The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria Part 74

The Names of the Zikkurats and Temples.

We have seen that every sacred edifice had a special name by which it was known. This custom belongs to the oldest period of Babylonian history, and continues to the latest. Through these names, to which, no doubt, considerable significance was attached, we obtain a valuable insight into the religious spirit of the Babylonians; but it is important to note that the custom does not appear to have been as general[1391] in a.s.syria, where the temples are simply known as the house of this or that G.o.d or G.o.ddess. Of special interest are those names which were suggested by the original design of the temples. Such are E-Kur, 'the mountain house' at Nippur, E-kharsag-kurkura, 'the house of the mountain of all lands,' the name of several temples.[1392] The same idea finds expression also in such names as E-kharsag-ella, or 'house of the glorious mountain,' the name of a temple to Gula in Babylon; E-kharsag, 'the mountain house,' a temple in Ur;[1393]

E-khur-makh, 'the house of the great mountain,' which a text[1394]

declares to be equivalent to E-kharsag-kalama. Closely allied with these names are those indicating in one way or the other, the height or greatness of the buildings, as the general aim of the builders.

Prominent among such names are E-Sagila, 'the lofty house,' the famous temple and temple area at Babylon; E-makh, 'the great house,' a chapel to Nin-kharsag, situated perhaps within E-Sagila; E-gal-makh, 'the great palace,' an old temple in Ur; E-anna, 'the heavenly house,' that is, the house reaching up to heaven, which is the name of the temple of Ishtar or Nana at Erech; E-lgi-e-nir-kidur-makh,[1395] 'the tower of the great dwelling' sacred to Ninni at Kish. To the same cla.s.s belong such designations as E-dur-an-ki, 'the link of heaven and earth,'[1396] the name of a zikkurat at Larsa; E-an-dadia, 'the house reaching to heaven,'

the zikkurat at Agade; E-pa, 'the summit house,' the zikkurat to Nin-girsu at Lagash; E-gubba-an-ki, 'the point of heaven and earth,' one of the names of the zikkurat in Dilbat; E-dim-anna, 'the house of heavenly construction,' the chapel to Sin within the precinct of E-Zida at Borsippa,--a name that again conveys the notion of an edifice reaching up to heaven. The names of the zikkurats at Erech and Borsippa, 'the house of seven zones' and 'the house of the seven divisions of heaven and earth,' respectively, while conveying, as we saw,[1397]

cosmological conceptions of a more specific character, may still be reckoned in the cla.s.s of names that embody the leading purpose of the tower in Babylonia, as may also a name like E-temen-an-ki, 'the foundation stone of heaven and earth,' a.s.signed to the zikkurat to Marduk in Babylonia.

The sacred edifice, as the dwelling of the G.o.d to whom it is dedicated, leads to such names as E-Zida, 'the true house or fixed house,'[1398]

the famous temple to Nabu in Borsippa; E-dur-gina,[1399] 'the house of the established seat,' a temple of Bel-sarbi[1400] in Baz; E-ki-dur[1401]-garza, 'the sacred dwelling,' a temple to Nin-lil-anna in Babylon; E-kua, 'the dwelling-house,' the name of the papakhu of Marduk in E-Sagila; E-gi-umunna, 'the permanent dwelling'; E-esh[1402]-gi, a shrine to Nin-girsu at Lagash with the same meaning, 'permanent house.'

Another cla.s.s is formed by such names as are suggested by the attributes of the deity to whom the edifices are dedicated. Such are E-babbara, 'the brilliant house,' which, as the name of the temples to Shamash at Sippar and Larsa, recalls at once the character of the sun-G.o.d.

Similarly, E-gish-s.h.i.+r-gal, 'the house of the great luminary,' was an appropriate name for the temple to the moon-G.o.d at Ur. The staff or sceptre being the symbol of the G.o.d Nabu, suggests as the name of a sanctuary to him in Babylonia, the name E-pad-kalama-suma, 'the house of him who gives the sceptre of the world,' while the character of Shamash as the G.o.d of justice finds an expression in the name E-ditar-kalama, 'the house of the universal judge,' given to his temple or chapel in Babylon. The a.s.sociation of the number fifty with Ningirsu-Ninib leads to the name E-ninnu, 'house of fifty,'[1403] for his temple in Lagash.

Again, the position of Anu in the pantheon accounts for the name E-adda, 'house of the father,' given to his temple, just as E-nin-makh, 'the house of the great lady,' the name of a chapel in Babylon, at once recalls a G.o.ddess like Ishtar. Other names that describe a temple by epithets of the G.o.ds to whom they are sacred, are E-nun-makh, 'the house of the great lord,' descriptive of Sin; E-me-te-ur-sagga, 'the house of the glory of the warrior,' a temple sacred to Zamama-Ninib; E-U-gal, 'the house of the great lord,' a temple to En-lil. A name like E-edinna, 'house of the field,' a temple to the consort of Shamash at Sippar, may also have been suggested by some attribute of the G.o.ddess.[1404]

Lastly, we have a cla.s.s of names that might be described as purely ornamental, or as embodying a pious wish. Of such we have a large number. Examples of this cla.s.s are E-tila, 'house of life.' Names extolling the glory and splendor of the temples are common. In a list of temples[1405] we find such designations as 'house of light,' 'house of the brilliant precinct,' 'great place,' 'lofty and brilliant wall,'[1406] 'house of great splendor,' 'the splendor of heaven and earth,' 'house without a rival,' 'light of Shamash.' The seat of Sarpanitum in E-Sagila, is known as 'the gate of widespread splendor'; E-salgisa, 'the treasury,' as the name of a temple in Girsu, may belong here. A temple to Gula in Sippar was called E-ulla; that is, 'the beautiful house.' The old temple to Sin at Harran bore the significant name E-khulkhul, 'house of joys,' while the pious wish of the wors.h.i.+pper is again expressed in the name 'threshold of long life,' given to the zikkurat in Sippar.[1407] Among a series of names,[1408] ill.u.s.trating the religious sentiments of the people are the following: 'the heart of Shamash,' 'the house of hearkening to prayers,'[1409] 'the house full of joy,' 'the brilliant house,' 'the life of the world,' 'the place of fates,' and the like.

These various cla.s.ses of names are a valuable index of the varied and often remarkable conceptions held of the G.o.ds. To call a temple, for example, 'court of the world'[1410] may have been due originally to a haughty presumption on the part of some one deeply attached to some G.o.d; but such a name must also have led to regarding the G.o.d as not limited in his affections to a particular district. Whatever tendencies existed in Babylonia and a.s.syria towards universalistic conceptions of the divine beings were brought out in the temple names, and in part may have been advanced by these names. The custom still surviving in the Jewish Church of giving names to synagogues may be traced back to a Babylonian prototype.[1411]

The History of the Temples.

The history of the temples takes us back to the earliest period of Babylonian history, and the temples of a.s.syria likewise date from the small beginnings of the a.s.syrian power. The oldest inscriptions of Mesopotamian rulers commemorate their services as builders of temples.

Naram-Sin and Sargon glory in the t.i.tle 'builder of the temple of En-lil in Nippur.' Of the rulers of the first period of Babylonian history, it so happens that we know more of Gudea than of any other. We may feel certain that he but follows the example of his predecessors, in devoting so large a share of his energies to temple building. Hammurabi is an active builder of sanctuaries, and so on, through the period of a.s.syrian supremacy down to the closing days of the Babylonian monarchy, the thoughts of the rulers were directed towards honoring the G.o.ds by improving, restoring, rebuilding, or enlarging the sanctuaries, as well as by endowing them with rich gifts and votive offerings. The a.s.syrian kings, though perhaps more concerned with embellis.h.i.+ng their palaces, do not neglect the seats of the G.o.ds. Anxious to maintain the connection between their kingdom and the old cities of the south, the a.s.syrian monarchs were fond of paying homage to the time-honored sanctuaries of Babylonia. This feeling, which is of course shared by the Babylonian rulers, results in bringing about the continuity of the Babylonian and a.s.syrian religion. If, despite the changes that the religious doctrines underwent, despite the new interpretations given to old myths and legends, despite the profound changes introduced into the relations.h.i.+p of the G.o.ds to one another through the systematization of the pantheon, if, despite all this, the Babylonians and a.s.syrians--leaders and people--continued to feel that they were following the religion of their forefathers, it was due to the maintenance of the old sanctuaries. We can actually trace the history of some of these sanctuaries for a period of over 3000 years. In their restorations, the later builders were careful not to offend the memory of their predecessors. They sought out the old dedicatory inscriptions, and took steps to preserve them. They rejoiced when they came upon the old foundation stones. In their restorations they were careful to follow original designs; and likewise in the cult, so far from deviating from established custom, they strongly emphasized their desire to restore the cult to its original character, wherever an interruption for one reason or the other had taken place. In all this, the rulers were acting in accord with the popular instincts, for the ma.s.ses clung tenaciously to the old sanctuaries, as affording an unfailing means of protection against the ills and accidents of life.

To enumerate all the temples of Babylonia and a.s.syria would be both an impossible and a useless task. Besides those mentioned in the historical texts and in the legal literature, we have long lists of temples prepared by the pedagogues. Some of these lists have been published;[1412] others are to be found among the unpublished material in the British Museum collections.[1413] It is doubtful whether even these catalogues were exhaustive, or aimed at being so; moreover, a large number of G.o.ds are known to us only from the lists of the pedagogues.[1414] So, to mention some, taken from a valuable list[1415]

which gives chiefly the names of foreign G.o.ds, together with the places where they were wors.h.i.+pped, we learn of such G.o.ds as Lagamal, Magarida, Lasimu, A-ishtu, Bulala, Katnu, Kannu, Kishshat, Kanishurra, Khiraitum.

Knowing, as we do, that at various periods foreign deities were introduced into Babylonia and a.s.syria,[1416] it was necessary to make some provision for their cult; and, while no doubt most of these minor deities and foreign G.o.ds were represented only by statues placed in some temple or temple precinct, it is equally certain that some had a shrine or sanctuary of some kind specially erected in their honor. In hymns, too, deities are mentioned that are otherwise unknown. So in a litany, published by Craig,[1417] a long series of G.o.ds is introduced. Some are identical with those included in the list just referred to,[1418] others appear here for the first time, as Mis.h.i.+ru, Kilili Is.h.i.+-milku. Epithets also occur in lists and hymns, that appear to belong to deities otherwise unknown. We are safe, therefore, in estimating the number of temples, zikkurats, and smaller shrines in Babylonia and a.s.syria to have reached high into the hundreds. Sanctuaries must have covered the Euphrates Valley like a network. By virtue of the older culture of the south and the greater importance that Babylonia always enjoyed from a religious point of view, the sanctuaries of the south were much more numerous than those of the north. For our purposes, it is sufficient to indicate some of the most important of the temples of the south and north. The oldest known to us at present is the frequently mentioned temple of E-Kur at Nippur, sacred to En-lil or the older Bel. Its history can be carried back to a period beyond 4000 B.C.; how far beyond cannot be determined until the early chronology is better known than at present. We know, however, that from the time of Sargon[1419] and probably even much earlier, the rulers who had control of Nippur devoted themselves to the embellishment of the temple area. Climatic conditions necessitated frequent repairs. The temple also suffered occasionally through political tumults, but with each century the religious importance of E-Kur was increased. Ur-Bau, we have seen, about 2700 B.C., erected a zikkurat in the temple area. Some centuries later we find Bur-Sin repairing the zikkurat and adding a shrine near the main structure. As the political fortunes of Nippur varied, so E-Kur had its ups and downs. Under the Ca.s.sitic rule, an attempt was made to recover for Nippur the position which it formerly occupied, but which had now pa.s.sed over to Babylon. It was of little avail. Bel had to yield to Marduk, and yet, despite the means that the priests of Marduk took to transfer Bel's prerogatives to the new head of the pantheon, the rulers would not risk the anger of Bel by a neglect of E-Kur. Kurigalzu, a king of the Ca.s.site dynasty (_c._ 1400 B.C.) brings back from Elam[1420] a votive object which, originally deposited by Dungi in the Ishtar temple at Erech, was carried to Susa by an Elamitic conqueror about 900 years before Kurigalzu. The latter deposits this object not in Marduk's temple at Babylon, but in Bel's sanctuary at Nippur. During the entire Ca.s.sitic period, the kings continued to build or make repairs in the temple precinct, and almost every ruler is represented by more or less costly votive offerings made to Bel's sanctuary. In this way, we can follow the history of the temple down to the a.s.syrian period. In the twelfth century the religious supremacy of E-Kur yields permanently to E-Sagila.

The temple is sacked, part of it is destroyed, and it was left to rulers of the north like Esarhaddon and Ashurbanabal to once more restore E-Kur and its dependencies to its former proportions. These kings, especially the latter, devote much time and energy in rebuilding the zikkurat and in erecting various buildings connected with the temple administration.

Under the new Babylonian dynasty, however, E-Kur was again destroyed, and this time by the ruthless hands of southern rulers. Nebuchadnezzar, so devoted to Marduk and Nabu, appears to have regarded E-Kur as a serious rival to E-Sagila and E-Zida. Some traces of building operations at E-Kur appear to date from the Persian period, but, practically, the history of E-Kur comes to an end at the close of the seventh century.

The sanct.i.ty of the place, however, remained; a portion of the old city becomes a favorite burial site, while other parts continue to be inhabited till the twelfth century of our era. The city of Bel becomes the seat of a Christian bishop, and Jewish schools take the place once occupied by the "star-gazers of Chaldea."

The history of E-Kur, so intimately bound up with political events, may be taken as an index of the fortunes that befell the other prominent sanctuaries of Babylonia.

The foundation of the Shamash temple at Sippar, and known as E-Babbara, 'the brilliant house,' can likewise be traced as far back as the days of Naram-Sin. At that time there was already a sanctuary to Anunit within the precincts of E-Babbara. Members of the Ca.s.site dynasty devote themselves to the restoration of this sanctuary. Through a subsequent invasion of the nomads, the cult was interrupted and the great statue of Shamash destroyed. Several attempts are made to reorganize the cult, but it was left for Nabubaliddin in the tenth century to restore E-Babbara to its former prestige. Esarhaddon and Ashurbanabal, who pay homage to the old Bel at Nippur, also devote themselves to Shamash at Sippar. They restore such portions of it as had suffered from the lapse of time and from other causes. Nebuchadnezzar is obliged to rebuild parts of E-Babbara, and the last king of Babylonia, Nabonnedos, is so active in his building operations at Sippar that he arouses the anger of the priests of Babylon, who feel that their ruler is neglecting the sanctuaries of Marduk and Nabu. It is through Nabonnedos[1421] and Nabubaliddin,[1422] chiefly, that we learn many of the details of the history of E-Babbara during this long period.

Of the other important temples that date from the early period of Babylonian history, we must content ourselves with brief indications.

The temple to Shamash at Larsa, while not quite as old as that of Sippar, was quite as famous. Its name was likewise E-Babbara. It is first mentioned in the inscriptions of Ur-Bau (_c._ 2700 B.C.), and it continues to enjoy the favor of the rulers till the Persian conquest.[1423]

The two chief places for the moon-cult were Ur and Harran. The name of Sin's temple[1424] at the former place was E-Gish-s.h.i.+r-gal, 'the house of the great light'; at the latter, E-khulklul, 'the house of joys.'

Around both sanctuaries, but particularly around the former, cl.u.s.ter sacred traditions. We have seen that the moon-cult at an early period enjoyed greater importance than sun-wors.h.i.+p. The temples of Sin were centers of intellectual activity. It is in these places that we may expect some day to find elaborate astronomical and astrological records.

Harran, indeed, does not appear at any time to have played any political role[1425] (though it was overrun occasionally by nomads), so that the significance of the place is due almost entirely to the presence of the great temple at the place. It is Nabonnedos,[1426] again, who endeavors to restore the ancient prestige of the sanctuary at Harran. E-anna, 'the lofty house,' was the name of Ishtar's famous temple at Erech. The mention of this temple in one of the creation narratives[1427] and the part played by Ishtar of Erech in the Gilgamesh epic are sufficient indications of the significance of this structure. Historical inscriptions from the earliest period to the days of Ashurbanabal and Nebuchadnezzar come to our further aid in ill.u.s.trating the continued popularity of the Ishtar cult in E-anna. The Ishtar who survives in Babylonia and a.s.syria is practically the Ishtar of Erech,--that is, Nana.[1428]

Pa.s.sing by such sanctuaries as E-s.h.i.+d-lam, sacred to Nergal at Cuthah, and coming to E-Sagila and E-Zida, the two great temples of Babylon and Borsippa, respectively, it is of course evident from the close connection between political development and religious supremacy, that Marduk's seat of wors.h.i.+p occupies a unique position from the days of Hammurabi to the downfall of Babylonia. While the history of E-Sagila and E-Zida cannot be traced back further than the reign of Hammurabi, the temples themselves are considerably older. Previous to the rise of the city of Babylon as the political center, the Nabu cult in E-Zida must have been more prominent than the wors.h.i.+p of Marduk in E-Sagila.

Marduk was merely one solar deity among several, and a minor one at that, whereas the attributes of wisdom given to Nabu point to the intellectual importance that Borsippa had acquired. The Nabu cult was combined with the wors.h.i.+p of Marduk simply because it could not be suppressed. At various times, as we have seen,[1429] Nabu formed a serious rival to Marduk, and it will be recalled that up to a late period we find Nabu given the preference to Marduk in official doc.u.ments.[1430] The inseparable a.s.sociation of E-Sagila and E-Zida is a tribute to Nabu which, we may feel certain, the priests of Marduk did not offer willingly. But this a.s.sociation becomes the leading feature in the history of the two temples. To pay homage to Marduk and Nabu meant something quite different from making a pilgrimage to the seat of Bel or presenting a gift to the Shamash sanctuary at Sippar. It was an acknowledgment of Babylonia's prestige. The a.s.syrian rulers regarded it as both a privilege and a solemn duty to come to Babylon and invoke the protection of Marduk and Nabu. In E-Sagila the installation of the rulers over Babylonia took place, and a visit to Marduk's temple was incomplete without a pilgrimage across the river to E-Zida. The influence exerted by these two temples upon the whole course of Babylonian history from the third millennium on, can hardly be overestimated. From the schools grouped around E-Sagila and E-Zida, went forth the decrees that shaped the doctrinal development of the religion of Babylonia and a.s.syria. In these schools, the ancient wisdom was molded into the shape in which we find it in the literary remains of the Euphrates Valley. Here the past was interpreted and the intellectual future of the country projected. The thought of E-Sagila and E-Zida must have stored up emotions in the breast of a Babylonian and a.s.syrian, that can only be compared to a pious Mohammedan's enthusiasm for Mecca, or the longing of an ardent Hebrew for Jerusalem. The hymns to Marduk and Nabu voice this emotion. There is a fervency in the prayers of Nebuchadnezzar which marks them off from the somewhat perfunctory invocations of the a.s.syrian kings to Ashur and Ishtar. An appreciation of the position of E-Sagila and E-Zida in Babylonian history is an essential condition to an understanding of the Babylonian-a.s.syrian religion. The priests of Marduk could view with equanimity the rise and growth of a.s.syria's power. The influence of E-Sagila and E-Zida was not affected by such a s.h.i.+fting of the political kaleidoscope. Babylon remained the religious center of the country. When one day, a Persian conqueror--Cyrus--entered the precincts of E-Sagila, his first step was to acknowledge Marduk and Nabu as the supreme powers in the world; and the successors of Alexander continue to glory in the t.i.tle 'adorner of E-Sagila and E-Zida.'[1431] With the same zeal that distinguishes a good Babylonian, Antiochus Soter hastens to connect his reign with the two temples by busying himself with their enlargement and beautification.

There was no better way in which he could indicate, at the same time, his political control over the country.

One more factor contributing to the general influence of the Babylonian temples remains to be noted. In the course of time, all the great temples in the large centers became large financial establishments. The sources whence the temples derived their wealth were various. The kings both of Babylonia and a.s.syria took frequent occasions to endow the sanctuaries with lands or other gifts. At times, the endowment took the form of certain quant.i.ties of wine, corn, oil, fruits, and the like, for which annual provision is made; at times, the harvest derived from a piece of property is set aside for the benefit of the temple. In other ways, too, the temples acquired large holdings, through purchases of land made from the income accruing to it, and from the t.i.thes which it became customary to collect. This property was either farmed through the authorities of the temple for the direct benefit of the sanctuary, or was rented out to private parties under favorable conditions. We learn of large bodies of laborers indentured to temples, as well as of slaves owned or controlled by the temples. These workmen were engaged for various purposes,--for building operations, for service in the fields, for working raw material, such as wool, into finished products, and much more the like. But, more than this, the temples engaged directly in commercial affairs, lending sums of money and receiving interest. In some sanctuaries, a thriving business of barter and exchange was carried on. Crops are sold, houses are rented by the temple agents, and there was scarcely an avenue of commerce into which the temples did not enter.

An active business was also carried on in the manufacture and sale of idols, votive offerings, amulets, and the like. A very large number of the legal doc.u.ments found in the Babylonian mounds deal with the business affairs of the temples.[1432] Such a state of affairs naturally contributed towards making the temples important establishments and towards increasing the influence of the priests over the people.

The temples of a.s.syria play a minor part in the religious life of rulers and people. True, grand structures were reared in Ashur, Calah, Nineveh, and Arbela, and no important step was taken by the kings without consulting Ashur, Ishtar, or Ramman through the mediation of the priests. The great cities of a.s.syria also become intellectual centers.

The priests of Arbela created a school of theological thought, but all these efforts were but weak imitations of the example furnished by the temples of the south. Even Ashurbanabal, whose ambition was to make Nineveh the center of religious and intellectual progress, failed of his purpose. His empire soon fell to decay, and with that decay Nineveh disappears from the stage of history. Babylon and Borsippa, however, remain, and continue to hand down to succeeding generations, the wisdom of the past.

The Sacred Objects in the Temples,--Altars, Vases, Images, Basins, s.h.i.+ps.

The earliest altars were made of the same material as the zikkurats and sanctuaries. One found at Nippur at an exceedingly low level was of sun-dried bricks.[1433] How early this material was replaced by stone, we are not in a position to say. Gudea, who imports diorite from the Sinai Peninsula to make statues[1434] of himself, presumably uses a similar material for the sacred furnis.h.i.+ngs of his temples, though custom and conventionality may have maintained the use of the older clay material for some time. In a.s.syria, altars of limestone and alabaster became the prevailing types. The shape and size of the altars varied considerably. The oldest known to us, the one found at Nippur, was about twelve feet long and half as wide. The upper surface was surrounded by a rim of bitumen.[1435] a.s.syrian altars now in the British museum are from two to three feet high. The ornamentation of the corners of the rim of the altar led to giving the altar the appearance of horns.[1436] The base of the altar was either a solid piece with a circular or oblong plate resting on it, or the table rested on a tripod.[1437] The latter species was well adapted for being transported from place to place by the a.s.syrian kings, who naturally were anxious to maintain the wors.h.i.+p of Ashur and of other G.o.ds while on their military expeditions. Much care was spent upon the ornamentation of the altars, and, if we may believe Herodotus, the great altars at Babylon were made of gold.[1438]

In front of the altars stood large vases or jars of terra cotta, used for ablutions and other purposes in connection with the sacrifices. Two such jars, one behind the other, were found at Nippur. They were ornamented with rope patterns, and the depth at which they were found is an indication of the antiquity and stability of the forms of wors.h.i.+p in the Babylonian temples. It may be proper to recall that in the Solomonic temple, likewise, there were a series of jars that stood near the great altar in the large court.[1439]

A piece of furniture to which great religious importance was attached was a great basin known as 'apsu,'--the name, it will be recalled, for 'the deep.' The name indicates that it was a symbolical representation of the domain of Ea. In Gudea's days the symbol is already known,[1440]

and it continues in use to the end of the Babylonian empire. The zikkurat itself being, as we saw, an attempt to reproduce the shape of the earth, the representation of the 'apsu' would suggest itself as a natural accessory to the temple. The zikkurat and the basin together would thus become living symbols of the current cosmological conceptions. Gudea already regards the zikkurat as a symbol. To make the ascent is a virtuous deed.[1441] The thought of adding a symbol of the apsu belongs, accordingly, to the period when this view of the zikkurat was generally recognized. The shape of the 'sea' was oblong or round. It was cut of large blocks of stone and was elaborately decorated. One of the oldest[1442] has a frieze of female figures on it, holding in their outstretched hands flagons from which they pour water. In Marduk's temple we learn that there were two basins,--a larger and a smaller one.

The comparison with the great 'sea' that stood in the court of Solomon's temple naturally suggests itself, and there can be little doubt that the latter is an imitation of a Babylonian model.

Another sacred object in the construction of which much care was taken was the s.h.i.+p in which the deity was carried in solemn procession. It is again in the inscriptions of Gudea[1443] that we come across the first mention of this s.h.i.+p. This ruler tells us that he built the 'beloved s.h.i.+p' for Nin-girsu, and gave it the name Kar-nuna-ta-uddua, the s.h.i.+p of 'the one that rises up out of the dam of the deep.' The s.h.i.+p of Nabu is of considerable size, and is fitted out with a captain and crew, has masts and compartments.[1444] The s.h.i.+p resembled a moon's crescent, not differing much, therefore, from the ordinary flatbottomed Babylonian boat with upturned edges. Through Nebuchadnezzar[1445] we learn that these s.h.i.+ps were brilliantly studded with precious stones, their compartments handsomely fitted out, and that in them the G.o.ds were carried in solemn procession on the festivals celebrated in their honor.[1446] A long list[1447] of such s.h.i.+ps shows that it was a symbol that belonged to all the great G.o.ds. The s.h.i.+ps of Nin-lil, Ea, Marduk, Sin, Shamash, Nabu, Ninib, Bau, Nin-gal, and of others are specially mentioned. A custom of this kind of carrying the G.o.ds in s.h.i.+ps must have originated, of course, among a maritime people. We may trace it back, therefore, to the very early period when the sacred cities of Babylonia lay on the Persian Gulf. The use of the s.h.i.+ps also suggests, that the solemn procession of the G.o.ds was originally on water and not on land, and it is likely that this excursion of the G.o.ds symbolized some homage to the chief water-deity, Ea. However this may be, the early significance became lost, but the custom survived in Babylonia of carrying the G.o.ds about in this way. In a.s.syria, less wedded to ancient tradition, we find statues of the G.o.ds seated on thrones or standing upright, carried directly on the shoulders of men.[1448] In Egypt sacred s.h.i.+ps are very common, and it is interesting to note as a survival of the old Babylonian and Egyptian custom that an annual gift sent by the khedive of Egypt to Mecca consists of a tabernacle, known as Mahmal, that presents the outlines of a s.h.i.+p.[1449] The ark of the Hebrews appears, similarly, to have been originally a s.h.i.+p of some kind.

The s.h.i.+ps of the Babylonian G.o.ds had names given to them, just as the towers and sanctuaries had their names. The name of Nin-girsu's s.h.i.+p has already been mentioned. Marduk's s.h.i.+p was appropriately known as Ma-ku-a, 'the s.h.i.+p of the dwelling.'[1450] Similarly, a s.h.i.+p of the G.o.d Sin was called 's.h.i.+p of light,' reminding one of the name of the great temple to the moon-G.o.d at Ur, 'the house of the great luminary.' The s.h.i.+p of Nin-gal, the consort of Sin, was called 'the lesser light.'

Bau's s.h.i.+p was described by an epithet of the G.o.ddess as 'the s.h.i.+p of the brilliant offspring,' the reference being to the descent of the G.o.ddess from father Anu.[1451] These ill.u.s.trations will suffice to show the dependence of the names of the s.h.i.+ps upon the names of the temples, with this important difference, however, that the names of the s.h.i.+ps are chosen from a closer a.s.sociation with the G.o.ds to whom they belong. So a s.h.i.+p of En-lil was known simply as 'the s.h.i.+p of Bel,' and the s.h.i.+p of Naru,[1452] the river-G.o.d, was called 'the s.h.i.+p of the Malku (or royal) ca.n.a.l'[1453]--an indication, at the same time, of the place where the cult of Naru was carried on.

The Priests and Priestesses.

At a certain stage in the religious development of a people, the priesthood is closely linked to political leaders.h.i.+p. The earliest form of government in the Euphrates Valley is theocratic, and we can still discern some of the steps in the process that led to the differentiation of the priest from the secular ruler. To the latest times, the kings retain among their t.i.tles some[1454] which have reference to the religious functions once exercised by them. The king who continued to be regarded as the representative of a G.o.d, nominated by some deity to a lofty position of trust and power, stood nearer to the G.o.ds than his subjects. In a certain sense, the king remained the priest _par excellence_. Hence the prominent part played by the ruler in the religious literature of the country. A large proportion of the hymns were composed for royalty. The most elaborate ritual dealt with the endeavor to secure oracles that might serve as a guide for the rulers.

Astronomical reports were made and long series of omen tablets prepared for the use of the royal household. The calendars furnished regulations for the conduct of the kings. A ceremonial error, an offence against the G.o.ds on the part of the kings, was certain of being followed by disastrous consequences for the whole country.

But even the smallest sanctuaries required some service, and it was not long before the religious interests were entrusted into the hands of those who devoted themselves to administering the affairs of the temples. The guardians of the shrines became the priests in fact, long before the priesthood of the rulers became little more than a theory; and as the temples grew to larger proportions, the service was divided up among various cla.s.ses of priests.

The general name for priests was _shangu_, which, by a plausible etymology suggested by Jensen,[1455] indicates the function of the priest as the one who presides over the sacrifices. But this function represents only one phase of the priestly office in Babylonia, and not the most important one, by any means. For the people, the priest was primarily the one who could drive evil demons out of the body of the person smitten with disease, who could thwart the power of wizards and witches, who could ward off the attacks of mischievous spirits, or who could prognosticate the future and determine the intention or the will of the G.o.ds. The offering of sacrifices was one of the means to accomplish this end, but it is significant that many of the names used to designate the priestly cla.s.ses have reference to the priest's position as the exorciser of evil spirits or his power to secure a divine oracle or to foretell the future, and not to his function as sacrificer. Such names are _mashmashu_, the general term for 'the charmer'; _kalu_, so called, perhaps, as the 'restrainer' of the demons, the one who keeps them in check; _lagaru_, a synonym of kalu; _makhkhu_, 'soothsayer'; _surru_, a term which is still obscure; _shailu_, the 'inquirer,' who obtains an oracle through the dead or through the G.o.ds; _mushelu_, 'necromancer'; _as.h.i.+pu_ or _is.h.i.+ppu_, 'sorcerer.'[1456] These names probably do not exhaust the various kinds of 'magicians' that were to be found among the Babylonian priests. In the eighteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, no less than eleven cla.s.ses of magic workers are enumerated, and there can be little doubt but that the Pentateuchal opposition against the necromancers, sorcerers, soothsayers, and the like is aimed chiefly against Babylonish customs. We have seen in previous chapters how largely the element of magic enters into the religious rites and literature of the Babylonian-a.s.syrian religion and how persistent an element it is. For the ma.s.ses, the priest remained essentially a _mashmashu_. But we have also names like _ramku_ and _nisakku_, 'libation pourer,' which emphasize the sacrificial functions of the priest; and in an interesting list of temple servitors,[1457]

'the dirge singers' are introduced as a special cla.s.s, and appropriately designated as _munambu_, 'wailer,' and _lallaru_, 'howler.' Of some terms in this list, like _asinnu_, it is doubtful whether they indicate a special cla.s.s of priests or are terms for servitors in general, attached to a temple; in the case of others, like _nash pilakki_, 'ax carrier,' we do not know exactly of what nature the service was.[1458]

Lastly, priests in their capacity as scribes[1459] and as judges[1460]

formed another distinct cla.s.s, though it should be noted that in a.s.syria we meet with scribes occasionally who are not priests.[1461]

The range thus covered by the temple service,--magic, oracles, sacrifices, the lament for the dead, and the judiciary,--is exceedingly large. The subdivisions, no doubt, varied in each center. In the smaller sanctuaries, those who offered the sacrifices may also have served as soothsayers and dirge singers, and the judicial functions may likewise have been in the same hands as those who performed other services. On the other hand, in a temple like E-Sagila the cla.s.ses and subcla.s.ses must have been very numerous. Of the details of the organization we as yet know very little. There was a high priest, known as the _shangam-makhu_,[1462] and from the existence of a t.i.tle like _sur-makhu_,--that is, the chief _surru_,[1463]--we may conclude that each cla.s.s of priests had its chief likewise. With the natural tendency in ancient civilizations for professions to become vested in families, the priests in the course of time became a caste; but there is no reason to believe that entrance into this caste was only possible through the accident of birth. That instruction in the reading and writing of the cuneiform characters, and hence the introduction into the literature, was open to others than the scions of priests is shown by the presence in the legal literature of formal contracts for instruction between teachers and pupils who belong to the 'laity.' These pupils could become scribes and judges, and their standing as 'priests' represented merely the Babylonian equivalent to a modern university degree. For such service as the bewailing of the dead and as musicians, persons were initiated who were taken from various cla.s.ses and likewise for the menial duties of the temples, and it is only when we come to the more distinctive priestly functions, like the exorcising of evil spirits, securing an oracle, or performing sacrifices, that the rules limiting these privileges to certain families were iron bound. As among the Hebrews and other nations, stress was laid also upon freedom from physical blemishes in the case of the priests. The leper, we learn, was not fit for the priesthood.[1464] In the astronomical reports that were spoken of in a previous chapter,[1465] there are references to the 'watches' kept by the astronomers. These watches, however, were probably not observed for astronomical purposes alone, but represent the time division, as among the Hebrews, for the temple service. There were three night watches among the Babylonians,[1466] and, in all probability, therefore, three day watches likewise. Relays of priests were appointed in the large sanctuaries for service during the continuance of each watch, and we may some day find that the Hebrews obtained their number of twenty-four priests for each 'watch' from a custom prevailing in some Babylonian temple.

An interesting feature of the Babylonian priesthood is the position occupied by the woman. In the historical texts from the days of Hammurabi onward, the references to women attached to the service of temples are not infrequent. Gudea expressly mentions the 'wailing women,' and there is every reason to believe that the female wailers, like the male ones, belong to some priestly cla.s.s. Again, examples of women as exorcisers and as furnis.h.i.+ng oracles[1467] may be instanced in Babylonia as well as in a.s.syria, and we have also references to female musicians as late as the days of Ashurbanabal. A specially significant role was played by the priestesses in Ishtar's temple at Erech, and probably at other places where the cult of the great mother G.o.ddess was carried on. The Ishtar priestess was known by the general term of Kadishtu,--that is, 'the holy one,'--or Ishtaritum, 'devoted to Ishtar'; but, from the various other names for the sacred harlot that we come across,[1468] it would appear that the priestesses were divided into various cla.s.ses, precisely like the priests. That in the ceremonies of initiation at Erech, and perhaps elsewhere, some rites were observed that on the surface appeared obscene is eminently likely; but there is no evidence that obscene rites, as instanced by Herodotus, formed part of the _regular_ cult of the G.o.ddess. Except in the case of the Ishtar wors.h.i.+p, the general observation may be made that the position of the priestess is more prominent in the early period of Babylonian history than in the days when the culture and power of Babylonia and a.s.syria reached its zenith.

Sacrifices and Votive Offerings.

The researches of Robertson Smith[1469] and of others have shown that the oldest Semitic view of sacrifice was that of a meal, shared by the wors.h.i.+pper with the deity to be honored or propitiated. Dependent as we are in the case of the Babylonian-a.s.syrian religion for our knowledge of sacrifices upon incidental references in historical or religious texts, it is not possible to say how far the Semitic dwellers of the Euphrates Valley were influenced by the primitive conception of sacrifice.

Historical and votive inscriptions and a religious literature belong to a comparatively advanced stage of culture, and earlier views of sacrifice that may have existed were necessarily modified in the process of adaptation to later conditions. The organization of an elaborate cult with priests and numerous temple servitors changes the sacrifices into a means of income for the temple. The deity's representatives receive the share originally intended for the deity himself; and, instead of sanctifying the offering to a G.o.d by contact with the sacred element fire, the temple accepts the offering for its own use. It is likely, however, that among the Babylonians, as among the Hebrews, certain parts of the animal which were not fit to eat[1470]

were burned as a symbolical homage to a G.o.d. No references have as yet been found pointing to any special sanct.i.ty that was attached to the blood; but it is eminently likely that the blood was regarded at all times as the special property of the G.o.ds, and was poured on the altar.

The two kinds of sacrifice--animals and vegetable products--date from the earliest period of the Babylonian religion of which we have any knowledge. In a long list of offerings, Gudea[1471] includes oxen, sheep, goats, lambs, fish, birds (as eagles, cranes,[1472] etc.), and also such products as dates, milk, and greens. From other sources we may add gazelles, date wine, b.u.t.ter, cream, honey, garlic, corn, herbs, oil, spices, and incense. Stress is laid upon the quality of the sacrifice.[1473] The animals must be without blemish, and if well nurtured, they would be all the more pleasing in the sight of the G.o.ds.

The omission of dogs and swine is not accidental. Under that double aspect of sanct.i.ty which we find among the Babylonians as among so many nations, certain animals were too sacred to be offered, and, on the other hand, they were regarded as unclean.[1474] In treating of the omen texts we already had occasion to speak of the peculiar ideas attached to the dog by the Babylonians,[1475] and there is sufficient evidence to show that the boar likewise was viewed as a sacred animal, at least in certain parts of Babylonia.[1476] No certain traces of human sacrifices have been found, either in Babylonian literature or in artistic representations.[1477] If the rite was ever practised among the Babylonians or a.s.syrians it must have been at a very early period--earlier than any of which we as yet have any knowledge. On the other hand, a trace of some primitive form of tree wors.h.i.+p may be recognized in the representation, so frequent on seal cylinders and monuments, of curious figures, in part human, in part animal, standing in front of the palm tree.[1478] The symbol belongs to a.s.syria as well as to Babylonia. In some of the designs the figures--human heads and bodies but furnished with large wings--appear to be in the act of artificially fertilizing the palm tree by scattering the male blossom over the female palm. This plausible interpretation first suggested by E. B. Tylor[1479] carries with it the conclusion that the importance of palm culture in the Euphrates Valley not only gave the palm the character of a sacred tree, but lent to the symbol a wider significance to a more advanced age, as ill.u.s.trating fertility and blessings in general. The scene, reproduced in almost endless variations in which both trees and figures become conventionalized, came to be regarded as a symbol of adoration and wors.h.i.+p in general. As such, it survived in religious art and continued to be pictured on seal cylinders to a late age.

The occasions on which sacrifices were brought were frequent. If the G.o.ds were to be consulted for the purpose of obtaining an oracle, elaborate offerings formed a necessary preliminary. In this case, the animals presented at the altar served a double purpose.[1480] They const.i.tuted a means of propitiating the G.o.d in favor of the pet.i.tioner, and at the same time the inspection of certain parts of the animal served as an omen in determining what was the will of the G.o.d appealed to. When the foundations were to be laid for a temple or a palace, it was especially important to secure the favor of the G.o.ds by suitable offerings, and, similarly, when a ca.n.a.l was to be built or any other work of a public character undertaken. Again, upon the dedication of a sacred edifice or of a palace, or upon completing the work of restoration of a temple, sheep and oxen in abundance were offered to the G.o.ds, as well as various kinds of birds and the produce of the orchards and fields. The Babylonian rulers appear to have accompanied their sacrifices on such occasions with prayers, and in a previous chapter we had occasion to discuss some of these dedicatory invocations.[1481] In the a.s.syrian inscriptions, prayers are specifically referred to only as being offered before setting out on an expedition, before a battle, or when the kings find themselves in distress,[1482] so that if the Babylonian custom likewise prevailed in a.s.syria, it did not form a necessary part of the sacrificial ritual. The sacrifice as a pure homage is ill.u.s.trated by the zeal which the a.s.syrian kings manifest towards honoring the great temples of the south. The northern rulers were anxious at all times to reconcile the southern population to a.s.syrian control, and it was no doubt gratifying to the south to find Tiglathpileser II.,[1483] upon entering the ancient centers like Sippar, Nippur, Babylon, Borsippa, Cuthah, Kish, Dilbat, and Erech, proceeding to the temples in those places in order to offer his sacrifices. The example of Tiglathpileser is followed by his successors down through the time of Ashurbanabal. As often as the a.s.syrian monarchs may have had occasion to proceed to Babylonia--and the occasions were frequent, owing to the constant disposition of the south to throw off the hated yoke--they emphasized their devotion to Marduk, Nabu, En-lil, Shamash, and the other G.o.ds who had their seats in the south. Sargon[1484] goes so far in this homage as to pose as the reorganizer of the cults of Sippar, Nippur, Borsippa, and Babylon, and of restoring the income to temples in other places.[1485] But there was another side to this homage that must not be overlooked. By sacrificing in the Babylonian temples, the a.s.syrian rulers indicated their political control over the south.

Such homage as they manifested was the exclusive privilege of legitimate rulers, and it was important for the a.s.syrians to legitimize their control over the south.