E-ninnu, and uniting with the G.o.d in granting the sceptre to Gudea, one is tempted to conclude that the two towns, Girsu and Nina, were amalgamated before their absorption into Lagash, so that the G.o.d and G.o.ddess acquired the relations.h.i.+p to one another of husband and consort. As for the connection between this Babylonian Nina and the late a.s.syrian capital, it is quite possible that the origin of the latter is to be traced to a settlement made by inhabitants of the former, although it should be added that there is no positive evidence that can be adduced in support of this proposition. It accords, however, with the northward movement of culture and civilization in Mesopotamia. If this connection between the two Ninevehs be accepted, the question suggests itself whether, in time, Nina did not become merely another form of Ishtar. The a.s.syrian capital is frequently spoken of as the 'beloved city' of Ishtar, and unless it be supposed that this epithet simply reflects the comparatively late popularity of the distinctively a.s.syrian Ishtar, the most natural explanation would be to propose the equation Nina = Ishtar.

In the incantation texts, Nina is frequently appealed to as the daughter of Ea,--the G.o.d of the deep. This relations.h.i.+p, as well as the interpretation of the ideogram above set forth, points to the original character of the G.o.ddess as a water-deity. This G.o.ddess, therefore, would be of an entirely different form from the ones discussed in the previous paragraphs. Instead of being a member of the heavenly pantheon, her place is with the kingdom over which Ea presides, and whose dwelling-place is the watery deep. In any case, Nina is originally distinct from Ishtar, Nana, and Anunit; and she retains an independent existence to a later period than most of the other great G.o.ddesses that have been discussed. In an inscription of the days of Belnadinaplu (_c._ 1100 B.C.), published by Hilprecht,[72] Nina appears as the patron deity of Der,--a city of Southern Babylonia. There too she is called the 'daughter of Ea,' the creator of everything. She is 'the mistress of G.o.ddesses.' Attached to her temple there are lands that having been wrongfully wrested from the priests are returned upon royal command, under solemn invocation of the G.o.ddess. How her wors.h.i.+p came to be transferred to Der we do not know. She appears in the inscription in question by the side of a G.o.ddess who--following Hommel--is none other than Bau. Der is called the city of the G.o.d Anu, and we can only suppose that it must at one time have risen to sufficient importance to harbor in its midst a number of deities. It is presumably[73] the place whence Nebuchadnezzar I. sets out in the twelfth century to drive the Ca.s.sites off the throne of Babylonia. May it be that, during the days of the foreign rule, priests attached to the service of various of the old G.o.ds and G.o.ddesses transferred the wors.h.i.+p of these deities to places more secure from interference?

Be this as it may, if our Nina has any connection with the G.o.ddess of Nineveh, it is certain that Ishtar has retained none of Nina's traits.

The fusion in this case has been so complete that naught but the faintest tradition of an original and independent Nina has survived in the North.

Anu.